Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Giorgos Vavouranakis

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
The first two review the available material evidence, which has been divided into two groups of sites. The first group consists of the four main case study areas, namely Mochlos, Gournia, Palaikastro and Zakros. These four were selected, because they provide almost unbroken sequences of funerary, as well as other, archaeological material, and, hence, they are basic to our current understanding of the prehistory of east Crete. Therefore, their review will allow a thorough comparison of their topography, archaeological discoveries and current understandings and interpretations, in order to discern basic common patterns and socio-historical issues. These The third part of the chapter combines local sequences into broader patterns and attempts to place these patterns within socio-historical processes not only of east Crete in particular, but also at an island wide level. Finally, a critical review of two paradigms that guide established understandings of such processes should facilitate the composition of a renewed research agenda. This agenda should emphasise the key-role of the landscape and the ways in which its perception and, therefore, social constitution, gave it a dynamic role within the relationship between burial practices, including funerary monumentality, and social structure.

Figure 6 The first two review the available material evidence, which has been divided into two groups of sites. The first group consists of the four main case study areas, namely Mochlos, Gournia, Palaikastro and Zakros. These four were selected, because they provide almost unbroken sequences of funerary, as well as other, archaeological material, and, hence, they are basic to our current understanding of the prehistory of east Crete. Therefore, their review will allow a thorough comparison of their topography, archaeological discoveries and current understandings and interpretations, in order to discern basic common patterns and socio-historical issues. These The third part of the chapter combines local sequences into broader patterns and attempts to place these patterns within socio-historical processes not only of east Crete in particular, but also at an island wide level. Finally, a critical review of two paradigms that guide established understandings of such processes should facilitate the composition of a renewed research agenda. This agenda should emphasise the key-role of the landscape and the ways in which its perception and, therefore, social constitution, gave it a dynamic role within the relationship between burial practices, including funerary monumentality, and social structure.

Related Figures (155)

The research agenda of this book owes a debt to the ground that the above researchers have covered. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding their contribution, there has been almost no explicit attempt to link changes in burial practice, landscape and social structure. The only exceptions are Bintliff (in Blackman and Branigan 1977) and Branigan (1998a), who have discussed the topography and distribution of the Early and Middle Bronze Age tholos tombs at Mesara, southern Crete. On the other hand, east Crete demonstrates an explicit lack of landscape studies. What is more, there is a tendency to believe that the landscape had no meaningful involvement within burial activity. A typical example of such an attitude is Georgoulaki's PhD thesis on Prepalatial and Old Palace burials. She notes in her concluding chapter: direct research towards the social significance of the landscape. Within funerary archaeology, the notion of ‘organic' architecture, developed by Soles (1992) in his study of Prepalatial tombs, should be thought of as such a stimulus. Soles describes how architecture makes most tombs appear as connected organically to their natural setting. However, the possible social and/or symbolic meanings of such an architectural strategy remain underdeveloped. Beyond funerary data, Hitchcock's (ibid.) work has summarized the ample indications provided by the Minoan record indicating that the so- called natural environment was conceptualised and articulated into meaningful 'landscapes'. In addition to iconography, it should be born in mind that peak sanctuaries -the main manifestation of a network of popular religion in the Middle Minoan period- largely started as naturally demarcated areas (Peatfield 1990).
The research agenda of this book owes a debt to the ground that the above researchers have covered. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding their contribution, there has been almost no explicit attempt to link changes in burial practice, landscape and social structure. The only exceptions are Bintliff (in Blackman and Branigan 1977) and Branigan (1998a), who have discussed the topography and distribution of the Early and Middle Bronze Age tholos tombs at Mesara, southern Crete. On the other hand, east Crete demonstrates an explicit lack of landscape studies. What is more, there is a tendency to believe that the landscape had no meaningful involvement within burial activity. A typical example of such an attitude is Georgoulaki's PhD thesis on Prepalatial and Old Palace burials. She notes in her concluding chapter: direct research towards the social significance of the landscape. Within funerary archaeology, the notion of ‘organic' architecture, developed by Soles (1992) in his study of Prepalatial tombs, should be thought of as such a stimulus. Soles describes how architecture makes most tombs appear as connected organically to their natural setting. However, the possible social and/or symbolic meanings of such an architectural strategy remain underdeveloped. Beyond funerary data, Hitchcock's (ibid.) work has summarized the ample indications provided by the Minoan record indicating that the so- called natural environment was conceptualised and articulated into meaningful 'landscapes'. In addition to iconography, it should be born in mind that peak sanctuaries -the main manifestation of a network of popular religion in the Middle Minoan period- largely started as naturally demarcated areas (Peatfield 1990).
Fig.1.4: Ziros. View of the upland basin of Katelionas. East Crete can be further divided into two broad regions: the isthmus of Hierapetra and the uplands of Siteia. The isthmus of Hierapetra (Fig. 1.2) is lowland, flat and fertile, bounded by the Thriphti mountain range to the east and the Lasithi Massif to the west. This region includes well-known Minoan sites, such as Gournia, Vasiliki, Pacheia Ammos, Episkopi and Myrtos. Siteia lies east of the Thriphti range. This is a very mountainous area, although small basins, both on the coast and inland, frequently break the continuity of the uplands. The area around the modern town of Siteia is the largest example of such a coastal basin, although Zakros (Fig. 1.3) and
Fig.1.4: Ziros. View of the upland basin of Katelionas. East Crete can be further divided into two broad regions: the isthmus of Hierapetra and the uplands of Siteia. The isthmus of Hierapetra (Fig. 1.2) is lowland, flat and fertile, bounded by the Thriphti mountain range to the east and the Lasithi Massif to the west. This region includes well-known Minoan sites, such as Gournia, Vasiliki, Pacheia Ammos, Episkopi and Myrtos. Siteia lies east of the Thriphti range. This is a very mountainous area, although small basins, both on the coast and inland, frequently break the continuity of the uplands. The area around the modern town of Siteia is the largest example of such a coastal basin, although Zakros (Fig. 1.3) and
Fig.1.3: Kato Zakros. View from the southeast. The above remarks aim to demonstrate that east Crete is different from central Crete and should be studied in its own right. Furthermore, this book does not include Lasithi. A series of regional studies, covering most parts of the Bronze Age (e.g. Nowicki 2000, Watrous 1982; also reference to Bennet 1987 above; contra Knappett
Fig.1.3: Kato Zakros. View from the southeast. The above remarks aim to demonstrate that east Crete is different from central Crete and should be studied in its own right. Furthermore, this book does not include Lasithi. A series of regional studies, covering most parts of the Bronze Age (e.g. Nowicki 2000, Watrous 1982; also reference to Bennet 1987 above; contra Knappett
Fig. 1.2: The Isthmus of Hierapetra. View from Vasiliki towards the mountains of Thriphti to the west.
Fig. 1.2: The Isthmus of Hierapetra. View from Vasiliki towards the mountains of Thriphti to the west.
Fig. 2.2: View of the area of Mochlos from Myrsini to the southeast. An American archaeological expedition early in the 20th century (Seager 1909; 1912) uncovered the archaeology Mochlos lies west of Siteia, around 18 km 'as the crow flies' (Figs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4). It is a lowland coastal area and a popular tourist resort today, with many fishing boats and small taverns. It is roughly defined by the Cretan Sea to the north, meeting a small bay separated in two by the islet of Hagios Nikolaos in the middle - taking its name from the small chapel on its south coast. There is a strip of shallow waters between the islet and the Cretan mainland. An isthmus probably linked the two in antiquity thus making the islet a promontory and the gulf of Mochlos a double harbour. However, there is no conclusive evidence for such a hypothesis, particularly regarding when the islet was cut off (Soles and Davaras 1992: 413). On land, Mochlos is defined by the Limenaria hill on the east, and a ring of lowland hills on the south, on the slopes of which the modern villages of Lastros, Sphaka, Tourloti and Myrsini lie today. The silver green
Fig. 2.2: View of the area of Mochlos from Myrsini to the southeast. An American archaeological expedition early in the 20th century (Seager 1909; 1912) uncovered the archaeology Mochlos lies west of Siteia, around 18 km 'as the crow flies' (Figs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4). It is a lowland coastal area and a popular tourist resort today, with many fishing boats and small taverns. It is roughly defined by the Cretan Sea to the north, meeting a small bay separated in two by the islet of Hagios Nikolaos in the middle - taking its name from the small chapel on its south coast. There is a strip of shallow waters between the islet and the Cretan mainland. An isthmus probably linked the two in antiquity thus making the islet a promontory and the gulf of Mochlos a double harbour. However, there is no conclusive evidence for such a hypothesis, particularly regarding when the islet was cut off (Soles and Davaras 1992: 413). On land, Mochlos is defined by the Limenaria hill on the east, and a ring of lowland hills on the south, on the slopes of which the modern villages of Lastros, Sphaka, Tourloti and Myrsini lie today. The silver green
Fig. 2.3: Map of the area of Mochlos with main archaeological sites.
Fig. 2.3: Map of the area of Mochlos with main archaeological sites.
Fig. 2.6: Gold jewellery from Tomb I/LI/II at Mochlos (after Seager 1912: 30 Fig. 11, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Table 1: Changes in monumentality and visibility of funerary and domestic remains at Mochlos.
Fig. 2.6: Gold jewellery from Tomb I/LI/II at Mochlos (after Seager 1912: 30 Fig. 11, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Table 1: Changes in monumentality and visibility of funerary and domestic remains at Mochlos.
