118 Late Harbours · Eugenia Loizou

Late Bronze Age Harbours in the Aegean

Towards another theoretical approach

Eugenia Loizou

Abstract – Harbours and ports have always attracted the archaeological interest as places of economical, social and cultural interaction. Their study can give a better insight into the activities of the past cultures and the processes that took place in the broader harbour area. Prehistoric harbours though, in contrast with the ancient ones, leave scarce remains and have been less investigated. In this paper, the archaeological evidence of the Late Bronze Age harbours of the Aegean is presented and discussed and some problematization on the finds is also exposed. Moreover, a new theoretical approach on the study of the Bronze Age Aegean harbours is attempted. It is suggested that the Bronze Age harbours should be examined under the notion of the dynamic seascape and considered as ac- tive cultural landscapes with sociopolitical implications. These qualities can be found on the architectural and urban development of the settlement and especially on the structures that consist with an Aegean harbour-town.

Inhalt – Natürliche und künstliche Häfen haben als Stätten der wirtschaftlichen, gesellschaftlichen und kulturel- len Wechselwirkung stets das archäologische Interesse angezogen. Ihr Studium kann bessere Einblicke in die Tätigkeiten vergangener Kulturen und in die Prozesse, die im weiteren Hafengebiet abliefen, bieten. Vor ge - schichtliche Häfen jedoch hinterlassen im Gegensatz zu den antiken dürftige Reste und sind weniger erforscht. In diesem Beitrag werden die archäologischen Zeugnisse spätbronzezeitlicher Häfen der Ägäis vorgelegt und diskutiert und einige mit den Funden verbundene Probleme aufgezeigt. Darüber hinaus wird ein neuer theoretischer Ansatz für das Studium bronzezeitlicher ägäischer Häfen versucht. Es wird angeraten, die bronzezeitlichen Häfen unter dem Begriff der dynamischen Seewelt zu untersuchen und sie als aktive Kulturlandschaften mit soziopolitischen Auswirkungen zu betrachten. Diese Eigenschaften kann man in der Architektur und Stadtentwicklung der Siedlung und besonders in den Strukturen, die mit einer ägäischen Hafenstadt zusammenhängen, feststellen.

Introduction being continu- ously enriched By definition a (Black man et al. harbour is syn- 2013), prehis- onymous to toric remains haven; a shel- are scarce. tered place in the sea or other water bodies, The evidence where ships can take refuge in During the case of emer - Aegean Bronze gency. The other Age a number common term Fig. 1: The double-harbour arrangement from the LC I „Flotilla Fresco“, in West House of important used by the most in Akrotiri, Thera (detail). sites is found on to refer to such the coast. Sea a place is port. Ports are man-made, serve the commercial, diplomatic, trade and long-distance connec- usually incorporate one or more military, even touristic and every- tions thrived since the Early Bronze natural harbours and have been day needs of the people living from Age and intensified during the Late originally made to facilitate trans- and at the sea. As nodal points the Bronze Age. Moreover, new sailing portation needs. In this article, as Aegean harbours were diachroni- methods were adopted during this in other scholarly texts, this discri - cally connecting and bringing to - period and the rise of the bulk and mination between the two – harbour gether people, products and ideas fine commodities traveling across and port – is not strictly applied. from all around the Mediterra - the Eastern Mediterranean testify nean, even further. However, al - on high mobility of people and Placed on the littoral, ports are an though our knowledge on the an - goods (Lambrou - Philippson 1990; important human creation. They cient Mediterranean harbours is Cline 1994; Dickinson 1994). As a 16. Jahrgang 2016 · Heft 2 119

result, it is well anticipated that some prosperous Aegean centres would have served as harbours or intermediate trading stations.

Iconographic evidence from the „Flotilla Fresco“ on the island of Thera (Santorini) shows ships moored on the one side of a pro- montory while smaller boats lie on the beach on the other side (Fig. 1). The scene depicts two methods of mooring in the so-called „double harbour arrangement“ (Shaw 1990), a pattern found in Homeric epics, too (, VII). Joseph Shaw attempted to put together the icono- graphic information and the archaeological evi- dence to create a pattern regarding mooring in the Bronze Age Aegean.

According to his study, the location of a prehistoric harbour can be determined based on a compara- tive methodology of selected sites on the coasts of Anatolia and the Aegean (Shaw 1990: 420). As Shaw Fig. 2: observes, the peninsulas were cho- Possible reconstruction sen for permanent settling by the of the peninsula connecting inhabitants of Anatolia preferably the Papadoplaka islet and Kommos. in places along the coastline with small islands nearby, such as Clazo- menai (Shaw 1990, 425). In the peninsula and consists of a forti- ditions to be described as a My - Aegean, Shaw locates similar settle- fied area of the Early Helladic II at cenaean port (Tartaron et al. 2003, ments in Agia Eirini (Early Cy c - the proximity of a wetland and Tartaron 2011). Kalamianos’ loca- ladic) in Kea and in Mochlos and supervises two sheltered bays. Ka - tion is near a wetland, too, and the Pseira islet on . Speci fically, he lamianos is located between the site’s location allows the surveil- maintains that Pseira was connect- modern village Korfos and the cape lance of the surrounding area in- ed to land in Minoan times. That Trelli, saves a fortification section cluding the sea. What is more, the was also the case with Papa dop - dating back to the Late Helladic III nearby beach offers relatively deep laka, the offshore islet of Kommos and has all the environmental con- waters ideal for mooring, as the beach, that used to be connected to discovery of ballast stones proves. the Minoan town with a sandy spit of land (Fig. 2). Shaw’s assessment However, the discovery of Kala - in Abb. is that during the LM I it would mianos in the NE Peloponnese has 3 fehlt have been exposed about 4m above provided no concrete evidence, as ein sea level and would probably be big far as the structures are concerned. enough and safe to offer shelter to But, according to the investigators, Name ships (Shaw 1990, 426). permanent port facilities were not necessary especially at the end of Other theoretical models for the the Mycenaean period when the detection of prehistoric harbours International Spirit in trading have also been developed incorpo- Fig. 3: The Shore House in Gournia, com modities and the gift-exchange rating the principles of GIS and firstly excavated by Boyd network were weakening. As they geoarchaeology. Thomas F. Tarta- point out, many small natural har- ron, Richard M. Rothaus and Da - bours were used to serve smaller niel J. Pullen (2003), based on the vessels on shorter routes and the relative obscurity of the Aegean use of harbours like Kalamianos harbours, created a model that was the rule and not the exception indicates possible harbour-sites. (Tartaron et al. 2003). Conse quent - The application of the model at the ly, the loading and transhipment of Prefecture of Corinth indicated goods and people carried out by many small bays that could have dinghies or the ship was pulled operated as ports. In particular, the directly up on the beach (Tartaron model lead to the discovery of two 2011, 574). On the other hand, ex - interesting positions of the Bronze cavators from a number of sites on Age in Corinthia; Vagia and Kala- Fig. 4: The long walls of the Shore House Crete believe that they have re - mianos. The site of Vagia lies on a in Gournia, west facade. vealed remains from Minoan har- 120 Late Bronze Age Harbours · Eugenia Loizou

Fig. 5: The wharf found underwater in Fig. 6: Stairs found underwater at the Fig. 7: The curvings in Nirou Chani found Gournia. west end of the promontory in Gournia. by S. Marinatos. bours. Vance L. recently inves- Watrous in tigated and the Gour nia inter- published data preted as MM come from the IIIA shipsheds ‘80s. According the long struc- to J. Shaw (1990) tures going the existence in towards the sea Amnisos of at from the so- least one Mi- called „Shore noan building House“ which on the shore was originally and the off- but only par- shore island tially excavated favours over by Harriet Boyd the possible use Hawes in 1901 of Amnisos town (Figs. 3-4). The as a harbour. two coastal gal- Fig. 8: The shipsheds in Poros/ Katsambas. leries, named In the palace East and West site of Malia Gallery, are 5m wide and their pre- the evidence is also problematic. served length is 9m and 13m Among the first excavators of the accordingly. Masonry blocks found site there was the claim that Malia further on the coast indicate a pos- was „not a major harbour“ (van sible length up to 25m. There are Effentere 1980, 75-79). On the also three store rooms dated on the other hand Honor Frost argued MM II on their southern end. that a sloping rock-trench going to North of the building remains the sea is associated with harbour Watrous identified a submerged works dur ing the Minoan times structure with holes as a wharf and (Frost 1963, 105-106. Pl. X). Raban discovered stairs also underwater goes further claiming that the har- (Figs. 5-6) (Watrous 2012, 523, 525). bour at Malia would resemble the contemporary „pocket-harbours“ In Nirou Chani, Spyridon Marina - of the Near East (Raban 1983, 239; tos (1926) found what he believed con tra Shaw 1990). to be an anchorage or a shipyard of the Knossian navy (Fig. 7). The in- In another site, in city, terpretation of the submerged Antonis Vasilakis argues on the dis- carving depends, according to covery of a shipyard – or shipsheds Marinatos, on its location during – based on the architectural char- the Minoan times. In Malia and acteristics of the ruins of six long Amnisos scholars have also identi- chambers and the additional con- fied submerged buildings which – textual finds, which consist of pot- they presume – correlate with tery, raw materials and tools (Vasi- Minoan harbour installations; but lakis 2010). These six galleries were no sound chronology can account Fig. 9: Map of with the rivers found in the district of Poros/ to that. The case in Amnisos is Kai ratos and Karteros and plan of Katsambas which is believed to rather obscure as it has not been Amnisos. have been the harbour of Knoss os 16. Jahrgang 2016 · Heft 2 121

taking into consideration the shape and the size of the galleries, the lack of windows and other archi- tectural features, their location on the shore and the fact that the entrance faces the sea (Shaw – Shaw 2006, 851). However, this interpretation does not incorpo- rate finds from the interior of the building such as food preparation facilities and the transportation jars, mainly the short-neck ampho- ra2.

To support the argument on the existence of shipsheds in Kommos, Joseph Shaw lectured in January, 2015 on a new interpretation of the paved road heading west coming from the sea and passing by the Building T. This walkway was first thought to be associated with the Fig. 10: Plan of Kommos. South area. court, as it was used at the Minoan palaces, likely used for processions. But Shaw’ s recent study suggests (Fig. 8). The structures are 6m wide Of the most convincing finds to be that there had been used wooden with a preserved length of maxi- considered as shipsheds are the beams between the stone slabs to mum 25m, have a N-S orientation Buildings T1 and P in Kommos smoothly haul ships up or down to and run perpendicular to the coast. (Fig. 10). They both date in the the beach and thus, changing the It is estimated by the excavator that Neo palatial period and their prox- interpretation of a walkway into a the galleries could have been up to imity to the shore is the main rea- slipway (Fig. 11). If this is the case, 50m long and that would have son to connect them with mar- then this find is an unicum for the been enough space for more cham- itime matters (Shaw 1990). The Aegean. bers attached to them. The galleries destruction of part of the Building date from the Late Minoan II until T in LM IIIA1-2 follows the con- The Minoan harbour of Kommos the Late Minoan IIIB, when they struction of two from the six gal- also presents a feature found in were finally destructed. leries of Building P, which takes its other Minoan sites, too; a nowa- final almost rectangular form by days small offshore island which – Many scholars since the beginning the end of the LM IIIA2 (Shaw – then – could have formed a penin- of the 20th century claimed that the Shaw 2006, 850). Maria C. Shaw sula providing shelter at its both main harbour of Knossos laid on argued since the beginning of the sides, in the „double harbour ar - this area. It was first Louis Franchet excavation of the Building P – rangement“. Could this have been in 1912 and then Iosef Chatjidakis, which has not been completed – the case in other Minoan centres Stefanos Xanthoudides, Richard B. that it could have been used as on Crete like Amnisos, Mochlos or Seager, Sir and shipsheds to store ships and their Malia3 (Fig. 12)? Geological and more who favoured equipment during the winter thorough archaeological surveys the view that the Knossian harbour months (Shaw 1985, 22-25). The need to be conducted, in order to were at the mouth of river Kai- suggestion is rather convincing confirm the double harbour theory. ratos, modern Katsambas (Dimo - poulou-Rethemniotaki 2004, 365). In addition, Evans and Marinatos maintained that Knos sos used to have another subsidiary harbour laid at Amnisos, where the course of river Karteros ends (Fig. 9) (Schäfer 1991, 112). However, as already mentioned above, no distinctive structures are discovered yet on Amnisos to be accounted as har- bour installations. Fig. 11: The road or slipway in Kommos. 122 Late Bronze Age Harbours · Eugenia Loizou

In the Mycenaean centers of Peloponnese, where the long-dis- tance exchange of Tiryns, Pylos, Mycenae and other sites with the Aegean and Anatolia are confirmed by excavations, evidence for port facilities are limited to Pylos. How- ever, the data from Pylos are also questionable. According to Zang - ger, Pylos had an internal pocket- harbour constructed in an artificial lagoon simulating the ports of the Near East and the coast of Anatolia (Tel Dor, Tire and Sidon) (Zangger 1998). This proposition based on a number of facts and remarks, such as the rectangular shape of the mo d - ern valley and its sandy surround- ings, the observation that the Fig. 12: Plan of the coastline and possible anchorages in Malia. course of the river Selas had been redirected in the past – probably during the Late Bronze Age – and Discussion method is still partly practiced in the composition of the sediments the Mediterranean by smaller boats and microfauna recovered after But, what is it actually that archae- and leaves hardly any physical drilling, which had been related ologists look for when they seek for traces behind. But, if this was also with salt water (Zangger 1998). harbours or ports? When survey- the case during the Bronze Age, the ing for ancient harbours archaeol- question passes on ships and their In Pylos, tablets also ogists look for anchorages or safe capacities and limitations; did the reveal important aspects of mar- places to moor with emphasis on shipbuilding of the Bronze Age itime connections between the the harbour constructions per se, impose the construction of specific palace centre and the Aegean. while natural scientists focus on harbour facilities orwas there no Names of places and ethnic names the geological and the environ- necessity to create a harbour sys- attest to contacts with islands like mental information (Morhange et tem? Crete, Cyprus, Lemnos, Chios and al. 2016). The employed theoretical other sites in Asia Minor’s coast- models also help towards a better In the light of the evidence pre- line. Moreover, words coming from understanding on the position of a sented above, it appears that a form abroad like sesame, cumin or gold Bronze Age harbour-site, consider- of prehistoric harbours existed, testify contacts with other lands, ing mostly the environmental pa - where people took care of the ships too (Palaima 1991, 279, 280). rameters. The main problem about and stored the commodities. As a Rowers and possibly a fleet are also the search for prehistoric harbours, rule Bronze Age harbours were mentioned in the PY An series and in many cases for ancient, too, located on natural protected bays, (Palmer 1963; Ventris – Chadwick is their in-visibility, due to geomor- with sandy beaches and in connec- 1973, 173-187; Palaima 1991). phological changes that caused tion to important and prosperous alterations, relocations or complete towns4. Long-distance exchanges in Other Mycenaean centres with well destruction of a harbour’s location the form of gifts and interregional established trade and interconnec- (Flemming et al. 1973; Lambeck trade created a broad network of tions bear no evidence of ports, 1996). As a consequence, basic har- sea-routes, diplomatic relation- though Tiryns for instance, is re - bour structures like jetties and ships and reliance. It is quite puz - ferred as a major harbour in the moles could be extremely difficult zling, though, that the word „mer- Bronze Age (Maran 2010). Its pro x - or even impossible to be discov- chant“ is not mentioned in any lit- imity to the sea, which in the 3rd ered. Posterior use of the same erary texts from the Aegean nor and 2nd millennium BC was greater structures in later times also im- any references on trade or nautical (Zangger 1994), encourages the pede the identification of earlier activities appear in scripts (Bass view that Tiryns should be an stages. 1998, 185). It seems that the important harbour-town since the Bronze Age trade in the Aegean was Early Bronze Age. However, some scholars maintain conducted by entrepreneurs who that prehistoric ships did not need operated outside the palatial con- any structures; they were just trol or only to some extent in dragged on the shore or were either dependence on the palatial centres loaded or unloaded with dinghies (Sherratt – Sherratt 1991, 357; (Tartaron et al. 2011, 574). This Artzy 1997, 9). Another possible 16. Jahrgang 2016 · Heft 2 123

fact is that there was no discrimi- same time central in the sociopolit- ly related to maritime activities and nation between military and com- ical complex of the Aegean Bronze could be used to detect smaller mercial ships (Raban 1984; Wachs- Age. social groups which are barely seen mann 1998, 157). If the ships were in the archaeological record. owned by citizens serving some- A harbour consists of wharves, times the palatial centres, probably quays, moles, jetties, piers, fortifi- Another issue is the theoretical they would have been responsible cations, canals and/or artificial context in which the harbour is for their ships. As a result, no pub- docks (Delgado, J. – Staniforth, M. being investigated. Studies from lic concern on merchant ships and 2002). These structures are the the last decades incorporate the their functionality should have backbones of the installation made idea of the natural landscape and been taken, a fact which could ex- to host ships but they are not the the shaping of a cultural landscape plain the obscurity of harbour only ones. Other features like light- into the archaeological interpreta- installations. On the other hand, if houses, shipsheds/shipyards, stor- tion of the material culture (Wes - the galleries found on Crete were age facilities and civic buildings terdahl 1992). Coastal archaeology shipsheds indeed, that indicates the complete the harbour system. and the archaeology of maritime allocation of capital and human Towards the understanding of the landscapes investigate how people resources under a form of power harbour-works in the Greek and conceived the coast and their inter- that wanted to participate actively Roman world great work has been action with the littoral environ- in the navy things. done and is still going on (Black - ment, as well as with other coastal man 1982; Blackman et al. 2013) – and inland – peoples (Ford Nevertheless, what makes a har- but for earlier periods in the Me di - 2013). Marginal places like har- bour is not only the mere construc- terranean little is known. The quest bour sites offer a great example in tions, but also the facilities on land. of harbours during the Bronze Age understanding changes in the land- Thus, the study of the ancient har- is in particular problematic as scape and the generic role of the bours turns as well on the shore to there is no unanimity among the community. Thus, the Bronze Age incorporate terrestrial data under scholars on the very existence of harbours if seen as a dynamic land- the notion of a „harbour town“. It harbours at that time, although the scape and as a social place can give is rather obvious from the archaeo- term harbour town prevails in the a better insight into the maritime logical discussion that even with literature. Tiryns and the lately dis- Bronze Age society. To conclude no actual harbour structures, ar - covered Kalamianos provide good with, under the notion of the chaeologists still refer to Bronze examples on this case. Conse - dynamic landscape, the architec- Age coastal sites with evidence of quently, to move on with the study tural and urban development of long-distance connections as har- of prehistoric harbours the ques- the settlement and the contextual bour-towns. The term in this case tion „what composed a harbour in archaeological evidence, a prehis- includes principally coastal sites in the Bronze Age ?“ should be firstly toric harbour can be holistically locations favourable for maritime answered. understood. activities, with massive imported items or products to be exported. In addition, the tendency in the This contradiction between the study of ancient harbours was to Notes uncertainty of the existence of pre- perceive them as economical struc- historic harbours and the belief tures with certain functions serv- 1 The view that Building T was used as that coastal towns functioned as ing specific needs. Their principal shipsheds is not very convincing, though. harbours, points out a basic theo- role is unquestionable; it is to serve In favour of this opinion are the contribu- retical problem in approaching this the needs of ships. However, at the tors of the exhibition volume Inseln der kind of structures. harbour area people of different Winde, Die maritime Kultur der bronze - expertise, interests and expecta- zeitlichen Ägäis. Institut fur Klassische tions encounter and interact with Archäologie der Universität Heidelberg Another perspective each other. Until now the small (Berlin 2011). communities taking action in the 2 The short neck amphora is most abun- It turns out that the notion of har- broader harbour area remain dant find in the Building P in LM IIIA2 bour in prehistory is elusive. First unknown demonstrating a study’s and becomes a standard type in LM IIIB. It of all, it is a matter of terminology; neglect on the social aspects of a is a new transport vessel produced by what do we mean by the word harbour. The social identity of a thousands in Kommos (Rutter, J. 2006: „harbour“ when dealing with it in harbour at any given time is attest- from the Southern Area. the Bronze Age? Secondly, it is sub- ed through the secondary, periph- Neopalatial and Later Minoan Pottery, in: ject of our own anticipation; what eral facilities like warehouses, ship- J.W. Shaw – M.C. Shaw (eds.) Kommos V. do we expect to find when looking yards and other premises to ac- The Monumental Minoan Buildings at for prehistoric harbours. Thirdly, it commodate ship’s equipment or Kommos (Princeton University Press) 486- is also an issue of theoretical con- cargo. The excavations in Kommos 609. However, there is nowhere else to be text and how do we approach a sys- and Poros/Katsambas have uncov- found except of Kommos. tem partly marginal and at the ered complexes which are indirect- 124 Late Bronze Age Harbours · Eugenia Loizou

3 A study on Malia’s coastline has been Cline, E,H. 1994: Sailing the Wine-Dark Basch (eds.) Thalassa. Aegaeum 7. (Liège) published by M. Hue and O. Pelon where it Sea: International Trade and the Late 273-309. is argued that the location of the harbour Bronze Age Aegean. BAR International Palmer, L.R. 1963: The Interpretation of was at the nowadays islet in the bay of Series 591 (Oxford). Mycenaean Greek Texts (Oxford). Aghia Varvara following the pattern of the Delgado, J. – Staniforth, M. 2002: ‘Un- double-harbour. Hue, M. – Pelon, O. 1990: Raban, A. 1983: Recent maritime archae- derwater Archaeology’, in: The Encyclo - Malia et la mer, in: R. Laffineur – L. Basch ological research in Israel. IJNA 12, 229-251. pedia of Life Support Systems (online (eds.), Thalassa: L’Égée préhistorique et la encyclopedia). UNESCO, Paris. Online at: Raban, A. 1984: The Thera Ships: Another mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre http://www.eolss.co.uk/ Interpretation. AJA 88,1, 11-19. égéenne international de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines Dickinson, O. 1994: The Aegean Bronze Schäfer, J. 1991: Amnisos – Harbour et océanographiques (StaReSO) Calvi Age (Cambridge, University Press). Town of Minos? in: R. Laffineur – L. Basch, (Corse) 23-25. Dimopoulou-Rethemniotaki, N. 2004: Thalassa. Aegaeum 7 (Liège) 111-116. 4 Minoan and Mycenaean towns and The harbour of Knossos in Poros-Kats - Shaw, J.W. – Shaw, M.C. 2006. Con- palatial centres were connected with roads. amba, in: Cadogan, G. – Hatzaki, E. – clusions: The history and functions of the In the case of harbour towns in Crete Vasilakis, A. (eds.) Knossos: Palace, Sity, monumental Minoan Buildings at Kom- remains of roads have been identified in State. BSA Studies 12, 363-380 (in Greek). mos: Architectural Forms and their uses, Kommos (Shaw, J.W. 2006: Kommos. A Flemming, N.C. – Czartoryska, N.M.G. – in: J.W. Shaw – M.C. Shaw (eds.) ,Kommos Minoan harbor town and Greek sanctuary Hunter, P.M. 1973: Archaeological evi- V. The Monumental Minoan Buildings at in Southern Crete (The American School dence for eustatic and tectonic components Kommos (Princeton, NJ) 846-854. of Classical Studies in Athens), in Knossos of relative sea level change in the South (Evans, A. 1928: The palace of Minos at Shaw, J.W. 1990: Bronze Age Aegean Aegean. Marine archaeology 23, 1-63. Knossos, vol.II, part I (London) and in Harboursides, in: C. Gillis – C. Risberg – B. Malia (Hue – Pelon 1990, passim). Ford, B. 2013: Coastal archaeology. Sjöberg (eds.), Thera and the Aegean Introduction, in: Catsambis, A. – Ford, B. – World III. Vol. 1: Archaeology. Proceedings Hamilton, D.L. (eds.), The Oxford Hand - of the Third International Congress, References book of Maritime Archaeology (Oxford Santorini, Greece, 3-9 September 1989 University Press) 763-785. (London) 420-436. Abbreviations Frost, H. 1963: Under the Mediterranean. Shaw, J.W. 2006: Kommos: A Minoan Marine Antiquities (Routledge, New York). harbor town and Greek sanctuary in AJA = American Journal of Archaeology Knapp, A.B. – Demesticha, S. (eds.) 2017: southern Crete (Princeton, NJ). IJNA = International Journal of Nautical Mediterranean Connections: Maritime Shaw, M.C., 1985: Late Minoan I building Archaeology Transport Containers and Seaborne Trade J/T, and late Minoan III buildings N and P in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages Artzy, M. 1994: Nomads of the Sea, in: St. at Kommos: their nature and possible uses (Routledge, New York) 2017. Swiny – R.L. Hohlfelder – H. Wylde Swiny as residences, places, and/or emporia, in: (eds.), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Lambeck, K. 1996: Sea level change and J.W. Shaw – M.C. Shaw (eds.), A great Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to shore line evolution in Aegean Greece since Minoan triangle in south-central Crete: Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Second Upper Paleolithic time. Antiquity 70, 588- Kommos, Hagia Triada, Phaistos. Scripta International Symposium Cities on the 611. Mediterranea, vol. VI (Toronto. P.) 19-25. Sea, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 18-22, 1994. Lambrou-Philippson, C. 1990: Helen - Sherratt, A. – Sherratt, S. 1991: From lux- Cyprus American Archaeological Research orien talia: The Near Eastern Presence in uries to commodities: the nature of Institute Monograph Series 1 (Atlanta, Ga.) the Bronze Age Aegean, ca. 3000-1100 B.C. Mediterranean Bronze Age trading sys- Bass, G.F. 1998: Sailing Between the SIMA-PB 95 (Gothenburgh, Åström). tems, in: N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade Aegean and the Orient in the Second in the Mediterranean. Studies in Mediter - Maran, J. 2010: Tiryns, in: E. Cline (ed.), Millennium BC, in: E.H. Cline – D. Harris- ranean Archaeology 90, 351-386. The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Cline (eds.), The Aegean and the Orient in Aegean. Tartaron, F.T. – Pullen, D.J. – Dunn, R.K. et the Second Millennium: Proceedings of the al. 2011: The Saronic Harbors Archaeo - 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, Marinatos, Sp. 1926: Anaskafai Nirou logical Research Project (SHARP): In- 18-20 April 1997. Aegaeum 18 (Liège/ Chani Critis. Praktika tis Archaiologikis vestigations at Mycenaean Kalamianos, Austin) 183-191. Etaireias (in Greek). 2007-2009. Hesperia 80, 559-634. Blackman, D.J. 1982: Ancient Harbours in Morhange, C. – Marriner, N. – Carayon, N. the Mediterranean. IJNA 11 (2), 79-104 2016: The eco-history of ancient Me di - Tartaron, F.T. – Rothaus, R.M. – Pullen, and 11(3),185-211. terranean harbours, in: T. Bekker-Nielsen – D.J. 2003: Searching for Prehistoric R. Gertwagen (eds.), The Inland Seas. Aegean Harbors with GIS, Geomorpho - Blackman, D.J. – Rankov, B. with Baika K. Towards an Ecohistory of the Mediterr anean logy and Archaeology, Athena Review 3 et al. 2013: Shipsheds of the Ancient and the Black Sea (Stuttgart) 85-106. n.4, 27-36. Mediterranean (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Palaima, T.G. 1991: Maritime matters in van Effentere, H. 1980: Le Palais de Malia, the Linear B tablets, in: R. Laffineur – L. 2 vol. (Rome). 16. Jahrgang 2016 · Heft 2 125

Vasilakis, A. 2010: Late Minoan shipsheds Credits of figures Address in Katsamba (Heraklion), in: Andrianakis, M. – Tzachili, I. (eds,), Archaiologiko Ergo Fig. 1: Doumas 1992: 68, fig. 35; courtesy of Eugenia Loizou Kritis I. Rethymno, 28-30 Nov. 2008. 285- the Thera Foundation; Fig. 2: Guttandin, T. Mittelstraße 18a 293 (in Greek). – Panagiotopoulos, D. – Pflug, H. – Plath, 22851 - Norderstedt Ventris, M. – Chadwick, J. 1973: Docu - G. 2011. Inseln der Winde. Die maritime [email protected] ments in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge). Kultur der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis (Berlin) fig. 255; Fig. 3: Courtesy Chronis Papani - Wachsmann, S. 1998: Seagoing ships and kolopoulos, http:// www.minoancrete.com seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant /gournia_seafrontmt.ht; Fig. 4: Watrous (College Station, Tex.). 2012, fig. 7; Fig. 5: Watrous 2012 fig.4, Watrous, L.V. 2012: The Harbor Complex photo by L. Ivanovas; courtesy Ephoreia of of the Minoan Town at Gournia. AJA 116, Underwater Antiquities; Fig 6: Watrous 521-541. 2012 fig 5. photo by L. Ivanovas; courtesy Ephoreia of Underwater Antiquities; Fig. 7: Westerdahl, Chr. 1992: The maritime cul- Marinatos 1926 fig. 5; Fig. 8: Vasilakis 2010; tural landscape. IJNA 21.1. 5-14. Fig. 9: Schäfer 1991, Pl. XXVIII; Fig. 10: Zangger, E. 1994: Landscape changes http://www.fihneart.utoronto.ca/kom- around Tiryns during the Bronze Age. AJA mos/kommosMaps.html; Fig. 11: Shaw – 98, 189-212. Shaw 2006. https://www.kommosconser- vancy.org/ abstract-j-w-shaw-the-middle- Zangger, E. 1998: The port of Nestor, in: minoan-slipway-for-ships-at-the-kom- J.L. Davis (ed.) with contributions by mos-harbor/ Fig. 12: Hue – Pelon 1991 (s. Susan E. Alcock [and others]: Sandy Pylos: Anm. 3), Plate XXXI. an archaeological history from Nestor to Navarino (College Station Tex.) 69-74.