The Galatas Survey: The Socio-Economic and Political Development of a Contested Territory in Central Crete during the Neolithic to Ottoman Periods (Prehistory Monographs) 1931534896, 9781931534895

Citation preview

The Galatas Survey Socio-Economic and Political Development of a Contested Territory in Central Crete during the Neolithic to Ottoman Periods

The Galatas Survey Socio-Economic and Political Development of a Contested Territory in Central Crete during the Neolithic to Ottoman Periods

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 55

The Galatas Survey Socio-Economic and Political Development of a Contested Territory in Central Crete during the Neolithic to Ottoman Periods

by L. Vance Watrous, D. Matthew Buell, Eleni Kokinou, Pantelis Soupios, Apostolos Sarris, Sabine Beckmann, Georgos Rethemiotakis, Lee Ann Turner, Scott Gallimore, and Mark D. Hammond

with contributions by Kapua Iao, Amy Heimroth, and Brice Erickson

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2017

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia, PA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Watrous, Livingston Vance, 1943- author. | Buell, D. Matthew, 1978- co-author. | Kokinou, Eleni, co-author. Title: The Galatas survey : socio-economic and political development of a contested territory in central Crete during the Neolithic to Ottoman periods / by L. Vance Watrous, D. Matthew Buell, Eleni Kokinou, Pantelis Soupios, Apostolos Sarris, Sabine Beckmann, Georgos Rethemiotakis, Lee Ann Turner, Scott Gallimore, and Mark D. Hammond ; with contributions by Kapua Iao, Amy Heimroth, and Brice Erickson. Description: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania : INSTAP Academic Press, 2017. | Series: Prehistory monographs ; 55 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017022336 (print) | LCCN 2017014158 (ebook) | ISBN 9781623034177 (ebook) | ISBN 9781931534895 (hardcover : alkaline paper) Subjects: LCSH: Archaeological surveying—Greece—Galatas Region (Crete) | Galatas Survey Project. | Excavations (Archaeology)—Greece—Galatas Region (Crete) | Social archaeology—Greece—Galatas Region (Crete) | Galatas Region (Crete, Greece)—Antiquities. | Crete (Greece)—Antiquities. Classification: LCC DF261.C8 (print) | LCC DF261.C8 W37 2017 (ebook) | DDC 949.5/9--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017022336

Copyright © 2017 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

List of Tables. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Figures. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix List of Plates. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Acknowledgments... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix List of Abbreviations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi Chronology. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii Introduction. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv PART I. The Galatas Project and Its Natural Environment

1. Field Survey, by L. Vance Watrous.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3



2. Survey Area, by L. Vance Watrous.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Geological Implications of the Broader Galatas Region, by Eleni Kokinou, Pantelis Soupios, and Apostolos Sarris.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13



4. Pre-Industrial Life in the Galatas Area, by Sabine Beckmann... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

PART II. Prehistoric Settlement and Society

5. First Settlers, by D. Matthew Buell.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29



6. Prepalatial Growth in Social Complexity, by D. Matthew Buell... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

vi

THE GALATAS SURVEY



7. Emergence of a Stratified Society, by L. Vance Watrous.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43



8. Excavation of the Minoan Palace and Town of Galatas, by Georgos Rethemiotakis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51



9. Building a Minoan State at Neopalatial Galatas, by D. Matthew Buell.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55



10. Collapse and Retraction, by D. Matthew Buell and Lee Ann Turner. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

PART III. Historical Settlement and Society

11. Population Reduction and a Polis, by Lee Ann Turner..................................................... 85



12. Population Retraction during the Hellenistic Period, by Scott Gallimore.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95



13. Abandonment and Assimilation in the Roman Period, by Scott Gallimore... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105



14. An Imperial Territory, by Mark D. Hammond... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

PART IV. Conclusion

15. Final Perspectives, by L. Vance Watrous.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

PART V. Appendices

Appendix A. Register of Sites, by Kapua Iao.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173



Appendix B. Prehistoric Pottery, by L. Vance Watrous and Amy Heimroth. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205



Appendix C. Ground and Chipped Stone Artifacts, by D. Matthew Buell... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211



Appendix D. A Neolithic Pendant, by Sabine Beckmann.. . ............................................... 219



Appendix E. A Neopalatial Sealing, by Sabine Beckmann..... . ........................................... 223



Appendix F. Protogeometric to Hellenistic Pottery, by Brice Erickson. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227



Appendix G. Early to Late Roman Pottery, by Scott Gallimore... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235



Appendix H. Byzantine to Ottoman Pottery, by Mark D. Hammond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241



Appendix I. A New History of Pottery Production in Thrapsano, by Mark D. Hammond.. . . . . . . . . . 259

References. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Index. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Tables Figures Plates

List of Tables

Table 1.

List and settlement hierarchy of Neolithic sites.

Table 2.

List and settlement hierarchy of Prepalatial sites.

Table 3.

List and settlement hierarchy of Protopalatial sites.

Table 4.

List and settlement hierarchy of Neopalatial sites.

Table 5.

List and settlement hierarchy of Late Minoan IIIA–IIIB sites.

Table 6.

List and settlement hierarchy of Late Minoan IIIC sites.

Table 7.

List and settlement hierarchy of Protogeometric–Orientalizing sites.

Table 8.

List and settlement hierarchy of Archaic sites.

Table 9.

List and settlement hierarchy of Classical sites.

Table 10.

List and settlement hierarchy of Hellenistic sites.

Table 11.

List and settlement hierarchy of Early Roman sites.

Table 12.

List and settlement hierarchy of Late Roman sites.

Table 13.

List and settlement hierarchy of Byzantines sites.

Table 14.

List and settlement hierarchy of Venetian sites.

Table 15.

Population statistics in 1881 by village (after Stavrakis 1890, II–III, 120–126).

Table 16.

Population statistics in 1881 by eparchy and deme (after Stavrakis 1890, II–III, 68–82)

viii

THE GALATAS SURVEY

Table 17.

Population statistics in 1894 by village (after Kalomenopoulos 1894, 137–168).

Table 18.

Population statistics in 1900 by village (after Statistics 1904, 21–25).

Table 19.

Population statistics in 1900 by eparchy and deme (after Statistics 1904, 36).

Table 20.

List and settlement hierarchy of Ottoman–Modern sites.

List of Figures

Figure 1.

Map of Crete.

Figure 2.

Map of survey area.

Figure 3.

Map of survey area showing transects walked by the survey team.

Figure 4.

Elevation map of the survey area with drainage system.

Figure 5.

Distribution of pre-Neogene Hellenic nappes on Crete (after Kokinou, Alves, and Kamberis 2012; modified from Kilias, Sotiriadis, and Moundrakis 1985; Postma, Fortuin, and van Wamel 1993).

Figure 6.

Slope map of the survey area overlaid by geological faults and the drainage system.

Figure 7.

Aspect map of the survey area.

Figure 8.

Geological map of the survey area after field observations (after Vidakis, Jonkers, and Meulenkamp 1982–1983, 1983).

Figure 9.

Map of Neolithic sites in the survey area.

Figure 10. Map of Prepalatial sites in the survey area. Figure 11.

Map of Protopalatial sites in the survey area.

Figure 12. Map of Galatiani Kephala (44) showing PP–NP extents. Figure 13. Plan of the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44). Figure 14. Map of Neopalatial sites in the survey area.

x

THE GALATAS SURVEY

Figure 15. Rank-size plot of Neopalatial sites in the survey area. Figure 16. Agricultural catchments of Neopalatial settlements in the survey area (Thiessen polygons). Figure 17.

Approximated territories of Neopalatial towns (44, 82, 118, 139) in the survey area (Thiessen polygons).

Figure 18. Map of LM IIIA–IIIB sites in the survey area. Figure 19. Map of LM IIIC sites in the survey area. Figure 20. Map of Protogeometric–Orientalizing sites in the survey area. Figure 21. Map of Archaic sites in the survey area. Figure 22. Map of Classical sites in the survey area. Figure 23. Map of Hellenistic sites in the survey area. Figure 24. Map of Early Roman sites in the survey area. Figure 25. Map of Late Roman sites in the survey area. Figure 26. Byzantine and Venetian pottery from sites 13 (1–3), 39 (4, 5), 45 (6, 11), 131 (7), 136 (14), 158 (9, 10, 15, 17), and 166 (12), and transects 184G (16), 184Q (13), and 194Y (8). Figure 27. Map of Byzantine sites in the survey area. Figure 28. Map of Venetian sites in the survey area. Figure 29

Venetian and Ottoman pottery from sites 5 (30), 7 (23), 94 (19), 107 (5, 18), 111 (24), 137 (13, 17, 28, 29), 150 (3), and 158 (27), and transects 4 (21), 114 (22), 158 (1), 169A (14), 174 (16a, 16b), 180A (2), 180G (4), 184V (8), 186 (15), 207B (6), 208A (11), 210D (7), 212B (20), 215A (26), 215B (9), 215N (25), 219G (12), and 220K (10).

Figure 30. Map of alonia in the survey area. Figure 31. Ottoman pottery and products of Thrapsano from sites 41 (11, 17), 107 (19), 117 (13, 16, 26), 148 (10), and 170 (23), and transects 2 (5), 21 (24), 131 (3), 140 (20), 141 (1), 170l (8), 171E (12), 184C (22), 186B (7), 186K (27), 193 (21), 196 (6, 25), 208A (2, 4), 208D (9), 210D (15), 210J (14), and 215O (18). Figure 32. Map of Ottoman–Modern sites in the survey area. Figure 33. Products of Thrapsano from sites 41 (4), 112 (11), and 117 (2), and transects 107 (3), 111 (1), 114 (8, 12), 140D (6), 163 (5), 184l (9), 184U (7, 10). Figure 34. Roman pottery from sites 4 (6, 9, 12, 23), 8 (2, 10, 28), 11 (21), 13 (24), 39 (1, 8), 55 (17), 61 (13), 93 (26, 27), 104 (11, 15), 107 (16, 22), 130 (20), and 149 (19), and transects 2 (5), 10 (14), 19 (18), 180 (7), 125 (4), 142 (25), and 208A (3). Figure 35. Orientalizing, Archaic, and Classical fine wares from sites 22 (2), 24 (1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10–18), 80 (9), 140 (19–22), and 157 (5, 7), and transects 216B (24) and 216E (23). Figure 36. Hellenistic pottery from sites 24 (1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 16, 17, 19–22), 28 (12, 14, 18), 61 (26), 96 (4), 134 (7), and 140 (2, 8, 9, 11, 15, 23–25) and transect 193 (13). Scale 1:3. Figure 37. Protogeometric, Geometric, and Orientalizing pottery from sites 24 (1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18–20, 24, 27), 55 (17), 80 (6, 7), 105 (12), 108 (22), 129 (3, 4), 140 (9, 21, 23, 26), 151 (14), and 157 (8, 13) and transect 27C (25).

List of Plates

Plate 1A.

Mason’s mark from site 17.

Plate 1B.

View from Arkalochori north to the Omphalion Plain and Kastelli.

Plate 2A.

Traditional Ottoman–Modern chani near Philissia.

Plate 2B.

View of Astritsi Kephala (24) from the north.

Plate 3A.

Medieval press near Alagni.

Plate 3B.

Limestone cliffs of Galatiani Kephala (44) from the northwest.

Plate 4A.

View of the Zinta-Arkalochori plain from the south.

Plate 4B.

View of the Zinta-Arkalochori plain toward the village of Choumeri, from the north.

Plate 5A.

View of the Mesara Plain from the north.

Plate 5B.

View of Prophetes Elias (28) from site 17.

Plate 6A.

View of lake outside Thrapsano from the west.

Plate 6B.

View of Limnes Plain from the south.

Plate 7.

Examination of the different stratigraphic layers in the survey area.

Plate 8A.

View to Modi (27), facing northeast.

Plate 8B.

View toward site 114 from the north.

Plate 9A.

Neolithic building 1 at site 114, facing north.

xii

Plate 9B.

THE GALATAS SURVEY

Neolithic building 2 at site 114, facing south.

Plate 10A. Neolithic building 3 at site 114, facing west. Plate 10B. Final Neolithic pottery from sites 14 (e), 27 (a, f–j), 64 (d), 80 (b), and 113 (c). Plate 11A. Neolithic chipped stone implements (chert) from site 113. Plate 11B. Two views of a steatite pendant from site 115. Plate 11C. Neolithic stone celts from sites 14 (left) and 36 (right). Plate 12A. View toward Sambas (71) from the east. Plate 12B. View of Sambas valley from the south. Plate 13A. View of Prophetes Elias (28) hilltop in Arkalochori, from the south. Plate 13B. Prepalatial coarse ware fragments from site 14. Plate 14A. Prepalatial pottery from Korakia (134). Plate 14B. Prepalatial stone celts from sites 18 (a), 44 (b), 74 (c), and 92 (d). Plate 14C. Prepalatial chipped stone core assemblage (obsidian) from various sites. Plate 15A. View of hills west of Patsideros and Zinta. Plate 15B. Cyclopean wall remains at Sambas (71). Plate 16A. Protopalatial cooking pot fragments from sites 4 (a), 35 (b), 47 (d), 48(h), 57 (c), 70 (e), 78 (g), and 99 (f, i). Plate 16B. Protopalatial SS cups from Korakia (134). Plate 16C. Protopalatial cup fragments from site 165. Plate 17A. Protopalatial cooking dishes from sites 45 (i), 85 (j), 134 (n), 142 (f, h, m), 144 (k), 150 (a, c), 151 (l), and 154 (d, g), and transects 195 (b) and 211C (e). Plate 17B. Rock pile at site 56 from the south. Plate 17C. Venetian map of Myrtos valley (from Boschini 1651). Plate 18A. Exterior wall of Minoan building on site 17, from the south. Plate 18B. Exterior wall of Minoan building on site 17, from the south. Plate 19A. View of Pyrgos (23) from site 17. Plate 19B. Neopalatial wall at Pyrgos (23). Plate 20A. Neopalatial wall at Pyrgos (23). Plate 20B. View of valley east of Sphakokephalia (82). Plate 21A. Neopalatial fine ware cups from sites 35 (a), 39 (g, i), 43 (h), 66 (c), 72 (f), 79 (e), and 95 (b, d). Plate 21B. Bull figurine leg from site 79. Plate 21C. Stamped amphora handle from site 86. Plate 21D. Stamped amphora handle from site 86, with drawing.

LIST OF PLATES

xiii

Plate 21E. Ground stone objects: pounders from sites 13 (a) and 28 (b, c); and handstones from sites 22 (d), 80 (e), and 157 (f). Plate 22A. Drill guides from sites 22 (a), 48 (b), and 44 (c, d). Plate 22B. Drill guides from sites 55 (left) and 118 (right). Plate 22C. Stone vessel and lid from site 22. Plate 23A. Late Minoan III pottery from various sites and transects. Plate 23B. Late Minoan III fine ware from sites 45 (c), 48 (a), 54 (h), 68 (f), and 99 (b, d, e) and transect 35 (g). Plate 24A. Late Minoan III pottery from sites 3 (e, g, h, n), 14 (f), 45 (d), 102 (m), 129 (a, o), 154 (j, l), and 157 (b), and transects 216A (k), 220A (i), and 220K (c). Plate 24B. Late Minoan III pithoi from various sites and transects. Plate 25A. View of site 129 from the east. Plate 25B. View toward site 80 from the northeast. Plate 26A. View toward site 127 from the east. Plate 26B. View toward Alagni from site 114. Plate 27A. View of Choumeri Kephala (140) above modern village, from the south. Plate 27B. Modern spring at village of Choumeri. Plate 28A. Iron Age or Roman press from western half of Choumeri Kephala (140). Plate 28B. Iron Age or Roman melian millstone from western half of Choumeri Kephala (140). Plate 29A. Iron Age or Roman cut block from western half of Choumeri Kephala (140). Plate 29B. Iron Age or Roman mortar fragment from western half of Choumeri Kephala (140). Plate 29C. Iron Age or Roman millstone(?) from northwestern slope of Choumeri Kephala (140). Plate 30A. Querns from site 97. Plate 30B. Quarry marks at site 97. Plate 31A. Quarry marks at site 105. Plate 31B. View toward Miliarisou hill (151), with spring at base. Plate 32A. View northeast toward Church of Metamorphosis tou Christou near site 91. Plate 32B. Possible Iron Age column capital from site 91. Plate 33A. View toward Korakia (134) from the south. Plate 33B. Modern spring at Zinta. Plate 34A. View toward Astritsi Kephala (24) from the south. Plate 34B. Oil press at Astritsi Kephala (24). Plate 35A. Loomweights from Astritsi Kephala (24). Plate 35B. Kiln material from site 61.

xiv

THE GALATAS SURVEY

Plate 35C. Impressed tile fragment from site 61. Plate 35D. Roman press from site 110, out of context. Plate 35E. Press installation near Alagni. Plate 35F.

Byzantine bronze coin, Anonymous Follis A (a.d. 969–976), from site 45: obverse (left) and reverse (right).

Plate 35G. Fine sgraffito ware from site 45. Plate 36A. Unglazed Byzantine red micaceous fabric (top row) compared to Minoan coarse ware (bottom row) from sites 131 (c, d) and 165 (e–h) and transect 194Y (a, b). Plate 36B. Incised sgraffito ware from sites 107 (b) and 131 (a, c, e) and transect 194Y (d, f). Plate 36C. Spatter-painted ware from site 128 (left) and transect 194Y (right). Plate 36D. Twelfth-century a.d. Byzantine amphora handle from site 39. Plate 37A. Constantinopolitan White Ware from sites 108 (d), 148 (a), and 169 (b), and transect 168 (c). Plate 37B. Handles in unglazed red micaceous fabric from sites 13 (right) and 39 (left). Plate 37C. Site 131 and Galatiani Kephala (44), looking north from site 135. Plate 38A. View of Church of Michael the Archangel in Arkalochori, from the southeast. Plate 38B. Common sgraffito motifs produced at Thrapsano from sites 136 (a) and 166 (e) and transects 106 (h), 158 (c, d, g), 175c (i), 180a (f), and 184g (b). Plate 38C. Various sgraffito motifs produced at Thrapsano from sites 107 (b) and 136 (c) and transects 20 (d) and 114 (a). Plate 39A. Sgraffito vessel produced at Thrapsano from site 150. Plate 39B. Painted glazed-ware pitcher fragments produced at Thrapsano from site 96 (left) and transect 137 (right). Plate 39C. Painted glazed-ware bowls produced at Thrapsano from transects 111 (e), 155g (a), 184v (c), 210d (b), 215b (g), 215j (d), and 217a (f). Plate 40A. Zeuxippus Ware(?), or related, sherd from site 111. Plate 40B. Graffita tarda(?) from transect 215N. Plate 40C. Kiln separators (tripod stilts) and separator impression on ceramic fragment (e). Plate 40D. Kiln evidence from site 45. Plate 41A. General view of Rouma (137) from the west. Plate 41B. Church of the Panagia at Rouma (137) from the northwest. Plate 42A. Venetian coarse ware in red micaceous fabric from Rouma (137). Plate 42B. Sgraffito ware sherds found at Rouma (137). Plate 42C. Various sgraffito ware Fabric 1 sherds from sites 25 (f), 50 (a), 94 (g, h), and 158 (d, e), and transects 169A (c), 180I (i), and 207B (b). Plate 43A. Various sgraffito ware Fabric 2 sherds from sites 71 (a), 97 (e), 137 (d), and 158 (c), and transect 186B (b).

LIST OF PLATES

xv

Plate 43B. Various sgraffito ware Fabric 3 sherds from sites 94 (a), 107 (b), and 158 (e), and transects 4 (g), 186N (f), 212B (d), and 218G (c). Plate 44A. View of acropolis at the fortress (158) near Meleses, from the north. Plate 44B. Remains on top of acropolis at the fortress (158) near Meleses. Plate 45A. Modern shrine inside chapel remains at the fortress (158) near Meleses. Plate 45B. Ruins of Hagios Ioannis Prodromos, west of the acropolis at the fortress (158) near Meleses. Plate 46A. Chapel to Hagios Antonios north of the fortress (158) near Meleses. Plate 46B. Church of Hagios Ioannis at Nira (90). Plate 47A. Fresco detail (northern wall), Church of Hagios Ioannis at Nira (90). Plate 47B. Hagios Eleutherios/Koimisi tis Theotokou cemetery chapel in Archondiko from the west. Plate 48A. Fresco detail (northern wall), Hagios Eleutherios/Koimisi tis Theotokou, cemetery chapel in Archondiko. Plate 48B. Southern wall of church dedicated to Hagios Methodios at site 148 from the northeast. Plate 49A. Glazed wares with brown-painted loops from sites 90 (d, g, i) and 148 (a) and transects 170 (b), 186B (c), 194N (f), 208B (e), and 208D (h). Plate 49B. Slip-painted wares (Didymoteicho/Dardanelles Ware) from site 161 (f) and transects 2 (g), 131 (d), 141 (a), 172 (e), 208A (b, c). Plate 49C. Çanakkale Ware from sites 41 (a) and 117 (c) and transects 135 (d), 171E (b), and 202 (e). Plate 50A. Imitation Çanakkale Ware(?) from site 117 (c), and transects 184V (d), 210D (a), and 210J (b). Plate 50B. Grottaglie Ware from site 41 (b) and transects 161 (c) and 215O (a). Plate 50C. Chinese porcelain and inspired products from transects 173A (a), 208B (e), 209G (b, d), and 216J (c). Plate 50D. European transfer-printed wares from sites 55 (a, f) and 128 (b) and transects 202T (d), 217A (e), and 217O (c). Plate 51A. Siphnian tsoukalia from sites 107 (b) and 117 (d) and transects 190 (a) and 193 (c). Plate 51B. Tobacco pipes from transects 180I (right) and 209O (left). Plate 51C. Ottoman coins (obverse on left, reverse on right) from transects 40 (left) and 155G (right). Plate 51D. Various sigillata wares from sites 4 (c, k, p, q), 8 (h), 13 (f), 107 (a, e, j, l, m, o), 140 (b, d, g, i), and 169 (n). Plate 52A. African Red-Slip Ware sherd with stamp from site 4. Plate 52B. Late Roman amphorae from sites 4 (b), 61 (c), and 149 (a). Plate 52C. Water jugs with stepped rims from sites 5 (e), 41 (a, f), and 117 (c), and transects 107 (d), 111 (b), and 163 (g). Plate 52D. Reddish-brown sgraffito wares from sites 7 (b) and 156 (c) and transect 114 (a). Plate 53A. Neopalatial pottery from site 13.

xvi

THE GALATAS SURVEY

Plate 53B. Pounders: spherical types from sites 13 (a), 52 (c), 61 (e), 128 (b), and 136 (d); and elongated types from sites 28 (f, g) and 44 (h), and transect 211f (i). Plate 53C. Prepalatial pottery from sites 14 (c, g), 76 (f), 79 (i), 139 (b), 140 (e), 155 (a, j), and 157 (d, h). Plate 54A. Prepalatial pottery from site 14 (b–e), and transect 209C (a). Plate 54B. Stone weights from sites 22 (a) and 44 (c) and transect 180 (b). Plate 54C. Handstones: elongated types from sites 80 (c) and 172 (a) and transect 195 (b); and cuboid or spherical types from sites 22 (d), 55 (f), and 157 (e). Plate 54D. Storage vessels with stamped decoration from sites 24 (a–g), 55 (h, i), 93 (j), and 97 (k). Plate 55A. Geometric through Hellenistic pottery from sites 24 (e, h–j, m, n), 28 (q), 80 (g), 96 (o), 140 (c, d, p), and 157 (a, b, f, k) and transect 220I (l). Plate 55B. Protopalatial fine ware from sites 25 (i), 35 (g), 47 (h), 57 (c), 66 (a), 68 (b), 88 (e), and 109 (d) and transect 122 (f). Plate 55C. Neolithic and Prepalatial pottery from Modi (27). Plate 56A. Prepalatial pottery from Modi (27). Plate 56B. Loomweights from sites 28 (j), 45 (b), 70 (c, d), 95 (g), 99 (h), 103 (e), and 121 (f) and transect 186 (a); spindle whorl from site 75 (i). Plate 56C. Neopalatial pithoi from sites 33 (i), 67 (g), 92 (c, h), 113 (d), 116 (b), 122 (e, f), 134 (a). Plate 57A. Various examples of Thrapsano fabric from site 45 (c) and transects 170L (b) and 200 (a). Plate 57B. Prepalatial pottery from sites 54 (b), 73 (f), 74 (d, g, i), 76 (j), 79 (e), and 92 (h) and transects 169I (a, k) and 175A (c). Plate 57C. Rectangular flat-faced quern from site 67. Plate 58A. Protopalatial red coarse ware from Sambas (71). Plate 58B. Protopalatial pottery from Sambas (71). Plate 58C. Matt-painted ware fragment from site 79. Plate 58D. Lamp fragment in local Byzantine fabric from Sphakokephalia (82). Plate 59A. Saddle quern from site 91. Plate 59B. Site 93 study collection. Plate 60A. Mortar found at site 93. Plate 60B. Neopalatial fine ware from sites 95 (b, g–i), 108 (e, f), and 134 (c, d) and transect 209B (a). Plate 60C. Site 104 study collection. Plate 61A. Final Neolithic pottery from site 114. Plate 61B. Final Neolithic pottery from site 114. Plate 61C. Final Neolithic pottery from site 114. Plate 62A. Final Neolithic pottery from site 114. Plate 62B. Mortar/gourna fragment from site 128.

LIST OF PLATES

xvii

Plate 62C. Protopalatial cups from sites 127 (b), 134 (e), 142 (h), 150 (f), and 153 (d), and transects 211 (c), 211B (a), 219B (g), and 219G (i). Plate 63A. Neopalatial pottery from Korakia (134). Plate 63B. Stone pot stand from Choumeri Kephala (140). Plate 63C. Storage jar with stamped decoration from Choumeri Kephala (140). Plate 64A. Water jugs with combed or incised rims from sites 117 (d) and 170 (a) and transects 21 (b), 186K (e), and 196 (c). Plate 64B. Kastelli Ware from various sites. Plate 64C. Neopalatial red coarse ware from various sites. Plate 65A. Neopalatial medium coarse wares from various sites. Plate 65B. Mortar found in transect 208C. Plate 65C. Selection of multi-directional chert cores. Plate 66A. Selection of obsidian tools from Bronze Age sites. Plate 66B. Selection of obsidian tools from Bronze Age sites, including scrapers and notched and retouched flakes. Plate 66C. Green steatite experimental figurine made by Beckmann. Plate 66D. Brick and tile from site 61. Plate 67A. Loomweight and stopper in local Byzantine fabric from transects 123 (right) and 134 (left). Plate 67B. Venetian painted glazed vessels (Fabric Group 2) from transects 139 (d), 208A (b), 219G (e), 220G (c), and 220K (a). Plate 67C. Red-bodied sgraffito ware vessel from transect 174. Plate 68A. Sgraffito in a dark red fabric from transects 201 (c), 210K (b), and 215Q (a). Plate 68B. Dark-on-light (green-painted) ware from transect 215A. Plate 68C. Champlevé Ware from transect 2. Plate 68D. Stamnoi from transects 166 (left) and 184C (right). Plate 69A. Examples of decorative motifs on storage vessels from transects 210B (c), 216D (d), 217E (a), 219G (b), and P29 (e). Plate 69B. Slip-painted ware from Thrapsano from transects 114 (c), 140D (b), and 184U (a). Plate 69C. Stamped vessel from transect 217K.

Acknowledgments

We begin by thanking Georgos Rethemiotakis, the excavator of the Minoan settlement at Galatas in Central Crete, for inviting us to carry out an archaeological survey around the site. The field project was made possible by a three-year (2005–2007) permit from the Greek Ministry of Culture, under the aegis of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. In Crete, the work was supervised by the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the 13th Byzantine Ephoreia in Heraklion. We would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory and the Department of Classics at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo. On Crete, the project was organized with the support of Rethemiotakis, Kalliope Galanaki, Maria Mavraki and Maria Rousaki, epimeletrias in charge of the Pediada region of Crete, and Georgos Katsalis of the 13th Byzantine Ephoreia. Sabine Beckmann provided us with much valuable information drawn from her many years on Crete; she also took some of the artifact photographs. Rosemary Tzanaki helped us with the pottery and translations. D. Matthew Buell made the chronological maps; Kapua Iao acted as project registrar and archivist, and she was responsible for our apotheke. Lynn Snyder identified the animal bones from sites 114 and 115 (the register of sites is in App. A). The project team consisted of: director, L. Vance Watrous (SUNY at Buffalo); Lee Ann Turner (State University at Boise); graduate students from the SUNY at Buffalo (D. Matthew Buell, Kapua Iao, Scott Gallimore, Ben Kamphaus, Katie Nielson, Ciara van Velsor, Panagiota Pantou, Carina Iezzi, Amy Heimroth, Brian Hammer, Ben Costello, Theresa Zabawa, Brian Kunkel, Angel Szymanek, and Maryanne Schultz), the University of Missouri–Columbia (Mark D. Hammond),

xx

THE GALATAS SURVEY

SUNY at Potsdam (Meg Boyagian), Johns Hopkins University (Kevin Solez), and the University of Crete at Rethymnon (Sabine Beckmann, Ioannis Papas, Maria Roussou, Dimitra Lazar, and Kalliopi Kougitaki); and our epoptria in 2007, Eleni Christaki. In 2009, Brice Erickson (University of California, Santa Barbara) studied the Iron Age pottery and wrote Appendix F. We would like to thank Todd Whitelaw (University College London) for his comments on Chapter 9.

List of Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this volume: ARS African Red-Slip Ware BSJ bridge-spouted jar ca. circa cf. compare cm centimeter(s) hundredweight (100 lbs.) cwt DEM digital elevation model diam. diameter d. died Early Bronze Age EBA EIA Early Iron Age elev. elevation Early Minoan EM Early Neolithic EN Early Roman ER Eastern Sigillata A ESA Eastern Sigillata B ESB Final Neolithic FN g gram(s) geographic information system GIS Great Britain pound GBP GPS global positioning system

h hour ha hectare(s) h hours HAGS Hellenic Army Geographic Service Hellenic Military Geographical HMGS Service ht height Institute of Geology and IGME Mineral Exploration INSTAP-SCEC Institute for Aegean Prehistory Study Center for East Crete kg kilogram(s) km kilometer(s) L. length Late Minoan LM Late Neolithic LN Late Roman LR m meter(s) meters above sea level m asl max. maximum MJ megajule

xxii

Middle Minoan MM mm millimeter(s) NP Neopalatial PP Protopalatial PreP Prepalatial PRS Phocaean Red Slip Ware r. ruled RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

THE GALATAS SURVEY

SS cup straight-sided cup St. Saint SUNY State University of New York t tons w. width WW II World War II wt. weight yr year

Chronology

Dates are based on: Miller 1921; Sugar 1977; Maltezou 1988; Warren and Hankey 1989; Coleman 1992a, 1992b; Alcock 1993; Detorakis 1994; Greene 2000; Tomkins 2007; and Warren 2010. 4000 b.c. Final Neolithic 3500 b.c. Early Minoan I 2900 b.c. Early Minoan II 2200 b.c. Early Minoan III 2100 b.c. Middle Minoan IA 1900 b.c. Middle Minoan IB 1850 b.c. Middle Minoan II 1800/1775 b.c. Middle Minoan III 1725/1700 b.c. Late Minoan I 1570/1540 b.c.

1570/1540 b.c. Late Minoan II 1490/1450 b.c. Late Minoan IIIA 1375/1360 b.c. Late Minoan IIIB 1220/1200 b.c. Late Minoan IIIC 1000 b.c. Protogeometric to Orientalizing 600 b.c. Archaic 480 b.c. Classical 323 b.c. Hellenistic a.d. 1

a.d.

1 Early Roman a.d. 300 Late Roman a.d. 700 First Byzantine a.d. 827 Andalusian Muslims a.d. 961 Second Byzantine a.d. 1204 Venetian a.d. 1669 Ottoman a.d. 1898

Introduction

In her study, The Historiography of Landscape Research on Crete (2008), Marina Gkiasta listed some 20 survey projects carried out in Crete over the last 80 years. These surveys fall into two basic categories: (1) urban centers and their immediate catchments (e.g., Moody 1987a; Hayden 2005); and (2) remote rural areas (e.g., Blackman and Branigan 1977; Watrous 1982). This study of the Galatas area is different. It focuses on an area located between two powerful rival centers, Knossos/Herakleion and Kastelli/Lyttos, which brought this area under their control at various times in history. As such, the study is able to document in detail the changing local socio-economic and political conditions in this territory as it came under the direct control of states elsewhere in Crete and overseas. This volume explores the results of the American archaeological survey (2005– 2007) carried out around the area of Galatas in Central Crete (Fig. 1), as requested by Georgos Rethemiotakis, the Director of Excavations at Galatas. It traces the socio-economic and political development of the Galatas area and its relations with other areas of Crete during the Neolithic–Ottoman periods. Our archaeological survey was focused on a central site, Galatiani Kephala (44; for the register of sites, see this vol., App. A), and its topographic catchment, similar to other smaller surveys, such as the Kavousi (Haggis 2005) and Pseira surveys (Betancourt, Davaras, and Hope Simpson, eds., 2004, 2005). The survey zone (Fig. 2) was circumscribed by a 5 km radius around the Minoan palace at Galatiani Kephala (44), which is the geographical area bounded by the villages of Alagni, Astritsi, Sambas, Apostoli, Thrapsano, Arkalochori, and Hagia Semni in North-Central Crete (see this vol., Ch. 2). Our work is not a regional survey, as, for example, the surveys of the western Mesara (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004)

xxvi

THE GALATAS SURVEY

or of Sphakia (Nixon et al. 1994). A more inclusive regional survey has, in fact, already been done for our area by Nikos Panagiotakis (2003), whose survey included the entire eparchy of the Pediada. Our study also differs from that of Panagiotakis in its intensive fieldwork methodology (see this vol., Ch. 1) and thematic focus, mentioned above. Chapters 1 to 4 introduce the reader to the Galatas Survey Project and its region. Chapter 1 records the earlier archaeological research in the area, the goals of the project, the annual progress (2005–2007) of the fieldwork, the survey techniques, and the subsequent study of the finds in 2008–2009. Chapter 2 explores the topography of the survey area. Chapter 3 presents a scientific study of the geology, geomorphology, hydrogeology, and soil erosion of the Galatas area. Based on ethnographic interviews, Chapter 4 describes the pre-industrial life of the area. Chapters 5 to 10 examine the prehistoric settlement of our region. Chapter 5 discusses the Neolithic settlement in the area. Chapter 6 presents the Prepalatial (PreP) settlement data and the social and political organization of the survey zone. Chapter 7 discusses the Protopalatial (PP) data through the growing issue of social complexity. In Chapter 8, Rethemiotakis presents the archaeological results of his excavations (1992–present) at the site of Galatiani Kephala (44). Chapter 9 analyzes the Neopalatial (NP) settlement data and the issue of state formation. Chapter 10 documents the local collapse and retraction of Late Minoan (LM) III settlements. Chapters 11 to 14 tackle the historical settlement and society of the Galatas area. Chapter 11 analyzes the changes in settlement pattern, site continuity, and size during the Early Iron Age (EIA) to the Classical period. Chapter 12 presents and interprets the evidence for the reduced Hellenistic settlement in the survey zone. Chapter 13 then discusses relations between Rome and Crete, problems associated with dating Roman ceramics, the local Early–Late Roman settlement data, and the socio-economic status of the Galatas area in the Roman period. Chapter 14 encompasses several centuries of history and is divided into three chronological sections that explore the Byzantine (ca. a.d. 700–1204), Venetian (a.d. 1204–1669), and Ottoman (a.d. 1669–1898) periods. Each section within this chapter begins with a historical background of the Galatas area (including, when able, ecclesiastical history, local population, land use, and economy), followed by a presentation of our survey archaeological data. As we know much more about these time periods from historical accounts, the information as a whole provides us with a much more complete picture of our area leading into the modern period. The appendices provide much further information about our survey. Appendix A presents the register of sites that includes descriptions of our individual sites and summarizes their size, chronology, and finds. Appendices B–H provide details about pottery, lithics, and other finds collected by the survey. And finally, Appendix I considers survey and historical evidence that points to an earlier date for the beginning of Thrapsano pottery production than has heretofore been recognized.

Part I

The Galatas Project and Its Natural Environment

1

Field Survey L. Vance Watrous

Beginning with a summary of earlier archaeological work in the region, this chapter describes the

goals, fieldwork, methods, and study of the finds carried out by the survey project from 2005 to 2009.

Earlier Archaeological Research in the Survey Area In the 15th century a.d., Cristoforo Buondelmonti (1419) passed through the survey area and wrote about the villages of Thrapsano and Voni (Figs. 1, 2). Giuseppe Gerola (1905–1932, I, 220, 264–265, 271–275) described several local Venetian monuments, including the Castel del Beto and the fountain at Meleses. In 1923, John Pendlebury (Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 80– 82) visited the Upper Pediada and mentioned several nearby sites outside of our survey zone, for example, Smari and Kastelli. In the early part of the 20th century a.d., Joseph Hazzidakis (1912– 1913) and Spyridon Marinatos (1933–1935) excavated in the Arkalochori cave (Prophetes Elias [28]). Between 1982 and 1989, Nikos Panagiotakis (2003) carried out an extensive survey of the

entire Pediada eparchy and collected accounts of early travelers and archaeologists who visited the area before 1985. Overall, excavation and survey work in this area has been sporadic and relatively light as compared to other areas of Crete. The area, in fact, goes unmentioned in Marina Gkiasta’s recent (2008) survey of landscape research on Crete. In 1992, Georgos Rethemiotakis began a major excavation at Galatas (see this vol., Ch. 8). Since that time, he has uncovered two Protopalatial (PP) buildings, a Middle Minoan (MM) III–Late Minoan (LM) IA palace, and parts of the Neopalatial (NP) urban settlement (Rethemiotakis 1996; 1997a; 1999a; 1999b; 1999c; 2002; Blackman 2000–2001, 127–128; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011a; 2011b). Rethemiotakis (1999d) also conducted a

4

L. VANCE WATROUS

rescue excavation of a NP farmstead building at Orphanou Marathia (110) near Alagni. A recent

Ephoreia rescue excavation at the Hellenistic site of Prophetes Elias (28) is not yet published.

Project Goals In 2002, Rethemiotakis suggested that I carry out an archaeological survey along with a team around the Minoan palace at Galatas, with the aim of providing a detailed context for understanding the palace and settlement. For this reason, it was decided that the survey would concentrate on an

area within a 5 km radius of Galatas (Fig. 2). Our goal began with a focus on the prehistoric periods, but once we started walking through the environment, we expanded to include the historical periods up through the Ottoman period.

2005–2007 Fieldwork The first field season began in 2005 and ran from June 20 to August 5. The project intensively surveyed the area immediately east and south of the Galatas palace, between the villages of Galatas and Thrapsano and the town of Arkalochori. Based in Amnissos, each day included a 30 minute drive to and from our survey zone (Fig. 2). During six weeks of fieldwork, we found or investigated 44 archaeological sites, ranging from late Neolithic to Ottoman in date. By the end of the season, our finds consisted of 53 klouves (κλούβες; plastic crates measuring 50 x 30 x 30 cm) of pottery and chipped/ground stone. Notable finds included three Late Neolithic (LN)–Early Minoan (EM) axes of nonlocal stone, obsidian as well as local red chert tools and cores, several pieces of Hagios Onouphrios Ware from the Mesara, redslipped MM I–II Kastelli Ware, MM III–LM I pottery from Knossos and the Cyclades, several stone bit guides, loomweights, LM III larnakes and a LM IIIA stamped amphora handle, Geometric– Classical vases, Late Roman (LR) African RedSlip Ware (ARS), sgraffito, Melian millstones, threshing sledge flints (some imported from Turkey), and Thrapsano kiln separators. One site (17) produced a large Minoan building with an inset wall, a quarry, and a cut block inscribed with a mason’s mark (+) (Pl. 1A), which was also found at the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44; see this vol., Ch. 9). In 2006, the project ran from June 6 to August 1. We surveyed the area between the villages of

Thrapsano, Apostoli, Sambas, Hagies Paraskies, Astritsi, and Alagni (Fig. 2). During seven weeks of fieldwork, the project found or investigated 78 sites in this area, ranging in date from late Neolithic to Ottoman. Several sites deserve special mention. North of Zoophori, on the top of a hill, a round built platform (56) with traces of fire was found. Based on the pottery, this structure, partly excavated by Kalliope Galanaki, may be a Venetian-period signal tower (K. Galanaki, pers. comm.). In and around the modern village of Sambas (71), already partly excavated by Galanaki, a large Prepalatial (PreP)–LM settlement was mapped. A massive fortification wall of Cyclopean masonry is preserved at the western edge of the settlement. Sphakokephalia (82), located on the western edge of the gorge between Voni and Zoophori, produced NP, LM III, and Protogeometric/Geometric finds, some of which (conical cups, a pilgrim flask, fine ware vases, and a seashell) look like votives. The LM to Iron Age site at Astritsi Kephala (24) was also measured and mapped. A large Neolithic settlement (114) with seven well-preserved structures was discovered on the hill of Platilas, overlooking the village of Stironas to the south (Fig. 2). The owner of the Herakles Cement Factory at the northern edge of the hill had bulldozed part of the site. Because of the site’s importance, Galanaki was notified; later in the year, the local Ephoreia excavated trial trenches there. In an attempt to determine the size of the Minoan settlement at Prophetes Elias (28), the site was

FIELD SURVEY

divided into sections and collected. At the end of the season, we returned to the settlement of Galatiani Kephala (44) to measure its size in the PP and NP periods. By the end of the 2006 season, the collected material consisted of 97 klouves of pottery and stone artifacts. In 2007, fieldwork ran from June 1 to July 14. The area surveyed in 2007 lay between the villages of Galatas (41), Zinta, and Arkalochori (Fig. 2). During our six weeks of fieldwork, the project investigated 48 new sites, ranging in date from Neolithic to Ottoman, bringing the total number of sites in our area to 172. We returned to the palatial site of Galatiani Kephala (44) to better determine the size of this settlement during the PP and NP periods. A number of massive Cyclopean structures at

5

the edge of the site appear to be NP in date. We also discovered three large Minoan settlements in the survey area south of Galatiani Kephala (44): Korakia (134), Kastellos (139), and Paratiritirion (157). Of particular note for the Venetian period is the Meleses fortress (158), as well as a few Venetian pottery imports (from Italy and possibly other centers) found throughout the survey zone (Fig. 2). The publication of Panagiotakis’s survey in the Pediada (2003) provided us with much data on the sites in our area. Using his list, we correlated his sites with our findings and investigated any location where there was disagreement. By the end of the season, our finds (60 klouves full) consisted of small stone tools and pottery.

Methods of the Survey: Walking Transects and Identifying Sites Given the problem orientation of our project (see above, p. 4), we used intensive survey methods, similar to those employed by the author in the Gournia survey project (Watrous et al. 2012, 6–8). During the first year, our team consisted of 10 to 13 field walkers who walked transects using distinct topographic features—for example, roads, ridges, and fields—to begin and end each transect. The location and size of each transect was marked beforehand on digitized 1:5000 maps from the Hellenic Military Geographical Service (HMGS; Fig. 3). Individuals at either end of the line of walkers recorded the exact location and path of each transect with handheld global positioning system (GPS) units. Intervals between walkers were ca. 10–15 m. Transects varied in length according to the topography. If possible, transects were several hundred meters in length. The advantage of this method was that it covered large tracts of land. Disadvantages included the difficulty of keeping walkers spread over 165–195 m on line, and when a site, possible site, or architectural feature was discovered within a transect, the team leader had to stop the walkers, investigate the discovery, and mark it with the GPS unit on the HMGS map. When a site was discovered, those walkers passing over it changed their bags to keep the site pottery separate.

This method worked well if no sites or only one site was found within a transect, which was almost always the case, but it did inevitably produce off-site data spread over a wide area. By the end of the 2005 season, it had become obvious that in order to finish the area assigned to us in the three years allowed by our permit, we needed to modify our survey methods in order to cover more area. For this reason, we changed our methods in 2006 and 2007. We began by dividing our field walkers into three independent teams (A, B, and C), each with its own car and Greek speaker. We then subdivided the remaining area by topographic features. Each team was made responsible for one of these subdivisions and walked their landscape using a combination of intensive and random transects (Fig. 3). Heavily colluviated areas, for example, the Zinta-Arkalochori plain, steep slopes, and certain areas at the edge of our survey zone—as well as the small areas between Patsideros and Alagni, and between Philissia and Hagies Paraskies—were not surveyed. Subsequently, sites discovered by Team A would be revisited by Team B or C, those found by Team B by A or C, and those found by C by A or B. This method allowed us to survey considerably more area than we had been able during the first year.

6

L. VANCE WATROUS

In 2007, we decided it was important to further define the size of the central settlement at Galatiani Kephala (44) during the palatial periods. For this purpose, we ran a series of north–south and east– west overlapping transects across the site that revealed the size of settlement during the PP and NP periods. We were also able to finish the area asked of us in 2007, in preparation for our 2008–2009 study seasons. Team members picked up all artifacts (not just “diagnostics”) they saw within 1 m, with the exception of roof tiles, which were sampled. At the end of each transect, a transect form was completed and placed in each bag. The bag was tied, and a new one was used for each transect. Transect forms asked for: transect number, team member’s name, date, soil type, amount of erosion or colluvium, visibility, vegetation, possible water source, land use, and general comments. Assessing the soil type, visibility, and erosion often was helpful in interpreting a site during analysis. The great majority (perhaps 70%) of the soils in our survey area are ancient surfaces (Pleistocene reds), which proved helpful to finding sherds and lithics. Transects produced many finds, the accumulated result of 6,000 years of land use. In this respect, the Galatas area is an ideal location for surface survey because much of the land consists of ancient and only moderately disturbed surfaces. The only large surface that is colluviated to any extent is the Zinta-Arkalochori plain. Knowing the vegetation, land use, and nearest possible source of water also provided us with the agricultural potential of the area. A concentration of artifacts was designated a site when the numbers of artifacts relative to the amounts being found in a transect increased sharply. In most cases, the presence of a site became immediately clear to field walkers as they encountered a concentration of stone tools, pottery, and/ or roof tiles. The first step in investigating a site was to find its approximate center. Team members then walked the cardinal directions, observing but not collecting pottery. The dimensions of the pottery scatter were reported to the team leader at the center who drew a basic site plan consisting of site shape, dimensions, walls, contours, and other features. At this point, most sites were divided into four cardinal quadrants, each of which was collected (bagged) separately by one or more individuals.

Only diagnostic pottery was picked up, as the density and scatter size was already added into the site notebook. Depending on their topography, sites were also sometimes collected by terrace or by fields that were bagged separately. The traditional method of determining a site size by collecting samples (circles 3 m in diameter) strung along radii at intervals from the center was abandoned, as it produced imprecise data. Within larger sites, however, 25–50 m transects were walked by individuals 2–5 m apart, allowing us to create reasonably accurate chronological phasing at these sites. Because most of the survey zone today consists of an exposed Pleistocene red-soil surface (see above and Ch. 3) and major human soil movement, identifying the size of the sherd scatter was usually fairly straightforward. The presence of ancient walls, for example, at Galatiani Kephala (44), also helped to define site size. Of course, artifact scatters may have been moved by later erosion and human activity (i.e., mainly vineyards); in most cases (where the terrain was relatively flat), however, the consistency and intensity of the artifact distribution pattern indicated that such alteration was not extensive. We have also guarded against this problem by keeping our interpretations of site size as rough estimates. Included in the site notebook with the basic site plan and architecture was the site’s transect number(s) (if available), location relative to a known feature in the landscape (e.g., a village, church, or some other distinct structure), topography, view, location vis-à-vis a water source, soil type, potential catchment, and, later, size (see below), types and dates of finds, and, when possible, function (e.g., farmstead, cemetery, or settlement). If it was clear that the site consisted of more than one chronological period, the above process was repeated for each date, focusing on the distribution of artifacts for each particular period. Some 80 sites were revisited for various reasons, such as to better define a certain chronological phase, size, or function. Material collected the previous day was studied in the afternoons. Sherds and other artifacts from each transect or portion of a site were spread on tables and sorted by fabric and date. Lessons in ceramic dating given in the afternoons made the team members fairly proficient in recognizing chronological periods when sorting. The author described and dated all artifacts. For certain categories, others

FIELD SURVEY

often helped, such as Amy Heimroth and Maryanne Schultz with prehistoric pottery, Scott Gallimore with Hellenistic and Roman pottery, Mark D. Hammond with Byzantine–Ottoman pottery, and D. Matthew Buell with stone tools. Visiting specialists (Kostas Christakis for PP, Krzysztof Nowicki for Neolithic and LM IIIC, and Brice Erickson for Geometric–Hellenistic) were especially helpful. Descriptions—consisting of an artifact count, vase shapes, imports, fabric and decoration, and chronological periods—were entered in the appropriate transect and site notebooks. At the end of each day, all data collected by the handheld GPS unit— including transect size, area, and site locations— were entered into a geographic information system (GIS) software program (i.e., ArcView) by Buell for visualization and data manipulation. Sites within the survey zone were determined through the density of a sherd scatter relative to that in the surrounding landscape. In general, sites were classified into one of four categories based on size and topographic situation: (1) urban center/ town (3.5–>6 ha); (2) village (1–3.5 ha); (3) hamlet (0.4–1 ha); and (4) farmstead (30°) and sudden changes corresponding to the azimuth of the slope direction are mainly related to faulting oriented north–south, north-northeast–south-southwest, and north-northwest–south-southeast. The comparison of the fault and stream directions suggests a strong relationship between tectonics and the drainage system. From the hydrogeological point of view, two main aquifer systems are expected to be found in the study area. The first is the hydrogeological

system of the permeable carbonate formations. The second aquifer system of alluvial Quaternary deposits is exposed on the central part of the Karteros basin. Moreover, based on the geomorphological and geological characteristics (steep slopes of easily eroded geological formations) and the available rainfall time series showing high rainfall intensity (higher than the average of Crete and the Herakleion region), the expected soil loss of the broader study area is medium to high. In conclusion, and taking into account the previous analysis, archaeological sites in the study area are generally located in low-relief areas (close to smooth slopes), covered by soft sediments, and located in the proximity of large faults strongly related to the drainage system. These characteristics allowed for intensive agriculture and at the same time offered diverse subsistence strategies.

4

Pre-Industrial Life in the Galatas Area Sabine Beckmann

This chapter describes the traditional subsistence economy (before 1960) of villages in the Galatas area. Interviews were conducted in the villages of Alagni, Astritsi, Apostoli, Sambas, and Zinta in April 2013 (Figs. 1, 2). A summary of the information from these interviews appears in the

sections on agricultural work in the fields, tasks within the family household, and activities in the village. More intensive interviews conducted in the villages of Alagni, Astritsi, and Apostoli are recorded in the last two sections.

Village Life on Crete Until the middle of the 20th century a.d., Crete was seen as an “underdeveloped area,” and visitors would note, for instance, that “relatively little change has occurred in the agricultural economy and in crop and livestock production since Minoan times” (Allbaugh 1953, 242). In many respects this was an apt description of the technological level and living standard existing on the island— together with malaria—until World War (WW) II and in many villages until the 1960s (with the exception of the major urban centers). For this reason, it is still possible to talk to people who remember the end of the pre-modern,

pre-industrial phase and what life was like then. As the seniors of every village usually come together for a coffee and an exchange of views in the local kafeneion (καφενείον; coffeehouse), this is often the right place to start an ethnographical interview about the “old times,” including issues such as the appearance of buses and then private cars. Luckily, as the owner of one of the coffeehouses was female (and in her 70s), along with the wife of one senior interviewed at her home, some female memories could also be included. The oldest man taking part was born in 1923 and thus remembered times

20

SABINE BECKMANN

before WW II; otherwise, most of the memories only go as far back as the 1950s and 1960s. For the sake of clarification, I usually explained to my interviewees that I wanted to hear about the times before private cars existed and before fields were tilled with machines, that is, before the roads were modernized. Roads before WW II were mostly unusable for cars; during the war, many of the old roads had to be made passable for heavy transport and later for buses. This was also the phase when the first telephones appeared in the villages, usually one line in the main coffeehouse. A central supply of electricity was extended to distant villages only in the 1970s and water even later than that in some places.

Working the Fields Until the 1960s, village families in Crete (and certainly in the Pediada) had a mainly subsistencebased agricultural life. Cretans usually owned several small pieces of land (often with various qualities of soil for different crops) and moveable property like a pair of cows, a few sheep or goats, a pig, hens, rabbits, a donkey for transport, and a dog for protection and/or help in cases where families had more than a few milking animals to tend. Fields were (and still are) largely spread over various areas, often hours of walk away from the villages. Cultivation included grain, olives, and vines, and inheritance was arranged so that fields for different crops were divided evenly among heirs (male and female). Teams of cattle were used for plowing the fields in autumn. Oxen were hardly ever used because the larger males would need too much fodder and water. Poorer families would share the plowing team (and sometimes even the donkey). Even with families who owned herds (usually staying in the high mountains of the Lasithi Plain area during summer), one or two goats were kept near the house for fresh milk and sometimes small amounts of cheese. These goats were fed either by taking them for a walk on a leash, tying them to poles on the family’s harvested fields (hence often part of the straw was left standing in the fields), or bringing them fresh twigs. This task was part of the foraging tours women would take during the green

half of the year (winter), collecting wild vegetables (chorta; χόρτα) for food. Tasks in the fields, such as hoeing, cutting with a sickle (drepani; δρεπάνι), winnowing, olive, almond, and carob harvesting (hitting the fruit with sticks from the trees), or leading the threshing animal(s), were usually shared between men and women, while heavy work like plowing, pruning, or cutting thick firewood was performed by men. Many of the tasks that did not need very strong arms were also fulfilled by children: hauling water from wells (and carrying it home in a jar), herding small animals, feeding animals, and collecting fruit and carob. Once the harvesting was completed, the grains had to be threshed. This was done on circular threshing floors (alonia; αλώνια), usually one per family on windy spots near the villages. Alonia are usually round, paved, or cemented surfaces upon which grain was threshed by animals. On these round spaces (diam. ca. 7–8 m, usually with an edge of upright stones) one or two cows or donkeys were led in circles, mostly pulling a threshing sledge (volosyros; βωλόσυρος), either a wooden board or a board armed on the underside with flint, often imported from Turkey and locally called nychia (νύχια, or saw-like iron sheets; see this vol., Ch. 14 and App. C) until the grain was separated from the straw (alonisma; αλώνισμα). Then the heap of grains and straw was moved to one side of the threshing floor and was thrown into the wind (i.e., winnowing or lichnisma; λίχνισμα) with a half shovel-half fork tool called a thrinaki (θρινάκι), so that straw was blown outside the circle and the heavier grain dropped inside. This was repeated until the grain was clean enough to be bagged and transported to the villages. Herding of large animals was usually undertaken by a few male members of the family. Some shepherds kept (and still keep) their herds in specific areas, such as around Voni and Thrapsano. These transhumant pastoralists would move to the higher mountains by late April and return in late autumn (before snowfall in the mountainous grazing areas), thus much of their work—including their usually perishable produce—would hardly be visible in the material record of the villages. In the mountains, typical huts and husbandry folds were kept by each family. Rocky areas surrounding the

PRE-INDUSTRIAL LIFE IN THE GALATAS AREA

lowland villages usually housed the roughly built winter folds (mandres; μάντρες) for these herds. The task of herding also included milking and making cheese (from December to May); mountain abodes for the herders (mitata; μιτάτα) contained only built benches and hearths for making cheese, although sometimes an extra hut existed as storage space (tyrospito; τυρόσπιτο).

Feeding and Caring for the Family Small plots for fruit trees (e.g., lemons, pomegranates, apricots, plums, and medlars) and vegetables (e.g., cabbages, onions, garlic, leeks [prasa; πράσα], chards [goula; γούλα], and beets [pantzaria; παντζάρια]) were located near the villages (sometimes next to houses) or below the village spring. Almonds and carob do not need much water and often grow at greater distances from the villages. In gardens next to the houses, vegetables like amaranths (vlita; βλίτα) and Jerusalem artichoke (kolokassi; κολοκάσι)—needing only very little water (e.g., what was left after washing dishes)—were cultivated in the dry seasons of summer and autumn. Other plants that could survive with little water were the so-called anydra (άνυδρα; non water) varieties of tomatoes, beans, eggplants, and zucchini, and also various kinds of melon (karpousi [καρπούζι], peponi [πεπόνι]). Animal manure and ash from the fireplaces were used for fertilizer in gardens. Other fields were left barren every now and then to enrich the soil, in rare cases planted with vetch for fodder that improved the nitrates in the soil. Farther from the villages, wild plants like black nightshade (strichnos; στρύχνος) and purslane (or portulac; glistrida; γλιστρίδα) could also be collected in the summer. Some of the small fields surrounding the villages were also used for growing dye plants (madder was still seen around Galatas [41] in 2005). Legume fields were kept as near as possible to the villages as they had to be weeded several times until harvest. Also, a few fields, such as those planted with vetch (vikos; βίκος) and oats (vromi [βρώμη]; not eaten by people in Crete), would be cultivated with animal fodder (the amount dependent on the number

21

of household animals to be fed). Most of the time tree cultures were combined with lower plant cultures if possible. Local basic staples were thus grain (barley and wheat), olives (for oil and as salted food), and various kinds of rain-fed legumes such as lentils, broad beans, chickpeas, and grass peas (lathouri [λαθούρι] or manaroli [μαναρόλι]). Here it is important not to forget the wine and the distilled raki (ρακί) or tsikoudia (τσικουδιά) that were consumed on a daily basis all over the island. Together with olive oil, they supplied an important part of the villagers’ caloric intake. Because of the area’s good soil, with the right amount of humidity for growing vines, local inhabitants had even easier access to wine than people elsewhere on Crete. While families were self-sufficient in all the basic food staples, food procured by agriculture was always enriched by other things collected in the wild, and not by just plants and snails, as most families also had some extra food from hunting and trapping (hare and birds). Wild vegetables (leaves, stems, and some roots) were an important part of the everyday diet for more than half of the year and not just a famine food (Horden and Purcell 2000, 80–81). Favorites included various kinds of cruciferous vegetables (mustards, radishes, and wild cabbage), plants belonging to the daisy family (chicories [radikio; ραδίκιο], various dandelions, sow thistles [tsochos; τσόχος], and various other wild thistles), and creepers like black bryony (avronia [αβρωνιά]) and wild asparagus (sparangi [σπαράγγι]). They were mostly eaten fresh as raw or cooked salads, but some would be preserved in salt, oil, or vinegar (capers, vine leaves, hyacinth bulbs [volvoi; βολβοί], and lupins [loupina; λούπινα]). Most of them are very bitter (some are slightly poisonous), and the water has to be changed several times during cooking to make them palatable (especially for volvoi), but there are many Cretans who actually prefer bitter vegetables. Other such foraged foods included snails (usually after rain when a longer dry period had passed) that—especially with poor families—provided a substantial part of their protein intake. In 2005 a survey team outside of Zinta was chased off a field by an irate older couple who only relented when it was explained we were not hunting for snails.

22

SABINE BECKMANN

Both snails and various preserved plants (volvoi and loupina) are among the most popular traditional foods to eat during the Orthodox season of Lent. Some families also kept bees (in long, slightly conical ceramic hives) and would thus have honey and wax. The latter was mostly used for church candles, whereas houses before electricity were illuminated by small ceramic, glass, or sheet-metal oil lamps (kandilia; καντήλια). Even though every family owned some animals, meat was very rarely consumed, as animals were kept mostly for eggs, milk, cheese, and/or wool. Typical events for meat consumption were religious festivities and other communal events (weddings and baptisms). In homes, guests would also be treated to a meal with meat (e.g., a rabbit or hen). Cretan agriculture usually yielded only a very small surplus for the villagers. Mostly, animal products and the animals themselves would be sold in local town markets for money, whereas most of the simple exchange of goods in the villages was done by trading and payment in kind. Things not locally available like sugar and coffee, and also needles, threads, and basic cutlery, were acquired from the small scale trader called a gyrologos (γυρολόγος; typically a male), equipped with one or two donkeys that carried his stock in groceries. He would make his tour over several days, covering many villages per day before restocking in his home (usually a town like Arkalochori). It was normal for him to be paid not in money but in kind, his usual currency being eggs and olive oil (for which he carried an oil jug and measuring vessels), but grain or legumes were also accepted. Naturally, he also carried information that was shared freely and made him welcome in villages. Thus, people rarely had reasons to leave their villages, and social life mostly took place among a small range of people from the same or closely neighboring villages.

Work in the Village Tasks vital to have a functioning household were numerous. The most important was the procurement of water. In many cases this task took hours,

and thus the way each village dealt with water is one of the few real differences among them. The collection of firewood was another important task. While baking ovens were mostly fired with brushwood (collected by women), fireplaces (not present in all houses; many rooms/houses were heated only by small braziers) were stoked with larger pieces of firewood, usually coming from olive (during heavy pruning) and carob trees. The latter, as well as other heavy tasks like building and creating and maintaining tools, were done by men. Agricultural tasks done in the villages (and usually next to the houses in the courts that functioned as main working areas) included sieving, cleaning, sorting, storing (grain and legumes were stored, like oil and wine, in large ceramic jars [pitharia; πιθάρια]), milling (for gruel or chondro [χόντρο]), and baking. Baking especially was a task often treated as a social event, where women came together at the best (or largest) oven in a neighborhood. Bread, raised with self-made leaven, was mostly baked in large batches with small amounts kept fresh, and most of it was baked a second time to obtain a storable kind of rusk (paximadi [παξιμάδι], or, when round with a hole, kouloura [κουλούρα]), a task that was done only several times a year. Textile work was exclusively a female task: making (and dyeing) yarn, cloth and clothes, and sheets/blankets (and other household textiles like sacks for transport), or making dye or soap (with old olive oil and lye, often from ashes). Each woman would have produced her household textiles during her teenage years (with the help of other females of the family), stored in one of the few pieces of furniture used in traditional Cretan houses, the kasela (κασέλα), a wooden chest. This would in the end contain her dowry, often begun at the age of 14 (which also used to be a normal marrying age in villages). During the preparations for the wedding, the chest’s contents would be exhibited for the whole village to see and then ritually transported in wheat straw baskets specially made for this occasion to the groom’s family house. The dowry would always remain the property of the bride. Once she had a daughter she would then start producing textiles for her dowry, and hence all the females of a household would continuously be kept

PRE-INDUSTRIAL LIFE IN THE GALATAS AREA

busy—from spinning to dyeing to weaving— producing some (grand-)daughter’s dowry. Before a wedding, the groom’s family would often build a new house for the couple. Household animals like milk goats and donkeys were kept near the families’ homes, in a room with an outer door (and sometimes a built trough in one corner). Hens and rabbits were kept farther away on the edges of the villages, usually in wooden or recycled makeshift shacks. The manure from these animals was used for fertilizing gardens. Feeding and tending them was done by whoever was available in the family. Butchering of animals (except for chickens and rabbits) was done by males. Accompanying tasks often included curing the skins (with rough salt), especially for making containers like wine- or oilskins (aski; ασκί), which were also sometimes used for curing cheese. One of the most basic village tasks was the construction and repair of the family house. Village houses were mostly built by the families themselves (sometimes with the help of stone carvers, especially for door lintels, thresholds, and window frames) using unworked stone rubble held together by mud and roughly cut logs or trunks (for framing openings if no stone carver was available or affordable, and as columns for larger rooms). Many of the well-to-do traditional houses since Venetian times have beautifully constructed arches (kamares; καμάρες) as room partitions and roof supports. Roofs were constructed flat or with a slight incline (only affluent people had tiles) by placing unworked tree trunks on top of the walls as beams and crossing these with branches, twigs, and finally rushes or other dried leaves (depending on available material), to be covered by a layer of densely packed clayey soil (domatochoma; δωματόχωμα). This was regularly checked and renewed when necessary. While cooking hearths were often constructed outside of houses (like baking ovens that were nearly always outdoors), those with a fireplace had a chimney usually made of a ceramic beehive (a long slightly conical tube), a big jug without a bottom, or sometimes (in the 20th century a.d.) even just a reused large tin container. Hearths (esties; εστίες), often just two parallel upright stones ca. 20 cm

23

apart and 20–30 cm high for supporting pots, were often integral parts of the fireplace bases and were fired with small pieces of wood in the house. Houses were plastered either with mud or a lime-sand mixture and finally whitewashed (a substantial layer of lime would also prevent the mud plaster from being washed away). Doors were made of homemade wooden boards (preferably from hard wood like Kermes oak). Windows (small so as to keep heat and cold out) had no glass, only shutters. Beds were usually either built benches or wooden loft bunks in the shape of a raised wooden platform, with a railing and a steep wooden stair or ladder to reach. These constructions had the double function of providing sleeping space on top and storage space underneath; many of the storage vessels containing valuable things like grain, oil, wine, and clothes were kept safe here. Special care was taken for the construction of baking ovens, usually set right next to the house or even touching it so that the heat of the baking process would warm the room on the other side in the cool half of the year. The firing chamber was usually built from large jug sherds, the rest with rubble and mud (for this, sometimes special kinds of mud were used to deal with the temperature differences). The metal semicircular door (more like a cover) for the chamber would be one of the few elements of the building often made by specialists, but reused sheet metal (e.g., from old oil barrels), cut and hammered to shape, was also used. In general, buildings included all kinds of recycled objects wherever necessary. Buildings needed for animal husbandry (such as outer structures like stables, hen houses, or enclosure/field walls) in the mountains would also be constructed by the men of the family. Building activities, as well as other intensive tasks like shearing sheep, were usually shared by all the available men of the larger family or clan (soi; σόϊ). Bathrooms were mostly nonexistent; bodily functions were performed under trees that needed fertilizing (preferably olives), with leaves or smooth stones utilized instead of paper.

24

SABINE BECKMANN

Traditional Agriculture and Life in the Villages of Alagni and Astritsi Until the 1960s, the land around Alagni and Astritsi was given over to subsistence agriculture, based mainly on the typical “Mediterranean quartet” (Sarpaki 1992) of grain, vines, olives, and pulses, in a mixed agricultural regime where each family also had five to 10 ovicaprids, some hens, the usual donkey/mule, and one cow (or in cases of affluent families, two) for plowing. These oxen are usually called bodia (βόδια) in Crete. Plowing was done with a pair of cows (zevgari; ζευγάρι); in cases where families only had one cow they would team up with kin to make a pair. Cereals grown (fed by the winter rain) were mainly wheat and barley, as well as oats for the animals. This regime differs from other regions in Crete, especially mountainous or dry areas, where barley was the main cereal crop (Stallsmith 2004; Beckmann 2012). With a small family vegetable garden and the products gained from the animals (cheese, eggs, very little meat, and wool), plus the oil, grain (with pulses), and various products from the vines (mainly wine, raisins, and tsikoudia), families would be able to cover their main subsistence needs. In the central town of this area, Arkalochori, a weekly market would provide occasions to sell the small available surplus (usually oil, some eggs, and grain) as well as the occasional animal or hide. Animals sold at market would be driven as herds back through Alagni, passing toward Herakleion along the main north–south road that connects Herakleion and Viannos, by the butchers who had bought them. In the early years after WW II, the old Ottoman system of tax collection was still in use, where the moukatas (μουκατάς; Turkish for tax collector) would come directly to the threshing floors (most families had one of their own) and claim, in kind, the amount due to the state or community. Activities like dyeing wool with plants used to be done until the 1950s in the villages. One villager remembered his grandmother doing this task in his early childhood. A field near Galatas overgrown with dyer’s madder (for the color red) was encountered during the survey. The animals’ wool would be processed within the family for blankets, rugs, and underwear, whereas the woven linen/cotton

objects for the entire household (e.g., bedclothes, tablecloths, towels, handkerchiefs, and lace) would be woven or knitted by the households’ women with purchased yarn. In Alagni and Astritsi, several products were manufactured locally. A tailor (who imported cloth bought in Arkalochori or Kastelli), a shoemaker (who bought his leather from Herakleion), and two saddlers plied their crafts. A rope maker used local rushes for ropes and muzzles for animals. Astritsi also had a man who shoed horses. The local blacksmith who produced the horseshoes lived in the nearby village of Patsideros. This blacksmith, who worked iron, was called a chalkias (χαλκιάς; copper worker), even though he did not work any copper (coppersmiths could be found only in Herakleion). Patsideros also had a basket maker who used local plants (oleander and reeds) as well. The oleander (Nerium oleander) that grows along winter torrent beds and at other humid spots was used for a special kind of large basket (kophinas; κοφινάς) used during grape harvest and carried by donkeys in pairs. Several other crafts were available on an itinerant basis. Once per year, a potter from Thrapsano (see this vol., App. I) would come to Alagni and set up his kiln west of Astritsi to make pitharia on demand. A ganotis (γανωτής; galvanizer) re-galvanized traditional cheap-plate silverware that had become oxidized (and hence poisonous), as well as the inside of the copper cauldrons used for the distillation of tsikoudia. An itinerant knife sharpener also passed through the villages. Water for Alagni came from a spot ca. 150 m to the south called Langada (at present a green depression since the small spring dried up) or from Pano Vrysi (upper spring), which had only just enough water for humans to drink. Animals were watered from the many wells in the village. Astritsi had a larger spring at the Karteros River at the bottom of the Astritsi Gorge at Neraidospilio (Nymph Cave), where myth has it that nymphs lived and enchanted people (pers. comm. with local villagers). Once, a local woman danced with them until the morning, when, at cockcrow, she was set free and the nymphs disappeared.

PRE-INDUSTRIAL LIFE IN THE GALATAS AREA

25

Traditional Agriculture and Life in the Village of Apostoli Apostoli had families engaged in subsistence agriculture, as described above. The plain south of Apostoli was excellent agricultural land and could be planted with beans not needing much water, called anydra (άνυδρα); the black-eyed variety is called mavromatika (μαυρομάτικα). The sowing could be done as late as May 20, as there used to be enough humidity in the soil to make the plants grow even toward the summer (other legumes of Mediterranean origin grow over the winter and can be harvested by June). This means that the soil around Apostoli also had enough humidity to sustain wheat (not just barley, as it had less of a need for water). Water for the village of Apostoli comes from local wells, for there is no running water in the vicinity. The only spring in the area is at a place west of Sambas (71; near to the old Church of the Panagia [81]) called Mourtelia, where Thrapsaniotes used to make pitharia (the area has especially good pitharochoma [πιθαρόχωμα], or potting clay). There were two kilns there, and they are said to be still partly visible. The region of Limnes (lakes), a large plain situated directly southeast of the village, does not, despite its name, have standing water most of the year. Being the lowest spot in the area, however, water sometimes collects there after strong rains, vanishing shortly thereafter through several chonaria (χωνάρια; sinkholes). Two of these sinkholes are still visible today (only close to the village of Zoophori does water collect for long periods of time during the winter; hence, Zoophori was afflicted with malaria). The mid-19th century a.d. authors Thomas Spratt (1865, 94) and

Elpis Melena (1892, 214–215) described the area of Limnes as barren and treeless. Locals state that this was due to the Thrapsano villagers (with their herd of 40 donkeys) travelling to the other villages and especially to the land of the Monastery of Angarathos, north of Sambas (71), to cut every flammable bush for their kilns (they paid the monastery). They even took the thorny burnet (astivides; αστιβίδες), low flammable bushes that are difficult to cut. Next to agriculture, trade was the most important activity in Apostoli, perhaps because the village was situated on the main east–west road of the Upper Pediada. After the power of the Ottoman janissaries was broken in the mid 19th century a.d., people from the Lasithi Plain came down and settled Apostoli in order to facilitate trade with Herakleion. These people were called kirantzides (κιραντζίδες) and made about two tours per week into the mountains and over to the Katharo Plain and the Malles area to the east, buying and transporting animals, honey, oil, and eggs (Lasithi eggs were said to be lighter than Pediada ones, i.e., 27 Lasithi eggs weighed the same as 23 Pediada eggs). Even hair (from pigs) for brushes was traded in Herakleion. About 50 such people were once engaged in this trade. Apostoli was not unique in this respect. An inn (site 99, the chani; see this vol., Ch. 14) west of Apostoli, near the village of Philissia, was a popular halfway stopover for travelers on the two-day journey between Lasithi and Herakleion. Finally, in Apostoli there is also said to have been a tannery (vyrsodepsio; βυρσοδεψείο) in the village (toponym Tzichane), even though it had only one well close to it.

Part II

Prehistoric Settlement and Society

5

First Settlers D. Matthew Buell

This chapter begins with a presentation of the Neolithic settlement data and associated finds collected by the survey. It concludes with an assessment

of the wider implications of this survey data and a detailing of the social, political, and economic organization of the area in the Neolithic period.

Neolithic Settlements The earliest settlements recognized by the project date to the Final Neolithic (FN) period (3600– 3000 b.c.; Fig. 9). Since Paleolithic–Mesolithic stone tools were only identified on Crete quite recently at Gavdos (Kopaka and Matzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al. 2010, 2011), it is possible that our survey missed such evidence. In total, we recorded 11 sites (14, 21, 27, 36, 74, 92, 113, 114, 115, Plati [138] Kastellos [139]) belonging to the FN period (Table 1). The ceramic sequence of this period is not well known in the Upper Pediada, but the absence of rippled and incised decoration on vessels implies that our Neolithic sites date to no earlier than the FN III period (ca. 3600–3300 b.c.). More specifically, based on comparisons with ceramics from Knossos (see this vol., App. B), it appears

as though only one settlement in our survey area, site 113, belongs to the latter part of the FN III period, while all others date to the FN IV period (ca. 3300–3000 b.c.). Early Neolithic (EN)–LN sites in the Galatas area may be absent as a result of their often small size and worn material remains, combined with natural and anthropogenic factors, including erosion and deposition, especially in the western part of our survey zone (see this vol., Ch. 3), and over-building by later settlements. Neolithic sites in our survey region were concentrated in two areas: along the eastern side of the Karteros River valley, and on its western side along the ridge between the modern towns of Astritsi and Zinta. The positioning of these settlements along the Karteros River, a vital north–south

30

D. MATTHEW BUELL

communication route, stands as evidence for an interest in maintaining coastal contacts, especially with North-Central Crete. Most FN settlements were located near one another, often no more than 1.3 km away from their nearest neighbor, implying that they were in contact (Fig. 9). With the exception of site 115, which is uniquely located on a plain near the base of a low hill, FN sites were positioned on hilltops, overlooking arable land near perennial water sources (e.g., Modi [27], Pl. 8A). Their elevated positions and command of agricultural catchments suggests that the Neolithic inhabitants of the Galatas area were interested in cereal production and perhaps pastoralism. This topographic positioning may also indicate that defense was a concern. Perhaps, given their close spatial proximity to one another and presumed contact with one another, the founding of settlements in defensible locations may have been a reaction to threats from outside the survey zone. In light of this, we might conclude that the FN settlement patterns indicate that communities of the Galatas area were independent, self-sufficient agricultural entities, well connected with each other as well as with other settlements in Central Crete via the Karteros River. Most Neolithic settlements identified by the Galatas Survey Project were small, usually no more than 0.30 ha in size. Based on his observation of building density and the size of houses at Neolithic Knossos, Todd Whitelaw (2012, 149–150, table 150) suggests that Neolithic settlements in general may have possessed a density approaching 200 persons per hectare. Although we cannot precisely identify the function of the FN sites of the Galatas area, their size suggests that they were settlements consisting perhaps of 10 households at the most (e.g., 21, 36, 113, and Plati [138]). Site 114 (Pl. 8B), which is located on the high Platilas hilltop just south of the modern town of Alagni, is exceptional, however, in that cultural remains there were spread over a large area (ca. 2.16 ha) on multiple terraces. Based on its size, Platilas (114) may have been a fairly large village with upward of 400 individuals. The eroded and deeply plowed soil on the hilltop revealed the remains of six separate structures constructed out of large fieldstones (Pls. 9A–10A). On-site collection of pottery in close proximity to the six structures provides a potential FN IV date. A large number of animal bones (both ovicaprid and bovine; pers. comm., L. Snyder), in direct association

with Neolithic pottery, were found in fresh plow scars at the site. If these bones belong to the Neolithic period, they may be evidence for some degree of local animal husbandry and domestication at this settlement. Ultimately, this site appears to represent a large, sedentary FN IV village. Its size as compared to the average size (ca. 0.30 ha) of the other FN sites, and its distance away from its next nearest neighbor (ca. 2 km), suggest that it was a settlement of some local importance in the Galatas area in the FN IV period, perhaps serving as a demographic center. Final Neolithic sites produced pottery (Pl. 10B) as well as chipped and ground stone objects. Most ceramic vessels were locally made, often in the deep red or orange fabric typical of Pediada clay sources (see this vol., App. B). These vessels were typically burnished inside and out or wiped. The ceramic assemblages at our sites were mostly comprised of domestic wares, including bowls, jars, dishes, cooking pots, trays, chalices, and a cheese pot. The cheese pot found at Modi (27) is of particular note because these vessels appear in other parts of the Aegean (cf. Renfrew 1972, 141; Broodbank 2000, 83), and it may therefore serve as evidence of contact with other areas, such as the Dodecanese (Nowicki 2002, 59). Panagiotakis also discovered cheese pot fragments at Modi (27) during his survey (Papadatos and Tomkins 2011, 731– 732, 736). Finally, three sites (Modi [27], 92, Plati [138]) produced calcite-tempered wares (i.e., marble ware; see this vol., App. B), a rare FN IV–EM I fabric often considered to be Cycladic in origin (Day and Wilson 2004). Like the cheese pot, the presence of marble ware vessels within site assemblages might point toward contact with centers located abroad. Locally available red and greenish-gray nodular chert and Melian obsidian were employed in the production of chipped stone tools. Although most sites produced chert and obsidian objects, twice as many chert items were recovered as compared to obsidian. Only two sites (114, 115) demonstrated a preference for the use of obsidian over chert. Based on the presence of wiped ware (FN–EM I) vessels at both of these sites, as well as a pressureflaked blade at site 115, a technology that does not appear until the end of the FN period (Carter 2003, 2004; D’Annibale 2008, 191), these two settlements more than likely date to the end of the FN

FIRST SETTLERS

period. If this is the case, it may be that access to obsidian, and hence contact with coastal zones and areas abroad (i.e., Melos), was limited in earlier periods and more freely available toward the end of the Neolithic period. Once obsidian was more available, it became favored by the residents of our survey area, perhaps because the locally available chert is severely faulted, only occurs in small river nodules, and is not particularly well suited for the production of tools. Chipped stone assemblages included cores, debitage, debris, and flaked tools, as well as scrapers, retouched flakes, drills, one blade, and one chertbacked knife (Pl. 11A). The site assemblages (typically with evidence for all reduction stages as well as use) indicate that chipped stone objects were being created, modified, and used at most sites. The assemblage of site 115, however, was unusual in that, unlike all of the other FN sites, it did not contain any cores or primary or secondary flakes. Instead, the assemblage consisted of two flaked tools, a blade and a razor-like cutting tool, both of which were heavily utilized, and a large number of small debitage flakes with multiple scars and many small finishing flakes. The evidence suggests that tools were being sharpened and re-sharpened, but not produced, at this site. A recent deep plow scar at site 115 revealed 32 animal bones mixed with some

31

Neolithic ceramics as well as one black steatite pendant (see this vol., App. D; Pl. 11B). The unique topographic location of site 115 and unusual assemblage suggest that this site may have served some special purpose, perhaps one connected to game processing and/or eating. The ground stone implements recovered from Neolithic sites include celts, rubbers, pounders, mortars, and querns. With the exception of the celts, ground stone objects were manufactured from locally available limestone or sandstone. The rubbers, pounders, mortars, and querns form the parts of a standardized tool kit, reflecting a diet based on cereal products, which were no doubt grown on the plains below the sites (see this vol., App. C). A miniature ovate celt was found at site 14, while site 36 produced a trapezoidal granodiorite celt (see this vol., App. C; Pl. 11C). The celt from site 14 is perhaps from the Lendas region on the southern coast (see Strasser 2004, 62–63 for comments on stone sources), while that from site 36 was created from granodiorite that may have come from the area of the Gulf of Mirabello in East Crete (see, e.g., Strasser 2004, 62–63; 2008, 156–158). The presence of these celts in our FN assemblages suggests that fairly sophisticated procurement strategies and trade systems connecting our survey zone to other parts of the island were in existence at this time (cf. Strasser 2004, 61).

Final Neolithic Society in the Galatas Area At present, the available data suggests that the survey area around Galatas was first inhabited in the FN III period. The population of the region may have then increased through the FN IV period, culminating in the founding of several settlements, presumably possessing a number of aggregated households. One large, perhaps paramount, site (114) also appeared at this time. The increase in size and number of settlements through the Neolithic period is a general Aegean-wide phenomenon (e.g., Warren and Tzedakis 1974; Broodbank 2000, 153–156; Nowicki 2008a). On Crete, both Knossos (cf. Evans 1971; Whitelaw 2004, 156) and Phaistos (cf. Vagnetti 1972–1973) witness increases in settlement size through the Neolithic period. And finally, recent survey projects on the island also demonstrate that the FN period was

a time of expansion (e.g., for East Crete, Watrous and Schultz 2012, 17–19; for Central Crete, Panagiotakis 2003, 342–343; for South Crete, Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou, 2004d; and for West Crete, Moody 1987a, 284–290). Our survey data, therefore, parallels developments from other parts of the island. The establishment of many new settlements in our survey zone represents a movement away from the coast to an area that hitherto had not been exploited. Panagiotakis’s (2003, 342, map 1) survey of the entire Pediada reveals that the area around Galatas was the most densely occupied part of Central Crete, with the exception of the coastal zone. Final Neolithic settlers of the Galatas area no doubt chose their location based on agricultural potential, a situation that is reflected by

32

D. MATTHEW BUELL

the foundation of settlements overlooking arable land and the control of sizeable agricultural catchments. This colonization of a more marginal area (as opposed to the coast) may be the result of a variety of factors, including population pressures on the coast itself, perhaps caused by the arrival of new settlers to the island, as well as coastal productive failures, which, in turn, may have spurred a need for economic diversification and hence a movement inland (cf. Tomkins 2008, 39). Settlement of new areas in the uplands of the island may also be connected to the so-called secondary products revolution, as new settlers moved to these zones in order to keep larger flocks of sheep and goats (cf. Sherratt 1981). Whatever the reason(s) for this expansion may be, it is clear that the FN settlements of the Galatas area were self-sufficient communities that shared a similar economic basis, which itself revolved around agricultural production and animal husbandry, a situation typical of what we know about the Neolithic economy elsewhere on Crete (Halstead 1981a; Vagnetti, Christopoulou, and Tzedakis 1989). Not only does the topographic situation of FN settlements in our survey zone point toward an economic concern for agricultural production, but it also implies that there was a need for defense. The positioning of settlements on defensible hilltops in both coastal and inland zones in the FN period is a

general phenomenon of this period (Sherratt 1981; Watrous 1982; Halstead 1994, 200; Gkiasta 2008, 211). The small size of most FN settlements in the Galatas area, their close spatial proximity to one another, and their similar economic basis strongly indicates that these settlements were not competing with one another, but were instead closely affiliated. Because most of the FN settlements in our survey zone seem to have been small, perhaps consisting of no more than a few households, they would have been susceptible to extinction, especially when there were fluctuations in available labor and/or environmental failure (Tomkins 2005, 40). Individual households must have relied on social relationships, which probably took the form of exchange networks, alliances, and obligations, with other households in nearby settlements (cf. Tomkins 2005, 40). In light of this discussion, it seems more likely, therefore, that the concern for safety was a response to threats from external (i.e., nonlocal) population groups. The abandonment at the end of the FN period of the locally important Platilas (114), as well as sites 113 and 115, the latter perhaps a site of special significance, may stand as evidence for conflict. Such abandonments of FN settlements prior to the Prepalatial (PreP) period have been witnessed in Central Crete on the plain of Lasithi and to the east in the area of Praisos.

Conclusion Despite threats from outsiders, the FN people of the Galatas area were clearly interacting in some fashion with settlements in other areas of Crete, as suggested by the presence of celts made from materials from the Lendas region of South Crete and East Crete in our ground stone assemblage. Melian obsidian and imported pottery (i.e., marble ware) at some of our Neolithic sites, as well as foreign influences on locally made ceramic vessels (i.e., cheese pots), also indicates that the FN settlements of the Galatas area were connected to coastal establishments and those farther abroad. The positioning of FN settlements close to the Karteros River, the vital north–south communication route, further corroborates the interest that the FN inhabitants of the Galatas area took in maintaining

contact with the coastal settlements. Although we do not know how economic interactions with other parts of the island or establishments farther abroad operated, it is clear that they were not one sided nor exploitative, as high-status objects (obsidian) circulated throughout the Galatas area. Indeed, the broad distribution of obsidian and the evidence for its working at many settlements suggest that access may not have been too restricted in earlier periods of the FN, and that it may have actually increased toward the end of the Neolithic. At both Knossos and Phaistos, political agents (perhaps powerful family or kin groups) had established themselves in the FN period. At Knossos, for example, these individuals initiated a program of clearing and alterations to the FN settlement,

FIRST SETTLERS

which included a facility for large-scale, ritualized group feasting (Tomkins 2012, 40–42, 65). A similar space may have been laid out at Phaistos (Todaro and Di Tonto 2008; Todaro 2012; Tomkins 2012, 43). At present, especially without excavation, it is difficult to determine with any certainty how FN sociopolitical systems of the Galatas area operated. Based on the settlement evidence alone,

33

there may have been some hierarchy of settlement because one large settlement (114) existed, perhaps serving as a paramount center in the Galatas area. At the same time, however, the similar economic basis, even wealth distribution, and close economic and social relationships among the settlements of our area imply that there was also a developed social heterarchy in operation at this time.

6

Prepalatial Growth in Social Complexity D. Matthew Buell

The first section of this chapter presents the Prepalatial (PreP; EM I–MM IA) settlement data and finds from the Galatas Survey Project. The results are then compared to those from other recent

regional surveys in Crete. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the various aspects of PreP society in the Galatas area, including demography, subsistence and trade, and social organization.

Prepalatial Settlements We treat the PreP period as a single chronological entity due to problems in distinguishing ceramic groups belonging to specific phases of this larger period (see this vol., App. B). The survey registered 42 PreP sites, an increase of 31 from the FN period (cf. Figs. 9, 10; Tables 1, 2). The total number of PreP sites identified by the survey, however, must be considered to be a minimum number because some sites, especially in the western part of the study zone, may be lost due to erosion, while others in low-lying areas may have been buried by colluvium or alluvium (see this vol., Ch. 3, pp. 14–18). In addition, later occupations may have obscured PreP remains. The rise in the overall number of settlements between the FN and PreP

periods stands in contrast to Panagiotakis’s results (2003, 344), as he recorded a decline in the number settlements between the two periods. The explanation for this discrepancy may be because Panagiotakis’s survey was an extensive one, whereas our survey was more intensive and aimed at full coverage (see this vol., Ch. 1). Of the 11 FN settlements detected by the survey, three (113, 114, 115) did not continue into the PreP era. Several FN sites (14, 21, 36, Plati [138] Kastellos [139]), however, were occupied throughout the entirety of the prehistoric period, perhaps because of the desirability of their locations. Sites 14, 21, and 36, for example, are located along the Karteros River, the primary communication and trade route through the

36

D. MATTHEW BUELL

area, while Plati (138) and Kastellos (139) sit on easily defended hilltops of the Patsideros-Zinta ridge (Fig. 10). A number of new settlements were founded in the PreP period in areas that had hitherto not been exploited (cf. Figs. 9, 10). The well-watered Limnes Plain, located between the modern towns of Thrapsano and Apostoli, for example, was occupied for the first time in the PreP period, as five new settlements (46, 54, 57, 123, 124) were established here. In addition, nine sites (18, 28, 129, 145, 147, 150, 151, 155, Paratiritirion [157]) were founded on the hills and ridges ringing the fertile ZintaArkalochori plain. Final Neolithic site Kastellos (139) also possessed evidence for a PreP habitation. Both the Philissia and Voni Plains, which were first settled in the FN period, were more densely occupied in the PreP period, as 11 new settlements (Philissia Plain: 76, 79, Trochaloi [80], 95; Voni Plain: 64, Sambas [71], 73, 75, 78, 81, 89) appeared at this time. Final Neolithic sites Modi (27), Anamomyloi (74), and 92 also continued. Likewise, eight new settlements (1, 10, 25, Galatiani Kephala [44], Orphanou Marathia [110], Patiteria [120], 141, 142) appeared on the Alagni-Astritsi plain, while FN sites 14, 36, and Plati (138) also remained in use. Most (68%) PreP sites were founded on hilltops overlooking expansive agricultural catchments, continuing a pattern established in the FN period. Such a topographic placement may represent a sustained concern for defense. Unlike the FN period, however, a number of settlements were also positioned on gentle slopes or saddles (18, 89, 92, 95, Orphanou Marathia [110], 129, 141, 142) or in lowlying locations on valley floors (75, 78, 81; cf. Figs. 9, 10). More settlements may have been founded in the valleys of the survey area, especially in the Zinta-Arkalochori plain, but these may have been buried underneath alluvial deposits, and hence they were not detected by the archaeological survey (see this vol., Ch. 3, p. 18). Although most PreP settlements were positioned near a water source and arable land, at least four sites (18, 46, 76, Patiteria [120]) were situated some distance away (ca. 250– 300 m) from these features. The founding of settlements in lower locations at the edges of agricultural zones may imply a continued interest in cereal production, while the appearance of settlements in more marginal areas points toward an increased

reliance on dry farming, perhaps the result of a greater year-round rainfall (see this vol., Ch. 3, pp. 16–17; Moody 2009, 247). Because most settlements possessed land suitable for the cultivation of cereals as well as olive and vine crops, it seems as though PreP inhabitants of the Galatas area practiced a polycrop agricultural regimen. In addition, the settlement pattern also implies that residents of the Galatas area were concerned with raising stock, perhaps using animals for traction plowing and their secondary products to supplement diets. Based on their sherd scatters, at least half of all PreP settlements (1, 10, 14, 25, 27, 46, 54, 57, 64, 74, 76, 80, 81, 89, 120, 123, 129, 138, 141, 145, 147) seem to have been small, no more than 0.03–0.16 ha in size (Fig. 10). Two additional sites (Kastellos [139] and 151) probably belong to this category as well. Taking into account the size of PreP houses and their spatial proximity to one another, as observed at excavated settlements (e.g., Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, Vasiliki, Trypiti, and Hagia Photia), as well as their probable composition (i.e., a nuclear family of five individuals), Whitelaw (1983; 2001; 2007; 2012, 150–151, table 4.1) argues reasonably that PreP settlement densities may have been as high as 300–400 persons per ha (cf. 200–300 persons per ha in the Neolithic period). Whitelaw’s population multiplier, therefore, indicates that the smaller PreP settlements of the Galatas area possessed populations of two to 10 households. Fourteen settlements (33%; 18, 21, 36, 73, 75, 78, 79, 92, 95, Orphanou Marathia [110], Korakia [134], 142, 150, 155) were distinctively larger, possessing areas of 0.21–0.78 ha. Using Whitelaw’s population multiplier once again suggests that these larger settlements may have been hamlets of 10–20 households (ca. 50–100 people). The two largest settlements, Sambas (71) and Paratiritirion (157), possessed areas of more than 1 ha, and perhaps, as is the case for Paratiritirion (157), even upward of 2 ha. Sambas (71; Fig. 10; Pls. 12A, 12B), which has been the focus of recent excavations under the direction of Galanaki, is located on a high hill overlooking the broad Voni Plain below. Its topographic placement is well suited for defense as well as for controlling communication routes into the Voni and Limnes Plains. Sambas (71) is best known for a large (67 cm tall) Cycladic-style stone statuette, which was found by villagers in 1982 (Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983).

PREPALATIAL GROWTH IN SOCIAL COMPLEXITY

Though the precise size of the PreP settlement at Sambas (71) is unknown because the nucleus of the settlement is buried beneath the modern village (K. Galanaki, pers. comm.), a reasonable estimate, based on sherd scatters around the modern town, may be in the 1–1.5 ha range. Sambas (71), therefore, may have possessed a population of around 300–350 people. Paratiritirion (157) is located on the largest hill south of Arkalochori, overlooking the Zinta Plain. Like Sambas (71), Paratiritirion (157) also overlooks an important communication route: the southward extension of the Karteros River into the Mesara. Based on its estimated size (ca. 1.8 ha), Paratiritirion (157) may have possessed a population of more than 500 individuals. The population estimates for both Sambas (71) and Paratiritirion (157), therefore, indicate that these two settlements may have been fairly sizeable PreP villages. Two additional settlements, Galatiani Kephala (44) and Prophetes Elias (28), both of which were first occupied in the PreP period, warrant some comment, because they developed into sites of importance in later periods. Galatiani Kephala (44) is founded on a high hill, overlooking the Karteros River. Indeed, the Kephala is the most prominent hill on this north–south communication route. Good cereal-producing land is located some distance (ca. 500 m) to the north and east. At Galatiani Kephala (44), despite intensive survey of the site on several occasions, the survey project only identified a limited amount of PreP finds and some chipped stone toward the northeastern edge of the hilltop. The excavators of the Neopalatial (NP) palace have noted PreP deposits in the northwestern, western, and southern parts of the hill but not in the area of the later palace (K. Christakis, pers. comm.). Prophetes Elias (28) sits on a hilltop crowned by the chapel of Prophetes Elias in the present day town of Arkalochori (Fig. 10; Pl. 13A). The Karteros River is located about 1 km west of the settlement, while good cereal land is immediately to its north and east. A cave on the western slope of the hill, directly below its summit, was first excavated by Hazzidakis in 1911 (1912–1913, 35–37), and later by Marinatos (1962). Hazzidakis’s excavations, which focused on the entrance of the cave, produced obsidian blades and much EM I–IIA pottery, consisting of burnished cups, jugs, a teapot, a fruitstand, a pyxis, and several Pyrgos Ware

37

vessels, including a chalice (Hazzidakis 1912– 1913, 39–40, figs. 4–6). Marinatos’s (1962) later excavations, however, did not turn up much in the way of PreP materials, suggesting that in the PreP period only the mouth of the cave was used. The finds and their spatial location indicate that the cave was solely used for burials in the PreP period (cf. Xanthoudides 1918 for a similar example at Pyrgos). The PreP settlement is now buried by the subsequent and extensive Protopalatial (PP)– Roman occupation. In light of this discussion, the PreP settlements of the Galatas area are divided into four categories of sites: (1) large settlements/villages of more than 1 ha; (2) medium-sized settlements/hamlets possessing areas of 0.21–0.78 ha; (3) small settlements with areas of 0.03–0.16 ha; and (4) one cemetery. When combined, the population densities of these settlements suggest that the Galatas area possessed a population approaching 3,370–4,480 individuals. This number can only serve as a minimum estimate because we do not know the sizes of PreP Galatiani Kephala (44) and the settlement at Prophetes Elias (28; see above). Nevertheless, the estimated population, when compared to that of the FN period (ca. 900 individuals), represents a growth of ca. 2,450–3,560 individuals, which, in turn, suggests a considerable expansion in local population. The average distance of 650 m between PreP settlements is less than the FN average of 1.3 km (Fig. 10). As a result, PreP settlements communicated visually with their neighbors and were never more than a short walk away. Their small size and distance from one another indicates that these settlements possessed agricultural catchments that were large enough to sustain their estimated populations. Despite their self-sufficiency, the small size of most of these settlements implies that they would have had to rely on exchange networks, alliances, and obligations with their neighbors in order to offset their own inviability. The two largest centers (Sambas [71], Paratiritirion [157]) were situated farther away from their nearest neighbors (ca. 1 km), implying that they possessed agricultural catchments sizeable enough to sustain their larger populations (Fig. 10). If we consider that two individuals can be sustained for a full year on 1 ha of cereal land (Blanton 2004, 211; see also Christakis 2008, 34), while twice the amount of people can be supported if the land is

38

D. MATTHEW BUELL

used for intensive garden horticulture or polycrop regimes (cf. Whitelaw 2012, 161), we can estimate the agricultural catchments of Sambas (71) and Paratiritirion (157). These two settlements would have required territories of a minimum (i.e., garden) of 1.35 km² and a maximum (i.e., cereal) of 3.6 km². Notational circles using both the minimum and maximum numbers placed around these two settlements suggest that they possessed territories sufficient enough to meet the dietary requirement of their putative populations (Fig. 10). Because other settlements were not located within these putative territories, there does not appear to have been an obvious hierarchal relationship between these settlements and their neighbors. As was the case for the FN material remains, those of the PreP period were not often found in transects. Our PreP ceramic assemblages exhibited continuity with those of the FN period, especially in the use of a red coarse fabric, which is used for a wide variety of vessels, including bowls, jugs, chalices, dishes, and cooking pots (see this vol., App. B, pp. 205–206). In some cases, these vessels are burnished, and they occasionally possessed horizontal or vertical wipe marks. Generally speaking, the ceramic repertoire of the Galatas area is marked by its conservatism. Nevertheless, there is a greater diversity in the ceramic repertoire of the PreP period as compared to the FN because at the beginning of the PreP period (in EM I) fine gray ware chalices and bowls, which are burnished and self-slipped (or “self-same”; slip is the same clay as the body), were identified on several sites. In addition, vessels (e.g., cups, jugs, and bowls) made in a fine-buff fabric appeared at some PreP sites. These locally made vessels are sometimes decorated with wiped parallel vertical or horizontal lines or painted in a dark color. Rare in the PreP period, vessels in this buff fabric became common in the Protopalatial (PP) and NP periods. Sherds belonging to large pithoi were found at several sites (14 [Pl. 13B:b], 54, 76, 92, 142, 147) for the first time. In other parts of Crete, pithoi first appeared during EM I (Warren 1972, 143; Day and Wilson 2004, 47; Betancourt 2013), and they became common by EM IIB. At Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, for example, three pithoi were found dating to EM IIA, while 44 dated to EM IIB (Warren 1972). The inclusion of pithoi within the local ceramic assemblages corroborates the settlement data

for an expansion of agricultural production (esp. in terms of accounting for seasonal fluctuations in the availability of food resources; cf. Halstead and O’Shea, eds., 1989; Christakis 2011, 199). There is also a social aspect in the development and functioning of storage practices, in that it plays a role in the generation of surplus, which both guaranteed the household’s economic livelihood and could be used to enhance its social standing. The adaptation of new storage practices, therefore, may stand as evidence for developments in both agricultural production and social complexity. Only five PreP sites (92, 95, Korakia [134], 145, Paratiritirion [157]) produced imported ceramic vessels, including six marble ware vessels (two at site 92, two at Korakia [134], and one each at site 145 and Paratiritirion [157]), one Hagios Onouphrios Ware jug spout (Korakia [134]; Pl. 14A:f), and one possible Barbotine Ware vessel (95). The presence of these vessels within site assemblages indicates that residents of the Galatas area were participating in economic exchange networks with centers to the north and south. Interestingly, four of the sites where imported vessels have been found (92, 95, 145, Paratiritirion [157]) are located on the key communication route running along the Karteros river between North Crete and the Mesara (Fig. 10). Sites 92 and 95 are situated in the northern part of our survey zone, overlooking the pass heading northward to the coast, while site 145 and Paratiritirion (157) are located to the south, above the route to the Mesara. Given their topographic positions, these four settlements may have played some role in, or at least benefitted from, the north–south trade interactions running through the Galatas area. At least half of all PreP sites produced ground stone implements, including rubbers, pounders, and querns, constructed out of local limestone or sandstone. The presence of these objects in site assemblages implies a continued interest in the cultivation and processing of agricultural products. Celts were found at sites 18, Galatiani Kephala (44), 74, and 92 (Pl. 14B). All of these celts were constructed out of serpentinite—in contrast to those found at Neolithic sites, which were made from diorite or granodiorite (cf. Pls. 11C, 14B). Because the closest deposits of serpentinite to our survey zone are about 30 km away, near Gonies on the northern side of the Mt. Ida massif (Warren et al. 1968, 239 n. 1; Strasser 2004, 62), it seems as

PREPALATIAL GROWTH IN SOCIAL COMPLEXITY

though PreP residents of the Galatas area were participating in larger exchange networks outside of the Pediada. All four celts possessed unworked butt ends and all were well used, exhibiting evidence for wear, scarring, and fracture marks. The PreP celt assemblage may, therefore, point toward land clearance, presumably for agricultural purposes; this situation is corroborated by the paleobotanical evidence from coring, which indicates that PreP Crete was more densely wooded than in later periods (Rackham and Moody 1996, 125–127). Chipped stone objects were found at 20 PreP sites. As was the case for the FN period, PreP knappers used locally available greenish-gray chert or Melian obsidian. With the exception of site 21 and Plati (138), obsidian dominated the chipped stone assemblages of PreP sites, presumably because the local chert is heavily faulted and not well suited for stone tool production. The chipped stone assemblages—both chert and obsidian—include fragments of cores, debris, debitage, and flaked tools (Pl. 14C). Ten large chert cores were also found by the survey, while only two obsidian ones were identified. The two obsidian cores were fairly large and multidirectional, suggesting that obsidian was imported to some sites as fair-sized nodules. Nevertheless, because proportionally fewer obsidian cores were found by the survey, obsidian may have been imported into the area most often as roughly prepared blanks or preforms.

39

In total, the survey collected 68 debitage flakes, 15 of which are chert, while the rest are obsidian. The majority of obsidian flakes are small in length, with the largest being 31 mm. Although some (30%) appear to be complete or, at the very least, nearly complete, most are quite small, have multiple flake scars, and are incomplete. This pattern is in stark contrast to the chert flakes, which were larger on average, with more than half being complete and often having no or few flake scars. Pressure-flaked prismatic blades were the most abundant flaked tool, with 28 found spread among eight different sites. The majority of blades are broken, medial fragments. Macroscopic analysis revealed that several were heavily utilized and that six were retouched. Apart from the blades, three end scrapers, five retouched flakes, one possible scraper/razor, and one utilized flake were also identified. When viewed collectively, although some residents of the Galatas area seem to have possessed access to obsidian—which could be imported as both preformed blanks and large chunks—the material seems to have been valued because tools were frequently repaired and raw materials were frequently intensively reduced. Obsidian may have been obtained directly from Poros-Katsambas, which is located about 26 km away and is close to the Karteros River where there is evidence for importing and working obsidian on a large scale (Dimopoulou 1997, 433–434).

Prepalatial Society in the Galatas Area The PreP settlement pattern is to some degree a continuation of that established in the FN period, as it consisted primarily of a number of small sites located on hilltops (cf. Figs. 9, 10). What is different, however, is that a small number of new sites were founded in lower areas and in more marginal locations, often at some distance from water sources. There is also a disparity in both the number of settlements between the two periods and in their estimated populations (a difference of around 2,450–3,560 individuals). The rise in both settlement numbers and overall population has been noted for other parts of Crete, including East Crete (i.e., the Vrokastro, Kavousi, and Gournia areas), the Mesara, and North-Central Crete (i.e.,

the Knossos, Malia, and Lasithi areas; for a comparison and relevant bibliography, see Whitelaw 2012, 158, table 4.3, fig. 4.14). Indeed, several sites, including Knossos (6.5 ha to 35/37 ha; Whitelaw 2012, 144), Phaistos (3.3 ha to 18–27 ha; Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004c; cf. Whitelaw 2012, 122), and Malia (4 ha to 7.3 ha; Whitelaw 2012, 124–125), expanded into true urban centers. The growth and appearance of new sites during the PreP period on Crete has often been explained as either the product of immigration to an area (e.g., Warren 1973; Nowicki 1999; Hayden 2003) or as a result of local population growth, which was encouraged by changes in subsistence practices (e.g., Watrous 2001a, 166; Watrous and

40

D. MATTHEW BUELL

Hadzi-Vallianou 2004c, 240). With respect to the former, for our area the presence of marble ware vessels and obsidian at some sites, as well as the Cycladic-style figurine at Sambas (71), implies that residents of the Galatas area were connected in some way to the Cyclades, the usual donor population in discussions of PreP immigration (e.g., Betancourt 1999; Nowicki 1999). The demographic data from Knossos also suggests that it expanded significantly throughout the PreP period, perhaps to a point where social constraints on community size encouraged emigration (Whitelaw 2012, 153; see also Carneiro 1967; Feinman 1998, 95–114). In both cases, the Galatas area would have been a desirable location for new immigrants due to the ease of communication along the Karteros River and the high agricultural potential of the area. At present, however, the material remains collected by the survey cannot confirm either scenario, especially because the PreP remains maintain a persistent link to that of the FN period. As it stands, the settlement data and associated finds do suggest that there were changes to local subsistence practices, which may have, in turn, provided the basis for a rise in local population. In particular, many settlements were positioned in such a way so as to exploit both good cereal land as well as more marginal land, the latter of which could have been used for olive and vine cultivation and herding (cf. Bintliff 1977; Blitzer 1993, 176; Rackham and Moody 1996, 125–126). The data from excavations, most notable of which is that from Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, a PreP village on the southern coast of eastern Crete near Ierapetra, suggests that PreP peoples subsisted on a mixed diet of barley, wheat, olives, vines, and livestock (sheep, goats, pigs, and oxen; Whitelaw et al. 1997). The polycrop agricultural regimen and the use of the secondary products of animals would have provided a subsistence base that was better able to sustain greater numbers of people, and it perhaps allowed for the accumulation of surplus

goods to be used as a hedge in bad harvest years (cf. Sherratt 1981; Hansen 1988; Forbes 1989; Halstead 1990). Indeed, the appearance of storage vessels at a number of PreP sites in the Galatas area implies that long-term storage of perishables had become important to residents. Stored surplus goods would have helped to better guarantee the household’s economic livelihood, and they could have been used as a means of enhancing its social standing, as goods doled out to those in need, creating debts, or as a medium of exchange to acquire objects that showcased one’s status. Significant social and economic changes, including urbanization and the establishment of powerful ruling elites, have been identified at a number of PreP centers (see papers in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012). At Knossos, for example, the structural reorganization of the settlement, including the construction of monumental terraces and the continued use of a large courtyard for ceremonial feasting, implies the establishment of a central authority (Hiller 1987; Macdonald 2012, 89; Tomkins 2012; Whitelaw 2012, 118). Like Knossos, there is continuous building at Phaistos throughout the PreP period, including what looks to be a ceremonial courtyard surrounded by structures (Carinci and La Rosa 2002; Todaro and Di Tonto 2008; Todaro 2012). There is also some evidence to suggest that the central authority at Phaistos employed attached craft specialists, perhaps making obsidian blades and pottery (Levi 1976, figs. 450–452). A ceremonial building may have been constructed at Malia at the end of the PreP period (van Effenterre 1980; Pelon 2006). Finally, a number of other PreP settlements on Crete (e.g., Vasiliki, Mochlos, and Palaikastro) seem to have been urbanized centers populated by ranked social groups. In each case, these larger PreP centers, which possessed distinctive hinterlands, served as the primary socio-economic and political centers of their local environs.

Conclusion At present, there is very little evidence to indicate how society was structured in the Galatas area in the PreP period. We do not see, for example,

the development of a distinct multilevel integrated settlement hierarchy. Although two relatively large centers (Sambas [71], Paratiritirion [157])

PREPALATIAL GROWTH IN SOCIAL COMPLEXITY

did exist, their political influence may not have extended very far outside of their immediate hinterlands. Nevertheless, we must consider that because Sambas (71) and Paratiritirion (157) were relatively larger they were populated by a more varied mix of people than might appear in the smaller settlements of the survey zone. As a result, Sambas (71) and Paratiritirion (157) may have provided more diverse economic services and opportunities than other PreP settlements within the Galatas area. Although we do not see other correlates of ranked societies, including a differentiation in grave goods, attached craft specialization, centralized storage or redistributive facilities, centralized administration, and monumental public buildings (cf. Wright 1984; Feinman and Marcus, eds., 1998), the adoption of new storage practices and the uneven distribution of objects of intrinsic value—such as imported ceramics, Melian obsidian, and serpentinite celts—might point toward some asymmetric access to wealth. At the very least, the presence of imported objects within site assemblages indicates that residents of the Galatas area were interacting

41

with other parts of Crete and, presumably indirectly, areas farther abroad. By this point in time, therefore, the Galatas area would have been linked to the larger settlements where dynamic social changes were taking place. In light of the foregoing discussion, there is little evidence to indicate that the Galatas area, though connected to other parts of the island, followed a similar trajectory toward increased social complexity. Instead, it seems as though the area was populated by a number of small, self-sufficient agricultural communities. Although these settlements were autonomous, their close spatial proximity and similar economies suggest that they were closely connected with one another, perhaps even bound through kinship ties. The only difference that we can identify among communities is that some residents possessed an asymmetric access to imported goods. The disparate access to these products, perhaps a result of the acquisition of surplus goods, no doubt set the stage for the emergence of elite groups, as we see in the succeeding PP period.

7

Emergence of a Stratified Society L. Vance Watrous

This chapter starts by presenting the Protopalatial (PP; MM IB–II) settlement data and survey finds from our area. The second section focuses on the new survey and excavation evidence from

the settlement of Galatiani Kephala (44). Finally, the third section discusses the wider implications of the settlement pattern, economy, and sociopolitical organization of the area.

Protopalatial Settlements Settlement in the Galatas area increased during the PP period (Fig. 11; Table 3), from 42 sites in the PreP period to 72 during MM I–II. Panagiotakis (2003, 346–349) also reports an increase in site numbers in his Pediada survey. Thirty-three of the 42 PreP sites in our area continued to be inhabited, while eight ceased in the PP period. Two settlements, Galatiani Kephala (44) and Sambas (71), possibly reached the size of towns. Twelve sites (18, 22, 36, 66, 78, 82, 122, 129, 134, 142, 151, 157) were hamlets or small villages; four others (28, 79, 110, 163) possibly may have been that large. The remaining 54 sites were the size of small farmsteads; hence, the settlement increase

was concentrated at the lower end of the settlement hierarchy. New sites appeared in all parts of the survey area. In the area around Sambas (71), new sites were settled both on nearby hills (70, 72, 82, 171) and on lower, arable land (66, 83, 161, 164). In the Limnes area, most PreP hilltop settlements continued at the same time as several new sites (45, 52, 55, 162) were settled closer to the well-watered Limnes Plain. Around Galatiani Kephala (44), five (1, 14, 21, 25, 36) PreP sites continued, and three new sites (15, 22, 166) were settled. North of Galatiani Kephala (44), the large PreP hilltop settlement at Modi (27) was abandoned.

44

L. VANCE WATROUS

Farther south in the Zinta-Arkalochori-Patsideros area, however, the PreP settlement pattern hardly changed: PreP hilltop sites (28, 134, 139, 142, 147, 150[?], 155, 157) continued to be inhabited. Only four sites (132, 143, 151, 154), all on elevated locations, were new. To the west, on the AlagniAstrisi plateau, the pattern is the same: two PreP sites—110 and 120—continued, joined by three new PP sites—118 on a hilltop, and 102 and 103 on the plain. Finally, in the northwestern part of the survey area, near the village of Philissia, all high elevation PreP sites (76, 79, 92, 95) remained; two new sites (83, 85) were settled on lower ground. Overall, the PP settlement pattern suggests substantial continuity (ca. 78%) along with a limited settlement expansion—especially around Galatiani Kephala (44). The appearance of new, lower sites near hilltop PreP sites could be the result of several factors, including a continued concern for regional security, a desire for greater agricultural productivity, and a population increase. Thirty-nine new sites were established in the PP period. Mandres (22) was founded on the top of a marl ridge looking north toward Galatiani Kephala (44), about 1 km away. The site is located next to poor, red soil; its water source must have been the Karteros River in the valley below it. South of Thrapsano, a farmstead (32) was settled on a gentle slope overlooking the dry, paleosol plain to the east; water is available some distance to the north in a stream. Sites 34 (a farmstead) and 35 (farmstead or hamlet) were both founded on red soil on the top of the plateau south of Thrapsano, away from any water source. Like site 32, another farmstead (47) sits at the edge of the red-soiled plain east of Thrapsano. A farmstead (52) is located on rolling hills ca. 0.5 km east of the lake near Thrapsano. North of Thrapsano, the farmstead sites 55, 162, and 168 were settled along the edge of the well-watered Limnes Plain (Pl. 6B). East of Sambas (71), a farmstead (161) was settled on the edge of the valley and stream. South of Sambas (71), site 66 was set on a low, south-facing slope, looking south onto a small valley. Near Zoophori, the farmsteads 68, 70, 72, and 171 sit on hill slopes facing a valley to the north and east. North of Voni, Sphakokephalia (82) was settled on a ridge facing a gradual southern slope, while northwest of Voni, site 83 was settled on a long and gentle southern slope. One or two buildings (at site 89)

were set on the bluff southeast of Voni, with gentle arable slopes to the north and west. Other farmsteads were settled in the plain west of Voni near the Karteros River (site 159), and south at the edge of the plain and near another stream (site 172). North of Philissia, a farmstead (99) occupied the valley bottom next to a stream. At the northern entrance to the gorge south of Philissia, a field house or farmstead was established on the slope some 50 m above the stream. Two farmsteads (102, 103) were settled on the red soil of the plateau south of Astritsi. A hamlet (122) appeared on the red soil of the plain west of Alagni. North of Choumeri, a farmstead (126) was settled on a marl hilltop surrounded by small valleys; the water source is the distant Karteros River. North of Zinta, a farmstead (165) sits on the northern slope of a hill, far from any water source, looking down on slopes to the north. South of Zinta, a farmstead sits on the high ridge top of Kastellos (139). At the southern edge of our survey zone, a farmstead (150) sits on the top of a low hill, near no obvious water source, and overlooks the Zinta-Arkalochori plain to the north (Pl. 4A). Another hamlet/village (151) with a nearby spring occupies a similar hill to the northwest. Farther north, a farmstead (153) is situated on the southern slope of a hill, above a small plain. South of Patsideros, another farmstead (154) occupies the western slope of a ridge above a spring. Prepalatial sites that definitely did not continue into the PP period (Modi [27; Pl. 8A], 46, 123, 124, 138) have one aspect in common: they were all situated on extremely high and steep hills. While a few new PP sites are situated near springs or streams, most favor locations on higher hills or hill slopes overlooking arable land and distant from any known water source, suggesting an emphasis on dry farming and/or security. Some sites sit not at the edge of their valley or plain catchment but on the nearest hills some distance (200–300 m) away from the plain. The relatively large number of sites, many founded in the PreP period, strung along high hill- and ridgetops west of Patsideros and Zinta, in what today is a dry and isolated landscape (Pl. 15A), is striking. Sites were often some distance (over 400 m) from their nearest neighbor. With the exception of the area around Galatiani Kephala (44), the PP settlement pattern is a dispersed one, consisting mostly of small sites.

EMERGENCE OF A STRATIFIED SOCIETY

A number of individual sites expanded in size in this period. The site of Sambas (71; Pl. 12A) apparently increased in size. Because the present-day village completely covers the PreP site, it is difficult to know exactly how much it grew. Nevertheless, PP pottery is found around the edge of the present-day village, suggesting the PP settlement had grown to about the size of the current village, which is ca. 100 x 500 m, or 5 ha. Ancient walls are visible along the southern and western slopes of the hill. One Cyclopean tower at the base of the western slope of the hill is particularly impressive (Pl. 15B). It may be PP in date, but this is not certain. Prophetes Elias (28) at Arkalochori probably also grew in this period. Our survey found small amounts of PP pottery along the 100 m stretch of the slope east of (below) the chapel and on the saddle immediately south of the cave. Hazzidakis (1912–1913) reported finding MM pottery and the remains of small houses a few meters south of the cave. Hence, the PP settlement at Arkalochori would have been at least ca. 120 x 70 m, or 0.84 ha, in size. Korakia (134) grew slightly in this period to ca. 60 x 100 m. A hamlet (142), 70 x 70 m and the successor to the smaller Plati hilltop site (138), moved in the late PreP period to a saddle (now dug out by quarrying) north of Plati and the adjacent hill. Protopalatial sites in the survey zone produced a limited range of finds. At most PP sites, we were able to largely recognize two specific vase shapes: red coarse cooking pots (Pl. 16A) and fine ware straight-sided (SS) cups (Pl. 16B). Other less commonly recognized fine ware shapes included carinated and conical cups (Pl. 16C), tumblers, and a lamp (from Prophetes Elias [28]). Rethemiotakis and Christakis (2004, fig. 12:1, 2) illustrate similar vases from Galatiani Kephala (44). Coarse ware shapes included pithoi, jars, large bowls, basins (lekanides), hole-mouthed jars, jugs, cooking dishes (Pl. 17A), and trays. Certain sites in the Pediada, called soroi (σορόι; piles) by local villagers, have been identified as watch/fire towers dating to the PP period (Panagiotakis 2003, 349; 2004, 180–182). These sites are located on a hill- or ridgetop commanding a wide view, and they consist of a pyramidal pile of roughly dressed stones whose flat upper surface shows signs of burning (burned red soil and ash).

