Minoanisation

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.

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.

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 the temporal framework, the overall impact of ongoing excavation and study has been to reveal that the thickest concentration of Minoanising traits at almost all sites occurs in phases contemporary with Neopalatial Crete, and especially the Late Minoan I period. Such traits are scarcer and encountered in a restricted range of materials and practices (mainly ceramic) in phases equivalent to the Protopalatial, and sometimes early Neopalatial, periods. This trend is established at Akrotiri,28 Agia Irini,29 Phylakopi,30 Miletus31 Trianda32 and Iasos, where, startlingly, re-study has re- assigned an entire light-on-dark pottery tradition previously considered to be of Protopalatial date to a south-east Aegean style contemporary with the Neopalatial,33 thereby bringing Iasos into line with other sites in the region, as was presciently anticipated by Davis.34 In this respect, the real anomaly is Kastri on Kythera, where Minoanising traits become strongly evident in the mid-third millennium BC, before the rise of palatial polities on Crete, and continue through phases contemporary with the Protopalatial into the Neopalatial periods.35 It is striking that the four decades of fieldwork since this discovery on Kythera have not produced a single parallel for this pattern anywhere else in the southern Aegean.36 At a more general level, the next stage is to achieve finer-grained comparisons within the phases contemporary with the Neopalatial, through the kind of quantitative sedation of pottery from individual strati- graphic levels that has been pioneered at Phylakopi by Davis and Cherry.37 Such analyses will also shed light on patterns in and beyond the late Neopalatial, and help

26 Evans (1935) 221-58, 283, 887-8. 27 Bietak & Marinates (1995) 60-2; Knapp (1998) 198-202, 205; Niemeier & Niemeier (1998) 88-96. 28 Marthari (1984), (1990); Knappett & Nikolakopoulou (in press); Nikolakopoulou et al. (in press); Papagiannopoulou (1991). 29 Davis (1986), (2001) 29-31; Davis & Cherry (1990) 193-6; Overbeck (1989). 111 Davis & Cherry (1984), (1990) 193-6, (in press). 31 Niemeier & Niemeier (1999); Raymond (2001). 12 Marketou(1998). 33 Momigliano et al. (2001); Momigliano (in press). 34 Davis (1982). 35 Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 33^, 275-303, 309, discussed in more detail below. 36 In temporal terms the nearest comparanda are the Minoanising sherds that appear on some Peloponnesian sites at the transition from the third to the second millennium BC (nn. 7-9 and 18 above), but the quantities are comparatively small, and it remains to be established in which cases these represent local manufacture as opposed to imports (perhaps even from Kythera itself). Melas (1985) 172—4 suggests, with good reason in purely in geographical terms, that Karpathos might be another potential location of early Minoanising material. 37 Davis & Cherry (1984); see also Marthari (1984), (1990) for a similar approach. Refinements are also possible for other bodies of data too. For example, Karnava (in press) points out that at Agia Irini, Linear A script is found in Periods V-VII. encompassing Middle Minoan III - Late Minoan IB; this longevity has yet to be demonstrated at other sites.

to address the much overlooked question as to when Minoanising traits actually end at various sites, whether in, or possibly slightly after, the end of Late Minoan IB.38 So far, so good. Yet in one key respect, these informational riches are proving to be an embarrassment indeed, because in stark contrast to their accumulation over the past fifteen years, the same period has seen almost no substantial advances in the generation of conceptual or analytical frameworks for grappling effectively with the interpretative significance of the data. The result has been a spell in the intellectual doldrums, of efforts to fit challenging new data to increasingly ageing and sometimes unsatisfactory models. This generalisation admits only two major exceptions. One is Renfrew's stimulating (if philologically speculative) foray into the 'word of Minos', or the linguistic correlates of Cretan activity in the southern Aegean.39 Whatever the validity of his argument that words long considered to reflect a 'prehellenic' sub-stratum in Greek are in fact more plausibly seen as Cretan terms reflecting linguistic Minoanisation, there can be no doubt that the kinds of activities taking place between people of different origins spread over the southern Aegean in the second millennium BC must have had an impact on language development.40 The other is the adoption by a handful of researchers over the last few years of new approaches to the analysis of production traditions and their modes of transfer, in order to get beneath the surface, often literally, of finished objects, an approach more fully discussed below.41 To these might be added the suggestion that it is fruitful to understand Minoanisation within the core/periphery framework of world- systems analysis, but although this certainly helps when delineating the outlines of an economic and ideological macrohistory for the Aegean and the wider Mediterranean,42 at the current stage of resolution this kind of framework does not offer much prospect of progress in detailing and explaining the crucial, puzzling nuances of the archaeological record in the southern Aegean that have troubled us for so long. However, before further justifying this bleak assessment of the current state of play, and exploring the circumstances that have led up to it, some even more basic problems with the usage of the term 'Minoanisation' need to be acknowledged, so as to clarify what the term can, and cannot, legitimately be taken to intend.

A problematic term

It is fairly manifest that at several levels Minoanisation cries out for deconstruction. Most obviously, it is tarred with the same brush that makes 'Minoan' itself so deeply problematic, not only as a term referring to prehistory, but also with regard to its role in personal, regional, national and European-wide myth-making,43 as well as, through

Niemeier (1984); more recently Hershenson (1998); Mountjoy & Ponting (2000). Renfrew (1998), (1999), building on earlier suggestions by van Effenterre (1984). For the impact of social processes on language change: Dixon (1997); Robb (1993). E.g. Berg (2000), (2004); Davis & Lewis (1985); Kiriatzi (2003); Knappett & Nikolakopoulou (in press). E.g. Berg (1999); Broodbank (2000) 356-9; Kardulias (1999); Sherratt & Sherratt (1991) 369-70. Bintliff (1984); Hamilakis (2002a); Hamilakis & Yialouri (1996); Zois (1996).

the concept of a 'Minoan thalassocracy', to post-prehistoric imperial agendas, ancient and modern (exemplified by Thucydides' famous statement and Evans' analogy with the pax Romana and perhaps, implicitly, the Edwardian pax Britannica).44 Such high valuations can lure us into the trap of considering Minoanisation to be not simply the pacifying process that was envisaged by the later advocates of thalassocracy, but also a civilising one, in short a 'good thing'. Such assumptions threaten to blind us to other, less palatable options, for example that putative Cretan emigrants might be exploiters of host communities, or be fleeing from exploitation back home, or, again, that emulation of Cretan customs might form part of local aggrandising strategies. Moreover, like 'Minoan', as this term came to be employed by Evans (who adapted it from an earlier usage coined by scholars long before the encounter with the physical remains of prehistoric Crete),45 and as it is used by many of his successors to this day, Minoanisation risks equating issues of biological origin and ethnic identity with the material culture phenomenon that has been excavated on Crete and elsewhere in the Aegean.46 The short steps taken from legendary King Minos, to the application of the adjective 'Minoan' to the archaeological remains of Bronze Age Crete, to the identification of the 'Minoans' as a biological or ethnic group of people, to mapping the expansion of those people, as witnessed through the material phenomena known as Minoanisation, are in fact all treacherous ones. The decision represented by the first step is now so hallowed by a century of termi- nological refinement of the pottery sequence that it is effectively immovable, although the mere geographical expression 'Cretan', with sub-divisions by region, is infinitely preferable in terms of clarity as well as avoidance of an arbitrary separation from previous Neolithic and subsequent Iron Age material, and is indeed increasingly used. At the very least it is important to be aware that the relative homogeneity and hetero- geneity of 'Minoan' material culture and practices on Crete itself varied significantly with time, from the diverse traditions of the Prepalatial period, through the emergence and several transformations of the Palatial polities, and on towards the start of the Iron Age, as well as across different consumption contexts and diverse media. In this sense, turning the Evansian vision on its head, we might momentarily relax our earlier definition and identify the Minoanisation of Crete itself, through a mixture of emulative, competitive social processes and island-wide economic as well as ideological networks, as a subject in need of explicit attention in its own right.47 This in turn reminds us that temporal and spatial diversity is equally apparent in the political

44 Thuc. 1.4; Evans (1928) 571. 45 Evans may have invented the 'Minoans', but contrary to popular belief he is far from being the inventor of the term 'Minoan'; see Karadimas & Momigliano (in prep.) for a fascinating exploration of the deep roots and varied meanings of the term in European scholarship since (and arguably before) the Enlightenment; note in particular its main usage until the end of the nineteenth century as a primarily chronological signifier pertaining to one of the early ages of the Aegean; see also Zois (1996). 46 Bennet (1999), Hamilakis (2002a); Hitchcock (1999); Renfrew (1996); Whitley (2002-3). 47 Cherry (1986), where a peer-polity interaction model is explored; on factionalism as a possible element see Hamilakis (2002b); also Davis & Gorogianni (in press).

geography of the island, even in the Neopalatial period, with a lively debate being currently under way as to the degree of political fragmentation or incorporation in particular periods, and concerning the nature of political structures themselves.48 Certainly, no easy equation between a homogeneous Minoan culture and an island- wide rule from Knossos can any longer be unproblematically asserted. These cultural and political observations have implications for the degree of specificity that will be required if we aim to identify links of whatever kind between Minoanising traits beyond the island, and patterns within Crete itself. But the point to underscore at the moment is the fact that the degree of cultural flux and variation on Crete argues powerfully against the existence of some pure, discrete Minoan cultural package, and in turn implies that Minoanisation represents something more complex and subtle than a 'provincial' variant of such a package, or even a hybrid between a homogeneous Minoan, and various equally discrete local, cultures.49 The following step, from 'Minoan' as a material culture label to 'Minoans' as a coherent biological or ethnic group, is unjustifiable on both practical and theoretical grounds. Concerning the former, we unfortunately still lack the necessary data from physical anthropology and archaeogenetics to understand the population biology of prehistoric Crete, and given large-scale recent population replacements on the island, modern genetic data are unlikely to substitute effectively.50 Although Crete's early colonisation, prehistoric settlement development (apparently largely through internal expansion), and insular status might suggest considerable homogeneity of population biology during the Bronze Age, the island's large size and cultural diversity render any proposed link between people and culture at an island-wide level (which the term 'Minoan' demands) so superficial as to be more or less meaningless. Turning to the archaeology of ethnicity, recent work has greatly increased our understanding of the problems involved, with convincingly negative implications for prehistoric contexts. There is considerable agreement as to the nature of ethnicity, namely that it is subjective, socially constructed, contextually determined (therefore fluctuating in importance and defined principally in opposition to other groups), based on perceptions of shared descent and territory, and not to be equated with biology, language or religion.51 It is widely accepted that ethnicity is a phenomenon of some antiquity, although perhaps one associated mainly with complex societies.52 However, although these conclusions suggest that it could in theory be relevant to the second millennium BC Aegean, the chances of identifying ethnic groups and boundaries in prehistory are in fact vanishingly thin. This is partly because the primary definitional

48 Cherry (1986); recently papers in Driessen et al. (2002), especially Hamilakis (2002b) and Warren (2002) for contrasting approaches; also Hamilakis (2002a); Knappett (1999); Schoep (1999). 49 Woolf (1998), especially 1—23, 238-49, for discussion of similar issues pertaining to Romanisation in Gaul. 50 Contra Renfrew (1996) 6-8, 16-19, although the questions raised are fruitful ones. 51 Barth (1969); Hall (1997), (2002); Hall et al. (1998); Jones (1997); Shennan (1989). 52 MacEachern (1998); Shennan (1989) 14-17; Bennet (1999) for speculations on the nature of ethnic groups in the Aegean Late Bronze Age.

processes involved in ethnic self-identification are discursive, not material. But it is also because even if specific elements of material culture did gain emblematic status in this respect, the choice of such elements is extremely hard to ascertain even when other information sources suggesting the existence of ethnic groups are available,53 and effectively impossible if the data consist entirely of patterns of spatial variation in material culture, that might signify a variety of social, economic or other processes. Therefore it is hardly surprising that there has been no success in identifying ethnic groups in prehistoric Crete. Preston's analysis of burials during the so-called 'Mycenaean' period (i.e. Final and Post-Palatial) demonstrated that the case for an influx of mainlanders is impossible to sustain on the basis of available evidence, even in a period of at least limited linguistic change indicated by the use of Linear B script by a probably small, palace-based group, and that intrusive or indigenous ethnic markers are impossible to identify.54 At Iron Age Praisos, in the so-called 'Eteocretan' heartland, material traits and patterns of behaviour that may be emblematic of ethnic definition have only been picked up centuries after Homer's oft-quoted summary of the island's peoples.55 And whilst the Egyptian term 'Keftiu' and its Levantine equivalents probably do relate to Crete and perhaps other prominent southern Aegean islands,56 this external categorisation simply reflects contemporary east Mediterranean ethnotaxonomies of distant lands, and is surely no better guide to Cretan self-definitions than we know the later Greek label 'Phoenician' to be for the seafaring citizens of the central Levantine littoral.57 In these circumstances, any attempt at analysis of the adoption of putative ethnic identities in the southern Aegean beyond Crete must rapidly bog down in shifting sands.58 The most that we can entertain is informed speculation as to where ethnic self- awareness may have been salient, based on better-documented comparanda, and an awareness of the probably contingent self-perceptions of groups who were engaged in ever-changing economic and social networks.59 The stress on oppositional boundaries in much of the literature suggests that 'edge areas', such as Kythera (off the Greek mainland) and Miletus or Iasos (in the littoral zone between the Aegean and Anatolian interior) might have proved focal in this respect at certain periods.60 Unfortunately, we lack the rare combination of text, image and material culture that Bennet and Davis combine in their scenario of the 'making of Mycenaeans' through war and conquest in and around the slightly later kingdom of Pylos.61

13 Hall (1997), 17-33, 142; Jones (1997) 132-5; cf. Hall's response (2002) 9-24. 14 Preston (1999), (2004). 15 Whitley (2002-3); Od. 19.175. Cline (1994) 32, 108-14; Sakellarakis & Sakellarakis (1984); Wachsmann (1987). 17 Aubet (2001) 5-12. For example, in their discussion of Miletus, Niemeier & Niemeier (1999) 549-50 appear to misapprehend the definition of ethnic groups. Sherratt & Sherratt (1998) 335-6. Davis & Gorogianni (in press) argue much the same for the western Cyclades; Kea certainly could fall in this category. Bennet & Davis (1999).

To draw these points together, if the first steps are indeed so slippery, might it be best not to attempt the last one (from 'Minoan' or 'Minoans' to Minoanisation), and to generate instead a new vocabulary? Although this is a reasonable proposal, it is not the solution pursued here. In part this is due to the lack of any obviously superior alternative. But it is also because the historiographical baggage can be overcome as long as we remain aware of it, for example by using the term 'Cretan' when referring to objects or people from the said island, and eschewing such ambiguous phrases as 'a Minoan presence', to take one recent example.62 In response to Shennan's timely call not to allow the 'tyranny of the present' in archaeology to distract from the equally challenging business of obtaining valid knowledge about the past,63 we therefore now move on, first to examine why there has been so much difficulty in establishing the validity of interpretations of the diverse cultural traits known as Minoanisation (which will not go away, whatever we call them), and then to consider some of the strategies through which we can seek to increase that validity.

