sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ancient Greek, Archon, Crete, Cyclades, Eleutherna, Gortyn

PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD IN EASTERN : Feasting and Island Identities Author(): Brice L. Erickson Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at , Vol. 79, No. 3 (July-September 2010), pp. 305-349 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40981053 . Accessed: 18/03/2014 10:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions HESPERIA 79 (2OIO) PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS Pages30 '49 AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD IN EASTERN CRETE Feasting and Island Identities

ABSTRACT

Classical Creteis stillpoorly understood archaeologically, although recent workon local ceramicsequences has begunto changethe traditional picture ofisolation and declinein theSth century b.. At PriniatikosPyrgos in the Mirabelloregion of eastern Crete, relatively rich phases of Classical occupation providea detailedview of local ceramicdevelopment. A largedeposit of fine waresmixed with ash and bone may indicate public feasting. The evidencealso castslight on thelocal economy, revealing connections with , Azoria, and otherCretan , as wellas extensivecontacts overseas.

INTRODUCTION

Archaeologistswho work in Cretehave traditionally focused on theBronze Age.1Post-Minoan and archaeologyhave received much less atten- tion,although growing interest in historicalCrete has promotedefforts to reclaimonce marginalizedperiods such as theArchaic and Classical.Major historicaland epigraphicstudies of Archaic Crete appeared in the1940s and 1950s,2but theydid not lead to new excavationstargeting these periods, and by the 1980s it had become clearthat there was a seriousproblem in Cretanarchaeology. rightly described this as a "period ofsilence" with little or no documentedactivity from settlements, graves, or

1. 1 wouldlike to thankBarbara beganin 2007 and is ongoing.I am in- numerousdiscussions with Donald Haydenand MetaxiaTsipopoulou for debtedto StavroulaApostolakou, Vasso Haggisand MargaretMook aboutthe invitingme to publishthe Archaic and Zographaki,and thestaff of the 24th materialfrom Azoria. My research Classicalpottery from the 2005-2006 Ephorateof Prehistoric and Classical assistant,Sara Jones, deserves special excavationsat PriniatikosPyrgos. Heidi Antiquitiesfor their help in securing thanksfor contributions large and small. Dierckxwas theexcavator of the trench permits,and to RalphGallucci, Heather All ofthe profile drawings are by the thatproduced most of the relevant Graybehl,Barbara Hayden, Valasia author,with the exception of Fig. 8.1, deposits.My thanksalso go to Barry Isaakidou,John Lee, BarryMolloy, and whichis byDouglas Faulmann.All Molloyfor the invitation to publish thetwo anonymous Hesperia review- datesother than modern are b.c. contemporaneousmaterial from the ersfor their helpful comments on ear- 2. E.g., Kirsten1942; Demargne secondphase of excavation, which lierdrafts. I havealso profitedfrom 1947;Willens 1955.

© The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 3O6 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure 1. Map of the Isthmusof sanctuaries.3Although it appearedthat Crete had goneinto a steepcultural Hierapetraand the Kalo Chorio area, and economicdecline, the archaeologicalrecord was defective., easternCrete, showing the boundary whichwas to be a site,had presumed representative 5th-centurydeposits, of theVrokastro survey area. butnothing dating to the6th century, a gap thatreinforced the suggestion AfterHayden 2004, fig. 30:a of an island-widedecline.4 Recentwork, however, has begun to overturnthis picture of demo- graphiccollapse and economicstagnation. In 2004, Paula Perlman'sreex- aminationof the epigraphicevidence at Eleuthernarevealed a moreso- phisticatedeconomy than previously expected for an ArchaicCretan , withspecialized structures for trade.5 The sameyear also sawthe publication ofthe initial results of a new excavationconducted by Donald Haggis and MargaretMook at Azoria,a settlementin easternCrete with destruction levelsdating to ca. 500-480.6

3. Stampolidis1990, p. 400. Forthe to Knossosand itsterritory. Boardman 6. Haggiset al. 2004. Resultsof problemof archaeological visibility in (1982,p. 230), however,presented a the2003-2006 seasonsare presented the6th century, see Whitley 1997, pictureof island-wide demographic in Haggiset al. 2007a,2007b, forth- pp. 659-661; Morris1998, pp. 65-68. and economicdecline. See also Morris coming;preliminary reports on 4. Coldstreamand Huxley(1999, 1992,p. 157. subsequentseasons are available at pp.297, 303) limitedtheir discussion 5. Perlman2004a. http://www.unc.edu/~dchaggis.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 307

While thesestudies have paved the way for a moresophisticated anal- ysisof the island's archaeological record, problems of ceramic identification and chronologypersist. Archaeologists are only beginning to documentthe ceramicstyles of many local producers and so muststill rely on Knossosas a type-sitefor 5th-century Crete.7 Publication of Classical deposits from other sitescan providea differentperspective. The evidencefrom a porttown like PriniatikosPyrgos may also contributeto debatesabout the local economy and possibleCretan participation in overseasmarkets. Moreover, Classical archaeologistsworking in the Mirabello regioncan profitfrom previous studiesof BronzeAge fabrics,which provide a foundationfor identifying local waresand formulatingmodels of productionand consumption.8 PriniatikosPyrgos is a smalllimestone headland on a broadbay at the mouthof the Istron River in easternCrete (Fig. 1). The riverempties into thesea some250 m eastof the site in a marshyestuary between Priniatikos Pyrgosand the promontoryof Nisi Pandeleimon.A dense concentration of surfaceremains at Nisi Pandeleimonindicates an ancientpopulation center,identified by Barbara Hayden andJennifer Moody as the Classical polis ofIstron.9 Although surface survey in the 1980s gave theimpression of a separatesettlement at PriniatikosPyrgos, it now seemsthat the two sitesbelonged to a singleurban community that spread along the bay and inlandbetween Nisi Pandeleimonand Priniatikos Pyrgos.10 The smallhead- land perhapsconstituted a westernsuburb of Istron. Rescueexcavations conducted by MetaxiaTsipopoulou and Haydenin 2005-2006 revealeda harborsettlement at PriniatikosPyrgos with occu- pationfrom the Final to theOttoman period. This siteunderwent several major building phases in the second and firstmillennia b.c.; the remainsinclude large rooms and buildings,paved streetsand courts, and an industrialsector with kilns for ceramic production. The resultsof thisinitial excavation seemed promising, so the projectwas expandedin 2007 underthe direction of Barry Molloy of the Irish Institute of .11A plan of the siteas of 2010 is shownin Figure2. It is clearfrom the results of thefirst five of excavationthat Pri- niatikosPyrgos served in antiquityas an emporiumor gateway community forthe Mirabello region. This porttown linked the rural hinterland to other partsof the island and connectedCrete to the widerAegean world.In addition,trade fostered the development of local distributionnetworks and morecomplex political systems. An intensivesurvey of theVrokastro area undertakenin the 1980s producedinformation about changing settlement patternsand the ruraleconomy, enabling developments at Priniatikos Pyrgosto be placed in a regionalcontext.12 Until recently,archaeologists

7. Kanta(1991, p. 500) and Cal- 2005,respectively), and myforthcom- 10. Kalpaxiset al. 2006,pp. 173-180. laghan(1992, p. 133) firstcalled at- ingvolume on Archaicand Classical 11. Preliminaryreports of the Irish tentionto theproblem of ceramic Cretanceramic sequences (Erickson, excavationsare available at http://www. recognitionin studiesof Archaic and forthcoming). priniatikos.net. ClassicalCrete. For a synopsisof work ö. tor summariesof fabric studies in 12. Publicationsof this survey in- on theceramic sequences at Knossos, easternCrete, see Jones 1986, pp. 54- cludea preliminaryreport on Archaic see Coldstreamand Eiring2001. See 56; Haggisand Mook 1993,pp. 270- settlementpatterns, and separatevol- also mypublications of pottery from 271; Haggis2005, pp. 44-45; Day et al. umeson settlementhistory and pottery; Gortyn,Aphrati/Kato , and 2006,pp. 137-139. see Hayden1997, 2004, and 2005. (Erickson 2001, 2002, and 9. Hayden2004, p. 168.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ■t-J u

''c Ch Ph

J=j >^ OJ

o u

bJO

O T- l O (N

I '3

a

Uh

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 309

in easternCrete had fewexcavated urban centers with stratified deposits to aid themin establishingsettlement . Since PriniatikosPyrgos has bothMinoan and Classical occupationalphases, it mayreveal differences in commercialoutlook and politicalstrategies between these two cultural horizons. This articlefocuses on theClassical pottery from the first two years of excavationand is intendedas a complementto thepreliminary site report in preparationby Hayden, which will present an overviewof all periods.13 One aim of the presentstudy is to establisha local ceramictypology and ;another is to use thisnew evidenceto attemptto understand localfeasting practices and socialidentities. Since excavation is stillin prog- ressand studyof the deposits is at a preliminarystage, historical conclusions are necessarilytentative and will need to be testedas furtherevidence be- comes available.

THE CLASSICAL ASH DEPOSIT

By farthe most important Classical deposit so fardiscovered at Priniatikos Pyrgosis a largedump of bone (/),shell, corroded iron, and pot- teryin ashysoil, found in areaG on thesouthwestern ofthe headland (Figs. 2, 3).14The bone (1 kg) and pottery(50 kg,comprising over 5,000 fragments)constitute most of the material recovered. Located in trenches G2000 and G5000, the deposithad an averagethickness of 29 cm and extendedover an area of ca. 6.7 m2,for a totalvolume of ca. 1.94 m3.It was laid on fairlylevel groundand sloped slightlydownward from east to west.In mostplaces it lay ca. 20-30 cm below the foundationcourses of Early Hellenisticstructures (Figs. 3, 4). On its northwesternside it overlaya small patch of a Classical pebble surface(G2026/G2029); at an even lowerelevation, the excavatorsexposed another surface made of whiteplaster (G2059) whenthey removed a nearbyHellenistic cross-wall. Both of these surfacesproduced additional Classical pottery(discussed below).The onlyarchitectural feature found at the elevationas the ash deposit was a shortstretch of Classical wall, orientednorthwest- southeast,in the southernbalk of trenchG2000. The evidenceis too scantyto determinethe relationship between the ash depositand anyClas- sical buildings. Overseasimports and local basesprovide the clearest indication of thedeposit s date.Imports include the rim of a Lakoniankrater (Fig. 5:1),

13. Hayden'sreport (in prep.)will geophysicalsurvey. Within each area opentrenches, numbered I-IV, and a describethe architectural and strati- thetrenches, usually separated by one- differentcontext/subcontext system.) graphicphases of the 2005-2006 meterbalks, were numbered in inter- The ash depositcomprises the fol- excavations.Results of the geoarchae- valsof one thousand(G1000, G2000, lowingunits: G2008, G2013.1-6, ologicalsurvey of Istron are published G3000, etc.),so thatloci and pails G2016.1-2, G2017.1-3,G2018.1, in Kalpaxiset al. 2006. couldbe assigneda uniquenumber G2023.1,G2033.1-2, G5019.1, 14. Duringthe first two years of from1 to 999.Thus, G2001.1 refers G5020.1-7.The depositwas notex- excavations(2005-2006), trenches were to areaG, trench2000, locus 1, pail 1. cavatedwhere it extendsbeneath a laid outin threeareas, labeled A, G, (The Irishexcavations from 2007 to the Hellenisticfoundation wall (G2012) and H, in conformitywith a previous presenthave used a differentsystem of and thebalk between trenches.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 310 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure3. Plan of area G, showing Hellenisticwalls and the Classical ash deposit. W. Megarry.Courtesy the PriniatikosPyrgos Project

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 3II

Figure4. Sectionunder wall G2012, fivebases from Attic a base froman Attic fromthe west, showing the Classical skyphoi(Fig. 5:2-5), cup-skyphos a base froma Corinthian an Attic ash deposit.Half-meter scale bar. (Fig. 5:6), kotyliskos(Fig. 5:7), lamp PhotoW. Megarry (Howland type21b) (Fig. 5:8), and the neckof a transportamphora from southernIonia (Fig. 5:9).15An intactCorinthian kotyliskos from a mixed deposit(G2065) givesa bettersense of this miniature form (see Fig. 14:13, below).These importscan be datedto ca. 500-480. Thereare reasons, however, for preferring a slightly later date of ca. 475- 450 forthe deposit.Local cup bases indistinguishablefrom those in this depositwere foundin othercontexts as well, in one case with an Attic saltcellardatable to the 460s and in anotherwith a Pheidias cup datable to ca. 450 (see Figs. 13:14 and 15:3,below). A similardate is suggestedby the head of a figurinerendered in the SevereStyle (Fig. 6).16This dating also makesbetter sense of the local cup bases themselves,which seem to illustratea later stage of developmentthan the most advancedcups at Azoria,datable to ca. 500-480. The at PriniatikosPyrgos, which are discussedin detailbelow, have higher bases with splayed edges (Fig. 7:4-9)

15. In additionto theimports illus- a similarmicaceous fabric have been thesame date from Knossos has a sim- tratedin Fig. 5, theash depositcon- foundat Azoria;see Haggiset al. ilarpointed cap; see Higgins1973, tainedfour other Attic skyphos bases, 2007a,p. 280, fig.25:1-3 (Samianor p. 59, no. 16,pl. 33. The figurinefrom eightAttic cup fragments,an Attic Milesiantypes). amphorasfrom theash depositat PriniatikosPyrgos saltcellarrim, two Attic lamp rims, a Archaicand ClassicalCretan contexts seemsto be oflocal manufacture, secondCorinthian kotyliskos base, and havenot been systematically examined. judgingfrom the black angular inclu- twoCorinthian exaleiptron rims. The Fora Chian amphorain a Knossian sionsin thefabric. Two fragmentsof twokotyliskos bases are identical to depositdated to ca. 500-480,see Cold- Late Archaicfigurines of the en- examplesfrom a votivedeposit at stream1973b, p. 60, no. Llll, fig.13, thronedgoddess type found elsewhere ,discussed below, n. 122.There pl. 25. The characteristicbulging neck at thesite (in H4002.1 and trenchIII, is a secondLakonian krater rim from ofa Chian amphoraalso cameto light context597) likewisesuggest a local H4002 and a kraterbase fromG2025. in an early-5th-centurycontext at coroplastictradition, for both came Anotheramphora fragment in thesame PriniatikosPyrgos during the 2009 fromthe same mold and havefabrics fabricas thatshown in Fig. 5:9 comes season(trench III, context519). withlocal characteristics,including fromG2026/G2029. Intact examples in 16.The head ofa figurineof about granodioriteand goldmica inclusions.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 312 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure5. Overseasimports from andare toKnossian fromthe middle of the 5th theash deposit, ca. 500-480. comparable cups century.17 Scale 1:3. PhotosM. Wisniewski The latestbases in the ash deposit should be datedbefore ca. 450-425, for bythen local potters were making bases with a higherstand and a narrower pointof attachment,as illustrated by two examples from other deposits at thesite (see Figs.14:4, 17:2, below; from trench III, context72, and H4002.4,respectively). Another base (Fig. 14:5;from G2065) illustrates an evenlater stage of development, ca. 425-400. On theevidence of both imports and localproducts, then, the ash depositcan be datedto ca. 475-450.Although the deposit includes a few localpots datable to the7th century and imports datable to ca. 500-480, mostof the contents seem to belong to the second quarter of the 5th century andto illustratea hitherto undocumented stage of ceramic development in easternCrete. The standarddrinking cup of Classical Crete, the high-necked cup, is wellrepresented in the deposit, with more than 110 basesfrom different

17. Forthe development of the conicalbase thatis nothinglike the Knossianhigh-necked cup in the formsfound in theash depositat Pri- 5thcentury, see Coldstreamand Eiring niatikosPyrgos. For late-5th-century Figure6. Head ofterracotta figurine 2001,p. 78. By theend ofthe 5th cen- developmentsat Aphratiand Kato fromthe ash deposit,ca. 475-450. tury,Knossian cups had acquireda high Symi,see Erickson2002, p. 59. PhotoC. Papanikolopoulos

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 313

Figure7. Cups fromthe ash deposit,ca. 475-450. Scale1:3. PhotosM. Wisniewski

vesselsand over 500 bodyfragments (Fig. 7:1,4-11). This cupis a deep formwith an insetrim and a singlevertical handle attached at the rim and shoulder.The rimis relatively high (p.H. 4.2-5.9 cm) in comparison tocups fromKnossos (3.2-4.5 cm), and the preserved dimensions of contemporary cupsfrom other deposits at PriniatikosPyrgos suggest a squatbody with a highrim accounting for approximately a third of the total height of the vessel(see, e.g., Fig. 16:1,2, below). The high-neckedcup can be distinguishedfrom a lesspopular form, a low-neckedcup, which appears only five times in theash deposit. One example(Fig. 7:2) hasa rimheight of 2.1 cmand a broaderand presumably shallowerbody than that of the high-necked cup. Another shape, the tulip cup,makes a singleappearance in thedeposit (Fig. 7:3).