Fig. 2.5: Ground plan of the cemetery of Mochlos. The West Terrace in grey shade (after Soles 1992: Plan 3, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.5: Ground plan of the cemetery of Mochlos. The West Terrace in grey shade (after Soles 1992: Plan 3, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
During the Prepalatial period, burials are well represented and monumental. The Prepalatial cemetery lies on the west part of the islet (Fig. 2.5). About thirty tombs have been excavated. There are many indications that other tombs must have existed too and they were washed into the sea. The cemetery on the west side of the islet is the best-known discovery from the area. It comprises two areas, the Main or South Slope, where most of the tombs lie, and the West Terrace (henceforth employed to signify the whole cemetery site unless otherwise stated), which hosts the two most impressive and elaborate tomb complexes. The architectural monumentality and the elaborate artefacts, such as gold jewellery (Fig. 2.6), silver and stone vases, is responsible for the key-place of the West Terrace cemetery within Minoan A Late / Final Neolithic - EM I deposit (Fig. 2.7; Seager 1912: 93; Zois The overwhelming majority of the discoveries come from the Hagios Nikolaos islet. A settlement was located and uncovered on its south coast, facing the main Cretan coast. The earliest traces are two Early Minoan I deposits according to Seager (1909; 1912: 93), although Zois (1973: 102-103) leaves a possibility open for a higher, Late or Final Neolithic, dating of at least some of the earliest pottery. Evidence of occupation of the islet and the nearby area between EM ITA and LM IIIB is ample. It
During the Prepalatial period, burials are well represented and monumental. The Prepalatial cemetery lies on the west part of the islet (Fig. 2.5). About thirty tombs have been excavated. There are many indications that other tombs must have existed too and they were washed into the sea. The cemetery on the west side of the islet is the best-known discovery from the area. It comprises two areas, the Main or South Slope, where most of the tombs lie, and the West Terrace (henceforth employed to signify the whole cemetery site unless otherwise stated), which hosts the two most impressive and elaborate tomb complexes. The architectural monumentality and the elaborate artefacts, such as gold jewellery (Fig. 2.6), silver and stone vases, is responsible for the key-place of the West Terrace cemetery within Minoan A Late / Final Neolithic - EM I deposit (Fig. 2.7; Seager 1912: 93; Zois The overwhelming majority of the discoveries come from the Hagios Nikolaos islet. A settlement was located and uncovered on its south coast, facing the main Cretan coast. The earliest traces are two Early Minoan I deposits according to Seager (1909; 1912: 93), although Zois (1973: 102-103) leaves a possibility open for a higher, Late or Final Neolithic, dating of at least some of the earliest pottery. Evidence of occupation of the islet and the nearby area between EM ITA and LM IIIB is ample. It
Fig. 2.7: The early deposit of the Mochlos cemetery (after Seager 1912: Fig. 48, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.7: The early deposit of the Mochlos cemetery (after Seager 1912: Fig. 48, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.8: Reconstruction of Building B2, Mochlos (after Soles and Davaras 1996: 188 Fig. 8, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.8: Reconstruction of Building B2, Mochlos (after Soles and Davaras 1996: 188 Fig. 8, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.9: Ground plan of the cemetery at Limenaria, Mochlos (after Soles and Davaras 1996: 211 Fig. 18, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.9: Ground plan of the cemetery at Limenaria, Mochlos (after Soles and Davaras 1996: 211 Fig. 18, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Knossos, as suggested by the presence of Knossian The spatial distribution of the archaeology at Mochlos is summarised in Table 2. The above overview of the material record shows two things: first, it supports the pattern proposed above. In addition, and in the absence of an intensive regional survey, it is only fair to state that although most of the Bronze Age periods are present at Mochlos, the record is fragmentary. Thus, any analysis has to proceed in a selective way. The EM III - MM II tholos at Myrsini and the LM IIIA-B burials at Limenaria that this male burial was making claims to some Mycenean, either Knossian or even Mainland, identity. The official might have been a possible Minoan equivalent of a Mainland telestas, head of a group of individuals that played the leading role in the Postpalatial re-settlement of Mochlos and established contacts with Knossos, as suggested by the presence of Knossian Table 2: Distribution of sites in the area of Mochlos.
Knossos, as suggested by the presence of Knossian The spatial distribution of the archaeology at Mochlos is summarised in Table 2. The above overview of the material record shows two things: first, it supports the pattern proposed above. In addition, and in the absence of an intensive regional survey, it is only fair to state that although most of the Bronze Age periods are present at Mochlos, the record is fragmentary. Thus, any analysis has to proceed in a selective way. The EM III - MM II tholos at Myrsini and the LM IIIA-B burials at Limenaria that this male burial was making claims to some Mycenean, either Knossian or even Mainland, identity. The official might have been a possible Minoan equivalent of a Mainland telestas, head of a group of individuals that played the leading role in the Postpalatial re-settlement of Mochlos and established contacts with Knossos, as suggested by the presence of Knossian Table 2: Distribution of sites in the area of Mochlos.
Fig. 2.10: Ground plan of the Artisans’ Quarter at Mochlos with the Postpalatial cemetery (after Soles 2003: Fig. 77, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory).
Fig. 2.10: Ground plan of the Artisans’ Quarter at Mochlos with the Postpalatial cemetery (after Soles 2003: Fig. 77, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory).
Fig. 2.11: Ground plan of the cemetery of Mochlos indicating the distribution of gold and bronze artifacts (after Soles 1992: Plan 3, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Finally, it is important to note Whitelaw's (2001: 19) cautionary call in his population estimates through the study of Minoan domestic architecture. Whitelaw says
Fig. 2.11: Ground plan of the cemetery of Mochlos indicating the distribution of gold and bronze artifacts (after Soles 1992: Plan 3, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Finally, it is important to note Whitelaw's (2001: 19) cautionary call in his population estimates through the study of Minoan domestic architecture. Whitelaw says
Fig. 2.13: Topographical map of Gournia with main archaeological sites. Contours at 20 m intervals. Fig. 2.12: Gournia. View from the North.
Fig. 2.13: Topographical map of Gournia with main archaeological sites. Contours at 20 m intervals. Fig. 2.12: Gournia. View from the North.
Fig. 2.15: View of Sphoungaras from the hill of Gournia.
Fig. 2.15: View of Sphoungaras from the hill of Gournia.
Fig. 2.14: View from the hill of Gournia to the west.
Fig. 2.14: View from the hill of Gournia to the west.
Neopalatial period is accepted) of burial activity of a town whose population ranged between 400 and 1200 inhabitants in the excavated area above (Watrous and Blitzer 1999) and possibly 3000 in total (Soles 1991: 74). Furthermore, MM II material is strikingly absent at Sphoungaras, although it is present at the North Cemetery. LM III is scarcely present in general, with seven larnakes in total. On the other hand, several features attest to the constant reuse of the same places, such as skull retention and repeated clearings of old pithoi. These features indicate that the main burial grounds have been located and thus a representative picture of this past community can be reconstructed safely. In a similar way, evidence from the main settlement is substantial but not complete. Its main phase is the Neopalatial, when it may have spread over four hectares, featuring a 'palace' on the top of the hill, as well as a paved road system (Fig. 2.18; Watrous and Blitzer: ibid.). As already noted, there might have been a contemporary port at the mouth of the river, next to Sphoungaras. This is suggested on the basis of a 'Shore House’, excavated by Boyd-Hawes early in the 20th century, and aerial photographs indicating buildings similar to the Late Minoan galleries at Kommos, southern Crete (Watrous and Blitzer: ibid.). At a regional level, Gournia may have been the only Neopalatial settlement within its coastal
Neopalatial period is accepted) of burial activity of a town whose population ranged between 400 and 1200 inhabitants in the excavated area above (Watrous and Blitzer 1999) and possibly 3000 in total (Soles 1991: 74). Furthermore, MM II material is strikingly absent at Sphoungaras, although it is present at the North Cemetery. LM III is scarcely present in general, with seven larnakes in total. On the other hand, several features attest to the constant reuse of the same places, such as skull retention and repeated clearings of old pithoi. These features indicate that the main burial grounds have been located and thus a representative picture of this past community can be reconstructed safely. In a similar way, evidence from the main settlement is substantial but not complete. Its main phase is the Neopalatial, when it may have spread over four hectares, featuring a 'palace' on the top of the hill, as well as a paved road system (Fig. 2.18; Watrous and Blitzer: ibid.). As already noted, there might have been a contemporary port at the mouth of the river, next to Sphoungaras. This is suggested on the basis of a 'Shore House’, excavated by Boyd-Hawes early in the 20th century, and aerial photographs indicating buildings similar to the Late Minoan galleries at Kommos, southern Crete (Watrous and Blitzer: ibid.). At a regional level, Gournia may have been the only Neopalatial settlement within its coastal
Fig. 2.19: Reconstruction of the 'palace' at Gournia (Soles 1991: 20 Fig. 3, courtesy of the American Journal of Archaeology). Another similarity between Mochlos and Gournia is that archaeological evidence has been explained within a similar interpretative framework. Most of the literature focuses on the Prepalatial and early Protopalatial burials at the North Cemetery and Sphoungaras (Soles 1988; 1992; Watrous et al. 2000: 476). There is a general consensus that the North Cemetery represents the buried members of an elite and Sphoungaras reflects the rest of the population, in a similar way that the West Terrace at Mochlos is supposed to have been different from the Main and South Slopes. The argument is again based on In summary, burial evidence in Gournia covers most of the Bronze Age, as does the settlement, the latter with a bias to the Neopalatial period. Regarding the burials, emphasis should be placed on the period between late Prepalatial and the Neopalatial, because of the MM I refurbishment of the North Cemetery and the continuous
Fig. 2.19: Reconstruction of the 'palace' at Gournia (Soles 1991: 20 Fig. 3, courtesy of the American Journal of Archaeology). Another similarity between Mochlos and Gournia is that archaeological evidence has been explained within a similar interpretative framework. Most of the literature focuses on the Prepalatial and early Protopalatial burials at the North Cemetery and Sphoungaras (Soles 1988; 1992; Watrous et al. 2000: 476). There is a general consensus that the North Cemetery represents the buried members of an elite and Sphoungaras reflects the rest of the population, in a similar way that the West Terrace at Mochlos is supposed to have been different from the Main and South Slopes. The argument is again based on In summary, burial evidence in Gournia covers most of the Bronze Age, as does the settlement, the latter with a bias to the Neopalatial period. Regarding the burials, emphasis should be placed on the period between late Prepalatial and the Neopalatial, because of the MM I refurbishment of the North Cemetery and the continuous
Fig. 2.20: Topographical sketch of the area of Palaikastro with main archaeological sites (modified from Bosanquet 1901-2b: pl. XV. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). Topographical emphasis should again be placed, as at Mochlos and Gournia, at the bottom of a lowland valley, that is Roussolakkos. As a result, Palaikastro can be bounded in a similar way to the other case studies. The mountains of Petsofas, Stauros and Modi can be the outer Palaikastro lies on the east coast of Crete. It is a wide and open lowland coastal zone (Figs 2.20, 2.21 and 2.22). The promontory of Kastri divides the bay into two parts, Chiona to the south and Kouremenos to the north. According to a recent geophysical survey (Sackett and
Fig. 2.20: Topographical sketch of the area of Palaikastro with main archaeological sites (modified from Bosanquet 1901-2b: pl. XV. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). Topographical emphasis should again be placed, as at Mochlos and Gournia, at the bottom of a lowland valley, that is Roussolakkos. As a result, Palaikastro can be bounded in a similar way to the other case studies. The mountains of Petsofas, Stauros and Modi can be the outer Palaikastro lies on the east coast of Crete. It is a wide and open lowland coastal zone (Figs 2.20, 2.21 and 2.22). The promontory of Kastri divides the bay into two parts, Chiona to the south and Kouremenos to the north. According to a recent geophysical survey (Sackett and
Fig. 2.22: View of Palaikastro from Kastri.
Fig. 2.22: View of Palaikastro from Kastri.
Fig. 2.21: View of Palaikastro from Petsofas.
Fig. 2.21: View of Palaikastro from Petsofas.
Table 5: The material sequence at the wider area of Palaikastro. boundary. The valley, from the modern villages of Angathia and Palaikastro to the coast, including the area of Kouremenos and Roussolakkos makes roughly what we can call at Palaikastro the ‘local context’. This area provides ample arable land, while the uplands of Petsofas are used today as pasture areas as they might have been in the past too. In other words, the same tripartite scheme, with a coastal, an intermediate and an upland zone can be observed here too, as at the other two case studies. (According to MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, unless otherwise stated) Various sites have been excavated in the area. However, there is no final publication, except for the peak sanctuary at Petsofas (Bosanquet et al. 1902-3; Davaras 1972b; Rutkowski 1991), but only extensive preliminary reports
Table 5: The material sequence at the wider area of Palaikastro. boundary. The valley, from the modern villages of Angathia and Palaikastro to the coast, including the area of Kouremenos and Roussolakkos makes roughly what we can call at Palaikastro the ‘local context’. This area provides ample arable land, while the uplands of Petsofas are used today as pasture areas as they might have been in the past too. In other words, the same tripartite scheme, with a coastal, an intermediate and an upland zone can be observed here too, as at the other two case studies. (According to MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, unless otherwise stated) Various sites have been excavated in the area. However, there is no final publication, except for the peak sanctuary at Petsofas (Bosanquet et al. 1902-3; Davaras 1972b; Rutkowski 1991), but only extensive preliminary reports
Table 4: The material sequence at Roussolakkos and Kastri.
Table 4: The material sequence at Roussolakkos and Kastri.
Fig. 2.23: The tombs at Galeti, Palaikastro (after Soles 1992: 189 Fig. 75, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.23: The tombs at Galeti, Palaikastro (after Soles 1992: 189 Fig. 75, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.24: The tombs at Hellenika, Palaikastro (after Soles 1992: 181 Fig. 72, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.24: The tombs at Hellenika, Palaikastro (after Soles 1992: 181 Fig. 72, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.26: The tombs at Sarantari, Palaikastro (after Dawkins et al. 1904-5: 270 Fig. 4. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). Fig. 2.25: Tomb V at Patema, Palaikastro (after Dawkins et al. 1904-5: 270 Fig. 4. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 2.26: The tombs at Sarantari, Palaikastro (after Dawkins et al. 1904-5: 270 Fig. 4. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). Fig. 2.25: Tomb V at Patema, Palaikastro (after Dawkins et al. 1904-5: 270 Fig. 4. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 2.28: The tombs and larnakes at Aspa, Palaikastro (after Dawkins and Curelly 1903-4: 228 Fig. 9. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 2.28: The tombs and larnakes at Aspa, Palaikastro (after Dawkins and Curelly 1903-4: 228 Fig. 9. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 2.29: Plan and section of the tomb at Hagia Triada, Palaikastro (after Bosanquet 1901-2b: 301 Figs 16-17. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). The lack of detailed final reports on the finds at Palaikastro and the fact that research is still ongoing has resulted in the absence of interpretative approaches to the Palaikastrian burials that would parallel the cases of
Fig. 2.29: Plan and section of the tomb at Hagia Triada, Palaikastro (after Bosanquet 1901-2b: 301 Figs 16-17. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). The lack of detailed final reports on the finds at Palaikastro and the fact that research is still ongoing has resulted in the absence of interpretative approaches to the Palaikastrian burials that would parallel the cases of
What makes Zakros an exceptionally interesting case study is the landscape itself. The community managed to survive in a setting, which does not offer arable land. In other words, Zakros can put any suggestions about burials to the test of an entirely unusual and uninviting setting. Furthermore, Zakros can put to the test the model definition of ‘local context’. The usual sequence of lowland coastal area - intermediate zone of arable land - outer upland area does not apply in this case. It has to change to lowland coastal area - outer upland area - intermediate zone of arable land, because the uplands are in between the coast of Kato Zakros and the arable land of Epano Zakros or the equally arable valley of Choiromandres. Whether people travelled between the Bronze Age settlement and the inland on an everyday basis cannot be proven. However, everyday life at Kato Zakros had to rely on communication and movement of people and products and from that point of view, Epano Fig. 2.30: Plan and section of the tomb at Angathia, Palaikastro (after Bosanquet 1901-2b: 304 Fig. 20. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
What makes Zakros an exceptionally interesting case study is the landscape itself. The community managed to survive in a setting, which does not offer arable land. In other words, Zakros can put any suggestions about burials to the test of an entirely unusual and uninviting setting. Furthermore, Zakros can put to the test the model definition of ‘local context’. The usual sequence of lowland coastal area - intermediate zone of arable land - outer upland area does not apply in this case. It has to change to lowland coastal area - outer upland area - intermediate zone of arable land, because the uplands are in between the coast of Kato Zakros and the arable land of Epano Zakros or the equally arable valley of Choiromandres. Whether people travelled between the Bronze Age settlement and the inland on an everyday basis cannot be proven. However, everyday life at Kato Zakros had to rely on communication and movement of people and products and from that point of view, Epano Fig. 2.30: Plan and section of the tomb at Angathia, Palaikastro (after Bosanquet 1901-2b: 304 Fig. 20. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
in order to define the chronological, topographical and, generally, archaeological limits of the chapter. Zakros and Choiromandres might not have been as distant, as they may seem to be today.
in order to define the chronological, topographical and, generally, archaeological limits of the chapter. Zakros and Choiromandres might not have been as distant, as they may seem to be today.
Table 6: Comparative table of chronological phasing at Zakros. * Platon does not mention LM Ill. It is here named Zakros VI, by analogy to the rest of the phasing system.
Table 6: Comparative table of chronological phasing at Zakros. * Platon does not mention LM Ill. It is here named Zakros VI, by analogy to the rest of the phasing system.
Table 7: Archaeological finds at Zakros.
Table 7: Archaeological finds at Zakros.
Fig. 2.35: View of the area of Hagia Photia from the southwest, including part of the cemetery area. A triangular marker may be seen near the lower right corner of the picture.
Fig. 2.35: View of the area of Hagia Photia from the southwest, including part of the cemetery area. A triangular marker may be seen near the lower right corner of the picture.
Fig. 2.36: Plan of Tomb 29 at Hagia Photia (after Betancourt and Davaras 2004b: 38 Fig. 74, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory).
Fig. 2.36: Plan of Tomb 29 at Hagia Photia (after Betancourt and Davaras 2004b: 38 Fig. 74, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory).
Fig. 2.37: Plan of the tomb at Hagios Georgios (after Soles 1992: 128 Fig. 58, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.37: Plan of the tomb at Hagios Georgios (after Soles 1992: 128 Fig. 58, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 2.39: Plan of the tombs excavated at Istros (Haggis 1996: 648 Fig. 3, courtesy of the American Journal of Archaeology). Burials have been located at two sites, but the reports are extremely brief. The first site is the slope of the Kopranes hill at Istros, very close to the modern motorway and thus the sea. It comprises two built rectangular tombs with larnax and pithos burials respectively, dating to MM I-II, namely the end of the Prepalatial and the beginning of the Protopalatial period (Fig. 2.39; Haggis 1996; Haggis et al. 1993). It is important to note that the tombs were probably built upon the remains of an earlier settlement, as indicated by the EM I-II domestic remains excavated nearby, while the Protopalatial settlement is believed to lie to the east of the burials, as indicated by pottery scatters (Haggis 1996; Hayden 2004: 84). Kavousi is yet another area on the gulf of Mirabello (Fig. 2.40). The modern village is on the main road to Siteia. Kavousi has a flat lowland area to the north, towards the sea and the beach of Tholos, namely the coast opposite the islet of Psyra. Its west side is defined by the hills of Chalepa and Schinias. Its east side is dominated by Papoura and Kapsas, which belong to the Thriphti mountain range. In between lie the Kaminia and Kambos alluvium plains.