The current interpretative impasse and its origins

It is useful to start this exercise by considering the origins and reasons for the current impasse. In fact the first encounters with material culture that was subsequently seen as Minoanised ante-date Evans' discovery and synthesis of his Minoan civilisation, as is exemplified by finds from early excavations on Thera/Therasia and at Phylakopi.64 However, following the excavations at Knossos and elsewhere on Crete, these and other sites became rapidly integrated in Evans' vision of a Minoan empire, bolstered by classical legends of the thalassocracy of Minos.65 The first slight loosening of this Cretocentric approach, although still couched in the language of empire, came with Furumark,66 and was prompted by the evidence for culture change within island sites. It was again evidence from the islands, but this time in the form of the new, closely documented excavations during the 1960s-1970s at the Cycladic sites of Agia Irini, Phylakopi and Akrotiri, as well as Kastri on Kythera, that triggered, at the end of the 1970s and throughout the 1980s, the first modern attempts to address independently the archaeological evidence for Crete's impact on the southern Aegean, explicitly recognising for the first time the basic absence of any relevant textual sources.67

62 Niemeier & Niemeier (1999) 544; a Cretan presence, or Minoanising behaviour, are presumably intended. 63 Shennan (2002) 9. 64 Atkinson et al. (1904); Dumont & Chaplain (1888) cited in Davis & Gorogianni (in press); Karnava (in press); McBirney (1998). 65 Evans (1928) 229-52; Mackenzie (1904) 264, 271 -2, envisages an Aegean League under overall Cretan control, but is unusual in the amount of freedom and capacity for reciprocal relations with Crete that he attributes to island polities. 66 Furumark (1950). 67 It should be noted that in addition to these new island projects, the excavation of prehistoric Iasos is another contemporary development, and one that Momigliano (in press) sees as framed by decidedly colonial expectations.

These reponses to new data are best represented by the writings of Branigan,68 Coldstream and Huxley,69 Davis,70 Doumas,71 Melas,72 Renfrew,73 Schofield,74 Wagstaff and Cherry,75 and Wiener,76 plus the opinions and debate recorded in the proceedings of a conference on The Minoan thalassocracy: myth and reality.11 This blooming of a thousand models contrasts with the present dearth of fresh approaches to match the onward march of data; as a result, it is in effect the explanatory models and analytical frameworks that were generated then that remain dominant today. The 1980s models and analyses fall into two groups. In the first are those that tried to develop methods for identifying Cretan colonial activity in the Aegean, and for discerning between colonies that might have involved political control and those that did not (such as trade enclaves). Interestingly, the assumed link between Cretan power and colonial presence remained strong, and relatively little attention was given to the possibility that Cretan centres exerted power over off-island communities via alternative means. The most influential theorist in this category was Branigan, who suggested that if Cretan colonies existed (a crucial qualification frequently lost in citations of his argument), a division into governed, community and settlement types might be appropriate and potentially identifiable.78 Schofield and Wiener, conscious of the ease with which elite customs and high-status objects might be imitated without any Cretan presence (Wiener's so-called 'Versailles effect') suggested that Cretan emigrants might be most reliably signalled by humble elements of assemblages, such as conical cups, cooking equipment and dietary remains, and by widening the base of enquiry to include as many categories of data as possible, ideally within a properly contextual framework.79 Schofield was also the first (and remains one of the few), to consider heuristically the possible points of origin and status of colonists, and the impact that this might have on their priorities and behaviour abroad. These are in theory very much the right kinds of questions to ask of the data. Similar criteria have revealed, for example, Uruk colonies in northern Mesopotamia and foreign barrios in Teotihuacan in central Mexico (both examples where there is little if any recourse to text), largely on the basis of intra-site spatial differentiation, in the former

Branigan (1981), (1984). Coldstream & Huxley (1972). Davis (1979), (1980), (1984). Doumas (1983) 126-31. Melas (1988), (1991). Renfrew (1982a). Schofield (1982a), (1983), 1984). Wagstaff & Cherry (1982a), (1982b). Wiener (1984), (1990), (1991). Hagg&Marinatos(1984). Branigan (1981). Schofield (1983), (1984); Wiener (1984).

case cogently argued to represent enclaves forming a trade diaspora, rather than instruments of external political control.80 Even in the Kiiltepe karum, where the supposed material invisibility of Assyrian merchants among other Anatolian traders and craftspeople is notorious, the former may actually be evident beyond the textual evidence, and the Assyrian merchants' residences have certainly never been placed under anything like the scrutiny of, for example, Agia Irini House A, or the artefactual analysis ongoing at the West House at Akrotiri.81 The trouble is that when such methods have been applied to southern Aegean sites with Minoanising traits they have not revealed unambiguous, spatially distinct results, with the probable exception of Kythera, where the lack of contrastive local culture after c. 2000 BC renders the island effectively a part of Crete (see below). At the extensively investigated settlements of Agia Irini and Phylakopi, and the widely if rather more thinly sampled Trianda, no such differentiation has to date been identified, nor has a single example of a plausible externally imposed elite residence been identified, and it is surely stretching credulity to suggest that the more restricted excavation areas at both Akrotiri and Miletus simply happen to have come down on unusual enclaves in communities with a quite different material culture. For whatever reasons (a dearth of such colonies naturally being potentially one of them), the archaeological record in the southern Aegean is extremely resistant to this analytical approach, or at least does not manifestly encourage it; indeed it may be somewhat suggestive of the problems involved that the last grand synthesis of the case for Cretan colonial control in the Aegean dates back some fifteen years.82 Faced with this dilemma, current advocates of colonial models for particular sites have had to resort largely to arguments based on the enumeration of the numbers of Minoanising traits. This check-list, or scoring-system, approach may be useful as a preliminary means of ordering information, but it is misleading to seek 'to define the grade of "Minoanization"' along a notional linear scale, as do Niemeier and Niemeier83 in making a case for a Cretan colony at Miletus, given the heterogeneous range of cultural dynamics involved, and the fact that, as pointed out earlier, there was no single way of doing things even on Crete. For example, Akrotiri and Kastri might both score highly in such an exercise, but the actual patterning of Minoanising traits in architecture, pottery, stone vessels, wall-paintings,

Algaze (1993); Cowgill (1997) 139; Stein (2002); for further new archaeological research on colonies and cultures of colonialism, see Gosden (2004); Gosden & Knowles (2001); Lyons & Papadopoulos (2002); van Dommelen (1998). Ozguc (1959), (1986), and in an Aegean context Branigan (1981), 27 and Wiener (1984) 17; for ceramic hints in the karum see Emre (1963) 88. For Agia Irini House A, Cummer & Schofield (1984), and for a ceramic perspective on the Akrotiri West House, Marthari (1990). Wiener (1990). Niemeier & Niemeier (1999) 544; for an earlier example, Warren (1989) 101.

cult, burial and hinterland settlement is decidedly different in each case, and the nature of those differences is at least as important as the aggregate number of traits.84 Moreover, as a form of argument (whether right or wrong in terms of ancient reality) 'colonies by check-list' in the second millennium BC Aegean depends on a rhetoric of conviction rather than agreed criteria. Indeed, as we turn now to the second major cluster of ideas to be formulated in the 1980s, it will be seen that quite different processes have been proposed that might, according to their advocates, have equally generated the archaeological record witnessed at most sites where such traits are most in evidence - a realisation that marks a loss of innocence in the study of Minoanisation. The second group of models that evolved during the 1980s is best represented by a series of analyses by Davis,85 initially focused on the site of Agia Irini, but later applied to other Cycladic sites.86 His focus on Minoanisation as an indigenous process of cultural emulation inside the community at Agia Irini (by which people 'became Minoan' as a form of cultural identity) took the enquiry beyond passive acculturation models, as well as the elite orientation of the Versailles effect, attributing active roles to non-Cretan inhabitants who had hitherto been shunted off the stage of history by thalassocratic models, or portrayed as merely grateful recipients of cultural diffusion. Indigenous Minoanisation was envisaged as operating at different levels and resulting from different rationales among different members of the community, including, for example, on the one hand, economic priorities in pottery and textile production with regard to internal distribution and Aegean trade, and on the other hand, the ideological benefits for emergent elites or factions in terms of the prestige that could be gained by expressing cultural affiliation to powerful centres and people on Crete. In the latter respect Minoanisation, like Woolf s perspective on Romanisation, was far more about people's local prestige than their ultimate origins.87 Such models concord excellently with the cumulative increase in Minoanising traits through time that is seen at many of the key sites in the Cyclades and the south-east Aegean. Indeed it is significant that according to Stein,88 himself an advocate of the identification of colonies through appropriate archaeological criteria, evidence for a diachronic increase in the incidence of such intrusive elements is more indicative of

Goudineau's summary of how not to approach Romanisation is too apposite (and too amusing) to be passed over here: one cannot, he says, 'evaluate the Romanization of Vaison (very, quite, moderately or only a little Romanized) ... Suppose we were to compile some artificial list of bogus "Roman" and imaginary "Celtic survivals", and then tried to add up or balance out all the disparate data - there is no atrium, but there were aediles, there was no duumvir, but the toilets are similar to those at Timgad - we would end up playing a misleading intellectual game with no real meaning or interest'; Goudineau(1979) 312-13, as cited in Woolf (1998) 6-7. Davis (1979), (1980), (1984); also Davis & Lewis (1985). Phylakopi: Davis & Cherry (1984), (1990); Akrotiri: Doumas (1983); Marthari (1990). Woolf (1998) 241. Stein (2002) 37.

indigenous emulation than of colonial presence. Certainly the sheer sophistication of potential emulative strategies by local people across the southern Aegean will make it very difficult indeed to spot Cretans abroad through the deployment and consumption of material culture. In these circumstances (and given the growing empirical evidence of diversity in patterning), Davis89 is surely right that a research agenda focused on the study of culture contact and change in the southern Aegean is preferable to unresolved (and possibly unresolvable) sparring between 'Cycladic nationalists' and 'Minoan imperialists', at least as these categories are currently, and perhaps by now slightly tiredly, constituted. So why the continuing lack of progress? One answer is that emulation models need to develop a far greater sensitivity to modes, mechanisms and agents of adoption and learning if they are to deliver their full potential and comprehensively break down the generalised assumptions that still surround Minoanisation. In this context, asking what came before Minoanising traits is a good starting-point, though one still only patchily acknowledged. A second answer is that although they are undoubtedly attractive and relevant in an Aegean context, emulation studies do not encapsulate all the dynamics of the period. To show that the existence of colonies, and of political control via colonies, is very hard to prove in the cultural hall of mirrors that constitutes the majority of the Minoanising material in the Aegean, is not the same as to say that we should not still try to be inventive about generating ways of gaining glimpses of human mobility and also of potential hegemonic strategies emanating from Cretan centres. A third answer is that the advocates of colonies and those of emulation have usually joined battle on a very restricted number of now heavily trampled arenas (i.e. a mere handful of prominent large settlements), at the expense of looking at other kinds of context, such as small settlements, large settlements broken down to look at intra-site variation, or different kinds of sites, and equally of adopting radically different scales of analysis, ranging from the micro-details of production to the vistas of entire landscapes. Clearly, it is time to recover our interpretative nerve, and start to explore new approaches in the realms of data analysis and interrogative frameworks. The aim should no longer be to seek a monolithic answer, for if the last decades have taught us one thing, it is that Minoanising traits appear in different combinations in time and space, a degree of variability that implies that they do not indicate a unified mode of behaviour or single process, and that there is extremely unlikely to be one explanation for the range of phenomena observed. Rather, we need to think about Minoanisation in more multi-variate terms, to investigate specific sets of contextual logics as they emerge, and to integrate our results, if possible, with independently grounded analyses of movement of people and networks of power. How might this be achieved?

89 Davis (2001) 27.

Minoanisation as material culture dynamics: Diktean Zeus lies in the details?

We can start with a basic point. What we call Minoanisation is largely about things, their forms, combinations in specific contexts and assemblages, and the kinds of practices we associate with them. We would therefore do very well to draw upon the broad spectrum of advances (albeit based on a variety of different epistemological positions and paradigms) in material culture studies, analyses of style, and agency theory, both inside and outside archaeology, over the two last decades. These raise, inter alia, questions about production traditions, their transmission and evolution, as well as wider issues of emulation and innovation, commodification, consumption and object embodiment through use, all areas that have barely started to have an impact on Aegean prehistory.90 Fundamentally, this means that we need to think far harder about how we imagine the cultural dynamics that we describe to have actually worked. Barber,91 for example, talks of Cretan traits as being 'grafted on' to local culture, but the trouble with such apparently quite insouciant terms is that the processes at work at communities such as Phylakopi cannot be easily compared to the responses of plants or human tissue. Given its abundance, much of the exploration will inevitably revolve around pottery, but it is therefore all the more important to make every effort to compare the ceramic patterns with those derived from other kinds of data. We should also embrace the fact that many of the best insights will lie in the details of manufacture and consumption, viewed from the bottom up, especially if comparing periods and places in order to challenge (and thereby either affirm or dispel) veneers of similarity. Although higher quality data recovery and publication is a desideratum, there is already great potential in existing data. For example, it is no bad start to be able to say that at Kastri, during the equivalent of the Neopalatial period, the pottery is all Minoanising in style, in contrast to contemporary Iasos, where very little is (with the vast majority being in Anatolian traditions), whilst the amount at Phylakopi is certainly large, but less than at Kastri.92 It is better still to be able to state that there are 'substantial differences in the ways Melian and Theran potters chose locally to interpret Minoan [i.e. Cretan] ceramic designs, shapes and syntax' with the former being less adventurous.93 And, to take up Schofield's and Wiener's pleas for an archaeology of the Minoanised kitchen (whatever its actual significance), we can draw upon the almost ethnoarchaeological detail about cooking areas at Akrotiri,94 the mixed cooking gear (both local and Minoanising traditions) reported at Phylakopi and Miletus,95 and even

1)11 To cite a small sample of a burgeoning literature: Appadurai (1986), Boyd & Richerson (1985); Dobres & Hoffman (1999); Dobres & Robb (2000); Lemonnier (1993), Miller (1998); Stark (1998); on embodiment see Hamilakis et al. (2002). Barber (1987) 188. Respectively Coldstream & Huxley (1972); Momigliano et al. (2001) and Momigliano (in press); Davis & Cherry (in press). Davis & Cherry (in press). Birtacha (in press). Davis & Cherry (in press); Kaiser (in press).

a scene of open-air use of Minoanising tripod cooking pots in a public context, preserved on fragments of a miniature wall painting from Agia Irini - this last piece of evidence rather cutting the ground from beneath assumptions that cooking is necessarily a private, conservative practice indicative of origins.96 The only danger, though perversely a quite real one, is that the heightened alertness to the specifics of quantities, context and such-like at sites with Minoanising traits, combined with the exceptional preservation conditions at Akrotiri, may mean that the quality of resolution in these regions starts to outstrip knowledge of equivalent issues, and therefore comparanda, in Crete. Recent approaches to the production of material culture also emphasise the need for very detailed analysis of manufacturing traditions, to be used in conjunction with ethnographic insights into how these are transmitted and acquired.97 The rewards are, however, equally great, because similarities in the most unconscious practices (motor habits) or the hardest elements to learn (such as wheel-throwing in pottery) may in fact provide our best insights into the learning structures and also mobility of the makers of the objects that we analyse. Pioneering initiatives in this direction, using macroscopic criteria, were undertaken in the Aegean during the 1970s and early 1980s, by Rutter and Rutter at Agios Stephanos, where a good case was made for an immigrant Cretan or Kytheran potter producing a distinct selection of Minoanising shapes for local consumption,98 and also by Lewis at early Mycenaean sites and (with Davis) at Agia Irini, where the emphasis was on standardisation as an index of efficiency in a competitive environment.99 The current main advance is to combine such studies with analytical techniques, principally ceramic petrology, in order to reconstruct potters' technological choices throughout the manufacturing process from raw material to firing, and so gain deeper insights into the cognitive choices of the potter within the context of a given cultural tradition. This approach has been successfully used by Kiriatzi in Late Bronze Age Macedonia, where it identified two co-existent traditions (one 'local' and one related to 'Mycenaean-style' pottery, with implications for the identities of producers and consumers),100 and has been recently been applied on Kythera, where again a case for migrant potters can be made (see below).101 Two points are worth emphasising about this extremely promising approach. First, it in fact offers our best (even only?) chance of accessing issues of population mobility directly through material culture, although given the degree of specialisation evident in Aegean pottery production, the inferences in most cases refer strictly to the potter(s),

