Kleronomia: Legacy and Inheritance: Studies on the Aegean Bronze Age in Honor of Jeffrey S. Soles 9781931534284, 9781623034337, 1931534284

Table of contents :
Preface
A Life at Mochlos
Mary Ellen Carr Soles†
Jeffrey S. Soles
List of Abbreviations
Part I
The Earliest Humans on Crete
A Case of bioturbation at Damnoni Cave
Thomas F. Strasser, Miriam G. Clinton, Eleni Panagopoulou, and Panagiotis Karkanas
Part II
Prepalatial Periods
Silvery Weapons and Precious Jewelry: Early Minoan IB Metallurgy of East Crete
Susan C. Ferrence, Alessandra Giumlia-Mair, Philip P. Betancourt, and Yiannis Papadatos
New Beginnings: Occupation at Mochlosin the Early Minoan I Period
Thomas M. Brogan and Luke Kaiser
House Tombs of the Prepalatial Period: Less House, More Tomb
Borja Legarra Herrero
Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras: Arenas for Sociopolitical Competition with Similar Beginnings but Different Ends
Metaxia Tsipopoulou
Part III
Protopalatial to Neopalatial Periods
What Do the Pots Say? Fine Ware Indicates Social Stratification in the Mirabello Region during Middle Minoan II
Georgios Doudalis
On the Wings of Birds: Reflections on the Cut Style in Minoan Glyptic
Olga Krzyszkowska
Sacred Minoan Columns?
Joseph W. Shaw
Role of the Neopalatial Dagger in the Bay of Mirabello
Jesse Obert
A Reexamination of the Minoan “Sacral Knot” Motif
Ann M. Nicgorski
Possible Origins and Meaning of the Minoan Figure-of-Eight Shield
Costis Davaras†
Foundation Feasts in the Minoan Palace at Gournia, Crete
R. Angus K. Smith
A Minoan Mystery Vase Type
Peter Warren
Clay Vessels and Loomweights:
Tracing Southeast Aegean Connectionsat Neopalatial Mochlos
Jerolyn Morrison, Eleni Nodarou, and Joanne Cutler†
Prestige Goods, Foreign Knowledge, and Divine Practices: Giali Obsidian from Mochlos in Context
Tristan Carter
Small but Meaningful: Beads in the Tombs around Pylos
Joanne M.A. Murphy
On the Egyptian Origins of the Minoan Sistrum
Evi Sikla
A Peak Sanctuary for Gournia
L. Vance Watrous
The Population and Depopulation of Late Minoan Crete
Malcolm H. Wiener
Part IV
Postpalatial Periods and Iron Age
Minoan Stone Vases in Late Minoan IIIC Contexts
Melissa Eaby
New Thoughts on the Karphi Goddesses
Geraldine Gesell
Memory and Place in Early Iron Age Graves at Kavousi Vronda, Crete
Leslie Preston Day
Part V
Minoans and their World
Mochlos and Pseira: Contrasting Economic Trajectories during the Bronze Age
Philip P. Betancourt
Groundwater Geochemistry and Persistent Places of Water Ritual on Crete, Greece
Jonathan M. Flood
Minoan Harbors at Mochlos, Crete
Floyd W. McCoy and Rhonda R. Suka
Veteran and Sacred Trees in Modern and Minoan Crete
Jennifer Moody
You Can Take the Potter Out of the Plain, but You Can’t Take the Plain Out of the Potter
Peter M. Day
Table 2.1. Results (%) of XRF analyses on the EM IB copper-alloy dagger, pendants, and silver jewelry from the rock shelter in the Petras cemetery. Italicized data indicates these objects are corroded, and the results must be considered indicative only. T
Table 2.2. Results (%) of XRF analyses on the metal artifacts from Hagia Photia. Tr. = trace amount, frg. = fragment, Bis = second analysis on the same part, Cu = copper, Sn = tin, As = arsenic, Sb = antimony, Fe = iron, Ag = silver, Co = cobalt, Au = gol
Table 2.3. Results (%) of XRF analyses on the artifacts from Livari. Italicized data indicates these objects are corroded, and the results must be considered indicative only. Tr. = trace amount, frg. = fragment, Cu = copper, Sn = tin, As = arsenic, Sb =
Table 2.4. Results (%) of WD-EPMA analyses by Tselios (2008) on the EM II–III artifacts from Mochlos. Cu = copper, Sn = tin, As = arsenic, Sb = antimony, Fe = iron, Ag = silver, Au = gold, Pb = lead, Zn = zinc.
Table 5.1. Comparison of chronological phases and architecture of house tomb cemeteries at Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras.
Table 5.2. Comparison of movable finds, excluding pottery, from the house tomb cemeteries at Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras.
Table 14.1. Correlating methods of fabric analysis with stylistic understanding of off-island objects from Mochlos. Mochlos SE A Macroscopic Groups 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are the most similar to SELAP Macroscopic Groups. SE A Macroscopic Groups 1 and 3 are mo
Table 14.2. Macroscopic fabric descriptions for Southeast Aegean objects at Neopalatial Mochlos. 1Density of inclusions: medium = 7–10%, medium-coarse = 15–20%, coarse = 25–30%, very coarse = 40–50% (Moody et al. 2003). 2Sand size: coarse = 0.5–1 mm, very
Table 14.3. Primary non-plastic inclusions identified in Southeast Aegean macroscopic fabrics at Neopalatial Mochlos. 1Hardness: hard = >Mohs 2, medium =

Citation preview

Kleronomia: Legacy and Inheritance Studies on the Aegean Bronze Age in Honor of Jeffrey S. Soles

Jeffrey and Mary Ellen Soles at Mochlos in eastern Crete, 2011. Photo J. Morrison.

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 61

Kleronomia: Legacy and Inheritance Studies on the Aegean Bronze Age in Honor of Jeffrey S. Soles

Edited by Joanne M.A. Murphy and Jerolyn E. Morrison

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2022

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia, PA Printing and Binding HF Group – Acmebinding, Charlestown, MA INSTAP Academic Press, a part of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), was established to publish projects relevant to the history of the Aegean world, in particular from the Paleolithic to the 8th century b.c. It is a scholarly nonprofit publisher specializing in high-quality publications of primary source material from archaeological excavations and surveys as well as individual studies dealing with material from the prehistoric periods—exemplified by its Prehistory Monographs series of volumes. INSTAP is committed to engaging a variety of audiences by disseminating knowledge through its scholarly publishing program, which produces award-winning monographs at reasonable prices that are both academically and popularly acclaimed.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Murphy, Joanne M. A., 1971- editor. | Morrison, Jerolyn E., 1972- editor. | Soles, Jeffrey S., 1942- honoree. Title: Kleronomia: legacy and inheritance : studies on the Aegean Bronze Age in honor of Jeffrey S. Soles / edited by Joanne M.A. Murphy and Jerolyn E. Morrison. Description: Philadelphia : INSTAP Academic Press, 2022. | Series: Prehistory monographs; 61 | Includes bibliographical references. | Summary: “Kleronomiá-meaning legacy, inheritance, or allotment-encapsulates many of Jeffrey Soles’s feelings about the modern town and archaeological site of Mochlos in eastern Crete, his relationship with the people of Mochlos, the themes in his scholarship, and his contribution to our understanding of Minoan Crete. In ancient Greek text, kleronomiá was used to describe the amount of land that was allotted or inherited. In many ways, the exploration of Mochlos is Jeff ’s kleronomiá. His life’s work has included both teaching students at The University of North Carolina Greensboro and co-directing with Costis Davaras the excavation of the Minoan town on the islet of Mochlos. The 27 papers presented in this volume in Jeff ’s honor are a testament to his legacy of scholarship in Aegean Bronze Age archaeology. The papers, which are organized chronologically, harken to the wide range of themes that Jeff has addressed and influenced during his illustrious career: ancestry, burial customs, religion, trade, jewelry, the development of Mochlos, and the rise and fall of Minoan Crete”-Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022019622 (print) | LCCN 2022019623 (ebook) | ISBN 9781931534284 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781623034337 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Mochlos Island (Greece)--Antiquities. | Crete (Greece)--Antiquities. | Minoans. |Soles, Jeffrey S., 1942--Influence. Classification: LCC DF221.C8 K526 2022 (print) | LCC DF221.C8 (ebook) | DDC 939/.1801--dc23/eng/20220511 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022019622 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022019623

Front Cover View of the islet of Mochlos on the northeastern coast of Crete, looking north; photo J. Morrison. Bronze dragonfly bead (max. dim. 3.7 cm), LM IB, from Building C.7 in the Neopalatial settlement of Mochlos; Soles 2012, pl. CXIIIb, no. CA468; photo C. Papanikolopoulos; courtesy J.S. Soles. Back Cover Bronze sistrum (length 28.5 cm) from the merchant’s hoard found in Room 2.2, House C.3, in the Neopalatial settlement of Mochlos; Soles and Davaras, eds., 2022, 253–254, no. IVA.183, fig. 109, pls. 12, 73; photo C. Papanikolopoulos; courtesy J.S. Soles. Back Cover and Chapter Icon Representation of the gold seal ring from an LM IB burial at Mochlos; drawing by M. Kaplan based on CMS II.3, no. 252, which is © and courtesy Heidelberg Corpus for Minoan and Mycenaean Seals. Copyright © 2022 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

List of Tables in the Text....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... vii List of Figures in the Text. .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ix Preface.. . . . . . ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... xix A Life at Mochlos, Mary Ellen Carr Soles†.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... xxi Bibliography of Jeffrey S. Soles. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... xxv List of Abbreviations. .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... xxix PART I. THE EARLIEST HUMANS ON CRETE 1. A Case of Bioturbation at Damnoni Cave, Thomas F. Strasser, Miriam G. Clinton, Eleni Panagopoulou, and Panagiotis Karkanas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3 PART II. PREPALATIAL PERIODS 2. Silvery Weapons and Precious Jewelry: Early Minoan IB Metallurgy of East Crete, Susan C. Ferrence, Alessandra Giumlia-Mair, Philip P. Betancourt, and Yiannis Papadatos. . . . . . . . . .... 11 3. New Beginnings: Occupation at Mochlos in the Early Minoan I Period, Thomas M. Brogan and Luke Kaiser..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 33

vi

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

4. House Tombs of the Prepalatial Period: Less House, More Tomb, Borja Legarra Herrero. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 43 5. Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras: Arenas for Sociopolitical Competition with Similar Beginnings but Different Ends, Metaxia Tsipopoulou. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 49 PART III. PROTOPALATIAL TO NEOPALATIAL PERIODS 6. WhatDo the Pots Say? Fine Ware Indicates Social Stratification in the Mirabello Region during Middle Minoan IIB, Georgios Doudalis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 75 7. On the Wings of Birds: Reflections on the Cut Style in Minoan Glyptic, Olga Krzyszkowska.. . . . . . . ..... 85 8. Sacred Minoan Columns? Joseph W. Shaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 95 9. Role of the Neopalatial Dagger in the Bay of Mirabello, Jesse Obert.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 107 10. A Reexamination of the Minoan “Sacral Knot” Motif, Ann M. Nicgorski. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 115 11. Possible Origins and Meaning of the Minoan Figure-of-Eight Shield, Costis Davaras†.. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 125 12. Foundation Feasts in the Minoan Palace at Gournia, Crete, R. Angus K. Smith.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 137 13. A Minoan Mystery Vase Type, Peter Warren. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 149 14. ClayVessels and Loomweights: Tracing Southeast Aegean Connections at Neopalatial Mochlos, Jerolyn Morrison, Eleni Nodarou, and Joanne Cutler†. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 155 15. Prestige Goods, Foreign Knowledge, and Divine Practices: Giali Obsidian from Mochlos in Context, Tristan Carter........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 173 16. Small but Meaningful: Beads in the Tombs around Pylos, Joanne M.A. Murphy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 189 17. On the Egyptian Origins of the Minoan Sistrum, Evi Sikla. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 201 18. A Peak Sanctuary for Gournia, L. Vance Watrous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 211 19. The Population and Depopulation of Late Minoan Crete, Malcolm H. Wiener. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 217 PART IV. POSTPALATIAL PERIODS AND IRON AGE 20. Minoan Stone Vases in Late Minoan IIIC Contexts, Melissa Eaby.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 231 21. New Thoughts on the Karphi Goddesses, Geraldine C. Gesell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 239 22. Memory and Place in Early Iron Age Graves at Kavousi Vronda, Crete, Leslie Preston Day. . . . . . . . . .. 249 PART V. MINOANS AND THEIR WORLD 23. Mochlos and Pseira: Contrasting Economic Trajectories during the Bronze Age, Philip P. Betancourt................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259 24. Groundwater Geochemistry and Persistent Places of Water Ritual on Crete, Greece, Jonathan M. Flood. ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 267 25. Minoan Harbors at Mochlos, Crete, Floyd W. McCoy and Rhonda R. Suka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 277 26. Veteran and Sacred Trees in Modern and Minoan Crete, Jennifer Moody.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 299 27. You Can Take the Potter Out of the Plain, but You Can’t Take the Plain Out of the Potter, Peter M. Day........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 319

List of Tables in the Text

Table 2.1. Results (%) of XRF analyses on the EM IB copper-alloy dagger, pendants, and silver jewelry from the rock shelter in the Petras cemetery.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 17 Table 2.2. Results (%) of XRF analyses on the metal artifacts from Hagia Photia. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 2.3. Results (%) of XRF analyses on the artifacts from Livari. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 20 Table 2.4. Results (%) of WD-EPMA analyses by Tselios (2008) on the EM II–III artifacts from Mochlos. . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 22 Table 5.1. Comparison of chronological phases and architecture of house tomb cemeteries at Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Table 5.2. Comparison of movable finds, excluding pottery, from the house tomb cemeteries at Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table 14.1. Correlating methods of fabric analysis with stylistic understanding of off-island objects from Mochlos.................................................................................. 163 Table 14.2. Macroscopic fabric descriptions for Southeast Aegean objects at Neopalatial Mochlos....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 164 Table 14.3. Primary non-plastic inclusions identified in Southeast Aegean macroscopic fabrics at Neopalatial Mochlos.. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 166

viii

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

Table 14.4. Petrographic fabric descriptions for Southeast Aegean objects at Neopalatial Mochlos......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 166 Table 15.1. Giali obsidian from Mochlos by context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Table 16.1. The number of glass and faience beads in the Pylos tombs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193 Table 25.1. Physiographic configurations for Mochlos harbor determined from underwater surveys. ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 285 Table 26.1. “Miracle and healing” trees in Crete. Locations listed from west to east. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 311

List of Figures in the Text

Frontispiece. Jeffrey and Mary Ellen Soles, Mochlos, 2011.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ii Figure 1.1.

Map of Crete showing the location of Damnoni.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 1.2.

The three strata of the slope.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 1.3. Damnoni Cave (center left) from the south with dense vegetation coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . ......4 Figure 1.4. Test trench in the cave with the fire pit visible in the balk in the upper left of the photograph................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......5 Figure 1.5. A north–south stratigraphic cross-section of Trenches CC10–AC08 showing the total number of ceramics within each of the three strata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......6 Figure 1.6. A north–south stratigraphic cross-section of Trenches CC10–AC08 showing the average size of the ceram­ic sherds by loci (categorized by Natural Breaks [Jenks] Classification)................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....6 Figure 2.1. Map of sites in the Aegean region mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 2.2. Daggers from the cemeteries of Hagia Photia, Livari, and Petras that were analyzed with XRF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

x

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

Figure 2.3. Detail of dagger from Hagia Photia (HNM 4658) showing remains of a silvery sheen on the surface. . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 21 Figure 2.4. Selected silver-alloy jewelry pieces from the cemeteries of Hagia Photia, Livari, and Petras that were analyzed with XRF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 2.5. Map of sites in the eastern Mediterranean region and western Asia mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 3.1. Plan of Mochlos showing the Prepalatial Cemetery and Trench D2 97/9800. . . . . . . . . . ..... 35 Figure 3.2. Section of Trench D2 97/9800 marking Phases I–IV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 3.3. Phase IA pottery, Plain Red/Brown Coarse Ware.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 36 Figure 3.4. Phase IB pottery, Red Burnished Ware.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 37 Figure 3.5. Phase IB pottery, Plain Red/Brown Coarse Ware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 38 Figure 3.6. Phase IB pottery, Cretan imports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 39 Figure 3.7. Phase IB pottery, Cretan imports, Light Brown Burnished Ware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 40 Figure 3.8. Phase IB pottery, possible West Cycladic import or Cretan imitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....41 Figure 4.1. Comparison of house plans (left) with rectangular tombs (right) during the Prepalatial period. .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 45 Figure 5.1. Aerial view of the Petras cemetery at the end of the 2019 excavation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 51 Figure 5.2. Plan of the Petras cemetery (2022) showing the different periods of architecture. . . . . ..... 52 Figure 5.3. Plan of the Petras cemetery (2019) highlighting the EM II architecture...................... 53 Figure 5.4. Aerial view of House Tomb 4 at the end of the 2019 excavation season, after consolidation................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 54 Figure 5.5. Aerial view of House Tomb 6 at the end of the 2019 excavation season, after consolidation................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 54 Figure 5.6.

Plan of House Tomb 12.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 55

Figure 5.7.

Plan of House Tomb 13..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 55

Figure 5.8. Plan of House Tombs 3, 5, 14, and 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 55 Figure 5.9.

Aerial view of House Tomb 15.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 55

Figure 5.10. Selected pottery from House Tomb 16.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 56 Figure 5.11. Aerial view of House Tomb 17 on top of House Tomb 26, at the end of the 2019 excavation season........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 57 Figure 5.12. Plan of House Tomb 26 below House Tomb 17.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 57 Figure 5.13. Plan of House Tomb 1 and House Tomb 22 below it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 57 Figure 5.14. Aerial view of House Tombs 7 and 35 at the end of the 2019 excavation season, after consolidation. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 58

LIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

xi

Figure 5.15. Plan of the Petras cemetery (2022) highlighting the EM III–MM IA architecture. . . . . . ... 59 Figure 5.16. Plan of House Tomb 27 under House Tomb 11.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 60 Figure 6.1. Mochlos Middle Minoan Deposit 1: (a) white-on-dark bridge-spouted jug (P 657), (b) alternating floral style jar (P 826), (c) white-on-dark tumbler (P 643).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 78 Figure 6.2. Mochlos Middle Minoan Deposit 2: (a) carinated cup (P 6287), (b) decorated jug (P 6301). ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 79 Figure 6.3. Mochlos, House 1: rounded cup (P 10668). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 80 Figure 6.4. Mochlos, House 1: undecorated tumbler (P 12372).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 80 Figure 6.5. Mochlos, House 1, two views of jug with zigzag and floral decoration (P 10629).. . . . . . .... 80 Figure 6.6. Mochlos, House 1, two views of base of possible straight-sided cup or closed vessel from Malia (P 12371)....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 80 Figure 7.1. Birds with outstretched wings: LM I “naturalistic” and Cut Style.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 87 Figure 7.2. Waterbirds and other varieties: “talismanic” and Cut Style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 89 Figure 8.1. Palace at Knossos: fresco of shrine with double axes protruding from column capitals, N.W. hall of palace.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 96 Figure 8.2. Palace at Knossos: portion of the Tripartite Shrine fresco thought by some to depict a shrine set alongside the Central Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 96 Figure 8.3. Kato Zakros: carved stone lamp stand in the form of a capital from House Z. . . . . . . . . . .... 96 Figure 8.4. Palace at Knossos: restored eastern elevation of the Grand Staircase in the East Wing. .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 97 Figure 8.5. Palace at Knossos: plan of the Northwest Lustral Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 97 Figure 8.6. Palace at Knossos: Northwest Lustral Basin, looking southwest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 97 Figure 8.7. Palace at Phaistos, West Wing: isometric drawing of the parapet and column base in the lustral basin within Room 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 98 Figure 8.8. Palace at Kato Zakros, North Wing, Room LVIII: plan of lustral basin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 98 Figure 8.9. Palace at Kato Zakros, detailed drawings of parapet in lustral basin in Room LVIII. . . ... 99 Figure 8.10. Knossos, Little Palace: plan of lustral basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 99 Figure 8.11. Knossos, Little Palace: lustral basin showing elevation of balustrade and wooden column........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 99 Figure 8.12. Palace at Knossos, East Hall: painted stucco relief with griffins tethered to a column.. .. 100 Figure 8.13. Palace at Knossos: perched birds on free-standing triad of terracotta columns from MM II cult deposit. .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 100 Figure 8.14. Kato Zakros, Room LVIII: watercolor restoration depicting the north wall of the lustral basin. ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100

xii

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

Figure 8.15. Palace at Knossos, Throne Room, facing west: watercolor restoration depicting the lustral basin and steps leading downward and the throne between built benches.. . . . . ... 101 Figure 8.16. Knossos, Royal Villa: west end of “Megaron” showing columns of balustrade restored and remains of seat of honor in recess beyond.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 103 Figure 8.17. Mycenae: monumental stairway leading up to the palace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 104 Figure 9.1. Percentage of tin and arsenic in the examined samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108 Figure 10.1. Plaques representing knotted textiles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 116 Figure 10.2. Basic overhand slipknot..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 117 Figure 10.3. A typically conventionalized knot fastening the kilt of a servant, limestone relief, Egyptian, Old Kingdom, Dynasty 6, ca. 2350–2170 b.c.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 117 Figure 10.4. Red Jasper tiet (Isis knot) amulet from Abydos (Egypt), Cemetery D, Tomb D33; New Kingdom, Ramesside period, Dynasty 19–20, ca. 1295–1070 b.c... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 118 Figure 10.5. Square knot binding the lotus and the papyrus onto the sema, detail of seated statue of Chephren (Khafre), from Giza (Egypt), Old Kingdom, Dynasty 4, ca. 2500 b.c.. . . . ... 118 Figure 10.6. Ebony tjes-knot amulet from the Foundation Deposit 9 (I), Temple of Hatshepsut, Deir el-Bahri (Egypt). From the joint reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, ca. 1479–1458 b.c.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 119 Figure 10.7. Herakles with Herakles-knotted lion skin; detail of decoration on red-figure amphora showing Herakles driving a bull to sacrifice. From Athens (Greece), by the Andokides Painter and Lysippides Painter, Archaic period, ca. 525–520 b.c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Figure 10.8. Gold armband with Herakles knot, inlaid with garnets, emeralds, and enamel. Greek, Hellenistic, 3rd–2nd century b.c.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119 Figure 10.9. Fragment of the so-called Campstool Fresco showing a young woman (generally identified as a goddess or a priestess), known as “La Parisienne,” from Knossos, Crete (Greece), LM IIIA, ca. 1350 b.c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Figure 10.10. Fresco fragments representing a slip-knotted cloth, from Corridor 11, “Villa,” Nirou Chani, Crete (Greece), Neopalatial, MM IIIA–LM IB, ca. 1725–1500 b.c.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120 Figure 10.11. Jasper lentoid sealstone with bull, figure-of-eight shield, and two slipknots, LH I/II, ca. 1690–1390 b.c.. ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 121 Figure 10.12. Beak-spouted jug with highly stylized conjunctions of double axes and slipknots, Neopalatial, LM IB, ca. 1500–1450 b.c.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 121 Figure 10.13. The goddess Inanna with her symbols (two sheaves of reed), detail of the so-called Warka Vase, alabaster, from Uruk, Mesopotamia (Iraq), ca. 3200–3000 b.c. . ..............122 Figure 11.1. Wall painting of figure-of-eight shields at Knossos palace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 126 Figure 11.2. Boeotian shield as an emblem figure on a Boeotian coin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126 Figure 11.3. Signet ring from Mycenae, CMS I, no. 17.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Figure 11.4. Engraved design on a double axe from Voroi Pyrgiotissis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 127

LIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

xiii

Figure 11.5. Faience objects from the Temple Repositories at Knossos palace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 127 Figure 11.6. Signet ring with figure-of-eight shield illustrated in a cultscape, in profile at lower right; CMS I, no. 219. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Figure 11.7. Miniature mottled glass figure-of-eight shield from Pharmakokephalo Siteias (HNM 1516).................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 128 Figure 11.8. Gold signet ring with alternating figure-of-eight shields and sacred knots from Archanes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Figure 11.9. Examples of the kiden-sign of early Elam: (a) a double circle sign as the head of a Goddess with Upraised Arms, (b) a triple circle sign as the head of a Goddess with Upraised Arms, (c) two pedestals side by side with a triple circle sign standing on top of each one, (d) kiden-signs standing on pedestals as part of the decoration on pottery from Susa. .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 131 Figure 11.10. Lid from a Late Minoan IIIB incense burner (HNM 1929) from the cemetery at Myrsini Siteias. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 133 Figure 11.11. Kiden-sign as the top of a standard set into horns of consecration: detail of painted decoration on the lid of an incense burner (HNM 1929) from the cemetery at Myrsini Siteias. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 133 Figure 12.1. Plan of the Southwest Wing of the Gournia palace.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 138 Figure 12.2. Middle Minoan IIIA deposit in Room 13.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Figure 12.3. Middle Mino­an IIIA plain cups and bowls from Room 13.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 140 Figure 12.4. Middle Minoan IIIA ridged straight-sided cup (11.543).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 141 Figure 12.5. Middle Minoan IIIA straight-sided cup with splatter decoration (11.1333).. . . . . . . . . . . . .... 141 Figure 12.6. Middle Minoan IIIA rounded cup (11.623).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 141 Figure 12.7. Middle Minoan IIIA chalice (11.1343). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 141 Figure 12.8. Middle Minoan IIIA deposit in Room 13, detail of deposit against western face of north–south wall (W1467). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Figure 12.9. Late Minoan IB cup rhyton (11.181). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 142 Figure 12.10. Late Minoan I cup rhyton (11.1715). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 143 Figure 13.1. Mystery vase 1. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 150 Figure 13.2. Mystery vase 2. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 151 Figure 13.3. Mystery vase 3. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 151 Figure 13.4. Mystery vase 4. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 152 Figure 14.1. Large beak-spouted jug (1), possibly Koan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 157 Figure 14.2. Large closed vase, amphora, or jug (2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 157 Figure 14.3. Small- to medium-sized closed vase, amphora, or jug (3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 157

xiv

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

Figure 14.4. Small footed closed vessel, amphora, or jug (4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157 Figure 14.5. Closed vase (5), possibly a Koan beak-spouted jug.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 158 Large oval-mouthed amphora (6).. .................................................................. 158 Figure 14.6.  Figure 14.7. Large closed vase, amphora, or jug (7).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 158 Figure 14.8. Large closed vase (8), possibly a Koan beak-spouted jug or amphora.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 159 Figure 14.9. Small- to medium-sized closed vase, amphora, or jug (9)...................................... 159 Figure 14.10. Beak-spouted jug fragment (10).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 159 Figure 14.11. Beak-spouted jug (11). . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 160 Figure 14.12. Closed vase (12)............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 160 Figure 14.13. Small beak-spouted jug (13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 160 Figure 14.14. Small closed vase, amphora, or jug (14)............................................................ 161 Figure 14.15. Small closed vase, amphora, or jug (15).............................................................. 161 Figure 14.16. Small closed vase, amphora, or jug (16).............................................................. 161 Figure 14.17. Discoid ceramic loomweights from Southeast Aegean excavated at Mochlos in Neopalatial levels (18–20, 22, 23).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 161 Figure 14.18. Southeast Aegean Petrography Groups 1–4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167 Figure 15.1. Aegean obsidian sources and MBA–LBA (second millennium b.c.) sites at which Giali obsidian artifacts have been reported. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 174 Figure 15.2. Chunk of Giali A obsidian from a LM IB context in House C.2, Mochlos (CS 57). . . . . . .. 175 Figure 15.3. Distribution of Giali obsidian within the Neopalatial town of Mochlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 176 Figure 15.4. Rim and body fragment shown in the section drawing of a restored bowl made of Giali obsidian from MM Knossos. The form of the bowl imitates an Egyptian stone vessel from the Early Dynastic period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 179 Figure 15.5. Late Minoan IB chalice of Giali A obsidian from the palace at Zakros (HM 2725). . . . ... 180 Figure 15.6. Cups in the White-spotted Style, a late MBA ceramic tradition from Central Crete whose surface decoration emulates Giali obsidian.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 181 Figure 15.7. Middle Bronze Age (early second millennium b.c.) eastern Mediterranean sites at which obsidian vessels are found and/or produced.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 182 Figure 16.1. Map of Bronze Age tombs around the Palace of Nestor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 190 Figure 16.2. Sample of glass beads from the tombs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 194 Figure 16.3. Sample of faience beads from the tombs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 194 Figure 16.4. Sample of faience beads from Tholos III.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 196

LIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

xv

Figure 17.1. Sistrum, Burial Building 9, Archanes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 202 Figure 17.2. Khesu-wer, nomarch and priest to Hathor, is teaching the use of the sistrum to Hathor’s musicians, tomb of Khesu-wer, Kom el Hisn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 202 Figure 17.3. Priestesses-musicians playing the sistrum during Hathoric rituals, tomb of Ukh-hotep, son of Senbi, Meir.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 205 Figure 17.4. Miniature golden Hathor masks, Temple of the Obelisks, Byblos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..206 Figure 18.1. Map of area with sites mentioned in the text...................................................... 210 Figure 18.2. View looking south showing the north coast of Crete with the peak of Stavromenos in relation to Gournia and Mochlos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 212 Figure 18.3. Plan, peak of Stavromenos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 212 Minoan figurines, pottery, and pumice from Stavromenos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 213 Figure 18.4.  Minoan pottery from Stavromenos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 213 Figure 18.5.  Drawing of female figurine head from Stavromenos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 214 Figure 18.6.  Figure 20.1. Blossom bowl from Vronda Building I Room I3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 232 Figure 20.2. Stone vase fragments from Karphi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 233 Figure 20.3. Selection of stone vase fragments from Chalasmenos House A.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 235 Figure 21.1. Plan of Karphi. Contour interval ca. 2 m.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...240 Figure 21.2. Plan of the Temple at Karphi and its surroundings: Phase II, variant 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...240 Figure 21.3. Karphi Goddess HM 11041, front view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Figure 21.4. Karphi Goddess HM 11044, front view.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Figure 21.5. Karphi Goddess HM 11044, front view from left. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Figure 21.6.

Karphi Goddess HM 11044, feet from front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 244

Figure 21.7. Karphi Goddess HM 11044, detail of face and tiara from front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 245 Figure 21.8. (a) Karphi Goddess HM 11044, detail of head from right; (b) Karphi Goddess HM 11045, upper torso, right arm, and head from front right.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 245 Figure 21.9. Karphi Goddess HM 11045, front view.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 245 Figure 21.10. Karphi Goddess HM 11042, front view.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 245 Figure 21.11. Karphi Goddess HM 11043, front view.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..246 Figure 21.12. Karphi Goddess HM 11042, feet from front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...246 Figure 21.13. Karphi Goddess HM 11043, feet from front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..246

xvi

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

Figure 21.14. Karphi Goddess HM 11042, detail of face and tiara from front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...246 Figure 21.15. Karphi Goddess HM 11043, detail of face and tiara from front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...246 Figure 22.1. Aerial view of part of the northeastern coast of Crete showing locations of Vronda, Kastro, and Azoria. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 250 Figure 22.2. Plan of Vronda showing location of LM IIIC buildings, Subminoan–Protogeometric tholoi, and Late Geometric–Early Orientalizing burial enclosures............................ 251 Figure 22.3. Architectural section through Tholos IV and Grave 3 (G.3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 252 Figure 22.4. Aerial view of Grave 3 showing location of a stand to hold a marker.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 253 Figure 22.5.

Pottery from Grave 3. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 253

Figure 23.1. Aerial view of part of the northeastern coast of Crete showing the small islands of Pseira and Mochlos in relation to the mainland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...260 Figure 24.1.

Field test results for Kato Syme and Psychro Cave.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 272

Figure 24.2.

Common inorganic solutes in water at Psychro Cave and Kato Syme (mg/L).. . . . . . . . . . . .. 272

Figure 24.3.

Trace elements in water at Kato Syme and Karphi (ppb).. ...................................... 273

Figure 24.4.

Trace elements in water at Psychro Cave (ppb).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 273

Figure 25.1. Bathymetric map of Mochlos in 2016.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 279 Figure 25.2. Tectonic map of the Ierapetra Fault Zone in eastern Crete and associated major faults in the vicinity of Mochlos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...280 Figure 25.3. Diagram illustrating the SIGMA acoustic-mapping equipment and mounting arrangement on a floating polystyrene foam board platform and its coverage area by depth................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 281 Figure 25.4. Morphology of the modern seafloor off Mochlos, based upon acoustic seafloor data and visual observations from SIGMA surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 283 Figure 25.5. Underwater photograph illustrating marine notches 1 (bottom), 3 (middle), and 4 (top) along a portion of the eastern side of the submerged tombolo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...284 Figure 25.6. Diagram illustrating the marine notch sequence eroded into bedrock as mapped along the eastern side of the submerged tombolo at Mochlos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...284 Figure 25.7 (a) Locations of wind stations in the southern Aegean and eastern Mediterranean Seas that collected surface wind data used in this study. (b) Annual surface wind patterns north and east of Mochlos—these depict the direction from which winds are derived. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Figure 25.8.

Sketch of the nomenclature of wave parameters.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 288

Figure 25.9. Surface wind-wave refraction patterns, with wave orthogonals (light blue arrows), for the modern coastal and offshore configuration of Mochlos harbor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

LIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

xvii

Figure 25.10. Reconstruction of the Bronze Age harbors at Mochlos: associated shorelines depicted by dashed lines indicate a broad subaerial ridge, or tombolo, that connected the Cretan mainland to the island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 290 Figure 25.11. Surface wind-wave refraction patterns under northerly (Etesian) tropospheric atmospheric patterns with wave orthogonals (light gray arrows) as inferred and calculated for the MM IIIB harbor at Mochlos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 291 Figure 25.12. Underwater photograph of phyllite-quartzite bedrock exposed along the western margin of the submerged tombolo at its juncture with the mainland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 292 Figure 25.13. Accumulation of angular, coarse-cobble or fine-boulder sized (ca. 10–30 cm) gravels photographed off the eastern flank of the submerged tombolo at Mochlos at a water depth of 4.5 meters.. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 292 Figure 26.1. Phoenix-type palms in flower and Minoan iconography.. ..................................... 300 Figure 26.2. Phoenix-type palms in fruit and in Minoan iconography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 301 Figure 26.3. Doum Palms in nature and in Minoan iconography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 302 Figure 26.4. Fig trees in Minoan iconography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 303 Figure 26.5. Olive trees in Minoan iconography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....304 Figure 26.6. Imagery of trees with incised chevrons for leaves.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....304 Figure 26.7. Tree imagery on Minoan signet rings, seals, and sealings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 305 Figure 26.8. Important veteran tree-types in Crete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 307 Figure 26.9. Veteran olive trees in Minoan iconography.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 308 Figure 26.10. Tree imagery on Minoan signet rings, seals, sealings, and an ivory box.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 309 Figure 26.11. Cypress charcoal with 58 countable rings from Kamilari. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 310 Figure 26.12. Roots of the Holy Carob at Hagios Antonios covered with icons, Mathes (Apokoronou), February 2017.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 311 Figure 26.13. Detail of the LM III Hagia Triada sarcophagus, showing an olive tree on top of a building with a parapet of “horns of consecration,” probably a shrine (HM Λ396). . . .... 311 Figure 26.14. Tree imagery on Minoan seals and sealings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 312 Figure 26.15. Dancing trees. ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 312 Figure 27.1. Well-balanced donkey with a Thrapsano potter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 320 Figure 27.2. Map of East Crete showing locations mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 321 Figure 27.3. The potter’s red clay source below Lastros in 1984. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 324 Figure 27.4. Thin section photomicrographs of four sherds of water jars from the kiln of the Kampitis at Lastros, Crete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 325

xviii

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

Figure 27.5. Thin section photomicrographs of four sherds of water jars from the kiln used by the Tzanidakis family at Vaïnia, Ierapetra, Crete.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 326 Figure 27.6. Thin section photomicrographs of four sherds of pitharia from the Thrapsaniote kiln at Ta Gournia, Exo Mouliana, Crete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 327 Figure 27.7. Thin section photomicrographs of four sherds of pitharia from the Thrapsaniote kiln at Vanges, Episkopi, Ierapetra, Crete.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 328

Preface

Kleronomiá (κληρονομιά)—meaning legacy, inheritance, or allotment—encapsulates many of Jeffrey Soles’s feelings about the modern town and archaeological site of Mochlos in eastern Crete, his relationship with the people of Mochlos, the themes in his scholarship, and his contribution to our understanding of Minoan Crete. In ancient Greek text, kleronomiá was used to describe the amount of land that was allotted or inherited. In many ways, the exploration of Mochlos is Jeff’s kleronomiá. Jeff has often said the best things that happened to him in his life were his wife, Mary Ellen, and Mochlos: the former leading to his beautiful family and the latter to his career and life’s work as co-director with Costis Davaras of the excavation of the Minoan town on the islet of Mochlos. Both have given him huge amounts of pleasure. The shared protection of the kleronomiá of Mochlos among the archaeologists and the local

people has led to life-long and trans-generational friendships full of stories and adventures reminiscent of the ancient epics. The dynamic and personal investment by Soles and Davaras in their work at Mochlos, as part of their longstanding synergasía (συνεργασία, meaning cooperation, partnership, or collaboration), has been strengthened and made more impactful by the generous help and support of the people of Mochlos village. They have embraced the archaeological team as family, have kept a watchful eye on the site, and also have helped to pay for its preservation. Jeff’s connection with kleronomiá does not stop there; it is also tied to the way he has shared Mochlos with the next generation of scholars. Since starting the synergasía excavations at Mochlos in 1989, he has invited large numbers of undergraduates, graduate students, and senior scholars from around the globe to participate in the project. These numbers include over 50 undergraduates

xx

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

from The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. For many of these students, the trip to Greece was their first time outside the United States, and to help them with the cost, Jeff secured private funding in order to give several scholarships each year to students. Their experience of working at Mochlos was not only an enriching cultural and professional one, but it changed their worldview and revealed new opportunities. As a direct result of their work with Jeff, several of the students have pursued archaeological careers both in Crete and in the US. Other students who have not continued in archaeology have gained invaluable knowledge about the diverse world in which we live and its ancient history and culture. These students’ international and professional experience with Jeff and

his team has left them with a broadened mind and a deepened curiosity. The 27 papers presented in this volume in honor of Jeff’s work are a testament to how he and his career have left a legacy of scholarship in our field. The papers, which are organized chronologically, harken to the wide range of themes that Jeff has addressed and influenced during his illustrious career: ancestry, burial customs, religion, trade, jewelry, the development of Mochlos, and the rise and fall of Minoan Crete. Joanne M.A. Murphy and Jerolyn E. Morrison

A Life at Mochlos Mary Ellen Carr Soles†

Officially this is a biography of Jeffrey Scott Soles, but it is a story that cannot be told without a history of a place, Mochlos, because the two are so intertwined. I first met Jeffrey at a garden party at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens in 1972 when he was a Fulbright fellow and I a Yale Travelling fellow. After some banter about the American Journal of Archaeology for 1909, which I had checked out to my carrel and he thought he owned because it contained Richard Seager’s 1908 excavation report on Mochlos, I discovered his true passion for the site. It was to set the pattern for our lives. Jeff first visited Mochlos in 1970 in search of a dissertation topic while at the University of Pennsylvania and returned in 1971 after he acquired a permit to clean the tombs in the Prepalatial cemetery. With practically the first shovel full of dirt, the Greek workmen he had hired with his Fulbright grant money uncovered a silver cup full of gold

jewelry that included a diadem with its antennas still attached. News of its discovery spread quickly, and it was reported in the Cretan newspapers, establishing Jeff’s link to Mochlos in the minds of Cretan locals and his academic peers. At that time Mochlos was still a fishing village because there were still fish to be caught, but there was no electricity, no running water, no tourists, and only a precipitous dirt road leading down from Sphaka for access. The only light in town in the evening was a kerosene Tilley lamp, which had to be pumped every hour to keep burning. It was the prized possession of Georgios and Rodanthe Frangiadakis, proprietors of Taverna ta Kochilia. Every night Georgios lit the lamp, pulled out his violin to play, and Rodanthe danced. So began a halfcentury commitment to Mochlos, which is still going strong, and a continuing friendship with the Frangiadakis family, now in its fourth generation.

xxii

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

My first personal contact with Mochlos was in 1976, two years after we were married and I was pregnant with our first child, when Jeff recruited me to help him draw the Minoan sandstone quarry. There was still no electricity in Mochlos, and the only fresh water was still being trucked into the village. We bathed from a bucket shower with a pull chain and slept on a concrete roof behind the Kochilia taverna under the stars. Jeff pointed out the Milky Way and the shooting stars, and I noted that it was still a roof. Little did I know that we were to spend so much of our lives at Mochlos and raise our two children, Abigail and John, there. In the following years Jeff worked at Gournia and Kavousi, but his heart remained in Mochlos, and in 1989 he received an excavation permit for a synergasía with Costis Davaras who was then ephor (έφορ, director) of the local district for antiquities in eastern Crete. Jeff raised a large threeyear grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the first of four that he was awarded, and another grant from the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, which has supported the project every year. The project made its first great discovery that year, a thick deposit of tephra from the volcanic island of Thera (Santorini) perfectly stratified between LM IB and LM IA deposits, thereby disproving the long held theory introduced by Spyridon Marinatos that the Bronze Age eruption of the Theran volcano destroyed the Minoan civilization. In fact, the Minoans continued to flourish for up to another century, and the discovery was immediately presented before the Third International Congress in Santorini, Greece, which was being held in September that year, and it was also reported on the front page of the Science section of the New York Times. Jeff discovered that year that excavation is expensive, and so when Baron Philippe and Baroness Marion Lambert showed up at the end of the summer, he gave them a royal tour, at the end of which Marion said she had always wanted an excavation of her own, and he replied, “You can have this one!” So began a close friendship with the Lamberts who became loyal supporters of the project until their untimely deaths in 2011 and 2016. The excavation continued in four campaigns— 1989–1994, 2004–2005, 2009–2010, and 2012— with periods between them devoted to study and publication. Each year of excavation produced a

remarkable discovery that called for another year of excavation: the tephra in 1989, the Artisans’ Quarter in 1990, the House of the Telestas in 1991, the great ashlar ceremonial Building B.2 in 1992, the foundry hoard in the House of the Metal Merchant and the Mycenaean cemetery at Limenaria in 1993 and 1994, the first tin ingot ever found in the Aegean and the merchant’s hoard in House C.3 in 2004, the Theatral Area with its evidence for ancestor worship in 2005, the EM II gold workshop in 2009, the Ivory Pyxis with the scene of a goddess’ epiphany on the lid in 2010, and the Temenos of Olive Trees in 2012. It would not have been possible to store and process all the finds without the opening of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete in 1997, thanks to the generosity of Malcolm Wiener. The Study Center made all the difference, and it continues to be an indispensable resource in fulfilling the project’s publication goals. During this time many famous people also came to visit the site, beginning with Lynne Cheney in 1991 in her capacity as chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities. She arrived with her husband, Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, on a gun boat flying a Cypriot flag as a disguise. Jeff introduced Dick to archaeology and explained its importance to him—preserving a record of the past and of mankind’s common cultural heritage. Two months later the Persian Gulf War began. Saddam Hussein hid his MiG-21 fighter jets in the shadow of the ziggurat of Ur thinking they would be safe there, and indeed they were because Dick Cheney refrained from bombing them fearing he would harm the ziggurat. Jeff takes full credit for the fact that the ziggurat still stands intact today. The most recent VIP to visit was Gloria Steinem, a world leader of the women’s liberation movement. He took her to see the House of the Lady with the Ivory Pyxis and explained the role of the Knossian priestess who lived there, thinking she would be impressed by the importance of the role women played in Minoan Crete, but to his dismay, she responded only with, “It’s all about control!” Slowly but surely over these years another Minoan town was uncovered, one that played an important role in the economy and religion of the region, and many secrets of the Minoans were revealed. The modern village of Mochlos also underwent a sea change. Electricity finally came to the town in 1981 when a large German hotel was built at the

A L I F E AT M O C H L O S

eastern end of the Mochlos coastal plain, the road from Sphaka was paved in 1986, fresh water arrived in 1991, and another access road was opened from Platanos a few years later. The sleepy little fishing village that Jeff knew in 1971 was transformed into a bustling tourist destination, and only two fishermen (and very few fish) are left today, but there are now several tavernas and fancy bars, more than a dozen small hotels, and luxury villas in the Limenaria area southwest of the village costing around €700,000.00. Jeff wonders what if any effect the excavation has had on all this development, but he is sure of one thing, whatever economic crisis has hit the rest of Greece, Mochlos is flourishing again like it did at its peak in the LM IB period. Jeffrey was born in Meadville, Pennsylvania, home of Talon zippers, the firm that invented the zipper, with which his family was closely connected. They moved to Connecticut when he was still in grade school to be closer to Talon’s manufacturing center in New York City’s garment district where Jeff was to work while in college during the summer holiday putting bottom stops on the new Zephyr zipper. He received a classical education as a young man and began his study of Latin in the 7th grade; he was introduced to ancient Greek at Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire where Henry Phillips Jr. of Chase and Phillips fame (A New Introduction to Greek, 1949) had him reading Homer in the original in the 12th grade. Jeff went on to Dartmouth College where he spent more time on the ski slopes than he should have but still managed to graduate with a degree in Classical Studies. After a two-year stint in the Peace Corps teaching in the Cameroons, he earned an M.A. in Classics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and then earned his Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania where he was fortunate to study with two giants in the field of archaeology—Rodney Young, the discoverer of Gordion, and George Bass, the excavator of the Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun shipwrecks and founder of underwater archaeology. Bass taught a year-long course in the Aegean Bronze Age that inspired Jeff and many of his classmates to become Aegean archaeologists.

xxiii

They included Phil Betancourt, Vance Watrous, Jerry Rutter, and others who went on to become distinguished archaeologists. Like most of Young’s and Bass’s students, Jeff was extremely fond of both professors. They were the supervisors of his dissertation and a source of inspiration to him in his own career. Penn was a transformative experience for Jeff, and it made him into the scholar he is today. It was there that he fell in love with the Minoans and launched his career while still a graduate student, resolving never to turn back. His first excavation experience was in 1969 in the Franchthi Cave with Tom Jacobsen—where he learned the importance of stratigraphy that was to stand him in good stead at Mochlos—and from there he moved to Crete to dig at Gournia and Mochlos. Jeff received his Ph.D. in 1973, and struggled, as so many Aegean archaeologists still do today, to find a full-time teaching position. He taught part time for four years until he received a tenure-track position in the Department of Classical Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He was to teach there for 39 years and founded the university’s Archaeology Program, the only undergraduate interdepartmental program when it was established in 1985, serving as its chair for 25 years. The program combined courses in classics, anthropology, history, and geography and produced many graduates who went on to careers in archaeology, mostly in Cultural Resource Management, but also no small number who went to graduate school and embarked on academic careers in archaeology. The Mochlos Excavation Project served as a training ground for Jeff’s students and for students from other universities, provided dissertation topics to several of them, and produced a number of scholars who became distinguished Aegean archaeologists. His own research centered on his discoveries at Mochlos, but he was never satisfied with simple description and always strove to find an explanation for what he found and to link it to the wider context of Minoan or Mycenaean civilization. Jeff is by no means finished with his research and maintains that his best work lies ahead.

Jeffrey S. Soles

Degrees 1964 B.A., Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 1969 M.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 1973 Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Publications Abbreviations for periodicals in the bibliography below and in the reference lists of the chapters follow the conventions of the American Journal of Archaeology.

Monographs and Edited Books Soles, J.S. 1992. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 24), Princeton.

Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras, eds. 2003. Mochlos IA: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Sites (Prehistory Monographs 7), J.S. Soles, Philadelphia. . 2003. Mochlos IB: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Neopalatial Pottery (Prehistory Monographs 8), K.A. Barnard and T.M. Brogan, Philadelphia. . 2004. Mochlos IC: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9), J.S. Soles, C. Davaras, J. Bending, T. Carter, D. Kondopoulou, D. Mylona, M. Ntinou, A.M. Nicgorski, D.S. Reese, A. Sarpaki, W.H. Schoch, M.E. Soles, V. Spatharas, Z.A. Stos-Gale, D.H. Tarling, and C. Witmore, Philadelphia.

xxvi

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

. 2008. Mochlos IIA: Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery: The Sites (Prehistory Monographs 23), J.S. Soles, Philadelphia. . 2010. Mochlos IIB: Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery: The Pottery (Prehistory Monographs 27), R.A.K. Smith, Philadelphia. . 2011. Mochlos IIC: Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery: The Human Remains and Other Finds (Prehistory Monographs 32), J.S. Soles, J. Bending, T.M. Brogan, K. Caldwell, T. Carter, A. Giumlia-Mair, K. Kopaka, D. Mylona, A. Nicgorski, M. Ntinou, D.S. Reese, G. Rethemiotakis, R.A.K. Smith, S.L. Smith, M.E. Soles, S. Triantaphyllou, and P. Westlake, Philadelphia. . 2014. Mochlos III: The Late Hellenistic Settlement. The Beam-Press Complex (Prehistory Monographs 48), N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, Philadelphia. . 2022. Mochlos IVA: Period III. The House of the Metal Merchant and Other Buildings in the Neopalatial Town (Prehistory Monographs 68), 2 vols., J.S. Soles, Philadelphia.

Selected Articles and Reviews in Chronological Order Soles, J.S. 1978. “Mochlos: A New Look at Old Excavations. The University Museum’s Work on Crete,” Expedition 20 (2), pp. 4–15. . 1979 “Towards a Reconstruction of the Palace at Gournia,” TUAS 4, pp. 169–176. . 1983. “A Bronze Age Quarry in Eastern Crete,” JFA 10, pp. 33–46. . 1988. “Social Ranking in Prepalatial Crete,” in Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Bristol, pp. 49–61. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 1990. “Theran Ash in Minoan Crete: New Excavations on Mochlos,” in Thera and the Aegean World III. Volume Three: Chronology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3–9 September 1989, D.A. Hardy and A.C. Renfrew, eds., London, pp. 89–95. Soles, J.S. 1991. “The Gournia Palace,” AJA 95, pp. 17–78. . 1992. “Mochlos” in The Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete, J.W. Myers, E.E. Myers, and G. Cadogan, eds., London, pp. 186–193. . 1992. Review of Kommos II: The Final Neolithic through Middle Minoan III Pottery, by P.P. Betancourt, AJA 96, pp. 174–175.

1992. Review of Toumba tou Skourou: A Bronze Age Potters’ Quarter on Morphou Bay in Cyprus, by E.D.T. Vermeule and F.Z. Wolsky, Archaeological News 17, pp. 73–74. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 1992. “Ἀνασκαφές στόν Μόχλο Σητείας: Περίοδος 1989,” Ἀμάλθεια 90–93, pp. 37–43. . 1992. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1989,” Hesperia 61, pp. 413–445. . 1993. “Ἀνασκαφὲς στὸν Μόχλο Σητείας: Περίοδος 1990–91,” Ἀμάλθεια 94–97, pp. 45–65. Davaras, C., and J.S. Soles. 1994. “Eνας νέος ἀνατολικὸς σφραγιδοκύλινδρος ἀπὸ τὸν Μόχλο,” Cretan Studies 4, pp. 71–76. Soles, J.S. 1994. Review of The Knossos Labyrinth: A New View of the “Palace of Minos” at Knossos and Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete, by R. Castleden, AJA 98, pp. 572–573. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 1994. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1990–1991,” Hesperia 63, pp. 391–436. . 1994–1996. “Αρχαιολογικές ειδήσεις 1992/1994: Μόχλος,” Κρητική Εστία 5, pp. 342–344. Davaras, C., and J.S. Soles. 1995. “A New Oriental Cylinder Seal from Mochlos: Appendix. Catalogue of the Cylinder Seals Found in the Aegean,” ArchEph 134 [1997], pp. 29–66. Soles, J.S. 1995. “The Functions of a Cosmological Center: Knossos in Palatial Crete,” in Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12), R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 405–414. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 1995. “Some Stratigraphic Observations at Mochlos,” in Πεπραγμένα του Zʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Αʹ (2), Rethymnon, pp. 881–886. Soles, J.S., S.R. Taylor, and C.J. Vitaliano. 1995. “Tephra Samples from Mochlos and Their Chronological Implication for Neopalatial Crete,” Archaeometry 37, pp. 385–393. Soles, J.S. 1996. “Gournia” in An Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archaeology, N.T. de Grummond, ed., Westport, CT, pp. 529–530. . 1996. “Mochlos” in An Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archaeology, N.T. de Grummond, ed., Westport, CT, p. 761. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 1996. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1992–1993,” Hesperia 65, pp. 175–230. Evershed, R.P., S.J. Vaughan, S.N. Dudd, and J.S. Soles. 1997. “Fuel for Thought? Beeswax in Lamps and

JEFFREY S. SOLES

Conical Cups from Late Minoan Crete,” Antiquity 71, pp. 979–985. Soles, J.S. 1997. “A Community of Craft Specialists at Mochlos,” in Texnh: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 425–432. . 1999. “The Collapse of Minoan Civilization: The Evidence of the Broken Ashlar,” in Polemos: Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19), R. Laffineur, ed., Liège and Austin, pp. 57–66. 1999. “The Ritual ‘Killing’ of Pottery and the Discovery of a Mycenaean Telestas at Mochlos,” in Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 787–792. Evershed, R.P., S.J. Vaughan, S.N. Dudd, and J.S. Soles. 2000. “Organic Residue, Petrographic and Typological Analyses of Late Minoan Lamps and Conical Cups from Excavations at Mochlos in East Crete, Greece,” in Palaeodiet in the Aegean. Papers from a Colloquium Held at the 1993 Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Washington D.C. (Wiener Laboratory Monograph 1), S.J. Vaughan and W.D.E. Coulson, eds., Oxford, pp. 37–54. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 2000. “Mochlos,” in Crete 2000: A Centennial Celebration of American Archaeological Work on Crete (1900–2000), J.D. Muhly and E. Sikla, eds., Athens, pp. 22–37. Soles, J.S. 2001. “Reverence for Dead Ancestors in Prehistoric Crete,” in Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 229–236. Brogan, T.M., R.A.K. Smith, and J.S. Soles. 2002. “Mycenaeans at Mochlos? Exploring Culture and Identity in the Late Minoan IB to IIIA1 Transition,” Aegean Archaeology 6 [2003], pp. 89–118. Soles, J.S. 2002. “A Central Court at Gournia,” in Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14–15 December 2001 (Aegaeum 23), J. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 123–132. . 2003. “Οι Πρώτοι Έλληνες στο Μόχλο,” Ἀμάλθεια, pp. 221–233.

xxvii

. 2004. “New Construction at Mochlos in the LM IB Period,” in Crete beyond the Palaces. Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference (Prehistory Monographs 10), L.P. Day, M.S. Mook, and J.D. Muhly, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 153–162. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 2004. “New Seals from Mochlos,” in Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel V, Suppl. 3.2, I. Pini, ed., Mainz, pp. 513–516. Soles, J.S. 2005. “From Ugarit to Mochlos: Remnants of an Ancient Voyage,” in Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), R. Laffineur and E. Greco, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 429–442. . 2007. “Saevus Tridens,” in Krinoi kai Limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (Prehistory Monographs 22), P.P. Betancourt, M.C. Nelson, H. Williams, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 251–255. . 2008. “Metal Hoards from LM IB Mochlos,” in Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19–21, 2004, I. Tzachili, ed., Athens, pp. 143–156. . 2009. “The Impact of the Minoan Eruption of Santorini on Mochlos,” in Time’s Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 10), D.A. Warburton, ed., Aarhus, pp. 107–116. . 2010. “Evidence for Ancestor Worship in Minoan Crete: New Finds from Mochlos,” in Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (BSA Studies 18), O. Krzyszkowska, ed., London, pp. 331–338. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 2010. “2010 Greek-American Excavations at Mochlos,” KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 13, pp. 1–3. Soles, J.S. 2011. “Mochlos 2011: The House of the Metal Merchant,” KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 14, pp. 3–5. . 2011. “The Mochlos Sistrum and its Origins,” in Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning Why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly (Prehistory Monographs 29), P.P. Betancourt and S.C. Ferrence, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 133–146. . 2012. “The Goddess and the Ancestors,” BICS 55 (2), pp. 127–128. . 2012. “Mochlos Boats,” in Philistor. Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras (Prehistory Monographs 36),

xxviii

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

E. Mantzourani and P.P. Betancourt, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 187–199. . 2012. “The Symbolism of Certain Minoan/Mycenaean Beads from Mochlos,” in Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010 (Aegeaum 33), M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 457–462. Giumlia-Mair, A.R.G., and J.S. Soles. 2013. “Egyptian Faience and Rose Gold at Mochlos, Crete,” Surface Engineering 29, pp. 114–120. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 2013. “A Temenos of Olive Trees at Mochlos,” KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 16, pp. 14–16. Flood, J.M., and J.S. Soles. 2014. “Water Management in Neopalatial Crete and the Development of the Mediterranean Dry-Season,” in Physis: L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Recontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 79–84. Soles, J.S. 2014. “Copper Ore from Cyprus at LM IB Mochlos,” in Kypriaka in Crete: From the Bronze Age to the End of the Archaic Period, V. Karageorghis, A. Kanta, N.C. Stampolidis, and Y. Sakellarakis, eds., Nicosia, pp. 250–252. Sophianou, C., and J.S. Soles. 2014. “A Stone Anchor from Mochlos,” in Kypriaka in Crete: From the Bronze Age to the End of the Archaic Period, V. Karageorghis, A. Kanta, N.C. Stampolidis, and Y. Sakellarakis, eds., Nicosia, p. 248. Soles, J.S. 2016. “Hero, Goddess, Priestess: New Evidence for Minoan Religion and Social Organization,” in Metaphysis: Ritual, Myth, and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental

and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Wilhartner, eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 247–254. Soles, J.S., G. Doudalis, L. Kaiser, and J. Morrison. 2017. “Memories and Realities in Neopalatial Mochlos,” KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 20, pp. 11–16. Soles, J.S., F. McCoy, and R. Suka. 2017. “Evidence for Three Earthquakes at Mochlos, Crete, in the Neopalatial Period, ca. 1700–1430 BC,” in “Out of Rubble”: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Minoan Earthquakes, S. Jusseret and M. Sintubin, eds., Leuven, pp. 207–325. Soles, J.S., and A. Giumlia-Mair. 2018. “Metallurgical Habits and Workshop Remains in LM IB Mochlos, East-Crete,” in Bronze Age Metallurgy on Mediterranean Islands. Volume in Honour of Robert Maddin and Vassos Karageorghis (Monographies Instrumentum 56), A.R. Giumlia-Mair and F. Lo Schiavo, eds., Drémil-Lafage, pp. 498–519. Berger, D., J.S. Soles, A.R. Giumlia-Mair, G. Brügmann, E. Galili, N. Lockhoff, and E. Pernicka. 2019. “Isotope Systematics and Chemical Composition of Tin Ingots from Mochlos (Crete) and other Late Bronze Age Sites in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea: An Ultimate Key to Tin Provenance?” PLoS ONE 14 (6): e0218326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218326. Soles, J.S. 2019. “The Creation of Social Memory in Minoan Mochlos,” in Mnhmh/Mneme: Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference (Aegaeum 43), E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F.M. Carinci, and R. Laffineur, eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 35–47. Brogan, T., J. Soles, and P. Betancourt. 2021. “In Memorian Costis Davaras,” KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 24, pp. 1–4.

List of Abbreviations

BA Bronze Age cat. catalog cm centimeter(s) cm/yr centimeters per year cm2 square centimeters CMS Corpus of Minoan and Mycenaean Seals CS chipped stone inventory number d. diameter dim(s). dimensions DoL Dark-on-Light EA Amarna Letter EBA Early Bronze Age EC Early Cycladic EC electrical conductivity EH Early Helladic EM Early Minoan EO Early Orientalizing FN Final Neolithic g gram(s)

GEP Gournia Excavation Project GPS Global Positioning System GS ground stone inventory number H1/3 highest third of the waves h. height ha hectare(s) HM Herakleion Archaeological Museum number HNM Hagios Nikolaos Museum number ICP-MS inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometer IFZ Ierapetra Fault Zone INSTAP Institute for Aegean Prehistory SCEC Study Center for East Crete Inv. Inventory kg kilogram(s) kHz kilohertz km kilometer(s) kV kilovolt LBA Late Bronze Age

xxx

K L E R O N O M I A : L E G A C Y A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

LG Late Geometric LH Late Hellenic LM Late Minoan LN Late Neolithic LoD Light-on-Dark mA milliamp Macro macroscopic max. maximum m meter(s) m2 square meters cubic meters m3 m asl meters above sea level MBA Middle Bronze Age mg/L milligrams per liter μg/L micrograms per liter ml milliliter(s) MM Middle Minoan mm millimeter(s) mm/yr millimeters per year m/sec. meters per second Μs microsecond μS/cm microsiemens per centimeter mV millivolt Mw moment magnitude n number NAM National Archaeological Museum, Athens n.d. no date no(s). number(s) ORP oxidation-reduction potential pers. comm. personal communication pers. obs. personal observation

Petro petrographic PG Protogeometric pH potential hydrogen ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million ppt parts per thousand pres. preserved PT Ta Pylos tablet sec. second(s) SELAP  Serraglio, Eleona, and Langada Archaeological Project SEX Stratigraphical Museum Extension site SEYDK Society of Cretan Olive Mu­nicipalities SIGMA  Sonar Integrated GPS MiniAquatic SM Subminoan sq m square meters SWH significant wave height TDS total dissolved solids th. thickness TSJs transport stirrup jars UNCG University of North Carolina at Greensboro vol. volume w. width wt. weight XP cross-polarized XRF X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy yBP years before present

Part I

The Earliest Humans on Crete

CHAPTER

1

A Case of Bioturbation at Damnoni Cave Thomas F. Strasser, Miriam G. Clinton, Eleni Panagopoulou, and Panagiotis Karkanas

The Damnoni Cave was excavated in 2011 and 2013 in order to discover in situ Mesolithic artifacts on Crete.* The project was successful but also revealed an unexpected category of artifacts: ceramics. This contribution evaluates the tiny fragments of ceramics mixed with the Mesolithic stone tools. We explain their presence as the result of bioturbation (i.e., redeposition of later material through weather, root growth, and animal disturbance); the ceramics thus were not in situ with the lithic assemblage but were there as a result of later depositional processes. Because the Mesolithic period is a pre-ceramic culture in the Aegean, this distinction is seminal to understanding the nature of the site.

Context Damnoni Cave is located on the southwest coast of Crete between the modern village of Plakias

and the Preveli Gorge (Fig. 1.1). It is situated on the south-facing slope of a flight of marine terraces. The cave is quite small (2 x 2 m), but the talus area (i.e., collapsed rocks) in front of the entrance preserved Mesolithic (ca. 12,400–8,500 b.p.; Facorellis 2003) stone tools on the surface that were discovered by a survey in 2008 (Strasser et al. 2010, 170). In 2011 and 2013, 99 trenches measuring 1 x 1 m were excavated on the slope south of the entrance to the cave to investigate the nature and size of the site. The site has two distinct areas of soil stratigraphy. The small cave to the north of the trenches has a yellowish-green clayey soil that is broadly consistent to approximately 1 m in depth. On top is a small fire pit dug in the Late Bronze Age. The soil in the cave mouth is substantially different from *We thank Jeff for his advice and friendship over the years.

4

T.F . S T R A S S E R , M .G . C L I N T O N , E . PA N A G O P O U L O U , A N D P . K A R K A N A S

the rest of the site, which consists of the talus immediately south of the cave entrance and down the slope to the south. The soils in the talus are unlike those in the cave and are consistently comprised of three strata (Fig. 1.2). Stratum 1 is the topsoil, which is present at varying depths of 5–15 cm from the modern surface. This sandy silt topsoil is rich in organic matter, having occasionally a granular soil structure. It is normally loose but includes more firm horizons in areas where its thickness increases. It is a light gray (10R 7/1 [for Munsell colors see Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation 2010]) to reddish-brown soil (5YR 5/4). Stratum 2 is 5–20 cm in thickness and reddish yellow in color (7.5YR 6/6). It is a clay-rich sandy layer. Its structure is the result of wind-blown sands and therefore is identified as aeolian sediment affected by weak soil formation processes

Cretan Sea

Damnoni

Gavdos

(pedogenesis). This stratum contains the majority of Mesolithic artifacts. Stratum 3 is a light red (2.5YR 6/6) paleosol that lies below Stratum 2 and varies in thickness from a few centimeters to a meter. It is a sandy clay pale­ osol with fluctuating amounts of small and large stone that is probably a B-horizon (i.e., a subsoil that has been enriched with material leached from above) and overlies the bedrock. Small amounts of Mesolithic artifacts were found in the top 4 cm of this stratum. Below that initial interface, this hardpacked stratum quickly became sterile of artifacts. The talus was covered by a large amount of flora. The largest and most conspicuous plant was Euphorbia dendroides (Fig. 1.3), which has a deep root system, but many other plants were also present. No portion of the site was devoid of vegetation prior to excavation.

N 0

40 km

Crete

Libyan Sea

Figure 1.1. Map of Crete showing the location of Damnoni. Drawing E. McClellen.

Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Figure 1.2. The three strata of the slope. Photo T. Strasser.

Figure 1.3. Damnoni Cave (center left) from the south with dense vegetation coverage. The large grayishbrown plants are Euphorbia dendroides. Photo T. Strasser.

A C A S E O F B I O T U R B AT I O N AT D A M N O N I C AV E

The site was excavated with hand picks, trowels, and brushes. The small trench size encouraged excavators to focus on a limited area at a time to ensure careful collection. All the soil was dry sieved through a 4.4 m2 as excavated.

1

1

HT 22

8

1

Figure 5.12. Plan of House Tomb 26 (orange) below House Tomb 17. Drawing G. Kostopoulou and M. Clinton.

0.5

9

2m

Figure 5.13. Plan of House Tomb 1 (blue) and House Tomb 22 below it (magenta). Drawing G. Kostopoulou and M. Clinton.

the east; it dates to the EM III and MM IA periods (Figs. 5.1, 5.8, 5.15). It has an area of ca. 61.1 m2. It was initially rectangular with an area of ca. 54 m2, and it was divided into four spaces by two perpendicular walls. Room 5 to the south, with the entrance of the tomb, is a semi-open area. At a slighter later phase within the same period, three rooms were added: a closed rectangular one to the east, Room 1; and two small almost square spaces to the south, Rooms 2 and 3. There was an entrance through the southern wall of Room 2.

House Tomb 4 The middle phase of House Tomb 4 dates to the late EM III and MM IA periods (Figs. 5.1, 5.4, 5.15). The plan was completed with the addition of a Π-shaped corridor around Room 1 that measures in total ca. 55.4 m2. Also, a square platform measuring 2 x 2.25 m was added on the far eastern side of the corridor, directly south and east of the new door. The plan did not change in MM IB.

58

M E TA X I A T S I P O P O U L O U

5.1, 5.15). As they were identified in 2019, the excavation is in an initial stage, and their measurements are not yet known.

HT 7 HT 35 1

Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras

2 3 N

0

0.5

1

4

2m

Figure 5.14. Aerial view of House Tombs 7 and 35 at the end of the 2019 excavation season, after consolidation. Photo D. Faulmann.

House Tomb 5 This tomb is situated immediately to the west of its contemporary House Tomb 3 (Figs. 5.1, 5.8, 5.15). It contained eight rooms, and it covers an area of ca. 72.3 m2.

House Tomb 64, Room 2 (formerly House Tomb 1, Room 10) Room 2 is probably a subterranean room, which dates to MM IA in its upper layer and EM III in its lower layer (Figs. 5.1, 5.13, 5.15). The excavation of this room is not finished and it cannot be excluded that the lowest levels are dated to the EM II period in accordance with its adjacent Room 1.

MM IA House Tombs House Tomb 7 Rooms 1 and 2 in House Tomb 7 belong to the MM IA period and measure ca. 20.9 m2 in total (Figs. 5.1, 5.14, 5.15; Tsipopoulou, forthcoming).

House Tomb 27 This tomb sits below Room 1 of the MM II House Tomb 11 (Figs. 5.1, 5.15, 5.16). It comprises two rooms as excavated and measures ca. 10.12 m2 (Tsipopoulou, forthcoming).

House Tombs 39 and 40 These two tombs are situated below the western part of House Tomb 9, which dates to MM II (Figs.

Comparative Chronology The comparative chronology and size of each burial structure in the house tomb cemeteries of Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras are shown in Table 5.1. House Tombs I at Gournia and I/II/III, IV/V/VI, XIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, XX/XXI, and Λ at Mochlos produced evidence for earlier remains, which probably belonged to other structures occupying the same area in EM II. This was also the case at Petras where underneath House Tomb 2 (MM IB–IIB) burial pits lined with stones were excavated, and they dated to EM IIA and IIB as well as to MM IA—the so called Burial Structures 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 34 (Tsipopoulou and Rupp 2019; Tsipopoulou, forthcoming). These architectural remains at Gournia and Mochlos, marked with the letter “a” on Table 5.1, were interpreted as simple pits excavated to receive re-depositions of early burials, but based on new evidence from Petras it is suggested here that EM II structures were replaced by new constructions in EM III at Mochlos and in MM IA at Gournia. The two cemeteries of the Mirabello area thus seem to have suffered from the EM II destructions. These destructions reflect the sociopolitical changes taking place in the area, which are observed also in the settlements in the Mirabello area and at the settlement and cemetery of Petras. At Gournia, Tombs I and III were first used in EM IIA. The second phase of Tomb I was MM IA, along with Tombs II, VII, and VIII. In MM IB, Tombs I and II were still in use. At Mochlos, the first phase of Tombs XVI, XX/ XXI, and probably also of Tombs XXII, XXIII, and Z, date to EM II. Tombs I/II/III, IV/V/VI, XIX, and Λ (first phase), as well as Θ, are EM IIA. In EM IIB, Tombs I/II/III, IV/V/VI, XIII, XV, XVII(?) (all in first phase), as well as XI(?) and Θ were in use. Early Minoan III was an important phase of social change, reconstruction, and rearrangement of the cemeteries: Tombs I/II/III, IV/V/VI, XIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, XX/XXI, and Λ were

GOURNIA, MOCHLOS, AND PETRAS: ARENAS FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL COMPETITION

0

5

10

59

20 m

Figure 5.15. Plan of the Petras cemetery (2022) highlighting the EM III–MM IA architecture. Drawing G. Kostopoulou and M. Clinton.

60

M E TA X I A T S I P O P O U L O U

HT 27

HT 11

2

4

3

Figure 5.16. Plan of House Tomb 27 (green) under House Tomb 11. Drawing G. Kostopoulou and M. Clinton.

rebuilt, while IX/X was a new addition. In the following phase of MM IA, Tombs I/II/III, IV/V/VI, IX/X, XI, XIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, XX/XXI, and Λ continued to be in use, while Tomb Γ was also a new addition. In MM IB only three tombs were in use, I/II/III, XI, and Λ.

Movable Finds Taking into account the limitations mentioned above, an attempt is made below to examine in a comparative manner the various classes of movable finds, especially prestige items and exotica, in the three house tomb cemeteries (Table 5.2). Pottery is not included.

Gournia Based on Harriet Boyd’s report (1905), all rooms of the house tombs contained both human bones and grave goods. Tomb I contained many items: a metal vessel, the well-known silver kantharos; seven stone vases (three bird-nest bowls, a shallow bowl with two lugs, a bucket, a two-handled bowl, and a small cylindrical pyxis); two seals made of steatite; a pair of bronze tweezers; a gold bead; 10 silver beads; 15 ivory plaques (inlays), and a number of seashells. Tomb II also contained many burial goods: fragments of more than three burial containers (i.e., at least two larnakes and a pithos); one pair of bronze tweezers and one pair more fragmentary; six stone vases, including an alabastron, a small carinated bridge-spouted jug with lid, a bird’s-nest bowl with vertical grooves, two more bird’s-nest bowls, and a cylindrical pyxis; a stone seal whose

material was not described by Harriet Boyd; and a stone zoomorphic amulet. Tomb III contained three bronze items (a leaf and an awl) and a gold sheet, initially attached to an amulet or a seal. Soles suggests that eight cranium fragments that were found in a pit in Tomb I were originally associated with Tomb III due to the fact that the sherds of the pit are contemporary in date to Tomb III rather than to the later Tomb I (Soles 1992, 31). Tomb VII Room A contained fragments of two larnakes and a bronze knife with the bones. Room B contained a fragment of a larnax and a bronze knife inside it, a bronze dagger, and a gold sheet. In Tomb VIII fragments of two larnakes were reported.

Mochlos Some of the original chronological attributions of the finds are refined in the present discussion (Seager 1912; Soles 1992, 41–113). In Tomb I/II/III, Room Ia was found empty. Room Ib contained 30 cranium fragments; nine stone vases, including a one-handled spouted jug, two spouted bowls, two miniature bowls, a miniature spouted jug, a bowl, an EM II lid with incised decoration and a plastic dog on the upper surface, and a miniature pyxis with lid; bronze objects including a dagger and a scraper with a bone handle; pieces of jewelry such as a fragment of a gold leaf, a gold bead, an electrum bead, a rock crystal bead, and an amethyst bead; a silver cylinder seal, probably of Babylonian origin. Room II is described as a pit, originally connected to the pit in Room Ib. It contained many different types of burial goods: 16 EM III–MM II stone vases, including a bowl, a miniature bowl, a small bowl, a cylindrical pyxis with lid, a MM IA tumbler, a shallow bowl, an egg cup, a spouted miniature bowl, an amphoriskos (possibly an import from Egypt), a handleless amphoriskos, a bowl with two lugs, a carinated bowl, an alabastron, a small spouted jug, and a footed bowl, along with a stone color table; 86 gold items including: 16 gold bands with dotted decoration, one diadem with animal decoration, one diadem with eyes, five more diadems, a fragment of a diadem decorated with dotted lozenges, a twisted ornament, five bands, a rosette, two ring-shaped foils, an arched

GOURNIA, MOCHLOS, AND PETRAS: ARENAS FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL COMPETITION

Prepalatial House Tombs

Gournia North Cemetery by tomb number

I II

a

EM IIB

EM III

b

IV/V/VI IX/X XI

XIII XV XVI XVII XIX XX/XXI XXII

a

X

a

X

b

X

a

X

b b a

b a

ca. 30

X

2

ca. 23

X

?

?

3

ca. 66

3

ca. 44

X

X

X

X

X

2

ca. 27.5

X

1

12

1

ca. 11.5

1

ca. 5

1

ca. 13.5

1

7

b a

b

2

7.5

a

b

2

16.5

1

13.5

1

ca. 10

1

ca. 7

2

6.5

1

21

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X? X X X X X

a

X

X

b

X (R1 of 3)

6

12

4

X

5

7, Rs 1,2

ca. 25

X

a

X?

4,R1

2

X

X?

Ζ

3

ca. 14

X

b

Γ

64, R2

2

X

X

Λ

Area in Square Meters

X

XXIII

Θ

Number of Rooms

MM IA

X

VII

I/II/III

Petras Cemetery by tomb number

EM IIA X

III

VIII

Mochlos Cemetery by tomb number

EM II

61

X

X

X

X

1 of 2

2

X

X

5

ca. 61.1

X

X

1 of 3

ca. 12.1

X

X

8

ca. 72.3

1

ca. 9.28

1 of 4

ca. 20.9

5

37

X X X

X

Table 5.1. Comparison of chronological phases and architecture of house tomb cemeteries at Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras.

62

M E TA X I A T S I P O P O U L O U

Prepalatial House Tombs 13

Petras Cemetery by tomb number

EM II

EM IIA

EM IIB

EM III

MM IA

X

14

X

16

X

Number of Rooms

Area in Square Meters

1

ca. 15.2

≥3

ca. 28.9

15

X

4

ca. 17.8

X

2

>23.3

17

X

X

3

>26.47

X

?

??

26

X

2

>4.4

2

>10.12

1?

??

22 27 35

X

Table 5.1, cont. Comparison of chronological phases and architecture of house tomb cemeteries at Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras.

sheet, two triangular sheets, 11 armlets, eight leafshaped pendants, six beads, six gold leaves, a disk with dotted decoration, a miniature diadem, two pins, eight chains, a boss, a cross-shaped ornament with dotted decoration, an ornament made of two bands, a chain with a bell-shaped pendant, two bronze beads covered with gold; a bone amulet; five strips of inlay bone; three strips of green steatite; an EM III ivory seal with a palmette design; an ivory signet seal with apes on the sealing surface; bronze items including three dagger blades, a double axe, two tweezers, a scraper with a bone handle, a tiny knife, and two more bronze knives; and four lead objects, two of them double axes. Room III contained no skeletal remains, and it was probably used only for funerary rituals, in a way similar to the rectangular room with the bench in House Tomb 16 at Petras (see above). Room III contained several artifacts: four MM IA stone vases including two bird-nest bowls with lid, a bowl, and a cylindrical pyxis; gold objects such as two strips of EM II leaf, a disk, and a ring; a silver ring; bronze objects including a ring and a knife; a MM II signet chalcedony seal; six carnelian beads. In Tomb IV/V/VI, Room IV contained a MM IA burial (primary?) in the northern part of the room (IVb). In MM III a disturbance occurred in the same area without leaving any signs of new burials. It was probably connected to funerary rituals. Room IVa (south part) contained no bones, but it had many other items: five stone vases including a small egg cup, a small bowl, and a bowl with carinated profile and everted rim (all EM III–MM I), a

large steatite bowl, and one more bowl; two MM I bronze knives; gold items including a small boss of gold, five gold beads, and a gold chain with a leaf pendant; jewelry of various materials such as a chalcedony amulet in the shape of a bird, two rosettes of shell, part of a ring made of shell, six rock crystal beads, at least 20 beads made of steatite and breccia, a shell matrix, a shell rosette, and a probable pendant made of a round pebble; and some shells. Room V was used for burials in EM II and MM IA. It contained many artifacts: a large jug with a good parallel at Petras in Burial Structure 23, below House Tomb 2, Room 3 (Fig. 5.15; Tsipopoulou 2017b, 79, fig. 31.e); eight EM III–MM I stone vases including a small spouted jug, a miniature bowl, a cup with hook handle, a miniature bowl with two lugs, a miniature handleless amphoriskos, a miniature bird’s-nest bowl, a stone table, and a spouted jug; gold objects such as an ornament with four pendant leaves, a long band, and many fragments; and a lead object. In Room VI at the northern end there was a rock-cut pit similar to those in Rooms I and III of Tomb I/II/III. In MM III/LM I, as suggested by some sherds, the east wall was rebuilt. The room contained many burial goods: 15 stone vases including a teapot that imitates an EM II Vasiliki clay type but is probably later (EM III–MM IA; contra Warren 1969, 98), a MM IA wide-mouthed jug, an EM III “sauceboat” similar to one found at Petras (Relaki and Tsoraki 2017, 162, fig. 2.c), an EM III–MM I spouted jar with lid, two MM IA bowls, an EM III(?) spouted bowl, an EM III–MM

GOURNIA, MOCHLOS, AND PETRAS: ARENAS FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL COMPETITION

Gournia North Cemetery

Prepalatial house tombs

Bronze tools

I

1

II

2

III

3

VII

3

Unidentified Burial Gold bronze Figurines Jewelry Seals containers items fragments 1

IV/V/ VI

Silver Stone Sword Seaitems vases pommel shells

15

2

1

1

89

20

4

1

29

X

>29

>251

1

2

28

X

3

11

3

7

2 14 6

92

1

2

4

Mochlos

XI

14 2

3

XV

41

XVI

1

1

4

1

8

XVII XIX

XX/ XXI

2 10

21

>46

8

>58

9

>50

1

XXIII Λ 1

3

3

4,R1

1

5

3

2

14

1

1

1

4

2

13

>38

1

5

7

3

25

1

2

3

3

5

34

5

4

12 Petras

6 1

2

15

2

11

16

1

5

17

1

26

1

1

12

1

2 1

64, R2

3 1

X

3

X

3

X

6

X

1

X

1

1

X

71

1

>2

X

15

34

2

10

X

2

12

1

2

X

1 4

6

1

2

27 35

X

1

IX/X

XIII

7

1

VIII I/II/ III

63

1 1

X 2

5

X X

Table 5.2. Comparison of movable finds, excluding pottery, from the house tomb cemeteries at Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras.

64

M E TA X I A T S I P O P O U L O U

IA wide-mouthed jug, a MM I carinated bowl with everted rim, a small spouted bowl, an EM III miniature goblet (dated EM II by Warren 1969, 73), an EM III jug with lid, a porcelain bowl, and two more bowls; gold objects including three beads of thin metal, a leaf in the shape of a lion’s head, which probably initially covered a wooden amulet, a rosette, two chains with leaf pendants, a triangular foil, a disk with dotted decoration; 12 tubular gold beads and gold pendant chain; two silver pendants; EM II bronze objects such as an amulet in the form of a lion, a dagger, and two scrapers (one of them with an ivory handle); an EM III ivory cylinder seal; two ivory attachments; more than 113 rock crystal beads; two big pebbles used as beads; and a large number of beads (>100) made of stone, faience, and shell. The area outside Tomb IV/V/VI contained gold jewelry, a small bronze diadem, and two MM I stone vases. Tomb IX/X, Room IX contained a few MM I sherds. In 1976, cleaning operations revealed several artifacts: three stones vases (a complete bowl and fragments from two more bowls) were found close to the partition wall, dated probably to EM III (contra Soles 1992, 82–84); a gold finger ring; as well as a large number of obsidian blades and cores. Room X produced a three-sided MM II prismatic seal, a MM II Petschaft stamp seal made of chalcedony; and a small stone cylindrical jar imitating an Egyptian prototype. Tomb XI contained 14 MM IA stone vases: a small spouted bowl with three lugs, two carinated bowls with everted rim, a cup with a hook handle, a large stone color table, a small cup with hook handle, a miniature amphora, a miniature bowl with four lugs, a carinated pyxis with lid, a bowl with vertical grooves, a bowl of black steatite, and three large fragmentary basins. The tomb was revisited both in MM IB/II and in the Neopalatial periods. Tomb XIII contained three stone vases: a small jug with a carinated body, a bowl, and a bowl with everted rim. It also had two MM I bronze knives and a very important EM III plastic vase in the form of a woman. Tomb XV contained a MM II silver Petschaft with an eight-pointed star, a close parallel for the MM II silver ring of Petras (Krzyszkowska 2017, 153, fig. 8; Giumlia-Mair et al. 2017, 205, fig. 1; Ferrence, Betancourt, and Muhly 2020). The tomb

also yielded six stone vases (four of which are Protopalatial): two spouted bowls with lugs, a bowl with four lugs, two conical bowls, and a basin); and a number of Middle Minoan clay beads. Tomb XVI contained eight stone vases: a MM I footed spouted cup with three lugs, a MM I small bowl with four lugs, a miniature steatite bowl with four lugs, a MM I spouted small bowl with three lugs, a cup with hook handle, a cup with hook handle with lid, a bowl with everted rim, and a breccia egg cup. There was also an EM II gold armlet and a MM IA brown steatite engraved seal. Tomb XVII contained two EM III–MM IA stone vases: a stone cup with a hook handle and a small steatite bowl. Tomb XIX contained six EM III–MM IA stone vases: a miniature amphora (possibly imported from Egypt), a carinated bowl with an everted rim, a semi-globular bowl with everted rim, a small bowl, a slender footed vessel, and a miniature cylinder pyxis. The tomb also had bronze objects: three EM II pairs of tweezers with handles made of different materials, a small triangular dagger, a large dagger, three EM III scrapers, a slender knife blade of copper, and a small MM I arrowhead. Gold objects were also found: four EM II hair pins in the form of daisies, two bands with dotted decoration, three stars for attachment on clothes, two fragmentary armlets, a rhomboid foil, a leaf pendant, two chains (one of them in two pieces), a long band with dotted decoration, a gold foil, and three leaves. The stone objects included: two large beads of chalcedony, more than 40 beads made of semiprecious stones and shell, such as carnelian, steatite, amethyst, and rock crystal, and four steatite inlays. The two rooms of Tomb XX/XXI were one room in the first phase of construction, and then in ΜΜ ΙΙΙ a dividing wall was built in the middle. The tomb contained 12 stone vases (the first five MM I in date): a spouted bowl, a small pot imitating an Egyptian prototype, a pyxis with a lid with a curved profile, a pyxis with a curved profile, an alabastron, an EM IIA cylindrical pyxis, a large jar with incurved sides (EM III–MM I), a miniature goblet (EM III–MM I), a small bowl, a lid of breccia, a MM IA bowl, and an EM III(?) bowl. A sword pommel (MM I?) was also found. Various gold objects are dated to EM II: six light tiny leafshaped pendants, a thin cross-shaped ornament,

GOURNIA, MOCHLOS, AND PETRAS: ARENAS FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL COMPETITION

two thin hoops, a tiny foil human mask, two gold leaves, a gold fluted bead, as well as more than 35 tubular and round beads, and many more fragments of gold foil. Additional metal artifacts included: an EM II bronze scraper, four MM I bronze daggers, a silver ear pick, and three bronze spearheads, probably Neopalatial. Various beads of semiprecious stones: two of amethyst, two of carnelian, one of steatite, and four of porcelain, were also recovered. Tomb XXIII contained two MM I stone vases: a bucket jar and a marble spouted bowl with lugs on the rim. More than 50 small gold beads and a pendant in the shape of a pyxis made of white limestone also came to light. The final three tombs contained very few objects. Tomb Γ contained only a MM IA pithos. In Tomb Θ was a single clay vase, and in Tomb Λ were three stone vases and a seal.

Petras In all of the house tombs there were seashells found among the human bones. House Tomb 64, Room 2 contained an unidentified bronze fragment; a fragment from an animal figurine; a piece of gold foil; a silver and bronze ring-shaped pendant, two stone beads, a silver bead, and a foot amulet; and a MM I stone vessel. House Tomb 3 contained bronze objects including a bronze sheet, a nail, a thin bronze scraper with two rivets, and two unidentified bronze objects; a ceramic winepress, 85 cm long used as a burial container; a bone female figurine or pinhead probably imported from the eastern Mediterranean, and a fragment of a bone duck figurine; at least 13 gold items: two bands, four beads, and more than seven foils; two bone beads, a shell bead, more than 32 stone beads, a stone ring-shaped object, probably an amulet, and two more stone amulets; four EM III seals, one cross shaped, a shell pendant seal, a bone three-sided prism, and a cylindrical bone seal; three EM III stone bowls, one with a hook handle; and a few obsidian fragments. House Tomb 4, Room 1 contained a bronze scraper with ivory handle; a small fragment of an EM IIA Koumasa marble figurine (Tsipopoulou and Simandiraki-Grinshaw 2017, 362, fig. 12); five gold foils; two stone beads, three beads made of shell, a foot amulet, and an EM IIA stone pendant;

65

and a deep stone carinated bowl and two rim fragments of stone vessels. House Tomb 5 contained seven bronze objects including a bronze wire, two bronze bands, and four unidentified fragments of bronze; three pieces of gold jewelry: a bead, a circular ornament, and a piece of foil; 20 stone beads, two bone beads, and three beads made of shell; three sealstones, one of them theriomorphic, two ivory seals, and a bone seal; a silver needle; and six stone vessels, one of them made of serpentinite. House Tomb 6 contained only pottery and few obsidian fragments. House Tomb 12 contained a fragmentary animal(?) figurine; two gold beads; two stone beads and a possible phallus pendant; and a small fragment of a stone vessel. House Tomb 13 contained a large number of obsidian blades, flakes, and microliths. House Tomb 14 contained two bronze unidentified objects; three small fragments of animal figurines; three pieces of gold foil and two gold beads; 32 stone beads, one bone bead, and one shell bead; a seal made of hippopotamus tooth; and five stone vessels: a miniature stone vessel, a double stone vessel, and three more fragmentary stone vessels. House Tomb 15 contained two bronze pins and 11 more bronze unidentified objects; four gold beads and a piece of gold foil; 66 stone beads, a bone bead, a shell bead, a pierced stone, and two metal beads; one seal; and two stone vessels along with a lid fragment and several small fragments. House Tomb 16 contained a triangular bronze blade and five unidentified bronze objects; an elbow (?) fragment from a human figurine; 15 gold items, including five bands, three foils, two fragments of strips, and five beads; one steatite and one shell EM II foot amulets, 25 stone beads, two stone pendants, four shell beads, a bone bead; two seals, one of them a steatite foot amulet with a sealing surface; ten stone vessels including three miniature vessels, a cup, three lids, and three more vessels; and several pumice fragments, one of them used as a tool. House Tomb 17 contained a copper knife; a gold EM IIA pendant (a chain with leaves), with parallels from Mochlos (Seager 1912, fig. 10, II.35), and a piece of gold foil; 12 beads: nine made of stone, two made of ivory, and one made of metal; a marble seal; and fragments of two stone vessels.

66

M E TA X I A T S I P O P O U L O U

House Tomb 26 contained a bronze fish hook and two beads, one made of stone and one made of bone. House Tomb 27 contained a fragmentary ivory bead; two steatite seals: one conical and one a three-sided prism; and five stone vessels, three of them fragmentary and two bowls. House Tomb 35 contained a gold pendant made of a chain and an almost trapezoid shaped sheet of gold foil.

Discussion An overview of the Gournia, Mochlos, and Petras house tomb cemeteries demonstrates that there are similarities in the burial practices, the classes of grave goods, and the tomb architecture among all three sites. This suggests a relative cultural homogeneity in East Crete during this time. Yet, upon closer examination of the data there is a lack of coherent patterns. The reasons for these differences and peculiarities escape us, and this finetuned analysis suggests a pronounced complexity. The careful excavation, full documentation, and extensive publication in recent years of several Prepalatial cemeteries—Moni Odigitria (Vasilakis and Branigan 2010), Sissi (Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011; Schoep et al. 2012; Crevecoeur, Schmitt, and Schoep 2015; Schoep et al. 2017), Livari (Papadatos and Sofianou 2015), and Petras in particular, given its substantial size, good preservation, and the admirable historical continuity of occupation (Tsipopoulou 2017c; 2020; Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017; Tsipopoulou and Simandiraki-Grimshaw 2017; Kiorpe 2018; Tsipopoulou and Rupp 2019; Tsipopoulou, forthcoming)—provide optimism that they will help to offer us a better understanding. A key for the comprehension of the cemeteries of the long Prepalatial period would be a comprehensive knowledge of the related settlements. As far as the three cemeteries examined here are concerned, it should be pointed out that our knowledge of their settlements is uneven, and all comparisons, therefore, are not robust. We know practically nothing about the extent and the spatial organization of the Prepalatial settlement at Gournia, which must have been extensive as suggested by the cemeteries (North Cemetery and

Sphoungaras) and the very substantial deposit of the North Trench. As for Mochlos, in recent years various Prepalatial domestic deposits have been excavated, but we lack the final publications. At Petras our knowledge for the early phases of the settlement is substantial in quantity, albeit fragmentary, given that almost all deposits were excavated in stratigraphical trenches in the palace (Tsipopoulou 1999; Tsipopoulou and Wedde 2000; Tsipopoulou 2012a; Boukala-Karkagianni 2017; 2020) and the settlement, especially in Sectors I and III (Haggis 2007, 2012; Tsipopoulou 2012a; Relaki 2016). The EM II Mochlos grave goods testify to a remarkable affluence, especially considering the gold, silver, and copper/bronze artifacts. This affluence does not seem to continue into the later Prepalatial phases when the production of stone vases was flourishing, and many of these vessels were of a high artistic quality. It has been suggested that Mochlos was a gateway community in the Prepalatial period (Branigan 1991). The geographical area that was under its influence, directly or indirectly, is not well known, but presumably Gournia was included in it. The hinterland of Petras, or the area under its cultural and probably also administrative influence, has started to be defined in recent years due to the intensive archaeological activity in its wider area (Sofianou and Brogan 2012; Papadatos 2017). The uninterrupted continuity of occupation at Petras from the Final Neolithic to the LM IIIC periods, and the erection of the palace in early MM IIA were undoubtedly supported by the hinterland, which provided arable land, although not very extensive but nonetheless significant for eastern Crete. Further, there were adequate uplands for pasturage, which provided the material for the production of textiles (cf. Cutler 2016 for the Neopalatial period). It is possible that these conditions did not apply at Mochlos, and the source of the affluence was connected (almost) exclusively to the maritime activities. Petras was also a gateway community, as suggested by various classes of imported prestige artifacts and materials, such as metals (Ferrence, Muhly, and Betancourt 2012), hippopotamus ivory, semiprecious stones, and obsidian; it seems though that the quantity of imports in the EM II period was more limited than that of Mochlos, despite Petras being included in a network of trade and exchange within

GOURNIA, MOCHLOS, AND PETRAS: ARENAS FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL COMPETITION

the island, the Aegean, and beyond (Theodoropoulou 2012). A special category of artifacts connected with cemeteries are the burial containers. Comparison among the three cemeteries in question shows that, although the excavator of Gournia did not report the exact number of “kasselles” (larnakes) or pithoi she excavated, this site produced a relatively large number of burial containers. It is well known that the tradition of production of larnakes and pithoi for burial purposes continued in the cemeteries of Sphoungaras (Hall 1912; Buell and McEnroe 2019, 53–54) and Pacheia Ammos into the Protopalatial period and, in some cases, also into the Neopalatial periods (Seager 1916), as well as in the nearby burial cave at Kavousi Evraika (Tsipopoulou 2018). What seems certain is that at Gournia as well as at Petras the larnakes were not used for a single primary burial, but they contained either one or more secondary burials or a primary burial and one or more secondary burials. At Mochlos there are no larnakes, and even the use of pithoi is uncertain. At Petras three larnakes and a pithos, dated to the end of the Prepalatial and the Protopalatial periods, a fragmentary larnax probably of EM III date, and a winepress also of an EM III date, were excavated (see Tsipopoulou 2017b for a detailed analysis and chronological attributions of all the Petras house tombs). Seals are considered symbols of status and/or administrative function of the owner; in any case, they suggest a developed society. Petras presents the largest number by far of Prepalatial seals among these three cemeteries; many of them were made of imported precious materials such as hippopotamus ivory (Krzyszkowska 2012). Some of the seals are dated to EM II, such as a foot amulet made of steatite with a sealing surface. The North Cemetery at Gournia and the Petras cemetery were both used for a specific part of the population, namely elite families. At Petras, contrary to the evidence from the Sphoungaras cemetery at Gournia, there is no indication, as yet, about the burial place of the general population. The idea cannot be excluded that rock shelters, abundant on the west slope of the Kephala hill which faces the settlement, might have been used for this purpose. At Mochlos, as there is no indication of a separate burial place, the totality of the population could have been buried in the same cemetery,

67

as indicated by the so-called rock shelters on some of the terraces that were used for non-elite burials. The comparison of the funerary architecture of the three cemeteries in the early phase is not always easy, as mentioned above, because at Petras we lack many complete EM II plans. There, almost all house tombs were built on the surface of the earth with few exceptions: House Tomb 15 (EM II), House Tomb 2 (MM IA), and Rooms 1 (EM III– MM IA) and 2 of House Tomb 64 (MM IB). The bedrock does not seem to have been cut, in any case, to serve as a foundation as was the case at Mochlos and Gournia, although it was used at Petras as a floor of both Pre- and Protopalatial tombs. The evidence available suggests the Petras house tombs, even in the EM II period were large—probably larger than those at the other two sites. Furthermore, at least EM IIA House Tomb 16 was equipped with a special internal area for ceremonies similar to the cases seen at Gournia and Mochlos. These internal spaces served smaller social groups than the large ceremonial areas that were dated to the Protopalatial period (Tsipopoulou 2012b, 2017b). The smaller spaces probably provided for a family’s needs, whether nuclear or extended. The change in the areas of the ceremonies suggests a significant change in social organization, as the social unit in the later house tombs could have been the γένος (clan). In any case, the architecture of the Petras house tombs was much more complex, probably from the beginning and certainly in the EM III period for which we have several complete plans. This is the most pronounced difference between Petras and the other two cemeteries, and it points to the evolution of the society, soon to become palatial, and to its more complex forms and needs. The use of the North Cemetery at Gournia and the Mochlos cemetery practically stopped at the time when the Petras cemetery expanded significantly and was spatially organized with corridors between the tombs, peribolos walls to the east and the west, and the large open areas for ceremonies (Ceremonial Areas 1 and 2). These important structural changes, which started during the latest Prepalatial phase, namely MM IB at Petras, were probably connected with the socioeconomic changes that led to the rise of the palatial society and its architectural expression, the palace itself. An important feature of the Petras cemetery is its proximity to the earliest settlement in the area

68

M E TA X I A T S I P O P O U L O U

that dates to the Final Neolithic and Early Minoan IA period. We are dealing here with a memory landscape that goes back centuries before the construction of the first house tomb. It cannot be excluded that the Mochlos cemetery was also constructed close to the place of a Final Neolithic settlement, as suggested by some scanty domestic remains found below Tomb XV (Soles 1992, 93, fig. 38.).

Conclusion In conclusion, these three house tomb cemeteries constitute windows into the multiple sociopolitical transformations that were occurring in the communities of the island in the course of the later part of the third millennium b.c. Some of the communities in East Crete had more economic opportunities (more arable land, greater access to pasturage, larger flocks, more talented craftsmen and artisans, more regional, inter-regional, and long distance exchange connections, etc.) to grow faster and larger than others. Factions within these entrepreneurial communities emerged to contest for control over the wealth that was being created. These emergent socioeconomic inequities led to asymmetrical political relationships between the nascent elites and the general population, and more visibly among those contesting for power. Each house tomb cemetery in East Crete was one of the most important local arenas for the construction and use of symbolic power, and for the resulting social competition, by the different factions. In the interment of the dead, in mostly group burial facilities, the living used architectural forms and their position in the cemetery, funerary gifts, and various funerary and post-funerary rituals to emphasize (or even exaggerate) the sociopolitical status of the deceased, so as to reinforce the claims of the living relatives to an elevated, preeminent status within the community. The presence of precious metals, semiprecious stones, as well as other exotica suggests strongly that these factions had privileged access to long-distance exchange networks into the Aegean basin and to the eastern Mediterranean region. Although there are many similarities among the three cemeteries, there are a number of significant

differences. This lack of strict uniformity among the cemeteries can be explained by the fact that the three communities, despite their clear participation in the wider trends of sociopolitical development seen in EM II and EM III Crete (a simple form of peer-polity interaction), local and sub-regional factors still remained very strong. The most effective means to express dominant power among competing factions was under active negotiation within these communities and in the broader culture. Even in the subsequent Protopalatial period there were major regional differences in the manifestation of the new level of sociopolitical complexity, most visible in the foundation of the Petras palace. What stands out here the most in this comparison of the three cemeteries is that the house tomb form of elite burial stopped abruptly at Gournia and at Mochlos by the end of MM IA, while it continued at Petras into the Protopalatial period. Mochlos did not have a Protopalatial palace, while at Gournia there is strong evidence for the existence of a large Protopalatial building with massive ashlar masonry below the Neopalatial palace (Buell and McEnroe 2017, 210–213; Buell and McEnroe 2019, 49). As for the characteristic economic, social, and political features, one can assume with some certainty that the important Gournia building testifies to such functions. Nevertheless, each settlement continued to grow and to act as a central place in eastern Crete. At Petras this significant transformational event, in fact, did happen by MM IIA. The use of the house tomb cemetery at Petras continued in the Protopalatial period. At Petras the feasting and drinking debris from factional competitions in MM IB–IIA was laid bare in the Lakkos Deposit in Sector III on Hill 1 (Haggis 2007, 2012; Tsipopoulou 2012b; 2012c). The creation of the Ceremonial Area 1 next to House Tomb 2 and Ceremonial Area 2 associated with Protopalatial house tombs in the northern half of the cemetery attests to funerary and postfunerary rituals for the deceased in the adjacent house tombs in the MM IB–II periods, immediately before the creation and also contemporaneous with the Petras palace, and continuing into the following Protopalatial period, until the destruction of the first palace and the abandonment of the cemetery in MM IIB.

GOURNIA, MOCHLOS, AND PETRAS: ARENAS FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL COMPETITION

Acknowledgements My warmest thanks to David Rupp for many useful discussions and to Mina Tsimogianni and Adrianos Psychas for practical help during the writing of the final draft.

References Betancourt, P.P. 2012. “The Architecture of the House Tombs at Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 107–113. Betancourt, P.P., M. Tsipopoulou, and M. Clinton. 2017. “The Tripartite Facade at the Petras Cemetery,” in Tsipopoulou, ed. 2017, pp. 103–109. Borgna, E., I. Caloi, F.M. Carinci, and R. Laffineur. 2019. Mnhmh/Mneme: Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference, University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17–21 April 2018 (Aegaeum 43), Leuven and Liège. Boukala-Karkagianni, K. 2017. “Report on Research in 2016 Supported by the Richard Seager Fellowship,” in KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 20, pp. 23–25. . 2020. “The Prepalatial Period at Siteia Petras through the Study of Undisturbed Ceramic Assemblages,” Ph.D. diss., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Boyd, H. 1905. “Gournia: Report of the American Exploration Society’s Excavations at Gournia, Crete, 1904,” in Transactions of the Department of Archaeology, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania I (iii), pp. 177–190. Branigan. K. 1991. “Mochlos: An Early Aegean “Gateway Community”? in Thalassa: L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’ Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse, (23-25 avril 1990) (Aegaeum 7). R. Laffineur and L. Basch, eds., Liège, pp. 97–107. Buell, D.M., and J.C. McEnroe. 2017. “Community Building/Building Community at Gournia,” in Minoan Architecture and Urbanism: New Perspectives on an Ancient Built Environment, Q. Letesson and C. Knappett, eds., Oxford, pp. 204–227.

69

Architectural Setting for Dialogues between the Living and the Dead,” in P. Karanastasi, A. Tsigounaki, and C. Tsigonaki, eds., 2020, pp. 473–490. Crevecoeur, I., and A. Schmitt. 2009. “Etude Archéoanthropologique de la Nécropole (Zone 1),” in Excavations at Sissi: Preliminary Report on the 2007–2008 Campaigns (AEGIS 1), J. Driessen, I. Schoep, F. Carpentier, I. Crevecoeur, M. Devolder, F. GaignerotDriessen, H. Fiasse, P. Hacigüzeller, S. Jusseret, C. Langohr, Q. Letesson, and A. Schmitt, Louvain-la Neuve, pp. 57–94. Crevecoeur, I., A. Schmitt, and I. Schoep. 2015. “An Archaeothanatological Approach to the Study of Minoan Funerary Practices: Case-Studies from the Early and Middle Minoan Cemetery at Sissi, Crete,” JFA 40, pp. 283–299. Cutler, J. 2016. “Producing Textiles: The Evidence from the Textile Tools,” in Petras, Siteia I: A Minoan Palatial Settlement in Eastern Crete. Excavation of Houses I.1 and I.2 (Prehistory Monographs 53), M. Tsipopoulou, ed., Philadelphia, pp. 175–184. Davaras, C., and J.S. Soles. 1995. “A New Oriental Cylinder Seal from Mochlos: Appendix. Catalogue of the Cylinder Seals Found in the Aegean,” ArchEph 134 [1997], pp. 29–66. Ferrence, S.C., P.P. Betancourt, and J.D. Muhly. 2020. “A Stellar Seal Ring from the Pre- and Protopalatial Cemetery of Petras: Iconographic Connection with the Near East?” in P. Karanastasi, A. Tsigounaki, and C. Tsigonaki, eds., 2020, pp. 433–443. Ferrence, S.C., J.D. Muhly, and P.P. Betancourt. 2012. “Affluence in Eastern Crete: Metal Objects from the Cemetery of Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 133–141. Giumlia-Mair, A. 2018. “Arsenic in the Network: Arsenical Copper in Minoan Crete,” in Bronze Age Metallurgy on Mediterranean Islands. In Honour of Robert Maddin and Vassos Karageorgis (Monographies instrumentum 56), A. Giumlia-Mair and F. Lo Schiavo, eds., Drémil-Lafage, pp. 520–540. Giumlia-Mair, A., P.P. Betancourt, S.C. Ferrence, and J. D. Muhly. 2017. “Special Silver Alloys from the Preand Proto-Palatial Cemetery of Petras, Crete,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 203–211. Haggis, D.C. 2007. “Stylistic Diversity and Diachronic Feasting at Protopalatial Petras: A Preliminary Analysis of the Lakkos Deposit,” AJA 111, pp. 715–775. . 2012. “The Lakkos Pottery and Middle Minoan IB Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 191–201.

. 2019. “Architecture and Memory at Gournia: Meaningful Places,” in E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F.M. Carinci, and R. Laffineur, eds., 2019, pp. 49–57.

Hall, E.H. 1912. Excavations in Eastern Crete: Sphoungaras (Anthropological Publications III [2]), Philadelphia.

Clinton, M., P.P. Betancourt, and M. Tsipopoulou. 2020. “Ceremonial Areas at the Petras Cemetery: The

Karanastasi, P., A. Tsigounaki, and C. Tsigonaki, eds. Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 4. Πρακτικά της

70

M E TA X I A T S I P O P O U L O U

4ης Συνάντησης, Ρέθυμνο, 24–27 Νοεμβρίου 2016, Rethymnon. Kiorpe, S. 2016. “Η μεταχείριση των νεκρών στην Κρήτη κατά την 3η και τις αρχές της 2ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. Η περίπτωση του Ταφικού Κτιρίου 5 στο νεκροταφείο της Κεφάλας Πετρά στη Σητεία”, M.A., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. . 2018. “Tracing the Funerary Ritual at Kephala Petras through the Evidence of the Human Skeletal Remains,” in KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 21, pp. 1–6. Krzyszkowska, O. 2012. “Seals from the Petras Cemetery: A Preliminary Overview,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 145–156. . 2017. “Further Seals from the Cemetery at Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 143–154. Nikita, E., S. Triantaphyllou, M. Tsipopoulou, D. Panagiotopoulos, and L. Platon. 2017. “Mobility Patterns and Cultural Identities in Pre- and Proto-Palatial Central and Eastern Crete,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 325–333. Papadatos, Y. 2017. “Mortuary Practices, the Ideology of Death and Social Organization of the Siteia Area: The Petras Cemetery within its Broader Funerary Landscape,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 311–319. Papadatos, Y., and C. Sofianou. 2015. Livari Skiadi: A Minoan Cemetery in Southeast Crete. 1: Excavation and Finds (Prehistory Monographs 50), Philadelphia. Pearce-Chalikias, A. 2019. “Horns of Consecration from the Petras Cemetery,” in KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 22, pp. 2–4. Relaki, M. 2016. “Early and Middle Minoan Pottery,” in Petras, Siteia I: A Minoan Palatial Settlement in Eastern Crete. Excavation of Houses I.1 and I.2 (Prehistory Monographs 53), M. Tsipopoulou, Philadelphia, pp. 93–123. Relaki, M., and C. Tsoraki. 2017. “Variability and Differentiation: A First Look at the Stone Vase Assemblage in the Petras Cemetery,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 159–176. Rupp, D.W., and M. Tsipopoulou. 2022, “Reinventing Persistent Memory Landscapes: The Late Minoan III Interventions in the Pre- and Proto-palatial Cemetery at Petras-Kephala,” in Critical Approaches to Cypriot and Wider Mediterranean Archaeology (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology), S.W. Manning, ed., Sheffield, pp. 177–196. Schoep, I., I. Crevecoeur, A. Schmitt, and P. Tomkins. 2017. “Funerary Practices at Sissi: The Treatment of the Body in the House Tombs”, in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 369–383. Schoep, I., A. Schmitt, and I. Crevecoeur. 2011. “The Cemetery at Sissi: Report of the 2009 and 2010

Campaigns,” in Excavations at Sissi II: Preliminary Report on the 2009–2010 Excavations (AEGIS 4), J. Driessen, I. Schoep, F. Carpentier, I. Crevecoeur, M. Devolder, F. Gaignerot-Driessen, P. Hacigüzeller, V. Isaakidou, S. Jusseret, C. Langohr, Q. Letesson, and A. Schmitt, Louvain-la-Neuve, pp. 41–68. Schoep, I., A. Schmitt, I. Crevecoeur, and S. Déderix. 2012. “The Cemetery at Sissi: Report of the 2011 Campaign,” in Excavations at Sissi III: Preliminary Report on the 2011 Campaign (AEGIS 6), J. Driessen, I. Schoep, M. Anastasiadou, F. Carpentier, I. Crevecoeur, S. Déderix, M. Devolder, F. GaignerotDriessen, S. Jusseret, C. Langohr, Q. Letesson, F. Liard, A. Schmitt, C. Tsoraki, and R. Veropoulidou, Louvain-la-Neuve, pp. 27–50. Schoep, I., and P. Tomkins, 2016. “‘Death is Not the End’: Tracing the Manipulation of Bodies and Other Materials in the Early and Middle Minoan Cemetery at Sissi,” in Staging Death: Funerary Performance, Architecture and Landscape in the Aegean, A. DakouriHild, and M.J. Boyd, eds., Berlin, pp. 227–252. Seager, R.B. 1912. Explorations in the Island of Mochlos, Boston and New York. 1916. The Cemetery of Pachyammos, Crete (Anthropological Publications VII [1]), Philadelphia. Simandiraki-Grimshaw, A. 2020. “The Petras Male Figurine Group: A First Presentation and Assessment,” in P. Karanastasi, A. Tsigounaki, and C. Tsigonaki, eds., 2020, pp. 491–511. Sofianou, C., and T.M. Brogan. 2012. “Papadiokampos and the Siteia Bay in the Second Millennium bc: Exploring Patterns of Regional Hierarchy and Exchange in Eastern Crete,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 327–337. Soles, J.S. 1992. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 24), Princeton. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 1992. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1989,” in Hesperia 61, pp. 413–445. Theodoropoulou, T. 2012. “Neolithic and Minoan Marine Exploitation at Petras: Diachronic Trends and Cultural Shifts,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 89–99. Triantaphyllou, S. 2009. “EM/MM Human Skeletal Remains from East Crete: The Kephala Petras Rock Shelter, and the Livari Tholos Tomb, Skiadi,” KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 12, pp. 19–23. . 2012. “Kephala Petras: The Human Remains and the Burial Practices in the Rock Shelter,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 161–166. . 2016. “Constructing Identities by Ageing the Body in the Prehistoric Aegean: The View through the Human Remains,” in An Archaeology

GOURNIA, MOCHLOS, AND PETRAS: ARENAS FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL COMPETITION

71

of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean, M. Mina, S. Triantaphyllou, and Y. Papadatos, eds., Oxford, pp. 160–168.

. 2017c. “The Petras Cemetery in the Early Minoan II Period,” in KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 20, pp. 20–22.

. 2017. “Όσο ψηλά κι αν ανεβείς λέξη μην πεις μεγάλη ΄ποοο χώμα σ’έφτιαξε ο θεός, κι εκειά γυρίζεις πάλι: Cretan mantinada for Death,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 271–286.

. 2018. “Kavousi, Evraika: A Middle Minoan Burial Rock Shelter in Eastern Crete,” in Mediterranea Itinera. Studies in Honour of Lucia Vagnetti (Incunabula Graeca 106), M. Bettelli, M. Del Freo, and G.J. van Wijngaarden, eds., Rome, pp. 113–134.

. 2018. “Managing with Death in Pre-palatial Crete: The Evidence of the Human Remains,” in From the Foundations to the Legacy of Minoan Archaeology. Studies in Honour of Professor Keith Branigan (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 12), M. Relaki and Y. Papadatos, eds., Oxford, pp. 141–166.

. 2020. “Ανασκαφή του Προ- και Παλαιοανακτορικού Νεκροταφείου στον Πετρά Σητείας: Πρόσφατα ΠΜ ΙΙ και ΥΜ ΙΙΙ Ευρήματα,” in P. Karanastasi, A. Tsigounaki, and C. Tsigonaki, eds., 2020, pp. 455–471.

Triantaphyllou, S., S. Kiorpe, and M. Tsipopoulou. 2017. “House Tomb 5: A Preliminary Analysis of the Human Skeletal Remains,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 291–297.

. Forthcoming. “Οι Προ-ανακτορικές φάσεις του Προ- και Παλαιο-Ανακτορικού Νεκροταφείου του Πετρά Σητείας,” in Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 5, Ρέθυμνο, 21–24 Νοεμβρίου 2019.

. 2019. “Manipulating Bodies, Constructing Social Memory: Ways of Negotiating, Re-inventing and Legitimizing the Past at the Petras Cemetery, Sitia, Crete,” in E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F. Carinci, and R. Laffineur, eds., 2019, pp. 73–80.

Tsipopoulou, M., ed. 2012. Petras, Siteia: 25 Years of Excavations and Studies, Acts of a Two-Day Conference Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9–10 October 2010 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 16), Athens.

Triantaphyllou, S., M. Tsipopoulou, and P.P. Betancourt. 2018. “Κεφάλα Πετράς, Σητείας: Ανθρώπινα οστά και ταφικές πρακτικές στην ΠΜ βραχοσκεπή και το ΜΜ Νεκροταφείο,” in Πεπραγμένα ΙΑʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ρέθυμνο, 21–27 Οκτωβρίου 2011) Αʹ (1.2), Rethymnon, pp. 203–215.

, ed. 2017. Petras, Siteia: The Pre- and Proto-Palatial Cemetery in Context. Acts of a Two-Day Conference Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 14–15 February 2015 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 21), Athens.

Tsipopoulou, M. 1999. “Before, During, After: The Architectural Phases of the Palatial Building at Petras, Siteia,” in Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), Betancourt, P.P., V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.- D. Niemeier, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 847–855. .2012a. “Defining the End of the Prepalatial Period at Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 179–190. . 2012b. “Introduction: 25 Years of Excavations and Studies at Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 45–66. . 2012c. “The Prepalatial–Early Protopalatial Cemetery at Petras, Siteia: A Diachronic Symbol of Social Coherence,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 117–129. . 2017a. “Ceremonial Area 1: Identity and Dating of a Special Ritual Space in the Petras Cemetery,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 111–128. . 2017b. “Documenting Sociopolitical Changes in Pre- and Proto-Palatial Petras: The House Tomb Cemetery,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2017, pp. 57–97.

Tsipopoulou, M., and D. Rupp. 2019. “The Pre- and Proto-Palatial Cemetery at Petras-Kephala: A Persistent Locale as an Arena for Competing Cultural Memories,” in E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F.M. Carinci, and R. Laffineur, eds., 2019, pp. 81–94. Tsipopoulou, M., and A. Simandiraki-Grimshaw. 2017. “Cycladic Figurines and Pottery at Petras, Siteia,” in Cycladica in Crete: Cycladic and Cycladicizing Figurines within Their Archaeological Context. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens, 1–2 October 2015, N. Stampolidis and P. Sotirakopoulou, eds., Athens, pp. 353–378. Tsipopoulou, M., and M. Wedde, 2000. “Διαβάζοντας ένα Χωμάτινο Παλίμψηστο: Στρωματογραφικές Τομές στο Ανακτορικό Κτίριο του Πετρά Σητείας,” in Πεπραγμένα Ηʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 Αʹ (3), Herakleion, pp. 359–377. Vasilakis, A., and K. Branigan, eds. 2010. Moni Odigitria: A Prepalatial Cemetery and Its Environs in the Asterousia, Southern Crete (Prehistory Monographs 30), Philadelphia. Warren, P.M. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge.

Part III

Protopalatial to Neopalatial Periods

CHAPTER

6

What Do the Pots Say? Fine Ware Indicates Social Stratification in the Mirabello Region during Middle Minoan IIB Georgios Doudalis This paper concerns Protopalatial fine ware pottery and its potential to contribute to discussions of social structures in the bay of Mirabello in East Crete during the Middle Minoan period (1800–1650 b.c. [Cadogan 1983]).* It aims to discuss how MM IIB pottery reflects relationships at various levels of society through the lens of some generally accepted theories concerning interactions in this period (Cherry 1984; Knappett 1999). This exploration synthesizes evidence from the results of surveys of Kavousi, Gournia, Vrokastro, Pseira, and Chrysokamino and the three excavated sites of Vasiliki, Monastiraki Katalimata, and Mochlos. While social stratification in the MM II period can be considered from a variety of perspectives, this paper questions how pottery might elucidate power dynamics and structures if one considers the material as a means to reflect and perpetuate the social status of the individual who possessed it. These individuals remain in the realm of theory,

but it is instructive here to consider them as different agents, or producers and consumers (Damilati and Vavouranakis 2011, 35). If pottery works within the cycle of reflecting and perpetuating status, then we must consider the choices and actions that intersect to create material appearance and how that *This paper, a humble product of your encouragement, is dedicated to you, Jeff, for your invaluable friendship, mentoring, and support. On a sunny day in June 2004, you asked me, then just an undergraduate, to pick up my tools and to go excavate on the island of Mochlos. I did not realize that this moment would change the trajectory of my life, that because of Mochlos I would find a home in archaeology, go on countless Minoan adventures, and learn so many lessons from you—whether seaside, standing over pottery tables, or exploring some old city together. I owe a deep debt of gratitude for the world of possibilities that you have opened to me. Thank you for all the colorful dawns waiting for the boat to Mochlos, all your patience during my research struggles, and for celebrating successes with me. This is for you.

76

GEORGIOS DOUDALIS

appearance acts to convey certain meanings within a cultural milieu. The combination of choices and actions can corroborate established values or otherwise reflect more subjective experiences (Barrett 2000, 67), and together these affect the construction and appearance of all categories of material culture. Both common cultural values as well as personal idiosyncrasies manifest in pottery and reveal relationships of status, ownership, and identity. Read this way, fine ware pottery is related to the performance of social identity and status (Haggis 2007), and it may reveal insights about larger social structures. The following consideration of fine ware pottery attests a range of interactions on different levels— from interpersonal to interregional—that benefits from what Carl Knappett (2011) terms a “multiscalar” approach to networks and the connections of people and things across physical and social space. Interactions are accordingly parsed out into the macro-, meso-, and microscale, wherein the first is understood as the broadest extent of a society or culture. Mesoscale, then, refers to the relationships among a restricted set of entities or communities. Finally, the microscale deals with the dynamics within subsets of those communities (households or individuals). This scalar approach to relationships and culture, though generally applied here, provides a mechanism to understand the transmission, adoption, and negotiation of traditions, innovations, actions, and choices. Having briefly considered how pottery instantiates cultural factors and conscious, sometimes idiosyncratic decisions, it may be possible to examine how agents operate in their households, communities, and broader social landscapes.

Theoretical Framework: Center and Periphery The Protopalatial period, so often discussed in terms of state and periphery (Cherry 1984, 1986; Knappett 1999), provides an interesting case study for a materially focused investigation of dynamics from the micro to the macro levels because it represents a period wherein status and interaction were in flux; society was transitioning to larger and more complex social structures (Schoep and Tomkins 2012), and one might expect the pottery

from this interim period to contribute to our understanding of the shift. Hypotheses dealing with the Middle Minoan period have developed since the 1980s when scholarship accepted the model of Middle Minoan Crete as consisting of centralized powers dictating aspects of economy, society, culture, and politics (Cherry 1984, 1986; Manning 2008). More recently, hypotheses have developed around notions of heterarchical distributions of power within settlements (Knappett 1999; Schoep 2004, 2006, 2012; Militello 2012; Tomkins 2012; Whitelaw 2012). This is well illustrated at Quar­ tier Mu and in the Malia region where there is a dispersal of elites throughout the community, as evidenced by palatial architectural features such as lustral basins and by the presence of prestige goods of stone, metal, and clay (Van de Moortel 2002, 204–205; Schoep 2004; 2010; Manning 2008, 118). The very notion of decentralized or centralized polities still presupposes the existence of polity and carries with it connotations of centralized power and diminutive peripheral settlements. Alternatively, it could be argued that the dynamics between centers and settlements were more complex. Perhaps social structures, in their varying forms, were less obliged to a center, and if this was the case, agents may have formed and acted in their own social structures via their individual habitus and the technologies and material culture that comprise it (Bourdieu 1977). This counter proposal complicates the somewhat inflexible notion of polity and allows for a dynamic discussion of local variation and adaptation of elite material culture. This theoretical approach will be applied to fine ware from several settlements in the bay of Mirabello. In earlier scholarship, fine ware pottery was studied through the lens of peer polities; Kamares Ware was thought to be palatial, and polychrome ware was considered provincial (Walberg 1983). In this model of interaction the palaces are viewed as producers, distributors, and consumers of the Kamares style, while the polychrome ware is viewed as a lesser, provincial imitation. More recent research has focused on local characteristics, yielding more complex results (Knappett 1999, 2012; Van de Moortel 2002). For example, similarities in the fine wares of Malia and Myrtos Pyrgos demonstrate that, though separated by a significant geographical distance and at least one mountain range, the

W H AT D O T H E P O T S S AY ? F I N E WA R E I N T H E M I R A B E L L O I N M I D D L E M I N O A N I I B

two sites interacted at some level (Knappett 1999, 2012). The center, Malia, generated a new pottery style (decoration of light-on-dark metallic slip in mostly table wares such as drinking and serving vessels), and the tendency toward that style was seemingly adopted by smaller communities and integrated with local styles and decorative patterns, such as seen at Myrtos Pyrgos (Knappett 1999, 2012). Malia set the trend in shape and decoration, but at Myrtos Pyrgos the potters used local clay to create their local version of this trend (Knappett 1999). There are thus affinities between the fine wares from Myrtos Pyrgos and Malia such as shape and decorative motifs, and the associations of the common vocabulary with the center at Malia elevated the social cachet of the forms. Pottery workshops at both sites played key roles in generating, transmitting, and modifying ceramic innovations.

Fine Ware Pottery in Concept Donald Haggis first identified local pottery as a vehicle of social stratification in East Crete in his study of the MM IB pottery from the Lakkos deposit at Petras (Haggis 2007; 2012). The pottery included local drinking and feasting sets: tumblers; carinated, straight-sided, and conical cups; and various jugs with polychrome, white-on-dark, light-on-dark, rough burnished, and monochrome decoration (Haggis 2007, 720–748). According to Haggis, these different wares were used to create social distinction among participants of the feasts, as they bore a capacity to signify social status. The material was parsed in a variety of ways based on the characteristics of the ceramic wares, such as degree and manner of decoration, type of clay, and imitation of metal forms in ceramic material (Haggis 2007, 759). Haggis read greater elaboration and finer material as an indication of higher status, as it requires a greater investment of time and skill (Haggis 2007, 756–757, 759). For example, a polychrome decorated ware indicates a higher status than rough burnished or undecorated wares. This conspicuous consumption may have extended outside ceremonial gatherings into working places, as Metaxia Tsipopoulou and Erik Hallager proposed for the archival area at Petras (Tsipopoulou and Hallager 2010). They suggested that the

77

crinkled-rim kantharos was used by the head of the workshop, and the undecorated or partially decorated vessels were used by visitors or the lower-class workers. While Petras rests beyond the eastern limit of the Mirabello region, these hypotheses lend some precedent for interpreting the fine ware pottery from sites within the region of the bay of Mirabello. The following discussion considers the validity of these inferences with regard to domestic contexts.

Mirabello Bay: The Data Five archaeological surveys have been conducted in the eastern region of the bay of Mirabello: Gournia (Watrous et al. 2012), Vrokastro (Hayden 2003), Kavousi (Haggis 1996; 2005), Pseira (Betan­ court, Davaras, and Hope Simpson, eds., 2005), and Chrysokamino (Betancourt 2006). These surveys indicate an increase in the density of sites during the Protopalatial period along with more farmsteads and a general growth within settlements. Scholars suggest there was also a greater diffusion of elites throughout the sites and the landscape than in the previous Prepalatial period, when they were concentrated in the main settlements (Haggis 1996; Watrous et al. 2012). The fine wares found in these surveys are limited; the narrow range of diagnostic shapes include conical and flaring tumblers, onehandled conical, carinated, straight-sided, and semiglobular cups, as well as shallow and flaring bowls and tumblers (Haggis 1996; Hayden 2003; Watrous et al. 2012). The discovery of an ivory seal from a Kavousi farmstead suggests the dispersal of “elite” structures outside the settlement proper (Haggis 1996). The picture of social stratification from these surveys is general and fragmentary though, and the remaining discussion uses fine ware pottery from stratified contexts of three excavations (Vasiliki, Monastiraki Katalimata, Mochlos) to fill in the lacunae and focus our impression of status and stratification in the bay of Mirabello during the Middle Minoan period. A MM II deposit from House A at Vasiliki included undecorated tumblers, one painted with polychrome white and red bands, as well as carinated cups painted on the interior and exterior and a tumbler with white-on-dark bands on both sides of the vessel (Andreou 1978; Betancourt 1983). In

78

GEORGIOS DOUDALIS

5 cm

0

a

b

0

2 cm

addition, there are 15 bridge-spouted jugs, each with a polychromatic frieze of fish on the shoulder and an S pattern between red and white horizontal and semicircular bands (Betancourt 1983, 74). The similarities between the decoration of the tumbler and the jugs may signify that they formed a household set produced by a single workshop. There are no other excavated houses from the site to provide comparative data, but one might propose that the household held a redistributive role within the settlement’s exchange system, with fine ware vessels used as an expression of social status among elites. A second excavated site, the MM IIB refuge site at Monastiraki Katalimata at the edge of the Cha Gorge, yielded mostly undecorated pottery, with one notable exception: a tumbler with floral whiteon-dark decoration, the only of its kind from this deposit (Nowicki 2008, 106–111). This tumbler was perhaps meant for elite consumption in a social gathering within the refuge community. Additionally, the presence of Chamaizi wares with incised scripts at Monastiraki Katalimata (Nowicki 2001,

c

Figure 6.1. Mochlos Middle Minoan Deposit 1: (a) white-on-dark bridge-spouted jug (P 657), after Doudalis 2022, pl.3:g, h; (b) alternating floral style jar (P 826), after Doudalis 2022, pl. 2:a,b; (c) white-ondark tumbler (P 643), after Doudalis 2022, pl. 7:d, e.

35, fig. 6) indicates connections with Malia (Poursat and Knappett 2005, pl. 36) and may imply affiliation between the sites and their respective hierarchies. Finally, Mochlos provides stratified pottery that could shed light on this discussion. The Protopalatial material from the early excavations was scarce (Seager 1909, 1912), but new, well-stratified data come from three different deposits throughout the site (Soles and Davaras 1996; Brogan and Koh 2011) and a house excavated in the 2012 campaign (as yet unpublished House 1).

Mochlos: The Data The first Middle Minoan stratified deposit (henceforth Deposit 1) at Mochlos belonged to the upper story collapse of a MM IIB house that was destroyed and later used as part of House C.3, which is dated to the Neopalatial period, MM IIIA–LM IB (Soles and Davaras 1996). The deposit was comprised of multiple fine ware drinking vessels such as carinated

W H AT D O T H E P O T S S AY ? F I N E WA R E I N T H E M I R A B E L L O I N M I D D L E M I N O A N I I B

79

3 cm

0

0

a

5 cm

b

Figure 6.2. Mochlos Middle Minoan Deposit 2: (a) carinated cup (P 6287), after Doudalis 2022, pl. 13:f; (b) decorated jug (P 6301), after Doudalis 2022, pl.12:e.

and straight-sided cups, tumblers, a bridge-spouted jug, and a jar decorated with a polychrome alternating floral style, which was an heirloom dated to MM IB (Fig. 6.1:a. b; Soles and Davaras 1996, 182; Doudalis 2022, pls. 2:a, b, 3:g, h). The most common decorated vessels unearthed are tumblers, which were painted with white-on-dark motifs of arcs and bands as well as one-handled conical cups of the same decoration. The carinated cups are decorated with monochrome slip, some metallic, others buff, and a single one is decorated with a dark metallic arc on the rim. Deposits 2 and 3 at Mochlos were part of a MM IIB house that was destroyed before the construction of House C.7 in the Late Minoan period (Brogan and Koh 2011). The drinking vessels in Deposit 2, such as monochrome carinated cups and conical and flaring tumblers with and without handles, were all undecorated apart from one with a band on the rim and a jug with horizontal bands (Fig. 6.2:b; Brogan and Koh 2011, 324; Doudalis 2022, pl. 12:e). Deposit 3 consists of conical or flaring tumblers and one-handled conical cups; most of these were decorated with white arcs and festoons over monochrome or dark slip. Carinated cups with dark monochrome slip also appear in this deposit.

The newly excavated MM IIB House 1 on the west side of the excavated settlement provides the fourth and final example for discussion here. Part of this house is still under excavation (plans to excavate in 2021 are under way), but at present multiple artifacts and fine ware pottery have been found lying above a plaster floor. A bronze chisel, two bronze axes, and a silver handle probably belonging to a bronze basin reflect the social status of the owner, as metal works have intrinsic value (Schoep 2004). Along with a skeuomorphic strap-handled rounded cup with metallic dark slip (Fig. 6.3; Doudalis 2022, pl. 46:i) the fine ware pottery of this deposit consists of a small amount of carinated cups, most undecorated or with dark monochrome slip. Both wheelmade and handmade tumblers are also very common (Fig. 6.4; Doudalis 2022, pl. 46:d), along with an imported one from Palaikastro made with pinkish clay. Distinct among the vessels found in this deposit is a jug of brown clay with zigzag decoration in dark paint and floral decoration on the shoulder (Fig. 6.5; Doudalis 2022, pl. 45:e, f). There is also a base of either a large straight-sided cup or decorated with “scottish” style and made from whitish-yellow clay with a cross decoration in black underneath the base, probably imported from

80

GEORGIOS DOUDALIS

0

3 cm

Figure 6.3. Mochlos, House 1: rounded cup (P 10668). After Doudalis 2022, pl.46:i.

0

2 cm

Figure 6.5. Mochlos, House 1, two views of jug with zigzag and floral decoration (P 10629). After Doudalis 2022, pl.45:e, f.

0

2 cm

Figure 6.4. Mochlos, House 1: undecorated tumbler (P 12372). After Doudalis 2022, pl.46:d.

0

2 cm

Figure 6.6. Mochlos, House 1, two views of base of possible straight-sided cup or closed vessel from Malia (P 12371). After Doudalis 2022, pl.46:g.

W H AT D O T H E P O T S S AY ? F I N E WA R E I N T H E M I R A B E L L O I N M I D D L E M I N O A N I I B

Malia (Fig. 6.6; Poursat and Knappett 2005, pl. 40 Doudalis 2022, pl. 46:g). The fine ware pottery from these Mochlos deposits may suggest some social distinction among agents acting in the same settlement, or what Knappett would consider the micro-scale (Knappett 2011). The households share similar consumption strategies with regard to cups, with the most complicated decorations consisting of arcs, festoons, and bands. The presence of the jar with alternating polychrome floral style decoration found in the Middle Minoan IIB upper story collapse underneath House C.3, however, may indicate that the household enjoyed a better than average social rank within the settlement. The absence of metals in most of the deposits could be read in the same way as comparable material from Quartier Mu at Malia; the owners of metal were of higher status than those of pottery (Schoep 2004).

Discussion The defining characteristics of East Cretan fine ware pottery in the MM IIB period include its homogeneity of shape and decoration and its local production. All the decorated examples, both monochrome and polychrome, come from local or regional clays, and they show local and regional pottery production and consumption in the different regions of East Crete. No Kamares Ware from Central Crete has been identified, but all the local East Cretan polychrome wares seem to imitate that tradition. The relative standardization of types reflects similar patterns in consumption, preference, and workshop production habits across the regional level, or meso-scale. There is also a variety of decorative elaboration, including the Vasiliki fish friezes, jars with floral decoration, the skeuomorphic rounded cup from Mochlos, and the decorated tumbler from Monastiraki Katalimata. I suggest that these various techniques and degrees of ornamentation, no matter the context, are in some way meaningful and perhaps act as social cues for owners and visitors alike. Generally speaking, greater elaboration may correspond to greater value, as it reflects a greater energetic cost to the workshop and invites a closer look on the part of the user or viewer. This is a tradition that stretches back to the Early Minoan period and MM IB, when decorated vessels were displays of social status in communal

81

and household gatherings (Soles 1992; Day and Wilson 2002; Haggis 2007). The increased density of sites in the region of the Mirabello Bay during the Protopalatial period, the appearance of regional centers like Gournia, and the commercial affiliations with larger centers such as at Malia affected the production and consumption of pottery and contributed to the relative homogeneity of wares in MM II. The opening of networks of communication allowed for the exchange of innovations within the repertoire of shapes, such as the introduction of the carinated cup shape and decorative schemata such as polychromy. While the arc of artistic development seems to have originated in Central Crete (MacGillivray 1998), it passed through Malia, and it was adapted to local traditions. This absorption of broader palatial trends contributes to the common character of the pottery throughout the period and across many sites, but, as mentioned above, there was a degree of variability, especially where decoration could demonstrate visible differentiation. Taken together, the common vocabulary of shapes, in addition to the flourishes of decoration, composed a cultural system through which regional elites could negotiate status. This preliminary discussion of MM IIB fine ware demonstrates that multiple interpretations of the material are possible, and as more evidence is unearthed, scholars will better illuminate the mechanisms of production and consumption as they manifest within settlements, among regions, and across the island of Crete.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Jeff Soles for allowing me to examine and use the Protopalatial material from Mochlos, Tom Brogan for the generous use of the facilities at the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, and my wife, Angela Ratigan, for her continuous support and editing efforts throughout the writing of this paper.

References Andreou, S. 1978. “Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period in Crete,” Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.

82

GEORGIOS DOUDALIS

Barrett, J.C. 2000. “A Thesis on Agency,” in Agency in Archaeology, M.-A. Dobres and J.E. Robb, eds., London and New York, pp. 61–68.

. 2007. “Stylistic Diversity and Diacritical Feasting at Protopalatial Petras: A Preliminary Analysis of the Lakkos Deposit,” AJA 111, pp. 715–775.

Betancourt P.P. 1983. The Cretan Collection in the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania I: Minoan Objects Excavated from Vasilike, Pseira, Sphoungaras, Priniatikos Pyrgos, and Other Sites (University Museum Monograph 47), Philadelphia.

. 2012. “The Lakkos Pottery and Middle Minoan IB Petras,” in Petras, Siteia: 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a Two-Day Conference Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9–10 October 2010 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 16), M. Tsipopoulou, ed., Athens, pp. 191–201.

. 2006. The Chrysokamino Metallurgy Workshop and its Territory (Hesperia Suppl. 36), Princeton. Betancourt, P.P., C. Davaras, and R. Hope Simpson, eds. 2005. Pseira IX: The Archaeological Survey of Pseira Island. Part 2: The Intensive Surface Survey (Prehistory Monographs 12), Philadelphia. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, (Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 16), R. Nice, trans., Cambridge. Brogan, T.M., and A.J. Koh. 2011. “Mochlos in the Middle Minoan II Period,” in Πεπραγμένα Ιʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Αʹ (2), Chania, pp. 321–336. Cadogan, G. 1983. “Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Chronology,” AJA 87, pp. 507–518. Cherry, J.F. 1984. “The Emergence of the State in the Prehistoric Aegean,” PCPS 30, pp. 18–48. . 1986. “Polities and Palaces: Some Problems in Minoan State Formation,” in Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, C. Renfrew and J.F. Cherry, eds., Cambridge, pp. 19–45. Damilati, K., and G. Vavouranakis. 2011. “‘Society against the State?’ Contextualizing Inequality and Power in Bronze Age Crete,” in State Formation in Italy and Greece: Questioning the Neoevolutionist Paradigm, D.C. Haggis and N. Terranato, eds., Oxford and Oakville, pp. 32–60. Day, P.M., and D.E. Wilson. 2002. “Landscapes of Memory, Craft and Power in Prepalatial and Protopalatial Knossos,” in Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking “Minoan” Archaeology, Y. Hamilakis, ed., Oxford, pp. 143–166.

Hayden, B.J. 2003. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 1: Catalogue of Pottery from the Bronze and Early Iron Age Settlement of Vrokastro in the Collections of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and the Archaeological Museum, Herakleion, Crete (University Museum Monograph 113), Philadelphia. Knappett, C. 1999. “Assessing a Polity in Protopalatial Crete: The Malia-Lasithi State,” AJA 103, pp. 615–639. . 2011. An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society, Oxford. . 2012. “A Regional Network Approach to Protopalatial Complexity,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 384–402. MacGillivray, J.A. 1998. Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period (BSA Studies 5), London. Manning, S.W. 2008. “Protopalatial Crete: Formation of the Palaces,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, C.W. Shelmerdine, ed., New York, pp. 105–120. Militello, P. 2012. “Emerging Authority: A Functional Analysis of the MM II Settlement of Phaistos,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 236–272. Nowicki, K. 2001. “A Middle Minoan II Deposit at the Refuge Site of Monastiraki Katalimata (East Crete),” Aegean Archaeology 5 [2002], pp. 27–45. . 2008. Monastiraki Katalimata: Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site, 1993–2000 (Prehistory Monographs 24), Philadelphia.

Doudalis, G. 2022. Mochlos in the Protopalatial Period: Ceramic Analysis and Social Perspectives in the Middle Bronze Age (Propylaeum, Daidalos, Heidelberger Abschlussarbeiten zur klassichen Archäologie 12), Heidelberg.

Poursat, J.-C., and C. Knappett. 2005. Fouilles exécutées à Malia: Le Quartier Mu IV. La poterie du Minoen Moyen II: Production et utilisation (ÉtCrét 33), Athens.

Haggis, D.C. 1996. “Archaeological Survey at Kavousi, East Crete: Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 65, pp. 373–432.

Schoep, I. 2004. “Assessing the Role of Architecture in Conspicuous Consumption in the Middle Minoan I–II Periods,” OJA 23, pp. 243–269.

. 2005. Kavousi I: The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region (Prehistoric Monographs 16), Philadelphia.

. 2006. “Looking Beyond the First Palaces: Elites and the Agency of Power in EM III–MM II Crete,” AJA 110, pp. 37–64.

W H AT D O T H E P O T S S AY ? F I N E WA R E I N T H E M I R A B E L L O I N M I D D L E M I N O A N I I B

. 2010. “Crete,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 bc), E.H. Cline, ed., New York, pp. 113–125. . 2012. “Bridging the Divide between the ‘Prepalatial’ and the ‘Protopalatial’ Periods?” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 403–428. Schoep, I., and P. Tomkins. 2012. “Back to the Beginning for the Early and Middle Bronze Age on Crete,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 1–31. Schoep, I., P. Tomkins, and J. Driessen, eds. 2012. Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford and Oakville. Seager, R.B. 1909. “Excavations on the Island of Moch­ los, Crete, in 1908,” AJA 13, pp. 273–303. . 1912. Explorations in the Island of Mochlos, Boston and New York. Soles, J.S. 1992. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 24), Princeton. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 1996. “Excavations at Moch­ los, 1992–1993,” Hesperia 65, pp. 175–230.

83

Tomkins, P. 2012. “Behind the Horizon: Reconsidering the Genesis and Function of the ‘First Palace’ at Knossos (Final Neolithic IV–Middle Minoan IB),” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 32–80. Tsipopoulou, M., and E. Hallager. 2010. The Hieroglyphic Archive at Petras, Siteia (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 9), Athens. Van de Moortel, A. 2002. “Pottery as a Barometer of Economic Change: From the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial Society in Central Crete,” in Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking ‘Minoan’ Archaeology, Y. Hamilakis ed., Oxford, pp. 189–211. Walberg, G. 1983. Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz on Rhine. Watrous, L.V., D. Haggis, K. Nowicki, N. VogeikoffBrogan, and M. Schultz. 2012. An Archaeological Survey of the Gournia Landscape: A Regional History of the Mirabello Bay, Crete, in Antiquity (Prehistory Monographs 37), Philadelphia. Whitelaw, T. 2012. “The Urbanisation of Prehistoric Crete: Settlement Perspectives on Minoan State Formation,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 114–176.

CHAPTER

7

On the Wings of Birds: Reflections on the Cut Style in Minoan Glyptic Olga Krzyszkowska

Excavations carried out by Jeffrey Soles on the island of Mochlos have yielded important insights into the types and qualities of seals current in the settlement during its final phase of use, the Late Minoan IB period.* Exceptionally important are eight seals executed in the so-called Cut Style, whose floruit is generally taken to lie in LM II (Boardman 1970, 48; Pini 2000, 215; Krzyszkowska 2005a, 202). In fact, the six seals from stratified contexts in the settlement, together with two from Richard Seager’s excavations for which LM IB may be taken as a terminus post quem non, means that Mochlos has a greater number of Cut Style seals from secure Neopalatial contexts than anywhere else in Crete. An unpublished amygdaloid was recovered from the collapse of House A.2, and CMS V, Suppl. 3, no. 347 was found in B.2 (pers. comm., J. Soles). Area C yielded four examples: CMS V, Suppl. 3, nos. 346, 349, 350, and a calcite lentoid (Krzyszkowska 2022). The seals from Seager’s excavation are CMS II.3, no. 257 (without find spot) and CMS II.3, no. 254 from

Tomb XII. This seal, bearing birds on both faces, has previously been attributed to the MM III–LM I “talismanic” style (Onassoglou 1985, 273, 275, nos. VO-57, VO-79, pls. 52, 53); it now provides the focus for these new reflections on the role of birds in the Cut Style.

Three-Sided Prism from Mochlos Tomb XII The seal under consideration is a three-sided prism with amygdaloid faces (Fig. 7.1:a, b), a shape used mostly for the MM III–LM I “talismanic” style but

*It gives me very great pleasure to offer this essay to Jeffrey Soles in recognition of his outstanding contribution to Aegean Archaeology and as a token of thanks for his invitation to study the seals from his excavations at Mochlos, which provide such valuable evidence for the Cut Style.

86

OLGA KRZYSZKOWSKA

also attested later, as demonstrated by two other Cut Style seals (CMS III, no. 508; X, no. 277). Like the styles themselves, the shape is confined almost exclusively to seals engraved in hard semiprecious stones, such as carnelian, used for the Mochlos prism. In this case, the stone is slightly translucent, pale salmon pink (i.e., pinkish orange) in color and exceptionally homogeneous throughout, with scarcely a trace of veining or darker inclusions common in carnelians. The purity of the stone thus allows the engraved motifs to be appreciated at first glance. The condition of the seal is relatively good, though with some surface pitting and slight chipping at the string holes. (Observations based on autopsy and large format digital images made in April 2015.) Face (a) depicts a bird with outstretched wings (Fig. 7.1:a). The rounded head and short body, created by a single application of the cutting wheel, almost resembles a teardrop. A large solid dot serves as the eye, while a short cut to the right (in the impression) represents the beak. The outstretched wings, disposed in a shallow V on either side of the body, are again created by single broad cuts, but are further delineated by contour lines above and below. The outer wing feathers on each side are fan-shaped, created by six parallel cuts of roughly equal width. Closer to the body are shorter feathers: four on the left, three on the right. The tail is also fan-shaped, comprising nine cuts, the outermost feather on each side being slightly broader than the others. As we shall see, technique and the manner in which details are rendered closely match other examples of Cut Style birds. Face (b) depicts a pair of waterbirds, shown in profile with heads turned back and arranged têtebêche (Fig. 7.1:b). The bird on the right is somewhat easier to read: near the lower edge of the seal a solid dot is used to render the body; beyond is a diagonal cut for the neck, a smaller solid dot for the head, and a very short cut for the beak. The wing emerges from the body, culminating in six feathers, created by straight cuts; the edge of the plumage is marked by a straight line. Two short cuts beneath the wing represent the legs; no feet are shown. In every detail the second bird is rendered in the same fashion, but with the neck and head oriented downward. The heavy reliance on wheel cutting and solid drills marks this as wholly consistent with the Cut Style, although waterbirds

generally show greater variation than those with outstretched wings (see below). The prism was mentioned and illustrated in a sketch drawing by Seager (1912, 62, fig. 30, XII:i). It was discovered in Tomb XII, a “cist grave . . . built originally to contain burials of the E. M. period,” although it only contained “objects unquestionably of MM III date” (Seager 1912, 61). Unfortunately, investigations in 1976 revealed that two graves (XII, XIV) on the South Slope had evidently been destroyed in the intervening years (Soles 1992, 42); for dating, we thus must rely on finds itemized in Seager’s report. The sole ceramic vase is unique (Seager 1912, 63, fig. 31, XII:m) and therefore undiagnostic. But Peter Warren correctly adduces LM I parallels for the other grave goods and dates the tomb to MM III–LM I (1969, 59 n. 1). Since habitation on the island ceased with the LM IB destructions, this date provides a terminus post quem non for the seal.

Cut Style The Cut Style was first recognized and named as such by John Boardman (1970, 48, 412, figs. 114, 115, pls. 143, 146, 147). He described its main features in a few sentences, rightly seeing technical links to “talismanic gems,” with much reliance on rotary tools. Cutting wheels were used extensively, with straight lines acquiring sharply pointed ends through the curvature of the seal face. Boardman dated the style to LM II and assembled a list of some 75 examples, including depictions of lions, griffins, goats, and birds, though he observed that flying birds were sometimes difficult to distinguish from those on “talismanic gems” (Boardman 1970, 48, 412). Examples subsequently discovered in the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos seemingly corroborated his dating, although John Betts recognized that “the style and technique may well go back as early as LM IB” (Betts 1984, 188, pls. 184, 185). Ingo Pini and Olga Krzyszkowska largely accepted these views (Pini 2000, 215–216; Krzyszkowska 2005a, 201–203). Before we tackle the question of Cut Style birds, it is worth summarizing points of similarity and difference between the “talismanic” and Cut styles. First, it is worth stressing that there is no reason to believe that “talismanic seals” were endowed with any magical powers, as did Arthur

O N T H E W I N G S O F B I R D S : R E F L E C T I O N S O N T H E C U T S T Y L E I N M I N O A N G LY P T I C

b

a

d

c

g

k

n

87

f

e

h

i

j

m

l

o

p

Figure 7.1. Birds with outstretched wings: LM I “naturalistic” and Cut Style. Scale ca. 2:1. All but two (g and j) adapted from images in the CMS Archive: © and courtesy Heidelberg Corpus for Minoan and Mycenaean Seals. (a) CMS II.3, no. 254a; (b) CMS II.3, no. 254b; (c) CMS X, no. 248; (d) CMS XII, no. 150a; (e) CMS VI, no. 258a; (f) CMS II.6, no. 111, drawing S. Lieberknecht; (g) HM 2323, photo by author; (h) CMS IV, no. 260; (i) CMS III, no. 487; (j) Evans 1921–1935, IV, fig. 495c; (k) CMS XII, no. 219; (l) CMS VI, no. 272; (m) CMS X, no. 277b; (n) CMS IX, no. 61; (o) CMS II.3, no. 194; (p) CMS II.3, no. 355.

Evans (1921–1935, I 672–675; IV, 446–450, 541– 543; Krzyszkowska 2016, 117–118). Rather, they should be regarded as a sizeable style group linked by common technical features and further united by a distinctive repertoire of motifs (Onassoglou 1985; Krzyszkowska 2005a, 133–137). The seals are

mostly of hard stone and hence the style relies heavily on rotary technology, with tool marks left undisguised. Cutting wheels provided straight cuts of varying thickness, ideal for rendering lush foliage and “border clumps,” which grow inward from the periphery of the seal face (Fig. 7.2b; Krzyszkowska

88

OLGA KRZYSZKOWSKA

2010, 173). Extensive use was made of drills: tubular for producing circles and arcs and solid for dots of various sizes. Typical motifs include jugs and amphorae; double axes and various ornamental motifs; ships and sea creatures; insects and wild goats. In her fundamental study of the style, Artemis Onassoglou (1985) cataloged 902 examples, including 91 birds. During the past 35 years approximately 75 new “talismanic” seals have been published in the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel (CMS), but the overwhelming majority of birds must now be subtracted from her total. Although technical links exist between the “talismanic” and Cut styles, there are clear differences in how and when the rotary tools were utilized. For instance, in the “talismanic” style, bodies of goats are composed of two or three dots created by the solid-bit drill (e.g., CMS II.3, nos. 258, 259). In the Cut Style, a single shallow cut by the wheel creates a smooth and sleek body, while along the back are now regularly added short cuts indicating a hairy coat (e.g., CMS V, Suppl. 3, no. 346 from Mochlos House C.2). Moreover, the pose adopted by goats changes from standing in the “talismanic” style to running (with stick-like legs bent beneath the body) in the Cut Style. Largely abandoned in the Cut Style are lavish vegetation and “border clumps” so common among “talismanics,” and likewise eschewed are exuberant arcs, created by tubular drills set at an angle. Indeed the basic repertoire of motifs depicted in the styles changes markedly, with very little overlap. Goats (now easily recognized) and birds (still misunderstood) are two exceptions.

Cut Style Birds Key to the identification of Cut Style birds is a threesided prism with circular faces known from a drawing published by Evans (1921–1935, IV, 542, fig. 495) and reproduced by Boardman (1970, fig. 115). On one face is a running goat, smooth bodied and with a hairy back; a dart pierces its neck. The depiction is entirely typical of goats executed in the Cut Style; over 40 examples are known (Krzyszkowska 2022; also lists in Pini 2000, 220). The second face of the prism depicts a bird with outstretched wings (Fig. 7.1:j), providing incontrovertible proof that such birds should be regarded as Cut Style and not “talismanic” as Evans had believed. His notebook for

19 April 1894 reveals that the prism was acquired at Malia, and it includes sketches of the two engraved faces, but sadly the seal is now lost (Brown 2001, 180– 181, 399, 430–431, no. 187, also illustrating plaster casts in the Ashmolean Museum from which the published drawings were presumably made). Curiously, Onassoglou chose to ignore the implications of this prism and simply saw the few birds seen as Cut Style by Boardman as being dependent on the “talismanic” style (Onassoglou 1985, 141). Pini suggested some birds be reassigned to the Cut Style, including certain examples with outstretched wings, but admitted distinctions could be difficult (Pini 2000, 212; see also Krzyszkowska 2005a, 202). Unfortunately, the online version of the CMS adds confusion rather than enlightenment (https://arachne.uni-koeln.de). A search for “talismanic” birds yields some motifs designated Fliegender Fisch oder Vogel; in fact, flying fish are relatively easy to identify thanks to Onassoglou’s study (1985, 154–163, pls. 56, 57). Among the genuine birds, some listed as “talismanic” are indistinguishable from those identified as Cut Style in the CMS online. Still other birds classed as “talismanic” lack any characteristics of that style at all, being typical LM I products in soft stone. A seal-by-seal discussion of Onassoglou’s attributions of birds to the “talismanic” style would be out of place here, but it is safe to say that few of her 91 examples stand up to scrutiny (Onassoglou 1985, 138–154, 268–277, pls. 50–55; largely followed by Ruuskanen 1992, 43–44). Here our main focus lies in defining the key characteristics of Cut Style birds and considering possible forerunners. In broad terms they fall into three categories: birds with outstretched wings, waterbirds in various poses, and other varieties (see list on p. 92). We may begin with birds that display both wings outstretched. One example is especially interesting since it depicts two birds (Fig. 7.1:c; CMS X, no. 248): on the right a waterbird in profile with one wing displayed, on the left a bird in full flight with wings outstretched above and below. Classed as “talismanic” by Onassoglou (1985, 151, pl. 54:KO40), it belongs firmly in the LM I “naturalistic” tradition (cf. CMS II.3, no. 350; Krzyszkowska 2010, 175–176, fig. 17.6). CMS X, no. 248 has a facetted back, a clear sign (unmentioned in the CMS) that this lentoid began life as an amygdaloid shape, which is often used for birds in landscape settings.

O N T H E W I N G S O F B I R D S : R E F L E C T I O N S O N T H E C U T S T Y L E I N M I N O A N G LY P T I C

b

a

g

k

c

e

d

89

f

j

i

h

l

m

Figure 7.2. Waterbirds and other varieties: “talismanic” and Cut Style. Scale ca. 2:1, except (g) ca. 3:1. All but one (d) adapted from images in the CMS Archive: © and courtesy Heidelberg Corpus for Minoan and Mycenaean Seals. (a) CMS IV, no. 244; (b) CMS V, no. 238; (c) CMS II.3, no. 269; (d) HM 2616, photo by author; (e) CMS XII, no. 189; (f) CMS I, no. 446; (g) CMS II.3, no. 65; (h) CMS II.3, no. 307; (i) CMS IV, no. 265; (j) CMS II.3, no. 250; (k) CMS V, no. 605; (l) CMS VII, no. 165; (m) CMS VI, no. 275.

Here the waterbird is missing part of its body and tail; the head of the flying bird is lost. The latter may well be a swallow, to judge from its forked tail, while the curving contours of the wings sets this apart from more stylized representations in the Cut Style. The same is also true of CMS XII, no. 150a (Fig. 7.1:d) and other LM I “naturalistic” representations (e.g., CMS V, Suppl. 1A, nos. 165, 337). Another flying swallow (?) is accompanied

by “border clumps” so typical of “talismanics,” but the engraving shows considerable “fluidity” and, with some justification, is duly excluded by Onassoglou (Fig. 7.1:e; Onassoglou 1985, 144, pl. 55:VOh; CMS VI, no. 258a). In fact, among the 64 birds with outstretched wings which Onassoglou does class as “talismanic,” one searches in vain for any that display typical features of the style, such as stylized plant motifs termed Sproß (see below and

90

OLGA KRZYSZKOWSKA

Fig. 7.2:a) or the prolific use of tubular drills for circles and arcs. Late Minoan I soft stone seals provide us with further insights into the evolution of Cut Style birds with outstretched wings. On a fine lentoid used at Hagia Triada a flying bird appears in a rocky landscape (Fig. 7.1:f; CMS II.6, no. 111). On other impressions from Hagia Triada the bodies of birds are depicted frontally (CMS II.6, nos. 113, 114), and much the same pose appears on surviving seals. Some birds are relatively simple, even crudely executed (e.g., CMS II.3, no. 148), while others are carefully engraved and endowed with broad fantails (CMS III, nos. 482–484). Horizontal string holes give important clues as to the orientation of these birds: bodies are disposed vertically and not horizontally as illustrated by Onassoglou (1985, pls. 50–53). While this pose is adopted in Cut Style representations, these soft stone seals otherwise display no features of the Cut Style or indeed the “talismanic” style; consequently all identified as such in the CMS online and by Onassoglou should be discounted. Many do, however, fall within the broad “Cretan Popular Group,” as defined by John Younger (1983, 123–127). A fine hematite lentoid from Palaikastro exhibiting key features of the Cut Style came to light during cleaning in Building B and is dated to LM I (Fig. 7.1:g; Herakleion Archaeological Museum number [HM] 2323; Sackett and Popham 1970, 204, 239, no. 1, pl. 55:a, b; Onassoglou 1985, 271, no. VO-41, pl. 52). In common with other LM I birds on hard stone seals (Fig. 7.1:c–e) some fluidity can be discerned in the upper edges of the wings and the upturned curve of the beak, though here contour lines—often used in the Cut Style—define the body, wings, and tail. The elongated outermost feathers and large solid dot for the eye are common in Cut Style birds (Fig. 7.1:a, h–k). The plant fillers are somewhat unusual, but in any case they bear no resemblance to those found in the “talismanic” style. The basic pose and composition found on the Palaikastro seal recurs on other hard stone seals with circular faces, of which a small selection is illustrated here (Fig. 7.1:h–j; Onassoglou 1985, pl. 51:VO-28, 29, 37). All can be considered as typical of the Cut Style. Bodies are presented frontally, and sometimes tails as well; beaks are turned upward and to one side; feet are rarely shown (Fig. 7.1:j). The wings are created by wedge-shaped cuts

delineated by contour lines above and below; the primary flight feathers are indicated by straight vertical cuts, their lower edges being defined by single or double horizontal lines. Especially striking are the two outermost feathers which are unnaturally elongated and echo the curving edge of the seal face. Tail feathers are often fan shaped, though they show some variation as do internal features, such as eyes as solid dots, circles, or omitted altogether. And a similar array can be found among seals with amygdaloid faces, with some examples being more elaborate or more carefully executed than others (Fig. 7.1:k–m). Conclusive proof that these birds also belong to the Cut Style is provided by CMS X, no. 277b (Fig. 7.1:m), a threesided prism which bears a typical Cut Style lion on face (a) (Pini 2000, 211, pl. 54: 4:a, b). Stylized they may be, but these birds make for motifs that are both striking and highly attractive, especially in hard stones, where light is reflected by the sharp facets of their wings and feathers. Although the Cut Style is chiefly associated with hard stones (especially carnelian and also hematite), it was clearly imitated in softer materials. One imitation (Fig. 7.1:n; CMS IX, no. 61) is made of medium-hard red serpentinite, not red jasper as published (Onassoglou 1985, 272, no. VO-54, pl. 52 [incorrectly numbered VO-53]; for the stone see Krzyszkowska 2018, 8–10, pls. 4, 5). Nevertheless it was successfully engraved with rotary tools and provides a very close parallel for the bird on face (a) of the Mochlos prism (Fig. 7.1:a). The serpentinite lentoid CMS II.3, no. 194 (Fig. 7.1:o) is also wheel cut, whereas the amygdaloid CMS II.3, no. 355 (Fig. 7.1:p) was clearly engraved using handheld tools. Over 60 birds with outstretched wings can be safely classed as Cut Style (see list on p. 92). Representations are more or less equally divided between lentoids and amygdaloids (including prisms with similar faces). Some of the loveliest “naturalistic” representations in LM I glyptic are miniature landscapes with elegant waterbirds shown in profile, one feathered wing upraised to suggest flight (Fig. 7.1:c; Krzyszkowska 2010, 175–176). The simpler renderings in soft stone tend to emphasize sinuous necks and dotted heads (e.g., CMS II.3, no. 142). These features sometimes recur in the “talismanic” and Cut styles, but distinctions can be difficult: waterbirds are fewer in number and show considerably more

O N T H E W I N G S O F B I R D S : R E F L E C T I O N S O N T H E C U T S T Y L E I N M I N O A N G LY P T I C

variation than those with outstretched wings. The bird on CMS IV, no. 244 (Fig. 7.2:a) is otherwise unparalleled but the stylized plant motif (Sproß) is extremely common in the “talismanic” style, usually appearing alone, although occasionally with other motifs (Onassoglou 1985, pls. 14–16, 54:KO-19 for the bird). A cushion from a LM IA context at Chania (Fig. 7.2:b; CMS V, no. 238) displays typical “border clumps” around the edge (Onassoglou 1985, pl. 53:VO-72, cf. also pl. 53:VO-71; CMS VII, no. 44). Strange comb-like fillers surround the face of CMS II.3, no. 269 (Fig. 7.2:c); these can be linked to an ornamental motif common in the “talismanic” style dubbed “Paneel” by Onassoglou (1985, pls. 37–40, 53:VO-65). Here a small solid dot serves as the head; wing and tail feathers are indicated by crisp wheel cuts, as are legs and feet. Were it not for the fillers, one might be tempted to regard this as Cut Style. Important evidence for the inception of the Cut Style is provided by a large hematite amygdaloid (Fig. 7.2:d) from a LM IA context at Knossos (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, 66, fig. 45, pl. 14:a, b; Onassoglou 1985, pl. 54:VO-80; HM 2616). The stylized “papyrus” in the center of the composition has no close parallels among “talismanics” (cf. Onassoglou 1985, pl. 20). And while plant motifs (if present at all) normally play a subsidiary role in the Cut Style, other features here are diagnostic. Solid dots are used for the heads and bodies of the waterbirds, much as on the Mochlos prism (Fig. 7.1:b); wing and tail feathers are rendered by numerous sharp cuts. A similar pose (with heads turned sharply back) recurs on CMS XII, no. 189 (Fig. 7.2:e), which relies almost entirely on wheel cutting; the composition is akin to that on face (b) of the Mochlos prism. Another example (CMS I, no. 446; Fig. 7.2:f) undoubtedly belongs to the Cut Style, as does CMS II.3, no. 357 (contra Onassoglou 1985, pl. 53:VO-76–78). Other types of Cut Style birds may be summarized briefly. A tiny example occurs on the cylinder seal CMS II.3, no. 65 (detail in Fig. 7.2:g) where a lion and goat help identify the style positively (cf. HM 2092, not HM 1966 as in Pini 2000, 211). Pairs of long-necked waterbirds placed one behind the other also belong to the Cut Style or are close to it (Fig. 7.2:h–j; CMS II.3, nos. 250, 307; IV, no. 265). In some cases they echo “naturalistic” renderings in landscape settings (Fig. 7.2:j). The treatment of the body, eye, and wing on CMS V, no. 605 (Fig. 7.2:k)

91

is entirely consistent with Cut Style birds shown frontally (Fig. 7.1:g–j). This together with comparable examples (CMS VII, no. 164; XI, no. 96) and a simpler depiction (Fig. 7.2:l; CMS VII, no. 165) must all be reclassified as Cut Style (contra Onassoglou 1985, pl. 53:VO-67–70). Our final bird (Fig. 7.2:m; CMS VI, no. 275) is unique, but happily its stylistic attribution is secure, not least because the wings, the circles on them, and the zigzag lines above find remarkably close parallels among griffins in the Cut Style (e.g., CMS XI, no. 179).

Discussion Stylistic analysis of the kind presented above is not merely an academic exercise, for it provides one of the few tools available to us in assessing the types and qualities of seals in circulation at a given point in time and, by extension, the roles they played in society. But defining style in Aegean glyptic is no easy matter, demanding careful scrutiny of material, technique, composition, and choice of motif. And even once we manage to isolate diagnostic features, variations are only to be expected, perhaps representing trends in particular workshops or predilections of individual engravers: crossfertilization is entirely likely. Certain craftsmen may have continued to work in a manner to which they were long accustomed, while more innovative engravers were already experimenting with new stylistic features. Pinpointing such developments is a major challenge because only 35% of Late Bronze Age Cretan seals come from excavated contexts (Krzyszkowska 2011, 439). For the Cut Style, Mochlos currently holds pride of place with eight examples firmly placed in the Neopalatial period (see above p. 85). Two seals from the Royal Road at Knossos also come from a LM IB context, as do impressions at Hagia Triada and Chania (Krzyszkowska 2019, 490–491, pl. CLXXVIa; 2020, 163). The Cut Style bird from Palaikastro (Fig. 7.1:g) can be dated no more closely than “LM I,” but the amygdaloid from Knossos (Fig. 7.2:d) does come from a secure LM IA context (see p. 91 and this page). Examples from a chamber tomb at Poros now offer further insights as to the inception of the style (Krzyszkowska 2020, 163). In any case, the chronological position of the Cut Style is now clear, having been created around the time that the MM III–LM

92

OLGA KRZYSZKOWSKA

I “talismanic” style was on the wane. While some 900 examples of the “talismanic” style are known (see above p. 88), the much smaller number of Cut Style seals—roughly 240, including birds—suggests that production was fairly short lived, perhaps from late in LM IA through LM IB (Krzyszkowska 2020, 163–164). Yet questions still remain. The style is decidedly underrepresented in LM IB sealing deposits. Is this merely archaeological chance? While Crete was clearly home to the style, open to debate is whether it was copied on the Greek mainland, as Pini has asserted (2000, 217–218). To judge from examples with reasonably secure provenances, distribution is biased in favor of Crete by well over 2:1. Cut Style seals are rare in Late Helladic (LH) I–II contexts, but are sometimes associated with LH IIIA–IIIC graves, dispersed widely throughout the mainland and islands (Krzyszkowska 2005a, 248–250; 2005b, 770; 2020, 164–165). Were most—if not all—of these antiques originally made in Crete? When it comes to birds, now firmly placed in the Cut Style, the links to Crete are far clearer. In sharp contrast to the meager tally of seven examples from the mainland and islands, some 65 birds belonging to the Cut Style come from Cretan sites or were acquired in the island (see list on this page). To be included in this number is CMS IX, no. 61, which offers the closest parallel for face (a) of the Mochlos prism (see above p. 86): it was obtained in 1914 from a “M. Georges Halgi Dimitriou d’Heraclion en Crete” (Paris, Cabinet des Médailles: Register N). During the Neopalatial period birds appear on seals that vary widely in style and quality. Many are relatively simple—even rather crude— renderings on soft stone seals. In other cases exquisite creatures, their wings raised for flight, appear in landscape settings, deftly conveying that sense of movement and life that characterizes “naturalism” in LM I. By contrast the engravers who created the Cut Style chose to focus on those unmistakable features of birds—fan-like tails and wings, beady eyes—which could be rendered through a few skillful applications of cutting wheels and drills. Albeit highly stylized, these bold images still admirably convey the essence of avian flight. And yet, they have no successors: once output in the Cut Style ceased, birds all but vanished from the glyptic repertoire.

List of Cut Style Seals with Birds The lists for Crete include seals from excavations, as well as pieces donated to or purchased by Cretan museums, sometimes with indications of “provenance,” sometimes not. For other museums archival research sometimes indicates a Cretan origin with reasonable certainty. The same applies to seals which belonged to excavators and/or collectors who worked on Crete in the early 20th century and whose collections later entered public museums (e.g., Seager’s seals are now in New York and Philadelphia). Evans’s seals in Oxford have been well documented in CMS VI.

Birds with Outstretched Wings (63) Crete CMS I, nos. 469, 470; I, Suppl., no. 84; II.3, nos. 53, 94, 95, 132, 181, 194, 254a, 354, 355; II.4, nos. 32, 168; II.6, no. 115; II.8, nos. 178, 179, 181; III, nos. 487–490, 507b, 510a; IV, no. 260; V, Suppl. 1A, no. 117; VI, nos. 272, 273; VII, nos. 69, 259; VIII, nos. 57, 83; IX, nos. 61, 62; XI, nos. 180, 241; XII, nos. 162b, 219, 281, 282; XIII, no. 118; Evans 1921– 1935, IV, 542, fig. 495c (lost); HM 2169 (Fiandra 1995, 82–83, fig. 8a); HM 2323 (Sackett and Popham 1970, 204, 239, no. 1, pl. 55:a, b); HM 2545 (Pini 2006, 4, no. 5, pl. 2.1); HM 3542, 3554 (Dimopoulou and Krzyszkowska, forthcoming, nos. 20, 21); HM 3562 (Dimopoulou 2000, 37, no. 36); Rethymnon Σ246 (Krzyszkowska 2019, 493, pl. CLXXVIIIa).

Mainland and Islands CMS I, nos. 146, 406; V, no. 174

Unknown CMS I, Suppl., no. 132; V, Suppl. 3, no. 245c; VI, nos. 271, 274(?); VII, no. 122; VIII, nos. 155, 158; X, nos. 98, 277b, 318; XI, no. 127

Waterbirds (18) Crete CMS I, no. 446; II.3, nos. 65, 155(?), 250, 254b, 307, 357; II.6, no. 116; IV, no. 265; V, Suppl. 1B, no. 197;

O N T H E W I N G S O F B I R D S : R E F L E C T I O N S O N T H E C U T S T Y L E I N M I N O A N G LY P T I C

VI, no. 269; XII, no. 189; HM 2092 (not 1966: Pini 2000, 211); HM 2616 (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, 66, fig. 45, pl. 14:a, b); HM 3545 (Dimopoulou and Krzyszkowska, forthcoming, no. 22)

Mainland and Islands

93

Catling, E.A., H.W. Catling, and D. Smyth. 1979. “Knossos 1975: Middle Minoan III and Late Minoan I Houses by the Acropolis,” BSA 74, pp. 1–80. CMS I = Sakellariou, A. 1964. Die minoischen und mykenischen Siegel des Nationalmuseums in Athen (CMS I), Berlin.

CMS I, no. 213; V, no. 439; V, Suppl. 3, no. 277

CMS I, Suppl. = Sakellarakis, J.A. 1982. Athen Nationalmuseum (CMS I, Suppl.), Berlin.

Other (6)

CMS II.3 = Platon, N., and I. Pini. 1984. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum: Die Siegel der Neupalastzeit (CMS II.3), Berlin.

Crete CMS VI, no. 275

Mainland and Islands CMS V, no. 605

Unknown CMS VII, nos. 164, 165; X, no. 289; XI, no. 96

Acknowledgments For facilitating study of seals discussed and/or illustrated here, I cordially thank the following institutions and individuals: National Archaeological Museum, Athens; Archaeological Museums of Chania, Herakleion, and Siteia; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; British Museum, London; Cabinet des Médailles, Paris; Corpus for Minoan and Mycenaean Seals (CMS; Heidelberg); INSTAP Study Center for East Crete; M. Anastasiadou; T. Brogan; N. Dimopoulou; G. Flouda; H. Hughes-Brock; S. Mandalaki; D. Panagiotopoulos; E. Papadopoulou; M. Pic; G. Rethemiotakis; A. Shapland; J. Soles. For financial support, I thank the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (Philadelphia) and the Institute of Classical Studies (London).

References Betts, J.H. 1984. “The Seals and Sealing,” in The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (BSA Suppl. 17), M.R. Popham, London, pp. 187–196. Boardman, J. 1970. Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical, London. Brown, A., ed. 2001. Arthur Evans’s Travels in Crete 1894–1899 (BAR–IS 1000), Oxford.

CMS II.4 = Platon, N., and I. Pini. 1985. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum. A: Die Siegel der Nachpalastzeit. B: Undatierbare spätminoische Siegel (CMS II.4), Berlin. CMS II.6 = Müller, W., and I. Pini. 1999. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum: Die Siegelabdrücke von Aj. Triada und anderen zentral- und ostkretischen Fundorten. Unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen Museen (CMS II.6), Berlin. CMS II.8 = Gill, M.A.V., W. Müller, and I. Pini. 2002. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum: Die Siegelabdrücke von Knossos. Unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen Museen (CMS II.8), 2 vols., Mainz. CMS III = Müller, W., and I. Pini. 2007. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum: Sammlung Giamalakis (CMS III), 2 vols., Mainz. CMS IV = Sakellarakis, J.A., and V.E.G. Kenna. 1969. Iraklion: Sammlung Metaxas (CMS IV), Berlin. CMS V = Pini, I., ed. 1975. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen (CMS V), 2 vols., Berlin. CMS V, Suppl. 1A = Pini, I., ed. 1992. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen: Ägina–Korinth (CMS V, Suppl. 1A), Berlin. CMS V, Suppl. 1B = Pini, I., ed. 1993. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen: Lamia–Zakynthos und weitere Länder des Ostmittelsmeerraums (CMS V, Suppl. 1B), Berlin. CMS V, Suppl. 3 = Pini, I., ed. 2004. Kleinere grie­chische Sammlungen: Neufunde aus Griechenland und der westlichen Türkei (CMS V, Suppl. 3), 2 vols., Mainz. CMS VI = Hughes-Brock, H., and J. Boardman. 2009. Oxford: The Ashmolean Museum (CMS VI), 2 vols., Mainz. CMS VII = Kenna, V.E.G. 1967. Die englischen Museen II (CMS VII), Berlin. CMS VIII = Kenna, V.E.G. 1966. Die englischen Privatsammlungen (CMS VIII), Mainz.

94

OLGA KRZYSZKOWSKA

CMS IX = van Effenterre, H., and M. van Effenterre. 1972. Paris: Cabinet des Médailles (CMS IX), Berlin.

Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner, eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 115–122.

CMS X = Betts, J.H. 1980. Die schweizer Sammlungen (CMS X), Berlin.

. 2018. “Materials, Motifs and Mobility in Minoan Glyptic,” in Πεπραγμένα ΙΒ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Herakleion, pp. 1–17, https://12iccs. proceedings.gr/en/proceedings/category/38/32/368.

CMS XI = Pini, I., ed. 1988. Kleinere europäische Sammlungen (CMS XI), Berlin. CMS XII = Kenna, V.E.G. 1972. Nordamerika I: New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (CMS XII), Berlin. CMS XIII = Kenna, V.E.G., and E. Thomas. 1974. Nordamerika II: Kleinere Sammlungen (CMS XIII), Berlin. Dimopoulou, N. 2000. “Seals and Scarabs from the Minoan Port Settlement at Poros-Katsambas”, in Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil Ikonographie, Funktion (CMS Beiheft 6), W. Müller, ed., Berlin, pp. 26–38. Dimopoulou, N., and O. Krzyszkowska. Forthcoming. “Seals from the Minoan Chamber-Tombs at Poros,” AM. Evans, A.J. 1921–1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos I–IV, London. Fiandra, E. 1995. “Change and Continuity in the MM: The Tomb of Kamilari,” in Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. IVe symposium international, 10–12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (CMS Beiheft 5), W. Müller, ed., Berlin, pp. 77–85. Krzyszkowska, O. 2005a. Aegean Seals: An Introduction (BICS Suppl. 85), London. . 2005b. “Travellers’ Tales: The Circulation of Seals in the Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), R. Laffineur and E. Greco, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 767–775. . 2010. “Impressions of the Natural World: Landscape in Aegean Glyptic,” in Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (BSA Studies 18), O. Krzyszkowska, ed., London, pp. 169–187. . 2011. “Seals and Society in Late Bronze Age Crete,” in Πεπραγμένα Ιʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Αʹ (1), Chania, pp. 437–448. . 2016. “Warding off Evil: Apotropaic Practice and Imagery in Minoan Crete,” in Metaphysis: Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S.

. 2019. “Changing Perceptions of the Past: The Role of Antique Seals in Minoan Crete,” in Mnhmh/ Mneme: Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference, University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17–21 April 2018 (Aegaeum 43), E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F.M. Carinci, and R. Laffineur, eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 487–496. . 2020. “A Traveller through Time and Space: The Cut Style Seal from the Megaron at Midea”, in NΕΟΤΕΡΟΣ. Studies in Aegean Bronze Age Art and Archaeology in Honor of Professor John G. Younger on the Occasion of his Retirement (Aegaeum 44), B. Davis and R. Laffineur, eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 155–167. . 2022. “Seals and Clay Sealing,” in Mochlos IVA: Period III. The House of the Metal Merchant and Other Buildings in the Neopalatial Town (Prehistory Monographs 68), 2 vols., J.S. Soles, Philadelphia, pp. 277–290. Onassoglou, A. 1985. Die “talismanischen” Siegel (CMS Beiheft 2), Berlin. Pini, I. 2000. “Der Cut Style in der spätbronzezeitlichen ägäischen Glyptik,” in Munus. Festschrift für Hans Wiegartz, T. Mattern and D. Korol, eds., Münster, pp. 209–220. . 2006. “Die Siegel und die Siegelabdrücke auf Gefäßhenkeln aus dem Heiligtum von Symi,” AM 121, pp. 1–11. Ruuskanen, J.-P. 1992. Birds on Aegean Bronze Age Seals: A Study of Representation (Studia archaeologica septentrionalia 2), Rovaniemi. Sackett, L.H., and M. Popham 1970. “Excavations at Palaikastro VII,” BSA 65, pp. 203–242. Seager, R.B. 1912. Explorations in the Island of Mochlos, Boston and New York. Soles, J.S. 1992. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 24), Princeton. Warren, P. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge. Younger, J.G. 1983. “Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Masters and Workshops, II. The First-Generation Minoan Masters,” Kadmos 22, pp. 109–136.

CHAPTER

8

Sacred Minoan Columns? Joseph W. Shaw

Construction using columns was common in Minoan Crete where they often bordered buildings, especially courts and entrances, or they were set within palaces and houses, next to light-wells, around peristyle courts, or at crucial centers for support.* Minoan columns, as most things Minoan, were first delineated by Arthur Evans in his magisterial multi-volume The Palace of Minos at Knossos. (For the columns, see Evans 1921–1935, especially I, 211, 343–345, 370; II, 520–521; III, 321–322. See also Palyvou 2009, 117; Shaw 2009, 79–86, 93–94; 2015, 128–130; and esp. Macdonald and Zanon 2018.) Unfortunately, because Minoan columns were wooden, one has never been recovered in its entirety. Nevertheless, columns have been found in a fragmentary condition, partially carbonized, within burned buildings. The best examples are the two recovered by Evans and his architects in the lightwell of the so-called Hall of the Double Axes, in the

eastern wing of the Knossos palace (Evans 1921– 1935, I, 343; III, 321; see also Shaw 2009, 105). Even there, however, Evans disagreed with his architect, Christian Doll, whether the carbonized columns discovered actually tapered. (For the subject of tapering columns, see Macdonald and Zanon 2018, 283–284, where they argue that such columns were introduced later in Aegean architecture, in Postpalatial Late Minoan III and in contemporary Mycenaean contexts [see also Shaw 2009, 106 n. 673].) As a result, details of the columns’ shapes still seem best determined by study of their rather frequent appearance in wall paintings; for instance one that depicts a shrine facade was found fallen in a *This article is dedicated to Jeffrey Soles, who has excavated successfully at Minoan Mochlos and who, as has the author of this article, mused about the divinities worshipped by the Minoans (Soles 2012; Soles and Davaras 2013).

96

J O S E P H W. S H AW

Figure 8.1. Palace at Knossos: fresco of shrine with double axes protruding from column capitals, N.W. hall of palace. Reprinted from Evans 1903–1904, pl. II.

storeroom in the West Wing of the palace (Fig. 8.1) or the famous Tripartite Shrine fresco (Fig. 8.2) was found north of there (for the tripartite shrine, see Shaw 1978). In either case one sees clearly a downward taper, adapted by Evans for his depictions, as well as for his many restorations in cement. Similarly, the various column capitals shown in Minoan depictions, as in Figure 8.1, were mirrored by Evans in his restorations. Now, the closest one can come to a “real” capital is the small stone one, which is actually the upper part of an offering table or a lamp stand (Fig. 8.3) found in House Z at Kato Zakros (Platon and Pararas 1991). Most Minoan columns, from as early as MM II until LM III were “full-length,” usually extending from a protruding round column base set into or on the floor up to a horizontal epistyle beam below the ceiling. At this point the earliest clear examples of the use of columns, set upon finely cut round stone bases, are found at Malia in the Crypte Hypostyle and in Building A, Room I1 in Quartier Mu (Amouretti 1970; Poursat and Schmid 1992; Schmid and Treuil 2017, 153–156). Some columns, however, were smaller. The larger ones can be seen in the Hall of Colonnades at Knossos, right next to the Grand Staircase (Fig. 8.4, right). They are ca. 2.95 m tall from the base to the top of the capital. The epistyle resting on them is about 0.60 m high, with about 0.60 m from the top of that to the floor. (Total = 4.15 m from floor to floor.) Smaller ones can be seen set upon the descending parapets forming the eastern wall of the Grand Staircase (Fig. 8.4, center). Those are only 1.90 m high. (The measurements are, from floor to top of parapet, 0.55 m, 1.90 m from column base to top of capital, and 1.70 m from capital to

Figure 8.2. Palace at Knossos: portion of the Tripartite Shrine fresco thought by some to depict a shrine set alongside the Central Court. Reprinted from Evans 1921–1935, III, opposite p. 47.

Figure 8.3. Kato Zakros: carved stone lamp stand in the form of a capital from House Z. After Platon 1963, pl. 142:b.

floor. Total = 4.15 m from floor to floor.) Together the two sizes have a relative ratio of 1.90 m to 2.95 m, or about 2:3 (or 64%). Some of these smaller columns have an interesting history, for they are significantly different from the usual larger ones. From what we know now, for instance, the former first appeared in Crete at Knossos in early MM IIIA, in what Evans christened the “North-West Lustral Area” (Figs. 8.5, 8.6). There he identified “. . . a sunken basin approached by a descending staircase, and this seems to have been the scene of lustral functions performed by pilgrims or others approaching the Palace Sanctuary for religious purposes” (Evans 1921–1935, I, 405). From the remains of vessels found both within the basin itself and in the southwestern angle of the enclosure beyond, we may infer that part of this area was occupied by some kind of sacristy or treasury serving for the storage of ritual vessels (Evans 1921–1935, I, 410). Steps lead down some 2.00 m from the upper level into the basin itself, which is about 2.5 m square.

SACRED MINOAN COLUMNS?

Figure 8.4. Palace at Knossos: restored eastern elevation of the Grand Staircase in the East Wing. Reprinted from Evans 1921–1935, III, plan D, drawing C. Doll.

Figure 8.5. Palace at Knossos: plan of the Northwest Lustral Basin. Reprinted from Evans 1921–1935, I, fig. 291, drawing T. Fyfe.

97

As seen in Figures 8.5 and 8.6, the steps were bordered by a balustrade with four pillars. Three of the pillars supported columns, with the lowest, round column resting on a stepped square base. In the lowest square base at the final step down (Fig. 8.6) is a rectangular dowel cutting, which, as elsewhere in Minoan architecture, suggests that it retained a wooden framework, now missing (Shaw 2009, 114–126). Evans thought that the base was of Early Palace type (Evans 1921–1935, I, 410, with an “archaic” touch). The round projection of the base upon which the column would rest, in one piece with the squared base below, was noted by Evans as differing from later Minoan bases, like those in the Grand Staircase where columns were socketed into their pedestals (Evans 1921–1935, I, 410). The Northwest “lustral basin” we have just examined is uniquely Minoan, and it was among the many Evans was to find at Knossos, set into areas apparently with administrative, religious, or residential function. Outside of Knossos, lustral basins are found throughout Crete, from Chania in the west to Kato Zakros and Palaikastro in the east, in the many settlements ringing Knossos in Central Crete, and from there south to the Phaistos palace near the Libyan Sea. In date they range from MM II (Quartier Mu at Malia) to LM I (Knossos, Throne Room). That is, some 500 years, or from the introduction of the Elite Minoan architectural style, identifiably Minoan, to its end.

Figure 8.6. Palace at Knossos: Northwest Lustral Basin, looking southwest. Note column base in situ on lowest parapet. Reprinted from Evans 1921–1935, I, fig. 292, drawing T. Fyfe.

98

J O S E P H W. S H AW 0.38 m diameter 0.067 m high column base 1.61 long x 0.54/0.63 wide x 0.12 m high gypsum slab

Rectangular mortise holes

0.25 m high wood

0.18 m high support for wooden structure at wall

0.99 m high gypsum pilaster

Column bases Lustral basin Limestone block

N Parapet Hall

Window

Stairs down

Stone parapet with clay plaster Limestone plinth

End of parapet against wall

0 1 0 0.5 .5 1

0

0

0.20.20.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 1 mm

Figure 8.7. Palace at Phaistos, West Wing: isometric drawing of the parapet and column base in the lustral basin within Room 19. Drawing G. Bianco and J. Shaw, after Pernier and Banti 1951, fig. 73.

A chief characteristic of the 29 lustral basins discovered so far (with five exceptions, all in the Knossos area) is their stepped descent from a common floor level to a lower floor that is not shared by other rooms in the nearby vicinity, and thus it is not a true “basement” level. All of the basins are rectangular, sometimes nearly square. Aside from parapets, often set alongside the steps, there are no unusual internal features, nor are the few objects found within them particularly helpful in convincingly explaining room use. (An excellent resume of the evidence, including useful charts, can be found in Rutkowski 1986, 132–135. See also Shaw 2015, 119–122. For the recent discovery of a lustral basin at Chania, see Andreadaki-Vlasaki 1988. For other discussions of the lustral basin phenomenon, see Nilsson 1971, 93; Gesell 1985, 22; and Kopaka 2009). Nor do they possess floor drains that could justify J. Walter Graham’s belief that the basins served for bathing (Graham 1987, 99–108, 255–268). Still, Evans’s belief that the basins were for “lustral functions” (Evans 1921–1935, I, 405), not unlike Bogdan Rutkowski’s “ritual ablutions . . . consisting of pouring water over a person . . .” (Rutkowski 1986, 131), remains, in my judgment, the best explanation offered so far. There can be little doubt that, although the exact rite may continue to be a mystery, a ritual intent for lustral basins can be accepted with confidence.

2 m 2m

Figure 8.8. Palace at Kato Zakros, North Wing, Room LVIII: plan of lustral basin. Drawing J. Shaw and G. Bianco, after Platon 1971, 180.

To return to our central theme, we can now focus on the columns associated with the parapets, often alongside stairs. There is evidence for some 16 bases for wooden columns in six lustral basins (i.e., Fig. 8.7; Rutkowski 1986, 132–133, nos. 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 28). That number can be increased substantially, for there is a definite pattern in 12 other basins of placing a column upon a simple, squared ashlar block at the end of the lowest parapet; the top of the block would have been mortised (most likely) in order to hold a tenon for a woodenframed, pillar-shaped column base. If we look at a few of the latter, for instance that in Room 19 of the West Wing of the Phaistos palace (Fig. 8.7), a large gypsum pillar block was set at the end of the parapet wall. Then, wooden beams were set to frame its upper edge, upon which was laid a long rectangular slab of gypsum with a projecting column base, 0.38 m in diameter, at the terminal end of the parapet wall. At Kato Zakros a single, small, squared limestone block was placed at the end of the parapet wall (Figs. 8.8, 8.9). A squared timber framework was then mortised to the top of the block, and upon that, based on what we see elsewhere, was set the wooden column, not unlike the three columns known to have been set upon protruding shelf-like platforms set into the northern and western walls there. At the Little Palace at Knossos, Evans found a lustral basin with a single column on the parapet wall next to the steps down (Figs. 8.10, 8.11), like that just noted at Kato Zakros. Three columns were also set on the eastern parapet (balustrade)

SACRED MINOAN COLUMNS?

99

0.40

Steps Mortice

a 0

0.5

b 1m

0.40

0.40

Stone packing

0.40 0.40

c

Figure 8.9. Palace at Kato Zakros, detailed drawings of parapet in lustral basin in Room LVIII: (a) state plan; (b) plan showing restored wood on base; (c) section with dotted lines showing the restored parapet, base, and bottom of column. Drawings J. Shaw.

wall and one on the south wall, with a single one in their common corner. The overall resemblance to the Kato Zakros lustral basin is clear. Special in the case of the Little Palace example, however, is that a later plaster wall was built against the columns, so that their fluted forms were preserved, as drawn by Doll in Figure 8.11. The height of a fluted column shaft (1.015 m) was recovered from the same impression. The extreme diameter for another was 0.247 m (Evans 1921–1935, II, figs. 321–324). Another pattern rises when we deal with these columns. Namely, that unlike normal columns, which stretch from floor to an architrave level just below the level of the ceiling, those in lustral basins were

steps Figure 8.11. Knossos, Little Palace: lustral basin showing elevation of balustrade and wooden column. Reprinted from Evans 1914, fig. 78, drawing C. Doll. Figure 8.10. Knossos, Little Palace: plan of lustral basin. After Hatzaki 2005, plan 21.

100

J O S E P H W. S H AW

Figure 8.12. Palace at Knossos, East Hall: painted stucco relief with griffins tethered to a column. After Evans 1921–1935, III, fig. 355.

usually shorter and supported less weight, and thus they can often appear unnecessary, as if they were introduced for “decorative” effect. We can turn also to iconography. For instance, columns are depicted along with items that had definite religious significance for the Minoans, such as the so-called pillar shrines (Figs. 8.1, 8.2). In Figure 8.1, sacral double axes are set into the upper parts of the columns and their capitals. Also, sacral horns of consecration were set between each column, similar to their arrangement in the Knossian Tripartite or Grandstand Shrine fresco (Fig. 8.2). Also at Knossos, we see griffins—companions of the god(s)—tethered to either side of a column (Fig. 8.12). In the examples cited, the columns are accompanied by double axes, horns of consecration, griffins, and also even birds (doves?), as on three columns from a MM II miniature terracotta shrine from Knossos (Fig. 8.13). Clearly, in all these cases, the column is playing a role in a scene imbued with religious activity. Unfortunately, because we are without written evidence about the events themselves, we are unable to define that symbolism further. While the illustrations just mentioned are suggestive, one furnished by Nikolaos Platon goes even further. Figure 8.14 is a watercolor of the north end of the lustral basin, Room LVIII, in the north wing of the palace of Kato Zakros (see also Figs. 8.8, 8.9; N. Platon 1971, 102, 180, with plans and sections; M. Platon 1990). The lustral basin there was approached from the east by descending a flight of stairs. Along the basin’s east side was, presumably, a “viewing”

Figure 8.13. Palace at Knossos: perched birds on freestanding triad of terracotta columns from MM II cult deposit. Photo courtesy C. Macdonald.

Figure 8.14. Kato Zakros, Room LVIII: watercolor restoration depicting the north wall of the lustral basin. Courtesy M. Platon.

window (Shaw 2015, 210). Along its western side, at about waist level, was a shelf-like plastered platform, painted brown. At intervals were two raised plaster rings, which must have been surrounds for the lower parts of wooden columns that have disappeared with time. The back wall of the platform has also disappeared. In Figure 8.14 one can see that, along the northern side of the basin, there is a similar projecting brown shelf with a single plastered column surround. What is unusual here is that the northern wall was, fortunately, preserved and painted, from the bottom up, with white, red, and yellow backgrounds. To the right and the left there is a pair of three white, curving, drop-like vegetal forms, like leaves. Those were placed above a double-stepped, blue “altar,” itself resting above a largely restored,

SACRED MINOAN COLUMNS?

broad white strip that might depict a beam. More likely, however, the series of three horizontal, with one vertical, lines shown behind the lower lefthand part of the column belongs to the little that remains of a coursed ashlar wall that once ran from left to right across the entire scene (apparently not mentioned in Platon 1990, 146). That, in turn, suggests that in Figure 8.14 (a modern, restored view) we are looking, as if through an opening in a wall supported by a column, at an outdoor scene. The central part of the painted scene is quite detailed, with a low, double-stepped blue base, edged on the top with a white rim. Upon the white rim, and placed so as to appear on each side of the actual red-painted column set in the center of the lustral basin’s northern platform, is a small horns of consecration with a vertical blue double axe set into the center of the base of each of the pairs of horns. At each end, left and right, of the “altar” (?) with the horns is shown, as if inserted, a tall blue (bronze?) spear. An undulating red background, with yellow (sky?) beyond, completes the scene. The balanced elements in the view of the observer are unusual if not unique, and they include an actual wooden column, set in front of the altar-like platform painted behind it, with horns of consecration on either side. Moreover, if our interpretation is correct, the remains of the ashlar wall have the effect of projecting the viewer into the background where there is an outdoor area. Altogether, the arrangement is three-dimensional, including the actual window frame (with the column) and behind it the outdoor wall with the horns and, behind them, the yellow sky. It is as if the spectator is asked to participate in all stages of the event. Architecture and background are merged, a circumstance extending the “activity” range we saw in the case of the colonnades and a terracotta model from Knossos (Figs. 8.1, 8.2, 8.12, 8.13). Evans (1901) began the study of Aegean pillars, columns, and trees. Almost a century later, in her important study of religious phenomena, Nanno Marinatos has correctly interpreted lustral basin columns as sacred monuments which signify ongoing ritual. Further, they serve “as markers designating the spot where the divinity may appear” (Marinatos 1993, 180). Surely, therefore, and given the evidence presented here, some Minoan columns were sacred, in particular those used as elements in the surroundings for ongoing ritual.

101

Figure 8.15. Palace at Knossos, Throne Room, facing west: watercolor restoration depicting the lustral basin and steps leading downward (left) and the throne between built benches (right). Reprinted from Evans 1921–1935, IV (2), frontispiece.

A final observation concerning columns and parapet columns is helpful. Namely, one should point out their appearance in the triadic architectural form of the Minoan tripartite shrine (Fig. 8.2). Triads of columns, such as those facing the court within the Tripartite Shrine Complex at Vathypetro, occur as well (Shaw 1978, 443–446). Also, and within our context here, one should include the three columns set on the parapets of the Kato Zakros lustral basin (Fig. 8.8), or the three set along the northern side of the lustral basin in the Knossos Throne Room (Fig. 8.15), as well as those on the eastern parapet of the Little Palace lustral basin (Fig. 8.10). Actually, the three columns on the parapets of the Northwest Lustral Basin (Figs. 8.5, 8.6) may reflect an earlier, Protopalatial origin for the tripartite shrine motif, as suggested by the MM II terracotta tri-pillar shrine from Knossos (Fig. 8.13). Following the same pattern, but in relationship to a light-well rather than to a lustral basin, there may have been three (rather than the two preserved) columns around the light-well at Myrtos Pyrgos (see below, p. 103). Significantly, there was a shrine nearby on the first floor. Found fallen from it were a number of ritual clay stands topped by bowls (Cadogan 1977– 1978, 77, figs. 27, 28; Gesell 1985, 35, 134). Also of significance is the probable tripartite shrine arrangement recognized by architect Martin Schmid along the southern wall of the primitive (MM IB/II early; Poursat 2012, 179) lustral basin in Room 14 of Quartier Mu at Malia. There, three equidistant vertical wooden posts are set next to a

102

J O S E P H W. S H AW

curvilinear plinth with an inset cup (for offerings?). Schmid interprets this unusual arrangement as a tripartite shrine, more decorative than structural (a “dispositif tripartite de colonnes”; Schmid and Treuil 2017, 34, 280, figs. 347, 348, 356; see also Shaw 1978, 448). The easternmost of the three posts, a rectangular one, was set on a projecting balustrade at -1.53 m, about 0.36 m above the floor of the basin, comparable to that of the MM IIIA Northwest Lustral Basin at Knossos (Fig. 8.6), and it is the earliest known prototype for a columnar support set alongside stairs leading up from a lustral basin.

Other Contexts for Sacred Columns? According to Evans, an extensive reconstruction at Knossos in MM IIIB followed a MM II destruction, possibly an earthquake (Evans 1921–1935, I, 347, 325–359; Shaw 2015, 10, n. 29). Consequently, as far as we now know, the Minoan tradition of setting short columns on balustrades of staircases began at least by MM IIIA in the Northwest Lustral Basin (Shaw 2015, 12 n. 71). It is also possible that the early lustral basin in MM IIIA Room 70 at Phaistos possessed a column set upon a parapet end-block, for there are four mortise cuttings there, the type of cuttings that would retain a square timber frame that could support a column, like those seen in Figure 8.9 (see also Shaw 2015, 12, n. 70, fig. 4.31). After that, as explained earlier in this chapter, that column type became more common. It was also in MM IIIB that the Grand Staircase (Fig. 8.4), the most daring Minoan architectural adventure, was built, mainly to provide access eastward to three or more stories of the Residential Quarter. One of the staircase’s unusual features was the substitution of a short column for the usual landing (or newel) block masonry pillar at each of the southern endings of the central, or spine, wall of the staircase. The eastern, outside wall of the same staircase (Fig. 8.4, left) was almost completely opened up. It featured stepped parapets supporting single, short columns, set at the northern end of each step down, with three per floor-to-floor height. Thus in both cases single columns partly replaced solid walls and opened up the stairs to the light-well adjoining the Hall of the Colonnades,

beginning in Figure 8.4, lower left, at “landing,” and continuing above that at the third, as well as at the fifth landing. Unlike columns in the Northwest Lustral Basin (Fig. 8.6), which were set directly on projecting bases, the ends of the columns in the Grand Staircase were inset into the top of the parapet (e.g., Shaw 2015, fig. 3.7). Evans thought this was a later style (see above, p. 97) and suggested that chronologically the lustral basin preceded the Grand Staircase. If the monumental Knossian stairway did follow the Northwest Lustral Basin, it is reasonable to assume that the architect of the former was influenced by the latter. One major difference between the two, however, was that the columns in the latter, with short spans and little load, played only a minor structural role in their small building. In the former, the architect had to calculate how to replace an immense weight-bearing mass (the landing blocks) with a single thin column serving to concentrate the load at a single point. Aside from the structural differences, however, if the columns in the Northwest Lustral Basin were “sacred,” as argued above, did those in the Grand Staircase have the same symbolism? Could they, by leading to the sheltered areas reserved for the occupants of the Residential Quarter, symbolize both the spiritual and social strength of the rulers of the palace, its surrounding land, and ruling dynasty (for some considerations about “residential areas” in the palaces, see Shaw 2015, 25–31, 149–152). Further to parapet columns, they were also used in some Knossos houses on balustrades set on either side of an axial passageway with steps leading up to a seat or altar, as in the Royal Villa (Fig. 8.16), the House of the Chancel Screen, and the House of the High Priest (Evans 1921–1935, II, 396–413, III, 391–396, IV, 203–208, respectively). In the case of the first two houses, Evans thought that it was “a very interesting illustration of the worshipful position of the head of the family in the Minoan household” (Evans 1921–1935, II, 394). Graham looked upon the architectural arrangement as a “formal audience chamber” (Graham 1987, 56). John McEnroe imagines “a Minoan architecturally framed in the niche receiving clients or visitors” (McEnroe 2010, 98). In the third house there were the usual columns and balustrade, but the seats we see in the first two were replaced by twin

SACRED MINOAN COLUMNS?

Figure 8.16. Knossos, Royal Villa: west end of “Megaron” showing columns of balustrade restored and remains of seat of honor in recess beyond. Reprinted from Evans 1921–1935, II, fig. 234.

gypsum double axe stands set on either side of an incurved stone altar (Evans 1921–1935, IV, 202– 208, figs. 156, 157, 159). Surely there were religious overtones in all three arrangements, especially in the last, and in all three the columns on their respective balustrades helped frame and give meaning to the events taking place. Also, sometimes a parapet column was set by itself to open up space. For instance, at Knossos a wooden column was set upon a window-like balustrade in the Room of the Wooden Posts just north of the Residential Quarter in the palace (Evans 1921– 1935, I, 360–361, fig. 261). Evans’s figure 261 shows a square pillar in the center of the photograph, but he explains in the text that it was more likely a column (a column is shown in Evans 1921–1935, I, fig. 266, which is a plan of the area). A similar arrangement is seen between Rooms 24 and 25 in the Little Palace (Hatzaki 2005, plan 2). At Phaistos palace, however, a single column was set on a parapet next to a stairway, opening up Area 76 to Room 50 (Pernier and Banti 1951, figs. 164, 165, 175. According to the caption for fig. 175, the window sill and column base [?] were composed of mud brick.) Of some interest is the famed Throne Room at Knossos (Fig. 8.15; see esp. Evans 1921–1935, IV, 903–908, 920–927, 935–938; Mirié 1979; Graham

103

1987, 31–32, 106, 141). There a series of rooms, introduced by a portico, opened up onto the northwestern corner of the Central Court. The main, interior room had a stone seat or throne at the center of its northern wall. Opposite the throne was a lustral basin with three columns set into the side of a bench. Couchant griffins guarded either side of the throne. Many scholars individually have interpreted the area. Evans’s short summary was that, “The State chamber with which we are concerned in this place, together with its ante-room, was throughout designed to serve a religious purpose. The arrangement . . . is itself sufficiently significant” (Evans 1921–1935, IV, 935). For our purposes, there is little doubt that the throne suggests rule and ritual, and the lustral basin had a connected rite, one perhaps associated with the LM II–IIIA (?) period, after which lustral basins went out of use. Here in the Throne Room is an unusual use of design and form still inviting convincing explanation. A final, major use of parapet columns in Minoan Crete is to be found at Myrtos Pyrgos on a hillock near the shore in South-Central Crete (Cadogan 1977–1978, fig. 21). There, large blocks of gypsum quarried locally were set around a lightwell that also had a broad staircase and at least two stepped parapets. Upon each parapet was set a single wooden column, evidenced by significant remains found on the stairs. The columns may have been without bases, and they rested directly on the parapets. We await publication of this important site. Overall, however, it is difficult not to see a clear connection between this part of the Neopalatial Pyrgos building and the Grand Staircase at Knossos (Fig. 8.4). Also, it is reasonable to expect similar structures to be discovered in the future. Finally, if we consider briefly the influence of Minoan architecture abroad, we must introduce the parapet columns used at Mycenae where a Great Staircase (Fig. 8.17) was built downslope from the Mycenaean Megaron. (For general architectural influence of Minoan on Late Helladic [Mycenaean] style, see Shaw 2009, 170–178.) There, surely, they were (and we are) dealing with the aura of the memory of the Minoans at Knossos in Crete, also reflected in the famous Lion Gate relief—with its single “sacred column” set on narrow-waisted

104

J O S E P H W. S H AW

to Maria Shaw and other readers for their suggestions concerning the text. Many thanks also to Giuliana Bianco, Nancy Bookides, Margaret English, and Nicholas Westbridge for their help with the illustrations.

References Amouretti, M.-C. 1970. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia: Le centre politique. II: La crypte hypostyle (1957–1962) (ÉtCrét 18), Paris. Andreadaki-Vlasaki, M. 1988. “ Ὑπόγειο άδυτο ή ῾δεξαμενή καθαρμών’ στα Χανιά,” AAA 21, pp. 56–76. Blackwell, N.G. 2014. “Making the Lion Gate Relief at Mycenae: Tool Marks and Foreign Influence,” AJA 118, pp. 451–488. Cadogan, G. 1977–1978. “Pyrgos, Crete, 1970–77,” AR 24, pp. 70–84. Evans, A.J. 1901. The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and Its Mediterranean Relations, London. . 1903–1904. “The Palace of Knossos,” BSA 10, pp. 1–62. . 1914. “The ‘Tomb of the Double Axes’ and Associated Group and Pillar Rooms and Ritual Vessels of the ‘Little Palace’ at Knossos,” Archaeologia 65, pp. 1–94. . 1921–1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos I– IV, London. Gesell, G.C. 1985. Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (SIMA 67), Göteborg. Graham, J.W. 1987. The Palaces of Crete, rev. ed., Princeton. Figure 8.17. Mycenae: monumental stairway leading up to the palace. Reprinted from Wace et al. 1921–1923, fig. 34, drawings P. de Jong and L. Holland.

Minoan-style altars and flanked by heraldic lions— that leads us into the lower citadel surrounded by Cyclopean masonry. (For recent bibliography and commentary, see Blackwell 2014.)

Acknowledgments The author is indebted to Maria Platon for Figure 8.14, to Colin Macdonald for Figure 8.13, and

Hatzaki, E.M. 2005. Knossos: The Little Palace (BSA Suppl. 38), London. Kopaka, K. 2009. “Mothers in Aegean Stratigraphies? The Dawn of Ever-Continuing Engendered Life Cycles,” in Fylo: Engendering Prehistoric “Stratigraphies” in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Conference, University of Crete, Rethymno 2–5 June 2005 (Aegaeum 30), K. Kopaka, ed., Liège and Austin, pp. 183–196. Macdonald, C.F., and F. Zanon. 2018. “Capitals and Columns at the Knossos of Minos and Evans,” in Rha­damanthys. Studies in Minoan Archaeology in Honour of Filippo Carinci on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (BAR-IS 2884), G. Baldacci and I. Caloi, eds., Oxford, pp. 283–292.

SACRED MINOAN COLUMNS?

Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol (Studies in Comparative Religion), Columbia, SC. McEnroe, J. 2010. Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age, Austin. Mirié, S. 1979. Das Thronraumareal des Palastes von Knossos: Versuch einer Neuinterpretation seiner Enstehung und seiner Funktion (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 26), Bonn. Nilsson, M.P. 1971. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion, 2nd rev. ed., New York. Palyvou, C. 2009. “The Comparative Analysis of Spatial Organization as a Tool for Understanding Aegean Bronze Age Architecture: Minoan and Mycenaean,” in Bronze Age Architectural Traditions in the Eastern Mediterranean: Diffusion and Diversity. Proceedings of the Symposium, 07.–08.05.2008 in Munich, A. Kyriatsoulis, ed., Weilheim, pp. 115–124. Pernier, L., and L. Banti. 1951. Il palazzo minoico di Festòs 2: Il secondo palazzo, Rome. Platon, L., and Y. Pararas. 1991. Pedestalled Offering Tables in the Aegean World (SIMA-PB 106), Jonsered. Platon, M. 1990. “Νέες ενδείξεις για το πρόβλημα των καθαρτηρίων δεξαμενών και των λουτρών στο Μινωικό κόσμο,” in Πεπραγμένα του ΣΤʹ Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου Αʹ (2), Chania, pp. 141–155. Platon, N. 1963. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ Ζάκρου,” Prakt 119 [1966], pp. 160–188. . 1971. Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete, New York. Poursat, J.-C. 2012. “The Emergence of Elite Groups at Protopalatial Malia: A Biography of Quartier Mu,”

105

in Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, I. Schoep, P. Tomkins, and J. Driessen, eds., Oxford, pp. 177–183. Poursat, J.-C., and M. Schmid. 1992. Guide de Malia au temps des premiers palais: Le Quartier Mu (Sites et monuments 8), Paris. Rutkowski, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven. Schmid, M., and R. Treuil. 2017. Fouilles exécutées à Malia: Le Quartier Mu VI. Architecture minoenne à Malia: Les bâtiments principaux du Quartier Mu (A, B, D, E) (Minoen Moyen II) (ÉtCrét 36), Paris. Shaw, J.W. 1978. “Evidence for the Minoan Tripartite Shrine,” AJA 82, pp. 429–448. . 2009. Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques (Studi di archeologia cretese 7), Padua. . 2015. Elite Minoan Architecture: Its Development at Knossos, Phaistos, and Malia (Prehistory Monographs 49), Philadelphia. Soles, J.S. 2012. “The Goddess and the Ancestors,” in “The Mycenaean Seminar 2010–11,” U. Thaler, M.E. Alberti, T.M. Brogan, O. Kouka, K. Kotsakis, J.S. Soles, K.S. Shelton, and M. Tsipopoulou, BICS 55 (2), pp. 127–128. Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 2013. “A Temenos of Olive Trees at Mochlos,” KENTRO: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 16, pp. 14–16. Wace, A.J.B., W.A. Heurtley, W. Lamb, L.B. Holland, and C.A. Boethius. 1921–1923. “The Report of the School Excavations at Mycenae, 1921–1923 [corrected title: The Report of the School Excavations at Mycenae, 1920–1923],” BSA 25, pp. 1–434.

CHAPTER

9

Role of the Neopalatial Dagger in the Bay of Mirabello Jesse Obert

The metallurgical compositions of the Neopalatial daggers from Gournia and Mochlos—two Minoan settlements on the Mirabello Bay—are seemingly random and inconsistent; some are an arsenical copper, some are bronze, and some are a relatively pure copper.* Recent scholarship has redefined the capacity and scale of Minoan militarism (cf. Driessen and Macdonald 1997; Soles 1999; Molloy 2012; Stocker and Davis 2017), but the Mirabello daggers appear to have had a wide range of production methodologies that, in turn, might speak to the complexity of their utilization. I argue that in addition to more utilitarian functions, some of these daggers were status symbols tied to the realm of animal sacrifice and Minoan religious practice. Although it is tempting to identify daggers first and foremost as objects of war, the complexity of this object type requires caution. This preliminary study overviews the chemical compositions of 15 Neopalatial daggers, eight from

Mochlos (Soles and Giumlia-Mair 2022) and seven from Gournia (Giumlia-Mair, Ferrence, and Betancourt 2015); develops a new interpretation for these complicated objects; and explores what they might suggest about changing religious practices in the area of the Mirabello Bay. The daggers were analyzed by Alessandra Giumlia-Mair using X-ray fluo­ rescence spectroscopy in collaboration with her co-authors. Due to the forthcoming concurrent publication of the Neopalatial daggers from Mochlos (Soles and Giumlia-Mair 2022), a detailed list of the objects and their chemical compositions is not provided here. This paper represents a preliminary look at many of the ideas that will be explored *The author is indebted to the personal and professional support of Jeffrey Soles, Alessandra Giumlia-Mair, and the entire Mochlos team.

Tin Content (percent) Tin Tin Content (percent) Content (percent) Tin Content (percent)

10 10 9 9 108 8 8 7 10 7 6 96 5 85 4 74 3 63 2 52 1 41 0 30 2

7 6 5

J E S S E O B E RMochlos T

4

2 1 0

0

1

0

2 3 Arsenic Content (percent)



0 0

1 2 3 1 Arsenic Content 2 (percent) 3 Arsenic Content (percent)

1 0

Gournia

Gournia Mochlos  Mochlos, two daggers

3

1

2 3 Arsenic Content (percent)

4 4

4

Figure 9.1. Percentage of tin and arsenic in the examined samples.

in greater detail in the planned volumes of Mochlos IV and V. The transition from arsenic-copper alloys to tincopper alloys began in the years leading up to the Neopalatial period, and tin-copper bronze eventually became much more common than arsenical copper. Arsenic and tin behave similarly in low quantities, but each element causes the metal to function differently during the forging process (Lechtman 1996). Tin, moreover, had to be imported to Crete from outside the Mediterranean area (Franklin, Olin, and Wertime, eds., 1978; Watrous et al. 2015, 458–459). Arsenical copper was more reliable and cheaper, but arsenic produces a toxic gas during production (Lechtman 1996). At normal atmospheric pressure, arsenic undergoes a phase change directly from solid to gas at a melting point significantly lower than that of copper. Many copper ores in the ancient Mediterranean region probably contained a small amount of arsenic, and metalsmiths needed to boil away this excess arsenic during the production of a pure copper object (Gale and Stos-Gale 1989; Georgakopoulou, Bassiakos, and Philaniotou 2011, 133). As the arsenic gas came to the surface of the object, it left a silvery-gray color (Budd and Ottaway 1991). Aesthetically, the alloys looked very different because bronze objects had a recognizable golden hue and arsenical-copper objects retained a silvery-gray color from the residual arsenic.

The objects in this study are characteristically Neopalatial daggers in that they were found in industrial Mochlosor domestic contexts and they tend to have Mochlos aGournia reduced midrib thickness (Floyd 1999, 434–435). Gournia The daggers were discovered across Mochlos and 4 Gournia without a clear concentration in any particular region of the settlements (Giumlia-Mair, Mochlos Ferrence, and Betancourt 2015; Soles and GiumliaGournia Mair 2022). The chemical compositions of these objects vary drastically. One dagger from Gournia has 9.4% tin, but four daggers, one from Mochlos and three from Gournia, have no detectable presence of tin. Overall, the arsenic content varies from 0.1% to almost 4.0%, and two of the daggers from Gournia are constructed from a relatively pure copper. Most notably, every object in this collection would have had a different color ranging from the silvery gray of an arsenical copper to the golden sheen of a bronze. The levels of tin and arsenic for each object are plotted in Figure 9.1. Two daggers from Mochlos have identical chemical compositions, at approximately 3.5% tin and 1.75% arsenic, and are impossible to distinguish in the table. Almost every object has some degree of arsenic (only one registers as zero), but overall there is no clear statistical trend and no clear metallurgical preference. The inconsistency of the daggers’ chemical compositions is unique within the collection of Neopalatial bronze objects from Mochlos and Gournia. A quick survey of the chemical compositions of the other object types shows that ancient metalsmiths tended to prefer specific alloys for certain kinds of implements (Giumlia-Mair, Ferrence, and Betancourt 2015; Soles and Giumlia-Mair 2022). In 2011, Jeff Soles and Alessandra Giumlia-Mair determined that Mochlos metalsmiths chose alloys based on an object’s ultimate purpose (Soles 2011). In particular, Giumlia-Mair demonstrated that ancient Neopalatial metalsmiths used a high-silver bronze alloy in the Mochlos sistrum to create a better sound (Soles 2011, 144). The implication that alloy preference is dependent on object type presupposes that the ancient metalsmiths knew the particular characteristics of each alloy. Based on this knowledge, they created the desired alloy by adding specific elements to the original copper-based mixture. At Mochlos, the presence of tin and copper ingots as well as high-arsenic speiss supports this theory. In their chapter in Mochlos IVA, Soles and Giumlia-Mair

R O L E O F T H E N E O PA L AT I A L D A G G E R I N T H E B AY O F M I R A B E L L O

(2022) conclude that Neopalatial metalsmiths deliberately controlled the tin and arsenic content of an object using ingots and speiss. The variance in alloys for daggers might suggest that their chemical composition was not directly relevant to their intended purpose. Previously, archaeologists suspected that the high variability of dagger composition was a product of inaccuracies and inconsistencies on the part of the metalsmith (Papadopoulos 1998, 31). One would expect this level of chemical diversity if Neopalatial metalsmiths frequently used unprocessed recycled material with low regard for the chemical makeup of their final product. Giumlia-Mair’s work, however, as well as the consistency of the correlation between object type and alloy choice at Mochlos, suggests that the chemical variability was not an accident (Soles 2011; Giumlia-Mair, Ferrence, and Betancourt 2015; Soles and Giumlia-Mair 2022). Thanasis Papadopoulos speculated that high-tin and high-arsenic alloys were cheap substitutes for gold and silver, respectively (Papadopoulos 1998, 31). The likelihood of silver and gold daggers being preserved in the archaeological record in the Neopalatial period is very low. Most Neopalatial daggers probably were either left behind during the abandonment of the settlement or intended for future recycling (Floyd 1999, 434). In general, Minoan daggers tend to come from burial contexts, but late Protopalatial and Neopalatial burials are largely absent from the archaeological record (Molloy 2013, 62). If Papadopoulos is correct, his explanation only emphasizes the notion that these objects were not made to be functional so much as they were made to be seen—the aesthetic distinctions between bronze, arsenical copper, and pure copper probably influenced how they were used and why they were made. Daggers probably had a sociocultural role in the centuries before and after the Neopalatial period. Keith Branigan concluded that daggers were so vital to the male identity that there was a one-to-one correlation between male skeletons and daggers in Prepalatial tombs (Branigan 1967, 211; 1987). At the end of the Protopalatial period, daggers had thick midribs and developed into the first swords, the Type A sword (Peatfield 1999, 68). Although the excavators at Malia found the oldest Type A swords in a ritual context alongside a thick and elaborately decorated

109

dagger, a mace, and other religiously relevant objects (Chapouthier 1938), some scholars have challenged the idea that these early swords were specific to Minoan religion and ritual (Peatfield 1999, 68– 69). In addition to the Type A sword, archaeologists have discovered large quantities of male figurines with daggers at Protopalatial peak sanctuaries (Rutkowski 1991; Betancourt 1999). Scholars have interpreted these figurines as depictions of warriors and have used the daggers as signifiers of an individual’s military capability (Peatfield 1999, 68). Whether or not this was the case, many of the daggers on these figurines were probably items of personal adornment. They communicated the status and prestige of their possessors and symbolized the individual’s sociopolitical identity, which may or may not have included military prowess. Immediately after the Neopalatial period, some daggers and swords appear to be symbols rather than utilitarian tools. Within some of the first Postpalatial burials at Knossos, there are several highly decorated swords and daggers with little evidence of use alongside more functional fighting weapons and spears (Driessen and Schoep 1999, 394). For this reason, Jan Driessen and Ilse Schoep concluded that these daggers and swords were symbols of rank and that the tombs probably contained elite administrators rather than actual warriors (Driessen and Schoep 1999, 395). Imma Kilian-Dirlmeier argued that Aegean daggers in burial contexts were simply markers of status rather than references to the martial prowess of the deceased (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1986, 185–187). Like the Protopalatial peak sanctuary figurines, Postpalatial daggers were symbols of individual identity related to a specific sociopolitical context. Neopalatial daggers, therefore, probably deserve an attribution that reflects their Protopalatial predecessors and Postpalatial successors. At the beginning of the Neopalatial period the artistic representations of daggers decreased, and daggers generally lost their large midribs (Driessen and Macdonald 1997; Betancourt 1999, 222; Floyd 1999, 435). Archaeologists have always considered daggers to be “multi-functional objects” (Floyd 1999, 440). Anthony Snodgrass noted that “the dagger has always been an implement at least as much for domestic as for warlike use” (Snodgrass 1967, 16). In 1998 Branigan referred to the most common

110

JESSE OBERT

Minoan dagger typologies as “non-offensive weapons” (in Floyd 1999, 442, discussion). Writing about the militaristic virtues of the blade typology, Frederick Wilkinson described the ideal dagger with attributes that were unattainable with either bronze or arsenical copper (Wilkinson 1967, 50). Nevertheless, experimental archaeologists have proven that these objects could have been effective killing implements when used by a knowledgeable and careful warrior (Papadopoulos 1998, 46; Peatfield 1999; Molloy, ed., 2007; Molloy 2012, 124; 2013, 60). Several sealstones show images of men fighting with daggers and swords (Younger 1988, 125–127). The objects in these artistic scenes are clearly weapons with thick midribs and large pommels (Stocker and Davis 2017, 594–595), and the dagger and the sword quickly became “the archetypal symbols of the warrior” in many Aegean communities (Peatfield 1999, 69). Scholars, however, are at risk of overemphasizing the martial significance of these objects. The archaeometallurgy of the daggers in this study, for example, suggests that many Neopalatial daggers might have had a more complex purpose beyond simple utilitarian function. If the Minoans living in the area of the Mirabello Bay deliberately selected the alloy, color, and shape of these objects, then the seemingly random chemical compositions of these objects probably reflect individual preference and not happenstance. Like Protopalatial and Postpalatial daggers, Neopalatial daggers were probably status symbols. How, then, did Neopalatial daggers fit into the sociocultural transition between religious contexts in the Protopalatial period and funerary contexts in the Postpalatial period? Perhaps some of the daggers’ chemical variability is related to changing ritual practices. Outside of martial scenes, daggers are often depicted in images of animal sacrifice (Evans 1935, figs. 24, 558; Marinatos 1986, 22; Younger 1988, 266–267). Nanno Marinatos argued that the Minoan dagger was associated directly with a type of animal sacrifice that had many parallels in the historical period (Marinatos 1986, 22–25). The sacrifice commenced by stunning the animal with a blow to the head using a mace or a double axe, the animal was then ritually killed using a dagger, and the blood was collected (Marinatos 1986, 22). If the rituals depicted on the Hagia Triada (LM IIIA) sarcophagus can apply to earlier periods, then it probably depicts a panoptic narrative of animal sacrifice (Evans 1935,

fig. 27). The scene does not show a single snapshot but several processual actions that are depicted all at once: a bull lies butchered on a table, blood flows from its neck into a vessel on the floor, and a priestess on the right holds her hands over a small bowl. Roberto Paribeni argued that the vessels on the sarcophagus contained animal blood (Paribeni 1908, 33). Agreeing with him, Marinatos argued that the same blood collected in the middle of the Hagia Triada scene is in the vessel on the right, below the priestess’s outstretched hands (Marinatos 1986, 26). There is a convincing argument for the practice of blood libations in Minoan religion, and the dagger must have been a key part of this ritual (Marinatos 1986, 22–31). The kind of wound depicted on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus was not made with a long cut across the neck. This sort of cut creates a messy and unpredictable flow of blood and opens the animal’s esophagus (Danforth 2014, 84). Unless the animal was starved before the ritual, the esophagus would have probably contained partially digested cud and stomach acids, which contaminate the blood. Instead of a long cut, the priest or priestess would have made a small incision cutting the carotid arteries and jugular vein with a sharp double-edged stabbing blade, such as a dagger. In terms of animal butchering, this process is called the thoracic or chest stick method, and it creates a precise and predictable exit point for the blood (Danforth 2014, 84–86). Daggers were essential to the bleeding process if the blood was going to be collected. It is fair to assume, therefore, that Minoan daggers and the earliest swords were associated artistically and archaeologically with ritual spaces because priests used these objects during the exsanguination of a sacrificial animal. Many scholars understand rituals such as animal sacrifice to be equalizing activities that reinforce social hierarchies and facilitate transitions within the social structure (Turner 1969, 128–129). Although slight variations inevitably cause ritual transformations, every ritual has a specific set of cultural rules (Staal 1996, 94, 452). As ritual objects, daggers carried a social norm for usage that fit into larger cultural rules, and there was a limit to how much an actor could manipulate these objects before and during the performance of the ritual (Gibson 2006, 179, 184). During the butchering of a sacrificial animal, the chest stick method

R O L E O F T H E N E O PA L AT I A L D A G G E R I N T H E B AY O F M I R A B E L L O

requires a specific type of cut on a specific part of the animal at a specific moment in the ritual (Danforth 2014, 84–86). These cultural rules leave little space for individual improvisation and expression, but, in sociological terms, actors regularly push the structural boundaries of their material to express their personal individuality and to advertise their skill (Gibson 2006, 180–181). The metallurgical variability of Neopalatial daggers, therefore, represents individual expression that was restricted by the material and the ritual. Butchers could not alter the motions and methods of the ritual, but they could express their individuality through their tools. This theory suggests that some Protopalatial and Neopalatial daggers were performance objects tied to ritual sacrifice, individual identity, and religious space. In the Neopalatial period, ritual spaces moved from peak sanctuaries into more accessible locations near urban centers (Betancourt 1999, 222). With greater accessibility to ritual space, ritual practices and performances likely attracted larger audiences and more participants. Based on the importance of feasting in Minoan culture (Hamilakis 1999), it makes sense that the objects associated with the slaughtering and bleeding of the animal needed to be as visual as possible. If bronze and arsenical copper were imitations of gold and silver, respectively (Papadopoulos 1998, 31), then many of the more elaborate ritual daggers may not have survived. This circumstance might explain why Neopalatial daggers tend not to be concentrated in a single ritual area within a settlement; the highest quality ritual daggers constructed from precious metals were removed from their primary contexts long ago, and lower quality daggers were more common and more widespread. The cultural rules tied to animal sacrifice allowed ritual butchers or priests a limited venue for improvisation and display. Every animal sacrifice became an opportunity for individual expression. Neopalatial Minoans probably wore flashy daggers to advertise their regular participation in changing religious practice and their central role in the ritual. The daggers from Neopalatial Mochlos and Gournia were probably prestige objects tied to social rank, ritual feasting, and animal sacrifice. Some of them were certainly utilitarian tools, but Minoan militarism is just one possible explanation for these complex objects. Social competition

111

between the Minoan men or women who participated in the ritual performance was probably another important role of the Neopalatial dagger. Changing religious practice and higher degrees of participation created a more structured communitas with new cultural rules and social norms (Turner 1969, 96–97). With these ritual transformations, Minoan elites found new venues for material improvisation, individual expression, and social competition. Ultimately, this paper presents a preliminary assessment of the Neopalatial daggers in the area of the Mirabello Bay. The relationship between objects and rituals is complex, and several forthcoming publications undoubtedly will expand our understanding of Neopalatial religious practice. Moreover, further material studies, like those of Giumlia-Mair, will produce a better reconstruction of Neopalatial cultural practice.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Jerolyn Morrison and Joanne Murphy for their invitation to contribute to this volume, and the reviewers for their invaluable assistance with this piece.

References Betancourt, P.P. 1999. “Discontinuity in the MinoanMycenaean Religions: Smooth Development or Disruptions and War?” in Laffineur, ed., 1999, pp. 219–225. Branigan, K. 1967. “The Early Bronze Age Daggers of Crete,” BSA 62, pp. 211–239. . 1987. “Body-Counts in the Mesara Tholoi,” in Ειλαπίνη: Τόμος τιμητικός για τον Καθηγητή Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα, L. Kastrinaki, G. Orphanou, and N. Giannadakis, eds., Herakleion, pp. 299–309. Budd, P., and B.S. Ottaway. 1991. “The Properties of Arsenical Copper Alloys: Implications for the Development of Eneolithic Metallurgy,” in Archaeological Sciences 1989. Proceedings of a Conference on the Application of Scientific Techniques to Archaeology, Bradford, September 1989 (Oxbow Monograph 9), P. Budd, B. Chapman, C. Jackson, R. Janaway, and B.S. Ottaway, eds., Oxford, pp. 132–142. Chapouthier, F. 1938. Deux épées d’apparat découvertes en 1936 au palais de Mallia au cours des fouilles

112

JESSE OBERT

éxécutées au nom de l’École française d’Athènes (ÉtCrét 5), Paris.

zur Sozialstruktur in späthelladischer Zeit,” JRGZM 33, pp. 159–198.

Danforth, A. 2014. Butchering: Poultry, Rabbit, Lamb, Goat, Pork. The Comprehensive Photographic Guide to Humane Slaughtering and Butchering, North Adams, MA.

Laffineur, R., ed. 1999. Polemos: Le context guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19), Liège and Austin.

Driessen, J.M., and C.F. Macdonald. 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liège and Austin.

Lechtman, H. 1996. “Arsenic Bronze: Dirty Copper or Chosen Alloy? A View from the Americas,” JFA 23, pp. 477–514.

Driessen, J., and I. Schoep. 1999. “The Stylus and the Sword: The Role of Scribes and Warriors in the Conquest of Crete,” in Laffineur, ed., 1999, pp. 389–401.

Marinatos, N. 1986. Minoan Sacrificial Ritual: Cult Practice and Symbolism (ActaAth 8°, 9), Stockholm.

Evans, A.J. 1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos IV (2), London. Floyd, C.R. 1999. “Observations on a Minoan Dagger from Chrysokamino,” in Laffineur, ed., 1999, pp. 433–443. Franklin, A.D., J.S. Olin, and T.A. Wertime, eds. 1978. The Search for Ancient Tin: A Seminar, Washington, DC. Gale, N.H., and Z.A. Stos-Gale. 1989. “Some Aspects of Early Cycladic Copper Metallurgy,” in Minería y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterráneas y europeas. Coloquio Internacional Asociado, Madrid, 24–28 Octobre 1985, C. Domergue, ed., Madrid, pp. 21–37. Georgakopoulou, M., Y. Bassiakos, and O. Philaniotou. 2011. “Seriphos Surfaces: A Study of Copper Slag Heaps and Copper Sources in the Context of Early Bronze Age Aegean Metal Production,” Archaeometry 53, pp. 123–145. Gibson, W. 2006. “Material Culture and Embodied Action: Sociological Notes on the Examination of Musical Instruments in Jazz Improvisation,” The Sociological Review 54, pp. 171–187. Giumlia-Mair, A., S.C. Ferrence, and P.P Betancourt. 2015. “Metallurgy of the Copper-Based Objects from Gournia, East Crete,” in Archaeometallurgy in Europe III. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum, June 29–July 1, 2011 (Der Anschnitt: Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau Beiheft 26), A. Hauptmann and D. Modarressi-Tehrani, eds., Bochum, pp. 145–154. Hamilakis, Y. 1999. “Food Technologies/Technologies of the Body: The Social Context of Wine and Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete,” WorldArch 31, pp. 38–54. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1986. “Beobachtungen zu den Schachtgräbern von Mykenai und zu den Schmuckbeigaben mykenischer Männergräber: Untersuchungen

Molloy, B.P.C. 2012. “Martial Minoans? War as Social Process, Practice and Event in Bronze Age Crete,” BSA 107, pp. 87–142. . 2013. “Malice in Wonderland: The Role of Warfare in ‘Minoan’ Society,” in Warfare and Society in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Papers Arising from a Colloquium Held at the University of Liverpool, 13th June 2008 (BAR–IS 2583), S. O’Brien and D. Boatright, eds., Oxford pp. 59–70. Molloy, B.P.C., ed. 2007. The Cutting Edge. Studies in Ancient and Medieval Combat, Stroud. Papadopoulos, T.J. 1998. The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean I: The Greek Mainland (Prähistorische Bronzefunde 6 [11]), Stuttgart. Paribeni, R. 1908. “Il sarcofago dipinto di Haghia Triada,” MonAnt 19, pp. 5–86. Peatfield, A.D. 1999. “The Paradox of Violence: Weaponry and Martial Art in Minoan Crete,” in Laffineur, ed., 1999, pp. 67–74. Rutkowski, B. 1991. Petsophas: A Cretan Peak Sanctuary (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilization 1), Warsaw. Snodgrass, A. 1967. Arms and Armour of the Greeks, Ithaca. Soles, J.S. 1999. “The Collapse of the Minoan Civilization: The Evidence of the Broken Ashlar” in Laffineur, ed., 1999, pp. 57–65. . 2011. “The Mochlos Sistrum and Its Origins,” in Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning Why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly (Prehistory Monographs 29), P.P. Betancourt and S.C. Ferrence, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 133–146. Soles, J.S., and A. Giumlia-Mair. 2022. “Metal Objects, Materials, and Sources,” in Mochlos IVA: Period III. The House of the Metal Merchant and Other Buildings in the Neopalatial Town (Prehistory Monographs 68), 2 vols., J.S. Soles, Philadelphia, pp. 223–276.

R O L E O F T H E N E O PA L AT I A L D A G G E R I N T H E B AY O F M I R A B E L L O

Staal, F. 1996. Rituals and Mantras: Rules without Meaning, Delhi. Stocker, S.R., and J.L. Davis. 2017. “The Combat Agate from the Grave of the Griffin Warrior at Pylos,” Hesperia 86, pp. 583–605. Turner, V. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and AntiStructure, London. Watrous, L.V., D.M. Buell, J.C. McEnroe, J.G. Younger, L.A. Turner, B.S. Kunkel, K. Glowacki, S. Gallimore,

113

A. Smith, P.A. Pantou, A. Chapin, and E. Margaritis. 2015. “Excavations at Gournia, 2010–2012,” Hesperia 84, pp. 397–465. Wilkinson, F. 1967. Swords & Daggers, New York. Younger, J.G. 1988. The Iconography of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Sealstones and Finger Rings, Bristol.

CHAPTER

10

A Reexamination of the Minoan “Sacral Knot” Motif Ann M. Nicgorski

In a recent review, Ronald Leprohon (2000, 661) bluntly states that the “Sacral Knot” is “a poorly understood Minoan motif.”* Indeed, the use of quotation marks around the designation “Sacral Knot” in most publications about Minoan art and archaeology indicates a substantial degree of uncertainty and apprehension in relation to this signifier, which was first used by Sir Arthur Evans in the early twentieth century (Evans 1921–1935, I, 430–435). In the field of Minoan iconography, this situation is not unique. Other common signifiers reflecting Evans’s understanding of Minoan society, such as “Horns of Consecration” and “Lustral Basin,” are also uneasily offset. In the broader field of Aegean prehistory, this awkward situation has led to a call for a new and “noncommittal” vocabulary, which utilizes more neutral language that would allow scholars better “to name without interpreting and to classify without anticipating anything in terms of meaning” (Darcque and

Van de Moortel 2009, 31). The introduction of such a vocabulary will hopefully also lead to a deeper and more accurate understanding of how the discrete elements of Minoan iconography function and create meaning within the characteristically complex visual texts of this culture, for example, frescoes and seals. So let us begin by freshly untangling this so-called Sacral Knot within a broad Mediterranean context. Evans first used the signifier “Sacral Knot” in relation to the curious faience and ivory plaques representing knotted textiles, which were found in the MM III Southeast House at Knossos (Fig. 10.1:a), in the fourth shaft grave (LH I) at Mycenae (Fig. *This article is dedicated to Jeff and Mary Ellen Soles in gratitude for their mentoring and friendship, as well as for the priceless opportunity to work, learn, and discover alongside them at Mochlos.

116

ANN M. NICGORSKI

a

b

c

Figure 10.1. Plaques representing knotted textiles: (a) ivory slipknot from the Southeast House at Knossos, Crete (Greece), ca. 1725–1625 b.c., MM III; L. 10.8 cm; collection of the Herakleion Archaeological Museum; after Zervos 1956, fig. 527; (b) and (c) faience slipknots from the fourth shaft grave at Mycenae (Greece), ca. 1700–1600 b.c., LH I; L. ca. 37 and ca. 16 cm respectively; collection of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens; © Vanni Archive/ Art Resource, NY.

10.1:b, c), and in a LM IB deposit from the Royal Road at Knossos (Schliemann 1880, 242–243; Karo 1930, 114, 245, 284; Cadogan 1976, 18). These plaques, rendered in specialized materials that are generally only used in highly restrictive contexts, represent thin strips of cloth knotted in order to form a large loop and two ends. The ivory example from the Southeast House at Knossos has fringe on both ends, while the faience examples from Mycenae have only one fringed end, which more closely reproduces the way cloth tassels were actually made by “gradually cutting groups of threads from the loom and then tying each group together with the following thread before proceeding to the next group” (Foster 1979, 140). The cloth itself is carefully patterned with a design on the bias done in white on brown or brown on pale blue green (Foster 1979, 140). According to Elizabeth Barber, author of a major study on prehistoric textiles, the elaborate striped and plaid patterns on the represented textiles are unlike other Aegean depictions of textiles, and they more closely match patterns from central Europe in the second millennium b.c. (Barber 1991, 328). The undersides of these plaques are partially hollow, and there are perforations above the knots, which suggest that the plaques were to be hung on a column, a roof beam, or a wall. According to Karen Foster, in her comprehensive study of Bronze Age

Aegean faience, the plaques representing knotted textiles that were found by Evans at Knossos and by Heinrich Schliemann at Mycenae are all Cretan in origin and date to MM III (Foster 1979, 155–156). There are, however, a few earlier examples of the socalled Sacral Knot motif in other media, but most examples do come from the early Neopalatial period (Gesell 1985, 3, 35, 62). Foster also implies that the knots represented in these Minoan plaques are not rendered in “actual or true form” and therefore cannot be identified with any specific type of knot (Foster 1979, 140 n. 355). I argue, however, that what is truly remarkable about the knots represented in these plaques is that they are, in fact, the only knots that are realistically represented in Minoan art, and it is quite clear that they each consist of a loop that passes through a simple knot producing two hanging ends (Fig. 10.2). It is a basic overhand slipknot, of the type that is typically used as the starting point in knitting or crocheting. One forms this knot by taking a strip or a strand, and tying a simple overhand knot, so that one end loops back through the knot. The distinctive feature of the slipknot is that it is an impermanent knot; it is easily released by pulling on one end (Day 1967, 66–67). The representation of this very specific kind of knot in Minoan art is extremely significant given

A R E E X A M I N AT I O N O F T H E M I N O A N “S A C R A L K N O T ” M O T I F

Figure 10.2. Basic overhand slipknot. Drawing A. Foust.

that, as many scholars have noted, the depiction of knots is generally avoided in ancient Mediterranean art or, if shown, knots are rendered in a very conceptual manner (Murray 1922, 14; Day 1967, 54). For example, with the sole exception of the square knot (to which we shall return in a moment), the Egyptian artist, when confronted with the necessity of portraying a knot in sculpture or painting, studiously avoided accuracy and resorted instead to a conventionalized design (Fig. 10.3) or to a set of unclear twists and curves (Day 1967, 54, 58–59). Margaret Murray, who long ago studied the representations of knots in Egyptian art, suggested the following interpretation:

117

twisted or knotted in a distinctly stylized fashion, and these signs also convey a beneficent signification that relates to protection, life, health, and/ or prosperity. These signs are often held by figures in Egyptian art, and they are even made into actual amulets to be worn by the living or to accompany the deceased into the afterlife (Wilkinson 1992, 176–177, 196–197). A particularly significant example is the tiet, which is also known as the “Blood of Isis” or the “Knot of Isis,” a symbol that was made into amulets as early as the Third Dynasty, ca. 2600 b.c. (Wilkinson 1992, 200–201). By the New Kingdom period, the tiet amulet was clearly associated with the powerful goddess Isis, wife of Osiris (Egyptian god of the dead) and mother of Horus; as such, it summoned a potent protective force for the

As the Egyptian artists, in both the Old and Middle Kingdoms, were accurate in detail, we can only suppose that these subterfuges were intentional, and were not due to incapacity on the part of the artist to represent so small an object but to some religious or superstitious feeling in representing a knot which could never be untied (Murray 1922, 14).

Since knots were generally thought to have a kind of sympathetic magical power throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, perhaps what the Egyptian artist feared was that by giving permanence to a knot through artistic representation, he would also be giving permanence to the magical and potentially maleficent power of that knot to bind, to hinder, or to stop (Nicgorski 1995, 8–44). In the Egyptian context, such a belief in the magical power of knots (although generally beneficent), even in a conventionalized representational form, is confirmed by linguistic and archaeological evidence. There are more than 30 hieroglyphic signs representing cordage of some kind (Day 1967, 51–52). Several of these signs, such as the sa, the ankh, or the tiet, consist of strands that are

Figure 10.3. A typically conventionalized knot fastening the kilt of a servant, limestone relief, Egyptian, Old Kingdom, Dynasty 6, ca. 2350–2170 b.c. Relief measures 39.1 x 25.4 cm. Collection of the Hallie Ford Museum of Art, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon; gift of James and Aneta McIntyre, 2004.009.001.

118

ANN M. NICGORSKI

Figure 10.4. Red Jasper tiet (Isis knot) amulet from Abydos (Egypt), Cemetery D, Tomb D33; New Kingdom, Ramesside period, Dynasty 19–20, ca. 1295–1070 b.c. H. 6.6, w. 2.8, th. 0.7 cm. Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 00.4.39.

deceased. The ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (Spell 156) specifies that the tiet amulet be placed at the deceased’s neck, and that it be made from a blood-red stone, such as red jasper (Faulkner 1985, 155). In this typical example (Fig. 10.4), it is clear that the tiet is a conceptual representation of a piece of cloth that is knotted in such a way as to create a loop at the top and two ends that hang down. It is certain as well that the Egyptian square knot, the one type of knot consistently represented with precise detail, was also thought to have beneficent power. It appears first and foremost, in the Old Kingdom period, as an integral part of the long-lived symbol of national unity, that is, the intertwined heraldic plants of Upper and Lower Egypt—the lotus and the papyrus—joined by means of a square knot as shown, for example, on the sides of the throne of the pharaoh Chephren in his famous seated statue from Giza, ca. 2500 b.c. (Fig. 10.5). The central columnar support of this symbol is the hieroglyphic sign sema, a conventionalized pair of lungs with a windpipe whose meaning is “unification.” In context, the whole symbol reads, “the two lands, breathing as one, are bound together and flourish under the pharaoh, whom they support” (Schäfer 1943, 73–84). Clearly delineated square knots also appear in gold jewelry and amulets from Egypt, as well as in artistic representations of belts and shoulder fastenings, although in a more conventionalized form (Nicgorski 1995, 84–86). Some particularly significant examples are the wooden square knots, known as tjes knots, which come from a variety of Eighteenth Dynasty foundation deposits. These tjes

knots are unquestionably amuletic, and they were no doubt thought to bring prosperity and royal or divine protection to the building (Weinstein 1973, 434–435). A characteristic example is one of four such knots (Fig. 10.6)—found with food offerings, symbolic bricks, and tool models—in the foundation deposits of the Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri, ca. 1450 b.c. It is inscribed with the royal names of Hatshepsut (Hayes 1959, 85–87). It should be noted that the square knot continued to have amuletic significance and other actively beneficent powers in later Greek and Roman civilizations where it was known as the Herakles knot, the Herakleotikon hamma, or the nodus Herculeus (Oreibasios, Collectionum medicarum reliquae 48.8, trans. Bussemaker and Daremberg 1862). It is probable that this knot, the only one to have been named after a mythological figure, was thought to have been invented by Herakles, since it clearly appears throughout Greek art as the standard binding for his magically impenetrable lion skin (Fig. 10.7). Over time, the protective power of the lion skin was attributed metonymically to the knot itself, and hence it came to be known as the Herakles knot. Sextus Pompeius Festus, writing in the second century a.d., also reveals that this Herakles knot was the special binding for the girdle of the Roman bride

Figure 10.5. Square knot binding the lotus and the papyrus onto the sema, detail of seated statue of Chephren (Khafre), from Giza (Egypt), Old Kingdom, Dynasty 4, ca. 2500 b.c. Height of entire statue 168 cm. Collection of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Photo courtesy De Agostini Picture Library, by G. Dagli Orti, via Bridgeman Images.

A R E E X A M I N AT I O N O F T H E M I N O A N “S A C R A L K N O T ” M O T I F

119

Figure 10.6. Ebony tjes-knot amulet from the Foundation Deposit 9 (I), Temple of Hatshepsut, Deir el-Bahri (Egypt). From the joint reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, ca. 1479–1458 b.c. L. 14.5, w. 5 cm. Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Rodgers Fund, 27.3.399.

(De verborum significatione III, trans. Dacerii 1826, s.v. “cingulo” and “cinxiae Iunonis”). On the wedding night, the husband untied this Herakles knot with the hope that he might produce as many children as did Herakles. In this instance, the untying of this potent knot was viewed as the magical equivalent of the opening of the womb, thereby releasing the power of fertility. Pliny the Elder (Plin. HN 28.17–64, trans. Jones 1963) furthermore relates that wounds tied with a Herakles knot will heal faster, and that those who bind their girdles daily with such a knot will experience certain useful effects. Other sources—for example, Seneca (Ep. 87.38, trans. Gummere 1953) and Apostolius (VIII.64a, trans. von Leutsch 1958)—reveal that this knot, named for the great hero Herakles, was proverbial for its strength as well as for its ability to hold remarkably fast. Consequently, the Herakles knot appears frequently in Greek and Roman art where it is generally enlarged, carefully delineated, and iconographically significant. Though its primary signification is amuletic, the knot also begins to exhibit a gradually expanding range of meaning. In some contexts, for example, it is generally associated with certain characteristics of the heroic strongman Herakles or with the incredible good fortune of his semidivine descendant Alexander the Great. In other contexts, it is a signifier of the virtues of maidenhood or a guarantor of fertility. Sometimes, however, the knot seems purely practical or decorative. In short, the knot exhibits a semantic range from the precisely symbolic via the vaguely meaningful to the purely ornamental. In a work such as this Hellenistic gold

Figure 10.7. Herakles with Herakles-knotted lion skin; detail of decoration on red-figure amphora showing Herakles driving a bull to sacrifice. From Athens (Greece), by the Andokides Painter and Lysippides Painter, Archaic period, ca. 525–520 b.c. Height of amphora 53.2 cm. Collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Henry Lillie Pierce Fund, 99.538. Photograph [2020] Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

Figure 10.8. Gold armband with Herakles knot, inlaid with garnets, emeralds, and enamel. Greek, Hellenistic, 3rd–2nd century b.c. D. 8.9 cm. Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Christos G. Bastis, 1999.209.

armband with a central Herakles knot motif (Fig. 10.8), this polysemic knot could be read as conveying any, all, or none of these meanings depending on the viewer and the specific context.

120

ANN M. NICGORSKI

Figure 10.9. Fragment of the so-called Campstool Fresco showing a young woman (generally identified as a goddess or a priestess), known as “La Parisienne,” from Knossos, Crete (Greece), LM IIIA, ca. 1350 b.c. H. 20 cm. Collection of the Herakleion Archaeological Museum. Photo courtesy De Agostini Picture Library, by G. Nimatallah, via Bridgeman Images.

But how, one might ask, did the knot, which today we would call a reef or square knot, become so significant across cultures and historical periods of time? That is probably due to its specific form and unique functionalities. This knot, unlike most others, has a neatly interlaced and symmetrical form (resembling a figure eight). It also has the ability, once tied, to be strong, to hold fast, and not to slip. Indeed, even today, it is considered one of the most useful knots to know, which is why it continues to be used on the awards insignia of the Boy Scouts of America and other scouting organizations throughout the world. The Minoans, however, did not represent this powerful square knot in their art (insofar as we know it). Instead, the one knot that is clearly

and repeatedly depicted is the overhand slipknot, which has a quite different form and function. It is a very fragile knot, easily released by pulling on one end. It is also not neatly interlaced, nor is it symmetrical. But the overhand slipknot is an almost instinctive knot, particularly practical in the creation of cloth, and also as a generic stopper knot or as a way to form a loop or noose that tightens under load. So, what could be the significance of the unique Minoan representations of these slipknots as independent objects, or in concert with other signs and symbols? For further insight, let’s examine some additional examples from a variety of artistic media and archaeological contexts. Most famously, a blue- and red-striped and slipknotted cloth is depicted on a fragment of the LM IIIA Campstool Fresco from Knossos as part of the costume of the figure known as La Parisienne who is generally identified as a priestess or even as a goddess (Fig. 10.9). Similar slip-knotted cloths with herringbone patterns are represented on fragments of a LM I wall painting from Nirou Chani (Fig. 10.10). Other examples include the stone knots attached to the rim of a LM I stone rhyton from the central treasury shrine at Zakros (Foster 1979, 140), the stone knot from a tholos tomb at Hagia Triada in use from Early Minoan II to MM II (Zervos 1956, fig. 251), and the two fringed ends of knots that flank a bull’s head and double axe on a LM I onyx lentoid sealstone from Argos (Foster 1979, 141). On Minoan rings and seals, more

Figure 10.10. Fresco fragments representing a slip-knotted cloth, from Corridor 11, “Villa,” Nirou Chani, Crete (Greece), Neopalatial, MM IIIA–LM IB, ca. 1725–1500 b.c. Estimated L. of fragment 10.11 cm. Collection of the Herakleion Archaeological Museum. After Evans, 1921–1935, II.1, 284, fig. 1 68.

A R E E X A M I N AT I O N O F T H E M I N O A N “S A C R A L K N O T ” M O T I F

121

Figure 10.11. Jasper lentoid sealstone with bull, figureof-eight shield, and two slipknots, LH I/II, ca. 1690– 1390 b.c. L. 21 mm. Collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 01.7563. After CMS XIII, no. 32, via the Arachne database of the German Archaeological Institute (DAI).

Figure 10.12. Beak-spouted jug with highly stylized conjunctions of double axes and slipknots, Neopalatial, LM IB, ca. 1500–1450 b.c. H. 28.5 cm. Collection of Herakleion Archaeological Museum. Photograph © 2017 Ann M. Nicgorski.

conceptualized slipknots, or slip-knotted cloths or garments, are often displayed in the fields of scenes representing bulls and bull-jumping or other rituals. In addition, they are often suspended from columns and represented with figure-of-eight shields or with the double axe symbol (Fig. 10.11). In fact, the highly stylized conjunction of slipknots and double axes became a very common motif in the Late Minoan period (Fig. 10.12). Over the years, scholars who have studied these objects and ensembles of motifs and/or signifiers have generally followed Axel Persson who considered the Minoan slipknot (that is, the so-called Sacral Knot as dubbed by Evans) to be a symbol, much like the figure-of-eight shield, that gave expression to an entire complex of meaning. It is according to his view “that the object to which it [the knot] is appended is connected [to] the divinity” (Persson 1942, 92). But Martin Nilsson disagreed, claiming instead that these knots were “mere ornaments without any religious significance” and “nothing but a detail of contemporary fashion” (Nilsson 1950, 164). More recently, there has been discussion about whether it is primarily a knot that is being represented or whether it is primarily a ritual textile or sacred garment, which

itself is knotted in this significant manner (Marinatos 1986, 58–61). Within the so-called Sacral Knots, Nanno Marinatos has drawn a distinction between a cloak knot and a scarf knot. The scarf knot appears to be made from a light fabric that is slip knotted, with a clear loop at the top and two ends hanging down. It is associated with female dress. The cloak knot is defined as an outer garment for a man from a heavy weave and bound in such a way as to form a rounded top. In this case, a loop and two free ends are not as clearly represented. Both versions of the knot (or knotted textile or garment), however, are counted among Janice Crowley’s “12 special objects” that convey symbolic significance (Crowley 2013, 204–205). Another important older study of these Minoan slipknots is by Stylianos Alexiou who saw the knots as cross-cultural links with a similarly fashioned bundle of reeds used in Mesopotamia as the symbol of the Uruk fertility goddess Inanna, as represented in the top register of the Warka Vase (ca. 3200–3000 b.c.; Fig. 10.13; Alexiou 1967). The Minoan slipknot has also been compared to the Egyptian ankh and tiet signs (Evans 1921–1935, I, 434; Picard 1948, 157). Likewise, both the Egyptian ankh and the Minoan slipknot have been

122

ANN M. NICGORSKI

Figure 10.13. The goddess Inanna with her symbols (two sheaves of reed), detail of the so-called Warka Vase, alabaster, from Uruk, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Sumerian, ca. 3200–3000 b.c. Height of entire vase 92.1 cm. Collection of the National Museum of Iraq, Baghdad. © Vanni Archive/Art Resource, NY.

associated with a similar Anatolian hieroglyph, VITA (L 369), which signifies “life, life-span, wellbeing” (Rutkowski 1981, 97–100). Clearly, these Minoan slipknots (cut and/or slipknotted cloths or garments) may carry a multitude of beneficent and cross-cultural resonances related to divine protection (by, for example, Isis or Inanna), life, well-being, fertility, and renewal of life after death. It is therefore probable that, because it could be terminated so easily, the slipknot (or slipknotted cloth or garment) was not considered to be a potentially maleficent knot. The actual tying or artistic representation of such a knot was likely not perceived as creating a hindrance because the knot was neither permanent nor irrevocable. Consequently, the special beneficent power of the Mino­ an slipknot seems to be closely tied to its curious ability to vanish at a moment’s notice, an equation of prestidigitation with “actual magic,” in which the beneficent forces within (that is, life, fertility, and divine protection) are ritually released and conveyed to the assembly, perhaps by the priestess. It is interesting to note, in this context, that the

slipknot is still considered to be a magically beneficent knot among the Sami, whose modern superstitions may preserve ancient beliefs about knots. It is called a turknut or lyckoknut, meaning luck knot (Day 1967, 66). The iconographic or archaeological context of these Minoan slipknots in conjunction with priestesses or goddesses, or bulls and bulljumping, or figure-of-eight shields (a shape that perhaps not insignificantly resembles that of the square or Herakles knot), or double axes, or columns, ritual spaces, vessels, etc., suggests that the specific significance of the knot only emerges within a consideration of the whole. In this sense, the Minoan slipknot functions as a polysemic motif, generally appearing as part of a complex ensemble of other similarly polysemic motifs. In considering such ensembles, it is clear that Minoan iconography functions much more like a language than a code, where the meaning of each motif is altered by the context in which it appears, and where meanings are transformed over the course of time. Like other motifs within this visual language, the Minoan slipknot has a semantic range in which its specific meaning may also vary in intensity from the precisely symbolic to the vaguely meaningful or the purely decorative, depending on the observer (Nicgorski 1995, 29–36). For these reasons, I conclude that it is best not to refer to the Minoan slipknot as “sacral” as that direct connection to the divine is but one possible signification of the motif, which might also be apotropaic, or more generally related to life and wellbeing, or to fertility and the regeneration of life.

References Alexiou, S. 1967. “Contribution to the Study of the Minoan ‘Sacred Knot’,” in Europa: Studien zur Geschichte und Epigraphik der frühen Aegaeis. Festschrift für Ernst Grumach, W.C. Brice, ed., Berlin, pp. 1–6. Barber, E.J.W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean, Princeton. Bussemaker, U.C., and C. Daremberg, trans. 1862. Oeuvres d’Oribase IV, by Oribasios, Paris. Cadogan, G. 1976. Palaces of Minoan Crete, London.

A R E E X A M I N AT I O N O F T H E M I N O A N “S A C R A L K N O T ” M O T I F

123

CMS XIII = Kenna, V.E.G., and E. Thomas. 1974. Nordamerika II: Kleinere Sammlungen (CMS XIII), Berlin.

Marinatos, N. 1986. Minoan Sacrificial Ritual: Cult Practice and Symbolism (ActaAth 8°, 9), Stockholm.

Crowley, J.L. 2013. The Iconography of Aegean Seals (Aegaeum 34), Leuven and Liège.

Murray, M.A. 1922. “Knots” in AncEg 1, New York, pp. 14–19.

Dacerii, A., trans. 1826. De Verborum Significatione, by Sextus Pompeius Festus, London.

Nicgorski, A.M. 1995. “The Iconography of the Herakles Knot and the Herakles-Knot Hairstyle of Apollo and Aphrodite,” Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Darcque, P., and A. Van de Moortel. 2009. “Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia,” in Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (Hesperia Suppl. 42), A.L. D’Agata and A. Van de Moortel, eds., Princeton, pp. 31–41. Day, C.L. 1967. Quipus and Witches’ Knots: The Role of the Knot in Primitive and Ancient Cultures, Lawrence, KS. Evans, A.J. 1921–1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos I–IV, London. Faulkner, R.O., trans. 1985. The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, London. Foster, K.P. 1979. Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age, New Haven. Gesell, G.C. 1985. Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (SIMA 67), Göteborg. Gummere, R.M., trans. 1953. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales II, by Seneca, Cambridge, MA. Hayes, W.C. 1959. The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Part II: The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (1675–1080 b.c.), Cambridge, MA. Jones, W.H.S., trans. 1963. Natural History VIII: Libri XXVIII–XXXII (Loeb Classical Library 418), by Pliny the Elder, Cambridge, MA. Karo, G. 1930. Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai, Munich. Leprohon, R.J. 2000. Review of Le Commerce en Égypte ancienne (Bibliothèque d’étude 121), by N. Grimal and B. Menu, eds., JAOS 120, pp. 661–662.

Nilsson, M.P. 1950. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion (Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 9), Lund. Persson, A.W. 1942. The Religion of Greece in Prehistoric Times (Sather Classical Lectures 17), Berkeley. Picard, C. 1948. Les religions préhelléniques (Crète et Mycènes), Paris. Rutkowski, B. 1981. Frühgriechische Kultdarstellungen, Berlin. Schäfer, H. 1943. “Die ‘Vereinigung der beiden Länder’: Ursprung, Gehalt und Form eines ägyptischen Sinnbildes im Wandel der Geschichte,” MDIK 12, pp. 73–95. Schliemann, H. 1880. Mycenae, New York. von Leutsch, E.L., ed., trans. 1958. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum II, by M. Apostolius, pp. 232–744, Hildesheim. Weinstein, J.M. 1973. “Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt,” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. Wilkinson, R.H. 1992. Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture, London. Zervos, C. 1956. L’art de la Crète: Néolithique et mino­ enne, Paris.

CHAPTER

11

Possible Origins and Meaning of the Minoan Figure-of-Eight Shield Costis Davaras†

“Our shield belongeth unto Jehovah” Psalm 59:18 (RSV) The figure-of-eight shield, most well-known as a large defensive weapon from Minoan and Mycenaean iconography such as the magnificent wall paintings at Knossos (Fig. 11.1) where it allegedly alludes to the “Royal Guard” of Minos, has often been an object of discussion (in general, see Danielidou 1993, 130; esp. 1996; Marinatos 1993, 277 n. 18; cf. Davaras 2003, 325–328, s.v. Schield).* Scholarly interpretation of the object has ranged from religious to military to a combination of the two. In this paper I discuss the various opinions on the shield and its relation to the double axe, and I propose that we should look to Elam for the origin of the shield. (For a meticulous treatise on the figureof-eight shields, see Danielidou 1996 [reviewed by

Morris 2000]; Evely 1996, 63, fig. 2:1–6; Papadopoulos 2006, 190, 201, 249). This symbol appeared in Crete in Prepalatial glyptic art as early as EM II–MM IA (cf. CMS V, Suppl. 1A, no. 219). A developed survival in Classical times due to its symbolic value might be the well-known “Boeotian” shield—of characteristic figure-of-eight shape—as an emblem figured on Boeotian coins (Fig. 11.2). It is “often dismissed as a mis-remembered version of the 8th century Dipylon shield” (Rawlings 2007, 57), although it existed in reality, and its scalloped indentations on each side are attributed to purely practical reasons according to Louis Rawlings. *For Jeff, in remembrance of the brilliant days we passed together exploring and discussing Mochlos.

126

C O S T I S D AVA R A S

Figure 11.1. Wall painting of figure-of-eight shields at Knossos palace. Reprinted from Evans, 1930, pl. XXIII.

Religious and Warrior Interpretations Soon after the discovery of the Minoan civilization at the beginning of the 20th century, the figure-of-eight shield, influenced by Arthur Evans’s early general idea, was characterized as a sacred symbol by several scholars (Hastings 1905, 285–287; Harrison 1912, 77, fig. 10; Glotz 1923, 273; Persson 1942, 98; Levi 1945, 299 n. 139). Emily Vermeule, commenting on the famous gold signet ring from the Acropolis Treasure of Mycenae (Fig. 11.3), considered the figure-of-eight shield there as a “fetish?” (Vermeule 1959, 8), and it also has been called a “panoply” (Crowley 2016, 92). A panoply as a sole object is thought to be seen on another seal (Crowley 2016, 92; but for CMS VII, no. 158, it is an armed man). Stylianos Alexiou, very sensibly, attributed to this shield a fundamental apotropaic value (Alexiou 1964, 83; cf. Warren 2000, 465 n. 45). Other scholars have also assigned it a religious or symbolic value (Laffineur 1985, 261 nn. 113, 114; Danielidou 1993, 130; 1996, 53, 82; Macdonald 2005, 589; Whittaker 2007, 180–182; Grigoropoulos 2011, 165). Others have suggested that it was “a symbol of Alexeus, a young hero-god [because of the name’s etymology], but also of a female goddess” (Otto 1987, 10; cf. Rehak and Younger 1998, 146 n. 385). Angelos Papadopoulos argued that “it is clear that the figure-of-eight shields belong to the repertoire of Minoan religious symbols that have successfully been assimilated to the Mycenaean cult” (Papadopoulos 2012, 72). Early scholars also thought that the figure-ofeight shield was an aniconic representation of the Minoan god (Hawes et al. 1908, 48), obviously following Evans who saw in it “the material

Figure 11.2. Boeotian shield as an emblem figure on a Boeotian coin. After Aravantinos 2010, 232. Courtesy Thebes Museum.

impersonation of the divinity” (Evans 1901, 180). Evans eventually examined the subject at length and drew important Egyptian and Hittite parallels (Evans 1928, 50–53, fig. 25:a–l). Peter Warren’s suggestion that there was a connection between the figure-of-eight shield and the Minoan goddess was especially significant: “Despite Marinatos’s argument for the shield as simply a cult implement, an attribute of a hunting divinity, manufactured from a hunted and sacrificed animal, . . . some of her parallels for ritual action with the shield appear to support the opposite argument, namely that it was an object of worship, embodying divinity” (Warren 2000, 458 n. 3, 459–465, pl. 4, with earlier bibliography). Contrary to Nanno Marinatos’s position, Warren, in a memorable analysis, made a cogent case by following Arthur Evans, Terry Small, and Paolo Cassola Guida and distinguished two

Figure 11.3. Signet ring from Mycenae, CMS I, no. 17. © and courtesy Heidelberg Corpus for Minoan and Mycenaean Seals.

P O S S I B L E O R I G I N S A N D M E A N I N G O F T H E M I N O A N F I G U R E -O F -E I G H T S H I E L D

Figure 11.4. Engraved design on a double axe from Voroi Pyrgiotissis. Drawing M. Kaplan, after Buchholz 1962, fig. 1.

structural principles: (1) a principle of interchangeability of a central anthropomorphic element; and (2) an aniconic principle, wherein a picture stays within an overall structure of subordinate elements that combines them. This is similar to the examples from Elam that I present below. An important unique piece of evidence in relation to the interpretation of the figure-of-eight shield was offered by the much discussed elaborately decorated bronze double axe (Fig. 11.4) apparently from Voroi Pyrgiotissis (Βώροι Πυργιωτίσσης), near Phaistos, engraved on both sides with enigmatic figures (Verlinden 1985, with earlier bibliography; Marinatos 1986, 56, 70, fig. 46; Warren 2000, 459, 461, pl. 4; Baldacci 2008, 79 n. 73, fig. 87). On one face there is the engraved picture of an aniconic element—a figure-of-eight shield—that Warren interprets as the Minoan goddess because the shield, as he thinks, stands for the divine as an embodiment of it and brings protection (see also Vasilikou 2000, 50; Whittaker 2007, 181 also argued that this image has symbolic meaning). This central element is flanked by two robed men, arguably wearing swords, who either enhance its force or rather worship it. On the other side we see one of these men framed by two strange objects, which seem to represent quivers, according to Colette Verlinden (1985), with their attached hanging straps (unless, of course, they are—as a set—schematic, stretched bows[!], as I suspect: cf. Evely 1996, fig. 2:10–15). According to Nikolaos Platon, discussing the question of a possible Minoan hoplolatry, already propounded at length by Gustave Glotz (1923, 273),

127

the erroneous interpretation is based on the sacredness of the shield, which eventually took on an anthropomorphic character and turned into a palladium, protective of cities (Platon 1970, 21, with references), in other words, a “weapon-fetish,” as was sometimes said. More recently, the subject has been thoroughly examined by Marina Panagiotaki in connection with a strange group of five small shield-like objects from the Knossian Temple Repositories (Fig. 11.5), which is undoubtedly a religious assemblage: “Their shape is unique: it consists of two circles joined at a point, to give . . . a more realistic representation of the ‘figure-of-eight’” (Panagiotaki 1999, 90, nos. 193.1–5, pls. 11:e, 14:c).

Figure 11.5. Faience objects from the Temple Repositories at Knossos palace. Five figure-of-eight shields and other faience objects (top); Panagiotaki 1999, Pl. 11:e; Arthur Evans archive AN.AE.A15.5; image © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford. Detail of the five figure-of-eight shields from the top group of objects (bottom); scale 3:4; Panagiotaki 1999, pl. 14:c; courtesy British School at Athens.

128

C O S T I S D AVA R A S

Figure 11.6. Signet ring with figure-of-eight shield illustrated in a cultscape, in profile at lower right; CMS I, no. 219. © and courtesy Heidelberg Corpus for Minoan and Mycenaean Seals.

This description is actually quite similar to the kiden-sign of Elam I shall discuss below. A connection to the cult of Dionysos has also been made (Otto 1997, 394), as well as to the Minoan genii (Baurain 1985). Claude Baurain remarked to the point that “[l]es boucliers sont les seules armes absentes des tablettes Linéaire B,” and he concluded that they should have been the personal property of the warrior-hunter, a symbol of status (Baurain 1985, 117 n. 84). An emblem of a war deity has also been considered (Rehak 1999). It has also been proposed that a warrior goddess can be inferred from images with female figures carrying weapons such as a figure-of-eight shield or sword (Blakolmer 2010, 39 n. 86, figs. 3, 11). Although the figure-of-eight shield in glyptic iconography is depicted as being carried by warriors or hunters, it is more often seen without a human but along with other incongruous pictures in the field, such as bulls, bull-leaping scenes, goats, lions, sacred knots, “minotaurs,” and women. It functions rather as a determinative “hieroglyph” of a patently formulaic character instead of as a mere filling motif, as sometimes wrongly suggested. Early in the study of the Minoan figure-ofeight shield, a scholar noted insightfully: “It seems to me that such an unusual form of decoration must trace its origin back to some religious significance or to a superstition. Why should shields, rather than some more natural forms, be thus employed and introduced into vacant spaces of designs or gems?” (Hastings 1905, 286). Interestingly, Wendy Walgate suggested a possible symbolic

correlation between the motifs of the spiral, the rosette, and the figure-of-eight (Walgate 2002, 17). Figure-of-eight shields appear also in relief in jewelry, for example, in the famous gold signet ring from the Acropolis Treasure of Mycenae mentioned above (Fig. 11.3) that includes a shield carried by a minuscule person hovering in the air. Such figures were interpreted as divine by early scholars (cf. Rodenwaldt 1912; Thomas 1938–1939, 80; for other gold rings with figure-of-eight shields, see Papadopoulos 2006, 151). Interestingly, we also encounter seals shaped like a figure-of-eight shield, like one in the Metaxas Collection (CMS IV, no. 122). The shields are also placed in pure cultscapes depicting typical ritual actions; they are seen in profile and they have a sacred robe touching them (Fig. 11.6; CMS I, no. 219). There is also one extraordinary, lesser known, miniature example made of glass (h. 3.2 cm), characteristically mottled like a bovid skin (Fig. 11.7). It is in the Hagios Nikolaos Museum from a tomb at Pharmakokephalo Siteias (HNM 1516). The piece was obviously manufactured to be worn as an amulet (Davaras n.d., fig. 51B, with comparanda). The figure-of-eight shields are also produced as small attachments for ivory plaques, and one was created for the lid of the ritual gypsum alabastra from the Throne Room at Knossos. They are depicted in

Figure 11.7. Miniature mottled glass figure-of-eight shield from Pharmakokephalo Siteias (HNM 1516). Davaras n.d., fig. 51B.

P O S S I B L E O R I G I N S A N D M E A N I N G O F T H E M I N O A N F I G U R E -O F -E I G H T S H I E L D

vase painting (cf. Warren 2000) or, meaningfully, in a repeated, enlarged fashion on the long sides of LM IIIB chest-shaped larnakes (cf. Davaras 2003, 327, fig. 145), which is unnecessary to reference here in detail (cf. Palmer 2014, 12, 39–40, 106, 243). Jennifer Palmer classified the figure-of-eight shield among the floating symbols that possess a religious nature, along with the sacred knot and the impaled triangle, and that are restricted to LM/LH II–III glyptic, which is useful as a diagnostic tool for dating (Palmer 2014). Palmer disagrees with Marinatos’s consideration of some objects, like the figure-of-eight shield, as determinatives of sacrifice (Marinatos 1986, 59–72; see also Grigoropoulos [2011, 174] who connected the shield to the sacrificed bull’s hide, of which it was manufactured); Palmer thus adds persuasively regarding the debate for meaning: “Marinatos (1986, 57) attempts to justify her identification of the figureof-eight shield as a sacrificial symbol by emphasizing that it was covered by animal hide, and that the figure-of-eight shield indicates that the creatures with which it appears are to be sacrificed and their hide perhaps used for a shield. I do not recognize, however, the need to associate the shield specifically with sacrifice; the provision of hide for a shield was not necessarily always a cult matter. Moreover, the floating figure-of-eight shield frequently accompanies animals that are not sacrificed, such as lions . . . and fantastic hybrids” (Palmer 2014, 106 n. 165, 107). An exception can be made for a unique piece, a bronze axe-adze from the tholos tomb at Vap​heio, although “normally a tool was morphologically transformed into a ritual device by casting it with a relief figure-of-eight shield on each of its sides” (Maran 2015, 250 n. 62). Perhaps its close resemblance to a double axe played a role in this transformation. Finally, a fine gold signet ring with alternating figure-of-eight shields and sacred knots from Archanes is indeed telling (Fig. 11.8). Now, why did a sacred sign take the shape of a shield? It is self-evident that it is a similar case as the one mentioned for the shields of Constantine the Great’s army: “When Constantine placed the Christian labarum sign on his soldiers’ shields, it was not as a useless symbol; he was activating divine power to a very practical end, victory in warfare” (Keane

129

Figure 11.8. Gold signet ring with alternating figureof-eight shields and sacred knots from Archanes. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2005, 129. Courtesy Herakleion Archaeological Museum, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Archaeological Receipts Fund.

2010, 190). As stated in the Bible: “The Lord is my strength and my shield” (Psalm 28:7 [RSV]). Despite an abundance of evidence to support the religious role of the figure-of-eight shields, even scholars working in the early days of Minoan study, like Evans, have argued that the figureof-eight shield was connected with military power; this notion has received both support and criticism. Commenting on the interpretation by Evans (1935, 785) of figure-of-eight shields as being of “a military and indeed of a militaristic aspect,” John McEnroe suggested that the figure-of-eight shield appealed to the military elite of the Final palace as well as the leaders of Tiryns and Thebes: surely his opinion, at least for the Greek Mainland, cannot be excluded (McEnroe 2010, 125, 132). Mervyn Popham also claimed that “the figure-of-eight shields had . . . a military symbolism” (Popham 1994, 93). Although Marinatos argued persuasively that “to suggest military ideology is surely reductionist” (Marinatos 1993, 67), other scholars have supported the military association. The amount of weaponry present in the engraved pictures on the bronze double axe from Voroi discussed above (Fig. 11.4) adds support to the very old and persistent misinterpretation that the double axe was an offensive weapon. In this vein, Matthew Haysom thought to have easily and summarily

130

C O S T I S D AVA R A S

refuted Warren’s interpretation of the figure-ofeight shield as a sacred symbol. Haysom based his argument on the premise that the double axe from Voroi depicting a figure-of-eight shield was actually a weapon, because this shield “is primarily an implement of war” (Haysom 2010, 47, 50). Other scholars have argued against the identification of the figure-of-eight shields as weapons. Paul Rehak believed that the figure-of-eight shields were not really destined for fighting or even hunting because they were too cumbersome (Rehak 1999). Marinatos expanded on its meaning, seeing it both as an item for hunting and religious ceremonies: “The link . . . must be ceremonial hunting: The shield can be magical since its main function is to protect against enemies or charging wild animals . . . because eight-shaped shields were made of oxhide, an association with bulls and bull hunting lies close at hand. It is further possible that the shield played a role as a hunting trophy, a new one made from slain bulls each time a festival was enacted. This digression is necessary in order to alert attention to the multivalent associations of this particular type of shield” (Marinatos 1993, 66–67). Other researchers have suggested that the shield embodies both religious and military power. Recently, Barry Molloy very sensibly argued that “[t]he depiction of helmets, though perhaps also shields, in hunting scenes is unlikely to represent a defensive necessity against game animals. These are more likely to be devices to reflect identity . . . a warrior identity is being expressed” (Molloy 2012, 99). This author believes that “the double axe, the figure-ofeight shield, and tusk helmet may be seen as conflations of martial and religious spheres that were equally relevant to both . . . perhaps in constructing divine as well as terrestrial identities” (Molloy 2012, 105, 124). On the other hand, Christine Morris suggested that shields and helmets have operated as multivocal symbols, “whose interlinked spectrum of references included both warfare and hunting, the protection of man and his territory, and man’s interactions with the natural world” (Morris 1990, 155). In an interesting reappraisal of the function of European Bronze Age shields, they are considered as having “a range of purpose in which the ceremonial and homicidal could rarely be completely isolated,” as the shield is actually a “piece of

defensive weaponry, not defensive armour . . . and a central component in making attacks, primarily through striking and control of space” (Molloy 2009, 1052–1057). A more secular, purely social interpretation has been offered by Papadopoulos, arguing for the role of this shield as the protector of the current elite, functioning as a reminder of earlier times to emphasize the legitimate power of contemporary elites (Papadopoulos 2006, 181). The question basically is whether we are dealing with a sacred or a secular object. We cannot avoid but agreeing with James Muhly’s dictum that “[o]bviously, when the major scholarly debates are at the level of distinguishing between the sacred and the secular, any understanding of actual religious beliefs must, of necessity, be at a very rudimentary level” (Muhly 1987, 330).

Connection to Elam and the Near East Curiously, the Minoan figure-of-eight shield is very similar in form to the kiden-sign of early Elam. Elam is a term borrowed by Sumerian scribes for the area of the modern provinces of eastern Khuzestan and Fars in Iran, and the sign can be traced back through millennia (Fig. 11.9; see Koch 2007, 28, figs. 9:c, 11:a–c, who states it “läßt sich verfolgen über die Jahrtausende hin”). The great distance between Elam and Crete should not be considered an obstacle, as it might seem at first sight. Heidemarie Koch, who examined this subject in extenso, concluded that the kiden-sign, encountered already on the early Susa pottery of about 4000 b.c., symbolized a fertility divinity: “Mit ihm ist die Gottheit gegenwärtig und kann auf die Geschicke der Menschen in die Umgebung dieses Zeichens einwirken . . . schützen und auch bestrafen” (Fig. 11.9; Koch 2007, 110, 156). It was a “magischer Schutzbann,” which was also used for grave cases of theodicy (Koch 2007, 110, 156). Uncannily similar to the Minoan-Mycenaean figure-of-eight shield is an object made of bitumen in the form of an eight from Susa, today housed in the Louvre and dated about 3000 b.c. (Koch 2007, 28, fig. 10). To my knowledge, the kiden-sign has no association whatever with any form of shield in Elam.

P O S S I B L E O R I G I N S A N D M E A N I N G O F T H E M I N O A N F I G U R E -O F -E I G H T S H I E L D

131

a b c d Figure 11.9. Examples of the kiden-sign of early Elam: (a) a double circle sign as the head of a Goddess with Upraised Arms, (b) a triple circle sign as the head of a Goddess with Upraised Arms, (c) two pedestals side by side with a triple circle sign standing on top of each one, (d) kiden-signs standing on pedestals as part of the decoration on pottery from Susa. After Koch 2007, figs. 9c, 11a–c. Courtesy H. Koch.

On objects from places closer to Crete than Elam, we can see sometimes warrior-divinities carrying this general shape of shield, albeit much smaller and of a rather different formation, such as on a stele from Qadbun at the Alawi Mountains near the Syrian harbor of Tartous (Bonatz 2014, 232, pl. XIII; cf. Bonatz 2007, 118–119, fig. 4). Actually, a takeover of the meaning of this symbol for the manufacture of Aegean Bronze Age shields, especially on Crete, which obviously aimed at the magical protection of the warrior, an apotropaion, is not improbable if we consider the implications of the following list of evidence for contacts among cultures around the eastern Mediterranean region, the Near East and Mesopotamia, and as far afield as western India: (1) In antiquity Elam was part of “Greater Mesopotamia” (Aruz, ed., 2003, 4), closely allied with Sumer (Hansen 2003, 26), with good chances for communication with Crete (cf. Burney 1975 for the great extension of the Proto-Elamite influence). We should also keep in mind that from this area of “Greater Mesopotamia” the double axe came to Crete through Anatolia, as Hans-Günter Buchholz has credibly shown (Buchholz 1959, followed by Brice 1963, 1967). Similarities with Early Minoan jewelry should also be taken into consideration. (2) William Brice has drawn attention to the close structural resemblances between the Linear A script on the Hagia Triada tablets and those of the early pictographic account tablets in the Proto-Elamite script from Susa (Brice 1963;

1967; cf. Hood 2003; MacGillivray 2010, 12; Kenanidis and Papakitsos 2015). This pertains to the arrangement of the signs, and even in respect to some individual sign-shapes, despite a gap of 2,000 years and 2,000 km as Brice has underscored. This writing system (3200–2400 b.c.), decoded by an Oxford team, was inspired by the Archaic Sumerian script (Roux 1992, 77). Piero Meriggi, commenting on Brice’s papers, notes: “. . . resemblance extraordinaire et importante. . . . La comparaison de Brice de la tablette HT 116 avec le protoélamite B 17 est simplement étonnante” (Meriggi 1972, 9). Brice himself, commenting about Proto-Elamite, wrote: “The conclusion should not be that there was any direct link between the Minoan scripts and these earlier systems of writing, but rather that the Minoan scripts were late and isolated survivors from a group of similar systems, of essentially ideographic or formulaic nature, which once prevailed throughout the Near and Middle East” (Brice 1966, 167–168). Of interest is the debate between outstanding experts on Cretan scripts: William Brice and John Chadwick. The latter was skeptical about drawing conclusions from those certain similarities between scripts not yet read, and the former insisted that both were closely comparable, with similar structural features, the form and arrangement of accounts, and the grouping and combination of signs, especially the ligatured ones. Brice concluded that it is more likely that Crete would have

132

C O S T I S D AVA R A S

preserved in use an archaic form of Mesopotamian script than it would have invented for itself a system of writing (Brice 1966, 168). (3)  Sinclair Hood, likewise most importantly, pointed out that the earliest known example of a copper double axe comes from Susa; now in the Louvre, it escaped the attention of earlier authorities on the subject of the origins of the double axe (Hood 2003, 51, pl. I; cf. MacGillivray 2010, 11; 2012). Hood traced the origins of the Minoan double axe to “some parts of the Near East,” pointing out “that it, like the art of writing, is likely to have reached Crete through Syria. Its survival in Crete . . . , and as a symbol in cult, may reflect the spirit of conservatism characteristic of Minoan Crete” (Hood 2003, 51). Further, the possible Syrian origin of the Minoan griffin was taken into consideration long ago (Frankfort 1936– 1937), as well as the connection between the Minoan dragon and the “Babylonian” one (Gill 1963). (4)  The typical gesture of the Goddess with Upraised Arms, the Ur-Gebärde already displayed by the Goddess of the Neolithic Çatalhöyük, can be seen on figures of the Proto-Elamite pottery. This depiction was not in the form of an inverted Π, as in the case of the Late Minoan Goddess with Upraised Arms, but rather it was in the form of a W; nevertheless, it was unmistakably the same interesting depiction of divine figures characteristically displaying the kiden-sign in place of the head (Fig. 11.9:a, b; Koch 2007, 29, fig. 11a, b). (5) The close connection of women to snakes encountered at Sumer as early as the late third millennium b.c. (Koch 2007, 153, fig. 80a, b) is familiar on Crete since the Early Minoan period. (6) It is needless to mention the numerous bullleaping scenes, familiar all over the Near East, which go farther east as far as the Harappan Civilization in the Indus Valley (Aruz, ed., 2003, 247). (7) As has been remarked, “[t]he main way in which these motifs, and other iconographic elements, would have been transported to



the Aegean [is] through imported artifacts, such as seals. . . . Such Near Eastern artifacts started to appear in the Aegean in the transition from the EBA to the MBA, with contact between the two regions being firmly established by the early 2nd millennium” (Palmer 2014, 51). A parallel might be seen in the Tartaria t ablets from Romania, found in a “Neolithic” context in 1961, with signs comparable to those in the script of the Late Predynastic period in Mesopotamia and Syria. These signs may perhaps indicate one aspect of a common inheritance of religion or magical beliefs and practices (Hood 1967).

(8) One should finally note the opinion of Robert Koehl, that during the second half of the fourth millennium groups from the southern Levant (“Greater Syria”) migrated to Crete bringing with them religious and other elements of their Chalcolithic “Ghassulian” culture, which were incorporated into the Minoan world (Koehl 2016, 476). The aforementioned Egyptian parallels should also not be overlooked (see p. 126). (9) Looking to the north, we see that the Hittite culture most likely inspired the MM IIB type of zoomorphic head-shaped rhyton, another characteristic Minoan religious item (Koehl 2006, 41). (10) An unexpected and unique late piece of evidence is seen on a purely religious item, the cover of a LM IIIB incense burner from the cemetery at Myrsini Siteias (Fig. 11.10), excavated by Platon in 1958, now in the Hagios Nikolaos Museum (HNM 1929; Davaras n.d., fig. 56). Here, two painted pairs of horns of consecration with standards at their centers that are topped by kiden-like signs are on each side of the lid (Figs. 11.10, 11.11). In one case the kiden-like sign is clear (Fig. 11.11 [not visible in Fig. 11.10 because it is on the far side of the lid]; Rutkowski 1973, 156, fig. 6d), and, in the other case, the same sign for some reason (ignorance of the painter?) had the upper and lower parts open (Fig. 11.10). This hapax perplexed Bogdan Rutkowski, who saw in the former instance

P O S S I B L E O R I G I N S A N D M E A N I N G O F T H E M I N O A N F I G U R E -O F -E I G H T S H I E L D

Figure 11.10. Lid from a Late Minoan IIIB incense burner (HNM 1929) from the cemetery at Myrsini Siteias. Davaras n.d., fig. 56.

merely “a couple of round discs,” and in the latter “a stylized plant,” indeed a hybrid motif (Rutkow­ski 1973, 156). He also significantly noted: “This is of some importance . . . since the discoid emblems were set in a place usually occupied by a double axe. . . .” (Rutkowski 1973, 156). (11) Last but not least, as Alexiou has shown, another important Minoan religious symbol, the sacred knot, is closely analogous in shape to the much earlier, Old Sumerian Innana symbol, and, therefore, imitates it (Alexiou 1967; see also this vol., Ch. 10, p. 121). (12)  As Nicolas Wyatt underscores, the griffin, so well illustrated in the Aegean Bronze Age and especially on Crete, is attested not only in Egypt but also in Elam from the late fourth millennium b.c. (Wyatt 2009, 29). This list of connections and influences among the ancient cultures of the eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern regions is by no means exhaustive. It does, however, infer just how much interaction must have occurred, and it therefore supports the possibility that Elam could have influenced the Aegean, however indirect the influence may have been.

Final Comments We cannot fully discuss here, but merely mention in passing, other noteworthy opinions about the

133

Figure 11.11. Kiden-sign as the top of a standard set into horns of consecration: detail of painted decoration on the lid of an incense burner (HNM 1929) from the cemetery at Myrsini Siteias. After Rutkowski 1973, fig. 6d. Courtesy Universitaì di Catania.

origins and meaning of the figure-of-eight shield. They include Rutkowski’s suggestion that its form came to Mycenae from a Hittite cult sign (Rutkowski 1973, 156) and Palmer’s (2014) perception that it is a figurative symbol of the hero-god, based on the name’s etymology (like Otto [1987, 10] as mentioned above). Further, Marinatos considers it to be a cult device connected with the renewal of vegetation (N. Marinatos, pers. comm.). The keen observation of Spyridon Marinatos, followed by others, that one of the dead in Grave Circle B of Mycenae was “embracing” a figure-of-eight shield placed over him, because of the strange position of the skeleton’s arms and legs (Marinatos 1953, 62), can perhaps be confirmed if a religious-protective meaning was attributed to this shape and continued to function after death. We thus see from this summary of the studies on the figure-of-eight shield that this object in its various contexts had multiple meanings but predominantly pertained to religion. Further, based on the connections with eastern scripts and practices, it may have an ancestor in Elam.

References Alexiou, S. 1964. Μινωικός πολιτισμός, Herakleion. . 1967. “Contribution to the Study of the Minoan ‘Sacred Knot’,” in Europa: Studien zur Geschichte und Epigraphik der frühen Aegaeis. Festschrift für Ernst Grumach, W.C. Brice, ed., Berlin, pp. 1–6.

134

C O S T I S D AVA R A S

Aravantinos, V. 2010. Το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Θηβών, Athens.

CMS VII = Kenna, V.E.G. 1967. Die englischen Museen II (CMS VII), Berlin.

Aruz, J., ed. 2003. Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium b.c. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, New Haven.

Crowley, J.L. 2016. “In the Air Here or from the World Beyond? Enigmatic Symbols of the Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in Metaphysis: Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 89–96.

Baldacci, G. 2008. “La doppia ascia decorata con farfalle da Festòs,” ASAtene 86, pp. 71–86. Baurain, C. 1985. “Pour une autre interprétation des génies minoens,” in Darcque and Poursat, eds., 1985, pp. 95–118. Blakolmer, F. 2010. “A Pantheon without Attributes? Goddesses and Gods in Minoan and Mycenaean Iconography,” in Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 170), J. Mylonopoulos, ed., Leiden, pp. 21–61. Bonatz, D. 2007. “The Divine Image of the King: Religious Representation of Political Power in the Hittite Empire,” in Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, M. Heinz and M.H. Feldman, eds., Winona Lake, IN, pp. 111–136. . 2014. “Art,” in The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria: Section 1, Ancient Near East (Handbook of Oriental Studies 106), H. Niehr, ed., Leiden, pp. 205–253.

Danielidou, D. 1993. Βιβλιογραφία για την ΚρητοΜυκηναϊκή Θρησκεία (Μονογραφίες Ακαδημίας Αθηνών 2), Athens. . 1996. “‘Η οκτώσχημη ασπίδα στο Αιγαίο της 2ης π.Χ. χιλιετίας,” Ph.D. diss., Athens University. Darcque, P., and J.-C. Poursat, eds. 1985. L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Athènes (21–22 avril 1983) (BCH Suppl. 11), Paris. Davaras, C. n.d., (1982). Hagios Nikolaos Museum: Brief Illustrated Archaeological Guide, Athens. . 2003. Führer zu den Altertümern Kretas, Athens.

Brice, W.C. 1963. “A Comparison of the Account Tablets of Susa in the Proto-Elamite Script with Those of Hagia Triada in Linear A,” Kadmos 2, pp. 27–38.

Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, N. 2005. Το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Ηρακλείου, Athens.

. 1966. “The Fourth Edinburgh MinoanMycenaean Symposium,” Kadmos 5, pp. 166–168.

Evans, A.J. 1901. “Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and Its Mediterranean Relations,” JHS 21, pp. 99–204.

. 1967. “The Structure of Linear A, with Some Proto-Elamite and Proto-Indic Comparisons,” in Europa: Studien zur Geschichte und Epigraphik der frühen Aegaeis. Festschrift für Ernst Grumach, W.C. Brice, ed., Berlin, pp. 32–44.

. 1928. The Palace of Minos at Knossos II, London.

Buchholz, H.-G. 1959. Zur Herkunft der kretischen Doppelaxt: Geschichte und auswärtige Beziehungen eines minoischen Kultsymbols, Munich. . 1962. “Eine Kiltaxt aus der Messara,” Kadmos 1, p. 166. Burney, C. 1975. “Tepe Yahya: Its Implications for Near Eastern Archaeology,” Antiquity 49, pp. 191–196. CMS I = Sakellariou, A. 1964. Die minoischen und mykenischen Siegel des Nationalmuseums in Athen (CMS I), Berlin. CMS IV = Sakellarakis, J.A., and V.E.G. Kenna. 1969. Iraklion: Sammlung Metaxas (CMS IV), Berlin. CMS V, Suppl. 1A = Pini, I., ed. 1992. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen: Ägina–Korinth (CMS V, Suppl. 1A), Berlin.

. 1930. The Palace of Minos at Knossos III, London. . 1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos IV (2), London. Evely, D. 1996. “The Neo-Palatial Minoan Warrior: Fact or Fiction?” in Minotaur and Centaur. Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (BAR-IS 638), D. Evely, I.S. Lemos, and S. Sherratt, eds., London, pp. 59–69. Frankfort, H. 1936–1937. “Notes on the Cretan Griffin,” BSA 37, pp. 106–122. Gill, M.A.V. 1963. “The Minoan Dragon,” BICS 10, pp. 1–12. Glotz, G. 1923. La civilisation égéenne (L’évolution de l’humanité 9), Paris. Grigoropoulos, K. 2011. “‘Ταφές Πολεμιστών’ στο νóτιο Αιγαίο (τέλος ME–YE IIIB): Κοινωνική ταυτότητα, μαχητικό ήθος και ανακτορική εξουσία,” Ph.D. diss., Athens University.

P O S S I B L E O R I G I N S A N D M E A N I N G O F T H E M I N O A N F I G U R E -O F -E I G H T S H I E L D

Hansen, D.P. 2003. “Art of the Early City-States,” in Aruz, ed., 2003, pp. 21–57. Harrison, J.E. 1912. Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion, Cambridge. Hastings, H.R. 1905. “A Bronze-Age ‘Pocket’ from Avgo (Crete),” AJA 9, pp. 277–287. Hawes, H.B., B.E. Williams, R.B. Seager, and E.H. Hall. 1908. Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete: Excavations of the Wells-Houston-Cramp Expeditions 1901, 1903, 1904, Philadelphia. Haysom, M. 2010. “The Double-Axe: A Contexual Approach to the Understanding of a Cretan Symbol in the Neopalatial Period,” OJA 29, pp. 35–55. Hood, M.S.F. 1967. “The Tartaria Tablets,” Antiquity 41, pp. 99–113. . 2003. “Eastern Origins of the Minoan Double Axe,” in Briciaka. A Tribute to W.C. Brice (Cretan Studies 9), pp. 51–62. Keane, W. 2010. “Marked, Absent, Habitual: Approaches to Neolithic Religion in Çatalhöyük,” in Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, I. Hodder, ed., Cambridge, pp. 187–219. Kenanidis, I.K., and E.C. Papakitsos. 2015. “A Comparative Linguistic Study about the Sumerian Influence on the Creation of the Aegean Scripts,” Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences 3, pp. 332–346. Koch, H. 2007. Frauen und Schlangen: Geheimnisvolle Kultur der Elamer in Alt-Iran (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 114), Mainz am Rhein. Koehl, R.B. 2006. Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (Prehistory Monographs 19), Philadelphia. . 2016. “The Ambiguity of the Minoan Mind,” in Metaphysis: Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner, eds., Leuven and Liège, pp. 469–478. Laffineur, R. 1985. “Iconographie minoenne et iconographie mycénienne à l’époque des tombes à fosse,” in Darcque and Poursat, eds., 1985, pp. 245–266. Levi, D. 1945. “Gleanings from Crete,” AJA 49, pp. 270–329. Macdonald, C.F. 2005. Knossos, London.

135

MacGillivray, J.A. 2010. “Preface: Minoan Mantras. The Quiet Decipherment of Linear A,” in Reading Linear A: Script, Morphology and Glossary of the Minoan Language, H. La Marle, Paris, pp. 7–12. . 2012. “The Minoan Double Axe Goddess and Her Astral Realm,” in Athanasia: The Earthly, the Celestial and the Underworld in the Mediterranean from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, N.C. Stampolidis, A. Kanta, and A. Giannikouri, eds., Herakleion, pp. 117–128. Maran, J. 2015. “Near Eastern Semicircular Axes in the Late Bronze Age Aegean as Entangled Objects,” in Ein Minoer im Exil. Festschrift für Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier (Universitätforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 270), D. Panagiotopoulos, I. Kaiser, and O. Kouka, eds., Bonn, pp. 243–270. Marinatos, N. 1986. Minoan Sacrificial Ritual: Cult Practice and Symbolism (ActaAth 8°, 9), Stockholm. . 1993. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol (Studies in Comparative Religion), Columbia, SC. Marinatos, S. 1953. “Περί τούς νέους βασιλικούς τάφους τῶν Μυκηνῶν,” in Γέρας Ἀντωνίου Κεραμοπούλλου, Athens, pp. 54–88. McEnroe, J.C. 2010. Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age, Austin. Meriggi, P. 1972. “Comparaison des systèmes idéographiques mino-mycénien et proto-élamique,” Minos 12, pp. 9–17. Molloy, B.P.C. 2009. “For Gods or Men? A Reappraisal of the Function of European Bronze Age Shields,” Antiquity 83, pp. 1052–1064. . 2012. “Martial Minoans? War as Social Process, Practice and Event in Bronze Age Crete,” BSA 107, pp. 87–142. Morris, C.E. 1990. “In Pursuit of the White Tusked Boar: Aspects of Hunting in Mycenaean Society,” in Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11–13 June, 1988 (ActaAth 4°, 40), R. Hägg and G.C. Nordquist, eds., Stockholm, pp. 149–156. . 2000. Review of ‘Η οκτώσχημη ασπίδα στο Αιγαίο της 2ης π.Χ. χιλιετίας by D. Danielidou, AJA 104, pp. 799–800. Muhly, J.D. 1987. Review of Art and Religion in Thera: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Society by N. Marinatos, Gnomon 59, pp. 329–334. Otto, B. 1987. “Minoische Bildsymbole,” in Kolloquium zur ägäischen Vorgeschichte, Mannheim, 20.–22.2.1986

136

C O S T I S D AVA R A S

(Schriften des Deutschen Archäologen-Verbandes 9), Mannheim, pp. 9–27. . 1997. König Minos und sein Volk: Das Leben im alten Kreta, Düsseldorf. Palmer, J.L. 2014. “An Analysis of Late Bronze Age Glyptic Motifs of a Religious Nature,” Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham. Panagiotaki, M. 1999. The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (BSA Suppl. 31), London. Papadopoulos, A. 2006. “The Iconography of Warfare in the Bronze Age Aegean,” Ph.D. diss., University of Liverpool. . 2012. “Warriors, Hunters and Ships in the Late Helladic IIIC Aegean: Changes in the Iconography of Warfare?” in Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at St John’s College, University of Oxford, 25–6th March 2006 (Themes from the Ancient Near East BANEA Publication Series 1), C. Bachhuber and R. Gareth Roberts, eds., Oxford, pp. 69–77. Persson, A.W. 1942. The Religion of Greece in Prehistoric Times (Sather Classical Lectures 17), Berkeley. Platon, N. 1970. Κρητομυκηναϊκή Θρησκεία (Πανεπιστημιακαί σημειώσεις), Thessaloniki. Popham, M.R. 1994. “Late Minoan II to the End of the Bronze Age,” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, eds., London, pp. 89–102. Rawlings, L. 2007. The Ancient Greeks at War, Manchester. Rehak, P. 1999. “The Mycenaean ‘Warrior Goddess’ Revisited,” in Polemos: Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19), Liège and Austin, pp. 227–239.

Rehak, P., and J.G. Younger. 1998. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete,” AJA 102, pp. 91–173. Rodenwaldt, G. 1912. “Votivpinax aus Mykenai,” AM 37, pp. 129–140. Roux, G. 1992. Ancient Iraq, 3rd ed., London. Rutkowski, B. 1973. “Minoan Sacred Emblems,” in Antichità cretesi. Studi in onore di Doro Levi I (Cronache di Archaeologia 12), Catania, pp. 148–157. Thomas, H. 1938–1939. “The Acropolis Treasure from Mycenae,” BSA 39, pp. 65–87. Vasilikou, D. 2000. Mycenaean Signet Rings of Precious Metals with Cult Scenes (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 196), Athens. Verlinden, C. 1985. “Nouvelle interprétation du décor incisé sur une double hache en bronze supposée provenir de Voros,” in Darcque and Poursat, eds., 1985, pp. 135–149. Vermeule, E.T. 1959. “A Gold Minoan Double Axe,” BMFA 57, pp. 4–16. Walgate, W. 2002. “Narrative Cycles on the Hagia Triada Sarcophagus,” M.A. thesis, University of Toronto. Warren, P.M. 2000. “Shield and Goddess in Minoan Crete and the Aegean,” in Πεπραγμένα Hʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Αʹ (3), Herakleion, pp. 457–470. Whittaker, H. 2007. “Sacrificial Practice and Warfare in Homer and in the Bronze Age,” in Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA, the J. Paul Getty Villa, 20–23 April 2006 (Aegaeum 28), S.P. Morris and R. Laffineur, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 177–183. Wyatt, N. 2009. “Grasping the Griffin: Identifying and Characterizing the Griffin in Egyptian and West Semitic Tradition,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1, pp. 29–39.

CHAPTER

12

Foundation Feasts in the Minoan Palace at Gournia, Crete R. Angus K. Smith

Having worked with Jeffrey Soles at Mochlos for many years between 1991 and 2006, I can attest to the fact that he is no stranger to the importance of the feast.* As defined by Brian Hayden and Suzanne Villeneuve, a feast is “any sharing of special food (in quality, preparation, or quantity) by two or more people for a special (not everyday) event” (Hayden and Villeneuve 2011, 434). Feasts among the Mochlos excavation crew were certainly not everyday events, but marked special occasions such as the beginning or end of an excavation season, or perhaps the arrival or visit of a special guest. Typically the entire team, or a subset thereof, was invited, and as students we were all more than delighted when Jeff paid for the feast. Feasting, of course, is not uncommon among archaeologists, who typically have specific beginnings and ends to their projects and who often spend long periods of time in close quarters, sometimes in less than ideal living conditions, all while

being asked to work long hours in sometimes harsh conditions. As such, concerns about morale and social solidarity play a part in the leadership of such an endeavor. Feasting, after all, can be seen to serve a social function beyond the provision of sustenance. As summarized by Hayden and Villeneuve, feasting can serve a variety of social, political, and economic functions (Hayden and Villeneuve 2011). Economically, it allows the redistribution of variable subsistence production and can motivate and mobilize labor forces. Socially, it helps to create solidarity and lends to the creation of identity. And politically, it serves to differentiate social classes, legitimize inequalities, and create

*I would like to thank Jeff for the many years of mentorship, support, and friendship he provided me while I was a student, and later a young professor, at Mochlos.

138

R. ANGUS K. SMITH

W146 0

W1461

7

4 W149 3 W147 2 W147

W146

2

W14656 8 W14 W146 4

W1477

status and prestige for those who host the feasts. For all these reasons, at Mochlos, we feasted.

Introduction: Gournia, the Southwest Wing of the Palace, and the Room 13 Deposits While the legacy of Jeffrey Soles looms largest at Mochlos, renewed excavations recently began at another site in East Crete where he made numerous important contributions before beginning his work at Mochlos. The archaeological site of Gournia is located roughly 13.5 km (as the crow flies) southwest of Mochlos on the northern coast of eastern Crete (see Ch. 18, Figs. 18.1, 18.2). It lies on a low ridge about 400 m from the sea and just west of the isthmus of Ierapetra—the narrowest part of the island at only 12 km north to south. Its location was therefore of strategic importance for both sea and land routes because it lay at a crossroads of both east–west and north–south communication. Gournia was first excavated by the American archaeologist Harriett Boyd Hawes (in three seasons between 1901 and 1904 and published shortly thereafter (Hawes et al. 1908). Boyd Hawes’s focus

5

1 W14 8 0 W14 8

5 W147

4 W147 1 W147

W1479

W14 8 4

3 W14 8 8 W147

W1476

W14 8

W1463

W146

W14 82

Figure 12.1. Plan of the Southwest Wing of the Gournia palace. Drawing D.M. Buell and J. McEnroe, after Watrous et al. 2015, fig. 23.

was on the exposure of the LM I town, and the site remains the best and most extensively excavated example of a Minoan town from this period, with its complex system of adjoining houses and streets and a palatial structure at the top of the hill. Nevertheless, it was not until the 1970s when serious investigations resumed at the site. Costis Davaras and Jeffrey Soles conducted cleaning excavations and studies in three seasons between 1971 and 1976, which resulted in a series of important publications (Davaras 1973; Soles 1979; 1991; 1992, 1–40). Archival work by Vasso Fotou resulted in the publication and reanalysis of Boyd Hawes’s notebooks from her original excavations (Fotou 1993). More recently, from 1992–1994, L. Vance Watrous organized a survey of the surrounding region, and from 2008– 2009 he conducted a cleaning operation of the coastal structures first investigated by Boyd Hawes in 1901 (Watrous 2012; Watrous et al. 2012). These investigations all influenced and inspired the recent Gournia Excavation Project (GEP), which was carried out under the direction of Watrous from 2010 to 2014. The aim of this excavation project was to examine less well-known periods of Gournia’s history, in particular the early, pre–LM I town and its development into its well-known LM I form (Watrous et al. 2015).

F O U N D AT I O N F E A S T S I N T H E M I N O A N PA L A C E AT G O U R N I A , C R E T E

The project focused on six main areas of the town. Included among these was the Southwest Wing of the palatial structure, which includes Rooms 13 to 17 (Fig. 12.1). The investigation of this area, like those in other parts of the palace, principally sought to elucidate both its early history and that of the area upon which it was built (Watrous et al. 2015, 429). In a 1991 study by Soles, he determined that the Southwest Wing was part of a monumental addition to the Gournia palace, added during a later phase of its use (Soles 1991, 26, 27). For Soles this addition, which he referred to as the “south wing,” included Rooms 13 to 17, Room 18, as well as the south steps, and it utilized ashlar masonry on its exterior facade (walls W1463, W1464). The ashlar masonry, he argued, came from the quarry at Mochlos, which was opened for the first time in the latter part of LM I, and the addition therefore dates to a late phase of the LM period (Soles 1983; 1991, 24–26 n. 9). Soles also argued that this addition to the palace served a primarily ritual function (Soles 1991, 54). This interpretation relied upon a number of factors: its proximity to three areas he interprets as cult areas to the north and east of the addition (Room 18, the West Portico, and the North Portico); the accessibility of the Southwest Wing from these areas, especially Room 18 (the Room with the Kernos), to which it is directly connected; the monumentality of the architecture with its imported ashlar blocks; a double axe carved into one of these ashlar blocks (in wall W1464); and a jug painted with double axes and sacral knots found in Room 14 (Soles 1991, 54). Also a factor is the proximity of a baetyl, or standing stone, located in a small square court at the southwestern corner of the palace (Fig. 12.1; Hood 1989; Soles 1991, 37). This area, paved with cobblestones, is part of a paved street that stretches along the western facade of the palace and the southern facade of the Southwest Wing. The court is bounded to the north by the southern wall of the earlier palace (wall W1462) and to the east by an ashlar wall of the Southwest Wing (wall W1463). The same ashlar wall also rests atop a kernos associated with an earlier paving of the area, before the addition of the Southwest Wing, and Soles suggests that this kernos may have been associated with the baetyl (Soles 1991, 37). Also possibly related is an open terracotta drain that runs from the western wall of Room 15 toward the baetyl; Soles

139

suggests a possible connection between this drain, the baetyl, and libations made in the Southwest Wing (Soles1991, 52; cf. Hood 1989, 20). Soles’s analysis of this area also included a prophetic insight into a small square room in the very southwestern corner of the Southwest Wing— Room 13 (Fig. 12.1). The room is about 2 x 2 m, narrowing to the west, and it has a doorway (ca. 1 m wide) in its northeastern corner that leads into Room 14. Its southern and western walls are ca. 1 m thick, and they include ashlar masonry on their outer faces (walls W1464 and W1463, respectively). Its western wall (W1463), which partially covers the kernos mentioned above and lies only ca. 1.5 m from the baetyl, abuts the southern facade of the earlier palace (W1462). The ashlar of its southern wall (W1464) is inscribed with the double axe mentioned above. Soles’s prophetic suggestion was that the room had not been completely excavated to floor level by Boyd Hawes (Soles 1991, 50). In fact, just 5 cm below the surface where she stopped excavating, the Gournia Excavation Project discovered a large deposit of close to 400 intact ceramic vessels, plaster, ash, pumice, and animal bones. This deposit was associated with the walls of the Southwest Wing and has been dated to an early phase of LM IB (Watrous et al. 2015, 430). The deposit therefore provides a terminus ante quem for the Southwest Wing, which should be dated to the beginning of the LM IB phase. A second deposit, in the same area, was found below this LM IB deposit and was associated with a series of earlier rubble walls that predate the ashlar walls of the Southwest Wing. The largest of these earlier walls (W1465) runs east–west and turns northward at its eastern extent, another small north–south running wall (W1467) abuts the east–west wall (W1465), and it also abuts the southern facade of the early palace (W1462). It effectively created another very small interior space (Room 13a; ca. 1 x 1 m) within the area of Room 13. The second deposit was found on both sides of this wall (W1467), and it included close to 300 ceramic vessels as well as ash and animal bones. This deposit has been dated to MM IIIA, the start of the Neopalatial period, and it gives a terminus ante quem for these earlier walls. Both deposits appear to contain the remains of feasting activity. The MM IIIA deposit contained ash and a variety of animal bones including sheep/

140

R. ANGUS K. SMITH

Figure 12.2. Middle Minoan IIIA deposit in Room 13. Photo J. Spiller.

goat, cattle, pig, and fish (Dysart 2013; Watrous et al. 2015, 431). This deposit also contained a large number and great variety of intact ceramic vessels (Fig. 12.2). The most common shapes among these vessels are undecorated ledge-rim bowls and bell-shaped cups (Fig. 12.3:a, b). Less common are undecorated conical cups and shallow bowls (Fig. 12.3:c, d). Even less common are highly decorated types of vessels. Straight-sided cups with strap handles are found in the deposit and can be divided into a variety of forms and decorative styles. Included among the forms is the ridged variety, which is solidly slipped in a dark monochromatic style (Fig. 12.4), and a shorter variety with slightly concave walls and slightly flaring lips. These latter pieces

b

a

c

are decorated in a variety of ways, the most common of which is a light-on-dark style with linear decoration and running spirals. Also present are examples with a dark-on-light splatter-decorated style (Fig. 12.5; Warren 1996; cf. Haggis 2007, 737, fig. 16). Rounded cups, also with strap handles, are decorated with a light-on-dark style with running spirals (Fig. 12.6). Several of these rounded cups are of exceptional quality and should fall into J. Alexander MacGillivray’s category of “precision grooved ware;” they may well be Knossian imports (MacGillivray 1998, 57, 71, 76, 77). Other, more specialized, vessels from the deposit include bridge-spouted jars, an incense burner, a large “chalice” decorated with light-on-dark dots (Fig. 12.7), and a number of miniature vessels including conical cups, bowls, and scoops, some with barbotine decoration around their rims. The majority (ca. 80%) of this MM IIIA deposit was found in the small interior space in the northeast corner of Room 13 (Room 13a; Fig. 12.2). The rest was found resting against the west face of the small north–south running wall (W1467; Fig. 12.8). By way of contrast, a majority (ca. 60%) of the animal bones was found on this western side of the wall (W1467). The pottery on both sides of the wall (W1467) is remarkably similar, and it should be treated as a single deposit. The deposit occurred in MM IIIA, when Gournia underwent a major reorganization, and the palace was built (Watrous et al. 2015, 458);

0

2 cm

d

Figure 12.3. Middle Mino­an IIIA plain cups and bowls from Room 13: (a) ledgerim bowl (11.494), (b) bell-shaped cup (11.506), (c) conical cup (11.287), (d) shallow bowl (11.488). Photos C. Papanikolopoulos, K. Iao.

F O U N D AT I O N F E A S T S I N T H E M I N O A N PA L A C E AT G O U R N I A , C R E T E

0

0

2 cm

Figure 12.4. Middle Minoan IIIA ridged straight-sided cup (11.543). Photo C. Papanikolopoulos.

0

141

2 cm

Figure 12.5. Middle Minoan IIIA straight-sided cup with splatter decoration (11.1333). Photo C. Papanikolopoulos.

2 cm

Figure 12.6. Middle Minoan IIIA rounded cup (11.623). Photo C. Papanikolopoulos.

not inconsequentially, the location of this deposit is immediately against the southwestern corner of this new palace. The composition of the deposit (including numerous ceramic vessels, as well as animal bones and ash), when combined with its context, suggests it was part of a ritual feasting ceremony that took place around the time the palace was built—very possibly a foundation deposit for the new palace. The later deposit (LM IB) was directly above the earlier deposit (MM IIIA), and it also appears to be the result of feasting activity. Large numbers of pottery vessels, as well as ash, botanical remains, and bone were found in the deposit. Of the total of 436 pottery objects, the vast majority consists of ceramic vessels, and of these most are conical cups. Other shapes include undecorated bell-shaped cups and monochrome decorated and undecorated ogival cups with nearly straight rims; these later vessels are most suggestive of a date early in LM IB (Barnard and Brogan 2011, 431, 435–439, figs. 4, 5). Also of note are two fragmentary stemmed cup rhyta, one imported from far eastern Crete, possibly Palaikastro (Fig. 12.9). Of the animal bones, the majority belong to sheep/goat, with a few possible pig bones (Dysart

0

2 cm

Figure 12.7. Middle Minoan IIIA chalice (11.1343). A shadow of the “light” decoration is preserved because it prevented the underlying dark slip from becoming fugitive, creating a sort of “reverse” effect for the dots near the rim and the horizontal linear band below. Photo C. Papanikolopoulos.

2013; Watrous et al. 2015, 430). The botanical remains are remarkable for including evidence for both grapes and pomegranates (Watrous et al. 2015, 431). The presence of ash and animal bones with such a large and intact number of drinking or eating vessels suggests another deposit from drinking and/or feasting. Its location in the southwest corner of the palace, just above the earlier deposit and on the other side of the newly built ashlar walls from the well-known baetyl, kernos, and incised double axe, lends support to a ritual interpretation (Hood 1989; Warren 1990; La Rosa 2001). The additional presence of pumice in the deposit, especially in

142

R. ANGUS K. SMITH

0

10 cm

Figure 12.9. Late Minoan IB cup rhyton (11.181). Photo courtesy GEP archives.

Figure 12.8. Middle Minoan IIIA deposit in Room 13, detail of deposit against western face of north–south wall (W1467). Photo J. Spiller.

conjunction with conical cups, is also suggestive of its use in ritual, and in particular with regard to the “crisis cults” that followed the Theran eruption late in LM IA (Artzy 1991; Driessen and Macdonald 1997; Driessen 2001). The evidence for feasting and the ritual nature of the deposit, in the context of a newly built Southwest Wing and directly above the MM IIIA deposit, suggests that this LM IB deposit is also foundational. The layering of these foundation deposits indicates not only the continuity of the important ritual nature of this space, but also suggests that feasting was a normal part of such foundation ceremonies. Furthermore, judging by the large number of vessels in each deposit, both of these feasting ceremonies involved many participants. If we look more carefully at the specific types of vessels involved with each deposit, however, we see that the differences are more than just chronological.

A Tale of Two Feasts A comparison of the pottery from these two deposits reveals that despite their similarities some

crucial differences can elucidate the changing nature of such feasting rituals from MM IIIA to LM IB. In particular, it is instructive to compare the shape types and the presence of decoration on the vessels. Shape types can be assessed more broadly as they relate to function (e.g., a cup vs. a jug) and more narrowly according to degree of elaboration (e.g., a conical cup vs. a stemmed goblet). Decoration can also be assessed as to its degree of elaboration from undecorated to pattern painted. Together, these assessments can be used to establish that the two feasts were different in terms of the variety of vessel types used and in the presence and degree of elaboration among the assemblages. The tableware present at these two feasts, in other words, was quite different, and it is argued that these differences reflect on both the participants and the meanings of the feasts. Beginning with shape types, it is clear that both deposits contain a vast majority of open vessels. In the MM IIIA deposit, cup and bowl types account for 96% of the assemblage, while in the LM IB deposit cups and bowl types account for 92% (96% if cups with evidence for use as lamps, i.e., burning on rims, are included). Both deposits, therefore, were clearly focused on open vessels, and in each case this seems to suggest a large number of participants at the feasts. A closer analysis, however, suggests some differences between the deposits. In the MM IIIA assemblage, no individual type of cup or bowl makes

F O U N D AT I O N F E A S T S I N T H E M I N O A N PA L A C E AT G O U R N I A , C R E T E

0

5 cm

Figure 12.10. Late Minoan I cup rhyton (11.1715). Photo H. Sigurdson.

up more than 28% of the total vessels. Ledgerim bowls occur most frequently (28%), and bellshaped cups are the second most frequent (23%), followed by conical cups (12%). In the LM IB deposit, on the other hand, conical cups make up 91% of the total vessels (95% if one includes conical cup lamps) followed by ogival cups, which make up 4%. The LM IB assemblage, in other words, is much more homogeneous and focused on a single shape type, while the MM IIIA assemblage contains a diversity of shape types. In both deposits, the number of shape types that are not open service vessels is very limited. The MM IIIA deposit contains several fragmentary incense burners, jars, a scoop, and fragmentary scuttles. The LM IB deposit includes evidence for several rhyta, a scoop, lamps, jugs, a jar, and an alabastron. In both cases, therefore, there is evidence for liquid pouring vessels (e.g., jars, jugs, rhyta), vessels possibly intended for the pouring of solid commodities (e.g., scoops), and vessels intended for the use or manipulation of fire (e.g., lamps, scuttles, incense burners). These types seem consistent with the suggested connection of these deposits to feasting activities. With regard to decoration, it should come as no surprise that the LM IB deposit, consisting largely of conical cups, displays very little decorative elaboration. Only a few vessels display evidence for painted decoration, including two cup rhyta (Figs. 12.9, 12.10), a miniature pithos-shaped rhyton, and a miniature straight-sided cup with a dipped rim.

143

These make up well under 5% of the total number of vessels. The MM IIIA deposit also contains a large number of undecorated vessels, especially in the categories of ledge-rimmed and shallow bowls, as well as bell-shaped and conical cups. These undecorated shape types make up about 71% of the deposit. More elaborately decorated shapes, such as the largely monochrome straight-sided cups, the pattern-painted rounded cups, and stemmed cups form a more substantial portion of the total (13%) than they do in the LM IB deposit. The MM IIIA deposit, in other words, has more decorative elaboration and variety as well as a greater variety of shape types. It is worth considering in more detail the most elaborately decorated shape types in each deposit. In the MM IIIA deposit there are two or three scoops with barbotine decoration, a miniature scoop with light-on-dark pattern-painted decoration, and a juglet or alabastron with tortoise shell ripple decoration. There are a total of four light-ondark pattern-painted rounded cups, as well as three examples of especially finely made monochrome or light-on-dark pattern-painted rounded cups with grooved decoration (MacGillivray 1998, 57, 71, 76, 77). There are six rounded cups and six straight-sided cups with light-on-dark pattern-painted decoration. Most remarkably, there is a single elaborate stemmed goblet with undulating walls and a lighton-dark dot decoration (Fig. 12.7). In the LM IB deposit, the only pattern-painted vessels were very fragmentary, often consisting of only a single sherd. It is therefore unclear whether these should be considered part of the original deposit. More substantial, but still fragmentary, remains of two pattern-painted stemmed cup rhyta (Figs. 12.9, 12.10) were found in the deposit, and a fragmentary, miniature pithos might also have been a rhyton (cf. Knossos in Warren 1980–1981, 81– 83, fig. 32). Elaborately decorated drinking vessels, however, seem to be absent from the LM IB deposit. While the MM IIIA deposit therefore contains a variety of drinking or eating vessel types with a variety of decorative elaborations, the LM IB deposit’s types and decorative elaboration is very limited. Both deposits contain a large number of drinking or eating vessels, suggesting large numbers of participants for both feasts. The participants in the MM IIIA feast used a variety of vessel

144

R. ANGUS K. SMITH

types, most of which were plain and undecorated but a substantial proportion of which were very elaborate and even unique (e.g., Fig. 12.7). The vast majority of participants in the LM IB feast, on the other hand, used undecorated conical cups. A very few had access to undecorated ogival or bellshaped cups. The only real decorative elaboration in this later assemblage occurs among a few rhyta that may have been used for libation and/or service. In other words, it seems that the nature of the vessel types used in the two feasts that occurred in this area changed substantially from MM IIIA to LM IB. Both were large affairs with hundreds of participants, but while participants in the MM IIIA feast used a variety of cups and bowls—some plain, some elaborate, and some unique—those in the LM IB feast used a homogenous assemblage of plain and undifferentiated cups.

Conclusions: Foundation Feasts at the Gournia Palace According to Luca Girella, as the first phase of the Neopalatial period—in which palatial society was reorganized after MM IIB destructions—the MM IIIA period marks the beginning of significant changes in banqueting practices (Girella 2007, 138). Among these is the mass production of mostly plain drinking and eating vessels, and their use in banqueting. In addition, Girella—following Michael Dietler—suggests that during this early phase of the Neopalatial period the focus of feasting was “entrepreneurial feasts” (or “empowering” according to Dietler’s [2001] more recent terminology). Large groups of people—“work-parties”— were gathered to provide labor for specific projects; the laborers would be rewarded with a feast, and the provider of that feast would own or control the outcome of the labor (Girella 2007, 143 after Diet­ ler 1996). Into this category Girella places Neopalatial “foundation or inauguration banquets,” which he describes as “specific actions, isolated in time and not intended to be repeated afterwards” (Girella 2007, 143). These are intentional, highly structured and controlled depositional events and not simply the trash disposed after a party (Girella 2007, 143). A relevant example of such foundation deposits can be found beneath the alabaster slabs of Room

50 at the palace of Phaistos. Here, in MM IIIA, hundreds of cups, bowls, plates, and incense burners were buried along with animal bones and olive remains (Levi 1976, 405–406; Girella 2007, 143– 144, fig. 5). Even more telling, a second feasting deposit was found beneath the floor of the same room; this one dated to early LM IB and contained animal bones, olive remains, 120 conical cups, as well as jars, and a tripod cooking pot (Levi 1976, 407–408 n. 38; Girella 2007, 144). These deposits at Phaistos offer a direct parallel to the two deposits found in Room 13 at Gournia, both in date and in composition. Both deposits were made at transitional moments in the history of the palaces when important new constructions were initiated, both included large numbers of bowls and/ or cups, and both included significant animal and plant remains. Girella’s connection of such feasting deposits to Dietler’s “empowering” category of a workparty is slightly misleading, however, when considering both of the Gournia Room 13 deposits. Dietler defines three basic modes of commensal politics as “general patterns in the ways that feasts operate symbolically in serving as sites and instruments of politics” (Dietler 2001, 75ff.). The modes are “empowering feasts,” “patron-role feasts,” and “diacritical feasts.” The first of these, as its name suggests, is geared toward the creation of social and economic power while the latter two focus on the maintenance of power. Dietler specifically points out, however, that these are not meant to be mutually exclusive categories. Instead, what he proposes is a “heuristic dissection of the politicosymbolic dimension of feasting as an institution,” recognizing that insights based on these categories must always be linked to argumentation based on the complexity of specific cases (Dietler 2001, 75). Empowering feasts empower by manipulating commensal hospitality to the benefit of those who provide the feasts, and by doing so the feasts create symbolic and economic capital for the hosts. Patron-role feasts differ from empowering feasts more by a continuum of scale than by what they symbolize: both are ways to express and naturalize differences in power through the sharing of food, but patron-role feasts use commensal hospitality to reiterate and legitimate already institutionalized power relationships. Like patron-role feasts, diacritical feasting also serves to reify established

F O U N D AT I O N F E A S T S I N T H E M I N O A N PA L A C E AT G O U R N I A , C R E T E

social orders or classes, but it does so more specifically through the use of elements of style and taste. While an argument can be made that the MM IIIA deposit at Gournia falls under the category of an “empowering” feast, and that its variety of vessel types indicate a diacritical element, the LM IB deposit should be seen in a different light. Recent excavations have shown that Gournia may have had a centralized authority and reached its greatest extent during the Protopalatial period, but it suffered a major destruction at the end of MM IIB (Watrous et al. 2015, 457). It seems clear, therefore, that a major reorganization occurred at the beginning of MM IIIA, when the palace was built and the Neopalatial street system was laid out. At this point in time, the earlier deposit was placed near the southwestern corner of where the palace was to be constructed. In this area a paved courtyard with a baetyl and kernos already existed. The deposit contained plentiful animal bones, as well as archaeobotanical evidence including evidence for grape remains. In addition, it included hundreds of eating and/or drinking vessels. Most of these were plain, undecorated cups and bowls, but a substantial portion were more elaborate, decorated drinking vessels. The deposit seems to fit well into Dietler’s category of an empowering work feast, in which an elite group attempts to establish symbolic and economic capital through the organization of a feast and the mobilization of a work force. More specifically, however, it should be seen as the remains of a foundation or inaugural banquet, as described by Girella (2007, 143). In addition, the variety of eating and drinking shapes and the decorative elaboration lend a diacritical element to the symbolism of the feast in MM IIIA, in which most participants seem to have used very plain wares while a minority used wares with more distinctive shapes and decorations. It thus seems clear that there was also a “diacritical” element to the MM IIIA feast because it is likely that the differences in vessel types served to create symbolic distinctions between the participants, and it is very possible that these distinctions were used as part of a strategy to legitimize social asymmetries. By contrast, the political situation in early LM IB, when the second feast occurred at Gournia, was more stable and the elites of the Neopalatial period were better established. Although it was no doubt

145

also a period of transition, and even possibly of crisis due to the recent eruption of the Theran volcano that buried Akrotiri toward the end of LM IA (cf. Driessen and Macdonald 1997), there is little reason to believe that a banquet that occurred at this juncture would have had reason to be an “empowering” feast of the sort that sought to acquire or create social and economic power, rather than to maintain existing inequalities as would a “patronrole” or “diacritical” feast. As did the MM IIIA deposit, the LM IB deposit contained animal bones, botanical remains (including pomegranates), and hundreds of eating and/or drinking vessels. Also like the earlier deposit, its association with the construction of the Southwest Wing of the palace suggests it to be an “inaugural or foundational banquet,” and its placement directly over the earlier deposit, and next to the paved courtyard with the baetyl, strengthens the symbolic connection between the two. The homogeneity of the eating or drinking vessels in the LM IB deposit, however, separates its symbolism from the diacritical nature of the earlier deposit. The vast majority of vessels in the LM IB deposit were plain conical cups, and the only substantial morphological or decorative elaboration existed on rhyta that might have been used either for libations or for service into the hundreds of smaller cups. This, combined with the political situation of the early LM IB period, which seems to favor a “patron-role” type of feast over an “empowering” one, suggests that although the LM IB feast that took place for the foundation of the Southwest Wing at Gournia shared a symbolic connection to the foundation feast that occurred at the very beginning of the Neopalatial period, its purpose was to maintain preexisting social inequalities, not to create them. Its lack of a diacritical element might fit very well into such an interpretation, and it might be seen as a way for an already well-established elite to smooth over inequalities while at the same time legitimizing them through the provision of commensal hospitality. As Dietler has written, feasts “both unite and divide at the same time. They simultaneously define relationships and boundaries” (Dietler 2001, 77–78). Their intimate nature, as a gift giving ceremony with food and drink as the gift—a gift that, during the course of the feast, is incorporated into the actual bodies of the receivers—is a uniquely

146

R. ANGUS K. SMITH

effective way to exercise both self-interest and generosity. At Gournia, we have examined two feasts in particular that are both intimately connected to each other through the symbolism of place and through their ultimate purpose as foundation feasts, but which exhibit meaningful differences related to their political use as commensal events. These foundation feasts, because of their intimate connections and distinct differences, are therefore even better able to inform us of changes in commensal politics, and politics in general, at Gournia during the Neopalatial period.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the following for their financial and/or administrative support for my work at Gournia: L. Vance Watrous and the University at Buffalo; the Humanities Research Institute at Brock University; the Institute for Aegean Prehistory; the American School of Classical Studies at Athens; and the Ephorate of Antiquities of Lasithi.

References Artzy, M. 1991. “Conical Cups and Pumice, Aegean Cult at Tel Nami, Israel,” in Thalassa: L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse (23-25 avril 1990) (Aegaeum 7), R. Laffineur and L. Basch, eds., Liège, pp. 203–206. Barnard, K.A., and T.M. Brogan. 2011. “Pottery of the Late Neopalatial Periods at Mochlos,” in LM IB Pottery: Relative Chronology and Regional Differences. Acts of a Workshop Held at the Danish Institute at Athens in Collaboration with the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, 27–29 June 2007 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 11), T.M. Brogan and E. Hallager, eds., Athens, pp. 427–449. Davaras, C. 1973. “Γουρνιά,” ArchDelt 28 (Bʹ, 2 Chronika) [1977], pp. 588–589. Dietler, M. 1996. “Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy: Food, Power and Status in Prehistoric Europe,” in Food and the Status Quest: An Interisciplinary Perspective, P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhövel, eds., Oxford, pp. 87–125. . 2001. “Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African

Contexts,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, M. Dietler and B. Hayden, eds., Tuscaloosa, pp. 65–114. Driessen, J. 2001. “Crisis Cults on Minoan Crete?” in Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 361–369. Driessen, J., and C.F. Macdonald. 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liège and Austin. Dysart, M. 2013. “Ovis/Capra, It’s What’s for Dinner: Preliminary Analysis of Faunal Material from a Minoan Settlement,” Chronika 3, pp. 47–54. Fotou, V. 1993. New Light on Gournia: Unknown Documents of the Excavation at Gournia and Other Sites on the Isthmus of Ierapetra by Harriet Ann Boyd (Aegaeum 9), Liège and Austin. Girella, L. 2007. “Forms of Commensal Politics in Neopalatial Crete,” CretAnt 8, pp. 135–168. Haggis, D.C. 2007. “Stylistic Diversity and Diacritical Feasting at Protopalatial Petras: A Preliminary Analysis of the Lakkos Deposit,” AJA 111, pp. 715–775. Hawes, H.B., B.E. Williams, R.B. Seager, and E.H. Hall. 1908. Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete: Excavations of the Wells-Houston-Cramp Expeditions 1901, 1903, 1904, 2nd ed., Philadelphia. Hayden, B., and S. Villeneuve. 2011. “A Century of Feasting Studies,” Annual Review of Anthropology 40, pp. 433–449. Hood, S. 1989. “A Baetyl at Gournia?” Ariadne 5, pp. 17–21. La Rosa, V. 2001. “Minoan Baetyls: Between Funerary Rituals and Epiphanies,” in Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 221–227. Levi, D. 1976. Festòs e la civiltà minoica I (Incunabula graeca 60), Rome. MacGillivray, J.A. 1998. Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period (BSA Studies 5), London. Soles, J.S. 1979. “The Early Gournia Town,” AJA 83, pp. 149–167. . 1983. “A Bronze Age Quarry in Eastern Crete,” JFA 10, pp. 33–46.

F O U N D AT I O N F E A S T S I N T H E M I N O A N PA L A C E AT G O U R N I A , C R E T E

. 1991. “The Gournia Palace,” AJA 95, pp. 17–78. . 1992. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 24), Princeton. Warren, P.M. 1980–1981. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978–1980. Part I,” AR 27, pp. 73–92. . 1990. “Of Baetyls,” OpAth 18, pp. 192–206. . 1996. “A New Minoan Decoration—the Jackson Pollock Style—and Its Place in Minoan Art,” in Minotaur and Centaur. Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (BAR-IS 638), D. Evely, I.S. Lemos, and S. Sherratt, eds., Oxford, pp. 46–50.

147

Watrous, L.V. 2012. “The Harbor Complex of the Minoan Town at Gournia,” AJA 116, pp. 521–541. Watrous, L.V., D. Haggis, K. Nowicki, N. VogeikoffBrogan, and M. Schultz. 2012. An Archaeological Survey of the Gournia Landscape: A Regional History of the Mirabello Bay, Crete, in Antiquity (Prehistory Monographs 37), Philadelphia. Watrous, L.V., D.M. Buell, J.C. McEnroe, J.G. Younger, L.A. Turner, B.S. Kunkel, K. Glowacki, S. Gallimore, A. Smith, P.A. Pantou, A. Chapin, and E. Margaritis. 2015. “Excavations at Gournia, 2010–2012,” Hesperia 84, pp. 397–465.

CHAPTER

13

A Minoan Mystery Vase Type Peter Warren

In the trench or at the sherd table or in the drawing office, while we never cease to be amazed at the huge productivity and the creativity of Minoan potters and their painters, we can also often infer the function, or at least the basic function, of the products from their form.* But sometimes functions remain less clear to us, for example even the assuredly many uses of the conical cup, produced in the millions. The Late Minoan I vases published here are one such group whose precise function will certainly have been obvious to a Minoan, but which remains mysterious, at least to the present writer. Perhaps to our honor it is already clear or, one hopes, it will rapidly become so as he surveys the group. The vases may appear at first glance to be part of a well-known type, essentially a bowl with a dome on the interior, usually called braziers, fireboxes, or incense burners (for the class, see inter alios Chapouthier 1941, 8–11, fig. 2, pl. II [Malia];

Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 87–88, pls. 40:1, 5, 9, 42:6 [Malia]; Zervos 1956, 197, pl. 240 left [Marathokephalon]; Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 45–46, pls. 10:4 left, 11, 12:1 [Malia]; Georgiou 1980 [arguing not for burning of aromatics but for perfume manufacture]; 1986, 4–22; Sakellarakis 1994, 19, top right [ArchanesPhourni]; Davaras 1997, 130–133, nos. 21–23, figs. 37–40 [Makrygialos]; Poursat 2013, 129–133, 225, pl. 7.1:e–h [Malia]; Warren 2014, 26–31 [arguing again for aromatic braziers]). But despite the superficial resemblance I will argue that the present group cannot be so understood. We note that Hara Georgiou, in publishing five vessels from

*It is a pleasure to offer this small token of appreciation to a colleague and friend whose discoveries in the Mirabello Bay region and whose publications of them have added so much to our knowledge of Minoan Crete.

150

P E T E R WA R R E N

Hagia Eirene on Kea of essentially the same type as ours (with flaring lower part rather than our columnar pedestals), found them as enigmatic as we do (Georgiou 1986, 30–32, type c, 35, nos. 147–151, pls. 9, 18). The four vases discussed here are from different locations on the Stratigraphical Museum extension site (SEX) at Knossos and are LM IA and LM IB in date. Another example of the form, from the LM IA Gypsades Well (Knossos), has been illustrated (Evans 1928, fig. 349, above, top row second from left, piece c; Popham 1967, 339, pl. 76:g). In fabric and decoration the vases look to be entirely typical Knossian LM I products. The shape consists of a columnar or flaring pedestal supporting a flaring bowl; at the center of the bowl is a dome perforated by slits; the dome is not a capsule because it has no underside (thus differing fundamentally from the “incense” burners). The vases are fine painted ware pieces, the interior of the bowl being decorated with spirals or Alternating Style hatched crocus and tri-curved rock pattern (cf. Popham 1967, 340, fig. 2:3, pl. 81:e, bottom right; Mountjoy 2003, 101, no. 369 [cup, South House], fig. 4.23:369). The pedestal is decorated with horizontal bands. In three cases the base has a hole, in one it is solid. There were marks of burning or smoke blackening on the dome of one of the cataloged pieces below (3), but none on the others.

Catalog of Mystery Vases 1 (SEX/79/P 2163; Trench O, level 29, unit 1693; Fig. 13.1). Pres. h. 12.2; base d. 7.8; base hole (rough, off center) 1.8–2.4 cm. Most of pedestal, fragment of lower part of bowl, and of dome preserved. Fabric coarse, pink firing to brownish buff, small grits, buff slip, thin maroon paint outside, orangish brown within bowl. Band of spirals on interior of bowl and single spiral on dome, band at bowl-dome junction, four broad bands on pedestal. One slit preserved at bowl-dome junction; the size of the preserved fragment of the bowl and dome, with no other slit preserved, indicates a maximum of three slits originally. The preserved slit is 2.6 cm long, 0.15–0.20 cm wide. Date: LM IA, not in situ but in huge sherd spread after destruction. 2 (SEX/78/P 93; Trench P, level 8, unit 477, pot 5; Fig. 13.2). Pres. h. 12.4; pres. d. of bowl 12.9; base d. 8.0 cm. All upper part of bowl broken off and all pedestal preserved. Fabric rather coarse, pink, large and small grits, buff slip, red paint. Dome solidly painted, possible edge of spiral preserved on bowl, four broad

(1:3)

Figure 13.1. Mystery vase 1: pres. h. 12.2 cm, LM IA. Drawing S. Grice; photo P. Warren; © P. Warren.

bands on pedestal. Three vertical slits in dome, length 2.1–3.0, width 0.3–0.4 cm, but reducing in width on the underside of the dome, and one slit barely pierced through the dome at all; base solid. No trace of burning or smoke marks anywhere. Date: LM IA–B, not in situ but in large sherd fill of LM IA and LM IB material. 3 (SEX/81/P 793; Balk GH, level 14, unit 4708, pot 31 + Trench D, level 9, unit 5251 + Trench F/FG, level 52, units 3028, 3029 + Trench F/FG, level 53, unit 3033; Fig. 13.3). H. 15.9; d. of bowl 21.6 cm. About half of bowl and all of pedestal preserved. Fabric semi-coarse, hard, dark buff, buff slip, dull orangish-brown paint. Dome solidly painted, bowl decorated with hatched crocus alternating with panel of tri-curved rock pattern above (at rim) and below (at bowl base) solidly painted “ingot” motif (Alternating Style), thin and thick band at top of pedestal and likewise at its base. Four vertical slits in dome, length 3.3, width 0.3 cm; hole in base. Notwithstanding the dark paint of the dome, its surface

A M I N O A N M Y S T E RY VA S E T Y P E

151

(1:3)

(1:3) Figure 13.2. Mystery vase 2: pres. h. 12.4 cm, LM I. Drawing S. Grice; photo P. Warren; © P. Warren.

appears to be burned or smoked, and probably its underside, too. Date: LM IB (North Building). Original ritual context likely, though fragments not in situ but very scattered. 4 (SEX/81/P 821; Balk GL, level 7, unit 5002, pot 51; Fig. 13.4). H. 12.5; d. of bowl 20.6 cm. More than half bowl, four-fifths of dome, and all pedestal preserved. Fabric fine, hard, buff, thin brown paint. Dome solidly painted, bowl with band of retorted spirals with band at rim and another at bowl-dome junction, three bands on pedestal. Five vertical slits in dome, length 2.4, width 0.15–0.30 cm; hole in base. Date: LM IB (North Building Stairway by Room VI). Original ritual context likely but vase fallen from above so not in situ.

The slits on the domes—cut through the dome in a straight line from below its apex to the lower edge of the bowl—are equally spaced on each dome but

Figure 13.3. Mystery vase 3: h. 15.9 cm, LM IB. Drawing S. Grice; photo P. Warren; © P. Warren.

152

P E T E R WA R R E N

(1:3)

Figure 13.4. Mystery vase 4: h. 12.5 cm, LM IB. Drawing S. Grice; photo P. Warren; © P. Warren.

vary in number, with three on object 2 and probably on object 1, four on object 3, and five on object 4. This variation individualizes the vases, but it does not alter the slits’ basic function of providing small passages from the bowl to the pedestal (though one slit on object 2 is barely pierced).

While the function of the pedestal is obviously to support the bowl, its more specific purpose is not convincingly determined, but for anything in the (domed) bowl the pedestal must have enabled something that a (domed) flat-based bowl (i.e., with no pedestal), which would otherwise have served just as well, could not do. How then is the shape to be understood? First, it is easy to say what the vases were not. With the probable exception of object 3, the absence (or invisibility) of burning or smoke blackening indicates that any material in the bowl or the pedestal was not heated or not directly heated by fire; nor did the pedestals contain burning charcoals inserted through the base hole. Material in the bowl cannot in any case have been liquid, for example aromatic oil, since it would have exited immediately through the slits in the dome. Nor can the vases have been flower pots, the dome slits being quite unsuitable as flower stalk holders; moreover, in three cases the base hole means that neither the bowl (with its slits in the dome) nor the pedestal could have held water. Object 2, with its solid base, could have held water (or some other liquid), but pouring it in through the bowl perforated only by the dome slits seems needlessly impractical and inefficient. With solid materials in the bowl there seem to be two possibilities, that they were put there simply to dry or in order to release aromatic fragrances by volatilization with gentle heat. For simple drying (e.g., of crocus stigmas) pedestalled vases seem to have no advantages over flat-based bowls with domes and slits, or over a plain drying tray or rack (of larger dimensions than our bowls) in a warm but shady, airy location. What then of the (hypothetical) heat source? One possibility might appear to have been gentle heating through the dome slits by placement of the (pedestalled) vessel in hot or boiling water, the latter heated from below by fire. Theophrastus in describing the manufacture of perfume by maceration (hot enfleurage) states that heating of the mixture (oil, astringent ingredients, and the requisite scented plants) is done not by direct contact of containers with fire but by standing them in (heated) water, so that the heating is gentle (Theoph. De odoribus V. 22; cf. Shelmerdine 1985, 13–15). But this procedure is for perfume manufacture with the ingredient liquids in jars; transfer of the procedure to the completely different activity of drying plants or liberating the scents of dry

A M I N O A N M Y S T E RY VA S E T Y P E

aromatic substances by standing our vases in water can surely be ruled out. Steam from hot water entering the pedestal through the hole in the base and passing through the slits is hardly a means of drying anything. Furthermore, object 2 has no base hole, which means it would have required some form of support to prevent it from tipping over if placed at any depth in (hot) water. Finally, therefore, if the purpose of the vessels was neither the manufacture of perfume nor the drying of (aromatic) substances in the bowl but was rather the simple release of fragrances by volatilization through heating, the bain-marie method of steaming, described by Theophrastus and Cynthia Shelmerdine (above) for perfume manufacture, seems doubtful in itself, incredibly cumbersome (contra Warren 1987, 143), and it would have left the decorated pedestal invisible, submerged in hot or near boiling water over a fire source in a non-industrial context. That leaves only a more direct fire source, such as charcoals in the bowl with the aromatic substances. But why then a dome with slits at all? Providing air from the base of the pedestal to pass up through the slits would have meant standing the pedestal on some further object which did not block its base hole (and object 2 did not have one). The picture becomes fantastical. So, Jeffrey and colleagues, over to you!

Acknowledgments The writer is grateful to the British School at Athens for permission to use illustrations from the excavations directed by him at the Knossos Stratigraphical Museum extension site.

References Chapouthier, F. 1941. “La vaisselle commune et la vie de tous les jours à l’époque minoenne,” RÉA 43, pp. 1–15.

153

Davaras, C. 1997. “The ‘Cult Villa’ at Makrygialos,” in The Function of the “Minoan Villa.” Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6–8 June, 1992 (ActaAth 4º, 46), R. Hägg, ed., Stockholm, pp. 117–135. Demargne, P., and H. Gallet de Santerre. 1953. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia: Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation (1921–1948), I (ÉtCrét 9), Paris. Deshayes, J., and A. Dessenne. 1959. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia: Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation (1948–1954), II (ÉtCrét 11), Paris. Evans, A.J. 1928. The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos II. Part 2: Town-Houses in Knossos of the New Era and Restored West Palace Section, with Its State Approach, London. Georgiou, H.S. 1980. “Minoan Fireboxes: A Study of Form and Function,” SMEA 21, pp. 123–187. . 1986. Ayia Irini: Specialized Domestic and Industrial Pottery (Keos VI), Mainz on Rhine. Mountjoy, P.A. 2003. Knossos: The South House (BSA Suppl. 34), London. Popham, M. 1967. “Late Minoan Pottery, a Summary,” BSA 62, pp. 337–351. Poursat, J.-C. 2013. Fouilles exécutées à Malia: Le Quartier Mu V. Vie quotidienne et techniques au Minoen Moyen II (ÉtCrét 34), Paris. Sakellarakis, J. 1994. “Το νεκροταφείο στο Φουρνί,” Αρχαιολογία 53, pp. 16–21. Shelmerdine, C.W. 1985. The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Pylos (SIMA-PB 34), Göteborg. Warren, P. 1987. Review of Ayia Irini: Specialized Domestic and Industrial Pottery (Keos VI), by H.S. Georgiou, AntJ 67, pp. 142–143. . 2014. “Aromatic Questions,” CretChron 34, pp. 13–41. Zervos, C. 1956. L’art de la Crète: Néolithique et mino­ enne, Paris.

CHAPTER

14

Clay Vessels and Loomweights: Tracing Southeast Aegean Connections at Neopalatial Mochlos Jerolyn Morrison, Eleni Nodarou, and Joanne Cutler† The Neopalatial period in Crete was a time of rebuilding, growth, and increasing foreign contact.* Substantial resources were exploited in rebuilding the palatial centers and establishing new urban settlements associated with new palaces, small villages, villas, and farmsteads across the island. Art and craftsmanship flourished in the Aegean, and alongside finished objects, raw materials were distributed to produce tools, weapons, and luxury items (Soles 2005). By Late Minoan I, Cretan influences are encountered on the west coast of Anatolia (Kaiser 2009; Niemeier 2009), and numerous Aegean islands—such as Thera, Kea (Davis et al. 1983), Melos, Kos (Marketou 1987; Vitale and Hancock 2010, 2013; Vitale 2018), and Rhodes (Marketou 2010a, 2010b)—also received imported Cretan items or generated local Minoanizing artifacts (see also Macdonald, Hallager, and Niemeier, eds., 2009, and the references therein). Prosperous harbor towns in Crete, such as Mochlos,

before and after the Late Cycladic I eruption of the volcanic island of Thera were key players in the trade network, and this is reflected in the numerous precious goods, foreign vessels, and discoid loomweights that most likely represented individual women who came to Mochlos (Soles 2005; 2022; Cutler 2022). This paper focuses on a select group of foreign vases and loomweights found in the Neopalatial settlement at Mochlos that do not conform to the local stylistic or ceramic fabric repertoire. Due to the lack of comparative material for thin section petrography, we stress that the objective here is to provide an indication of contact and possible economic and social partnerships for Mochlos during the Neopalatial period with *The authors thank Jeff Soles for his continual support and encouragement to study the ceramic assemblage from Mochlos and to look for the people behind pots and tools.

156

J E R O LY N M O R R I S O N , E L E N I N O D A R O U , A N D J O A N N E C U T L E R

communities in the Southeast Aegean rather than to give definitive answers of provenance based on fabric description. Extensive excavations and publications have been accomplished at and around Mochlos intermittently for over a century (Seager 1909, 1912; Soles and Davaras 1992, 1994, 1996; Soles 2003). Material culture from a well-preserved Neopalatial town was recovered on what is now an off-shore islet with economic connections to a LM IB Artisans’ Quarter located on the adjacent fertile plain of the northeastern coast of Crete. At the Artisans’ Quarter there is evidence for pottery production, metalworking, stone vase making, and weaving (Soles 2003, 1). The quantity of the ceramic material recovered from the settlement and Artisans’ Quarter and its diversity in shape, size, and fabric constitute the criteria for the Neopalatial ceramic sequence at Mochlos (Barnard and Brogan 2003; Day, Joyner, and Relaki 2003). The accumulated knowledge of the vessel typology and fabrics allows ceramic specialists to construct the local sequence and consequently to better distinguish the imported vessels from those produced locally. This is most evident when examining the medium and coarse wares with metamorphic inclusions of reddish-brown and purple phyllites that are associated with the East Crete Phyllite-Quartzite Series (Papastamatiou 1959; Day 1995; Barnard 2003; Day, Joyner, and Relaki 2003; Nodarou 2003; Morrison et al. 2015). Sixteen vases and seven discoid loomweights identified as Late Bronze Age I imports from the Southeast Aegean were selected from the Mochlos collection of off-island imports to be examined and discussed here. These off-island imports are not considered to be luxury or elite items, and they were unearthed from 10 different buildings in the Mochlos settlement primarily in storage and cooking deposits where a significant amount of the local pottery typically dates to the LM IB period (Soles 2022). Only one loomweight (17) was found in a LM IA deposit, and another three objects (5, 21, 23) came from mixed deposits—LM IA and IB. It is important to note that not all deposits have both Southeast Aegean vases and loomweights. In fact, very few of these objects are found together. The catalog entries below include in parentheses inventory numbers and context designations from the excavation along with figure numbers. The entries also give Southeast Aegean macroscopic

fabric categories (SE A Macro) and/or petrographic group (SE A Petro) and Mochlos petrographic sample numbers (MOC). The fabric discussion follows the catalog.

Catalog of Vessels This catalog is organized by surface decoration because it is the best-preserved characteristic of each vase. The order is as follows: light on dark (LoD; 5 vases), dark on light (DoL; 7 vases), light on dark and dark on light (1 vase), and undecorated (3 vases).

Light-on-Dark Decoration 1 (P 864; C.7; E3 6005.5; Fig. 14.1). Large beakspouted jug. Biconical profile with ring base; two knobs at rim opposite each other; handle with oval crosssection and slash at base that rises above the rim. H. 48; rim d. 8; max. d. 40; base d. 15; handle dims. 3.0 x 2.5 cm. SE A Macro 6: reddish orange, reddish yellow (5YR 7/6). SE A Petro 1: MOC 07/084. Exterior coated with reddish brown slip with cream wavy bands between cream horizontal bands on shoulder and belly, traces of cream bands on lower body and at base. To emphasize the form of the beak spout, cream highlights outline the brown knobs on either side of spout. Handle with slashes. Interior with rilling marks. Two coils are visible on interior on upper body of vessel. Parallel: for shape and decoration see Koan eyed jug, Morricone 1965–1966, 1972–1973, 1978; Vitale 2006, pl. 9c, no. 1204; 2018, fig. 12:c, no. 1204. Date: LBA I, most likely LBA IB. 2 (P 3553; C.3, upper floor collapse from Room 2.5 above Rooms 1.1 and 1.2; E3 4827.1; Fig. 14.2). Large closed vase, amphora, or jug. Shoulder profile with edge of handle. Pres. h. 23; pres. d. 43; wall th. 0.5–0.7 cm. SE A Macro 2: reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). SE A Petro 3: MOC 07/087. Exterior possibly coated with brownish black slip with at least four cream bands; poorly preserved. Interior with shallow rilling marks. Slip looks too lustrous to be Koan LoD (S. Vitale, pers. comm., 2016). Date: LBA I. 3 (P 5759; C.7, E4 1703.1; Fig. 14.3). Small- to medium-sized closed vase, amphora, or jug. Pres. h. 12; max. pres. d. 28; wall th. 0.03–1.0 cm. SE A Macro 6: reddish yellow (5YR 7/6). SE A Petro 1: MOC 07/107. Exterior coated with reddish brown slip with horizontal cream decoration of two wavy bands between two straight bands. Interior with rilling marks. Parallel: for motif see Morricone 1965–1966, 1972–1973, 1978; Vitale 2006; pls. 11a, 12d, 13b, nos. 1234, 1224, 1206; 2018, figs. 9:d, 11:b, 13:c, nos. 1224, 1206, 1234, pls. 5:b, 8:a, nos. 1206, 1234. Date: LBA I.

C L AY V E S S E L S A N D L O O M W E I G H T S : S E A E G E A N C O N N E C T I O N S AT M O C H L O S

157

b

Figure 14.1. Large beak-spouted jug (1), possibly Koan. Photo C. Papanikolopoulos.

c a Figure 14.2. Large closed vase, amphora, or jug (2): (a) shoulder fragment of vase, (b) fabric cross section, (c) detail of fabric exterior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

b a c Figure 14.3. Small- to medium-sized closed vase, amphora, or jug (3): (a) vase fragment, (b) fabric cross section, (c) detail of fabric exterior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

4 (P 9279; C.10, Unit 1, Room 2, collapsed floor of Room 3A; D4 311; Fig. 14.4). Small footed closed vessel, amphora, or jug. Lower body and base profile. Pres. h. 7.3; base d. 5.3 cm. SE A Macro 8: interior is light brownish gray, exterior is light red (2.5YR 6/8, 10YR 6/2). SE A Petro 1: MOC 07/115. Exterior with thin gray band at shoulder and base possibly over reddishorange slip or thick brownish-black band on wall and base with a thin cream band. Interior with prominent rilling marks. Possible coil joins at mid-wall and base. Irregular surface on underside of base. Date: LBA IB. 5 (P 12000; D.7, wall and upper story collapse over Rooms 1, 2, 3; D4 40/3102.1; Fig. 14.5). Closed vase, possibly beak-spouted jug. Footed base. Pres. h. 3.5; base d. 11.5; lower wall th. 0.8 cm. SE A Macro 4: reddish yellow, core is light gray (5YR 6/6, 7/1). SE A Petro 1: MOC 07/116. Exterior with cream band over brown slip at base. Interior with irregular surface. Parallel: for

Figure 14.4. Small footed closed vessel, amphora, or jug (4). Photo C. Papanikolopoulos.

shape see Morricone 1965–1966, 1972–1973, 1978; Vitale 2005, fig. 2:a; 2018, fig. 10:a, b, nos. 1215, 1196, pl. 4:a, b, nos. 1215, 1196. Date: LBA IB.

Dark-on-Light Decoration 6 (P 887; C.7; E3 6005.5; Fig. 14.6). Oval-mouthed amphora with high neck and everted rim. Full profile with flat base and handle with oval cross-section attached at rim and a false small handle set on lower body directly below handle. H. 50; rim d. 11; neck d. 11; max. pres. d. 30; base d. 13; handle dims. 3.0 x 1.5 cm. SE A Macro 5: reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6). SE A Petro 2: MOC 07/086. Red band on interior and exterior of rim. Exterior coated with cream slip; red band at neck, thin wavy red band on shoulder, one thick large wavy red band on body between two red bands, and one thick red band at

158

J E R O LY N M O R R I S O N , E L E N I N O D A R O U , A N D J O A N N E C U T L E R

d

a

e

f

b b

c

Figure 14.6. Large oval-mouthed amphora (6): (a) vase, (b) fabric cross section, (c) detail of fabric exterior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

Figure 14.5. Closed vase (5), possibly a Koan beakspouted jug: (a) interior of base, (b) exterior of base, (c) side view of base, (d) fabric cross section, (e) detail of fabric interior, (f) detail of fabric exterior. D. of base 11.5 cm. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

base. Handle decorated with horizontal slashes. Interior with prominent and irregular rilling marks. Coil attaching neck and shoulder on the interior is smoothed, with at least four coil joins visible below. Parallels: for motif see Vitale 2006, tables 10b, 13a; possible parallel from the Mochlos Artisans’ Quarter found in Building A, Room 3 (Barnard, Brogan, and Soles 2003, 75– 76, no, IB.432A). This vase is fragmentary, but it has a tall neck with everted rim and is decorated with a similar reddish-orange paint. The fabric is also off island with volcanic glass inclusions. Date: LBA I, most likely LBA IB. 7 (P 4781; C.6, Room 1.2, collapse; E3 7905.1; Fig. 14.7). Large closed vase, amphora, or jug. Part of body profile. Largest piece: max. pres. dims. 9 x 12 cm. Traces of brownish black paint, possibly over cream slip. SE A Macro 7: dark gray, gray, pink, reddish yellow (7.5YR 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/4, 7/6). Interior with shallow rilling marks. Date: LBA IB. 8 (P 5117; C.4, Room 2, LM IB collapse; E3 29/3922.5; Fig. 14.8). Large closed vase, possibly a beak-spouted jug or amphora. Body and footed base profile, missing spout and handle. Pres. h. 40; pres. d. 40; base d.

c

a

b a c

d

Figure 14.7. Large closed vase, amphora, or jug (7): (a) vase fragments, (b) fabric cross section, (c) detail of more reduced fabric on exterior, (d) detail of more oxidized fabric on exterior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

15; wall th. 0.5–1.0 cm. SE A Macro 3: reddish yellow (5YR 6/6, 7.5YR 8/4). SE A Petro 2: MOC 07/088. Exterior coated with cream slip with curvilinear motif in brownish- black with added cream on shoulder with four brownish-black bands below and one at base. Interior with shallow rilling marks. Possible coil joins

C L AY V E S S E L S A N D L O O M W E I G H T S : S E A E G E A N C O N N E C T I O N S AT M O C H L O S

159

b a

Figure 14.9. Small- to medium-sized closed vase, amphora, or jug (9): (a) vase fragment, (b) detail of exposed fabric on exterior underneath slip. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

a

b

Figure 14.8. Large closed vase (8), possibly a Koan beak-spouted jug or amphora: (a) vase, (b) detail of fabric exterior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

visible at mid-wall and on the lower body of the vessel. Shallow and uneven trimming on underside of base. Vessel size, form, and decoration are similar to 1. Parallel: Koan beak-spouted or eyed jug, see Morricone 1965–1966, 1972–1973, 1978. Date: LBA IB. 9 (P 5471; C.2, Room 6, Floor 4; E3 3829.4; Fig. 14.9) Small- to medium-sized closed vase, amphora, or jug. Pres. d. 11; wall th. 0.5–0.7 cm. SE A Macro 2: reddish yellow, core is light gray (5YR 7/8, GLEY 1 7/N). SE A Petro 3: MOC 07/108. Exterior coated with reddish brown slip with at least three cream bands. Inteior with rilling marks. Date: LBA IB. 10 (P 6639; C.6, Room 1.3, floor; E3 8011; Fig. 14.10). Beak-spouted jug. Upper body profile and handle with oval cross section that rises slightly above the rim and has slash at base. Pres. h. 10; neck d. 6; handle dims. 2.5 x 1.5; wall th. 0.6–1.0 cm. SE A Macro 4: light red, core is reddish gray (2.5YR 6/8, 6/1). Red band on interior and exterior of rim. Exterior with thick red band covering neck, red band intersecting shoulder and loop around lower handle end. Interior with shallow rilling marks. Coil attaching neck and shoulder is smoothed. Parallel: possibly a Koan beak-spouted or eyed jug, see Morricone 1965–1966, 1972–1973, 1978; Vitale 2006, pl. 9:c; 2018, fig. 12:c, no. 1204, pl. 6:c no. 1204. Date: LBA IB. 11 (P 9868; C.7, E4 5616.3; Fig. 14.11). Beak-spouted jug. Upper body profile with two knobs at rim opposite each other and handle that rises slightly above the rim with oval cross section and slash at base. Pres. h. 13; rim d. 7; neck d. 6; handle d. 2.5 x 2.0 cm. SE A Macro

a

d

e b

c Figure 14.10. Beak-spouted jug fragment (10): (a) side view, (b) interior view showing neck attached to shoulder, (c) top view of jug, (d) fabric cross section, (e) detail of fabric exterior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

1: light red (2.5YR 6/8). SE A Petro 3: MOC 07/113. Interior neck coated with cream slip. Exterior coated in cream slip with brown on top of rim, two shallow brown wavy bands below rim, one brown band at base of neck with at least three below. Handle with four diagonal brown slashes and loop around base. Interior with prominent shallow rilling marks. Coil attaching neck and shoulder is smooth. Either thick shoulder or another coil attaching shoulder to upper body visible. Parallel: possibly a Koan eyed jug, see Morricone 1965– 1966, 1972–1973, 1978; Vitale 2006, pl. 9c, no. 1204; 2018, fig. 12:c, no. 1204, pl. 6:c, no. 1204. Date: LBA I. 12 (P 11977; C.10, Unit 2, Room 7, Floor 2; D4 536; Fig. 14.12). Closed vase. Part of body profile. Largest piece: max. pres. dims. 4 x 5.5; wall th. 0.5 cm. SE A

160

J E R O LY N M O R R I S O N , E L E N I N O D A R O U , A N D J O A N N E C U T L E R a a

b c d

Figure 14.12. Closed vase (12): (a) vase fragments, (b) fabric cross section, (c) detail of fabric interior, (d) detail of fabric exterior under slip. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos. b

d

e

c Figure 14.11. Beak-spouted jug (11): (a) side view, (b) interior view showing neck attached to shoulder, (c) view of handle and back of spout, (d) fabric cross section, (e) detail of fabric interior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

Macro 3: interior is pinkish gray, exterior is reddish yellow (5YR 6/6, 7.5YR 7/2). Exterior coated with cream slip with a panel of at least one red spiral with an open center. Date: LBA IB.

Light-on-Dark and Dark-on-Light Decoration 13 (P 10837; C.12, Room 4, Floor 2; D4 2914.2; Fig. 14.13). Beak-spouted jug. Bi-conical body profile with flat foot and handle with oval cross section rising above the rim. Pres. h. 14; neck d. 3.5; max. d. 12; base d. 5.5; handle dims. 1.5 x 1.25 cm; vol. 225 ml. SE A Macro 6: reddish yellow (5YR 7/6). Exterior coated with cream slip with thick brownish-black band at neck, cream band, brownish-black band with cream wavy band, cream panel of brownish-black crescents grouped in four, brownish-black band with row of cream crescents between two thin cream bands, brownish-black band with two thin cream bands, and three brownish-black bands below. Handle with brownish-black triangular shapes and lower end banded. Underside of base coated

a b Figure 14.13. Small beak-spouted jug (13): (a) front view, (b) side view. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

with cream slip. The irregular counter wall is produced by possible coil joins above and below the belly, or the joining of two bowls at the lip to create the body. Parallel: for motif see Vitale 2006, table 10c; shape is possible Koan beak-spouted jug, see Morricone 1965–1966, 1972–1973, 1978; Vitale 2006, pl. 11a, no. 1234; 2018, fig. 13:c, no. 1234, pl. 8:a, no. 1234. Date: LBA IB.

Undecorated 14 (P 5464; C.2, Room 6, Floor 4; E3 3830E.9; Fig. 14.14). Small closed vase, amphora, or jug. Part of shoulder and lower body profile. Max. pres. dims. 11 x 12; wall th. 0.3–0.7 cm. SE A Macro 8: reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). SE A Petro 4: MOC 07/089. Interior with shallow rilling marks. Date: LBA IB. 15 (P 7235; C.2, Room 6, Floor 2; E3 3860; Fig. 14.15). Small closed vase, amphora, or jug. Globular lower body profile with slight ring base and non-joining handle with round cross section. Pres. h. 8.7; base d. 6.5; wall th. 0.5–0.7; handle dims. 1.5 x 1.5 cm. SE A Macro 8: yellowish red (5YR 5/6). SE A Petro 4: MOC 07/092. Traces

C L AY V E S S E L S A N D L O O M W E I G H T S : S E A E G E A N C O N N E C T I O N S AT M O C H L O S

161

b

c

a

Figure 14.14. Small closed vase, amphora, or jug (14): (a) vase fragment, (b) fabric cross section, (c) detail of fabric exterior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

Figure 14.15. Small closed vase, amphora, or jug (15). Photo C. Papanikolopoulos.

c a d

e b Figure 14.16. Small closed vase, amphora, or jug (16): (a) interior of base, (b) exterior of base, (c) fabric cross section, (d) detail of fabric interior, (e) detail of fabric exterior. Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

Figure 14.17. Discoid ceramic loomweights from Southeast Aegean excavated at Mochlos in Neopalatial levels (18–20, 22, 23). Photos C. Papanikolopoulos.

of burning on one edge of base. Interior with prominent and irregular rilling marks. Possible coil join on interior near base. Date: LBA IB. 16 (P 11103; C.12, Room 3, surface and collapse; D4 2902.1; Fig. 14.16). Small closed vase, amphora, or jug. Base profile. Pres. h. 11.6; base d. 11.5; wall th. 0.5–0.9 cm. SE A Macro 8: light red, core is weak red (2.5YR 6/8 [stained area 2.5YR 4/2]). SE A Petro 1: MOC 07/117. Burned or stained interior on base. Rough interior, exterior smooth. Irregular surface marks on interior and exterior of base, possibly handmade. Date: LBA IB.

One Hole

Catalog of Discoid Loomweights This catalog is organized by type according to the number of holes. Seven loomweights with one hole are listed first, followed by the one example with two holes.

17 (C 43; Room 1.4, E3 4914.2; Fig. 14.17). Discoid round loomweight, one hole; ca. 3/4 extant. Pres. h. 6.2; pres. w. 7.9; th. 2.3 cm; pres. wt. 99 g. Flattened and grooved top. SE A Macro 6–7, less coarse: reddish yellow (5YR 7/6). Date: LBA IA. Bibl.: Cutler 2022, 337, cat. no. IVA.717. 18 (C 275; Room 2, E3 28/3821; Fig. 14.17). Discoid round loomweight, one hole; less than 1/4 extant. Pres. h. 4.3; pres. w. 3.7; pres. th. 2 cm; pres. wt. 25 g. Flattened top. SE A Macro 6–7, less coarse: reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). Date: LBA IB, early. Bibl.: Cutler 2022, 340, cat. no. IVA.769. 19 (C 1122; surface over Rooms 7 and 8, D4 500; Fig. 14.17). Discoid round loomweight, one hole; intact except for chip at bottom edge and surface partly abraded. H. 9; w. 9; th. 2.9 cm; wt. 236 g. Flattened and grooved top. SE A Macro 7–8, less coarse: red (2.5YR

162

J E R O LY N M O R R I S O N , E L E N I N O D A R O U , A N D J O A N N E C U T L E R

5/6). Date: LBA I, most likely. Bibl.: Cutler 2022, 343, cat. no. IVA.821. 20 (C 1176; C.10, Unit 2, Rooms 8a and 8b, Floor 2, D4 528; Fig. 14.17). Discoid round loomweight, one hole; intact. H. 7.7; w. 7.7; th. 2.1 cm; wt. 146 g. Flattened and grooved top. SE A Macro 7: light red (10R 6/8). Date: LBA IB. 21 (C 1248; Room 1, D4 125.3). Discoid round loomweight; less than 1/3 extant. Pres. h. 4.8; pres. w. 4.4; th. 2 cm; pres. wt. 32 g. SE A Macro 8: red (2.5YR 5/8). Date: LBA I. Bibl.: Cutler 2022, 342, cat. no. IVA.804. 22 (C 1352; Room 4, D4 404.3; Fig. 14.17). Discoid round loomweight, one hole; ca. 3/4 extant. Pres. h. 5.5; pres. w. 5.8; th. 1.8 cm; pres. wt. 49 g. SE A Macro 7, mauvish-pink color: red (10R 5/6). Date: LBA IB. Bibl.: Cutler 2022, 344, cat. no. IVA.834.

Two Holes 23 (C 811; B.3, Room 1, LM IB floor, D3 5706.4; Fig. 14.17). Discoid loomweight, two holes; intact except for small chips at edges. H. 7.3; w. 7.9; th. 2.1 cm; wt. 131 g. Grooved top. SE A Macro 8(?): red (2.5YR 5/6). Date: LBA IB.

Ceramic Fabric Observations All of the objects cataloged here were examined using macroscopic analysis, while 12 of the vases where also examined using thin-section petrography (Tables 14.1–14.4). The vases selected for petrographic analysis included decorated and undecorated vessels. Both analyses indicate that the objects were produced in the Southeast Aegean, yet this collection is not homogeneous, indicating that these objects originated in more than one location. There are multiple fabric groups defined for each type of analysis, and at least one fabric in hand sample and thin section is similar to off-land material unearthed in the Artisans’ Quarters (Barnard 2003, 10; Day, Joyner, and Relaki 2003). Kos, or one of the neighboring islands, is a likely place of origin for the majority of the off-island material discussed here from Mochlos (Table 14.1). Eleven vases out of 16 and all loomweights are classified in macroscopic fabric groups that broadly parallel the fabric groups defined from the northeast region of Kos (Table 14.2; see sec. 5.2 in Vitale et al. 2016, 255–260; Vitale and Morrison 2017). And seven vases out of 12 are classified in

petrographic groups as having similar mineralogical composition to those published from Kos (Table 14.4; Whitbread 1995, 81–106; Hein et al. 2008). These two descriptive approaches, macroscopic and petrographic ceramic analysis, working in tandem brought to light a few key points that need further investigation. The most significant point is that if these vases are being produced on Kos, then most likely they are being produced in more than one region of the island, or on a neighboring island with similar materials. For example, SE A Macro Groups 4 and 5 are not comparable to the published Koan materials, yet petrographically they fall within the SE A Petro Groups 1 and 2, which have been defined as those that are most likely to be from Kos or a neighboring island (Table 14.4; see 5, 6). The second point is that there are most likely other production centers in the Southeast Aegean that participated in the Late Bronze Age trade route, but we are unable to name them at this time. Possible examples of vases that fall within this category include those from SE A Macro Group 2 and SE A Petro Groups 3 and 4 (Table 14.4; see 2, 9).

Macroscopic Fabrics All objects were examined using macroscopic ceramic fabric analysis that describes and characterizes the granularity and arrangement of the dominant inclusions and voids within the paste