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 314 BRICE L. ERICKSON

The high-neckedcups sharea similarbase, with a splayedouter edge and angledring underfoot. Other shapes at PriniatikosPyrgos, including jugs and ,have bases with the same features,but this styleis not commonelsewhere; among otherClassical siteson Crete,perhaps only Gortynproduced a similarbase.18 Another cup in theash deposit (Fig. 7:10), possiblyimported, has a slightlydifferent base witha finelustrous gloss and an orangeto reddishbrown fabric consistent with Gortynian manufacture.19 Most cups at PriniatikosPyrgos received a coat of dull black gloss,with the base fullycoated underneath,but thereare exceptions,including a particularlyfine base withthe outerring left in reserveunderneath and semilustrousgloss in the center(Fig. 7:7). The characteristicfabric of finewares from this and otherClassical depositsat the site is an -brownor pale brownclay ranging from Munsell5YR 6/3through 7.5YR 6/4-6/6to 10YR 6/3.Gold mica,/ feldspar,and unidentifiedblack angular inclusions are oftenvisible under magnification,but granodiorite, a signature trait of pottery produced in this partof the Mirabello region, seldom appears in thesewell-levigated fabrics. Althoughrare, its occasionalappearance (see, e.g.,Figs. 12:1, 3; 14:2, 10; 16:6; 18:12, below) neverthelesshelps to distinguishwares at Priniatikos Pyrgosfrom the phyllite/quartz fabrics found at sitesonly a shortdistance to the east aroundthe Isthmus of Hierapetra,including Azoria.20 The finewares fromPriniatikos Pyrgos are almost certainlylocal, meaningthey were produced either at thissite or somewherenearby in the Kalo Chorio area.The discoveryof an apparentkiln waster in theform of a misshapencup base (Fig. 14:1) in disturbedsurface levels (H4007) near a Minoan kiln suggestsproduction of at least some cups at Priniatikos Pyrgos.The wasterhas an angledring underfoot similar to thebases from the ash depositand can be dated stylisticallyto ca. 500-450. Perhapsa Classical kilnwas locatedon the west side of the headland,where firing chambersmight have taken advantage of strong winds.21 This evidencefor local cup production,however slight, is important,since we knowso little aboutClassical production sites and haveno excavatedkilns for the period ca. 600-400.22Further investigation of production sites and materialswill be needed fora betterunderstanding of the social lifeof Cretanpottery andthe often complex relationship between production and consumption.23

18. Unpublishedcups from a spring Apostolakouet al. 2004-2005,p. 994; thatwould suggest exposure to extreme sanctuaryat Gortyn(see below,n. 38) and below,n. 124. heatduring its later life. A secondpos- arethe closest parallels to thosefrom 20. Forthe distribution of grano- siblekiln waster was foundin another PriniatikosPyrgos. For a similarcup dioritefabrics, see Hayden2004, 5th-centurydeposit (G2049). base fromAzoria with an angledring pp. 227y 234, n. 86. Forthe phyllite/ 22. The discoveryat Knossosof two underfoot,see Haggiset al. 2004, quartzfabrics of Azoria, see Haggis kilnson eitherside of this chronological p. 359,fie. 13:11. et al. 2007a,p. 277. range,however, provides useful infor- 19. Forthe range of Gortynian fine- 21. Kalpaxiset al. (2006,p. 157) mation;see Hasaki 2002,pp. 338,360. warefabrics in theClassical and Hel- countedthe prevailing northwest winds ThreeArchaic kilns were also foundin lenisticperiods, see Papadopoulos1988, as a factorin thedevelopment of the closeproximity to an ancientsanctuary p. 170; Erickson2001, pp. 235-236. westernheadland as an industrialsec- at ; see Sjögren2003, pp. 76, 87. Gortynianpottery was exportedto tor.The cup identifiedas a kilnwaster 23. Stissi(1999, pp. 95-102) has otherCretan sites in the5th century, has an evenlygray, slightly overfired emphasizedthe role of consumers in includingEleutherna and ;see fabric,not an irregularburned surface thedistribution of decorated Attic

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 315

Figure8. Hydriaiand jug fromthe The ash contained48 bases and 17 rimsfrom banded ash deposit,ca. 475-450. Scale1:3. deposit hydriai. PhotoM. Wisniewski Unlikethe high-neckedcups, the hydriaiin thisdeposit are not foundat manyClassical Cretansites. The base is essentiallya largerversion of the high-neckedcup base, witha less pronouncedangular ring and no gloss underneath(Fig. 8:2-4). The bottomhalf of the vessel has decoration in alternatingbroad and narrowbands, with patterndecoration on the shoulderin a wave or a simplelinear motif, such as languettes(narrow tongues)(Fig. 8:1). Hydriaiwith a differentbase but a similardecorative schemehave come to lightat Azoria in contextsdated to ca. 500- 480.24The potteryin Etruriaand HallstattEu- productionand consumptionneed to be stylesalso expresssocial identity. rope.As Dietlerand Herbich(1998, understoodbefore we can addressother 24. Haggiset al. 2007a,pp. 278- pp.254-256) observed,contexts of questions,such as whetherpottery 280, fig.25:4.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 3l6 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure9. Lekanaiand lekanis lid phyllite/quartzfabric distinguishes the Azoria examplesfrom the hydriai at fromthe ash deposit, ca. 475-450. Scale 1:3. PhotosM. Wisniewski PriniatikosPyrgos. Although produced at differentplaces, these vessels are remarkablysimilar. The examplesfrom the ash deposit,however, have less complexdecorative schemes, without the ivyleaves and net decorationof themost elaborate hydriai from Azoria, and shouldbe dated a generation later,to ca. 475-450. Hydriaifrom 5th-century deposits at Knossos also

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 317

Figure10. Interiorsurface of a lekanefrom deposit G2049, showingglazing characteristics. PhotoM. Wisniewski

havebanded decoration in similarpatterns; those with pendant languettes at the shoulderseem to date afterca. 475.25 Lekanaiand bowls also appearin theash deposit(15 basesand 85 rims). Rims are eitherrolled (Fig. 9:1), collared(Fig. 9:2), or everted(Fig. 9:3, 4). There is also a domed lekanislid in finefabric (Fig. 9:5) withbanded decorationand knob in the formof invertedcone hollowedout above.26 Two otherbases (Fig. 9:7, 8) belongto a specialcategory of lekane seen in manyexamples at PriniatikosPyrgos. This is the base of a largevessel, fullycoated insideand out witha distinctivered or reddishbrown dilute gloss (cf. Fig. 10, fromdeposit G2049), and with an impressedfoliate band on thebottom ring of the base thatpresumably would nothave been visibleduring normal use.27 Some rimsfrom the same typeof lekane have a foliateband on theexterior edge. This typeis foundin smallersizes with the same glazingcharacteristics, some ofwhich have a foliatedesign only on the rim.There are also unglazedversions. Largelekanai bases similarto theillustrated examples have been found at surveysites in theVrokastro area. Hayden has suggesteda datefor these in the7th or 6thcentury.28 The lekanaifrom the ash depositmay represent their5th-cenrury descendants, made by pottersworking in the same tra- dition,or perhapsthe datingof the surveypottery should be revisedto accommodatethe new evidencefrom the excavation.It is clear,however, thatthe manufactureof such lekanaicontinued for a long time,as local

25. ForKnossian hydriai dated to holdlekanides ( XII, p. 197),a 28. Hayden(2005, p. 52) compared ca. 500-480,see Coldstream1973b, cruderversion of the standard type, but thelekanai from the survey to examples p. 47, fig.5, pl. 18 (especiallyno. L8 for thesmaller size and finerfabric of the froman Archaickiln deposit at Lato, thenet pattern on theneck). For exam- examplefrom the ash depositdistin- forwhich see Ducreyand Picard1969, pleswith languettes, see Callaghan guishit fromsuch household forms. pp. 810-811,815, nos. 261, 299, 358, 1992,p. 92, depositH4, no. 7, pl. 75; 27. One base (Fig. 9:7) has theaddi- 365,fig. 21. The base and rimpatterns Coldstreamand Macdonald 1997, tionaldecorative touch of a reserved includeteardrop, wreath, and p. 222y no. K7, pl. 43; Coldstreamand areain themiddle underneath the base, impressions,some framed by lines on Eiring2001, p. 85,fig. 2.5:b. perhapsenlivened near the center (now eitherside. 26. The knobrecalls Attic house- missing)with concentric bands.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 3l8 BRICE L. ERICKSON

11. Small bowlsfrom the potterswere producing an almostidentical form in theHellenistic period. Figure ash deposit,ca. 475-450. Scale1:3. A similarbase withfoliate decoration (see Fig. 14:11, below) came from PhotoM. Wisniewski a deposit(G6010) dated no earlierthan ca. 325-300; thisvessel has the same hardfabric and fineslip as otherHellenistic vessels in the deposit. These lekanaidocument a strongconservative streak in the local ceramic workshops. Small tablewarebowls with a simpleconvex profile and no defined rimare representedin the depositby 45 bases and 42 rims.29This shape seemsto have had delicateskyphos-like handles, but survivingexamples areusually detached from the . Glazing characteristicsvary: one type is fullycoated inside and out,even underneath the base, while another has glossonly on theexterior rim and upperbody (Fig. 11:2). The bowl shown in Figure11:1 is one oftwo possible Gortynian imports, both with a reddish fabric(Munsell 10R 5/6to 2.5YR 5/6) thatlacks the typical inclusions of eventhe mostrefined local products.The importedbowls are largerthan thelocal examplesand have a differentdecorative scheme, with red gloss alongthe rimand a band insidethe bowl. While thebases of fullyglazed bowlscan be difficultto distinguishfrom those of cups,they are generally smaller,with a low pedestalstand (Fig. 11:3). Some bowls,however, have bases modeledafter those of cups,with a splayedouter edge and angled ringunderfoot (Fig. 11:4, 5). When the bases lack gloss underneath,as in these examples,they can be distinguishedfrom cup bases,which are almostalways glazed. Storageand cookingwares (Fig. 12) are not as well representedas finewares in the ash deposit.30Table 1 shows the percentagesof fine, medium,coarse, and cookingwares, as a functionof both numberand weight.Diagnostic sherds from storage vessels include a rimfrom a mortar (Fig. 12:1), a largecoarse-ware base froma pithosor similarstorage jar

29. A similarsmall bowl from twocoarse-ware handles, six other Knossoshas a plainbase and datesto transportamphora rims, two other ca. 475-450; see Callaghan1992, p. 92, transportamphora toes, ten other depositH4, no. 6, pl. 75. cooking-warerims, six cooking- ware 30. Diagnosticsherds not illustrated bases,four cooking- ware handles, two hereinclude the bases of two other othercooking jug rims,and two basins,nine other coarse-ware rims, cookingpot lids.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 319

Figure12. Storage,cooking, and transportvessels from the ash deposit,ca. 475-450. Scale1:3. PhotoM. Wisniewski (Fig. 12:2), and a smallercoarse-ware base (Fig. 12:3). The rimand the smallerbase bothhave granodiorite inclusions, indicating a local origin.A rimand a toe fromtransport (Fig. 12:10, 11) arealso apparently 31. A localorigin for these am- made of the local fabric.31 is on thebasis of phoras proposed The fivecooking-ware fragments illustrated here include two rims from macroscopicanalysis of the fabric; it chytrai,one ofwhich (Fig. 12:4) is a round-bodied,lidless form, while the awaitsconfirmation by pétrographie other 12:5) is a wide-mouthedvessel with fora and/orchemical analysis. If, as sus- (Fig. relatively provision pected,they are local products, they lid. At Athens,the earliestlidded forms appear ca. 500; the examplefrom copynorthern Greek types. PriniatikosPyrgos is similarto Attic chytraifrom deposits dated to the

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 32O BRICE L. ERICKSON

TABLE 1. COMPOSITION OF THE ASH DEPOSIT BY WARE GROUPS

Ware Number Weight(kg) Fine 2,067 (40.63%) 12.76 (25.43%) Medium 2,685 (52.78%) 25.80 (51.40%) Coarse 133 (2.62%) 9.05 (18.03%) Cooking 202 (3.97%) 2.58 (5.14%) Total 5,087 50.19 firsthalf of the 5th century.32Also presentare the rimand upperbody of a lopas (Fig. 12:6) and a cooking-warerim with grooves that may be from a jug (Fig. 12:8), a shape also suggestedby a fragmentaryjunction of rim and shoulder(Fig. 12:9).33Thecooking pots from this deposit have a micaceousfabric incompatible with a local origin.Perhaps they came from anotherCretan production center outside the Mirabello region.34 Cooking waresfrom all other5th-century deposits at PriniatikosPyrgos seem to be importsas well. Not untilthe Hellenisticperiod do cookingpots appear in a fabricthat is certainlylocal.

OTHER CLASSICAL DEPOSITS

Five otherdeposits in area G (G2015, G2026/G2029, G2049, G2059, G5014) can also be datedto the5th century. Three ofthese are from floors foundin close proximityto the ash deposit,but at lowerlevels: G2026/ G2029 and G2049 were associatedwith pebble surfaces,G2059 with a plastersurface. The largestof thesedeposits (G2059) containsmore than 50 diagnosticshapes; the resthave fewerthan 20 each. The contentsof deposit G2059 haveenough in commonwith pottery fromthe ash deposititself to suggesta comparabledate of ca. 475-450. This materialincludes a cup base (Fig. 13:1), a hydriabase (Fig. 13:3), a tablewarebowl (Fig. 13:8), and lekanaiwith foliate decoration (Fig. 13:6, 7). Anothercup base (Fig. 13:2) representsan earlierstage of development forthe high-necked cup, characterized by a stouterbody and low base with minimalsplay. Parallels with cups fromAzoria suggesta date of ca. 500- 480 forthis base.35 Similar early cup bases from other deposits are illustrated in Figure 14:2 (G2026/G2029) and 14:3 (G5017). A bowl with a high pedestalstand (Fig. 13:4) fromG2059 has no exactparallel from the ash deposit.A rimwith a finebuff slip and banded decorationin a reddish browngloss with simplified vegetal motifs (Fig. 13:5) is evenmore peculiar.