Fig. 2.39: Plan of the tombs excavated at Istros (Haggis 1996: 648 Fig. 3, courtesy of the American Journal of Archaeology). Burials have been located at two sites, but the reports are extremely brief. The first site is the slope of the Kopranes hill at Istros, very close to the modern motorway and thus the sea. It comprises two built rectangular tombs with larnax and pithos burials respectively, dating to MM I-II, namely the end of the Prepalatial and the beginning of the Protopalatial period (Fig. 2.39; Haggis 1996; Haggis et al. 1993). It is important to note that the tombs were probably built upon the remains of an earlier settlement, as indicated by the EM I-II domestic remains excavated nearby, while the Protopalatial settlement is believed to lie to the east of the burials, as indicated by pottery scatters (Haggis 1996; Hayden 2004: 84). Kavousi is yet another area on the gulf of Mirabello (Fig. 2.40). The modern village is on the main road to Siteia. Kavousi has a flat lowland area to the north, towards the sea and the beach of Tholos, namely the coast opposite the islet of Psyra. Its west side is defined by the hills of Chalepa and Schinias. Its east side is dominated by Papoura and Kapsas, which belong to the Thriphti mountain range. In between lie the Kaminia and Kambos alluvium plains.
The tomb is next to the settlement, below the summit country house, on the west slope and just outside the terrace walls. It is a built tomb with two rooms, a second storey, and a built cylindrical ossuary at its southeast corner. The area outside the tomb is paved and features a kernos at the north corner of the paved area and a bench
The tomb is next to the settlement, below the summit country house, on the west slope and just outside the terrace walls. It is a built tomb with two rooms, a second storey, and a built cylindrical ossuary at its southeast corner. The area outside the tomb is paved and features a kernos at the north corner of the paved area and a bench
Fig. 2.42: View of Pacheia Ammos from the northwest. Three rock shelters have been excavated (Boyd 1904: 21; Boyd-Hawes et al. 1908: 56; Photou 1993: 97) at the area of the modern village of Pherma, 300 m north of the road between Hierapetra and Makrygialos, 500 m from the sea. The finds attest inhumation directly on the ground,
Fig. 2.42: View of Pacheia Ammos from the northwest. Three rock shelters have been excavated (Boyd 1904: 21; Boyd-Hawes et al. 1908: 56; Photou 1993: 97) at the area of the modern village of Pherma, 300 m north of the road between Hierapetra and Makrygialos, 500 m from the sea. The finds attest inhumation directly on the ground,
A settlement developed on the southeast part of the islet and the dead were placed 310 m south of the settlement ‘as the crow flies’, on the rocky slope of a hill. The cemetery is naturally bordered by two ravines, east and west, a low ridge to the north and the sea to the south. There remain nineteen tombs in total (Fig. 2.45). Recent research discovered sixteen out of the thirty-three tombs that had been originally reported and added three more rock shelters. It is almost certain that the cemetery consisted of many more tombs that have not survived. The cemetery was used continuously between the FN and MM II periods, i.e. the end of the Protopalatial period. The dead were placed in rock shelters, cist built with slabs or small stones, a couple of which are large enough (about 2.5 m X 2 m) to classify as built house-tombs. It is possible that jar burials were placed at the fringe of the cemetery since the late Prepalatial and perhaps through the Neopalatial periods. However, the jar fragments were located out of context during the surface survey and were not accompanied by human remains. The settlement was finally destroyed at the end of the Neopalatial period and the Postpalatial remains are almost non-existent. There are no burials dating to this period either.
A settlement developed on the southeast part of the islet and the dead were placed 310 m south of the settlement ‘as the crow flies’, on the rocky slope of a hill. The cemetery is naturally bordered by two ravines, east and west, a low ridge to the north and the sea to the south. There remain nineteen tombs in total (Fig. 2.45). Recent research discovered sixteen out of the thirty-three tombs that had been originally reported and added three more rock shelters. It is almost certain that the cemetery consisted of many more tombs that have not survived. The cemetery was used continuously between the FN and MM II periods, i.e. the end of the Protopalatial period. The dead were placed in rock shelters, cist built with slabs or small stones, a couple of which are large enough (about 2.5 m X 2 m) to classify as built house-tombs. It is possible that jar burials were placed at the fringe of the cemetery since the late Prepalatial and perhaps through the Neopalatial periods. However, the jar fragments were located out of context during the surface survey and were not accompanied by human remains. The settlement was finally destroyed at the end of the Neopalatial period and the Postpalatial remains are almost non-existent. There are no burials dating to this period either.
Fig. 2.45: Plan of the cemetery area at Psyra (after Betancourt and Davaras 2003b: Fig. 2, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory).
Fig. 2.45: Plan of the cemetery area at Psyra (after Betancourt and Davaras 2003b: Fig. 2, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory).
Fig. 2.47: View of the entrance to the tholos at Achladia - Platyskinos. Fig. 2.46: Map of the area of Siteia with burial sites.
Fig. 2.47: View of the entrance to the tholos at Achladia - Platyskinos. Fig. 2.46: Map of the area of Siteia with burial sites.
Fig. 2.50: Tomb E at Praisos (after Bosanquet 1901- 2a: 254 Fig. 25. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 2.50: Tomb E at Praisos (after Bosanquet 1901- 2a: 254 Fig. 25. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 2.48: Tomb B at Praisos (after Bosanquet 1901- 2a: 246 Fig. 14. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 2.48: Tomb B at Praisos (after Bosanquet 1901- 2a: 246 Fig. 14. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
As a result, changes in visibility and architectural monumentality and the relative prominence of the worlds of dead and living follow a general pattern (Fig. 2.52), notwithstanding an important degree of variability, both in general and also regarding burial practice in particular. Nevertheless, and as much as collective attitudes towards the landscape did not disable choices at the level of individual community, changes in topography, funerary architecture and practice and social structure were related with each other and this relation constitutes a historical problem. The understanding of the social processes and historical events that this pattern represents may revolve around the following questions: How did burial changes happen? How do these changes correlate with wider changes in the Bronze Age east Cretan context both in terms of material culture and social process? In short, what is the nature of the relationship between funerary monumentality and social structure? What were the conditions that enabled different expressions of this relationship in the landscape in different periods? LM IB marks the end of the Minoan palatial society. LM II-IIIB, namely the 'Mycenean' period of Crete, saw the return of tombs as underground, and yet visible monuments, such as chambers with dromoi, which is the norm in east Crete. Larnakes and pithoi are still used but other funerary material implements, such as drinking and
As a result, changes in visibility and architectural monumentality and the relative prominence of the worlds of dead and living follow a general pattern (Fig. 2.52), notwithstanding an important degree of variability, both in general and also regarding burial practice in particular. Nevertheless, and as much as collective attitudes towards the landscape did not disable choices at the level of individual community, changes in topography, funerary architecture and practice and social structure were related with each other and this relation constitutes a historical problem. The understanding of the social processes and historical events that this pattern represents may revolve around the following questions: How did burial changes happen? How do these changes correlate with wider changes in the Bronze Age east Cretan context both in terms of material culture and social process? In short, what is the nature of the relationship between funerary monumentality and social structure? What were the conditions that enabled different expressions of this relationship in the landscape in different periods? LM IB marks the end of the Minoan palatial society. LM II-IIIB, namely the 'Mycenean' period of Crete, saw the return of tombs as underground, and yet visible monuments, such as chambers with dromoi, which is the norm in east Crete. Larnakes and pithoi are still used but other funerary material implements, such as drinking and
Fig. 3.1: View of Mochlos in 1908 (after Seager 1909: 274 Fig. 1, courtesy of the American Journal of Archaeology).
Fig. 3.1: View of Mochlos in 1908 (after Seager 1909: 274 Fig. 1, courtesy of the American Journal of Archaeology).
Fig. 3.2: View of Mochlos in 1998.
Fig. 3.2: View of Mochlos in 1998.
Table 9: A research agenda for the analysis of Bronze Age funerary architecture in east Crete.
Table 9: A research agenda for the analysis of Bronze Age funerary architecture in east Crete.
Table 8: A research agenda for the examination of the location and topography of the east Cretan burials.
Table 8: A research agenda for the examination of the location and topography of the east Cretan burials.
Table 11: A research agenda for the examination of artefacts used as funerary implements.
Table 11: A research agenda for the examination of artefacts used as funerary implements.
Hellenika at Palaikastro is similar to Sphoungaras. It is placed modestly at the bottom of the south slope of the otherwise prominent hill of Kastri (Fig. 4.2), which is again a key navigation point, as it protrudes into the sea and cuts Palaikastro into two bays, Chiona to the south and Kouremenos to the north. On the other hand, the Galeti ridge is more similar to the West Terrace at Another characteristic of EM II burials is a subtle balance of proximity and distance to the settlement. Burials were on one hand quite close to the settlement, and, on the other hand, clearly separated from it. The cemetery at Mochlos is about 80 m away from the settlement, but Fig. 4.1: Approaching Mochlos from the sea.
Hellenika at Palaikastro is similar to Sphoungaras. It is placed modestly at the bottom of the south slope of the otherwise prominent hill of Kastri (Fig. 4.2), which is again a key navigation point, as it protrudes into the sea and cuts Palaikastro into two bays, Chiona to the south and Kouremenos to the north. On the other hand, the Galeti ridge is more similar to the West Terrace at Another characteristic of EM II burials is a subtle balance of proximity and distance to the settlement. Burials were on one hand quite close to the settlement, and, on the other hand, clearly separated from it. The cemetery at Mochlos is about 80 m away from the settlement, but Fig. 4.1: Approaching Mochlos from the sea.
Fig. 4.3: Map of the Roussolakkos area showing patterns of inter-visibility between settlement and burial sites. Fig. 4.2: View of the area of Roussolakkos from the southeast, indicating the position of various prehistoric tombs.
Fig. 4.3: Map of the Roussolakkos area showing patterns of inter-visibility between settlement and burial sites. Fig. 4.2: View of the area of Roussolakkos from the southeast, indicating the position of various prehistoric tombs.
Fig. 4.4: Map of the area of Hagios Antonios at Kavousi, indicating inter-visibility with the settlement at Alykomouri (after Haggis 2005: Fig. 9, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory). It is not possible to assess Maronia, Linares and Pherma, mainly due to the lack of settlement evidence. Psyra resembles Palaikastro in that the path connecting cemetery and settlement in about 400 m long and the cemetery is not clearly seen from the settlement. The cave of Hagios Antonios at Kavousi is also about 500 m away from the settlement site of Alykomouri, but the two sites are inter-visible (Fig. 4.4). This exception may be due to
Fig. 4.4: Map of the area of Hagios Antonios at Kavousi, indicating inter-visibility with the settlement at Alykomouri (after Haggis 2005: Fig. 9, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory). It is not possible to assess Maronia, Linares and Pherma, mainly due to the lack of settlement evidence. Psyra resembles Palaikastro in that the path connecting cemetery and settlement in about 400 m long and the cemetery is not clearly seen from the settlement. The cave of Hagios Antonios at Kavousi is also about 500 m away from the settlement site of Alykomouri, but the two sites are inter-visible (Fig. 4.4). This exception may be due to
Fig. 4.6: The visual horizon of the cemeteries of Gournia.
Fig. 4.6: The visual horizon of the cemeteries of Gournia.
Fig. 4.5: The visual horizon of the cemetery at Mochlos.
Fig. 4.5: The visual horizon of the cemetery at Mochlos.
Fig. 4.7: View of the area of Kavousi from Hagios Antonios to the east and northeast.
Fig. 4.7: View of the area of Kavousi from Hagios Antonios to the east and northeast.
Fig. 4.8: View of Sarantari from Roussolakkos.
Fig. 4.8: View of Sarantari from Roussolakkos.
Fig. 4.10: The view from Sarantari to the east. Kastri blocks the view to the sea.
Fig. 4.10: The view from Sarantari to the east. Kastri blocks the view to the sea.
Fig. 4.12: Map of the area of Roussolakkos indicating the excavated and surveyed area, as well as the course of the possible enceinte wall in relation to burial sites (redrawn after MacGillivray et al. 1984 Fig. 2).
Fig. 4.12: Map of the area of Roussolakkos indicating the excavated and surveyed area, as well as the course of the possible enceinte wall in relation to burial sites (redrawn after MacGillivray et al. 1984 Fig. 2).
Regarding the ability of burial locales to facilitate the re- appropriation of the landscape, most Neopalatial burial
Regarding the ability of burial locales to facilitate the re- appropriation of the landscape, most Neopalatial burial
Fig. 4.15: Lamnoni site L44 (after Branigan 1998b: 66 Fig. 23. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). It should be admitted that the evidence supporting the two hypotheses above is not conclusive at all. We cannot prove that the dead were buried in the sea or close to it in the four case study areas. Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt that there had probably been a very close connection between the dead and the sea in Neopalatial Crete, which is partly responsible for the lack of visibility of MM III - LM I burials. The rest of the responsibility lies with other Neopalatial burial practices, such as using burial grounds that had been used in the past, e.g. the West Terrace at Mochlos, Sphoungaras at Gournia, the cemeteries of Pacheia Ammos and Psyra, and possibly the caves of Hagios Antonios and the tomb at Myrtos - Pyrgos.
Fig. 4.15: Lamnoni site L44 (after Branigan 1998b: 66 Fig. 23. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). It should be admitted that the evidence supporting the two hypotheses above is not conclusive at all. We cannot prove that the dead were buried in the sea or close to it in the four case study areas. Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt that there had probably been a very close connection between the dead and the sea in Neopalatial Crete, which is partly responsible for the lack of visibility of MM III - LM I burials. The rest of the responsibility lies with other Neopalatial burial practices, such as using burial grounds that had been used in the past, e.g. the West Terrace at Mochlos, Sphoungaras at Gournia, the cemeteries of Pacheia Ammos and Psyra, and possibly the caves of Hagios Antonios and the tomb at Myrtos - Pyrgos.
Fig. 4.19: Plan of Neopalatial sites at Kavousi (after Haggis 2005: Fig. 12, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory). Fig. 4.17: Map of Lamnoni (after Branigan 1998b: 85 Fig. 38. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 4.19: Plan of Neopalatial sites at Kavousi (after Haggis 2005: Fig. 12, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory). Fig. 4.17: Map of Lamnoni (after Branigan 1998b: 85 Fig. 38. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 4.18: Map of Katelionas (after Branigan 1998b: 86 Fig. 39. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 4.18: Map of Katelionas (after Branigan 1998b: 86 Fig. 39. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 4.20: Ground plan of the cemetery at Mochlos, indicating findspots of Neopalatial deposits (after Soles 1992: Plan 3, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 4.20: Ground plan of the cemetery at Mochlos, indicating findspots of Neopalatial deposits (after Soles 1992: Plan 3, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 4.21: View of a chamber dug into the kouskouras at Pharmakokephalo from the west.
Fig. 4.21: View of a chamber dug into the kouskouras at Pharmakokephalo from the west.
Fig. 4.22: View of a rock shelter at the South Cemetery of Petsofas, Palaikastro, from the east.
Fig. 4.22: View of a rock shelter at the South Cemetery of Petsofas, Palaikastro, from the east.
Fig. 4.23: View of the area of Mochlos from Myrsini.
Fig. 4.23: View of the area of Mochlos from Myrsini.
Fig. 4.24: View from Roussolakkos to the northeast. It has to be kept in mind that the prominence of LMII-III burial locales cannot compare to the prominence of Prepalatial burial locales. Most burial locations were not exceptional, except for the Gorge of the Dead. The hills of Limenaria, Aspropilia, Sarantari, Praisos - Kapsalos and Pharmakokephalo or the small knolls at the foot of Petsofas cannot compare to Prepalatial burial locations. The West Terrace, the North Cemetery, and Galeti were prominent and exceptional landmarks in their areas signifying either the limits or the gateways to the Regarding other case studies, most inland areas, particularly the sites south of modern Siteia up to and including the area of Praisos, have restricted visual horizons, being restricted by neighbouring hills and
Fig. 4.24: View from Roussolakkos to the northeast. It has to be kept in mind that the prominence of LMII-III burial locales cannot compare to the prominence of Prepalatial burial locales. Most burial locations were not exceptional, except for the Gorge of the Dead. The hills of Limenaria, Aspropilia, Sarantari, Praisos - Kapsalos and Pharmakokephalo or the small knolls at the foot of Petsofas cannot compare to Prepalatial burial locations. The West Terrace, the North Cemetery, and Galeti were prominent and exceptional landmarks in their areas signifying either the limits or the gateways to the Regarding other case studies, most inland areas, particularly the sites south of modern Siteia up to and including the area of Praisos, have restricted visual horizons, being restricted by neighbouring hills and
The constant link between the dead and the living turns discussion to the taskscape, which was then characterised by regionalisation. The exception might have been Palaikastro, which was an extensive and prosperous community. An Ephyrean goblet from the settlement and the Palaikastrian pottery found in other sites suggest that Palaikastro was in contact with the rest of the world, both within and outside Crete (Day in Tsipopoulou and Vagnetti 1995; MacGillivray 1997b: 278 contra Tsipopoulou ibid). The pottery from Mochlos (Brogan et al. 2002: 101-116; Smith 2004) suggests that contacts with Knossos were not entirely absent. On the contrary, they may have played an important role in shaping social hierarchy and structure at Mochlos. Nonetheless, all contact with the world outside the community was deeply embedded within a strong notion of local identity, as implied by the overwhelming majority of local pottery. Fig. 4.25: View from Roussolakkos to the west. The visible place of burials is much different from the discreteness of Prepalatial burials, which had been invisible from the settlement. LM III burials were part of
The constant link between the dead and the living turns discussion to the taskscape, which was then characterised by regionalisation. The exception might have been Palaikastro, which was an extensive and prosperous community. An Ephyrean goblet from the settlement and the Palaikastrian pottery found in other sites suggest that Palaikastro was in contact with the rest of the world, both within and outside Crete (Day in Tsipopoulou and Vagnetti 1995; MacGillivray 1997b: 278 contra Tsipopoulou ibid). The pottery from Mochlos (Brogan et al. 2002: 101-116; Smith 2004) suggests that contacts with Knossos were not entirely absent. On the contrary, they may have played an important role in shaping social hierarchy and structure at Mochlos. Nonetheless, all contact with the world outside the community was deeply embedded within a strong notion of local identity, as implied by the overwhelming majority of local pottery. Fig. 4.25: View from Roussolakkos to the west. The visible place of burials is much different from the discreteness of Prepalatial burials, which had been invisible from the settlement. LM III burials were part of
Fig. 4.26: View from Roussolakkos to the southeast. From the rest of the Postpalatial burial locations, the cave at Ridopoulia, Kavousi yielded an earlier deposit, but its relationship with the LM III burials is uncertain. At Itanion cinema, Siteia, chambers were dug into the soft rock close to the Neopalatial cave, but the cave itself was not re-used. Proximity to places of past activity might be an indication of the significance of the pastscape, but not LM III burial places might have been meaningful and thus important because the taskscape included them within its frame at any time. The place of burials and thus their importance was secure, but this importance was peripheral, because burial locations were not positioned at crossroads of human activity. Furthermore, the peripheral place of burials might not have allowed them to re-appropriate the taskscape through their frame. As a result, the taskscape
Fig. 4.26: View from Roussolakkos to the southeast. From the rest of the Postpalatial burial locations, the cave at Ridopoulia, Kavousi yielded an earlier deposit, but its relationship with the LM III burials is uncertain. At Itanion cinema, Siteia, chambers were dug into the soft rock close to the Neopalatial cave, but the cave itself was not re-used. Proximity to places of past activity might be an indication of the significance of the pastscape, but not LM III burial places might have been meaningful and thus important because the taskscape included them within its frame at any time. The place of burials and thus their importance was secure, but this importance was peripheral, because burial locations were not positioned at crossroads of human activity. Furthermore, the peripheral place of burials might not have allowed them to re-appropriate the taskscape through their frame. As a result, the taskscape
Chapter 2 has demonstrated that architecture had been strategically employed in order to make the landscape a meaningful social construct. It brought certain human activities happening in this landscape to the fore at the expense of others. This chapter examines architecture in two ways. First, it looks for resources that funerary architecture drew from the land- task- and past- scape. In addition, it examines how architecture structured burial places into specific settings; how these setting facilitated the perception and re-appropriation of the world into meaningful landscapes through the frame of funerary activity. Fig. 5.1: Plans of Tombs XIX, XXIII, A and B at Mochlos (after Soles 1992: 66 Fig. 25, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Chapter 2 has demonstrated that architecture had been strategically employed in order to make the landscape a meaningful social construct. It brought certain human activities happening in this landscape to the fore at the expense of others. This chapter examines architecture in two ways. First, it looks for resources that funerary architecture drew from the land- task- and past- scape. In addition, it examines how architecture structured burial places into specific settings; how these setting facilitated the perception and re-appropriation of the world into meaningful landscapes through the frame of funerary activity. Fig. 5.1: Plans of Tombs XIX, XXIII, A and B at Mochlos (after Soles 1992: 66 Fig. 25, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
At the North Cemetery of Gournia, Tomb III is the only edifice. Tomb III may be reconstructed in at least three ways (Vavouranakis in press). It may have had only one central entrance (Plate 2.4), or separate entrances for each compartment, which in turn may have been built at the same time (Plate 3.1) or in an agglutinative manner (Fig. 5.3). Only the last reconstruction allows the natural background to appear emphatically. Fig. 5.2: Plan of Rock shelter XVIII at Mochlos (after Soles 1992: 106 Fig. 47, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
At the North Cemetery of Gournia, Tomb III is the only edifice. Tomb III may be reconstructed in at least three ways (Vavouranakis in press). It may have had only one central entrance (Plate 2.4), or separate entrances for each compartment, which in turn may have been built at the same time (Plate 3.1) or in an agglutinative manner (Fig. 5.3). Only the last reconstruction allows the natural background to appear emphatically. Fig. 5.2: Plan of Rock shelter XVIII at Mochlos (after Soles 1992: 106 Fig. 47, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.3: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb II at the North Cemetery, Gournia. Compartments have been built as consecutive additions.
Fig. 5.3: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb II at the North Cemetery, Gournia. Compartments have been built as consecutive additions.
Fig. 5.4: Plans of Tombs 11 and 13 at Psyra (after Betancourt and Davaras 2003b: Fig. 13, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory).
Fig. 5.4: Plans of Tombs 11 and 13 at Psyra (after Betancourt and Davaras 2003b: Fig. 13, courtesy of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory).
Fig. 5.5: View of the Gorge of the Dead, Zakros.
Fig. 5.5: View of the Gorge of the Dead, Zakros.
Fig. 5.6: Tomb YU/IT, view from the south. Note the large standing stone slab (after Soles 1992: Pl. 16b, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.6: Tomb YU/IT, view from the south. Note the large standing stone slab (after Soles 1992: Pl. 16b, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.7: The visual focus of the visitors to the West Terrace, Mochlo:
Fig. 5.7: The visual focus of the visitors to the West Terrace, Mochlo:
Fig. 5.9: Tentative plan of Tomb IV/V/VI at Mochlos without Compartment V (redrawn after Soles 1992: 52 Fig. 20).
Fig. 5.9: Tentative plan of Tomb IV/V/VI at Mochlos without Compartment V (redrawn after Soles 1992: 52 Fig. 20).
Fig. 5.8: Tentative plan of Tomb I/I/HI without Compartment III. Assumed wall parts in grey (redrawn after Soles 1992: 44 Fig. 16).
Fig. 5.8: Tentative plan of Tomb I/I/HI without Compartment III. Assumed wall parts in grey (redrawn after Soles 1992: 44 Fig. 16).
Fig. 5.10: Plan of Tomb HI at the North Cemetery, Gournia, with alternative reconstructions of its fagade (redraw after Soles 1992: 29 Fig. 11).
Fig. 5.10: Plan of Tomb HI at the North Cemetery, Gournia, with alternative reconstructions of its fagade (redraw after Soles 1992: 29 Fig. 11).
as Tombs VII, VIII, Z, Eta and Theta at Mochlos (Fig. 5.12). Finally, Zois (1998a: 68) points out that some of the less monumental South Slope tombs at Mochlos and Tomb I at Galeti might have been left open, since they show no evidence for either roofing or doorway. Instead, these tombs could have been accessed from above and did not resemble houses. Doorways, piers and jambs are structural elements present in both houses and tombs. Examples from Mochlos are the doorjambs of Tombs VII, [X and X (Fig. 5.13). Tomb Z has produced a stone pivot too, which is an indication for a door. Notwithstanding Zois' reservations, according to Soles (ibid. 213-214), most early Prepalatial tombs could have been roofed and several have produced such indications too.
as Tombs VII, VIII, Z, Eta and Theta at Mochlos (Fig. 5.12). Finally, Zois (1998a: 68) points out that some of the less monumental South Slope tombs at Mochlos and Tomb I at Galeti might have been left open, since they show no evidence for either roofing or doorway. Instead, these tombs could have been accessed from above and did not resemble houses. Doorways, piers and jambs are structural elements present in both houses and tombs. Examples from Mochlos are the doorjambs of Tombs VII, [X and X (Fig. 5.13). Tomb Z has produced a stone pivot too, which is an indication for a door. Notwithstanding Zois' reservations, according to Soles (ibid. 213-214), most early Prepalatial tombs could have been roofed and several have produced such indications too.
Fig. 5.13: Plans of Tombs IX and X and VII, with highlighted entrances (after Soles 1992: 79 Fig. 31, 99 Fig. 42, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Fig. 5.12: Plan of Tombs VII and Z (after Soles 1992: 99 Fig. 42, 107 Fig. 48, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.13: Plans of Tombs IX and X and VII, with highlighted entrances (after Soles 1992: 79 Fig. 31, 99 Fig. 42, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Fig. 5.12: Plan of Tombs VII and Z (after Soles 1992: 99 Fig. 42, 107 Fig. 48, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Table 12: The function of the domestic features of the early Prepalatial tombs. On the one hand, early Prepalatial tombs facilitated a gradual passage from the world of the living to the domain of the dead, which kept the two worlds inextricably linked. On the other hand, cemeteries were complexly structured places and thus necessitated a complex structuring of roles at the funeral. Hence, funerary activity was able to re-appropriate the full gamut of the taskscape, including its most intricate aspects. Below, I discuss three aspects of funerary architecture, which are supportive of the above suggestions: Domestic affinities, tomb plans and the layout of the cemetery.
Table 12: The function of the domestic features of the early Prepalatial tombs. On the one hand, early Prepalatial tombs facilitated a gradual passage from the world of the living to the domain of the dead, which kept the two worlds inextricably linked. On the other hand, cemeteries were complexly structured places and thus necessitated a complex structuring of roles at the funeral. Hence, funerary activity was able to re-appropriate the full gamut of the taskscape, including its most intricate aspects. Below, I discuss three aspects of funerary architecture, which are supportive of the above suggestions: Domestic affinities, tomb plans and the layout of the cemetery.
Fig. 5.14: Plan of the cemetery at Mochlos and possible paths through the terraces from the settlement to the West Terrace (plan after Soles 1992: Plan 3). Thus, the domestic fagades arranged burial space in a tripartite scheme, which is reminiscent of Van Gennep's (1960 [1908]) basic three-stage structure of passage rites: preliminal / liminal / postliminal. The gradual character of the passage was further accentuated by the pattern of burial depositions. Old burials were pushed to the back of the tomb, much in the same way as at Mochlos tombs IX The gradual passage was also emphasised with the overall plan of the cemetery at Mochlos (Fig. 5.14). The latter is largely defined by the two possible main paths, leading from the settlement on the south coast of the islet to the West Terrace. The modern path goes west - northwest out of the settlement and follows the coastline roughly, taking a north turn immediately outside the last houses in order to meet the first tombs just east of the terraces of the south slope. It keeps in the same direction, just above the west coast cliffs, lightly ascending. Around tomb VIII it could have had an alternative to the west of Tombs VIII, A and B, on terrace 3 instead of terrace 4. This alternative meets with the modern path before tomb VII, where it turns to
Fig. 5.14: Plan of the cemetery at Mochlos and possible paths through the terraces from the settlement to the West Terrace (plan after Soles 1992: Plan 3). Thus, the domestic fagades arranged burial space in a tripartite scheme, which is reminiscent of Van Gennep's (1960 [1908]) basic three-stage structure of passage rites: preliminal / liminal / postliminal. The gradual character of the passage was further accentuated by the pattern of burial depositions. Old burials were pushed to the back of the tomb, much in the same way as at Mochlos tombs IX The gradual passage was also emphasised with the overall plan of the cemetery at Mochlos (Fig. 5.14). The latter is largely defined by the two possible main paths, leading from the settlement on the south coast of the islet to the West Terrace. The modern path goes west - northwest out of the settlement and follows the coastline roughly, taking a north turn immediately outside the last houses in order to meet the first tombs just east of the terraces of the south slope. It keeps in the same direction, just above the west coast cliffs, lightly ascending. Around tomb VIII it could have had an alternative to the west of Tombs VIII, A and B, on terrace 3 instead of terrace 4. This alternative meets with the modern path before tomb VII, where it turns to
Fig. 5.15: View of altar and paved area in front of Tomb IV/V/VI at Mochlos (after Soles 1992: Pl. 22c, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.15: View of altar and paved area in front of Tomb IV/V/VI at Mochlos (after Soles 1992: Pl. 22c, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
These later buildings lack orthostats, sometimes using wall plaster (Tomb Gamma) instead. Their walls also have curved corners (Tomb Delta, Fig. 5.18), a feature that is not common with earlier tombs. The early (EM Fig. 5.17: Plan of Tomb I/IV/1II. Added walls in grey, assumed walls in chequered grey (after Soles 1992: 44 Fig. 16, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
These later buildings lack orthostats, sometimes using wall plaster (Tomb Gamma) instead. Their walls also have curved corners (Tomb Delta, Fig. 5.18), a feature that is not common with earlier tombs. The early (EM Fig. 5.17: Plan of Tomb I/IV/1II. Added walls in grey, assumed walls in chequered grey (after Soles 1992: 44 Fig. 16, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.18: Plan of Tomb Delta at Mochlos (after Soles 1992: 102 Fig. 44, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.18: Plan of Tomb Delta at Mochlos (after Soles 1992: 102 Fig. 44, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.19: View of the tholos at Myrsini - Galana Charakia from the east. The Myrsini tholos represents a clearly different architectural attitude to that seen on the West Terrace, not to mention the possibility of expressing a statement of different cultural identity. Tholoi are a regionally specific phenomenon of Mesara, southern Crete. There are very few tholoi outside Mesara, and only a couple of ambiguous examples in east Crete (Branigan 1993: 13- 15). Because of such a consistent distribution pattern, tholoi outside Mesara are usually considered (ibid.) as having cultural implications regarding the identity of the people that built and used them. These implications make the differences between the funerary architecture of the Mochlos and Myrsini tombs more emphatic.
Fig. 5.19: View of the tholos at Myrsini - Galana Charakia from the east. The Myrsini tholos represents a clearly different architectural attitude to that seen on the West Terrace, not to mention the possibility of expressing a statement of different cultural identity. Tholoi are a regionally specific phenomenon of Mesara, southern Crete. There are very few tholoi outside Mesara, and only a couple of ambiguous examples in east Crete (Branigan 1993: 13- 15). Because of such a consistent distribution pattern, tholoi outside Mesara are usually considered (ibid.) as having cultural implications regarding the identity of the people that built and used them. These implications make the differences between the funerary architecture of the Mochlos and Myrsini tombs more emphatic.
Fig. 5.20: Ground plan of the tomb at Myrtos - Pyrgos (after Cadogan 1977-8: Fig. 5. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 5.20: Ground plan of the tomb at Myrtos - Pyrgos (after Cadogan 1977-8: Fig. 5. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens).
Fig. 5.21: View of Tomb IT with the kernos at the North Cemetery, Gournia, from the east (after Soles 1992: Pl. 7a courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). There are a few exceptions to the overall tendency suggested above. The tomb at Kato Zakros - Rizes took extensive advantage of the natural topography and it First, it is evident in the layout of the North Cemetery and possibly Hellenika at Palaikastro too, where, as already mentioned, tombs were arranged in clusters. If the MM IB-IIA tomb clusters at cemetery of Kephala Petras had been constructed in the Prepalatial period, they would be similar to Palaikastro and the North Cemetery. Thus, many burial sites gave the impression of a miniature reproduction of a small neighbourhood of houses, with lanes between them, and, in the case of the North Cemetery, a small open area in the middle. They
Fig. 5.21: View of Tomb IT with the kernos at the North Cemetery, Gournia, from the east (after Soles 1992: Pl. 7a courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). There are a few exceptions to the overall tendency suggested above. The tomb at Kato Zakros - Rizes took extensive advantage of the natural topography and it First, it is evident in the layout of the North Cemetery and possibly Hellenika at Palaikastro too, where, as already mentioned, tombs were arranged in clusters. If the MM IB-IIA tomb clusters at cemetery of Kephala Petras had been constructed in the Prepalatial period, they would be similar to Palaikastro and the North Cemetery. Thus, many burial sites gave the impression of a miniature reproduction of a small neighbourhood of houses, with lanes between them, and, in the case of the North Cemetery, a small open area in the middle. They
Fig. 5.22: Tomb I at the North Cemetery, Gournia, and a selection of pottery found in the pit (composed after Soles 1992: 4 Fig.2, 14 Fig. 5, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.22: Tomb I at the North Cemetery, Gournia, and a selection of pottery found in the pit (composed after Soles 1992: 4 Fig.2, 14 Fig. 5, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.24: The LM IB signet ring of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 52, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). It should be also noted that the whole Neopalatial period was marked by catastrophic events, such as earthquakes and the Santorini eruption. Ash was found in the foundations of LM IB houses at Mochlos. Under such an interpretative prism, the dead bodies of the unlucky
Fig. 5.24: The LM IB signet ring of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 52, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). It should be also noted that the whole Neopalatial period was marked by catastrophic events, such as earthquakes and the Santorini eruption. Ash was found in the foundations of LM IB houses at Mochlos. Under such an interpretative prism, the dead bodies of the unlucky
Fig. 5.25: Plan of Tomb 10 at Limenaria, Mochlos (after Soles and Davaras 1996: 213 fig. 19, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 5.25: Plan of Tomb 10 at Limenaria, Mochlos (after Soles and Davaras 1996: 213 fig. 19, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Table 13: Postpalatial sites and tomb types in east Crete. Gournia, Mochlos, Palaikastro and Zakros are not included. Ihe importance of the chamber tomb 1s stressed by the finds at Angathia, Palaikastro. There, the chamber was dug into the conglomerate and not kouskouras. Consequently, the roof collapsed. However, the chamber tomb was not abandoned. The discovery of the burial assemblage directly above the chamber debris implies that the burial was placed on top after the collapse of the roof. An exception to the rule is Gournia and the Artisans’ Quarter at Mochlos, where burials were placed in abandoned Neopalatial buildings (Fig. 5.26). However, the exception can be understood if we realise that there is the same underlying principle behind all these different types of tombs (chamber, pit, cist, rock shelter, cave, rock ledge, small tholos) and also the use of the collapsed roof at Angathia. The dead had to be placed in a confined space, preferably in the ground. The above are very instructive about the relationship between funerary architecture and landscape, wherein the Achladia tholos also fits. They show that the landscape was an important resource for funerary architecture, from a purely practical point of view. The landscape informed funerary architecture because the latter had to fit the specific qualities of the terrain. However, the preconceived plan of a small burial chamber was not compromised at all. This relationship marks a departure from the preceding period, when landscape dominated architecture and tomb forms had to be compromised, in order for burials to leave as little visible traces as possible.
Table 13: Postpalatial sites and tomb types in east Crete. Gournia, Mochlos, Palaikastro and Zakros are not included. Ihe importance of the chamber tomb 1s stressed by the finds at Angathia, Palaikastro. There, the chamber was dug into the conglomerate and not kouskouras. Consequently, the roof collapsed. However, the chamber tomb was not abandoned. The discovery of the burial assemblage directly above the chamber debris implies that the burial was placed on top after the collapse of the roof. An exception to the rule is Gournia and the Artisans’ Quarter at Mochlos, where burials were placed in abandoned Neopalatial buildings (Fig. 5.26). However, the exception can be understood if we realise that there is the same underlying principle behind all these different types of tombs (chamber, pit, cist, rock shelter, cave, rock ledge, small tholos) and also the use of the collapsed roof at Angathia. The dead had to be placed in a confined space, preferably in the ground. The above are very instructive about the relationship between funerary architecture and landscape, wherein the Achladia tholos also fits. They show that the landscape was an important resource for funerary architecture, from a purely practical point of view. The landscape informed funerary architecture because the latter had to fit the specific qualities of the terrain. However, the preconceived plan of a small burial chamber was not compromised at all. This relationship marks a departure from the preceding period, when landscape dominated architecture and tomb forms had to be compromised, in order for burials to leave as little visible traces as possible.
Fig. 5.27: The rites of passage: The Hagia Triada sarcophagus and Tomb 10 at Limenaria, Mochlos (redrawn after a photo-slide of the Museum of Herakleion and Soles and Davaras 1996: 213 Fig. 9).
Fig. 5.27: The rites of passage: The Hagia Triada sarcophagus and Tomb 10 at Limenaria, Mochlos (redrawn after a photo-slide of the Museum of Herakleion and Soles and Davaras 1996: 213 Fig. 9).
is a woman responsible for liquid pouring in the crater, namely a person with direct involvement in the ceremony. The others are wearing clothes that are not made of the same material as the robe of the dead person. The above discussion suggests that the re-appropriation of the taskscape was conducted through ritual activity with a detailed structure, according to a tripartite scheme that entailed a gradual passage from the world of the living to the domain of the dead (Table 14).
is a woman responsible for liquid pouring in the crater, namely a person with direct involvement in the ceremony. The others are wearing clothes that are not made of the same material as the robe of the dead person. The above discussion suggests that the re-appropriation of the taskscape was conducted through ritual activity with a detailed structure, according to a tripartite scheme that entailed a gradual passage from the world of the living to the domain of the dead (Table 14).
Fig. 6.1: Tomb VII at Galeti, Palaikastro: Tightly packed human remains and artefacts (after Bosanquet 1901-2b: 291 Fig. 5. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). Metcalf in particular quotes ethnographic examples that demonstrate how activity at a secondary stage should not be necessarily equated with commemoration, unless there is evidence to suggest so. Whitley (2002) has also offered archaeological examples from ancient Greece that support the same word of caution regarding commemoration and the evocation and character of ancestors.
Fig. 6.1: Tomb VII at Galeti, Palaikastro: Tightly packed human remains and artefacts (after Bosanquet 1901-2b: 291 Fig. 5. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens). Metcalf in particular quotes ethnographic examples that demonstrate how activity at a secondary stage should not be necessarily equated with commemoration, unless there is evidence to suggest so. Whitley (2002) has also offered archaeological examples from ancient Greece that support the same word of caution regarding commemoration and the evocation and character of ancestors.
The finds at the cemetery of the West Terrace at Mochlos, provide ample indications for food and drink (Fig. 7.1). Vessels are mostly made of stone. Despite the reservation mentioned above, we can be sure that stone vessels had a dominant place in the cemetery. Soles' clearing of the tombs in the 1970s, as well as Seager's report imply that e.g. the 29 vessels from Compartment II of Tomb I/II/III represent a small part of the original depositions. Furthermore, the stone vessels are the fourth biggest assemblage on Crete (Warren 1969: 123). Popular shapes include bowls, cups, mugs, spouted bowls, teapots and juglets. In addition, there are clay vases, such as jugs, bowls, cups and stands/lids. There Previous chapters have argued that early Prepalatial burial places were pivotal points in the landscape. They were able to affect the perception of the taskscape and particularly the seascape by occupying key-locations within their respective areas and by providing an elaborately constructed architectural setting that allowed the re-appropriation of a detailed index of social roles. Artefacts are supportive of this view. Below I examine the Fig. 7.1: Early Prepalatial assemblage from Tomb I/TI/IIT, Compartment IT, at the West Terrace, Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 7, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
The finds at the cemetery of the West Terrace at Mochlos, provide ample indications for food and drink (Fig. 7.1). Vessels are mostly made of stone. Despite the reservation mentioned above, we can be sure that stone vessels had a dominant place in the cemetery. Soles' clearing of the tombs in the 1970s, as well as Seager's report imply that e.g. the 29 vessels from Compartment II of Tomb I/II/III represent a small part of the original depositions. Furthermore, the stone vessels are the fourth biggest assemblage on Crete (Warren 1969: 123). Popular shapes include bowls, cups, mugs, spouted bowls, teapots and juglets. In addition, there are clay vases, such as jugs, bowls, cups and stands/lids. There Previous chapters have argued that early Prepalatial burial places were pivotal points in the landscape. They were able to affect the perception of the taskscape and particularly the seascape by occupying key-locations within their respective areas and by providing an elaborately constructed architectural setting that allowed the re-appropriation of a detailed index of social roles. Artefacts are supportive of this view. Below I examine the Fig. 7.1: Early Prepalatial assemblage from Tomb I/TI/IIT, Compartment IT, at the West Terrace, Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 7, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.2: Early Prepalatial bronze implements (after Soles 1992: pl. 23, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.2: Early Prepalatial bronze implements (after Soles 1992: pl. 23, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.3: Stone quern from the cemetery of Mochlos (after Soles 1992: pl. 24b, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.3: Stone quern from the cemetery of Mochlos (after Soles 1992: pl. 24b, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Table 15: Frequency of each functional category in the Myrtos assemblage. Data after Warren 1972. Categorisation after Whitelaw et al. 1997 (also cf. Tenwolde 1992). Fig. 7.5: Frequency of main functional categories of vases in the Myrtos assemblage.
Table 15: Frequency of each functional category in the Myrtos assemblage. Data after Warren 1972. Categorisation after Whitelaw et al. 1997 (also cf. Tenwolde 1992). Fig. 7.5: Frequency of main functional categories of vases in the Myrtos assemblage.
Fig. 7.6: Gold diadems with holes, signs of hard use from the cemetery of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: 28 Fig. 9, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.6: Gold diadems with holes, signs of hard use from the cemetery of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: 28 Fig. 9, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.7: The lifecycle of imported materials in Mochlos. important for the community at Psyra, its re-appropriation happened at the generally modest scale that seems to have characterised most aspects of the life of this community. As Figure 7.7 shows, the lifecycle of these products ran a full circle around the cemetery. The West Terrace was the starting point of the lifecycle of exotica, because, as the topography chapter has demonstrated, the West Terrace was the maritime 'gateway' to Mochlos. The West Terrace was the end point of their lifecycle too, because this is where the objects were finally deposited. As a result, the cemetery as a location and the ritual acts happening on it regulated the perception of maritime activity (seascape) through the appropriation of the products of this activity. Funerary re-appropriation did not focus on the seascape only. The pottery that was used and deposited in the cemeteries was exclusively Cretan. No imported pots from the Cyclades or elsewhere have been reported from any of the four case studies. Furthermore, according to Wilson and Day (1994: 21 n. 70, 79) the grey incised pyxides from Gournia are products of Mesara, while pyxides from Mochlos and Zakros are east Cretan, 1.e. local and regional products. Pottery might have comprised a counterpoint to the maritime exotica because it referred to a different kind of geography, perhaps more local and closely related to the land. In the same vein, emphasis on food and drink meant that products of the earth, i.e. agricultural and pastoral activity, were brought into the funeral. Thus, the products of the landscape became part of the embodied symbolic re-appropriation of the taskscape, together with the products of the seascape.
Fig. 7.7: The lifecycle of imported materials in Mochlos. important for the community at Psyra, its re-appropriation happened at the generally modest scale that seems to have characterised most aspects of the life of this community. As Figure 7.7 shows, the lifecycle of these products ran a full circle around the cemetery. The West Terrace was the starting point of the lifecycle of exotica, because, as the topography chapter has demonstrated, the West Terrace was the maritime 'gateway' to Mochlos. The West Terrace was the end point of their lifecycle too, because this is where the objects were finally deposited. As a result, the cemetery as a location and the ritual acts happening on it regulated the perception of maritime activity (seascape) through the appropriation of the products of this activity. Funerary re-appropriation did not focus on the seascape only. The pottery that was used and deposited in the cemeteries was exclusively Cretan. No imported pots from the Cyclades or elsewhere have been reported from any of the four case studies. Furthermore, according to Wilson and Day (1994: 21 n. 70, 79) the grey incised pyxides from Gournia are products of Mesara, while pyxides from Mochlos and Zakros are east Cretan, 1.e. local and regional products. Pottery might have comprised a counterpoint to the maritime exotica because it referred to a different kind of geography, perhaps more local and closely related to the land. In the same vein, emphasis on food and drink meant that products of the earth, i.e. agricultural and pastoral activity, were brought into the funeral. Thus, the products of the landscape became part of the embodied symbolic re-appropriation of the taskscape, together with the products of the seascape.
Fig. 7.8: MM IA vessel from the North Cemetery (not in scale; after Soles 1992: 24 Fig. 8, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Evidence from other tombs and other case studies is more controversial. The brief report on the tholos at Myrsini mentions pithoi and larnakes, 25 complete vessels, including stands/lids, teapots, bowls, cups, basins and a couple of jars. However, the report does not mention which of these are EM II-MM IA and which are MM IB- II. Obsidian blades and bronze tools are reported too, as well as spindle whorls, but again without exact dating. On the basis of the above information, and notwithstanding the finding of two jars, i.e. storage vessels, it could be suggested that the evidence from Myrsini does not contradict the West Terrace or the cemeteries of Gournia.
Fig. 7.8: MM IA vessel from the North Cemetery (not in scale; after Soles 1992: 24 Fig. 8, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Evidence from other tombs and other case studies is more controversial. The brief report on the tholos at Myrsini mentions pithoi and larnakes, 25 complete vessels, including stands/lids, teapots, bowls, cups, basins and a couple of jars. However, the report does not mention which of these are EM II-MM IA and which are MM IB- II. Obsidian blades and bronze tools are reported too, as well as spindle whorls, but again without exact dating. On the basis of the above information, and notwithstanding the finding of two jars, i.e. storage vessels, it could be suggested that the evidence from Myrsini does not contradict the West Terrace or the cemeteries of Gournia.
Fig. 7.9: Late Prepalatial finds (with asterisk above them) from tomb X1 at the cemetery of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 28, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Fig. 7.10: Late Prepalatial female figurine from tomb XII at the cemetery of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 34, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.9: Late Prepalatial finds (with asterisk above them) from tomb X1 at the cemetery of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 28, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Fig. 7.10: Late Prepalatial female figurine from tomb XII at the cemetery of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 34, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.11: Late Prepalatial bull figurine from tomb XT at the cemetery of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 29, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.11: Late Prepalatial bull figurine from tomb XT at the cemetery of Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 29, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.13: Neopalatial finds from the cemetery of the West Terrace at Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 31, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.13: Neopalatial finds from the cemetery of the West Terrace at Mochlos (after Seager 1912: Fig. 31, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.12: Clay seal, bronze axe and bronze pin from the LM I burials at Sphoungaras. Approximate scale 1:3 (Hall 1912: 68 Figs 40-42).
Fig. 7.12: Clay seal, bronze axe and bronze pin from the LM I burials at Sphoungaras. Approximate scale 1:3 (Hall 1912: 68 Figs 40-42).
Fig. 7.14: Plan of Tomb 15 at Limenaria, Mochlos (after Soles and Davaras 1996: 219 Fig. 24, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Fig. 7.14: Plan of Tomb 15 at Limenaria, Mochlos (after Soles and Davaras 1996: 219 Fig. 24, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
Plate 1.1: Photorealistic reconstruction of the area of Mochlos. Aerial view from the west.
Plate 1.1: Photorealistic reconstruction of the area of Mochlos. Aerial view from the west.
Plate 1.2: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb I/II/III at Mochlos. Compartment II has two doors. Compartment HI : open air.
Plate 1.2: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb I/II/III at Mochlos. Compartment II has two doors. Compartment HI : open air.
Plate 2.1: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb I/II/III at Mochlos. Compartment II has one door and one niche Compartment III is roofed.
Plate 2.1: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb I/II/III at Mochlos. Compartment II has one door and one niche Compartment III is roofed.
Plate 2.4: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb III at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The facade is reconstructed with a single common entrance. Plate 2.3: Digital model of Tomb IV/V/VI at Mochlos.
Plate 2.4: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb III at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The facade is reconstructed with a single common entrance. Plate 2.3: Digital model of Tomb IV/V/VI at Mochlos.
Plate 3.1: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb III at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The fagade is reconstructed with three separate entrances.
Plate 3.1: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tomb III at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The fagade is reconstructed with three separate entrances.
Plate 3.2: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tombs I and II at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The tombs are plastered and have no windows.
Plate 3.2: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tombs I and II at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The tombs are plastered and have no windows.
Plate 4.1: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tombs I and II at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The tombs are plastered and have no windows. Tomb I has a door.
Plate 4.1: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tombs I and II at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The tombs are plastered and have no windows. Tomb I has a door.
Plate 4.2: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tombs I and II at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The tombs are not plastered. but have small windows.
Plate 4.2: Photorealistic reconstruction of Tombs I and II at the North Cemetery, Gournia. The tombs are not plastered. but have small windows.
Related topics:
Aegean ArchaeologyMinoan art and archaeologyMinoan ArchaeologyAegean PrehistoryMinoan Crete
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved