Stega: The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete 0876615442, 9780876615447

Citation preview

στεγα

Kevin T. Glowacki is Assistant Professor of Art and Architectural History at Texas A&M University.

στεγα Τhe Αrchaeology of Ηouses and Ηouseholds in Αncient Crete

Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan is the Doreen Canaday Spitzer Archivist of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

e d i t e d by K e v i n T. G l o wa c k i a n d N ata l i a V o g e i ko f f -B r o g a n

— Bradley A. Ault, Associate Professor of Classics University at Buffalo

“Cretan material is distinctively different from material from elsewhere in the Greek world. This volume could therefore be influential in stimulating debate about regionalism in the domestic sphere in different periods.”     

g l o wa c k i a n d v o g e i ko f f -b r o g a n

“This volume comprises an important and useful collection of papers reflecting the state of household archaeology and domestic studies on ancient Crete.”

This volume presents the papers of an international colloquium on the archaeology of houses and households in ancient Crete held in Ierapetra in May 2005. The 38 papers, which range from a study of household activities at Neolithic Phaistos to a discussion of the domestic correlates of “globalization” during the Early Roman Empire, demonstrate a variety of methodological approaches to the understanding of the built environment in all of its manifestations. Key themes include the variability of domestic organization and household composition; the role of houses and households in mediating social (and perhaps even ethnic) identity; and household activities of all types, from basic subsistence to production and consumption at a suprahousehold level.

— Lisa Nevett, Professor of Classical Archaeology University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Back cover: Small-scale recreation of the Early Minoan settlement at Phournou Koryphi, Myrtos, as viewed from the west. Photo J. Atkinson

ASCSA

44

Front cover: Building A of Cluster B2 at the Hellenistic settlement of Trypitos, Siteia, from the west. Photo N. Vogeikoff-Brogan

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

ΣΤΕΓΑ : TH E ARCHAE O LO GY O F

H O USES AND H O USEH O L DS IN A NCIENT CRE TE

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

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

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Hesperia Supplement 44

ΣΤΕΓΑ : The Archaeology of

Houses and Households in Ancient Crete

e di t ed b y K e vi n T. G l owac k i an d Natal i a Vo gei kof f -Br o g a n

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 201 1

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Copyright © 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Stega : the archaeology of houses and households in ancient Crete / edited by Kevin T. Glowacki and Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan.    p.  cm. — (Hesperia supplement ; 44)   Papers of an international colloquium held in Ierapetra in May 2005.   Includes bibliographical references and index.   ISBN 978-0-87661-544-7 (alk. paper)   1. Crete (Greece)—Antiquities—Congresses. 2. Historic buildings— Greece—Crete—Congresses. 3. Dwellings—Greece—Crete—History—To 1500—Congresses. 4. Architecture, Domestic—Greece—Crete—History—To 1500—Congresses. 5. Material culture—Greece—Crete—History—To 1500— Congresses. 6. Households—Greece—Crete—History—To 1500—Congresses. 7. Crete (Greece)—Social life and customs—Congresses. 8. Social archaeology—Greece—Crete—Congresses. I. Glowacki, Kevin T. (Kevin Thomas), 1961– II. Vogeikoff-Brogan, Natalia. DF221.C8S73 2011 939΄.18—dc23 2011045748

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

p refac e

This volume was inspired by a trip to Crete led by the editors as part of the Regular Program of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA) in 2003. As we visited numerous archaeological sites throughout the island, we gave special emphasis to the contextual evidence for domestic architecture, household activities, spatial organization, and social behavior. Somewhere along the north coast highway between Kavousi and Trypitos, it occurred to us both that a conference focusing specifically on the Cretan evidence—and from a diachronic perspective—would make an interesting and important contribution to the growing literature on household archaeology. The response to our call for papers exceeded our initial expectations, as the concept was enthusiastically embraced by colleagues working on Crete as well as by the municipality of Ierapetra, where we proposed to hold the gathering. The editors would like to thank the numerous individuals and institutions who made the 2005 colloquium a success and the publication of the present volume possible. First and foremost, we offer our sincere thanks to the contributors for their hard work, cooperation, and patience through the long process of editing, peer review, revision, and publication. Their final manuscripts were submitted in 2008, and only a limited amount of updating has been possible since that time. We would also like to express our gratitude to the municipality of Ierapetra (especially to former Mayor Nikos Christofakakis and Vice-Mayor Maria Dimitromanolaki) for hosting the colloquium, and to the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), the ASCSA, and the Edward A. Schrader Endowed Fund for Classical Archaeology at Indiana University for financial support. The editors are particularly thankful for the assistance and logistical support offered by the director and staff of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, in particular Thomas Brogan, Melissa Eaby, Douglas Faulmann, Yuki Furuya, Eleanor Huffman, Vera Klontza-Jaklova, Matina Papadaki, and Chronis Papanikolopoulos. We are grateful to numerous colleagues who served as session chairs and discussants at the conference: Thomas Brogan, Gerald Cadogan, Leslie Day, Jan Driessen, Geraldine Gesell, Donald Haggis, Katerina Kopaka, Metaxia Tsipopoulou, Maria Vlazaki, and James Whitley.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

vi

p r e fa c e

Our thanks are also extended to Stavroula Apostolakou, Director of the 24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, for leading the colloquium participants on a tour of the newly renovated installations in the Ierapetra Museum. In preparing this manuscript for publication, important editorial assistance was provided at different stages by Melissa Eaby, Stefanie Kennell, Nancy Klein, and Caitlin Verfenstein, to whom we are very grateful. We would also like to thank the College of Architecture and the Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research at Texas A&M University for grants that allowed us to improve several of the illustrations reproduced here, and Ryan Collier, Douglas Faulmann, Yuki Furuya, Ellen Keil, and Matthew Miller for their artistic and technical expertise. Essential financial support for the publication was generously provided by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory. Finally, we offer our thanks to the Publications Committee of the ASCSA for accepting this very large manuscript, the anonymous reviewers for their helpful insights and suggestions, and the ASCSA Publications Office for their invaluable assistance and guidance at every stage of production, in particular Michael Fitzgerald, Andrew Reinhard, Carol Stein, and Charles Watkinson.

vii

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Con ten ts

List of Illustrations List of Tables

Chapter 1 Int r od uc t i on : Ap p r oac h e s to th e S t u dy of H ou se s an d H o u sehol ds i n An c i en t C r e te by Kevin T. Glowacki and Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan

xi xxi

1

Chapter 2 E v iden c e f or Dome st i c Ac t i v i t i e s i n th e Fina l N eol i th i c P er i od at P h ai sto s by Serena Di Tonto 15 Chapter 3 A Smal l -S c al e Rec on st ruc t i on of th e Se t tl emen t at My rto s P ho u r n o u Kory p h i by John Atkinson

27

Chapter 4 M y rto s: Fr om P ho u r n o u Kory p h i to P y r g o s by Gerald Cadogan

39

Chapter 5 Indiv i d ual , H o u sehol d, an d C ommu n i t y af ter Death i n P r epal at i al an d P r otopal at i al South -C en t ral C r e te by Joanne M. Murphy

51

Chapter 6 “ Th e Whol e i s a Fr eak ” : A Reasse ssmen t of the S pat i al Or gan i z at i on of th e O val H o u se at C h amai z i , S i tei a by Valeria Lenuzza

59

Chapter 7 M iddl e Mi n oan IB H o u se s at P h ai sto s: F un c t i on an d Rel at i on sh i p to th e C ommu n i t y Pal ac e by Ilaria Caloi

71

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

viii

contents

Chapter 8 Br i d g i ng the Ga p: The F unc t ion of H o u se s and R e si dent ial Neighb or ho ods i n Mi ddl e Mi noan III P ha istos by Luca Girella

81

Chapter 9 Δ β at Malia: Two H ous e s or On e L ar ge Comp le x? by Isabelle Bradfer-Burdet and Maia Pomadère

99

Chapter 10 Spat i al Ana ly s is of H ous e Δα at Mal i a by Martin Schmid

109

Chapter 11 Inter pre ting Domestic Space in Neopalatial Cre t e : A Fe w Thoughts on H ou se I I at Pe t ras, Siteia by Nektaria Mavroudi

119

Chapter 12 The Mi noa n Vil l as in E ast Cre te: Ho u se holds or Seats of Author i t y ? The Case of P r ophit is Ilias P rai so u by Eleni Mantzourani and Giorgos Vavouranakis

125

Chapter 13 A Vi e w of the Neopal at ia l Cou n t ry si de: Se t t le ment a nd So c ial Or ga niz at i on at Kar o u me s, E aster n Cre te by Leonidas Vokotopoulos

137

Chapter 14 S t u dy i ng the Cha rac ter of th e Mi n oan “ Ho u se hold” within the Limits of th e Ne opal at ia l Se t tlem ent of Zak r o s by Lefteris Platon

151

Chapter 15 The So u t h H ous e at K nos s os : Mor e th an a Ho u se ? by Jane F. Lloyd

163

Chapter 16 Ide nt i f y ing H ous ehold Ac t iv it i e s: The Case of H ous e 2 at Ga l atas P edi ada by Kostis S. Christakis and Giorgos Rethemiotakis

177

Chapter 17 Ho u se hold Ar c haeol o g y at M o c h l o s: S tat i st i c al Rec ip e s fr om the L ate Mi noan I K itc hen by Thomas M. Brogan and Kellee A. Barnard

185

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

contents

ix

Chapter 18 H ou sehol d In d u st r i e s of L ate Mi n oan I B Gour n i a an d th e S o c i oec on omi c S tat u s of th e Town by L. Vance Watrous and Amy Heimroth

199

Chapter 19 Ar c h aeol o gi c al Dep o si t For mat i on P r o c e sse s an d th e S t u dy of th e Dome st i c Sec tor of L ate Mi n oan IB S o c i e t y by Kostis S. Christakis

213

Chapter 20 The E l u si v e Dome st i c S h r i n e i n N eopal at i al Cre te: On th e Ar c h aeol o gi c al C or r el ate s of Dome st i c Rel i gi on by Evi Sikla

219

Chapter 21 F lui d an d Fl e x i bl e: Re v i si t i n g th e Ver nac u l ar Tradi t i on on Br on z e Age C r e te, Thera, an d C y p ru s by Louise A. Hitchcock

233

Chapter 22 Def i n i n g “ Dome st i c ” Ar c h i tec t u r e an d “ H ou sehol d” Assembl age s i n L ate Br on z e Age Kn o sso s by Eleni Hatzaki

247

Chapter 23 Lo ok i n g f or a H ome i n a H o u sel e ss Town : E x pl or i n g Dome st i c Ar c h i tec t u r e i n Fi nal Pal at i al Ay i a Tr i ada by Santo Privitera

263

Chapter 24 On Cav e s an d H o u sehol ds i n Br on z e Age Cre te: “ Της Ουρανιάς το Φρούδι” Cav e at Z ak r o s by Katerina Kopaka

273

Chapter 25 “ B ur n i n g Down th e H o u se ” : Def i n i n g th e Household of Quartier Nu at Malia Using GIS by Jan Driessen and Hubert Fiasse

285

Chapter 26 Pot tery i n Dome st i c an d Mort uary C on te x ts at L ate Mi n oan II I Mo c h l o s: Th e Case of th e M issi n g Ky l i k e s by R. Angus K. Smith

297

Chapter 27 H ou sehol d Assembl age s i n L ate Mi n oan I II C Cre te: Th e E v i den c e f r om Kar p h i by Leslie Preston Day

307

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

x

contents

Chapter 28 Tradi t i on, S tat us Comp e t it ion , an d th e Te mp l at e s of Dome st ic a nd Sp ec i al B u i ldi ng s in Post-Col l a ps e Cr e te by Saro Wallace

323

Chapter 29 Chal asmenos, Iera p e t ra: “ M ycenaean i z i n g ” or Not at the End of the Br on z e Age by Metaxia Tsipopoulou

333

Chapter 30 Whe n t he H ous e Bec om e s a Fort r e ss by Krzysztof Nowicki

349

Chapter 31 The Ar c haic H ous e s at Az or ia by Donald C. Haggis and Margaret S. Mook

367

Chapter 32 Pu bli c Feasts a nd P r ivate S y m p o si a i n th e Ar c hai c a nd Cl as s ic al P er iods by Brice L. Erickson

381

Chapter 33 Ho u se s i n the H ous ehold I: O wn er sh i p an d U se of D wel ling P l ac e s in Gort y n i an Inscr i p t ions by Francesco Guizzi

393

Chapter 34 Ho u se s i n the H ous ehold II: Fr om G ort y n to At he ns a nd Bac k by Stefano Ferrucci

401

Chapter 35 Dome st i c As s emb l age s fr om Try p i to s, S i tei a: Pr i vat e a nd Communa l As p ec ts by Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan

409

Chapter 36 Lo omw e i ghts : Us e and M an ufac t u r e at Try p i to s, Siteia by Chrysa Sofianou

421

Chapter 37 Al l i n t he Fam ily : For ming So ci al an d Economi c Ne t works on R oma n C r e te by Martha W. Baldwin Bowsky

431

Chapter 38 Domu s, Vil l a, a nd Fa r m stead: Th e Gl obali z at ion of Cre te by Rebecca J. Sweetman

441

References 451 Index 487

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

i llus trat i on s

  1.1. Map of Crete showing major sites mentioned in the text

2

  2.1. Schematic plan of the 2000–2002 excavation area of Phaistos

showing trenches (I–XV) containing Neolithic remains

17

  2.2. Phaistos, detail from the 2000–2002 excavation plan

indicating the locations of Buildings zeta and alpha 18   2.3. Examples of FN coarse ware from Phaistos: (a–c) large

storage vessels with straight or slightly splayed walls; (d) cylindrical-necked jar without handles   2.4. Clay slab from Phaistos

22 22

  2.5. Examples of FN fine ware from Phaistos: (a) small dish;

(b) bowl with rounded profile; (c) bowl with flaring profile; (d, e) bowls with offset rim

23

  2.6. FN pottery in fine burnished ware from Phaistos: (a) jug; (b) deep vessel; (c) high-necked jar

23

  2.7. FN spindle whorl and FN bone tool from Phaistos

24

  2.8. FN stone tools from Phaistos

24

  3.1. Small-scale recreation of the EBA settlement at Phournou

Koryphi, Myrtos   3.2. Schematic plan of the settlement at Phournou Koryphi

28 29

  3.3. Section diagram illustrating the use of rods to recreate

the topographic contours of the site as they correlated to the spot heights recorded on Warren’s site plan   3.4. Reconstruction showing Period I remains

30 31

  3.5. Reconstruction showing rooms and entrance system on

the south side of the site

31

  3.6. Hypothetical restoration of room 26 as a basement

storeroom 32   3.7. Complex of rooms around rooms 27 and 28 on the eastern

side of the summit

34

xii

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

  3.8. Reconstruction of kitchen 20

35

  3.9. Reconstruction of olive oil production in room 8

36

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

3.10. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: gossiping 36 3.11. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: weaving

37

3.12. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: working in storerooms

37

3.13. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: mending a skirt

37

3.14. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: carrying sticks for firewood and other uses

38

  4.1. Schematic plan of Pyrgos

41

  4.2. Schematic plan of the Pyrgos Tomb complex

42

  4.3. Schematic plan of the settlement at Phournou Koryphi

43

  4.4. Phournou Koryphi room 80 with pier

44

  5.1. Map of South-Central Crete showing the locations of

major sites mentioned in the text

52

  5.2. Ground plan of tholos tomb at Ayia Kyriaki

54

  6.1. Plan of the house at Chamaizi

60

  6.2. Plan of the house at Chamaizi showing architectural phases

of development

61

  6.3. Plan of the oval house at Chamaizi showing the distribution

of finds

62

  6.4. Group of stone vases from Chamaizi

63

  6.5. “Chamaizi pots” from Chamaizi

64

  6.6. Terracotta figurines found in room 2 at Chamaizi

64

  6.7. Cult-related objects from Chamaizi: rhyton from room 8

and offering table from room 4

65

  6.8. Clay tube (possible drain pipe)

65

  6.9. Pithos fragment from room 4 with supposed Linear A signs

67

  7.1. Plan of Phaistos

72

  7.2. Plan of Phaistos showing the area west of the West Court

(Middle Terrace)

73

  7.3. Phaistos, area west of the West Court (Middle Terrace)

73

  7.4. Fragmentary pottery from the area west of the West Court

at Phaistos

74

  7.5. Phaistos, Chalara quarter, rooms ζ –ζ 76 1

5

  7.6. Phaistos, Ayia Photeini quarter, rooms α and β 78   7.7. Phaistos, Ayia Photeini quarter, room β 79

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

xiii

  8.1. Plan of the settlement of Phaistos showing the location

of the main quarters discussed in the text

84

  8.2. Plan of the MM III Palace of Phaistos showing the

location of the houses discussed in the text

85

  8.3. The Casa a Sud della Rampa

86

  8.4. The pottery assemblage of the Casa a Sud della Rampa

86

  8.5. Area south of the Palace, the Minoan house (XLVII)

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

under the Greek temple   8.6. Houses south of the Palace, rooms LXXI–LXXIV

90 90

  8.7. Area west of court LXX, rooms LXXV, LXXVI under

Geometric House AA

91

  8.8. Part of the northern sector of the Chalara quarter

92

  8.9. Part of the southern sector of the Chalara quarter

93

8.10. Estimated frequencies of shapes in the houses according to five principal vase functions

95

8.11. The complex northeast of the Palace

96

  9.1. Plan of Malia, Quartier Delta houses

100

  9.2. Quartier Delta and the Rue de la Mer during excavation

in 1931

101

  9.3. Plan of Δβ 101   9.4. Facade walls of ΔβI and ΔβII 102   9.5. Doorway (A) into ΔβI 103   9.6. North–south section C–C΄ through ΔβI 103   9.7. General overview of Δβ West

104

  9.8. Aerial view of ΔβII 104   9.9.  ΔβI, room 1/2: eastern sandstone pillar and mudbrick

walls 106

9.10. Pavement leading to vestibule of ΔβIII and doorways B and C

107

9.11.  ΔβIII, room 14: platform, column base, and column

107

10.1. Plan of Malia, Quartier Delta houses

110

10.2. Malia, plan of House Δα 111 10.3. Plan of entrance vestibule

112

10.4. Plan of “lustral basin” and “shower-room”

113

10.5. “Shower-room” and latrine. View from above

113

10.6. “Shower-room” and latrine. View from the east

114

10.7. Representation of a shower

114

10.8. “Minoan hall system” room 3

115

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

xiv

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

10.9. Room 10 and staircase 11

116

11.1. Hill I of Petras. Central building, House I.1, House II

120

11.2. House II, excavation plan 1989–1991

120

11.3. House II, excavation plan 1989–1990

121

11.4. Plan of House Ζβ, Malia, with nonaxially organized “Minoan hall” at southwest corner

122

12.1. The hill of Prophitis Ilias, Praisos

126

12.2. Prophitis Ilias, Praisos, 2004 state plan

128

12.3. Prophitis Ilias, Praisos, isometric reconstruction

129

12.4. The SE room and room A

130

12.5. Room N

132

12.6. Reconstructed elevation of Prophitis Ilias, Praisos

133

12.7. Room T

134

13.1. MM IIIB–LM IA sites in the wider area of the Karoumes Bay

138

13.2. Ground plan of the Sea Guard-House at Kastellas

140

13.3. Kastellas, Sea Guard-House

140

13.4. Kastellas, Sea Guard-House: LM IB–II pottery

142

13.5. Mavro Mouri: detail of the north exterior wall of the building with megalithic masonry

145

13.6. Mavro Mouri: building with megalithic masonry

146

13.7. Kastellas, Sea Guard-House: LM IB pithamphora

148

14.1. Zakros, plan of Building B showing architectural periods and room functions during the last Neopalatial phase (LM IB)

153

14.2. Plan of the central sector of Building B showing the distribution of pottery finds, classified according to their probable function

155

14.3. Quantitative analysis of the pottery finds from Building B, room Σ 156 14.4. Quantitative analysis of the pottery finds from Building B, room Π 156 14.5. Quantitative analysis of the pottery finds from Building B, room Ι 157 14.6. Plan of the Zakros settlement indicating the locations of the Palace and the Strong Building

159

14.7. Plan of the Strong Building, with the three independent apartments 160

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

xv

  14.8. Plan of the Strong Building, room Y, showing the

pattern of dispersal of pieces belonging to two different storage vessels

161

  15.1. Proposed reconstruction of the South House at

Knossos; model of the South House

164

  15.2. Mackenzie’s sketch plan of the South House in

June 1908

165

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

  15.3. Plan and longitudinal section of the South House

drawn in 1910

167

  15.4. Plan and longitudinal section of the South House

published in 1928   16.1. State plan of House 2 at Galatas Pediada

168 178

  16.2. The enclosure in room 7 with the stored domestic

implements 179   16.3. Room 8 with the pithoi in situ

180

  16.4. Pithoi from room 9

181

  16.5. Pithoi from room 8

181

  17.1. Mochlos: LM IB plan of Artisans’ Quarter Buildings A

and B

189

  17.2. Statistical analysis of the eating and drinking vessels

from the Artisans’ Quarter, Building A, by room (a); Building B, by room (b)

190

  17.3. Statistical analysis of the cooking vessels from the

Artisans’ Quarter, Building A, by room (a); Building B, by room (b)   17.4. The LM IB town of Mochlos, site plan (2004)

191 192

  17.5. Room A2 of the Artisans’ Quarter, showing small finds

in situ

194

  18.1. LM IB occupation of Gournia according to Hawes’s

excavation notes

201

  18.2. Distribution of recorded storage vessels (pithoi and

amphoras) at Gournia

202

  18.3. LM IB occupation of Gournia as revised based on the

distribution of whole storage vessels

203

  18.4. Distribution of areas of industrial activities at Gournia

205

  18.5. Possible mold for a copper ingot at Gournia

206

  18.6. Distribution of artifacts relating to trade activities at

Gournia 207   18.7. Distribution of artifacts relating to administrative

activities at Gournia

209

xvi

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

  18.8. Distribution of elite goods found at Gournia

210

  20.1. Bull rhyton from Building BQ on Pseira

222

  20.2. Bull lid from the lustral basin of Block B at Palaikastro

222

  20.3. Bucket jar with bull and double-axe iconography

from room 18, Block Delta at Palaikastro   20.4. Bull-head rhyton from room ι, Chalara North

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

at Phaistos

223 226

  20.5. Bull rhyton from room 102, Building XLI

at Phaistos

226

  21.1. Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, Block A, plan

234

  21.2. Tou Vrachnou o Lakkos, house plan

235

  21.3. Knossos, House of the Frescoes, plan

236

  21.4. Malia, House Δα, plan

236

  21.5. Tylissos, House A, plan

237

  21.6. Kato Zakros, Workshop Unit of the south wing of

the Palace, plan

237

  21.7. Makrygialos villa, plan

238

  21.8. Akrotiri, West House

239

  21.9. Akrotiri, West House, plan

239

21.10. Alambra, Houses 1–3, plan

240

21.11. Kalavassos-Ayios Dimitrios, Areas 100–106, plan

241

21.12. Kourion-Bamboula, House A, plan

242

21.13. Pyla-Kokkinokremos, plan

242

21.14. Maa-Palaiokastro, Building I

243

21.15. Maa-Palaiokastro, Building I, plan

243

  22.1. Neopalatial Knossos, showing elite and non-elite

sectors of the town and associated buildings

249

  22.2. MM III Acropolis House, showing distribution of

artifacts on ground floor

252

  22.3. MM III Acropolis House, showing distribution of

artifacts from upper floor   22.4. Royal Villa: exterior areas per floor in square meters

253 256

  22.5. Royal Villa: interior rooms (excluding staircases)

per floor in square meters

256

  22.6. Royal Villa: interior and exterior areas per floor in

square meters

257

  23.1. Plan of the Villaggio at Ayia Triada, showing both LM I

structures reused in LM IIIA–B and Final Palatial (LM IIIA–B) buildings

264

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

xvii

  23.2. Plan of Casa VAP at the time of its abandonment

(LM IIIB)

268

  23.3.  Casa VAP, rooms P/Q. Ashlar masonry of the east

wall showing that the wall was originally an outer wall before the construction of room C.

268

  23.4.  Casa VAP, rooms P/Q. Same wall as in Fig. 23.3 and

the inner partition wall.

269

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

  23.5.  Casa VAP, join between the south wall of room I and

the south wall of room D

269

  23.6.  Casa VAP, join between the east wall of room C, the

southeast corner of room D, and the south wall of room A

270

  23.7. Axonometric reconstruction of Casa VAP, from the

southeast 271   24.1. Entrance to the Ourania cave in the Lenika Gorge,

Zakros 274   24.2. Plan of the Ourania cave in 1992

275

  24.3. Pottery from the Ourania cave: cups from the back area

of the cave (space Δ) 276   24.4.  Pyxis from the back area (space Δ) of the Ourania

cave; trefoil-mouthed jug from the cave’s neighboring hollows; small basin from the entrance area of the cave

277

  24.5. Medium-size barrel-shaped pithos from the entrance

area of the Ourania cave

277

  24.6. Pottery from the entrance area of the Ourania cave:

pithoid jars

278

  24.7. Painted coarse-ware sherds and the foot of a tripod

cooking pot from the entrance area of the Ourania cave

278

  24.8. “Beehive smoker” and fragment of a clay fire

implement from the neighboring hollows

279

  24.9. Pairs of wild goat (agrimi) horn cores from the

entrance area of the Ourania cave

279

24.10. Salt from the entrance area of the Ourania cave; bottom of a jar or shallow basin, a cup, and other sherds of vases related to the salt product

279

24.11. Spouted jar with interior perforated rim from the entrance area of the Ourania cave

281

  25.1. Reconstructed outline plan of Quartier Nu at Malia

showing LM III domestic units and rooms with hearths   25.2. Terracotta house model found on mosaic court

286 288

  25.3. Structure XIV in Quartier Nu: distribution of finds

according to object identification and catalogue number

290

xviii

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

  25.4. Quartier Nu: general object distribution according

to material

291

  25.5. Quartier Nu: distribution of drinking, eating, cooking,

storage, and pouring vases

292

  25.6. Quartier Nu: distribution of kylikes and champagne

cups 292   25.7. Quartier Nu: distribution of textile implements, metal

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

objects and metallurgy implements, and stone tools

293

  25.8. Quartier Nu, east wing: large millstone found upside

down in room X13

294

  25.9. Quartier Nu: general density plan of drinking vessels,

serving plates, metal objects and equipment, storage containers, and stone tools   26.1. The Mochlos coastal plain

295 298

  26.2. Comparison of tomb versus settlement use in

LM II–IIIB Mochlos

299

  26.3. Mochlos: the island settlement

300

  26.4. Distribution of selected pot shapes in the LM III

cemetery at Mochlos

301

  26.5. Frequency of selected pot shapes in the LM III

cemetery at Mochlos

302

  26.6. Distribution of selected pot shapes in the LM III

settlement at Mochlos

302

  26.7. Frequency of selected pot shapes in the LM III

settlement at Mochlos

303

  26.8. Distribution comparison of selected pot shapes in

the LM III cemetery and settlement at Mochlos

303

  26.9. Frequency comparison of selected pot shapes in

the LM III cemetery and settlement at Mochlos

304

  27.1. Plan of the LM IIIC site of Karphi

308

  27.2. Pottery from K 3 in the Barracks

311

  27.3. Pottery from K 134 in the Barracks

312

  27.4. Pottery from K 23 in the Magazines

313

  27.5. Pottery from K 22 in the Magazines

314

  27.6. Fine wares from K 110 in the Eastern Cliff Houses

315

  27.7. Coarse wares from K 110 in the Eastern Cliff Houses

316

  28.1. Size ranges of the largest excavated buildings (with

communicating doorways) at the LM IIIC sites of Chalasmenos, Karphi, and Vronda

326

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

xix

  28.2. Size ranges of the largest main rooms in buildings

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

at the LM IIIC sites of Chalasmenos, Karphi, Vronda, and Smari (excluding cult buildings)

327

  28.3. Karphi: Great House

328

  28.4. Karphi: Priest’s House

328

  28.5. Karphi: Megarons’ Block

332

  29.1. Chalasmenos: plan of the site

334

  29.2. Houses B.1 and B.2 and Megara A.2 and A.3

335

  29.3. Houses vs. megara: analysis of pottery by function

338

  29.4. Houses vs. megara: analysis of pottery by wares

338

  29.5. Distribution of pottery by weight

339

  29.6. House B.1, room 1: pottery

340

  29.7. House B.1, rooms 2 and 3: pottery

341

  29.8. House B.1: animal rhyton

342

  29.9. House B.2: pithoi and pithoid jars

342

29.10. House B.2, room 1: cooking pots

343

29.11. House B.2, room 1: basins, kalathoi, and jugs

344

29.12. House B.2, room 1: pyxis

345

29.13. House B.2, rooms 2 and 3: pottery

346

29.14. Megaron A.3, room 1: kylix and cooking pot

347

29.15. Megaron A.3, room 2: pithoid jars

347

  30.1. Map of Crete showing the sites mentioned in the text

350

  30.2. Plan of Livari Katharades

352

  30.3. Kastri Spasti

354

  30.4. EM site at Trachilos (west of Trypiti)

354

  30.5. Plan of Chamaizi; sketch-plan of Panormos on Naxos

355

  30.6. Reconstruction of Chamaizi

356

  30.7. Kroustas Fortetsa

357

  30.8. Plan of Kroustas Fortetsa

357

  30.9. Plan of Oreino Petrokopia; reconstruction of Oreino

Petrokopia 358 30.10. Chomatas (Haggis’s Site 9)

359

30.11. Building A at Katharo Rigous

360

30.12. Plan of Building A at Katharo Rigous

360

30.13. Plan of Kritsa Korakou to Kephali; plan of Kritsa Chonaria

361

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

xx

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

31.1. Azoria: state plan of the South Acropolis, 2006

368

31.2. Azoria: East and West Corridor Houses

371

31.3. Plans of houses Sk2 and KPh3 in the Meseleroi Valley

372

31.4. Plan of houses at Onythe Goulediana

373

31.5. Azoria: plans of Northeast Building, Southwest Building, and North Acropolis Building

375

31.6. Various relief pithoi from Archaic houses at Azoria

379

35.1. Plan of Trypitos

410

35.2. Circulation patterns at Trypitos

412

35.3. Restored plan of Cluster B2, Buildings A, B, and C, with distribution of artifacts

413

35.4. Cluster B2, Building A

413

35.5. Cluster B2, Building A, corridor B 11a

414

35.6. View of Trypitos, from the north

414

35.7. Restored plan of Cluster E, Buildings A, B, and C, with distribution of artifacts

415

35.8. Cluster B2, entrance to Building A

418

36.1. Plan of Trypitos

422

36.2. Trypitos: fortification wall and houses of Cluster A

422

36.3. Pyramidal loomweights from Trypitos

423

36.4. Discoid loomweights from Trypitos with stamped rosette, stamped palmette, and incised delta

423

36.5. Trypitos: plan of Cluster A

425

36.6. Trypitos: room A 8, with central hearth and two column bases 427 36.7. Trypitos: clay mold for pyramidal loomweight from room A 7

428

36.8. Trypitos, Cluster A: cistern east of oven/kiln (room A 13) and north of room A 8

429

36.9. Trypitos, Cluster A: cylindrical clay pipes draining into room A 8

429

37.1. Map of Crete showing where names of early Roman residents of Gortyn are attested epigraphically elsewhere on the island, and beyond

438

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

tab les

  6.1. MM IA Vases from Chamaizi

68

  6.2. MM IB–II Vases from Chamaizi

68

  8.1. Frequencies of Plaster Fragments and Paintings in

the Houses around the Palace of Phaistos during MM III   8.2. Pottery Assemblage of the Casa a Sud della Rampa

85 88

  8.3. Pottery Assemblage of the Houses around the

Palace of Phaistos during MM III

89

12.1. Room Dimensions of the Villa at Prophitis Ilias, Praisos 127 13.1. Neopalatial Buildings in the Wider Area of the Bay of Karoumes

144

15.1. Pillared Rooms on Ground Floors of Neopalatial Buildings 170–171 15.2. Porticos with 4+ Supports in Palatial Buildings

173

15.3. Porticos in Nonpalatial Buildings

174

17.1. Rooms with Stone Basins (Mortars) from Neopalatial Mochlos

188

20.1. Bull Vessels in MM III–LM IB Houses

223

20.2. Bull Vessels Used in Food Consumption and Preparation 225 20.3. Bull Vessels in Storage

228

20.4. Bull Vessels in “Special Storage”

229

36.1. Weights of Loomweights from Trypitos, Cluster A

424

36.2. Location of Groups of Loomweights at Trypitos, Cluster A

427

xxii

37.1. Roman Names Attested at Gortyn and Other Cities

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

37.2. Roman Names of Gortyn and Crete also Attested on Delos, in the Greek East, Campania, and Commercial Milieux

433–436

437

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 1

Int r od uc t i on : A p p r oac h e s to t h e S t u dy of Hou s e s an d H o u s e hol d s i n A n c i e n t C re te by Kevin T. Glowacki and Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan

This volume presents the papers of an international colloquium on the archaeology of houses and households in ancient Crete held in Ierapetra in May 2005. The name of the conference—and of the present volume—was inspired by the “Great Code” of Gortyn, where stega (literally, “roof ”) is used to refer to the “house” both as a building and as an important element of a citizen’s “household.”1 Indeed, understanding the relationship between “house” as physical structure and “household” as social unit remains among the fundamental goals and challenges of household archaeology in any time period or geographical location. Although several recent conferences and publications have concentrated on the study of ancient houses and households in the Mediterranean, relatively little work has emphasized household analysis on a regional level.2 This volume therefore aims to contribute to the discussion of housing in ancient Greece by focusing on one geographical region (Fig. 1.1) through many different chronological periods.3 In addition to the personal research interests of the editors of this volume, the clear-cut geographic boundaries, the manageable size, and the diachronic importance of the island were among the reasons that influenced the selection of Crete for a regional case study. Ancient Crete was home not 1. For the appearance of the word στέγα in the Great Code, as well as

for recent bibliography on the Great Code, see Guizzi’s paper in this volume (Chap. 33). 2. Recent conference volumes that have explored the role of houses and households for the study of settlements and societies in the ancient Mediterranean include Luce (2002) and Westgate, Fisher, and Whitley (2007). More wide-ranging geographically is the influential volume on household archaeology edited by P. Allison (1999a), which includes case studies from Greece, Italy, Britain, El Salvador, Mexico, and Australia. The collection of essays edited by Ault and Nevett (2005) focuses on the

archaeological evidence for Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic houses in Greece and Asia Minor. Neither of these last two volumes, however, includes examples from Crete or from any prehistoric sites in the Aegean. 3. In our description of Crete as a “region,” we are referring to the entire island as a clearly defined geographic unit set apart from the neighboring islands of the Aegean and the mainland of Greece (see, e.g., Cherry 1986, p. 20). This does not imply, however, that the entire island was ever a unified or homogeneous entity in cultural, political, or ideological terms, or that the notion of “region”—at either the islandwide or local levels—was fixed and

unchanging over time. Several of the papers in this volume discuss aspects of houses and household activities in terms of different regions or territories within Crete itself, often demarcated by natural topographical features at various scales (e.g., East Crete, Lasithi, the Mesara). But as Relaki (2004) has recently pointed out, geography is only one dimension of the definition of an archaeological region; social, economic, and symbolic interaction are also important components of the “topography of communication” and “network of relevance” that can identify a region in different historical periods.

0

10

20

30

40

50 km

10 55

66

17 23

8

58

40

34

3

31

43

61

33

75

12

44 70

6

25

67

42

63

2

41

32

39 9

5

  1 Achladia Siteias   2 Ayia Pelagia   3 Ayia Triada   4 Ayios Charalambos  5 Amnisos  6 Apesokari  7 Aphrati  8 Apodoulou  9 Archanes 10 Argyroupolis 11 Arvi Fortetsa 12 Axos 13 Ayia Photia Siteias 14 Azoria 15 Chalasmenos 16 Chamaizi 17 Chamalevri 18 Chania 19 Chochlakies

20 Choiromandres 21 Chondros Viannou 22 Dreros 23 Eleutherna 24 Galatas Pediada 25 Gortyn 26 Goudouras Kastello 27 Gournes 28 Gournia 29 Gouves 30 Hierapytna (Ierapetra) 31 Idaion Antron 32 Juktas 33 Kamares 34 Kamilari 35 Karphi 36 Katalimata 37 Kato Symi 38 Kavousi Vronda

29

7

68

27

24

53

21

46

11

4

37

65

35

48

51

45

22

50

39 Knossos 40 Kommos 41 Kophinas 42 Koumasa 43 Kouses 44 Lebena 45 Lato 46 Lyttos 47 Makrygialos 48 Malia 49 Mochlos 50 Myrtos Phournou Koryphi 51 Myrtos Pyrgos 52 Nerokourou 53 Nirou Chani 54 Oleros 55 Onythe Goulediana 56 Pacheia Ammos 57 Palaikastro

Figure 1.1. Map of Crete showing major sites mentioned in the text. Y. Furuya and K. T. Glowacki

N

52

18

64

49

47

69

60 71 13 76

26

62

16 1

57 19 74 20

58 Panormos 59 Petsophas 60 Petras 61 Phaistos 62 Praisos 63 Prinias 64 Pseira 65 Psychro Cave 66 Rhithymna (Rethymnon) 67 Sklavokampos 68 Smari 69 Tourtouloi 70 Trypiti 71 Trypitos Siteias 72 Vasiliki 73 Vrokastro 74 Zakros 75 Zominthos 76 Zou

30

73 56 14 38 54 28 36 72 15

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

59

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

introduction

4. For surveys of contemporary archaeological research on Crete in both prehistoric and historical times, see Andreadaki-Vlazaki and Platon 2006; Brogan and Vogeikoff-Brogan 2006.

3

only to one of the earliest state-level societies in the Aegean, it also gave rise to numerous independent city-states in later periods and, during the Roman empire, included examples of both colony and provincial capital. By bringing together scholars working in prehistoric as well as historical periods of Crete, the conference provided a forum in which to examine the potential of “household archaeology” for understanding the changing social dynamics of households and communities over long periods of time and in different political and economic environments. The thirty-eight papers in this volume are presented, as far as possible, in chronological order, and they range from a discussion of household activities at Final Neolithic Phaistos to the domestic correlates of “globalization” during the early Roman empire. These studies demonstrate a variety of methodological approaches currently employed for understanding houses and household activities from archaeological remains: architectural analysis and reconstruction, artifact distribution and spatial patterning, ceramic analysis, organic residue analysis, faunal and botanical analysis, space syntax analysis, regional analysis, mortuary analysis, and iconography. The majority of the papers, in fact, have employed a multifaceted approach by examining both the architectural and artifactual assemblages while acknowledging the site formation (and excavation) processes that have affected the preservation of archaeological data. Approaches that incorporate documentary evidence also add valuable perspectives on the social and economic roles of houses, households, and family members that are not easily inferred from the archaeological record alone. From its inception, archaeological fieldwork on Crete has traditionally had a palace-oriented focus that has tended to overshadow other studies, resulting in the neglect of periods other than those connected with the rise and fall of the Minoan civilization.4 During the past two decades, however, there has been a significant effort to explore later periods, notably the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age (Chaps. 22–30). It is no surprise, then, that these periods are well represented both by studies that focus on the results from new investigations and those that reexamine material from older excavations. While ongoing research at sites such as Azoria (Chap. 31) is providing valuable insight into the organization of both domestic and public space in the Cretan polis, the readers of this volume will realize that the study of the historical periods on Crete still remains somewhat limited, and the contributions that deal with houses and household activities in these later periods (Chaps. 31–38) therefore have a seminal character. While each of the papers in this volume can be treated as a separate case study, it is also possible to discern certain key themes that cut across the diverse methodological approaches and chronological periods. On the one hand, these themes reflect the current research of the archaeologists who “dig houses” on Crete. On the other, they also highlight common ground for productive dialogue, on such topics as understanding the built environment in all of its manifestations, the variability of domestic organization, the role of houses and households in mediating social (and perhaps even ethnic) identity within a community or region, household composition, and, of course, household activities of all types, ranging from basic subsistence needs to production and consumption at a suprahousehold level.

4

k e v i n t. g l o wa c k i a n d n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Th e H o use as B uilt Environm en t Since archaeologists do not actually excavate “households” directly, but rather infer household activities from the spatial and temporal patterning of artifacts, the physical structure of the house (that is, the built environment in which ancient peoples lived, worked, and interacted on a daily basis) is one of the most fundamental levels of archaeological analysis. For example, the papers by Bradfer-Burdet and Pomadère (Chap. 9), Schmid (Chap. 10), and Lloyd (Chap. 15) focus on elite Neopalatial houses in close proximity to a “palace.” Since the buildings they study were originally uncovered in older excavations, these authors generally do not have the type of data available to them that allows for functional analysis based on a full inventory of room contents. Instead, their interpretations concerning the use of space are based primarily on detailed examination of architectural features. BradferBurdet and Pomadère reexamine an elite structure at Malia (House Δβ) and reinterpret it as a large unified complex with an official east wing dedicated to ceremonial receptions combined with a more private residential wing. Focusing on formal elements of architectural design, Schmid proposes that another house (Δα) at Malia was destined for an important person who required formal spaces for ceremonies and receptions in one part of the house, while spaces for domestic/residential activities were located primarily in other areas, including the upper floor. Lloyd focuses on the South House at Knossos and proposes a new reconstruction of the facade and an interpretation of the building not as a year-round residence but as a structure dedicated to the accommodation of royal guests. Another approach to architectural analysis is taken by Hitchcock (Chap. 21), who discusses the use of the “square within a square” form (also known as the “vernacular hall”) on Bronze Age Crete, Thera, and Cyprus. According to Hitchcock, the “square within a square” was a feature of vernacular architecture that came to be used as a module in the more elaborate designs of the Minoan elite villas, such as House Δα at Malia and Tylissos A. The form has a long history in the Bronze Age Aegean with a possible Anatolian origin. The study of its use and significance by Hitchcock may encourage future studies concerning its multifunctionality and role in shaping the daily routines of people who dwelled in this type of structure. The analysis of domestic architecture within the Archaic Cretan community at Azoria provides Haggis and Mook (Chap. 31) the opportunity to discuss not only architectural forms and activity areas, but also the sociopolitical role of households as reflected in the archaeological record. Haggis and Mook distinguish two basic typological categories among five recently excavated houses at the site: an axially-aligned building type that owes its form largely to the steeply terraced terrain, and a roughly square building that seems to represent an early form of the “corridor” or “pastas” house attested elsewhere on Crete and in the Aegean. The different types—and their modifications over time—may reflect different social and economic concerns about the organization of space, including access to and interaction between functionally distinct areas (e.g., entrance, hall, storeroom, kitchen). Particularly intriguing is the discussion of storage facilities and large decorated pithoi as elements of status display within

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

introduction

5

the house—that is, as important social symbols of agricultural production and landed wealth visible to guests. In this way, the architectural form of the house and its internal patterns of access serve to mediate the social identity of the household. Kopaka’s study (Chap. 24) of “της Ουρανιάς το Φρούδι” cave in the area of Zakros approaches domestic space and the built environment in a completely different way and challenges the current belief that caves were used only for ritual and funerary activities in the Bronze Age. Her analysis of the architecture and contents at this cave site has identified a number of activities (e.g., storage, preservation, food processing, honey-making) suggestive of periodic habitation. Although for reasons of space Kopaka does not elaborate on the reasons that led such a household to find its stega among the steep rocks of Ourania, and not in the more traditional and convenient domestic environment of a settlement, it is obvious that the cave served as a refuge in times of threat and social instability.

H ou s e , H ou s eh old, an d S o c i al Iden t i t y Several papers discuss the social identity of those who dwelled in houses surrounding a Minoan palace and look for evidence of an elite class that either supported or competed with the palatial authorities, especially during stressful periods (e.g., Chaps. 7, 8, and 23). Caloi’s paper (Chap. 7) presents new evidence for complex and well-organized houses at Phaistos during the early phases of the Protopalatial period (Middle Minoan [MM] IB). While the poor state of preservation does not allow for a detailed functional analysis in most cases, an important exception can be found in a house in the Ayia Photeini quarter, where the contents of room β suggest functions and activities that were also shared with the Palace. Caloi proposes that the inhabitants of the Ayia Photeini house were somehow dependent on the central complex, since they shared the same pottery workshops and imitated techniques that can also be noted in the Palace, such as the adaptive reuse of complete vessels to create new architectural features. Girella’s paper (Chap. 8) discusses the role of the houses at the same site after the destruction of the Old Palace in MM IIB and proposes two models for understanding the social significance of ceremonial activities. According to Girella, several elite groups were scattered around the Palace during the MM IIIA period, and the houses now assumed a multifunctional character where both domestic and ritual actions took place. The “household ideology” of this emerging elite class replicated the palatial symbols as the main instruments of private ritual, which may have involved feasting and gift-giving among groups that were interested in maintaining or creating new alliances. In MM IIIB, on the other hand, the Palace seems to have reestablished a “palatial ideology,” as this can be inferred from the functions of several rooms in the northeast part of the complex, which included a new reception hall, an archive room, storage areas, and evidence for ritual activities (drinking cups, bull rhyta, and bull miniatures). Privitera’s paper (Chap. 23) explores the social status of the inhabitants of a substantial building of the Final Palatial period (Late Minoan

6

k e v i n t. g l o wa c k i a n d n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

[LM] IIIA–B) at Ayia Triada. By tracing the architectural history of the building, plotting its key location in the settlement, and using contemporary Linear B evidence from Knossos, Privitera convincingly argues for the high social status of its residents.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Th e H o use/H ouseh o ld as S ym bol In addition to exploring the architecture and household assemblages of both elite and non-elite houses on Crete, several papers address the symbolic aspects of the built house in a variety of ways. For example, Hatzaki (Chap. 22) and Haggis and Mook (Chap. 31) call attention to the important symbolic aspects of storage facilities and vessels. Driessen and Fiasse (Chap. 25, p. 288, Fig. 25.2) illustrate a very large house model with windows, gabled roof, and chimney from LM III Quartier Nu at Malia, and they suggest that it played some role in ritual activity, “perhaps representing the unity of the family group living under a single roof.” The symbolic meaning of house/household is also discussed in Cadogan’s paper (Chap. 4) on Prepalatial Myrtos, where a monumental “house tomb” was built in Early Minoan (EM) III. According to Cadogan, the reproduction of local domestic architectural forms on a monumental scale for the purpose of housing the dead is a truly special characteristic of early East Crete. The fact that the house tomb was built on and within the ruined EM II settlement also alludes to the symbolic and manipulative motives of the Pyrgos elites. Most remarkably, the house tomb continued to house the dead over the next 500 years, despite any possible changes in the ideology of the local elites. In striking contrast, Murphy’s analysis (Chap. 5) of the burial customs of the Prepalatial and Protopalatial societies in SouthCentral Crete suggests that the individual household was not preserved or commemorated in the afterlife arrangements of these societies, who chose to bury more than one household in their tholos tombs. In this sense, the early societies of south-central Crete seem to have negated the identity of both the individual and the household in favor of a larger corporate identity among the ancestors of the extended family or clan. Surveying the epigraphic evidence for the role of houses and the definition of the household in historical sources, Guizzi (Chap. 33) makes clear that the physical structure of the house (stega) had legal, economic, and symbolic significance for the members of a household in Archaic and Classical Gortyn. On the one hand, the stega can be seen as a piece of property, a basic element of a citizen’s estate that can be passed on to one’s heirs. On the other hand, the ownership of a stega represented important social rights in the community, such as a claim on any child born after a divorce. The symbolic value of the house within the structure of the household or family is also revealed in other ways, such as in the case of adultery: the crime was fined in different ways, depending on whether it took place inside the father’s or brother’s or husband’s stega, or on someone else’s property. While a citizen might own more than one house (e.g., in the city, in the countryside), the house/dwelling seems to have been a vital part of the very concept of “household” as recognized by the larger

introduction

7

community. Comparing and contrasting the Cretan evidence with Athenian attitudes toward “house,” “household,” and family identity, Ferrucci (Chap. 34) finds similarities in certain social patterns and legal stipulations, but also nuanced differences in the economic and symbolic values attached to the physical residence.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

H ou s eh old Ri t ual Closely related to the symbolic value of the house is the evidence for household cult and ritual. In a paper exploring household religious activities during the Neopalatial period, Sikla (Chap. 20) attempts to shift the focus of research from the demarcation of sacred spaces within houses to the identification of cult activities that may have occurred within or outside domestic units, on the assumption that religion can be embedded in practices of daily life, such as food preparation and consumption. Instead, she proposes to concentrate on elements that bespeak of the ritualization of domestic life, using vessels with bull representations as a case study. Likewise, the presence of rhyta and other cultic equipment (including bull rhyta) in MM IIIA domestic assemblages at Phaistos, following the destruction of the Old Palace, leads Girella (Chap. 8) to propose that they were used as symbols of power by emerging elites.

H ou s eh old Compos i t ion While the “household” can be viewed as a fundamental social and economic unit of a community, the size and composition of the coresidential group sharing a dwelling (or complex of dwellings) remain among the most difficult and problematic issues facing archaeologists of all periods. Previous attempts to estimate the number of individuals living in a house have included historical and ethnographic analogies, the size and architectural uniformity of the preserved houses at a specific site, and the repetition of features and artifacts indicating a duplication of household activities. As several papers make clear (e.g., Chaps. 19 and 22), archaeological interpretation is complicated by site formation processes (including data recorded or lost during excavation), the existence of upper floors, as well as cultural conceptions (and preconceptions) of the use of space. In an innovative approach based on the detailed study of the storage capacities of food containers, supplemented by organic residue analysis, Christakis and Rethemiotakis (Chap. 16) argue that the food stored at House 2 in Galatas Pediada (destroyed by fire in LM IB) could provide subsistence support for a household of five adults for 13 months. This small number of individuals is suggestive of the “nuclear” family that has been inferred as the basic social and economic unit for other Minoan and post–Minoan period sites. On the other hand, several authors in this volume present arguments for extended families (or clans) sharing the same large house or household complex. For example, Platon (Chap. 14) argues that the architectural plan and movable finds of the Neopalatial “Strong Building” at Zakros,

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

8

k e v i n t. g l o wa c k i a n d n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

which indicate three independent apartments with repeated functions but with only one area devoted to the preparation of food, is evidence for a coresidential group larger than the nuclear household. The same scholar also sees evidence for an extended family in Building B at Zakros, where he postulates that the initial structure was expanded to incorporate new cells by intermarriage. Although the new cells would have used separate upper-floor apartments for living, they would have met each other in areas designated for household social activities. It seems likely that the ground floor would have been used for working, as well as a place of residence for some service staff, who would be charged with the upkeep and running of the whole building. Likewise, Driessen and Fiasse (Chap. 25) suggest that Quartier Nu at Malia functioned as a single unit in the LM III A–B rather than as a cluster of individual households. Although there was a duplication of functions between the east and west wings, which could suggest separate households, the existence of a single kitchen and a central court in the structure may reflect a clan consisting of two to three families. The authors even take a step further to suggest that the communal meals taken by the inhabitants of Quartier Nu at the central court of the building announce the institution of the andreion attested in later sources. In many recent studies of ancient Greek households, an emphasis has been placed on the differential use of domestic space according to gender. In part, this emphasis may reflect the fact that most work on Mediterranean household archaeology has focused on the historical periods, for which ancient sources (primarily Athenian) speak of a distinction between men’s quarters (andronitis) and women’s quarters (gunaikonitis), even if such a distinction is difficult to recognize architecturally or archaeologically. In contrast, there has been very little overt reference to separation of space by gender or gender-related activities when discussing the household organization of Minoan or Early Iron Age Crete. In order to explain the placement of kitchens and pantries in isolated rooms without any direct access to the rest of the house, Brogan and Barnard (Chap. 17) suggest that the outdoor kitchens of the LM IB houses at Mochlos may signal exclusion and an attempt to keep individuals, activities, or the contents of the kitchens (traditionally considered the domain of women and/or servants) separate from the other areas of the house. Driessen and Fiasse (Chap. 25) are also concerned with gender in their study of Quartier Nu at Malia. The fact that kylikes only occur in the west and south wings of the complex, whereas champagne cups are well represented in all wings, might indicate a gender distinction in the use of the space. The authors also explore the possibility that the champagne cups could have been used both by men of lower status and women, whereas kylikes were exclusively used by important males. Gender, however, is not emphasized in the rest of the papers of the volume, except for one study that deals with the historical period. VogeikoffBrogan (Chap. 35) argues that the small size of the dwellings with their communicating rooms at Trypitos and other Hellenistic sites, such as Lato, suggests that the Cretan household remained mostly a female environment,

introduction

9

while the men participated in the more public life and institutions of the city. In another paper presented at the conference, but published in more detail elsewhere, Westgate also pointed out the different architecture of the Cretan houses of this period compared to contemporary houses on mainland Greece, suggesting different patterns of social relations within the household and between the household and the community.5

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

H ou s eh old Act i v i t i es and I n d u s tri es

5. Westgate 2007. 6. Mochlos IA, pp. 91–100; for a recent and full discussion of storage and sociopolitical dynamics in Neopalatial Crete, see Christakis 2008. 7. Tzachili 2008.

The recognition of domestic activities and activity areas in the archaeological record is fundamental to understanding the material, social, and behavioral aspects of households, particularly in distinguishing between small-scale (household) production and large-scale (suprahousehold) production. For example, the presence of three winepresses, a grinding installation, a potter’s wheel, and many loomweights at the Minoan villa at Prophitis Ilias Praisou, interpreted here by Mantzourani and Vavouranakis (Chap. 12) as a single household, may be a reflection of large-scale production. The archaeological record of Petras House II, presented here in a preliminary fashion by Mavroudi (Chap. 11), shows the presence of a large number of ground stone tools, basins, and loomweights from many parts of the house, in addition to drains and pits. Watrous and Heimroth (Chap. 18) reevaluate the household industries at the town of Gournia during the LM IB period. The lack of storage capacities in a large number of houses where industrial activity has been preserved leads Watrous and Heimroth to suggest that these households were not producing goods (e.g., bronze tools, stone vases) for personal consumption, but for the ruling elite, in exchange for food. This pattern of social and economic organization fits well with the LM IB centralization recently recognized at various centers in Crete.6 Watrous and Heimroth go one step further to propose that some of the Gournia houses were so destitute and dependent on the ruling elite that their occupants left very few datable items when the houses were abandoned and destroyed in LM IB, thus their presence at Gournia might be, to a large extent, archaeologically invisible. Sofianou (Chap. 36) examines the important household activity of weaving by focusing on the large number of loomweights found in Cluster A at the Hellenistic site of Trypitos in East Crete. Based on their distribution, Sofianou argues that the majority of the loomweights were probably being stored and not in use on a loom when the house was destroyed. While a comparison of the weights suggests that different types of fabrics could have been woven in a single residence at different times, the archaeological evidence is inconclusive as to the simultaneous operation of more than one loom in the house. In another paper presented at the colloquium, but not included in the current publication, I. Tzachili discussed a rich deposit of similarly shaped and weighted loomweights found at a Hellenistic house at Panormos in West Crete, with evidence for organized household weaving production.7

10

k e v i n t. g l o wa c k i a n d n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

H o u se, H ouseh o ld, an d Comm u n i t y According to Wallace (Chap. 28), the large houses and extended households that are encountered in LM IB and LM IIIA–B settlements probably housed regional elites and operated beyond the remit of a simple domestic structure. Wallace, however, argues that this hierarchical structure shows signs of social flattening in the LM IIIC settlements founded after the collapse of Minoan palatial civilization. Examining houses at Kavousi Vronda, Monastiraki Chalasmenos, and Karphi, Wallace draws attention to the presence of a central multifunctional room and the lack of a completely separate kitchen area. Her observation is further supported by Day’s functional analysis (Chap. 27) of the household assemblages from Karphi, which shows that the majority of the buildings were more or less uniform in content at the time of abandonment, another sign of social flattening. At the same time, the existence in these settlements of large “megaron” type structures with hearths and zoned areas for cooking or dining constitutes evidence for collective dining and, in some cases, probably feasting. In addition, Day’s analysis argues that the greater proportion of kylikes in the larger buildings in Karphi suggests elite drinking rituals. The connection between “megaron” type buildings and drinking is especially evident at Chalasmenos, where Tsipopoulou (Chap. 29) has convincingly argued that while certain buildings were involved with food preparation at a suprahousehold scale, the “megara” specialized in food and drink consumption. In the same line of thought, but concerning an earlier period, Di Tonto’s (Chap. 2) discussion of Neolithic households at Phaistos suggests that the exclusive presence of fine wares and decorated pottery at Phaistos and Knossos, as well as their absence from other contemporary settlements, may indicate communal practices of consumption used to strengthen alliances between larger settlements and smaller neighboring communities. Knossos and Phaistos, therefore, could represent regional foci for certain suprahousehold ceremonies that reinforced ties inside and outside the immediate community. In contrast, Brogan and Barnard’s thorough study (Chap. 17) of the cooking facilities in the Neopalatial town of Mochlos indicate that for the majority of the houses, neither the size of the rooms nor the equipment found in them point to food preparation in excess of an individual household. This non-elite behavioral mode comes into sharp contrast with the large-scale cooking and feasting that took place in House D.1 at Mochlos, a large and finely furnished house with many elite architectural refinements more commonly seen in Minoan villas. The search for the andreion as a building occupies a significant number of papers, with attempts to locate the origins of the institution as early as the LM IIIA–B period (Chap. 25). In arguing for the public character of the “megaron” in the LM IIIC settlements of Karphi and Chalasmenos and its association with communal meals, both Wallace (Chap. 28) and Tsipopoulou (Chap. 29) also allude to early manifestations of the institution. Erickson’s paper (Chap. 32) reviews all literary and archaeo-

introduction

11

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

logical evidence about the andreion, and he argues that public feasting in Crete—with its horizontal hierarchy—may not have excluded elite private dining in the way it seems to have in other parts of Greece. In the same vein, Vogeikoff-Brogan (Chap. 35) wonders whether the dining activities attested in Building A in Cluster B2 at Hellenistic Trypitos were associated with state-controlled dining or might be witness to a different trend encouraging an increased sense of private life.

H ouse, H ouseh old, and E thnic/Cult ural Id en t i t y The introduction of collective dining may be related to the presence of a new ethnic group in Crete from the LM IIIA–B periods. Although some scholars also see “Mycenaeanizing” elements in the adoption of the “megaron” as an architectural form (Chap. 29), its presence in Crete can also be interpreted as evidence more for the creation of extended kin groups and brotherhoods in the fragile post-collapse communities and less for the presence of new ethnic groups (Chap. 28). In contrast, Hatzaki (Chap. 22) alludes to the presence of a new ethnic group in Postpalatial Knossos. In addition to changing the location of the home, the most startling change in household behavior can be observed in the food preparation and the disposal of waste. New types of cooking vessels, especially the jug in a fabric identical to that used for tripod cooking pots, clearly suggest different ways of preparing food. Furthermore, the old Minoan “obsession” with clean interior and exterior surfaces seems to have changed in the Postpalatial period. At the Little Palace North site, the amounts of faunal material inside and outside houses increased dramatically, as did the number of pits and layers of ash and charcoal. The reoccupation of the elite buildings in the LM IIIC period is characterized by a sharp reduction of the usable space and emphasis on consumption (rather than storage and food preparation); both features suggest a behavioral change that may not be unrelated to new collective dining and feasting habits, similar to those observed at Karphi and Chalasmenos. The issue of ethnic and cultural identity is the focus of another paper (Chap. 26), which explores the relationship between household activities and funerary rituals and the extent to which practices surrounding death reflect behavior during life. Smith compares the contents of the LM IIIA tombs at Mochlos with the contents of their contemporary households. The limited (and selected) presence of the kylikes and kraters in a few of the Mochlos burials is contrasted with their appearance in every Mochlos household. As with the “megaron” type of building, the kylix seems to be another mainland shape introduced to Crete with the advent of the Mycenaeans to the island. While the drinking customs associated with the kylix seem to have been accessible to all living members of the LM IIIA community of Mochlos, these customs were restricted to a very small number of dead individuals, an elite of Mycenaean origin or with “Mycenaeanizing” aspirations.

12

k e v i n t. g l o wa c k i a n d n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

H o u se, H ouseh o ld, an d Regi on Finally, a few papers consider the relationship of houses and households to their wider territories. Vokotopoulos (Chap. 13) looks at the settlement pattern and social organization of the countryside in the easternmost part of Crete and compares different types of dwellings (farmhouses, country villas, and guardhouses) from the early to the late phases of the Neopalatial period. He argues that the pattern of nonhierarchic farmsteads of the early Neopalatial period gradually gave way to a new pattern of hierarchy in the late Neopalatial, with the country villas on the top and the farmsteads at the bottom, although the system was still not rigidly defined. In a related paper, Mantzourani and Vavouranakis (Chap. 12) also explore the countryside in East Crete during the same period, focusing on the country villas and studying the degree of labor investment and elaboration that these buildings betray through their architectural design, building materials and techniques, circulation systems, and use of space. The lack of palatial-style features in the architectural design and the contents of the villa at Prophitis Ilias Praisou, in conjunction with its agglutinative manner of construction, suggest that the power of its inhabitants did not derive from the display of prestige insignia but from the direct management of economic processes, particularly the control of wine production. Moreover, the authors of this essay strongly believe in the individual character of these country villas as this is determined by the surrounding landscape, and argue against the lumping of the country building under certain categories. Among its many important roles, the house may also function as a refuge in times of danger and social transition. Indeed, regional patterns of settlement change and relocation to the remote highlands during stressful periods can be noted in Crete as early as the Neolithic period. Nowicki’s survey (Chap. 30) of this phenomenon is extremely valuable in tracing certain patterns that, on the one hand, were probably associated with important historical events, and on the other, reflect the changing social dynamics of each period. The comparison between defensive sites of the MM I and LM IIIC periods is most enlightening. The small, fortified, and sophisticated strongholds of the MM period, like Chamaizi, Myrtos Pyrgos, and Katalimata, which could provide shelter to a small number of families, were entirely different from the defensible villages of the LM IIIC period, reflecting different social and political systems. Complimentary to Nowicki’s diachronic analysis is Lenuzza’s reevaluation (Chap. 6) of the Chamaizi house. Through the detailed study of its architecture and artifactual contents, Lenuzza also argues that the defensive character of the building could be connected to the process of social disruption that affected Crete at the beginning of MM I, offering shelter to a high-ranking group of people (a clan?). With the emergence of a major regional power at Petras in MM IIA, the residential group at Chamaizi was probably absorbed into the palatial territory and the occupation of the hill inevitably came to an end. At the other end of the chronological spectrum, Sweetman (Chap. 38) discusses the urban and rural landscape of Crete in the aftermath of the Roman conquest of the island in 67 b.c. Her work, based mostly on

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

introduction

13

the results of surveys and rescue excavations, discerns two patterns of local reaction to the Roman conquest: (a) the north coast pattern, which was slow to change and preserved old forms and customs, as can be seen at Knossos where there was very little construction or adoption of new house plans until the middle of the 1st century a.d.; and (b) the south coast pattern, in which—in places like Gortyn—the effects of becoming a Roman province were immediately visible in architecture, pottery, mosaics, and other aspects of material culture, as well as in the presence of villas and farmsteads in the country. Sweetman introduces the concept of “globalization” in the study of Roman Crete, a concept that allows for flexibility and dialogue in the behavior of the conquered, as opposed to the concept of “Romanization,” which implies enforced procedures and passive attitudes. Baldwin Bowsky (Chap. 37) studies households in Roman Crete from a different approach, that of the epigraphist. Having at her disposal a large number of inscriptions with prosopographic information, Baldwin Bowsky attempts first to restore familial relationships between those named in the inscriptions and then to explore the creation of island-wide social and economic networks based on households, thus shedding light on the social composition of Roman Crete. This approach allows her to identify families who first came to Crete as traders and stayed to become landowners, as well as Romans resident at Gortyn who appeared to have become part of the colonial elite at Knossos. Furthermore, the prosopographic studies show that these families and their individual but connected members constituted the critical core of the social and political elite of the island and of the personnel involved in various sectors of the Cretan economy.

Con clu s ion s In this volume an international team of archaeologists and historians have offered a wide-ranging sample of contemporary approaches to the study of ancient houses and households on the island of Crete from the 4th millennium b.c. to the 1st century a.d. While there are gaps in the chronological coverage, it is important to note the many different—yet complementary—ways in which the authors have addressed key material, behavioral, and social aspects of ancient households. By generously allowing us “into their houses,” these scholars have provided both fresh insights on familiar material and new challenges for future investigations. How we think about the material, behavioral, and social dimensions of ancient houses, households, and communities clearly influences how we recover, analyze, and interpret the archaeological remains of all periods. The conclusions that emerge from each paper in this volume can—and should—be tested against new data and theoretical frameworks. It is our hope that ΣΤΕΓΑ will contribute to the opening of a dialogue not only between archaeologists on Crete, but with scholars working on houses and households in many other regions as well.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 2

Evi de n c e f or D om e st i c Ac t i v i t i e s i n t h e Fi nal Ne ol i t h i c P e r i od at P h ai sto s by Serena Di Tonto

Household archaeology has as its goal an understanding of the complex relationship between the house as a physical unit (i.e., the architectural structure and associated artifacts) and the household as a social unit (e.g., a group of people) that apart from blood or kinship ties, lives together, shares various activities, and makes mutual decisions.1 Household analysis is particularly effective for understanding the social changes and the socioeconomic and ideological traits of a community, since the study of the dwellings and domestic artifacts help us to draw a picture of the activities and behavior of the inhabitants through the spatial distribution of the artifacts in the associated structures.2 In the archaeological record, some distinctive features that permit the individuation of a house/household are: ovens or hearths for cooking food, cooking pots, fine tablewares for consumption of food but also for the display of status, storerooms and storage vessels for solid and liquid foodstuffs, and tools for various domestic activities. Several recent studies focusing on the Cretan Neolithic have shown an interest in distinguishing houses and households both in the excavated settlements and in other sites discovered through survey work. Their interest has been centered on the definition of the household as the primary social and economic unit, responsible for the maintenance of community values and for the creation of new links with other communities.3 This 1. Recent discussions of household archaeology and its goals (with relevant bibliography) include Allison 1999a and Glowacki 2004. For a good review of household archaeology focusing specifically on Neolithic Greece, see Souvatzi 2000. See Blanton (1994) for the definition of the household as a social unit mentioned here. My warmest thanks go to Vincenzo La Rosa, who gave me the opportunity to study the Neolithic material from the most recent excavations at Phaistos, and to Emanuele Greco, the Director of the Scuola archeologica italiana

di Atene, for giving me access to the archives of the School. I also wish to thank Simona Todaro for discussing various aspects of this paper with me, and the anonymous readers for their useful comments. I accept responsibility for the ideas expressed here and, of course, for any errors that may remain. 2. It is useful to bear in mind, however, that the study of a house does not always allow us to determine who built it or who lived in it. Furthermore, it is often difficult to reconstruct the function of an area through artifacts alone,

since there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the artifacts found in one house and the activities carried out there. As LaMotta and Schiffer (1999) have noted, close attention must be paid to the site formation processes and the entire life history of a house. Since artifacts are not always found where they were used (and vice versa), we should not assume a priori that they were used in the place where they were found. 3. Manteli 1989, 2001; Nowicki 2002a; Tomkins 2004.

16

serena di tonto

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

paper focuses on some newly discovered remains of Final Neolithic (FN) structures and associated materials from Phaistos in order to shed light on the domestic activities of these fundamental social groups. In addition to the storage, preparation, and consumption of food at the household level, evidence also exists for the processing of agricultural produce, animal husbandry, and manufacturing. The high percentage of fine wares in the ceramic assemblage, noted at Phaistos and Knossos but absent at other sites, may also suggest ceremonies of consumption and display at the suprahousehold and even regional levels.

Th e Final N e oli th ic Se t tlem en t an d A rch i t ect ure at P haistos Phaistos, at least for the moment, is the best-known FN site of any great size on Crete, in terms of both the quantity and quality of its remains. Several occupational levels datable to the FN period have been recognized, suggesting that it was not only a transitional phase to Early Minoan (EM), but a real and well-structured period. From the time of its earliest occupational levels, the settlement at Phaistos seems to have been very extensive. Neolithic remains have been found almost everywhere beneath the Minoan palace, on the western part of the hill (Fig. 2.1), and in the Chalara quarter on the southwest slope. Some walls of great extent have been found both in the central plateau area and in the western part of the hill.4 The congruent orientation of the structures and the substantial uniformity in the architectural features throughout the two chronological phases of FN so far identified at Phaistos allow us to infer an occupational continuity by the same community. Some general features about Neolithic architecture have been extrapolated thanks to the past and present excavations at Phaistos. House walls were built with stones packed together with mud and clay and were sometimes plastered and occasionally even painted.5 The roofs were most likely flat, and they seem to have been constructed with perishable materials. The floors were of beaten earth on a preparation of pure clay. It is not yet clear if the rough pebble paving associated with some of the walls was internal or external. One of the distinctive features of the Phaistian Neolithic is the presence of fixed hearths, surrounded by a circle of stones bordering a burnt area. These hearths were probably located in the interior of the houses, but sometimes they may have been outside. To judge from the preserved walls, most of the houses seem to have been square or rectangular in plan. It should be noted that the only exception is still the so-called circular hut, a small freestanding structure located at the southern end of the later Central Court (Fig. 2.1, trench V).6 This hut has been considered a dwelling place in previous publications on the basis of the various ceramic vessels and stone tools (a millstone, a grinder, and polishers) found in association with it. If this is the case, the coexistence of quadrangular and circular houses could suggest the presence of different social groups and architectural traditions at FN Phaistos. Alternatively, the hut could be interpreted as a storage room on account

4. We can mention a huge north– south wall under room 25 (ca. 0.90 m wide), linked with an east–west wall, which probably belonged to a dwelling consisting of more than one room (Vagnetti 1972–1973, pp. 22–25). Other big walls have been isolated under room 29 and under Propileo II (Vagnetti 1972–1973, pp. 31–34). In the West Court, two perpendicular walls formed two rooms (Vagnetti 1972–1973, p. 37). 5. Vagnetti 1972–1973, p. 95; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, p. 128. 6. The “circular hut” (ca. 2.50 m in diameter) was partly cut into the bedrock and partly built with regular stones. Despite the lack of a hearth, this structure has been considered a dwelling because of the presence of a grindstone and some pestles, which are quite common finds on Neolithic floors.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

d o m e s t i c a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e f n p e r i o d at p h a i s t o s

Figure 2.1. Schematic plan of the 2000–2002 excavation area of Phaistos showing trenches (I–XV) containing Neolithic remains.

Drawing E. Keil, after Vagnetti 1972–1973, fig. 1

7. The Phaistian “circular hut” has been considered the model for the circular tombs spread throughout the Mesara beginning in the EM period. It has also been considered a communal building in which the Neolithic inhabitants of Phaistos could store objects used during communal ceremonies that involved the consumption of food and drink (Cultraro 2001, pp. 88–90). The “circular hut” could be, in my opinion, a silo in which grain was stored, like the

17

of its small dimensions (Diam. 2.5 m), the thinness of its wall (ca. 0.10 m, which is insufficient to support even a light superstructure), and its unusual shape—unique at Phaistos.7 The scant FN architectural remains and the disturbances caused by later building activities on the site do not allow us to understand the early house plans completely. It is possible, however, to note the presence of structures of different sizes that likely consist of a variable number of rooms. For example, recent excavations on the western part of the hill of Phaistos have brought to light a huge wall (M/7; L. 8.50; W. 0.75; H. 1.54 m), oriented east–west and covered on both sides with red plaster made of clay, straw, and calcareous materials (Fig. 2.2).8 This wall has been interpreted by the excavator as the central spine wall of a house (Building zeta). Late Neolithic examples found at Saliagos in the Cyclades (Evans and Renfrew 1968, pp. 17, 20, 26, 81, figs. 7, 8, 12, pls. VII:g, VIII:b, XIII). If this is the case, we may have evidence for the existence of a communal organization involved in the pooling and sharing of foodstuffs, as has been recently argued for Neolithic Knossos (Tomkins 2004, pp. 42–43, 50, 53–55). The recent discovery at Kephala Petras of circular buildings, probably

dated to FN or FN–EM, will provide new data on the presence of circular houses in Neolithic Crete (Papadatos and Tsipopoulou 2005). This discovery will make possible the in-depth analysis of buildings of various forms reflecting different patterns of spatial organization. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that the “circular hut” at Phaistos is much smaller than the Kephala buildings. 8. La Rosa 2002a, p. 818, fig. 615, pl. I.

After La Rosa 2002a, pl. I; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

Figure 2.2. Phaistos, detail from the 2000–2002 excavation plan indicating the locations of Buildings zeta (wall M/7) and alpha (walls M/65, M/66).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

d o m e s t i c a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e f n p e r i o d at p h a i s t o s

19

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Thanks to two additional walls linked perpendicularly to the central one, V. La Rosa hypothesized the presence of at least three rooms: two of these (ζ/1 and ζ/2) were on the south side of the building, while the third (ζ/3) was located on the north. The total number of rooms in this house, however, cannot be assessed with certainty. Wall M/7 was originally dated to the FN period on account of the material retrieved from a floor surface discovered at its base. While the original excavator considered the wall to be contemporary with the floor, S. Todaro has more recently noted that the red plaster on wall M/7 does not cover its entire height but begins about 0.55 m from the base, leading him to propose a somewhat later date (EM IA), at least for the plastering.9 Accordingly, wall M/7 was either built directly on bedrock in the FN and reused in EM IA with a much higher floor surface and the addition of plaster, or it was built in EM IA with deep foundations that cut into an earlier FN floor, as required by the steep slope on which it was constructed. Other walls of smaller dimensions are found all over the settlement and may reflect the existence of houses of smaller size—if we consider the thickness of these walls inadequate to support the roof of a large room. Also during the most recent excavations in the western part of the settlement, two such walls (M/65 and M/66) have been identified not too far from the other above-mentioned buildings (Fig. 2.2).10 The quadrangular house plans suggested by the currently available evidence fit well within the Cretan architectural tradition, where the butand-ben type plan is both common and widespread. For comparison, we can mention structures at Knossos, Magasa, Katsambas, and also at Kala Selia and Nerokourou.11 The Neolithic houses, with two or three rooms entering one from another, had areas that were used as refuge for animals or as workplaces, as indicated by the number of tools and implements found. Domestic activities were carried out both indoors and outdoors. Another constant feature in Cretan Neolithic architecture is the construction of freestanding buildings, which have been noted in the settlements at Knossos and at Phaistos, as well as in different parts of the island where the scattered remains could suggest the presence of isolated farmsteads.12 In his studies on the Greek Neolithic, particularly on Sesklo and Dimini in northern Greece, P. Halstead has considered freestanding houses and small clusters of adjoining rooms as household residences. While noting the different forms of buildings within the same settlement—probably reflecting specific choices by the respective communities—Halstead calls attention to common features such as the presence of tool kits for various activities and the existence of storage pottery and food-processing 9. Todaro has underlined that the red plaster was physically associated with a level that consisted of astraki (i.e., the debris of the destruction of the house) and EM IA pottery; see Todaro 2005a, fig. 5. 10. La Rosa 2002a, pp. 686–691, p. 803, fig. 485, pl. I. These two walls were probably used in the FN period,

as shown by the materials retrieved from the stamped-earth floor associated with them. They were probably reused in EM I. 11. Knossos: Evans 1994, pp. 11, 14–16; Magasa: Dawkins 1904–1905, pp. 263–264; Katsambas: Alexiou 1954, pp. 369–374; Kala Selia: Vasilakis 1987, p. 47; Nerokourou: Vagnetti, Christo-

poulou, and Tzedakis 1989, pp. 57–58; Manteli 2001. 12. E.g., the presence of scattered remains at Katsambas among the Minoan tombs (Alexiou 1954, pp. 369– 370), at Magasa (Dawkins 1904–1905, p. 268), and in the area of Kala Selia in the Asterousia Mountains (Vasilakis 1989–1990a, pp. 70–71).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

20

serena di tonto

facilities.13 Although Halstead admits that a Neolithic “household” is a difficult concept to define, he argues that the size of the houses (between 20 m2 and 70 m2) suggests occupation by a family group rather than by one or two individuals. By analogy, the inferred heterogeneity in size and finishing of the Neolithic buildings at Phaistos could be considered as the will of the community members to construct differentiated houses, perhaps to emphasize their status or to indicate the group to which they belong. In any case, the size of these buildings could indirectly argue for the existence of family groups, as suggested by Halstead. However, two important considerations recommend caution when discussing the plan of these houses or inferring the number of the persons who lived within them and their kinship ties. First, the poor preservation of the Neolithic architecture—caused by the rather flimsy construction of the walls and the leveling and building operations of the Minoan period—makes it impossible to restore the ground plan of any house with confidence. Second, the difficulty in identifying the floor levels clearly associated with these poorly preserved walls hinders the analysis of household activities within specific rooms. Yet by looking closer at the material culture as a whole, I believe that it is indeed possible to make some meaningful observations about the nature of houses and household behavior within the FN settlement at Phaistos.

D o m est i c A ssemblages as Refle c t i on s o f H o u s eh o ld Act ivi t ies After reviewing the general features of Neolithic structures possibly belonging to houses, it is useful to examine the artifacts and assemblages that provide evidence for domestic activities. In a few cases, especially from the earlier excavations, intact vessels and various implements were retrieved from the earthen house floors sometimes associated with walls.14 In all probability, these remains represent the de facto floor assemblage left by the inhabitants before the desertion and/or the destruction of the house. In most cases, however, the fragmentary character of the materials and the absence of clearly distinguished floors may indicate successive episodes of refuse deposition. The presence of hearths may indicate the existence of habitation surfaces associated with houses, but, as previously mentioned, the scarcity of preserved walls does not always allow us to determine if these hearths were located in interior or exterior spaces. For example, D. Levi discovered a hearth encircled by stones and associated with a well-preserved floor assemblage in a sounding beneath the Central Court of the Palace.15 Owing 13. Halstead 1999, pp. 79–80. House models found in Neolithic settlements may suggest that the inhabitants recognized the social and symbolic significance of the buildings (Halstead 1999, p. 79). Moreover, it has been argued that the house model found at Platia Magoula Zarkou, with eight figurines and

domestic tools inside, depicts a LN household unit (Gallis 1985). 14. Vagnetti 1972–1973, pp. 25, 37. 15. Levi 1957–1958, p. 338, fig. 191; Vagnetti 1972–1973, p. 19, fig. 12. In the upper Neolithic level, only a small wall was identified in front of room 25.

In the remaining part of the excavations, some hearths were also associated with ancient floor surfaces. The wellpreserved hearth discussed here was located between the seventh and the eighth column bases of the later Minoan Central Court.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

d o m e s t i c a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e f n p e r i o d at p h a i s t o s

21

to the small size of the excavated area, the remains were not extensive and no associated walls were preserved. Eleven complete vases, found on the floor around the hearth, consist of coarse wares for storage and food processing as well as fine ware for consumption of food and liquids. The coarse wares (Vagnetti’s class A) include three large storage jars/amphoras (with a high cylindrical neck, globular body, and two vertical strap handles) and one shallow bowl (with a flaring profile and one handle under the rim), roughly burnished for food preparation.16 The fine wares (Vagnetti’s classes C [burnished] and F [red slipped] include four wide-mouth jugs (with a conical or semicircular knob on the handle) to pour liquids, and little hemispherical bowls (with curving sides or with rounded profile and everted rim) for drinking.17 Two long-necked amphoras, with cylindrical neck and globular body, constructed from a semicoarse fabric that was covered with a thick coating of crushed stones and then slipped with a red paint (Vagnetti’s class F, also known as “granulata ware”) were also found.18 Although the evidence does not allow us to determine with certainty if we are dealing with an inside or outside space, the limited number of vessels in the assemblage found around the hearth points to a restricted number of persons involved in the preparation and consumption of food and drink. In other trenches opened by Levi in the Central Court, a variety of artifacts were found that point to domestic activities in this area, including oval querns and grinders for the processing of food, and a great number of spindle whorls, loomweights, obsidian knives and blades, and bone tools, such as spatulas and awls, most likely used for activities such as weaving, leather manufacturing, and other tasks.19 Two additional Neolithic floors were discovered in the more recent excavations on the western part of the Phaistian hill, but because these surfaces were cleaned before the abandonment and destruction of the building, it was not possible to recognize a substantial de facto deposit.20 Nevertheless, the fragmentary pottery from the fills is instructive in terms of understanding the range of activities that took place in this area. While we must admit that it is not correct to consider this material as a complete and accurate household inventory, we can also note that the pottery is quite unvarying, in terms of wares and shapes, and that all of the FN wares identified elsewhere at Phaistos are also present here.21 Among the material found, several coarse sherds belonging to large vessels (Diam. 0.26–0.44 m) with straight or slightly splayed walls, both with and without handles, were clearly used for food storage (Fig. 2.3). One large fragment with a vertical row of three strap handles could belong to a very 16. Vagnetti (1972–1973, pp. 53– 86) subdivided the Neolithic pottery from Phaistos into seven classes (A–G). For the coarse wares discussed here, see Vagnetti 1972–1973, pp. 43–44, 55, 59, figs. 34, 36, 57:22, 59:1, 2, 4. 17. Vagnetti 1972–1973, pp. 44, 72, 85, figs. 39–40, 67:18, 75:3, 5, 11. 18. Vagnetti 1972–1973, pp. 45, 87, figs. 42, 76:1, 2. For ”granulata ware,” see Tomkins 2007, p. 45.

19. Vagnetti 1972–1973, pp. 114– 116, figs. 125, 127, 128. 20. La Rosa (2002a, pp. 689–699) identified at least two floors during the 2000–2002 excavations: one associated with Building zeta (US 1235) and the other (α/4) related to wall M/65. 21. For the classification of the Neolithic pottery retrieved in the new excavations at Phaistos, see Di Tonto 2004.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

22

serena di tonto

large vessel, similar to a pithos. Fragments of vessels for food preparation or consumption (e.g., bowls of different types) are also present. Cookingware fragments and a clay slab (Fig. 2.4)—probably embedded in the floor—were also recovered from the Neolithic floor fill. The upper surface of the slab is smoothed and shows traces of burning that may indicate it was used for cooking. The fine pottery (burnished or slipped and burnished or pink-scribble burnished) was abundant and belongs to vessels used for food consumption or display and for pouring liquids (Figs. 2.5, 2.6). There are small bowls with a rounded or flaring profile and an offset rim (S-shaped), carinated or rounded bowls with a wide everted rim, and some deep vessels with straight walls. Some strap handles with conical protuberances, characteristic of jugs, testify to the presence of this form (e.g., Fig. 2.6:a). Fragments of long-necked amphoras in fine slipped and burnished ware with the body coated with crushed stone have also been found, similar to the example found by Levi discussed above. A high-necked jar has also been retrieved, but from a context that seems to have been disturbed during the successive reconstructions in this area. This jar is unique at Phaistos and is very similar in shape to those found at Kastelli Phournis,22 but in fine burnished ware, and was used to contain and probably to pour liquids (Fig. 2.6:c). Other material also suggests that these fills contain the refuse from Neolithic houses (e.g., a large oval quern, lithic and bone tools, and one spindle whorl), which provides evidence of various domestic activities (Figs. 2.7, 2.8).

Figure 2.3. Examples of FN coarse ware from Phaistos: (a–c) large storage vessels with straight or slightly splayed walls; (d) cylindrical-necked jar without handles. Scale 1:4. Drawing

G. Merlatti, courtesy Archivio Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

Figure 2.4. Clay slab from Phaistos. Scale 1:3. Drawing G. Merlatti, courtesy Archivio Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

22. Manteli 1992, p. 113, figs. 1, 2.

d o m e s t i c a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e f n p e r i o d at p h a i s t o s

23

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

a

b

c

e d Figure 2.5. Examples of FN fine ware from Phaistos: (a) small dish; (b) bowl with rounded profile; (c) bowl with flaring profile; (d, e) bowls with offset rim. Scale 1:2. Drawing G. Merlatti, cour-

tesy Archivio Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

1:2

1:4

a

b

Figure 2.6. FN pottery in fine burnished ware from Phaistos: (a) jug; (b) deep vessel; (c) high-necked jar.

Scale as indicated. Courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

1:3

c

24

serena di tonto

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Figure 2.7. FN spindle whorl (left) and FN bone tool (right) from Phaistos. Scale 3:4. Courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

Figure 2.8. FN stone tools from Phaistos. Scale 1:3. Courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

Dis c u ssion The poor state of preservation of the walls, surfaces, and pavements clearly associated with domestic architecture necessitates the use of other aspects of material culture to illuminate the range of household activities at Phaistos in the Neolithic period. Nevertheless, the nature of the fill found in most deposits suggests that this indirect evidence can be used effectively in making inferences about domestic life. Several ceramic shapes recurrent in the examined Neolithic strata can be properly linked to a common domestic activity (e.g., storage, preparation, consumption of food). The coarse wares with straight or flaring walls and burnished interiors were the most widespread, and they were useful for storing solids or liquids. We do not yet have reliable evidence for the existence of large pithoi, a type of vessel apparently absent on the island in this period. Since the preserved coarse vessels are too small to contain the food supply that would have been required by a family/household for a year, other methods—such as containers made of perishable material or excavated pits—were probably used for storage as well. At Knossos, for example, it has been recently suggested that in some periods (from stratum V onward) the surplus necessary for the survival of the households could have been kept in pits at a communal level.23 Fine ware vessels used for the consumption of food and drink at Phaistos consisted of bowls or cups of different sizes, bowls with flaring

23. Tomkins 2004, p. 43.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

d o m e s t i c a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e f n p e r i o d at p h a i s t o s

24. The bones of domesticated animals found at Phaistos represent caprovines, pigs, and cattle. Bones of agrimi (wild goat) are also present. For a discussion of these faunal remains, see Wilkens 1996, pp. 241–246. 25. Manteli 2000, pp. 235–236. 26. Relaki 2004, pp. 176–177.

25

lips, and jugs. Vessels with cylindrical necks and globular bodies decorated with crushed stones may have been used for the short-term storage of some particular foodstuff or drink. It is possible that some fine wares (sometimes decorated with an incrustation of red ochre), such as deep bowls with upright profile, jugs, and bottles, may have been used for the display of status and/or for the communal consumption of food and drink in some special circumstances that may have involved the members of one or more households (Figs. 2.6:a, b). In addition to storage and consumption, other indirect evidence confirms different activities by members of the settlement, such as the processing of agricultural produce (stone querns, mortars, pestles), animal husbandry (domestic animal bones),24 pottery production (burnishers), spinning and weaving (spindle whorls and loomweights), and leather and other manufacturing (various bone implements). In conclusion, I would like to comment briefly on the different percentages of fine and coarse wares found at Neolithic sites in Crete. With the exception of Knossos and Phaistos, all other sites have primarily produced coarse wares. This probably is because the inhabitants of these Neolithic farmsteads and small settlements, to satisfy their needs, created vessels related to the activities carried out in their respective houses.25 In contrast, the fine wares and the decorated pottery, noted almost exclusively at Phaistos and Knossos, could suggest that in these much larger settlements—in addition to concerns for basic subsistence and domestic activities at the level of the individual household—there was also a desire to satisfy other needs, such as the display of status through table decoration. As recently suggested, it is possible that in these long-lived and ceramic-rich settlements, communal practices of consumption may have been carried out in order to strengthen alliances between the households within the community.26 The absence of such assemblages in other localities suggests that these larger settlements may have also functioned as meeting places for the neighboring communities. Knossos and Phaistos, therefore, could represent regional foci for certain suprahousehold ceremonies that reinforced ties both inside and outside the immediate community.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 3

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

A Smal l-Sc ale Reconstruction of the Se t tlement at My rtos Phournou Kory phi by John Atkinson

1. Warren 1972. Other important studies of the settlement include Warren 1983, 1992; Whitelaw 1983. For more extensive bibliography and comparison with nearby Pyrgos Myrtos, see also the contribution by G. Cadogan in this volume (Chap. 4).

Ever since Sir Arthur Evans’s extensive reconstructions at Knossos fell out of favor with the archaeological community, accurate recreations of the ancient world have become rare. It would be unethical to destroy the past by rebuilding it in our own image, but it is only by recreating the world of the past that we can come to understand it in terms of real flesh and blood rather than cold facts and figures. While it is easy to hypothesize about the past, any conclusions drawn in this manner can rarely proceed beyond the status of mere theories, many of which cannot even find their foundations in simple common sense. However, by attempting to recreate accurately the physical world of the past to the best of our ability, we become able to envisage ourselves among the people who lived in it. It was with this goal in mind that the small-scale reconstruction of Phournou Koryphi was planned (Fig. 3.1). The thought of walking among the people who had lived at the site was a very attractive one, especially to archaeologist Katerina AspradakiSkaramagas, who cares for the small museum at Myrtos. It was she who had the initial idea of the reconstruction—and also that it should be small enough to fit into the local museum where it could be immediately available to anyone who wanted to study the site, which is only three quarters of a kilometer to the east of the modern village, above the main road to Ierapetra. There were, however, to be certain criteria that the reconstruction had to meet: (1) The accuracy and precision had to match that of the original report by the excavator, Peter Warren.1 (2) The project had to be treated as a real building project. The design would have to take into account the topography, the weight of the walls in relation to their height, width, and materials used, and the effects of the local climate—factors that affected the original builder’s design and construction. That is, it was not to be treated simply as a “model-making” project. (3) The walls would initially be built one-story high on a plan of the foundations, and copies of the vases, where possible, would be placed exactly where they had been found. (4) Where necessary, the walls or roofs would be cut away to show the pottery inside. (5) The goal of the reconstruction would be to take the findings from the excavation one step further toward a complete understanding by presenting them in three dimensions. (6) At no time during the reconstruction

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

28

j o h n at k i n s o n

would the word “Minoan” influence the conceptualization of the design. This decision to build the reconstruction without conscious reference to existing conceptions and scholarly tradition of what Minoan buildings looked like was made to ensure that any and all decisions of construction were based solely upon the extant evidence. All choices had to come from real evidence and not a sense of what the buildings should look like.

Co nst ru ct ion Prior to the construction, the site was studied every day for a six-month period in 2002, and again every day for a six-month period in 2003. Every room and area was measured and checked against the original site plan produced by P. Warren (Fig. 3.2), and his comments on the findings in each area were given serious consideration. Special attention was paid to the elevations recorded on the site plan, because the topographic contours of the hill also had to be reconstructed. By the beginning of May 2004, it was felt that enough information had been gathered to make a start on the project, although regular visits to the site continued throughout the production process. The scale used for the reconstruction was 1 inch to 1 meter. Construction started at the southern tip of the bastion, which is the lowest-known point of the site (56.17 masl). This height was used as the base level from which all the contours of the hill were created by raising the spot elevations on wooden rods (Fig. 3.3). Floors were first cut to fit on to the plan of the site and then raised on rods to their correct heights.

Figure 3.1. Small-scale (1 in = 1 m) recreation of the EBA settlement at Phournou Koryphi, Myrtos. View from the west. Photo J. Atkinson

7

6

Pit

5

0

15

14

12

3

25

13

5

11

10

8

9

16

10 m

26

24

22

19

97

17

23

21

20

Hearth

18

29

27

31

30

28

41

38

37

35

42

39

36

34

N

Stairway

32

40

33

43

47

46

50

49

75

51

48

45

44

84

83

67

91

90

74

Bench

68

69

82

65

66

52

Bench

92

Hearth Altar

89

81

73

72

71

70

57 58

87

88 86

80

79

77

56

55

64

59

Cupboard

76

Bench

54

53

85

78

Bench

60

Figure 3.2. Schematic plan of the settlement at Phournou Koryphi. Drawing K. T. Glowacki and E. Keil, after Warren 1972, opp. p. 11

Period I Period II

4

West Entrance

2

1

Cliff

Stairway

Cliff

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Stairway

93

63

South Entrance

62

61

30

j o h n at k i n s o n

Spot Heights

Wall

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Wall Wall

Floor Floor

56.17 m

Rods Th e Arch i tect ure Warren identified two main phases of habitation and building in the settlement at Phournou Koryphi, which he designated as Period I (Early Minoan [EM] IIA) and Period II (EM IIB).2 In order to make the recreated Period I buildings easy to recognize, it was decided to present them as overgrown ruins (Fig. 3.4). These are brown in color and without plastered surfaces, a sharp contrast to the white plastered buildings of Period II. Several of these Period II houses have been restored to the level of their flat roofs, but in other cases they are shown in cutaway views so as to reveal the domestic assemblages found within them. Only the outline and lower courses of the walls have been indicated in the heavily eroded southwestern portion of site (Figs. 3.1, 3.5). As noted by the excavator, the lack of preserved doorways in several rooms may indicate that they were entered from above through some type of trapdoor and ladder (e.g., rooms 62 and 87 in the reconstruction). The reconstruction made apparent several important aspects of the architecture. For example, Warren called attention to the fact that the south and west sides of the settlement, where preserved, were marked by a continuous exterior wall that had only two entrances, one at the southeast (South Entrance 64) and one at the northwest (West Entrance 15).3 These two entrances open into narrow, twisting passages (64–65–44–32 and 14–13, respectively) that provide communication within the settlement and serve to restrict access. The significance of these narrow passages is not immediately obvious at ground level. Only when the passage was built in three dimensions was it clear that this was a very sophisticated defense system that ensured only one person at a time could pass through the narrow gaps. By means of this design, unwanted visitors could easily be prevented from passing through the settlement. 2. For the chronology of the site, see Warren 1972, pp. 269–272; 1992, pp. 200–201. For the architecture, see Warren 1972, pp. 11–22 (Period I) and

22–87 (Period II). 3. Warren 1972, pp. 11, 29–30, 57–60.

56.17 m

Figure 3.3 (above). Section diagram illustrating the use of rods to recreate the topographic contours of the site as they correlated to the spot heights recorded on Warren’s site plan. Drawing J. Atkinson

Figure 3.4 (opposite, top). Reconstruction showing Period I remains. View from the west. Note that narrow passage 67 (Warren’s East–West Way) on the south (right) climbs eastward between room 51 of Period I and room 68 of Period II, suggesting that the Period I wall was in existence during Period II. If this was so, it is possible that other Period I rooms were still standing even if they were not in use. It could be that the stairway between Period I rooms 42 and 43, which runs almost parallel to the East–West Way, was also a main route to and from buildings on the west side of the settlement. Photo J. Atkinson Figure 3.5 (opposite, bottom). Reconstruction showing rooms and entrance system on the south side of the site. View from the south. Photo

C. Papanikolopoulos

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e s e t t l e m e n t at m y r t o s p h o u r n o u k o r y p h i 31

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

32

j o h n at k i n s o n

More problematic is the question of the possible existence of upper floors above some of the rooms. While Warren argued that the flat roofs of the houses could have been used for various household activities, and that some rooms may have opened out onto the roofs of rooms on the slope below, he also stated that no archaeological evidence (e.g., traces of upperfloor deposits, additional levels of roof plaster, etc.) survived to indicate a built second story.4 During the process of creating the reconstruction, however, it became clear that the topographic contours of the site, especially on the west and south, would allow for the hypothetical restoration of upper floors in some instances. A good example is the badly eroded room 26 south of the West Entrance (14), where three nearly complete pithoi were found in a “trench” along the inner (east) face of the western settlement wall.5 When the walls of room 26 were recreated and the pithoi returned to their places in the trench, there was little doubt that this was originally a basement storeroom (Fig. 3.6). Since Warren observed that the maximum length of timber available for spanning roofs or floors was a little over 2.5 m, some type of central pillar (no longer preserved) would have been necessary to support the floor above.6 This type of construction—with upper floors level with the major slope of the hill—may also have been used in a badly eroded area between room 26 and room 84. The outer wall of the restored basement storeroom was level with the base of the cliff, making a very effective defensive barrier.

Figure 3.6. Hypothetical restoration of room 26 (at left) as a basement storeroom. View from the south. Photo C. Papanikolopoulos

4. Warren 1972, p. 259, and pp. 70– 72 (discussion of room 79). 5. Warren 1972, pp. 38–39. 6. For the size of the rooms and spans necessary, see Warren 1972, p. 259.

t h e s e t t l e m e n t at m y r t o s p h o u r n o u k o r y p h i

33

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Th e P ot tery

7. Some of the cooking pots were also made life-size and used for cooking with excellent results—but this is a discussion for another time. 8. Warren 1972, p. 145. 9. For the diverse uses of pithoi attested in the archaeological and ethnohistorical record, see Christakis 2005, pp. 45–69.

The pottery for the reconstruction was made from clay similar to that used at Phournou Koryphi itself, and it was fired to the same temperature as ancient vessels. Oxidizing conditions were used to make the pottery lighter in color so that it would be easier to see when placed in the reconstruction; reducing conditions would have made it gray in color and more difficult to see. Manufacturing pottery on such a small scale created many problems. Some of the small bowls, jugs, and cups were less than two millimeters in diameter and required handles. Loomweights were about half this size. In order to be sure that they would be the correct size after shrinking during firing, they had to be made by hand in batches of 50 for each one; pithoi and amphoras were made using a potter’s wheel. In areas like the “Pot Hole” (east of area 33) and room 82, where many pots had to fit into a very small space (sometimes touching each other) and still be placed accurately, there had to be many to choose from in order to arrange them correctly.7 To any potter who makes kitchen and oven ware, the variety and diversity of the pottery from Phournou Koryphi is truly amazing. It would seem, from published studies, that many archaeologists and historians consider the pithos and the amphora to be containers used primarily (if not exclusively) for the storage of liquids or granular foods. For example, Warren calculated the storage capacity of the pithoi and amphoras at Phournou Koryphi in liters and stated: “since the only likely contents of the vessels are oil, stored olives, wine and cereals, and wine, being unsealed, was unlikely to keep for long, we can infer quite considerable storage capacity for oil, olives and cereals.”8 To a potter, however, the use of such a vessel for only one purpose is a very strange concept; a pithos is simply a large, round container. Its use, like many other containers that he makes, is dependent on the needs and the imagination of the owner. These needs can change from week to week or year to year.9 For example, Phournou Koryphi was also a weaving community. When a piece of weaving came from the loom it had to be stored somewhere. It could not be left out in the open because of the rats and mice—a problem that Cretan farmers still face today, despite our modern means of pest control. Without such means the inhabitants of the site would have had huge problems. In order to keep the weaving safe, they could have stored it in a pithos or amphora with a stone or clay lid, as some people in the mountain villages of Crete still do today for the same reason (i.e., rats cannot eat through ceramic pots). The number of pithoi and amphoras containing cloth must, therefore, be subtracted from the calculation. If storage capacity is going to be calculated in this manner, it is necessary to know how many blankets, shirts, skirts, and pieces of cloth that have not yet been tailored (to name but a few) can be stored in a pithos or amphora. Most of the large pots on the site would have had lids of some kind to keep out the multitude of tiny insects, which, to this day, invade anything and everything they can eat. Pithoi containing wine would have had lids that were sealed with clay and, possibly, as is still done today, the wine would have had a small quantity of olive oil poured on top (half a centimeter

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

34

j o h n at k i n s o n

thick) so that any air rising from the hole in the base when the stopper was removed would pass up through the wine and then the oil. Using this method, the wine remained sealed and would keep longer.

Figure 3.7. Complex of rooms around rooms 27 and 28 on the eastern side of the summit. View from the west. Photo J. Atkinson

H o u seh old Ac t ivi t ies As detailed by Warren and others, the archaeological finds from Phournou Koryphi provide ample evidence for the day-to-day household activities of the inhabitants (e.g., grinding grain, cooking, eating, and perhaps even religious ritual).10 The small-scale reconstruction helps us to visualize these important aspects of daily life in ways that plans and drawings cannot. Two examples will suffice here: food preparation and the production of olive oil.

Fo od Pre parat ion in K itc hens 20 an d 35 Two kitchens, one on each side of rooms 27 and 28 (Fig. 3.7), were large and impressive when compared with the cooking facilities of other rooms on the site. Of the two, kitchen 20 was the best preserved at the time of the excavation, with most of its pots and furnishings in situ.11 Kitchen 35

10. Warren 1972, pp. 255–268. 11. Warren 1972, pp. 34–36.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e s e t t l e m e n t at m y r t o s p h o u r n o u k o r y p h i

35

Figure 3.8. Reconstruction of kitchen 20. View from the northwest. Photo K. T. Glowacki

was not so well preserved, but the sherds taken from it showed that its assemblage of vessels was similar to that of kitchen 20.12 When the pots were placed in their original locations in the reconstruction of kitchen 20, the room (Fig. 3.8) was found to be amazingly well organized and efficient. To the left (west) of the oven, a small pithos on a stand had been placed out from the north wall in order to be on a level with the left hand of the person cooking in front of the oven (i.e., to the left of the man who is drinking in Fig. 3.8). This pithos may have held olive oil or water. Immediately inside the doorway to the left, a quern and grinding stone had been left on the floor so as if to be on hand for grinding flour.

Oliv e Oi l P r od uc t i on i n R o om 8

12. Warren 1972, p. 45. 13. Warren 1972, pp. 25–27, figs. 15, 16. Warren also discusses other possibilities for this installation, including wine pressing and washing, and he considers the washing of wool or the separation of olive oil to be the most likely activities.

Room 8 is quite well preserved on the south side, but is badly eroded in the north and west.13 As a result, it was only possible to reconstruct the lekane on its stand in the southeast corner, with the hole and channel running through the west wall toward room 10. In Figure 3.9, a woman pours hot water from the fire into the lekane while her partner crushes and stirs the olives within. The resultant mixture trickles into the pithos, where it will be allowed to stand until the olive oil has floated to the top. The stopper will then be removed from a hole near the base of the pithos and the unwanted water will run away down the channel. When oil appears at the hole, the stopper will be replaced.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

36

j o h n at k i n s o n

Figure 3.9. Reconstruction of olive oil production in room 8. View from the northeast. Photo K. T. Glowacki

Th e P eo ple The original intention of adding people to the reconstruction was to give an idea of the height of the rooms and the size of the settlement in relation to human beings. The model people were made from matchsticks and clay. Before they could be added, however, a decision had to be taken as to what acts they could be performing that are “timeless”—such as gossiping (Fig. 3.10), or perhaps weaving (Fig. 3.11), cooking, working in the storerooms (Fig. 3.12), or repairing a torn skirt (Fig. 3.13). There is one character, however, who is truly timeless (Fig. 3.14)—he was there in the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and all the ages since; he can be seen today and every day in the villages around Crete. On his back he carries a huge load

Figure 3.10. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: gossiping. Photo C. Papanikolopoulos

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e s e t t l e m e n t at m y r t o s p h o u r n o u k o r y p h i

Figure 3.11. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: weaving. Photo C. Papanikolopoulos

Figure 3.12. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: working in storerooms. Photo C. Papanikolopoulos

Figure 3.13. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: mending a skirt. Photo C. Papanikolopoulos

37

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

38

j o h n at k i n s o n

Figure 3.14. Reconstruction of daily life at Phournou Koryphi: carrying sticks for firewood and other uses. Photo J. Atkinson

of sticks, some of which he unknowingly deposits from time to time on the path behind him as he walks, so that as his journey becomes longer his load becomes easier. One wonders how many sticks will be left when he reaches his destination and where he will put his unruly tangle to keep it in check—in an empty pithos perhaps?

Dis c u ssion The purpose of a reconstruction is to see things that could not be seen before in order to gain a better understanding. A reconstruction is a living thing. From the new understanding gained from studying it, changes can be made, and it can be considered anew. It already has been discovered that some small changes can be made to the Phournou Koryphi reconstruction. For example, the identification of a defensive system on top of the hill suggests that the bastion wall at the bottom of the hill needs to be higher, since otherwise there would be a weak point in the defensive system. Making this one wall higher will change the heights of other rooms, and so on. This small-scale reconstruction of the Early Bronze Age settlement of Phournou Koryphi was donated to the people of Myrtos, and it is now housed in the local museum. It conforms to the original six criteria established at the outset of the project, and, as much as is possible, it is accurate in every detail. With only a little imagination, the modern visitor can now walk among the houses and people of this ancient—yet timeless—community.

c hap ter 4

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

M y rtos : Fr om P hou r n ou Kory p h i to P y r g os by Gerald Cadogan

In this paper I shall explore the relationships of the two excavated prehistoric settlements at Myrtos: Phournou Koryphi and Pyrgos.1 How does Phournou Koryphi help in interpreting Pyrgos in its Prepalatial and Protopalatial periods (Pyrgos I–III)? The short answer is: not much for the settlement, but hugely for the Pyrgos Tomb.

E ar ly Mi n oan II : P h ou rn ou Kory ph i and P y rg os I Peter Warren’s two periods at Phournou Koryphi correspond to Early Minoan (EM) IIA and IIB.2 The latter ended in a destruction with fire, whereupon the site was abandoned.3 Pyrgos, on the other hand, is an older establishment, with some evidence of use in the Final Neolithic (FN) and EM I (Pyrgos 0) periods.4 Pyrgos I parallels Phournou Koryphi. EM IIA and IIB sherds occur across the site, notably on the east and lower west slopes.5 Both sides of the hill show EM IIB fire destruction, but one can scarcely identify any building remains.6 The cultures of the two settlements 1. I thank Peter Day, Jan Driessen, Eleni Hatzaki, Katerina Kopaka, Vance Watrous, Todd Whitelaw, who gave me his then forthcoming paper (now Whitelaw 2007), David Wilson, and an anonymous reviewer. I should also like to thank the British School at Athens for permission to discuss Myrtos Pyrgos here. Phournou Koryphi: Warren’s report (1972) is exemplary; reassessments: Whitelaw 1979, 1983, 2007; Warren 1983, 1992; Whitelaw et al. 1997; also Sanders 1990; Tenwolde 1992. Pyrgos: Cadogan 1977–1978, 1992, 2000, 2006, forthcoming. 2. I, II—where Whitelaw (1983, p. 325, fig. 62) identified seven phases

(B–H), later deciding on five phases (B– F) (Whitelaw 2007, pp. 66–67, fig. 8.1). 3. Save for arc-shaped Building 97 at Myrtos Phournou Koryphi (Warren 1972, pp. 91–92, fig. 31: “tentatively” EM III; 1992, pp. 198, 200: “post– EM II”). I suggested (Cadogan 1986, p. 160, n. 4), following Boschini’s view (1651, pl. 45) of Myrtos, that it may be the remains (half surviving) of another beacon tower. Boschini shows two guardie east of the mouth of the Myrtos River: one of them must be at Pyrgos; the other could well be this building at Phournou Koryphi. It is harder to see it as a structure with “all the formal characteristics of an exedra” (if uncertain whether of ritual or secular function)

datable to “early MM III” (Lebessi 2002b, p. 7), and reasons for this date are unclear. It is just possible that Circular Building 96 at Myrtos Phournou Koryphi (Warren 1972, pp. 89–90, fig. 30) on a plain below the settlement fits Boschini’s guardia better; but such a tower is unlikely to have been sited off the highest available point near the sea. 4. Day and Wilson (2002) identify a few FN and EM I sherds, now grouped as Pyrgos 0. 5. Pyrgos I may have had phasing similar to that of Phournou Koryphi. 6. The sole candidate for an EM II construction is the Tomb’s wall ED. The Tomb’s complicated building sequence needs more study.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

40

gerald cadogan

seem much the same: either could have supplied spouses—and concomitant kinship obligations—to the other. Both sites were probably chosen partly for defense,7 possibly against each other, in disputes, say, over land or flocks. A likely corollary of both Pyrgos’s resettlement in EM III and its Pyrgos 0 use is that it was probably the local center already in EM II. It has the natural advantages: the Myrtos valley offers the better water supply and farmland, and holds a key position on routes between Central and eastern Crete, and up to Lasithi.8 EM II pottery occurs at Pyrgos over an area some four times larger than that of Phournou Koryphi.9 What caused these destructions? Intersettlement strife is unlikely, since both were destroyed. External attack is more probable, in view of EM IIB destructions elsewhere in Crete10 and the defensibility of both sites. Or there could have been a social uprising. Or a bush fire, like one in 1994 that swept down in minutes from Malles, overwhelmed Phournou Koryphi11 and much of Pyrgos, and almost took Myrtos village.

Late Prepa lat ial: P y rgos II Life changed in the Late Prepalatial period. Phournou Koryphi lay ruined, its “goddess” unreclaimed; Pyrgos (Fig. 4.1) was reinhabited fairly speedily.12 Few Pyrgos II houses survive, but there are remains on the upper west slope, in House T at least.13 If the people who came back were from the EM II communities, it suggests a nucleation of already related groups.14 Building began of the Tomb at the west corner of the settlement, the first15 of a remarkable series of monumental grands projets at Pyrgos. This house tomb (Fig. 4.2) was entered from a forecourt (space 100) reached by a paved way (street VI), 15 m long to the court and 20 m to the Tomb doorway, on which it is aligned. This path lies on a terrace formed from leveled EM II destruction debris, with retaining walls behind set against the slope; the Tomb and its two ossuaries were built into this debris. The start of the path was reached by a staircase/stepped way (Steps 8 leading to Steps 9), which was supported by the retaining walls. It descended the west slope and must have started from the top of the hill. When considered with Phournou Koryphi, the Tomb combines intriguing concepts of the domestic and sepulchral: 1. Its chamber (room 105), an irregular rectangle ca. 5 x 3 m, has a square central pier to support an upper room. Phournou Koryphi (Fig. 4.3) offers immediate antecedents: two—or perhaps all—of its three southern 7. Warren 1972, p. 268; Alexiou 1980, p. 11. 8. Cadogan 2006, forthcoming. 9. Pyrgos: up to 0.5 ha (but Haggis [1999, p. 65] estimates the Pyrgos II and III and, probably, I settlement(s) as up to 0.32 ha); Phournou Koryphi: ca. 0.125 ha. Warren excavated all he could; some buildings may have disappeared over the eastern cliff. 10. Nowicki 2000, pp. 32–33.

11. Branigan 1999, p. 91 and n. 16. For woods at EM and later Myrtos: O. Rackham (in Warren 1972, p. 296); also Rackham and Moody 1996, pp. 119, 121 (with the 1994 date of the fire), 122. 12. Pace Betancourt (1984, p. 7, table 2-I, and pp. 8, 18–19), Pyrgos II may have had an early (EM III) phase of white-on-dark pottery without accompanying polychrome. Study continues.

13. There may also be a little evidence at the east edge of the top of the hill, around (later) House A. Study continues. 14. Noted elsewhere in EM III– MM I: Manning 1994, p. 236. Cf. Watrous et al. 2000, p. 475; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, pp. 261, 269–271. 15. But Pyrgos I may well have had a central building.

Figure 4.1. Schematic plan of Pyrgos. Plan by D. Smyth

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

42

gerald cadogan

house “clusters”16 have central piers for the roof 17 in their main rooms (Fig. 4.4), which are about the same size as Pyrgos room 105.18 2. Two of these piers at Phournou Koryphi are Π-shaped, with the opening facing west; that in room 92 was probably the same. This could indicate an extra use at ground level for these “Π-piers”—store places maybe, or for cooking, and/or perhaps to form an aperture to let in light.19 The evidence is inconclusive. In room 60 the Π-pier held a large amphora; in room 80 there was pottery on the floor around all four sides, but not in the Π-opening (Fig. 4.4). None of this, however, affected their prime architectural function as supports for timber beams—as in the Pyrgos Tomb.20 16. Whitelaw’s term (1983, 2007). 17. “There is no evidence for a second storey anywhere in the settlement” (Whitelaw 1979, p. 98). At Pyrgos, however, the change of level from the Forecourt to the Tomb chamber would make access to an upper room easy. (The goods over the Pyrgos IV burials had fallen from an upper room.) 18. Rooms 60 (South-east House), 3.60 x 3.88 m; 80 (South-central House),

5.14 x 4.85 m; 92 (South-west House), incomplete but probably around 4 x 4 m (Warren 1972, p. 86)—a double line of stones (Warren 1972, p. 82, fig. 28, pl. 28:a) is probably part of its pier: Whitelaw (2007, fig. 11) reconstructs it so. 19. Haggis 1999, p. 61. 20. Warren 1972, pp. 54–56, 110, no. P79, fig. 21 (0.80 m high) (room 60); pp. 72–75, fig. 26, pls. 24:b, 27:b (room 80); p. 279 (discussion). As Bra-

Figure 4.2. Schematic plan of the Pyrgos Tomb complex. P. Hacigüzeller

nigan (1993, pp. 106–107, fig. 6.5) notes, Π-piers also occur at Ayia Triada (Laviosa 1972–1973; probably EM IIA: Todaro 2003b, pp. 83–84, 90), while Trypiti has square piers (Vasilakis 1989, p. 54). Timber spans: in Phournou Koryphi room 80 none is over 2.6 m; at Pyrgos we estimate 1.5–3 m spans, from the middle of the pier to the Tomb walls. One key factor was the length of the available tree trunks.

7

6

Pit

5

0

15

14

12

3

25

13

5

11

10

8

9

16

10 m

26

24

22

19

97

17

23

21

20

Hearth

18

29

27

31

30

28

41

38

37

35

42

39

36

34

N

Stairway

32

40

33

43

47

46

50

49

75

51

48

45

44

84

83

67

91

90

74

Bench

68

69

82

65

66

52

Bench

92

Hearth Altar

89

81

73

72

71

70

57 58

87

88 86

80

79

77

56

55

64

59

Cupboard

76

Bench

54

53

85

78

Bench

60

Figure 4.3. Schematic plan of the settlement at Phournou Koryphi. Drawing K. T. Glowacki and E. Keil, after Warren 1972, opp. p. 11

Period I Period II

4

West Entrance

2

1

Cliff

Stairway

Cliff

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Stairway

93

63

South Entrance

62

61

gerald cadogan

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

44

Figure 4.4. Phournou Koryphi room 80 with pier. After Warren 1972, p. 72,

fig. 26; courtesy P. Warren and the British School at Athens

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

myrtos: from phournou koryphi to p yrgos

45

3. Putting the rectangular Ossuary 2 (Pyrgos room 104)21 next to the Tomb chamber may derive from similar rooms beside Phournou Koryphi’s Π-pier rooms (e.g., rooms 89 and 91 next to 92; see Fig. 4.3).22 4. The Π-pier houses date to Phournou Koryphi’s last phases,23 making it easier to perceive an architectural continuum toward the Pyrgos Tomb. 5. If the architecture of the Pyrgos Tomb has domestic origins, the approach to it is utterly different. The approach is public and monumental, ideal for processions to bring ideological sanctification down from a likely place of cosmological authority on the top of the hill. After the procession, the enactment of rituals would have taken place in the (perhaps slightly less public) gathering area of the Forecourt, followed by the opening of the door of the tomb and advancement down into the privacy of the chamber. In the Forecourt floor was a kernos,24 while a low wall against the wall at the back of the yard was probably a bench, which Jeffrey Soles interprets as an altar.25 Although no items were found on or near this feature to support or negate his proposal, a drinking set and dove rhyton were deposited beneath the Forecourt.26 6. The Tomb’s location is also important: on the edge of, but within, the settlement—with no gap at all between the living and the dead. This liminal position, occurring elsewhere in eastern Crete and the Mesara, doubtless carried meaning.27 Yes, the tombs are in the settlement, but in this location they also form a gateway to the world beyond, a continuing world of the afterlife—if our early Cretans had such concepts, as the arrangement of the skulls of the secondary burials in Ossuary 1 starkly suggests they did.28 Further, the location of the Tomb could signify an assertive claim to the valley below. It is in a prominent and highly visible spot,29 effectively 21. Because of later (Minoan) building works and pre-1970 excavations, we can say little on the construction of Ossuary 2. There may have been a doorway between rooms 104 and 105 at the corner of walls EC and ED. 22. Room 88 is beside room 80; rooms 89 and 91 are beside room 92. Cf. also Trypiti (Vasilakis 1989, 53). The oval pit of Ossuary 1 (space 106) at Pyrgos has no obvious local precedent. 23. Whitelaw 1983, p. 325, fig. 62; 2007, pp. 66–67, fig. 8.1. 24. Soles 1992, pp. 221–223. Stones with depressions in funerary contexts occur only in the Malia-Lasithi region (Whittaker 2002, p. 79). On these stones see also Hillbom 2003. 25. Soles 1992, pp. 178, 219–221. Bench shrines/altars are another example of the adoption for ritual/religious purposes of an item of originally

domestic architecture—for sitting and sleeping on, eating off of, or working, storing, or displaying on: e.g., at Phournou Koryphi room 89, see Warren 1972, pp. 81–83, figs. 28, 259. 26. Possibly a foundation deposit (Cadogan 1977–1978, pp. 71–72, fig. 4); see also Boulotis 1982, p. 158, pl. 13:2. But the Middle Minoan (MM) IA polychrome cups in the group may suggest that it was deposited after the Forecourt had been laid. The precise building date of the Tomb depends on whether a separate white-on-dark (pre-polychrome) ceramic phase can be identified: see n. 12, above. 27. Several Mesara tombs are located near their settlements, or even right on the edge of them—which must have been deliberate (Branigan 1998, p. 17, table 1, p. 18; also Murphy 1998, emphasizing tombs as territorial markers, partly from proximity, partly from

superior architecture as compared to the settlement—she cites Gournia and Mochlos; to these we may add Pyrgos). It is also probably significant that the Tomb entrance faces mostly east, albeit specifically northeast (presumably from the constraints of the terrain): cf. Branigan 1998, pp. 18, 19, tables 2, 3. 28. These skulls were set one on top of the other against the base of a small pithos; Cadogan 1977–1978, p. 74, fig. 9. The pithos and skulls date to Pyrgos II. For other early instances of skull retention, see Soles 2001, p. 233. Soles also offers an ideological rationale (2001, p. 234) for the pier in the Pyrgos Tomb, that it served as a shaft, albeit solid, from the world above of the living (making the offerings) to the buried people below. 29. Any Pyrgos II central building would have been also—as was the case in periods IV and, almost certainly, III.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

46

gerald cadogan

declaring that the ritual landscape and the domestic, farming landscape at Myrtos were indivisible.30 7. For the first use of the Tomb, the ossuaries provide the only evidence, since the chamber was reused for (intermittent) burial over at least the next 500 years. 8. The skull of a young male found in room 89 of the South-west House at Phournou Koryphi31 may form another link. If this was deliberate skull retention,32 Pyrgos’s analog is the Ossuary 1 skulls. Furthermore, the Phournou Koryphi skull and the nine extended burials at Pyrgos, admittedly Pyrgos phases III and IV, are all male.33 The time span is long; but do we see—transcending time—male elites in operation? We have then: a monumental tomb designed like a house; a monumental access traversing the settlement; and an assembly area—all set on the edge of, but inside, the settlement, and built over the ruins of the previous settlement. What do they mean? 1. The Pyrgos mortuary complex united the living and the dead. By harnessing established domestic designs to create a monumental house for the dead that demanded a huge investment of labor for an apparently unique project that was an integral part of the living settlement—no other burials are archaeologically visible at or around Pyrgos—the elites ordering this project were blatantly stating their claims to legitimacy and authority by managing/manipulating the memory of the deceased. 2. In effect, they denied—symbolically, conspicuously, and on a monumental scale—differences between the dead and themselves. By placing the dead in a house-type of the living, they used them to create a focus of the resurgent, nucleated community. Ritual was at the service of maintaining the social order. 3. But there were at least two foci. The stepped way argues for structures, probably of importance, on top. Why else should it start there? 4. One may infer specific symbolic and manipulative historical motives in setting the complex on and in the EM II ruins, and the possible political scenarios include claims to land. Analogous (and roughly contemporary) events occurred at Lerna, where the Early Helladic (EH) III tumulus was set over and into the ruins of the House of the Tiles (the EH II central building) only to be disregarded soon (within Lerna IV) after being built.34 Pyrgos looks a similar story. After its monumental start, the Tomb may have had a period of disuse (Pyrgos IIc–IId) when the paved way went out of use and was covered by a series of gravel open areas with cooking places. (These appear simply domestic, but it is not impossible that they were connected still with rites at the Tomb.) 5. The complex marks a major move forward from the discard-andbuild accretionary spread35 that characterizes Phournou Koryphi (although one should note some evidence of planning in the later phases: e.g., in the defensive aspects of the south front and main way into the settlement). Pyrgos II was planned monumentally, with a ceremonial route between the center for the elite dead and the top of the hill, where there was probably a central elite building for the living (as there may have been in EM II) and/or a privileged gathering place for processions to the Tomb—perhaps

30. Cf. Bradley 1998, p. 150. Herva’s comments (2005) on Minoan building deposits as signs not just of negotiating power relationships but also of practical engagement with the environment suit our suggestions about the role of the Tomb. 31. Warren 1972, pp. 82–83, 342, fig. 28 (appendix by E. Sutherland and R. A. Cartwright). Room 89 is next to room 92, which Warren (pp. 85–87) believes was a shrine; Whitelaw (1983, p. 342, n. 10; 2007) doubts this. 32. As Soles (1992, p. 256, accepting Warren’s shrine interpretation) postulates. 33. J. Musgrave in Cadogan 1977– 1978, p. 73; Cadogan, forthcoming. For the Tomb in LM I, see Hankey 1986. 34. Caskey 1956; 1960, pp. 293– 294; 1966; Cadogan 1986, p. 161; 2006, p. 163. 35. Whitelaw 1983, 2007.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

myrtos: from phournou koryphi to p yrgos

47

an early version of the Pyrgos III courtyard, or perhaps already that very courtyard. 6. This leads to the most distinctive and longest lasting of the cultural and social differences between East Crete and the rest of the island in Preand Protopalatial times.36 Pyrgos, if probably not the first house tomb,37 was among the pioneers in adapting local vernacular domestic space for the uses of the dead and their survivors, and locating it within, but on the edge of, the daily life of the settlement. These intramural houses for the dead are something truly special about early East Crete.38 It reveals how strong, in practical and ideological terms, the local domestic architectural tradition was, in that these early East Cretans converted it monumentally (while generally rejecting the tholos alternative), so as to house the dead within the community.39 7. As for the cups from below the Forecourt, which are in both the East Crete EM III style and the MM IA polychrome style of Central Crete, might there just be a sign here of links between elites of the two areas, perhaps united in marriage and creating this conspicuous monument? If so, it remains of determinedly East Cretan type.40

P roto palat i a l : P y rg os III By Pyrgos III, the Tomb was back in service. But now it was only one, albeit the most venerable, of a remarkable group of monuments at Pyrgos (Fig. 4.1) that had probably become a fortified village similar to an Italian borgo.41 On the north side, a tower-bastion (Tower 1), as depicted at Akrotiri on Thera, and a formidable terrace wall (wall DW), which could have been both defensive and a substructure for dwellings (as much later at Lato), guarded a large plastered cistern (Cistern 2) that collected the water that gushed down the hill during storms. On top, another plastered cistern42 (Cistern 1) is probably a remnant of a vanished central building, and it confirms that the courtyard of the Pyrgos IV Country House already existed in Pyrgos III.43 36. Poursat 1987, 1988; Cadogan 1995; Knappett 1999, 2000. 37. List: Soles 1992, p. 201. Even if wall ED in the Pyrgos Tomb is EM II, it is hard to postulate mortuary use at that time. 38. Most “outliers” of this mortuary type, including Archanes-Phourni, Gournes, Koumasa tomb Γ (Soles 1992, pp. 156–158, fig. 65), and MaliaChrysolakkos (but not Ayia Triada [Soles 1992, pp. 116–127]) are sited— like other cemeteries on the island— well away from their settlements; see Soles 1992; Branigan 1998. 39. The considerable interaction of the Myrtos and Mirabello regions as

shown in pottery (Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1997; Whitelaw et al. 1997; Kiriatzi, Day, and Wilson 2000) makes a sensible backdrop for the shared mortuary customs of the two areas. 40. Contra suggestions of Central Cretan involvement in creating the Tomb, this may be a further argument for placing its construction early, in EM III. 41. “A fortified citadel”: Nowicki 1999b, p. 194. Phournou Koryphi had probably had a similar look (cf. Warren 1972, p. 268). The borgo aspect of Pyrgos could have existed before Pyrgos III, but no evidence survives to confirm this or deny it.

42. Or was it a kouloura for grain? But for the Phaistos kouloures as cisterns, see Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, p. 288. Nowicki (1996, pp. 32, 38, fig. 2) raises the possibility of disputes over Myrtos River water between Pyrgos and MythoiEllinika, a fortified MM site up the valley. 43. One or two walls probably belong to this building: see Cadogan 1997, p. 101, fig. 2 for an indication. Its phasing, and that of the early phase(s) of the Pyrgos IV Country House, are still under study; see also Driessen and Macdonald 1997, p. 218.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

48

gerald cadogan

Stronger evidence of the presumed central building is the vast amount of pottery (including drinking sets, pithoi, ritual vases, and storage jars with seal impressions or incised signs made before firing), together with seals, stone vases, a crucible and mold, and animal figurines, that were found to have fallen down the west and north slopes. Whether they fell in the MM IIB fire destruction or, more likely, were shoveled out either as rubbish or intentional discards (perhaps to inaugurate the Pyrgos IV resettlement), they all had to come from somewhere of importance up on top. And since the finds encompass storage, administration, drinking and feasting, ritual, and metalworking and other craft products and production (in a mix analogous to that of Malia Quartier Mu), one may well imagine that this hypothetical building had ritual functions and was the key element in the architectural expression of a social structure that enabled the then elite of Pyrgos to order such a remarkable parade of grands projets. The difficulty is to identify any components that seem truly domestic, as opposed to defining the military, mortuary, hydraulic, and probable ritual zones of the settlement. The best candidates are at the northeast corner of the site (if they are not defensive works also) and, perhaps, at the southeast of the top of the hill.44 The lack of hard evidence for Pyrgos III domestic space may result from later building works and erosion. Or it may reveal a deeper issue. At this time or earlier, how much can we or should we, separate at all the concepts of Public, Monumental, Ritual, and Sacred from Private, Domestic, and Secular? Here is a site that one would expect to be a run-of-the-mill village settlement, and yet that is far from the case. Its small, steep-sided area is crammed with the Public and Monumental, starting in Pyrgos II (or before) and blossoming in Pyrgos III and IV. We face then questions of terminology, reality, and perception: terminology today; reality then; and perception today and then. All three are linked; and we are quite likely to be astray if we attempt to divide in modern fashion the Public/Monumental from the Private/Domestic. The Middle Bronze Age reality has to be either (1) there were “ordinary” houses45 that generally happen not to have survived; or (2), even in the architecture of this Cretan hill village, we are looking for a mirage if we try to make distinctions between Public and Private. In a fundamental way that we can only guess at, the buildingscape of Pyrgos in periods II and III may have subsumed such “differences” into one greater whole that encompassed both Public Community and Private Domesticity through Ritual. The elite of Pyrgos could have easily thought along these lines: it managed, after all, to control plenty of labor for a very long period of time in order to create mighty monuments in a village that bristled with the display of Power, Authority, and Ritual. And, as we have seen, it called on ancestral memories, continuing into Pyrgos IV, when the Country House was built over the remains of the Pyrgos III central building. In this mode, the Tomb returned to use in Pyrgos III, and again in Pyrgos IV. 44. If the structures there are not MM III—a period hard to detect at Pyrgos, as at Pseira (Pseira VI, pp. 21, 125).

45. Probably like those of Pyrgos II on the upper west slope.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

myrtos: from phournou koryphi to p yrgos

49

For centuries, then, the living interpreted and reinterpreted this transposition of a Domestic House into a Ritual House. It is an extraordinary continuity, one that shows how much and how long the place and this type of building mattered. Of course there were changes in practice: we can detect them archaeologically. They reflect the ancients’ changes of perception, but they do not lessen—the opposite, rather—the recurring iconic, ritual, public importance of this symbol, born from an ordinary house, of the elites of Pyrgos and their management of the settlement and the valley over centuries.46 The story the two Myrtos prehistoric settlements hold of the transition from house to house tomb, which is the kernel of this paper, reveals new insights into the ideologies and manipulative capacities of one ranked society in early East Crete in the last centuries before the appearance of the so-called palaces,47 continuing, with the Pyrgos III monuments, into the time of the first palaces. They did this so well that we scarcely know where their ordinary people lived—unlike Phournou Koryphi. But we must not believe that Old Palace period Pyrgos was simply a ritual/administrative center, whose users lived elsewhere. If that were the case, there would have been no reason for constructing the cisterns, and little for the defense works. Above all, Pyrgos tells of the extraordinary durability and significance of this tomb type that began as a house—and is for us, as it was for the ancients, emblematic of early East Crete. 46. Cf. Bradley 1998, p. 164: “Between the houses of the living and the houses of the dead there was a mixing of identities that contributed as much as anything to the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe.”

47. And thus perhaps presaging, to a small extent, the processes that produced the Old Palaces—or, according to the importance one gives to the likely proto-palaces of EM III or earlier, reflecting what was already under way in larger centers.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 5

Ind i v i d ual , Hou s e hol d , an d C om mu n i t y af t e r D e at h i n Prepal at ial and Protopal at ial Sou t h - C e n t ral C r e t e by Joanne M. Murphy This paper balances the study of households explored in this volume by carrying the concept of the household as a social unit from life into death. The focus is on the organization of society in South-Central Crete during the Prepalatial and Protopalatial periods (Fig. 5.1), especially the emphasis given to social units of different scales. The excavated Prepalatial and Protopalatial settlements on Crete were clearly divided into individual houses, suggesting that the household was an important element in the social hierarchy. Recognizable commemoration of household membership, however, was missing from the social organization displayed in the related and contemporary tombs. The tombs do not replicate the subdivision of the settlements; instead, the individual identity of the deceased was encoded in the initial funerary rituals, and subsequent treatment of the remains stressed the affiliation with the community. Membership in a household or family, therefore, seems to have been more important in life than in death.

S e t t lem en ts an d H ou s eh olds All excavated settlements of the Pre- and Protopalatial periods in SouthCentral Crete were clearly subdivided into individual household units whose small size suggests that they could only accommodate small numbers of people.1 Ethnographic studies show that such small groupings would most likely be nuclear families, with one family inhabiting each house.2 The repeated occurrence of these recognizable houses within the plans of settlements such as Kalathiana and Trypiti implies that the nuclear family was an operative and recognizable social unit at these sites.3 This conclusion is further supported by the archaeological survey results from Ayia Kyriaki, which provided evidence for nuclear families living in individual farmsteads or hamlets.4 1. Whitelaw 1983, pp. 332–333. I am indebted to Carol Hershenson for our many discussions of this paper, and to John Wallrodt and Tina Ross for their assistance with the images.

2. Forge 1972. 3. Xanthoudides 1924, pp. 49, 84; Vasilakis 1988, 1989–1990b. 4. Blackman and Branigan 1977, 1982.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Lebena II IIa 32 Lebena 32 Lebena IIa 21

20

18 19

536 3712

37

39 40 47 47 4748 48 36 37 10 10 5 48 12 20 13 39 10 40 39 40 17 39 4036 37 36

1 1 47 21 2 41 41 2 48 18 18 19 19 41 10

41

5 12 13 20 13 5 12 17 20 13 17 17

2121

21

1

18 19

2

31

8

45 46 27

52

3 4

51 52 51 52 52 51

51

29 30 29 30 33

50

49

14 15 24 25 43 42 4344 427 44 26 3 3 42 43446 38 22 4 4 9 89 238 45 46 11 45 463 14 14 27 4 2845 46 27 15 8 9 14 15 242725 31732 50 24 25 49 15 26 29 730 2233 24 25 26 67 38 38 6 23 22 11 26 23 11 28 6 38 22 23 28 31 32 50 1149 32 33 28 31 50 29 49 33 32 30

9

16

16

42 4344

16

35 34 35 35 3435 34 16 34

N N

5 510 55

00

10

15

Figure 5.1. Map of South-Central Crete showing the locations of major sites mentioned in the text. Plan by J. M. Murphy and J. Wallrodt

51 Vorou A B 52 Vorou 52 Vorou B

1 Ayia Triada A 2 Ayia Triada B 3 Ayia Eirini E 1 Ayia A e 4 Triada Ayia Eirini Ayia Triada A Kyriaki 2 1Ayia BA A Ayia Triada 5 Triada Ayia Ayia Triada B EKyrillos 3 2Ayia Ayia Triada B 6 Eirini Ayios Settlement Ayia Eirini E eKyrillos Ayia Eirini E 4 3Ayia 7 Eirini Ayios Tomb Ayia Eirini e A Ayia Eirini e 5 4Ayia A 8 Kyriaki Apesokari Ayia Kyriaki AB Ayia Kyriaki A Settlement 9 Apesokari 6 5Ayios Kyrillos Ayios Kyrillos Settlement Ayios Kyrillos Settlement 10 Archaiokorapho 7 6Ayios Kyrillos Tomb Ayios Kyrillos 11 Christos Ayios Kyrillos Tomb 8 7Apesokari A XTomb Apesokari 12 Chrysostomos A Apesokari A BA 9 8Apesokari Apesokari B 13 Chrysostomos B 33 Lebena III Apesokari B 10 9Archaiokorapho Archaiokorapho 14 Drakones D 34 Marothokephalon A Archaiokorapho 11 10 Christos X 11 Christos X 15 X Drakones Z 35 Marothokephalon B Christos 12 12 Chrysostomos A Chrysostomos A 16 Kalathiana K 36 Megaloi Skinoi A Chrysostomos A 13 13 Chrysostomos B 33 Lebena III Chrysostomos B A 33 Lebena III Skinoi B 17 Kaloi Limenes 37 Megaloi Chrysostomos B 33 Lebena III 14 14 Drakones D 34 Marothokephalon A Drakones D 34 Marothokephalon A 18 Kamilari 38 Miamou Cave Drakones D ZZ A 34 Marothokephalon A B 15 15 Drakones 35 B Drakones 35Marothokephalon Marothokephalon 19 Kamilari B 39 Moni Odiyitria A Drakones Z K KA 35 Marothokephalon BA 16 16 Kalathiana 36 A B Kalathiana 36Megaloi Megaloi Skinoi 20 Kephali 40 MoniSkinoi Odiyitria Kalathiana K 36 Megaloi Skinoi APalace 17 17 Kaloi AA 37 Skinoi B Kaloi Limenes 37Megaloi Megaloi Skinoi B 21 Limenes Kommos 41 Phaistos Kaloi Limenes 37 Megaloi Skinoi BA 18 18 Kamilari A AA A 38 Cave Kamilari 38Miamou Miamou Cave 22 Korakies 42 Platanos Kamilari A 38 Miamou Cave 19 19 Kamilari BB B Kamilari 39 Odiyitria 39Moni Moni OdiyitriaBA 23 Korakies 43 Platanos Kamilari 39 Moni Odiyitria A CB Kephali 20 20 Kephali AA 40Moni Moni Odiyitria 40 Odiyitria 24 BKoumasa A 44 Platanos Kephali Kommos 40 Moni Odiyitria B 41Phaistos Phaistos 21 21 Kommos 25AKoumasa B 41 45 Porti Palace Korakies Kommos 42Platanos Platanos 41 Phaistos Palace 26 Koumasa 22 22 Korakies AA E 46 Salame 42 A Korakies 43Platanos Platanos BN Korakies A BB 27 Koutoskera 42 Platanos A B 47 Sivas 23 23 Korakies 43 Koumasa 44Platanos Platanos C 28 Krotos Korakies B AA 48 Sivas S 43 Platanos B C 24 24 Koumasa 44 Koumasa 45Porti Porti 29 Lebena 49 Trypiti Koumasa A B BI 44 Platanos C B 25 25 Koumasa 45 Koumasa 46Salame Salame 30 Lebena 50 Trypiti Settlement Koumasa B E E Ib 45 Porti 26 26 Koumasa 46 Koutoskera 47Sivas Sivas N A 31 Lebena II 51 Vorou Koumasa E 46 Salame 27 27 Koutoskera 47 N 28 Krotos 48 Sivas S B 32 Lebena IIa 52NVorou Koutoskera 47 Sivas 28 29 Krotos 48 Sivas S Lebena I 49 Trypiti B Krotos 48 Sivas S 29 30 Lebena I 49 Trypiti Lebena Ib 50 Trypiti B Settlement Lebena I 49 Trypiti B 30 31 Lebena Ib 50 Trypiti Settlement Lebena II 51 Vorou A Lebena Ib 50 Trypiti Settlement 31 32 Lebena II 51 Vorou A Lebena IIa 52 Vorou B

5

0

20 miles

15 10 20 2515 30 kilometers 20 miles 10 15 miles 10 15 20 20 miles 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 kilometers 10 15 15 2020 2525 3030kilometers kilometers 00 55 10

N 00

N

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

i n d i v i d ua l , h o u s e h o l d , a n d c o m m u n i t y a f t e r d e at h 53

Th e S o c i al U n i ts of th e Tom bs

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

In contrast, the mortuary evidence from South-Central Crete during the same periods demonstrates that while individual identity was commemorated ephemerally after death, nuclear family membership was not recognizably acknowledged. Instead, community cohesion was given the most lasting memorial. These generalizations are based on the conclusion that the social unit buried in each tholos tomb was larger than a single nuclear family, which is in turn evidenced by the small number of tombs per community, the use of those tombs for all known burials, and the postfunerary treatment of the bodies and objects. Two classes of evidence demonstrate that the tombs were used by some kinship group larger than the nuclear family: (1) the quantities of skeletal remains in the tombs, and (2) the number of tombs per settlement. The evidence of the post-decompositional treatment of the skeletal material and of the objects found in the tombs further supports the conclusion that individual identity may initially have been recognized but was subsequently erased. The result of this is that membership in a larger kinship group was left as the recognizable social identity. At no point in the funerary or postdecompositional treatment of the dead is there evidence that the nuclear family was commemorated. The large quantities of skeletal evidence reported from the tombs suggest that they were used for the burial of kinship groups larger than a single nuclear family. The number of dead in the tombs varies, with many hundreds reported from most sites excavated early in the 20th century:5 Ayia Triada (250 individuals),6 Kamilari A (400–500 individuals),7 Koumasa B (hundreds of individuals),8 Lebena (ca. 600 individuals),9 Marathokephalon B (hundreds of individuals),10 Porti (hundreds of individuals),11 and Vorou A (55–65 individuals).12 In his general discussion, Xanthoudides stated that some of the sites had thousands of burials.13 The excavators of the tholos at Ayia Kyriaki (Fig. 5.2), for which more detailed information is available, concluded that this tomb was used by three nuclear families.14 Based on the period of the tomb’s usage (Early Minoan [EM] I–Middle Minoan [MM] I, with a low level of usage in MM II, spanning 700–800 years), the estimated number of burials (320–370, based on a suggested burial assemblage of two to four cups and either a bowl or jar per person), and Bintliff ’s generalization that a nuclear family of five to six people would bury five people within a generation of 25 years, Blackman and Branigan calculated that a nuclear family would have buried approximately 150 individuals over a span of 700–800 years.15 The discrepancy between the calculated number of burials for a nuclear family (ca. 150) and the estimated number of burials at Ayia Kyriaki 5. Marinatos 1930–1931. 6. Halbherr 1905, p. 249. 7. Branigan 1970b, p. 129. 8. Xanthoudides 1924, p. 7. 9. Daux 1960, p. 821. 10. Xanthoudides 1918, p. 17.

11. Xanthoudides 1924, p. 56. 12. Marinatos 1930–1931, pp. 145– 147, 152, 167. 13. Xanthoudides 1924, p. 134; he does not, however, give any specific examples.

14. Blackman and Branigan 1982, site W6. 15. Bintliff 1977, p. 83–84; Blackman and Branigan 1982, pp. 1, 51, 55.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

54

joanne m. murphy

Figure 5.2. Ground plan of tholos tomb at Ayia Kyriaki. Blackman and Branigan 1982, p. 45, fig. 15; courtesy Trustees of the British School at Athens

(ca. 320–370) clearly demonstrates that more than one nuclear family was using this tomb. Blackman and Branigan suggest the tholos was used by the three settlements—probable farmsteads—located near the tomb (sites E5, E20, and W7).16 Both the high body counts from most of the excavated tombs and the study of Ayia Kyriaki show that the majority of the tombs (with the possible exception of Vorou, which had a relatively low body count) were the burial areas of several nuclear families.17 The number of tombs in proportion to the numbers of houses in nearby settlements and the skeletal remains support the theory that the tombs housed the remains of a social group larger than a nuclear family. 16. Blackman and Branigan 1982, pp. 55–57; see Forge 1972, and Blackman and Branigan 1977, pp. 83–84 for ethnographic parallels suggesting that the three nuclear families inhabiting these farmsteads were likely to have

been related by blood and therefore constitute a kinship group. 17. Contra Whitelaw, who uses a longer chronology and proposes that the tombs were used by single nuclear family groups, as opposed to an ex-

tended group (Whitelaw 1983, pp. 334, 343, n. 16, following Renfrew 1972, p. 388); see also the criticisms of Whitelaw’s calculations by Branigan (Branigan 1993, pp. 84–89).

i n d i v i d ua l , h o u s e h o l d , a n d c o m m u n i t y a f t e r d e at h 55

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

No cemetery in the Mesara has produced more than three tholoi: Xanthoudides explored 10 houses at Kalathiana, but he found only two tombs; at Koumasa he reported finding a large settlement with an unspecified number of houses and three tombs; at Trypiti, in preliminary reports, Vasilakis stated that seven or eight independent houses can be identified, but only two tombs were found near that settlement.18 If, as argued above, the houses were occupied by nuclear families, then the tombs must have accommodated some larger social unit—there simply are not enough tombs for each nuclear family to have had its own.

T reat m en t of th e De ad The treatment afforded to the dead in the tomb suggests that the individuality of the dead person was recognized only for a short period; longterm emphasis was on the community group as a whole. The lack of fully articulated skeletons, the large piles of bones found in different sections of the tomb complexes, the traces of burning in the tholoi, and the laying of sand over the lower levels of burials all show that the tombs underwent periodic cleanings, during which the remains of old burials were apparently disarticulated, yet consciously preserved. Despite the large quantities of skeletal remains in the tombs few articulated skeletons have been found. Sites where complete skeletons have been recovered include Ayia Triada, Lebena, and Vorou.19 Large piles of bones were more commonly found, either around the edges of the tholos chamber (e.g., at Lebena, Koumasa, Porti, Platanos,20 Marathokephalon B, Kamilari A, and Vorou21), removed to annex rooms (e.g., at Ayios Kyrillos, Apesokari B, Ayia Kyriaki, and Ayia Triada A22), or in trenches near the tombs (e.g., Platanos and Porti,23 where some artifactual material was also found). The majority of the bones found in the tombs were skulls and long bones, but some bones from other parts of the bodies were found outside these intentionally created heaps. This preference for retaining the skulls and long bones was the result of Minoan practices rather than the vagaries of archaeological investigation or the problems of physical preservation, because such differential selection of particular bones indicates deliberate preservation of select skeletal material.24 Scorching on the walls and floors of the main circular chambers of tombs at Kamilari A, Koumasa B, Lebena, Porti, and Platanos provide 18. Xanthoudides 1924, pp. 49, 84; Vasilakis 1988; 1989–1990b. 19. Ayia Triada: Banti 1930–1931; Lebena: Daux 1959, p. 742; Vorou: Marinatos 1930–1931, pp. 150–151; Hood 1959, p. 16, fig. 8. Xanthoudides (1924, p. 134) refers to interment position in his general discussion of the Mesara tombs, implying that some articulated skeletons were found, but he does not cite specific examples or locations.

20. Xanthoudides 1924; Alexiou 1960. 21. Xanthoudides 1918, p. 17; Marinatos 1930–1931, pp. 145–146; Levi 1961–1962b, pp. 23–31, figs. 24–27; Branigan 1987, p. 47. 22. Banti 1930–1931, pp. 250–251; Davaras 1964, p. 441; Sakellarakis 1968, pp. 50–53; Blackman and Branigan 1982, p. 53. 23. Xanthoudides 1924, pp. 56, 93. 24. I disagree with Branigan’s pro-

posal that the Minoans collected only a selection of the bones and intentionally grouped certain individuals together (Branigan 1987, pp. 47–48). He bases his argument primarily on the presence of a number of bones from different people mixed together in a pot at Vorou, but these may merely have been older bones that needed to be cleared out of the way to make room for new burials, rather than a conscious selection of the bones.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

56

joanne m. murphy

evidence that large contained fires had been set; the evidence for burning is particularly visible on the walls of the Kamilari tombs.25 Two of the three tombs at Platanos (A and C) had additional blackened fire marks on the floor—especially in the center—where the fire was so intense that some parts of the clay floor had baked into terracotta.26 Charred bones found in the tombs provide additional proof of fires in several of the tombs at Megaloi Skinoi A, Megaloi Skinoi B, Platanos, and Porti;27 analysis of these bones revealed that they had become blackened by contact with smoke, and not from the burning of the bodies at burial.28 The extent of the blackening suggests a localized, sustained process rather than fumigation or a funeral feast, since neither of the latter events would have required such large fires.29 At some tombs there is evidence of a more thorough cleaning, and in others there is evidence of mutilation of the bones. In Lebena IIa and at Platanos, the lower level of the circular tomb chamber was completely cleared out, while in Koumasa E the burial deposit was shoved to one side before a layer of sand or other white substance was deposited over the burial stratum; this may have been done in preparation for new burials.30 Evidence of cut marks on the smaller bones from Ayia Kyriaki and Kaminospelio shows that further manipulation of the bones sometimes occurred, and at Kaminospelio some of the bones had been ground up.31 Blackman and Branigan even reported a sandstone quern from Kaminospelio with bones “cemented” to it.32 The processes discussed above—disarticulating the skeletons with selective retention of some types of bones, burning, and in some cases resurfacing the floors of the circular tholoi, and post-decompositional manipulation of the bones—would all have contributed to make identification of an individual through specific bones impossible.33 Nevertheless, the consistent and widespread retention of bones in these tombs—whether in the tholos, annex rooms, or in trenches around the tombs—indicates that the bones and their retention were important to the related community. This eradication of individual identity, combined with retention of the bones, suggests that the dead were enfolded into a corporate group such as the collective ancestors of the related settlement.

T reat ment of t h e O bj ec ts The treatment of the objects that were found in the tomb complexes also supports the conclusion that the funerary rituals underscored first the individual identity of the dead person and subsequently membership in the community. Furthermore, of these three scales of social affiliation— 25. Xanthoudides 1924, p. 135; Alexiou 1958, p. 470; Levi 1961– 1962b. 26. Xanthoudides 1924, pp. 89, 92. 27. Xanthoudides 1924, p. 135; Alexiou 1967, pp. 482–483. 28. Xanthoudides 1924, p. 135. 29. Branigan 1987, p. 45.

30. Xanthoudides 1924; Alexiou 1959, p. 371. 31. Blackman and Branigan 1973, 1982. 32. Blackman and Brangian 1973, p. 202, fig. 2. 33. For parallels, see Bloch 1971; Blacker 1975.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

i n d i v i d ua l , h o u s e h o l d , a n d c o m m u n i t y a f t e r d e at h 57

individual, family, and community—it was the community that was the most important in death for the long term, as the handling of the objects also demonstrates. Anthropological studies of funerary rituals show that the rituals can be broken down into three distinct phases: rites of separation, rites of transition, and rites of incorporation.34 During the initial funerary rituals, the rites of separation, the nuclear family of the dead, and the membership of the dead in that family are highlighted. Attention is drawn to the individual and, by extension, to the family. These rites help reinforce and construct the identity of the family within the community.35 The identity of the deceased as an individual and member of a nuclear family or household is slowly de-emphasized during the rites of transition as the individual enters the realm of the ancestors and, therefore, the realm of the larger community, culminating in the rights of incorporation. The relative wealth of the objects placed in the tombs indicates that these grave goods functioned as an initial statement of the individual’s status within society, regardless of whether the individual actually had held that position in life.36 Many of the objects that were placed in the tombs were of a very high level of workmanship, and they were often made of metals (copper, bronze, gold) that were rare on Crete during this time.37 Based on anthropological case studies, it is improbable that these objects were included in the burial assemblage solely as a means of identifying the deceased or, indeed, to keep them company in an afterlife or to meet their needs in such an afterlife.38 This phase of the funerary ritual, corresponding to the rites of separation, recognized the identity of the individual, his or her claimed place in society, and possibly his or her membership in a household. The periodic cleanings of the tombs and the post-decompositional manipulation of the remains, however, separated the objects from the skeleton with which they had been deposited, just as the bones of the skeletons were separated from each other. This had the effect of negating status as well as individual identity in favor of a corporate identity among the dead or the ancestors. Although the dead person was placed in the tomb with objects that marked his or her individual identity, there is no surviving evidence that the corpse was placed with a nuclear family group. Ultimately, after the physical identifying features of the deceased had been eroded by decomposition, the periodic cleanings of the tombs separated the skeleton from the objects initially deposited with it. Thus, the rites of incorporation were complete: all markers of personal identity and status were eradicated, and the individual was assimilated into a corporate realm of the dead/ancestors. 34. Van Gennep 1960, p. 11; Barrett 1988, p. 31. 35. Hodder 1989. 36. Huntington and Metcalf 1979; Pader 1982; O’Shea 1984. 37. Binford’s (1972) analysis of status symbols shows that it is often more important to place objects with the body of the deceased to make a statement about his/her wealth than to

stress any other aspect of that individual’s social persona. Branigan has argued that these objects are personal possessions important to the identity of the deceased (Branigan 1970b, pp. 66, 112). 38. It is not a universal fact that objects placed in a tomb indicate a belief in an afterlife, as Ucko (1969) has shown.

58

joanne m. murphy

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Co n clusions The evidence from the tombs demonstrates a muting of social differences between nuclear families in South-Central Crete during the Prepalatial and Protopalatial periods. The existence of recognizable houses in the settlements indicates that the household was one of the operative units of social organization; however, the large numbers of interments per tomb and the small numbers of tombs per settlement indicate that some social unit larger than the nuclear family was the unit of burial emphasized in the afterlife. While the dead were entombed with objects that would have indicated their social identity, none of the observable evidence in the tombs underlined their membership in a nuclear family or individual household. Nevertheless, the initial funerary rituals that were conducted to adjust the society to the death may have highlighted this membership. Nuclear family or household affiliation was not permanently encoded in either the architectural structures of death or in the final deposition of mortal remains; the identity of the individual as a member of the community at large was the lasting emphasis in death.

c hap ter 6

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

“ Th e Whol e i s a Fr e ak ” : A R e as s e s s m e n t of t h e S pat ial Or g an i z at i on of t h e O val H o u s e at C h am ai zi , S i t e i a by Valeria Lenuzza The site of Chamaizi lies in the hinterland between the Gulf of Mirabello and the Bay of Siteia, on top of a steep, flat-topped hill known as Souvloto Mouri (pointed hill), with a commanding view over the bay to the east and the Piskokephalo Valley to the west.1 Since the first archaeological investigations at the beginning of the 20th century, the site has attracted the attention of scholars on account of the discovery there of an unusual oval building consisting of multiple rooms arranged around an inner court with a cistern.2 Whereas most previous studies have dealt mainly with the shape of the building, the purpose of this paper is to collect all the available data from the notebooks and the published excavation reports in order to examine the significance and meaning of its spatial organization.

H is tory of t h e Res e arch The first excavations on the site, carried out by S. Xanthoudides in 1903 in just two weeks, brought to light the complete outline of the building, but did not reach virgin soil.3 As a result, many important elements, such as the existence of the northwest entrance and details of the floor level of the rooms, are lacking in the first published plan, which was based on a single sketch made during the excavation (Fig. 6.1). During the cleaning and consolidation of the walls in the 1970s, C. Davaras called attention to the doorway on the northwest side, the steps and the thresholds of the passages to the rooms, the pavement covering 1. I wish to thank Ilaria Caloi and Santo Privitera for encouragement, Mario Benzi, Giampaolo Graziadio, and Simona Todaro for their comments on the text, and Ilaria Simiakaki for invaluable help. I am grateful to Gerald Cadogan for crucial suggestions during the ΣΤΕΓΑ colloquium. I also thank very much Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan and Kevin Glowacki for the time and

care they dedicated to my paper and illustrations, and the anonymous reviewers for their stimulating remarks. Finally, my gratitude goes to Georgia Katsalaki, who provided me with the opportunity to consult Xanthoudides’ notebooks, which are now archived in the Historical Museum in Iraklion. 2. Since the circular structure that occupies the central part of the build-

ing at Chamaizi does not depend on a natural source of water, absent on the hilltop, but more probably collected rain from an inward-sloping roof, I propose to adopt the term “cistern” instead of the traditional designation as a “well.” 3. Xanthoudides 1903; 1906, esp. fig. 1.

60

va l e r i a l e n u z z a

3 2

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

14

13

14a

1

4

4a

11

12a

12

5

10

9

15

6

8

7

10a

Arc

hite

0

5

most of the inner court, and the overflow drain, which was covered by slabs and runs from the cistern toward the main entrance (Fig. 6.2).4 These new discoveries seriously challenged N. Platon’s interpretation of the building as a peak sanctuary, which he based on its location on top of the hill, the presence of some cult-related objects (clay figurines, a rhyton, and a clay offering table), and a cistern that was considered to be a sacred bothros.5 The domestic character of most of the artifacts, however, instead gives support to Xanthoudides’ initial interpretation of the building as a house. A large quantity of pithos fragments, loomweights, whetstones, querns, and pestles (still largely unpublished) clearly identify the oval structure as a residential complex with areas for domestic activities such as storage, weaving, and food processing.6 Unfortunately, the final report from Xanthoudides’ early excavation only rarely indicates the exact findspot of the objects and the publication of the material from the new investigation is still pending. 4. Davaras 1972a, 1972c, 1973b. The new investigations verified the plan of the building at the southwest side, where it forms an angle instead of the arc of an ellipsis. This new element seems to support the idea of Mackenzie, that the house at Chamaizi “is a freak: . . . simply an elongated rectangular house of well-known Minoan type, compressed within an ellipse to follow the conformation of the hill” and does

not pertain to a peculiar architectural tradition (Mackenzie 1907–1908, p. 414, figs. 20–21). A similar opinion has been more recently expressed by Sariyannis (1978, pp. 73–74), who, however, stressed the importance of the placement of the earlier structures lying beneath the building in defining its shape: it was erected upon them to join earlier rooms and structures in a unique complex. See also Davaras 1992a for a

ctur

I II I or II III IV V

al P

has

es

10 m Figure 6.1. Plan of the house at eters Chamaizi. After Xanthoudides 1906, fig. 1

brief summary, plan, and aerial photographs of the site. 5. Platon 1951, pp. 159–160. This interpretation quickly gained support: see, e.g., Hutchinson 1962, p. 169; Alexiou 1964, p. 24; Branigan 1970a, pp. 105–106. 6. Davaras 1973b, p. 50. Their discovery is already mentioned in Xanthoudides’ notebook (Xanthoudides 1903: 12 June).

t h e o va l h o u s e at c h a m a i z i , s i t e i a

3

61

2 1

4

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

4a 11 14

12a

14a

5

16

6

12

13 9

10

15

Figure 6.2. Plan of the house at Chamaizi showing architectural phases of development. Drawing

E. Keil, after Davaras 1972a, p. 287, fig. 8

7. Xanthoudides 1903. 8. Xanthoudides 1906, pp. 150–151, pl. 11; Warren 1969, pp. 7–11, 17–21, 49–52, 78–79, 117–118. 9. E.g., Palio 2004, pp. 20–21.

8

7

Architectural Phases I II I or II III IV V

10a

0

5

10 m

Dis tribu t ion of t h e F i n ds an d th e Int eri or O rgan i z at i on of th e Bu ild i n g On the basis of the sparse information drawn from the published reports, together with auxiliary data from Xanthoudides’ excavation notebooks,7 it is possible to investigate the relationship between the architecture and the finds in more detail. The purpose of such an analysis is, first of all, to define the nature of the residents of the building and, secondly, to connect these people and their activities with the architecture in order to propose a new interpretation of the spatial and functional organization of the building. Many objects have been found on the site, such as stone and clay vases and lamps, bronze tools, domestic equipment, figurines, and cult paraphernalia (Fig. 6.3). Some of them (e.g., the stone vases, the loomweights, and the “Chamaizi pots”) show peculiar features that highlight the high rank of the inhabitants. Stone vases have been found in large quantities,8 with a wide distribution in the building, especially in the eastern part (Fig. 6.4). Their association with wealthy or elite contexts is quite common and frequent enough not to require further discussion here.9

62

va l e r i a l e n u z z a

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

11

4

4a 4a

11

figurines bronze tools figurines bronze tools

4

clay pipes clay pipes

16 12a 16

14 14

5

5

12a

6

13 13

10 10 15 15

9

9

8

8

7

6

7 Stone Vases Loomweights Stone Vases Lamps Loomweights

10a 10a

Chamaizi Pots Lamps Offering Tables Chamaizi Pots Pithoi Storerooms Offering Tables Pithoi - Storerooms 0 0

Large numbers of loomweights were reported by both Xanthoudides and Davaras, but only one possible example has been published to date.10 It is cubic in shape, and its upper surface is incised in the middle with a thick line and impressed with two intertwined loops. Its form closely resembles the cubic objects from Palaikastro, defined as loomweights of the “block” type by Eccles, at least 15 of which bear seal impressions.11 Many similar terracotta cubes, with seal impressions or incised linear signs, have been found at other East Cretan sites, always in domestic or possibly production areas.12 Although current scholarly consensus identifies them as loomweights or net weights, J. Weingarten has recently proposed that they have nothing to do with weaving or fishing, but were used instead as sack fasteners that served as labels or markers.13 Following Weingarten’s hypothesis, the cubic object from Chamaizi could, therefore, testify not to the small-scale production of textiles (as the numerous proper loomweights 10. HM 3517. Xanthoudides 1906, p. 148, pl. 9:10. This object has been misunderstood by Watrous (2001, p. 184, n. 225), who incorrectly interpreted it as a mold for metal. 11. Hutchinson, Eccles, and Benton 1939–1940, p. 47.

12. E.g., at Zakros (Hogarth 1900– 1901, p. 127, fig. 38:6); Palaikastro (Hutchinson, Eccles, and Benton 1939–1940, pp. 47–48, figs. 32, 42); Petras (Tsipopoulou 1990, pp. 99–101). 13. Weingarten 2000, p. 491.

5 5

10 m

meters 10 the Figure 6.3. Plan of oval house at

Chamaizi showing the distribution of finds. Plan by V. Lenuzza, drawing E. Keil

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e o va l h o u s e at c h a m a i z i , s i t e i a

63

Figure 6.4. Group of stone vases from Chamaizi (middle row: HM 456, HM 471, HM 470; bottom row, center: HM 467). Scale 1:5. Drawing V. Lenuzza, after Xanthoudides 1906, pl. 11

found on the site do), but rather to a system of fastening and tagging sacks in storage areas, the existence of which is also attested by a large number of pithos fragments in the building. Unfortunately, the precise date of the cubic object is uncertain; M. Vlazaki and E. Hallager have recently suggested a date of Middle Minoan (MM) I.14 If this dating is correct, the presence of such a sealing should testify, together with other Prepalatial seals, to “the existence, ever since this period, of some sort of control and organization of the production,” as well as to the need to indicate the ownership or the authority in charge of it.15 Since Chamaizi seems to be quite isolated in MM I, the authority who impressed the clay with a seal might have been the same one who lived in the building. The high rank of the people inhabiting the house is also suggested from the presence of the so-called Chamaizi pots (named after the place of first discovery), which are miniature monochrome jugs with crisscross incisions on the neck (Figs. 6.3, 6.5).16 Their special function and meaning becomes evident if one considers those discovered at Malia, in a Protopalatial context together with two famous ceremonial swords, arranged around a platform.17 According to the excavators, the swords attest that this area had ceremonial functions reserved for an elite group.18 The miniature pots probably had the same meaning, perhaps on account of their contents (possibly scented oils?),19 as part of the ceremonial equipment kit or as exclusively elite articles. Some Chamaizi pots are also known from one of the two major buildings of Quartier Mu (Building B), where the excavators distinguished the material 14. Vlazaki and Hallager 1995, p. 254. 15. Poursat 1990. 16. Xanthoudides 1906, pp. 147– 148, pl. 9:1–3. The vase (see Fig. 6.5, right), peculiar for its horizontal handle, was found a few days after the beginning of the excavation in the area of room 4, while the other two little jugs

were discovered in the court and in room 15, respectively (Xanthoudides 1903: 10, 16, and 17 June). Aside from these three vases, many other fragments were found scattered within the building. 17. The vases were discovered in room beta, the central room in a sequence of small rooms found beneath Neopalatial rooms III1, III2, and III7,

in the northwest quarter of the Palace (Chapouthier and Gallet de Santerre 1947–1948, p. 405, fig. 16). Recently, Pelon (2006, p. 146) specified a MM II date for the archaeological evidence in the room, the two swords, and the majority of the ceramic fragments. 18. Chapouthier 1938. 19. Poursat 1987, p. 75.

64

va l e r i a l e n u z z a

Figure 6.5. “Chamaizi pots” from Chamaizi. Scale 1:3. Drawing V. Lenuzza,

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

after Xanthoudides 1906, pl. 9:1–3

Figure 6.6. Terracotta figurines (HM 3489, HM 3485, HM 3487) found in room 2 at Chamaizi. Scale 1:3. Drawing V. Lenuzza, after Xanthoudides 1906, figs. 3–5

fallen from the upper floor, among which were prestige items (e.g., stone figurines and stone vases) and about 12 miniature pots.20 Another piece of evidence that indicates the self-sufficiency of the occupants—from a religious point of view—is the terracotta figurines that were found in room 2 (i.e., outside of the oval building itself ). Three figurines, reassembled from fragments (Fig. 6.6), and the head of a fourth were found in 1903; two more heads, one chest, and an animal figurine were discovered in the more recent investigations.21 Their presence has been the main argument in the past for the interpretation of the house as a cult building. While their similarity with figurines from peak sanctuaries is indeed striking, their number is very small in comparison to the hundreds yielded by peak sanctuaries.22 These figurines may simply attest the existence of an area reserved for cult (i.e., a domestic shrine). A few other objects with possible cultic associations may lead in the same direction. For example, a jug with perforated base (rhyton) was 20. Van Effenterre 1980, p. 188. 21. Xanthoudides 1906, pp. 135– 143, figs. 3–6; Davaras 1972a, p. 38. 22. Although their average size (H. ca. 0.25 m) is larger than that of the majority of the figurines from the peak sanctuaries, they do not reach the height of the idols from Kophinas,

Playia, or Petsophas (see Rutkowski 1986, p. 84). Rutkowski (1986, p. 145) argues that this fact, combined with the position of the arms, excludes the possibility that they were cult idols. Rutkowski bases his statement on “the hands extended in supplication,” which he believes should classify them

as votive figures. The arms of the two male “votaries” at Chamaizi, however, have a more peculiar position and are slanting across the body, with the left hand at the waist and the right hand at the mouth, in a gesture, at least to my knowledge, without exact comparison.

t h e o va l h o u s e at c h a m a i z i , s i t e i a

65

Figure 6.7. Cult-related objects from Chamaizi: rhyton from room 8 (left) and offering table from room 4 (right). Scale 1:5. Drawing V. Lenuzza,

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

after Xanthoudides 1906, pls. 9:11, 8:6

Xanthoudides 1906, pl. 8:1

found in the fill of room 8, and a clay offering table, which probably was originally placed near a hearth,23 was found upside down and broken in the western part of room 4 (Fig. 6.7).24 Branigan also links these items with what he supposes to be a tubular stand (Fig. 6.8) as a sort of forerunner of well-known Late Minoan snake tubes.25 This tubular object, however, could also be interpreted as a drain pipe, similar to those found in situ in a vertical position in the southeast corner of room 4.26 With regard to the architecture of the building and distribution of the finds (see Fig. 6.3), three important elements need to be highlighted: the existence of storerooms, the existence of a shrine, and the existence of a second floor. The existence and location of the storage areas can be easily recognized. Xanthoudides reports that rooms 4 and 15 were found almost full of pithos fragments. In the case of room 4, the pithoi were sometimes still standing on small discoid slabs of schist.27 Room 4 has traditionally been interpreted as the domestic shrine of the building on account of the discovery of the clay offering table and the proximity of room 2, where the terracotta figurines were found.28 Although it cannot be denied that the cult objects were concentrated in this area, it is more likely that they had fallen from the upper floor, where the house shrine was possibly located, perhaps near the top of the stairs by the entrance to the living quarters.29 No architectural remains document with certainty the existence of a second floor, but at least the location of the stairs can be suggested. A passage to the first floor can be surely recognized, identified by Xanthoudides in the area of room 13.30 In the last phase of the building, at least, the supposed doorway to the room is too small to allow a person to pass through, and so it is necessary to assume an entrance from above. The presumed existence of an upper floor and the location of the domestic shrine there gains further support from comparison with the

23. Xanthoudides, indeed, reports the presence of a heap of ash, which may have come from a hearth, in the spot marked with sign Gamma on his plan (Xanthoudides 1906, p. 123; cf. Fig. 6.1). 24. Room 4a in Xanthoudides’ original plan; for the offering table, see Xanthoudides 1906, p. 143, pl. 8:6 (W. 0.05 m; Diam. 0.30 m).

25. Branigan 1970a, pp. 106–107. 26. Xanthoudides 1906, pp. 144– 145, pl. 8:1 (average H. 0.38 m; Diam. 0.10–0.14 m). Xanthoudides (1903), in fact, describes the clay tubes as still embedded one inside the other in the corner of room 4. Moreover, its use as a drain pipe and not as a cult object gains support from comparison with similar clay tubes found at MM IA Knossos

Figure 6.8. Clay tube (possible drain pipe). Scale 1:5. Drawing V. Lenuzza, after

(PM IV:1, p. 146, fig. 113) and at a MM II sanctuary at Malia (Poursat 1966, p. 535, fig. 19). 27. Xanthoudides 1906, p. 123. 28. Davaras 1973b, p. 51; Rutkowski 1986, p. 139; Hood 1997, p. 115. 29. For an architectural comparison, see Palaikastro, Block N (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, p. 257). 30. Xanthoudides 1906, p. 124.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

66

va l e r i a l e n u z z a

MM II clay model from Monastiraki, which reproduces the first floor of a building with a pair of horns of consecration on the parapet of the balcony.31 In a recent study of Early Minoan (EM) architectural models from Ayia Triada, S. Todaro has stressed the possible analogy in plan and elevation between the model and the building at Chamaizi.32 Going one step further, it is perhaps also possible to imagine the first floor at Chamaizi with a sort of small veranda, possibly used as an open-air area for cult activity. This balcony could have been placed above room 4, since in the southeast corner of this room Xanthoudides found vertically placed drain pipes, presumably for the flow of water from the open upper space. Another system of drainage has been found in the building, starting from the upper edge of the central circular cistern (12a) and running under passage 7 (Fig. 6.2).33 Its discovery has led to a better understanding of the cistern, which is 2 m wide and 2.20 m deep, covered with plaster and composed of limestone blocks on the upper part and bedrock at the bottom. The complete absence of springs on the hilltop led it to be identified as a cistern that collected rain water from an inward-sloping roof,34 and this hypothesis was confirmed by the discovery of the drain, which directed overflows to the outside. The position of the cistern and of the court fixes another important point in the spatial organization of the building. Their relation to entrance 7 seems to mark a division of the house into two different sectors: a smaller eastern sector (including rooms 4–6 and 16) and a larger western one (rooms 8–15). Each sector is provided with its own storerooms (room 4 in the east, and rooms 13 and 15 in the west). Both sectors are accessible, at least in the main phase of the oval house, from the main entrance (passage 7). It is highly likely that the architectural separation into two parts corresponds also to a functional distinction. In this regard, it should be noted that rooms 5 and 6 have a lower floor level than the vestibule (16) they communicate with by means of a small flight of steps beside a pillar (Figs. 6.2, 6.3). Rooms 5 and 6, therefore, were presumably basement rooms. The whole eastern sector of the building, in other words, could have been reserved for storage. With regard to the western sector, it is worth noting that in the main phase of the building it was only accessible through court 12, which was surely the focus of the area, since it was the sole space that guaranteed entrance to the rooms and allowed communication between them.35 Only a few details are provided by the excavation reports for this sector, so few observations can be made about the rooms and their functions. Rooms 8 and 9, which have similar dimensions and orientations, were most likely used for similar activities, perhaps connected with the nearby court.36 31. Kanta, Godart, and Tsigounaki 2001. 32. Todaro 2003a, pp. 565–566. 33. Davaras 1973b, pp. 50, 53. 34. Noack (1908, pp. 55–57, fig. 6) first proposed a tentative reconstruction of a keel roof, criticized by Mackenzie

(1907–1908, p. 418). 35. Nowicki (this volume, Chap. 30) stresses that the northwest entrance does not seem to belong to the first phase of the building. Indeed, it is quite different from the southeast entrance and appears, instead, as a simple open-

ing up of the northwest wall of room 11 (see Davaras 1973b, pl. 11:a). 36. Gesell (1972, p. 232, cat. 29–31) proposes an interpretation of room 8 as a bench sanctuary on account of the supposed presence of a bench running along three sides.

t h e o va l h o u s e at c h a m a i z i , s i t e i a

67

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Room 11, the largest room in the complex, may have been reserved for the main household-related activities. Perhaps food processing and grinding activities took place here, if it is correct to interpret as querns the “irregular slabs of titanopetra with a concave and worn-out upper surface” found by Xanthoudides together with pestles and other “similar tools.”37 The finds from the building also attest other activities such as weaving and the possible production of stone vases (suggested by the presence of many specimens). It is, however, difficult to localize them. Taking into account the shallow depth at which the loomweights and stone vases were found, as well as their distribution, it is possible to suggest that they may have fallen from the upper floor and were originally concentrated in the area of the shrine (Fig. 6.3). The weaving area could have been located above the western part of room 4, while the stone vase workshop may have been situated more toward the south, above room 8 and vestibule 16. By comparison, only a few objects were recovered at a shallow depth in the western sector, a fact that could indicate that the upper floor in this part, if it existed, was simply a living area. In the end, it is possible to hypothesize an inner organization for the oval house at Chamaizi that is not very different from that of the Quartier Mu buildings at Malia,38 with the ground floor used for passage, storage, and food processing, and the upper floor reserved for the living areas and workshops.

C hron o lo g y of th e B u i ldin g

Figure 6.9. Pithos fragment (p.H. 0.082) from room 4 with supposed Linear A signs. Xanthoudides 1906, fig. 7

The similarity with Quartier Mu at Malia leads to an important unanswered question regarding the oval house: its chronology. The Chamaizi building is traditionally dated to the MM IA period, but Davaras was able to distinguish three different architectural phases (I–III) on the site prior to the construction of the oval structure (phase IV) and a later minor remodeling in the area of rooms 10 and 13 (phase V; see Fig. 6.2).39 Moreover, the finds demonstrate a long span of occupation. The stone vases, together with the bronze tools, belong to a tradition that continues without substantial changes from EM III to MM II. The presence of bird’s nest bowls and some details in the shape of the bronze tools, nevertheless, allows us to assign at least some specimens to a MM IB–II date.40 Likewise, the ceramic remains indicate at least two chronological periods: EM III–MM IA and MM IB–II (as summarized in Tables 6.1 and 6.2). An unusual pithos fragment could perhaps be also assigned to the MM IB–II phase (Fig. 6.9). It comes from room 4 and has nothing peculiar in its form, clay, or technique. Its importance and possible date depend exclusively on the incisions it bears,41 which have been identified as two Linear A signs.42 Unfortunately, the identification of the signs is uncertain, 37. Xanthoudides 1903: 12 June. 38. Poursat 1996; see also Evely 1988, p. 403. 39. Davaras 1973b, p. 50. 40. Regarding the bronze tools, see

Evely 2000, pp. 13, 51, 68; for the stone vases see, e.g., Palio 2004, p. 13. 41. Xanthoudides 1906, fig. 7. 42. Watrous 2001, p. 183.

68

va l e r i a l e n u z z a

Tab le 6.1. MM IA Vases from Ch amaizi

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Shape

Height (m)

Chronology

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 145, pl. 8:2. Cf. Malia, Villa A and Quartier Delta, House Δα (Demargne and Gallet De Santerre 1953, pp. 15, 54, pls. VIII:8487, XXVII:top row on the right).

Beaked jug

0.24

Beaked jug

?

EM III–MM IA

Xanthoudides 1906, pl. 9:8; Walberg 1983, p. 130; Watrous 2001, p. 184, n. 226.

Beaked jug, with Lighton-Dark decoration

0.085

EM III–MM IA

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 145, pl. 9:12; Warren 1965, p. 28; Walberg 1983, p. 130.

Beaked jug, with Lighton-Dark decoration

0.115

EM III–MM IA

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 145, pl. 9:13; Walberg 1983, p. 130.

?

EM III–MM IA

Xanthoudides 1906, pl. 9:9; Watrous 2001, p. 184, n. 226.

MM IA

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 147, pl. 9:6; Warren 1965, p. 28. Cf. Palaikastro (Dawkins 1902–1903, p. 307, fig. 7:1).

Jug Teapot

0.088

MM IA

References and Comparisons

Tab le 6.2. MM IB–II Vases from Ch amaizi Shape Amphora, with oval spout and decoration of triple vertical bands Amphora, with turneddown neck Beaked jug Lamps

Size (m) H. 0.385 ? ? ?

Chronology

References and Comparisons

MM II

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 144, pl. 8:4; Walberg 1983, p. 130. Cf. Malia, Quartier Theta (Van Effenterre and Van Effenterre 1976, p. 36, pl. XVI:11.151); Malia, Quartier Mu, Atelier de Potier, VIII4 (Poursat 1996, p. 35, pl. XVIII:c).

MM II

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 148, pl. 9:15; Walberg 1983, pp. 130– 131.

MM II

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 145, pl. 8:3. Cf. Malia, Quartier Mu, Atelier des Sceaux (Poursat 1996, p. 21, pl. 23:e).

MM IB–II

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 149, pl. 10. Cf. Malia, House Ζβ (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, pl. XII:3).

Legged plate, with small clay grains on the inner surface

Diam. 0.15

MM II

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 148, pl. 9:14; Walberg 1983, p. 34. Cf. Palaikastro (Dawkins 1902–1903, pp. 324–325, fig. 24:2).

Rhyton

H. 0.16 Diam. 0.13

MM II

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 146, pl. 9:11; Gesell 1985, fig. 152; Watrous 2001, p.184, n. 226.

“Chamaizi pots”

H. 0.05–0.07

MM IB–II

Xanthoudides 1906, col. 147, pl. 9:1–3; Cadogan 1995, p. 99; Watrous 2001, p. 184, n. 226. Cf. Malia, Palace, room Beta (Chapouthier and Gallet de Santerre 1947–1948, fig. 16; Pelon 2006, p. 146); Malia, Maison de la Plage (Van Effenterre and Van Effenterre 1976, pp. 74, 78–79, 81); Monastiraki Katalimata (Nowicki 2001, fig. 6e, pl. 2a).

and it would be desirable to reexamine the fragment and eventually clarify the drawing published by Xanthoudides. The symbol on the right is, in fact, a unicum, and the one on the left, recognized as the Linear A sign for wine, is quite different from the normal sign for wine (AB 131).43 On the whole, the finds and the architectural remains reveal an uninterrupted use of the site from a phase previous to the construction of the oval house until at least MM II, when the building ceased to be occupied.

43. M. Del Freo (pers. comm.). Cf. Godart and Olivier 1985, pl. 44.

t h e o va l h o u s e at c h a m a i z i , s i t e i a

69

Con clu s ion s

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Once the residential nature of the building, the high rank of its inhabitants, and a MM IB–II chronology for its last phase of occupation have been established, a final question arises concerning the relationship between Chamaizi, the two political powers that controlled the area (Malia and Petras), and the Prepalatial building at Ayia Photia. As far as Malia is concerned, an important clue is offered by the presence at Chamaizi of the “Chamaizi pots” that are also found in large quantities in the area of the Palace,44 and are, in fact, produced locally in the immediate vicinity (in the workshop of the Maison de la Plage).45 The discovery of these little jugs at sites near the Gulf of Mirabello and as far west as Gournes could indicate, according to G. Cadogan, the extent of the territory controlled by Malia in the Protopalatial Period.46 In this picture, Chamaizi appears as the eastern border of the economic—if not also the political—expansion of Malia. Petras, a site that from MM IIA onward was the center of another palatial system much closer to Chamaizi itself, already reveals a “prominent position in the area” in MM IA, with imports from many parts of Crete.47 Unfortunately, the summit of Petras was deeply leveled in order to accommodate the later Palace, and no major structure dating to the MM I period has been found. For this reason it has not yet been possible to understand precisely the historical and eventually competitive relationship between Petras and Chamaizi prior to the emergence of the Palace at Petras.48 Still, what draws attention is the perfect coincidence between the end of the occupation on Souvloto Mouri hill and the emergence of a proper palatial system at Petras in MM II. I suggest that the appearance of the oval building at Chamaizi could be connected to the process of social disruption that affected Crete at the beginning of MM I.49 It could have been the attempt of an elite family or clan, in a moment when the existing social structure was in flux, to guarantee its high status by means of a substantial building well suited for defense.50 With the emergence of a major power at Petras in MM IIA, the high-ranking residential group at Chamaizi was probably defeated and absorbed into the palatial territory, and the occupation of the hill inevitably came to an end. In addition to the two main political powers that competed for control of the region between MM IB and MM IIA, another site must be taken into account for its possible relationship with Chamaizi, namely, the rectangular building at Kouphota Ayia Photia, just a few kilometers east of Petras.51 In my opinion, Ayia Photia seems to have undergone the same 44. Demargne 1945, pp. 9, 19, pls. XXVII, XXXI:2, XXXII:2; Chapouthier and Gallet de Santerre 1947– 1948, p. 405; Van Effenterre and Van Effenterre 1976, pp. 76–79, pl. XI; Poursat 1996, p. 29, pls. 23:h, 30:d, e. 45. Van Effenterre and Van Effenterre 1976, pp. 74, 78–79, 81.

46. Cadogan 1990; 1995, p. 99. 47. Tsipopoulou 2002, p. 137. 48. Tsipopoulou (1999b, p. 185, n. 23), in particular, stresses how a comparison between the pottery from Chamaizi and Petras would allow a better understanding of the final Prepalatial period in the Siteia Bay area.

49. Branigan 1988; Soles 1988, esp. p. 60. 50. For this architectural and topographical aspect of the building, see Nowicki (this volume, Chap. 30). 51. Tsipopoulou 1999b, p. 182 (with references).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

70

va l e r i a l e n u z z a

historical evolution as Chamaizi, having to satisfy the same needs regarding the choice and the occupation of the site. From a chronological perspective, in fact, the area of the MM IA building at Ayia Photia also yielded EM II and MM IB sherds, which correspond to a span of occupation as long as that at Chamaizi. Moreover, apart from two small circular structures, the stable presence at the site ceases with MM IIA, contemporaneous with the oval building at Chamaizi, i.e., when political and economic power finally converge in Petras. Noticeable differences can be pointed out in the topography of the two sites: Chamaizi occupies a hill 500 m high, located a few kilometers away from the sea, while Ayia Photia is on a low hill (only 25 m high) along the shore. Nevertheless, both have a commanding view over the coastline of the Gulf of Mirabello and Siteia Bay, respectively, and over their immediate hinterland. If one also considers that production and storage activities are represented at both sites, it is possible to hypothesize that Chamaizi and Ayia Photia were two small, independent centers where power and resources were concentrated before the rise of the Palace at Petras.

c hap ter 7

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

M i ddl e M i n oan I B H ou s e s at P h ai stos : F u n c t i on a n d R e l at i on s h i p to th e C om mu n i t y Pal ac e by Ilaria Caloi It is well known that the Palace and its associated structures were the focus of Doro Levi’s excavations at Phaistos, leaving the town surrounding the palatial core somewhat neglected. In 1994, a new excavation program (directed by V. La Rosa) and a reexamination of the ceramic material from the Levi excavations (conducted by F. Carinci) were undertaken in order to understand more completely the extent and character of the Phaistos town. This paper examines the evidence from three Protopalatial domestic quarters:1 the area west of the West Court,2 Chalara3 (located on the southeast slope of the hillside), and Ayia Photeini4 (located on the northeast slope) (Fig. 7.1). All three are situated around the Palace and were built, according to Levi, in Middle Minoan (MM) IB, when the First Palace was constructed. Unfortunately, the MM IB habitation units lie directly below MM II houses, making it difficult to establish the layout and function of the earlier dwellings as well as their relationship to the nearby Palace. Given these difficulties, the aim of this paper is to offer a brief investigation of the MM IB houses, focusing on their architectural form, building materials, domestic facilities, and associated ceramic-ware typologies.

Wes t of t h e W es t Cou rt: Th e Mi ddle T errac e The quarter to the west of the West Court was excavated by Levi in the 1960s. It consists of blocks of houses situated on three terraces, set at different levels, located west of a street that leads north and runs along the 1. Levi 1965–1966b; 1976, pp. 507– 594, 631–700. In this paper I present a brief account of a larger project that was the subject of my thesis on Protopalatial houses at Phaistos for the Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene (Caloi 2007). My work has focused on an analysis of the ceramic material that has been retrieved from rooms C, CIII, CI, and IC, which are situated on the middle terrace of the hillside to the west of

the West Court of the Old Palace of Phaistos. I would like to thank Filippo Carinci and Vincenzo La Rosa for the opportunity to take part in the reexamination of the ceramic material from the Levi excavations. I also thank the director of the Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene, Emanuele Greco, for permitting me access to the archives of the School. Special thanks also belong to Simona Todaro for her suggestions,

primarily for the comparison with the cellular foundations at Vasiliki. 2. Levi 1976, pp. 507–561, pl. X. Levi also published other quarters built around the Palace’s hill in MM IB, such as the houses constructed to the south of the Palace, and the quarter referred to as Acropoli Mediana; see also Levi 1976, pp. 421–447, 595–629. 3. Levi 1976, pp. 653–700, pl. LL. 4. Levi 1976, pp. 631–651, pl. HH.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute. 72 ilaria caloi

Figure 7.1. Plan of Phaistos.

After Levi 1976, pl. A, with revisions by I. Caloi

m i d d l e m i n o a n i b h o u s e s at p h a i s t o s

73

ICβ

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

ICα

CI

CIII

C

Figure 7.2. Plan of Phaistos showing the area west of the West Court (Middle Terrace). After Levi 1976, pl. X, with revisions by I. Caloi

Figure 7.3. Phaistos, area west of the West Court (Middle Terrace). View from the north. Photo I. Caloi

5. Levi 1965–1966b, pp. 354–376. The dimensions of the rooms, referred to in the excavation reports, are on average 1 x 2 m: the smallest room is ICα (0.75 x 1.5 m), the largest is ICβ (0.80 x 4.20 m).

west side of the court. Although all three terraces may have been occupied in MM IB, the clearest evidence was retrieved from the middle terrace, where five small rectangular and noncommunicating rooms (rooms C, CIII, CI, ICα, and ICβ) were found (Figs. 7.2, 7.3). The rooms are defined by walls built with rubble and small undressed stones. On account of their small dimensions, their location, and contents, Levi interpreted them as basements of houses no longer preserved. It is very difficult, however, to regard them as habitation units since they lack windows, are partially underground, and are too small to live in.5

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

74

ilaria caloi

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a

b

Each room was found full of whole vessels mixed with fragmentary material belonging to coarse and fine wares, especially Kamares ware of the same kind that was discovered in the Palace.6 The majority of the material belongs to MM IB. It includes cups, spouted jars, and small jugs with the typical relief decoration of the Phaistian MM IB, which is characterized by wrinkles and ridges of the classical Barnacle and Barbotine styles. Fragmentary material dating to the Neolithic through the early MM II period was also retrieved. It is difficult to speculate on the function of these rooms, not only because the materials are from mixed fills and not floor deposits, but also because the architecture is poorly preserved. No special facilities or built installations were found that could have helped explain their function. Still, through careful analysis of the ceramic finds and stratigraphy, some tentative hypotheses can be advanced. The study of the pottery reveals that the majority of the whole vessels are conical cups, spouted jars, and beaked jugs.7 Even among the fragmentary material, most examples consist of drinking cups and pouring vessels, in both fine and coarse fabrics (Fig. 7.4), but also present are pithoi and other containers, together with braziers, lamps, and cooking vessels. The archaeological context, however, makes it unlikely that this pottery formed floor deposits reflecting activities that took place in these rooms. First of all, while the excavation reports mention “floors” or surfaces of beaten earth 6. Levi and Carinci 1988, pp. 299– 307. Apart from the common conical cups, the best comparisons with the whole vessels discovered on the middle terrace are the beaked jugs from rooms LXV and IL of the Old Palace. Cf., e.g., Levi 1976, p. 549, F. 5398, pl. 23:a, c

(from room CIII); pp. 148–149, F. 2169, F. 2170, pl. 23:b, f (from room LXV); p. 47, F. 16, F. 18, pl. 91:c, f (from room IL). 7. Most of the whole conical cups come from room CIII: Levi 1976, p. 551, F. 5447a, b, F. 5448a–c, F. 5449i,

c Figure 7.4. Fragmentary pottery from the area west of the West Court at Phaistos: (a) three-handled jug from room C; (b) one-handled jug from room C; (c) conical cups from rooms C and ICα. Scale 1:5. Photos I. Caloi

F. 5451b–e, pl. 35. For the other shapes see Levi 1976, pp. 549–551, F. 5473, F. 5474, pls. 28:b, c (open-spouted jars); F. 5476, F. 5477, pls. 24:e, 25:h, XIV:a (juglets); pp. 540–541, F. 5512, F. 5516, pls. 22:e, 24:b (jugs); F. 5513, pl. 27:c (another open-spouted jar).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

m i d d l e m i n o a n i b h o u s e s at p h a i s t o s

75

at various levels, no actual floors were ever found. These surfaces were not clearly stratified deposits, but instead were fills composed of MM IB ceramics mixed with Prepalatial and late MM IB/early MM II material. Since these rooms were completely filled with mixed deposits, it is difficult to interpret them as basement storerooms of a MM IB house, as Levi originally suggested.8 Instead, it is more reasonable to think of the rooms as containing deliberate fills created and used to support the superimposed walls, possibly part of a house, which, from the ceramic evidence, can be dated to late MM IB/early MM II.9 Several cross-joins found within the whole of the fragmentary material strengthen the hypothesis that the pottery deposits were deliberate fill deposits dumped at one time.10 If the ceramic remains do not represent debris connected with the functions of the rooms in which they were found, what was the original provenance of this MM IB pottery? The material may have come from MM IB habitations that are not presently preserved but were uncovered by Levi beneath the MM IIB house located in the lower terrace.11 If, for example, houses were constructed during the early MM IB phase only on the lower terrace—the most accessible because of its level ground surface—new houses may have been built toward the north in late MM IB/early MM II, and some material from the earlier dwellings may have been used in their construction. Otherwise, the MM IB pottery could have come from the Palace. If, as E. Fiandra asserts, there was a partial destruction at the end of MM IB, it is possible that some material of the Palace was reused as fill in the foundations of the terraced houses situated near the West Court.12 It is likely that when the Palace was modified in late MM IB/early MM II, it was also decided to rearrange the quarters nearest the Palace.13 As Carinci and Fiandra have already demonstrated, it was common in and around the Phaistos Palace for destruction material from previous phases to be used to make new pavings or architectural features.14 It is important to point out that most of these deposits, because they are fill, belong to the transitional MM IB/MM II phase.15 8. Levi 1976, pp. 537–551, pl. X. For the middle terrace of the quarter situated to the west of the West Court, Levi recognized three phases that could be associated with the Old Palace phases: Ia (MM IB), Ib (early MM II), and II (ripe MM II). 9. On the contrary, Levi interpreted the two superimposed walls as belonging to what he believed was the next phase of the quarter, assigning them to Levi phase II, corresponding to MM IIB; cf. Levi 1976, p. 538. 10. A final revision of structures and, above all, ceramic material from this quarter is forthcoming. 11. Levi 1976, pp. 520–521. In room LXXXV (which belongs to the MM IIB house situated on the lower terrace), Levi found an opening toward

the street to the north and some walls that probably belong to MM IB houses. 12. Fiandra 1961–1962, pp. 113– 115. 13. Among the different phases recognized by La Rosa for the street to the north, there is one belonging to late MM IB; see La Rosa 2002a, pp. 716– 719. 14. Fiandra 1961–1962; Levi and Carinci 1988, pp. 299–304. 15. A remarkable example is recognizable in the deliberately filled area between the old (Bastione I) and the new (Bastione II) retaining wall of the Protopalatial ramp that provides access to the Lower Court of the Palace; see Fiandra 1961–1962, pp. 116–117; Levi 1976, pp. 160–170.

76

ilaria caloi 20

36 31 21 26 1

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

27 23

24

ζ

ζ

3

ζ

2

ζ ζ

5

4 0

1m

Figure 7.5. Phaistos, Chalara quarter, rooms ζ1–ζ5. After Levi 1961–1962, fig. 171, with revisions by I. Caloi

C ha la ra Q uarter The Chalara quarter, situated on the southeast hillside near the Ieropotamos River and excavated by Levi in 1955, is another area that has a comparable block of rooms.16 The area was first occupied in the Neolithic period and remained continuously settled until the Hellenistic period, when it was destroyed. As a consequence of continuous occupation, the architectural structures of the site’s earlier phases are buried under later remains. As with the quarter west of the West Court, this area likewise developed on terraces set into the slopes of the hillside. The MM IB phase is represented by five rooms (ζ¹–ζ5) located in the northwest corner of the northern area (Fig. 7.5). These rooms were not completely excavated by Levi, since to the south they were obscured by Hellenistic structures, while to the north they were partially covered by two walls, probably belonging to a late MM IB/early MM II house.17 Similarly to the MM IB rooms west of the West Court, the five small rooms here were built in a “typical Protopalatial” technique, meaning the walls were made of irregular rows of rubble and undressed stones, sometimes mixed with earth. Among these small units, only the northern rooms (ζ¹ and ζ²) contained ceramic material, while the others were found empty. The pottery in room ζ1 was fragmentary and dates to early MM IB. Room ζ2 also contained MM IB pottery, as well as preserved traces of a red stucco floor and white plastered wall and some stone slabs, which probably fell or were thrown from an upper story.18 The presence of the red stucco floor and plastered walls, combined with the fact that this room communicated with room ζ4 through a small doorway in the southeast corner, leads us to hypothesize that this cluster of rooms (ζ1–ζ5) was a fully functioning unit before the construction of the later building that stood above.19 At some later point in their existence, the five MM IB rooms were used as the foundation for a house built above them. This situation may parallel the previously

16. See n. 3, above. 17. Levi 1961–1962a, pp. 490–495; 1976, pp. 656–662, pl. LL. 18. Levi 1961–1962a, p. 495, fig. 184; 1976, pp. 658–659, figs. 1063– 1067. 19. Only two walls (nos. 26–27 in Fig. 7.5) of the superimposed house are preserved. They are datable to late MM IB/early MM II.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

m i d d l e m i n o a n i b h o u s e s at p h a i s t o s

77

discussed rooms west of the West Court that were completely filled with pottery, possibly in order to level the higher and lower parts of the hill.20 In these two sectors of the Phaistos town, therefore, the evidence speaks in favor of cellular foundations very similar to those discovered by A. Zoïs in buildings Θ and Ξ at Vasiliki.21 The rooms of these buildings, located in the northern sector of Vasiliki, were found filled with earth and small stones mixed with a scanty amount of fragmentary ceramic material belonging to the Prepalatial period (Early Minoan [EM] IIA). The latest of the Prepalatial houses located to the south of the Palace of Knossos also show a similar scheme of small, noncommunicating units.22 Here, however, the house belonging to MM IA was not reused, but, as D. Mackenzie reports, was “pulled down and leveled away when the South Corridor was built” (i.e., at the end of MM IA).23 The Protopalatial settlement of Apodoulou, in the Amari Valley, could provide another example of underground, doorless rooms used as foundations.24 These rooms, not always well defined in terms of function, had walls made up of small unworked stones, and they were built upon uneven bedrock on a hill characterized by a significant difference in levels.25 All of these characteristics suggest that they were foundations, built to support and reinforce walls of a superimposed structure, but the possibility is not ruled out that they may have been used as storerooms as well.26

Ay ia P h otei n i Q uarter

20. Levi 1976, pl. DD. 21. Zoïs 1977, pp. 451–453, fig. 2; 1992. 22. Momigliano 1991, pp. 198–201; Momigliano and Wilson 1996, pp. 3–7. 23. Mackenzie’s 1908 daybook, together with an interesting sketch of Prepalatial houses situated to the south of the South Facade, is published in Momigliano 1991, pp. 198–201, fig. 12. 24. Tzigounaki 1999, pp. 865–867. 25. Curti 1991, pp. 18–19, figs. 2, 4; 1996, pp. 1418–1421. Curti asserts that the difference in levels is appreciable, and he speaks about the different possible means used by the builders to reinforce the walls, which were built on a steep slope. 26. Tzigounaki 1999, p. 866, pl. CXCV:c. In room 6 of unit A at Apodoulou were found six pithoi and other smaller vases. See also Civitillo and Greco 2003. 27. Levi 1976, pp. 631–651, fig. 1024, pl. HH. 28. Levi 1955, pp. 158–161; 1976, pp. 635–644. 29. Levi 1976, pp. 634–635, 644– 645.

Situated on the northeast slopes of the hillside, the Ayia Photeini quarter provides new data about the MM IB houses at Phaistos. This area is remarkable for several reasons: (1) it represents a MM IB working place for domestic activities connected with food preparation; (2) it contained assemblages of entire vessels found in situ—something that is rarely found in this phase; and (3) it shows architectural features comparable with some elements discovered in the Old Palace. The quarter of Ayia Photeini was excavated by Levi in the 1950s.27 The poor state of preservation of the architectural remains, combined with disturbance of the stratigraphy by a modern road cut, hindered the analysis and resulted in the area being somewhat neglected until recently. Nevertheless, it is clear that the area was first occupied in MM IB and then continuously inhabited through the Neopalatial period until Hellenistic times. The surviving structures belonging to MM IB are preserved in the northwestern sector. Two large rooms (α and β) are situated at the foot of the slope (Fig. 7.6), in contrast to the other rooms of the southwestern area, which are located on the hillside.28 These two rooms were built in the “typical Protopalatial” manner, but here the technique is somewhat less carefully executed: the stones used for the construction of the walls are very different in dimensions and are neither arranged in rows nor set in order. To the south, the rooms are bounded by some low walls, which they share in common with room ε, belonging to a block of rooms likely datable to MM II.29 To the north, the rooms have been partially destroyed by the modern road. The damage makes it difficult to define accurately the full extent of this area, but the material retrieved from them suggests that both rooms belong to the same house.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

78

ilaria caloi

The most notable space is room β, where a low bench was discovered against the internal south wall (Fig. 7.7). More specifically, the bench was built in the corner between the south and east walls, but it did not extend all the way to the east. A peculiar feature of this bench is that it was made of completely preserved early MM IB vessels, decorated in both the typical Barbotine and Dark-on-Light styles.30 Other vessels, mostly beaked jugs and containers such as pithoid and small jars, were found on and beside the bench. These vessels seem to be datable to a slightly later period in MM IB, which probably means that the bench was built later than the period of use of the early MM IB vessels. Among these later vessels there is a large pithos that filled the gap between the bench and the east wall. The rim of the pithos was level with the top of the bench, while its bottom was embedded in the floor.31 On the bench beside the mouth of the pithos—which was probably a grain container—a millstone was also found, together with its grinder and two smaller containers, identifiable as stamnoi.32 The bench, therefore, seems to have been the focus of activities in the room: the users probably leaned on the bench to grind grains or other products, and then transferred them to other locations by means of the stamnoi. Another assemblage of artifacts was found next to the east wall: it consisted of a large pedestaled basin (louter), a small jug found inside it, and two amphoras.33 The presence of pouring vessels makes it clear that the room was likewise related to the use of liquids. Two additional clusters of MM IB artifacts were discovered on the floor of the room. A cluster in the western section consisted of large water and food containers, such as a hydria and three stamnoi, which were probably used to supply the room with water.34 A second cluster, in the northern portion, preserved several jugs, both one-handled and three-handled, and other pouring vessels that

Figure 7.6. Phaistos, Ayia Photeini quarter, rooms α and β. After Levi 1976, fig. 1024, with revisions by I. Caloi

30. Levi 1976, pp. 636–644. For some of the vessels found beneath the bench, see Levi 1976, pp. 639, 642, F. 905, F. 5255, pls. 18:b, X:a, b (two large pithoid jars); p. 640, F. 5256, fig. 1037, pl. 51:a (large bridge spouted jar); pp. 640–641, F. 866, F. 871, F. 906, pls. 24:a, 28:i, 41:a (three-handled jugs); p. 641, F. 862a, F. 862b, F. 870, F. 880, fig. 1040, pls. 24:f, 25:c, 25:e, (one-handled jugs). 31. Levi 1976, pp. 637, 642, F. 755, fig. 1030, pl. 49:d. 32. Levi 1976, pp. 638, 642, F. 875, F. 876, fig. 1032 (stamnoi). See also Levi and Carinci 1988, p. 34, F. 876, fig. 66. 33. Levi 1976, pp. 639–640, fig. 1036. Cf. Levi 1976, p. 642, F. 886, pl. 55:f (louter); F. 882, pl. 84:c (jug found inside the louter); F. 872, F. 883, pls. 71:i, 73:a (amphoras). 34. Levi 1976, p. 642, F. 873, pl. 79:a (hydria); p. 644, F. 884, F. 909, F. 926, pls. 66:k, 67:f (stamnoi).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

m i d d l e m i n o a n i b h o u s e s at p h a i s t o s

79

Figure 7.7. Phaistos, Ayia Photeini quarter, room β. Photo courtesy Scuola

archeologica italiana di Atene

35. Levi 1976, p. 644. For some of these pouring vessels, cf. Levi 1976, pp. 641, 644, F. 859, F. 878, F. 879, F. 908, pls. 24:c, 34:h, 81:d, 90:d. 36. Among the large amount of vessels discovered in room β, only a conical cup and a carinated cup (Levi 1976, p. 642, F. 863, F. 868) were found beneath the bench, while three carinated cups were discovered in the northern sector of the room (Levi 1976, p. 644, F. 1643a–c). 37. Fiandra 1973, pls. 21:α, β, 22:β–δ; Levi 1976, pp. 361–365, figs. 564–566. Levi thought that this sort of box was made of wood; Fiandra asserts that it was made of plaster (Fiandra 1973, p. 85, n. 1).

were used to convey liquids to and from the room.35 It is important to note that the locations of these clusters seem to be functionally associated with the built installations of the room. Indeed, the large jars found on the floor were near the bench and assemblage of pouring vessels, while the small pots used to transfer liquids were concentrated near the northwest side of the room, where the exit was most likely located. Among this large amount of pottery, only a few drinking cups were found; no plates, basins, or cooking vessels were retrieved.36 This evidence seems to indicate that the inhabitants used this space for food preparation, but not for cooking or consumption. In light of the activities inferred from the remains found in situ, we can hypothesize that room β was part of a house to which room α also belonged; and it cannot be ruled out that other units may also have once existed in the northern part of the quarter that was cut away by the modern road. One interesting peculiarity of room β should be emphasized: the bench was built with complete vessels that were used to support the top surface, which was made of earth and small stones. These vessels all belong to early MM IB, and they seem slightly earlier than the material found on the bench and on the floor. This detail means that in room β, it is possible to discern two phases of use in MM IB. At some point during the life history of the building, the inhabitants apparently decided to build the bench by using some older vessels dating to the previous phase. It should also be noted that all of the reused vessels found built into the bench are of the same typology as those from the second phase, suggesting that the domestic activities carried out in room β did not change between the two phases of use. The bench, composed of material belonging to the previous phase, recalls some structures found inside the First Palace of Phaistos. One of those is offered by the container retrieved from a Protopalatial level identified in Neopalatial room 11.37 This container—a sort of box—was found to be filled

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

80

ilaria caloi

with early MM IB vessels, which constitute a set of pouring vessels and cups, likely used for libation rituals. It was probably a foundation deposit, buried as a votive offering when the Protopalatial wall, next to which it was found, was built. The other structure in question is a probable bench found in room LXIII that is bounded by a series of stones and filled with fragmentary and complete vessels.38 The material retrieved from this bench, however, was substantially different in typology; indeed, it is composed of several diverse kinds of vessels, including conical cups, beaked jugs, spouted jars, plates, and basins.39 In both room LXIII of the Old Palace and room β of Ayia Photeini, the benches were constructed using material the builders had at their disposal. Despite the superficial similarities, however, the two cases are different—in room LXIII the builders used the destruction material of the previous phase, probably found abandoned in the room, while in room β the builders utilized the material they already possessed, which was the same kind that they continued to use afterward.

Co n clusions To summarize, the evidence from Ayia Photeini indicates the existence of a large MM IB house, unfortunately not fully preserved, that is technically unsophisticated and located in a marginal area, but which contains mostly high quality pottery and a few features comparable to some elements found in the Old Palace at Phaistos. It is reasonable to assume that the quarter and the Palace were closely correlated during MM IB. Based upon these similarities as well as the topography of the site, I propose that the inhabitants of the house were somehow dependent on the central complex, since they shared the same pottery workshops and imitated the usages that were common in the Palace, such as the reuse of complete vessels to create new features. Moreover, since the only well-known MM houses in Phaistos are the House South of the Ramp (Casa a Sud della Rampa)40 and the house situated on the lower terrace of the quarter to the west of the West Court41 (dated to MM III and MM IIB, respectively), the case of Ayia Photeini provides important new data about the MM IB phase at Phaistos. Indeed, if the surviving structures located to the west of the West Court and in Chalara were, in fact, not used as basements, but instead formed the cellular foundations of houses as I have suggested, I would also hypothesize that these poorly preserved houses could have been quite large and furnished with benches similar to the one in the house at Ayia Photeini. If this hypothesis is correct, the Old Palace of Phaistos was surrounded by domestic quarters that consisted of complex and well-organized houses as early as the first phases of the Protopalatial period.

38. Levi 1976, pp. 141–145, figs. 211, 212. 39. Levi 1976, pp. 143–145, figs. 214–217. 40. See Carinci 2001; La Rosa 2002a, pp. 637–672; Girella (this volume, Chap. 8). 41. See Levi 1976, pp. 511–537; Speziale 2001.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 8

Br i d g i n g t h e G ap : Th e F u n c t i on of H ou s e s an d Re s i de n t i al N e i g h b or ho od s in M i ddl e M i n oan I I I P h ai stos by Luca Girella “Household archaeology” provides an important theoretical framework for understanding ancient social behavior through the spatial analysis of all material remains associated with ancient houses and households. Yet, despite a rather large body of scholarly literature that currently exists on the study of houses and households in Greece (not to mention other areas of the world), “household analysis” is a topic that is hardly attested for Phaistos or other Minoan settlements where a “palace” complex traditionally has been the main focus of archaeological research.1 The application of the principles of household archaeology and attention to the spatial distribution of household artifacts and domestic installations at Phaistos can provide new and instructive insights into the social and political reorganization of this palace-centered community during a crucial period in its life history—its destruction in Middle Minoan (MM) IIB and reconstruction in MM III.2 As is well known, the area around the Palace at Phaistos was intensively inhabited from the Final Neolithic period onward, resulting in a complicated and often poorly preserved “palimpsest” of domestic architecture and household activities. During MM III, however, it is possible to isolate several important clusters of buildings, which, in my opinion, seem to represent 1. The new cycle of the excavations at Phaistos carried out by La Rosa (2000–2004) has uncovered in the western and southwestern part of the Palace an exceptional number of stratified houses and floor deposits dating from the Final Neolithic period to the Hellenistic period (La Rosa 2002a, 2004b, 2005). A program of publishing the Neolithic and Prepalatial material from this large quarter is in process (Todaro 2005; Di Tonto, this volume [Chap. 2]). I would like to thank Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan and Kevin Glowacki for the splendid hospitality I received during the colloquium held

in Ierapetra in May 2005. I am particularly indebted to Vincenzo La Rosa, Filippo Carinci, and Orazio Palio for insightful suggestions. Thanks are also owed to Colin Macdonald for improving my English text, to Martino Nociforo for help with Fig. 8.2, and the anonymous reviewers for Hesperia. 2. Understanding the complete depositional history of houses requires a variety of information that is not always available. When we are dealing with old excavations we have to stress the problematic dearth of information useful for reconstructing the formation

processes in relation to the stages of a domestic structure’s life history: habitation, abandonment, and post-abandonment processes (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999). Objects left on floors are products of both abandonment and post-abandonment processes. But we cannot exclude also the ritual deposits, which are not easily distinguishable. A special form of ritual deposits at Phaistos during the Protopalatial and Neopalatial period are the foundation deposits, which constitute the first, and largely invisible, step of the habitation stage (La Rosa 2002a).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

82

luca girella

a replacement of some activities within the Palace complex itself.3 In what follows I will try to demonstrate how these houses complemented each other and how they absorbed the control of one important aspect of palatial ritual activity. Several recent studies have stressed the non-monolithic character of the Neopalatial period in Crete, and they have highlighted the necessity of accurately distinguishing the different chronological phases in the architectural history of a site or building, as well as the importance of combining artifactual assemblages with the proper architectural phase.4 One of the main issues is the role of the Cretan palaces both at the beginning of and during the MM III period. As we already know, the process of rebuilding the palaces after the MM IIB earthquake was not a homogeneous phenomenon all over the island, and a regional and long-term approach is useful for understanding the dynamics of the reorganization of territories and boundaries. For example, recent work suggests a significant change in the construction of the Knossos palace during MM IIIB, whereas we know that a New Palace at Phaistos was not rebuilt entirely until Late Minoan (LM) IB.5 The Old Palace of Phaistos was largely destroyed at the end of MM IIB. Current archaeological evidence suggests that the rebuilding activity had just commenced at the time when the pottery workshops began to produce MM III vessels. Although the activity of the Palace was interrupted during these building operations, the traces of this new palatial complex, evident in several different areas, show that the most vital functions of the Palace did not cease.6 For example, the presence of large pithoi with rope decoration and the Linear A tablet found on the windowsill of room XLIV (with another one from room 101) are convincing evidence for storage and administrative activities,7 and the MM III lustral basin below room 70 could represent some elite ritual activity. We should also keep in mind that both the Central and the West Courts appear to continue functioning at this time.8 For the West Court, in particular recent reexaminations of Levi’s excavations, carried out by La Rosa and Carinci, have dated the 3. Especially for the role of the Casa a Sud della Rampa, see also Carinci 2001. 4. Driessen and Macdonald 1997; Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002. 5. See Macdonald 2002 (Knossos), Rethemiotakis 2002 (Galatas Pediada), and Platon 2002b (Zakros). For the Palace of Zakros, see also Platon 2004. The problem of the MM III occupation at Phaistos has been discussed in three main articles (Carinci 1989; Fiandra 1995; La Rosa 2002c). For a recent examination of the MM III ceramic deposits from Phaistos and the main settlements in South-Central Crete, see Van de Moortel 1997; Girella 2001, 2003, 2007b. For a LM IB date of the New Palace of Phaistos, see La Rosa 2002c, pp. 83–93. The Villa Reale at

Ayia Triada was built in the early Neopalatial period (MM IIIB–LM IA); see La Rosa 1989b and Puglisi 2003. For the MM III period at Ayia Triada, see Carinci 2003 and Girella 2005. At Kommos, beside the large settlement on the central hill, Building T was built in MM III and already abandoned by the time LM IA pottery was in use (Shaw 2002; Kommos V). For a close investigation of the Neopalatial period of the southern Mesara, with special attention to the ceramic perspective, see Van de Moortel 1997. 6. The deposits below room 50 (Levi 1976, pp. 405–406) and one below room 18 (Levi 1976, pp. 374– 376); the northeastern sector (rooms 101–104) (Pernier 1935, pp. 353–375); corridor III-7 (Levi 1976, pp. 255–281;

Carinci 1989, pp. 75–76); room XLIV below room 70 (Pernier 1935, pp. 327– 331); room XLV (Pernier 1935, pp. 121– 124). 7. Pernier 1935, p. 331, fig. 197. The date of the single-hole hanging nodule (PH Wa 32), which was found below room 10, is still controversial (see Fiandra 1994). 8. The use of the Central Court during MM III is demonstrated by the sequence of building operations that involved the western part of the Palace after the destruction of the Old Palace but before the LM IB operations—in other words, during an indefinite stage of MM III. According to the data from the trials below corridor 7 and those done on the western side of the Central Court, the alignment of the

houses and neighborhoods in mm iii phaistos

83

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

so-called West Bastion to MM II instead of MM III, while suggesting the existence of a different MM III bastion to the east, where watchtower CIV was one of the rooms.9 Can we consider this meager archaeological evidence sufficient to propose the existence of a “palace” as an administrative and distributive center in MM III? Does the lack of a physical “palace” mean a gap in political and economic power? Finally, and more speculatively, what was the role of the houses around the “palace” during such a critical period? This paper will try to provide an answer to this third question.

Id en t ify i n g H ou s eh o ld Act i v i t ies The Phaistos settlement boasts four main groups of houses during MM III (Figs. 8.1, 8.2): 1. The area to the west of the Palace, mainly represented by the Casa a Sud della Rampa (House South of the Ramp), which connects the Lower Court to the Upper Court. 2. The area south of the Palace and west of court LXX, with a series of MM III houses documented under Geometric buildings. 3. The Chalara quarter, on the southeast slopes of the Palace hill. 4. The building on the western hill—the Acropoli Mediana.10 The analysis of these main clusters, here necessarily summarized, will focus on three aspects: (1) the spatial distribution of the houses, (2) the architectural evidence for their form, and (3) the nature and distribution of the material remains. One important aspect concerning the distribution of these houses is the connection of the second and third groups by a main paved road. This route connected the Chalara quarter with the Palace through a series of three courtyards that were arranged at different levels from south to north.11 The main cluster of houses connected with the Minoan road is located in the quarter south of the Palace. Farther north, an important MM III house was built in connection with a strategic point, where the road turned northward and continued with a simple, often patched, beaten-earth surface.12 Architectural analysis of the MM III houses around the Palace indicates the persistence of the Protopalatial building materials and techniques: simple rubble masonry with no specific sign of monumental “palatial” 13 foundations of column bases differed in orientation from the line of the New Palace front, and the lack of the column base in the space corresponding to corridor 7 might be associated with part of a project consisting of a new, wider access to the court (Levi 1976, pp. 255–281, pls. U, V; Carinci 1989, pp. 75–77). As far as the West Court is concerned, its use is demonstrated by the paved road that connected this open space with the lower part of the settle-

ment, and, most of all, by the West Bastion and the small watchtower (room CIV), which were built directly on the West Court in MM III (Levi 1976, pp. 341–342, 346–347). See also La Rosa 2002c, esp. pp. 74–75. 9. La Rosa and Carinci 2009. 10. Levi’s excavations brought to light only destruction deposits on floors and fills from the area of Acropoli Mediana, without any information concerning walls, number of rooms, and/or

dimensions of houses. Nevertheless, analysis of the pottery assemblages makes it possible to argue for the existence of one or a group of houses. The evidence of the Acropoli Mediana, therefore, will be not discussed in the following paragraphs, but its pottery assemblages are taken into account in order to calculate percentages of vessel functions (Fig. 8.5). 11. Carinci and La Rosa 2002. 12. Carinci 2001.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

84

luca girella

architecture (e.g., mason’s marks or ashlar masonry). There are, however, a few elite features that clearly stand out. Foremost among these is a large number of fragments of high-quality frescoes that were discovered in several MM IIIA houses. Although a truly figural decoration is absent, there is evidence of a growing interest in stylized vegetal motifs that might reasonably be understood as an effect of the contemporary pottery production.13 In addition, other decorative treatments of floors and walls show a different and more sophisticated use of the architectonic and domestic space in the settlement (Table 8.1). The domestic aspects of the houses near the Palace and their implications can be explored by focusing on the spatial distribution of pottery and artifacts. The material from each of the household units can be analyzed as evidence for the function of the rooms.

Figure 8.1. Plan of the settlement of Phaistos showing the location of the main quarters discussed in the text. After Levi 1976, pl. 1; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

The Casa a Sud del l a Ra mpa The most impressive structure of the MM III period is the Casa a Sud della Rampa (Figs. 8.3, 8.4). Preserved from this complex are sections of a basement of a large building, with floor deposits covered by stone slabs and the remains of plaster floors fallen from an upper story.14 Recent excavations have demonstrated that this complex originally was a sevenroom structure (LXXXVI–XCI, XCVI) constructed during MM IIB.15 In MM IIIA, two rooms (XCII, XCIII) were added to the southwest; at the same time, two eastern rooms (LXXXVI, LXXXVII) were abandoned,

13. For the Casa a Sud della Rampa, see Militello 2001a, pp. 74–80, pl. IV; for the quarter south of the Palace, see Militello 2001a, pp. 80–85, figs. 10, 19–26, pls. V, B, D. 14. Levi 1976, pp. 489–505. 15. La Rosa 2002a.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

houses and neighborhoods in mm iii phaistos

Figure 8.2. Plan of the MM III Palace of Phaistos showing the location of the houses discussed in the text. After Levi 1976, pl. 2, with adaptations by M. Nociforo; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

Tab le 8.1. Freq uencies of plaster fragm ents and paint ings in th e h ouses aroun d th e Palace of P h aistos durin g MM III Houses Casa a Sud della Rampa South of Palace West of court LXX Acropoli Mediana Chalara North Chalara South Source: Militello 2001a

Offering Tables

Paved Floors

Wall Paintings

Plaster Revetments

x x x x – x x ? – – x x – – – – – x – – x ? – –

85

86

luca girella Figure 8.3 (left). The Casa a Sud della Rampa. View from the northeast. Photo L. Girella Figure 8.4 (below). The pottery assemblage of the Casa a Sud della Rampa. Adapted from La Rosa 2002a,

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

foldout pl. II, with additional details by L. Girella; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

houses and neighborhoods in mm iii phaistos

87

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

and the resulting debris was pushed inside and used for leveling operations covering the earlier MM IIB floor. The main access to the house was probably from the paved road/ramp north of room XC, as suggested by the remains of a paved threshold.16 While basement rooms produced substantial groups of pots—the result of the abandonment after the collapse—it is clear that the archaeological deposits must be understood in light of different formation processes. In the case of rooms LXXXVI and LXXXVII, a great deal of the material seems to have been deliberately dumped in order to fill these spaces, as noted above. The presence of fine tableware and ritual vessels in this fill suggests the deliberate selection of specific types of vessels in the depositional process (perhaps a form of ritual refuse deposition). In the other rooms the material seems simply to have been left behind when the building was finally abandoned. What was found in these rooms, however, should not be taken a priori as a representation of the items used in the rooms (i.e., as de facto deposition) for two reasons: (1) because it is unknown how many objects may have been removed during abandonment (curation, depletion) or post-abandonment (scavenging, recycling, or other disturbance), and (2) because it is also clear that some material found in these basement rooms is from the collapse of the floors above. On the other hand, it is likely that the whole or nearly complete ceramic vessels in the basement rooms were found close to their original positions. This is especially true of the pithoi, which were found still standing or smashed on the floors.17 With these qualifications in mind, the spatial distribution of the pottery can still provide important evidence of the multifaceted activities that took place in the Casa a Sud della Rampa (Fig. 8.4). Indeed, we can immediately notice some interesting patterns of distribution: room LXXXVIII, for example, primarily contained tableware for the consumption of food and drink; also present were a limited number of transport vessels for solids or liquids (Table 8.2). Storage activity seems to have taken place mainly in rooms LXXXIX (where three large pithoi are still in situ), XCVI, XC, XCII, and XCIII. An interesting ceramic assemblage, consisting of ritual and ordinary vessels, was found in rooms XCII and XCIII. It seems to be clear that these two rooms show particular attention to ritual vessels, leaving open the hypothesis that this new sector of the house was probably designed for ritual purposes.18 Surprisingly, we have no information about cooking facilities, such as ovens or hearths, and only four tripod cooking pots were recovered from the entire house. Our knowledge of stone objects is limited primarily to elaborate stone vessels and other tools that were found in rooms LXXXIX, XC, XCII, and XCIII, with a notable concentration in the last two rooms. Such a spatial distribution of the artifacts suggests that in addition to food consumption and storage, the western part of the house may 16. Access from the upper floors to the basement was probably gained via wooden staircases. Fragments of wall paintings fallen from the upper floor of rooms LXXXVIII, LXXXIX, XCI, and XCII were recovered in the debris of

rooms LXXXVI–LXXXVII. The decoration has been interpreted as a combination of foliate bands with running spirals on a blue ground. Red plaster floors, spread on a wooden frame, were located in rooms LXXXIX and XCI;

the stone slabs, found in rooms XCII and XCIII, suggest the existence of a paved level in the upper floor of the house (Militello 2001a). 17. Levi 1976, figs. 758, 764, 766. 18. Carinci 2001.

88

luca girella

Tab le 8.2. Pot tery Assemb lage of th e Casa a Sud della Rampa ( vessels not to scale) Casa a Sud della Rampa

Drinking/Eating

Pouring

Storage

Cooking

Ritual

Rooms LXXXVI–LXXXVII

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Room LXXXVIII

Room LXXXIX

Room XC

Room XCI

Room XCII

Room XCIII

Room XCVI

Sources: Levi 1976; Girella 2003

have been used for ritual activities in MM IIIA. The fine and specialized vessels, as well as the stone implements in rooms XCII and XCIII, seem to suggest a replication of the ceremonial activity of the eastern part (LXXXVI, LXXXVII), which took place in the house at the end of MM IIB.

So u t h of the Pal ac e The area south of the Palace boasts several different household units dating to the MM III period (Table 8.3). The most elaborate MM III building in this area is the house under the later Greek temple (Fig. 8.5).19 This house contains several poorly preserved rooms; only room XLVII—a paved courtyard accessed through a pier-and-door partition of a now-missing room—is still visible. The large number of wall painting fragments found by Pernier in this area has been recently associated with this rich residence by Militello and they have been dated to MM IIIA, whereas the ceramic assemblage from this house is still unpublished.20 Traces of pithoi are reported by Pernier, and they could indicate that storage activity took place in this house.21 If the chronology of MM IIIA is correct, we have to take in consideration

19. Pernier 1935, pp. 169–172. 20. For the wall paintings, see Militello 2001a, pp. 80–84, 150–151, 154, 190–193. 21. Pernier 1902, p. 18.

houses and neighborhoods in mm iii phaistos

89

Table 8.3. Pot tery Assemblage of th e H ouses around th e Palace of P haistos d uring MM III ( vessels not to s cale) Houses

Drinking/Eating

Pouring

Storage

Cooking

Ritual

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

South of the Palace (rooms LXXI–LXXIV) West of Court LXX (rooms LXXV–LXXVI) West of Court LXX (below and north to room CC) West Bastion

Rooms 101–102, 104

Acropoli Mediana Chalara North

Chalara South Sources: Pernier 1935; Levi 1967–1968, 1976; Girella 2003.

the existence of a “rich” house, whose highly elaborated architectural compound differs totally from the rest of the houses around the Palace. A second set of rooms, probably part of a different household unit, is located farther west (rooms LXXI–LXXIV; Fig. 8.6). They were seriously damaged by the construction of the LM I house and the Greek temple. The largest and best-preserved room of this complex is room LXXIII, which contained a pottery assemblage indicating the consumption of food and drink and, to a lesser extent, cooking activity (Table 8.3).22

We st of C o u rt L XX

22. Levi 1961–1962a, pl. A; 1976, pp. 428–436. 23. Levi 1976, pp. 456–468.

The third cluster of houses, which were recovered below the Geometric settlement, is the group west of the paved court LXX.23 The deposits consist of at least four rooms: rooms LXXV, LXXVI (Fig. 8.7), and the rooms below and north of Geometric room CC. They have produced fine vessels for food and drink consumption and coarse ware for use in transport and storage (Table 8.3).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

90

luca girella

Figure 8.5. Area south of the Palace, the Minoan house (XLVII) under the Greek temple. Adapted from Levi 1976, foldout pl. 2; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

Figure 8.6. Houses south of the Palace, rooms LXXI–LXXIV.

After Levi 1961–1962a, foldout pl. A; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

houses and neighborhoods in mm iii phaistos

91

Figure 8.7. Area west of court LXX, rooms LXXV, LXXVI under Geometric House AA. Adapted from Levi

1961–1962, pp. 432, 441, figs. 84, 100; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

Cha l ara N orth

24. Levi 1976, pp. 653–700; Girella 2003.

The Chalara quarter lies to the southeast, at the foot of the hill on which the Palace was situated. The area was inhabited from the Neolithic through the Late Roman period, and its remains indicate complicated and superimposed terraced dwellings that had been destroyed and rebuilt several times.24 We can isolate two badly preserved household units at the north and south ends of the excavated area. In the northern part (Fig. 8.8), the MM IIIA floor deposits of rooms ι, κ, λ–λ΄ are the surviving part of a three-room complex, preserved only along the western side, under Geometric and Hellenistic constructions. A paved floor was recovered in the main room (λ), and the ceramic assemblage consisted mostly of fine tableware for the consumption of food and drink. The most impressive find, however, was the large number of stone vessels stored in rooms ι and λ; no traces of

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

92

luca girella

Figure 8.8. Part of the northern sector of the Chalara quarter. Adapted

from sketchbooks by P. Guida, Chalara excavations 1963; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

elaborated floors were found in these latter two rooms.25 The evidence for storage activity in this small house is limited to medium and small jars, for small quantities of solid or liquid food (Table 8.3).

Chal ara S outh As part of the leveling operations during the construction of a LM IB mansion, fill containing a large quantity of MMII–IIIA pottery from the southern part of the quarter was dumped into a large building. The MM IIIA rooms (rooms η΄–ε΄; Fig. 8.9) were part of a large building that is very poorly preserved since the later mansion has destroyed or reused most of its parts. Rooms η΄–ε΄, because they do not have any entrance, possibly served as the storerooms of the house.26 The fill included copious quantities of fine tableware, but the presence of two conical rhyta, two human figurines, and one offering table also suggest a religious component accompanying other types of activities (Table 8.3).27

F ro m Pa lace to H ouse As mentioned earlier, the role of the Palace during the MM III period is questionable. Even though some important elements survived—e.g., the administrative and (possible) storage activities—there are sufficient grounds to suggest that other specific functions were moved outside the Palace. It is my opinion that several elite groups were scattered around the Palace in houses that had a multifunctional character, where household and ritual actions took place. Such a hypothesis is supported by some meaningful patterns. The first pattern—the spatial distribution of the houses—shows that they were located along the main paved road, which connected the lower quarter with the Palace. New traces of a MM III paved street were

25. Lamps F. 4530 (Levi 1976, pl. 231:f, g) and F. 4528 (Levi 1976, pl. 230:b, e), bucket jar F. 4529 (Levi 1976, pl. 236:i). 26. Levi 1976, pp. 688–693. 27. For rhyta F. 4263 and F. 3417, human figurine F. 4275, and offering table F. 7638, see Levi 1967–1968, pp. 145–152. Also Levi 1976, pp. 688– 693, pls. LXXX, LXXXI:b; Palio 2000; Girella 2003.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

houses and neighborhoods in mm iii phaistos

Figure 8.9. Part of the southern sector of the Chalara quarter. Adapted

from Levi 1967–1969, foldout pl. A; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

28. La Rosa 2005. Superimposed roads seem to be a characteristic of the Phaistos settlement that was maintained throughout the millennia. With this in mind, we have to stress the probable connection between the Chalara quarter and the Palace through the presence of a paved road preserved directly below the Geometric one, a small portion of which is still visible

93

discovered during the 2004 campaign in the area west of lower court LXX, under Geometric House R3. Indeed, the construction of a MM IIIA side wall for this paved road allows us to conclude that during MM III this north–south street still closely followed the Protopalatial course, and that it was renovated and expanded in order to facilitate communication between the lower quarter and the West Court.28 Second, despite the simple building technique, the concentration of wall paintings in the houses outside the Palace stresses the importance of these dwellings and proves a different use and application of this medium in MM III (Table 8.1). If we accept that MM III is a transitional phase characterized by attempts to rebuild the Palace, the growing importance of wall paintings might be linked with a specific interest by the people living around it. A religious significance, but also a mundane one, cannot be excluded.29 In addition, the use of elaborate architectonic elements, such as paved and plaster floors, so far attested only in the Palace, demonstrates the diffusion of “palatial languages” outside the Palace, before the reorganization of the frescoes and architectural program of the LM IB Palace. (Levi 1967–1968, fig. 85). Otherwise, we might only suppose the existence of a north–south street that crossed the Chalara quarter to join it with the northern sector of the Palace. This hypothesis becomes likely during LM IB, when two mansions, probably with different functions, were built at Chalara and Ayia Photeini. In this case, the reorganization of the northern sector of

the Palace, with a columnar hall (room 103) serving as the main north access to the Palace, shows a clear link with the two mansions below, whose storage and warehousing vessels have their counterpart in the big stirrup jars stored in room 103 of the Palace (Palio 2001, pp. 383–385). 29. Militello 2001a.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

94

luca girella

Third, after the collapse of the Old Palace, we have grounds for believing that at least a part of its cult functions and ritual activity was moved outside. The dissimilar patterns in religious organization in the MM IIB Palace and the residential neighborhoods show a less-centralized system of ritual practices. In MM IIB, an important role was played by the Palace’s southwest wing, which has recently been interpreted by Carinci as a place given over to cult and reserved for an individual of high rank, as the administrative documents and the amount of ceremonial pottery with cult scenes demonstrate.30 Surprisingly, the role of the houses outside the Palace during MM II, particularly the one from the Ayia Photeini quarter, is illuminating. This building, although it has a poor architectural character, shares the same ritual pottery assemblage with the southwest wing of the Palace and also uses benches for ritual purposes.31 New data from the architectural analysis of the southwest wing, as well as from new excavation trenches and the reexamination of several pottery assemblages by La Rosa and Carinci, demonstrate that the Palace suffered two serious destructions in MM IIB, the first of which damaged part of the wing.32 In the subsequent stage— but still in the MM IIB period—this sector was restored to some extent, whereas a poorly built complex of cultic rooms (the Sacelli) was added to the western facade of the Palace, directly on the NW Paved Court I.33 Significantly, Carinci has pointed out that the activity of the first phase of the Casa a Sud della Rampa dates to the final stage of MM IIB, and this could imply a sort of momentary “movement” of the cultic activity from the Palace to a separate structure.34 In this vein, it is reasonable to propose a noncentralized model at the time after the final destruction of MM IIB and during MM IIIA when some houses around the Palace had taken over the control of one part of palatial ritual activity or were involved in private ritual performances. This hypothesis could be supported by the concentration of stone and clay ritual vessels. Palio has stressed the distribution in the settlement of specific shapes, such as the footed lamp, the tablet, the bird’s nest bowl, and the block vase, which were previously attested in the Palace.35 Additionally, I would like to draw attention to the presence of specialized and ritual vessels; of importance are the shape, the dimension, and the elaborate painted and plastic decoration. The conical rhyton is attested in the Casa a Sud della Rampa and in the Chalara quarter as well. Indeed, the diffusion of a widespread variety of rhyta shapes—conical, piriform, ovoid, bull’s head—seems to be related to the interest shown by people living around the Palace for ritual equipment (Tables 8.2, 8.3). Likewise, the use of similar cult symbols, such as the Cretan wild goat (agrimi), is attested only in the settlement and on vessels that probably were produced by the same workshop.36 I would argue that these vessels functioned not merely as a symbolic statement about the status of the individuals who lived in the houses, but also as the main mechanism of the palatial elites to reinforce their power. Indeed, the amount of tableware and especially the occurrence of shapes for drink consumption in such houses could be interpreted as the counterpart of the ritual practices (Fig. 8.10). The attention to liquid consumption

30. Carinci 2006. 31. See Caloi, this volume (Chap. 7). 32. Carinci and La Rosa 2001; La Rosa 2002a, 2004b. 33. It is worth stressing the confusion generated by Levi’s dating of the entire west facade of the Palace (whose north sector had been already excavated by L. Pernier) to his III fase protopalaziale (i.e., MM III). Rather, it coincides with the MM IIB period. 34. Carinci 2001. 35. Palio 2000. 36. See, e.g., the agrimi appliqué on bridge-spouted jar F. 5509 from the West Bastion (Levi 1976, pl. 198:f, pl. LXXVIII), and on the conical rhyton F. 4029 from Chalara (Levi 1976, pl. 218:e). For the symbolic significance of the Cretan wild goat, see Bloedow 2003.

houses and neighborhoods in mm iii phaistos Figure 8.10. Estimated frequencies of shapes in the houses according to five principal vase functions: (a, b) quarters around the Palace of Phaistos; (c) MM IIIA and MM IIIB.

70%

House South of Ramp

60%

South of Palace West of Court LXX

50%

Sources: Van de Moortel 1997, Girella 2003

95

40%

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

30% 20% 10%

a

0%

Drink/Eat Pouring Storage Cooking Ritual

Stone

90% Chalara North

80%

Chalara South

70%

Acropoli Mediana

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

b

0%

Drink/Eat Pouring

Storage Cooking

Ritual

Stone

80% MM IIIA

70%

MM IIIB

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

c

0% Drink/Eat

Pouring

Storage

Cooking

Ritual

Stone

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

96

luca girella

would reflect palatial banqueting performances, but they now are making use of more simple vessels and modified and unelaborated ceremonial sets.37 A large number of conical cups, and of poorly made tableware in general, were used for toasting rituals in the Neopalatial period in palatial and elite household contexts. Communal involvement in banqueting practices is not new in Neopalatial Crete, but we can now stress a marked political dimension from the manipulation of the banquet ideology through a new and codified language. The symbolic power of new banqueting sets in reinforcing the social position and the power of elite groups in open or restricted performances is a well-known phenomenon from MM IIIA to LM IB.38

Figure 8.11. The complex northeast of the Palace. Pernier and Banti 1951, p. 392, fig. 256

F ro m H ouse to Pa lac e This perspective allows me to conclude by discussing a complex of rooms that was joined to the Palace at the beginning of MM IIIA and was in use mostly in MM IIIB, when most of the houses discussed above went out of use. The complex (Fig. 8.11), located northeast of the Palace, comprised the archive room (101), with the famous Phaistos Disc, to the west; an area with a pillar crypt to the east (102); an elaborate entry with a stairway to the Palace (103), which was restored in LM IB; and a group of storerooms (104). L. Pernier had interpreted this complex as the guardroom of the Palace, to which a kitchen and a group of storerooms were annexed.39 Despite the poor preservation of the area and the dearth of information on the ceramic deposits, I think we are dealing with the new entrance system of the Palace, which was modeled, at the beginning of the Neopalatial period, according to a new strategy of palatial ceremonies. The Linear A tablet, found together with the Phaistos Disc in room 101, shows that administrative activities took place in the western part of the complex. The focus of the complex is room 103, a columnar hall suitable for receiving people into the Palace, especially guests or visitors, and

37. From MM IIIA we can identify important changes of ceramic assemblage in the banqueting performances: (1) a substantial increase in conical cups; (2) the disappearance of ceremonial ceramic equipment, consisting of fine and elaborate Kamares vessels, from the palaces; (3) the simplification of banqueting sets, mostly consisting of undecorated and simple domestic wares (conical cups, plates, cooking pots, jugs); and (4) the introduction of the lustrous decorated wares; see Girella 2007a. 38. See, for instance, the cases of Galatas Pediada and Petras: Rethemiotakis 1999a; Rupp and Tsipopoulou 1999. For the banqueting aspects in Neopalatial and Postpalatial Crete, see Borgna 2004; Girella 2007a. 39. Pernier 1935, pp. 353–375.

houses and neighborhoods in mm iii phaistos

97

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

for the consumption of food and drink. Flanking this room are two others. The eastern room (104) only preserves the storerooms, with traces of a staircase leading to the upper floor. Apart from the extraordinary quantity of drinking vessels, the presence of three bull-shaped rhyta and miniature bull figurines is important to note. In the western room (102), the ceramic deposit of the pillar crypt consisted of cooking pots and one bull rhyton; a storeroom annex to the northeast contained tableware. The evidence here summarized suggests that the manipulation, offering, and consumption of food and drink for special collective ceremonies took place in the northeast area of the Palace. The ritual character of the performance is stressed by the occurrence of rhyta and bull figurines, as well as by the highly distinctive architecture: the columnar hall and the pillar crypt.

Con clu s ion s

40. Borgna 2004, p. 143. See also Hamilakis 1999.

For a transitional period such as MM III, when important changes were taking place in Neopalatial society, household archaeology provides an interesting level of analysis. The destruction of the Old Palace could have created a critical situation for Phaistian rulers and town residents. A decentralization of palatial functions has been suggested, but at the same time, given the evidence from the northeast area, we could also propose the existence of two distinct models for reconstructing ceremonial activities, each provided with a special role during MM IIIA and MM IIIB. The first one, in MM IIIA, would have reflected a “household ideology” that replicated the palatial symbols as the main instruments of private rituals. Some ritual furniture found within household contexts might be proof of rites suited to hosting and gift-giving among groups who were interested in maintaining or creating new alliances in order to gain access to primary resources or exchange gifts. This scenario fits with the hypothesis of a weakening of elite groups and a temporary lack of power. Indeed, the restricted access to ritual activities, as that evidenced in the houses of Phaistos, has been recently described by Borgna as “the attempt by emerging elites to manipulate instruments of social power and political legitimization by favoring exclusion and selective affiliation.”40 In MM IIIB, on the other hand, when the evidence of the houses is limited, the Palace—or that part which still survived and functioned—seems to reestablish a “palatial ideology,” especially with architectural compounds and pottery assemblages. In other words, the existence and function of the northeast sector would be explicable with a new notion of the Palace and imaginable with the use of the Central Court, which would have remained as the central point of ceremonial activity. This new system, in my view, seems to have been planned both for public gatherings and ritual activities, anticipating the model still in use in the LM IB Palace.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 9

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Δ β at M al i a: Two Hou s e s or On e L ar g e C om p l e x ? by Isabelle Bradfer-Burdet and Maia Pomadère

During the 1930s, several buildings located to the west of the Palace at Malia were excavated by P. Demargne and dubbed Quartier Delta (Figs. 9.1, 9.2).1 Among these, the vast construction Δβ was considered to be less interesting than its neighbor Δα, the latter being well preserved and containing a very rich archaeological assemblage. In fact, only a small part of the short publication of Δβ was devoted to its material remains.2 Δβ was described as a “grand ensemble à façade unique sur la rue principale, mais accessible par trois entrées.”3 The building is a large structure with a considerable area (ca. 500 m2), not all of which has been completely excavated. Δβ consists of three rectangular units (ΔβI, ΔβII, and ΔβIII) oriented perpendicular to a street, the so-called Rue de la Mer, which also runs past the Hypostyle Crypt toward the Palace. The western part of the building is especially well preserved because its destruction by fire hardened the mudbrick walls used in construction. Since Demargne’s excavation, some archaeologists have challenged the reconstruction of Δβ as a single large house.4 Architectural studies that cite Δβ also raise the same question: do the three units within Δβ (ΔβI, ΔβII, and ΔβIII) form three distinct houses, or do they belong to a single building? If the latter, what was the function of this large complex? A recent cleaning operation in 2004 has provided important insights that allow for a better understanding of the architecture as representing either one or two houses, based on a new series of state plans (Fig. 9.3).5 Only the northern part of the building could be cleaned, however, since the modern excavation house was constructed on the southern wing of the complex. 1. We would like to thank Jan Driessen for reading and commenting on the English version of the text, as well as our anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. 2. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, pp. 48–52, pls. XXI–XXV. H. van Effenterre seems to have directed cleaning operations here prior to his

study of the town (Van Effenterre 1980, pl. XXX). More recently, tests were made in Δα (Olivier 1982; Fotou, Olivier, and Schmid 1985). 3. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, p. 48. 4. Van Effenterre 1980, p. 414; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, pp. 186–187. McEnroe (1982, p. 16)

includes house Δβ in a histogram analyzing similarities between Neopalatial houses and, surprisingly, he compares this building with the Ayia Varvara house, which is of course much smaller and of more simple construction. 5. For a preliminary excavation report, see Bradfer-Burdet and Pomadère 2004–2005.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

100

isabelle bradfer-burde t and maia pomadère

N

S

0

5

10 m

Figure 9.1. Plan of Malia, Quartier Delta houses. Demargne and Gallet de

Santerre 1953, pl. LXVII

Δ β at m a l l i a : t w o h o u s e s o r o n e l a r g e c o m p l e x ? Figure 9.2 (right). Quartier Delta and the Rue de la Mer during excavation in 1931. View from the northwest. Photo courtesy École française d’Athènes

Figure 9.3 (below). Plan of Δβ. New cleaning is indicated within the outlined area. Drawing K. Gilles and

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

G. Hilbert, courtesy École française d’Athènes

101

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

102

isabelle bradfer-burde t and maia pomadère

Figure 9.4. Facade walls of ΔβI and ΔβII. View from the northwest. Photo M. Pomadère, courtesy École française d’Athènes

A rch i t ect ural Developmen t Three preliminary observations suggest that the complex consists of more than one house. First, we can observe that the orientation of the walls is not the same throughout the building, and this applies both to the street facades and the internal walls.6 This difference suggests three successive construction phases. Second, the recent cleaning operation revealed different masonry styles in each of the three facades. All of the preserved foundations are in limestone (sideropetra), while the superstructures consisted of sandstone (ammouda) blocks, which had collapsed into the street.7 But at the west, the facade wall of ΔβI is made of cut megalithic blocks, standing on a slightly projecting plinth;8 this is in contrast to the exterior wall of ΔβII, whose blocks are half as wide (Fig. 9.4). To the east, the preserved foundation blocks of ΔβIII show yet another different construction style.9 Third, Δβ can also be divided into two parts according to its floor levels; the floor levels of ΔβI and ΔβII are 1.50 m beneath the floor of ΔβIII. The western wing of the complex (ΔβI and ΔβII) consists of a semibasement flanking the street, accessible through doorway A and two descending steps (Figs. 9.5, 9.6), whereas, to the east, the floor of ΔβIII is slightly higher than the street level and is accessible through doorways B and C. The level of the floor in the western section was probably determined by the natural topography, which slopes down from the northeast to the southwest. As such, the level of the floor within ΔβI near the area of doorway A was similar to that of the “Rue 2” (excavated by Demargne but not visible today).10 It appears that this level was chosen to form the ground floor for the entire building, which was therefore at a slightly lower elevation than the “Rue de la Mer” and the area to the northeast. The different orientations, construction techniques, and, to some extent, the difference in floor levels indicate that Δβ cannot belong to a single program of construction. The heterogeneity of the building is best explained by its history, which consisted of at least three phases. These were probably close in time, since the facades are interdependent. The relative

6. The excavated streets of Malia all seem Protopalatial and could be older than the preserved houses. 7. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, p. 48. For an early photograph showing large ashlar blocks lying in the street, see Van Effenterre 1980, fig. 529. 8. The blocks are ca. 1–1.20 m wide with a height of 0.80 m. Both the dimensions and type of masonry are similar to those of the Palace, especially near the limits of the Northwest Court, below the wall of V,1 (see Pelon 1980, p. 87). 9. The blocks have an average width of 1.20–1.25 m and a height of 0.50 m. They sit on a rubble foundation. 10. The old plan confirms this, since no step is recorded for this doorway.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Δ β at m a l l i a : t w o h o u s e s o r o n e l a r g e c o m p l e x ?

103

Figure 9.5. Doorway (A) into ΔβI. View from the northeast. Photo

I. Bradfer-Burdet, courtesy École française d’Athènes

Figure 9.6. North–south section C–C΄ through ΔβI. Drawing K. Gilles, courtesy

École française d’Athènes

11. The small “compartments” here were packed with MM I sherds (Demargne [unpublished], p. 13).

lack of material recorded from reliable archaeological contexts during the old excavation cannot help date these phases, but it may be assumed that they occurred between Middle Minoan (MM) I and MM III. That said, it remains very difficult to define the precise building stages because the entirety of building Δβ and the surrounding area was occupied as early as MM I and underwent several transformations until it was destroyed in Late Minoan (LM) I. In any case, buildings ΔβI and ΔβIII seem to have been constructed first, while the space between them appears to have been filled in a later phase by building ΔβII, the only part of the complex without direct access to the street. ΔβI and ΔβII are separated by only a narrow rubble wall that could not have served as an exterior wall. The two buildings may never have been completely independent, and the addition of ΔβII probably occurred almost immediately. Less likely, the northeast exterior wall of ΔβI could have been removed in order to build a partition wall when ΔβII was added. If the northern half of ΔβII is an addition to ΔβI, it seems likely that the southern half belongs to the earlier MM I period,11 and was simply reused by the later builders. As early as the Protopalatial period, however,

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

104

isabelle bradfer-burde t and maia pomadère

Figure 9.7. General overview of Δβ West. View from the southeast. Photo I. Bradfer-Burdet, courtesy École française d’Athènes

Figure 9.8. Aerial view of ΔβII.

Photo C. Gaston, courtesy École française d’Athènes

ΔβI and ΔβII were joined into one large building, which we may call Δβ West (Fig. 9.7). A narrow and angular vestibule with a limestone threshold allowed communication between the two sides. The west wall of ΔβIII must have been built before ΔβII, since the walls of the latter rest on the walls of the former (Fig. 9.8). This long wall has a deep foundation and could belong to an earlier building, the walls of which have been discovered under ΔβIII and dated to MM I. The other structures of ΔβIII were built later, probably during MM III, as shown by the north facade wall that sits directly on the Protopalatial street pavement, but with a completely different orientation.

Δ β at m a l l i a : t w o h o u s e s o r o n e l a r g e c o m p l e x ?

105

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

The lack of a doorway in the wall separating ΔβII from ΔβIII is the main reason several archaeologists have considered the two areas two separate houses. Thus, the question remains whether these two areas ever could have belonged to a single large complex, as Demargne believed. There are two possible reconstructions of this architectural block: two separate, semidetached houses, or a single large “complex” with distinct spatial functions. We believe that the most reasonable solution is the former, but it is worth expounding the arguments in favor of each interpretation.

T wo Sem i d e tac hed H o u s es ?

Δβ We st ( Δ β I – II ) The plan of the building is quite simple, especially in the central part (ΔβII). Here, two types of building units can be distinguished: a long and narrow doorless space and four small rooms (without entrance in the southern side). These two types are mirrored on both sides of a very thick east–west wall (Fig. 9.3).12 The northern rooms (9–12), which were plastered, were probably used as storerooms or workshops, as suggested by the coarse pottery and the loomweights found here. The function of the southern spaces (no longer visible) may have been mainly structural: the small doorless rooms (22–24), with no evidence of plaster and filled with MM I pottery, could simply have been foundations supporting the upper storey. Corridor 13 may be interpreted in a similar way, as Demargne had already suggested.13 Its floor was apparently higher than those of the other rooms, probably in order to prevent rain from running onto it from the street. During the first occupation phase, the entrance (A) of ΔβI led to a large hypostyle hall with two sandstone square pillars (Fig. 9.3).14 A six-rayed star is incised on the western pillar, whereas the eastern one seems to carry an arrow.15 The hall provided access to the other ground-floor rooms. Among those, room 3 is the most elaborate. It contains a basin in its central part surrounded by six column bases. It has been interpreted as an impluvium,16 but it could have been a light-well, comparable to those in a “Palaikastro Hall.” In a later phase, modifications were made and the building received new partition walls. The hypostyle hall was divided by mudbrick walls (Fig. 9.9), and access to the southern part of the house was blocked.17 Therefore, during the last phase, all of the rooms were quite small. These modifications, as well as the simple clay plaster on the walls and the finds (many pithoi, a bronze basin, loomweights), suggest that this basement was used for domestic activities as well as for storage. The thick walls and pillars, in addition to the fallen objects and slabs found during Demargne’s 12. For comparison with other sites, see Fotou 1993, pp. 82–84, pl. XXIX, especially house Ej and the rooms between Ef and Eh at Gournia. For Pseira, see Pseira V, p. 48. 13. Demargne interpreted corridor 13 as “la fondation d’un escalier ou d’une galerie” (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, p. 50).

14. Their dimensions are similar to those of the pillars of the hypostyle hall in the northwest part of the Palace of Malia. They probably supported a superstructure made of wood and rubble, and columns on the upper storey (cf. Shaw 1971, p. 172). 15. Demargne identifies the mason’s mark on the west pillar as a double-axe

sign, but there is no doubt that it is a star. Cf. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, p. 49; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, p. 186. 16. Van Effenterre 1980, pp. 415, 418–419. 17. Driessen and Macdonald 1997, p. 186.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

106

isabelle bradfer-burde t and maia pomadère

Figure 9.9. ΔβI, room 1/2: eastern sandstone pillar and mudbrick walls. View from the east. Photo I. Bradfer-

Burdet, courtesy École française d’Athènes

excavations, suggest the presence of an upper floor over the entire building.18 According to the finds, we can assume that the function of the upper rooms was mainly residential or ceremonial.

Δ β III: A M ore M on um ental B u i l di n g This part of block Δβ is closest to the Palace. Until now, archaeologists have suggested that this building looked out over an open paved area on its northeastern side where there was “une petite place dallée triangulaire.”19 However, the recent cleaning of the square has shown that the sideropetra slabs were not part of a public court and a widening of the street, but of a rectangular pavement leading to the vestibule of ΔβIII (Fig. 9.10). The floor of this vestibule was made of terrazza, which indicates that it was an open space—or at least one covered only by a light roof.20 These two features preceding the entrance make the approach to ΔβIII more monumental, and they may have helped to control access as well. The vestibule provides access to the building through two doorways (B and C), both of which have fine limestone thresholds (Fig. 9.3). Since the southern half of the building had been backfilled, only the northern half could be cleaned. Room 14, entered through large doorway B, is best preserved: it is a long corridor with plastered floor and walls (partly with colored patterns) and a bench along the north wall. At its west end sits a square platform of carefully plastered sandstone slabs with a column base and a small cylindrical column in the south corner (Fig. 9.11). Demargne assumed that this area had a ritual function, but it could just as well have been a small light-well, although its location near the street would be difficult to explain. The corridor continues to the south, leading into the other groundfloor rooms and probably, by means of a stairway (in room 15 or 16?), to the upper story. The largest rooms (18, 19, 20, 21) can be entered directly from doorway C and may have been reserved for a public or ceremonial purpose. Among those rooms, Demargne mentioned a “beau dispositif ” formed by four columns, which may have been a light-well (room 19). Unfortunately, the floors of this area have not been preserved.

18. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, pp. 49–50. 19. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, p. 50; Van Effenterre 1980, p. 262. 20. This seems to be the most frequent case (Shaw 1971, p. 219).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Δ β at m a l l i a : t w o h o u s e s o r o n e l a r g e c o m p l e x ?

107

Figure 9.10. Pavement leading to vestibule of ΔβIII and doorways B and C. View from the north. Photo I. Bradfer-Burdet, courtesy École française d’Athènes

Figure 9.11. ΔβIII, room 14: platform, column base, and column. View from the north. Photo I. Bradfer-

Burdet, courtesy École française d’Athènes

During the final phase ΔβIII had few identifiable storage areas, an observation that could indicate a public rather than residential function, at least on the ground floor. But storerooms do clearly exist in the neighboring house, Δβ West. This distinction raises the possibility that the entire Δβ building may have been organized as a single large complex in which the different activities and functions were spatially separated.

O ne Larg e Co mplex ? In order to consider the entire building as a unified complex, the problem of circulation between ΔβII and ΔβIII needs to be considered. How could the thick wall perpendicular to the street be crossed? The elongated shape of room 13 is suitable for a staircase, but the lack of an entrance and the difficulty of access from this staircase to the small platform in room 14 make

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

108

isabelle bradfer-burde t and maia pomadère

this reconstruction impossible. An alternative reconstruction, first suggested by Demargne, would be that one could pass from ΔβIII to ΔβII only via an upper floor. The walls of ΔβII are thick enough to support an upper story, which would have been on the same level—or slightly higher—than the ground floor of ΔβIII.21 Circulation between the two blocks would have been possible on the upper story, and rooms 9–12 may have been entered from above, a feature not uncommon in storerooms.22 Communication between the two units is therefore conceivable. However, no conclusive evidence can be produced to show that Δβ was ever used as a single large complex, such as Houses A and B at Tylissos or the Unexplored Mansion and the Little Palace at Knossos.23 In any case, in the latest phase (MM III–LM IA), the two units clearly appear to have been separate: Δβ was destroyed by fire, whereas ΔβIII was spared and simply abandoned.

Co n clusions Building Δβ fits well into the dense urban cluster west of the Palace and the Hypostyle Crypt, extending as far as Quartier Mu. All available space seems to have been occupied in this area, at least during the Protopalatial period, by buildings Δγ, Δβ, and the structures found inside and east of Δα.24 All of these buildings are of significant size, but their variations in plan and construction must be emphasized. Surprisingly, Δα—the only house in the area to be defined as a “villa” because of its lustral basin and polythyron—is the smallest among the buildings excavated in this zone (ca. 200 m²). It is also a building with projections and returns. Δγ is a roughly rectangular construction that was only partly explored, but it measures just over 250 m² and was found to have a polythyron. East of Δβ, the irregularly shaped house Κγ takes up at least 250 m² and comprises a deep cellar. This brief description of the area is somewhat oversimplified, but the diversity in architectural form is clear. The implication is, however, that it is extremely difficult to establish a meaningful typology of domestic architecture at Malia. In conclusion, it is obvious that building Δβ, even if made up of two houses, which is likely, represents an important building in the Minoan town of Malia. This is suggested not only by its location but also by its elaborate architecture. Although we are lacking the artifacts that could help us to define more precisely the function of the building, the range of activities that took place within it, and the social status of its occupants, our architectural analysis suggests that the eastern part of the complex could have served a public or semipublic function, or at least could have been devoted to welcoming visitors, whereas the western part had a more obvious domestic character. New excavations of a large building in front of Δβ (Building Π), begun in June 2005, may eventually help clarify both the stratigraphy and the history of this area.

21. Demargne (unpublished, p. 11), mentions “débris de stucs provenant sans doute de l’étage.” 22. Treuil 1996, 1999. 23. Hitchcock and Preziosi 1997. 24. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, p. 48, pl. LXVII; Olivier 1982; Fotou, Olivier, and Schmid 1985.

c hap ter 10

Spat i al A naly s i s of Hou s e Δ α at M al i a © 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

by Martin Schmid

1. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, pp. 43–48, pls. LXIII, LXVI. 2. Olivier 1982; Fotou, Olivier, and Schmid 1985, 1986. 3. For a discussion of House Δβ on the southern side of the Rue de la Mer, see Bradfer-Burdet and Pomadère, this volume (Chap. 9). 4. McEnroe 1982, pp. 3–7, 18–19, tables 1, 2.

House Δα at Malia, discovered in 1931, was dated by the excavators to Middle Minoan (MM) III–Late Minoan (LM) I. It was reconstructed immediately after the excavation to ensure the protection of the ancient remains.1 New trenches were excavated by J.-P. Olivier in 1981, and, in 1984–1985, in collaboration with V. Fotou, we resumed the study of new architectural features discovered after cleaning the building.2 The present paper offers some observations based upon the architectural analysis of what was clearly an important dwelling. Located within the urban framework of the town of Malia, House Δα forms part of Quartier Delta (Fig. 10.1). The houses here were situated on both sides of a paved way (the Rue de la Mer), which originated at the Palace and passed in front of the Hypostyle Crypt.3 Streets in this quarter are paved with sandstone and slightly raised in relation to the calderim that lines them. These roadways must date to the Protopalatial period because several Neopalatial buildings (also constructed on top of earlier structures) partially overlap them. House Δα differs from Houses Δβ and Δγ (both constructed in the Protopalatial period and reoccupied in the Neopalatial period) in that it is set back from the street, thus creating a buffer space between the house and the roadway; it is also separated from the street by a wall on the south and triangular spaces on the west. This distance from the street may also have been intended to minimize the risk of flooding. The privileged position of the building is further emphasized by the location at the intersection of two large streets. Moreover, the four sides of House Δα present the redans or recessed facades characteristic of Minoan architecture, with lengths in perfect rhythm, resulting in a harmonious balance when viewed from a distance. House Δα (Fig. 10.2) belongs to the type I Minoan house as defined by J. McEnroe, which consists of rooms that one finds primarily in elite architecture such as palaces or large villas.4 These elements include the “Minoan hall system” of hall, forehall, light-well, as well as other distinctive room types such as the “lustral basin,” corridors, staircases, private rooms, and toilets. The only type I element lacking in House Δα is the “pillar crypt.” It is surprising, moreover, to find all of these elements assembled together in such a relatively small area (170 m2), since all other type I houses have areas of between 225 m2 and 610 m2.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

110

martin schmid

N

S

0

5

10 m

Figure 10.1. Plan of Malia, Quartier Delta houses. Demargne and Gallet

de Santerre 1953, pl. LXVII

s pat i a l a n a ly s i s o f h o u s e Δ α at m a l i a

111

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

-

modern wall

Figure 10.2. Malia, plan of House Δα. M. Schmid

The entrance to the house, in the center of the western side, is unusually large. The threshold has a length of 1.83 m and is raised to prevent flooding.5 Its considerable width testifies to the importance conferred upon the house. From the entrance and vestibule (1), a large corridor (2) divides the house into two easily distinguishable parts: to the north lies the most impressive sector, still well preserved; to the south is a badly damaged “common” sector. 5. For comparison, the threshold of House Zα at Malia measures only 1.64 m and that of Δβ 1.52 m.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

112

martin schmid

Figure 10.3. Plan of entrance vestibule (1), including separation with doorways. M. Schmid

N o rt h S ec tor In the center of the paved vestibule (1) is a large stone slab in which two sockets are carved, indicating a very interesting system consisting of two doorways providing access either to the first floor via a stairway (12) with two flights, or to the rest of the ground floor via a corridor (2) (Fig. 10.3). Since the stone slab is placed slightly to the north of the vestibule’s central axis, the two doorways are of unequal size. The smaller, northern doorway leads to staircase 12 or corridor 4, while the larger, southern doorway leads to corridor 2 and then to room 3. Corridor 4 leads toward room 14, the “shower-room” and toilet (13) as well as the lustral basin (7). Corridors 2, 5, and room 6 also provide access to this area. Great attention was paid to room 7, the lustral basin or adyton (Fig. 10.4). Evidence of this concern is the design of its layout and its decoration, which consists of red bands demarcating the white panels drawn on the floor and walls.6 In the center of the room, the red bands intersect to form a motif that is also found on the Protopalatial(?) floor of House E, although in that case the colors are reversed, the bands being white and the panels red.7 In the final occupational phase of the house, room 7 was probably filled in, since the paving of room 2 also extended over the top of room 7’s south wall. Room 7, to judge by its particular architectural character with a “but-and-ben” entrance, its central location surrounded by corridors, its partially subterranean form, and the care lavished on its decoration and design, must have had an important function in contemporary society. Its filling in at the end of LM I is evidence, in my opinion, of a profound change in customs. Room 13 is situated against the exterior north wall in close proximity to the lustral basin (7) and room 6. It contains an installation that can be described as a toilet or latrine (Figs. 10.2, 10.4–10.6), preceded on the east by a steeply sloping paved space. This space was enclosed by partition walls,

6. Square-shaped room 7 forms, together with the access staircase, a rectangle Φ of harmonic proportions, as described in Schmid 1985. 7. For the painted floor, see Daux 1965, pp. 1000–1001, figs. 1, 2.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

s pat i a l a n a ly s i s o f h o u s e Δ α at m a l i a

113

Figure 10.4. Plan of “lustral basin” (7) and “shower-room” (13). M. Schmid

Figure 10.5. “Shower-room” and latrine (east at top). View from above. Photo M. Schmid.

the remains of which are easily visible on the ground, and it was entered through a doorway whose jambs are still in place. The steep slope (17% grade) of the paving in front of the latrine facilitated the disposal of waste matter, which was flushed away in the drain that passed beneath the north exterior wall. This drain must also have served to carry away the dirty water connected with domestic activities. The Minoans washed themselves and

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

114

martin schmid

Figure 10.6. “Shower-room” and latrine. View from the east. Photo

M. Schmid

room 6 room 6 0

1m 1m martin schmid martin schmid 0

perhaps also took showers using a method that compensated for the lack of running water (Fig. 10.7). A large paved room (3) with multiple doorways, called a polythyron, or fig.7 latrine, "shower room" 13 hall, is associated the smaller rooms fig.7 latrine, with "shower room" 13 to the north. Together they form a forehall (or porch) with a central column and an open light-well bounded by a low wall in which a passage was made to carry away the rainwater (Fig. 10.8). This ensemble formed part of the “canonical” Minoan hall system as defined

Figure 10.7. Representation of a shower. M. Schmid

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

s pat i a l a n a ly s i s o f h o u s e Δ α at m a l i a

115

Figure 10.8. “Minoan hall system” room 3. View from the south. Photo

M. Schmid

by J. Lloyd.8 Here in House Δα the rooms were placed against an exterior wall—a location that has numerous parallels elsewhere.9 This imposing architectural unit, whose plan was laid out according to rules intended to invoke harmonic geometrical relationships (Fig. 10.2), thus does not constitute a passageway but instead forms a type of cul-de-sac on the side of the building opposite the formal entrance.

S ou t h S e c tor

8. Lloyd 1997–1998, pp. 123–130. 9. The Archanes model is an example of a light-well placed against an exterior wall. See also House Zα at Malia, the South House and the House of the Frescoes at Knossos, and House C at Tylissos.

The South Sector housed magazines, service rooms, and spaces for domestic activities, as is evidenced by the presence of a large sandstone mortar installed in the northwest corner of room 9. This part of the house has undergone several phases of construction. The wall alongside the street to the south must have formed the south wall of the original Protopalatial house on this spot. Lines of stone perpendicular to this wall, in fact, pass underneath the Neopalatial construction and continue into the interior. It is probable that the north–south wall forming the east wall of room 10 and a foundation beneath the pier bases on the west side of the polythyron hall (3) constituted the eastern limit of this Protopalatial house. The entrance of the earlier house must have been situated to the south, as suggested by the presence of a large flat paving stone; another entrance was located to the southwest. Other phases of construction are also evident. In the penultimate phase room 10 was a polythyron, but in the final phase some of its bays were closed, and staircase 11 was created to the north (Fig. 10.9). Among the discoveries made during the 1981 excavations by Olivier is a lead ring setting with a representation of three women, which was found

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

116

martin schmid

Figure 10.9. Room 10 and staircase 11. View from the south. Photo M. Schmid

below the level of the final floor of room 8 near the wall between rooms 8 and 10. In a ditch in the southwest corner of the room 9, 50 fragments of seal-making scraps, a sharpening stone, stone tools, and a stone axe were also discovered. Taken together, these artifacts strongly suggest the existence of a seal-stone carving workshop. Earlier excavations in room 10 had uncovered two Cycladic figurines, a kernos fragment, a stone representing two people, a bronze double axe, and a large quantity of MM III–LM I vases placed on an earthen floor.10 Thus, it appears that the polythyron was turned into a storage area in the last phase of occupation.

A na lysi s of F un ct ions Given the poor preservation of the South Sector, it is difficult to determine precisely the original functions of the rooms that underwent such significant modifications during the life-cycle of this house—apart from that of the polythyron (10), which, as we have already noted, was turned into a storage magazine. The only clearly preserved indication of domestic activity is the presence in room 9 of a mortar for crushing grain. The earthen floors in the South Sector contrast strongly with the paved floors of the North Sector, suggesting that these sectors may have served different functions or housed persons of different social classes. Alternatively, the ground floor of the South Sector may have had only a limited or specialized function, while the living spaces were on the floor above.

10. Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, pp. 57–59, 62, nos. 280, 1589, 2232, 2315, pls. XVI, XXVIII, XXIX. For the vases found in room 10, see Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, fig. 3, pl. XX.

s pat i a l a n a ly s i s o f h o u s e Δ α at m a l i a

117

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

The architectural evidence suggests that the house was used to receive visitors. We can note that the large paved room (3) in the North Sector is accessible by means of entrance vestibule 1 and corridor 2. It could also be reached from the first floor by staircases 12 and 11 and may have constituted a meeting point for visitors and residents. This room has an area of ca. 40 m2 and could, in fact, accommodate a large number of persons. Its size, accessibility, and design suggest that it served as a reception room, or perhaps a ceremonial chamber, and therefore had a social function. The large entrance to the house, which implies a desire for openness and gives the house a public as well as a domestic or familial aspect, further supports this hypothesis. In addition, there was at least one upper floor, accessed via staircase 12. The total area of the house (perhaps as much as 340 m2) seems more suitable for an extended family and/or the reception of guests than for a single nuclear family.

Dis c u s s i on

11. These figures are the result of measurements of semidiagonals and diagonals of a square with a unity of one; see Schmid 1985.

Architecture, as the projection of a structure of thought into physical space, can aid us in finding the essential structure of that thought process that led the architect to carry out this project. Indeed, if rooms like the polythyron and its forehall have a social semipublic function, the lustral basin (7) and the “shower room” and toilet (13), which are close by, can be placed in the same category. We may suppose that they also served the residents, the extended family, and others (household servants?) taking part in the domestic activities of the household. Observing the plan of this house, we are struck by the balance of the architectural massing and are impressed by the harmony of its layout. Plato (Ti. 87cd) says that “the beautiful is not without measure.” And, in fact, we find that the plan of House Δα can almost be inscribed within a square (Fig. 10.2), the lengths of the facades are in proportion and conform to harmonic relations, the east–west axis of the house passes through the middle of the entrance, and the north–south axis passes through the center of the lustral basin. The architect who conceived the plan of House Δα was deliberate: he took as a unit the width of the polythyron, introduced the relations of the number Φ into the north facade, and used the relations of the square root length measurements of the redans or recessed portions of the walls in the west facade.11 The same relationships can, in fact, be observed in the south and west facades of the Palace at Malia. The conception of House Δα is very elaborate, and it is relatively clear—despite the transformations carried out at the time of the last occupation—that it was destined for an important personage who had at his disposal spaces for ceremonies, receptions, and accommodation in the north part of the house, spaces intended for domestic activities in the south part, and, certainly, spaces for residences on the upper floor. Given this architectural sophistication, it is easy to imagine that House Δα was the residence of the architect of the Palace.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 1 1

Int e r p re t i n g D om e st i c S pac e i n N e opal at i al C r e t e : A Fe w Thoug h ts on H ou s e I I at P e t ras, S i t e i a by Nektaria Mavroudi The data are not “given” to interpretation. Rather interpretation is part of the data. —Hodder 1999, p. 83

1. For the excavations at Petras, see Tsipopoulou 1986, 1987, 1999a, 1999b, 2002, 2006; Tsipopoulou and Dierckx 2006. 2. I would like to thank the organizers for the opportunity to participate in the ΣΤΕΓΑ colloquium. I am deeply grateful to Metaxia Tsipopoulou, Director of the National Archive of Monuments, Ministry of Culture, and field director of the Petras excavation, for giving me the opportunity to study the architecture of House II, providing access to it, and facilitating my work in every possible way. I would also like to express my gratitude to Katerina Kopaka, for her valuable guidance during the completion of my MA thesis at the University of Rethymnon, Crete; some of the results of that work are presented here. My special thanks also to Melissa Eaby for running through the initial English text, Jan Driessen for allowing me to reproduce the plan of House Zβ at Malia, and to Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan for providing me with the photo of Hill I of Petras. 3. Tsipopoulou 1995, 1997; Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996; Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997; Rupp and Tsipopoulou 1999; Burke 2006; Alberti 2007.

The Late Minoan settlement of Petras is located a short distance east of Siteia. Excavations there have uncovered a “palace” building with a central court as well as the remains of houses.1 House II, which is the focus of this paper,2 is one of the most completely excavated domestic buildings of the main settlement. House II lies on the east slope of Hill I, ca. 5 m to the east of House I.1 (Fig. 11.1). The largest part of its plan was uncovered through a systematic excavation that took place during the years 1989–1991. Since then, some of the material has been studied, and the basic architectural features of the house have been briefly mentioned in publications, mainly in comparison with the remains of House I.1.3 But, as the complete analysis and publication of House II is still in progress, this paper offers some observations on the architectural features of the building and their significance based primarily on the excavation diaries and published reports, as well as on the author’s own observation of the excavated remains; it thus carries a preliminary character.

Architectural Plan of House II: Original P hase and Subseq uent Alterat ions As shown on the plan, House II covers some 250 m² and consists of 18 rooms and open spaces (Fig. 11.2). The inclination of the natural bedrock to the east initially led the builders to organize the construction on at least two terraces. Only the ground-floor rooms of the western terrace, which seems to comprise the main part of the house, are presented here. Rooms E, Z, Γ–H, space Ξ, and the west staircase were formed in the cavities that were created by carving out the bedrock and, therefore, must belong to the original architectural plan (Fig. 11.3). The same process was probably used in the creation of rooms I, Θ, and Δ. Room Γ originally included part of space H and extended up to a Πshaped bedrock carving on the west, an element apparently showing the

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

120

n e k ta r i a m av r o u d i

Figure 11.1. Hill I of Petras. Left to right: central building, House I.1, House II. Photo N. Vogeikoff-Brogan

Figure 11.2. House II, excavation plan 1989–1991. Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997, fig. 4

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

i n t e r p r e t i n g d o m e s t i c s pa c e i n n e o pa l at i a l c r e t e 121

Figure 11.3. House II, excavation plan 1989–1990. Rooms included in the architectural plan at the time of the foundation consisted of rooms, Ε, Ζ, Γ–Η, Ξ, and the stairs north of Ξ (darker gray)—and probably also rooms Ι, Θ, Δ (lighter gray). Drawing

N. Mavroudi, after an original site plan provided by M. Tsipopoulou

4. For the particularity and the uses of rooms with a central pillar, see Michailidou 1987, and Lloyd (this volume, Chap. 15). 5. It seems that almost all Cretan sites suffered at least some disturbance throughout LM IA and LM IB prior to the final LM IB destruction; see Driessen and Macdonald 1997, esp. pp. 35–47.

foundation of the original west wall of the room. In the initial phase of the building, rooms E and Γ most likely communicated by means of a small space that may have been a light-well (suggested by its good-quality pavement) with plaster between the slabs. A wall located at the western side of that pavement separated room Γ from room Z. Although there is evidence for some earlier occupation at the site, the foundation of House II may date to Middle Minoan (MM) IIIB, as suggested by a pottery sherd from room Δ. If this dating is correct, it seems that an ashlar wall was built on the east side of room Γ a short time later (i.e., at an early stage of Late Minoan [LM] IA). The wall probably extended at least to the southern limit of room Θ and was flanked by pavement on both sides. A main entrance to the house has not been located, but the plan seems to indicate its existence on the east side of the building; the use of ashlar masonry in such a prominent position may be related. It appears that room E dominated the original plan, and it must have served as the central meeting and activity area of the house. Its dimensions (4.40 x 3.70 m) probably required a pillar to support its roof, so it is worth mentioning that a possible column base was found in its northern portion. Moreover, the room’s central location meant that it was frequently accessed in order to enter the other rooms of the ground floor (I, Θ, Γ, Z, and the staircase).4 A built bench, a possible hearth or hearths, and the existence of a closet (space Ξ) on its southwest corner also adds supporting evidence for the importance of this room. Within LM IA, both the plan of the house and certain architectural features underwent a series of changes. For example, some walls were demolished, others were built or rebuilt, some spaces decreased in size, other rooms were added, and floor surfaces were changed. Some of these changes may have been required after a series of natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes), while others seem to be deliberately carried out, reflecting a shift of social roles in the settlement.5 In mature LM IA, the south part of the ashlar east wall of room Γ was removed for the creation of a pier-and-door partition, as a roughly cut block north of the opening between rooms E and Θ shows. It is possible that this act was intended to create an atypical “Minoan hall” in this

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

122

n e k ta r i a m av r o u d i

Figure 11.4. Plan of House Ζβ, Malia, with nonaxially organized “Minoan hall” at southwest corner. Driessen 1982, fig. 23

part of the building, with room Θ serving as an anteroom to the main hall (room E) and the paved southern part of room Γ, which at the time communicated with room E, then used as a light-well. The resulting nonaxial organization of the space resembles that of House Zβ of Malia, where a nontypical “Minoan hall” is also recognized at the southwestern corner of the building (Fig. 11.4).6 Through the creation of a polythyron, access to room E could be controlled while still allowing it to keep its central role in the life of its inhabitants. Whoever went into the house from the east entrance could now walk along a paved corridor to reach room Θ, which possibly served as an anteroom, and then through the pier-and-doorpartition to enter room E.7 At the same time, a single layer of plaster and small sea pebbles covered the floors of rooms E, Ζ, I, and most of the staircase. Remains of a plastered floor were also found between rooms Δ and Θ, incorporating slabs of the previous pavement in that area, a practice also observed in the east and southwest of room E.8 The lower parts of the walls resting on these plastered floors are constructed from small- and medium-size stones fitted tightly together. This characteristic could therefore lead one to attribute the architectural layout of rooms E, Ζ, Ξ, the staircase, and at least part of rooms I and K to the same mature LM IA phase. We cannot be sure about the use of rooms I and K in this period, but the orientation of their walls shows that they were an addition to the central room E. 6. Driessen 1982, pp. 52–53. 7. The slabs in the south part of Δ, room Θ, and the east part of room E could be the remains of such a corridor. 8. For this type of floor covering as

well as the pavement with plaster filling the interstices between the slabs (as is the case for room Γ), which seem to be characteristic of the Neopalatial period, see Shaw 1971, pp. 216–221.

i n t e r p r e t i n g d o m e s t i c s pa c e i n n e o pa l at i a l c r e t e 123

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

C ha n ges i n t h e F ina l P has e of th e B uildin g During the last phase of the building (presumably LM IB), it seems that the plan and circulation pattern changed once more. A wall with a foundation deposit would frame the opening between rooms E and Γ.9 Room Γ could then be reached only through room Z, after the demolition of the previous wall that stood between them. In addition, room Γ was narrowed by a new west wall that extended to the north to meet the wall between spaces A and B. This construction apparently restricted free movement in the northern area of the house. Also, the upper parts of a number of walls (e.g., the north and south walls of room E, the west wall of room Z, and the north and west walls of room Ξ) were repaired with larger stones. While this shows confidence in the integrity of the previous masonry on top of which the building was continued, it also betrays an element of haste. Another feature connected with the last phase of House II is the “triangular” construction most clearly visible on both the wall in the south of room M and the new west wall of room Γ.10 There is also evidence for the use of spaces T, O, and Φ during LM IB, but it is difficult to interpret their role at the moment. Further, drains and pits were cut into the plastered floor along the north and west walls of room E, as well as into that of room Z. It is possible that these show a different orientation of the economic activities, which might have been connected with the hearths (at least four) in room E that were in use before the abandonment of the building in LM IB.

Ev i d en c e for H ou s eh old Act i v i t ies

9. The foundation deposit has been attributed to LM IB; see Rupp and Tsipopoulou 1999, p. 731. 10. This type of masonry refers to the “translation” of stones by the eyes and hands of the builders into triangles, the peaks of which, on both sides of the wall, always point to the middle of the wall’s width (Zoïs 1998, p. 44). 11. Christakis 1999, pp. 9–10. 12. A similar scale of storage is also met in House I.1 of Petras as well as in other LM I complexes in the Siteia Bay, such as at Klimataria, AchladiaRiza, and Prophitis Ilias Praisou; it corresponds to the storage potential of McEnroe’s type 2 houses (see Christakis 1999, p. 13).

Numerous finds from House II help to reconstruct some of the activities that took place during its last period. The doorless room K, where fragments of three pithoi were discovered, was apparently used for permanent storage. Room I, characterized by the large amount of pottery found in situ (ca. 60 vessels), and the built closet Ξ (with another 100 cups of different types) were used for additional storage, perhaps of a more temporary character. Keeping in mind that the total number of vessels identified is likely to increase after further study, we can note that the storage system of House II seems to combine a few vessels of large capacity (e.g., pithoi) and a larger number of small- and medium-size vessels for storage and transport.11 It is quite obvious, however, that the scale of storage represented in House II could hardly have fulfilled the need for self-sufficiency.12 It may be true that in times of shortage the inhabitants would be supplied goods by the adjacent Palace building. In this case they would probably recompense the Palace with products of their own, such as wine, oil, or textiles. Room Θ must also have undergone a change in function, as it now seems to be connected with food preparation, small-scale storage, and restricted industrial activities. Along with room I, it is likely to have served the increased and varied needs of the central room. The preparation and consumption of food and drink in room E is indicated by a number of finds

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

124

n e k ta r i a m av r o u d i

such as tripod cooking pots and disks, stone tools, obsidian blades, gournes, cups, trays, jugs, and also bones and shells found around the hearths. An intensification of activities that would demand drains and pits is also apparent. The presence of two Linear A documents found in rooms E and K is also worth mentioning.13 This discovery possibly places the residents of House II within the literate population of the time, and it shows differentiation in the means of access and distribution of goods among different groups of people in Petras. It could further support part of the discussion about the political fragmentation observed, among other indications, in the wide distribution and local variety of Linear A documents, and also the increase of competition among different groups during LM IA and LM IB.14 Small concentrations of loomweights in the area of spaces A and B and room K indicate restricted textile production. Some household ritual could be represented by several finds (e.g., rhyta, an unfinished kernos, bull statuettes, and pairs of horns of consecration). To these may be added a “palatial-style” amphora with decoration of double axes. It has usually been assumed that these elements symbolize authority and thus reflect “palatial” art or propaganda. At the same time, however, they show a tendency of the local elites to connect themselves with the palaces.15

Co n clusions The evidence currently available from House II of Petras places it among the buildings that employed a number of architectural innovations in domestic contexts throughout Crete at the beginning of the Neopalatial period.16 These exceptional domestic constructions appear to have coexisted with traditional architecture,17 and quite frequently the adoption of both traditional and innovative characteristics in a single building is also encountered.18 From the time of its foundation in MM IIIB and through the LM IA period, House II (unlike House I.1) gradually incorporated such innovative features as ashlar masonry and the pier-and-door partition, reflecting a need for distinction through specific functional procedures (e.g., ritualized reception).19 These characteristics were adapted to the original plan through a “translation” that displayed regional and probably local characteristics. At any rate, the attempt to differentiate House II from its social surroundings indicates that a change in social dynamics occurred within the settlement through the emergence of groups of people with a new economic and social status. This phenomenon is attested elsewhere on Crete during the same period, supporting the hypothesis of a serious change in the political and/or economic conditions and an alteration in social structures from the beginning of LM I onward. During the last chronological phase, the formerly distinct character of House II was reduced. The need for self-sufficiency (intensification of industrial activities, increase of storage space, existence of Linear A documents) and the effort to control circulation that is reflected in a large number of LM IB households are also apparent here, perhaps symptoms of decline by the end of the period.

13. Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996, figs. 14:a–d, 15. 14. Driessen and Macdonald 1997; Driessen 2002, p. 12; Hamilakis 2002, esp. pp. 183–186, 193; Schoep 2002, pp. 18–21. 15. Driessen and Macdonald 1997, pp. 61–64, 70–74; Crowley 1995; D’Agata 1992, esp. p. 252; Hallager and Hallager 1995; Rehak 1995. 16. The term “palatial” is most frequently used to differentiate this type of architecture from “traditional” or “vernacular” construction. Other terms include “innovating” (Tzedakis and Chrysoulaki 1987, p. 114), “nouvelle” (Zoïs 1990, p. 87), “polite” (McEnroe 1990), “innovative monumental” (Platon 2000, p. 55), and “formal” (Michailidou 1987, p. 523). 17. Chryssoulaki and Platon 1987; Shaw 1987; Driessen 1989–1990; Platon 2000. 18. Driessen 1989–1990, pp. 12, 16; Tsipopoulou and Vagnetti 1995; Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997. 19. Driessen 1982, pp. 57–58.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 12

Th e M i n oan Vi l l as i n E ast C re t e : H ou s e hol d s or S e ats of Au t hor i t y ? Th e Cas e of P r op h i t i s I l i as P rai s ou by Eleni Mantzourani and Giorgos Vavouranakis This paper deals with part of the results of a field project regarding the character of the so-called Minoan villas in eastern Crete.1 Middle Minoan (MM) III–Late Minoan (LM) I villas are considered to be second-tier centers that rank between the palaces and the average house. Several villas east of Lasithi have been excavated, either fully or partially, at the sites of Achladia, Prophitis Ilias Praisou, Klimataria, Zou, Makrygialos, and Epano Zakros. These buildings are not the most typical examples in terms of architectural morphology, at least in comparison to their Central Cretan counterparts, and, thus, there has been no scholarly consensus as to whether they can be categorized as villas.2 Two fieldwork seasons, in 2003 and 2004, allowed the reexamination of all the aforementioned buildings as well as those at Azokeramos, Kephali Lazana, and Rousses at Chondros Viannou.3 This paper presents the results of the study from Prophitis Ilias. This site was chosen because it is one of the most representative cases regarding the debate on the villas of East Crete, and the edifice in question has been characterized either as a single architectural entity or a series of households.4 The examination of Prophitis Ilias, as well as all of the abovementioned villa candidates, has been based upon a series of criteria that attempt to understand the degree of labor investment and elaboration that these buildings betray through architectural design, building materials and techniques, circulation systems, and use of space. Field observations are complemented with new ground and isometric plans and reconstructions and are then placed within the architectural and sociohistorical context of the New Palace era. 1. This project was funded by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory and the University of Athens, to whom we are deeply indebted. We would also wish to express our thanks to the following: Lefteris Platon and the 24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities for granting us the permission to examine the site; Apostolos Sarris for providing the measurement of height above sea level; finally and especially, our colleague and friend Chrysanthos

Kanellopoulos for drafting all plans, some of which are presented here, and for discussing aspects of the architecture. All photographs were taken by the authors. 2. The definition of the term “villa” in Minoan architecture has been fully discussed in a specialized symposium (Hägg 1997), but no consensus has been reached, thus exposing how problematic the term is. For lack of a better alternative, however, the term will be

used here only to describe an architectural unit that represents a form of authority rather than a simple household. For a detailed discussion of our view on this issue, see Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, and Kanellopoulos 2005, pp. 743–744. 3. Mantzourani and Vavouranakis 2005a, 2005b; Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, and Kanellopoulos 2005. 4. Platon 1997b; Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

126

e l e n i m a n t z o u r a n i a n d g i o r g o s vav o u r a n a k i s

Pro ph i t is Ilias: P revious Res e arch In 1960 Nikolaos Platon published a preliminary report on the excavation of an architectural complex of over 30 rooms, covering about 700 m2, on the summit of the hill of Prophitis Ilias, near the ancient city of Praisos (Fig. 12.1).5 He distinguished two strata dating to MM IIIB and LM IA, respectively, and he thought that the site was a farmhouse, representing the local authority in the area.6 His interpretation was mainly based upon the finding of three winepresses, many pithoi, a grinding installation, and a number of loomweights. Many years later, Lefteris Platon revisited Prophitis Ilias.7 He restudied the pottery and concluded that the building was probably erected in LM IA and destroyed in LM IB. His interpretation of the character of the building is in accordance with that of the original excavator. Alternatively, Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou have argued that the remains at Prophitis Ilias comprise more than one single structure,8 and they distinguish at least two separate buildings. House 1 consists of the western part, while all the rest to the east belongs to either one (House 2) or more houses. Their study of the movable finds allowed them to suggest that the activities that had taken place within each of the assumed houses at Prophitis Ilias were absolutely comparable in scale to the activities attested in the houses at Petras. Hence, they proposed that Prophitis Ilias does not constitute a villa or a seat of a local authority, since no activities seemed to exceed the limits of the household.

Figure 12.1. The hill of Prophitis Ilias, Praisos. View from the north.

Photo E. Mantzourani and G. Vavouranakis

5. Platon 1960a. 6. An oblique wall over rooms O and Π may be connected with LM III activities in the area, attested by the finding of relevant pottery. The building was further disturbed by Byzantine burials (Platon 1960a, pp. 295, 297; Platon 1997b, p. 197). 7. Platon 1997b, p. 197, n. 18. 8. Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997, pp. 206–208, 210.

the minoan villas in east crete

127

Tab le 12.1. Ro om Dimensions of th e villa at Pro ph i t is ilias, praisos

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Room

North–South (m)

East–West (m)

A ? Β 3.75 Βα 3.10 Γ 2.60 Δ ? E ? Z 2.45 H 1.20 Θ 2.20 I 6.15 (est.) K 6.65 (est.) Λ ? M 2.52 N 2 Ξ 2.50 O 1.00–1.03 Π 3.10 (max.)

? 1.40 2.15 3 ? 5.40 3.00 4.00 ? 1.20–1.46 2.35 6.55 3.75 4.30 3.90 3.90 (est.) 4.10 4.65 (from terrace to facade) P, Σ, and Σα 13.70 2.10–3.10 (from terrace to facade) T 2.15 2.35 Y 1.20 2.35 Φ 3 3–4.70 (est.) X 1 1.35 X and Ψ 3.40 6.55 Ψ 3.40 4.70 Ω 3.82 5.35–5.40 A1 4.30 3.42 B1 3.65–3.85 4.25 Γ1 8.10 2.15 Δ1 4.50 (min.) ? Ε1 5.50 2.30 Ζ1 ? ? Η1 ? ? Θ1 3.05 1.05 Ι1 3.60 0.53

Th e Reexam inat ion of P roph i t is Ilias In the summer of 2004 we revisited the site and studied its topography, architecture, and use of space (Table 12.1, Fig. 12.2).9 The remains were found in a fairly good state of preservation, although much building debris was scattered over the entire area. This was building material that had fallen 9. A detailed account of the fieldwork methodology has been included in the presentation of the building at

Klimataria in Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, and Kanellopoulos 2005.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

128

e l e n i m a n t z o u r a n i a n d g i o r g o s vav o u r a n a k i s

from the walls, which were preserved to a height of two to three courses. Nevertheless, the lines of the walls were clear enough to allow the assessment of the accuracy of the published ground plan. Room dimensions were remeasured, and all corrections were included in the new ground plan. An isometric plan (Fig. 12.3) was also produced. Level measurements were based upon visible stone-cut features such as thresholds and pavers, because original floors were not visible. The isometric plan illustrates both our own architectural reconstruction and our interpretation of the significance of the remains. Our work placed emphasis mainly upon the existing disagreement between the aforementioned researchers: is the building a single farmhouse, a country villa, or an agglomeration of several houses?

Figure 12.2. Prophitis Ilias, Praisos, 2004 state plan. Solid black: certain walls; solid gray: possible walls; oblique hatch: terrace walls; crosshatch: bedrock. C. Kanellopoulos

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the minoan villas in east crete

Figure 12.3. Prophitis Ilias, Praisos, isometric reconstruction. C. Kanellopoulos

10. GPS measurement provided by A. Sarris. 11. Platon 1960a, p. 294; Platon 1997b, p. 202; Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997, p. 206. 12. Elevation levels in Fig. 12.2 were not translated into height above sea level in order to understand more easily the relative differences between the levels of the various terraces on the site. 13. Platon 1960a, pp. 297 (rooms Λ– Ο) and 298 (rooms T and Y).

129

Top o gra ph y, an d B u ild in g Materi a l s and T e ch n iq u es The remains occupy the summit of the hill of Prophitis Ilias (Fig. 12.1), which is 250 m above sea level.10 As a result, the site has very good visual command of the surrounding hilly and fertile land. It is not possible to determine whether the building was nested within a settlement. Remains of walls have been reported around the hill,11 although only those east of the excavated area are clearly visible today. The remains lie on a series of terraces (Figs. 12.2, 12.3) that were dug into the soft marl bedrock.12 Rooms Ρ–Γ1 and spaces E1–I1 constitute the highest terrace. It should be noted that spaces Φ and Δ1, probably open-air, are slightly lower than the rest of the rooms, and they seem to flank the main compound of the upper terrace. Rooms I–Π lie immediately below on the second terrace. Spaces E–Θ rest 1–1.50 m lower, depending on the slope. Finally, rooms A–Γ are situated on the fourth and lowest terrace. It seems that the terracing debris was not used either for leveling or for the making of the floors. The floors were either the leveled bedrock or were paved with cobble or slabs.13

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

130

e l e n i m a n t z o u r a n i a n d g i o r g o s vav o u r a n a k i s

Building materials are local, mainly limestone and occasionally sideropetra. They seem to be mostly products of surface collection and detachment. Round boulders, probably from local torrential streams, were utilized in a few cases, too. All walls are founded directly upon the bedrock. Half of the SE room and the recess between the SE room and room A were dug into the soft marl bedrock.14 Terrace walls with north–south orientation are stronger than east–west partition walls. Most walls are constructed with rubble,15 with the exception of room A, which features coursed ashlar masonry (Fig. 12.4). In this case, it is difficult to ascertain whether room A was an exceptional area of a single edifice, whether it belonged to a different edifice, or whether it was simply a later LM IB addition. Several walls, such as those in rooms M–O and Y–Γ1, are set on a socle. The best example is the socle in room A. The overall impression is of an edifice of medium-quality architecture, with the exception of the coursed ashlar walls of room A. Even the digging of the terraces must have been a relatively low-cost procedure, because the bedrock is a relatively soft marl.

Figure 12.4. The SE room and room A. View from the northwest. Photo

E. Mantzourani and G. Vavouranakis

A rch i t ect ural Desi g n and Re co nstru ct ion It is plausible to suggest that the remains at Prophitis Ilias belong to a single building complex. This hypothesis is based upon the existence of a circulation system that linked the various terraces (Figs. 12.2, 12.3). Thus, from the SE room, the steps of the recess lead toward room E (Fig. 12.4). From there it is possible to proceed to the open spaces I and K. A curving wall south of space Λ, unrecorded until now, continues the ascent toward the staircase that leads to space Ρ and the uppermost terrace rooms. Communication between the two lower terraces is not clear, although rooms Γ, H, and Θ may have been linked before the erection of the later

14. The excavator refers to the SE room as NA on his ground plan (Platon 1960a, pl. A). 15. Boulder sizes range between 0.65 x 0.60 x 0.70 m and 0.80 x 1.30 x 0.47 m.

the minoan villas in east crete

131

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

west wall of room Δ. The possibility of a north–south corridor between rooms E and B is a rather weak hypothesis, as the space is too narrow (0.50–0.75 m). The later walls occupying the area probably supported the terrace of rooms E–Θ. Rooms H and O have been reconstructed as staircase areas, because they are quite narrow and run along the same east–west axis. They would provide a communication channel between at least three of the four terraces; for this reason, an opening has been marked on the east. The destroyed wall of room O and the stone-cut feature adjacent to this room have been interpreted as a threshold or step and not a bench.16 A similar staircase area unifying the lower and upper terraces may be proposed for room Π, with five steps at its northeast corner and the long corridor forming to the east of this room and north of room Θ. The possibility of a staircase toward spaces Σ and Σα cannot be excluded, but in 2004, there was no visible opening between spaces Π and Σ. If there were one, it would have to be at a higher level, above the first two courses of the solid wall. Additionally, rooms M and Ξ do not have an entrance. Room M may have had an entrance from space Λ, but room Ξ would be accessed only from above (space Ρ). The possibility of an upper floor above rooms M–Π cannot be excluded, although the walls are not very thick (only 0.40–0.50 m), and their construction looks rather shoddy. A light superstructure would be a plausible solution. Even in such a case, traffic to the upper floor would be directly controlled by rooms T and Y of the upper compound, a set of rooms that functioned as a vestibule and porter’s lodge, respectively. No upper-floor fill has been reported by the excavator for this area, however; this is in contrast with his consistent account in the excavation reports for buildings at other sites (e.g., Zou and Epano Zakros).17 With or without an upper floor, rooms M–Π were inextricably linked with space P and the upper terrace compound. The western-most spaces (spaces E1–I1) as well as spaces Φ and Δ1 were probably accessible only through the upper compound. The existence of an upper floor in this upper compound is rather problematic. Despite the rather strong walls of rooms T–Y and X–Γ1, no pillar or column bases have been found in the spacious rooms Ψ, Ω, or Α1.18 The same applies to room Α on the lowest terrace, although its fragmentary preservation does not allow further comment. As a whole, and in comparison to other contemporaneous buildings in East Crete such as Klimataria, Achladia, and possibly Epano Zakros, Prophitis Ilias does not betray an elaborate initial concept and design. It seems to have been constructed in an agglutinative manner, by adding parts and auxiliary annexes to the main uppermost compound, according to the needs of the residents and the available space on the hilltop and plateau. This view is reinforced by the fact that the two strata, representing two phases of development, were distinguished over the two lower terraces but did not extend to the two upper terraces. Therefore, the uppermost architectural compounds may have been added during the second phase. 16. As it appears to be in Platon’s ground plan (Platon 1960a, pl. A). 17. See Platon 1956b, p. 236 (for

Zou); 1964, p. 166 (for Epano Zakros). 18. Room Α1 is referred to as Α΄ on Platon’s ground plan (Platon 1960a,

pl. A). It has been renamed here for reasons of consistency.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

132

e l e n i m a n t z o u r a n i a n d g i o r g o s vav o u r a n a k i s

Th e Use of Space The function of various rooms and spaces was recently analyzed by L. Platon,19 who examined both the pottery and the excavation notebooks, and the preliminary published report by the original excavator is also very detailed about the location of various movable finds.20 Regarding the first two lower terraces, a difference in function can be observed between the two phases of development. The finds from the lower stratum suggest residential and cooking areas. In particular, the many cooking pots and animal bones found in the SE room suggest an area reserved either for cooking or—in the absence of a hearth—dumping. Room A yielded very few artifacts, among which was part of a bull-head rhyton.21 The SE room could have also functioned as a porter’s lodge, as it is the main gateway from the south to the rest of the architectural complex. The presence of the coursed ashlar masonry of the adjacent room A finds parallels at Klimataria, Zou, and Kephali Lazana at Chondros Viannou.22 In all these cases, ashlar masonry has been selectively used to highlight the main entrance. The lower stratum in rooms B, Bα, and Γ yielded pottery similar to that found in the SE room. The presence of fresco fragments in these rooms may further imply residential areas. During the second phase, the SE room retained its function, as the finds are similar to those of the first stratum. Nothing is reported about room A, and it may have gone out of use. Rooms B and Bα seem to have retained their original function, as attested by the finding of a jug, an amphora, cups, a cooking pot, and animal bones.23 On the other hand, a winepress and relevant pottery were installed in room Γ. A situla in room Δ may be associated with the winepress in room Γ.24 The function of rooms E–Θ is problematic, as the area had been disturbed by Byzantine burials, and no artifacts were reported by the excavator. Farther upslope, rooms M–O produced stone rubbers and many loomweights,25 suggesting an area used for weaving activities. A stone basin

Figure 12.5. Room N, view from the east. Note the circular kernos at the northeast corner (lower right foreground). Photo E. Mantzourani and

G. Vavouranakis

19. Platon 1997b, pp. 197–201, esp. figs. 30, 31:b. 20. Platon 1960a. 21. Platon 1960a, pp. 295–296. The high quality of the coursed ashlar masonry of room A is a possible indication that the room was not of auxiliary importance and might have been used as a reception area or residential quarter. 22. See the ashlar blocks of room K at Zou (Platon 1955, pl. 109:b; 1956b, pp. 237–238), the hewn blocks of the north vestibule of Klimataria (Platon 1952, p. 637, fig. 17), and the ashlar blocks of rooms A and B at Kephali Lazana at Chondros Viannou (Platon 1960b, pp. 283–284, pl. 231:b). 23. Platon 1960a, p. 296. 24. Platon 1960a, pp. 296–297. 25. Platon (1997b, fig. 30) also notes loomweights in room Π.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the minoan villas in east crete

Figure 12.6. Reconstructed elevation of Prophitis Ilias, Praisos. View from the east. C. Kanellopoulos

26. There is no published photo of this artifact. If it is small in size, it could be a loomweight. 27. Platon 1960a, pp. 299–300, pls. 238, 239. 28. This is why no accurate dimensions are provided in Table 12.1. 29. For this reason, no accurate dimensions are provided in Table. 12.1.

133

in corridor I, just outside room M, may have been used for wool washing. Room O yielded a pierced piece of natural conglomerate, which the excavator interpreted as a ritual object.26 The possibility of ritual activity is further accentuated by a possible kernos (0.52 x 0.56 m) set at the northeast corner of room N (Fig. 12.5). The upper compound was largely devoted to industrial activities as well. Two winepress installations were located in rooms B1 and Ψ. The latter room also produced a stone quern, stone grinders (rubbers), and a potter’s wheel.27 Rooms Ψ, Ω, A1, and B1 yielded several pithoi. Furthermore, the two spacious rooms Ω and A1 may have also been residential areas. Room A1 (Fig. 12.3) does not have any openings for air and light, because it lies in the middle of the compound. For this reason, the isometric reconstruction (cf. Figs. 12.3 and 12.6) leaves the possibility open for a ceiling, higher than the rest of the rooms of the compound, with appropriate openings. In this case room A1 would have also functioned as a light-well. Room T (Fig. 12.7) is a vestibule, and room Y probably functioned as a porter’s lodge, so-placed to control circulation at the upper terrace. The excavator reports that both of these rooms had paved floors. Nevertheless, only a few cobbles in room T were observed in 2004. Outside rooms Ω, T, Y, and B1 runs the open corridor P, Σ, and Σα. This corridor, the function of which is not immediately apparent, ends at a small staircase to the north. The eastern end of this staircase is aligned on the same axis as the projecting eastern wall line of room X. This allows the possibility of reconstructing a cornice that would run along the east side of the upper compound and offer shelter from the rain and the sun (Fig. 12.3). Spaces Φ and Δ1 flank the main compound symmetrically and have an excellent view of the surrounding area. Their location may suggest open-air courts or verandas, although Δ1 is the natural terrace,28 since, unlike Φ, it does not bear traces of human intervention. The westernmost spaces (E1– I1) have been preserved in a very fragmentary state, and almost nothing has been reported about them. It is not certain whether spaces Z1 and H1 were actually part of the built area.29 Wall remains are extremely fragmentary in the area, but a drain that runs through the two possible spaces suggests an open-air area, possibly linked to the industrial activities of the main compound. Spaces Θ1 and I1 might have been a stairwell, although I1 is so narrow that its functionality is certainly doubtable.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

134

e l e n i m a n t z o u r a n i a n d g i o r g o s vav o u r a n a k i s

Dis c u ssion A review of building materials and techniques used indicates construction of mediocre quality, with the exception of the coursed ashlar wall of room A. To this one may add the probable lack of upper floors, since most walls are not strong enough and internal supports are absent. The walls of the upper terraces are one exception. Additionally, no palatial-style features (e.g., polythyra, stone-cut bases for pillars or columns, paved courtyards) can be observed. Prophitis Ilias clearly lacks formal reception and ritual areas (e.g., “Minoan hall” systems, lustral basins), with the possible exception of the kernos in room N. On the contrary, the use of space shows areas dedicated to the processing and storage of agricultural produce as well as craft activities. In this sense, it is certainly different in character from the villas in Central Crete. Regarding the question of whether Prophitis Ilias is a single edifice or a complex of different buildings, there are indications favoring the first alternative. All terraces are organically connected with each other via staircases, the access path defined by the SE room, and the terrace wall south of room Λ. Moreover, rooms M and Ξ were only accessible from above (i.e., from the uppermost terrace), a fact that further stresses the unity of the architectural remains. The overall picture that emerges is one of a single architectural shell, albeit rather loosely defined, incorporating a series of discrete activity areas. Several groups of rooms and spaces seem to have been encased to form a functional entity. Such splitting of the complex into small, circumscribed architectural units, which nevertheless make up a functional whole, may at first present an oxymoron. This may be explained by the history and development of the building as well as other architectural parallels from East Crete. In its initial phase, the Prophitis Ilias building was limited to the lower terraces (room A), possibly a well-built residential and reception area, and the more

Figure 12.7. Room T, view from the east. Note the 1 m scale on the threshold to room A1. Photo E. Mantzourani and G. Vavouranakis

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the minoan villas in east crete

135

modest rooms B–H were probably auxiliary spaces.30 During the second phase, room A went out of use and rooms B–H were devoted to storage and industrial activity.31 The upper terraces32 were added and the circulation system, which is observable today, was established. In conclusion, the complex at Prophitis Ilias does not seem to represent a series of separate houses, and might have constituted a single household. Nevertheless, the scale of activities attested, along with its elevated and privileged location, suggest that its significance exceeded the limits of the household. It may have been used by a group of people—in the manner of the seat of a local authority—exerting power over the surrounding region. Such power, however, does not seem to have been linked through the display of prestige insignia. Rather, it derived from the direct management of economic processes, particularly the control of wine production. As much as this emphasis would place Prophitis Ilias in the category of a “country” or “manorial”33 or “domanial”34 villa, it cannot be compared with either Epano Zakros or the country house at Myrtos Pyrgos35 in East Crete, and certainly not with Vathypetro36 in Central Crete. For this reason, we suggest that the so-called villas in East Crete can be understood better through study of their individual features than by assigning them to categories that do not always pay justice to the complexity of their identity. 30. For the employment of different building techniques in the same building, see the vestibules of Klimataria (Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, and Kanellopoulos 2005, pp. 754–755). 31. For changes in the use of space during different phases of the same

building, see the case of Achladia (Mantzourani and Vavouranakis 2005a, pp. 110–112). 32. Klimataria is a characteristic example of a multiterrace building (Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, and Kanellopoulos 2005, p. 758).

33. Betancourt and Marinatos 1997, p. 91. 34. Van Effenterre and Van Effenterre 1997, p. 11. 35. Cadogan 1997. 36. Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 13

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

A Vi e w of t h e N e opal at i al C ou n t ry s i de : S e t t l e m e n t a n d S o c i al O r g an i z at i on at Kar ou m e s, E ast e r n C re t e by Leonidas Vokotopoulos Investigations in recent years have significantly changed the picture of the Neopalatial period, adding new urban and palatial centers to those already known, and filling their hinterland with a multitude of sites.1 It appears, moreover, that in several parts of Crete, and certainly in the poorer peripheral zones, settlement was scattered and took the form of hamlets or, more commonly, isolated buildings of modest size and megalithic construction.2 Today, these buildings are usually preserved only at the foundation level, but they form one of the most characteristic as well as impressive features of the landscape, and this would undoubtedly have been true at the period of their use. In the present phase of investigation, given that there are very few excavated examples, it is not clear whether these buildings belonged to one or more categories in terms of their function and position in the settlement hierarchy. They are usually regarded as farmhouses,3 though it is not clear how far they differed from the so-called country villas, while some of them have been interpreted as guardhouses.4 This paper examines the character of habitation of these small, isolated dwellings in the countryside and their significance, if any, for assessing the social organization of the period. Emphasis is placed on determining the development of the phenomenon during Neopalatial times rather than on a static approach, given that this period was a long one and the available evidence indicates that the general historical context was very different during its individual phases.5 The treatment is based on the data collected during the extensive surface survey in the area surrounding the Karoumes Bay and from the excavation at one of the sites in the same area, the socalled Sea Guard-House. Both projects were carried out in the context of the “Minoan Roads” research project.6 1. For an overview of the settlement patterns, see Driessen 2001b, pp. 59– 60, 63–64. 2. Provided, of course, that suitable raw material was to be found in the surrounding area. 3. E.g., Haggis 1996a, pp. 394–395; Bevan 2002, p. 223; Vrokastro 2, pp. 116, 119, 346. 4. Tzedakis et al. 1989, pp. 60–65,

72–74; Chryssoulaki 1999, pp. 78–81. 5. Driessen and Macdonald 1997, esp. pp. 70–74, 83, fig. 4.32; Cunningham and Driessen 2004, pp. 105–106. 6. I would like to thank the director of the “Minoan Roads” research project, Stella Chryssoulaki, for making relevant material available for study, and for her astute comments on the first draft of this paper. The evidence presented

below is drawn from my doctoral dissertation for the University of Thessaloniki (Vokotopoulos 2007). I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Stelios Andreou, for his guidance and support. Thanks are also due to David Hardy for his translation of the Greek text and to Spilios Pistas for digitizing the illustrations.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

138

leonidas vokotopoulos

km

Th e Area of Karou mes Karoumes Bay is situated at the east end of Crete, on the border of the areas that formed the immediate hinterland of Zakros and Palaikastro (Fig. 13.1).7 The area between the Traostalos and Simodi Mountains forms a small valley that ends in a cove protected from the strong north winds that blow during the sailing season. The valley is linked with the hinterland by a gorge, through which runs a seasonal stream. The area has no springs, and the coastal mountainsides experience little rainfall. The cultivable areas are confined to the sides of the valley and a few pockets along the coast. The surrounding limestone massifs are today bare and suitable only for herding. The scale and features of the landscape are similar in the neighboring inland valley of Chochlakies, and in the coastal zone of Skoinias, which extends to the north. The region is thus distinguished by its limited productive potential and its peripheral position with respect to the neighboring centers. On the other hand, the bay is one of the few anchorages in a coast as inhospitable as it was important to shipping in the past, thanks to its location on the sea route along the eastern Mediterranean coasts.8

Th e Si t es: F orm an d Topo gra phy The surface survey at Karoumes and the surrounding area revealed a dense network of sites from the Neopalatial period.9 Of the total of 25 sites, seven may be interpreted as installations related to the productive infrastructure (e.g., pens or fieldhouses). The 13 sites connected with habitation represent isolated buildings, with the exception of two hamlets, which were essentially assemblages of a few discrete buildings. The characteristics of

Figure 13.1. MM IIIB – LM IA sites in the wider area of the Karoumes Bay. L. Vokotopoulos

7. Chryssoulaki 2005, pl. VI. 8. Lambrou-Phillipson 1991, pp. 12–14. For the role played by sea communications in the development of the Minoan centers of the region, see Platon 1974, p. 228; Chryssoulaki 2005, pp. 83–85. 9. The survey was as thorough as possible at Karoumes, though not at Chochlakies and Skoinias, where the results should be regarded as indicative of the character rather than the density of inhabitation.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

s e t t l e m e n t a n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z at i o n at k a r o u m e s

139

the sites indicate that in the area under examination, the typical form of the structures in the countryside was that of isolated buildings of small or modest size, with a quadrilateral ground plan and megalithic masonry. The majority of these buildings were surrounded by annexes or outbuildings, courtyards, terraces for cultivation,10 and long freestanding walls that might be interpreted as enclosures or property boundaries.11 The buildings are found on the fringes of the cultivated areas, usually at the foot or on the crest of the hills surrounding them. They command a good view over the surrounding area and are near the communication axes. The distances between them are regular,12 at least to the degree permitted by the sharp relief and the uneven distribution of the arable land.

M e g a li th ic B u ild in gs : Th e Cas e of th e Sea G uard -H ou s e The building complex of the Sea Guard-House (Figs. 13.1:1, 13.2)13 might be considered representative of the form and evolution of several of the small dwellings in the area. The site occupies a steep hillside on the southeast slopes of Kastellas, which bounds the valley of Karoumes at the west (Fig. 13.3). The first building installation of the Neopalatial period had an area of 46.60 m2 and a trapezoidal ground plan; incorporated into its construction was the retaining wall of a Protopalatial terrace that extends immediately uphill.14 The building should be dated to an early phase of the period, that is, to MM IIIA or to the beginning of MM IIIB. No floor levels were found, due to considerable later disturbance. The main entrance was originally situated in the middle of the southeastern facade, but following a partial collapse of this wall, it was moved to the eastern corner. At the same time, a one-room ancillary building was added to the west.15 The MM III building was already out of use by LM IA, when a rectangular building linked with an annex (covering a total area of 88.80 m2) was built to the northeast.16 The main entrance to the complex from the side facing the valley was situated at the south corner of the annex. It was bounded to the east by a terrace with a trapezoidal ground plan. The 10. For Minoan agricultural terraces, see Betancourt 2005. 11. These walls incorporate large blocks of stone, but their construction is usually makeshift and does not have the regular form of the megalithic masonry of neighboring buildings. Their date is unclear (Rackham and Moody 1996, p. 152), but some of them, at least, should probably be assigned to MM III–LM I, on account of the particularly dense occupation and intensive exploitation of the landscape during these periods. 12. Ca. 100–200 m on average. The same phenomenon is also found in other regions (Haggis 1996a, p. 399; Greco et al. 2001, p. 640; Bevan 2002, pp. 226–228).

13. Tzedakis et al. 1992–1993, pp. 312–315; Tzedakis, Chryssoulaki, and Vokotopoulos 1994–1996, pp. 359– 361; Vokotopoulos 2006. 14. The terrace was used for purple dye extraction, given that the surface was covered by concentrations of crushed murex shells. The end of this first phase of use at the site is assigned to the transition from MM IIB to MM IIIA. 15. The substrata of this phase and the filling of the area in front of the eastern entrance yielded, inter alia, tripod cooking pots with a convex profile and incurving rim, in-and-out bowls, dip-rim bowls, and everted-rim cups. The decorated pottery is distinguished by the prevalence of Light-on-Dark

motifs and ripple ware. The closest parallels for this group are to be found in phase II of the Mochlos Plateia deposit (Barnard 2001, pp. 415–416, 444–446) and MM IIIB Palaikastro (Knappett and Cunningham 2003, esp. pp. 141– 142, 159–160). There are some similarities with period IV of Kato Zakros as well, which, however, is dated to LM IA (Platon 1999a, pp. 677–679). 16. The pottery from the substrata of this building phase included characteristic mature LM IA shapes, such as rounded and bell cups decorated in the Dark-on-Light technique, early versions of ogival cups, or conical cups of the low straight-sided type.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

140

leonidas vokotopoulos

:1 :1

Figure 13.2. Ground plan of the Sea Guard-House at Kastellas (walls of Roman and early modern times are not included). L. Vokotopoulos

Figure 13.3. Kastellas, Sea GuardHouse. View of the building complex from the neighboring site of Mesokastello, from the southeast. Photo

S. Chryssoulaki

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

s e t t l e m e n t a n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z at i o n at k a r o u m e s

141

entrance to the main building was on the northwest side, facing uphill. It looked toward a level area that could have served as a courtyard, bounded by a projecting spur of rock on the northeast and by two smaller buildings—one along the rocky front of Kastellas on the northwest,17 and the other extending immediately west of the main building. From the opening between the latter and the main building, a staircase led down to the area of the MM III building, which had probably been leveled and was used as a second courtyard. To the southwest of the entire complex extended a megalithic wall bounding a terrace along the side of Kastellas. Finally, on the north side of the site was an enclosure wall extending towards the mouth of the gorge. The internal arrangement of the main building was very simple. The entrance opened on a vestibule that led to three long, parallel rooms at a slightly lower level.18 In the southernmost of these rooms a low wall defined a small compartment. There was a small, independent room in the west corner of the building.19 There are no refined structural features in the complex, such as large monolithic thresholds or dressed doorjambs; the top surface of the substratum was used as a floor. One distinctive feature is the absence of large rooms suitable for residential purposes.20 These functions were probably located on the upper floor, since the discovery of two fallen bases for wooden columns points to the presence of more spacious rooms on an upper story.21 The staircase leading to it could have been situated next to the entrance in the room at the north corner of the building, which, unfortunately, was very disturbed. Study of the distribution of the finds from the LM IB–II destruction horizon22 (Fig. 13.4) did not reveal any clear functional differentiation between the individual ground-floor rooms of the main building, which were used for everyday tasks and storage. The relevant deposits contained several medium-size storage or transportation vessels. Three pithoi were also found. Two of them, the insides of which were lined with wax,23 had 17. This building, which is not included in the plan, had an area of about 66 m2 and masonry similar to that of the other Neopalatial buildings on the site. Its precise date is unclear, however, since it has not been excavated. 18. Access to them was by staircases, of which only the one in the central room has been preserved. The others were presumably made of perishable materials. 19. Similar independent rooms used for ancillary purposes are found at Mochlos, although there they are later additions (Soles and Davaras 1996, pp. 203–206). 20. Like the sizeable square rooms characteristic of many of the houses at Zakros (Chrysoulaki and Platon 1987, p. 78).

21. The existence of an upper floor is suggested by the volume of collapsed building material, which was reused in the constructions of the following occupation phases; by the solid form of the main building and the thickness of its shell; and finally, by the fact that sherds from the same vases were scattered in different rooms. 22. The destruction was probably caused by fire. The pottery is generally characteristic of LM IB, and, indeed, it includes types belonging to a late phase of this period, e.g., knob-handled bowls or large rounded cups (Fig. 13.4:a and b, respectively). A precursor version of the bell cup was also found (Fig. 13.4:d), a feature that points to LM IIIA1. The above evidence indicates that, as in the case of Mochlos (Mochlos IB, pp. 108–

109; Brogan, Smith, and Soles 2002, pp. 101–103) or Palaikastro (MacGillivray 1997, pp. 276–277), the end of the second Neopalatial occupation phase at the site came at a very late date, during the LM II period of Central Crete. The LM IB–II destruction was possibly followed by a brief period of abandonment. The site was reoccupied during LM IIIA1–2, when a small dwelling was constructed in the area of the MM III building. A final phase of systematic occupation is placed at the beginning of Roman times down to the third quarter of the 2nd century a.d. 23. This emerged from the organic residue analysis carried out by Maria Roumpou of the University of Bradford.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

142

leonidas vokotopoulos

been sunk in the floor of the south room.24 From the upper floor came another pithos and some decorated vases, including a pithamphora. Activities related to cooking were probably carried out in the annex. The site has been interpreted as a guardhouse25 dependent on the neighboring Mother Fort (Fig. 13.1: 4),26 a building that dominates the landscape of the area. The two sites are in fact linked by a road. Nevertheless, the Sea Guard-House does not command the wide view or the strongly defended position associated with the Mother Fort. Consequently, it is here considered more probable that the site did not have this function, but, rather, it was connected with the exploitation of the productive potential of the region—that is, it was a farmstead. Given that the excavation has not been completed, it is not clear whether the complex provided shelter to one or more households. The former is the more likely, though the variety of the pottery yielded by the small building at the west, taken together with the absence of pithoi (at least from its excavated part) perhaps indicates that it housed people who were linked with the occupants of the main building by ties of kinship—or were dependent on them. 24. This practice, which is suitable for the preservation of grain and pulses (Christakis 1999, p. 9), is also found at other sites in East Crete. See Hogarth 1900–1901, p. 139; Davaras 1973a, p. 590; Soles and Davaras 1996, p. 201; Mochlos IA, pp. 113–114, 128, 130.

25. Tzedakis et al. 1992–1993, p. 315; Chryssoulaki 1999, p. 79, n. 35. 26. Tzedakis et al. 1992–1993, pp. 306–312; Chryssoulaki and Vokotopoulos 1993, p. 73, fig. 3; Chryssoulaki 1999, p. 82.

Figure 13.4. Kastellas, Sea GuardHouse: LM IB–II pottery. Scale 1:4.

Drawn by S. De Angelis (b), P. Macri (a, e, f ), N. Mavroudi (d), and M. Nikiforidou (c, g, h); inked by M.-J. Schumacher

s e t t l e m e n t a n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z at i o n at k a r o u m e s

143

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

S e t t lem en t an d So c i al O rg an i z at i on : Th e E arly S tages of th e N e opa lat i a l P eriod The earliest megalithic buildings in the area under study belong to the late Protopalatial period.27 Continuity is observed between this and the first phases of the Neopalatial period in the form and distribution of settlement (Fig. 13.1).28 The difference lies in its density, which more than doubled.29 Among the sites at which building remains have been found, there are differences in construction, extent, topography, and productive potential (Table 13.1). However, these factors are not combined in a systematic manner that would permit individual types of sites to be distinguished directly.30 This does not mean that there was no differentiation between them with regard to the social status of their inhabitants or their function.31 For example, the most strongly defended and strategically sited buildings may be interpreted as guardhouses, but the majority of them were probably farmhouses. From the point of view of the wider region, these sites should be assigned to the lowest rank in the settlement hierarchy.32 But what is the significance of this for the status and living conditions of the inhabitants? The physical features of the region—which is dominated by mountain masses and has few cultivable areas, most of them apparently marginal in terms of their productivity—taken in combination with the tendency to settle on the borders of the individual environmental zones and the density of occupation itself, suggest a mixed self-subsistent agricultural economy.33 The scattered nuclei of habitation were probably permanently occupied,34 as suggested by the constant attention required by their diversified productive base, the variety of household equipment represented in their pottery, and the generally substantial size of the buildings—features that do not suggest ancillary fieldhouses. 27. Investigation has revealed occupation at six sites (Fig. 13.1:4, 13, 16, 20, 21, 23), though the visible remains belong mainly to the periods immediately following. Four more sites have been identified—terraces and probable pens or field houses (Fig. 13.1:1, 6, 8, 24). 28. Twenty-four MM IIIB – LM IA sites have been identified: two hamlets, 11 isolated buildings, seven sites connected with the working of the land (pens, terraces, probable fieldhouses), two quarries, and two sites of unclear function. 29. Similar developments have been observed in other regions (see, e.g., Watrous 1982, p. 14; Moody, Peatfield, and Markoulaki 2000, p. 366; Greco et al. 2001, p. 640). Elsewhere, in contrast, the greatest dispersal and density of

occupation occurs in MM IB–II (e.g., Haggis 1996a, pp. 401–405; Müller 1996, pp. 922–923; Vrokastro 2, p. 115; Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999, p. 234). These differences should be attributed to the uneven productive potential and diverse historical trajectories of the individual regions (Driessen 2001b, pp. 59, 63–64). 30. The country villa at Chochlakies may be set apart from the other sites. It has not been taken into account here, since it most probably dates to a later phase of the period under examination. 31. See the relevant discussion in Haggis 1996a, pp. 399–400. 32. This would have been very simple, with only two or three tiers—at least on the basis of size, and without taking account of any functional differences between sites of the same extent.

33. A characteristic example is the site at Mavro Mouri, in the waterless, steep coastal zone between Karoumes and Skoinias (Fig. 13.1:12). The site controlled a cultivable pocket of only 2.5 ha, a parcel possibly large enough to sustain one household through the practice of intensive cultivation techniques (see Bevan 2002, pp. 231–232; Mochlos IA, pp. 128–131). The extensive hillsides of the surrounding area perhaps point to the greater importance here of stock-raising. A diversified agricultural economy is already documented for the corresponding sites at Mochlos (Mochlos IA, pp. 128–131), Kavousi (Haggis 1996a, p. 400), and Kythera (Bevan 2002, pp. 231–238). 34. For the criteria for identifying permanent installations in the countryside, see Vrokastro 2, p. 343.

144

leonidas vokotopoulos

Tab le 13.1. Neopalat ial build in gs in th e wider area of th e bay of Karoumes

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Site

Annexes, Terraces, Outbuildings Enclosures Defensibility

Probable Function

Building Size (m2)

Masonry

1. Kastellas, Sea Guard-House (LM I phase)

88.80

megalithic

✓

✓

moderate

farmhouse

2. Mesokastello

110.15

megalithic

✓

moderate

farmhouse

4. Kastellas, Mother Fort

136.00

megalithic

–

high

guardhouse

10. Stathi Plaka

58.70

rubble

✓

limited

farmhouse

11. Ellinon to Pigadi

102.30

megalithic

–

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

limited

farmhouse

12. Mavro Mouri

100.75

megalithic

✓

✓

moderate

farmhouse (or guardhouse?)

13. Mesokephalo

57.75

megalithic

–

–

high

guardhouse

15. Patitiri

max. est. 441.00

megalithic

–

–

–

country villa

16a. Kephali - west

min. est. 60.20

megalithic

✓

–

moderate

part of hamlet

16b. Kephali - east

77.70

megalithic

–

–

–

part of hamlet

min. 80.00

rubble

✓

–

high

farmhouse (or guardhouse?)

22. Psili Ammos

indeterminable

rubble

–

–

limited

farmhouse

23. Katsi Pharangi

min. est. 56.00

megalithic

–

✓

moderate

farmhouse

20. Sopatera

Note: Site numbers refer to those in Fig. 13.1.

The differences in the form of the buildings constitute variations on a theme, since the same architectural vocabulary is used.35 Differences in size are negligible when compared as a whole with later country villas. Effectively, all the buildings in the region fall within McEnroe’s type 3.36 Consequently, the differences between the sites are of scale rather than order. They possibly point to inequalities in the wealth or strength of the inhabitants, though these will not have been very pronounced. In other words, the data do not point to a stratified social organization within the region under examination. The construction and topography of the farmsteads may be considered features of great significance in determining the status of their inhabitants. The megalithic type of wall construction (Fig. 13.5),37 found in the majority of the buildings in the area,38 is frequently regarded as a version of rubble masonry. Although it is admitted that this building technique constituted a stronger, aesthetically more meticulous form of rubble, this classification implies that no particular value was ascribed to it.39 This view has been challenged by the recent suggestion that the technique should be connected with the elite.40 The truth may lie somewhere in between: the 35. An exception is the Mother Fort at Karoumes, whose internal arrangement follows a widely found model, since it resembles the buildings at Kouses, Ayia Varvara near Malia, and Choiromandres near Zakros (Tzedakis et al. 1990, pp. 57–61). The larger country houses in the area may have had a similar form.

36. McEnroe 1982, pp. 10–13. 37. I use the term “megalithic” instead of “cyclopean,” following the terminology of Shaw (1971, p. 80). For a definition of cyclopean masonry as a technique peculiar to mainland Greece, see Loader 1998, esp. p. 13. 38. See Table 13.1. The absence of megalithic masonry suggests a relatively

early date, within MM. In any case, it cannot be attributed to the lack of raw material, nor is it related to the size of the buildings. 39. E.g., Shaw 1971, pp. 78, 80–81; Pseira V, p. 37. 40. Zielinski 1998, pp. 542, 546, 550–551.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

s e t t l e m e n t a n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z at i o n at k a r o u m e s

Figure 13.5. Mavro Mouri: detail of the north exterior wall of the building with megalithic masonry, from the northwest. Photo L. Vokotopoulos

145

wide dissemination of this type of wall construction precludes its association exclusively with the upper echelons of the social hierarchy. On the other hand, building in megalithic masonry was not an easy endeavor on account of its technical specifications: it required not merely the gathering, but the quarrying, transporting, and, occasionally, the dressing of the raw material by hammering. It is interesting that the largest and most regularly arranged blocks are invariably found on the most visible facades of the buildings,41 whereas at later sites the construction exhibits greater regularity 42— sometimes attempting to imitate ashlar masonry. The foregoing suggest that the megalithic type of construction had specific ideological implications and gave the buildings a certain monumentality. It was thus aimed at creating an impression on passers-by and increasing the prestige of the inhabitants.43 A contribution to the same end was made by the compact form of the buildings and their siting in prominent, conspicuous positions that gave them a tower-like appearance (Fig. 13.6).44 This also gave the buildings a defensible character,45 perhaps reflecting insecure conditions. In the end, the inhabitants of the farmsteads of the region may be defined as independent cultivators. Their residences were simple, but not 41. See, e.g., Pseira V, p. 37. 42. This phenomenon had already been identified by Evans (1896, p. 513). The site of the Sea GuardHouse provides a nice example of it. Thus, the retaining wall of the Protopalatial terrace is distinguished by the irregular shape and positioning of its building material. On the contrary, the southeastern facade of the MM III building was constructed with blocks of a roughly rectangular shape that

were positioned in rows. 43. For the function of monumentality in architecture and its use as an indicator of social status and power, see Trigger 1990. 44. Characteristic is the description by Evans (1896, p. 513). 45. However, it should be noted that in only a few cases was the form of the terrain such as to allow complete control of access.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

146

leonidas vokotopoulos

humble, and neither did they lack architectural pretensions, as is clear from the use of megalithic masonry.46 The regular distances between them perhaps indicate an equal distribution of properties, at least in the initial stages of occupation, and are not therefore consistent with important inequalities at the economic level. The independence of the inhabitants is attested by the isolated and frequently dominating position occupied by the buildings in the landscape. The same features possibly suggest strongly antagonistic relations, if not actual occasional conflicts of low intensity, between parts of the population.

Figure 13.6. Mavro Mouri: building with megalithic masonry. View from the northeast. Photo L. Vokotopoulos

S e t t lement and So cia l Org an i z at i on : Th e Late Stag es of t h e N e opa lat i a l P erio d The first line of cleavage in the dispersed, nonhierarchic settlement pattern that prevailed at the beginning of the Neopalatial period came in LM IA with the emergence of the country villas47—in this case, the one at Chochlakies (Fig. 13.1:15).48 At the same time, several of the earlier farmsteads appear to have been abandoned, with the result that occupation was much more sparse in LM IB.49 This picture is representative of wider trends, since similar phenomena have been found in all the surface surveys in which the attempt was made to distinguish the individual phases of the Neopalatial period.50 To the degree that the reduction in the number of farmsteads went hand in hand with the spread of country villas and the expansion of the 46. From this point of view, the picture sketched here differs from that reconstructed by Soles (Mochlos IA, p. 127). 47. Driessen 1982, pp. 27, 30. 48. Davaras 1972b, p. 653.

49. Only five LM IB sites are known: four isolated dwellings (Fig. 13.1:1, 4, 15, 23) and the cult cave at Adiavatos. At some sites, the LM III reoccupation probably conceals the existence of a LM IB phase,

though this would not substantially change the picture of the period. 50. Watrous 1982, p. 15; Greco et al. 2002, p. 580; Vrokastro 2, pp. 114– 115.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

s e t t l e m e n t a n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z at i o n at k a r o u m e s

147

towns,51 it might be supposed that these phenomena are aspects of the same process.52 The abandonment of the farmsteads may thus be attributed to the movement of their inhabitants to the neighboring urban centers, attracted by the broader spectrum of activities facilitated by these settlements. Alternatively, the move to the towns may be the result of the emergence of more complex social formations, in the context of which the preservation or negotiation of social status and influence would presuppose direct contact with the decision-making center.53 The gradual abandonment of the farmsteads might also be regarded as an epiphenomenon of the propagation of the country villas. These sites have been associated with the concentration of production in the context of a redistribution system centered on the palaces.54 It is more likely, however, that they functioned independently, probably as the seats of a newly formed class of landowners.55 In either case, the very existence of these sites logically implies the appropriation by them of part of the surplus, if not a concentration of land-ownership in fewer hands. Consequently, the abandonment of some of the farmsteads was possibly due to the subjection of their land to the country villas and the transformation of their inhabitants into dependent farmers or farm laborers, and also to the movement of the latter to the small settlements that developed in the environs of many of the country villas. What was the nature of the occupation in those farmsteads that survived in LM IB? Comparison of the Sea Guard-House with contemporary country villas or large houses in the neighboring towns makes it clear that the site was inferior in terms of the scale and refinement of its architecture and its storage capacity56 or the quality of its household equipment.57 Artifacts of high intrinsic or symbolic value are thus very few.58 Also absent are the large concentrations of cups characteristic of the Neopalatial elite residences—and therefore the attendant banqueting practices that were designed to maintain broad social alliances and client relations.59 It is significant, however, that while no pottery of the Special Palatial Tradition was found on the site, the number of decorated vases (e.g., Fig. 13.4:b, f–h) 51. Kato Zakros: Chrysoulaki and Platon 1987, p. 77; Palaikastro: MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, pp. 404– 405. 52. For an analytical treatment, see Haggis 1996a, pp. 401–408. 53. The productive basis of the centers of the region continued to be closely bound up with the land, as is indicated by the extensive storerooms and winepresses in the houses at Kato Zakros (Chrysoulaki and Platon 1987, pp. 82–83). The concentration of the population in the towns implies that the distances between the places of residence and the farms may now have been quite great. Their exploitation was probably served by rural sites such as the one in the southwest part of the Chochlakies Valley (Fig. 13.1:14),

which are distinguished by their very small size and insignificant building remains. Sites of this type are also found in other regions (e.g., Watrous 1982, 14; Vrokastro 2, pp. 116, 343– 344). They probably corresponded with ancillary fieldhouses for seasonal or occasional use, rather like modern μετόχια, and they are likely to date mainly from the later phases of the Neopalatial period. 54. See, e.g., Walberg 1994, pp. 53–54; Betancourt and Marinatos 1997, p. 93. 55. See, e.g., Christakis 1999, p. 15; Bevan 2002, p. 226; Hamilakis 2002, p. 183. 56. The small number of pithoi indicates that the site should be assigned to the lowest of the ranks

defined by Christakis (1999, pp. 9, 12)—that of households enjoying a limited degree of self-sufficiency. 57. It should be emphasized, however, that despite the existence of sealed primary contexts, it is impossible to form a full picture of the phase at the site, since floor deposits have been partially destroyed by erosion in several parts of the complex. Furthermore, two rooms remain unexcavated. 58. Metal finds are confined to a pin and a double axe. The site has also yielded a stone offering table. 59. See Hamilakis 2002, esp. pp. 195–197; Borgna 2004, p. 143. On the function of collective feasting and the conspicuous consumption of food and drink in general, see Hayden 2001.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

148

leonidas vokotopoulos

Figure 13.7. Kastellas, Sea GuardHouse: LM IB pithamphora (H. 0.578). Photo L. Vokotopoulos

is no smaller than that yielded, for example, by the country villas at Achladia and Praisos, or Building N at Palaikastro.60 The presence of the large pithamphora (Fig. 13.7), an example of a group attributed to a palatial workshop centered at Zakros,61 is particularly interesting. Their rich decoration makes these vases objects of prestige and ostentation, while their form, distinguished by the wide mouth and high transportability, makes it probable that they were used not only for storage62 but also for offering liquids such as wine—perhaps like the later kraters. Therefore the presence of a vase like this indicates that the inhabitants were able to entertain third parties, and certainly enjoyed (at least) a tolerable standard of living.

Co nt inui t ies an d Dis cont i n u i t ies : Th e Co untry sid e at th e En d of th e Neo palat ial P eriod The available evidence suggests that during LM IB the occupants of the farmsteads of East Crete may have belonged to the poorer sections of the population, though they were not entirely destitute. The socioeconomic distance separating them from the owners of the country villas was great but not unbridgeable—given the generally small dimensions and limited refinement of the East Cretan villas in comparison with those of the central part of the island.63 The overall picture is consistent with that of the neighboring towns, where no clear correlation is discernible between the size of the houses, their position in the urban tissue, and the wealth of the finds.64 It seems that the tendency toward the concentration and display of wealth coexisted with an absence of rigid social boundaries, features that

60. Sackett and Popham 1970, pp. 216–220; Platon 1997b, pp. 194, 198, 201, fig. 31. Several decorated vases were also found in the farmstead at Chalinomouri (Mochlos IA, passim). According to Dabney (1997, p. 471), common decorated pottery should be regarded as a moderate-status craft product. See also Lloyd 1990, pp. 3–4. 61. Platon 2002b, pp. 148–149. 62. For this use of the shape, see Platon 2002a, pp. 11–12. 63. Platon 1997b, pp. 201–202; Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997, p. 210. 64. Chrysoulaki and Platon 1987, pp. 78–80; Cunningham 2001, pp. 82– 83. See also Lloyd 1990, pp. 868–869, 880–881; Cadogan 1997, pp. 101–102.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

s e t t l e m e n t a n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z at i o n at k a r o u m e s

65. As exemplified by the main building of the Sea Guard-House at Kastellas, or the farmsteads in the plain of Mochlos, that were built in LM IA and LM IB, respectively (for Mochlos, see Brogan, Smith, and Soles 2002, p. 116). 66. Hamilakis 2002, pp. 188–197; Cunningham and Driessen 2004, p. 110; for factions and factional competition, see Brumfiel 1989.

149

imply that progress toward a stratified social organization had not been completed by the end of LM I. Indicative of the complex trends that were at play is the fact that, in spite of the spread of country villas, the erection of megalithic farmsteads—buildings that may be regarded as the symbol par excellence of the economic and social order that had previously prevailed in the countryside—continued throughout the period.65 Certainly, the adoption of the Knossian “great tradition” by the elite of the region, urban and rural alike, would have helped to set them apart more clearly from a population hitherto in many ways homogeneous. Nevertheless, the evidence from all over the island indicates the survival and/or strengthening of mechanisms such as collective ceremonies, and of formations such as extensive kinship groups and factions,66 which penetrated the social body vertically and thus unified the population despite its increasingly pronounced differentiation in terms of power and wealth. However, the fact is that the inhabitants of the farmsteads that continued in use lived in a landscape now dominated by country villas, and their social position would have been inferior to that held by their forefathers at the beginning of the Neopalatial period.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 1 4

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Studying the Character of the Minoan “Household” within the Limits of the Neopalatial Settlement of Zakros by Lefteris Platon A whole century of multifaceted research into the prehistory of Crete has needed to pass for scholars to realize how little they actually know of the nature, extent, and structure of Minoan society. It might be suggested that this state is due to misdirected research aims, whereby the presence of the megastructure compounds (commonly called “palaces”) played a decisive role. Nevertheless, a different reason for this wrong turn can be found in more practical matters, as will be demonstrated below. The first—and probably the main—difficulty in approaching such a complicated matter arises from the absence of new publications of habitation units apart from the palaces. It is noteworthy that the systematic publication of the Early Minoan settlement of Myrtos in 19721 offered the ground for one of the first, and at the time, innovative approaches on the matter of composition, structure, and extent of Prepalatial societies.2 Research later turned to secondary questions, however, such as the demographic development of Crete during the Bronze Age or the socioeconomic hierarchy of settlements, the latter considered independent units.3 Common to all these studies was an attempt to estimate the population of Minoan settlements based on theories borrowed from ethnographic models.4 Such approaches, however, often underestimated differences between various cultures and different behaviors of specific subgroups within them. More appropriate is the analytical approach suggested by T. Whitelaw,5 in which he proposes that a small number of identifiable selected “houses” should be examined at each site, and that this, using multiplication factors, could be used as a basis for estimating the total average population for the whole settlement.6 Nevertheless, this mathematical method faces several 1. Warren 1972. 2. Warren 1983; Whitelaw 1983, 1989; Tenwolde 1992. For an earlier attempt to discuss the matter of the Minoan household, see Sariyannis 1978. 3. Branigan 2001b; Driessen 2001b; Whitelaw 2001, 2004. 4. The first of these studies proposes

for the preindustrial communities, regardless of cultural background, an unchanging logarithmic relationship between roofed dwelling space and the number of inhabitants (Naroll 1962). A second method bases its estimate on the relationship, again considered constant, between one inhabitant and the volume of oil consumed annually

(Warren 1972, p. 145; 1983, p. 252, n. 5). 5. Whitelaw 2001, pp. 17–21. See also Whitelaw 2004, pp. 152–153. 6. Where, first of all, one value for the residential density in the selected area of the site is defined, and then this value is multiplied in each case by a rough estimate of the area occupied by the whole settlement.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

152

l e f t e r i s p l at o n

difficulties in the case of the Neopalatial settlements.7 First, in most cases, settlements occupied a much larger area than the parts that have been preserved and/or investigated archaeologically. As a result, the existing sample, although reasonably representative, is not necessarily absolutely objective. Second, because of the relatively large number of excavated Neopalatial structures and the great amount and variety of their finds, the relevant systematic publications remain incomplete and uneven, thus offering a far from complete picture of the total structure of the settlements or of the location and significance of the structural units that constituted them. Third, the complex construction of the buildings—especially the probability that most had a second floor—often creates some uncertainties regarding the significance of their location inside the settlement and the extent of the socioeconomic independency of some architectural units. And finally, that these buildings experienced long periods of use, with repeated structural transformations undertaken according to changing social conditions, means that we have been left with a confused picture as regards the specific use of the occupied area.8 One of the more completely investigated Neopalatial settlements— somewhat overlooked in the relevant bibliography on ancient urbanism and household archaeology in Minoan Crete9—is that of Zakros. This site has the advantage of presenting an extended destruction horizon belonging to the Late Minoan (LM) IB period, which can yield enough evidence to map the use of roofed areas inside the settlement. For the purposes of the present paper, we decided to present detailed evidence from two buildings that appear to be representative of two of the more significant quarters of the “town”; the first spreads over the slopes of the southwest hill, while the second occupies the terraces immediately to the north of the LM I palace. The buildings under discussion are the large Building B and the so-called Strong Building. In terms of size and specific architectural details, Building B, built on two successive terraces on the northern slope of the southwest hill, could be considered the most significant structure in the settlement of Zakros.10 With a total area of around 400 m2, it has, among other things, two entrances, two staircases, one room designated for wine production, one polythyron (blocked in the last phase of the building and probably connected with a light-well), and a probable treasury with plastered cases made of brick.11 The main question arising from the size and the interior arrangement of such a building is what kind of social group was housed here. Could it be exclusively that of the “nuclear family,” which Whitelaw has proposed mainly on the basis of the small size and the architectural 7. For similar and additional difficulties that arise from the variety in the formation processes of house floor assemblages, generally, see LaMotta and Schiffer 1999. 8. In spite of the above difficulties, some attempts to define the function of the rooms in Neopalatial buildings have slowly begun to appear (see Platon

1997b, pp. 193–194, 198–202). The fact, however, that these are limited to isolated building complexes does not help complete a more complex picture, which would be indispensable for evaluating and processing the primary data. For a good approach to the matter in a much later and less complex settlement, see Glowacki 2004, pp. 131–134.

9. Branigan 2001b, pp. 39–42; Cunningham 2001, pp. 74–76; Driessen 2001b, p. 55. 10. Platon 2000, pp. 61–62. For Building Β, see also Platon 1961, pp. 219–222, fig. 2; 1962, pp. 146–147; 1963, pp. 167–168, fig. 2. 11. Platon 2000, pp. 61–62.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the character of the minoan “household”

Figure 14.1. Zakros, plan of Building B showing architectural periods and room functions during the last Neopalatial phase (LM IB). After

Platon 1963, p. 166, fig. 2

12. Whitelaw suggests that Neopalatial buildings that surpass others in size represent simply the dwellings of more prosperous inhabitants, who in any case also formed “nuclear families”

153

uniformity of the Gournia “houses”?12 Such a hypothesis would mean that each inhabitant would correspond to 50–100 m2 on the ground floor, without taking into account the upper-floor area that could well have been the same size. Despite the dubious nature of the generalized cross-cultural formula of a steady logarithmic relationship between the number of inhabitants and the roofed dwelling area, which allows 10 m2 of living space per person, the proportional attribution of 50–100 m2 to each person seems far too great.13 Given that, for now, we cannot estimate the quantities of various basic foodstuffs contained in the storage vessels found in the house, we are forced to turn to a different type of evidence stemming from the study of the architecture combined with the distribution of every category of find inside the building.14 Regarding the architectural form and interior arrangement of the building, we are today in a position to make some essential observations (Fig. 14.1). The initial structure had undergone some radical alterations to its exterior shell, as well as to its interior arrangement. The presence of a visible protruding ledge, which runs around the facade in the northern (Whitelaw 2001, p. 19; 2004, p. 152). 13. Whitelaw 2001, pp. 15–17. 14. This is because neither their initial number nor their contents can be easily identified in most of the cases.

A mathematical method for measuring the capacity of storage vessels is described in Darcque 1996, pp. 96– 98.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

154

l e f t e r i s p l at o n

part of the structure but is absent from the southern part (south of areas Σ, Π, Λ, and M), shows that we are dealing with two originally separate buildings.15 It seems that the two structures were united in a later phase through the addition of small parts of the facade, which are lightly recessed on the west side. A further later addition is the “dog’s leg” area, comprising two long, narrow legs, which has been identified as a “veranda” (T), and a similar long corridor inside the southern part of the east facade.16 Inside the building, one could observe small-scale changes such as the probable addition of a second staircase (area Θ)—likely due to changes made to the building’s exterior, the opening of a south entrance in central area Λ, and the replacement of the polythyron of room I with a solid wall.17 The building was undoubtedly two-storied, with an upper floor framed by solid walls that occupied an area similar to that of the ground floor.18 The existence of an upper floor in the south part of the building is certain, since the ground-floor rooms in this section are obviously of a secondary use, unsuited to living—two of them (rooms Ω and Ψ) appear to be approached by trapdoors only—but suitable for storage, since parts of them were built into the bedrock.19 Additional wholly or partially roofed areas in the north and south parts of the structure would seem a sensible interpretation, provided that they were forms of exit for the residents from the main part of the building. Finally, the presence of two staircases (areas E and Θ) in the same side of the building confirms that the upper-floor area was divided into two separate apartments.20 Most of our information for the movable equipment within the building comes from the central sector of the structure, because the limited use of the area after the main destruction allowed a thick layer of earth to cover and preserve the area (Fig. 14.2). Room Σ, immediately inside the east entrance, was equipped with a narrow partition in which 12 two-handled storage jars and four amphoras were found. Numerous serving and drinking vessels (Fig. 14.3), including 16 jugs, approximately 30 ogival cups, and more than 90 conical cups (several of which were placed one inside the other), appear to have been stored in cupboards or on shelves in the ground-floor area, since they were found exclusively within the partition and not dispersed throughout the rest of the room.21 The spacious neighboring room Π was identified as the main storage magazine for agricultural produce on account of its plastered walls and contents, which included nine pithamphoras, nine twohandled storage jars, five small pithoid jars, and six amphoras (Fig. 14.4). Nevertheless, the character of room Π’s contents, combined with the way the finds were dispersed, suggests that two different contexts were mixed. Several examples of tableware or specialized vases, some decorated, were 15. Platon 2000, p. 61. 16. Platon 1962, p. 150; 1963, p. 168. 17. It should be noted that all of these changes should have taken place during the LM I period, since finds belonging to the LM IB period were found everywhere at the level of the remodeling. 18. The existence of an upper floor enclosed by solid perimeter walls in the Neopalatial buildings of the settlement

at Kastelli Chania is doubted by E. Hallager (Hallager 1990). Nevertheless, the houses pictured in the famous “Town Mosaic” from Knossos do not support his hypothesis, at least as regards Minoan houses in general. At Zakros, in particular, climatic factors would make the daily use of open-air terraces or apartments that were not fully enclosed difficult since the site is battered by very strong winds much of the time.

19. Platon 1963, p. 168. 20. Or, alternatively, that this arrangement aimed to serve two quarters of the house that had completely different functions; see Michailidou 1990, p. 297; 2001, p. 397. 21. Comparable contents were found in the small room 18 in Block N at Palaikastro (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, p. 266).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the character of the minoan “household”

155

Figure 14.2. Plan of the central sector of Building B showing the distribution of pottery finds, classified according to their probable function. L. Platon

found in small numbers scattered on different parts of the floor. Some of them, however—such as a group of fruitstands found in the northern part of the room (Fig. 14.2)—show typological similarities to the contents of adjacent room I to the north, the movable equipment of which appears to come largely from a room on an upper floor. The character of the contents of this last room (room I) is very different (Fig. 14.5). It is most notable that jugs and large handleless ogival cups predominate. Most of this deposit—mainly tableware, including some fruitstands similar to those from the northern part of room Π—appears to have come from the upper-floor room, since it was found in the fill at a level some 0.30 m above the floor.22 Nevertheless, there is enough evidence to indicate that the ground floor of room I was used as a kitchen, at least during the last phase of the building. This is supported by the presence of a kind of “baking dish”23 (a clay installation partly set into the ground and

22. For criteria relating to the attribution of an assemblage to equipment fallen from the upper story, see Michailidou 2001, pp. 97, 101–102. 23. Yerontakou 2000. The recognition of areas devoted to the preparation

of food in the interior of Neopalatial buildings is a difficult task, but the identification of some permanent clay troughlike installations in a very large number of roofed areas provides a probable means of identification (Sackett,

Popham, and Warren 1965, p. 268, n. 46; Shaw 1990, p. 251). For a catalogue of identifiable cooking areas in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, see Birtacha et al. 2008.

156

l e f t e r i s p l at o n

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

12

9

9

90

1

5

4

6

Π

30

3

3 16

1

1

2

1

Σ 1

2

2

11

1

2

5

1

2

5 1

2

12

1

used as a permanent fireplace), the discovery of a small number of storage and cooking vessels, the direct connection of the room to the main magazine of the building (room Π), and, finally, the architectural remodeling of the area, which, after the blocking of the polythyron, was transformed from a probable place for social activities24 into a room used exclusively for domestic tasks. All of the above observations indicate social changes directly connected with the character and size of the social group that the building housed. From the probable distribution of room functions on the ground floor (Fig. 14.1), it becomes clear that some functions, initially intended to take place here, were later transferred to the upper floor—a fact that could be interpreted as an attempt to confront a need arising from the

3 3

3

5

15

1

Figure 14.3 (left). Quantitative analysis of the pottery finds from Building B, room Σ, indicating the minimum number of each type of vessel. L. Platon

Figure 14.4 (above). Quantitative analysis of the pottery finds from Building B, room Π, indicating the minimum number of each type of vessel. L. Platon

24. McEnroe 1979, pp. 62, 64; Driessen 1982, pp. 57–58.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the character of the minoan “household”

6

1

5

2

157

1

1

Ι 3

20 Figure 14.5. Quantitative analysis of the pottery finds from Building B, room Ι, indicating the minimum number of each type of vessel. L. Platon

25. Michailidou has suggested that an upper floor was added to some Neopalatial houses at Palaikastro for economic or demographic reasons (Michailidou 1984, p. 43). For a possible similar case, see Platon 1997b, pp. 192–193.

30

1

4

1

3

2

growth in the number of family members.25 This growth would be in accordance with the architectural expansion of the structure—including the probable addition of the south part, which initially constituted part of a different building26—as well as with the creation of some semi-open areas on the borders of the upper-floor apartments. Since such growth does not appear to be connected with a radical change in the basic unit of Minoan society from a nuclear to a polygamous family,27 it could be attributed to the gradual formation of extended families created through 26. A similar phenomenon has also been observed at complex Δβ at Malia (see Bradfer-Burdet and Pomadère, this volume, Chap. 9). 27. The size, the interior arrangement, and the standardization of the

small Gournia houses argue against this (Whitelaw 2001, pp. 17–19), as does the almost certain preservation of the nuclear family as the basic social unit into the LM IIIC period (see Glowacki 2004, p. 134).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

158

l e f t e r i s p l at o n

the intermarriage of the members of the original family living in the house with members of other families.28 This is a good place to propose a new method for estimating the number of residents housed in architecturally independent structures. It concerns the number of serving vessels, either in storage or in the place of their use, found in a specific architectural area. Although we must admit that drinking vessels could well exceed the true needs of a household, the same is not true for serving vessels, since this would be both illogical and unprofitable at the same time. The presence of 15–20 trefoil-mouthed jugs with identical decoration from the same upper-floor “dining room” leads us to assume a “table” with at least an equivalent number of participants. Consequently, one could propose for Building B a family, extended to incorporate new cells by intermarriage, of at least 15–20 members. Although the new cells would have used separate upper-floor apartments for living, they would have met each other in areas designated for familial social activities. It seems likely that the ground floor would have been used for working, as well as a place of residence for some service staff charged with the upkeep and running of the whole building.29 Similar analysis of the architecture and find distribution of the large Strong Building located on the opposite hill (Figs. 14.6, 14.7) allows the following conclusions.30 Like Building B, the Strong Building exhibits some architectural remodeling of both the interior and exterior “shell.” Of note are the opening of an additional entrance (in a second phase) in the east facade of the structure and the secondary construction of upper-floor apartments, indicated by the installation of brick roof supports in rooms K, Kα, I, and Y in combination with the probable addition of a wooden staircase. The interior arrangement of the ground floor indicates that it was separated into three independent apartments, approached through different entrances, that contained evidence for the same functions being repeated in each set of rooms.31 The existence of an upper floor—at least for the central part of the building—was confirmed by the dispersal of the ground-floor finds, especially in room Y, where pieces of storage vessels were found scattered over an area of 4 m2 (Fig. 14.8).32 The identification of storage quarters in each of the three sets of rooms and the confirmed existence of only one area devoted to the preparation of food again support the hypothesis that an extended family was housed in the building; the members of 28. In Mesopotamia, based on the evidence of the tablets, such growth is often related to the need to divide the area so that it could roof two houses instead of one (Michailidou 2001, p. 420). 29. Despite the fact that we do not yet have clear archaeological evidence for the existence of a class of servants or slaves in Minoan Crete (Whitelaw 2001, pp. 31–32, n. 1), the presence of such large buildings appears to support it.

30. Platon 1968, pp. 150–160; 1969, pp. 209–218; 1970, pp. 218–219; 1971a, pp. 244–247; 1972, pp. 179–183; 1974, p. 215; 2000, pp. 60–61. 31. Platon 2000, p. 60. Each set of rooms included a storage complex, and two of the three sectors had spacious pillared rooms for social activities. Such repetition of function in the interior of the same over-arching architectural unit leads to the conclusion that two or more households were housed under the same roof; see Whitelaw 1983,

p. 333; 2001, p. 19; 2004, p. 152; Glowacki 2004, pp. 131–133. 32. For Mycenaean houses, it has been suggested that the upper-floor apartments did not always cover the same area as that of the ground floor (Mylonas Shear 1986, p. 90). This may be the case with the Strong Building, since the north and northeast parts did not yield finds that could be attributed to the upper floors with any degree of certainty. See also Michailidou 2001, p. 97.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the character of the minoan “household”

159

Strong Building

N

Palace 0 Figure 14.6. Plan of the Zakros settlement indicating the locations of the Palace and the Strong Building. Drawing E. Kiel, after Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, p. 294, fig. 44.3

33. For the use of Area A as a kitchen, see Platon 1971a, pp. 245– 246. 34. Platon 1977, p. 433; 2000, pp. 64–66. 35. Kopaka and Platon 1993, pp. 91–92.

10

20

30

40 m

the sub-units were economically independent but socially dependent on the original nucleus.33 It would not be easy to support the hypothesis that all buildings of the Neopalatial Zakros settlement housed this kind of social faction, which we have called the “extended family.” It has been suggested that some of the buildings, such as Building Z on the southwest hill or the East Building beside the Harbor Road, had at least a semipublic function, while the data for several others remain obscure.34 The density and the pattern of distribution of the winepress installations among the buildings of the southwest hill suggest one more hypothesis.35 Four winepress installations correspond to seven buildings investigated thus far, a fact that suggests that some of the complexes were probably economically dependent on other neighboring houses. Could we speak then of annexes of some kind, which, although architecturally independent, actually belonged to or were managed by the residents of other main structures? This scenario suits well the case of the Building to the NE of House A, the preserved part of which appears to be connected with various production

160

l e f t e r i s p l at o n

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Hall of Social Activities

m

and storage activities, mainly wine production and storing the final product with the appropriate equipment for its consumption.36 This structure could cover the needs of neighboring Building Δα, where such installations are absent.37 However, if this hypothesis is valid, how can we discern the basic residential units from their annexes in such densely constructed Neopalatial settlements? For example, could the Building of the Cyclopean Tower, which is limited in area and function when compared to the adjacent Strong Building, constitute the annex of the latter (Fig. 14.6)?38 Or, could it even constitute the residence of a branch of the original family, upon which it still partly depended despite the fact that there was no room for it to be housed in the “maternal” building?

Figure 14.7. Plan of the Strong Building (right), with the three independent apartments indicated by shading. To the left, the Building of the Cyclopean Tower was probably used as a kind of annex for the Strong Building. L. Platon

the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (Hitchcock and Preziosi 1997). The existence of some secondary dwellings (houses of “leaseholders”), which would support the function of the main residential units, was suggested by Brani-

gan within the context of the Neopalatial settlement at Palaikastro (Branigan 1972, p. 756). 38. Platon 1969, pp. 218–219; 1970, pp. 219–220; 1971a, pp. 248–251; 1974, p. 215.

36. Platon 1963, pp. 164–165. 37. Complementary function has been also considered, mainly from an architectural point of view, by Preziosi and Hitchcock, for much larger complexes such as House B at Tylissos and

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the character of the minoan “household”

161

Figure 14.8. Plan of the Strong Building, room Y, showing the pattern of dispersal of pieces belonging to two different storage vessels. L. Platon

Questions such as these are not easy to answer before undertaking an exhaustive study of the architecture, finds, and stratigraphy from all the building units at every settlement. The above discussion is simply a first attempt to approach the matter—an attempt that, nevertheless, gives hope that we will someday gain entrance to the seemingly impenetrable “shell” of Minoan society.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 15

Th e S ou t h Hou s e at K n os s os : M or e t h an a Hou s e ? © 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

by Jane F. Lloyd

Arthur Evans excavated the South House in 1908 and interpreted it as the private residence of a wealthy and important person.1 A recent and exhaustive study of the objects associated with the building, however, concludes that most of the pottery, seals, and small objects may have been mixed with fill dumped in and around the house after its destruction, thus providing little information about who lived in and used the house.2 Therefore, its architectural form is still the best criterion for interpreting the purpose and use of the building. A reconstruction founded on the surviving structure and what is known about the design of comparable early Neopalatial Minoan houses will provide a better idea of the exterior appearance and characters of interior rooms of this particular house, and it may elucidate why the house was built and how it was used. The reconstruction presented here (Fig. 15.1) is based on an analysis of the history of the excavation and interpretation of the house, the form of the terrace cutting, the contexts of pillared rooms in contemporary Minoan houses, and the locations of colonnades and rows of piers comprising at least four supports in Minoan buildings. The location, immediate surroundings, and recreated form of the South House suggest that this building was not a year-round residence.

Th e A rch i te c t u ral F orm and Us e of t h e Sou t h H ou s e The South House at Knossos was built in the early Neopalatial (Middle Minoan [MM] IIIB/Late Minoan [LM] IA) period on a terrace near the southwest corner of the Palace, which stood atop a low hill.3 In the Protopalatial period there was apparently a monumental entrance system that 1. PM II:1, pp. 373, 389. Cf. Graham 1969, p. 55; McEnroe 1982, pp. 3–7, 18, table 1; Driessen 2003, pp. 34–35. All information and the sketch plan from the Knossos daybooks of Duncan Mackenzie are reproduced by courtesy of the Visitors of the Ashmolean Museum and of the Evans Archive,

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. I thank Susan Sherratt and the staff of the Department of Antiquities of the Ashmolean Museum, especially Julie Clements, for their help. 2. Evely 2003, p. 167 (small finds); Krzyszkowska 2003, p. 204 (seals); Mountjoy 2003, pp. 14–15, 37 (fresco), 52 (pottery).

3. For the date, see PM II:1, p. 380; Popham 1970, pp. 59–60; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, pp. 149–150; Driessen 2003, p. 34; Mountjoy 2003, p. 25. For locations of the Palace and South House, see PM II:1, pp. 94, 140, 147, figs. 44, 71, 75; Graham 1969, pp. 24, 55; Lloyd 1990, pp. 33–34.

164

j a n e f. l l o y d

Figure 15.1. Proposed reconstruction plan of the South House at Knossos, based on Mackenzie’s 1928 plan (above); digital model of the South House as seen from the southeast (below). J. F. Lloyd

included the Stepped Portico ascending the hill to the Southwest Porch at the southwest corner of the Palace.4 Very early in the Neopalatial period these substantial structures were destroyed enough that a terrace for the South House was cut into the slope they occupied. The house has eight interior spaces on the ground floor, two full basement rooms located beneath the center of the ground floor, and at least one room in an upper story above the northwest corner. Although almost nothing was preserved at ground level in the southwest corner or above the Pillar Basement, enough of the above-ground structure is preserved in the north and center parts of the house to suggest the three-dimensional form of the entire building (see Figs. 15.2–15.4).5 Well-preserved parts of the building include much of the north facade, many elements of the ground-level rooms in the north part of the house, and substantial parts of an upper-story room in the west part of the house. In 1908 little remained of the south facade, which, because it was visible to the public from a distance above a descending slope, was the important facade of the house.6 In the 20 years between the original excavation and 4. The north and west sides of the terrace encroach on the north end of the Stepped Portico and the southwest end of the South Corridor. See Mackenzie 1908, May 14, 25–30, pp. 27, 51–52; PM II:1, pp. 141–153, 162, 373, figs. 75, 76, 82, plan A; Lloyd

1990, pp. 34–35. Driessen and Macdonald (1997, p. 149) argue that the Stepped Portico need not necessarily have gone out of use at the time. 5. Cf. Driessen 2003, pp. 27–28. 6. PM II:1, pp. 94, 373, fig. 44.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e s o u t h h o u s e at k n o s s o s

Figure 15.2. Mackenzie’s sketch plan of the South House in June 1908. The plan does not show any differences in the floor levels of the rooms.

After Mackenzie 1908, June 22, sketch on pp. 43–43bis; courtesy the Visitors of the Ashmolean Museum and the Evans Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

165

the final publication of the South House in The Palace of Minos in 1928, Evans and Mackenzie excavated small areas in and around the building and cleaned and repaired the exposed structure several times; they never discovered any additional remains of the south front. The south front presented in the final plan published in 1928 consists of the light-well (“light area”) of the Minoan hall system at the east end, a large rectangular room with four central columns above the Pillar Basement, and a large rectangular room adjacent to the Pillar Crypt at the west end (Fig. 15.4). In this plan the excavators tentatively suggest an entrance to the ground floor through the light area of the east end of the house, where three spaces set in a straight line form a canonical Minoan hall system. But, it has since been shown that the light area of this type of Minoan hall system was never used as an entrance to a Neopalatial Minoan building.7 Instead, this paper proposes that there was a portico with a low wall along its south edge located above the Pillar Basement, which had an entrance to the ground floor through the portico, and one large room with a central pillar in the space south of the Pillar Crypt (Fig. 15.1). 7. Lloyd (1997–1998, pp. 122–134) defines the three types of Minoan hall systems in Minoan buildings as canonical, broken-axis, and truncated without light-area, and shows that only the

truncated without light-area form, like hall 2–2a in the villa at Nirou Chani, was used as an entrance to Neopalatialperiod buildings.

166

j a n e f. l l o y d

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Th e Origina l F orm of th e S ou thw es t Co r ner Both the preserved structure of the house and the plans of contemporary Minoan buildings indicate that another one-pillared room, roughly the same size as the Pillar Crypt in the northwest corner, should be restored in the southwest corner of the house.8 The physical evidence includes the form and structure of the terrace, the setting of the house with its west exterior wall adjacent to the west side of the terrace cutting, the massive (undated) wall discovered just south of the Pillar Basement, the structure recovered in the west part of the house, and the single doorway in the south (interior) wall of the Pillar Crypt. Significant elements of the plan are the one-pillared room in the northwest corner, the rooms usually adjacent to one-pillared rooms on the ground floors of contemporary Minoan buildings, and suites of paired pillared rooms found in other Minoan houses and palatial buildings.

Figure 15.3 (opposite). Plan and longitudinal section of the South House drawn in 1910 by Christian C. T. Doll. After Fotou 1990, pp. 52–53,

figs. 5, 6

Th e Remains of t h e Sou t h F ron t Re covered by Evans and Macken zie The sketch plan that Mackenzie drew in his 1908 daybook on June 22 (Fig. 15.2), a plan and sections drawn in 1910 (Fig. 15.3), and the plans and sections published in 1928 (Fig. 15.4) present the south front in substantially different forms. A comparison of the successive plans suggests that what remained of the southern part of the house included: (1) the south wall of the Pillar Crypt (all plans); (2) a short section of the west exterior wall of the house continuing south past the Pillar Crypt (1910 plan); (3) a longer section of wall at ground level extending south from the east wall of the Pillar Crypt (1910 plan); (4) almost the entire length of the wall enclosing the west side of the light area of the Minoan hall system (1928 plan); (5) a short section of wall at ground level above the southeast corner of the Pillar Basement (1928 plan); and (6) a wall, having at least one opening, along the south side of the Square Hall above the north wall of the Pillar Basement (1910 and 1928 plans). The remains define the eastern limit of the south front and the perimeters of one or more rooms at ground level adjoining the Pillar Crypt on the south and above the Pillar Basement, but provide little or no evidence for interior structures in the rooms. The 1908 sketch plan (Fig. 15.2) shows scanty traces of any structure south of the forehall of the Minoan hall system and nothing along the south side of the Pillar Crypt or above the Pillar Basement or Inner Basement Room. In the 1910 plan (Fig. 15.3), the excavators postulated a series of rooms with floor levels descending from west to east across the entire south front of the house. In the 1928 plan (Fig. 15.4) they proposed a much simpler front that comprises three rooms having a common floor level: a rectangular room in the southwest corner, an enclosed Columnar Hall with four in-line central columns above the Pillar Basement, and the light area of the Minoan hall system. In this latest reconstruction, the room in the southwest corner communicates with the Pillar Crypt through one doorway in the common wall that is defined by solid lines, suggesting that the excavators had found physical evidence of its existence. Because there is no doorway in the south

8. Cf. Palyvou 1990, pp. 45–46, where it is suggested that tradition determines the design of a building in preindustrial societies and that all buildings of a specific type built by a culture will resemble each other.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e s o u t h h o u s e at k n o s s o s 167

j a n e f. l l o y d

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

168

Figure 15.4. Plan and longitudinal section of the South House published in 1928; the section was published without a scale. After PM II:1,

figs. 208, 210

t h e s o u t h h o u s e at k n o s s o s

169

wall of the Pillar Crypt in either the 1908 sketch plan or the 1910 plan, it is unlikely that there was more than one doorway in that wall. The south facade formed by these rooms recedes in shallow steps from one end to the other end, just like the facades of many Minoan buildings.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Th e F or m of th e Terrace and th e Sou t h Li m i t of th e H ou s e The South House stands on a level terrace cut deep into the slope outside the southwest corner of the Palace.9 The final orientation, the southwest corner, and the southern limit of the house are determined by the west side of the cutting (which most likely continued south of its present limit) and a massive, undated stone wall discovered along the south edge of the house in the 1950s.10 Roughly aligned with the Palace, the terrace is just large enough to receive the rectangular South House, leaving narrow spaces between the north and east facades of the house and the sides of the cutting (Fig. 15.3). The southern part of the west side of the cutting is set back approximately 2 m to the west, and it is more closely aligned with the west wall of the Stepped Portico that was removed when the terrace cutting was made. The South House is built adjacent to the setback, and it is not aligned with either the north side or the east side of the cutting, or with the Palace.11 The massive wall runs roughly parallel to and less than 1 m south of the south wall of the Pillar Basement. The western end of the south facade was also very likely built north of this massive wall, similar to the south wall of the Pillar Basement to the east. Mackenzie suggested that the builders discovered the terrace was not large enough to accommodate the house as planned, and so they cut back the west face of the cutting to make the terrace large enough to receive the house.12 The north end of the terrace is, in fact, wide enough to receive the house as built, but the builders may have discovered some other impediment on the site to the planned location and orientation. If the massive stone wall antedated the house but was not visible when construction of the house began, it could indeed have been such an impediment. At the same time, the wall could have been used to the builder’s advantage as a support along the south edge of the cutting and south part of the house. If the massive wall postdates the house and follows the south perimeter, it provides conclusive evidence that the southwest corner of the house lies to the north.13 9. The floor level of the terrace is 7.75 m below the South Corridor; see Mackenzie 1908, June 22, p. 43; cf. PM II:2, plan A; Lloyd 1990, p. 80. 10. V. Fotou (pers. comm.) suggested to me (Lloyd 1997–1998, p. 140, n. 53), that the west retaining wall continued south beyond its present limit. The south end of the east retaining wall had been extensively robbed, suggesting that the east side of the cutting could have continued south beyond

its preserved end (see Mackenzie 1908, June 23, p. 45). For the massive stone wall, see Hood 1960–1961, pp. 27–28, fig. 31. Indicated just south of the South House on Hood and Taylor’s (1981) ground plan, this wall cannot be definitely dated (S. Hood, pers. comm.). 11. For alignment of the South House with the Stepped Portico, compare PM II:1, p. 162, fig. 82, and PM II:2, plan A, with the Palace and the west side of the cutting (Mackenzie

1908, June 22, 23, pp. 43–46). The entire west exterior wall of the house was most likely built at the west side of the cutting. Cf. Driessen 2003, p. 30. 12. Driessen (2003, pp. 27, 30) states that terrace is about 24 x 15 m, and the house is about 19 x 13 m. Evans (PM II:1 pp. 389–390) states the house is 18 x 12 m. Cf. Mackenzie 1908, June 23, pp. 45–46. 13. Suggested in Driessen 2003, pp. 30–31.

170

j a n e f. l l o y d

TABLE 15.1. PILLARED ROOMS ON GROUND FLOORS OF NEOPALATIAL BUILDINGS Settlement

Building

Room

No. of Pillars

Adjacent Room

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

A . O P EN S I NTO T WO ADJACENT SMALL RO OMS (* = 2 doorways; + = paired pillared room) (8 total) Knossos

Palace

East Pillar Crypt*+

1

no designations

Knossos

Southeast House

room C1*

1

rooms B1, D1

Tylissos

House C

room 2*

1

rooms 2b, 3

Ayia Triada

Villa

Mag. Nord, 17

1

no designations

Kannia Mitropolis

Farmhouse

room IV+

1

rooms VII, XI+

Zakros

House A

room IV*

1

rooms III, IV

Achladia Siteias

House A

room M

1

rooms Κ, Λ

Rousses Chondrou

House-sanctuary

room A1*

1

no designations

Th e Arch i tect ura l Contexts of P i lla red Ro oms in Neo palat i a l-P erio d Minoa n B uild ings Evans called the well-preserved room with a central stone-built pier in the northwest corner of the South House a Pillar Crypt (Fig. 15.4).14 He interpreted this room as a cult space and believed it existed in buildings at Knossos as early as the Protopalatial period. Evans calls all roofed rooms containing such supports “pillar crypts,” even though the room may have more than one pillar and may be located below ground level in a building. Subsequent studies have focused on the iconography or use of the pillar crypt rather than the distinct differences in the forms, sizes, and locations of these rooms within the building.15 Platon and Gesell have addressed some aspects of the problem of the context of the pillar crypt within the building:16 Platon argues that certain rooms were regularly associated with the pillar crypt; Gesell postulates a standard pillar crypt complex. These two studies also suggest that a stairway and two small rooms or a large room with special architectural features—or both—are likely to have adjoined the pillar crypt and been directly accessible from it. Thirty rooms with one or two pillars, including the Pillar Crypt in the South House, have been found on the ground floors of palatial buildings and houses on Crete (Table 15.1). Most of these rooms have been called “pillar crypts” by scholars. Eight one-pillared rooms adjoin and open into a pair of small rooms. These rooms either open directly into each room of the adjoining pair through two separate doorways in the common wall or into the two small rooms through one doorway in the common wall (Table 15.1:A). Fourteen one- and two-pillared rooms adjoin and open into a large room 14. PM II:1, p. 386; cf. Driessen 2003, p. 34. Pillar crypts are small windowless rooms with a structurally unneeded pillar in the center (Evans 1913–1914, pp. 64, 68–69; PM II:1,

pp. 322–324). The room has religious significance (PM, pp. 146, 218, 425, 441). For pillar crypts at Knossos, see also Evans [1936] 1964, p. 85. 15. Nilsson 1970, pp. 236–249; Platon

1954, pp. 428–483; Graham 1969, pp. 137–142; Gesell 1985, pp. 26–29 (and catalogue); Rutkowski 1986, pp. 20–45. 16. Platon 1954, pp. 463, 469–471; Gesell 1985, pp. 26–29.

t h e s o u t h h o u s e at k n o s s o s

171

TAB LE 15.1—Continued Settlement

Building

Room

No. of Pillars

Adjacent Room

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

B. O P EN S I NTO AN ADJACENT LARG E RO OM (+ = paired pillared room) (14 total) Knossos

Palace

East Pillar Crypt+

1

room of column bases

Knossos

Palace

West Pillar Crypt+

1

East Pillar Crypt+

Knossos

Royal Villa

room D

1

room C (hall of Minoan hall system)

Knossos

Southeast House

room L1 annex

1

rooms K1 (hall of Minoan hall system), L1

Malia

Palace

room IX, 1+

1

room IX, 2 (6 pillars)+

Tylissos

House A

room 3

1

room 4

Tylissos

House A

room 16+

2

room 17 (2 pillars)

Tylissos

House A

room 17+

2

rooms 16 (2 pillars), 15

Kannia-Mitropolis

Farmhouse

room XI+

2

IV (E)+ and XIV (W)

Zakros

House G

room VI

1

room IX

Zakros

House of the Polythyron

room B

1

room A

Palaikastro

House Π 7–16

room 13

1

rooms 12 (S), 10 (W)

Mochlos

House B.2

room 1.1+

1

room 1.2

Mochlos

House B.2

room 1.2+

1

room 1.1

C . O P EN S INTO OTH ER OR UNDETER MIN ED SPACES (9 total) Knossos

Little Palace

Southwest Pillar Crypt Pillar Crypt

2

exterior space?

Knossos

South House

1

undetermined

Knossos

House of the Chancel Screen room 10

1

corridor 8

Malia

Palace

Ilôt VII, 4

2

(portico) VII3

Vathypetro

Villa/West Building

room 4 (10)

2

corridor

Vathypetro

Villa/West Building

room 13 (40)

1

undetermined

Vathypetro

Villa/West Building

room 6 (11)

 1?

1 small room

Phaistos

Building 102/LXI

room 102

1

undetermined

Palaikastro

House 28–31/B annex

room 29

1

1 small room (of a pair)

Note: In Tables 15.1–15.3, the Minoan sites/settlements are listed in groups first in North Crete, then South Crete, then East Crete, and finally West Crete. Within these groups palatial settlements are listed first, followed by nonpalatial settlements. Sources: Knossos: Palace, East and West Pillar Crypts: Evans 1899–1900, pp. 32–34; PM I, pp. 218, 441, 463–464; PM II:2, p. 809; Gesell 1985, pp. 85–88, nos. 33a, b; Little Palace, Southwest Pillar Crypt: Evans 1913–1914, p. 74; PM II:2, p. 527; Gesell 1985, p. 94, no. 43; Southeast House, room C1: PM I, p. 426–429, figs. 306, 307; Gesell 1985, p. 97, no. 55; Room L1, Annex: Gesell 1985, p. 97, no. 56; Royal Villa: PM II:2, pp. 406–408, fig. 235; Gesell 1985, pp. 94–95, no. 46; South House: PM II:1, pp. 386–389; Gesell 1985, pp. 96–97, no. 53; House of the Chancel Screen: Gesell 1985, p. 95, no. 49. Tylissos: House A, room 3: Hazzidakis 1934, pp. 13–15; Gesell 1985, p. 123, no. 125; rooms 16, 17: Hazzidakis 1934, pp. 21–23; House C, room 2: Hazzidakis 1934, pp. 34–35, pl. VIII:2; Gesell 1985, p. 136, no. 127. Ayia Triada: Villa: Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, p. 130, fig. 88, pp. 138–140; Gesell 1985, p. 74, no. 14. Kannia Mitropolis: Farmhouse: Levi 1959, pp. 242–243, fig. 8. Zakros: House A, room IV: Hogarth 1900–1901, pp. 130–131, fig. B; House G, room 6: Hogarth 1900–1901, p. 139; Platon 1970, p. 231; Lloyd 1990, pp. 584, 770, n. 228; House of the Polythyron, room B: Platon 1979, pp. 296–298, fig. 3; Michailidou 1987, p. 515, plan 16, p. 524. Achladia Siteias: House A: Platon 1959a, p. 211–215, fig. 1; Michailidou 1987, p. 515, plan 13, p. 521, n. 52, p. 522. Rousses Chondrou: House-sanctuary: Platon 1957, pp. 145–147; 1959b, pp. 207–208, fig. 1; Michailidou 1987, p. 515, plan 11, p. 521. Malia: Palace, Ilôt IX, 1: Graham 1969, p. 126; Pelon 1980, p. 186, plan 7; Van Effenterre 1980, pp. 345–347, fig. 478; Ilôt VII, 4: Van Effenterre 1980, p. 299; Gesell 1985, p. 105, no. 72. Palaikastro: House Π 7-16, room 13: Dawkins, Hawes, and Bosanquet 1904–1905, p. 286, pl. XIII; McEnroe 1982, p. 11, fig. 3b, p. 18, table 1; House 28-31/B, room 29: Bosanquet 1901–1902, p. 316, pl. XX. Mochlos: House B.2: Soles and Davaras 1994, p. 408; Soles and Davaras 1996, pp. 187–190, figs. 7, 8. Vathypetro: Villa/West Building, rooms 4 (10): Marinatos 1952, p. 599; rooms 13 (40), 6 (11): Marinatos 1951, pp. 261–266; Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, p. 65, fig. 3, p. 75. Phaistos: Building 102/LXI: Pernier 1935, pp. 357–358; Gesell 1985, p. 130, no. 112.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

172

j a n e f. l l o y d

through one doorway in the common wall (Table 15.1:B). In large, elaborate buildings the adjoining room also often has a special architectural feature such as a pillar. In five large, elaborate buildings (the Palaces at Knossos and Malia, House A at Tylissos, the Farmhouse at Kannia Mitropolis, and House B.2 at Mochlos), two pillared rooms are built side by side, and in all five instances the two rooms communicate with each other through one opening in the common wall. The one doorway in the south wall of the Pillar Crypt suggested by the successive plans of the South House, and the absence of any remains of interior walls in the area south of the room, indicate that one large room was located to the south of the Pillar Crypt and formed the southwest corner of the house. The south wall of this room would probably have been north of the undated massive wall, as was the south wall of the Pillar Basement to the east. The house is comparable in design and construction to most of the buildings in which paired pillared rooms are found, so it is possible that there was a special feature, such as a pillar, in this room.17 The Pillar Crypt and the postulated room (called “Room with Pillar” in Fig. 15.1) would then have formed a pair of pillared rooms at the west facade of the house.

A Po rt i co an d Entran ce to t h e G rou n d Flo o r at t h e S ou th Facad e abov e th e P illar Basem ent Ground-level entrances to nonpalatial buildings in the Neopalatial period usually led into a small featureless room or a corridor.18 There would have been no entrance through the light area of the Minoan hall system postulated by the excavators in the 1928 plan (Fig. 15.4), or through the one-pillared room suggested here in the southwest corner. At ground level, the west, north, and east facades of the house were at or close to the sides of the terrace cutting. An entrance to the ground floor from outside could have been located only in the area at the center of the south facade where, in the 1928 plan, the excavators had originally restored a large rectangular room (Columnar Hall) with four columns down the center (above the Pillar Basement).19 The excavators apparently postulated this room from a short section of wall at ground level above the southeast corner of the Pillar Basement that is indicated for the first time in the 1928 plan (Fig. 15.4). Freestanding columns and pillars were often used as supports in interior rooms and in porticos along the sides of interior courts and the facades of early Neopalatial Minoan buildings, but no straight colonnade comprising four columns has been found in any completely roofed room.20 Colonnades of four or more columns are found only in palaces and palatial buildings, where they supported the roofs of porticos that ran along the perimeters of the central courts and other interior courts (Table 15.2).21 In nonpalatial buildings, straight colonnades and rows of pillars have no more than four members and always supported porticos along a facade or interior court (Table 15.3). Porticos built along facades always had at least one opening

17. Cf. McEnroe 1982, pp. 3, 18, table 1. 18. Lloyd 1997–1998, pp. 134–137, 138, table 6. 19. Mackenzie 1908, May 18, p. 31. For columns standing above pillars in ground-floor rooms, see Evans 1913– 1914, pp. 68–69; PM I, pp. 146, 218, 441; PM II:2, pp. 380–381, 385. Cf. Graham 1969, p. 157; Shaw 1971, p. 124; Driessen 2003, pp. 32–33. 20. Graham 1969, pp. 155–157; Shaw 1971, pp. 111–112, 227, table D. 21. Graham 1969, pp. 190–192, and cf. p. 156.

t h e s o u t h h o u s e at k n o s s o s

173

Tab le 15.2. PORTICOS WIT H 4+ SUPP ORTS IN PALATIA L BUI LDIN GS Settlement

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Knossos

Building Palace

Location of Portico Pillared Portico (Central Court)

Supports

Openings in Rear Wall

7 pillars

2

1 row of 6 pillars, 1 row of 5 pillars

–

6 columns/1 pillar

2 polythyra

Knossos

Palace

North Pillar Hall (open center corridor)

Knossos

Palace

Hall of Double Axes at facade

Malia

Palace

Central Court (N)

11 columns

3

Malia

Palace

Central Court (E)

7 pillars/6 columns

4

Malia

Palace

space VIIa (Central Court)

4 columns

2

Malia

Palace

Cour Nord: north, east, south sides

6 columns

8

Malia

Palace

Ilôt III at facade

5 columns/3 pillars

2 polythyra

Phaistos

Palace

portico 65 (Central Court)

4 columns/4 pillars

2

Phaistos

Palace

room 74 (peristyle)

12 columns

1 polythyron (N)

Zakros

Palace

portico XXXIV–XXXVI (Central Court)

3 columns/4 pillars

2 (N); 1+ polythyron (E)

Kommos

Building T

North Stoa (interior court)

5 columns/2 pillars

–

Kommos

Building T

South Stoa (interior court)

6 columns

–

Sources: Knossos, Palace: Pillared Portico: PM II:2, pp. 796, 802–803, fig. 525; Hood and Taylor 1981, p. 15, no. 66; Hall of Double Axes: PM I, pp. 328–330, figs. 23–40; PM III, p. 326, fig. 218, pp. 328–329, fig. 219; Hood and Taylor 1981, p. 22, no. 228; North Pillar Hall: Evans 1901–1902, pp. 4–5, fig. 2; PM I, pp. 397–400, fig. 286; PM III, pp. 158–167; Hood and Taylor 1980, p. 20, no. 171. Malia, Palace: Central Court: Graham 1969, pp. 42–43, 191; Pelon 1980, pp. 148–154, 206, plan 27; space VIIa: Pelon 1980, pp. 135–138, 160, fig. 16, plan 21; Cour Nord: Pelon 1980, pp. 78, 80, fig. 6; Ilôt III: Pelon 1980, pp. 110, 113–116, plan 17; Van Effenterre 1980, pp. 362–364, figs. 497, 498. Phaistos, Palace: portico 65: Pernier and Banti 1951, pp. 155–156, 160–161, fig. 95; room 74: Pernier and Banti 1951, pp. 350, 355, figs. 220–222. Zakros, Palace: portico XXXIV–XXXVI: Platon 1964, p. 155; 1971b, pp. 97–98, 175–177, plans on pp. 80– 81, 176–177. Kommos, Building T: Shaw 1984, pp. 266–271, fig. 6a; 1985, p. 19; 2002, pp. 102, 105–107, pl. XXXI:a.

22. Cf. Lloyd 1997–1998, pp. 136– 138, table 6. 23. Pelon 1980, pp. 135–136, plan 21. Note that on p. 135, the thickness of the wall is given as 0.65 m. 24. Pernier and Banti 1951, pp. 280, 283–285, fig. 177.

in the rear wall that led into the interior of the building (Tables 15.2, 15.3). Some openings in the rear walls of porticos in the palaces at Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, and Zakros led to a stairway. The rear walls of some porticos in the palaces were polythyra that formed one side of the hall of a Minoan hall system. The porticos found at the facades of three nonpalatial buildings at Amnisos, Sklavokampos, and Myrtos Pyrgos each had one opening in the rear wall leading into the house, indicating that they were major entrances to the buildings (Table 15.3).22 The long, straight colonnades that support porticos in contemporary Minoan buildings suggest that the Columnar Hall at the south perimeter of the South House was actually a portico. The section of wall indicated above the south wall of the Pillar Basement in the 1928 plan (Fig. 15.4) could have been a low wall along the outer edge of the portico. An opening in this wall roughly opposite a gap between the two easternmost columns and an opening in the rear wall of the portico would have led directly into the Center Corridor. The form of this portico has a parallel in a portico (VIIa) excavated along the southwest side of the Central Court in the Palace at Malia.23 There, the excavated portico has four columns and a low wall along the side that faced the court; one opening in the outer wall is opposite a corridor (VII, 10) leading into the west wing. Like some porticos at the facades of the palaces, such as portico 85 at the north facade of the Palace at Phaistos24 and the porticos of the three nonpalatial buildings (Table 15.3),

174

j a n e f. l l o y d

TAB LE 15.3. PORTICOS IN NONPALATIAL BUI LDINGS Settlement

Building

Malia

Location of Portico

Supports

Openings in Rear Wall

House E

portique 4

4 columns

several

Amnisos

Villa

portico at facade

2 columns

2

Sklavokampos

Villa

portico at facade

3 pillars

1

Myrtos Pyrgos

Country house

portico at facade

2 columns/1 pillar

1

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Sources: Malia: House E: Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, pp. 98–99, plan VII; Van Effenterre 1980, pp. 412–413, fig. 553. Amnisos: Villa: Schäfer 1992, pp. 132–134, 142–143, pl. 124:a, b, suppl. pl. 2. Sklavokampos: Villa: Marinatos 1939–1941, pp. 74, 79–80. Myrtos Pyrgos: Country house: Cadogan 1977–1978, pp. 77–78, fig. 21.

the proposed South House portico is in a recess in the facade of the building and serves as an entrance to the house. It gives convenient access to the rooms on the ground floor through separate openings in the rear wall that lead directly into the east and west parts of the house, and creates a formal transitional space between outside and interior at the center of the facade. The low south wall allows light and air to enter the house and heat to dissipate from the area at the front of the portico.

A Reco nstru ct ion of th e Sou t h F ron t and a n I nterpre tat ion of t h e S ou th H o u se The south front proposed here comprises the light area of the Minoan hall system in the southeast corner and a portico at the center that have low facade walls, and a fully enclosed one-pillared room in the southwest corner (Fig. 15.1).25 The facade recedes in two shallow steps from west to east. Passersby would see a visually complex, impressive south facade of receding planes defined by the walls and columns of the portico and the forehall of the Minoan hall system that reveal progressively darker and more enclosed interior spaces. The South House was located close to important and monumental entrances to the Palace, and it was easily accessible from the roads that approached them. To the north was the West Porch, which served as an impressive formal entrance to the Palace. It opened to the north to receive visitors approaching across the West Court, but it may also have had an approach from the south.26 A paved area outside the west facade wall of the room suggested to the excavators an entrance to the house through the Upper Columnar Hall above the Pillar Crypt, which would have faced any road approaching the West Court and West Portico from the south.27 Driessen has recently proposed a doorway at the northwest corner of the Upper Columnar Hall leading into the upper landing of the stairway ascending along the north side of the Pillar Crypt that is more consistent with the forms of entrances to Minoan houses at ground level.28 To the west was the South Porch of the Palace that was approached by a paved way ascending the south slope near the south front of the house.29 The South House was an isolated structure that stood alone on its terrace; it had little open space around it that could have been used for

25. For low walls enclosing the light area, see Lloyd 1999, pp. 65–72, fig. 17. 26. PM II:2, pp. 660–666, 672–674, fig. 427. 27. Mackenzie 1908, June 23, p. 46; PM II:1, p. 386. 28. Driessen 2003, pp. 28–31, fig. 1.1. For the ramp, see Hood and Taylor 1981, p. 13, no. 5; cf. Lloyd 1997–1998, p. 140. 29. PM II:2, pp. 758–762, fig. 490, plan A; Momigliano and Wilson 1996, pp. 1–2, 52–55, fig. 1. There were apparently no contemporary structures between the South House and the South Porch; Mackenzie 1908, April 1, p. 7; June 5 [sic], pp. 53–54.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e s o u t h h o u s e at k n o s s o s

30. Christakis (2003, pp. 160–161) notes the contradiction between the limited storage capacity and elegant design of the house. Cf. Mountjoy 2003, pp. 37, 164–166. 31. Mackenzie 1908, May 16, 19, pp. 29–30, 33–34, sketch on p. 33bis; PM II:1, pp. 381–384, figs. 215–218. Cf. McEnroe 1982, pp. 5–6, 18, table 1. 32. Several other small buildings outside the Palace at Knossos that are sited on cuttings in hillsides and comprise mainly elegant, ceremonial-type rooms like the South House could have been used for the same purpose.

175

socializing with visitors, food preparation, and crafts work or manufacturing activities (Fig. 15.4). Most of the preserved rooms on the ground floor have special forms or built-in elements that suggest the rooms were used for ceremonial or cult activities. A group of elegant silver ceremonial vases and fresco fragments found in the house suggest that it was an elaborately decorated and furnished building used by the elite.30 There are only two small and exceptionally well-built storage rooms, which, unusually, are located below ground level, and one was found to have had a lock on the door.31 The recreated form of the South House proposed in this study suggests that it did not serve as a primary or long-term residence, especially not for an elite household that would likely have needed substantial storage space for possessions and food and extensive workshops for subsistence and economic activities. Its small size and the limited area around the house suggests that people would have lived in it for only short periods of time, and the elegant ceremonial rooms and furnishings suggest that the building would have been used for special purposes. The house could have been used as a grand and impressive setting for an official to receive persons traveling from the south and west, or as a temporary residence for dignitaries or important visitors.32 The small locked storeroom in the basement could have been used to store valuable objects brought as gifts, tribute, exchange, or to be presented to important visitors to Knossos. This reconstruction of the south front of the South House has led to new information about the architectural contexts of “pillar crypts” and the uses of columns, piers, and porticos in these buildings. The reconstruction of the three-dimensional form of this building provides a clearer idea of the appearance of its south facade, the general character of its interior spaces, and its possible use. This model (Fig. 15.1), perhaps, can give us a better idea of the forms, exterior appearance, and characters of the interior rooms of other buildings excavated in Late Bronze Age settlements on Crete.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 16

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Ide n t i f y i n g Hou s e hol d Ac t i v i t i e s : Th e Cas e of H o u s e 2 at G al atas P e d i ada by Kostis S. Christakis and Giorgos Rethemiotakis

The importance of household studies in the understanding of past societies has gained increasing recognition, acceptance, and dissemination over the last two decades.1 In their seminal work, Wilk and Rathje convincingly argued that the household is the basic unit of society and, therefore, a vital basis of archaeological analysis.2 The household is the fundamental unit of social and economic cooperation, necessary to the effective exploitation of resources and processes, and it forms an adaptive unit within the wider ecological, social, and cultural environment. Following this line of thought, in this paper we intend to identify and discuss the activities and functions of the household of House 2, one of the few excavated domestic units of the Neopalatial town of Galatas Pediada on Crete. The discussion is based on a multifaceted analysis of artifacts and ecofacts recovered from the house. We are attempting, therefore, to link material evidence of discrete behaviors to interpretations of household activities and their organization. Only when the spatial, status, gender, and age relationships in the organization and structure of a household are more fully explored can the complexity and diversity of household roles as social and productive units in the wider community be better understood.

A rch i te c t u re and A rt ifact ual Ass em blag es The settlement of Galatas, located on a rocky hill ca. 30 km southeast of Iraklion, is one of the most important centers of Bronze Age Crete.3 Ongoing research has revealed traces of human activity from Early Minoan (EM) I onward, but the earliest architectural remains excavated so far are dated to the Middle Minoan (MM) IB period, when a small settlement 1. We would like to thank Kevin Glowacki and Natalia VogeikoffBrogan for their invitation to participate in this conference. We also express our thanks to the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) for their constant

and generous support of the Galatas Pediada excavation and publication program. The material was conserved by Panayiotis Sinadinakis and Tassos Karouzos, the architectural plan is by Pepi Stefanaki, and the pottery draw-

ings are by Nikoleta Ntolia. The photographs are by Giorgos Rethemiotakis. 2. Wilk and Rathje 1982. 3. Rethemiotakis 2002, including an extensive bibliography on the excavations at Galatas Pediada.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

178

k o s t i s s . c h r i s ta k i s a n d g i o r g o s r e t h e m i o ta k i s

extended over the north area of the hill.4 A monumental palace—the seat of the political authority controlling the region—was built during MM IIIB over the ruins of the Protopalatial settlement, while an urban center, covering at least 70,000 m2, extended across most of Galatiani Kephala. The Palace lost its palatial character early in Late Minoan (LM) IA, and the semideserted building was finally destroyed by an earthquake at the end of the same period. The urban center continued after the abandonment of the Palace, and it was later destroyed by fire at the end of the LM IB period. Building activities dating to LM III A2–B occurred in some parts of the ruined Neopalatial town. Two town buildings located on the northwest area of the hill have been excavated so far, while another, in the region south of the Palace, awaits further exploration. The history of these units is rather complicated. Building 3/5, the most important of the complexes excavated on the north side of the hill, was built in MM IB. Its architectural layout and quality of construction, including massive external walls, fine plaster, and slablined floors, show that it was probably the central building of the MM IB settlement. The complex, destroyed in MM IB, was radically remodeled in MM IIIB and finally destroyed by fire in the LM IB period. House 2, the second structure on the north side of the hill, is the subject of our paper. This domestic unit was excavated in 1997 and 1999 and further explored in 2001 and 2004 (Fig. 16.1). It was built in MM IIIB in the area west of the Palace and situated very close to it; the house was destroyed by fire in LM IB. The entrance is at the southeast corner, giving access to a staircase leading to the ground-floor rooms and to the upper story. The ground floor comprises 11 rooms and covers an area roughly 170 m2 in size. Layers of burned earth and charcoal were excavated in many rooms

Figure 16.1. State plan of House 2 at Galatas Pediada

4. Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2004.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e c a s e o f h o u s e 2 at g a l ata s p e d i a d a

179

Figure 16.2. The enclosure in room 7 with the stored domestic implements. View from the north.

of the house, and the concentration of charcoal close to some doorways indicated the remains of burned wooden door frames. The ruins of the house were partly disturbed by later building activities. Part of Building 4, a complex dated to LM IIIA2–B, was built on top of House 2. Many walls of the LM I house were used as the foundations for the walls of Building 4, and some doorways were blocked in order to strengthen the foundations of the later walls. LM III A2–B building activities greatly affected the ruins of the upper story of the house and, in part, the deposits of rooms 3 and 6 on the ground floor. The numerous assemblages of artifacts that fell from the upper story into the rooms of the ground floor, however, provide crucial information on domestic activities occurring on the upper floor. Floor deposits on the ground floor were almost intact except for those in rooms 3 and 6. Additional crucial information on the LM III A2–B phase of the building was erased by erosion and cultivation. The spatial patterning of the rich artifactual assemblages excavated in this house, coupled with architectural analysis, throws light on household behavior and organization. Rooms on the ground floor were largely devoted to food storage and food preparation activities. Room 7 was used for food preparation and the processing of staples. The main feature of this room is the enclosure built against the west wall, which served for the storage of domestic implements (Fig. 16.2). Amphoras, jugs, some cups, a small pithoid pot, a stirrup jar, two cooking pots, and seven grinders were carefully placed within the enclosure. Organic residue analyses show that the pithoid pot contained olive oil. Two large stone mortars, used for the processing of staples, were built directly into the south part of the enclosure. Olive stones were found around the mortars.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

180

k o s t i s s . c h r i s ta k i s a n d g i o r g o s r e t h e m i o ta k i s

The most impressive floor deposits were excavated in rooms 8 and 9, the principal storerooms of the house. These spaces were reached via a doorway in the east wall of room 9. Two large ovoid pithoi, one piriform pithos, and another tripod barrel pithos were placed in room 8 (Fig. 16.3). The pithoi were associated with small- and medium-size containers suitable for transfer and pouring purposes. Two querns and 10 grinders were positioned around the base of one of the ovoid pithoi. Two conical pithoi, one placed upside down, were found in room 9. Organic residue analyses conducted by R. Evershed and R. Berstan of the School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, provide crucial information on the content of the storage containers excavated in these storerooms. The study of other bioarchaeological remains, currently in preparation, will shed additional light on the kind of edible goods kept in these stores. Of the pithoi placed in room 9, the first yielded evidence of degraded beeswax (alkaline, alcohol, and wax esters) and fatty acids, and the second contained traces of triacylglycerol distributions consistent with the presence of degraded vegetable oil, possibly olive oil (Fig. 16.4). The four pithoi placed in room 8 contained degraded beeswax and degraded vegetable oil, again possibly olive oil (Fig. 16.5). The beeswax was probably applied as a sealant on the inside of the pithos to reduce the porosity of the fabric. Ethnographic information has confirmed the use of beeswax as a sealant in this way.5 Pithoi with beeswax were usually used for the storage of cereals, pulses, olive oil, and wine (but never resinated wine).6 Rooms 10 and 11 were also used for storage activities. A large ovoid pithos was placed in room 10, while a tripod barrel similar to the specimen in room 8 was found in room 11. It is worth noting that the tripod barrel pithoi excavated in this house are the products of a local workshop active during the Middle Minoan III period in the area of Galatas. Organic residue

Figure 16.3. Room 8 with the pithoi in situ. View from the west.

5. Regert et al. 2001. 6. Christakis 2005, p. 52.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e c a s e o f h o u s e 2 at g a l ata s p e d i a d a

181

Figure 16.4. Pithoi from room 9. Scale 1:15

Figure 16.5. Pithoi from room 8. Scale 1:15

analyses found that the pithos in room 11 contained wine while the pithos in room 10 yielded evidence of degraded vegetable oil, possibly olive oil. Room 2, a small rectangular space, was connected with the staircase through a doorway in its south wall, with another doorway in the north wall giving access to room 3. This space was found almost empty. The assemblage of vessels excavated in this space, which will be discussed further below, had fallen from the upper floor. Rooms 3 and 6 were found empty, and there is no evidence for their use. LM IIIA2–B activities widely reported over the area of these rooms may have disturbed LM IB levels. The household activities that took place on the upper story were indirectly deduced from the study of the artifactual assemblages that fell

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

182

k o s t i s s . c h r i s ta k i s a n d g i o r g o s r e t h e m i o ta k i s

from the upper story to the ground floor. A large assemblage of vessels had fallen from the upper story into room 2; it consisted of conical cups, jugs, amphoras, cooking pots, bowls, and two small pithoid vessels. Animal and fish bones were also found in this deposit. Another assemblage of vessels similar to the previous one had fallen in the central area of room 8 and along the south wall of room 9. However, the most interesting assemblage of vessels that fell from the upper floor was the one excavated in the northwest corner of room 6, which consisted of four finely decorated vessels dating to LM IB. The most important piece from this group is a stirrup jar with a splendid composition of marine and floral motifs. Finely decorated vessels, mostly in a very fragmentary state, were also found in many rooms of the house; in all cases they had fallen from above. There is no evidence of the use of fine pottery on the ground floor. The fine pottery used in this house was locally produced. The high quality of execution of the painted decoration is reminiscent of Knossian prototypes; it is likely that these vases were made by local potters trained in Knossian workshops. Forty-seven clay loomweights of the spherical type, used for weaving activities, had fallen from the upper story into various spaces of the ground floor. Considerable assemblages of querns and grinders had also fallen from the upper story. It is interesting to note that the number of stone implements used on the upper story is considerably greater than the number of tools found on the ground floor. The statistical analysis of pottery used on the upper story of the house shows a very high percentage of specimens suitable for the consumption of food and drink, transfer purposes, and cooking; only a low percentage of the pottery was found to be suitable for storage use. Organic residue analyses of the few small-size storage containers used on the upper floor show traces of degraded beeswax and vegetable oil. This picture contrasts with that of vessels used on the ground floor, where pottery used for the storage of considerable quantities of goods is predominant, while pottery used for food consumption and drinking is represented in much lower percentages than those observed on the upper floor.

F ro m A rt ifacts to P eople : I n ter p re t in g th e Arch eo lo g ical M ateri a l What can artifactual assemblages tell us of the economic and social position of the people who lived, worked, and interacted in House 2? Any consideration in that direction is subject to the availability of the material record and the formation processes affecting floor deposits.7 The artifactual assemblages excavated in House 2 provide information on only a few domestic activities, leaving many others, especially those related to the personal life of the household, obscure. The built installation in room 7, the querns and grinders, the assemblages of vessels, and the loomweights suggest that the processing of staples, food preparation and consumption, and weaving were some of the principal household activities. Bioarchaeological data shows that olives, vegetable oil (possibly olive oil), wine, mutton, goat, and fish were some of the commodities consumed by the household. The final study of bioarchaeological

7. Schiffer 1987; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e c a s e o f h o u s e 2 at g a l ata s p e d i a d a

8. Christakis 1999, 2003, 2008. 9. Historical information on families in the preindustrial Aegean supports an average household composition of five individuals (Whitelaw 2001, p. 18, esp. n. 1). This estimate is adopted also in our study as the best working hypothesis for a simple Neopalatial household.

183

remains, currently in progress, will provide a more complete picture of the edible goods consumed in this domestic unit. The study of storage containers is particularly informative on the subsistence self-sufficiency of the household. This study is possible through a model, fully discussed elsewhere, that converts the volume of storage facilities into subsistence potential.8 The model is based on a series of working hypotheses on the patterns of consumption of Neopalatial households and their nutritional requirements, and the quantity and nutritional value of stored goods. This model assumes that a dietary regimen during the Neopalatial period was as follows: 42% cereal products; 37% vegetables, wild greens, fruits, and nuts; 4% pulses; 5% olive oil; 10% wine; and 2% meat. Excluding vegetables, fresh fruit, fish, and meat—as these goods were usually consumed fresh—we can assume that the domestic storage facilities of a Neopalatial household could hold 55% cereals, 5% pulses, 8% olive oil, and 12% wine. This leaves a percentage of 20% for other foodstuffs such as nuts, salted olives, salted/dried fish and meat, dried fruits and vegetables, and water—all of which might have been stored in pithoi. The pithoi in rooms 8 and 9, the main stores of the house, and those found in rooms 10 and 11 have an overall capacity of 1,080 liters. The capacity of the small storage containers used in the upper story is estimated at 115 liters. Large amphoras found in the destruction deposits have a capacity of 100 liters. In total, the containers used by this household for short- and long-term storage have an overall storage capacity of 1,295 liters. This is a minimum estimate, as other goods might have been stored in perishable containers that, unfortunately, have not left traces in the archaeological record. If we assume a daily per capita intake of 2,583 calories and take into consideration (1) the dietary regimen discussed above, and (2) the calorific potential of basic dietary goods such as cereals, pulses, olive oil, and wine, we may conclude that the 1,295 liters of foodstuffs in the storage containers of House 2 could provide subsistence support for a household of five adults for 13 months.9 It should be noted that this was not the only subsistence reserve: fresh commodities may also have contributed to the nutritional requirements of the household. These conclusions are certainly speculative and do not reflect actual subsistence patterns; they might, however, help us to understand the range of meanings that storage capacities might have in a certain context. The economic picture is also reflected in the rest of the artifactual evidence. The high-status tableware, certainly used in drinking and eating events, confers prestige on the persons who obtain and display such material objects. It points to a common ideology among the regional elite in the manifestation and legitimization of incipient forms of social complexity and inequality. The subsistence wealth kept in the storerooms of House 2 and the acquisition and display of prestige items become differentiating factors, operating on the social level as manifestations of power and prestige. Moreover, the find of three seals—artifacts that bring us far closer to the individual—indicates a need for personal adornment and manifestation of status. The evaluation of House 2 within an intrasettlement framework is difficult, as most of the extensive Neopalatial town has not yet been excavated. It is worth noting, however, that an image of prosperity is also seen in

184

k o s t i s s . c h r i s ta k i s a n d g i o r g o s r e t h e m i o ta k i s

Building 3/5, where rich assemblages of storage containers, fine tableware, and prestigious artifacts were found. The material remains from House 2 and Building 3/5 suggest, therefore, that a level of elite social behavior and practice had been established in the wealthy households of the town. These findings reinforce the notion that Galatas was a flourishing center during LM IB, even after the abandonment of the Palace in LM IA.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Co n clusions The preliminary study of the artifactual assemblages from House 2 provides important insights into the social and economic organization of the household residing in this building before its destruction at the end of the LM IB period. Household analysis reveals the meaningful relationships between the “visible” archaeological testimonies and the “invisible” individuals. The individual house can be the starting point for the appreciation of the nature of connections between the different social groups that interact within a given society. The adoption of a “household perspective” in the study of Bronze Age Crete—a perspective taken by the contributions in this volume—greatly extends and enhances our understanding of Cretan Bronze Age society.

c hap ter 1 7

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

H o u s e hol d A r c h ae ol o g y at M o c h l os : S tat i st i c al R e c i p e s fr om t h e L at e M i n oan I Ki tc h e n by Thomas M. Brogan and Kellee A. Barnard While remains of Cretan eating and drinking activities are frequently encountered in Late Minoan (LM) I houses (one thinks of the countless cups and cookpots), hard evidence for kitchens—at least in the form of permanent installations such as hearths and ovens—is surprisingly elusive.1 A volume dedicated to the archaeology of houses and household activities therefore provides a welcome opportunity to revisit the topic of Late Bronze Age domestic kitchens on Crete. This paper aims to do just that, focusing on their archaeological visibility, location, form, and contents of the domestic kitchen from LM I households at Mochlos.

Id en t ify i n g L M Ki tch en s on C re te A brief but by no means exhaustive survey of several LM I towns illustrates previous attempts to identify kitchens using a combination of evidence, including hearths, cooking equipment, and organic remains. The small number of securely identified kitchens is immediately striking. For example, excavations of the LM I town at Pseira have recognized only one groundfloor kitchen (in room 6 of Building AF), which contained a mortar, quern, and a permanent hearth formed by slabs placed upright on a platform.2 A second-story kitchen has been postulated for the room above BS/BV 6 on the basis of cooking equipment, burnt stones (possibly from a hearth), and animal remains present in the ceiling collapse.3 In fact, the excavators have suggested that more Pseiran kitchens were probably located on the upper stories, which, of course, are usually poorly preserved and difficult to isolate in the archaeological record. 1. The paucity of permanent cooking hearths and kitchens has been observed by many scholars (e.g., Graham 1987, p. 215). Most recently, see Rehak and Younger 1998, p. 107. 2. Betancourt 2001, p. 147; Pseira V, pp. 46–48. A rectangular enclosure with

evidence of burning in room BE 4 provides another good candidate for a hearth. Other built features at the site (e.g., in rooms AD 14, AB 8, AF 8, and BA 9) remain possibilities, although no evidence of burning was recovered. 3. Pseira III, pp. 205–206; Betan-

court 2001, p. 147. A second possible kitchen is suggested for room BS 1 on the ground floor, which contained cooking equipment, animal remains, and a mortar, but no remains of a hearth.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

186

thomas m. brogan and kellee a. barnard

At Kommos, excavations have brought to light three built hearths in ground-floor rooms of LM I houses. Those in room 17 of the North House and room 2 of the Oil Press House were rectangular arrangements of stones placed on or within the floor at the center of large multipurpose rooms, and it has been argued that they functioned as sources of light and heat as much as platforms for cooking.4 Another small rectangular platform made of small slabs in room 6 of the Hilltop House was identified as a kitchen because of a cooking pot found with it. At Palaikastro, LM IB House N contained three possible kitchens. The most convincing evidence was found in room 14, which contained cooking equipment and a concentration of animal bones near a small area of ashy soil identified as a hearth.5 Preliminary reports of the more recent excavations at Palaikastro note an additional kitchen in room 5 of Building 2, where numerous cups, jars, and cooking pots were found.6 At Malia, the Neopalatial House Ζβ preserved one built hearth in room 17.7 At Gournia, a site viewed by many as the most completely excavated LM I town, the excavator found many cooking vessels but very little evidence for built cooking installations—only one possible oven in room A 43.8 Although by no means exhaustive, this survey outlines the limited evidence for the locus and form of cooking in Neopalatial towns. An important perspective is provided by P. Muhly’s diachronic review of the use of fixed hearths on Crete.9 She found that these permanent features were largely absent during the Second Palace period, perhaps as portable hearths gained favor. Given the paucity of such remains (in contrast with the large amounts of cooking wares at these sites), it seems fair to ask where exactly were the LM I kitchens and the hearths? Is the small number of permanent hearths the result of ancient practice (e.g., cooking on nonpermanent or portable hearths, cooking outside, or some form of communal cooking)? Or have site formation processes obscured the archaeological record (e.g., cooking facilities in upper stories that are poorly preserved)? Or are we perhaps missing the mark with our expectation of such built installations in every house? A recent report on kitchens from the Late Cycladic (LC) I town of Akrotiri provides intriguing support for this view.10 At that site, very few cooking hearths were identified within the houses (Houses D and A being exceptions), but two very interesting built hearths and ovens were recently discovered outside the houses. Because the theme of this volume is household archaeology, we will overlook the question of cooking in the palaces and villas and focus instead on the question of domestic kitchens in LM I towns. Here the problem appears to be more acute. Studies of the hearths and ovens at Kommos and Akrotiri have demonstrated the value of approaching this problem at the site level so that issues of household and communal behavior can be addressed spatially and, where possible, diachronically. The recent excavations by J. Soles and C. Davaras at Mochlos have uncovered a broad sample of the LM I settlement, including a ceremonial center, several blocks of multistoried houses, an artisans’ quarter, and a remote farmstead. The excavations of LM I Mochlos have not, however, revealed built hearths like those found at Akrotiri or LM I–III Kommos. They have, on the other hand, collected a wealth of cooking equipment, stone tools, and ancient faunal and plant

4. Shaw 1990, pp. 231–254; 1996, pp. 357, 366–367. 5. Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, pp. 263–268. Cooking equipment was also found in room 17 and in the upper-story collapse over room 3; however, neither deposit contained evidence for a hearth. 6. MacGillivray et al. 1987, pp. 150– 151. 7. Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, pp. 12–13, 25, pl. 3:2. 8. Hawes et al. 1908, p. 29. 9. Muhly 1984, pp. 107–122. 10. We would like to thank Kiri Birtacha, Anastasia Devetzi, Dimitra Mylona, Anaya Sarpaki, and Katerina Trantalidou for allowing us to read a copy of their paper (Birtacha et al. 2008) before its publication.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

h o u s e h o l d a r c h a e o l o g y at m o c h l o s

187

remains.11 Moreover, there is at Mochlos a room type whose form and furnishings we believe can be associated with food preparation and the storage of eating and drinking vessels. In the final LM IB phase, these rooms are small ground-floor spaces furnished with sandstone basins containing copious ceramic and organic material and some evidence for kitchen fires. The rooms with basins are also distinguished by the fact that they do not communicate directly with the rest of the house but have separate entrances. This paper examines the evidence for the use of these rooms as kitchens and pantries in the LM I period and the possible reasons for the clear separation of the activities in these rooms from the rest of the house.

Id en t ify i n g D o m es t i c Co o k in g Fac i li t ies at Mo chlos

11. Soles and Davaras 1992, 1994, 1996; Mochlos IA; Mochlos IB; Mochlos IC. 12. Although it was not found with a stone mortar, it should be noted that later LM III activity in the room left very little of the Final LM IB floor in place. For this reason, room B5 of Artisans’ Quarter Building B has been included in Table 17.1. 13. Mochlos IA, pp. 23–29, figs. 15– 17, pls. 10–12. 14. Mochlos IA; Mochlos IB; Mochlos IC. 15. Mochlos IA, fig. 3. 16. Room B5 of Building B may have served as the original kitchen in this structure. A cookpot from the room contained numerous bones of a hare. 17. Mylona 2004; Reese 2004; Sarpaki and Bending 2004; Schoch and Ntinou 2004.

While a list of rooms, their architectural characteristics, and their contents (stone tools, organics, and pottery) provides criteria that aid in the identification of kitchens and pantries at Mochlos, this checklist approach also has limitations (Table. 17.1).12 By focusing on the final destruction deposits, one may miss important changes to the function and use of many examples of this room type throughout the “life history” of each house. Some rooms were found relatively empty, suggesting that they either had been deliberately cleaned out or were not being used as pantries or kitchens when they were abandoned. We begin with an examination of the room type across the site, illustrating a few cases of the different formation processes and focusing on the best-preserved example (room A2 of Building A in the Artisans’ Quarter) before considering broader questions about the location and form of food preparation facilities in the LM I houses/ households at Mochlos.13 Buildings A and B of the Artisans’ Quarter (Fig. 17.1) provide a good introduction to questions of the form, distribution, and function of the rooms with basins that we interpret as kitchens/pantries.14 Buildings A and B each contain two large living and work spaces (rooms A1, A4, B2, B10) connected with craft production. These same rooms have direct access to several smaller rooms whose functions included the storage of equipment and supplies, perhaps sleeping areas, and two small domestic shrines. Each building also contained three smaller rooms with basins (rooms A2, A9, A10, B3, B9, B13), which do not have direct access to the other rooms of their complexes.15 With the exception of room A2, five of these rooms clearly represent architectural additions that share a remarkably consistent size (Table 17.1). Only room B13 has a preserved doorway (opening to an exterior area), and it has been suggested that the other rooms may have been entered from the roof by means of a ladder.16 The artifacts and ecofacts recovered from the six rooms with basins again serve to distinguish them from other areas of the buildings.17 The vast majority of faunal material, including sheep/goat, pig, rabbit, and cattle (many with signs of burning and butchering) was recovered in rooms A2, A9, B3, B9, and B13. In fact, these five rooms contained more than 1,000 of the 1,300 bones recovered from all 23 rooms of the Artisans’ Quarter.

188

thomas m. brogan and kellee a. barnard

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

TAB LE 17.1. Ro oms wi th stone basins (m ortars) fro m Neopalat ial Mo chlos Number

Room Location



Artisans’ Quarter room A2 2.26 x 2.92 Artisans’ Quarter room A9 2.33 x 3.55 Artisans’ Quarter room A10 2.00 x 2.60 Artisans’ Quarter room B3 2.50 x ca. 2.50? Artisans’ Quarter room B5 1.17 x 1.56 Artisans’ Quarter room B9 1.05 x 2.10 Artisans’ Quarter room B13 1.68 x 2.15 House D.5 room 1 1.70 x 2.25 House C.1 room 1 ? House C.2 room 6 1.70 x 4.37 House C.3 room in yard 1.60 x 2.10 House C.7 room 1 1.80 x 2.00 House B.2 kitchen 1.90 x 240 MM III room 1 ?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Dimensions (m)

Floor Phases

Mortar

1 (Final LM IB) 2 (Final LM IB, LM III) 2 (Final LM IB, LM III) 1 (Final LM IB) 3 (LM IB, Final LM IB, LM III) 1 (Final LM IB) 1 (Final LM IB) 2 (Final LM IB) 1 (Final LM IB) 3 (LM IA, LM IB, Final LM IB) 1 (LM IB) 4 (Final LM IA, LM IB [2], LM IB) 3 (LM IA [2?], IB) 3 (MM III [2], LM IA)

Remains of shellfish and fish were concentrated in rooms A2 and B3. D. Mylona notes that many of these show signs of burning and cooking. In the case of the fish in room A2, the remains represent all parts of the animal (interpreted as evidence of food preparation). This situation contrasts with the numerous fish remains in room A4, which consisted primarily of tiny otoliths (fish ears)—tough bones that survive the regular cleanup of meals eaten in these large rooms.18 The distribution of carbon is equally instructive. Traces of cooking fires (as evidenced by concentrations of carbon) were noted in rooms A2 and B13. In contrast, rooms B3 and B9 had large amounts of carbon dispersed throughout their thick floor layers. M. Ntinou suggests that the carbon in these thick floors represents the remains of cooking fires that had been regularly cleaned over time.19 One notes, however, that evidence for cooking fires is not restricted only to the small rooms: small concentrations of carbon were found near cooking pots in the large living/work rooms B2 and B10. The paleobotanical record, although generally poor because of local soil conditions, again suggests the use of the small rooms as kitchens.20 Remains of barley, lentils, horse beans, peas, grapes, and olives were found in room A2, and olives, almonds, grapes, figs, and pulses were found in rooms B3 and B9. The presence of crushed olive stones in the rooms suggests that one function of the mortars may have been to crush olives. Saddle querns for processing grains were found in rooms B3, B5, and the large workroom B2. The distribution of pottery in the rooms of Buildings A and B provides additional information about domestic activity areas.21 One result of our study on the fragmentary and restorable vessels from Buildings A and B was an estimate of the minimum number of vessels that had been used or left in each room. For this paper we have organized this data according to four broad classes of pottery: cooking pots, eating/drinking equipment, serving vessels, and storage vessels. The charts in Figures 17.2 and 17.3 illustrate the distribution of the cups and bowls used for eating and

yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes (2) yes yes yes (3) yes

18. Mylona 2004. 19. Schoch and Ntinou 2004. 20. Sarpaki and Bending 2004. 21. Mochlos IB, pp. 113–160.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

h o u s e h o l d a r c h a e o l o g y at m o c h l o s

Figure 17.1. Mochlos: LM IB plan of Artisans’ Quarter Buildings A and B. Plan by D. Faulmann

189

drinking (among other uses) and cooking vessels. The large numbers of cups and bowls found in the small rooms with basins is striking. We estimate that rooms B3, B9, and B13 contained fragments of more than 250 such vessels, of which 40 were well preserved; this is more than what was found in the remaining nine rooms in Building B combined. Estimates from the ceramic fragments in room A2 suggest that it contained more than 250 cups and bowls, of which more than 70 were well preserved. The fragments collected from the large living/work rooms (rooms A1 and A4) in Building A suggest similar numbers of vessels were used there, but, in contrast, these rooms had almost no restorable vessels. We suggest that this pattern reflects the use of room A2 as a pantry, while rooms A1 and A4 were living areas where food was consumed and the ceramic vessels were used. The distribution of cooking wares extends throughout Building B. Given the fragments and restorable vessels, we may estimate as many as

190

thomas m. brogan and kellee a. barnard

300

273

300

Number of Catalogued Vessels

273

250

Number of Catalogued Vessels Estimated Minimum Number of Vessels Estimated Minimum Number of Vessels

250 200 170

200

170

150

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

150 100

75

100

75

50 50 0 0

56

46

3

42

56

46 0

1

17

3 A1

A2

0 A3

1 A4

0 17 0 A5

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

0 A6

2 7 2 7 A7

A6

A7

0

Fig. 2a Fig.a2a

16 16

0

8 0 A8 A8

140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60

114

45

54

3 3 B1 B1

7 7 B2

B3

1 B4

B2

B3

B4

4 A10

A9

A10

10

12

0 10 0 B5

3 3 B6

0 B7

B8

B5

B6

B7

B8

0

b

Fig. 2b Fig. 2b

12

66

48

32 32

1

0 A9

48

56

45

14

4 29

Number of Vessels Estimated Minimum Number of Vessels

56

54

14

0

66

77

71

40 20

0

114

117

29

Number of Catalogued Vessels Number of Catalogued Vessels Estimated Minimum

77

60 40

20 0

117

71

42

8

17

10

B9

3 B10

10 1 B11

2 5 2 5 B12

B9

B10

B11

B12

17

3

1

12 12 B13 B13

Figure 17.2. Statistical analysis of the eating and drinking vessels from the Artisans’ Quarter, Building A, by room (a); Building B, by room (b).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

50 45 50 40 45 35 40 30 35 25 30 20 25 15 20 10 15 5 10 0 5

h o u s e h o l d a r c h a e o l o g y at m o c h l o s

191

43

Number of Catalogued Vessels

36

43

Estimated Minimum Number of Vessels Number of Catalogued Vessels

36

Estimated Minimum Number of Vessels 19 15 11

19

8

15 3

11

10

8 4

0

1

0

0

0 8

0

0 1

1

0

8

10

3A1

A2

A3 0

A4 1

A5 0 0

A6 0

A74 0

A8 0 1

A9 1

A10 0

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5 3a Fig.

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

0

a Fig. 3a

50

Number of Catalogued Vessels

45 50 40

Estimated Minimum Number of Vessels Number of Catalogued Vessels

45 35

31 Estimated Minimum Number of Vessels

40 30 35 25 30 20

19

25 15 20 10 15 5 10 0 5 0

17

16

22 19

10

1 10

17

4 1

3

24

31

22

5 1

2

2

18

16

7

6

18

24

4

6 3

2

1

7

3

B1 1

4B2

B3 1

3B4

5 B5 1

6 B6 2

B7 2

4B8

3B9

B10 2

B11 3 1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

3b B6Fig. b B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

Figure 17.3. Statistical analysis of the cooking vessels from the Artisans’ Quarter, Building A, by room (a); Building B, by room (b).

Fig. 3b

1 6 B12

B12

3

B13 3 1 B13

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

192

thomas m. brogan and kellee a. barnard

53 cooking vessels in rooms B3, B9, and B13. The remaining nine rooms of Building B contained 17 restorable cooking vessels, with another 81 estimated from the fragments (i.e., a minimum of 98 vessels). Large numbers of cookpots were also found in the large workrooms, rooms B2 and B10. In Building A, room A2, and the living/workrooms A1 and A4 all contained large numbers of cookpots, and it is quite possible that the vessels were used both in craft production and the consumption of food.22 The distribution of pouring vessels is roughly split between the small rooms with basins and the larger living/work areas, while storage vessels, particularly large pithoi, are found primarily in the large room A1. A few smaller storage jars were found in room A2. Reference to the larger LM I community on the island sheds light on the spatial and temporal context of the finds from the Artisans’ Quarter. At least seven more rooms with basins have been identified in a larger LM I settlement on what is today the island of Mochlos (Table 17.1, Fig. 17.4; note that the numbers on the plan correspond to the numbers in Table 17.1 and not the actual room numbers in the houses).23 The earliest room (no. 14, under House D.5 in Block D) contains material of Middle Minoan (MM) III date (four separate floors). Three other rooms, from House B.2 in Block B (no. 13), House C.2 (no. 10), and House C.7 (no. 12) were built in LM IA and used continuously through LM IB, and as many as four distinct floor surfaces were preserved in each. Three more examples, from House C.1 (no. 9), House C.3 (11), and House D.5 (no. 8) were built and abandoned in LM IB (once again preserving multiple floors), and a fourth such room is postulated in House C.7 immediately south of no. 12. This last space would represent a final LM IB phase, possibly replacing the earlier kitchen (i.e., no. 12). The complete study of these domestic spaces on the island is in process. We have preliminary reports on the pottery, but do not yet have detailed

Figure 17.4. The LM IB town of Mochlos, site plan (2004). Drawing

D. Cassiano and D. Faulmann

22. Excavations of House C.7 at Mochlos in 2004 revealed a room with a clay vat built into a stone bench, perhaps for perfumed oil production. The room contained a large number of tripod cookpots, which probably were connected with these activities. 23. Study of the houses on the island is ongoing and several of the rooms have not received final numbers. To avoid possible confusion with future changes, we have given the rooms on the plan artificial numbers (Fig. 17.4) that correspond to the list of the rooms in Table 17.1. Where possible, we provide the actual room number and the number from the list in the text.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

h o u s e h o l d a r c h a e o l o g y at m o c h l o s

24. Soles and Davaras 1996, pp. 199– 201, table 13, pl. 58.

193

reports on animal, fish, and plant remains. In terms of architecture, we can draw attention to the fact that the MM III and LM IA rooms (nos. 8, 10, 12, 13 in Table 17.1) appear to have been part of the original house plans. Two of the LM IB constructions (no. 8 in House D.5 and no. 9 of House C.1) were also clearly part of the original plan of their building. In the case of no. 8 in House D.5, the room had a separate entrance and apparently no direct access to the other rooms of the house. The architecture of no. 9 in House C.1 is too poorly preserved to be certain of its connection to the remaining rooms of the house. The constructions added to House C.3 (no. 11) and House C.7 (no. 12) appear to have been designed as separate one-story units like those added in the Artisans’ Quarter. With the exception of no. 10 in House C.2, all of the rooms are small and share remarkably similar dimensions (averaging 1.6–1.9 m on one side by 2.0–2.4 m on the other). All are provided with sandstone or limestone mortars; no. 10 in House C.2 and no. 12 in House C.7 had two mortars, and no. 13 in House B.2 had three (though they were never in use at the same time.) Four of the rooms have evidence for cooking fires in situ, while the others contained large amounts of carbon dispersed throughout stratified layers, suggesting repeated cooking and cleaning in the formation of floor deposits. The faunal remains have not been quantified, but animal bones were collected in large numbers in every room, suggesting a pattern similar to that observed for the Artisans’ Quarter. Restorable pottery from each room again indicates their unique role for storage of cups and bowls (e.g., no. 10 in House C.2, no. 11 in House C.3, no. 12 in House C.7, no. 8 in House D.5, and no. 14, the MM III room below House D.5). Moreover, the fragmentary pottery from earlier floor levels of the remaining rooms indicates that the original use of each room was as a kitchen and pantry, even if this was not evident in the final phase of use. What distinguishes most of these contexts in the townhouses is the evidence that they were used over a much longer time with several distinct floor layers. House C.7 of Block C provides the best example of this pattern. In its final phase, kitchen no. 12 contained four pithoi, three large jugs, one amphora, and a stirrup jar—all of which probably held wine that was pressed in a vat built in the upper part of the room.24 A large hoard of copper ingots, scrap metal objects, and tools was found hidden behind these jars in one corner of the room, together with four cups. A very different series of floor assemblages lay in earlier strata below. The uppermost stratum included a sandstone mortar with a stone pounder in it on the west side of the room and the remains of a cooking fire in the northeast corner. The floor deposit included several stone and terracotta slabs—some of which might have served as shelves on the wall—and considerable remains of animal bones, carbon, and at least four cookpots. That the room also served as a pantry and perhaps an area for eating is indicated by the large number of cups and bowls (22) recovered here. Excavation recovered two more floors at lower levels, each with similar contents: carbon, animal bone, and cooking and dining equipment (including more than 50 largely restorable cups, bowls, and cookpots in the lowest level), spanning the end of LM IA to LM IB. When the room was converted to a storage room (perhaps with a press) toward the end of the LM IB period, it appears that the occupants built a new

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

194

thomas m. brogan and kellee a. barnard

kitchen/pantry immediately to the south in an area that served, until then, as a road or plateia. This pattern of moving kitchens outside houses into what had previously been streets or yards is also seen in no. 11 of House C.3 and the rooms added to Buildings A and B in the Artisans’ Quarter. At this point, it is instructive to look more closely at room A2 of the Artisans’ Quarter, which provides us with the best illustration of how these rooms with basins were used (Fig. 17.5).25 This small room (ca. 2.26 x 2.92 m; interior area of ca. 6.60 m2) utilized the uneven bedrock surface and contained a thick stratum of material attesting its use as a pantry, a

Figure 17.5. Room A2 of the Artisans’ Quarter, showing small finds in situ. Drawing D. Faulmann

25. Mochlos IA, pp. 23–29, table 17, pls. 10–12.

h o u s e h o l d a r c h a e o l o g y at m o c h l o s

195

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

kitchen for preparing meals, and perhaps a storage area for finished craft goods. The room, which had a sandstone basin in the northeast corner, contained a tremendous number of restorable vases: 43 conical cups, 16 ogival cups, several decorated cups and bowls, a nice set of decorated pouring vessels (four jugs, two alabastra, two side-spouted jars, and one stirrup jar), three small storage jars, and 20 cooking vessels.26 Presumably, the smaller vessels had been stacked on shelves, perhaps at the southwest corner. The paleobotanical record, however, is generally poor, with the exception of crushed olive stones found near the stone basin.27 If olives were being crushed in these mortars, the oil may have been used for cooking and other industrial activities while the pits served as fuel for fires. There were two concentrations of carbon in the room, both identified as hearths by the excavators: an ashy area in the center and a thicker layer of carbon in the southeast corner. Scuttles found near the thicker deposit of carbon in the southeast corner may have been used to move coals to the central hearth when cooking. While reexamining the excavation notebooks of room A2, we noted that mud bricks were found in this same area. While originally identified as wall collapse, it is possible that these bricks were set against the slope in the bedrock floor to serve as a border for a small hearth over the central ashy area. The faunal material gives us the best idea of what was being cooked over these fires. Bone was collected everywhere in room A2, with large concentrations along the north and west walls. D. Reese has estimated that the remains consist of at least four sheep or goats and two pigs, but this number is probably low.28 The range of preserved bones (from all parts of the animal) and the location of cutting and burn marks suggest that large sections of the animal were brought into the rooms. Once inside the room, at least some animals were roasted over fires, leaving traces of burning only at the ends of the long bones. Other meat and fish were apparently cooked in pans, including a barracuda, whose bones had been cooked and crushed, according to Mylona.29

Con clu s ion s : F o od P reparat ion at th e H ou s eh old Lev el — an d B eyon d

26. Mochlos IB, pp. 117–118. 27. Mochlos IA, p. 24, pl. 11; Sarpaki and Bending 2004. 28. Reese 2004. 29. Mylona 2004. Recent study of the finds from the kitchens at Akrotiri (Birtacha et al. 2008) has revealed that a series of thick tuna fillets were being cooked just before the eruption. 30. Mochlos IB, appendix A.

We would like to conclude with a few observations about food preparation at Mochlos. The available evidence indicates that the rooms with basins appear as early as the MM III period. It is from the much larger LM IB sample, however, that we can really examine the place and form of cooking within the Mochlos houses. From the LM I levels there are remains of at least 13 rooms of the kitchen/pantry type described here: six in the Artisans’ Quarter and seven more in the town houses on the island. Statistical analysis of fragmentary finds from these rooms suggests that all had been used as kitchens/pantries in their original form—some on the island over long periods of time.30 None of these rooms contained remains of built hearths like the LM I/III types from Kommos or the LM I ovens and hearths from Akrotiri, but each does contain evidence of open fires. Some, in fact, preserve traces of specific fires, which would have served for roasting

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

196

thomas m. brogan and kellee a. barnard

meat directly or cooking food in tripod pots and plates (e.g., in Artisans’ Quarter Building A, room A2). The absence of permanent hearths at the site and the difficult conditions presented by the small, crowded rooms that were not accessible from the house are probably indications that some cooking was also done out of doors when conditions allowed. A complete tripod cookpot (P 1043) discovered on the northwest terrace of Artisans’ Quarter Building B may represent such a case.31 For now, we raise three questions: First, did every house have at least one such kitchen/pantry? Second, why do some houses appear to have more than one? And third, is there evidence for kitchens that served groups larger than that of an individual household? In the Final LM IB period, it appears that most houses had access to one such room (Houses C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.7, and D.5). Buildings A and B in the Artisans’ Quarter and House C.7 on the island appear to have had more than one food preparation area, but the study of architecture and pottery, combined with a consideration of the formation processes, suggests that only one such room was in use at any one time. In Artisans’ Quarter Building A, room A2 functioned as the kitchen/pantry in the final phase, while rooms 9 and 10 appear to have gone out of use. In the case of House C.7, the kitchen built into the road at its southwest corner clearly replaced the earlier one (no. 12 in Table 17.1) in the original design of the house. In some cases there was an effort to refurbish existing space (e.g., the two- to four-layer floors recovered in Houses B.2, C.2, and C.7), while in other cases the inhabitants simply built a new room (e.g., Artisans’ Quarter Building B, or House C.7 on the island). While these choices were probably dependent on available space, there are clear indications in the Final LM IB period that streets and plateias in the town were being blocked and occupied as houses expanded, frequently to build these kitchens/pantries.32 Neither the size of the rooms nor the equipment found inside them point to food preparation in excess of an individual household.33 The relatively equal size of the rooms and their furnishings also do not suggest different levels of status among the households within the community. Soles has suggested that the kitchen in room A2 of the Artisans’ Quarter 31. Mochlos IA, pp. 73–74. The absence of any traces of a hearth or fire in the immediate vicinity of the vessel may be explained by the situation of the unroofed terrace on the north side of the building, which was exposed to the sea. 32. Soles 2004. We do not think that the evidence points to a period of decline in LM IB (as some scholars suggest) because these rooms are found as early as the MM III period. 33. Estimates for the size of individual households and towns in Neopalatial Crete are controversial. For the most recent review of both the evidence and approaches to these questions, see Branigan 2001b; Whitelaw 2001, 2004. For the Neopalatial period, Whitelaw

notes a figure of 450 inhabitants per hectare for high-density urban zones in towns like Gournia and Mochlos (i.e., 900 inhabitants for its estimated two hectares). A translation of Branigan’s calculations for Pseira (60 houses with five individuals or 300 inhabitants) suggests a smaller number of inhabitants for Mochlos (ca. 500). For estimates of household size, Whitelaw notes (2004, p. 152) that “ . . . recent historical analyses of data from preindustrial agrarian contexts provide widespread support for an estimate of four to five individuals per nuclear family household . . . The question then becomes one of what sort of family group was normally resident in a Neopalatial house. The clear stan-

dardization of house sizes in a community such as Gournia suggests that we are dealing with nuclear families, rather than some other multiple-family form. This is because residential units composed of potentially variable numbers of families usually produce a far more varied range of house sizes (Whitelaw 2001, fig. 1). This also receives support from the house architecture itself, since with polygamous or extended family households, it is usually possible to identify duplicated sets of functional spaces, used by the different constituent nuclear families (Whitelaw 2001). Such duplications are not apparent in Neopalatial residential architecture.”

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

h o u s e h o l d a r c h a e o l o g y at m o c h l o s

197

served an extended family of artisans resident there, and we would argue the same is probably true of the kitchens in the houses of the town at Mochlos (i.e., they served nuclear or slightly extended families).34 There is, in fact, only one notable exception to this pattern, and it comes from R. Seager’s excavation of House D.1 in 1908.35 Among the finds from the LM IB destruction of this large and finely furnished house (several times larger than the typical Mochlos house and with many elite architectural refinements more commonly seen in Minoan villas), Seager reports finding a massive number of tripod cookpots and what must have been hundreds of conical cups, which had fallen from the upper story. Although none of these finds are still preserved, the deposit sounds like equipment for large-scale cooking and communal feasting of a type and scale not paralleled by the small rooms with sandstone basins. What this says about House D.1 and its ability to prepare and feed large numbers of people in the community, perhaps as a ceremonial center, is no doubt significant, but well beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, we also think it is important to move the focus of the discussion from typologies of architecture, artifacts, and ecofacts to the humans who inhabited these rooms. Studies of household behavior have noted how the arrangement and furnishing of rooms in houses can serve as a window into the structure of domestic activities within the household and larger community.36 One basic component of this research is the identification of specific room arrangements, decoration, and furnishings as reflections of the domestic social behavior by male and female family members—the so-called gendered house.37 How are we to explain the placement of the kitchens and pantries in isolated rooms without any direct access to the remaining rooms of the house? If anything, the placement of the rooms appears to signal exclusion and an attempt to keep individuals, activities, or the contents of the kitchens apart from the rest of the house. One plausible interpretation would read this separation as a concern about the contents of the rooms—that is, the need to keep food or fire at some distance from the remaining rooms for reasons of cleanliness or safety.38 T. Whitelaw’s interpretation of Neopalatial houses like those at Mochlos as residences of nuclear families suggests that the cooks would also be family members. The exposed location of the kitchen (with access typically from a separate exterior entrance) does not follow a pattern of gendered space that stresses the privacy of female members within the household, if 34. Mochlos IA, pp. 96–99. The question of the size of the families in the Neopalatial houses at Mochlos (nuclear or extended) is significant. From his study of the wider corpus of Neopalatial houses on Crete (a sample of 207 houses), Whitelaw (2001, p. 18) argues that the “ . . . relatively small size, and particularly the standardization in size (of houses within Neopalatial communities like Gournia) is itself strongly suggestive of nuclear or minimally-extended

stem families of about 4–5 individuals or so.” 35. Seager 1909, pp. 300–301. 36. Nevett 1999, pp. 21–33. For the important analysis of the upper story rooms of the well-preserved LC I houses at Akrotiri, see Michailidou 2001, pp. 377–398. 37. Nevett 1999, pp. 29–31. Examples include the setting of prominent dining rooms in Classical Greek houses whose size, design, and prominent position were well suited to entertain-

ing male guests. Nevett also refers to ethnographic studies that have shown the variety of ways in which houses are designed or used to provide female family members with greater privacy through secluded interior or upperstory rooms or an alternating schedule that ensures women and male guests use rooms at different times. 38. We would also note the possibility that some cooking was done outdoors when conditions allowed it.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

198

thomas m. brogan and kellee a. barnard

indeed we are correct in assuming it was women doing the cooking in or outside these rooms.39 Is this pattern, instead, an indication that servants may have worked in these kitchens and thus were part of the households? Even in historical periods when slaves and servants are known from written sources, this group is notoriously difficult to locate in the archaeological remains. In their discussion of the Minoan household, P. Betancourt and N. Marinatos mention the possible presence of domestic servants within Minoan urban settings, but direct iconographic or textual references for such individuals is missing.40 This hypothesis requires a more thorough study of all the finds from the houses and the possible patterns of household circulation and organization. 39. For the most thorough discussion of Bronze Age household organization, see Michailidou 2001, pp. 419– 440. In her discussion of the organization of the upper-story rooms, Michailidou distinguishes (p. 470) a “bipartite organization of space that prevails in the upper story, comprising two major sectors which can be defined conventionally as: [I] Space of communication with the outside word (accessible via the staircase of the main entrance), and [II] private apartments (using the service staircase).” The author distinguishes a clear pattern of private (II) with evidence for household cult versus semiprivate (I) where social (i.e., visitors) and household craft activities were performed. 40. Marinatos and Betancourt 1995,

p. 591. Some support for this hypothesis is provided by the contents of the Mochlos houses, including a rich assortment of metal, stone, and ceramic artifacts. These finds attest the considerable commercial activities of the house owners (e.g., metal merchants in House C.3), which would have supported, if not relied on, the existence of servants or dependents from outside the nuclear family. For a similar suggestion for the domestic textile production in the West House at Akrotiri, see Michailidou 2005, p. 45. Contra the existence of such domestic slaves in Minoan households, Whitelaw (2001, pp. 31–32, n. 1) notes the absence of any iconographic evidence for such slaves in Minoan art or Linear A records. Servants and slaves are known

from the Linear B documents, and there is plentiful textual evidence from Bronze Age towns in the eastern Mediterranean recording the presence of domestic help (Michailidou 2005, pp. 33–45). In general there is a broader problem of the invisibility of slaves in the archaeological record (e.g., in Classical Greek households as noted by Nevett 1999, pp. 40 and 174, even though textual and iconographic evidence confirms their existence). That at least some of this invisibility is the result of modern scholars’ difficulty in balancing an appreciation for ancient culture with a dislike for (or denial of ) some ancient practices such as slavery is discussed at length by DuBois 2003, pp. 3–31.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 1 8

H o u s e hol d I n d u st r i e s of L at e M i n oan I B G ou r n i a a n d t h e S o c i oe c on om i c S tat u s of t h e Town by L. Vance Watrous and Amy Heimroth The archaeological site of Gournia on the north coast of eastern Crete provides a picture of Late Minoan life at a busy commercial town.1 Harriet Boyd Hawes’s extensive excavations in 1901–1904 revealed the central portion of a well-preserved settlement with paved streets, urban blocks, and a small administrative “palace” at its center. In the 1970s, Costis Davaras and Jeffery Soles investigated several parts of the town, including the cemetery.2 In 1992, Vance Watrous and Davaras surveyed the area immediately around Gournia and defined the limits of the Minoan settlement as being approximately four hectares, an area much larger than previously believed. The following year Vasso Fotou published the archival records of Hawes’s excavations.3 More recently (2000), Watrous read a paper in Athens on the “Countryside of Gournia,” which reexamined many aspects of the town, including household industries and storage.4 This paper further explores the conclusions made in Watrous’s paper on the economic organization of Gournia, concentrating specifically on the Late Minoan (LM) IB period. Our goal is to illustrate Gournia’s importance as a regional commercial center for the Mirabello area, and to examine the socioeconomic nature of the LM IB community at Gournia through the use of maps showing the distribution of industries, elite goods, and commerce throughout the town.5 Our study shows that an analysis of the industrial workings of individual households at Gournia can reveal larger social and economic patterns within the entire settlement. 1. The authors thank Kevin Glowacki and Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, the organizers of ΣΤΕΓΑ, for inviting us to present our paper at the international colloquium in Ierapetra. We also thank Krzysztof Nowicki, Sabine Beckmann, Maria Emanuella Alberti, Tom Brogan, Kellee Barnard, Kostis Christakis, and Metaxia Tsipopoulou for their helpful discussions concerning the topic of this paper. We further extend our thanks to

the Archives section of the University Museum at the University of Pennsylvania for making Harriet Boyd Hawes’s notebooks available. This work is part of Vance Watrous’s ongoing fieldwork at the site of Gournia. The distribution maps are by Amy Heimroth. 2. Davaras 1973a, 1974; Soles 1979, 1991, 1992. 3. Fotou 1993. 4. Watrous et al. 2000.

5. The distribution maps that accompany this paper are based on the provenance of archaeological finds as recorded in the notebooks of Harriet Boyd Hawes and the inventories of finds created by Amy Schwartzott (in Schwartzott 1997), who used Hawes’s notebooks to create inventories of artifacts for each room at Gournia. Information for illustrations was also drawn from Hawes et al. 1908.

200

l . va n c e wat r o u s a n d a m y h e i m r o t h

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Th e LM IB Occu pat ion of t h e Tow n Excavating over a century ago, Hawes recorded only whole or restorable finds in her notebooks. As a result, we are now likely deprived of a large amount of fragmentary pottery from the houses that would have provided us with a more complete picture of the settlement—hence the tentativeness of our conclusions below. Using Hawes’s excavation notes, we can identify 33 out of 66 total houses throughout the settlement that contained archaeological evidence of LM IB occupation (e.g., the Palace, large portions of Blocks E and B, and sections of Blocks A, F, and C). The areas where Hawes found evidence for LM IB occupation seem to correlate with the distribution of storage vessels within the settlement. On the other hand, Hawes believed Block D and the area to the south had been abandoned in LM IA, because she recognized no evidence of LM IB occupation (Figs. 18.1, 18.2).6 A recent examination by Soles has, however, recognized LM IB sherds within Block D, suggesting that other portions of Gournia that did not yield much direct evidence for LM IB habitation may also have continued to be occupied in that period.7 Certainly the existence of whole vessels in Houses Ae, Cd, Ce, Cj, Cl, Cm, Da, Db, De, Ea, Fb, and Fi suggests that they date to the final destruction, rather than to LM IA. Assuming that whole vessels date to LM IB, and using Hawes’s records of whole vessels distributed throughout Gournia, we estimate the total number of houses likely occupied in LM IB to have been at least 45 buildings (Fig. 18.3).8 Several scholars have repeated Hawes’s claim that parts of Gournia were abandoned in LM IA.9 Comparing certain vases at Gournia with parallels at LM IA Thera, W.-D. Niemeier dates the 17 vases from House Cm (C58) to LM IA. While some vases in room C58 certainly appear stylistically to be LM IA,10 others11 can be dated to LM IB because of more advanced stylistic details. The mistake that Niemeier, Jan Driessen, and Colin Macdonald have made is failing to realize that the pottery of LM IB eastern Crete consists of a mixture of two styles. Philip Betancourt, in The History of Minoan Pottery, discusses these two styles: “Most of the LM IB pottery [in Crete] is stylistically conservative, continuing along lines laid down in LM IA. . . . Only a few vases show an abrupt change from LM IA; in most cases the development is so subtle the style cannot be distinguished from that of earlier pottery.”12 This is the situation at LM IB Gournia. Of the original 33 LM IB houses identified in Hawes’s notebooks, 20 produced storage vessels, and 13 did not. Naturally, this raises the question of how these latter 13 households at Gournia managed to sustain themselves. 6. Hawes et al. 1908, p. 24. 7. Soles 2002, p. 128. 8. This new total of LM IB occupied houses is based on the number of houses with whole storage vessels recorded. 9. Niemeier (1979) and Driessen and Macdonald (1997, pp. 211–215) cite LM IA-style vases found in various

spots at Gournia (e.g., Houses Cf and Cm) and interpret this information literally. 10. Hawes et al. 1908, pl. VII:28, 35. 11. Hawes et al. 1908, pl. VII:27, 33, 39, 40. 12. Betancourt 1985, p. 137.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household industries of lm ib gournia

Figure 18.1. LM IB occupation of Gournia according to Hawes’s excavation notes. The buildings outlined in white (Ab, Ah, De, Ea, Ec, and G) are regarded as elite structures because of their size and the use of ashlar or cyclopean masonry in their construction. A. Heimroth after Hawes

et al. 1908, site plan

201

l . va n c e wat r o u s a n d a m y h e i m r o t h

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

202

Figure 18.2. Distribution of recorded storage vessels (pithoi and amphoras) at Gournia. A. Heimroth

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household industries of lm ib gournia

Figure 18.3. LM IB occupation of Gournia as revised based on the distribution of whole storage vessels. A. Heimroth

203

204

l . va n c e wat r o u s a n d a m y h e i m r o t h

A number of houses at Gournia completely lack ceramic evidence for storage, and, in all but five cases, the ones that do have storage vessels did not have enough to sustain a year-round residence.13 These households therefore must have obtained their food from external sources. We will return to this point below.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

H o u seh old I nd ustries Hawes’s notebooks provide abundant evidence for household industries at Gournia. Hooks for fishing were found in four houses of the excavated town (Ba, Cg, Fg, and Fh). It should be noted, however, that each of these areas also contained bronze workshops (see below), an observation that may indicate that the fishhooks were actually scrap metal or an industrial product. The general absence of fishhooks found in Gournia may indicate that fishing was a relatively unimportant source of subsistence, suggesting that the Gournia households were finding other means to sustain themselves. But it is unlikely that the community could have relied upon agriculture alone to make up entirely for this deficiency. The 1993 regional survey around Gournia revealed that the settlement was at least six times larger than the area excavated by Hawes. That is, the LM I settlement covered an area of about four hectares, suggesting a population of between 400–1,200 people.14 If we assume a median figure of 800 persons living in LM I Gournia, cross-cultural ethnographic work suggests that they would have needed a minimum of 400–800 hectares of farmland to sustain themselves—an amount that is 200–600 hectares more farmland than was immediately available around the settlement.15 We suggest, therefore, that household-based industries played vital supportive roles in the life of the Gournia community. The importance of these industries at Gournia is apparent when we plot the occurrence of bronze, stone vase, ceramic, and textile workshops in the town (Fig. 18.4). Bronze workshops at Gournia can be identified by large amounts of bronze scrap, tools, and other objects, and, more securely, by the presence of a crucible or stone mold. Using this data we see that 17 houses produced some evidence of metalworking.16 Ceramic production was distinguished by the presence of a potter’s wheel, clay molds, pigment boxes, and a large ceramic assemblage from the same workshop (i.e., more than 10 ceramic items of similar style).17 According to these criteria, 18 houses seem to 13. Blitzer 2004, p. 204. Ethnographic research by Blitzer demonstrates that as many as eight to 10 pithoi are needed to sustain a household for the duration of a year. 14. Watrous et al. 2000. 15. Christakis 1999; Blitzer 2004, pp. 125–126. 16. These include the Palace and Houses Ab, Ac, Ah, Ba, Cf, Cg, De,

Ea, Ec, Eg, Fa, Fb, Fd, Fe, Fg, and Fh. 17. The only instances where a large ceramic assemblage was used to identify production areas were in Houses Bb (where 50 identical cups were found), Cm (where 13 rhyta were located), Fg and Fh (where 16 cups were found), and Houses Eg, Ej, Fd, and Fi (where “many” ceramic objects of various types were found—although Hawes does not

provide a specific number). These last four could be considered areas of possible ceramic production without affecting the conclusions drawn in this paper. It is possible, given the location of these houses, that these houses were associated with the trade of ceramic goods and not necessarily the production.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household industries of lm ib gournia

Figure 18.4. Distribution of areas of industrial activities at Gournia. A. Heimroth

205

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

206

l . va n c e wat r o u s a n d a m y h e i m r o t h

have been involved in making pottery.18 Evidence for weaving and textile production includes clay weights, spinning whorls, and weaving hooks. Fourteen houses produced some evidence of textile production.19 Stone vase production was identified through the finding of unfinished vases, multiple vases (three or more), stone chisels, cores, drills, polishers, or worked stones. Fifteen houses produced some evidence of stone vase production.20 The widespread distribution of these industries indicates that many of the households of LM IB Gournia were involved in some form of industrial activity or activities. We suggest, therefore, that Gournia may have served as a manufacturing center whose products would have been bought by the population living in the many smaller sites in the surrounding Mirabello region. When attempting to answer the question of how these household industries at LM IB Gournia related to the social structure of the community, we need to take into account other important aspects of life in the town, namely trade, administrative activities, and elite goods.

Ev i d en c e of Tra de an d Co mm erc e Block F, located north of the Palace, produced an open area with a concentration of evidence for several industries, including a number of artifacts associated with commercial activity. This evidence consists of balance pans and chains, stone balance weights, and a large stone block whose upper surface bears a circular depression similar in shape to that of a bun ingot (Fig. 18.5). The location of this semi-open area follows a similar pattern seen at urban Malia, where an open area (the so-called Agora) is located immediately north of the Palace.21 At Mochlos, the Artisans’ Quarter on the mainland also possessed an open communal area for industrial use, marked by several kilns.22 In light of the distribution of the evidence for commerce at Gournia (Fig. 18.6), it seems that trade was concentrated within the Palace and the area immediately to its north. Other places that produced evidence of commerce include House Ec (located opposite the open market area), House Ah (located next to its own open courtyard), and the road next to the open market area (Fe), where a balance pan was found. The Gournia community seems to have been a production center for metal objects (such as cauldrons, axes, saws, chisels, daggers, knives, and sickles) as well as decorated pottery and stone vases.23 Shipsheds on the coast (Hawes’s “Shore House”) indicate that the Gournia community 18. These include the Palace and Houses Ac, Bb, Cm, Co, Cp, Da, Eb, Eg, Ej, Fa, Fb, Fc, Fd, Fe, Fg, Fh, and Fi. 19. The Palace and Houses Ba, Cb, Ck, Co, Da, Ea, Ei, Ej, Fa, Fb, Fd, Fg, and Fh. 20. Evidence for stone vase produc-

tion was found in the Palace and Houses Ad, Ba, Bb, Cf, De, Ea, Ec, Fa, Fb, Fd, Fe, Fg, Fh, and Fi. 21. Vandenabeele 1992, p. 56 (no. 2). 22. Mochlos IA, pp. 83–87. 23. Hawes et al. 1908, pls. IV–IX.

Figure 18.5. Possible mold for a copper ingot at Gournia. Photo

K. T. Glowacki

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household industries of lm ib gournia

Figure 18.6. Distribution of artifacts relating to trade activities at Gournia. A. Heimroth

207

208

l . va n c e wat r o u s a n d a m y h e i m r o t h

possessed seagoing ships. These ships may have transported metals and other goods from foreign ports, and they also may have been used to export items produced locally at Gournia.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Ev i d en c e of Adm inistrat i on Next, we consider evidence of administrative activities: seals, sealings, rings, and a clay roundel (Fig. 18.7). The fact that very few areas of the town produced such artifacts, at a time when most of the households were involved in some form of industry, may suggest that administration was an elite activity at LM IB Gournia. Areas with the highest occurrence of sealings were the Palace and the commercial area to the north. A clay roundel bearing a Linear A inscription was found in House Cf, the only remains of literacy preserved in the entire town.24 It is probably no coincidence that House Cf also was involved in stone vase production and metallurgy.

Ev i d en c e of Eli te Go o d s and Arch i te ct ure For the purposes of the present study, we have identified the following groups of items as having elite status: metal items that were typically made from clay (e.g., cups, miniature items, tripods); bronze swords and daggers; and objects relating to administration (because of their association with redistribution, political power, and literacy). Elite architecture was defined on the basis of large house size as well as ashlar or elaborate “cyclopean” masonry.25 By these criteria, six structures at Gournia (Houses Ab, Ah, De, Ea, Ec, and the Palace) are identified as elite. As Figure 18.8 shows, all six of these structures also have evidence of bronze or stone vase production, indicating that these industries may also have enjoyed elite status. Looking again at all areas that produced evidence of commercial activities outside the Palace and the market area, we see that commerce only occurred within elite structures—another indication that trade and administration were associated with elite status. It is important to note that Houses Ea and Ec and the Palace, structures whose storage ensured them economic independence, were all elite. In summary, elite households in the Gournia community were (1) often constructed of “cyclopean” masonry or were larger or more prominent than other houses within the same block; (2) often engaged in stone vase production and metalworking; (3) economically independent; and (4) engaged in trade and administration. In contrast, non-elite households, typically, were not involved in industrial activities (except, occasionally, for ceramics and textiles), had houses built of rubble masonry, had storage inadequate for self-sufficiency (or none at all—at least as preserved in the archaeological record), and were not obviously engaged in trade.

24. Hawes et al. 1908, p. 55. 25. Zielinski 1998, pp. 102–119, 447–450, 477, 493–497, 540–559.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household industries of lm ib gournia

Figure 18.7. Distribution of artifacts relating to administrative activities at Gournia. A. Heimroth

209

l . va n c e wat r o u s a n d a m y h e i m r o t h

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

210

Figure 18.8. Distribution of elite goods found at Gournia. A. Heimroth

household industries of lm ib gournia

211

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Con clu s ion s

26. Houses identified as belonging to tier two include Ad, Ea, Ec, and Fe. 27. Tier three includes Houses Ab, Ac, Ah, Ba, Bb, Cb, Cf, Cg, Ck, Cm, Co, Cp, Da, De, Eb, Eg, Ei, Ej, Fa, Fb, Fc, Fd, Fg, Fh, and Fi. 28. Tier four includes Houses Ae, Af, Ag, Bc, Ca, Cc, Cd, Ce, Ch, Ci, Cj, Cl, Cn, Cq, Cr, Cs, Ct, Db, Dc, Dd, Df, Dg, Dh, Dl, Ed, Ee, Ef, El, Ff, Fj, Fk, Fl, Ha, Hb, Hc, and Hd. 29. Christakis 2005, p. 84. 30. Mochlos IA, pp. 7–90. 31. Numbers of pithoi gathered from inventories in Mochlos IA, pp. 7– 90; M. Schultz (pers. comm.). 32. Tsipopoulou 2005a. 33. Platon 1999b.

In LM IB Gournia, 30 households (including the Palace) produced signs of industrial activity. Five (Houses Ad, Ea, Ec, Fe, and the Palace) of these appear to have been economically self-sufficient, meaning they possessed five or more pithoi per household. Hence, the economic pattern at LM IB Gournia seems to be that while a substantial portion of the households were economically active, the majority do not appear to have been economically self-sufficient. How do we explain such a pattern? One explanation would be that households that were not self-sufficient were manufacturing items that were sold to locals in the Mirabello region who paid for their purchases with food. A second explanation involves the Palace, whose large storage capacity of 17 pithoi clearly exceeds its own internal requirements. One result of this centralization was a social hierarchy that included four rough socioeconomic tiers. These tiers include (1) the Palace; (2) the industrial and self-sufficient houses grouped around the open north market; (3) the industrial houses that were not economically self-sufficient; and finally, (4) the houses without any industry or self-sufficient storage. The economic pattern at LM IB Gournia seems to reflect an overall centralization of industry and elite goods within the town. Tier two houses appear to have been involved in regional trade activities.26 Tier three includes structures that were not economically selfsufficient but were involved in stone vase production and metalworking and were associated with smaller houses involved in industries.27 It is possible that these tier three houses were also producing goods for the market area and the Palace in exchange for sustenance. The fourth tier consists of houses lacking industry and storage vessels.28 Individuals from these houses may have formed a lower class—likely agricultural workers—much of whose produce went to the Palace to be stored in its pithoi. In exchange for their labor, they would have received a portion of their produce from these vessels. In this type of relationship, the function of the pithoi extends beyond storage to a visual representation of power.29 To better interpret the above pattern at Gournia, it may be helpful to look at what was happening at other LM IB sites in eastern Crete. At Mochlos, the workshops next to the open industrial area on the mainland produced ceramics, probably for the elite houses of the island settlement.30 While both the elite houses on the island and the workshops on the mainland contained storage pithoi, the elite household storage vessels greatly outnumber the approximately nine pithoi found on the mainland.31 This suggests that the mainland artisans may have been economically attached to the elite households, which provided them with rations. This pattern seems similar to the economic situation at Gournia. Additionally, at Petras in LM IB, the court began to function as a space for storage, which significantly reduced its size.32 This change in function between LM IA and LM IB attested at Petras is noteworthy when interpreting the pattern at Gournia and other sites in eastern Crete. Zakros also helps to illustrate the general pattern of economic centralization on Crete more clearly. L. Platon has demonstrated that during LM IA, industrial activities at Zakros were distributed throughout the entire town.33 By LM IB,

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

212

l . va n c e wat r o u s a n d a m y h e i m r o t h

however, elite industrial activity was centered in the Palace. The only high-quality goods found outside the Zakros Palace during LM IB were discovered in three houses (House Z, the East House, and House A—the last identified as a customs house).34 Since these houses lacked elite architecture and seemed no different from other households in the settlement, Platon suggests that their elite goods were being produced for the Palace. A similar pattern of economic centralization seems to have existed at LM IB Gournia. Unlike at Zakros, however, industry at Gournia does not appear to have been so completely centralized. Elite goods are distributed throughout Gournia in both elite (Houses Ah, De, Ec, and G) and nonelite households (Houses Ad, Ba, Cf, Cg, Co, Da, Dd, Eg, Fg, Fh, and Fd), but it appears that the goods were being produced by those non-elite households rather than being used by them. Elite metal items in the town, except in Houses Dd and Ad, were found in areas of metalworking, and hence, they probably were not personal possessions. One exception, a silver cup in House Ad at Gournia, might indicate a similarity with Zakros House Z, which also contained elite goods. Platon suggests that because of its elite content, House Z at Zakros was a wine production center for the Palace storerooms.35 Houses Ab, Ac, and Ad, located close to the Gournia Palace, contained winepresses and eight rhyta in total.36 Hence this area may have been ancillary to the Palace and produced wine for the Palace storeroom. This pattern of centralization during LM IB, which has recently been recognized at Mochlos, Zakros, Gournia, and elsewhere on Crete, may also partially explain why Hawes believed certain areas of Gournia were deserted in LM IB. These areas may have been inhabited, but their occupants were so poor that they produced few datable signs of occupation—a situation that resembles the poverty of the LM III houses at Kommos during the Mycenaean occupation of Crete.37 By analogy with the other Minoan towns discussed above, we suggest that LM IA Gournia may have consisted of a community possessing a large, self-sufficient middle class living off of trade and industry. The radical reorganization in LM IB at this site and elsewhere in Crete seems to suggest that Minoan society at that time was molded into a new and more hierarchical class structure that consisted of (1) a single central authority with immense new socioeconomic power; (2) several elite houses/ households arranged around the open market and industrial area and controlling a small portion of the economy; (3) formerly elite houses/ households incorporating industries that were no longer self-sufficient; and (4) a serf-like class. Individuals belonging to the two bottom levels of the society would have relied on redistribution from the Palace to fully sustain themselves. It was this social model that the Mycenaeans found and imitated when they came to Crete at the end of the LM IB period.

34. Platon 1999b. 35. Platon 1999b, p. 47. 36. See Kopaka and Platon 1993, esp. pp. 46–48. 37. Kommos I.2, pp. 15–138.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 19

A r c h ae ol o g i c al D e p os i t For m at i on P r o c e s s e s an d t he S t u dy of t h e D om e st i c S e c tor of L at e M i n oan I B S o c i e t y by Kostis S. Christakis Ancient households have become a favorite topic of analysis among prehistoric archaeologists, as witnessed by the diverse papers and approaches to household archaeology included in this volume.1 Many scholars turn to domestic remains in order to address a wide range of concerns pertaining to the sociopolitical and economic organization of past societies. The popularity of using domestic remains to address these concerns results from both the status of the household as a universal social form and the ubiquity of domestic remains in the archaeological record.2 The two main sources of information for household archaeology are domestic artifact assemblages and site structural analysis of dwellings, extramural areas, and their associated artifacts and features.3 A disjunction, however, has emerged between ethnoarchaeological and cross-cultural analyses of household contexts and their application to the archaeological evidence provided by ancient domestic contexts. If we define the household as an active group, our inferences as to household behavioral organization need to be linked to actual archaeological signatures that take into account formation processes that occur before, during, and after the use, abandonment, and possible reuse of the dwelling. Assemblages of artifacts recovered in ancient contexts, especially domestic contexts, have been altered by natural and anthropogenic processes of accretion and depletion4—processes that take place at various stages both during and after the habitation and abandonment of the building. There is no guarantee that objects were actually used in the location where they were ultimately deposited; consequently, it is misleading to regard assemblages as trustworthy indicators of domestic activity—a “snapshot” of daily life at any particular moment. These observations may seem commonplace at first, especially considering the numerous studies on the formation processes of archaeological contexts emerging in New World Archaeology. The role of these processes and the limitations they set on the approach to archaeological data, though 1. I would like to thank Kevin Glowacki and Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan for their invitation to participate in the ΣΤΕΓΑ conference.

2. Ashmore and Wilk 1988, p. 19. 3. Stantley and Hirth 1993, p. 5. 4. Schiffer 1976, 1985, 1987; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

214

k o s t i s s . c h r i s ta k i s

not ignored, have not always received the necessary attention from Cretan Bronze Age archaeologists. Instead, it is often tacitly assumed that recovered artifacts are found in their original place of use, a practice that overlooks the operation and effects of formation processes. Many theories of sociopolitical development, indeed, do not fully consider the complex “biographies” of archaeological deposits, and alternatively draw information from data questionable in both quality and quantity. This paper discusses the natural and cultural parameters that disturbed and altered floor deposits excavated in Late Minoan (LM) IB domestic units. The LM IB period was chosen mainly because of the wealth of archaeological evidence that exists; in fact, most elite and domestic contexts have floor deposits that date to LM IB. The extensive remains of LM IB, therefore, allow us to postulate broad conclusions regarding the interaction of the various social sectors operating at that time. I am chiefly concerned with actions that occurred during the destruction and abandonment of the context, and in this present study, I draw on information from a comparative study of the spatial distribution of domestic implements within their architectural framework and from observations advanced by excavators on the destruction of houses they themselves have excavated. The principal obstacles encountered include the excavation practices employed in the pioneering years of Cretan Bronze Age archaeology, the lack of commonly accepted criteria and terminology in isolating and describing events of destruction, abandonment, and post-abandonment, and the limited published information on LM IB houses. The aim of this paper is to stress the role played by natural and anthropogenic parameters in the formation of the final picture of domestic units in LM IB Crete. The adoption of a research approach that takes into account the quantitative and qualitative limitations of archaeological evidence—which are determined by the processes that have shaped them—facilitates a more precise investigation of domestic contexts; this approach forms the starting point of any discussion of Neopalatial social, economic, and ideological organization.

P i c t u res of Destru c t ion Domestic contexts have been excavated, partially explored, or located in approximately 320 Neopalatial buildings on Crete. Most of these houses have been excavated in East-Central and eastern Crete, where the most systematically explored—albeit still largely unpublished—towns are located: Malia, Gournia, Mochlos, Palaikastro, Zakros, and Pseira (the latter fully published). A small percentage has been excavated in Central Crete, while domestic contexts in the area of western Crete are rare. Among Neopalatial houses, 75% yield information on activities dated to the end of the LM IB period, 21% to LM IA, and only 4% to Middle Minoan (MM) IIIB. Very few houses, such as Houses N and B at Palaikastro and the Mansion at Vathypetro, yield information on changes in the spatial organization of the domestic unit and household activities from LM IA to LM IB. Other domestic units, such as Houses C.3 and C.7 at Mochlos and the House

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the domestic sector of lm ib socie t y

215

of the Niches at Kato Zakros, provide information on changes within the LM IB era.5 Thus, excavated domestic contexts differ substantially as to spatial and temporal distribution. These differences inevitably imply serious limitations that should be taken into consideration—though this is not always the case—in any attempt to reconstruct the political, economic, and ideological structures of Neopalatial Crete, especially when adopting a diachronic perspective. The domestic units of the LM IB period can be grouped into two broad categories: houses whose floor deposits contained artifact assemblages (ca. 220 houses), and houses whose floor deposits contained no domestic implements (ca. 20 houses). Most of the houses of the first category show strong traces of destruction by fire. They represent about 79% of the total, while houses without signs of fire destruction, about 21%. Carbonized organic remains, traces of burning in the architectural remains of the structure and on domestic implements, and concentrations of burnt earth all are clear evidence of a severe and destructive fire. The conflagration may have been accidental (e.g., caused by earthquake, lightning, or domestic accidents), deliberate (e.g., prompted by the departure or death of the dweller/s), or forced (e.g., due to war or strife).6 In the context of Neopalatial Crete, the causes of such fire destructions that occurred at the end of the LM IB period are a matter of intense controversy.7 There are those who argue that the fires followed a massive natural disaster, perhaps an earthquake and/or a volcanic eruption; for others, including the present author, the fires are better viewed as the result of human action during a period of social and political instability or during a raid or invasion. Seventy-six percent of the contexts destroyed by fire yielded rich assemblages of domestic implements used by the household before the destruction/abandonment of the house: fine and coarse wares, precious items, bronze containers, weapons and tools, and administrative documents are some of the most relevant artifacts preserved within the structural debris. Bioarchaeological remains were occasionally preserved, but excavation practices commonly allowed this information to be lost. Domestic implements made from perishable materials, however, have been lost without leaving traces in the archaeological record. The wealth and variety of domestic implements fashioned from perishable materials that have come to light in the houses at Akrotiri on Thera can provide us with an idea of the corresponding items that would have been used in Neopalatial houses on Crete. The domestic units that provide rich floor assemblages and contribute substantially to the reconstruction of household behavior on Crete include: 5. For Mochlos, see the contribution in this volume by Brogan and Barnard (Chap. 17), who note that as many as four distinct floor surfaces were recognized in room 1 of House C.7, spanning LM IA, LM IB, and Final LM IB. Brogan and Barnard argue that careful analysis of the pottery and other materials from the successive floor surfaces can be used to infer significant changes in household behavior in the

room during the different phases of habitation. According to Platon (1975, pp. 355– 369; 1976, pp. 422–432), the House of the Niches at Kato Zakros had two different phases of habitation, LM IA and LM IB. However, the recent reexamination of this domestic unit by Katie Archontaki (pers. comm.) suggests only one phase of habitation in the LM IB period. Many thanks to

Katie Archontaki for providing this information. 6. For causes of fire destructions and the role of fire in the formation of the archaeological record, see Stevanoviç 2002. 7. A critical discussion of the various arguments regarding the fire destructions at the end of the LM IB period is offered in Driessen and Macdonald 1997, pp. 106–109.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

216

k o s t i s s . c h r i s ta k i s

the houses in the settlement of Chania Kastelli (especially House I); House A at Tylissos; the houses at Nirou Chani, Kannia Mitropolis, Myrtos Pyrgos, Makrygialos, and Kastelli Pediados; the Casa del Lebete at Ayia Triada; House 2 and Building 3/5 at Galatas Pediada; Houses Ζα and Ζβ at Malia; the House of Rousses Chondrou (LM IA destruction); Houses B.2 and C.3 at Mochlos; House A at Achladia Siteias; some houses at Palaikastro; and many houses at Kato Zakros.8 The thorough study of the artifacts excavated in these houses, as well as their spatial distribution, points to an unplanned abandonment. Householders, leaving in great haste, left most of the domestic equipment in situ, selecting only the most valuable, portable, and useful objects to take with them. As a result, the contextual integrity of the occupied area is very high. Even in such cases, however, the destruction picture does not remain undisturbed. Activities before, during, and after the destruction and abandonment of the house have partially obscured the “freeze-frame” of some of the aforementioned floor deposits. Parts of some complexes were reused in later periods (e.g., the mansion at Kannia Mitropolis); and elsewhere, the destruction layers were disturbed during attempts to unearth precious items, as in the case of House A at Tylissos. As seen at House N at Palaikastro, the householders themselves may have taken useful and portable items with them. Many houses have been damaged by cultivation, geological upheavals, subsequent building activities or grave digging, and others were looted for building material. Some houses, finally, may have been destroyed during looting; this has been proposed for the Mansion at Myrtos Pyrgos, House E at Malia, Building 5 at Palaikastro, and some houses in the town of Pseira (Buildings AB, AP, and AF North). In contrast to the above domestic units, there are other buildings similarly destroyed by fire that did not preserve rich domestic assemblages. These cases represent about 24% of the total number of houses destroyed in this way. Their finds constitute objects similar to those found in the above houses, but far fewer. Representative examples are the mansions at Vrysses Kydonias, Sklavokampos, B and C at Tylissos, and several houses at Malia, Ayia Triada, and Gournia. The domestic assemblages discovered in houses belonging to this category do not seem fully representative of household activities. The domestic goods—too few to cover the needs of a household— and their distribution indicate that the householders had time to move many items of use out of the house, thereby corrupting the traces of their earlier domestic activities. External factors also had a decisive influence on destruction layers in such cases. Several houses were damaged by geological upheavals, subsequent building activities, or roads. Parts of some houses were reused after their destruction, some houses such as that at Tourtouloi Siteias seem to have been looted, while yet others were filled with rubble brought from other areas of the site, as in the case of the South House at Knossos. A smaller number of houses with preserved floor deposits (ca. 21% of LM IB houses) do not present clear signs of destruction by fire. The most noteworthy of these are Houses A, B, and C (located west of the Bastione) at Ayia Triada, and several houses at Pseira and Gournia. Their assemblages contained very few household implements. It is probable that the householders had the time to remove a large number of household goods—a hypothesis supported by the absence of significant post-depositional

8. For House 2 at Galatas Pediada, see Christakis and Rethemiotakis, this volume (Chap. 16). House C.3 at Mochlos is discussed by Brogan and Barnard in their analysis of Neopalatial kitchen facilities (Chap. 17). For a discussion of Building B and the Strong Building at Kato Zakros, see Platon, this volume (Chap. 14).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the domestic sector of lm ib socie t y

217

processes (e.g., cultivation, geological disturbances, looting, etc.) that would have affected the destruction layers. Other LM IB period houses were found almost empty. Many of these were subject to extensive reuse after their destruction i.n LM IB; the floors were cleared of the destruction layers and the space reused. The most representative examples of this practice can be seen in Knossos at the Little Palace, the Royal Villa, and the House South-West of the South-West House. In other cases such as the Gypsum House at Knossos, the South House in the area of the Stratigraphical Museum, and the house southwest of the South House at Knossos, houses were subject to drastic architectural alterations that eliminated any trace of LM IB activities. In all of these cases, there is no direct evidence for a comprehensive consideration of the activities of the households. The architecture, of course, could give us some idea of the spatial organization, but such information is scientifically unsound—moveable finds are the only undisputed witnesses to human activity; it is their presence that brings the rooms to life.

Con clu s ion s This brief outline of the destruction of LM IB domestic units shows that natural and anthropogenic processes, occurring both during and after the event of destruction, corrupted the traces of household activities. It is these processes that affect our recognition and interpretation of indications of human domestic activity. Valuable assemblages of household implements have been preserved in a significant number of houses, and this provides us with a representative picture of the activities that took place there. In other houses, domestic goods were very few, indicating significant corruption of the archaeological record. Some houses were found nearly empty because of extensive and intensive reuse in subsequent periods, which eliminated all traces of LM IB activities. It is worth noting that there are variations in the evidence for destruction not only between houses in different residential centers, but also between houses in the same center. The most illustrative examples are the different scenes of destruction observed in the houses at Gournia, Pseira, and Malia. These variations undoubtedly present obstacles that should be taken into consideration when attempting a comprehensive reconstruction of the political, economic, and ideological structures of Neopalatial Crete. In effect, each case must be considered separately within its wider geographical context. The most meaningful way to suggest and examine household behavior is through understanding the complete depositional history of a house. The detection of quantitative and qualitative archaeological evidence—determined by distribution, find location, and quantity within each domestic unit—is a necessary condition for the precise reconstruction of both domestic activities and the complex relationships between social, economic, and ideological factors. Socioeconomic theories that do not seriously consider these parameters and their decisive role in the quality of archaeological evidence risk being considered unsound, and they contribute to a false archaeological picture.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 20

Th e E l u s i v e D om e st i c S h r i n e i n N e opal at i al C r e t e : O n t he A r c h ae ol o g i c al C or re l at e s of D om e st i c R e l i g i on by Evi Sikla The search for domestic religion in Neopalatial Crete has almost always coincided with the search for domestic shrines.1 Typically, domestic shrines are understood as cult spaces that are distinct from the secular spaces within a house. Several studies have organized the relevant body of evidence and produced lists of domestic shrines, mostly by classifying the rooms that contained artifacts thought to be used in cult practices according to their architectural features.2 Pillar crypts, lustral basins, and bench shrines are often considered the principal types of domestic cult rooms. The spaces that have been identified as cultic are characterized by a bewildering variety of architectural and artifactual components, and no clear correlation has emerged between specific architectural types of rooms and cult paraphernalia and activities.3 As a result, domestic shrines cannot be identified clearly either in terms of their formal architectural characteristics or in terms of the activities that took place there.4 Recent scholarship, however, has taken into account the variability in the spatial and temporal contexts of the available evidence, helping to present a clearer picture of ritual behavior in domestic contexts.5 Contrary to past assumptions, it is now clear that the Late Minoan (LM) III shrines form a category of sanctuary that does not have apparent precedents in the 1. I am grateful to Loeta Tyree for her constructive comments on an earlier version of the paper, to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, and to Natalia VogeikoffBrogan for help with the photographs. I would also like to thank the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the British School at Athens, and the Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene for permission to publish photographs of bull vessels from their collections. 2. Nilsson 1927, pp. 72–97; 1950, pp. 77–116; Banti 1941–1943; Platon 1954; Gesell 1985; Rutkowski 1986, pp. 119–153.

3. McEnroe 1979, pp. 216–219; Rutkowski 1986, pp. 140–141; Marinatos 1993, pp. 112–115. 4. Gesell’s studies have contributed much to the establishment of the concept of the bench sanctuary, but she notes herself the variety of forms and functions of these rooms, as well as the existence of benches in spaces unrelated to cult (Gesell 1985, p. 14; see also Pilali-Papasteriou 1984). Marinatos (1993, p. 88) presents a good review of the problems relating to the identification of the so-called pillar crypts as shrines. On the other hand, the continuous use of the terms “bench

sanctuary” and “pillar crypt” has created the impression that they refer to shrines of specific form and content. The secular or religious nature of lustral basins has long been debated (see Marinatos 1993, pp. 77–87, where much of the earlier bibliography is discussed; see also Nordfeldt 1987; Platonos 1990). Lustral basins are among the very few architectural forms of Middle and Late Bronze Age Crete for which some specialized, probably ritual, function has been proposed with relative confidence. 5. See, e.g., Shaw 2004.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

220

evi sikla

archaeological record of the Middle Minoan (MM) III–LM IB periods.6 At the same time, there have been attempts to shift the focus of research from the demarcation of sacred spaces within houses to the identification of cult activities that may have occurred within or outside domestic units, but which were organized at the household level.7 All in all, the Neopalatial form of domestic shrines remains elusive. Using vessels with bull representations as one example, this paper argues that religious practices are embedded within daily life in complex and subtle ways, and that the ritualization of household activities can be distinguished by objects with strong ritual and symbolic qualities even in contexts without other indicators of domestic cult.

Co n c ep t ualizin g D o mest ic Reli gion The difficulty in identifying domestic shrines is not peculiar to Minoan archaeology. For example, the identification of domestic shrines in Classical Greek houses has proved tricky, with ambiguous results;8 and cult assemblages from the 10th-century b.c. town of Megiddo were not associated with shrines but with domestic, secular spaces.9 Additionally, those who study Mesopotamian religion also encounter difficulties in identifying domestic shrines archaeologically.10 This apparently universal problem may be largely due to the conceptualization of domestic religion, which, in turn, guides the search of its archaeological correlates. Ritual observances performed in domestic environments do not always require a “shrine”—that is, a space used exclusively for cult. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in ethnographic and historical surveys of religious traditions as diverse as those of the western and eastern Christian traditions, the Japanese Shinto, and Buddhist traditions.11 Recently, the practice of cult in domestic contexts without dedicated shrines has been proposed for LM III Crete as well.12 Domestic religious practices often revolve around the offering of perishable materials, ritualized dining, and the lighting of candles and incense.13 They frequently involve activities whose material remains can hardly be differentiated from those of similar, secular practices. When a permanent shrine is not required, a temporary one can be set up within the house and then dismantled immediately after the ceremony.14 If the religious tradition requires a more permanent structure, it tends to have a specific architectural form, whether it corresponds to a whole room or to a small fixture such as a shelf or a niche set in a wall. The associated equipment or the imagery also tends to be fairly standardized. Such archaeological examples exist from both elite and non-elite houses at Amarna in Egypt, as well as from Roman houses in Pompeii and other cities.15 In these cases, 6. Peatfield 1994; Gesell 2004. Moreover, many of the LM III shrines that earlier scholarship categorized as domestic have now been recognized as serving settlements rather than individual domestic units. See also Hood 1977. 7. Marinatos and Betancourt 1995; Betancourt 2001.

8. Nilsson 1960; Jameson 1990, pp. 192–194; Halieis II, pp. 75–77. Most of the recent synthetic studies on Greek houses and households focus on subjects other than domestic cult. 9. Negbi 1993. 10. Van der Toorn 1996; Scurlock 2003. 11. See, e.g., Deshen et al. 1995.

12. Privitera 2004. 13. Deshen et al. 1995. 14. Deshen et al. 1995, pp. 401–402, 407. 15. For domestic shrines in Pharaonic Egypt, see Kemp 1989, pp. 294– 305; Meskell 2002, pp. 110–121; for domestic shrines in Roman houses, see Orr 1973; Allison 2004, pp. 143–146.

t h e e l u s i v e d o m e s t i c s h r i n e i n n e o pa l at i a l c r e t e 221

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

both the architectural features and the objects associated with them are highly patterned among the excavated material remains. Therefore, in any search for domestic cult in MM III–LM IB Crete, the following four points have to be taken into account: (1) domestic cult is not necessarily identified with the existence of architecturally recognizable domestic shrines; (2) when domestic shrines do exist, they usually have a standardized form and content that facilitates their recognition in the archaeological record; (3) the difficulty in demarcating religious from secular spaces within domestic units is particularly pronounced in Neopalatial Crete; and (4) it is highly likely that cult activities and the ritual objects used were patterned, even when there was no clear association with specific architectural features, since religious practices are largely standardized and repetitive.16 Taking into consideration the above remarks, I propose an alternative view of religious practices within Neopalatial Cretan houses. Namely, I suggest that we temporarily abandon the quest for the physical boundaries that would demarcate secular versus religious spaces and assemblages within houses.17 Instead, it may be more suitable to both the nature of domestic religion and the MM III–LM IB archaeological record to search for elements that indicate the degree of ritualization of domestic life.18 Such a search may highlight domestic religious rituals that might otherwise go unnoticed. Religious practices can be embedded within the practices of daily life in subtle ways; they can be distinguished by specific attributes, but they may not require specific cult spaces or attention-focusing devices and religious symbols to the same degree that public shrines do.

V essels wi th Bu ll Representat ions as Ind icators of D om est i c Reli gio us P ract i ces in Ne o pa lat ia l Cre te Vessels with bull representations are one class of object that can illustrate the ritualization of domestic life outside of a specific location dedicated to the practice of household cult.Known to be involved in cult activities in nondomestic contexts,19 the majority of these vessels are bull and bull’s head rhyta (Fig. 20.1), although there are also a few examples of other vessel types, such as a jug from Malia and a pithos from Tylissos with appliqué bull heads, a lid in the form of a bull from Palaikastro (Fig. 20.2), a piriform jar from Pseira, and a bucket jar from Palaikastro, both jars with bull and double-axe iconography (Fig. 20.3, Table 20.1). 16. Renfrew 1985, pp. 14–16; Wright 1995a. 17. The distinction between the sacred and the secular is considered more difficult to make in domestic contexts than in public ones (Renfrew 1985, pp. 21–22; Marinatos and Betancourt 1995; Hägg 2000; Hood 2000). It has been proposed that a methodologically sound approach to the subject

entails the clear demarcation of boundaries between the sacred and the profane. Ultimately, however, the issue relates closely to how religion itself is conceptualized. On these topics, see Hägg and Marinatos 1981; Renfrew 1985, pp. 1–26; Wright 1995a. 18. The term “ritualization of domestic life” is borrowed from the work of Richard Bradley, who has pro-

duced a most interesting discussion on the subject in relation to prehistoric Europe (Bradley 2005). 19. Bull rhyta were used in cult activities in extra-urban sanctuaries ( Jones 1999, pp. 10–11) and at palaces, as, for example, at Zakros (Platon 1971b, pp. 147, 161–163) during the Neopalatial period.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

222

evi sikla

Figure 20.1. Bull rhyton from Building BQ on Pseira. Courtesy American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Alison Frantz Photographic Collection

Figure 20.2. Bull lid from the lustral basin of Block B at Palaikastro. Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, fig. 59; courtesy British School at Athens

I have attempted to identify the activities in which these vessels may have been involved, regardless of their architectural setting. The purpose of this exercise is not to differentiate between secular and religious activities or spaces; the vessels with bull representations have a strong ritual quality in and of themselves, meaning they conferred a religious character to an activity even when there was no other indicator of ritual. In my sample I include vessels from contexts that represent households of varied positions within the socioeconomic spectrum of MM III–LM IB Crete from the central and eastern regions of the island.20 For the purposes of this paper, I discuss only the nonpalatial contexts.21 The assemblages in which the bull vessels appear are from floor deposits, and their use seems to have ended in a catastrophic event (earthquake or destruction by fire) that sealed the deposit’s contents,22 thus making the find contexts of the bull vessels informative of their use context at the moment of the destructions. The study is based on the published information about the sites mentioned, including preliminary reports, so it may be modified when the final publications become available. The study of the contexts of the vessels with bull representations shows that they tend to be associated with certain types of activities within settlements throughout the Neopalatial periods.23 The first of these is “food consumption.” In this category I include assemblages that indicate the intake of drink and food. The second activity is “food preparation,” and perhaps also the “preparation of substances other than food.” This

20. Households are defined here simply as the people that lived and interacted within a single architectural unit. 21. Palatial buildings such as the Ayia Triada villa or the building at Archanes Tourkogeitonia are excluded, but most of the so-called villas are included in the sample. 22. Driessen and Macdonald 1997, pp. 15–18. 23. R. Koehl (2006, pp. 283–290, 303–310) has also studied many of the deposits I discuss here, and he has independently arrived at similar conclusions about the activities involving rhyta.

t h e e l u s i v e d o m e s t i c s h r i n e i n n e o pa l at i a l c r e t e 223 Figure 20.3. Bucket jar with bull and double-axe iconography from room 18, Block Delta at Palaikastro.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

TAB LE 20.1. BULL V ESSELS IN MM III –LM IB H OUSES

Identified Activities

Site

Food consumption and ritual use

Knossos, Sphakianakis plot Palaikastro, Block B, room 3

Food consumption and/or ritual use or storage

Total of Assemblages per Activity

Date

Vessel Type

MM IIIB–LM IA LM IB

rhyton lid

2

Phaistos, Chalara North, room ι Pseira, Building AB, room 12

MM IIIA LM IB

head rhyton head rhyton

2

Food consumption and/or storage

Phaistos, Acropoli Mediana Pseira, Building AF Zakros, Building N, room 19

MM IIIB LM IB LM IA

rhyton rhyton kernos

3

Food preparation

Knossos, Vlachaki plot Phaistos, Building XLI, room 102

MM IIIA MM IIIA

bowl/basin rhyton

2

MM IIIB–LM IB

bucket jar

1

LM IB LM IB LM I MM IIIB LM IA LM IB LM IB

pithos jug head rhyton head rhyta, 2 head rhyton head rhyton rhyta, 3; piriform jar

11

LM IB

rhyton

1

LM IB

head rhyton

1

Preparation of food or other Palaikastro, Block Delta, room 18 substances or ritual use Storage

Tylissos, House A Malia, House Ζβ, room 1 Apodoulou Phaistos, Building XLIII, room 104 Gournia, House Cm, room 58 Gournia, House Ac, room 20 Pseira buildings: BQ, room 1; AA, room 4; BT, room 1; AB, room 4

Special storage

Sklavokampos, room 4

Special storage or food con- Knossos, Royal Road North House sumption and ritual use Total of assemblages with bull vessels: 23

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

224

evi sikla

category is used to classify the deposits that preserve evidence for some of the food preparation activities that are easily recognizable in the archaeological record, such as cooking and grinding. The third category of activities is labeled “ritual use.” I employ this term to refer to instances in which the vessels may have been used in situ for practices that can be characterized as religious in nature (e.g., libation rituals), and this category also includes vessels used in lustral basins, which are probably the rooms with the least equivocal cultic character in domestic contexts.24 The inclusion of this ritual category does not mean that the activities classified under different headings are not of cultic nature. Finally, a fourth category of activities is labeled as “storage,” and it includes vessels that were found in storage rooms or obviously stored together elsewhere. This category also includes objects that may have been put aside temporarily in order to be used after a few hours or a few days, but not necessarily stored permanently where found. This type of storage can occur in all kinds of domestic spaces, and while we have no way of verifying such a hypothesis, there is no reason to exclude it. Furthermore, I have coined the term “special storage” to refer to a group of deposits that share a number of characteristics that differentiate them from other types of storage; namely, they encompass cult symbols and ritual equipment other than vessels, and they point to an association of cult, administrative, and craft activities. The identification of household activities on the basis of the various archaeologically preserved deposits is often ambiguous, and I have chosen to highlight this ambiguity instead of suppressing it. Thus, assemblages such as the one from a floor deposit at the Acropoli Mediana at Phaistos indicate the storage, serving/pouring, and drinking of liquids, and are classified under the category “food consumption and/or storage” (Table 20.2).25 The “communion cups” (or chalices) and the bull rhyton that were found by the lustral basin of the house excavated in the Sphakianakis plot above the Vlychia Stream at Knossos point to “food consumption.”26 I also have added the designation “ritual use” here, because the practice involves a lustral basin. In room ι at Chalara North (Phaistos) and room 12 of Building AB in Pseira, sets of bull’s head rhyta and cups may have been used for the pouring and drinking of liquids (Fig. 20.4).27 In these cases, however, it should be noted that we have no more than one cup per set. This may mean that the cups were used in pouring libations rather than in a solitary drinking ritual, since drinking rituals usually involve larger numbers of people. On the other hand, it is also possible that the vessels in these two deposits had been left in temporary storage, where they were found. The assemblage from Building AF North in Pseira, which consisted of numerous rhyta, a marble chalice, and a large number of cups, has been 24. See n. 4, above. 25. Levi 1976, pp. 596–597. The remnants of the floor were not associated with any architecture. 26. Blackman 1997–1998, p. 114. 27. Levi 1976, p. 679, fig. 220:i, pl. LXXXIV:d. For Building AB on

Pseira, see Seager 1910, pp. 25, 27; Pseira I, pp. 39, 42, fig. 40. The cup from Pseira has been fashioned from a triton shell. If this vessel were actually used as a cup, it must have been a very special type of drinking vessel.

Bowls

Jugs

Jars, Spouted

Amphoras, Jars

✓

✓ (chalices) ✓

✓

✓

✓

Rhyta

Kernoi

triton-shell cup)

✓ (stone cup) ✓ (possible

✓

Cups

chalice)

✓ (stone

✓

Bowls

✓ Jugs

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓

Amphoras, Jars

✓

✓

Palaikastro, Building D

✓

Assembl age s Indi c at ing Fo od Preparat ion or Rit ual Use

Phaistos, Building XLI

Knossos, Vlachaki plot

✓

Jars, Spouted

Assem bl age s I ndic at i ng Fo od Prepa rat ion

Zakros, Building N

Pseira, Building AF

Phaistos, Acropoli Mediana

Assembl age s Indic at ing Fo od Consu mp t ion and/or S torage

Pseira, Building AB

Phaistos, Chalara N

✓

✓

Rhyta

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

Cooking Pots

✓

Ass embl age s Indi c at i ng Fo od Consu mp t ion and/or Rit ual Use or S torage

Palaikastro, Block B

Knossos, Sphakianakis plot

Assem bl age s Indi c at i ng Fo od Consu mp t ion and Rit ual Use

Cups

✓ ✓

Basins

✓

Lids

TAB LE 20.2. BULL VESSELS USED IN FOOD CONSUMP TION and PREPARATION

✓

Fruitstands

✓ (chalice)

✓ (cup)

✓

Stone Vessels

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

✓ ✓

Organic Material

✓ ( jugs)

Miniature Vessels

lamps, pithos lid, firebox

lamp

Other

lamps, stone

Other

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

226

evi sikla

Figure 20.4. Bull-head rhyton from room ι, Chalara North at Phaistos. Levi 1976, fig. 220:i, pl. LXXXIV:d; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

Figure 20.5. Bull rhyton from room 102, Building XLI at Phaistos. Pernier and Banti 1951, fig. 213; courtesy Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene

interpreted as a group of vessels used in feasting rituals on the upper floor of the house.28 Finally, the miniature kernos from room 19 in Building N at Zakros may relate to food consumption as well.29 The cooking pots and the carbonized organic material found in room 102 of Building XLI in the northeast sector of the Palace of Phaistos (Fig. 20.5), and those from the house excavated in the Vlachaki plot at Bougada Methochi at Knossos, make a good case for the preparation of food and drink at those locations (Table 20.2).30 But the nature of the activity 28. Betancourt 2001, pp. 145, 147. The same interpretation is suggested for an upper-floor deposit in Building BS/BV. Cups, bowls, scoops, footed vessels, rhyta (possibly including a bull rhyton), jars, cooking vessels, grinders, a marble chalice, a fenestrated stand, and fragments of a relief fresco were part of the deposit (Pseira III, pp. 208–209). The bull rhyton is represented by a horn fragment. If it was not in secondary use in the composition of a wall or a floor, as is often the case with such

fragments, this is another example of a bull rhyton involved in the preparation and consumption of food. 29. Platon 1986, p. 290. The evidence from the neighboring rooms also points to the activities of food preparation and perhaps consumption. 30. For the Bougada Metochi house, see Rethemiotakis and Grammatikaki 1999, p. 223; for room 102 of Building XLI, see Pernier 1935, p. 360, fig. 213; Pernier and Banti 1951, pp. 393, 403, fig. 257. I agree with

Pernier’s interpretation of the room as a kitchen. Alexiou and Platon reinterpret it as a cult room, a pillar crypt (Alexiou n.d., pp. 96–97; Platon 1954, p. 454). See also Gesell 1985, p. 27; Rutkowski 1986, pp. 20, 39. A critical discussion of the issue by Duhoux (1977, pp. 3–14) makes it clear that the argument for a dark pillar crypt here cannot be supported by the excavated remains. Furthermore, the analogy drawn between the cists in the neighboring room 101 (where the Phaistos Disc was also

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e e l u s i v e d o m e s t i c s h r i n e i n n e o pa l at i a l c r e t e 227

is not as clear in the case of the bucket jar found in room 18 of Block Delta at Palaikastro (Fig. 20.3). The bucket jar with bull and double-axe iconography is clearly a ritual vessel, although it is difficult to ascribe to it a specific function; it may have been used in association with the production of substances other than food, if the firebox that was part of the same assemblage was a vessel used in the production of aromatics and the like.31 Certain cases of storage activities are recognized easily: the jug with appliqué bull heads from House Ζβ at Malia and the bull rhyton from Building BT at Pseira derive from rooms that can be identified as storage rooms (Table 20.3).32 The hoards of rhyta from Gournia and Pseira are also easily recognized as instances of storage.33 Others are inferred tentatively from the find contexts, as at Phaistos (Building XLIII), Apodoulou, and Pseira (room 4 in Building AB), or from the form of the vessel itself, as with the Tylissos pithos and the jar from Pseira.34 The interpretation of other deposits is more hotly debated, and these are the vessels classified here under the heading “special storage” (Table 20.4). The concentration of cult equipment and cult symbols in the assemblages of Royal Road North at Knossos and Sklavokampos has led to the proposition that shrines existed on the upper floors of both buildings.35 Alternatively, I suggest that we may be dealing with the storage of valuable materials, including cult equipment, on these floors. The Villa at Sklavokampos and the Royal Road North house seem to have been inhabited by households of high social status, and their upper-floor deposits also provide evidence for the existence of an ivory workshop in the Knossian house and of an administrative archive in the Sklavokampos Villa. That is, they provide evidence not only for the storage of valuable or prestige objects (many of which were used in religious practices that may or may not have occurred there), but also for the activities that were of importance

found) and those of the treasuries with cult objects in the vicinity of pillar crypts in the palaces of Knossos and Phaistos is also untenable, since the latter were part of the palace buildings, whereas rooms 101 and 102 are located outside the Palace of Phaistos. 31. Bosanquet et al. 1902–1903, p. 293; Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, pp. 19–21, pl. XII. For the probable use of fireboxes in the production of aromatics, see Georgiou 1980. 32. See Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, pp. 14, 47–48, pl. XIV:1 for the Malia jug; Pseira IV, pp. 182, 185, fig. 35 for the Pseira bull rhyton. 33. Two hoards of rhyta that included bull rhyta derived from upperfloor deposits of Houses Cm and Ac in Gournia (Hawes et al. 1908, pp. 22, 39, 48, 60, pls. I:1, XI:20. See also Gesell

1985, p. 31, nn. 76, 77). Another hoard was stored in the ground-floor room 1 of Building BQ at Pseira (Seager 1910, p. 31, pl. IX; Pseira IV, p. 135, fig. 15, pl. 21B. As Betancourt (2001) correctly points out, the assemblages with rhyta from Buildings AF and BS/BV are similar to the one from BQ, but I also think they strongly suggest food consumption and preparation activities in addition to storage activity. 34. Two bull rhyta were found with many fragments of other bull rhyta and figurines in one of the corners of room 104 of Building XLIII (Pernier 1935, pp. 367–374; Pernier and Banti 1951, p. 401). The concentration of rhyta and figurines is better interpreted as cult paraphernalia in storage rather than as remnants of cult activities; there is no other published information about this

room, whereas the neighboring rooms have been interpreted as storage spaces. The same interpretation seems likely for the bull rhyton that was found together with other vessels in a niche in the wall of a room in the Zominthos building (Sakellarakis 1988, p. 168, fig. 136). It is unknown if the objects excavated in a substantial building in Apodoulou were found together, but they probably form an assemblage (Marinatos 1935; Gesell 1985, p. 31, n. 76). The jar from Pseira may have been in storage (Pseira I, pp. 35–38, 49, fig. 38). For the Tylissos pithos, see Hazzidakis 1921, p. 18, fig. 3a. 35. See Hood 1961–1962, pp. 26– 27 for Royal Road North; Marinatos 1939–1941, pp. 73, 86, pl. 3:4 for Sklavokampos; Gesell (1985, p. 31, n. 76) discusses both.

Chalices

Jugs

Amphoras, Jars

Pyxides, Boxes

Jars

Jugs

Cups, Bowls

Chalices

✓

✓

✓ ✓ Pyxides

✓ Lids

✓

Basins

✓

✓

Jugs

✓

Apodoulou

✓ ✓

✓

Amphoras, Jars

Assembl age Indi c at i ng S torag e or Rit ual Use

Pseira, Buildings AA, AB

Phaistos, Building XLIII

Tylissos, Building A

Assembl age s Indi c at ing S torage

Pseira, Building AF

Pseira, Building BQ

Gournia, House Cm

Gournia, House Ac

✓ ✓

✓

Flasks

✓

Cooking Pots

Assembl age s Indi c at ing S torage, B ul l Rhy ta S tored with Rhy ta Hoards

Pseira, Building BT

Malia, Building Ζβ

Assembl age s Indi c at ing S torage, B ul l Ve ssels in S torage R o oms

Cups, Bowls

TAB LE 20.3. BULL VESSELS IN STORAGE

✓

Pithoi

Pithoi

✓ ✓

Pithoi

✓

✓ ✓

Rhyta

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Rhyta

✓ ✓

Rhyta

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

libation table, double axes

figurines

Other

Other

bronze implements, ingot

Other

t h e e l u s i v e d o m e s t i c s h r i n e i n n e o pa l at i a l c r e t e 229 TAB LE 20.4. BULL V ESSELS IN “ SP ECIAL STORAGE” Assembl age s Indic at ing Sp ecial S torage and/or Fo od Consump t ion and Rit ual Use Knossos, Royal Road North

Sklavokampos

Chalices

✓ (clay + stone)

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Jugs

✓

Jars

✓ (clay + stone) ✓ ✓

✓ (stone lamp)

✓ ✓ (ivories)

✓ (clay human foot)

✓ (horns of

✓ (stone hammer)

female figurine)

✓ (obsidian shell vessel)

✓ (bronze tools,

✓ (ivory workshop)

Linear A archives (sealings, tablets)

✓ (stone boat, bronze ✓ (double axes)

consecration)

Cult objects, other Bronze tools, loomweights, evidence for craft activities

✓ (stone) ✓

stone vessels)

Libation tables

Cult symbols

✓ (2, stone) ✓ (stone) ✓ ✓ (alabastra, various

Vessels, other

Figurines, models

Zakros Palace, Hall of Ceremonies

✓

Cups, bowls Rhyta (other than bull rhyta)

Ayia Triada, Northwest Wing

loomweights)

✓

✓ (bronze tools)

✓

to LM IB elite households. These cases are understood better when they are seen in comparison with palatial contexts; for this reason, Ayia Triada and Zakros are included in Table 20.4.36 It is true that the assemblage from the upper floor of the Royal North house, with its stone bull’s head rhyton, two stone libation tables, and a pair of horns of consecration, can easily fit into the category of “ritual use” as well.37 I suggest, however, that libations were not the only type of ritual manipulation of liquids that may have occurred there. The assemblage also included numerous footed bowls (or cups?), stirrup jars, and rhyta, and it is very likely that consumption of liquids took place in the same area. Of course, all these objects could also have been stored near the areas where they were actually used. 36. For the upper-floor deposits at Ayia Triada and Zakros, see Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, pp. 83–85, figs. 51, 52; Platon 1971b, pp. 158, 161–163, pls. on pp. 2, 160. Watrous and Gesell both propose, tentatively, the existence of a domestic shrine on the upper floor of the northwest sector of the villa at Ayia Triada (Watrous 1984, p. 127; Gesell 1985, p. 31, n. 76). Militello (2001b) thinks that the concentration of ritual objects in that space does not necessarily mean that they were used there, but he emphasizes that

it bespeaks of the connection between religious ceremonies and upper-class culture. N. Platon (1971b, pp. 155–160, esp. p. 158) proposes the cultic use of the floor above the Hall of Ceremonies in the Zakros Palace, but he does not comment on the hoard of bronze tools found in the same deposit. L. Platon (1993, p. 115) concludes that whether the bronzes belonged to a workshop or were stored there in order to be distributed to artisans when needed should remain an open question. Given that the deposit lacks the evidence that

should have been present in a workshop (crucibles, molds, and by-products of metalworking processes, such as copper and bronze scrap and waste), I opt for the second interpretation. 37. The assemblages from Royal Road North and Apodoulou are very similar. The rhyta and libation vessels could have been used for libation rituals. The cult symbols used at Apodoulou were double axes instead of the horns of consecration used in the Knossian house.

230

evi sikla

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

D o m es t i c Religio n Beyond D omest ic Shrin es It is clear that the archaeological material often resists strict categorization under one activity or another. At the same time, it is apparent that a thread connects the assemblages assigned to the various categories: the majority is clearly connected with the production and consumption of drink and food. This is evidenced not only in contexts where the activities seem to have occurred in situ, but also in those that point to storage activities. It seems that the vessels with bull representations were used in settlement contexts almost exclusively in the activities of food preparation and consumption. The only other activity in which they may have been used is the pouring of liquids as libations. But libations and drink and food consumption can be different acts in the same sequence of ritual activities.38 It is likely that the vessels with bull representations that can be used for pouring—which are all bull and bull’s head rhyta, with the exception of the jug from Malia House Ζβ—were used as a special type of pouring vessel within the context of a ritualized pouring/serving of liquids. The assumption is that the liquids were to be consumed by the participants in the event. Since many of the assemblages under discussion also contained jugs or spouted jars, it could be that the bull rhyta were used at only a specific moment of the ceremony or to serve only special persons. The close association of these vessels with cups, which can be as plain as a conical cup or as extravagant as a marble chalice, indicates the use of rhyta in ritual drinking and not exclusively for libations. Thus, the distinction I draw in the categorization of activities between “food consumption” and “ritual use” as defined earlier may be entirely artificial. The architectural setting of these practices is also of interest. The archaeological contexts of the assemblages under discussion indicate that food consumption and libations took place in a variety of spaces within habitation sites: in lustral basins (Knossos, Sphakianakis plot; Palaikastro, Block B), perhaps in a small ground-floor room with a bench (Pseira, Building AB), in another such room without a bench (Phaistos, Chalara North), and on the upper floors of buildings (Pseira, Building AF). The preparation of food or other substances used in rituals occurred on both the ground floor and the upper floor. If the storage of vessels took place in the vicinity of the spaces where ritual activities occurred, the rituals seem to have occurred frequently on upper floors (Pseira, Buildings BT, BQ; Gournia, Houses Ac, Cm; Knossos, Royal Road North; Sklavokampos), and somewhat less often on the ground floor (Zominthos; Tylissos, House A; Malia, House Ζβ; Phaistos, Building XLIII). It is fair to conclude that the practices identified took place in a variety of domestic spaces, including rooms traditionally characterized as shrines/cult rooms and spaces that do not fall in this category. Bull iconography renders the everyday domestic practices of food preparation, eating, and (especially) drinking as ritual practices, even when nothing else points to cultic activity. The ritual nature of these practices can be more or less pronounced, depending on the number and qualities of the objects used in them as well as their architectural setting. If a ceremony

38. Some of the ritual activities took place within domestic units, as I argue here, while others occurred outside, in public settlement areas or extra-urban sanctuaries, as emphasized by Koehl (2006, pp. 306–309, 329–332).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e e l u s i v e d o m e s t i c s h r i n e i n n e o pa l at i a l c r e t e

231

took place at Acropoli Mediana (where only a bull rhyton was present) or at House Cm at Gournia (where there was a bull rhyton plus a few other conical and piriform rhyta), its degree of ritualization appears to have been lower than that of the ceremony in Building AF North at Pseira, where both a bull rhyton and a stone chalice were used. The ritualization of similar practices is intensified further in the house of the Sphakianakis plot at Knossos, since there they occurred in association with a lustral basin. And, if drinking ceremonies did occur on the upper floor of the Royal Road North house at Knossos, as I propose, the ritual character of the events is elevated to a real climax with the use of the stone bull rhyton, the libation tables, and the portable set of horns of consecration. Vessels with bull representations are only one of the elements used in Neopalatial religious practices, but the examination of their contexts shows that cult elements appear to be deeply embedded in some of the most basic facets of domestic life in Neopalatial Crete. Domestic shrines of some kind may have indeed existed in houses, but it is certainly clear that they were not the only aspect of domestic cult.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 21

Fl u i d an d F l e x i b l e : Re v i s i t i n g t h e Ve r nac u l ar Trad i t i on on B r on z e A g e C re t e, Th e ra, an d C y p ru s by Louise A. Hitchcock Studies of nonpalatial Minoan villas and houses as well as Cypriot vernacular and elite domestic architecture demonstrate a tendency to arrange rooms radially around a central room that served as the circulation hub.1 This central room also frequently served as the main gathering area of the structure and could be used for work, rest, socializing, and ritual.2 Various names given to this type of ground plan include “pi-shaped” and “tripartite” for Cyprus,3 and “square-within-a-square,”4 “square room with a column,”5 and “vernacular hall” for Crete. Whitelaw’s ongoing study of the settlement at Myrtos Phournou Koryphi on Crete (Fig. 21.1) places the architecture there within this vernacular category, which also includes House A from Neolithic Knossos, thus extending this tradition from the Neolithic through the Neopalatial period.6 Hershenson has reinforced observations regarding the stability of the Cretan tradition, extending it to multihousehold complexes at Gournia and Trypiti, while concluding that the large central hall served as a multifunctional focal room.7 This paper contributes further observations about particular examples of this architectural type by drawing attention to the occurrence and cultural significance of the form beyond Crete on both Thera and Cyprus, and by discussing how this module could be incorporated into larger buildings on Crete. Examples from Cyprus show that this plan occurs there as early as the Middle Cypriot (MC) period and continues through the Late Cypriot (LC) IIC period. 1. My thanks go to Kevin Glowacki and Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan for the opportunity to participate in the ΣΤΕΓΑ colloquium. Carolyn Aslan provided a copy of her unpublished paper. Todd Whitelaw provided me with a copy of his illustration of Minoan houses employing the plan discussed in this paper. Brian O’Neill helped with the layout and design of images for the poster and the publication. A Fulbright Fellowship in 1999–2000 supported my initial research on Cyprus. Attendance

at ΣΤΕΓΑ and the final write-up of the paper at the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) was funded by a University of Melbourne Early Career Research Grant. Any errors of fact or interpretation are entirely my responsibility. 2. As detailed in Preziosi 1983; Michailidou 1987. Pelon (1966, p. 566) may have been the first to remark on this organizational principle with regard to the house at Ayia Varvara at Malia. Palyvou (1999, p. 612) notes its

dimensions as ca. 5 x 5 m. 3. Wright 1992b, p. 275; Aslan 1999. 4. Preziosi 1983, p. 19. 5. Michailidou 1987. 6. Whitelaw 1994; also, see PM II:1, pp. 17–21, fig. 8A for House A. 7. Hershenson 1996; Preziosi (1983) in particular stresses that this form could take on a variety of functions. Michailidou (1987) emphasizes the notion of a gathering place, while providing the widest range of examples.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

234

louise a. hitchcock

m

Figure 21.1. Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, Block A, plan. L. A. Hitch-

cock, after Sanders 1990, p. 66, fig. 5.8

This architectural design will be referred to here alternately as the SWAS (square-within-a-square) or “vernacular hall” plan. It is clear that the actual structures employing the SWAS plan exhibit as much variability as our names for them. This variability is exhibited through differences in construction details, decoration, circulation (as achieved through variation in the placement of doorways), use, artifact distribution, and contextual relationships with and within other structures. Yet, the continued incorporation of a central circulation hub and the absence of corridors remains a basic similarity that distinguishes them from features typically associated with more complex, elite structures. The absence of corridors is particularly significant, because corridors enhance privacy by allowing agents to bypass rooms while circulating about a building, rather than depending on rooms to facilitate movement. Corridors are an important characteristic of monumental or “palatial” buildings on Crete and to a lesser extent on Cyprus, as at Kalavassos-Ayios Dimitrios, Building X.8

Exa mples of Variabi li t y Michailidou has documented 39 examples of the “vernacular hall” form on Thera and on Crete, including examples from Palaikastro, Ayioi Theodoroi, Tou Vrachnou o Lakkos, Zakros, Malia, and Gournia, as well as the house model from Archanes.9 Hershenson has focused on its appearance in settlements, as at Gournia and Trypiti.10 In highlighting its plan and circulatory arrangement, Michailidou has shown that the Archanes model is 8. South 1984, p. 20; 1988, p. 225. 9. Michailidou 1987. See also the recent study of Klimataria-Manares by Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, and

Kanellopoulos (2005). For Malia House Δα, see the contribution by Schmid in

this volume (Chap. 10). 10. Hershenson 1996.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

v e r n a c u l a r t r a d i t i o n o n c r e t e , t h e r a , a n d c y p r u s 235

Figure 21.2. Tou Vrachnou o Lakkos, house plan. B. O’Neill, after Preziosi 1983, p. 221, fig. I.8

an important document for transmitting cultural knowledge about Minoan planning and for providing archaeologists with additional details on the disposition of the upper story of a Minoan house.11 Although Michailidou concluded that the room with the column was both the building’s circulatory hub and main reception room, Preziosi has observed that the space could have been left open to serve as a courtyard.12 He cites the example of Tou Vrachnou o Lakkos (Fig. 21.2), a Middle Minoan (MM) IB/II house located near the modern village of Kouses, south of Phaistos. In instances where the central room was left open, it might still serve as both a gathering and circulatory area. At Tou Vrachnou, the smaller rooms do not communicate with each other, but in another example investigated by Preziosi at the MM III structure at Rousses in East Crete near Chondros Viannou, three out of four rooms were interconnected. Despite the differences in circulation pattern, in both buildings the rooms were laid out as mirror images of one another.13 Differences in function characterize both structures, and the finds indicate that the Rousses structure served as a ritual building.14 Thus, the SWAS formed a basic template that could be modified and embellished to suit local needs.

The Square-With in-A-Square as a Module Earlier work illustrated—but did not elaborate on—how the basic “vernacular hall” or SWAS form was used as a module that could be modified through augmentation or subdivided to result in the more complicated forms found in Neopalatial “villas.”15 A module is defined here as a basic and repeated design element used in the composition of a larger structure.16 11. Michailidou 1987, p. 510, fig. 1; also Palyvou 1987, p. 198, for an analysis of its circulation system. Waterhouse (1983, pp. 311–312) is convinced that it realistically details a Minoan house. For the primary publication, see Lebessi 1976.

12. Preziosi 1983, pp. 12–27. 13. Preziosi 1971, p. 139. 14. Daux 1960, pp. 826–828. 15. Whitelaw (1994) illustrates but does not discuss the modularity of the form, while Michailidou (1987) and Preziosi (1983) emphasize typology

and function. Michailidou (1987), however, discusses several examples in which this form is found in larger villas, most notably Palaikastro House B. 16. As employed by Palaima and Wright 1985, p. 254. On the social significance of modularity, see Preziosi 2003.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

236

louise a. hitchcock

Figure 21.3. Knossos, House of the Frescoes, plan. B. O’Neill, after Preziosi

1983, p. 354, fig. IV:8.A

Figure 21.4. Malia, House Δα, plan. B. O’Neill, after Preziosi 1983, p. 364, fig. IV.11.A

Such elaboration occurs in the House of the Frescoes at Knossos (Fig. 21.3), where the central hub is divided by a partition wall; at House Δα at Malia (Fig. 21.4), where a “lustral basin” was added to the central hub, the side chambers made larger, and pier-and-door partitions took the place of walls; and at Tylissos A (Fig. 21.5), where this core element has been subdivided to create a Minoan pier-and-door partition hall and its side chambers.17 Undoubtedly, a thorough analysis of Neopalatial elite buildings could document more examples of such augmentation, and as we shall see, this form could also be incorporated modularly into larger structures. Rooms 43–45 and 47 in the Workshop Unit of the south wing (Fig. 21.6) of the Palace at Kato Zakros demonstrate that the SWAS plan could also be used as a module within a larger court-centered building. Its rooms are believed to have been devoted to work activities and

17. On pier-and-door partition halls, see Driessen 1982; Marinatos and Hägg 1986; Hitchcock 1994. For House Δα at Malia, see also BradferBurdet and Pomadère (this volume, Chap. 9).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

v e r n a c u l a r t r a d i t i o n o n c r e t e , t h e r a , a n d c y p r u s 237

Figure 21.5. Tylissos, House A, plan. L. A. Hitchcock, after Hazzidakis 1934, pl. 6

Figure 21.6. Kato Zakros, Workshop Unit of the south wing of the Palace, plan. B. O’Neill, after Platon [1971] 1985,

p. 211, fig. XLII

18. Platon [1971] 1985, pp. 210– 221; also Michailidou 1987, pp. 510– 512, fig. 6.

m manufacturing or storage as suggested by the finds, which include clay grills, stone vessels, unworked stone, loomweights, and sheets of metal.18 It is notable that this group of rooms does not communicate directly with the rest of the building and is segregated from the west wing by more than half of the length of the central court, providing one example of how access

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

238

louise a. hitchcock

to and within Minoan structures was simultaneously highly controlled and variable.19 Similarly, a large hall with a column takes the place of a pierand-door partition hall in the north part of the east wing of the “villa” at Makrygialos (Fig. 21.7), where a lack of finds indicates that it served as a reception area.20 It is tempting to suppose that the preference for the “vernacular hall” indicates a more humble origin for the building’s patron, but an alternative explanation might be that she/he was actively promoting identification with a long-held tradition in domestic architecture.

Figure 21.7. Makrygialos villa, plan.

L. A. Hitchcock, after Davaras 1997, p. 118, plan 1

Lo o k in g B eyon d Cre te The ra The plan of the West House at Akrotiri, Thera (Figs. 21.8, 21.9), both conforms to the SWAS or “vernacular hall” tradition and provides new information about the use of this plan through the extraordinary level of its preservation.21 At first glance, the size (ca. 150 m2), absence of ashlar 19. Hitchcock 2000, p. 87. 20. Davaras 1992b, 1997. As a court-centered building lacking other features associated with “palaces,” such

as ashlar masonry and pier-and-door partition halls, Makrygialos confounds the distinction between “villas” and “palaces.”

21. Michailidou 1987, p. 523. Palyvou (1999) points out less notable examples at Akrotiri, including Houses A, B, and D, and the house at Thirasia.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

v e r n a c u l a r t r a d i t i o n o n c r e t e , t h e r a , a n d c y p r u s 239

Figure 21.8. Akrotiri, West House, view from the south. Photo L. A.

Hitchcock

Figure 21.9. Akrotiri, West House, plan. B. O’Neill, after Palyvou 1988, pl. 8

m walls,22 and ground plan of the house associate it both with the vernacular tradition as well as with McEnroe’s type 2 house plan.23 However, the elaborate program of marine-themed frescoes decorating the upper floor indicate occupancy or use by the elite of Aegean society; such fresco decoration is a feature previously limited to McEnroe’s type 1 Minoan house.24 Thus, the evidence of the West House suggests that it is time either to reevaluate Minoan house typology or to employ a more flexible scheme through the quantification of formal features and techniques.25 22. There is some ashlar used to strengthen the corners and the area around the windows. See also Palyvou 1999, p. 611. 23. McEnroe 1982, pp. 7–10, fig. 2. 24. McEnroe 1982, p. 19, table 2,

only records the presence of frescoes for type 1 houses. The presence of frescoes in type 2 houses further reduces the heuristic value of McEnroe’s typology. 25. E.g., Driessen 1989–1990; Hitchcock and Preziosi 1994.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

240

louise a. hitchcock

m

Figure 21.10. Alambra, Houses 1–3, plan. B. O’Neill, after Coleman et al. 1996,

fig. 14

Cy pru s The SWAS plan has also been documented on Cyprus from at least the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) until the end of the Late Bronze Age (LBA), long after it ceased to be used on Crete. For example, Aslan has called attention to a series of MBA row houses from Alambra, which she suggests influenced LC IIC prestige architecture of the 13th century b.c. on Cyprus.26 She also observes that the interiors of the domestic structures at Alambra had small rooms subdivided from the main space, reaching the most developed form in House 3 (Fig. 21.10), where the rooms were arranged radially around a central space.27 As at Tou Vrachnou on Crete, this central space is thought to have served as a partially roofed court, and, in fact, cavities in the court show evidence of burning.28 House 3’s slightly more complex plan is also unusual for having a corridor off the entrance (as opposed to the entrance opening directly into a hall or vestibule), while cooking pots, other ware types, and stone tools indicate that it functioned as a dwelling. In addition to House 3 at Alambra, Wright has noted that regional variants of the SWAS plan are also found at MBA Kalopsida, and at LBA Kalavassos-Ayios Dimitrios and Pyla-Kokkinokremos.29 Additional LBA examples may be detected at Kourion-Bamboula in the south, possibly at Morphou-Toumba Tou Skourou in the north, and at Maa-Palaiokastro in the west. At Kalopsida, the SWAS pattern appears as a module for the south portion of a large multiroomed house with the large hall-type room again serving as a court. The court showed evidence of burning, while one of the side chambers (room 6) maintained a formal, raised hearth made out of lime concrete. Another side chamber (room 10) may have served as a pantry, perhaps even a work area.30 Areas 100–106 at Kalavassos-Ayios Dimitrios (Fig. 21.11) exemplifies the vernacular tradition in southern Cyprus in the LC IIC period. This suite of rooms, located in the “West Area” of the site, is the most complete of four distinct clusters that exhibit similar plans.31 Area 105–106 contained pithoi, copper slag, and a stone basin, suggesting that it served as an area devoted to industrial activities and/or storage rather than domestic activities.32 In addition, the SWAS pattern may have served as a module in the much larger Building III, where the central hall was subdivided by a spur

26. Wright 1992a, vol. 1, pp. 311– 314, 508; vol. 2, fig. 159:b; Aslan 1999. 27. Aslan 1999. 28. Detailed in Coleman et al. 1996, pp. 60–74, esp. pp. 68–69; see also Schaar 1985. 29. Wright 1992a, vol. 1, pp. 311– 314, 508; vol. 2, figs. 160, 165; Aslan 1999. For a synopsis of the architecture at the recently excavated site of Marki on Cyprus, see Frankel and Webb 2006. 30. As detailed in Gjerstad 1926, pp. 27–37. A bronze needle found on the bench in room 10 has been used to suggest the room was a workplace. The complex plan, formal hearth, and large quantity of pottery (including storage vessels and drinking cups) suggest that this building and its finds merit a more detailed investigation, which is unfortunately beyond the scope of this survey. 31. South 1980, pp. 42–44. 32. South 1980, pp. 43–44.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

v e r n a c u l a r t r a d i t i o n o n c r e t e , t h e r a , a n d c y p r u s 241

Figure 21.11. Kalavassos-Ayios Dimitrios, Areas 100–106, plan.

B. O’Neill, after South 1980, p. 43, fig. 6

wall to create two smaller rectangular rooms. This larger building was clearly important, and its rooms were devoted to the processing, storage, and perhaps even the distribution of liquids, as indicated by paved floors, a funnel, a collection of bronze anthropomorphic and zoomorphic weights; a Mycenaean pastoral-style krater and pits containing feasting debris indicate feasting or banqueting activity.33 Additional LBA examples can be found at Kourion-Bamboula in Houses E.I–III (LC IA) and House A VI (LC IIIA; Fig. 21.12).34 Each has a central circulatory area surrounded by smaller rooms on two or three sides. Although the houses were cleaned out and modified over a lengthy period of time, enough pottery and storage vessels were recorded to indicate their domestic character. It is also suggested by Weinberg that House B (13th century b.c.) at Morphou-Toumba Tou Skourou (L. 17.45 x p.W. 10.10 m) may have assumed this form.35 It may be of special significance that the SWAS plan occurs in structures dating to the end of the Bronze Age on Cyprus at Pyla-Kokkinokremos and Maa-Palaiokastro, because attempts have been made to associate both sites with Aegean “Sea Peoples.”36 Out of the four-and-a-half domestic structures excavated at Pyla-Kokkinokremos (dated to the final phase of LC IIC, ca. 1230 b.c.), complexes A (Fig. 21.13) and B conform to the SWAS plan,37 and they are comparable in both form and size to McEnroe’s type 3 Minoan house.38 Complexes C and D appear to be truncated variations of this design and incorporate a “but-and-ben” arrangement consisting of a roughly square space divided into two parts by a spur wall running down the middle, with an opening at one end.39 The finds, which include 33. South 1983, p. 102, fig. 3; Russell 1986, pp. 259–274. I have little doubt that final publication of the buildings on the site will reveal further examples of the “vernacular hall” plan. 34. As detailed by Weinberg 1983, pp. 52–59, esp. p. 53. 35. Weinberg 1983, p. 57. However, an east–west corridor bisects what may be the central hall at the north end, the

southern end is badly disturbed, and it is not possible to further study the site at this time, as archaeological activity in northern Cyprus is illegal. For the plan and discussion, see Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, pp. 99–131, esp. pp. 100–101. Tantalizingly, a LM IIIB octopus krater was found in the doorway between rooms 1 and 3, and a Mycenaean IIIC bowl found under a pithos dates to the

latest phase of House B. 36. Most recently Karageorghis 1998, 2000, 2002. 37. Dikaios 1971, pp. 896–897. For details on the architecture and plan, see Demas 1984a, esp. p. 211; 1984b. 38. McEnroe 1982, pp. 10–13, fig. 3. 39. Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, pp. 57–58.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

242

louise a. hitchcock

3

2

1

6

5

4 Figure 21.12. Kourion-Bamboula, House A, plan. B. O’Neill, after Wein-

m

3

2

6

berg 1983, fig. 9

4

7 Complex A

8

m

Figure 21.13. Pyla-Kokkinokremos, plan. B. O’Neill, after Karageorghis and

Demas 1984, p. 25, fig. 4

stone tools, stone vessels, cooking vessels, storage jars, and ceremonial drinking vessels, are primarily of a domestic character, but several distinct hoards of precious metals—including gold, silver, and bronze—were also found on the site.40 A similar plan characterizes Building I (Figs. 21.14, 21.15), a LC IIC:2 house located at the north end of the site of Maa-Palaiokastro. It is one of only two buildings on the site that employs ashlar masonry in its construction to any extent and it distinctively uses the SWAS plan during the first habitation period (floor II).41 Finds from the building consist of an unremarkable domestic assemblage, including some 10 stone tools, two calcarenite basins, and a small assortment of Cypriot domestic pots and 40. Detailed in Karageorghis and Demas 1984. The site is well published and merits a functional and experiential reexamination. A reconstruction of the routines of the inhabitants through analysis of circulation patterns and artifact distribution may go further in helping us understand the way they perceived their own identities than trying to im-

pose an ethnic identity upon the site based on the presence of a proportion of LM IIIB pots, which may be imports (contra Karageorghis 2002, pp. 75–76). Indeed, Karageorghis and Demas’s (1984, pp. 50–52) bias is indicated by statements that LM III storage vessels and stirrup jars were “brought to the island by immigrant Cretans,” whereas

the four Canaanite jars were “imported”; the social significance of the local Cypriot pottery is not considered. 41. The ashlar is believed to be reused. The other building using ashlar masonry is a two-roomed tower just north of Building I that is constructed on the same orientation, as detailed by Demas (1988, pp. 15–16).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

v e r n a c u l a r t r a d i t i o n o n c r e t e , t h e r a , a n d c y p r u s 243

Figure 21.14. Maa-Palaiokastro, Building I, view from the south. Photo L. A. Hitchcock

Figure 21.15. Maa-Palaiokastro, Building I, plan. B. O’Neill, after

Karageorghis and Demas 1988, plan 5

42. Karageorghis and Demas 1988, pp. 101–103. 43. Demas 1988, p. 55. 44. On the megaroid form, see Preziosi 1983, pp. 177–193. For the “megara” at Chalamenos, see Tsipopolou, this volume (Chap. 29). 45. Wiener 1984. 46. Hall 1995; Jones 1997. 47. Palyvou 1999.

Mycenaean IIIC tableware.42 The thick (ca. 1 m) walls suggest an upper story with a staircase in room 23, and its northwest orientation further distinguishes it from other buildings on the site, which are oriented to the northeast. 43 For example, Buildings II and IV are also significantly different from Building I in layout and arrangement. Building II is an axial structure with a rectangular hall, a central doorway in the short side, a central hearth, and a series of side chambers recalling the “megaroid” form found in Postpalatial domestic units on Crete (as known from Kavousi Vronda and Chalasmenos) and in similar structures on the Greek mainland, which are associated with Mycenaean culture.44 Several of the site’s large halls with smaller associated rooms, such as Building IV, contained hearths. Thus, the SWAS plan favored for Building I represents a different tradition than that found in the other buildings on the site.

S ig n i fi can ce of th e Sq uare -W i t h in -A Sq uare P lan O u ts id e C re te In the past, the occurrence of similar types of artifacts in neighboring cultures was explained as resulting from cultural diffusion, colonialism, and even a “Versailles” effect.45 In contrast, contemporary research that looks for signs of ethnicity in the archaeological record advocates assigning identity based on the full repertoire of material culture and determining which artifacts (if any) have become emblematic of cultural boundaries.46 Interpreting the appearance of the SWAS plan in the architecture of island cultures near Crete requires that the circumstances for each case be contextualized. In the case of Akrotiri, Palyvou has shown that the architecture was deliberately modified to give it a more Minoan form, but the execution shows particularities that she regards as local.47 One example of a deviation from Cretan Minoan-style features is seen in the occurrence of pier-anddoor partitions without a light-well in the house known as Xeste 3. Signs of Minoan cultural influence are also seen at Akrotiri in decorative details such as figural frescoes and horns of consecration, which, along with the

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

244

louise a. hitchcock

already mentioned architectural features, are associated with the elite of Minoan society.48 A more nuanced approach to the interpretation of such constructions is to view them as part of a conscious strategy employed to promote prestige through the appropriation and display of the foreign and exotic; they legitimize the authority of those who constructed them.49 For example, the combination of a traditional Minoan-style house plan with various examples of maritime imagery (as in the West House) would have enhanced the prestige of the owner. It is interesting that what we perceive as a vernacular style of architecture became a symbol of prestige for the Bronze Age Therans. Understanding the appearance and continued deployment of the SWAS type of house plan on Cyprus is far more complicated. Although many Aegean features have been identified in Cypriot architecture of the 13th and 12th centuries b.c., the presence of the SWAS plan in vernacular architecture as early as the MBA argues against a specifically Minoan cultural influence.50 Coincidence in the rendering of what may be a generic form or a cultural inheritance from a common Anatolian origin for the Minoans and Cypriots of the MBA are two alternative explanations for its occurrence on Cyprus. Along with a cultural package of other features associated with an Anatolian origin, such as the reintroduction of cattle and urn burials of children, rectilinear houses first appear on Cyprus in the Early Bronze Age (EBA), marking a distinct change from the round houses of the Chalcolithic period.51 This change is attributed variously to migration by some, and by others to the conscious adoption of foreign elements by elites, but with general agreement that the new features orchestrate and promote new identities.52 The continuation of the SWAS form at Pyla and at Maa in the 13th century b.c. can be contrasted with the adoption of axial and rectilinear structures indicative of the mainland that also occur at Maa and Postpalatial sites in Crete, but not at Pyla. Demas has also pointed out that the houses at Pyla bear no comparison with those of the Greek mainland, where rectilinear halls are a hallmark of the Mycenaean Greeks.53 The continuity in the appearance of this house form, particularly in the most important building at Maa (as indicated by its prominent position near the city wall, liberal use of ashlar masonry, and distinct orientation), argues against the Mycenaean colonization of these sites as proposed by Karageorghis.54 The migration of small numbers of skilled workers in search of new patronage after the destructions of the Mycenaean palaces may also explain the local production of small amounts of Mycenaean IIIC pottery that appear alongside Cypriot pottery at these sites. In such a scenario, small-scale movements may have resulted in large-scale changes in domestic architecture.55 48. Hitchcock 1998. 49. See Feldman 2002 for the adoption of an “International Style” toward the end of the Bronze Age. 50. For a discussion of Aegean features in Cypriot architecture, see Åström 1980; Hägg 1991; Hadjisavvas and

Hadjisavva 1997; Hitchcock 2003, 2005. 51. For an Anatolian origin, see Frankel 2005, p. 21. For the changes from the round plan of Chalcolithic houses, see Swiny 1989; Frankel and Webb 1998. 52. For migration, see Frankel and

Webb 1998; Frankel 2005. For the deliberate adoption of foreign features, see Knapp 1993; Manning 1993. 53. Demas 1984a, p. 214. 54. Notably Karageorghis 1998, 2000, 2002. 55. Hitchcock 2005.

v e r n a c u l a r t r a d i t i o n o n c r e t e , t h e r a , a n d c y p r u s 245

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Con clu s ion This paper has attempted to reexamine the radial or “square-within-asquare” plan with the purpose of comparing its fluid manifestations, its flexible uses, its modular features, the significance of its appearance, the motivations behind its adoption, and the perseverance of its use on Crete, Thera, and Cyprus. The persistence of this form on Cyprus, in particular, is significant because it represents the preference for a local Cypriot building style at the end of the Bronze Age over the rectilinear hall associated with colonization by Mycenaean Greeks. In contrast, the adoption of the SWAS plan at Thera may be seen as a conscious strategy for promoting elite identities through the adoption of a foreign (i.e., Minoan) architectural style. The “vernacular hall” plan itself has a long history, but it is the decorative details, circulation modifications, and local needs that played key roles in determining the function of the structure employing this plan. Therefore, the SWAS plan can be viewed as a modifiable template that could be used to create “one of a kind” houses whose multifunctionality played a role in shaping the daily routines of the inhabitants on Crete, Thera, and Cyprus.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 22

D e f i n i n g “ D om e st i c ” A r c h i t e c t u r e an d “ H ou s e hol d” A s s e m b l ag e s i n L at e B r on z e A g e K n os s os by Eleni Hatzaki

1. Whitelaw 2001, pp. 28–29, figs. 2.9, 2.10; 2004, p. 151, fig. 10.3. 2. Driessen 2002. For storage, see Christakis 2003, 2004. For administration, see Olivier 1994; Schoep 2004; Weingarten 1994. For workshops, see Warren 1967; Carter 2004. For ceremonial activities, see Hägg and Marinatos 1987; Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002; Hatzaki 2009. For feasting activities, see Day and Wilson 2002; Hatzaki 2009. 3. Hatzaki 1996; Hamilakis 2002. 4. This paper was written while I was Assistant Director of the British School at Athens, with minor revisions made while Assistant Professor in the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati. I am particularly grateful to Gerald Cadogan, Kostis Christakis, Anna Lucia D’Agata, Valasia Isaakiou, Jeremy Rutter, and Peter Warren for reading and commenting on this paper. Todd Whitelaw is warmly thanked for providing a digital copy of Fig. 22.1, to which the locations of excavated buildings were added; Hector Catling and the BSA are thanked for permission to reproduce the plans of the Acropolis Houses modified in Figs. 22.2 and 22.3; calculations for Figs. 22.4 and 22.5 are based on the plan in Foutou 1997. 5. Allison 1999c.

Knossos was the largest settlement on Crete throughout the Bronze Age, and, rightly or wrongly, it is often taken as a point of reference for highlighting similarities or differences in material culture at an intra-island level.1 The site was, and still remains, dominated by the Kephala hill and its monumental central court building, the largest of its kind, which was appropriately named the “Palace” by its excavator, Arthur Evans. Despite recent attempts to downgrade some of its core elements and activities by suggesting alternative functions, particularly for the Neopalatial period, architectural and artifactual data suggest that storage, administration, workshop, ceremonial, and feasting activities were central to its existence in the Neopalatial and Final Palatial periods.2 The various architectural forms of the Palace and its associated contents have had a profound impact on perceptions of the town of Knossos, since this monumental building has become central to any intrasite discussion. Perhaps this Palace-centric approach is responsible for the overall lack of discussion of the household in urban Knossos. Instead, any aspect of its material culture that involves elite groups, particularly in relation to ostentatious display predominantly through architecture and artifacts and ritual behavior, as a strategy for factional competition or assimilation of a palatial paradigm, has dominated the discussion of the town since Evans’s time.3 Unlike other sites where elites can be difficult to identify, at Knossos, for reasons to be explained below, they are abundant and difficult to avoid. In this paper I will shift attention away from the Palace and discuss, diachronically, the elite and non-elite domestic architecture and associated assemblages and their relationship to the neglected field of the household.4 Through a diachronic perspective, the house, which is by definition a unit of social space, can provide an additional means of tracing changes in the social and political structures of Late Bronze Age Crete where Knossos was a protagonist.5 For Knossos, the bulk of the available data derives from excavations conducted in the first half of the 20th century under diverse research agendas and recovery protocols (meaning that the data sets are often inadequate for defining and comparing household activities). Other evidence consists of material derived from partially excavated or badly preserved buildings as well as structures that still remain not fully published.

248

e l e n i h at z a k i

Me t h o d o lo g ica l Consi d erat i on s

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

The Ho u sehold and the Ar c haeol o gi c al Rec ord As a social unit, a household is defined on the basis of relationships depending on co-residence, kinship, and economic cooperation. Households are also dynamic, flexible, and subject to constant change.6 Elements that sustain the household but also act as catalysts and bring forth change include the cycle of life, ecological and economic conditions, religious beliefs, division of labor and goods, and gender roles. The composition of the household, being of paramount importance, obviously affects the use of space and resources.7 In this way, households are an ethnographic phenomenon: archaeologists do not dig up households, but rather they excavate places where people lived and the artifacts and ecofacts that were used or intended to be used.8 Essentially, archaeology can provide a view into household behavior through material culture. The transient nature of the household is acknowledged as a crucial element in identifying such activities.

The Impact of E va ns ’s E xc avat ion C ho i c e s Over 100 years after the first pick was laid into the Kephala hill, the study of Knossos has developed in the shadow of Evans’s scholarship. In the case of the Late Bronze Age town, an apparent “reality” of isolated elite buildings floating in a largely unexplored landscape has shaped perceptions of its urban development and general appearance (Fig. 22.1).9 In fact, in the first two years of excavations at Knossos, Evans found over thirty buildings through test pits, which implies that he selected with care those that were eventually fully explored.10 It is no coincidence that these were in a good state of preservation and lavishly adorned with dressed limestone and gypsum: Evans was focusing on buildings that were assimilating palatial prototypes and had the potential of being architecturally and artifactually rewarding. Clearly not interested in excavating a cluster of “humbler” units, Evans, through 30 years of active fieldwork, programmatically pursued the discovery of elite architecture, which he presented in lavishly illustrated preliminary reports or in The Palace of Minos. Yet, the rarity of such elite buildings can perhaps be appreciated in light of D. G. Hogarth’s excavations in 1900: of 300 test pits in the valley, the so-called Hogarth’s Houses south of the Palace on Gypsades hill were the nearest he got to excavating elite architecture.11 Although numerous systematic and rescue excavations have taken place since, it is mainly the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site that has provided a window into a network of streets and houses, demonstrating that elite buildings are not the only type of structure to be expected at Knossos.12 Indeed, the results of Evans’s and Hogarth’s test pits throughout the valley suggest that elite buildings were exceptional and apparently rare. Still, the current “visual reality” of urban Knossos is elite, and it appears awkwardly different from urban centers such as Palaikastro, Gournia, and Zakros, where large sections of the town have been excavated and houses and streets are still visible.

6. Wilk 1991. 7. Kooreman and Wunderink 1997. 8. Allison 1999b, p. 2. 9. PM II:1, p. 140, fig. 71. 10. Fotou 2004. 11. Hogarth 1899–1900. 12. Warren 1980–1981, 1982–1983.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

architecture and assemblages in lba knossos

VDS

MUM & LP RV

SEX HF

AH

SWH SEH & HCS

SH

CS VH

HH HHP

TT

Key: AH (Acropolis Houses), CS (Caravanserai), HCS (House of the Chancel Screen), HH (Hogarth’s Houses), HHP (House of the High Priest), LP (Little Palace), MUM (Minoan Unexplored Mansion), RV (Royal Villa), SEX (Stratigraphical Museum Extension site), SH (South House), SEH (South-East House), SWH (South-West Houses), TT (Temple Tomb), VH (Vlichia House), VDS (Villa Dionysos site)

Figure 22.1 Neopalatial Knossos, showing elite and non-elite sectors of the town and associated buildings (north at top). After Hood and Smyth

1981, Whitelaw 2001

249

250

e l e n i h at z a k i

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

The Making of the Ar c haeol o gi c al Rec ord Site formation processes are factors of crucial importance to the study of material culture, especially for a multiperiod site like Knossos, which is estimated to have had a population of ca. 13,500–18,000 in the Neopalatial period—a number that undoubtedly had a profound impact on the site’s taphonomic processes.13 Buildings can remain in use over several hundred years, during which repairs and modifications recur regularly to accommodate changing needs. Artifacts are also reused occasionally, and thus they can be found in chronological contexts different from their time of manufacture and original consumption.14 Abandoned dwellings can be converted to other uses (such as shrines, places for livestock, or rubbish dumps) or they can become easy sources of building material.15 The construction of new buildings might also require the complete or partial demolition of the existing ones or their incorporation into the new structures: and what remains is often only a part of the original ground plan.16 An awareness of the limitations imposed on the archaeological record by site formation processes is prevalent in excavation reports of the post-Evans era in the Knossos valley, but the assumption that readers are familiar with or recognize such fundamental limitations has led to little overt discussion of this topic.17 A common trend in the reports (preliminary or final) is to present a clear sequence of events that focuses primarily on the buildings, essentially writing “a historical narrative” through site formation processes by using events as the likely catalysts.18 This trend can be traced back to Evans. The two types of event most commonly identified are abandonment and fire destruction resulting from either an earthquake or intentional human action. Structured deposition, ritual abandonment, intentional fragmentation, and refuse deposition are taphonomic processes that have received little attention to date.19 More broadly, ritual activities and processes have not been associated with the study of domestic space, an area dominated by the practical matters of everyday life.20 13. Whitelaw 2004. 14. E.g., the Minoan stone lamps and bowls found at the entrance to the Spring Chamber of the Caravanserai (PM II:1, p. 124, fig. 59). There is no evidence to link these objects, which were most probably found in a Subminoan context (PM II:1, p. 134, fig. 68, p. 136, fig. 69), with the Neopalatial phase of use of the building (contra Adams 2004b, p. 201, fig. 4). 15. E.g., the Unexplored Mansion from LM IIIA2 onward was regularly looted for its building materials (Hatzaki 2005b); in LM IIIB early it became a shrine (Popham 1984; Hatzaki 2005b). 16. E.g., the various phases of the

Acropolis Houses (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979), as well as the North House and South House at the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site (Warren 1980–1981, 1982–1983). 17. Schiffer 1987; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999. 18. E.g., Popham 1984, pp. 261– 264; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, pp. 65, 138–170; Macdonald 2005; Hatzaki 2005a. 19. On structured deposition, see Richards and Thomas 1984; on ritual abandonment, Nelson 2000; on intentional fragmentation, Chapman 2000; on refuse deposition, McOmish 1996 and Needham and Spence 1997. 20. Bradley 2005, p. xiii.

architecture and assemblages in lba knossos

251

Fr om E l i te to N on -el i te Ar c h i tec t u r e at U r ba n K no sso s

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Regardless of their intended function and size, certain buildings share a distinct “palatial” architectural vocabulary. The use of specific building materials and techniques, which are labor intensive and require specialized craftwork, is not arbitrary.21 Such buildings form the elite core sector of the town and represent the outcome of conscious decisions made by masons, whose skill is manifested in a striking multivocality of architectural design.22 Only a limited range of “palatial” features were copied in buildings located both in high- and low-density parts of the settlement; this emulation was largely limited to the use of gypsum or ironstone as paving. Consequently, a sharp division between elites and non-elites is immediately evident in the finished architectural product and in the ability to secure the services of particular groups of knowledgeable masons to create that product. Beyond this broad division, differentiations are further marked by location within the settlement, building size, and associated assemblages. Ideally, artifactual and ecofactual evidence should form an element central to such identifications, but because many buildings at Knossos continued to be used from the Neopalatial to the Final Palatial and Postpalatial periods, creating their varied stratigraphical microhistories, artifacts should be treated with caution in order to avoid misinterpretations.23

K no s s i an Materia l C u lt u re an d H ous eh old B ehav i or Neopal at i al Kn o sso s The problems in defining domestic architecture and household activities are essentially twofold. The integrated study of elite architecture and artifactual and bioarchaeological data sets is, with the exception of the Unexplored Mansion, almost impossible to pursue because of the unsatisfactory standards of the archaeological recording;24 and any attempts to discuss the function of rooms such as the “pillar crypt,” the “Minoan hall,” and the “lustral basin” are laden with preconceived assumptions that are by now well embedded in the literature.25 To complicate matters even more, the archetypal versions for these rooms are found in the Palace, a building that has been overwhelmed by nondomestic interpretations of any and every feature. On the other hand, Knossian non-elite architecture, which has been investigated in more recent excavations and is distinguished by 21. These include gypsum slabs for paving and dados, ashlar masonry, multiblock-type pillars, low-block-type piers (Shaw 1971, pp. 170–173), polythyra, vertical timber reenforcements in rubble masonry, colonnades, and frescoes. 22. Tzaganika 2005.

23. E.g., Neopalatial artifactual data sets from buildings used in the Final Palatial and Postpalatial periods are either limited, as in the case of the Little Palace (Hatzaki 2005a) and the Unexplored Mansion (Popham 1984), or nonexistent, as in the case of the Royal Villa and the South-East House

(Popham 1970). 24. The faunal material from the Unexplored Mansion is currently under study by V. Isaakidou; cf. Popham 1984. 25. For similar problems in Classical archaeology, see Allison 1999a; Ault and Nevett 1999.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

252

e l e n i h at z a k i

the absence of palatial features in design and execution, can form an ideal medium for defining domestic activities, mainly through the analysis of household assemblages. One example of non-elite architecture in a low-density sector of Knossos is the partially preserved MM III house located on the southeast slopes of the acropolis (Fig. 22.2).26 From a reexamination of the excavation records and a reassessment of the artifactual data, I propose that the west, south, and north rooms, together with the so-called basement, were part of a single architectural unit.27 The latter room can be identified with a lustral basin on the basis of comparable evidence from the more recently excavated Neopalatial non-elite house at Vlychia.28 The west room was used for storage of a variety of diverse commodities placed, however, in roughly homogeneous groups.29 A small concentration of vessels that fell from an 26. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979. 27. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 4, fig. 3. Catling considered the basement the only surviving part of an earlier building on the site, mainly because of the earlier date (MM IIIA) assigned to the associated Deposits A and B. 28. Although in the excavation note-

books Catling refers to this room as a “lustral basin,” this attribution was omitted from the publication—perhaps because of its small size and the lack of elite architectural elements such as gypsum dados or steps; for a comparable identification, see Driessen and Macdonald 1997, pp. 161–162. For the excavations at Vlychia, see Grammatikaki 1992, pp. 556–557, fig. 2, pl. 161:a, b.

Figure 22.2 MM III Acropolis House, showing distribution of artifacts on ground floor. After Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979

29. In the West Room, lime (powdered calcium carbonate) was stored in a permanent fixture, one side of which was blocked by a large tripod cooking pot, also filled with lime, the feet of which had been cut off before installation. This permanent bin separated the room in two halves, a division that is also reflected in the distribution of clay vessels. The south part contained

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

architecture and assemblages in lba knossos

253

Figure 22.3 MM III Acropolis House, showing distribution of artifacts from upper floor. After

upper floor30 suggests that this room was used, at least, for the consumption of food and drink; and the room’s available space could have accommodated approximately 12 standing individuals (Fig. 22.3).31 The contents of the lustral basin reveal a very different pattern.32 Unless the presence of numerous drinking vessels represents the repetition of a consumption event involving a small group of people (where after each occasion the conical cups were left in situ), this ceramic deposit could suggest the active participation of about 75 individuals at a single occasion. A substantial dump of broken pottery found stratified above essentially sealed off the contents of the already dismantled lustral basin.33 This deposit, which included a high percentage of conical cups, could also be the result of a structured or ritual deposition associated with the dismantling of the lustral basin.34 Despite the fragmentary nature of the evidence, the diverse assemblages from this

medium-size storage vessels, ovalmouthed amphoras and jugs, implying storage of foodstuffs, whereas the north half contained predominantly small numbers of tableware. A lamp, a stone tool, and the lower part of a columnar lamp are the only other types of objects kept in this room (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, pp. 4–10, fig. 6, pp. 34–39, pl. 2:a, b). 30. A tripod cooking pot, two coni-

cal cups, a clay lamp, and a small jug; Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 5, fig. 5, pp. 39–42, figs. 27, 28, pl. 2:e. 31. Calculation based on 0.743 m2 (8 ft2) per person “milling about in a room” (Gesell 1987, p. 123, n. 2). This upper-floor room would have had essentially the same dimensions as the West Room along the ground floor (9 m2). In comparison, the lustral basin, measuring ca. 3 m2, including the stair-

Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979

case (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 12, fig. 9), barely would have fit four people. 32. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, pp. 10–13, fig. 9, pp. 21–33, pl. 2:c, d. 33. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, pp. 42–44, 73, fig. 47. 34. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, pp. 72–73, fig. 47:deposit E; especially the counts of “ware” 10.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

254

e l e n i h at z a k i

house provide a window into the microhistory of household behavior, both through storage practices and a series of symbolically charged actions that were performed before and after its demolition.35 These took place around one room, the lustral basin, which became the focal point of ritual activity. Although a reassessment of the function of a series of deposits assigned to Middle Minoan (MM) III is beyond the scope of this paper, a nearby and roughly contemporary house could provide comparable evidence of intentional structured deposition in the form of over 80 nearly intact vessels found in a stone compartment, producing an interpretation other than that of site clearance, which was proposed by the excavator.36 Without undermining the importance of the Palace as a focal point for communal activities, the factual evidence from the MM III House on the Acropolis seems to indicate that feasting and other ceremonial activities involving more participants than the assumed household unit could have taken place in varied spatial and temporal contexts, well beyond the Palace.37 The complicated spatial distribution of artifacts and ecofacts along the ground and upper floor of the North House at the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site is particularly revealing for the use of the building in Late Minoan (LM) IB.38 The remains of dismembered children, clusters of drinking vessels, the stone tool cluster, the cup rhyta, and loomweights stored in pithoi on the upper floor together with a series of smaller storage vessels, constitute a remarkable assemblage, which, judging from the rarity of its ecofacts, has not been considered representative of “normal” household activities. More than any other primary deposit at Knossos, the contents of the North House highlight the importance of assemblages, especially because the architecture—when viewed in isolation—does not provide any clues as to the activities that took place soon before the building’s destruction by fire. Indeed, a comparison of the North House with the contemporary LM I House on the Acropolis39 reveals some striking similarities: both have cup rhyta (but in different quantities),40 Dark-on-Light decorated tableware,41 decorated stirrup jars,42 loomweights stored in pithoi,43 and both have a similar kind of jar in a cooking fabric.44 But one assemblage is undoubtedly considered to be domestic whereas the other is not. Apart from a difference in location—one at the outskirts of the town, the other closer to the elite core sector45—and the deposits of human bones, the only 35. Deposits A and B from the lustral basin, Deposit C from the West room, Deposit D from the corresponding upper-floor room, and Deposit E, which sealed off the dismantled lustral basin and its contents, i.e., Deposits A and B (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979). 36. Driessen and Macdonald 1997, p. 161; Macdonald 2004; Hatzaki forthcoming a. 37. Relevant to this discussion is the relationship between settlement population and floor area. Naroll (1962) proposed 10 m2 per adult. For similar

observations concerning ceremonial activities and the replication of palatial symbols in domestic contexts at MM III Phaistos, see Girella, this volume (Chap. 8). 38. Warren 1980–1981; Wall, Musgrave, and Warren 1986. 39. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, pp. 13–17, fig. 11, p. 20, fig. 15, pp. 44–56, pl. 2:g. 40. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 45, fig. 31.250, 251; Warren 1980–1981, p. 82, figs. 27, 28, p. 84, fig. 34. 41. Catling, Catling, and Smyth

1979, p. 45, fig. 31:223, 226, 227; Wall, Musgrave, and Warren 1986, pl. 25:a, b. 42. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 45, fig. 31:224, 225; Warren 1980–1981, p. 82, fig. 25. 43. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 16, fig. 12, p. 20, fig. 15, pp. 62–65, figs. 43–44; Warren 1980– 1981, p. 81, fig. 22, p. 86, fig. 42. 44. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 57, fig. 40; Warren 1980–1981, p. 82, fig. 26. 45. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 3, fig. 2; Warren 1980–1981, p. 73, fig. 1.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

architecture and assemblages in lba knossos

255

other (but major) differences are in the limited storage capacity of the LM I building in comparison with the North House and the absence of elite pottery in the “Special Palace Tradition.”46 Therefore, the context and transience in the archaeological record is of paramount importance to understanding household activities. It is widely acknowledged that, following the “Great Earthquake” of MM IIIB, extensive building activities resulted in the construction of several contemporary buildings in the core elite sector of the town, all of which share common features of design, materials, and techniques. Thanks to their excellent state of preservation and the detailed ground plans recorded by Evans, buildings such as the Little Palace, Royal Villa, South-East House, South House, House of the Chancel Screen, and House of the Frescoes have received diverse interpretations. Every possible reading has been suggested, from dependent elites imitating palatial forms, to competing elites engaged in factional competition—which in some cases even involved competing with their palatial archetype.47 Serious methodological problems arise, however, since little attention has been paid to differences in the size of specific architectural forms among elite buildings in the town, or, indeed, in comparison with the Palace itself. Equally problematic is the habit of grouping different types of buildings together for comparison, despite gross chronological and artifactual differences.48 In the same spirit, it seems to be far easier to identify ritual and ceremonial spaces than spaces related to the household, with the result that there have been suggestions that some of these buildings had only special “nondomestic” functions;49 and, in fact, several show similar or comparable dimensions and ground plans. Despite the overwhelming attention paid to these buildings, upper floors and their contents have not been discussed systematically, perhaps because of the lack of secure reconstructions.50 For example, the reconstruction of the Royal Villa as a three-story building suggests how careful the design was, and it may give us a window into the intentional (whether exclusive or multiple) uses of interior and exterior spaces.51 At the Royal Villa, taken here as a case study, the ratio of exterior to interior spaces per floor suggests different uses for each (Figs. 22.4–22.6). If stripped of their palatial finish (such as the fitted gypsum and ashlar walls), the basic units identified on the first floor consist of a roughly square room with a column in the middle (corresponding to a pillar room on the ground floor) and a rectangular room (corresponding to a Minoan hall or two smaller rooms on the ground floor) that find close parallels on the upper floors of several non-elite buildings at Knossos and beyond.52 46. Warren 1980–1981, pp. 85–87, figs. 40–41, 46. Due to the absence of pottery in the “Special Palace Tradition,” the LM I House on the Acropolis has been erroneously dated to LM IA (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, p. 162; Adams 2004b, pp. 197, 201–202, 208). 47. Hamilakis 2002; Adams 2004a. 48. Adams 2004a, p. 35, table 3;

2004b, p. 197, fig. 1, pp. 201–202, figs. 4–6, p. 208, fig. 11. 49. Betancourt and Marinatos 1997, pp. 92–95; Hood 1997; Walberg 1994; For the South House, see also Lloyd, this volume (Chap. 15). 50. For Chania, see Hallager 1990; for Akrotiri, see Michailidou 2001. 51. Fotou 1997, pp. 36–37, figs. 1, 2. 52. E.g., compare relevant rooms in

the Knossos Royal Villa, South House, House of the Chancel Screen, House of the Frescoes, South-East House, and House South-West of the South-West House, to the MM III Acropolis House, the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site North House, and the Akrotiri West House. See also Palyvou 2005.

256

e l e n i h at z a k i

Royal Villa: Exterior Areas per Floor in m2 95.7

100 49.5

80

0

10.6

Cb

CC

K

Ground Floor

East of East of D H,A,C

Roof

2nd Floor

Roof

1st Floor

Figure 22.4 Royal Villa: exterior areas per floor in square meters. E. Hatzaki

35

Royal Villa: Area of Interior Rooms per Floor in m2

Ground Floor

17.3

The placement of wood in relation to ashlar masonry and rubble walls suggests that its use in Minoan architecture was far from arbitrary.53 In the case of the pillar room in the Royal Villa, its location along the basement, abutting the cutting into the bedrock, and the use of ashlar walls and paving created a dark, pest-free, and “climate controlled” space ideal for storing sensitive commodities (possibly foodstuffs). In general, there is no artifactual evidence from Knossos to support the view that rooms with pillars were designed or used as shrines.54 Aside from room H of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion55—for which a room in the Palace at Galatas Pediada provides a comparison for design and proportions, and which, on its artifactual and bioarchaeological evidence, seems to have been a space dedicated to the preparation of food56—all other rooms with a pillar show some variation in size and even in the number of pillars.57 The presence of 200 conical cups, placed upside down on the floor of the two-pillared

4.1

9.4 IICa/a1 IID IIH

1st Floor

Roof

17.6 9.4 6.3 6 4.1

12

IEFGJ ICa-b ICa ICb ID IH ICa1 L IA

0

2.8

5

Ca1 Ca D H E G F Ja Jb

10

9.4 9.4

15

4.8 2.1 7.2 4.6

20

17.6 16.4

25

18.5

30

27.5

30

35 Square Meters m2

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

20

8.55

40

14.69

60 11.25

Square Meters m2

120

2nd Floor Roof

Figure 22.5 Royal Villa: interior ! rooms (excluding staircases) per floor in square meters. E. Hatzaki

53. Tzaganika 2005. 54. See also Christakis 2004, p. 305. 55. Popham 1984, pp. 109–111, pl. 2. 56. Rethemiotakis 1999b. 57. For pillar rooms, see the data tabulated by Lloyd (this volume, Chap. 15).

architecture and assemblages in lba knossos

Royal Villa: Interior and Exterior Areas per Floor in m2 500

257

461.4

450

271.1

350

190.3

300 200

0 Ground

1st

Interior

4.1

50

58.1 54.1

100

0

150

Exterior

95.7

138.8

250

36.5 74.1

Square Meters m2

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

400

2nd

Roof

Total

Floor

Combined Ext & Int

Figure 22.6 Royal Villa: interior and exterior areas per floor in square meters. E. Hatzaki

room of Hogarth’s House B on Gypsades, highlights the temporal dimension of a feasting event involving a number of participants larger than the household unit.58 At least three distinct LM IA deposits were found at the Little Palace (perhaps the leading elite building at Knossos after the Palace), all of which included concentrations of conical cups.59 In truth, structured deposition involving conical cups seems to be common in domestic contexts, typically in foundation deposits.60 The artifactual evidence that can supplement the architectural layout of these buildings for the Neopalatial period is rather limited. The small rectangular room in the House of the Chancel Screen, with a row of medium-size vessels suitable for storage and quantities of drinking vessels, suggests that stores of different materials were kept in the same room—a pattern comparable to that of the west room of the MM III House on the Acropolis (Fig. 22.3).61 The hoard of bronzes in the Inner Basement Room of the South House, which also contained at least one pithos, implies storage of diverse goods in the least easily accessible part of the building.62 This pattern recurs in other basement rooms of houses near the Palace, where the goods have been interpreted as hidden hoards, although similarities in depositional circumstances may also be interpreted as the result of specific storage practices.63 While there is no artifactual evidence to indicate that rooms with pillars were designed or used as shrines, their architectural design and the creation of a climate-controlled environment makes them ideal locations for storage of sensitive commodities. The group of silver tableware kept in the columned room on the first floor above the pillar room of the

58. Hogarth 1899–1900, pl. 6:top row. 59. Hatzaki 2005a, pp. 125–126, figs. 4.2–4.3:1–10, p. 135, fig. 4.8:1–4, p. 147, fig. 4.14; unfortunately, their stratigraphical context is impossible to reconstruct.

60. Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 19, fig. 14, pls. 2:h, 14:g; Popham 1984, pl. 14:foundation deposit 137 d; the term “foundation deposit” is preferred to “building deposit” as proposed by Herva 2005. 61. PM II:2, p. 392, fig. 224.

62. PM II:1, p. 381, fig. 214; Evely 2003, pp. 190–191; Christakis 2003. 63. PM II:1, p. 381, fig. 214; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, pp. 68–70, fig. 4.23:a.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

258

e l e n i h at z a k i

South House64 is comparable to the small group of clay vessels suitable for pouring and drinking that fell from the upper floor into the west room of the MM III House on the Acropolis.65 Vessels discovered in situ in Minoan halls include small- to medium-volume capacity vessels, namely decorated storage, transport, and pouring vessels, suggesting that these were meant for use and display of subsistence commodities.66 Although the decorated tripod cooking pot from the House of the Frescoes may suggest that display and consumption of prepared food was intended, it says little about food preparation areas.67 Indeed, the lack of hearths from Neopalatial contexts at Knossos is noteworthy, unless this is grossly exaggerated by a lack of identification, or references, in the reports. The absence of in situ hearths may well suggest that cooking took place either in outside areas, to which excavators have not given as much attention as they have to interior spaces, or on the upper floors, which had little chance of preservation in the archaeological record.68 A patch of burnt earth associated with ash and LM IA pottery at the Acropolis Houses site, which so far has been universally interpreted as the remains of a LM IA destruction, could simply be the remains of a food preparation area for the LM I building.69

Fi nal Pal at ia l K nos s os While an overwhelming emphasis has been placed on the identification of “Mycenaean” elements at Knossos in this period, particularly through the rich LM II–IIIA1 mortuary data, the household has received little attention.70 Evans’s vision of a Neopalatial urban environment that remained largely unaltered until the end of the Palatial period can be challenged by the results of recent excavations.71 Except for observations on differences in construction, such as the rarity of newly carved ashlar blocks72 and finegrained gypsum slabs for paving and dados, which have been interpreted as evidence for elites under stress stemming from the presence of perhaps “unsophisticated Mycenaeans,”73 the overall architectural design of houses has not been discussed. The reproduction of Neopalatial architectural forms associated with residential living and ceremony might demonstrate that needs on a household—but elite—level essentially remained unaltered.74 64. PM II:1, p. 387, fig. 221; Mountjoy 2003, pp. 163–166, fig. 6.1. 65. Deposit D included the following plotted finds: one jug, one tripod cooking pot, and three conical cups; Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, p. 5, fig. 5, p. 40, fig. 27:179, p. 41, fig. 28:180, 182, 184, 185. 66. For the South House, PM II:1, p. 375, fig. 208, p. 381, fig. 213; Mountjoy 2003, p. 64, fig. 4.5. For the House of the Frescoes, PM II:2, p. 434, fig. 251, p. 436, fig. 253. Both assemblages were found in the Minoan Halls of the South House and the House of the Frescoes, respectively, placed up against

solid walls, away from access points (polythyra), which might indicate a semipermanent placement. 67. PM II:2, p. 436, fig. 253:c. 68. For a recent discussion of the general lack of hearths in Neopalatial Crete, focusing on evidence for kitchens at LM I Mochlos, see Brogan and Barnard, this volume (Chap. 17). The authors also suggest that some cooking may have taken place out of doors. For the existence of kitchens on the upper floors of Neopalatial houses at Pseira, see Pseira III, pp. 205–206; on hearths, see Muhly 1984 and Shaw 1990. 69. Catling, Catling, and Smyth

1979, p. 19; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, p. 162. 70. Preston 1999, 2004; Alberti 2004; Hatzaki, forthcoming b; Hatzaki and Keswani, forthcoming. 71. Warren 1980–1981, 1982–1983; Hatzaki 2005b. 72. Rutter 2005, p. 32; but see Warren 1984 for ashlar blocks used for the construction of the circular structures at the “dancing circles.” 73. Popham 1987; Macdonald 2005, pp. 230–231. 74. The construction of a Minoan Hall at the House South-West of the South-West House—a building that

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

architecture and assemblages in lba knossos

259

This continued use of Neopalatial architectural forms in the Final Palatial town of Knossos should, perhaps, not come as a surprise, since even the Palace itself provides comparable architectural and stratigraphical evidence: there is a growing acknowledgement that extensive rebuilding took place in LM II–IIIA1 following the preexisting plan.75 Study of artifact distribution in houses of the Final Palatial period is highly problematic, since much of the data derives from old excavations. Material from Evans’s excavations reveals, however, a recurring pattern: large quantities of fine decorated wares associated with a series of small-capacity storage vessels and one or, at most, two Palace Style jars76 of medium capacity intended for storage as much as for display—particularly since (similarly to the Palace) they were kept on the upper floor.77 The appearance of hearths on the ground floor, although sometimes of disputed function, is noteworthy.78 If the identification of areas suitable for the preparation of food still remains problematic, the disposal of household waste has received even less attention for both the Neopalatial and the Final Palatial periods. Apart from pottery concentrations identified as site clearances following destruction, we know virtually nothing about how people disposed of their rubbish at Knossos at different times.79 The South Front dumps at the Palace provide a window onto depositional practices after the abandonment of the South House in LM IA, but there is not enough stratigraphic detail to make them meaningful.80 So far, the overwhelming emphasis on building interiors can be explained by the prospect of such areas being artifactually rewarding. At the Little Palace North site, while no pits were identified in the area immediately outside the building, a series of 0.20– 0.30 m deep floor re-lays (currently under study) should provide information about disposal practices, based on the integrated study of artifactual and bioarchaeological data. At the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site, the stratigraphic levels associated with the LM IIIA use of the “dancing circles”—presumably an open space within the urban environment—have revealed quantities of decorated and plain tableware, which could be the result of structured deposition associated with the use of these circular platforms.81 Should we then expect that there were organized rubbish disposal areas at the outskirts of the Bronze Age town? Potential evidence may have been uncovered at a site some 600 m northwest of the Palace;82 under the was completely rebuilt in LM II, with dimensions comparable to its Neopalatial predecessors—is important (Macdonald 1993; Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 192, fig. 1, p. 201, fig. 5). Likewise, stratigraphical evidence from the Little Palace North excavation (Blackman 2001–2002, pp. 107–108; Whitley 2002–2003, p. 81) suggests that large parts of the building were rebuilt in LM IIIA1 essentially following the ground plan of the Neopalatial original, while the ground-floor space and general plan of the South House at the Stratigraphical Museum Extension

site and the Gypsum House (Warren 1982–1983, p. 64, fig. 2) is comparable to Neopalatial examples. 75. Christakis 2004, p. 298; Hatzaki 2004, p. 122. 76. Popham 1970, pls. 5:b, 6:a, b; Hatzaki 2005a. 77. E.g., for the ceramic assemblage from the Royal Villa, see Popham 1970, pp. 16–20, 97–98, figs. 3–4; pp. 105– 106, figs. 11–12, pls. 1:a–f, 2:g, h, 3:a, b, 6:d, 9:b, 10:a, e, 13–17. 78. Compare conflicting accounts by Popham (1984, p. 263) and Catling (1984, p. 206). For the LM IIIA Little

Palace, see Evans 1913–1914, p. 60, fig. 74; PM II:2, p. 520, fig. 321; Hatzaki 2005a. 79. Popham 1984, pls. 116–117, 171–172, 176:1, 3–6; Warren 1991b. 80. Mountjoy 2003, p. 23. 81. Stratigraphical Museum Extension site, trench T, pottery associated with the lowest courses of the large circular platform (Warren 1982–1983, p. 71, fig. 20; 1984; 1997, p. 161, figs. 11:second row, 12:P200, P389, P2162, P1986, P1689, P1625). 82. Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003, pp. 279–287.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

260

e l e n i h at z a k i

Roman-period Villa Dionysos, a 0.50–1.00 m thick layer of pottery sherds of Neopalatial to Final Palatial date, mixed with charcoal, small quantities of faunal material, and stones has been traced for over 15 m without any associated architecture.83 Could this at-first stratigraphically uninspiring, deep concentration of sherds form part of an organized disposal area for the inhabitants of urban Knossos? In conclusion, the comparison of ground- and upper-floor areas among fairly complete Neopalatial (in foundation) or Final Palatial (in rebuilding) elite houses at Knossos arranged according to type of room suggests that these were meant to accommodate comparable number of users, goods, and activities. The artifactual evidence, although extremely limited, supports these observations. This brief analysis highlights the observation that rooms such as the room with a column, the room with a pillar, and the lustral basin all were essential components of both elite and non-elite architecture at Knossos, although they are not all necessarily found together but in various combinations. Consequently, building materials and techniques are critical in distinguishing elite from non-elite architecture and assorted households, and are complemented by the quality rather than quantity, in addition to the type of artifactual assemblages.

Po st pal at ial K nos s os LM IIIB early Knossos presents a strikingly different pattern from that observed in the Final Palatial period. Construction of non-elite architecture continues, but, unfortunately, no complete ground plan is available for comparing floor spaces.84 In the so-called kitchen at Makritichos, no evidence has been found in support of food preparation taking place within the building; instead, the spatial distribution of artifacts suggests general storage of a variety of commodities.85 Despite the patchy evidence, the reoccupation of elite buildings shows a sharp overall reduction in usable space (as low as 30% or even 10%).86 It is possible that none were used as domestic spaces, since their ceramic assemblages consist primarily of vessels suited to consumption (rather than storage and food preparation) and are linked mainly with transport stirrup jars—a pattern very familiar from the LM IIIB early reoccupation assemblages of the Palace. The absence of a systematic reproduction of elite Neopalatial–Final Palatial architectural forms and building techniques suggests that the social structure demanding their construction and maintenance no longer existed. Perhaps Building 1 83. This level was a maximum of 1 m deep and rested on bedrock, was not associated with any architectural features, and was sealed below Protogeometric occupation levels. An area measuring 1.5 x 2.5 m (3.75 m2) was excavated to bedrock, producing 242 kg of sherds; this suggests that the known extent of this fill (i.e., 15 m long x 2.5 m wide x ca. 1 m deep = ca. 37.5 m3) contained approximately 2,420.25 kg (i.e., ca. 64.54 kg per 1 m3). The sheer quan-

tity of sherds can be appreciated when compared to the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site, where a volume of some 593 m3 revealed ca. 16,878 kg of pottery (Warren 1997, p. 157). On average, 1 m3 at the Villa Dionysos viridarium test area (5 m long x 1.50 m wide x 2 m deep) produced 64.54 kg, whereas at the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site, 1 m3 produced 28.47 kg. 84. E.g., Hood and de Jong 1958– 1959, p. 184, fig. 2; Warren 1997, p. 165,

fig. 15, p. 171, fig. 24, p. 174, fig. 29. 85. Although the floor deposit included a large tripod cooking pot (Hood and de Jong 1958–1959, p. 190, fig. 6:12), no grinding stones, hearth installation, or any concentration of charcoal or ash were found (Hood and de Jong 1958–1959, pp. 182–184, fig. 2, pp. 189–191, figs. 5–7, pl. 45:a, b). 86. Hatzaki 2005b, pp. 75–80, figs. 9–13.

architecture and assemblages in lba knossos

261

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

(Re-Used Ashlar Building) at the Little Palace North site, constructed above the partly dismantled Little Palace in a pseudo-ashlar fashion, could be interpreted as an attempt to legitimize status through a link to the past.87 By LM IIIC early, the palatial town, with its buildings and network of streets, had been abandoned and a new settlement established on the west slopes of the former town.88 Clearly, elite buildings had ceased to carry any symbolic value, since they were systematically utilized/plundered as an easy source of building materials and their architectural forms and building techniques were no longer reproduced.89 Indeed, the ground plan of the LM IIIC settlement at the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site does not look all that different from the contemporary (and likewise lowland) settlements at Chania and Chamalevri or other contemporary settlements in East Crete.90 Perhaps the most startling change in household behavior can be observed in food preparation and the disposal of waste. New types of cooking vessels, especially the jug in a fabric identical to that used for tripod cooking pots, suggest if not different recipes, at least different ways of preparing food.91 Finally, the old Minoan “obsession” with clean interior and exterior surfaces had changed: at the Little Palace North site, the amounts of faunal material inside and outside the houses increased dramatically, as did the number of pits and the layers of ash and charcoal.92 Further work on the excavated data sets from several excavations at Knossos that have produced LM IIIC early occupation levels will, doubtless, provide further insights into the patterns of household behavior for a period that fundamentally marked a new era for Knossos and, in general, Crete.93

Con clu s ion s Despite the limitations imposed by the quality of the archaeological record and the profound impact of traditional assumptions about the functions of specific room types, Knossos can provide valuable data for the analysis of household activities. This study has emphasized the importance of the temporal/transient and context-specific in relation to this subject. While spatial analysis cannot yet answer questions related to food preparation areas at Knossos, it might be that the negative evidence will direct attention to the upper floors and, above all, the exterior areas adjacent to houses with regard to such activities. Equally problematic is the issue of the disposal of nonrecyclable domestic waste, for which current evidence suggests that we should perhaps look to the periphery of the town of Knossos. The spatial distribution of artifacts in several instances provides 87. Hatzaki 2005b, pp. 84–87, fig. 17. 88. Hatzaki 2005b, pp. 86–87, fig. 18; Warren 2005. 89. Sections of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion’s east facade and the south end of room D were robbed; Hatzaki 2005b, p. 82; Popham 1984, pp. 7–8, pls. 107:b, 109:a, b. 90. Warren 1982–1983, p. 78,

fig. 40; Hallager and Hallager 2000; Andreadaki-Vlazaki and Papadopoulou 2005. Nowicki (2000) provides a detailed survey of LM IIIC Crete. For East Cretan sites in particular, see the contributions in this volume by Day and Wallace on Karphi (Chaps. 27, 28) and by Tsipopoulou on Chalasmenos (Chap. 29). For Vronda, see Day 1997; Glowacki 2004.

91. Warren 1982–1983, p. 80, fig. 44; 2005, p. 101, fig. 2:c. 92. Hatzaki 2005b, pp. 86, 105; comparable evidence has been found at Chamalevri (Andreadaki-Vlazaki and Papadopoulou 2005) and Sybrita (D’Agata 1997–2000). 93. Hatzaki 2005b, pp. 86–87, fig. 18.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

262

e l e n i h at z a k i

intriguing distribution patterns to suggest the involvement of a fairly large number of people—more than the assumed minimum household unit—in symbolically charged actions, which, from their location, are directly linked to the household. These activities demonstrate that the Palace was only one of several focal points for ritual action within the urban environment, and this stresses the importance of site formation processes for plausible identification of such focal points. If Knossian domestic architecture was fairly standardized in room form and size, then variation in building materials and techniques, circulation patterns (including the use of corridors), and the presence of a polythyron on the ground floor remain the crucial elements distinguishing elite from non-elite architecture. While the construction of a series of elite buildings of comparable dimensions and building materials could be viewed as the result of factional competition among emerging elites who assimilated the “palace” prototype, any other similarity with the Palace stops there. The potentially low to moderate storage capacity of elite houses demonstrates their partial reliance on the Palace itself for subsistence commodities, a pattern that remained relatively unchanged from the Neopalatial to the Final Palatial period. Thus, the reproduction of palatial architectural forms could have served several purposes: as a status symbol signifying alliances through the emulation of the palace prototype in competition between elite groups, and as a point of reference and a common identity with differentiation from other non-elite groups. The overwhelming numbers of fine decorated tableware in elite buildings (although in varied proportions in different ceramic periods), displayed or stored for future use, also could have served a comparable purpose. The continued construction of elite architectural forms in the Final Palatial period suggests a conscious decision to maintain and reproduce the architectural vocabulary of the Neopalatial past. Whether this can be interpreted as evidence for the maintenance of past social structures, which would also affect the household at an elite level, is unclear and requires further investigation involving all aspects of the material culture of Final Palatial Knossos. The Postpalatial period is associated with a series of major changes. If elite buildings had ceased to be houses and had become places of ritual activity (involving consumption of food and/or drink), this would mark a revolution in the social structures, which may have also affected household activities. Nevertheless, the absence of the Palace suggests a marked change in subsistence strategies, since elites (and non-elites) no longer could have relied on the Palace as a partial provider of subsistence commodities. Other potential changes in household activities may be linked with a decrease, perhaps, in house floor space. However, sweeping changes had occurred by the LM IIIC early period, changes that had affected everything from location of settlement to food preparation and rubbish disposal. I have emphasized here the importance of focusing on a specific aspect of material culture—in this case household behavior—from a diachronic perspective, while intentionally choosing to be site-specific. This diachronic view is all the more important when the subject of inquiry is Knossos, which for the greater part of the Late Bronze Age played a major role in defining the social, political, and economic structures of Bronze Age Crete, a role it ceased to fulfill with the collapse of its palatial system.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 23

L o ok i n g f or a H om e i n a H o u s e l e s s Town : E x p l or i n g D om e st i c A r c h i t e c t u r e i n Fi nal Pal at i al Ay i a Tr i ada by Santo Privitera Ayia Triada in the western Mesara is one of the most representative sites of Minoan Crete, principally on account of its monumental Neopalatial and Final Palatial buildings (Fig. 23.1).1 The site has been explored in two phases, the first from 1902 to 1914, and the second from 1977 until the present day.2 Recent work has aimed to highlight the main urban phases of development in the area formerly occupied by the Neopalatial settlement during Late Minoan (LM) IIIA and LM IIIB. The abundance of impressive ceremonial, religious, and storage buildings located within the site has led to an underestimation of its special character with regard to the various aspects of daily life. This paper focuses on one such aspect that has been neglected thus far—the domestic architecture of Ayia Triada.3 An interpretive approach centered on the site’s domestic contexts and focusing, in particular, on one very large building, the Casa dei Vani aggiunti progressivamente (Casa VAP), could be of some interest in highlighting its peculiar status, especially when compared with the other Final Palatial settlements on Crete. The overall interpretation of Final Palatial Ayia Triada, however, has encountered two main types of difficulties. First, the necessity of reexploring an already excavated area has required a series of limited soundings to 1. This paper is the result of work I carried out between 1999 and 2003 at Catania University and the Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene (SAIA). I warmly thank Vincenzo La Rosa, director of the Ayia Triada excavations, and Emanuele Greco, director of SAIA, for entrusting me with this research and allowing me to consult Halbherr’s excavation notebooks, which are kept in the SAIA archive. Many thanks are also due to all of my friends at SAIA, who have kindly discussed several points of this work with me, particularly Alessandra D’Amico, who has provided me with the axonometric

view of Casa VAP, and Valeria Lenuzza, who presented the paper at the Ierapetra conference. Last but not least, I warmly thank Michael Metcalfe and Spencer Pope, who have kindly checked the text of the paper and its abstract, respectively. 2. On the history of research at Ayia Triada, see La Rosa 2003. On the site during LM III, see La Rosa 1994, 1997; Cucuzza 2003. This paper follows the chronological definition of the Final Palatial Period (LM II through LM IIIB early) put forward by Rehak and Younger (2001, pp. 441–442). Although archaeologists working

at Knossos prefer to refer to the LM IIIA2 through LM IIIC phases as Postpalatial, I consider this definition misleading and substantially contradicted by both the monumental character of the LM IIIA2–IIIB buildings at Ayia Triada and Kommos in the western Mesara, and by the documentation that implies literacy up to LM IIIB (LM IIIB1 tablets at Chania and LM IIIB inscribed stirrup jars, produced both in West and Central Crete). 3. On the Ayia Triada LM III sector to the north of the Ayios Georgios hill, see Cucuzza 2003, pp. 217–218.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

264

santo privitera

be made, and these have resulted in a large quantity of stratigraphic data that often relates to other periods.4 Second, any attempt to interpret Ayia Triada cannot escape the necessity of discussing its relation with the Palace at Knossos, as its name appears on the Linear B tablets discovered there. In particular, the long-running debate on the date of the final destruction of the Palace at Knossos, which occurred in either early LM IIIA2 or LM IIIB,5 has allowed scholars to put forward two different scenarios, which allow sites such as Chania, Malia, and Ayia Triada to be interpreted either as the capitals of independent polities, or as second-order centers within a multitiered settlement hierarchy headed by Knossos.6 In a recent review of the find-places of the Linear B tablets from the Knossos palace, R. Firth has argued that a group of tablets found in the so-called North Insula, which register, among others, the names of ku-do-ni-ja (Kydonia) and 4. La Rosa 1997, p. 250; Cucuzza 2003, p. 203. 5. On this topic, see esp. Doxey 1987 and Popham 1988 (for the LM IIIA2 early chronology); and

Hallager 1977 and Niemeier 1985, pp. 141–162 (for the LM IIIB chronology). 6. Bennet 1985; 1990, pp. 208–211; 1992, p. 91.

Figure 23.1. Plan of the Villaggio at Ayia Triada, showing both LM I structures reused in LM IIIA–B (hatched) and Final Palatial (LM IIIA–B) buildings (white). After Puglisi 2003, pl. 1

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

e x p l o r i n g d o m e s t i c a r c h i t e c t u r e i n ay i a t r i a d a

265

pa-i-to (Phaistos), should be dated to LM IIIB on account of the association with pottery deposits belonging to this period.7 Such a proposal, however, should take into account the uncertainty of dating LM IIIB ceramics, as reflected in the wide spread of dates suggested by several scholars during the last 40 years.8 Recent studies by P. Warren and E. Hatzaki support a destruction date for the Palace in ripe LM IIIA2. Warren raises the date of the ceramic deposits from the Domestic Quarter to LM IIIA2, formerly considered LM IIIB;9 Hatzaki pays special attention to the study of the LM IIIA2–IIIB history of the town and surrounding cemeteries at Knossos, and concludes that it is “inconsistent with the wealthy society reflected in the Linear B tablets.”10 Consequently, in this paper a LM IIIA2 date for the destruction of the Knossos palace is adopted. The place-name pa-i-to, which appears on 62 Linear B tablets from Knossos, is, in my opinion, the best candidate for indicating, at least from the Neopalatial period onward, the district consisting of the range of hills on which both the Phaistos palace and the Ayia Triada villa had been built.11 Such an opinion is supported by topographical as well as chronological considerations. Among the former, it must be stressed that Ayia Triada is less than 2.5 km away from Phaistos and, quite probably, appeared as a “suburb” on the borders of the settlement centered around the Palace;12 among the latter, it is worth observing that a major gap has been observed in the occupation of Phaistos during LM IIIA2 and LM IIIB.13 As a consequence—and in consideration of a recent proposal that suggests the other possible candidate for the Mycenaean name of Ayia Triada, da-wo, could indicate the harbor site of Kommos14—it seems highly probable that Ayia Triada was the most important area (at least during LM IIIA–IIIB) of the pa-i-to district. After the destruction of the LM IB settlement in a violent fire that may have followed a seismic event,15 Ayia Triada did not remain entirely deserted, but was partially resettled by people who reoccupied select Neopalatial buildings, some of which had been abandoned for a considerable time.16 Two examples of this reoccupation are seen at the Casa con Gourna and room E (Fig. 23.1). The former was built within the perimeter of the 7. These place-names recur several times, e.g., on the tablets from the area of the North Entrance Passage; see Firth 2000–2001, pp. 220–226. 8. Hallager 1977, p. 93; Firth 2000– 2001, p. 270. 9. Warren 1991a, pp. 33–34, who agrees with Hood (1965, pp. 26–27) in relating the stirrup jars from the Queen’s Megaron to the destruction debris of the Palace, and not to the LM IIIB reoccupation envisaged by Popham (1970). 10. Hatzaki 2005b, p. 91. 11. Such a hypothesis had already been envisaged by La Rosa (1985, p. 54) and Bennet (1992, p. 97); see also Cucuzza 2003, pp. 244–247. Contra, Shelmerdine 1992, pp. 579–581. 12. On the various proposals regard-

ing the estimated size of the Phaistos settlement, see Watrous et al. 1993, p. 225; Branigan 2001b, p. 47; Whitelaw 2001, p. 29. 13. Borgna 2003a, pp. 350–353. 14. The place-name da-wo is commonly regarded as referring to a site not far from pa-i-to, as both place-names are registered together on some of the Knossos tablets—hence its possible identification with Ayia Triada (see Chadwick 1976, pp. 52–54; Bennet 1985, p. 247; McArthur 1993, pp. 254– 255). The identification with Kommos is put forward by J. Shaw (Kommos IV, p. 709); an alternative candidate for the latter could be mu-ka-ra, as proposed by Cucuzza (1998), but this word is usually referred to as a personal name (see Nosch 1997–2000, p. 36).

15. Monaco and Tortorici 2003. 16. Within this framework it is perhaps possible to include also the Casa delle Sfere Fittili, which, according to a recent hypothesis (Palio 2002), could have been reused in LM II–IIIA1. On the transition from LM IB to IIIA1 in the sector of the settlement immediately to the south of the Muraglione a Denti, see Cucuzza 2003, pp. 217–219. On LM II at Ayia Triada, see Puglisi 2003, pp. 179–181 (deposit under the Edificio Ovest closed in LM II), and Cucuzza 2003, pp. 223–224 (LM II platform v–v’ in the Settore Nord-Est). D’Agata (2005, p. 111), on the contrary, dates the beginning of the reconstruction at the site to “sometime after the destruction of the palace of Knossos.”

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

266

santo privitera

Edificio Ciclopico, a structure in the eastern sector of the Villaggio that was destroyed in LM IA.17 It is difficult to gain a clear idea of the house, the main room of which was a rectangular space with a stone basin (gourna) and a small storage jar partly inserted into the floor. Both its construction and its destruction—the latter sealed by a burnt layer—have been dated within LM IIIA1. Room E, built near the western border of the settlement and partially adjoining the LM IB Casa del Lebete, was probably a shrine, as two snake tubes were found on its earthen floor.18 The chronology of the destruction of the building may be deduced mainly from structural observations, as it was abandoned prior to the filling in of the Casa del Lebete, an action that created the terrace on which the Casa VAP was built in LM IIIA2 early. On the whole, a general feature of the resettlement of the site is the absence of a systematic urban project and the intrusive character of the location of some of the buildings within the settlement. A particularly significant example of this is the case of the Casa con Gourna, which was built in an area that was otherwise left free of construction and eventually became part of the Agora in LM IIIA2. Such a situation is closely paralleled at Phaistos, where, at approximately the same time, a huge wall was built on the acropolis west of the Palace, and a group of rooms was installed within the area formerly occupied by a LM IB mansion in the Chalara quarter on the southeast slope of the Palace hill.19 The evidence from both sites is therefore consistent in highlighting a “loose” settlement pattern, in which the people living in the surrounding territory seem to have occasionally converged on both of the sites, perhaps due to the presence of the monumental ruins of the Neopalatial period. The LM IIIA1/A2 transition likely marked a substantial shift in the organization of the pa-i-to district, as a substantial series of structures, open spaces, and a complex drainage system were built at Ayia Triada; in contrast, a hiatus seems to be detectable at Phaistos, at least in the area around the Palace. An important discovery of the new cycle of excavations at Ayia Triada is the identification of two subsequent urban phases involving the respective southern and northern sectors of the settlement.20 The first sector of the site to be monumentalized was probably the southern sector, on the low hill of Ayios Georgios where the so-called Megaron ABCDE, the Stoa FG, and the Sacello H were built. The soundings under the foundations of these buildings only succeeded in clarifying the chronology of the Stoa’s construction, which was dated to an early phase in LM IIIA2. A similar date was also initially suggested for the Megaron and the Sacello, but N. Cucuzza has recently argued for a LM IIIA1 date based on a few peculiarities that closely resemble Neopalatial architecture.21 The special triptych formed by these buildings seems to represent the ceremonial focus of Final Palatial Ayia Triada, especially since it was intentionally founded on the ruins of the Villa Reale.22 A second phase in the urban development of the site, located in the northern sector of the settlement, can be dated to an advanced stage of LM IIIA2. It was centered upon a substantial open space, the so-called Agora, onto which opened a few monumental structures—the Stoa, the

17. La Rosa 1979–1980, pp. 134– 137; 1997, p. 253. 18. Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, pp. 263–264; D’Agata 1987; Cucuzza 2003, p. 217. 19. Borgna 2003a, pp. 37–41, 51–62. 20. Cucuzza 1997, 2003; La Rosa 1997. 21. Cucuzza 2001, pp. 170–171; 2003, pp. 209–216. 22. Hayden 1987, p. 215. For a general interpretation of this sector from EM I through SM, emphasizing its ceremonial character, see Cucuzza 2003, p. 211; Todaro 2003b, pp. 78–80.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

e x p l o r i n g d o m e s t i c a r c h i t e c t u r e i n ay i a t r i a d a

23. La Rosa 1997, pp. 258–261; Cucuzza 2003, pp. 217–219. 24. Hayden 1987, pp. 213–216; Preziosi 1983, pp. 186–187; La Rosa 1997, pp. 255–264. 25. For these calculations, see Cucuzza 2003, p. 262. 26. Vallianou 1987, p. 548, pl. 320:b; Cucuzza 2003, p. 209. 27. On the Muraglione a Denti, see Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, pp. 239–242; Puglisi 2003, pp. 173– 174. 28. On this sector, see La Rosa and Privitera 2003. 29. On the Casa VAP, see La Rosa 1979–1980, p. 112, fig. 62; 1997, p. 261; Privitera 2001; 2004, pp. 110–114; Cucuzza 2003, pp. 218–220.

267

Edificio Ovest, and the complex Nord-Ovest/P—all of which were involved with storage and came to represent the economic focus of the site.23 A handful of lesser structures have been dated to the LM IIIB period, at the end of which the site was eventually deserted. The final abandonment—the cause of which, in the absence of a clear destruction layer, remains unknown—marked the end of a period during which the settlement had gradually assumed the aspect of a citadel.24 In fact, it is quite impressive to observe that such a settlement—whose area, aside from the necropolis, was roughly 8000 m²—was mainly occupied by ceremonial, cultic, and storage buildings; this is in contrast to the domestic structures, which seem to cover less than 10% of the total area.25 It is possible to imagine that other houses did exist in the vicinity, forming small residential nuclei, each with its own necropolis, such as that hinted at by the tombs discovered 200 m southwest of the settlement near the church of Ayia Triada.26 As no further structures have been found immediately to the west and south of the site, it is possible to treat Ayia Triada as a well-defined context and, consequently, interpret the area that so far has been excavated. During LM IIIA2–LM IIIB, the structures that can be indisputably defined as residential buildings are found in the western sector of the settlement, in the area next to the Muraglione a Denti, which is oriented east to west and is LM IB in date.27 F. Halbherr excavated several rooms to the north and south of this wall that seem to have a character different from those in the rest of the settlement—at least from an architectural point of view—as their walls are generally thinner and sometimes constructed in ashlar masonry. In both of the areas, the analysis of the architecture allows one to distinguish a first building phase within the LM IIIA2 early urban period of the site. To the north of the Neopalatial wall, however, constructions of domestic character only occupied a narrow strip of land (indicated from east to west as X, Y, and Z, respectively); of them, only Y yielded a floor assemblage, which consisted of a few storage vessels.28 On the contrary, the area to the south of the wall already was occupied by a large structure in LM IIIA2 late—Casa VAP (Fig. 23.2).29 The main architectural peculiarity of Casa VAP is the way in which it was progressively enlarged through the addition of single rooms, a process that involved the transformation of the original outer walls into partition walls. This is particularly evident when one observes the masonry: former outer walls are easily distinguishable because of the presence of a vertical face constructed with carved rectangular blocks (Fig. 23.3); and, since the sides of the blocks taper inward toward the back, the opposite face of the wall is constructed with small stones, mud, and rubble that fill the intervening spaces (Fig. 23.4). Purposefully constructed inner walls, in contrast, are thinner and both faces are of rubble masonry. Such a peculiarity, along with the absence of connections between walls belonging to rooms built at different times (Figs. 23.5, 23.6), allows one to distinguish a series of subsequent building phases that can be summarized as follows. First phase: In LM IIIA2 early, the first group of rooms to be built was located immediately south of the Muraglione a Denti, and included

268

santo privitera

N

G

L

H

M

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

O

D

A

I

P

Q

C

B

N E W

0

5

F

10 m

Figure 23.2. Plan of Casa VAP at the time of its abandonment (LM IIIB). After Privitera 2001, fig. 5

Figure 23.3. Casa VAP, rooms P/Q. Ashlar masonry of the east wall showing that the wall was originally an outer wall before the construction of room C; view from the east. Photo S. Privitera

rooms N, L/M, and G/H/I. It is difficult to reconstruct the original layout of these rooms, as they were transformed at a later stage when some of the internal doorways were closed and a staircase was built in room I. It is quite probable that, at this stage, the house had two main points of access from the south, in rooms I and L, respectively. The presence of two nearby entrances with an internal passage (that was later closed) between them

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

e x p l o r i n g d o m e s t i c a r c h i t e c t u r e i n ay i a t r i a d a

Figure 23.4. Casa VAP, rooms P/Q. Same wall as in Fig. 23.3 (left), and the inner partition wall (right). View from the north. Photo S. Privitera

Figure 23.5. Casa VAP, join between the south wall of room I (left) and the south wall of room D (right). View from the south. Photo S. Privitera

269

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

270

santo privitera

Figure 23.6. Casa VAP, join between the east wall of room C (left), the southeast corner of room D (center), and the south wall of room A. From the southeast. Photo S. Privitera

is an unusual feature in Minoan houses, although parallels can be found on the mainland;30 also apparently referring to the mainland architectural tradition is the central doorway of room I, a feature that was retained when room P/Q was later built south of this room. Second phase: In LM IIIA2 early, room D was built east of room G/H/I; a doorway was opened in its right wall, and an inner stair provided communication with the upper floor of room G/H/I. Third and fourth phases: At a slightly later date, but in LM IIIA2 early, rooms P/Q and C were built. Room P/Q is a large hall with a monumentalized double entrance that recalls Neopalatial houses (e.g., House G at Zakros31) but is also paralleled in the double passage of Sacello H or even in the Chiosco south of Megaron ABCDE.32 Room C was an auxiliary space, the eastern facade of which was aligned with that of room D. Fifth phase: Room A and the “small Court B” were built to the east of room D. The entrance of B opens directly into the Agora. An offset on the face of the eastern wall of room A is the main structural feature that allows one to date the construction of the room to the second urban phase of the settlement, when the area of the Agora was leveled (LM IIIA2 late).33 Sixth and seventh phases: Edificio W, an unroofed area that can be considered an independent structure, was built south of room P/Q between LM IIIA2 late and LM IIIB. Two small spaces, E and F (the floors of which were at a higher level than that of the Agora), were added to the east of it in LM IIIB. Within this chronological sequence, only room O is in an uncertain position, as it was built after room P/Q, but quite probably before Edificio W; as a consequence, it could be dated to either the fourth, fifth, or sixth building phase. 30. Two nearby entrances are attested in the Neopalatial period in buildings where it is possible to detect the presence of functionally separated sectors: see, e.g., House Zα at Malia (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, pp. 63–100), the megaron at

Nirou Chani (Xanthoudides 1922), or even the Casa del Lebete and the Casa delle Sfere Fittili at Ayia Triada (Palio 2002, p. 127). For similar layouts in LH III houses, see, e.g., Stadt Haus 49 at Tiryns (LH IIIA; Hiesel 1990, pp. 87–88), and the South House at

Mycenae (LH IIIB; Hiesel 1990, pp. 85–86). 31. Platon 2000, pp. 58–59. 32. Cucuzza 2001, p. 170; 2003, pp. 209–210. 33. On this feature, see Cucuzza 2003, p. 218.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

e x p l o r i n g d o m e s t i c a r c h i t e c t u r e i n ay i a t r i a d a

271

Figure 23.7. Axonometric reconstruction of Casa VAP, from the southeast. Drawing A. D’Amico and

S. Privitera

At the time of the abandonment of the site in LM IIIB, Casa VAP was a substantial building, with 12 rooms and one small court on the ground floor, and at least five more rooms on the second story. The ground floor measured ca. 320 m², and the total size (including the upper floor) was ca. 450 m² (Fig. 23.7). Unfortunately, functional interpretation of the building is difficult, as the house was found almost entirely empty. The few exceptions include a pithos, pyxis, and snake tube on the floor of room A;34 three pithoi in room D (reported during the first excavations);35 and a pithos in room O. In addition, a careful reading of Halbherr’s notebooks has shown that two additional globular pithoi were discovered in the house, probably in room L/M.36 All of these vessels are dated to LM IIIB, and they serve to highlight two important points. First, they reinforce the impression that the site was not abruptly destroyed, but was gradually abandoned.37 It is a well-known axiom of behavioral archaeology that broken and heavy items are frequently left in situ when a house is methodically emptied of its original assemblage.38 This certainly seems to be the case with Casa VAP, where seven of the 10 vessels found were large pithoi. Second, some of these vessels hint at a few of the activities that took place within the house. For example, room D may have been a storeroom annexed to a large hall (room A) that was used both for banqueting and ritual ceremonies (as indicated by the snake tube). In order to achieve a more complete picture of Casa VAP, it is necessary to place it against the background of the rest of the settlement. Three features in particular may be considered key elements, and cumulatively they allow one to raise the question of the identity of its owners. These 34. Banti 1941–1943, p. 74; Privitera 2001, p. 146; 2004, pp. 110–114. 35. The pithoi are drawn on the plan of the site (foldout in Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977), and one of them, now lost, is visible in a photograph from the first excavations (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, p. 244, fig. 156). A kylix (HTR 1550) was discovered in a recent sounding in the northern sector of the room; it is dated to LM IIIB but it could be later,

perhaps LM IIIC, and belong to the post-abandonment frequentation of the site (I thank Anna Lucia D’Agata for information on the vase); see La Rosa 1989a, p. 34; 1997, p. 262, fig. 20. 36. See Privitera 2001, in which the pithoi were initially attributed to room N. A globular pithos, still unpublished, comparable to the two from Ayia Triada, is said to have come from a LM IIIB floor at the Knossos Southeast House, but it is considered to be a

LM IIIA heirloom; see Hatzaki 2004, p. 123. 37. On the problem of the abandonment of Ayia Triada, see La Rosa 1994. Cucuzza (2003, pp. 205–206) suggests that both Ayia Triada and Kommos could have joined Phaistos by means of a synoikism. 38. See, e.g., Schiffer 1987, p. 95; see also La Motta and Schiffer 1999 for a general account of the formation of floor assemblages.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

272

santo privitera

elements include: (1) its substantial dimension, emphasized by the expansion of the house during LM IIIA2; (2) its central location between the ceremonial and economic foci of the settlement, which cannot have been accidental; and (3) its uniqueness in what seems to be a “houseless town,” which might lead to its interpretation as a sort of “Little Palace,” that is, a high-status residence that was inhabited by some authority, under whose control the settlement was placed.39 As to the problem of the identity of the people living in the building, it is perhaps possible to gain some further clues, at least for the first three or four building phases, from the LM IIIA2 archival documentation at the Palace of Knossos. If the hypothesis that Ayia Triada was part of the district of pa-i-to is accepted, it could be possible to examine the titled officials of the Knossian nomenclatura that appear on the tablets with reference to this place-name. However, J. Driessen has rightly pointed out that secondary centers such as ku-do-ni-ja, a-mi-ni-so, and pa-i-to “are not explicitly linked to title-carrying officials.”40 But, on the contrary, the tablets that refer to these sites register the presence of the so-called collectors—a limited number of persons in charge of important production activities who are considered, at least by some scholars, to belong to the high aristocracy based at Knossos.41 The possibility of relating Casa VAP to one or more of these local collectors, especially if such individuals were linked by family ties, could possibly be confirmed by the Linear B tablets. In fact, although the majority of the collectors were probably based at Knossos, J. Bennet has convincingly argued for the prolonged presence at pa-i-to of one of them, an individual called we-we-si-jo (i.e., the “Wool-worker” or, according to a recent hypothesis, the “Curly-haired”).42 The presence at Ayia Triada of a “collector,” possibly belonging to a noble family in charge of the site and the surrounding district, could make it possible, in conclusion, to make sense of the early phases of Casa VAP and to interpret it as the local “Collector’s House” or, for at least a certain period, the “we-we-si-jo’s House.” 39. Such a conclusion, in other words, seems to fit well with Cucuzza’s estimate of the number of the Ayia Triada elite, at least in LM IIIA1–2 (Cucuzza 2003, pp. 257–259). Drawing on the overall number of sealings from the site (six) and on the burials in the local necropolis (13), Cucuzza has argued for a total of 8–12 individuals, with the interesting conclusion that the Neopalatial elite could have been replaced by a single household. However, I am not persuaded by Cucuzza’s assumption that Edificio Ovest—the architectural layout of which is akin to that of complex Nord-Ovest/P—should be interpreted as a monumental resi-

dential unit (Cucuzza 2003, p. 221) on account of the presence of a sealing of Babylonian production in room D (Pecorella 1966; Cline 1994, pp. 160– 161, n. 223). Edificio Ovest was built in an advanced stage of LM IIIA2, later than Nord-Ovest/P, while the sealing, if it was part of the original floor assemblage, could refer to some administrative use during LM IIIB. None of them, in conclusion, should be associated with the LM IIIA1–2 early elite present on the site. 40. Driessen 2001a, p. 105. 41. On the initial definition of the “collectors,” see Ventris and Chadwick 1956, p. 200. The bibliography on the

topic is quite rich; see esp. Bennet 1992; Carlier 1992; Driessen 1992; Godart 1992 (where they are labeled “princes,” p. 283); Killen 1995. More recently, De Fidio 2001, pp. 21–22; Driessen 2001a, pp. 103–107; Olivier 2001; Rougemont 2001. 42. Bennet 1992, p. 89; for the chronology of the tablets referring to we-we-si-jo, mainly coming from the East–West Corridor in the Knossos palace, see Firth 2000–2001, pp. 239– 244. On the interpretation of the name —rendered in Greek as Ἑιρέσιος—and of the derivative we-we-si-je-ja, see DMic II, pp. 425–426. See also Lejeune 1972; Killen 1983; Ruipérez 1999.

c hap ter 24

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

On Cav e s an d H ou s e hol d s i n B r on z e A g e C r e t e : “ Της Ουρανιάς το Φρούδι ” Cav e at Zak r os by Katerina Kopaka The cave known as της Ουρανιάς το Φρούδι (Fig. 24.1) opens onto a sheer rock outcrop (a phroudi, or “eyebrow”) that bears the same name, on one of the most impressive cliffs among the karstic formations of the Lenika Gorge (το Φαράγγι των Νεκρών, or “Gorge of the Dead,” following N. Platon’s toponymy).1 This gorge runs from the village of Epano Zakros to the small coastal plain at Kato Zakros, west of the Bronze Age palace and harbor town. Lying within the catchment area of this site, the gorge has always offered zones of exploitation of its mid-arid ecosystem and, with its perennial river, plenty of water for agriculture and the well-being of the community. Another point worth remembering is that this gorge also provides a convenient passageway to the hinterland. The cave itself occupies a nodal point on the south slope, overlooking a markedly constricted and winding part of the gorge. Today, climbing up the scree is difficult because of the erosion that must have changed, to an unknown degree, the immediate environment since antiquity. There are also three broad natural hollows—perhaps once parts of a rock shelter—that open up in the neighboring cliff to the east. The cave and hollows were investigated during a three-day rescue excavation in August 1962 by N. Platon’s team, under the supervision of C. Davaras.2 The cave had been robbed twice previously, and it was also much disturbed by its prolonged use as a sheepfold.3 The thin but thorough record of this exploration is chronicled by four pages and six sketches in the excavation notebook. The excavation recovered a considerable amount of finds, and these have long been stored in the Iraklion Archaeological Museum. Only recently, in the 1990s, were they systematically examined over several study seasons. 1. I am most grateful to Lefteris Platon for entrusting me with the study of the material from Ourania. Warm thanks are also due to Costis and Eusevia Nikakis for undertaking the conservation work, to Katie Archontaki, and to many other colleagues who helped me with this fascinating study, as well as to Gerald Cadogan and Anaya Sarpaki, who read and reread the English

text. Last but not least, I thank Giorgos Daskalakis (or “Zarkadis”) for having courageously guided—and secured— our climbs up to the cave. The architectural plan of the cave is by Thanasis Nakassis (who was helped by Zeta Plesti), the drawings are by Pinelopi Stefanaki, and the photographs of the finds are by Yiannis PapadakisPloumidis (unless otherwise stated), all

of whom I thank deeply. 2. Platon 1962, pp. 165–166, pl. 163:α. See also Faure 1962, pp. 38– 39; 1963, p. 496, n. 2; 1964, pp. 54, 66, 73, 78; Platakis 1975, p. 186:1056; Zoïs 1991, p. 37; Nakassis and Tagonidou 1993, p. 29; Platon 1999a, p. 672, n. 4. 3. Excavation notebook, August 6, 1962, p. 81.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

274

k at e r i n a k o pa k a

Figure 24.1. Entrance to the Ourania cave in the Lenika Gorge, Zakros. Photo K. Kopaka

Despite disturbance in the stratigraphy, much of the material from the cave at Ourania seems to reflect long-term homogeneous trends—a series of almost “closed” assemblages through time. To judge from the pottery, the remains are contemporary with periods III and IV at Zakros—that is, of the Old (Middle Minoan [MM] I–II) and early New Palace times (MM IIIB–Late Minoan [LM] IA)—as well as with periods V and VI (LM IB and LM II–IIIA).4 Later, in Zakros periods VII and VIII (Geometric and modern times), the place was visited only occasionally. On the other hand, the neighboring hollows may have been in use by the end of the Final Neolithic period (Zakros N), certainly by the beginning of the Early Minoan period (Zakros I), when they probably hosted some secondary burials—the evidence for which is based on part of a Pyrgosstyle footed cup, so far unique at Zakros (and most probably imported).5 Later, during the 2nd millennium, these hollows must have been in use at the same time as—and most probably interacted with—the nearby cave of Ourania. Consequently, the cave and hollows reflect, in some way, the main life stages of the broader settlement at Zakros before, during, and after the construction of the Palace. Since the full publication of the material from Ourania will appear shortly,6 the aim here is to present this material only briefly. In light of the theme of “household archaeology” that is the focus of this volume, I will argue that caves also functioned as “different” forms of stegai (dwellings or houses) that were naturally present in the landscape—ready-made and often large enough to host people together with their belongings and to provide spaces for their life activities—in the Bronze Age, as well as in any other period of time. The habitation aspect of natural shelters has been rather overlooked thus far, especially with regard to Cretan cave sites of the 2nd millennium b.c. 4. For the chronological phases at Zakros, see the summary in Platon 1999a. 5. Platon and Iliopoulos, forthcoming. For other Pyrgos ware from East

Crete, see Betancourt 1985, pp. 26–27 (Ayia Photia, Ziros, the caves of Pachyammos and Grimani), and Haggis 1997 (Kalo Chorio). 6. Kopaka, forthcoming.

c av e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s o n b r o n z e a g e c r e t e

275

cave entrance niche A' α

A

-0.50 -1.00 +0.90

+0.20

B

+0.00

-3.20

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

-2.70

niche B'

+2.40

0

1

Figure 24.2. Plan of the Ourania cave in 1992. Two “rooms” and the compartment α are still apparent in the entrance. Drawing T. Nakassis

2

3

4

∆

Γ

5m

I nn er O rgan i z at ion an d F i nd s : a B u ilt an d F u rn i s h ed Cav e S i te Ourania is a small- to medium-size cave (Fig. 24.2), ca. 25–26 m long x 8.5–15.5 m wide, which runs almost horizontally northwest to southeast. Its mouth (ca. 10 m wide) opens to the southeast, and is “turned” toward the Minoan settlement at Zakros. The principal features of the cave include: a large entrance-area terrace (ca. 5 m deep x 15.5 m wide) that reminds one of a rock shelter with an exterior natural platform and a retaining wall; two other rising terraces within the main cave, also with retaining walls; and three short inner tunnels that are dark and quite narrow. Most of the cave interior has a high roof and is quite spacious, with relatively good natural light and aeration, rendering it a cool and pleasant place. These features were certainly among the main reasons that people chose the site—aside from, of course, its topographical situation. Past human activity mainly took place at the entrance and, to a lesser degree, on the back terraces. The archaeological evidence for this human activity consists of fixed interior arrangements and movable finds.

Fix e d I n ter i or Ar ran gemen ts A series of built features—true indoor architecture—was located in the entrance zone, which, according to the excavation notebook, was divided by walls into three oblong “rooms” (spaces A, B, Γ). Between spaces A and B, a four-sided stone-lined compartment (compartment α) was sunk into the ground, with two steps (one monolithic) still in place. The openings of two natural hollows were enclosed by stone to create niche A (by the foot of the entrance wall) and niche B (in the back zone of the cave, space Δ). One major “domestic” feature seems to be missing, however—a hearth. None has been recorded from the cave, nor has any other fixed structure for the kindling of fire.

276

k at e r i n a k o pa k a

Figure 24.3. Pottery from the Ourania cave: cups from the back area of the cave (space Δ). Scale 1:2. Drawing

P. Stefanaki

Movable Finds A considerable quantity of movable finds was discovered mostly by the entrance, but also in the front and back activity areas. These finds included several classes of objects:

Pot tery Some 502 vases, many of which were apparently stacked, were stored inside and around compartment α.7 They included a significant number of fine vessels but are mainly coarse wares, decorated or plain, of good quality and representing diverse shapes and sizes. A few of the vessels were whole, some others have been restored and completed, but the material consists mostly of sherds. There are dozens of cups and bowls (Fig. 24.3), jugs, amphoras, basins, and a pyxis (Fig. 24.4),8 and similar numbers of pithoi and jars (Figs. 24.5–24.7). Most vases can safely be attributed to the regional pottery workshops of Zakros, Palaikastro, and the wider area of Siteia, but some recall production centers of more distant places in eastern Crete (e.g., Pseira, the Gournia district, Lasithi, and Malia).9 Strikingly, among this ceramic assemblage there was only one tripod cooking pot (Fig. 24.7, bottom)—a fact that may be related to the lack of hearths.

To ols and Ot he r I mplement s Three pounders and pestles, two small whetstones, and two stone and five clay weights were found in the cave;10 the absence of heavy grinding tools is quite noticeable. Other finds included a bronze sickle and kitchen knife

7. In total, nearly 4,400 sherds belonging to ca. 570 vessels were studied from both the cave and neighboring hollows. 8. Assemblages of basin-jug-and/or amphora seem evenly distributed in the pottery groups from all the spaces. 9. For the cultural analogies and links already observed between the region (“state”?) of Lasithi-MaliaAyia Photia and the “far eastern” Palaikastro-Zakros region in the Old Palace period, see Cadogan 1995; furthermore, Knappett (1999) suggests ideological but not economic ties, hypothesizing a “decentralized” rather than a “centralized” state. For the regional affinities and influences of Zakros production throughout the history of the Bronze Age settlement and Palace, see Platon 2004, with related discussion and documentation (esp. pp. 386 and 390 for pre-Neopalatial pottery similarities that spread possibly as far as the Isthmus of Ierapetra). 10. The stone and clay tools from the cave are illustrated in Kopaka and Chaniotakis 2003, fig. 7a.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c av e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s o n b r o n z e a g e c r e t e

277

Figure 24.4. Left: pyxis (H. 0.15) from the back area (space Δ) of the Ourania cave; center: trefoilmouthed jug (H. 0.2125) from the cave’s neighboring hollows; right: small basin (H. 0.108) from the entrance area of the cave. Photos Y. Papadakis-Ploumidis

Figure 24.5. Medium-size barrelshaped pithos (H. 0.74) from the entrance area of the cave. Photo Y. Papadakis-Ploumidis

(which were perhaps originally kept inside the back niche, niche B), as well as a Π-shaped clay pipe with a rounded end—an unexpected find in a cave site. Finally, some fire utensils have been recognized, such as a clay lamp, a core of an agrimi horn turned into a torch, and, from the neighboring hollows, a piece of a firebox(?) (Fig. 24.8, bottom), and a footed tubular clay implement (Fig. 24.8, top) that served as a fire kindler (according to N. Platon and L. Pomerance) or as a “beehive smoker,” as ingeniously suggested later by Davaras.11

Or g an i c an d I n or gan i c Mater i al s The entrance area also yielded plenty of organic and inorganic materials.

Ar c h aeob ota n ic a l M at er ia l s 11. Excavation notebook, August 9, 1962, p. 94, sketch 6; Davaras 1989.

Five sizeable samples of high-quality pure grain and seeds were registered during excavation, sometimes still in their storage pots. A. Sarpaki, who

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

278

k at e r i n a k o pa k a

Figure 24.6 (left). Pottery from the entrance area of the Ourania cave: pithoid jars. Scale 1:4. Drawings P. Stefanaki

carried out the archaeobotanical analysis, detected a type of maslin, including wheat, barley, peas, and other pulses that were very little infected by insects. They had all been carefully selected and processed, as if for future sowing. As for their quality, to quote the specialist, “they would be well in place inside a palatial storeroom.”12

Figure 24.7 (above). Painted coarseware sherds and the foot of a tripod cooking pot from the entrance area of the Ourania cave. Photos Y. Papada-

kis-Ploumidis

Osteol o g i c al Mat er i al A group of 10 cores of wild goat or agrimi horns—three or four in pairs (Fig. 24.9)—as well as a goat’s horn were kept inside the cave or near a niche A. D. Mylonas, who carried out the zooarchaeological analysis, identified one female and, for the rest, mature and young male animals.13 Aside from the horns, however, the cave contained only one shell and two human skull fragments.

Salt Almost half a kilogram of salt has been recovered from the cave. Macroscopic examination and chemical analysis have shown that it was at different stages of treatment (Fig. 24.10:a); it was ocassionally still in containers (Fig. 24.10:b), as either a solid or a brine. To date, this is a unique and extremely precious scientific “taste additive” to our overall knowledge of Minoan diet and modes of life.14

12. Sarpaki, forthcoming. 13. Mylona, forthcoming. 14. Kopaka and Chaniotakis 2001, 2003.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c av e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s o n b r o n z e a g e c r e t e

279

Figure 24.8 (above). “Beehive smoker” (top) and fragment of a clay fire implement (bottom) from the neighboring hollows. Scale 1:4. Drawing

M. Tsipopoulou, after Davaras 1989, fig. 1

Figure 24.9 (upper right). Pairs of wild goat (agrimi) horn cores from the entrance area of the Ourania cave. Photo Y. Papadakis-Ploumidis Figure 24.10 (right). Salt from the entrance area of the Ourania cave (a); bottom of a jar or shallow basin, a cup, and other sherds of vases related to the salt product (b). Photos N. Chaniotakis (a), Y. PapadakisPloumidis (b)

a

b

Nat u re of th e Occ u pat i on : th e Cav e a s Ste g a

15. Some MM fine ware and tools may have been associated with the skeletal remains. Eight more bones of human skulls and four teeth have been found in the material from the nearby hollows (Mylona, forthcoming).

It is important to note that there are no cultic symbols among this interesting array of finds and commodities in the cave—no libation tables, not a single figurine, etc. In addition, the meager skeletal evidence shows only restricted and apparently secondary burial activity there.15 It is tantalizing to reflect on how the presence or absence of these items affects the archaeological interpretation of the cave: a single double axe—even if painted on a sherd—and some human bones could have thrown serious doubt on the secular functions of Ourania and turned the interpretation back, once more, toward religious and/or funerary use. Here, on the contrary, we are dealing with a deliberately organized cave site, full of items that definitely point to daily “household” activities, mainly related to the economic domain:

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

280

k at e r i n a k o pa k a

1. Storage and preservation. The storage capacity of the cave in terms of foodstuffs (and perhaps even of pottery) can easily remind us of a wealthy rural (or even urban) household—at least according to the standards of the time. Furthermore, the particular character and the quality of certain products sheltered in Ourania—the agrimi horns, top-quality wheat, and pure packed salt—could suggest that the cave also functioned as a secure place for keeping and preserving commodities16 (fresh? dried? salted?) for rather extended periods of time. 2. Food processing and other household industries. Pounding, salting and preserving, probably sharpening and cutting, harvesting, and maybe even weighing are suggested by the worn tools and other finds. Spouted vases, basins, and the pipe may point to more specialized industrial work, implying activities that involved liquids such as water(?), milk(?),17 and honey(?). Of particular interest here is a group of artifacts that could have formed an almost complete production chain for prehistoric honey-making: a small spouted jar (Fig. 24.11) with an evenly perforated interior rim, similar to the rim of a vraskaki, a Cretan pot traditionally used for straining honeycombs;18 perhaps, also, a bridge-spouted jar with a “stepped” interior, somewhat reminiscent of the later Greek beehives; other vases—basins,19 maybe jugs and/or amphoras; the pipe;20 and last but not least, the “beehive-smoker,” which strongly resembles related modern Cretan implements. Even the bronze knife may have been used for cutting honeycombs, as the traditional glystro does today. It is also worth noting that, until recently, the people of Zakros used to collect honey from bees that swarmed in the wild at the entrance of Ourania.21 3. Habitation. Permanent dwelling cannot be firmly attested in the cave, given the absence of a hearth (or hearths) and animal bones (the usual remains of ancient meals) and the scarcity of tripod cooking vessels. Periodic occupation was more likely, preferably in the warm seasons, when such major subsistence activities as cooking and eating could take place out of doors. How does the range of equipment found at Ourania compare with what has been found in some of the Neopalatial rural “villas” (or large farmsteads) in the Siteia region, such as those at Achladia and Prophitis Ilias Tourtouloi,22 or to some urban households at nearby Zakros and 16. These goods may have been transferred at a later time to the storerooms of some central building, as suggested by the listings of such commodities in the palatial archives at Knossos (e.g., agrimi horns in the Mc series of Linear B tablets); see the brief discussion in Kopaka and Chaniotakis 2001, 2003. 17. For dairy products (mainly cheese) still kept in caves in Euboia today, see Sampson 1992, p. 97. 18. Vallianos and Padouva 1986, fig. 3 (illustrated in Kopaka and Chaniotakis 2003, fig. 6:b). See also the

“beeswax, maybe honey” that has been recognized inside a Late Helladic IIB thelastron from Midea (Tzedakis and Martlew 1999, p. 169, no. 158 [G. Walberg]) that may be, in some way, compared morphologically to the spouted jar from Ourania. This connection with honey is an interesting suggestion for the entire series of such vases, broadly represented (although, as a rule, in small numbers each time) at various other Bronze Age sites on Crete and in the rest of the Aegean. 19. Cf. the “beeswax (honey) and

honey” that have been recently identified inside two small basins from the Religious Center at Mycenae (Tzedakis and Martlew 1999, p. 133, no. 116 [E. B. French], and p. 190 [H. Martlew]). 20. Cf. the remains of “beeswax (honey) and possibly oil” detected on a similar (MM IA) pipe from Chamalevri (Tzedakis and Martlew 1999, p. 51, no. 16 [M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki]). 21. G. Daskalakis (pers. comm.). 22. For a discussion of these sites, see Platon 1997b.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c av e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s o n b r o n z e a g e c r e t e

Figure 24.11. Spouted jar with interior perforated rim from the entrance area of the Ourania cave. Scale 1:5.

Photo Y. Papadakis-Ploumidis, drawing P. Stefanaki

23. Hogarth 1900–1901, p. 141. Other dwellings in Zakros, e.g., Houses A, B, C, and H, also displayed, along with domestic pottery, metal items, isolated or in groups. The “toolkit” in House A was intended, according to the excavator, for agricultural work (Hogarth 1900–1901, p. 132, fig. 44). 24. Hogarth 1900–1901, p. 141, fig. 51. For a fragmentary clay tube from the same house, see Dawkins 1903, p. 258. For similar smaller frag-

281

Palaikastro? Zakros House Ι, for example, has a central room and several smaller compartments (on two levels) for storage and industrial activities. The building also contained similar types of everyday pottery, a hoard of bronze tools (including a kitchen knife),23 and at least one “beehive-smoker,” comparable to the example from Ourania.24 In addition, similar groups of paleobotanical remains have been reported from Zakros25 and Palaikastro.26 As for the agrimi horns, several equally important collections are reported from residential and nonresidential contexts of different periods, ranging from MM to LM III (e.g., Tylissos, Smari, Poros, Chamalevri, Syvritos, and Symi).27 At Zakros, at least two similar horn pairs and possibly some other ments from Zakros, and other related implements (considered, as a rule, of a rather enigmatic purpose) from Bronze Age Crete, the Aegean, Cyprus, and the rest of the Mediterranean, see Kopaka 1984, pp. 219–228. 25. Very small carbonized pulses, perhaps peas and Egyptian beans, are reported from the Building of the Niches, room III. Other kinds of seeds and herbs were also present at Zakros. E.g., many olive stones and grape pips as well as thin branches of what may

have been aromatic plants were found by the well of the southeast sector of the Palace (Platon 1964, p. 159; 1974, pp. 183–185). 26. E.g., room B23 at Palaikastro contained wheat and two kinds of peas (MacGillivray et al. 1989, pp. 435– 437). Moreover, in the storerooms of Building 4, seeds were found together with a “beehive smoker” (MacGillivray et al. 1989, p. 434, pl. 66:c). 27. Mylona, forthcoming, table I.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

282

k at e r i n a k o pa k a

single agrimi horns were recovered from MM III and LM I horizons.28 The Ourania horns, then, seem to fit perfectly into the ecosystem of the Lenika Gorge, and they provide a direct insight into the strong cultural emphasis on agrimia that is so well reflected in local art.29 There arises the question, of course, of why such a household (or segment of a household) found its stega (roof ) among the steep rocks of Ourania rather than in a convenient domestic environment, such as a built house in the settlement of Zakros. This question would require another full paper, assessing the issue together with the changing and often troubled social, economic, and political conditions that may have determined the nature of the occupation in the cave—whether as an independent unit or, more likely, as an annex to the nearby MM to LM settlement site of Zakros—and ultimately dictated the reasons for its abandonment.

O n Caves an d H ouseh o lds : th e Cav e in th e Mind in Bron ze Ag e Cre te Caves and rock shelters are, as a rule, places familiar to people.30 They were “domesticated” early, so as to arrange and shelter multiple activities of life, death, and cult. Their occupation patterns reflect the wider technological and overall cultural attitudes, needs, and ideologies of their users, and parallel their modes of organizing and exploiting their built and natural environments.31 To enter a cave is to penetrate a different world, one that is protected from many physical threats and risks and can serve as a refuge in times of social crises and instabilities. As fixed elements of the landscape, caverns are time-resistant places that change the outside climate to create their own specific microclimate and keep interior conditions stable.32 They may contain, therefore, precious ancient materials that are too fragile to be preserved in the open. Archaeological deposits in caves often form complex cultural palimpsests because of successive reoccupations and disturbances. Their contribution to the life strategies of their times is mainly reflected in the periodic exploitation of natural resources (e.g., the transhumance of flocks, collection of herbs, harvest of plants, beekeeping), and in the long-lived tendency to use them as dwelling places—as independent households or auxiliary domestic units. In archaeological reasoning, systematic occupation of cave environments is traditionally viewed as having been favored mainly by hunter28. Two skull and horn fragments were found in rooms Ξ and Σ of the Building East of the Palace (Platon 1984, p. 431). See also the fragmentary skull and horn pieces in Houses B and Δα (Platon 1973, pp. 142–144, pl. 160:a; 1979, p. 310), and a big horn in storeroom I of the Ισχυρό Κτήριο (Platon 1969, p. 217). 29. Cf., above all, the agrimia on the famous “Peak Sanctuary” Rhyton and the gold band with the “potnia theron” from the Giamalakis collection (Platon 1974, figs. 94 and 5, respectively).

30. The subhead of this section is my rearrangement and adaptation of the title of Lewis-Williams 2002. 31. For the mainly local character of the occupation of caves and rock shelters, and the general human need for interior planning and arrangement before using them, see Leroi-Gourhan [1945] 1973, pp. 291–292. For ethnographic parallels of the diverse adaptive arrangement of caves by different human groups, see Galanidou 2000, esp. pp. 270–271. 32. Legge 1972, p. 101.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c av e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s o n b r o n z e a g e c r e t e

283

gatherer foragers in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods. They are still considered frequent habitation sites among the food-cultivating communities in the Neolithic period, at which time they are thought to have been gradually replaced by settled dwellings in mixed-farming villages. In the scholarly literature on the Bronze Age Aegean, the belief persists that burial and then religious activities began to take over at that time, eventually replacing the secular use of caves completely. Most of the well-known Cretan caves used in the 3rd and 2nd millennia b.c. do indeed seem to fall into this pattern (e.g., Trapeza,33 perhaps Melidoni,34 and Ayios Charalambos35). However, this rather conventional and linear historical reasoning should not obscure the potential domestic character of caves throughout the Bronze Age. Social and changing economic and political horizons and cultural contexts could have dictated a different choice. Above all, in the cave-embroidered landscapes of Crete and the Aegean, tens of thousands of natural hollows represent both long-lasting mental templates and effective landmarks. As P. Faure convincingly demonstrated in his pioneering work,36 caves pose constant challenges to people who seek to appropriate and “consume” this available space for a variety of purposes, including that of a home—a solid roof, always present in times of need or abundance. The study of the cave of Ourania strongly suggests that future systematic research and interdisciplinary fieldwork will also shed new light on the “utilitarian” aspects of other Cretan caves and rock shelters. This may well constrain current preconceptions and significantly alter our readings, for example, of the occupation patterns and the intensity and diversity of exploitation of the Minoan countryside by showing that cave environments were incorporated, in varying degrees, into the everyday life-cycles of the time. With this evidence at hand, we may start to think again—from a more profane perspective—about the already existing material data from caves. For example, structures that could be dated to the Bronze Age, such as walls, enclosures, and other features of habitation—either those that are still visible or, as is more often the case, hidden under thick deposits resulting from modern occupation—may not all relate solely to ritual.37 The ceramic remains often found in caves may not always correspond to burial or religious offerings;38 and the same holds true for complete storage vessels. For example, nearly 30 pithoi were found both at Trapeza and Galana Charakia (Vianos), while numerous examples have been reported 33. Trapeza hosted life activities in the Final Neolithic period. In the Early Minoan period (3rd and early 2nd millennia) it served as a burial place, and, at the same time, also sheltered religious activities. The cave was abandoned by MM I, when Psychro seems to have become the main focus of ritual activity in the area (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1935–1936, p. 23). 34. It has been noted that a change from original residential to religious occupation at Melidoni probably took place in the 2nd and 1st millennia

(Godart and Tzedakis 1992, p. 80; Tzedakis and Gavrilaki 1995). 35. See, e.g., Davaras 1986, 1989. 36. For the best discussions of the diachronic and manifold uses of Cretan caves, with rich examples and bibliography, see Faure 1964, esp. pp. 51–197; 1969; 1996. For a brief account of ancient and modern uses of Aegean caves, see Sampson 1985, pp. 42–44. 37. For the wider Zakros region, see, e.g., Faure 1964, p. 55 (“enclos de murs” and MM III–LM I sherds in Spiliara [Chochlakies]); Davaras 1982b (“remains of buildings” at Pelekita [Zakros]

in Neolithic to MM levels). 38. E.g., in eastern Crete and the Zakros area, see MM sherds from Kouphota (Ayia Photia) and MM III–LM I sherds from Piskokephalo (Sotira), Smaïli (Chochlakies), Karoumes (Spiliara), and Kato Spilios and Chriskous (Zakros); see, respectively, Wroncka 1959, p. 535; Faure 1964, pp. 66–68; Nakassis and Tagonidou 1993, pp. 15, 28; Chryssoulaki and Vokotopoulos 1993, p. 73. For western Crete, cf., e.g., MM sherds from Ellenes (Amari) and MM–LM I sherds from Melidoni (Godart and Tzedakis 1992, pp. 75, 80).

284

k at e r i n a k o pa k a

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

from Kamares, and several others from Stavromytis (Archanes) and even Psychro.39 Kamares and Stavromytis also produced considerable quantities of cereals and seeds;40 Psychro and Arkoudiotissa also had agrimi horns. Are we really so sure about the nature of these contexts, each and all? Did the use(s) of our caves remain constant throughout their occupation phases? Do we not, in fact, need to reassess our early findings before assigning them, a priori and without sound evidence, to the human quotidian, funerary, or divine spheres?

Ep ilo g ue While preparing my dissertation in France in the early 1980s, when Aegean Bronze Age domestic arrangements and the routine of daily life were not yet among mainstream archaeological concerns, I came upon the following—old, simple, and wise—definition of a house that eloquently expresses its multifaceted character: “Une habitation constitue à la fois un refuge, une remise, un lieu de travail et un microclimat . . . elle abrite, en même temps, la pensée religieuse.”41 Ethnographic parallels show that different human groups that systematically use caves tend to reproduce within them their own material and symbolic patterns of dwelling, with their familiar and more or less complex structures and furnishings. Greek epic tradition also reflects well such trends (e.g., Calypso’s lair and the Cyclops’s cave in the Odyssey). The material from Ourania cave has broadened, I think, our knowledge not only because of its own very particular features, but also because it reflects domestic activities and behaviors that we usually expect to find, read, and attempt to decode only within the Bronze Age “official” urban and rural built environments in Zakros, its wider region, and the world beyond. In so doing, we often overlook the existing reciprocities and interactions between Minoan settled communities and the caves that came within their physical, social, and cultural domains, as well as within their ideological constructions of “houses” and “households.” 39. The pithoi range in date from EM III to LM III. See Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1935– 1936, pp. 23, 86–93 (Trapeza); Faure 1964, p. 68 (Vianos); Dawkins and Laistner 1912–1913, pp. 11, 13 (Kamares); Pilali-Papasteriou 1987, pp. 184–

185, 191 (Stavromytis, Psychro). 40. Dawkins and Laistner 1912– 1913, p. 11; Pilali-Papasteriou 1987, pp. 184, 191. 41. Deffontaines 1948, p. 15 (cited also in Kopaka 1984, p. 7).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 25

“ B u r n i n g D own t h e H ou s e ” : D e f i n i n g t h e Hou s e hol d of Q uart i e r N u at M al i a Using GIS by Jan Driessen and Hubert Fiasse The pyla (‘tribe’) remained politically important and women were therein enumerated. The clan appears to be designated as startos and Aristotle tells us that the chief magistrates, the kosmoi, were drawn from ‘certain clans.’ The existence of the oikos (household) presupposes . . . the growth of smaller units within the clan. These units would tend to become more and more independent of the basic tribal structure, with the growth of family institutions based on a private property system.1

1. Willetts 1977, p. 184; cf. Willetts 1980, pp. 28–29. 2. Whitelaw 2001, p. 18. 3. Chesson 2003. 4. Chesson 2003, p. 80. 5. Knappett 1999, p. 622. For Palaikastro, see Driessen and MacGillivray 1989, p. 107: “It may therefore be suggested that each of the main blocks originally contained a clan or a family unit the members of which, who did not leave through marriage, constructed houses against their ancestral home, the latter taking up functions which were not repeated again in the same expanded family unit.” For a discussion of corporate groups, see Driessen 2002, pp. 11–12; for factions, see Hamilakis 2002. 6. Thornton 2002, p. 167.

In some studies concentrating on the size of Neopalatial domestic buildings, an argument has been made in favor of the existence of nuclear families in Minoan urban environments.2 Nonstandard building sizes call into question the validity of such an interpretation, and the above quote is given here to refer to a situation that is much more common in traditional cultures, namely that which, following Lévi-Strauss, has been called a “House Society” by Chesson in her recent discussion of the Early Bronze Age Levant.3 Indeed, more attention is given to the archaeological correlates of “residential compounds [which] housed populations; [the] household include[s] extended family groups based on real and fictive kinship, and functioned as the fundamental unit of social, economic and political organization; house membership includes many physical households, and may be reflected generally in neighbourhoods within each community.”4 The gradual evolution on Doric Crete toward a more restricted notion of the household (i.e., toward the nuclear family) seems to imply an earlier situation during which larger social units indeed played a more important part. Some authors, without developing the matter in detail, have argued for the existence of a similar system on Minoan Crete, especially during the Middle Bronze Age, for specific towns or those with a more political role.5 It may perhaps be easier to call these groups “clans,” but more research needs to be done on their precise social role; the specific definition “a non-corporate descent group in which genealogical links to a common ancestor are assumed but are not actually known” is not to the point here.6 Clans or their localized segments, known as “house groups,” would be materially expressed by a compound with different clusters in which certain

286

jan dr ie ssen and hubert fiasse 0

2.5

N

5 W

meters

X19

FZ

X17 II7

II8

x16

X9

GA

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

X3 X4

GB

II2

II6 II10

XI6

X6

V IX7

XII3 XII2

XII1

VII1

GD

IX6

IX5

XV5

VII2 IX3

IX2

133

XV7 XV6

XIII4 IX4

XIII1

XIII2

134

xV4

XV2 XIII3

IX1

VIII2

132

3

X1 VI

VIII1

XIV

XI1

XI8

IV1

Pit I

X11

II4 II3

IV2

X21

X7

X2

GE

X20

X13

x5 II5

XVIII1

X12

II1

I2

II11

X18

X15 X14

X10

X8

Pit III I3

GC

E S

135

136

137

archaeological assemblages are repeated and others are not, and in which, moreover, a number of interrelationships link the different clusters. There is, at present, a gradually growing body of archaeological material that reflects such larger compounds with interrelated units, especially in recently excavated Dark Age and historical Cretan sites such as Kavousi Vronda, Chalasmenos, Vasiliki Kephala, Azoria, and Smari. Where the earlier Postpalatial Late Minoan (LM) IIIA2–B island is concerned, a series of excavated structures at Amnisos, Gouves, Kephali Chondrou, and even Palaikastro take the form of extensive complexes, and these should probably also best be interpreted as extended family or clan buildings. The best example of such a compound occupied by different families that together formed a larger social unit is Quartier Nu at Malia (Fig. 25.1). Excavated by the French School between 1988 and 1993 under the direction of Alexandre Farnoux and one of the authors,7 it is here examined for the information it yielded that allows us to reconstruct the social unit that occupied it. Indeed, one of the main questions that has occupied us during post-excavation study is whether the complex functioned as a single unit—some kind of “Big Man” house or farm—rather than as a cluster of different households that shared some open spaces and partition walls. The answer, as so often, falls somewhere between these two extremes. Despite the shallowness of soil cover, the plan of the Quartier Nu building is well preserved, and many floor deposits were found intact. The

XV1

138

xV3

Pit II 139

140

Figure 25.1. Reconstructed outline plan of Quartier Nu at Malia showing LM III domestic units and rooms with hearths. H. Fiasse

7. For preliminary reports see Farnoux and Müller 1989; Farnoux 1990a, 1990b, 1997a, 1997b; Farnoux and Driessen 1991a, 1991b, 1995; Driessen and Farnoux 1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b; Schoep and Knappett 2003.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

d e f i n i n g t h e h o u s e h o l d o f q ua r t i e r n u at m a l i a

8. Schoep and Knappett 2003. 9. The walls of the later occupation on the site have entirely different orientations that contrast with the earlier situation. During the 14th century a.d., the site was briefly reoccupied.

287

site on which the LM IIIA2 complex was established had been occupied from at least the Middle Minoan (MM) II phase onward by a building with fine paved floors, plastered walls, and several storerooms, not unlike some of the better apartments of Quartier Mu, located immediately to the south, on which it may have formed a dependency.8 Evidence for Neopalatial occupation was concentrated in the west part of the compound and included decorated pottery, ashlar walls, and finely painted fresco fragments. Beneath the southeast part there was some limited Monopalatial or LM II–IIIA1 occupation, which included several Ephyraean goblets. Over much of the site we found a gray layer containing ash, sand, and redeposited LM IIIA1–2 material. This stratum served as a leveling layer for the later complex, although, in some places, earlier walls or building blocks were incorporated or reused. Indeed, in several cases, MM wall alignments were maintained throughout the Late Bronze Age, perhaps illustrating a continuity of occupation for 500 years. The later complex, constructed during LM IIIA2, was finally destroyed during LM IIIB, probably in the first half of this phase; its final occupational phase may have spanned only two or three generations.9 The structure was arranged as an almost closed complex measuring approximately 25 x 32 m, organized around a small court accessed from the north. To the east was an isolated, almost square construction that served as a kitchen (XIV). At the end of LM IIIA2, an earthquake destroyed large parts of the complex and also claimed at least one victim, whose skeleton was found in the destruction debris of the kitchen. Repairs involved the dismantling of the rooms to the north of the court, the clearance of the rooms of the east wing, and the dumping of the stone debris on and around the kitchen building, leaving a free path flanking the east side of the building (X21). In its last, early LM IIIB phase, the complex had three wings arranged around a large rectangular pebble court (ca. 6 x 12 m) (Fig. 25.1), with a portico along its south side that sheltered in the southeast corner a fine pebble mosaic floor (2.60 x 2.60 m) with a geometric pattern—the finest Bronze Age example yet known (XI1). Strangely enough, this mosaic floor was entirely covered with large sherds that could be restored as a complete pithos, two large basins, and what turned out to be the largest house model hitherto found in the Aegean, complete with windows, a gabled roof, and chimneys (Fig. 25.2). We are at a loss, for the moment, to understand the connection between the mosaic floor, the pottery, and the house model, but some ceremonial or ritual activity may be assumed, especially since a fine triangular stone lamp, seemingly in situ, was found nearby. At three spots, to the southwest (I), southeast (II), and northwest (III) of the complex, we found large pits filled with ash, broken pottery, and some other objects. Some sherds found in these pits join with fragments found in or immediately beneath the latest floors, suggesting that at least some of the material in the pits derives from cleaning and clearing operations after the LM IIIA2 earthquake. The quality of the mass of the material, as well as the shapes and objects represented, suggest an interpretation of these pits as favissa—ritual or ceremonial deposits—rather than as garbage disposal areas, for reasons that will be discussed below. The final deposits in the three wings of the complex differ considerably: those to the east

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

288

jan dr ie ssen and hubert fiasse

Figure 25.2. Terracotta house model found on mosaic court. Photo J. Driessen

were evidently fire destruction deposits, including many complete vases; those to the west were unburnt, but, again, the pottery, though often very much broken, was largely restorable—perhaps suggestive of earthquake destruction. The scarce deposits to the south, in contrast, largely consisted of fragmentary, unburnt pottery more typical of abandonment. Earthquakes can cause localized fires, and the possibility exists that only one part of the building burned, whereas the other part simply collapsed and the third was abandoned because of the misfortune. At the moment we are unable to recognize meaningful stylistic differences between the three destruction deposits, so for this paper it is assumed that all final deposits are contemporaneous. Our next question, which is related to the essence of the studies presented in this volume, is whether the three wings of the complex acted as a single unit rather than as a cluster of households. There are different ways to approach this problem: one way is to look at the architecture and the repetition of features throughout the complex, the other is to look at the spatial distribution of movable finds.10 With regard to the architecture, some slight differences exist between the different wings in alignments and wall construction techniques, but these seem largely a result of the occasional reuse of earlier structures. As for the plan, no single entrance gives access to the entire complex (Fig. 25.1). Indeed, outside entrances and internal circulation could imply the existence of at least three or probably four distinct units. Fixed architectural assemblages such as hearths and column halls are also repeated: in the east part, for instance, a doorway with a porch led to a large hall with a column on either side of a central hearth (X22/23). Adjacent to this hall, but accessible via another outside entrance, was a second large room (X11) with a fine clay floor and central column but no hearth. In the west part, a large room (II6) had a central

10. See Glowacki 2004 for a good application of this method at LM IIIC Kavousi Vronda.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

d e f i n i n g t h e h o u s e h o l d o f q ua r t i e r n u at m a l i a

289

hearth with two diagonally placed column bases; and south of the central court there was a large room (IX7), unfortunately very damaged, with traces of burning in the center and a single remaining column base. Both the entrances and the major fixed architectural features suggest four different units. There is, however, only a single central court with a pebble mosaic around which these units are organized, and there is no identical repetition of architectural features. Next, we can look at the spatial distribution of moveable objects within the architectural complex by using geographic information system (GIS) software11 and methods more commonly employed in survey archaeology and intersite analyses,12 and applying them to an intrasite analysis.13 For the present exercise only more or less complete vases and other objects were included—in all, 2,472 items.14 Since all archaeological excavations are supposed to keep detailed records of finds that, at the least, include catalogue number; coordinates for location and absolute elevation; material (e.g., terracotta, metal, stone); type of find (e.g., within terracotta: tile, weight, vase), usually with further entries for shape (e.g., for vase: amphora, stirrup jar, cup); date; and entries for study, drawing, and photography, an ArcView analysis can easily be done on every site. At Malia, we have linked this database to digital images, and we hope eventually to make the entire project available for consultation on the Internet. The ArcView program helps to enhance spatial analysis, and it can easily perform searches for distributions and various associations, as well as perform statistical analyses. The example in Figure 25.3 shows the distribution of finds in structure XIV—the kitchen in which the skeleton was found—using some of the capabilities of the ArcView software. In general, we can quickly and easily check for general object distribution (Fig. 25.4) or distribution according to the type of material (e.g., terracotta, stone, metal). Of these, it is probably easier to look at the distribution of different materials first. In terms of pottery distribution, both the east wing and an area to the southwest show high densities (Fig. 25.5). The latter is, in fact, pit I, from which more than 550 vases were catalogued. If we use the software 11. The authors thank the members of the Topography of Power (ToP) project at Université catholique de Louvain for their assistance, and especially Alexandre Farnoux, Florence Driessen, and Tim Cunningham. Moreover, we thank the editors for their patience. 12. See, e.g., http://www.ims.forth. gr/technical_support.html for its use in the Lasithi database, a project in which our team member Steven Soetens also participated; Soetens has also used the software to study the distribution of peak sanctuaries. Two other ToP members, Klaas Vansteenhuyse and Peter

Tomkins, have applied GIS techniques to the distribution of other types of sites on Crete. See also Pavlidis, Fraser, and Ogleby 2001. Similar research is also done by Marina Gkiasta at Leyden, and by Andrew Bevan for Kythera at University College-London. Piraye Hacigüzeller at Université catholique de Louvain at Louvain-La-Neuve (UCL-LLN) is using MapInfo on intrasite spatial patterning of Palaikastro material. 13. Both MapInfo and ArcView are full-featured GIS software packages used for visualizing, managing, creating, and analyzing spatial data. They help reveal relationships and identify pat-

terns in new ways and make the creation of publication-quality maps easy. Data can be integrated from almost any source and the program actually helps to point out flaws and inconsistencies in data recording and management. 14. Aside from the earlier and later finds, as well as objects that have not yet been spatially referenced (because they were not identified during excavation and were made up from sherds kept in archaeological units), about 1,750 objects were taken into account. Eventually, we hope to include more data that result from the sherd study of the different archaeological units.

blade

whetstone

290

bowl

offering table

jan dr ie ssen and hubert fiasse

cooking plate cooking pot

stalagmite whetstone

offering table blade

whetstone

sample

X21 © 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

X21

X21

vase bottom bowl

stirruptable jar offering blade

stalagmite

cooking plate fragment cooking pot

stalagmite

shallow bowl

XIV

skull of skeleton pelvis of skeleton

vase bottom krater vase bottom

fragment

fragment

pierced slab

handle

fragmentvase bottom sample pithos fragment handled lid stirrupfragment jar blade fragment sample sample lid blade lid fragment bowl shallow bowl vase bottom krater vase bottom offering table slag fragment fragment skull of skeleton shallow bowlhandledpierced vase bottom cooking pot lid slab pelvis of skeleton handle pelvis of skeleton vase bottom fragment foot cooking plate pithosright fragment pierced slab fragment skull ofsample skeleton pierced slab lid bowl pithos fragment pelvis of skeleton krater slag fragment fragment cooking pot handled lid rightfragment foot pithos handle fragment right foot cooking plate sample sample lid bowl krater shallow bowl slag fragment sherds cooking pot handled lid handle cooking plate right foot skull of skeleton vase bottom

stirrup jar

XIV

XIV

fragment

slag stalagmite stirrup jar vase bottom

N

0

1 Meter

0E

W

1whetstone

N W

Meter

S

E

krater blade fragment bowl handle cooking plate handled lid cooking pot lid krater offering table fragment pelvis of skeleton handle pierced slab handled lid pithos fragment lid right foot offering table sample pelvis of skeleton shallow bowl pierced slab sherds pithos fragment skull of skeleton right foot slag sample stalagmite shallow bowl stirrup jar sherds vase bottom skull of skeleton whetstone slag stalagmite

S

stirrup jar vase bottom

N

0

1

W

Meter

E

whetstone

S

blade

911541002

bowl

920553001

cooking plate cooking pot

920540001

krater fragment

911541002

920531002

X21 X21

X21

X21

920538004

blade

handle

920528002

blade lid bowl offering table cooking plate 920521001 920519006 920540001 920525001 pelvis of skeleton 920519004 cooking pot stalagmite 920535001 920537001 pierced slab 920531001 920536001 krater 920500001 920537002 pithos fragment 911541002 920517002 fragment 920538002 920519001 920553001 right foot 920528005 920538003 handle 920526001 vase bottom stirrup jar 920538001 sample 920528002 sample handled lid 920538004 blade fragment 920531002 shallow bowl lid 920517001 920540001 shallow bowl 920528001 vase bottom sherds vase bottom offering table fragment skull of skeleton skull of skeleton 911536001 pierced slab pelvis of skeleton 920528003 pelvis of skeleton 920568001 fragment slag pithos fragment pierced slab fragment sample 920519006 stalagmite 920525001 lid bowl920519004 pithos fragment krater slag fragment stirrup jar 920535001 cooking pot handled lid right foot 920528002 handle 920537001 920538004 cooking plate 920531001 right foot920531002 vase bottom 920536001 N sample 920517001 920500001 920528001 920537002 0 1 whetstone shallow bowl W E 920517002 whetstone 911536001

920517001

XIV

XIV

bowl

920553001 handled lid

920528001

cooking plate

offering table 920528003 920568001

XIV

920538002 920528003 911536001 920519001 sherds Meter 920528005 920538003 S 920568001 920526001 skull of skeleton 920538001 920519006 920525001 slag 920519004 920535001 stalagmite 920537001 920531001 920536001 stirrup jar 920500001 920537002 vase bottom N 920517002 920538002 0920519001 1 whetstone 920528005 W E 920538003 920526001 920538001 Meter

XIV

cooking pot

920521001

920521001

S

N

0

1

W

Meter

E

krater blade fragment bowl handle cooking plate handled lid cooking pot lid krater offering table fragment pelvis of skeleton handle pierced slab handled lid pithos fragment lid right foot offering table sample pelvis of skeleton shallow bowl pierced slab sherds pithos fragment skull of skeleton right foot slag sample stalagmite shallow bowl stirrup jar sherds vase bottom skull of skeleton whetstone slag stalagmite

S

stirrup jar vase bottom

N

0

911541002

920553001

1blade Meter

bowl

krater fragment

920531002

920538004 920517001

920528002 920528001

E

cooking plate cooking pot

920540001

W

handle handled lid lid

S

whetstone

d e f i n i n g t h e h o u s e h o l d o f q ua r t i e r n u at m a l i a 0

2.5

5

0

2.5 0

meters

N

5 2.5

meters

X19

FZ

FZ

X17 II7

II8

II8

II8

II7

II7

x16

X9

X9

GA

GA

I2

II10 II11

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

I2

I3

I3

132

I3

II5

GB

GB II2

II10

II6

II6 II4

GC

IV2 II11

II3

IV1

IV1

XVIII1

GD

XVIII1 VI VII1

II3 XI1

XI8

V

IV2

V

II3

XI6

IV1

IX7

VI

IX7

VIII1

GE

VIII2

VIII1

132

IX1

132 133

XII3

IX5

XII1

VIII1

IX1

VIII2 IX2

IX3

133 134

VIII2 Figure 25.3 (opposite). Structure XIV in Quartier Nu. Above: distribution 134 135 of133 finds according to object identification; below: distribution of finds according to catalogue number.

H. Fiasse

Figure 25.4 (above). Quartier Nu: general object distribution according to material. H. Fiasse

15. Amphoras and stirrup jars are common and present in both wings; pithoi are rare but some are attested in the west wing, where there may also have been one or more larnakes used for storage. In the east wing, on the other hand, an odd box more than a meter long with eight partitions was

IX2

IX1

134 135

IX4 IX3

XIII1

IX4

135

136 XIII2

E

S

S

X19

bonebone

X12 X10

X18

X20

X12X13

X13

X20

charcoal

metalmetal

metal

mudbrick

X20

X13

mudbrick

obsidian plaster

x5 X21

X4 X7

X21 X7 X11

X11XIV

X11

plaster X21 XIV

shell

XIV

X6

X6 X22 - 23

X1

shellsoil sample soil sample stone

XII2

XV5 XIII4

IX4

XIII1

XIII4

XIII3

XIII4

XV7

XV2 XIII1XV6

XV7 XV6 XV5 xV4 XV2

XV5

XIII3

XIII2 XV2 XIII2

136 137

X22 - 23

X22 - 23 XII2 XII1

xV4

XIII3 XV1

xV3 138 137 XV1

XV7 XV6

xV4

xV3 XV1

xV3

138 139

139 140

140

to sort the vases according to their major functional categories (i.e., storage, that storage 137 cooking, 139 we can observe 140 136drinking, eating, 138lighting, etc.), containers—particularly large amphoras (31) and stirrup jars (60), but also pithoi (9)—though absent from several areas, again have concentrations in both the east and west wings, as well as in pit I.15 Incidentally, complete or fragmentary stirrup jars inscribed with Linear B were also found in both the east and west wings, but not in the pits. Drinking vessels are both common and varied, and they seem to represent an important aspect of the complex. The high number of drinking vessels found in the pits is notable, and more than half of the vases found in pit I were broken kylikes or champagne cups, which is one of the reasons we suggest a special function for these pits. Apart from the pits, kylikes (ca. 50) occur only in the west and south wings of the complex, whereas champagne cups (ca. 85) are well represented in all wings (Fig. 25.6). On the basis of some funerary evidence, it has been suggested that women used champagne cups and the men used kylikes.16 If this were true, it would perhaps imply a gender difference in the use of the different wings. We found in the main hall X22/23. Its use is unknown, but perforations show that it could have been covered with a lid, perhaps of perishable material. C. Knappett and P. Day also analyzed more than 65 storage jars, identifying 12 fabrics, both local and nonlocal. The nonlocal vases mainly had a south coast

bone

charcoal charcoal

obsidian

IX5 XII2

VII2

IX2

VII2

X2

X6

IX3

W

terracotta

XII1

IX5

meters

N E

X2

X1

IX6

5 W

stoneterracotta

XII3 IX6

S

XI1

IX7XII3 X1

VI

IX6

GE

X7

X2

VII1

VII2

XI1 XI8

XI8 XI6

V

GD

VII1

X4

XI6

X10

X12 X8

X3 X4

X3

II4

II2

II6

II10

II11

GC

II4

II2

X3

II5

X9

x5

x5

X19

E N

W

X17 X18 X15 X14 X18 X15 X14 x16

x16 X15 X14

X8 X10

X8

II1

II5

IV2

XVIII1

II1

I2

II1

X17

291

provenance (which also applies to the house model), with only a few from Chania and North-Central Crete; both wings of the complex had similar distributions. 16. D’Agata 1999, p. 51, no. 34, p. 53, nn. 39–40; 2005, pp. 114–115.

mudbrick obsidian plaster shell soil sample stone terracotta

292

jan dr ie ssen and hubert fiasse 0 0

2.5 2.5

5 5

0

meters meters

X19 X19

FZFZ

FZ

X17 X17 II7II7 II8

II8II8

II7

GA GA

GA

I2 I2

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

GB

GC GC

II11II11

GC

II1

II5II5

II2II2

II2

II6 II3II3

IV2 IV2 II11

IV2

V V

IV1IV1

XVIII1 VII1 VII1

II3

X2

X6X6

X1X1 IX7IX7

IX7XII3 XII3

VI

X1

XII2 XII2 XII1

IX6

IX5IX5

XIII1 XIII1 IX4

IX4IX4 IX3

IX3IX3

IX2IX2

134 133134

X20 X20 X13

X13 X13 X12

X21 X21 X11 X11 X7

XIVXIV X21

IX2

135 134135

X6 - 23 X22 X22 - 23

XIII3 XIII3

XIII3

xV3 xV3 XV1 XV1

XV1

XIII2

137 136137

136 135 136

xV3

139 138139

138 137138

2.5 2.5 0

X19 X19

FZ

X17 X17 II7 II7 II8

II7

140 139140 5 5 2.5

I2 I2

II1 II1

I2

I3 I3

x5 x5

I3

GB

II2 II2

II6 II6

II10II10

II4 II4

II6

X3X3

II5

II2

II3

XI1XI1 XI8

XI8 XI8 XI6

GC GC

GC

IV2 IV2 II11

XVIII1 XVIII1

GD GD

IV2

V V

IV1IV1

XVIII1 VII1 VII1

GE GE

IX7XII3 XII3

VI

VIII1 VIII1

133 132133

W

S

X12 X12 X10

X13 X13 X12

Kylikes Kylikes

X18 X20 X20 X13

X20

IX6

IX5IX5

IX2IX2

IX3IX3 IX2

IX4IX4 IX3

X11

X2

X6X6

X6 X22 - 23 X22 - 23

X22 - 23

X21 XIVXIV

XIV

XII3

IX5

XIII1 XIII1 IX4

XIII2 XIII2

135 134135

136 135 136

XII2 XII2 XII1

137 136137

XII2

XV7 XV7 XV7 XV6 XV6 XV6 XV5 XV5 XV5 XIII4 XIII4 XIII4 xV4 xV4 xV4 XIII1XV2 XV2 XV2 XIII3 XIII3

IX1

VIII2

134 133134

X21 X21 X11 X7X11

VII2

VIII1IX1IX1

x5

X1

E S

Champagne cups Champagne cups Champagne cups

X7X7 X4

XII1 XII1 IX6IX6

VIII2 VIII2

132 132

IX7IX7

VII1

GD

GE

S

E

X19

X3 X4X4

X1X1

V IV1 VI VI

VII2 VII2

meters

N E

XI1 X2X2

II11II11

5

W

II4 XI6XI6

II3 II3

II10

W

140 N

II1

II5 II5

GB GB

X10 X10 X8

X8X8

GA

N

X17

X18 X18 x16x16 X15 X15X14 X14 X15 X14 x16 X9

X9X9

GA GA

Storage jars

X22 - 23

meters meters

II8 II8

Storage Storage jarsjars

XIV

X11

0 0

FZFZ

Pouring vases Pouring vases Pouring vases

X20

XII2

IX1

VIII2

133 132133

Cooking vases Cooking vases Cooking vases

X18

XV7 XV7 XV7 XV6 XV6 XV6 XV5 XV5 XV5 XIII4 XIII4 XIII4 xV4 xV4 xV4 XV2 XIII1 XV2 XV2

IX5

XIII2 XIII2

VIII2 VIII2

X19

XII3

VII2

IX1IX1 VIII1

E S

Drinking vases Drinking vases Drinking vases

X7X7 X4

XII1 XII1

VIII1 VIII1

GE

S

XI1 X2X2

IX6IX6

132 132

XI1XI1 XI8

XI8 XI8 XI6

VII1

VII2 VII2

W

x5

X3 X4X4

V IV1 VI VI

S

E

II4 XI6XI6

GD

GE GE

X3X3

meters

N E

Serving plates Serving plates Serving plates

X12 X12 X10

x5 x5

II5

II4II4

II10

XVIII1 XVIII1

GD GD

I3

II6II6

II10 II10

II1II1

I2

I3 I3

GB GB

X10 X10 X8

X8X8

N

W W5

X17

X18 X18 X15X14 X14 x16x16 X15 X15 X14 x16 X9

X9X9

N

2.5

XIII3

xV3 xV3 XV1 XV1

XIII2

138 137138

XV1

xV3

139 138139

140 139140

140

Kylikes

d e f i n i n g t h e h o u s e h o l d o f q ua r t i e r n u at m a l i a 0 0

2.52.5 0

5 5 2.5

meters meters

FZ FZ

X19 X19

FZ

X17 X17 II7II7 II8

II8II8

II7 X9X9

GA GA

I2 I2

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

GC GC

GD GD

GE GE

GB

GC

I3

II4II4

II6

IV2 IV2 II11

VV

IV2 IV1 IV1

XVIII1 VII1 VII1

x5x5 X3X3

II5

II2

II3II3

II10

XVIII1 XVIII1

II1

II5II5

II2II2

II6II6

II10 II10

II1II1

I2

I3 I3

II11 II11

X10 X10 X8

X8X8

GA

GB GB

X9

XI6 XI6

XI8 XI8 XI6

II3

IX6 IX6

VIII2 VIII2

133 133

X2

IX6

IX5 IX5

IX5

VII2

VIII1

IX1 IX1

Textile implements Textile implements Textile implements

X18

Metal objects Metal objects Metal objects

X20 X20 X13

Stone objects Stone objects Stone objects

X20

x5 X21 X21

X4X7X7

X11 X11 X7

X11

X21 XIV XIV

XIV

IX3 IX3 IX2

IX4 IX4 IX3

X6X6

X6 X22 - 23 X22 - 23

X1

XIII1 XIII1 IX4

XII2 XII2 XII1

XII2

XV7 XV7 XV7 XV6 XV6 XV6 XV5 XV5 XV5 XIII4 XIII4 XIII4 xV4 xV4 xV4 XV2 XIII1 XV2 XV2 XIII3 XIII3

XIII3

xV3 xV3 XV1 XV1

IX1 XIII2 XIII2

VIII2

134 134

135 135

136 136

X22 - 23

XII3 XII1 XII1

IX2 IX2

132 132

IX7 XII3 XII3

VI

VII1

VIII1 VIII1

X13 X13 X12

E S

X19

X18 X18 X15 X14

X12 X12 X10

S

XI1

X1X1

GD

GE

XI1 XI1 XI8

X2X2

IX7 IX7

VIVI

S

W

II4

V

IV1

VII2 VII2

X3 X4X4

meters

N E E

X17 X15 X15X14 X14 x16

x16 x16

N N

5

W W

293

137 137

XIII2

138 138

XV1

xV3

139 139

140 140

135 137 139 140 136 138 133 Figure 25.5 132 (opposite, top). Quartier 134 wonder, however, whether it does not suggest that champagne cups could Nu: distribution of drinking, eating, be used both by men of lower status and women, and that kylikes were cooking, storage, and pouring vases. H. Fiasse

Figure 25.6 (opposite, bottom). Quartier Nu: distribution of kylikes and champagne cups. H. Fiasse Figure 25.7 (above). Quartier Nu: distribution of textile implements, metal objects and metallurgy implements, and stone tools. H. Fiasse

17. See Smith, this volume (Chap. 26), for a discussion of kylikes at LM III Mochlos, where the shape is found in every household and does not seem to be restricted to an elite class.

used exclusively by important males.17 If we consider plates, kalathoi, and shallow bowls as eating vessels, pit I again has the largest concentration, but both the east and west wings have similar types and quantities (Fig. 25.5). Other vases that may have played a role in the preparation of feasts and banquets, such as kraters, two-handled jars, dippers, funnels, tankards, jugs, juglets, and spouted vases are almost absent from pit I, though they are present in both the east and west wings. Likewise, vessels that relate to cooking, fire, and light—including tripod cooking pots, braziers, ovens, lamps, cooking plates, and incense burners— were scarce in pit I. It was on the basis of the discovery of these vase types that structure XIV was identified as a kitchen, because in it were also found an oven with a tripod cooking pot and a cooking plate in situ (Fig. 25.3). We can also look for evidence of domestic production by examining the distribution of the stone tools, metal objects, and loomweights throughout the complex (Fig. 25.7). The pits have very few stone tools or obsidian flakes, but the east wing yielded more than the west wing, indicating that On the other hand, kylikes are associated with elite burials at Mochlos, and Smith suggests that their presence in funerary contexts reflects a specific type of mortuary ritual reflecting high social

status. For the association of kylikes with elite drinking rituals in “big houses” at LM IIIC Karphi and Kavousi Vronda, see Day and Snyder 2004; Day, this volume (Chap. 27).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

294

jan dr ie ssen and hubert fiasse

Figure 25.8. Quartier Nu, east wing: large millstone found upside down in room X13. View from the northeast. Photo J. Driessen

there could be some functional differentiation. Some of the grinding stones are of a large size, and their number and variety suggest that they were an important feature of the complex. They also add to the general picture that urban Malia had now become rural. One entrance room, X13, contained a large millstone (Fig. 25.8), and it may be telling that this room opens onto the kitchen. Not much can be said about the distribution of metal, despite the discovery of a considerable number of small metal objects—mainly pins, rings, a knife, and some scrap material. The best objects, including a complete double axe, a complete bronze sickle, one complete and one fragmentary crucible, as well as a few molds, all come from pit I. That these fine objects were discarded again reinforces the interpretation of a ceremonial function for one or more of the pits.18 Quite a few terracotta weights, loomweights, and spools were found, suggesting areas of textile production, but they were rarely concentrated in large quantities; there were more in the east wing than in other areas, however. We have a lot of bone material, but because the study has not yet been completed, we are not yet able to define distinct butchering, kitchen, or refuse areas. It is already clear, however, that more bones are present in outside areas and in the area around the kitchen than in occupation zones. Finally, there is a category of vases that may have served for toiletry and personal care, including a feeding bottle, small alabastra, pyxides, and amphoriskoi. Other objects that may be identified as personal ornaments include some simple silver rings, pendants, beads, pearls, seal stones, buttons, and perhaps a sword pommel. The rooms in which these were found may have had a more private use, but, thus far, no obvious pattern can be discerned. The same is true in general for ritual space. The court with the mosaic floor, associated house model, and stone lamp obviously played a role in some ritual activity, and pit I also contained ritual vases (e.g., rhytons, fenestrated stands). But within the building complex, no obvious cult area can be identified that compares to the archaeological assemblages recently found in the Mirabello area.19 We found a few human and animal figurines, two snake tubes, a triton, and some clay and stone offering tables, but all were dispersed throughout the building, usually in

18. Borgna (2004, p. 133) mentions similar assemblages for a ritual pit at Phaistos. 19. Eliopoulos 1998; Gesell 2001; Tsipopoulou 2001.

d e f i n i n g t h e h o u s e h o l d o f q ua r t i e r n u at m a l i a 0

2.5

N

5 W

meters

X17 II7

II8

x16

9 X9

Drinking vessels Serving plates

GB

II2

II6 II10

XI6

X7

X2

X6

Stone objects

XIV

X22 - 23

X1

IV1

IX7

VI

XII3 XII2

XII1

VII1

GD

IX6

IX5

XV5

VII2

XV7 XV6

XIII4 IX3

IX2

IX4

XIII1

XIII2

134

Figure 25.9. Quartier Nu: general density plan of drinking vessels (blue), serving plates (red), metal objects and equipment (purple), storage containers (green), and stone tools (brown). H. Fiasse

20. Wright 2004a. 21. Borgna (2004, p. 130) also notes the presence of bronze sickles in deposits interpreted as related to the celebration of banquets in LM IIIC Phaistos. The same paper also alludes to ritual celebrations in Quartier Nu (p. 149).

xV4

XV2 XIII3

IX1

VIII2

133

X11

XI1

XI8

V

V VIII1

X21

II4 II3

IV2

Storage containers

X3 X4

132

X20

X13

Metal objects

II5

GE

X12 X

5 x5

I3

XVIII1

Density of:

II1

I2

II11

X18

X15 X14

X10

X8

GA

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

E S

X19

FZ

GC

295

135

136

137

XV1

138

xV3

139

140

rooms that also served as storage areas. Part of a larger female idol—the “Lady of Malia”—originally holding her hands behind her ears, must have belonged to a major cult statue, but, unfortunately, it was found in a mixed context in the west wing. On the basis of some of these spatial data and taking into account major densities (Fig. 25.9), we can identify areas that were preferentially used for certain activities such as bulk storage, the storage and disposal of drinking and eating paraphernalia, and the production or storage of metal and stone tools. It must be stressed immediately, however, that a real functional differentiation and a monopolistic use of a space for a single function is never the case. The patterns in the spatial distribution as charted by ArcView seem to highlight a repetition (or rather a duplication) of functions in the east and the west wings. The north part of the east wing shows some specialization where grinding activities are concerned, and the east wing, in general, did not contain kylikes. The possibility then remains that the wings were to some extent complementary. This would suggest that the complex was occupied by a single extended household with different family units, perhaps with some gender and/or status differentiation among the members, but with sufficient parental links to share a single complex with a single kitchen and a single court used for ceremonies. The continuity in wall alignments may imply that the ancestors of the household had occupied the place for several generations. If this interpretation is acceptable, we may inquire after the link between the compound and the pits; here recent studies on “the Mycenaean feast” are informative,20 if we consider it simply as a “large and special meal.”21

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

296

jan dr ie ssen and hubert fiasse

In historic times, Archaic Crete was notorious for a particular communal system in which adult males shared meals in the andreion or hetairos—and this on a daily basis. Only full citizens took part, and meals were paid for by the citizens, their families, and those of the perioikoi, according to a fixed percentage. This sliding scale allowed poorer citizens to participate, and, accordingly, a clientele system developed.22 Each city is supposed to have had a single andreion, but despite some effort, they remain difficult to identify. How this system coexisted with that of the startoi, the extended families or clans, is rarely considered: did all male startos members participate in andreion activities? Or were there andreia at different levels, one within a startos and another on a community level for the most important members of the different startoi that made up a community? It was the clans that, at least according to Willetts, provided the kosmoi—the most important officials—and a rotation principle eventually prevented the startoi from becoming too strong.23 It is suggested here that Quartier Nu is the archaeological reflection of a house group—a startos or clan building consisting of two or three oikoi. The close relationship between the different units, the sharing of communal space, especially the presence of a single central ritual area and pits that clearly served as favissae for the entire complex, as well as a single kitchen linked to a major grinding installation, and a “wing-without-kylikes” also corroborates this hypothesis. Were, at this early a period, communal meals for startos members organized within the court, and do these practices announce the later andreion? On a symbolic level, then, it may be important that a large model of a house was found in the center of this complex, perhaps representing the unity of the family group living under a single roof. We conclude with a cautionary and somewhat pessimistic note. Identifying the household is never an easy matter, even if preservation conditions are favorable. In the case of Quartier Nu, where many finds were preserved in situ, the nonspecialized use of space complicates straightforward interpretation. Our destruction deposits, in general, represent primary use of most areas, but it is difficult to distinguish between actual use of certain objects on the spot and the storage of these objects for use elsewhere. Moreover, the pits probably represent ritual refuse deposition of objects that also had been used elsewhere, probably within the complex or on the court. This, of course, leads to a paradox: the storage and ritual refuse may actually tell us more about the functional use of spaces in which no finds were made rather than about the use of the spaces in which the deposition took place.

22. Link 1994, p. 10. For discussions on the startos and communal meals, see esp. De Sanctis 1901; Talamo 1987; Lavrencic 1988; Morris 1990; Perlman 1992; Schmitt Pantel 1992. 23. Willetts (1980, pp. 112–113) argues that the startos was a subdivision of the tribe and hence a clan of which the startagetas was the clan chief; see also Link 1994, pp. 109–110.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 26

Pot t e ry i n D om e st i c an d M ort uary C on t e x ts at L at e M i n oan I I I M o c h l os : Th e Cas e of t h e M i s s i n g Ky l i k e s by R. Angus K. Smith The reoccupation of Mochlos in the Late Minoan (LM) III period involved the construction of at least 11 new houses on the island settlement and at least 30 new tombs on the coast opposite the island.1 The analysis of ceramic assemblages from both areas reveals clear similarities in the vessels the inhabitants used in life and those they chose to be buried with in death. The same analysis, however, also reveals distinct differences between the pottery from domestic and funerary contexts. This paper seeks to understand the reasons behind these discrepancies through an exploration of the functional and symbolic aspects of the ceramic assemblages. In addition, it will contemplate the methodological problems involved in the deposition, recovery, and identification of ceramic assemblages in funerary and domestic contexts. The examination of these issues reveals a complex relationship between the separate spheres of domestic and funerary activities in LM III Mochlos. In particular, it seems that the acceptance of certain drinking traditions varied in life and in death. A comparison of pottery shape types between household and funerary contexts reveals various discrepancies, the most puzzling of which concerns kylikes. While this characteristic LM III shape is common in the household contexts of Mochlos, it is confined to two exceptionally wealthy burials in the cemetery. The reason for this, I will argue, ultimately concerns a difference in the appropriateness of a particular type of communal drinking ritual in household and funerary contexts. The acceptance of this type of drinking among the houses of Mochlos was widespread, but in the cemetery it remained the province of certain elite individuals. The realms of life and death, although related, were distinct and appropriately separate. 1. I would like to thank Jeffrey Soles and Costas Davaras for allowing me to study the Mochlos pottery, as well as the late Nikos Papadakis for the opportunity to examine material in the Siteia and Ayios Nikolaos museums. In addition, I would like to thank Eleni Banou for her cooperation in the study of the

pottery from the cemetery, and Thomas Brogan for his help in facilitating my work at the Institute for Aegean Prehistory Study Center for East Crete. Finally, I would like to thank Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan and Kevin Glowacki for giving me the opportunity to participate in the ΣΤΕΓΑ conference.

Figure 26.1. The Mochlos coastal plain. Soles and Davaras 1994, p. 392, fig. 1; courtesy J. S. Soles and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

p o t t e r y i n d o m e s t i c a n d m o r t ua r y c o n t e x t s

299

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LM II

LM IIIA:1

Tombs (N=30)

Figure 26.2. Comparison of tomb versus settlement use in LM II–IIIB Mochlos. R. A. K. Smith

2. Mochlos IA. 3. Soles and Davaras 2000, p. 25. 4. Soles and Davaras 1992, 1994, 1996. 5. Brogan, Smith, and Soles 2002. 6. Smith 2002.

LM IIIA:2

LM IIIB

Houses (N=11)

M o chlos The island of Mochlos sits off the northern coast of Crete at the eastern limit of the Bay of Mirabello. The coastal plain opposite is well watered and fertile and extends for about four kilometers. The settlement of Mochlos marks its western limit, while the small farmhouse of Chalinomouri marks its eastern limit.2 The current island of Mochlos is small, about 250 x 300 m. It rises in steep cliffs to a height of 45 m on its northern side while sloping gradually down to sea level toward the south. Although there is no source of water on the island, in antiquity it seems certain that the island was connected to the mainland of Crete by an isthmus, which gave it easy access to the sources of water and agriculture that the coastal plain afforded.3 Such an isthmus also would have provided a natural harbor on the southeastern side of the island. In the Neopalatial period the island of Mochlos and areas along the coast opposite the island were extensively occupied. This occupation ended sometime around 1450 b.c. (LM IB), when the island and coastal settlements were destroyed by violent conflagrations.4 Not long after this destruction the island was reoccupied, and a cemetery was established opposite the island on a low hill above the coastal plain.5 The coastal cemetery of this reoccupation consisted of at least 30 chamber and pit tombs carved into the soft rock of the hillside at the Limani location (Fig. 26.1). While no evidence exists for LM II burials in the Mochlos cemetery, pottery from the LM IIIA1 period is very much in evidence. Since a number of the tombs are communal and contain multiple burials spanning several periods, it is sometimes difficult to assign individual burials to specific chronological phases. Thirteen of the 30 tombs, however, contain pottery that dates to LM IIIA1, 20 contain LM IIIA2 pottery, and eight contain LM IIIB pottery (Fig. 26.2).6 The island settlement of this reoccupation period consisted of at least 11 structures (Figs. 26.1, 26.3). The earliest phase of this reoccupation

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

300

r. angus k. smith

began in LM II. Pottery from this period has been found associated with six of the 11 island structures. By the following LM IIIA1 period, the reoccupation of Mochlos was firmly established; evidence of this phase exists in all 11 of the houses. During the LM IIIA2 period, two houses— Z and Θ—show signs of abandonment, but evidence for occupation persists in nine houses. The final period of the settlement, LM IIIB, shows further signs of abandonment, with occupation now occurring in only five houses Overall, therefore, the use of the tombs in the cemetery and the houses of the settlement were roughly parallel. Both peaked in the LM IIIA period, and the use of the cemetery peaked in the LM IIIA2 period, around the same time that the settlement began to decline.

Comparison of th e pot tery assemblages How does the settlement pottery assemblage compare to that from the cemetery? As stated above, there are both similarities and differences. The purpose of this paper will be to examine these in an attempt to understand both the relationship between household activities and funerary rituals and the extent to which the practices surrounding death related to behavior during life. In order to address these questions the pottery from the settlement of Mochlos was compared to the pottery of the cemetery, with an emphasis on the primary functional aspect of pot shape. The objects that were studied included 267 whole or nearly whole pots from the cemetery, as well as 615 fragmentary to whole pots from the settlement. The comparison focused on both the overall distribution of pot shape categories within the settlement and cemetery assemblages, as well as their frequencies of occurrence among the houses and tombs of the two areas. Both areas were studied as a chronological whole, instead of being broken down into periods. In addition, houses and tombs were studied as discrete units, instead of

Figure 26.3. Mochlos: the island settlement. View from the southwest. Photo R. A. K. Smith

p o t t e r y i n d o m e s t i c a n d m o r t ua r y c o n t e x t s

301

25%

20%

15%

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

10%

5%

0%

Jug

Stirrup Jar

Bowl

Cup

Cemetery Distribution (N=263)

Figure 26.4. Distribution of selected pot shapes in the LM III cemetery at Mochlos. R. A. K. Smith

being divided into individual burials or room assemblages. This comparison allowed several broad patterns to emerge from the data. In the cemetery pottery assemblage, the most widely distributed shapes were jugs, followed closely by stirrup jars, bowls, and cups; each of these shapes represented over 15% of the cemetery assemblage (Fig. 26.4). The most frequently occurring shapes, according to presence or absence in an individual tomb, were similar: bowls and jugs were the most frequent, followed by stirrup jars and cups. These were all found in at least a third of the tombs (Fig. 26.5). Among the pots from the settlement, the most widely distributed shapes were bowls, cups, kylikes, and cooking dishes; each of these shapes represented 10% or more of the household assemblages (Fig. 26.6). The most frequently occurring shapes, according to their presence or absence in a particular house, were similar. Cups, kylikes, and cooking dishes occurred most frequently, followed by bowls; all of these were found in over 90% of the houses (Fig. 26.7). A comparison of the distribution of both assemblages shows that only cups and bowls make up a large percentage of both tomb and settlement assemblages (Fig. 26.8). In contrast, jugs and stirrup jars are numerous in the cemetery, but less so in the settlement. On the other hand, kylikes and cooking dishes make up a significant percentage of the settlement assemblage, but rarely occur in the cemetery. This picture is altered slightly by a comparison of the frequency of occurrence of the same shapes in tomb and house contexts (Fig. 26.9). Bowls occur with similar frequency in both contexts, but cups, cooking dishes, and kylikes occur in a much higher percentage of houses. Jugs, on the other hand, occur in a higher percentage of tomb contexts, and stirrup jars, like bowls, occur in a roughly similar percentage of contexts. Initially, then, it would seem that bowls were important in both spheres, as were cups, although they occurred in a higher percentage of houses.

302

r. angus k. smith 80% 70% 60% 50%

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Jug

Stirrup Jar

Bowl

Cup

Cemetery Frequency

Figure 26.5. Frequency of selected pot shapes in the LM III cemetery at Mochlos. R. A. K. Smith 25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Bowl

Cup

Kylix

Cook Dish

Settlement Distribution (N=615)

Cooking dishes were common in the settlement, but they played no role in the cemetery; kylikes were much more common in the settlement, jugs were more prominent in the tombs, and stirrup jars, although more numerous in the tombs, were found in a roughly equal percentage of houses and tombs. While the role of bowls, and probably cups and stirrup jars, crossed the boundary between life and death, the roles of the other shapes did not translate so easily. For some of these shapes this conclusion seems unproblematic. The use of cups and bowls as implements for drinking and eating must have

Figure 26.6. Distribution of selected pot shapes in the LM III settlement at Mochlos. R. A. K. Smith

p o t t e r y i n d o m e s t i c a n d m o r t ua r y c o n t e x t s

303

100% 98% 96% 94%

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

92% 90% 88% 86%

Bowl

Cup

Kylix

Cook Dish

Settlement Frequency (N=11)

Figure 26.7. Frequency of selected pot shapes in the LM III settlement at Mochlos. R. A. K. Smith

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Bowl

Cup

Cook Dish

Cemetery Distribution (N=263)

Figure 26.8. Distribution comparison of selected pot shapes in the LM III cemetery and settlement at Mochlos. R. A. K. Smith

Kylix

Jug

Stirrup Jar

Settlement Distribution (N=615)

represented one of the most common activities in the households of Mochlos, so their importance in funerary contexts seems to indicate that these activities also took place as part of funerary ritual, or that these objects were considered important provisions for the deceased. Stirrup jars, which were probably used as containers for oil, also played a role in both life and death. The fact that they make up a higher percentage of the total cemetery assemblage may speak to the relative value of these frequently imported and often elaborately decorated objects. This value would no

304

r. angus k. smith 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Bowl

Cup

Cook Dish

Cemetery Frequency (N=30)

Kylix

Stirrup Jar

Settlement Frequency (N=11)

doubt result in less frequent breakage and deposition of these objects in household contexts. The fact that the very utilitarian cooking dish played no part in funerary rituals is not very surprising; it seems that the particular type of cooking or baking that they represent was not part of funerary ritual.7 The absence of jugs in the settlement contexts, on the other hand, is more unsettling. If the deceased of Mochlos were provided with jugs for pouring, what did the living use? The absence of jugs may be explicable, however, by considering both the functions of pouring vessels and the relative numbers of pouring vessels to drinking vessels in use contexts. In comparison to cups and bowls, jugs would no doubt be less numerous in household assemblages, just as they are in cemetery contexts. In addition, they would encounter less frequent use in the course of everyday activities, and thus be less prone to breakage and deposition in settlement contexts. More problematic than the absence of jugs in the settlement is the lack of kylikes in the cemetery. These were found in every household context, but in only three of the tombs. Moreover, since their function was surely related to drinking activities, why were they not found regularly in the tombs just as the bowls and cups were? What was different about the sort of drinking that involved kylikes? Part of their wide distribution and frequency may be accounted for by an overrepresentation among the settlement material; kylikes can be considered an “index fossil” of the LM III period, and kylix stems are durable and easily recognized among sherd material.8 This particular shape, therefore, may have been recognized and recorded with relative frequency. The difference between its representation in tombs and houses is too great, however, to be accounted for by such a discrepancy alone. 7. For a recent analysis of the function of this shape, see Mochlos IB, pp. 82–84. 8. The term “index fossil” is bor-

Jug

rowed from geology and indicates a specific type that is diagnostic of a particular time period (see O’Brien and Lyman 1999, esp. pp. 185–215).

Figure 26.9. Frequency comparison of selected pot shapes in the LM III cemetery and settlement at Mochlos. R. A. K. Smith

p o t t e r y i n d o m e s t i c a n d m o r t ua r y c o n t e x t s

305

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Dis c u s s i on

9. Brogan, Smith, and Soles 2002, pp. 113–116. 10. In contrast, Driessen and Fiasse (this volume, Chap. 25) suggest that kylikes may have been used exclusively by high-status men in the Postpalatial period at Quartier Nu in Malia. For the LM IIIC period, Day and Snyder (2004) have argued that large kylikes in Building A-B at Kavousi Vronda and the Great House at Karphi were used in drinking rituals intended to reinforce elite power within the community. See also Day, this volume (Chap. 27). 11. For a recent survey of feasting in Minoan contexts, see Borgna 2004. For evidence of feasting in Neopalatial tombs, see Lebessi 1967; Dimopoulou 1999.

Brogan, Smith, and Soles have argued for a correlation between kylikes and elite burials in the Mochlos cemetery.9 In fact, the two wealthiest tombs in the cemetery—tomb 2 and tomb 15—contained the only undisturbed burials with kylikes. The presence of kylikes in these tombs, it was argued, indicated the importance of a specific drinking ceremony as part of the funerary ritual. The presence of kylikes helped to promote the individual status and identity of the tomb’s occupants because of the shape’s connection to new trends in the LM III period. More specifically, the kylikes represented new drinking traditions related to Mycenaean influences that probably came to Mochlos from Knossos. It was suggested, therefore, that the use of these drinking traditions helped to secure the status of the Mochlos elite. The common presence of kylikes all over the settlement of Mochlos makes this position difficult to maintain. The presence of kylikes in every household at Mochlos suggests no economic restrictions on access to this specific shape. It also seems clear that the drinking traditions associated with kylikes were practiced throughout the Mochlos households, and not simply by a restricted elite class.10 Without recourse to economic or social distinctions, how is it possible to explain the variation between house and tomb contexts for this specific shape? Why would a specific type of drinking—one that was a normal household activity—be restricted to a small number of elite tombs in the cemetery? I would like to suggest that the important distinction is related not to the presence or absence of a specific pottery shape—in this case the kylix—but instead to a specific type of ritual with which that shape was associated. The key to this interpretation is not simply the use of kylikes, but their use in a communal drinking ceremony and the appropriateness of such a ceremony in a funerary context. Tombs 2 and 15 are different from other Mochlos tombs not only for the presence of kylikes, but also for the inclusion of amphoroid kraters and large numbers of open drinking vessels—13 for tomb 2 and 17 for tomb 15. While almost all the other Mochlos tombs contain drinking vessels, no other tomb contains even half as many per burial, and the majority contain only one or two such vessels. Kraters are also rare in other burials, although one does occur in tomb 30, and another seems to have been used as a grave marker above tombs 26 and 27. In tombs 2 and 15, however, the presence of kraters along with the kylikes and numerous other drinking vessels suggests a fundamental difference in the drinking ritual that was associated with these burials, and supports the possibility that what we are seeing is evidence for communal drinking ceremonies as part of mortuary ritual. Such communal drinking ceremonies do not seem to have played a prominent role in Neopalatial funerary rituals, although the evidence admittedly is limited.11 In the late Middle and early Late Helladic (LH) periods on the mainland, however, evidence for feasting is a prominent part of elite mortuary assemblages, and is indicative of competitive displays of wealth among an emerging elite class. As argued by Wright, these early Mycenaean practices crystallize in LH II and LH IIIA into standard sets

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

306

r. angus k. smith

of drinking vessels that can be found in numerous mainland tombs of the period.12 In LH IIIA the kylix becomes a prominent shape in this standard Mycenaean drinking service. On Crete, a marked increase in the practice of ostentatious burials has also been observed at Knossos during the LM II and LM IIIA1 periods.13 This is exemplified by the well-known “Warrior Graves,” with their similarities to Mycenaean burial practices. In addition to the weaponry found in these graves, these new types of burials are remarkable for their inclusion of feasting paraphernalia, including kylikes, often made of precious metals, bronze, or pottery coated with tin.14 The movement of such banqueting equipment to the sphere of funerals seems to be evidence for new Mycenaean-inspired traditions at Knossos, and perhaps even for Mycenaeans themselves.15 At Mochlos, then, it is the evidence for communal drinking ceremonies that separates the burials in tombs 2 and 15 from the other burials in the cemetery. While the inclusion of kylikes with these burials is surely also significant, it is not the pot alone that provides a link to a broader social identity. Instead, it is primarily the practice with which the pot is associated that reflects this identity. This practice seems to be indicative of elite behavior ultimately derived from practices on the Mycenaean mainland. Might it even be indicative of Mycenaeans themselves?16 A final question concerns whether such communal drinking also occurred among the households of Mochlos, and if so, did it have the same meaning? Unfortunately, our contexts are never secure enough to distinguish such ceremonies with certainty. In a LM IIIA1 level of room 1 of House Ι, however, a total of 23 open drinking vessels, including seven kylikes, were found in association with two separate amphoroid kraters. In a LM IIIA floor level of House M, a total of 18 drinking vessels, including nine kylikes, was found along with fragments of a krater. And if we take kylikes themselves to be representative of such drinking, then it seems to have occurred in every single household. If this is the case, why was it restricted to tombs 2 and 15 in the cemetery? It seems necessary to suggest that the symbolism of such communal drinking ceremonies changed according to context. What was appropriate for the whole community in life was appropriate for only certain individuals in death. The special identity that these communal drinking ceremonies reflected in their mortuary contexts may well have been the status of the individual. That is, only certain elite members of the community were granted elaborate death rituals that involved large numbers of celebrants. Significantly, however, the ritual that was used to distinguish these burials seems to involve a type of drinking that was not uncommon among the households of Mochlos. The real difference lay in the symbolism of its transferal from a household to a mortuary context. Only the most elite members of the community were afforded the honor of a community drinking ritual in death. The realms of life and death, although related, were distinct and appropriately separate.

12. Wright 1995b, p. 300; 2004b, p. 25. 13. Preston 2004, pp. 325–331. 14. Preston 2004. 15. E.g., Driessen and Macdonald 1984, pp. 66–68; D’Agata 1999, pp. 52–53, n. 38. For a contrasting view, see Preston 2004. 16. For recent discussions about identifying an ethnic Mycenaean population on Crete, see Banou 2005; Smith 2005; Tsipopoulou 2005b; see also the contributions to this volume by Wallace (Chap. 28) and Tsipopoulou (Chap. 29).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 27

H o u s e hol d A s s e m b l ag e s i n L at e M i n oan I I I C C re t e : Th e E v i de n c e f r om K ar p h i by Leslie Preston Day

The site of Karphi, located on a high peak overlooking the Lasithi plain, remains one of the most thoroughly investigated settlements from the period of transition from the Bronze to Early Iron Ages on Crete (Fig. 27.1). Excavated from 1937–1939 by members of the British School at Athens under the direction of John Pendlebury,1 Karphi is frequently cited in discussions of settlement plans as the last development of Minoan civilization or the beginning of the new Hellenic culture.2 The buildings were uncovered over a three-year period. In 1937, work concentrated on the Temple (room 1), although local workers also removed material from Mikre Koprana, a small peak to the east. In 1938, rooms 2–57 were uncovered, and 1939 saw the excavation of rooms 58–150. A report on the work appeared on the eve of World War II, but the ceramic study lagged behind because of difficulties in cleaning and mending the pottery; it was not actually published until 1960 by Mercy Money-Coutts Seiradaki.3 Excavation revealed an estimated 20%–33% of the settlement.4 Pendlebury and his crew took great care with the excavation and interpretation 1. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937–1938. A new study of the pottery by the author was made possible by permission from the Managing Committee of the British School at Athens. I am also grateful to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens for help with permits, to the directors of the British School, and especially to Colin Macdonald, the former curator at Knossos, who provided work space and support during field work from 1994 through 1997. My thanks also go to Alexandra Karetsou and the staff of the Iraklion Archaeological Museum for their assistance during that time. Financial support for the project was provided by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory and Wabash College. 2. The date of the settlement at

Karphi has long been a source of controversy. The excavators termed it Intermediate between Late Minoan and Protogeometric (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937– 1938, p. 140), and Pendlebury soon refined the date to Subminoan (Pendlebury 1939, p. 309). After the publication of the pottery, the settlement at Karphi was assigned by scholars to the later LM IIIC period (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, pp. 280–282), although some, particularly Kanta (1980, pp. 5, 121) and Hallager (2000, pp. 173–174), have suggested that Karphi was founded at the beginning of LM IIIC and continued into the Subminoan period. A full publication of the pottery has recently appeared (Day 2011), but the chronological findings can be briefly stated as follows.

While there is ample evidence in the fragments that came from under streets and houses that the settlement was founded in the LM IIIB–C transition, the majority of the whole or nearly complete vessels are late LM IIIC, consistent with the material from Kavousi (for Vronda and phase III at the Kastro, see Mook and Coulson 1997, pp. 359– 363; Day 1997, pp. 394–400) and the late LM IIIC phase at Sybrita/Thronos (D’Agata 2003b, p. 29). A few vessels could be termed Subminoan in style. The tombs, however, although in use during the habitation of the site, continued long after the Karphi settlement was abandoned, lasting into the Protogeometric era. 3. Seiradaki 1960. 4. Nowicki 1987a, p. 241.

Figure 27.1. Plan of the LM IIIC site of Karphi. Courtesy British School at Athens

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household assemblages in lm iiic cre te

309

of ordinary domestic material, and published a block plan with groups of buildings separated by cobbled streets.5 The houses or building complexes were named from their contents (e.g., the Baker’s House, with its oven, or the Temple, with its cult equipment), their architectural forms (e.g., the Barracks, the Magazines, the Southern and Northern Shelters, the Commercial Quarter, and the Great House), or their location (Central West Quarter, Cliff Houses, Southern Houses, Southeast Block, and Eastern Quarter). Because the site has been known for so long, it is surprising that no household analysis has been made of Karphi.6 One reason has been the difficulty of reconstructing the original contents of the houses from the published accounts, and there are additional limitations. Although all the recognized objects were recorded and published,7 the pottery was not so systematically handled. In 1937, all fragments were saved, but in 1938 the excavators took the pottery down to Tzermiado and discarded a great deal of it there. In the last season, pottery was sorted on site, and although all of the fine ware was kept, the majority of the coarse vessels were thrown away on site without washing.8 Some of the information about the discarded pottery was recorded in the excavation notebook, and in 1939 the recognizable types of the various shapes were recorded (e.g., three dishes of type 2).9 Thus, what is available for study is the result not only of site formation processes, but also of the decisions made by the excavators about the worth of the artifacts. All of the fine wares remain, in addition to whole or nearly complete coarse vessels, or any pieces that were deemed of interest. Since all of the pottery and fragments that were kept were inscribed with their findspots in ink, their place in the Karphi settlement can be reestablished. Regardless of the selectivity on the part of the excavators, a study of the pottery can provide only limited information about the daily activities of the inhabitants or the functions of rooms and buildings. First of all, as with any archaeological site that was not destroyed in a sudden catastrophe, the material found in a room does not accurately reflect what was there during the use of the building.10 The inhabitants seem to have taken many of their possessions with them when they abandoned Karphi at the end of Late Minoan (LM) IIIC, leaving the rest to be disturbed as the buildings slowly decayed. Metals and portable fine vessels such as the deep bowl, for 5. A visitor will be at a loss to find any trace of the thoroughfares pictured in the plan; indeed, the publication informs the careful reader that nearly all of the paving had already been removed before excavation began (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and MoneyCoutts 1937–1938, p. 66). 6. Nowicki (1999a) has analyzed the published finds from LM IIIC Karphi to create a general picture of the economic situation of its people, but few others have looked thoroughly at the material, except for that relating to religious ritual. For the analysis of religious material, see Gesell 1985, pp. 79–82; 2004, pp. 146–147; Rutkowski 1987;

Prent 2005, pp. 137–146. 7. An inventory notebook that includes a brief sketch of each of the objects, along with measurements, identifications, and findspot, is in the archives of the British School at Athens, along with the excavation notebook. I am grateful to the British School and its archivist, Amalia Kakisses, for permission to use the Karphi notebooks. 8. Seiradaki 1960, p. 1. 9. This listing of types is useful, but has limitations. Some of the types were not correctly identified; e.g., the type 2 jar (Seiradaki 1960, p. 6, fig. 3:2) is actually a tripod cooking pot from the

Temple with an unusual configuration of three handles, and it is not clear whether other vessels listed as belonging to this type had the same general profile, or whether the type is defined by the handles. 10. LaMotta and Schiffer (1999) outline the problems involved in depositional processes. Allison (1999b, p. 6), Nevett (1999, p. 32), and Ault and Nevett (1999, pp. 43–44), however, stress that one can gain some idea about room functions from the remains, and Glowacki (2002, 2004, 2007) undertook this process for LM IIIC Kavousi Vronda.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

310

l e s l i e p r e s t o n d ay

example, seem to have been removed; few whole or nearly complete deep bowls were found, mostly fragments broken earlier in the site’s history. On the other hand, it is clear that the inhabitants abandoned their larger coarse vessels. The published account of the pottery, the information recorded in the notebooks, and the actual material still available in the Iraklion Museum can provide some idea of what went on in the houses. The whole or nearly complete vessels give a partial picture of what was in use in the rooms in the last days of the settlement, while the more fragmentary vessels tell us about earlier usage. In this analysis, the pottery is divided into four categories based on function: vessels for consumption and display, for food preparation, for storage, and for special functions (see Figs. 27.2–27.7). Vessels for consumption and display include not only pottery that was used for eating and drinking, but also those pieces intended for display, whatever other functions they may have served. In this category are fine wares and most of the large number of decorated coarse wares that are assumed to have been used in social settings, either competitively or to assert community identity.11 The most ubiquitous shape is the deep bowl, which functioned as the chief drinking vessel, but may also have served for eating, perhaps for daily consumption as well as social occasions, given their numbers. The less common cups were also used for daily drinking, although they might also have served as ladles. Rather larger and more elaborately decorated are the kylikes and kraters. The LM IIIC kylix can be extremely large, and the shape may have played an important role in elite drinking rituals at both Karphi and Kavousi Vronda.12 Kraters are also abundant, and, while similar in shape to the deep bowls, they are much larger and generally more elaborately decorated. The function of kraters is not certain; the name suggests a large bowl for mixing water and wine in the Greek fashion, but there is currently no evidence to confirm this association. At Karphi, kraters are often found in association with large kylikes, and both may have been used in the elite drinking rituals, where their elaborate decoration would display the wealth and taste of the owner. The large and elaborately decorated mugs and tankards may also have been involved in similar display.13 Highly decorated pyxides and stirrup jars probably were also meant to display the taste, wealth, or status of the owners, while at the same time serving useful functions of small-scale storage. The pyxis is one of the peculiarities of the Karphi ceramic assemblage (e.g., Figs. 27.3:1, 27.5:3–6, 27.6:4, 5, 27.7:2); although known at other LM IIIC sites, the shape is not as plentiful elsewhere as at Karphi.14 Fine stirrup jars are generally small and have elaborate decoration, the finest examples with octopus motifs (e.g., Fig. 27.3:5). Perhaps they were used as fine oil containers, impressive during festive dining. The juglet or small amphora may have served a similar use in ordinary domestic circumstances, but these rarely carry elaborate decoration. One-handled, cylindrical-mouthed jugs are plentiful: the coarse and undecorated examples were used in ordinary domestic contexts, while the more elaborate and fine vessels were employed in social or religious circumstances.15 Much of the Karphi ceramic assemblage is made up of vessels used in the preparation of food, especially cooking; it is unclear what percentage of the whole is represented by this type of pottery because so much has

11. There is much evidence that festive dining and drinking rituals played an important role in the cultures of the Bronze Age in the Aegean (Wright 2004a), especially on Crete (Borgna 2004, pp. 142–150). 12. Day and Snyder 2004. 13. Mugs and tankards are pictured in Seiradaki 1960, pl. 8. 14. Their absence has been noted at Kastri Palaikastro (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, p. 284), Chania (Hallager 2000, p. 153), Chalasmenos (Tsipopoulou 2004a, p. 108), and at Kavousi Vronda (Kavousi IIC). 15. E.g., figurines set on a platform in some sort of ritual observance were accompanied by an elaborate jug from K 87, which has parallels from Kato Symi and Enkomi (Kanta 2003b, pp. 532, 536).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household assemblages in lm iiic cre te

Figure 27.2. Pottery from K 3 in the Barracks. Scale 1:4

311

l e s l i e p r e s t o n d ay

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

312

Figure 27.3 (above). Pottery from K 134 in the Barracks. Scale 1:4 Figure 27.4 (opposite). Pottery from K 23 in the Magazines. Scale 1:5

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household assemblages in lm iiic cre te 313

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute. 314 l e s l i e p r e s t o n d ay

Figure 27.5. Pottery from K 22 in the Magazines. Scale 1:4

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household assemblages in lm iiic cre te

Figure 27.6. Fine wares from K 110 in the Eastern Cliff Houses. Scale 1:4

315

l e s l i e p r e s t o n d ay

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

316

Figure 27.7. Coarse wares from K 110 in the Eastern Cliff Houses. Scale 1:8

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household assemblages in lm iiic cre te

317

been discarded. The most common cooking vessels are tripod cooking pots and cooking dishes, but cooking jugs, flat trays, and lids are also found. Apparently absent are the flat-bottomed cooking jars or amphoras found at other LM IIIC sites.16 The tripod cookpot comes in a variety of shapes and sizes; most are the deep, two-handled collared jars (e.g., Fig. 27.4:14), but smaller tripods with vertical handles,17 tripod bowls (e.g., Fig. 27.6:15), and round-bottomed tripods also occur.18 The cooking dish is most common, and it has a long history on Crete.19 These large dishes, with rims pinched out or pulled in and often with holes for draining, suggest a particular kind of cooking different from that done with tripods, perhaps involving frying or steaming rather than soups or stews; their large size may also suggest the preparation of greater quantities of food, perhaps for communal events. The dishes could be turned into small ovens with the addition of a lid of similar shape.20 While lids are not generally classed among cooking vessels, many of the LM IIIC lids are made of cooking fabrics and show traces of burning, and they may have been placed over the cookpots. The most common type of lid is a flat knobbed disk, often elaborately decorated on top (e.g., Figs. 27.5:11, 12, 27.7:3). The undersides of these lids show burning in a variety of patterns.21 Other types of vessels used in the preparation of food, but not cooking, include lekanai; these may have been used as plastic basins are used today for a variety of purposes, for mixing food but also for washing. Much of the pottery found on the site was clearly used for storage, probably primarily food storage, but also of other perishable goods. Pithoi are the largest storage jars, and they have been found in nearly every room on the site, with a few exceptions; several rooms have none at all, while some have such an extraordinary number (8–17) that the space must have served primarily for storage given the available area.22 Second to the pithos in popularity was the pithoid jar, a shape that is smaller and more open than the pithos and may have been used for storage of different material or for temporary storage.23 Other forms of storage vessels include coarse stirrup jars and amphoras. Finally, there are many other vessels, some used in rituals—such as the rhyton and possibly the hut urn—and others more utilitarian, such as scuttles/braziers for holding hot coals, a necessity in the harsh Karphi winter months. The kalathos (e.g., Figs. 27.2:11, 12, 27.5:7, 8, 27.6:10–13) is one of the most common forms of coarse pottery on the site, and indeed, it is frequent at most LM IIIC sites. Its ubiquity suggests a multitude of domestic functions, while its appearance in the Temple and other rooms 16. Hallager 2000, pp. 159–160. This shape may have been imported into Crete from the mainland; Tsipopoulou (2004a, p. 115) sees it as Mycenaean. 17. Seiradaki 1960, p. 7, fig. 4:2. 18. Seiradaki 1960, p. 7, fig. 4:3. The round-bottomed tripod has been seen as a mainland feature in the cooking assemblage (Borgna 1997, p. 200). 19. Betancourt 1980, pp. 5–7; Mook 1999; Hallager 2000, p. 160.

20. Betancourt 1980, p. 7. 21. The undersides are burnt, either entirely, around the edges (as if overhanging a smaller vessel), or sometimes only in the center (as if placed over a smaller vessel that contained burning material). Occasionally there is no sign of burning. 22. Particularly large quantities of pithoi and pithoid jars were found in K 22 in the Magazines (8), K 69 in the Central West Quarter (9), K 80 in the

Priest’s House (8), K 121 in the Cliff Houses West (10 pithoi, 2 tripod pithoi, 5 pithoid jars), and in K 149 on Mikre Koprana (17 pithoi, 4 tripod pithoi, and 7 pithoid jars); these rooms must have been used largely for storage, and, at least in the case of two of them (K 69, K 80), there was less evidence of cooking than in most of the other rooms. 23. Nowicki 1999a, p. 149.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

318

l e s l i e p r e s t o n d ay

with ritual material, as well as in other LM IIIC shrines, shows that at least one of its uses was related to cult activity.24 Burning occurred on most of the Karphi kalathoi, both outside and inside, so they must have been used in the fire or to hold some burning material. One example from K 102 contained carbonized olive pits. Other objects give us further information on the activities and functions of rooms. There is little to suggest industrial activity of any sort. Although there must have been a potter’s workshop, only a single fragment of a potter’s wheel was found and no kiln; the large quantity of misfired blue ware vessels found in the Temple, however, may represent wasters from a nearby kiln. Metal hoards have been seen as possible indicators of metallurgical activity,25 but they may equally well show wealth. The lead run-offs found in K 11 and K 12 of the Great House, however, do attest metallurgical activity there. Most buildings produced a small number of other objects: stone beads, bone or ivory pins, stone vessels and tools, and terracotta beads; these are not helpful in identifying room or building use, since many are portable and multifunctional. The many terracotta spools found on the site, however, may have served as loomweights.26 These appeared in many of the houses, but in such quantity (more than 15) in six rooms that we may suggest the presence of a loom.27 The spools found together were remarkably uniform in weight and size; smaller spools weighed between 25 and 50 g, the majority 30–40 g, and the larger ones 50–100 g. It is interesting that many of these hoards of spools came from rooms that were the largest in their buildings. Finally, cult equipment found in the buildings helps to distinguish areas of ritual on the site.28 The Temple was the largest and certainly the most important building devoted to ritual, with its large space, areas for community assembly outside,29 and statues of goddesses with upraised arms.30 Two other areas that produced fragments of goddess figures (K 16–17, K 116) may have been smaller shrines in which similar rituals occurred, possibly at different times in the settlement’s history. There are also rooms that were easily accessible from the streets and that contained offering stands or snake tubes (K 57, K 58) in which some sort of religious offering occurred; K 57 has entrances from two streets, suggesting more public access. Other rooms produced animal and human figurines (especially K 85–87 and K 106), and K 27 had two elaborate anthropomorphic rhyta. Except for the buildings with the stands, rooms with cult equipment also 24. For kalathoi in LM IIIC settlements, see Chalasmenos (Tsipopoulou 2004a, p. 115), Chania (Hallager 2000, p. 157); for ritual kalathoi, see Gesell 1999. 25. Wallace 2005, p. 259. 26. The excavators called these “spools,” but they have also been referred to as “bobbins” (Bruun-Lundgren and Wiman 2000, p. 177) and reels (Evely 2000, p. 502); although they were common in the Early Bronze Age, they later disappeared from Cretan assemblages until LM III.

Barber (1997) thinks they may have been used for a particular type of weaving, for belts. Rahmstorf (2005) has suggested that this type of loomweight represents Mycenaean influence on Crete in this late period. 27. Over 50 spools are recorded as having been found in K 110 in the Eastern Cliff Houses and 38 in K 102 in the Western Cliff Houses; 21 spools came from K 136 in the Eastern Quarter, 20 from K 27 in the Southern Houses, 19 from K 61 in the Priest’s House, 18 from K 150 at Mikre Ko-

prana, and 15 from K 91 in the Southern Shelters. 28. The ritual areas at Karphi will be discussed elsewhere. See Day 2009. 29. Rutkowski 1987, p. 259. 30. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937–1938, pl. XXXI; Seiradaki 1960, pl. 14. There were at least five nearly complete figures of goddesses, but fragments of four more heads were found in the K1 boxes in the Iraklion Archaeological Museum.

household assemblages in lm iiic cre te

319

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

produced ordinary domestic assemblages of cooking and storage vessels, with some pottery for consumption and display. Despite an overall uniformity in assemblages across the site, individual houses can show differences, and three will be examined here in some detail: K 3/K 134 in the Barracks, K 22/K 23 in the Magazines, and K 110 in the Eastern Cliff Houses. All were chosen because they contained large quantities of whole or nearly complete pots, and each was dug in a different excavation season, thus representing a different sampling.

Th e Barrack s : K 3 /K 1 3 4 A long row of rooms excavated in 1937 comprises the Barracks. Each of the houses seems to consist of a single room, with the exception of room 3, which may be associated with a second space (K 134), possibly exterior. While K 3 produced a large kylix and several fine and coarse decorated jugs for consumption and display, there was an unusually large number of kalathoi (10) and only a few fragments of pithoi and pithoid jars (Fig. 27.2). The associated space K 134, on the other hand, contained a larger percentage of elaborate pottery for display and consumption, including a pyxis and two octopus stirrup jars (Fig. 27.3). No cooking ware was found in the space, but one pithos and a coarse stirrup jar indicate storage.

Th e Magaz i n es : K 2 2 /K 2 3 A large complex on the southeast corner of the excavated area was uncovered in 1938 and was called the Magazines. Of particular interest here are two rooms (K 22, K 23) of the four-room structure, since they produced much nearly complete pottery (Figs. 27.4, 27.5); rooms K 29 and K 30 may not always have been part of the same structure, and only fragments were found there. Room K 23 was particularly rich in fine or decorated pottery, including an unusual krater (Fig. 27.4:1), a stirrup jar (Fig. 27.4:2), three decorated jugs (Fig. 27.4:3, 7, 11), and a thelastron (Fig. 27.4:4). Vessels for food preparation included a tripod (Fig. 27.4:14) and two cooking dishes. A large coarse oinochoe (Fig. 27.4:9), a coarse jug (Fig. 27.4:8), and a fragmentary basin may also fit into this category. Storage is represented by a large coarse stirrup jar (Fig. 27.4:10), a small baggy jar (Fig. 27.4:13), and fragments of both pithoi and pithoid jars. A large number of objects was also found (a fragment of a bronze bowl, some Neolithic axes, seven beads, and a pierced bone pommel), but they do not help determine the function of the room. Nine spools found in the room suggest weaving activities. The adjoining room (K 22) also produced much pottery. Some of it was for consumption and display, but there were few deep bowls and an exceptionally large number of elaborately decorated pyxides (Fig. 27.5:3–6). There was little cooking ware, but storage vessels were plentiful, including fragments of a coarse amphora and stirrup jar, eight pithoi, and one or two pithoid jars. Other pottery included a pair of kalathoi. Also recorded in the room were five spools.

320

l e s l i e p r e s t o n d ay

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

C liff East: K 110 The Eastern Cliff Houses lie on the northern edge of the settlement, with four large unconnected rooms; these may be part of the same complex or separate houses, but without preserved doorways this is difficult to determine. Room K 110 produced a great amount of pottery in 1939 (Figs. 27.6, 27.7), with some interesting anomalies. One of the deep bowls has a unique molded design that seems to imitate an earlier palatial blossom bowl (Fig. 27.6:1). Many small vessels for pouring, including a small jug and two decorated stirrup jars (Fig. 27.6:3, 8, 9), were found in the room. There were also three pyxides (Figs. 27.6:4, 5, 27.7:2); one (Fig. 27.7:2) is very large and elaborately decorated with a variety of fringed motifs, and a fine conical lid (Fig. 27.7:1) may have belonged to it. Pottery for food preparation was scanty, but included an interesting small tripod bowl (Fig. 27.6:15). A coarse jar (Fig. 27.7:4) and a large octopus stirrup jar (Fig. 27.7:5) comprised the storage vessels, as well as fragments of six pithoi and six pithoid jars. Other vessels included a hut urn (Fig. 27.6:6), four kalathoi (Fig. 27.6:10–13), and a firebox (Fig. 27.6:14). The room was rich in other finds as well, including fragments of bronze, a bone handle, and a Middle Minoan stone bowl with a lid and a piece of obsidian within. The over 50 terracotta spools found in the room suggest weaving, and there are more than enough to indicate the presence of a loom.

Dis c u ssion Based on the ceramic evidence, we can conclude that household assemblages in most of the buildings across Karphi were remarkably uniform. Some houses were larger, some were richer in finds, and many had ritual associations, but the presence of similar groupings of pottery suggests that the rooms were multifunctional and served the domestic needs of the inhabitants. As at Kavousi Vronda, the largest rooms in any given building showed the widest variety of functions, including weaving and possibly domestic ritual activity. A few buildings may have served specific functions; the Temple was clearly a religious building, the houses on Mikre Koprana produced much more cooking and storage pottery than other buildings, and room K 143 may have served as a food preparation area, possibly for one or more of the megarons of the Eastern Quarter.31 The largest buildings belonged to the elite (the Great House, the Priest’s House, the megarons). Although these houses produced material similar to the smaller buildings, they showed a greater proportion of the kylikes that may have accompanied elite drinking rituals, and the large amount of bronze found in the Great House suggests wealth or control of metallurgical resources by one of the elite groups. Special areas of the site were not apparently set aside for particular classes of society, however. Although there is a major building devoted to religious practices, there is also evidence for rituals performed in other areas of the site. The idea that there might have been different ethnic groups inhabiting different areas of the site is not born out by the ceramic evidence.

31. A similar situation can be found at Chalasmenos, where an entire area of the settlement has been identified as a food preparation area for the megarons; see Tsipopoulou 2005b, p. 332, and in this volume (Chap. 29).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

household assemblages in lm iiic cre te

32. For the definition of private, communal, and public areas in Dark Age architecture, see Sjögren 2007, p. 149.

321

One is struck by the predominance of individual, self-sufficient households at Karphi. Households stored quantities of food and other perishable items, the inhabitants cooked in a wide variety of vessels in the rooms, and the women probably spent time spinning and weaving. No specialized manufacturing areas have been recognized. Aside from the area outside the Temple, no spaces were clearly set aside for communal activities,32 although the “squares” (K 10, K 48) may have provided some space for such activities. To judge from the pottery, an important element of social life was the household display on festive occasions; some of the buildings may even have served as the special locus of competitive or communal rituals, whether civic or religious.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 28

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Tradition, Status Competition, and the Templates of Domestic and Special Buildings in Post-Collapse Crete by Saro Wallace The nature and circumstances of state collapse across the Aegean around 1200 b.c. varied significantly by region.1 Crete’s archaeological record indicates rather successful strategies of preemptive adjustment to the disruption in political and economic systems. These strategies seem to have helped to avert almost completely the kinds of settlement destruction seen in central Greece. This paper examines the role of material culture change, specifically in the area of settlement architecture, in the restructuring of social systems during or very soon after the collapse. The Late Minoan (LM) IIIC period (ca. 1200–1100 b.c.) saw large-scale settlement relocation, with most former settlements abandoned, apart from the most important towns at Knossos, Phaistos, and Chania.2 Though these latter towns continued to act as trade gateways, they underwent considerable contraction in size, and some areas within them may have been destroyed.3 Their political role must have changed radically as residence and contact patterns ceased to be focused around them. Previously, these sites seem to have held the status of regional centers in a hierarchy of settlement that also included important regional subnodes and a spread of much smaller rural sites.4 There was significant variety in the internal spatial organization of these different types of settlement, related to their earlier history as well as their topography, social structure, and place in the hierarchy. Thus, no “standard” LM IIIA–B type of house plan can be referred to when assessing changes in LM IIIC. For example, LM IIIA–B buildings at Gournia and Plati reused or followed elements of the plans of LM I buildings at the same sites, while buildings at new LM IIIA–B settlements, such as Chondros Kephali, reflect more directly the needs of the period.5 Yet Kephali is very much a rural settlement, explaining why its buildings differ from those at 1. Ward and Joukowsky 1992; Deger-Jalkotzy 1994, 1998; Gitin, Mazur, and Stern 1998. I would like to thank the Institute for Aegean Prehistory and the British School at Athens for their support in my architectural recording at Karphi. 2. Rocchetti 1974; Warren 1982–

1983; Nowicki 1987b, 2000; Borgna 1999; Coldstream 2000; Hallager and Hallager 2000, 2003; Kanta 2001; Andreadaki-Vlazaki 2004; Wallace 2004, 2006. 3. Hallager and Hallager 2003; Hatzaki (2005b, p. 86) notes black soils in LM IIIC layers at Knossos contrasting

radically with the earlier stratigraphy in the same area (the Little Palace/Stratigraphical Museum Extension site). 4. Bennet 1990; Hayden 1997; Driessen 2001a. 5. Hawes et al. 1908, pp. 19–26; Hayden 1987, 1990; Platon 1997a.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

324

s a r o wa l l a c e

sites at the upper end of the regional hierarchy. Malia Quartier Nu, for example, probably housed a regional elite and operated beyond the remit of a simple domestic structure.6 Different again were the houses in longestablished, densely packed urban areas at or near the largest settlements, like the small LM IIIB house recorded at the port site of Katsambas.7 The complexity of LM IIIA–B society thus produced, and was produced by, its architecture. I will argue that buildings in the new post-collapse settlements had a much less obviously differentiated form. This fact must have reflected, and helped alter, social relationships. New site locations in LM IIIC were nearly all selected for their defensible topography, but almost always in combination with a hinterland allowing subsistence self-sufficiency.8 There was no clear functional hierarchy or specialization of settlement, and only a limited variation in settlement size.9 The theoretical “blank canvas” provided by the new sites encouraged the conscious restructuring of domestic and social space. Restrictions, however, were also imposed from the start by the special features of the new topography (which was often cramped, rocky, and steeply sloping), by older frameworks of social interaction transported with the settlers, and by the character of newly developing social institutions. Much of my discussion here is focused on Karphi in the northern Lasithi mountains, the largest and most complex of the LM IIIC defensible sites so far excavated. Unlike several other sites of the same date, it lacks later occupation, giving us a particularly clear picture of architecture in the immediate post-collapse period.10 Little of the 1930s excavation data was recorded in detail, but I have recently produced new drawings of the best-preserved buildings, which help illuminate changes over time. Their brief presentation here is complemented closely by Leslie Day’s contribution to this volume.11 A recurrent issue in the interpretation of LM IIIC architecture has been the ethnic and cultural origins of the people building and using it. For example, so-called megaron plans and the use of central hearths have been cited as indicating new levels of mainlander presence or influence on the island from this time.12 New concepts of community identity were almost certainly developed during the major redistribution of population around 1200 b.c. However, most elements of material culture suggest these were, primarily, still the same people who had inhabited the island in the LM IIIA–B period—though in common with other Aegean settlements, trade and contacts abroad were significantly reoriented during and after the disturbances ca. 1200 b.c.13 All of the features used in LM IIIC architecture were already present on the island in the LM IIIA–B period. In the new settlements, however, I suggest that some of these features appear to have been combined in new ways—perhaps because of their established prestige associations with mainland culture—to subtly differentiate buildings of special function or those associated with high-status groups.14 Public cult and feasting at some kind of ritualized, collective level were practices with an important role in the construction of new community bonds. Both of them drew on, but transformed, practices already in use in Crete and the wider Aegean during the 14th and 13th centuries.15 It will be necessary to refer to both practices in discussing houses, since these

6. Driessen and Farnoux 1994a; Driessen and Fiasse, this volume (Chap. 25). 7. Alexiou 1955. 8. Wallace 1997–2000. 9. Wallace 2006. 10. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937–1938; Nowicki 1987a; 1999a; 2000, pp. 157–164. 11. Day and Snyder 2004; Wallace 2005; Day, this volume (Chap. 27). 12. Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, pp. 219–220; Nowicki 1999a, pp. 147– 148; Tsipopoulou and Nowicki 2003; Tsipopoulou 2005b, and this volume (Chap. 29); also see Darcque 1990 for interpretative issues associated with the term “megaron.” 13. Hoffman 1997, pp. 6–7; Sherratt 2001; Wallace 2006. 14. Preston (1999) has usefully highlighted the ways in which the adoption of mainland cultural forms in LM II–IIIA Crete may be read as prestige-driven emulation; new building plans are just one of these forms (Hayden 1987). 15. Gesell 1985, pp. 41–61; D’Agata 1997–2000; Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, pp. 218–220; Tsipopoulou 2001; Day and Snyder 2004; Wallace 2004; Wright 2004a.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t e m p l at e s o f d o m e s t i c a n d s p e c i a l b u i l d i n g s

325

important social activities overflowed into domestic space in various ways. In fact, the spaces in which they took place often seem designed to tie into, mirror, or echo the space occupied by the extended household or kin group. The generally limited, subtle types of differentiation in size and form between houses and other built spaces in the new settlements may reflect limited scope for consolidation of social status and power on the part of any single group. Both mortuary practices and settlement architecture suggest that the small family unit had a strong role in structuring Cretan society during the LM IIIC period, in the absence of complex stratification. The significance the nuclear family had had in LM IIIA–B societies was at least maintained, and very probably increased. Symbolic expansion of the family and its space via claims on fictive and extended kin during cult and feasting activity probably played a regular part in power negotiations, and some domestic spaces seem to have been altered considerably over time in relation to this kind of social mobility. Leslie Day and Lynn Snyder recently analyzed the role of buildings containing feasting evidence at Karphi and Kavousi Vronda in terms of the houses of the community leaders used by them to hold ritual feasts as a means of control and display.16 They note that at Vronda, feasting evidence and distinctive architectural features seemed concentrated in a single building, while Karphi had several outstanding structures with similar and possibly competitive status or use. On this basis, they suggest a difference in social structure between the two sites. I agree that in large, complex settlements like Karphi, the status garnered by hosting feasts may have been particularly vulnerable to appropriation by a number of different groups, who adapted their own dwellings for the purpose; this applied less in smaller communities like Vronda. On the other hand, I think we may also be able to identify fixed venues for public feasting in settlements of the period that need not have been residences and may have lain outside the control of any individual group. I explore this point briefly below and in more detail elsewhere.17

D o m es t i c S tru ct u res

16. Day and Snyder 2004; Wallace 2005. 17. Wallace 2005. 18. Examples include LM III houses at Gournia, Plati, and Palaikastro; Hawes et al. 1908, pp. 19–26; Dawkins 1913–1914; see also Cunningham 2005. 19. Warren 1982–1983; Hallager and Hallager 2000, 2003.

Looking at LM IIIC houses and their potential for development as semipublic venues, we can note that they are generally smaller than many of their LM IIIA–B predecessors, which often covered well over 100 square meters.18 However, where the site type is similar, or when a site is continuously occupied between the LM IIIB and LM IIIC periods, there is sometimes very little contrast in size or form. Many of the small Chondros Kephali buildings would fit well into a LM IIIC defensible settlement; and, in the continuously used urban areas at Knossos and Chania, little difference can be seen between LM IIIB and IIIC house sizes.19 The overall size reduction clearly relates to the new topography, which severely limited building space. However, houses also seem more similar in size between settlements in LM IIIC than had been the case in LM IIIA–B (Fig. 28.1). This fact seems related to a new flattening of the political and

326

s a r o wa l l a c e

100

90.3

10090

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Square Meters Square Meters

9080 8070 7060

52.8

6050 5040 4030

90.3

73.75

37.64 37.87 37.64 37.87 25.96

40.6152.8

70.25 63.82 73.75 70.25 55.363.82 51.33 55.3 51.33

40.61

55.73 52.78 48.2 55.73 42.79 52.78 48.2 42.79

3020 25.96 2010 10 0 0

Chalasmenos Chalasmenos

Karphi Karphi

Vronda Vronda

Site Name Site Name economic hierarchy during the societal disruption that occurred around 1200 b.c. We have few whole-site plans from the LM IIIA–B period with which to assess building differentiation at the intrasettlement level—and again, the existence of a site hierarchy complicates matters. But it is worth noting that at both the small village settlement of Chondros Kephali and the large site of Malia, there seems to have been one exceptionally large residence, or combined residence and public building. This feature is not always obvious in the LM IIIC plans we have available, and building sizes often show a rather limited range of variability; even where this is present, it is of a less extreme degree. A rectangular main room is the focus of most LM IIIC houses. The sizes of these rooms are again broadly comparable, both across and between sites (Fig. 28.2). They sometimes comprised the entire residence, as in the cases of Vronda rooms N4 and C4, which offer an analogy for Karphi units 2, 3, and 7.20 The main rooms in many Vronda, Chalasmenos, and Karphi houses contained a combination of cloth-making and food-processing equipment and eating, drinking, and cooking vessels, thus marking them as the core of the household. Multiple-use main rooms had already existed in modest dwellings at LM IIIA–B sites such as Katsambas and Chondros Kephali; but in larger houses, often located in LM IIIA–B regional centers, there seems to have been more differentiation in room function. Malia Quartier Nu and some Kommos buildings appear to have had separate kitchens, while Gournia houses had substantial subsidiary rooms that were separate from the storerooms (see below), perhaps used for sleeping or bathing.21 A similar kind of complexity appears in the large central building at Chondros Kephali.22 The character of the LM IIIC house plan exemplifies a tendency toward simplification and standardization in the island’s material culture during the immediate post-relocation period. This seems likely to have structured and/or reflected a new system or ideal of broad social equality, at least at the start of the period.

Figure 28.1. Size ranges of the largest excavated buildings (with communicating doorways) at the LM IIIC sites of Chalasmenos, Karphi, and Vronda. S. Wallace

20. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937–1938, pp. 72–73; Glowacki 2004, pp. 130–132. 21. Hawes et al. 1908, pp. 19–26; Shaw 1990; Driessen and Farnoux 1994a; Platon 1997a. 22. Platon 1997a.

t e m p l at e s o f d o m e s t i c a n d s p e c i a l b u i l d i n g s

327

80 70

Square Meters

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Abbreviated Name of Site/Room Figure 28.2. Size ranges of the largest main rooms in buildings at the LM IIIC sites of Chalasmenos, Karphi, Vronda, and Smari (excluding cult buildings). S. Wallace

23. Glowacki 2002, p. 38; 2004, p. 134. 24. Shaw 1990, pp. 239–249; Day, Glowacki, and Klein 2000, pp. 117– 118; Platon 1997a, p. 362. 25. The term “Megarons” has been repeatedly applied to Block 135–142 at Karphi in the literature since excavation: see Nowicki 1987a, p. 238; 1999a, p. 147; Tsipopoulou 2004b, p. 127. I use it here purely for convenience without any of its problematic interpretative overtones.

If we regard the main room as the material construction or representation of the family unit, its limited size and repeated, regular distribution through blocks that expanded over time suggest that adult children usually relocated out of the parental home. At the same time, the clustering of these nuclear units within blocks (as K. Glowacki has shown for Vronda) suggests strong attachment to the extended kin group and close collaboration between its members.23 Some very slight differences in house/block form, size, and features may well reflect differences in status or wealth between individual families/clans. The large room 16–17 in the Great House at Karphi (I think this is a room, not a courtyard as suggested by the excavator, because of its solid construction and separate entrance) is marked by an exceptional 2 m long threshold block (Fig. 28.3). Another large building at Karphi, the Priest’s House, had a large single-block threshold in its main room, unique traces of plaster on its walls, and a unique long bench along the western wall (Fig. 28.4). But important or “successful” groups often seem to have invested more effort in agglutinative architectural expansion (possibly connected to the hosting of feasts as a means of upward mobility) than in original differentiation of building form and size, as I shall discuss below. Cooking practices, whether inside or outside the house, give us further insight into social systems. Central clay hearths and built ovens, both already used in LM IIIA–B buildings, are found at LM IIIC sites in varying distributions.24 At Karphi, the dense and almost exclusive concentration of hearths in the Megarons25 Block is striking, although the incomplete character of the archive record encourages caution. Most other buildings/ rooms did contain cooking vessels, and a few have suggestions of hearths

328

s a r o wa l l a c e 0

2.5 m

18

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

16/17

15 81

66

13

58

12

82

14

63

11

83

84

80

8

9

61 60

59

0

2.5 m

81

66

82

63

58

83

84

80

61 59

0

2.5 m

60

t e m p l at e s o f d o m e s t i c a n d s p e c i a l b u i l d i n g s Figure 28.3 (opposite, top). Karphi: Great House. Plan of walls and features visible in 2002, with projected wall lines and doorway positions based on the original excavation plan and new architectural observations.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

S. Wallace

Figure 28.4 (opposite, bottom). Karphi: Priest’s House. Plan of walls and features visible in 2002, with projected wall lines and doorway positions based on the original excavation plan and new architectural observations. S. Wallace

329

or fireplaces, but, in general, cooking facilities seem remarkably restricted.26 If used together and in a dedicated manner, the Megarons’ main rooms, with their hearths, would provide an exceptionally spacious cooking/feasting area. The suggestion of concentrated areas for cooking or dining is also supported by a unique circular feature in a room in the central area of the site (room 73),27 seemingly an enlarged version of the ovens common at Vronda, though very few remains are now visible. As Tsipopoulou, YasurLandau, and Day have pointed out,28 other LM IIIC sites also show signs of “zoned” cooking or dining, but to a less polarized extent. Chalasmenos has a concentration of hearths and cooking pots in one sector (sector B). At Vronda, exceptionally large-scale cooking and feasting seems represented in the clustered storerooms, hearths and cooking pots, and concentrated organic remains of Building A-B. At both these sites, however, most other houses also seem well equipped with cooking facilities, as is especially clear at Vronda. Provisions for centralized cooking would boost the ability of competing groups to invest in public display by helping small domestic structures take on a public role. The potentially extreme centralization of cooking at Karphi may reflect a highly developed kind of competitive structure in a large settlement housing a number of competing groups. Provision of these facilities, however, could also impede the full or permanent appropriation of public feasting by any single group. This may explain the weaker role of these facilities at a smaller, less competitive and more socially stable settlement such as Vronda, where the excavator has suggested a well-established single ruler structure.

Sp ec ial -F u n c t ion B u i ldin g s This discussion leads us to what I think is an important distinction between (a) ordinary dwellings adapted to accommodate periodic collective feasting, and (b) purposefully built formal venues for the same activity, divorced from any single group’s control and sometimes attached to centralized cooking facilities either in the same location or at another part of the site. The Karphi Megarons, buildings with similar plans at Smari and Chalasmenos,29 and Vronda Building A-B, together with the north part of the “temple” complex at Vasiliki Kephala, all share a distinctive set of architectural features, and some contain remains hinting at specialized feasting. These facts lead me to suggest that some or all of them may in fact represent purposefully designed secular feasting units built to a flexible template that deliberately concentrated certain “Mycenaeanizing” elements. The latter had held an exotic and prestigious status in Crete from the 15th century, gradually becoming more and more absorbed into local building practice.30 Mycenaeanizing features include axial plans with centrally aligned 26. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937–1938, pp. 70–72, 86–90, 137. 27. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and

Money-Coutts 1937–1938, pp. 86–87. 28. Day and Snyder 2004; Tsipopoulou, this volume (Chap. 29); YasurLandau, 2003–2004.

29. Eliopoulos 1998, 2004; HadziVallianou 2004. 30. Hayden 1987, pp. 217–218.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

330

s a r o wa l l a c e

entrances, full-width anterooms, central hearths, and sometimes the placement of a column base or bases in the center of the main room.31 All of these features are used in other buildings at each settlement, but they are more rarely clustered together or found in combination with exceptional feasting assemblages. The pits, apparently containing the remains of ritual feasts, found at Thronos Kephala and Chamalevri32 suggest that such venues need not always have taken built form, nor operated in the same way at all sites. At the same time, they lend support to the notion that social feasting and public cult were being restructured at this time, taking on a new kind of bonding social role in the post-collapse communities. Another interesting observation is that a number of Karphi houses seem, over time, to emulate the architectural features of these putative “public” structures, or attempt to parallel the role of such structures through expansion. In the Great House at Karphi, room 16–17 had its impressive threshold partly blocked off when a storage extension, and, later, an imposing full-width anteroom were added to the neighboring room (9). This suggests either a close collaboration or a takeover between two originally separate groups in large single-room houses, and the feasting-associated evidence found in this building hints at a link between these architectural changes and the assumption of a more ambitious public role. Most LM IIIC houses had their own separate small storage area, reflecting the concerns with self-sufficiency and broad equality seen elsewhere in the archaeological record. Storage is generally on a more modest scale than in many LM IIIA–B structures. Karphi storerooms varied widely in size and in the number of pithoi they contained. Differences often relate to the size of the household, additional uses of the store, and the amount of storage space in the main room. But the level of hosting activities engaged in by any particular household may also have played a part. By the end of its life, the Priest’s House included an exceptional amount of storage space in a second large room (80) alongside the main room of the house (61), in a pattern atypical of most houses at the site. It may by this time have started to serve regularly a group well beyond the nuclear family, and the room may have been added or joined to room 61 (potentially an earlier and separate house, together with the small subsidiaries 59 and 60) as the building developed this semipublic role. It is interesting, in the same connection, that a form of extra semiexternal (perhaps temporary) storage, apparently unique on the site, was provided in the area outside the Megarons’ Block (possibly linked to it through hatchways), supporting the idea of a special feasting-related role for this building.33 31. Chalasmenos Megaron A.1 shows a reuse for feasting in the Late Geometric period which might potentially echo or refer to a known special function in LM IIIC for this building (or this type of building); see Wallace 2003, pp. 258–259; Tsipopoulou 2004b. Context is crucial in identifying how far these features, where clustered together, can be seen as indicating special build-

ing status; because full context information is not available in any of the above cases, all my inferences here are tentative. In the cases of Smari and Vasiliki Kephala, assumptions of special roles for the buildings mentioned are particularly vulnerable because the wider settlement context has not been extensively explored. At Vasiliki, I suggest that at some point the north part of the

building might have been oriented more toward/crossed over with public secular feasting than with cult practice, or at least might have seen a type of cult practice rather different from that of the standard LM IIIC settlement cult. 32. Andreadaki-Vlazaki 1991, 1994–1996; D’Agata 1997–2000. 33. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937–1938, p. 71.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t e m p l at e s o f d o m e s t i c a n d s p e c i a l b u i l d i n g s

34. Wallace 2006, pp. 619–624, 628–630. 35. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937–1938, pp. 94–96. 36. Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1937–1938, pp. 77–79. 37. Nowicki 2002b, pp. 158–161.

331

Agglutination was the dominant constructional mode at all LMIIIC settlements, and this must be a significant reflection of social interaction and power-building over time. Its popularity probably relates in part to space limitations, and it has earlier parallels at space-restricted LM IIIA–B sites such as Chondros Kephali. However, despite the irregular and cramped appearance of parts of Karphi’s final plan, agglutinative expansion rarely seems to be of an ad hoc type. The walls of the expanded versions of the Priest’s House and the Great House at Karphi closely follow earlier wall lines, showing deliberate adherence to building plans over time.34 Public spaces were planned at Karphi and other settlements from the start, with streets and squares providing likely venues for public gatherings. However, regular incursions into these spaces resulting from various building expansions suggest fluid dynamics in the control of space between different groups, rather than long-term acceptance of fixed public space. Some of the buildings identified above as having a possibly specialized feasting function were set in particularly sizeable open spaces that may have been important to such activities. Agglutination seems planned for the thick external walls of the earliest rooms in a number of blocks at Karhphi. These were used as spines, as in the Cliff Houses on the western saddle,35 and they sometimes were strengthened by double building where differences in height occurred, as in the western wall of the Priest’s House. Just as the Karphi Great House may have been enlarged to serve an increasingly important social role, the agglutinative expansion of the Priest’s House hints that an influential family appropriated some aspects of typical public cult. A small extension, added at a late stage in the building’s life, contained cult equipment and had an external doorway, suggesting users might include people from the wider commnunity.36 In contrast to the above cases, the Karphi Megarons’ Block (Fig. 28.5) shows minimal agglutination over time. Given the block’s other remarkable features, I suggest that deliberate nonaddition to buildings may also have been a socially meaningful practice. Its static plan may not be best explained, as some scholars have suggested, by an expansion to the east at the end of the settlement’s life.37 There is no clear difference in date between pottery from this building and that from the rest of the site, and the west side of the settlement continues to see agglutination throughout its lifespan. The use of static or near-static plans also distinguishes some of the “special” buildings I have tentatively identified at other sites, such as Vronda Building A-B and the Chalasmenos and Smari megarons. Though these blocks do see small changes over time, none seems to undergo major transformation—often in distinct contrast to the rest of the settlement. This again highlights the subtlety of architectural differentiation in LM IIIC settlements. It also strengthens the idea that an accepted, though flexible, template for public buildings across the island, linked to shared concepts and traditions, connected Cretan communities from soon after the collapse. Whether these buildings were ever “normal” residences is difficult to say, and perhaps this is not always very relevant—simply because public practices at this time cross over so much into the household sphere and were often couched in terms of the extended kin group or brotherhood. Additionally, emulation of these special features seems to have taken place

332

s a r o wa l l a c e

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

138

144

143 137

139

136 140 141

142

0

2m

in some “ordinary” houses, perhaps as powerful families struggled to assert their status. In the fragile new communities of the earliest Early Iron Age, there was clearly a strong conceptual overlap and bond between the family and parts of the wider community unit that was embodied in and reinforced through feasting and cult practice. This would have formed a strong foundation for the clan-based social structures that remained at the core of Cretan communities right into the polis period.38 38. Willetts 1955; Haggis et al. 2004.

Figure 28.5. Karphi: Megarons’ Block. Plan of walls and features visible in 2002, with projected wall lines and doorway positions based on the original excavation plan and new architectural observations. One or both of the two linear concentrations of stones in room 137 may represent a subdivision wall. S. Wallace

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 29

C h al as m e n os, I e rap e t ra: “ M yc e nae an i zi n g ” or N ot at th e E n d of t h e B r on z e A g e by Metaxia Tsipopoulou

1. On Chalasmenos, see Tsipopoulou 2001, 2004a, 2004b, 2005b, 2009; Tsipopoulou and Nowicki 2003. I wish to thank the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Institute for Aegean Prehistory for financing the excavation, the conservation of the finds and the architectural remains, and the study. Conservation of the finds is by Clio Zervaki; the photographs are by Chronis Papanikolopoulos; the drawings (architecture and pottery) are by by Kostas Paschalides, David Rupp, Michael Wedde, and Freya Evenson; the drawing of the animal rhyton in Fig. 29.8 is by Douglas Faulmann. My gratitude goes to all of them for an excellent synergasia and many useful discussions about the site, the finds, and their idiosyncrasies. I also thank Garyphalia Kostopoulou for the digitization of the drawings.2. For the shrine, see Tsipopoulou 2001, 2009. 3. On the Minoan and Mycenaean cultural traditions present at Chalasmenos, see in particular Tsipopoulou 2005b.

The Late Minoan (LM) IIIC settlement at Chalasmenos, located at the northern end of the isthmus of Ierapetra, constitutes one of the most significant and extensive habitation sites for the final Bronze Age in the wider area of Mirabello-Ierapetra in eastern Crete (Fig. 29.1).1 Particularly important features of the site include: (a) a well-defined urban arrangement, (b) architectural types of both Minoan and Mycenaean origin, and (c) a public shrine.2 The mixture of the two cultural traditions (Minoan and Mycenaean) is evident also in various aspects of the material culture.3 While it is worth investigating the extent to which this general tendency in Postpalatial Crete is present at contemporary sites throughout the island, it is important to recognize that Chalasmenos may be a special case, because it was occupied only during LM IIIC and was abandoned before the end of the Bronze Age. The settlement of Chalasmenos sits on a rocky outcrop against the vertical face of the Siteia Mountains; a long, steep slope from the cliff descends down onto a series of step-like plateaus surrounded by precipitous drops to the valley floor. The summit of the outcrop is formed by an east–west saddle, divided in the middle by a small peak. To the south, the hill descends rapidly into the valley, thus forcing the settlement to develop to the north. East and west of the peak there is a small plateau that forms the saddle with its northern edge dipping into a slope down to the middle plateau; this is followed by a second slope, divided by an outcrop, leading to the third and northernmost plateau. The architecture and the circulation patterns find their rhythm in the succession of plateaus and slopes, and in the rocky outcrops that divide the slopes in two. The buildings are generally oriented east to west, since the lay of the land provides either a narrow east–west plateau or a slope toward the north. The one significant exception is provided by House A.1 (“Coulson’s House”), which is positioned against the slope, articulated on a long wall running north–south rather than the expected east–west. Two of the excavated “Mycenaean megaron” type buildings in sector A (Fig. 29.2, right), designated Megaron A.2 and Megaron A.3, preserved good floor deposits that allow us to analyze the activities that took place

m e tax i a t s i p o p o u l o u

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

334

Figure 29.1. Chalasmenos: plan of the site. K. Paschalidis and D. Rupp

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

chalasmenos: “mycenaeanizing ”or not

335

Figure 29.2. Houses B.1 and B.2 (left) and Megara A.2 and A.3 (right). K. Paschalidis and D. Rupp

within them.4 Both buildings were equipped with central hearths, and they were used for the consumption of food and drink as well as for small-scale storage. In the present paper they will be compared with two of the five units excavated in sector B (Fig. 29.2, left), labeled Houses B.1 and B.2. In contrast to the “megara” in sector A, these “Minoan” type houses have a Γ-shaped plan, with three rooms each, and hearths (although not centrally located); the easily recognizable activities associated with these buildings are large-scale food preparation and the storage of goods and vessels. The comparative analysis of the two pairs of units will help us to understand their functions and the types of activities that took place within them, and their complete (excavated) assemblages will be used to raise important questions about the overall social organization at the site.5 In order to determine whether these four structures housed families (either nuclear or extended) or had some other specialized function within the community, the following issues need to be clarified. First, did the four buildings have identical functions, despite the differences in their ground plans? If so, was there a quantitative or qualitative difference according to the type of the building, possibly reflecting social differentiation? Second, what was the purpose of the large-scale food preparation in sector B, which exceeds, by far, the requirements of an individual household? In order to interpret the artifactual assemblages, a behavioral model will be proposed as a working hypothesis. The analytical methods of household archaeology are used in this context to ask questions that help identify the various types of human behavior reflecting the social groups active within

4. The term “megaron” is employed here in full cognizance of the objections raised by Darcque (1990) and other scholars. The buildings thus designated at Chalasmenos correspond rather well to the original meaning of the word in Aegean archaeology: a rectangular

structure with a smaller room either in front or behind the main room, the latter with a hearth at its center. The fact that the shrine at Chalasmenos, on the megaron plan, also finds a parallel in the late Iron Age/early Archaic Herdtempel is not without interest. The term

“house” is used here for a structure consisting of two or more rooms, regardless of whether it housed a family. 5. For discussion along similar lines, see Ault and Nevett 1999, pp. 45–46; Glowacki 2004, p. 125.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

336

m e tax i a t s i p o p o u l o u

the settlement. As a general rule, the material remains have their special meaning and value, but only a comparative study can help to reconstruct an ancient social unit such as a household.6 The scale and the distribution of functions and activities both within a particular architectural shell and outside of it may lead to an understanding of the behavior and the ideology of the users.7 Yet, in order for a comparative analysis of the architectural features and the floor deposits of various buildings to be a reliable tool, it is necessary to establish, with as much clarity as possible, that the units compared are, in fact, comparable.8 In this regard, it is important to note that the four buildings under consideration here share several common features, including: (1) they are contemporary (LM IIIC advanced); (2) they are comparable in size in terms of area (B.1 = 48 m2, B.2 = 43.5 m2, A.2 = 35 m2, A.3 = 40.5 m2); (c) they are constructed in pairs with a common wall, and they belong to the same architectural program (the distance between the two houses and the two megara is about 50 m); and (d) all four units were excavated by the same team, and the same method was used for the documentation of the contextual data and the finds, thus allowing us to assume that any similarities or differences observed cannot be connected with any bias in the excavation process. The two different architectural types represented by these units might diverge from each other in their plans, but they share many structural characteristics. Like all the other buildings at Chalasmenos, they have one story and are built of rough stones, with a limited use of mud brick. Their roofs were flat, made of wooden beams, and covered with soil—very similar to those still found in traditional villages of Crete. A stone threshold appears at least once in each building, and the ends of walls received special treatment (e.g., large, squarish boulders or long, rectangular stones placed course-by-course alternating longitudinally/laterally in orientation) at doorways. The two houses in sector B have floors that were partially covered with slabs in one or two of their rooms, respectively, while the megara in sector A have earthen floors. Column bases, either monolithic or constructed from multiple elements, roughly rectangular in shape, are present in the houses and absent from the megara. The two megara each have one central clay hearth (circular or ovoid in shape) located in the front room. In the houses, room B.1.1 has two hearths and B.1.2 an oven,9 room B.2.1 had an oven and a hearth, and rooms B.2.2 and B.2.3 had one hearth each. Benches are found in two rooms of House B.1 and in Megaron A.3; A.3 has also a built cist (or bin) at the eastern corner. A staircase of three steps connects rooms 1 and 2 of House B.1. In room B.1.2, there is a built structure, probably a “cupboard.” The investigation of structural remains 6. Allison (1999b, p. 4) points out that “the investigation of structural remains may lead to an understanding of cultural patterning of space but does not, necessarily, lead to an understanding of the perceptions of those who built the buildings, still less to an understanding of the behavior of those

who inhabited them.” On the relationship between social behavior and material culture, see also Nevett 1999, pp. 3, 12, 21. 7. For a discussion of this concept, see Allison 1999b, pp. 5–6. 8. Allison 1999b, p. 7. 9. The scarcity of ovens at Chalas-

menos, as compared to Kavousi Vronda, is probably significant. At Vronda, every unit, each presumably serving a single household (see Glowacki 2004), was equipped with an oven. Except for the two ovens in Houses B.1 and B.2, only one other has been identified at our site, excavated in 2005.

chalasmenos: “mycenaeanizing ”or not

337

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

alone, however, is not sufficient for understanding the behavioral patterns of those who used the buildings.10 It is worth pointing out that Chalasmenos was abandoned without any violent destruction by human force or fire. This observation implies that the inhabitants were able to take with them any low-bulk, high-value possessions that they wished.11 There are few emphatic traces of postabandonment impact on the site. A short episode of activity occurred not long after abandonment, but it was restricted to a deposition in the shrine of House A.1 and the construction of a small tholos tomb on top of House B.2. After a long chronological gap, activity resumed and the Late Geometric oikos was constructed on top of Megaron A.1. Consequently, archaeological deposits were formed by the gradual collapse of the structures and suffered mainly from discrete transformational forces. The extent of change caused by depletion cannot be determined, but this must certainly be kept in mind.12 Another important factor to be taken into consideration when examining the formation of floor deposits is that various objects often were stored in areas different from those in which they were used. The finds in a house, therefore, do not necessarily reflect the activities that took place within it. Thus, the excavation finds usually constitute a palimpsest of the various depositions that are connected to the entire life-history of any particular structure.13 The initial examination of the floor deposits in the excavated rooms at Chalasmenos shows that all of the ceramic finds are fragmentary. This condition probably either reflects a rather extensive curation at the time of the abandonment, or is connected to post-abandonment processes. Still, the picture provided by the finds (clay, stone, and organic) is generally analogous to what is known from such sites as nearby Kavousi Vronda. Only the four units examined here are the exception. For these four buildings—and probably also for the large Megaron A.1, which did not preserve undisturbed floor deposits due to the construction of an oikos on top of it in the 8th century b.c.14—the picture given, both at the time of the excavation and during the conservation and the study of the finds, was so striking that it leads us to consider the possibility that their use was not “domestic” in the usual sense of this term—that is, they were not connected with the activities of an individual household unit. For the following statistical analysis, only pottery from the floor deposits of the four buildings was used (Figs. 29.3–29.5). With the necessary caution,15 one can assume that the identified types of vases were connected with the latest use of the buildings, as it is very difficult to accept that any 10. Allison 1999b, p. 4. 11. LaMotta and Schiffer (1999, p. 22) establish the three conditioning factors related to abandonment: (a) replaceability, (b) transport, and (c) conditions of abandonment. See also the emphatic statement of McKee (1999, p. 35): “Normally, most of what is seen in the archaeological record is

the garbage left behind by site inhabitants.” In this regard, it is also instructive to note his apt distinction between “systemic” and “archaeological” contexts (McKee 1999, p. 36). 12. For a discussion of the effects of depletion in the archaeological record, see LaMotta and Shiffer 1999, pp. 20–24.

13. Allison 1999b, p. 7; LaMotta and Shiffer 1999; Glowacki 2004, p. 133. 14. For Megaron A.1 and the Late Geometric oikos built on top of it, see Tsipopoulou 2004b. 15. See Alexander 1999, pp. 80–81; also Glowacki 2004, p. 133.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

338

m e tax i a t s i p o p o u l o u

Figure 29.3. Houses vs. megara: analysis of pottery by function

Houses B1. and B.2 23% FINE PLAIN

59%

COARSE 18%

Megara A.2 and A.3 26% FINE 59%

PLAIN COARSE

15%

type of curation would have altered the picture so radically as to remove selectively all evidence for one function in one building and not in another. The ceramic assemblage can be divided into fine decorated, medium plain, and coarse wares (Fig. 29.4).16 The fine decorated category consists of

Figure 29.4. Houses vs. megara: analysis of pottery by wares

16. Ault and Nevett 1999, pp. 44– 49.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

chalasmenos: “mycenaeanizing ”or not

339

Figure 29.5. Distribution of pottery by weight (kg)

serving vessels (especially bowls and plates) and drinking vessels, including cups of various types, vases for serving liquids (especially jugs), and vases such as stirrup jars and pyxides for the temporary storage of liquids and solids.17 The category of medium plain pottery includes serving vessels, vases for food preparation, plain drinking vessels, and medium-size storage vessels such as pithoid jars. In the third category are included various types of cooking pots, tripods, cooking amphoras,18 cooking dishes and trays,19 and, finally, pithoi. Figure 29.3 shows the distribution of all categories by room in Houses B.1 and B.2 and in Megara A.2 and A.3. The number of cooking wares and pithoi is impressive in the houses of Minoan plan, as opposed to the large number of drinking vessels in the megara. Comparison of the pottery from the two houses to that of the two megara again brings out striking differences in function (Fig. 29.4): in the megara the fine decorated pottery constitutes 59% of the total, whereas in the houses it is the coarse pottery that attains 59%. The proportion of fine pottery in the houses is 23% and the unpainted 18%, while in the megara the coarse pottery constitutes 26% and the unpainted, 15%. A similar picture is provided by Figure 29.5, which shows the weight of the pottery in the 10 rooms examined. Typically, the large spaces of Houses B1.1 and B2.1 contained large quantities of 17. Pyxides, especially decorated ones, were very rare at Chalasmenos, and this seems to have been the case also at Vronda (Glowacki 2004, p. 131). On the other hand, fenestrated stands, usually preserved in a fragmentary state, were much more common at Chalasmenos, especially in the two houses examined here. 18. It should be pointed out that the legless variety of cooking pots (cooking amphoras of Mycenaean type) at Cha-

lasmenos are usually of much smaller size than the tripod cooking pots. 19. The variety of the cooking wares is interesting, as it suggests various ways of preparing food. Probably, the large cooking pots were used mostly for meat and the trays for meatless food, such as various types of pies. On the analysis of the cooking wares from Chalasmenos, particularly those found in House B.2, see Yasur-Landau 2003–2004. Sherratt (2004, p. 194) points out that the

practice of cooking meat in large tripod cooking pots was well established in Crete since Middle Minoan and Neopalatial times, especially in ritual contexts, and also that boiling meat can be more economical than roasting, because it (1) allows smaller pieces of meat to be used, (2) allows the addition of liquids or other ingredients (as is still the case in traditional Cretan cookery), and (3) “makes even the toughest bits edible.”

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

340

m e tax i a t s i p o p o u l o u

pottery of significant weight, because the majority of the sherds belonged to cooking pots and pithoi.20 As absolute numbers can give a misleading picture, it is worth examining the vases themselves (Figs. 29.6–29.15). Tripod cooking pots from House B.2 (Fig. 29.10) are larger than any others found to date in the settlement, each having a capacity of 16 liters. The large pithoi could likewise hold significant quantities of solid or liquid produce (Fig. 29.9), while basins probably were used for food preparation (Fig. 29.11). In House B.2, all rooms, as well as a small open space to the east, served various culinary 20. Very interesting was the presence of a large pithos, decorated with applied wavy bands identical to those found at Vronda and made from the

same clay (Glowacki 2004, fig. 9.8). This constitutes the first secure indication of contact between the two neighboring settlements.

Figure 29.6. House B.1, room 1: pottery. Scale 1:10

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

chalasmenos: “mycenaeanizing ”or not

Figure 29.7. House B.1, rooms 2 and 3: pottery. Scale 1:4

341

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

342

m e tax i a t s i p o p o u l o u

Figure 29.8. House B.1: animal rhyton. Scale 1:3

purposes. Food was served mainly in kalathoi (Fig. 29.11), and deep bowls and cups were used for drinks. At least three stands were found in the third room of House B.2 (Fig. 29.13).21 The paleobotanical analysis from room B.2.1 identified more than 500 grape pips.22 It should be noted that although the floral and faunal studies have not yet been completed, the paleozoological analysis of the 21. In her analysis of the feasts at LM IIIC Phaistos, Borgna (2004, p. 134) considers a stand (along with a bronze bowl and elaborately decorated

pottery) as “symbolic artifacts suited to the celebration of banquets.” 22. K. Hamilton Flint (pers. comm.).

Figure 29.9. House B.2: pithoi and pithoid jars. Scale 1:10

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

chalasmenos: “mycenaeanizing ”or not

Figure 29.10. House B.2, room 1: cooking pots. Scale 1:8

23. Snyder and Klippel 1994. 24. Cf. McKee 1999, p. 37. 25. This picture is not very different from that of the houses at Vronda; see Glowacki 2004.

343

material from the first two years of the excavation identified relatively large amounts of animal bones in the area of the two houses of sector B presented here. This material consisted of food remains and the butchering debris of caprids, pigs, and cattle.23 Rooms 1 and 2 of House B.1 were kitchens, and they contained several large pithoi and a few medium-size pithoid jars (Fig. 29.6). The third, smaller room was used for the storage of vessels (Fig. 29.7); there, on the large bench that occupies the entire width of the room, were found many pots of various shapes. The other classes of table vessels were represented in small amounts in the two houses. From room B1.1 came one of the most important cult vases found at Chalasmenos, a fragmentary animal rhyton (Fig. 29.8). It is probable that the presence of this zoomorphic vase in a kitchen indicates that the food prepared on a large scale and stored in this space had some particular social and/or symbolic meaning and purpose. A fragmentary potter’s wheel was found on the threshold between the second and the third rooms of House B.2; it is possible that it was initially stored in one of the two rooms, or even “recycled.”24 Furthermore, five fusiform loomweights of Mycenaean type were discovered in the first room of House B.2; as they cannot easily be connected with a loom in this context, we can assume that they were probably stored there in a box or a bag made of perishable material. The picture given by the stone tools is not different; there were large concentrations of querns and pounders in both houses of sector B, but they were completely absent from the two megara.25 The pottery in A.2 was very fragmentary, but A.3 contained several whole or restorable vases. A large kylix, with a capacity of 1.5 liters, was lying by the clay hearth in room A.3.1, together with a small cooking pot

344

m e tax i a t s i p o p o u l o u

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

1:10

and a small basin (Fig. 29.14). Room A.3.2 contained a group of mediumsize pithoid jars, and it is thought that this room was used for small-scale, and probably short-term, storage (Fig. 29.15). Thus, the statistical analysis of the pottery and the other artifacts indicate that the two pairs of buildings at Chalasmenos had different functions, namely large-scale food preparation in Houses B.1 and B.2, and food consumption and drinking in Megara A.2 and A.3. In all cases, the persons involved do not seem to constitute a single household based on either a nuclear or an extended family. The end of the Bronze Age was a transitional phase when important changes occurred in social organization, many of which we are not yet able to adequately understand. The study of the architectural features and functions of the buildings and the comparative analysis of floor deposits can be the starting point for a discussion on the separation between domestic and nondomestic, or household and suprahousehold, contexts. Thus, buildings of specialized function, or even elite buildings within the community, can be identified. The two pairs of buildings at Chalasmenos examined here

1:10

Figure 29.11. House B.2, room 1: basins, kalathoi, and jugs. Scale 1:4,

except as indicated

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

chalasmenos: “mycenaeanizing ”or not

Figure 29.12. House B.2, room 1: pyxis. Scale 1:3

26. Cf. among others, Borgna 2004, p. 136. 27. Borgna 2004, p. 141. 28. For the excavations at Vronda, see Day, Coulson, and Gesell 1986; Day 1997; Kavousi IIA; Kavousi IIB, Kavousi IIC. 29. For the shrine at Vronda, see Gesell 1995 (terracotta goddesses), and Klein 2004 (architecture). 30. Glowacki 2004, p. 131; see also Glowacki 2007 for a discussion of how analysis at the household level can provide insights into the suprahousehold activities of a settlement. 31. Tsipopoulou 2001, 2009.

345

constitute striking examples of specialized function. One hypothesis for their explanation is that two (or even three—if one considers also the larger Megaron A.1) social groups were consuming food and drink in the megara that was prepared in the units of sector B. This hypothesis implies a certain social organization that involved communal dining, a practice attested on Crete in the Early Iron Age and later Greek times. No andreia of the latest Bronze Age have been recognized as of yet on Crete, although elsewhere on the island communal dining has been identified through specific areas dedicated to food and drink consumption. In this context, feasting and drinking have been recognized as significant means of social control.26 Furthermore, it has been pointed out that although the strong evidence for communal meals in LM IIIC Crete is probably due to influence from the Mycenaean mainland, the Cretans used a rich variety of equipment and an elaborate series of structures for banquets, features that are not encountered in Postpalatial Mycenaean Greece itself.27 The only extensively excavated LM IIIC settlement in the area comparable to Chalasmenos is at the nearby site of Kavousi Vronda.28 There are obvious similarities in the architecture of the two neighboring sites, including methods of construction, building materials employed, and architectural details such as thresholds, benches, column bases, and hearths. Also, the houses in both settlements are arranged in sectors that follow the natural topographic contours of the sites. Yet, there are also significant differences between Vronda and Chalasmenos, the most important of them being that all plans at Vronda are of the agglomerative type, following the old Minoan tradition, with the only exception being the public shrine.29 In a recent analysis of houses and households at Vronda, K. Glowacki concludes that the varieties in plan among the houses at that site were not related to their functions, but that “the repetitive nature of the architecture, hearths/ovens and artifact assemblages seems to represent a duplication of household activities and activity areas.”30 Chalasmenos on the other hand, had a number of megara, five of them completely excavated, including the public shrine.31 Another important difference is that at Chalasmenos there

346

m e tax i a t s i p o p o u l o u

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

1:4

1:2

1:10

1:6

1:4

1:4

1:6

1:4

is a topography-driven conscious effort at urban arrangement; the settlement includes dirt paths and calderim-like ramps, as well as open spaces that connect and separate the various sectors—thus ensuring a clear division between the private and the public aspects of life. Vronda (and also Vrokastro) lack an analogous urban arrangement.32 The plans of the buildings at Vronda are different from those of Chalasmenos, and the rooms at both sites (Vronda and Vrokastro) are rather irregular, with few right angles. Chalasmenos has very regular rooms, and, given the better preservation, it is easy to recreate the circulation patterns within the settlement. One could argue that Chalasmenos seems to have been a special case among other settlements of the same period—either neighboring (e.g., Vronda) or distant (e.g., Phaistos)—for two reasons: first, the picture provided by units B.1 and B.2 for food preparation and storage of goods is very clear; and second, the areas used for the consumption of food and drink (i.e., the megara) not only have a prominent position within the general urban planning of the settlement, but they are also distinguished by their “Mycenaeanizing” architectural form that clearly imitates the Helladic type. On the other hand, E. Borgna, in her thorough attempt

1:6

Figure 29.13. House B.2, rooms 2 and 3: pottery. Scale as indicated

32. Hayden 1983; 2004; Glowacki 2004, p. 126.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

chalasmenos: “mycenaeanizing ”or not

347

Figure 29.14. Megaron A.3, room 1: kylix and cooking pot. Scale 1:6

Figure 29.15. Megaron A.3, room 2: pithoid jars. Scale 1:10

33. Borgna 2004, p. 150. A very important point in this matter is to distinguish the different aspects of feasting/communal eating in various social contexts (secular and ritual) within the

to interpret the evidence for Minoan feasting, especially at Phaistos, has recently pointed out that there is a significant variety in the place, nature, and function of Cretan convivial ceremonies of the Postpalatial and Early Iron Age periods.33 Do we see at Chalasmenos one of the first uses of a new model of social organization that was to become the rule later in Early Iron Age Crete? If this proposed interpretation has validity, is it possible that this social innovation was, however, too radical for immediate and widespread acceptance? Until future research is completed, these questions must remain open. framework of the new emerging social groups. I believe that Chalasmenos offers a new parameter in this discussion. For a parallel in a different type of society, namely the adoption of a

Romanized lifestyle by the inhabitants of Britain and its importance for emerging elites, see Meadows 1999, p. 105.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 30

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Wh e n t h e Hou s e B e c om e s a Fort r e s s by Krzysztof Nowicki

The interpretation of settlement patterns, the location of sites, and the function of individual structures has been strongly influenced by theoretical approaches for at least 30 years. The importance of social and environmental factors has been rightly emphasized, but, at the same time, the role of historical phenomena, such as migrations and wars, has been almost entirely eliminated. There would be nothing wrong with this shift of attitude, as a response to earlier approaches dominated by culture-historical models, if theory was not sometimes presented as the goal (instead of the tool) of research, and if it was consistent with the evidence. Problems with nonhistorical (or even antihistorical) approaches are particularly well illustrated in studies of the short and dramatic phases of Aegean civilization. Such historically specific moments, despite all the historic records of the last two or three thousands years, have often been denied in processual and post-processual archaeology. Settlement changes have been interpreted as the result of processes related both to social organization and behavior and to economic and environmental factors. It is not the case, however, that the land was only subject to exploitation for purely economic reasons. It also was a property to defend and a goal to fight for, especially when other groups of people constituted another important part of the contest. The “man-environment” model that commonly dominates settlement studies should, therefore, be complemented with “man contra man” competition, which goes beyond the level of a single social, territorial, and ethnic group.1 Thorough analysis of the interaction between settlement and landscape, not only over the long term, but especially of the short phases of sudden and substantial changes in site locations, can be essential for reconstructing the history of settlement. These brief “episodes,” because of the poor visibility of archaeological sites, are not well illustrated by excavation and 1. According to Renfrew, “Man is brought into most active and intense interaction with his natural environment through the food question” (1972, p. 265), but the same author agrees that in some areas, periods, and circum-

stances the settlement pattern may have been shaped by enemy action: “The chief factor producing these changes in settlement distribution and settlement type [on the Cyclades] may well have been piracy” (Renfrew 1972, p. 262).

Ayia Photia  3 Ayios Ioannis Katalimata  15 Alatopatela 1 Anatoli Elliniki Koryphi  23 Ammoudi Skinias  38 Arvi Fortetsa  27 Chamaizi 10 Chomatas 13 Goudouras Kastello  8 Livari Katharades  7 Juktas 33 Kastellas Xirokampias  6 Kastri Spasti  28 Katalimata 14 Katharo Rigous  22 Kavousi (Kastro, Vronda)  12

Kokkino Phroudi  4 Kolokasia Kastri  41 Kophinas 34 Koutsounari Karphi  16 Krasi Endichti  30 Krasi Siderokephala  29 Kritsa Chonaria  20 Kritsa Kastello  19 Kritsa Korakou to Kephali  20 Kroustas Fortetsa  21 Mirthios Kirimianou  39 Mochos Anemoskia  31 Mochos Mega Lakkos  32 Myrtos Charakas  24 Myrtos Phournou Koryphi  25 Myrtos Pyrgos  26

Oreino Petrokopia  11 Orne 37 Palaiochora Nerovolakoi  43 Panayia Paplinou Rousso Charakas  17 Pefkoi Mega Chalavro  9 Plakalona 2 Rogdia Kastrokephala  40 Sphinari Korakas  44 Trachilos 36 Trypiti 35 Voukoliades 5 Vraskas Lakoudi  42 Vrokastro 18 Zakros Kato Kastellas  45 Ziros Rizoviglo  46

Figure 30.1. Map of Crete showing the sites mentioned in the text. K. Nowicki

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

when the house becomes a fortress

351

survey projects.2 Statistical analyses, therefore, may not work well, and the nonrepresentative sampling of sites, isolated from their broad geographical and historical contexts, may lead to faulty conclusions.3 Although the main function of a house is to provide covered space for social interaction and some part of the economic activity of a small group of people (as a rule, a nuclear family), in extreme circumstances that role was extended, and the house became a structure protecting its inhabitants from real or potential enemies. To achieve that aim, different measures were implemented depending on the characteristics of the threat, the social organization of both elements (i.e., the aggressors and their targets), and local topography. The existing house was sometimes reinforced or rearranged so as to form a kind of fortress (alone or within a settlement), or a new house was built in a new location that had better natural defensibility. The function of the house may have been substantially expanded or limited through these changes. One of the most important factors that influenced the character of defensive architecture was use of the landscape at both the macro- and microscale, a fact that is often overlooked and can be tested solely by detailed studies in the field. Detailed topographical studies of settlement patterns, as influenced by the defensible characteristics of landscape, allow us to answer several crucial questions concerning the Minoan civilization. The aim of this paper is to explore this evidence, but the subject will focus on individual buildings rather than entire sites and settlement patterns (Fig. 30.1).

F ina l N e o li t h ic The presentation of the evidence for defensive structures must start with the Final Neolithic (FN)—the 4th millennium b.c.—the period in which, for the first time, the settlement pattern and architecture of individual buildings can be studied throughout the entire island and not only at Knossos.4 The late FN, elsewhere described as FN II,5 is characterized on Crete by a great number of new settlements built on rocky hills and promontories. Nearly 100 such sites have been identified so far, representing a broad range of habitation places from hamlets of two or three houses to extensive settlements of 40 and more families. Natural defensibility was sometimes 2. This “poor visibility” and problems with proper identification were probably responsible for Renfrew’s erroneous statement concerning Middle Minoan (MM) settlement in Crete: “There is no emerging preference for acropolis sites in Crete at this time [MBA], nor are the settlements fortified” (Renfrew 1972, p. 258). 3. A good example of this problem can be seen in studies of Late Minoan (LM) IIIC settlement on Crete. Despite the fact that over 130 defensible settlements have been identified, 120 of which have been published

(Nowicki 2000), some scholars still base their hypotheses on a few sites while neglecting the historical background of the problem, the reasons of the process, and the way in which the settlements were founded, developed, or declined. Among the most recent publications that still use this approach, see Borgna 2003b; D’Agata 2003a; Kanta 2003a; Perna 2004; and esp. Dickinson 2006, who objects to the chronology and interpretation of the evidence without examining the evidence. 4. Renfrew (1972, p. 390) placed this problem somewhat later, writing,

“the evidence for hostility and for war in the Aegean, like that for wealth and hierarchy, first becomes convincing during the third millennium b.c.” Renfrew, however, considered the possibility of an earlier date for those processes: “life in the Late Neolithic times may have been less peaceful than is often supposed” (Renfrew 1972, p. 392); indeed, the earliest defensive works in Crete must be dated to the second half of the 4th millennium b.c., and the concept itself was probably brought by the people coming from Anatolia. 5. Nowicki 2002a.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

352

krzysztof nowicki

complemented by fortification walls, which usually filled the gaps between cliffs and rocky outcrops. It seems probable that the phenomenon of fortified houses and settlements came to Crete in the late FN from the east coast of the Aegean and western Anatolia. Sphinari Korakas and Vraskas Lakoudi (both in western Crete), and Goudouras Kastello, Kokkino Phroudi, Ziros Rizoviglo, Voukoliades, Kastellas Xirokampias, Alatopatela (site 12), and Livari Katharades (all in eastern Crete) have good examples of this kind of architecture.6 At Ammoudi Skinias, on the southern coast of western Crete, the most inaccessible rocky knoll was too small even for a single house, but it was fortified and probably served as a “citadel” for those few families that lived on the lower terrace immediately below it to the north.7 The amount of space available for habitation at these FN defensive sites was limited by the nature of the terrain that provided their defensibility. Households in these Cretan settlements covered a much smaller area than that suggested by Whitelaw for the contemporary site of Paoura on Keos.8 Whitelaw proposed 600–1,000 m2 per household, stressing that the pattern was very different from that of the Early Bronze Age. This interpretation cannot be accepted for the FN II settlements on Crete. The available data indicate an area between 200 m2 and 400 m2 per household, and, in some cases, even this estimate seems to be too generous. However, the upper settlement of Panayia Paplinou Rousso Charakas covered about

Figure 30.2. Plan of Livari Katharades. K. Nowicki (house walls after

Schlager et al. 2001, fig. 13)

6. On Kokkino Phroudi, Voukoliades, and Kastellas Xirokampias, see Vokotopoulos 2000; on Alatopatela, see Greco et al. 2002; on Livari Katharades, see Schlager et al. 2001; on Sphinari, see Nowicki 2004; on the other sites, see Nowicki 2002a. 7. Nowicki 2002a, p. 43, fig. 17. 8. Whitelaw 1991, p. 207.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

when the house becomes a fortress

353

600 m2 and consisted of at least two, but perhaps three, units that can be interpreted as households. At Sphinari, some house walls were built of boulders or vertical slabs, and a similar method of construction has been recorded at several other sites, for example at Panayia Paplinou Rousso Charakas and Plakalona, above Skinias Bay. This may suggest that the upper parts of the houses were built of materials other than stone, and that perishable material may have been used in many FN buildings, leaving us no remains of stone architecture. The house walls at Sphinari additionally suggest multiroom structures that were packed densely within the naturally and artificially fortified boundaries of the knoll. The same compact pattern can be seen at Livari Katharades (Fig. 30.2).9 Even at sites where the available space within the defensible borders exceeded the size of the settlement, as at Palaiochora Nerovolakoi, the houses were often built in a very compact way—a tradition that may have changed during the next phase of Early Minoan (EM) I dispersion. In some regions and some locations, the pattern continued through Early Bronze Age I and II and influenced the plan of “semidefensive” villages of the Myrtos Phournou Koryphi type.

E ar ly Mi n oan II – Mi ddle Mi n oan II

9. Schlager et al. 2001, pp. 192–201. 10. The only exception is in the article by Alexiou (1979), in which he points to the Early Minoan fortified acropoleis, and analyzes defensive topography and architecture through the entire Bronze Age on the island. 11. The site of Kastri Spasti was first mentioned (as Ayios Dimitrios) by Batten (1995, p. 25). 12. Vasilakis 1989. 13. Although a defensible location was still considered an important advantage.

The next period—when security played an important role in choosing the house/settlement location and shaping the domestic architecture—started immediately after the EM II destruction horizon. This phenomenon is more visible on the southern coast than on the northern. So far, however, identified sites are few and unexcavated, and the problem of late EM IIB and post–EM II defensive sites has yet to be addressed, although it may be crucial for the reconstruction of the next phase of the development of fortified structures.10 The characteristic features of post–EM II refuge sites are their inaccessibility and small sizes, which, as a rule, are up to 1,000 m2 in area. Good examples are the rocky knolls of Myrtos Charakas and Kastri Spasti on the southern coast (Fig. 30.3), which either housed a few families or were used as communal refuge places for larger groups of people living nearby.11 Each site’s defensibility is almost perfect, having only one extremely difficult means of access. The settlement on the top of a rock in Trypiti (Asterousia), excavated by A. Vasilakis,12 was likely built in this historical context. The rooms here were small and compact due to the small size of the rocky platform. An even smaller, but more inaccessible site of the same date is located on a rocky ridge about 2 km west of Trypiti, on the Trachilos promontory (Fig. 30.4). The dramatic EM II destructions led to substantial changes in settlement patterns and to the foundation of structures, which, in terms of site hierarchy, must be placed between a house and a small settlement. The natural refuge knolls, such as the aforementioned Myrtos Charakas and Kastri Spasti, were complemented or replaced (depending on the region), probably between EM III and MM I, by more sophisticated strongholds whose defenses were secured by fortification walls.13 These constructions show a higher level of labor organization and social cooperation.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

354

krzysztof nowicki

Figure 30.3. Kastri Spasti from the north. Photo K. Nowicki

Chamaizi and Myrtos Pyrgos, both located on hills that dominate the regions around them, are two such sites. The plan of the Chamaizi building (Fig. 30.5, left) represents neither a simple farmstead nor a proper settlement.14 The MM I construction replaced an earlier settlement of EM III (if not EM II) date. The question is whether it held enough room for all the inhabitants of that earlier settlement, or if substantial changes took place in settlement organization, and the so-called oval building became a communal stronghold serving all the inhabitants of the region. The Chamaizi building was defensive by nature of its construction, its location, and its restricted access; and it is very likely that this type of building was fairly common in the mountainous areas away from large proto-urban sites. In

Figure 30.4. EM site at Trachilos (west of Trypiti) from the northeast. Photo K. Nowicki

14. The idea that Chamaizi was a cult place has been rejected by most scholars; see Davaras 1992a, p. 78; Lenuzza, this volume (Chap. 6).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

when the house becomes a fortress

Figure 30.5. Plan of Chamaizi (left); sketch-plan of Panormos on Naxos (right). K. Nowicki

15. I do not believe that an opening on the northern side had anything to do with the original entrance system. 16. For the existence of an upper floor at Chamaizi, see also Lenuzza, this volume (Chap. 6). 17. The gate at Chamaizi is badly eroded and has never been properly excavated and studied. 18. Tsipopoulou 1988.

355

these peripheral highlands the settlement patterns were more fragmented and focused around smaller social units. Local topography and agricultural potential did not favor a concentration of the population in one valley, and the lack of large settlements made the population more vulnerable to either internal or external conflicts. A similar social context, and, to some degree, the plan of the Chamaizi-type structure, may be paralleled by Cycladic sites such as Panormos on Naxos (Fig. 30.5, right). The most characteristic feature of the Chamaizi building is the thick wall that enclosed the inner rooms, corridors, and a small courtyard with a cistern (Figs. 30.5, right; 30.6). That its function was defensive is additionally supported by the location and appearance of only one gate.15 The thickness of the outer walls and the arrangement of the rooms around the court allow for the reconstruction of an upper story.16 If this was the case, the defensive character of the structure may have been even better demonstrated and visible from afar. The gate was situated not on the southwestern side, which would have been more convenient for communication with the surrounding area, but instead faced the steeper southeastern slope that descends into a deep valley. The gate protruded from the encircling wall, and its doorway probably was protected by a kind of bastion or tower in which the doorway may have been situated either in the front or on the side.17 The only access to the gate was along a narrow path set between a steep slope and the wall. The same kind of concern with defense can be seen at Panormos on Naxos, where the entrance bastions were likely strengthened by additional constructions. It is possible for Chamaizi’s location and function to be better understood in a broader Cretan context. Defensible sites, larger than a one-family house yet smaller than a settlement, and supplied with a sophisticated defensive entrance system, may have been a phenomenon that followed the EM II destructions. The process of their development continued, however, through MM I and MM II. The construction of an even more sophisticated defensive structure on the promontory of Ayia Photia, east of Siteia, most probably dates to the MM I period.18 Good examples of

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

356

krzysztof nowicki

combined natural defensibility and fortifications can also be seen at Kroustas Fortetsa, on the eastern slope of the Lasithi Mountains (Figs. 30.7, 30.8), Oreino Petrokopia (Fig. 30.9), on the ridge of Chomatas (Fig. 30.10) west of Kavousi,19 and at a site above the coast near Diaskari.20 Distinguishing between dwelling, refuge, and military functions for these sites requires more detailed investigations and excavations. A pair of MM II sites in the vicinity of Mochos, Anemoskia and Mega Lakkos, show a somewhat different topography but a similar historical context. Anemoskia’s location must have been chosen for its strategic position on a hill dominating the Mochos Plain that had visual links to Malia. The site is preserved within a stone enclosure measuring about 60 x 40 m in size. The wall (between 0.8–1.8 m thick) is of an irregular, approximately oval shape. Its current line must be the result of later alterations and reuse for herding and/or agriculture, but at some places the original MM II sections of the wall can be seen at the foundation. On the basis of these ancient fragments, it is possible to reconstruct the hypothetical Minoan plan of this enclosure as being similar to that of the modern enclosure built on top of it. The site was burned and many fragments of mud brick (with clear impressions of wooden beams, planks, and other organic material) can be seen all over the site, mainly within the enclosure.21 The second site, that of Mega Lakkos, has a similar character but a very different location, and it is situated between Mochos and the chapel of Prophitis Ilias to the west. Here the enclosure is about 65 x 25–35 m in size, and it is built of a similar irregular wall with some sections showing ancient construction. Mega Lakkos, however, lies on the bottom of a large lakkos, with no visual dominance like that of Anemoskia. Unfortunately, almost nothing can be said about the inner plan of either site, though remains visible on the surface indicate the presence of some constructions.

Figure 30.6 (above). Reconstruction of Chamaizi, from the south. K. Nowicki

Figure 30.7 (opposite, top). Kroustas Fortetsa from the west. Photo

K. Nowicki

Figure 30.8 (opposite, bottom). Plan of Kroustas Fortetsa. K. Nowicki

19. Haggis 2005, p. 101. 20. Nowicki 2004. 21. Panagiotakis wants to include the site in his “soros” group (Panagiotakis 2004), but the examination of numerous fragments of mud brick leaves no doubt that they are elements of wood-mudbrick-pise wall/ceiling constructions.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

when the house becomes a fortress 357

krzysztof nowicki

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

358

Figure 30.9. Plan of Oreino Petrokopia (above); reconstruction of Oreino Petrokopia (below). K. Nowicki

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

when the house becomes a fortress

Figure 30.10. Chomatas (Haggis’s Site 9) from the north. Photo

K. Nowicki

22. This term was introduced by Evans and Myres; see Evans and Myres 1895; Evans 1896. 23. Tzedakis et al. 1999, p. 319; Vokotopoulos 2000, p. 139; Vokotopoulos, this volume (Chap. 13).

359

In the MM period, apart from the fortified “citadels” located on rocky ridges and hills and the so-far unique enclosure sites near Mochos, there was another category of fortified buildings that dominated the settlement pattern in some regions. These buildings are commonly referred to as “forts” or “guardhouses.”22 A comprehensive list of the sites of this type in the Siteia area has been published by the team of the Minoan Roads Project, led by S. Chryssoulaki.23 The investigations have shown that the sites in question represent several different types with different functions, and some of them were farmhouses. The same seems to be the case in the Lasithi Mountains. I would like to discuss here, briefly, only one group of buildings that have as their common feature a square or rectangular “platform” built of huge boulders. As a rule, these were located not on a dominant hill, but on the slope. Such locations may have been chosen to facilitate the transport of heavy blocks and the construction of the lower part of the house, thus making it almost indestructible. This “slope-location” rule is particularly well attested in the Lasithi Mountains. The “cyclopean” part of the buildings is occasionally preserved up to four or even five courses of boulders on the lower part of the slope, but rarely more than two courses on the upper part (Fig. 30.11). The substructure above the cyclopean platform may have been built of smaller stones and mud brick, as is suggested by remains of the latter material at many of the sites in question. The buildings varied in size. The largest, such as Katharo Rigous (220 m2) (Fig. 30.12), almost matched the area of Chamaizi (250 m2) and Kroustas Fortetsa (270 m2), whereas the smallest, such as Kritsa Korakou to Kephali and Chonaria (Fig. 30.13), must be compared to the larger single rooms of Chamaizi and are close in size (ca. 50–60 m2), but not in plan, to traditional houses at metochia. It is difficult, however, to imagine such substantial labor investment for small seasonal houses.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

360

krzysztof nowicki

Figure 30.11. Building A at Katharo Rigous, from the southwest. Photo

K. Nowicki

Figure 30.12. Plan of Building A at Katharo Rigous. K. Nowicki

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

when the house becomes a fortress

Figure 30.13. Plan of Kritsa Korakou to Kephali (above); plan of Kritsa Chonaria (below). K. Nowicki

361

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

362

krzysztof nowicki

“Forts” are particularly common in the vast area of the eastern part of the Lasithi Mountains between Katharo, on the one hand, and Kroustas, Kritsa, and Tapes on the other. As in the case of the two sites near Mochos described previously, there are also two different types of location. Some of the sites were built on the slopes of hills, having visual control of the communication routes, but others were constructed in lakkoi, hidden between the hills. This latter type usually had a less solid and lower cyclopean platform, if it had one at all. The common presence of a cistern by or near those constructions indicates reliance on this kind of water supply. The most intriguing question—why these buildings were constructed of huge boulders—may be answered through analysis of the changes in settlement patterns and architecture through the periods preceding and following the phenomenon (MM I and LM I). There is no room here for a more detailed discussion of this issue, but it is worth making a brief remark now. Some of the forts on the northern slopes of the Selena massif were built on top of earlier (MM I) sites that did not preserve any stone architecture. Most probably, these earlier houses were built of wood and mud brick/pise, and in some cases they were burned, as is indicated by mudbrick fragments at the Limia sites below Krasi Endichti. The use of large boulders in the lower parts of buildings may indicate an improvement in construction, stimulated by increasing conflicts between territorial units (during the MM I and II periods), and marked by the occasional destructions and burnings of the predecessors of MM II forts. The most spectacular example of MM II defensive architecture is represented by Monastiraki Katalimata.24 The site was not just a refuge place chosen in a hurry by the local inhabitants in the face of threat, as the construction of a fortified citadel must have been carefully planned and supervised by a kind of regional authority. Unlike the LM IIIC refuge settlement at the same site, MM II Katalimata did not consist of dwellings built on individual terraces according to the convenience of individual families. The parts of the cliff that were easiest to climb were fortified, the upper access to the site was blocked by an extra wall, and the terraces were enclosed by walls along their edges. Walls were constructed even along the passages and the edges of the uninhabited terraces. It is probably in that period that a sophisticated gate was arranged on the entry path.

Late Minoan IB –Late M inoan II The MM II citadel at Katalimata was abandoned, but probably not forgotten, when the next threat came to the Cretan coast some two and a half centuries later, toward the end of the LM IB period. Some years ago J. Driessen and C. Macdonald wrote: “The fact that no refuge sites date to this period suggests to us that the enemy was not, as would later be the case, from without but rather from within.”25 This hypothesis is challenged by new discoveries. There are, in fact, LM IB–II refuge sites on Crete, although this conclusion has been proved only recently by the excavation at Monastiraki Katalimata.26 Katalimata is the most spectacular and convincing site in terms of excavated material, but diagnostic pottery

24. Nowicki 2008. 25. Driessen and Macdonald 1997, p. 113. 26. Nowicki 2008.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

when the house becomes a fortress

363

(however poor it is) from Anatoli Elliniki Koryphi, Pefkoi Mega Chalavro, and Arvi Fortetsa indicate that the phenomenon was not restricted to one site or even one region. The topographical characteristics of LM IB–II sites at Katalimata and Pefkoi Mega Chalavro are similar; in both cases the LM IB refugees resettled an earlier (MM II) structure on an inaccessible rocky terrace. How spontaneous or organized this return was is hard to say. Some modification of the earlier plan seems likely, but certainly the ruined MM II walls must have been partly rebuilt and adapted to the new situation. At Katalimata it seems that the LM IB–II inhabitants cleaned the MM II floors and dumped the pottery at a corner of the same terrace. Thus, the LM IB–II refuge house may have roughly followed the MM II plan, with its enclosure wall around the terrace edges. The layout of the inner walls, however, cannot be reconstructed for this phase. The large variety of pottery types, including several pithoi, indicates that the construction functioned as a proper dwelling.

Lat e Mi n oan III C

27. Nowicki 2000. 28. In my earlier study (Nowicki 2000), 120 sites were published that had been recorded before 1999; since that time, however, several new LM IIIC defensible sites were identified (e.g., Melampes Aphendis Christos, Skaloti, and Anydroi Prophitis Ilias). 29. These objections have been raised recently, e.g., by Borgna (2003b) and Perna (2004). 30. Haggis 1993.

Katalimata was abandoned in LM II or at the beginning of the LM IIIA1 period, but once again it was “rediscovered” at the turn of LM IIIB or at the very beginning of the LM IIIC period. The problem of defensible LM IIIC settlements has been thoroughly studied and published;27 I will therefore restrict my observations here to a few points only. The early LM IIIC shift of settlement and population up to the mountains is without precedent in Cretan history. At present we know of more than 130 settlements that show apparent concern about security.28 Those scholars who deny their defensive characteristics do not seem to base their objections on up-todate and complete evidence, but regularly discuss the same few sites known from old publications.29 The picture becomes clear when all the available evidence is analyzed, showing that a great number of LM IIIC settlements were founded at new locations for security reasons, with the threat coming mostly from the sea. From the point of view of this paper’s topic, it is interesting to examine how this topographical change influenced the construction and plans of individual houses. The excavated sites include both settlements that were continuously used through the Protogeometric and Geometric periods (Kavousi Kastro and Vrokastro) and sites that were founded in a slightly more advanced phase of the LM IIIC period (Kavousi Vronda, Monastiraki Chalasmenos, Vasiliki Kephala), when the most difficult time had passed and the settlement pattern started to develop into the cluster system of sites,30 reflecting somewhat different historical circumstances. A few excavated sites, however, can give us some idea of the early LM IIIC development in different topographical situations. The first group includes “citadels,” which were protected partly by natural features and partly by substantial fortification walls. In this group are Rogdia Kastrokephala, Zakros Gorge Kato Kastellas, Orne, and probably Kritsa Kastello, Juktas, and Kophinas. The first three sites show the pattern

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

364

krzysztof nowicki

of a few houses constructed within fortification walls. The fortification itself was the foremost reason for the site’s location, and the wall was not built to defend a preexisting settlement. Most of these sites were abandoned after a relatively short time, still during the LM IIIC period, and they did not develop into large towns and regional centers. Much of the area within the walls was left empty, as if the function of the site was to provide temporary refuge rather than to defend a permanent settlement. This conclusion can be misleading, however, due to the lack of proper excavations and surface investigations at the aforementioned sites. No single correct plan of these sites has yet been published. At Rogdia Kastrokephala the most substantial complex was built on the very summit of the hill, along the edge of a cliff.31 The building(s) consists of a row of rooms, with a plan (but not scale and size) similar to the structures excavated at Pyla Kokkinokremos on Cyprus.32 Apart from that complex, there are remains of other houses at Rogdia Kastrokephala, probably loosely scattered within the wall, but a vast area within the fortification wall was free of any building activity. At Zakros Kato Kastellas there are only two groups of rectangular buildings, each representing no more than a single house unit. The number of sherds, however, and the effort required for the erection of the fortification wall indicate more substantial occupation. Almost no architectonic remains were recorded within the wall of Kophinas and Juktas, whereas at least several buildings, but no agglomerative plan, were reported at Orne.33 The focus on the fortification wall and scanty remains of domestic architecture may indicate the wellorganized and military character of these “citadel-like” sites (in contrast with the second group of sites, discussed below). The only exception, where a large settlement (with the number of houses ranging between 50 and 100) was defended by a thick fortification wall, is Kritsa Kastello. The second group of sites consisted of defensible villages that came into existence as a result of the abandonment of earlier (LM IIIB) habitation places and the moving of households to new locations, protected mainly by their topography, with no or only minor engineering work devoted to defense. The reconstruction of the process of this relocation is still little known due to the lack of properly excavated and published LM IIIB villages and farmhouses in the Cretan countryside, particularly in the areas abundant in LM IIIC defensive sites. A few excavations and surveys indicate, however, that the LM IIIB population lived in small villages and isolated farmsteads rebuilt in the LM IB ruins,34 and only occasionally in completely new settlements founded after the LM IB–II period. Such a settlement pattern was particularly vulnerable to the political disturbances at the turn of the 13th century b.c., and that is probably why the LM IIIB dispersion was replaced by the early LM IIIC concentration of populations at more difficult locations. The rural LM IIIC “refugees” were unable or unwilling to combine natural defensibility with effective fortifications, as was the case for the first group of sites, and thus they must have almost entirely relied on topography and collaboration with the regional population. First, people must have moved their dwellings and industrial facilities to the mountainous areas, which were familiar only to a few of them. The relocation

31. Platakis 1970; Kanta and Karetsou 2003, pp. 145–148. 32. Karageorghis and Demas 1984. 33. Kanta and Stampolidis 2001, pp. 95–97. 34. Good examples of such LM III reoccupation close to later defensible LM IIIC sites are Gournia (north of Asari) and Mochlos, in particular Chalinomouri (immediately west of and below Myrsini Kastello). For LM III Chalinomouri, see Mochlos IA.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

when the house becomes a fortress

35. It has been suggested elsewhere that the fortification on the rocky ridge of Petrokopia near Oreino was such an LM IIIC fort (Nowicki 1990, p. 173); later detailed investigations and identification of a number of MM IB–II sherds, however, allow us to correct this interpretation. The fortification of Petrokopia must be dated to the MM period, and the site may have been only occasionally used during the LM IIIC period.

365

also involved other elements of LM IIIB villages, such as shrines, open courts, and perhaps some public buildings. The founders of new LM IIIC settlements may have tried to reconstruct their “old world” in their new geographical environment in order to preserve as much of the function of the old households and villages as possible. This reconstruction seems to have been successful at the village level. To restore a social structure similar to that of LM IIIB towns, however, was probably difficult, and in some areas, impossible. The question arises, however, whether such a complete reconstruction was indeed the goal from the very beginning of the new settlement, or if the refugees hoped (at least in the earliest phase of their new habitation) to stay in those uncomfortable conditions only for the time of the disturbance. The latter possibility can be supported by a significant remodeling of the pattern around the middle of the 12th century, probably by the second or, at the latest, the third generation of refugees. At that time new and less defensible settlements were founded close to early LM IIIC refuge sites. Kavousi Vronda, Monastiraki Chalasmenos, Vasiliki Kephala, and Krasi Siderokephala belong to this group. Postponed relocation of some elements of LM IIIB settlement not related to survival is also supported by a remarkable delay in the founding of new cemeteries around defensible villages; this seems to have started around the middle of the 12th century b.c., whereas the earliest material from the settlements is dated to the beginning of that century. The initial plans of LM IIIC defensible settlements are difficult to reconstruct, but the excavated sites and those that show architectural remains on the surface (e.g., Ayios Ioannis Katalimata, Mirthios Kirimianou, Koutsounari Karphi, and Kolokasia Kastri) suggest that both free-standing and agglutinated houses were in use; the latter in particular when the defensible area was very restricted. Substantial differences in the sizes and plans of houses probably reflected similar differences in the size of families and the development of social interrelations between the family, clan, and community members. The social hierarchy does not seem to have had much impact on house size and location within the settlement in the earliest phase of LM IIIC defensible sites. When comparing the phenomenon of defensive sites of MM II and LM IIIC date, we are most struck by the lack of individual fortified constructions in the LM IIIC period. Nothing similar to the MM forts, guardhouses, fortified farms, or small rocky citadels is known in LM IIIC.35 The explanation of this fact probably rests in the different social and political conditions in these two periods. The MM II households constituted a part of the old palatial territorial system and were supported by all the elements of the territorial units to which they belonged, whereas the security of LM IIIC houses was achieved mainly by creating an entirely new system in which the concentration of local population, collaboration between villages, and natural defensibility were the most important factors.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 3 1

Th e A r c h ai c Hou s e s at A z or ia

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

by Donald C. Haggis and Margaret S. Mook

Excavations have been conducted annually at the site of Azoria in northeastern Crete since 2002, with the purpose of exploring the form of a small-scale Archaic (7th–early 5th century b.c.) city, as well as changes in socioeconomic systems in the transition from the Early Iron Age (EIA) to the 6th century b.c.1 Concentrating excavation on the southernmost of two distinct acropoleis, we have recovered evidence for an Archaic urban center (7th–5th centuries b.c.), that is, facilities that were used for large-scale (suprahousehold) and centralized food storage and processing, and public sacrifices and banqueting (Fig. 31.1). Our arguments for the construction of civic space have been presented elsewhere, and they include the radical rebuilding of the site to accommodate new architectural forms that indicate an emerging organizational structure; from this evidence we infer the existence of formal institutions controlling and allocating resources in distinctly public venues of consumption and display.2 An evidently important aspect of urbanization at Azoria was the allocation of space, in the late 7th century, to include new types of buildings and access routes converging in an open space—the putative agora—on the south side of the South Acropolis. One indication of this change is the construction of what Fagerström and Hayden have called “spine walls”—massive retaining and dividing walls that are generally oriented to the contours of the hill (Fig. 31.1).3 These walls served to structure the urban topography, organize and delineate the 1. The authors would like to thank Carla Antonaccio, Monika Trümper, Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, and Kevin Glowacki for their insightful comments and useful input on drafts of this paper. The architecture and architectural phasing of the site are being studied by Rodney Fitzsimons (Trent University). The Azoria Project excavations have been supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (RZ-50334, RZ-20812); the National Science Foundation

(BCS-0438073); the National Geographic Society (7193-02, 7614-04); the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP); the Loeb Classical Library Foundation; the College of Arts and Sciences, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, and the Department of Classics of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Iowa State University; the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete; and the Azoria Project Fund (0-65305-42). 2. For the 2002–2005 season’s

results, see Haggis et al. 2004; Haggis et al. 2007. Reports are published annually in Archaeological Reports (Whitley 2002–2003, pp. 83–84; 2003–2004, pp. 86–87; 2004–2005, pp. 104–106; Whitley et al. 2005, pp. 104–106), and online at http://www.azoria.org. 3. Fagerström 1988, pp. 113–114; Hayden 1995, pp. 130–131; see detailed discussion in Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 349–352; Haggis et al. 2007, pp. 263–265.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute. 368 donald c. hag gis and margare t s. mook

t h e a r c h a i c h o u s e s at a z o r i a Figure 31.1 (opposite). Azoria: state plan of the South Acropolis, 2006.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Map by R. D. Fitzsimons and G. Damaskinakis, courtesy the Azoria Project

4. For formal and structural changes in the urban topography in the Archaic period, see Lang 1996; 2005, pp. 18–19. 5. Lang (2005, p. 19) has commented on a similar restructuring of space and new house designs, drawing on examples from both Zagora and Vroulia; while she emphasizes formal changes involving a new paratactic arrangement of rooms at Vroulia, which take the form of the “row house” structure, we have argued that based on the scale of the site itself, the repetition of forms may be less important than the element of planning and integrated structure evident in the use of spinewall construction (Haggis et al. 2004, p. 351; Haggis et al. 2007, pp. 263–265). 6. The building fits Prent’s (2005, pp. 476–502, 636) category of “suburban” sanctuary, which she links to the emergence of sociopolitical institutions associated with the Cretan poleis. 7. Lang 2005, p. 18.

369

use of both domestic and civic space, and control patterns of access and communication. Our hypothesis is that in the latter part of the 7th century, a new social order took material form in an increased expenditure on public buildings, the formalization of what can be called “civic architecture,” and the organization and monumentalization of the city center.4 The restructuring of the settlement also evidently included the rebuilding of domestic areas, integrating new house designs into the urban landscape.5 Public places include: (1) the Communal Dining Building, consisting of three storerooms and three kitchens connected via a porch and vestibule to dining halls and a room for burn offerings; (2) the Monumental Civic Building, which was evidently an early ceremonial banquet hall with stepped seats that had an adjoining shrine with bench altar and hearth on the north, and to the south, a Service Building equipped for storage and food preparation; and finally (3) a community temple (the Cult Building) on the northeast side of a flat open area that we think was the city’s agora (Fig. 31.1).6 The Communal Dining Building and Monumental Civic Building, whatever their formal civic functions might have been, were clearly communal places, accommodating substantial public stores and banquet space—as is indicated by pithos storage and the full range of food-processing and serving equipment, as well as the substantial remains of food debris from within the complexes and adjacent service buildings. Sympotic equipment such as cups, jugs, table amphoras, and elaborate terracotta krater stands dominate the assemblages. These buildings served public needs, but each was also potentially exclusionary, ordering the various modes of social interaction and perhaps the status of households and clans and their integration in the broader community. The rebuilding of the site at the end of the 7th century involved a significant investment in public architecture, which we see as a process of both physical and symbolic transformation—a material expression of urban identity at the expense of the EIA and Early Orientalizing (EO) structures that had occupied the hilltop for some 600 years. The buildings form new contexts for elite consumption, the negotiation of political power, and the assertion of claims to social identity in the early city. Like the public buildings, the houses at Azoria are part of the late7th century rebuilding of the site. They are located in close proximity to the public buildings, as well as at the edges of the civic center. The distinction between public and private space, the definition of households, and the archaeological ordering of social contexts, which remain significant problems in EIA Crete, are perhaps more clear in the Archaic period when public and private places (civic, cultic, mortuary, and residential space) were more sharply delineated.7 Houses have been recovered so far in five areas of the site (Fig. 31.1): (1) on the south slope of the South Acropolis at the northern edge of what we think should be the city’s agora (South Slope houses [the East and West Corridor Houses]); (2) on the northeast side of the peak of the South Acropolis (Northeast Building); (3) on the north and northwest (Northwest Building and North Buildings); (4) on the lower Southwest Terrace (Southwest Buildings); (5) on the North Acropolis (North Acropolis Building). While the South Slope Buildings, Northwest Building, and Northeast

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

370

donald c. hag gis and margare t s. mook

Building were clearly incorporated into the design and architectural fabric of the civic center, the Southwest Buildings and North Acropolis Building are decidedly peripheral to the main public buildings. An important goal of excavation is to examine differential material patterns that might help us understand varying social roles within the community as reflected in architecture, artifact and ecofact assemblages, and physical proximity to the center of civic life. One focus of such work is to discern modes of mobilization, production, storage, and consumption of different kinds of resources—especially food—that might elucidate differences among domestic contexts and between habitation and civic space. This brief paper, however, presents only the first step in this analysis, surveying the basic syntax of Archaic house forms recovered so far on the site.

Th e So u th Slo p e bui ldin g s (Eas t an d W est Corri d or H ouses) The South Slope Buildings (Figs. 31.1, 31.2), constructed originally at the end of the 7th century, represent a number of phases of use that span the 6th and early 5th centuries b.c. The architectural phase that we discuss here represents abandonment in the early 5th century, a Late Archaic destruction phase that we correlate to a horizon of burning across the site in the first quarter of the 5th century. The study of the ceramic phases is still in the preliminary stages, and so the chronology of the architectural phases remains tentative, pending complete analysis of the assemblages. The South Slope Buildings are separated from each other by an open space or alley (B500) and utilize the spine wall as a central element of their construction (Figs. 31.1, 31.2). The East Corridor House was entered from a street in the southeast, through a doorway into a corridor (C/S) that runs the full width of the building (Fig. 31.2:B300), providing access to a kitchen (K) with a built hearth, and a hall (H). A large part of the main hall of the building was unfortunately destroyed by modern plow-zone disturbance along its southern edge. The corridor had two handstones and two pithoi evidently containing wheat and grapes. The kitchen or hearth room had grapes and grains scattered around the room, a small fragmentary pithos, and a lekane (containing olives), which was decorated in relief with sphinxes and cranes. The second building, the West Corridor House (Fig. 31.2:B100), is more complex architecturally. A corridor or vestibule (C/V) gave access from the courtyard to the main hall (H). The room’s contents consisted of a considerable amount of lustrous black-gloss tableware, including an Attic kantharos and a variety of matte-coated high-necked and low-necked cups. Several mortar, lekane, and cooking vessel fragments were also found. The flotation samples produced a wheat grain, a fragment of a cereal grain, and a number of grape pips. North of the spine wall, and accessible by means of a stairway from the courtyard (CY ), were two service rooms—a storeroom (S) in B400 and a small kitchen or food-processing area (FP) with a pantry in B200. A number of vases were recovered in the storeroom: two high-

t h e a r c h a i c h o u s e s at a z o r i a

371

Figure 31.2. Azoria: East and West Corridor Houses (South Slope Buildings). R. D. Fitzsimons and D. C.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Haggis

necked cups, a large skyphos, three amphoras, two hydrias, a cookpot, and two pithoi. One pithos is a short globular jar decorated very simply with a horizontal row of stamped shield bosses and an impressed guilloche band. Other objects include a spindle whorl, two querns, and a bronze rivet. The flotation samples examined thus far have produced sparse remains of grains, pulses, and grapes. What is clear is that in both houses space was organized in similar ways, with a corridor or vestibule mediating access to different functional areas. In the case of the West Corridor House, access to the interior of the house was from an external courtyard (CY ) that contained a small hearth and bin, indicating exterior food-processing activities. From the north end of this courtyard, a stepped passage led across the spine wall into the service areas, while a doorway directly across the corridor from the entrance led to the main hall. A similar hall is reconstructed for the East Corridor House, where the corridor acted to control access from the street and evidently served multiple storage and food-processing functions (Fig. 31.2). These two South Slope houses are thus roughly similar in plan: one large square room with one or more internal pillars forms the main hall of the house, while a doorway connects the hall to a rectangular room that is narrower in dimensions. According to the evidence from the East Corridor House, this narrower room, or “corridor” as we have called it, would have served combined storage and work functions while providing the main access to the interior rooms of the house. Similar complex house plans, consisting of a corridor giving access to one or more rooms, appear in roughly contemporary contexts at Aigina

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

372

donald c. hag gis and margare t s. mook

Figure 31.3. Plans of houses Sk2 and KPh3 in the Meseleroi Valley. After Hayden 1997, figs. 9, 10

(Houses 2 and 3), and also at Corinth (Archaic House 1).8 The “corridor house” should be a definable type in the Aegean, and perhaps it is a conceptual, if not formal, link to the Greek pastas and courtyard houses of the 5th and 4th centuries.9 On Crete, interesting examples are derived from Hayden’s survey of Archaic sites in the Meseleroi Valley, the hinterland of ancient Oleros (Fig. 31.3).10 Here, the corridor mediates between two wings of the houses, if not between separate house units. For example, in KPh3, the corridor (Fig. 31.3, room 9) evidently functioned as a kind of courtyard linking rooms on either side. A similar arrangement is apparent in Sk2, where room 2 is identified as a possible corridor. If more complex than the Azoria examples, the design principle of the Meseleroi houses is essentially the 8. See Krause 1977 and Lang 1996, esp. pp. 95–100, for detailed discussion of the typological category and other published examples; see also the summary in Morris 1998, pp. 20–64. It is important to mention that Lang (1996, pp. 99–100) categorizes examples from

Aigina, Corinth, and Onythe as pastas houses rather than corridor types, diverging from Krause’s less strictly formal analysis (1977, p. 169). 9. Krause 1977, pp. 165–169; Hayden 1995, pp. 128–129; Morris 1998, pp. 20–21; Nevett 1999, pp. 162–163;

Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 360–361. 10. Hayden 1995, esp. pp. 128–129; Hayden’s examples fit Lang’s “Korridorhaus” category (Lang 1996, p. 97), which draws on parallels from Dreros, Tskalario, and Athens (the Academy).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e a r c h a i c h o u s e s at a z o r i a

Figure 31.4. Plan of houses at Onythe Goulediana. After Platon 1956a, fig. 1

11. Coulson et al. 1997, pp. 317– 333. 12. Lang 1996, p. 100. 13. Haggis 1993; Coulson et al. 1997; Mook 1998; Glowacki 2002, 2004.

373

same. A similar arrangement of rooms may be apparent on the Kastro in Late Geometric (LG)–EO Building A, where room 43 is a functional corridor or vestibule, mediating communication with rooms or even separate houses to the north and south.11 We wonder if there is not some formal connection between these very large and apparently elaborate houses—possibly rural estates—evident in the Meseleroi region and the urban houses at Azoria. Could the city dwellers be imitating, on a smaller scale, primary elite residences in the countryside? Onythe Goulediana (Fig. 31.4, rooms A, B, E, H), excavated by Platon in the 1950s, is the best-known excavated example of the type on Crete. The corridor, accessible directly from a courtyard, fronts a row of three rooms connected at the back by a spine wall. It is essentially an enclosed pastas, mediating or transitional to the internal spaces of the house.12 In some examples it seems to have functioned as a kind of court or vestibule, emphasizing its liminality and multiple work and storage functions, while controlling access to the house’s interior. The South Slope houses at Azoria are an intrinsic part of the restructuring and redesign of the South Acropolis at the end of the 7th century b.c. They are integrated into the site’s overall plan and are bound to the southern extension of the spine wall. From this we assume an element of planning and perhaps borrowed design principles, marking a significant departure from the material pattern of the EIA, which seems to have emphasized topographical conformity and continuity, modular growth with expansion of kinship groups, and (typically) multiple-room linear plans.13 By way of contrast, the construction of the spine walls, probably at the end of the 7th century, represents a new conceptualization of space for the city center.

374

donald c. hag gis and margare t s. mook

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Houses are constructed anew, and they are linked to the overall reorganization of space with little evidence for modular or incremental expansion or development of house units. A good example of this predetermined and controlled use of space is in the Northwest Building, where the adjoining hall and storeroom (Fig. 31.1) are constructed between two parallel spine walls that are integral to their plan.14

N o rt h e ast Building and Nort h Ac ro polis B uilding Two other houses at Azoria represent interesting variations in form and a marked contrast to the corridor houses on the South Slope. These houses are larger in size and more architecturally complex. In each, the storage room directly adjoins the main hall, while the kitchen is a separate but juxtaposed room of irregular shape, accessible to the main building via a courtyard. The best-preserved example is the Northeast Building, located inside the uppermost spine wall, on the peak of the South Acropolis (Figs. 31.1, 31.5). The main entrance to the house is from a courtyard (A700) at the northwest through a spacious vestibule (A300) that leads into the main hall (A400). The house’s storeroom (A1700)—indicated by a substantial pithos deposit and pithos stands—adjoins the hall on the east. Room A400 contained an assemblage typical of halls at Azoria: a black-gloss cup skyphos, a number of high-necked cups, kraters, a table amphora, hydria, lekane, and cookpot. The storeroom had a small krater, a table amphora, and a hydria, in addition to a number of cups, but the assemblage was dominated by pithoi (at least seven different jars), a coarse jar, and a transport amphora. It is perhaps formally significant that the vestibule and hall are on a central axis with the main entrance from the courtyard, while the storeroom’s access is off-center on the south side of the east wall. The placement of this doorway may be related either to patterns of storage (locations of pithoi) in A1700 or the arrangement of furniture and functions of the main hall. A rear entrance to the storeroom, found in the southeast corner of the room, communicates directly with a corridor and ramp (A2300) that leads upslope to a passage and courtyard (A1800). The latter links the main rooms of the house to a separate kitchen (A2100), whose doorway is on the long north side, interacting directly with the courtyard. On a smaller scale, the North Acropolis Building (Fig. 31.5) has a similar design, but with a less complex arrangement of rooms. The hall and storeroom are again directly connected, while the kitchen is accessible to the main hall through an exterior courtyard. The main hall (E200) contained at least seven different cups, two skyphoi, a Lakonian krater, an olpe, a flask, a hydria, and four chytrai. Even though the assemblage is dominated 14. The absolute chronology of building phases has not yet been firmly established, as the ceramic deposits are still under study; while stratigraphic soundings at the site indicate a late-7th-

century b.c. date for the construction of the spine walls and the first major rebuilding of the site, there are indications of architectural changes throughout the 6th century.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e a r c h a i c h o u s e s at a z o r i a

Figure 31.5. Azoria: plans of Northeast Building, Southwest Building, and North Acropolis Building. R. D. Fitzsimons

375

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

376

donald c. hag gis and margare t s. mook

by pouring and drinking vessels, there is also some storage equipment: a small relief pithos, a jar, and a transport amphora. The storeroom (E300) held an array of drinking and pouring vessels, as well as chytrai, but like A1700 in the Northeast Building, the assemblage consisted largely of pithoi (some five examples) and transport amphoras (two examples). The kitchens in both houses are of a similar size and design, and each contained a full complement of food preparation equipment. Each kitchen readily incorporates the natural terrain, utilizing the bedrock for high socles; and the rooms are perhaps situated to be sheltered from north winds, especially the prevailing northwesterlies.

Th e So u thwest bui ldin g s The Southwest Buildings, recovered in 2005, on the lower Southwest Terrace, have not yet been completely excavated, so the discussion here must remain somewhat tentative (Figs. 31.1, 31.5). It has an identifiable main hall (B3400) with direct access to storage facilities on the north in B3200 and B3600. On the south, it communicated with what might have been a kitchen (B3500) that was largely destroyed during a Hellenistic reuse of the space. The main hall (B3400) had the usual assemblage of drinking and serving vessels, including a variety of cups, a skyphos, a hydria, an oinochoe, a fine bowl, and a mortar, while the storerooms (B3200, B3600) were characteristically crowded with pithoi—at least five separate jars from B3600. The storerooms in the house, not unlike the examples from the Northeast Building and North Acropolis Building, also could have functioned as pantries for storing drinking and serving equipment. Fragments of cups, skyphoi, chytrai, jugs, hydriai, lekanai, and mortars were found across B3200 and B3600. In B3600, a black-figure lekythos and two large krater stands were recovered as well. The phasing in this building is complex, and based on the evidence to date, direct access from the kitchen to the hall in the southwest corner is unlikely—the unexcavated and severely eroded west scarp obscures our understanding of the transition between B3400 and B3500. The main entrance to the house is likely to have been from a corridor, courtyard, or street located along the west side of the building. What can be said is that kitchen and storage areas are distinctly separate units, and, perhaps more important, they are not directly adjoining compartments of the house. As in the North Acropolis Building, the main hall separates areas of food processing and storage. The position of the main hall is thus important. As a mediating component, the hall must have served to separate and organize storage and service functions within the household. Access to and public visibility of storage facilities was controlled by the space of the hall, whose activities must have ranged from both public and private dining to the administration of the household’s storage and consumption.15 It is clear that this connection between storage and hall was functionally more important than ease of access between pantry and food-processing areas.

15. See Lang 2005, p. 30, on the multiple functions of halls in Archaic houses. Although we have only begun to study the assemblages from the Azoria examples, the ceramic assemblages strongly suggest drinking and dining activities rather than the full array of domestic industries.

t h e a r c h a i c h o u s e s at a z o r i a

377

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Dis c u s s i on

16. Platon 1956a, pp. 226–227; Sjögren 2003, pp. 18–21. 17. Westgate 2007, pp. 427–443. 18. Westgate 2007, pp. 447–450.

The five examples of Archaic houses at Azoria demonstrate a considerable diversity of forms within two basic typological categories—on the one hand, roughly linear, axially-aligned buildings, conforming perhaps to some extent to the exigencies of the steep terraced terrain, and on the other, roughly square houses following an identifiable form of early “corridor” types in the Archaic Aegean. Onythe Goulediana provides a useful contemporary parallel for the houses at Azoria. The excavated area (Fig. 31.4) represents two separate houses linked by a spine wall on the west and divided neatly by a long east–west wall that also limits the northern edge of the courtyard space of the southern building. The houses at Onythe (ca. 158 m2) are similar in size to the largest at Azoria, with the Northeast Building measuring about 164 m2 and the Southwest Buildings, 109 m2. The rooms of the houses at Onythe are arranged paratactically to be directly accessible either from a corridor or courtyard. Even if kitchens have not been identified with certainty at Onythe, the differentiation of hall and storeroom assemblages and space reflects the overall pattern at Azoria. Halls at Onythe (Fig. 31.4, rooms A and I)—the largest rooms in the houses—have a preponderance of fine tablewares as well as small storage and serving equipment, while the storerooms (Fig. 31.4, rooms B and K) had an abundance of pithoi and stone-slab pithos stands.16 If the examples of houses at Azoria tend toward a linear arrangement of rooms, they also have discernible radial aspects. In the East and West Corridor Houses, as at Onythe, the corridor or vestibule is the formal entrance that also mediates communication with the storeroom, hall, and food-processing areas. On the one hand, the sequential arrangement of rooms, especially in the Northeast Building, the Southwest Buildings, and the North Acropolis Building, indicates a linear communication pattern such as that identified by Westgate’s analysis of Classical and Hellenistic examples at Lato and Trypitos.17 The use of external courtyards and detached kitchens in the Northeast Building and the North Acropolis Building (Fig. 31.5), on the other hand, emphasizes a radial arrangement, with the courtyard mediating and separating food-processing and general living areas of the house. The corridors and courtyards in the South Slope Buildings (Fig. 31.2) also reflect aspects of this radial communication. That said, Westgate’s analysis is pertinent to the discussion of room function at Azoria. The hall is an identifiable and central component of the house design; its accessibility, directly from an exterior courtyard, street, vestibule, or corridor, looks very much like the location of Westgate’s “hearth rooms” at Lato and Trypitos, which, she argues, have more direct public access and a less strict hierarchy of privacy in the use of space.18 The same pattern is observable at Azoria, although in our examples, the distribution of finds and features points to greater segregation and designation of room functions—kitchens, storerooms, and halls are easily definable, and while halls could have included private and public domestic activities, including some household industries, they lack the central hearth and combined

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

378

donald c. hag gis and margare t s. mook

functions of Westgate’s Hellenistic examples.19 Even if the Azoria houses tend toward a more open plan (and the functional characteristics of the linear communication pattern), the organization of space is also segregated and segmented; rooms are placed side-by-side along or between spine walls, and communication is often dictated by the placement of courtyards, corridors, or vestibules. Whether primarily linear or radial in structure, the houses are very much an integral part of the redesign and rebuilding of the settlement at the end of the 7th century b.c. What we can say is that the houses were designed to communicate easily with public space and access routes (Fig. 31.1): the Northeast Building with the structures on the peak; the South Slope Buildings with the putative agora and Cult Building; and the Northwest Building with the Monumental Civic Building and Archaic Shrine. Even though the phasing and preservation of the halls make the parsing of functional areas difficult, the organization of space is exemplified by the controlled movement between the hall and food-processing and storage areas. It is interesting that the corridor houses are formally similar in design yet show flexibility and considerable variation in the utilization of space. The principal storage area of the East Corridor House may well have been the north end of the corridor itself, very visible and accessible to occupants and visitors alike; in the West Corridor House, on the other hand, the main storeroom is essentially hidden, relegated to the opposite side of the spine wall, and accessible only from the exterior courtyard that also served food-processing functions. By way of contrast, direct access to the storeroom from the hall is a salient characteristic of the other houses on the site, which also have considerably more floor space devoted to staple storage. These two variables (storage area size and placement) might suggest social or economic differences between households. The direct connection between hall and storeroom is particularly intriguing. Whatever the cultural or economic reasons for this, the design element is repeated across the site, even at the expense of convenient access between staple-storage and food-processing areas. Even in the Northwest Building, which has been only partially excavated (Fig. 31.1), the hall and storeroom are contiguous and connected units. What might this tell us then about the function of the hall and the proximity to agricultural storage? A number of possibilities present themselves. First, the use of the hall for daily dining, as well as more public and formal receptions, would have benefited from ready access to a pantry storing drinking, serving, and dining equipment as well as staples not requiring intensive final-stage processing (such as fruits, nuts, olives, cheese, wine, oil). Such items are indeed attested in the storerooms at Azoria. Second, the hall, as the physical and economic center of the household, could well have been used to control and mediate access to, account for, and organize the use of produce and other commodities.20 The kitchen, on the other hand, is a separate room, usually disconnected from the hall and storeroom—in the Northeast Building and the North Acropolis Building (Fig. 31.5) it is accessible only through an exterior courtyard. The separation of the kitchen from the hall and storeroom emphasizes the segregation of activities in the Archaic household and the mediating aspect of the hall in controlling

19. Westgate 2007, pp. 440–441. Multifunctional “hearth rooms” are also a characteristic of complex LG and EO house plans from the Kavousi Kastro; see Coulson et al. 1997, pp. 325–328, 353–388; Mook 1998. 20. See Ebbinghaus 2005, p. 57, on the procurement and protection of staples within the household.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e a r c h a i c h o u s e s at a z o r i a

Figure 31.6. Various relief pithoi from Archaic houses at Azoria. Scale 1:20. Photo C. Papanikolopoulos

21. On the value of pithoi in classical contexts see Ault 2000, p. 491; Cahill 2000, p. 507; 2002, p. 228. For the placement of pithoi in houses at Zagora and their social value, see Hoepfner 1999, pp. 166–168; see also Ebbinghaus 2005, esp. pp. 54–58, on the social significance and placement of relief pithoi: “pithoi could act as a direct measure of a person’s wealth and standing in the community. Lined up in the back or along the sides of the main . . . room of the house, they were protected from intruders but on display for guests and retainers enjoying the wine or feeding on the food contained within them.” (Ebbinghaus 2005, p. 58). It is interesting that while pithos storage appears to be connected to courtyards in Ault’s examples from Halieis, at Olynthus storerooms are frequently found directly off of the pastas, easily accessible, if not juxtaposed to the andron.

379

communication between storage and kitchen areas, as well as the practical interest in keeping the messy affairs of daily food processing, such as meat preparation, apart from regular living and dining rooms. As social space, the hall-storeroom proximity should have been planned to enhance the accessibility and perhaps even the visibility of the material and agricultural wealth of the household. Pithoi and pithos stands are customarily found in the corners and along the walls of storerooms. In the case of the East Corridor House, pithoi, including a rare Late Minoan IIIC heirloom, were found at the north end of the corridor (Fig. 31.2:C/S). In the Northeast Building, a cluster of pithoi found smashed in the southwest corner of the storeroom (A1700) suggests that their original placement would have been visible from A400 through the doorway (Fig. 31.5). As we have observed elsewhere, large relief pithoi on the site are commonly decorated with elaborate and ornate impressed and plastic ornamentation (Fig. 31.6); on occasion such decoration is placed on one side of the vessel only, presumably the visible side that faced out and away from the wall. In addition to Orientalizing iconographic elements, many of the vessels have features clearly imitating metalwork (such as shield bosses, plastic appliqué, and protomes), obvious skeuomorphic details reflecting objects or materials of elite consumption. Thus, the pithoi, probably expensive objects in their own right,21 could well have had a prestige value, expressed in size, elaboration of decoration, and perhaps in the commodities they boasted to contain. Alongside an array of sympotic equipment such as fine imported cups and kraters and decorated krater stands, pithoi are likely to have been important social symbols relating to agricultural production and consumption—expressed

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

380

donald c. hag gis and margare t s. mook

though the size and design of the objects themselves, as well as through the implicit reference to resources accrued through landed wealth.22 As elements of status display, they would have been readily accessible from the main reception area of the house, and, more important, they would have been immanently visible to guests drinking or dining in the hall. We are only beginning to understand the organization of urban space at Azoria, and the topography, chronology, distribution, and design of houses and their relationship to civic areas. The houses presented here suggest considerable variation and interesting formal patterns that are related to practical functions, topographical position, as well as the sociopolitical roles of the household in the Archaic community.

22. The indications of large-scale pithos storage at Azoria is perhaps important in light of Lang’s survey of Archaic houses (Lang 2005, p. 27), which suggests the diminishing importance of pithoi (common in the EIA) in favor of built installations.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 32

P u b l i c Fe asts an d P r i vat e S y m p os i a i n t h e A r c h ai c a n d C l as s i c al P e r i od s by Brice L. Erickson

In most reconstructions of Archaic and Classical Cretan society, the literary tradition has played a primary role. The late date of these limited sources and their obvious ideological biases, however, imbue the written word with less authority than archaeology as a document of social realities. Moreover, the focus of the ancient authors on formal institutions—particularly public feasting—obscures a broader view of Cretan society and informal practices, including private or household-based social gatherings. In the literary accounts, the consumption of food and drink took place in monumental public buildings, and these communal feasts have been considered a defining aspect of the syssition and other social institutions. Communal principles were supposedly strong enough to prevent private symposia from taking hold; and, accordingly, archaeologists have sought confirmation of this picture in the record of public buildings with evidence for food and wine consumption. Such buildings, termed andreia by the excavators, are often difficult to distinguish from other civic buildings and temples. Not only is the identification problematic, new evidence from Azoria and Aphrati suggests an even more complex situation, with private symposia complementing whatever public feasts may have been held in the community. By examining the role of houses and other private structures as venues for sympotic drinking, archaeologists can reveal unexpected contours to the literary depiction of monopolistic state control and exclusively public feasting. A famous passage from Athenaeus, quoting the Late Classical or Early Hellenistic historian Dosiadas, has been thought to provide a revealing glimpse into Cretan institutions, specifically the syssition. Of historiographic interest as a key peg in the ancient and modern construct of the ideal Cretan constitution, the wealth of detail contained in this passage may never find an exact counterpart in reality: The Lyttians [Lyktians] pool their goods from the common mess in this way: every man contributes a tithe of his crops to his club, as well as the income from the state which the magistrates of the city divide among the households of all the citizens. But all slaves pay one Aeginetan stater per caput. The citizens are distributed in clubs which are called andreia (“halls of men”). The mess is in [the] charge

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

382

brice l. erickson

of a woman who has assistants, three or four men chosen from the common people. Each of them is attended by two servants who bring in the fire-wood; these are called faggot-bearers. Everywhere throughout Crete there are two houses for the public messes; one of these is called [the] andreion, the other, in which they entertain strangers, is called [the] koimeterion (“resting place”). In the house intended for the mess there are set out, first of all, two tables, called “guest-tables,” at which sit in honor any strangers who are in town; next come the tables for the others. An equal portion of the food on hand is served to each person, but only a half-portion of meat is given to the younger men, and they get nothing of the other food. Then on each table is placed a cup filled with wine much diluted; this is shared by all who are at the same table, and a second cup is served after they have finished the meal. For the boys a mixing-bowl is prepared which they share in common, but permission is given the older men to drink more if they desire. The woman in charge of the mess takes from the table in the sight of all the best of everything that is served, and sets it before the men who have distinguished themselves in war or in wisdom. After dinner they are in the habit first of deliberating on public affairs; from that subject they proceed to call up deeds of prowess in war and to praise the men of proved bravery, in order to encourage the younger men in the pursuit of virtue.1 As an accurate description of 6th-century drinking customs, Dosiadas’s testimony has substantial problems. The institution of the syssition raises the possibility of a state redistribution mechanism, assuming that the rich contributed to the cost of feeding the poor, while this passage gives the impression that the state intervened heavily in the affairs of its citizens to foster a leveling concept.2 Once invited to join a mess group, one remained a member for life, since citizenship depended on membership in the syssition. This institution stands in sharp contrast to the symposium, a voluntary association of aristocratic banqueters assembled by private invitation. According to the testimony of Dosiadas and other authors, it is generally assumed that all citizens, rich and poor, participated in the Cretan messes, and that each polis possessed a single andreion, just as each city possessed a single prytaneion and bouleuterion. But Dosiadas is ambiguous on this point. Elsewhere he states that all Cretan poleis were divided into hetairia groups, suggesting smaller and more intimate messes. Perhaps each hetairia had its own hall.3 Another passage (Strabo 10.483–484) also hints at a polis having more than one andreion, for it states that an adult member 1. FGrH 458 F2; Ath. 4.143a–d (trans. C. B. Gullick, London, 1928). 2. In addition, according to Aristotle (Pol. 2.10.1272a16–21), part of the agricultural produce of the state was set aside for religious and civic services, while another portion was reserved for the common meals. The

fundamental studies of the Cretan syssition include Jeanmaire 1939, pp. 421–427; Van Effenterre 1948, pp. 87–91; Willetts 1955, pp. 18–27, 138–140; Atkinson [1949] 1971, pp. 205–247; Talamo 1987. With regard to the financing of the andreion, see Lavrencic 1988, pp. 147–161;

Guizzi 1997; Chaniotis 1999b, p. 194. 3. In an attempt to reconcile the perceived tradition of a single mess hall with the attested hetairia divisions, however, Link (1994, p. 18, n. 36) contends that these different hetairia groups dined in the same hall. See also Prent 2005, pp. 451–452.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

p u b l i c f e a s t s a n d p r i vat e s y m p o s i a

383

may select a handsome youth and invite him to join his mess, implying multiple andreia organized along hetairia lines. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a single structure large enough to accommodate the entire citizen body of a typical Archaic polis, unless Cretan banqueters dined in rotation or employed makeshift structures.4 If each clan or hetairia group had its own feasting building, or if formal civic structures were reserved for elites and lesser citizens dined in temporary structures or private houses, it might be possible to accommodate these smaller groups in a single building of reasonable size.5 But this is not the system described by Dosiadas, and the need for such qualifications casts doubt on his account. Moreover, none of the literary sources is explicit about how often members gathered in the andreion for the feast. Did they take every meal there or did they meet only on special occasions? Perhaps the distinction between public syssitia and private feasts was less absolute than scholars assume, defined by only an element of state regulation. No ancient author claims that the corporate values of the polis were pervasive enough to eliminate private drinking associations such as the symposia. This exercise exemplifies the difficulties of using the later literary tradition as a source for Archaic Cretan society. It is not clear from such testimony whether every Cretan polis had an andreion or even whether the andreion had a common architectural form. There may be another, more fundamental problem with the written word as a record of political organization. P. Perlman’s examination of 4th-century b.c. and later sources, including Aristotle’s discussion of the Cretan constitution, suggests that ancient authors derived much of their information from a single polis, Lyktos, and glossed over regional variations and local customs.6 If this is so, detailed descriptions of Cretan customs are unlikely to find exact counterparts across a wide expanse of time and place.7 Lyktos may have been singled out in the predominantly Athenian accounts as a social and political archetype, acquiring a reputation for exceptional conservatism that it maintained throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods.8 Perhaps this 4. Literary sources suggest that the entire free population, including women and children, participated. If we take the more limited view that only adult male citizens dined in the andreion building, the structure would still need to accommodate hundreds, if not thousands, of banqueters at a large polis like Knossos or Gortyn. In contrast, excavated hearth-buildings identified as possible andreia are small structures, on the order of 80 m2 in area. By way of comparison, we know that the Athenian tholos, a circular structure approximately 18 m in diameter, housed 50 people. The physical context of the Spartan syssition has raised similar difficulties; see Hodkinson 2000, p. 217. 5. There are anthropologically and

archaeologically documented examples of the use of elaborate specialized feasting structures for high-ranking administrators of lineages, clans, and communities, with women, children, and lowranking members of these groups eating their meals outside; see Hayden 2001, pp. 53–54. 6. Perlman 1992, pp. 198, 201. Morrow (1960, p. 25) contends that Attic authors lacked firsthand information about Cretan political institutions. 7. Where archaeology provides a check on the literary tradition, it alludes to a more complicated pattern; see Perlman 1992, pp. 193–198. To cite another example, a passage from a 4th-century b.c. author preserved in Athenaeus (9.375f–376a) states that the Cretans abstained from eating pork

in sacrificial meals; see Willetts 1962, p. 218. Regarding the origin of this prohibition, Morris (1992, p. 262) perceived Semitic influence. But, contrary to the literary testimony, the archaeological record indicates that Cretans did occasionally eat pork at sacred meals at Kommos and at the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos; see Shaw 2000, p. 685. Thus, the literary tradition presumably reflects a local ban or regional preference. Smith (2003, pp. 44–46) reaches a similar conclusion for such bans in the Near East. 8. According to Guizzi (1999, pp. 277–284), the Lyktians preserved much of the character of the Archaic syssition into the Roman Imperial period.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

384

brice l. erickson

polis wished to present itself to the outside world as a closed, barrack-like society; but such an effort at deliberately manufacturing an image would call into question the literature as a source for earlier customs. At the very least, the andreion may not have existed in every Cretan polis. The Archaic syssition was not entirely a creation of later commentators; epigraphic testimony, aside from confirming its existence, suggests state control at an early date. The word andreion in an inscription from Gortyn dated to the end of the 7th century b.c. (IC IV 2) constitutes our earliest epigraphic evidence, although it is unclear whether the reference is to a particular building or to an institution. More informative is the Spensithios decree (SEG XXVII 631), dated to ca. 500 b.c., which refers to contributions made by the community for maintaining a scribe (Spensithios) and his descendants at the andreion. Spensithios is to receive an annuity of 50 jugs of wine and other provisions, while his specified obligations to the andreion include a quantity of dressed meat comparable to the yearly consumption of a Classical Athenian demesman.9 If each member of his mess group contributed a roughly equal share, their meals in the andreion must have been a regular, if not daily, occurrence. A fragmentary early law from Axos (IC II v 1) also provided a group of citizens or foreign workers with sustenance at the andreion. In addition, an andreion in a Late Archaic inscription from Eltynia hints at a building (IC I x 2), while a 5th-century b.c. inscription from Gortyn (IC IV 75B) mentions a public official (the arkos) in charge of the contents of an andreion. These examples demonstrate an element of state control, but not a comprehensive redistribution program as described by later authors. L. Jeffery and A. Morpurgo-Davies hold that members of an andreion originally made their contributions directly to their mess, whereas the system described in the 4th-century literary tradition specifies public taxation and funds from state lands as part of a redistributive plan to support the citizen population.10 Classical and Hellenistic inscriptions, however, do not confirm this degree of state control, and there may be significant variations from place to place in the involvement of central authority. By the 5th century b.c., Gortyn appears to have imposed a levy on its citizens, enforced by state officials termed karpodaistai, suggesting that a private association formerly responsible for supporting the syssition now ceded control to the polis (IC IV 77).11 Elsewhere, clans or hetairia groups may have retained more discretionary power in administering public feasts during the Classical and even later periods. This discussion of the ideal Cretan constitution has focused on the andreion as a galvanizing force in a system of military training. Its goal was to forge a strong sense of group identity and equality among peers, creating a closed group of male citizens defined by military training and civic commensality. Given the attested social importance of feasting, it is not surprising that some historians place the advent of the Cretan andreion in the Late Bronze Age and consider it an example of conservative island traditions.12 For example, according to R. Koehl, a suite of rooms at Ayia Triada perhaps functioned as a proto-andreion, with a dining hall lined with benches capable of accommodating around seventeen people, a pantry, and

9. The inscription fixes his contribution of prepared meat by an arcane weight standard (10 axes) with an equivalent value of between one and one and a half talents (60–90 lb = ca. 27–41 kg). Sacrificial calendars from Attic demes suggest a similar figure for an individual’s annual consumption of meat; see Jameson 1988, pp. 88–97; Rosivach 1994, pp. 2–3. As a basis for comparison, see Hodkinson (2000, pp. 193–196) for the size of Spartan mess rations. 10. Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970, p. 151. 11. Willetts 1955, p. 193; Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970, p. 151. 12. Koehl 1997, pp. 138–143; Borgna 2004, p. 151. See also the contributions in this volume by Driessen and Fiasse (Chap. 25) for LM IIIA–B Quartier Nu at Malia, and Tsipopoulou (Chap. 29) for LM IIIC Chalasmenos.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

p u b l i c f e a s t s a n d p r i vat e s y m p o s i a

13. Koehl 1986, p. 109. 14. For the social implications of the bronze plaques from Kato Symi, see Lebessi 1985, pp. 188–198. The EIA presents the greatest hurdle for continuity arguments. Koehl (1986, p. 109; 1997, p. 138) points to a figurine from Kato Symi that depicts a young man with a cup as a link between the Chieftain’s Cup and the later series of plaques at the sanctuary. Yet, since Lebessi (2002a, pp. 81–86, 321, 337– 338, no. 17, pl. 16) dated this figurine on stylistic grounds to the Geometric period, Koehl’s argument still faces a gap from the end of the Bronze Age to the 8th century. See also Prent 2005, pp. 579–580. 15. Borgna 2004, pp. 150–151. 16. D’Agata 1997–2000. 17. According to Block (1988), Jessop (1990), Tilly (1992), and Steinmetz (1999, pp. 8–9), state formation is a slow structural change rather than an all-or-nothing transition. See also Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004, pp. 339–341.

385

a kitchen.13 Koehl’s case for an institution like the andreion in the Bronze Age rests on his interpretation of the Chieftain Cup as an illustration of a rite-of-passage ceremony similar to that described in Strabo (10.483–484), in which a youth receives a cloak, a cup, and a cow for sacrifice. Although the connection between the andreion and agoge is central to the later Cretan political system, the notion that these interlocking institutions survived the Early Iron Age (EIA) transition virtually intact—a necessary condition for using the passage from Strabo as direct evidence for earlier practices—strains credulity. The only link offered for this premise comes from the historical sanctuary at Kato Symi, and it takes the form of a supposedly continuous initiation ceremony that involved a pederastic relationship.14 Iconographic evidence for such a relationship, however, dates no earlier than the 7th century b.c., and this custom may represent a change in ritual practice. In a more subtle argument for evolving practices, E. Borgna traces a history of communal feasting at Phaistos from LM IIIC to the Geometric period, culminating in the construction of a hearth-building, identified as a possible proto-andreion, in a central location of the settlement.15 Since other buildings of the Geometric period also may have been used to stage feasts at Phaistos, we cannot determine whether a social model of aristocratic clans, big men or chiefs, or early state administration best fits the evidence. Without a clear indication that aristocratic families recognized a greater authority at this early date, only a weak sense of community can be inferred. Another interesting case of EIA feasting has recently come to light at Thronos, where A. L. D’Agata has reported the discovery of a building associated with at least 47 pits containing the remains of ritual meals from LM IIIC to the Protogeometric period.16 The prominent setting of these feasts, near the top of what later became the acropolis of Sybrita, signifies their importance to the community, but nothing has come to light concerning who organized these feasts, let alone evidence for a central authority or a state apparatus. Since it is difficult to see how the system described by the literary sources could have existed outside the framework of the Greek polis, there arises the question of when state institutions emerged on Crete. Scholars in the 1980s envisioned a discrete moment of transition from simple prestate structures to a polis configuration—a turning point for mainland Greece that is usually placed in the 8th century b.c. More recent approaches, however, see the transition as an ongoing process.17 According to this gradualist construct, the andreion did not suddenly spring into being with the rise of the polis. Instead, the long tradition of public feasting on the island played a formative role, with the state gradually expropriating older practices and reshaping them to serve new political and economic realities. If formal state regulation of activities may be the only way to distinguish the andreion from earlier forms of public feasting, then the earliest epigraphic references to the andreion may reflect something more than meticulous record keeping. These inscriptions may themselves be a product of the polis extending its authority over the lives of its citizens, part of what defines the andreion as an institution. Furthermore, the Classical andreion promoted the principle

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

386

brice l. erickson

of extreme equality among its members, an ideal hard to attain without strict legal enforcement by the community. Earlier epigraphically attested regulations probably had similar aims. With the earliest known Cretan laws come specific regulations concerning the messes, and this suggests that the second half of the 7th century b.c. marks an important stage in a long history of public feasting. J. Carter notes striking parallels between the Cretan syssition and the institution of the marzeah in Syria-Palestine; while these resemblances do not allow her to infer a process of direct influence, she thinks it probable that Cretan andreia existed as early as the Geometric and Orientalizing periods.18 If so, the Cretan syssition could itself be regarded as a sign of Near Eastern influence. Carter’s picture of island institutions relies heavily on the later literary tradition and general arguments of continuity. Even so, there is no reason Orientalizing elements could not have entered into Cretan feasting before the andreion existed as a formal institution, nor does Carter’s argument exclude Near Eastern influence at the end of the 7th century b.c., just as the polis was taking the first tentative steps toward regulating public feasts.19 Archaeologists have traditionally sought to identify the andreion on architectural grounds, and they point to a number of Archaic and Classical buildings that seem to fit Dosiadas’s description of a mess hall. Candidates at Ayia Pelayia, Kommos, Prinias, Aphrati, Smari, Dreros, and Praisos are all equipped with benches on one or more sides and a central hearth. Unfortunately, moveable contents rarely survive, and it is difficult to distinguish these structures on architectural grounds from temples and other civic buildings with hearths, such as the prytaneion at Lato.20 At Prinias, the floor of one such candidate, a building conventionally known as Temple A and dated to the second half of the 7th century b.c., produced signs of feasting, including cups, kraters, pithoi, and animal bones. Other nearby structures on the acropolis of Prinias resemble hearth-buildings and face open areas. Perhaps these are all andreia. Yet, since feasting is a well-attested aspect of Greek religion, we should not reject out of hand an identification of these structures as temples, especially Temple A with its monumental architecture, elaborate decoration, and religious iconography. At other sites, controversial reconstructions of hearth-buildings as halls in more extensive complexes seem tailored to fit the literary description of an andreion, possessing cooking and storage facilities and a possible physical connection with the koimeterion, where the younger members slept before marriage.21 A. Mazarakis-Ainian’s argument that the monumental Greek temple form derives from the houses of earlier rulers, in which the first public feasts were probably staged, has fostered a more flexible definition of the 18. Carter 1997, pp. 76–78; while acknowledging the potential difficulties of the late testimony, she (p. 74) accepts that “the customs that these sources describe were very old.” 19. Lavrencic (1988, p. 152) and Prent (2005, pp. 454–456) favor a Late Archaic date for the institution of the andreion based on the earliest

epigraphical references. 20. Mazarakis-Ainian’s (1997, pp. 224–231) study of EIA architecture provides a starting point for the analysis of Greek hearth-buildings. Viviers (1994, pp. 244–249), Shaw (2000, pp. 680–681), Sjögren (2001, pp. 86– 91), and Prent (2005, pp. 450–467) have surveyed the evidence from Crete.

Sjögren (2001, pp. 87, 91) questions the existence of formal distinctions between civic and sanctuary dining on Crete. For the identification of the prytaneion at Lato, see Miller 1978, pp. 85–86. 21. Koehl’s (1997) reidentification of many hearth temples as andreia strikes me as forced and overly reliant on the suspect literary tradition.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

p u b l i c f e a s t s a n d p r i vat e s y m p o s i a

387

andreion. Perhaps temple and andreion were one and the same building, with no clear distinction between religious and civic functions.22 Proponents of the traditional identification counter that andreia were separate constructions that possessed a quasi-religious function, which would explain their resemblance to contemporary temples. Following this line of reasoning, D. Viviers argues that a collection of inscribed bronze armor allegedly found at Aphrati was originally displayed on the walls of a 7th-century b.c. hearthbuilding at the site.23 His reconstruction of this armor as spolia hanging on the walls of this building evokes Dosiadas’s testimony of the andreion as the setting for stories of military valor. The unpublished portable finds from this building, however, are almost entirely cultic in nature and include terracotta figurines of an enthroned goddess with no plausible connection to the andreion. Indeed, the idea of combined ritual and dining functions finds little support in the literary or epigraphic testimony.24 Excavations at Azoria in 2002 brought to light a monumental building possibly used to stage public feasts—a promising candidate for an andreion. This identification rests on a host of interrelated factors, since the architectural plan of the building is not distinctive. Donald Haggis and his colleagues identify the core building (A800) as a dining room in a large complex with documented storage areas and kitchens, with botanical evidence from pithoi indicating the storage of wine and grain (see Fig. 31.1, p. 368, above).25 Since the storage capacity of this building exceeds any reasonable estimate for household consumption, it is tempting to view the main hall and its storerooms as evidence of community involvement in local feasts. Fenestrated stands found scattered around a column base on the floor of A800 hint at the consumption of wine, although kraters are absent from this room and cups appear in small concentrations.26 The excavators’ provisional date of the early Archaic period for the construction of this building attests the institution of communal drinking practices by the early 6th century b.c. By terming this building complex at Azoria an andreion, the excavators have evoked a particular mode of public feasting known from the later literary tradition. Does the evidence from Azoria warrant this claim? Reassuringly, this candidate sits near the top of the hill in an area where one might expect civic buildings to be located.27 Moreover, whatever purpose the enormous clay stands served, they are not a common find at the site, supporting its identification as a civic building with a special function. Unlike other proposed andreia, however, the dining hall at Azoria lacks 22. Koehl (1997, p. 143) and Carter (1997, pp. 86–95) lean toward this interpretation. 23. Viviers 1994, p. 248. In a similar vein, Haggis et al. (2004, p. 389) interpret a fragmentary bronze helmet crest in a room adjacent to a possible andreion at Azoria as confirmation of the link between military valor and Cretan communal drinking. 24. With the possible exception of the Spensithios decree, which may refer

to a mess contribution of sacred offerings. Haggis et al. (2004, p. 387) cite this inscription as evidence of a religious aspect to the andreion, but the text is fragmentary at this point (side B, lines 12–14) and the religious offering may have nothing to do with the specified mess contributions. Prent (2005, pp. 454–455) downplays the role of religion at the andreion. 25. Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 387–390; 2007, pp. 253–265

26. Perhaps most of the drinking equipment was stored elsewhere. Or, if cups and kraters were made of bronze or some other precious material, they may have been removed when the site was abandoned. It would be unusual, however, for bronze kraters or cauldrons to stand atop terracotta supports. 27. According to Prent (2005, p. 467), this is a likely location for an andreion.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

388

brice l. erickson

the usual architectural features of benches and hearth. The banquet hall does not clearly connect with the kitchens or storerooms, making the term “complex” seem inappropriate. The banquet hall of an andreion should be spacious, yet the candidate at Azoria is roughly half the size of the largest room of a nearby house (B300). Moreover, nothing in the plan or in the construction technique used in this building gives the impression of civic monumentality. In the end, the absence of a clear architectural distinction between andreia and other secular and religious buildings places undue weight on the suspect literary tradition. If a system of taxes and food redistribution was in place by the early 6th century b.c., a vast storeroom might make sense as an adjunct to an andreion, but the principal excavated storeroom at Azoria, with its four pithoi, seems too small to have played such a role. Despite these objections, the building at Azoria is probably the most compelling case we have for an andreion, and my doubts stem from the difficulty of identifying state control in the absence of epigraphic testimony. The literary tradition of public mess halls (andreia) and the syssition has promoted a view of Cretan drinking customs as aberrant from normal Greek practice, with a state monopoly of feasts preventing private symposia. The lack of figural decoration in the ceramic repertoires and the alleged absence of kraters in the Cretan context have been taken as evidence that islanders used plain utilitarian cups at civic mess halls rather than symposia, but these claims have little foundation.28 First, the use of plain pottery need not entail a significant deviation from normal Greek drinking practices, although the absence of iconographic evidence certainly hampers efforts to demonstrate a specifically Cretan form of symposium. For instance, there is no clear sign that Cretan banqueters reclined—a defining characteristic of the mainland institution.29 While Athenian sources amply attest the connection between figural pottery and the symposium, this model need not hold true for other parts of Greece. It may not even apply to all segments of the Athenian population, if some families held symposia of a humbler sort in which black-glazed pottery was substituted for figural pottery.30 In addition, imported kraters at Eleutherna and Knossos bring local drinking customs more in line with mainland Greek practices, at least in the range of 28. Whitley (2001, p. 205) remarks that the institution of the symposium was well established in the Archaic period at Athens, Corinth, Boiotia, much of Ionia, Sparta, and many western colonies, whereas (pp. 251–252) “Crete produced almost no symposium pottery.” The quintessential symposium shapes supposedly absent in the Cretan context are kraters and dinoi. In addition, literary testimony implies a different range of shapes on Crete, as Dosiadas (FGrH 458 F2) states that the adult banqueters from each table drank from a single cup, while the boys collectively shared a wine mixer. 29. Schmitt Pantel (1992, pp. 46– 48) traces the origin of communal male

dining institutions to the 7th century, while Murray (1983) cites Homer to argue for an origin in the 8th century. These positions provide a historical context for the rise of specifically Cretan drinking customs in the Archaic period. Whitley (2004, p. 438) emphasizes reclined banqueting as a defining characteristic of the symposium, an institution he dates to ca. 650 b.c. Literary testimony to the effect that Cretans took their meals while seated (Ath. 4.143), presumably on public occasions, hints at a substantial difference from mainland practice. 30. Lynch’s (1999) analysis of a Late Archaic deposit from the environs of the Agora documents figural pottery

in a sympotic context at a modest Athenian home. More work needs to be done to determine whether this house and its contents are typical of Athenian practice writ large. Excavations of public dining debris in the Athenian Agora demonstrate that officials of the democracy fed at public expense used a high proportion of black-glazed pottery; see Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 41–46, and the general discussion in Whitley 2001, pp. 361–363. Kraters make up the majority of the figural pottery from one such deposit, presumably reflecting the higher display value of large communal shapes.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

p u b l i c f e a s t s a n d p r i vat e s y m p o s i a

389

shapes. Local production of kraters supplements imports at both sites, and if the “household” kraters dedicated at the “Shrine of Glaukos” at Knossos served as wine mixers, the earlier publication record may underestimate the extent of local production.31 Thus, the functional range of the various black-glazed repertoires, complete with kraters, points to sympotic drinking. Moreover, some of this pottery comes from verifiably domestic contexts. At Azoria, Late Archaic house B100 (Fig. 31.2, p. 371, above) yielded extensive signs of food preparation and consumption, including a built hearth, a paved storeroom, fragmentary cooking pots, and an impressive collection of black-glaze tableware.32 From this deposit we can infer that private eating and drinking took place in a manner archaeologically indistinguishable from the mainland symposium. At Aphrati, a deposit from what is likely a house documents production of high-necked drinking cups and other black-glazed shapes in the final quarter of the 5th century. A. Lebessi provides a plan of the building in the preliminary report of her excavations in 1969;33 the material in question comes from the corner of a large room (labeled A) that was connected to the rest of the building through a partially exposed anteroom.34 As these excavations consisted only of trial trenches, it was impossible to determine the overall plan of the building. Although a domestic use cannot be demonstrated, it seems unlikely that this was a public building, since it lacks a monumental plan and the small finds show no sign of a civic function. The destruction of this building in the 5th century b.c. sealed a layer of debris over one of the floors, and among the remains recovered intact were high-necked cups, jugs, bowls, and a krater, representatives of a previously unknown Classical Cretan ceramic tradition. In light of these finds, the identification of room A as a private andron makes sense, although dining rooms in houses did not take a distinct form until the 5th century b.c.35 While the bell-krater from Aphrati is problematic because of its size, the dozen or so drinking cups recovered from this building conform to the number of banqueters at the typical Athenian symposium.36 Indirect signs of the symposium also appear at other sites. Musical entertainment was an indispensable part of such feasts, and the only preserved example of Archaic Cretan literature, the 6th-century song of Hybrias (Ath. 15.695f–696b), gives every indication of being a skolion, a 31. Callaghan (1978, pp. 12–16) identifies these kraters as “household” products based on the absence of interior gloss, thus removing them from the sphere of the symposium. They are, however, the appropriate size for wine mixers. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, pp. 82–83) devote a section of their chapter in the Knossian Pottery Handbook to Late Archaic and Classical kraters. 32. Haggis et al. (2004, fig. 13) illustrate fragments of local cups from B100 amounting to at least eight vessels, as well as several jug bases and an Attic kantharos. See also the discussion of

this building (the West Corridor House) in Haggis and Mook, this volume (Chap. 31). 33. Lebessi 1970, p. 459, fig. 2. Aphrati must have been the site of an important Classical polis, but it is not known which one. The traditional identification of the site as ancient Arkades has recently been challenged by Viviers (1994), who offers the alternative identification of Dattalla. See also Perlman 2004b, p. 1152. 34. Erickson 2002, figs. 14–15, 19. 35. Nevett (1999, pp. 82–83) addresses the problem of identifying dining rooms. Outside Olynthos,

Classical houses often lack such rooms. According to Nevett (1999, pp. 89, 124), an andron should be large and well positioned in the house, perhaps with an anteroom to provide privacy. A possible andron at the Dystos house, in Euboia, is a narrow room, 11 x 5 m, similar to the room in question at Aphrati. Also see Halieis II, p. 69, nn. 64–66. 36. As a basis for comparison, private dining rooms at Olynthos accommodated between four and 11 banqueters, with an average of seven guests; see Cahill 2002, pp. 180–188.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

390

brice l. erickson

sympotic drinking song.37 At Eleutherna, the literary and epigraphic sources paint a relatively rich picture of perfume, music, and wine in the context of aristocratic drinking parties.38 This luxurious setting may have been unusual for Late Archaic Crete, although the ceramic record also draws attention to at least two other examples of elaborate local customs. The perpetuation of Orientalizing techniques of linear decoration at Aphrati geared production to ornate vessels suitable for display.39 Also, at the end of the Archaic period, cups from a Late Archaic well excavated in the vicinity of the Royal Road show that several Knossian drinkers enlivened the appearance of their cups by incising linear patterns along the rim.40 This ad hoc decoration, however rudimentary, distinguishes these vessels from the mass of otherwise monotonously plain vessels. The principal Attic black-glaze and black-figure shapes represented in the well consist of column kraters, oinochoai, cups, and lekythoi. As the Attic imports consist largely of communal shapes (kraters and jugs) absent or rare in the local repertoire, where production focused on drinking cups, the imports and local shapes complement one another to form a single functional unit. In fact, the entire assemblage from this well may have formed a single, large set of sympotic furniture. The most likely explanation is that this material came from a nearby house.41 In short, the institution of public messes by no means rules out the possibility of private parties organized along the lines of the mainland Greek symposium, and current evidence on Crete may derive from houses. The possibility of regional or even site-specific drinking customs should also be considered. A similar bias has affected our understanding of Spartan drinking customs. As S. Hodkinson emphasizes, “neither in the Homeric epics nor in historical times was there ever a single, archetypal mode of commensality, but rather a variety of practices operating in different contexts.”42 37. Willetts (1962, p. 317) gives the text of this poem and discusses its historical significance. Its classification as a skolion was disputed in antiquity. It may be a marching song. For a discussion of the poem in the context of the 6th-century-b.c. Cretan isolation, see Whitley 1997, p. 652; Morris 1998, pp. 65–66. This poem resonates with local aristocratic concerns, including wine consumption, warfare, and the subjugation of serfs—all eminently appropriate themes for the Cretan symposium. 38. Perlman 2004a. 39. Erickson 2002, p. 79. 40. Coldstream (1973a, p. 58) refers to such cups from the Royal Road well, dated to ca. 500–480 b.c. The decoration takes the form of zig-zags incised along the rim. In another indication that the rim of the Cretan high-necked cup was deemed suitable for decoration,

a 7th-century b.c. example from Ayia Pelayia bears an inscription along the rim. 41. Coldstream (1991, pp. 297– 299), among others, has assumed that the post-Minoan city occupied more or less the same ground as the earlier Bronze Age center, making a public context for the Late Archaic well near the Royal Road plausible. This level of continuity, however, does not preclude a slight change in the location of the urban nucleus. Two Late Archaic inscriptions found near the Roman Basilica may mark the position of a public building north of the Palace and, by implication, the location of the Archaic civic center; see Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 18; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 298. For the Late Archaic inscriptions, see Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 42, no. 112, and p. 43, no. 118. In the 7th century b.c., the

area of the Minoan palace seems to have been given over to houses, and the discovery of a kiln of the Orientalizing period suggests that this was a residential district on the outskirts of town; see Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 191–202. For these reasons, a private context for the fill of the Royal Road well is likely. 42. Hodkinson 1997, pp. 90–91. Private symposia and civic drinking practices may have evolved separately or existed side by side in the 6th century b.c. Xenophon (Mem. 1.2.61) states that private feasting was permitted during the festival of the Gymnopaidiai, implying a restriction on private commensality in the developed Classical polis. Following his lead, Bowie (1990, p. 225, n. 16) proposed a historical progression from aristocratic symposia to the Spartan mess halls in the 6th century.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

p u b l i c f e a s t s a n d p r i vat e s y m p o s i a

43. Hammer 2004, pp. 493–499.

391

If the symposium was a focal point for aristocratic opposition to the polis, as many assume, what role did private drinking play in the Cretan world of personal restraint and militaristic communalism? This assumption may be wrong and the question it spawns moot. D. Hammer has made a strong case for rejecting the binary oppositions of polis/antipolis implicit in such views of the mainland symposium; according to him, differences in wealth and attitudes concerning display do not easily break down along political fault lines.43 While the Cretan elite—defined by noble birth, military prowess, and membership in politically privileged hetairia groups—may not have wanted to mix with nonelite citizens, this exclusionary impulse would not have required luxurious surroundings. Perhaps associating with equals in war and the hunt increased a member’s standing in the citizen community more than luxurious display. Competition may have arisen over the frugality of meals and accoutrements as a way to emphasize the personal qualities and accomplishments that mattered most in Archaic Cretan society. Such a pecking order of private banqueting groups, far from conflicting with the ideals of the polis, would have been an understandable consequence of a competitive system geared for the defense of the community.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 3 3

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

H o u s e s i n t h e H ou s e hol d I : O w n e rs h i p an d Us e of D we l l i n g P l ac e s i n Gort y n i an I n s c r i p t i on s by Francesco Guizzi In light of this volume’s theme—houses and households—the aim of this paper is twofold.1 It will first provide a brief survey of the epigraphical evidence for the role of the “house” as a constitutive element of a citizen’s “household” in Archaic and Classical Gortyn. The main part of the epigraphical evidence considered here comes from the so-called Law Code or Great Code of Gortyn, which may date to the middle of the 5th century b.c., and it is supplemented by three other inscriptions connected with Gortyn and its neighboring cities.2 Then, after presenting these texts and clarifying the terminology in the Gortyn texts that is associated with the concept of the “house,” these terms will be placed in their historical and social contexts in order to highlight some complex issues and offer a few hypotheses for future testing. This epigraphical evidence has the potential to offer insights into the symbolic aspects of houses, their occupants, and the definition of the household that can complement the archaeological investigation of the architectural remains, domestic activities, and socioeconomic organization of ancient Crete.

“ H o u s es ” in t h e G ort y n Cod e : j u ri d ica l an d s o c i al s i gn ifi can c e of th e word “STE GA”

1. I thank Stefanie Kennell for editing my English text, and Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan and Kevin Glowacki for their useful suggestions. All translations of the Law Code are by Willetts (1967), with slight modifications. 2. On the Law Code of Gortyn, see most recently Davies 2005; Greco and Lombardo 2005.

The Gortyn code contains six passages that make explicit use of the word “house” (στέγα), while the existence of houses is implicit in three other passages. The first of the explicit references (col. III 45–49) is as follows: “If a wife who is separated [by divorce] should bear a child, [they] are to bring it to the husband at his house (ἐπὶ στέγαν) in the presence of three witnesses; and if he should not receive it, the child shall be in the mother’s power either to rear or expose.” Since these lines require the woman to take any child she may bear after becoming divorced to her former husband’s house (στέγα) in the presence of three witnesses, they indicate that the house itself plays an important role as the place where children are officially accepted as family members—a matter of utmost importance for the composition of the family and the household.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

394

francesco guizzi

The second passage in the Gortyn Code (col. IV 14–17) also shows the house as an essential element of the process of acknowledging a child, for it states, “And if the man should have no house (τις ᾽τέγα) to which she shall bring it or she does not see him, there is to be no penalty if she should expose the child.” In other words, if the ex-husband does not own a house where he can receive the child, or if he fails to make visual contact with the woman and her witnesses (at a house he does own), the ex-wife incurs no penalty if she decides to expose the child. Thus, ownership of a house has a social and juridical significance beyond its physical structure or economic value: a man without a house has no claim on any child born after a divorce.3 The third passage that refers to houses (cols. IV 31–48, V 1) occurs in a section concerned with the apportionment of the property of deceased parents among their offspring: “And in case [the father] should die, the city houses (᾽τέγανς μὲν τὰνς ἐν πόλι) and whatever there is in those houses (ἐν ταῖς ᾽τέγαις) in which a serf living in the country does not reside, and the cattle, small and large, which do not belong to the serf, shall belong to the sons” (col. IV 31–37). The text makes a distinction, albeit somewhat murky, between two categories of houses—those in town and those not inhabited by the serfs living in the country. This may indicate patterns of residence, since the sons are said to inherit one or more residential urban properties directly, along with the contents and livestock belonging to the houses in the country that were not paternal residences, but only looked after by caretakers of unfree status who, in the context of a Cretan polis like Gortyn, must be serfs.4 As Willetts notes, the detail mentioning the country serf (αἶς κα μὲ̄ ϝοικεὺς ἐνϝοικι ἐπὶ κραι ϝοικίο̄ν) specifies the location of the houses to which the heirs have only a restricted right.5 Whereas the houses in the city are to be divided after the death of the father, signifying that the father must have resided in those houses, only the furnishings of certain other houses—identified as those not inhabited by serfs though most likely also located in the country—will pass to the sons to be divided among them. The fourth passage to mention houses (col. IV 46–48), which occurs after the explanation that sons shall receive two parts of the remainder of the father’s property once it has been fairly divided while one part goes to the daughters, with the mother’s property subject to similar arrangements, states: “But if there should be no property except the house (στέγα), the daughters shall receive their share as is prescribed.” In other words, if the house in the city is the only property, the daughters will receive their share of it as well, in a ratio of one-half of their brothers’ portion (i.e., one-third of the house). If the preceding passages in the Great Code are viewed together, it becomes apparent that three different groups of Gortyn’s inhabitants have legal standing with regard to the transfer of ownership of houses there: (1) a citizen’s sons; (2) a citizen’s daughters (in the absence of other kinds of property); and (3) the serfs living in the country, who seem to have had the use of at least some of the houses in the countryside even if they did not reside in them. Male citizens, as the only fully enfranchised group, have

3. The citizen could lack a house; see Link 1994, p. 29. 4. Comparetti was the first to stress this point, even though his edition adopts a reading (ϝοικιῶν in col. IV 35, as genitive plural of ϝοικια) that is certainly wrong, as Guarducci (IC IV, p. 158) and Willetts (1967, p. 64) note. I follow him in regarding the latter group of houses as those in the countryside (chora) (Comparetti 1893, cols. 185–186), and I wish to thank one of the anonymous readers for help in developing this interpretation. 5. The heirs have unqualified rights to the town houses. On this passage, see Willetts 1967, pp. 64–65. Note that the verb used in this passage (ενϝοικεν) is related to the Attic ἐνοίκιον, which means “loan,” the money that must be paid for a dwelling place, i.e., the sum needed to live in a house.

houses in the household i

395

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

the legal right to inherit their father’s house (or houses), except in cases where they are obliged to share a third of the paternal home with their sister or sisters.6 The serfs who live in the country restrict the male citizens’ use of their rural property only to the (movable) furnishings of country houses, but not their ownership of that property; the serfs are needed to work the land, as implied by the collocation of “houses” and “serf living in the country.” References to houses also occur in two passages of the Gortyn laws that pertain to heiresses (πατρικος). The first passage (col. VII 29–35) reads: “As long as the groom-elect or the heiress is too young to marry, the heiress is to have the house ([σ]τέγαν), if there is one, and the groom-elect is to obtain half the revenue from everything.” Simply stated, the heiress retains possession of the house, if there is one, provided that either she or her groom-elect (ἐπιβάλλν) are still minors.7 On the other hand, the second passage (cols. VII 52–55, VIII 1–7) stipulates the following: “And if the heiress, though of an age to marry, should not wish to be married to the groom-elect, or the groom-elect be too young and the heiress be unwilling to wait, the heiress is to have a house (στέγαμ), if there be one in the city, besides whatever may be in that house, and, obtaining half the share of the rest, she is to be married to another, whomsoever she may wish of those who ask from the tribe.” This passage makes it clear that an heiress already of legally marriageable age has the right to possess a house in the city and its contents (along with half a share of the remaining property) not only if she refuses to marry the groomelect, but also if she does not want to wait for an underage groom-elect to reach his majority. In this case, however, the law adds that the rejected groom-elect must receive a share of the property. Furthermore, the heiress can transmit her inheritance, including the house—a fundamental element of a citizen’s estate—to her children even if she marries someone outside of her circle of relatives who does not have a house.8 These passages constitute every instance in the Great Code of Gortyn in which express mention is made of houses. In each case, only one word— stega (roof )—is used to denote the house as a physical unit.9 In addition to the above passages, the laws contain at least three other implicit references to houses. In the first of these passages (col. II 11–16), the text reads: “If a person should forcibly seduce a slave belonging to the house [as Willetts renders ἐνδοθιδίαν δλαν], he shall pay two staters; but if she has already been seduced, one obol by day, but if in the night, two obols; and the slave shall have preference in the oath.” This law outlines the fines to be imposed 6. On the sharing of the rest of the property among sons and daughters referred to in col. IV 48, see col. IV 37– 43, which states: “but all the rest of the property shall be fairly divided and the sons, no matter how many, shall each receive two parts, while the daughters, no matter how many, shall each receive one part.”

7. Cf. Davies 2005, pp. 321–322, who translates “next-claimant” rather than “groom-elect.” 8. See col. VIII 8–20, and Willetts 1967, p. 26. This prospect must admittedly have been rather remote, given that the law provides for marriage to other less closely related members of the tribe should the heiress reject the

first “next-claimant.” 9. Analogous to the Latin tectum. Note that the Greek (especially Attic) word meaning “house” is oikia, a word that appears in the Gortyn Great Code at col. V 26 with the rather different meaning of “family/household;” cf. Willetts 1967, p. 11.

396

francesco guizzi

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

on unspecified individuals who rape a female slave, specifically an ἐνδοθιδία δλα, whose sworn statement determines whether (and presumably by whom) the crime was committed. As Maffi has argued, the ἐνδοθιδία δλα is a slave born and bred in the house, which also is the place where

the crime was committed.10 The penalty here is less than that set down a few lines earlier for a free man who rapes a serf of either sex (ϝοικεύς/ ϝοικέα), namely two staters instead of five drachmas (col. II 7–10).11 But it is lower still if the slave is no longer a virgin at the time of the rape: one obol if the rape takes place during the day, two obols if during the night. For present purposes, the relevant element of this law is that the house describes both the origin of the slave and the scene of the crime. While the hypothesis that the rapist might be the slave’s master should not be excluded, the longstanding question of the identity of the perpetrator will not be discussed here; the prevailing view holds that a free outsider is most likely meant, not a free or slave member of the household.12 The symbolic value of the house also emerges from a second passage (col. II 20–24) found in a section of the laws that treats moicheia, an offense that should be understood as encompassing not only adultery, but also sexual intercourse with unmarried women and widows:13 “If someone be taken in adultery (μοικίν) with a free woman in a father’s, brother’s, or the husband’s house, he shall pay a hundred staters; but if in another’s, fifty.” Here, the amount of the fine levied depends on where the act of moicheia has taken place. If it happened inside a house belonging to the woman’s father, brother, or husband—in other words, a principal member of her family—the offender is to pay twice as much as if the offense occurred on another person’s property, perhaps belonging to a more distant relative or a completely unrelated individual.14 Moicheia committed within the confines of a family residence is thus the more serious crime, since it entails trespassing on that family’s real property as well as damaging the integrity of its womenfolk. A third passage (cols. VI 56–VII 1–4) corroborates the symbolic and juridical significance of the house, and it reads as follows: “[If the slave] goes to a free woman and marries her, their children shall be free; but if the free woman goes to the slave, their children shall be slaves.” For a free woman to enter into a marriage relationship with a slave and have children by him in her own house, implicit in the phrase ὀ δλος ἐπὶ τὰν ἐλευθέραν ἐλθν ὀπυίι, plainly has important consequences from a social viewpoint, for the offspring of such a union are considered free. The principle to be understood here is that residence in (ownership of ) a house in itself guarantees free status for the children of a free woman married to a slave. This certainly has to do with the house being the defining physical element of the citizen’s household. But it also shows the role of matrilinear transmission of the family estate, whereby the children of a free woman married to an individual of unfree status receive their mother’s free status. Together with the other legal prescriptions already quoted, this passage shows that women retained their social status only by residence in (and/or possession of ) a house in the city—their only proper dwelling according to birth or marriage. Outside of their father’s, brother’s, or husband’s houses—since, in the case of the woman marrying a slave, there would be no “husband’s house”—they lost part of their rights, and their social status was diminished.

10. The passage has been treated at length by Maffi (1999, esp. p. 101), with reference to col. III 27, where the word ἔνδοθεν is used to signify produce that is inside the house. 11. With Link (2001), Kristensen (2004), and Davies (2005, pp. 315– 316), I see no effective distinction between dolos and woikeus in the legal texts from Gortyn; see also Guizzi 2005, p. 104, n. 19. Cf. Maffi 1999, esp. pp. 102–103. 12. For a survey of scholarly opinion, see Maffi 1999, pp. 101–103. 13. For the word’s significance, see Cantarella 2005, esp. pp. 75–77. 14. For Athenian regulations on the same matter, see Ferrucci 2006, pp. 189–190; this volume (Chap. 34).

houses in the household i

397

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

“ H o u s es ” I n O th er Le gal T exts In addition to the Great Code, some other legal texts and public inscriptions offer interesting pieces of information about the house and its place in the household of a citizen of ancient Gortyn. An honorific decree for a man living in the neighboring community of Aulon (IC IV 64 = Van Effenterre and Ruzé 1994, no. 8), to be dated slightly before or contemporary with the Gortyn laws (probably in the first half of the 5th century b.c.), grants Dionysios, a benefactor of the polis, various privileges, among them a woikia (ϝοικία) in Aulon inside the pyrgos (the fortifications) and a woikopedon (ϝοικόπεδον) outside the pyrgos.15 The other privileges, including ateleia, give Dionysios the same rights as a citizen.16 His previous status must therefore have been that of a noncitizen, either a foreigner or a resident without the rights of full citizenship. The grant of a woikia located inside the fortifications demonstrates the importance of dwelling within the city, even if not in the urban center, for a man who already enjoys or receives citizenship. The use of the word woikia to mean “house” may depend on the context. The term can denote not only the actual physical house but also the right to possess a house; in Attica, this is called the ἔγκτησις οἰκίας. On the other hand, the collocation may also be intended to draw attention to the distinction between woikia and woikopedon, “house” as opposed to “parcel of land,” which may be the parallel at Gortyn to the Attic expression ἔγκτησις γῆς καὶ οἰκίας.17 Another 5th-century inscription, the treaty between Gortyn and Rhitten (IC IV 80 = Van Effenterre and Ruzé 1994, no. 7), seems to record a grant permitting the people of both cities the right to build houses and to plant trees (στέγαν δ’ἄν κα ϝοικοδομσ[ει ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ]ς  δένδρεα πυτεύσει), as well as to retain houses already built and groves already planted in the territory of the other polis. In this case, the word stega is associated with the verb ϝοικοδομν. To allow citizens of one city to erect houses on another city’s land was a very serious matter; in this instance, the probable dependence of Rhitten on Gortyn may have been a contributing factor in this legal measure.18 Both the words stega and woikia appear in a third inscription (IC IV 81 = Van Effenterre and Ruzé 1995, no. 47), a fragmentary document that sets out the procedures governing goods taken in pledge. Line 1, which is not fully preserved, refers to a ϝοικία in some connection with trees (δενδρέν).19 15. On the location of the site, see Perlman 1996, pp. 266–268. She casts doubts on the identification of the site with the modern village of Ayioi Deka, which has been accepted by Guarducci (IC IV, p. 119, after a suggestion by Comparetti [1893, col. 83]), and Marginesu (2005, pp. 36–38). 16. I follow Perlman 1996, p. 267, in interpreting the word ϝαστία δίκα as the right “to sue as a citizen of Gortyn,” implying a grant of citizenship by Gortyn, not by Aulon. Marginesu (2005, pp. 36–38) considers Aulon a kome of Gortyn. 17. On enktesis ges kai oikias, see Pečírka 1966; Henry 1983, pp. 205–221.

18. Cf. Guarducci (IC IV, p. 185, adducing Halbherr), who thought that the first section up to the word πυτεύσει had to do with ἔγκτησις (γῆς). 19. Davies (1996, pp. 48–49) translates IC IV 81, ll.1–16 as follows: “ . . . (concerning?) trees and house (if?) nine of the neighbours possessing land nearest by swear, [let the lawsuit go forward?]: but he is to summon three days beforehand in the presence of two witnesses the counter party [or: the person who has taken the pledge] in order to mark off (the property allegedly pledged): but if the latter should not be (present) to his summons, as has been written, let him mark off (the property)

himself and let him enjoin upon (the creditor) four days beforehand to appear in the agora before two witnesses. They are to swear that (the land) is verily (the property) of the summoner without damage justly before the suit was brought, but the person who took it as pledge (is to swear) that it is not (the summoner’s property): whichever way the majority swear is to win the case.” Davies also points out that the same text appears in IC IV 75 A, and he thinks that this inscription replaced IC IV 81, whose last sentence ends “in mid-air.”

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

398

francesco guizzi

Lines 16–22 (IC IV 81 =Van Effenterre and Ruzé 1995, no. 47) concern the oath that a man’s neighbors must take to prove that he does not live in the house from which some goods have been taken in pledge: “and if anyone takes [some goods] as pledge from a house (ἐς στέγας), and the one whose goods are taken as pledge says that he does not reside [in that house], three among nine of the neighbors have to swear with him, what he has said before, that the one whose goods are taken as pledge does not reside (μ ἐνϝοικν) [in that house].” The coordinated use of the words στέγα and ἐνϝοικν indicates that a residence is most likely involved.20 The possibility that the woikia in line 1 denotes a house in the country (because of the mention of trees) should not be ruled out.21 Alternatively, a city house with its garden could be imagined, or perhaps a building not used as a dwelling, distinct from the stega.22 The woikia could have been put in pledge, as surely some movable goods were to be found in the debtor’s dwelling place, and possibly the debtor himself.23 That goods apparently could not be taken in pledge if found outside the debtor’s residence, even if they were in another house belonging to him, may be inferred from the statement that the person intending to take the goods as pledge cannot take them from the stega mentioned in lines 16–17 if the debtor’s neighbors swear that he does not live in that stega. Because the beginning of the inscription is lost, little can be said about the woikia mentioned in line 1.

CON CLUSIONS From this brief survey of the epigraphic evidence, several findings can be drawn. Both the Great Code of Gortyn and the other laws examined seem to distinguish between houses inside the city (or at least in its larger urbanized area), which are apparently the dwellings of citizens, and houses that are located in the country and may or may not be inhabited by the serfs who work the land. This distinction is not expressed by different terms, however: stega (roof ) is most often used to signify the house as a physical structure, while the meaning of woikia is less clear-cut, occurring independently and in compounds.24 But this distinction has juridical implications. In representing city houses both as real property and as family residence, the laws reveal a variety of functions. The house appears as the instrument of familial/paternal authority in the Gortyn laws that pertain to the fate of children born to ex-wives following a divorce: it is the place where a father formally decides 20. The passage can be interpreted in two ways that are not mutually incompatible: (1) the debtor is the owner of the house where goods are taken in pledge, but does not live there; or (2) the person whose goods are taken in pledge is not the debtor. 21. Martini (1998, p. 93) thinks that the large number of neighbors called to give oaths proves that the house was situated in town and favors the idea of

Van Effenterre and Ruzé (1995, p. 9) that the houses were attached to each other; although, in this case, the existence of gardens with trees should be inferred from the context of houses. 22. Guarducci (IC IV, pp. 188– 190), however, states that trees and houses represent bona quae moveri non possunt and affirms it is impossible to distinguish between στέγα and ϝοικία so that one means “country house”

and the other “townhouse.” 23. For debt-bondage in Gortyn, see the Great Code, cols. I 56–II 1 and X 26, and the comments by Kristensen (2004) and Guizzi (2005, p. 104). 24. The term ϝοικία would seem to denote the right to own a house, although its fragmentary appearance at the beginning of IC IV 81 does not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

houses in the household i

25. See Guizzi 1997, p. 49.

399

whether to accept the child as his own. The house also can be a shelter and an inheritance for a free citizen’s daughter(s) in the absence of any other property. Additionally, an heiress (a woman without father or brothers) can enjoy secure possession of her family’s house in the city until she marries the groom-elect, or even if she ultimately decides not to take the family’s first choice as her husband. The house is effectively the foundation of a free woman’s rights, for if she marries a slave, provided that he has come to live with her, the children she will bear are likewise free, whereas if she leaves her house, they are not. In cases of rape and moicheia, the house also possesses a certain power to aggravate the offense, since the oath of a female domestic slave who has been raped has priority, and the fine imposed for moicheia committed with a free woman in a house belonging to members of her immediate family is much higher than if it occurred elsewhere. Not all of the appearances of houses in the laws surveyed here are concerned with their function as dwellings, however; houses in the country and the people who live and work in them are the subject of special provisions. In particular, the stipulation that sons can inherit only the contents of rural properties not inhabited by serfs implies that serfs indeed live in other houses owned by a family. The oaths regarding a person’s nonresidence in a house, to be sworn by his neighbors when someone has taken his movable property in pledge, likewise indicate that there were numerous houses occupied by people who did not own them—in other words, tenants or serfs. Such dispositions are likely to have been intended to preserve the social organization on which the political and economic life of Gortyn was based.25

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 3 4

H o u s e s i n t h e H ou s e hol d I I : Fr om G ort y n to At h e n s an d Bac k by Stefano Ferrucci

In this paper, I will compare the data Francesco Guizzi (this volume, Chap. 33) has gathered and analyzed on houses and households from the epigraphic sources at Gortyn with the Athenian evidence.1 Sources that describe architectural features of residential buildings, however, will not be considered here;2 rather, my focus will be on the legal and socioeconomic contexts in which houses were in some way involved in order to illustrate how the concept of “house” functioned as an important marker of family identity and the changing social dynamics of household and community.

“ H o u s e ” an d “ H ou s eh o ld” i n At h en i an Texts In Athenian literary texts, the house—in the sense of a residence—is usually denoted by the word oikia. But this is not the only meaning of the word; it could sometimes designate a family (in other words, the group of persons sharing the same building) from both the material and the social point of view. On the other hand, the most common word used to refer to the family is, by far, oikos. A rigorous distinction between oikos and oikia is difficult to discern in Attic usage: both terms are similarly ambiguous in that they signify the house as a building but also the house/household as a whole, including people (the family) and, in the case of oikos, goods (property) and even household cults.3 Oikia usually refers to a piece of real 1. I thank deeply my sister, Sara Silvia Ferrucci, who revised the English version of this paper. I am also much indebted to Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, Kevin Glowacki, and Stefanie Kennell for their useful and valuable suggestions. 2. For recent discussion of the houses of Classical Athens (with bibliography), see Ferrucci 1996; Nevett 1999. 3. Definitions of the oikos as normally comprising both property and

persons are widespread in modern scholarship: see, e.g., Finley 1951, pp. 40–42; Lacey 1968, pp. 13–16; Humphreys 1983, p. 67; Todd 1993, p. 204; Pomeroy 1994, pp. 20–23; Patterson 1998, pp. 1–4, 97–101. For a discussion of the term in the historical literature, see Patterson 1998, pp. 5–43. The importance of religion within the Greek family, though confined to the worship of the dead and the domestic cult of male ancestors, was central to

Fustel de Coulanges (1874, pp. 31–41), e.g., “ce qui unit les membres de la famille antique . . . c’est la religion du foyer et des ancêtres” (p. 40). Studying the structure of the Greek domestic unit is more than a matter of analyzing legal concepts, as Foxhall (1989, pp. 22–25) has pointed out; see also Pomeroy 1994, pp. 213–214. Cox (1998, pp. 132–135) provides a corrective to the unsatisfactory interpretation of oikos as “nuclear family.”

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

402

s t e fa n o f e r r u c c i

property. When oikia means “family,” it appears to denote a nuclear family living within a house, as in Aristotle’s Politics 1.3, and it seldom entails the complexity of the larger organizational unit of the oikos.4 The oikos never means “house” in juridical contexts, and it rarely has that significance in the Attic orators, where it instead describes a family unit—including oiketai and other slaves—and all properties for which the kyrios is legally responsible. It would not be too unconventional, at first sight, to understand the oikia as “house”—and sometimes, by extension, the family living in the house—and oikos as “household.”5 Houses distinguish what is inside from what is outside. This remark, since it is so obvious, may appear otiose, but a passage in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus (1.5) shows the connection between the two words: Socrates: “Well then, an estate (oikos)—what do we think it is? Is it the same as a house (oikia) or does it include whatever a person possesses outside the house, as well? Critobulus: “I certainly think that even if it is not in the same city as the possessor, everything a person possesses is part of his estate.”6 What lies outside the house (exo tes oikias) is still part of the estate (oikos), in the same way that the house itself is.This relationship is readily apparent and well documented in our sources. But at the same time, a deeper connection (linguistic, if nothing else) exists between oikia and oikos that cannot be clarified simply by making the former an element of the latter. The oikia appears to be more than just one of the components that constitute the oikos, meaning the relationship between house and household is more complex than it appears.

OI K IA AN D OI KOS IN LE GAL CONTEXTS We should expect legal arrangements to be concerned with the oikos in the course of settling property issues. That is in fact what occurs, even if the word oikos is seldom used. In the misthosis oikou, the polis, through the archon, arranged for the management of a ward’s estate; the so-called posthumous adoption was crucial in preventing an oikos from becoming eremos.7 We never find oikos to mean “house” in legal language: when the 4. Arist. Pol. 1253b2–8: a polis is made up of oikiai, though in this passage an oikia can include both free persons and slaves. 5. The meaning of the word oikos is elastic in Attic usage, depending on which aspect of the term is stressed (house, family, property): see MacDowell 1989, pp. 10–11; Cox 1998, p. 132. Oikia in literary texts can sometimes mean “family” (e.g., Isoc. 19.7; Arist. Pol. 1253b2–1255b15) and perhaps “property” (Isae. 6.18, cited in MacDowell 1989, p. 11, which I would in

any case prefer to interpret as “family” as opposed to chremata), but by far the most common meaning is that of “house” in the physical sense of a building or dwelling, the usage that invariably appears in inscriptions and juridical contexts. 6. Xen. Oec. 1.5, trans. Pomeroy 1994, p. 105. 7. For the misthosis oikou and the security horoi, see Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 56.7; [Dem.] 43.75; Finley 1951, pp. 38– 44; Harrison 1968, pp. 105–108, 293– 296. Oikos here must be “the whole

property,” whatever that actually means; see MacDowell 1989, pp. 13–15. Attic law distinguished between a dike kakoseos oikou orphanon and a dike kakoseos orphanon (Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 56.6); in the former, the ward’s oikos is precisely what is to be protected from the legal standpoint, which seems to prove that oikos had a juridical value in Attic law. For posthumous adoption, see Rubinstein 1993, pp. 25–28, 105–112; on the eremos oikos, see Asheri 1960. I will not discuss here the question of whether Athenian law recognized the

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

houses in the household ii

403

Athenian polis made dispositions governing the life of a single oikos, it was clear that the focus was on the family and its properties, not on the physical structure of the house.8 The use of oikiai, on the other hand, always represents houses in legal contexts such as the grant of enktesis ges kai oikias,9 the sale of confiscated properties by the poletai, the leasing of sacred or public properties, and surety horoi. Here the distinction between the two words becomes definite. Houses can, in a manner of speaking, be subject to legal obligations. A house may be sold, leased, or mortgaged. Both epigraphic and literary evidence testify to how widespread these transactions were, at least beginning with the last quarter of the 5th century b.c. No particular guarantee was required to safeguard houses. There is no doubt that “visible” goods (phanera)—land and houses in the first instance—were once the sort of property honest citizens were expected to own, but during the 5th century, houses and land began to be managed in a money-making way. The phanera could thus be transformed into aphanes ousia (cash money), something that occurred so frequently that the Athenians coined a word to express it: exargyrizein. Even if we avoid speaking of a “real-estate market” in Classical Athens, we must admit that the traditional landscape of family values and household organization had changed profoundly: in Gernet’s words, “the economy had done its job.”10

M u lt iple H ou s es i n th e H ou s eh old The most notable casualty of the “new” (or, rather, “renovated”) order was landed property. In the 4th century, we know of some huge estates that did not possess a single plethron of land. While Demosthenes’ father was rich in money, industrial workshops (ergasteria), slaves, furniture, and other chattels, and had a residence in the city, he owned no land.11 The traditional identity of the Athenian citizen as landowner, peasant, or, as Weber characterized it, rentier, was dissolving into a variety of categories.12 Landowners did not disappear, of course, but they were no longer the only category of citizen. The sources inform us, however, that the only real estate that could not be done without was the house. Sometimes we find an Athenian estate comprising more than one house, a situation that seems to be paralleled on Classical Crete, to judge from the preserved epigraphic testimonia.13 In Athens, for example, Dikaiogenes II owned two oikiai en astei (one was the residence of Dikaiogenes III), legal rights only of individuals or also of the oikos. The existence of a ius familiae based on oikos membership as a branch of Athenian law, strongly stated by Paoli (1961), has been denied by MacDowell (1989, pp. 19–21); see also Ferrucci 2006. 8. There is a possible exception in the Demotionidai decree, where oikos seems to mean a meeting place: see

Hedrick 1990, pp. 50–51; Cox 1998, p. 132; cf. Lambert 1993, pp. 117–118, for a different explanation. 9. Pečírka 1966; Henry 1983, pp. 204–223. In a few cases the grant is restricted to the house alone; see IG II2 53, lines 2–4 (“a lesser privilege,” according to Henry 1983, p. 205). For Gortyn, cf. IC IV 64 (= Van Effenterre and Ruzé 1994, no. 8), discussed by

Guizzi in this volume (Chap. 33). 10. Gernet 1956, p. 82. 11. For the estate of Demosthenes’ father, see Davies 1971, pp. 126–133. 12. Casson 1976; Cox 1998, pp. 138–141. 13. For ownership of multiple houses in Gortyn, see Guizzi in this volume (Chap. 33).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

404

s t e fa n o f e r r u c c i

a synoikia in the Kerameikos, and two oikidia exo teichous; Euktemon had an oikia en astei and two synoikiai, one in the Piraeus, the other in the Kerameikos; Kiron owned two oikiai en astei, living in one and leasing the other, which was near the temple of Dionysos en Limnais; Stratokles bought two houses and leased them, the former at Melite, the latter at Eleusis; and the list goes on.14 In contrast with the situation on Crete, however, it is evident that Attic houses functioned not only as places to live and work, but also as sources of income, purchased in order to be leased for profit, and even as sites of production, when they accommodated ergasteria.15 Oikiai en astei (urban houses) are present in the lists of properties presented by the orators, and the phrase also occurs on a horos that marked a mortgaged property.16 The Attic stelai recording the property confiscated from the Hermokopidai refer to houses situated in Kollytos, Kydathenaion, and Semachidai, which are all urban districts. The poletai (sale records) mention houses in Agryle and Alopeke, as well as one on the island of Salamis.17 Most of the houses located (even roughly) within Attica, and the great majority of those used as a family’s primary residence, were, as far as we can tell, sited in the city proper. There were houses in the country, to be sure, since descriptions in the horoi such as oikia kai chorion or gepedon clearly suggest a rural location.18 The records of the Hermokopidai confiscations contain both oikiai en agroi and oikiai en astei, while Thucydides refers to rich Athenians dwelling in the country (kata ten choran . . . en tois agrois), at least until the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War.19 We can suppose that they resided in the city while working and doing business in the country. This behavior is exhibited at a different social level by Xenophon’s Ischomachos and Lysias’s Euphiletos, who both leave their homes in the morning to go to their country estates and return to town in the evening—or when their work is over. But this sort of commuting was not necessarily the only pattern of use in the Attic countryside.20 To summarize this initial survey of Athenian residential patterns and the attitude they reveal toward houses in Classical times, the town is the primary place where houses are located, and the demand for residences in 14. Isae. 5.11, 22, 26–27; 6.19–20, 34; 8.35; 11.42. In fact, all of the seven oikiai mentioned in Isaeus’s speeches are in town: see Ferrucci 1998, p. 122. For other instances in literary texts, see Finley 1951, pp. 60–65; Cox 1998, p. 137 and n. 33. 15. Bettalli 1985, pp. 40–42. 16. For urban houses in the Attic orators, see, e.g., Lys. 19.29; Isae. 5.11, 22; 6.19–20, 34; 8.35; 11.42, 44; Dem. 27.10; Aeschin. 1.98. The horos (315/4 b.c.), found at Vari, refers to an oikia kai chorion and an oikia en astei, clearly part of the same estate (Finley 1951, p. 124, no. 14); cf. the horos from the Dipylon Gate (Finley 1951, p. 142, no. 87).

17. For the houses of the Hermokopidai, see IG I3 424, lines 5–7; 426, lines 6, 84; 430, line 15; for houses of the Thirty Tyrants, see Walbank 1982; for other poletai sales, see Agora XIX, pp. 77–78, P5, lines 11–36. 18. IG I3 427, lines 23–26: two oikiai and gepeda in the rural deme of Athmonon. The grant of enktesis could allow ownership of gepeda kai oikia (see Henry 1983, p. 220). 19. IG I3 427, lines 72–77 (oikiai en agroi); Thuc. 2.16.1. 20. Xen. Oec. 11.14–15; Lys. 1.11; Thuc. 2.14.2; cf. Dem. 53.4, 6; IG I3 427, lines 70, 73, 77. For Greek literary sources concerning urban and rural residences, see Musti 1979. For rural

settings in Attica, see the Dema House ( Jones, Sackett, and Graham 1962, pp. 101–103, who interpret the building as a private house) or the house at Vari ( Jones, Graham, and Sackett 1973), and archaeological finds at Sounion and Thorikos ( Jones 1975); Nevett (1999, pp. 83–87, 95–97) provides a useful review. For isolated farms and residence on the land (denied by Osborne [1985a, pp. 119, 126–128; 1985b, pp. 17–36; 1992]), see Pečírka 1973; Langdon 1991; Roy 1996, pp. 116–118; Cavanagh, Mee, and James 2005, pp. 3–5. For residence in Attic demes (case studies from Thorikos, Halai Aixonides, and Rhamnous), see Nevett 2005.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

houses in the household ii

405

the city center stimulated the leasing of urban dwellings. Rural houses go hand in hand with landed property and agricultural activities, and a slave population lived there, at least for doing seasonal work, but perhaps also year-round. It would be good to know more about the slaves who worked the land in Attica (just as for Crete). Ischomachos, the head of a rather idealized oikos in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, could count on a certain number of trusted slaves to manage his estate (epitropoi, epimeletai) while he lived in town.21 But the possibility that someone who owned a house in the country and was of a lower social class than Ischomachos might have lived there himself is difficult to rule out.

Th e H ou s e and Fam ily Id en t i t y In regard to the function and meaning of houses, the evidence leads in two main directions that may seem contradictory. I present them as follows. The first body of evidence indicates that the house more and more became a tangible piece of property that preserved family identity in lieu of landholdings. For example, in describing the model organization of an oikos and the division of labor between men and women within the family, Xenophon has Ischomachos say to his wife, “Human beings do not live outdoors, like cattle, but obviously have need of shelter.”22 The word for “house” in this instance is stegai (plural, as is usual in Attic usage when “house” is meant); it appears repeatedly in this passage to indicate the protected, roofed place where produce from the countryside is kept, processed, and stored (a house’s functional role), but it also indicates a kind of protection that enables a woman to express her nature by working and living indoors (a house’s symbolic role). That the word stege is used by an author like Xenophon to denote part of the oikos may not be accidental, nor is the usage so very “Attic,” if we compare it with the definition found in the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomicus; thus, in Xenophon at least, we may be seeing a gradual escalation from stegai to oikiai to oikos in the representation of private spaces, from the simplest to the most organizationally complex.23 Nevertheless, we keep in mind that Xenophon provides an “aristocratic” representation of the Athenian oikos, and this may have had an effect on the terminology he uses to describe the household. In the second body of evidence, land begins to lose its attractiveness in the newer urbanized reality in which commercial, manufacturing, and 21. Xen. Oec. 7.35, 11.12, 12.3; see Pomeroy 1994, pp. 281–282. On the agricultural labor of household slaves, see Jameson 1977–1978. 22. Xen. Oec. 7.19–21. 23. A definition of the “Attic way” of managing a household, compared with the “Persian method,” appears in Arist. [Oec.] 1344b28–1345a33 (Ischomachos’s oikos is much more like the latter); see Jameson 1977–1978,

pp. 140–145; Descat 1987, pp. 242– 244; Roscalla 1990; Faraguna 1994, pp. 569–570. The word stegai occurs twice in the Anabasis (Xen. An. 4.4.14, 5.5.20), denoting a shelter for soldiers; in the latter passage, Xenophon is clearly talking about the houses in Cotyora, with en tais stegais in contrast to hypaithrioi. The same usage occurs in Xen. Oec. 7.19, where beasts live en toi hypaithroi, while in Oec. 8.13, stega

represents a dining room the same size as a storage space (see Pomeroy 1994, pp. 288–289). Perhaps it is worth noting that Herodotus (1.133.4) uses the word stegarchos to indicate the aristocratic Persian householder; the word stega, however, never occurs again in the Histories with the meaning of “house” (cf. a possible exception in Hdt. 2.2.2, again a building in a rural context).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

406

s t e fa n o f e r r u c c i

financial activities continue to develop.24 At the same time, houses were also involved in financial transactions as demand for dwelling places likely became more intense. From one point of view, the house represents the very heart of a citizen’s oikos, sometimes more than landed property. From another perspective, the economic value of houses undermines their social role in a certain way. These two phenomena are clearly illustrated by a passage from Isaeus in which a guardian (Dikaiogenes) sells the family home of his ward and the jurors are told that this is the worst act he could commit.25 Dikaiogenes bought and destroyed his family’s house (oikia patroia) in order to make a garden near his own house in the city, probably in the deme of Kydathenaion. While being sensitive to the sentimental claims of wards, we should note that no legal provision existed to protect the oikia patroia from being sold.

Th e H o use’s S ymbo lic and Lega l Cha racter as Illustrated in Cas es o f Ad ultery Cases of adultery (moicheia) enable us to appreciate the symbolic as well as the legal character of the “house” both in Athens and on Crete. An Athenian law quoted by Demosthenes (Or. 23.53) lists the situations in which murder is not punishable; included in this list is the murder of a man caught “near” (epi) another man’s wife, sister, mother, daughter, or concubine (pallake).26 From Lysias’s well-known speech On the Murder of Eratosthenes, which is concerned with adultery (moicheia), we learn that murder was not the only solution, because Eratosthenes, when caught by Euphiletos, unsuccessfully begged the angry husband to accept money instead of killing him.27 Apollodoros’s Against Neaira tells us the adulterer (moichos) may assert his innocence and take the case to court, but if he is convicted, the woman’s kyrios may do “whatever he wants” to him. 28 It is worth noting that both Euphiletos and Stephanos, the respective kyrioi of the women in these two orations, were away in the country when the acts of moicheia took place. Women stayed indoors at home (endon) in the city, but they were exposed to risk when their men went out (exo) into the countryside to work, perform sacrifices, or for any reason whatsoever. In Lysias’s speech, the house plays a central role because it is the scene of the crime. To make it easier for his wife to nurse their baby, Euphiletos moved upstairs, leaving her the ground floor. This circumstance—characterized as sort of upside-down (to ano kato), meaning that something had gone wrong in Euphiletos’s family life—explains how Eratosthenes was able to gain entry easily without being seen and be welcomed by the woman. But it also prepares the jury to recognize the violation of Euphiletos’s home and explains why Eratosthenes was killed downstairs, a fact that must have aroused some suspicion, since jurors would have expected the moichos to have been caught on the upper floor, which was where women normally lived. In the “Law Code” of Gortyn (col. II 20–45), we find no reference to murder in connection with moicheia. Instead, the perpetrator was subject to a fine payable to the family of the woman, with the amount contingent on where the crime was committed. The house is a decisive factor in deter-

24. The symbolic value of landed property seems mainly to affect noncitizens: the first act of the banker Pasion, a former slave, when he became a citizen was to buy land: Dem. 36.5; cf. Davies 1971, p. 431. 25. Isae. 5.11. 26. See also Ar. Nub. 1083–1084; [Dem.] 59.87. 27. Lys. 1.25. 28. [Dem.] 59.64–66.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

houses in the household ii

407

mining the fine at Gortyn: if adultery occurred in the house of the woman’s father, brother, or husband, the penalty was greater (100 staters); if it took place in someone else’s house, half that sum was to be paid. Here, as also in a section of the code regulating the marriage of a free woman to a slave, recently analyzed by Guizzi, the house is seen to possess both a symbolic and a juridical character, and this is strongly emphasized in the legislation.29 In comparing Athenian and Gortynian laws regarding moicheia, Paoli states that they were more similar than they might appear at first glance. He thinks that the law concerning moicheia, like other legislation relating to the family, was part of an original Greek ius commune, so that the evidence we have from Athens for this subject should be extended to cover the entire Greek world; in Paoli’s view, Athens and Gortyn must have had the same dispositions regarding adultery.30 This may go too far, however, even if passages in Lysias and Xenophon suggest that only in the case of adultery was the murderer of a moichos not punished in any Greek city.31 The law of Gortyn, in contrast to the Athenian evidence, does not mention the option of killing the moichos; thus, Paoli was forced to assume that legal provisions concerning the act must have been recorded in some lost section of the inscription, which seems a very weak argument. He is nonetheless correct in underlining how closely the laws coincide in other aspects, especially in according the house a place of the highest importance. Violation of the family home (oikia) is a key factor in cases of moicheia, and the legal emphasis placed on it should be regarded as an effort to enforce respect for the family as an organized entity (oikos), and thereby protect the core of a citizen’s existence.32

Con clu s ion

29. Guizzi, this volume (Chap. 33). 30. Paoli 1976, pp. 3–5, 513–517. On moicheia, see the literature in Arnaoutoglou 1998, p. 22. 31. Lys. 1.2; Xen. Hier. 3.3–4. In fact, while Lysias states that killing the moichos was allowed en hapase Helladi, Xenophon is more cautious and perhaps more accurate in saying that “many of the Greek cities (pollai ton poleon) allow the killing of the moichos without penalty.” Cf. also Menander fr. 267 in Kassel-Austin, Poetae comici graeci 6.2. Sparta was a notable exception; see MacDowell 1986, p. 87. 32. The relationship between the law against moicheia and protection of the oikos is argued by Paoli (1976, pp. 268–270), who also sees a link between moichos and kleptes or kakourgos in Attic law (Paoli 1976, pp. 278–280).

In conclusion, we can say that Athenian sources relating to houses in the Classical period represent two perspectives. On the one hand, the house is a marker of family identity, with strong symbolic significance, both societally and emotionally. In a society composed of citizens who were no longer regarded merely as landowners, the house was the preeminent setting in which families presented their external connections and internal organization. On the other hand, however, it was precisely the fact that society was changing that endowed houses with economic value, setting a price on them and using them as possessions to be leased, mortgaged, or sold. Were these two views in conflict? Did the increasing economic importance of houses lead to a loss of the house’s symbolic power within the social structure of the family? I would not go so far. The laws against moicheia show that, even in Athens, the symbolic value of the family house still carried weight in the 4th century: the oikia patroa as well as the oikos as residence were to be protected and honored; the ownership of oikiai and land was still the privilege of citizens—even if, in the 4th century, it seems to have become a privilege that money could buy. The law concerning moicheia should certainly be regarded as “archaic” in Athenian terms, where the protection of the house coincides with protection against offenses to the oikos, and it shows strong similarities to the example of Gortyn on Crete.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

408

s t e fa n o f e r r u c c i

Additionally, urbanization caused houses to acquire great economic value, and the Athenians did not seem to take an interest in limiting this trend. New behaviors emerged during the Athenian democracy: new relationships within the family, as did new family estates and new social definitions. Houses reflected these new possibilities, and they became important markers of change. From this point of view, Gortynian law seems to provide stronger protection for both the primary residence and for people living in the countryside. Comparing Athens with Gortyn, we find similar features in some social patterns (multiple houses in town and country within a single estate, rural slaves working and likely living in country houses) and legal provisions (the role of the house in cases of moicheia), but at Athens, where there is no sign that the polis was ever concerned with, or, as far as we know, ever tried to restrain widely attested economic attitudes, a crucial distinction emerges. The first and most obvious reason lies in the different social structures of the two cities, not to mention the disparate ways in which urbanism developed in each. For Classical Athens, I would suggest that the house, while still retaining its symbolic value, had become, to borrow the terminology of the economic theorist Karl Polanyi, a “disembedding good” in a “disembedded society.”

c hap ter 3 5

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

D om e st i c A s s e m b l ag e s f r om Try p i tos, S i t e i a: P r i vat e an d C om mu nal A s p e c ts by Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan

In their monumental treatise Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, published in 1994, W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwander argue that the orthogonal plan adopted by many cities of the Classical and Hellenistic periods reflects a democratic ideology, which encouraged the construction of houses of similar size and design.1 L. Nevett has pointed out, however, that Hoepfner and Schwander’s democratic model is strongly influenced by the documentary evidence of Athenian society, and thus it might not hold true for communities where the qualifications of citizenship and the mechanisms of government were different.2 According to Nevett, Sparta, with her different social and political system, would offer an interesting case for comparison; however, the scanty archaeological evidence from this area makes such a study impossible at present.3 Another area similar to Sparta, in terms of its social and political system, is Crete. In fact, most of the ancient sources (Plato, Aristotle, and Strabo) indicate that the “Lakonian” system of communal living was first developed on Crete and only later borrowed by the Spartans.4 It is therefore worth exploring whether the domestic organization of the Cretan houses reflected the sociopolitical system attested in these sources. To begin with, both literary and archaeological evidence for the domestic organization of Classical and Hellenistic Crete is very limited. At Lato, where hundreds of ancient houses were excavated at the end of the 19th century, only seven have been published in any detail.5 Built on a hill with very few natural flat areas, the houses of the 4th-century b.c. settlement at Lato adopted a linear type of architecture due to the narrow terraces on which they were built. The thorough publication of Hellenistic House A at Eleutherna has contributed considerably to our knowledge of Cretan domestic architecture, although little can be said about the planning and domestic organization of the city itself.6 The plan of House A confirms 1. Hoepfner and Schwander 1994, esp. pp. 303–305, 312–313. 2. Nevett 1999, pp. 20, 27, and 167– 168. 3. The recent excavations at the site of Geraki (ancient Geronthrai) in

Lakonia have uncovered remains of Hellenistic houses, the study of which is expected to shed significant light on Lakonian households. See Crouwel et al. 2004. 4. Pl. Leg. 1.625e–633a; Arist.

Pol. 2.7.1–2; Strabo 10.4.17. 5. Hadjimichali 1971. For a more recent discussion of the Lato houses, see Westgate 2007. 6. Kalpaxis, Furtwängler, and Schnapp 1994; see also Westgate 2007.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

410

n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

that linear architecture was popular throughout the island, dictated, no doubt, by the mountainous landscape.7 In fact, the plans of the houses at Lato and Eleutherna differ very little from those of the late 19th-century farmhouses (metochia) on the Katharo plateau of the Diktaian mountains.8 To the small corpus of published houses from Lato and Eleutherna, we can now add the site of Trypitos in East Crete.9 Using the site of Trypitos as an example, the aim of this paper is twofold: first, to study the domestic organization of the ancient town by analyzing its spatial planning and the nature of the domestic assemblages; and second, to consider the archaeological evidence within the context of the ancient literary sources, which attest a different social and political organization for the cities of Crete, and ask “were the social institutions of the polis reflected in any way in the organization of the oikos?”

Th e Si t e of Tryp i tos The site of Trypitos is located on a small peninsula a few kilometers east of Siteia (Fig. 35.1). The excavations, which began in 1987 under the direction of the late N. Papadakis, brought to light the remains of a Hellenistic settlement that includes several houses, parts of a fortification wall running across the southern part of the promontory, and a city gate. The settlement is dated from the second half of the 3rd century b.c. to the first 7. Nevett (1999, pp. 120–122) discusses briefly the plan of a Hellenistic house in the area of Chalara at Phaistos, which seems to have been organized around a court, but the evidence is so limited that it prevents further dis-

cussion of the house’s plan and function. 8. Arakadaki 2004, pp. 78, 81, plans 2, 4. 9. For a recent review of Hellenistic domestic architecture in Crete, see Westgate 2007.

Figure 35.1. Plan of Trypitos.

After Vogeikoff-Brogan and Papadakis 2003, p. 67, fig. 22

dome stic assemblage s from trypitos, siteia

411

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

half of the 2nd on the basis of the stamped amphora handles, the lamps, and the rest of the pottery.10 It is a rather short habitation period, lasting approximately 75–100 years. The presence of a considerable number of bronze coins carrying the abbreviation ΠΟ—a type that does not appear elsewhere on Crete or in the Aegean—suggests that the Hellenistic town of Trypitos was an autonomous polis issuing her own coinage.11 The study of the archaeological evidence indicates the site was abandoned forcefully and not reinhabited again. I have argued elsewhere about the de facto character of the artifact depositions, taking into consideration, however, that some of the artifactual remains might be associated with the latest phase of a room’s history, which might or might not be different from the original function of the space.12 Whether the destruction of Trypitos can be connected with that of neighboring Praisos in the middle of the 2nd century b.c. is a matter of ongoing study.13 Trypitos is a one-period site. The different building phases, which are occasionally visible in the blocked doorways, are not represented either in the study of the pottery or in the stratigraphic record, where only a single floor deposit was identified in each room. The state of preservation is not uniform across the site; the uneven nature of the evidence is partly due to bulldozing, which occurred at the site in the 1960s. As a result, we have not been able to reconstruct the full plan of any one house at Trypitos, despite the good state of preservation in the parts of the settlement not affected by the bulldozer. The site is also in great need of a new topographic and architectural site plan, as a good number of construction details are missing from the existing one.

Spat i al Plan n in g The excavations have uncovered the southern part of the settlement near the fortification wall, which was built to protect the settlement from inland enemies. Without an overall topographic plan, it is difficult to estimate how much of the settlement has been excavated, but it could be as much as onefifth of the entire habitation. The excavations have brought to light at least six building clusters (Clusters A, B1, B2, C, D, E), each containing two to three structures (Fig. 35.2). Unlike at Lato, the relatively flat peninsula of Trypitos permitted the adoption of a rough grid system for the layout of the city, and four of the clusters are separated by stone-paved streets oriented in an east–west direction (Fig. 35.2). There also must have been streets running in a north–south direction, as is evident from the orientation of the rooms in Cluster C. Cluster A, adjacent to the city wall, housed the prytaneion of the city.14 This paper will concentrate on Clusters B1, B2, and E. 10. For preliminary presentations of the pottery, see Vogeikoff-Brogan and Papadakis 2003; Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004. 11. Papadakis 1995. 12. Vogeikoff-Brogan and Papadakis 2003, p. 69. 13. On the basis of Finkielsztejn’s (2001) revision of the chronology of the

Rhodian stamped amphoras, the majority of the Rhodian stamped handles from Trypitos should be dated between 225 and 175 b.c. This evidence suggests that the destruction of Trypitos was earlier than that of Praisos (Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming). See also Papadakis 2000 for a preliminary presentation of the stamped amphora han-

dles from Trypitos, without chronological interpretation, however. 14. For the possible identification of room A 1 as a prytaneion, see Papadakis 1988, p. 561, pl. 347:a; and VogeikoffBrogan and Papadakis 2003, p. 68. For a discussion of the function of rooms A 6, A 7, and A 8, north of A 1, see Sofianou in this volume (Chap. 36).

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

412

n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

Clusters B1 and B2, although not fully preserved, must have shared similar dimensions, each covering an area of approximately 250 m2 on the ground floor. Cluster E is narrower in width because of the rising bedrock on the north side and covers an area of approximately 150 m2. Each cluster contained three houses. From a brief examination of the plans of the buildings in Clusters B1, B2, and E, one observes that they are small in comparison to the Hellenistic houses on mainland Greece. For example, the ground floor of the majority of the houses on the North Hill of Olynthos covered an area of 230–250 m2 each.15 Significantly, unlike the houses on mainland Greece, Asia Minor, and on Sicily, there are no interior courts in the houses of Trypitos and Lato.16 The three buildings in Cluster B1 provide an introduction to the plan of the houses, which are oblong and follow a linear arrangement (Fig. 35.2). The ground floor of each house is organized into two areas—the living quarters and the auxiliary spaces—with a single street entrance. In all three houses the living quarters comprise two communicating rooms, while the auxiliary areas are concentrated at either end of the house. In the southernmost building (rooms B 1–B 3), the main room with the hearth (room B 1) displays a high openness value because of its two doorways.17 The same is also true for the main rooms of the other two houses in Cluster B1 (room B 7 for the middle house, and room B 8 for the north house). Finally, the house plans indicate some effort to prevent direct access to the living quarters, either through the provision of an anteroom (room B 3 for the south house, and room B 10 for the north house) or a long corridor (used to enter the middle house of Cluster B1), which sometimes can be angled. In the case of Cluster B2, there is a somewhat different arrangement in the ground plan of the buildings (Figs. 35.2, 35.3). As preserved, Building A consists of two rooms (B 11, B 12) and a corridor (B 11a), with one or two more rooms in the destroyed western part of the house (Figs. 35.4, 35.5).

Figure 35.2 (above). Circulation patterns at Trypitos. N. Vogeikoff-Brogan Figure 35.3 (opposite, top). Restored plan of Cluster B2, Buildings A, B, and C, with distribution of artifacts. N. Vogeikoff-Brogan

Figure 35.4 (opposite, bottom). Cluster B2, Building A. View from the west. Photo N. Vogeikoff-Brogan

15. Nevett 1999, p. 65, fig. 11. 16. For courtyard houses in Hellenistic Crete, see Westgate 2007, pp. 441– 445. 17. On openness value, see Nevett 1999, p. 178.

B 14

Building B

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Building A

B E N C H gourna

B 11

gourna

B 18

B 13

plaster

B 11a

grain mill

female mask

B 17 rubber-hopper

B 12 gourna

B 15

B 16

Building C 0

1

2

3

4

5m

414

n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n Figure 35.5 (left). Cluster B2, Building A, corridor B 11a. View from the north. Photo N. Vogeikoff-Brogan Figure 35.6 (below). View of Trypitos, from the north. Clusters E and B2 are in the foreground. Photo

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

N. Vogeikoff-Brogan

dome stic assemblage s from trypitos, siteia

415

E6

E3

Building A

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

STREET C

Building B

E5

E2

1 iron knife 3 stone tools

perirrhanterion

lekane

1 stone gourna

E1

E4

Figure 35.7. Restored plan of Cluster E, Buildings A, B, and C, with distribution of artifacts. N. Vogeikoff-

Brogan

18. On inaccessibility value, see Nevett 1999, p. 177.

Building C 0

1

2

3

4

5m

The main room of the building (B 11) shows both a low value of openness (one entryway) and a high value of accessibility (its location next to the main entrance of the house).18 Room B 13 of Building B in the same cluster also displays the same features (Figs. 35.2, 35.6). Both Buildings A and B were equipped with separate kitchen or pantry areas; in addition, an angled passageway (B 11a for House A and B 18 for House B) blocked any view of the inner quarters of each house. Little can be said about the original layout of Building C to the east of Building B, but we restore a small structure with two rooms (B 15, B 16), one containing a built hearth. Of the three houses in Cluster B2, it is certain that Building A was equipped with an upper floor, on the basis of a stairway at the west end of angled corridor B 11a and the stone-built pillar in the middle of room B 11 (Figs. 35.2, 35.4). In addition, the destruction layers of B 11 and B 11a yielded joining fragments of pottery, which must have fallen from an upper floor. Cluster E, consisting of three buildings, is smaller than the previous pair of clusters because of the hilly rock that blocks its northern end (Fig. 35.2). Unlike most of the houses we have seen so far, there is no passageway screening the entrance to Building A, which consists of rooms E 3, E 5, and E 6 (Figs. 35.6, 35.7). The main room (E 3) exhibits both a high value of openness (two doorways) and a high value of accessibility (one of its doorways opens directly onto the street). Building B consists of a single room (E 2) that opens onto the street with no access to the rest of the buildings (Figs. 35.2, 35.7). Room E 1 of Building C (on the east end of the block) again offered direct access to the street, while a second entrance led to room E 4, which contained a built hearth in the middle.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

416

n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

On the basis of the architectural evidence from Clusters B1, B2, and E, it is obvious that we are dealing with three different types of structures: (a) in Cluster B1, the houses display a linear arrangement with communicating rooms; (b) in the two buildings of Cluster B2, there is provision for a separate space (room B 11 for Building A, and room B 13 for Building B) not accessible to the rest of the house; and (c) the structures in Cluster E are directly accessible from the street, unlike the rest of the houses, which are entered through passageways or anterooms. The fact that these three different types of structures are organized in clusters suggests some kind of civic planning. Having outlined the main architectural features of the buildings under consideration, we now proceed to examine their contents in an attempt to identify possible activities in the ancient households of Trypitos. While the emphasis of the presentation is on the ceramic objects, other finds have also been plotted. Although our architectural overview includes three clusters of buildings, the household analysis will concentrate on the buildings in Clusters B2 and E, for reasons of space.

Th e Co mmercia l/I nd ustrial Ch aracter o f Stree t C We will begin with the three buildings (A, B, C) identified in Cluster E (Figs. 35.2, 35.7). Building C consists of two communicating rooms (E 1, E 4). Room E 1 is a trapezoidal room with a stone-built “table” in the middle, a built bench along the east wall, and a rock-cut bench against the west wall. The room yielded several transport amphoras, five of which are restorable, and several large pithoi, one of which dates to the Archaic period. The same room contained a stone grain mill (of the Olynthos type), a stone gourna, one lopas, a decorated hydria, an unguentarium, a lamp, and two loomweights. The excavation notebook also mentions that several of the large vessels were found one meter below the floor of the room, indicating the existence of a small cellar. With these objects and direct access to the street, it is quite possible that room E 1 functioned as a shop or a storage space. Room E 4 of Building C, equipped with a square stone-built hearth in the middle and a stone-built bench at the northwest corner, contained four pithoi, two transport amphoras, some tableware, and 13 loomweights, several of which were found near the northwest bench, where they were probably stored. Room E 4 must have functioned as a living room, but it is unclear if it functioned as a permanent residence. The evidence for a second floor on Building C is inconclusive. The commercial character of Cluster E is also suggested by the architectural features of single-roomed Building B (room E 2)—again having direct access from the street—and its contents. Excavation in this room recovered a stone perirrhanterion, a large lekane embedded in clay, a stone gourna and several stone tools, a few loomweights, and several large pithoi (Fig. 35.7). With its direct access to the street, Building A of Cluster E may also have served a commercial function, although the paucity of finds does not permit firm conclusions (Fig. 35.7). Room E 3 provided access

dome stic assemblage s from trypitos, siteia

417

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

to two more spaces: room E 6 yielded only one pithos, while room E 5 contained at least three pithoi, two transport amphoras, a lopas with its lid, some tableware, and several scuttles (the most noted from any room so far studied at Trypitos), some with traces of burning. The stone-built base in the western part of the room may have supported a wooden table. In addition, room E 5 also yielded nine loomweights, found in two sets, and a spindle whorl, suggesting that weaving took place in the area. Of the three buildings in Cluster E, only Building A presents possible evidence for the existence of an upper floor: a column base in the middle of room E 3. The base, however, may simply have served as a support for the ceiling. Although part of a different cluster, Buildings B and C of Cluster B2 display a number of features of industrial character, and their entrances open onto street C (Figs. 35.2, 35.3). As mentioned earlier, room B 13 of Building B featured a high value of accessibility and a low value of openness. It is a large room with a rock-cut bench at the southwest corner. The floor deposit contained six large pithoi, some sunk into the ground, three transport amphoras, several drinking vessels (including a krater, a kantharos, and four jugs), a few plates, two lekanai for food preparation, and two chytrai. Other finds included a stone gourna, part of a grain mill, and six loomweights, which were not found together. There was no built hearth, which perhaps was not needed if the preparation and cooking of the food took place nearby in room B 17, the eastern part of which was paved for easy maintenance. Thus, the only certain function of room B 13 is that it served as storage area for foodstuffs and drinking and eating equipment. Of great interest for the overall character of Building B is the discovery of 140 loomweights on the paved street outside the building (Fig. 35.3). This large cache of loomweights must have fallen from the second floor of the building, where they were stored, and they suggest that weaving was taken seriously at Building B.19 As a final consideration, one might ask if Building B of Cluster B2 also formed part of the commercial/industrial section of Trypitos, on the other side of street C. The ground plan of Building C of Cluster B2 is only partially preserved (Fig. 35.3). We propose to reconstruct it as a mirror image of Building C in Cluster E for two reasons: first, the discovery of an olive-press bed suggests an industrial function for the front room of the building (B 16); and second, the rear room (B 15) was equipped with a built hearth as was room E 4 in Cluster E. If production of oil took place in the front room of Building C, the hearth in the back room would probably have been used to prepare the hot water needed for the extraction of the oil.20

The Distinctive Character of Building A in Clu s ter B 2 19. For textile production at Trypitos, see Sofianou, this volume (Chap. 36). 20. For the need of hot water in the extraction of olive oil, see Foxhall 1993, p. 184. For buildings with oil presses and hearths, see the House of the Press at Kommos (Shaw 1990, p. 233, n. 3).

Although the western part of House A of Cluster B2 is not preserved, the house deserves special mention (Fig. 35.3). Upon entering the house, one had two options: either turn left to room B 11 or continue straight, following an angled corridor (B 11a). Room B 11 is a narrow, oblong space (6.70 x 2.80 m) with a built pillar in the middle, presumably to support a second floor (Fig. 35.4). The study of the pottery from the ground floor

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

418

n ata l i a v o g e i k o f f - b r o g a n

Figure 35.8. Cluster B2, entrance to Building A. View from the south. Photo N. Vogeikoff-Brogan

showed a high concentration of tableware—the highest concentration of all the ceramic assemblages we have studied so far at Trypitos.21 There is also a small amount of cooking ware and two transport amphoras. The lack of any storage vessels in the room is indicative: the dining activities that took place in room B 11 made full use of its space. I have argued elsewhere about the special character of House A, which is evident in the elaborate construction of the doorway, the stone paved area in front of the house, and the stone-built bench next to the entrance (Fig. 35.8).22 In addition, the proximity of the two benches flanking street B might not be unrelated to the activities in room B 11 (Fig. 35.2). Was room B 11 of Building A the private entertaining hall, the andron, of an affluent individual who possessed the means for private banqueting? It is possible, though the notion of a private life distinct from the life of the community would appear to contrast with the communal dining habits of the Cretans as described in the ancient sources.23 For that reason, we suggest that Building A was not a private dwelling but a public building. We know very little about the famous dining halls of the Cretans, the andreia, other than what the literary sources tell us.24 Instead of looking for one large building that could have accommodated the dining of the entire male population of a town, we suggest the possibility of smaller examples of andreia, with Building A as a prime candidate. This might also imply the existence of more than one such hall within the community. 21. For a discussion of the pottery from the upper floor, see VogeikoffBrogan and Papadakis 2003, p. 68. 22. Vogeikoff-Brogan and Papadakis 2003. 23. For the possibility of private

dining parties in ancient Crete, see Erickson, this volume (Chap. 32). 24. For communal dining in ancient Crete, see Haggis et al. 2004, esp. pp. 387–396. In addition, see Haggis and Mook, this volume (Chap. 31).

dome stic assemblage s from trypitos, siteia

419

Con clu s ion s

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

From the architectural and artifactual overview of the three building clusters at Trypitos, the following three conclusions can be reached: (1) The existence of civic planning—with residential areas, such as the buildings of Cluster B1, and a separate commercial section to the north and south of street C—is clearly evident. The latter observation is of great interest if one compares Trypitos with Olynthos, for example, where the commercial/industrial functions of the city do not occupy any special location, but are interspersed within the residential web of the city. (2) There was a need for buildings of special character, such as Building A in Cluster B2, with dining facilities that exceed the requirements of the average household at Trypitos. Although the site of Trypitos is in need of an accurate architectural plan, current evidence suggests that the houses with built-in hearths were not equipped with an upper floor (the south and middle houses in Cluster B1, Building C in Cluster B 2, and Building C in Cluster E). The column bases that are sometimes found on either side of the hearth (e.g., in room A 8 in Cluster A) were most likely used to support the ceiling and flat roof, which was open above the hearth for the evacuation of smoke.25 This hypothesis is further strengthened by the observation that the evidence for an upper floor is concentrated in buildings without built-in hearths, and with separate kitchen facilities (Houses A and B in Cluster B2). Is the distinction between one-story buildings with built-in central hearths and two-story buildings with separate kitchens indicative of class difference or different functions (e.g., private vs. communal)? Depending on how we interpret it, House A of Cluster B2 might be the witness of a different trend encouraging an increased sense of private life, or it might confirm the communal character of Cretan societies.26 (3) There is a lack of evidence for a gendered segmentation in the private life of the ancient households of Trypitos. Recently, Westgate has thoroughly discussed the social relations, as well as the lack of privacy, in the linear type of house on Crete.27 This is remarkable, especially when considering that in other parts of Greece, during the 3rd century b.c., there is an increase in the size of houses with more specialized areas, accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the participation of the citizens in the public life of the community.28 The small size of the dwellings in Cluster B1 and their communicating rooms suggest that the average Trypitos household remained mostly a female environment with the men active participants in the public life of the city. 25. For a single-floor restoration of Minoan buildings with a hearth in the middle, see Hallager 1990, p. 284, discussing room M at Kastelli, Chania; also Hadzi-Vallianou 2004, esp. p. 120. For a discussion of the ancient sources on the evacuation of the smoke and ethnographic parallels from modern

Greece, see Svoronos-Hadjimichalis 1956. Sofianou (this volume, Chap. 36), on the contrary, argues that the gynaikonitis (women’s quarters) and isteonas (the room where weaving took place) were located on a second story, above a room with a built-in hearth in the middle (room A 8).

26. For a recent discussion of the house architecture in Hellenistic Crete and its possible social implications, see Westgate 2007, esp. pp. 448– 454. 27. Westgate 2007, pp. 446–448. 28. Nevett 1999, pp. 162–163.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

c hap ter 3 6

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

L o omwe i g h ts : Us e an d M an u fac t u r e at Try p i tos, Si t e i a by Chrysa Sofianou

In 1987, N. Papadakis, then head of the 24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, began excavating in the Trypitos area where a fortified Hellenistic town had been discovered (Fig. 36.1).1 By 2000, various buildings had been excavated, which were organized into town blocks, as well as a large part of the fortification wall (Fig. 36.2). Among the great number of small finds that came to light, the large number and uniform character of the loomweights were the most impressive. The 219 loomweights that are presented here were found in the first town block (Cluster A), which is located directly next to the fortification wall of the ancient city. The loomweights (or αγνύθες as they were called in ancient times) are the clay weights used to keep the warp threads taut in a standing loom.2 In the Greek world, the warp-weighted standing loom was used from Neolithic times until the Roman period, when it was replaced by a different type of standing loom that utilized an upper and lower cloth beam (αντίον) and did not require αγνύθες.3

T y po lo g y These small artifacts can be categorized into three main types according to their shape: pyramidal, conic, and discoid. The loomweights of Trypitos, with the exception of eight that are disc shaped and one that is amphiconic, are formed in the shape of a quadrilateral pyramid with a suspension hole of small diameter where one or more threads were tied directly. Alternatively, small sticks or strings may have been passed through such holes, allowing threads to be tied with greater ease. Since no traces of metal were detected in the holes in question, we think it unlikely that metal rings or small rods were used for this purpose.4 1. Papadakis 1988, 1995. I thank the staff of the 24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities for their help and support, in particular, the guards of the Siteia Museum.

2. For other uses, see Levi 1965– 1966a, p. 580; Tzouvara-Souli 1983, p. 16; Di Giuseppe 1995, p. 141. 3. For the study of looms, see Wilson 1938, pp. 114–135; Crowfoot

1936–1937; Tsigonaki 1994, p. 158. 4. Regarding the loomweight in the British Museum that preserves the metal ring, see Davidson and Thompson 1943, p. 68; Richter 1931, p. 291.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

422

chrysa sofianou

Figure 36.1. Plan of Trypitos.

After Vogeikoff-Brogan and Papadakis 2003, p. 67, fig. 22

Figure 36.2. Trypitos: fortification wall and houses of Cluster A. View from the southeast. Courtesy 24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

l o o m w e i g h t s : u s e a n d m a n u fa c t u r e at t r y p i t o s

423

Figure 36.3. Pyramidal loomweights from Trypitos. Courtesy 24th Ephorate

of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

Figure 36.4. Discoid loomweights from Trypitos with stamped rosette (left), stamped palmette (center), and incised delta (right). Courtesy

24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

5. For other loomweights bearing a delta, see Wilson 1930, p. 128; Davidson and Thompson 1943, p. 88, no. 89. See also Corinth XII, p. 152; Levi 1965–1966a, p. 18. 6. Délos XVIII, p. 158. 7. Caskey 1969, pl. 330. 8. A pyramidal loomweight bearing a delta was found in Armento (Di Giuseppe 1995, p. 146). This weight, however, weighs 60 g and thus differs in weight from the discoid loomweights of Trypitos.

The pyramidal weights are not ornamented; they are neither stamped nor do they bear engraved letters (Fig. 36.3). Thirteen of them have shallow holes on their sides and base. A brief study found that the holes do not constitute a precise indication of their weight, and we can not conclude their purpose with any certainty. In contrast, all of the discoid weights bear some type of mark, such as a stamp, a fingerprint, or an engraved delta (Fig. 36.4).5 The two loomweights bearing a delta are of similar weight. The letter was carved before firing, possibly in order to indicate some property of the object; in this case, it most likely denotes weight in a system of measurement that remains unknown to us. Engraved deltas found on vessels and ostraka from the Athenian Agora have been interpreted as “deka” (ten) without reference, however, to the system of measurement used. While lead pyramidal scale weights with a delta engraved on their base have been found on Delos,6 and lead weights with the same engraved letter are present on Kea,7 the weights of other published loomweights bearing a delta are not known, and there is no standard that would allow us to draw any conclusions.8 The purpose of the stamps and engravings found on some weights is not clear, and the various interpretations that have been proposed have not been substantiated. Since the essential function of a loomweight is to be a weight, particular attention was paid to this feature: 176 intact pyramidal and seven discoid weights, three of which are slightly defective, were weighed (Table 36.1). The majority of the pyramidal loomweights are quite light, with most

424

chrysa sofianou

Table 36.1. Weigh ts of Lo omweigh ts from Tryp i tos, CLuster A Weight (g)

Quantity (Details)

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

P y ramidal 25 1 30 1 35 2 40 8 45 10 50 34 55 59 60 27 65 9 70 15 75 4 80 3 85 1 100 1 1 (with two suspension holes) 160

Discoid 125 1 135 1 (with two suspension holes, fingerprint, partial) 155 1 (with two suspension holes, floral imprints, partial) 180 1 (inscribed with Δ, partial) 195 1 (inscribed with Δ) 200 1 (with two suspension holes, circular fingerprints) 330 1 (with two suspension holes)

weighing between 50 and 55 g. The heaviest is the one with two suspension holes (160 g). The discoid weights range between 125 and 330 g; their small number, however, does not allow for classification. This comparison leads us to believe that the pyramidal loomweights were used to weave all types of fabrics. A weight was tied to each individual thick thread or to several thin threads joined together. The few heavy weights were tied to the first and last thread to allow for an even selvage.9 A comparison of our classification by weight with the loomweights made in Eleutherna and Argyroupolis (ancient Lappa) initially suggested that, while a variety of shapes were found at those two sites, it is only at Trypitos that a single shape clearly outnumbers all others.10 Comparison was only possible between the pyramidal weights, which, at all three sites, weigh between 40–55 or 60 g. Moreover, there are similarities in the decoration of the weights from Hellenistic House A at Eleutherna and the buildings in Cluster A at Trypitos (Fig. 36.5). The pyramidal loomweights from both sites are engraved (e.g., with a hook, or with two lines that cross in an X) but bear no stamps, while the discoid weights, conversely, bear similar stamps (e.g., flower, anthemion, letters) (Fig. 36.4). The fact that there are similarities in both the weight and the decoration of loomweights from two Hellenistic houses in different cities within the restricted geographical area of Crete raises interesting questions for further analysis.

9. Barber 1991, p. 96. 10. Tsigonaki 1994, p. 164.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

l o o m w e i g h t s : u s e a n d m a n u fa c t u r e at t r y p i t o s

425

Figure 36.5. Trypitos: plan of Cluster A. Courtesy 24th Ephorate

of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

C hron o lo g y The town of Trypitos is dated between the 3rd and the 2nd centuries b.c. based on the pottery and the coins found in the course of the excavations.11 Because of this, no question concerning the chronology of the loomweights found in the same excavation strata can be raised, since the study of their shape and other characteristics does not provide us with enough evidence for a more precise chronological positioning. We know for certain that they were being used during the time period in question; however, we do not know when they were manufactured, nor can we accurately determine the age of any given weight. In any case, the short life span of the city does not allow for further analysis, leading us to the conclusion that the loomweights, like the coins and pottery of Trypitos, belong to the Hellenistic period.

Th e N u m ber of W ei gh ts The number of weights used in each loom was not fixed and is difficult to determine accurately, because the number depended on the type of fabric being woven and the weight of the individual loomweights.12 It has been calculated that to weave a peplos 1.75 m wide, roughly 65–70 loomweights were required—but if small pyramidal weights were to be used, more than 100 might have been required.13 The weaving of carpets, bedding, and clothing varies in terms of dimensions and quality. Consequently, weavers had to have at hand a number of loomweights of different weight from which they could select the ones they needed for each job, and, depending 11. Papadakis 1995, p. 749; Vogeikoff-Brogan and Papadakis 2003, p. 66. 12. Tzachili 1997, p. 181.

13. Corinth XII, p. 147; Davidson and Thompson 1943, p. 70; Tsigonaki 1994, p. 161.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

426

chrysa sofianou

on the length of the piece of cloth, they would set up either a large loom or a small loom, which required fewer weights. The weights that were not used on the loom were stored in wall niches, in cabinets, or small baskets, which is why they are often found in large groups during excavations.14 As a result, the existence of a large number of loomweights of different weights in a residence, as in the case of Trypitos, and not in a weaving workshop, has nothing to do with the number of looms.15 In any case, many looms could not have been in use at the same time in a house, not only because looms required many hands, but also for practical reasons—a large loom was approximately 2 m in length, and looms had to be set up near a wall in a well-lit and well-aired room with no humidity.16

Lo cat ion of t h e isteona s Since looms were made entirely of wood and cannot be preserved in the Greek climate, we will never be able to prove whether one or more looms were in place at the time of destruction.17 An attempt, therefore, was made to locate the isteonas, that is, the room where weaving work took place. It is common during excavations to come across groups of loomweights. These may be from a single loom or may have been stored in a special part of the house. At Trypitos, a number of groups of loomweights, whose weights are more or less the same, were found within a small area (Table 36.2). Five groups of loomweights were found to the south of room A 7 and four groups to the southwest of room A 8 (Fig. 36.6). From both locations, a total of more than 140 pyramidal loomweights, weighing 55–75 g on average, were found. Initially we thought that there were many looms at this location, but other findings suggest that this was not the case. Room A 7 was used as a storage room and household workshop, and its dimensions do not allow for the erection of a loom. Instead, it seems that many of the loomweights found in this room were evidently stored there by a weaver or workshop craftsman. The loom may have been set against the south wall of room A 8. This large room may have been the oikos of the house, where the household members conducted their daily activities. Unfortunately, we cannot gain a more clear idea of what this area was like, since its eastern part, along with other rooms of the house, was destroyed in 1960 when the peninsula was landscaped to allow for agricultural activities. But it seems most likely that the loom was set up on the upper floor of the house; the existence of two column bases on either side of the hearth in room A 8 leads us to assume that there was an upper floor.18 This is where the gynaikonitis of the house, which was also used as an isteonas, was probably located. The wide dispersal of loomweights throughout the town block further supports this hypothesis. Groups of five and 10 loomweights were discovered under the roof tiles in room A 1, which seems to have had a public function, possibly that of a prytaneion or andreion. After the collapse of the upper floor, most of the loomweights fell below into room A 8; moreover, due to the slope of the ground, a group of 16 weights ended up in the rock-cut pit where a large jar was placed.

14. E.g., at Kolonna in the Lasithi Plain, 58 loomweights were found stored in a niche in the wall and another eight in other parts of a building of the 3rd century b.c. (Watrous 1980). 15. On the number of looms, see Cahill 2002, pp. 169–179 and pp. 250– 252 for the evidence from Olynthus. 16. Tzouvara-Souli 1983, p. 16. 17. On the location of the isteonas, see Halieis II, pp. 78–79. 18. For a different opinion concerning upper floors in Hellenistic houses, see Vogeikoff-Brogan, this volume (Chap. 35).

l o o m w e i g h t s : u s e a n d m a n u fa c t u r e at t r y p i t o s

427

Tab le 36.2. lo cat ion of Group s of Lo omweigh ts at Try p i tos, Cluster A

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Groups Room(s) Three groups of 4 Two groups of 5 Two groups of 8 Two groups of 6 One group of 7 Three groups of 10 One group of 16 One group of 31

(A 7) (A 7, A 1) (A 7) (A 7, A 8) (A 8) (A 7, A 8, A 1) (A 8) (A 7)

Figure 36.6. Trypitos: room A 8, with central hearth and two column bases. View from the west. Courtesy

24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

Other loomweights fell into room A 1, which is adjacent to room A 8, and the rest fell into room A 7, where other loomweights were already present. More specifically, 23 loomweights were found in room A 1, 56 in room A 8, and 92 in room A 7; the rest of the loomweights were dispersed among the other rooms.

M anu fact u re The pale clay of the loomweights, which resembles that of the vessels found during the excavations, indicates that the loomweights were manufactured locally. The discoid loomweights were molded by a craftsman whose fingerprints can clearly be seen, and the stamped loomweights, because they have a very smooth surface and are all of the same width, must have been made in a mold. The pyramidal weights also seem to have been mold-made. Two of these have a slightly concave base that

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

428

chrysa sofianou

Figure 36.7. Trypitos: clay mold for pyramidal loomweight from room A 7. Courtesy 24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

was certainly made before firing, when the craftsman pressed the clay into the mold.19 The item that confirms their method of manufacture, however, is a clay mold for pyramidal loomweights that was found, in fragments, in room A 7 (Fig. 36.7). It is a hollow truncated quadrilateral pyramid with no base and very thick sides; it measures 0.095 m high, 0.065 x 0.05 m on the smaller sides, and 0.085 x 0.07 m on the larger sides; the mold cavity itself is 0.07 m deep. The use of such a mold allowed the craftsman to make quantities of loomweights in the same way that children today make sandcastles on the beach with plastic buckets. A quick look at the surprisingly large number of small finds from room A 7 suggests that it was both a storage room and a household workshop. The large number of pithoi and other large vessels testify to its use as a storage room, while a large quantity of nails and other metal objects, stone polishers, pumice stones, and sea shells may indicate the existence of workshop activity relating to the manufacture of dyes.20 Its use as a ceramic workshop is proven by the clay mold, masses of clay, traces of burning detected in the northern side of the room, the large number of loomweights found there, and lead clamps, which, as is well known, were used to repair broken vessels. The room may have served as the household’s ceramic workshop for the repair of the everyday items used in the household and the manufacture of loomweights to fulfill its own needs. But where were the loomweights fired? Room A 7 communicates to the north with a small, square area (A 13) without any openings. The floor was paved with large slabs of stone, and the whole surface was covered with a thick burnt layer mixed with animal bones. This small space, whose construction is quite careful, may have been used secondarily as a household oven in addition to the firing of loomweights. There are no remaining traces of props or grill supports, but it is possible that such items were not used or were movable due to their small size.21

19. Davidson and Thompson 1943, p. 72. 20. Faklaris and Stamatopoulou 1997, p. 123. 21. Peristeri, Blonde, and Perreault 1986, p. 71.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

l o o m w e i g h t s : u s e a n d m a n u fa c t u r e at t r y p i t o s

429

Figure 36.8. Trypitos, Cluster A: cistern east of oven/kiln (room A 13) and north of room A 8. View from the northwest. Courtesy 24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

Figure 36.9. Trypitos, Cluster A: cylindrical clay pipes draining into room A 8. Courtesy 24th Ephorate of

Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

To the east of the oven/kiln, a square construction with no openings was excavated. At first this construction was interpreted as a cistern (Fig. 36.8), because both its tile-covered floor, which is on a higher level than those of the other rooms, and its internal walls are coated with hydraulic cement. The floor is tilted toward the south side where there are two outflow holes, while two cylindrical clay pipes were used as drains to the large room A 8 (Fig. 36.9). There the water must have been collected in large vessels, since no traces of pipes for its transport have survived. A strip on the floor, which is neither covered by tiles nor coated, indicates the cistern was divided in two parts, from north to south, by some perishable material that has not

430

chrysa sofianou

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

survived. Located on either side of the strip are the two drains. It is likely that this complex served as settling pits for the clay used in the workshop. The phenomenon of constructing a small kiln and a ceramic workshop within the bounds of a residential area was not uncommon in ancient Greek cities, since large open spaces were not required for the drying of the ceramics and a regular water cistern was sufficient for its needs.22 Thus, it is possible that we have a small ceramic workshop, established to serve the needs of a household, which could account fully for the existence of the 219 loomweights.

Co n clusion S In the ancient household economy, in which producers were also consumers, the manufacture of textiles was very important. Literary evidence suggests that debts or taxes may have been settled with homemade cloths manufactured by the female population of the family.23 A five-member family required, for clothing and other necessary household items, approximately 40 m2 of cloth a year. It is estimated that a woman had to invest about four hours of labor for each meter of cloth produced;24 as a consequence, a large part of a woman’s life was spent in front of the loom, and this constituted a basic daily activity. Therefore, it seems logical to assume that there was a loom permanently in use and seldom stored. The findspots of the loomweights found in Cluster A suggest (1) that the isteonas was located on the upper floor of the house, and (2) that the workshop in room A 7 may have been connected with the manufacture of loomweights. Whether found on the loom or in a basket on the upper floor, or even if they constituted the production of a workshop, the 219 loomweights from Cluster A prove that the art of weaving was known in the Hellenistic town of Trypitos. Indeed, textile production must have occupied an important position among the everyday activities of its residents and within the household economy, since a workshop for the manufacture of loomweights was discovered. As loomweights are durable and their replacement is not often required, the existence of a workshop cannot be justified only by the need to meet the demands of one household. The household workshop must have manufactured a surplus of loomweights that were channeled into the town market, thus providing an extra source of income for the household. Thirty-one loomweights, which were found in room A 7, may have been an order that the workshop never delivered. Since the “Kerameikos” of the town of Trypitos has already been located on the beach to the east of the peninsula,25 this small workshop uncovers an aspect of daily household activities that also produced financial gain. Future progress in the study of the material from similar contexts may necessitate revision of some of the above conclusions or lead us to alternative ones. But despite this, the clay loomweight mold, the masses of clay, and the coated cistern within the city limits constitute proof of the existence of a household ceramic workshop and of a daily economic activity taking place within the household.

22. Kalpaxis 1995, p. 45. 23. Loftus 1999, p. 174. 24. Carr 2000, p. 164. 25. Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992, p. 634.

c hap ter 3 7

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

A l l i n t h e Fam i ly : For m i n g So c i al an d E c on om i c Ne t wor k s on R om an C re t e by Martha W. Baldwin Bowsky

1. See Salomies 1996, p. 115, where shared praenomina suggest a connection, and where a variety of praenomina in combination with less common nomina may be attributed to the early introduction of a nomen to the province. 2. See Chaniotis 2004 for the change in epigraphic habit from Hellenistic to Roman Crete.

Evidence for the formation of Roman families on Crete, and for the creation of island-wide social and economic networks based on households, can be derived from inscriptions that attest nonimperial Roman names in early imperial Crete. Even when other material remains are no longer visible or have yet to be discovered and published, inscriptions are one part of the archaeological record that can preserve evidence of individuals belonging to a family or household. The goal here is to take advantage of the onomastic evidence available from inscriptions and the unique light shed on an investigation of ancient households through prosopography, an approach that is possible and productive for the historical period. Inscriptions offer particular advantages to the study of the economic and social aspects of Roman households on Crete. Inscribed stones and other objects preserve the names of individual members of households who may be identifiably “Roman” or “Cretan”—by nationality, language choice, or acculturation—whether they bear Latin cognomina or Greek personal names, record Latin-style filiation or a Greek-style patronymic, or are named in Greek- or Latin-language texts. Inscriptions can preserve not only the names of family members but also the familial relationships between those named. Even when such relationships are not explicitly recorded, people who are attested in different parts of the island in the Roman period with the same family name (nomen)—and even the same forename (praenomen)—should or, theoretically, could be connected with each other.1 Given the persistent tendency of provincials to omit Roman praenomina, the recording of shared praenomina gains additional significance. A change in the epigraphic habit of Crete, moreover, brings to our attention the Roman names not only of upper-class, politically active males, but also of other female and male members of households, be they slave, freed, free, or of elite or humble status.2 The epigraphical record preserves unique evidence of changing dynamics—personal and familial—in the evolving economic and social map of Roman Crete. Economic networks of early Roman Crete can be documented because they were grounded in a characteristically Roman commercial structure that kept business within the familia or domus, and because the foundation for many business arrangements was the close

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

432

m a r t h a w. b a l d w i n b o w s k y

legal and social ties that existed between family members, whether they be free, slave, or freed.3 At the same time, change in the composition of local elites in the cities of Roman Crete—which included or were even dominated by Romans and acculturated Hellenes—can be given voice by the inscriptions that have come down to us, even when the archaeological record remains silent. The present study will focus on one group of Roman names—those attested at Gortyn before they are documented in other cities on the island—because it is this group that best introduces a chronological element into our study of the formation of social and economic networks on the island (Table 37.1). References to these names appear in italics as a combination of the name of the gens and the number of the individual entry cited (e.g., Grania 1). When the text makes clear which gens is referred to, only the number of the individual entry is given, again in italics. Throughout this investigation, four phenomena are considered: (1) the possible Italian setting or commercial context into which these names belonged before their bearers came to Crete; (2) the onomastic and prosopographical patterns that linked Cretan cities; (3) how likely it is that bearers of a particular nomen be connected with each other; and (4) the fact that these names are attested not only among local elites but among participants in various sectors of the Cretan economy. This paper continues earlier prosopographic work on the economy of Roman Crete, and it aims to investigate the following: the composition of the earliest Roman occupation of the island; territorial reorganization and internal mobility at the beginning of the principate; and the process by which resident traders came to be landowners in Gortyn and its environs.4

F ro m Tra ders to Land ow n ers and More The recent publication of an inscription from modern Gagales in the territory of Gortyn constitutes a useful case in point for this investigation.5 The case of the Granii of Gortyn and Knossos—a new example of a family that came to Crete as traders and stayed to become landowners—shows how such households belonged to larger social and economic networks composed of families attested in Gortyn and other Cretan cities and on wine amphoras found on Crete, in Italy, and in the greater Roman world. These individuals simultaneously played roles outside their immediate families and households, within their communities as members of the local elite, and on an island- and Mediterranean-wide scale as part of the business community. Such networks effectively linked the Roman capital at Gortyn with the colony at Knossos, the free Augustan city of Lappa, the 1st-century-a.d. wine-production center at Lyttos, the imperial entrepôt of Hierapytna, and other cities located on the north and south coasts or along the north–south transit corridors that characterized the island. The Roman names attested for recipients of Gortynian proxenia and politeia spread throughout the island, as did names attested in commerce, pastoralism, commemoration, and honorary dedications. The Roman names borne by recipients of proxenia and politeia at Gortyn, and then attested elsewhere on Crete among the provincial and

3. Woolf 2003, p. 312. 4. Baldwin Bowsky 1999, 2001b, 2002, 2004a. References to these articles form the basis for the notes in Table 37.1, which cite new bibliography on the families in question. 5. Baldwin Bowsky 2006, esp. pp. 386–392.

social and economic ne t works on roman cre te

433

Tab le 37.1. Roman Names At tested at Gort yn and Oth er Ci t ies Nomen, Praenomen Cognomen

Filiation/ Patronymic

Voting Tribe

Reference

Place Found

Date

Context

Sp.f.

Collina

IC IV 216

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

proxenia, politeia

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Ge ns G rania 1 P.

Granius Rufus

2 P.

Granius Rufus

IC I xvii 17–18

Lebena

1st c. a.d.

dedications at Asklepieion

3 P.

Granius Hermaios

Baldwin Bowsky Gagales 2006, esp. pp. 386– 392

1st c. a.d.

commemorated on ancestral lands

4 P.

S(ergius?) Granius

IC I viii 23

Knossos

early principate small cylindrical base

5

G(r)anius

IC II xxv 14

Soulia

imperial

dedication from Temple of Artemis

6

Graniu[s]

IC II xxv 18

Soulia

imperial

dedication from Temple of Artemis

IC IV 221A

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

Hierapytnios; proxenia, politeia

Ge ns Antoni a Kritonos uios

1 M.

Antonius Kriton

2 M.

Antonios (sic)

RPC, p. 236, 977

Knossos

early Augustan duumvir, on colonial coinage

3 L.

Antonius Inventus

IC I xxiii 6A

Kamilari

1st c. b.c.–1st c. a.d.

dedication from Temple of Artemis

4 M?

Antonius E[—]

Baldwin Bowsky 2001a, pp. 99–105

Knossos

1st c. a.d.

duumvir, honored at Gortyn

5

Antonius Androgeos

Baldwin Bowsky Gortyn 1995a, pp. 273–274

1st–2nd c. a.d. base of small statuette

6 M.

An[toni?]us

IC III iii 7, line 33

a.d. 125

present at institution of decree concerning Ago’s sodalitas

7

[An]tonius Vareius [—]lus

SEG XLI 965; Gortyn Baldwin Bowsky 2001a, pp. 106–109

2nd c. a.d.

priest of the divine Augustus and Roma; dedicator at Ephesus, to proconsul C. Claudius Titianus Demostratos

8

Antonius Paraibates

IC IV 392

2nd c. a.d.

agoranomos, dedication to P. Septimius Geta, quaestor pro praetore

9 M.

Antonius Clodianus

Ricci 1893, pp. 304– Knossos 305, 13; not in IC I viii

2nd c. a.d.

religious dedication

10 [M.]

[Antonius]

IC IV 443

Gortyn

2nd–3rd c. a.d. pontifex (Cretensium concilii) quinquennalis

11 M.

Antonius Lupus

IC II xxiv 4

Rethymnon/ Rhithymna

3rd c. a.d.

named on ossuary while alive

12

Antonius Dionysios

IC II xxiv 4

Rethymnon/ Rhithymna

3rd c. a.d.

named on ossuary while alive

13

[Antonius] Moschianos

IC II xxiv 4

Rethymnon/ Rhithymna

3rd c. a.d.

named on ossuary while alive

14 M.

Antonius

IC III iii 15

Hierapytna

beginning of empire

dedication

15 C.

Antonius Parmenon

IC I viii 27

Knossos

imperial

inscription of unknown type

16

Antonius

IC I xviii 105A

Lyttos

imperial

funerary inscription to mother

17

[Antonia] Prima

IC I xviii 105A

Lyttos

imperial

funerary inscription to mother

18

[Antonius] Kalotychos

IC I xviii 105B

Lyttos

imperial

funerary inscription

M. Antoniou

Theopompou apeleutheros

Antoniou

Hierapytna

Gortyn

Continued on ne xt page

434

m a r t h a w. b a l d w i n b o w s k y

TAB LE 37.1—Continued Nomen, Praenomen Cognomen

Filiation/ Patronymic

Voting Tribe

Reference

Place Found

Date

Context

P.f.

Tro.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Ge ns Mar cia 1 P.

Marcius

IC IV 221B

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

proxenia, politeia

2 Q.

Marcius Insulanus

AÉpigr 1967, 522

Gortyn

2nd c. a.d.

first man of province, fulfilled all liturgies and distinctions; served as ambassador on behalf of province to Trajan on his return to Rome, honored by Antiochia ad Cragum with customary funerary rites

3

Marcia

IC IV 340

Gortyn

3rd c. a.d.

inscription mentioning a garden

4

Marcia

IC I xviii 139C

Lyttos

imperial

funerary inscription from husband

IC IV 221C

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

politeia

CIL VI 23340

Rome

2nd c. a.d.

funerary inscription

IC I xviii 137

Lyttos

imperial

funerary inscription

Ge ns Octavi a 1 Cn.

Octavius Laicus

2

Octavia Creta

3

Octavius

Cn.f. Aviani

Vot.

Ge ns Cae cilia 1

[Caecilius—]umus Caecili

IC IV 400

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

list of traders(?)

2 L.

Caecilius Balbus

Magnelli 1998, pp. 1295, 1298– 1299

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.– 1st c. a.d.

proxenia, politeia

3 Pl.

Caecilia

CIL IV 10456

Pompeii

1st c. a.d.

Lyttian wine amphora

4

[C]aecilius

IC IV 340

Gortyn

3rd c. a.d.

inscription mentioning a garden

5

Caecilius Niger

IC IV 338

Gortyn

beginning of empire

land registry

6

Caecilia

IC I xxv 22A

Soulia

imperial

dedication from Temple of Artemis proxenia, politeia

L.f.

Ge ns Pors en n i a 1 [—]us

Porsennius Simon

IC IV 219

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

2

Porsennia

IC II xvi 23

Lappa

later principate marble fragment

Ge ns Vip sta na 1 M.

Vipstanus Acceptus

IC IV 224B

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

politeia

2

Vipstana Irena

A. Di Vita, pers. comm.

Gortyn

1st c. a.d.

dedication to Iupiter Optimus Maximus, in precinct of theos hypsistos

3 M.

Vipstanus

IC IV 304

Gortyn

2nd c. a.d.

honored with base, in Law Court on western end of so-called Praetorium complex

4 M.

Vipstanus Ni[—]

SEG XXXII 871

Hierapytna

2nd c. a.d.

public officials in Gortyn brought urn of ashes to Hierapytna

IC IV 290

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

honored by cives Romani qui Gortynae negotiantur

RPC, p. 238, 988– 999

Knossos

Tiberian

duumvir on colonial coinage

Ge ns Doia 1

Doia Procilla

2

Doius

L.f.

social and economic ne t works on roman cre te

435

TAB LE 37.1—Continued Nomen, Praenomen Cognomen

Filiation/ Patronymic

Voting Tribe

Reference

Place Found

Date

Context perhaps sepulchral or votive

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Ge ns Vibia 1 P?

Vibia B[—]

IC IV 456

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.– 1st c. a.d.

2

Vibia

IC I xxiii 27; Levi 1965–1966a, pp. 569, 586; Sakellarakis 1983, p. 427; to be published in Chaniotis, forthcoming, no. 23

Phaistos, Idaion Antron

1st–2nd c. a.d. loomweights, perhaps owner of a weaving mill

Ge ns Iunia 1 L.

Iunius Eros

IC I xxv 3

Pyloros

1st c. b.c.

dedication to Curetes as guardians of flocks

2 T.

Iunius Artemas

IC III iii 7, line 28

Hierapytna

a.d. 125

present at institution of decree concerning Ago’s sodalitas

3 M.

Iunius Soterios

IC I xviii 56

Lyttos

2nd c. a.d.

inscription set up by vote of Cretan Koinon and city of Lyttos, in honor of Pardalas the protokosmos and Panhellene designate, Soterios’s “friend”

Ge ns Tere nt ia 1

Terentius

IC IV 362

Gortyn

1st c. b.c.

sepulchral inscription found in excavations of Isieion

2

Terentius Artemidoros

IC II v 50

Axos

1st c. b.c.– 1st c. a.d.

named in funerary epigram dedicated by wife Sophrona to daughter Rhado

3

Ter(entius) Pri(scus)

CIL IV 10285

Pompeii

1st c. a.d.

Lyttian wine amphora

4 C.

Terentius Saturnilus

IC IV 300A

Gortyn

2nd c. a.d.

protokosmos when senate and people decreed statue base to T. Flavius Xenion

5

Terentia

IC II xx 2

Phoinix

2nd c. a.d.

funeral stele of son Epagathos

Ge ns Sulp ici a 1

Sulpicia Telero

IC IV 292

Gortyn

1st c. a.d.

set up monumental inscription in honor of her son A. Larcius Lepidus Sulpicianus, in accordance with vote of Gortynian senate

2

Sulpicia

SEG XXVIII 756

Rethymnon/ Rhithymna

1st c. a.d.

funerary epigram

3

Sul[pi]cius

IC II xxv 5A

Soulia

imperial

dedication from Temple of Artemis

Continued on ne xt page

436

m a r t h a w. b a l d w i n b o w s k y

TAB LE 37.1—Continued Nomen, Praenomen Cognomen

Filiation/ Patronymic

Voting Tribe

Reference

Place Found

Date

Context

A. Larci Galli f.

Quir.

IC IV 292

Gortyn

1st c. a.d.

honored with monumental inscription set up by mother Sulpicia Telero, in accordance with vote of Gortynian senate

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Ge ns Lar cia 1 A.

Larcius Lepidus Sulpicianus

2

Lar(cia) Isidora

IC IV 297

Gortyn

2nd c. a.d.

set up inscription in honor of husband M. Roscius Lupus Murena, in accordance with vote of Cretan Koinon and Gortynian senate, and illustrious city of Gortyn

3

[Larcius] = Larcius Lepidus

IC IV 299

Gortyn

2nd c. a.d.

honored by mother Volumnia Calida, senatorial cursus honorum given

4

Larcia Artemis

IC I xxxi 2; Chaniotis Ayios Thomas 2nd c. a.d. 1989, p. 70

dedication to Demeter and Kore carved on rock

5 T.

Lar(cius) Kydikles

IC III iii 23

Hierapytna

dedicated statue of senatorial uncle

6

Larci(us)

AÉpigr 1950, 90

Lepcis Magna 3rd c. a.d.

born to Alexandris at Knossos

7 L.

La(rcius) Vindex

IC I viii 24

Knossos

ἄρχων, small statue base in

2nd c. a.d.

imperial

ruins of Larger Theater

commercial elite of the island, are best set into the context of (1) Italian traders and residents at Delos, (2) Italian traders and residents in the Greek East, (3) Italian traders and residents in Campania (the western end of this commercial axis), and (4) the businessmen of Roman Italy. All four overlapping contexts hold for the gentes Grania, Antonia, Marcia, Octavia, Caecilia, and Vibia (Table 37.2). Representatives of three other gentes—the Doia, Iunia, and Terentia—are to be found in both the Greek East and Campania, while the Sulpicia is attested at Delos and in the Greek East. It is possible, but by no means certain, that the gentes Porsennia and Vipstana had Campanian connections, and the gens Larcia is known to have come to Crete from Latium via A. Larcius Gallus.6 The names borne by these early Roman residents of Gortyn—or those in her territory—are later attested elsewhere on Crete and beyond (Fig. 37.1). From the Temple of Artemis at Soulia we have three names previously attested at Gortyn (Caecilia 6; Grania 5–6; Sulpicia 3), possibly the names of Gortynians who made a pilgrimage to this shrine on the Mesara Bay.7 Loomweights from a weaving mill in the area of Phaistos were dedicated at the Idaion Antron, perhaps by the woman who owned the mill.8 At modern Ayios Thomas, located on the Gortynian border with the so-called Capuan lands, a woman from a distinguished Gortynian family made a dedication to Demeter and Kore (Larcia 4). Romans resident at Gortyn appear to have migrated to the new Roman colony at Knossos and become part of the colonial elite (Antonia 2, 4, 9, 15; Doia 2; Larcia 7). Other Gortynians seem to have migrated to Lyttos, which became a wine-production center in the mid-1st century a.d.9 At the

6. A. Larcius Lepidus Sulpicianus: PIR2 L90; see also Baldwin Bowsky 1987. 7. See the comments by Guarducci in IC II xxv 18. 8. Vibia 2; Chaniotis, forthcoming (and pers. comm.). 9. Antonia 16–18; Marcia 4; Octavia 3; Iunia 3; cf. Marangou 1999, p. 273.

social and economic ne t works on roman cre te

437

Table 37.2. Roman names of Gort yn and Cre te al so at tested on Delos, in th e Greek East, Campania, and commercia l milie ux Gens Grania

1

Antonia Marcia

2

3

Octavia 4

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Caecilia

5

Porsennia

Delos

Greek East

Campania

Commercial Milieux

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x ?

6

?

Vipstana7

x

Doia 8 Vibia

x

9

Iunia 10 Terentia 11 Sulpicia Larcia

12

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

13

1. Delos and the Greek East: Castrén 1975, p. 172; D’Isanto 1993, pp. 139–140; Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 312; Le Dinahet 2001, p. 122. P. and Sp. Granii in the Greek East: Baldwin Bowsky 2001b, p. 54. Le Dinahet (2001, p. 123) lists Sporius as a Roman name at Delos, in the period of Athenian colonization. Additional Granii, with other praenomina, at Epidamnus-Dyrrhachion, at Corinth and among negotiatores: Baldwin Bowsky 2001b, p. 54; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, pp. 325–326, nos. 299–302, of which two are a Roman magistrate and his father. Granii at Athens: Byrne 2003, pp. 287–288, nos. 1–3, including two foreign residents with ethnic. In Messenia and Laconia: Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2004, pp. 237–238, nos. 373, 374. Zoumbaki (1998–1999, p. 164) includes Granius in her study of names associated with trade and traders, attested at Delos and Sparta. Granius is one of the best-attested examples of a Campanian name, especially at Puteoli: Frederiksen 1984, pp. 44, 320, 324, 327, 331; cf. D’Arms 1970, pp. 22, n. 18, pp. 30–31, 36. The Granii were a well-known Puteolan commercial family that flourished in the last century of the Republic, while the Pompeiian Granii were probably active in viticulture and commerce (Camodeca 1982, p. 128; Baldwin Bowsky 2001b, p. 54; 2002, p. 53). Granii of Puteoli, a family that certainly possessed vignobles in the territory of Pompeii, figured among the rich traders at Puteoli, and were fabricants of amphoras at the end of the Republic: Cébellaic-Gervasoni 1998, pp. 43, 143, 149, 164. Capuan Granii known from the 1st century b.c. to the 1st century a.d.: D’Isanto 1993, pp. 139–140. 2. Name M. Antonius of great significance in the Greek East: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 317; 2001a, p. 99; 2001b, p. 47. Additional Antonii attested at an early date at Patras, a colony settled by Antonian veterans: Rizakis 1998, p. 320, citing IG IX I2 92b; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 58, nos. 27–30. At Athens: Byrne 2003, pp. 63–67, nos. 1–29, including two epengraphoi. In the Argolid: Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, pp. 157–159, nos. 16–20. In Messenia and Laconia: Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2004, pp. 56–62, nos. 27–34). A gens from Latium that was also widespread in Campania, including republican Capua, and then Pompeii and Puteoli: Castrén 1975, p. 136; D’Isanto 1993, pp. 65–66. Antonia at Neapolis: Leiwo 1994, p. 174. Villa owned by three generations of M. Antonii, including Creticus and the triumvir: D’Arms 1970, esp. pp. 172–173. 3. Marcii, especially P. Marcii, in the Greek East: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 314; 2001b, pp. 58–59. Additional Marcii at Patras: Rizakis 1998, pp. 172–174, 178–179, 216–217, nos. 119, 122, 128, 170; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, pp. 84–86, nos. 159–165. At Athens: Byrne 2003, pp. 353–355, nos. 1–9, including two Milesians/Epengraphoi. Marcii—including Publii—are particularly well attested at Capua from the Republican era onward (Baldwin Bowsky 2001b, pp. 58–59; 2004a, p. 38, nos. 4, 5). 4. At Delos, in the Greek East, and in the commercial milieu of Italy: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, pp. 314–315; 2001b, p. 61. Additional members of this gens: Rizakis 1998, pp. 299–300, no. 364, at Patras; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 88, nos. 179, 180, at Dyme as well as Patras; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 139, at Tegea; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, pp. 357–358, nos. 441, 442, at Corinth; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 511, no. 292, in the Eleia; Byrne 2003, pp. 385–387, nos. 1–16, including one foreign resident with ethnic, at Athens; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2004, pp. 390–392, nos. 596–598, in Laconia and Messenia. 5. Caecilii—including L. Caecilii—in the commercial community of the Greek East and Roman Italy: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 313; 2001b, p. 48. Caecilii as

x x traders who became landowners in Roman Crete: Baldwin Bowsky 2004a, p. 37, nos. 1–3. Additional members of this gens at Athens: Byrne 2003, pp. 92–93, nos. 1–12, including one Milesian. 6. The rare name Porsennius, including our Porsennius Simon: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 312; 2001b, p. 64. 7. Vipstani, including our M. Vipstanus Acceptus: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 313; 2001b, p. 68. 8. Doii, including L. Doii: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 310; 2001b, p. 51. M. Doius L.f. Balbus at Patras: Rizakis 1998, pp. 176–177, no. 125; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 72, no. 91. 9. Vibii—including P. Vibii—in the Greek East and Campania, and as a family belonging to a major commercial network operating between Delos and Capua: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 313; 2001b, p. 68. Corinth: cf. Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, pp. 393–394, nos. 622–627. Additional members of this gens at Patras: Rizakis 1998, pp. 302–303, no. 368, a veteran of the Antonian legio XII Fulminata; cf. Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 103, nos. 248–250. At Arcadian Tegea: Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 149, no. 170. In Thessaly: Helly 1983, p. 370. At Athens: Byrne 2003, pp. 476–477, nos. 1–3. In Laconia and Messenia: Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2004, pp. 465–466, no. 720. Zoumbaki (1998–1999, pp. 162, 165) considers Vibius a Roman name associated with trade and traders not only at Delos but also at Megalopolis and Sparta. 10. For Iunii—including L. Iunii—in the trading community of the Italian peninsula and the Greek East, see Baldwin Bowsky 2001b, p. 55. For Iunii at Corinth, see now Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, pp. 339–340, nos. 357–362. Additional Iunii are attested at Patras (Rizakis 1998, p. 171, no. 116 [cf. Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 80, nos. 140, 141]); Mantinea (Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 136, no. 111); in the Argolid (Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, pp. 202– 203, nos. 156, 157); at Elea (Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 497, nos. 244–246); and at Athens (Byrne 2003, pp. 329–338, nos. 1–45, including three Milesians/ Epengraphoi). Zoumbaki (1998–1999, pp. 166–168) sees Iunius as one of the names that came to be at Elis, Korone, and Mantinea via trade and traders. 11. Terentii in the trading community of the Greek East: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 319. Terentii at Corinth: cf. Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 386, nos. 582–584. Additional members of this gens in Athens: Byrne 2003, p. 451, no. 1 (a foreign resident with ethnic). Laconia and Messenia: Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2004, p. 451, nos. 694, 695. Zoumbaki (1998–1999, p. 170) considers Terentius a name associated with trade and traders that came to be attested at Gytheion. Terentii in Campania: Baldwin Bowsky 2001b, pp. 66–67. 12. Sulpicii in the Greek East: Baldwin Bowsky 2001b, p. 66. Additional Sulpicii: Rizakis 1998, pp. 190–192, no. 141; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 98, nos. 225, 226, at Patras; Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2001, p. 145, no. 153, at Tegea. Athens: Byrne 2003, pp. 448–449, nos. 1–10, including two epengraphoi. Laconia and Messenia: Rizakis and Zoumbaki 2004, p. 449, nos. 689–691. Zoumbaki (1998–1999, pp. 161, 165) considers Sulpicius a name associated with trade and traders that came to Tegea and Sparta as to Delos. 13. Larcii in the Greek East: Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 323. Additional Larcii at Athens: Byrne 2003, pp. 340–342, no. 107, including one foreign resident with a Cretan ethnic.

438

m a r t h a w. b a l d w i n b o w s k y

Lappa WHITE MOUNTAINS

Rethymnon/ Rhithymna

Axos Idaion Antron MT. IDA

Phoinix

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Knossos

Soulia Phaistos

CAPUAN LANDS

Lyttos

AyiosThomas

Gortyn

MT. DIKTI

MESARA

Hierapytna

Rome Pompeii

0 5 10 15 km

Lepcis Magna

southeastern entrepôt of Hierapytna, located on the grain route between Alexandria and Puteoli, we find yet more Gortynian names.10 Gortynian names spread not only to cities in Central and eastern Crete but also to western Crete, from Axos (Terentia 2) to Rhithymna (Antonia 11–13; Sulpicia 2) and Lappa (Porsennia 2), as well as to Phoinix, the only safe winter harbor on the south coast (Terentia 5).11 Outside Crete, the Cretan wine trade appears to be the best explanation for the presence of Gortynian names at Pompeii (Caecilia 3; Terentia 3) and Rome (Octavia 2).12 Lepcis Magna, on the other hand, was a center of olive-oil production that expanded rapidly in the early empire and received particular attention during the reign of her native son Septimius Severus (Larcia 6). In a Greek provincial context like that of Crete, the bearers of these shared Roman names are likely to be connected with one another. This is particularly so if they share the same praenomen, like members of the gens Antonia (Marcus, 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, and perhaps 4; Lucius, 3; Gaius, 15) —a name that goes back (in all likelihood) to the triumviral period and the contest for Cretan sympathies in the civil war between M. Antonius and Octavian13—and the relatively uncommon gens Vipstana (Marcus, 1, 3, 4). Bearers of a Roman nomen may still be connected with each other across time, even when they bear a variety of praenomina as a result of the early introduction of a nomen into the province. Examples include the gens Iunia (Lucius, 1; Titus, 2; Marcus, 3), Larcia (Aulus, 1; Titus, 5; Lucius, 7), 10. Antonia 6, 14, cf. 1; Vipstana 4; Iunia 2; Larcia 5; cf. Baldwin Bowsky 1994, p. 7. 11. See Nixon et al. 1990, p. 217;

1994, p. 258. 12. Baldwin Bowsky 1999, p. 327. 13. Sherwin-White 1973, p. 310.

Figure 37.1. Map of Crete showing where names of early Roman residents of Gortyn are attested epigraphically elsewhere on the island, and beyond. M. Baldwin Bowsky

social and economic ne t works on roman cre te

439

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Marcia (Publius, 1; Quintus, 2), or Caecilia (Lucius, 2; Publia or Polla, 3). There are many instances, however, when it is not possible to judge connectedness, such as when praenomina are not recorded or preserved.14 The bearers of these shared Roman nomina appear, moreover, to have become part of the provincial elite, as office holders, honorands and dedicators of honorary inscriptions, landowners, and participants in the textile and wine industries of the island. Roman names attested at Gortyn appear among those of the magistrates of Gortyn, as first man in the province (Marcia 2); priest in the imperial cult (Antonia 7); agoranomos (Antonia 8); protokosmos (Terentia 4); pontifex (Cretensium concilii) quinquennalis (Antonia 10); duumviri of colonial Knossos (Antonia 2, 4; Doia 2; Larcia 7 [ἄρχων,]);15 and among those present at the institution of the decree concerning Ago’s sodalitas at Hierapytna (Antonia 6; Iunia 2). One man named at Hierapytna may have been an official there, or else at Gortyn, to judge from the fact that the text of this inscription mentions an urn of ashes that public officials in Gortyn brought to Hierapytna (Vipstana 4). Honorands include one Vipstanus of unknown capacity (Vipstana 3), the first Roman senator of Cretan origin (Larcia 1), and another senator descended from him (Larcia 3). The dedicators of such inscriptions are the mother of the first Cretan senator (Sulpicia 1), the wife of another (Larcia 2), and an apparent client of a protokosmos and Panhellene designate (Iunia 3). Landowners are named in inscriptions that record a land registry (Caecilia 5) or mention a garden (Marcia 3; Caecilia 4). The name of the woman who probably owned a weaving mill in the western Mesara is preserved on loomweights found near Phaistos and in the Idaion Antron (Vibia 2). Amphoras from an early stage in the developing Cretan wine trade record the names of owners and producers (Caecilia 3; Terentia 3).

S o c ial and Econ om ic Ne t work s of Rom an C re te For families placed within the social and economic networks of Roman Crete, this group of shared Roman names suggests a profile into which other groups of Roman names can be set. First, there is the onomastic and prosopographical evidence for external and then internal migration. The Roman families we have been able to identify across Crete share names attested among Italian traders resident in the Greek East, in Campania, and among the businessmen of Roman Italy. The geographical patterns revealed by these shared nomina then show that Gortyn was the social and economic hub of the island, with connections that extended along the north coast from Lappa to Knossos, and along the south coast from Phoinix to Hierapytna. 14. Only one praenomen is recorded among the gentes Octavia (Cnaeus, 1), Terentia (Gaius, 4), Doia (Luci filia, 1), and Vibia (perhaps Publia, 1). No praenomina are attested for any of the Cretan members of the gens Sulpicia, two women and one man. Some praenomina

are not preserved, due to damage to inscribed stones (Antonia 7; Caecilia 1, 4, 5; Porsennia 1; Larcia 3) or the brevity of coin legends and amphora inscriptions (Doia 2; Terentia 3). Women and acculturated Hellenes are less likely, in fact, to record any praenomen at all

(Antonia 5, 8, 12, 13, 16–18; Marcia 3, 4; Octavia 2, 3; Caecilia 6; Porsennia 2; Vipstana 2; Vibia 2; Terentia 1, 2, 5; Larcia 2, 4, 6). 15. See Cébellaic-Gervasoni 1998, pp. 32–33 for ἄρχων as a Greek term designating a duumvir.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

440

m a r t h a w. b a l d w i n b o w s k y

Second, there is the onomastic and prosopographical evidence for the economic and social ramifications of such migration. These families and their individual (but connected) members constituted the critical core of the social and political elite of the island, and they represent the personnel involved in various sectors of the Cretan economy. Names attested for recipients of proxenia and politeia at late Hellenistic Gortyn appear among the social and political elite (as men active in the public sphere or their wives), landowners, and the textile and wine industries of the island. The social and economic networks of early Roman Crete were formed, at least in part, by members of households who came to the island as traders and settlers in the wake of the fall of Delos (88 b.c.), Pompey’s resolution of the pirate problem (67 b.c.), and the battle of Actium (31 b.c.). These families—like the Granii of Gortyn and Knossos—came to trade, but they stayed to become landowners and more. Thanks to the epigraphic habit of Roman Crete and the persistence of identifiably Roman family names, we can still hear their voices.

c hap ter 3 8

D omu s, Vi l l a, an d Far m st e ad : Th e G l obal i z at i on of C re t e © 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

by Rebecca J. Sweetman

From the 1st century b.c. onward, the Romans began a concerted process of consolidating the provinces of the eastern part of the empire, which had been expanding as a result of both forceful land grabs and peaceful bequests.1 Once established, the Romans were inclined to take a laissez-faire attitude toward governance of the provinces. Unless there were circumstances that proved to be detrimental to the peaceful collection of taxes, or if provinces were generally being obstreperous or creating disruptions for other provinces, the Romans favored a noninterventionist approach. In the case of Crete, the island eventually submitted to Roman rule in 69 b.c., when Metellus crossed over with three legions. The first part of the island to be taken was Kydonia (Chania) in the west; Metellus was then quick to take Knossos, Central Crete, and the southeast. With the fall of Lappa in 67 b.c., the three-year-long battle was over. Gortyn, the one city that had surrendered, was made capital of the joint praetorian province of Crete and Cyrene.2 Even though the island had initially resisted inclusion in the empire, there were mixed reactions when Crete began to fall, ranging from the Gortynians welcoming the Romans to the Knossians giving refuge to the head of the Cretan resistance.3 For archaeologists, the challenge is to identify and explain the material correlates of such diverse societal responses at both the local and regional levels.

V ie w s of C re te i n T ran s i t i on Until recently, the nature of the continuity and change of Cretan society when the island became part of the Roman empire was rarely explored. This situation is now changing, as evidenced by the papers in the proceedings of the recent international congress Creta romana e protobizantina.4 In addition to the range of Roman material culture (e.g., ceramics, numismatics, architecture, and sculpture) covered in that volume, other areas of recent 1. This paper develops a theoretical approach to the study of Roman Crete that has been explored in detail and applied to a study of Roman

Knossos in Sweetman 2007. I would like to thank the editors and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments.

2. Gortyn would later become a senatorial province. 3. Sanders 1982, pp. 2–12. 4. Livadiotti and Simiakaki 2004.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

442

rebecca j. sweetman

erudition (e.g., imported marbles) have been producing fresh evidence for additional aspects of Roman Cretan society.5 Furthermore, epigraphic evidence continues to generate thought-provoking prosopographical results.6 This new work on many different elements of Roman material culture affords the opportunity to produce studies that encompass the entire island rather than examining small areas in isolation. Such an approach is in part stimulated by the increase in the availability of archaeological evidence, notably through recent survey project publications.7 In spite of these laudable developments in the study of Roman Crete, a traditional view of the transitional period of the late 1st century b.c./ early 1st century a.d. persists. Interpretations of continuity and change are applied liberally to the whole island rather than allowing for different social developments in distinct geographic areas and among discrete social groups. Part of the reason for the lack of progress, even in light of new interpretations, is the nature of the approach. Scholars commonly have an expectation of intentional and total cultural change when an area becomes “Roman”; they anticipate the results even before the material culture is examined. The processes that lead to this apparent cultural change are known by some as “romanization.” The concept of romanization implies an enforced, unilateral, and complete cultural change, a view that has negative connotations and does not allow for variations. In this light, the diversity of choice and the potentially positive benefits of being part of the Roman empire are often ignored. Although romanization can be described in many different ways, Millet’s definition of the concept as “a process of dialectical change, rather than the influence of one ‘pure’ culture upon others,” is common to many applications and explanations.8 While terms such as “creolization” resolve some of the issues of the application of romanization, at least as far as Knossos is concerned, this theory cannot be used to explain the inconstancies within and between cities and the countryside of Crete from the 1st century b.c. to the 1st century a.d.9 Most importantly, an understanding of Cretan society in terms of romanization does not allow for the prospect that settlements and populations, even within an island, made choices about the extent to which they wanted to become involved in the empire, nor does it allow differences to be obvious between people of diverse locations and status. In the archaeological record, dwellings represent part of the most personal elements of society, and this is universal across a range of different geographical and social contexts. As often noted, their study can allow access to the cognitive elements of human choice in the past.10 Consequently, dwellings can provide a crucial starting point from which to determine levels of alterations in population and culture. By using an approach different from the normal application of romanization, the study of dwellings can allow multiple perspectives on social continuity and change. This paper applies a new methodological theory—“globalization”—to the study of Cretan houses and their interior decor in the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods. This approach will highlight the differing extents of willingness for, and diversity of, cultural change on the island at the time when Crete became part of the Roman empire.

5. Paton and Schneider 1999. 6. Baldwin Bowsky 1995b, 2001a, 2004b, this volume (Chap. 37). 7. E.g., the Vrokastro survey (Vrokastro 3) and the Sphakia survey (Nixon et al. 2000). 8. Millett 1990, p. 1. That there is no single definition of “romanization” is just one of the many problems with applying the term to discuss the processes involved with the expansion of the empire. For more discussion, see Hingley 2005; Barrett 1997. 9. See Webster (2001) for the “creolization” of the Roman provinces. Both Hingley (1996, 2005) and Webster (2001) have addressed in detail the multitude of problems concerning the application of romanization. See Sweetman 2007 for the application of globalization theory for explaining the lack of change in Knossos following the foundation of the colony there. 10. See, in particular, Parker Pearson and Richards 1994.

t h e g l o b a l i z at i o n o f c r e t e

443

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

N ort h an d S ou t h : S e t t lemen t Evid en ce of t h e T ran s i t ional P eriod In the late 1st century b.c., there are clear differences in the nature of the settlement between the south and north of Crete and between urban and rural areas. In the north, areas such as Knossos, Chersonisos, and Kisamos appear to experience a delayed cultural change,11 whereas other areas, such as Gortyn, Lissos, and Myrtos see immediate effects of becoming a Roman province. In the north, for example, Knossos provides little evidence for new material culture in the 1st century b.c. to the 1st century a.d., despite its colonial status. Conversely, a marked change in the material culture of Gortyn (e.g., new civic buildings) attests an immediate alteration in the city. The mountains of Crete naturally divide the northern and the southern coasts of the island, and in the Roman period the southern cities begin to display elements of “Roman-ness” a century before those of the north. By the time changes are visible in the archaeological record of the north in the late 1st century a.d., they could be considered part of the overall developments in the Roman East rather than specific results of becoming part of the empire. The lack of historical sources and poor chronologies for the transitional period have hampered detailed interpretation of the phase,12 and scholars have generally accepted an incorrect notion of a significant change in the entire population of the island with its incorporation into the empire. Conversely, the great variety in domestic evidence, as only one aspect of material culture, shows that it is no longer possible to consider the island as undergoing a homogenous process of romanization, and therefore suggests that alternative explanations should be sought to explain this diversity. A method of examining this discrepancy, with a view to achieving a more viable understanding and abandoning the connotations of romanization, is through an analysis of the primary domestic contexts of domus, villa, and farmstead, and the application of globalization theory. As part of a slow process of globalization, different areas of the island—urban, rural, and cities of different status—are affected in different ways. Prior to an analysis of the evidence in detail, it is worth presenting a brief synopsis of the concepts of globalization.13 Subsequently the archaeological domestic data for Crete will be outlined and contextualized to demonstrate how these perceptions of globalization can be applied to reach a better understanding of the nature and change of Crete in the Roman empire. The inclusion of Crete within the Roman empire led to numerous changes, which are ultimately visible in the material culture but not, however, as a homogenous change affecting the whole island and not always within the time frame that we would expect to find them.14 To what extent there was a conscious systematic cultural change is highly debatable, and significant issues still remain, such as the extent of cultural impact on the island, whether there was a conscious process of change, and, finally, where and why such developments took place. 11. Sweetman 2007. 12. Sweetman 2007, p. 61.

13. Sweetman 2007. 14. Sweetman 2006.

444

rebecca j. sweetman

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

G lo baliz at ion As used in this study, globalization can be defined as “a social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding.”15 Current research is expanding the application of globalization theories to the understanding of the development of the Roman empire.16 The concept of globalization itself has been widely accepted by a range of disciplines since the 1990s, and, in light of current theoretical archaeological approaches, it is one that seems particularly applicable now.17 For Roman studies, the theory allows a range of cognitive approaches, such as distinguishing aspects of intentional and nonintentional processes, which are crucial for a study of the nature of the Roman provinces.18 This approach allows multiple perspectives, both from the point of view of the Romans and of the provinces, and therefore makes the element of choice apparent. Furthermore, the globalization theory allows explanations of a progressive change in material culture rather than a swift cultural impact as implied by the processes of romanization.19 Consequently, and perhaps most importantly, analyzing the transitional period of Crete in the 1st century b.c. to the 1st century a.d. according to theories of globalization allows different areas on the island to be affected in different ways at different times. The elements of choice, range of perspectives, and gradual processes encouraged by this definition of globalization20 mean that it is possible to see the provinces as relative to Rome, not just as becoming a version of Rome.21 It is clear from sources such as Pliny22 that many of the Eastern provinces themselves maintained their own levels of power and that many benefited from the economic advantages of being part of the empire. Whereas concepts of romanization tend to account only for the view of what Rome could gain from the provinces, theories of globalization allow the provincial perspective of what they could choose to gain from Rome. The rate at which this globalization occurs is a consequence of different processes both on the part of the Romans and on the part of the indigenous population. In this sense, one of the most appropriate elements of globalization theory is that it allows for the intentional and nonintentional influence and adoption of cultural elements on both sides, as well as geographical diversity in adoption.23 Thus Rome and the provinces—and areas within the provinces—can be viewed as having different aspects of a globalized condition that allow for the diversity of continuity and change in discrete areas: being global, operating as global, and dealing with the consequences of globalization.24 The application of the concept of globalization to the transitional period of the late 1st century b.c. to the 1st century a.d. allows a perspective different from the norm—that Rome would benefit from Crete’s key position in terms of trade in the Mediterranean, and that the different areas of the island could choose to adopt or facilitate or ignore whatever elements of Roman culture they felt did or did not suit them.25 Since the Romans had a largely nonautocratic approach to the eastern provinces, it is arguable that cultural developments on Crete can be viewed as relative

15. Waters 1995, p. 3. 16. Hingley 2005; Sweetman 2007. 17. Waters 1995, p. 1. 18. Sweetman 2007, p. 65. 19. Sweetman 2007, p. 65. 20. Economic processes are a factor in globalization theory, but this definition does not rely on them. For detailed discussion, see Sweetman 2007, p. 65. 21. Waters 1995, p. 3. 22. Plin. Ep. 10.37–40. 23. Sweetman 2007, p. 65. 24. This is a commonly accepted textbook definition. See, e.g., Mintzberg et al. 2003, p. 273. 25. In her discussion of the development of Roman Greece in the context of its geographical location within the empire, Alcock (1993, pp. 3–6) has offered comparative material on world systems analysis from other imperial states.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e g l o b a l i z at i o n o f c r e t e

445

to Rome and the empire rather than falling under a subsuming process of Roman acculturation. This situation is particularly highlighted by the case of Knossos, where the Roman colony shows little archaeological evidence to attest a significant change in the nature of the city from the Hellenistic period. Conversely, Gortyn becomes an identifiably Roman city very quickly, as evidenced by its buildings, administration, and language. This situation is likely to have resulted because the Gortynians actively intended this change. The concept of globalization accepts the imposition of certain elements of Roman culture for administrative or economic purposes (e.g., language) and the ability of the Cretans to maintain their own, while at the same time making choices about aspects that appeal to them (e.g., economic benefits). By considering the transitional period of Crete in terms of globalization, we are now able to reexamine the assumptions of Roman influx and influence in more detail.

H ellen i s t ic To Rom an H ou s es : Arch i te c t u ral Des ig n s R. Westgate has recently emphasized the diversity of housing on Crete in the Hellenistic period, and she notes the significant impediment that the lack of excavation has posed to an understanding of Hellenistic houses— a point that also applies to the Roman-period remains.26 Westgate notes the austerity of Hellenistic houses, which she suggests may be connected to political instability.27 Furthermore, it can be noted that there are no domestic Hellenistic mosaics.28 This trend clearly changes in some areas of the south coast by the early 1st century a.d. with the introduction of houses displaying conspicuous consumption in the form of mosaics (Kouphonisi) and rich architectural features (the impluvium-style house at Makrygialos). On the other hand, few changes in architecture or mosaics are notable in the north until the late 1st century a.d. By this time, a range of different house styles and mosaics begins to appear, primarily along the north and south coasts with variations on the domus, such as peristyle houses (the Villa Dionysos at Knossos), houses with T-shaped or apsed triclinia (the House of Dionysos at Chania and the Kisamos Health Center complex), and even a 3rd-century impluvium type (Kisamos), a style that went out of fashion some two centuries before.29 As will be shown below, there is speculative evidence for rural villas before the 4th century a.d.,30 and while some farmsteads have been identified through survey work, not enough of their superstructures or plans are visible to allow definition of their architectural styles.31 26. E.g., Westgate (2007) notes the evidence for linear houses at Lato and Trypitos (a type peculiar to Crete) and clusters of hearth rooms (e.g., Lyttos) and courtyard houses (Phaistos). She also notes that the courtyard-type houses, while typical elsewhere in Greece, are uncommon in Crete.

27. Westgate 2007, p. 452. 28. Sweetman 1999. 29. Sweetman 1999. 30. Sanders (1982, p. 32) notes the possibility of one at Koleni Kamara and Pacheia Ammos, although details are lacking. 31. Sanders 1982, p. 32.

446

rebecca j. sweetman

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Ev i d en c e of N e w Constru c t ion s The early diversity in the occupation of the north and south coasts is attributable to differing levels of communication that had existed prior to the creation of the Roman province. The south coast had long traditions of trade with the Near East32 and North Africa, and even before Crete became a province it seems that many of the southern towns had built up good trade contacts with the Romans. At some sites, such as the sanctuary at Lebena, provisions and other amenities would have facilitated trade with Romans and others.33 Evidence at towns such as Kisamos, Chersonisos, and Pacheia Ammos shows that once Crete was well established as part of the empire, north coast trade really began to expand. In addition, at Tholos, near Kavousi, the 52.5 x 5 m concrete building, most likely dating to the early 2nd century a.d., is convincing evidence for provision of a storage facility on the Egyptian corn route.34 In terms of domestic evidence, new houses and embellishments in the south of the island indicate a clear alteration in the mid- to late 1st century b.c. This situation would be expected given the high levels of contact, but even in the south such changes are not necessarily universal. For example, G. Altamore notes the continued use and reuse of Hellenistic houses in the early Roman period at places such as Kouphonisi and the contemporaneous construction of new houses at sites such as Makrygialos and Myrtos.35 These new constructions, combined with the introduction of black-andwhite mosaics to all of these areas,36 can be seen either as Romans taking up residence on the southern coast or a willingness on the part of the elite Cretans to quickly adopt Roman fashions. Furthermore, the introduction of mosaics indicates a diversion from the traditional austerity of Hellenistic Cretan houses. As yet, however, there is little evidence for a cultural change that affects all levels of the population in both rural and urban areas. Of all the cities on the island, Gortyn could perhaps be considered the most “Roman.” As the administrative capital, and with a south coast location, she would have held particular attractions for visitors and residents, both Roman and Cretan. At Gortyn, the immediate effects of becoming a Roman province are clearly visible in the architecture, pottery, mosaics, and other aspects of material culture.37 Although Gortyn is the obvious place in which to seek evidence for new, identifiably Roman constructions, the focus of research in this important city has been on the large-scale public buildings and not on domestic establishments.38 It is more profitable, therefore, to look at other sites on the south coast, such as Makrygialos,39 where an impluvium-style house—a clearly identifiable Roman type—was constructed during the early period of the foundation of the new province. New Roman houses (or significantly modified Hellenistic houses) can be found in other areas of the south coast (e.g., Kouphonisi and Ierapetra).40 Mosaics from domestic contexts such as that from Myrtos, with its blackand-white geometric design, show early contact with Italian styles uncommon in the East at this time.41 The Myrtos mosaic is from what is likely to have been a room in a bathhouse; the style of the mosaic dates it to the early 1st century a.d., making it one of the earliest bathhouses on Crete. At other south coast sites, such as Matala, the architectural evidence is increasing and includes workshops, shipsheds, and a possible temple.42 The

32. There is, e.g., good evidence for Phoenician traders from the sanctuary at Kommos (Kommos IV). 33. The hostel and fountain house would have provided necessary amenities for travelers; see Hadzi-Vallianou 1989. 34. Haggis 1996b. 35. Altamore 2004. 36. Black-and-white mosaics are very much a Western style of mosaic, and they are not found in the East in significant quantities except with the initial expansion of the eastern part of the empire. 37. For a broader discussion of the processes at work in Crete during the early period of the Roman province, see Sweetman 2007. 38. Few Hellenistic houses have been fully excavated here, either; see Westgate 2007, p. 445. 39. Papadakis 1979, 1980. 40. Papadakis 1983, 1986. 41. Sweetman 1999. 42. Sanders 1982, p. 161.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

t h e g l o b a l i z at i o n o f c r e t e

447

extensive remains at Lissos offer a tantalizing possibility for understanding the changes in a harbor town from Hellenistic to Roman times, but, as of yet, only the Hellenistic temple (with its 1st-century-a.d. Roman mosaic) has been investigated through excavation.43 Varieties of continuity and change on the island are not only seen in preexisting sites such as Gortyn or Makrygialos; a number of new sites are occupied or reoccupied, especially in rural regions.44 The contrast seen between the north and south coasts is further reflected in differences between urban and rural areas. In rural regions, I. Sanders points out that there is little evidence for Hellenistic farmsteads, but that by the “early Roman period” there is “an expansion of small rural sites.”45 His evidence for these sites is primarily based on his survey work, which identified pottery scatters and standing remains. Little excavation has been undertaken on these rural sites, and therefore it is difficult to discuss the nature of the architecture in any detail. Sanders notes that there are few patterns that can be applied to the diversity of Cretan rural settlement other than the evidence for villages and smaller settlements in areas near good water supplies and fertile land, as at Tylissos and Vizari (in the Amari Valley).46 Farmsteads are a key dwelling type that make an appearance in the early years of the new province, and these were identified by Sanders in areas around Phaistos and in the valley behind Siteia. Although evidence for the nature of rural sites is notoriously difficult to define using only survey data, it is likely that Sanders is correct in his proposal that the Roman occupation of the island established a new period of peace that allowed people to move in greater numbers from the safety of the city to the newly secured rural areas.47 Examples include sites such as Tourtouloi and Piskokephalo in the east, and Galatas Pediada and Stalos in the west, with the greatest concentration (predictably) around the Mesara plain.48 As in some other areas of the empire (e.g., North Africa and Dalmatia), large-scale villa sites are not in evidence on Crete until the 5th century a.d.49

Ev i d en c e of Con t in uat i on

43. Sanders 1982, p. 172. 44. Sanders 1982, p. 30. 45. Sanders 1982, p. 30. 46. Sanders 1982, p. 30. 47. Sanders 1982, p. 30. 48. Sanders 1982, pp. 16–23. 49. Sanders 1982, p. 30. 50. Sweetman 2007. 51. Sackett 1992. See also Forster 2004; Sweetman 2004, 2006. 52. For the Unexplored Mansion, see Sackett 1992. 53. Sweetman 2006. 54. Sanders 1982, pp. 14–15.

The occupation evidence from the north of the island indicates little or no change in habitation in the 1st century b.c., particularly at sites such as Chersonisos, Chania, and Knossos.50 Domestic data can be drawn from the large urban area of Knossos, where, for example, the Unexplored Mansion excavations have shown a continuation of unaltered occupation from the Hellenistic period to the Roman.51 Furthermore, at the same site, new and original buildings do not appear to be constructed until much later in the mid-1st century a.d.52 Further analysis of the material culture of the Roman colony suggests that in the domestic and religious sphere, life continued without great alteration from the Hellenistic period.53 Additionally, there are no great public buildings that can be dated as contemporary with or within a century of the establishment of the colony. Evidence of Roman presence includes 1st-century a.d. inscriptions in Latin, which mention Italian duumviri and the post of augur and suggest a formal administration of the colony.54 M. Baldwin Bowsky has observed that there are fewer Latin inscriptions than Greek inscriptions, and she points out that more

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

448

rebecca j. sweetman

epigraphic evidence should be expected for a Roman colony.55 She also notes that there was no great linguistic change at Knossos from Greek to Latin and that even in terms of onomastics, there was little permanent change. The persistence of private inscriptions in Greek (and the absence of any private inscriptions in Latin) suggests that the official administration of the colony did not impact greatly the lives of the existing population of Knossos.56 This is certainly supported by the fact that burial customs (rock-cut tombs and tile graves) continue seemingly without interruption until the 5th century, emphasizing the lack of abrupt cultural change during the Roman period.57 The only possibility of new occupancy is found in the north of the Knossos valley, marked by the discrete location of three black-and-white mosaics.58 A perceptible Western influence can be seen in the earliest mosaics from both public and domestic contexts and in the extent of ceramic imports from Italy in the 1st century a.d.—quite some time after the foundation of the colony (see below)—which might point toward a small group of Italian settlers, Roman officials, or Knossians adopting fashionable Western styles.59 This evidence from the north of the valley is a consequence of rescue excavations, and therefore not enough of the superstructures or plans of the buildings have been recovered to discuss issues of architectural styles.60 The plans of other houses at Knossos, such as the House of the Diamond Frescoes or the Southeast House, identified during the Unexplored Mansion excavations, show a series of rooms and few features that are identifiably Hellenistic or Roman.61 The case of Knossos is especially surprising because the city was given colonial status at the end of the 1st century b.c., probably as an Augustan initiative.62 With all the investment and administration involved, Roman colonies used to be viewed as particularly “Roman” cities within the provinces. The archaeology of Knossos has challenged this assumption, as there is little perceptible difference in the Greek city until a century after its foundation as a colony.63 At this point (the late 1st and 2nd centuries a.d.), Knossos begins to flourish and benefit from its elevated Roman status.64 By the end of the 1st century a.d. there were significant developments at Knossos, including the construction of new domestic buildings such as the peristyle domus of the Villa Dionysos and the North House (in the Unexplored Mansion area). A contextual study of the remains, with the new architectural types such as the so-called Civil Basilica (KS 112) and the theater (KS 110),65 the appearance of luxury items such as mosaics,66 and the change in imported pottery,67 shows that perceptible developments toward Roman culture occurred some 100 years after the foundation of the colony.68 In terms of dwellings, by the end of the 1st century a.d. a number of factors point to a stratified society, and some elements clearly display conspicuous consumption: the sumptuous Villa Dionysos with its mosaic floors;69 the rich architecture of the Roman Corinthian Building;70 and the evidence of the Roman everyday dwellings and industrial focus found in areas around the Unexplored Mansion71 and the Stratigraphical Museum excavations.72 Furthermore, the evidence for Knossos’s well-organized political, administrative, and social elements appears in the religious buildings (e.g., the Demeter Sanctuary)73 and burial evidence (particularly in around the slopes of the valley: KS 55, 57, 58, 59, 61).

55. Baldwin Bowsky 2004b, p. 141. 56. The numbers of inscriptions recorded in Guarducci 1978 are also notable because from Knossos alone there are 47 Greek inscriptions and only 12 Latin inscriptions. 57. Paton 1994. Built tombs found in the north of the city are a new feature in the mortuary record in the late 1st century a.d. 58. Sweetman 2007. 59. Sackett 1992; Forster 2001. For the mosaics, see Sweetman 2003. See also Sweetman 2007. 60. See Sweetman 2003 for discussion of the mosaics and buildings in the north of the valley. 61. Sackett 1992, pls. 2–4. 62. The date of the foundation of the colony is contentious; however, both Paton (1994, p. 142) and Sanders (1982, p. 14) suggest that it must have been around 27 b.c. 63. Sweetman 2007, p. 62. 64. Sweetman 2007. 65. KS = Knossos Survey; see Hood and Smyth 1981. 66. Sweetman 2003. 67. Forster 2001. 68. Sweetman 2007. 69. Paton 1998; Sweetman 2003. 70. Paton 1991. 71. Sackett 1992. 72. Warren 1984–1985, 1987–1988. 73. Coldstream 1973b.

t h e g l o b a l i z at i o n o f c r e t e

449

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

The example of Knossos alone indicates that there were different cultural processes involved in the incorporation of Crete into the Roman empire, and even a brief survey of the preserved domestic evidence further elucidates the diversity in the effects or responses across the island. Evidence of a similar pattern of continued occupation, as evidenced by houses and other aspects of material culture, can be seen in Kisamos, Chania, and Chersonisos, with the earliest indications for new constructions occurring in the mid-1st century a.d. It should be noted that the earliest “Roman” constructions at Knossos (marked by the Apollinaris mosaic) and Chania (Cathedral Square) are likely to be bathhouses rather than residential complexes; houses appear toward the end of the 1st century or in the early 2nd century a.d.74 For all periods, particularly in urban areas, much of the evidence comes from rescue excavations, with the result that interpretations of the house style are limited, and that the identification of rooms is often suggested using the mosaic evidence. The evidence for Crete therefore varies considerably. On the south coast new, identifiably Italian-style houses and mosaics are constructed in comparative concentration, while in the northern cities all evidence points to a significant continuation of occupation (certainly until the mid-1st century a.d.). Conversely, rural areas see the construction for the first time of new farmsteads. By the late 1st century a.d., a sense of homogeneity appears, with a significant number of new houses and luxury mosaics being found all over the island and a clearly eastern-Mediterranean style of house and mosaic.

Apply in g t h e Con cep t of G loba li z at i o n

74. Sweetman 1999.

The processes at work on Crete during the late 1st century b.c. into the 1st century a.d. can be explained in terms of globalization. This theoretical concept allows for the generation of social diversity, even between towns of the same province (e.g., Gortyn and Knossos) and between urban and rural space. Gortyn and other areas of the south coast had been loyal to Rome, which meant not only that officials, administrators, and new settlers would have been welcome, but also that there most likely was an active interest in accepting elements of Roman culture such as language and imperial cult. This pattern of early Roman occupation (or influence) is seen in the construction of Italian-style houses along the southeast coast (as noted above at Myrtos and Kouphonisi, for example). These areas underwent rapid Roman globalization in part because there were intentional desires on both sides to do so. To add more weight to this interpretation, it can be noted that the south coast was situated on the lucrative trade route between Egypt and Rome, thereby more readily exposing the area to cosmopolitan influences. With Gortyn as the focus, there was desire on both sides for the south and southeast to be successfully Roman, and there was regular contact with Rome itself. Thus, these areas became globalized soon after the foundation of the province. The effects of globalization, which bring about a peace and overall economic stability, allow for the renewed exploitation of the countryside, which is also marked by the rise in the newly established farmstead dwellings.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

450

rebecca j. sweetman

While different processes are at play at Knossos and in other areas on the northwest coast, it is possible for them also to be understood in terms of processes of globalization. Given this area’s initial resistance to Rome, it is likely that some anti-Roman sentiment would have lingered for a considerable period of time. The establishment of the colony at Knossos does not appear to have made a marked impact on the built environment of the city, but under the processes of globalization this need not be problematic. The people of Knossos may not have intended it to be a “colony,” but the Romans did. As long as Knossos was not causing trouble there was no need for the Romans to impose further cultural changes upon the city. Moreover, by the end of the 1st century a.d., Crete as a whole had become part of the globalized empire. From this period onward both Eastern- and Western-style mosaics are common, as is the occasional Western-style impluvium house seen at Kisamos.75 Luxury items, such as imported marbles, become common across the island, and they are not just limited to Gortyn and the south coast.76 The extent to which this is a natural progression partly can be seen in the broader developments on Crete. In the 1st century b.c. Crete was under standard administration but with no great cultural colonization; there was no pressing need for such colonization, because the island did not have precious resources nor was it a rebellious flash point. Its main value and, indeed, potential threat rested in its geographic potential as an entrepôt of some strategic importance.77 Thus, by the late 1st century Crete can be seen as being part of the globalized Roman Empire—a place where investments are made if the returns are viable (be they strategic or material), and where cultural diversity is allowed to prosper. By the beginning of the 2nd century a.d., all areas of Crete share common traits such as substantial public buildings, industries, a successful economy, a range of dwellings from lavish to basic with the interior decor to match, and a higher instance of Greek over Latin inscriptions. The freedom to allow cultural diversity finally developed into cultural commonality. In this light, it is arguable that the different changes that took place in Crete from the 1st century a.d. onward are a result of intentional (investment) and nonintentional (influence of eastern trends) factors, rather than the simple result of the influence of one culture upon another. For Crete and its cities, as evidenced by the domestic dwellings, it is more useful to conceive a relationship with Rome and the East as one that had the momentum to have cultural effects, especially when it was mutually beneficial.

75. Markoulaki, Christodoulakos, and Phrangonikolaki 2004. 76. Paton and Schneider 1999. 77. Sweetman 1999.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Ref eren ces

Adams, E. 2004a. “Power and Ritual in Neopalatial Crete: A Regional Comparison,” WorldArch 36, pp. 26–42. ———. 2004b. “Power Relations in Minoan Palatial Towns: An Analysis of Neopalatial Knossos and Malia,” JMA 17, pp. 191–222. Agora XIX = G. V. Lalonde, M. K. Langdon, and M. B. Walbank, Inscriptions: Horoi, Poletai Records, and Leases of Public Lands (Agora XIX), Princeton 1991. Alberti, L. 2004. “The LM II–IIIA1 Warrior Graves at Knossos: The Burial Assemblages,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 127–136. Alberti, M. E. 2007. “Washing and Dyeing Installations of the Ancient Mediterranean: Towards a Definition from Roman Times Back to Minoan Crete,” in Ancient Textiles: Production, Craft and Society. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, Held at Lund, Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19–23, 2003, ed. C. Gillis and M.-L. B. Nosch, Oxford, pp. 59–63. Alcock, S. E. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge. Alexander, R. T. 1999. “Mesoamerican House Lots and Archaeological Site Structure: Problems of Inference in Yaxcaba, Yucatan, Mexico, 1750– 1845,” in Allison 1999a, pp. 78–100. Alexiou, S. 1954. “Ανασκαφή εν Κατσαμπά,” Prakt 1954, pp. 369–376.

———. 1955. “Ανασκαφή Κατσαμπά Κρήτης,” Prakt 1955, pp. 311–314. ———. 1958. “Η αρχαιολογική κίνησις εν Κρήτη κατά το έτος 1958,” CretChron 12, pp. 459–483. ———. 1959. “Η αρχαιολογική κίνησις εν Κρήτη κατά το έτος 1959,” CretChron 13, pp. 359–379. ———. 1960. “New Light on Minoan Dating: Early Minoan Tombs at Lebena,” ILN, August 6, 1960, pp. 225–227. ———. 1964. O Mινωικὸς πολιτισμός: Με οδηγόν των ανακτόρων Κνωσού, Φαιστού, και Μαλίων, 2nd ed., Iraklion. ———. 1967. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία κεντρικής και ανατολικής Κρήτης: Ανασκαφαί,” ArchDelt 22, B΄2,

pp. 482–484. ———. 1979. “Τείχη και ακροπόλεις στη Μινωική Κρήτη,” Κρητολογία 8, pp. 41–56. ———. 1980. “Προανακτορικές ακροπόλεις της Κρήτης,” in Πεπραγμένα του Δ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Athens, pp. 9– 22. ———. n.d. A Guide to the Minoan Palaces. Knossos, Phaestos, Mallia, Iraklion. Allison, P. M., ed. 1999a. The Archaeology of Household Activities, London. ———. 1999b. “Introduction,” in Allison 1999a, pp. 1–18. ———. 1999c. “Labels for Ladles: Interpreting the Material Culture of Roman Households,” in Allison 1999a, pp. 57–77.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

452 ———. 2004. Pompeian Households: An Analysis of Material Culture (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 42), Los Angeles. Altamore, G. 2004. “Ville e edificelaboratorio sui litorali cretesi: architettura, paesaggio e attività produttive,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki 2004, vol. 2, pp. 257–268. Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M. 1991. “Χαμαλεύρι. Αγρός Δημ. Στρατιδάκη,” ArchDelt 46, B΄2, pp. 426–429. ———. 1994–1996. “Χαμαλεύρι,” Κρητική Εστία 5, pp. 251–264. ———. 2004. “H Κυδωνία της Δυτικής Κρήτης στα Πρώιμα χρόνια του Σιδήρου,” in Stampolidis and

Giannikouri 2004, pp. 21–35. Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M., and E. Papadopoulou. 2005. “The Habitation at Khamalevri, Rethymnon, during the 12th Century BC,” in D’Agata and Moody 2005, pp. 353–397. Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M., and L. Platon. 2006. “Crete: Prehistoric Times,” in Archaeology of the Aegean Islands, ed. A. G. Vlachopoulos, Athens, pp. 384–409. Arakadaki, M. 2004. “Επιβιώσεις μιας αρχέγονης αρχιτεκτονικής: Ξερολιθικά κτίσματα εποχικής διαμονής από την Ανατολική Κρήτη,” Amal-

theia 138–139, pp. 73–86. Arnaoutoglou, I. 1998. Ancient Greek Laws: A Sourcebook, London. Asheri, D. 1960. “L’oikos eremos nel diritto successorio attico,” Archivio giuridico 159, pp. 7–24. Ashmore, W., and R. R. Wilk. 1988. “Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past,” in Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, ed. R. R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, Albuquerque, pp. 1–27. Aslan, C. 1999. “Elite Residences in Late Bronze Age Cyprus” (paper, Cambridge, Mass. 1999). Åström, P. 1980. “Minoan Features at Hala Sultan Tekke,” in Πεπραγμένα του Δ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Athens, pp. 35–42. Atkinson, K. M. T. [1949] 1971. Ancient Sparta: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, repr. Westport, Conn. Ault, B. A. 2000. “Living in the Classical Polis: The Greek House as Microcosm,” CW 93, pp. 483–496.

references Ault, B. A., and L. C. Nevett. 1999. “Digging Houses: Archaeologies of Classical and Hellenistic Greek Domestic Assemblages,” in Allison 1999a, pp. 43–56. ———. 2005. Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional, and Social Diversity. Philadelphia. Baldwin Bowsky, M. W. 1987. “A. Larcius Lepidus Sulpicianus and a Newly Identified Proconsul of Crete and Cyrenaica,” Historia 36, pp. 502–508. ———. 1994. “Cretan Connections: The Transformation of Hierapytna,” Cretan Studies 4, pp. 1–44. ———. 1995a. “Eight Inscriptions from Roman Crete,” ZPE 108, pp. 263–280. ———. 1995b. “Roman Crete: No Provincial Backwater,” in Πεπραγμένα του Ζ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Rethymnon, pp. 41–67. ———. 1999. “The Business of Being Roman: The Prosopographical Evidence,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 305–347. ———. 2001a. “Gortynians and Others: The Case of the Antonii,” Eulimene 2, pp. 97–119. ———. 2001b. “When the Flag Follows Trade: Metellus, Pompey, and Crete,” in Roman Military Studies, ed. E. Dabrowa, Krakow, pp. 31– 72. ———. 2002. “Reasons to Reorganize: Antony, Augustus, and Central Crete,” in Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient World, ed. E. Dabrowa, Krakow, pp. 25–65. ———. 2004a. “From Traders to Landowners and the Imperial Cult: Acculturation in Roman Gortyn,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki 2004, vol. 1, pp. 33–47. ———. 2004b. “Of Two Tongues: Acculturation at Roman Knossos,” in Colonie romane nel mondo greco (Minima epigraphica et papyrologica Suppl. 3), ed. G. Salmeri, A. Raggi, and A. Baroni, Rome, pp. 95–150. ———. 2006. “From Capital to Colony: Five New Inscriptions from Roman Crete,” BSA 101, pp. 385– 426.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references Banou, E. 2005. “Late Minoan III Mokhlos (East Crete) Versus Late Minoan III Viannos (Central Eastern Crete): Differences and Similarities,” in D’Agata and Moody 2005, pp. 145–173. Banti, L. 1930–1931. “La grande tomba a tholos di Haghia Triada,” ASAtene 13–14, pp. 155–257. ———. 1941–1943. “I culti minoici e greci di Haghia Triada (Creta),” ASAtene 19–21, pp. 9–74. Barber, E. J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean, Princeton. ———. 1997. “Minoan Women and the Challenge of Weaving,” in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 515–519. Barnard, K. A. 2001. “Transition, Production and Standardization in Minoan Ceramics: A View from Neopalatial Mochlos” (diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania). Barrett, J. C. 1988. “The Living, the Dead and the Ancestors: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Mortuary Practices,” in The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, ed. J. C. Barrett and I. Kinnes, Sheffield, pp. 30– 42. ———. 1997. “Romanization: A Critical Comment,” in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire (JRA Suppl. 23), ed. D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock, Portsmouth, pp. 51–64. Batten, V. 1995. “EM–MM Settlements in the Area of Keratokampos and Chondros, Southern Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 2, pp. 7–28. Bennet, J. 1985. “The Structure of the Linear B Administration at Knossos,” AJA 89, pp. 231–249. ———. 1990. “Knossos in Context: Comparative Perspectives on the Linear B Administration of LM II– III Crete,” AJA 94, pp. 193–211. ———. 1992. “‘Collectors’ or ‘Owners’? An Examination of Their Possibile Functions within the Palatial Economy of LM III Crete,” in Olivier 1992, pp. 65–101.

Betancourt, P. P. 1980. Cooking Vessels from Minoan Kommos: A Preliminary Report (Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Occasional Paper 7), Los Angeles. ———. 1984. East Cretan White-onDark Ware: Studies on a Handmade Pottery of the Early to Middle Minoan Periods (University Museum Monograph 51), Philadelphia. ———. 1985. The History of Minoan Pottery, Princeton. ———. 2001. “The Household Shrine in the House of the Rhyta at Pseira,” in Laffineur and Hägg 2001, pp. 145–149. ———. 2005. “The Early Minoan to Late Minoan I Period,” in Pseira IX: The Archaeological Survey of Pseira Island 2: The Intensive Surface Survey (Prehistory Monographs 12), ed. P. P. Betancourt, C. Davaras, and R. Hope-Simpson, Philadelphia, pp. 286–293. Betancourt, P. P., V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds. 1999. Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), Liège. Betancourt, P. P., and N. Marinatos. 1997. “The Minoan Villa,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 91–98. Bettalli, M. 1985. “Case, botteghe, ergasteria: Note sui luoghi di produzione e di vendita nell’ Atene classica,” Opus 4, pp. 29–42. Bevan, A. 2002. “The Rural Landscape of Neopalatial Kythera: A GIS Perspective,” JMA 15, pp. 217–255. Binford, L. 1972. An Archaeological Perspective, New York. Bintliff, J. 1977. “Appendix 2: The Number of Burials in the Mesara Tholoi,” in “An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Catchment of the Ayiofarango Valley,” ed. D. Blackman and K. Branigan, BSA 72, pp. 83–84. Birtacha, K., A. Devetzi, D. Mylona, A. Sarpaki, and K. Trantalidou. 2008. “‘Cooking’ Installations in LC IA Akrotiri on Thera: A Preliminary Study of the ‘Kitchen’ in Pillar Shaft 65,” in Ορίζων: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades,

453 25–28 March 2004, ed. N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas, and C. Renfrew, Cambridge, pp. 349–376. Blacker, C. 1975. The Catalpa Bow: A Study in Shamanistic Practices in Japan, London. Blackman, D. 1997–1998. “Archaeology in Greece for 1997–1998,” AR 44, pp. 1–128. ———. 2001–2002. “Archaeology in Greece for 2001–2002,” AR 48, pp. 1–115. Blackman, D. J., and K. Branigan. 1973. “An Unusual Tholos Tomb at Kaminospelio, South Crete,” CretChron 25, pp. 199–206. ———. 1977. “An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Catchment of the Ayiofarango Valley,” BSA 72, pp. 13–84. ———. 1982. “The Excavation of an Early Minoan Tholos Tomb at Ayia Kyriaki, Ayiofarango, Southern Crete,” BSA 77, pp. 1–57. Blanton, R. E. 1994. House and Households: A Comparative Study, New York. Blitzer, H. 2004. “Agriculture and Subsistence in the Late Ottoman and Post-Ottoman Mesara,” in The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta archaeologica 23), ed. L. V. Watrous, D. HadziVallianou, H. Blitzer, Los Angeles, pp. 111–220. Bloch, M. 1971. Placing the Dead: Tombs, Ancestral Villages and Kinship Organization in Madagascar, London. Block, F. 1988. Revising State Theory: Essays in Politics and Postindustrialism, Philadelphia. Bloedow, E. 2003. “The Significance of the Goat in Minoan Culture,” PZ 28, pp. 1–59. Borgna, E. 1997. “Kitchen-Ware from LM IIIC Phaistos: Cooking Traditions and Ritual Activities in LBA Cretan Societies,” SMEA 39, pp. 189–217. ———. 1999. “Central Crete and the Mycenaeans at the Close of the Late Bronze Age: The Evidence of the ‘Acropoli Mediana’ at Phaistos,” in Α′ Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο: Η περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊ-

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

454 κού κόσμου, Λαμία 1994, Athens, pp. 353–370. ———. 2003a. Il complesso di ceramica tardominoico III dell’Acropoli mediana di Festòs (Studi di archeologica cretese 3), Padua. ———. 2003b. “Regional Settlement Patterns, Exchange Systems and Sources of Power in Crete at the End of the Late Bronze Age: Establishing a Connection,” SMEA 45, pp. 153–183. ———. 2004. “Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective,” in Wright 2004a, pp. 127–159. Bosanquet, R. C. 1901–1902. “Excavations at Palaikastro: I,” BSA 8, pp. 286–316. Bosanquet, R. C., and R. M. Dawkins. 1923. The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations, 1902– 1906 (BSA Suppl. 1), London. Bosanquet, R. C., R. M. Dawkins, M. N. Tod, W. L. H. Duckworth, and J. L. Myres. 1902–1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro,” BSA 9, pp. 274–387. Boschini, M. 1651. Il regno tutto di Candia, Venice. Boulotis, C. 1982. “Ein Gründungsdepositum im minoischen Palast von Kato Zakros: Minoisch-mykenische Bauopfer,” ArchKorrBl 12, pp. 153– 166. Bowie, E. 1990. “Miles Ludens? The Problem of Martial Exhortation in Early Greek Elegy,” in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, ed. O. Murray and S. Price, Oxford, pp. 221–229. Bradfer-Burdet I., and M. Pomadère. 2004–2005. “Malia. Quartier Delta,” BCH 128–129, pp. 944–959. Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe, London. ———. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe, London. Branigan, K. 1970a. The Foundations of Palatial Crete: A Survey of Crete in the Early Bronze Age, London. ———. 1970b. The Tombs of Mesara: A Study of Funerary Architecture and Ritual in Southern Crete, 2800– 1700 B.C., London. ———. 1972. “Minoan Settlements in East Crete,” in Man, Settlement and Urbanism, ed. P. Ucko, R. Tringham,

references and G. W. Dimbleby, London, pp. 751–759. ———. 1987. “Ritual Interference with Human Bones in the Mesara Tholoi,” in Thanatos: Les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l’age du bronze. Actes colloque de Liège, 21–23 avril 1986 (Aegaeum 1), ed. R. Laffineur, Liège, pp. 43–51. ———. 1988. “Some Observations on State Formation in Crete,” in French and Wardle 1988, pp. 63–72. ———. 1993. Dancing with Death: Life and Death in Southern Crete c. 3000– 2000 B.C., Amsterdam. ———. 1998. “The Nearness of You: Proximity and Distance in Early Minoan Funerary Behaviour,” in Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1), ed. K. Branigan, Sheffield, pp. 13–26. ———. 1999. “The Nature of Warfare in the Southern Aegean during the Third Millennium b.c.,” in Laffineur 1999, pp. 87–94. ———, ed. 2001a. Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4), Sheffield. ———. 2001b. “Aspects of Minoan Urbanism,” in Branigan 2001a, pp. 38–50. Brogan, T. M., R. A. K. Smith, and J. S. Soles. 2002. “Mycenaeans at Mochlos? Exploring Culture and Identity in the Late Minoan IB to IIIA1 Transition,” Aegean Archaeology 6, pp. 89–118. Brogan, T. M., and N. VogeikoffBrogan. 2006. “Crete: Historical Times,” in Archaeology of the Aegean Islands, ed. A. G. Vlachopoulos, Athens, pp. 410–431. Brumfiel, E. M. 1989. “Factional Competition in Complex Society,” in Domination and Resistance, ed. D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley, New York, pp. 127–139. Bruun-Lundgren, M., and I. Wiman. 2000. “Industrial Activities and Personal Adornment,” in Hallager and Hallager 2000, pp. 175–182. Burke, B. 2006. “Textile Production at Petras: The Evidence from House 2,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001 A΄ 1, Iraklion, pp. 279–295.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references Byrne, S. G. 2003. Roman Citizens of Athens, Dudley, Mass. Cadogan, G. 1977–1978. “Pyrgos, Crete, 1970–7,” AR 24, pp. 70–84. ———. 1986. “Why Was Crete Different?” in The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean (Cincinnati Classical Studies, n.s. 6), ed. G. Cadogan, Leiden, pp. 153–171. ———. 1990. “Lasithi in the Old Palace Period,” BICS 37, pp. 172–174. ———. 1992. “Myrtos-Pyrgos,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, pp. 202–209. ———. 1995. “Mallia and Lasithi: A Palace-state,” in Πεπραγμένα του Ζ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Rethymnon, pp. 97–104. ———. 1997. “The Role of the Pyrgos Country House in Minoan Society,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 99–103. ———. 2000. “Domestic Life at Minoan Myrtos-Pyrgos,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 1, Iraklion, pp. 169– 174. ———. 2006. “A Long-lived South Coast Community,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001 A΄ 2, Iraklion, pp. 161–166. ———. Forthcoming. “Ανθρώπινες δραστηριότητες στον μινωικό οικισμό του Μύρτου-Πύργου,” in Ανθρώπινες δραστηριότητες στο προϊστορικό Αιγαίο: Ενδείξεις από την υλική παραγωγή, ed. K. Kopaka,

Rethymnon. Cadogan, G., E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis, eds. 2004. Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans’s Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12), London. Cahill, N. 2000. “Olynthus and Greek Town Planning,” CW 93, pp. 497– 516. ———. 2002. Household and City Organization at Olynthus, New Haven. Callaghan, P. J. 1978. “KRS 1976: Excavations at a Shrine of Glaukos, Knossos,” BSA 73, pp. 1–30. Caloi, I. 2007. “Le prime fasi protopalaziali a Festòs: Il Quartiere ad

Ovest del Piazzale I. Le terrazze mediana e superiore (vani IC, C, CI, CIII, e XCVII–XCVIII, CII” (thesis Scuola acheologica italiana di Atene). Camodeca, G. 1982. “Ascesa al Senato e rapporti con i territori d’origine. Italia: Regio I (Campania, esclusa la zona di Capua e Cales), II (Apulia et Calabria), III (Lucania et Brutii),” in Atti del Colloquio internazionale AIEGL su epigrafia e ordine senatorio, Roma, 14–20 maggio 1981 (Tituli 4–5), Rome, pp. 101–163. Cantarella, E. 2005. “La condizione femminile alla luce della Grande Iscrizione,” in Greco and Lombardo 2005, pp. 71–83. Carinci, F. M. 1989. “The ‘III fase protopalaziale’ at Phaestos: Some Observations,” in Transition: Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent. Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, 18–20 avril 1988 (Aegaeum 3), ed. R. Laffineur, Liège, pp. 73–80. ———. 2001. “La Casa a Sud della Rampa e il medio minoico III a Festòs,” in I cento anni dello scavo di Festòs, 13–14 dicembre 2000, Roma (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 173), Rome, pp. 203–241. ———. 2003. “Haghia Triada nel periodo Medio Minoico,” Creta antica 4, pp. 97–143. ———. 2006. “Circolazione interna e funzoni del settore sud dell’ala occidentale del Primo Palazzo di Festòs,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001 A΄ 2, Herakleion, pp. 23–39. Carinci, F., and V. La Rosa. 2001. “Le ceramiche e i nuovi dati di scavo,” in I cento anni dello scavo di Festòs, 13–14 dicembre 2000, Roma (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 173), Rome, pp. 477–524. ———. 2002. “Festòs: per un riesame della cronologie della rampe minoiche,” ASAtene 80, pp. 870–879. Carlier P. 1992. “Les collecteurs sont-ils des fermiers?” in Olivier 1992, pp. 159–166. Carr, K. 2000. “Women’s Work: Spinning and Weaving in the Greek Home,” in Archéologie des textiles des origines au V e siècle. Actes du colloque

455 de Lattes, octobre 1999, ed. D. Cardon and M. Feugère, Montagnac, pp. 163–166. Carter, J. B. 1997. “Thiasos and Marzeah: Ancestor Cult in the Age of Homer,” in New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece, ed. S. Langdon, Columbia, pp. 72–112. Carter, T. 2004. “Transformative Processes in Liminal Spaces: Crafts as Ritual Action in the Throne Room Area,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 273–282. Caskey, J. L. 1956. “Excavations at Lerna, 1955,” Hesperia 25, pp. 147– 173. ———. 1960. “The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid,” Hesperia 29, pp. 285–303. ———. 1966. “Houses of the Fourth Settlement at Lerna,” in Χαριστήριον εις Αναστάσιον Κ. Ορλάνδον 3, Athens, pp. 144–152. ———. 1969. “Lead Weights from Ayia Irini in Keos,” ArchDelt 24, A΄, pp. 95–106. Casson, L. 1976. “The Athenian Upper Class and New Comedy,” TAPA 106, pp. 29–59. Castrén, P. 1975. Ordo populusque Pompeianus: Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii (ActaInstRomFin 8), Rome. Catling, E. A., H. W. Catling, and D. Smyth. 1979. “Knossos 1975: Middle Minoan III and Late Minoan I Houses by the Acropolis,” BSA 74, pp. 1–80. Catling, H. W. 1984. “The Bronzes and Metalworking Equipment,” in The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (BSA Suppl. 17), ed. M. R. Popham, London, pp. 203–222. Cavanagh, W. G., C. Mee, and P. James. 2005. The Laconian Rural Sites Project (BSA Suppl. 36), London. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M. 1998. Les magistrats des cités italiennes de la seconde guerre punique à Auguste: Le Latium et la Campanie (BÉFAR 299), Rome. Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World, Cambridge. Chaniotis, A. 1989. “Some More Cretan Names,” ZPE 77, pp. 67–81. ———, ed. 1999a. From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

456 (Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 29), Stuttgart. ———. 1999b. “Milking the Mountains: Economic Activities on the Cretan Uplands in the Classical and Hellenistic Period,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 181–220. ———. 2004. “From Communal Spirit to Individuality: The Epigraphic Habit in Hellenistic and Roman Crete,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki 2004, vol. 1, pp. 75–87. ———. Forthcoming. Οι επιγραφές του Ιδαίου Άντρου. Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe, London. Chapouthier, F. 1938. Deux épées d’apparat découvertes en 1936 au palais de Mallia (ÉtCrét 5), Paris. Chapouthier, F., and H. Gallet de Santerre. 1947–1948. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1946: Mallia,” BCH 71–72, pp. 405–407. Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Polities and Palaces: Some Problems in Minoan State Formation,” in Peer Polity Interacting and Socio-political Change, ed. J. F. Cherry, J. F. Renfrew, and C. Renfrew, Cambridge, pp. 19–45. Chesson, M. S. 2003. “Households, Neighborhoods and Corporate Villages: Modelling the Early Bronze Age as a House Society,” JMA 16, pp. 79–102. Christakis, K. S. 1999. “Pithoi and Food Storage in Neopalatial Crete: A Domestic Perspective,” WorldArch 31, pp. 1–20. ———. 2003. “Pithoi and Staple Storage in the South House,” in Mountjoy 2003, pp. 153–161. ———. 2004. “Palatial Economy and Storage in Late Bronze Age Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 299–309. ———. 2005. Cretan Bronze Age Pithoi: Traditions and Trends in the Production and Consumption of Storage Containers in Bronze Age Crete (Prehistory Monographs 18), Philadelphia. ———. 2008. The Politics of Storage: Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete (Prehistory Monographs 25), Philadelphia.

references Chrysoulaki, S., and L. Platon. 1987. “Relations Between the Town and Palace of Zakros,” in Hägg and Marinatos 1987, pp. 77–84. Chryssoulaki, S., and L. Vokotopoulos. 1993. “Το αρχαιολογικό τοπίο ενός ανακτόρου: Η έρευνα επιφανείας στην περιοχή του μινωικού ανακτόρου Ζάκρου Σητείας,” Αρχαιολογία

49, pp. 70–78. Chryssoulaki, S. 1999. “Minoan Roads and Guard Houses—War Regained,” in Laffineur 1999, pp. 75–83. ———. 2005. “The Imaginary Navy of Minoan Crete: Rocky Coasts and Probable Harbours,” in Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), ed. R. Laffineur and E. Greco, Liège, pp. 77–89. Civitillo, M. and B. Greco. 2003. “Il complesso protopalaziale di Apodoulou Amariou: Riflessioni preliminari,” ASAtene 81, pp. 769–798. Cline, E. H. 1994. Sailing the Winedark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (BAR-IS 591), Oxford. Coldstream, J. N. 1973a. “Knossos 1951–61: Orientalizing and Archaic Pottery from the Town,” BSA 68, pp. 33–63. ———. 1973b. Knossos: The Sanctuary of Demeter (BSA Suppl. 8), London. ———. 1991. “Knossos: An Urban Nucleus in the Dark Age?” in La transizione dal Miceneo all’Alto Arcaismo: Dal palazzo alla città. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, 14–19 marzo 1988, ed. D. Musti, A. Sacconi, L. Rocchetti, M.Rocchi, E. Scafa, L. Sportiello, and M. E. Giannotta, Rome, pp. 287–299. ———. 2000. “Evans’s Greek Finds: The Early Greek Town of Knossos, and Its Encroachment on the Borders of the Minoan Palace,” BSA 95, pp. 259–299. Coldstream, J. N., and L. J. Eiring. 2001. “The Late Archaic and Classical Periods,” in Coldstream, Eiring, and Forster 2001, pp. 77–89. Coldstream, J. N., L. J. Eiring, and G. Forster. 2001. Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman (BSA Studies 7), London.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references Coldstream, J. N., and E. M. Hatzaki. 2003. “Knossos: Early Greek Occupation under the Roman Villa Dionysos,” BSA 98, pp. 279–306. Coldstream, J. N., and G. L. Huxley. 1999. “Knossos: The Archaic Gap,” BSA 94, pp. 289–307. Coldstream, J. N., and C. F. Macdonald. 1997. “Knossos: Area of South-west Houses, Early Hellenic Occupation,” BSA 92, pp. 191–245. Coleman, J. E., J. A. Barlow, M. K. Mogelonsky, and K. W. Schaar. 1996. Alambra: A Middle Bronze Age Settlement in Cyprus (SIMA 118), Jonsered. Comparetti, D. 1893. Le leggi di Gortyna e le altre iscrizioni arcaiche cretesi (MonAnt 3), Milan. Corinth XII = G. Davidson, The Minor Objects (Corinth XII), Princeton 1952. Coulson, W. D. E., D. C. Haggis, M. S. Mook, and J. L. Tobin. 1997. “Excavations on the Kastro at Kavousi: An Architectural Overview,” Hesperia 66, pp. 315–390. Coulson, W., and M. Tsipopoulou. 1994. “Preliminary Investigations at Halasmenos, Crete, 1992–1993,” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 65–97. Cox, C. A. 1998. Household Interests: Property, Marriage Strategies, and Family Dynamics in Ancient Athens, Princeton. Crouwel, J. H., M. Prent, E. Langridge-Noti, and J. van den Vin. 2004. “Geraki: An Acropolis Site in Laconia. Preliminary Report on the Tenth Season (2004),” Pharos 12, pp. 1–30. Crowfoot, G. M. 1936–1937. “Of the Warp-Weighted Loom,” BSA 37, pp. 36–47. Crowley, J. L. 1995. “Images of Power in the Bronze Age Aegean,” in Laffineur and Niemeier 1995, pp. 475– 491. Cucuzza, N. 1997. “The North Sector Buildings of Haghia Triada,” in Driessen and Farnoux 1997, pp. 73–84. ———. 1998. “MU-KA-RA (KN Pp 498): Antroponimo o toponimo?” in Επί πόντον πλαζόμενοι: Simposio italiano di studi egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, ed. V. La Rosa, D. Palermo, and L. Vagnetti, Rome, pp. 305–311.

———. 2001. “Religion and Architecture: Early LM IIIA2 Buildings in the Southern Area of Haghia Triada,” in Laffineur and Hägg 2001, pp. 169–174. ———. 2003. “Il volo del grifo: Osservazioni sulla Haghia Triada ‘micenea,’” Creta antica 4, pp. 199–272. Cultraro, M. 2001. L’anello di Minosse, Milan. Cunningham, T. 2001. “Variations on a Theme: Divergence in Settlement Patterns and Spatial Organization in the Far East of Crete during the Proto- and Neopalatial Periods,” in Branigan 2001a, pp. 72–86. ———. 2005. “House, Shrine, or House-shrine: Assessing Cultic vs. Domestic Function in Late Bronze Age Crete” (paper, Ierapetra 2005). Cunningham, T. F., and J. Driessen. 2004. “Site by Site: Combining Survey and Excavation Data to Chart Patterns of Socio-political Change in Bronze Age Crete,” in Side-bySide Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, ed. S. E. Alcock and J. F. Cherry, Oxford, pp. 101–113. Curti, M. 1991. “L’insediamento Medio Minoico di Apodoulou: Analisi delle caratteristiche costruttive e tipologiche,” in Consiglio Nazionale delle ricerche. Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. Seminari anno 1990, ed. M. Rocchi and L. Vagnetti, Rome, pp. 17–30. ———. 1996. “Il complesso cretese di Apodoulou: Tipologia e strutture,” in Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso internazionale di micenologia, 14–20 ottobre 1991, Roma-Napoli 3: Archeologia (Incunabula graeca 98), ed. E. De Miro, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi, Rome, pp. 1411–1421. Dabney, M. K. 1997. “Craft Product Consumption as an Economic Indicator of Site Status in Regional Studies,” in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 467–471. D’Agata, A. L. 1987. “Un vano di culto TM III nell’abitato di Haghia Triada (Creta),” Sileno 18, pp. 135–145. ———. 1992. “Late Minoan Crete and Horns of Consecration: A Symbol in Action,” in Εικών. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the Fourth International Aegean Conference,

457 University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6–9 April 1992 (Aegaeum 8), ed. R. Laffineur and J. L. Crowley, Liège, pp. 247–256. ———. 1997–2000. “Ritual and Rubbish in Dark Age Crete: The Settlement of Thronos/Kephala (Ancient Sybrita) and the Pre-Classical Roots of a Greek City,” Aegean Archaeology 4, pp. 45–59. ———. 1999. “Hidden Wars: Minoans and Mycenaeans at Haghia Triada in the LM III Period. The Evidence from Pottery,” in Laffineur 1999, pp. 47–55. ———. 2003a. “Crete at the Transition from Late Bronze to Iron Age,” in Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and Its Neighbouring Regions. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, November 8–9, 2002, ed. B. Fisher, H. Genz, É. Jean, and K. Köroğlu, Istanbul, pp. 21–28. ———. 2003b. “LM IIIC–SM Pottery Sequence at Thronos/Kephala (Ancient Sybrita) and Its Connections with the Greek Mainland,” in LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th, 2001 (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 20), ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil, Vienna, pp. 23–35. ———. 2005. “Central Southern Crete and Its Relations with the Greek Mainland in the Postpalatial Period,” in D’Agata and Moody 2005, pp. 109–130. D’Agata, A. L., and J. Moody, eds. 2005. Ariadne’s Threads: Connections between Crete and the Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at Athens, Scuola archeologica italiana, 5–6 April 2003 (Tripodes 3), Athens. D’Agata, A. L., and A. van de Moortel, eds. 2009. Archaeologies of Cult: Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (Hesperia Suppl. 42), Princeton. Darcque, P. 1990. “Pour l’abandon du terme ‘mégaron,’” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 21–31. ———. 1996. “Réflexions préliminaires sur quelques dispositifs et pièces de

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

458 stockage de l’époque mycénienne (1550–1050 avant J.-C.) en Grèce continentale,” Topoi 6, pp. 85–98. Darcque, P., and R. Treuil, eds. 1990. L’habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale organisée par la Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique, l’Université de Paris I et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 23–25 juin 1987) (BCH Suppl. 19), Paris. D’Arms, J. H. 1970. Romans on the Bay of Naples: A Social and Cultural Study of the Villas and Their Owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400, Cambridge, Mass. Daux, G. 1959. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1958: Crète,” BCH 83, pp. 731–754. ———. 1960. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1959: Crète,” BCH 84, pp. 819–853. ———. 1965. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1964,” BCH 89, pp. 683– 1007. Davaras, C. 1964. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Κρήτης: Μικραί σκαφικαί έρευναι. Περισυλλογή αρχαιοτήτων,” ArchDelt 19, B΄, pp. 436–447. ———. 1972a. “Η αρχαιολογική κίνηση στην Κρήτη κατά το 1971: Ανασκαφές και αναστηλώσεις,”

Amaltheia 3, pp. 38–52. ———. 1972b. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Ανατολικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 27, B΄2, pp. 645–654. ———. 1972c. “The Oval House at Chamaizi Reconsidered,” AAA 5, pp. 283–288. ———. 1973a. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Ανατολικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 28, B΄2, pp. 585–596. ———. 1973b. “Νέαι έρευναι εις την ελλειψοειδή οικίαν Χαμαιζίου,” in Πεπραγμένα του Γ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Athens, pp. 46–53. ———. 1974. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Ανατολικής Κρήτης,” Amaltheia 5, pp. 48–49. ———. 1982a. “Σπήλαιο Aγίου Xαραλάμπους (Γεροντομουρί),” ArchDelt 37, B΄2, pp. 387–388. ———. 1982b. “Σπήλαιο Πελεκητών Zάκρου,” ArchDelt 37, B΄2, p. 388.

references ———. 1986. “Πρώιμες μινωικές σφραγίδες και σφραγιστικοί δακτύλιοι από το σπήλαιο Γεροντομουρί Λασιθίου,” ArchEph 125, pp. 9–48. ———. 1989. “Mινωικά μελισσουργικά σκεύη,” in Φίλια έπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνάν δια τα εξήντα έτη του ανασκαφικού του έργου (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 103), vol. 3, pp. 1–7,

Athens. ———. 1992a. “Chamaizi,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, pp. 78–81. ———. 1992b. “Makryygialos,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, pp. 172–174. ———. 1997. “The ‘Cult-Villa’ at Makrygialos,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 117–135. Davidson, G. R., and D. B. Thompson. 1943. Small Objects from the Pnyx (Hesperia Suppl. 7), Princeton. Davies, J. K. 1971. Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 B.C., Oxford. ———. 1996. “Deconstructing Gortyn: When Is a Code a Code?” in Greek Law in Its Political Setting: Justification Not Justice, ed. L. Foxhall and A. D. E. Lewis, Oxford, pp. 33–56. ———. 2005. “The Gortyn Laws,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, ed. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen, Cambridge, pp. 305– 327. Dawkins, R. M. 1902–1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro II: The Pottery,” BSA 9, pp. 297–328. ———. 1903. “Pottery from Zakro,” JHS 23, pp. 248–260. ———. 1904–1905. “Excavations at Palaikastro IV: Neolithic Settlement at Magasá,” BSA 11, pp. 260–268. ———. 1913–1914. “Excavations at Plati in Lasithi, Crete,” BSA 20, pp. 1–18. Dawkins, R. M., C. H. Hawes, and R. C. Bosanquet. 1904–1905. “Excavations at Palaikstro IV,” BSA 11, pp. 258–308. Dawkins, R. M., and M. L. W. Laistner. 1912–1913. “The Excavation of the Kamares Cave in Crete,” BSA 19, 1–34. Day, L. P. 1997. “The Late Minoan IIIC Period at Vronda, Kavousi,” in Driessen and Farnoux 1997, pp. 391–407.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references ———. 2009. “Ritual Activity at Karphi: A Reappraisal,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel 2009, pp. 137–151. ———. 2011. The Pottery from Karphi: A Re-examination (BSA Studies 19), London. Day, L. P., W. D. E. Coulson, and G. C. Gesell. 1986. “Kavousi, 1983– 1984: The Settlement at Vronda,” Hesperia 55, pp. 355–387. Day, L. P., K. T. Glowacki, and N. L. Klein. 2000. “Cooking and Dining in LM IIIC Vronda, Kavousi,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 3, Iraklion, pp. 115–125. Day, L. P., M. S. Mook, and J. D. Muhly, eds. 2004. Crete beyond the Palaces. Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference (Prehistory Monographs 10), Philadelphia. Day, L. P., and L. M. Snyder. 2004. “The ‘Big House’ at Vronda and the ‘Great House’ at Karphi: Evidence for Social Structure in LM IIIC Crete,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 63–80. Day, P. M., and D. E. Wilson. 2002. “Landscapes of Memory, Craft and Power in Prepalatial and Protopalatial Knossos,” in Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking “Minoan” Archaeology, ed. Y. Hamilakis, Oxford, pp. 143–166. Day, P. M., D. E. Wilson, and E. Kiriatzi. 1997. “Reassessing Specialization in Prepalatial Cretan Ceramic Production,” in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 275–289. Deffontaines, P. 1948. Géographie et religions (Géographie humaine 21), Paris. De Fidio, P. 2001. “Centralization and Its Limits in the Mycenaean Palatial Systems,” in Voutsaki and Killen 2001, pp. 15–24. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. 1994. “The PostPalatial Period of Greece: An Aegean Prelude to the 11th Century b.c. in Cyprus,” in Cyprus in the 11th century B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium Organized by the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus and the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, 30–31 October 1993, ed. V. Karageorghis, Nicosia, pp. 11–29.

———. 1998. “The Aegean Islands and the Breakdown of the Mycenaean Palaces around 1200 b.c.,” in Karageorghis and Stampolidis 1998, pp. 105–121. Délos XVIII = W. Deonna, Le mobilier délien (Délos XVIII), Paris 1938. Demargne, P. (unpublished). Carnet de fouilles 1931. ———. 1945. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Exploration des nécropoles I: 1921–1933 (ÉtCrét 7), Paris. Demargne, P., and H. Gallet de Santerre. 1953. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation I: 1921–1948 (ÉtCrét 9), Paris. Demas, M. V. 1984a. “Pyla-Kokkinokremos and Maa-Palaeokastro: Two Fortified Settlements of the End of the 13th Century b.c. in Cyprus” (diss. Univ. of Cincinnati). ———. 1984b. “The Architectural Remains,” in Pyla-Kokkinokremos: A Late 13th-Century B.C. Fortified Settlement in Cyprus, ed. V. Karageorghis and M. Demas, Nicosia, pp. 6–32. ———. 1988. “The Architecture,” in Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro, 1979–1986, ed. V. Karageorghis and M. Demas, Nicosia, pp. 1–100. De Sanctis, G. 1901. “Cretan Expedition XV: The Startus in the Cretan Inscriptions,” AJA 5, pp. 319–327. Descat, R. 1987. “L’économie d’une cité grecque au IVe siécle avant J.-C.: L’exemple athénien,” RÉA 89, pp. 239–257. Deshen, S., S. Mackintosh, A. H. Betteridge, B. E. F. Beck, S. Herrel, and R. J. Smith. 1995. “Domestic Observances,” in Encyclopedia of Religion 4, ed. M. Eliade, New York, pp. 400–417. Deshayes, J. and A. Dessenne. 1959. Fouilles éxecutées à Mallia. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation II: 1948–1954 (ÉtCrét 11), Paris. Dickinson, O. T. P. K. 2006. The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change between the Twelfth and Eight Centuries B.C., London. Di Giuseppe, H. 1995. “I pesi da telaio,” in Armento: Archeologia di un centro indigeno (Bollettino di Arche-

459 ologia 35–36), ed. A. R. Tagliente, Rome, pp. 141–149. Dikaios, P. 1971. Enkomi, Excavations 1948–58, vol. 2: Chronology, Summary and Conclusions, Mainz. Dimopoulou, N. 1999. “The Neopalatial Cemetery of the Knossian Harbour-Town at Poros: Mortuary Behavior and Social Ranking,” in Eliten in der Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen (Monographien RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz 43), Mainz, pp. 27–36. D’Isanto, G. 1993. Capua romana: Ricerche di prosopografia e storia sociale (Vetera 9), Rome. Di Tonto, S. 2004. “Considerazioni preliminari sulla ceramica neolitica dei nuovi scavi di Festòs,” ASAtene 82, pp. 413–428. DMic II = F. Aura Jorro, Diccionario micénico II, Madrid 1993 Doxey, D. 1987. “Causes and Effects of the Fall of Knossos in 1375 b.c.,” OJA 6, pp. 301–324. Driessen, J. 1982. “The Minoan Hall in Domestic Architecture on Crete: To Be in Vogue in Late Minoan IA?” ActaArchLov 21, pp. 27–92. ———. 1989–1990. “The Proliferation of Minoan Palatial Architectural Style (I): Crete,” ActaArchLov 28– 29, pp. 3–23. ———. 1992. “‘Collector’s Items’: Observations sur l’élite mycénienne de Cnossos,” in Olivier 1992, pp. 197– 214. ———. 2001a. “Centre and Periphery: Some Observations on the Administration of the Kingdom of Knossos,” in Voutsaki and Killen 2001, pp. 96–112. ———. 2001b. “History and Hierarchy. Preliminary Observations on the Settlement Pattern of Minoan Crete,” in Branigan 2001a, pp. 51– 71. ———. 2002. “‘The King Must Die.’ Some Observations on the Use of Minoan Court Compounds,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 1–14. ———. 2003. “An Architectural Overview,” in Mountjoy 2003, pp. 27–35. Driessen, J., and A. Farnoux. 1992. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française d’Athènes en 1991. Malia:

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

460 Quartier Nu,” BCH 116, pp. 733– 742. ———. 1993. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française d’Athènes en 1992. Malia: Quartier Nu,” BCH 117, pp. 675–683. ———. 1994a. “Mycenaeans at Malia?” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 54–64. ———. 1994b. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française d’Athènes en 1993. Malia: Quartier Nu,” BCH 118, pp. 471–477. ———, eds. 1997. La Crète mycénienne. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par l’École française d’Athènes, 26–28 mars 1991 (BCH Suppl. 30), Athens. Driessen, J. and C. Macdonald. 1984. “Some Military Aspects of the Aegean in the Late Fifteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries b.c.,” BSA 79, pp. 49–74. ———. 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liège. Driessen, J., and J. A. MacGillivray. 1989. “The Neopalatial Period in East Crete,” in Transition: Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent. Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, 18–20 avril 1988, (Aegaeum 3), ed. R. Laffineur, Liège, pp. 99– 111. Driessen, J., and J. Sakellarakis. 1997. “The Vathypetro-Complex: Some Observations on Its Architectural History and Function,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 63–77. Driessen, J., I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, eds. 2002. Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvainla-Neuve, 14–15 December 2001 (Aegaeum 23), Liège. DuBois, P. 2003. Slaves and Other Objects, Chicago. Duhoux, Y. 1977. Le disque de Phaestos, Louvain. Ebbinghaus, S. 2005. “Protector of the City, or the Art of Storage in Early Greece,” JHS 125, pp. 51–72. Eliopoulos, T. 1998. “A Preliminary Report on the Discovery of a Temple Complex of the Dark Ages at

references Kephala Vasilikis,” in Karageorghis and Stampolidis 1998, pp. 301–313. ———. 2004. “Gournia, Vronda Kavousi, Kephala Vasilikis: A Triad of Interrelated Shrines of the Expiring Minoan Age on the Isthmus of Ierapetra,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 81–90. Empereur, J.-Y., A. Marangou, and N. Papadakis. 1992. “Recherches sur les amphores crétoises (III),” BCH 116, pp. 633–642. Erickson, B. L. 2002. “Aphrati and Kato Syme: Pottery, Continuity, and Cult in Late Archaic and Classical Crete,” Hesperia 71, pp. 41–90. Evans, A. J. 1896. “Explorations in Eastern Crete II: ‘A Town of Castles,’” The Academy, June 20, no. 1259, pp. 512–513. ———. 1899–1900. “Knossos: Summary Report of the Excavations in 1900. I: The Palace,” BSA 6, pp. 3–70. ———. 1901–1902. “The Palace of Knossos: Provisional Report of the Excavations for the Year 1902,” BSA 8, pp. 1–124. ———. 1913–1914. “The ‘Tomb of the Double Axes’ and Associated Group, and the Pillar Rooms and Ritual Vessels of the ‘Little Palace’ at Knossos,” Archaeologia 65, pp. 1–94. Evans, A. J., and J. L. Myres. 1895. “A Mycenaean Military Road in Crete,” The Academy, June 1, no. 1204, pp. 469–470. Evans, J. [1936] 1964. Index to The Palace of Minos, London. Evans, J. D. 1994. “The Early Millennia: Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlement,” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, ed. D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, Oxford, pp. 1–22. Evans, J. D., and C. Renfrew. 1968. Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos (BSA Suppl. 5), London. Evely, R. D. G. 1988. “Minoan Craftsmen: Problems of Recognition and Definition,” in French and Wardle 1988, pp. 397–415. ———. 2000. Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques. An Introduction (SIMA 92:2), Jonsered. ———. 2003. “The Stone, Bone, Ivory, Bronze, and Clay Finds,” in Mountjoy 2003, pp. 167–194.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references Fagerström, K. 1988. Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments through Changing Times (SIMA 81), Göteborg. Faklaris, P., and V. Stamatopoulou. 1997. “Βεργίνα: Ανασκαφή ακρόπολης 1997. Υφαντουργεία και βαφεία,” Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 11, pp. 121– 128. Faraguna, M. 1994. “Alle origini dell’oikonomia: Dall’Anonimo di Giamblico ad Aristotele,” RendLinc s. 9 v. 5, pp. 551–589. Farnoux, A. 1990a. “Malia à la fin du Bronze Récent,” ActaArchLov 28–29 (1989–1990), pp. 25–33. ———. 1990b. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française d’Athènes en 1989. Malia: Nord de l’Atelier de Sceaux,” BCH 114, pp. 912–919. ———. 1997a. “Malia à l’époque mycénienne,” Dossiers d’Archéologie 222, pp. 66–70. ———. 1997b. “Malia au Minoen Récent II–IIIA1,” in Driessen and Farnoux 1997, pp. 135–147. Farnoux, A., and J. Driessen. 1991a. “Inscriptions peintes en linéaire B à Malia,” BCH 115, pp. 71–97. ———. 1991b. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française d’Athènes en 1990. Malia: Quartier Nu (Nord de l’Atelier de Sceaux),” BCH 115, pp. 735–741. ———. 1995. “Un ensemble MR III à Malia: Le quartier Nu,” in Πεπραγμένα του Z′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Rethymnon, pp. 311–315. Farnoux, A., and S. Müller. 1989. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française en Grèce en 1988. Malia: Nord de l’Atelier de Sceaux,” BCH 113, pp. 762–767. Faure, P. 1962. “Cavernes et sites aux deux extrémités de la Crète,” BCH 86, pp. 36–56. ———. 1963. “Cultes de sommets et cultes de cavernes en Crète,” BCH 87, pp. 493–508. ———. 1964. Fonctions des cavernes crétoises (Ecole française d’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires 14), Paris. ———. 1969. “Antiques cavernes de refuge dans la Crète de l’Ouest,” AAA 2, pp. 213–216. ———. 1996. Τα ιερά σπήλαια της Kρήτης, Iraklion.

Feldman, M. 2002. “Luxurious Forms: Redefining a Mediterranean ‘International Style,’ ca. 1400–1200 b.c.e.,” ArtB 84, pp. 6–27. Ferrucci, S. 1996. “‘Belle case private’ e case tutte uguali nell’Atene del V secolo a.C.,” RivFil 124, pp. 408– 434. ———. 1998. L’Atene di Iseo: L’organizzazione del privato nella prima metà del IV sec. a.C., Pisa. ———. 2006. “L’oikos nel diritto attico: Pubblico, privato e individuale nella democrazia ateniese classica,” Dike 9, pp. 183–210. Fiandra, E. 1961–1962. “I periodi struttivi del primo palazzo di Festòs,” CretChron 15–16, pp. 112–126. ———. 1973. “Skutelia MM a Festòs,” in Πεπραγμένα του Γ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Athens, pp. 84–91. ———. 1994. “La cretula del vano 10 a Festòs e le sue implicazioni nell’amministrazione tra MM III e TM,” in Sybrita: La valle di Amari fra Bronzo e Ferro (Incunabula graeca 96), ed. L. Rocchetti, Rome, pp. 15–26. ———. 1995. “Phaistos between MM II and LM I,” in Πεπραγμένα Z ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Rethymnon, pp. 329– 339. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Chronologie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ : Premier bilan (BAR-IS 990), Oxford. Finley, M. I. 1951. Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens: The Horos Inscriptions, New Brunswick, N.J. Firth, R. J. 2000–2001. “A Review of the Find-places of the Linear B Tablets from the Palace of Knossos,” Minos 35–36, pp. 63–290. Forge, A. 1972. “Normative Factors in the Settlement Size of Neolithic Cultivators (New Guinea),” Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, ed. P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, London, pp. 363–376. Forster, G. 2001. “The Roman Period,” in Coldstream, Eiring, and Forster 2001, pp. 137–167.

461 ———. 2004. “Shadow of a City? A Review of Late Roman Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 489–492. Fotou, V. 1990. “L’implantation des bâtiments en Crète à l’époque néopalatiale: Aménagement du terrain et mode d’occupation du sol,” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 45– 73. ———. 1993. New Light on Gournia: Unknown Documents of the Excavation at Gournia and Other Sites on the Isthmus of Ierapetra by Harriet Ann Boyd (Aegaeum 9), Liège. ———. 1997. “Éléments d’analyse architecturale et la question des fonctions de trois bâtiments-‘villas’: La Royal Villa, le ‘Mégaron’ de Nirou et le ‘Mégaron’ de Sklavokambos,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 33–50. ———. 2004. “Unpublished Building Remains from Evans’s Trial Pits of 1900–02 at Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 83– 119. Fotou, V., J.-P. Olivier, and M. Schmid. 1985. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française en Grèce en 1984. Malia: Maison Δα,” BCH 109, p. 896. ———. 1986. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’Ecole française en Grèce en 1985. Malia: Maison Δα,” BCH 110, p. 822. Foxhall, L. 1989. “Household, Gender and Property in Classical Athens,” CQ 39, pp. 22–44. ———. 1993. “Oil Extraction and Processing Equipment in Classical Greece,” in La production du vin et de l’huile en Méditerranée (BCH Suppl. 26), ed. M.-C. Amouretti and J.-P. Brun, Athens, pp. 183– 197. Frankel, D. 2005. “Becoming Bronze Age: Acculturation and Enculturation in Third Millennium b.c. Cyprus,” in Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean (Levant Suppl. Series 2), ed. J. Clarke, Oxford, pp. 18–24. Frankel, D., and J. M. Webb. 1998. “Three Faces of Identity: Ethnicity, Community, and Status in the Cypriot Bronze Age,” MeditArch 11, pp. 1–12.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

462 ———. 2006. “Neighbors: Negotiating Space in a Prehistoric Village,” Antiquity 80, pp. 287–302. Frederiksen, M. 1984. Campania, ed. with additions by N. Purcell, Rome. French, E. B., and K. A. Wardle, eds. 1988. Problems in Greek Prehistory: Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, Bristol. Fustel de Coulanges, N. D. 1874. La cité antique: Étude sur le culte, le droit, les institutions de la Grèce et de Rome, Paris. Galanidou, N. 2000. “Patterns in Caves: Foragers, Horticulturists, and the Use of Space,” JAnthArch 19, pp. 243–275. Gallis, K. J. 1985. “A Late Neolithic Foundation Offering from Thessaly,” Antiquity 59, pp. 20–24. Georgiou, H. S. 1980. “Minoan Fireboxes: a Study of Form and Function,” SMEA 21, pp. 123–192. Gernet, L. 1956. “Choses visibles et choses invisibles,” Revue Philosophique 146, pp. 79–86. Gesell, G. C. 1972. “The Archaeological Evidence for the Minoan House Cult and Its Survival in Iron Age Crete” (diss. Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). ———. 1985. Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (SIMA 67), Göteborg. ———. 1987. “The Minoan Palace and Public Cult,” in Hägg and Marinatos 1987, pp. 123–128. ———. 1995. “The Goddesses with Up-Raised Hands from Kavousi Ierapetras,” in Πεπραγμένα του Ζ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Rethymnon, pp. 349–351.

———. 1999. “Ritual Kalathoi in the Shrine at Kavousi,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 263–267. ———. 2001. “The Function of the Plaque in the Shrines of the Goddess with Up-Raised Hands,” in Laffineur and Hägg 2001, pp. 253–258. ———. 2004. “From Knossos to Kavousi: The Popularizing of the Minoan Palace Goddess,” in Χάρις: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (Hesperia Suppl. 33), ed. A. P. Chapin, Princeton, pp. 131–150.

references Girella, L. 2001. “Alcune considerazioni in margine al MM III: Archanes e Festòs,” Creta antica 2, pp. 57–69. ———. 2003. “La produzione ceramica del MMIII e l’inizio dell’età neopalaziale a Creta” (diss. Univ. of Udine). ———. 2005. “Un deposito ceramico del MM III nel Settore Nord-Est di Haghia Triada” (thesis Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene). ———. 2007a. “Forms of Commensal Politics in Neopalatial Crete,” Creta antica 8, pp. 135–167. ———. 2007b. “Toward a Definition of the MM III Ceramic Sequence in South-Central Crete: Returning to the Traditional MM IIIA and IIIB Division?” in Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at Salzburg, October 31st–November 2nd, 2004, ed. F. Felten, W. Gauss, and R. Smetana, Vienna, pp. 233– 255. Gitin, S., A. Mazar, and E. Stern, eds.1998. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries b.c.e., Jerusalem. Gjerstad, E. 1926. Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, Stockholm. Glowacki, K. 2002. “Digging Houses at LM IIIC Vronda (Kavousi), Crete,” in Habitat et urbanisme dans le monde grec de la fin des palais mycéniens à la prise de Milet: 494 av. J.-C. Table ronde internationale organisée à Toulouse les 9–10 mars 2001 par le GRACO (Pallas 58), ed. J.-M. Luce, Toulouse, pp. 33–47. ———. 2004. “Household Analysis in Dark Age Crete,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 125–136. ———. 2007. “House, Household, and Community at LM IIIC Vronda,” in Westgate, Fisher, and Whitley 2007, London, pp. 129–139. Godart, L. 1992. “Les collecteurs dans le monde égéen,” in Olivier 1992, pp. 257–283. Godart, L., and J.-P. Olivier. 1985. Recueil des inscriptions en linéaire A 5: Addenda, corrigenda, concordances, index et planches des signes (ÉtCrét 21:5), Paris. Godart, L., and Y. Tzedakis. 1992. Témoignages archéologiques et épigraphiques en Crète occidentale du Néo-

references lithique au Minoen Récent IIIB (Incunabula graeca 93), Rome. Graham, J. W. 1969. The Palaces of Crete, Princeton. ———. 1987. The Palaces of Crete, 2nd ed., Princeton. Grammatikaki, E. 1992. “Κνωσός: Βλυ-

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

χιά (αγρός Μιχ. και Νικ. Σφακιανάκη),” ArchDelt 47, B΄2, pp. 556–

557. Greco, E., T. Kalpaxis, N. Papadakis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 2001. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 125, pp. 637–644. ———. 2002. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 126, pp. 577–582. Greco, E., and M. Lombardo, eds. 2005. La grande iscrizione di Gortyna: Centoventi anni dopo la scoperta. Atti del I convegno internazionale di studi sulla Messarà, Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene, Atene-Haghi Deka, 25–28 maggio 2004 (Tripodes 4), Athens. Guarducci, M. 1978. Epigrafia Greca IV, Rome. Guizzi, F. 1997. “Terra comune, pascolo e contributo ai syssitia in Creta arcaica e classica,” AION n.s. 4, pp. 45–51. ———. 1999. “Sissizi a Creta in età Imperiale? Forme di imposizione tradizionali e finanze cittadine a Lyttos,” in Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in Occidente ed in Oriente. Actes de la X e Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain, Rome, 27–29 mai 1996 (CÉFR 256), Rome, pp. 275– 284. ———. 2005. “ ‘Partecipano tutti all’assemblea che però non ha alcun potere . . . .’ La politica ai tempi della Grande Iscrizione di Gortyna,” in Greco and Lombardo 2005, pp. 99–114. Hadjimichali, V. 1971. “Recherches à Latô. III. Maisons,” BCH 95, pp. 167–222. Hadjisavvas, S., and I. Hadjisavva. 1997. “Aegean Influence at Alassa,” in Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference Cyprus and the Aegean in Antiquity: From the Prehistoric Period to the 7th c. A.D., Nicosia 8–10 December, 1995, ed. Y. Hadjisavvas, Nicosia, pp. 143– 148.

Hadzi-Vallianou, D. 1989. Lebena: The Ancient City and the Shrine of Asclepius, Athens. ———. 2004. “Ομηρικά στοιχεία στην ακρόπολη Σμαριού,” in Το Αιγαίο στην πρώιμη εποχή του σιδήρου: Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Ρόδος, 1–4 Νοεμβρίου 2002, ed. N. C. Stampolidis and A. Giannikouri, Athens, pp. 105–124. Hägg, R. 1991. “Sacred Horns and Naiskoi: Remarks on Aegean Religious Symbolism in Cyprus,” in The Civilizations of the Aegean and Their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000–600 B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium, 18–24 September, 1989, ed. V. Karageorghis, Larnaca, pp. 79–84. ———, ed. 1997. The Function of the “Minoan Villa.” Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6–8 June 1992 (SkrAth 4°, 46), Stockholm. ———. 2000. “Personal Religion among the Minoans,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 1, Iraklion, pp. 531– 534. Hägg, R., and N. Marinatos, eds. 1981. Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12– 13 May, 1980, Stockholm. ———, eds. 1987. The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June 1984 (SkrAth 4°, 35), Stockholm. Haggis, D. C. 1993. “Intensive Survey, Traditional Settlement Patterns, and Dark Age Crete: The Case of Early Iron Age Kavousi,” JMA 6, pp. 131– 174. ———. 1996a. “Archaeological Survey at Kavousi, East Crete: Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 65, pp. 373– 432. ———. 1996b. “The Port of Tholos in Eastern Crete and the Role of a Roman Horreum along the Egyptian ‘Corn Route,’” OJA 15, pp. 183–209.

463 ———. 1997. “The Typology of the Early Minoan I Chalice and the Cultural Implications of Form and Style in Early Bronze Age Ceramics,” in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 291–300. ———. 1999. “Staple Finance, Peak Sanctuaries, and Economic Complexity in Late Prepalatial Crete,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 53–85. Haggis, D. C., M. S. Mook, R. D. Fitzsimons, C. M. Scarry, and L. M. Snyder. 2007. “Excavations at Azoria in 2003 and 2004, Part 1: The Archaic Civic Complex,” Hesperia 76, pp. 243–321. Haggis, D. C., M. S. Mook, C. M. Scarry, L. M. Snyder, and W. C. West III. 2004. “Excavations at Azoria, 2002,” Hesperia 73, pp. 339–400. Haggis, D. C., and K. Nowicki. 1993. “Khalasmeno and Katalimata: Two Early Iron Age Settlements in Monastiraki, East Crete,” Hesperia 62, pp. 303–338. Halbherr, F. 1905. “Rapporto alla Presidenza del R. Instituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere sugli scavi eseguiti dalla Missione Archeologica Italiana ad Haghia Triada ed a Festo, nell’anno 1904,” Memorie del Istituto Lombardo Accademia di Scienze e Lettere 21, pp. 235–254. Halbherr, F., E. Stefani, and L. Banti. 1977. “Haghia Triada nel periodo tardo palaziale,” ASAtene 55, pp. 13– 342. Halieis II = B. A. Ault, The Excavations at Ancient Halieis II: The Houses. The Organization and Use of Domestic Space, Bloomington 2005. Hall, J. M. 1995. “Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Iron Age of Greece,” in Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology: Bridging the “Great Divide,” ed. N. Spencer, London, pp. 6–17. Hallager, B. P. 2000. “Late Minoan IIIC Pottery,” in Hallager and Hallager 2000, pp. 135–174. Hallager, E. 1977. The Mycenaean Palace at Knossos: Evidence for Final Destruction in the IIIB Period (Memoir-Medelhavsmuseet 1), Stockholm. ———. 1990. “Upper Floors in LM I Houses,” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 281–292.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

464 Hallager, E., and B. P. Hallager. 1995. “The Knossian Bull—Political Propaganda in Neopalatial Crete?” in Laffineur and Niemeier 1995, pp. 547–556. ———. 2000. The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania, 1970–1987 II: The Late Minoan IIIC Settlement (SkrAth 4°, 47:2), Stockholm. ———. 2003. The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania, 1970–1987 III: The Late Minoan IIIB Settlement (SkrAth 4°, 47:3), Stockholm. Halstead, P. 1999. “Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece,” in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2), ed. P. Halstead, Sheffield, pp. 77–95. Hamilakis, Y. 1999. “Food Technologies/Technologies of the Body: The Social Context of Wine and Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete,” WorldArch 31, pp. 38–54. ———. 2002. “Too Many Chiefs? Factional Competition in Neopalatial Crete,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 179–199. Hammer, D. 2004. “Ideology, the Symposium, and Archaic Politics,” AJP 125, pp. 479–512. Hankey, V. 1986. “Pyrgos: The Communal Tomb in Pyrgos IV (Late Minoan I),” BICS 33, pp. 135– 137. Harrison, A. R. W. 1968. The Law of Athens 1: The Family and Property, Oxford. Hatzaki, E. M., 1996. “Was the Little Palace at Knossos the ‘Little Palace’ of Knossos?” in Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (BAR-IS 638), ed. R. D. G. Evely, I. S. Lemos, and S. Sherratt, Oxford, pp. 34–45. ———. 2004. “From Final Palatial to Postpalatial Knossos: A View from the Late Minoan II to Late Minoan IIIB Town,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 121–126. ———. 2005a. Knossos: The Little Palace (BSA Suppl. 38), London. ———. 2005b. “Postpalatial Knossos: Town and Cemeteries from

references LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC,” in D’Agata and Moody 2005, pp. 65–95. ———. 2009. “Structured Deposition as Ritual Action in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Palace at Knossos,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel 2009, pp. 19–30. ———. Forthcoming a. “The End of an Intermezzo at Knossos: Ceramic Wares, Deposits, and Architecture in Context,” in Intermezzo: Intermediacy and Regeneration in Middle Minoan III Crete (BSA Studies), ed. C. Knappett, C. Macdonald, and E. Banou. ———. Forthcoming b. Knossos: The Temple Tomb (BSA Supplement). Hatzaki, E. M., and P. Keswani. Forthcoming. “Mortuary Practices and Ideology in Bronze–Early Iron Age Crete and Cyprus: Comparative Perspectives,” in Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies), ed. G. Cadogan, M. Iacovou, K. Kopaka, and J. Whitley. Hawes, H. B., B. E. William, R. B. Seager, and E. H. Hall. 1908. Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete: Excavations of the Wells-Houston-Cramp Expeditions, 1901, 1903, 1904, Philadelphia. Hayden, B. 2001. “Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, pp. 23–64. Hayden, B. J. 1983. “New Plans of the Early Iron Age Settlement of Vrokastro,” Hesperia 52, pp. 367–387. ———. 1987. “Crete in Transition: LM IIIA–B Architecture. A Preliminary Study,” SMEA 26, pp. 199– 234. ———. 1990. “Aspects of Village Architecture in the Cretan Postpalatial Period,” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 203–213. ———. 1995. “Rural Settlement of the Orientalizing through Early Classical Period: The Meseleroi Valley, Eastern Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 2, pp. 93–144. ———. 1997. “Evidence for ‘Megalithic Farmsteads’ of Late Minoan III through Early Iron Age Date,”

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references in Driessen and Farnoux 1997, pp. 195–204. ———. 2004. “Vrokastro and the Settlement Pattern of the LM IIIA– Geometric Periods,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 233– 245. Hazzidakis, J. 1921. Tylissos à l’époque minoenne: Suivi d’une note sur les larnax de Tylissos, Paris. ———. 1934. Les villas minoennes de Tylissos (ÉtCrét 3), Paris. Hedrick, C. W. 1990. The Decrees of the Demotionidai, Athens, Ga. Helly, B. 1983. “Les Italiens en Thessalie au IIe et au Ier s. av. J.-C.,” in Les “Bourgeoisies” municipales italiennes aux II e et I er siècles av. J.-C. Centre Jean Bérard, Institut français de Naples, 7–10 décembre 1981, ed. M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, Paris, pp. 355–380. Henry, A. S. 1983. Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of the Honorary Decrees (Subsidia Epigraphica 10), Hildesheim. Hershenson, C. R. 1996. “Syntactic Continuity in Minoan Vernacular Complexes,” AJA 100, p. 355 (abstract). Herva, V.-P. 2005. “The Life of Buildings: Minoan Building Deposits in an Ecological Perspective,” OJA 24, pp. 215–227. Hiesel, G. 1990. Späthelladische Hausarchitektur: Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des griechischen Festlandes in der späten Bronzezeit, Mainz. Hillbom, N. 2003. For Games or for Gods? An Investigation of Minoan Cup-holes (SIMA 132), Sävedalen. Hingley, R. 1996. “The Legacy of Rome: The Rise, Decline and Fall of the Theory of Romanization,” in Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leicester University in November 1994 (Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3), ed. J. Webster and N. J. Cooper, Leicester, pp. 35– 38. ———. 2005. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire, London. Hitchcock, L. A. 1994. “The Minoan Hall System: Writing the Present Out of the Past,” Meaningful Architecture: Social Interpretations of Build-

ings (Worldwide Archaeology Series 9), ed. M. Locock, Aldershot, pp. 14–43. ———. 1998. “Blending the Local with the Foreign: Minoan Features at Ayia Irini, House A,” in ΚέαΚύθνος: Ιστορία και αρχαιολογία. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου Κέα-Κύθνος, 22–25 Ιουνίου 1994, ed. L. G. Mendoni and A. J. Mazarakis-Ainian, Athens, pp. 169–174. ———. 2000. Minoan Architecture: A Contextual Analysis (SIMA-PB 155), Jonsered. ———. 2003. “‘And Above Were Costly Stones, Hewn According to Measurement . . . ’: Documentation of Pre-classical Ashlar Masonry in the East Mediterranean,” in Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002 (Aegaeum 24), ed. K. P. Foster and R. Laffineur, Liège, pp. 257–267. ———. 2005. “‘Who Will Personally Invite a Foreigner, Unless He Is a Craftsman?’: Exploring Interconnections in Aegean and Levantine Architecture,” in Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), ed. R. Laffineur and E. Greco, Liège, pp. 691– 699. Hitchcock, L., and D. Preziosi. 1994. “Defining Function and Meaning in Minoan Architecture: New Evidence from the Villa at Makrygialos,” AJA 98, p. 336 (abstract). ———. 1997. “The Knossos Unexplored Mansion and the ‘VillaAnnex Complex,’” in Hägg 1997, pp. 51–62. Hodder, I., ed. 1989. The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, London. ———. 1999. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction, Oxford. Hodkinson, S. 1997. “The Development of Spartan Society and Institutions in the Archaic Period,” in The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece, ed. L. G. Mitchell and P. J. Rhodes, London, pp. 83–102. ———. 2000. Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta, London.

465 Hoepfner, W. 1999. “Die Epoche der Griechen,” in Geschichte des Wohnens 1: 5000 v. Chr.–500 n. Chr. Vorgeschichte, Frühgeschichte, Antike, ed. W. Hoepfner, Stuttgart, pp. 123–608. Hoepfner, W., and E.-L. Schwandner. 1994. Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, 2nd ed., Munich. Hoffman, G. L. 1997. Imports and Immigrants: Near Eastern Contacts with Iron Age Crete, Ann Arbor. Hogarth, D. G. 1899–1900. “Knossos: Summary Report of the Excavations in 1900. II: Early Town and Cemeteries,” BSA 6, pp. 70–85. ———. 1900–1901. “Excavations at Zakro, Crete,” BSA 7, pp. 121–149. Hood, M. S. F. 1959. “Archaeology in Greece, 1958,” AR 5, pp. 3–24. ———. 1960–1961. “Archaeology in Greece, 1960–1961,” AR 7, pp. 3– 35. ———. 1961–1962. “Archaeology in Greece, 1961–62,” AR 8, pp. 3– 31. ———. 1965. “‘Last Palace’ and ‘Reoccupation’ at Knossos,” Kadmos 4, pp. 16–44. ———. 1977. “Minoan TownShrines?” in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory: Studies Presented to Fritz Schachermeyer on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday, ed. K. H. Kinzl, Berlin, pp. 158–172. ———. 1997. “The Magico-Religious Background of the Minoan Villa,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 105–116. ———. 2000. “Religion in Bronze Age Crete,” in Πεπραγμένα Η ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 1, Herakleion, pp. 607–622. Hood, M. S. F., and P. de Jong. 1958– 1959. “A Late Minoan III ‘Kitchen’ at Makritikhos (Knossos) (Knossos Survey 90),” BSA 53–54, pp. 182– 193. Hood, S., and D. Smyth. 1981. Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area (BSA Suppl. 14), London. Hood, S., and W. Taylor. 1981. The Bronze Age Palace at Knossos: Plan and Sections (BSA Suppl. 13), London. Humphreys, S. C. 1983. The Family, Women, and Death: Comparative Studies, London.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

466 Huntington, R., and P. Metcalf, eds. 1979. Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual, Cambridge. Hutchinson, R. W. 1962. Prehistoric Crete, London. Hutchinson, R. W., E. Eccles, and S. Benton. 1939–1940. “Unpublished Objects from Palaikastro and Praisos II,” BSA 40, pp. 38–59. Jameson, M. H. 1977–1978. “Agriculture and Slavery in Classical Athens,” CJ 73, pp. 122–145. ———. 1988. “Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece,” in Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, ed. C. R. Whittaker, Cambridge, pp. 87–119. ———. 1990. “Private Space and the Greek City,” in The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, ed. O. Murray, and S. R. F. Price, Oxford, pp. 171– 195. Jeanmarie, H. 1939. Couroi et courètes: Essai sur l’éducation spartiate et sur les rites d’adolescence dans l’antiquité hellénique, Lille. Jeffery, L. H., and A. MorpurgoDavies. 1970. “Poinikastas and Poinikazein: BM 1969.4-2.1. A New Archaic Inscription from Crete,” Kadmos 9, pp. 118–154. Jessop, B. 1990. State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in Its Place, University Park, Penn. Jones, D. W. 1999. Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete: A Comparison of Artifacts (SIMA-PB 156), Jonsered. Jones, J. E. 1975. “Town and Country Houses of Attica in Classical Times,” in Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical Times: Papers and Contributions of the Colloquium Held in March, 1973, at the State University of Ghent (Miscellanea graeca 1), ed. H. F. Mussche, P. Spitaels, and F. Goemaere-De Poerck, pp. 63– 140. Jones, J. E., A. J. Graham, and L. H. Sackett. 1973. “An Attic Country House below the Cave of Pan at Vari,” BSA 68, pp. 355–452. Jones, J. E., L. H. Sackett, and A. J. Graham. 1962. “The Dema House in Attica,” BSA 57, pp. 75–114. Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present, London.

references Kalpaxis, T. 1995. “Ελληνιστικός κλίβανος κεραμικής στην αρχαία Ελεύθερνα,” in Κεραμικά εργαστήρια στην Κρήτη από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα: Πρακτικά ημερίδας, Μαργαρίτες, 30 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995,

ed. E. Gavrilaki, Rethymnon, pp. 41–45. Kalpaxis, T., A. Furtwängler, and A. Schnapp. 1994. Ελεύθερνα. Τομέας ΙΙ: Ένα ελληνιστικό σπίτι (σπίτι Α) στη θέση Νησί, Rethymnon. Kanta, A. 1980. The Late Minoan III Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites, Pottery, and Their Distribution (SIMA 58), Göteborg. ———. 2001. “Cretan Refuge Settlements: Problems and Historical Implications within the Wider Context of the Eastern Mediterranean towards the End of the Bronze Age,” in Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C. Proceedings of an International Workshop Held at Trinity College Dublin, 7th–9th May, 1999, ed. V. Karageorghis and C. E. Morris, Nicosia, pp. 13–23. ———. 2003a. “The Citadel of Kastrokephala and the Date of the Minoan Refuge Citadels,” in LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th, 2001, ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil, Vienna, pp. 167– 182. ———. 2003b. “The First Half of the Late Minoan IIIC: Correlations among Cretan Sites with Reference to Mainland and Cypriote Developments,” in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 EuroConference, Haindorf, 2–7 May 2001, ed. M. Bietak, Vienna, pp. 513–538. Kanta, A., L. Godart, and A. Tsigounaki. 2001. “Πήλινο ομοίωμα διώροφου ιερού,” in Κρήτη–Αίγυπτος: Πολιτισμικοί δεσμοί τριών χιλιετιών, ed. A. Karetsou and M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki, Iraklion, pp. 63– 64. Kanta, A., and A. Karetsou. 2003. “The Acropolis of Kastrokephala and Its

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references Pottery,” in LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th, 2001, ed. S. DegerJalkotzy and M. Zavadil, Vienna, pp. 145–165. Kanta, A., and N. C. Stampolidis. 2001. “Orné (ΑΙΠΥ) in the Context of the Defensive Settlements of the End of the Bronze Age,” in Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C. Proceedings of an International Workshop Held at Trinity College Dublin, 7–9 May 1999, ed. V. Karageorghis and C. E. Morris, Nicosia, pp. 95–114. Karageorghis, V. 1998. “Hearths and Bathtubs in Cyprus: A ‘Sea Peoples’ Innovation?” in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries b.c.e. In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, Jerusalem, pp. 276–282. ———. 2000. “Cultural Innovations in Cyprus Relating to the ‘Sea Peoples,’” The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment (University Museum Monograph 108), ed. E. D. Oren, Philadelphia, pp. 249–273. ———. 2002. Early Cyprus: Crossroads of the Mediterranean, Los Angeles. Karageorghis, V., and M. Demas. 1984. Pyla-Kokkinokremos. A Late 13th Century B.C. Fortified Settlement in Cyprus, Nicosia. ———. 1988. Excavations at MaaPalaeokastro, 1979–1986, Nicosia. Karageorghis, V., and N. Stampolidis, eds. 1998. Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus–Dodecanese–Crete, 16th– 6th Cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Rethymnon, Crete, 13–16 May 1997, Athens. Kavousi = The Results of the Excavations at Kavousi in Eastern Crete, Philadelphia I = D. C. Haggis. The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region (Prehistory Monographs 16), 2005. IIA = L. P. Day, N. L. Klein, and L. A. Turner. The Late Minoan IIIC Settlement at Vronda: The Buildings on the Summit (Prehistory Monographs 26), 2009.

IIB = L. P. Day and K. T. Glowacki. The LM IIIC Settlement at Vronda: The Buildings on the Periphery, forthcoming. IIC = L. P. Day, H. Dierckx, K. Flint-Hamilton, G. C. Gesell, K. T. Glowacki, N. L. Klein, and L. S. Snyder. The LM IIIC Settlement at Vronda: Specialist Reports and Analyses, forthcoming. Kemp, B. J. 1989. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, London. Killen, J. T. 1983. “Mycenaean Possessive Adjectives in -e-jo,” Transactions of the Philological Society 81, pp. 66–99. ———. 1995. “Some Further Thoughts on ‘Collectors,’” in Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12), ed. R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, Liège, pp. 213–224. Kiriatzi, E., P. M. Day, and D. E. Wilson. 2000. “Διακίνηση της κεραμεικής και κοινωνικοπολιτική οργάνωση: Η γραπτή κεραμεική της ΠΜ Ι και ΙΙ περιόδου στην Ανατολική Κρήτη,” in Πεπραγμένα του Η ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 2, Iraklion, pp. 99–115.

Klein, N. L. 2004. “The Architecture of the Late Minoan IIIC Shrine (Building G) at Vronda, Kavousi,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 91–101. Knapp, A. B. 1993. “Social Complexity: Incipience, Emergence, and Development on Prehistoric Cyprus,” BASOR 292, pp. 85–106. Knappett, C. 1999. “Assessing a Polity in Protopalatial Crete: The MaliaLasithi State,” AJA 103, pp. 615–639. ———. 2000. “The Production of Domestic Pottery from Middle Minoan II Myrtos Pyrgos,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 2, Iraklion, pp. 37–50. Knappett, C., and T. F. Cunningham. 2003. “Three Neopalatial Deposits from Palaikastro, East Crete,” BSA 98, pp. 107–187. Koehl, R. B. 1986. “The Chieftain Cup and a Minoan Rite of Passage,” JHS 106, pp. 99–110.

467 ———. 1997. “The Villas at Ayia Triada and Nirou Chani and the Origin of the Cretan Andreion,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 137–150. Kommos = Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete by the University of Toronto and the Royal Ontario Museum under the Auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton I.2 = J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, eds. The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town: The Minoan Hilltop and Hillside Houses, 1996. IV = J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, eds. The Greek Sanctuary, 2000. V = J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, eds. The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos, 2005. Kooreman, P., and S. Wunderink. 1997. The Economics of Household Behaviour, Basingstoke. Kopaka, K. 1984. “Aménagements intérieurs des habitations et activités domestiques en Crète et à Théra à l’Âge du Bronze” (diss. Université de Paris I). ———. Forthcoming. “Ζάκρος, ‘Της Ουρανιάς το Φρούδι’: Το σπήλαιο και οι φυσικές κόγχες,” in Zakros I, ed. L. Platon, forthcoming. Kopaka, K., and A. Chaniotakis. 2001. “Μινωικό αλάτι από τη Ζάκρο,” in Το ελληνικό αλάτι: Η′ Τριήμερο Εργασίας, Μυτιλήνη, 6–8 Νοεμβρίου 1998, Athens, pp. 27–38. ———. 2003. “Just Taste Additive? Minoan Salt from Zakros, Crete,” OJA 22, pp. 53–66. Kopaka, K., and L. Platon. 1993. “Ληνοί μινωικοί. Installations minoennes de traitement des produits liquides,” BCH 117, pp. 35–101. Krause, C. 1977. “Grundformen des griechischen Pastashauses,” AA 1977, pp. 164–179. Kristensen, K. R. 2004. “Gortynian Debt Bondage: Some New Considerations on IC IV 41 IV–VII, 47 and 72 I.56–II.2, X. 25–32,” ZPE 149, pp. 73–79. Krzyszkowska, O. H. 2003. “The Seals,” in Mountjoy 2003, pp. 199– 206. Lacey, W. K. 1968. The Family in Classical Greece, Ithaca.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

468 Laffineur R., ed. 1999. Polemos: Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Recontre égéene internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 April 1998 (Aegaeum 19), Liège. Laffineur, R., and P. P. Betancourt, eds. 1997. TEXNE: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), Liège. Laffineur, R., and R. Hägg, eds. 2001. POTNIA: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12– 15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), Liège. Laffineur R., and W.-D. Niemeier, eds. 1995. POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12), Liège. Lambert, S. D. 1993. The Phratries of Attica, Ann Arbor. Lambrou-Phillipson, C. 1991. “Seafaring in the Bronze Age Mediterranean: The Parameters Involved in Maritime Travel,” in THALASSA: L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Calvi, Corse, 23–25 avril 1990 (Aegaeum 7), ed. R. Laffineur and L. Basch, Liège, pp. 11–20. LaMotta, V. M., and Schiffer, M. B. 1999. “Formation Processes of House Floor Assemblages,” in Allison 1999a, pp. 19–29. Lang, F. 1996. Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland. Struktur und Entwicklung, Berlin. ———. 2005. “Structural Change in Archaic Greek Housing,” in Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional, and Social Diversity, ed. B. A. Ault and L. C. Nevett, Philadelphia, pp. 12–35. Langdon, M. K. 1991. “On the Farm in Classical Attica,” CJ 86, pp. 209– 213. La Rosa, V. 1979–1980. “Haghia Triada II: Relazione preliminare sui saggi del 1978 e 1979,” ASAtene 57–58, pp. 49–164.

references ———. 1985. “Preliminary Considerations on the Problem of the Relationship between Phaistos and Haghia Triada,” in A Great Minoan Triangle in South-Central Crete: Kommos, Hagia Triadha, Phaistos (Scripta mediterranea 6), ed. J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, Toronto, pp. 45–54. ———. 1989a. “Nuove ricerche ad Haghia Triada. Sintesi dei risultati,” in Seminari Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici del Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche, ed. M. Rocchi and L. Vagnetti, Rome, pp. 31–34. ———. 1989b. “Nouvelles données du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent à Haghia Triada,” in Transition: Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent. Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, 18–20 avril 1988 (Aegaeum 3), ed. R. Laffineur, Liège, pp. 81–92. ———. 1994. “Osservazioni sul centro di Aghia Triada in età TM IIIB e C,” in Sybrita: La valle di Amari fra Bronzo e Ferro (Incunabula graeca 96), ed. L. Rocchetti, Rome, pp. 75–80. ———. 1997. “Haghia Triada à l’époque mycénienne: L’utopie d’une ville capitale,” in Driessen and Farnoux 1997, pp. 249–266. ———. 2002a. “Le campagne di scavo 2000–2002 a Festòs,” ASAtene 80, pp. 635–869. ———. 2002b. “Liturgie domestiche e/o depositi di fondazione? Vecchi e nuovi dati da Festòs e Haghia Triada,” Creta antica 3, pp. 13– 50. ———. 2002c. “Pour une révision préliminaire du second palais de Phaistos,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 71–97. ———. 2003. “‘Il colle sul quale sorge la chiesa ad ovest è tutto seminato di cocci . . . ’ Haghia Triada: Vicende e temi di uno scavo di lungo corso,” Creta antica 4, pp. 11–68. ———. 2004a. “Perché il palazzo a Festòs?” Creta antica 5, pp. 43–51. ———. 2004b. “I saggi della campagna 2004 a Festòs,” ASAtene 82, pp. 611– 670. ———. 2005. “Nuovi dati sulla via di ascesa alla collina del Palazzo festio

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references dall’età minoica alla geometrica,” Creta antica 6, pp. 227–284. La Rosa, V., and F. Carinci. 2009. “Revisioni festies II,” Creta antica 10, pp. 147–294 La Rosa, V., and S. Privitera. 2003. “La fascia subito a Nord del cd. Muraglione a denti ad Haghia Triada: Vecchi scavi e nuove acquisizioni,” ASAtene 81, pp. 735–768. Laviosa, C. 1972–1973. “L’abitato prepalaziale di Haghia Triada,” ASAtene 50–51, pp. 503–513. Lavrencic, M. 1988. “Andreion,” Tyche 3, pp. 147–161. Lebessi, A. 1967. “Ανασκαφή τάφου εις Πόρον Ηρακλείου,” Prakt 1967, pp. 195–209. ———. 1970. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Κεντρικής και Ανατολικής Κρήτης: Αφρατί,” ArchDelt 25, B΄2,

pp. 455–461. ———. 1976. “Ο οικίσκος των Αρχανών,” ArchEph, pp. 12–43. ———. 1985. Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου I.1: Χάλκινα κρητικά τορεύματα, Athens. ———. 2002a. Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου III: Χάλκινα ανθρωπόμορφα ειδώλια, Athens. ———. 2002b. “A Minoan Architectural Model from the Syme Sanctuary,” AM 117, pp. 1–19. Le Dinahet, M.-T. 2001. “Les Italiens de Délos: Compléments onomastiques et prosopographiques,” RÉA 103, pp. 103–123. Legge, A. J. 1972. “Cave Climates,” in Papers in Economic Prehistory: Studies, ed. E. S. Higgs, Cambridge. Leiwo, M. 1994. Neapolitana: A Study of Population and Language in GraecoRoman Naples (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 102), Helsinki. Lejeune, M. 1972. “Sur le nom grec de la ‘laine,’” in Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie grecque offerts à Pierre Chantraine (Études et commentaires 79), ed. P. Chantraine and F. Bader, Paris, pp. 93–104. Leroi-Gourhan, A. [1945] 1973. Milieu et techniques (Évolution et techniques 2), repr. Paris. Levi, D. 1955. “Cronaca d’arte: Attività della Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene nell’anno 1954,” BdA 1955, pp. 141–164.

———. 1957–1958. “Gli scavi a Festòs nel 1956 e 1957,” ASAtene 35–36, pp. 193–361. ———. 1959. “La villa rurale minoica di Gortina,” BdA 44, 4th series, pp. 237–265. ———. 1961–1962a. “Gli scavi a Festòs negli anni 1958–1960,” ASAtene 39–40, pp. 377–504. ———. 1961–1962b. “La tomba a tholos di Kamilari presso Festòs,” ASAtene 39–40, pp. 7–148. ———. 1965–1966a. “Bolli d’anfora e pesi fittili da Festòs,” ASAtene 43– 44, pp. 569–588. ———. 1965–1966b. “La conclusione degli scavi a Festòs,” ASAtene 43–44, pp. 313–399. ———. 1967–1968. “L’abitato di Festòs in località Chálara,” ASAtene 45–46, pp. 55–166. ———. 1976. Festòs e la civiltà minoica I (Incunabula graeca 60), Rome. Levi, D., and F. M. Carinci. 1988. Festòs e la civiltà minoica II.2: L’arte festia nell’età protopalaziale. Ceramica ed altri materiali (Incunabula graeca 77), Rome. Lewis-Williams, D. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art, London. Link, S. 1994. Das griechische Kreta. Untersuchungen zu seiner staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung vom 6. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart. ———. 2001. “Dolos und woikeus im Recht von Gortyn,” Dike 4, pp. 87– 112. Livadiotti, M., and I. Simiakaki, eds. 2004. Creta romana e protobizantina: Atti del congresso internazionale, Iraklion, 23–30 settembre 2000, 3 vols., Padua. Lloyd, J. F. 1990. “Settlements, Dwellings, and Painted Pottery: A Contribution to the History of Minoan Crete in the Early Late Bronze Age” (diss. New York Univ.). ———. 1997–1998. “The Minoan Hall System and the Problem of an Entrance to the South House at Knossos,” OpAth 22–23, pp. 117– 140. ———. 1999. “The Three-dimensional Form of the Light Area of the Minoan Hall System and the Southeast Corner of the South House at Knossos,” OpAth 24, pp. 51–77.

469 Loader, N. C. 1998. Building in Cyclopean Masonry with Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece (SIMA-PB 148), Göteborg. Loftus, A. 1999. “A Textile Factory in Third Century b.c. Memphis: Labor, Capital and Private Enterprise in the Zenon Archive,” in Archéologie des textiles des origines au V e siècle. Actes du colloque de Lattes, octobre 1999, ed. D. Cardon and M. Feugère, Montagnac, pp. 173– 184. Luce, J.-M., ed. 2002. Habitat et urbanisme dans le monde grec de la fin des palais mycéniens à la prise de Milet (494 av. J.-C.). Table ronde internationale organisée à Toulouse les 9–10 mars 2001 par le GRACO (Pallas 58), Toulouse. Lynch, K. M. 1999. “Black-Figure, Red-Figure, and Communal Drinking in a Late Archaic Athenian Home,” AJA 103, p. 298 (abstract). Macdonald, C. F. 1993. “Crete: Knossos. Palace Area,” BSA Annual Report of the Managing Committee for the Session 1992–1993, pp. 18– 21. ———. 2002. “The Neopalatial Palaces of Knossos,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 35–54. ———. 2004. “Ceramic and Contextual Confusion in the Old and New Palace Periods,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 239– 251. ———. 2005. Knossos, London. MacDowell, D. M. 1986. Spartan Law (Scottish Classical Studies 1), Edinburgh. ———. 1989. “The Oikos in Athenian Law,” CQ 39, pp. 10–21. MacGillivray, J. A. 1997. “The ReOccupation of Eastern Crete in the Late Minoan II–IIIA1/2 Periods,” in Driessen and Farnoux 1997, pp. 275–279. MacGillivray, J. A., and J. Driessen. 1990. “Minoan Settlement at Palaikastro,” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 395–412. MacGillivray, J. A., L. H. Sackett, J. Driessen, and D. Smyth. 1987. “Excavations at Palaikastro, 1986,” BSA 82, pp. 135–154. MacGillivray, J. A., A. Sarpaki, J.-P. Olivier, J. Weingarten, L. H.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

470 Sackett, J. Driessen, R. Bridges, and D. Smyth. 1989. “Excavations at Palaikastro, 1988,” BSA 84, pp. 417–445. Mackenzie, D. 1907–1908. “Cretan Palaces and the Aegean Civilization. IV,” BSA 14, pp. 343–422. ———. 1908. Day-book of the Excavations at Knossos 1908 (Holograph Daybook in The Evans Archive, Department of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford). Maffi, A. 1999. “La condizione della schiava nel Codice di Gortina,” in Femmes-esclaves: Modèles d’interprétation anthropologique, économique, juridique. Atti del XXI Colloquio internazionale GIREA, Lacco AmenoIschia, 27–29 ottobre 1994 (Diáphora 9), ed. F. Reduzzi Merola and A. Storchi Marino, Naples, pp. 81– 109. Magnelli, A. 1998. “Magistrati e uomini d’affari, tra I secolo a.C. e I d.C. in un’inedita iscrizione gortinia,” in L’Africa romana. Atti del XII convegno di studio Olbia, 12–15 dicembre 1996 (Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di storia dell’Università degli studi di Sassari 31), ed. M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri, and C. Vismara, Olbia, pp. 1291–1305. Manning, S. W. 1993. “Prestige, Distinction, and Competition: The Anatomy of Socioeconomic Complexity in Fourth to Second Millennium b.c.e.,” BASOR 292, pp. 35– 58. ———. 1994. “The Emergence of Divergence: Development and Decline on Bronze Age Crete and the Cyclades,” in Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8), ed. C. Mathers and S. Stoddart, Sheffield, pp. 221– 270. Manteli, K. 1989. “Το οικιστικό σύστημα στην Νεολιθική Κρήτη, σε σχέση με την γεωμορφολογία του νησιού,” in Πεπραγμένα του ΣΤ ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 1, Chania, pp. 435–447.

———. 1992. “The Neolithic Well at Kastelli Phournis in Eastern Crete,” BSA 87, pp. 103–120. ———. 2000. “Η νεολιθική κεραμεική της Κρήτης στη χρηστική της διάσταση,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς

references Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειον, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 2, Iraklion, pp. 233–238. ———. 2001. “Μεμονωμένες οικίες στη Νεολιθική Κρήτη,” in Περιλήψεις του Θ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001, p. 108 (abstract). Mantzourani, E., and G. Vavouranakis. 2005a. “Achladia and Epano Zakros: A Re-examination of the Architecture and Topography of Two Possible Minoan Villas in East Crete,” OpAth 30, pp. 99–125. ———. 2005b. “Megalithic versus Status: The Architectural Design and Masonry of Exceptional Late Bronze Age I Buildings in East Crete,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5.2, pp. 35– 48. Mantzourani, E., G. Vavouranakis, and C. Kanellopoulos. 2005. “The Klimataria–Manares Building Reconsidered,” AJA 109, pp. 743–776. Marangou, A. 1999. “Wine in the Cretan Economy,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 269–278. Marginesu, G. 2005. Gortina di Creta: Prospettive epigrafiche per lo studio della forma urbana (Tripodes 2), Athens. Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia, S.C. Marinatos, N., and P. Betancourt. 1995. “The Minoan Household,” in Πεπραγμένα του Ζ ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 2, Rethymnon, pp. 591–595. Marinatos, N., and R. Hägg. 1986. “On the Ceremonial Function of the Minoan Polythyron,” OpAth 16, pp. 58–73. Marinatos, S. 1930–1931. “Δύο πρώιμοι μινωικοί τάφοι εκ Βωρού Μεσαράς,” ArchDelt 13, pp. 137–170. ———. 1935. “Ausgrabungen und Funde auf Kreta, 1934–1935,” AA 50, pp. 243–259. ———. 1939–1941. “Το μινωικό μέγαρο Σκλαβoκάμπου,” ArchEph 1939–1941, pp. 69–96. ———. 1951. “Ανασκαφή μεγάρου Βαθυπέτρου Κρήτης,” Prakt 1951, pp. 258–272. ———. 1952. “Ανασκαφή μεγάρου Βαθυπέτρου Κρήτης,” Prakt 1952, pp. 592–610.

references Markoulaki, S., G. Christodoulakos, and C. Phrangonikolaki. 2004. “Η

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

αρχαία Κίσαμος και η πολεοδομική της οργάνωση,” in Livadiotti and

Simiakaki 2004, vol. 2, pp. 355–373. Martini, R. 1998. “La terra a Gortina,” Dike 1, pp. 87–94. Mazarakis-Ainian, A. 1997. From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 B.C.) (SIMA 121), Jonsered. McArthur, J. 1993. Place-names in the Knossos Tablets: Identification and Location (Minos Suppl. 9), Salamanca. McEnroe, J. C. 1979. “Minoan House and Town Arrangement” (diss. Univ. of Toronto). ———. 1982. “A Typology of Minoan Neopalatial Houses,” AJA 86, pp. 3– 19. ———. 1990. “The Significance of Local Styles in Minoan Vernacular Architecture,” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 195–202. McKee, B. R. 1999. “Household Archaeology and Cultural Formation Processes: Examples from the Ceren Site, El Salvador,” in Allison 1999a, pp. 30–42. McOmish, D. 1996. “East Chisenbury: Ritual and Rubbish at the British Bronze Age–Iron Age Transition,” Antiquity 70, pp. 68–76. Meadows, K. 1999. “The Appetites of Households in Early Roman Britain,” in Allison 1999a, pp. 101–120. Meskell, L. 2002. Life in Ancient Egypt, Princeton. Michailidou, A. 1984. “Ενδείξεις για την οργάνωση και λειτουργία τριών νεοανακτορικών σπιτιών: Ένα μεθοδολογικό πείραμα,” Anthropologika

5, pp. 37–50. ———. 1987. “Το δωμάτιο με τον κίονα στο μινωικό σπίτι,” in Αμητός: Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Μανόλη Ανδρόνικο 1, Thessaloniki, pp. 509–526. ———. 1990. “The Settlement of Akrotiri (Thera): A Theoretical Approach to the Function of the Upper Storey,” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 293–306. ———. 2001. Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Η μελέτη των ορόφων στα κτήρια του οικισμού (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 212), Athens.

———. 2005. Weight and Value in PreCoinage Societies: An Introduction, Athens. Militello, P. 2001a. Gli affreschi minoici di Festòs (Studi di archeologia cretese 2), Padua. ———. 2001b. “Archeologia, iconografia e culti ad Haghia Triada in età TM I,” in Laffineur and Hägg 2001, pp. 159–167. Miller, S. G. 1978. The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form, Berkeley. Millett, M. 1990. The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation, Cambridge. Mintzberg, H., J. Lampel, J. Quinn, and S. Ghoshal. 2003. The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases, Upper Saddle River, N.J. Mochlos = Excavations at Mochlos, Crete, Philadelphia IA = J. S. Soles, Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Sites (Prehistory Monographs 7), 2003. IB = K. A. Barnard and T. M. Brogan, Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Neopalatial Pottery (Prehistory Monographs 8), 2003. IC = J. S. Soles and C. Davaras, eds. Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarters and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9), 2004. Momigliano, N. 1991. “MM IA Pottery from Evans’ Excavations at Knossos: A Reassessment,” BSA 86, pp. 149–271. Momigliano, N., and D. E. Wilson. 1996. “Knossos 1993: Excavations outside the South Front of the Palace,” BSA 91, pp. 1–57. Monaco, C., and L. Tortorici. 2003. “Effects of Earthquakes on the Minoan ‘Royal Villa’ at Haghia Triada (Crete),” Creta antica 4, pp. 403–417. Moody, J., A. Peatfield, and S. Markoulaki. 2000. “Report from the Aghios Vasilios Valley Survey,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 2, Iraklion, pp. 359– 371.

471 Mook, M. S. 1998. “Early Iron Age Domestic Architecture: The Northwest Building on the Kastro at Kavousi,” in Post-Minoan Crete. Proceedings of the First Colloquium on Post-Minoan Crete Held by the British School at Athens and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 10–11 November 1995, ed. W. G. Cavanagh, M. Curtis, J. N. Coldstream, and A. W. Johnston, London, pp. 45–57. ———. 1999. “Cooking Dishes from the Kastro,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 503–509. Mook, M. S., and W. D. E. Coulson. 1997. “Late Minoan IIIC Pottery from the Kastro at Kavousi,” in Late Minoan III Pottery: Chronology and Terminology (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 1), ed. E. Hallager and B. P. Hallager, Aarhus, pp. 337–370. Morris, I. 1990. “The Gortyn Code and Greek Kinship,” GRBS 31, pp. 233–254. ———. 1998. “Archaeology and Archaic Greek History,” in Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, ed. N. Fisher and H. van Wees, Swansea, pp. 1–91. Morris, S. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art, Princeton. Morrow, G. R. 1960. Plato’s Cretan City: A Historical Interpretation of the Laws, Princeton. Mountjoy, P. A. 2003. Knossos: The South House (BSA Suppl. 34), London. Muhly, P. M. 1984. “Minoan Hearths,” AJA 88, pp. 107–122. Müller, S. 1996. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française d’Athènes en 1995. Malia: Prospection archéologique de la plaine de Malia,” BCH 120, pp. 921–928. Murphy, J. M. 1998. “Ideologies, Rites and Rituals: A View of Prepalatial Minoan Tholoi,” in Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1), ed. K. Branigan, Sheffield, pp. 27–40. Murray, O. 1983. “The Symposion as Social Organization,” in The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation (SkrAth 4°, 30), ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 195–199.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

472 Musti, D. 1979. “L’urbanesimo e la situazione delle campagne nella Grecia classica,” in Storia e civiltà dei Greci VI, ed. R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Milan, pp. 523–568. Myers, J. W., E. E. Myers, and G. Cadogan, eds. 1992. The Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete, Berkeley. Mylona, D. 2004. “Fauna and Flora: The Fish Remains,” in Mochlos IC, pp. 121–125. ———. Forthcoming. “Σπήλαιο ‘της Ουρανιάς το Φρούδι’ Ζάκρου: Τα οστεολογικά κατάλοιπα,” in Kopaka, forthcoming. Mylonas Shear, I. 1986. “The Panagia Houses at Mycenae and the ‘Potter’s Shop’ at Zygouries,” in Φίλια έπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνάν δια τα εξήντα έτη του ανασκαφικού του έργου (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 103), vol. 1, Athens, pp. 85–98. Nakassis, T., and K. Tagonidou. 1993. “Εντοπισμός αρχαίων θέσεων στην ευρύτερη περιοχή της Ζάκρου,” in Αναστήλωση-Συντήρηση-Προστασία μνημείων και συνόλων, Athens, pp. 7–39. Naroll, R. 1962. “Floor Area and Settlement Population,” AmAnt 27, pp. 587–589. Needham, S., and T. Spence. 1997. “Refuse and the Formation of Middens,” Antiquity 71, pp. 77–90. Negbi, O. 1993. “Israelite Cult Elements in Secular Contexts of the 10th Century b.c.e.,” in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram, Jerusalem, pp. 221–230. Nelson, M. C. 2000. “Abandonment: Conceptualization, Representation, and Social Change,” in Social Theory in Archaeology, ed. M. B. Schiffer, Salt Lake City, pp. 52–62. Nevett, L. C. 1999. House and Society in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge. ———. 2005. “Between Urban and Rural: House-Form and Social Relations in Attic Villages and Deme Centers,” in Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional, and Social Diversity, ed. B. A. Ault and L. C. Nevett, Philadelphia, pp. 83–98.

references Niemeier, W.-D. 1979. “The Master of the Gournia Octopus Stirrup Jar and the Late Minoan IA Pottery Workshop at Gournia Exporting to Thera,” TUAS 4, pp. 18–26. ———. 1985. Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos: Stil, Chronologie und historischer Kontext, Berlin. Nilsson, M. P. 1927. The MinoanMycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion, Lund. ———. 1950. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion (SkrUppsala 9), 2nd rev. ed., New York. ———. 1960. “Roman and Greek Domestic Cult,” in Opuscula selecta linguis Anglica, Francogallica, Germanica conscripta (SkrAth 8°), vol. 3, Lund, pp. 271–285. ———. 1970. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion (SkrUppsala 9), repr. 2nd rev. ed., New York. Nixon, L., J. Moody, V. Niniou-Kindeli, S. Price, and O. Rackham. 1990. “Archaeological Survey in Sphakia, Crete,” EchCl 34, pp. 213–220. Nixon, L., J. Moody, S. Price, and O. Rackham. 2000. Sphakia Survey: The Internet Edition http://sphakia. classics.ox.ac.uk/ Nixon, L., S. Price, J. Moody, and O. Rackham. 1994. “Rural Settlement in Sphakia, Crete,” in Structures rurales et sociétés antiques. Actes du colloque de Corfou, 14–16 mai 1992 (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 508), ed. P. N. Doukelis and L. G. Mendoni, Paris, pp. 255–264. Noack, F. 1908. Ovalhaus und Palast in Kreta: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des Hauses, Leipzig. Nordfeldt, A. C. 1987. “Residential Quarters and Lustral Basins,” in Hägg and Marinatos 1987, pp. 187– 194. Nosch, M.-L. B. 1997–2000. “The Geography of the ta-ra-si-ja Obligation,” Aegean Archaeology 4, pp. 27–44. Nowicki, K. 1987a. “The History and Setting of the Town of Karphi,” SMEA 26, pp. 235–256. ———. 1987b. “Topography of Refuge Settlement in Crete,” JRGZM 34, pp. 213–234.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references ———. 1990. “The West Siteia Mountains at the Turn of the Bronze and Iron Ages,” Aegaeum 6, pp. 161–182. ———. 1996. “Lasithi (Crete): One Hundred Years of Archaeological Research,” Aegean Archaeology 3, pp. 27–47. ———. 1999a. “Economy of Refugees: Life in the Cretan Mountains at the Turn of the Bronze and Iron Ages,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 145–172. ———. 1999b. “The Historical Background of Defensible Sites on Crete: Late Minoan IIIC Versus Protopalatial,” in Laffineur 1999, pp. 191–197. ———. 2000. Defensible Sites in Crete c. 1200–800 B.C.: LM IIIB/IIIC through Early Geometric (Aegaeum 21), Liège. ———. 2001. “A Middle Minoan II Deposit at the Refuge Site of Monastiraki Katalimata (East Crete),” Aegean Archaeology 5, pp. 27–47. ———. 2002a. “The End of the Neolithic in Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 6, pp. 7–72. ———. 2002b. “From Late Minoan IIIC Refuge Settlements to Geometric Acropoleis: Architecture and Social Organization of Dark Age Villages and Towns in Crete,” in Habitat et urbanisme dans le monde grec de la fin des palais mycéniens à la prise de Milet (494 avant J.-C) (Pallas 58), ed. J.-M. Luce, Toulouse, pp. 149–174. ———. 2004. “Report on Investigations in Crete. XI. Studies in 1995– 2003,” ArcheologiaWar 55, pp. 75– 100. ———. 2008. Monastiraki Katalimata: Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site, 1993–2000 (Prehistory Monographs 24), Philadelphia. O’Brien, M. J., and R. L. Lyman. 1999. Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of Archaeological Dating, New York. Olivier, J.-P. 1982. “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française en Grèce en 1981. Malia: Maison Δα,” BCH 106, p. 680. ———, ed. 1992. Mykenaïka. Actes du IX e Colloque internationale sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique

des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 2–6 octobre 1990) (BCH Suppl. 25), Paris. ———. 1994. “The Inscribed Documents at Bronze Age Knossos,” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, ed. D. Evely, H. HughesBrock, and N. Momigliano, London, pp. 157–170. ———. 2001. “Les ‘collecteurs’: Leur distribution spatial et temporelle,” in Voutsaki and Killen 2001, pp. 139– 159. Orr, D. G. 1973. “Roman Domestic Religion: A Study of the Roman Household Deities and Their Shrines at Pompeii and Herculaneum” (diss. Univ. of Maryland). Osborne, R. 1985a. “Buildings and Residence on the Land in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: The Contribution of Epigraphy,” BSA 80, pp. 119–128. ———.1985b. Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attika, Cambridge. ———. 1992. “Is It a Farm? The Definition of Agricultural Sites and Settlements in Ancient Greece,” in Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute of Athens, 16–17 May 1990 (SkrAth 4°, 42), ed. B. Wells, Stockholm, pp. 21–25. O’Shea, J. M. 1984. Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investigation (Studies in Archaeology), Orlando. Pader, E.-J. 1982. Symbolism, Social Relations and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains (BAR-IS 130), Oxford. Palaima, T. G., and J. C. Wright. 1985. “Ins and Outs of the Archives Rooms at Pylos: Form and Function in a Mycenaean Palace,” AJA 89, pp. 251–262. Palio, O. 2000. “Vasi in pietra da contesti domestici di età Protopalaziale a Festòs,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 2, Iraklion, pp. 467–484. ———. 2001. La casa tardo minoico I di Chalara a Festòs (Studi di archeologia cretese 2), Padua, pp. 243–422.

473 ———. 2002. “Le Case del Lebete e delle Sfere Fittili ad Aghia Triada,” Creta antica 3, pp. 121–132. ———. 2004. “A Graceful Bowl Resembling a Bird’s Nest: Il perdurare dell’uso simbolico di una forma vascolare in pietra al passaggio tra le età prepalaziale e protopalaziale,” Creta antica 5, pp. 11–25. Palyvou, C. 1987. “Circulatory Patterns in Minoan Architecture,” in Hägg and Marinatos 1987, pp. 195–203. ———. 1988. “Ακρωτήρι Θήρα: Οικοδομική τέχνη και μορφολογικά στοιχεία στην Υστεροκυκλαδική αρχιτεκτονική” (diss. Athens

National Technical University). ———. 1990. “Architectural Design at Late Cycladic Akrotiri,” in Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3–9 September 1989 1: Archaeology, ed. D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, P. M. Warren, London, pp. 44–56. ———. 1999. “Theran Architecture through the Minoan Looking Glass,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 609–615. ———. 2005. Akrotiri Thera: An Architecture of Affluence 3,500 Years Old (Prehistory Monographs 15), Philadelphia. Panagiotakis, N. 2004. “Contacts between Knossos and the Pediada Region in Central Crete,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 177–186. Paoli, U. E. 1961. “Famiglia (diritto attico),” in Novissimo digesto italiano 8, Turin, pp. 35–42. ———. 1976. Altri studi di diritto greco e romano, Milan. Papadakis, N. 1979. “Μακρύς Γιαλός Σητείας,” ArchDelt 34, B΄2, pp. 406– 409. ———. 1980. “Μακρύς Γιαλός,” ArchDelt 35, B΄2, pp. 524–525. ———. 1983. “Κουφονήσι Σητείας,” ArchDelt 38, B΄2, pp. 379–381. ———. 1986. “Κουφονήσι Σητείας,” ArchDelt 41, B΄2, pp. 228–231. ———. 1988. “Τρυπητός Σητείας,” ArchDelt 43, B΄2, pp. 561–562. ———. 1995. “Τρυπητός (ακίνητο Β. Πλακάκη - Β. Δρακάκη),” ArchDelt 50, B΄2, pp. 749–750.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

474 ———. 2000. Σφραγίσματα αμφορέων από την ελληνιστική πόλη στον Τρυπητό Σητείας στην Κρήτη, Τεκμήρια 5, pp. 113–125. Papadatos, Y., and M. Tsipopoulou. 2005. “Household Activities and the Organization of Space in the Beginning of Bronze Age Crete: The Evidence from the Kephala Settlement at Petras, Siteia” (paper, Ierapetra 2005). Parker Pearson, M., and C. Richards. 1994. “Ordering the World: Perceptions of Architecture, Space and Time,” in Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, ed. M. Parker Pearson and C. Richards, London, pp. 1–37. Paton, S. 1991. “A Roman Corinthian Building at Knossos,” BSA 86, pp. 297–318. ———. 1994. “Roman Knossos and the Colonia Julia Nobilis Cnossus,” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History: Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, ed. D. Evely, H. Hughes Brock, and N. Momigliano, London, pp. 141–153. ———. 1998. “The Villa Dionysos at Knossos and Its Predecessors,” in Post-Minoan Crete. Proceedings of the First Colloquium in Post-Minoan Crete Held by the British School at Athens and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 10– 11 November 1995 (BSA Studies 2), ed. W. G. Cavanagh and M. Curtis, London, pp. 123–128. Paton, S., and R. M. Schneider. 1999. “Imperial Splendour in the Province: Imported Marble on Roman Crete,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 279–304. Patterson C. B. 1998. The Family in Greek History, Cambridge, Mass. Pavlidis, L., C. S. Fraser, and C. Ogleby. 2001. “The Application of High-Resolution Satellite Imagery for the Detection of Ancient Minoan Features on Crete,” in Archaeological Informatics: Pushing the Envelope CAA 2001. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 29th Conference, Gotland, April 2001 (BAR-IS 1016), ed. G. Burenhult, Gotland, pp. 393–400. Peatfield, A. 1994. “After the ‘Big Bang’—What? Or Minoan Symbols

references and Shrines beyond Palatial Collapse,” in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, ed. S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, Oxford, pp. 19–36. Pečírka, J. 1966. The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Acta Universitatis Carolinae philosophica et historica monographia 15), Prague. ———. 1973. “Homestead Farms in Classical and Hellenistic Hellas,” in Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne, ed. M. I. Finley, Paris, pp. 113–147. Pecorella, P. E. 1966. “Sigillo cilindrico da Haghia Triada nel Museo Archeologico di Firenze,” SMEA 1, pp. 67–75. Pelon, O. 1966. “Maison d’Hagia Varvara et architecture domestique à Malia,” BCH 90, pp. 552–585. ———. 1980. Le Palais de Malia 5 (ÉtCrét 25), 2 vols., Paris. ———. 2006. “Stratigraphie et chronologie au palais de Malia,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Eλούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001 A΄ 1, Iraklion, pp. 141–151. Pendlebury, H. W., J. D. S. Pendlebury, and M. B. Money-Coutts. 1935– 1936. “Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi. I. The Cave of Trapeza,” BSA 36, pp. 5–131. ———. 1937–1938. “Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi. III. Karphi: A City of Refuge of the Early Iron Age in Crete,” BSA 38, pp. 57–145. Pendlebury, J. D. S. 1939. The Archaeology of Crete, London. Peristeri, K., F. Blonde, and J. Y. Perreault. 1986. “Θάσος 1986–87: Δεύτερη και τρίτη ανασκαφική έρευνα του αρχαϊκού αγγειοπλαστείου στη θέση Σκάλας Μαριών,” AAA 19,

pp. 71–80. Perlman, P. 1992. “One HundredCitied Crete and the ‘Cretan Πολιτεία,’” CPh 87, pp. 193–205. ———. 1996. “Πόλις Ὑπήκοος: The Dependent Polis and Crete,” in Introduction to an Inventory of “Poleis”: Symposium, August 23–26 1995 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Center 3), ed. M. H. Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 233–287. ———. 2004a. “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor: The Economies of Archaic

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references Eleutherna, Crete,” ClAnt 23, pp. 95–137. ———. 2004b. “Crete,” in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, ed. M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, Oxford, pp. 1144–1195. Perna, K. 2004. “Karphi: Soltanto un sito di rifugio?” Creta antica 5, pp. 155–179. Pernier, L. 1902. “Scavi della Missione Italiana a Phaestos, 1900–1901: Rapporto preliminare,” MonAnt 12, pp. 7–142. ———. 1935. Il palazzo minoico di Festòs: Scavi e studi della missione archeologica italiana a Creta dal 1900 al 1934 1: Gli strati più antichi e il primo palazzo, Rome. Pernier, L., and L. Banti. 1951. Il palazzo minoico di Festòs: Scavi e studi della missione archeologica italiana a Creta dal 1900 al 1950 2: Il secondo palazzo, Rome. Pilali-Papasteriou, A. 1984. “Το Θρανίο στα Μινωικά Ιερά,” Anthropologika 6, pp. 15–27. ———. 1987. “Iερά και αποθήκες στην ανακτορική Kρήτη,” in Eιλαπίνη: Tόμος τιμητικός για τον καθηγητή Nικόλαο Πλάτωνα, ed. L. Kastrinaki, G. Orphanou, and N. Giannadakis, Iraklion, pp. 179–196. Platakis, E.1970. “Υστερομινωικά-Υπομινωικά κτίσματα εις Καστροκεφάλα Αλμυρού Ηρακλείου,”

CretChron 22, pp. 511–514. ———. 1975. Σπήλαια και άλλαι καρστικαί μορφαί της Κρήτης 2, Herakleion. Platon, L. 1993. “Ateliers palatiaux minoens: Une nouvelle image,” BCH 117, pp. 103–122. ———. 1997a. “Caractère, morphologie et datation de la bourgade postpalatiale de Képhali Chondrou Viannou,” in Driessen and Farnoux 1997, pp. 357–373. ———. 1997b. “The Minoan ‘Villa’ in Eastern Crete. Riza, Akhladia, and Prophetes Elias, Praissos: Two Different Specimens of One Category?” in Hägg 1997, pp. 187–202. ———. 1999a. “New Evidence for the Occupation at Zakros before the LM I Palace,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 671–683. ———. 1999b. “Precious Artifacts in the Possession of Commoners during the Neopalatial Period in Crete,”

in Eliten in der Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen (Monographien des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums 43), Mainz, pp. 37–50. ———. 2000. “Aνακτορικά χαρακτηριστικά στην μινωική οικιακή αρχιτεκτονική,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 3, Iraklion, pp. 51–77. ———. 2002a. “Τα μινωικά αγγεία και το κρασί,” in Οίνος παλαιός ηδύποτος: Το κρητικό κρασί από τα προϊστορικά ως τα νεώτερα χρόνια (Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Ινστιτούτου Κρήτης 1), ed. A. K.

Mylopotamitaki, Iraklion, pp. 5– 24. ———. 2002b. “The Political and Cultural Influence of the Zakros Palace on Nearby Sites and in a Wider Context,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 145–156. ———. 2004. “Το Υστερομινωικό Ι ανάκτορο της Ζάκρου: Μία “Κνωσός” έξω από την Κνωσό,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilaki 2004, pp. 381–392. Platon, L., and T. Iliopoulos. Forthcoming. “H ορολογία για τα σχήματα των αγγείων της Zάκρου,” in Zakros I, ed. L. Platon, forthcoming. Platon, N. 1951. “Το ιερόν Μαζά και τα μινωικά ιερά Κορυφής,” CretChron 5, pp. 97–160. ———. 1952. “Ανασκαφαί περιοχής Σητείας,” Prakt 1952, pp. 630–648. ———. 1954. “Τα μινωικά οικιακά ιερά,” CretChron 8, pp. 428–483. ———. 1955. “Ανασκαφαί περιοχής Σητείας,” Prakt 1955, pp. 288–297. ———. 1956a. “Ανασκαφή εις Γουλεδιανά Ρεθύμνης,” Prakt 1956, pp. 226–228. ———. 1956b. “Ανασκαφή μινωικής αγροικίας εις Ζου Σητείας,” Prakt 1956, pp. 232–240. ———. 1957. “Ανασκαφή Χόνδρου Βιάννου,” Prakt 1957, pp. 136–147. ———. 1959a. “Ανασκαφή Αχλαδιών Σητείας,” Prakt 1959, pp. 210–219. ———. 1959b. “Ανασκαφή μεσομινωικού οικίσκου-ιερού εις Ρουσσές Χόνδρου,” Prakt 1959, pp. 207–209. ———. 1960a. “Ανασκαφαί περιοχής Πραισού,” Prakt 1960, pp. 294–307. ———. 1960b. “Ανασκαφή Χόνδρου Βιάννου. Α΄. ΜΜ ΙΙΙΒ οικισμός

475 Κεφάλι Λαζανά,” Prakt 1960,

pp. 283–293. ———. 1961. “Ανασκαφή Κάτω Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1961, pp. 216–224. ———. 1962. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1962, pp. 142–168. ———. 1963. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1963, pp. 160–188. ———. 1964. “Ανασκαφαί Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1964, pp. 142–168. ———. 1968. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1968, pp. 149–183. ———. 1969. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1969, pp. 197–237. ———. 1970. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1970, pp. 208–251. ———. 1971a. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1971, pp. 231–275. ———. 1971b. Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete, New York. ———. [1971] 1985. Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete, repr. Amsterdam. ———. 1972. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1972, pp. 159–192. ———. 1973. “Aνασκαφή Zάκρου,” Prakt 1973, pp. 137–166. ———. 1974. Ζάκρος: Το νέον μινωικόν ανάκτορον, Athens. ———. 1975. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1975, pp. 343–375. ———. 1976. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1976, pp. 419–439. ———. 1977. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1977, pp. 421–446. ———. 1979. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1979, pp. 282–322. ———. 1984. “Aνασκαφή Zάκρου,” Prakt 1984, pp. 392–439. ———. 1986. “Ανασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1986, pp. 243–297. Platonos, M. 1990. “Νέες ενδείξεις για το πρόβλημα των καθαρτηρίων δεξαμενών και των λουτρών στο Μινωικό κόσμο,” in Πεπραγμένα του ΣΤ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 2, Chania, pp. 141–155.

PM = The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. I = A. Evans, The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages, London 1921. II:1 = A. Evans, Fresh Lights on Origins and External Relations: The Restoration in Town and Palace after

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

476 Seismic Catastrophe towards the Close of M. M. III, and the Beginnings of the New Era, London 1928. II:2 = A. Evans, Town-Houses in Knossos of the New Era and Restored West Palace Section, with Its State Approach, London 1928. III = A. Evans, The Great Transitional Age in the Northern and Eastern Sections of the Palace: The Most Brilliant Records of Minoan Art and the Evidences of an Advanced Religion, London [1930] 1964. IV:1 = A. Evans, Emergence of Outer Western Enceinte, with New Illustrations, Artistic and Religious, of the Middle Minoan Phase: Chryselephantine ‘Lady of Sports,’ ‘Snake Room,’ and Full Story of the Cult, Late Minoan Ceramic Evolution and ‘Place Style,’ London 1935. Pomeroy, S. B. 1994. Xenophon, Oeconomicus: A Social and Historical Commentary, Oxford. Popham, M. R. 1970. The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos: Pottery of the Late Minoan IIIA Period (SIMA 12), Göteborg. ———. 1984. The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (BSA Suppl. 17), London. ———. 1987. “The Use of the Palace at Knossos at the Time of Its Destruction, c. 1400 b.c.,” in Hägg and Marinatos 1987, pp. 297– 300. ———. 1988. “The Historical Implications of the Linear B Archive at Knossos Dating to either c. 1400 b.c. or 1200 b.c.,” Cretan Studies 1, pp. 217–227. Poursat, J.-C. 1966. “Un sanctuaire du Minoen Moyen II à Malia,” BCH 90, pp. 514–551. ———. 1987. “Town and Palace at Malia in the Protopalatial Period (Summary),” in Hägg and Marinatos 1987, pp. 75–76. ———. 1988. “La ville minoenne de Malia: Recherches et publications récentes,” RA 1988, pp. 61–82. ———. 1990. Response to I. Pini 1990, “The Hieroglyphic Deposit and the Temple Repositories at Knossos,” in Aegean Seals, Sealings, and Administration. Proceedings of the NEH-Dickson Conference of the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory of the Department of Classics, Uni-

references versity of Texas at Austin, January 11–13, 1989 (Aegaeum 5), ed. T. G. Palaima, Liège, p. 55. ———. 1996. Fouilles exécutées à Malia: Le Quartier Mu III. Artisans minoens: Les maisons-ateliers du Quartier Mu (ÉtCrét 32), Paris. Prent, M. 2005. Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults: Continuity and Change from Late Minoan IIIC to the Archaic Period (Religions in the GraecoRoman World 154), Leiden. Preston, L. 1999. “Mortuary Practices and the Negotiation of Social Identities at LM II Knossos,” BSA 94, pp. 131–143. ———. 2004. “A Mortuary Perspective on Political Change in Late Minoan II–IIIB Crete,” AJA 108, pp. 321–348. Preziosi, D. 1971 “Modular Design in Minoan Architecture: An Introduction,” in Studies Presented to George M. A. Hanfmann (Monographs in Art and Archaeology 2), ed. D. G. Mitten, J. G. Pedley, and J. A. Scott, Cambridge, pp. 127–142. ———. 1983. Minoan Architectural Design: Formation and Signification, Berlin. ———. 2003. “What Does a Module Mean?” in Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002 (Aegaeum 24), ed. K. P. Foster and R. Laffineur, Liège, pp. 233–237. Preziosi, D., and L. A. Hitchcock. 1999. Aegean Art and Architecture, Oxford. Privitera, S. 2001. “I due pithoi globulari di Haghia Triada e la cronologia della ‘Casa dei Vani aggiunti progressivamente,” Creta antica 2, pp. 141–147. ———. 2004. “Culti domestici a Creta nel TM IIIA2–TM IIIB: Per un’analisi contestuale,” Creta antica 5, pp. 107–135. Pseira = Excavations at Pseira, Crete, Philadelphia. I = P. P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds. The Minoan Buildings on the West Side of Area A (University Museum Monograph 90), 1995. III = C. R. Floyd, ed. The Plateia Building (University Museum Monograph 102), 1998.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references IV = P. P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds. Minoan Buildings in Areas B, C, D, and F (University Museum Monograph 105), 1999. V = J. C. McEnroe, The Architecture of Pseira, (University Museum Monograph 109), ed. P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, 2001. VI = P. P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds., The Pseira Cemetery 1: The Surface Survey (Prehistory Monographs 5), 2002. Puglisi, D. 2003. “Haghia Triada nel periodo Tardo Minoico I,” Creta antica 4, pp. 154–198. ———. 2007. “L’organizzazione a terrazze nel ‘Villaggio’ TM I di Haghia Triada,” Creta antica 8, pp. 169–199. Rackham, O., and J. Moody. 1996. The Making of the Cretan Landscape, Manchester. Rahmstorf, L. 2005. “Ethnicity and Changes in Weaving Technology in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean in the 12th century b.c.,” in Cyprus: Religion and Society from the Late Bronze Age to the End of the Archaic Period. Proceedings of an International Symposium on Cypriote Archaeology, Erlangen, 23–24 July 2004, ed. V. Karageorghis, H. Matthäus, and S. Rogge, MöhneseeWalme, pp. 143–169. Reese, D. 2004. “Fauna and Flora: The Fauna,” in Mochlos IC, pp. 118–121. Regert, M., S. Colinart, L. Degrand, and O. Decavallas. 2001. “Chemical Alteration and Use of Beeswax through Time: Accelerated Ageing Test and Analysis of Archaeological Samples from Various Environmental Contexts,” Archaeometry 43, pp. 549–569. Rehak, P., ed. 1995. The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992 with Additions (Aegaeum 11), Liège. Rehak, P., and J. G. Younger. 1998. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete,” AJA 102, pp. 91–173. ———. 2001. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete,”

in Aegean Prehistory: A Review (AJA Suppl. 1), ed. T. Cullen, Boston, pp. 383–473. Relaki, M. 2004. “Constructing a Region: The Contested Landscape of Prepalatial Mesara,” in The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6), ed. J. C. Barrett and P. Halstead, Oxford, pp. 170–188. Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millenium, London. ———. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi (BSA Suppl. 18), Athens. Rethemiotakis, G. 1999a. “The Hearths of the Minoan Palace at Galatas,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 721–728. ———. 1999b. “Social Rank and Political Power: The Evidence from the Minoan Palace at Galatas,” in Eliten in der Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen (Monographien RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz 43), Mainz, pp. 9–26. ———. 2002. “Evidence on Social and Economic Changes at Galatas and Pediada in the New-Palace Period,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 55–69. Rethemiotakis, G., and K. S. Christakis. 2004. “Cultural Interaction between Knossos and Pediada: The Evidence from the Middle Minoan IB Pottery,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 169–175. Rethemiotakis, G., and E. Grammatikaki. 1999. “Κνωσός (Μπουγάδα Μετόχι),” Κρητική Εστία 7, pp. 222– 224. Ricci, S. 1893. “Miscellanea epigrafica,” MonAnt 2, pp. 253–316. Richards, C. C., and J. S. Thomas. 1984. “Ritual Activity and Structured Deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex,” in Neolithic Studies: A Review of Some Current Research (BAR-BS 133), ed. R. J. Bradley and J. Gardiner, Oxford, pp. 189–218. Richter, G. M. 1931. “A Stand by Kleitias and an Athenian Jug,” BMMA 26, pp. 289–294. Rizakis, A. D. 1998. Achaïe II: La cité de Patras. Épigraphie et histoire (Meletemata 25), Athens.

477 Rizakis, A. D., and S. Zoumbaki. 2001. Roman Peloponnese I: Roman Personal Names in Their Social Context (Meletemata 31), Athens. ———. 2004. Roman Peloponnese II: Roman Personal Names in Their Social Context (Meletemata 36), Athens. Rocchetti, L. 1974. “Materiali ceramici a Festòs fra il XIII ed il X sec. a.C.,” in Antichità Cretesi: Studi in onore di Doro Levi (Cronache di archeologia 13), Athens, pp. 149–152. Roscalla, F. 1990. “La dispensa di Iscomaco: Senofonte, Platone e l’amministrazione della casa,” Quaderni di Storia 31, pp. 35–55. Rosivach, V. J. 1994. The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth Century Athens, Atlanta. Rotroff, S. I., and J. H. Oakley. 1992. Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 25), Princeton. Rougemont, F. 2001. “Some Thoughts on the Identification of the ‘Collectors’ in Linear B Tablets,” in Voutsaki and Killen 2001, pp. 129–138. Roy, J. 1996. “The Countryside in Classical Greek Drama and Isolated Farms in Dramatic Landscapes,” in Human Landscapes in Classical Antiquity: Environment and Culture, (Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 6), ed. G. Shipley and J. B. Salmon, London, pp. 98– 118. RPC = A. M. Burnett, M. Amandry, and P. P. Ripollès, Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 B.C.–A.D. 69), London 1992. Rubinstein, L. 1993. Adoption in IV. Century Athens (Opuscula graecolatina 34), Copenhagen. Ruipérez, M. S. 1999. “Mycenaean we-we-si-jo, Alphabetical Greek eiresione and Teiresias,” in Floreant studia Mycenaea: Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.–5. Mai 1995 (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 18), ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, and O. Panagl, Vienna, pp. 537–542. Rupp, D. W., and M. Tsipopoulou. 1999. “Conical Cup Concentrations at Neopalatial Petras: A Case for a Ritualized Reception Ceremony

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

478 with Token Hospitality,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 729–739. Russell, P. J. 1986. “The Pottery from the Late Cypriot IIC Settlement at Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios, Cyprus: The 1979–1984 Excavation Seasons” (diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania). Rutkowski, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven. ———. 1987. “The Temple at Karphi,” SMEA 26, pp. 257–279. Rutter, J. B. 2005. “Southern Triangles Revisited: Lakonia, Messenia, and Crete in the 14th–12th Centuries b.c.,” in D’Agata and Moody 2005, pp. 17–50. Sackett, L. H. 1992. Knossos: From Greek City to Roman Colony. Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion II (BSA Supp. 12), London. Sackett, L. H., and M. Popham. 1970. “Excavations at Palaikastro VII,” BSA 65, pp. 203–242. Sackett, L. H., M. R. Popham, and P. M. Warren. 1965. “Excavations at Palaikastro VI,” BSA 60, pp. 248– 305. Sakellarakis, Y. 1968. “Excavations of a Tholos Tomb at Hagios Kyrillos, Mesara,” AAA 1, pp. 50–55. ———. 1983. “Ανασκαφή Ιδαίου Άντρου,” Prakt 1983, pp. 415–500. ———. 1988. “Ζώμινθος,” Ergon, pp. 165–172. Salomies, O. 1996. “Contacts between Italy, Macedonia and Asia Minor during the Principate,” in Roman Onomastics in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects (Meletemata 21), ed. A. D. Rizakis, Athens, pp. 111–127. Sampson, A. 1985. “Tα σπήλαια και η χρήση τους στην Eύβοια και γενικότερα στον ελληνικό χώρο,” Αρχαιολογία 15, pp. 37–44.

———. 1992. “Late Neolithic Remains at Tharrounia, Euboea: A Model for the Seasonal Use of Settlements and Caves,” BSA 87, pp. 61–101. Sanders, D. H. 1990. “Behavioral Conventions and Archaeology: Methods for the Analysis of Ancient Architecture,” in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, ed. S. Kent, Cambridge, pp. 43–72. Sanders, I. F. 1982. Roman Crete, Warminister.

references Sariyannis, G. M. 1978. “Οι πρώτες μορφές πόλεως και η συλλογική δομή της οικογένειας: Συμβολή στο πρόβλημα της ‘οικίας του Χαμαιζίου,’” Technika Chronika (October–

November 1978), pp. 64–83. Sarpaki, A. Forthcoming. “Σπήλαιο ‘της Ουρανιάς το Φρούδι’ Ζάκρου: Τα αρχαιοβοτανικά κατάλοιπα,” in Kopaka, forthcoming. Sarpaki, A., and J. Bending. 2004. “Fauna and Flora: Archaeobotanical Assemblages,” in Mochlos IC, pp. 126–131. Schaar, K. W. 1985. “House Form at Tarsus, Alambra, and Lemba,” RDAC 1985, pp. 37–44. Schäfer, J. 1992. Amnisos nach den archäologischen, historischen und epigraphischen Zeugnissen des Altertums und der Neuzeit, Berlin. Schiffer, M. B. 1976. Behavioral Archaeology, New York. ———. 1985 “Is There a ‘Pompeii Premise’ in Archaeology?” Journal of Anthropological Research 41, pp. 18–41. ———. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, Salt Lake City. Schlager, N., et al. 2001. “Pleistozäne, neolithische, bronzezeitliche und rezente Befunde und Ruinen im fernen Osten Kretas: Dokumentation 2000,” ÖJh 70, pp. 157–220. Schmid, M. 1985. “Esquisse du tracé d’un ensemble architectural de l’époque minoenne: Malia, le quartier Mu,” in Le dessin d’architecture dans les sociétés antiques. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 26–28 Janvier 1984, Leiden, pp. 63–73. Schmitt Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet: Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques, Paris. Schoch, W. H., and M. Ntinou. 2004. “Fauna and Flora: Wood Charcoal,” in Mochlos IC, pp. 131–135. Schoep, I. 2002. “The State of the Minoan Palaces or the Minoan Palace-State?” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 15–33. ———. 2004. “The Socio-economic Context of Seal Use and Administration at Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 283–293. Schoep, I., and C. Knappett. 2003. “Le Quartier Nu (Malia, Crète):

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references L’occupation du Minoen Moyen II,” BCH 127, pp. 49–86. Schwartzott, A. 1997. “An Investigation of the Social Organization at Gournia Based on Object Typologies” (thesis State Univ. of New York, Buffalo). Scurlock, J. 2003. “Ancient Mesopotamian House Gods,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 3, pp. 99–106. Seager, R. B. 1909. “Excavations on the Island of Mochlos, Crete, in 1908,” AJA 13, pp. 273–303. ———. 1910. Excavations on the Island of Pseira, Crete (Museum Anthropological Publications III.1), Philadelphia. Seiradaki, M. 1960. “Pottery from Karphi,” BSA 55 pp. 1–37. Shaw, J. W. 1971. “Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques,” ASAtene 49, pp. 1–236. ———. 1984. “Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1982–83,” Hesperia 53, pp. 251–287. ———. 1987. “A ‘Palatial’ Stoa at Kommos,” in Hägg and Marinatos 1987, pp. 101–110. ———. 2000. “Ritual and Development in the Greek Sanctuary,” in Kommos IV, pp. 669–731. ———. 2002. “The Minoan Palatial Establishment at Kommos: An Anatomy of Its History, Function, and Interconnections,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 99– 110. Shaw, M. C. 1985. “Late Minoan I Building J/T, and Late Minoan III Buildings N and P at Kommos: Their Nature and Possible Uses as Residences, Palaces, and/or Emporia,” in A Great Minoan Triangle in South-Central Crete: Kommos, Hagia Triadha, Phaistos, (Scripta mediterranea 6), ed. J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, Toronto, pp. 19–25. ———. 1990. “Late Minoan Hearths and Ovens at Kommos, Crete,” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 231– 254. ———. 1996. “Town Arrangement and Domestic Architecture,” in Kommos I.2, pp. 345–378. ———. 2004. “Religion at Minoan Kommos,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 137–150.

Shelmerdine, C. W. 1992. “Historical and Economic Considerations in Interpreting Mycenaean Texts,” in Olivier 1992, pp. 569–590. Sherratt, S. 2001. “Potemkin Palaces and Route-Based Economies,” in Voutsaki and Killen 2001, pp. 214– 239. ———. 2004. “Feasting in Homeric Epic,” in Wright 2004a, pp. 181– 217. Sherwin-White, A. N. 1973. The Roman Citizenship, 2nd ed., Oxford. Sjögren, L. 2001. “Sites, Settlements and Early Poleis on Crete (800– 500 b.c.)” (diss. Univ. of Stockholm). ———. 2003. Cretan Locations: Discerning Site Variations in Iron Age and Archaic Crete (800–500 B.C.) (BAR-IS 1185), Oxford. ———. 2007. “Interpreting Cretan Private and Communal Spaces (800–500 b.c.),” in Westgate, Fisher, and Whitley 2007, London, pp. 149–155. Smith, R. A. K. 2002. “The Tombs of Mochlos and Myrsini: Pottery and Cultural Regionalism in Late Minoan III Crete” (diss. Bryn Mawr College). ———. 2005. “Minoans, Mycenaeans, and Mokhlos: The Formation of Regional Identity in Late Minoan III Crete,” in D’Agata and Moody 2005, pp. 185–204. Smith, S. T. 2003. Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire, London. Snyder, L., and W. E. Klippel. 1994. “The Vertebrate Faunal Material,” in Coulson and Tsipopoulou 1994, pp. 92–93. Soles, J. S. 1979. “The Early Gournia Town,” AJA 83, pp. 149–167. ———. 1988. “Social Ranking in Prepalatial Cemeteries,” in French and Wardle 1988, pp. 49–62. ———. 1991. “The Gournia Palace,” AJA 95, pp. 17–78. ———. 1992. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 24), Princeton. ———. 2001. “Reverence for Dead Ancestors in Prehistoric Crete,” in Laffineur and Hägg 2001, pp. 229– 236.

479 ———. 2002. “A Central Court at Gournia?” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 123–142. ———. 2004. “New Construction at Mochlos in the LM IB Period,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 153–162. Soles, J. S., and C. Davaras. 1992. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1989,” Hesperia 61, pp. 413–445. ———. 1994. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1990–1991,” Hesperia 63, pp. 391–436. ———. 1996. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1992–1993,” Hesperia 65, pp. 175–230. ———. 2000. “Mochlos,” in Crete 2000: A Centennial Celebration of American Archaeological Work on Crete (1900–2000), ed. J. D. Muhly and E. Sikla, Athens, pp. 22–37. South, A. K. 1980. “Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1979: A Summary Report,” RDAC 1979, pp. 22–53. ———. 1983. “Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1982,” RDAC 1983, pp. 92– 105. ———. 1984. “Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1983,” RDAC 1984, pp. 14– 40. ———. 1988. “Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1987: An Important Ceramic Group from Building X,” RDAC 1988:1, pp. 223–228. Souvatzi, S. 2000. “The Archaeology of the Household: Examples from the Greek Neolithic” (diss. Univ. of Cambridge). Speziale, A. 2001. “Il MM II: La casa LXXXI–LXXXV, XCIV–XCV,” in I cento anni dello scavo di Festòs, 13– 14 dicembre 2000, Roma (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 173), Rome, pp. 157–167. Stampolidis, N. Ch., and A. Giannikouri, eds. 2004. Το Αιγαίο στην πρώιμη εποχή του σιδήρου: Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Ρόδος, 1–4 Νοεμβρίου 2002, Athens. Stantley, R. S., and K. G. Hirth. 1993. “Household Studies in Western Mesoamerica,” in Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and Residence, ed. R. S. Stantley and K. G. Hirth, Boca Raton, pp. 3–17.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

480 Steinmetz, G. 1999. “Introduction: Culture and the State,” in State/ Culture: State-Formation after the Cultural Turn, ed. G. Steinmetz, Ithaca, pp. 1–49. Stevanoviç, M. 2002. “Burned Houses in the Neolithic of Southeast Europe,” in Fire in Archaeology: Papers from a Section Held at the European Associations of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000 (BAR-IS 1089), ed. D. Gheorghiu, Oxford, pp. 55–62. Svoronos-Hadjimichalis, V. 1956. “L’evacuation de la fumée dans les maisons grecques des Ve et IVe siècles,” BCH 80, pp. 483–506. Sweetman, R. J. 1999. “The Roman and Early Christian Mosaics of Crete” (diss. Univerity of Nottingham). ———. 2003. “The Roman Mosaics of the Knossos Valley,” BSA 98, pp. 517–547. ———. 2004. “The Changing Nature of Knossos: Roman to Late Antique —Some Problems,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 481–488. ———. 2006. “Knossos: Process of Romanization,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001 A΄ 5, Iraklion, pp. 421–434. ———. 2007. “Roman Knossos: The Nature of a Globalized City,” AJA 111, pp. 61–82. Swiny, S. 1989. “From Round House to Duplex: A Re-assessment of Prehistoric Cypriot Bronze Age Society,” in Early Society in Cyprus, ed. E. Peltenburg, Edinburgh, pp. 14–28. Talamo, C. 1987. “Il sissizio a Creta,” Miscellanea Greca e Romana 12, pp. 9–26. Tenwolde, C. 1992. “Myrtos Revisited: The Role of Relative Function Ceramic Typologies in Bronze Age Settlement Analysis,” OJA 11, pp. 1–24. Thornton, T. F. 2002. “From Clan to Kwáan to Corporation: The Continuing Complex Evolution of Tlingit Political Organization,” Wicazo Sa Review 17, pp. 167–194. Tilly, C. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States, a.d. 990–1992, rev. ed., Cambridge, Mass.

references Todaro, S. 2003a. “Il deposito AM I del Piazzale dei Sacelli di Haghia Triada: I modellini architettonici,” ASAtene 81, pp. 547–572. ———. 2003b. “Haghia Triada nel periodo Antico Minoico,” Creta antica 4, pp. 69–94. ———. 2005. “EM I–MM IA Ceramic Groups at Phaistos: Towards the Definition of a Prepalatial Ceramic Sequence in South Central Crete,” Creta antica 6, pp. 11–46. Todd, S. C. 1993. The Shape of Athenian Law, Oxford. Tomkins, P. 2004. “Filling in the ‘Neolithic Background’: Social Life and Social Transformation in the Aegean before the Bronze Age,” in The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6), ed. J. C. Barrett and P. Halstead, Oxford, pp. 38– 63. ———. 2007. “Neolithic: Strata IX– VIII, VII–VIB, VIA–V, IV, IIIB, IIIA, IIB, IIA and IC Groups,” in Knossos Pottery Handbook: Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan) (BSA Studies 14), ed. N. Momigliano, London, pp. 9–48. Treuil, R. 1996. “De la cigale à la fourmi: Les origines des magasins à vivre dans le monde égéen,” Topoi 6, pp. 71–83. ———. 1999. “Les maisons Dessenne à Malia,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 841–844. Trigger, B. G. 1990. “Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour,” WorldArch 22, 119–132. Tsigonaki, C. 1994. “Πήλινα υφαντικά βάρη και σφονδύλια,” in Eλεύθερνα. Τομέας ΙΙ, 2. ΄Ενα ελληνιστικό σπίτι (σπίτι Α) στη θέση νησί, ed. T. Kalpaxis, A. Furtwängler, and A. Schnapp, Rethymnon, pp. 158– 167. Tsipopoulou, M. 1986. “Έρευνα στον Πετρά και στον κόλπο Σητείας,

1988,” ArchDelt 41, pp. 340–400. ———. 1987. “Έρευνα στον Πετρά Σητείας, 1987,” AAA 20, pp. 11– 30. ———. 1988. “Αγία Φωτιά Σητείας: Το νέο εύρημα,” in French and Wardle 1988, pp. 31–47. ———. 1990. “Potters’ Marks from Petras, Siteia,” Kadmos 29, pp. 92–106.

references ———. 1995. “Κεραμεικά σημεία από

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

την ανασκαφή Πετρά Σητείας (1989–1990),” in Πεπραγμένα του Ζ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 2, Rethymnon, pp. 931–971.

———. 1997. “Palace-Centered Polities in Eastern Crete: Neopalatial Petras and Its Neighbors,” in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete, ed. W. E. Aufrecht, N. A. Mirau, and S. W. Gauley, Sheffield, pp. 263–277. ———. 1999a. “Before, During, After: The Architectural Phases of the Palatial Building at Petras, Siteia,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 847– 855. ———. 1999b. “From Local Centre to Palace: The Role of Fortification in the Economic Transformation of the Siteia Bay Area, East Crete,” in Laffineur 1999, pp. 179–189. ———. 2001. “A New Late Minoan IIIC Shrine at Halasmenos, East Crete,” in Laffineur and Hägg 2001, pp. 99–101. ———. 2002. “Petras, Siteia: The Palace, the Town, the Hinterland and the Protopalatial Background,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur 2002, pp. 133–144. ———. 2004a. “Halasmenos, Destroyed but Not Invisible: New Insights on the LM IIIC Period in the Isthmus of Ierapetra. First Presentation of the Pottery from the 1992– 1997 Campaigns,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 103–123. ———. 2004b. “Mια περίπτωση πρώιμων συμποσίων ή απλώς ηρωολατρείας: Γεωμετρική ανακατάληψη στο Χαλασμένο Ιεράπετρας,” in

Stampolidis and Giannikouri 2004, pp. 127–142. ———. 2005a. “Filling the Gaps: Recent Excavations at Petras Siteia” (paper, INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 2005). ———. 2005b. “‘Mycenoans’ at the Isthmus of Ierapetra: Some (Preliminary) Thoughts on the Foundation of the (Eteo)Cretan Cultural Identity,” in D’Agata and Moody 2005, pp. 303–333. ———. 2006. “Counting Sherds at Neopalatial Petras, Siteia, East Crete: Integrating Ceramic Analysis with Architectural Data,” in Deconstructing Context: A Critical

Approach to Archaeological Practice, ed. D. Papakonstantinou, Oxford, pp. 138–158. ———. 2009. “Goddesses for ‘Gene’? The Late Minoan IIIC Shrine at Halasmenos, Ierapetra,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel 2009, pp. 121– 136. Tsipopoulou, M., and H. Dierckx. 2006. “Υστερομινωικό ΙΑ σπίτι I.1 στον Πετρά Σητείας: Δομή, λειτουργία και κατανομή των ευρημάτων,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001 A΄ 1, Iraklion, pp. 297–315. Tsipopoulou, M., and E. Hallager. 1996. “Inscriptions with Hieroglyphs and Linear A from Petras, Siteia,” SMEA 37, pp. 7–46. Tsipopoulou, M., and K. Nowicki. 2003. “Μινωίτες και Μυκηναίοι στο τέλος της εποχής του Χαλκού στην Ανατολική Κρήτη,” in Πρακτικά του Β ΄Διεθνούς Συμποσίου “Η περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού κόσμου,” Λαμία, 26–30 Σεπτεμβρίου 1999,

ed. N. Kyparissi-Apostolika and M. Papakonstantinou, Athens, pp. 561–580. Tsipopoulou, M., and A. Papacostopoulou. 1997. “‘Villas’ and Villages in the Hinterland of Petras, Siteia,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 203–214. Tsipopoulou, M., and L. Vagnetti, eds. 1995. Achladia: Scavi e ricerche della Missione greco-italiana in Creta rientale. 1991–1993 (Incunabula graeca 97), Rome. Tzachili, I. 1997. Υφαντική και υφάντρες στο προϊστορικό Αιγαίο 2000– 1000 π.Χ., Iraklion. ———. 2008. “Hellenistic Loomweights from Western Crete,” in Vestidos, textiles y tintes: Estudios sobre la producción de bienes de consumo en la antigüedad. Actas del II Symposium Internacional sobre Textiles y Tintes del Mediterráno en el Mundo Antiguo, Atenas, 24 al 26 de noviembre, 2005 (Purpureae vestes 2), ed. L. Karale, C. A. Giner, I. B. Kanold, and R. Haubrichs, Valencia, pp. 83– 87. Tzaganika. E. 2005. “Η χρήση ξύλινων ενισχύσεων στα ανάκτορα και στα ανακτορικά κτίρια της Εποχής του Χαλκού στην Κρήτη” (diss. National

Technical Univ. of Athens).

481 Tzedakis, Y., and S. Chrysoulaki. 1987. “Neopalatial Architectural Elements in the Area of Chania,” in Hägg and Marinatos 1987, pp. 111–115. Tzedakis, Y., S. Chryssoulaki, M. Avgouli, and Y. Venieri. 1992–1993. “Ερευνητικό πρόγραμμα ‘Μινωικοί δρόμοι,’” Κρητική Εστία 4, pp. 306– 319. Tzedakis, Y., S. Chryssoulaki, Y. Venieri, and M. Avgouli. 1990. “Les routes minoennes: Le poste de Χοιρόμανδρες et le contrôle des communications,” BCH 114, pp. 43–62. Tzedakis, Y., S. Chryssoulaki, and L. Vokotopoulos. 1994–1996. “Ερευνητικό πρόγραμμα ‘Μινωικοί δρόμοι,’” Κρητική Εστία 5, pp. 359– 366. Tzedakis, Y., S. Chryssoulaki, L. Vokotopoulos and A. Sfyroera. 1999. “Ερευνητικό πρόγραμμα ‘Μινωικοί Δρόμοι,’” Κρητική Εστία 7, p. 317– 326. Tzedakis, Y., S. Chryssoulaki, S. Voutsaki, and Y. Venieri. 1989. “Les routes minoennes: Rapport préliminaire. Défense de la circulation ou circulation de la défense?” BCH 113, pp. 43–75. Tzedakis, Y., and I. Gavrilaki. 1995. “H ανασκαφή στο σπήλαιο Mελιδονίου,” in Πεπραγμένα του Ζ′ Διεθνούς Kρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A΄ 2, Rethymnon, pp. 887–894. Tzedakis, Y., and H. Martlew, eds. 1999. Mινωιτών και Mυκηναίων γεύσεις: Eθνικό Aρχαιολογικό Mουσείο, 12 Ιουλίου–27 Νοεμβρίου 1999. Kατάλογος Έκθεσης, Athens. Tzigounaki, A. 1999. “Apodhoulou: Elements of Architecture of a Protopalatial Settlement,” in Betancourt et al. 1999, pp. 863–867. Tzouvara-Souli, C. 1983. “Αγνύθες από το Νεκυομαντείο του Αχέροντα,” Δωδώνη 12, pp. 9–43. Ucko, P. J. 1969. “Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains,” WorldArch 1, pp. 262–280. Vagnetti, L. 1972–1973. “L’insediamento neolitico di Festòs,” ASAtene 50–51, pp. 7–138. Vagnetti, L., and P. Belli. 1978. “Characters and Problems of the Final Neolithic in Crete,” SMEA 19, pp. 125–163.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

482 Vagnetti, L., A. Christopoulou, and Y. Tzedakis. 1989. “Saggi negli strati neolitici,” in Scavi a Nerokourou Kydonias. Ricerche grecoitaliane in Creta Occidentale I (Incunabula graeca 91), Rome, pp. 9–97. Vallianos, C., and M. Padouva. 1986. Τα κρητικά αγγεία του 19ου και του 20ού αιώνα. (Μουσείο Κρητικής Εθνολογίας-Κέντρο Ερευνών 3), Voroi. Vallianou, D. 1987. “Αγία Τριάδα,” ArchDelt 42, B΄2, p. 548. Van de Moortel, A. 1997. “The Transition from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial Society in South-Central Crete: A Ceramic Perspective” (diss. Bryn Mawr College). Vandenabeele, F. 1992. Malia: The Palace of Malia and Chersonissos, Athens. Van der Toorn, K. 1996. “Domestic Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia, ed. K. R. Veenhof, Istanbul, pp. 69–77. Van Effenterre, H. 1948. La Crète et le monde grec de Platon à Polybe, Paris. ———. 1980. Le palais de Mallia et la cité minoenne: Étude de synthèse 2 (Incunabula graeca 76), Rome. Van Effenterre, H., and F. Ruzé. 1994. Nomima 1: Recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec (CÉFR 188), Rome. ———. 1995. Nomima 2: Recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec (CÉFR 188), Rome. Van Effenterre, H., and M. van Effenterre. 1976. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia: Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation 4: 1956–1960 (ÉtCrét 22), Paris. ———. 1997. “Towards a Study of Neopalatial ‘Villas’: Modern Words for Minoan Things,” in Hägg 1997, pp. 9–13. Van Gennep, A. [1908] 1960. The Rites of Passage, trans. M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee, London. Vasilakis, A. S. 1987. “Ανασκαφή νεολιθικού σπιτιού στους Καλούς Λιμένες της Νότιας Κρήτης,” in Ειλαπίνη: Τόμος τιμητικός για τον καθηγητή Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα,

ed. L. Kastrinaki, G. Orphanou, and N. Giannadakis, Iraklion, pp. 45–53.

references ———. 1988. “Τρυπητή,” Κρητική Εστία 2, pp. 331–332. ———. 1989. “Ο πρωτομινωικός οικισμός Τρυπητής,” Αρχαιολογία 30, pp. 52–56. ———. 1989–1990a. “Προϊστορικές θέσεις στη Μονή Οδηγητρίας,” Κρητική Εστία 3, pp. 11–79. ———. 1989–1990b. “Τρυπητή,” Κρητική Εστία 3, p. 287. Ventris, M., and J. Chadwick. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Oxford. Vermeule, E., and F. Z. Wolsky. 1990. Toumba tou Skourou: A Bronze Age Potters’ Quarter on Morphou Bay in Cyprus. London. Viviers, D. 1994. “La cité de Dattalla et l’expansion territoriale de Lyktos en Crète centrale,” BCH 118, pp. 229– 259. Vlazaki, M., and E. Hallager. 1995. “Evidence for Seal Use in Prepalatial Western Crete,” in Sceaux minoens et mycéniens, IV e Symposium International, 10–12 Septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (CMS Beiheft 5), ed. I. Pini and J.-C. Poursat, Berlin, pp. 251–270. Vogeikoff-Brogan, N. Forthcoming. “Domestic Pottery from Trypetos Siteias in Eastern Crete,” in Ζ′ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική, Αίγιο, 4–9 Απριλίου 2005. Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., and S. Apostolakou. 2004. “New Evidence of Wine Production in East Crete in the Hellenistic Period,” in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002, ed. J. Eiring and J. Lund, Aarhus, pp. 417–427. Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., and N. Papadakis. 2003. “Hellenistic Houses and Households in East Crete: The Case of Trypetos,” in Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext: Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposium in Kiel vom 24.–28.9.2001, ed. B. Schmaltz and M. Söldner, Münster, pp. 66–69. Vokotopoulos, L. 2000. “Οχυρές θέσεις Τελικής της Νεολιθικής και Πρωτομινωικής Ι στην περιοχή της Ζάκρου,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου,

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 1, Iraklion, pp. 129–146. ———. 2006. “Το κτηριακό συγκρότημα του ‘Φυλακίου της Θάλασσας’ στις Καρούμες Σητείας,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001 A΄ 1, Iraklion, pp. 347–363. ———. 2007. “Το κτηριακό συγκρότημα του Φυλακίου της Θάλασσας στον όρμο Καρούμες και η περιοχή του: Ο χαρακτήρας της κατοίκησης στην ύπαιθρο της Ανατολικής Κρήτης κατά τη Νεοανακτορική εποχή” (diss. Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki). Voutsaki, S., and J. T. Killen, eds. 2001. Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference Held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27), Cambridge. Vrokastro 2 = B. J. Hayden, H. Dierckx, G. W. M. Harrison, J. Moody, G. Postma, O. Rackham, and A. B. Stallsmith, Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 2: The Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area and Related Studies (University Museum Monograph 119), Philadelphia 2004. Vrokastro 3 = B. J. Hayden, Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 3: The Vrokastro Regional Survey Project. Sites and Pottery (University Museum Monograph 123), Philadelphia 2005. Walbank, M. B. 1982. “The Confiscation and Sale by the Poletai in 402/1 b.c. of the Property of the Thirty Tyrants,” Hesperia 51, pp. 74–98. Walberg, G. 1983. Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz. ———. 1994. “The Function of the Minoan Villas,” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 49–54. Wall, S. M., J. H. Musgrave, and P. M. Warren. 1986. “Human Bones from a Late Minoan IB House at Knossos,” BSA 81, pp. 333–388. Wallace, S. A. 1997–2000. “Case Studies of Settlement Change in Early Iron Age Crete (c. 1200– 700 b.c.): Economic Models of Cause and Effect Reassessed,” Aegean Archaeology 4, pp. 61–99. ———. 2003. “The Perpetuated Past: Re-Use or Continuity in Material

Culture and the Structuring of Identity in Early Iron Age Crete,” BSA 98, pp. 251–277. ———. 2004. “Η διάταξη των οικισμών και οι κοινωνικο-οικονομικές αλλαγές στην Κρήτη κατά την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου,” in Stampolidis

and Giannikouri 2004, pp. 1–10. ———. 2005. “Last Chance to See? Karfi (Crete) in the Twenty-first Century: Presentation of New Architectural Data and Their Analysis in the Current Context of Research,” BSA 100, pp. 215–274. ———. 2006. “The Gilded Cage? Settlement and Socioeconomic Change after 1200 BC: A Comparison of Crete and Other Aegean Regions,” in Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3), ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. S. Lemos, Edinburgh, pp. 619–664. Ward, W. A., and M. S. Joukowsky, eds. 1992. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque, Iowa. Warren, P. M. 1965. “The First Minoan Stone Vases and Early Minoan Chronology,” CretChron 19, pp. 7– 43. ———. 1967. “A Stone Vase-Maker’s Workshop in the Palace at Knossos,” BSA 62, pp. 195–201. ———. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge. ———. 1972. Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete (BSA Suppl. 7), London. ———. 1980–1981. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978–1980. Part I,” AR 27, pp. 73– 92. ———. 1982–1983. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978–82. Part II,” AR 29, pp. 63–87. ———. 1983. “The Settlement at Fournou Korifi, Myrtos (Crete) and Its Place within the Evolution of the Rural Community in Bronze Age,” in Les communautés rurales 2 (Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’Histoire Comparative des Institutions 41), Paris, pp. 239–271. ———. 1984. “Circular Platforms at Minoan Knossos,” BSA 79, pp. 307– 323. ———. 1984–1985. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations,

483 1978–82. Part III,” AR 31, pp. 124– 129. ———. 1987–1988. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations 1978–82. Part IV,” AR 34, pp. 86– 104. ———. 1991a. “The Destruction of the Palace of Knossos,” in The Civilizations of the Aegean and Their Diffusion on Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000–600 B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium, 18–24 September, 1989, ed. V. Karageorghis, Larnaca, pp. 32–37. ———. 1991b. “A New Minoan Deposit from Knossos, c.1600 b.c., and Its Wider Relations,” BSA 86, pp. 319–340. ———. 1992. “Myrtos-Phournou Koryphi,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, pp. 198–201. ———. 1997. “Late Minoan III Pottery From the City of Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Extension Site,” in Late Minoan III Pottery: Chronology and Terminology (Danish Institute at Athens Monograph 1), ed. E. Hallager and B. P. Hallager, Athens, pp. 157–184. ———. 2005. “Response to Eleni Hatzaki, ‘Postpalatial Knossos: Town and Cemeteries from LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC,’” in D’Agata and Moody 2005, pp. 97–103. Waterhouse, H. 1983. “Middle Minoan Houses,” in Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium, 1981, ed. O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, Bristol, pp. 311–321. Waters, M. 1995. Globalization, London. Watrous, L. V. 1980. “J. D. S. Pendlebury’s Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi: The Iron Age Sites,” BSA 75, pp. 269–283. ———. 1982. Lasithi: A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 18), Princeton. ———. 1984. “Ayia Triada: A New Perspective on the Minoan Villa,” AJA 88, pp. 123–134. ———. 2000. “The Countryside of Gournia” (paper, Athens 2000). ———. 2001. “Review of Aegean Prehistory III: Crete from Earliest Prehistory through the Protopalatial Period,” in Aegean Prehistory: A Review (AJA Suppl. 1), ed. T. Cullen, Boston, pp. 157–223.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

484 Watrous, L. V., H. Blitzer, D. Haggis, and E. Zangger. 2000. “Economy and Society in the Gournia Region of Crete: A Preliminary Report on the 1992–1994 Field Seasons of the Gournia Project,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 3, Iraklion, pp. 471–483. Watrous, L. V., and D. Hadzi-Vallianou. 2004. “Creation of a Greek City-State (Late Minoan IIIC– Orientalizing),” in The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta archaeologica 23), ed. L. V. Watrous, D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer, Los Angeles, pp. 339– 350. Watrous, L. V., D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer, eds. 2004. The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta archaeologica 23), Los Angeles. Watrous, L. V., 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, pp. 191– 248. Webster, J. 2001. “Creolizing the Roman Provinces,” AJA 105, pp. 209–255. Weinberg, S. 1983. Bamboula at Kourion: The Architecture (University Museum Monograph 42), Philadelphia. Weingarten, J. 1994. “Sealings and Sealed Documents at Bronze Age Knossos,” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, ed. D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, London, pp. 171–188. ———. 2000. “Some Seal-impressed Weights from Eastern Crete,” in Πεπραγμένα Η′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 3, Heraklion, pp. 485–495. Westgate, R. 2007. “House and Society in Classical and Hellenistic Crete: A Case Study in Regional Variation,” AJA 111, pp. 423–457.

references Westgate, R., N. Fisher, and J. Whitley, eds. 2007. Building Communities: House, Settlement, and Society in the Aegean and Beyond. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Cardiff University, 17–21 April 2001 (BSA Studies 15), London. Whitelaw, T. M. 1979. “Community Structure and Social Organization at Fournou Korifi, Myrtos” (thesis Univ. of Southampton). ———. 1983. “The Settlement at Fournou Koriphi, Myrtos, and Aspects of Early Minoan Social Organization,” in Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium, 1981, ed. O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, Bristol, pp. 323–345. ———. 1989. “The Social Organisation of Space in Hunter-Gatherer Communities: Implications for Social Inference in Archaeology” (diss. Univ. of Cambridge). ———. 1991. “Investigations at the Neolithic Sites of Kephala and Paoura,” in Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times, ed. J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani, Los Angeles, pp. 199–216. ———. 1994. “The Early Minoan Household: Methods and Models for Analysis,” AJA 98, pp. 335–336 (abstract). ———. 2001. “From Sites to Communities: Defining the Human Dimensions of Minoan Urbanism,” in Branigan 2001a, pp. 15–37. ———. 2004. “Estimating the Population of Neopalatial Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 147–158. ———. 2007. “House, Household and Community at Early Minoan Fournou Korifi: Methods and Models for Interpretation,” in Westgate, Fisher, and Whitley 2007, London, pp. 65–76. Whitelaw, T., P. M. Day, E. Kiriatzi, V. Kilikoglou, and D. E. Wilson. 1997. “Ceramic Traditions at EM IIB Myrtos-Fournou Korifi,” in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 265–274. Whitley, J. 1997. “Cretan Laws and Cretan Literacy,” AJA 101, pp. 635–661.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

references ———. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge. ———. 2002–2003. “Archaeology in Greece 2002–2003,” AR 49, pp. 1–88. ———. 2003–2004. “Archaeology in Greece 2003–2004,” AR 50, pp. 1–92. ———. 2004. “Style Wars: Towards an Explanation of Cretan Exceptionalism,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis 2004, pp. 433–442. ———. 2004–2005. “Archaeology in Greece 2004–2005,” AR 51, pp. 1–118. Whitley, J., S. Germanidou, D. UremKotsou, A. Dimoula, I. Nikolakopoulou, A. Karnava, and E. Hatzaki. 2005. “Archaeology in Greece 2005–2006,” AR 52, pp. 1–112. Whitley, J., M. Prent, and S. Thorne. 1999. “Praisos IV: Α Preliminary Report on the 1993 and 1994 Survey Seasons,” BSA 94, pp. 215–264. Whittaker, H. 2002. “Minoan Board Games: The Function and Meaning of Stones with Depressions (so-called Kernoi) from Bronze Age Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 6, pp. 73–87. Wiener, M. 1984. “Crete and the Cyclades in LM I: The Tale of Conical Cups,” in The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May to 5 June, 1982 (SkrAth 4°, 32), ed. R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, Stockholm, pp. 17– 35. Wilk, R. R. 1991. Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life among the Kekchi Maya in Belize, Tucson. Wilk, R. R., and W. L. Rathje. 1982. “Household Archaeology,” American Behavioral Scientist 25, pp. 617– 640. Wilkens, B. 1996. “Faunal Remains from Italian Excavations on Crete,” in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28), ed. D. S. Reese, Madison, pp. 241– 261.

Willetts, R. F. 1955. Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete, London. ———. 1962. Cretan Cults and Festivals, London. ———. 1967. The Law Code of Gortyn (Kadmos Suppl. 1), Berlin. ———. 1977. The Civilization of Ancient Crete, London. ———. 1980. Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete, 2nd ed., Westport, Conn. Wilson, L. M. 1930. “Loomweights,” in Excavations at Olynthus II: Architecture and Sculpture. Houses and Other Buildings ( Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 9), ed. D. M. Robinson, Baltimore, pp. 118–128. ———. 1938. The Clothing of the Ancient Romans (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 24), Baltimore. Woolf, G., ed. 2003. Cambridge Illustrated History of the Roman World, Cambridge. Wright, G. R. H. 1992a. Ancient Building in Cyprus, 2 vols., Leiden. ———. 1992b. “The Cypriot Rural Sanctuary: An Illuminating Document in Comparative Religion,” in Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, ed. G. C. Ioannides, Nicosia, pp. 269–283. Wright, J. C. 1995a. “The Archaeological Correlates of Religion: Case Studies in the Aegean,” in Laffineur and Niemeier 1995, pp. 342– 348. ———. 1995b. “Empty Cups and Empty Jugs: The Social Role of Wine in Minoan and Mycenaean Societies,” in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine, ed. P. E. McGovern, S. J. Fleming, and S. H. Katz, Philadelphia, pp. 287–309. ———, ed. 2004a. The Mycenaean Feast, special issue, Hesperia 73:2, Princeton. ———. 2004b. “A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society,” in Wright 2004a, pp. 13–58. Wroncka, T. 1959. “Pour un atlas archéologique de la Crète minoenne: Sitia I,” BCH 83, pp. 523– 542.

485 Xanthoudides, S. A. 1903. Excavation Day-Book, Series H, Folder 4, no. 107, Historical Museum, Herakleion (unpublished). ———. 1906. “Εκ Κρήτης: Προϊστορική οικία εις Χαμαίζι Σητείας,” ArchEph 1906, pp. 117–156. ———. 1918. “Ι′ Αρχαιολογική περιφέρεια (Κρήτης),” ArchDelt 4 Παράρτημα, pp. 9–32. ———. 1922. “Μινωικόν μέγαρον Νίρου,” ArchEph, pp. 1–25. ———. 1924. The Vaulted Tombs of the Mesara, trans. J. P. Droop, London. Yasur-Landau, A. 2003–2004. “The Last Glendi in Halasmenos: Social Aspects of Cooking in a Dark Age Cretan Village,” Aegean Archaeology 7, pp. 49–66. Yerontakou, E. 2000. “‘Λεκάνες’ σε σχήμα σκάφης από τη Ζάκρο,” in Πεπραγμένα Η ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 A΄ 1, Iraklion, pp. 211–222. Zielinski, J. P. 1998. “Cyclopean Architecture in Minoan Bronze Age Crete: A Study in the Social Organization of a Complex Society” (diss. State Univ. of New York, Buffalo). Zoïs, A. A. 1977. “Ανασκαφή εις Βασιλικήν Ιεράπετρας,” Prakt 1977, pp. 447–454. ———. 1990. “Pour un schéma évolutif de l’architecture minoenne: A. Les fondations. Techniques et morphologie,” in Darcque and Treuil 1990, pp. 75–93. ———. 1991. Κρήτη: Η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού (Απόδεξις 3), Athens. ———. 1992. “Vasiliki,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, pp. 276– 281. ———. 1998. Κρήτη: Η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού: Αρχαιολογία και Ιστορία σχεδόν όλων των θέσεων της νήσου από τις πιο ανατολικές ως τις πιο δυτικές περιοχές. Τεύχος 4. Βόρεια Κεντρική Κρήτη: Κνωσός, Πύργος, Αρχάνες, Κυπαρίσσι και άλλες θέσεις (Απόδεξις 12), Athens. Zoumbaki, S. 1998–1999. “Die Niederlassung römischer Geschäftsleute in der Peloponnes,” Tekmeria 4, pp. 112–176.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

I nd ex

Achladia, 125, 131, 216, 280 agrimi (Cretan wild goat): faunal remains, 2524, 277, 278, 280, 28016, 281, 282; as cult symbol in art, 94, 9436, 281–282 Aigina: House 2, 371–372; House 3, 371–372 Akrotiri (Thera): House A, 186, 23821; House B, 23821; House D, 186, 23821; household activities and industries of, 215; kitchens at, 195, 19529; and SWAS form, 23821, 243–244; West House, 238–239, 244; Xeste 3, 243 Alambra (Cyprus), House 3, 240 Alatopatela, 352 Alcock, S. E., 44425 Alexiou, S., 35310 Allison, P. M., 3366 Altamore, G., 446 Amarna (Egypt), 220 Ammoudi Skinias, 352 Amnisos, 173, 286 amphoras: Azoria, 376; Galatas, 179, 183; Karphi, 317; Malia, 291, 29115; Mochlos, 193; Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, 33; Phaistos, 78; Trypitos, 417; Zakros, 154 Anatolia, 244, 3514, 352 Anatoli Elliniki Korphi, 363 andreia, andreion: and Aphrati, 381, 386, 387, 389, 38933, 390; and Azoria, 369, 381; definition of, 386–387; development of, 385–386, 38619; and feasting, 10–11, 296, 345, 381–388, 3834, 418; and Malia, 8 andron (andronitis), 8, 37921, 389, 38935, 418 Anemoskia (Mochos Anemoskia), 356 Apesokari, tomb B, 55

Aphrati, and andreia, 381, 386, 387, 389, 38933, 390 Apodoulou, 77, 7726, 227, 22733, 22937 Apollodoros, 406 Archanes, 234–235, 284; house model from, 1159, 234 Archanes Phourni, cemetery, 4738 Archanes Tourkogeitonia, palatial building, 22221 Archontaki, K., 2155 Argyroupolis, 424. See also Lappa Aristotle, 285, 3822, 383, 402, 409 Arkoudiotissa cave, 284 Arvi Fortetsa, 363 Aslan, C., 2331, 240 Aspradaki-Skaramagas, Katerina, 27 Athenaeus, 381–382, 3837 Athens, households in, 401–408 Aulon, 397 Ault, B. A., 12, 30910, 37921 Axos, 384, 438 Ayia Kyriaki, tomb, 51, 53–54, 55, 56 Ayia Pelayia, 386 Ayia Photia, 69–70, 355 Ayia Triada: Agora, 266–267, 270; architectural models from, 66; burial of kinship groups in, 53–54; Casa con Gourna, 265–266; Casa del Lebete, 216, 266; Casa delle Sfere Fittili, 26516; Casa Vani aggiunti progressivamente (Casa VAP), 263, 266, 267, 271–272; Chiosco, 270; Court B, 270; domestic architecture of, 263–272; Edificio Ciclopico, 266; Edificio Ovest, 267, 27239; Edificio W, 270; excavations of, 266; House A, 216; House B, 216; House C, 216; and household activities and industries, 216; and household ritual, 229; Megaron ABCDE, 266,

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

488 270; Muraglione a Denti, 267–268; Nord-Ovest/P, 267, 27239; and proto-andreion, 384–385; Sacello H, 266, 270; skeletal remains in, 55; Stoa FG, 266; tomb A, 55; villa (Villa Reale), 5–6, 171, 825, 22221, 22936, 265–266 Ayioi Theodoroi, 234 Ayios Charalambos cave, 283 Ayios Ioannis Katalimata, 365 Ayios Kyrillos, tomb, 55 Azokeramos, 125 Azoria: Archaic Shrine, 369, 378; Cult Building, 369, 378; East Corridor House, 369, 370, 371, 377, 378, 379; excavations of, 367, 370; and feasting, 387–388, 389; and household composition, 286; lower Southwest Terrace, 376; Monumental Civic Building, 369, 378; North Acropolis, 369; North Acropolis Building, 369, 370, 374, 376, 377, 378; North Buildings, 369; Northeast Building, 369–370, 374, 376, 377, 378, 379; Northwest Building, 369, 374, 378; ongoing research on, 3; and political power, 369; Service Building, 369; South Acropolis, 367, 369, 373; South Slope Buildings, 369, 370– 374, 377, 378; Southwest Building, 369, 370, 376, 377; Southwest Terrace, 369; typological categories of houses, 4; West Corridor House, 369, 370, 371, 377, 378, 38932 Baldwin Bowsky, M. W., 13, 447– 448 Barber, E. J. W., 31826 Barnard, K. A., 8, 10, 2155 bee-keeping, equipment, 280–281. See also beeswax; honey/honey-making beeswax, 180, 182, 28018–20 Bennet, J., 272 Berstan, R., 180 Betancourt, P., 198, 200, 22733 Binford, L., 5737 Bintliff, J., 53 Blackman, D. J., 53, 54, 56 Blitzer, H., 20413 Borgna, E., 97, 34221, 346–347, 385 Bradfer-Burdet, I., 4 Bradley, R., 22118 Branigan, K., 53, 54, 5524, 56, 5737, 65, 19633 Brogan, T. M., 8, 10, 2155, 305 Bull representations: bull figurines, 97; bull statuette, 124; bull vessels, 97, 221–222, 224, 22628, 227, 229–231

index Cadogan, G., 6, 69 Callaghan, P. J., 38931 Caloi, I., 5 Carinci, F., 71, 75, 82, 94 Carter, J., 386, 38618 Catling, E. A., 25227, 25228 caves, occupation patterns, 282–284. See also Ourania cave cereals: storage of, 33, 180, 183, 283– 284; consumption of, 183, 370 Chalasmenos (Monastiraki Chalasmenos): architectural features of, 336; House A.1 (“Coulson’s House”), 333, 337; House B.1, 335, 336, 339–340, 344, 346; House B.2, 335, 336, 337, 339–340, 342, 343, 344, 346; domestic structures of, 326; excavation of, 336, 337; and feasting, 11, 345, 34733; and food preparation, 32031, 3369; and household activities and industries, 326, 343; and household composition, 286, 336, 344; Megaron A.1, 33031, 331, 337, 345; Megaron A.2, 333, 335, 336, 339, 343, 344; Megaron A.3, 333, 335, 336, 339, 343–344; and megaron-type structures, 10, 243, 3354; and Mycenaeanizing elements, 333, 343, 345, 346; sector A, 335, 336; sector B, 329, 335, 336, 343, 345; and special-function buildings, 329, 344–345 Chalinomouri, 299 Chamaizi: and Ayia Photia, 69–70; defensive site of, 12, 354, 359; excavations at, 59–60, 61; residential group at, 12 Chamaizi, oval house: architecture of, 65; chronology of, 67–68, 69; and cistern, 59, 592, 66; defensive structure of, 354–355; distribution of finds in, 61–65, 6316; drain pipes, 65, 66; interior organization of, 65–67; plan of, 59–60, 604; spatial organization of, 59, 66; terracotta cubes of, 62–63; terracotta figurines of, 64, 6422, 65 Chamaizi pots, 61, 63, 68, 69 Chamalevri, 261, 26192, 28020, 281, 330 Chania: domestic structures of, 325; and Knossos, 261, 2632, 264; and Roman architectural influence, 447, 449; settlement relocation, 323; storage containers, 29115 Chania: Cathedral Square, 449; House of Dionysos, 445 Chania Kastelli, 15418, 216, 41925 Chersonisos, 443, 446, 447, 449

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

index Chesson, M. S., 285 Chochlakies, 138, 14330, 146, 14753, 28337, 38 Chomatas, 356 Chondros Kephali. See Kephali Chondrou Viannou Chondros Viannou. See Kephali Chondrou Viannou; Kephali Lazana Chondrou Viannou; Rousses Chondrou Viannou Christakis, K. S., 7, 14756, 17530, 177, 213 Chryssoulaki, S., 359 Coldstream, J. N., 39040, 41 communities: and clan-based social structures, 332; and feasting, 324–325, 381–382, 386, 387, 391; and household analysis, 15; and Knossos, 10, 25; and Phaistos, 177, 25; and population redistribution, 324; and social status, 10, 25; and South-Central Crete, 53, 55, 56–57 Comparetti, D., 3944 Corinth, Archaic House 1, 372 Cucuzza, N., 26514, 266, 27137, 27239 Curti, M., 7725 Cyprus: domestic architecture of, 233; and SWAS form, 240–243, 244, 245 D’Agata, A. L., 385 dairy products: cheese, 28017, 378; milk, 280 Darcque, P., 3354 Davaras, C., 59–60, 604, 62, 67, 186, 199, 273, 277 Davies, J. K., 39719 Day, L. P., 10, 30510, 324, 325, 329 Day, P., 29115 Demargne, P., 99, 102, 105–106, 10515, 108 Demas, M. V., 244 Demosthenes, 403, 406 Dimini (Thessaly), 19 Di Tonto, S., 10 Dosiadas, 381–382, 383, 386, 387, 38828 Dreros, 386 Driessen, J., 6, 8, 174, 200, 272, 30510, 362 Duhoux, Y., 22630 East Crete: country villas of, 12; farmsteads of, 148; and house/ household as symbol, 6; intramural houses for the dead, 47; palaces of, 49; terracotta cubes of, 62 Eccles, E., 62

Eleutherna, 388–389, 390; House A, 409–410, 424 elite class: and Ayia Triada, 27239; and Azoria, 369; and Chamaizi, 61, 63, 69; and drinking rituals, 10, 29317, 297, 305; and feasting, 5, 305, 327, 390–391; and Galatas, 183, 184; and Gournia, 199, 208, 211, 212; and household activities and industries, 9; household ideology of, 5, 7; and Karoumes, 144–145, 147, 149; and Karphi, 320; and Knossos, 175, 227, 247, 248, 251, 255, 258, 260, 261, 262; and Mochlos, 297, 305, 306; and Myrtos Pyrgos, 6, 46–47, 48, 49; and Phaistos, 82, 84, 92, 94, 96, 97, 385; and Roman Crete, 432, 436, 439, 440; and Zakros, 211–212. See also Minoan elite villas Eltynia, 384 Epano Zakros, 125, 131, 135 Erickson, B. L., 10–11 ethnic/cultural identity: and collective dining, 11; and megaron plans, 324. See also Roman Crete Evans, A., 27, 163, 165, 166, 170, 247, 248, 255, 258, 259 Evershed, R., 180 Fagerström, K., 367 Farnoux, A., 286 Faure, P., 283 feasting: and andreia, 10–11, 296, 345, 381–388, 3834, 418; and community, 324–325, 381–382, 386, 387, 391; and elite class, 5, 305, 327, 390–391; evidence for, 347; and funerary practices, 306; and hetairia groups, 382–383, 3823, 3835, 384, 391; literary accounts of, 381–383, 3834, 385, 386, 387, 388, 38829, 389–390, 418; and megaron-type structures, 10; and Phaistos, 347, 385; and specialfunction buildings, 329–332; studies on “Mycenaean feast,” 295 Ferrucci, S., 7 Fiandra, E., 75 Fiasse, H., 6, 8, 30510 Finkielsztejn, G., 41113 Firth, R., 264 Fotou, V., 109, 16910, 199 funerary rituals: and ethnic/cultural identity, 11; phases of, 56–57 Galana Charakia cave, 283 Galatas Pediada: Building 3/5, 178, 184, 216; Building 4, 179; Palace, 178, 184; Roman settlement at, 447

489 House 2: architectural and artifactual assemblages, 177–182; excavation of, 178–179; food storage at, 7, 179, 180–181, 183; and household activities, 177, 179, 181–184, 216; interpretation of, 182–184 gender, and use of space, 8–9, 197–198, 19737, 291, 419 geographic information system (GIS) software, 289, 28913 Geraki (Lakonia), 4093 Gernet, L., 403 Gesell, G. C., 6636, 170, 2194, 22936 Girella, L., 5, 7 globalization: applying concept of, 449–450; definition of, 444–445; and economic processes, 44420; and Roman Crete, 13, 441–450 Glowacki, K. T., 30910, 345 Gortyn: and feasting, 3834; Great Code of, 1, 393–396, 398–399, 406–407, 408; house/household as symbol in, 6, 393, 396; and Roman conquest, 13, 441, 443, 445, 446, 447, 449, 450; and Roman names, 432, 433–436, 437, 438, 439, 440; and word andreion, 384 Goudouras Kastello, 352 Gournes, 69 Gournia: Block A, 200; Block B, 200; Block C, 200; Block D, 200; Block E, 200; Block F, 200, 206; excavations of, 199, 200, 248; House Ab, 208, 212; House Ac, 212, 22732, 230; House Ad, 211, 212; House Ae, 200; House Ah, 206, 208, 212; House Ba, 204, 212; House Cd, 200; House Ce, 200; House Cf, 208, 212; House Cg, 204, 212; House Cj, 200; House Cl, 200; House Cm and household ritual, 22733, 230, 231; House Co, 212; House Da, 200, 212; House Db, 200; House Dd, 212; House De, 200, 208, 212; House Ea, 200, 208, 211; House Ec, 206, 208, 211, 212; House Eg, 212; House Fb, 200; House Fd, 212; House Fe, 206, 211; House Fg, 204, 212; House Fh, 204, 212; House Fi, 200; House G, 212; household activities and industries of, 9, 199, 204, 206, 211, 212, 216, 217; household composition, 153, 19633, 19734, 204; and household ritual, 227, 22733; multihousehold complexes of, 233; reuse of buildings, 323; and trade, 206, 208, 211; and vernacular hall, 234

490

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Palace: and administration, 199, 208; economic self-sufficiency of, 211; and elite class, 208; excavation of, 200; and household activities and industries, 212; and trade, 206 Gouves, 286 Guarducci, M., 39822 Guizzi, F., 6, 3838, 401 Haggis, D. C., 4, 6, 387, 38724, 38932 Halbherr, F., 267, 271 Hallager, E., 63, 15418 Halstead, P., 19–20 Hammer, D., 391 Hatzaki, E., 6, 11, 265 Hawes, H. B., 199, 1995, 200, 204, 206, 212 Hayden, B. J., 367, 372 Heimroth, A., 9 Hershenson, C. R., 233, 234 Herva, V.-P., 4630 hetairia groups, 382–383, 3823, 3835, 384, 391 Hierapytna, 432, 438, 439. See also Ierapetra Hingley, R., 4429 Hitchcock, L. A., 4, 16037 Hodkinson, S., 390 Hoepfner, W., 409 Hogarth, D. G., 248 Homer, 38829, 390 honey/honey-making, 5, 280, 28018–20 house as physical unit: analysis of, 4–5; in Athenian texts, 401–405; in decree from Aulon, 397; definition of, 284; in fragmentary document on goods taken in pledge, 397–398; and Gortyn Code, 393–396, 3956, 398–399, 408; and household as social unit, 1, 4, 15; in legal contexts, 402–403; and Roman Crete, 446–447 household activities and industries: and Chamaizi, 60, 67; and ethnic/ cultural identity, 11; and Galatas Pediada, 177, 179, 181–184, 216; and Gournia, 9, 199, 204, 206, 211, 212, 216, 217; and Knossos, 251– 252, 261–262; and Malia, 117, 216, 217, 293–294; and Mochlos, 211, 212, 297, 300–304, 305; and Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, 32, 34–35; and Ourania cave, 280–284; and Petras, 9, 123–124, 211; and Phaistos, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 77, 81–84, 87–89, 91–92, 94; small-scale and largescale production, 9; and Trypitos, 416–417, 427–430

index household as social unit: and archaeological deposit formation processes, 213–217; in Athenian texts, 401, 405–406, 407; composition of, 7–9, 248; in decree from Aulon, 397; definition of, 247, 248; and food storage, 7; and Gortyn Code, 393, 398–399, 406–407, 408; and house as physical unit, 1, 4, 15; in legal contexts, 402–403; multiple houses in, 403–405; and Roman families, 431–440; and South-Central Crete, 51, 57 household composition: and architectural plan, 7–8, 324–325; and food storage, 7; and Gortyn Code, 393; Gournia, 153, 19633, 19734, 204; Malia, 8, 285–296; Mochlos, 19633, 197, 19734; Pseira, 19633; Zakros, 8, 152, 156–159 household ritual: and central room, 233; and domestic shrines, 219–221, 22117; and elite class, 5; Knossos, 170, 175, 224, 230, 231, 250, 255, 256, 262; Malia, 6, 106, 221, 227, 230, 287, 294, 29521, 30510; Myrtos Pyrgos, 48, 49; Myrtos Pyrgos Tomb, 45, 4525, 46; in Neopalatial period, 7, 219–231; Phaistos, 82, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 224, 230, 231; and vessels with bull representations, 221–222, 22119, 224, 226–227, 229, 230, 231 house/household as symbol: in legal texts, 393, 396, 405–407; reflected in house models, 6, 2013, 66, 296; reflected in mortuary practices and architecture, 6, 40–47, 51, 58; reflected in physical residence, 6, 261–262; reflected in storage facilities and vessels, 5–6, 183, 258–259, 379–380 Hybrias, 389–390 Ierapetra, 333, 446. See also Hierapytna Iraklion Archaeological Museum, 273 Iraklion Museum, 310 Isaeus, 406 Jeffery, L., 384 Juktas, 363, 364 Kala Selia, Phaistos compared to, 19 Kalathiana, 51, 55 Kalavassos-Ayios Dimitrios (Cyprus), 234, 240–241 Kalopsida (Cyprus), 240, 24030 Kamares cave, 284

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

index Kamilari, tomb A, 53, 55 Kaminospelio, tomb, 56 Kannia Mitropolis, Farmhouse/mansion, 172, 216 Karageorghis, V., 244 Karoumes: area of, 138; Bay, 137, 138; megalithic buildings, 139, 141–142, 143, 144–145, 146; Mother Fort, 142, 14435; Sea Guard-House, 137, 139, 141–142, 14121, 14542, 147; settlement and social organization of, 143–149; sites of, 138–139; and walls, 139, 13911, 144–145 Karphi: Baker’s House, 309; Barracks, 309; building use of, 324, 329, 331; central multifunctional room of, 10; Central West Quarter, 309, 31722; Cliff Houses, 309, 331; Cliff Houses West, 31722; Commercial Quarter, 309; date of settlement, 3072; Eastern Cliff Houses, 31827; K 110, 319, 320; Eastern Quarter, 309, 31827, 320; excavation of, 307, 309, 3095, 7, 324; and feasting, 11, 325, 329; Great House, 30510, 309, 320, 331; K 11, 318; K 12, 318; and household activities and industries, 320, 321, 326; household assemblages from, 10, 320; and household composition, 321; and household ritual, 317, 318–319, 320, 321; interpretation of, 307, 309; K 3/K 134, 319; K 102, 318; Magazines, 309, 31722, 319; K 22/K 23, 319; Megarons’ Block, 327, 329, 330, 331; Mikre Koprana, 307, 31722, 31827, 320; Priest’s House, 31722, 31827, 320, 327, 330, 331; Southeast Block, 309; Southern and Northern Shelters, 309, 31827; Southern Houses, 309, 31827; “square” (K 10, K 48), 321; Temple (room 1), 307, 309, 3099, 317, 318, 31830, 320; units 2, 3, and 7, 326; Western Cliff Houses, 31827 Kastellas, 139, 141, 14965, 352 Kastelli Chania. See Chania Kastelli Kastelli Pediados, 216 Kastelli Phournis, 22 Kastri Spasti, 353 Katalimata (Monastiraki Katalimata), defensive site of, 12, 362–363; and Chamaizi pots, 68 Katharo plateau, 410 Katharo Rigous, 359, 362 Kato Symi Viannou, 282, 31015, 385, 38514 Kato Zakros. See Zakros

Katsambas: building use in, 324, 326; Phaistos compared to, 19 Kavousi Kastro, 363, 373 Kavousi Vronda: agglomerative-type plans, 345; central multifunctional room of, 10; Chalasmenos compared to, 337, 34020, 345–346; defensive site of, 363, 365; and feasting, 325, 329; and household activities and industries, 326, 329; and household composition, 286, 327; Karphi compared to, 320; and megaroid form, 243 Kavousi Vronda, Building A-B, 30510, 326, 329, 331 Kephala Petras, circular buildings of, 177 Kephali Chondrou Viannou, 286, 323–324, 325, 326, 331 Kephali Lazana Chondrou Viannou, 125, 132, 13222 Kisamos, 443, 445, 446, 449, 450 kitchens: 4, 8, 10, 326, 385; Azoria, 369–370, 374, 376–379, 387–388; Chalasmenos, 343; Knossos, 260; Malia, Quartier Nu, 287, 289, 293– 296; Mochlos, 185–188, 192–198; Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, 34–35; Phaistos Palace, 96, 22630; Trypitos, 415, 419; Zakros, 155 Klimataria, 125, 131, 132 Knappett, C., 29115 Knossos: Civil Basilica, 448; and communal practices of consumption, 10, 25; Demeter Sanctuary, 3837, 448; disposal practices of, 259–260, 261, 262; domestic structures of, 325; ethnic/cultural identity in, 11; Evans’s reconstructions at, 27; excavations of, 248, 258, 259, 261; and feasting, 3834, 388–389; and funerary practices, 306; Gypsum House, 217, 25974; House A, architecture of, 233; House of the Diamond Frescoes, 448; House South-West of the South-West House, 217, 25552, 258–25974; and household activities and industries, 251–252, 261–262; and household ritual, 170, 175, 224, 230, 231, 250, 255, 256, 262; Makritichos, 260, 26085; North House, 448; Phaistos compared to, 19; Re-Used Ashlar Building, 260–261; and Roman conquest, 13, 441, 442, 443, 445, 447–449, 450; Roman Corinthian Building, 448; and Roman names, 432, 436, 439; Royal Road North house, 227, 229,

491 22937, 230, 231; settlement relocation, 323; “Shrine of Glaukos,” 389; South-East House, 255, 448; South Front dumps, 259; Stepped Portico, 164, 1644, 169; suprahousehold ceremonies, 25; Town Mosaic, 15418; valley, 250; Villa Dionysos, 260, 26083, 445, 448; Vlachaki plot, 226, 226–22730; “Warrior Graves,” 206 Hogarth’s Houses: and elite class, 248; House B on Gypsades, 256–257 House of the Chancel Screen: interpretation of, 255; pottery of, 257 House of the Frescoes: food preparation in, 258; interpretation of, 255; and SWAS form, 236 House on the Acropolis: 252–255, 257, 258 Little Palace North site: disposal practices of, 259; excavations of, 25974; faunal material of, 11, 261; interpretation of, 255; as large complex, 108; reuse of space, 217 Palace: architectural forms of, 247, 255; and Ayia Triada, 264, 272; construction of, 82; Domestic Quarter, 265; excavation of, 248; interpretation of, 251; North Insula, 264–265; and pillared rooms, 172; porticos of, 173; Queen’s Megaron, 2659; rebuilding of, 259; ritual activities in, 262; and South House, 164, 169, 174; South Porch, 174; Southwest Porch, 164; West Court, 174; West Porch, 174; West Portico, 174; and Vasiliki, 77 Royal Villa: interpretation of, 255; pillar room, 256; reuse of, 217 South House: abandonment of, 259; architectural form and use of, 163–165; Center Corridor, 173; Columnar Hall, 166, 172, 173, 174; excavation of, 163, 164–165, 166; facade of, 4; form of the terrace, 163, 164, 169; Inner Basement Room, 166, 257; interpretation of, 163, 174–175, 17532, 255; massive wall, 166, 169; original form of southwest corner, 166; Pillar Basement, 164, 165, 166, 169, 172, 173; Pillar Crypt, 165, 166, 169, 170, 172, 174; pillar room, 257–258; and porticos, 172–174; reconstruction of, 163, 166, 174–175; reuse of space, 217; Room with Pillar, 172; and rubble, 216; south front remains, 164–165, 166, 169; Square Hall, 166

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

492 Sphakianakis plot: and household ritual, 224, 230, 231 Stratigraphical Museum Extension site: alternations in, 217; disposal practices at, 259; excavations of, 248; ground plan of, 261; North House, 254–255; and Roman occupation, 448; South House, 25974 Unexplored Mansion: and complementary function, 16037; conversion to other uses, 250, 25015; as large complex, 108; robbing of, 26189; and Roman occupation, 447, 448; room H, 256 Koehl, R., 22223, 23038, 384–385, 38514, 38621 Kokkino Phroudi, 352 Kolokasia Kastri, 365 Kolonna (Lasithi), 42614 Kommos: building of Building T, 825; building use at, 326; and feasting, 3837, 386; hearths at, 195; Hilltop House, 186; and Linear B evidence, 265, 26514; North House, 186; Oil Press House, 186 Kopaka, K., 5 Kophinas, 6422, 363, 364 Koumasa, tombs, 4738, 53, 55, 56 Kouphonisi, 445, 446, 449 Kourion-Bamboula, 240, 241 Koutsounari Karphi, 365 Krasi Endichti, 362 Krasi Siderokephala, 365 Kritsa Chonaria, 359 Kritsa Kastello, 363, 364 Kritsa Korakou to Kephali, 359, 362 Kroustas Fortetsa, 356, 359, 362 Kydonia (Chania), 441 kylikes: at Ayia Triada, 271; and elite drinking rituals, 10, 29317, 297, 305; and ethnic/cultural identity, 11; at Karphi, 310, 320; at Malia, 291, 293, 296, 30510; at Mochlos, 297–306; and use of space, 8 LaMotta, V. M., 152, 30910, 33711 Lang, F., 3695, 3728, 38022 Lappa, 424, 432, 438, 439 La Rosa, V., 19, 2120, 71, 7513, 811, 82, 94 Lasithi, 125, 276, 307 Lasithi Mountains, 324, 356, 359, 362 Lato, 377, 386, 409, 410, 411, 412, 44526 Lebena, tombs, 53, 55, 56; sanctuary, 446 Lebessi, A., 389, 38933 Lenika Gorge, Zakros, 273–284 Lenuzza, Valeria, 12

index Lepcis Magna, 438 Lerna (Argolid), House of Tiles, 46 Levi, D., 20, 21, 22, 71, 711, 73, 75, 758, 9, 11 76, 77, 82, 8310, 9433 Lévi-Strauss, C., 285 Linear A evidence: and Chamaizi, 67–68; and Gournia, 208; and Petras, 124; and Phaistos, 82, 96 Linear B evidence: and Ayia Triada, 6, 264, 265, 26514, 272; and Knossos, 264–265; and Malia, 291 Link, S., 3823 Lissos, 443, 447 Livari Katharades, 352, 353 Lloyd, J. F., 4, 115, 1657 loomweights: and Chalasmenos, 343; and Chamaizi, 61, 62–63, 67; and Galatas, 182; and Karphi, 318, 31826; and Knossos, 254; and Malia, 294; and Petras, 124; and Phaistos, 436; and Prophitis Ilias Praisou, 126; and Trypitos, 417, 421–430 Lyktos, 383–384 Lynch, K. M., 38830 Lysias, 404, 406, 407, 40731 Lyttos, 432, 436 Maa-Palaiokastro (Cyprus), 240, 241, 242–243, 244 Macdonald, C., 200, 362 Mackenzie, D., 604, 6634, 77, 7723, 1631, 165, 166, 169 Maffi, A., 396 Magasa, Phaistos compared to, 19 Makrygialos: architectural features of, 445, 446, 447; excavation of, 125; household activities and industries of, 216; SWAS form of villa, 238, 23820 Malia: Agora, 206; and Anemoskia, 356; Building Π, 108; domestic structures of, 326; House Δγ, 108, 109; House E, 112, 216; House Ζα, 1115, 216; House Κγ, 108; and household activities and industries, 117, 216, 217, 293–294; and household ritual, 6, 106, 221, 227, 230, 287, 294, 29521, 30510; Hypostyle Crypt, 99, 108, 109; and Knossos, 264; Maison de la Plage and Chamaizi pots, 69; political power of, 69; Rue de la Mer, 99, 102, 109; and vernacular hall, 234 House Δα : and square within a square (SWAS) form, 4, 236; assemblage of, 99; functions of, 116–117; layout of, 4, 108; North Sector, 112–115, 116, 117; South Sector, 115–116; spatial analysis of, 109–117

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

index House Δβ : architectural development of, 102–105, 108; assemblage of, 99; as large complex (Δβ West), 4, 104, 107–108; rectangular units ΔβI, ΔβII, ΔβIII, 99, 102–108, 1028 House Ζβ: and household activities, 216; and household ritual, 227, 230; and Minoan Hall, 122 Palace: architectural relationships in, 117; Central Court, 173; and Chamaizi pots, 69; hypostyle hall of, 10514; and pillared rooms, 172; and porticos, 173; portico VIIa, 173 Quartier Delta: excavation of, 99; House Δα in, 109 Quartier Mu: Building B, 63–64; Chamaizi compared to, 67; Quartier Nu compared to, 287 Quartier Nu: architectural features of, 288–289; building use in, 326; and disposal practices, 296; east wing, 287–288, 295; excavation of, 286, 289, 28914; and gender, 8; and household activities and industries, 293–294; and household composition, 8, 285–296; and household ritual, 6, 287, 294, 29521, 30510; “Lady of Malia” female idol, 295; Myrtos Pyrgos compared to, 48; pit I, 291, 293, 294; regional elite housed in, 324; south wing, 288; spatial distribution of moveable objects, 289, 291, 293–296; structure XIV, 289, 293; west wing, 288, 295 Mantzourani, E. L. K., 9, 12 Marathokephalon, tomb B, 53, 55 Marinatos, N., 198, 2194 Matala, 446 Mavro Mouri, 14333, 144 Mavroudi, N., 9 Mazarakis-Ainian, A., 386–387 McEnroe, J., 109, 12312, 144, 239, 241 McKee, B. R., 33711 Mega Lakkos (Mochos Mega Lakkos), 356 Megaloi Skinoi, tomb A, 56 Megaloi Skinoi, tomb B, 56 megaron: at Ayia Triada, 266, 270; at Chalasmenos, 10, 33031, 331, 333, 335–339, 343–346; and food consumption/feasting, 32031, 329, 330, 334–335, 339, 344, 345, 346; interpretive issues and use of the term, 32412, 3354; at Karphi, 320, 32031, 327, 32725, 329–331; at Knossos, 2659; megaron type of architectural plan in LM IIIC, 10–11, 243, 24344, 324, 333; and Mycenaean influence,

11, 324, 346; at Nirou Chani, 27030; at Smari, 331, 33031; type of architectural plan in LM IIIC, 10–11, 243, 24344, 324, 333 Meggido (Israel), 220 Melidoni cave, 283, 28334 Mesara, the: region, 13, 45, 82, 263, 2632, 439, 447; Bay of, 436; tombs of, 177, 4527, 55, 5519 Meseleroi Valley, 372–373 Mesopotamia, 15828, 220 Metellus, 441 Michailidou, A., 15725, 19839, 2337, 234–235, 23515 Militello, P., 88, 22936 Millett, M., 442 Minoan elite villas: architectural refinements of, 10, 109, 233, 235; definition of, 1252; household activities of, 9; individual character of, 12; and square within a square form, 4 Minoan hall (Minoan hall system): definition of, 1657; as element of elite architecture, 109, 114–115, 134; at Knossos, 165, 1657, 166, 172–173, 174, 177, 251, 255, 258, 25866, 74; at Malia, 109, 114–115, 122; at Petras, 121–122 Minoan Roads research project, 137, 359 Mirabello region, 4739, 199, 206, 211, 294, 333; Gulf of, 59, 69, 70, 299 Mirthios Kirimianou, 365 Mochlos: cooking facilities of, 187–189, 192–198; funerary activities in, 297, 299, 300–304, 305, 306; House B.2, 172, 192, 193, 196, 216; House C.1, 192, 193, 196; House C.2, 192, 193, 196; House C.3, 192, 193, 194, 196, 19840, 214, 216; House C.4, 196; House C.7, 192, 19222, 193, 196, 214, 2155; House D.1, 10, 197; House D.5, 192, 193, 196; House Ι, 306; House Μ, 306; House Θ, 300; House Ζ, 300; household activities and industries of, 211, 212, 297, 300–304, 305; household composition at, 19633, 197, 19734; and Karoumes, 14119, 22; outdoor kitchens of, 8, 10, 194, 25868; tomb 2, 305, 306; tomb 15, 305, 306; tombs of, 11; and trade, 206 Artisans’ Quarters: Building A, 187, 188, 189, 192, 194–197; Building B, 187, 188, 189, 192 Mochos, 356, 359, 362 Mochos Anemoskia. See Anemoskia (Mochos Anemoskia)

493 Mochos Mega Lakkos. See Mega Lakkos (Mochos Mega Lakkos) Monastiraki, clay model from, 66 Monastiraki Chalasmenos. See Chalasmenos (Monastiraki Chalasmenos) Monastiraki Katalimata. See Katalimata (Monastiraki Katalimata) Mook, M. S., 4, 6 Morphou-Toumba Tou Skourou (Cyprus), 240, 241, 24135 Morpurgo-Davies, A., 384 Morris, I., 3837 mosaics, 446, 448, 449 Muhly, P., 186 Murphy, J. M., 6 Murray, O., 38829 Mycenaeanizing elements: at Chalasmenos, 333, 343, 345, 346; at Knossos, 258; and megaron-style buildings, 11; at Mochlos, 305–306; and special-function buildings, 329–330 Mylona, D., 188, 195, 278 Myrtos: interaction with Mirabello, 4739; and Prepalatial societies, 151; and Roman conquest, 443, 446, 449 Myrtos Charakas, 353 Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, 32, 35, 42, 45; accretionary spread of, 46; architecture of, 30, 32, 40, 42, 4217, 233; defensive system of, 30, 32, 38, 40, 353; kitchens 20 and 35, 34–35; people of, 36, 38, 49; “Pot Hole,” 33; and Pyrgos I, 395; and Pyrgos Tomb, 40, 45; reconstruction of settlement at, 27–38; South-central House, 4218; South-east House, 4218; South Entrance 64, 30; South-west House, 4218, 46; walls of, 30, 32; West Entrance 15, 30 Myrtos Pyrgos: Cistern 1, 47, 49; Cistern 2, 47, 49; country house at, 135; defensive site of, 12, 40, 48, 49, 354; Forecourt, 45, 4526, 47; House A, 4013; House T, 40; household activities and industries of, 216; Mansion, 216; mortuary complex of, 46; Ossuary 1, 45, 46; Ossuary 2, 45, 4521, 46; and porticos, 173; Pyrgos 0, 39, 40; Pyrgos I, 39, 395, 4015; Pyrgos II, 40, 4012, 42, 45–47, 4528, 29, 48, 4845; Pyrgos IIc\–IId, 46; Pyrgos III, 46–48, 49; Pyrgos IV, 46, 48; Pyrgos IV Country House, 47, 4743, 48; Pyrgos Tomb, 6, 396, 40, 42, 4217, 20, 45–48, 4526–28, 4630, 4740; Tower 1, 47

494

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

Naroll, R., 25437 Nerokourou, Phaistos compared to, 19 Nevett, L., 19737, 30910, 38935, 409, 4107 Niemeier, W.-D., 200 Nirou Chani, 216 Noack, F., 6634 Nowicki, K., 12, 6635, 3096 Ntinou, M., 188 oil (olive), 33, 34, 35, 123, 1514, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 195, 28020, 303, 310, 378; at Lepcis Magna (Libya), 438; at Mochlos, 19222; at Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, 34, 35, 3516; production, 41720; scented, 63; at Trypitos, 417 oikia: in legal contexts, 402–403; meaning of, 401–402 oikos: in legal contexts, 402–403, 407; meaning of, 401, 4013, 402, 4027, 4038, 405, 406 Olivier, J.-P., 109, 115–116 Olynthos (Chalkidike), 412, 419 Onythe Goulediana, 373, 377 Oreino Petrokopia, 356, 36535 Orne, 363, 364 Ourania cave: and built environment, 5, 274; excavation of, 273–274; fixed interior arrangements of, 275; and household activities and industries, 280–284; moveable finds, 276–278; nature of occupation, 279–282 Pacheia Ammos, 446 Palaiochora Nerovolakoi, 353 Palaikastro: Block B, 230; Block Delta, 227; Building 2, 186; Building 5, 216; Building N, 148; excavation of, 248; and household activities, 216; and household composition, 286; and household ritual, 221; and Karoumes, 138; loomweights of, 62; paleobotanical remains at, 281; and vernacular hall, 234 House B: and household activities and industries, 214; and SWAS form, 235 House N: kitchens, 186; and household activities and industries, 214, 216 Palio, O., 94 Palyvou, C., 23821, 243 Panagiotakis, N., 35621 Panayia Paplinou Rousso Charakas, 352–353 Panormos, Naxos, 355 Panormos, West Crete, 9

index Paoli, U. E., 407 Paoura, Keos, 352 Papacostopoulou, A., 126 Papadakis, N., 410, 421 peak sanctuaries, 60, 64, 6422 Pefkoi Mega Chalavro, 363 Pelon, O., 2332 Pendlebury, J., 307, 309 Perlman, P., 383 Pernier, L., 88, 96, 22630 Petras: and Chamaizi, 69, 6948; House I.1, 119, 12312, 124; political power of, 12, 69, 70 House II: architectural plan of, 119, 121–122; changes in final phase of building, 123; household activities and industries of, 9, 123–124, 211 Palace: emergence of, 69, 70 Phaistos: Bastion I, 7515; Bastion II, 7515; Building XLIII, 227, 22733, 230; Building zeta, 17, 19, 2120; Chalasmenos compared to, 346; excavations at, 16, 17, 811; and feasting, 347, 385; and fixed hearths, 16, 20; foundational deposits, 812; general architectural features, 16–17, 19–20; household ritual, 82, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 224, 230, 231; House R3, 93; houses of Neolithic period, 10, 16, 177, 19–22, 24–25; houses of Protopalatial period, 5, 71–80, 83–84, 87–89, 91–92; NW Paved Court I, 94; political and economic power in, 83, 96, 97, 323; and porticos, 173; and Roman architectural influence, 447; settlement relocation, 323; suprahousehold ceremonies, 25 Acropoli Mediana: destruction deposits on floors, 8310; and household activities, 83; and household ritual, 224, 231 Ayia Photeini quarter: excavation of, 71, 77–80; house of, 9328, 94 Casa a Sud della Rampa: access to, 87, 8716; household activities of, 83, 84, 87–88, 94; pottery of, 80, 87, 94 Central Court: circular hut in, 16; excavation of, 20–21; functioning of, 82, 828, 97; hearth in, 20, 2015, 21 Chalara quarter: excavation of, 71, 76–77, 80; and household activities, 83, 91–92; and household ritual, 230; mansion in, 266; Neolithic remains of, 16; and paved road, 9328; pottery of, 92, 94 court LXX: houses west of, 89; paved road west of, 93

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

index First Palace: area south of, 88–89; construction of, 71; and household activities, 81–82, 92; pottery of, 74, 75, 79 Middle Terrace: excavation of, 71, 73–75, 758, 80 Old Palace: architectural features of, 77; destruction of, 5, 7, 82, 94, 97 Palace: Building XLI (rooms 101–104), 93, 96–97, 223, 225, 226; Linear B evidence, 265 West Bastion: dating of, 83 West Court: functioning of, 82–83, 838; and paved road, 93; walls under, 164 Phaistos Disc, 96 Phoinix, 438, 439 Phournou Koryphi. See Myrtos Phournou Koryphi Piskokephalo, 447 Piskokephalo Valley, 59 pithoi: at Ayia Triada, 271, 27135, 36; at Azoria, 4–5, 369, 370, 371, 374, 376, 379–380, 37921, 38022, 387, 388; at Chalasmenos, 339, 340, 34020, 343, 344; at Chamaizi, 60, 63, 65, 67; at Galatas Pediada, 179, 180, 182, 183; at Gournia, 211; at Karoumes, 141–142, 14756; at Karphi, 317, 31722, 319, 330; at Knossos, 254, 257; at Malia, 291; at Mochlos, 193, 211; at Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, 32, 33–34, 35; in Ourania cave, 276; at Petras, 123; at Phaistos, 74, 78, 82, 87, 88; at Prophitis Ilias Praisou, 126; and social status, 4–5; at Trypitos, 416, 417; at Tylissos, 221, 227 Plakalona, 353 Platanos: tomb A, 55, 56; tomb C, 56 Plati, 323 Platia Magoula Zarkou (Thessaly), 2013 Plato, 117, 409 Platon, L., 126, 132, 211–212, 22936, 277 Platon, N., 7–8, 60, 126, 170, 22936, 273, 373 Pliny, 444 Polanyi, K., 408 Pomadère, M., 4 Pomerance, L., 277 Pompeii, 220 Porti, tombs, 53, 55, 56 Praisos, 386, 411, 41113 Prent, M., 3696 Preston, L., 324 Preziosi, D., 16037, 2337, 235, 23515 Prinias, Temple A, 386

Privitera, Santo, 5–6 Prophitis Ilias Praisou, chapel of, 356 Minoan villa: architectural design and reconstruction, 130–131; building materials and techniques, 129–130; concluding discussion, 134–135; excavation of, 125, 132; House 1, 126; House 2, 126; and household activities, 9; and Ourania cave, 280– 281; previous research on, 126; reexamination of, 127–128; topography of, 129; use of space, 132–133; and wine production, 12 Pseira: Building AB, 216, 224, 22427, 227, 230; Building AF, and household ritual, 22733, 230; Building AF North, 216, 224, 226, 231; Building AP, 216; Building BQ, 22733, 230; Building BS/BV, 185, 22630, 22733; Building BT, 227, 230; and household activities and industries, 216, 217; household composition, 19633; and household ritual, 221, 227; kitchen, 185 Psychro cave, 284 Pyla-Kokkinokremos (Cyprus), 240, 241–242, 24240, 244, 364 Rahmstorf, L., 31826 Rathje, W. L., 177 Reese, D., 195 Relaki, M., 13 Renfrew, C., 3491, 3512, 4 Rethemiotakis, G., 7 Rhitten, 397 Rogdia Kastrokephala, 363, 364 Roman Crete: aftermath of conquest, 12–13, 441–442; and architecture, 445, 446–447, 449, 450; and globalization, 13, 441–450; households of, 431–440; and name references, 431, 432, 433–436, 437, 438–439; new constructions of, 446–447; social and economic networks of, 439–440; and traders, 436, 438, 440; and transitional period, 441–442, 443, 445 romanization, concept of, 442, 4428, 9, 444 Roumpou, M., 14123 Rousses Chondrou Viannou, 125, 170, 171, 216, 235 Rutkowski, B., 6422 Salt: 278, 280; and salted foods, 183, 280 Sanders, I., 447 Sariyannis, G. M., 604

495 Sarpaki, A., 277 Schiffer, M. B., 152, 30910, 33711 Schmid, M., 4 Schmitt Pantel, P., 38829 Schwander, E.-L., 409 Schwartzott, A., 1995 Seager, R., 197 seals and seal impressions: Chamaizi, 62–63; Galatas, 183; Gournia, 208 Seiradaki, Mercy Money-Coutts, 307 Sesklo (Thessaly), 19 Sikla, E., 7 Siteia, Bay of, 59, 70 Sklavokampos: porticos, 173; villa, 216, 227, 230 Smari: and feasting, 386; and household composition, 286; and specialfunction buildings, 329, 33031, 331 Smith, R. A. K., 11, 305 Smith, S. T., 3837 snake tubes, 65, 271, 318 Snyder, L., 30510, 325 social identity: and Azoria, 369; role of houses and households in mediating, 3, 4–6; in South-Central Crete, 53, 56, 57 social status: and building use, 326, 327; and communities, 10, 25; and Gournia, 211, 212; and grave goods, 57, 5737; and Karoumes, 147, 149; and Karphi, 325; and Knossos, 251, 262; and pithoi, 4–5. See also elite class Soetens, S., 28912 Sofianou, C., 9 Soles, J., 45, 4528, 186, 196–197, 199, 200, 305 Soulia, Temple of Artemis, 436 South-Central Crete: and household as social unit, 51, 57; and house/household as symbol, 6; social units of tombs, 53–55; treatment of objects, 56–57; treatment of the dead, 55–56 Souvloto Mouri, 59, 69 Sparta (Lakonia), 409 Spensithios decree, 384, 3849, 38724 Sphinari Korakas, 352, 353 square within a square form. See SWAS (square within a square form) Stalos, 447 state collapse, 323 state formation, 385, 38517 Stavromytis cave, 284 stega, meaning of, 1, 6, 395, 397–398 Strabo, 385, 409 SWAS (square within a square form): and Cyprus, 240–243, 244, 245; manifestations of, 245; as module, 235–238; significance of, 243–244;

496

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

and Thera, 238–239, 243–244, 245; and vernacular architecture, 4, 233, 234 Sweetman, R. J., 12–13 Sybrita. See Thronos Kephala (Sybrita) Symi. See Kato Symi Viannou symposia/symposium, 381, 382, 388–391 syssition, 381–382, 383, 384, 386, 388 Tapes, 362 terracotta figurines, and Chamaizi, 64, 6422, 65 Thera, 200, 233, 234, 238–239, 243–244, 245 Tholos, 446 Thronos Kephala (Sybrita), 281, 3072, 330, 385 Thucydides, 404 Todaro, S., 19, 199, 66 Tourtouloi Siteias, 216, 447 Tou Vrachnou o Lakkos, 234, 235, 240 Trachilos, 353 trade: and Gournia, 206, 208, 211; and Petras, 69; and Roman Crete, 436, 438, 440 Trapeza cave, 283, 28333 Trypiti: defensive system of, 353; and household as social unit, 51; houses of, 55; multihouse complexes of, 233; vernacular hall form, 234 Trypitos: chronology of, 425; and commercial/industrial character of Street C, 416–417; communicating rooms of, 8–9, 377; dating of, 41113; and distinctive character of Building A in Cluster B, 417–418; and feasting, 418; and household activities and industries, 416–417, 427–430; and loomweights, 417, 421–430; Roman-period remains, 44526; site of, 410–411; spatial planning of, 411–416, 419 Tsipopoulou, M., 10, 6948, 126, 329 Tylissos: House A, 4, 108, 171, 172, 216, 223, 228, 230, 236; House B, 108, 16037, 216; House C, 1159, 170, 216; and Roman farmsteads, 447; and Minoan household ritual, 221, 227, 22734, 228, 230; and paleobotanical remains, 282 Tzachili, I., 9 Van Effenterre, H., 992 Vasilakis, A., 55, 353 Vasiliki, 71; Building Θ, 77; Building Ξ, 77

index Vasiliki Kephala: defensive site of, 363, 365; and household composition, 286; and special-function buildings, 329, 33031 Vathypetro, villa/mansion, 135, 171, 214 Vavouranakis, G., 9, 12 Viviers, D., 387 Vizari, 447 Vlazaki, M., 63 Vlychia, 252 Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., 8–9, 11 Vokotopoulos, L., 12 Vorou, tombs, 53, 54, 55, 5524; Voukoliades, 352 Vraskas Lakoudi, 352 Vrokastro, 346, 363 Vrysses Kydonias, mansion, 216 Wallace, S., 10 Warren, P., 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 3513, 39, 409, 265 Waterhouse, H., 23511 Watrous, L. V., 9, 199, 22936 Webster, J., 4429 Weinberg, S., 241 Weingarten, J., 62 Westgate, R., 9, 377–378, 419, 445, 44526 Whitelaw, T., 392, 5417, 151, 152, 15312, 19633, 197, 19734, 19840, 233, 23515, 352 Whitley, J., 38828, 29 Wilk, R. R., 177 Willetts, R. F., 296, 39037, 394, 3944 wine: consumption of 182, 183, 310, 384, 387, 38828, 389, 38931, 390, 39037; Linear A sign for, 68; production/pressing, at Gournia, 212; at Kato Zakros, 14753, 152, 159, 160; at Lyttos, 432, 436; at Mochlos, 193; at Myrtos Phournou Koryphi, 3516; at Prophitis Ilias Praisou, 9, 12, 32, 126, 132, 133, 135; as ritual offering, 148; storage of, 33, 34, 180, 181, 183, 193, 378, 37921, 381, 382, 387, 432, 434, 435, 439; and trade, 123, 432, 434, 435, 438, 440 Wright, G. R. H., 240 Wright, J. C., 305 Xanthoudides, S., 53, 55, 5519, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 6523, 26, 66, 67, 68 Xenophon, 402, 404, 405, 40523, 407, 40731 Yasur-Landau, A., 329

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.

index Zakros: Building Δα, 160; Building N, 226; Building of the Cyclopean Tower, 160; Building to the NE of House A, 159–160; East House and household activities and industries, 212; excavations of, 248; and household activities and industries, 211, 212, 216; House A and household activities and industries, 212; House G, 270; House I, 281–282; House of the Niches, phases of habitation, 214–215, 2155; and household ritual, 229; and Karmoumes Bay,

138; palatial workshop centered at, 148; paleobotanical remains at, 281; and population estimates, 151–152, 158; storerooms and winepresses in houses of, 14753; and vernacular hall, 324 Building Β: architectural details of, 152–154, 157, 158; food preparation in, 155–156, 15523, 158; and household composition, 8, 152, 156–158 Building Ζ: and household activities and industries, 212; and household composition, 159

497 Palace: Hall of Ceremonies, 22936; and household activities and industries, 212; and porticos, 173; Workshop Unit, rooms 43–45 and 47, 236–238 Strong Building: architectural details of, 152, 158, 15831, 32; food preparation in, 158–159; and household composition, 8, 158–159 Zakros Kato Kastellas, 363, 364 Ziros Rizoviglo, 352 Zoïs, A., 77 Zominthos, 223, 227, 22734, 228, 230 Zou, 125, 132

© 2011 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. Do not distribute.