96 Morgan (1990) fig. 2. 97 E.g. Dietler & Herbich (1998); Gosselain (1998), (2000). 98 Rutter & Rutter (1976) 64. 99 Lewis (1983); Davis & Lewis (1985); see now also Berg (2004). 11111 Kiriatzi (2000); Kiriatzi et al. (1997). 1111 Kiriatzi (2003); also Broodbank & Kiriatzi (in prep.). This approach is currently employed by Kiriatzi to examine Minoanising pottery from other sites too, as part of a comparative and contrastive programme. A similar initiative is being developed by Knappett at lasos. Miletus and Akrotiri (Knappett & Nikolakopoulou (in press)); for Cretan and Anatolian traditions at lasos see also Momigliano (in press).

not demonstrably to the larger number of consumers of their products. Second, it is potentially applicable to other kinds of Minoanising material. Sometimes the general investigative method may be comparable, as in the case of research into the preparation techniques for painted wall-plaster at Aegean and east Mediterranean sites, which complements the insights from comparisons of style and context.102 In other cases we may need to make conceptual translations, but the same kinds of production-oriented questions need to be asked. For example, what is implied about learning patterns by the shift to Minoanised loom technology? How was knowledge about the new equipment spread? If initially some weavers moved, were they women, and given the domestic context of loomweight concentrations, what implication does this have? How gendered was the production of Minoanising material? How was the skill to write in Linear A (in whatever language, and for whatever reason) acquired in a locality, or the knowledge of how to build a complex, Cretan-style polythyron of the kind seen at Trianda and Akrotiri? In the production of ritual, how did an adept at Agios Georgios on Kythera, or in the shrine at Agia Irini, or at the Apollo Maleatas sanctuary at Epidauros manage to perform (or think they were performing, as details of furnishings and practice suggest) religious activities that related to cult practices on Crete?103 Lastly, what kinds of changes in cuisine and the cultures of food lie behind the cooking and consumption vessels found, and what clues as to such changes might be evident in other data, such as butchery patterns in the zooarchaeological record?104 Quantitative issues are of wider significance to questions of consumption too, not simply in terms of how many of a given object were being used, and how, but how many consumers (as well as producers) were involved in these choices, a matter that can be shown to have a strong determining effect on patterns of material culture transmission and up-take.105 Whilst ideally this kind of analysis should proceed at an intra- site level, in order to gauge levels of access and participation, even at the gross level of community size there must have been massive differences. The approximate sizes of various centres in the islands are discussed further below, but it is obvious that whatever the specific problems in obtaining population ranges from such figures, there must have been far more people involved in decisions determining the adoption, or not, of specific features at a large community probably numbering thousands, such as Trianda and probably Akrotiri, than at a place like Agia Irini, where the population can hardly have been above the low hundreds,106 let alone a small settlement on Kato Kouphonisi or a one-family farmstead in the Kytheran interior. Other dynamics may also be at work, however; intriguingly, Berg's comparative analysis of the adoption of

1112 Brysbaert (2004); cf. analysis of style by Morgan (1990) and context by Winter (2000). "" For current investigation of this much under-explored issue see Briault (2004); Agios Georgios: Sakellarakis (1996); Agia Irini shrine: Caskey et al. (1986); Apollo Maleatas: Lambrinoudakis (1981). 104 Hamilakis(1999). 105 Shennan(2001). 106 For site size estimates see Whitelaw (2001) 27-31, figs. 2.9, 2.10; for a discussion of various estimates for Agia Irini see Broodbank (2000) 218 n. 2.

Minoanising traits at Agia Irini and Phylakopi reveals a higher incidence at the former, more culturally promiscuous, community, than at Phylakopi, despite the latter's greater proximity to Crete;107 the former's greater openness is perhaps due to its place at a hub of routes converging on the Laurion metal sources. There is also much to be gained by more careful consideration of the incidence and nature of Minoanising traits relative to trade networks and the movement of trade goods, which are of course two distinctive phenomena whose premature collapse into a single category would be our analytical loss.108 Certainly, a trading, route-based logic is evident in many of the distributions, and some of the find types are directly linked to such activities, for example in the case of the balance weights that match a Cretan system of mensuration.109 But trade does not in itself explain Minoanisation, as is so commonly supposed. We at least need Davis' crucial insertion of agents in the form of local aggrandising groups in order to explain why participation in trade led to the cultural changes observed. And even then, we should be aware that we are comparing a trade whose principal purpose is claimed, probably rightly, to be the acquisition of metals (high-value raw materials),110 yet whose principal archaeological tracer is imported pottery (moderate- or low-value finished products), with patterns of cultural emulation that, due to preservation conditions if nothing else, are again dominated by pottery. In these circumstances, it is incumbent on us to ask what roles and meanings pottery may have had within such wider cultural value systems. Oddly, the economic model of import substitution, so effectively developed by Sherratt to explain the emulation of Mycenaean pottery in the east Mediterranean and elsewhere, has not been deployed to explore some of the ceramic elements of Minoanisation, perhaps due to the assumption that emulation needs no rationale beyond deference to Crete, but the scope for exploring such ideas is readily apparent. !'! Pottery is also one area where we can explore how closely matched imports and Minoanisation actually are. Although it may be generally true that more imports mean more emulation, and that the former usually precede the latter, there are enough anomalies at a finer level of detail to suggest that there is a question to be addressed. For example, in the Protopalatial phase at Kastri the local pottery is in effect totally Minoanised, yet there are very few imports, whilst at contemporary Miletus there are surprising numbers of Cretan imports, but only limited local imitation.112 At Phylakopi

1117 Berg (2004) 83-4. 108 A point made by Davis (2001) 25, when pointing out that Cretan-type roundels, nodules and sealings found at Mikro Vouni in Samothrace (Matsas (1995)), though remarkable in their own right, are not Minoanising traits, but rather indications of the extent to which trade networks, or at least goods, moved well beyond the zone in which most Minoanisation is seen. "" Petruso (1992) for balance weights. The first exponents of formal route-based models such as the Cycladic 'western string' were Davis (1979), (1982) and Schofield (1982b); for a recent up-date see Davis & Gorogianni (in press). 110 Davis (1979); Wiener (1984), (1990), (1991). 111 On import substitution and pottery see Sherratt (1999); also de Mita (1999). 112 Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 278-80; Raymond (2001).

the level of Protopalatial imports is estimated at 2-3%,' ° with very little emulation, but an actually slightly lower figure of 1.5% for Neopalatial Late Minoan IA imports in the Late Cycladic I levels (well below the c. 10% figure for all imports, mainly from Crete, at the West House in Akrotiri)114 is accompanied by major local emulation of Cretan types;115 import levels are said to increase substantially in the following Late Cycladic II/Late Minoan IB phase,116 but do Minoanising traits expand any further in the local repertoire? To take a third example, Knappett and Nikolakopoulou (in press) are able to differentiate between Neopalatial-period Miletus, where fine Minoan-type pottery is entirely imported, but where it has little impact on the local tradition, and Akrotiri, where the equivalent material consists of both imports and local Minoanising material, and where the effect on indigenous traditions is apparent through the presence of hybrid shapes. These discrepancies tell us that considerably more active decisions, whether by producers, consumers or both, lie behind the pattern of up-take than simply emulation in proportion to degree of bombardment by Cretan imports. Comparing patterns in Minoanisation with patterns in trade can be instructive in one further respect that has the potential to transform profoundly some of our basic assumptions. Although the literature already contains several implicit indications to the contrary, the dominant explanatory paradigm has been that Minoanisation reflects basically one-way cultural transfers from Crete to a given community. Certainly, one essential task is to establish much more precise linkages with specific areas of Crete; for example Marketou identifies specifically east Cretan imports in the Dodecanese, Knappett and Momigliano report several north-central and southern Cretan origins for the imports at Miletus and Iasos and, tantalisingly, it has been observed that, on the grounds of clay type, the imported sealings at Akrotiri should derive from a single (yet still uncertain) provenance.117 But expanding knowledge of trade routes and material flows, especially in the Neopalatial period, when such dominance is thought to be maximal, may provide the launch-pad for a more radical challenge to Cretocentric expectations, in three respects. First, there are solid indications of criss-crossing local routes between the major island centres, independent of Crete, good examples being the circulation of Theran and/or Melian white wares,118 growing indications of trade within the south-east Aegean as indicated by preliminary reports from several major sites,119 and a text-book demonstration through stylistic and provenance analysis of links between the south-east Aegean and the Cycladic sites of Akrotiri and Agia

113 Renfrew (1982b) 223. 114 Marthari(1990)61. 115 Davis & Cherry (in press). 116 Davis & Cherry (in press); presumably explaining Renfrew's figure of 7% for the Neopalatial: (1982b): 225. 117 Trianda: Marketou (1998) 50; Miletus: Knappett & Nikolakopoulou (in press); Iasos: Momigliano (in press); on the Akrotiri sealings see Karnava (in press). 118 Barber (1987) 156; Vaughan (1990). ' '9 The most detailed illustration to date coming from Iasos, where Momigliano (in press) reports hundreds of probable Koan pottery imports, plus a few from Rhodes, Miletus and the Troad, as well as roughly a dozen from the Cyclades - rather more, in fact, that than the few dozen Cretan imports.

Irini.120 There is even a suggestion that some of the 'Minoan-type' imports at Iasos actually derive from Miletus.121 Second, there are ceramic trading-links between the Cycladic sites (plus Kythera) and the southern Greek mainland, many in the form of early Mycenaean fine vessels that themselves represent a Minoanising tradition.122 Third, some evidence is already recognised for Cycladic imports to Crete, but there may be a suspicion that this reverse phenomenon has been under-estimated, especially during the later Neopalatial, when Minoanising material dominates in the Cyclades and other sites.123 What impact should these developments have on analyses of Minoanisation? The answer is surely that we need to be more open-minded in terms of exploring what exactly producers and consumers in any given location thought they were emulating. Sometimes it clearly was Crete or (once again, a plea for tighter focus) specific Cretan regions, social groups and practices. But was the transmission process sometimes instead via other Minoanising centres, themselves innovating as they emulated, and in the latter case, how likely is it that the end result was consciously intended to evoke specifically Cretan objects or practices, as opposed to forming part of a different set of references? How knowledgeable were most consumers in this respect?124 Some possible cases of such indirect transfer have already been alluded to: it was mentioned earlier that the potters producing Minoanising material at Agios Stephanos might have been Kytheran rather than Cretan, and Morgan regards Akrotiri as having an influence on styles of wall- painting elsewhere in the Cyclades distinct from the role of Cretan prototypes.125 Indeed, Akrotiri seems likely to have had a fairly significant role in the production and projection of its own variants of the material culture that we term 'Minoanising' around the Aegean -the Theran as much as Cretan affiliation of some of the Shaft Grave imagery and objects being a case in point.126 Taking a more distant example, it is striking that although the Minoanising pottery at Lahun is alien to basic principles of Egyptian vessel morphology, its overall form is not typical of Cretan pottery either; rather, characteristics such as the crinkly rim make one wonder whether the features emulated were those of generic metallic, rather than specifically Cretan, products.127

'-" Martharietal. (1990). 121 Momigliano et al. (2001) 273. 122 Furumark (1950) 252 for an early example; Cherry & Davis (1982); Marthari (1988); Mountjoy (1993) 31. 123 MacGillivray(1984). 124 For a similar argument with regard to the locally-made decorated pottery of what is normally regarded as ultimately Aegean type in the late thirteenth and twelfth century BC Levant see Sherratt (1998) 294-301. 125 For further evidence for the circulation of non-Cretan Minoanising pottery see also Knappett & Nikolakopoulou (in press) and Momigliano (in press). 126 E.g. Morgan (1988) 168-9; good parallels can also be seen in metalwork and other media; on the prominence of Cycladic pottery in the Shaft Graves see Dietz (1991) 228-35, and Graziadio (1991) 417-18. 127 Fitton et al. (1998) pi. 4a; Raymond (2001) 23—4 makes a similar case for Minoanising carinated shapes at Middle Bronze Age Miletus.

Perhaps it is therefore worth considering the degree to which at least some of the phenomena associated with Minoanisation had actually floated quite free of direct Cretan associations, let alone control networks, by the Neopalatial period, becoming instead part of a wider cultural vocabulary of status for many of the big communities in the southern Aegean. Such a vocabulary might have broken down the distinction between Cretan and off-island elite groups, and also between dominators and potential emulators/resisters, in a world in which, for example, for an inhabitant of Chania Kytherans were socially as well as spatially closer than the people of Zakros.128 If this is accepted, it is only a short further step to suggest that non-Cretan participants could initiate innovations in this cultural discourse, and that something of a reflux situation could have developed, at least in theory, whereby such innovations might have been subsequently taken up on Crete (examples of this are admittedly not immediately apparent, but are we prepared to look for such phenomena on Crete?). Again, some of the decidedly non-Cretan details of the generically Minoanising behaviour at Akrotiri (such as the elaborate figural wall-painting programme in the Xeste III lustral basin), suggest that this community was not simply emulating Cretan models, but in fact trans- forming them in self-confident kinds of ways. Indeed, the discovery of elaborate white- ground figural decoration on Middle Cycladic pottery at Akrotiri demonstrates the complex background to the extraordinary late burst of large-scale figural wall painting at the site.129 If there is any substance in this alternative perspective, it would answer Niemeier and Niemeier's objection to the indigenous Minoanisation model as applied to Miletus (namely why should Milesians have copied Crete rather than Anatolian palaces like Beycesultan), for the aim of such putative Minoanising groups at Miletus would have been less to copy the nearest more 'civilised' centre, than to enter an expanding elite cultural sphere in the maritime Aegean at a time of economic growth in the region. To conclude, maybe 'becoming Minoan', whatever its varied precise connotations, was sometimes about rather more than trying to look or behave like a Cretan; if so, at this point the radical critique of the term scores a palpable hit.

Minoanising landscape

Most of the above suggestions advocate smaller units of analysis and finer attention to detail. But we may also capture different elements of Minoanising behaviour at the other end of the spectrum, in landscape analysis. Here, the relative lack of progress to date is due to the fact that those hinterlands of sites with Minoanising traits that have

128 For a very consonant approach see Davis & Gorogianni (in press), who refer to a 'new environment' of intensified inter-regional contact, trade and social competition, and who also offer a stimulating model for the emergence of these conditions out of the different circumstances that obtained in the Protopalatial period. For Knappett & Nikolakopoulou (in press), who favour a new, strongly Knossocentric pattern for the Neopalatial period, these ties can be termed ones of 'affiliation'. 129 Papagiannopoulou (in press); also Doumas (2001).

been examined through intensive survey have revealed fairly mute, empty landscapes - two classic examples being the north-west Keian hinterland of Agia Irini, where few signs of second millennium BC material were encountered,130 and the island of Melos, where negative survey data suggested island-wide nucleation at Phylakopi.131 However, Davis and Cherry's thought-provoking analysis of the rare glimpses into the Theran landscape that are afforded through windows in the tephra suggested that on that island the settlement pattern was different, and similar to the structure of Cretan landscapes, although whether due to convergent processes of intensification or to a transplanted, colonial way of life is understandably unknown.132 Another populous, if quite differently structured, Neopalatial rural settlement pattern is now being revealed on Kythera (see below), and there is scope for similar approaches to Karpathos, where Neopalatial rural sites are also common.133 A landscape perspective can also help in exploring questions as to why some of the smaller sites display Minoanising traits. Again, this issue will be re-visited later in the context of the Kytheran rural sites, but it is also relevant to the explanation of, for example, the settlement on Kato Kouphonisi.134 One point to bear in mind is that if, as is likely, such communities did not make their own pottery, their archaeological signature in effect reflects the acquisition choices available to them at other pottery- producing or distributing loci, perhaps larger sites whose cultural dynamics would be quite different. Thus, it seems implausible that Minoanising traits at such small sites, far off the beaten track of the sailing routes, reflect any direct reference to (or even necessarily knowledge of) Crete; they are purely consequences of the Minoanising dynamics of the larger settlements closer to hand - in the case of Kato Kouphonisi maybe one of the Naxian centres, or the more distant Akrotiri, whose cultural and economic maritime hinterland could easily have been extensive. Here, then, the small consumer's degree of agency in terms of pottery supply and material expressions of identity appears to be fairly narrow. Lastly, what of the sacred, ideologically-charged landscapes of Crete, created by built shrines and deposition foci in natural places? Of these, the most interesting in the current context are landscapes associated with peak sanctuaries, not only because their significance has been most extensively explored on Crete,135 but also because peak sanctuaries are attested on island sites. The existence of one at Agios Georgios on

130 Cherry et al. (1991 a) 219-30, although the handfuls of pithos, cooking pot and conical cup sherds reported from nearly a dozen locations (see Cherry et al. (1991b) 166-72), in fact resemble finds from geomor- phologically active parts of the landscape on Kythera, an island whose better preserved segments of ancient landscape reveal dense rural settlement in the Neopalatial period (Bevan (2002), and see further below). 131 Wagstaff & Cherry (1982a) 139-40. 132 Davis & Cherry (1990) 190-3. 133 Melas (1985) 159-62, 173-6. 134 Hadjianastasiou (1993) 260; and the author can further report a Minoanising discoid loomweight at Gerani on Keros, observed in the field during a sanctioned visit to the island in 1995. 135 Peatfield (1983), (1992); Soetens et al. (2003).

Kythera is indisputable, a hill-top cult appears to be illustrated in the West House at Thera,136 Troullos on Kea displays some (but intriguingly not all) of the traits within the normal range of variation on Crete,137 and other less definite identifications have been proposed.138 What kind of effect would the introduction of peak cult have had on perception of the landscape by local people or Cretans, and how might it have acted to reconstitute social relations within and between communities?

Beyond Minoanisation: human mobility and political networks

It has been a tenet of the argument so far that the Minoanising material culture and behaviour encountered in the southern Aegean provides few secure insights into the existence, or not, of Cretan colonies, emigration and political dominance, with the important exception of the likelihood of transfers of craftspeople within and possibly beyond the Aegean as revealed by analysis of production traditions. However, issues of mobility and political power remain of paramount interest in Aegean prehistory, and are highly relevant to the wider social and political contexts in which the objects and behaviour that we know as Minoanising existed. It is therefore worth exploring whether alternative approaches to these issues might yield results of either practical or at least heuristic value for the analysis of Minoanisation. For example, in the (unsuccessful) effort to spot migrant Cretans through use of Minoanising material culture, it is noticeable that the implicit default assumption in the most methodologically transparent attempts has been that of a static residence pattern for prehistoric Aegean people, driven by models from terrestrial contexts, with the onus being placed on proving mobility, for any reasons other than trade, through archaeological analysis. But it is well worth entertaining the idea that we have been approaching the mobility issue the wrong way round, with false starting assumptions. Horden and Purcell argue forcefully that in the ecologically diverse, unpredictable, densely networked and maritime-oriented Mediterranean (of which the Aegean is a super-enhanced sub-basin), a fair degree of mobility at some period of their lives was probably not the exception but the norm for substantial numbers of people, especially those living in coastal regions.139 There is, moreover, no reason why this likelihood should apply exclusively to elite groups, nor why in all cases such activity need have been politically motivated and organised, as opposed to involving small-scale, economically-, ecologically- or kinship-driven decisions, leading to permanent or temporary re-locations of the kind that break down the grand narratives that are all too often associated with colonisation.140

136 Morgan (1988) 156-8. 137 Caskey (1971) 392-5. 138 Sakellarakis (1996) 92-7. 139 Horden & Purcell (2000) especially 123-230, 342^100; also Lyons & Papadopoulos (2002) 15. 140 cf. Purcell (1990) 54-8.

Of course, it would be detrimental to substitute one simplistic assumption with its opposite. Clearly, there must have been brakes on mobility for many people, just as there were incentives for others (e.g. ties to the land through crop-tending, inheritance patterns or restrictions imposed from above; as well as a differential accept- ability of movement in terms of gender, with implications for the transference of any gendered production traditions). Indeed, one of the common features of island life is to encourage remarkable variation in mobility.141 But if this revisionist position is even partly correct, the implication must be that it would be extraordinarily unlikely if there were not in fact people whose immediate or more remote ancestry lay in Crete, and other places besides, resident (temporarily or permanently) at any of the prominent centres of the southern Aegean, although the mixture of origins in such culturally and perhaps literally polyglot communities defies neat correlations with the archaeological record. Indeed, from this perspective, the attempt to identify Cretan emigrants by their usage of conical cups, loomweights, wall-paintings, polythyra etc., becomes something of a red herring - of course they were there? - as well as an unrealistic hope in practical terms.142 Recent advances in migration theory can also refine understanding of likely circumstances under which movement might take place, and the various kinds of migrational activity that need to be entertained as possibilities.143 We might anticipate differences between highly structured inter-elite movement ('Minos and Dexithea'), trade diaspora networks, and small-scale movements to the nearest available farming niche beyond whatever was to be left behind, as well as activities with different temporal rhythms, such as long-term stream migration between connected end-points, contrasted with sudden relocation due to political circumstances, such as fissioning of elite groups, or environmental disaster (the most dramatic instance of the latter that is accessible to us being the eruption of the Thera volcano, which probably triggered the abandonment of an entire heavily populated island under circumstances that appear to have allowed time for relocation). The structured impacts of such movements have effectively remained undiscussed by Aegeanists, save for two exploratory papers by Schofield that stress the difficulties of working on such questions without even the limited textual evidence of onomastics that have proved so useful in later periods.144 There are in fact long-term prospects for enhanced identification of mobility in the prehistoric archaeological record in the Aegean, as elsewhere (cf. Shennan 2000). One avenue may be through the analysis of the physical anthropology, including bone

141 Broodbank (2000) 16-21,365-6. 142 There is. in fact, a further paradox. Following Davis & Gorogianni's emphasis on the local 'making of Minoans' (in press), even if some of the Minoanising behaviour did correlate (however unknowably today) with incoming people, such incomers might not actually have come from Crete, a point also recognised by Momigliano (in press) who wonders whether any putative 'Minoans' at Iasos were Cretans or rather from Minoanised centres such as those on Rhodes, Kos or at Miletus. 143 Anthony (1990); Burmeister (2000); Chapman & Hamerow (1997); King & Connell (1999) for recent island migration. 144 Schofield (1983), (1984).

chemistry, of southern Aegean groups, which could provide a provocative foil to the evidence of material culture and behaviour, including that associated with the burials themselves. Such work is now paying dividends in temperate Europe and the Mayan world.145 It is unfortunate that the first half of the second millennium BC represents a low point in the incidence of archaeologically recovered burials in the southern Aegean, and still more unfortunate that little has been done with such sketetal material as does exist, but should substantial new data emerge from the principal Minoanised sites, the potential will be enormous. Another possible avenue, of more immediate applicability, is the examination of demographic patterns, accessed through the archaeological record, for indications of abrupt change, or conversely its absence. Davis has highlighted this possibility in the case of the increase in settlement numbers and size on some south-east Aegean islands contemporary with the Neopalatial period, and its absence to any significant degree at Agia Irini and Phylakopi.'46 Given the problems associated with estimations of prehistoric regional demography,147 demonstrating the likelihood of population inflow to a given area from a relatively distant source will never be easy. In the final section of this paper, the case for such an inflow to Kythera in the Neopalatial period is explored, based on the detailed data from intensive survey. Certainly, it is striking that on Kythera and Karpathos, the two closest substantial islands to Crete, and both islands that are moreover, comparable in size and location within wider geographical config- urations, this period sees the spread of a rash of farmsteads with a Minoanising material culture into a hitherto lightly occupied landscape, a pattern that is not seen on more distant islands.148 This is exactly the kind of imprint that might be expected to result from Warren's scenario of a steady out-migration from Crete driven by the excep- tionally dense rural packing attested in parts of the island in the Neopalatial period149 - a small-scale, short-range process that need have had no association with politics or colonial projects. One way to resolve the long-standing disagreement as to whether the observed variation in the intensity of links to Crete at southern Aegean sites is to be explained primarily as a result of fall-off with increasing distance, or of location relative to preferred routes of movement, is to realise that the archaeological record is probably a palimpsest created by at least two (and probably more) forms of mobility that were fundamentally different in nature, and probably in their spatial and socio-economic points of origin.

145 e.g. Bentley et al. (2003a), (2003b); Buikstra et al. (2003); Renfrew (1996) for the rather remoter oppor- tunities presented by future analyses of ancient DNA. 146 Davis (2001), 26. 147 Bintliff & Sbonias (1999); Hassan (1981); Meindl & Russell (1998); but conversely see Osborne (2004) for its necessity in a later Aegean context and Shennan (2000) more generally on the same note. 148 Melas (1985), (1988); the phenomenon may extend to Thera, but rural settlements on this island appear common in the earlier second millennium BC as well, and there is more evidence of differentiation between sites: see Davis & Cherry (1990) 190-3. 149 Warren (1984).

The search for political networks is liable to prove less conclusive, given the kinds of evidence available, and the most informative light may in fact be shed through a comparative approach using data from within and beyond the Aegean. Even texts as ideologically charged as those contemporary with New Kingdom 'Egyptianisation' of the southern Levant,150 or Maya claims of conquest151 would act as something to work around, if only as contemporary indications of aspirations and the perceived limits of the possible. But in the early to mid-second millennium BC Aegean there is of course nothing comparable to work with, and Davis cautions against too specific a reading of Egyptian references to the Keftiu in relation to the islands of the 'Great Green' (let alone Thucydides' testimony a millennium later).152 What assuredly must be avoided is the circularity of supporting an argument for Neopalatial Knossian supremacy on Crete through alleged evidence of control in the islands (based on the existence of the Minoanising sites), bolstered in turn by the same argument in reverse. We need independent means of exploring whether Knossian power, or the power of several Cretan polities, was exerted at certain points in the southern Aegean - and if so, how such power operated. It is salutary to take a cool look at the likely size and implied resources of the Cretan palatial polities. Despite major disagreement as to the degree of fragmentation into more (or less) peer polities, and opposing models of Knossian primacy during the Neopalatial period,153 none of the polities envisaged in these various scenarios (including even the most optimistic estimates for Knossos) are remotely comparable to the contemporary, proto-imperial conquest states operating out of the Nile valley, Mesopotamia and the Anatolian plateau. They are also modest compared with the fifth-century Athenian polls (a true, if short-lived, thalassocracy) in terms of both demography and mobilising power, whilst later island-ruling eastern Mediterranean empires, such as the Byzantine, Venetian and Ottoman, found it surprisingly hard to establish and maintain control over their volatile possessions, tending to negotiate with individual islands in turn, and to lose and gain insular possessions with bewildering speed.154 In the case of the Athenian empire, its impact on Cycladic and other Ionian communities is reflected in a lack of temple-building and other major projects during the fifth century BC. Whether this reflects the weight of tribute, as traditionally supposed, or, as recently argued, the replacement of Archaic peer-polity competition with a consensual deference to Classical Athens,155 the pattern differs completely from the boom in elaborate building (i.e. large houses, town walls and shrines) at the major Minoanising settlements in the Neopalatial period. This hardly suggests that the latter communities were being drained of resources, or of their desire

1 Higginbotham (2000). 1 E.g. Culbert( 1991). 12 Davis (2001) 27. Driessen et al. (2002). Davis (1991); Wagstaff (1982). Osborne(1999).

for competitive display - quite the opposite (in contrast, Voutsaki argues from burial data that the wealth of communities on Rhodes may have been tapped, or their status assertions capped, by a mainland (presumed Argive) power, in the 14th—13th centuries BC).'56 Comparisons within the Neopalatial southern Aegean are revealing too. Whilst the contrast between the size of the Knossos town (c. 60-80 ha), Agia Irini (c. 1.2 ha) and Phylakopi (maybe originally c. 2.7 ha) does suggest that the former could have coerced the latter two if it chose to do so, the differences between Knossos and other major settlements such as Akrotiri (uncertain, but anything up to 20 ha) and Trianda (c. 16+ ha) appears less decisive given the friction effect of distance on the exertion of power. The differences between the last-mentioned two sites and other large north- or east-coast Cretan centres such as Malia (c. 37 ha) and Palaikastro (c. 13 ha) are considerably slighter, or non-existent, and in fact several island centres were larger than Zakros (c. 8 ha), Gournia (c. 4 ha) and probably also Chania (c. 6+ ha).157 Given this fact, and in conjunction with the architectural and iconographic indications of resident elites at major island sites, it is perhaps wisest to envisage a more complex matrix of power relations than is captured by the model of radiation from Knossos.158 The slightly later Linear B archival information from polities based at Knossos and Pylos is equally instructive. The Final Palatial Knossian polity established at least selective economic and political control over slightly more than half of Crete.159 It was therefore one of the most powerful political and economic entities to emerge on Crete in the Bronze Age, and certainly the most powerful unit in the late fifteenth- to early fourteenth-century Aegean, prior to the rise of the mainland kingdoms. There is therefore no intrinsic reason why it should not have been just as influential in the southern Aegean region as its Neopalatial predecessor is regularly supposed to have been, at least if we set aside pseudo-historical assumptions about a 'Mycenaean' conquest of Crete and the archipelago.160 Yet its archive reveals no whisper of economic control of communities beyond Crete equivalent to its hold over the former Cretan centres; and equally, the southern Aegean communities do not continue the Minoanising practices seen in the Neopalatial to anything like the same degree - a much overlooked point that surely hints that the cultural logics of the time were driven by more than a compass needle oriented towards the largest lodestone of power. Pylos provides insights of a different kind. Here Aegean islands are mentioned, but as points of origin for female textile workers who are likely to be

156 Voutsaki (2001) 209-11. 157 Data from Whitelaw (2001) fig. 2.10 and (2004) 151 for Phylakopi; see also Wiener (1990) 131. 158 Cf. Knappett & Nikolakopoulou (in press) for a thought-provoking re-statement of the alternative perspective; they explain the peak of the Minoanising phenomenon in terms the enhanced 'navigability' of southern Aegean interaction networks once (in their view) Knossos emerged as the major power centre and hub on Crete. 159 Bennet(1985). '*> Wright (1984).