32. See, c.g.,AgoraXll,p. 373, nos. 1633-1662.An intactcooking jug period;see Coldstreamand Eiring nos. 1951-1955. fromKnossos, dated to ca. 475-450, 2001,p. 87. 33. Althoughthe lopas in Athensis has a rimof the same and 35. rorthe Azoria parallels, see generallya shapeof the later 5th cen- formas theexample shown here; see Haggiset al. 2004,p. 362,fig. 17:1; tury,examples contemporary with the Callaghan1992, p. 91, depositH3, 2007a,p. 251, fig.6:1, p. 279, fig.26:6, depositat PriniatikosPyrgos are known no. 8, pl. 75. 7. The earlycup basesfrom Priniatikos (e.g.,^ra XII, p. 374, no. 1971).Jugs 34. Cookingvessels or suppliesof Pyrgosdo nothave the angled ring in a cookingfabric are also attestedat bulkclay of unknown origin were also underfootcharacteristic ofcups dated Athens;see Agora XII, pp. 351-352, importedto Knossosin theClassical to ca. 475-450 and later.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 32I

Figure13. Pottery from floor The semicircular belowthe band outlines a hole in the depositG2059, ca. 475-450. sprigpattern vessel, Scale 1:3. PhotosM. Wisniewski withgloss inside the hole. This rimis froma largevessel resembling a krater,but the hole through the wall suggestssome other form. Vessels withidentical slip, fabric, and holesoutlined with the same motif were foundin the ash deposit (Fig. 9:6) andin deposit G2049 (Fig. 15:7), a sign thatthese deposits are contemporary. Similar in formand decoration is a kraterrim from the ash deposit(Fig. 14:6).I can findno preciseparallel forthis krater or forthe similar vessels from other deposits. These four piecesare exceptional, at leastby Cretan standards, for their fine slip and

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 322 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure 14. Classical and Hellenistic potteryfrom various deposits. Scale 1:3. PhotosM. Wisniewski

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 323

decoration.36Also fromdeposit G2059 are the rim of a storagevessel (Fig. 13:9) and an amphoratoe (Fig. 13:12),both apparently local products. An Atticlamp fromthe same floordeposit (Fig. 13:13) can be dated ca. 525-480, while an Attic saltcellar(Fig. 13:14) resemblespublished examplesfrom the AthenianAgora dated to ca. 475-450, with convex walls,flat bottoms, and no glossunderneath.37 The depositalso contained a skyphosbase (Fig. 13:15) thatdiffers from Attic examples in fabricand finish.The bestparallels are unpublished skyphoi from a springsanctuary at Gortyn,which copy Attic formsand decorativetouches such as the concentriccircles underfoot, but lack the red slip underfoot typical of Attic examples.38Another skyphos base (Fig. 14:12) froma differentcontext (trenchIII, context36) has concentriccircles underneath, no slip,and a pale fabricunusual for Attic skyphoi. Unlike most Attic prototypes, both of thesebases have no gloss on the outeredge of the torusfoot.39 They maybe importsfrom Gortyn. A secondsubstantial floor deposit, G2049, contained cup bases (Fig. 15:1, 2) and a hydriabase (Fig. 15:4) identicalto examplesfrom the ash deposit.40 Anotherjug or hydriabase, however,has a high stand (Fig. 15:5), an unusualform not seen in the ash deposit.Also fromG2049 are a lekane with foliatedecoration on the rim (Fig 15:6) and a groovedcooking- warerim, possibly from a jug (Fig. 15:8), both shapesparalleled in other deposits.The base of an Attic Pheidias cup (Fig. 15:3) suppliesone of the latestexternal indications of date fora 5th-centuryfloor at the site (ca. 450).41 Even the smallerdeposits contribute to an understandingof local potterystyles. Deposit G5014 containedtwo high-necked cups (Fig. 16:1,2) thatare betterpreserved than anyvessels from the ash deposit.The cup bases (one ofwhich is shownin Fig. 16:3) areindistinguishable from those in the ash deposit,as is a smallglazed bowl (Fig. 16:5). A base and lower

36. The closestparallels for the Atticizingskyphoi, which I havedated decorationare bowls with bands, to thelast quarter of the 5th and the sprays,and wheel patterns from late- 4thcentury (Erickson 2001, p. 241). 5th-or early-4th-centurycontexts at 39. Atticskyphoi with a reserved thesanctuary of at Knossos, outerface of the base arevery rare; forwhich see Coldstream1973a, examplesare listed in Agora XII, p. 259, p. 24, no. B7, pl. 11, and pp. 26-27, underno. 338. nos.C12-14, pl. 12. 40. This depositwas foundabove 37. Forthe lamp, see Agora IV, a stratumof pebbles at roughlythe pp. 39-43, type19, pls. 5, 33. Attic sameelevation as G2026/G2029,but saltcellarswith flat bottoms replaced farthernorth. It is possiblethat some versionswith a recessedprofile under- ofthe material was notfrom the floor neathafter ca. 480 b.c. The bestpar- surfacebut part of the ash deposit,for allelfor the example from this deposit theexcavators observed ashy soil in two is AgoraXII, p. 299, no. 894,which has pailsat thislocus. a plainflat base and datesto the460s 41. The earliestPheidias cups date (see fig.9, pl. 34). to the460s. The examplefrom deposit 38. ror thevotive deposit from the G2049 seemsto be an earlyform, but springsanctuary, see Di Vita 1985, notthe earliest, having a basewith a p. 40; Sporn2002, pp. 163-165. Exca- concavemolding underneath and black vationsin thearea of the Odeion at glosson itsinner face (cf. Agora XII, Gortynhave also producedbases of p. 250, nos.204, 205, pl. 11).

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 324 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure 15. Potteryfrom floor deposit of a or 16:4) have different characteristics G2049, ca. 475-450. Scale1:3. Photos body jug (Fig. glazing M. Wisniewski (dripgloss) than the banded wares in otherdeposits, but this form too can be datedto ca. 475-450. The same depositalso produceda lekanewith a squaredrim (Fig. 16:6).42

42. Not illustrated,but worth not- depositare comparable to examplesin silvermicaceous fabric from outside the ing,are several pieces from the other theash depositand thereforedatable to Kalo Chorioarea. Deposit G2015 twoClassical deposits mentioned above. ca. 475-450. A groovedrim from a includesa hydriabase thatis slightly DepositG2026/G2029 has a cupbase cooking-warevessel is likewisesimilar moresplayed than examples from the witha broad,low form and minimal to an examplein theash deposit.The ash deposit,as wellas a tablewarebowl splay,which can be datedto ca. 500- samedeposit also containsan unusual withan extrudedrim. This depositmay 480, althoughother cup basesfrom this high-neckedcup, unglazed, with a be slightlylater than the ash deposit.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 325

4

( 2h ^

' 6I ? Figure16. Pottery from deposit With so dated to ca. 475-450 or it is G5014,ca. 475-450.Scale 1:3 manydeposits slightlylater, surprisingto findlittle material at PriniatikosPyrgos from the restof the Classicalperiod. The onlyexception, a sizabledeposit from area A datable to the4th century, is discussedbelow. Unless later discoveries fill in thisgap, local ceramicdevelopment from the middle of the 5th to themiddle of the 4th centurywill be difficultto determine.A smalldeposit (H4002.4) that maydate to thesecond half of the 5 th centuryhas a high-neckedcup with streamlinedproportions and a finered gloss not foundin earlierexamples (Fig. 17:1). A base fromthe same deposit (Fig. 17:2) is similarto one (from - anothercontext trenchIII, context72) with a splayedform dated to ca. 450-425 (Fig. 14:4). A jug or hydriabase (Fig. 17:3) fromyet another deposit(H4002.2) has a footthat is narrowerand higherthan any in the ash deposit.Other jug or hydriabases fromG2065, witha coat of black glossunderneath rather than the reserved area of earlier banded wares, are possiblyeven later.A lekane fromH4002.2 (Fig. 17:4) has an extruded rimsimilar to an examplefrom the ash deposit(Fig. 9:4), but a different configurationof the handles,which curve upward from the wall and are attachedto the rimrather than rising from the rimas in earlierlekanai.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 32Ó BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure 17. Potteryfrom deposits H4002.2 and H4002.4, ca. 450- 5 4 400. Scale1:3

Priorto the Hellenisticperiod, only one substantialdeposit at Prini- atikosPyrgos can be securelydated to the4th century (A2005). Importssug- gestingthis date includean Atticbowl withan incurvingrim (Fig. 18:9) and an Atticlekane with a projecting,squared rim (Fig. 18:10).43A local bowl (Fig. 18:8) displaysa carinatedprofile unlike any example in the ash deposit,but similarbowls have appearedin Hellenisticcontexts (ca. 325- 300).44Another small bowl (Fig. 18:7) has an extendedhorizontal rim, a featurealmost unknown in the 5th-centuryrepertoire of tablewares.A largelekane (Fig. 18:12) has an extendedhorizontal rim with a slightdown- turnthat seems to anticipatethe more angular and elaboraterim forms of Hellenisticpotters. An almostintact krateriskos (Fig. 18:5) providesthe onlyhint of a votivecharacter in the depositand probablydates to the 4th century.45In general,the cups, jugs, and bowlsin A2005 have thinner wallsand moreevenly applied gloss than their counterparts in 5th-century deposits.Many shapes seem to occupya middleground in development betweenthe ash depositand Early Hellenisticcontexts and maydate to ca. 375-325. The high-neckedcups fromdeposit A2005, however,are exceptions (Fig. 18:1-4). Althoughmost have an angledring underfoot like their pre- decessors(albeit with a widerring), these broad and low bases resemble examplesfrom the early5th centurymore than the splayedforms from the ash depositor the high conical supportsof Hellenisticcups. Indeed, thecup basesfrom A2005 havean evengreater width-to-height ratio than bases datedto ca. 500-475. A nearlyintact cup (Fig. 18:1) has a curiously

43. Cf.Agora XII, p. 363, no. 1816, kantharossuggesting a date early in the froma contextdated to ca. 370-330. Hellenisticperiod. 44. Hellenisticdeposits A2004.2 45. Krateriskoiand otherminiature and G2064.3 havebowls with more vesselsbecome common in thesanc- sharplycarinated profiles and flaring tuaryof Demeter at Knossosin the4th rims.For the type at Knossos,see century,but they also appearas earlyas Eiring2001, pp. 102-104,fig. 3:5. thelate 5th century; see Coldstream DepositA2004.2 includesan Attic 1973a,p. 183.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 327

Figure18. Potteryfrom deposit A2005, ca. 375-325. Scale1:3. PhotosM. Wisniewski

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 328 BRICE L. ERICKSON old-fashionedform with a low centerof gravityand a taperingshoulder and rim.Another cup (Fig. 18:2) has an almostidentical base and rim,but withoutthe droopy appearance of the first. For at leastsome cup makers,the 4thcentury was apparentlya regressive period.46 It is difficultto distinguish cups withsuch a conservativeform from their 5th-century predecessors, althoughthe 4th-century examples are uniformly larger and havea different rangeof diametersand heights.47Moreover, red or reddishbrown gloss is morecommon than black in the4th century,and the coat is appliedmore evenlythan on earlierbases. This uniformityin dimensionsand glazing characteristicsmay indicate production within a singleworkshop during theperiod ca. 375-325.

PUBLIC FEASTING AND SOCIAL IDENTITY

The contentsof the ash depositcould representthe remainsof a feast, whetherfrom a domestic,civic, or religiousoccasion. Furtherstudy of the faunalremains may reveal evidence for dining, butchery, or sacrificial practices.48The ceramiccontents of the depositcan also provideclues to the typeof feasting.The ash depositdiffers from most floordeposits at PriniatikosPyrgos, in whichcooking wares, large lekanai and mortars,and storagevessels including pithoi appear in greaterconcentrations. In theash deposit,fine glazed tablewares constitute 41% ofthe ceramic assemblage by numberand 25% byweight (Table 1). If medium-finevessels, a category that includeslekanai and manyundiagnostic tableware fragments, are combinedwith the glazed tablewares,these two groupsmake up 93% of the assemblageby numberand 77% by weight.By contrast,coarse and cookingwares togethermake up only 7% of the assemblageby number and 23% by weight.Another distinguishing feature of the ash depositis the highconcentration of cups,hydriai, and smallbowls, which together constitute87% of thefine-ware assemblage (Table 2). These numbersare based on minimum-countestimates for each shape.49

46. The EarlyIron Age pottery 48. ValasiaIsaakidou will publish themeaty parts of animals and sacri- fromVrokastro also exhibitsa conser- theanimal bones from Priniatikos ficialdebris. For the distinction be- vativestyle, with droopy, globular Pyrgos.Her initialassessment, based tweensacrificial remains at altarsand shapes;see Hayden2003, p. 12. on fieldstudy in 2009,is thatthe ash diningdebris from hearth buildings at 47. Thereare few exceptions in depositincludes fragments of sheep, EarlyIron Age ,see Shaw the4th century to a base diameterbe- goat,, cow, and dog,but no articu- 2000,pp. 678-684. tween10 and 14 cm.Steven Karacic latedskeletons and no clearsigns of 49. Forminimum estimates, two or has undertakena statistical study of feasting.By contrast,a study by Dab- morefragments that joined or appeared thehigh-necked cup bases from Prini- ney,Halstead, and Thomas (2004, to belongto thesame pot were counted atikosPyrgos. On thebasis of a pre- p. 201) ofa Mycenaeandeposit on as one. Bases ofdifferent liminaryanalysis of 59 basesfrom thehill of Tsoungiza at docu- and/orshapes, even if very fragmentary, Classicaldeposits, he foundthe follow- mentedenough bones to postu- wereassumed to belongto different ingdifferences in theaverage diameter latea majorfeast or seriesof feasts. pots.For high-necked cups and hydriai, and heightof the bases over time: ca. Halsteadand Isaakidou(2004, pp. 136- thebases provided the minimum 475-450,Diam. 9.16 cm,H. 0.98 cm; 142) and Hamilakisand Konsolaki estimates,since the body sherds, which ca. 450-400,Diam. 8.25 cm,H. 0.95 (2004,pp. 141-145) summarizethe weremuch more numerous (525 cups, cm;ca. 375-325,Diam. 10.69 cm, attemptsof prehistorians and Classical 415 hydriai),were not unique to any H. 0.89 cm. archaeologiststo distinguishbetween particularvessel and couldhave come

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 329

TABLE 2. FINE-WARE SHAPES IN LATE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL DEPOSITS

Deposit Hydriai Kraters Bowls Jugs Cups Lamps Other PriniatikosPyrgos, 48 2 45 11 111 high-necked(43.19%) 5 15 ash deposit (18.68%) (0.78%) (17.51%) (4.28%) 5 low-necked(1.95%) (1.95%) (5.84%) 1 tulip(0.39%) 9 skyphoi(3.50%) 5 cups(1.95%) - Aphrati,Classical 112 4 14 high-necked(51.87%) 4 house (3.70%) (3.70%) (7.41%) (14.81%) 1 low-necked(3.70%) (14.81%) -

Knossos,Late Archaic 8 8 15 13 80 high-necked(45.98%) 6 9 well(Royal Road) (4.60%) (4.60%) (8.62%) (7.47%) 7 bellied(4.02%) (3.45%) (5.16%) 28 cups(16.10%) Knossos,Southwest 17 9 11 4 11 high-necked(18.03%) 2 3 Houses,deposit (27.87%) (14.75%) (18.03%) (6.56%) 3 skyphoi(4.92%) (3.28%) (4.92%) 1 cup (1.64%)

Knossos,Unexplored 5 3 3 10 14 high-necked(31.82%) 3 2 Mansion,deposits (11.35%) (6.82%) (6.82%) (22.73%) 2 bellied(4.55%) (6.82%) (4.55%) H1-H5 1 skyphos(2.27%) 1 cup (2.27%)

How does the ash depositcompare to other5th-century Cretan de- posits?Table 2 summarizesthe contentsof severalroughly contemporary assemblagesof potteryfrom the island.Unfortunately, no otherdeposits have been publishedin sufficientdetail to providea fullcomparison. The figuresreported in Table 2 fordeposits at Knossos are based on older publicationswith catalogues limited to completeand nearlycomplete ves- sels;the excavatorspresumably either did not save or excludedfrom pub- licationmany smaller diagnostic fragments.50 They probably also focusedon finewares at theexpense of coarse and cookingwares. This does notprevent a comparisonof fine- ware shapes from each deposit,although uncertainty aboutwhat may have been excluded should discourage us fromemphasizing minutedifferences in therange of shapes.Nevertheless, comparisons may stillbe useful,if onlyto generatequestions that later projects using more precisequantification methods can attemptto answer. At Aphrati,debris from what was probablya house destroyedin the finalquarter of the 5th centurycontained a dozen or so intactor almost intactdrinking cups, as well as a krater,a hydria,and a fewjugs and bowls.51These pots came fromthe cornerof a large rectangularroom fromfar fewer pots. For the fine-ware and bodysherds might have increased ownpublication of the pottery from bowls,there were almost as manydif- thecounts for each shape,but such Aphrati(Erickson 2002) is as deficient ferentbases (45) as rimforms (42). The methodswere not used here. For quan- in numbersas themuch earlier Knossos countsfor fine wares do notinclude tificationof pottery from a Late Ar- reports. lekanai,even though they are occasion- chaicfort in Euboia and comparison 51. Forthe building, see Lebessi and allyglazed mayhave functioned as ofshapes from other sites, see Coulton 1970,p. 459, fig.2; forthe pottery, see tableservice. More sophisticatedfor- et al. 2002,pp. 92-96. Erickson2002. See alsoWestgate 2007, mulasinvolving weights or ratiosof rim 50. As an aside,I confessthat my p. 446.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 33O BRICE L. ERICKSON connectedto therest of the building through an anteroom,a configuration suitablefor a privatedining room. The Aphratideposit is similarin com- positionto the fillof a well at Knossos dated to ca. 500-480.52The well depositcontains the same shapesin approximatelythe same percentages, althoughit is fiveor moretimes larger than the Aphrati deposit, perhaps because it resultedfrom the discardingof severalcomplete sets.53Compared to thesetwo assemblages,the ash depositat Priniatikos Pyrgoshas twicethe concentration of bowls and fourtimes the percentage of hydriai.The krater,however, the centerpieceof the Greeksymposium, is representedby onlytwo examples,one a plain Lakonian import.54This assemblageresembles those fromdomestic deposits at Knossos,such as depositK fromthe Southwest Houses, with high concentrations of hydriai and bowls.55 Furtherstudy of the stratigraphyof the ash depositand quantitative analysisof thevolume of soil relativeto thepottery and bones mayreveal whetherit was theresult of a singleevent, the slow accumulation of material, or the clearanceof debrisfrom other parts of the site.56It seemscertain, however,that an episode of burningproduced a soil matrixwith a heavy ash componentand manyburned pots and bones,the latter showing signs of calcinationfrom extreme heat.57 Although the narrowchronological rangeof most of the pottery would be compatiblewith a singleevent, that alone is not decisive,since in social terms25 yearsis a long time. One mightexpect the primary refuse of a feastto includemany intact or well- preservedpots, but the pottery from the deposit is fragmentary,with worn breaks.Did thebanqueters deliberately destroy the vessels after the event, orwas thedeposit a productof clean-up and disposalfollowing accidental breakage?From a commentin the fieldnotebook it appearsthat many of thebases were found upside down and tiltedat an anglefrom east to west, suggestingthat the pots had been thrownto theground from the east in a quasi-ceremonialfashion. The "killing"of pottery in thismanner, however, is moreoften associated with funerary rituals of earlierperiods than with

52. Forthis deposit, see Coldstream modesof drinking. According to Luke see Callaghan1992, pp. 90-94. Fine 1973b,pp. 45-61. Finewares consti- (1994,p. 29), theratio of kraters to waresconstitute 90% ofassemblages tute93% ofthe published ceramic skyphoiin a dumpassociated with the H1-H5. assemblage. S toa Basileiosin Athensis just over 56. The calculatedsherd density of 53. Accordingto Lynch(forth- 1:10 and signalssympotic drinking. thedeposit was 25.86 kg/m3.This coming),a depositfrom a Late Archaic A red-figuredeposit from an Athenian mightsupport the assumption that it houseon theedge of the Athenian house(Agora N 7:3) has 2 kratersand was theproduct of a singleevent. A Agora(J 2:4) includedmore than one 25 cups,for a ratioof 1:13; see Steiner moregradual process of disposal would setof sympotic vessels. The vessels 2007,p. 303, n. 7. The ratioof kraters probablyhave resulted in moresoil in fromthe well at Knossos,which sim- to cupsin theKnossian well deposit is thematrix or successivelayers of dep- ilarlyappear to representmultiple 8:115,or approximately1:14, while that osition;see Dabney,Halstead, and sets,may also havecome from a single in thedeposit at Aphratiis 1:15.In the Thomas2004, pp. 203-204; Pappa house. ash depositat PriniatikosPyrgos, how- et al. 2004,pp. 19-22.The possibility 54. Plainblack Lakonian kraters are ever,the ratio of kraters to cupsis only thatother streams of waste entered the themost popular category of ceramic 1:66. depositcannot be ruledout, however, importsat Eleuthernain the6th cen- 55. Fordeposit K, see Coldstream sinceit also includedeight cup basesof tury,see Erickson2005, pp. 630-633, and Macdonald1997, pp. 222-227. 7th-centurydate (not included in the fig.5. The ratioof kraters to cupsmay Fine waresconstitute 91% ofthe as- fine-warecounts in Table 2). be an importantcriterion for distin- semblage.For domestic deposits from 57. 1 thankValasia Isaakidou for guishingsympotic activity from other thearea of the Unexplored Mansion, thisobservation.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 331

Classical feasts.58Even afterits initialstudy, the ash depositremains one of the mostenigmatic features of the site. If the117 local and 14 importedcups from the deposit did indeedcome - - froma singlefeast byno meanscertain whatmight this suggest about the numberof participants? Again, there are no clearanswers. providesabundant literary, iconographie, and archaeologicaltestimony thatcan be usedto reconstructsets of sympotic vessels and calculatethe size oftypical gatherings, but the picture becomes less clear when archaeological evidencealone is thebasis for such conclusions. Prehistorians have identified symposiumsets for as few as fourdiners as well as assemblagesfrom largefeasts with hundreds of participants.59The size of the ash depositat PriniatikosPyrgos gives the impressionof large-scalefeasting, whether - on one or moreoccasions. The numberof vessels 131 cups,48 hydriai, - 45 finebowls, and 85 lekanai is largerby an orderof magnitudethan an assemblagecharacteristic of a privatesymposium. In Athens,100 cups would not necessarilyindicate 100 drinkers,since participants might have used differentshapes (deeperor moreshallow) at differentstages of the symposium.60The 111 high-neckedcups in the ash depositat Priniatikos Pyrgos,however, are almost monotonously uniform in shapeand decoration; presumablyeach drinkerwould have no need formore than one suchcup. The numberof high-neckedcups, therefore,might give an of the minimumnumber of participants in thefeast or seriesof feasts represented by thisassemblage. Hayden estimatedthat the totalpopulation of Istron and itsterritory was around1,000 to l,500.61If halfof the population lived in thetown, 100 participantsmight represent 20% ofthe urban community. Is theash deposita remnantof feasting associated with a sanctuary?At Knossos,cups and jugs formthe bulk of the ceramic assemblage (excluding terracottas)in thesanctuary of Demeter, while the "Shrine of Glaukos" has providedone ofthe most extensive records of the development of ceramic formsconnected with wine.62 Since thecups and servingvessels from these

58. Assemblagesof intact or delib- EarlyBronze Age Greecebased on 61. Hayden2004, p. 173.This figure eratelysmashed vessels have been decorativelinks and thenumber of mayneed to be revisedupward if, as is associatedwith funerary meals from cupsrelative to beveragedispensers. nowsuspected, the entire area between BronzeAge and EarlyIron Age con- He distinguishedsmaller sets at Early PriniatikosPyrgos and Nisi Pandelei- texts;see Hamilakis1998, pp. 119-126. HelladicLerna, with as fewas four monwas inhabited. EarlyIron Age Asineprovides a par- participants,from the large-scale feast- 62. ForClassical drinking vessels ticularlyconvincing case; see Wells ingwith mass-produced cups seen in fromthe sanctuary of Demeter at 1983,p. 34. Cretanarchaeologists have manyMinoan and Mycenaeancontexts. Knossos,see Coldstream1973a, documentedunusual disposal methods Fordrinking sets and largefeasts in pp. 3-22. The cupsfrom the "Shrine of forfeasts at EarlyIron Age Sybrita, Late BronzeAge ,see Steel Glaukos"are discussed in Callaghan whereover 54 pitswere dug into the 2004,p. 292. Kotsonas(2008, pp. 316- 1978,pp. 3-11, 22. At ,cups bedrocknear a buildingon thesummit 317) identifiedskyphoi and kratersas andjugs predominatein theArchaic ofthe later and filledwith themain components of drinking sets and Classicalassemblage; see Erickson ash,bone, and ceramicdebris; see at EarlyIron Age Eleutherna.Some of 2002,pp. 54-70. The springsanctuary 'Agata 2001. Fora generaldiscus- hisproposed cup setswere actually at Gortyn(see n. 38, above)yielded sionof depositional practices associ- foundpacked inside kraters. scoresof cups dating from ca. 525 to atedwith feasts, see Dabney,Halstead, 60. See Sparkes1996, p. 86; David- ca. 325,but few other shapes. The andThomas 2004, p. 202; Steel2004, son 1997,p. 63; Neer2002, pp. 9-26. acropolissanctuary at Gortynhas a p. 290. Forthe evidence equating painted pot- morediverse assemblage including 59. Rutter(2008, pp. 468-469) terywith sympotic contexts, see Steiner kraters,cups, hydriai, and oinochoai; identifiedceramic drinking sets in 2007,pp. 232-236. seeJohannowsky 2002, pp. 56-57.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 332 BRICE L. ERICKSON sanctuariesare indistinguishable from those used on otheroccasions, a ritual interpretationdepends on theappearance of other objects with indisputable culticsignificance, such as plaques,figurines, and votive miniatures. The ash depositcontains almost nothing that is unequivocallyvotive.63 Nevertheless, a religiousorigin for the depositcannot be excluded,especially since the west-centralpart of the headlandhas been so littleinvestigated and the architecturalremains of a sanctuarymay yet be discoveredthere.64 Anotherpossibility deserves consideration. The ash depositmay rep- resentthe remainsof a civicfeast or feastsfrom an andreion,or dining hall,perhaps a small-scaleversion of the publicmesses described by Late Classical and Hellenisticwriters.65 Cretan archaeologistshave had diffi- cultyidentifying such buildings,although a promisingcandidate has recentlycome to lightat Azoria,where the excavatorshave identifieda pairof 6th-centurybuildings (A800 and A2000) as diningrooms within a largercomplex of kitchens and storageareas.66 Fenestrated stands found scatteredaround a columnbase on the floorof buildingA800 hintat the consumptionof wine, although kraters are absent from this room and cups appearin small concentrations.67With the exceptionof the clay stands, thesmall assemblage of pottery from this floor is comparableto thatfrom the ash depositat PriniatikosPyrgos, for it includeshigh-necked cups and at leastone jug or hydria.This is not enough,however, to distinguish feastingin a civic andreionfrom that which occurredin a sanctuaryor domesticcontext.68 Nor, as notedabove, should we assumejust one mode of civicfeasting, even at a singlesite or building.Indeed, a monumental civicbuilding (D500) at Azoria seems to have been anothersetting for publicfeasts of a characterdistinct from those in theandreion, and perhaps differingin theirarrangements on differentoccasions.69 Another possible andreionwith óth-century architectural phases has come to lightat Itanos,

63. The onlypossible candidates are thecritical assessment of the sources by Ainian1997, pp. 224-231; Shaw2000, twoCorinthian kotyliskoi (one shown Perlman(1992, 2005). It is generally pp. 680-681; Sjögren2003, pp. 61-64; in Fig. 5:7), threelocal miniaturecups, assumedthat all citizens,rich and poor, Prent2005, pp. 450-467. and thehead of a figurine(Fig. 6). participatedin theCretan messes, 67. Forthe drinking vessels from Anotherindicator of sanctuary deposits and thateach polis possessed a single A800, see Haggiset al. 2004,pp. 379- is a largenumber of lamps (see Sporn andreionbuilding, just as each 381,fig. 39. Cups,small kraters, an 2002,p. 356,table 19), but the ash possesseda singleprytaneion and bou- exaleiptron,table amphoras, and a depositcontained only two local and leuterion.Since it wouldhave been fenestratedstand were found on the threeAttic lamp fragments (one shown impracticalto accommodatethe entire floorof A2000; see Haggiset al. 2007a, in Fig. 5:8). citizenbody of a largepolis in a single p. 253, figs.8, 9. 64. The mainpublic buildings at structure,however, perhaps each clan 68. Domesticdining is attestedat Istronwere probably located on Nisi or hetaireiahad itsown building. Alter- Azoriain Late Archaichouse B100, Pandeleimon.Epigraphically attested natively,some may have dined in tem- whichyielded extensive signs of food structuresinclude a sanctuaryof porarystructures. For andreion build- preparationand consumption,in- AthenaPolias and a ;see ingsand thequestion of their number, cludinga builthearth, a pavedstore- and a Hayden2004, p. 229; Perlman2004b, see Link 1994,p. 18, n. 36; Prent2005, room,fragmentary cooking pots, see p. 1167. pp. 451-452.There may have been collectionof black-gloss tableware; 65. These writersinclude , differentmodes of public feasting, not Haggiset al. 2004,p. 359,fig. 13. Dosiadas,Ephoros, and .There all as formalor monumentalas the 69. The buildingis approximately has a areno contemporaryaccounts of eventsdescribed by ancient authors. 20 m long(north-south) and the Archaicand EarlyClassical Cretan 66. Haggiset al. 2004,pp. 387-390; steppedbench running along et al. feasts.Another problem is thatthe 2007a,pp. 253-265. Forbuildings interioron threesides; see Haggis 40. literarytradition seems to reflecta elsewhereidentified as andreia,see 2007a,pp. 295-301,fig. biased,Athenocentric ; see Viviers1994, pp. 244-249; Mazarakis

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 333

althoughit has been announcedonly in a briefpreliminary report.70 The eventualpublication of the contents of this building may shed further light on ArchaicCretan feasting practices. The presenceor absencein Cretanassemblages of vessel types known fromsympotic contexts on theGreek mainland may, however, convey only limitedinformation about Cretan feasts, because of significant differences in theway in whichcommon shapes were used on theisland. For example, Dosiadas {FGrH 458 F2; Ath. 4.143) describesa feastin an andreionin which Cretansused drinkingvessels similar to those used by mainland ,but in unexpectedways. The men in the andreionwere seated at differenttables, and each tablereceived a communalcup ofwine. Because Dosiadas does notreveal the number of tables, except for the two reserved forguests, we do not knowhow manycups were set. He also statesthat theboys all drankfrom a communalkrater.71 Such a feastmight leave an archaeologicalfootprint similar to thatof a mainlandGreek symposium, eventhough drinking customs differed significantly. The onlyother vessels mentioned by ancientsources in connection withan andreionare the 50 jugs ofwine (prochoi)provided as an annuityto a scribeand his descendantsin a decreeof ca. 500 b.c. (SEG XXVII 631). Literarydescriptions of andreiastress the equality of portions and suggest methodsof rationing,with officialsperhaps distributing rations in wine vessels.Jugs were not used thisway in mainlandsymposia. Cretans might have used othershapes in differentways too. Drinkerson the mainland employedhydriai as watervessels when mixing water and wine in kraters, but this role seems unlikelyfor the hydriaifound in the ash depositat PriniatikosPyrgos, where there are almostno table amphoras.72Perhaps someof the hydriai functioned as winecontainers, with allotments of wine distributedto subdivisionsof the mess group or apportionedin someother way.The Cretanhydriai are notablefor their decoration; they are the only exceptionsto monotoneblack tablewares.73 Indeed, hydriai have a higher profilein thisdeposit than we would expectif theirpurpose was simply to conveywater to the feastand preparewine forthe tables.74This makes one hesitantto extrapolatethe functions of vessels in Cretancontexts from thosein mainlandGreek symposia.75

70. Grecoet al. 2002,pp. 581-582. 72. A comprehensiveexamination (2009), however,contended that ar- 71. It mightbe possible,by consid- ofthe deposit led to theidentification chaeologistshave underestimated the eringvessel size and shape,to distin- ofonly five table rims, most of importanceof hydriai in banqueting guishkraters used as mixingvessels whichwere too fragmentaryto permit and othercontexts. Even hydriaiwith fromthose used as drinkingvessels. For certainidentification ofthe shape. depictionsof women at fountainsmay example,a Lakoniankrater with its 73. Cretemay have been known for havebeen designed for use at thesym- projectingrim is nota suitabledrinking thesehydriai abroad, for two decorated posium;see Boardman2003, p. 113. vessel,but a Cretanbell krater from examplesappear among the collection 75. The Cretanskyphos is another Aphrati(Erickson 2002, p. 66, fig.19) of6th-century Cretan pottery exported problematicvessel. At Azoria,Haggis has a lip suitablefor drinking and is not toTocra; see Boardmanand Hayes et al. (2007a,p. 278) interpretedsky- muchlarger than the cups in thesame 1966,pp. 78-80, nos.921, 922,pl. 55. phoifound with high-necked cups not deposit.This is a 5th-centurykrater, This reinforcesthe impression that as winevessels but as containersfor althoughif the literary description decoratedhydriai were valued as objects food.There are no examplesof this has anybasis in reality,it presumably ofdisplay. shapeat PriniatikosPyrgos; perhaps shouldbe soughtin 4th-or 3rd-century 74. Forthe absence of hydriai in thesmall tableware bowls served a assemblagescontemporary with Atheniandepictions of symposia, see similarfunction. Dosiadas. Steiner2007, pp. 238-239. Sowder

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 334 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure 19. Vesselfragment from Gortyndepicting a youthwith a cup and a sacrificialvictim, late 7th century.After Shaw 1983, p. 450,fig. 4

