Minoanisation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MINOANISATION 'Minoanisation' is by common consent a fundamental element of Bronze Age Aegean cultural dynamics.1 It is a modern term of sometimes deceptive convenience for a heterogeneous range of ancient material culture traits and practices that indicate the adoption in places beyond Crete, through whatever means, of ways of doing things that originated directly or indirectly within that island. Examples include artefact styles and consumption, cooking habits, writing, weight systems, weaving, wall-paintings, design and use of built space, burial practices and ritual action. At a general level, Minoanisation is manifestly important, and related in some way to the expansion on Crete of complex palatial polities during the early to mid-second millennium BC. There the consensus ends. The interpretation of every other aspect of the phenomenon, or rather phenomena, remains locked in deep-seated controversy, notably concerning the potential implications for understanding of the nature of social, economic and political relations between Crete and its neighbours. The last fifteen years: empirical advances in the interpretative doldrums The need for clear analysis of the reasons for this controversy, and a fresh attempt to find ways to transcend it, has never been more urgent. For an astonishing surge is evident since 1990 in the amount of relevant new data from sites in and occasionally beyond the Aegean (fig. 1). Examples include excavations beneath the water-table at Miletus,2 allied with further ones at Trianda, Seraglio and other sites in the south-east Aegean,3 a complete reassessment of the earlier results at lasos,4 the excavation of the Agios Georgios peak sanctuary on Kythera,5 and an intensive survey of the same island 1 Versions of this paper were read to the Cambridge Philological Society in 2003 and the Aegean prehistory workshop at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, in 2004.1 am grateful to all those who attended and whose comments have greatly contributed to the form of the final argument, as well as to Christopher Kelly for his extreme patience as an editor. For helpful comments on earlier drafts I likewise thank Ellen Adams, John Bennet, Andy Bevan, Camilla Briault, Jack Davis, Yannis Hamilakis, Evangelia Kiriatzi, Carl Knappett, Nicoletta Momigliano, Laura Preston (also for kind help at the copy-editing stage), Jeremy Rutter, Lindsay Spencer, Todd Whitelaw and Aaron Wolpert, as well as the anonymous referee of the submitted manuscript. Further thanks to James Conolly, Peter Day, Liz Graham, Silvia Ferrara, Simon Hornblower, Efi Kartsonaki, Roger Matthews, Robin Osborne and James Whitley for diverse other discussion, advice or assistance. My thanks also go to the British School at Athens for permission to study the material in its sherd collection. The illustrations were produced by Andy Bevan. 2 Niemeier & Niemeier (1999); Raymond (2001). 3 Davis (2001) 68-71; Davis et al. (2001) 92-3; Davis & Gorogianni (in press); Marketou (1998). 4 Momigliano et al. (2001); Momigliano (in press). 5 Sakellarakis(1996). Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Victoria Libraries, on 13 Oct 2017 at 18:33:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S006867350000105X MINOANISATION 47 Euboia 1 MikroVouni Cesme Thebes —• 1 fSamothrace) Chios i Karaburun Attica Agia Irini Mycenae Epidauros Anatolia Aegina &Troullos 1 Argos—• • Kolo na T Kea •— Miletus Lerna Asine Laurion Sa nos Peloponnese MikreVigla Panermos •— lasos Pylos Cyclades \ Naxos/ * // Geran • Laconia Phylakopi Koto KouphoniS! o •— Seraglio \ Keros Kos / Agios Stephan • Dodecanese Pavlopetri Tnera Trianda - KastriS T Agios Georgios Akrmiri Hhodt Chania I Karpathos , Pigadia Nopigiea— ji Knossos ^ / Psathi \ I „„>.,.., ,Praisos Figure I The southern Aegean, showing sites and regions mentioned in the text. coupled with re-study of the material from the 1960s work at Kastri.6 Such initiatives on the south-eastern and south-western fringes of the Aegean, together with new analyses based on Lerna and Agios Stephanos,7 Argos (Aspida)8 and Kolonna on Aegina,9 have done much to broaden the scope of analysis beyond the strongly Cycladic focus evident in much previous scholarship. However, the Cyclades too are contributors to this cumulative revolution, for instance through the multi-period deep soundings and analysis of previous finds at the inexhaustible cornucopia of Akrotiri,l0 the Naxian site of Mikre Vigla,1' the thought-provoking discovery of a small site on Kato Kouphonisi in the south-east Cyclades with Minoanising traits,12 and ongoing publication of the excavations at Phylakopi13 and Agia Irini,14 which should provide the degree of detail 6 This research forms part of the Kythera Island Project, under the co-direction of the author and Evangelia Kiriatzi. For a full outline and bibliography, see the Project web-site ([email protected]/kip). 7 Whitbread et al. (2002). 8 Kilikoglou et al. (2003). 9 Hiller (1993); Kilian-Dirlmeier (1997); a programme of ceramic research by Walter Gauss and Evangelia Kiriatzi is currently nearing completion. 10 Doumas (2001); Marthari (1984), (1990); Nikolakopoulou et al. (in press). 1' Barber & Hadjianastasiou (1989). 12 Hadjianastasiou (1993) 260. 11 Renfrew (in press); see also Renfrew (1982a), (1982b). 14 Most recently Overbeck (1989); Petruso (1992); see also Davis (2001) 29-31. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Victoria Libraries, on 13 Oct 2017 at 18:33:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S006867350000105X 48 CYPRIAN BROODBANK and quantification that will be essential for an in-depth analysis of comparative trajectories by site, period and material. Finally, the finds of ostensibly Cretan-type wall-paintings in the Nile Delta and Levant stimulate us to review our terms of reference.15 The same time-span has also witnessed a considerable refinement in our grasp of the spatial and temporal frameworks in which we need to analyse Minoanisation. In spatial terms, the principal zone remains the southern Aegean, including the Cyclades, Dodecanese and Kythera, and certainly the filigreed, quasi-insular coast of Anatolia as far as north as Miletus, and possibly beyond, if new discoveries at Ce§me in the Karaburun peninsula opposite Chios furnish substantial evidence of Minoanising traits.16 The inclusion of the seaboard of the Greek mainland in this zone is less clear- cut. The paucity of Minoanising material in central Greece and Euboia appears to indicate a strongly independent cultural sphere.17 Studies of the Peloponnese, too, tend to stress the separate dynamics of this region,18 although Minoanising traits are present from an early date at Lerna, Argos (Aspida), Asine, and nearby Kolonna,19 and the pattern may be different again in the southern Peloponnese, an area that lies as close to Crete as do Thera and Melos. There, a major Minoanising element in the pottery of Agios Stephanos is well documented,20 and it would not be surprising if similar traits, and possibly further ones, were present at the still poorly known site of Pavlopetri, closer to Kythera.21 Regardless of the precise definition of this principal zone, its maritime orientation is apparent, as is the fact that its edges fall at break-points for movement, especially the Samian or Chian narrows, the strait between Kea and Attica, and a zone comprising the Kythera channel and Laconian gulf. Beyond this, individual traits are recognisable but isolated, including scanty evidence in the northern Aegean,22 the wall-paintings in the east Mediterranean, older finds from the same region, such as the locally-made pseudo-Kamares pottery from Lahun in Egypt,23 and the Cypro-Minoan script of Cyprus.24 Closer to home, some of the Cretan-inspired skills, techniques, styles and symbols evident in elements of early Mycenaean material culture seem to be part of a volatile mixture of emulative and resistive reactions to Crete.25 Such finds also play a role as thought-provoking outliers that can challenge the kinds of explanations that we offer within the main zone - for example, few would explain the appearance of the Cypro-Minoan script as a marker of Bietak & Marinatos (1995); Niemeier & Niemeier (2000). Davis & Gorogianni (in press) for an excellent survey of the spatial distribution of Minoanising traits in the Aegean. Spencer (2004). E.g. Dickinson (1977), (1984); Dietz (1991); Nordquist (1987). Rutter & Zerner (1984); see nn. 7-9 above for references to further new work. Rutter&Rutter(1976). Harding et al. (1969). Guzowska (2002); see Davis & Gorogianni (in press) for an up-to-date summary. Kemp & Merrillees (1980) 57, 70-2; Fitton et al. (1998). Palaima(1989). Voutsaki (1995) 60-1, (1998) 47. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Victoria Libraries, on 13 Oct 2017 at 18:33:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S006867350000105X MINOANISATION 49 Cretan emigration, let alone control, nor still believe that the people interred in the graves of Mycenae were Cretan princes,26 whilst theories running from dynastic marriage, through mobile craftspeople, to an inter-regional elite vocabulary of display have been put forward to explain similarities between wall paintings in Neopalatial Crete and certain of those in the east Mediterranean.27 Turning to