45

We visited six possible soros sites (46, 54, 56, 123, 124, 142) within our survey zone. At the hilltop site 46 (Panagiotakis 2003, 379– 380), we found a large hole recently dug in the center of a circular structure (22 m diam.) and a predominance of Bronze Age, Ottoman, and modern pottery. A thin scatter of PreP sherds can be traced to a Minoan site ca. 30 m to the north. Site 54 (Panagiotakis 2003, 421) is a PreP–LM hilltop settlement. A rectangular platform (4 x 4 m) of large fieldstones sits 92 m northwest of the site. Prepalatial sherds extend as far as the pile in the center. On site 56 (Pl. 17B; Panagiotakis 2003, 430), the edge of a circular structure (19 m diam.) has been exposed by Galanaki for the ephoreia. Large amounts of burned soil mark the surface. Pottery collected consisted of one possible Minoan sherd and 37 Venetian–Ottoman sherds, including sgraffito ware. The circular wall, consisting of small fieldstones and rubble, does not resemble Minoan masonry. On site 123 (not mentioned by Panagiotakis), we saw a circular ring of stones (18 m diam.) similar to that on site 56, but no burned material. This pile sits directly on top of a PreP site, marked by a concentration of EM pottery. Collected material consisted of 34 PreP sherds, an obsidian blade and flake, four NP sherds, and 14 Venetian–Ottoman sherds. Site 124 (Panagiotakis 2003, 408) produced another circular, artificial mound of stones (13 m diam.), burned earth, and four PreP and 24 Venetian–Ottoman sherds. Finally, site 142 (Panagiotakis 2003, 410) produced a PreP–LM settlement on a saddle, exposed by recent quarrying. On a steep hilltop immediately north of the saddle, a circular, illicitly dug stone structure yielded burned soil. Our investigation of soroi indicates that Panagiotakis’s physical description of them is accurate and that his interpretation of them as watch/ fire towers seems correct. Their pottery, however, is predominantly Venetian or later. Some of these structures may be Venetian in date (see this vol., Ch. 14, pp. 138–142 for an analysis of soroi in the historical period). Minoan sherds, mostly PreP in date, can instead be traced to nearby Minoan sites. More precise evidence, from excavated sites, demonstrates that these possible soroi do not date to the PP period. At the site of Myrtos Phournou Koriphi on the southern coast of Crete, Peter Warren

46

L. VANCE WATROUS

(1972, 89–90, 344) found a circular stone structure built on top of the EM II hilltop settlement that contained burned wood dated by carbon-14 analysis to ca. a.d. 1650 (± 60 years). On the nearby site of Myrtos Pyrgos, Gerald Cadogan (1977–1978, 82, fig. 37) discovered the base of a stone tower built over the MM–LM I settlement. Cadogan (1977– 1978) points out that this tower actually appears— shown with smoke issuing from it—on the early

17th century a.d. Venetian map of the Myrtos valley drawn by the Venetian cartographer Marco Boschini in 1651 (Pl. 17C). Boschini (1613–1678) also made several other maps of various parts of Crete, showing a widespread system of Venetian watch/fire towers over most of the island. It is preferable, therefore, to date the possible soroi in the Upper Pediada to Venetian times.

Survey and Excavation Evidence at Galatiani Kephala The settlement at Galatiani Kephala (44) grew in the PP period (Fig. 12). During the survey, 35 north–south and 18 east–west transects were run across the hilltop and eastern slope of Galatiani Kephala (44). Because the two sets of transects crossed each other, we were able to define the distribution of PP sherds on the site as being ca. 6 ha. Of course, the settlement itself may have been somewhat smaller, the sherd distribution being the result of soil erosion and human agency. This is certainly true for the eastern–western extent of the site, because the eastern part of Galatas is a slope. Nevertheless, the northern–southern extent of the distribution is along level or gently rising land and probably accurately reflects the northern–southern extent of the settlement. One notes too that the eastern–western extent of the NP sherd distribution on that same slope (see this vol., Ch. 9), while larger than the PP area, does correspond closely to actual ancient building remains visible along the bottom of the eastern slope. Excavations in and around the site of the palace have revealed PP remains. Fill containing MM IB pottery was brought in south of the palace under the NP baetyl and Buildings 6 and 7 (Christakis 2011, 197). Protopalatial pottery was also found below the eastern wing of the palace. Rethemiotakis (1999a, 721) reports the presence of a PP structure (Building 3) built in MM IB west of the later palace. Building 3 possessed massive external walls of Cyclopean blocks, plaster, and slablined floors. One room (A) was used for domestic cult purposes. Because of its location, architecture, and height, Building 3 has been called “a landmark both for the settlement itself and the surrounding region” and “the seat of the most eminent

elite group of the settlement” (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011b, 207). In its final (NP) phase, now called Building 3/5, the many storage containers, fine ware vases, and other prestige items suggest it was used by elite members of Galatas’s society at that time (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011b, 208). Building 3 was destroyed by fire at the end of MM IB (for more information on the NP period, see this vol., Chs. 8 and 9). The excavators also uncovered a MM IB complex under the northern and southwestern parts of the western wing of the NP palace (Fig. 13). This complex possessed a corridor opening onto an open space (Court H) and several rooms with stone platforms. One room (D) had 16 querns and four grinding stones. It is suggested that these rooms were used for various purposes, including the grinding of grains. In all, 70 stone pounders were reported from the complex; according to Rethemiotakis and Christakis (2011b, 208), “The scale of cereal processing would have surpassed the subsistence needs of a simple household and met those of an extended household/group.” This complex is said to have been destroyed by an earthquake early in MM IB. Subsequent alterations created an upper floor associated with a heap of plaster. Later in the PP period, the structure was again destroyed, this time by fire, and it was abandoned. The large assemblage fallen from the upper floor contained many cups, jugs, and amphorae, as well as three pithoi, leading Christakis to suggest that the upper floor served as a pantry and storage area (2011, 200). This complex was associated with “activities over and above those of meeting the simple everyday needs of a household, and closer to the level of buildings housing

EMERGENCE OF A STRATIFIED SOCIETY

multiple and specialized uses and functions” (Christakis 2011, 200), namely, banqueting. Recovered obsidian blades, cores, and debris, as well

47

as worked bone, also point to workshop activities there. The excavators suggest that the MM IB complexes played a complementary role.

Protopalatial Society in the Galatas Area We have seen that the settlement in our area was, to a great extent, a continuation of the pattern established in the PreP period, that is, small sites located on hilltops across the landscape. Local security still seems to be a concern—with some reason apparently, because Galatiani Kephala (44) was destroyed by fire in the PP period. With the exception of two sites—Galatiani Kephala (44) and probably Sambas (71)—all sites appear to be small, mostly a single farmhouse or a small hamlet (2–3 houses). The rise in local settlement numbers is relatively modest compared to other parts of Crete. In the upland Lasithi Plain, the number of sites grew from five to 12 in the PP period (Watrous 1982, 12–18, maps 5, 6). Around Phaistos (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004f, 277), the number of PP sites jumped from seven to 38. In the Kavousi area of East Crete, there was a fourfold increase in the number of PP sites (Haggis 2005, 69). The Vrokastro survey reported an increase from 47 late PreP to 88 PP sites (Hayden 2004a, 71). While the chronological coarseness of our ceramic evidence generally makes it difficult to distinguish the PP size of most multi-period sites, it appears that out of a total of 33 sites, only three certain (Galatiani Kephala [44], Sambas [71], Korakia [134]), plus perhaps five other sites (Prophetes Elias [28], 36, 78, 89, 150), increased in size. For this reason, the dramatic growth of Galatiani Kephala (44) in the PP period is especially striking. In the western Mesara, the number of hamletand village-sized sites increased sharply in the PP period (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004f, 278, cf. figs. 8:4, 10:3), but the expansion of Phaistos to a size of ca. 60 ha is especially significant because it marks the site becoming a palatial center. In Lasithi (Watrous 1982, 12–13), several settlements expanded in size. In the Gournia area (Watrous et al. 2012), even though all site categories grew substantially, expansion was especially noticeable at

larger settlements. For example, Gournia and Vasiliki were large settlements in this period. With the exception of Galatiani Kephala (44), the overall growth of PP settlement in our area is somewhat less than that of other areas of Crete. Seventeen out of 38 new PP sites were founded on non-defensible, low locations near good agricultural plains, pointing to an increased importance of dry farming agriculture. Generally, the growth in the number of sites in our area may be a function of general population increase, not agricultural intensification. Only around Galatiani Kephala (44) does the appearance of a nine-site cluster, of which five are new PP sites, possibly suggest any intensification (Figs. 11, 12). At Galatiani Kephala (44), the 70 stone implements found in the PP complex point to the importance of cereals in the local agriculture. The Galatas area was on a north–south trade route, as the presence of obsidian, an ivory seal, and a pommel from the MM IB complex under the western wing of the palace indicate (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011b, 202, fig. 8). Rethemiotakis and Christakis (2004) have documented that about 9% of the excavated MM IB pottery from Galatiani Kephala (44) comes from the Knossos area. Similarly, a few vases imported from North-Central Crete, the Mesara, and the southern coast have been identified at Galatiani Kephala (44; Macdonald and Knappett 2007, 156). To the east, tableware from the important center at Kastelli is said to be rare at Galatiani Kephala (44; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2004, 170). The locally made vase shapes—carinated cups, tumblers, jugs, and Barbotine Ware (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2004, figs. 12.1, 12.2)—from Galatiani Kephala (44) exhibit knowledge of the northern coast ceramic tradition. Hence, the overall impression one receives from the PP material in our area is that while economic relations existed between the eastern Pediada and the northern coast, the local economy remained largely independent.

48

L. VANCE WATROUS

Conclusion Signs of increased social complexity appear in the PP Galatas area. An independent nonpalatial center existed at Galatiani Kephala (44), and perhaps also at Sambas (71), especially if its Cyclopean fortification wall dates to the PP period. The Galatas elite social structure, however, need not have developed entirely without external stimulus. The monumental nature of Building 3, its ceremonial feasting role, and its elite nonlocal vase shapes are features of Minoan states elsewhere. These characteristics may have been adopted by the emerging local elite as part of their (peer-polity-like) strategy toward political power. Regional status and statehood remained out of reach due to the settlement’s relatively small population and area of control. Elsewhere on Crete, certain areas, such as the coastal plains of the Mesara, North-Central Crete, Malia, and Siteia, developed into states. We can define a state as a stratified society with at least three levels of administrative hierarchy and a permanent, centralized, and institutionalized political authority that has coercion over its subjects. These polities are marked by the growth of a large urban settlement, literacy, an administrative system based on seals (Whitelaw 2012), and the construction of a palace connected to a regional peak sanctuary (van Effenterre 1980, 95–284; Tsipopoulou 2003; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer, eds., 2004; Macdonald 2012). Most of these changes seem to be missing from the Galatas area. What does happen in our area, however, is the sharp growth of the Galatiani Kephala settlement (44), the appearance of a small cluster of sites near it, and the construction on-site of two architectural complexes that appear geared to support feasting at a supra-household level. This phenomenon seems to mark the appearance of some sort of elite group at Galatiani Kephala (44). There is, however, no sure sign of a palace and no peak sanctuary is known in our area. The only peak sanctuaries in the Upper Pediada, dated to MM IB–IIIA, are located near Kastelli (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011b, 212). Nevertheless, the appearance of a monumental building associated with feasting is a feature of palaces elsewhere on the island (and also of the later palace at Galatiani Kephala [44] in the NP period.) Hence, society in our area seems to

display a few common features, at a reduced scale, found at other Cretan states, but not all. The local settlement pattern suggests that this elite group had a relatively limited territorial base. Settlement in our area seems divided into two main spheres: (1) centered at Galatiani Kephala (44), controlling the Galatas-Arkalochori ridge and plateau and the rich Karteros River valley to the west; and (2) centered at Sambas (71), controlling the river valley immediately to its north and the Zoophori-Limnes valleys to the south. Each “territory” would have been small, under 30 km² in size. To the north of our area the settlement at Smari (Hadzi-Vallianou 1984) would have, in a similar fashion, dominated its own small valley. To the east the important settlement at Kastelli (Rethemiotakis 1992) may well have controlled a much larger area, including the Omphalion Plain. The existence of a peak sanctuary near Kastelli (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011b, 212), as well as the abundance of Kastelli Ware finds at other sites around the island (e.g., at Knossos [Macdonald and Knappett 2007, 150, 156], in the Mesara, and at Syme), may be a sign that Kastelli had become a palatial (economic) center. Protopalatial developments in Lasithi offer a perspective on our area. During the PreP period, Lasithi already had contacts with the northern coast and the Mesara (Betancourt 2012). The number of sites grew in the MM I–II period (Watrous 1982, 12). Seven of the sites are village sized. Kastellos, the only excavated settlement, grew appreciably at this time (Watrous 1982, 8 n. 24, 12). Cult at the cave sanctuary at Psychro began in MM I (Watrous 1996, 47–48). At the northern edge of the plain, a peak sanctuary was established at Karphi (Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and MoneyCoutts 1937–1938, 96–98), although its catchment was probably the valleys of Krasi and Mochos to the north. Excavation in the Hagios Charalambos Cave has revealed that the Lasithi Plain had close connections with other parts of Crete and even access to materials from overseas during the MM I–II period (Betancourt et al. 2008). A burial from the Trapeza Cave, for example, produced a Twelfth Dynasty scarab from Egypt (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1935–1936,

EMERGENCE OF A STRATIFIED SOCIETY

76). Precious objects of gold and ivory from burials point to elite individuals. The existence of two substantial cemeteries, at Trapeza and Hagios Charalambos located at opposite ends of Lasithi, just might suggest the plain was divided into two sociopolitical groups, as seems to be the case in our area. The substantial quantities of Maliote pottery from the latest burials in the cave have suggested to the excavators that Lasithi may have entered the

49

territory of the Malia state in MM IIB (Betancourt et al. 2008, 596). The pottery from the Psychro Cave shows the same trend: beginning in the PP period, the pottery is mostly from Malia (Watrous 2004a, 143). Both Galatiani Kephala (44) and Lasithi seem to share certain features: increased population, close “foreign” connections, and emerging elite groups controlling relatively small territories.

8

Excavation of the Minoan Palace and Town of Galatas Georgos Rethemiotakis

This chapter summarizes the excavation (1992– 2010) of the palace and town of Galatas by the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. The excavation of the large Minoan site at Galatiani Kephala (Fig. 13), located 1 km south of the medieval village of Galatas and about 30 km southwest of Herakleion, ran for 19 years with the financial support of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) and the technical support of INSTAPSCEC. The Archaeological Institute of Cretological Studies financed landscaping activities in 2010. Excavation was conducted by technical staff of the Herakleion ephorate and the Heraklion Archaeological Museum, with the participation of Christakis as co-excavator. The project has revealed a Minoan palace and a considerable part of its surrounding town, in an area of almost 8,000 m². Trenches in various places have revealed clear stratigraphic sequences that allow one to follow the historical framework and the cultural development of the Galatas settlement.

The site was first inhabited in EM I–IIA, as shown by sherd scatters found in bedrock crevices of the Galatas hill. Firmly dated architectural remains first appear in the MM IA–IB period. Our excavation found considerable amounts of MM IA– IB pottery, the majority of which is of local Pediada fabric, with few imports from the island’s northern coast and the Mesara. At this time, the settlement covered much of the Kephala hill (see this vol., Chs. 7, 9). Two buildings were partially excavated, the first in the area of the later western wing of the palace and the second farther to the north. The first building yielded evidence for the massive production of ground grain(?) on the ground floor and feasting ceremonies, storage, and workshop activities on the upper floor. The second building (Building 3), only partially preserved, was constructed of massive Cyclopean masonry, an indication of its elite status. Its use seems to be related to cult. The total absence of MM II pottery at Galatas points to

52

GEORGOS RETHEMIOTAKIS

the abandonment of the site at this time, probably the result of seismic destruction. Galatas changed dramatically in MM IIIA. The settlement was redesigned with the construction of large and impressive new buildings, incorporating all the architectural innovations and refinements of the new era, such as the use of elite ashlar masonry (many of the blocks with deeply cut masons’ marks, the most frequent being the star and the trident), the Minoan Hall, and pictorial wall paintings. This shift is accompanied by the almost total eclipse of the characteristic MM IB Pediada ceramic tradition, which was replaced by a distinct Knossian ceramic style. The new town was organized around an impressive court-centered building compound at its hub. The importance of this palace complex is made apparent by its massive size and its position on the high, open northern edge of the Kephala hill overlooking the area—a dominant presence in the landscape. After a catastrophic event in MM IIIA that affected the whole settlement, the palace was immediately rebuilt. This building task started at the end of MM IIIA and was completed in MM IIIB on the same basic architectural layout of the first phase. Galatas is the only palatial building in Crete that is known from this period. The palace was designed around a central paved court measuring 36.40 x 15.95 m. The exterior walls of the four wings of the palace were constructed of fine ashlar masonry, the most impressive being the court facade of the northern wing, which has a tripartite scheme. On the west, the facade takes the form of a stoa that shelters the entrance of the northern wing. The court facade wall is constructed of ashlar blocks that, as they proceed upward, are reduced in size. Resting on a projecting socle, the blocks of the lowest course are of massive dimensions, some exceeding 2 m in length. The monumentality of this facade stresses the importance of the northern wing as the center of power. The northern wing is also the only one with gypsum doorjambs and timberwork in the masonry, which was needed to sustain its superstructure, a fact that shows that this wing was higher than the others. Within this wing, the Minoan Hall has the typical shape of a rectangular residential suite, 7.50 x 4.90 m in size, with four pier-and-door partitions, a two-column stoa, and a light-well dressed with finely cut ashlar blocks.

Located at the far eastern end of the wing, this hall has a magnificent view of the Pediada and the Lasithi mountains. Part of this complex is three small rooms with “patterned floors” made of plaster strips that framed rectangular wooden panels, as indicated by some traces of carbonized wood. Three staircases connected the Minoan Hall with the upper floor(s) that possessed ample compartments paved with large plaques of finely cut gray stone. Another important space, the Hypostyle Hall, a paved, square-shaped hall (6.85 x 6.85 m), was provided with an off-center hypostyle hearth set among pillars. It functioned to let smoke out of the roofed space through a raised opening supported by the four pillars. It is the only example of its kind known in Minoan architecture. The main activity that took place in the official apartments of the eastern and northern wings was the large-scale consumption of food and drink. Spacious halls in the upper floors of both wings, linked by staircases to the official apartments below, also may have served the same purpose. Evidence for feasting comes from the spacious kitchen area and magazines for foodstuffs stored in large decorated pithoi, both located in close proximity to the Hypostyle Hall. Remains of many animal bones (and some fish and shells) as well as pottery were found in a huge dump deposited between the eastern and northern wings, close to the area of the Minoan Hall. Little remains of the western wing. What is preserved is a space with a circular hearth to the north, the remains of a paved exedra facing the court, and some magazines. The southern wing is a small, self-contained building entered through a staircase from the side of the central court. The southern facade of this wing is a massive wall facing the Court of the Baetyl. This facade is articulated with a precise tripartite scheme that matches relief representations of shrines, often shown with a central recessed area flanked by two equal sections. The facade seems to act as a background to religious actions that took place around a baetyl. This cult object is a roughly shaped oval stone, 1.5 m high, with a carefully hewn rectangular base set in the front edge of a stone-built platform. This configuration recalls the scene on a ring from Archanes that shows a baetyl standing on or fixed into a flat and apparently paved surface

EXCAVATION OF THE MINOAN PALACE AND TOWN OF GALATAS

(Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1997, 658, figs. 722, 724). Abutting the tripartite facade, opposite the baetyl, is a stone-built double exedra, of which only the lower part is preserved. It likely originally supported steps, creating a theatrical area similar to those at other palatial centers. Apparently, this area was reserved for spectators watching ceremonies carried out in conjunction with the baetyl. The palace is a key element in the town planning of Galatas. A main north–south street apparently crossed through the middle of the town, passed through the theatrical area with the baetyl, and encircled the whole palace. This street forms a ring around the palace, affording a complex access route to its interior, bringing the palace residents in contact with the townsfolk. The western branch of this ring runs across the western court (of which only a small part of the pavement, including a raised causeway, is preserved), and it then enters the palace through a door and corridor that leads to the central court and the entrance of the northern wing. On its way northward, the street joins a small plastered court (Court of the Altar) at the northwestern corner of the palace. At the northern facade of the palace, the aforementioned Court of the Altar is another religious area similar to the Court of the Baetyl. Attention in this area is focused on a niche in the middle of the upper section of the northern facade that held a wooden platform, as evidenced by a layer of carbonized remains. The niche was flanked either by wooden poles, similar to those on the Zakros rhyton (Platon 1974, 154, fig. 94), or it was framed by a balustrade, as demonstrated by deep circular depressions in the plastered floor. In front of the niche, there is the base of a small rectangular construction, possibly an altar, as suggested by the adjacent stone-lined pit aimed to receive libations. Residents of the Minoan Hall apparently were involved in rites in this court because a corridor links the hall with this area. This complex fell out of use in the last phase (LM IA) of the palace’s life, to be replaced by a similar installation in front of the facade of Building 3/5 that framed the western side of the court. This latter area consisted of a paved niche behind a rectangular pit, essentially repeating the configuration of the northern facade. Its religious use is suggested by the sacrificial contents of the pit, which included black greasy soil,

53

fragments of ritual vessels, animal bones, and boar’s tusks. Leaving the Court of the Baetyl, the street continued around the northern facade of the palace, ending up in front of the eastern facade of the northern wing. There, another platform allowed the residents of the Minoan Hall to make a ceremonial appearance to the public. The eastern branch of the ring road brings one to a monumental portico, the official entrance of the eastern wing, and farther north to a staircase leading to the central court. The configuration of the palace facades and the installations around the edges of the palace, all connected by an open walkway, testify to the “extroverted” character of the palace and its function as the major civic and religious center of the town and the surrounding region. In MM IIIB to early LM IA, the palace suffered a serious destruction. Soon after, restoration work began, but the building no longer had its former importance. Only an area on the ground floor around the two official halls and parts of the upper floor remained in use. Feasting ceremonies did continue, but on a reduced scale. Finally, a powerful earthquake in mature LM IA reduced the building to rubble. The absence of written materials from the palace is probably due to the fact that it no longer functioned as an administrative center at the time of its abandonment. The ephoreia excavations have also revealed portions of the town. To date, six buildings have been discovered. The partly uncovered Building 1, about 100 m southeast of the palace, yielded a rich MM IIIA deposit with hundreds of vases mixed with fragments of pictorial wall paintings. After the MM IIIA destruction, it was repaired and reused in MM IIIB and LM IA. Building 6, southwest of the palace, illustrates a similar succession of phases. Like the palace, it has a Minoan Hall and a lustral basin dating to MM IIIA. A cultic installation in its southern side contained some human and animal figurines, and a unique rectangular shrine model with a female figurine seated inside. The house was partially reoccupied in LM IA and LM IB. Two other buildings (2 and 3/5) contained rich ceramic assemblages of LM IB date, including finely decorated vases of the Special Palatial Tradition and many pithoi. Building 2 in particular provided evidence on the ground floor for intensive grinding activities, with a set of fixed

54

GEORGOS RETHEMIOTAKIS

mortars and many stone tools, as well as weaving on the upper floor. The elite MM IB Building 3 was totally rebuilt, extending westward in MM IIIB, over the preexisting MM IIIA Building 5. This new, large building, accordingly named Building 3/5, apparently became an annex of the northern wing of the palace. It continued to be used in LM IB after the destruction of the palace.

In the LM IIIA:2 period, Building 4 was constructed over the palace and Building 2. Some fragments of potters’ wheels and crucibles, as well as fragments of a Knossian style pithos, show that Building 4 had a small-scale industrial and storage function during the LM IIIA:2–IIIB period. The site was subsequently abandoned and remained deserted until the present day.

9

Building a Minoan State at Neopalatial Galatas D. Matthew Buell

This chapter begins with a detailing of the Neopalatial (NP) settlement data and associated finds. The next section considers local demography, subsistence, industry, and trade, and evidence for the use of two strategies of political rule (feasting and

the construction of a planned settlement) employed by the new palatial authority. The chapter concludes with comments on the survey zone’s social, political, and economic organization, and how these may have been influenced by Knossos.

Neopalatial Settlements As was the case for the preceding periods, we treat the NP ceramics as one entity, rather than attributing them to specific phases (i.e., MM IIIA, MM IIIB, LM IA, and LM IB). Once again, the main reason for this is that there were problems in identifying and dating ceramics based mainly on their fabric (see this vol., Ch. 1, App. B). The Galatas Survey Project registered 108 NP sites as compared to 72 PP, an increase of 37 sites (cf. Figs. 11, 14; Tables 3, 4). The rise in overall settlement numbers recorded by the Galatas Survey Project accords well with Panagiotakis’s survey

(2003, 346–350, maps 3, 6), though he only recorded a slight increase from 71 PP settlements to 75 NP. This disparity may be the result of the fact that our survey was intensive, while Panagiotakis’s was not. The Galatas Survey Project probably was not able to identify all NP sites because of the region’s complex geomorphology, which includes erosion and colluviation/alluviation (see this vol., Ch. 3). Recent agricultural practices (e.g., deep plowing and terracing) and later occupation have also done much to shroud the archaeological record. As a result of these problems, we must

56

D. MATTHEW BUELL

consider that we are dealing with a minimum number of settlements. The increase in NP settlement numbers witnessed in the Galatas area contrasts with many other parts of the island, where a decline in the number of NP sites has been recorded. For example, the western Mesara (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004), Gournia (Watrous et al. 2012), Vrokastro (Hayden 2004a), Kavousi (Haggis 2005), Kommos (Hope Simpson 1995), Hagiopharango (Blackman and Branigan 1977), Praisos (Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999), Lasithi (Watrous 1982), and Malia surveys (Müller 1996, 1997, 1998) all registered a decrease in the total number of NP sites as compared to those of the PP period. On the other hand, a few survey projects including those for Akrotiri (Moody 1987a), Hagios Vasilios (Moody, Peatfield, and Markoulaki 1996), and Hagia Photia (Tsipopoulou 1989) saw substantial increases during the NP period. One pattern that is immediately observable concerning the two scenarios presented above is that areas that were under the control of long-lived political centers did not witness an increase in site numbers during the NP period. Instead, what we see is a nucleation of sites, the growth of others, and the establishment of more differentiated hierarchical patterns. In the Galatas area, the upsurge in the total number of sites and the growth of others directly corresponds to the rapid development of a new political power within the area: that of the palace situated on Galatiani Kephala (44). Our survey zone thus affords a good opportunity to examine one scenario in which the society of a region came to be organized in a more complex fashion. The most dramatic increase in NP settlement numbers occurred in the areas immediately around and southeast of Galatiani Kephala (44). Here, 21 new sites were newly founded (Fig. 14). These sites can be grouped into three discrete clusters: (1) The area immediately around Galatiani Kephala (44), within a radius of 2 km: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20. (2) The area farther east (ca. 3.5–6 km) along a steep ridge, overlooking a branch of the Karteros River: 29, 33, 37, 39, 167. (3) The area to the southeast (ca. 3–4 km), between the modern villages of Archondiko and Roussochoria: 17, 23, 30, 31, 40, 42, 48, 49.

Of the sites within the first cluster near Galatiani Kephala (44), site 5 is on the brown soil of the eastern slope of a hill, while sites 6 and 9 are positioned on hilltops (Fig. 14). There is no obvious water source for any of these three sites. Site 10 is located in a valley of red soil, close to a spring, about 1 km to the south of Galatiani Kephala (44). Sites 11, 12, and 13 are located farther (ca. 2 km) away from Galatiani Kephala (44). Two of these sites (11, 12) sit on the slopes of hills, overlooking the plain below, while site 13 is positioned on the floor of the plain (Fig. 14). All three of these sites sit on red paleosols and are a short distance from the Karteros River. Site 20 is located on a large hilltop, about 2 km southeast of Galatiani Kephala (44) and within view of both the palace and Mt. Juktas. Signs of quarrying in the exposed limestone outcroppings of the hilltop and the remains of a large building constructed from Cyclopean blocks suggest that site 20 may have served a specialized function. Sites 29, 33, 37, 39, and 167—the second cluster of sites to the east of Galatiani Kephala (44)— are situated in marginal locations, sitting on the rocky, thin soil of hills and ridges (Fig. 14). All communicated visually with Galatiani Kephala (44). Sites 33, 37, 39, and 167 overlook one of the major branches of the Karteros River. The remains of a possible NP Cyclopean wall are visible at site 39. In the third cluster, site 17 was settled on the southern slope of a hilltop about 2.5 km southeast of Galatiani Kephala (44) and within its view (Fig. 14). Here, a large multi-roomed structure built of Cyclopean blocks was discovered by the survey (Pls. 18A, 18B). Several medium-sized ashlar blocks were found at the site’s eastern extremity, one of which possessed a mason’s mark in the shape of a cross (+) (Pl. 1A). The building’s monumental size and fine building materials, along with the presence of the mason’s mark, suggest that it was constructed by the central authority to serve some local special function. Like site 17, Pyrgos (23) may have also performed some special function. This site was set on a hilltop located nearly 3 km to the southeast of the palace and was intervisible with sites 17 and 20 (Pl. 19A). During the first visit to this site, the remains of three long Cyclopean walls running north–south were observed (Pls. 19B, 20A); following our first field season, the owner bulldozed these walls.

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

In the same cluster, sites 31 and 40 are on hills not too far from Pyrgos (23). Three additional sites (Koklous [42], 48, 49) are situated on the slopes of hilltops (Fig. 14). Of all of the sites within this discrete cluster, only site 48 is positioned a short distance from a local water source, one of the branches of the Karteros River. All sites within this cluster sit on red paleosols. All previous PP sites (1, 14, 15, 21, 25, 34, 35, 89, 166) within the area around Galatas continued into the NP period, suggesting some continuity in local settlement (cf. Figs. 11, 14). Of the 30 new and old sites within the three clusters discussed above, 70% were new foundations. Outside of the immediate area around Galatiani Kephala (44), there was a sizeable increase in the number of sites. On the fertile Limnes Plain located east of the modern town of Thrapsano, six new NP sites (43, 46, 50, 53, 58, 59) were identified (Fig. 14). Sites 43 and 46 occupy the tops of hills, overlooking the plain below (cf. Figs. 11, 14). Both are located within close proximity to a seasonal stream. Sites 50, 53, 58, and 59—all fairly close together—are settled on hills or hillocks. All of the PP sites (45, 47, 52, 55, 57, 162, 163, 168) in the Limnes Plain continued in use into the NP period (cf. Figs. 11, 14). There was also expansion on the Alagni-Astritsi plain, as four new settlements (107, 112, 121, 136) appeared (cf. Figs. 11, 14). Site 121 is located just west of the modern village of Alagni, while sites 107 and 136 are situated farther to the south, and site 112 is located about halfway between Alagni and Astritsi. Site 107, which was settled on the southern slope of a hilltop, and site 112, on the floor of a valley, are close to seasonal streams. Site 121 is on the southern slope of a hilltop with no obvious water source. The last of these sites, 136 on the Alagni-Astritsi plain, is located on the red soils of the southern slope of a hill. Protopalatial sites in this area (103, 109, 110, 118, 120, 122) continued into the NP period. Not all parts of the survey zone, however, witnessed an expansion in settlement numbers. Only one small settlement (60), for example, appeared in the area of Sambas (71) on the Voni Plain (Fig. 14). The limited growth around Sambas (71) is difficult to explain because the bottomland south of this site is rich agricultural land. One potential explanation is that Sambas’s importance as a local center probably declined by the NP period. Indeed, Sphakokephalia (82; discussed below, pp. 58–60),

57

which is 1.85 km to the southwest of Sambas (71), developed into a large settlement in the NP period, perhaps eclipsing the position of Sambas as a local power. With Sambas’s decline, its hinterlands may have become depopulated. Only two small NP sites (100, 101) emerged in the area north of Philissia (Fig. 14). Site 100 is located in a broad, wellwatered valley, while site 101 sits on the southern slope of a hill. All of these new NP settlements were close to water sources. Finally, as was the case in the PP period, the Zinta-Arkalochori plain did not witness an increase in the number of sites (cf. Figs. 11, 14). The lack of development in this area is also difficult to understand, because the valley to the east of the Zinta ridge, which was populated from Neolithic times onward, is quite agriculturally productive. It may be that new settlements in the Zinta-Arkalochori plain were instead established in the valley; if so, these sites may have been buried by colluvium from the ridges and hills to the west. Another explanation may be that the bottomland was never inhabited. Instead, because of its fertility, it may have been shared by the villages on the surrounding hilltops, as it is today. All previous PP settlements (66, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 92, 95, 99, 103, 110, 118, 126, 129, 132, 134, 139, 142, 143, 147, 150, 151, 153, 154, 161, 164, 171) on the Voni and Zinta-Arkalochori plains continued into the NP period, reflecting continuity in the settlement patterns of these two areas (cf. Figs. 11, 14). New NP sites were located on all types of elevations, including hilltops, slopes, and valley floors. The foundation of settlements on hilltops may reflect a continued concern for defense, one going back to the Neolithic period. The establishment of sites on gentle slopes and bottomland, which began in the PP period, is indicative of a sustained interest in farming and, possibly, stock raising. Several NP sites (e.g., 11, 12, 13, 20, 136), however, were situated in marginal locations on the poor soil of hilltops and/or quite distant from local water sources. This location on more marginal land may document an increased reliance on dry farming, perhaps as a response to more favorable environmental conditions (cf. Moody 2009, 247), and/or the creation of a hierarchy of land rights concurrent with the appearance of a new regional elite dominated by those residing in the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44; see below and Ch. 8).

58

D. MATTHEW BUELL

Several PP sites, including Galatiani Kephala (44), Sphakokephalia (82), Melissokopa (118), and Kastellos (139), expanded significantly in size. As detailed earlier, a settlement had developed on Galatiani Kephala (44) by the PreP period, perhaps as early as the EM II period (see this vol., Ch. 6). In the PP period, this settlement expanded both in size (to ca. 6 ha) and, with the establishment of a monumental central building (Building 3), in social and political importance (Christakis and Rethemiotakis 2011, 178; see this vol., Ch. 7). After the MM II period, when the excavators claim that there does not seem to have been much activity at the site, a palace was built on the hilltop in MM IIIA as part of a unified building project (Fig. 13; Rethemiotakis 1999c, 19; 2002, 56–57; see this vol., Chs. 7, 8). Several elite buildings, including Buildings 1, 6, and 7, were also laid out at this time (Rethemiotakis 2002, 2010; Evely et al. 2007– 2008, 100–105; Morgan, Pitt, and Whitelaw 2008– 2009, 95–97). The palace and elite buildings were partly destroyed by an earthquake followed by a fire toward the end of the MM IIIA period (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011a; 2013, 93). Both the palace and the settlement’s elite buildings (Buildings 1, 3, and 7) were rebuilt in the MM IIIB period. Intensive survey of the site suggests that the settlement, at its height in MM IIIB, may have possessed an area upward of 25 ha. At this time, although the palace may have been gradually abandoned, it appears that it still had industrial and ceremonial (and administrative?) functions. Although it is not well preserved, it seems as though areas in the western wing of the palace, for example, were set aside for stone vase making and metalworking (Rethemiotakis 1999a, 726). Three small public courts to the south, northwest, and north, a large central courtyard, and three lavish halls, the Pillar, Columnar, and Minoan Halls, which were decorated with ashlar masonry, gypsum embellishments, timber frameworks, pillars, and fine plasters, served as the loci for ceremonial activities (see below, pp. 67–69; Rethemiotakis 2002, 59–60). Storage areas were situated in the eastern wing (Christakis 2008, 50). The presence of several hearths, faunal remains, cooking wares and tablewares, large trays, and oven covers concentrated in three rooms (Rooms 11 and 12, and Hall 22) point toward the preparation of large-scale feasting events (Rethemiotakis 1999a, 722–723; 1999c,

20; 2002, 60; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 100–101; see also this vol., Ch. 8). Feasting events may have also taken place in the area of Building 3, which was extended westward (Building 5) in the MM IIIB period, as plentiful tableware (i.e., drinking cups and serving vessels), faunal refuse, and several large pithoi were found within several of its rooms (Rethemiotakis 2002, 61; Whitley 2003– 2004, 79; Christakis 2008, 79). By LM IA, Galatiani Kephala (44) seems to have lost some of its palatial character, as most of the palace’s ground floor spaces went out of use and several areas, including the central courtyard, were blocked off (Rethemiotakis 2002; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011a, 208). The palace, however, persisted as a location for large-scale food processing, because 429 querns were found within deposits belonging to this period (Rethemiotakis 2002, 62). Because the palace was not acting as an architectural and functional entity in the LM IA period, it would seem as though it ceased to operate as the administrative center of the area during this time. Despite this apparent decline in the political importance of Galatas, its residents, as noted by deposits found within Buildings 1 and 3/5, continued to prosper (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011a, 211). Much of the settlement, however, including the entire palatial complex, was destroyed by an earthquake at the end of LM IA. In the succeeding LM IB period, although the palace was completely abandoned, some residents of Galatiani Kephala (44) flourished, as evidenced by the construction of House 2, which was a large (170 m²) ashlar building situated in front of the western wing of the former palace (Blackman 2000– 2001, 127; Rethemiotakis 2002, 66; Christakis 2008; Christakis and Rethemiotakis 2011). By the end of this period, however, all buildings were destroyed by fire. Survey of the settlement suggests that it also contracted substantially following this destruction. With the abandonment of the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44), its importance as a political and ideological center seems to have changed, perhaps being replaced by the settlement of Kastelli, which is located 9 km to the east (Warren 2004, 163). Other local NP sites also changed. Sphakokephalia (82), situated on a large hill about 1.85 km southwest of Sambas (71) and overlooking an expansive valley on its eastern side, increased from a

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

small PP hamlet to a NP town covering the entirety of the hill (ca. 6 ha; Pl. 20B). Because Sambas (71) did not increase in size and no new settlements appeared within its vicinity, it seems as though Sphakokephalia (82) succeeded it as the most important settlement on the Voni Plain in the NP period. Though Sphakokephalia (82) seems to have been the local power, Sambas (71) may have retained some importance, if a large Cyclopean wall at the western edge of the hill belongs to this period. To the west, on the Alagni-Astritsi plain, Melissokopa (118), which sits on a high hill, grew from a small PP settlement (a farmstead?) to a town possessing an area upward of 6 ha in the NP period. Finally, in the southern part of the survey area on the ZintaArkalochori plain, Kastellos (139) expanded from a PP farmstead or hamlet to a settlement of more than 3 ha in size in the NP period. The four large NP settlements (Galatiani Kephala [44], Sphakokephalia [82], Melissokopa [118], Kastellos [139]) share several characteristics. For instance, each one is located at some distance (ca. 3.8 km) away from its nearest, like-sized neighbor (Fig. 14). In addition, each one of these large settlements was positioned in a distinct topographical location (e.g., on the Voni Plain, the Alagni-Astritsi plain, or the Choumeri-Zinta plain). Despite their distance from one another and topographic separation, these four settlements are in visual communication with Galatiani Kephala (44), suggesting that there may have been an ideological basis for their location. More specifically, the role of Galatas as the area’s preeminent political and ceremonial center was reinforced by its visual relationship with each of these large settlements (cf. Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011b, 207; 2011c). Although all of the large settlements overlook fertile land, they were often some distance away (ca. 0.8–1.5 km) from this land. What this suggests is that all of the large settlements possessed significant agricultural catchments. Their distance from each other, different topographical locations, and distinct agricultural catchments further implies that each one of the area’s large settlements controlled its own local territory, perhaps defined by their respective topographic area. Galatiani Kephala (44), for instance, may have controlled land east of the Karteros River, perhaps including the Limnes Plain, while Sphakokephalia (82) administered the Voni

59

Plain, Melissokopa (118) the Alagni-Astritsi plain, and Kastellos (139) the Choumeri Plain. At present, we do not know how each of the second-order settlements within the region functioned because none have been excavated. Outside of the survey zone there is one settlement, Kastelli, which might offer clues as to how the second-order centers in the Galatas area functioned. Kastelli was a sizeable settlement of about 8 ha in the NP period (Branigan 2001, table 3.1). Here, Rethemiotakis excavated a large (>700 m²), eight-roomed, twostory building that was constructed at the beginning of the NP period. This building remained in use until it was destroyed by fire in LM IB (Rethemiotakis 1992). The building’s scale, formalized spaces—including a poorly preserved Minoan Hall—and elaborate decorations (painted and plastered floors, ashlar masonry) indicate that it was a monumental construction designed to display and promote the social power and wealth of those who constructed it (Rethemiotakis 1992, 34, fig. 4). The building’s material assemblage indicates that rituals, including banqueting and drinking, took place both within and immediately outside of it (Rethemiotakis 1992, 37–40, 48–49, fig. 6). Indeed, Rethemiotakis (1992, 61) proposes that these activities were conducted, at first, in connection to the nearby peak sanctuary of Kaphala-Liliano, and later in the MM IIIB period they were transferred wholesale to the settlement itself. The elite at Kastelli may have done so in order to unite people in common worship as a means of integrating the settlement with its rural populace. Taken in its entirety, the evidence from Kastelli suggests that early in the NP period, contemporary with the functioning of the peak sanctuary, the settlement may have been the most powerful local settlement. Then, once the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44) was constructed in MM IIIA–IIIB, it was demoted. As a secondary center within a regional system centered on Galatiani Kephala (44), however, Kastelli, as its monumental building suggests, seems to have retained considerable local autonomy. Based on analogy, we might infer that the second-order settlements within the Galatas area (Sphakokephalia [82], Melissokopa [118], Kastellos [139]) functioned in a somewhat similar fashion. A number of settlements (28, 35, 45, 66, 83, 134, 157) grew in size from small PP settlements to NP

60

D. MATTHEW BUELL

ones of ca. 1–2.5/3 ha. These medium-sized NP settlements were well distributed throughout the survey zone, appearing on hilltops (35, Korakia [134], Paratiritirion [157]), and slopes (39, 66, 83), as well as bottomland (45; Fig. 14). Each one, with the exception of Korakia (134), was located close to the Karteros River or one of its tributaries. Furthermore, all of these settlements, except for Korakia (134) and Paratiritirion (157), were situated close to or on good agricultural land, implying that most were self-sufficient farming communities. The remaining 95 NP sites of the survey area were quite small (less than 1 ha in size). There is a distinctive subclass for the small sites, as 78 of them (82%) occupied areas of less than 0.5 ha, while the remaining 18% were larger with areas of 0.5–1 ha. The partially excavated MM III–LM I building at Orphanou Marathia (110) serves as an example of a typical small settlement in the survey zone. The size of the building implies that it was inhabited by a family unit (ca. 5–8 individuals), while its material assemblage consisting of storage jars and ground stone implements (e.g., mortars, pestles, and grinders) reflects a concern for domestic storage and food production (Rethemiotakis 1999d). The survey zone’s 95 small NP settlements were founded on all types of topography, including hilltops, slopes, and bottomland. Most were close to a water source, either the Karteros River itself or one of its tributaries. These small settlements occurred, on average, 500 m away from their nextnearest neighbor. There is a denser concentration of these smaller settlements in areas where there is a large settlement, indicating that the two types of sites were closely related. In the areas around Galatiani Kephala (44) and Sphakokephalia (82), for instance, settlements were located on average about 100–400 m apart. For the site cluster of Galatas, the average number of sites per 1 km² is 5.25, as compared to the PP average of three sites. The pattern for the rest of the survey area was about four sites per 1 km² in each site cluster, as compared to 2.5 sites in the PP period. And finally, 41 of the 95 small NP settlements (43%) were situated on or immediately next to land suitable for cereal crops (i.e., flat, well-watered land), while the remainder was associated primarily with land more suited to olive or vine crops. What is of note is that out of all new NP sites, more (5, 6, 23, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 58, 59,

60, 62, 64, 112, 133) were situated on land suitable for cereal production as opposed to land unsuited for this activity (11, 12, 13, 17, 20, 33, 107, 136, 167). The founding of so many new settlements solely on good agricultural land may reflect an intensification of cereal production and, perhaps, even a specialization in cereal crops. One of the more significant changes from the preceding periods is the development of a differentiated settlement system. Based on their areal extents, there are four classes of NP sites: (1) Sites greater than 6 ha in size (i.e., Galatiani Kephala [44]). (2) Large sites between 3 and 6 ha in size (three, possibly four sites). (3) Medium-sized sites between 1 and 3 ha in size (eight sites). (4) Sites smaller than 1 ha in size (95 settlements). Clearly, settlement was concentrated on the bottom end of the hierarchy, as the overwhelming majority of sites (ca. 88%) were small. The Galatas area, therefore, was populated primarily by small sites. The relative size of settlements in the Galatas area is suggestive of a three-tier settlement hierarchy: the palatial center of Galatiani Kephala (44); several second-order centers, including Sphakokephalia (82), Melissopkopa (118), Kastellos (139), and possibly Sambas (71); and a large number of small- to medium-sized settlements (less than 1 ha in size). The NP settlement hierarchy differs from the two-tier settlement hierarchy of the PP period, attesting to a more complex political organization in the Galatas area during this period. When plotted on a rank-size graph, the NP sites yield a primo-convex curve (Fig. 15). In the uppersize range, the rank-size plot is primate, reflecting a high degree of integration and hierarchical organization among second-order centers. The lower range, however, is convex, indicating that there was relatively little integration of political and economic services among communities in the settlement system, particularly less “vertical” integration between large cities and smaller rural communities (cf. Johnson 1980; Falconer and Savage 1995, 40). Nevertheless, it is to be noted that the primoconvex curve only deviates slightly from lognormal. What this implies is that there was some

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

degree of urban-rural integration. Primo-convex distributions are thought to represent the superimposition of a centralized or colonially derived system (expressed here in a primate upper curve) on a lower level system (Falconer and Savage 1995, 41; Savage 1997, 234). These distributions may thus represent the simultaneous operation of different settlement systems within one region. Such a situation may be true for the survey area, especially

61

since the palace and settlement at Galatiani Kephala (44) were built abruptly, perhaps following a period of abandonment in the MM II period. Moreover, the palace only functioned as such for a short time period. The rank-size plot, therefore, may document the imposition of a new, short-lived sociopolitical order that was rapidly imposed upon an older system, one that developed in the PP period.

Neopalatial Finds Survey and excavation finds provide further information about what types of goods were produced and how they circulated throughout the region. Clearly, the results from the (few) excavations provide the best evidence. The survey finds, because they were not found in secure contexts, can only provide general information about particular sites. The range of ceramic finds for the NP period increased from that of the PP period, as more shapes are evident and occur more frequently (see this vol., App. B). Up to the NP period, the region’s ceramic tradition could be classified as conservative, as local potters made vessels in local clays adhering to traditional designs. This trend continued in the NP period as the region’s ceramic repertoire remained fairly standardized in its respective shapes, sizes, fabrics, and decorative treatments. Pediada potters, however, began to employ a local fine-buff fabric in their fine ware vessels, and they produced vessels in different shapes, using new decorative motifs, all of which were imitative of those used in the Knossos-Archanes area (cf. Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 103). Fine ware conical, Vapheio, and rounded cups were found with some frequency on NP sites (Pl. 21A). For example, at least 45 sites had conical cups, while Vapheio cups were found at 44 sites and rounded cups at 23 sites. Straight-sided cups, however, were only identified on 15 sites. This corresponds to the situation at Galatiani Kephala (44), as the number of rounded cups found decreased in the NP period (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 99). Bridgespouted jars were found at least 27 sites, while three rhyta (one of which was a tortoise-shell rhyton) and one stirrup jar were also found. The distribution of fine ware vessels was not restricted, as

they were found at most sites (70%) identified by the Galatas Survey Project. The change in ceramic tradition and the popularity of these new vessels confirms that Knossos’s influence had spread into the heart of the Pediada. Nearly all of the NP sites (76%) identified by the Galatas Survey Project produced evidence for storage in the form of amphorae, pithoid jars, or pithoi. This situation differs from that of the PP period, where only a small percentage of sites (ca. 20%) produced such vessels. The increase in the frequency of sites possessing storage vessels corresponds to a general NP trend that sees more storage in secondorder sites (cf. Moody 1987b, 240; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 53). Most sites in the survey also contained cooking ware, often in fairly substantial numbers. Finally, a small site (79) near Sphakokephalia (82) yielded a NP bull figurine leg (Pl. 21B), an interesting occurrence that seems to mark this site as one with a possible ritual function, especially because Rethemiotakis (1999d, 240) reports finding a stone libation table somewhere in this vicinity. It should be noted that the survey team, unlike others (Panagiotakis 2003, 426; Warren 2004, 160; Adams 2006, 6 n. 52), was unable to find evidence for the construction of a villa in this area. All of the pottery discussed above has close affinities in terms of type, fabric, and decoration to the published pottery from the palace of Galatiani Kephala (44). The Galatas Survey Project detected evidence for NP ceramic manufacturing in two kiln fragments at sites 143 and 147, and a number of wasters at Prophetes Elias (28) and site 143. All four of these settlements overlook the Karteros River valley, which connects the northern and southern coasts. They were, therefore, advantageously

62

D. MATTHEW BUELL

positioned to take part in both inter- and intraregional trade. The evidence for ceramic manufacturing at nonpalatial sites and the wide distribution of locally made wares throughout the Pediada demonstrate that the local pottery industry was not centrally controlled. Identifiable imported vessels only occurred on five sites (23, Prophetes Elias [28], Galatiani Kephala (44), Sphakokephalia [82], 85), suggesting that such vases were not easily obtained during the NP period. One of the more interesting of these finds came from site 86, a small farmstead located on the southern slope of a ridge on the eastern side of the Astritsi-Voni gorge. This site produced an early NP stamped amphora handle (Pls. 21C, 21D; see this vol., App. E, pp. 223–225) made with a lentoid seal that depicts a floral motif. Eleni Hatzaki (pers. comm.) believes that this fabric is typical of NorthCentral Crete, and that it would not be out of place at Knossos. Besides ceramics, the survey collected stone implements from at least 50 sites. A high number of sites produced ground stone objects, confirming an intensification of agricultural production (Pl. 21E; see this vol., App. C). In addition, five sites (22, Galatiani Kephala [44], 48, 55, 118) yielded amphibolite stone drill guides associated with the production of stone vases (Pls. 22A, 22B; cf. Carter 2004, 71–72, pl. 21, nos. IC 389–IC 393). Two fragments of stone vessels (Pl. 22C)—one of which is the profile of a laminate marble blossom bowl, while the other is a nearly complete disk-shaped lid—were found at site 22. Since the closest known outcropping of serpentinite to our survey territory is distant, located near the modern town of Gonies in the vicinity of Minoan Tylissos (Becker 1976, 364), it would seem as though some residents of our survey zone did obtain raw materials or finished products from some distance away. The best-documented finds from the survey territory came from the two excavated sites of Galatiani Kephala (44) and Prophetes Elias (28). The ceramic deposits of the MM IIIA and MM IIIB periods at Galatiani Kephala (44) testify to a variety of activities from cooking, eating, and drinking, to ritual (e.g., clay libation tables, chalices, and a shrine model) and storage (Rethemiotakis 2010; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013). As was the case for the survey pottery, the NP pottery from Galatiani Kephala (44) was locally made in a fine-buff

color, which was imitative of Knossian wares (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 103). Pithoi were also similar in shape, form, and decoration to those found in the Knossos and Archanes area, but they were of local production (Christakis 2008, 50). Similar to the survey pottery, the NP ceramic repertoire of Galatas seems to have been fairly standardized, as there was uniformity in their shapes, sizes, fabrics, and decorative treatments (Rethemiotakis 2010; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 95–96). In some cases, the ceramic deposits of Galatas may be connected to feasting events. A MM IIIB deposit possessing drinking and eating vessels, along with large quantities of animal bones, sea snails, shells, and fish bones, for example, was found in a rubbish deposit located in the eastern projection of the northern wing, close to the Minoan Hall complex (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 100). Finally, it is worth pointing out that several fragments of miniature pictorial frescoes, perhaps forming landscape scenes, as they possessed red wavy terrain lines, stylized rocks, and floral arrangements, were discovered in MM IIIA deposits in the eastern wing of the palace and in House 1 (Rethemiotakis 1999c, 19; 2002, 57). Rethemiotakis (2002, 57) argues that, based on stylistic affinities with later frescoes from Knossos, those at Galatiani Kephala (44) may have been the work of painters trained at Knossos. At Prophetes Elias (28), Hazzidakis’s excavation produced a deposit of bronze sword blades, knives, and double axes (one of which was silver; Hazzidakis 1912–1913, 43–44). Marinatos’s later excavations yielded an additional MM III–LM I deposit containing six silver axes, more than 26 gold examples, several hundred bronze double axes, bronze knives and swords, bun ingots, small gold votive swords, and a lump of gold sitting on an altar (Marinatos 1935b, 249–252; 1962, 88). Because of their small size, thinness, and lack of tangs, some of the swords were probably meant for ceremonial or votive use (Georgiou 1979, 9). According to Marinatos (1935b, 250–251), the objects within the cave were found in two groups: (1) a group of votive offerings (silver and gold double axes, miniature gold swords, and one lump of gold) that covered a small altar in the interior; and (2) an area in the outer, northern corner of the cave where a number of bronze objects (double axes, swords, knives, and bun-shaped ingots) were massed together. The mass of votives around the altar is suggestive of

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

a shrine, while the second grouping of artifacts, which seem to have been deposited later, probably represent a hoard (see Watrous 1996; Rethemiotakis 1999e; Adams 2004, 33–34; contra Tyree 1975, 73). Taken as a group, the finds from the Arkalochori Cave indicate that some resident(s) of the Galatas area possessed considerable wealth and

63

participated in the supra-regional exchange of prestige goods (Rethemiotakis 1999e). Furthermore, the presence of so many prestige objects at a settlement that was not top tier implies that these types of goods were not concentrated at Galatiani Kephala (44), nor were they restricted.

Local Demography We are now in a position to consider the survey area’s NP population. Site-specific (micro-level) and regional (macro-level) population estimates have remained an important part of regional study projects, because they form the basis of models of social and economic organization, agricultural sustainability, intensification, land use, and agrarian settlement ecology in general (Zorn 1994, 31–32; Trombold 2005, 235). Furthermore, consideration of population coupled alongside settlement hierarchies and viewed over time may inform us about the development of more complex societies, because these are attributes of more complex and socially differentiated societies (cf. Carneiro 1981; Earle 1987, 288). Unfortunately, data derived almost purely from survey work presents a number of problems for estimating regional populations (cf. Hassan 1981; Schacht 1981; Kolb 1985; Abbott and Foster 2003). Soil deposition, vegetation, or later occupation, for example, may cover previously inhabited areas, making them invisible to the surveyor. Contemporaneity is also a problem, especially in light of our own problems in parsing out specific phases for the NP period (see above, p. 55). Due to these problems, we provide a broad range for our population estimates, because giving a single number implies an unrealistic degree of certainty or absoluteness. As a result, we employ an estimated population range of between 100 and 250 individuals per ha, following numbers frequently cited in studies of population density (e.g., Fletcher 1995; Whitelaw 2001, 2004; Blanton 2004) in an effort to gain insight into regional demography and change between the PP and NP periods. We also work with the understanding that our estimate can only serve as a minimum one because a number of settlements, especially those founded on marly (e.g., parts of the Philissia and Alagni/Astritsi plains) or alluvial (parts of the Voni

and Limnes Plains) soils, may not have been detected by the survey (see this vol., Ch. 3). At 25 ha, Galatiani Kephala (44) possessed the largest population in the survey area, possibly between 2,500 and 6,250 individuals. Around 500 to 1,000 people would have resided at Sphakokephalia (82), Melissokopa (118), and Kastellos (139). Medium-sized settlements (i.e., villages) could have possessed populations of between 50 and 250 individuals, while smaller ones (i.e., single farmsteads or hamlets) consisted of one to 10 households (ca. five to 50 individuals). Taken together, the estimated population for the entire survey zone would have been somewhere between 7,600 and 18,800 individuals. Our population estimates, therefore, suggest that roughly 33% of the entire population of the region lived at Galatiani Kephala (44), while another 18% of the entire population lived within the region’s second-order centers. At least 50% of the survey region’s population, therefore, lived within one of the larger settlements, indicating that there was a high degree of urbanization in the survey area. This urbanization process may have been fairly rapid, especially if Galatiani Kephala (44) was unoccupied in the preceding MM II period and Sphakokephalia (82), Melissokopa (118), and Kastellos (139) were small PP settlements. When the NP population estimates (ca. 7,600– 18,800 individuals) are compared with those of the PP period (ca. 2,850–7,130 individuals), they document a significant growth in population between the two periods, a difference of about 4,750–11,670 individuals. The formula for demographic growth rate, PR = (Vpresent-Vpast)/Vpast x 100 divided by N (the total number of years [200] between the PP and NP periods), yields a yearly growth rate of around 0.82%. This growth rate should certainly be higher, as some settlements have not been

64

D. MATTHEW BUELL

identified. Annual growth rates in prehistory were normally about 0.1%, while those closer to 1% per annum were unlikely because they would be unsustainable (Cowgill 1975; Hassan 1981, 253). We must, therefore, look to other explanations as to why the growth rate was so high between the two periods. Both external forces (e.g., colonization and immigration) and internal ones (e.g., increased fertility rates) may account for exponential increases in local population. Beginning with the former, processes involving the movement of people from one region into another imply that there has been substantial population growth in the donor region (Cowgill 1975, 509). With respect to the Galatas area, we might look toward Knossos during this period, as it is the largest polity within close vicinity to Galatiani Kephala (44; ca. 16 km to the northwest) and it experienced significant population growth throughout the NP period (cf. Whitelaw 2004, 2011). Indeed, Whitelaw (pers. comm.) believes that the NP limit of the city of Knossos was about 1 km². As a result of this, Knossos’s population may have been between 25,000 and 30,000 during this period (Whitelaw 2011, table 4.1). In order to sustain its estimated population, Knossos’s agricultural catchment would have extended as far as the northern limits of our survey zone. In addition, changes to the Galatas area’s material culture (i.e., ceramics and architectural features within the palace) suggest that individuals from the Knossos area may have immigrated to this area. Furthermore, the rank-size plot (see above, p. 63) implies that the area’s settlement hierarchy was a new one, perhaps imposed by an outside force. The

demographic evidence from Knossos and the settlement data from the survey may, therefore, indicate that Knossos attempted to colonize the Galatas area in an effort to relieve its own population pressures and supplement its resource base. The new political developments in the Galatas area, as manifested by the construction of a palace on Galatiani Kephala (44; see this vol., Ch. 8), could have further encouraged local population growth. In her study of the Basin of Mexico during the last four centuries of the pre-Hispanic era, for example, Elizabeth Brumfiel (1992) argues that local population growth was the result of the emergence of a state system. She presents the distinction, one that may also be true for Galatiani Kephala (44), that a rise in population is the direct result of the formation of a state system. In order to meet the new state’s demand for tribute, households increased their labor potential by producing more children (Brumfiel 1992, 556). Although there is little archaeological evidence to support this suggestion concerning the source(s) and motives for the substantial rise in population in the study area, two developments—the foundation of the palace and the intensification of agricultural practices—may corroborate it. Nevertheless, this explanation necessitates the existence of a palace, and it can only account for a short-term growth in population, because the palace was only in operation for a relatively brief period (i.e., MM IIIA– IIIB). The most substantial contributor to the rise in local population must have been, therefore, a movement of people from another area, probably that of Knossos.

Subsistence, Industry, and Trade Although the Mediterranean diet consisted of a mix of cereals, pulses, olive oil, vegetables, fruits, and wine, along with supplemental products (e.g., nuts, honey, fish, meat, and shellfish), scholars agree that cereals constituted the highest percentage (ca. 44%–75%) of the daily subsistence regime of most ancient peoples (cf. Foxhall and Forbes 1982; Gallant 1991, 58, 78; Christakis 2008, 29; see also Sarpaki 2001, 33–34, 40). Lin Foxhall and Hamish Forbes (1982, 69) suggest that ancient

people consumed about 200 kg of cereal products each year. Because of the relatively high consumption rate, we can assume that major grains would have taken up the largest cultivated areas of our survey region, while farmers cultivated subsidiary crops in smaller gardens or through intercropping with major grains. At least 34 km² of land (ca. 45% of all land) is suitable for cereal production in the Galatas area, because it is well watered, flat, and has a soft sediment base (see this vol., Ch.

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

3). Indeed, in the Venetian period the Pediada was called il granaio di Candia (the granary of Herakleion), illustrating this region’s rich potential for cereal crops (see this vol., Ch. 14). The remaining 55% of land of the Galatas area (ca. 41 km²), however, is better suited for growing olives and vines, and for grazing, because it is comprised of hills possessing more than a 12° slope (cf. Horden and Purcell 2000, 234–237; Bevan and Conolly 2002– 2004, 127) and relatively little soil as a result of a high degree of erosion (see this vol., Ch. 3). Although most prehistoric farmers would have alternated cereal crops with bare fallow (cf. van Wersch 1972; Sherratt 1980, 313–320; Wagstaff and Gamble 1982; Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985, 142), there is some evidence for a more intensified system of agricultural production in our survey area in the NP period. As presented above, most of the new NP settlements were situated on or immediately next to land well suited for cereal cultivation. In addition, we witnessed both a rise in cereal production tools and storage vessels at the NP settlements of our survey zone (see above, pp. 61–63), intimating that there was an increased concern for staple production and storage. The Galatas Survey Project’s off-site data also supports claims for agricultural intensification. Neopalatial sherds were identified in 371 of 571 transects (65%) walked, more so than for any other period in antiquity. Sherd scatters were dispersed across the landscape at a maximum distance of 0.5 m away from many smaller settlements. The even sherd density surrounding these sites may represent residual artifacts spread on fields along with manure (Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988; Bintliff and Howard 1999; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, 23–26; Isaakidou 2008, 104; cf. Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994, 144). The offsite data may, therefore, indicate that NP farmers in our survey zone did not leave their fields to fallow, instead choosing to intensively cultivate them (cf. Halstead 1987, 82–83; Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994). The shift to a more intensive if not specialized system of farming may have been a reaction to the newly established palace’s concern for acquiring staple goods. Consideration of the agricultural catchments of settlements within the survey zone along with their carrying capacities provides further insight into the interactions of Galatas with the other sites

65

and settlements within the survey zone, especially in terms of its demands for staple goods (Fig. 16). Site catchment analysis operates on the principle that human activity and mobility are limited to a certain range and that, consequently, settlements will only exploit territories that lie within welldefined limits (cf. Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970; Jarman, Vita-Finzi, and Higgs 1972; Vita-Finzi 1978; see also Hodder and Orton 1976, 229–236; Foley 1977, 164). These studies stipulate that in agricultural systems the costs of exploitation rise to oppressive heights when fields are located more than two hours of travel time apart each day (Jarman, Vita-Finzi, and Higgs 1972, 63). Paul Halstead and Glynis Jones (1989) suggest that the distance may have been as short as 2 km for prehistoric Mediterranean communities. With that in mind, Thiessen polygons are employed as a means of visualizing the extent, shape, and orientation of catchments for each settlement within the survey zone (cf. Flannery 1972; Marcus 1976; Mathews 1985; Renfrew 1986, fig. 1.1). Because the polygons do not possess boundaries of more than 2 km, and they coincide with topographic features, including both abrupt rises in elevation and bodies of water, they may provide a realistic representation of each settlement’s agricultural catchment. Having defined agricultural catchments, we can now assess their carrying capacity. There is some consensus that 1 ha of land can produce 400–500 kg of wheat, depending on whether the hoe or the plow was used (cf. Blanton 2004, 211–212; Christakis 2008, 34). Multiplication of the agricultural catchment’s area (minus land that cannot produce cereal crops) by production potential (400–500 kg of wheat) provides the carrying capacity of the land within each settlement’s catchment. After dividing the carrying capacity by a factor of 200 kg, an individual’s yearly grain consumption, we can compare the maximum number of people that can be supported by an agricultural catchment to the settlement’s estimated population. In doing so, it is clear that the agricultural fields of all large settlements (Galatiani Kephala [44], Sphakokephalia [82], Melissokopa [118], Kastellos [139]) would not have been sufficient to sustain their putative populations. The immediate catchment of Galatas, for example, was around 52.24 ha. If this land was productive, cereal-producing land, it could have only supported a maximum population of 100–130 individuals,

66

D. MATTHEW BUELL

clearly far short of its estimated population of 2,500–6,250 people. Galatiani Kephala (44) and the survey zone’s second-order settlements (i.e., Sphakokephalia [82], Melissokopa [118], Kastellos [139]), therefore, would have had to rely on different food procurement strategies in order to meet the subsistence demands of their inhabitants. The territories of the survey area’s large settlements (Sphakokephalia [82], Melissokopa ([118], Kastellos [139]) could have supported their estimated populations as well as yielded a considerable surplus of staple goods, as suggested by the evidence for agricultural intensification (Fig. 17). What this implies is that these second-order settlements extracted resources from the communities within their territories in order to meet their food requirements. Based on the evidence from excavations at Kastelli, the large settlement just outside of our survey zone, we can plausibly suggest that the arrangement between larger settlements and their support communities was reciprocal: while smaller settlements supported larger ones with staple goods, they could also take advantage of the services (e.g., defensive, ceremonial, and economical) provided by second-order settlements. Such a relationship implies that second-order settlements possessed some degree of local autonomy. The land suitable for cereal cultivation within Galatas’s own territory (ca. 1,100 ha) could have only provided for around 1,100 people, about half of the minimum estimated population of this settlement. The palace at Galatiani Kephala (44), therefore, must have demanded produce from both the settlements within its own territory and those outside of it. Since it appears as though the area’s large settlements (Sphakokephalia [82], Melissokopa [118], Kastellos ([39]) were collecting staple products from communities within their own territories, we might imagine that Galatiani Kephala (44) commanded some percentage of these products as part of a regional tax. The development of this new political economy seems to have been accompanied by more complex storage strategies. As we have seen already, centralized storage is represented by the storerooms of the palace. At the same time, there is an increase in household storage, as evidenced by the rise in NP storage vessels. The Galatas Survey Project identified a monumental ashlar building at site 17 (ca. 2 km away from Galatiani Kephala [44]) that seems to have been an official building

concerned with storage, perhaps serving as a midshipment point or peripheral storage warehouse (i.e., regional storage). A mason’s mark (+) found on one of the building’s ashlar blocks suggests that palace-sponsored architects were responsible for its construction (Pl. 1A). In addition, the site possesses a disproportionally high amount of storage vessels within its ceramic repertoire. While the many pithos fragments and official character of site 17 do not conclusively prove that the building here served as a peripheral storage warehouse, both could be taken as evidence for a system of regional storage. If this is the case, taxes in the form of staple goods may have been brought in from other areas within the survey zone and stored close to the area’s capital. Although there was a movement toward the settling of land more suited for cereal production in the NP period, more than half of all of the land within the survey zone was better suited for the growing of olives and vines (cf. Foxhall 2007, 112; see this vol., Ch. 3). The material evidence from the palace, including both ceramic vessels and storage facilities, indicates that quantities of olive and wine were moved to Galatiani Kephala (44), presumably from the settlements under its control. Indeed, there may have been a political aspect to the production of wine and olive oil, because these products required a considerable capital and labor investment in terms of planting, growing, and harvesting (Hamilakis 1999, 44; Stallsmith 2004, 41). Although wine was never restricted to the elite class (cf. Christakis 2008, 21–28, 30–31), high-quality wine may have been produced for palatial consumption. Furthermore, these products would have been used in the large-scale feasting and drinking events held within the palace (see below, pp. 67–69). In light of the foregoing discussion, the evidence for intensified agricultural production and more complex storage strategies (seen in increased household, regional, and central storage) is suggestive of the establishment of a new political economy within the survey zone, one that may be classified as staple finance (cf. Earle and D’Altroy 1982, 266; D’Altroy et. al 1985, 188; Emerson 1997). The ruling authority at Galatiani Kephala (44) would have demanded staple products in the form of cereals, olives, and grapes, among other products, in order to sponsor its dependents (e.g., those working in attached industries, attendants, and officials) and for use in the feasts held at the

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

palace. Although the area’s second-order settlements may have possessed some local autonomy, they were, in the end, subject to the political authority of Galatiani Kephala (44) as they helped to facilitate the movement of staple products to it. The palace at Galatiani Kephala (44) does not seem to have been as actively involved in other economic activities as it was for staple foodstuffs. With respect to ceramics, for example, there was a long tradition of local potting in our survey zone. The evidence for local pottery traditions corresponds to ethnographic work conducted by the survey in and around the Thrapsano area, where modern potters are still active and using at least four quality clay beds that are suitable for both fine and coarse wares (see this vol., App. I). As noted above, two NP sites (143, 147) produced kiln fragments, while wasters were found at Prophetes Elias (28) and Sphakokephalia (82), suggesting that pottery production took place at these sites. Of these four sites, Sphakokephalia (82) was the largest; Prophetes Elias (28) was village sized and sites 143 and 147 were both small farmsteads. Though the four sites are situated in disparate areas of the survey zone, all four overlooked the same low-land plain, connecting Amnissos to the Mesara (Fig. 14). Each one of these settlements, therefore, was advantageously positioned to take part in both inter- and intra-regional trade. The evidence for pottery making at dissimilar types of settlements and in different areas of the survey zone implies that this was not a centralized activity. The finding of stone drill guides at five sites (22, Galatiani Kephala [44], 48, 55, Melissokopa [118])

67

points toward stone-vessel production (see this vol., App. C). Stone vases are prestige objects because of the knowledge and time required for their production (cf. Bevan 2007, 40–61). The palace itself may have been involved in the stone vase industry at Galatiani Kephala (44) and site 22. Evidence for stone vessel manufacturing in conjunction with palaces has been identified at a number of other Cretan settlements, including Knossos, Malia, Zakros, Gournia, and Archanes (Evely 1993, 181–182, 244–246; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 90). Palatial involvement in the production of these items is not surprising because of their associated social value. Indeed, the palace may have supplied craftsmen through staple finance, converting staple products into prestige products that helped to display and reinforce social rank (cf. D’Altroy et al. 1985, 188; Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Halstead 2007). What is surprising, however, is that there is evidence for stone vase working from three different sites (48, 55, Melissokopa [118]) located some distance from the palace (ca. 4, 6, and 4 km). Their distance from the palace implies that Galatiani Kephala (44) did not control stone-vase production at these three settlements. Due to the ideological value attached to stone vessels, local elites may have controlled the workshops at sites 48 and 55 and Melissokopa (118). It would seem, therefore, that although the palace may have been interested in the production of prestige stone vessels, it did not actively and exclusively control this industry (cf. Schoep 2010).

Strategies of Political Rule: Feasting Concomitant with the establishment of a new political economy, the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44) adopted two archaeologically attested strategies of political rule that helped to both reinforce status relationships between social groups and integrate community members. Evidence for political strategies, concerned with social differentiation and social cohesion, may be found in the archaeological evidence for feasting/drinking ceremonies in the area of the palatial core of

Galatas and through consideration of the settlement’s built environment. An area of approximately 80.5 m² within the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44) was dedicated to the storage of consumable products, including olive oil, wine, cereals, and other agricultural products collected as taxes from the hinterlands, an arrangement that is confirmed by the settlement and land-use data details (see above, pp. 63–67). Although some of these goods undoubtedly went

68

D. MATTHEW BUELL

toward supporting palatial dependents, a good proportion probably were directed toward statesponsored feasts, as evidenced by several large deposits possessing faunal remains and ceramics used for drinking and eating found in and around the palace (Rethemiotakis 1999c, 22–25; 2002, 56, 59; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 100). The significance of commensal activities has become a prominent fixture in discussions concerning the formation of social complexity, especially as it pertains to political power, cultural identity, and social relationships (cf. Appadurai 1981; Diet­ ler 1996; Potter 2000; Dietler and Hayden, eds., 2001; see also Hamilakis 1996, 1998, 1999). Most scholars recognize that commensal activities are charged with meaning, as they unite groups of people in a social setting. Through the act of sharing, a sense of group cohesion or solidarity may be established, providing a sense of cultural identity (Potter 2000, 471; Hayden 2001, 28; Wright 2004a, 134). Additionally, the relative scale of the “community” feast could demonstrate the host’s abilities to command substantial amounts of foodstuffs, presumably that had been collected through taxation and interregional exchange. In doing so, feasting and drinking events can reflect one’s social power and wealth, serving as status markers (Goody 1982; Borgna 2004; Wright 2004a, 2004b). Feasting, therefore, can play a vital role in the formation and maintenance, or production and reproduction, of society (Wright 2004b). The archaeological evidence from Galatiani Kephala (44) suggests that the new elites centered at the palace used feasting as a means to both promote group identity and encourage status differentiation, particularly as it was concerned with their own social rank and position. Two different types of feasting activities may have been conducted within or near the palace of Galatiani Kephala (44)—those that were organized for the broader community (i.e., public) and those that were restricted to the elite class (i.e., private). Public feasting may have been conducted in the open northwestern and northern courtyards, given their ability to accommodate more members of the overall community, their prominent positions within the actual settlement, and the fact that deposits marking feasting events have been found within close proximity to them. A large deposit of animal and fish bones, sea snails, shells, and ceramic vessels associated with eating and drinking,

for example, was identified near the northern courtyard (Whitley 2002–2003, 80; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 100–101). These commensal activities would have stood out in the yearly cycle due to the excessive amounts of food and drink offered, the special qualities of some foods (e.g., wine, meat, and seafood), and their contextual setting next to the palace and its monumental ashlar facades, which framed the courtyards (cf. Gero 1992; Dietler 2003). These activities may have been linked to significant religious events, as they were conducted under the gaze of Mt. Juktas, Knossos’s peak sanctuary. If this is the case, feasting and drinking would have formed part of a ritual cycle associated with religious worship. Through common participation in these rites, which seem to have included communal eating and drinking activities, a sense of group identity would be established and reaffirmed. Finally, it is of importance that these events drew participants from the local community to the palace. By doing so, the palace was able to confirm its central role within society itself. Areas connected with ceremonial activities within the palace include the elaborately decorated Columnar, Pillar, and Minoan Halls and the central courtyard (see this vol., Ch. 8). These spaces were restricted (hence private) areas of the palace both in terms of access and visibility. As a result, we might infer that only elite members of society were permitted into these spaces. Unfortunately, the three halls produced little in the way of finds that might speak to their specific use. Nevertheless, the palace’s storage magazine and a food preparation area, the so-called cooking area, were both located close to the halls in the palace’s eastern wing. Here, the excavators found complete and fragmentary pithoi in one MM IIIB floor deposit, and food preparation and consumption vessels and many animal bones in a second MM IIIB deposit (Rethemiotakis 1999c, 20–24; 2002; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013, 101). The finds from these two deposits mark this space as one associated with food preparation and serving. Because of their semi-fixed features, including benches or hearths, elaborate decorations, and proximity to the cooking area, we might suppose that the great halls of Galatas were used for entertaining, including dining. Finally, the palace’s central courtyard, a large open space framed by the palace’s most

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

elaborate ashlar facades, also may have served as the location of periodic feasting events, because it too was situated within close proximity to both the storage magazine and food preparation areas. The exclusivity of ceremonial events within the palace’s interior spaces would have helped to promote status differentiation among the elites permitted into these areas and those who could not enter them (i.e., commoners). In addition, the shared act of consumption in feasting and drinking rituals would have helped to bind members of the elite class, uniting them into a cohesive social unit. At the same time, however, the palace’s wealth and social power were on display through the palace’s architectural setting and its ability to provision feasts. We might suppose these palace-sponsored dining events also tied elite members of Galatas’s community to the palace through debt. More specifically, elites may have become beholden to the palace,

69

ensuring their continued loyalty (cf. Hayden 2001, 28–35). In light of the foregoing discussion, it is reasonable to suggest that the general community was brought together in feasting events held within the public courtyards of Galatas. These types of feasts may have served three specific purposes: (1) to help establish a community-wide group identity; (2) to present the palace, and those in charge, as benefactors to the community; and (3) to demonstrate the political power of the palace, because it was able to host feasts, utilizing food products that it had collected as taxes from its territory. Elite feasting within the palace would have helped to establish and promote the social positions of attendees through exclusion, while at the same time establishing a system of reciprocal obligation that bound local elites to the palace.

Strategies of Political Rule: The Built Environment of Galatas As the discussion in the preceding section advances, individuals may create, manipulate, and promote ideology as an instrument of both social change and stability (cf. Whitley 1998, 17). The most visible manifestation of a new ideology in the Galatas area is the physical form of the settlement at Galatiani Kephala (44) itself (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011c; Buell 2014; see this vol., Ch. 8). The rulers of Galatas used the settlement’s built environment as a means of producing, reproducing, and transforming their own social roles within the larger community (cf. Miller and Tilley 1984, 8; Knapp 1988, 139; Rapoport 1990, 10; DeMarrais, Castillo, and Earle 1996). More specifically, the central authority designed parts of this settlement with the specific intent of promoting its own social status. In addition, these individuals endeavored to outfit the urban environment of Galatas with buildings and spaces that facilitated and encouraged community-wide activities for purposes of social cohesion and the establishment of a group identity. In this way, then, the built environment of Galatas served as a physical actor within its territory, because its buildings and spaces were

active, serving as the venues through which social relations were both structured and maintained (cf. Giddens 1972; 1984). In order to advance messages that promoted their own elevated social status and to draw people together in social settings where group unifying activities were conducted, the rulers of Galatas employed coordinated, formal, monumental, and standardized elements of urban design in the layout of their settlement (Smith 2007, 2008; Buell 2014). In doing so, the palatial elite were better able to communicate with a broad audience. That Galatiani Kephala (44) was planned is evidenced by the construction of a north–south street that provided structure to the settlement as large urban blocks were laid out along it (Morgan, Pitt, and Whitelaw 2008–2009, 94–95; see this vol., Ch. 8). This street also directed individuals to areas vital for structuring and enforcing social relationships, including both the palace itself and a number of large open spaces (the northern, northwestern, and baetyl courtyards) that were associated with it (cf. MacDonald 1986, 256; Buell 2014, 263–264). Finally, the street network was also

70

D. MATTHEW BUELL

used as a means of promoting the central authority’s elevated social position; as one travelled northward along this street toward the palace, it would have loomed over the individual, creating a visually imposing effect. The use of higher elevation is a nearly universal nonverbal cue indicating higher status (Rapoport 1990, 107). The orientation of buildings and spaces within the settlement helped to reinforce the importance of the palace, especially its central courtyard. Buildings and spaces, even those located farther afield and in different topographical situations— such as House 1 and those identified by the survey project on the southern side of Galatiani Kephala (44)—share a common reference to the palace in that they all possess a north–south orientation (Fig. 13). Because the palace is built around the central courtyard, this feature served as the principle organizing feature of the settlement. As a result of this arrangement, the activities conducted within the central courtyard and, by extension, those who organized them (i.e., the palatial elite), would have been viewed as central elements of the community’s social life. The relative degree of access and visibility into a particular courtyard helped to define its intended audience. The central courtyard, for example, was highly restricted in that it was accessed by three narrow corridors, which controlled the number of people that could enter simultaneously. Furthermore, because these corridors possessed a series of steps, visibility into this space was also limited. As a result of this restricted access and visibility, we might posit that only select groups of people (i.e., elites) were permitted into this space (cf. Gesell 1987, 125). Access and visibility into the other courtyards (the northern, northwestern, and baetyl), on the other hand, was unrestricted, because the main street led to and through them. Their permeability implies that all members of the community of Galatas could use these spaces. Viewed in this way, the evidence suggests that there was a hierarchy of courtyards: the central courtyard was reserved for the elite, while the palace’s periphery courtyards were for the public. Through the act of inclusion or exclusion within a particular courtyard, social positions (i.e., elite and commoner) were reinforced. Finally, in each case the courtyard’s proximity to the palace and its lavish backdrop (ashlar facade) reminded participants

that the palace sponsored the activities conducted within them. The central planners of Galatas, therefore, created an urban environment that promoted their own social position and helped to define positions within society, while at the same time encouraging group identity through the activities conducted within these spaces. The palatial authority made its most overt statements concerning status and power through the monumentality of the buildings that it commissioned. For Bruce Trigger (1990, 119), the principle defining feature of monumental architecture is that its scale and elaboration exceeds the requirements of utilitarian or practical functions that a building is intended to perform. The control and conspicuous consumption of materials and human labor represents an asymmetric control of resources (Trigger 1990, 124–125, 128; Blanton 1993; Dovey 1999, 15–16). Hence, monumental buildings help to both display and reinforce unequal power relations among social groups. The size, architectural elaborations, permanent nature, and prominence of monumental buildings also ensures that they are enduring symbols of wealth and status, which are seen by many people and over a long period of time (Blanton 1989, 413; DeMarrais, Castillo, and Earle 1996, 18). The rulers of Galatas employed elements of monumentality in the construction of the palatial core. Firstly, the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44) was almost certainly the largest architectural entity within the settlement. Secondly, palace architects employed a number of specialized materials and techniques. Areas important for social interaction, including the central court, the Minoan Hall, and the Pillar and Columnar Halls, as well as the exterior walls of the palace itself, for example, were fitted with extensive facades of poros limestone ashlar blocks set on plinths. The stone used for the blocks was quarried from the area of Alagni near Orphanou Marathia (110; ca. 4 km away from Galatiani Kephala; Rethemiotakis 2002, 60; Fig. 14). The amount of materials required for the palace’s ashlar walls combined with their distance from the stone source implies a considerable cost in terms of transportation. Because of the quality of workmanship in the palace’s ashlar facades (e.g., smooth faces with very few gaps between their vertical joints), it is clear that it employed specialized laborers. Indeed, the presence

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

of mason’s marks (+) on some of the ashlar blocks suggests that Knossos itself may have deployed masons to Galatiani Kephala (44), because this type of mason’s mark is also found at Knossos (cf. Hood 1987, 207, fig. 5; see also Begg 2004a, 20, 2004b, 222). Other architectural elaborations were used in the construction of some of the palace’s features. Gypsum, perhaps valued because of its ability to reflect light, was used for some of the doorjambs and pillar bases in the Pillar, Columnar, and Minoan Halls. This material was brought in from an outcrop located 13 km from the settlement, once again marking a significant cost in the transportation of materials to the site (Chlouveraki 2006, 294–295). Other specialized materials and building techniques include the use of special stones for pillar and column bases, decorative plasters and frescos, timber frameworks, and elaborate floor paving (Blackman 2000–2001, 127; Rethemiotakis 2002, 60; Whitley 2002–2003, 78–80; 2003–2004, 79; Whitley et al. 2006–2007, 105–106; see this vol., Ch. 8). All of these architectural elaborations are indicative of a considerable cost in terms of both materials and human labor

71

(specialized and unspecialized). The use of these features served the purpose of promoting and legitimizing the palace’s wealth and social authority. As deduced from its building history, which included rebuilding in the MM IIIB period, the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44) was a permanent structure. The palace was also a highly visible element within the settlement’s cityscape, because it occupied the most prominent part of the settlement on the northern tip of the hill. As a result, it was visible for great distances (Buell 2014, 264; cf. Letesson and Vansteenhuyse 2006, 93–94). Indeed, the exterior ashlar facades of the two most visible wings of the palace, the northern and eastern wings, are quite striking. Neither topographical features nor human-made constructs obstructed the view of these two wings from the surrounding territory. As a result, the power and the prestige of the palace were projected outward from the settlement. The palace’s permanent and prominent qualities ensured that the social messages embedded within this urban feature were long lasting and viewed by as broad an audience as possible.

Galatiani Kephala and the Knossian State The sociopolitical and economic systems of the Galatas area developed independently from those elsewhere on the island prior to the establishment of the MM IIIA urban center on Galatiani Kephala (44). Indeed, the area’s material culture was quite conservative, clinging to precedents established in the Neolithic and PreP eras and exhibiting little in the way of external influence. In the PP period, we see the development of a number of politically autonomous settlements scattered throughout the broader Pediada, including Galatiani Kephala (44) and probably Sambas (71) in our survey zone, as well as Smari and Kastelli farther afield (see this vol., Ch. 7). It seems likely that by the end of the PP period, Kastelli had asserted itself as the regional authority, perhaps even at the expense of other settlements (e.g., Galatiani Kephala [44], Sambas [71], and Smari). The construction of the urban center, complete with a palace on Galatiani Kephala (44), in the MM IIIA period, therefore, reflects

a profound change in the region’s social, political, and economic organization. Like Galatiani Kephala (44), a number of other settlements in North-Central Crete, such as Archanes, Juktas, Poros-Katsambas, and Tylissos, were either rebuilt or in some cases monumentalized early in the NP period. At the same time, elements of Knossian material culture, including architecture (cf. Hood 1987; Driessen 1989–1990), fresco painting (cf. Rehak 1997; Bevan 2010, 40), glyptic iconography (cf. Hallager and Hallager 1995), and ceramics (cf. Betancourt 1985), spread throughout North-Central Crete. The adoption of Knossian ideology may be the result of elite emulation, a targeted dissemination in order to ensure and reinforce loyalties between Knossos and other polities within the broader region (see Knappett and Schoep 2000) or the creation of a territorial state focused on Knossos (see Wiener 1990, 150; 2007; Warren 2004). While it is at present difficult to

72

D. MATTHEW BUELL

determine the precise nature of the relationship between Knossos and other settlements, several lines of evidence suggest that Galatiani Kephala (44) was, at the very least, politically and ideologically aligned with Knossos, if not wholly incorporated into the larger Knossian state. Examining the situation from a geographic standpoint, Warren (2004, 160) pointed out that both Galatiani Kephala (44) and Knossos fall within the natural geographic borders of the Pediada, a large region of about 1,140 km². In addition, in various assessments of local demography, scholars have noted that Knossos grew significantly (>1 km²) in the NP period, suggesting in turn that its population may have been as high as 25,000– 30,000 individuals at this time (Evans 1921–1935, III, 545–564; Hood 1958; Hood and Smyth 1981, 10; Whitelaw 2004; 2011, table 4.1). In order to sustain its estimated population, Knossos’s agricultural catchment must have extended as far as the northern limits of our survey zone. What this suggests is that the two areas—our survey zone and the broader Knossos area—were socially, politically, and economically linked. Indeed, the Galatas Survey Project’s demographic data suggests that local growth rates between the PP and NP periods was unsustainable, perhaps indicating that there was a movement of people into the Galatas area, a situation that is also reflected by the rank-size plot for this period (Fig. 15) and the change in the material culture of the area. With respect to the latter, there is also an abrupt change in local pottery production from the traditional practices of the Galatas area to one where vessels imitative of those made at Knossos were produced and used. Contemplation of the palace indicates that Knossos may have played a part in its construction. First, there is the issue of precedent. Prior to its construction there was no tradition of monumental building in the Galatas area. Moreover, the construction of a planned settlement implies the presence of a new, central bureaucracy, which possessed the ability

to plan and the authority to mobilize labor. In addition, a considerable local population would have been required for such a construction project (cf. Driessen 2001a, 60). At present, there is only limited and chronologically distant evidence (i.e., the MM IB building under the western wing and Building 3 on the Kephala) for a local political institution that would have been capable of building a palace and planning a new settlement in the MM IIIA period. The closest polity to our survey zone that was capable of planning and implementing both palace and urban center in MM IIIA period—and one that had the authority, as well as the need, to do so—was Knossos. In addition, specific elements of the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44), including the presence of mason’s marks on ashlar blocks and wall paintings, implies that Knossian workmen were used in its construction. The use of specialized artisans (builders and painters) and materials from the area of Knossos may be indicative of a special relationship between the two centers. The presence of Knossian workmen, Knossos’s own territorial expansion, and the rapid construction of a well-planned administrative and ideological center suggest that the settlement and palace at Galatiani Kephala (44) were constructed by or under the authority of Knossos. Knossos may have done so in order to draw this part of the Pediada into a much larger regional state. The motives for this may have been threefold: (1) to control trade between the northern and southern coasts, or perhaps to consolidate holdings in the Mesara; (2) to alleviate Knossian population pressures; and (3) to increase Knossos’s own resource base. If the area around Galatiani Kephala (44) was indeed part of the much larger Knossian state, then Galatas itself served as a secondary center, one that was politically, economically, and ideologically dependent upon Knossos. In other words, Galatiani Kephala (44) served as a second-tier center—a provincial capital—in a much more extensive hierarchy centered on Knossos.

Conclusion The central authority at Galatiani Kephala (44) employed different political strategies existing on a continuum, from extremely centralized ones

(network) to those that were more decentralized (corporate), inclusive, and focused on power sharing for the administration of its region (see Crumley

BUILDING A MINOAN STATE AT NEOPALATIAL GALATAS

1995; Blanton et al. 1996; Blanton 1998; Feinman 2000; Feinman, Lightfoot, and Upham 2000; Parkinson and Galaty 2007, 116). The palatial authority employed features common to both hierarchical and heterarchical systems as a means of integrating the Galatas area into the Knossian state system. At the onset of the NP period, a three-tiered hierarchical settlement pattern developed concurrent with the founding of the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44). Galatas was situated at the top of this hierarchy with a number of second-order centers (towns?) directly below it. At the bottom of the hierarchy were a large number of smaller settlements. The second-order settlements must have supplied Galatiani Kephala (44); its direct landholdings were not sufficient enough to sustain its estimated population. Not only did Galatas, then, have to provide for its inhabitants, but so too did it have to provision the large-scale feasts that it sponsored. The evidence for increased agricultural production, if not specialization, in cereal crops, and the significant rise in central, regional, and domestic storage practices, supports the inference that Galatiani Kephala (44) imposed some form of tax in staples on the settlements within the survey zone. The evidence for hierarchical decision making, ultimately stemming from Knossos itself, and nonconsensual politics, along with an expansion into the region’s economic sector, marks a trend toward centralization. This situation differs dramatically from that of the PP period when a number of disconnected, rival entities existed in the Galatas area, each managing their own local affairs. The main political agents at Galatiani Kephala (44) endeavored to create a system built around their own monopoly of sources of power, as witnessed by the palatial elite’s emphasis on personal prestige, self-aggrandizement, conspicuous consumption, the use of particularizing ideology, and wealth finance (cf. Feinman 2000, 214; Feinman, Lightfoot, and Upham 2000, 453). The central authority of Galatas, for example, took considerable efforts to promote their own prestige through the act of planning a monumental urban core. The palatial authority also conspicuously consumed staple resources in its community-wide feasting events, which would have demonstrated its political power because it used food products that it had collected from its territory through taxation. In addition, the palace would have created a system of

73

reciprocal obligation through large-scale feasting events, binding community members to it. Finally, through formalized exclusion, deduced through the relative degrees of accessibility among areas where feasting occurred, the palace was able to employ commensal activities as a means of marking status distinctions among various segments of society (elite and commoner). Additional network strategies of political rule that emphasized individuality and status differences were also in operation throughout the Galatas area. Evidence from the palace’s excavations suggests that it may have been involved to some degree in the production of stone vessels and metal objects, perhaps financing workmen in these industries with surplus goods collected through taxation. The central authority was, therefore, able to convert staples into objects of high status, those that, in turn, helped to accentuate the high social position of the palatial elite. Because of the available evidence, we do not know, unfortunately, whether there was a restricted circulation of prestige objects throughout the survey zone. The evidence for stone-vase working at settlements far from the palace and the high number of prestige items found at Prophetes Elias (28) indicates that local elites were able to participate in personal networks of gift and prestige exchange. Local elites may have chosen to do so in order to elevate their own social standing. Wealth distinction is also evident in the differences in residential architecture, as houses on Galatiani Kephala (44) varied considerably in size, spatial layout, and in architectural materials and details, confirming the presence of both elites and commoners. Because Galatiani Kephala (44) may have been a second-order center in the larger Knossian state, its ability to exercise economic and political power on a local level represents some degree of decentralization. There also seems to have been some level of power sharing between Galatiani Kephala (44) and the other large communities in the region (Sphakokephalia [82], Melissokopa [118], Kastellos [139]). Each one of these settlements possessed large populations that could not have been sustained by their immediate environs. What this suggests is that each one of these relied on the smaller support settlements populating their territories. Although the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44) may have demanded some percentage of agricultural crops, it seems plausible that each one of the area’s

74

D. MATTHEW BUELL

second-order settlements governed their own local territories in a fairly autonomous manner. One reason for this arrangement may be due to the rather rapid establishment of the new polity centered on Galatiani Kephala (44); it may have been easier for the palace to incorporate preexisting sociopolitical arrangements into a larger framework. The emphasis on food production and staple finance are themselves elements of a more decentralized political regime. Staple products from communities throughout the region were stored at Galatiani Kephala (44) and used to feed dependent workers and hold large-scale feasting events. Not only did the feasts serve the purpose of status differentiation (a network strategy), but they also functioned as a means of uniting attendees through the process of communal eating, creating a shared identity. Feasting seems to have been but one part of a cycle of communal rituals. Indeed, all of the spaces associated with feasting in the palace also contained evidence for ritual and ceremonial activities, suggesting that these were of major importance to the central authority. The palace, therefore, was able to both recognize and integrate different social segments through ritual and ideological means (cf. Manning 1995; Haggis 1999; Knappett 1999). Finally, it appears as though some aspects of the region’s local economy, such as ceramics

and stone-vase working, operated outside of palatial control. Although the polity centered on Galatiani Kephala (44) was hierarchically organized in nature, its political agents employed several decentralized features, crosscutting this hierarchical arrangement, perhaps in an effort to consolidate control of the region. Taken at face value, the political organization of Galatas seems to have been more corporate and less centralized in practice. Even so, its centralized elements would have served as important and effective strategies of political rule. This system, which ultimately may have been imposed by Knossos, seems to have been fairly tenuous and unstable, because the palace itself ceased to function by the LM IA period. Indeed, because of the central building’s continued use at Kastelli into the LM IA period, its monumental nature, and its ceremonial purpose, vis-à-vis the gradual abandonment of Galatas through the LM IA period, it has been suggested that Kastelli replaced Galatiani Kephala (44) as the most important settlement in the Pediada at this point in time (cf. Warren 2004, 163). If this is the case, the elite at Kastelli, who clearly possessed some degree of local power, were able to reassert their political positions following the demise of the palace at Galatiani Kephala (44).

10

Collapse and Retraction D. Matthew Buell and Lee Ann Turner

We have divided this chapter into two parts. In the first part, we examine the LM IIIA–IIIB settlements and their associated finds, followed by a discussion of the Galatas area’s sociopolitical and economic organization during this period and

its wider implications. In the second part, we describe the LM IIIC settlement situation and how it differed from that of LM IIIA–IIIB. We suggest several reasons for these changes at the end of the chapter.

Late Minoan IIIA–IIIB Period The Galatas Survey Project did not recognize sherds that date unequivocally to the LM II period. Late Minoan IIIA–IIIB sites were primarily identified by chronologically distinct fine ware vessels, including kylikes and stirrup jars, and/or by the presence of tripod cooking pot legs. Late Minoan IIIC settlements, on the other hand, were often recognized by ceramic fabrics (e.g., Measles ware; see this vol., App. B). The total number of LM III settlements may be underrepresented for several reasons: (1) chronologically specific shapes (e.g., kylikes and stirrup jars) were not frequently found; (2) there is an imperfect knowledge of local LM IIIA–IIIC fabrics; and (3) settlements on

hilltops may have been lost through the process of erosion. In addition, alluvial/colluvial deposits or later occupations may have buried some settlements (see this vol., Ch. 3). Despite these problems in recoverability, we were able to identify 52 sites belonging to the LM IIIA–IIIB period (Fig. 18), while 17 sites seem to have clear LM IIIC occupation (Fig. 19; see below, pp. 80–82). The 52 LM IIIA–IIIB sites represent a dramatic decrease (ca. 52%) in settlement numbers in the Galatas area when compared to those of the NP period (Tables 4, 5). Some 56 NP sites were abandoned by the LM IIIA–IIIB period. Panagiotakis (2003, 354) also registered a decline in site numbers

76

D. MATTHEW BUELL AND LEE ANN TURNER

between these two periods. The overall decline in site numbers may be related to destructions at important local sites like Galatiani Kephala (44) and Kastelli at the end of the NP period. Indeed, these destructions seem to have been the result of human agency. The central building at Kastelli, for example, was looted and then intentionally set on fire (Rethemiotakis 1997b, 305). This relationship between destructions at significant centers and a general depopulation of hinterland areas occurs in other parts of the island as well, especially in coastal zones (Gkiasta 2008, 214). Following destructions at the important centers of Hagia Triada and Kommos in the LM IB period, for example, nearly 74% of all settlements in the Mesara were abandoned (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004f, 298, 300–304). Likewise, there was a substantial decline in LM IIIA settlement numbers in East Crete, which corresponds to destruction events at Gournia, Mochlos, Pseira, and Vasiliki (Hayden 2004a, 130–133; Haggis 2005, 79; Watrous 2012, 65). Although our survey suggests that the settlement at Galatiani Kephala (44) decreased in size following the LM IB destruction, excavations have identified building remains dating to the LM IIIA–IIIB period as well as evidence for ceramic production and metal working (K. Christakis, pers. comm.). This evidence may, therefore, indicate that Galatiani Kephala (44) did continue as a settlement of some type of importance. Elsewhere in the Galatas area, at about 2 ha (cf. 6 ha in the NP period), Sphakokephalia (82) may have been the size of a village in the LM IIIA–IIIB period, while Melissokopa (118) seems to have only been inhabited by a few households. The fourth largest NP settlement, Kastellos (139), was completely abandoned by LM IIIA–IIIB. The contraction or abandonment of the four largest NP centers was accompanied by a reduction in site numbers within their hinterlands (cf. Figs. 14, 18). The contraction or abandonment of large settlements and the decrease in site numbers within their hinterlands is not suggestive of a nucleation of settlement; rather, it is likely that there was an overall reduction in local population, perhaps as the result of conflict. The largest LM IIIA–IIIB settlements (Prophetes Elias [28], Galatiani Kephala [44], Sphakokephalia [82], 83, Korakia [134]) possessed areas no greater than 3 ha, suggesting that they were about the size of a NP medium-sized settlement

(i.e., villages). Two of these settlements, Galatiani Kephala (44) and Sphakokephalia (82), were important centers in the NP period, each with their own distinct territories. Petras Amarathia (83) and Korakia (134) were similarly sized NP villages. The only sign of growth was at Prophetes Elias (28), which grew from a 1.5 ha NP settlement to one of about 3 ha in the LM IIIA–IIIB period (Pls. 5B, 13A). The settlement situation differs from the preceding NP period, when large settlements were located some distance from one another and in their own discrete topographical areas. Sphakokephalia (82) and Petras Amarthia (83), for example, were located about 1 km away from each other on the Voni Plain, while Prophetes Elias (28) and Korakia (134) were positioned about 3 km away from each other on opposite sides of the Zinta-Arkalochori plain. Moreover, none of the large LM IIIA–IIIB settlements possessed smaller satellite sites clustered around them, as was the case in the NP period. What this implies is that the larger settlements were self-sufficient agricultural villages. The primary food producers of these villages must have lived within the confines of their respective settlement and walked out to their fields each day. The remaining 47 LM IIIA–IIIB settlements were quite small, perhaps only hamlets or farmsteads (Fig. 18). Forty-two of the 52 LM IIIA–IIIB settlements possessed evidence for a NP occupation, suggesting that there was some degree of continuity between the two periods. The remaining ten sites were founded (3, 24, 87, 97, 98, 128, 152) or re-founded (81, 99, 102) in the LM IIIA–IIIB period. All of these new LM IIIA–IIIB settlements were small, either hamlets (3, 24, 99, 152) or farmsteads (87, 98, 128). For the most part, the newly founded LM IIIA– IIIB settlements occupied a north–south line along the Karteros River (Fig. 18). Several of these foundations (24, 81, 87, 98) were located relatively close to one another in the northwestern part of the survey zone, between the modern towns of Astritsi and Sambas. There does not seem to have been a preference for topographical placement, as five newly established settlements (3, 24, 87, 128, 152) occupied hilltops, two (97, 98) were founded on gentle hill slopes, and three (87, 99, 102) occupied fertile valley floors. The settlement pattern of these new LM IIIA–IIIB sites is suggestive of a concern for maintaining contacts with the northern

COLLAPSE AND RETRACTION

and southern coasts via the Karteros River and a sustained interest in dry farming. What this settlement situation does not reflect, however, is an increased concern for safety and defense, something witnessed in the settlement patterns of other areas on Crete during this period. With respect to all of the LM IIIA–IIIB settlements within the Galatas area, 25 sites (3, 21, 22, 24, 28, 34, 44, 50, 53, 54, 59, 60, 75, 80, 82, 87, 103, 109, 126, 128, 133, 134, 152, 157, 163) were situated on hilltops, overlooking arable land below, 16 (25, 39, 55, 66, 68, 73, 83, 85, 86, 97, 98, 118, 121, 129, 154, 171) were positioned on gentle slopes, and 11 (10, 13, 45, 46, 52, 81, 99, 102, 122, 162, 168) occupied bottomland. All LM IIIA–IIIB sites were located in close proximity to local water sources, usually the Karteros River or one of its tributaries. Although the general settlement pattern does reflect a concern for dry farming, this system does not seem to have been as intensive as it was in the NP period, because fewer settlements were located immediately on good agricultural land (e.g., the Limnes Plain). Furthermore, very little off-site pottery—the residual remains of manuring—was identified by the survey. The average nearest-neighbor distance between all sites in the LM IIIA–IIIB period was about 650 m, indicating that settlement was more dispersed in this period as compared to the preceding one (cf. Figs. 14, 18). Nevertheless, several discrete clusters of smaller sites existed. On the Limnes Plain, for example, several sites (45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 59) formed a distinct cluster, while to the west on the AlagniAstritsi plain, Melissokopa (118) and sites 121 and 122 constituted a group, as did sites 128, 129, and 133 on the Zinta-Arkalochori plain (Fig. 18). Several sites (3, 10, 21, 25) around Galatiani Kephala (44) also formed a cluster. This settlement situation is similar to that witnessed in the PreP period in our survey area (cf. this vol., Ch. 6). The close spatial situation of these settlements may indicate, as it did in the PreP period, that the occupants of these settlements were closely connected and affiliated with one another, perhaps through kinship.

The Late Minoan IIIA–IIIB Finds As was the case in preceding periods, most ceramic vessels in the Galatas area were manufactured

77

locally, using Pediada clays. Although no objects associated with ceramic production were found by the Galatas Survey Project, potters’ wheels were identified in excavations at both Galatiani Kephala (44; K. Christakis, pers. comm.) and Arkalochori (Marinatos 1935a, 218–219). As in the NP period, therefore, the available evidence suggests that there were multiple ceramic workshops in operation throughout the Galatas area. Few imports were identified by our survey. Potters in the Galatas area used a lighter colored red/orange fabric than was used in the NP period for the construction of coarse ware cooking vessels. Likewise, light buff or pale orange fabrics were used for larger vessels (e.g., bridgespouted jars [BSJs], amphorae, basins, jars, larnakes, and pithoi). Late Minoan IIIA–IIIB fine ware vessels (e.g., conical cups, bowls, and kylikes), like those of the NP period, were constructed from a fine-buff or yellowish fabric. These vessels often possessed a slipped surface, though some were burnished. Some fine ware cups were decorated with Mycenaeanizing motifs below their rims (Pl. 23A:f); Rethemiotakis (1997b, 305) recognized similar motifs in his analysis of ceramic remains from Kastelli. He interpreted these Mycenaeanizing motifs as evidence of strong Knossian inspiration (Rethemiotakis 1997b, 306). The local traditionalism in vessel design and decoration of earlier periods in the Galatas area all but disappeared in the LM IIIA–IIIB period. Indeed, as a group, the survey area’s LM IIIA–IIIB ceramics were quite standardized in terms of their shapes, fabrics, and decorations, and they were quite similar to examples from other parts of the island (see this vol., App. A). The survey ceramics, therefore, suggest that the Galatas area was by this point in time part of the larger island-wide ideological system, a process that began in the NP period with the introduction of Knossian-like buff fabrics to the area. Typical site assemblages were domestic in nature. Nearly 60% of all sites produced evidence for fine ware vessels, usually in the form of drinking cups (e.g., kylikes, champagne cups, goblets, and conical cups; Pls. 23B, 24A:a–d). Coarse ware vessels were found on most LM IIIA–IIIB sites, whereas cooking pots were identified at less than half of all sites. Stirrup jars were found on four

78

D. MATTHEW BUELL AND LEE ANN TURNER

sites (Pl. 23A:a, b). Larnax fragments, discussed in more detail below, were found at three sites (3, 99, 129; Pl. 23A:a–c). Roughly 52% of all LM IIIA– IIIB sites produced storage vessels (Pl. 24B), in contrast to the NP period when 75% of all sites possessed ceramic evidence for storage. This decrease in the total number of storage vessels may indicate that agricultural practices had become less intensive in the LM IIIA–IIIB period, well reflected in the general settlement pattern of this period. Late Minoan IIIA–IIIB sites also yielded fewer ground stone implements. The previously published LM IIIA–IIIB finds from the Galatas area are exclusively funerary in nature (Platon 1951; Kanta 1980). They therefore augment evidence from sites 3, 99, and 129, where fragments from sarcophagi were found. Two LM IIIA–IIIB chamber tombs were discovered at Choumeri, while a larnax and two vases were unearthed at Zoophori (Platon 1951, 445; Kanta 1980, 73). Two more LM III chamber tombs were excavated outside of Arkalochori (Kanta 1980). The first contained two larnakes holding the bones of at least four people along with nine vessels, including stirrup jars and cups, while the second possessed three larnakes (two of which were decorated with octopods) and some vessels (an amphora, a highfooted kylix, and a cup; Kanta 1980, 72). A chamber tomb at Astritsi produced another larnax, while an additional fragment (decorated with motifs of papyrus and flowers on the outside, and fish, an octopus, and a bird on the inside) was found outside of Voni (Platon 1957, 337; Kanta 1980, 73, 76–77). Another chamber tomb, which possessed a similarly decorated larnax to that at Arkalochori, was discovered inside the modern village of Thrapsano (Kanta 1980, 73). Finally, two more larnakes were identified in a pit grave outside of Meleses (Platon 1951, 445; Kanta 1980, 74). Taken as a group, six chamber tombs and one pit burial have been identified in the Galatas area. The tombs and larnakes represent the introduction of new burial customs within our survey zone, because these were not documented for earlier periods. Indeed, the use of different types of tombs within one specific area (i.e., the chamber tombs and pit burials) is a well-documented phenomenon for this period on Crete (Preston 2004). The mortuary evidence, like the evidence for standardized ceramic production, suggests that the inhabitants

of our survey zone were keyed into a larger islandwide ideological system. When plotted on a map, most of the reported burials within the survey zone (at Choumeri, Zoophori, Astritsi, Voni, Thrapsano, and Arkalochori) were situated within close proximity to a LM IIIA–IIIB settlement identified by the survey project (Fig. 18). The chamber tombs at Choumeri, for example, may be related to site 129, where our survey identified more larnax fragments. The burial at Zoophori was probably associated with site 171, while that at Voni may have been connected to Petras Amarthia (83). The funerary remains found near the modern town of Astritsi may be associated with the ancient site (24) to the north of the modern town where much archaeological material has been found. The pit graves outside of Meleses cannot be firmly associated with any sites from the survey because the modern town lies just outside of the survey zone’s boundaries. The six sites within the survey zone containing evidence for burials, except for site 129, which was a farmstead, were hamlet(3, Astritsi Kephala [24], 99, 171) or village-sized sites (Prophetes Elias [28], Petras Amarthia [83]; Fig. 18). Since entitlement to tomb burial may have functioned locally as a symbol of status, the burials may have belonged to important individuals (e.g., heads of kin groups) from these settlements.

Sociopolitical and Economic Organization in the Late Minoan IIIA–IIIB Galatas Area The Linear B documents from Knossos allow us to make certain inferences concerning the nature of the relationship between the Galatas area and the larger Knossian state. Approximately 100 toponyms are recorded in Knossos’s Linear B documents. Because of the presence of these tablets at Knossos, each one of the places mentioned in the texts must have been politically subordinate to it, making Knossos a first-order administrative center. Six of the toponyms have been identified, including Knossos, Amnissos, Tylissos, Phaistos, Kydonia (Chania), and Aptera (for other possibilities, see Talbert, ed., 2000, map 60); there are no secure toponyms for the eastern part of the island. In addition, based on contextual evidence it

COLLAPSE AND RETRACTION

is thought that the toponym se-to-i-ja was located to the east of Knossos, perhaps somewhere on the Lasithi plateau (Bennet 1985, 239). On the basis of the known place-names, then, the Knossian state seems to have possessed a minimum extent from as far west as modern Chania to the Lasithi plateau in the east, and from Phaistos in the south to Amnissos in the north (Bennet 1990, 208). The toponyms in Knossos’s Linear B tablets have been positioned in one of five groups (Groups I–V) based on high occurrence and frequent cooccurrence with one another (Hart 1965; Wilson 1977; McArthur 1981; Bennet 1985). A geographical position can be affixed to each group based on the known toponyms: Group I. The Mesara Plain (Phaistos). Group II. The Lasithi plateau (se-to-i-ja). Group III. An area surrounding Tylissos. Group IV. An area in the western part of the island around Chania (Kydonia and Aptera). Group V. An area around Knossos (Knossos and Amnissos; Bennet 1990, 208). The Galatas area must have been part of either Group III or V, because these two groups would have incorporated part of the Pediada. Although we cannot be certain, it is likely that the Galatas area was part of Group V, which was directly administered by Knossos, as a result of the spatial proximity of the two centers and the presence of the Karteros River, which connected them. The Linear B archives at Knossos record the palace bureaucracy’s involvement in the production of cereal grain and textiles. Cereal crops, as recorded in the Knossos a-ma (i.e., “harvest”) texts, were produced on land that belonged to local communities (i.e., the settlements of the Galatas area) rather than the palace itself (Killen 1998). The records are evidence that Knossos was interested in agricultural commodities, perhaps as a tax, though we do not know how the palace obtained them. Halstead (2001, 40) has plausibly suggested that products were obtained through a share-cropping arrangement, with the communities providing human labor and the palace contributing oxen to plow lands in return for some percentage of the crop (Halstead 2001, 40). It is possible that surpluses were not sent directly to Knossos but were used by local officials to feed the workforce in the

79

same local area (Killen 1998, 23). The survey evidence suggests that although the overall agricultural system within the Galatas area was less intensive in the LM IIIA–IIIB period than it was in the NP period, local communities remained engaged with agricultural endeavors, perhaps in part to fulfill taxation demands. Settlements were, for example, dispersed throughout the landscape, often in low-lying topographic areas (e.g., 10, 13, 45, 47, 52, 81, 99, 102, 122, 162, 168) on the land that they were exploiting. Finally, as a result of the dispersed settlement situation, all sites possessed fairly large agricultural catchments, which were well suited both for meeting subsistence demands and for the production of surplus goods. Although grain crops undoubtedly played an important role in the state economy, there seems to have been an even greater emphasis on wool collection for the purpose of textile manufacturing. The Linear B tablets at Knossos suggest that there was a system of specialized pastoralism on a massive scale, with a strong element of state intervention. The palace’s concern for cloth production is demonstrated by the extensive records for every stage of manufacturing, from the animals themselves (D series) to shearing (Dk/Dl), wool allocations (Od), cloth production targets (Lc), cloth deliveries (Le), cloth storage (Ld[1]), and workers (Bennet 1988, 27). Some of the textiles listed on the Ld(1) records at Knossos were described as /xenwia/, suggesting that high-status textiles were being produced (Killen 2008, 182). Jan Driessen (2001b, 97) proposes that the increased palatial involvement in herding is a result of its desire to exchange high-quality textiles for foreign exotica. The Da–Dg tablets indicate that the palace controlled at least 100,000 sheep, 80,000 of which were wool flocks (Killen 1964, 5; 1977; Olivier 1967; Halstead 1999, 145). Because adult sheep need at least 1 ha of fallow land for grazing, a minimum of 100,000 ha was required to sustain palatial flocks (Halstead 1981b). John Bennet (1985, 237) even estimates that at least two to three times the minimum area would have been required for suitable grazing. The 200,000–300,000 ha of land required to feed palace-controlled sheep amounts to about one-quarter to one-third of the total area of the island, which, to some extent, verifies the putative area that the Knossian state controlled. Undoubtedly, some proportion of these sheep was

80

D. MATTHEW BUELL AND LEE ANN TURNER

pastured in the Galatas area. Unfortunately, due to the mobile nature of this activity, which demands that pastoralists utilize organic, perishable objects or locally available materials, the archaeological signature for transhumant pastoralism is usually nonexistent (Hole 1974; Barker 1995; Dyson 2003, 64). Even so, it is of note that areas ideal for this activity, such as the hilly section of our survey zone to the east of Galatiani Kephala (44) and, more likely, the area west of the Zinta-Arkalochori plain, were left abandoned in the LM IIIA–IIIB period. These areas may have been used as grazing land. The sheep tablets also provide evidence as to different governing strategies employed by the Knossian state. Somewhere between 50,000 and 65,000 of the estimated 100,000 sheep recorded in the texts were associated with specific toponyms, while the remaining one third were the responsibility of a group of individuals referred to as the Collectors (Killen 1977; Halstead 1999, 162). The flocks associated with place-names were often under the supervision of herdsmen who were under direct palatial control, while the Collectors were responsible for the commodities or production recorded (cf. Killen 1964; Halstead 1999, 146). This is to say that the Collectors served as intermediaries who probably supervised their own shepherds. As such, the dual recording (i.e., place vs. Collector) may reflect a distinction between direct mobilization from individual communities and indirect mobilization via members of local elites (i.e., the Collectors) with large holdings of flocks (Killen 1979, 177; Bennet 1988, 32). There is a distinctive pattern in that there was more Collector involvement in places that were farther away from Knossos (Bennet 1985, 239; 1992, 92). At Phaistos, for example, five Collectors owned 80% of all animals (Driessen 2001b, 109). This

information suggests that the farther one travelled from the central core of Knossos, the more decentralized the system became. The low degree of Collector involvement in the areas around Knossos (i.e., for Groups III and V) would suggest that these areas (including our survey region) were directly managed by Knossos, while radiating out from it were regions where indirect administration, signaled by the presence of overseers (i.e., Controllers), became more important as a function of distance and separation. This situation is at odds with that of the early NP period, when our survey area was indirectly governed by Knossos through the palace on Galatiani Kephala (44). It is clear that in the LM IIIA– IIIB period the Knossian state utilized different political strategies in order to incorporate large and often distant areas into its state system. The LM IIIA–IIIB settlement situation within the Galatas area supports a scenario wherein territories closer to the Knossian homeland were under direct supervision of the state. There are, for instance, no settlements that dominated the local settlement hierarchy in the Galatas area. In addition, the survey zone’s material culture certainly implies that this part of Crete was part of what seems to have been an island-wide ideological system centered on Knossos. Finally, it may also be of importance that the majority of LM IIIA–IIIB sites within the survey zone were situated along the major communication route (i.e., the Karteros River) connecting the northern and southern coasts. This natural corridor may have facilitated interactions between the small, rural sites within our survey zone and Knossos itself. The Linear B evidence and the settlement data from the Galatas area, therefore, suggest that this area was centrally administered by Knossos, a situation that differs from that in the early NP period.

Late Minoan IIIC Period The number of identifiable LM IIIC sites is 17 (Table 6; Fig. 19). Of these, only eight may be identified as having clear LM IIIC material (22, 24, 28, 73, 97, 122, 129, 157), while nine have either probable (44, 80, 118, 134, 154) or possible (85, 87, 102, 152) remains. Given the problems in dating, and the anthropogenic and natural changes to the

landscape outlined at the beginning of this chapter, it is quite likely that the total number of LM IIIC sites is hugely underrepresented by the survey. When LM IIIC site numbers are compared to those of the LM IIIA–IIIB period, there is a substantial reduction. Panagiotakis (2003, 354) also witnessed a decline in site numbers between the

COLLAPSE AND RETRACTION

two periods. Significant decreases in LM IIIC sites have been witnessed by other survey projects on Crete. In the Mesara, for example, only three LM IIIC settlements were known, representing a decrease of nearly 80% in the number of sites between the two periods (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004g, 307). Two of the larger LM IIIA–IIIB settlements in the Galatas area—Sphakokephalia (82) and Petras Amarthia (83)—were abandoned in the LM IIIC period. The general decline in site numbers and the abandonment of such large LM IIIA– IIIB settlements suggest that there was a decrease in local population numbers. The low, arable plains in the eastern half of the survey zone (i.e., the Voni and Limnes Plains) were almost completely abandoned in the LM IIIC period. The abandonment of this part of the survey zone corresponds to a trend initiated in the LM IIIA–IIIB period, when the hilly area east of Galatiani Kephala (44) was deserted (cf. Figs. 18, 19). Especially striking is the complete abandonment of the Limnes Plain in the LM IIIC period, because this area is comprised of land with high agricultural potential. The desertion of this plain may be linked to developments to the east of the survey zone, perhaps at Kastelli, Smari, or Lyttos. With respect to the former, Rethemiotakis (1997b, 306– 307) has excavated LM IIIC remains in two plots at Kastelli, indicating that this historically important center continued. Systematic excavations at Smari indicate that the settlement was reoccupied in the LM IIIC period, at which point several megara were constructed and the preexisting fortification walls were rebuilt (Hadzi-Vallianou 1984; Vallianou and Parchapidis 1999, pl. CXCVIII). The monumental qualities of the megara and fortification system at Smari suggest that some central authority was responsible for their construction; the presence of fortification walls is also suggestive of local turmoil. The western bias in our settlement pattern may be a reaction to the establishment of Lyttos, a powerful polis in the EIA that seems to have been founded by this time (Nowicki 2000, 177–178). Pragmatically, we might also speculate that the Limnes Plain was abandoned because of changes in subsistence or agricultural practices (e.g., less farming and more herding), perhaps as a response to the final collapse of the Minoan sociopolitical system.

81

Contrary to the dispersed settlement pattern of earlier periods, LM IIIC sites were restricted almost exclusively to the western half of the survey zone (Fig. 19). Several LM IIIC settlements (22, Astrtisi Kephala [24], Galatiani Kephala [44], 85, 87, 97, Paratiritirion [157]) were situated close to the Karteros River, perhaps reflecting an interest in maintaining ties to the northern coastal zone. Other settlements (Melissokopa [118], 122, Korakia [134], 152, 154) were located in the far west of the survey zone, on the high hills overlooking the Zinta-Arkalochori and Alagni-Astritsi plains. The average nearest-neighbor distance between all LM IIIC settlements was 1.3 km, suggesting that settlements were not as closely connected to one another as they had been in earlier periods. Furthermore, the majority of LM IIIC sites were situated on hilltops and hill slopes; only two (102, 122) were positioned in low-lying areas. The distance between settlements and their positioning on hilltops may reflect local competition over land or more general sentiments of insecurity. Indeed, this LM IIIC situation is paralleled in the Mesara as well as in eastern Crete (Hayden 2004a, 153– 155; Haggis 2005; Nowicki 2012, 69) and elsewhere. This topographic situation appears to be something of an island-wide phenomenon in this period, and it is generally explained as a reaction to the geographically broader political and social upheavals of this period (cf. Wallace 1997–2001; 2003; 2006; Nowicki 2012, 69). What is of note, however, is that this settlement situation has often been observed in coastal areas (cf. Gkiasta 2008, 214). The evidence from our survey implies that inland areas may have also been affected by the sociopolitical disruptions of the LM IIIC period. Unfortunately, given our pithy LM IIIC material remains, we cannot assign reliable functions to identified sites. Based on the spread of LM IIIC material remains, it seems as though the settlements ranged in size from smaller ones of less than 0.30 ha (farmsteads and hamlets) to one larger, villagesized settlement at Prophetes Elias (28; Pl. 13A). Generally, the village seems to have been the largest type of settlement on the island during this period (Wallace 1997–2001, 91). Given the small size of most LM IIIC settlements and the lack of any dominant political center within or near to the Galatas area, it would appear as though there was no

82

D. MATTHEW BUELL AND LEE ANN TURNER

clearly defined settlement hierarchy during this period. Indeed, the LM IIIC settlement pattern indicates that these sites were self-sufficient agricultural

communities, which, although they did remain in contact with the northern coast, were concerned mainly with safety and defense.

Conclusion The LM III period in the Galatas area can be characterized as one of disruption and sustained depopulation. The Linear B evidence, changes to the area’s mortuary tradition, and the incorporation of Mycenaeanizing elements within the area’s material culture suggest the Galatas area was incorporated into the LM IIIA–IIIB Mycenaean kingdom of Knossos. During this time, the rulers at Knossos exploited the survey zone’s lowland areas as a source of grain, while upland ones were given over to pasture. Indeed, it appears as

though the Galatas area was directly administered by Knossos, as opposed to the situation in the NP period when Galatiani Kephala (44) acted as an intermediary. At the end of the LM IIIB period, concurrent with destructions throughout the Aegean, the Knossian state ceased to exist. Following this, there was a sharp decline in the population of our area, perhaps the result of sustained warfare, local competition over land, and incursions of Greekspeaking peoples.

Part III

Historical Settlement and Society

11

Population Reduction and a Polis Lee Ann Turner

The first three sections of this chapter present the survey data and sites of the Protogeometric– Orientalizing, Archaic, and Classical periods in

our area. The fourth section discusses the changing settlement patterns that occurred during these periods.

The Protogeometric–Orientalizing Period Some 24 sites have material dating to the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period (Fig. 20), which represents an increase in overall numbers from the 17 LM IIIC sites. All sites from this period are located in the western portion of the survey area, continuing a trend established in the preceding period. The hilly area east of Galatiani Kephala (44) and the northeastern lowlands are entirely abandoned at this time. Most sites are located on hilltops and hill slopes, primarily along or overlooking the Karteros River or encircling the upland area west of Galatiani Kephala (44). The preponderance of sites is in line with or south of Galatiani Kephala (44), while the north is more sparsely populated. Protogeometric–Orientalizing site size appears to be generally larger than that of the the LM III

period. Of the 52 LM IIIA–IIIB and 17 LM IIIC sites, the vast majority are small. The LM IIIC small sites are comprised of 16 farmstead- or hamletsized sites and one small village, Prophetes Elias (28). During the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period (Table 7), however, only 71% of the sites are small: 46% are farmsteads (44, 80, 91, 99, 102, 118, 130, 133, 144, 151, 154) and 25% are hamlets (22, 105, 127, 129, 152, 160). Conversely, the number of Protogeometric–Orientalizing villages increases from one to five (Prophetes Elias [28], plus 97, 107, Korakia [134], Paratiritirion [157]), and there are now two towns (Astritsi Kephala [24], Choumeri Kephala [140]). This decrease in farmsteads, and the concurrent increase in hamlet, village, and town percentages, might indicate a nucleation of population.

86

LEE ANN TURNER

Eleven Protogeometric–Orientalizing sites are new foundations (91, 105, 127, 130, 140 144, 160) or re-foundations from the LM IIIA–IIIB (99, 133) or NP (107, 151) periods, meaning that 46% of settlements during this period are new sites. These new foundations range from small farms to a town, and include both low-lying and upland sites. While there is no obvious pattern in either location or size, six sites do ring the upland area directly west of Galatiani Kephala (44; clockwise from the north: 105, 91, 130, 140, 144, 107). The number of new foundations and the increase in site size in the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period suggests a slight demographic expansion. Notably, this is the only possible period of growth during the Protogeometric–Hellenistic period in the survey zone. Similar instances of nucleation and expansion have been noted elsewhere on Crete, specifically during the Protogeometric period. These are seen as a result of the emergence of new forms of social authority (Wallace 1997–2001, 91; 2003, 604–605; 2006, 166). Within our suvey zone, the establishment of a new village (107) and town (Choumeri Kephala [140]), the expansion of small sites to village (97) and town sized (Astritsi Kepahala [24]), and numerous new foundations exploiting previously unused locales would indeed support the idea of some sort of change in social organization during the Protogeometric– Orientalizing period. Exactly when this local reorganization and expansion occured remains uncertain; it could have begun in the Protogeometric period. Of the 24 Protogeometric–Orientalizing sites, four (Astritsi Kephala [24], Trochaloi [80], 127, 129) have definitely identifiable Protogeometric material, while another five (105, Melissokopa [118], Choumeri Kephala [140], 151, Paratiritirion [157]) have only possible Protogeometric remains. Although the total number of purely Protogeometric sites would mark a decrease from the 17 of the LM IIIC period, site size is larger overall. Only 66% of Protogeometric sites are small as compared to the ca. 95% of the LM IIIC period. The Protogeometric sites are 33% farmsteads (Trochaloi [80], Melissokopa [118], 151), 33% hamlets (105, 127, 129), 11% villages (157), and 22% towns (Astritsi Kephala [24], Choumeri Kephala [140]). In general, this indicates that the pattern of larger site size noted in the overarching Protogeometric–Orientalizing

period is also found at its beginning during the Protogeometric period. Moreover, four of the nine Protogeometric sites (44%) are new foundations (105, 127, Choumeri Kephala [140]) or refoundations (151). This situation also reflects the overall Protogeometric–Orientalizing pattern of movement into previously unexploited locales, and it is distinct from the LM III period where one of the LM IIIC sites (124) (5%) and 10 of the 52 LM IIIA–IIIB sites (20%) are new foundations. Overall, Protogeometric–Orientalizing site location, although largely concentrated in the southwestern quadrant of the survey zone, is fairly dispersed across the landscape. As Saro Wallace (1997–2001, 84) notes, Central Crete in the Protogeometric and Geometric periods has a more widely spaced and nucleated site pattern than other parts of the island where clusters are more common. In the Galatas area, the dispersed pattern of the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period is sometimes due to the abandonment of low-lying sites within previous LM IIIA–IIIC clusters. For instance, of the westernmost LM IIIA–IIIC cluster (Melissokopa [118], 121, 122), only Melissokopa (118) continues, the highest in elevation of the three. From the cluster of sites between Choumeri and Zinta (128, 129, 133), farmsteads 129 and 133 continue. The abandoned farmstead 128 is the only site of the three on level ground, while the highest (129; Pl. 25A), expands into a hamlet in the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period. The cluster south of Astritsi (97, 102, 103) has two continuing sites (97, 102). Again, the abandoned site 103 is the lowest lying, while the highest (97) expanded into a village in the Protogeometric– Orientalizing period. Continuing sites 97 and 102 may form a new cluster with hamlet 105 and farmstead 91. These lie within the valley overlooked by Astritsi (24) and should perhaps be associated with that town. Only the highest site (Trochaloi [80]; Pl. 25B) from the cluster of sites 75, 80, and 81 continues into the Protogeometric period, though it does shrink somewhat in size. From the LM IIIA–IIIC sites that followed the ridgeline (3, 10, 13, 25, 22) just east of ancient Galatiani Kephala (44), only site 22 continues. Site 22, with its commanding views of Galatiani Kephala (44) and the western uplands, and a spring located 150–200 m to the north, was in fact in continuous use from PP through Archaic times.

POPULATION REDUCTION AND A POLIS

All but five of the 24 sites dated to the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period are located on hilltops or slopes. Of the low-lying sites, site 102, previously mentioned as part of the Astritsi cluster, has such a minor presence of post–LM III material (out of 308 sherds: one Geometric handle, one EIA handle, one Archaic cup, one possible Archaic–Classical loomweight) that its function is difficult to determine. There is, however, a spring to the south, and the finds here may be the detritus from its use. Site 99 may be in a similar situation, with somewhat more substantial finds and usage from PP times through the modern period. Located near the Church of Michael the Archangel and a branch of the Karteros River, site 99 is at the far north of the survey zone. Finds indicate that its primary ancient period of occupation was during the LM III period. The size of the site (0.45 ha) would make it a small hamlet at the time; in subsequent periods, it is no larger than a farmstead, because the Iron Age finds are much fewer and more random (a loomweight, two Geometric kraters, a Geometric/Archaic mortar and bowl, and a Classical lamp and cooking pot). The use of this site in later periods is probably tied to its location near to a water source. Interestingly, the site is within meters of an inn (chani; 99), which is now used seasonally as a fruit stand but was once a way station for travelers going north–south through the Pediada (see this vol., Ch. 14). One of the main roads into the region goes by both our site and the chani to this day. The Iron Age site 99 may have operated in a similar manner: as a convenient place to stop and get water while traveling north–south through the area (Pl. 2A). The remaining three low-lying Protogeometric– Orientalizing sites were more substantial. Two (127, 160) are hamlet-sized foundations that do not continue further during the Iron Age. Site 160 is located in a valley next to a streambed west of the modern town of Galatas (41). Site 127 sits in a basin on a rocky outcrop west of Arkalochori, protected and hidden from the plain (Pl. 26A). A skyphos base found on-site places the foundation of site 127 in the Protogeometric period. Indeed, one of the aspects of the Protogeometric expansion seen elsewhere on Crete is movement into arable areas previously ignored in the LM IIIC period (Wallace 2003, 604–605). Our two short-lived sites, neither of which are defensible nor located

87

with a strategic vantage point, could certainly be understood in these terms as well. Furthermore, their abandonment at the end of the period could be taken as a failure of this movement into low-lying arable areas. Site 107 is village sized. Not only is it large and low lying, but it is also long lasting. It is located in a valley on south-facing slopes behind two low hills, the western one topped by the modern town of Alagni’s cemetery and the eastern one topped by a mougla (μοῦγλα; a large pit containing the foul-smelling byproducts from present-day olive pressing). The site spreads along a well-watered ravine and is southeast of, but invisible to, Alagni (Pl. 26B). Finds, including a Hellenistic–Roman stone olive press (see this vol., Ch. 12, p. 97), date to the Geometric through Roman periods and may extend into the Byzantine era and later. Neopalatial sherds were found on the hill to the north. The water and protected nature of the site is probably the draw to this location. Another Protogeometric–Orientalizing foundation, Choumeri Kephala (140), will prove to be a long-lasting and important town in the southern half of the survey zone. The site sits, covering some 4.55 ha, atop a hill located southwest of the modern town of Choumeri (Pl. 27A). The northern and western sides are sheer drops, making the site defensible. The hill sits between streams that feed into the north–south branch of the Karteros River, with a spring in the modern village (Pl. 27B). On-site were numerous cut blocks, two olive presses, mortars, and many Melian millstones (Pls. 28A–29C). Signs of quarrying appear along the northern edge of the site. Ceramic finds begin in the Geometric period and continue uninterrupted into the Early Roman period. Other previously published finds from the vicinity include two LM III tombs (Platon 1951, 445) and a building dated to the seventh century b.c. (Lembesi 1973, 567, pl. 537a). The olive presses suggest a source for the town’s prosperity and longevity. Astritsi Kephala (24), which was founded in the LM III period but expanded during the Geometric and Archaic periods, will be the other important town in the area during these periods, especially in the northern portion of the survey zone (see below, pp. 88–89; Panagiotakis 2003, 360). Other previously published finds from the survey area are funerary in nature (Sjögren 2003,

88

LEE ANN TURNER

138–140). These include a single tholos tomb at Hagies Paraskies, located just west of Philissia and slightly outside the survey zone. It contained 119 vases, 26 of which were cremation urns dating to the eighth and seventh centuries b.c. A single tomb at Pano Kalives on the plain just north of Arkalochori contained Geometric urns and three aryballoi; a scatter of Geometric sherds in the neighborhood of Zinta was also interpreted as a burial site. Three Bronze Age sites (97, Melissokopa [118], Paratiritirion [157]) are not used past the Geometric to Orientalizing period. Site 97, a LM III foundation, grows to a village-sized site in the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period, although Iron Age occupation ceases in the Orientalizing period. Interestingly, there are signs of quarrying at this site (Pls. 30A, 30B) and at a new nearby Protogeometric–Orientalizing hamlet (105; Pl. 31A) that continues into the Archaic period. Perhaps as one quarry site (97), presumably for Astritsi Kephala (24), was being abandoned, another one (105) was established. In all, eight Protogeometric–Orientalizing sites (97, 127, 130, 144, 152, 154, 157, 160) do not continue into the Archaic period. These include both older sites and four (127, 130, 144, 160) of the new foundations. As mentioned in the paragraph above, the abandonment of quarry site 97 does not necessarily indicate the end of occupation in that locale because site 105 may have merely replaced it. If one discounts this site, the remaining seven abandoned sites (127, 130, 144, 152, 154, 157, 160) are

almost exclusively in the southern part of the survey zone. Only site 160, the low-lying Protogeometric– Orientalizing foundation described above, is located north of Galatiani Kephala (44). This cessation of settlements in the south could perhaps be related to the rise of the Protogeometric–Orientalizingfounded site of Choumeri Kephala (140). On the other hand, site size in the Archaic and Classical periods (see below) will be substantially larger in the south than in the north around Astritsi Kephala (24). This suggests that something more complex may be happening than the simple elimination of rival centers by a growing city. The abandoned Protogeometric–Orientalizing sites are almost all at the smaller end of the spectrum: farmsteads (130, 144, 154) and hamlets (127, 152, 160). Only Paratiritirion (157) is larger, as a mid-sized village that ends in the Orientalizing period. This loss of smaller settlements may indicate that there is perhaps more of a contraction, or a nucleation, of population in the south at the end of this period rather than a nucleation with Choumeri Kephala (140). Finally, it should be noted that 10 of the Protogeometric–Orientalizing sites have either definite (24, 28, 44, 80, 97, 107, 140) or possible (22, 129, 157) Orientalizing material. These range from farmstead- (44, 80) and hamlet- (22, 129) to village- (28, 97, 107, 157) and town-sized (24, 140) sites. None are new foundations, and all but two (97, 157, both discussed earlier) continue into the subsequent Archaic period.

The Archaic Period Some 19 sites are noted as having Archaic remains, a drop in number from the 24 in the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period (Table 8; Figs. 20, 21). There are two newly founded sites (93, 116) and renewed activity at two others (21, 55). This is a decrease from the 11 new or refounded sites in the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period and suggests that the movement of people to previously unexploited locations, which might be said to characterize the Protogeometric– Orientalizing period, all but ceases in the Archaic period. There is a decrease nearly across the

board in site numbers. The number of farmsteadsized sites shrinks from 11 to nine (55, 80, 91, 93, 99, 102, 116, 133, 151), the number of hamlets from six to five (21, 22, 44, 105, 129), and the number of villages from five to three (28, 107, 134). The number of towns remains the same (24, 140). Five sites end in the Archaic period: four sites are Bronze Age (22, 102, 129, 133) and one is Protogeometric–Orientalizing (105). Three of these are small sites in the south (22, 129, 133); two (102, 105) are small sites near Astritsi Kephala (24). One caveat needs mention here, however:

POPULATION REDUCTION AND A POLIS

the decrease in recognized Archaic sites is probably due in part to the continuation of the Orientalizing ceramic style into the sixth century b.c. (see this vol., App. F). Panagiotakis (2003, 341, 360) sees an expansion in the Archaic period. The only area where the Galatas survey found any expansion in this period, however, is at the site of Galatiani Kephala (44) itself. The earliest Iron Age material was found here in a 0.33 ha area on the southern slopes. This area continues in use into the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Another cluster of pottery covering 0.81 ha is located on the hilltop and eastern slope, and it has material dated to the Archaic and Classical periods, suggesting that the hilltop was not reinhabited until the Archaic period. Together, these two clusters of pottery cover an area of 1.14 ha. Such an area would typically be categorized as a town, but because these two clusters are not definitely contiguous, a categorization as a hamlet is probably more suitable. Beyond site 99, which may be a sporadically used water source, and the village (107) near modern Alagni’s cemetery, both of which are discussed in the Protogeometric–Orientalizing section above (pp. 85–88), all Archaic sites are located on hill slopes or hilltops. The majority are also located in the western side of the survey zone, a continuation of patterns previously established in the LM IIIC and Protogeometric–Orientalizing periods. All of the smaller sites, except 133 and 151, are located in the northern portion of the survey zone. Conversely, beyond the quarry at site 105, all hamlet- and village-sized sites are located in the southern portion. These hamlets and villages generally ring the arable uplands and are dispersed. Perhaps this variation in settlement patterns between small sites in the north and dispersed larger sites in the south can be attributed to the two towns in the area. In the north, Astritsi Kephala (24) may extend its influence throughout the nearby region, rather like a polis, discouraging larger settlements. In the south, Choumeri Kephala (140) may have a smaller sphere of influence or interest, thus allowing for larger settlements there. Site 151, the only farmstead located in the southern half of the survey zone during the Archaic period, is particularly long lasting. It sits on the top and southern slopes of the Miliarisou hill,

89

about 150 m southeast of the metochi (μετόχι; seasonal site) of Miliarisou, located south of Zinta. At the northern base of the hill is a Venetian fountain for a spring that until recently, we were told, produced water all year long (Pl. 31B). The hill is steep on the western, northern, and eastern sides, and it therefore is defensible. Occupation of the site begins in the PP and continues into the NP period. As no LM III was found on-site, it may have been abandoned for a time, only to be re-founded in the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period, possibly as early as the Protogeometric period, and it continues throughout the Archaic and Classical periods. While the site covers some 0.35 ha, finds from the Iron Age are not as numerous as those from the NP period, suggesting that renewed occupation of the hilltop was more along the lines of a farmstead rather than a hamlet. The Iron Age finds were domestic in character and include jugs, mortars, a basin, and a pithos. Of the new Archaic sites, the small site 116 near Astritsi only extends into the Classical–Hellenistic period. Site 21, on the other hand, is an older PreP– LM III site that showed renewed activity in the Archaic period. It is possible that it was continuously occupied, but no Protogeometric–Orientalizing finds were identified. The site is unusual and difficult to characterize: finds were scattered and not typical of Bronze Age domestic assemblages, though that is most likely due to its use in the Archaic–Hellenistic periods. The two other new foundations, sites 55 and 93, are interesting in that they are the first sites to appear in the eastern side of the survey zone after the abandonment of site 55 in the LM IIIC period. They are very near to each other, and, in fact, they were originally considered by us as part of a single, large site. While site 55 is largely a NP site and, later, a Hellenistic and Roman site (with some LM III), a limited amount of Archaic material was also recovered. The amount of Archaic material suggests it was quite small at the time. Site 93 is primarily Hellenistic to Roman, but some Archaic and Classical material was also found there. The amount of remains suggests that this site was probably no larger than a farmstead during these periods. A large number of storage vessels and a piece of clay kiln slag found on-site suggest the presence of some sort of industry. Beyond this, why these

90

LEE ANN TURNER

sites, and only these sites, appear in the eastern side of the survey zone in the Archaic and Classical periods is unclear. They are situated, at least,

on a route to the eastern Pediada, toward the developing and important polis of Lyttos.

The Classical Period Sixteen sites have Classical remains (Fig. 22), a decrease from the 19 of the Archaic period. The loss is all in small sites, which decrease in number from eight to five (31%). There are again two towns (13%), three village-sized sites (19%), and eight farmsteads (37%; Table 9). The settlement pattern of the Classical period is strikingly similar to that of the Archaic. There is only one eastern site (93); all the rest are in the western half of the survey zone. All Classical sites except site 99 and the village (107) near the modern Alagni cemetery are located on hill slopes and hilltops. All but one (151) of the smallest sites (80, 91, 93, 96, 99, 116, 118) are located in the north, in the vicinity of the town of Astritsi. All hamlet- (18, 21, Galatiani Kephala [44]) and village-sized sites (Prophetes Elias [28], 107, Korakia [134]) ring the arable uplands west and south of Galatiani Kephala (44), surrounding the town of Choumeri. Overall, the Classical period in the Galatas area might be described as slightly less populated than in the Archaic period, but stable. There are two new foundations (18, 96) and one possible re-foundation (Melissokopa [118]) in this period, as opposed to the four in the Archaic period. Site 18 is a small hamlet in the hills southeast of Galatiani Kephala (44) that may continue into the Hellenistic period. Site 96, a farmsteadsized site south of Astritsi Kephala (24), also continued into the Hellenistic period. This site is very near the LM III–Orientalizing quarry (97) and may represent the continued, though less dense, occupation of the same hill slope. Finally, Melissokopa (118) on the western edge of the arable uplands may have also been resettled in the Classical era. We must, however, remember that this site is continuously occupied from the PP period through the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period. As a result, especially given problems in identifying Archaic fabrics, it seems likely that the settlement’s Archaic phase was undetected by the survey. Whatever the case may be, Melissokopa (118) certainly expanded

in the Classical period into a village-sized site, though it does not continue beyond this period. Another site, beyond Melissokopa (118), that ends in the Classical period, is site 91. This farmstead, situated on a hill overlooking Voni, was inhabited as early as the Protogeometric– Orientalizing period. Astritsi Kephala (24), Galatiani Kephala (44), and Prophetes Elias (28) at Arkalochori are all in view from various portions of the hilltop. A spring 200 m to the northwest, now near a cemetery and church dedicated to the Metamorphosis tou Christou (Pl. 32A), is probably the reason for its longevity. An unusual object from this site is a stone that is roughly shaped like a Doric column capital and its plinth (25 x 27 cm; Pl. 32B). The top and bottom of this limestone “capital” are not parallel (height ranges from 10– 14 cm), which does not make for a usable capital or a base. Other finds from this likely domestic agricultural site include fine wares, cooking ware, and storage vessels. The village of Korakia (134) west of Zinta continues but shrinks to the size of a farmstead in the subsequent Hellenistic period (Pl. 33A). Founded in the PreP period, it is in continuous use through the LM III period. After the Protogeometric– Orientalizing period, the site reaches village size during the Archaic and Classical periods. The hilltop and eastern slope were occupied; the western side is a rough cliff face, and thus is defensible. It also has a view of the arable uplands in the southern portion of the survey zone. The water source may have been the spring at Zinta (Pl. 33B). The site most representative of the Iron Age in the survey zone is Astritsi Kephala (24), located 1.5 km north of the modern town of the same name. It sits on a flat hilltop and the surrounding slopes, covering some 7.2 ha (Pl. 34A). The hilltop, as Krzystof Nowicki (2000, 179) points out, has views of most “routes leading from the Knossos–Archanes area to the Pediada and to the Upper Mesara.” The hilltop, probably an acropolis,

POPULATION REDUCTION AND A POLIS

is protected by gorges to the west and east, making it defensible (Sjögren 2003, 49). The ancient water source, a branch of the modern Karteros River, is located to the east. Rough-hewn stairs still visible on the western edge of the site were used in recent times as a shortcut for the retrieval of water from this source. The hilltop is covered with ancient walls and their tumble. In the center is a leveled, raised area measuring roughly 35 x 40 m, which may have been a platform for a temple. The northwestern corner is approached by a natural winding ramp. A possible cemetery for the site, as reported by local inhabitants, may be located to the south. Finds at Astritsi Kephala (24) begin in LM III and continue, unbroken, into the Hellenistic period. While several LM III sherds (the earliest being a LM IIIB deep bowl) were found in the northwest quadrant of the hilltop, the later periods are much better represented and come from both the hilltop and slopes. Panagiotakis (2003, 382) cites Neolithic, PP, NP, and LM IIIA:1–IIIC finds from the site as well. He defines Astritsi Kephala (24) as going under the modern village, whereas we confine the site to the hilltop and slopes. Thus, his finds and date range reflect a larger area and include what we define as separate sites in the vicinity (e.g., 105, 112, 113, 116). Nowicki (2000, 179) defines and dates the site similarly to us: LM IIIC– Protogeometric, Geometric, Orientalizing, Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic. Other previously published finds from Astritsi Kephala (24) include the upper portion of a limestone armored and possibly seated female Daedalic statue. This gigantic statue, found in 1960, is dated to the mid seventh century b.c. (Davaras 1972; Adams 1978, 35; Sipsie-Eschbach 1982), and it has been suggested that it is a possible cult statue of Athena Tritogeneia (Boardman 1974). Another later draped limestone female statue has also been reported as having come from the site (Faure 1958, 505), as well as a Hellenistic female seated figure (Alexiou 1964, 284; 1965, 555). Interestingly, female terracotta figurines dated to the third century b.c. have also been found. These mostly portray a seated female figure with a phiale, though some stand, carrying a shield or holding a bird (Alexiou 1968, 404; 1969, 534). The predominance of female statuary, sometimes armed, would indeed seem to suggest a sanctuary of Athena at Astritsi Kephala (24). Beyond this, two decorated pithos

91

fragments have been discussed (Marinatos 1933– 1935, 58, fig. 18). Finds collected from Astritsi Kephala (24) during the course of our survey indicate a number of on-site industries. Ceramic wasters suggest a possible kiln within the southern portion of the site. A large stone with grab holes found on the northeastern hilltop may have been part of an olive press (Pl. 34B). Other stone finds include mortars and a Melian millstone fragment. Iron processing remains from the northeastern quadrant of the hilltop and loomweights were also recovered, as were roof tiles (Pl. 35A). The form, size, and longevity of Astritsi Kephala (24) have made it a possible polis candidate for several scholars. Lena Sjögren (2003) posits that it could have been a particularly early one, because she sees Astritsi Kephala (24) as the center of a concentration of settlements during the eighth century b.c. From the perspective of our survey, the relative absence of Geometric–Classical sites around Astritsi Kephala (24) is remarkable. There are no more than three or four sites near it during any of these periods, and these are invariably quite small. This is different from the southern portion of the survey zone where site size is larger and dispersed. The near vacuum on the ridges around and in the valley below Astritsi Kephala (24) may be a sign of some sort of synoikism during the course of the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period (see above, pp. 85–88), quite possibly at its very start. Sjögren (2003) sees the focus in the Pediada shifting eastward toward Lyttos from the seventh century b.c. onward. Lyttos, sometimes called Lyktos, is equated with the site of Anemomyloi near Xidas, to the northeast of Kastelli (Sjögren 2003, 81, 99–100, 106, 121, 123; Perlman 2004, 1175–1177). Lyttos seems to have been established by the LM IIIC period (Nowicki 2000, 177), following the abandonment of the Minoan center at Kastelli (Rethemiotakis 1997b, 325). Already mentioned in the Iliad (2.647) and by Hesiod (Theog. 477), Lyttos sent troops to Sparta during the Second Messenian War in 668 b.c. (Paus. 4.19.4). Nowicki (2000, 177) suggests that Lyttos had gained control of the Lasithi Plain to the east by the Archaic period. Didier Viviers (1994, 252–258) has also traced extensive Lyttian expansion at this time. The later Archaic period is, in fact, the time when our first and only eastern sites (55, 93) reappear, and they may mark a

92

LEE ANN TURNER

route eastward toward Lyttos. The remainder of the eastern part of the survey zone, however, remains completely uninhabited, as it had since the LM IIIC period. The absence of any other changes in the eastern part of the survey zone in that or later periods suggests that contact was minimal. Perhaps this area operated as something of a “no man’s land” or “demilitarized zone” in between Astritsi Kephala (24) and Lyttos in the Archaic, Classical, and even Hellenistic periods. Lyttos, in fact, may have had more of a southern (Erickson 2010, 239) and eastern focus (Watrous 1982, 21–23; Nowicki 2000, 177) toward Lasithi during the Archaic and Classical periods. No Lyttian pottery has been identified from anywhere in the survey zone. Indeed, there are only two tentatively identified Iron Age (pre-Hellenistic) imports from the entire survey zone, and they both display Knossian characteristics. All things considered, Astritsi Kephala (24) may have been a relatively isolated town during the Iron Age (also in the Classical and Hellenistic periods as, in fact, the entire region is to this day). It was separated from Lyttos by an empty expanse of territory. There were very few to no imports. Knossos, only slightly more distant to the north, showed little impact in the area as well. Indeed, several scholars (e.g., Coldstream, Huxley, and Webb 1999, 292; Erickson 2010, 235–238) argued that Knossos was in decline starting around 600 b.c. The EIA settlement at Kounavi (ancient Eltyna), some 4 km to the north of the survey zone, may have been the southern limit of Knossos’s influence (Dimopoulou-Rethemiotakis 1988; Rethemiotakis and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotakis 1994–1996, 315– 317; Englezou 2004). Moreover, as noted above, Astritsi Kephala (24) itself demonstrates polis-like tendencies within the region of the northern Pediada. Astritsi Kephala (24) has occasionally been identified as the ancient polis of Lykastos (Spratt 1865, 90; Walbank 1979, 201; Masson 1985, 197– 198; Panagiotakis 2003, 358). Lykastos is mentioned by both Homer (Il. 2.647) and Strabo (10.4.14 [C 479]), while Polybius (22.15) reports that Gortyn in the second century b.c. had taken Lykastos from Knossos and given it to Rhaucus. Rhaucus is usually located at Hagios Mironas on the western side of the Gazanos River and rather far from the Pediada. One would therefore expect that Lykastos would be relatively nearby, within Rhaucus’s sphere of influence. A more likely location for Lykastos, and one

followed by the majority of scholars, is Visala, east of the village of Kanli Kastelli/Prophetes Elias, otherwise known as Rocca (Gerola 1905–1932, I, 92, 181–190; Spanakis 1993, 685–686; Detorakis 1994, 132; see this vol., Ch. 14). It is situated on the eastern side of the Gazanos River, essentially across from Hagios Mironas, outside of the Pediada (Bursian 1872, 561; Evans 1921–1935, II, 74; Walbank 1979, 201; also see Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 113–114; McArthur 1993, 130, 145– 146, 149–151; Sjögren 2003, 100, no. 430; Perlman 2004, 1146, 1185). Astritsi Kephala (24) is most often equated with the Diatonion mentioned in the same passage by Polybius (22.15). In it, Diatonion, a possession of Knossos, was seized by Gortyn and given to Lyttos. Both Lykastos and Diatonion were later restored to Knossos by a Roman embassy led by Appius Claudius in 184 b.c. (Walbank 1979, 200– 201; Perlman 1996, 247). Since Diatonion is given to Lyttos on the far eastern edge of the Pediada, it should be near Lyttos and logically east of Lykastos and within the Pediada. Astritsi Kephala (24) fits these criteria. The place name Detonion has been reconstructed on a Hellenistic funerary stele for a Cretan man found at Akko in Israel. It has been suggested that this may be the correct spelling of Polybius’s Diatonion (SEG 26.1679; Guarducci 1935, 46; Dothan 1976, 39). It should be noted, however, that the absence of Hellenistic ceramic material definitely datable to later than the third century b.c. from Astritsi Kephala (24) could indicate that the site was uninhabited, or only sparsely occupied, at the time of the Roman embassy. Indeed, no Hellenistic finds from Astritsi Kephala (Alexiou 1968, 404; 1969, 534), or even attributed to it (Trifiró 2001), can be dated beyond the third century b.c. While this might argue against the identification of Astritsi Kephala (24) with Diatonion, it could simply be an accident of site collection, because there is later Roman material on-site (French 1990, 71). Conversely, and what seems quite possible, is that the very seizure of the settlement—by Gortyn or at the intial takeover by Knossos—caused a period of depopulation, which would then explain the lack of post– third century b.c. Hellenistic pottery. In 1958, Paul Faure (1958) made a suggestion, which still occasionally shows up in the literature today (e.g., Nowicki 2000, 179), that Diatonion

POPULATION REDUCTION AND A POLIS

was a corruption of Tritonion in the Polybius manuscript tradition. Faure argued that the modern Karteros River is the ancient Triton River, rather than the ancient Amnissos River. The springs of the Triton River on Crete are described by Diodorus (Siculus 5.72.3) as the birthplace of Athena, hence her epithet Tritogeneia. Similar stories of bodies of water include Libya by Herodotus (4.180) as well as Boeotia and Arcadia by Pausanias (9.33.7 and 8.26.6, respectively). The aforementioned passage in Diodorus also mentions a temple sacred to Athena located on the Triton River. Because Astritsi Kephala (24) sits at the source of one of the branches of the Karteros River (called Tritonia by locals), it could have been, in Faure’s (1958) scenario, the site of this temple of Athena Tritogeneia and might therefore be reasonably named Tritonion. As Faure (1958, 501–507) points out, even the modern name of Astritsi Kephala (24) may reflect that it stood on the Triton River,

93

because the name could be an elision of something like “stas Tritsi” (στάς Τριτσί) or “on the little Triton.” While Faure’s suggestions are rather ingenious, it should be noted that they were conceived prior to the discovery of the Akko inscription, which confirms that the place name Diatonion or Detonion did exist on Crete in the Hellenistic period. The Triton River, too, is most often associated with the modern day Gazanos River that flows into Herakleion. This identification of the Triton River with Gazanos is anecdotally supported by a story associated with St. Myron (ca. a.d. 250– 350). One of the miracles attributed to the saint was an instance of his causing the Triton River to become solid so he could cross it. Because his church, Hagios Mironas (ancient Rhaucus), is located on the western slopes of the Gazanos River, proximity would suggest that this is the Triton River in the story.

Conclusion Of the 172 sites originally identified (some were deleted or combined during the study seasons) in the survey zone, 24 sites have Protogeometric– Orientalizing material, 19 have Archaic material and 16 have Classical material. Six sites (Astritsi Kephala [24], Prophetes Elias [28], Galatiani Kephala [44], 80, Melissokopa [118], Korakia [134]) may have been in use in all of these periods. All except Melissokopa (118) continue into Hellenistic or Roman times, and all but Astristi Kephala (24) have some PP and NP material. Settlement during the Iron Age in the Galatas area is characterized by an overall pattern established largely in the LM IIIC period. At this time, the LM IIIA–IIIB dispersed clusters scattered across the uplands and lowlands of the survey zone are replaced by a decided preference for western and upland site locations. Also striking is the near abandonment of the eastern half of the survey zone, which began in the LM IIIC period and continued uninterrupted through the Hellenistic period. The nucleation and expansion noted in the general Protogeometric–Orientalizing period in the Galatas area may have started in the Protogeometric period, which has parallels elsewhere on

Crete. In the Mesara, a similar pattern of rural abandonment and urban nucleation has been noted (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004g, 307–318). There, changes in population, cult, land redistribution and use, and social organization took place during the EIA, resulting in the appearance of two poleis (Gortyn and Phaistos) by the seventh century b.c. (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004g, 339–350). In the Isthmus of Ierapetra, LM IIIC– Geometric settlement was nucleated in a few defensible sites; several polis sites can be identified by the seventh century b.c. (Nowicki 2012). Such a pattern has been observed across Crete (Nowicki 2000, 241–247). Wallace has associated this EIA expansion with changes arising from the emergence of new forms of social authority (Wallace 1997–2001, 91; 2003, 604–605; 2006, 166; 2010). In essence, she argues that the extension into new areas would increase commodity production and, in time, craft specialization. This would promote the emergence of a more complex social organization and, hence, would mark the beginning of the transition from LM IIIC citadel sites to poleis via regional proto-state polities (Wallace 2010, 234, 246–247, 257).

94

LEE ANN TURNER

The subsequent Archaic through Classical periods are marked by a gradual reduction of site numbers in the Galatas area, a pattern observed in some but not all parts of the island. Just to the north of our survey zone, for example, the site of Smari was also abandoned by the seventh century b.c. (Hadzi-Vallianou 1995). Around Kavousi, site numbers decrease in Late Geometric–Early Orientalizing, with the rise of a single large nucleated settlement at Azoria (Haggis 2005, 84–86). After the abandonment of Azoria and later Kato Chorio/Prophetes Elias in the fifth century b.c., the isthmus and Kavousi area are all but unpopulated during the remainder of the Classical–Hellenistic period (Watrous et al. 2000, 477–478; Watrous 2001b, 89). This may be due to the synoikism of the region with Hierapytna (Ierapetra; Haggis et al. 2004, 390–391). The effect of the rise of a polis or polis-type site on settlement patterns has been noted elsewhere. In the Mesara, a number of settlements around Gortyn end in the late seventh century b.c., perhaps due to synoikism with that polis (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004g, 318). In contrast, the Orientalizing–Archaic expansion in Lasithi is probably brought to an end by the rise of another polis, Lyttos (Watrous 1982, 21–23). The gradual reduction in site numbers after the Protogeometric–Orientalizing period in the

Galatas area may indicate movement of population out of the area, although it is neither dramatic nor wholesale. Astritsi Kephala (24) itself may be said to display some polis-like features in the northern portion of the survey zone, but it does not take the form of the aggressive synoikism seen elsewhere, such as at Phaistos. The large scale reorganization of emerging, Central Cretan poleis—involving increased long-distance trade, intensified production, and surplus storage (cf. Kotsonas 2002)—does not seem to take place in our area. Astritsi Kephala (24) perhaps continued to control its immediate surroundings with little change in the settlement pattern into the Hellenistic period. The differing settlement pattern in the southern half of the survey zone, consisting of larger dispersed sites, may suggest that Astritsi’s influence never extended that far. Finally, if Astritsi is the Diatonion mentioned by Polybius, then the city belonged to Knossos at least by the second century b.c. The lack of post–third century b.c. Hellenistic finds from Astritsi suggests that the town had fallen upon hard times, which could indicate that the area passed into Knossian hands not long before Gortyn seized the site, perhaps toward the end of the third or early in the second century b.c. Indeed, Knossos’s movement into the region might be the act that spurred Gortyn’s action.

12

Population Retraction during the Hellenistic Period Scott Gallimore

This chapter begins with an analysis of Hellenistic settlement in the Galatas area. The second section reviews the question of site function as part of this analysis. The third section discusses

the history of Hellenistic Crete as a prologue to the final section, which interprets the economicpolitical status of the area in the Hellenistic period.

Hellenistic Settlements Hellenistic settlement has left few traces in the Galatas area. Sixteen sites (8, 21, 24, 28, 44, 55, 72, 79, 80, 88, 93, 96, 107, 116, 134, 140) produced evidence of Hellenistic occupation (Fig. 23), a persistence of the low settlement levels established during the Classical period. Eleven of the sites showed continuous occupation from the Classical period, while five sites (8, 55, 72, 79, 88) were founded at this time. Although an attempt was made to differentiate between Early and Late Hellenistic (see this vol., App. F), the pottery recovered from these sites did not provide a clear pattern of development. Almost all of the Hellenistic sites

produced pottery datable from the early third through first centuries b.c., suggesting that settlement continued throughout these centuries. The size distribution of documented Hellenistic sites indicates the continuation of a nucleated settlement pattern (Table 10). In fact, the Galatas area would appear to represent an ideal paradigm of Susan Alcock’s model for Hellenistic settlement in the Greek world, which argues for an increased preference for nucleation at this time (Alcock 1994, 179). It must be remembered, however, that this nucleation in the Galatas area had already arisen several centuries earlier in the EIA.

96

SCOTT GALLIMORE

Three sites—all situated on hilltops—in the Hellenistic nucleated settlement pattern appear to be dominant: Astritsi Kephala (24), Prophetes Elias (28), and Choumeri Kephala (140). One other site, Korakia (134), which achieved village size during earlier periods, produced low amounts of Hellenistic material, primarily local common wares and cooking ware, in the southern part of the site. Hellenistic settlement at Prophetes Elias (28) may have approached 3 ha in size and covered most of the hilltop. A wide variety of ceramic types were recovered, including black-gloss vessels, local fine ware, common wares, and cooking ware. The only example of a sherd with West Slope decoration also came from this site. Settlement at Choumeri Kephala (140) maintained the high levels attested during the Iron Age, with Hellenistic material concentrated on the eastern and southern slopes. This site has several nearby streams, including a branch of the Karteros River, in close proximity, and it would have been ideally placed for agricultural cultivation. A wide variety of pottery types were recovered from Choumeri Kephala (140), including a possible mortar, pithos sherds, cream ware, cooking ware, common wares, and a stamped amphora handle. Astritsi Kephala (24), the third Hellenistic center, was the only site to produce evidence of a nucleated settlement pattern and site hierarchy. A series of smaller settlements (79, 88, 96, 116) surrounded the larger center. Astritsi Kephala (24) covers a hill slope approximately 1.5 km north of the modern village of the same name. Water was readily available from a source to the east, which the villagers informed us was called Tritonia (for a complete analysis, see this vol., Ch. 11, pp. 92– 93). Pottery recovered from the site included local cream wares, common wares, cooking ware, and several loomweights. A Hellenistic coin hoard believed to have been found in Astritsi in 1936 has been the subject of some research. It is comprised of Cretan and foreign issues (Cyrene, Corinth, Argos, and Thebes) dating to the first half of the third century b.c., and it may have been brought to the island by returning mercenary troops (Le Rider 1966, 11–19; Trifiró 2001). The small sites situated around Astritsi Kephala (24) were likely agricultural holdings connected to the larger town. Sites 96 and 116 both sit on gentle hill slopes next to agricultural catchments with

adjacent stream beds. Neither of these sites produced a diverse assemblage of Hellenistic pottery, with most of the finds represented by cream ware and a few sherds of cooking ware. Site 88 is located in a valley between the villages of Astritsi and Voni. Much of this valley is colluviated, suggesting other such sites might have been present in this area but are no longer visible. There is a stream bed 250 m to the north, which could represent the site’s water source. The pottery from this site resembled that found at sites 96 and 116. Site 79, situated approximately 1.3 km northeast of the modern village on the northern slope of a hill, was the largest of these four sites around Astritsi Kephala (24). This site appears to represent a hamlet, although no obvious water source was identified. Ceramic finds included several pieces of black-slipped ware along with cooking ware sherds. Several Hellenistic sites appear to be rural outliers within the general nucleated pattern. Trochaloi (80) and site 107, for instance, are both located outside of the direct influence of one of the major centers. Trochaloi (80) is situated on the northern slope of a hill approximately 2.6 km northeast of Astritsi Kephala (24), while site 107 is situated on the southern slope of a hill approximately 700 m east of Alagni village. The water sources for both appear to be nearby streams. Both sites show evidence of continuous occupation from at least the NP period, suggesting they represented ideal locations for settlement. Hellenistic pottery at Trochaloi (80) was sparse, but it did include cooking ware and one pithos sherd. At site 107, ceramic finds included black-slipped ware, cooking ware, and two fragments of beehive kalathoi. Another outlying site (72), located approximately 2 km northeast of the village of Voni, is more puzzling to interpret. This site is situated on the southern slope of a large hill, next to the remains of a Venetian- or Ottoman-period windmill. Most of the recovered pottery is PP or NP, but there are numerous Hellenistic finds. Pottery included cream ware, blackslipped ware, and cooking ware. The site has access to a spring on the northern slope of the hill and a commanding view to the east, south, and west. Perhaps it was established as a lookout point during the Hellenistic period to watch for activity to the east. Two sites far removed from the remainder of the Hellenistic settlements are 55 and 93. They

POPULATION RETRACTION DURING THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD

are located in the northeastern corner of the survey zone, approximately 2 km east of Zoophori. Both were situated on the southern slope of a large hill with an extensive valley spreading out to the south. Site 55 shows evidence of Bronze Age occupation, while site 93 appears to have been founded at some point in the Iron Age. The isolated nature of these two sites within the Hellenistic site distribution suggests they may not have been under the influence of the larger centers to the west. Ceramic finds from both sites were limited and included cream ware, cooking ware, and a few amphora sherds of possible Hellenistic date. Perhaps these two sites were somehow affiliated with Lyttos farther to the east, serving as western outposts. Site 8, situated 1.5 km northeast of Galatiani Kephala (44), is located on the northern slope of a gentle-sloping hill. While there is no obvious water source nearby, the surrounding catchment within a protected valley would be suitable for farming. An agricultural function is suggested by the presence

97

of an olive press (trapetum), perhaps related to olive oil production. Unfortunately, it is impossible to date this find as specifically Hellenistic or Roman. The majority of the pottery recovered from this site is Roman, but there were also Hellenistic sherds, including cream ware and cooking ware. Finds of Minoan pottery at the site likely come instead from site 9, located nearby (150 m to the southeast). Of additional interest to the Hellenistic settlement pattern was occupation at Galatiani Kephala (44). Hellenistic settlement here was concentrated on the southern edge of the hill, approximately 400 m south of the Minoan palace. This community may have exceeded 1.5 ha in size, suggesting that even at this time there was a village-sized site close to the remains of the palace. No evidence of cultic activity was identified that could be associated with the earlier palace, however. Among the ceramic finds were examples of black-slipped ware, cream ware, and cooking ware.

The Issue of Hellenistic Site Functions Attempting to determine the exact function of rural Hellenistic settlements in the Galatas area can be difficult. For this reason, let us begin by reviewing some of the pertinent literature on identifying the function of a site. We can begin with the site of Pyrgouthi, a small settlement located in the Berbati Valley in the northeastern Peloponnese. From 1988 to 1990, Swedish archaeologists carried out a field survey across the entire valley that documented settlement history from the Middle Paleolithic period until ca. a.d. 1700. Among the numerous findspots (to use the terminology of the project) that were identified was Pyrgouthi, located in the central part of the valley and distinguished by the preservation of a small, stonebuilt, Hellenistic-period tower (Penttinen 1996, 260–262, 277–278). Ceramic material collected from the site dated between the mid fifth and second or first century b.c., and surveyors interpreted Pyrgouthi as a Classical and Hellenistic farmstead. In 1995, archaeologists returned to the site to conduct a series of excavations in and around the tower. First, they undertook a second, more intensive survey, in which a grid of 10 x 10 m squares was

laid out. During this second survey, Classical and Hellenistic ceramics continued to predominate, but surveyors noted an additional concentration of pottery datable from the mid sixth to the mid seventh century a.d. (Wells 2005, 8–9). This led to an additional interpretation that Pyrgouthi had been resettled in Late Antiquity, when it again functioned as a farmstead. While the results of these two surveys appeared to have clarified the occupation history of this site, excavations produced a remarkably different picture: periodic EIA occupation (perhaps related to pastoralism); pottery and tile production in the Classical period; construction of the tower around 300 b.c.; construction of an associated farmhouse in the Late Hellenistic/Early Augustan period; squatter occupation between the early first century and mid sixth century a.d.; and Late Antique reoccupation of the site (Penttinen 2005, 11–12). When comparing the interpretations of site function from each investigation (two surveys and an excavation), the most important feature to note is that no single interpretation is consistent across all three. From the perspective of how archaeologists interpret site

98

SCOTT GALLIMORE

function using datasets recovered during field survey, this has clear implications. For these reasons, discussions concerned with the interpretation of site function in Greek survey archaeology have become more prevalent in the past decade. In particular, research has focused on small rural sites, often termed farms or farmsteads, which are commonly encountered in the countryside. Investigations at a site like Pyrgouthi confirm that an assessment of activities that occurred at any given site should consider far more complexity than tends to be acknowledged. Agricultural and non-agricultural activities could occur side-byside, although the nature and extent of these activities could vary between periods. Within the field of Greek survey archaeology, David Pettegrew (2001, 2002) has played an important role in stimulating debate about site function. Focusing mainly on Classical period farmsteads, Pettegrew has presented several important arguments. First, he observed that the terms “farmstead” or “farm” are oversimplified and do not properly express the variety of activities that could occur in the countryside (Pettegrew 2001, 190– 192). This supports earlier arguments by scholars like Robin Osborne (1985), who believe that not all sites encountered in the countryside were farms occupied on a year-round basis. Most survey projects do employ the term “farm” to some extent, although Pettegrew is among the first to admit that trying to develop a definition of an ancient farm is difficult. For the Galatas Survey, a site was classified as a farmstead based on size limits (). Fine ware vessels, for example, cups and bowls, are made in a fine-buff fabric that is well sorted and soft. Color variations include 7.5YR 8– 6/4 and 7.5YR 8–6/6. Cores are often pink (5YR 8–6/4). Vessels are sometimes burnished and have a black-painted slip. Some fine ware vessels, for example, conical cups (Pl. 53A:h; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011a, figs. 4, 20), are dark orange in color (5YR 7–5/8). The fabric is soft and usually fine but can contain a few large inclusions, quartz, schist, and phyllite. Shapes include conical

cups (Pl. 60B:h, i), Vapheio cups (Pls. 60B:g, 63A:d, g), tall cups (Pl. 60B:e, f; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011a, fig. 5), BSJs (Pls. 21A:d, 53A:a, 63A:c), everted-rim cups (Pl. 21A:f), bowls (Pl. 63A:a), and jugs. Decoration is rarely preserved on survey pottery; an exception is a rounded cup painted with a spiral (Pl. 60B:b). Conical cups (Pl. 21A:g–i) can be rounded, conical, or incurving (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011a, figs. 4–6, 20–22). Vapheio cups may have an imitation bronze rivet (Pl. 21A:a, c) on the handle. The NP medium coarse fabric is used for larger vessels, for example, amphorae (Pl. 65A:f), jugs, basins/mortars (Pl. 65A:b), large jars (Pl. 65A:d, e, i), and pithoi (Pls. 53A:e, i, 65A:a). Color varies from a buff to pale orange (7.5YR 8–7/4, 7.5YR 8–7/6, and 7.5YR 7/8). Frequent inclusions are rounded and angular hematite, quartz, schist, sandstone, and phyllite. Within a single vessel, inclusion size will vary from small to very large. The number and size of the inclusions increase with the size of the vessel. Vessels are often self-slipped or given a buff slip. Neopalatial pithoi are often decorated with various types of horizontal or loopy bands (Pl. 56C; Christakis 2005, pl. 20b). Loomweights, made in all fabrics, are rounded or discoid (Pl. 56B:a–g).

Final Palatial: Late Minoan IIIA–IIIC As in the rest of Crete, Pediada ceramics become quite standardized during the LM IIIA–IIIB period. The red coarse fabric, used for cooking vessels, for example, baking dishes, cooking pots, and trays, continues, but the color is reddish or orange ranging from 10R 5/8 (reddish yellow) to 2/5YR 5/8 (red), but it is more often a little lighter than during the NP period. This fabric is always

hard and coarse with many inclusions, including sand, quartz, schist, and phyllite. Vessels are often self-slipped. Tripod legs (Pl. 23B:d) are round in section. Late Minoan IIIC tripod legs can be very large and vertically slashed. A fine-buff fabric is used for conical cups, onehandled cups, deep bowls, champagne cups, and kylikes. Color can range from a true buff (5YR 8/3,

APPENDIX B: PREHISTORIC POTTERY

pink) to a light orange (5YR 7/6, reddish yellow), as during the NP period, but often it is a pale green (7.5YR 8/2, pinkish white). The clay is well sorted, extremely soft, and fine. Vases are occasionally burnished. Cups bear standard Mycenaeanizing decorations (Pl. 23A:f) below a rim band. Kylix stems develop from thin, small examples (Pls. 23B:c, 24A:f: LM IIIA:1) to a thicker, longer shape (Pl. 23A:h: LM IIIA:2–IIIB). A conical cup (Pl. 23A:i) bears an unusual monochrome paint. Champagne goblets (Pls. 23B:e, f, h, 24A:j) are easily recognizable by their low, outturned bases. A rare example is painted a monochrome gray (Pl. 24A:k). Larger vessels, for example, BSJs, amphorae, basins, jars (Pl. 23B:b), larnakes, and pithoi, are made

209

from a medium coarse fabric. Color varies from a buff (5YR 8/3, pink) to a pale orange (7.5YR 7/6, reddish yellow). In this period, the many inclusions consist of angular red hematite, limestone, quartz, and dark angular inclusions that are possibly schist. The core may be gray. Pithoi (Pl. 23A:b), stirrup jars (Pl. 23A:a), and larnakes usually have a cream slip. Larger storage vessels (Pl. 24A:g, h) may be decorated with loops or bands (Pl. 24A:i). Pithoi of this period are distinguishable by their fabric and type of incised bands (Pl. 24B; cf. Christakis 2005, 77–79, figs. 34–37 for MM III–LM III incised bands). Late Minoan IIIC large storage jars are recognizable because of their extreme amounts of bright inclusions, hence, the term Measles ware.

Appendix C

Ground and Chipped Stone Artifacts D. Matthew Buell

Ground Stone Artifacts The Galatas Survey Project found 131 complete or fragmentary ground stone objects. We use the term ground stone here to denote any object that has been reduced by and/or in combination with flaking, pecking, pounding, grinding, drilling, and incising (Wright 1994, 53, fig. 1). In all cases, at least one margin (or end) has been modified. The techniques employed by residents of the Pediada in the manufacture of ground stone implements were directly related to the working properties of, and access to, raw materials needed to create finished tools (cf. Blitzer 1995, 422). The 131 objects have been divided into nine types based on function. They include 49 grinding slabs or querns (Type 1), 45 rubbers (Type 2), 10 firmly identified pounders (Type 3; many others were found, but it is uncertain whether they were altered by manmade or natural forces), nine large fragments of gournes or mortars (Type 4), one fragment of a pot stand (Type 5), three unfinished weights (Type 6), six drill guides (Type 7), two fragments from stone vases (Type 8), and six celts (Type 9). Such a

ground stone assemblage is similar to those found at other excavated sites on the island (e.g., Blitzer 1995) and during pedestrian surveys (e.g., Blitzer 2004). All ground stone objects, with the exception of querns and mortars, which were usually identified and photographed in the field, were collected by the survey project. All implements were subjected to macroscopic study.

Stone Tools Possibly Related to Food Processing Sites from all prehistoric periods—from the Neolithic period through to LM III—produced stone objects presumably related to food production. All described objects were constructed primarily from materials that could be obtained locally from river cobbles, loose surface boulders, or from bedded outcrops of stone. Many NP sites (75% as compared to 30% of PP sites) yielded these types of ground stone. Although the

212

D. MATTHEW BUELL

limitations of survey data must always be considered, the increase in the number of these tools found on NP sites, combined with the evidence as detailed in Chapter 6 for a more structured use of the landscape, may point toward an intensified system of agricultural production, which, in turn, might be connected to the establishment of a new political order within the survey territory. Two types of grinding slabs (Type 1, i.e., metates/querns)—saddle querns and flat-faced rectangular ones—were identified by the survey project (Pls. 57C, 59A). These objects were undoubtedly used as the lower half of an abrasive tool kit; Type 2 handstones were used as the upper half. The saddle querns (ca. 25–60 x 15–20 x 5–10 cm on average) are rectangular in shape with two rounded ends (e.g., Pl. 59A). They possess a lightly concave, longitudinal profile—accentuated in the center due to use—and curved bases. These types of querns are ubiquitous throughout the Bronze Age Aegean. The saddle quern was by far the most common form identified by the survey, representing about 75% of the total quern assemblage. The much smaller (ca. 30 x 15 x 14 cm on average), rectangular querns possess a face that was worn down in a level fashion (e.g., Pl. 57C). Both saddle and flat-faced rectangular querns were roughly shaped by direct percussion from above, while the undersides often had flake scars, perhaps shaped with the intent of creating a somewhat level surface for a stone to sit easily on the floor or other working surface (Evely 1984, 226). Virtually all of the querns identified by the survey project were constructed from a local reddish sandstone, which may have been collected from one of the bedded outcrops in the area or from large, loose surface boulders. The use of sandstone is not surprising as it can produce a finer grade of processed grain as compared to limestone, the other local stone (Blitzer 1995, 479). The second most frequent class of ground stone artifact found by the survey, those which are designated Type 2, is comprised of handstones (Pl. 54C). Because these objects possess evidence for abrasion, usually caused through grinding (as the top half of the abrasive tool kit mentioned earlier), or, in some cases, polishing on at least one of their faces, they are commonly referred to as rubbers. Ten of these objects exhibited evidence for grinding on at least two faces, while two were worked

on three faces. The remaining 33 exhibited evidence for abrasive activities on only one face. Seven of these objects appear to have been multi-use objects, because they were battered on one end (e.g., Pl. 54C:b), suggesting that they had been used as a percussors. Rubbers can be generally divided into two categories based on shape: elongated or cuboid/ spherical. The elongated rubbers (ca. 15–20 x 8–10 x 4–8 cm on average) are typically flat and ovoid, although a few from the survey area are rectangular (Pl. 54C:a–c). They are predominantly constructed from limestone river cobbles. Cuboid or spherical rubbers (ca. 10–12 x 10–15 x 8–10 cm average) with at least three flattish sides, appeared slightly more frequently (53%) than the elongated type (Pl. 54C:d–f). There is also more variety in raw material choice for cuboid rubbers as compared to the elongated type; both limestone and sandstone are common, as well as one instance each of serpentinite and an unidentified material (neither pictured). The closest outcrop of serpentinite to the survey area is ca. 30 km away near the modern town of Gonies (Warren et al. 1968, 239 n. 2; Becker 1976, 364; Strasser 2004, 62). As this outcropping was located on the northern side of the Mt. Ida massif, some distance away from the survey area, the serpentinite handstone probably served a unique purpose. The serpentinite rubber may have been used to carefully rub or polish a surface (e.g., pottery) without damaging it (see Warren 1972, 232). Pounders, Type 3, are classified as those objects with pecked or battered ends (i.e., damage caused by percussion); they were the third most common type of ground stone artifact identified by the survey project (Pl. 53B). Pounders can roughly be divided into two general categories: spherical (Pl. 53B:a–e) or elongated (Pl. 53B:f–i). The spherical pounders (ca. 10–15 cm) did not occur as frequently as the oblong ones (ca. 15–25 x 15–25 x 8–10 cm), which made up 70% of our Type 3 assemblage. In most cases, only one end is worked, primarily through use-related activities such as hammering and/or pounding raw materials. Like the handstones, the primary raw material for these objects was a cobble of limestone. Raw materials were probably chosen on the basis of how well they fit into one’s hand. In some cases, a shallow, circular groove was pecked out on one face, probably to facilitate the handling of the tool.

APPENDIX C: GROUND AND CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS

Type 4 objects are comprised of gournes or mortars, which are ubiquitous throughout the island and have parallels at Mochlos (i.e., the Artisans Quarter), Gournia, Galatiani Kephala (44), and Pseira. All mortars identified by the survey project were constructed from limestone. In all cases, it seems as though the material was derived from large surface boulders. One example is a limestone mortar/gourna (Pl. 62B) from site 128 with a diameter of around 15 cm. The circular depression in the middle of the mortar was prepared by pecking and percussion flaking, judging by the marks around the lip of the depression. It also seems as though the underside was shaped to sit flat, through pecking and flaking. The inside of the vessel is fairly smooth and appears to be the product of abrasive actions. Nearly every single mortar identified by the project was produced in the same manner. In a couple of cases (e.g., one from transect 208c [Pl. 65B] and one each from site 93 and Choumeri Kephala 140 [Pls. 29B, 60A]) the mortars had been used until they were no longer usable. The above described ground stone objects seem to form part of a standardized kit related to a diet based primarily on agricultural products. The rubbers, pounders, querns, and mortars/gournes may have been used for milling after grain had been threshed. In addition, these objects may have also been used to crush vegetables, fruits, and herbs and to hull and pulverize nuts. Pounding and grinding served four functions in processing plant foods: to remove fiber, to reduce particle sizes, to aid detoxification, and to add or remove nutrients (Stahl 1989, 172–174). Some caution, however, must be used as it is a common assumption that ground stone implements were used solely for processing agricultural products. Ethnographic sources document multiple functions that these tools may have served, from grinding pigments, to sharpening or smoothing tools or other objects, shredding bark, and grinding non-comestibles such as shell, temper, and clay (Evely 1993, 108; Ebeling and Rowan 2004, 108).

Other Ground Stone Implements One pot stand (Type 5) from Choumeri Kephala (140) was also identified by the Galatas Survey Project (Pl. 63B). The pot stand has a diameter of 25 cm and is made from sandstone. Stands were

213

typically used to support large vases such as amphorae, pithoid jars, and pithoi. They were particularly suited for sites with uneven, rocky floors (Warren 1972, 222). The Type 6 objects are weights (ca. 8 cm average diam.; Pl. 54B). These objects may have been used as suspension weights to hold down cloth for drying after washing or dyeing (Warren 1972, 216–217). Three were found by the survey project from site 22, Galatiani Kephala (44, transect 193), and transect 180. These objects are flat in section with a biconical perforation, which in all cases was left unfinished. The perforations on all three of our weights seem to have been worked from both sides equally, first being pecked—perhaps to start the opening of the hole—and then ground out, perhaps with an abrasive element like sand. Two of the weights seem to have been broken in the manufacturing stage. All three of these examples were made out of waterworn limestone pebbles, which probably came from the Karteros riverbed. Eight amphibolite stone drill guides (Type 7) were found at five different sites (22, Galatiani Kephala [44], 48, 55, Melissokopa [118]; Pls. 22A, 22B). These objects are primarily associated with the production of stone vases (cf. Carter 2004, 71– 72, pl. 21, nos. IC. 389–393). All of the drill guides found in our survey area possess a lunate or semicircular profile (ca. 2–3 cm diam.), with the depression highly worn as the result of the stone’s contact with a turning drill shaft. Two fragments of stone vases from site 22 represent the Type 8 objects. The first belongs to a nearly complete serpentinite disk-shaped lid (8 cm diam.; Pl. 22C, left) with a beveled edge and a plain underside. The second fragment (Pl. 22C, right) is the profile of a laminate blossom bowl (8 cm diam.) constructed from a marble with white and gray banding (cf. Warren 1969). The source of the marble for the second fragment is unidentified, while the serpentinite may have come from the nearest outcropping outside the modern town of Gonies. Because both of these fragments are from the same site and have the same diameters, they probably belong to a set. The Type 9 objects are stone celts. Six celts were found in the survey area, and due to their association with other finds, it seems clear that the celts belonged to either the Neolithic or EM periods. The Neolithic celts were found at sites 14 and

214

D. MATTHEW BUELL

36 (Pl. 11C). The celt from site 14 (Pl. 11C, left) is ovate in shape, heavily polished, and constructed from dark diorite (4.7 x 3.1 cm). The raw material may originate from one of two areas in Crete: the Lendas region or just south of Ano Viannos (Strasser 2004, 62–63). The second Neolithic celt from site 36 (Pl. 11C, right) is trapezoidal in form (5.4 x 5.1 cm) with a hafting ghost evident on the lower part of the shaft; it was constructed from granodiorite. The inclusions in the granodiorite (i.e., white feldspar, gray quartz, and black hornblende) point to an origin near the Mirabello Bay area in East Crete (cf. Strasser 2004, 62–63; 2008, 156–158). The materials used for both celts were commonly used for such production at this time, as suggested by evidence from Knossos (Strasser 2004, 2008). There is little indication for usewear present on either celt, perhaps suggesting that they were both carefully looked after as valuable possessions.

The remaining four celts—found at sites 18, Galatiani Kephala (44), 74, and 92—date to the PreP period (Pl. 14B). All were constructed from serpentinite, with possibly the same Gonies source mentioned earlier. The celts from sites 18, Galatas (44), and 74 (Pl. 14B:a–c) are miniature ovate in shape, while the one from site 92 (Pl. 14B:d) is trapezoidal. All possess unworked butt ends to perhaps facilitate hafting. All four celts are also well used, with evidence for both scarring and fracture marks. This is in contrast to those from the FN period (Pl. 11C), which were highly polished and well curated and probably considered valuable possessions. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the rise in the number of celts, along with the evidence for their heavy use, may be equated to practices of intensified land clearing during this period.

Chipped Stone Artifacts The Galatas Survey Project collected all lithics from both intensive field walking and surface collection at sites. In total, 314 chipped and flaked stone objects were collected over three seasons of fieldwork (cf. Pls. 11A, 14C, 65C–66B). Fifty-five (17%) of these objects were found in transects, while 259 (83%) were picked up during the surface collection of sites. All lithics were cleaned, inspected with a hand lens, drawn, photographed, and cataloged. Of the 314 chipped and flaked stone objects, 138 (44%) are of chert, while the remaining 176 (56%) are of obsidian. The majority of chert artifacts were fashioned from small, locally available nodules. There were two types of locally available chert: those that were a deep reddish-brown color (2.5YR 5/4) and those that were a greenish gray (5GY 6/1). Both types of chert were heavily faulted, possessing many veins and inclusions. Unaltered nodules of both kinds of chert were observed throughout the entirety of the survey area. Apart from these objects manufactured from the locally available chert, we recognized at least seven other kinds of nonlocal chert, ranging in color from beige, to black and gray, translucent brown, green opaque, green translucent, gritty white, and white-purple. In every

case, the artifacts constructed from these nonlocal materials were threshing sledge blades. The obsidian is grayish black in color, often with gray banding. In some cases, the obsidian was also translucent. Although we did not perform any detailed compositional analysis, based on macroscopic observations it appears as though all of our obsidian is from the island of Melos, which is located about 140 km to the north of Crete. The proliferation of obsidian objects in our survey area is unsurprising, because Melos’s obsidian sources had been exploited and exchanged throughout the Aegean from at least the Upper Paleolithic era (Torrence 1986). The Galatas Survey Project’s chipped and flaked stone assemblage was broken down into four categories based on the stage in the reduction sequence. Our categories included: (1) debris/spalls; (2) cores and flakes (i.e., debitage); (3) blades; and (4) tools. Beginning with the first, we identified 48 objects (18%) that may be considered to be debris/ spalls created during the flaking process, that is, the byproducts of debitage. These pieces are mostly angular, lacking typical elements of flakes (e.g., bulbs and platforms), and may be the product of

APPENDIX C: GROUND AND CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS

reworking cores. The majority (65%) are of chert, which is unsurprising given the quality of the local chert, which possesses many faults, fractures, and large inclusions. The Galatas Survey Project registered 15 (5% of the total assemblage) cores, that is, objects from which flakes or blades had been detached (Pl. 65C). Twelve of the 15 cores (80%) were of chert, while the remaining three were of obsidian. The cores ranged in size from 1.2–4 cm in length, 1–3.1 cm in width, and 1–2.2 cm in thickness. All of the cores are amorphously shaped and multidirectional, with multiple striking platforms. In addition, all are bipolar, in that they had detached pieces removed from several directions on both faces of the piece (i.e., informal cores). According to Michael Shott (1989), bipolar technology is often used to maximize or exhaust the utility of raw material before discarding it (cf. Andrefsky 2005, 158–159, fig. 7.13). Obsidian, because it was an import into our survey area, may have been of some value, and, as a result, all of it may have been used. The chert, on the other hand, though locally available, was often of poor quality. Good-quality pieces may have been at a premium, with quality nodules being used to exhaustion. We did not identify any blade cores in the assemblage, a situation that is striking in light of the high frequency of obsidian blades. One hundred thirty-nine (44%) chipped stone artifacts recovered by the project were flakes, which were produced by both percussion and pressure (Pl. 66A). Thirty-seven (27%) flakes were of chert, while the remaining 102 (73%) were of obsidian. We subdivided flakes based on the amount of cortex present on the artifact (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary flakes) or its size (0.15 cm) adjacent flake scars oriented in the same direction, which modified the outline of the blank to one or more characteristic forms (Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 81). In doing so, we identified nine scrapers, one drill/perçoir, three notched flakes, a backed knife, and nine pieces of indeterminate use (Pl. 66B). In total, 23 (7% of all chipped stone) chipped stone tools were identified. Two of the scrapers, the backed knife, and the drill/perçoir were constructed from chert, while the remaining tools were of obsidian. Most of the Galatas Survey Project sites where chipped stone implements were recovered possessed several different phases of occupation from the Neolithic to historic periods. The lithics themselves are also not chronologically sensitive indicators. Accurate dating of lithic materials from surface context is therefore highly problematic. Two hundred and sixty-nine chipped stone objects were found on 44 sites (4, 6, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 25, 27, 28, 36, 39, 44, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54, 66, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 93, 95, 97, 108, 113, 114, 115, 118, 123, 128, 134, 138, 142, 146, 147, 155, 157, 164). No sites were identified solely by their lithic scatters. Of these sites, the majority (64%) were only inhabited in the prehistoric period (i.e., Neolithic–Bronze Age). Though we must remember that flintknapping and other stoneworking methods persisted through the 20th century a.d., it is reasonable to suggest here that the bulk of our chipped stone assemblage belongs to the Neolithic–Bronze Age periods. Of the 44 sites where chipped stone items were found, nine possessed evidence for Neolithic occupation, 23 for the PreP period, 25 for PP, 30 for NP, and 18 for LM IIIA–IIIB. The percentage of total sites where chipped stone objects were found for each period is thus 82% (Neolithic), 40% (PreP), 35% (PP), 28% (NP), 36% (LM IIIA–IIIB). Indeed, only five (4, 6, 93, 108, 146) of the 44 sites where chipped stone objects were identified (11%) did not possess evidence for Neolithic or PreP occupation. Three of the 44 settlements (113, 114, 115) were occupied during a single period (FN), while one other (123) was only occupied in the

PreP period. This general trend suggests that there is a higher likelihood of chipped stone items being found on Neolithic–PreP sites. Based on its ceramic assemblage, site 113 is the earliest settlement in the Galatas area, perhaps dating to the FN III period. This site produced 26 chipped stone objects, including five cores, 17 flakes (two primary, two secondary, and 15 tertiary), one piece of debris, and three tools (a backed blade, a blade, and one scraper; Pl. 11A). The assemblage of site 113 is notable because it is primarily (85%) composed of items fashioned from chert; only four obsidian flakes were recovered at this site. Because all stages in the reduction sequence can be accounted for at site 113, from cores to primary flakes, debris, and tools, it would seem as though its inhabitants were actively creating, modifying, and using chipped stone implements of chert. The dimensions of chert flakes, as compared to obsidian ones, fluctuated widely, from 0.9–2.1 cm in length to 1–15 cm in width and 2–6 cm in thickness. Such a situation may be explained by the fact that the local chert is quite poor, and homogenous-sized nodules do not appear. Even so, the predilection for chert suggests that these early inhabitants had knowledge of and were exploiting the area’s resources. The preference for chert over obsidian implies that the latter may not have been readily available to the inhabitants of this settlement. The assemblage of site 114 (FN IV) consisted of 14 chipped stone objects, including one core, 11 flakes (one primary, one secondary, and nine tertiary), and two pieces of debris. All of these artifacts, with the exception of a chert core, were crafted from obsidian. As was the case for site 113, the full reduction sequence is evident at this settlement. Site 115 (FN IV) produced 13 chipped stone objects, including 10 flakes (all tertiary), one piece of debris, and two tools (one blade and one scraper). All of these implements were fashioned from obsidian. The preference for obsidian at sites 114 and 115, both of which were occupied in the FN IV period, as compared to site 113, occupied in the FN III period, suggests that this material was more freely available toward the end of the Neolithic period. Once available, obsidian was favored by the residents of the survey area, probably due to the poor quality of the local chert. In addition, the presence of the pressure-flake blade in the assemblage of site 115 indicates that this technology

APPENDIX C: GROUND AND CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS

had made its way to the Galatas area by the FN IV period (see also Carter 2003, 2004; D’Annibale 2008, 191). The only other single-period occupation site with a chipped stone assemblage was 123, a PreP site. This site produced one tertiary flake, one piece of debris, and a blade fragment. All three objects were of obsidian. When we look at the more general Bronze Age pattern, it is clear that the increase in the total number of sites from the Neolithic period onward represents a more intensive exploitation of the local area. This exploitation of the natural environment involved the use of both imported as well as local lithic materials. Obsidian dominates the lithic assemblages for Bronze Age sites, as some 70% of all Bronze Age lithics were of obsidian. Even though the preference for obsidian during the Bronze Age points toward increased and sustained contacts with Melos, perhaps through coastal sites, we must consider that it was not freely available, because obsidian artifacts only appear at a few Bronze Age sites. Furthermore, only eight (23%; 13, 70, 74, 79, 81, 147, 155, 157) of the 35 Bronze Age sites where obsidian was found produced evidence for its working, as they yielded items from several stages of lithic reduction, including primary flakes. The

217

presence of primary flakes within site assemblages implies the full spectrum of tool production at these Bronze Age settlements. Moreover, that these were considered to be waste implies that access to sufficient quantities of obsidian imported from Melos was assured. We might therefore suggest that the sites where these objects were found possessed an ease of access to obsidian, perhaps having obtained it from one of the coastal centers (Amnissos or Poros-Katsambas) linked to our survey zone by the Karteros River. The low number of sites with evidence for obsidian working, and almost complete lack of obsidian cores, however, may also indicate that all inhabitants of the survey area did not easily obtain obsidian. And finally, we note that only 32 blades were found on Bronze Age sites, constituting 17% of the total Bronze Age lithic assemblage. The low number of blades on Bronze Age sites indicates that although blade production was an important part of the lithic economy, it was not the sole focus. The form of these blades (i.e., regular, parallel-sided blades with triangular or trapezoidal cross sections) points toward continued standardization of this object, perhaps suggesting specialization or at least part-time specialization in this industry, concentrated at the sites where we see full reduction sequences.

Appendix D

A Neolithic Pendant Sabine Beckmann

At site 115 (FN I–IV), we discovered a miniature figurine made of black steatite (Pl. 11B). Its lower part is nearly spherical (slightly tipped on the bottom) and drilled through from both sides. Its upper part is oblong/cylindrical, with a half-spherical to mushroom-shaped top and two

rounded horizontal grooves below. The object is not self-supporting. Its measurements (at widest point) are as follows: ht. 2.8 cm; w. (at belly) 1.9 cm; w. (at head) 1.1 cm; w. (at neck) 0.9 cm; ht. of head and neck 0.9 cm; wt.