The historiography of landscape research on Crete Gkiasta, M. Citation Gkiasta, M. (2008, April 15). The historiography of landscape research on Crete. Archaeological Studies Leiden University. Archaeological Studies Leiden University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12855 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the License: Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12855 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). The Historiography of Landscape Research on Crete The Historiography of Landscape Research on Crete Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. P.F. van der Heijden, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op donderdag 15 mei 2008 klokke 15.00 uur door Marina Gkiasta geboren te Athene, Griekenland in 1970 Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof. dr. J.L. Bintliff Co-promotor: Dr. H. Kamermans Referenten: Prof. dr. V. Watrous Prof. dr. K.. Kotsakis Leden: Prof. dr. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen Prof. dr. P.M.M.G. Akkermans Contents Introduction 9 1. The History of Landscape Archaeology: Major Traditions and Approaches 11 1.1 Introduction 11 1.2 Landscape as Environment 12 1.2.1 Environment as Background of Human Activity 12 1.2.2 Environment as Influence on Human Activity 19 1.2.3 Environment in Relation to Surface Record 23 1.2.4 Landscape Studies and GIS 30 1.3 Landscape within a Post-Modern Context 33 1.4 Current Trends 37 1.5 Concluding Comments 39 2. Methodology of Studying Landscape Research in Crete 41 2.1 Introduction 41 2.2 ‘Surveys’ Database Structure and Presentation 41 2.3 The Sample 46 2.4 Survey Text Analysis: Structure of the Analytical Text, which Examines Each Landscape Project 47 2.4.1 Problem Orientation: aims and methods 47 2.4.2 Presentation / Relocatability 47 2.4.3 Density per area/period 47 2.4.4 Interpretative Framework 47 2.4.5 Summary Assessment 47 2.5 ‘Interpretations’ Database Structure and Presentation 48 2.6 The Sample 49 2.7 GIS Tools and Visualisation 50 3. Landscape Research Projects in Crete: Text Analysis 51 3.1 Introduction 51 3.2 Travellers Tradition 51 3.2.1 Survey id: Sieber 51 3.2.2 Survey id: Pashley 53 3.3 Culture History Tradition 56 3.3.1 Survey id: Pendlebury 1934 56 3.3.2 Survey id: Travels in Crete 59 3.3.3 Survey id: Hood65 62 3.3.4 Survey id: Hagios Vasilios 66 64 3.3.5 Survey id: Hood67 66 3.3.6 Survey id: Ayiofarango 75 68 3.3.7 Survey id: Ayiofarango 89 70 3.4 Human Geography Tradition 72 3.4.1 Survey id: Lehmann 72 3.4.2 Survey id: Wroncka 75 5 CONTENTS 3.4.3 Survey id: Paul Faure 77 3.4.4 Survey id: Nowicki 80 3.5 Topographic Tradition 84 3.5.1 Survey id: Hood Knossos 84 3.5.2 Survey id: Schiering 87 3.5.3 Survey id: Minoan Roads 90 3.5.4 Survey id: Itanos 93 3.6 Landscape Tradition 96 3.6.1 Survey id: Ayiofarango 77 96 3.6.2 Survey id: Lasithi 99 3.6.3 Survey id: Kommos 102 3.6.4 Survey id: Chania 105 3.6.5 Survey id: Palaikastro 110 3.6.6 Survey id: Phaistos 112 3.6.7 Survey id: Hagia Photia 115 3.6.8 Survey id: Pseira 118 3.6.9 Survey id: Vrokastro 122 3.6.10 Survey id: Sphakia 125 3.6.11 Survey id: Kavousi 129 3.6.12 Survey id: Malia 133 3.6.13 Survey id: Aghios Vasilios Valley 136 3.6.14 Survey id: Gournia 138 3.6.15 Survey id: Gavdos 140 3.6.16 Survey id: Praisos 142 3.6.17 Survey ids: Katelionas and Lamnoni (Ziros Survey) 145 3.7 Discussion of ‘Interpretations’ Database 148 3.7.1 Culture History Tradition 148 3.7.2 Landscape Tradition 148 4. Analytical Approaches towards the Study of intra-Tradition Variability and inter- Tradition Comparisons 151 4.1 Spatial and Temporal spread of Landscape Projects 151 4.1.1 Travellers Tradition 151 4.1.2 Culture History Tradition 151 4.1.3 Human Geography 152 4.1.4 Topographic Tradition 153 4.1.5 Landscape Tradition 154 4.2 ‘Surveys’ Database Analysis: the Sample 154 4.3 Trends in Aims 155 4.4 Trends in Multi-Disciplinarity 156 4.5 Trends in Presentation 157 4.6 Trends in Theoretical / Interpretative Framework 158 4.7 Trends and Degree of Confidence in Chronological Characterizations 161 4.8 Trends in Function Characterisations 167 4.9 Densities 171 4.10 Discussion: Evaluation of Comparability 175 6 CONTENTS 5. Historiography of Landscape Research in Crete 177 5.1 Introduction 177 5.2 Travellers Tradition 178 5.2.1 Summary of main characteristics 178 5.2.2 Theoretical background and aims 178 5.2.3 Methods 178 5.2.4 Site definition / Relocatability 178 5.2.5 Results 179 5.2.6 Interpretative Framework 179 5.2.7 General Assessment 179 5.3 Culture History Tradition 180 5.3.1 Summary of main characteristics 180 5.3.2 Theoretical background and aims 180 5.3.3 Methods 181 5.3.4 Site definition / Relocatability 182 5.3.5 Results 183 5.3.6 Interpretative Framework 183 5.3.7 General assessment 184 5.4 Human Geography Tradition 185 5.4.1 Summary of main characteristics 185 5.4.2 Theoretical background and aims 185 5.4.3 Methods 186 5.4.4 Site definition / Relocatability 186 5.4.5 Results 186 5.4.6 Interpretative Framework 186 5.4.7 General assessment 187 5.5 Topographic Tradition 188 5.5.1 Summary of main characteristics 188 5.5.2 Theoretical background and aims 188 5.5.3 Methods 188 5.5.4 Site definition / Relocatability 188 5.5.5 Results 189 5.5.6 Interpretative Framework 189 5.5.7 General assessment 190 5.6 Landscape Tradition 191 5.6.1 Summary of main characteristics 191 5.6.2 Theoretical background and aims 191 5.6.3 Methods 192 5.6.4 Site definition / Relocatability 192 5.6.5 Results 193 5.6.6 Interpretative Framework 193 5.6.7 General assessment 194 5.7 Concluding Remarks 196 6. Using Landscape Research Data in Siteia, eastern Crete: a Case Study 197 6.1 Introduction 197 6.2 Methodology 197 6.3 Integration 199 7 CONTENTS 6.4 Summary of acquired knowledge per project 201 6.4.1 Pendlebury 1934 (table 6.4.1) 201 6.4.2 Wroncka (table 6.4.2) 203 6.4.3 Nowicki (table 6.4.3) 204 6.4.4 Minoan Roads (table 6.4.4) 206 6.4.5 Hagia Photia (table 6.4.5) 206 6.4.6 Praisos (table 6.4.6) 207 6.4.7 Ziros (Katelionas & Lamnoni) (tables 6.4.7a and 6.4.7b) 210 6.5 Synthesis 211 6.5.1 Neolithic / Final Neolithic / Early Minoan I 211 6.5.2 Prepalatial (EM – MM IA) 211 6.5.3 Protopalatial (MM IB - II) 212 6.5.4 Neopalatial (MM III – LM IB) 212 6.5.5 Palatial 213 6.5.6 Postpalatial 213 6.5.7 LM IIIC – PG 214 6.5.8 Greek 215 6.5.9 GR 215 6.5.10 BVT 216 6.6 Conclusions 216 7. CONCLUSIONS: Archaeological Survey Data Integration 219 7.1 Thesis Summary 219 7.2 The Need to Integrate Archaeological Landscape Research Data 219 7.3 Problems in Data Integration 220 7.3.1 Methodological variability 220 7.3.2 Lack of publication standards 220 7.4 Towards a Meaningful Publication of Survey. Data and Interpretations 221 References 223 Survey bibliography 255 List of Figures 273 List of Tables 273 List of Graphs 273 List of appendices 274 List on cd-Rom 274 Abbreviations and Vocabulary 275 Acknowledgements 277 Curriculum Vitae 279 8 Introduction The island of Crete has been the focus of extensive landscape explorations aiming to uncover its archaeological past since the time of the Travellers in the 19th century, even though the roots of such an interest can be discerned much earlier. Explorations increased in time, particularly encouraged by the extraordinary archaeological discoveries of the Minoan civilisation. Undeniably, archaeological landscape research is immensely important for an understanding of the history of human societies, as much because it discovers the spatial context of human activity over time, as because it allows the study of such activity and its relationship with the physical environment from a variety of perspectives. Indeed, archaeological landscape research on the island has contributed a great deal to the building of a puzzle of human history, whose extents however, are unknown. Moreover, the information gathered does not necessarily constitute neighbouring pieces in the puzzle; it may be the result of different research orientations, questions and desires, subject to historical and epistemological contingencies. The partial picture of the puzzle is also hazy, as the interpretations of such information constitute suggestions that not only can be debated, but are most often unclear. So what have we ultimately gained from hard archaeological work of over a century? To what extent and in which ways can we profit from archaeological landscape explorations that have produced and continue producing information and knowledge at multiple levels? The understanding of archaeological knowledge from landscape research and the assessment of its potential seems to me a necessary step in the effort to put the puzzle pieces together in a meaningful way.