captives taken in raids;161 again, there is no indication that areas overseas were in any sense controlled.162 The above circumstantial evidence suggests a fluctuating, multi-nodal network of power relations in the Neopalatial southern Aegean, perhaps sometimes weighted in favour of Knossos, and oriented towards it, but never decisively or permanently. Power at a distance was probably exercised by a combination of elite linkage and the classic hegemonic strategy of violence, perhaps in the form of seaborne raiding, as witnessed in a West House wall-painting, the so-called Siege Rhyton from Mycenae, possibly the Knossos 'town mosiac', and earlier images on matt-painted pottery at Kolonna,163 rather than through the establishment of permanent control infrastructures and mechanisms to regulate tribute flow. If we seek informative analogies, they may lie among some of the smaller-scale examples from the ethnohistorical record of intra- archipelago power networks in island-based complex societies, such as the kingdoms of island south-east Asia, Micronesia, Tonga and other Polynesian chiefdoms, or the petty dukedoms that emerged in the Aegean itself during the early thirteenth century AD, in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. It will accordingly be extremely difficult to trace such power relations in the archaeological record through anything more precise than speculation as to the causes of destruction horizons.164 Karnava argues that none of the administrative evidence outside Crete can be legitimately used to infer the exertion of power from a Cretan centre; instead it indicates local (and not demonstrably centralised) administrative and other use of Linear A, plus imported sealings associated with external trade.165 The lack of local sealing activity, and the extreme paucity or absence of locally made seals at the major sites with Minoanising traits, in fact constitutes one telling respect in which such communities were not integrated in basic Cretan administrative processes. Taking a landscape-oriented approach, an association between phases of settlement nucleation and ones of heightened integration with external networks has been posited for Melos and Kea, although other factors encouraged Aegean nucleation

161 Chadwick (1988) 51, 80, 91-2. Some Euboian sites probably did comprise part of the territory of the kingdom of Thebes: see Aravantinos (1987); but quasi-continental, off-shore Euboia constitutes an island only in name. 162 The muster of rowers recorded at Pylos suggests a fleet of ten to thirty ships for a kingdom that, with a territory of some 2000 sq. km, was probably larger than any Cretan polity except Knossos at its maximum extent: Palaima (1991) 285-9. This figure represents between a half and a sixth of the squadron sent by Athens against Kythera in 425/4 BC according to Thucydides (4.53), itself only a minority component of the total fleet employed enforcing a thalassocracy on multiple fronts (Kallet-Marx (1993)). Put another way, the Pylian 'navy' compares modestly with the seven processing ships, mostly carrying warriors at their ease, that are shown just in the West House at Akrotiri, where a dense network of internal allusions indicates that the tally of ships is accurate, and that they belong to the Akrotiri community, maybe even relating specifically to the occupants of the house itself; Morgan (1988) 155-65 for the network of allusions. A further probable implication of the Akrotiri images is that the site took part in inter-island social and possibly power-oriented maritime networks on its own account. 163 For the 'town mosaic' see Immerwahr (1990) 68-70; on Kolonna see Siedentopf( 1991), pis. 35-8. 164 e.g. Broodbank (2000) 359-61 for the period in which palatial polities emerged. 165 Karnava (in press); also Palaima (1982).

in the same period,166 whilst integration is not to be necessarily equated with external control, and the combination of a large central settlement and dispersed rural communities that is now evident on Thera, Kythera and probably Karpathos167 suggests that a wider range of factors may be at work (see above). The best hope of tracing political relations is perhaps to follow an approach advocated earlier, namely to search the data for precise links between particular sites, in this case specifically in the ideological sphere. Bevan has identified a possible instance in the form of inscribed stone ladles, a distinctive form associated with Knossos, north-central Crete and the Iouktas peak sanctuary, with off-island finds at, perhaps significantly, Agios Georgios on Kythera, Troullos on Kea, and Mycenae.168

The dynamics of Minoanisation on Kythera

So far, this paper has been unapologetically programmatic. This final section explores some of the ideas and methods that have been proposed in the context of the dynamics of Minoanisation on Kythera, as revealed by the excavations at Kastri and Agios Georgios (fig. 2), combined with a recent intensive survey (covering 43 sq. km, or 17% of the island) and associated research that embraces a range of analytical scales from landscape archaeology to ceramic petrology, including a reassessment of the Kastri excavation material.169 It may be read as a case study, but there is no suggestion that Kythera is somehow typical or exemplary - indeed the essence of the argument is that each case has its own logic. But Kythera does provide an example of an island society that displays a wide range of Minoanising traits, and interacted with Crete in a striking number of different ways, over roughly a millennium. This uniquely long time-span, which is surely connected to the island's position on a corridor of travel between Crete and the Peloponnese, also contains a challenge, for it demands that we investigate not merely how particular elements of Minoanising material and behaviour appeared, but why they were sustained and transformed over a considerable duration. Until the 1990s almost the entire picture concerning Bronze Age Kythera was derived from Kastri. There, Minoanising traits began precociously early compared to other Aegean sites, with Early Minoan II type pottery found (Deposit Beta). Such traits were also unusually intense in that the entire pottery assemblage, as well as other elements of material culture, showed extremely close parallels with Crete, keeping pace

166 Cherry et al. (1991c) 4-9; Wagstaff & Cherry (1982b); Whitelaw (2000) 152, (2004). 167 For Karpathos, Melas (1985) 28-30, 160-1, 174 comments that in addition to the numerous small sites, a larger coastal centre existed at Pigadia. 168 Bevan (2001) 236-8. lw Kastri: Coldstream & Huxley (1972), (1974); Agios Georgios: Sakellarakis (1996); intensive survey and associated research: Bevan (2002); Broodbank (1999); Broodbank in Blackman (1999) 20-1, (2000) 22-A (2001) 20-1, (2002) 16-17, and in Whitley (2003) 16; Kiriatzi (2003); for further details see www.ucl.ac.uk/kip. I would like to thank all members of the Kythera Island Project, and specifically Evangelia Kiriatzi, for discussion and debate over many of the issues set out here.

Figure 2 The Kastri headland and, behind, the Agios Georgia!, peak sanctuary.

with general developments throughout the Protopalatial and Neopalatial. In terms of explaining this phenomenon, the excavators had no doubt that from Early Minoan II onwards, Kastri represented a colony of Cretans who arrived in the middle of the third millennium BC and persisted until the end of the Neopalatial.170 They did establish the prior existence of indigenous people in the locality through one deposit (Alpha) of earlier Early Bronze Age pottery with affinities to the Peloponnese,171 but envisaged the disappearance of this population element following the arrival of the Cretans. This picture can now be greatly refined and developed. For the present purposes, five phases can be considered. Phase 1 comprises the Early Bronze Age before the earliest Minoanising material (c. 3200-2500 BC, with roots in the antecedent Final Neolithic). Phase 2 covers the period of the early Minoanising material up to the earliest Middle Bronze Age and the emergence of the Cretan palatial polities (c. 2500-1950 BC). Phase 3 covers the period contemporary with Protopalatial Crete (c. 1950-1700 BC) and Phase 4 that contemporary with the Cretan Neopalatial (c. 1700-1450 BC). Phase 5 covers the period after the end of the Neopalatial (c. 1450-1200 BC), when mainland influence is commonly said to grow in the Aegean. Phases 1 and 2 are the subject of more detailed discussion elsewhere,172 as is Phase 5,173 whilst a GIS-based study of the farmsteads of Phase 4 has also

170 Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 275-303, 309, (1974). 171 Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 272-7, (1974). 172 Broodbank & Kiriatzi (in prep.). 171 Rutter et al. (in prep.).

appeared.174 The present phase-by-phase analysis represents a simplified summary of the results from these and other published and ongoing studies. A combination of the new intensive survey results and improved knowledge of assemblages from surrounding areas now makes Phase 1 seem anything but a minor prelude to the arrival of Cretan colonists. For one thing, it is clear that the island was already quite thickly inhabited in the Final Neolithic and early to middle EBA. Most of the communities were very small, probably no more than a few families apiece, but Kastri appears to have been a more sizeable village of several hectares, similar to other foci around the Aegean littoral. Demographic estimates for the island at this period are necessarily very rough at present, but a population of 1000-1500 people might be estimated on a variety of grounds.l75 It seems implausible that such an island population would simply vanish when faced by any putative settlers from Crete. Moreover, the material culture of this phase is not as exclusively mainland-oriented as it once seemed. There are parallels with Cycladic material and, more importantly, links with the contemporary west Cretan assemblage of Early Minoan IIA Nopigeia, which itself finds parallels at Kastri as much as with the centre and west of Crete.176 The impression is of several overlapping style zones running between the mainland and western Crete via Kythera, that conspicuously fail to demarcate the geographical blocs (i.e. Crete versus Peloponnese) within which Aegeanists have tended to work. Behind this pattern, it is not difficult to envisage a series of short- to medium-range reciprocal links between communities spread along this corridor, established well before the first possible Cretan colony, much as migration theory would predict.177 Phase 2 is profoundly different on several accounts. Re-analysis of the early Minoanising Deposit Beta sherds has taken a variety of forms, including petrological and technological analysis.178 This pottery stands out from anything previously seen on Kythera. First, it does not merely exhibit a few Cretan traits, but is exclusively Cretan in terms of shapes and decoration, whilst being stylistically unlike pre-existing Kytheran ceramics. Second, as Kiriatzi has been able to show, it was locally made on Kythera, but using clays, tempers and techniques that are different from those seen in the earlier Kytheran material, and closely matched by contemporary potting in Crete, particularly in the centre of the island, although some stylistic links are with the west.l79 Such similarities are the kinds of traits that ethnographic analyses of pottery production suggest are likely to be learned only by long-term proximity to potters using the same traditions, and often in practice by vertical transmission, i.e. through generational descent.180 In short, the most

174 Bevan (2002). 175 Broodbank & Kiriatzi (in prep.); cf. the population of a few hundred suggested by Wagstaff & Cherry (1982a) 138 for Early Bronze Age Melos, an island slightly over half the size of Kythera. 176 Broodbank & Kiriatzi (in prep.); Karantzali (1996) 89-91, figs. 95-101; thanks also to Peter Day for discussion of these issues. 177 Broodbank & Kiriatzi (in prep.). 178 Kiriatzi (2003); Broodbank & Kiriatzi (in prep.). 179 Particularly well documented with the Cretan site of Psathi (Mytilinaiou (1997-8)). 180 E.g. Gosselain (2000) 192-3; Shennan (2000).

plausible explanation is that this pottery was made on Kythera by potters whose skills had been formed in the cultural environment of Crete; if this is accepted, the potters are likely to be Cretan emigrants and their descendants. As was argued earlier, to attribute Cretan origins to the consumers of such pottery too would normally be dubious. However, in this early context, some observations in favour of this hypothesis can be made. For one thing, in the small-scale societies of the Early Bronze Age, producer : consumer ratios are liable to have been lower than in the palatial age, so the producers of such pottery should constitute a larger proportion of the consuming population than was subsequently the case. Moreover, at this point in Aegean prehistory, before the emergence of palatial polities on Crete, no perceived advantage would accrue to non-Cretan groups through the imitation of Cretan ways of doing things; indeed the paucity of Cretan material or imitations of it elsewhere in the Aegean at this time (in contrast to the popularity of Cycladica) argues that it carried little cachet. In addition, the intensive survey reveals a wider distribution pattern for the early Minoanising material: whilst it appears as a minority element on some sites with pottery of the antecedent local tradition, it is largely found in different locations, many of which are near the shore, spaced around the bay of Kastri, thereby creating a coastal enclave.181 This last point also prompts the observation that the two pottery traditions co-exist for several hundred years through the later third millennium; if'they do indeed represent population groups of different origin, there was (contrary to Coldstream and Huxley's assumption) no rapid replacement by the incoming group. What is impressive, however, is the endurance of the Minoanising tradition (implying continuing contact with Crete and a degree of cultural self-consciousness, even after generations of residence on Kythera) alongside a tradition of different local pottery for up to 500 years, and despite the likelihood that distinctions between locally born and immigrant inhabitants blurred fairly soon. One explanation for such an accumulation of Cretan people on Kythera may be in terms of later pre-palatial Cretan strategies for extracting minerals from the western Cyclades without social exchange with people from the latter islands, a phenomenon that may be visible in the archaeology of coastal centres like Mochlos, and form part of a wider move towards some kind of cultural exclusivity on Crete at this time. •82 Phase 3 covers the Protopalatial period on Crete, and sees further changes.183 First, the dispersed settlements of the EBA disappear, leaving only Kastri and a few other sites, mainly in its hinterland, none of which are large. Population estimates are again hard to gauge, with strikingly limited evidence even from Kastri, but the level should probably be lower than the maximum for Phase 1. The entire assemblage on these sites is in the Minoanising tradition; the older tradition, and all links to mainland style, vanish. What processes explain these combined shifts is unknown, but the fact that Kytheran demography may have gone through a bottle-neck at this time makes the replacement of one way of doing things by another more readily explicable. At much the same time, two other transformations in the landscape are attested, both with

181 Broodbank & Kiriatzi (in prep.). 182 Broodbank (2000) 317. 183 Broodbank & Kiriatzi (in prep.).

parallels on Crete. The first is the earliest sign of terracing, in the form of traces of a cross-channel terrace near Kastri.184 The second is the first materialisation of a sacred landscape by the establishment of the Agios Georgios peak sanctuary at this stage, if not slightly earlier.185 When combined, these features make Kythera in effect indistin- guishable in cultural terms from Crete. Yet the paradox is that there are few actual Cretan imports in this phase,186 and none of the Kamares ware vessels seen at some of the Cycladic sites and Miletus.i87 In fact it must be seriously doubted whether Kythera was regarded as an important destination by the first Cretan palatial centres. Minoanising practices on Kythera at this stage may tell us much more about the desire of Kytherans to affirm their link back to the increasingly powerful societies on Crete (whether this was based on real or fictive ancestry; and manifestly with little knowledge of the more elaborate material culture developing in the centre of the island) than about Crete's interest in Kythera, which was apparently negligible. This situation is transformed in Phase 4, contemporary with the Neopalatial on Crete, which sees an explosion in the variety of evidence from Kythera. Material culture production continued to follow Cretan models although, ironically, the limited publication of Neopalatial Cretan pottery assemblages makes it hard to trace specific links or identify the development of any local variants. The most spectacular trend is the trans- formation of settlement and demography within this period of c. 250 years. Kastri grows to become a settlement of at least 6-7 hectares, excluding a series of satellite communities (at least one of which is also large) in its immediate vicinity. In addition, the hitherto empty hinterland becomes thickly dotted with small rural sites (fig. 3). Slightly over a hundred of these have been discovered through survey, which should imply an island- wide figure of some 500 (a slight increase on figures given by Bevan188 due to the additional examples subsequently identified during pottery study). These sites represent a repeat module with only minor variants. Analysis of their material culture (mainly cooking, serving and storage vessels, and grinding stones), the presence of tombs in several cases, geophysical data, and GIS demonstration of a regular micro-location near land suitable for intensive horticulture, make a strong cumulative case for these being family-sized farmsteads occupied for much if not all of the year, and not mere seasonal field-houses.189 Two further points about these farmsteads deserve emphasis. First, their material culture is basically a sub-set of that seen at Kastri, with less fine decorated pottery

184 The Kytheran example, which is currently under study, was identified by KIP's geoarchaeologists, Charles Frederick and Nancy Krahtopoulou; for recent discussion of Aegean terracing see Frederick & Krahtopoulou (2000). 185 Sakellerakis(1996)87. 186 Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 278-80. 187 Agia Irini: Overbeck (1989) 11-12; Phylakopi: Renfrew (1982b) 223; Miletus: Raymond (2001); more generally Papagiannopoulou (1991). 188 Bevan (2002) 245. Although these many small sites do not appear to have been entirely contemporary in occupation span, the relatively short time-scale involved suggests that at the peak of the phenomenon the majority were simultaneously in use. 189 Bevan (2002) 223.

'' .- "yfcJ!/ Agios -ft- i> »*v Georqios -. t % ,

fe4 «jf Kastri • • •" f 7 1 ikm 1 • site " H very few sherds (from site collection) \p • . i ,K Tract pottery '<% • (definite) e • ; • 8 / ^X !••* . • .—:—^~- Figure 3 Neopalatial sites and tract materials on Kythera, as revealed by intensive field survey.

and fewer drinking vessels. Second, they display no overall ordering or evidence for hierarchy, and there is no trace of the villas or larger rural sites, that are so typical of Crete and possibly Thera too,190 making it at least possible that the pattern reflects an aggregate of individual initiatives rather than reflecting the guiding hand of a central authority. A recent estimate of the population of Neopalatial Kythera suggests c. 3600-7400 people (perhaps now to be slightly increased at both ends of the range, due to the recognition of additional farmsteads).191 This impressive figure, combined with the paucity of sites (and limited evidence from Kastri) in the preceding phase, raises the intriguing question as to whether it is actually compatible with local internal growth, or whether it can be used to infer demographic influx to the island during this phase. If the latter, this would make a case for movement of people independent of material culture evidence, a point of some interest given the dangers of using the latter in this context, as outlined earlier, and the fact that on Kythera, Kiriatzi has established that the local red micaceous coarse pottery that comprises the majority of the assemblage at most rural sites derives from a specific source area in the north of the island, and is therefore not representative of production choices at individual farmsteads.192

190 Davis & Cherry (1990) 190-3. 191 Bevan (2002) 245-6. 192 Kiriatzi (2003).

Fig. 4 explores this question, assuming starting populations of 500 or 1000 at the end of Phase 3. The key problem revolves around establishing plausible estimates for population growth in the conditions of a settled island in the prehistoric Aegean. Mediterranean and Near Eastern archaeologists have typically adopted modest figures of 0.1-0.2% for annual growth, commensurate with the long-term observed rates of prehistoric expansion in these regions and elsewhere.193 Applied to the Kytheran data, fig. 4 shows that such rates do not remotely replicate the estimated real population range, and that if they are correct, a considerable influx from one or more sources (not necessarily limited to Crete) must be assumed, whether in the form of small-scale rural migration or a coherent transfer to Kastri (or both). However, the problem is that the low growth rates employed so far derive from the smoothed patterns seen over long time-spans, and there are ample clues that under appropriate conditions, such as expansion into an empty niche, or scenarios of sudden release or incentive, prehistoric populations could grow much faster. As seen in fig. 4, an annual rate of 1.0% would comfortably account for the upper end of the Neopalatial population estimate through internal growth, and even this rate lies well below those cited as maxima in recent modelling of prehistoric growth rates in the Pacific and North America.194 Whether economic incentives (see below) in the context of Neopalatial Kythera were sufficient to stimulate such an explosion of internal growth is of course impossible to assess on

Growth Rate 0.1% 6000 0.2% - — 0.5% 1.0%

100 150 100 150 200 years years

a. Starting Population of 500 People b. Starting Population of 1000 People

Figure 4 Potential population growth on Kythera over 250 years between the end of the Protopalatial (Phase 3) and the end of the Neopalatial (Phase 4), from initial populations of (left) 500 and (right) 1000 people, and exploring a range of annual rates. The estimated size of the actual Neopalatial population is shown shaded.

E.g. Cherry (1979); Wagstaff & Cherry (1982a); Whitelaw (2004); Wilkinson (1999); more generally Hassan (1981) 221. Meindl & Russell (1998); di Piazza & Pearthree (1999); Steele et al. (1998).

the basis of current evidence, but this analysis demonstrates the potential, at least, of an explicit exploration of the demographic dimension. Certainly, there are ample signs that the economy of Kythera changed during Phase 4. According to Coldstream and Huxley, by Late Minoan IB the fine decorated pottery at Kastri, which is more plentiful than in earlier levels, was mainly imported from Crete and to a lesser extent the Greek mainland,195 although the case for a switch away from local production requires further investigation in the light of the realisation that fine Cretan decorated pottery could be expertly emulated (or introduced by immigrant potters) in other parts of the Aegean.196 Whatever the case, the silver cups from the Kastri excavations are definite imports,197 as are a few accompanying small fragments of copper ingots identified by re-study of the excavation material.198 In addition, there are reports of metallurgical debris at Agios Georgios, indicating production of non- local metals; the sanctuary has also produced imported fragments of raw and worked lapis lacedaemonius and rosso antico.'" The case for Kytheran exports is harder to make, but some of the red micaceous pottery found at several southern Peloponnesian sites could derive from Kythera (Davis pers. comm.; Rutter pers. comm.). Changes in the symbolic and ideological spheres are also evident at this time, especially in the neighbourhood of Kastri. The main developments are the appearance of new large multi-chambered rock-cut tombs that have no precedent on the island, and are only well paralleled in the Knossos valley and coastal zone,200 and a massive intensification of deposition at Agios Georgios, including dozens of metal figurines and, as was mentioned earlier, a stone ladle with a Linear A inscription, whose main associations are with the Knossos area and Iouktas peak sanctuary.201 Given that the new small farmsteads display a marked indifference to inter-visibility with the peak sanctuary,202 it may be that despite the rural population spreading across the island, Agios Georgios' primary significance remained tied to Kastri (or was symbolically routed through it) rather than extending directly to the island community as a whole. On the basis of some of the richer finds (and the unusual lack of clay figurines), it may even have primarily served an elite group in the Kastri community. Certainly, the tombs and ladle make as compelling a case for direct elite linkage of some variety (certainly emulative, and potentially also political) between Kastri and Knossos in the Neopalatial period as we could hope to obtain from existing data.

195 Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 292-302. 196 Mountjoy et al. (1978). "" Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 206-7. 198 Initially by Sven van Lokeren, and now fully by Thilo Rehren and Antonia-Maria Zianni; the results of KIP's metallurgical analysis of material from the 1960s Kastri excavations are currently being prepared for publication. Unfortunately the fragments are too small to allow any firm comment on the shape of the original ingots. m Banou (2003); Sakellarakis (1996) 90, pi. 24 c-d. 200 Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 220-7; specifically the Mavro Spelio and Poros tombs in the Knossos region. 201 Sakellarakis (1996); Tournavitou (2000). 202 As demonstrated by GIS analysis; Bevan (2002) 240-1, fig. 19.

It will be interesting to explore how exactly these various Minoanising and other traits are interwoven in temporal terms within Phase 4. For example, the new tombs begin in Middle Minoan III, at the start of the Neopalatial, whilst the shift in fine decorated pottery (however explained) dates to the end of the period (Late Minoan IB). What is clear, however, is that for a few centuries Kythera moved dramatically into centre stage, perhaps due less to its own resources (the case for purple dye production being entirely unproven),203 than to its nodal position in newly important Neopalatial and Shaft Grave period networks linking together Crete, the southern and western Peloponnese and, indirectly, routes further west towards the central Mediterranean.204 This short, explosive boom in the island's prominence needs to be explained at the intersection point between top-down, large-scale, route-oriented patterns and bottom- up local strategies aimed at realising the advantages to be had; Horden and Purcell describe the gravitational pull and rapid feed-back effects seen at such emergent communities, especially on islands, in the broader Mediterranean context.205 Phase 5 lies largely beyond the chronological remit of this analysis,206 but one relevant point that deserves attention is the contrast between the assertive visibility of Minoanising traits over the previous millennium, and the lower level of classic hall- marks of 'Mycenaeanisation'. Most of the pottery represents simply a descent with some modification from earlier, Phase 4 forms, with very few kylix fragments from the entire survey area outside Kastri. Where burial is practised, it seems to use earlier tomb forms; the rural sites that are attested are notably similar in location to Phase 4 prede- cessors, though perhaps with a bias towards inland regions. In the light of all this, the date of the latest Bronze Age material from Agios Georgios is a matter of some interest.207 To close this chronological survey with a question, why, in contrast to the case for population migration from Crete to Kythera on an archaeologically detectable scale (at least once and possibly twice), plus myriad strategies of emulation of material culture and behaviour, and possible hints of some kind of ideological linkage to central Crete in the Neopalatial, was 'becoming Mycenaean' subsequently so unimportant for the inhabitants of the island? Here, too, there is assuredly some innocence to be lost, for the analysis of culture and identities within the shifting world of Aegean Bronze Age societies, economies and politics is only just beginning.

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, CYPRIAN BROODBANK UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

203 Coldstream & Huxley (1972) 36-7; the quantities of murex shells found at Kastri are not of an order (or in a condition) to warrant explanation in terms of the residue of such an industry. 204 Graziadio (1998); Sherratt (1987) 60-6, fig. 5.6. 205 Horden & Purcell (2000) 224-30. 206 Rutter et al. (in prep.) for fuller discussion. 207 Sakellarakis (1996) 88 reports sparse Late Minoan II and later 'Mycenaean' finds.

REFERENCES

Algaze, G. (1993) The Uruk world system: the dynamics of expansion of early Mesopotamian civilization, Chicago. Anthony, D. W. (1990) 'Migration in archaeology: the baby and the bathwater', American Anthropologist 92, 895-914. Appadurai, A. (1986) 'Introduction: commodities and the politics of value', in id. (ed.) The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge, 3-63. Aravantinos, V. (1987) 'Mycenaean place-names from Thebes: the new evidence', in J. T. Killen, J. L. Melena, & J.-P. Olivier (eds.) Studies in Mycenaean and classical Greek presented to John Chadwick, Minos 20-2, Salamanca, 33^10. Atkinson, T. D., R. C. Bosanquet, C. C. Edgar, A. J. Evans, D. G. Hogarth, D. Mackenzie, C. Smith & F. B. Welch (1904) Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies supplementary paper 4, London. Aubet, M. E. (2001) The Phoenicians and the west: politics, colonies and trade (2nd edn.), Cambridge. Banou, A. (2003) 'Ta Kythera anamesa sti Minoiki Kriti kai ti Mykinaiki Peloponneso: ta mikroantikeimena apo to Minoiko iero koryphis ston Ai-Giorgi sto Vouno', in A. Glykophrydi-Leontsini (ed.) Kythera: myth and reality: first international conference of Kytherian studies, volume 1. Kythera, 69-75. Barber, R. L. N. (1987) The Cyclades in the Bronze Age, London. Barber, R. L. N. &O. Hadjianastasiou(1989) 'Mikre Vigla: a Bronze Age settlement on Naxos', Annual of the British School at Athens 84, 63-162. Barth, F. (ed.) (1969) Ethnics groups and boundaries, Boston. Bennet, J. (1985) 'The structure of the Linear B administration at Knossos', American Journal of Archaeology 89,231-49. (1999) 'The meaning of Mycenaean: speculations on ethnicity in the Aegean Late Bronze Age', Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 43, 224. Bennet, J. & J. L. Davis (1999) 'Making Mycenaeans: warfare, territorial expansion, and representations of the other in the Pylian kingdom', in R. Laffineur (ed.) Polemos: le contexte guerrier en Ege'e a I 'age du bronze, Aegaeum 19, Liege, 105-20. Bentley, R. A., L. Chikhi & T. D. Price (2003a) 'The Neolithic transition in Europe: comparing broad scale genetic and local scale isotopic evidence', Antiquity, 77, 63-6. Bentley, R. A., R. Krause, T. D. Price & B. Kaufmann (2003b) 'Human mobility at the early Neolithic settlement of Vaihingen, Germany: evidence from strontium isotope analysis', Archaeometry 45, 471-86. Berg, I. (1999) 'The southern Aegean system', Journal of World-Systems Research 5. 3, 475-84, http:// jwsr.usr.edu/archive/vol5/number3/berg/index.html. (2000) 'The Minoanisation of the Cyclades: a comparative analysis of ceramic assemblages', PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. (2004) 'The meanings of standardisation: conical cups in the Late Bronze Age Aegean', Antiquity 78, 74-85. Bevan, A. (2001) 'Value regimes in the eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age: a study through stone vessels', PhD dissertation, University of London. (2002) 'The rural landscape of Neopalatial Kythera: a GIS perspective', Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15, 217-56. Bietak, M. & N. Marinatos (1995) 'The Minoan wall paintings from Avaris', Agypten und Levante 5,49-62. Bintliff, J. L. (1984) 'Structuralism and the Minoan myth', Antiquity 58, 33-8. Bintliff, J. & K. Sbonias (eds.) (1999) Reconstructing past population trends in Mediterranean Europe (3000 EC-AD 1800), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 1, Oxford. Birtacha, K. (in press) 'The "cooking" installations in LC IA Akrotiri on Thera. The case of the "kitchen" in pillar pit 65. A preliminary study', in N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & J. Doole (eds.) Orizon: a colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge.

Blackman, D. (1999) 'Archaeology in Greece 1998-1999', Archaeological Reports for 1998-1999 45, 1-124. (2000) 'Archaeology in Greece 1999-2000, Archaeological Reports for 1999-2000 46, 3-151. (2001) 'Archaeology in Greece 2000-2001', Archaeological Reports for 2000-2001 47, 1-144. (2002) 'Archaeology in Greece 2001 -2002', Archaeological Reports for 2001-2002 48, 1-114. Boyd, R. & P. J. Richerson (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process, Chicago. Branigan, K. (1981) 'Minoan colonialism', Annual of the British School at Athens 76, 23-33. (1984) 'Minoan community colonies in the Aegean?', in Hagg & Marinatos, 49-53. Briault, C. (2004) 'Ritual systems in the second millennium BC Aegean: a transmission-based approach', abstract of paper given at the 106th annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Boston. http://www.archaeological.org/ Broodbank, C. (1999) 'Kythera survey: preliminary report on the 1998 season', Annual of the British School at Athens 94, 191-214. (2000) An island archaeology of the early Cyclades, Cambridge. Broodbank, C. & E. Kiriatzi (in prep.). 'The first "Minoans" of Kythera re-visited', (manuscript). Brysbaert, A. (2004) 'Technology and social agency in Bronze Age Aegean and eastern Mediterranean painted plaster', PhD dissertation, University of Glasgow. Buikstra, J. E., T. Price, L. E. Wright & J. H. Burton (2003) 'Tombs from the Copan acropolis: a life history approach', in E. E. Bell, M. A. Canuto & R. J. Sharer (eds.), Understanding Early Classic Copan, Philadelphia, 185-205. Burmeister, S. (2000) 'Archaeology and migration: approaches to an archaeological proof of migration', Current Anthropology 41, 539-67. Caskey, J. L. (1971) 'Investigation in Keos. Part 1: excavations and explorations, 1966-1970', Hesperia 40, 359-96. Caskey, M. E., J. L. Caskey, S. Bouzaki & Y. Maniatis (1986) Keos II. The temple at Ayia Irini. Part 1: the statues. Princeton. Chadwick, J. (1988) 'The women of Pylos', in J. P. Olivier & T. G. Palaima (eds.) Texts, tablets and scribes: studies in Mycenaean epigraphy and economy offered to Emmett L. Bennett, Jr., Minos Supplement 10, Salamanca, 43-95. Chapman, J. & H. Hamerow (eds.) (1997) Migrations and invasions in archaeological explanation, Oxford. Cherry, J. F. (1979) 'Four problems in Cycladic prehistory', in J. L. Davis & J. F. Cherry (eds.) Papers in Cydadic prehistory, Monograph 14, Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, 22-47. (1986) 'Polities and palaces: some problems in Minoan state formation', in C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry (eds.) Peer polity interaction and socio-political change, Cambridge, 19—45. Cherry, J. F. & J. L. Davis (1982) 'The Cyclades and the Greek mainland in LC I: the evidence of the pottery', American Journal of Archaeology 86, 333^41. Cherry, J. F., J. L. Davis & E. Mantzourani (1991a) 'Prehistoric northern Keos: analysis and interpretation of the survey finds', in J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis & E. Mantzourani (eds.) Landscape archaeology as long-term history: northern Keos in the Cycladic islands from earliest settlement to modern times, UCLA Institute of Archaeology Monumenta Archaeologica 16, Los Angeles, 217-32. Cherry, J. F., J. L. Davis, E. Matzourani & D. E. Wilson (1991b) 'New prehistoric finds from northwest Keos', in Cherry, Davis & Mantzourani (eds.) Landscape archaeology (see previous item) 165-72. Cherry, J. F., J. L. Davis & E. Mantzourani (1991c) 'The problem orientation of the survey', in Cherry, Davis & Mantzourani (eds.) Landscape archaeology (see 1991a above) 3-12. Cline, E. H. (1994) Sailing the wine-dark sea: international trade in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, British Archaeological Reports International Series 591, Oxford. Coldstream, J. N. & G. L. Huxley (eds.) (1972) Kythera: excavations and studies, London. Coldstream, J. N. & G. L. Huxley (1974) 'Kythera: the change from Early Helladic to Early Minoan', in R. A. Crossland & A. Birchall (eds.) Bronze Age migrations in the Aegean: archaeological and linguistic problems in Greek prehistory, London, 33-6.

Cowgill, G. L. (1997) 'State and society at Teotihuacan, Mexico', Annual Review of Anthropology 26,129-61. Culbert, T. P. (ed.) (1991) Classic Maya political history: hieroglyphic and archaeological evidence, Cambridge. Cummer, W. W. & E. M. Schofield (1984) Keos 111. Ayia Irini: House A, Mainz. Davis, J. L. (1979) 'Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the later Bronze Age', in J. L. Davis & J. F. Cherry (eds.) Papers in Cycladic prehistory'. Monograph 14. Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, 143-57. (1980) 'Minoans and Minoanization at Ayia Irini. Keos', in C. G. Doumas (ed.) Thera and the Aegean world 2, London, 257-60. (1982) 'The earliest Minoans in the southeast Aegean: a reconsideration of the evidence', Anatolian Studies 32,33^1. (1984) 'Cultural innovation and the Minoan thalassocracy at Ayia Irini, Keos', in Hagg & Marinatos, 159-66. (1986) Keos V. Ayia Irini: period V, Mainz. (1991) 'Contributions to a Mediterranean rural archaeology: historical case studies from the Ottoman Cyclades', Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4, 131-216. (2001) 'Review of Aegean prehistory I: the islands of the Aegean", in T. Cullen (ed.) Aegean prehistory: a review, American Journal of Archaeology supplement 1, Boston, 19-76. Davis, J. L. & J. F. Cherry (1984) 'Phylakopi in Late Cycladic I: apottery seriation study', in J. A. MacGillivray & R. L. N. Barber (eds.) The prehistoric Cyclades: contributions to a workshop on Cxcladic chronology, Edinburgh, 148-61. (1990) 'Spatial and temporal uniformitarianism in Late Cycladic I: perspectives from Kea and Milos on the prehistory of Akrotiri', in D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis & P. M. Warren (eds.) Thera and the Aegean world 3. Volume 1: archaeology, London, 185-200. (in press) 'The Cycladic pottery from Late Bronze 1 levels', in C. Renfrew (ed.) Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, 1974-7, British School at Athens supplementary volume, London. Davis, J. L. &. E. Gorogianni (in press) 'Potsherds from the edge: the construction of identity and the limits of Minoanized areas of the Aegean', in N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & J. Doole (eds.) Orizon: a colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge. Davis, J. L. & H. B. Lewis (1985) 'Mechanization of pottery production: a case study from the Cycladic islands', in A. B. Knapp & T. Stech (eds.) Prehistoric production and exchange: the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, Monograph 25, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 79-92. Davis, J. L., I. Tzonou-Herbst & A. D. Wolpert (2001) 'Addendum: 1992-1999', in T. Cullen (ed.) Aegean prehistory: a review, American Journal of Archaeology supplement 1, Boston, 77-94. de Mita, F. A. (1999) 'The burden of being Mycenaean', Archaeological Dialogues 6, 24-7. Dickinson, O. T. P. K. (1977) The origins of Mycenaean civilisation. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 49, Giiteborg. (1984) 'Cretan contacts with the mainland during the period of the Shaft Graves', in Hagg & Marinatos, 117-20. Dietler, M. & I. Herbich (1998) 'Habitus, techniques, style: an integrated approach to the social understanding of material culture and boundaries', in M. T. Stark (ed.) The archaeology of social boundaries, Washington, 232-63. Dietz, S. (1991) The Argolid at the transition to the Mycenaean age: studies in the chronology and cultural development in the Shaft Grave period, Copenhagen, di Piazza, A. & E. Pearthree (1999) 'The spread of the "Lapita" people: a demographic simulation', Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 2(3), http://www.soc.surrey.ac.Uk/JASSS/2/3/4.html. Dixon, R. M. W. (1997) The rise and fall of languages, Cambridge. Driessen, J., I. Schoep & R. Laffineur (eds.) (2002) Monuments of Minos: rethinking the Minoan palaces, Aegaeum 23, Liege.

Dobres, M.-D. & C. R. Hoffman (eds.) (1999) The social dynamics of technology: practice, politics, and world views, Washington. Dobres, M.-D. & J. E. Robb (eds.) (2000) Agency in archaeology, London. Doumas, C. G. (1983) Thera: Pompeii of the ancient Aegean, London. (2001) Prosphata evrimata apo to Akrotiri tis Thiras: mia peraitero endoskopisi ston pro'istoriko kosmo tou Aigaiou / Die aktuellsten archdologischen Funde in Akrotiri auf Thera: eine eingehende Betrachtung de prahistorischen Welt derAgdis, Weilheim. Dumont, A. & J. Chaplain (1888) Les ceramiques de la Grece propre, volume 1, Paris. Emre, K. (1963) 'The pottery of the Assyrian colony period according to the building levels of the Kanis, karum', Anatolia 7, 87-99. Evans, A. J. (1928) The palace of Minos, volume 2, London. (1935) The palace of Minos, volume 4, London. Fitton, L., M. Hughes & S. Quirke (1998) 'Northerners at Lahun: neutron activation analysis of Minoan and related pottery in the British Museum', in S. Quirke (ed.) Lahun Studies, Reigate, 112^40. Frederick, C. & A. Krahtopoulou (2000) 'Deconstructing agricultural terraces: examining the influence of construction method on stratigraphy, dating and archaeological visibility', in P. Halstead & C. Frederick (eds.), Landscape and land use in Postglacial Greece, Sheffield, 79-94. Furumark, A. (1950) 'The settlement of Ialysos and Aegean history c. 1550-1400', Opuscula Archaeologica 6, 150-271. Gosden, C. (2004) Archaeology and colonialism: cultural contact from 5000 BC to the present, Cambridge. Gosden, C. & C. Knowles (2001) Collecting colonialism: material culture and colonial change, Oxford. Gosselain, O. P. (1998) 'Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball', in M. T. Stark (ed.) The archaeology of social boundaries, Washington. 78-106. (2000) 'Materializing identities: an Africanist perspective', Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 187-217. Goudineau, C. (1979) Les fouilles de la Maison au Dauphin: recherches sur la romanisation de Vaison-la- Romaine, Gallia supplement 37, Paris. Graziadio, G. (1991) 'The process of social stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave period: a comparative examination of the evidence', American Journal of Archaeology 95, 403^-0. (1998) 'Trade circuits and trade-routes in the Shaft Grave period', Studi Miceni ed Egeo-Anatolici 40,29-76. Guzowska, M. (2002} 'Traces of Minoan behavioural patterns in the north-east Aegean', in R. Asian, S. Blum, G. Kastl, F. Schweizer & D. Thumm (eds.) Mauerschau: Festschrift fur Manfred Korfmann, Remshalden- Grunbach, 585-94. Hadjianastasiou, O. (1993) 'Naxian pottery and external relations in Late Cycladic I-IT', in C. W. Zerner (ed.) Wace and Blegen: pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989, Amsterdam, 257-62. Hagg, R. & N. Marinatos (eds.) (1984) The Minoan thalassocracy: myth and reality, Stockholm. Hall, J. M. (1997) Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Cambridge. (2002) Hellenicity: between ethnicity and culture, Chicago. Hall, J. M., I. Morris, S. Jones, S. Morris, C. Renfrew & R. Just (1998) 'Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity', Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8, 265—83. Hamilakis, Y. (1999) 'Food technologies/technologies of the body: the social context of wine and oil production and consumption in Bronze Age Crete', World Archaeology 31, 38-54. (2002a) 'What future for the "Minoan" past? Rethinking Minoan archaeology', in Y. Hamilakis (ed.) Labyrinth re-visited: rethinking 'Minoan' archaeology, Oxford, 2-28. (2002b) 'Too many chiefs?: factional competition in Neopalatial Crete', in Driessen, Schoep & Laffineur, 179-99. Hamilakis, Y, M. Pluciennik & S. Tarlow (eds.) (2002) Thinking through the body; archaeologies of corpo- reality, New York. Hamilakis, Y. & E. Yalouri (1996) 'Antiquities as symbolic capital in modern Greek society', Antiquity 70, 117-29.

Harding, A., G. Cadogan & R. Howell (1969) 'Pavlopetri: an underwater Bronze Age town in Laconia', Annual of the British School at Athens 64, 113-42. Hassan, F. (1981) Demographic archaeology. New York. Hershenson, C. R. (1998) 'Late Helladic IIB at Ayia Irini, Keos', in L. G. Mendoni & A. Mazarakis-Ainian (eds.) Kea-Kythnos: history and archaeology, Meletemata 27, Athens, 161-8. Higginbotham, C. R. (2000) Egyptianization and elite emulation in Ramesside Palestine: governance and accommodation on the imperial periphery, Boston. Hiller, S. (1993) 'Minoan and Minoanizing pottery on Aegina', in C. W. Zerner (ed.) Wace and Blegen: pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989, Amsterdam, 197-9. Hitchcock, L. A. (1999) 'A Near Eastern perspective on ethnicity in Minoan Crete: the further tale of conical cups', in P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur & W.-D. Niemeier (eds.) Meletemata: studies in Aegean archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener, Aegaeum 20, Liege, 371-9. Horden, P. & N. Purcell (2000) The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history, Oxford. Immerwahr, S. A. (1990) Aegean painting in the Bronze Age, University Park. Jones, S. (1997) The archaeology of ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present, London. Kaiser, I. (in press) 'Minoan Miletus - a view from the kitchen', in R. Laffineur (ed.) Emporia: Aegeans in east and west Mediterranean. Kallet-Marx. L. (1993) Money, expense, and naval power in Thucydides' History 1-5.24, Berkeley. Karadimas, N. & N. Momigliano (in prep.) 'On the history of the term "Minoan" (before Evans's excavations at Knossos)', (manuscript). Karantzali, E. (1996) Le Bronze Ancien dans les Cyclades et en Crete: les relations entre les deux regions; influence de la Grece continentale, British Archaeological Reports International Series 631, Oxford. Kardulias, P. N. (ed.) (1999) World-systems theory in practice: leadership, production, and exchange, Lanham. Karnava, A. (in press) 'Written and stamped records in the Late Bronze Age Cyclades: the sea journeys of an administration', in N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & J. Doole (eds.) Orizon: a colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge. Kemp, B. J. & R. S. Merrillees (1980) Minoan pottery in second millennium Egypt, Mainz. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. (1997). Alt-Agina IV.3. Das mittelbronzezeitliche Schachtgrab von Agina, Mainz. Kilikoglou, V., E. Kiriatzi, A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais & I. Whitbread (2003) 'Pottery production and supply at MH Aspis, Argos: the evidence of chemical and petrographic analyses', in K. P. Foster and R. Laffineur (eds.) Metron: measuring the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 24, Liege, 131-36. King, R. & J. Connell (eds.) (1999) Small worlds, global lives: islands and migration, London. Kiriatzi, E. (2000) 'Ceramic technology and production: the Late Bronze Age pottery from Toumba Thessalonikis', PhD dissertation, University of Thessaloniki (in Greek). (2003) 'Sherds, fabrics and clay sources: reconstructing the ceramic landscapes of prehistoric Kythera', in K. P. Foster & R. Laffineur (eds.) Metron: measuring the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 24, Liege, 123-30. Kiriatzi, E., S. Andreou, S. Dimitrakis & K. Kotsakis (1997) 'Co-existing traditions: handmade and wheelmade pottery in Late Bronze Age central Macedonia', in R. Laffineur & P. P. Betancourt (eds.) Techne: craftsmen, craftswomen and craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, Liege, 361-7. Knapp, A. B. (1998) 'Mediterranean Bronze Age trade: distance, power and place', inE. Cline& D. Harris- Cline (eds.) The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium, Aegaeum 18, Liege, 193-207. Knappett, C. (1999) 'Assessing a polity in Protopalatial Crete: the Malia-Lasithi state', American Journal of Archaeology 103, 615-39. Knappett, C. & I. Nikolakopoulou (in press) 'Exchange and affiliation networks in the MBA southern Aegean: Crete, Akrotiri and Miletus', in R. Laffineur (ed.) Emporia: Aegeans in east and west Mediterranean. Lambrinoudakis, V. (1981) 'Remains of the Mycenaean period in the sanctuary of Apollon Maleatas', in R. Hagg & N. Marinatos (eds.) Sanctuaries and cults of the Aegean Bronze Age, Stockholm, 59-65. Lemonnier, P. (ed.) (1993) Technological choices: transformations in material cultures since the Neolithic, London.

Lewis, H. B. (1983) 'The manufacture of early Mycenaean pottery', PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota. Lyons, C. L. & J. K. Papadopoulos (eds.) (2002) The archaeology of colonialism, Los Angeles. McBirney, A. R. (ed.) (1998) Santorini and its eruptions, by Ferdinand A. Fouque, Baltimore. MacEachern, S. (1998) 'Scale, style, and cultural variation: technological traditions in the northern Mandara mountains', in M. T. Stark (ed.) The archaeology of social boundaries, Washington, 107-131. McEnroe, J. (1995) 'Sir Arthur Evans and Edwardian archaeology', Classical Bulletin 71, 3-18. MacGillivray, J. A. (1984) 'Cycladic jars from Middle Minoan III contexts at Knossos', in Hagg & Marinatos, 153-8. Mackenzie, D. (1904) 'The successive settlements at Phylakopi in their Cretan relations', in T. D. Atkinson, R. C. Bosanquet, C. C. Edgar, A. J. Evans, D. G. Hogarth, D. Mackenzie, C. Smith & F. B. Welch (1904) Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies supplementary paper 4, London, 238-72. Marketou, T. (1998) 'Excavations at Trianda (lalysos) on Rhodes: new evidence for the Late Bronze Age I period', Rendiconti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 9, 39-82. Marthari, M. (1984) 'The destruction of the town at Akrotiri, Thera, at the beginning of LC I: definition and chronology', in J. A. MacGillivray & R. L. N. Barber (eds.) The prehistoric Cyclades: contributions to a workshop on Cycladic chronology, Edinburgh, 119-33. (1988) 'The Mycenaean expansion in the Cyclades', in K. Demokopoulou (ed.) The Mycenaean world: five centuries of early Greek culture 1600-1100 BC, Athens, 56-7. (1990) 'The chronology of the last phases of occupation at Akrotiri in the light of the evidence from the West House pottery groups', in D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis & P. M. Warren (eds.) Thera and the Aegean world 3. Volume 3: chronology, London, 57-70. Marthari, M., T. Marketou & R. E. Jones (1990) 'LB I ceramic connections between Thera and Kos', in D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis & P. M. Warren (eds.) Thera and the Aegean world 3. Volume 1: archaeology, London, 171-84. Matsas, D. (1995) 'Minoan long-distance trade: a view from the northern Aegean', in R. Laffineur & W.-D. Niemeier (eds.) Politeia: society and state in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 12, Liege, 235^17. Meindl, R. S. & K. F. Russell (1998) 'Recent advances in method and theory in paleodemography', Annual Review of Anthropology 27, 365-99. Melas, E. M. (1985) The islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 67, Goteborg. (1988) 'Minoans overseas: alternative models of interpretation', in R. Laffineur (ed.) Aegeaum 2: Annales d'archeologie ege'ene de VUniversite de Liege, Liege, 47-70. (1991) 'Acculturation and social mobility in the Minoan world', in R. Laffineur & L. Basch (eds.) Thalassa: VEgee prehistorique et la mer, Aegaeum 7, Liege, 169-88. Miller, D. (ed.) (1998) Material cultures: why some things matter, London. Momigliano, N. (in press) 'Iasos and the Aegean islands before the Santorini eruption', in R. Laffineur (ed.) Emporia: Aegeans in east and west Mediterranean. Momigliano, N., I. Morabito, G. Graziadio, P. Belli & M. Benzi (2001) 'Report on the 2001 study season of the Bronze Age levels at Iasos (SW Turkey)', Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 43, 269-74. Morgan, L. (1988) The miniature wall paintings ofThera: a study in Aegean culture and iconography, Cambridge. (1990) 'Island iconography: Thera, Kea, Milos', in D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis & P. M. Warren (eds.) Thera and the Aegean World 3. Volume 1: archaeology, London, 252-66. Mountjoy, P. A. (1993) Mycenaean pottery: an introduction, Oxford. Mountjoy, P. A., R. E. Jones & J. F. Cherry (1978) 'Provenance studies of the Late Minoan IB / Late Helladic IIA marine style', Annual of the British School at Athens 73, 143-71. Mountjoy, P. A. & M. J. Ponting (2000) 'The Minoan thalassocracy reconsidered: provenance studies of LH IIA/LM IB pottery from Phylakopi, Ay. Irini and Athens', Annual of the British School at Athens 95, 141-84.

Mytilinaiou, D. K. (1997-8) 'Proanaktoriki keramiki apo ti thesi Psathi Kydonias', Kritiki Estia 6,195-236. Niemeier, B. & W.-D. Niemeier (1999) 'The Minoans of Miletus', in P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur & W.-D. Niemeier (eds.) Meletemata: studies in Aegean archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener, Aegaeum 20, Liege, 543-54. (2000) 'Aegean frescoes in Syria-Palestine: Alalakh and Tel Kabri', in E. S. Sherratt (ed.) The wall paintings of Thera, Athens, 763-802. Niemeier, W.-D. (1984) 'The end of the Minoan thalassocracy', in Hagg & Marinatos, 205-15. Niemeier, W.-D. & B. Niemeier (1998) 'Minoan frescoes in the eastern Mediterranean', in E. Cline & D. Harris-Cline (eds.) The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium, Aegaeum 18, Liege, 69-98. Nikolakopoulou, I., F. Georma, A. Moschou & F. Sofianou (in press) 'Trapped in the middle: new strati- graphical and ceramic evidence from MC Akrotiri, Thera', in N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & J. Doole (eds.) Orizon: a colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge. Nordquist, G. (1987) A Middle Helladic village: Asine in the Argolid, Uppsala. Osborne, R. (1999) 'Archaeology and the Athenian empire', Transactions of the American Philological Association 129,319-32. (2004) 'Demography and survey', in S. E. Alcock & J. F. Cherry (eds.) Side-by-side survey: comparative regional studies in the Mediterranean world, Oxford, 163-172. Overbeck, J. C. (1989) Keos VII. Ayia Irini Period IV: the stratigraphy and the find deposits, Mainz. Ozgiic. T. (1959) Killtepe-Kanis: new researches at the center of the Assyrian trading colonies, Ankara. (1986) Kultepe-Kanis 2: new researches at the trading center of the ancient Near East, Ankara. Palaima, T. G. (1982) 'Linear A in the Cyclades: the trade and travel of a script', Temple University Aegean Symposium 1, 15-22. (1989) 'Cypro-Minoan scripts: problems of historical context', in Y. Duhoux, T. G. Palaima & J. Bennet (eds.) Problems in decipherment, Louvain, 121-87. (1991) 'Maritime matters in the Linear B tablets', in R. Laffineur & L. Basch (eds.) Thalassa: I'Egee prehistorique et la mer, Aegaeum 7, Liege, 205-15. Papagiannopoulou, A. (1991) The influence of Middle Minoan pottery on the Cyclades, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-book 96, GiHeborg. (in press) 'From pots to pictures. MC figurative art', in N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & J. Doole (eds.) Orizon: a colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge. Peatfield, A. A. D. (1983) 'The topography of Minoan peak sanctuaries', Annual of the British School at Athens 78, 273-80. (1992) 'Rural ritual in Bronze Age Crete: the peak sanctuary at Atsipadhes', Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2, 59-87. Petruso, K. M. (1992) Keos VIII. Ayia Irini: the balance weights. An analysis of weight measurement in prehistoric Crete and the Cycladic islands, Mainz. Preston, L. (1999) 'Mortuary practices and the negotiation of social identities at LM II Knossos', Annual of the British School at Athens 94, 131-43. (2004) 'A mortuary perspective on political changes in Late Minoan II-IIIB Crete', American Journal of Archaeology 108, 321^8. Purcell, N. (1990) 'Mobility and the polls', in O. Murray & S. Price (eds.) The Greek city: from Homer to Alexander, Oxford, 29-58. Raymond, A. (2001) 'Kamares ware (and Minoans?) at Miletus', Aegean Archaeology 5, 19-26. Renfrew, C. (1982a) 'Bronze Age Melos', in C. Renfrew & M. Wagstaff (eds.) An island polity: the archaeology of exploitation in Melos, Cambridge, 35^t4. (1982b) 'Prehistoric exchange', in C. Renfrew & M. Wagstaff (eds.) An island polity (see 1982a above), 222-7. (1996) 'Who were the Minoans? Towards a population history of Crete', Cretan Studies 5, 1-27. (1998) 'Word of Minos: the Minoan contribution to Mycenaean Greek and the linguistic geography of the Bronze Age Aegean', Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8, 239-64.

(1999) 'The loom of language and the Versailles effect', in P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur & W.-D. Niemeier (eds.) Meletemata: studies in Aegean archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener, Aegaeum 20, Liege, 711-20. (ed.) (in press) Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, 1974-7, British School at Athens supplementary volume, London. Robb, J. E. (1993) 'A social prehistory of European languages', Antiquity 67, 747-60. Rockman, M. & J. Steele (eds.) (2003) Colonization of unfamiliar landscapes: the archaeology of adaptation, London. Rutter, J. B., C. Broodbank & E. Kiriatzi (in prep.) 'From Pharaoh's feet to the slave-looms of Pylos? Towards a history of Kythera in the Third Palace period', (manuscript). Rutter, J. B. & S. H. Rutter (1976) The transition to Mycenaean: a stratified Middle Helladic II to Late Helladic IIA pottery sequence from Ayios Stephanos in Laconia, Monumenta Archaeologica 4, Los Angeles. Rutter, J. B. & C. W. Zerner (1984) 'Early Hellado-Minoan contacts', in Hagg & Marinatos, 75-83. Sakellarakis, E. & Y. Sakellarakis (1984) 'The keftiu and the Minoan thalassocracy', in Hagg & Marinatos, 197-203. Sakellarakis, J. A. (1996) 'Minoan religious influence in the Aegean: the case of Kythera', Annual of the British School at Athens 91, 81-99. Schoep, I. (1999) 'Tablets and territories? Reconstructing Late Minoan IB political geography through unde- ciphered documents', American Journal of Archaeology 103, 201-21. Schofield, E. (1982a) 'Plus and minus Thera: trade in the western Cyclades in Late Cycladic I-IF, Temple University Aegean Symposium 7, 9—14. (1982b) 'The western Cyclades and Crete: a special relationship', Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1,9-25. (1983) 'The Minoan emigrant', in O. Krzyszkowska & L. Nixon (eds.) Minoan society, Bristol, 293-301. (1984) 'Coming to terms with Minoan colonists', in Hagg & Marinatos, 45-8. Shennan, S. J. (1989) 'Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity', in id. (ed.) Archaeological approaches to cultural identity, London, 1-32. (2000) 'Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change', Current Anthropology 41, 811-35. (2001) 'Demography and cultural innovation: a model and some implications for the emergence of modern human culture', Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11,5-16. (2002) Genes, memes and human history: Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution, London. Sherratt, A. G. (1987) 'Warriors and traders: Bronze Age chiefdoms in central Europe', in B. Cunliffe (ed.) Origins: the roots of European civilisation, London, 54—66. Sherratt, A. G. & E. S. Sherratt (1991) 'From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems', in N. H. Gale (ed.) Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90, Jonsered, 351-86. (1998) 'Small worlds: interaction and identity in the ancient Mediterranean', in E. Cline & D. Harris-Cline (eds.) The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium, Aegaeum 18, Liege, 329^-3. Sherratt, E. S. (1998) "Sea peoples" and the economic structure of the late second millennium in the eastern Mediterranean', in S. Gitin, A. Mazar & E. Stern (eds.) Mediterranean peoples in transition: thirteenth to early tenth centuries BCE, Jerusalem, 292-313. (1999) "E pur si muove": pots, markets and values in the second millennium Mediterranean', in J. P. Creilaard, V. Stissi & G. J. Wijngaarden (eds.) The complex past of pottery: production, circulation and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC), Amsterdam, 162-211. Siedentopf, H. B. (1991) Alt-Agina IV.2. Mattbemalte Keramik der Mittleren Bronzezeit, Mainz. Soetens, S., A. Sards, K. Vansteenhuyse & S. Topouzi (2003) 'GIS variations on a Cretan theme: Minoan peak sanctuaries', in K. P. Foster and R. Laffineur (eds.) Metron: measuring the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 24, Liege,483-8.

Spencer, L. (2004) 'The social implications of ceramic technology: a case study from Lefkandi', abstract of paper given at the 106th annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, http:// www.archaeological.org/ Stark, M. T. (ed.) (1998) The archaeology of social boundaries, Washington. Steele, J., J. Adams & T. Sluckin (1998) 'Modelling paleoindian dispersals', World Archaeology 30,286-305. Stein, G. (2002) 'Colonies without colonialism: a trade diaspora model of fourth millennium BC Mesopotamian enclaves in Anatolia', in C. L. Lyons & J. K. Papadopoulos (eds.) The archaeology of colonialism, Los Angeles, 27-64. Thomas, N. (1991) Entangled objects: exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the Pacific, Cambridge, Mass. Tournavitou, I. (2000) 'Minoiko iero koriphis sta Kithira: i kerameiki', in A. Karetsou (ed.) Pepragmena H' diethnous kritologikou sinedriou, Herakleion, 297—316. van Dommelen, P. (1998) On colonial grounds: a comparative study of colonialism and rural settlement in first millennium BC west central Sardinia, Leiden. van Effenterre, H. (1984) 'Le langage de la thalassocratie', in Hagg & Marinatos, 55-7. Vaughan, S. J. (1990) 'Petrographic analysis of the Early Cycladic wares from Akrotiri, Thera', in D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis & P. M. Warren (eds.) Thera and the Aegean World 3 Volume 1: archaeology, London, 470-87. Voutsaki, S. (1995) 'Social and political processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: the evidence from the mortuary practices', in R. Laffineur & W.-D. Niemeier (eds.) Politeia: society and state in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 12, Liege, 55-66. (1998) 'Mortuary evidence, symbolic meanings and social change: a comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean period', in K. Branigan (ed.) Cemetery and society in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield, 41-58. (2001) 'Economic control, power and prestige in the Mycenaean world: the archaeological evidence', in S. Voutsaki & J. Killen (eds.) Economy and politics in the Mycenaean palace states, Cambridge Philological Society supplementary volume 27, Cambridge, 195-213. Wachsmann, S. (1987) Aegeans in the Theban tombs, Leuven. Wagstaff, M. (1982) 'Post-Roman Melos', in C. Renfrew & M. Wagstaff (eds.) An island polity: the archaeology of exploitation in Melos, Cambridge, 58-71. Wagstaff, M. & J. F. Cherry (1982a) 'Settlement and population change', in Renfrew & Wagstaff (see 1982 above), 136-55. (1982b) 'Settlement and resources', in Renfrew & Wagstaff (see 1982 above), 246-63. Warren, P. M. (1984) 'The place of Crete in the thalassocracy of Minos', in Hagg & Marinatos, 39-AA. (1989) The Aegean civilizations: from ancient Crete to Mycenae (2nd edn.), London. (2002) 'Political structure in Neopalatial Crete', in Driessen, Schoep & Laffineur, 201-5. Whitbread, I. K., E. Kiriatzi & T. Tartaron (2002) 'Middle Bronze Age ceramic production in central and southern mainland Greece: the design of a regional petrographic study', in V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, & Y. Maniatis (eds) Modern trends in scientific analysis on ancient ceramics, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1011, Oxford, 121-8. Whitelaw, T. W. (2000) 'Settlement instability and landscape degradation in the southern Aegean in the third millennium BC, in P. Halstead and C. Frederick (eds.) Landscape and land use in Postglacial Greece, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 3, Sheffield, 135-61. (2001) 'From sites to communities: defining the human dimensions of Minoan urbanism', in K. Branigan (ed.) Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4, Sheffield, 15-37. (2004) 'The development of an island centre: urbanization at Phykakopi on Melos', in J. F. Cherry, C. Scarre & S. J. Shennan (eds.) Explaining culture change: studies in honour of Colin Renfrew, Cambridge, 149-66. Whitley, J. (2002-3) 'The Minoans: a Welsh invention? A view from east Crete', Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 46, 213.

(2003) 'Archaeology in Greece 2002-2003', Archaeological Reports for 2002-2003 49, 1-88. Wiener, M. H. (1984) 'Crete and the Cyclades in LM I: the tale of the conical cups', in Hagg & Marinatos, 17-26. (1990) 'The isles of Crete? The Minoan thalassocracy revisited', in D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis & P. M. Warren (eds.) Thera and the Aegean World 3. Volume I: archaeology, London, 128-61. (1991) 'The nature and control of Minoan foreign trade', in N. H. Gale (ed.) Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90, Jonsered, 325-50. Wilkinson, T. (1999) 'Demographic trends from archaeological survey: case studies from the Levant and Near East', in J. Bintliff & K. Shonias (eds.) Reconstructing past population trends in Mediterranean Europe (3000 BC - AD 1800). The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 1, Oxford, 45-64. Winter, I. (2000) 'Theran paintings and the ancient Near East: the private and public domains of wall decoration', in E. S. Sherratt (ed.) The wall paintings of Thera, Athens, 745-62. Woolf, G. (1998) Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilization in Gaul, Cambridge. Wright, J. C. (1984) 'Umpiring the Mycenaean empire', Temple University Aegean Symposium 9, 58-70. Zois, A. (1996) Knosos: to ekstatiko orama, Herakleion.