Otherevidence suggests that cups played a moresignificant role than kratersin expressionsof male identityat Cretan sanctuariesand public feasts.76A bronzefigurine of Geometric style from the sanctuary of and Aphroditeat Kato Symidepicts a malefigure holding a cup.77Was the cup understoodto be a dedicationor an allusionto drinkingceremonies at the sanctuary?A fragmentof a 7th-centuryvessel from the acropolis sanctuaryat Gortyndepicts a youthholding in eitherhand a cup and 78 a sacrificialvictim (Fig. 19). This image recalls Strabo's description (10.4.21 [C 483-484]) of a Cretaninitiation ceremony in whicha young

76. Wherethe symposium was a also haveserved as symbolicand deco- monopolyof feasts prevented private cornerstoneof elite education and civic rativecenterpieces at feasts;see Steel symposia.A similarbias has affected identity,drinking vessels could acquire 2004,pp. 293-294,for examples from ourunderstanding of Spartandrinking an ideologicalsignificance in defining prehistoricCyprus. For Whitley (2001, customs.Bowie (1990, p. 225, n. 16) thegroup. Lissarrague (1990, pp. 19- pp. 251-252)y an allegedabsence of proposeda historicalprogression from 46) tookwhat might be regardedas an kratersin Cretancontexts and the aristocraticsymposia to theSpartan extremeposition with respect to a sin- absenceof figurai decoration on any messhalls in the6th century. For gle shape,the krater, seeing it notonly shapespoint to a modeof feasting objectionsto a single,archetypal mode as thecenterpiece of the symposium fundamentallydifferent from the offeasting in ClassicalSparta, see itselfand a compositionalanchor in symposium.Literary testimony (Ath. Hodkinson1997, pp. 90-91. Atticdepictions of symposia, but also 4.143) to theeffect that Cretans dined 77. Prent2005, p. 578,pl. 68:a.The as a symbolof commensality that de- whileseated, presumably on public figureis similarto a 7th-centuryclay finedGreek and barbarianthrough the occasions,implies an oppositionto figurine,also fromKato Symi(Herak- oppositionof mixed and neatwine. In reclined,sympotic drinking. It does not, leionMuseum, inv. 20026). otherperiods and cultures,kraters may however,support the view that a state 78. Shaw 1983,p. 450, fig.4.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 335

man returningto the cityafter a stayin the countrysidewas providedby his erasteswith a cloak,a drinkingcup, and an ox, althoughthe pot from Gortynsubstitutes a goat foran ox.79In Strabo'saccount, the cup is a gifton the occasion of a youth'sintroduction to the andreion.The cup presumablysymbolized manhood as well as the bond betweenthe older and youngerman.80

POTTERY AND CRETAN IDENTITY

A premiseof recent scholarship on feastingis thatlarger ceremonial gath- eringsand feastshelped to definecommunities and codifypower rela- tionshipsamong theirmembers. Anthropologists have long connected food and feastingpractices with conceptsof political,social, and ethnic identity,and archaeologistshave exploredways in whichmaterial culture contributedto local and regionalidentities.81 Identity is no longerseen as a stable entity,but ratheras an ongoingnegotiation, in which some objectsare chargedwith greater significance than others, some occasions are moreimportant than others,and some periodsare markedby more intensiveefforts to signalidentity than others.82 New social contactsand tensionscan lead groupsto reconfiguretheir identities. This discursive frameworkfor identity construction has implicationsfor , for it removesany direct link between cultural forms and identityand requires archaeologiststo differentiatebetween objects without attributed meanings and activesymbols.83 If, as Cretanliterary and iconographiesources suggest, public feasts wereimportant venues for expressions of personaland groupidentity, the potteryused and displayedon these occasions may have had a greater symbolicvalue than in othercontexts.84 The situationwas undoubtedly complex.In additionto class affiliation,a typicalCretan may have had multiplepolitical, social, and ethnicidentities. Moreover, as BernardKnapp

79. Koehl(1986, p. 109; 1997, Classicalperiods have a singlehandle. thatsome cultural features are used as p. 138;2000, p. 134) interpretedthis 81. In a reviewof the anthropo- signalsand emblemsof cultural simi- ceremonyas a Minoanor Indo-Euro- logicaland archaeologicalliterature, laritiesand differences,while others peanritual. I sidewith Bremmer (1980, Hamilakis(1998, p. 116) wentso far areignored. In hisview (p. 35), most p. 283) in seeingit as a creationof the as to saythat " as socialentities materialculture has no relevanceto EarlyIron Age, but not necessarily a makethemselves through the con- maintaininggroup identity. Hall (1997, Dorianinvention. sumptionof food and drink."For feasts p. 138; 2002,pp. 19-24) is pessimistic 80. Accordingto Athenaios as occasionsfor negotiating identity, aboutthe potential of archaeology to (11.502b),this cup was a bronzeves- see Borgna2004, pp. 265-269; Rethe- revealethnic markers in theabsence sel ofa specialshape, a pledgecup miotakisand Christakis2004, p. 169; ofliterary documentation. See also withtwo stubby handles. Davidson Steel2004, pp. 282-283; Wright2004, Knapp2008, p. 34; Morgan2009, (2007,p. 560) assumedthat a handle p. 135; Haggis2007, pp. 757-759. pp. 19-20. on eitherside made it easierto pass 82. Forreviews of recent theoretical 84. Of course,pottery styles do not thecup between drinkers. This would frameworksfor social and ethniciden- necessarilymark ethnic or socialboun- ruleout a high-neckedcup, but detailed tityrelevant to Mediterraneanprehis- daries,since political considerations descriptionsof the pledge cup dateto toryand classicalantiquity, see Hall and exchangesystems can determine theHellenistic period and referonly 1997,pp. 1-3, 131-138;2002, pp. 9- theirdistribution; see Emberling1997, to theform used at Gortyn,not to a 19; Knapp2008, pp. 31-47; Luraghi pp. 311-319; Lucy2005, pp. 102-105; morecommon Cretan type. Almost 2008,pp. 9-10. Knapp2008, p. 39. all ceramiccups in theArchaic and 83. Barth(1969, p. 14) concluded

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 336 BRICE L. ERICKSON observedin a studyof prehistoric Cyprus, island communities tend to developa strongcommon identity in opposition to outsiders.85 According toChristy Constantakopoulou, Classical Greeks too saw as distinct entities,and islanders often presented themselves as inhabitantsof their islandsrather than as citizensof an individual polis.86 Constantakopoulou regardedCrete as an ambiguouscase, more a miniaturecontinent than an island,the size of which prevented the development ofa commonidentity exceptin diluted form.87 An indicationto the contrary, however, is found ina passageof Herodotos (7.169) concerning a Greek embassy sent to the islandto seekassistance in the fight against . In thisaccount, theCretans formulate a common response, as ifthey regularly functioned as a politicalunit. Constantakopoulou and others have interpreted this as an outsider'sview, an eticdescription that may or may not correspond to theernie perceptions of the Cretans themselves.88 In the absence of other documentation,archaeology is theonly way to reconstructthe way such communitiesviewed themselves, their neighbors, and the outside world. Did localceramic styles on theisland reflect or reinforce oppositions betweenpoleis or regions? As faras Archaicand Classical tablewares are concerned,it is difficultto drawmeaningful distinctions between sites. Almostall Cretanproducers specialized in thehigh-necked cup, with littleor no variationin thebasic form.89 Local productscan sometimes be distinguishedby fabricor by the mannerof decorationunder the base,although these are minute differences that few apart from pottery specialistsare likely to appreciate.Cups from Aphrati, for example, differ fromtheir neighbors by having a higherrim and a grooveunderneath the foot.90Other local variations are even less pronounced, and theyshould notbe exaggeratedin orderto makeClassical Cretan pottery conform to thetraditional tripartite division of the island into western, central, and easternceramic styles. During this period there is nothinglike the variation documentedby Coldstream for the 8th and 7th centuries, with a cleardivide betweencentral and eastern Crete in theMirabello region.91 A Classicalstyle so homogeneousis unusualfor an islandthe size of Crete.It suggeststhat local feastinggroups defined themselves on

85. Knapp2008, p. 29. Broodbank 89. Moreover,idiosyncratic shapes - (2000,pp. 9-35) has also examinedthe suchas thetulip cup whichI have tendencyin thehistoriographie tradi- suggestedmay be a centralCretan - tionto viewislands as self-contained specialty(Erickson 2000, p. 372) have systems,but with an emphasison ex- beenfound as fareast as Azoriaand are ternalperceptions rather than the way presentat PriniatikosPyrgos. in whichislanders viewed themselves. 90. Erickson2002, p. 64. Forminor 86. Constantakopoulou(2005, decorativevariations among other pro- pp. 3-5, 8-13) basedher argument on a ducers,see Erickson2000, pp. 370-371. rangeof evidence, including the dedica- 91. Coldstream(1968, p. 259) iden- torypractices of islanders, common tifieda homogeneousregional style in islandcoinages, group assessments in theeast, but this style does notcoincide theAthenian tribute lists, and partic- withpolitical or ethnicboundaries. ipationat -islandreligious centers. See alsoWhitley 1998, pp. 28-32. For 87. Constantakopoulou2007, p. 15. ceramicregionalism during the Bronze 88. Constantakopoulou2005, p. 6. Age,see Betancourt1985; Hallager Forthe question of Cretan unity in the 2003,pp. 261-265; Knappe« and Classicalperiod, see also Perlman1992, Cunningham2003, pp. 172-173; p. 201; Chaniotis1996, pp. 6-7. Haggis2007, p. 750.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 237

Figure20. Pithoswith stamped decorationfrom Oleros ( Vrokastro perceivedcommon ground as Cretans,a broaddefinition that encompassed site late 7thor survey OL3), early differentregions, ethnic groups, and politicaldivisions, and implieda basic 6th After 86 century. Hayden2005, fig. distinctionbetween islanders and outsiders.92If so, thismight be a case of identityconstructed through the denial of differences. Social and political lifeon thislarge and geographicallydiverse island almost certainly took a numberof different forms, and thereis growingevidence that the rivalries and borderdisputes between poleis knownfrom Hellenistic inscriptions and literarysources had theirroots in the Archaicperiod.93 One might expectthese tensions to fostercollective identities.94 The picturepresented by the tablewares is farfrom complete, and the inhabitantsof the regionmay have foundother ways to emphasizelocal identities.Perhaps the large storagevessels with impresseddecoration fromPriniatikos Pyrgos (Fig. 14:8, 9), Oleros (Fig. 20), and Azoria were displayedat publicfeasts and conveyedlocal status.95Such vessels may have had a high profileelsewhere too. Vance Watrousand Hadzi- Vallianou,for example,have interpretedstorage jars in the Mesara in politicalterms, as a sign of the polis exercisingcontrol over the storage

92. Archaeologistsin Greecehave traditionimply a highsettlement den- or votiveneeds. The pithoswith oftenconsidered figurai styles and sityfor Early Iron Age Crete,and a stampeddecoration from Oleros tablewareshapes expressions of local crowdedlandscape can sparkcompe- (Fig. 20; Hayden2005, no. 2139, or regionalidentities; see Arafatand titionfor scarce resources. Archaeolog- siteOL3, fig.86, pl. 21) has a file Morgan1994, p. 108; Morgan2003, ical evidencetentatively suggests that ofcentaurs identical to, and probably pp. 165-167.Whitley (2006, p. 610), internalwarfare became more destruc- producedby the same stamp as, a however,found no correlationbetween tivein theArchaic period. Azoria, pithosfrom Azoria (Haggis et al. potterystyles and local or ethniciden- wherea widespreaddestruction level 2007a,p. 281, fig.29:10). The Oleros titiesat Archaicand ClassicalPraisos. ofca. 500-480 can be attributedto pithosalso has a verticalregister with The apparentabsence of local and re- humanagency, is a case in point. antitheticalspirals or volutes almost gionalpottery styles on Creteduring 94. Forthe effect of war and vio- identicalto anotherpithos from Azoria thisperiod is surprising,for regional- lenceon thecreation of collective iden- (Haggiset al 2004,p. 355,fig. 11). ismis a noteworthyfeature of the epi- tities,see Malkin2003, p. 63; Crielaard Manysites in theVrokastro survey area graphicrecord and extendsto minor 2009,pp. 58-60. yieldedpithoi with impressed decora- differencesin script;see Jeffery 1990, 95. Ebbinghaus(2005, pp. 52-58) tion,although it is uncertainwhether p. 310. interpretedArchaic relief pithoi as a theirmakers used suchdecoration to 93. As Sjögren(2003, p. 97) ob- formof conspicuous storage in houses distinguishtheir products from others. served,the hundred poleis of Homeric ratherthan a craftinspired by funerary

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 338 BRICE L. ERICKSON and distributionof agricultural surplus at theend ofthe 7th century.96 The suspectedimportance of these containersin antiquityshould encourage studiesof local variationin theirdecoration. The onlytableware vessels from Priniatikos Pyrgos distinctive enough to be consideredexpressions of local identityare the lekanaiwith foliate decoration.The shape is commonat othersites, but not the impressed decorationunderneath the base and on therim. An examplefrom the ash deposit(Fig. 9:8) is thelargest bowl in theassemblage, although its glazing is morelike thatof the smallerfine wares, with a fullcoat insideand out and evenunderneath the base. Similarbowls appear in the floordeposits, suggestingthat they played a rolein domesticdining as well as community feasting. Haydenalso encounteredbowls of this type in theVrokastro survey, but onlyat sitesidentified as componentsof urban centers (Istron and Oleros). They do not appearat lower-ordersites such as villagesor farmsteads.97 Urbanusers apparently dressed up a utilitarianshape normallyassociated withfood production and storage,thereby giving it a specialmeaning. The onlyother site known to haveproduced this type is Lato,where examples in granodioritefabric were found in a depositof Archaic material from kilns associatedwith an urbansanctuary.98 Haggis and his colleaguesidentified anotherexample from Azoria (ca. 500-480) as an import,perhaps from the Kalo Chorio area.99The discoveryof two lekanerims and a base with foliatedecoration in an apparentlylocal fabricfrom the Gaiatas district maysuggest another production site in centralCrete.100 The vastmajority of thesevessels, however, have been foundin the Mirabelloregion. Later examplesfrom Priniatikos Pyrgos reveal extraordinary longevity in pro- duction,with Hellenistic bowls almost indistinguishable from the Archaic examples.This bowlwas one ofthe few constants in theArchaic-Hellenistic feastsof the Kalo Chorioarea and was a traditionalelement unusual enough to makelocal feastsdistinctive.101 The "conservatism"exhibited in the formof this local vessel may havehad an importantsocial function.102 In a studyof theprehistoric and

96. Watrousand Hadzi-Vallianou used to makethem may have come in a 5th-centurycontext at Knossos, 2004,pp. 342-344.The Gaiatassurvey froma sourceon theroad between butit is notclear whether this is local and Mac- projectin centralCrete has identified AyiosNikolaos and .This is the or an import;see Coldstream anotherregional producer of stamped westernmostpoint at whichgranodio- donald1997, p. 227, no. 66, fig.18, storagevessels; even in fragments,these ritedeposits have been found. pl. 45. Thereis also a bowlof unknown jarsare among the clearest markers of 99. See Haggiset al. 2007a,p. 277, originwith foliate decoration on the Archaicactivity. (I willbe publishing n. 83, and p. 288, fig.34:2, where it is rimfrom Augousti, a Classicaland theEarly Iron Age throughClassical describedit as havinga granodiorite earliersurvey site on theLasithi pla- 20:d. potteryfrom this survey.) fabric.Another lekane in a granodiorite teau;see Watrous 1982, p. 22ypl. 97. Vrokastrosurvey sites with these fabricat Azoria(Haggis et al. 2007a, 101. Accordingto Emberling(1997, bowlsare NP1, OLIA, OL3, OLIO, p. 281, fig.29:4) has an exactparallel at p. 319), objectsproduced on a small and SKI. Thereis overlapwith the PriniatikosPyrgos (Fig. 14:7; from scaleand distributedwithin a territory moreextensive list of sites that pro- trenchIII, context36), withthe same aremore likely to be distinctiveand thanmass- ducedfine-ware shapes also known framedrosettes of 15 petalson therim. serveas identitymarkers fromPriniatikos Pyrgos: KK1, NP1, 100.These threeexamples come produced,widely distributed objects. OLIA, OL1B, OL3, OL7e, OL8, PI4, fromthe two largest Early Iron Age 102. Barth(1969, p. 35) laid the SKl,SKll,andVK6/8. settlementsin thesurvey district, theoreticalgroundwork for this kind of 98. See above,n. 28. Accordingto Astritsiand Choumeri.Another lekane interpretationbynoting that political traitsand Hayden(2004, p. 227), thegranodiorite rimwith foliate decoration was found leaderscan reviveselected

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINI AT I PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 339

historicalChumash of the Californiacoast, Lynn Gamble has identified largeand elaboratelydecorated stone ollas and mortarsas feastingequip- ment,also notingconsiderable consistency in the formand decorationof thesevessels over time.103 The Kalo Choriobowls may have staked a similar claimto traditionby the use ofstable utilitarian forms that received special elaboration,a messagenot conveyed by the rapidly evolving cups and other drinkingvessels. Anotherway in which potters could give a commonshape a distinctive local identitywas by dressingit downinstead of up. Perhapsthis explains the peculiar,unglazed high-neckedcups with a grittyfabric that have been attributedto a 5th-centuryproduction center at Lyktos.104Local drinkerswould have noticed the crude surfaceof unglazed formsthat elsewhere,almost as a rule,received gloss. These cupslook morelike cook- ing wares than properdrinking equipment. Lyktos seems to have had a traditionof makingcups and otherfine wares in thisway, and these vesselscan be placed in a contextof othermanifestations of local identity. The Lyktiansapparently went to greatlengths to distinguishthemselves fromtheir neighbors: as earlyas the 4th century,outsiders report their claim of a distinctiveCretan identity as the sourceof traditionalcustoms and institutions.105The distinctivestyle of theirfine- ware potterymay thereforereflect a deliberateattempt to projectan image of conservatism and simplicity.

LOCAL ECONOMYAND OVERSEASTRADE

One of the most controversialtopics in Archaic and Classical Cretan archaeologyis the natureand extentof the island'soverseas connections. Skepticsclaim that overseas trade mattered little in thelocal economiesof Cretanpoleis until the , when irrefutable evidence of such commerceappears in theform of transport amphoras and inscribedtreaties withcommercial clauses.106 Historians of the past centurypresupposed a culturaland commercialisolation of Crete from mainland , arguing thatthe Dorian aristocracyon theisland suppressed market production and historicaltraditions to justify actions feastscomes from prehistoric Cyprus; aboutCrete from Lyktos. According and ethnicdefinitions. Deliberate con- see Steel2004, p. 285. to Guizzi (1999,pp. 277-284),the servatismof material forms is not,how- 104. 1 havesuggested a Lyktian Lyktianspreserved a good deal ofthe ever,well documented in antiquity.A originfor 5th-century cups and other characterof the Archaic syssition into possibleexample comes from the Ulu- vesselsfrom Kato Symiand Aphrati theRoman Imperial period. burunshipwreck. Eighteen Cypriot (Erickson2002, pp. 70-74, nos.91- 106.The fundamentalstudy of potsfound packed in a pithoson the 106,figs. 24-26), and Callaghanand Cretanamphoras traced local produc- wreckexhibit a "rough-hewn,rustic Jones(1985, pp. 14-15) documented tionback only to theLate Hellenistic style"that Syrian customers may have similarHellenistic pottery from Lyktos. period;see Marangou-Lerat1995, recognizedas a Cypriotspecialty, in The clayis commonto thatfrom the pp. 61-64; Marangou1999, p. 270. whichcase thedistinctive style may Pediadadistrict and mayhave been Vogeikoff-Broganand Apostolakou haveenhanced their value; see Bass usedby other Classical and Hellenistic (2004) adducednew evidence for am- 1987,p. 711. producersas well;see Rethemiotakis phoraproduction in easternCrete as 103. Gamble2008, pp. 186,246, and Christakis2004, pp. 169-170. earlyas thelate 3rd century b.c., but 272. Anotherinstance of bowls and 105. Perlman(1992, p. 198; 2005, thisis stillnot early enough to makea otherlarge, open shapes playing a p. 286) contendedthat outsiders case foran exporteconomy in the prominentrole in thedisplay of food at derivedmuch of their information Classicalperiod.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 34O BRICE L. ERICKSON trade,a policythat resulted in a subsistenceeconomy.107 Some, however, havequestioned this paradigm. Didier Viviers,for example, has considered possiblealternative political and economicstrategies in theClassical period, and Paula Perlmanhas suggestedthat Archaic Eleutherna shows signs of an emergingmarket, although there is no assurancethat any surpluses were directedoutside the community.108Against this background, excavations at PriniatikosPyrgos were undertakenin partwith the aim of refining our understandingof economicinteractions both withinthe island and outsideit. Even beforeexcavation, the settlement history of the Kalo Chorioarea suggesteda movefrom defensible inland locations to the coast,a change plausiblyexplained as a reactionto newcommercial opportunities. Hayden saw the 7thcentury as a majorturning point for settlement in the region, as theEarly Iron Age siteat Vrokastrolost population and was eventually abandonedin favorof new settlementsat Istronand Oleros.109Istron was evidentlya larger and moredensely settled than Oleros in theClassical period,with the sea providingan economicbasis for nucleated settlement.110 The 5thcentury has left more substantial traces of activity at Priniatikos Pyrgosthan any other period after the BronzeAge.111 While thismay be a functionof buildinghistories and depositionalpractices, the timingis suggestive.From an Aegean perspective,the period beginning ca. 500 b.c. has been seen as transformativefor local economiesand overseastrade. Archaeologistspoint to an increasein the numberand varietyof imports as well as the numberof sitesreceiving them.112 Ian Morrishas described this as an "economictake-off," with repercussionsnot limitedto trade goods; livingstandards also improved.113On Crete,the pulse of overseas tradeseems to havequickened at thewestern and easternends of the island aroundthe beginningof the 5th century,when ceramicimports appear in greaternumbers and in a widervariety of contexts.114Thus, we might expectthe early 5th centuryto be a boom periodfor Cretan communities whoselivelihood depended on seabornetrade.

107. Forthis traditional view of thatwere subject to inlandpoleis (e.g., distinguishedtrade beginning ca. 500 Cretanisolation and economicstag- Lato prosKamara [Ayios Nikolaos], fromthat of earlier periods as being nation,see Willetts 1955; Link 1994; a subsidiaryof Lato), Istrondoes not moreregular, implying better knowl- Chaniotis1999b. appearto havebeen a politicaldepen- edgeof local markets,and moving 108. Viviers1999, pp. 222,231; dencyof Oleros; see Hayden2004, staplesas wellas luxurygoods. Perlman2004a, pp. 104-108.See also p. 225. 113. Morris2007, pp. 212, 228. He Wallace2003, p. 623; Erickson2005, 111.The earliestsigns of post- placesthis upswing at a slightlyearlier pp. 627-641. BronzeAge activityare Late Geo- date,ca. 550-500,and examinesvarious 109. Hayden2004, p. 191. Accord- metricor EarlyOrientalizing cups manifestationsofimproving economic ingto Haggis(2005, p. 86), coastal foundin disturbedlater contexts. performance,including house size and townsemerged in theMediterranean in These havesimple decoration in bands constructionstandards. thesecond half of the first millennium and compass-drawncircles, similar to 114. Forthe record of imports at in responseto thepoor agricultural re- thatof a kraterfrom Vrokastro (Hay- ,Kastello Varypetrou (a ceme- sourcesof their hinterlands. This devel- den 2003,p. 71, no. 193,fig. 46, pl. 30). terysite near Kydonia), Eleutherna, opmentdoes notnecessarily imply, Materialfrom the 7th century consti- Olous,and Itanos,see Erickson2005, however,that every new coastal foun- tutesmuch of the "background noise" pp. 636-641. Importsat Itanosare also dationengaged in maritimetrade; see at thesite prior to theearliest definable discussedin Apostolakouet al. 2004- Vlassopoulos2007, pp. 161-164. contextsin the5th centurv. 2005,pp. 993-999. ForPhalasarna, see 110. Unlikeother Cretan port 112. Osborne(2007, pp. 289-290) Stefanakis2006, pp. 44-47.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 341

If PriniatikosPyrgos served as a gatewaycommunity linking the Kalo Chorio areato overseasnetworks, perhaps it notonly brought imports into the regionbut also creatednew conditionsfor economic specialization at home. PeregrineHorden and Nicholas Purcellhave challengedthe tra- ditionalmodel of ancientcites as consumptioncenters in a closed system, dependenton subsistenceagriculture in theirterritories.115 Specialization in cash crops can createsurpluses for trade. Such activityneed not be seen onlyas redistributionor a way of hedgingbets in the unpredictable microenvironmentsof the Mediterranean.We alreadyhave glimpsesof economicstructures at PriniatikosPyrgos, although so farthis evidence has comefrom secondary consumption contexts (the ash depositand floors presumablyfrom houses) rather than direct indicators of economic activity, suchas thewarehouses and harborfacilities to be expectedin a porttown. Althoughindirect, the ceramicevidence nevertheless has some inter- estingimplications. For example,since all cookingpots foundso farin 5th-cenrurycontexts were imported from outside the Kalo Chorioarea, the inhabitantsof PriniatikosPyrgos in the EarlyClassical periodmust have reliedon distributionnetworks for the equipment they used to preparetheir food.They werenot unusual in thisrespect, since the specialproperties of cooking-wareclay encourageda niche marketin eitherthe raw material or the finishedproducts, as documentedfor Classical Athens.116Looking furtherafield, of the overseas imports found at PriniatikosPyrgos, the most unusualare the transport amphoras resembling Milesian and Samiantypes (e.g.,Fig. 5:9), whichpresumably come from another producer in southern . Azoria receivedjars in the same fabric,but theyhave not appeared elsewhereon Crete.If theirCretan distribution was as limitedas it now appearsto be,they may best be explainedas cargofrom small-scale tramping voyagesalong the northeast coast of the island.117 Two otheramphoras from surfacelevels, one witha distinctivered fabric (Fig. 21:1; fromG5007.1), the otherwith a pale tan fabric(Fig. 21:2; fromA5007.1), are associated withunidentified northern Aegean producers.118Transport amphoras in a presumablylocal fabrichave also been foundat PriniatikosPyrgos (e.g., Figs. 12:10, 11; 13:12) and suggestthat market access steeredproduction

115. Hordenand Purcell2000, centuryshipwrecks along the coast of tifiedthe first as a typecommonly im- pp. 105-108.In a detailedstudy of the Turkeypoint to theactivities of Ionian portedto Athensin themiddle of the economyof the Attic Euonymon, tradersand local networksof exchange; 5thcentury. For these red clay ampho- Moreno(2007, p. 68) calculatedthat see Carlson2003 fora shipcarrying ras,see VirginiaGrace's comments in subsistenceagriculture would barely pseudo-Samianamphoras (from Ery- Boulter1953, pp. 105-106,nos. 153- havesustained Euonymon, whereas thrai?),which sank ca. 440-425. - 156,pl. 39; Mattingly1981, p. 86; specializationin thecash crops of olive nianswere not just trading with each Figueira1998, p. 305. Lawallidentified and honeyalone could have fed three other,however, for a documentfrom thesecond, with its short neck and timesits estimated population, Elephantinein Egyptrecording cus- splayedhandles, as a typedatable to assuminemarket access. tomsdues from a porton theNile ca. 500-450. One ofits handles pre- 116. Pétrographieanalysis revealed in 475 b.c. listsmore ships from Ionian servesthe clay impression of a complete an Aiginetanorigin for cooking pots in Greekpoleis than anywhere else; see fingerprint.For earlier examples, see a grittyor sandybrown fabric found in Hordenand Purcell2000, p. 149; Roberts1986, pp. 68-70, nos.423-430, theAthenian Agora; see Farnsworth Morris2003, pp. 45-46. The cargoes fig.43, pl. 17; forthis class in general, 1964,pp. 223-224. includedwine, oil, and wood. see Lawall 1995. Grace(in Boulter 117. Perhapsthey were carried on 118. Bothamphoras have a pointed 1953,p. 106,nos. 158-160,pl. 39) Ionianships. Recently discovered 5th- rim.Mark Lawall (pers.comm.) iden- describedthem as "buffoval jars."

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 342 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure21. Transportamphoras fromG5007.1 (1) and A5007.1 (2), ca. 500-450. PhotosM. Wisniewski to cash crops.It is even possiblethat inhabitants exported local to payfor better vintages from northern Greece and southernIonia.119 Did thisintensification oftrade in thefirst half of the 5th century affect lifein otherways? At theirfeasts, many Cretan communities used imported tablewares,as demonstratedby the ash depositfrom Priniatikos Pyrgos, whereAttic skyphoi constitute nearly 7% of the cups.Most Atticimports in the ash depositare plain black examples,but the assemblageincludes severalblack-figure cups as well(Fig. 22:1,2).120 From a surfacecontext also comesa fragmentof a red-figurekrater contemporary with the ash deposit 121 (Fig. 22:4). At Knossos,most importedfine wares are also Attic and typicallymake up 5%-10% of the totalpublished ceramic assemblage.122 These figuresreveal a selectiveuse of foreignitems, with skyphoi offering perhapsthe best approximation of the deep cup shapesfavored on theisland. Even when theyappear in smallquantities, imported cups mayhave playedan unusuallyprominent role in drinkingceremonies. Some scholars have regardedAttic importsin similarcontexts as statusobjects, and local imitationsof Attic types as an acknowledgementof theirprestige.123

119.This scenariois possibleif the 122. In theLate Archaicwell at richestrecord of overseas imports. For amphorascontained wine. Foley et al. Knossos,imports constitute 19% ofthe a briefpreliminary report of the exca- (2009,p. 294) discussother possible cataloguedpots, a fargreater percentage vations,see Platon1960, p. 259. The contents(, ) in thecontext thanthat exhibited by any other deposit terracottafigurines from this deposit ofa shipwreckwith Chian amphoras. at thesite large enough for statistical arealso unusual.Local workshops 120.John Oakley (pers. comm.) analysis.More typicalis depositK from copiedalmost every known 5th-century identifiedFig. 22:2 as a fragmentof a theSouthwest Houses, where the per- Rhodiantype; see Higgins1967, p. 59. cup-skyphosor skyphosdepicting the centageof Attic and Corinthianpot- Overall,Olous givesthe impression of legsof horses drawing a quadriga, teryis lessthan half that found in the havingbeen a cosmopolitanAegean attributablein styleto theHaimon well.An Archaicand Classicalvotive porttown. Groupand itscontemporaries, ca. 480- depositfrom Olous, however, reveals a 123. Miller(1997, p. 151) distin- 470. Forsimilar black-figure skyphoi fundamentallydifferent pattern. The guishedimitations from adaptations fromAzoria, see Haggiset al. 2007a, assemblageis remarkablefor the com- and derivativesas themost self- p. 283, fig.31:1-3. pleteabsence of high-necked cups and consciousform of borrowing. Imita- 121.According to Oakley(pers. almostall otherlocal ceramicforms. tionsreveal more about status when comm.),this krater depicts a mantled Instead,worshippers left behind Co- theyoccur in peripheralterritories or youthand is roughlycontemporary rinthianoil containers,cups, and lamps; in placesenmeshed in unequalpower withmantled subjects by the Villa Atticcups, saltcellars, and lamps;and relationshipswith the core that pro- GiuliaPainter, ca. 460-450. Cycladiccups, creating the island s videdthe model.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINIATIKOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 343

Figure22. LateArchaic black-figure potteryfrom the ash deposit (1-3) andEarly Classical red-figure krater fromtrench III, context501 (4). PhotosM. Wisniewski

The connectionbetween import and imitationat PriniatikosPyrgos is morecomplex than usual, since the imitationskyphoi may themselves be importsfrom Gortyn, an exampleof specializedproduction feeding into intra-islandtrade networks.124 The homogeneityof local Cretanpottery stylespresupposes good communicationswithin the island, and these communicationsmay have improvedwith the expandingoverseas net- works.Since Priniatikos Pyrgos is situatedon a majorcoastal route, it would havebeen a convenientstop for overland traffic as wellas forthe movement ofgoods by short coastal voyages. It is evenpossible that increasing contact withthe outsideworld in the early5th centurytriggered a reactionand encouragedefforts to definea commonCretan identity. It is remarkablethat, with so muchactivity at PriniatikosPyrgos in the yearsaround 475-450, the archaeologicalrecord is so meagerthereafter, at least until the Hellenisticperiod. Excavationssince 2007 have only accentuatedthis pattern, revealing parts of the site with structures dating to ca. 475-450 and stratigraphicallydocumented subphases that all fallwithin thesame short period of activity. It is as ifa windowof opportunity opened in the early5th centuryand thensuddenly closed. Because onlya fraction ofthe headland has been excavated,and PriniatikosPyrgos itself was only a smallpart of Istron,we do not knowif thispicture is representativeof the site as a whole.125If the patternis confirmedby futureexcavation, however,its historicalimplications will need to be carefullyconsidered. Perhapsthe populationof Istronexpanded suddenly with the arrivalof

124. Specializationis also sug- productionand export;see Erickson cup and hydriabases dated to ca. 475- gestedby the long period of produc- 2005,p. 646,fig. 11. Imitationsof Attic 450,with some earlier (ca. 500-480) tion(ca. 475-325) forthe Gortynian skyphoidiscovered in thesurvey of Nisi Atticimports and a few4th-century imitations;such longevity gives the Pandeleimon(Hayden 2005, pp. 83-84, pieces.This is consistentwith the impressionof established workshops. nos.2356, 2357, 2370, figs. 80, 81, phasingat PriniatikosPyrgos and Importsof other Gortynian cups (but pl. 21) neednot be local.They may be makesit difficultto arguethat the notthe imitations of Attic) to Eleu- Gortynianproducts as well. horizonca. 475-450 reflectsa tempo- thernain the5th century further sub- 125. A reexaminationof the survey raryexpansion of one partof Istron at stantiatea link between fine-ware materialfrom Nisi Pandeleimonfound theexpense of others.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 344 BRICE L. ERICKSON survivorsdisplaced by the destructionof Azoria,ca. 500-480. In ceramic terms,the main period of Classical activityat PriniatikosPyrgos seems to followimmediately upon the end ofAzoria, and thisstudy has documented manypoints of contactbetween the two sites.126 Anotherpossibility also deservesconsideration. I have argued elsewhere thatan interruptionof ceramic imports from mainland Greece to Cretein theperiod ca. 460-400 reflectsa lapse in externalcontacts resulting from Athenianeconomic interventionor a reconfigurationof Aegean trade routes.127If new routes bypassed Crete after ca. 460, thischange would have had negativerepercussions for Priniatikos Pyrgos and otherport towns.128 Istronmay have been the victim of an unforeseeneconomic downturn that was all themore surprising because it cut shortone of the mostprofitable periodsin the settlement'shistory.

126.These pointsof contact be- nianinterference in the trade of other NorthAfrica between ca. 460 and 400, tweenPriniatikos Pyrgos and Azoria, statesis thatthe aggressive actions withCrete affected as an intermediary. as wellas thosebetween Priniatikos recordedin theliterary sources all seem 128. ,a porttown at the Pyrgosand inlandsites recorded in the to be temporarywartime measures. westerntip of the island, was an active Vrokastrosurvey, undermine Sjögren's Moreno(2007, pp. 126-140),however, traderin theLate Archaicand Early contention(2008, pp. 207-214) that has adducednew archaeological evi- Classicalperiods, but shows no signof spatialidentity in theMirabello region denceindicating that the grain trade activityca. 460-400.The gap in the was relativelyfragmented, an argument was a centralconcern of Athens in its sequenceof burials gives every indica- basedon geographicvariability and the relationswith Euboia throughoutmuch tionof being the product of a real ancientperceptions assumed to arise ofthe 5th century. A moreactive Athe- decline,as nothingelse from the site fromthis variahiiirv. nianstance is consistentwith the hy- requiresa datein thesecond half of 127. Erickson2005, pp. 648-657. pothesisof Athenian intervention in the5th century; see Gondicas1988, An argumentagainst prolonged Athe- thePeloponnesian grain route from pp. 115-116.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINI AT I KO S PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 345

REFERENCES

Agora= TheAthenian Agora: Results City:From to , and G. Forster,London, pp. 77- ofExcavations Conducted by the ed. O. Murrayand S. Price,Oxford, 89. AmericanSchool of Classical Studies at pp. 221-229. Coldstream,J. N., and G. L. Huxley. Athens,Princeton Bremmer,J. 1980."An Enigmatic Indo- 1999."Knossos: The ArchaicGap," IV = R. H. Howland,Greek EuropeanRite: ," BSA 94, pp. 289-307. Lampsand TheirSurvivals, 1973. 13,pp. 279-298. Coldstream,J. N., and C. F. Macdon- XII = B. A. Sparkesand Broodbank,C. 2000.An IslandArchae- ald. 1997."Knossos: Area of South- L. Talcott,Black and Plain Pottery ologyof the Early , Cam- WestHouses, Early Hellenic Occu- ofthe 6 th, 5 th, and 4th Centuries b.c., bridge. pation,"BSA 92, pp. 191-245. 1970. Callaghan,P. J.1978. "KRS 1976: Constantakopoulou,C. 2005. "Proud Apostolakou,S., E. Greco,T. Kalpaxis, Excavationsat a Shrineof Glaukos, To Be an Islander:Island Identity A. Schnapp,and D. Viviers.2004- Knossos,"BSA 73, pp. 1-33. in Multi-PolisIslands in theClassi-

2005. "Itanos(Crète orientale)," . 1992."Archaic to Hellenistic cal and HellenisticAegean," Medi- BCH 128-129,pp. 988-1005. Pottery,"in Knossosfrom Greek City terraneanHistorical Review 20, Arafat,K., and C. Morgan.1994. toRoman : Excavations at pp. 1-34.

"Athens,, and theHeune- theUnexplored Mansion II (BSA . 2007. TheDance of the Islands: burg:Mutual Misconceptions in the Suppl.21), ed. L. H. Sackett, Insularity,Networks, the Athenian Studyof Greek- Rela- London,pp. 89-136. Empire,and theAegean World, tions,"in ClassicalGreece: Ancient Callaghan,P. J.,and R. E.Jones.1985. Oxford. Historiesand Modern Archaeologies, "HadraHydriae and CentralCrete: Coulton,J. J., I. R. Metzger,A. Sarpaki, ed. I. Morris,Cambridge, pp. 108- A FabricAnalysis," BSA 80, and S. Wall-Crowther.2002. "Diet 134. pp. 1-17. and Environment,"in TheFort at Barth,F. 1969."Introduction," in Carlson,D. 2003. "The ClassicalGreek Phylla,Vrachos: Excavations and EthnicGroups and Boundaries : Shipwreckat Tektas Burnu, ," Researchesat a LateArchaic Fort TheSocial Organization of Culture AJA107, pp. 581-600. in CentralEuboea (BSA Suppl.33), Difference,ed. F. Barth,Boston, Chaniotis,A. 1996.Die Verträge ed. E. SapounaSakellarakiJ. J. pp. 9-37. zwischenkretischen Poleis in der Coulton,and I. R. Metzger,Lon- Bass,G. F. 1987."Oldest Known Ship- hellenistischenZeit (Heidelberger don,pp. 89-98. wreckReveals Splendors of the althistorischeBeiträge und epi- Crielaard,J. P. 2009. "The Ioniansin BronzeAge," National Geographic eraphischeStudien 24), Stuttgart. theArchaic Period: Shifting Iden-

Magazine172.6, pp. 693-733. , ed. 1999a.From Minoan titiesin a ChangingWorld," in Betancourt,P. P. 1985. TheHistory of Farmersto Roman Traders: Sidelights EthnicConstructs inAntiquity: The MinoanPottery, Princeton. onthe Economy of Ancient Crete Roleof Power and Tradition(Am- BoardmanJ.1982. "Crete," in CAH2 (Heidelbergeralthistorische Bei- sterdamArchaeological Studies 13), III. 3: TheExpansion of the Greek trägeund epigraphischeStudien ed. T. Derksand N. Roymans, World,Eighth to Sixth Centuries b.c., 29), Stuttgart. ,pp. 37-84.

ed.J. Boardman and N. G. L. . 1999b."Milking the Moun- Dabney,M. K., P. Halstead,and Hammond,Cambridge, pp. 222- tains:Economic Activities on the P.Thomas. 2004. "Mycenaean 233. CretanUplands in theClassical and Feastingon Tsoungizaat Ancient

. 2003. "'ReadingGreek Vases?" HellenisticPeriod," in Chaniotis Nemea,"Hesperia 73, pp. 197-215. OJA22,pp. 109-114. 1999a,pp. 181-220. D'Agata,A. L. 2001. "Ritualand Boardman,J., and J. Hayes. 1966. Exca- Coldstream,J. N. 1968. GreekGeometric Rubbishin Dark Age Crete:The vationsat Tocra,1963-1965 1: The Pottery:A Surveyof Ten Local Styles Settlementof Thronos/Kephala ArchaicDeposits {BSA Suppl.4), and TheirChronology, London. (AncientSybrita) and thePre-

London. , ed. 1973a.Knossos: The Sanc- ClassicalRoots of a GreekCity," Borgna,E. 2004. "AegeanFeasting: tuaryof Demeter (BSA Suppl.8), AegeanArchaeology 4, pp. 45-59. A MinoanPerspective," Hesperia 73, London. Davidson,J. N. 1997. Courtesansand

pp.247-279. . 1973b."Knossos 1951-61: Fishcakes:The Consuming Passions Boulter,C. 1953."Pottery of the Mid- Orientalizingand ArchaicPottery ofClassical Athens, London.

FifthCentury from a Well in the fromthe Town," BSA 68, pp. 33-63. . 2007. TheGreeks and Greek AthenianAgora," Hesperia 22, Coldstream,J. N., and L. J.Eiring. :A RadicalReappraisal of pp. 59-115. 2001. "The Late Archaicand Clas- HomosexualityinAncient Greece, Bowie,E. 1990."Miles Ludens: The sicalPeriods," in KnossosPottery London. Problemof Martial Exhortation in Handbook:Greek and Roman, Day,P. M., L. Joyner,V. Kilikoglou, EarlyGreek Elegy," in TheGreek ed.J. N. Coldstream,L. J.Eiring, and G. C. Gesell.2006. "Goddesses,

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 346 BRICE L. ERICKSON

SnakeTubes, and Plaques:Analysis Figueira,TJ. 1998. ThePower of C. M. Scarry,and L. M. Snyder. ofCeramic Ritual Objects from Money:Coinage and Politics in the 2007. "Excavationsat Azoria,2003- theLM IIIC Shrineat ," AthenianEmpire, . 2004,Part 1: The ArchaicCivic Hesperia75, pp. 137-175. Foley,B. P.,K. Dellaporta,D. Sakel- Complex,"Hesperia 76, pp.243- Demargne,P. 1947.La Crètedédalique: lariou,B. S. Bingham,R. Camilli, 321. Etudessur les origines d'une renais- R. M. Eustice,D. Evagelistis,V. L. Haggiset al. 2007b = D. C. Haggis, sance,. Ferrini,K. Katsaros,D. Kourkou- M. S. Mook,T. Carter,and L. M. Dietler,M., and I. Herbich.1998. melis,A. Mallios,P. Micha,D. A. Snyder.2007. "Excavationsat "Habitus,Techniques, Style: An Mindell,C. Roman,H. Singh,D. S. Azoria,2003-2004, Part 2: The IntegratedApproach to theSocial Switzer,and T. Theodoulou.2009. FinalNeolithic, Late Prepalatial, Understandingof Material Culture "The 2005 AncientShip- and EarlyIron Age Occupation," and Boundaries,"in TheArchaeology wreckSurvey: New Methodsfor Hesperia76, pp. 665-716. ofSocial Boundaries, éd. M. T. Stark, UnderwaterArchaeology," Hesperia Haggiset al.,forthcoming = D. C. Washington,D.C., pp.232-263. 78, pp.269-305. Haggis,M. S. Mook, R. D. Fitz- Di Vita,A. 1985."Gortyn," m An- Gamble,L. H. 2008. TheChumash simons,C. M. Scarry,L. M. Snyder, cientCrete: A HundredYears of Worldat EuropeanContact: Power, andW. C. WestIII, "Excavations ItalianArchaeology (1884-1984), Trade,and Feasting among Complex in theArchaic Civic Buildings at ed. A. Di Vita,V. La Rosa,and Hunter-Gatherers, B erkeley. Azoriain 2005-2006,"Hesperia 80. M. A. Rizzo,Rome, pp. 39-71. Gondicas,D. 1988. Recherchessur la Hall,J. M. 1997.Ethnic Identity in Ducrey,P., and O. Picard.1969. Crèteoccidentale deV époque géomé- GreekAntiquity, Cambridge.

"Recherchesà Lato,"BCH 93, triqueà la conquêteromaine: Inven- . 2002. Hellenicity:Between pp. 792-822. tairedes sources archéologiques et Ethnicityand Culture,Chicago. Ebbinghaus,S. 2005. "Protectorof the textuelles,position du problème, Hallager,B. R 2003. "The Late City,or theArt of Storagein Early Amsterdam. MinoanIIIB:2 Pottery,"in The Greece,"THS 125, pp. 51-72. Greco,E., T. Kalpaxis,N. Papadakis, Greek-SwedishExcavations at the Eiring,L. J.2001. "The Hellenistic A. Schnapp,and D. Viviers.2002. AgiaAikaterini Square, Kastelli, Period,"in KnossosPottery Hand- "Itanos(Crète orientale)," BCH 126, Khania,1970-1987: Results of the book:Greek and Roman, ed. J. N. pp. 577-582. Excavationsunder the Direction of Coldstream,L. J.Eiring, and Guizzi,F. 1999.ilSissizi a Cretain età YannisTzedakis and Carl-Gustav G. Forster,London, pp. 91-135. imperiale?Forme di imposizione Styrenius3.1: TheLate Minoan Emberling,G. 1997."Ethnicity in tradizionalie finanzecittadine a IIIB:2 Settlement,ed. E. Hallager ComplexSocieties: Archaeological Lyttos,"in II capitolodelle entrate and B. P. Hallager,Stockholm, Perspectives,"Journal of Archaeolog- nellefinanze municipali in Occidente pp. 197-265. icalResearch 5, pp.295-344. ed in Oriente.Actes de la Xe Rencontre Halstead,P., and V. Isaakidou.2004. Erickson,B. L. 2000. "Late Archaic franco-italiennesur Vépigraphie du "FaunalEvidence for Feasting: and ClassicalCrete: Island Pottery monderomain, Rome, 27-29 mai1996 BurntOfferings from the Palace of Stylesin an Age ofHistorical (CÉFR 256), Rome,pp. 275-284. Nestorat ,"in Food,Cuisine, Transition,ca. 600-400 b.c." Haggis,D. C. 2005. KavousiI: The andSociety in Prehistoric Greece (Shef- (diss.Univ. of Texas). ArchaeologicalSurvey of the Kavousi fieldStudies in AegeanArchaeology

. 2001. "HistoricalGreek Pot- Region(Prehistory Monographs 16), 5), ed. P. Halsteadand J. C. Barrett, teryfrom the Excavations of the Philadelphia. Oxford,pp. 136-154.

Odeion,Gortyn," ASAtene 76-78, . 2007. "StylisticDiversity and Hamilakis,Y. 1998."Eating the Dead: pp.235-247. DiacriticalFeasting at Protopalatial MortuaryFeasting and thePolitics

. 2002. "Aphratiand Kato Syme: Petras:A PreliminaryAnalysis of ofMemory in theAegean Bronze Pottery,Continuity, and Cult in theLakkos Deposit," AJA 111, Age Societies,"in Cemeteryand Late Archaicand ClassicalCrete," pp. 715-775. Societyin theAegean Hesperia71, pp. 41-90. Haggis,D. C, and M. S. Mook. 1993. (SheffieldStudies in Aegean

. 2005. "Archaeologyof Em- "The KavousiCoarse Wares: A Archaeology1), ed. K. Branigan, pire:Athens and Cretein theFifth BronzeAge Chronologyfor Survey Sheffield,pp. 115-132. Centuryb.c.," AJA 109, pp. 619- in theMirabello Area, East Crete," Hamilakis,Y., and E. Konsolaki.2004. 663. ATA97, pp.265-293. "Pigsfor the Gods: BurntAnimal

. Forthcoming.Crete in Transi- Haggis,D. C, M. S. Mook, C. M. Sacrificesas EmbodiedRituals at tion:Pottery Styles and Island History S carry,L. M. Snyder,and W. C. a MycenaeanSanctuary," OJA 23, in theArchaic and ClassicalPeriods WestIII. 2004. "Excavationsat pp. 135-151. {HesperiaSuppl. 45), Princeton. Azoria,2002," Hesperia 73, Hasaki,E. 2002. "CeramicKilns in Farnsworth,M. 1964."Greek Pottery: pp. 339-400. AncientGreece: Technology and A MineralogicalStudy," AJA 68, Haggiset al. 2007a = D. C. Haggis, Organizationof Ceramic Work- pp.221-228. M. S. Mook, R. D. Fitzsimons, shops"(diss. Univ. of Cincinnati).

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINI AT I KOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 347

Hayden,B. J.1997. "Rural Settlement Kalpaxis,T,K. Athanassas,I. Bassi- uvr|U£ÍaK£vxpiKT|ç Kai avaioXiKT)ç ofthe Orientalizing through Early akos,T.Brennan, B. Hayden, KpriTnç:Aíppaxí," ArchDelt 25 , ClassicalPeriod: The Meseleroi E. Nodarou,K. Pavlopoulos,and pp. 455-461. Valley,Eastern Crete," Aegean A. Sarris.2006. "PreliminaryResults Link,S. 1994.Das griechischeKreta: Archaeology2, pp. 93-144. ofthe Istron, Mirabello, Geophysi- Untersuchungenzu seiner staatlichen

. 2003. Reportson the Vrokastro cal and GeoarchaeologicalProject, undgesellschaftlichen Entwicklung Area,Eastern Crete 1: Catalogueof 2002-2004,"BSA 101,pp. 135- vom6. biszum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Potteryfrom the Bronze and Early 181. Stuttgart. IronAge Settlement ofVrokastro in Kanta,A. 1991."Cult, Continuity, Lissarrague,F. 1990. TheAesthetics of theCollections ofthe of and theEvidence of Pottery at theGreek Banquet: Images of Wine PennsylvaniaMuseum of Archaeology theSanctuary of SymeViannou, andRitual, trans. A. Szegedy- andAnthropology and the Archaeolog- Crete,"in La transizionedal Mice- Maszak,Princeton. icalMuseum, Herakleion, Crete (Uni- neoall Alto Arcaismo: Dal palazzo Lucy,S. 2005. "Ethnicand Cultural versityMuseum Monograph 113), alla città.Atti del convegno interna- Identities,"in TheArchaeology of Philadelphia. zionale,Roma, 14-19 marzo1988, Identity:Approaches to Gender,Age,

. 2004. Reportson the Vrokastro ed. D. Musti,A. Sacconi,L. Roc- Status,Ethnicity, and , Area,Eastern Crete 2: TheSettlement chetti,M. Rocchi,E. Scafa,L. Spor- éd. M. Diaz-Andreu,S. Lucy, Historyof the Vrokastro Area and tiello,and M. E. Giannotta,Rome, S. Babic,and D. N. Edwards, RelatedStudies (University pp. 479-505. London,pp. 86-109. Monograph119), Philadelphia. Kirsten,E. 1942.Das dorischeKreta 1: Luke,J. 1994. "The Krater,, and

. 2005. Reportson the Vrokastro Die InselKreta im fünften und vierten thePolis," GaR 41, pp. 23-32. Area,Eastern Crete 3: TheVrokastro Jahrhundert,Würzburg. Luraghi,N. 2008. TheAncient Messe- RegionalSurvey Project: Sites and Knapp,A. B. 2008. PrehistoricandPro- nians:Constructions ofEthnicity and Pottery(University Museum Mono- tohistoricCyprus: Identity, Insularity, Memory,Cambridge. graph123), Philadelphia. and Connectivity,Oxford. Lynch,K. M. Forthcoming.The Sympo-

. In prep."The PriniatikosPyr- Knappett,C, andT. F. Cunningham. siumin Context:Pottery from a Late gos Project:Rescue Excavation, 2003. "ThreeNeopalatial Deposits ArchaicHouse near the Classical Athe- 2005-2006." fromPalaikastro, East Crete,"BSA nianAgora (Hesperia Suppl. 46), Higgins,R. A. 1967. GreekTerracottas, 98, pp. 107-187. Princeton. London. Koehl,R. B. 1986."The ChieftainCup Malkin,I. 2003. "Networksand the

. 1973."The Terracottas,"in and a Minoan Riteof Passage," ///£ Emergenceof Greek Identity," Knossos:The Sanctuary of Demeter 106,pp. 99-110. MediterraneanHistorical Review 18,

(BSA Suppl.8), ed.J.N. Cold- . 1997."The Villasat Agia pp. 56-74. stream,London, pp. 56-92. Triadaand NirouChani and the Marangou,A. 1999."Wine in the Hodkinson,S. 1997."The Develop- Originof the Cretan Andreion," in Cretan in Chaniotis " Economy," mentof SpartanSociety and Insti- TheFunction of the "Minoan Villa. 1999a,pp. 269-278. tutionsin theArchaic Period," in Proceedingsofthe Eighth Interna- Marangou-Lerat,A. 1995.Le vinet TheDevelopment ofthe Polis in Ar- tionalSymposium at the Swedish lesamphores de Crète:De Vépoque chaicGreece, ed. L. G. Mitchelland Instituteat Athens, 6-8 June1992 classiqueà Vépoqueimpériale P. T., London, od. 83-102. (SkrAth4°, 46), ed. R. Hägg, Stock- (ÉtCrét30), Athens. Horden,P., and N. Purcell.2000. holm,pp. 137-150. Mattingly,H. B. 1981." and

TheCorrupting Sea: A Studyof . 2000. "RitualContext," in Amphoras:Chios, , and MediterraneanHistory, Oxford. ThePalaikastro Kouros: A Minoan in theFifth Century b.c.," Jeffery,L. H. 1990. TheLocal Scripts of ChryselephantineStatuette and Its JHS 101,pp. 78-86. ArchaicGreece: A Studyof the Origin AegeanBronze Age Context (BSA MazarakisAinian, A. J.1997. From ofthe and Its Devel- Studies6), ed.J. A. MacGillivray, Rulers'Dwellings to : Archi- opmentfrom the Eighth to the Fifth J.M. Driessen,and L. H. Sackett, tecture,Religion, and Societyin Early Centuriesb.c., rev. ed., with a supple- London,pp. 131-143. IronAge Greece (1100-700 b.c.) mentby A. W. Johnston,Oxford. Kotsonas,A. 2008. TheArchaeology of (Si7kW121),Jonsered. Johannowsky,W. 2002. Il santuario TombAI Kl ofOrthiPetra in Eleu- Miller,M. C. 1997.Athens and Persia sull'acropolidi Gortina2 (Monogra- therna:The Early Iron Age Pottery, in theFifth Century b.c.: A Studyin fiedella Scuola archeologica italiana Herakleion. CulturalReceptivity, Cambridge. di Atenee dellemissioni italiane in Lawall,M. 1995."Transport Ampho- Moreno,A. 2007. Feedingthe Democ- Oriente16), Athens. rasand Trademarks: Imports to racy:The Athenian Grain Supply in Jones,R. E. 1986. Greekand Cypriot Athensand EconomicDiversity theFifth and Fourth Centuries B.c., Pottery:A Review of Scientific Stud- in the5th c. b.c."(diss. Univ. of Oxford. ies(Fitch Laboratory Occasional Michigan). Morgan,C. 2003. EarlyGreek States Paper1), Athens. Lebessi,A. 1970."Ap%aióxr|T£ç Kai beyondthe Polis, London.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 348 BRICE L. ERICKSON

. 2009. "EthnicExpression ed. M. H. Hansenand T. H. Niel- . 2008. FragmentsofArchaic on theEarly Iron Age and Early sen,Oxford, pp. 1144-1195. Crete:Archaeological Studies on Time

ArchaicGreek Mainland: Where . 2005. "ImaginingCrete," in and Space(Boreas 31), Uppsala. ShouldWe Be Looking?"in Ethnic TheImaginary Polis. Symposium, Sowder,A. 2009. "InscribedBronze ConstructsinAntiquity: The Role January7-10, 2004 (Actsof the Hydriai:New Perspectiveson the ofPower and Tradition(Amster- CopenhagenPolis Centre 7), Functionsof Water Jars in Ancient damArchaeological Studies 13), ed. M. H. Hansen,Copenhagen, Greece,"Archaeological Institute of ed.T. Derksand N. Roymans, pp. 282-334. America,110th Annual Meeting, Amsterdam,pp. 11-36. Platon,N. 1960."'Epeuvcu xr'q A.E. eiç Abstracts32, p. 117. Morris,1. 1998."Archaeology and aV0CTO?UKT|V Kai K£VTplKT|V KpT|Tr|V," Sparkes,B. A. 1996. TheRed and the ArchaicGreek History," in Archaic ArchDelt16, pp. 258-262. Black:Studies in GreekPottery, Greece:New Approaches and New Prent,M. 2005. CretanSanctuaries and London. Evidence,ed. N. Fisherand H. van Cults:Continuity and Changefrom Sporn,K. 2002. Heiligtümerund Kulte Wees,Swansea, pp. 1-91. LateMinoan IIIC tothe Archaic Kretasin klassischerund hellenistischer

. 2003. "Mediterraneanization," Period( in theGraeco- Zeit (Studienzu antikenHeilig- MediterraneanHistorical Review 18, RomanWorld 154), Leiden. tümern3), Heidelberg. pp. 30-55. Rethemiotakis,G., and K. S. Chris- Stampolidis,N. 1990."Eleutherna on

. 2007. "EarlyIron Age Greece," takis.2004. "CulturalInteraction Crete:An InterimReport on the in TheCambridge Economic His- betweenKnossos and : Geometrie-Archaic Cemetery," BSA toryof the Greco-Roman World, The Evidencefrom the Middle 85,pp. 375-403. ed.W. Scheidel,I. Morris,and MinoanIB Pottery,"in Knossos: Steel,L. 2004. "A GoodlyFeast . . . R. Sailer,Cambridge, pp. 211-241. Palace,City, State. Proceedings ofthe A Cup ofMellow Wine: Feasting Morris,S. P. 1992.Daidalos and the ConferenceinHerakleion Organised in BronzeAge Cyprus,"Hesperia 73, Originsof , Princeton. bythe and pp.281-300. Neer,R. T. 2002. Styleand Politics in the23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Stefanakis,M. I. 2006. "Phalasarna:Un AthenianVase-Painting: The Craft ClassicalAntiquities of Herakleion, portantique, un espaced'échanges ofDemocracy, ca. 530-460 b.c.e., inNovember 2000, for the Centenary enMéditerranée," inEspaces d'échanges Cambridge. ofSir s Excavations enMéditerranée: Antiquité et Moyen Osborne,R. 2007. "ArchaicGreece," at Knossos{BSA Studies12), ed. Âge,éd. F. Clément,J. Tolan, and in TheCambridge Economic His- G. Cadogan,E. Hatzaki,and J.Wilgaux, Rennes, pp. 41-75. toryof the Greco-Roman World, A. Vasilakis,London, pp. 169-175. Steiner,A. 2007. ReadingGreek Vases, ed.W. Scheidel,I. Morris,and Roberts,S. R. 1986."The Stoa Gutter Cambridge. R. Sailer,Cambridge, pp. 277-301. Well,a Late ArchaicDeposit in Stissi,V. 1999."Production, Circula- Papadopoulos,J. 1988. "Ceramica theAthenian Agora," Hesperia 55, tion,and Consumptionof Archaic a vernicenera," in Gortina I, pp. 1-74. GreekPottery (Sixth and Early ed. A. Di Vita,Rome, pp. 169-197. Rutter,J. B. 2008. "The Anatolian FifthCenturies b.c.)," in TheCom- Pappa,M., P. Halstead,K. Kotsakis, Rootsof Early Helladic III Drink- plexPast of Pottery: Production, and D. Urem-Kotsou.2004. "Evi- ingBehavior," in TheAegean in the Circulation,and Consumptionof dencefor Large- Scale Feasting Neolithic,Chalcolithic, and the Early Mycenaeanand GreekPottery (Six- at Late NeolithicMakriyalos, BronzeAge. Proceedings ofthe Inter- teenthto Early Fifth Centuries b.c.). N. Greece,"in Food,Cuisine, and nationalSymposium, October 13th- Proceedingsofthe Inter- Societyin PrehistoricGreece (Sheffield 19th,1997, Urla-Izmir,Turkey, nationalConference Held in Amster- Studiesin AegeanArchaeology 5), ed. H. Erkanal,H. Hauptmann, dam,8-9 November1996, ed. J. P. ed. P. Halsteadand J. C. Barrett, V. Sahoglu,and R. Tuncel,, Crielaard,V. Stissi,and G. J.van Oxford,pp. 16-44. do. 461-481. Wijngaarden,Amsterdam, pp. 83- Perlman,P. 1992."One Hundred- Shaw,J. W. 2000. "Ritualand Devel- 113. CitiedCrete and the'Cretan opmentin theGreek Sanctuary," in Viviers,D. 1994."La citéde Dattallaet notaieia,'" CP 87,pp. 193-205. KommosIV: TheGreek Sanctuary, l'expansionterritoriale de Lyktosen . 2004a. "Tinker,Tailor, Soldier, ed.J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, Crètecentrale," BCH 118,pp. 229- Sailor:The Economiesof Archaic Princeton,pp. 669-731. 259.

Eleutherna,Crete," ClAnt 23, Shaw,M. C. 1983."Two Cups with . 1999."Economy and Territo- the pp. 95-137. IncisedDecoration from Kommos, rialDynamics in Cretefrom

. 2004b."Crete," in An Inventory Crete,"AJA 87, pp. 443-452. Archaicto theHellenistic Period," 221-234. ofArchaic and ClassicalPoleis: An Sjögren,L. 2003. CretanLocations: in Chaniotis1999a, pp. the InvestigationConducted by the Copen- DiscerningSite Variations inIron Vlassopoulos,K. 2007. Unthinking AncientGreek hagenPolis Centre for the Danish Ageand Archaic Crete (800-500 b.c.) GreekPolis: History NationalResearch Foundation, (BAR-IS 1185),Oxford. beyondEurocentrism, Cambridge.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRINI AT I KOS PYRGOS AND THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 34O,

Vogeikoff-Brogan,N., and S. Aposto- State(Late MinoanIHC-Orien- onPost-Minoan Crete Held by the lakou.2004. "New Evidenceof talizing),"in ThePlain ofPhaistos: BritishSchool at Athens and the Wine Productionin East Crete Cyclesof Social Complexity in the Instituteof Archaeology, University in theHellenistic Period," in Trans- MesaraRegion of Crete (Monumenta CollegeLondon, 10-11 November portAmphorae and Tradein the archaeologica23), ed. L. V. Watrous, 1995 (BSA Studies2), ed. W. G. EasternMediterranean. Acts of the D. Hadzi-Vallianou,and H. Blitzer, Cavanaghand M. Curtis,London, InternationalColloquium at the Los Angeles,pp. 339-350. pp. 27-39.

DanishInstitute at Athens, September Wells,B. 1983. II: Resultsof the . 2001. TheArchaeology of 26-29' 2002 (Monographsof the ExcavationsEast ofthe Acropolis, AncientGreece, Cambridge.

DanishInstitute at Athens5), 1970-1974,4: TheProtogeometric . 2006. "Praisos:Political Evo- ed.J. Eiring and J. Lund, Aarhus, Period,Pt. 2: AnAnalysis of the lutionand EthnicIdentity in pp.417-428. Settlement(SkrAth 4°, 24.4.2), EasternCrete c. 1400-300 b.c.," Wallace,S. 2003. "The ChangingRole Stockholm. inAncient Greece: From the Myce- ofHerding in theEarly Iron Age Westgate,R. 2007. "House and Society naeanPalaces to the Age of Homer ofCrete: Some Implicationsof in Classicaland HellenisticCrete: A (EdinburghLeventis Studies 3), SettlementShift for Economy," AJA Case Studyin RegionalVariation," ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzyand I. S. 107,pp. 601-627. ATA111, pp. 423-457. Lemos,Edinburgh, pp. 597-617. Watrous,L. V. 1982.: A History Whitley,J. 1997. "Cretan and Cre- Willetts,R. F. 1955.Aristocratic Society ofSettlement ona HighlandPlain tanLiteracy," ATA 101, pp. 635-661. inAncient Crete, London.

in Crete{Hesperia Suppl. 18), . 1998."From Minoans to Eteo- Wright,J. C. 2004. "A Surveyof Evi- Princeton. cretans:The PraisosRegion, 1200- dencefor Feasting in Mycenaean Watrous,L. V.,and D. Hadzi-Vallianou. 500 b.c.,"in Post-MinoanCrete. Society,"Hesperia 73, pp. 133- 2004. "Creationof a GreekCity- Proceedingsofthe First Colloquium 178.

BriceL. Erickson

University of California, Santa Barbara department of 4080 hssb, mail code 312o santa barbara, california 93106 [email protected]

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions