FROM POWER TO PARADIGM:

RETHINKING
"PALATIAL

THE EMERGENCE OF THE

PHENOMENON"

IN BRONZE AGE CRETE

Dissertation submitted

for the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy

Despina Catapoti

University of Sheffield
Department of Archaeology

Date of submission:December 2005

Eriiv o:xoyEVSIXuou

Abstract
Over the past century of investigation of the Minoan past, perhaps the most persistent field of
Only
has
been
"emergence
has
this
the
that
the
recently
of
palatial
phenomenon".
of
enquiry
begun to be challenged, as the discipline of Minoan archaeology has gone through several
marked changes. These have been stimulated mostly by a growing body of empirical data and by
new techniques of investigation, but other changes go far deeper, with the unusually rigorous
scrutiny of what constitutes the very backbone of the discipline: the "palace" category itself.

One of the central themes of this thesis is the examination of the processesthat led to the present
state of affairs in Minoan studies, to ask how and why was the concept of the "palace"
"constructed" and more recently "deconstructed". It demonstratesthat the development of these
two radically opposed points of view is inextricably connected with broader developments and
transformations in Post-Enlightenment Western thought. In arguing this, the thesis suggeststhat
neither "the palace" nor its repudiation allow us to get closer to the "reality" of the (Minoan)
past, as both premises constitute nothing more than "situated" points of view. If the decision to
adhere (or not) to the concept of the "palace" is really a matter of perspective, then we need to
pay closer attention to how these perspectives deal with fundamental issues such as (ontological
and epistemological) ethics, value and responsibility. It is suggestedthat a future for Minoan
archaeology can be guaranteed only if at this particular historical conjuncture, the ethical
implications as well as consequencesof archaeological/epistemological performance are
assessedin more critical fashion.

Discussion proceeds by offering some insights as to how the handling of these issues can be
achieved in practice and concludes with a very specific suggestion: in order to be able to rearticulate theory and practice in our study of this particular segment of the Cretan past, a new
analytical question/direction of enquiry ought to be established. It is suggestedthat for this new
question to be defined and operationalized, a radical redefinition of the "palace" question ought
to be sought. Through the detailed investigation of specific case studies, the thesis deducesthat
the "emergence of House Society" has an immense analytical potential as a replacement of the
long dominant issue of the "emergence of civilization".

Contents
Acknowledgements

iv

List of Plates

vi

List of Figures

[1] The rise and fall of "Minoan civilization"

1.1

The problem

1.2

Whither Minoan archaeology? Aims and outline of the thesis

[21 Constructing

the "palace" question: The endogenousproduction-oriented

approach

2.1

Principles for understanding(past) human life

11

2.2.

What is the "palace"?

17

2.3

The "emergenceof civilization": The Early Bronze Age period

in the Aegean

19

2.4

2.5

The "emergenceof civilization": The Early Bronze Age period

in Crete

23

Conclusions

26

[3] Constructing

the "palace" question: The exogenous/consumption-oriented

approach

3.1

Principles for understanding(past) human life

27

3.2.

What is the "palace"?

38

3.3

The "emergenceof civilization": The Early Bronze Age period in the Aegean

40

3.4

The "emergenceof civilization": The Early Bronze Age period in Crete

44

3.5

Conclusions

47

[4] Common ground: "Palace", "complexity" and "evolution"

4.1

Paradigms

49

4.2

What is "social complexity"?

50

4.3

"Evolution" and "complexity" in historical context

53

4.4

"Complexity"

4.5

Conclusions

in Minoan studies

54
63

[5] Empirical fallacies and the emergenceof "scientific novelty"

5.1

"Scientific novelty"

65

5.2

"Complexity" revisited: Inequality

67

5.3

"Complexity" revisited: Heterogeneity

74

5.4

"Complexity" revisited: Adaptation

76

5.5

Conclusions

77

[61 A paradigmatic shift

6.1

Vive la difference

79

6.2

A new agendafor archaeology

85

6.3

"Postmodern" risks

90

6.4

Conclusions

94

[71 On categories and questions

97

7.1

Postmodernechoesin Minoan archaeology:Rethinking the "palace" category

7.2

Obstacleor boon? Somefurther thoughts on "palaces", "categories" and "category

making"

102

7.3

The way ahead:Re-establishinga basis for "dialogue" in (Minoan) archaeology 108

7.4

Conclusions

113

[81 From suspension to transcendence, Part I: After "civilization"

8.1

Suspension

115

8.2

Transcendence, Part I: The period of the "New Palaces"

118

8.3

Transcendence, Part I: The period of the "Old Palaces"

124

8.4

Conclusions

129

ll

[91 From suspension to transcendence, Part II: Before "civilization"

9.1

Internal contradictions

133

9.2

External connections: Some further thoughts on "palace-to-be" sites

135

9.3

External connections: Social transformations beyond the "palace-to-be" sites

141

9.4

Conclusions

151

[10] Death and memory in transformation

10.1

An "unusual" tholos tomb at Kaminospelio

153

10.2

A process of diasporic belonging

155

10.3

The dead and the living: a relationship in transformation

161

10.4

Conclusions

166

[11] From performance to concretization

11.1

Rise to the occasion

168

11.2

From "becoming" to "being"

188

11.3

Conclusions

198

[121 From power to paradigm

12.1

On power

200

12.2

Critique

203

12.3

From "Power" to "Paradigm": further thoughts on the

12.4

"House" alternative

206

Epilogue

209

Bibliography

212

Plates

lll

Acknowledgements
This thesiscould not have beenwritten without the assistance,support and encouragementof
many individuals; this has inevitably and happily resultedin a number of debts.First and
foremost, my thanks are due to my supervisorPeterDay who provided me with practical
help and moral supportthroughout my researchand who has beenvery patient with my
shortcomingsparticularly in the past few months. For their unfailing interest in my work,
encouragement,positive spirit andabove all, friendship I owe a greatdebt of gratitudeto two
beloved souls, Eleni Mantzourani and Yannis Hamilakis. I should also like to expressmy
profound thanks to Efthymia Alphas, Greg Deitereos, Maria Relaki, Ulrich Thaler, Giorgos
Vavouranakis,Matt Haysome,Emma Wager and Tom Davies (Director of CAARI, Nicosia)
for insightful commentsand suggestionswhich have contributed immeasurablyto the final
form of the thesis.To Paul Halstead,I owe a particular debt since he hasbeen
characteristicallygenerouswith his ideas,commentsand supportat many critical stagesof
this work. Last but not least, I wish to thank Marios Sofokleous,Michalis Catapotis,Nickos
Catapotisand Olia Peperaki,the only people with whom I have ever beenable to explore my
ideasin incomplete sentences.That mode of communicationattestsan understandingthat
has enabledthem to point the way through and aroundseveralmajor conceptualbarriers
encounteredwhile preparing severalparts of the thesis.
Many friends, colleagues and scholars have kindly given of their time to provide advice,
information and feedback: Ellen Adams, Robert Alan, Sophia Antoniadou, Ben Chan, Krysti
Damilati, Mark Edmonds, Nikos Efstratiou, Georgia Flouda, Dora Georgousopoulou, Mel
Giles, Eleni Hatzaki, Elli Hitsiou, Chris Jones, Anthi Kaldeli, Bernard Knapp, Katerina
Koltsida, Michael Lane, Polymnia Muhly, Eleni Nodarou, Maria Papadaki, Yannis
Papadatos, Evi Sikla, Daniel Sorabji, Simona Todaro, Andrea Vianello, Takis Voilas, Kostas

Vrakatselis, SaroWallace, VanceWatrous and David Wilson. Naturally, I take full

responsibility for the limitations of the final argumentsput forward in this work. For offering
me the opportunity to look at unpublishedpapersand work in progressI would like to thank
Ellen Adams, Eleni Asouti, JohnBarrett, Keith Branigan, Mihalis Catapotis,Tristan Carter,

iv

Yannis Hamilakis, Eleni Mantzourani, Yannis Papadatos, Maria Relaki, Evi Sikla, Georgia
Stratouli, Simona Todaro, Loreta Tyree, Giorgos Vavouranakis, Barbara Voss, David
Wilson, Todd Whitelaw and Karen Wright. Special thanks are also owed to Diana
Constantinides (librarian) and Vathoula Moustouki (administrative secretary) at CAARI, for
their help and generous hospitality while I was a member of the library in spring-summer
2004. Finally, I would like to thank Michalis Catapotis, Sophia Karagiannaki, Olia Peperaki,
Daniel Sorabji and Ulrich Thaler for helping me with the final editing of the thesis.

The perfect antidote to academicresearchhasbeenoffered throughout thoseyearsby Emma

and Vassilis, my xovjuapxza, Efthymia and Giorgos but also Olia Peperaki,Dora
Georgousopoulou,Grigoris Nikolaou, Michalis (MiXa).xric) Akritopoulos, Maria Liodi,
Maria Graikousi, MagdaleneGalani, Giorgos Metzakis (Maroc), Dan Sorabji, Ulrich Thaler
and the napta in Cyprus: Fani, Giorgos (Vlamis), Yanthi, Dimitris, Kyriaki, Giorgos
(Hatzipieris), Solon and Christina. The thesiswas completedin the companyof the regular
and non-regularmembersof the "BSA therapy group", Aspa, Ellen, David, Danae,Maria
(Chaloglou), Matt, Georgia,Evi, Elli, Efi, Alexandros, Simona,Christina, Claire, Robert,
Kerry. For providing me with a secondhome when it was most neededbut also for numerous
other matters,Michalis and Chrysso Sofokleousalso deservemy warmestthanks.
My gratitude to some people in particular is beyond words: my teacher, John Barrett, has
been my mentor in archaeological theory, a constant source of inspiration and enthusiasm
during my postgraduate studies in Sheffield and above all, a person who believed in my
abilities far more than I have ever done. For all these, I could never thank him enough. My
parents Nickos and Maro Catapotis allowed me to choose my own path in life and never
stopped encouraging me to follow it. Along with my brother Mihalis and my grandfather,
Georgios Karagiannakis, they have provided me with a surplus of love, support and
encouragement throughout these years. For everything they have offered me but also for
their patience, I am deeply grateful. My greatest gratitude however, goes to my partner
Marios Sofokleous and our daughter Maro who have learned to cope and live with my stress,
frustration, despair and endless working hours for too long. It is to them that I proudly
dedicate this thesis and as I write these words, the only thing in my mind is how much I look
forward to a future where our time is finally our own. Xwpiq eadq SEVOa ra eIXa zord

xarqp$pet,aaS pwarai XL.:a evXapurrt rcaid U,a roa ovyvcvpq...

The work for this thesishasbeen conductedwith the financial supportof the AHRB
Humanities Board (Scheme B), the A. S. Onassis Foundation and the A. G. Leventis

Foundation.

List of plates
Plate 1.1 Imagesof a palace: Architectural reconstructionsof Knossos(a) by G. Lappas

& J. Sardelli (Mathiolakis poster 1984), (b) by N. Gouvoussis (Mathiolakis poster 1981)
(after Klynne 1998: Figures 7,9).
0

Plate 2.1 "Palatial' territories (after Cherry 1986: Figure 2.2).

"

Plate 3.1 Ex Oriente lux: (a) Mari (b) Knossos(after Graham1962:Plates2,148).

"

Plate 3.2 Pottery shape charts for drinking, pouring and serving vessels from the

following areas/deposits:
(a) PalaceWell (Early Minoan I), (b) West Court House(Early
Minoan IIa), (c) E.II. 7/K.I tests(Early Minoan IIa), (d) SouthFront (Early Minoan IIb)
and (e) Upper East Well (Early Minoan III) (after Day and Wilson 2002: Fig. 8.4).
Plate 5.1 Too many palaces? Ground plans of new palaces and/or palace-type buildings

"

from (a) Makrygialos (after Davaras 1997: Plan 2), (b) Petras (after Tsipopoulou 2002:

PlateXXXVIII) (c) Galatas(after Rethemiotakis2002: PlateXII).

"

Plate 8.1 ProtopalatialMalia: (a) Ashlar masonry,Crypte Hypostyle,(b) Minoan Hall,

Building A, Quartier Mu (after Schoep 2004a: Figs. 6,7).

"

Plate 9.1 Knossos: Plan of 1969 West Court soundings (after Wilson 1984: Fig.! ).

"

Plate 9.2 Phaistos:Excavationin the areaof the ramps:(a) sectionG-H, (b) the three
superimposedrampsascendingtowards PiazzaleI at the end of excavationandbefore
restoration (after Carinci & La Rosa 2002: Figs. 2,1).

Plate 9.3 Tholoi associatedwith enclosure walls (blue) and/or paved areas (red) (adapted
from Branigan 1993).

"

Plate 9.4 Pavedopenareaat Vasiliki (west sideof the excavatedpart of the settlement)
(after Zois 1982:Fig. 2).

Plate 9.5 Paved open area at Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi (south border of the settlement)

(groundplan adaptedfrom Warren 1972;detail adaptedfrom

ccwf. cc.utexas.edu/-brucch/cc307/minoan/images/2bjpg).

VI

Plate 9.6 Tholoi anterooms with concentrations of drinking cups (adapted from Branigan

"

1993).
Plate 9.7 The Minoan Teapot: (a) Herakleion Museum, (b) Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi

"

(after Warren 1972).

Plate 9.8 Spouted stone vessels from the prepalatial cemetery at Mochlos (after Seager

1912:Pls. 1,5,6).
Plate 9.9 Zoomorphic and athropomorphic spouted vessels from Koumasa (after

"

Xanthoudides1924:Pls. 2,28).
Plate 9.10 Fertility symbols? (i) breasted jugs from Kalathiana, (ii) clay phalloi from

"

Platanos (after Xanthoudides 1924: Pls. 45,51).

"

Plate 10.1The tholos tomb at Kaminospelio(after Blackman& Branigan 1973:Pl. I").

"

Plate 10.2a Prepalatial Larnax and Pithos burials: Tholoi and House Tombs (after
Papadatos 1999).
Plate 10.2b Prepalatial Larnax and Pithos burials: Burial caves and open-air sites (after

"

Papadatos 1999).

Plate 10.3 Pithosand Lamax burials, Tholos E at Archanes(Planof Archanesafter Soles

"

1992: Fig. 59; Plan of Tholos E after Branigan 1993: Fig. 4.7).
Plate 10.4 Adding rooms to the original unit. House tombs (adapted from Soles 1992:

"

Figs. 16,20,11,62).
Plate 10.5 House tombs with subdivided interiors (after Soles 1992: Figs, 60,70a, 74b,
76).
Plate 10.6 Adding rooms to the original unit: Tholos tombs (adapted from Branigan

"

1993:Figs. 5.1,1.3,4.4,2.5,5.2).
"

Plate 10.7 Tholoi with a standardized set of outer chambers (after Branigan 1993: Figs.
5.2,5.2,4.5,4.17).

"

Plate 10.8 Small entrances: (i) Tholos E, Archanes (after

http: //devlab. dartmouth. edu/history/bronze age/full/6-10. jpg), (ii) Tholos at Krasi
Pediadas (after Branigan 1993: Fig. 3.2).

"

Plate 10.9 Door height of tholos tombs. The date of construction of each tholos is also
given (data after Branigan 1993).

"

Plate 10.10Diagramindicatingthat in the later stagesof the prepalatialperiod the height

of the entrancedoorsof tholoi increases(seedata in Table 10.9).

vi'

Plate 10.11 Access to the different compartments of late prepalatial house tombs

(adaptedfrom Soles 1992: Figs. 16,11,20).

Plate 11.1 Plan of Myrtos- PhoumouKoryfi (after Warren 1972:foldout plan).

"

Plate 11.2 Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi: Room with oven (Room 20) (after Warren 1972:
Fig. 18).
Plate 11.3 Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi: (i) Area/Room of the tub, hole and channel

"

(Area/Room 8), (ii) Section with tub in position over hole (after Warren 1972b: Figs. 15,
16.).
Plate 11.4 Myrtos Phournou Koryfi: Settlement growth sequencesuggestedby Whitelaw

"

(after Whitelaw 1983:Fig. 62).

Plate 11.5 Myrtos PournouKoryfi: Identification of activity areaswithin the site (after

Whitelaw 1983:Fig. 68).

"

Plate 11.6 Myrtos-PhournouKoryfi: Identification of householdunits (after Whitelaw

1983:Fig. 69).

"

Plate 11.7 Provenance and production tradition of 370 vessels in use at Myrtos-Phournou

Koryfi at the time of the EM IIB destruction;(b) principal geologicalformationsof the

Isthmus of lerapetra, Crete (after Whitelaw et at. 1997: Pl. CII).

Plate 11.8 Myrtos-PhournouKoryfi: (a) principal varietiesof bowl in eachtradition

representedin the EM 1113
assemblage;(b) variantsof small processingand serving

"

vessels in the three traditions (after Whitelaw et al. 1997: Pl. CIII).
Plate 11.9 Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi: Floor deposits in: (a) room 80, (b) room 82, (c)

"

rooms 88-92 (after Warren 1972b:Figs. 26-28).

"

Plate 11.10Distribution of pouring/servingvesselsat Myrtos-PhournouKoryfi (adapted

from Warren 1972: foldout plan).

"

Plate 11.11 Clay jugs from Myrtos- Phoumou Koryfi (after Warren 1972: Pls. 50,51).

"

Plate 11.12 Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi: Circulation paths in the South-Central Cluster

(after Sanders1990:Fig.5.3).
"

Plate 11.13 Mallia, Maisons Sud: (a) Maison A, (b) Maison B, (c) Maison C, (d) general
plan of the area (after van Effenterre 1980: Figs. 235-237,223).

"

Plate 11.14Chamaizi:(a) storageareas,(b) division of the structureinto

morphological/functionable sub-units (adapted from Davaras 1972: Fig. 8).

vii'

"

Plate 11.15 Kouphota, Aghia Photia: Division of the structure into morphological subbe
indicates
(cross-hatching
that
cannot
ascribed to a unit with certainty)
rooms
units

(adaptedfrom Tsipopoulou 1988:Fig. 1).

ix

List of Figures

"

Figure 2.1: Culture as an "extrasomatic means of adaptation"

"

Figure 2.2: The "endogenous" character of culture

"

Figure 4.1: Measuringthe adaptivesufficiency of Crete,the Cycladesandthe Southern

GreekMainland during the transition from the Early to the Middle BronzeAge
Figure 6.1: How late 2011century principles and ideals apply to academic and non-

"

academicfields
"

Figure 6.2: "Standpoint"theoriesin archaeology

Figure 7.1: An insight into the anatomy of "aggregate constructions": What the "Minoan
palace" represents for "evolutionary" archaeology

Figure 7.2: The epistemological and ontological impossibility of the "palace" category

Figure 8.1: Currentstateof affairs in Minoan archaeologyandthe way ahead

"

Figure 8.2: Sizevariation amongstMcEnroe's threehousetypes: Someexamples

(adaptedfrom McEnroe 1982)

"

Figure 8.3: From suspensionto transcendence: The "Neopalatial" case

Figure 9.1: Old and new question(s)

"

Figure 11.1: "Serving" as a mechanismfor "bracketingoff' and "bringing together"

"storage" and "consumption"

i
The rise and fall of "Minoan

civilization"

"Let us, too, resist the idea that archaeologists'accountsare fictions"

(Fotiadis 1994: 551).

[1.1] The problem

From the late stagesof the 19thcentury until very recently, archaeologicalwork in
Crete had beendominatedby the concept of the "palace" in terms of both theory and
fieldwork (Hamilakis 2002a) [Plate 1.11.Even a cursory glance at the tremendousbulk of
material and associatedliterature, from what appearsto be one of "the most intensively
explored archaeologicalperiods/localities in the world" (Hamilakis 2002b: 3), demonstrates
that the appearanceof thesemonumentalstructureson the island during the early stagesof
the Middle Bronze Age, has beentaken to signal far more than the developmentof yet
Essentially,
the generalconsensuswithin the confines of the
novelty.
architectural
another
discipline for a period spanninglittle more than a century had beenthat the "palaces" ought
to be viewed as the clearesttoken of a watershedevent: the establishmentof a highly
"complex"form of social organization on the island of Cretefor thefirst time in its history
(Evans 1921-1936;Branigan 1988; Cherry 1983; Renfrew 1972).The term "complexity"
"larger,
describe
internally
to
to
appeared
constitute
a
more
what
employed
was
differentiated and more complexly articulated" social structure,which relied upon a
(i.
e. the "palace") for its effective operation (Trigger 1998:
mechanism
authority
centralized
10). The surplus of importance accordedto (what we may broadly describeas) the "palatial
by
is
phenomenon" exemplified the degreeof directionality that this "phenomenon" had
imposedto Minoan studies: exampleshere range from the division of the early history
of

Crete into "pre-palatial", "palatial" and "post-palatial" phases (Day et al. 1997) to the
tendency to portray the island as a "Minoan entity" the latter being painted in turn, as a

"laboratory" of "socio-political achievement"(Hamilakis 2002b: 17).

Over the last decadehowever,this impressiveand highly persistentcore of
has
begun
dissolve.
For
to
agreement
slowly
some scholars the need to reconfigure this long
standing consensushas been largely dictated by recent advances in the field. In particular,
the data accumulated from the wide range of ongoing excavations, extensive expeditions,
rescue and intensive survey projects, have challenged several long-held assumptions tied to
the concept of the "palace" and the "emergence of complexity". On the one hand, the
plethora of "palaces" and "palace-type" buildings that have been discovered (and continue to
be discovered) in various parts of the Cretan landscape have called for a reconsideration of
the "palace" category itself (Driessen et al. 2002). On the other hand, equally serious have
been the concerns raised over the close association established between "complexity" and
the "palatial" periods for it now appears that the periods prior to the construction of the
"palaces" also exhibited clear signs of "complexity" (Day et al. 1997; Hamilakis 2002b: 1415; Schoep & Knappett 2004).

For other scholars, nonetheless,the foregoing "anomalies"/"fallacies" should not be

perceived as the main reason why long dominant accounts of the Minoan past are currently
scrutinized; after all, many of the former have been known to us for quite some time (Cherry
1986). They argue instead that the problem with those accounts goes far deeper and concerns
the very pattern of thought though which the Minoan past has been approached (Hamilakis
2002b: 4). Patterns of thought are commonly referred to as paradigms, a teen initially
launched by a prominent figure in philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn used the term
"paradigm" to describe a set of "universally recognized scientific achievements that for a
time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners" (Kuhn 1970: x).
Hamilakis has recently stressedthat such a paradigmatic framework may be shown to have
operated in Minoan studies since Arthur Evans' initial explorations on the island of Crete
and to survive in the writings of several scholars even until today (Hamilakis 2002b: 5-13).
The paradigm to which Hamilakis refers is "(cultural) evolutionism" (Hamilakis 2002b: 5).

A particular way of dealingwith andperceiving(past)social existence,the

"evolutionary" paradigm is the product of the operation of a series of developing discourses
whose origins ought to be traced back in the period of the Enlightenment (Bierstedt 1974:
559-60; Foucault 1984; Herzfeld 2001; Outram 1995; Thomas 1996). This intellectual
tradition is firmly associatedwith the very emergence of "scientific" practice and the

determinism
decline
(Outram
1995: 45). From that
theological
of
medieval
simultaneous
knowledge
began
be
to
perceived as disembodied and essential, real
scientific
point onwards,
and unprejudiced and was thus accorded a status of undisputed truth (Thomas 1996: 11-16).
The enquiring and penetrating gaze of the scientist served as the metaphor for the acquisition
knowledge
"vision",
description
this
the
as
a
result
of
emphasis
on
scientific
and
of objective
interpretation of society's "visual" culture (such as may be seen in artefacts), was as far as
in
(Herzfeld
2001:
36).
In
go
search
of
meaning
archaeological
enquiry
would
scientific
terms, this resulted in what has been referred to as archaeology of representation (Barrett
1994: 154; Miller 1985: 2; Patrik 1985); the past was taken to have inscribed a truth about
itself upon the material record and so by "explaining" the data we could automatically
"explain" the past itself (Barrett 1994: 156).

A second cardinal element in "evolutionary" thought was the correlation between

biological and social evolution (Spencer 1891; Trigger 1998). It was argued in particular that
"the cosmos" (essentially including "plant and animal life" as well as "human society") had
"evolved" from "simple homogeneous beginnings" into "increasingly differentiated entities"
and that "societies" which were "more complex" and "better integrated" (Spencer 1891: 910,402-3), were able to "prosper at the expense of less complex ones,just as human
individuals and groups who were better adapted to social life, supplanted those who were
less well adapted" (Trigger 1998: 57). The concept of social evolution became even more
involving
in
Western
19`h
20th
thought,
the
the
with examples
prominent
and early
century
comparison of "whole societies, or social institutions, legal systems, kinship systems, or
knowledge and belief systems" (Chapman 2003: 5; Gosden 1999; Outram 1995; Trigger
1989a). Underlying all of these "evolutionary" sequenceswas not only the adherenceto the
"universal" truth/law inherent in the "organic analogy" but also the firm belief in progress,
with greater complexity being equated with progress towards modernity (i. e. the gradual
transition from the "simplest" hunter-gatherers to the more "complex" states) (Chapman
2003; Shanks & Tilley 1987a, 1987b; Trigger 1998). Echoes of this mode of thinking are
apparent in Evans' portrayal of Minoan civilization as "successive, gradual and organic"
(Hamilakis 2002b: 6) and in particular, his adoption of a three-stage chronological system
(Early, Middle and Late Minoan), corresponding to the "evolutionary" perception of gradual
growth, maturity and decline (Cherry 1983; MacNeal 1973; McEnroe 1995). An
"evolutionary" typology has also been put forward by Renfrew, who proposed a unilinear
and directional scheme on the basis of which "primitive societies" could be classified as
"bands", "tribes" and "chiefdoms" (see also Service 1962). The next stage involved the
development of the "state", in which "primitive" societies were
supposedto have been
"civilized" (Renfrew 1972).

At the heart of this recent critique of "evolutionism" and its associated principles,
lies a more general discontent with its paradigmatic intentions, as well as effects. Kuhn
describes such reactionary views against a dominant paradigm as indications of a paradigm
(Kuhn
leading
1970); in this case, the emerging
to
the
emergence
of
a
new
paradigm
shift
paradigm is broadly known as "postmodernism" (Harvey 1989), an intellectual movement
be
found
in
20th
to
are
early
century transformations. In archaeology however,
origins
whose
this fundamentally "anti-evolutionist" school of thought made its appearancemuch later, i. e.
in the 1980s (Hodder 1982,1986).

The "postmodemist" movement in archaeology sets itself in radical opposition to

modes of thinking which are reductionist or essentialist, reducing the particular to an abstract
social logic, to a priori categories, defining and searching for essential (and allegedly
"objective") features of "society" and "history" (e.g. Bapty & Yates 1990; Hodder 19861
Shanks & Tilley 1987a, 1987b, 1989a; Thomas 2004; Yates 1990). It is argued that there can
be no hierarchy of determination in our analytical enterprises and concomitantly, that there
are no universal series of social units available for use in archaeological analysis. For
"postmodern" archaeology such over-generalised concepts need to be abandoned altogether
(Thomas 2004).

An immediate consequenceof the above is the deep problematization over

"evolutionary" images of the past which tend to portray "history" as essentially "closed in on
itself' (Shanks & Tilley 1987a: 175), residing in a predetermined set of processes,offering
explanations "once and for all... in an absolute sense" (Shanks & Tilley 1987a: 175). The
"messy and richly networked character" of past existence is separatedinto a definable set of
elements (Latour 1993: 7) and the understanding is that these elements represent real units of
analysis which have been "discovered" rather than created by science (Thomas 1996: 12).
These "objective" categories organize past human life "in layers" (Thomas 1996: 16), with
those layers essentially being perceived as "given" and "beyond question" (Strathem 1988:
69). With these units being presented as "fundamental" and "real", archaeological analysis
may in fact be evaded; it is in a way unnecessary,for the answers are supposedly known to
us in advance (Thomas 1996: 13).

Another fundamentalproblem currently identified in "evolutionary" archaeological

programmesconcernsthe fact that the latter havealwaysbeenriddled with ethnocentric
evaluations(Hamilakis2002b; Shanks& Tilley 1987a:155).By ethnocentrismis meant"the
mannerin which a group identifies with its own socio-culturalindividuality and createsa
privilegedand centralimageof itself in relation to others" (Shanks& Tilley 1987a:155); as

intellectual
legacy of "racism, colonialism and
it
the
the
of
persistence
such, marks
imperialism and the denigration of cultural diversity" (Chapman 2003: 6). The schemesof
"explanation" in evolutionary theories easily slip into "ideologies of self-justification or
in
is
West
importance
the
to
the
relation
of
other
cultures
priorities
whose
primary
assert
for
(Shanks
&
164).
Tilley
1987a:
to
offsets
our
contemporary
civilization"
act
as
precisely

In view of all aforementioned issues, "postmodemist" archaeology advances a

by
"evolutionist"
different
the
the
to
that
proponents
of
agenda
proposed
school.
markedly
What it underscoresfirst of all is that we need to give up the task of "Westernizing" human
history. History and the past are now portrayed as having been made possible by the active
engagementof "knowledgeable beings" with the (material) conditions of their existence
(Barrett 1994: 169). This implies that we should no longer seek to compartmentalise the
history of "society"; the latter cannot be defined as "a layer cake of flow diagram" (Shanks
& Tilley 1987a: 59), but rather as an ongoing and inherently dynamic process of construction
and constitution of various forms of "sociality". Being "an overdetermined relational whole,
an open field of relations, and indeterminate articulation" (Shanks & Tilley 1987a: 59), the
"social" is therefore constituted in the practice of individual actors; moreover it is something
which relates to historical contexts and cannot be perceived as an abstract universal pattern.
An attempt to speak about past societies thus requires that we take into serious account the
primacy of practical negotiation, strategy and power in the structuring of social reality

(Barrett 1994).

According to "postmodemist" archaeological programmes, what it also of crucial

significance is to recognize that the principles of diversity, dynamism, active negotiation,
historical situatednessoperate also in the case of present archaeological narratives. It is
professed in particular, that no single history of the past could ever be written (Jenkins
1991); there is no past state of history "out there" which is representedby our data and is
waiting for us to discover it (Barrett 1994: 169). The archaeologist constructs a past through
his/her own interpretive endeavours and in this respect, there is no absolute against which to
measurethe accuracy of different narratives about the past:

"All we have are the contextsof our desiresto know a past, positions from
which we may then examinethe materialconditionswhich others,at othertimes
and from otherperspectives,also soughtto understand"(Barrett 1994: 169).

It is preciselyin the contextof thesedebatesthat the plethoraof "palatial-type"

buildings andthe evidencefor "complexity" in the periodsprecedingthe "palaces"beganto
be viewedasempirical factorschallengingin profound fashionthe
validity of the very idea

by
Encouraged
"civilization".
the analytical potential if not the very possibility of a new
of
discipline,
in
Minoan
have
the
thus embarked upon the
several
scholars
perspective
investigation of questions that were challenging the problematique of the discipline down to
its very foundations:
`But if such terms such as the "state" are weakened and relativised
is
what
...
the point of using such a term at all? Why do we have to introduce into the
debate on prehistoric societies all the modernist connotations that a term such as
"state" implies? Why do we have to start from the idea of the supposedly
centralized administrative structure and then try to find terms to explore its
fluidity and diversity? Why not write the history of the Minoan societies from
below, as the multiple and diverse stories of Minoan societies?" (Hamilakis
2002b: 13).

In the past five years, the enterprise of establishing a "future" for the Minoan past
that will not involve "evolution", "civilization" and the "palace" has become even more
concretised as well as collectivised. The most moderate voices amongst the proponents of
this new trend urge for greater sensitivity towards empirical detail and a greater investment
in
importance
"fine-grained"
interpretations
(elevating
"local",
the
the
producing
upon
"particular", the "idiosyncratic"); those in favour of a more "radicalist" attitude against the
"evolutionary" legacy on the other hand, call for a thorough reshaping of the discipline. In
more practical terms, this has resulted in the proliferation of "local-scale" and/or
"synchronic" studies as well as the introduction of a wide array of new theoretical
standpoints ranging from alternative forms of "social organization" and "power" to
"phenomenology", "embodiment", "gender" and "agency". Three volumes have come out,
"Labyrinth revisited" (Hamilakis 2002a), "Monuments ofMinos" (Driessen et al. 2002),
"The Emergence of Civilization revisited" (Barrett & Halstead 2004), aiming at bringing
together voices which challenge previous ideas about this particular segment of the Minoan
past, anticipating at the sametime that "the second century of the archaeology of Bronze
Age Crete will be more exciting than the first" (Hamilakis 2002b: 22).

11.21Whither Minoan archaeology? Aims and outline of the thesis

In the internationalarchaeologicalforum, "postmodemist"trendsbeganto develop

sincethe 1980saswe alreadymentionedearlier,in Minoan archaeologyhoweverthey are
still very "fresh", a developmentof the last few years.It is for this reason,after all, that
Hamilakis speaksof the need"to situate"the discipline "within the broaderarchaeological
discussionand debate,by enteringinto a dialoguewith someof the
ongoingdiscussionsin
mainstreamarchaeologicaltheory andpractice" (Hamilakis 2002b:4). But how mainstream

"postmodernist'wave
in
is
the
the wider archaeologicalfield at this particular
andup-to-date
historical conjuncture?
While Minoan archaeologists remain busy trying to introduce concepts like
"diversity", "fluidity", "fragmentariness", "subjectivity" into the study of the past and to
is
finally
is
discipline
discovering
"something
that
the
the
sceptics
which
remaining
convince
it
be
is
human"
(Barrett
1994:
164),
to
true
within the wider
about
what
generally
archaeological forum, and for that matter the (even broader) scientific community, another
significant shift of perspective has begun to take place, subjecting to rigorous scrutiny
"postmodernism" itself (Carrithers 2005; Dobres & Robb 2000; Haraway 1991; Longino
1990; Wylie 1994). At the heart of this critique lies the confusion now surrounding the
fundamental concept of "being social" (Johnson 2004: 100): if "sociality" is about "interindividuality" then how are we to sustain such a notion for the past, when our current
driving
"difference"
heteroglossia
the
the
construction of
as
and
paradigmatic agenda sees
forces of the human condition (Joyce 2002)? How "social" on the other hand, can
archaeological practice itself be when each one of us is encouragedto commit him/herself to
the production of his/her own impressionistic versions of the past (Trigger 1989b: 777)? In
"postmodernist"
it
is
the
that
the
these
time
to
consider
possibility
not
questions,
view of
paradigm causesmore serious problems than those that allegedly it helps to resolve?

The aim of the presentthesisis to investigatethesequestions/themes

with reference
to Minoan studies, and in particular the trajectory of intellectual development that Minoan
scholars have decided to follow in recent years. Taking into full account the conceptual risks
and dead-endsthat the adherenceto "postmodernist" principles entails, it cautions against the
for
"social"
future
(Minoan)
"social"
idea
the
prospect of abandoning
past as well as a
of a
archaeology. More to the point, it seeksto demonstrate that even if we accept that the
"palace" can no longer constitute the backbone of the discipline, the hope for establishing
new, broadly relevant questions and themes should not be given up. As is usually the case in
"moments of crisis" (be that a relationship or a discipline in crisis! ), what may allow the
precise definition of "the way ahead" is critical retrospection and constructivist intention.
For this reason,the thesis embarks upon the investigation of two interrelated themes/setsof
questions:

[a] First of all, it seeksto investigate and by extension, to provide a detailed understanding
of how the "emergence of civilization" in Bronze Age Crete was constructed and
subsequentlydeconstructed; it offers an insight into the logic behind the arguments put
forward and the vocabularies established; it demonstrates
on what basis certain elements

of

the record were brought to the fore while others were suppressedand/or underrated. In short,
it digs the past ofMinoan historiography in an attempt to critically assesswhat aspects of
this package of knowledge may help us bring the discipline forward, at a time when most of
its intellectual achievements are questioned and/or rejected. By the end of this investigation,
in
be
demonstrate:
(i)
it
is crucial to maintain some senseof
to
a
position
why
we will
Minoan
how
(ii)
the
this consensuscould be
confines
of
archaeology,
consensuswithin
finally,
(iii)
how
(ontological
in
practice
and
such
a
shift
of
as well as
realized
epistemological) perspective could lead us to the actual reconstruction of the discipline.

The structure of the first part of the thesis is the following: In Chapters Two and
Three, we examine two interpretive schemata concerning the "palatial phenomenon" and its
"emergence", which have dominated archaeological work on the island of Crete for most of
the 20t' century. Those have been termed the "endogenous/production-oriented" and the
"exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach respectively. Emphasis is laid mainly upon
explaining why the proponents of the "endogenous/production-oriented" approach have
chosen to portray the "palace" as the product of long-term changes occurring mainly in the
domain of land use and management while the proponents of the "exogenous/consumptionoriented" approachpreferred to stress the role and contribution of exchange and
consumption to our understanding of "civilization". To do so, it has been considered
necessaryto begin our discussion by examining the principles (i. e. "endogenous/exogenous",
"production-oriented/consumption-oriented") on the basis of which the general
problernatique and questions of the two approacheshave been formulated (i. e. "What is the
palace"? "What causedits emergence"?). The chapters proceed with the investigation of
different "readings" of these principles and questions, as seen in the works of various
scholars. In Chapter Four, the main points of agreement between the two approaches are
identified. In the same chapter, we also explain why the foregoing points of agreement imply
that the "endogenous/production-oriented" approach and the "exogenous/consumptionoriented" approach belong to the same paradigmatic tradition, i. e. the "evolutionary"
tradition. Finally, the historical context that brought "evolutionism" into being is discussed
in detail.

Having established how the concept of the "palace" was "created" and employed in
archaeological narratives, we proceed by investigating a wide range of (old and new)
empirical discoveries that are taken to challenge "evolutionary" interpretations of the
"palatial phenomenon" and its emergence (Chapter Five); in Chapter Six,
we seek to
emphasizethat these "fallacies" have essentially become more "visible" after the emergence
of "postmodern" trends in (Minoan) archaeology. The historical conditions and processes

that lead to the emergenceof the new paradigm are also appraised. After demonstrating that
the deconstruction of the "palace" is yet another intellectual construct (closely associated
discussion
to
the
then continues with the critical
of
a
new
prominence
paradigm),
rise
with
assessmentof the wider implications of this paradigmatic shift, first in relation to
archaeological/scientific practice as a whole and in Chapter Seven, with regard to Minoan
archaeology. Ultimately, what both those chapters (i. e. Chapter Six, Chapter Seven) aim to
caution against is the current tendency to "post-modernise" the past (Bender 1993). What
does this imply in more practical terms? Even though the discipline seemsto be now moving
"cultural
beyond
evolutionism", what has not yet been recognized is that the
well
paradigmatic perspective we currently perceive as highly promising, may lead to problems of
epistemological, ontological and above all, ethical nature. Once this final point is realized,
then it becomes readily apparent that a future for the study of the (Minoan) past can be
guaranteed,only if decide to commit ourselves to the reinstating of epistemological dialogue
and communication. Chapter Seven concludes with the suggestion that in the case of Minoan
archaeology, dialogue and communication with and about the "past" may be warranted only
if we invest our energy less on deconstruction and more upon replacing the "palace" concept
but
broadly
is
innovative
a
new
also
relevant, intelligible and
with
question which not only
effective.

[b] The secondaim of the thesisis to attemptto assesshow a new questionwould arisefrom
but alsowork with referenceto empirical data sets,which were inextricably connectedwith
the "palace"questionfor severaldecades.In Chapters Eight and Nine we focus upon the
old andtrite distinction betweenthe "palatial" and "prepalatial" period(s)and attemptto
explorealternativeconceptual/terminological
meansfor talking and writing aboutthe two
chronologicalhorizons.Discussionproceedswith the investigationof the following issues:
"palatial"C'prepalatial"
but
longer
the
terms
to
enhance
seem
rather undermine our
no
-If
understanding and appreciation of Minoan (pre)history, then what could take their place?
Moreover, if this distinction (i. e. "palatial"/"prepalatial")

supports (conceptually as well as

methodologically) the very idea/question of the "emergence of civilization", then how would
our redefinition of the two periods contribute to the formation of a new question?

-How would a changeof questionaffect our terminology as well analytical methodology?In

the prospectof a new questionthat seeksto movebeyondthe "palace" and the
"prepalatial"/"palatial"distinction,how and wherewould we first of all, draw the
temporal/chronologicalboundariesof our analyticalenterprise?On the otherhand,what
would constituteour spatialunit of analysis?Would we be still examiningCreteas a whole

locales
(i.
e. Mesara, East Crete etc.)? Could it be the case that the island
or as a plethora of
into
be
integrated
to
an even larger (spatio-temporal) system of analysis?
ought

(general)
having
the
established
our
question
as
well
as
area(s)/period(s) to which this
-After
question is relevant, we then turn to what may be broadly perceived as "detail" and in
particular, to the examination of two contexts of practice, i. e. cemeteries and settlements
(Chapters Ten and Eleven). In particular, we will attempt to demonstrate how the posing of
influence
the ways whereby we have so far examined these social loci as
can
question
a new
well as their role and contribution to our understanding of this particular segment of Cretan
(pre)history. Finally in Chapter Twelve, we revisit the so-called "palaces": to argue (as we
did earlier) that the very "existence" (or not) of these complexes is really a matter of
(paradigmatic) perspective, then what also needs to be elucidated is how these complexes
could be approached and understood when our general archaeological question is rephrased.
A summary of the conclusions drawn by analysis is also provided along with a brief
assessmentof their implications and prospects.

10

Constructing

the "palace"

question:

The "endogenous/production-oriented"
approach

[2.11 Principles for understanding (past) human life

What we might term the "endogenous/production-oriented"

approachhas looked
particularly towards biology as the science providing the closest and most compatible model
for social sciences (including archaeology), and has sought to understand humans in terms of
the function and structure of all other living organisms. The tendency to express a
naturalistic viewpoint has been taken to imply that human societies are not only "a part of'
in
To
live
but
"apart
from"
&
Hodder
1996:
24).
it
(Preucel
a manner
operate
and
nature
also
in
humans
behave
living
that
to
to
that
such a way
ought
similar
of all other
organisms meant
as to perpetuate their kind by responding to and by modifying features of their physical
environment (Boughey 1971). This continuous interaction with the environment has been
explained as a process of adaptation by which organisms and/or groups of organisms,
through responsive changesin their states, structures and/or compositions, maintain a state of
equilibrium in and among themselves in the face of both short-term environmental
fluctuations and long-term changes (Rappaport 1971: 60).

Accordingto White, non-humanspeciesattemptto developa life-sustaining

behaviourthroughthe employmentof their bodies(muscles,organsetc), in other words, by
somaticmeans(White 1959:8). Humansdo that aswell but they also createthis
extrasomatictradition that we call culture in orderto sustainandperpetuatetheir existence
andgive it full expression.Culture is thereforetakento constitutean extrasomatic
mechanismemployedby humanbeingsin orderto maketheir life secureand continuous

11

(White 1959: 8) [Fig. 2.1]. Such a mode of understanding implies at the same time that
culture has an endogenouscharacter, since it is closely related to (if not thoroughly
dependentupon) the nature of the environment to which human beings try to adapt (Binford
1962)1[Fig. 2.2]:

Humans

[Culture] -Environment

Fig. 2.1 Culture as an "extrasomaticmeansof adaptation".

Humans .- [Culture] -Environment
Fig. 2.2 The endogenouscharacter of culture.

But what exactly would the analytical implications of this dual definition of culture
be for the approach in question? According to Renfrew, the first task of an archaeologist
has
in
both
be
define
time;
the
to
the
culture
space
and
only
when
culture under study
must
been "identified, defined and described is there any hope of "taking it apart" to try to reach
17).
In
form"
1972:
have
its
(Renfrew
how
it
to
own particular
came
some understanding of
this respect,the notion that culture has an endogenous character (i. e. emerging as a response
to specific environmental conditions) may prove very useful, because it brings us a step
closer to defining the boundaries of our unit of analysis (Renfrew 1972: 17).

In order to achieve this, the "endogenous-production oriented" approach seeksto

identify the broader unit within which culture develops and operates. This unit is the
"ecosystems2;a unit of adaptation, as one might call it. This unit is taken to represent the
largest and most inclusive system, and thus the most appropriate starting point for any form
its
hand,
Culture
&
(Preucel
Hodder
24).
1996:
the
are
other
on
analysis
and
sub-systems
of
seenas the functional components of this wider entity. Such forms of analytical/spatial
distinction have been used extensively in Aegean Bronze Age studies (Wagstaff 1987) and
can be seento operate in the following cases:(i) the distinction made between broad
South
basins
Greece")
"large
Northern
(i.
North
the
the
and
environmental zones such as
of
e.
Greece
(ii)
("the
heterogeneous
(Halstead
196),
Southern
Greece")
1994:
terrain
of
of
between possible sub-units of broader environmental zones (i. e. "island communities" vs.
' It is for this reasonthat Binford hassuggested
jokingly that we would not for exampleexpectto find
largequantitiesof fishhooksamongthe archaeologicalremainsfrom the Kalahari desert(Binford
1962:218)1
2 The term "ecosystem"was originally proposedby the plant
ecologistA. G. Tansleyto refer to all the
plant and animalorganisms(includinghumans)living togetherin a habitat(Tansley1935).At the
heartof his conceptlies the utility of systemsas a frameworkfor analysisin which it is possibleto
combinehumanand environmentalphenomena(Unwin 1992: 128).In later years,this integration
betweenpeopleand environmentsin a systemsframework found its clearestexpressionin the
developmentof the "ecosystem"conceptby biologists (Odum 1963)and
geographers(Stoddart1986).

12

"mainland communities"), (iii) between smaller areas/regions within these environmental

further
breaking
down
(i.
the
of the Southern Aegean "seascape" into "microsub-units e.
entities" such as Crete, the Cyclades, the Dodecaneseetc). Site catchment analysis (Higgs &
Vita-Finzi 1972; Vita-Finzi & Higgs 1970) could also be added to this list of examples, since
it constitutes another method used extensively by the "endogenous/ production-oriented"
approach. This technique involves the determination of available resources in the vicinity of
an archaeological site and their comparison with data gathered from excavation and/or
survey:

"The selectionof survey zonesis made on the basis of the principals' intimate
knowledgeof the contemporarycountrysideand ancientresourcesthat deal with
topography.Factorswhich structuredthe choiceof areasto investigateincluded
location of best agricultural land, copious water, defensibility, good drainage
and goodpossibilitiesfor communication"(Kardulias 1994:11).
So far, we have discussedthe emphasis laid by the "endogenous/productionhas
the
that
approach
on
culture
an endogenous character. In what follows,
premise
oriented"
we are going to explain what we mean by the term production-oriented. As already
mentioned at the beginning of this section, the first principle set by the approach in question
is that people produce culture (and for that matter material culture) in order to survive
(White 1959). In White's words, culture might well be defined in this sense,as the way in
which a given social unit "makes use of its particular technology in the various lifesustaining processes:subsistence,protection from the elements, defence from enemies,
combating diseaseetc" (White 1959: 19). (Material) culture is thus taken to be created (i. e.
outcome) and employed (i. e. means) by people in order to satisfy real needs (i. e. survival). If
however people's main concern is to guarantee survival then it follows that their main
intention in life would be to produce as much as they need or rather as much as is required
for them to survive (Herzfeld 2001: 112-7; Sahlins 1972: 5; Turner & Rojek 2001: 32-35):

"We should entertain the empirical possibility that hunters are in business for
their health, a finite objective, and that bow and arrow are adequate to that end"
(Sahlins 1972: 5).

To produce what is needed and to simply need what is produced (Sahlins 1972: 8283) implies an intention of, or rather a tendency towards autarky. As Sahlins rightly points
out, it is better to use the terms "intention" and "tendency" here, becauseone has to bear in
mind that autarky cannot be a real condition; put simply, people cannot achieve (and/or
sustain) self-sufficiency as individuals (Sahlins 1972). Every individual living solely by
his/her own means sooner or later discovers he/she has
not the means to live. As Marx had
once advocated the notion of an "individual and isolated hunter and fisherman... belongs to

13

the unimaginative conceits of the eighteenth-century Robinsonades", in other words "utopias

Crusoe"
(Marx
fact,
Robinson
1973:
82).
In
Defoe's
Marx
lines
the
claims, the more
of
on
deeply we go back into history, "the more does the individual... appear as dependent, as
belonging to a greater whole" (Marx 1973: 84). Rather than "failing" to survive and in order
to cope with the multiplicity of everyday tasks, people thus construct relationships, they find
doing
"cooperative
(Marx
By
to
create
so,
people
units"
ways cooperate with other people.
1973; Sahlins 1972) and it is precisely through the construction of these smaller and greater
"cooperative units" that human societies are established (Marx 1973: 82-84).

According to the majority of scholars, the most basic (if not the most reliable)
is
important
is
"household"
is
"household"3.
What
that
the
the
contains
unit
cooperative
because
"from
for
labour
itself
division
tasks
the
the
of
everyday
conduct
of
required
within
the beginning and at the minimum" (Sahlins 1972: 78-79) a household emerges from the
from
its
inception
"household"
female.
Hence,
the
adult
and
an
union of an adult male
combines the two essential elements of (re)production:
"The first division of labour is that between a man and a woman for the
propagationof children" (Marx & Engels 1964:42)
"Division of labour by sex is not the only economic specialization known to
primitive societies. But it is the dominant form, transcending all other
specialization in this sense:that the normal activities of any adult man, taken in
conjunction with the normal activities of an adult woman, practically exhausts
the customary works of society. Therefore marriage, among other things,
establishes a generalized... group constituted to produce the local conception of
livelihood" (Sahlins 1972: 79).

It becomesevidentfrom the abovethat the significanceof the "household"is, in a

(i.
form
division
basic
labour
does
it
Not
twofold.
the
e. manof
sense,
only
constitute most
woman)but alsoguaranteesthe reproductionof its "own" labour force (i.e. man-womanits
for
"household"
Both
features
these
the
child).
unit secureself-sufficiency
elemental
of
members.The "household"is the only viable meansfor achievingautarky.This autarky
however,is a condition which involvesthe entire "household"unit andnot its individual
be
In
is
impossible,
"household"
individual
can
autarky
members. short,whereas
autarky
feasible(Sahlins 1972).

3 For a detailed discussion the term in

of
archaeology/anthropology see Arnould & Netting 1982;
Beaudry 1989; Bender 1967; Blanton 1994; Bloch 1995; Byrd 1994; Carsten & Hugh-Jones 1995;
Deetz 1982; Flannery 1972; Flannery & Winter 1976; Goody 1958; Hodder 1990; Kent 1990; Netting
1989; Netting et al. 1984; Sahlins 1972; Wilk & Ashmore 1988; Wilk & Rathje 1982; Yanagisako
1979).

14

We undertook this detailed discussion of culture, needs and the "household" in order
to demonstratehow the "endogenous/production-oriented" approach addressesonce again
the issue of boundaries, and in particular of how we define the boundaries of our analytical
largest
We
that
the
earlier
mentioned
unit of analysis advanced by this
already
units.
is
have
the
conceptual
schema
ecosystem
and
now also demonstrated that the
we
particular
in
is
household.
(and
this
the
case
also analytical unit)
smallest unit

In seeking to illuminate how the two units interact and how their interaction
develops through time, Renfrew has suggestedthat this is a relationship that ought to be
but
(Renfrew
insulation
continuous
adaptation
also
of
only
as
a
process
of
not
perceived
1972: 11). By the term "insulation", Renfrew referred to people's attempts to create a selfmade environment, fashioned in such a way as to insulate themselves "from the primeval
insulation
These
(Renfrew
1972:
11).
processes
are thought
of
environment of nature alone"
to have resulted in significant conjunctures in the history of mankind that are termed
first
is
be
the
taken
to
the
one of those.
agricultural revolution
revolutions, and

Why is the inception of farming to be perceived as "revolutionary"? An (implicit

"endogenous/productionby
the
the
of
proponents
and/or explicit) assumption shared
do
die
is
important
is
to
to
thing
to
that
the
so
as
people
need
approach
not
most
oriented"
eat4.Subsistenceis therefore taken to be the most basic of all necessities; it has a "biological
survival value" (Piddington 1957: 36) and it is for this reason that Malinowski had once
claimed that "man does not live by bread alone, but primarily by bread" (Malinowski 1944:
72). In view of the above, it now becomes clear why a surplus of emphasis is laid upon
insulation.
first
(revolutionary)
is
towards
the
subsistenceand why agriculture painted as
step
With the inception of agriculture, i. e. by residing permanently in certain areas and by
cultivating/producing food all year round, it is assumedthat people would have managed to
have
Agriculture
its
barriers
5).
(Sahlins
1972:
overcome
of nature
and products would
constituted the first controllable economic resource, only partially substituted by the wild
(i. e. hunting):

"Capital in the form of human labour was being sunk into the land. Its
expenditureboundmento the soil" (Childe 1951:89-90).

"A "hierarchyof needs"was outlinedin the 1940sby the

psychologistA. H. Maslow, who proposed
in his famousarticle "A theory in humanmotivation" that humanneedsare hierarchically
organized
(food and drink) being the most importantof all (Maslow 1943).
with subsistence

15

Broadly speaking, the period we examine belongs to this developmental stage and
for this reason, Bronze Age societies are commonly referred to as primarily "agrarian"5. This
by
introduced
Max
Weber
(Weber
1976) and subsequently formalised by the
was
premise
Cambridge School of ancient historians, particularly Moses Finley (Finley 1951; 1973). As
Keith Hopkins once noted:

"Over the last twenty years or so a new orthodoxy has become dominant... [It]
stresses the cellular self-sufficiency of the ancient economy; each farm, each
district, each region grew and made nearly all that was needed. The main basis
of the wealth was agriculture. The vast majority of the population in most areas
of the ancient world was primarily occupied with growing food" (Hopkins 1983:
xi).

That agriculture should be viewed as the most important economic resource of

it
fact
the
times
that
the
of
contributed to the satisfaction of
merely
result
prehistoric
was not
basic biological needs but also becauseit did so within an increasingly competitive context of
natural scarcity (Turner & Rojek 2001: 32). In times of risk (environmental and/or social),
the impact that the latter would have to available subsistenceresources would automatically
lead to a situation where not everyone's needs could be easily satisfied (Turner & Rojek
2001: 92-93). On the other hand, the fear of dealing with such adverse (environmental and/or
social) circumstances, may also urge people to resort to risk buffering mechanisms such as
the accumulation of some sort of surplus in order to be in a position to deal with shortage at
the time that it occurs. Eventually, the fear or actual experience of shortage is taken to lead to
a situation therefore where what satisfies the needs of certain groups may be denying this
opportunity to others. Under such conditions a situation of conflict is very likely to occur.

That the proponents of the "endogenous/production-oriented" approach attribute a

surplus of social (hence analytical) value to agricultural resources stems therefore not only
from the fact that the latter can guarantee biological survival but also because of the fear as
well as the effects brought by a possible condition of scarcity of such resources. It is for this
reason essentially, that the "endogenous/production-oriented" approach associates

agriculturenot only with "power" (i.e. asymmetricalrelations)but alsowith the emergence

of "centralizedauthority" (Br anfiel 1980;Brumfiel & Earle 1987:2-3; Earle 1978;Fried
1960;Halstead& O'Shea 1982;Johnson1973;Polanyi 1980:48-49; Service1962,1975;
Wittfogel 1957;Wright & Johnson1975).In particular,it is arguedthat asymmetrical
relations(i.e. "power") developbecauseof the shortageof meansto satisfy commonlyheld
endsand subsequentlyleadto control of land, production,surplusand/orlabour by fewer
SUntil the adventof the so-called"industrial
revolution", societiesare takento be "agrarian" in
character(Ashton 1948;Fairchild 1923;Flinn 1966;Hudson1992;Jacob1997;Jones1974).

16

groups of people (i. e. elites). According to Polanyi (1980), this transformation marks the
transition from relations based on and dictated by reciprocity to relations based on and
dictated by redistribution. "Reciprocity" works mainly with regard to "the sexual
is
family
that
society,
of
and kinship" whereas "redistribution" is mainly
organization
effective "in respect to all those who are under a common chief and is, therefore, of a
territorial character" (Polanyi 1980: 47). For the proponents of the "endogenous/production"redistribution"
approach
marks a new form of "social organization", a new stage
oriented"
of development which always follows "reciprocity", or rather social formations organized
upon the principle of "reciprocity".

This final point is of particular importance and indicative of this importance is that
the establishment of "centralized authority" in Crete during the Middle Bronze Age
automatically has been taken to derive from the unequal distribution of agricultural resources
and subsequently, a shift from "reciprocity" to "redistribution". For the models belonging to
the conceptual schemaunder examination, of central analytical concern has therefore been to
demonstratethat the Minoan "palaces" presented evidence for accumulation of surplus that
was mainly of a subsistencenature.

[2.21 What is a "palace"?

"... the growth of the "palaces"hasto be seenin the first instance
as the developmentof "redistribution" centresfor subsistence
commodities,controlledby a well-definedsocialhierarchy"
(Renfrew 1972:297)

Halsteadoncesuggestedthat it would be hardto think of a model of "palatial"

origins which doesnot (explicitly or implicitly) presupposesomeform of centralizedcontrol
over agricultural production, "whether for benign "redistribution", occasional risk buffering
or elite-oriented mobilisation" (Halstead 1997: 105). For many scholars, this definitely
seemsto be the case in Crete since it has been repeatedly suggestedthat one of the most
striking features of a "palace" is the amount of space it devotes to the storage of foodstuffs
(Branigan 1987; Christakis 2004; Graham 1962: 129-37; Halstead 1981; Moody 1987;
Renfrew 1972: 291-96):

"On a purely regional basis, the early "palaces" functioned both as places for the
storage of surplus foodstuffs, and as organizers and facilitators of the exchange
of foodstuffs and other goods" (Palaima 1990).

17

From time to time, several attempts have been made to calculate in a more precise
fashion what percentage of the "palatial" compounds constituted storage areas for foodstuffs,
(Christakis
different
2004:
307;
Graham
1962: 129; Halstead 1981: 203;
results
albeit with
Moody 1987: 236-37). Despite the differences between these estimates, there remains the
consensusthat storage facilities were too extensive to have been designed just to provision
the local elite (residents?) and their retainers (Halstead 1981: 201). The possibility of
associating this surplus with a larger number of people has therefore been put forward as a
likely interpretive scenario.

This scenario has been professed to find further support in various sets of empirical
evidence. Reference has been made first of all by several scholars upon the information
deriving from survey projects, since the latter seemsto be pointing towards population
increase and settlement nucleation during the period of the emergence and subsequent
development of the "palaces" (Driessen 2001; Watrous 1994; Whitelaw 2001). "Territories"
have been "reconstructed" through this type of approach, by taking archaeological site
distributions to representrank-size distributions of centres and by looking for "naturally"
emerging distribution patterns of large (dominant) and smaller (subordinate) sites, from
be
influence
which spheresof political
could
ultimately deduced (Cherry 1987: 154). Each
"palace" is therefore taken to correspond with a "territory" [Plate 2.1]: for instance,
Knossos, a site which has presented a steady growth throughout the Neolithic and the Bronze
Age (Evans 1971; Hood 1958; Hood & Smyth 1981; Panagiotakis 2004; Whitelaw 2001,
2004a, 2004b), reachesits greatest size (ca. 75-112 ha.) during "palatial" times (Hood &
Smyth 1981: 8-10; Whitelaw 2004b: Figs. 10.7,10.8). A similar phenomenon of population
increase/concentration is suggestedfor the Malia region (Mller 1991,1992,1996,1998)
while a population increasehas also been recognized in the area around Phaistos, in the
Western Mesara (Watrous 1994; Watrous et al. 1993). It is important to note here that during
the sameperiod, the site of Phaistos is reported to measure "at least 0.90 x 1.0km in size"
(Watrous 1994: 736).

On the other hand, the writing systems of Linear A and (later) Linear B have been
taken to provide some further insights into the purpose of "palatial stores". Among the
ideograms most commonly appearing on the tablets are those for wheat, oil, barley, olives
and figs, which occur in that order already on the Linear A tablets of Aghia Triada (Renfrew
1972: 296). On the other hand, wheat, oil, olives and figs are already seen in the hieroglyphic
inscriptions of the Middle Minoan period. On the Knossos F series
several foodstuffs occur
in a constant order barley, figs, flour, oil, wine, honey (Palmer 1963: 237). According to
Renfrew, all the above suggestthat the tablets actually document
what the large food

18

"palatial"
lead
in
in
first
the
to
the
compounds
should
us
suspect
place; namely that
reserves
the "palace" constituted the pivot of "a massive redistributive operation" (Renfrew 1972:
296-97) involving mainly subsistencegoods but also other products (Olivier 1989;
Weingarten 1990,1994).

However,by acknowledging,as suggestedearlier [seeSection2.11,that the main

human concern is the sustenanceof autarky and self-sufficiency (especially as far as
subsistenceis concerned), how do we then end up with a situation where people seem to
depend for survival on a central mechanism? On what basis have these formal institutions
in
in
More
this
time?
this
area
and
emerged
at
particular
point
particular
effective
power
with
specifically, how is it that leadership (of centralized nature) now plays a dominant role in the
organization of agricultural production?

[2.31"The Emergenceof Civilization": The Early Bronze Age period in the Aegean
In the 1970s,Colin Renfrewattemptedto explainthe emergenceof "social
complexity" in the SouthernAegeanthroughhis ideaof "Mediterraneanpolyculture", a
concept which gave pride of place, within an array of potential technological, economic and
social factors, to the introduction and systematic exploitation of olive and grapevine in the

areaduring the early stagesof the BronzeAge (Renfrew 1972:480).

Accordingto Renfrew,the intensiveexploitationof this new spectnunof food plants
(notably tree crops) allowed the cultivation of marginal lands. This was taken to have led not
only to a dramatic increase in the carrying capacity of the land, but also to a population rise,
especially in areaswith limited fertile land such as the Southern Aegean (Renfrew 1972:
305). Given the character/nature of the terrain in Southern Greece, a single village in the
region would now have the potential of being within reach of both arable land and of the hill
slopes suitable for olive cultivation and viticulture. What was also taken to be important for
the village economy, in this respect, is that olive and vine would not compete for land with
cereals and would thus have required labour at periods other than those critical for
agriculture (Renfrew 1972: 481-2). Since the highly diverse landscape of Southern Greece
appearsto favour the cultivation of different crops in different areas (and/or times), it should
not come as a surprise that, at a certain point, agricultural activities would diversify and
in
result local specialization (Renfrew 1972: 305-6). According to Renfrew, diversification
and specialization in agricultural production would prompt and pose the need for an
authority to organize the exchange of different products from specialized units. This central

19

managerial authority, apparently a product of the need for "redistribution" (Polanyi 1980;
Sahlins 1958,1972; Service 1962), is what eventually became the Minoan/Mycenaean
"palatial" authority (Renfrew 1972: 307). The scenario that centralized redistributive
hierarchy evolved as an efficient means to distribute subsistencegoods among the locally
specialized communities also seemsto suggest that Bronze Age elites were in a way
for
the general well-being of their subjects (Halstead 1988: 523).
responsible

In the 1980s, the emphasis previously laid on the managerial skills of Bronze Age
elites came into dispute. Several researchers,notably Gilman (Gilman 1981,1991) and
Gamble (Gamble 1979,1981,1982), offered an alternative interpretation for the emergence
of "social complexity" in Bronze Age Aegean by attributing an exploitative and/or coercive
role to the elites. This contrasted with the managerial role for the common good, advocated
by Renfrew.

Gilman begins his argument by accepting the "Mediterranean polyculture"

hypothesis proposed by Renfrew but suggeststhat olive cultivation and viticulture would
have undoubtedly constituted a "capital-intensive subsistencetechnology" (Gilman 1981: 5)
since tree crops would have required a considerable amount of labour before they could be
actually brought to crop:

"Vine cuttings do not yield fruit until three years after they have been planted
but producefor generationsthereafter.Olives do not yield fruit for ten to fifteen
years after planting, come into full production some twenty years later, and
continueto give fruit for centuries.In the meantime,the treesmust be pruned,
the groundaroundthem plowed. In other words, the farmer must invest a lot of
work beforehe (or his heir) [sic] receivesa return" (Gilman 1981:6).
This large investment of work in long-lasting assets,which could not easily be
relinquished, would have a pronounced caging effect upon the communities (Childe 1951:
90). In other words, local populations would now be bounded to their land (Gilman 1981: 5).
On the other hand, the invaluable assetsof land would have to be somehow protected so that
future production could be secured. A hereditary ruling elite would thus have gradually
emerged out of this necessity, seizing the opportunity to exploit this protection of farmers
(Halstead 1988: 523):

"The investment of labour to ensure future production would have to be

defended.But the value of these sameassetswould dampenthe potential for
social friction, so that it would be difficult to check the aspirationsof those to
whom the defensehadbeenentrusted.In the faceof a protectorwhoseexactions
seemexcessive,the household'schoicesare limited and over the long term
...
consistentlyfavour the protectors.In the endtherewould be arisena permanent
ruling class" (Gilman 1981:7).

20

Advancing a similar case for the area/period in question, based on survey results
from the small Cycladic island of Melos, Clive Gamble discussesthe emergence of
leadership in the Bronze Age (once again) from the perspective of subsistenceorganization
(Gamble 1979,1982). According to his model, significant shifts in settlement pattern are
in
broader
Aegean
but
Southern
Middle
in
Melos
the
the
the
region
also
at
onset
of
attested
Bronze Age. They are marked by the transition from a pattern of small dispersed
farmsteads/settlementsto settlement nucleation and aggregation of population. For Gamble,
a major consequenceof this transformation would have been the change in use and
managementof agricultural resources. In particular, this is suggestedbecausethe integration
increased
have
into
dispersed
social
required
a wider
unit would
self-sufficient villages
of
labour costs in subsistenceagriculture and hence would have rendered self-sufficiency
unattainable:
"... an increase in travel time to agricultural plots and a possible fragmentation in
land holding would require greater labour inputs, if households were to maintain
the same subsistence patterns. We might expect therefore a change in the
management of agricultural resources in order to cope with this circumstance
and ensure the strategic goal of household and community self-sufficiency in
food items" (Gamble 1982: 101).

This shift could also have reflected a dependent relationship between a minor and
major partner in a system of alliance (Gamble 1982: 103). An essential component of this
model is the dominant role that a potential leadership could now play in the organization of
agricultural production. To begin with, elite groups might have been those who forced or
persuadedself-sufficient farmers to live in large settlements where a diversified subsistence
pattern was difficult. These very same leading groups might have aimed to encourage (and
maintain) a regime of specialization and surplus production, not only in order to prevent the
subsistenceself-sufficiency of households, but also in order to force the latter to continue to
look to the center for the coverage of their needs. In return, elite groups would also have
provided local populations "with a variety of benefits such as high status, ceremonial
participation and luxury items" (Gamble 1979: 131). Under these newly established
conditions, (previously self-sufficient) farmers would end up depending on the central
authority for their survival:

"Once villages becamedependentfor a part of their subsistenceneedson the

redistributive servicesof a central place, then the option of returning to their
former largely autonomousstatuswould be lessattractive" (Gamble1979:131).

An alternativeinterpretationfor the emergenceof centralizedauthority in the

Aegeanhasbeenofferedby PaulHalsteadand is more generallyknown asthe "social

21

(Halstead
1981,1988,1989,1990,1992;
hypothesis
storage"

Halstead & O'Shea 1982;

O'Shea 1981). This concept presupposesthat some inherent problems and risks in
heterogeneous
the
within
environment of the Southern Aegean are
agricultural production
factor.
Consequently,
development
the
an
ecological
as
of various risk
always present
buffering strategies would have been a common social responseto these risks (Halstead
1990).

Risk buffering mechanisms may range from direct storage to different forms of
indirect storage (Halstead 1988: 524). The latter are essential since the primitive storage
technologies of the Bronze Age would probably make this asset impractical and certainly
cannot insure against a run of bad years (Halstead 1988: 524). There are two main types of
indirect storage, "indirect storage in livestock" and "social storage through exchange or
feasting" (Halstead 1997: 106):

"Surplus grain can be fed to livestock and so converted to animal food -and in
this respect the sheepis particularly valuable because of the way it stores fat and
becauseit provides a fleece every year in return for delaying slaughter (Halstead
1987); alternatively, surplus grain can be given to needy neighbours in the
expectation that help will be reciprocated when circumstances are reversed"
(Halstead 1988: 524)

Social storage transactions may have operated on trust within small social groups,
but on a larger scale, food could also be exchanged against more durable tokens (craft goods
or even labour), whose possessionmay have conferred prestige (Halstead 1988: 525). These
tokens could be reconverted for food in times of need and so "provide a vehicle for vital
exchangesof food between a far wider network of communities than can be maintained by
direct, reciprocal relationships alone" (Halstead 1981: 192; O'Shea 1981). Here Halstead
also stressesthe possibility that the use of craft goods as exchange "tokens" could have been
the driving force behind the unusual growth of craft skills attested in the Southern Aegean
record during the Early Bronze Age (Halstead 1988: 525)

Over a long period of time in this heterogeneous

environment,somegroupswould
havebeen"net lenders"and others"net borrowers" (Halstead1988:525). In other words,the
continuouspressureof failed harvests,andthe extensiveuseof tokensin transactionswould
havepermittedthe sustainedaccumulation/manipulation
of wealth and power by certain
groups;for instance,successfulfarmerscould have reinforcedtheir (alreadyadvantageous)
position by making favourablemarriagesettlements,acquiring rights to labour and so on.
Their statuscouldhavebeenfurther strengthenedby the power of persuasionthroughtheir
apparentcapacityto mediatewith supernaturalforcesin orderto stopharvestfailure. From

22

this, it becomes evident that mechanisms of social storage, in a heterogeneous environment,

likely
lead
increasing
inequalities
Aegean,
Southern
to
to
the
are
of wealth, status
as
such
farmers
food
(because
in
Thus,
to
ensure
a
stable
supply
unsuccessful
seeking
and power.
have
farmers
the
to
paved
probably
starved),
early
subjugation
would
equality
preferring
is
hallmark
for
the
to
the
of social stratification
resources
which
unequal access
way
(Halstead 1989: 80).

[2.41 The "emergence of civilization":

The Early Bronze Age period in Crete

The morphology,soils and climate of Cretebear strongsimilaritiesto thoseof the

broaderSouthernAegeanregion and as such,they constitutethe essentialbackdropfor all
island
The
"endogenous-production
belonging
to
the
was
approach.
oriented"
models
initially an unevenlimestonesurface"which sufferedsevereand variablegeologicalchanges
(fractures,dislocations,upheavalsand subsidences)"(Hamilakis 1995:70); thesechanges
have given Crete the extremely diverse topography we seetoday:
"Even within very small distances, the landscape changes dramatically and
includes a great variety of local micro-environments. Areas of relative
few
limited
homogeneity
extent"
are
and
of
geographical and environmental
(Hamilakis 1995: 70).

Predominantly mountainous, with more than 50% of the land lying over 500m, the

island is by far the largestGreekisland andthe fifth largestin the Mediterranean,being

isthmus
lerapetra
from
12,5km
to
long,
breadth
250km
the
that
of
at
varies
about
with a
58km acrossthe Psiloriti massif(Cadogan1992:31). The mountainmassifsdivide Creteinto
four main regions,which correspondmore or lessto the presentfour vogoi (i.e. prefectures).
Accordingto Cadogan,theseare "the far west", with the White Mountains;"the nearwest"
"the
Lasithi
Psiloritis;
"the
between
Psiloritis
the
east",
and
mountains;
and
with
centre",
which may be divided into the Lassithimassifwith its hinterland(sometimesseenas with
the centre, sometimes as with the far east) and "the far east''beyond the Isthmus of lerapetra
and the Thryphti mountains (Cadogan 1992: 31). Given that the mountains dominate the
be
few
island
it
is
that
the
there
that
may
areas on
are only
scenery,
usually suggested
agriculturally exploited6.

6 Cretansoils are generallyconsideredpoor. Agronomistshave

statedthat only 7% of the island is of
prime agriculturalimportanceand 2/3 of this is in the Mesararegion (Allbaugh 1957:58).

23

The largestplain is the Mesarain the centreof the island on the southcoast(48km
long and 9-10km wide). Smaller alluvial plains include those of Khania as well as the coastal
from
(inland
Kissamos,
Herakleion
the
(around
town),
Rethymnon
the
modem
plains of
There
8).
Siteia
(Branigan
1988:
Knossos)
also
are
to
the
and
town
site
of
close
and
modem
(in
Lassithi
known
best
those
in
the
high
of
are
plains the mountain massifs of which
small
Crete,
(in
in
Psiloritis
Nidha
850m)7,
island,
the
central
range
altitude ca
the east part of the
1050m),
Crete,
(in
West
Mountains
in
White
Omalos
1390m),
the
ca
altitude
altitude ca
Askifou in the White Mountains (altitude ca 670m), Katharo in the Dikti mountains (East
Crete, altitude ca 1100m) and Handras-Ziros (in the Siteia district of East Crete, altitude ca
500 m) (Hamilakis 1995: 71). Between 600 and 1400m altitude, these plateaux constitute a
important
landscape
Cretan
feature
several
and may actually present
of the
special
from
an agricultural point of view8.
advantages

In termsof climatic conditionsit could be saidthat generallyspeaking,Cretehas a

Mediterraneanclimate;however,its shape,insularity and diversetopographyresult in rather
idiosyncraticclimatic conditionsand a great climatic variability (Hamilakis 1995:72). The
"wann
hand,
divided;
is
the
island
and
the
of
rainy season winter,
one
on
sharply
yearon the
is
33)
1996:
&
Moody
the time of activity and growth, whereason
frosty"
(Rackham
seldom
dead
is
the
is
"hot,
dry
season"
arid, relentlesslysunnyand
the other,the
seasonof summer
(Rackham& Moody 1996:33). This roughdistinction more or lessdescribesa typical
Crete
few
in
typical.
bear
island
but
that
are
seasons
very
mind
oneneedsto
seasonon the
in
be
from
the
to
large
to
case
also
thereforeexhibits
place placeas seems
climatic variations
the
The
1994).
(Halstead
Aegean'
Southern
on
conditions
environmental
the
otherareasof
islandof Creteserveas a point of departurefor the developmentof Renfrew's "subsistence"redistribution"" model,Halstead's"social storage"hypothesisand in more implicit fashion,
Although
Section
2.3].
[see
these
Gamble
by
Gilman
interpretations
the
and
proposed
important
"social
for
complexity", several
the emergenceof
conditionsare seenasthe pivot
interpretive
by
being
schemata
employed all aforementioned
empiricalobservationsare also
The Lassithiplain is the biggestflat areain the islandandis situated850mhigherup in the
&
(Rackham
by
higher
by
is
is
5
5km
It
mountains
about
and surroundedon all sides
mountains.
Moody 1996:27).
$ By being in the mountains,theseplateauxenjoy a higher precipitationthan the lowland areas
(Hamilakis 1995:70). They alsocontaindeepsoil which is the productof erosionfrom the
Also
70-71).
1995:
(Hamilalds
hills
the
the
calcareousmassif
and of
weatheringof
surrounding
humansettlementsaroundtheseplateaux(especiallyat their edges)offer the advantageof exploiting
different ecologicalzones(Hamilakis 1995:71).

9 "In the NW lowland areasthe mean temperature does not usually exceed 25 C.in summer and 1011 C in winter. In the mountain areas of central Crete (Anogeia, ca 800 m altitude), where data are
available, these figures are 20-22 C and 6-9 C respectively (Mariopoulos 1938: 20). In the SE areas
like lerapetra, temperatures may rise to 40-42 C or more in summer but they very rarely drop below
10 C in winter" (Hamilakis 1995: 72-73).

24

in order to demonstrate how the first signs of social differentiation are reflected on the
archaeological record.
The first important observation made by several scholars is that the Early Bronze
Age in Crete is not only a period of settlement expansion but also a time when a (gradual?)
tendency towards settlement nucleation is attested (Branigan 2001; Driessen 2001: 59; Shaw
2003; Watrous 1994: 701; Whitelaw 2001: 140,2004a, 2004b). What we see however is not
1983:
larger
(Whitelaw
337-339);
development
more
sites
of
smaller
and
a
simply
importantly, it has been argued that large sites seem to suggest considerably more elaborate
forms of social organization (Whitelaw 1983,2001,2004a). Examples here include Mochlos
(Whitelaw 1983: 337-339,2004a: 236-242, Fig. 13.2), Knossos (Hood & Smyth 1981; Shaw
2003: 239-241; Warren 2004; Whitelaw 1983: 337-339; 2004a: 243,2004b: 153, Fig. 10.7),
Phaistos (Driessen 2001: 57; Shaw 2003: 239-241; Watrous et. al. 1993: 224-225) and Malia
(Driessen 2001: 57,60, Fig. 4.2; van Effenterre 1980: 83-94; Pelon 1989,1991,1993;
Poursat & Darque 1993; Shaw 2003: 239-241; Whitelaw 1983: 338-339,2004a: Fig. 13.3);
largeris
is
those
that
to
the
of
most
above observations
what also emphasized with respect
1994;
following
(Shaw
Watrous
in
2003;
develop
into
"palatial"
the
period
centers
scale sites
Whitelaw 1983,2004a).

Another feature of the Early Minoan period which has been taken to reflect social
inequality derives from the burial record. The cemeteries of Mochlos (Seager 1909,1912;
Soles 1992a, 1992b) Goumia (Boyd-Hawes 1905a, b, Boyd-Hawes et al. 1908; Hall 1905,
1912; Soles 1979,1992a) Malia (Chapouthier & Charbonneaux 1928; Chapouthier &
Demargne 1942; Chapouthier et al. 1962; Chapouthier & Joly 1936; Demargne 1945;
Deshayes & Dessenne 1959; van Effentere 1980; van Effenterre & van Effenterre 1976) as
have
1924),
Xanthoudides
1970,1993;
(Branigan
Mesaran
tombs
tholos
several
well as
been
have
for
taken to suggest the emergence of
yielded evidence which
many scholars
imported
(Soles
1988,1992a).
Those
tombs
materials
of
a
array
present
wide
ranking
social
and goods (such as gold and silver jewellery, fine ceramic forms and copper artefacts) as
in
form.
For
Halstead
in
their
particular, this
as
a
considerable
well
elaboration
architectural
"wealth" has to be explained as the result of the exchange of food against more durable
tokes, whose possessionmay confer prestige (Halstead 1981: 192). We mentioned earlier
that according to Halstead, eventually these networks could have been predisposed "to
simplification through centralization at a sufficiently intensive level" and that his notion of
"social storage" could ultimately constitute a factor "favouring the concentration of
population or the development of centralized "redistribution" under a managerial elite"
(Halstead 1981: 192).

25

[2.5] Conclusions

The "endogenous/production-oriented" approach establishes an understanding of

society on the basis of the natural resources available to this society and the manner in which
these resourcesare distributed amongst the members of society. Changes in the type, degree
of availability and management of agricultural resources (in terms of availability and/or
type) affect the ways whereby the former are distributed within the social unit. Although
people aim towards autarky, this process of change leads -gradually and inevitably- to more
forms
by
control
over
and
of
resources
extension, to the emergence and
centralized
development of hierarchical societies [see Section 2.1]. The "palaces" represent a
conjuncture at which the distinctive elements of inequality began to crystallize in Minoan
Crete. In particular, it is suggestedthat the large concentrations of agricultural surplus in the
"palatial" edifices testify the existence of some form of centralized authority [see Section
2.2]. A wide array of interpretations has been put forward in order to shed light on the
processesthat lead to the concentration of surplus in the hands of the few. In most models,
emphasis appearsto be laid on the environmental conditions of the wider Southern Aegean
ecosystemduring the Early Bronze Age period and on the ways those may have affected the
living conditions of local communities (including Cretan communities). It is argued that the
inherent characteristics of a heterogeneousenvironment (i. e. Southern Aegean, Crete)
necessitatedthe development of strategies in agricultural management, which favoured
increasing inter-dependence [see Section 2.3]. Whether by choice or for reasonsbeyond
people's immediate control, increasing inter-dependence eventually led to the establishment
of centralized control over agricultural surplus. The Minoan "palaces" are seen as the direct
outcome of this process.

26

WJ

Constructing

the "palace"

question:
The "exogenous/consumption-oriented"
approach

[3.1] Principles for understanding (past) human life

We have seen so far that the "endogenous/production-oriented" approach

concentrateson the investigation of internal dynamics of developmental change [see Chapter
Two]. Its endogenous character is reflected by the fact that it tends to emphasize ecological
factors, accessto land resources and technologies of land management as mechanisms with
which to explain historical trajectories [see Section 2.3]. By way of contrast, the
"exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach, which is examined in this section, advocates
that no society can be understood in complete isolation from its neighbours (Stein 1999: 154)
and consequently contact with the outside ought to be perceived as the main factor
explaining socio-historical developments and transformations. Following what Sherratt has
termed a "diffusionist"/"interventionist"

form of historical explanation (Sherratt 1993a: 1),

interpretive models belonging to this schema should be expected to underscore the role and
contribution of outside contacts, trade and the dissemination of ideologies in understanding
socio-political development and history.

As far asthe Aegeanis concerned,this diffusionist view may be first seenin the
writings of Childe on early civilizations (including the Minoan/Mycenaean"civilizations")
duringthe early stagesof the 20th century(Childe 1925,1929). Childe's conceptionalso
drew upon the ideathat humanexistenceis characterizedby its continuousstrugglefor
survival (Childe 1950:2). However,and by way of contrastto the "endogenous/productionoriented"approach,this intellectualtradition doesnot limit itself to a view of "culture" and

27

"cultural change" that strictly refers to the relationship between people and "ecosystem";
instead,
is
(Thomas
forwards
it
"culture"
1996).
more
mentalist
a
understanding
of
puts
what

Moving beyond Kossina's famous scheme of things which promoted racial

distinction and genetic determinism' through his conception of "culture" (Trigger 1989a),
Childe has suggestedthat the latter corresponds with a specific group of people, or rather
constitutes a set of characteristics which define this group of people, "including everything
from technology to religion" (Friedman 1994: 67).

"Culture and race do not coincide...there are no groundsfor assumingthat the

creatorsor bearersof a culture were alwaysa singlerace,all of whosemembers
shareddistinctivegeneticcharacteristics"(Childe 1950: 1).
"Culture is a social heritage; it correspondsto a community sharing common
traditions, common institutions and a common way of life. Such a group may
reasonablybe called a people...It is then a peopleto which the culture of an
for
be
If
the
adjective
people,we may see
must
correspond.
ethnic
archaeologist
that prehistoricarchaeologyhas a goodhopeof establishingan ethnic history of
Europe,while a racial one seemshopelesslyremote" (Childe 1935: 198-199).
This assumption was based on a normative conception of "culture"; that within a
forms
ideational
beliefs
to
tend
to
or
conform
prescriptive
given group cultural practices and
"culture"
is
is
based
Such
behaviour.
the
that
assumption
on
a conceptualization
rules of
made up of a set of shared ideas or beliefs, which are maintained by regular interaction
within a group, and by the transmission of shared cultural norms to subsequent generations
through the process of socialization. Once lodged in the mind, "cultural" ideas are unlikely
to be transformed: they continue to serve as a template for material production throughout
the individual's life, and are kept in place by the "dead-weight of conservatism" (Childe
1936: 30). This results in a continuous, cumulative "cultural tradition", i. e. regular patterns
of material association (Childe 1956); in archaeology, this definition of "culture" is precisely
what is taken to provide the link between (past) material culture and people:

' The nameof the Germanphilologist andprehistorianGustafKossina,is inextricablytied to the

practiceof ethnic interpretationin Germanarchaeology.Kossinadevelopedan ethnic approachwhich
he called"settlementarchaeology"."Settlementarchaeology"wasbasedon the axiom that "in all
periods,sharplydelineatedarchaeological"culture areas"coincidewith clearly recognizablepeoples
or tribes" (ascited in Childe 1956:28). "Cultures" were definedon the basisof materialculturetraits
associatedwith sitesin a particularregion,and at a particulartime, and it was assumedthat cultural
continuity indicatedethnic continuity. On the basisof his methodologyhe claimedthat it was possible
to identify major ethnic groups,suchasthe Germans,the Slavsand the Celts,in prehistoryon the
basisof "culture provinces",while individual "cultures" correspondwith tribes, suchas the Vandals
andthe Lombards(Trigger 1989a:165).

28

"Generationafter generationhas followed society's prescription and produced

and reproducedin thousandsof instancesthe socially approvedstandardtype.
An archaeologicaltype is just that" (Childe 1956:8).
It is clear that Childe regarded "culture" as a conservative phenomenon. According
to Thomas, this theoretical stance could be seen as embodying a notion of "exteriorization"
(Thomas
"interiorization"
1996: 24). This is suggestedbecause Childe argues on
as
as well
the one hand, that gradual changes in the material record should be attributed to internal drift
in the prescribed "cultural" norms of a particular group, whereas on the other, he states that
sudden large-scale changeswould have to be explained in terms of external influences. A
high degree of homogeneity in material culture would thus have to be regarded as the
product of regular contact and interaction, whereas discontinuities in the distribution of
material culture, as the result of social and/or physical distance. Put simply, continuities in
the flow ought to be seen as a product of contact and interaction, while discontinuities a
product of distance and separation (Jones 1997: 24-26).

The above demonstrate that Childe accorded a restricted degree of autonomy to

material culture (Renfrew 1979: 9). Only a few particularly creative groups were capable of
generating internal cultural change and innovation under these conditions, either because of
their inherent biological and/or "cultural" characteristics or because of their environmental
circumstances. In a sense,Childe's view tended to underplay human creativity, implying that
any cultural innovation would be unlikely to be invented more than once in world history
(Thomas 1996: 23). It is from this point of departure that Childe finally reached the
conclusion that the "dawn of European civilization" should be traced in the areas of Near
East and Egypt (Childe 1925).

One might distinguish here an implicit understanding of "culture" as a unitary

phenomenon in which the different peoples of the world would have a particular rank,
according to their more or less developed "culture" (Friedman 1994: 67). In the case of
Minoan "palaces" for example, civilization would have come about as a result of a string of
contacts, with the aforementioned "creative centres", namely Egypt and the Near East.
Radical changes would have occurred in the Aegean system (and by extension Crete)
"following the introduction of new customs (and artefacts) from outside" (Renfrew 1972:
477-478) [see also Section 3.2]. Childe's view of the transference of "civilization", to
secondaryand tertiary "centres" (such as the Aegean and Crete), implies the adoption of a
whole series of innovations, most of these being activity patterns already well established in
the primary "centre" (Childe 1927). It becomes obvious from the above that the receipt of

29

new ideas or processesfrom outside is of fundamental importance for Childe's interpretive

is
broadly
known as diffusionist theory.
constitutes
what
schemaand

Recently, all these ideas found their way back into current thinking, through the
introduction of "world-systems" theory, a model developed by Immanuel Wallerstein and its
followers in order to explain the emergence and current state of the "modem" world
(Wallerstein 1974). According to Wallerstein, a "Great Transformation/Divide" in human
history occurred during the sixteenth century AD with the emergence of the "modem worldsystem", namely the capitalist world economy (Kohl 1989: 218); this "transformation" is
is
divide
human
history
into
"pre-modem" and "modem" epochs
taken
to
commonly
what
(Giddens 1984). The basis of Wallerstein's synthesis was the idea that whatever small
technological and organizational advantage Europe may have possessedup until the end of
the 15th century, it was turned into a much greater superiority by the West's exploitation of
from
the 16th century onwards:
non-western peripheries

"Peripheral areas were primary product-exporting regions, at first in eastern

Europe and South America, whose economies and societies were subordinated
by the power of the Western (or core) states' arms and markets. Drawing off the
periphery's resources enriched the capitalist core and allowed it to increase its
sphere of control throughout the world. This simultaneously retarded and
impoverished the periphery and forced its development into social and political
paths that made technological and economic dynamism difficult, if not
impossible. To Proudhon's "property is theft", Wallerstein added in effect, that
capitalist progress is theft on a global scale" (Ragin & Chirot 1984: 276-277).

It becomes evident from the above that the single social system that Wallerstein
identified was not merely a loose collection of capitalist nation-states, but a unique and
encompassing economic entity spanning continents and polities. This is not to say that
smaller-scale units (i. e. nation-states, "regions", "cities") are irrelevant to world-system
analysis and in fact, Wallerstein incorporates such concepts in his analytical programme.
What distinguishes his approach, however, is the fact that the employment of the above
concepts servesto illustrate general features of the world system. The similarities and
differences between smaller units are not interesting in their own right. They are identified
only as a way to demonstrate the nature of the world system as a whole (Ragin & Chirot
1984: 286).

From this concept of the "world-system" a new political perspective could now be
seento emerge which proposed a somewhat modified version of Marxism by viewing classes
as "transnational actors" (Ragin & Chirot 1984: 277). Within these total systems,
asymmetrical relations could be reproduced between different social configurations

30

localities.
As
initially
different
in
geographical
conceptualized, these asymmetries
operating
been
has
in
"core"
that
to
particular
communities
where
wealth
operated accumulate wealth
derived from the exploitation of "peripheral" and dependant regions (Barrett 1998: 13):

"The modem world system is characterized by a highly complex global division

of labour that results in major regional differences: some areasbecome exporters
of primary resources, while others produce and successfully market industrial
but
is
The
different
not
symmetrical
exchange
regions
uniting
products.
culturally weighted or tipped in favour of the politically more powerful and
technologically advanced core states of the West. The exchange relations that
develop are thus beneficial to the core areas and detrimental to the peripheries,
by
(Kohl
"underdeveloped"
these
relations"
are
exploited
or
essentially
which
1989: 219).

To sharpenthis imagery of the European capitalist system, Wallerstein contrasted

his conception of the "world economy" with the concept of the "world empire" by
different
back
"extending
latter
in
to the
times
that
the
at
existed various places
suggesting
dawn of history or the beginnings of state societies" whereas the former is actually a unique
"that
has
developed
(Kohl
1989:
500
European
the
over
past
years"
product of
civilization
218.). Wallerstein makes this distinction even more explicit by stating that political empires
are a primitive means of economic domination with the political centralization of an empire
being at one and the sametime its strength and weakness. By contrast, the social
achievement of the "modem" world is to have invented "the technology that makes it
possible to increasethe flow of the surplus from the lower strata to the upper strata, from the
periphery to the centre, from the majority to the minority by eliminating the "waste" of too
1974:
(Wallerstein
15-16).
a
structure"
cumbersome political

To an extent echoing aspects of the substantivist strand in what Frank once called
the "ancient economy" debate (Frank 1993: 385-386)2, Wallerstein believed that
prehistorians, as well as ancient and medieval historians should not be constrained or
influenced by the "world-system" concept (Kohl 1989: 218). It seemsthat he also insisted
upon the "agrarian base" of the ancient world and recognized that the scale of its production
and exchange activities was incomparably miniscule relative to "modem times". According
to Kohl however, such distinctions between the "modem" and the "premodern" may
undoubtedly be meaningful and illuminate real differences but at the same time they hardly
ever describe distinctive phenomena (Kohl 1989: 221), they should not be viewed as

2 The debatebetweentheformalist
andthe substantivistschoolof economicthought climaxedin the
late 1960s."Formalists" arguedin favour of the existence/operation
of "pure" economicsystemsin
the pastwhereasthe substantiviststreatedthe "economic" as embeddedin other dimensionsof past
sociallife (Herzfeld2001: 90).

31

"ghettoised" concepts, in other words, restricted only to particular sets of observations

(Sherratt 1995: 5).

Kohl proceedsby arguingthat eventhough it is practically impossibleto denythat

"modem"
industrial
in
differs
fundamentally
from
formations
the
those
age
social
capitalism
history
important
be
humanity,
the
of
earliest
of
aspects
can
still
of
continuity
characteristic
traced,and asin the aforementioned,unresolvedsubstantivist-formalistcontroversy,a
position that altogether rejects any correspondencesbetween capitalist and pre-capitalist or
Western and non-Western societies, often tends to "distort our vision of the present and
idealize that of the past" (Kohl 1989). In sum, the search for the divide between "modem"
if
be
"pre-modem"
times
arbitrary,
not counter-productive:
can particularly
and

"It is dangerous to fence off the past in this way. More broadly, we could
include as examples of this danger any mode of thinking which assumes that
people in the remote past were only concerned with calories, and therefore that
other achievements such as ... trade... must come after some calorific advance.
This form of periodization is a major source of misinterpretation" (Sherratt
1995: 5).

Despite all doubts and reservations, the idea that archaeology can have a special role
in developing "world-systems theory" has therefore begun to gain ground amongst the
members of the archaeological community. A series of studies on prehistoric world-systems
have been (and continue to be) produced advocating that the analytical power of the concept
is contingent upon general features inherent in all periods of social reproduction. Perhaps
more importantly, a number of archaeologists have also undertaken the difficult task of
reshaping world-systems theory to make it more applicable to non-capitalist, non Western
societies (Champion 1989; Chase-Dunn 1992; Chase-Dunn & Hall 1991a, 1991b; Frank
1993; Kardulias 1999; Peregrine & Feinman 1996; Rowlands et al. 1987; Schortman &
Urban 1992; Sherratt 1993a, 1993b, 1995; Sherratt & Sherratt 1991).

To grasp fully the significance of Wallerstein's world-system perspective for

archaeological analysis, it is necessaryto contrast it with its main competitor, the
endogenousperspective. The defining feature of the latter is its view of change as an
endogenetic process [see Section 2.1], for world-systems theory however, a shift of emphasis
is required towards features relating to interaction and exchange, among disparate societies
at different levels of cultural development:

"Whether one prefersto refer to "peer polity", "cluster" or someother form of

inter-societal interaction (Renfrew 1982a) the basic fact
remains that the
development...of any society is dependent upon its
relations with other

32

fail
that
that
that
cultures
are
open,
not
closed,
systems;
and
studies
societies;
...
to consider broad patterns of interaction are necessarily incomplete and partial.
A boundary problem, in short, exists for prehistory that is every bit as real as
that which besets later historical studies or analyses of the contemporary world"
(Kohl 1989: 218).

Suchan approachthereforesetsas its point of departurea broaderanalyticalunit

from that proposed by the "endogenous/production-oriented" approach. What holds this unit
together and securesits integration is a "core" point on the map and its relation to the
"peripheries" developing around it. In our case,the core area is to be found in the Near East
in
(mentioned
implies
is
basically
to
the
this
our
on
also earlier
premise
a return
and what
discussion of diffusionism) that a society, which is more advanced (i. e. the Near East) will at

Aegean/Crete):
including
its
(essentially
the
a certainpoint affect surroundings
"... the picture I am proposing...suggestscontinuousinnovation, even if under
the stimulus of an original event which happenedelsewhere.It was not just a
"package"which was "spreading" and was "accepted"or "rejected" in different
areas: it was more like a chain reaction, creating certain zones of similarity
becauseof the logic to their position in the chain" (Sherratt1993b:246).

In effect, all partsof the world system(andtheir transformationthrough time) can

is
(Hall
1999:
7).
The
in
be
to
the
also
reverse
system as a whole
only
understood relation
taken to hold and by this is meant that the system is also constructed/informed by processes
it
is
(Hall
1999:
5-7).
In
light
in
its
the
the
of
above
constituent components3
and changes
therefore claimed that any such system is a "world" in the sensethat constitutes a selfin
labour
1974:
15)
is
break
division
(Wallerstein
that
the
there
and
a
sharp
of
contained
from
If
(Hall
1999:
8).
interactions
levels
those
the
the
system
with
outside
relative
of
within
this "globalization" however is not simply reduced to macro-economic forms and processes,
it should be taken to mean first and foremost the extension of social relations and the
interconnection of social contexts across time and space.This in turn implies forms of "local
transformation", as locale and locality become the site of intersecting distanciated social
relations (Giddens 1984: 64,108-109). It is precisely under this spectrum that Robertson has
suggestedthe conceptualization of the dialectical phenomenon of local globalization and
global localization as "glocalization", so that "the local is not best seen, at least as an
analytical interpretive departure point, as a counterpoint to the global" (Robertson 1995). He
advocates instead that it should be regarded, "subject to some qualifications, as an aspect of
globalization" (Robertson 1995: 28ff).

3 "... if thereis a "system" to the world-system,evenif it is "ramshackle

affair" its processesand
a
dynamicsshouldbe manifestedin someform everywherein the system,evenon its far peripheries"
(Hall 1999:5).

33

But how would this happen, and why? This is where world-systems theory provides
it
by
decentering
does
than
cultural-historical
approaches
account
and
so
a more specific
in
in
favour
of
consumption,
other words by breaking the main assumption of the
production
"production-oriented" approach. We mentioned earlier that the "endogenous/productionis
dominated
by
form
focuses
around the pole
a
of understanding, which
oriented" approach
[see
latter
basis
the
the
that
socio-historical
existence
claims
serves
as
of
of production and
Section 2.1]. This framework of thought treats consumption as unproblematic, as the
basis
"rational
the
the
the
their
consumer
as
and
of
of
goods
on
utility
value
acquisition
&
Lucas
2001:
decisions
basis
(Buchli
"rational"
the
these
given
needs
on
of
making
man",
21).

Despite various forays into issues of consumption throughout this century from
Veblen
Weber
1930),
Veblen,
Simmel
Weber
(Simmel
1978;
1925;
the
such
as
and
writers
in
field
the 1970s and 1980s
emerged only
study of consumption as a problematic
(Appadurai 1986; Barthes 1973,1977; Bourdieu 1984; Hebdige 1993; Miller 1995,1998).
Perhapsthe earliest critic of consumption was Georges Bataille, who was sought to
challenge the notion that economies worked on a basis of finite or limited resources [see
Section 2.1] and argued instead that social and historical structures are defined on the basis
of excessrather than scarcity (Bataille 1998). Cultural life is ultimately characterized by how
societies deal with the problem of excess(Turner & Rojek 2001: 7). The notion that
consumption, as a means of dealing with excessrather than defined by utility and need was
taken up by Baudrillard who has pushed the idea to its limit by claiming that needs are not
given but socially and culturally created; in other words, that objects are not inherently
useful but can indeed become whatever we want them to be (Baudrillard 1998). In a similar
vein, Douglas and Isherwood have suggestedthat it should be standard practice to assume
that all material possessionscarry meanings and to analyse their use as communicators
(Douglas & Isherwood 1979). In general terms, it could be said that this gradual realization
of the potentials of the concept of consumption stems from the fact that "modem" societies
are characterized by the strongly rooted belief that to have is to be (Dittmar 1992). This is
related to the privileging of a relationship between individuals and things in terms of
possession. According to Lury, the emergenceand growth of this preference seemsto be tied
up with the rise of individualism and mass consumer society, which are in turn seen to have
led people to define themselves and others in terms of the things they possess (Lury 1996: 7).
Indeed, most people describe possessionsas aspects of the self or
what Baudrillard has once
termed Ego consumans (Baudrillard 1998: 85). Conversely, several scholars have argued, a
potential loss of these possessionsis often experienced as a personal violation and a
lessening of the self. It is in this context that possessionshave
come to serve as key symbols

34

of personal qualities, attachments and interests (Turner & Rojek 2001: 7). Dittmar sums up
this view in the following quote:

"[I]n western materialistic societies an individual's identity is influenced by

...
the symbolic meaningsof his or her own material possessions,
and the way in
which s/he relates to those possessions.Material possessionsalso serve as
expressionsof group membershipand as meansof locating othersin the socialmaterial environment. Moreover, material possessionsprovide people with
information aboutotherpeoples'identities (Dittmar 1992:205).
By this premise, Dittmar seeksto put forward the idea that consumption decisions
emergethrough a variety of social practices and classifications ; people can therefore be
"irrational, superstitious, traditionalist or experimental" in their material choices (Douglas &
Isherwood 1979: 36). Seenunder this spectrum, consumption decisions become a vital
in
"culture"
(Douglas & Isherwood 1979: 37). People who belong to a
source negotiating
particular "culture" see it change in the course of their lives. "Culture" evolves and people
in
this change, with consumption constituting the main arena in which
an
active
part
play
"culture" is fought over and licked into shape (Douglas & Isherwood 1979: 37,49).

In an attempt to push this deconstruction of "need" and "utility" one step further, a
number of scholars have sought to extend the aforementioned ideas also to non-capitalist
societies. For Appadurai as well as Douglas and Isherwood, consumption as a practice
should apply both to so-called "traditional" and "modem societies" (Appadurai 1986;
Douglas & Isherwood 1979). Douglas and Isherwood in particular suggest that the
application of this approach reveals that there are similarities in the ways in which all
societies (i. e. "traditional" and "modem") make meaning through the use of material goods
(Douglas & Isherwood 1979: 12). For instance, archaeology is taken to have demonstrated
effectively and repeatedly that materials and ideas moved, sometimes in quantity and often
over long distances, long before what we could conventionally think of as markets or
capitalist rationality" (Sherratt 1995: 5). As Miller suggests,in situations where an alienation
from production can be attested (a casenow made as we said, not only for "modem" but also
"traditional" societies), consumption becomes the prime means for forging
a relationship
with the world (Miller 1995: 17). In this manner, archaeology could demonstrate the uses of
past material culture in social signalling, "using new media to enhancethe presentation and
significance of the body in past forms of social interaction, by means of cosmetics, perfumes,
ornaments and clothing" (Sherratt 1995: 14). This understanding of past consumption shifts
attention "from staples to exotics" (Sherratt 1995), an aspect that Wallerstein chose not to
develop in his theory of the "modem world-system" but
nevertheless one that archaeologists
have employed extensively in their analysis of past
world-systems (Friedman 1982;

35

Kristiansen 1987; Peregrine 1996). The demand for "exotics" and in general new modes of
intensification
both
local
"lead
of
to
drive
trading
eventually
which
activities,
consumption
1995:
(Sherratt
for
the
emergence of wider systemic structures"
exchange and to
production
14, my emphasis).
is
"exogenous/consumption-oriented"
approach, power
For the proponents of the
is
It
from
derive
to
resources.
bound to
the very access and control of such material
is
"other",
the
facilitates
has,
the
who
one
of
the
provision
that
or
who
person
professed
in
introduced
is
the
"consumption"
how
is
This
the
term
high
after all,
status.
acquires
is
"conspicuous
key
Veblen's
Veblen.
Thornstein
concept
literature through the writings of
for
important
becomes
this
term
how
but
1925),
this
(Veblen
an
to
understand
consumption"
Veblen
discussion
that
brief
term
begin
made
another
to
of
a
with
need
approach, we
famous, namely "conspicuous leisure". Veblen argues that what he calls the "leisure class"
To
its
initially
property.
of
private
developed
through
predatory acquisition and ownership
in
described
has
Veblen
25)
1925:
(Veblen
honour
became
and
a mark of
own property
detail how this developed into a struggle for pecuniary emulation. The process was
In
display
by
however,
to
to
further,
the need
others one's pecuniary strength.
complicated
hold
the
in
itself
to
to
and
gain
means
a
sufficient
to
not
other words, possesswealth was
had
display
To
to
one's pecuniary strength.
one
esteem,
win
respect and esteemof others.
"Conspicuous leisure", according to Veblen, became the principal means to openly display
honour
by
In
conspicuously
one's
one's wealth and status. other words, one communicated

increasing
The
leisure
1999:
36-42).
(Storey
from
class's
useful work
absentingoneself
itself
To
becoming
honorific.
in
from
engage
productivework resulted exemption
exemption
in productivework on the other hand,becamegenerallya sign of inferior status:
"Elegant dressservesits purposeof elegancenot only in that it is expensive,but
is
It
leisure.
it
is
insignia
because
that
the
the
able
not
only
shows
of
wearer
also
to consumea relatively large value, but it argues at the same time that he
consumeswithout producing(Veblen 1925: 171).

The aboveview about consumptionandpower is basedupon certainkey

The
both
human
the
and
motive
nature
of
societies.
motivation
concerning
assumptions
behind much human activity is emulation and the end sought by wealth accumulation is to
In
(Veblen
31).
high
in
1925:
the
a sense,
a
given
community
comparison
of
rank
with
rest
this view appears "to make pride and its companion envy, the root causesof human action"
(Campbell 1989: 36-37). Clearly, if consumption is seen as a manifestation of a competitive
striving for the scarce commodity of high status, then it would also appear as if one has also
provided an answer to the problem of the source of its dynamic. Not surprisingly therefore,

36

have
"Veblen
to
the
term
come
employ
economists
effects" to refer to phenomena which are
not explicable within the parameters of utility theory (Campbell 1989).

Taking all the above into consideration, how should we understand the contribution
of the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach to archaeological analysis? According to
this approach what needsto be acknowledged first of all is that "endogenous" approachesare
Emphasis
has
to be given instead to contact and interaction
nor
adequate.
neither effective
and this implies that consumption and exchange (and their developmental trajectory) have to
be placed at the centre of analytical enquiry'. Under this alternative analytical schema,
exchange will therefore not be taken to constitute the last resort for the viability of a bounded
social system (Snodgrass 1991) but rather what lies at the heart of human history and
development (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991; Broodbank 2000a).

A second issue that should concern us would be to understand how the

"exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach sets out to explore the issue of "social
complexity" and the emergence of centralized authority in Minoan Crete. To answer this
question, the approach lays special emphasis on the mechanisms whereby the Aegean and
Crete in particular, are introduced to a wider socio-political system (i. e. the Orient) and the
reasonsbehind the development of exchange relations between the two areas.What is also of
central importance for this approach is to explore different patterns of accessto this network
of interaction. The need to do so relates to the assumption that varying degrees of accessmay
then be taken to correspond to varying forms of social authority.

An implicit assumption of the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach is that

uneven distribution of power refers to the placing of the consumers at the highest level of
social status and the producers at the lowest. Although there is a sharp contrast between the
number of consumers and that of producers, the system nevertheless managesto operate
effectively becauseeven the lowest in status recognize that power stems from the distinction
drawn between those who have and those who have not (Turner & Rojek 2001: 7). What this
implies is that the system is dynamic (rather than static) because those
all
(communities/peoples) that are lower in status will wish and aim to
achieve higher status
through the acquisition of goods. The need to acquire, as a constant source of motivation
(perhaps to an extent the "Veblen effect" that we described above) implies that
at any point
in the history of the system, what might once have acted
as a "periphery" might become a
4 "Without constant giving
and taking.. no society would have come into existence. For giving is not
.
all a mere effect of one person upon another, it is precisely what is required of a sociological function:
it is interaction" (Simmel 1958: 44 cited in Berking 1999: 31)

37

"semi-periphery", what might once have been a "margin" might be transformed into a
"periphery". In a sense,all sub-parts of the system are therefore aiming to be part of a more
These
group.
socially assigned (rather than "real") needs secure a sense
exclusive consumer
for
dynamic
the entire system.
equilibrium
of

[3.21 What is a "palace"?

"We see in fact, the more or less simultaneous introduction into the island
at various points of an already stereotyped model.
That this model was derived from an Eastern source is a reasonable conclusion"
(Evans 1928: 269).

In the first half of the 20th century,many scholarsattributedthe rise of "palatial"

civilization on Crete to intense foreign influence from Egypt and the Levant (Evans 1921;
Pendlebury 1939; Xanthoudides 1924). Although a substantial number of recent studies on
this subject views the establishment of the Cretan "palaces" as a local development (in
reaction to earlier claims) [see Chapter Two], we still find scholars who maintain the central
thesis that signs of Near Eastern and Egyptian influence on Crete are extensive and start to
appear on the island as early as the late "prepalatial" period (Broodbank 2000a; Hiller 1987;
Kopcke 1987; Sherratt 2000; Sherratt & Sherratt 1991; Warren 1987,1994; Wiener 1987).

Beginningwith architecture,it hasbeensuggestedthat while someof the "palatial"

features(i.e. light well, exterior court, storagemagazines)may derive from Early Bronze
Age Crete,the characteristicswhich distinguishthe structurearenew to the island.To begin
with, the generalorganizationarounda centralcourt doesresemblethat of Near Eastern
"palaces", for instance, the "palace" at Mari in Syria (Warren 1987: 69) [Plate 3.1]. In
addition, there are other resemblancesof a general nature such as the use of "different
quarters of the "palaces" for specific purposes (storage, work, worship, residence etc)
(Graham 1962: 232). Certain general methods of construction are also shared such as the use

of ashlarorthostatesfor example(Watrous 1987:69).

Apart from these architectural affiliations, a wider array of features/elements
(deriving from the "palaces" themselves but also from the broader Cretan record) argues
strongly in favour of close ties to the East. These empirical sets are taken to range from
minor to major influences like the borrowing of decorative features, the integration of
foreign habits, symbols and equipment (Kopcke 1987: 256), the development
of writing
systems (Watrous 1987: 69-70) and perhaps even shared religious practices as shown by the
popularity of Cretan-type rhyta in Egypt and in Syria, the affinities between Cretan and Near

38

Eastern cult and divine iconography, or even the Near Eastern influences identified in the
caseof peak sanctuaries(Watrous 1987: 65). All the above have been taken to imply that
high-level contacts of considerable intensity and regularity were common.

The role of the "palaces" in the organization of overseastrade (Dimopoulou 1997,

2004; Kopcke 1987,2000; Michaelidou 2004; Niemeier 2004; Shaw & Shaw 1985; Wiener
1987,1991) and particularly in the acquisition of copper and tin is another issue considered
to be of major socio-historical importance (Michaelidou 2001; Wiener 1987,1991). Cretan
is
known
in
Aegean
there
tin
the
no
source
of
copper
seem
scanty,
and
anywhere
sourcesof
(Branigan 1968). However, tin as well as copper was available and widely traded in the Near
East during the time of the "palaces". Thus and despite the fact that the possibility of an
existence of "independent merchantmen" has not been entirely ruled out (Wiener 1987: 262),
the general consensusamongst the proponents of the "exogenous/consumption-oriented"
approach seemsto be that the bulk of long-distance trade (particularly the trade in prestige
According
Wiener,
by
"palatial"
to
the
the
authorities.
carried
out
goods and metal) was
"palatial" interest in long-distance trade would by no means have been limited to metals (tin
and copper/bronze), yet their acquisition would have been a primary "palatial" concern
(Wiener 1987: 262).

At the same time, it is noteworthy that particular types of metals that were only
found in the Aegean are assumedto have been in demand in the East. As several scholars
have claimed, not only was there a continuing demand in the "palatial" and urban centres of
Egypt and the Levant for Aegean silver (possibly channelled though Crete) but also for
finished Cretan metalwork, of the kinds presented, perhaps, by the Tod treasure from 12th
dynasty Egypt (Warren & Hankey 1989: 131-134) or the drinking cups and weapons from
"Kaptara" recorded on contemporary documents from Man (Dailey 1984: 51). With regard
to the period of the "New Palaces" in particular, Branigan cites glyptic evidence for
"palatial" control over internal affairs, increased Minoan trading interest in the Aegean, the
existence of presumably "palatial" prestige gift exchange with Egypt (inferred from
depictions of Keftiu on Egyptian tombs and objects bearing the Pharaonic cartouche in
Crete) as well as the "concentration of skilled craftsmen in the palaces", the last point
leading him to conclude that metal was now very likely to have been controlled by the
"palaces" (Branigan 1987: 245-249).

Taking all theseinto consideration,it now remainsto be seenhow thoseadheringto

the "exogenous/consumption-oriented"
approachenvisagethe processwherebythe "palace"
asan institutionalmechanismachievedaccessto thesewide exchangenetworksand also

39

being
the
products
exchanged.In orderto do so, we may now shift attentionto
over
control
the period prior to the "emergenceof the palaces",namelythe Early BronzeAge.

[3.3] "The emergenceof civilization": The Early Bronze Age period in the Aegean
Since Childe portrayed the Aegean as "civilized" by diffusion from the Orient, three
have
been
proposed to explain the relationship between this region and the outside
models
Civilization
(whose
book
Emergence
(Renfrew
Renfrew,
1972) was essentially
the
of
world.
an attempt to introduce an analytical program that would constitute an explicit reaction to
Childe's diffusionism), advocated a model of systemic internal growth which stressedthe
allegedly limited case for links between Early Bronze Age Aegean and the Near East.
Through his "subsistence-redistribution" model, he chose to explore the explanatory
"positive
feedback"
between
internal
the several sub-systems of a
of
of
processes
potential
largely independent Aegean system [see Section 2.3]. However, in what follows, it will be
suggestedthat his "craft specialization/wealth model" (the second model he proposes in the
Emergence), makes obvious referencesto Childe's ideas on "social complexity" and should
therefore be seenas belonging to the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" strand of reasoning.

With his "craft-specialization/wealth" model, Renfrew sought to argue that a

decisive factor in the development of centralized authority in the Bronze Age would have to
be the correlation of "high status with material wealth and military prowess" (Renfrew 1972:
483). Metals, partly as necessaryutilitarian replacements for stone tools and weapons
(Childe 1951: 35-36; Renfrew 1972: 339), but above all as a substantial means for wealth
accumulation, would have played a central role in this process:

"The rapid development of metallurgy in the third millennium BC, and the
variety of new products gave a new meaning to the notion of "goods". There
was now, for the first time, a whole range of valuable objects worth hoarding in
quantity. This particular consequenceof metallurgy, a transformation in the idea
of wealth, establishes it as the most important craft of the time" (Renfrew 1972:
339).

Renfrew draws a comparison between industrial and prehistoric societies, arguing

that for an industrial society, "a precondition for "take-off' into sustained growth" is that
production (including agricultural production) "be stimulated by a demand for goods,
"stemming from a propensity to consume them" (Renfrew 1972: 481). Although Renfrew
admits that "no prehistoric society was an industrial society in this sense", he nevertheless
claims that a clearly analogous process may still be detected; the increasing demand for

40

in
Aegean
during
Early
Bronze
(and
the
the
emphatically
metals)
many
most
parts
of
goods
Age must be recognized as a significant factor favouring increase both in subsistence and

craft production:
"... agricultural production could be increased... when the agricultural producer,
in exchange for his produce, can acquire attractive and desirable goods which
will serve to enhance his status, and offer opportunity for the display of wealth.
The craft specialist supported in this way supplies goods to an acquisitive
society, where social status is closely and competitively linked to the display
and consumption of wealth. Hostility and warfare are accompanying features"
(Renfrew 1972: 483).
"If we ask what was spreading, then the answer can be summarized as consumer
demand" (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991: 355-356).

Renfrew proceeds by arguing that the desire for metals would have been conducive

to the developmentof long-distanceinter-communityexchanges(i.e. in searchof raw

materialsand/orfmisheditems)while on the otherhand,the productionof surplus aboveand
beyondthe levelsof autarkyof local communitieswould havebeenrequiredfor longdistanceexpeditionsto be sustainedand operatesuccessfully.The very samepoint has also
Childe:
by
made
"Trade in the senseof transmissionof commoditiesfrom one group to the other
is indeedquite well attestedin the StoneAge, or evenin the Old StoneAge. But
the objects of Stone Age trade were always luxuries -if not merely shells or
similar "ornaments",at leastthings that men could easily have donewithout. A
Stone Age community was, at least potentially, self-sufficing. In so far as a
societyis dependenton copperor bronzefor weaponsor tools, it has sacrificed
this self-sufficiencyand is obligedto rely on tradefor necessities"(Childe 1951:
35).

Accordingto the "craft-specialization/wealthmodel" the needfor both metalsand

surpluswould haveprovidedthe basisfor emergentinequality in the Aegeanwith increasein
specialization,creationof surplusandthe developmentof exchangereflecting a growing
economy.Renfrewarguesthat local rulers would havebeengiven an importantrole in
organizingspecializationand exchange,sincespecialistswould haveat leastinitially been
operatingat a village level; eventually,the statusof the village chief, as controlling their
production,would have increasedand is likely to havebeenexpressedmore conspicuously
throughthe useof "fine metal goodsand otherprestigeobjects" (Renfrew 1972:482).
Since Renfrew and in an attempt to lay greater emphasis on some (previously
unexplored) dimensions of the issue of "social complexity", several writers have focused
their attention on the investigation of the inherent potentialities and dynamics of insular

UNIVERSITY
OF SHEFFIELD
LIBA]4RY

environment in this process,taking the island societies of the Southern Aegean as an

example. Amongst them, Cyprian Broodbank was the first to suggest that the "traditional"
island
life
(Barber
1987: 18; Renfrew 1972: 484)
to
that
seafaring
was
endemic
assumption
had to be challenged (Broodbank 1989,1993,2000a). In particular, he sought to question
Renfrew's remark that "the geography of the Aegean is such that given adequate shipping,
maritime contact and the search for raw materials rapidly spreads any innovation of form or
technique throughout the area" (Renfrew 1972: 48). For Broodbank, the impression gained
from the area and the extant archaeological evidence seemedquite different:

"What we seeis a richly variegatedmosaicof landlubbersand sailorsthat crisscrossislandsas frequentlyas it jumps straitsand on severaloccasionsconfronts
polar oppositeswithin closegeographicalconfines" (Broodbank1993:323).
Broodbank therefore suggestedthat long-distance maritime expeditions might have
been controlled by a very small number of highly specialized centres, larger communities
be
based
local
trade to their advantage and
their
to
power
whose
would
on
ability
manipulate
to monopolize longer-range voyages beyond the islands (Broodbank 1989). Given these
circumstances, Broodbank claims, the origins and development of authority should be
inextricably
bounded
as
viewed
with the very activity and practice of maritime movement
itself:

"The very infrequencywith which many people used the seawould also only
serveto increasetheir dependencywhen things not availablewithin the ambit of
the terrestrialworld were eventuallyrequired;that the maritime trading centres
reinforcedtheir natural advantagesculturally is clearly evident from their size
and wealth" (Broodbank1993:323).

In a similar vein, GeorgiaNakou has offered a redefinition of the role and

significanceof metalsin the Early BronzeAge and claimedthat their characteristicswere
pressedinto the serviceof the newly establishedinterests(Nakou 1995),mentionedby
Broodbank.Moreover,shestressedthat the geographicaldistribution of insularmetal
sourceswasmodified by social strategiesthat soughtto control crucial communications
amongthe islandsandthus both long distancevoyaging andvariouskinds of technological
know-how (including morethan thoseassociatedwith metals)were consequentlydrawn into
a new kind of symbolism,identifying emergentsocialgroupsof exclusivemembership.
Following a similar line of argument,the detailedanalysisof Early BronzeAge
by Tristan Carterhas soughtto provide a responseto previousmodels
obsidianassemblages
that supportedfull-time bladeproductionin the SouthernAegeancommunitiesfrom the
beginningof the BronzeAge (Carter 1994,1998;contra Torrence 1979,1986). Carter

42

data
limited
to
the
that
of
support
a
archaeological
set
point
not
only
production
presents
was
to a minority of sites but even more, limited to those that would appear to have been the
largest and of higher social status (Carter 1994: 138). The actual restriction of production at
certain sites or even restricted areaswithin a site implies a certain degree of manipulation of
technological knowledge (Carter 1994: 138). In Broodbank's terms, it was precisely this
for
knowledge
distribution
that
created
of
uneven
values
non-local goods thus
unequal
forming a trajectory to an uneven distribution of power in the broader area of the Aegean at
the time (Carter 1994: 331).

A summary of all the above evidence has to a certain extent been provided by
Sherratt and Sherratt in their consideration of the development of a Bronze Age "worldSherratt
1991).
Through
(Sherratt
&
in
Mediterranean
the analysis of a
the
system"
eastern
deposition,
artefact
exchange
and
practices,
such
craft
production,
wide set of material
as
they have sought to argue that neighbouring areas in the southern part of the Aegean
from
beginning
Early
interaction
higher
degree
began
the
the
to
of
of
a
present
archipelago
Bronze Age onwards, by virtue of changing social perceptions of contact and exchange. In
particular Sherratt and Sherratt suggestthat different local contexts were gradually
incorporated within a larger global system, the operation of which could be documented in
the archaeological record in the form of large scale distributions of similar sets of artifacts; a
phenomenon that Renfrew has conventionally termed the "international spirit"5 (Renfrew
1972: 451-455). During the Early Bronze Age, the position occupied by local units within
the larger system was therefore taken to determine their history and development, for the
cycles through which these units reproduced themselves were seen as deriving from an even
wider geographical and social world:

"Bronze Age Aegean societies were, indeed, small and primary agrarian. But
their neighbours in the Levant were considerably more complex in their
organization, and behind them stood the much larger, urban economies of
Mesopotamia and Egypt... Aegean civilization was undoubtedly culturally
independent, in that it retained its own languages and developed its own style;
but its growth can only be understood in the context of its interaction with these
larger economic structures" (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991: 355).

For the Sherratts, the exchange networks which tied the social units together
internally, and those which gradually bound that and other units into the regional
components of the larger system, not only representedcontrasting geographical scales,but

5 Renfrewcontrastedthe paucityof evidencefor long-rangeinteractionin Early Bronze I,

exceptinga
continuingoutflow of Melian obsidian,with a burgeoning"internationalspirit" (i. e. dispersionof lowbulk/high-valueobjectsexhibiting somedegreeof associationwith the Cycladiccluster),that
spread
acrossmuchof the Aegeanin the Early Bronze II period (Renfrew 1972).

43

The
different
values.
political status of privileged groups within the Aegean
political
also
from
increasing
internal
the
created
manipulation
of
and external exchange
was presumably
in
into
increasingly
turn,
converted,
an
and
was
ritualized status by the
relations
appropriation of exotic materials. This appropriation was via the control either of their
display
their
social
or
and conspicuous consumption:
production
"Participation in long-distance exchanges gave local elites the opportunity to
absorb some of the values and practices of the core areas, generating their own
raw material requirements and adding a further diversity of finished products to
the system. The urban economy was a contagious process, in which the desire
for luxuries preceded the production of commodities" (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991:
356).

What the two authors consider to be an important characteristic of such a system is

that even when large numbers of people were involved in the productive process,
consumption was still limited to a minority. This particular notion has some very important
implications. The alleged "centres" of this particular world-system could not be modelled as
market centres, for the elite commodities so produced were not to be redistributed or
marketed to the general population; they were exclusively for elites either at the point of
production or at comparable "centres" elsewhere,but in any casenot in the immediate
peasanthinterland (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991: 359):

"... Civilization is dependent on inter-regional trade and on the labours of those

who do not participate in the consumption of the products which are traded"
(Sherratt & Sherratt 1991: 360).

The Sherrattsthereforeseemto be reachinga similar conclusionto thoseexpressed

in the writings of all aforementionedscholars,namelythat during the Early BronzeAge
in
period the Aegean"the civilized lifestyle is limited to an exclusiveand self-definedelite"
(Sherratt& Sherratt1991:360).

[3.4] "The emergenceof civilization": The Early Bronze Age period in Crete
The "wealthy" burials at the cemeteries of Mochlos and Gournia in East Crete and
the Mesaran tholoi in south-central Crete, the increase of settlement size, patterns of
nucleation etc. [see Section 2.4] are seenas clear signs of social differentiation in the Early
Minoan not only by the "endogenous/production-oriented" but also by the
"exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach. In the case of the latter however,

evidence for

inter-regional contacts and mechanisms of social distinction

are brought to the fore as the
main means for explaining the phenomenon of "social complexity".

44

Signs for elaborated interaction between Crete and other areas of the Southern
Aegean (particularly the Cyclades) have been acknowledged for some time now (Renfrew
1972). Initially, it was argued that inter-regional links reached an apogee during the middle
Age
but
in
Bronze
Early
the light of a steadily growing body of empirical
the
stagesof
information it is now believed that these only furnished the fullest image for the preceding
phases:

[a] Excavations at two Early Minoan I sites on the north coast of Crete, Poros-Katsambas (a
due
Knossos)
(Day
&
Wilson
2002,2004;
1998:
139,
Day
of
north
et
al.
settlement
coastal
145; Dimopoulou 1997,1998; Wilson et al. 2004) and the cemetery at Aghia Photia, near the
north-east extremity of Crete (Davaras 197la, 1971b; Davaras & Betancourt 2004; Day et al.
1998; Tsipopoulou 1992), have yielded ample evidence bearing close affinities to the
Cyclades and have thus improved our resolution of the human activities behind these newly
discovered early phasesof long-range interaction (Day & Wilson 2002; Wilson & Day 2000;
Wilson et al. 2004).

[b] Detailedpottery studieshaverevealedthat ceramicproductionmay havebeenrestricted

in a limited numberof centresaroundthe island during the period(s)in question(Day et al.
1997;Relaki 2003; Whitelaw et al. 1997;Wilson & Day 1994,1999,2000). Along with the
for
evidence regionalismat the level of production,recentstudieshavedemonstratedthat
intra-islandpottery exchangenetworksalso developedmarkedly at the time. It is indicative
in that respectthat evenin small-scalesettlementslike the Early Minoan Ilb site at Phournou
Koryfi, almost 50% of the total ceramicassemblageappearsto havebeenimported
(Whitelaw et al. 1997).
[c] The analysis of several Early Minoan lithic assemblages(Carter 1994,1998) has
demonstratedthe widespread use/distribution of obsidian (as is also the case in the
Neolithic); what has been also suggestedis that obsidian working was limited to a few sites

on the island (Carter 1998;2004: 293; Dimopoulou 1997:433-434).Often,thesesitesare

very largein size and are associatedwith a wider rangeof materialculture, craft activities
and otherpurportedaspectsof socialdifferentiation (i. e. Mochlos) (Carter 1998:71,2004:
296). In other cases,sitesbearingevidencefor lithic productionare found to be in spatial
Wilson
&
Knossos)
(Day
associationwith other important sites(i.e.; Poros-Katsambas
and
2002; Dimopoulou 1997;Wilson et al. 2004).
[d] Evidencefor metallurgicaloperationsin different areasof North Crete(suchas PorosKatsambas,Chrysokaminoand more recently,Kephala-Petras)(Betancourt
et al. 1999;

45

Boyd-Hawes et al. 1908: 33; Muhly 2004; Papadatos& Tsipopoulou forthcoming) has
different
that
stagesof the metallurgical chalne operatoire were taking place on
confirmed
the island (Catapotis 2004; Catapotis & Basiakos in press). It has also been taken to indicate
that metals reachedthe island not only as finished objects but also in the form of
Such
material.
complex networks of production, circulation and
primary/semi-processed
have
into
to
that
to
take
need
serious account the
suggested many
we
consumption
degrees
levels
both
that
and
of
access
of
metal production and
varying
possibility
have
been
(Catapotis
2004;
Papadatos
1999).
the
time
at
at
would
work
consumption

The considerable level of investment on craft production and the restriction of its
imported
in
locations
distribution
the
of
craft
specific
coupled
with
widespread
performance
goods from specific sites on the island have been taken to suggest that emergent groups of
At
it
from
/or
benefited
the
time,
these
same
processes.
exclusive membership controlled and
has been argued that the conspicuous consumption of these products would have contributed
immensely to status generation and negotiation (Broodbank 2000a; Carter 1998,2004;
Nakou 1995).

It is noteworthy that several proponents of the "exogenous/consumption-oriented"

approach, whose work focuses exclusively upon the Cretan Bronze Age, have recently laid
emphasis upon another interesting aspect of conspicuous consumption other than control
and/or display of material possessions,which is no other than feasting, i. e. large scale events
of food and drink consumption (Dietler & Hayden 2001). In particular, after Hamilakis'
Oil
Strategies
for
Wine,
"Strategies
for
Survival
Domination:
pioneering work entitled
and
and "Social Complexity " in Bronze Age Crete" (Hamilakis 1995), many scholars concerned
with the anatomy of the "palatial phenomenon" began to recognize a huge analytical
potential in the study of food and drink consumption. The vast quantities/concentrations of
eating and drinking vessels identified in most "palatial" compounds prompted many to the
conclusion that conspicuous ceremonial feasts constituted a strategic means of fundamental
importance, whereby the "palace" sought to legitimize its elite status (Day & Wilson 1998;
Hamilakis 1995,1996,1999).

Equally noteworthyin that respectis the fact that evidencefor large-scalefood and
particularly drink consumptionhasbeenrecentlyreportedfrom the "palace-to-be"site of

46

Knossos6(Hood 1990: 371; Wilson & Day 2000: 51; Day & Wilson 2004: 46,55) [Plate
3.2] as well as several funerary contexts (Branigan 1993; Georgoulaki 1996; Hamilakis
1995,1996,1998,1999); a similar casehas been recently put forward by Relaki also with
regard to Final Neolithic Phaistos (Relaki 2004: 177). It is considered likely that the
food
drink
described
the
of
and
at
places
of
ancestral
significance
such
consumption
as
ones
been
have
intensification
to
the
connected
of competition among elites and
above would
led
have
"palatial"
in
to
the
the Middle
subsequently
establishment
of
authority
would
Bronze Age. That the production and consumption of alcohol (wine) during the subsequent
periods continues to be closely associatedwith the "palaces" provides further empirical
support to the suggestion that "power" in Bronze Age Crete is generated and sustained
mainly through strategies of conspicuous display.

[3.51Conclusions

For the "exogenous/consumption-oriented"

approach,the key factorsfor
how
in
they
understanding
societies are organized and why
undergo changes their
organization are communication and openness.What drives societies to plasticity, according
to the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach, is the need to acquire more than one
already has. It is important that although power is bound to derive from the very accessto
and control of such material resources (i. e. the person who facilitates provision of the "other"
acquires high status), what essentially securesa senseof equilibrium for the entire society is
the fact that all its members are constantly aiming to be somehow part of the more exclusive
consumer group (i. e. the person who has, acquires status) [see Section 3.1]. According to the
"exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach, the emergence of the Minoan "palaces" has
resulted from the introduction to the island of new customs and ideas from "outside" (i. e. the
East). The architectural design of the "palaces" (which is highly reminiscent of oriental
in
found
imported
large
the
prototypes) as well as
craft goods and raw materials
quantities of
the "palatial" compounds, are only some of the empirical evidence employed to confirm the

6 Probably the most interesting Early Minoan I deposit from Knossos derives from the Palace Well
(Hood 1990: 371; Wilson & Day 2000: 51; Day & Wilson 2004: 46,55). A very specific episode is
likely to be representedhere since the pottery is homogeneous in style and the fill itself was uniform
in character, both suggesting that all the pottery may have been dumped into the well at the same time
(Hood 1961-2: 92-93; Day & Wilson 2002: 149). The Early Minoan I well assemblageconsists of a
large proportion of drinking as well as eating vessels (Hood 1990: 269-270; Day & Wilson 2004: 46).
These large serving vessels are conspicuous for their high quality of manufacture, size and attention to
decorative finish, suggesting a deliberate emphasis on visual display (Day & Wilson 2002: 149;
Wilson & Day 2000: 51-52). Far from being a "normal domestic assemblage", this
pottery was most
likely used for "ritualised drinking/feasting practices on a significant
scale" (Day & Wilson 2002:
149).

47

links
between
Crete
East
the
close
and
of
at the time and by doing so, to unveil the
existence
basis upon which the "palatial" elites exercised their authority [see Section 3.2]. The fact that
both the circulation and production of craft goods are controlled by a restricted group of
from
"palaces"
(i. e. the Early
the
to
the
the
period
prior
construction
already
of
people
Bronze Age) is seen as the main causal factor for the subsequent development of centralized
island
Crete
[see Sections 3.3,3.4].
the
of
on
authority

48

Common ground:
"Palace", "complexity" and "evolution"

[4.11 Paradigms

"The man who is striving to solve a problem defined

by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows
what he wants to achieve and he designs
his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly"
(Kuhn 1970: 96).

Barrett hascommentedrecentlythat all forms of study exactthe constructionof a

language and by so doing, involve us in a process of objectification (Barrett 2001). Our
framework,
be
defined,
however
a
analytical
provisionally, and an
object of study must
it
We
be
through
the
and
study
of
our
to
world
remake
somehow established.
context, needs
this implies that things, which are taken to exist independently of us, are defined with
for
does
In
the
revelation of
to
not
aim
our
study
short,
our
analytical
programme.
reference
the world as it is; rather, to study is to build an understanding from a particular perspective
"out
looking
talking
the
about
the
of
and
on
world,
of
working
world,
of
our
of
and
at
ways

the world" (Barrett 2001: 147).

At the simplestlevel, we could thus saythat our understandingof the world (in our
caseof pastworlds) expressesa direction ofenquiry; what this implies for archaeological
it,
is
how
best
that
trying
to
understanding
go about
research
what we are
understandand
we
list
immediately
to
arequestionsnot
answeredwith reference materialevidence;we cannot
all the materialwe haveavailableandthen seewhat we can sayand what more we need.
Artefactsdo not speakfor themselvesand instead,haveto be viewed aspertinentto issues

49

that concern us (cf. Hodder 1999: 30ff). To be conversant with a research programme one
it
be
A
to
thinking
therefore
a
paradigmatic
situate
within
able
way
of
and
working.
must
broad
ideas
1970)
(Kuhn
expresses
about the nature of the object of enquiry,
paradigm
defines the kinds of data relevant to such an enquiry and the methodologies required in
largest
frame
it
As
therefore
the
constitutes
within which a particular
such
analysis.
be
(Barrett
2001: 147).
it
sits
and
against
which
may
assessed
research programme

The presentchapterseeksto confirm the existenceof sucha paradigmaticframe in

Minoan studies, particularly those concerning the "emergence of the palaces". By way of
contrast to the previous chapters which acknowledged the distinction of two approaches in
the current archaeological programme [see Chapter Two, Chapter Three], this chapter seeks
to uncover the points of agreement between the disputing parties and the shared
presuppositions which were taken for granted by both. The ultimate goal will be to
demonstratethat despite their otherwise marked differences, these two interpretive schemata
have formulated their object of study in strikingly similar ways, with the most obvious point
of consensusamongst them undoubtedly being their (explicit and/or implicit) acceptance of
the concept of "social complexity". In what follows, discussion begins with the investigation
at a general level, of the assumption and values that the concept of "complexity" embodies;
emphasisthen shifts to Minoan studies, in order to expose that the "emergence of the
is
but
form
thinking
this
not
only
of
paradigmatic
also
a
of
palaces"
a product of
mode
enquiry which necessitates(in the case of both the "endogenous/production-oriented" and
the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach) that certain issues are highlighted and
some questions are accorded primacy over others.

[4.21 What is "social complexity"?

To usethe term "social complexity" in archaeologyis rathergratuitousif it doesnot

haveat leastsomeconnectionswith the conceptualvocabularywhich hasbeenestablished
by the "evolutionary" paradigm(Bowler 1984).The latter implies an overall shapeof
directionto humanhistory that canbe explainedrationally and at leastone aspectof this
directionality is an allegedtrend towardsgreater"complexity" (Trigger 1998: 1,10).
Etymologically speaking,the term "evolution" derivesfrom the Latin evolutio,
which refers to the unrolling of a scroll or parchment (Giddens 1984: 224). In the 17th
century however, the term was introduced to the natural sciences in order to designate the
then highly controversial Darwinian notion of the origin of biological species by

50

in
A
followed
in
forms'.
the
from
trend
the
sciences;
development
social
soon
similar
earlier
1850s,Herbert Spencer was amongst the first to advocate that ultimately all aspects of the
laws
inorganic,
the
to
of
subject
or
non-social,
were
social
or
organic
whether
universe,
"evolution". To Spencer,it was axiomatic that sociology could become a science only when
it was based on the idea of the natural, "evolutionary" law. His sociological reflections
between
"evolution",
biological
between
similarities
and social
concentrated on the parallels
in the structure and development of organic and social units. The ethical and metaphysical
doctrine
his
the
that
the
term
the
Spencer
through
to
was
of
use
that
establish
sought
position
forms
have
in
it
through
their
necessitated
physically
things
present
reached
all
and
universe
successivestages.
"As betweeninfancy and maturity there is no shortcutby which there may be
insensible
development
of
tedious
the
and
growth
of
process
avoided
increments;so there is no way from the lower forms of social life to the higher,
but one passingthrough small successivemodifications...The processcannotbe
402-403).
1891:
(Spencer
due
be
through
patience"
with
abridgedand must gone

A significant elementof this modeof thinking wasthat "evolution" referredto a

Both
91).
1977:
(Coser
increase
in
organic and social aggregates,
size
process of progressive
Spencerclaimed, "originate from masseswhich are extremely minute in comparison with the
is
Societal
9).
to
1891:
taken
(Spencer
come
growth
them
eventually rich"
massessome of
"sometimes
together"
and
sometimes
separately
two
through
on
processes,which go
about
(Spencer 1891: 10). It results either from an increase in population, "by simple multiplication
by
"by
joining
from
the
union of groups, and again
of previously unrelated units
of units" or
in
10).
Increase
1891:
(Spencer
the
as
seen
was
of
size
units
of
groups"
union of groups
1891:
(Spencer
"complexity"
in
by
increase
their
the
invariably accompanied
structure
of
an
3).

And
integration.
is
Spencer
definition,
by
to
This processof growth,
a processof
integration in its turn must be accompanied by a progressive differentiation of structures and
functions, if the organism or the societal unit is to remain viable, that is, if it is to survive in
biological
like
Spencer
for
In
that
societies,
suggested
the struggle
existence. particular,
in
from
states,
which the parts resemble one
relatively undifferentiated
organisms, grew
Moreover,
dissimilar.
become
into
differentiated
in
once
these
parts
states which
another,
Thus,
dependent
had
become
they
with growing
each
other.
on
unalike,
were mutually
parts

1 Darwin proposed that, becauseall creaturesvary individually and tend to increase in numbers faster
than their food supplies, those individuals who are best adapted to the environment in which they live
hence
likely
to
the
pass their traits on the next generation. The culling,
ones
most
reproduce
and
are
generation by generation, if those individuals least able to compete in the struggle for life gradually
alters the biological nature of all but the most perfectly adapted species (Trigger 1998: 60).

51

differentiation came growing interdependence and hence integration. "Evolution" could

therefore be seen as a trajectory of development, leading from a state of "relatively
indefinite, incoherent homogeneity" to a state of "relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity"
(Carneiro 1967: xvii):

"As [society] grows, its parts become unlike: it exhibits increase of structure.
The unlike parts simultaneously assume activities of unlike kinds. These
activities are not simply different, but the differences are so related as to make
one another possible. The reciprocal aid thus given causesmutual dependenceof
the parts. And the mutually dependent parts, living by and for another, form an
aggregate constituted on the same general principle as is an individual
organism" (Spencer 1891: 8).

The consensusof functions within a society becomes closer as "evolution" advances.

In low aggregates,both individual and social, the actions of the parts are only slightly
dependenton one another, whereas in developed aggregatesof both kinds the components of
actions which constitutes the life of the whole makes possible the component actions which
constitute the lives of the parts (Cameiro 1967: 25). It follows as a corollary that, "where
parts are little differentiated they can readily perform one another's functions, but where
much differentiated they can perform one another's actions very imperfectly, or not at all"
(Carneiro 1967: 25). It appears therefore that for Spencer, "complex" societies are more
fragile
in
and
more
structure than their predecessors.The increasing mutual
vulnerable
dependenceof unlike parts in "complex" societies and the vulnerability it brings in its wake
necessitatethe emergenceof a regulatory system that controls the actions of the parts and
ensurestheir coordination:

"As compoundaggregatesare formed...there arise supremeregulating centres

and subordinateonesand the supremecentresbegin to enlargeand complicate"
(Carneiro1967:46).

Early in the processof "evolution", Spencermaintains,regulatingcentresare mainly

requiredfor dealingwith the outsideenvironment,with the "enemiesand prey" (Coser 1977:
92); but later suchregulatingsystemsassumethe burdenof internal regulationand social
control when "complexity of functions" no longer allows the entirely spontaneous
adjustmentof partsto one another.The stringencyand scopeof internal regulationswasto
Spencera major distinguishingmark betweentypes of societies,andhe attemptedto classify
them in terms of the scopeof internal control.
A final point of significance with regard to "evolution" is that it
constitutes a
concept which specifies something more than just a progression of change in respect of
certain designated criteria, that something being a mechanism of change. Identifying a

52

latter
in
the
explaining
means
of
change
some way which applies across the
mechanism
human
history,
if
definitely
the
then
of
not
as
exclusive
mechanism
spectrum
as the
whole
dominant one (Giddens 1984: 235). The key concept here is undoubtedly adaptation, since it
figures somewhere in virtually all "evolutionary" theories, however much they differ in other
respects.Generally speaking, the term is defined as the securing and conserving of control
(i.
(i.
"mutual
the
environment
e.
and/or
physical
nature)
social
environment
e.
over
adjustment" of different societies) (Alland 1970; Dubos 1965; Giddens 1984: 235). "A social
organism", Spencer argues, "like an individual organism, undergoes modifications until it
comes into equilibrium with environing conditions; and thereupon continues without further
change of structure" (Spencer 1891: 96). Once such equilibrium has been reached,
"evolution" continues to "show itself only in the progressing integration that ends in rigidity
[and] practically ceases" (Spencer 1891: 95).

[4.3] "Evolution" and "complexity" in historical context

"The life of savagesis so simple,and our societiesare suchcomplicatedmachines!"
Denis Diderot, Supplementau VoyagedeBougainville.
The idea that progressive change and increasing "complexity" were the essenceof
the human condition was a revolutionary concept of 18`hcentury thought which called into
question traditional European beliefs and undermined many of the principles that had guided
European life prior to the period (Bierstedt 1974: 559-560; Foucault 1984). These concepts
may not be an intellectual construct of this century in particular2, yet it was only in the
context of accelerating social transformations in Western Europe at this particular historical
conjuncture that the idea became something more than a subject for idle speculation.

Amongstthe most significant 18`hcenturytransformationswas undoubtedlythe

radical redefinition of the character and nature of traditional theology. During this period, the
Christian Church found itself competing with internally generated reforming movements,
new religious sects, and more fundamentally with religious enquiries, which seemedbent on
nothing so much as "removing religion from religious faith" (Outram 1995: 45). Ultimately,
those attempts to construct a "reasonable" or "rational" Christianity sought to erect human
reason as the focus of a new religion.

2 In his long poemDe RerumNatura,

written in the 1' centuryBC, the RomanEpicureanphilosopher
Titus LucretiusCarusoutlineda comprehensivetheory of "evolution" in which primordial atoms
spontaneously
combinedto createevenmore"complex" physicaland thenbiological entities (Trigger
1998:3).

53

Along with the gradualshift in the meaningand context of religious belief, the 18th
century witnessed the simultaneous rise to prominence of scientific truth3. During that
insecure
form
knowledge
had
to confront many
an
out
as
of
started
and
science
period,
important
the
most
of which was to develop means for concentrating on
crucial questions
problem solving within a clearly delineated intellectual area. As such, it had to grapple with
larger issues such as the relationship between humans and nature, the very possibility of
knowledge of the surrounding world and of the best way of organizing such knowledge. The
knowledge
that
scientific
sought to addresswas that of "reason" and
ethical norm
"rationality" and as we mentioned earlier, this was a notion deeply implicated also in
"rationality"
development.
By
was usually meant objective thinking, without
religious
passion, prejudice or superstition and without constant reference to non-verifiable statements
as those of religious revelation. Through this mode of thinking, people were slowly
introduced to a new conceptual regime which encouraged them to believe that human beings
fear,
become
from
to
the
superstition,
mythology
and
masters
capacity,
once
released
possess
identity
(Outram 1995: 9; Trigger 1989a: 5).
their
own
of

It is important to state at this point, that the 18thcentury was also the age of
European expansion (Friedman 1994: 47) to the point that by the 19thcentury, the external
spaceof Europe had already taken on a new reality with various Western European countries
having established colonies in the Americas, the Caribbean, India and what is now known as
Indonesia (Friedman 1994: 47; Outram 1995: 17). Although 1492, the year Columbus
"sailed the ocean blue", is usually taken to constitute the beginning of the colonization
process, it is actually in the 18ththat the broad-scale mapping of the world by Europeans
began to develop (Hulme 1986,1990; Pagden 1993). For the first time, through explorations
by JamesCook (1728-79), Louis-Anne de Bougainville (1729-1811) and others, Europeans
were to gain an accurate knowledge of one-third of the earth's surface covered by the Pacific
Ocean (Frost 1976). Quite apart from the discoveries in the Pacific, dramatic though these
were, European colonial empires in other parts of the world also expanded. The end of the
SevenYear's War in 1763 had produced a transfer of colonial territory from France to
Britain, which laid the basis for the expansion of colonial settlement in North America and
of colonial exploitation in the Indian sub-continent (Outram 1995: 64).

3 The term "science" is anachronistic. The

words "science" and "scientist" were not invented until the
1930s in England. In French science like the German Wissenschaftmeant "knowledge" not
necessarily connected with knowledge of nature. The term scient /iique to label specifically those
involved in such investigations was a coinage of the late 191 century. Thus, "science"
was not yet
clearly separatedfrom other intellectual areas, nor were its practitioners readily distinguished from
practitioners of other forms of intellectual enquiry (Ross 1962: 65-86).

54

By confrontingnew landsand peoples,Westernsociety found itself confronting the

deeply ethical question of difference. The experience of the non-"European", collectively
described as "exotic" was constructed through processesof intense exploitation of both
tropical nature and its human inhabitants and as such it had to recognize a hierarchical

relationbetween"us" and "them", essentiallybetweenthosewho exploitedand thosewho

(Friedman
1994:
4).
As
Pagden
exploited
rightly points out, for this processto take
were
had
before
Europeans
to
they could seeandthey could only do this through
classify
place,
existing categories of thought (Pagden 1993).

Before the 18`' century, Europeans confronted the "Other" with a complex
ideals,
of
motives
and
amongst which religion was strong. Especially in the
mixture
colonial territories owned by Catholic states like Spain, Portugal and France, missionary
had
been essential so as to legitimate the enterprise of the conquest of exotic lands
effort
and peoples; it was thus advocated that Non-Christians lived in a state of turmoil and sin,
they were slavesto their passions and as such they needed to be saved (Gosden 1999: 18).

By the 18thcentury however, prior experiences and images of the New World
along with the transforming religious character of Europe changed the very nature of
European concerns when faced with the "exotic". An idea that became of central
importance at the time was that of a "universal" human nature. Until the time of the
voyages of Columbus, travel literature was filled with odd semi-human creatures "with
heads on their chests, a single foot or who lived on a diet of human flesh" (Gosden 1999:
18). It is possible to seethese as projections of European fears about the world and when
none of these things turned out to be true (from the voyages of Columbus onwards), it
causeda great deal of thought about the unity of humanity (Outram 1995: 65).

With the gradualacceptanceof a "universal" humankind,"humanness"could no

longer be seen as the defining element of the Old World; before long, the difference
between the "West "and the "exotic" acquired an entirely new dimension and begun to be
treated as difference in degree rather than in kind (Friedman 1994: 42-57). Essentially,

this wasa processwhich inclined the "civilized" to regardthe ways of life of peoplethat
they were encounteringin variousparts of the world as survivalsof a primordial
condition (Hamilakis 1995:49). As Friedmannotesthis conversionof spatialinto
temporaldistanceis epitomisedin Locke's renownedexclamationthat "in the beginning,
all the world wasAmerica" (Locke 1952cited in Friedman1994:50).

55

By the 19" century,the aforementionedtendencyfound its full expressionby

far
distance
between the West (situated at the
that
seen
so
what
was
as
a
spatial
recognising
(situated
the
the
primitive
and
element
world)
at the periphery) could also be taken
centre of
to hold a historical dimension. In other words, what was now becoming a central concern
"advanced"
to
the
as
consisting
view
world
of
only
and "less advanced" cultures but
was not
history
describe
"progressive"
journey
from "primitiveness" to
the
the
to
of
world
as
a
also
"civilization" (Hamilakis 1995: 49).

The discipline of archaeology is a product of this particular mode of thinking; its

very establishment as a discipline in other words was made possible by the emergence and
dominance of these intellectual advances (Thomas 1996: 12). The idea of progress that we
examined above and its connection with the lapsing of time was crucial to the nascent
discipline (Sahlins & Service 1960: 12-13) and is best exemplified in Service's unilinear and
directional "evolutionary" scheme recognising (a) bands, (b) tribes and (c) chiefdoms as the
three stageson the basis of which primitive societies could be classified (Service 1962). The
next stage involved the development of the state, in which "primitive" societies were finally
"civilized" (Hamilakis 1995: 50). Although the term "progress" was rarely used, later
"stages" of "social evolution" were positively evaluated. Bands would eventually "rise" to
the status of a state or a civilization; the latter could only "decline" or "fall" (Shanks &
Tilley 1987b: 163).

This appointed and irreversible trajectory is also implied when we refer to the
"emergence", "development" and "collapse" of the Minoan "palaces". Evans was the first
one to adopt a three-stage chronological system (Early, Middle and Late Minoan)
corresponding to the "evolutionary" perception of "gradual growth", "maturity" and
"decline" of the "palatial civilization" (Cherry 1983; Hamilakis 2001; MacNeal 1973). The
subtitle of his monumental work, The Palace ofMinos (Evans 1921,1928,1930,1935),
further confirms how Evans envisaged the history of Minoan civilization: A comparative
account of the successivestages of the Early Cretan Civilization as illustrated by the
discoveries at Knossos (Hamilakis 1995: 10-11,2002a: 6).

All the abovesuggestof coursethat Westernhistory, or ratherWesternaccountsof

the past,were ultimately treated"as the history of humanity", as a "world-growth history"
(Gellner 1964).Underthis spectrum,to think abouthumanaffairs without an imageof an
all-embracingupwardgrowth would havebeendifficult for anyonefrom the West (Gellner
1964:12):

56

"Western history seems to have a certain continuity and a certain persistent

it
it
be
to
taught.
at
swing
any
rate,
so
seemed,
and
so
upward
came
-or
Emerging from the river valleys of the Middle East, the story of civilization
seems one of continuous and in the main upward growth, only occasionally
interrupted by plateaus or even retrogressions: history seemed to creep gently
around the shores of the Mediterranean and then up the Atlantic coast, things
getting better and better. Oriental empires, the Greeks, the Romans, Christianity,
the Dark Ages, the Renaissance,the Reformation, industrialization and struggle
for social justice-the familiar story, with variants especially in the later details,
stresses and anticipation; all this is extremely familiar and still forms the
background image of history for most of us..." (Gellner 1964: 12-13).

The aforementioned popular perception which is heavily embedded in all aspects of

Western thought, is very emphatically illustrated by the way we hang maps, showing the
North upwards (Hamilakis 1995). As Hamilakis notes, progress and civilization may have
started their journey from somewhere in the south centre of the map but they finally decided
to settle in the North (Hamilakis 1995). This idea is confirmed by Evans' construction of the
high
Crete
European
his
Minoan
civilization;
of
revitalization
as a primarily
modernist myth
of a wondrous world of peaceful prosperity, stable divine aristocrats and benevolent
aristocracy, owes a great deal to the general socio-political "Angst" in Europe of his time
(Bintliff 1984: 35). It is an indication of Evans' influence on aspects of archaeological
thinking, that despite the overwhelming amount of material which is at odds with his
concepts, the very same notions and terminologies still determine much of archaeological
writing on the subject (Hamilakis 2002b: 181). An obvious example here, concerns the fact
that since Evans, the terms "civilization", "complexity" and "state" has been virtually
interchangeable in most archaeological studies of Minoan Crete.

Such "evolutionary" schemesare highly prone to merge "progression" and

"progress" and are thus also inclined to make ethnocentric assumptions. Smith has noted
with regard to this point that the popularity of cultural "evolutionary" ideas coincides with
industrial development and the emergence of nationalism in Europe at the end of the 19th
century (Smith 1973: 156). With the emergence of industrial capitalism on the one hand,
arosethe belief that human progress should be measured and evaluated in terms of the
domination of nature through technology and that the "collective powers of state society"
had the potential to increase remarkably the rates of extraction and exploitation of natural
resources(Macnaghten & Urry 1998). It was also presumed within organized capitalism on
the other hand, that most economic and social problems/risks were produced by and soluble
at the level of individual states. In other words, these risks were seen as principally located
within the geographical borders of each societal unit and that solutions were to be devised
and implemented within these societal/national frontiers (Lash & Urry 1987,1994; Rose
1996: 328). National societies were thus centered upon the
concept of the "citizen" who

57

"nationfrom
institutions
duties
the
through
the
to,
of
rights
society
core
and received
owed
it
be
far
from
Urry
2000:
11)
that
328;
1996:
truth
to
(Rose
the
suggest
and
would
not
state"4
this was a period dominated by the notion that to be human literally meant to be a member of
"myth
6).
The
(Urry
2000:
"society"
the
of
origin",
on
which
necessary
a particular
"imagined community" of nation-state could be built was provided by "evolutionism". It is
is
developments
two
these
the
that
simply a chronological and
of
contemporaneity
unlikely
(Hamilakis
1995:
56)
since this was obviously an easily
coincidence
geographical
basis
ideological
and
sound
comprehensible and attractive myth which offered a convenient
for the idea of the nation-state5 (Dietler 1994: 584; Jones 1997: 7-8; Woodman 1995: 285286).

Sincethe 19`' centuryand for most of the 20thcentury,the term "society" (and other
"social
"culture"
the
and
system") retained a status of
roughly synonymous concepts such as
been
have
discourse
in
"evolutionary"
to
truth
employed and
appears
undisputed value and
implicitly or explicitly- in virtually every work of sociology, anthropology, psychology,
13(Mann
1986:
history
archaeology6
as
as
well
political science, economics, geography,
14). Regardlessof their otherwise diverse intellectual backgrounds (i. e. "functionalist",
"systemic", "Marxist", "structuralist" or other), all forms of discourse in social sciences
bounded
"society"
whole, clearly
a
and
resources,
of
people
as an aggregation
perceived
The
163-165).
(Giddens
1984:
"societies"
from
members of
other surrounding
marked off
however
in
that might
to
to
taken
this societal unit were
relate each other meaningful ways

havebeenexpressedor revealed(Jenkins2002: 43). This collectivity may be the result of

in
beliefs
form
"value
(i.
tasks,
other
etc)
whereas
common
consensus" e. common
of
some
(i.
definite
belonging
individuals
indeed
be
to
collectivity e. physical
a
cases,
may
awareof

Of course this "societal model", at best, only applied to the dozen or so of societies of the North
Atlantic rim (as well as Japan), since most of the rest of the world remained subject to domination
(Urry 2000: 11).

Similar ethnocentricassumptionsarealsowitnessedin Minoan studies.Accordingto Hamilakis, in

Minoan
divisions
of
manyarchaeologicalnarratives,an explicit associationof political/administrative
Cretewith the "evolution" of modernEuropeannation-statescanbe witnessed:societal
transformationson the islandthroughtime led from small independentpolities to a strongunifying
(nation-) statewhich imposesa centralizedform of political and administrativestructureand a
homogenisationin manyaspectsof life for its "citizens" (Hamilakis 2002b: 181).
6 For instance,the "cultural/historical" approachtakesregularly occurringpatternsof different
materialitemsto represent"peoples"or "boundedentities" (Childe 1936).Systemstheory largely
reducesthe meaningof societyto function, asan adaptiveinterfacebetweenpeopleand the
environmentand,to a lesserextent,asa meansof cementingtogetherindividuals and/orgroups
(Binford 1973;Clarke 1968).The structuralistschoolassumesthat "culturally specificmeanings"
were onceinscribeduponthe durablemediumof pastmaterialculture (Hodder 1982)andtreatsthe
latter as a textual recordencodingspecificideasand meaningswhich were createdby past societies.
Finally over the last decade,the conceptof "ethnicity" was reintroducedin archaeologicaldiscourse
arguingin favour of "culturally ascribedidentity groups,which arebasedon the expressionof a real
or assumedsharedcultureand commondescent"(Jones1997:84).

58

proximity, common rules) without necessarily agreeing that it is right or proper (Giddens
1984: 165).

[4.4] "Complexity"

in Minoan studies

While the contemporary "evolutionary" literature in Minoan studies may no longer

be quite so all-embracing as the framework initially adopted by Spencer and other early
(Trigger
1998), the basic "explanatory" perspective remains strikingly similar,
evolutionists
irrespective of the details of the various frameworks advocated ever since. This general unity
of conceptualization can be summarized by the following points:

[a] The "emergence of the palaces" in Crete is seen as the outcome of a series of
developmental and cumulative processesleading from "simple" to "complex" forms of
social organization. History is assertedto be an intelligible unity and continuum, a
longitudinal totality made up of logical progression or developments in which there is a
continuous concretization of particular social forms (i. e. "Neolithic society"/"Prepalatial
society"/"Palatial society"). This mode of understanding lends justification to the idea of
is
in
historical
in
history
the
viewed as a developmental
necessity
process; other words,
trajectory which is both predetermined and irreversible.

[b] To be in a position to reconstruct "evolutionary" trajectories and to make "evolutionary"

statementsin general, what needsto be specified first of all is what exactly evolves and one
does not need to look hard to realize that in Minoan studies, this purpose has been served
almost exclusively by the concept of society. Particularly in the case of the
"endogenous/production-oriented" and the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach, the
criteria upon which the definition of "society" and its "boundaries" has been based may be at
variance [see Chapter Two, Chapter Three], yet the very establishment of a "boundary" is of
critical analytical importance for both approaches.We have already demonstrated in earlier
chaptersthat for the "endogenous/production-oriented" approach the "boundary" is the
"environment" [see Section 2.1] and for the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach the
"boundary" is "culture" [see Section 3.1]. In the former case,this "boundary" not only
specifies the "societal unit" (i. e. people and natural resources) but also indicates what has the
potential of bringing changesto that unit (i. e. resource scarcity); simply put, "societal order"
as well as "societal change" in this case, are seento depend for the most part (if not
exclusively) to "endogenous" factors [see Section 2.11. The "exogenous/consumptionoriented" approach on the other hand, acknowledges the existence of discernible and ordered

59

"wholes" (i.e. "cultures") but alsothe contribution to "societal development/change"of

"cross-cultural" contact [see Section 3.11. Therefore and despite the fact that the

"boundaries"of a "culture" areportrayedas "porous", the very notion of the "boundary" is

inevitablymaintainedin orderto be ableto distinguishwhat is "internal" and what is
"external" to a given system. Put simply, in order to be able to speak of the "exo-tic", i. e. the

"cross-cultural
be
to
of
contact"
outcome
one
also
needs
specify
what
can
and
medium
"local".
as
recognized
[c] However defined, ideas of adaptation and selection have had a major impact on most

development
"palatial"
the
the
concerned
of
are
with
rise
and
subsequent
studieswhich
is
is
important
here
It
to
that
not only understood as the
adaptation
note
phenomenon.

but alsothe measureof social development(Shanks&

teleologicalcauseand consequence
Tilley 1987b:54). The needof societiesto adaptto internally developed(i.e.
"endogenous/production-oriented"
approach)or externally induced
is
("exogenous/consumption-oriented"
socio-environmental
stresses
a measureof
approach)
brought
leads
The
by
inevitably to a critical
changes
societies,
pressure
about
within
success.
fission
"threshold"
"must
the
collapse,
social
or reacha new
or
at
which
units
point
by
(Abbott-Segraves
level
1982:
transformation"
undergoing
a
qualitative
organizational
293). Societal adaptation may be efficient or inefficient, effective or ineffective with some
societies achieving "complexity" and with others failing. For instance, Cherry suggeststhat

the "emergenceof complexity" in Cretecannotbe explainedunlesswe can also accountfor

the many other "negative" casesbeyondCrete(Cherry 1984:21-2); in particular,he terms
theselatter cases"null cases"and definesthem as instanceswherethe "expected" result (i. e.
the "emergenceof complexity") was not "achieved".By way of contrast,the successful
society (in our case Crete) is indeed a "predator" in this respect (Gall & Saxe 1977) (Fig.
4.1):

REGION

EARLY BRONZE AGE

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

Crete

Adaptation(process)

Adaptation(outcome)

Cyclades

Adaptation(process)

SouthernGreekMainland

Adaptation(process)

Fig. 4.1 Measuringthe adaptiveefficiency of Crete,Cycladesand the SouthernGreekMainland

during the transitionfrom the Early to the Middle Bronze Age.

[d] It was demonstratedearlierthat both organicand social aggregatesare characterizedby

Spenceraccordingto progressiveincreasesin size. Sizemay refer to
suchthings as "the

60

distinctiveness
its
the
number
and
a
society,
of
size
of
parts, the variety of specialized
actual
it
incorporates,
distinct
the
that
number
of
social personalities present, and the
roles
social
into
functioning
these
organizing
a
coherent,
of
mechanisms
whole" (Fainter 1988:
variety
23). Augmenting any of these dimensions increasesthe "complexity" of a society. Similarly,
in most of the Aegean/Minoan literature on "social complexity", there exists the (implicit or
explicit) assumption that a society in which a large number of people play a range of highly
specialized roles is somehow more complicated than one in which a relatively small number
highly
larger
them
of
a
similar,
or
even
variety
roles, some of
specialized,
of people play
less
(McGuire
1983). A common view running through these various
them
so
some of
individuals'
lives
becoming
is
that
of
social
more and more differentiated and/or
approaches
in
but
their
all
of
social
specialized,
relations
most emphatically in their labour (Spencer
1891):

"This division of labour, first dwelt on by political economistsas a social

phenomenon,and thereuponrecognizedby biologists as a phenomenonof living
bodies,which they called the "physiological division of labour" is that which in
a society,as in the animal, makesit a living whole" (Spencer1891:5).

This trend may alsobe witnessedin Minoan studies.For instance,the majority of

belonging
"endogenous/production-oriented"
to
the
models
approach produce their image of
heterogeneity with reference to how people work their land (Gamble 1979,1981; Gilman
1981,1991; Renfrew 1973). In the case of the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach,
emphasis appears at first glance, to be laid on the multiplicity of social personae constructed
though the consumption of goods; this view however, appears to also take for granted
changesin the field of agricultural management (i. e. the need for surplus in order to
participate to exchange transactions leads to agricultural specialization and thus greater
interdependence)(Renfrew 1972) and/or in the field of craft production (i. e. "complex"
inter-societal networks of craft production and exchange render different societal units interdependent) (Broodbank 1989,1993,2000a, 2000b; Sherratt & Sherratt 1991).

[e] In addition to his classification of societies by their degree of heterogeneity, Spencer

proposed yet another basis for distinguishing between different societal types which is
inextricably connected with the issue of power. In this order the focus is on the type of
internal regulation attested within a given social unit. The argument here is that an
increasingly differentiated social unit will eventually develop some kind of
regulatory/managerial mechanism to coordinate and direct its disparate parts (AbbottSegraves 1982: 293). The emergenceof centralized authority is in this
respect the product of
shared societal needs and interests (Tainter 1988: 34). In suggesting on the other hand that

61

it
is
differential
is
likely
that
to
also
accepted
socially
useful,
rewards
are
centralization
be
elite
be
borne
this
that
to realize the potential
the
to
a
cost
yet
will
must
managerial
accrue
benefits of integration (Lenski 1966: 15-17)7
.
Echoes of this form of understanding can be also found in many of the studies
dealing with the emergenceof centralized authority in Crete [see Sections 2.2-2.4,3.2-3.4].
The most representative examples are undoubtedly Renfrew's "subsistence/redistribution"
[see Sections 2.2,2.3] and "craft specialization/wealth" models [see Sections 3.2,3.3]. In his
"subsistence/redistribution" hypothesis, Renfrew argues that the domestication of olive and
Age,
during
Early
Bronze
Southern
Aegean
Crete
in
the
the
region
would
and
wider
vine
have generatedan increase of productivity and local subsistence specialization (i. e.
heterogeneity); in turn, high productivity and specialization would have given rise to new
in
be
a position to secure that subsistence goods
organizational mechanisms which would
(i.
distributed
locally
the
e. centralized authority)
communities
among
specialized
were
(Renfrew 1972: 307). In his "craft specialization/wealth" model on the other hand, he
Age
during
Early
Bronze
for
(particularly
demand
the
the
that
may
metals)
goods
suggests
be seenas a significant factor favouring increase in local subsistenceand craft production
(Renfrew 1984: 286-287). Control of the specialized sub-parts of the local system once again
necessitatesregulation and management (Renfrew 1972: 482).

It has to be noted at this point that already from the Enlightenment years (if not
earlier) the idea that "centralized authority" was the product of "real", population-wide needs
its
led
to
this
some
of
a reconsideration of
was receiving substantial criticism8; subsequently
basic assumptions (Haas 1982: 21-24; Tainter 1988: 33). It was argued in particular that the
costs and benefits of centralized power are not always as balanced as the
imply.
does
hypothesis
Compensation
elites
not always
managerial/integrationist
of
might
match their contribution to society and throughout history, elites have probably been
overcompensatedrelative to performance more often than the reverse. Exploitative and
' TheEuropeanEnlightenmentproduceda florescenceof thoughtandwriting on this subject(for
detaileddiscussionsseeBehrens1985;Gay 1973;Grimsley 1973;Koselleck 1988;Mossner1980;
Outram 1995;Raeff 1975).
8 The clearestexpressionsof this waveof critique areto be found in the writings of the Marxist
school.In his 1884Origins of theFamily, Private Property and the State,Engels arguedthat the
differential acquisitionof wealth led to hereditarynobility, monarchy,slaveryand wars for pillage
(Engels1978).To securethe new sourcesof wealth againstolder, communistictraditions,and
resultingclassantagonisms,the statewas developed.According to Krader, anotherleadingtheorist of
this tradition, centralizedauthority(i. e. the state)is the productof societydivided into two classes:
thosedirectly engagedin socialproductionand thosenot. The surplusproducedis appropriatedby

and for the non-producers. The "state" is the organization of society for regulating relations within and
between these classes,in other words a formal organization of "class-composed
and class-opposed"
societies (Krader 1978: 96).

62

have
be
facts
"undeniable
therefore
to
regimes
would
seen
of
as
authoritarian
coercive
history" (Tainter 1988: 36).

Amongstthe studieson the emergenceof centralizedauthority in Creteand the

Southern Aegean in general, Gamble's model is undoubtedly the one which most emphasizes
the coercive features of centralized authority [see Section 2.3]. For the majority of models
however,
different
"palatial"
takes
the
to
coercion
a
slightly
phenomenon
seeking explain
benefit"
(Haas
1982:
"as
inevitable
is
of
covariable
an
essential
as
an
portrayed
meaning and
83). It is argued in particular that risks (of any kind) and the threat of withholding benefits
depend
have
in
"unprivileged"
The
inducement
to
be
this
to
case
compliance.
can a powerful
it
in
"privileged"
to
the
and
serve
other
crucial
needs
order guarantee survival and and/or
on
is precisely this unbalanced (yet inevitable) relationship that would have led eventually to the
by
Gilman,
Broodbank
Halstead,
The
proposed
authority.
models
emergenceof centralized
Sections
[see
2.3,3.3].
belong
latter
Sherratts
to
to
this
the
category
seem
and

It is worth pointing out herethat all aforementionedapproacheshavean important

is
differences
in
in
that they all
this
their
and
otherwise marked
point common spite of
conceive of centralized authority as a problem-solving societal mechanism. In other words,
they all seethe "palaces" as arising out of changed circumstances, and as being a response to
these circumstances. For those closer to the Spencerian line of thought, centralized authority
emerges in order to securethe well-being of the total populace. For those against the
in
"palaces"
definition
nature yet they
are
manipulatory
power,
of
managerial/integrationist
from
differential
for
economic
emerging
are still seenas a means
avoiding/solving problems
success.While the purposes of the state are indeed taken to be different, we could
by
both
level
least
that
this
centralized
authority
as
envisaged
neverthelessargue
at
on
strands is essentially of the same kind.

14.5] Conclusions

This chaptersoughtto demonstratethat despitetheir differences,the

"endogenous/production-oriented"
approachandthe "exogenous/consumption-oriented"
approacharepart of the sameparadigmatictradition [seeSection4.1], which is noneother
than the so-called "evolutionary" paradigm. This paradigm rests upon four main principles
which may also be witnessed in the writings concerning the emergence and development of
the "palatial phenomenon" in Crete: (a) the "social" and the "societal" are essentially

synonymousterms andthis equationworks not only at an epistemologicalbut also at an

63

"societies"
have
level,
(b)
properties analogous to biological organisms and as
ontological
irreversible
follow
trajectory leading towards greater
and
a
predetermined
such,
"complexity", (c) the development of "increasingly complex societal forms" is the most
effective adaptive responseto factors that are "internal" or external" to a given system and
(d) "complex" forms of social organization are characterized by a high degree of internal
differentiation and centralized control [see Section 4.2]. The "evolutionary" paradigm is
firmly based upon a series of socio-historical developments which took place in Northwest
Europe during the 18thand 19thcenturies (i. e. industrial revolution, colonial expansion, the
birth and rapid development of "scientific" knowledge, the idea of the "nation-state" etc)
[see Section 4.3]. Since then, "evolution" has been (implicitly or explicitly) acknowledged
by most proponents of the scientific community as supplying the foundation for its further
Even
practice.
until recently, emphasis continued to be laid upon extending the knowledge of
those "facts" that the "evolutionary" paradigm displayed as particularly revealing (such as
the concepts of "society", "change" and/or "power") and on increasing the extent of the
match between those facts and the paradigm's predictions. With the "evolutionary" paradigm
having been entrenched deeply in thought for over two centuries (essentially from its onset),
it should not come as a surprise that even until today, many scholars cannot come to terms
with the possibility that "human history" and "the trajectory towards (greater) complexity"
are not interchangeable. Our discussion so far has demonstrated that a similar degree of
compatibility may also be witnessed between the notions of "Minoan archaeology" and the
"palatial phenomenon" [see Section 4.4].

64

Empirical

fallacies and the emergence of

"scientific novelty"

"Let us avoid the ancient belief in the magic power of words,

which can make us turn names into real things,

and so fulfil a primitive conviction that when you havegiven a thing a name
you havecommandover it,
like knowing someone'ssecretname.
It is possible to persuade oneself that having named a concept,
therefore, it actually exists and can be dealt with accordingly"
(Stuart Piggott in Ucko et al. 1972: 948-949).

[5.11 "Scientific novelty"

In his seminalbook "The Structureof Scientific Revolutions"(Kuhn 1970),Thomas

Kuhn mentionsthat in the developmentof any science,a certainparadigmis initially felt to
accountquite successfullyfor most of the observationsand experimentseasily accessibleto
that science'spractitioners.Thus, its further development,normally calls for the construction
of evenmore elaborateequipmentaswell asthe establishmentof "an esotericvocabulary
and skills" (Kuhn 1970:64). This conceptualand practicalrefinementof the paradigm,Kuhn
argues,leadsinevitably -at leastat an initial level- to an increasingrestriction of the
scientist'svision andto a considerableresistanceto paradigmaticalternatives.In a somewhat
paradoxicalmannerhowever,it is preciselythis increasingdetail and precision-of-match
which may preparethe groundfor the actualrethinking of the paradigm.For Kuhn, novelty
emergesonly whenthe scientistknows with precision what he/sheshouldexpectand it is
this precisionwhich allows him/her ultimately to recognizethat somethinghasgonewrong
(Kuhn 1970:65). Put simply, the more preciseand far-reachingthat
paradigmbecomes,the

65

it
hence
indicator
for
provides
anomaly
of
an
and
of
an
occasion
more sensitive
reconsideration:
"Initially, only the anticipated and usual are experienced even under
circumstances where anomaly is later to be observed. Further acquaintance,
however, does result in awareness of something wrong or does relate the effect
to something that has gone wrong before. That awareness of anomaly opens a
period in which conceptual categories are adjusted until the initially anomalous
has become the anticipated. At this point the discovery has been completed.
[This] process or one very much like it is involved in the emergence of all
fundamental scientific novelties Recognising the process, we can at last begin
...
to see why... a pursuit not directed to novelties and tending at first to suppress
them, should nevertheless be so effective in causing them to arise" (Kuhn 1970:
64).

In 2001,an internationalworkshopwas held at the Universite Catholiquede Louvain

"
its
"Crete
Palaces?
Hundred
title
the
the
and
proceedingswere publishedonly a
of
under
yearlater, in 2002.At the introductorysectionof the volume, the three editors, JanDriessen,
Ilse Schoepand RobertLaffineur, explain that the reasonfor organizingthe meetingin the
first placehasbeenthe veritable explosionof researchon the island over the last few years,
involving excavations,intensivesurveys,extensiveexplorations,plus a wide rangeof
materialstudiesand (more recently)provenanceanalyses:
"It is perhapsa surprise,only fifteen years after a conferenceon "The Function
of the Minoan Palaces'' that a new workshop focuseson a very much similar
problem. The reasonfor this is especiallythe remarkabledevelopmentsin the
field... [The Minoan] socio-political landscapeat the beginning of the 21"
century not only looks entirely different from that discovered by Evans,
Hatzidakis, Xanthoudides,Pernier, Halbherr, Boyd, Seagerand Chapouthiera
hundred years ago but even considerablydifferent from the one the people
attendingthe Function of the Minoan Palacesconferencehad to worry about"
(Driessenet al. 2002:i).
In the midst of this empirical maelstrom, many preconceptions concerning the
"palatial phenomenon" in Crete have been seriously challenged and what appears to be first
foremost
and
at stake at the moment, is the "palace" itself (Driessen 2002; Day & Relaki
2002; Hamilakis 2002a, 2002b). Very much in line with Kuhn's description of the transition
from "anomaly" to "novelty", Day and Relaki suggestthat the erosion and subsequent loss of
what has for long constituted a conceptual cornerstone in Minoan studies, "has been coming
for quite a while" (Day & Relaki 2002: 217). Several times in the past, significant
discoveries in the field induced Minoan scholars to partly modify and/or reconsider the longheld assumption that "palaces" were elite residences occupying a supreme position within a
hierarchical socio-political structure. Recent empirical discoveries however have managed to
cause so much turmoil and confusion that scholars have now slowly begun to realize that the
need for new terminologies, concepts and ideas has become imperative and by extension,

66

that the tactic of simply modifying aspects of their understanding of the "palaces" ought to
be abandonedaltogether.

[5.21 "Complexity"

revisited: Inequality

A cardinal element of both interpretive schemata concerning the emergence and

development of the "palaces" in Crete has been that these monumental compounds constitute
loci of centralized authority (i. e. they accommodate groups of exclusive membership, which
manage and/or exercise control over some form of surplus) [see Sections 2.2,3.2,4.4].
Severaltimes in the past however, it has been suggestedthat a closer look upon the available
sets of empirical information reveals a number of substantial problems attending upon this
particular form of reasoning and challenges the manner in which the nature and function of
"palatial" edifices have been empirically justified.

To begin with, asmany have rightly stressed(Adams2004; Cadogan1988;Cherry

1986;Day & Relaki 2002; Driessen2002; Hgg 1997;Momigliano 2000; Schoep2004;
Schoep& Knappett2004),to speakof "Minoan palaces"is largely a matterof convention.
The striking majority of scholarshaveusedthe term "palace" to refer to an architectural
designhoweverthroughtime,
complexof monumentalsizeand elaborate/sumptuous
developments
in the field haverepeatedlycalled for partial aswell asmore radical
ongoing
revisionsof this (admittedlytoo broad) definition.
Few would deny for instance, that "palaces" in Crete exhibit some very idiosyncratic
morphological characteristics, since through time, each of them "developed architecturally in
its own locally distinct way" (Adams 2004; Cherry 1986: 27; Knappett 1999; Macdonald
2005; Schoep 2002a, 2002b, 2004; Schoep & Knappett 2004) and not as mere repetitions of
some formal design "copied" from or "imposed" by a single centre (Cherry 1986: 28).
Moreover, several studies have underlined the differences attested not only between different
"palatial" compounds but also between the different occupational phasesof a single "palace"
(Macdonald 2002,2004,2005; Relaki 2003; Schoep 2002a, 2002b, 2004); the traditional
distinction between a "Protopalatial" (approx. 19t'-17thcentury BC) and a "Neopalatial"
phase (approx. 17t4-14thcentury BC) is indicative in that respect since it has been established
in order to mark not only chronological but also "typological" differences (Cadogan 1988;
Cherry 1986). The more recent realization on the other hand, that
each "palace" constitutes
the result "of complicated histories, with numerous episodes of building, destruction and
rebuilding" even within what we would normally consider to be a single chronological

67

horizon has added yet another dimension to this image of "complexity" and "diversity"
(Adams 2004: 196-199; Knappett 1999: 621); at the moment, it is therefore stressedthat the
"Old/New
distinction
Palace"
may only partially capture the multiple
aforementioned
idiosyncrasies
and nuances that the broader term "palace" encapsulates
morphological
(LaRosa 2001,2002; Macdonald 2002,2004; Platon 2000; Relaki 2003; Schoep 2002b).

Although all the points we have discussed so far, have had a considerable
contribution in the ongoing debate concerning the definition of the term "palace", it is
undoubtedly the concept of the "Minoan villa" (Hgg 1997) and the increase of "palatialtype" buildings in the last few years (Driessen et al. 2002) which have played the most
decisive role in this process. Along with the conventional "palaces" of Knossos, Phaistos,
Malia and Zakros, we have Goumia (Boyd-Hawes et al. 1908; Soles 1991,2002) but also
Petras,Galatas' and quite likely, Kommos (Shaw 2002) and Makrygialos (Davaras 1985,
1997) [Plate 5.1]. In fact, if we move beyond the sites that possessa "central court", more or
less consistent in shape and orientation (but not size) and include other monumental sites
with public courts, the list becomes longer, i. e. Aghia Triadha, Nirou Chani, Amnissos etc.
(Driessen 2002: 11; Hamilakis 2002c: 189; Palyvou 2002: 176). To portray Crete as "the
island of the hundred palaces" is in this respect not a mere figure of speech since it is
precisely this multiplicity, density and proximity of "palatial-type" edifices that can no
longer sustain the notion that the "palace" is a distinct (and above all exceptional)
architectural type.

The aforementioned plethora of monumental buildings in Crete may no longer be

viewed as compatible with the long held premise of "centralization", put forward by both the
"endogenous/production-oriented" and the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approaches.
It is noteworthy that even before these recent discoveries, there have been numerous
indications in the record warning scholars against the assumption that surplus accumulation
and management/control were an exclusive "privilege" of the "palace". For example, the
introduction of the "peer polity interaction" hypothesis in Minoan studies (Renfrew &
Cherry 1986) was not only a reaction against Evans' s "Knossocentric ideal" (which
portrayed the "palace" at Knossos as the political and administrative centre dominating the
entire island) (Cadogan 1988; Hallager & Hallager 1995; Hood 1978; LaRosa 1989; Wiener
1990) but also the first serious attempt to emphasize regional dynamics and the possible
existence of multiple elite groups within the island (Bennet 1990; Cherry 1986; Driessen &
1For PetrasseeTsipopoulou1989,1991,1992,1997,1999a,1999b,2002;
Tsipopoulou& Wedde
2002;For GalatasseeRethemniotakis1991,1992,1992-93,1999a,1999b,1999c,1999d,2002;
Rethemniotakis& Christakis2004.

68

Macdonald 1997; Weingarten 1990). As Hamilakis rightly points out however, the model of
independent polities really ought to be viewed as a redefinition and not an overall rejection
"centralization"
(Hamilakis
in
2002c:
184);
the
of
maintaining the notion of
concept
of
bounded and clearly defined territories, what it essentially sought to do was to modify the
have
framework
which
surplus
accumulation
management/control
within
and
would
scalar
operated.
At an empirical level, this mode of understanding was soon to be proven equally
"palatial"
"palatial-type"
increasing
The
sites
and
continuously
number
of
problematic.
buildings (i. e. "villas) along with the realization that these are often found in close proximity
to each other rendered impossible the specification of territorial boundaries and the
subsequentassociation of the latter with a ruling elite (Hamilakis 2002c: 190-19 1; Platon
2000: 52). Moreover, the impression gained from these new sites and buildings at a
functional level, is that they not only encompass several architectural elements of a "palace"
but also seemto be serving many of its supposed functions (McEnroe 1979,1982; Schoep
2002a: 20). It is on the basis of all the above reasonsthat Hamilakis once described them as
"centres of authority and power in their own right", consisting of many "palatial"
architectural features, sizeable ceremonial spaces,substantial storage facilities and often
bearing evidence of record-keeping (Hamilakis 2002c: 183; my emphasis).

Many scholarshave soughtto minimize the effect of thesediscoverieson the notion

"palatial-type"
"centralization",
by
the
that
of
edificesand sites
proliferation
of
emphasizing
is really a phenomenonof the "New Palace"period whereasat the time of the "Old Palaces",
"palaces"weremore limited andthus quite possibly operatingas loci of centralized
"palace"
"centralization",
The
is
the
that
a
period
of
authority.
proposed argument
after
is
its
("the
further
intensifying
its
by
palace
control/power
strategically modified
role either
spreading its emissaries, who are performing the same functions as the palace") or by
decentralizing it ("the functions of the palace are spread out and are appropriated by
for
(Marinatos
hypothesis
however,
be
1987:
This
333).
a
officials")
cannot
sustained
number of reasons,the most important undoubtedly being, that new evidence from "palatial
sites" (such as Galatas and Petras) (Rethemniotakis 1999a, 1999b, 2002; Tsipopoulou 1999,
2002) as well as "palatial-type" buildings (such as Monastiraki, Nerokourou and MyrtosPyrgos) (Chryssoulaki 1997; Kanta 1992; Knappett & Schoep 2000; Niemeier 1997) now
indicates that those are very likely to have had "Protopalatial" predecessors.

What is equally noteworthyis that repeatedlyin the past,seriousdoubtshavebeen

expressedconcerningthe degreeof plausibility of the evidencefor "centralization"

69

instance,
"Old
Palaces"
For
from
is
themselves.
the
though
there
even
certainly
originating
for
large-scale
accumulation of staple goods within the "palatial"
convincing evidence
Graham
1962:
129-137;
(Branigan
1987;
Halstead
1987;
1981;
Moody
time
the
at
centres
Renfrew 1972: 291-296), it is still difficult to speak of "centralized control/management"
"palace"
"territory".
To
begin
hence
to
a
associate
a
with
with, estimations of
securely
and
from
have
been
based
deriving
the
capacity
on
mainly
evidence
agricultural surplus storage
(Schoep
"New
Palaces"
2002b: 105) and with the possible exception of
the
period of
Phaistos, the available empirical information from the "Protopalatial" phase is still by no
Knossos
identification
large
While
the
circular
pits
at
of
stone-lined
very
means conclusive.
has
led
Malia
kouloures)
(i.
Phaistos
the
the
at
some scholars to the
and
silos
e.
so-called
and
have
(Halstead
1997),
that
they
others
actually
constitute
repositories
grain
assumption
in
(Strasser
Finally,
have
been
1997).
the
that
this
cases
case
may not
necessarily
stressed
like the "palace" of Malia, the existence of large storage units in a number of "public"
buildings (such as Quartier Mu, the Magasins Dessenne,the Crypte Hypostyle and others)
(Schoep 2002a: 20) gives the impression that accumulation of agricultural surplus was taking
frame
(Cherry
in
locations
1986:
28).
a
architectural
and
not
unified
place various
within

Similar problems arise with regard to the premise that the "Old Palaces" would have
controlled both the production and circulation of "luxury" and/or "exotic" crafts (Branigan
1987). Although at the level of consumption, there exists indeed ample evidence confirming
that relatively large quantities of high quality crafts were concentrated within the confines of
the "palaces", the assumption that this "surplus" can be associated with an elite group
(exercising -direct and/or indirect- control over (luxury/exotic) craft production/ circulation)
is highly dubious. Evidence for craft production is mentioned only from in a single room
(Room LX) at Phaistos (Platon 1993) whereas the presenceof wasters of "Protopalatial" date
at the same site, have suggestedpottery production in the near vicinity (Carinci 1997). On
the other hand, a kiln excavated to the West Court of the Phaistian "palace" has been
recently re-dated to the latest phase (Middle Minoan IIb) of the "Protopalatial" period (Van
de Moortel 2001: 106). Knappett and Schoep suggestthat the most impressive evidence for
elite craft production so far comes from Middle Minoan II Malia (Knappett & Schoep 2000:
368). At the town complex Quartier Mu (Poursat 1996), a number of workshops were
identified and were thought to be occupied "by skilled artisans devoted to the production of
fine craft items". However we have already stressedthat Quartier Mu has most of the
features of the contemporary "palace" at Malia but its relation to the latter is still quite
ambiguous (Poursat 1983,1988).

70

Finally, useful information may be drawn from the study of finished products, as for
Ware pottery, the forest pottery in the whole of the eastern Mediterranean
Kamares
example
1985;
Knappen
&
Schoep
2000; MacGillivray
(Betancourt
"Protopalatial"
period
during the
it
long
For
2004).
&
Knappett
Schoep
was assumedthat the production of Kamares
1998;
in
"palatial"
Palaces"
"Old
took
the
during
place
exclusively
time
the
workshops
Ware
of
(cf. Cherry 1986: 37-38). However, petrographic analysis of Kamares Ware from Knossos
high-quality
but
this
the
pottery
was
not
produced
of
at
site
portion
that
a significant
shows
&
Crete
(Day
Wilson
1998:
Schoep
352,358;
2002a:
from
derived
south-central
actually
has
for
decentralized
fashion,
Knappen
In
a
more
recently
argued
19). a somehow similar
from
by
Myrtos-Pyrgos
(a
in
Malia
the
pottery
site
allegedly
comparing
state,
character of
itself
identification
(Knappett
1999).
The
Malia
Malia)
that
hinterland
of
of
and
of
the
for
in
differences
the
together
the
evidence
substantial
with
modes
of
production
marked
has
been
Malia
Myrtos-Pyrgos
Malia
taken
to
that
between
suggest
was not at the
and
trade
head of a centralized state at the time (Knappett 1999; Schoep & Knappen 2004: 27).
Another point worth examining in relation to the above is the evidence deriving from
Although
both
"endogenous/production-oriented"
Minoan
the
Early
and the
period.
the
"exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach argue that the first signs for centralization of
in
"Prepalatial"
look
the
the
occur
a
closer
management
period(s),
at
and/or
control
surplus
"palace-to-be"
(such
Knossos,
Phaistos,
Malia
that
sites
as
and possibly
reveals
extant record
Petras)give no such impression. As far as storage of agricultural surplus is concerned,
"palatial"
(Strasser
1999:
817)
from
the
sites
remains
minimal
only possible
with
evidence
"Early
large
Hypogaeum"
Knossos,
being
the
so-called
a
underground chamber
at
exception
in
hand,
late
On
have
the
the
third
a
granary
other
although
as
millennium.
served
which may
beyond
Crete)
(both
and
within
of highly complex networks of craft production
the operation
"Prepalatial"
been
later
develop
into
"palaces"
do
has
confirmed,
sites
which
and exchange
in
least
far
"Prepalatial"
hold
these
transactions,
the
to
a
special
status
at
as
as
not appear
(Karantzali
1996:
56,73-74;
176-177;
Effenterre
1980:
is
Levi
1957-8:
concerned
van
period
35; Wilson 1984: 305,1985: 358-359,465-472).

If we maintain the premise (as both the "endogenous/production-oriented" and the

"exogenous/consumption-oriented" approaches appear to be doing) that surplus
is
accumulation somehow connected with the emergenceof elite status [see Chapter Two,
ChapterThree], then several other sets of empirical information deriving from the Early
Minoan period may be seento further challenge the idea that the first signs of
"centralization" appearon the island of Crete at this particular point in time. For instance,
long
held assumption that "wealthy" cemeteries/tombs,
if
the
accept
even we
such as the

71

"Prepalatial" cemeteriesat Mochlos (Seager 1909,1912), Goumia (Boyd-Hawes 1905a, b,

tholos
in
Hall
1905,1912)
1908;
the
tombs
the
several
of
as
well
as
Boyd-Hawes et al.
Mesara plain (Branigan 1970,1993; Warren & Hood 2004; Xanthoudides 1924), do indeed
(Soles
1988,1992a),
form
time
the
then
at
social
ranking
the
of
some
of
existence
confirm
have
that
the
to
none
of
aforementioned casespresents any clear
acknowledge
also
we would
Quite
in
"palace-to-be"
the
the
sites.
contrary,
on
surveys
areas
with
association
of
signs
11) and Petras (Tsipopoulou 2002: 135-137;
Smyth
1981:
&
(Hood
Knossos
around
Tsipopoulou & Wedde 2000), have so far yielded no evidence that would allow us to speak
At
Phaistos,
funerary
to
those
the
activity
corresponding
and/or
sites2.
structures
securely of
Survey of a "flat" (non-tholos) cemetery on the
Mesara
Western
by
discovery
the
recent
leroditis ridge to the north of Phaistos (Vallianou & Watrous 1991: 121; Watrous et al. 1993:
224) may be representingthe necropolis of the "palace-to-be" site, yet the multiplicity of
Mesara
in
the
the
of
at the time along with the (relatively) wide distribution
area
tombs
wider
"capital
Probably
"valuables"
them
the closest
argues
against
concentration".
amongst
of
"wealthy"
"palace-to-be"
between
is
cemetery
a
and
a
site
attested in the case of
association
Malia (Chapouthier & Charbonneaux 1928; Chapouthier & Demargne 1942; Chapouthier et
&
Joly
1936;
Demargne
1945;
Deshayes
Chapouthier
&
Dessenne
1962;
1959; van
al.
Effenterre 1980; van Effenterre & van Effenterre 1976) but even here we are dealing with a
highly
ambiguous relationship since, as we already mentioned, the nature
and
problematic
"palace"
Malia
the
the
of
early
phases
of
at
are still not that clear (i. e. there
and character
"wealthy"
but
"wealthy"
buildings
indeed
"palace"tombs
the
many
than
exist
may
-other
also exist at the time).

The appearanceof nucleated settlements and the establishment of "settlement

hierarchies" on the island of Crete during the Early Minoan period has been taken to
key
in
argument
support of the existence of administrative/political
another
constitute
"centralization" at the time, however, several empirical (and by extension) conceptual
implications have been recently shown to challenge the validity of this premise. First of all,

has
"settlement
in
hierarchy"
Hamilakis
Minoan studiesis (more
the
stressed,
notion
of
as
from
deriving
deployment
heterogeneous
fragmentary
data setsas
the
than
not)
and
often
of
well aspartially excavatedandthus poorly understoodsiteswhich arethen "drafted to fill in
theinventedtiers of the administrative/politicalsystem"(Hamilakis 2002c: 185).A further
"nucleation"
it
is
is
the
that
alleged
phenomenon
with
of
often takento presenta
problem
ZNo burialsassignableto the Early Minoan periodhaveyet beenidentified in the Knossos
areabut
sometombshavebeendiscoveredon the Acropolis andprobablyon the slopesof Ailias andare taken
to havebeenin usein Middle Minoan I. The earliestburials on the Acropolis were assignedto Middle
MinoanIa whereasin the areaof Gypsadhesseveralbuilt tombsare thoughtto possiblybelong to the
earlystagesof the "Protopalatial"period (Hood & Smyth 1981:11).

72

far
"palace-to-be
increase
time
through
the
particularly
as
as
sites"
steady and uninterrupted
Cherry has pointed out (Cherry 1986), there are
However,
2003).
(Relaki
as
are concerned
have
been
Knossos,
larger
the
in
to
the
for
of
site
appears
size
where
much
example
as
cases
Age;
Bronze
Phaistos
hand,
Early
the
the
to
the subdued
Neolithic
at
on
other
opposed
as
the
(Levi
"Prepalatial"
1960)
lack
the
the
throughout
period
the
along
with
relative
site
nature of
la material (LaRosa 1992b: 232) also argue against the
Minoan
III/Middle
Minoan
Early
of
idea of a steadily growing "core site". What is also indicative (in a somehow reverse
(as
for
fact
Mochlos)
(Whitelaw
is
there
that
the
several
cases
are
example
also
manner)
1983) where a certain site appearsto have been quite extensive during the Early Bronze Age
but never developed into a "palace" in subsequentperiods (Whitelaw 2004). In view of all
between
"settlement
hierarchy"
direct
and the
association
the above, a
"palatial
in
Crete
longer
be
the
of
phenomenon"
may
no
sustained.
emergence/development

Significant observations can also be made with regard to the issue of food and drink.
Contrary to Hamilakis' argument that feasting events during the "Neopalatial" period took
"palaces",
"palatial-type"
(if
the
exclusively)
within
confines
of
not
structures
place mainly
1995,1996,1999),
indicate
(Hamilakis
"villas"
the
to
that occasions of
seems
evidence
and
discovered
in
(what
broadly
(or
define
to
those
scale)
even
we
would
as) the
nature
similar
"palatial" sector were also associatedwith more "ordinary" houses. Some indicative
[a]
following:
In
Late
Minoan
layers
I
the
occupation
at the settlement of
examplesare
Tourkogeitonia at Archanes, an abundanceof conical cups is often noted (Sakellarakis &
Sakellarakis 1980: 319,1984: 411); [b] In a Late Minoan I House at Gypsades, Knossos
(House B), approximately 200 of conical cups were found inverted and arranged in orderly
[c]
At
Kastelli,
1899-1990);
(Hogarth
Khania, in House N (Aghia Aikaterini Square),
rows
deposit
I
77
found
in
(Hallager
&
Minoan
F
Late
of
complete
conical
cups
room
was
a
Tzedakis 1988: 13) whereas in room N of the same house, "many" semi-globular cups were
reportedto have been placed upside down in the undisturbed part of the room (Tzedakis &
Hallager 1980: 39). "Extremely many conical cups" were also found in House III (north of
(Hallager
&
Tzedakis 1993: 34); [d] In Late Minoan I building A
B)
the
site
same
at
room
(in room 2) at Mochlos, many conical and hemispherical cups were reported, some of them
&
(Soles
Davaras 1993: 59). Massed of cups were also brought to light in Late
complete
Minoan I House C (rooms 1 and 4) (Soles & Davaras 1993: 49-50); [e] In Late Minoan I
House B at Palaikastro, 48 complete plain cups and many broken ones were found in
larger
cups
of
size, serving vessels etc (Bosanquet 1901-2: 314; Gesell
associationwith
1985: 118).

73

This is alsotrue with regardto the "prepalatial" period. Oncewe start looking at
(i.
funerary)
"non-palatial"
e.
sites,
a
"palace-to-be"
number
as
of
as
well
sites,
other
in
"Prepalatial"
The
Mesara
for
this
to
situation
premise.
regard
problems arise with
for
is
conclusive
evidence
most
ceremonial feasting
instance, particularly confusing since
Aghia
Triadha
(La Rosa 1988: 329-330,
Minoan
Early
from
derive
the
of
site
to
appears
1992a: 70; Todaro 2001; Wilson & Day 2000: 56) as opposed to the allegedly "core-site" of
is
discovery
Middle
Minoan
Ia
the
Equally
of
a
rich
assemblage of
Phaistos.
noteworthy
drinking vessels at Patrikies (Bonacasa 1967-8; LaRosa 2005), a site situated closely to
latter
With
"nondegree
to
the
to
but
remains
unclear.
regard
of
association
Phaistos,
whose
Hamilakis
hand,
both
Branigan
(Branigan
1970,1993;
the
and
other
on
palatial" contexts
integral
feasting
have
1998)
that
Hamilakis
ceremonies were also an
part of funerary
stressed

in
in
late
"Prepalatial"
Crete;
earlier
as
mentioned
we
aswell aspost-funeraryrituals
have
has
Hamilakis
3.4]
Section
these
[see
claimed
ceremonies
would
actedas a
sections
have
therefore
constitutedanotherchief medium of
powerful symbolicresourceand would
during
"palatial"
the
to
the
the
construction
period(s)
prior
of
negotiation
powerandstatus
domain
"palace-to-be"
between
funerary
However,
the
the
and
relation
until
sites
complexes.
duringthe Early Minoan period is further clarified, the only "safe" point to be madeis that
feastingwasnot a strategicmediumexclusivelyemployedby the "palace" but rather
"palatial"
Chapter
Chapter
beyond
Eight,
[see
Ten].
in
the
sector
also
also
commonly use

15.31"Complexity" revisited: Heterogeneity

In the previouschapter[seeSections4.2,4.4] it was demonstratedthat the degreeof
heterogeneityattestedwithin a given societalunit (in our casethe island of Crete)has also
beenextensivelyemployedasa further criterion for identifying "complexity". For both the
"endogenous/production-oriented"
andthe "exogenous/consumption-oriented"
approach[see
ChapterTwo, ChapterThree],the increasinglevels of heterogeneitythroughtime led
Minoancommunitiesto the establishment(eitherby choiceor out of necessity)of
"centralized"authorityon the island.The striking majority of studiesdealing with the
"palatial
the
of
phenomenon"in Creteusethe term "heterogeneity"
emergence/development
to referto different levels/degreesof differentiation of roles in the domainof production
(i.e. agricultureand/orcraft production)[seeSection4.4].
Basedon thesecriteria of classification(which essentiallyequateheterogeneitywith
labour division),onemight indeedarguethat Minoan societypresentsclear signsof internal
differentiationat the time of the "palaces",evidentboth at the level of land use/management

74

that
and
of craft production/circulation
"endogenous/production-oriented"
approach)
(for the
In
discussion
of
our
view
previous
approach).
"exogenous/consumption-oriented"
(for the
it
Section
5.2],
[see
however
that this admittedly
appears
"palatial"
authority
regarding
decentralized
(increasingly)
to
as
opposed
an
"complex"
a
under
highly
society operates
Yoffee
1999;
1995).
In
(Knappett
the
other
words,
close
regime
socio-political
centralized
"centralization" (i. e. inequality) that both
"heterogeneity"
between
and
association
have
long
"palatial
the
phenomenon"
endeavoured to
interpretive schemataregarding
information
disposal.
by
of
empirical
now
at
our
sets
most
establish are seriously challenged
is
further
by
disconnected
indeed
be
the fact that
"criteria"
reinforced
That those two
may
"palaces"
found
in
the
to
differentiation
the
are
not
only
period(s)
of
attested
of
most signs
is
"pre(i.
traditionally
"Prepalatial"
in
portrayed
as
representing
a
e.
which
society
exist also
first
"complex"
the
thus
unit -including
signs
of
a
exhibiting
complex" stage and
heterogeneity), but also in what is often perceived as the "non-complex" society par
last
few
3).
Over
(Perles
2001:
Neolithic
the
years,
a
series
of
society
namely
excellence,
during
Aegean
Neolithic
has
the
the
of
craft
goods
production/circulation
new studies on
begun to cast serious doubts on the view that Neolithic communities (including Crete) should
be seenas isolated and self-sufficient units3. Instead, it is now becoming widely
Aegean present substantial evidence for complex
Crete
both
the
that
and
acknowledged
from
Neolithic
the
and
maritime
already
exchange
activity
networks of production,
(Broodbank 2000a; Demoule & Perles 1993; Efstratiou et al. 2004; Nakou 1995; Perles
2001; Perles & Vitelli 1999; Tomkins 2001; Tomkins & Day 2001; Tomkins et al. 2004). It
is indicative that Perles' construction of a tripartite operational scheme4,in an attempt to

demonstrate
that Neolithic networksof exchangearefar from "simple" or uniform (Perles
1992),hasbeensooncharacterizedas"insufficient" sincethe complexitiesof Neolithic
"were
them
probably
of
exchange
as
we currently understand
valuesystemsandcontexts
Perles'
(Broodank
156).
2000:
intricate
than
categorization
even
allows"
more

3This is a point madeexplicitly by the proponentsof the "endogenous/production-oriented"

approach
but it is alsoonethat mostadvocatesof the "exogenous/consumption-oriented"
approachacceptin
image
from
"lower" to "higher" levels of
justify
("evolutionary")
their
transition
to
of
a
seeking
interactionandcomplexityin Creteandthe Aegeanas we approachthe period of the "palaces".
4 Per18shas proposed three principal varieties of exchange: (i) utilitarian (e.g. obsidian) (ii)
local/social (e.g. pottery) and (iii) ritual/prestige (e.g. figurines, stone vessels or jewelry) (Per18s
1992). Shementions: "The first system is mainly economic in purpose and concerns utilitarian
distributed
geographically and socially. The second corresponds mainly to interwidely
goods,
group alliances and involves goods of high stylistic visibility and social function; it has a much
more restricted geographical scope.The third is the well-known trade in "prestige goods", which is
wide-ranging but limited in terms of social access" (Per18s1992: 115).

75

Adaptation
"Complexity"
revisited:
[5.41
So far, it has been suggestedthat the both the "endogenous/production-oriented" and
Chapter
[see
Two,
Chapter
Three]
face
approach
the "exogenous/consumption-oriented"
level
they
their
the
the
construct
understanding
which
of
upon
at
only
not
serious problems
"social
leading
'in
towards
the
but
emergence
of
complexity"
the
process
also of
outcome
"evolutionary"
be
key
theory,
third
the
adaptation,
of
will
In
element
Crete. this section,
examined.

event

In earlier sections [see Sections 2.3,3.3], it was demonstrated that the one major
in
Crete,
"palatial
interpretations
both
the
phenomenon"
concerns the
of
that underpins

during
Neolithic/Early
Bronze
in
Greece
the
southern
colonization of marginal environments
In
1972).
1994,1995;
Renfrew
Halstead
1990;
the case of the
(Cherry
Age transition
"endogenous/production-oriented" approach, this observation is of fundamental importance
becauseit implies that new environmental conditions would have triggered an adaptation
in
land
in
have
patterns
of
changes
use/
eventually
resulted
would
which
processes
Cretan
[see
Section
(including
Aegean
in
communities)
communities
management southern
hand,
the
the same
"exogenous/consumption-oriented"
For
on
other
approach
the
2.3].
the
is
the
to
taken
exploitation
of
advantages of
realization
and
subsequent
allow
observation
be)
Aegean/Crete
is
(which
to
the
are
considered
southern
what
ultimately
a seascape
[see
Section
3.3].
long-term
development
and
exchange
the
maritime
of
expeditions
through

Over the last two decades,the quantity of evidence regarding the early phases of the
Neolithic has multiplied, thus inviting a re-examination of long agreed patterns and
is
(Broodbank
1999,2000a).
A
that the
emerging
salient point
correspondingarguments
Neolithic ought to be seen as the major period of initial island colonization, with Neolithic
data
islands
for
being
two-thirds
those
over
of
reported on
which adequate
material now
decades
1999,2000a).
This
(Broodbank
the
contrasts
ago, when the
some
with
picture
exists
handful of Neolithic sites were perceived as an indication of rare, possibly ephemeral
incentives
islands,
Sufficient
to
colonise
of
a
and the mechanisms
wide
variety
phenomena.
"for
if
have
to
to
such
settlements
now
existed
much,
not all, of the
seem
sustain
required
Neolithic" (Broodbank 1999: 19). In the light of these recent discoveries, the once attractive
Neolithic
during
between
trend
the
the
the Early
a
generalized
at
end
of
and
association
Bronze Age towards settlement of marginal lands, and the enabling role during the Early
Bronze Age of new strategiesof land management/useand/or intensive maritime exchange
be
longer
to
appears
an effective explanatory scenario (Broodbank 1999: 19).
no
networks
This is particularly true in the case of Crete, whose clear evidence of habitation already from

76

for
leaves
direct
1994)
the
(Evans
Neolithic
establishment
space
Early
no
of
a
association
the
"palaces"'.
factors
the
the
of
construction
and
betweenenvironmental

[5.51 Conclusions

Severalstudieshaverecentlybegunto stressthat the two dominant interpretive

in
Crete
"palaces"
the
to
the
are
not
of
particularly
sensitive
rise
concerning
schemata
indeedso obvious
If
"detail".
these
contradictions
shortcomings
and
are
empirical
empirical
(andtheyhavebeenfor quite sometime now) however,one cannothelp but wondering why
"palatial
has
been
the
the
thinking
emergence
of
phenomenon"
not
about
this modeof
it
Is
to
time
to
threatens
operateas a
consider
replacing
what
not
altogether.
abandoned
direct
framework,
it
to
toward
more
attention
since
appears
conceptual
counterproductive
fitting the data to a model than to understanding what those data can indicate about the
dynamics
(Smith
1985:
97)?
the
time
at
complexity of sociopolitical

Accordingto Kuhn, what we have describedso far representsa phaseof "scientific

be
"paradigmatic
(Kuhn
"novelty"
1970:
77).
this
should
not
equated
shift"
with
yet
novelty"
Kuhn stressesthat the realization of the limitations imposed by a certain paradigm does not
latter
1970:
77).
Faith
be
(Kuhn
lead
to
the
the
abandonment
of
may
partially
automatically
lost, alternatives are likely to be taken into account, ad hoc modifications may indeed be
devised in order to eliminate any apparent conflict, yet a scientific community does not just
denouncethe paradigmatic framework that leads it into crisis (Kuhn 1970: 81). Rather, the
failure
from
is
(more
than
to possessthe
the
not)
perceived
often
as
resulting
problem
it
it
for
future
to
tools
solve
and
which
so
generation
with
scientists
set
aside
a
necessary
For
Kuhn,
developed
is
declared
invalid
tools.
if
a
paradigm
only
an alternative
more
with
its
Thus,
is
in
from
to
take
transition
place.
available
a paradigm crisis to a new
candidate
but
field
involves
is
the
cumulative
process
one
a
of
a
given
which
reconstruction
one never
from newfundamentals (Kuhn 1970: 85). This reconstruction changesthe field's
foundational theoretical generalizations, alters conceptual rules and affects profoundly
In
doing,
applications.
so
what a new paradigm therefore achieves is the
and
methods
different
of
an
entirely
universe of discourse.
establishment

SApart from the islandof Crete,other early examplesderivefrom the island

clusterof the Northern
Sporades(i.e. Skyros,Kyra Panaghia,Gioura)5 (Broodbank1999:30; Efstratiou 1985;Sampson
1996,1998)andthe islandof Thasos (Blackman1997).

77

In orderto understandhow certainways of "seeing" and "perceiving" are abandoned

in
how
in
to
other
a
new
paradigm
words,
actually
how
explain
order
emerge,
ones
new
and
kinds
do
in
transformation
that
to
such
of
not
occur
realize
becomes available, one needs
laboratory conditions. Although arguments on paradigmatic development and change tend to
be sometimesrestricted on the internal workings of scientific discourse (as for example in
Kuhn's case)this may be only be seenas a matter of some form of convenience. In reality,
if
as
well
as
paradigmatic
change
can
make
of
paradigms
sense
only
the nature and character
(Fabian
Gramsci
1983;
historical
1971;
in
that
them
the
produces
context
they are situated
Marx & Engels 1970); this implies that paradigmatic development constitutes an essentially
interaction
between
his/her
the
scientist,
of
object of study and
a
product
relational process,
framework
(Feyerabend
1975).
the
within
which
scientist
operates
the wider socio-political
So far no referencehas been made to the last component of this tripartite association; in what
follows, we will therefore attempt an assessmentof the relevance and contribution that
have
had
increasing
"visibility"
historical
to
the
may
conditions
current

of all

"fallacies".
empirical
aforementioned

78

A paradigmatic

shift

"The changewe are speakingabout

is an epochalchangethat will be at oncesubtleand all-pervasive.

The expressions that come to mind to describe it are

looking
of
at things, a new way of thinking, a new arrangement of emphases
way
a new
on what is important and not important in human life"

(Finch 2001: 6)
[6.1] Vive la difference

Since1945,the problemsthat havechallengedthought on a deepphilosophical

level, with the sameurgency that abstract, timeless and universal issues had in the earlier
centuries,were matters of ethics and practice, essentially including the ethical dimension of
"scientific" practice. It has been argued that nuclear war, medical technology and claims of
the environment were the three sets of problems which not only attracted most attention but
heavily
impacted
upon this radical rethinking of "Science" and its long held
quite
also
is
"true",
"right"
"legal"
(Chapman
2003: 6; Flax 1990: 41). To
that
all
or
with
association
Toulmin
this
point,
offers several quite illuminating examples. He mentions for
exemplify
instance,that when the atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it soon
becameobvious to most that "science" had the potential of becoming irredeemably
destructive and antihuman (Toulmin 1990). From then on, there was a groundswell of
rational sentiment even amongst the atomic scientists themselves, in favour of entering as
direct participants into the political debatesabout the use of nuclear weapons and power
(Flax 1990: 41; Toulmin 1990: 182). Toulmin stressesthat the line dividing the moral and
technical aspectsof medicine have also become thinner and thinner during the last thirty
in
years; the present phase of medicine, the very definition of a "medical" problem must thus

79

features
its
(as for example in the case
both
technical
in
that
and
moral
be given terms
cover
1990:
(Toulmin
181).
Additionally,
biotechnology)
by
late
1980s,
the
and
science
of genetic
"environmental
impact"
longer
be
that
become
had
questions
of
it
apparent
could
no
readily
ignored. Earlier, the possibility of using natural resources "in the service of human good"
itself.
however
by
By
"nature"
is
that
now,
people
understand
argument
was a compelling
for
benefit:
be
it
is
to
exploited
our
quite
as
much,
resources,
our
neutral
not a set of
In
182).
debate,
1990:
(Toulmin
home
therefore, questions
political
and
social
terrestrial
irreversibly
have
Beck's
book
to
the
"ecology"
the
centre
moved
of
practical
stage.
about
"Risk Society" (Beck 1992) is an explicit sign of this new tendency; his main argument rests
kind
have
"society",
"risk
to
that
the
moved
a
new
of
now
society" as
we
premise
upon
former
is
dangerous
"industrial
flows
that
the
the
to
and
organized
society"
around
opposed
diverse
frequently
by
their
and
social
practices
of
unknowable
of wastesproduced
consequences.

With the "scientific" scaffolding having been largely dismantled, studies of the
"social" soon followed the transformation attested in the natural sciencesand directed
themselvestowards a thorough reshaping of their agenda and the formation of "humanly
1990:
183).
For
instance,
(Toulmin
in
his
collection of essaysentitled
goals
relevant"
"Farewell to Reason", Feyerabendbids farewell to what he calls "scientific rationalism" (i. e.
the dream of a universal rationality shared by Enlightenment philosophers from Descartes to
Popper) and arguesthat "the appeal to reason is empty" and must be replaced by a notion of
it
diverse
to
the
that
subordinates
needs of different people and different forms of
science
1987).
In
(Feyerabend
a similar vein, Best and Kellner suggest that the
community
"naturalistic religion" (which replaced "God" and the supernatural as objects of worship
for
Enlightenment
the
and
most of the "industrial" era) did not produce the results that
since
its "prophets" had predicted (Best & Kellner 1991: 2). At the moment, becausethere can be
no overarching explanation and truth for the way things are and becausethere is no
"external" reason for being (and no external "God" to provide moral direction), social
thought shows itself as overtly and-totalitarian in character (Toulmin 1990: 184). By this is
intellectual
the
task in current scientific discourse is not only to reject
that
main
meant
uniformitarian concepts pertinent to evolutionary thought (i. e. "truth", "objectivity",
"rationality", "totality") but also to demonstrate practically that our perception of the social
human
the
condition in general, ought to be based upon the fundamental
and
world
diversity
(and
by extension "subjectivity", "individuality",
of
concept/value

"multivocality"

"fragmentariness").
These new ideals and trends can be seento have had
and/or
applications
in most (if not all) academic (i. e. philosophy, sociology, economics, architecture)
as well as
fields
(i.
different
forms of artistic expression essentially including film,
e.
non-academic

80

briefly
how
below
the
fashion);
table
the
summarizes
new conceptual
televisionor even
frameworkhasbeenemployedin eachof the aforementionedcases[Fig. 6.1]:

Philosophy

Characterizedby a scepticalturn which no longer seekseither the dogmaticor critical

because
it
has
discipline
the
cometo the view that all argumentsfor or
of
repudiation
in
foundations
themselvespointless.If it remains"philosophy" at all
are
againstrational
it is only as post philosophy, the reflection which seeksno more than to convince the

Sociology

its
legacy
own self-defeatedirrelevance.
of
philosophical
Seeksto bring what waspreviouslythoughtas the "marginal" at the centreof analytical
enquiry.A critical distancefrom the mainstreamis affordedand a particular critique of
Westernsocietyis developedconcerningthe conscioustendencyof earlier scholarship
to render"invisible", thosewho are obligedto occupycultural locationsin which they
are oppressed.

Economics

Refersto multi-nationalist,consumer-based
capitalismas opposedto the earlier forms
of marketandsubsequentlymonopolycapitalism.
Aims to unseat universals/fundamentals of art and to embrace diversity and

Art

between
"low"
"high"
ideas
Rejects
distinction
the
and
and forms.
contradiction.
Dismissesrigid genreboundariesand favoursthe idea of mixture. As the gravity of the
searchfor underlyingtruth is relieved,it is replacedwith "play", "parody" and "irony".
Architecture

Functional and mostly bland forms/spaces are replaced by unapologetically bold

aesthetics.Stylescollide, form is adoptedfor its own sake,and new ways of viewing

familiar stylesand spacearebound.Buildings are usually not so grandand imposing
and often,throughthe useof mirrored glassthat reflectsthe sky and surrounding
buildings, call attentionto their environmentratherthanto themselves.
Linguistics

Renewedconcernwith oral language,communication,rhetoric and discourse.A shift

from the expressionof beliefs in written propositionsto their transient,contextual
expressionin languagegames,speechactsand oral utterancesin general.Owesmuch to
the "post-structuralist"schoolwhich representsthe first systematicattemptto redefine
the relationshipbetweenlanguageandthe objectsto which it referred.

Literature

Concernedwith the inner statesof consciousness,

the fragmentarinessof contemporary
experience,the artificiality of meaning,andwith the ultimately subjectivenatureof all
experience. In contrast to earlier writings, this fragmentariness tends to be celebrated

ratherthanbeing regardedas somesort of crisis.

Fig. 6.1 How late 20thcenturyprinciplesand idealsapply to academicandnon-academicfields.

Overthe last decade,anothersetof interrelatedtransformationshas addedyet

anotherdimensionto the aboveconceptualframework,which seesthe social world as a
"pluriverse" as opposedto "universe" (Law & Urry 2003: 8), and this is none other than the

focusof attentionuponthe issuesof mobility andinterconnectedness.

In particular, it is

81

(i)
in
(for
increase
travel
of
corporeal
of
years
people
recent
work,
argued that the marked
(Castells
1996:
417,
Urry
2000:
50-64),
life,
family
escape)
and
migration
leisure,
pleasure,
delivered
to producers, consumers and retailers
objects
(ii) physical movement of
imaginative
(iii)
images
1997),
&
Manners
Makimoto
travel
through
5;
1986:
of
(Appadurai
(iv)
internet
339),
(as
1996:
Microsoft
(Castells
TV
travel
the
virtual
on
places and people on
(v)
")
(Harvey
1996:
245),
travel
do
today?
to
"where
and
communicative
go
want
you
asks:
fax
letters,
(via
(Urry
2000:
35)
telephone,
and
mobile)
messages
through person-to-person
does not merely confirm the existence of unprecedented and diverse modes of
but
the
aspects
of
complex spatiotemporal
some
also
unveils
travel/communication
patterning which characterizespeople's varied and changing social activities.
Urry explains that these flows produce the hollowing out of existing societies
have
developed,
"sociations"
to
concerned
reflect upon, argue
of
a
plethora
as
especially
for
flows,
from,
these
to
and
campaign
various
often
alternatives
provide
against, retreat
"societal unit" (Urry 2000: 32-37). This generateswithin any
limits
beyond
the
of
a
going
"off-centredness", as
disjunctive
"bounded
a
complex,
overlapping,
order
of
whole",
existing
these multiple flows are chronically combined and recombined across times and spaces
"often unrelated to the regions of existing societies, often following a kind of hypertextual
in the field of social science, the analytical
36).
Particularly
2000:
(Urry
patterning"
interdependence
increased
dramatically
fluid
has
in
to
this
the
recent
attributed
significance
indicative
"Liquid
in
Modernity"
following
titles
that
the
are
quite
respect:
years and
(Bauman 2000), "Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the 21s`century" (Urry 2000),
"The Rise ofNetworksociety" (Castells 1996), "Cybersociety" (Jones 1995), "Cyberia: life
in the trenches of hyperspace" (Rushkoff 1994), "Global Diasporas" (Cohen 1997),
"Nomadic subjects" (Braidotti 1994), "Living the Global City" (Eade 1997), "Transnational
"Transnational
1996),
"World
(Hannerz
(Baubck
1994),
citizenship"
connections"
impossibility
discourse
1997).
The
(Rotblat
"society"
object
of
of
as a valid
citizenship"
(Laclau & Mouffe 1985) -resulting from the necessarily incomplete and porous character of
have
lead
is
form
thus
to
totalityto
the
that
there
appears
of
realization
no underlying
any
fixes
hence
and
constitutes the relevant field of differences that marks off
which
principle
from
follows,
definitions
In
latter-day
"post-societal"
the
other.
what
society
are
some
one
less
more
or
at random:
culled
provided,

"While our political, professional, moral and cultural authorities still speak
happily of "society", the very meaningand ethical salienceof this term is under
questionas "society" is perceivedas dissociatedinto a variety of ethical and
cultural communities with incompatible allegiances and incommensurable
obligations"(Rose1996:353).

82

"Societiesare not the organic wholes with structuresand laws that we thought
them to be until recentlybut fluid entities stretchedon all sides by migrations,
border crossingand economicforces; culturesare no longer bounded,discrete,
hybridizations"
deterritorialised
but
to
localised
subjected
and
multiple
and
(Herzfeld2001:47)
"Human beings do not create unitary societies but a diversity of intersecting
beings
interaction...
Human
are tunnelling ahead to achieve
networks of social
their goals, forming new networks, extending old ones, and emerging most
clearly into our view with rival configurations of one or more of the principal
16).
1986:
(Mann
networks"
power
"[Objects of social scientific enquiry] only ever manifest themselves in open
invariant
do
is,
in
that
empirical
systems
where
regularities
not obtain.
systems;
For social systems are not spontaneously, and cannot be experimentally closed"
(Bhaskar 1979: 57).
"Empirical proof can be seen in the answer to a simple question: In which
One
live?
Answers
likely
levels.
do
two
to
are
start
at
refers to
you
society
is
My
the "United Kingdom", "the United States",
society
states:
national
"France" or the like. The other is broader: I am a citizen of "industrial society" or
"capitalist society" or possibly "the West" or the "Western Alliance". We have a
basic dilemma-a national state society versus a wider "economic society". For
some important purposes, the national state represents a real interaction network
with a degree of cleavage at its boundaries. For other important purposes,
into
three
all
a wider interaction network, with cleavage at its
unites
capitalism
both
"societies".
Complexities
They
are
proliferate the more we probe.
edge.
Military alliances, churches, common language, and so forth, all add powerful,
sociospatially different networks of interaction. We could only answer after
developing a sophisticated understanding of the complex interconnections and
powers of these various crosscutting interaction networks. The answer would
certainly imply a confederal rather than a unitary society" (Mann 1986: 16).

In the abovequotations,it is suggested(implicitly or explicitly) that suchflows

have
important
borders
implications
in
the way power relationsare
may
also
societal
across
longer
based
can
nation-states
no
since
pursue
goals
upon society as a region
constructed
(Castells 1996,2000; Rose 1996; Stevenson 1997; Urry 2000). In other words, such
"societal"
the
the
to draw together its citizens as one, "to
power
weaken
of
configurations
in
its
unique name, to endow all with national identity and to speak with a single
govern
(Urry
2000:
37).
The weakening of state power and status (which
the
nation-state"
of
voice
is further undermined by the politics of scandal and its dependenceon media politics)
(Castells 2000) induce people to build their own systems of defence and representation
identities,
further
delegitimises the state. As a result, the state has
their
this
and
around
dramatic
transformation by building partnerships with other nationof
a
process
entered
hand
by
the
on
one
and/or
sharing sovereignty to retain influence on the other (Allen
states
1998; Castells 2000; Martin & Schumann 1997). This decisive shift of power towards multiinstitutions
is quite apparent in the case of the European Union
transnational
and
national
as
World
NATO,
Trade Organization, United Nation agencies and so forth (Urry 2000:
as
well

83

172-173). It is also noteworthy that in seeking to regain some form of legitimacy, most states
decentralizing
devolution,
in
responsibilities
of
power
and
a
process
engaged
also
are
but
local
governments
also
non-governmental
to
regions,
nationalities,
resources
Loader 1997). Thus, overall, the new state can no longer be
2000;
(Castells
organizations
"network
(Castells
1996,2000)
but
"nation-state"
as
a
state"
rather
made out of a
seen as a
decision
between
and
negotiated
making
various crosscutting
complex web of power sharing
(Clegg 1989: 267).
institutions
socio-political
In social theory, the notion that power ought to be conceived as flowing from the top

from
(i.
forces
it
bottom
that
order
e.
super-structural
social
political
a
given
possess
the
of
to
its
have
to
exercise)
may
receivedcriticism for quite
to populationswhich aresubjected
in
last
its
it
is
but
the
twenty
that
time
only
years
portrayal as an oversimplified
now',
some
has
become
commonplace.
conception,
aswell asnegative
For instance, in his attempt to demonstrate that earlier forms of understanding have
been monolithic and limited in their definition of power, Mann argues that dwelling in a
bewildering variety of "social worlds" -of occupation, class, neighbourhood, gender,
"heroically
hobbies
to
the
tendency
theory
to
counter
of
social
etcruns
simplify,
generation,
by selecting out relations that are more "powerful" than others, influencing the shape and the
in
therefore,
the
and
shape
relations
and
nature
of
social
structures
general"
nature of other
(Mann 1986: 5). In a similar vein, Clegg stressesthat it is now time for the traditional
is
by
to
the
to
the
the
retreat
margins;
centre
stage
of
power
now
occupied
spectacle
dispositional and the productive in an array of new capacities, empowerments and pathways
"painterly
immune
to
to
any
pretensions
are
architectonics" that sovereign power
which
had
"the
is
have
fixed;
the palette not given; the style not
since
canvas
not
might once
dictated" (Clegg 1989: 275). In short, power representations and actualizations can be fixed
"anywhere, anyhow, anyway" (Clegg 1989: 275). It is thus claimed that power ought to be
"net-like
"never
localised here or there, never in anybody's
organization",
a
as
conceived
hands, never appropriated as a commodity or piece of wealth" (Foucault 1980: 98). In
between
the threads of this organization, people are always in the position of
circulating
but
also of exercising power (Clegg 1989: 14). Foucault's problematique
undergoing
developsalong similar lines; he also stressesthat earlier studies of power defined it in a quite
' The rootsof the conceptof "power" areto be found in political theory and philosophy(Clegg 1989).
During the post-warera,the conceptbecamea mainstayof political scienceand subsequently
dispersedinto political sociology.With Lukes' and Giddens'work, the conceptmovedout of the
arenaof political sociologyto becomethe mostimportantconceptfor late-20 centurysociology
(Giddens1977,1984,1985;Lukes 1974,1977,1986).Sincethen,the dispersionmaybe saidto have
beenevengreater,spanningoff into areasof literary, film andtextual criticism, feminist analysis,
socialhistory,organizationanalysisand so on (Clegg 1989:xviii).

84

have
force
latter
the
to
the
the
that
only
of
seen
negative
was
explains
and
manner
restrictive
it
dominates
incapable
doing
to
"incapable
render
what
except
of
anything,
its
of
side,
on
Foucault
be
But
85).
1981:
(Foucault
claims,
cannot
power,
doing anything either"
for
describing
it
term
constitutes
a
general
since
a
wide
phenomenon
unitary
a
as
conceived
in specific
is
be
found
Power
1977,1981).
(Foucault
to
"micro-powers"
spectrum of
families,
factories,
),
interest
(hospitals,
state
apparatuses,
etc.
institutions
prisons, schools
in other words in all social forms- but is never exactly located in
1977),
(Foucault
groups To
"who
It
and
of
centres
a
variety
of
mechanisms.
ask
a
multiplicity
them. operatesvia
holds power?" and "what is the source of this power?" are thus misplaced questions. It is
"the moving substrateof force relations, which by virtue of their inequality, constantly
in
that
to
the
one
attributes
name
a
complex
strategical
situation
power...
engenderstatesof
A
1981:
93).
Foucault,
is
(Foucault
to
strategy,
according
not
any particular society"
individual
by
is
but
formulated
any
particular
or
state
apparatus,
a combination
possessedor
force
by
throughout
those
arising
relations
society
and
characterized
of
multiplicity
of a
forms,
In
has
be
being
techniques
to
etc.
short,
power
seen
as
relations' positioning,
body (Miller & Tilley 1984: 6). A product of this mode of thinking
in
the
social
omnipresent
has been a substantial body of literature on the relation between "power" and "resources"
(i. e. power is coextensive with the social field and does not simply arise from control over
distinction
between
"empowered"
"powerful"
leadership
the
as
on
as
well
and
resources)
(Bourdieu 1984,1991; Bryant & Jary 1991; Cohen 1989; Giddens 1984; Held & Thompson

1989;Scott 1990,1994;Westwood2002).

[6.21A new agendafor archaeology

"... no formula account of the nature or purpose of archaeology (even allowing for agreement
over whether there should even be a discipline of archaeology)
is going to satisfy all parties now, or at any other time"
(Murray 1993: 114).

It is in the wakeof all aforementioneddebatesthat archaeologistshavealso been

in
far
have
to
the
terms
they
rethink
which
so conceivedtheir object of study
encouraged
(Murray 1993:105;Sherratt1995: 122;Wylie 1989: 13).The impetusto the developmentof
freshconceptsmay indeedoriginate(almostexclusively)from outsidethe discipline but has
bring
in
far
to
the
the
managed
students
closercontactwith general
of
past
nevertheless
debatesin socialtheory (Chippindale1993:27; Sherratt1995: 122;Wylie 1989: 13).

85

Of central concern in current archaeological writings has been first and foremost to
"past
"evolutionary"
of
societies" and their "history" are
demonstratethat
understandings
have
described
logic
Tilley
Shanks
based
once
as
a
and
of necessity
largely
what
upon
(Shanks & Tilley 1987a: 54-57). This logic of necessity specifies the necessary categories,
"unit"
of
elements
of
a
given
and ultimately the things
relations
and
the necessarycharacter
"society".
be
To
logic
is
for
"society"
to
to
speak
of
a
of
necessity
really
necessary
are
which
has
be
for,
in
to
everything
accounted
of
selection:
whether
strategy
speak of a research
terms of incorporation or exclusion, conceived as representing the necessary as well as that
is
The
irrelevant.
deemed
is
criteria
upon
which
selection
made are pre-defined,
which
its
both
"society"
"history"
having
that
and
are
conceived
so
as
essential and universal
features.
Put
logic
the
telos
this
thus
simply,
of
uncontested
of necessity
essences,given and
is no other than to bring order to what otherwise looks as an anarchy of dispersed
&
(Shanks
Tilley
55).
difference
1987a:
particularity and
For "post-evolutionary" archaeology however it is particularity and difference that
is
framework
for
Its
to
task
the
provide
conceptual
main
us
with
a
most.
matters
from
"far
integrity"
how,
(Wylie
2003:
1),
compromising
epistemological
understanding
different kinds of diversity may alter quite drastically our previous modes of understanding
(past) social life. Put simply, this is a form of thinking which encouragesus to bring to the
fore what was previously thought to be a (disturbing and confusing) anarchy of detail. The
be
diversity
focus
the
that
should
placed
at
of analytical enquiry means that
position
interrelated
their
to
towards
redefine
attitude
ought
a
of
wide spectrum
archaeologists
themes. First of all, the notion that the present is an amalgam of multiple (and often
forms
is
taken to undermine the "dogmatism" and "spurious certainty"
social
contradictory)
"past"
help
discipline
become "more aware of
to
the
to
thus
the
approaches
and
of previous
its own frailty": the common bodily form we have does not just create one "world" for us, it
in
(Gosden
be
1994: 194). Whether we refer to the
myriad
socially
ways
shaped
can
"present" or the "past", the "social" is an openfield, fixed in the politics of various social
in
interpretative
the
strategies
and
and
practices of various discourses; ultimately, it
relations
is precisely through this array of relations and practices that the meaning of the world is
realized and given some sort of empirical evaluation. Put simply, it is thus argued that
people's understanding of the world and of themselves has always been constructed and
forms
through
various
and at various levels of interaction. The necessary
negotiated
direction of meaning implied by totalitarian conceptual schemataand labels such as "past
society", fails to capture that the actual experience of "Being-in-the-world" (Heidegger
1962), has always been a practical, relational and strategic process.

86

Although this particularmodeof understandingthe "social" has beendescribedby

"many
forms
"amorphous
that
largely
could
assume
and
phenomenon"
shapes"
a
as
many
invites
13),
Wylie
1993:
(Kohl
is
"past"
to
to
to
us
abide
what
usually
evidence
when applied
for
form
intellectual
(i.
this
core
of
unifying
stance
e.
conventional
perceived as a purely
it
diversity)
to
then
that
the
and
recognize
actually
to
social
of
concept
commitment
infinite
idiosyncratic
than
rather
an
variety
of
two
programmes
incorporates
main research
The first one commonly referred to as standpoint archaeology
1991).
(Wylie
problematiques
(Wylie 1989) is an explicitly politicized programme whose central and motivating insight is
in
doing,
displace
"scientism"
the
and
so
research
and
engaged
to enhancepolitically
"objectivism" of "evolutionary" archaeology (Gero & Conkey 1991; Conkey & Spector
1984). The cardinal thesis of this strand is essentially one of inversion: those who are subject
by,
domination
them
that
systematically
and
oppress
may in fact
marginalise
to structures of

be epistemologicallyprivilegedin severalsignificant respects(Wylie 2003) [seealso

here
how
is
first,
Therefore,
6.1].
in
Fig.
the
to
the
aim
understand
systematic
sociology
knowledge
for
then,
to
the
arises
and
operates
and
account
partiality of authoritative
by
from
in
those
made
working
marginal
standpoints
countering
contributions
constructive
&
Blunt
Post-colonial
McEwan 2002;
(Bhabha
1994;
1991).
(Wylie
theory
this partiality
Gosden 1999,2001; Loomba 1998; Meskell & Preucel 2004; Prakash 1995; Yaeger 1996),
feminist theory (Gero & Conkey 1991; Meskell & Preucel 2004; Moore 1994; Tringham
1991; Wylie 1989,1991a, 1991b) and more recently queer theory (Dowson & Lewis-

Williams 1994;Meskell 1998;Meskell & Preucel2004) constitutethe three most distinctive

branchesof this broadintellectualstance[Fig. 6.2]:

Feminist theory in archaeology

Queer theory in archaeology

Post-colonial theor y in
archaeology

"At the very heartof feminist scholarshipis the visionary

human
argumentthat modemarrangements
relationshipsas
-in
well as in scientific understandings-might be radically
otherwise.Feminist scholarsin all scientific fields must
contend...with the systematicexclusionof womenfrom
systemsof knowledge"(Gero 2000: 304).
"Archaeology has been consistently underpinning a
heterosexual artifice of human prehistory- archaeologists

produceconstructionsthat provide the origins for modem,

Westernfamily values" (Dowson2000:283).
"The mixed characterof colonial populations,in which
elementsof settlerand local culture combinedto shapea
distinct cultural entity hassuggestedthat hybridity and
ambiguitymore accuratelycharacterizecolonial relations"
(Lyons & Papadopoulos2002: 7).

Fig. 6.2 "Standpoint"theoriesin archaeology

87

In seekingto challengeall appealsto foundational,predeterminedand

in
linguistics
Fig.
6.1],
"post[see
the
second
also
transcontextually valid standards
in
introduces
critique
of
scientific
radical
practice
more
and
so
a
much
strand
modernist"
doing, disassociatesitself entirely from the presumption of epistemological privilege that
justify.
is
It
"standpoint"
to
theorists
alike
seek
"evolutionists"
argued that working
both
and
kind)
(conceptual
(of
the
only
runs
of
creating
not
risk
any
with predetermined categories
importantly,
denies
form
identity
is
but
that
any
of
more
even
and empirical) myths
Barrett
foremost
the
first
as
points
out
understanding
of
such
as
relationship;
and
constructed
in
breakthrough
be
depend
to
professes
a
methodological
which
a
upon
cannot
relationship
a
"identities"
"groups"
or
with
specific
to
predefined
associate
position
A
(Barrett
1988).
"standpoint"
the
given
archaeological record
aspects/elements/sectorsof
by
have
been
"totalizing"
the
that
just
is
obscured
others
many
amongst
version
one
theory
is
"seriously"
diversity
(Wylie
When
Enlightenment
taken
this
tradition.
the
theories of

found
be
deeply
divided
"standpoints"
be
deviant
to
these
43),
among
then
may
1991:
all
for
being
the
the
that
case,
search
a commensuratinganalytical
andwith
themselves
frameworkwhich will encompassandunify all suchframeworks-the central aim of
EnlightenmentScience-oughtto be given up altogether(Bapty & Yates 1990;Barrett 1987a,
1987b;Gosden1994;Hodder 1986,1990,1991;Hodderet al. 1995;Olsen 1986;Patrik
1985;Shanks& Tilley 1987a,1987b,1989a,1989b;Thomas 1996).The possibility for an
"us"
because,
deferred
is
infinitum
the
things
thus
ad
nor
people
and
neither
we
archaeology
be
formalised,
(Yates
1990:
totalised
to
to
can
reduced,
and/or
exhausted
study
seek wish
273).
Despite their differences, both "post-evolutionary" research programmes lay
implications
has
fact
"evolutionary"
the
theory
the
that
serious
upon
of
emphasis
particular
ideologies
by
Western
self-justification
of
permitting the evaluation, elevation and
served
form
Shanks
&
for
(see
a
the
of
social
one
celebration
vis
vis
others
example,
ultimately
Tilley 1987a, 1987b). The notion that "complexity" can be elevated in relation to
"simplicity", "inequality" in relation to "equality" and so on is argued to constitute a product
in
to
tendency
the
classify
societies
an evaluative hierarchy and to judge them (implicitly
of
degree
by
their
of deviation from our own society. In "post-evolutionary"
or explicitly)
thought however, writing about the past cannot be conceived as a reductionist and/or
essentialistprocess, subsuming the particular to an abstract social logic, to a priori
categories,defining and searching for essential and "objective" features of "society" (Shanks
& Tilley 1987a: 59). And if it is no longer possible to provide a precise definition of the
"societal" then it is also not possible to reconstruct universal developmental sequencesof
"societal units". What is proposed instead is that thought and unthought differences
create

88

fabric
history
is
the
that
of
made
ultimately,
so
up of many
time-scales
action
of
complex
The
to
the
their
power
pull
and
push
social
own
process.
each
with
contradictory elements,
difference,
it
dissolve
but
find
is
to
to
to
therefore
in
make
go
away,
not
the
present
task
"history"
longer
the
to
forms
that
concept
of
no
refers
so
abstract
mutuality
of
unparalleled
facets
being
but
human
temporalities
to
the
time-zones
and
of
multiple
measuresof global
(Gosden 1994: 196; Shanks & Tilley 1987a: 176). In a sense,instead of perceiving history as
demonstrate
is
different temporal
to
that
now
made
temporality,
attempt
an
a universal
history
is
its
thus
to
contingent
a
and
not
a
necessary
shaping;
contribute
orientations
historically
determinate
and
variable sets of social relations:
process, contingent upon
"Evolutionary theories suggestthat history is essentially closed in on itself,
but
basic
be
basic
in
there
to
processes
of
are
no
such
set
processes;
a
residing
found. Processes
exist but they are alwaysdifferent, singular,non-identicalwith
be
is
It
this
that
this
singularity
we
should
stressing.
non-identity,
other.
each
Rather than attemptingto formulate positions which would once and for all
be
in
the
emphasizingthat there are no
an
absolute
sense,
should
we
past
explain
dig
down
in
fundamentals
to
to
order to ground our analyses.The
absolutes,no
in
isolate
to
series
of
events
or
essential
elements
and
processes
results
a
attempt
turning away from history which becomes overlooked. It results in the
ideological
history"
&
Tilley
(Shanks
1987a:
a
reductionist
and
of
production
176).
It almost goes without saying that in stressing the existence of multiple forms of
human involvement with the world, archaeologists have also been encouraged to redefine the
human relationship with the material world. We mentioned earlier that the very act of doing
in
in
front
that
the
place
ourselves
we
a particular way and
of
world
archaeology requires
implies
different
in
What
is
it
this
that
there
of
ways
which
are
a
number
evidence.
as
read
beings
just
human
towards
can
comport
ourselves
as
our
material
surroundings
and
we as
this insight illuminates our practice as archaeologists, it may also help us understand the
between
in
have
things
times
the past
persons
and
which
existed
at
various
relationships
(Thomas 1996: 64). Under this scheme,the previously dominant notion that material culture
can provide a window through which we can seethrough and read-off past social reality, no
longer appearsto be valid (Patrik 1985). Since any attempt to understand material culture is
it
follows
interpretation,
depend
then
that
of
always
meaning
will
on context and the
act
an
interpreter
in relation to this context, whether prehistoric social actor or
the
position of
contemporary archaeologist:

"If archaeologywere to operateon the assumptionthat only one interpretive

programmewas presencedin our data, in other words that the data meant
something(a truth to which they referred)andthat the meaningis recoverableby
us today (ratherthan material conditionshaving once given rise to a number of
readings),then we would never grasp how history is created from multiple
strandsof human practice... An interpretive archaeologytries to get close to

89

hopes,
the
how
were
once
seeing
world
one
of
ways
other
-and
understanding
171).
1994a:
(Barrett
more"
nothing
still remain- possible:

16.31Postmodern risks
"[The "postmodemist"turn] hasleadto far too many rehearsalsof argumentswhich go like this:
theory, (ii) someambitionsto "deconstruction",
(i) an attackon Cartesianor Cartesian-influenced
for
"a
difference".
like
"the
(iv)
foil
call
politics
other"
and
a
of
few
to
(iii) a
allusions an all-purpose
It is all much too safe and antiseptic"
(Thrift 1991:459).

As Murray hasrightly stressed,evenif we acceptthat all aforementioned

in
in
to
developmentspoint a paradigmaticshift social sciencesand archaeology particular,
implications
is
this
be
that
the
to
of
new perspective
recognize
prepared
also
what we should
"post1999:
24).
In
(Murray
for
hard
to
haveprovedvery
manyarchaeologists accept
from
fears
is
the
taken
to
this
about
understandable
stem
skepticism
quarters,
evolutionary"
"present".
"past"
If
familiar
between
and
one
a
relationship
consequencesof changing
have
issues
however,
that
the
themes
occasioned
such
and
carefully
more
examines
in
(and
discipline
the
the
epistemological
practice
confines of
widespreaduneasewithin
"post-evolutionary"
between
"evolutionary"
it
becomes
that
the
and
chasm
obvious
general),
fact that the latter have been unable to articulate
due
largely
is
to
the
archaeologists
As
Chippindale
(Chippindale
Kohl
1993).
1993;
in
theories
their
practice
convincingly
in
"post-evolutionary"
the
that
two
previous
examined
the
we
of
archaeology
variants
claims
"a
beginning
be
6.2]
Section
[see
with
can portrayed as archaeological ambitions
chapter
large aim, which the best method of study does not seem able to deliver" (Chippindale 1993:
28).

With regardto "standpoint"archaeologyon the onehand, severalscholars

(belongingnot only to the "evolutionary" but for that matter,alsoto the "post-evolutionary"
has
been
is
declared
have
that
this
tendency
an
ambitious
end
usually
stressed
whose
school)
to have been fulfilled although it has patently failed to do so. According to Wylie, it is
important first of all to recognize that a number of important similarities between this
"evolutionist"
be
identified,
despite
thinking
the
of
and
may
mode
paradigm
of
particular
their otherwise marked differences (Wylie 1991,1996). What we are dealing with here is
denouncing
the
the entire "evolutionary"
strand
which
a
rejects
option
of
essentially
in
because
its
least
part
of
at
concern to guard against the possibility that its own
enterprise,
itself
be
dismissed
"merely
"biased"
might
as
political"
practice
or "marginalised", i. e. an
has
that
credibility only for its practitioners. "Standpoint" archaeologists
view
alternative

90

the
the
their
quality
and
credibility
the
which
of
that
against
own results
standards
profess
(even
"objective
fact
though
they
in
judged,
standards"
are certainly not the ones
are
are
"evolutionary"
Westernheterosexual,
The
distinction
by
agenda).
male,
a
envisaged
-white,
"evolutionary"
"post-evolutionary"
is
between
draw
thought
therefore
and
thus
they
that
"bad"
(Wylie
"good"
1991:
"science"
42),
between
is
distinction
and
science
per
se
really a
if
"evolutionary"
Put
(and
the
term.
to
simply,
vocabulary
an
problematic
a
considered
not
itself) becomes "enriched" or approached from a
"evolutionary"
the
paradigm
extent
different "point of view", then it may even qualify as epistemologically effective and
instance,
find
So
for
"problem
the
to
the
cases
we
solution
where
of
ontologically sensitive.
bad science" is merely an issue of bringing in higher resolution concepts and a new "angle of
"possibilities"
to
the
opportunity
add
previously
overlooked
provide
may
and
vision" which
"readings" to already existing conceptual and analytical constructs. For others however,
"evolutionary"
do
bear
"validity"
(and
is
theory
this
equal
and
not
a point
counter-theories
in
insights
former
because
the
the
gender
studies);
of
are
expressed
preferred
predominantly
it allegedly establishesan "angle of vision" which offers the opportunity to see "more"
feminist
In
for
instance,
have
than
archaeology
several
scholars
others.
claimed that
clearly
"evolution" becomes a problem only in so far as it is portrayed as an "androcentric"
Gero
&
1991;
Gero
&
(Conkey
Conkey
1991;
Fausto-Sterling
1985;
Tringham
phenomenon
1991).

Anotherseriousimplication of "standpoint"theoriesin archaeology,hasto do with

the unfortunatefact that archaeologicalremainsare all too frequently"silent" on the problem
differences
determining
and
specifying
contributionsof distinct social groupsin
of actually
the past(Kohl 1993:15).At best,what archaeologicalanalysiscan confirm is that at the
does
certain
activities,
of
a
given
social
milieu
micro-scale
not necessarily presuppose and/or
distinctions
drawn
the
today (i. e. women in the past did not have an
as
ones
such
encourage
"inferior" status, people in the past were not homophobic). If however present distinctions
(and/or forms of understanding such distinctions) do not apply to the archaeological
evidence,why should we carry on using them as a means for gaining more accessto and/or a
"better" image of that past? For example, if there appearsto be no distinction between "men"
in
"women"
pottery production, hunting, agricultural activities etc2why do we then
and
maintain that gender ought to be seen as a constituent element of "every aspect of human
experience" (Flax 1987: 622)?

2 Onemight evenarguethat a similar caseis essentiallymadefor the

striking majority of activities
that maybe inferredby the archaeologicalevidence.

91

It is partly becauseof the above implications that the second "post-evolutionary"

far
perspective,
opening
in
radicalist
up
considerable
more
space
a
adopts
archaeology
strand
interests
into
"external"
the process of
and
insinuation
of
values
for the
of a wider variety
Under
"truth"
is
"past".
this
the
scheme,
nothing more than
formulating
both
and evaluating
&
"knowledge"
Tilley
1987a:
22);
"past"
(Shanks
the
of
"[mobile]
army of metaphors"
a
has
been
description
theoretically
little
the
than
of
already
what
"consists of
more
& Tilley 1987b: 43). And if all those concepts are constantly under
(Shanks
constituted"
"present" nothing should prevents us from arguing the same for the "past".
in
the
negotiation
As several proponents of this strand have argued we should not deny but rather welcome the
infinite
Put
flexible.
the
"past
and
simply,
strategic
variety of
that
were
agents"
possibility
"individual", "micro-political" and other "contextually specific interests" (Wylie 1996: 439)
interaction
for
in
driving
force
impetus,
been
the
have
the
the
social
action
and
main
would
"past" (Barrett 2004).

But if what we previously perceived as our object of study is inherently

if
located
there is simply no single
"polysemous",
along open systems of signified-signifiers,
is
it
discover
(Barrett
1988)
for
to
that
then
precisely
what
we as
archaeologists
meaning
does
"moving
How
face
How
target"?
the
threat
to
one
study
can
one
a
grasp?
seek
analysts
is
fixed?
Even
if
"
1983:
18)?
(Bernstein
"madness
nothing
we go along
and chaos where
of
individuals"
(Hodder
"active
1986;
the
that
exaggerated
centredness
the
of
premise
with
Shanks& Tilley 1987a, b), "knowledgeable agents" (Giddens 1984; Barrett 1994a, 2000,
2001), "bodies that matter" (Butler 1993; Hamilakis et al. 2002; Rainbird & Hamilakis 2001)
being
human"
(Heidegger
Gosden
Thomas
1996,
1962;
1994;
Dasein-"the
of
activity
or
2000: 8) found within this alternative conceptual framework does indeed contribute to the
in
"past",
is
it
it
the
the
that
subjects
of
empowered
not
case
simultaneously
establishment
denies such a possibility/potential for archaeologists in the "present"? If on the other hand
is
"past"
that
the
current
vision
archaeologists'
not only a product of their time
of
we accept
but also one which can be broken down into a series of "pasts" linked with the specific
interests,
is
driven
from
that
them
prejudgments
and
standpoints
each
one
of
sociopolitical
(Trigger
1989b:
777),
"pasts"
to
then
serve
could
such
credibility
claim on
what
and seeks
their own behalf? Would not their results be as limited and biased as those they are meant to
displace (Wylie 1989: 2-3,1996: 436)? Even more worrisome, if all these "standpoints"
into
bring
the
the
of
accounts
partiality
of
past
view a different "past", or new
and
reveal
"past",
does
it not follow that any number of such "standpoints"
that
ways of understanding
(Wylie
do
1993:
21)? And in such a case,what could stop the proliferation of
the
same
might
history
views
of
and the slide into "hyperrelativism" (Trigger 1989b: 777), i. e. an
conflicting
"standpoint
relativism" according to which "the credibility of each of these
extreme

92

interest
(Wylie
1989:
2,1996:
is
specific"
and
or
perspective
"versions" strictly context
436)?

It follows from the abovethat to accept,asthe second"postmodemist" stranddoes,

"evolutionary"
least
the
categories
of
(or
archaeology
and
core concepts
most) of
at
that all
"tyranny"
but
to
the
is
the
that
to
thing,
only
response
of
suggest
deeply
one
problematic
are
"anarchy"
be
to
the
determinism"
of the object as well as the
an
adherence
can
"evolutionary
Shennan
(Bernstein
1983;
2002:
9;
is
discourse
another
quite
subject of epistemological
Whitley 1992: 88)! As Gellner rightly stresses,the awesome difficulty of gaining accessto
"past"
in
the
the
"others"
the
of
multi-dimensional,
recognition
coupled
with
the meaning of
inherently complex fabric of human existence and social being may all too easily end up
"softening us up"; it does not "illuminate us" (Gellner 1995: 50).

In seeking to further strengthenthis final point, some scholars make a very strong
"deconstructionist"
the
the
the
that
of
of
version
application
arguing
casewhen
"postmodern" paradigm in archaeology ought to be viewed as an implicit (or rather explicit? )
(Bender
1993;
Carrithers
late
high
20`"
the
century
capitalism
of
workings
manifestation of
2005; Dobres & Robb 2002; Moore 1995). Moore is the one who stressesmost emphatically
becoming)
(or
least
kind
become
has
the
of
a
strange
of
at
runs
risk
now
that archaeology
is
has
(Moore
equally
equal
valueless
everything
value
and
everything
market place where
1995: 52-53). In the context of meaning endlessly deferred, with one story being as good as
is
for
itself
for
instantaneous
consumption
sale,
everything
offers
any other, everything up
(Eagleton 1986). There is simply no "past" but only a plethora of idiosyncratic and highly
(Moore
1995:
"a
future
impressions
present"
of
present
past,
a
present
and
a
present
volatile
53). Explanation and interpretation become a mere description of "alternatives" in the
be
between
for
because
those
can
adduced
no
mechanism
or
permitted
choosing
process,
fragmentation
disruption,
Methodological
to
and
and
conceptual
commitment
alternatives.
instability
in
the
chronic
context
of
a
of meaning ultimately makes self-reflection
critique
futile, drains it of its critical purchase and of its potential for motivated paradigmatic change.
In short, the temporary and shifting nature of value to which "post-evolutionary" thought is
deconstruct
it
have
in
to
the
old
able
any
purpose
while
might
undermines
world;
committed
"certainties", it becomespowerless when it tries to apply the same critical tools to itself
(Eagleton 1986; Moore 1995).

But if this is indeedthe case,can archaeologyafford to embracea mode of thinking

(if not a politics of style) (Moore 1995:52) which is devoid of any sharednotion of
Ultimately
(if not ironically) can archaeologyafford to embrace
and
value?
aspiration
a

93

"social"
focusing
in
fact,
be
it
the
to
on
when
provides
no
thinking
professes
which
of
mode
its
for
its
(Johnson
2004:
for
that
subjects
nor
object
of
study
neither
notion
sustaining
means
100; Joyce 1997)?

16.41Conclusions

From the Enlightenment years until the early decadesof the 20' century, the
"evolutionary" paradigm constituted a middle ground shared by various (and often
in other words, on which most intellectual
terrain
theoretical
a
perspectives,
competing)
discussions(and battles) were fought out. Since then, the fissures in this common ground
have openedup dramatically and they go very deep. Their origins were as much political as
intellectual (i. e. rejection of the notion of scientific "progress"/ "truth", collapse of "nationdissolving
had
largely
the
effect
whatever consensus
and
of
state" organization/power)
human
be
As
how
before
the
condition
should
approached.
a result of these
about
existed
developments,key "evolutionary" idea(l)s, such as "objectivity" and "society", have been
"power"
fundamental
the
other
such
as
or
whereas
concepts
altogether
abandoned
"individual" have been largely redefined; a new form of paradigmatic reasoning is thus now
becoming available, emphasizing "diversity", "subjectivity" and effectively the
"multifaceted" as well as "situational" character of human life and existence. In the wake of
have
been encouraged to recognize that archaeology can also
debates,
archaeologists
these
for
"human".
(are
In
food
the
thought
things
that
taken
to)
about
make
now
us
provide
"polysemous"
inherently
dynamic,
culture
as
and
multiple
material
recognizing
(spatiotemporal) levels of connection are now established between the "material" and the
"social" whereas on the other hand, the pre-eminence previously enjoyed by the concept of
"History" has been now replaced by a wide variety of "readings" and "writings" about the
past.

Despite the obvious contribution that this paradigmatic shift had to our ways of
thinking and writing about the "past", it currently seemsto be leading to some (equally
serious) epistemological problems and ontological dead-ends.In this chapter we suggested
that however essential "theory ladenness", `multivocality" and "pluralism" are to

"epistemological"thinking and performance(Wylie 2000: 154),this is not necessarilyto

endorsethat the only principle of practicewhich holds acrossthe board (whetherwe refer to
the "past" or the "present")is that any "rule" and! or interpretationcan be transgressed:
"anythinggoes"(Feyerabend1988).Very much in line with what various critics of the
"postmodern"paradigmhaverepeatedlypointedout, we concludedthat this is
a schoolof

94

how
(or
do)
fails
to
of
archaeologists
account
can
satisfying
any
make
give
thought which
(Wylie 2000:
the
the
judgements
of
competing
claims
about
justify
credibility
past
about
and
147).

Interestingly, if one looks more closely at the early writings of even the most
fear
"anything
"post-evolutionary"
the
archaeology,
of
goes"
of
enthusiastic proponents
late
1980s
(Hodder
1986:
from
16,1991:
10;
Shanks
&
the
apparent
tolerance was readily
had
"radical
While
1987b).
these
1987a,
scholars
endorsed
a
pluralism" according to
Tilley
is
(Shanks & Tilley 1987:
interpretation
to
the
"any
open
change"
past
multiple
and
of
which
109) they also made sure to mention that "we cannot afford the essential irrationality of
be
from
feet"
the
this
cutting
very
ground
away
would
our
as
subjectivism or relativism
(Shanks & Tilley 1987a: 110, my emphasis). That this concern has become revitalized in
be
for
discipline
indicate
the
this
time
that
a renewed effort at
may
ripe
recent years may
"bridge building" (Schiffer 2000: 5) and a commitment to rethink current intellectual
less
&
(Shanks
McGuire
2000).
"in
and
polemical
productive
way"
more
a
polarizations
This intention as expressedin several recent works is in itself is of fundamental importance;

it impliesthat a new kind of ethosis slowly but steadilybecomingestablishedamongstthe

is
from
that
the current
obdurate
an
principle
a
shift
of
which
generation,
scholarsof our
divisions,
doubts
(Bintliff
1993;
Flannery
1982)
disarray,
and
splits
and
uncertainties
of
state
if
for
far
be
the
archaeologists
only
we
assume
responsibility
exercising
more
possible
will
demolishingin
than
thought
creating
paths of communication amongst
creative
-rather
&
Hodder
1996:
674;
Schiffer
6;
Wylie
1989:
6).
(Preucel
2000:
ourselves'

To understandwhat suchan (epistemologicalas well as ontological) enterprise

in
So
Minoan
terms
that
to
practical
more
requires
we
now
return
archaeology.
entail
would
far, it has been suggestedthat the recent tendency in Minoan studies to express a loss of
in
formal
"palace"
in
long
dominant
"
the
categories
such
as
such
as
and
concepts
confidence
"social
is
developments
in
the
and/or
evolution",
not
a
result
of
ongoing
merely
complexity"
field [see Chapter Five] but also a product of the direct or indirect, partial or full, implicit or
Minoan
involvement
in
have
here
described as the broader
of
scholarship
what
we
explicit
theoretical discoursesand intellectual transformations of the late 20th-early 21' century [see
Sections6.1,6.2]. Although this involvement was initially inferred through writings that
in
(with
dominant
"evolutionary" models being
tone
the
remedial
more
remained
previously
the obvious target), what we have been witnessing within the last five years is the gradual
3 Interestingly, in recent years there is a wider and generally increasing
concern with "ethics" not just
in archaeology(Pluciennik 2001; Vitelli 1996) but also in many other disciplines (Pluciennik 2001:
1).

95

discipline. The following

"postmodern"
the
trends
the
confines
within
of
of
crystallization
intellectual
how
describe
to
this
wave
seeks
new
redefine our previous modes of
will
chapter
has
(a
far been used essentially as a
"Minoan
term
the
which
so
past"
understanding
its
"history")
but
in
"palatial
have
the
and
phenomenon"
view
of
what
we
of
synonym
discussed in this chapter it will at the same time caution against the conceptual and
Section
[see
6.3]
that
such a shift of perspective potentially
problems/risks
epistemological
Discussion
by
Minoan
for
in
that
trends
will
proceed
archaeology.
arguing
current
entails
in
Minoan
in
in
archaeology
and
particular
are
general
not
so
much
need of a
archaeology
"postmodern" transformation as of "renewed resolve to come to grips with the problems,
issuesand concerns that modem, processual archaeology and its antecedentshave rightly
be
25).
It
1993:
(Wylie
help
that
the
thing
that
argued
only
will
would
us
addressed"
in
(highly
(Minoan)
the
the
current
state
problematic)
of
affairs
studies
of
past [see
surmount
Section 6.4] would be to shift attention towards the identification/exploration of
(re
)construction
that
ontological
as
options
allow
as
well
will
as opposed to
epistemological
deconstruction. In the course of developing these arguments, emphasis will then be laid upon
illuminate
how
key
a
constructivist
perspective
can
some
questions and themes
exemplifying
"palatial
its
"emergence".
to
the
phenomenon"
and
related

96

7
On categories

and questions

"The way in which we think and examinea problemwill itself give rise
to what are seenas appropriatesolutions"
(Bauman& May 2001: 124,my emphasis).
[7.11Postmodern echoes in Minoan archaeology: Rethinking the "palace" category

In earlierchapters,we demonstratedthat amongstthe most significant developments

has
been
in
Minoan
the systematicrethinking of the conceptof the
studies,
of recentyears
"palace"both in termsof empiricalvalidity as well as analyticalpotential [seeChapterFive].
In orderto appreciatemore fully the impact that thoserevisionistattemptshad upon Minoan
be
hold
to
the
that the "palace" possessedon
only
needs
reminded
one
of
robust
archaeology,
the "evolutionary" scholarlyimagination[seeSections2.2,3.2,4.4]. In fact, the immense
importance
and
ontological
weight
accordedto the conceptof the "palace"
epistemological
bringsto mind what "postmodern"writingsrefer to (at leastin part) whenthey describe
"evolutionary"archaeologyas an "archaeologyof representation"(Barrett 1994: 154;Miller
1985:2; Patrik 1985).The term essentiallyrefersto the tendencyto view a particular
(in
this casethe "palace") asthe mark of a particular
of
material
culture
assemblage
historicalreality. This tendencyis groundedon the onehand,upon the belief in the empirical
cohesionanduniquenessof a certaincategory(i. e. the "palace" is analytically distinct, welldefinedand"special"), andthe desireon the other,to associatethat cohesionwith a
relativelyuniform setof pastcultural values.Underthis scheme,the significanceaccordedto
the "palace"is twofold: not only doesit havespecialvalue for us in the present(i. e. as a
well-definedanalyticalunit and an extra-ordinarybuilding programme)but is alsotaken to

97

in
(i.
for
the
past
e. as the material expression
people
value
have carried an equally significant
kind
in
form
of
social
organization
and
a
complex
new
stage
more
a
of authority,
of a new
be
"aggregate
"palace"
thus
viewed
as
an
In
may
construction"
the
category
history).
a way,
both
to
25),
epistemology and
aspects/issues
pertinent
(Barth 2002:
covering and combining
30-33; Klynne 1998: 207). The table below summarizes how this
2000:
(Hitchcock
ontology
has
informed
"evolutionary"
145-148)
1987:
(Lakoff
ways of thinking
"complex category"
[Fig. 7.1]:
Minoan
the
past
and approaching
A well-defined analytical category

P
A

Epistemology

A locus of centralizedauthority

A
C
E

An unprecedented material phenomenon

Ontology

A new/more complex kind of societal order

An unprecedentedhistorical phenomenon

7.1 An insight into the anatomyof "aggregateconstructions":

What the Minoan "palace" representsfor "evolutionary" archaeology.

Another issuethat we discussedin previoussections[seeChapterSix] is how and on

disquiet
"representation".
First
"postmodernist"
the
archaeology
of
all,
rejects
what grounds,
(as
fuelled
have
been
this
concept
against
well
as
methodological
strategy)
critique
with and
by the ideathat classificationsof materialculture arenot a neutraldeviceand independentof
theory [seeSections6.1,6.2]. As Straussrightly claims "nothing is more absolutethan the
fact that nothing is absolute" (Strauss 1994: 4). Efforts to create some kind of "natural"

is
involves
definition
the
since
simply
unattainable,
any
such
attempt
of
classification
(i.
86;
(Bernard
1994:
24;
Jenkins
1996:
to
the
e.
significant
criteria
classifier)
significant
Shanks& Tilley 1987b: 83). The arrangement of these criteria in some order of importance

dependson prior knowledgeand expectations(i. e. what we know or want to know)

(Ramenofsky& Steffen1998:3). As Bernardrightly stresses,unit constructionis really
"deciding
(Bernard
24).
follows
1994:
It
from this that an
to
which
value
record"
about
infinite number of different classificatory systems may be developed for the same data set
(Ramenofsky & Steffen 1998: 6; Strauss 1994: 4). At the same time, it is very likely that the
taxonomic systemsmodeled by the archaeologist are not compatible with those utilized in

98

"real"
Our
6.2].
therefore
Section
to the people to
[see
are
not
necessarily
categories
the past
have
(Jenkins
1996:
86).
them
such
expectations
any
of
we
should
they
nor
and
refer
whom
In short, the notion that material culture is an open text encourages us to direct our attention
for
discovery
"essential",
(which
knowledge
the
from
strives
of
epistemological
away
"neutral", "monolithic" meanings), towards the realm of ontological polysemy: (past)
be
have
(i.
taken
to
the
medium
of
social
actions)
should
and
not
a
product
e.
material culture
fixed meaning, neither for us in the present nor the people of the past. As a result of this, no
is
"better",
"classificatory"
that
establish
as
archaeologists
schema
we
more
category or
"reliable" or more significant than others [see Section 6.21. No category will ever help us

life
its
in
totality
intrinsic
this
social
of
past
and
of
point,
the
complexity
capture
"postmodern"archaeologyinsists,we constantlyneedto be reminded.
Following this line of thinking, variousMinoan scholarshaverecently cast serious
doubtuponwhat was long takento constitutethe central and most striking featureof the
Minoan record(i.e. the "palace").In particular,it haslately begunto be stressedthat it is
idea
is
"palace"
the
that
terms
the
to
to
category
time
with
not as power. u11
come
now
(epistemologically and ontologically) as previously anticipated (Ramenofsky & Steffen
1998: 9). At a purely empirical level, an increasing number of writings is currently
longer
it
is
functionally
that
to
plausible
no
a
speak
of
morphologically
and
acknowledging
distinct unit [see Section 5.2]. Along with these doubts and uncertainties over the category's
has
come the realization that the ontological value previously attributed to
empirical validity,
the "palace" (essentially on the basis of its so-called epistemological distinctiveness and
be
"palace"
longer
fulcrum,
be
the
the
the
also
recast:
should
ought
no
as
viewed
singularity)
driving force of all socio-political processesin the history of the island [see Sections 5.2,5.3,
5.4]. Being essentially a construction arising from our study of the Minoan record, it is not
representativeof any social or economic conditions (Knappett 1999); to think so would be a
over-simplified characterization of a quite diverse and complex set of data (Barrett 2004).

For this body of evidenceto work asthe basisof ontological and historical
it
be
from
the representationsof a particular event(the
must
not
reduced
understanding,
building
of
a
we choose to call "palace") to a characterization of a socioconstruction
historical process [see Sections 5.2,5.3,5.4]. What our engagement with the evidence must
instead
are the conditions ofpossibility for human action, that is the "diversity of
address
conditions out of which new and at times old, similar forms of order arose at different times,
in different places, and from diverse conditions" (Barrett 2004: 23) [see Sections 6.1,6.2].

99

And
how
be
realized?
analysis
how
of
But
exactly would such a programme
for
Minoan
that
it
expectations
our
now
future
archaeology
guarantee
could
promising a
increasing
last
few
In
fallen
have
the
through?
"palace"
years,
category
concerning the
issue and although we are still at the early stages of
directed
this
been
towards
has
attention
in
begun
have
the
to
two
crystallise
already
strands
enterprise,
this admittedly painstaking
literature.
The proponents of the first strand (Adams 2004; Relaki 2003,2004; Schoep 2002a,
"palace"
be
distinct
if
to
the
take
category and one which
a
2002b) argue that, even we
form
island
Crete,
the
the
of
social
organization
on
of
indeed reflects
emergenceof a new
into
forming
lead
us
a single classificatory schema and
this should not necessarily
instead
is
here
is
"palatial"
What
for
horizon
that
a
structures.
advocated
all
explanatory
find
from
"representation"
its
(and
to
that
an
escape
route
wishes
program of analysis
itself
have
the
their
to
operation
of
particular
with
conditions
concern
and
will
pitfalls),
Day
&
Schoep
(Adams
2004;
Relaki
2002:
228;
2002a,
2002b,
2004:
consequences
possible
245,255). Put simply, how the "palace" category was historically generated and reproduced,
local
by
Essentially
idiosyncratic
to
be
variations
reference
and
readings.
only
may grasped
(empirical)
detail
(i.
fine-grained
the
the
the
on
emphasis
e.
on
complex
greater
and
therefore,
the
to
the
closer
get
these
appreciating
we
multiplicity of meanings and
structures),
of
nature
broadly
"palaces",
(Day
these
term
that
structures
of
we
actually
each
encapsulated
purposes
& Relaki 2002: 229; Schoep 2002a, 2002b, 2004: 245,255).

The emphasis (epistemological and ontological) laid upon the examination of the
"palace",
be
directing
is
to
to
the
seems
each
of
attention
exploration
of
what
particularities
broadly conceived of as "local dynamics". This notion of the "local" dictates in a way, how
"historical"
"social"
the
are also perceived. In the case of the former (i. e. the
the
and
"social"), it appearsthat the morphological and functional typology of each "palatial"
be
is
"local"
"local"
in
to
the
this case, refers to the
viewed
as
result
of
and
needs
monument
immediate surroundings of each "palace" (Adams 2004; Relaki 2003; Schoep 2002a;
2002b). Similarly, the morphological and functional development of each "palace"(the
biography of each of these compounds in other words) (Schoep 2004: 245,255), is also
taken to be inextricably connected with "local" processesand transformations (Relaki 2003,
2004; Schoep2002a, 2002b, 2004; Vansteenhuyse 2002: 241; Whitelaw 2004a). The
"regional"
(spatio-temporal)
"micro-scale"
that
the
of
position
studies
studies
and
paramount
in
Minoan
literature,
is
occupy
a phenomenon associated explicitly with this very
currently
form of problematique (Adams 2004; Knappett 1999; Relaki 2003; Schoep 2002a, 2002b,
2004; Whitelaw 2004a).

100

The secondstrandappearsto adopta more radical perspectivethan the one discussed

"palace"
have
is
that
the
reminded
recently
us
In
category
scholars
above. particular,several
"palatial"
building
has
idiosyncratic
that
the
each
many
grounds
not problematicmerely on
because
features
but
functional
the
a
good
also
number
of
elements
morphologicaland
"palatial" sector are now found to be
be
(exclusively)
the
to
associated
with
taken
previously
Section
diffusion
[see
5.2].
This
led
"non-palatial"
in
the
diffused
the
sector
also
widely
"palace"
longer
that
the
to
the
can
stand
no
this
conclusion
as a unique
strand
of
proponents
identifying
in
focus
this
by
the
other,
case
shifts
upon
more
of
enquiry
extension,
case;
"palace"
that
the
schemata
could
replace
categories/classificatory
effective epistemological
Chapter
Here
however,
2002c)
[see
81.
Hamilakis
2002;
the
(Driessen
also
al.
et
altogether
does
depend
the
these
not
upon
meticulous
epistemological
units
alternative
of
construction
first
(i.
by
"micro-scale"
investigation
the
the
strand
e.
as
envisaged
of
and systematic
distribution
"palatial"
instead
independent
"palace"
the
of
wide
case);
as an
examine each
features and functions (monumental architectural elements, agricultural storage, feasting,
is taken to call for the expansion
luxurious
for
production
and
consumption)
craft
evidence
landscape"
"broader
the
towards
social
and
political
and
geographic,
analysis
of our scopeof
interactions
interconnections
highly
(and
and
complex)
web
of
socio-political
thus a wider
(Day & Relaki 2002: 219,222; Hamilakis 2002c: 198-199).

What precisely is meant by the term "wider web" remains somehow unclear;
however the practical application of these ideas has been so far limited to the New Palace
distribution
"palatial"
2002c),
(Hamilakis
the
to
where
evidence
a
of
points
wide
period
features and structures, unprecedentedin scale (Driessen 1982,1989-90; Driessen et al.
2002; Hitchcock 2000). Moreover and contrary to the first strand, no specific reference
diachronic
development
be
(Hamilakis
2002c:
to
to
either
regional
made
variation
or
appears
199). Rather, the central concern here appearsto be more general, i. e. to devise more flexible
in
for
Minoan
fluidity
the
the
past,
which
will
our
allow
patterns
of
archaeological
accounts
interpretations (Day & Relaki 2002: 219; Hamilakis 2002b: 16). In seeking to do so, along
"palatial"
features
"palaces",
directs
diffusion
the
this
the
of
outside
strand
also
with
(and
dictated/imposed
by
to
than
those
social
relations
material
expressions)
other
attention
the "outdated and dangerous" "evolutionary" categorizations (such as the "palace")
(Hamilakis 2002b: 15-21). For instance, in a recent volume entitled "Labyrinth Revisited:
Rethinking "Minoan " Archaeology" (Hamilakis 2002a), various scholars experiment with
interpretive angles and directions of enquiry such as "gender" and other "standpoint"
theories (Alberti 2002; Hamilakis 2002b; Nikolaidou 2002), "phenomenology" and
"mnemonics" (Day & Wilson 2002; Hamilakis 2002b; Nikolaidou 2002), crafts,
"technological choices" and "bodily experience" (Knappett 2002). For the
editor, the wide

101

is
(Hamilakis
in
21),
found
2002b:
the
times
a
product
of
our
volume
a
variety of approaches
fearlessrecognition of "situated" narratives (Hamilakis 2002b: 22), a manifestation of
kind
feelings,
drive
"links,
that
the
aspirations
and
expectations"
any
relations,
awarenessof
"Minoan
(Hamilakis
2002b:
To
including
16).
the
past"
of archaeological production,
"the
Minoan
Hamilakis
further,
to
that
collectivity
this
goes
on
argue
of
point
exemplify
lines
fragmented
is
tradition,
of
epistemological
academic
along
various
archaeologists
affiliation, nationality, political conviction, social and economic status, gender and age" and

for
(as
be
"futile
it
to
to
propound
suggestion
as
attempt
a
undesirable)"
well
assuch, would
by
be
by
"which
most researchers"
acceptable
all,
or
even
would
a new researchagenda
(Hamilakis2002b: 15).In arguingso, Hamilakis is basically encouragingus to embracethe
"Postmodernist"notion that any view on how the "Minoan past" could be written is just that,
for
"an
but
invitation
"call
for
open,multi-vocal,
action"
ratheran
a view; not an evangelical
15).
debate"
(Hamilakis
2002b:
critical and self-critical

[7.2] Obstacle or boon? Some further thoughts on "palaces", "categories" and

"category making"
"To changethe very conceptof a categoryis to changenot only our conceptof the mind,
but also our understandingof the world"
(Lakoff 1987: 9)
Our discussion so far has demonstrated why it is possible to link recent
developments in Minoan studies (particularly those concentrating on the redefinition of the
"palace" category) with broader paradigmatic developments in the discipline of archaeology
and beyond [see Sections 6.1,6.2]. Notions such as "detail", "peculiarity", "diversity",
"fluidity" etc. have been shown to typify all recent attempts to move beyond the
classificatory apparatusof evolutionary thinking, particularly the "palace". However, despite
this triumphant elevation of (epistemological and ontological) complexity/subtlety within the
confines of Minoan archaeology, the trajectory of the literature seemssomewhat
discouraging. Being still at a preliminary stage of development (Day & Relaki 2002: 231234), all approacheswe examined in the previous section paint a picture, which remains
"very coarseand sketchy, with many loose ends" and in fact, this is something that even the
actual advocatesof these new ideas seemto acknowledge (Hamilakis 2002c: 199). But is it
simply a matter of time before these ideas can further increase our hopes for the future of
Minoan archaeology (Day & Relaki 2002: 231-232) or is it rather the case that the new
avenuesof enquiry we are encouraged to follow, are very likely to be proved (equally, if not
more) problematic than those we are meant to abandon? Might this shift of perspective in

102

"Minoan
to
the
be
than
our
understanding
of
past"
rather
a
an
obstacle
of
more
other words,
boon?

For instance,if we examinemore closely the principles put forward by the first
if
immediately
indeed
7.1],
to
Section
to
[see
comes
choose
mind:
we
question
one
strand
does
"broad
this
"palace"
then
exactly
convention",
convention
a
whom
the
as
category
view
forward
by
Following
the
this
the
proponents
of
strand
to?
argument
put
main
make sense
(i. e. "palaces" differ quite significantly amongst themselves, their morphological and
functional characteristics are very idiosyncratic), on what grounds and for what purposes do

be
If
"palace"
to
the
category
maintained?
at
an
epistemological
we archaeologistsconsider
broad
hand,
level
that
the
the
categories
espouse
notion
we
on
other
a purely ontological
(suchasthe "palace") would havebeenperceivedand experiencedfirst and foremostas
"local" phenomena[seeSection7.1], thenthe possibility existsthat thosemonumental
have
been
lumped
into
have
consideredor thought
a
single
category
never
may
we
structures
initial
is
"palace"
Going
back
in
the
to
the
therefore,
the
why
question
past.
of as such
for
[Fig.
7.2]?
and
all
once
given
up
not
category
Ontology

"Palace"

Epistemology

A "local",

A conventional category

An empirically unsustainable

relevant to whom?

category

expression/phenomenon

7.2 The epistemologicaland ontologicalimpossibility of the "palace" category

The reproductionof the "palace" category(evenif referredto as merely being a

"broadconvention")plays an instrumentalrole in the formation and methodological
directionlorientation of our entire researchprogramme (Bruck & Goodman 1999: 2;
Ramenofsky & Steffen 1998: 9) and this is another serious implication of this strand that
based
As
Section
7.11,
[see
upon the principle
we mentioned earlier
requires consideration.

that the "palace"is a "local" phenomenon,the actual"boundaries"(temporaland spatial)of

the corresponding"locality" are alsoconstructed/defined.On the otherhand,along with the
epistemologicalboundariesthat we establishin this manner,we also assumethat the very
have
immediate
boundaries
in
(i.
the
would
existed/operated
past
e.
experience
of
same
In
is
in
the
the
of
social
existence
past).
conditions/surroundings/relations actual reality
short, the "local" becomes the largest epistemological and ontological unit/framework that

canbe established[seeSection7.1]. Consequently,anythingthat lies outsidethat unit has

little contribution(if any) to the studyas well asthe actualoperationof the socio-historical
light
In
the
of the foregoingspeculationhowever,onecould not help but wondering
process.

103

differs
from
level
this
the
at
all
the
strand
conceptual scheme put
principle,
of
at
whether
forward by those "evolutionary" models that we have previously characterized as
"endogenous" [see Chapter Two]. Although it is certainly true that in this case we are
dealing with far smaller (and admittedly more dynamically constituted) scales than the ones
[see
Sections
2.2,2.3],
"internal"
like
Renfrew'
by
the
prioritization
of
envisaged scholars
over "external" factors constitutes nevertheless an obvious point of consensus amongst the
two problematiques.
The most fundamental point that needsto be highlighted here, however, with regard
to this strand is ultimately the association it establishes between "empirical detail" and
"ontology". In seeking to oppose itself to the "evolutionary" tendency to produce "general"
it
brings
"peculiarities"
"large-scale"
(in
the
the
of
material
record
patterns,
categoriesand
this casethe "palaces") to the fore. But could the current insistence on detail actually bring
for
in
"palaces"
(and
the
that
the
the
to
authenticity
of
matter
past
ontological
us closer
for
into
it
Does
them
object
empirical enquiry
really
render
a
more
manageable
general)?
before
"details"
[see
Section
6.31?
The
than
theoretical
more
empirical
analysis
we
and
is
"voluble"
"palaces"
Yet
become,
the
this
true.
the
at the same time, the
more
consider,
it
is
for
"speaks",
likely
become
to
the
the
evidence
archaeologists
material
more
more
"silent", for fear that there will always be more "alternatives", "peculiarities",
"contingencies" requiring consideration; the complexity of the empirical record is something
that could never be epistemologically "tamed"; what is broadly perceived as the ontological
dimension of the "past" and its materialities could never be grasped in their entirety. But if
this is the case, then where does our quest for increasing detail stop? As Bender has once
rightly made plain, to be willing to treat past social life (and its material expressions) as
"voluble" (instead of "mute") is by all means important, but what is equally (if not more)
crucial is that archaeologists establish the necessarymeans to be able to "speak back", they
have to be prepared in other words, not to hide behind the "past" (Bender 1998: 214-215).
To admit every voice on the past "would take as long as that past itself' (Given 1998: 126).

Ultimately, to imply that ontology and empirical detail are inextricably associated,
contradicts yet another cardinal element of this strand, namely that the past (or rather the
image of it) arises out of our socio-historical position and as such, conforms to our own
description(s) and expectations of it (King 2002: 123; Ota 2002: 79; Outhwaite 1985: 25).
"Speaking back" therefore (Bender 1998: 214-215), requires first of all that we come to
1Oneneedsto admit nevertheless
that Renfrew'sconceptof the "multiplier effect" acknowledgesthe
role of pastsocialdynamicsand involvesa stresson complexcausality:"no singlefactor, however
striking its growth,can of itself producechangesin the structureof culture" (Renfrew 1972:39).

104

terms with the point made at the beginning of this chapter, i. e. that it is basically impossible
"prejudice"
and "preconceptions". In fact, we
without
of
enquiry
to approach a certain object
it
is
"preconceptions"
idea
through
these
the
that
precisely
to
and
need reconcile with
"prejudices" that our understanding of the past is constructed in the first place (Gadamer
1989). If we take this point seriously however, then what also becomes apparent is that these
knowledge
to
obstacle
so much as a condition ofknowledge, making up
an
not
prejudices are
the fundamental structure of our relationship with our object of enquiry. Such "prejudices"
historical
influence
bound
the
of
or effectivity of our object and
up with our awareness
are
(Outhwaite
1985:
25).
To
i?
this
simply
not
would
comprehend
we
awareness
without
is
"situatedness"
"bias"
therefore,
the
and
really about accepting
notions of
reconcile with
that the object of historical understanding does not consist of events but of their significance
(which is related to the present), i. e. their significance for today (Outhwaite 1985:27). In
but
is
the
a quaestio juris
past not a quaestiofacti
short, approaching and understanding
(Bleicher 1980: 84).

With these ideas in mind, let us now briefly return to the "palace" problem. By way
in
is
it
"wrong"
be
the
there
to
that
question,
strand
could
argued
nothing
with the
of contrast
formulation of the "palace" category in itself. "Evolutionary" writings in Minoan

archaeology,(quite rightly) proceededwith the constructionof an analytical "unit" and

"justified" its existenceand "effectiveness"(Gadamer1989)on the basisof certainempirical
criteria andthe principlesof a given socio-historical(paradigmatic)agenda.This turnedthe
"palace"into an epistemologicallyvisible andvalid unit, a categoryin other words, relevant
to the archaeologicalcommunitybut alsothe wider Westernworld.
This point cannot (and should not) erasethe fact that "evolutionists" wrongly
substituted the "reality of the model" for the "model of reality" (i. e. what is
"central'/"real"/"true"/"essential"
epistemologically
"central"/"real"/"true"/"essential")

is also ontologically

(Bourdieu 1977: 29); nor does it doubt the serious

implications of the (conscious or unconscious) tendency to "Westernize" the (pre)history of

Crete (and humankind in general) (Hamilakis 1995,2002a) [see also Chapter Five]. To
condemn all above practices and tactics is one thing; but it is quite another to conjecture that
the only meansto guaranteethat (Minoan) archaeology becomes more "ethical" and
"pragmatic" in the "post-evolutionary" era is the adoption of a methodological strategy
focusing on the "particular". As Marquardt claims, the act of prioritizing certain criteria over
2"Understandingis neversubjectivebehaviourtowardsa
given "object", but towardsits effective
history-thehistory of its influence;in otherwords,understandingbelongsto the being that
of
which is
understood"(Gadamer1989:xix).

105

day,
is
the
is
the
ultimately
all
about;
opinion
and
at
an
end
of
expressing
others what
In
is
Lakoff
that:
the
expression
of
an
opinion.
addition,
precisely
category
creating a
have
"an
"every
that
must
associatedaccount of categorization"
of
reason'
view
stresses
(Lakoff 1987: 8). Any act of categorization and interpretation is reductionist by definition
(Marquardt 1992: 104). Any attempt to express an opinion on something (be that a person,
that
requires
we emphasize some
a
situation)
even
or
object
an
it
(Jenkins
1996;
Marquardt
1992;
Miller
over
of
others
elements/aspects/characteristics
1985). We may thus allow the possibility of misjudgment (i. e. that there are "ill-defined"
far
"
"unethical"
the
act
of
category making"
research
agendas),
as
as
very
categoriesor even
is concerned however, this is something we really need to view as imperative (if not
(Lakoff
1987):
unavoidable)
"Categorization is not a matter to be taken lightly. There is nothing more basic
than categorization to our thought, perception, action and speech. Every time we
kind
as
a
of thing, for example, a tree, we are categorizing.
something
see
Whenever we reason about kinds of things -chairs, nations, illnesses, emotions,
any kind of thing at all- we are employing categories... And any time we either
produce or understand any utterance of any reasonable length, we are employing
dozens if not hundred of categories: categories of speech sounds, of words, of
phrases and clauses, as well as conceptual categories. Without the ability to
recognize, we could not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social
and intellectual lives. An understanding of how we categorize is central to any
understanding of how we think and how we function, and therefore central to an
understanding of what makes us human" (Lakoff 1987: 5-6).

For the reasonsjust spelled out, it could be argued that amongst the two strands that
have been recently crystallized in Minoan archaeology, the second is the one admittedly
closer to such a perspective; it is a strand in other words which appearsto be developing a
issue
towards
the
attitude
of the relation between the past and the present, or
more realistic
more precisely, between past ontology and scientific (archaeological) practice. As mentioned
earlier, what is vigorously stressedunder this scheme, is that the "fluid" and "dynamic"
character of material culture ought to be taken far more seriously (with the notions "fluid"
and "dynamic" making reference not only to the way(s) material culture was understood and
in
but
the
past,
also (perhaps even more importantly) to the way(s) it is
experienced
in
perceived the present) (Hamilakis 2002a, 2002b). In other words, what this mode of
thinking acknowledges in not only the inherently complex character of (past) human life
(and its materialities) but also the futility of epistemological efforts to equate empirical detail
and ontology. Emphasis seemsto be shifting (rightly) towards the present; there is full
fact
the
that all archaeological narratives are "situated" and to the proponents
of
awareness
of this strand, this implies that the hope of ever going back to monolithic concepts such as
the "Minoan past", ought to be given up altogether (Hamilakis 2002b: 16,22). In view of

106

first
has
been
by
to
the
the
strand,
second
shown
contrast
one
of
this problematique and way
Section
[see
7.1].
"palace"
altogether
the
category
to abandon

The ideasthat this strandadvanceshaveobviousassociationswith the most radical

[see
in
the
that
"postmodernist"
previous
chapter
examined
we
archaeology
versions of
Section 6.2, "deconstructionists "]. As a result, the shortcomings we have pointed out with
heralding
In
Section
6.3],
[see
to
this
"deconstructionist"
case.
apply also
stance
regard to the
"a sort of overrun" (Yates 1990: 237), which aims at spoiling all the boundaries of
discourse
that
could
away
all
reference-points
and
at
wiping
epistemological
conventional
in
Minoan
least
(at
and
questions
set
of)
categories/terms
the
a
minimum
sharing of
protect
the
intellectual
is
over
concerns
rightly
raise
this
quite
may
wave
which
an
archaeology,
do
(i.
"past"
"us"
between
the
developed
the
not
past,
construct
we
e.
we
and
relation
discover it) (Zimmerman 1996: 214) but unfortunately it also breaks the points of
"deconstructionist"
in
"us"
the
the
the
scheme,
only
present:
under
amongst
communication
is
Minoan
the
be
scholars
amongst
thing that can recognized/acceptedas common ground
"palace")
by
(and
"evolution"
intellectual
the
the
and
extension,
edifice of
need to challenge
And
(Hamilakis
2002b:
21-22).
develop3
intellectual
"centrifugal"
for
to
tendencies
to allow
"Minoan
to
the
the
tendency
it
is
to
equate
certainly plausible voice concerns over
although
it
"palatial
is
issue/theme
(i.
"biography"
the
the
of
phenomenon"),
e.
past" with the a single
become
"dialogical"
(as
Minoan
that
to
opposed
will
archaeology
equally problematic assert
to "monological") (Joyce 2002) only insofar as it allows heteroglossia, the expression and
"flourishing" of multiple and diverse opinions, terminologies and interpretations (Joyce
2002).

The shift from "monologue"to "dialogue" however,is not guaranteedmerely by

dialogue
how
day
has
"speak";
the
the
the
that
to
can
a
of
end
at
everyone
right
recognizing
be facilitated when no common issues, concerns, questions and points of reference are
(Minoan)
(in
discipline
is
If
this
the
the
our
case
case, why maintain
notion of a
established?
its
in
to
tend
question
very
archaeology) at all, when every single opportunity we
boundaries?As in our general discussion on "postmodern" risks in current archaeological

juncture
is
be
that the conditions
this
to
the
at
conclusion
seem
also
we
reaching
practice,
that would allow fruitful communicationin Minoan archaeology(especiallyafter the

3 "[Our] present "loss of innocence" allows for a more explicit acceptance of the contingent nature of
our enquiry. In other words, these and other writers show an awarenessof their situated ontological,
epistemic and social status as producers of archaeological stories. This is their "Ariadne's thread" in
their venture into the multi-layered labyrinth of simulacra that is the Cretan Bronze Age. Inevitably, as
with all archaeology, the critical rethinking of the "Minoan phenomenon:, its production and
consumption, is possible only from that position of reflexivity" (Hamilakis 2002: 21-22).

107

Although
have
be
do
"palace"),
to
met.
we might
now moved
not seem
repudiation of the
by
"evolutionary"
"monological"
archaeology4, this new
advanced
beyond the
approaches
intellectual schemeappearsto be equally problematic for the simple reason that it continues
to foster intellectual soliloquy.
To the proponents of this mode of thinking, as Marquardt once claimed, the prospect
for
direction
task
seems
as
a
of
enquiry
archaeology
consensual
a
of establishing
in
Engaging
113).
1992:
(Marquardt
best,
quite
"presumptuous at
pretentious at worst"
deliberate provocation for the purpose of unsettling the orthodoxy of archaeological
(Hamilakis
importance
2001,2002c),
becomes
"palace")
(such
the
cardinal
of
as
conventions
but doesthis free us from the need to deal more directly with the further development of

dialogue
in
duty
the
to
and
serious
Minoan archaeologyas a whole and
engage constructive
155)?
2000:
(Wylie
interplay
critics
actual
even with our
and

17.31The way ahead: Re-establishing a basis for "dialogue" in (Minoan) archaeology

"To deservethe name,I contend,knowledgemust be communicable
and in that sensepublic and alsouseful"
(Childe 1956: 4)

In seekingto demonstratethe differencebetween"monologue" and "dialogue", the

Russianliterary theoristMikhail Bakhtin5oncemadethe simple observationthat "dialogue"
it
is
in
definition
by
is
is
inter-individual
this
"monologue"and
to
an
act
which
-as opposed
(and
by
be
"dialogical"
To
1986).
(Bakhtin
it
be
to
that
a social act
respect we may consider
(Holquist
into
"social")
translates
engagementwith anotherpersonor person(s)
extension
1990:21-33;Todorov 1984:29-34). By way of contrastto what we havetermed
"evolutionary"archaeology,Bakhtin doesnot usethe term "engagement"to refer to the
4 In earlier sections we stressedthat "evolutionary" archaeologists conjure up and consent to a basic
set of fundamental (allegedly "objective"/"universal") principles. These principles produce a unifying
framework for archaeologists also at the level of methodology: the same classificatory schemes,
in
by
different
then
applied
typologies,
scholars
and
models of societal change are employed
societal
identical)
(if
the
results.
similar
not
strikingly
contexts
with
effect
of
yielding
spatio-temporal
various
As Deetz rightly states,this particular form of "doing archaeology" seemsto have been perpetuated
"by example" (i. e. "what others say I have to follow/say as well") (Deetz 1998: 94). This mutual trust
its
interlocutors
however,
discourse
form
traps
since no one
orientation
creates
which
a
of
and shared
is allowed to take up a rejecting stanceto what is being said (Harre 1990: 83-85). All "evolutionary"
"attempts to "speak" thus end up repeating the exact same "words", "sentences" and "expressions";
communication between "us" in the "present" occurs so that a single "monologue" can be reiterated
(Joyce 2002: 11).

5Bakhtin developedhis conceptof dialoguemost completelyin his studiesof the

novel (Bakhtin
1981,1994)but alsoexploredthe implicationsof dialoguefor the humansciencesas a whole (Joyce
2002).

108

larger
"sacrificing
into
irreducible
the
the
of
a
whole,
a
representation
self
of
conversion
for
because
for
the
of
speaking
others"
power
such an
experience of subjectivity
(Morson
&
Emerson
1990:
183).
the
of
communicating'
point
whole
misses
understanding
What Bakhtin argues instead is that the condition required for communication is non-identity
(Bakhtin 1993: 42) since people with "identical" opinions do not really need to converse
final
And
into
jump
2002).
(Joyce
this
yet
point
should
not
make
us
with one another'
forward
by
"postmodemists"
(particularly
that
the
to
those
put
similar
conclusions
"deconstructionists"), who choose to see "engagement" as a means for confirming that the
differences between oneself and another are irresolvable8 (Bakhtin 1981: 269-280). Rather
his
focus
instead,
differences
Bakhtin
dwelling
to
the
attention
se,
than
per
prefers
upon
differences
through
the
which
are constituted.
process
relational
upon

The key element for understanding how this relational process operates is the
Bakhtin,
Levinas
1967).
Response,
(Bakhtin
1981,1984;
to
according
response9
of
concept
is what gives meaning to the speaker's words and it does so by continuously supplying an
Simply
them'.
these
put, communication
affirming
of
contesting
words,
evaluation of
derives meaning and acquires substancefrom utterances which are dialogic, taking place
between speaking subjects and addressed,and thus potentially answering subjects (Bakhtin
1986: 121-122). This implies that "discourse" is not only "inter-individual"

(Bakhtin 1986:

121-122) but even more importantly, a product and an explicit manifestation of "doubleis
in
185-186).
This
"rhythmizing"
(Bakhtin
1981:
434,1984:
an act other
voicedness" and
"self'
is
dominate;
"self'
"other(s)"
in
the
the
the
rather
compelled
neither
nor
words, which
to attune to the "other(s)":

6 "Monologism,at its extreme,deniesthe existenceoutsideitself of anotherconsciousness

with equal
rightsthou).With a monologicalapproachanotherpersonremainswholly and merelyan object of
and not anotherconsciousness...Monologuemanageswithout the other,and therefore
consciousness
to somedegree
materializes (objectivizes) all reality. Monologue [thus] pretends to be the ultimate word". (Bakhtin
1984: 292-293; alternatives in brackets after Todorov 1984: 107).
A similar argument is put forward by Emmanuel Levinas who claims that: "only when we try to
understand the human person in his [sic] whole situation, in the possibilities of his [sic] relation to all
that is not himself [sic], do we understand man [sic] (Levinas 1967 cited in Hand 1989: 67).
8 "The most important acts.. are determined by their relation to another consciousness(a "thou").
.
Cutting oneself off, closing oneself off, those are the basic reasons for loss of self The very being of
...
man [sic] (both "internal" and "external") is a profound communication. To be means to
communicate... To be means to be for the "othe? ', and through him [sic], for oneself (Bakhtin 1984:
311).

9The ideathat "communication"oughtto be seenas an activeprocessof encounterandresponsehas

beentoucheduponby Hans-GeorgGadamer(i.e. "fusion of horizons") (Gadamer1976,1981),Jrgen
Habermas(i.e. "theory of communicativeaction") (Habermas1984)andto a lesserextent,Anthony
Giddens(i.e. "doublehermeneutic")(Giddens1984).
1Levinasgoesas far asto suggestthat "the presenceof the Thou, the
of
other,ipsofacto implies a
"word" which is addresseddirectly to me andwhich requiresa response"(cited in Hand 1989:66).

109

"In the actual act of speech, every concrete act of understanding is

in
fruition
Understanding
to
the
Understanding
only
response.
comes
active...
is
diametrically
condition
and
mutually
each
other,
merged
one
are
and response
impossible without the other"(Bakhtin 1981: 282).
"The word in living conversation is directly, blatantly oriented towards a future
it
itself
in
it
the
anticipates
and
structures
an
answer,
provokes
answer-word:
in
itself
Forming
direction.
an atmosphere of the already spoken, the
answer's
has
by
been
but
determined
is
that
time
the
which
not
yet
said
same
at
word
Such
fact
is
in
by
is
the
the
answering
word.
anticipated
and
needed
which
282).
1981:
dialogue"
(Bakhtin
living
in
situation any

For Bakhtin,the decisiverole that responseplays in the actualperformanceof a

dialogue needsto be examined also from an ethical perspective. That the words response and
implying
in
interesting
is
from
this
the
respect,
same root particularly
responsibility stem
both the practical demand that dialogue makes for a responseand the ethical weight of
&
Emerson
1990:
Morson
152-155;
ix;
Holquist
1990:
2000:
(Barnes
making that response
25-27). In similar fashion, Levinas argues that only a being that is responsible for another
being can enter dialogue with it (Levinas 1967). Responsibility is ultimately what the words
"dialogue" and "commitment" stand for; the necessity of responding to the "word" is a
transcendentreality which "tells me something" and to which I am somehow committed

(Levinas 1967:143-144).
What are the implications of the above to epistemological practice and (Minoan)

in
To
what extentmay the acknowledgementof the close
particular?
archaeology
"responsibility"
"response"
between
"dialogue"
"response",
developed
and
and
associations
help us overcomethe epistemologicaldeadendthat Minoan archaeologycurrently faces?
With respectto the "palace" problem,to what extentcantheseideascontributeto reintegration,i. e. the formulation of a more constructive,inclusive and consensualinterpretive
agendafor Minoan studies?
[a] With whom are we establishing communication?

First of all, aswe repeatedlystressedin this chapter,we haveto cometo terms with
the idea that the (Minoan) "past" is constructed and not reconstructed (Zimmerman 1996:

214); our understandingof "Minoan Crete" is thereforenot establishedthrough direct

latter
but
the
with
communication
ratherthrough"dialogue" amongst "us" in the "present"
[seeSection7.2]. The pastalwaysescapesus, as it should,sinceit is not our past (alone)
(Joyce2002).This canbe seenas an illuminating point indeed,urging us to pay closer
attentionto the socio-political,historical and ethicalcapacities/effectsof knowledge-claims
kinds
by
and
of all
extension,to attendscrupulouslyto the strategiesthat maketheory and

110

(i.
than
re-presentations
of
simply
a
putatively
more
external
reality e. the
empirical research
"past") (Carrithers 2005). More fundamentally however what the notion of situated
knowledge also implies is that the audience to which we seek to render our ideas intelligible
"past"
but
the
the
of
rather of the present.
people
and relevant are not

[b] Is "dialogue" necessaryor unnecessary?

Essentialasthis stringentattentionto the "impurity" of all knowledgeclaims is, we
before
be
the
that
twice
those
to
think
embracing
notion
nevertheless,
claims
can
need
by
(i.
the
the
them
to,
positionality
of
subjects
make
e.
or
exhausted
who
reduced
(Gregory
Sayer
Our
1991;
1993).
fact
the
that
reconciliation
with
scientists/archaeologists)
there is a distance separating us from that "past" and our simultaneous shift of attention
towards the "present", should not lead to the (uncritical and unconditional) apotheosis of
intellectual
knowledge
"privatized"
(Arendt
interplay
1977)
the
at
expense
of
and
positioned,
issue
be
such
an
would
unfortunate and would eventually lead to the
communication;
transformation of epistemological (archaeological) practice into mere "intellectual noise"; by
however,
doing
we would end up silencing even our own conditions of communicative
so
(archaeological)
(Trouillot
2002:
39).
the
epistemological
community
within
potential

In the foregoing section [see Section 7.2] we demonstrated that the first signs of this
have
been
in
Minoan studies which, after the thorough
witnessed
also
confusion/crisis
deconstruction of the "evolutionary" paradigm, has found itself striving (so far
formulate
to
an invigorating conceptual/methodological schema that could
unsuccessfully)
between
discipline.
In
the
the
the
the
of
relation
redefinition
subject
and
object
of
allow
view
is
it
the
perhaps worthwhile to reconsider the possibility that our last hope of
above,
of all
finding the sought-after "effective" schema may in fact lie in us consciously encouraging the
form
of
some
of collective direction, a common framework within which the
cultivation
discipline
(in
of
any
our case (Minoan) archaeologists) could accommodate their
members
argumentsor participate in a dialogue (Wylie 1991a, 1991b; Joyce 2002). Granting that a
common direction of enquiry is worth pursuing, the question that immediately follows is
how this can be realized in practice.

[c] Optionsbeyond "objectivism" and "relativism"

Although this frameworkwe envisionand arguein favour of, is not going to be
"objective" or "absolute"in any way (asthe "palatial phenomenon"for instance),it is
not
goingto be thoroughlyarbitrary either.The only meansto guaranteethis would involve, in

111

Wylie's words a processof triangulation. Although Wylie adheres to the "postmodern"

background
largely
knowledge
"we
that
see
or
understand
our
what
very
and
principle
theoretical commitments prepare us to see" (Wylie 1993: 25), she nevertheless stressesthat
lines
do
independently
evidence
converge, they provide much more
of
constituted
when
framework/category
for
the
with which they are consistent than any
compelling support
individual line of inference could do (Binford 2001; Odell 2001). In practical terms, she
investigation
begins
by
dominant
the
this
that
of
process
previously
explains
frameworks/categories; she argues, in Kuhnian fashion (Kuhn 1970) [see Section 5.1], that
independently
lines
fail
that
to converge,
constituted
of
evidence
when we realize
be
into
thrown
thought
may
suddenly
question, exposing an area
unproblematic
assumptions
himself
has
Binford
"ambiguity"
as
recently argued (Binford 1989: 224,230). Marquardt
of
succumbsto the observations made by Wylie and characterizes this stage of the process as
the "negative/sceptical" stage, in the sensethat the "old" framework/category has been found
to exhibit underlying, and often hidden contradictions and inconsistencies, failing therefore
to fulfill its own intent or purpose (Marquardt 1992: 110). Let us not forget after all that this
is precisely what happenedin the case of the "palace" category first at an empirical [see
Chapter Five] and later, also at a conceptual level [see Chapter Six, Section 7.1].

From that point onwards, an attempt to further develop "dialogue" is given if we

by
Marquardt:
he
observation
crucial
made
argues that the category we have
a
accept
initially perceived as unrelated to other entities (hence "bracketable" for consideration at a
is
breaking
down, its boundaries become "porous" and the
scale)
now
certain effective
consequenceof this is that it begins to reveal its relations, its connectivity to other entities at
broader and narrower scales(Marquardt 1992: 110). In short, discovery of "internal"
"external"
contradictions and
relations reveals the potential for transformation and ultimately
the formation of new, more sustainable categories.

It needsto be pointed here that the terms "internal contradictions" and "external
do
not merely emanate from the investigation of the available empirical evidence.
relations"
Similarly important evidence is the body of knowledge we acquire through the examination
of previous or alternatives readings of (i. e. opinions about) a given data set. To be
"responsible" and "dialogical", requires that (a) we take great care to distinguish
-in a clear
and visible fashion- between statements corroborated by available empirical evidence and
those propositions that can claim the status only of provisional, untested ideas and also (b)
that we do not dismiss or pass by in silence over other views that have been voiced as
regards our object of enquiry, however inconvenient they may be to our argument (Bauman
& May 2001: 8).

112

Throughthis process,the category/frameworkthat is formulatedcan by no meansbe

fact
best
In
describe
"subjective".
it
be
it
"relativist"
the
to
to
way
or
call
would
a
considered
inferred
by
"meeting
Latin
the
point",
also
a.
verb convenire,
category,
conventional
for
(i.
"to
together"
cum, together; and venire, to come, cognate with).
e.
con,
come
meaning
The word "convention" is employed here therefore, becauseit is not absolutist and yet does
involve minimum points of agreement, a broadly shared basis, it is the product of continuous
in
it
is
by
degree
this
respect,
evaluation
and
characterized
some
conceptual
of
empirical and
Shanks
Wylie
34;
1992;
1985a,
1985b,
(Finch
2001:
1988,1989a,
objectivism"
mitigated
1989b, 199la, 1991b, 1992,2000). As in the caseof the "palace", such a
"convention"/broadly sharedbasis would also stimulate a new direction of enquiry, an aide
(in
help
"figure
it
in
the rhetorical senseof the word
out"
us
pensee, our studies; would
"figure") what it is we are investigating and how we can proceed practically with this
investigation. In so doing, the possibility of re-introducing broad concepts in our enquiry
(such as the "social" or the "historical") would also be justified. In the following chapter, the
be
procedure
will
applied and as a starting point we need to set once
samemethodological
"palace"
the
the
of
category.
re-examination
again

[7.41 Conclusions

Responsibleepistemologicalpracticeis really aboutaiming towards utility and

which in practicalterms, refersnot only to deconstructionand negation
relative consensus,
of old categoriesbut alsoto the ethical commitmentupon establishingnew oneswhich are
broadly valid, intelligible and relevant to us in the present. By doing so, we set ourselves
against current "postmodern" trends in epistemological (archaeological) practice, which
appearto have developed a circumspect attitude not only towards "broadly relevant
categories" but also in some cases,towards the act of "category making" itself. A substantial
part of this chapter was devoted to explaining why the adoption of this mode of thinking
would have serious repercussionsfor the future of epistemological practice and for Minoan

" According to Shanks, the continuous process of

reworking of one's arguments/ideas in the course of
a dialogue, is highly reminiscent of the Hegelian term aufheben, which combines two meanings: on
the one hand, it means to cancel, terminate, annul, suspendbut also to take up, keep, save (Shanks
1992: 43). Instead of adopting the term "convention", he uses the verb to sublate as the best
translation in English of the German aufheben and stressesthat to sublate means to transcend or
suspenddistinctions without suppressing either element; sublation thus contains a notion of preserving
but also of reconciliation (Shanks 1992: 43): a move from initial statementsleading not to a mere sum
or overall rejection of initial positions but rather to amalgamation and consensus,minimum
points/nodes of agreement arising from and based upon mutual cancellations and preservations. In
view of the above, it appearsthat his definition of "sublation" and our description of the term
"convention" are not very far apart.

113

in
Therefore,
discipline,
in
to
trends
the
contrary
recent
particular.
we ended up
archaeology
advocating a methodological strategy, which starts off as a critique aiming at revealing the
"internal" contradictions of an existing unit of analysis but does so, essentially in order to
its
its
(Marquardt
1985:
transformation
towards
the
and
subsequently
replacement
way
show
84-85, note 3,1992: 110-113,129, note 4). According to Marquardt, this is an
be
involving
three-stage
can
envisaged
which
as
a
process
enterprise
epistemological
higher
level
(Marquardt
1992:
111)
transcendence
and
preservation
at
a
and as
suspension,
"palace".
"return"
"palace"
however,
We
back
it
to
the
to
the
takes
us
not
such,
-inevitablyit
dominant
discipline
but
because
the
constituted
previously
category
of
our
also
simply
(and perhaps more importantly) becauseit is through its own (empirical and conceptual)
"internal" contradictions that we can begin to get closer to the identification of alternative,
"external" connections and thus ultimately, to the formulation of a new, more effective broad
for
discipline.
the
category/question

114

93

From suspension

to transcendence,

Part I:

After "civilization"

[8.11Suspension

Recent trends in Minoan archaeology identify two main contradictions in

its
"palatial
"emergence".
first
The
the
stems
of
and
accounts
phenomenon"
evolutionary
from the fact that the image of the "palace" as portrayed by those accounts, does not seem to
be confirmed empirically either at the level of function or morphology [see Section 5.2]; as
(i.
be
"palace"
taken
to
the
category
e. exhibiting
extra-ordinary
cannot
constitute an
such,
it
is
in
cases,
even considered
unprecedented
characteristics)
and
some
and/or
exclusive
Section
[see
7.1].
it
(i.
that
category
at
all
constitutes
a
entity/unit)
e. a well-defined
unlikely
The secondcontradictory element in those accounts is related to the first; having elevated the
"palace" in (analyticaVepistemological and socio-political/ontological) importance,
"evolutionary" approachesproceed by dividing the Minoan past into "palace"-related
temporal horizons (i. e. "prepalatial", "palatial" etc) [see Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter
Three, Chapter Four]. If, however, as current scholarship emphasizes,the "palace" is not a
be
Section
in
[see
is
5.2],
to
then
there
sustained
adhering to the existence
no
point
category
of a "prepalatial" phase, a phase in other words, during which the origins of the so-called
"palatial phenomenon" could be traced. Put simply, if we cannot accept the existence of the
"palace", we cannot accept the notion of the "emergence" either [see Sections 5.5,7.1].

In previouschapters,we discussedextensivelythe epistemologicaltrajectorythat

currentscholarshiphaschosento follow after the repudiationof the "palace" concept[see
Sections6.1,6.2,7.1] andalsopointed out the conceptualfallaciesand risks
associatedwith

115

Sections
[see
6.3,7.2].
However,
leaving
kind
shift
aside
of epistemological
this particular
be
here
for
that
to
one
point
a
moment,
needs
stressed
with
these critical comments/thoughts
formation
indeed
for
do
is
to
the
they
that
contribute
of
a
new
category
regard to these trends
invested
in
deconstruction
fashion.
The
in
the
discipline
effort
of the
the
albeit roundabout
"palace" has left in suspensea series of empirical data which had for long been tightly held
In
it
is
"civilization"
(Renfrew
1972).
this
respect,
of
together as classificatory criteria
dominant
that
the
to
the
constructs
through
castigate
effort
previously
conscious
precisely
internal contradictions of the latter have been revealed. In Marquardt's terms, the first step
been
has
for
Minoan
therefore
the
studies
made
category
towards
construction of a new
Taking
Marquardt's
1992:
108).
(Marquardt
(i.
proposed methodology
already e. suspension)
internal
how
begin
further,
to
the
contradictions
aforementioned
explore
we may now
a step
in
turn,
this
the
allow
us
connections;
will
external
of
alternative,
establishment
permit
could
(this
in
in
doing,
direction
time
formulate
constructive
challenge
to
of enquiry and so
a new
fashion) the long dominant "evolutionist" image of the Minoan past.

If we now take as our point of departure that the "palace" does not represent the
level,
diachronic
Minoan
then
as analysts, we
a
either
at
a
synchronic
or
society
of
workings
hence
in
broad
horizons
in
faced
identity
two
crisis
need of radical
chronological
with
are
"prepalatial"
Essentially
horizons
"palatial"
the
the
two
these
period(s).
and
are
redefinition;
in
back
Minoan archaeology sought to
trends
to
the
takes
this observation
us
question current
be
in
i.
longer
first
if
"palace"
is
in
taken
to
the
the
as
central
socioplace, e.
no
answer
(i.
Minoan
during
Middle/Late
importance
the
periods
e.
as
previously
anticipated
political
"palatial") and if on the other hand, it can no longer be deterministically associatedwith the
(i.
before
island
Crete
time
that
that
took
the
e.
processes
of
place
on
socio-historical
"prepalatial"), then how exactly should we approach, write and speak about this part of the
Minoan past from now on? Surely, a new terminology, a new vocabulary, a new category
do
introduced
by
having
"postmodern"
be
to
to
that
so
attempts
and
now established
ought
have failed, the obvious next step in our enquiry would have to be to return (once again) to
these periods and focus our attention upon two main issues: (i) what other possibilities of
categorization are provided by the available sets of empirical information from the two
(ii)
distinction
justifies
this
the
the
and,
whether
new
categorization
maintenance
of
periods
integration
into
broader
two
their
the
periods
or
encourages
an
even
classificatory schema
of
(i. e. a new question). Marquardt defines the first of the two methodological steps as
transcendenceand the latter aspreservation at a higher level (Marquardt 1992: 108) [Fig.
8.1]:

116

Suspensionas

Rejection of the "palace" category

deconstruction
classificatory

Suspensionas

historical deconstruction

[a] "Palatial" period(s) in identity crisis

[b] "Prepalatial"period(s)in identity crisis

From the identification of internal contradictions

Transcendence

(i. e. suspension)

to the identification of externalconnections

(i.e. transcendence)
From the identification of external connections
Higher-level preservation

(i. e. transcendence)
to the establishment of new, broadly relevant categories

(i. e. preservationat a higher level)

Fig. 8.1 Currentstateof affairs in Minoan archaeologyand the way ahead

The processof reconfiguringour object of studywill begin from the period "after
has
it
been
"palatial")
in
Palace"
"New
(i.
the
and particular
period, since
civilization" e.
in
foregoing
Sections
[see
2.2,3.2,5.2],
that all
the
stressed
chapters
repeatedly
"evolutionary" attempts to reconstruct the "image" of the "palace" (or rather to pinpoint the
"palace"
have
been
based
(almost
defining
207)
(Klynne
1998:
the
category)
criteria
information
(Adams
Schoep
later
2004:
194;
from
this
empirical
phase
exclusively) upon
2004a: 244-245). The investigation of the available empirical information from the "Old
Palace" will then follow. The next step will be to move to the period "before the emergence"
(i. e. "prepalatial") [see Chapter Nine], starting our re-examination from those sites

traditionally conceivedas "palaces-to-be"(particularly the threeknown earliestexamplesof

Knossos, Malia and Phaistos), since it is largely on the basis of these casesthat our
"how
Minoan
has
formulated
been
[see Sections 2.3,3.3,
of
a
palace
emerges"
view/image
5.4]. It needsto be stressedonce again at this point, however, that the choice to return to the
traditional divisions that "evolutionary" models have established (i. e. "palatial",
"prepalatial") is not made with the intention of producing one more critical assessmentof
their fallacies; instead, we are revisiting these domains/constructs becauseit is in those that

117

decide
(regrouping);
if
put
simply,
we
find
redefinition
awaiting
evidence
empirical
will
we
"Palatial" and
formulation
then
to
the
category,
a
return
the
to
of
a
new
to commit ourselves
formulation
[see
Section
is
to
horizons
the
a
only means guarantee such
the "Prepalatial"
7.4].

"New
Palaces"
The
I:
the
Part
Transcendence,
of
period
[8.21
"It seemsquite impossibleto find appropriateand generallyacceptednames
houses
in
Crete
between
known
"complexes"
the
building
andthe palaces...
simple
for thevarious
Thereis no hopeof changingthat ambiguity in the future, after a hundredyearsof misuse.
We haveto put up with it"
(van Effenterre& van Effenterre 1997:9)
Recent developments in the field have seriously challenged our ways of thinking
"palace"
by
the
Palaces"
"New
therefore
of
our
understanding
extension,
and
about the
functions
First
Sections
5.2,7.1].
that
[see
the
in
several
realization
came
category general
been
have
be
"palace"
be
to
to
the
also
at
work
seen
to
now
taken
could
exclusive
previously
function,
Along
there was
to
"non-palatial"
the
related
in other,
problems
contexts.
with
be
longer
"palace"
information
the
that
perceived as a morphologically
could no
empirical
led
has
in
"Neopalatial"
"palatial"
to
features
diffusion
an
architecture
the
of
unique entity;
intense problematization over how to define the boundaries between the "palatial" and "nonbe
it
discussion
far,
In
that
this
domains.
argued
could
of
our
so
view
palatial"
(functional
the
and/or morphological) criteria
of
all
over
validity
problematization
by
large
been
define
"palace",
has
the
to
triggered
to
the
a
extent,
traditionally employed
"villa" phenomenon and the steady proliferation of "grey zones" in the archaeological record
"palace"
in
between"
(i.
"somewhere
Age
fall
Bronze
Cretan
and a
that
a
e. structures
of the
"villa" as for example Aghia Triadha, Petras, Makrygialos or even the "Little Palace" at
Knossos) (Adams 2004; Driessen et al. 2002; Hatzaki 1996). Another factor which has
has
been
"palace"
the
the
the
undoubtedly
concerns
entity
expression
of
against
encouraged
6.1,
level
Sections
[see
towards
the
concept of power at a paradigmatic
changeof attitude
6.2]. It is precisely by virtue of these paradigmatic developments, that new trends in Minoan
in
diffusion
lately
begun
have
to
power
as opposed
potential
see
more
analytical
archaeology
to power centralization [see Section 5.2]. This is a point to which we will return later [see
Chapter Twelve]. For the time being, it suffices to say that the development of this new
has
diffusion)
led
downgrade
(i.
tendency
to
to
the
the analytical
e.
power
obvious
agenda

"palaces"
to
the
attributed
and at the sametime, to elevatein importance
previously
weight
long
"second-order"
to
considered
constitute
structures/buildings(Hgg 1997).
what were

118

A closer look upon the extant body of empirical information from the "Neopalatial"
(morphological
indicates
however,
that
commonly
perceive
we
as
what
and/or
period
functional) "power insignia" (i. e. architectural elaboration, monumental size, special-purpose
keeping
limited
"palaces",
feasting,
features,
to
systems)
record
are
not
rooms and/or
"palace-type" structures and "villas" but (more often than not) are attested also in the
"domestic/residential " sector. This point may be partly exemplified by McEnroe's famous
"Neopalatial"
(McEnroe
1979,1982).
With
the
edifices/houses
of
typological classification
is
involve
"villas"
houses
(a
"palatial-type"
1"
"Type
taken
to
type
which
and
exception of
buildings), McEnroe identifies two further types, i. e. "Type 2" and "Type 3". Although all
"domestic/residential"
belong
in
Types
2
3
included
taken
to
the
to
are
and
sector,
examples
their distinction from the "palace-type" edifices (i. e. "Type 1") is not so straightforward. In

Type 2 for instance,we seea distinctionbeing madebetweenType 2a and 2b with the

former essentiallybeing moreclosely associatedwith the housesbelongingto Type 1. Even
in Type 2b however,we find features/roomsand/orconstructiontechniques(i.e. pier-anddoor partition,pillar crypt, coursedashlar,megalithic rubble,columns/pillars,stylobate,
"peristyle" etc) typically associatedwith Type 1 and 2a (McEnroe 1979: 102,1982: 18-19,
Tables 1-2). With respect to Type 3, it is noteworthy that McEnroe bases his definition
largely on size and in particular upon the observation that Type 3 houses have smaller
dimensions than Type 2 buildings (McEnroe 1982: 10). It appearsthat McEnroe had to resort

to size,sincein this caseas well, we haveseveralexamplesof "palatial" features(McEnroe

1979:102,1982: 18-19,Tables 1-2).However,the "size" criterion doesnot seemto work
houses
belong
McEnroe
himself,
thought
to
to Type
as
admits
several
very effectively either:
1 seemto be highly compatible,at leastas far as size is concerned,with housesbelonging
but
Type
2b
to
alsoType 3 (Thaler 2002: 112) [Fig. 8.2]:
not only
House

Type

Size

SouthHouse

225m2

ZakrosG

2b

225 m2

Malia Da

170m2

Malia Db

175m2

ZakrosKD

140m2

Fig. 8.2 Sizevariation amongstMcEnroe'sthreehousetypes:

Someexamples(adaptedfrom McEnroe 1982)
The blurring of boundaries between the "palatial/palatial-type" and

"domestic/residential"edificesfinds further supportin the presentlyavailable

empirical

119

food
drink
feasting/large-scale
and
consumption and recording
on
evidence/information
in previous sections that on the basis of the
We
mentioned
already
systems/administration.
feasting
do
have
"Neopalatial"
from
to
taken
the
period,
events
not
appear
extant evidence
buildings
(contra
"palatial-type"
Hamilakis
1995,1996,
in
"palaces"
and
place exclusively
1999), but also in what we would normally term more "ordinary" houses [see Section 5.2].
With regard to record keeping systems on the other hand, Schoep has observed that during
documents
"palatial
in
to
the
are
administrative
not
restricted
the period question, written
in
buildings
in
"in
but
of
varying
sizes,
central
as
well
as
settlements
occur also
centres"
95,
2001:
(Schoep
my emphasis).
other contexts"

Recently,somescholarshaveadvocatedthat suchbroad/absolutecomparative
little
(and
sense
perhapsconstituteobservationsof minor
relatively
make
assessments
"non-palatial"
"palatial
distinction
between
type"
the
and
analyticalvalue) since
buildings/structures is more likely to have been drawn and experienced first and foremost at
(Adams
level
(rather
island-wide
level)
2004;
intra-site
Barshinger
if
than
not
a regional,
1988; Cunningham 2001). Interestingly however, even if we move from absolute (i. e. interdrawn
from
(i.
intra-site)
island-wide)
to
the
relative
comparisons,
conclusions
e.
site and/or
the former seemto be highly compatible with those drawn from the latter. In the examples
"non-palatial"
boundary
buildings
"palatial-type"
below,
the
separating
and
within
presented
highly
territory
thus
equivocal.
and/or
remains
a single settlement

For instanceat Knossos',a securedistinction between"palatial-type" and

"residential"buildings cannotbe easily establishedand this is well exemplified in Adams'
"Neopalatial"
the
town (Adams2004).Following McEnroe's classificatory
of
recentstudy
criteria (i.e. size,degreeof architecturalelaboration,frescoes,"special-purpose"
features
Adams
(McEnroe
1979,1982),
and/or
activities,
etc)
recording
systems
architectural
distinguishes three types of buildings but reachesthe interesting conclusion that "villas" (i. e.
"grand mansions") are those belonging to Type 2, i. e. the medium-sized structures of the
settlement (ca. 200-245 m2); by way of contrast, Type 1 buildings (ca. 300-450 m2) such as
the Northeast House and the Northwest Treasury are taken to constitute "residential" as
opposedto "palatial-type" structures (Adams 2004: 207-8, Fig. 11). Indicative of the
confusion surrounding the "size" criterion is that Whitelaw has advanced an entirely
different form of classification claiming that some of the buildings Adams does not consider
to be "mansions" (i. e. the Northwest Treasure House, the Royal Villa, the House of the
' Our knowledgeof the town at Knossosremainspartial (Driessen2001:61)
andrelies upon the study
of individual buildings (Evans1928;Hatzaki 1996;Mountjoy 2003) and extensivesurvey(Hood &
Smyth1981;Whitelaw 2001,2004b).

120

ChancelScreen,the Houseof the High Priest)shouldindeedbe viewed as such(Whitelaw

2001: 24).

If we leave aside the "size" criterion, it is noteworthy that along with the occurrence
"villas"
"palace"
(Adams
in
2004:
features
201-202,
Figs,
3the
"palatial"
around
several
of
6; Rehak & Younger 1998: 100-110), there exists a group of buildings (i. e. Caravanserai,
Temple Tomb2, High Priest's House etc) whose form and identified functions suggeststo
"special"
have
been
they
taken to
that
are
of
nature
and
character
and
yet
not
scholars
some
(Adams
2004:
207,213-214;
Whitelaw
2001:
An
24).
"grand
mansions"
equally
constitute
interesting case is the Royal Road North building which falls into the "residential" category
(i. e. being of average size and with no apparent indications of architectural elaboration);
building
has
been
bull
fresco
discovered
Knossos
this
the
the
only
of
at
other
confines
within
than those found the actual "palace" (Adams 2004: 208,214; Cameron 1974); what renders
this observation even more intriguing is that along with the bull fresco the Royal Road North
building has also yielded seals, horns of consecration, large numbers of figurines, rhyta and
libation tables (Adams 2004: 214). Much evidence for ivory and stone working is also
house
(Adams
from
Rehak
&
Younger
2004:
210;
1998: 118). It is
this
particular
reported
interesting that frescoeshave been attested in two more buildings which are set in opposition
to each other both morphologically and functionally. In the House of the Frescoes (an edifice
recognized by several scholars as a "villa") (Adams 2004; Rehak & Younger 1998) nature
scenesinvolving blue monkeys and other animals have been identified (Cameron 1968;
Rehak & Younger 1998: 120). Frescoesare also reported from Hogarth's House A, which
Adams characteristically describes as a generally "poor" building (Adams 2004: 208).
However, let us remind ourselves of the fact this is the building in which a concentration of
two hundred conical cups has been found [see Section 5.2]. Finally, even though we still
know very little as far as the wider residential area of Knossos is concerned (Driessen 2001;
Whitelaw 2001,2004b), there are other sets of evidence which also seem to reinforce the
"palatial"
features
that
suspicion
were "diffused" to a far greater degreethan previously
anticipated. Particularly indicative is for example the fact that the Knossian "palace" and an
"ordinary" house, Hogarth's House B, possessthe same number of Pillar Crypts (i. e. three in
each case) (Adams 2004: 201, Fig. 3).

2The TempleTomb southof Knossoson the

roadto Archaneswas usedfor burials in the Final
PalatialPeriodbut its original Neopalatialuseis unknown,and it may not havebeen
planned
originally asa tomb (Popham1970:74; Rehak& Younger 1998: 110).

121

At Maliaa as well, little correlation can be discerned among size, architectural

Epsilon,
is
indicia".
Maison
largest
building
in
"power
the
the
which
other
and
elaboration
Bradfer-Burdet
2005:
has
(Adams
211;
40),
2004:
"palace"4
the
yielded evidence
town after
for painted stucco but does not seemto have employed ashlar masonry (Adams 2004: 211);
interestingly, ashlar masonry has been used in Maison Za which is not only significantly
building
but
Malia
four
halls
(420
Epsilon
the
than
also
only
at
which
possesses
m2)
smaller
(two of them being of the "Minoan Hall" type) (Adams 2004: 212). Also of interest is the
fact that so far only one Pillar Crypt has been identified in the town houses, and this is found
in the Maison de la Cave au Pilier, a "simple" house (i. e. "Type 3") measuring only 130 m2
(Adams 2004: 212). Finally, apart from area XVIII in the "palace", three main ritual deposits
have been found in the town: two in Maison Epsilon and one in the Maison de la Facade
Redans,the former constituting one of the largest houses in the settlement, as we mentioned
houses
(i.
falls
into
"small"
(130
"Type
3")
latter
the
the
m2)
e.
category
of
earlier, while
(Adams 2004: 212; Gesell 1985: 108). It is also significant that there are several lustral
basins in the houses around the "palace" at Malia, though there is only one in the "palace"
itself (Barshinger 1988: 129).

At the settlement of Palaikastro, of the 36 buildings clearly discernible, 21 fall

between 130m2and 180m2;six are between 200 m2 and 300 m2 and only four are less than
100m2(Cunningham 2001: 82; Driessen & MacGillivray 1989: XXVII). In effect, we have
large
few
houses
houses
be
few
to
small
appearing
and
very
with most
compatible at
very
least as far as size is concerned. Moreover, the buildings that have received most
"impressive
facades"
in
(i.
Building 1, Block X, Building 2,
e.
elaboration
ashlar
architectural
"floors of maroon schist, green schist, creamy limestone, blue limestone column bases, piers
of mottled green serpentine" in Building 6 etc) are not the largest in the settlement
(Cunningham 2001: 83; Rehak & Younger 1998: 108). It is noteworthy on the other hand,
that Block X, which is a quite elaborate house, does not contain a tripartite hall system
(Barshinger 1988: 145). Furthermore, it is important to mention the example of certain
houses(Blocks Y, S, K and L) which are of smaller size, and yet produced bronze items and
in the case of Block S, two ivory figurines (Cunningham 2001: 83).

In the areaof Siteia,wherea "palace" (i.e. Petras)(Tsipopoulou1989,1997,1999,

2002)and several"palatial-type" buildings/"villas" (i.e. Klimataria, Zou, Achladia, Aghios
' Our knowledgeof the town at Malia is basedon the excavation
reportsand/orfinal publicationsof
individualhouses(Driessen& Macdonald1997)but alsoa surveyof the wider region (Mller 1991,
1992,1996,1998).
" Adamsmentionsthat the sizeof Maison Epsilon is 1370m2
whereasBradfer-Burdetspeaksof 3000
m2(Adams2004:211;Bradfer-Burdet2005:40).

122

Georgios-Tourtouloi) (Platon 1952a, 1952b, 1953,1954,1955,1956,1959,1960b)

have

been identified, the relation between the "palatial" and the "non-palatial" sectors is equally
has
&
It
been
Papacostopouloul997).
first
(Tsipopoulou
observed
of all, that
ambiguous
(i.
features
special
elaboration
e. cut-slab pavements, ashlar
require
which
architectural
blocks, pier and door partitions, cut jamb bases and columns) occur generally in the same
frequency in all categories of buildings including "ordinary" residences (Tsipopoulou &
Papacostopoulou1997: 206). Frescoesare reported from Houses I and II which are situated
but
Petras
from
"villa"
Aghios
Georgios
Tourtouloi
"palace"
the
the
to
also
at
at
close
(Platon 1960: 296). Regarding the size of the "villas" and the "houses" of Petras, both seem
to fall between 200m2 and 300m2 (Tsipopoulou & Papacostopoulou 1997: 206). What
boundary
drawing
between
"palatial"
"non-palatial"
further
the
of
a
and
complicates
is
"palace"
Petras
itself.
Although
building,
it
is
the
this
of
area
a
central
still
structures of
for
(Cunningham
72),
"small
2001:
a
palace"
with a central court measuring either
relatively
6x 13m (Driessen & Macdonald 1997: 227) or 6.6 x 18m (Tsipopoulou 1997: 269).
Moreover and by way of contrast to other "palaces", Petras also appearsto lack the full
"palatial"
elements/featureseven though some signs of architectural elaboration
of
repertoire
dadoes,
jambs,
(schist
mason's
marks,
cut-door
columns) (Tsipopoulou &
are present
Papacostopoulou 1997: 211):

"In comparisonwith the other known palaces(Knossos,Phaistos,Malia, Zakros

and Galatas)and evenwith someof the non-palatial...centralbuildings, suchas
Aghia Triadha, Kommos building J/T, Monastiraki, Khania and ArchanesTourkogeitonia, the Petras palace is small and lacks both certain palatial
architecturalfeatures(such as Lustral Basin, Minoan Hall, Light Well or Pillar
Crypt) and elements of ostentation (such as excessiveuse of gypsum or
monumentalorthostates)"(Cunningham2001:76).
There are also some other examples of "Neopalatial" towns, where the extant
evidence seemsto indicate that no particular emphasis was laid upon creating
(morphological and/or functional) distinctions by exclusion (Cunningham 2001; Whitelaw
2001). For instance, the buildings that have been brought to light at the sites of Pseira and
Gournia reflect more uniform residential units (both in terms of size and "wealth")
(Whitelaw 2001: 21-22, Fig. 2.2,2.6) and fall in fact, in McEnroe's Type 3 houses (McEnroe
1979) although in certain caseshe seesthem as being "reasonably comparable" also to Type
2 (McEnroe 1982: 10). Interestingly, the compatibility shown between the residential sectors
of Pseira and Gournia is at odds with the fact that in the former case, no "palace" or

SThetown of Petrasis concentratedon a seriesof four hills,

particularlythe main hill wherethe
"palace"is located.The two housesso far excavatedandpublished(i.e. HousesI and II) (rsipopoulou
& Papacostopoulou
1997)appearto havebeenterracedand to be fitted into the hillside (Cumningham
2001:76).

123

"palatial-type" building has been discovered whereas in the latter, a "palace" has indeed
been found (Soles 1991,2002). On the other hand, at the site of Mochlos (Soles 2004; Soles
& Davaras 1992,1993,1994,1996), where approximately fifteen houses have been so far
(Building
(Soles
B2)
2004),
faced
"villa/ceremonial
centre"
are
we
unearthed along with a
here
buildings
"uniformity":
increases
kind
different
the
size
of
all
of
with an entirely
"special"
features
the
to
that
there
use
of
architectural
suggest
are grounds
substantially and
fairly
fascinating
discoveries
The
techniques
also
widespread.
recent
was
and/or construction
from the excavation of Late Minoan Ib floor levels belonging to different houses also point
in this direction. Amongst the most important of those discoveries are the large
in
"Southwest
Wing"
Building
B2
the
tools
and
of
objects,
vessels
metal
of
concentrations
least
Figs.
1-3)
"villa"
(Soles
2004:
form
is
the
to
taken
at
complex
and
yet
part
of
which
five hoards of metal objects have been also identified also in an "residential" structure, i. e.
House C3 (Soles 2004: 3-4, Figs. 4-5).

Our discussionso far leadsto the conclusionthat the phenomenonof "diffusion" of

"palatial" characteristics during the "Neopalatial" period is not confined to what we could
broadly term "villas"/"palatial-type"

structures but seemsto penetrate also the so-called

"domestic/non-palatial" sector. What is equally noteworthy is that in most of the caseswe

haveexamined,no house/buildingseemsto possessthe full-repertoire of "palatial indicia"

(i.e. a "big" houseis not necessarilya "wealthy" houseandvice versa) and in somecases,
this appliesalsoto the "palace" category(i.e. Petras).
But if this is indeedthe case,then what doesthe term "diffusion" standfor? The
latter would make senseif a core/periphery relation was at work, if, in other words,
"palatial" elements were found to be exclusive to or concentrated within certain buildings
be
in
less
frequently
in
foregoing
If
to
the
turn,
absent
or
appear
of
and
others. none
be
how
issue
however,
deal
the
to
can
confirmed
empirically
exactly
are
alternatives
we
with
of "diffusion"? How exactly does this alleged pattern of "diffusion" operate? Can we point
with any precision, in other words, to buildings that constitute "cores/prototypes" and to
where exactly the "periphery" begins?

[8.3] Transcendence, Part Its The period of the "Old Palaces"

If for a momentwe assumethat during the "Neopalatial" period a clear-cutboundary

be
cannot easilydrawnbetweenthe "palatial" andthe "non-palatial" sectors(at leastnot on
the basisof the criteria we haveso far identified as "exclusive" of or "concentrated"within

124

"palatial-type" buildings), then the only argument that could perhaps sustain a distinction
between the two would have to rely upon evidence deriving from the "Old Palace" period; to
be more specific, if the "early palaces" were found to exhibit certain morphological and/or
functional characteristicsprior to and/or to the exclusion of all other "Protopalatial"
be
it
from
that
these
the
then
assumed
characteristics
could
originated
perhaps
contexts,
"palaces" and were "diffused" to the "non-palatial" sector only at a later stage (i. e. the
"Neopalatial"). As we mentioned in previous sections, however, this possibility has already
been ruled out by more recent studies on the nature and character of early "palaces" (i. e. the
"palatial
feasting
idea
the
of
surplus
control",
occurrence
of
paraphernalia
repudiation of
beyond the "palace" sector, decentralization of (luxurious) craft production, administrative
decentralization etc) [see Section 5.2].

In fact, even at a purely morphological level, several scholars now tend to believe
that during their early stagesof development, the "palaces" did not exhibit any clear signs of
for
instance,
has
At
Knossos
it
been
architectural
and/or
elaboration.
monumentality
West
"palace"
Facade
Middle
that
the
the
the
extant
of
post-dates
repeatedly
suggested
Minoan I-II period and probably belongs to the very end of the Middle Minoan III phase
(Catling 1974; Momigliano 1992; Schoep 2004a). The need to project back later
is
elements
also exemplified in the case of the Throne Room whose origins are
architectural
in
Middle
Minoan I-II phase(s) (Mine 1979; Niemeier 1987;
the
placed
commonly
Dickinson 1994: 149-150). Mine ascribes the Lustral Basin in the later Throne Room, but
Sanctuary,
belonging
Inner
Magazines
the
to
the
to
the
the
the
rooms
as
and
south
sees
north
to the first phase (Mine 1979: 39-44). According to Macdonald however, the main period of
construction representedby the extant remains belongs to the Middle Minoan IIlb period
(Macdonald 2002: 42). Finally, Macdonald also challenged the suggestion that the Domestic
Quarter datesback to the Middle Minoan II period and proposed instead, that none of the
be
architecture
need
earlier than Middle Minoan IIlb (Macdonald 2002: 47-49).
extant

At Malia, the presentWest Facadein ashlarsandstoneblocks post-datesthe Middle

BronzeAge (Pelon 1980:51,62,238). Partsof the earlier facadewall are indeedpreserved
in severallocations(especiallyin the north-westsector)(Pelon 1980:63). It seems
nevertheless,that there was a preference for limestone over sandstoneand that only
unworked stones were used (Pelon 1980: 236). According to Schoep, on the other hand,
there is strong evidence that the Minoan Hall did not form part of the early building (Schoep
2004a). The installation of a Minoan Hall in Room 1117can be attributed with certainty to the
Late Minoan la period (Pelon 1983b), and as Schoep claims, its construction
was made on

125

different
had
(Schoep
Fig.
2004a:
247,
a
markedly
plan
which
rooms
top of a series of earlier
5).

made

Finally at Phaistos, LaRosa reports that recent stratigraphical investigations have

in
Middle
I-II
included
Minoan
the
the
plan
of
clear that certain areas originally

buildings are in fact later in date (LaRosa 2002). LaRosa also argues that inside the "early
basin
in
features:
lustral
"palatial"
for
the
is
the
so-called
any of
palace" there no evidence
has
dated
Pernier
in
XLV,
70)
(below
the
XLIV-38
room
which
polythyron
and
room
room
belong
Minoan
be
Middle
1935),
(Perrier
to
to
"protopalatial"
seen
can
now
period
to the
lila (LaRosa 2002: 77-78).

Until further empiricalinformation comesto light, onewould perhapsconsiderit

"early
image
the
the
of
to
moresensible maintainsomereservationsagainst aforementioned
in
"absence
difficult
this
it
is
the
to
of
evidence"
assess
whether
still
quite
since
palaces"
do
"Old
Palaces"
(i.
be
"evidence
indeed
the
e.
of absence"
viewed as
particular case, can
lack "palatial" features or is it just the casethat we have not found them yet?). That there is
indeed such a possibility can be inferred from certain sets of empirical information we
deny
West
Facade
few
for
instance
disposal:
Phaistos,
have
that
the
would
at
at our
already
Minoan
IIa
from
Middle
the
"early
clear
signs
of
monumentality
the
palace" exhibited
of
1987:
69).
Macdonald
Shaw
Watrous
250;
1971:
83;
2004a:
the
(Schoep
on
other
period
hand, has lately argued, that although much of Evans' "Old Palace" structure at Knossos has
been re-assignedto the "New Palace" period by a number of archaeologists over the last

twenty years(himself included),he is now becomingall the more convincedthat several

in
20th-19th
be
features
"rightful
the
to
their
centuries
should returned
place"
architectural
BC6(Macdonald2005:41-55).
Evenif we do acceptthat the "early palaces"exhibited"palatial" featureshowever,
in
first
important
the
to
to
the
answer
set
out
with
question
we
as
more
regard
what appear
during
"palaces"
features
is
the
these
to
are exclusive or concentrated within
place, whether
the period in question. Following this line of thinking, Schoep has recently conducted a
6 In his recentbook on KnossosMacdonaldplacesthe following featuresto the "Protopalatial"
phase(s):the WestFacadegypsumorthostats,the Old WestFacadeof the CentralCourt including the
of the Roomof the Throne,the gypsumpiers of the West
roundedcornerby the antechamber
Magazines,the "Protopalatialmagazines"andthe eastwall of the Long Corridor,the north wall of the
SouthCorridor,the "Great Cutting" from the DomesticQuarter,the drainagesystemand perhapsthe
southterracewall of the southlightwell of the Queen'sMegaron,partsof the north wall on the south
sideof the north-westernLustral Area, someof the terracewalls on the eastslopeandthe massive
foundationsleadingeastfrom the North Pillar Hall, which he claims,may well havebeenthe
foundationsof a north-eaststeppedapproachto complementthe SteppedPortico on the south-west
(Macdonald2005:41-56).

126

"palatial"
"non-palatial"
Minoan
I/II
Middle
and
of
architecture and
comparative assessment
has come to the very interesting conclusion that within the "non-palace" sector of the period
in question, the emergenceof a new architectural vocabulary may be witnessed which
displays the characteristics of a "palace" (Schoep 2004a). This architectural vocabulary
bases),
(i.
"new
techniques
e.
ashlar
masonry,
column
new architectural
makes use of
lustral
basin
blocks
Hall,
Minoan
(i.
the
the
and
of magazines equipped with
modules e.
drains) and of new materials/construction techniques (i. e. sandstonefor walls and slabs and
for
(Schoep
2004a:
256).
is
It
limestone
column-bases)"
conglomerate
noteworthy
and
white
that as in the case of the "New Palace" period, these architectural features are aimed at
inside
buildings
&
Schoep
Schoep
(Driessen
1995;
the
the
as
of
outside as well
elaborating
2004a). Although the construction date of these buildings cannot be specified with precision,
it appearsto fall between the Middle Minoan lb and the Middle Minoan II periods (Poursat
1987,1988; Schoep 2002: 110,2004a).

Using the settlement at Malia as her main case study, Schoep stressesthat much of
this new architectural vocabulary is confined in buildings other than the "early palaces ".
Evidence for the use of ashlar masonry is found at Building A (Quartier Mu) (Poursat 1992;
Schoep2002: 111,2004: 256), the Crypte Hypostyle (Schoep 2004a: 256) [Plate 8.1a],
Quartier Nu (Schoep & Knappett 2003), a building complex discovered during the Malia
1991:
743),
(Mller
a partially excavated structure to the south of the "palace" and to
survey
the east of the Magasins Dessenne(Schoep 2002b: 111) and finally, the funerary structure at
Chryssolakkos (Schoep 2004a: 256; Shaw 1971: 164,1973). In addition to ashlar masonry,
from
Chrysolakkos
(Shaw
in
(north
1973)
the
and
are
reported
and
west walls)
orthostats
A
(Quartier
Schoep
257).
Besides
facade
Building
Mu)
(Poursat
1992:
42;
2004a:
of
a
north
facade in ashlar, Quartier Mu features "the oldest known example of a Minoan Hall"
(Schoep 2004a: 257), consisting of a light-well, a vestibule and a hall separatedfrom one
bays
(polythyron)
by
(Pelon 1992) [Plate 8.1b]. To the west of the Minoan
multiple
another
Hall a sunken room, "considered to be the proto-type of the Late Bronze Age lustral basin"
was also identified (Macdonald 2005: 29; Schoep 2004a: 257). The association between a
Minoan Hall and a sunken room is particularly significant becauseit heralds their spatial
proximity also in later phases(Schoep 2004a: 257). Apart from Quartier Mu, apolythyron
has also been reported from the Crypte Hypostyle (Allegrette & Schmid 1997; Schoep
2004a), whereas another example has been identified in the area to the west of the Agora
(van Effenterre & van Effenterre 1969). In the case of the Crypte Hypostyle, the association
of a polythyron and a set of sunken rooms hints to "an association similar to that found in
Building A of Quartier Mu" (Schoep 2004a: 257).

127

Other architectural innovations at Middle Minoan I/II Malia involve the introduction
Schoep
2004a:
258;
Effenterre
1980:
179-180)
35;
1992:
(Pelon
blocks
van
of magazines
of
(Schoep
2004a:
258-259).
The
base
column
sculpted
the
and
wooden
stone column
and
long
drains
low
from
corridor,
contain
and
platforms along
a
magazines,usually accessible
be
for
liquids
likely
(Poursat 1992:
indicating
the
to
they
that
of
used
storage
were
the walls,
34-35; Schoep2002: 111,2004: 258-259). Blocks of magazines are attested in Quartier Mu,
the Magasins Dessenne(Poursat 1992, Schoep 2002: 111) and the Crypte Hypostyle (Schoep
2002: 111,2004: 259). On the other hand and although very common in the Late Bronze
Age, column bases are relatively rare in the Middle Bronze Age. Nevertheless, in Middle
Minoan II (or at the earliest the end of Middle Minoan lb) they are attested in Quartier Mu,
the Crypte Hypostyle and in the building recovered during the Malia survey which remains
1991:
743).
(Mller
unexcavated

Elsewhere on the island, there is (as yet) little architectural evidence from the
Middle Minoan II "non-palatial" sector since excavations so far have focused (almost
"palaces"
immediate
the
their
and
upon
environs. Even this limited body of
exclusively)
evidence, however, seemsto leave open the possibility that the situation at Malia constitutes
indeed
an
much broader (architectural) phenomenon/trend. For instance at
an example of
Knossos, excavations beneath the South-West House have revealed a Middle Minoan IIa
building
of uncut, medium-sized stone walls with white plastered floors (Schoep
rectangular
2004a: 160); this building also yielded evidence for "administration in a workshop context"
(Schoep 2004a: 261). At Phaistos, two structures stand out: CV-CVII for its unusual plan
and high quality architecture and LXVII-LXIX,

LXVI immediately south-west of the "early

palace" for its "handsome north facade in cut blocks" (Schoep 2004a: 261). Ashlar blocks
four
marks
and
mason's
column bases have been reported from Aghia Triadha
with
(Cucuzza 1992: 59), whereas at Monastiraki, the main building on the west side of the
Charakashill also has a column base (Kanta & Tzigounaki 2000: 208).

Other possible candidates of the "elaborate/monumental" architecture category are

the large Middle Minoan II building which has been found at the summit of the hill at
Vronda (Day & Snyder 2004: 64; Day et al. 1986; Gesell et al. 2000: 85; Gesell 2004: 887
large
building at the site Tou Vrachnou o Lakkos, close to the modem village
the
missing);
of Kouse (Marinatos 1924-5: 53-85); the massive buildings that have been recently
discovered at Ambeles, Kato Zakros (Chryssoulaki 2004: 883), at Pera Galini, Rethymnon
(Tsivilaki & Banou 1992-4) and at Chondrovolakes, Mirabello (Haggis 2004: 229); from the
Vrokastro area, Hayden reports several structures with massive foundations in limestone
or
conglomerate limestone, often hammer-dressed into fairly regular large blocks bedded

128

horizontally (Hayden et aL 2004: 103; Watrous 1994: 736); at the settlement of MyrtosPyrgos, Cadogan has discovered major buildings on the summit of the hill which belong to
Pyrgos III phase (i. e. Middle Minoan II) (Cadogan 1997,2000: 172); at the area of
Kalamaki, to the north of Kommos, excavations have revealed parts of a large building with
for
(Karetsou
1978:
357;
Vallianou
1979: 383thick
areas
storage
and
used
walls
unusually
384,1987: 546); House H from the settlement at Kalathiana (north part of the Mesara plain)
is also important since its external walls consisted of a facade with the characteristic
facades,
built
dressed
the
of
palatial
of
stones
rectangular embayments reminiscent
(Xanthoudides 1924: 84-85); at Korakies, also in the Mesara, a building on the high summit
floors
is
(Xanthoudides
the
construction
with
careful
paved
and
massive
walls
a
site
of
1924); at Apesokari a large Middle Minoan I building with two different wings and very
has
been
(Schrgendorfer
1951:
of
storage
consisting
mainly
areas
also
unearthed
wide walls
23-26); finally, several Middle Minoan II large buildings are reported in the Praisos area
(Whitley et al. 1999: 228-234). In view of the above evidence and although, to some extent,
the settlement at Malia might seem at present exceptional, it is very likely that future
Cretan
(i.
Apodhoulou,
Aghia
Monastiraki,
Triadha,
Zakros,
other
sites
e.
of
exploration
Poros, Archanes, Tylissos, Nerokourou, Chamalevri, Kastelli etc.) may change drastically
the current picture (Schoep 2004a: 261).

On the basisof the extantbody of information from the "Protopalatial" residential

impossible
it
is
to draw any (more solid) conclusions pertinent to issues
virtually
sector,
other than morphology and/or size (i. e. distribution of finds, secure identification of
functions/activity areas etc); however, the sporadic occurrence of evidence indicating
recording systems (i. e. Monastiraki), substantial storage facilities (i. e. Monastiraki,
Apodoulou), accumulation of feasting paraphernalia (i. e. Zakros, Apodhoulou, Kastelli
Pediadas,Chalara-Phaistos,Aghia Photeini-Phaistos) in structures/buildings which do not
otherwise exhibit signs of architectural elaboration/monumentality, leaves open the
possibility that as in the "Neopalatial" period, "insignia of power" are likely to have been
"diffused" well into the "non-palatial" sector also during this earlier period.

[8.4JConclusions

Fromthe aboveobservations,severalquite illuminating conclusionscan be drawn: It

first
appears
of all that the "diffusion" of "palatial" elements(i. e. morphologicaland
functional)which is perceivedas a diagnosticfeatureof the "Neopalatial"
era,may now be
seento takeplacealso during the period(s)of the "Old Palaces".At a time wherea surplus

129

differences
between
is
laid
[see
the
the
two
accentuating
upon
phases
effort
of analytical
Section 5.2], the suggestionthat the latter may in fact be seen as highly compatible (at least
is
fact
Particularly
is
level)
the
that these
significant
also
very significant.
at a gross
"palatial" features are witnessed in the "non-palace" sector from a very early phase (i. e. the
Middle Minoan Ib/II period), essentially the period to which we tend to place the emergence
dwelling
boundary
Rather
between
"palaces"
than
the
themselves.
specifying
upon
a
the
of
"palatial" and the "non-palatial" sector, it could therefore be considered more fruitful to view
broader
belonging
buildings/structures
to
a
continuum; put simply, we should
as
all such
broadly
that
the
shared set of ostentatious resources was employed and
a
possibility
entertain
Instead
by
in
time.
the
groups
of
people
at
of referring to
various
combined various ways and
begin
in
decipherable
terms
"palatial
thus
to
think
of
a
widely
and
may
vocabulary", we
a
dwelling
is
"vocabulary",
term
the
tradition stands
which essentially what
extensively used
for (Heidegger 1971: 145-61; Ingold 2000: 153-56):

Even under such circumstances, some would perhaps insist on specifying where this
"vocabulary" actually originated from and we could suspect that this quest for "origins"
"non-palatial"
by
"palatial"
be
driven
the
the
to
the
over
sector, to
need
prioritize
would
latter
"passive
former
innovations
the
the
the
as
main
agent
and
as
a
of
recipient", a
portray
"peripheral territory" to which these elements are only later "diffused". Such a tendency
because
idea
domains
to
the
that
these
two
of
our
occur
prejudiced
adherence
would only
have to be distinct and in effect, analytically distinguishable, with the "palatial" being
(epistemologically and ontologically) prioritized over the "non-palatial/domestic"; however,
it is precisely the maintenance of this polarized and heavily biased distinction which seems
to prevent us from appreciating that in fact, the lack of success in specifying how the
boundary between the two sectors is drawn may constitute an observation of immense
analytical/interpretive potential.

To be more specific: if (morphological and functional) complexity, fuzziness and

ambiguity constitute a perennial motif of the "Old" as well as the "New Palace" period, if
"palaces" and "houses" present such a high degree of compatibility already from the early
stagesof the second millennium BC, then why argue that "the palatial" affects the way(s)
whereby "the domestic" manifests itself and not the exact opposite, i. e. that "the domestic"
affects the ways whereby the "palatial" manifests itself? Why do we speak in other words, of
an "emergence" and subsequent"diffusion" of "palatial" characteristics and not the
"emergence" of a wider trend, aiming at monumentalizing "domestic" characteristics? If
we
tried to think in those terms for a moment, could we not argue that the varying degrees of
architectural elaboration attested both in the interior as well as exterior of most houses, do

130

be
"in
(i.
"fashion
"palatial"
to
to
testify
vogue"
e.
a
need
victims"
of
style)
necessarily
not
(Driessen 1982) but could reflect instead, a broader concern over rendering (aesthetically,
"domestic"
it
Is
in
itse?
the
that
entity
a
coincidence
visible
socially)
and
symbolically
have
far
described
"palatial"
(be
that
the
so
of
what
we
as
use
resources
widespread
respect
those materials, construction techniques and/or specific practices) does not seem to have a
homogenizing effect on the morphology of the "domestic" sector but rather results in a series
house-specific)
(almost
(Rehak
&
idiosyncratic
highly
expressions/manifestations
of
Younger 1998: 107,110)? Furthermore, is it not significant that even in houses of very small
laid
is
being
feature
i.
the
the
elaboration
upon
of
entrance,
e.
a
emphasis
size, particular
fashion
(but
from
in
the
transition
the
also
regulation/control
of
access)
manifesting explicit
"outside" to the "inside" (and vice versa) (McEnroe 1979)? Finally, let us try to connect the
foregoing observations with another highly popular practice of both "palatial" periods, i. e.
hospitality
Could
it
be
(i.
the
that
case
e. the offering of
consumption/feasting.
not
collective
food/drink) and the very idea of "inviting-in" justify even more concretely the increasing
importance (hence visibility) of the "House" at the time?

In a way, the foregoing thoughts could be paving the way for a (literally) "bottom.
have
"palatial
far
to
the
so
what
we
and
portrayed
as
perceived
phenomenon".
up" approach
It is an alternative scenario which calls for a radical redefinition of the "palace" itself, since
the latter could now be seen (at least at the most basic level) as a monumentalized version of
distinct
(morphological
functional)
house
to
a
opposed
and
entity. Along with its
as
a
grandiose size and obvious signs of architectural refinement, let us not forget that the
"palace" accommodates(if not foregrounds) large-scale eating and drinking and in so doing,
monumentalizes the very practice of food/drink giving, the very notion of hospitality and
even more crucially the very idea of being a generous host. These observations could be of
crucial importance for a very simple reason: ultimately, they seem to imply that the
monumentalization process taking place on the island of Crete from the second millennium
BC onwards, is a processwhich builds upon and aims at accentuating similarity as opposed
to difference; put simply, rather than establishing a straightforward distinction between itself
"non-palatial"
the
sector, the "palace" could be taken to echo the "familiar", it could reand
present a more elaborate version of the everyday, it could constitute an attempt to render
"extra-ordinary" what could be broadly perceived as the "ordinary" (Bell 1992: 90-93).

The abovequerieswill be exploredin further detail in the following chapters.For

the time being, it sufficesto keeponebasic questionin mind: could a potential shift from the
studyof "Palatial society"to the study of "House society" (Levi-Strauss1982)be precisely
what is requiredfor us to be ableto fulfil the aims/intentionsdiscussedin length in the

131

broad
formulation
i.
by
the
of
a
new,
category/question
and
extension, a
previous chapter, e.
for
Minoan
[see
Chapter
Seven]?
In
historical
direction
archaeology
enquiry
order to
of
new
leading
higher
by
level
the
to
this
complete
process
extension,
and
question
answer
is
important
it
from
1992),
(Marquardt
to
to
the
the
return
evidence
so-called
preservation
"prepalatial" period. If we assumefor a moment that the term "House society" can indeed
how
"Prepalatial
be
"Palatial
then
term
the
should
society",
society"
perceived and
replace
defined from now on? The main aim of Chapter Nine is to provide an answer to this

fundamentalquestion.

132

9
From suspension

to transcendence,

Part II:

Before "civilization"

[9.11 Internal contradictions

As in the caseof the "palatial" periods,our perceptionof the period beforethe

"palaces" has lately gone through significant transformation [see Sections 5.2,5.3]. The
by
"endogenous/production-oriented"
the
the
proponents
of
approach that
made
suggestion
the shift of habitation to the marginal environments of Southern Greece (including Crete) at
the end of the Neolithic/beginning of the Early Bronze Age has had a profound impact upon
land managementand use [see Chapter Two] is no longer seen as an empirically (and/or
hypothesis.
is
Equally
sustainable
considered the suggestion that
problematic
conceptually)
from a very early stage in their history, "palace-to-be" sites (such as Knosssos, Malia and
Phaistos)provide us with evidence for "agricultural surplus" accumulation. The steadily
information
body
from the Neolithic period (in Crete and the Aegean) on the
of
growing
for
it
highly
developed
hand,
long-distance
the
that
makes
unlikely
exchange networks
other
first time in the area during the Early Bronze Age period. For those adhering to the principles
of the "exogenous/consumption-oriented" approach [see Chapter Three], another serious
in
interpretations
has been that "prepalatial" evidence from sites, which later
their
obstacle
developed into "palaces", does not conform to the idea that the latter exercised (direct and/or
"prepalatial"
long-distance maritime expeditions.
control
over
exclusive)

"Surplusaccumulation'and "authority centralization"constitutedcriteria of

fundamentalimportancefor all "evolutionary" approachesto the "palatial phenomenon";as
indicatedabove,they wereusedextensivelynot only in "palatial" but also in "prepalatial"

133

"palace"
from
to
the
the
portray
need
as a concrete entity/ category
studies and this stemmed
in Minoan archaeology, which have been
Current
formative
trends
its
from
stages.
already
forms
be
of classification, not only raise concerns
such
any
to
against
very much
shown
idea/category
"palace"centralized
"surplus"
the
and
authority"
of
and
the
notions of
against
idiosyncratic
invite
but
towards
the
to
us
shift
attention
elements
also
to-be" sites as a whole,
in the biographies of these sites [see Section 5.2]. For instance (and in fact quite rightly),
known
"palace-to-be
(i.
Phaistos
Malia
Knossos,
three
the
that
sites)
and
e.
they remind us
(i.
history
long
the
three
two
loci
out
of
cases
e.
of occupation, with
with a very
were
Knossos and Phaistos) exhibiting clear signs of use already from the Neolithic period2
(Evans, A. J. 1901-2; Evans, J.D. 1971,1994; Relaki 2003; Vagnetti & Belli 1978; Tomkins
2000). In particular, Knossos provides evidence for inhabitation already from the late-8`h
be
Equally
four
before
Phaistos.
to
the
BC,
striking
seems
millennia
almost
millennium
Knossos
Malia
initial
that
the
of
of
with
occupational phases
chronological gap separating
be
Malia
Neolithic
Although
Phaistos.
the
at
cannot
ruled out
occupation
possibility of
and
far,
4),
for
1985:
1980:
84;
Betancourt
Effenterre
(van
so
secure
evidence
contra
entirely3
Final
Neolithic
Phaistos,
begins
(?
)
the
of
a
after
establishment
over millennium
settlement
i. e. from the Early Minoan II period onwards (Poursat 1988: 64-65,68). During this
/mid-3`d
late
it
(i.
8th
BC),
broad
temporal/chronological
e.
millennium
span
admittedly quite
is also the diachronic development of the three sites (i. e. morphology and nature/character of
functionally
does
to
them
allow
as
morphologically
and/or
not
us
view
which
occupation)
2004a).
(Schoep
compatible

' To the list we may also add Petras, which is nevertheless constructed at a relatively late date, i. e.
Middle Minoan Ila (Tsipopoulou 1999,2002). Moreover at Zakros, a substantial building complex
has been uncovered under the north-east part of the Late Minoan I "palace" but with a different
orientation. Platon datesthese architectural traces under the later west wing, together with an earlier
"central court" to the "protopalatial" period (Platon 1974: 222-26, Figs. 125-6,140). Whether this date
refers to the early (Middle Minoan I/II) or the later stagesof the "Old Palace" period, remains at
present unclear.
2 The history of Knossos begins in Neolithic times (i. e. end of 8t`/begmning of 7`hmillennium BC
(Evans, J.D. 1994: 1), and the occupation layers at the site (which span over several thousand years)
are so deep "that they gradually formed the only true tell in the Southern Aegean" (Macdonald 2005:
1). This immensely long period is divided into six sub-phases2:Aceramic Neolithic (ca. 7000-6500
BC), Early Neolithic I (ca 6500-4900 BC), Early Neolithic II (ca. 4900-4500 BC), Middle Neolithic
(ca. 4500-4200 BC), Late Neolithic (ca. 4200-3600 BC) and Final Neolithic (ca. 3600-3300 BC)
(Macdonald 2005). After Knossos, the Neolithic assemblageof Phaistos represents one of the most
substantial assemblagesof the period in Crete but is limited chronologically to the Final Neolithic
(Vagnetti 1972-3).

3 Van Effenterrementionsa "pre-Minoan" installation defondateurs,from

an areato the west of the
Middle Minoan "Agora" (vanEffenterre 1980:84).

134

[9.21 External connections: Some further thoughts on "palace-to-be" sites

Despite the aforementioned objections/revisions of the long dominant
"evolutionary" image of the period before the "palaces" and the simultaneous increase of
"palace-to-be"
developmental
disassociating
trajectories
the
three
the
of
sites,
emphasisupon
it is particularly interesting that from the late third millennium onwards, some very
be
Knossos,
Malia
identified
may
still
amongst
convergence
and
of
significant points
Phaistos. First of all, in all three sites we have ample evidence suggesting the operation of
large-scalebuilding programmes in and around the area(s) where the "palaces" were only
At
Knossos
Malia,
began
this
towards the end of the
and
process
constructed.
subsequently
Early Minoan IIa period (Driessen 2004; Macdonald 2005; Pelon 1993; Schoep 2004a;
Schoep& Knappett 2004; Whitelaw 2004a; Wilson 1984,1994); at Phaistos on the other
hand, the evidence was long assumedto point towards a later terminus post quem (i. e.
Middle Minoan lb) (Levi 1976; Levi & Carinci 1988) however recent investigations at the
for
leave
date
(i. e. Early Minoan III, if not Early
the
possibility
open
an
earlier
site now
Minoan Ilb) (Carinci & La Rosa 2002; La Rosa 2002b, 2005) [see below].

Most information on the aforementioned early building programmes derives from

the site of Knossos. According to Wilson the sequenceof pure Early Minoan IIa fills
levels
Late
Neolithic
above
were found in numerous widespread tests around the
stratified
36-37)
1994:
(Wilson
and seem to be pointing towards large-scale terracing (Wilson
site
1984: 36-41,1994: 36-37). During this phase, the West Court House, the only Early Minoan
IIa building so far identified on the Knossian tell (Whitelaw 2004a: 243, Fig. 13.9; Wilson
1984: 38), was terraced directly into the Late Neolithic levels with no intervening Early
Minoan I evidence being reported, and appears to have consisted of rooms designated for
storage(Wilson 1984: 4,1985: 282). The stratigraphy and pottery point to a short-lived use
of the West Court House (i. e. Early Minoan IIa, first phase) (Wilson 1984: 14). Shortly after
its construction, the building was itself levelled as part of a yet another major re-organization
(i.
A
[Plate
(Wilson
1984:
4)
9.1].
tell
the
terrace
the
terracing)
of
e.
second
area
phase of
of
fill
(Trench
2
Trench
its
GG)
built
to
the
to
support
and create an open
and
west
wall
was
area (Wilson 1984: 17-21,1985: 282-284,290-291, Fig. 1,1994: 36). The alignment of the
wall was similar to that of the West Court House (Wilson 1984: 17). The depth of building
debris and fill was almost one meter and brought the area up to just beneath the level of the
West Court paving (Wilson 1984: 4,1985: 282). The area over the fill appearsto have
remained open from this time onwards (Wilson 1994: 36).

135

In the 1987 tests made to explore the limits of a later terrace wall, a stone paved
North
Lustral
Basin
(Catling
1987/88:
69,
Fig.
found
94)
the
to
the
of
south-west
ramp was
Early
belong
Minoan
IIb
been
has
to
the
to
the
taken
chronologically
period,
although
which
has
been
(i.
Early
Minoan
IIa)
date
(Wilson
e.
not
entirely
ruled
out
earlier
of
an
possibility
1994: 37). It was suggestedthat this ramp (or roadway) led up to the top of the Knossian hill
have
been
it
in
that
associatedwith the re-building programme of
respect, could perhaps
and
the Early Minoan IIa period, or a slightly late addition (i. e. Early Minoan IIb) (Wilson 1994:
37-38). It is perhaps worth pointing out here that no architectural remains belonging to the
Early Minoan lib are reported from the area of the tell with the exception of one building,
traces of which were uncovered beneath a Middle Minoan housejust west of the South-West
House and outside the edge of the West Court (Wilson 1994: Fig. 2; Wilson & Day 1999: 5).

Remains of what appearsto be another extensive terrace wall with an associated

been
it
have
beneath
West
"palace"
behind
Facade
(Catling
fill
the
the
reported
of
stone
1987/88: 69, Fig. 96; Evans, A. J. 1900-1: 56-57, p1.2,1921: Fig. 109; Hood & Taylor 1981:
26;
MacGillivray
205:
1994:
49;
Momigliano
1992:
Macdonald
167,171,
22;
p. 8a); the
no
terrace wall (known also as the North-West Platform) (Branigan 1992: 153; MacGillivrary
1994: 49), runs from a point "just south of Magazine XI, whence it runs north to the north"east
just
then
the
to
and
of
palace"
south-west of the North Lustral
a point
west angle
Basin" (Wilson 1994: 38, Fig. 3). The North-West Platform has been dated to the Early
Minoan III period although MacGillivray leaves open the possibility of a slightly later date
(i. e. Middle Minoan Ia) (MacGillvray 1994: 51). Outside the "palace" (to the north-west) at
the south side of the Royal Road (and at right angles to it) (Wilson 1994: 38), Warren reports
a paved road which is also thought to be Early Minoan III in date (Warren 1972: 627-629).

Relatively few architectural remains of this period are known from the site [See
Section 5.2]. From the limited number of buildings/structures that we have at our disposal
(seeplan in Hood 1994: Fig. 1), some appear to have been domestic in character, such as the
South Front House which is assignedto the Early Minoan III period (Hood 1994: 102;
Momigliano 1991: 198-204; Momigliano & Hood 1994; Momigliano & Wilson 1996) and
the Early Houses (Houses A, B and C) below the area of the West Court kouloures

(Momigliano 1991: 185-194,206-236).It is indicativethat the boundarydividing these

domesticexamplesandthe areaof the later-to-be"palace" is clearly demarcated:a wall
(Wall 14),which is likely to haveservedas a foundationfor the plinthblocks of the later
SouthFacade,is built againstthe northernpart (wall 1) of the SouthFront House
(Momigliano & Wilson 1996:52-5, Fig. 31). In the caseof the kouloureshouses,the Early
Minoan IIa terracewall (built to the west of the West Court Houseto

createan openspace)

136

A,
Houses
B,
C
from
"palace"
from
boundary
the
have
the
separating
area,
to
as
acted
seems
(Wilson
Ia
1984:
Minoan
Fig. 1; 1994: 36). On
III/Middle
Minoan
Early
onwards
period
the
later
"palace",
boundary
the
hand,
the
some additional examples of
of
south
the other
at
(Schoep
be
"non-domestic"
to
and/or
special
are
nature
reported
structures which seem
2004b: 282): the Early Hypogaeum, the subterranean structure situated below the South
Porch, which is taken to belong to the Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan Ia phase(s) (Hood
1994: 102; Momigliano 1991: 195-198), and the Monolithic Pillar Basement, situated to the
in
least
have
been
Quarter;
Residential
the
to
the
use
at
as
early
as
seems
which
of
south-cast
Middle Minoan la phase4(MacGillivray 1994: 49-50; Momigliano 1991: 163-167). In a
building
is
to
it
the
that
therefore
most
activity
closer
area
where
as
we
get
appears
sense,
between
latter
"palace"
boundary
is
drawn
later-to-be
(i.
the
the
and
area),
a
e.
concentrated
the "domestic" space either through the construction of (terrace) walls or "nondomestic/special" structures.

At Malia, along with the wealth of contexts preserved from the "Protopalatial"
have
1980a;
1980b;
Poursat
1983,1988),
(van
Effenterre
currently
what
we
at our
period
disposal is also a far more substantial body of empirical information from the "prepalatial"
levels (van Effenterre 1980a; Pelon 1980,1987,1989,1993). As mentioned earlier, it now
in
first
the
that
and around the area of the
architectural/spatial
modifications
major
seems
"palace" took place during the Early Minoan IIb period (if not towards the end of Early
Minoan IIa) (Driessen 2004: 78). Directly under the later "palace" a carefully laid out Early
Minoan Jib structure (consisting of a series of small-sized rooms) has been partially revealed
(Pelon 1993). Although several scholars consider this structure to be a fore-runner of the
building
both
in
is
far
it
former
built
"palace",
the
that
a
more
modest
appears
subsequently
terms of size as well as morphology. What is equally noteworthy is Driessen's recent
in
fashion
from
Early
(and
Minoan
lib
to
that
the
analogous
period
onwards
observation
Knossos), building programmes taking place at the area of the "palace" and its immediate
environs emphasizedgreatly the provision and elaboration of open spaces (Driessen 2004).
To further substantiatethis point, Driessen goes on to argue that during the late stages of the
"prepalatial" period, a time when there is an obvious increase of building activity at Malia
(Baurain & Darque 1993; van Effenterre 1980a: 83-94; Pelon 1989,1991,1993; Poursat and
Darque 1990; Whitelaw 2004a: Fig. 13.3), the area of the Central Court appearsto have been
(Driessen
2004: 78) and the same applies also to the area of the West
of
constructions
void
Court (Chapouthier et al. 1962: 39; Driessen 2004: 78; Pelon 1987: 200).
4 Initially, an early dateof construction(Early Minoan III or Middle Minoan la) hadbeen
proposed
alsofor the Early Keep, an enigmaticstructureto the North-Westof the later "palace". As Branigan's
re-evaluationof the evidencehad convincinglydemonstratedhowever,the dateof constructionof the
Keepoughtto be placedto the Middle Minoan Ib period (Branigan1992;MacGillivray 1994:49).

137

Finally at Phaistos,the 1994 and 2000-2002 stratigraphic investigations at the area

large-scale
building
have
"palace"
that
the
revealed
operations occurred at the site as early
of
(La
Rosa
2002b:
712-5,2005:
43-4,50).
Amongst
IIb
Minoan
Early
the most
the
period
as
in
West
Court,
has
from
been
drawn
initial
the
that
the
soundings
recent
results
significant
date of construction of the paved ramp in the West Court, leading from the area of Piazzale
LXX to Piazzale I, is now considered to be the Early Minoan III period ("lastricato inferiore
La
Rosa
2002:
874-5;
2005:
44,50),
&
Rosa
La
Middle
(Carinci
to
the
as
opposed
c")
Minoan Ib phase ("fase la"), initially proposed by Doro Levi (Levi 1976: 333) [Plate 9.2]. It
is worth mentioning at this point that along with the evidence for an early paving in the West
Court, the information we have at our disposal from the Central Court indicates that the latter
has not yielded any late "prepalatial" architectural remains (Branigan 1993: 116, Fig. 6.9).
Equally significant is perhaps the discovery by Pernier of paved surfaces predating the "Old
Palace", under the floors of the "Protopalatial" rooms of the North-West Wing (Pernier
1935: 151-155). That there is a general emphasis on "openness" at Phaistos is a point further
Middle
Minoan
]b
According
by
Fiandra
"first
the
to
the
record.
supposed
confirmed
building phase" of the "palace" (i. e. Middle Minoan Ib) involved solely the construction of
the South-West Wing (Fiandra 1961-2: 114-115). This structure consisted of a series of
for
(designated
storage) (Branigan 1987) and was situated at the south part of
small rooms
the hill at Phaistos, at a lower level than the (later) North-West Wing. Apart from the SouthWest Wing, no other Middle Minoan lb architectural remains have been reported from the
"palace"
(Carinci 1989; Damiani-Indelicato 1988: 67;
the
and
east
areas
of
north, west
Fiandra 1961-2: 114-115; La Rosa 2002a; Levi 1976: 405-408; Pernier 1935: 335-341;
Perrier & Banti 1951: 220-222,237). To the south, remains of "prepalatial" houses have
been discovered (Levi 1976: 334-335,349-358; Vagnetti 1972-3: 37-39) thus rendering
highly unlikely the expansion of the "palace" towards this direction. The possibility should
be entertainedtherefore that that during the Middle Minoan lb phase, the South-West Wing
was situated in between three open spaces(lying to its east, north and west sides
respectively) and perhaps a fourth one towards the south.

In all the aforementionedsites,"palaces"in the form of a largearchitectural

complexwith a court at the centre(i. e. CentralCourt) and a secondopenareato the west
(i.e. West Court) (Cherry 1986;Palyvou2002,2004) areconstructedat a slightly later date
(Schoep2004a).It is now clear that the First Palaceat Malia was constructedduring the
Early Minoan III-Middle Minoan la phase(Hue & Pelon 1992:31-33, Figs. 33-34,Niemeier
1997:17;Pelon 1983a,1986:3-19,1992: 13,1993; Poursat1988;Schoep1999:270-272,
Fig. 3,2004). At Knossos,the first monumentaledifice datesto the Middle Minoan lb
phase
(MacGillivray 1994,1998)whereasat Phaistos,the first signsof
monumentalityare

138

Ila
North
Minoan
Wing
Middle
in
the
the
the
period,
when
with
smooth
witnessed
built
(Fiandra
1961-2:
117,
Fig.
Shaw
face
7.7;
1971:
[see
84)
was
exterior
also
rectangular
Chapter Eleven]. From our discussion so far, it becomes obvious however, that the terminus
in
building
"palace-to-be"
does
large-scale
the
aforementioned
operations
sites
of
quem
post
"Protopalatial"
but
beginning
have
involved
the
the
to
of
period
seems
a
with
coincide
not
long phase of earlier development, spanning roughly from the end of the Early Minoan IIa to
the end of the Middle Minoan lb phase (Schoep & Knappett 2004: 27). With regard to the
is
left
large-scale
that
terracing and
the
currently
open
possibility
earlier phase,
building
operations aimed mainly at the provision, elaboration and even
corresponding
in
"Old
Palaces"
later
the
the
areas
stood
spaces
where
of
open
monumentalisation
(Macdonald 2005; Relaki 2003). The significance attributed to "openness" may also be
inferred from the information we currently have at our disposal on the morphology and
layout of the early "palaces" (Driessen 2004; Schoep 2004a). Not only do courts constitute a
Knossos,
Phaistos
Malia
(Schoep
feature
the
monumental
structures
at
and
of
cardinal
2004a), but as Driessen has rightly pointed out, there is an obvious connection (if not direct
association) between these courts and the open spacesreported from the "palace-to-be" loci
in the preceding phases,at least in terms of location and orientation (Driessen 2004).

Along with the aboveobservations,which exemplify why Knossos,Malia and

Phaistosconverge,as far astheir developmentaltrajectory is concerned,from the late
"prepalatial"period onwards,other setsof empirical information seemto further reinforce
this imageof parallel histories.Thesepoints havealreadybeentouchedupon in previous
sectionsbut it is importantto review them briefly in what follows:
[a] First of all, it has been stressedrepeatedly by the proponents of both the
"endogenous/production-oriented" as well as the "exogenous/consumption-oriented"
approachthat from the late "prepalatial" period onwards, the size of the settlements at
Knossos, Malia and Phaistos increases (in some cases,even dramatically) (Branigan 2001;
Driessen 2001: 59,2004: 77; Watrous 1994; Whitelaw 2001: 140,2004). What is also
is
from
that
the extant evidence, it appearsthat the settlement in each of the three
noteworthy
developed
around the loci where the "palaces" were later erected (Branigan 2001: 44;
sites
Driessen 2001: 64, Whitelaw 2004a). If it is indeed the casethat the earliest building
programmes at these loci have resulted in the construction of monumental open spaces,then
it is equally plausible to suggestthat the latter constituted centrally placed, public areas of
the corresponding settlement (Damiani-Indelicato 1988). It is significant in that respect that
in those caseswhere remains of houses are discovered in the near vicinity
of "palace-to-be"

139

loci, the former seemto develop in accordanceto the orientation of the latter5 (Driessen
2004: 78).

[b] As we have mentioned, another theme that has been recently gaining ground in the
Minoan literature is that of ceremonial and/or large-scale food and drink consumption. The
information
large-scale
feasting
body
from
increasing
to
of
empirical
related
events
steadily
the "palaces" has confirmed that the latter hosted such practices essentially from the earliest
Schoep
&
Wilson
1998,2002;
Relaki
2004;
2002a,
2002b,
2004)
history
(Day
their
stage of
[Plate 3.2]. It appears,however, that from the late "prepalatial" period onwards, feasting
becomes a more systematizedpractice in all three "palace-to-be" sites (Knappett 2001: 9194,2005a; La Rosa 2002b; Momigliano 1991; Momigliano & Wilson 1996; MacGillivray
1998; Schoep 2002b: 112-113,115, Fig. 9; Wilson & Day 1999); taken together with the
interpretative
(i.
discussed
possibilities
and
we
earlier
e. emphasis on and
empirical evidence
"open
being
"open
settlement
expansion
spaces"
of
spaces",
and
nucleation,
elaboration
for
large-scale
loci
Knossos,
the
the
evidence
settlements),
commensality
of
acts
of
at
central
Malia and Phaistos indicates that there were loci compatible not only morphologically but
is
indeed
be
interesting
investigate
further
If
it
functionally.
to
this
the
case,
would
also
limited
for
facilities
loci
Section
[see
5.2]
these
the
evidence
storage
at
relatively
whether
(exclusively?
feasting
)
be
be
thus viewed as shortthose
to
events
and
associated
with
ought
term storagedepositions designated for "immediate" use/consumption.

On the basis of the above, it could be argued that the three "palace-to-be" sites of
Knossos, Malia and Phaistos exhibit several clear signs of convergence centuries before the
"palaces".
Essentially, from the late "prepalatial" period
the
so-called
of
actual construction
onwards, all three of them constitute integral parts of settlements of substantial size; that
those settlements are nucleated is best exemplified by the fact that that they develop around
a monumentalisedopen/public space (or set of open/public spaces).From the initial stages of
construction/establishment of these public domains (if not earlier in some cases), evidence
for collective eating and drinking events are reported from all three sites. The morphology of
open spacesand the practices/events they seem to accommodate, makes it highly likely that
they initially constituted the nucleus of the corresponding settlements and only in a
did
they transform into the locus in which the "palace" structures were
stage,
subsequent
(Barshinger
1988: 60).
constructed

5A similar casecould perhapsbe made

with regardto the enigmaticstructuresat the site of Knossos,
namelythe Early Hypogaeum,the Early Keep and the Monolithic Pillar Basement,however,so far,
the dateof theseconstruction(albeit early) hasnot be definedwith precision(MacGillivray 1994;
Macdonald2005).

140

[9.3] External connections: Social transformations beyond the "palace-to-be" sites

Although the (morphological and functional) common ground that we established
in
Phaistos
Mafia
Knossos,
theory,
to
and
could,
allow us to view/treat those as a
regard
with
during
in
distinct
the
entity
classificatory
period
question, a closer look upon the
potentially
"prepalatial"
late
from
demonstrates
the
that the
phase(s)
clearly
record
extant
by
but
three
the
to
them
sites
are
not
exclusive
shared
rather "diffused" in
elements/features
the wider Cretan landscape.

First of all, from the late "prepalatial" period onwards, the information deriving from
the corresponding funerary and settlement record indicates that in these contexts as well,
laid
upon the provision for and elaboration of open space (Barshinger
special emphasiswas
1988: 79; Branigan 1970: 132,1993: 127-129; 1998: 19; Driessen 2004: 78; Hamilakis
1998: 120; Murphy 1998: 36; Soles 1992: 223). Interestingly, in many examples, the
is
"openness"
coupled with a concern over delineating the boundaries of a
emphasison
[Plate
9.3]. For example, Xanthoudides mentions boundary walls
cemetery
and/or
settlement
both
Platanos
(outside tholos B) (Xanthoudides 1924: 90) and
at
of
paving
and areas
Koumasa (outside tholos E) (Xanthoudides 1924: 6); enclosures have been identified by
beyond
the tholos chambers at Kamilari (Branigan 1976), Aghia
excavations
extensive
more
Kyriaki (Blackman and Branigan 1977; 1982) and more recently Moni Odigitria (Vasilakis
1990). Paved courtyards outside tombs delineated by walls or pavements have also been
found at Tombs III and IV/V/VI at Mochlos, Chrysolakkos (phase I), the tomb at MyrtosPyrgos as well as Building 6 and Tholos B at Archanes (Soles 1992: 223), Apesokari II and
Aghios Kyrillos (Georgoulaki 1996: 85). From the settlement sector on the other hand,
public/open areas (at times with a specially laid pavement or surfacing) are reported from the
Early Minoan Ilb settlements at Vassiliki (Seager 1907; Zois 1976,1980) [Plate 9.4] and
Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi (Warren 1972) [Plate 9.5], the Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan Ia
building complex at Kouphota, Aghia Photia (Tsipopoulou 1988,1992). At Myrtos-Pyrgos, a
paved road (over 20m long) was laid along the western side of the settlement, overlying the
Early Minoan II remains while at the south end, the road opened into a paved courtyard
(Georgoulaki 1996: 85). Also, the paved 40 x 15m large public court at Gournia has been
suggestedto belong to the end of the "prepalatial" period (i. e. Middle Minoan I), serving,
according to Damiani-Indelicato and Driessen as the original hub of the urban street system6
(Damiani-Indelicato 1984: 53; Driessen 2004: 79). Enclosure/fortification
walls are reported
6Limited testsbelow the CentralCourt the "palace" Zakroshave
of
at
also yielded an earlier"court
surface"but in this casethe dimensionsanddatesremainuncertain(Barshinger1988:76-7,79;
Cunningham2001:77; Platon 1999:680).

141

Vassiliki,
Kouphota-Aghia
Photia,
Koryfi,
(Myrtos-Phournou
four
from all
settlements
Gournia) (Watrous 1994: 183) as well as the Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan la sites at
Kastello
(Tzermiado)
&
1965),
Popham
Sackett
12;
1979:
(Alexiou
(Palaikastro)
Kastri
(Pendlebury & Moneycoutts 1937-8: 6-8, Fig. 1), Boubouli (Viannos) (Platon 1960a),
Volakas (Koumasa) (Platon 1951: 145-147; Xanthoudides 1924: 49,70) and Vigla
(Apesokari) (Schorgendorfer 1951). Finally, at a number of sites in the Ayiopharango valley,
hill
have
been
the
"enclosure
the
also
reported
of
running
round
periphery
walls"
remains of
located
(Blackman
&
39-47;
Branigan
1977:
"late
settlements
were
prepalatial"
on which
Relaki 2004: 181). It is noteworthy that even in the initial phasesof the so-called
"protopalatial" period, enclosure walls and large open areas continue to occur also in cases
like the Middle Minoan I-II settlements at Monastiraki7 (Watrous 1994: 742-744) and
Apodoulou (Godart & Tzedakis 1995; Tzigounaki 1995,1999).

The aforementioned features/elements develop shortly after another set of significant

transformations had begun to crystallize in the funerary arenasthroughout the island. During
the Neolithic and the early stagesof the Early Bronze Age, the use of caves for funerary
Crete
in
West
East
lesser
been
North,
had
to
common
particularly
and
a
extent
and
purposes
the South, where only one example has been so far reported8(Faure 1969: 200; Georgoulaki
1996). From the Early Minoan II period onwards however, the evidence for burial caves
decreasessignificantly (Branigan 1970; Tyree 1975) and interestingly, this decline is
followed by the appearanceof a new type of communal tomb on the island (particularly its
is
"house
(Boyd-Hawes
Soles
1992).
What
1908;
tomb"
the
equally
et
al.
part):
eastern
Final
funerary
hand
is
the
type
that
tombs,
the
tholos
of
a
surviving
on
other
significant
Neolithic/early "prepalatial" period9 commonly associated with the Mesara region (Branigan
1970,1988,1993), not only increase significantly in number from the middle stagesof the
third millennium BC onwards (i. e. Early Minoan II), but are also found to occupy for the
first time locations in the Mesara plain along with the mountainous range of Asterousia,
177have
been
(Relaki
2004:
the
to
of
earliest
examples
concentrated
most
appear
where
180).

' "The Monasteraki "court" resembles that at Gournia in shapeand topographical sitting" (Watrous
1994: 744).

8 The only cavein the Mesararegionyet found to containEM materialandto havebeenusedfor

burialsis locatednearthe village of Plora (Faure1969:200).
For someof the tholoi (Megaloi Skinoi C, Aghia Kyriaki, LebensYerokamposII, Kaloi LimenesII,
Trypeti), a Final Neolithic foundationdatehasbeensuggested(Blackman& Branigan 1975:20-21,
1977:67,1982: 43-4; Relaki 2004: 179;Vasilalds 1989-90a:23,33,38-9,70-1; Vagnetti & Belli
1978:135).

142

Apart from the foregoing developments, another important change that needs to be
from
is
the
third
the
that
stages
of
millennium onwards a
this
middle
point,
at
mentioned
direct spatial association between tombs/cemeteries and settlements appears to be sought in
Relaki
2004).
During
"prepalatial"
1996;
(Georgoulaki
island
the
the
early
various parts of
have
that
no pronounced connection of particular
underscored
scholars
period, several
burial
loci
(i.
(Blackman
funerary
tholoi
or
caves)
was
established
e.
settlementswith specific
& Branigan 1977; Relaki 2004; Whitelaw 2001); as we move to the middle stages of the
Early Bronze Age however, the evidence indicating a concern over establishing such an
In
Mesara,
dramatically.
increases
there
the
are numerous examples of
association
later
date
belong
tombs
they
than
the
to
to
are
with
which
a
much
appear
settlementswhich
found associated(Xanthoudides 1924). Surveys conducted in Ayiofarango, the area of Moni
Odigitrias and the South Coast of the Asterousia range (between Kaloi Limenes and Lebena)
&
Branigan
164;
Blackman
(Alexiou
1992:
further
to
this
support
pattern
empirical
provide
1975: 35-36,1977: 41; Vasilakis 1989-90: 72,1995: 71). The effects of the close association
be
fully
in
between
the
time
appreciated
more
and
cemeteries
at
may
settlements
established
As
funerary
i.
"house
tombs".
the very term
the
structures, e.
the case of rectangular
indicates, "house tombs" have close parallels in domestic architecture and were constructed
(seen
in
like
houses
(Soles
In
1992:
202).
lines
these
cases
examples
the
of real
along
Mochlos, Gournia, Palaikastro, Myrtos-Pyrgos etc), the connection between "cemetery" and
"settlement" is establishednot only through spatial proximity but also through symbolisms at
the level of morphology and architectural expression thus making impossible the drawing of
is
It
domains
between
boundary
the
two
the
grounds of external appearance.
merely on
a
"house
in
in
the
tomb"
that
that
commonly
associated
with
respect
even
areas
not
noteworthy
tradition (as the Mesara for instance), the extensive use of rectangular funerary buildings
(Xanthoudides 1924) may be pointing to a more broadly shared concern over blurring the
boundaries between settlements and cemeteries.

The direct association (spatial and morphological) between settlement and cemetery,
(i.
dwelling/building
late
"prepalatial"
trends
the
period(s) e. provision
of
coupled with other
for/elaboration of public open spaces,wall enclosures around settlements and/or cemeteries)
suggeststhat this is a time in the history of the island where settlements are transformed into
places, they develop in other words, into loci of physical as well as symbolic prominence
(Relaki 2004). Interestingly, this phenomenon takes place around the time when Knossos,
Malia and Phaistos are also exhibiting the first signs of nucleation, i. e. density and
development
habitation,
"centripetal"
term
the
of
centripetal
with
essentially referring to the
arrangementof houses around a symbolic "nucleus" (i. e. public open spaces) (Cowgill 2004:
537-538) [see Section 9.2]. At the most basic level, therefore, what we are
in
witnessing

143

the
over
accentuating
notion of settlement as
larger
concerns
similar
are
settlements
those
being
here
"ordinary"
in
as
And
sites,
well
we
may
see
an
effort
as the case of more
place.
living
between
the
the
the
of
community
and
ancestral
connection
a
establishing
made upon
is
Malia
the
Along
at
which
situated
very
the
settlement
of
example
obvious
with
past.
Charbonneaux
Chapouthier
&
&
1928;
(Chapouthier
"prepalatial"
necropolis
closely to the
&
1945;
Joly
1936;
Demargne
Chapouthier
1962;
Chapouthier
1942;
Demargne
et al.
&
Effenterre
1976),
Effenterre
1980;
Effentere
1959;
&
Dessenne
we
van
van
Deshayes
van
Phaistos),
(and
Knossos
in
the
the
choice
that
also
possibly
of
very
case
could perhaps argue
human
the
into
the
of
earlier
remains
of
site
where
part
an open public space
to transform
Knossos
in
(i.
the
the
the
tell
and
summit
of
case
e.
concentrated
were
activity
and
presence
lay
Phaistos)
that
to
in
hill
claim
attempt
upon
conscious
also
signify
a
the
may
the
of
case
of
in
between
In
2002).
Wilson
&
cemetery
(Day
and
settlement
a way, spatial association
past
(i.
locus
"cemetery"
by
literal
is
the
the
transformation
e. a
of
those two cases made possible
living
(i.
into
from
the
times,
e.
space
a
practices)
and
earlier
people
wealthy of evidence
locus
the
settlement community).
of
central

Along with the aforementioned points that render settlements of varying scales
"palace-to-be
highly
island
the
the
associated
with
practice
compatible,
another
throughout
"prepalatial"
Cretan
is
late
(once
brings
to
them
communities,
again) closer other
sites" that
food and drink consumption. As we mentioned in earlier chapters [see Section 3.4], the
increasing analytical emphasis laid upon this practice in the recent years, led some scholars
but
drinking)
(involving
large-scale
feasting
that
were
eating
mainly
the
to
events
conclusion
later
buildings
"palatial-type"
"palaces"
of
periods'o
and
accommodatedexclusively within
Other scholars however, raised concerns over this premise, arguing instead that the empirical
in
Early
be
far
traced
to
wider social phenomenon whose roots may
evidence points a
Minoan times (Cultraro 2001; Day & Wilson 2002,2004; La Rosa 2005; Relaki 2003,2004;
Todaro 2001; Wilson & Day 1999,2000), if not the Neolithic period as well (Relaki 2004,
Tomkins 2004) [see Sections 3.4,5.2]. One such example is the obvious association of
food/drink consumption and funerary rituals during the Early Minoan (particularly the late
"prepalatial") period(s) (Branigan 1970,1993; Hamilakis 1998). Although the direct
due
for
(i.
food
drink
limited,
to a
consumption
e.
and
residues), remains quite
evidence
series of preservational and recovery obstacles", some more conclusive observations may

10SeeHamilakis 1995,1996,1998,1999,2000,2002a,2002c.
" As Hamilaldsnotes,animalremainscould havebeeneasily mixed with humanskeletal
remainsand
systematicrecoveryof plant remainswould haverequiredspecificfield techniques,rarely practiced,
especiallyin the excavationof mortuarycontexts.Anotherpossibility that may be addedhereis that
food remainscouldhavebeendestroyedor sweptawayduring the regular"clearance"of the tombs
(Hamilakis1998: 119).Nevertheless,someanimalremainshavebeenreportedin certainsitessuchas

144

i.
basis
indirect
be
the
evidence,
e.
pottery
and
other material
of
on
made
nevertheless
drinking.
From
the mid-third
the
and
of
eating
implements associatedwith
practice
drinking
large
BC
of
ceramic
shapes
such
as
vessels
concentrations
onwards,
millennium
been
found
in
have
bowls
jugs,
several cemeteries/tombs
(mainly conical cups),
plates and/or
dozens,
As
far
Walberg
1987).
1996;
Georgoulaki
1993;
cups
are
concerned,
as
(Branigan
from
tholoi,
hundreds
the
several
such as
chambers
of
outer
reported
are
sometimes even
Tomb A at Aghia Triada (Rooms I and L) (Banti 1930-31; Branigan 1970: 98; Georgoulaki
its
initial
(room
B
A
Kamilari
Tomb
Stefani
1933),
36;
1998:
Murphy
at
at
1996: 267,270;
1998: 36), Tomb A at Vorou (D1 and
Levi
1962;
Murphy
271;
1996:
(Georgoulaki
strata)
D2) (Branigan 1970: 98; Marinatos 1931; Murphy 1998: 36), Tholoi A (Rooms D and G)
Tomb
Zois
168),
1996:
270;
1998(5):
Georgoulaki
98;
1970:
(Branigan
Apesokari
and B at
II at Yerokampos/Lebena (Room AN) (Alexiou 1960: 845; Alexiou & Warren 2004: 56-84;
Aghios
1982:
52)
Branigan
Aghia
Kyriaki
(Blackman
270),
1996:
and
Georgoulaki
and
Kyrillos (Sakellarakis 1968) [Plate 9.6]. Considerable concentrations are also reported from
Soles
Hatzidakis
1918;
268;
&
1996:
Gournes
(A
B)
(Georgoulaki
buildings
burial
at
the
1979: 157-60), Tomb IV at Malia IV (van Effenterre & van Effenterre 1963: 98-9, Pl.
XXXIII, Plan III; Georgoulaki 1996: 268), Tomb III at Palaikastro (Bosanquet & Dawkins
1923: 7-9,116, Fig. 5; Dawkins 1904-05: 269-272, Fig. 4 no 3, Fig. 5a-5c; Georgoulaki
1996: 268; Soles 1979: 125,394) and Maisons desMorts at Malia (van Effenterre & van
Effenterre 1963: 96, Pl. XXXVIII;

Georgoulaki 1996: 268). Another interesting case that

found12
bowls
300
A
is
Tomb
Platanos
here,
be
were
stone
at
where
may added
(Xanthoudides1924: 135).

Along with the evidencefor food and drink consumptionwithin the tombs,we also
have evidence for similar practices outside the tombs. The discovery of drinking and eating
"altarfinds
(and
direct
the
in
these
the
with
cases
association of such
often
vessels most of
like" structures as in the case of Kamilari) (Branigan 1991: 187), has been linked with ritual
involve
food
likely
drink
to
consumption, as well as the
communal
and
most
ceremonies,
It
1993).
1991;
dancing
(Branigan
forms
of embodied practice such as
performance of other
is not possible to specify whether these sets of practices were part of the funerary ritual or of
(Tarlow
1999),
taking place at times other than the actual
ceremonies
commemorative
funeral. Whatever the case however, we could suggest that the labour invested in building
for
fixed
implies
tombs
the
the
time
a
concern
creating
outside
at
a
place,
a
spatially
projects
locus for the activities taking place outdoors. What is even more important in that respect, is
tombI at Papoura(Leben) andtomb II at Yerokampos(Lebena)(Alexiou 1960:226),the tholos
tomb at Krasi (Marinatos1929: 124),tomb A at Aghia Triada (Banti 1933:216),tholos Gammaat
Archanes(Sakellarakis1973:121)and (Middle Minoan I) building 19 at Archanes(Maggidis 1998).
12Accordingto Marinatos(1931: 148-9)similar depositswere found
aroundVorou A.

145

have
dancing)
in
drinking,
(i.
are
communal
character
and
that these activities e. eating and
(as
large
involving
least,
of
people
opposed to the practices
numbers
of
the potential at
Chapter
The
Eleven].
[see
to
tombs)
the
seems
also
evidence
taking
within
place
which were
idea
for
the
the
of
of a common ancestral
reinforcement
evidence
suggestthat, along with
in
life
for
is
those members of the community
accentuated
body, the notion of solidarity also
1989).
(Connerton
behind
remaining

has
food
drink
indicating
consumption
In recentyears,evidence
and
an emphasison
Tenwolde
in
be
detected
begun
amongst
was
to
scale.
of
varying
settlements
also
gradually
large
first
the
concentrations of vessels associated with eating and
to stress
unusually
the
drinking found both in interior and exterior spacesof the Early Minoan lib settlement at
been
has
1992);
(Tenwolde
Koryfi
this
Myrtos-Phournou
observation
subsequently
[see
57;
Relaki
2003)
&
2004:
Wilson
Day
(Catapoti
2001;
by
other scholars
confirmed also
information
from
Early
body
At
Vassiliki,
the
Eleven].
the
Chapter
of empirical
extant
also
Minoan IIb to the Middle Minoan I periods seemsto confirm the pattern attested at Phournou
Koryfi (Zois 1976: 49,52,59,61-64).

"Substantial" and/or "considerable" quantities of such

IIb/Middle
Minoan
la
Early
Minoan
in
the
of
other
preliminary reports
vesselsare mentioned
Trypeti
(Vasilakis
1988,
la
III/Middle
Minoan
Early
Minoan
the
at
settlement
sites such as
1989,1989/90,1995), the Early Minoan III houses at Knossos (Wilson 1994), the Middle
Minoan I building at Patrikies (Bonacasa 1967/8; La Rosa 2005) and the "prepalatial" houses

Knappett
2005b;
McEnroe
67-72;
1984:
1980:
30-41,266-7;
Fotou
(vanEffenterre
Malia
at
1979:11-43;Mller 1992).
On the basisof the aboveinformation, it could be arguedthat from the mid-third
highly
becomes
food
drink
a
popular
collective
consumption
and
millennium onwards,
&
Wilson
1998,
Day
island
Cultraro
2001;
Crete
(Catapoti
2001;
the
throughout
of
practice
2002; Murphy 1996; Relaki 2003,2004; Wilson & Day 1999,2000; contra Hamilakis 1995,
1996). The obvious tendency of associating eating and drinking with several practical tasks
(i.
from
the everyday to exceptional circumstances such
obligations
e.
ranging
symbolic
and
individual)
biological
illustrates
how
(essentially
death
the
need
an
of
a
person),
perfectly
as
(i. e. hunger, thirst) can be transformed into a social (and thus inter-individual) practice13
(Giddens 1984: 129; Grignon 2001). In fact, this is precisely what we may perceive as being
the main difference between "hunger/thirst" on the one hand, and "appetite" on the other
(Elias 1978; Mennell 1991); "appetite" requires considerable self-control since it is

13"[Eating anddrinking] usuallyoccur in definite settingsat definite times,

and are usually also
"public" in the restrictedsenseof involving gatheringsof family members,friends... and so on"
(Giddens1984:129,my emphasis).

146

immediate
to
the
the
with
eat/drink
others
over
need
essentially about prioritizing
(Giddens
Under
biological
1984:
129).
individual
this scheme, the need
needs
satisfaction of
function
biologically
to
function
the
socially present themselves as almost
need
and
to
interchangeable (Sherratt 1997: 388).

That eating and drinking in late "prepalatial" Crete is not strictly necessary for
in
further
finds
for
but
the changes attested
support
empirical
social
well-being
also
physical
in the ceramic repertoire of the period(s) in question. Although vessels associated with eating
(i. e. shallow bowls/plates) are produced and used in large numbers by that time (Day &
Wilson 2004: 48,57), the most prominent feature of ceramic assemblagesfrom the Early
Minoan II onwards are drinking sets (i. e. cups and and spouted/(liquid) serving vessels) with
being
individual
footed
long-spouted
jar
the
the
and
the most representative shapes
goblet
(i. e. "teapot") (Betancourt 1984,1985; Betancourt et al. 1979; Day & Wilson 2002;
Momigliano 1991; Momigliano & Wilson 1996; Relaki 2003; Wilson 1994,1995; Wilson &
Day 1999,2000,2004; Wilson et al. 2004) [Plate 9.7]. Not only are we witnessing an
"explosion" in the quantity of these sets but also a great variety of types of drinking sets (i. e.
dark-on-light
burnished
dark
Wilson
(Day
&
2004:
ware,
grey
slipped
ware,
ware)
red/black
47) ; interestingly, this marks a trend which continues also in the polychrome sets of the First
Palace" period (MacGillivray 1987: 274). Equally indicative of the importance attributed to
drinking is perhaps the reproduction of drinking and (liquid) serving vessels in various
[Plate
decoration
fertility
9.8]
the
as
of
as well as
pouring vessels, with
materials such stone
symbols and/or naturalistic motifs (Branigan 1993: 131-136) [Plates 9.9,9.10]. Finally, the
impact of metal prototypes to late "prepalatial" ceramic morphology and decorative syntax is
also important (Day & Wilson 2004: 53; Sherratt 1997: 431-456). In particular, from the
middle/late stagesof the third millennium onwards, the ceramic drinking and serving sets are
features
by
like
fine,
in-turned
individually
joining
the
characterized
of
often
rims and
Perhaps
the
the best documented case of effective imitation of metal
of
parts
vessels.
crafted
exists in Vassiliki ware pottery (Branigan 1970: 129-130; Betancourt et al. 1979: 24-25).

But what exactlywas the natureof the consumedliquid substance?Over a decade

agoandby way of contrastto the "Mediterraneanpolyculture" hypothesis(Renfrew 1972),
Hamilakisarguedagainstthe possibility of systematizedvine cultivation)" prior to the
Middle/LateBronzeAge(s) (Hamilakis 1995,1996,1999).In seekingto substantiatehis
point, he underscoredfirst of all, the immenseanalytical difficulty in distinguishingbetween
wild and domesticatedvarietiesof vine (Vitis sylvestrisand Vitis vinifera respectively)when
14Seriousconcernsagainstthe "Mediterranean
polyculture" hypothesishavebeenraisedalsoby other
scholars(Halstead1988;Hansen1988;Sarpaki1995).

147

data
body
(Hamilakis
limited
1995:
100is
of
archaeolobotanical
available
there only a very
103,1996: 4). Moreover, Hamilakis stressedthat the nature/character of wine processing
be
"prepalatial"
during
to
installation
the
ought
period(s)
seen as equally
tools and
inconclusive (Hamilakis 1995: 104-105,1996: 5). On the basis of these two observations, he
be
to treat the available
that
explanatory
scenario
would
effective
a more
thus professed
indications of occasional and certainly limited
Minoan
Early
from
the
period(s)
as
evidence
forms
(Hamilakis
1995:
117-119,1996:
domesticated
23,1999:
45).
both
wild and
use of
After all, Hamilakis stresses,the fruits of wild vine are edible (Hamilakis 1995: 117-119)
from
(Olmo
1976:
"is
to
that
the
comparable
made
present
cultivars"
a
quality
of
wine
and
295).

Although the distinction between domesticated and wild species is a point whose
importance and possible socio-economic implications should not be underestimated, the
is
in
by
Hamilakis
"prepalatial"
forward
to
the
with
regard
period(s)
many
argument put
be
he
What
first
is
to
that
the
needs
contrast
acknowledged
of
all
respectsproblematic.
"prepalatial"
between
"palatial"
the
to
period(s) relied upon evidence
and
establish
sought
funerary
in
Early
Age
Bronze
biased
the
the
towards
sites
case
of
as opposed to the
currently
large and mainly settlement sites of the Middle and Late Bronze Age. This implies that the
has
been
based
between
the
two
phases
upon the comparison of two essentially
contrast
incompatible contexts. What comes as further support to this point is the fact that even in
"prepalatial" settlements of very small size such as Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi [see Section
10.1], there is evidence to suggest wine processing (Warren 1972: 262,330-33 1). After all,
Hamilakis himself confirms the occurrence of seedsand stalks from "secure" contexts at the
interior
floor
(i.
leaf
impressions
(Hamilakis
the
and
a
room
of
a
as
e.
pithos)
well
as
vine
site
1996: 3,10, Table 2). On the other hand, what needsto be taken into account as far as
settlement contexts are concerned is that vine processing is possible even through the use of
more rudimentary or even multi-purpose equipment, not easily detectable in the
(Foxhall
1993:
183; Mattingly 1993). The fact that very few
record
archaeological
have
been
discovered
in late "prepalatial" contexts so far, could be
equipment
processing
justified for yet another reason; although some processing might have indeed been carried
it
is
likely
that much of the processing would have been
settlements,
also
out within
in
conducted the countryside where vine is actually growing (Foxhall 1993: 184; Palmer
1996).

In view of the above,one might arguethat the extantbody of empirical information

from the late "prepalatial" period doesnot dismissthe possibility of vine cultivation (and by
extensionwine production);in fact, what may counterbalancethe absenceof adequate

148

be
data
that
evidence
could
securely related to wine
and
material
archaeobotanical
later,
the
two
made
namely
recurrent association of several
observations
are
processing
food
drink
and
collective
acts
of
particularly
with
consumption and
events/occasions
social
the "simultaneous" increase in the quantity, elaboration and/or formalization of vessels
Essentially
is
drinking.
importance
these
that
the
observations
what
suggest
with
associated
"prepalatial"
Crete
is
have
late
likely
been
in
both
"social"
drinking
(wine)
to
very
and
of
"economic": "social" in the sensethat it structured and characterized major occasions of
interaction and "economic" in that constant supplies needed to be assured for these occasions
to operate effectively (Sherratt 1997: 374). The combination of these two points is what
brings us closer to the idea of a more systematized exploitation of the species already from
the third millennium (Renfrew 1972).

The possibility of systematic vine exploitation/wine production during the period in

further
forward
has
in
the
the
potential
of
reinforcing
general
argument
even
put
question
this section (i. e. the -practical and symbolic- rendering of settlements into places) for the
simple reasonthat systematic arboriculture and particularly viticulture is a practice which
develop
that
a greater degree of attachment to land as well as considerable
people
requires
investment
in
labour,
knowledge
(Childe 1951: 90; Gilman
time
and
even
andpermanent
1981: 5; Hamilakis 1995: 132-178). This point is precisely what Childe and (subsequently)
Gilman describe as the "caging effects" brought by vine cultivation [see Section 2.3]. In
further,
it is necessaryto describe is more detail some factors
to
this
exemplify
point
order
related to vine cultivation.

The vine is a perennial woody plant which usually climbs in other trees (Hamilakis
1995: 137) and it is precisely becauseof its physiological habit of climbing that the
cultivated plant needs severeyearly pruning to retain a manageable form and to regulate
fruitfulness (Olmo 1976: 294). What is also important according to Hamilakis is that vines
can give a crop, however small, within three to four years of planting, with significant
production however starting much later (approximately ten years). Usually, after a period of
about fifty years, vine production begins to decline and this necessitatesthe uprooting of old
plants and the planting of new ones (Hamilakis 1995: 137). Equally significant is the fact
that both the quantity and quality of grape production (and so of wine production) are
seriously affected by environmental conditions. Temperature is recognized as the most
important factor in viticulture since cool weather during the ripening period
may result in a
highly acidic and sour tasting product, while hot weather produces low
acidity and a sweet
crop (Hamilakis 1995: 138; Winkler 1949: 51). On the other hand, at the level of year-round
labour requirements, although it is usually assumedthat one hoeing is
sufficient for the entire

149

late
late
February
March),
it
between
that
this
time
and
appears
(due
take
to
some
place
year
(mainly
dry
Crete),
in
the
in
areas
need
others
of
wines
be
cases
whereas
true
some
only
may
hoeing at least twice (or even more often) (Hamilakis 1995: 153). Finally, activities of equal
by
for
has
It
been
building
terraces
pointed
out
vines.
importance are the
and maintenance of
labour(and
better
therefore
terraces
more
constructed
are
several scholars that such
intensive) than terraces for cereals (Hamilakis 1995: 153; Rackham & Moody 1996;
have
fact
be
due
"to
As
Hamilakis
tree-crops
the
that
406).
this
1991:
a
may
Whitelaw
notes,
farmer's
be
"to
but
deeper
the
also
related
soil"
may
more extensive root system and so need
is
It
"
1995:
154).
(Hamilakis
investment.
probable
permanent
to
considerable
a
protect
need
for
input
labour
increases
further
the
vine cultivation.
therefore that terrace maintenance

As we mentioned earlier, becauseof its year-round labour requirements, viticulture

limits the ability to move into other areas, permanently or temporarily, in casesof
1995:
132-178);
5;
Hamilakis
Gilman
1981:
1951:
90;
(Childe
what
subsistenceproblems
is
fact
the
time
the
that
at
when a strong
this
significant
particularly
observation
renders
"visibility"
increasing
landscape
(i.
Cretan
is
the
throughout
of
e.
senseof place manifested
is
to
that
there
suggest
through
evidence
means),
symbolic
practical
and
various
settlements
land
to
management which essentially necessitated such
there were also reasonsrelated
demanding
(i.
the
nature of systematic viticulture).
e.
permanence
Equally significant for the argument put forward in this section is how labour ought
The
to
be
to
the
overcome
need
viticulture.
systematic
to
of
requirements
meet
up
organized
in
for
instance,
harvest
the
results
often
the time stress of certain stagesof
process such as
the formation of larger cooperative units. For instance, during peak seasons,several people
in
be
in
fields
(i.
the
employed auxiliary
e. children, older people) may
not regularly working
tasks, allowing the full employment of regular workers in the prime agricultural tasks
(Hamilakis 1995: 156). Cooperation between different families (or even extended kin,
in
friends)
in
busy
is
the
seasons well recorded the anthropological and
neighbours and/or
1949;
Long
1984;
Petropoulos
literature
(Hamilakis
Koukidis
1948;
1995:
155;
ethnographic
Sanders1956). As Hamilakis notes on the other hand, a well known practice in Crete even
labour
baveixol
is
("borrowed"):
their
today,
the
members
of
one
group
offer
so
called
until
to another group and vice versa, usually for the period of harvest (Hamilakis 1995: 155). In
(recurrent)
for
level
terms,
the
the
cooperation
at
archaeological
need
of certain activities
related to vine exploitation may be further pointing to the importance attributed to the
settlement during the late "prepalatial" period, particularly in caseslike the small-sized
community at Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi (Warren 1972).

150

[9.4] Conclusions

Severalinterestingobservationshavebeenmadein this section.We focusedour

been
have
long
be
in
initially
to
three
the
considered
sites
which
exceptional
upon
attention
"palace-to-be"
"prepalatial"
during
the
the
namely
period(s),
sites at
character/nature
Knossos, Malia and Phaistos. We concluded that despite their obvious differences
(particularly in their initial stagesof development), they all seem to present clear signs of
important
"prepalatial"
The
late
from
the
period
onwards.
most
point of
convergence
beginning
large-scale
in
is
the
terracing
three
that
of
cases,
we
witness
all
convergence
"palaces"
than
the
the
earlier
actual
construction
of
so-called
centuries
operations several
for
the
the
architecturally
elaborate
public
space/nucleus
an
providing
of
aim
with

increasing
in
(and
the
time,
size) settlement.
at
corresponding
We then proceededby arguingthat the emphasislaid upon public/openspacewas
"palace-to-be
island
from
to
the
throughout
the
the
related
sites";
strictly
not a phenomenon
late "prepalatial" onwards, similar phenomena may be attested. Interestingly, this happens at
be
for
to
through
the
time
of
settlement
seems
emphasized
also
other
notion
means
as
when
a
example spatial demarcation (for example, wall enclosures) or through the far more explicit
increasing
The
popularity of collective
of
settlements
with
specific
cemeteries.
association
is
highly
drinking
in
during
that respect,
the
significant
same
period
particularly
eating and
both
the
time,
wine production and consumption seemto enhance with equal
at
since,
intensity the idea of "settlement as axis mundi " hence as the cardinal form of social
537-538).
(Cowgill
2004:
existence

A moregeneralconclusionmay also be drawn in view of our discussionso far.

Throughour investigationof the "palatial" [seeChapterEight] and "prepalatial" periods [see
ChapterNine] we endedup arguingthat in both cases,"palaces"and "palace-to-be"sitesdo
not seemto constituteexceptionalcategories,i. e. categoriesthat canbe definedon the basis
instead,
in
both periodsthesestructuresseemto haveexhibited features
criteria;
of exclusive
and/orinvolved functionsthat canbe witnessedalso in other contextsand/orparts of the
Cretanlandscape.

What arethe wider implicationsof this suggestion?First of all, we draw a distinction

betweentwo periodsnot by makingreferenceto the presence(or absence)of a building type
(i.e. the "palace")but ratherthroughthe identification of differencesat the level of dwelling.
We arguedin particularthat during the late "prepalatial" period(s),a dwelling tradition
appearsto be at work, which seeksto elevatethe notion of settlementin importance.In the

151

development
the
the
and
subsequent
emergence
traditionally
with
of
associated
periods
"palatial phenomenon" however, significant changes in this dwelling pattern seem to be
foreground
indeed
If
to
tendency
to
the notion of the
these
point
a
changes
taking place.
"house" [see Chapter Eight], then the contrast between "settlement" and "house" could form
historical
for
basis
the
a
new
question, a question that could take us
of
construction
the
beyond the long dominant "prepalatial"/"palatial" contrast and by extension, the way the
"emergence of the palatial phenomenon" has been approached so far.

Previous approach

New approach

"Prepalatial" ->

"Palatial"

"Settlement"-> "House"

Fig. 9.1 Old and new question(s)

If the "Settlement"/"House" contrast achieves higher level preservation (i. e. the

how
direct
(Marquardt
1992),
then
a
new
question)
should
our enquiries
of
we
establishment
towardsthe answeringof this question?What needsto be definedfirst of all is the spatiotemporalhorizon of this investigation.On the basisof our discussionso far, it could be
between
"palatial"
be
distinction
"prepalatial"
(late)
the
the
that
and
phases
may
argued
from
be
that
the
transition
to
the
and
one
period
next
may
assessed
with reference
maintained
to socio-politicalprocessespertinentto the island as a whole. Insteadof seekingto provide
an understandingof theseprocessesthroughthe investigationof "regional" or other
"localised" "readings", we may therefore focus our attention upon different contexts of
become
defined
those
as
and materialised in different parts of Crete, with the most
practice
dominant obviously being cemeteries and settlements. Both arenasprovide us with relatively
adequatecontextual information to assesstheir diachronic development (starting from the
Early Minoan II period onwards); in making this assessment,what we will be able to further

illuminateis how the practical executionof routineand/or short-termtasksleadsto the

reworking of more general and long-standing principles of dwelling (Foxhall 2000). In the
chapter that follows [Chapter Ten], transformations occurring in the late "prepalatial"
funerary domain are first examined, followed by the investigation of the corresponding
information
from settlements [Chapter Eleven].
empirical

152

10
Death and memory in transformation

[10.1] An "unusual" tholos tomb at Kaminospelio

"Every reproductionof culture is an alteration,insofar as in action,

the categoriesby which a presentworld is orchestrated
pickup somenovel empirical content"
(Sahlins 1987: 144).

While continuingtheir surveyof the areainland from Kaloi Limenesin 1972,

BlackmanandBraniganwere shown"an unusualtholos tomb" (Blackman& Branigan
1973).The tomb lies almostdue southof the areaof Pigadakiaandon the eastsideof a
smallterrace,at a site calledKaminospelio.Gullies on the eastandsouth-westsidesof the
terracejoin to the southof it and form a narrowvalley running southwardto the sea,which is
built
(Blackman
from
&
The
1973:
199).
Branigan
tomb
tomb
the
up againstan
was
visible
outcropof bedrockon its north-westsidewhereasfor the rest of its circuit it was freestandingor possiblyslightly sunk.
The principal point of interestof this particular tomb was not so much concerningits
form
and/or small finds asthe large stonefeatureidentified within the tomb'
architectural
[Plate 10.1].This is an interior cross-wall-of similar constructionand of roughly similar
thickness2to the outerwall- which abutsthe latter on a line diverging from the diameterbut
doesnot reachthe south-eastsideof the tomb. This peculiar architecturalelementhasalso
' Two stonefeatureswere found but hereemphasisis laid on the largest the two.
of
2Thethicknessof the circuit wall rangesfrom 1.30mto 1.40m
whereasthat of the interior wall from
1.00mto 1.20m(Blackman& Branigan 1973: 199).

153

been seen in two other casesin South Crete, one at the site of Plakoura and one at the site of
Merthies. At Plakoura, there were also traces of straight walls outside of the tomb and these
&
(Blackman
Branigan
1973:
203;
Pendlebury
belonged
tomb
have
to
the
complex
also
may
1934: 87). Both sites were discovered by Pendlebury in the early 1930s (Pendlebury 1934:
87).

The position of the entrance and its relation to the interior wall is not clear in any of
however,
For
Kaminospelio
the entrance seemsmore likely to be
the aforementioned cases.
tomb
to
traces
the
there
appears
are
the
wall
stop
and
where
of an
side,
where
south-east
on
&
Blackman
Branigan
1973:
200).
For
Branigan,
(Blackman
the
and
way
wall
antechamber
in which the tomb is divided into two is of central significance, "since it may also provide a
&
(Blackman
Branigan
1973:
203):
division"
for
the
clue
"Several writers have come to the conclusion that the Mesara tholoi are the
tombs of individual clans or gene. Many settlementshave two or three tombs,
each presumablyserving a clan within the larger village community. It is
possiblethat in small communitiesa tholos might be built and usedby members
of two clans, whose burials would be effectively separatedby the internal
dividing wall. A wall dividing the tomb back from front would not be suitable
for this purpose,sinceone clan would haveto tread over the burials of the other
to make their own interments,but a wall dividing the tomb side by side would
presentno such problem. Again we have no proof to offer in support of this
hypothesis,althoughit is worth pointing out that eachof the three sites with a
divided tholos have to date producedonly one tomb" (Blackman & Branigan
1973:204-205).
Our understanding of Kaminospelio, dependsupon our ability to create an image of
the social practices in which to situate this funerary edifice. These practices are written into
existenceby the archaeologist who must assumethat this funerary monument facilitated a
in
distribution
the
of human relations. If we perceive a burial as the medium in
certain order
which an objective category of death is confirmed and the obligations of the mourners
realized, then the position of the burial in relation to other burials can enable these categories
to be situated historically. For instance in our case, the burials are made in a communal
tomb; this meansthat by inserting every new burial into the tomb a sequential relationship is
establishedand the significance of the tomb as place becomes reaffirmed [see Chapter Nine].
At the sametime however, the reuse of a tomb implies that choices would be demanded
between placing one burial next to another, disturbing previous burials or establishing a new
isolated
for
the new burial (Barrett 1994a: 125). The requirement was always
sitting
and
present, demanding each succeeding funeral to make some reference to those burials which
had gone before. The consequencein this case is that the explicitly formulated category
of
the funeral (i. e. how the ritual should be conducted) is constantly brought into play against

154

different grounded conditions of reality (i. e. how the ritual is conducted every time). This
described
Sahlins
in
the
risk
as
moment
of
once
empirical
what
and
consists
constitute
would
by
in
their personal projects
category
acting
subjects
given
the possible revisions of a
(Sahlins 1987: 149-150):

"The gamble is that referential action, by placing a priori concepts in

correspondencewith external objects, will imply some unforeseen effects which
cannot be ignored. Besides, as action involves a thinking subject (or subjects),
related to the sign in the capacity of the agent, the cultural scheme is put in
double jeopardy, subjectively as well as objectively: subjectively, by the
in
interested
their own projects; objectively, as meaning is
of
signs
use
people's
risked in a cosmos fully capable of contradicting the symbolic systems that are
preserved to describe it. The objective gamble thus lies in the disproportions
between words and things. Every implementation of cultural concepts in an
actual world submits the concepts to some determination by the situation"
(Sahlins 1987: 149, my emphasis).

Accordingly in the caseof Kaminospelio,the continuoususeof the tomb would

have involved acts of rediscovery and remembrance by which traditions of knowledge and of
have
been
moral
order
would
sustained or even eventually recalled. The time
general
a more
interior
in
is
indication
Kaminospelio
the
the
of
construction
wall
a
physical
of
of such
changing practices; the division of a communal tomb into two parts seemsto indicate that a
language
description
of
shared
and interpretation ceasedto exist; and while
previously
broader frames of reference continued to operate (i. e. the communal tomb is still in use),
some particular traditions of remembrance begun to fall away (i. e. the tomb is divided into
two parts).

[10.21A processof diasporic belonging

"The Greeks swear by their dead. The Trojans by their home"
(Christopher Logue, War Music: An account of Books 16 to 19 of Homer's Iliad)

It has been stressedrepeatedly by many scholars in the past that during the early

stagesof the third millennium BC, communaltombs (i.e. tholoi, burial caves,rock shelters)
markedplacesof ancestralveneration,communalgatheringsandburial and havebeen
amongthe main points of referenceby which the landscapeand a person'splacein that
landscapecould be defined(Branigan 1970,1993;Cultraro 2001; Hamilakis 1998;Murphy
1998;Relaki 2003,2004; Vavouranakis2002;Watrous 1994).By being used(andby
bearingsignsof this use)over many generations,the tombs would thereforehave
constituted
a sharedplace; a locuswherecommonhistoriesand experiencescould be realizedand
(Relaki
2004: 179).During the late stagesof the third
negotiated
millennium BC, these

155

funerary monuments remained a prominent feature, but they did so in a funerary landscape
transformations.
began
to
significant
undergo
which
Amongst the most important of these transformations is undoubtedly the
introduction of burial containers, i. e. rectangular clay coffins (larnakes) and large jars
(pithoi) in an array of funerary sites, such as large open-air cemeteries, house tombs, caves,
1970,1993;
(Branigan
Petit
1987,1990;
Schoep
&
Knappett
tombs
tholos
and
rock shelters
2004: 29-30). It is noteworthy that most of these places acted as funerary loci already from
the early stagesof the Early Minoan period (i. e. Early Minoan UII), but it is only around this
time that the placing of burial containers within them becomes a common practice (Branigan
1970,1993). Although a sporadic occurrence of larnakes and pithol may be attested already
from the Early Minoan II period3 the extensive use of burial containers is generally
later
(i.
Minoan
be
Early
Minoan
III/Middle
II
times
to
of
e.
a
phenomenon
considered
[Plate
&
Knappett
2004:
29-30)
10.2].
(Schoep
period)
In the past, the appearanceof larnax and pithos burials in Early Minoan tombs had
been taken to signify a developing trend for individual inhumations, even though initially,
they were still made in a communal funerary context (Branigan 1970: 127; 1993: 66). On the
late
fact
Middle and Late Minoan pithos burials were found outside some
hand,
the
that
other
of the Early Minoan communal tombs, was a point allegedly confirming that the concept of
individual burial had "at last broken free from the demands of communal burial" (Branigan
1993: 66). For many scholars, this pattern suggestedthe operation of two different kinds of
hiding
one
strategy
strategy,
with
and the other making explicit the existence of rank
social
living
(Branigan 1993: 141). The appearanceof burial containers was
the
among
and status
therefore seento reflect the rise of an ideology which sought to legitimize social
differentiation "by representing it as natural and immutable through the use of material
in
form
the
of ritual symbols which constantly reiterated the message" (Shennan
culture.. .
1982: 156). It is also important to state here that this contrast was also evoked with reference
to the way time enters into the process of social evolution [see Section 2.4,3.4]. On the one
hand the ideology of the community preceded that of the individual, whilst on the other the
ideology of the individual was constantly reiterated (Barrett 1994a: 40-41).

In more recent years however, the above premise has been seriously challenged.
There is now a substantial body of empirical evidence to suggest that larnakes and pithoi
servedas burial facilities for many successiveburials but also as ossuaries (Marinatos 1931:
3ExampleshereincludeNopigeia(Karantzali 1996:67), Archanes,Tholos E
(Panagiotopoulos1996;
Sakellarakis1975)andPyrgosCave(Xanthoudides1918).

156

151; Papadatos 1999; Rupert 1976: 732). It could thus be said that rather than individual
burials, they acted as a smaller collective unit inside the larger tombs where they were found
burial
"process"
fact
(i.
burial,
despite
that
the
the
In
e.
primary
secondary
placed. effect and
burial
tomb
treatment
the
the
the
as
of
skull,
place and as
skeleton, special
relocation of
less
throughout
the
third/beginning
unaltered
more
or
remained
remains)
of
earlier
ossuary
in
BC,
that
these
change
occurred
all
a
significant
practices were
millennium
second
of
dispersed
within the wider area of the communal tomb whereas now they are
previously
[Plate
10.3].
burial
interior
the
to
of
containers
confined
The fact that these smaller units acted as the central symbolic medium for the
transmission of the burial ritual, a role previously served by the totality of the tomb, is an
interesting point to examine in conjunction with another important feature of the late Early
Minoan II/ early Middle Minoan II period(s), i. e. the increasing number of available
both
The
for
the
tombs.
treatment
the
and
outside
of
corpse
within
secondary
rooms/spaces
into
from
burial
bodies
their
their
the
original
context
accumulation
piles
and
of
removal
(described sometimes as "clearance") was a common practice already from the early stages
in
(Hamilakis
1998:
122);
however,
those
third
the
most
of
early
millennium
cases
of
remains from and accumulated piles of previous burials remained within the tomb. It is not
is
loci
EM
in
late
the
treatment
that
the
stages
of
period
secondary
conducted
other
as
until
important
increasing
is
loci,
in
fact,
is
the
than
the
even
more
number
what
of
such
well4;
(if
distinct
them
to
architecturally
not architecturally conspicuous).
render
concern

In the caseof housetombs, loci for secondarytreatmentareprovidedby adding

(Soles
1992a:
[Plate
Amongst
204)
10.4].
to
the
the earliesttombs of this
original
unit
rooms
type arethe largetombson the West Terraceat Mochlos (Tomb complexUIUIII and tomb
IVNNI),
have
beenexpandedby the addition of
two-room
original
where
complex
units
oneor morerooms(Soles1992a:43-62); Tomb III at Gournia,wherethe tomb is simply a
seriesof walls addedonealongsidethe other (Soles 1992a:28-34);Tomb 6 at Archanes,
is
lost
the
original
unit
amonglater additions(at leastfour additional rooms)
where
(Sakellarakis1966:411-412,1973a:111-113,1973b:167-171);finally, Tomb 7 also at
Archanes(Sakellarakis1967: 153-157,1971:239-243).Among the later examplesare Tomb
A at Gournes(Hatzidakis1915:59-63,1918: 45-58),Tomb 5 at Archanes(Sakellarakis
1967),the SouthBuilding at Aghia Triadha (Banti 1930-31:162,217-232; Soles1992a:116119;Stefani& Banti 1939-31:152-154)andprobablythe tomb at Vassiliki (Hall 1912:7173; Seager1907: 115,1910:20; Soles1992a:194).In certaincases(Tomb 6 at Archanes
4 Of coursewe cannotdismissthe possibility that the interior the
of
monumentcontinuesto be used
for that purpose.

157

have
been
long
Mochlos),
to
I
these
Tomb
seem
additions
made
after the construction
at
and
both
in
Even
those
cases
where
remaining
original and additional units
of the original unit.
belong in the same ceramic phase, the additions appear to be of later date (Soles 1992a: 204205).

Another type of rectangular funerary structure that makes its appearance during the
late stagesof the third millennium may also be of relevance here. These are large structures
in
by
that
are
subdivided
a
number
of
appearance
small
rooms
external
with a regular
intersecting
(Soles
to
the
outer
and
at
walls
parallel
right
angles
running
crosswalls usually
1992a: 205). Often the interior rooms do not connect and appear to be isolated cells entered
from the roof (Soles 1992a: 205) [Plate 10.5]. In this category of compartmentalised
funerary buildings belong Tomb V (Dawkins 1904-05: 272) and Tomb VII (Bosanquet
1901-02: 290-297; Bosanquet & Dawkins 1902-03: 350-355) at Palaikastro, the House of the
Dead at Malia (van Effenterre 1980: 236-237; van Effenterre & van Effenterre 1963: 85102), Tomb 3 (Sakellarakis 1967) and Tomb 18 (Sakellarakis 1976: 344-351,1987: 124127) at Archanes. As several scholars have stressed,this particular funerary type bears close
Minoan
lb/11
Middle
Chrysolakkos
(Demargne
to
monumental
enclosure
of
similarities
1945: 25-69; Schoep & Knappett 2004: 30; Soles 1992a: 205; van Effenterre 1980: 241247).

Similar developmentsare alsoattestedin the caseof tholos tombs (Branigan 1970,

1993; Petit 1987). In addition to the small antechambers commonly found before the
doorways of the tholoi, a series of other chambers are now being built against the
According
[Plate
10.6].
the
the
tomb
to Branigan, the earlier
east
and
side
of
antechamber
examples of outer chambers present some notable similarities but they do not seem to have a
uniform and preconceived plan (Branigan 1993: 61). Examples here include LebenaYerokampos 2 (Alexiou 1958,1960,1961-62; Alexiou & Warren 2004), Aghia Kyriaki
(Blackman & Branigan 1977,1982), Aghia Triadha A (Banti 1930-31; Stefani & Banti
1930-31), Moni Odigitrias (Vasilakis 1989-90), Platanos A (Xanthoudides 1924) and
possibly Megaloi Skinoi (Alexiou 1967). Irregular suites of chambers are found at some of
the later tombs too, as in the case of Vorou A (Marinatos 1931) and Kamilari A (Levi 196162). The reasonbehind this "irregularity" is likely to be that these suites represent an ongoing project, with episodes of construction occurring at different periods and over a long
time span (Branigan 1993: 62)S.

S"Theseouterchamberswere
not designed,built andusedas an integral suite at all but represent
to developingneeds"(Branigan1993:62, my emphasis).
responses

158

According to some scholars however (Branigan 1970: 95-96,1993: 63; Petit 1987:
have
had
to
tombs
a standardised suite of
seems
which
35-37) there exists also a group of
larger
outer
chamber
a
narrow
a
and
antechamber,
a
small
comprising
chambers,
outer
This
[Plate
10.71.
both
the
standardised
more
rooms
of
side
along
running
room
corridor-like
Kyrillos
(Sakellarakis
Aghios
1951),
A
B
(Matz
Apesokari
found
is
and
at
arrangement
In
(Hatzi-Valianou
1979).
Sopata
Kouse
1976)
(Branigan
C
some of
Kamilari
and
1968),
is
later
fourth,
to
Apesokari),
Kyrillos
added
(Aghios
room
medium-sized
a
and
those cases
Minoan
late
Early
All
1970:
95-96).
(Branigan
tombs
these
largest
are
room
the east of the
late
is
it
in
date
them
I
to
tempting
Minoan
regularisation of an
as
a
see
III/Middle
and
However,
63).
1993:
(Branigan
there
layout.
cases
which
are
some
other
architectural
earlier
1924)
r
(Xanthoudides
B
Platanos
1913),
(Paribeni
that
Siva
and
belong to this type, such as
have been dated to the early third millennium. According to Branigan, even these cases are
later
initial
had
the
have
to
stage,
likely
a
plan
at
to
added
chambers
of
outer
suites
most
in
be
What
95).
1970:
(Branigan
II
Minoan
Early
during
also
used
may
the
period
possibly
between
differences
for
date
the
later
antechambers
the
favour of a
outer chambers concerns
have
been
do
Unlike
to
the
the
seem
not
outer
rooms
antechambers,
and outer chambers.
have
have
been
1924),
to
that
they
(Xanthoudides
so close an
considered
"sunk"
so
may not
hand,
On
itself
did
there
the
the
tomb
other
the
antechambers.
as
chamber
association with

by
fronted
in
in
fact
this
tombs
be
the
that
group were
many
may somesignificance
implying
Chapter
Eight],
[see
a
extent,
of
undetermined
usually
areas
pavements/paved
kind
between
of
some
the
activities
suitesof outer chambersandopen-air
relationship
(Branigan1970:97). As we mentionedin the previouschapter,thesepavedareasare also a
later additionto the initial plan of the tombs [seeChapterEight].
Another important characteristic of the (late) Early Minoan II/ (early) Middle
Minoan 11period(s) is the occurrence of funerary activities outside the main buildings. At
Archanes for instance, the Area of the Rocks (I1cptoxj Tmv Bpx(ov), a large oblong area at
6,23
5
buildings
funerary
Gamma
(close
Tholos
the
to
and
and
the south-west of
cemetery
burials6
has
inhumations
been
for
19)
22,18
secondary
as
as well
used
and
as well as
(Sakellarakis & Sakellaraki 1991: 135). A similar phenomenon is also attested at several
Mesaran tholoi such as Porti (Xanthoudides 1924: 56) and Platanos (Xanthoudides 1924:
90). At Archanes, we also witness the contemporaneous use of multiple, separateburial

6 The areais usedalreadyfrom the Early Minoan IIa period,yet most evidenceseemsto derivefrom
the later stagesof the third millennium BC (Sakellarakis& Sakellaraki1991: 135).Whitlaw however
for
that
the
evidence
clearingout many tombsmay representnot
raises
yet
another
possibility:
rightly
part of the funeraryritual, but rathercleaningout for re-useby a new group,after a period of
(Whitelaw 2000: 151).If this is indeedthe case,then a possibleincreaseof clearance
abandonment
operationsat this particularpoint in time reinforcesfurther the notion of fragmentation.

159

include
hill
These
Karnari,
Phourni.
Katsoprinias,
the
the
of
of
periphery
grounds on
Anephoros, Kaballopetra, Ontadesand Mesambela (Maggidis 1998: 96). In this climate of
increasing fragmentation, we may add some evidence deriving from the Early Minoan IIb
Chapter
Nine].
At
Koryfi
[see
in
89,
Phournou
the
the
also
centre
of
south
room
at
settlement
human
discovered.
fragments
Burnt
by
final
the
the
skull
of
a
were
settlement,
part of
destruction episode at the site (Warren 1972b: 81), the pieces from the skull were identifiable
be
Several
other
points
can
male.
made with regard to this room,
as those of a young adult
find.
Against
further
the
the
the
the
to
significance
of
east
wall
of
even
stress
seem
which
found
little,
low
benches
two
tripartite
consisting
of
or tables with a
was
structure
room, a
hearth between them (Warren 1972b: 81) and the skull was found situated near this tripartite
bench,
face
by
face
is
formed
The
the
the
of
of the south
north
north
south
earth
structure.
bench and, on the west, by a line of upright slabs. The whole tripartite structure measures
2.18m (N-S) and projects 0.60m from the wall. The benches were clearly for use as stands
for pots or food or even as seatsin connection with the hearth between them. But the
tripartite arrangement is unique at Myrtos and strikes one as highly elaborate if the room
daily
functions
found
for
(Warren
1972b:
81).
That
the
skull
situated near
was
served merely
the tripartite structure makes it highly possible that this room had a special character. No
human
found
in
bones,
the room and there were no signs to suggest
or
animal,
were
other
that a burial had taken place in the area. It seemsmore likely that the skull was deliberately
burial
its
from
original
context and placed within this room.
removed

So far, our discussion points to a fragmentation of the larger social unit previously
by
for
the
tombs
to
the creation of smaller
communal
a
concern
and
also,
accommodated
units both within and outside the tombs. Earlier the boundaries of this larger social unit
coincided with the spatial boundaries of the funerary monument by the late third
millennium/beginning of second millennium however, this no longer seemsto be the case;
instead, funerary loci are now presenting themselves as sites of diasporic belonging (Bell
1999: 3). Burial containers on the one hand, serve to isolate certain inhumations and burial
remains from the rest of the tomb while the increase of spacesfor secondary treatment
implies that the removal of burial remains from their initial context of deposition and their
dispersal in various parts of the cemetery had begun to constitute dominant funerary
is
important
It
to stress once again at this point that all these acts do by no means
strategies.
enhanceindividual distinction. What the record provides evidence for is not individual
burials but rather smaller collective units. Therefore, what we seemto be witnessing is a shift
in the ways whereby people's senseof community and belonging in times of and with
referenceto death was created, imagined and sustained (Bell 1999: 5). This is in other words,

160

described
have
Fortier
as a process of re-membering and redefinition of the
would
what
1999:
41-2).
(Fortier
belonging
terrains
of
existing

With regardto ossuaries/lociof secondarytreatmentin particular, it can be argued

(and
in
laid
the
spatial
manifestation
the
conspicuous
some cases
that
upon
emphasis
from
disassociate
to
these
structures
may
stem
a
need
of
a group of
compartmentalisation)
dead persons from the common ancestral body; a need to secure that they are detectable even
in
homogenous
(and
death
totality);
a
need
a
other words, to
not enmeshedwithin
after
dead
be
in
(the
To
these
remains
of)
persons
are
placed.
where
a
recognize more easily
importance
be
the
this
transformation,
to
to
of
structural
one
needs
appreciate
only
position
loss
died
in
literal
the
that
experienced
once
only
earlier
periods,
a
person
not
was
reminded
but also symbolic, since the final deposition of the corpse was made in a place which
burials
human
number
of
earlier
a
substantial
and
remains; communal tombs
accommodated
for
(and
even centuries) and the possibility that they served not a
years
all
used
were after
has
been
By
demarcated
but
communities
several
not
excluded.
spatially
rather
single
units
in the cemetery for secondarytreatment, the boundaries of the communal tomb and the
integrity of the ancestral body are challenged. The new corpse is placed in the tomb but only
temporarily; it is then removed (in some form, at a certain time) and placed closer to a
is
felt
to
to be more intimate.
assemblage
of
remains,
possibly
an
which
assemblage
smaller
The impression of intimacy that we gain from the way smaller funerary units are now
formulated, is prolonged through the structural modifications of the cemeteries that we
described above. In fact, it is precisely this intimacy which is now acquiring a
dimension.
In a way, through these transformations, the funerary space
spatial/architectural
becomesa forest of names and close associations as opposed to a homogenous ancestral
surplus.

110.31The dead and the living: a relationship in transformation

The changingconditionsof the late third millennium/earlysecondmillennium BC

have been examined in an attempt to understand how certain funerary practices could have
guided particular forms of discourse with the past and would thus have lead to the
construction of particular forms of community and terrains of belonging. Such discourse and
forms of understanding would have occupied a region of time-space (Barrett 1994a: 19;
Giddens 1985: 244), they would have been in other words, occasion-specific. To know
when
and how to act in these occasions, would require an understanding of the immediate
situation, an awarenessin other words, of position, movement, posture and timing (Barrett

161

knowledge
large
To
1971).
this
Goffman
would
extent,
practical
a
1994a; Giddens 1987;
through
active engagement with existing material
been
negotiated
have
and
constructed
also
by all those pre-understandings, people would enter these occasions
Orientated
conditions.
have
to
knowledge
them
to
recognize
and
enabled
would
is
this
which
it
prior
precisely
and
1994a:
19).
Bearing
(Barrett
the
all
their
as
participants
roles
monitor their conditions and
in
funerary
important
the
to
is
the
it
to
of
period
evidence
in
return
now
mind,
above
be
investigate
the
to
of
time
this
changing
patterns
whether
task
will
the
main
question;
had
Section
[see
10.2]
described
funerary
that
an effect
earlier
we
distribution of
activities
in
by
these
the
participating
who
were
people
performed
were
roles
upon the ways social
occasions.

Earlierwe aguedthat during the early stagesof the third millennium, all stagesof
Section
[see
10.2]
tomb
the
and one
funerary
communal
processwere confined within
the
for
took
this
that
this
be
a
practice
which
place
at
point
was
has to
reminded once again
level,
To
this
the
at
a
purely
analytical
the
results
archaeologist,
repetition
eyes of
centuries.
in what we would define as a highly "disturbed context". Some funerary activities would
have been conducted at the time when a new corpse was introduced to the tomb, others
funeral.
In
than
the
to
the
tomb
times
have
actual
at
other
effect,
a
return
required
would
instead
image
be
"disturbed"
inhabited
as
an
context
should
viewed
of
a
as
what now seems
diverse
the
range of practices which were
remains
of
a
residual
widely
architecture and as

1994a).
different
(Barrett
in
temporalities
through
organized and
If we acceptthis point however,then we would also haveto allow that this obvious
is
in
but
temporalities
the
the
not
only
encounters
present
what
archaeologist
of
past
surplus
have
Circulation
time
they
the
tomb.
would
experienced
every
entered
people
past
also what
have
been
difficult
its
interior
funerary
since
a
structure
would
substantial
part
of
a
within

(i.
human
filled
This
of
remnants
past
activities
e.
remains
and
with
offerings).
already
was
limited
have
been
implies
that
a
only
number
of
people
would
ableto enterthe
probably
tomb everytime the funeraryritual hadto be conducted.Even with a limited numberof
factor
have
however,
that
another
would
madethe actual executionof the ritual
people
difficult would be the poor lighting insidethe tomb, resultingfrom the lack of openingsand
the "sunken"floors of the tomb's compartments(Branigan 1993;Xanthoudides1924).
Althoughsomekind of artificial light might havebeenused,a prior experienceand
knowledgeof "whereis what" and "where to do what" would havebeenthe only way to
funerary
the
that
ritual was carriedout effectively and with precision (Thomas
guarantee
1996).Sothe issuewe are dealingwith heredoesnot merely haveto do with the numberof
peopleenteringthe tomb; this groupwould also (and more importantly) haveto have prior

162

do
it;
do
to
to
under the circumstance we
and
where
knowledge and experience of what
knowledge
likely
is
it
the
that
far,
and experience required to conduct the
described so
very
in
if
been
the
this
have
of
group
people
was
charge
same
of
ritual
only
possible
ritual, could
during
(not
this
tombs'
The
period
entrances
exceeding
of
size
small
time.
markedly
every
literal
have
1993),
(Branigan
height)
in
served
as
a
as well as symbolic
might
50 cm
[Plate
10.81.
tomb
those
the
between
cannot
enter
those
who
can
and
who
boundary

During the later part of the third millennium however,the aforementionedconditions

in
[see
Section
10.2]
the
earlier
section
mentioned
what
we
to
as
we
and
change
about
were
funerary
dispersal
dismantling
(at
is
the
and
of
process
a
of
obvious
arenow witnessing an
leastcertainof these)activitiesin variouspartsof the cemetery(within and outsidethe
beyond
funerary
built
the
the
in
cemetery
or
even
constructions
within
tombs, newly
dispersal
from
for
One
that
this
the
stems
a
concern
argue
perhaps
could
area).
cemetery
for
burials;
have
this
and
secondary
measure
primary
would
provisionof additionalspace
beennecessarybecauseof the dearthof spacein the alreadyexisting tombs. Sucha
highly
in
light
following
First
however
the
the
unlikely,
of
observations.
seems
of
suggestion
have
in
that
to
similar
also
problems
would
occurred
earlier
acknowledge
all, oneneeds
is
have
but
to
that
there
evidence
no
suggest
such
problems
at
present
would
period(s)
for
in
(or
the
that
necessitated)
matter
any
spatial
re-arrangements
within
outside
or
resulted
hand,
in
On
the
the
the
apparent
variations
size,complexity and
other
cemeteries.
during
buildings
funerary
(late)
Early
II-(early)
Minoan
Minoan
Middle
the
constructionof
II 7(Maggidis1998;Soles1992b;Schoep& Knappett2004: 29-30; Whitelaw 2004a)seems
to constitutea deliberateand consciousattemptto delineatedifference,ratherthan a response
to a merelack of space.
If this dispersalof funeraryactivitieshasbeenthe result of abandonmentof certain
for
(which
imply
the
that all thesestructures
cemetery
use
of
others
given
would
a
of
areas
Early
Minoan
lI-(early)
(late)
Middle
Minoan
in
fact
II
identify
as
are
not
used
we
it
becomes
longer
then
that
evident
elaboration
and
primacy
are
no
contemporaneously),
itself;
instead
is
degree
tomb
the
to
communal
what
we
are
a
greater
of
witnessing
given
in
building
investment
new
projects(hardly a phenomenonof earlier periods)and
energy
thereforea continuousredefinitionof community(the physical manifestationof the latter
flexible
if
(Whitelaw
being
2000: 151).If howeverwe
spatially
not
spatially
contested)
now
funerary
buildings
these
that
all
were (at a certainpoint at least)usedconcurrently,
assume
thenwe areobviouslydealingwith a situationwherethe conductof funerary activities in

' Herewe mayalsoaddthe apparentvariation in the shape/sizeof burial

containers(Petit 1990).

163

If
been
have
this
appropriate.
we
accept
as
case
seen
as
the
would
cemetery
of
various parts
detail
further
in
that
these
the
is
it
possibility
activities
were
examining
then
worth
plausible,
follows,
In
to
that
the
by
we
wish
suggest
what
people.
of
number
now undertaken a greater
for
likely
a number of reasons.
hypothesis
latter
seemsmore

The larnaz andpithos burial tradition which emergesat this particular point in time
in
is
the
tomb
island
that
communal
albeit
still
placed
corpse
a
the
suggests
throughout
in
bodies
later
At
to
the
containers
are
added
whereas
burial
stage
new
a
container.
within a
in
isolated
tomb
the
the
burial
or
of
areas
outside
other
parts
are
remains
other casesold
but
highly
"disturbed"
longer
context
rather
a
tomb
constitutes
The
no
communal
tomb.
funerary
in
imprints
the
those
"tidier",
ritual
with
of
are
charge
who
becomes
presenting
is
It
buried
that
these
possible
placed.
or
now
once
was
corpse
each
pointing out where
dead
bodies
direction
to
the
that
they
and orientation
offer a senseof
imprints show the way,
funerary
doing,
the
the
in
they
conditions
of
process:
under
change
radically
so
and
matter
have
the
of
could
a
people
potential at
greater
numbers
conditions,
established
these newly
funerary
larnakes
in
that
the
the
take
ritual;
given
and
of
execution
least to actively
part
highly
likely
degree
funerary
it
is
the
to
that
of
association
units,
small
pithoi accommodate
for
be
have
the
the
dead
execution
of
specified
who
would
responsible
would
person
the

funeraryritual everytime.
It is significantthat during this period our evidencefrom tholos tombs reinforcesthe
involvement
in
funerary
The
the
of
more
people/groups
ritual might
point.
aforementioned
be impliedby the fact that the heightand width of the tombs' entrancesincreasesduring the
latestagesof thethird millennium BC (Branigan 1970:34-36,1993: 60). Amongstthese
latesttombswe find doorsbetween1.5and 2m high and a metreor more wide with
(Hood
1958),
Aghios
Kyrillos
Z
Gypsadcs
(Sakellarakis
Drakones
1968)
from
and
examples
(Xanthoudides 1924: 76-80). According to Branigan, these larger entrances might be
implying that accessto the tomb was now becoming easier or even less restricted, henceforth
inviting larger groups or numbers of people (Branigan 1970: 34-36,1993: 60,149) [Plates
10.9,10.10].

Similar observationscanbe alsobe madewith respectto housetombs.We

built
but
have
tombs
that
this
type
many
of
earlier
are
not
as
single
units
rather
mentioned
1992b:
(Soles
204).
They
plans
usually consistof threeof more rooms,someof
compound
initial
interesting
is
is
What
to
the
that accessto these
additions
plan.
very
are
which
is
facilitated
by
rooms
a separateentrance[Plate 10.111.For example,the tomb
additional
Mochlos
I/II/III
lying
three
at
consists
of
compartments
adjacentto eachother, each
complex

164

43).
Similarly
1992b:
(Soles
doorway
its
tomb
by
from
complex
the
own
west
entered
The
into
to
the
tomb
main
entrance
three
compartments.
opens
separate
IVNNI consists of
hand
VI
be
Compartment
53).
1992b:
the
(Soles
IV
other
on
may
entered only
Compartment
is,
isolated
IV
Compartment
doorway
as
a
result,
and
at the east end of
of
by the north-east
has
is
later
V,
Compartment
54).
1992b:
(Soles
a
addition
a separate
which
the tomb
distance
between
its
the
from
the
entire
east
and
the
extending
west
unit,
of
rest
entrance
leading
different
Separate
55).
1992b:
(Soles
to
1.31
(ca.
entrances
parts/areas
of
m)
walls
in
Tomb
Gournia,
III
Tomb
A
the
funerary
case
of
at
attested
at
are
also
compounds
the
Gournes and possibly Buildings 6 and 7 at Archanes, the Tomb at Vassiliki and the South
different
204).
The
1992b:
(Soles
Triada
Aghia
entrances might
existence
of
Building at
indicate that a different form of regionalisation was now realized by the plan of the
human
from
if
then
the
of
remains
as
ossuaries,
removal
monument; additional rooms served
latter
being
"back
(the
burial
a
space" of potential secrecy separated
context
their original
from observers)and their deposition into these added compartments, would have
funerary
As
from
tomb.
this
the
the
such,
the
particular
stage
of
out
necessitated coming
"front
demystification.
have
as
a
region",
enhancing
visibility
acted
and
now
processwould
If on the other hand, the different compartments of a tomb served as loci for primary burials,
introduction
longer
is
the
to
it
the
tomb
that
of
a
new
corpse
would
no
entail
then
obvious
but
in
it.
In
the
compound
only
specific
entire
parts
of
neither of these
within
circulation
be
fixed;
in
funerary
does
to
that respect, we may assume
the
appear
spatially
process
cases
being
layout
tomb
the
the
provided
potential
of
the
visited simultaneously or at
of
that
different times by different groups of people.

Importantobservationsmay alsobe madewith regardto rectangularfunerary

(Soles
1992b:
205).
We
[see
Section
10.2]
rooms
multiple
mentioned
with
earlier
structures
that the interior roomsdo not often connectandthereforeappearto constituteisolatedcells,
hatches
(if
indeed
through
the
on
roof
coveredwith a roof) or throughthe
entered
possibly
(if
The
for
indicates
covered
of
ramps
not
a
with
roof).
use
of
cells
a
concern
employment
division
into
the
the
tomb
of
small units; the arrangementof cells on
compartmentalisation,
theotherhandimplies that everytime a corpsewas introducedin any of them, only a small
be
The
division
to
tomb
the
needed
used.
of
of cells thereforeseemsto orientate
area
funerary
fact
The
towards
the
that entrance to
action
and
specific
parts
of
edifice.
movement
the cells would have been facilitated from above (through hatches or ramps) might also
indicate that different cells were used simultaneously and/or at different times; here again we
have
to consider the possibility that accessto the ritual was allowed to greater
therefore
may
numbersof people.

165

[10.41 Conclusions

In seekingto demonstratehow the reworking of specific practicescontributesto

long
(i.
dwelling
level
standingperceptionsand
the
e.
of
broadertransformationsat
in
have
190),
2000:
(Ingold
this
in
"being
we
examined
chapter,
the
world")
of
technologies
Crete
during
late
island
the
third/early
the
in
of
how changes mortuarycontextsaround
i.
have
historical
broader
to
BC
e.
question,
what
we
our
relate
may
millennium
second
Society".
"House
"emergence"
labelled
the
of
broadly
as
We began by suggestingthat over the period under study, a "genealogy" of mortuary

foremost,
in
first
the
the
corpse
was
ways
whereby
and
changes
several
reveals
practice
domain
in
funerary
the
In
the
that
death.
in
changes
attested
argued
we
particular
organized
dead
in
the
more
the
perceived,
represented
were
which
ways
with
-or
concerned
were
dead
have
been
The
to
to
the
these
re-position
seems
of
practices
aim
properly,materialised.
have
laid
been
living.
In
to
the
appears
particular,emphasis
in relation to the communityof
burial
but
dead
in
the
of
also after
the
a
person
not
only
moment
of
memory
uponprolonging
burial. The increaseof architecturalstructuresassociatedwith secondarytreatmentseemsto
deceased
BC
late
the
third
the
from
the
ceasedto
of
millennium
onwards,
stages
indicatethat
be viewedas simply "one of the dead"and insteadbecamea namedperson,more easily
detectablein the funerarylandscape.This howeverwas not a transformationaiming at
dead
is
instead,
distinction;
the
that
available evidence suggests
naming of a
what
personal
because
(more
became
the
corpse's
of
physical
association
with
a
smaller
easier
person
intimate) funerary unit.

Changesare also attested in the way the funerary ritual was constructed and by
have
demonstrated
in
We
that
the
particular
establishment of various
performed.
extension
imprints/elements of orientation both within and outside the tombs renders likely the
involved
funerary
in
the
the
that
were
actual
people
execution
of
process.
more
possibility
The increasing number does not refer to a situation where more people were entering the

tomb everytime a funeraryritual was performedbut ratherthat different groups of people

(still limited in number)wereenteringthe tomb everytime suchrituals hadto take place.In
image
described
dead
direct
the
the
that
the
changing
with
of
above,
we
more
conjunction
involvementof variousgroupsin thoserituals seemsto imply that this is a period during
from
living
descent
the
placed
more
emphasis
on
namedancestorsas opposedto an
which
body
(Barrett
1994b:
94).
ancestral
abstract

166

Different "readings" of this general principle may be attested in the wider Cretan
forms
"reading".
Even
Kaminospelio
if we
tholos
one
such
the
at
landscape,and
diverse
however, this
expressions/manifestations
the
of
operation
and
existence
acknowledge
does not undermine the validity of the observation that funerary transformations around the
island appear to converge at the level ofprinciple (i. e. basic rules of performance, rights and
it
is
indeed
broad principle is the
If
during
the
that
this
case
performance).
obligations
"centrifugal"
(i.
"diasporic")
"centripetal"
from
death
to
e.
perceptions
of
product of a shift
it
is
(if
that
to
then
also
suggest
a
principle
which
we
relates
could
not
and memory,
fragmentation
i.
"Settlement"
historical
the
the
e.
of
question,
and the
confirms) our
(symbolic and practical) prioritization of the "House"? In order to be able to associate more
it
is
in
dwelling,
important
funerary
transformations
to
of
with
ways
changes
securely
from
late
detail,
in
the
third millennium/early second
available
evidence
examine more

following
The
investigation
BC
the
contexts.
chapter
embarks
on
settlements
of
millennium
important
Early
Minoan
II
the
issue,
case
an
study,
with
site at Myrtos-Phournou
this
starting
Koryfi.

167

11

From performance

to concretization

[11.11Rise to the occasion

The Early Minoan II settlementat PhournouKoryfi [Plate 11.1] lies on the summit
hill
Crete.
Myrtos
The
km
3.5
the
the
hill,
village
coast
modem
of
on
south
of
of
east
of a
(only 66mhigh) risesabovethe Libyan seawith a narrowbeachat its base(Warren 1972,
PI.IA). The site was excavatedunderthe direction of PeterWarren from 1967to 1968and
few
detail
later,
in
1972.
Since
Myrtos-Phournou
in
then,
only
a
years
published exemplary
Koryfi hasremaineda focal point for the analysisof Early BronzeAge Cretenot only dueto
of its excavation/publication(Tenwolde 1992: 1; Whitelaw 1979:2) but
thethoroughness
later,
in
because
the
thirty
all
other
contemporary
settlement
years
contexts
are
still
also
processofinal publication'.
Along with thosefactors,severalother reasonshave renderedPhournouKord an
idealcasestudyof Early BronzeAge settlementlife. First of all, the site can be considered
completelyexcavated(Warren 1972:6), giving us the opportunityto assessthe community
(Whitelaw
1979:
1,1983:
Fotou
34).
Secondly,
it
324,
1984:
contra
was
whole
asa
(with
little
has
been
thus
single
period
site
of
a
very
signs
re-use)
and
not
essentially
largely
disrupted
by
later
or
construction,a seriousanalyticalobstaclein other
complicated
Age
(i.
Bronze
Knossos,
Early
Malia,
Phaistos,
Mochlos,
Palaikastro
sites
e.
major
etc)
(Whitelaw1979:1-2).Finally, the suddenand completedestructionof the settlementby fire
1For a detailedreviewof (publishedand/orsemi-published)Early Minoan II
settlementsand
architectural/artefactual
evidenceseeWatrous1994,2001;Zois 1998a-f.
corresponding

168

investigate
is
to
its
a
context
thus
allow
us
which
sealed,
abandonment
subsequent
and
horizon
information
(Cultraro
as
as
extensive
contextual
well
contemporary
providing a clear
1990:
52;
Tenwolde
Sanders
1992: 1; Warren 1972: 10;
31-34;
1984:
Fotou
97-102;
2001:
Whitelaw 1979:2,1983: 324).
The complexof structuresrevealedby excavationspreadover the summit of
hundred
individual
Koryfi
a
rooms and/or areas (Warren
Phournou
and consisted of nearly
1972: 11). These were confined to the top part of the hill, covering the summit and parts of
hill
falls
to
the
the
north,
away very steeply and on the east it is
slopes;
the west and south
limits
have
hence
been
the
the
to
east
north
and
of
settlement
appear
naturally
cliff;
a
almost
determined (Warren 1972: 11). The excavator divided this architectural mass into two
both
Period
I
distinct
and
chronologically:
architecturally
constructions are
periods,
in
date
IIa
"fine
Early
Minoan
and
are
associated
with
grey wares and a wide
considered
(Whitelaw
1979:
4).
The
following
dark-on-light
wares"
painted
rooms/areas
of
variety
belong to Period I: area below rooms 27-28, areas 30-3 1, rooms 37-43, rooms 47-5 1, SouthEast Rubbish Pits 61-62 and the "North Rubbish Area 2-3" (Warren 1972: 11-22). All
deposits
but
to
in
the
the
and
are
confined
areas/rooms
centre
of
settlement
aforementioned
finds
have
I
been
Period
from
those,
to
reported
also
other parts of it (mainly
addition
(Warren
1972:
21-2).
Period
levels)
II
belong
taken
to
to the Early
structures
are
surface
Minoan IIb period; they are characterized by "a total lack of fine grey wares, a very
dark-on-light
of
wares and are primarily associated with red and brown
restricted range
(burnished
Vassiliki
and
unburnished)
as
well
as
wares
painted
ware, not present in Period I
deposits" (Whitelaw 1979: 4). With the exception of an Early Minoan III (?) arc-shaped
building which is positioned over rooms 17-20 (Warren 1972: 92), all remaining rooms and
belong
to this phase (i. e. Early Minoan IIb).
the
site
areasat

[a] Community-level
organization: Warren'sinterpretation
In the final publicationof Myrtos-PhournouKoryfi, the excavatoremphasizedthe
conjoining,cellular natureof the architectureandthe lack of evidencefor a developed
hierarchicalsystemin putting forward a theory of communalliving (Warren 1972:260-1):
"[Such a community] in the form of a single large complex without separately
definedhousessuggestsa socialorganizationbasedon a single large unit, a clan
or tribe living communally and perhaps not differentiated into individual
families,andquite without any apparentchief or ruler" (Warren1972:267).

169

features
to
behind
intention
this
associate
several
of
was
problematique
Although the
image
"palacess2,
the
the
the
of
settlement
of
the
emergence
subsequent
the settlement with
in
is
It
by
trivial
significant
perhaps
misplaced.
or
Warren
means
no
was
constructed
that

below],
[see
Whitelaw
Todd
all
subsequent
the
of
exception
that
with
that respect
drawn
have
largely
the
the
upon
site
the
of
character
and
nature
interpretationsregarding
1992).
Tenwolde
1990;
(Sanders
initial
observations
excavator's
First of all, Warren was right in suggesting that the site gives the impression of a
level,
"macroscopic"
260)
1972:
the
(Warren
since
at
a
homogeneous
large,
whole
impossible
(Fotou
"houses")
(i.
appears
almost
e.
distinction of smaller architectural units
"public"
between
"private"
boundaries
That
13).
1979:
the
McEnroe
space are
32;
and
1984:
in
Sander's
further
finds
that
the
is
size
blurred
comment
support
which
observation
an
very
limits
hearing
"within
the
the
the
form
of
vision,
and
zones"
are
site
of all rooms at
and
(Sanders 1990: 62); put simply many of the activities taking place within these enclosed
it
be
level
heard;
both
be
therefore
that
the
could
suggested
at
of
and
seen
easily
could
spaces
been
have
to
particular
emphasis
appears
architectural planning and sensory experience, no
laid by the inhabitants of the settlement upon spatial segregation and/or privacy.

With regard to the exterior spacesof the settlement, it is also important to repeat
here an observation made already in the previous chapter [see Section 9.31, namely that
the
settlement were carefully constructed and architecturally
of
spaces
open
certain
Zois
198).
The
for
57,78-9,87;
1998c:
1972:
(Warren
evidence
architectural
elaborated
Yard")
derives
from
63
("Southeast
three
the
area
sector
mainly
areas,
public
elaboration of
(Warren 1972: 57), area 93 ("South Paved Way") (Warren 1972: 87) and area 85 ("Open
Area") (Warren 1972: 78-9); their immediate spatial proximity renders it very likely that
large
open space which allowed accessto the south part of the
they constituted a single,
62
(west
Room
(i.
Area
63
64-65).
the
and
passageway
e.
areas
of
north-south
settlementvia
laid
Room
"hard-packed
78)
the
the
on
and
earth
entrance
consisted
of
whitish
main
of
south
The
had
1972:
57).
"rough
here
(Warren
it
there"
paving slabs set on
and
sandy rock" and
in
face
"a
line
62
level
the white
to
the
to
the
of
slabs
set
of
ran
up
west
while
north,
white
(Warren
1972:
footway
the
the
of
settlement"
a
westwards
along
south
side
provided
packing
2 Warrenwrites:"[Myrtos-PhournouKoryfi] exhibits severalfeatureswhich are reminiscentof, or
full
development
in
large
The
Minoan
find
the
their
single,
architectural
complex
palaces
with
rather
...
for
distinct
areas
organized
specificpurposes,doessuggestthat the origins of the palacesare
several
to be soughtherein settlementssuchas Myrtos and Vassilild, architecturallyin part and economically
in full" (Warren1972:260-1).It needsto be mentionedat this point that an associationbetween
PhoumouKoryfi andthe "palace"(this time at the level of socio-political organization)hasbeen
proposedby Branigan.The functionalspecialisationof different areas/roomat PhoumouKoryfi and
thebelief that the sitewasconstructedas an integratedwhole, servedas the basisfor interpretingthe
latterasthe mansionof a locally importantindividual, "big man" or "chief'. (Branigan 1970:47-8).

170

from
by
the surrounding walls,
tumbled
stones
Although
the
overlain
57).
area was
far
that
this
the
a
path
extended
certainly
which
as
was
as
clear
made
works
excavation
(outside
Area
85
Room
79.
89
Room
the
south-west
comer
of
and south
of
south-west corner
descent
in
large
two
to
88)
rough
steps,
Room
slabs
which
an open yard
with
paved
was
of
Area
(i.
limit
93
from
78-9).
1972:
64
(Warren
e.
southern
of
settlement,
area
on
the
south
on
interest
definite
has
been
is
here
85)
to
since
a
attempt
the
of
particular
made
to
area
the east
1972:
87).
This
flat
"in
(Warren
consisted
of
a
row
of
slabs,
set
white
provide a raised walk
bedrock"
(Warren
1972:
These
87).
best
the
natural
on
slabs
were
resting
and
clayey material
A
few
1972:
10,
Fig.
12).
(Warren
79
were also preserved eastwards
preserved outside room
has
been
identified.
80
To
64.
the
room
another
open
area
outside
west,
towards area

Some further observations towards this direction may also be made with regard to
the central part of the settlement, where the striking majority of Period I remains has been
identified. Although admittedly this part of the settlement is heavily eroded, some interesting
in
Warren's
(Warren
1972:
have
11-22)
been
publication
and
made
subsequently
are
remarks
(Sanders
1990;
Whitelaw
1979,1983).
These
by
scholars
other
scholars agree that
confirmed
it is unlikely that Period I settlement covered a greater extent than currently represented by
its architecture (Warren 1972: 10; Whitelaw 1979: 5). A spread of ash from room 35 out into
30 and 37 (Warren 1972: 16-7; Zois 1998c: 186-7) and above the fill in 38,39 and 40
(Warren 1972: 13-7; Zois 1998c: 186-7) suggeststhat in this area, Period I structures were
(Warren
1972:
41;
Whitelaw
6).
the
1979:
area
served
as
an
open
court
and
over
covered
Also, there is no evidence that 36 and 47-51 (Warren 1972: 17-20) were used in Period II
(Whitelaw 1979: 6). The excavation plan and description indicates that a Period II wall
I
Period
32
(Warren
1972: 41-2), implying that the original
the
east
wall
of
area
overlapped
longer
how
though
the area was used in unclear (Whitelaw 1979:
standing,
no
were
structures
6). The mixed fill in 41-43 (Warren 1972: 46) may suggestthat this area was open as well
(Whitelaw 1979: 6). On this basis, it could be suggestedthat these areas were not built in
Period II and that the original structures were either in ruins or covered over to be used as
(Whitelaw
1979:
6).
areas
yard

Although we have already mentioned the major open areas in the settlement, it is
noteworthy that to these, some further ones (albeit of smaller size) might be added. Here we
mainly refer to areas2-3 (to the north) (Warren 1972: 23), and according to Whitelaw,

171

3.
This
for
43-4)
1979:
(Whitelaw
56
apparent
provision
7,24/26
and
and
possibly areas
between
blurred
boundaries
"public"
in
the
the
with
conjunction
space
open
of
elaboration
but
in
level
(both
the
planning/development
also
architectural
of
"private"
at
sectors
and
to
earlier)
a practical as well as
point
mentioned
as
experience
terms of everyday sensory
Koryfi
(Tenwolde
Myrtos-Phournou
integration
at
communal
of
manifestation
symbolic
hand,
by
Warren
the
that the
The
1972).
on
other
observation made
1992; Warren
in
by
form
reinforced
enclosure/fortification,
parts
of
a
as
acted
settlement's outer walls
1)
(Warren
1972:
11,42-3,
("rooms"
86,87
62)
towers
possibly
and
("Room"
and
bastions
integration
further
the
of the site.
architectural/structural
57,79-80,261,268), supports even

Along with the architecturalevidence,there is also substantialempirical information

Koryfi.
For
Phournou
taking
at
place
were
activities
to suggestthat several communal
is
fairly
distribution
there
the
tools
uniform,
and
querns
was
stone
of
instance, although
(i.
in
the
corridor/passageway
e.
of
each
north-south
concentration
a
of
exception
notable
58-60), "perhaps indicating that a "stock" of these items was
1972:
(Warren
64-65)
areas
indicative
has
been
Equally
(Tenwolde
1992:
21).
the
for
use"
common
available
interior of this particular passagewaytwo concentrations of ceramic
in
the
that
observation
discovered
both
within
areas
constructed
specifically
as
storage
niches
reported,
are
vessels
(i. e. areas33 and 65) (Tenwolde 1992: 20; Warren 1972: 43, Fig. 19; Zois 1998c: 196). That
is
spatially associatedwith two of the open/public areas of the
corridor
the north-south
63/93/85)
(Warren
1972:
454
46,57,78-9,87)
(i.
area
and
area
e.
settlement

may be pointing

locus
is
this
that
a
associatedwith outdoor communal activities (involving
to the possibility
food
20-1).
(Tenwolde
1992:
as
processing/preparation)
as
well
storageof edibles/liquids
Moreover, information concerning activities (of possibly communal character) derives from
investigated
beyond
Trials
Slope
South
the southern edge of the settlement,
an
area
which
the
lying 15m south of the main South Entrance (Warren 1972: 87-9, Fig. 29). Rough traces of
found
behind
boulder
built
2m
for
were
east-west
a
up
of
conglomerate
and
about
walling
(Warren
1972:
To
"wall"
88).
boulder,
the
this
the
the
south
of
rock
were
and
natural
against
the remains of three vessels in situ on a flat ledge of rock (to the west, a base of a pithos; at
the centre, an almost fully preserved lekane; to the east, the base of a large tub or lekane).
According to Warren, these large vessels were intended for "some outside operation, such as

3 Whitelawtermsareas2/3 a "trash dump" becausethey are characterizedby very large amountsof

sherdmaterial,aswell asoccasionallensesof ashand otherdebris.Although other areaswithin (and
beyond)
dumping
for
(public areas,passageways), the
the
settlement
were
occasional
used
possibly
"major dump"are areas2/3 andto a lesserextentarea34 (Whitelaw 1979:45). If this is indeedthe
case,it is significantthat thereis somekind of regulation asto wherethis activity would take place.
4 Area45 is highly erodedbut becauseit standsat thejunction of threepassages(44,65
and 67),
Warrenhasvery reasonablysuggestedthat it is an opencourt (Warren 1972:46; Whitelaw 1979:8).

172

The
88).
1972:
that
(Warren
these
possibility
food
operations
were
preparation"
or
washing
be
from
the
excluded.
cannot
by
settlement
groups
conducted various

To the above,we may addthe evidencederiving for indoor fixed installations which,
to
the
spatial
proximity
open
spaces
and/or
basis
association
close
their
uniqueness,
the
of
on
(several
designated
been
have
to
likely
to
serve
groups
and/or
members
are
the
settlement,
of
has
been
discovered
in
is
Room
205
feature
that
One
the
oven
raised
such
of) the community.
built
This
11.2].
[Plate
20)
Fig.
34-5,
stone
structure
was
against the north
1972:
(Warren
from
0.80m
0.80m,
0.60m,
the
(height:
north
projected
wall)
width:
the
room
of
wall
large
flat
badly
34-5)
1972:
six
courses
of
preserved,
about
(Warren
and although very
large
half
the
discernible,
top
and
neck
of
a
pithos.
rim
about
was
of
which
on
were
stones
have
been
half
"as
the
the
looked
though
might
used to
vessel
of
upper part of
The pieces
form a curving back on top of the stand" (Warren 1972: 35). Above them, was a heavy flat
in
interior
latter
found
"a
for
the
the
the
of
pithos
whereas
was
mass
slab, perhapsa cover/lid
(Warren
1972:
35).
In
the
the
burnt
same
heavily
room
with
oven were
ash"
and
earth
of
discovered various large and small ceramic vessels on stands as well as a quern on the floor
designated
for
hypothesis
that
this
the
an
area
cooking.
was
thus rendering plausible
is
Room
21
20
through
possible
an open area or passage
to
made
which
Entrance room
was
30,
(Warren
36,41).
1972:
larger
to
the
the
space
south
open
accessedvia

Anotherinterestingfeaturehasbeenreportedin area8 (Warren 1972:25-7, Figs. 156, Pl. 8B). Beside the north wall of Room 16 a lekane or large spouted tub was revealed,
large
flat
the
top
two
an
earth
packing
and
of
which
stones
provided
stand
a
on
supported
hole
(0.30m
deep,
in
0.50-0.60m
diameter)
Just
tub,
the
a
approx.
was
of
west
surface.
discoveredcut in the natural rock [Plate 11.3]. The base of the tub was approx. 0.70m above
latter,
had
been
From
in
hole.
the
the rock running down south
the
a
channel
top
cut
the
of
Room
16.
The
into
discharged
the
the
then
north
of
wall
channel
against
either
west
and
(under
9
Next
Room
10.
Room
the
the
the
or
south-east
of
wall)
corner
comer
of
north-east
tub was "a burnt area, which may have resulted from heating (water, food or other) as well as
its
base)
"acting
lower
flat
behind
(0.20m
than
the
tub
as
slabs
a
working
surface
of
an area
function
foundations
(Warren
1972:
26,
Fig.
15).
The
the
the
of
east
of
wall"
and overlying

5 Otherfeaturesassociatedwith cookingarethe "cooking holes" in Room 57 (Warren 1972:51-2) and

Room88 (Warren1972:80-1)which havebeenidentified as suchbecauseof their "ashy deposits"
(Whitelaw1979:41-2,1983: 327,Fig.64), as well as the "built hearth" in Room 89 (Warren 1972:813, Fig. 28).AlthoughWhitelawacceptsthat the latter is indeeda hearth(Whitelaw 1979,1983),
doubtsand hasassociatedwith other forms of activity (probably"ritual")
Warrenhasexpressed
(Warren1972:81,83). At any case,all theseexamplesare different from the oven in Room 20, which
identified
be
asan ovennot only on the groundsof its form but alsoits contextual
securely
can
associations.

173

Warren
"wine
but
that
been
the
mentions
are
has
possibilities
press;
specified
not
the tub
(Warren
1972:
27).
Whatever
its
food
for
tub
cloth"
and
olive oil separator; wash
it
is
(i)
drawn
to
this
room
regard
a unique
the
with
function/purpose,
conclusions
-that
(ii)
42),
(Whitelaw
1979:
1979:
(Whitelaw
possibly
unroofed
installation of special character
from
directly
in
the
(iii)
north-east passageof the
entered
area/yard,
an
open
44) and
situated
1972: 25)-, make it very likely that this was an area exhibiting a high
(Warren
settlement
degreeof accessibility.
Finally in Room 58, a large number of loom weights has been discovered (Warren
in
The
dimensions
the
52-3),
settlement.
elsewhere
small
attested
of
1972:
a phenomenonnot
leaves
have
but
Warren
loom
for
it
there
the
to
stood
open
a
unlikely
the room make
formulated
58
it
the
top
the
or
on
that
on
roof
of
platform
on
of
either
placed
was
possibility
in
53).
The
1972:
(Warren
tools
the room could have been used
57
stone
to the north
Room
large
for
found
immediately
in
this
the
tub
to
the
reason,
situ
and
in the preparation of
wool
(Warren
53-55,
1972:
Fig.
21).
The
is
59
Room
in
suggestive
uniqueness of the
very
the west

installationandthe possibility that it was usednot indoorsbut ratheroutdoors,may

factor
form
(some
to
pointing
once
again,
of) communaluse'.
constituteyet anotherempirical

[b] Household-levelorganization: Whitelaw'sre-assessment

In 19837,Whitelaw put forward an alternativeinterpretationregardingthe natureand
Myrtos-Phournou
Koryfi,
lack
the
total
at
of
which
confirmed
characterof settlement
for
developed
hierarchy
(Whitelaw
12)
1979:
Fig.
71-3,75,
the
a
at
site
support
empirical
but raised serious concerns against Warren's image of community-level organization
(Whitelaw 1983). Whitelaw pursued a detailed study of the architectural construction pattern
led
him
latter
to
that
the
the
suggest
which
represented an aggregate of
settlement
of
(Whitelaw
building
1979:
4-18,1983:
324). In particular, through a
projects
separate
detailed investigation of wall joins and abutments as well as differences in construction
he
identified
1979:
Fig.
5),
in
(Whitelaw
distinct
development
the
a
series
of
phases
of
styles
construction of the site [Plate 11.4]. He then moved onto suggest that "these distinct
"reconstruction
the
episodes
or
units
of
growth"
not
only
allowed
of the
constructional
during
its
200-year
(Whitelaw
the
1979: Fig. 4,
of
settlement
growth
occupation"
probable
6 For modernvillage sharingof looms,seeKoster 1976.
' Thewell-knownarticleby Whitelaw, entitled "The settlementat PhournouKoryfi, Myrtos d
an

aspectsof Early Minoan social organization" in the "Minoan Society" volume (Whitelaw 1983)
provides a summary of the results/conclusions from his Master's dissertation, "Community Structure
and Social Organization at Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi" (Whitelaw 1979).

174

1983: 324) but could also be taken to represent spatially-distinct clusters of interconnected
Fig. 62).
18,1983:
1979:
(Whitelaw
rooms

Analysisproceededwith the investigationof find distributionsand the identification

1979:
19-74),
(Whitelaw
functionally-specific
activity
often within multiareas
of a series of
functional rooms, such as kitchens (Whitelaw 1979: 45-6, Figs. 25,38,47-8, Whitelaw 1983:
327, Fig. 64), workrooms with lekane, weaving areas (Whitelaw 1979: 46-49, Figs 13-14,46,
Whitelaw 1983: 327-8, Fig. 65), areas for the storage of agricultural produce and pottery
(Whitelaw 1979: 49-50, Figs. 26-28, Whitelaw 1983: 328-31, Figs. 66-7), and more general
domestic areas (i. e. food preparation, consumption, sleeping etc) (Whitelaw 1979: 50-4, Fig.
29,1983: 331, Fig. 68) [Plate 11.5]. These identifications/distributions suggestedthat within
distinct)
functions
(architecturally
cluster,
recurrent
complementary
of
room
a
and
set
each
drawn
by
find
documented;
be
the
the
compatibility
of
results
architectural
and
could
distribution investigations led Whitelaw to the conclusion that the architectural mass at
Phournou Koryfi could be divided into distinct domestic units (i. e. "households") (Whitelaw
1979: 74-5, Figs. 30-1, Whitelaw 1983: Fig. 69). The units that Whitelaw identified were
"North-Central
Cluster",
Cluster",
"East-Central
Cluster", "South-East
"North-West
termed
Cluster", "South-Central Cluster" and "South-West Cluster" (Whitelaw 1983: Fig. 69) [Plate
11.6].

Finally on the basisof floor areaand storagecapacitywithin each"household",

Whitelaw suggestedthat each was occupied by a single nuclear family (Whitelaw 1979: 6671,75,1983: 332-3). Consideration of the nature and condition of the artefacts found in each
household suggestedthat two were no longer in use at the time of the destruction ("Summit
Cluster" and "Central Cluster") (Whitelaw 1979: Fig. 6, Whitelaw 1983: 332, Fig. 69); in
Phournou
Koryfi
the
at
community
at the time of the destruction was taken to consist
effect,
(a
households
total of perhaps 20-30 individuals) (Whitelaw 1979: 75,1983:
to
six
of up
332-40, Fig. 70).

", units `for themselves"

[c] Units "in themselves
With his study,Whitelaw soughtto emphasizethat althoughthe extantevidence
from the site indeedsuggeststhat "there was at leastsomeinteractionbetweenthe individual
familieswithin the community",this doesnot automaticallyimply community-level
organization(Whitelaw 1979:72,1983: 333-4).He stressedthat the distinction of
"households"is somethingthat canbe substantiatedempirically and also made
sureto point

175

"household")
be
"community"
(between
distinction
and
should
not
mistaken
a
that
such
out
it
"unit"
After
dilemma.
that
"either/or"
goes
saying
almost
without
all,
no
for a polarized,
have
level
taken
the
the
isolation:
place
at
in
of
activities
would
some
total
while
operates
level
"community".
What
have
bound
the
taken
to
at
of
place
"household", some others are
is
be
focusing
however,
do
imply
this
precisely
should
and
what
we
Whitelaw's suggestions
"household"
is
the
to
that
organization,
social
unit
ought
referring
when
upon,
attention
our
Whitelaw
"(settlement)
simply,
the
put
what
aimed at
community";
to be prioritized over
investigation
Phoumou
Koryfi
his
of
was that the
through
analytical
demonstrating
it
but
been
have
the
the
at
social
work
within
site,
only
unit/mechanism
"household" may not
is
indicative
in
333-4).
It
(Whitelaw
1983:
that
that
respect
the
significant
most
was certainly
he choosesto speak of the settlement as being organized at a household-level.
How Whitelaw reachesthis conclusion is somehow unclear; in fact, it appears that
"community"
"household"
is
he
to
degree
and
respectively,
not
attributes
of significance
the
important
is
in
in
his
he
It
that
that
but
respect
one
of
articles,
inferential
rather axiomatic.
"the
"special-purpose"
the
the
site
that
of
rooms/areas
within
and
existence
recognizes
do
integration
to
supra-household
settlement
wall",
point
exterior
maintenanceof a solid
(Whitelaw 1983: 333). By confirming these two observations initially made by Warren in the
final publication of Phournou Koryfi (Warren 1972), Whitelaw undermines the validity of
his own argument (i. e. "household" is more important than "(settlement) community") for
hand,
he
level
for
On
the
that
at
one
accepts
a
practical
and
a variety of
two main reasons.
blur
(consciously
boundaries,
"household
their
a
and/or
unconsciously)
units"
purposes,
Although
have
kinds
to
that
of
earlier
on.
we
may
accept
such
made
point we already
interaction fit relatively well into his interpretation/model (i. e. "a household is never totally
isolated"), the evidence for a wall enclosure surrounding the settlement does not. Regardless
it
(i.
defensive,
that
serves
e.
the
practical, symbolic or other), a wall enclosure
purpose(s)
of
is a conscious manifestation of "togetherness" and this is a point pertinent to yet another
i.
laid
during
Early
Ilb
Minoan
the
that
the
earlier,
made
e.
emphasis
we
period
observation
Myrtos.
These
the
of
public
space
at
constructions/building projects render
elaboration
on
the community visible not only to its members but also (and perhaps, even more importantly)
to the "outsiders"; they do so, by creating a shared place for the former and a bounded,
for
latter.
integration/wholeness
That
the
the
whole
structural
of the
undifferentiated
Koryfi
Phoumou
have
been
at
would
experienced as such by the "outsiders" in
settlement
the past, is precisely the reason why Warren's image of the settlement (essentially, yet
"outsider's"
view of the site) cannot be considered misplaced but rather quite
another
justifiable (Warren 1972).

176

The above points suggestthat the settlement at Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi constitutes

it
is
have
for
itself.
Here
that
but
itself
obvious
we
in
entity
an
also
entity
an
not merely
itself'
"a
"class
for
itself'
between
in
distinction
class
and
Marx's
well-known
paraphrased
Marx
the
discussing
In
the
class,
once argued
159-60).
of
working
emergence
1975:
(Marx
fact
by
that
the
the
itself
is
in
operate
and
workers
undergo
of
latter
virtue
constituted
that the
from
i.
the
the
means
of
production
e.
alienation
which
situation,
common
a
of
consequences
(i.
By
the
their
of
conditions
situation
e.
under
of
virtue
encourages.
system
the capitalist
indeed
be
taken
to
therefore
constitute
parts
of
a
sum,
could
workers
they
operate),
which
"unit
"unit"
is
however
by
in
this
that
Marx
a
"unit".
merely
suggesting
proceeds
parts of a
far
interaction
for
itself
than
"class
itself'),
in
more
mere
'
(i.
requires
a
class
since
itself
e. a
living,
thinking
(i.
or
the
of
conditions/characteristics
of
certain
sharing
e.
co-presence
and/or
in
itself'
from
"class
how
for
key
the
a
shift
the
understanding
element
acting); essentially,
"class
is
the
itself'
the
for
takes
consciousness",
conscious
"class
concept
of
place
to a
boundaries
(Cohen
1985:
13).
For
in
demarcation
the
of
class
other
of
words,
perception and
it
had
that
to
before
the
recognize
could
act
as
a
class,
working
people
Marx,
working class
be
is
in
It
the
this
that
could
working
class
only
recognition
was -or they were- a class.
historical
by
extension,
collective
agent
group
and
a
effective
constituted as a politically
(Jenkins 1996: 88).

Whetheror not we agreewith Marx's argumenthistorically, his suggestionsare

"class";
issues
bring
broader
this
because
to
themes
than
that
they
closer
and
of
us
significant
is so,becauseessentiallyMarx's definition and understandingof the term doesnot differ
describe
"identity"
definition
from
the
to
the
the
employ
concept
and
we
of
markedly
"to
identify"
The
is
"identity
in
general.
verb
making"
a necessary
processof
identity
Jenkins
"there
is
and
as
rightly
points
out,
of
something active about
accompaniment
ignored"
(Jenkins
has
do
be
1996:
4,
"something"
to
this
that
my
emphasis);
cannot
this word
for
is
"just
identity
be
it
identity
fact
there":
that
the
strives
not
must
established,
with
it
its
"beginning
is
to
this
pertinent
seeks
mark
and
end",
and
notion
recognition,
external
both to individuals as well as collectivities (Cohen 1985; Jenkins 1996). To return to Marx's
be
for
itself
the
the
constitution
not
categorical
of
working
class
as
a
class
could
example,
possible unless workers came to the point of realizing that the things they shared actually
differentiate them from a certain "Other", in this casethose who viewed them as a
"dangerous class" (i. e. capitalists and the state) (Jenkins 1996: 88). The process of group
identification in this case,both encouragedand was encouraged by class struggle (Jenkins
1996: 88) and therefore, in a sense,workers became aware of their class only when they
finally stood at its boundaries (Cohen 1982: 2-3).

177

The aboveseemto illuminate significantly someof the points madeearlier with

in
Myrtos:
the courseof everydayactivities,
that
to
suggest
at
the
to
settlement
reference
been
integrated
have
larger-scale
Koryfi
the
Phournou
within
would
small-scaleunits at
imply
does
to
the
is
a
conscious
adherence
necessarily
not
the
notion
settlement,
which
entity
is
formulated
in
this
the
the
class,
whole
working
wider
case
of
of a wider community; as
lived
Myrtos
inhabitants
fact
the
that
of
closely to one another.
becauseof the simple
Becauseof the conditions under which these people operated, a community in itself was
definable
however,
investment
in
By
through
the
this
community
making
certainly at work
Phournou
Koryfi
(such
the
the
enclosure),
and
wall
manifests
areas
open
as
works
public
its
inhabitants'
"togetherness"
is
doing,
itself.
In
for
sense
of
not
so
itself also as an entity
"internal" but also "external", not only accrued but also sought after.

"[A local identity is formulated] through its member's daily routines. -This
become
can
often
unconscious,
more concrete through
community,
of
sense
practices that explicitly represent certain similarities among community
differentiating
being
to
the
thus
somehow
essential
group,
members
as
members
from
In
those
this way, practices that represent
of
another...
community
one
of
certain commonalities and affinities among [people] in a community draw
boundaries acrossthe physical and social landscape and establish the community
as an explicit identity with a definite membership" (Yaeger 2000: 125, my
emphasis).

By putting forward the argument that the settlement at Phournou Koryfi constituted
both an entity in itself andfor itself we do not seek to undermine the validity of the
have
indeed
larger
formations;
this
that
may
consisted
unit
of
rather,
smaller
suggestion
"household"
"community"
the
against
obvious
prioritization
of
raised
over
concernswere
in
his
investigation
If,
Whitelaw
(Whitelaw
by
1979,1983).
the
analytical
of
site
advanced
laid
by
inhabitants
Myrtos
indicated
the
of
a
surplus
emphasis
earlier,
was
upon
of
we
as
"settlement-entity",
(both
the
and
symbolically)
practically
on what grounds would
elevating
"household"
"front
"more
(Giddens
1984:
124),
the
that
acted
as
a
region"
a
as
we suggest
important" entity in other words, than the wider "community"? In view of our discussion so
far, such an hypothesis seemsunlikely: in fact, the settlement at Phournou Koryfi appears to
be highly compatible (at least in that respect) with the more general pattern operating on the
island of Crete during the middle stagesof the Early Bronze Age, with "settlements" being
the most heavily invested form of identity [see Chapter Nine]. Before putting an end to the
"community/household" debate however, another empirical observation concerning the
from
Myrtos
inspection.
it
How
assemblage
requires
closer
relates to the issue under
material
investigation is discussedin what follows.

178

[dl "Houses" in performance

"public",
"indoors"
"private"
between
boundaries
the
the
blurring
and
and
The
of
by
highly
has
been
"house"
the
"community"
substantiated
empirically
and
"outdoors",
frequent
for
Koryfi;
Phournou
the
the
of
outdoor
space(s)
use
of
plan
ambiguous settlement
in
finally,
by
(collectively
the
tasks
rotation);
and/or
of
various
execution/performance
best
by
fixed
is
the
itself,
"private"
occurrence
of
exemplified
which
space
porosity of
for
have
been
designed
(likely
installations
to
collective use) in enclosed and
features/work
Whitelaw's
Such
to
to
counter
seem
run
highly
observations
accessible spaces/rooms.
yet
"households" by "storing" a surplus of activities/tasks within
define/identify
(i)
to
attempts
"autonomous
(ii)
"architectural
(i.
loci
them
to
portray
as
units")
and
e.
spatially segregated
is
be
"penetrated"
found
if
"private"
day,
to
At
the
and/or
the
space
of
end
entities".

"boundary"
in
speak
occasions/activities,
can
we
still
of
a
the
several
"surpassed"
courseof
from
"public",
"communal",
"collective"?
"house"
the
the
the
defines
the
separate
as
that
The possibility that we may be looking for a "boundary" whereno "boundary" is to
from
by
Phournou
Koryfi
best
be
the
to
found,
evidence
exemplified
related to
be
seems
food and drink consumption, a context of practice to which Whitelaw paid relatively little
he
directly
tasks/activities
that
to
the
of
other
considered
more
relevant
expense
at
attention
how "households" in this particular settlement would have defined themselves (Whitelaw
1979,1983). At the time of course (late 1970s-early 1980s), most studies on "social
"raw"
"cooked"
in
both
the
the
terms of analytical as
over
prioritizing
were
organization"
"storing",
The
"keeping-in"
significance.
very
act
of
of
was seen as the
sociopolitical
well as
defining element of a "household" both to the eyes of its members as well as to the eyes of
developments
in
In
the study of eating and drinking however
of
recent
the analyst. view
immense
detailed
investigation
have
the
that
the
analytical
potential
of
underscored
which
&
(Halstead
Barrett
2004)
[see
Section
9.3],
entails
a return to the
such practices
from
Myrtos
be
to
evidence
seems
a worthwhile pursuit.
corresponding

In Early Minoan ceramic assemblages,vessels associatedwith eating, drinking and

features
[see
Section
9.3]
prominent
are
andof this generaltrend, the ceramic
serving
g An investigationof eatinganddrinking benefitsimmenselyfrom the destructionhorizon of the site
large
to
a
opportunity
unique
as
already
stated
above,
study
a
provides
and precisely
which
of ceramicsandin this caseceramicsassociatedwith food and drink. Not
assemblage
synchronous
have
been
in
before
those
the settlementwas destroyed,but given the
vessels
shortly
use
would
only
relativelyshortuse-lifeof mostceramicvessels,nearlyall the preservedassemblage(with the
possibleexceptionof the largerstoragevessels)is likely to havebeenmanufacturedwithin a few
destruction
1997:
266).
(Whitelaw
This suggestionfords further support
the
moment
of
of
et
al.
years
in the low level of usewearfound on mostvessels(Whitelaw et al. 1997:266).

179

Koryfi forms no exception. Some useful results which seem to

Phournou
from
assemblage
drawn
from
have
been
the petrographic analysis
further
the
point
aforementioned
reinforce
1997); this project allowed
(Whitelaw
lib
Minoan
Early
et
al.
assemblage
of the settlement's
fabrics
the
then
ceramic
assemblage,
which
were
within
of
identification
a
variety
of
the
Comparison
from
these
derived
two
have
of
areas.
petrographic groups
source
main
to
taken
indicated
47%
fabrics
in
that
the
of
macroscopically,
vessels
with the observations made on
broadly
"constituted
destruction
the
of
south
coast
products
area
the
within
time
the
of
at
use
from
distinct
"consisted
49%
two
traditions
production
of
Myrtos
vessels
while
region",
the
lerapetra (on the southern edge of the Gulf of Mirabello,
Isthmus
from
the
of
originating
Koryfi) (Whitelaw et al. 1997: 267) [Plate 11.7]. Amongst
Phournou
from
20-25km
some
imported
high)
(surprisingly
ceramic wares, are reported significant
of
proportions
these
latter
1972:
94-7);
(Warren
the
Vassiliki
fine
earlier,
as
mentioned
ware9
numbers of
island
Crete
Early
Minoan
lib
throughout
the
the
typical
period
of
the
of
ware
constitutes
(Betancourt 1985) but also an integral material component of practices associated with (wine)
drinking at the time [see Section 9.3]. To these vessels, can be added an equally substantial
Coast"
"Mirabello"
"South
from
traditions,
the
the
of
and
some
which
examples
of
number
(i.
Vassiliki
to
types
functionally
cups,
ware
ceramic
e.
goblets,
plates,
compatible
are

(Whitelaw
On
basis
jugs
1997:
CIII)
[Plate
Pl.
11.8].
bowls,
deep
the
etc)
et
al.
shallowand
if
frequency
be
taken
it
that
the
as
a
whole,
of vessels
argued
relative
of the above could
high.
drinking
Myrtos
is
the
at
settlement
of
and
particularly
with eating
associated
An equally significant observation concerning eating and drinking vessels from
Phournou Koryfi was initially made by Tenwolde: in particular, what Tenwolde argues is
dominant
feature
drink
food
constitute
not
only
a
of the surviving ceramic
vessels
that
and
large
but
impression
from
the
the
site
also
give
of
some
sort
of
surplus,
since
assemblage
from
houses
(Tenwolde
the
these
are
reported
several
of
settlement
vessels
of
concentrations
1992: 18-9). We are inclined to use the term "surplus" here because essentially no other
from
be
towards
the
to
and/or
category
association
site
seems
pointing
artefactual
material,
intentional accumulation, if not literal "abundance". Such ceramic "hoards" have been
discovered in several rooms/areas (i. e. Room 68,57,60,72,79,92)

with the most

both
found
in
72-7)
being
(Warren
1972:
80
82
those
of which
rooms
and
representative
belong to Whitelaw's "South-central cluster" as well as Room 91 (Warren 1972: 84-5) which
is associatedwith the so-called "South-West" cluster [Plate 11.9]. It needsto be stressed at
9 "The fabric which is usedfor the majority of the Vassilild Ware found at PhournouKoryfi is very
fine andis derivedfrom Neogeneclay deposits.It is the samefabric as found in Vassiliki Ware at a
fabric
fine
the
though
the
of
sites
and
even
meansthat it is hard to place in
nature
other
of
number
inclusions
terms,
the
small
arecompatiblewith comparativegeologicalsamplesand fine
provenance
from
derive
Isthmus
(Whitelaw
lerapetra"
known
the
to
of
et al. 1997:268).
wars

180

has
the
settlement
provided us with no such evidence of
the
of
that
part
north
this point,
differential
due
is
largely
the
to
but
preservation across the site; not
this
"hoarding"
density
finds
both
in
had
the
the
this
on
of
recovered
effect
significant
most
a
of
surprisingly,
degree
but
individual
the
of
the
also
on
preservation
of
sector
north
vessels
areas/roomsof
(Whitelaw 1979). However, if one takes into consideration that the concentrations to which
houses
(rather
from
the
three
than
of
southern
sector
all
constituting the
reported
are
we refer
house),
it
fairly
then
to
that
the
seems
plausible
argue
of
a
single
situation
privilege
exclusive
be
inferred
for
in
in
the
the
the
also
clusters
may
ones
southern
north,
encounter
we
latter
is
in
fact
less
ideal.
the
that
the
the
case
preservation
poor
and
evidence
of
regardless

Another interestingpatternwith respectto theseceramicconcentrationsis the fact

that the latter comprise mainly of serving vessels [Plate 11.10]. The observation that jugs in
form
Phoumou
Koryfi
has
been
the
most
well-represented
vessel
at
constitute
particular,
1997:
(Whitelaw
271)
[Plate
11.11].
If
in
the
et
al.
past
we combine this
pointed out
for
foregoing
"hoarding",
it
then
the
suggestion
appears that the place of
with
observation
"hoards"
further
Even
if
those
requires
consideration1.
within
we accept
vessels
serving
Whitelaw's suggestionthat "households" at Myrtos (consisting of four to six individuals) are
"self-sufficient" units, how are we to understand such unusual concentrations of ceramic
how
for
Even
kind
to
the
to
this
point,
are
we
account
more
particular
of surplus,
vessels?
"surplus"
is
a
of serving vessels?
which predominantly

If the evidenceavailablepointedto an accumulationof vesselsdesignedmainly for

drinking
bowls)
(i.
(i.
or
e. cups) this would have been a pattern easier to
plates,
eating e.
"normal"
items
the
to
sustain
need
a
surplus
of
such
could have constituted
explain/justify:
buffering
for
have
been
those
strategy
of
risk
would
sort
vessels used on a regular basis,
some
thus subjecting themselvesto a higher risk of breakage; a "normal surplus" could also be
hygiene
issues
to
of
since the need to replace frequently used items (on regular
related
intervals?) cannot be ruled out. Could a similar casebe made with regard to serving vessels
however?

By way of contrastto eatingand drinking vessels,servingvesselsat Myrtos should

items
be
as
of regular/routineuse.Although somejugs would havebeencertainly
not viewed
(as
more
regularly
water containersfor instance),the striking majority involves
employed
high
to
small-size,
quality vessels(as for instance,Vassiliki ware). This makesmore
medium
10Tenwolde points out that in two of the most well-preserved clusters the
of
southern sector, i. e. the
"South-Central" and the "South-West" cluster(s), twenty to thirty (fully preserved) serving
vessels
have been discovered (Tenwolde 1992: 18-19).

181

[see
Section
liquids
items
than
possibly
other
water,
wine
these
with
likely the association of
beverage
been
have
that
to
was consumed only
an
alcoholic
however,
Wine
seems
9.3].
under

basis
(Sherratt
1997:
388-9).
This
than
regular
on
a
exceptional circumstances rather

for
in
cannot
speak
of
the
we
a
need
a
vessels
first
that
serving
of
case
implies
of all,
Secondly,
if
for
drinking
for
did
(as
allow
even
we
vessels).
and
eating
we
"normal surplus"
it
is
difficult
to
regularly,
very
explain
more
why
that
consumed
was
wine
the possibility
have
been
to
the
necessary
meet
requirements
would
vessels
large
serving
of
quantities
such
for the purposes of a daily meal involving four to six individuals, a
"household":
of a single
Thirdly,
been
have
that
)
table
required.
we should even
the
all
was
would
jug (or two? on
daily/informal
for
the
that
serving
use
of
vessels
purposes,
was
not
the
possibility
entertain
in
the
course
(socially
of
such
meals
even
nowadays,
necessary:
practically)
and/or
even
full,
in
have
brought
be
they
table
to
the
other
after
already
words,
drinking vessels may

kinds
beverage.
filled
other
of
and/or
been
with water,wine
If we assumethat only a limited number of serving vessels would have been used on
found
in
have
been
large
"house"
Myrtos,
the
basis
then
numbers
each
may
at
a regular
high
The
for
occasions.
quality of those vessels seemsto
designated
special/exceptional
further reinforce such a scenario; that they are (more often than not) found concentrated in
hand
(Warren
be
1972:
"house"
72-7,84-5)
the
locations
the
on
other
may
of
certain
is
fact
however,
If
indeed
in
then
the
this
they
that
simultaneously.
case
used
were
suggesting
do
is
"hoards"
index
to
those
encourage
us
view
of
the
as
another
also
yet
above points
what
"house porosity"; this suggestion may be made on the grounds that the former were most
likely to have been used in occasions involving members as well as non-members of the
"house", occasionsin other words, requiring the "breaking down" of the "house" boundary.

In supportof the ideaof "porosity" comesyet anotherobservationmadeby Sanders.

What Sandershas suggestedthrough his study of the "South-Central Cluster", i. e. the only
fully preserved"unit" at Phournou Koryfi, is that circulation in most of its rooms is restricted
by the amount of spacethat large storage vessels such as amphorae, pithoi and jars occupy
(Sanders1990: 54-7). Large vesselswere used throughout the "house", but cluster especially
in rooms 80 and 82 (Sanders 1990: 57). Room 80 in particular is the central but also the
largest room of the "unit". At its centre lies a II-shaped stone structure which may have been
(Sanders
Although
in
1990:
54).
for
have
80
terms
support
of
roof
size,
room
could
used
focal
locus
"house"
(and
the
the
of
point/area
perhaps
a
of reception of nonacted as
"household" members), this possibility is eliminated by the aforementioned n-shaped
divides
(which
the room into four small parts of roughly equal size) but also by the
structure
placementof several storage vessels at the south and west sides of the room (Sanders 1990:

182

is
by
far
fact
largest
despite
In
that
this
the
the
11.121.
[Plate
5.3)
area of the
Fig.
sum,
54,
do
large-scale
to
features
its
not
seem
allow/encourage
arrangement
"house",
and general
"house"
the
the
involving
than
(i.
residents
of
actual
and
perhaps a
people
more
e.
gatherings
"guests").
limited
of
number
very

fl-shapedstonestructuressuchasthe one identified in room 80 are also reported

"clusters"
Myrtos:
belonging
the
to
of
settlement
at
room 60 (i. e.
other
from rooms/areas
Cluster")
(i.
"Central
69
Cluster"),
and possibly room 92 (i. e. "Southe.
"South-East
room
West Cluster"). With the exception of room 69 and the "Central Cluster" in general (which
final
destruction
(Whitelaw
time
the
the
the
been
of
of
settlement)
had
at
of
use
out
already
1979: Fig. 6, Whitelaw 1983: 332, Fig. 69), in both remaining cases,the room where the
has been found appears to be the largest of the
type
structure
stone
of
aforementioned
basis of the extant evidence however, what seemsto be
On
"house".
the
corresponding
in
"South-Central
80
Cluster",
in
is
the
the
that
the
case
of
of
as
room
so
noteworthy
equally
largest
92,
60
the
types
of
concentrations
of
storage
some
and
other
of
and
rooms
of
case
identified
(Warren
1972:
54,
Fig,
Warren
been
21,
1972:
82,
Fig.
have
28).
ceramic vessels
The general impression gained from the above observations is that although there are some
in
"house"
large
Phournou
Koryfi,
fairly
be
to
to
each
size
at
none
seems
able
of
rooms/areas
"invite-in", i. e. to accommodate large numbers of people.

If it is indeedthe casethat servingvesselswere usedfor the purposesof "suprahousehold" events,then the foregoing suggestion that "mouses" could not have constituted
be
locus
to
seems
pointing that the latter were most likely to have taken
the
of such events
(i.
food
have
Although
taken place within the
meals
e.
consumption)
could
place outdoors.
(involving
"household"
"houses"
from
the
the
time to
members
of
of
and
perhaps
confines
"guests"P'outsiders"),
limited
number of
what the quantities of serving vessels seem
time, a
to imply is that drink (wine) consumption was about sharing beyond the level of the
"household" [see Section 9.31. Such an hypothesis finds further empirical support in the
following:

[a] First of all, wine sharingat a "community-level" echoesearliertraditions/socialstrategies

(i.e. earlythird millennium BC) with the latter beingbest exemplifiedby the dominant
drinking shapeof the period in question,i.e. the chalice (Haggis 1997;Wilson & Day 2000).
As Day andWilson haverecentlyargued:
"Standingto a height of over 20cm,the chalice... is clearly not intendedfor the
useof an individual; rather it invites to think of the sharingof drink betweena
numberof people.The context of the Early Minoan I Well at Knossos,where

183

large numbers of such vessels were recovered from what seems to represent a
in
location,
the
same
events
of
similar
might
succession
or
a
single occasion,
indicate just how important such an act of sharing might be, with the vessel
55).
&
Wilson
2004:
(Day
hand"
hand
from
to
passed

funerary
BC
(i.
third
contexts
millennium
early
e. contexts of
of
Chalices are a popular shape
[see
Section
10.2]
themselves)
as
well
as
contexts
of
special
character
communal/collective
Knossos,
feature)
Well
[see
I
Minoan
Early
(such
obviously
an
outdoor
the
at
as
nature
Section 3.4, Section 9.3].

[b] Secondly, "community-level" wine sharing at Phournou Koyrfi exhibits a considerable

degreeof compatibility with the evidence deriving from late third millennium BC tombs and
in
Section
[see
9.3],
have
the
earlier
sections
reported
conduct of
already
as
we
cemeteries;
(i. e. community-level
involving
acts
of
commensality
ceremonies
commemorative
has
been
drink)
by
large
food
the
confirmed
empirically
particularly
and
consumption of
funerary
from
(i.
"house-tombs"
tholoi)
several
contexts
e.
and
recovered
cups
of
number
island.
the
around
Both aforementioned examples do indeed confirm the existence/operation of a far
broader tradition of (wine) sharing, spanning both in space (i. e. settlements as well as
(i.
from
late
BC);
in
to
time
third
this
e.
early
millennium
as
of
wider
well
as
cemeteries)
body
from
Koryfi
information
Phournou
the
also
partakes
as
extant
of empirical
tradition,
the site indicates. What needsto be stressedhere however is that the situation we encounter
from
different
foregoing
for
is
important
the
Myrtos
examples
very
also
one
reason:
very
at
is
in
cases
exemplified (both at a practical as well as symbolic
the act of sharing all other
level) by factors related to the drinking vessel itself, the chalice on the one hand, invites (if
(i.
"different
drink
from
the same
use/consumption
e.
communal
people
necessitates)
not
drinking
from
funerary
the
concentrations
of
cups
reported
contexts also
whereas
vessel")
(i.
"individual
drinking
but
fact
highly
the
to
that
they
e.
cups
are
collective
used
are
point
found
in
in
form
large
implies
that many people
and
quantities/concentrations
standardized
As
have
demonstrated
however,
Phournou
Koryfi
together")".
the
we
at
share/drink
"concentrations" identified concern predominantly serving vessels. If we argue in favour of a
tradition of sharing as far as this particular settlement is concerned, then how does the
"surplus" of serving vessels (if not the very act of serving itsef) relate to this scheme?

" Whatis alsonoteworthywith regardto the drinking cupsfound in late third millennium
is that they exhibit clear signsof standardizationin both shapeand size (Hamilakis
tombs/cemeteries
1998).

184

So far, we have put forward the argument that (the "surplus" of )serving vessels
have
been
designated
for
in
is
likely
Myrtos
to
house
in
use
special
found each
at
if
is
took
that
outdoors;
such
an
explanatory
place
scenario
parties
occasions/drinking
is
in
(if
implies
that
those
this
the
events
resulted
not
then
necessitated)
also
what
accepted,
from
"storage"
locus
locus
"consumption"
the
the
of
wine
of wine
spatial separation of
house
it)12.
This
being
inside
the
latter
consumed
and
outside
(since the
stored
of
spatial
was
if
in
importance
is
considered
conjunction
crucial
with serving vessels.
of
point
a
separation
To begin with, the very use of such a vessel (i. e. a medium for carrying a substance from one
locus to the other) marks an intermediate stage in this "functional shift" which seeks to
loci
"storage"
"consumption"
but
distance
the
the
of
and
separating
also their
emphasize
(with
directly
filling
from
(essentially
Instead
bridging.
a
cup
wine)
ajar
or
pithos
of
an
very
functional)
boundary
between
(spatial
"storage"
blur
the
and
that
and
would
act
"consumption"), the serving vessel imbues the transition from the "raw" to the "cooked"
it
depth:
"bracketing
functions/loci
to
the
the
two
contributes
off'
of
with spatio-temporal
(i. e.form-alisation) but also their "coming together" in "disciplined" fashion (i. e.
formalization) [Fig. 11.1]:

[Storage] <- Serving -> [Consumption]

[Storage-> Serving -> Consumption]

Fig. 11.1"Serving' asa mechanismfor "bracketingoff' and"bringing together"
"storage"and"consumption"

Interestingly,this final point is highly reminiscentof Turner's famousdefinition of a

"ritual act" (Turner 1967); according to Turner, a "ritual field" is created in practices which
describea movementand/or transformation (i. e. serving) between "relatively fixed or stable
(i.
(Turner
1967: 93). In this field, the boundary
and
consumption)
e.
storage
conditions"
between seemingly autonomous states or conditions is transgressed, with "transgression"
being expressedmaterially (i. e. though the use of objects) and physically (i. e. through bodily
(see
Gennep
1960).
gestures)
and
also
van
movement

The foregoingobservations/suggestions
are of particular importanceas far as
PhournouKoryfi is concerned,for what hasbeenso far describedas a communityin which
12Storagevesselshave been identified in exterior spacesof the site Phournou Koyfi but
at
those do
be
in
to
close proximity to the areas likely to have been designated for community
seem
not
gatherings (i. e. the paved area to the south of the settlement as well as the open space at the centre of
the site) [see Section 11.11

185

is
highly
"public"
"private"
the
to
between
ambiguous,
the
appears
and
present
boundary
the
in the course of large-scale events such as the ones described
image
different
an entirely
distinction
between
inside (i. e. "house")
during
those
clear
Essentially
a
occasions,
above.
is
but
be
this
through
"community")
to
the
(i.
not
achieved
manifested,
seems
and outside e.
from
but
literally
boundary
fixed
the
the
through
very
performance
of
shift
establishment of a
The
"(public)
serving vessel acted as the medium
to
consumption".
"(private) storage"
for
"house"
by
brought
being
the
this
consumption,
and
extension
out
of
whereby wine was
by
to
the serving subject, where wine
cup
a
time
poured
was
wine
implies that every
more
being
from
reiterated.
was
was coming

As we mentionedearlier,to speakof servingis literally aboutpreventing the

blurring of the boundarybetween"storage" and "consumption"and what this suggestsat
in
is
level,
the collective event of wine
the
basic
that
participating
people
the most
had
immediate
have
to
the
the
access
area
where
substancewas
not
would
consumption
did
"help
Therefore,
brought/served
to
them,
they
themselves").
(i.
not
stored e. wine was
being shared,there appearsto have
drinking
really
about
were
wine
parties
though
even
to
the
concern
regulate
conditions
under which wine was
significant
equally
an
existed
(i.
inside)
into
"consumed"
"stored"
(i.
from
substance
e.
a
substance
e. outside).
a
transformed
Sinceboth wine andservingvesselswere storedwithin different "houses",it seemsfairly
in
have
been
the
the
that
the
thus
to
regulator
aforementioned
process
must
argue
plausible
"houseentity". That a "regulatory" role could be attributedto the "house" may also be
in
fact
by
that
those
the
chargeof servingwere ultimately the very samepeople
supported
for
(i.
the
available
consumption
e. the peoplewho could initiate the
who made substance
in
otherwords).
consumption
eventof
How those events would have been organized, we are not in a position to specify
different
(i.
the
organization
rested
upon
perhaps
principle
of
rotation
e.
with
precision:
with
"houses" organizing the event at different times) or some form of cooperation (i. e. with
joining
"house"
Whichever
to
the
than
efforts
carry
out
enterprise).
one
of the two
more
(and
in
fact,
if
even
accept
we leave room for both in our interpretation), what
scenariawe
is
"houses"
involved
in
them
that
the organization
of
convergence
amongst
a
point
remains
"surplus"
in
bring
for
to
the
those
used
a
of
events,
serving
order
vessels
wine
out
of
in
itself
This
intention
that
the
observation
suggests
was not merely to
consumption.
"ritualize" the transformation of a "stored" substanceinto an item of "consumption" (and
thus to elevate the importance of the serving subject as a mediator/regulator) but also (and
importantly)
to provide wine in abundant quantities. In a way therefore, the
perhapsmore
"surplus" of serving vessels constituted an indicium as well as the very medium of excessive

186

fact
Phournou
Koryfi,
is
in
the
that
the
this
at
overall
Equally
respect
noteworthy
generosity.
is
houses
If
different
from
generally
very
small.
we
accept
drinking
reported
cups
of
quantity
from
"bias"
the
the
"real"
conditions
under
which
resulting
a
not
and
this pattern as
destruction,
that
the
during
then
argue
obvious
could
also
we
abandoned
was
settlement
(i.
(wine)
drinking
total
between
total
of
the
e.
number
vessels
of
number
attested
asymmetry
being
(i.
to
the
served)
of
appears
amount
wine
e.
that
vessels
of serving
consumers)and
Finally, a morphological/stylistic attribute of serving
idea
further
the
excess.
of
support even
foregoing
further
be
the
the
premise:
even
dating
reinforcing
to
this
may
period
vessels
jugs
but
(i.
between
those
the
"disproportion"
size
of
vessels
e.
most
overall
attested
apparent
(even
to
on
"teapots")
their
accentuate
spouts,
seems
pronounced
very
and
emphatically
in
it
the
a
appears
way,
act
of
pouring/serving:
very
grounds)
morphological/stylistic
purely
it
(i.
that
the
the
act
of
offering
very
e.
was
the
wine),
of
vessel
than
content
actual
that rather
it
in
that gave events of
for
(and
that
quantities)
abundant
offering
matter
substance
2001).
Koryfi
(Catapoti
Phournou
their
(wine)
meaning
very
at
consumption
communal

In view of our discussionso far, it couldbe arguedthat while the "settlement"

is
far
life
in
Myrtos
"front
the
concerned
settlement
at
as
region"
as
a
to
constitute
appears
"entity"
"house"
124),
to
through performance
1984:
the
seems
emerge
as
an
(Giddens
(Jenkins 1996: 4), and more to the point, its performance in the course of a highly popular
"communal" event, i. e. "large-scale" (i. e. supra-household) occasions involving drink (wine)
draws a (spatio-temporal)
is
This
the
through
serving
act
of
which
achieved
consumption.
"boundary" between "storage" and "consumption", emphasizesthe transition from one
"function" to other and in so doing, awards a special role to the "mediator/regulator" of this
"transition" (i. e. the "house"). That this shift entails the use of a "surplus" of serving vessels
"house
in
implies
hand,
the
that
the
of
a
crucial
aspect
entity"
course of such
the
other
on
In
"generosity"
is
the
more
specifically,
performance
and
of
excessive
generosity.
occasions
in
does
"house"
be
that
it
the
events,
not establish an
all
aforementioned
argued
sum, could
identity by "closing off' but literally by "coming out"; in other words, it is precisely under
for
"house"
Phournou
Koryfi
becomes
"entity
"porosity"
itself'
the
that
an
at
of
conditions
(Cohen 1985: 13; Jenkins 1996: 88).

Althoughthe currentstateof evidencederiving from settlementscontemporaryto

Myrtos doesnot permit fine-grained investigation, it appears nevertheless that similar
described
have
in
likely
(i.
to
the
those
to
above
operated
also
ones
are
cases
e.
patterns
Knossos,Vassiliki) (Cultraro 2001: Fig. 10; Day & Wilson 2004; Zois 1976). As we

for
large
in
[see
Section
9.3],
evidence
earlier
sections
concentrationsof ceramic
mentioned
food
(essentially
drink
including
and
with
consumption
associated
vessels
servingvessels)

187

Knossos,
in
least
the
there
from
case
of
are grounds to
been
at
and
have
sites
many
reported
drink)
food
(and
involving
taking
consumption
were
particularly
place
that
occasions
suggest
information
lack
fact
despite
hand,
On
that
the
contextual
concerning
the
we
other
outdoors.
(the quality, quantity and general nature of) domestic paraphernalia for eating and drinking,
it appearsthat serving vessels do constitute a prominent feature of those sites, as evidenced
House"
"Red
House"
from
"West
the
the
and
at Vassiliki (Seager
by the ceramic assemblage
1904: 207-9,1906: 116; Zois 1976: 20,52). If it is indeed the case that the situation we
it
is
Koryfi
then
in
Phournou
described
would seem that
really about a more general pattern,
identity
identity
"fixed"
"houses"
in
time
as
an
much
a
were not so
when
this was a period
be
follows
In
to
that
the
in
appears
pattern
a
through
similar
period
performance.
arising and
fashion.
"explicit"
in
itself
it
to
time
this
more
seems manifest
at work, only

111.21From "becoming" to "being"

Settlementevidencefrom the Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan la period(s)is quite

limited (Watrous 1994,2001; Zois 1998a-f). Along with problems of chronology and the
(Andreou
1978:
9-11;
controversy surrounding current ceramic and stratigraphic sequences
Betancourt 1985; Cadogan 1983: 517; Fotou 1984: 46-48; Momigliano 1991: 219; Walberg
1983: 90-137; Warren & Hankey 1989: 169; Watrous 1994: 181-2; Zois 1968), all
investigations of settlements and the domestic sector have so far relied upon preliminary
information
and
partial
reports
on Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan la
excavation
deposits/structuresmentioned in publications of later periods. Despite these apparent
difficulties, the suggestions/observationsthat follow seem to be pointing towards some
interesting patterns. It needshowever to be stressedhere that a more thorough assessmentof
the explanatory potential of these patterns will be rendered possible only if/when a
substantialamount of empirical data becomes available and/or published.

Becauseof the foregoinganalytical limitations, the choicehasbeenmadeto focus

our attentionon siteswith architecturalevidence.This choiceis by no meanstrivial: as
Barrettoncecommented,the immediatepoint of referencefor a person'sunderstandingof
the world on which they act is his/herown body (Barrett 1994: 13-14).The movementand
in
the
of
self
relationto othersis "the meansof understandingone's placewithin
orientation
a discourseandof gaugingone's ability to act andto speak"(Barrett 1994: 14).This is a
point of crucialsignificancebecause,essentially,all referencesmadeto position and to
orientationareenhancedby one's immediatetopography,particularly architecture;buildings
encloseandchannelthe direction of movement,they distribute social relations,they
create

188

is
To
therefore,
discourse
architecture
study
essentially a means
of social practice.
the very
for grasping how certain actions and utterances were made possible.

Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan la period architectural remainsare reportedfrom

1978:
12-55;
Evans
Cadogan
Knossos
(Andreou
1935;
following
et al.
the
settlements/sites:
Pendlebury
2005;
McEnroe
1979:
23;
& Pendlebury
McDonald
55-57;
1984:
Fotou
1993;
Fotou
1980:
30-41,266-7;
1984: 67-72; McEnroe 1979: 11(vanEffenterre
Malia
1928-30),
43; Mller 1992), Vasiliki (Seager 1907; Zois 1976,1980), Myrtos-Pyrgos (Cadogan
1977/8), Mochlos (Seager 1908: 278; Soles & Davaras 1993), Chamaizi (Davaras 1972,
1973; McEnroe 1979: 29-31; Platon 1951; Xanthoudides 1906), Aghia Photia (Tsipopoulou
13,
1988,1990,1992) Trypeti (Vasilakis 1988,1989,1989/90a, 1989/90b1995), Patrikies
(Bonacasa 1967/8), Kastri (Palaikastro) (Alexiou 1979: 12; Sackett & Popham 1965),
Kastello (Tzermiado) (Pendlebury & Moneycoutts 1937-8: 6-8, fig. 1), Boubouli (Viannos)
(Platon 1960a), Volakas (Koumasa) (Platon 1951: 145-7; Xanthoudides 1924: 49,70) and
Vigla (Apesokari) (Schrgendorfer 1951).

Basedon the extantevidence,we havearguedin earlier sectionsthat during this

island
the
throughout
exhibit signsof practical and symbolic
period,settlements
fashion
in
[see
Sections
9.3,11.1];
to
the
the time and
similar
preceding
phase
concretization
in
(i.
Kouphota-Aghia
invested
Photia,
Kastri,
the
construction
of
e.
wall
enclosures
effort
Kastello, Boubouli etc) and the elaboration of public space(s) (i. e. Kouphota-Aghia Photia,
Myrtos-Pyrgos, Trypeti etc), the tendency to associate funerary and domestic space (both
(i.
Myrtos-Pyrgos,
Mochlos
increasing
the
morphologically)
e.
and
etc)
spatially
emphasis
laid upon food and (particularly) drink consumption (i. e. Patrikies, Mochlos, Vassiliki,
Trypeti etc) and possibly a change of attitude towards land and the agricultural cycle [see
Section 9.3] are amongst the most obvious manifestations of settlements as marked and
delimited spaces (Parker Pearson& Richards 1994: 4). It is noteworthy in that respect, that
some of the problems pertinent to the issue of chronology (i. e. the existence or not of an
Early Minoan III phase,the criteria upon which to distinguish ceramic phases within the
Middle Minoan I chronological horizon in East Crete) derive from the complex longevity of
domestic contexts from this period onwards, indicated by the undisturbed habitation of the
samehouses/structuresand/or the continuous renewal of their floors (Andreou 1978)

13Therehasbeena debateover the dateof this site in recent

years,with certainscholarsarguingin
favourof a later date(i.e. Middle Minoan lb, if not later), whereasothersmaintainthe date
originally
proposedby the excavator.Sincetherehavebeenno conclusivesuggestionsso far, herewe acceptthe
dateinitially proposedby Tsipopoulou.

189

[a] Earlier traditions, new additions

in
trends
witnessed settlementsof varying scale
Along with the aforementioned
level
both
be
the
taking
to
at
of
place
island,
appear
changes
significant
the
some
around
"private"/"residential"
formal
space
"style"
of
arrangement
as
as
well
architectural
how
be
these changes manifest
In
12).
to
to
1979:
appreciate
able
order
(McEnroe
III/Middle
Early
Minoan
first
focus
of all, upon certain
attention
themselves, we need to
bring
first
to
the
domestic
mind
glance,
Ia
at
which,
architecture
Minoan
examples of
MyrtosII
Early
Minoan
in
the
of
settlements
traditions
attested
building/architectural
Maisons
These
Section
11.11.
Section
9.3,
[see
the
Vasiliki
Koryfi
are
Phournou
as well as
1980)
VanEffenterre
&
1962;
Demargne
(Chapouthier
C)
A,
B
and
Sud (Maisons
and
Santerre
1953)
de
&
Gallet
Demargne
1962;
&
Demargne
(Chapouthier
at
Gamma
Quartier
(Vasilakis
1988,
Crete
South-Central
Trypeti,
houses
the
the
at
settlement
Malia as well as
of
domestic
II
in
Early
Minoan
Here,
the
examples, the corresponding
as
1989,1989/90,1995).
distinguish
it
is
difficult
to
that
we
are
certainty
whether
with
obvious
make
ground-plans
dealing with separatemulti-roomed houses or an aggregation of rooms forming a single

1979: 18).
McEnroe
157;
1980:
Effenterre
(van
whole
The excavatorsof the MaisonsSudseemto be inclined to the view that we are
dealingwith individual housesand divide the roomsinto A, B and C (Chapouthier&
Demargne1962: 13-17;van Effenterre:156-62,Figs. 223) [Plate 11.13].The plan of the
A)
between
(Maison
fact,
division
is
in
the
the
there
that
rooms
and
west
a
major
areashows
between
B)
(Maison
thick
them
the
are
particularly
walls
since
north-south
rooms
central
&
Effenterre
1980:
(Chapouthier
Demargne
1962:
14;
by
van
channel
a
narrow
and separated
157). However, what needsto be pointed out is that the distinction between the central rooms
is
(van
(Maison
C)
Effenterre
Thick
1980:
157).
the
straightforward
not
so
rooms
east
and
do
division
between
indicate
between
the
not
and
central
rooms
necessarily
west
a
walls
individual houses, since similar double walls occur at various places within the complex;
built
implies
but
that
the
the
time,
this
all
of
rooms
were
at
not
same
rather
essentially
(McEnroe
20):
1979:
gradually
accumulated
"These constructions pes Maison Sud] seem architecturally to comprise three
distinct units of houses, but in their small rooms and passagesand in the closeknit structure of the whole complex clearly both continue the cellular form of
Myrtos... " (Warren 1987: 49).

Similar observationscanbe madewith regardto the housesat the settlementof

Trypeti.Although Vasilakis arguesthat doublewalls form one of the main criteria on the

190

houses
there
the
distinguishes
are examples particularly
he
settlement,
within
basis of which
far
a
more complicated picture
in the area south of the north-south main road which present
it
dealing
in
that
In
the
72).
appears
examples,
we
are
1995:
those
earlier
cases,as
(Vasilakis
design;
built
they
to
although
a
preconceived
are
according
not
structures
with architectural
be
fall
into
Koryfi,
Phournou
to
the
they
still
considered
than
can
certainly more canonical
1979).
(McEnroe
"aggregate
complexes"
category of
At Malia there are other examples of this type of complex, but one needs to be very
later
date
(Middle
Minoan
]b
be
they
that
of
a
slightly
may
careful, as the possibility exists
it
is
Even
however,
107).
Schoep
2002b:
1987;
(Poursat
II)
Minoan
significant
so
Middle
or
Gamma
Quartier
In
discussed
to
these
cases.
above apply also
that some of the points
Pl.
LXII),
de
Santerre
1953:
23-29,
&
Gallet
14;
Demargne
1962:
&
Demargne
(Chapouthier
dealing
the
an
the
once
again
with
in
are
of
palace,
we
south
rooms
the
of
case
as
building
Rooms
1,2
3
from
the
of
and
at
east
end
phases.
several
resulting
mass
architectural
in
the
the
to
those
complex
south
of
palace
similar
unit
a
residential
represent
the area may
(Demargne & Gallet de Santerre 1953: 28-9, Pl. XII2). Rooms 12-15 at the west end of the
later
10
11
being
(McEnroe
1979:
and
additions
with
rooms
unit,
a
similar
area may represent
is
Sud.
While
Maisons
to
that
the
this
The
also
similar
of
complex
of
22).
arrangement
have
been
laid
their
three
two
as
a
might
unit,
with
rooms
walls either parallel
or
of
groups
the
to
the
that
clearly
added
complex
were
one-by-one
so
rooms
other
angles,
or at right
(van
is
Quartier
Theta
the
that
the
of
aggregate
complex.
area
resultant organization of
14
1976)
Effenterre
&
Effenterre van
may also be taken to belong to this category (McEnroe
1979: 24), but it is particularly difficult to deal with it in detail, since excavations have not
far
house
the
structures
so
plan
and
uncovered represent several
complete
revealed any
latter
fact
irregularity
The
the
the
that
the
complex
along
resulted
of
with
overall
periods.
from the gradual accumulation of rooms suggest a comparison (at least at a morphological
level), with the Maisons Sud and Quartier Gamma (McEnroe 1979: 24).
In a subsequentstudy by McEnroe the possibility of distinguishing different houses
is considered once again, albeit from a different angle (McEnroel979: 19-20). McEnroe
from
lack
detailed
despite
the
those architectural complexes, an
that
of
evidence
claims
important feature that differentiates them from Early Minoan II sites is that many of the
hearths
been
in
into
fixed
have
floors:
hearths
have
their
reported
particular,
sunk
rooms
from rooms 1,3,4 and 5 in Maison A (Maisons Sud), rooms 1 and 5 in Maison B (Maisons
Sud), Room 1 in Maison C (Maison Sud) (Chapouthier & Demargne 1962: 14; McEnroe
'a Poursathas suggesteda later date for construction for this complex as well (beginning
of Middle
Minoan lb) (Poursat 1987).

191

in
Quartier
1
Gamma
Room
(Demargne
&
162)
1980:
Effenterre
21;
as
as
well
1979:
van
Gallet de Santerre 1953: 28-9, Pl. X112).

It is noteworthythat a further examplehasbeenfound in the areaof the funerary

38.1,39.1;
30-1,
Pls.
Metaxa-Muhly
(Demargne
1945:
1984:
114).
Chrysolakkos
structure at
have
belonged
likely
is
levels
f
below
in
Area
found
to
to
hearth
most
earlier
The
which
was
defining
The
1984:
114).
(Metaxa-Muhly
building
the north and east sides
funerary
walls
the
have the deepestfoundations of all those located in the area of the funerary enclosure and
form part of a complex of regularly arranged compartments (Demargne 1945: 40-42, Pls.
38.2,54-56, Pls. 57.3,58.2). Two more circular hearths have been found in compartments f
(Metaxa-Muhly
1984:
levels
in
to
the
the
h
the
east
of
enclosure
exposed
wall
earlier
and
114). As Metaxa-Muhly has pointed out, it is particularly interesting that not only the hearths,
but also other features of these structures find parallels in domestic architecture's (MetaxaMuhly 1984: 114). In view of the above, the possibility may be undertaken that the type of
hearth identified in the Maisons Sud, Quartier Gamma and Chrysolakkos would have been a
defining element, a characteristic of residential complexes which otherwise followed earlier
traditions (McEnroe 1979: 23). Equally noteworthy in that respect is that the very same type
in
A
found
House
Knossos,
been
directly
below
has
lb
Middle
Minoan
hearth
the
at
of
koulouras, at the West Court of the "palace" (Evans 1921: 320-2, Fig. 234, van Effenterre
1980: 162; Metaxa-Muhly 1984: 109; Pendlebury & Pendlebury 1929-30: 55-6, Fig. 2, Pl.
11.1). Also at Trypeti, Vasilakis has repeatedly reported that houses often possessa large
hearth
floor
(Vasilakis
1988,1989,1989/90,1995).
the
a
shallow
on
with
room
rectangular

It is importantto mentionherethat fixed hearthswere commonthroughoutthe

Aegean at the time (Demargne 1932: 60-88; Metaxa-Muhly 1984: 107). In Crete, they were
fixtures constructed of clay or stucco in disk-shape with a cavity in the centre (MetaxaMuhly 1984: 109) while occasionally a slightly raised border defined their perimeter more
&
Gallet
de Santerre 1953: 29). It is noteworthy that most of the rooms
(Demargne
clearly
with hearths were connected with two other rooms, one parallel to the room with the hearth
and the other serving as some sort of vestibule. Almost all of the other rooms in those
lacked
have
been
they
openings;
could
entered from the roof or a second storey
structures
for
(McEnroe
1979: 21).
used
probably
storage
were
and

'S Such features include the sectional wall in a, the benches lining several
compartments, the plastered
bin in areah (Metaxa-Muhly 1984: 114). The excavators themselves noted the orderly plan and
careful execution of these walls which correspond to the characteristics of rooms in the interior of the
enclosurewall just mentioned (Metaxa-Muhly 1984: 114-5). It is therefore probable that all these
remains belong to one complex of houseswhich extended below and beyond the enclosure (MetaxaMuhly 1984: 115).

192

A fixed hearth representsthe permanent allocation of a certain amount of space for a

be
"rich
be
(Urry
feature
to
This
time,,
107).
1984:
considered
with
may
fire (Metaxa-Muhly
(i.
heating,
for
be
it
e.
cooking,
of
purposes
a variety
used
2000) in the sensethat may
1984:
119;
Giddens
Effenterrre
1980:
1932;
(Demargne
hours)
in
van
lighting
night
artificial
focal
"house"
have
"hearths"
the
that
acted
as
points
within
could
162). It appearstherefore
houses
into
focal
have
the
themselves
to
doing,
render
they
managed
in
also
would
so
and
in
loci
That
"temporally"
hence
they tend to
"functionally"
other
enriched
words.
into
points,
important
in
is
house
that
larger
respect.
the
also
very
of
a
room(s)
be associatedwith
in
"house"
is
"hearth"
the
the
indicative
that
the
the
highly
plays
way
role
of
Moreover,
"focus"
"hearth"
in
fact
Latin,
is
the
the
that
are
and
word
experienced
and
conceived
in
house
fixed
the
Finally,
the
a
point/feature
directly related.
very concern over elaborating
"repetition",
the
"return",
over
regularizing
hints
a
concern
essentially
to
over
a concern
also
be
laid
feature
(Rapoport
1990).
That
that
an
emphasis
may
tasks/activities associatedwith
back
be
linked
in)
to the etymology
(or
the
also
"return"
of
coming
may
act
very
rather
upon
for
both
"hearth"
"home"
Greek:
in
the
term
"hearth"
stands
and
whereas
ea'rfa
the
word
of
being "without a hearth and home, homeless, savage" (Galanidou
literally
is
about
aveanoc
1997: 137).

In view of the above evidence it could be suggestedthat those sites which seem to
traditions
the
of
the
preceding phase(s), exhibit nevertheless
architectural/building
continue
is
is
those
that
the
transformation:
obvious
of
most
more emphasis now
some clear signs of
being laid upon "interior space" and this seemsto be best exemplified by the construction of
i. e. the hearth, in the central and/or some of
"functionally/temporally
fixed,
element,
rich"
a
be
Early
house.
It
to
the
this
larger
the
that
mentioned
needs
at
point
although
the
areasof
Minoan II settlement record is admittedly quite limited, it appears nevertheless that hearths
did not constitute a common and/or prominent feature of interior spacesduring that period
(Metaxa-Muhly 1984). For instance, at Phournou Koryfi one "hearth" (Room 89) and two
"cooking holes" (i. e. rooms 57,88) are identified by Whitelaw (Whitelaw 1983: Fig. 64), but
in
in
to
found
three
seems
access
size;
moreover
cases,
of
relatively
small
all
rooms
are
all
have been possible only from the roof (Warren 1972: 51,80-1). The only remaining example
from the site is the "oven" in Room 20 (Warren 1972: 34-5, Fig. 20); this is indeed a fixed
feature, but in contrast to the two "cooking holes" mentioned above, it can be considered a
-communal/public" installation [see Section 11.1]. Importantly, by way of contrast to the
Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan la examples, the large rooms of the settlement at Myrtos
(as well as other settlements,i. e. Vassiliki, Aghia Triadha) no hearths have been identified
II
in
Early
Minoan
is
Instead
the
examples
main
most
room
reported.
mainly occupied
and/or
by storagefacilities (as is obviously the case at Phournou Koryfi). On the basis of the above,

193

houses,
large
in
fixed
hearths,
the
of
constitute
rooms
a
that
points
as
claim
may
we
Minoan
la
(Demargne
III/Middle
1932:
Minoan
Early
the
phase
phenomenon associatedwith
Effenterre
1980:
162;
McEnroe
1979:
29;
1953:
de
Santerre
Gallet
&
van
Demargne
76-88;
"house"
By
the
to
1984).
earlier
phases,
now appears to
Metaxa-Muh1y
of
contrast
way
23;
itself
interestingly,
it
begins
do
defming
to
and
so
lay more emphasisupon structurally
interior
to
its
opposed
exterior space.
as
of
the
reconfiguration
through

[b] Integratedor dividedwholes?

Another equally intriguing category of the period in question are the oval building at
Chamaizi (Davaras 1972; McEnroe 1979: 29-31; Platon 1951; Xanthoudides 1906) and the
Aghia
(Tsipopoulou
Photia
1988).
To
this
category may
at
structure
compact
rectangular
III/Middle
fortified
Minoan
Minoan
Ia
(Alexiou
Early
1979)
the
belong
sites
of
some
also
but the current state of the evidence does not allow a detailed examination of these contexts.
Chamaizi and Aghia Photia are also known to us through preliminary reports and articles and
detailed
investigation.
full
the
permits
ground
plan
a
more
of
the
preservation
yet
The structure at Chamaizi is an isolated, free-standing building whose exterior wall
is roughly oval-shaped. It bears evidence for earlier occupation as well as some evidence
indicating that the building was precededby an earlier structure of roughly similar shape16
(Davaras 1972: 284-5, figs 4,5,7,8)

[Plate 11.14]. In fact, it seemsthat the plan of the

building has been largely determined by that of its immediate predecessor (Davaras 1972:
284-5)". The layout of the rooms within the building is clearer than those of most of the
described
All
be
from
the
the ground
above.
of
complexes
rooms
can
entered
architectural
floor (areas7 and 11) (Davaras 1972: Fig. 6), so there is no need to assumethe existence of a
At
1979:
28).
house,
(McEnroe
Room
bears
12
the
the
centre
of
clear signs of
storey
second
285,
Fig.
have
1985:
287;
1972:
8)
been
(Davaras
(Davaras
to
and
appears
unroofed
paving
McEnroe 1979: 28; Xanthoudides 1906: 122). This area is situated at a slightly lower level
than the remaining rooms of the structure as the small flights of steps surrounding its east,
12,
indicate
(Davaras
19872:
Fig.
At
8).
the
of
area
a
side
north-east
corner
south
west and
16"Underneath the oval Middle Minoan la structure and beyond it have been discovered several older
constructions, forming several complete rooms and parts of others. These Early Minoan structures
belong to at least three different periods superseding each other. It is worth noticing that some of their
walls are clearly curvilinear" (Davaras 1972: 284-5).
" Furthermore, other curvilinear walls below the north-east and south-central part of the Middle
Minoan Ia building suggestthat the oval house had been preceded by more than one curvilinear
building. Several of those walls, it should be noticed do not follow the contours of the hill (McEnroe
1979: 30).

194

have
been
is
believed
discovered
been
to
to
has
12a)
(i.
used
collect
rain
which
also
e.
cistern
house
(Davaras
7
1972:
leads
287,
through
the
drain
area
the
of
to
out
overflow
emit
water; a
Fig. 9,1973, Pl. 13; Xanthoudides 1906: 122).

within

In rooms 8,9,13 and14 the largest concentrations of ceramic and stone vessels
the building have been reported and Xanthoudides rightly suggeststhat those must

have been storage areas (Xanthoudides 1906: 123-4) [Plate 11.14a]. Interestingly rooms 8
be
(Room
16)
the
to
9
accessed
via
same
corridor
and
can
other
each
and are adjacent
(Xanthoudides 1906: 122). In the case of rooms 13 and 14, it appears that accessto both
(i.
14a).
This
"twin
facilitated
is
through
e.
corridor
a
single
corridor
of
pattern
areas also
in
Although
5
6
the
to
case
of
rooms
and
as
no evidence
well.
apply
storage rooms" seems
for storagehas been reported from those areas, in terms of morphology, spatial arrangement
16)
13-14.
(i.
8-9
they
to
and
e.
corridor
seem
compatible
via
and conditions of access
If we accept that there are three sets of storage areas within the structure (i. e. areas
5/6,8/9 and 13/14), then what is equally noteworthy is that each of these sets is spatially
[Plate
11.14b]:
5
large
6
4
areas
room
and
are
a
associated
and
with
room
with
associated
is
16.
From
(i.
them
three
this
to
corridor
made
possible
via
of
room
cluster
e.
all
access
16)
building
is
from
4,5,6,
to
the
the
the
remaining
part
access
of
and
viable
only
rooms
16
(i.
13
14,
Rooms
12).
through
the
central
and
paved
corridor
area
of
e.
and
area
south edge
in
11
hand,
association
room
the
are
with
and the three of them make up another
other
on
14a.
This
is
the only one
cluster,
accessible
only
via
corridor
segregated
cluster
spatially
(separate)
(i.
its
284,
1972:
11)
(Davaras
entrance
own
e.
outer
wall of room
which possesses
Figs.2,8). Finally, areas 8 and 9 are spatially associatedwith room 10/lOa/1518and are
(i.
11/13/14
by
by
4/5/6)
two
the main
the
clusters
e.
room
clusters
other
and
separated
(i.
limit
7),
the
to
the
e.
area
east
south
of corridor 14a to the north-west as well as
entrance
the paved area to the north. In fact, the paved area seemsto constitute the main boundary
from
but
facilitates/manifests
the
three
transition
the
the
clusters,
also
one
which
separating
one to the other.

Rooms 4,11 and 15110/1Oaare the largest within the building and yet no significant
finds
have
been
in
in
discovered
(Xanthoudides
1906:
123,125);
them
this
of
quantities
differ
from
have
been
identified
they
the
that
markedly
rooms
above as storage areas.
respect,
A hearth is reported by Davaras in Room 15 but unfortunately, no further contextual

'8 Area 10resemblesthe II structuresdiscoveredat the southernhousesat PhournouKoryfi (i.

e.
rooms60,80 andpossibly92) (Warren 1972),the Eastand WestHousesat Aghia Triadha (Watrous
1994:169).

195

have
found
"small
hearths,
Davaras
8).
Fig.
to
1972:
(Davaras
is
claims
information
provided
further
details
but
building
to
their
the
in
no
as
provides
within
places"
ash and coal several
hearth
have
in
Also
Xanthoudides'
to
288).
1972:
ash
and
a
are
said
(Davaras
report
location
1906:
123).
In
it
(Xanthoudides
4
4a
the
in
view
of
above,
identified
been
area of room
have
been
discovered
building
(so
hearths
the
that
within
two
of
the
that
examples
appears
If
final
(i.
4
15).
larger
this
the
associate
e.
and
we
point with
rooms
far) are situated within
lacking
high
large
in
the
those
are
generally
proportions of
that
areaswe
the observation
4
15/10/10a
13/14,
that
in
5/6,8/9
then
found
assert
rooms
may
and
we
and
vessels
Although
in
Room
(i.
large
11
the
third
the
e.
complex.
constitute the residential areas of
deposits
have
light,
be
brought
hearths
to
the
ashy
no
we
may
and/or
complex)
within
room
fact
it
it
based
function/character
the
that
to
on
as well,
nevertheless attribute a residential
is
indeed
4
15/10/10a.
If
11
the
rooms
and
with
room
characteristics
other
sharesmany
by
Xanthoudides
11/13/14
then
the
that
the
observation
made
cluster
of
area
residential
lower course of its walls are covered by a primitive type of orthostat is undoubtedly very
1906: 124).
(Xanthoudides
significant
On the summit of Kouphota hill (ca. 25m high), only 150m west of the Aghia Photia
Early Minoan 1/1Icemetery and 5km east of the modem town of Sitia, was discovered a large
(18 x 27.5m, ca. 500m2), which is ascribed to the early stages
building
fortified
rectangular
(Tsipopoulou
1988:
33,
Figs,
6.1-6.3,1992:
Watrous
Minoan
66,68;
Middle
the
period
of
1994: 184-5, Fig. 11) [Plate 11.15]. According to the excavator, the structure, which was
high,
built
bedrock
directly
thirty
consists
of
seven
rooms/spaces19,
upon
only one storey
(Tsipopoulou 1988: 33, Pl. 3a-c, 1992: 68, Pls. 6.1-6.4). In earlier sections, we discussed
in
features
its
the
to
the
of
structure
seeking
exemplify
relation to the
of
several
dwelling/building traditions of the preceding phase (i. e. an impressive fortification with
interior
both
bearing
buttresses,
central
court/corridor
and
exterior
west
courtyard,
apsidal
traces of paving, kouloures) (Tsipopoulou 1988: 33, Fig. 1, Pl. 1,1992: Fig. 6.3) [see Section
9.3]. Here emphasiswill be laid upon the building's interior arrangement and organization of
space.

As in the case of Chamaizi, the observations we are making rely exclusively on

preliminary reports which provide little information on finds and their contextual
According
to the excavator, Metaxia Tsipopoulou, the material record from the
associations.
19Watrousmentions20 roomsin total (Watrous1994: 184),but this hasprobablyto do with the
way
has
decided
identified
deal
in most roomsof the structure.It
to
the
scholar
partition
walls
with
each
appearsthatTsipopoulouhasworkedon the basisof the idea that thesewalls divide a largeroom into
smallerones;Watrouson the otherhand,seemsto havetreatedthesewalls as featuresof a given room,
andthushe neverdividesthe latter into sub-units.

196

is
impressive
tools)
of
ground
stone
generally
(with
collection
very
the
of
an
exception
site
Fig. 9). In the main report from the site, Tsipopoulou
33,43,45-6,
1988:
(Tsipopoulou
poor
deposits
knapping,
for
food
ashy
and
remains
of
obsidian
to
processing,
evidence
refers
find
(Tsipopoulou
1988:
45-6).
indications
In
further
but
on
spots
no
gives
cooking vessels
in
find
the
the
shapes
attested
ceramic assemblage of
of
examples
some
we
the same report,
deep
bowls,
drinking
(i.
such
as
shallow
cups,
and
plates,
vessels
eating
and
the site e. mainly
is noteworthy that excavations at the site
Figs.
It
2-8,10).
1988:
(Tsipopoulou
amphoras)
have not brought to light any remains of storage vessels' (Tsipopoulou 1988: 45-6).

Tsipopouloumentionsin her report that the building at Kouphotamay be divided

into smaller,highly symmetricalunits (henceforth"units" 1-7),andthis is somethingthat
(Tsipopoulou
look
1988:
inferred
the
be
the
through
a
ground
of
site
closer
upon
plan
can
Fig. 1,1992: 66) [Plate 11.16]. In particular, these seven units can be distinguished on the
basis of the three main criteria:

[a] First, all seven casesconsist of a standard number of rooms (three to four in total),
here
is
"unit"
is
that
taken
to
the
of
rooms
make
set
up
a
repeated in all seven cases;
secondly,
in particular, this set consists of an oblong vestibule, a large rectangular room (main room? )
(less
(which
two
of
standardized)
rooms
small
size
or
one
exhibit no signs of
and

door/entrancefrom the groundfloor) (i. e. units 1,3,7); finally, accessto and circulation
formalized:
be
highly
to
these
also
seem
units
with the exceptionof units 1 and 5
within
which arethe two closestto the main entranceof the structureto the west, all other units (i. e.
be
interior
2-7)
the
accessed
can
via
courtcorridor21.
units
[b] Anotherelementof consistencyis the direct spatialassociationof the entranceand the
vestibule,with the clearestexamplesherebeing units 2,3 and 4. The main room of eachunit
be
reachedvia the vestibule, and this is particularly clear in caseswhere the units
may only
are fully preserved.

[c] Significant also is the fact that the small-sized (and less standardized) rooms (or sets of
rooms) constitute the most spatially segregatedpart of the unit (and as mentioned earlier,
have
been non-accessible from the ground floor but possibly only from the roof).
to
seem

20If the circularstructuressituatedto the north and southof the building

are indeedkouloures(grain
repositories),thenit might be worthwhile examiningfurther the possibility that storageat Kouphotais
yet anotheractivity organizedat a community-level.Until further information comesto light, this is a
point we canexploreno further.
1It needsto be mentionedhere
neverthelessthat the entranceof unit 7 and possiblythat of unit 6, are
facinga smallcorridor off the main court/corridorof the structure.

197

Despite the fact that we are lacking adequatecontextual information, all aforementioned
distinction
be
Kouphota
is
that
the
to
the
to
possibility
pointing
of
units
at
seem
observations

hypothesis.
a plausible
It appearsfrom the abovethat the structuresat Chamaiziand Aghia Photiawere
basis
been
have
the
on
of a preconceivedplan: that this is indeedthe
constructed
likely to
first
by
both
be
the
the
all
character/design
of
of
exemplified
exterior
wall
of
casemay
brings
(which
traditions/architectural
to
earlier
mind
strategiesof
complexes
integration);
however,
differentiates
the
time
these
at
same
what
spatial/"community"
is
degree
from
that
they
examples
considerable
reflect
a
preceding
of concernover
structures
distinction/division;
in
demonstrated
interior
investment
emphasizing
as
we
earlier, this
and
is essentially achieved through the reproduction of a standard layout and/or form of spatial
Equally
latter
is
fact
in
both
to
the
the
significant
that
with
respect
point,
arrangement.
Chamaizi and Aghia Photia, the largest room in each sub-unit is "inviting-in ", in the sense
that it either occupies a central position within the unit (i. e. Aghia Photia) or is devoid of
Chamaizi)
(i.
thus rendering more possible the accommodation of suprae.
storage vessels
household gatherings.

From the evidencewe haveat our disposal,collective eatingand drinking continue

to be popular practices(with the only possibleexceptionbeing the site at Aghia Photia) and
so in this respectwe may speakof a patterncontinuingthe tradition of the Early Minoan Ilb
indeed
is
If
drinking
this
the
then
the
case,
concentrations
of
eating,
period.
and serving
interior
in
be
could
spaces
now
relatednot only to outdooreventsand acts of
vessels
but
generosity,
alsoto occasionstakingplace indoors, occasionsin other words
excessive
that couldbe now manifesting(excessive)hospitality.

[11.3] Conclusions

During the late third/early secondmillennium BC, the "settlement"

may indeedhave

beenperceivedandpresentedasthe "front region" throughoutthe island of Crete [see

ChapterNine], but the "house" alsobeganto crystallize asan entityfor itself first
at the level
of performance(i.e. in occasionssuchas collective drink (wine) consumption)and later
throughspatio-temporalconcretization(i. e. hearths,standardizedlayout/spatial
arrangement).
In this respect,it could be arguedthat the transformations
attestedin the settlementrecord
areto a largeextentcompatibleto thosereportedfrom the funerary domain (i.
e. a shift of
from "larger" to "smaller units"). Whetherthe "units" identified
emphasis
in thosetwo cases

198

(i. e. settlements and cemeteries) are of similar character and/or composition cannot specified;
largely
functional
draw
both
that
upon
morphological
as
as
well
it appears nevertheless
in
literally).
in
(i.
"House"
metaphorically
others,
more
whereas
e. some cases
attributes of the
Having now argued that by the end of Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan la there are indeed
itself
in
"house"
the
that
visible/explicit
of
more
contexts
makes
various
to
suggest
grounds
island of Crete, we may once again return to the Middle Minoan lb/II,
the
throughout
practice
"emergence
On
the
the
in
traditionally
associated
with
of
palace".
the periods other words,
in
far,
domestic
(i.
discussed
the
basis
and
architecture
e.
richness
variety
so
of what we
the
living
and
elaborate
entrances
rooms, architectural
distinctive masonry styles, polychromy,
during
"Neopalatial" period,
from
"Old
Palace"
the
the
and
certainly
already
embellishment)
"elusive"
(Rehak
&
longer
Younger
be
to
are
no
so
which
meanings
convey
seen
may now
1998: 111) while a similar casecan be made with regard to the abundance of feasting
houses
belonging
date.
In
(if
in
found
to
that
the
course of
not
most)
many
paraphernalia
building
began
developments,
Knossos,
Malia
island-wide
of
phase
operations
a
new
at
these
leading
to
transformation
Phaistos
to
the
of
an
open
area
an enclosed structure, a
and
building. While it remains impossible to specify why this enterprise had to take place in
form
these
the
take
the
that they
reasons
why
not
others,
structures
and
sites
those particular
do (i. e. monumentalized versions of houses) could now be justified more easily. Why this is
follows.
further
in
in
detail
discussed
be
what
so will

199

12

From "Power"

to "Paradigm"

[12.11 On Power

Largely drawing upon current trends in intellectual thought [see Chapter Six],
begun
forward
have
lately
idea
bias
to
Minoan
the
that
the
put
obvious
of
scholars
several
"evolutionary" models towards rigidly defined hierarchical structures (i. e. the "palace") has
inherent
In
from
the
to
complexity
appreciating
of
power
as
a
concept.
seeking
us
prevented
further,
have
demonstrate
how
they
to
the problems associated
this
sought
point
substantiate
definitions
"palace"
(i.
"evolutionary"
the
category
of
e. a monumental structure of
with
kind,
locus
form
[see
Section
8.2],
and
a
of
centralized
authority)
could
also
unprecedented
be overcome if we decided to recast "power" as more diffused and heterogeneous, taking the
form of coalitions, federations, conflicts or the even broader form of "status negotiation" [see
Sections 6.1,6.2]. It is noteworthy that the ultimate aim behind this process of reorientation
is professedto be the construction of a thesis on "power" which is conceptually more
pragmatic and empirically more sensitive than the long dominant image of "power
(Hamilakis
2002c: 199; Schoep 2002a: 18; see also Driessen 2002).
centralization"

In seeking to achieve this aim, Schoep recently introduced the concept of

"heterarchy" to Minoan studies (Schoep 2002a, 2002b; see also Schoep & Knappett 2004).
The term was originally launched in archaeological discourse by Carole Crumley and has
been defined, at the most basic level, as a socio-political system in which "each element is
either unranked relative to other elements, or possessesthe potential for being ranked in a
number of ways" (Crumley 1987: 158,1995: 3). In an attempt to substantiate empirically

200

in
Middle/Late
the
of
social
organization
nature
effectively
more
"heterarchy"
captures
why
body
information
first
the
that
Schoep
extant
of
empirical
of all
stresses
Bronze Age Crete,
highly
the
in
and
centralized view of
pyramidal
from the period question runs against
[see
Section
5.2].
She
in
by
"evolutionists"
asserts,
"hierarchical" organization advocated
implies
"non-palatial"
from
"the
deriving
that
the
sector
spatial
the
that
evidence
particular,
elite
and
architecture" was very
distribution of ritual, craftsmanship, administration
likely
"ideological,
Eight],
Chapter
that
[see
thus
rendering
time
economic
the
at
widespread
in
island
"not
the
the
one
source",
concentrated
as
conventional
were
on
power"
political
and
have
been
"more
instead,
"power
to
appear
subtle
relations"
propose;
would
model
palatial
interactive elements of the socio-political system
21)
2002a:
the
(Schoep
with
and complex"
(Crumley
2001:
25):
being
to
another
one
ranked
permanently
not
work
at
"What is certain... is that the political, economic and religious power was not
in
had
different
but
to
to
that
and
groups
access
resources
some
way
centralized...
32).
2002a:
(Schoep
power"
"Interpretive models that take into account ... the various power sources employed
framework
[Minoan]
data"
(Schoep
better
to
the
situate
within
which
a
may provide
2002a: 18).

In arguing in favour of a "heterarchical" form of organization, Schoep inevitably had

in
"palace"
the
the
and particular, how these monumental structures
question of
to confront
forward
in
her
To
issue,
Schoep
functioned
have
tackle
this
the
proposed
scheme.
put
would
from
biased
"palaces"
if
"to
the
the
that
away
connotations
and
strips
returns
one
argument
basics", then the most distinctive features of these buildings would be the presence of large
large
She
(Schoep
21).
2002a:
the
gathering
of
also made
groups
of
people
allowing
courts,
the casethat the activities taking place within the "palatial" compounds (i. e. storage, limited
inconsistent
interpretation
are
and
ritual)
not
with
an
of the structure as
craftsmanship
frequently
buildings;
impressive
the
that
expressed
argument
public works and
communal
"centralized
Schoep
a
political
require
authority",
storage
maintains, seemsto
extensive
ignore the fact that societies lacking this kind of centralized political structure are often seen
to be involved in building projects of monumental nature (see also Blanton 1998; Blanton et
1996).
Blanton
1993;
et
al.
al.

A different interpretation concerning the nature of sociopolitical organization in

Minoan Crete was proposed by Hamilakis (1997/98,2002a, 2002b, 2002c). His model also
adheresto the idea of "power diffusion" but it is suggestednevertheless that the latter may
be best conceptualized as the product of factional competition. The concept of "faction" has
been adopted by several anthropologists and historians (Brumfiel 1987,1989; Brumfiel &

201

Spencer
109;
1993)
describe
1983:
Lewellen
to
133;
1973:
Bujra
competing social
Fox 1984;
(Brumfiel
"leader-focused"
1989:
126).
"structurally
and
similar"
groups, which are
hold
because
ideological
they
"structurally
similar
cosmological
and
similar"
"Factions" are
for
(and
thus
because
to)
they
but
attribute
value
similar
compete
material
and
also
principles
That they are "leader-focused" implies that
1973).
Bujra
1989;
(Brumfiel
symbolic resources
"classes"
"interest
homogeneous
but
dealing
such
as
and/or
entities,
groups",
with
we are not
divisions are vertical (i. e. often patroninternal
heterogeneous
whose
entities,
rather with
having
low-rank
high-rank
to
more
access
resources
members
and
client relationships, with
1989;
Spencer
(Brumfiel
1993).
Despite these
less
to
having
resources)
access
members
lay
have
differences
however,
to
the
tended
divisions,
more
emphasis
on
internal
people
between "factions" rather than the differences within a single "faction"; for this reason, it is
for
"inter-factional"
(i. e.
operate
at
that
competition
retinue
an
and
comparison
suggested
level
(Lewellen
"intra-factional"
1983).
leaders)
than
an
the
between
rather

According to Hamilakis, new discoveries in the field offer empirical support to all
ideas. He talks of "too many chiefs" and "competing factions", "engaged in
aforementioned
frequent events of vast conspicuous display and consumption" (such as those attested to in
"in
factions
to
"palatial
and
a
continuous
attempt
out-compete
compounds")
other
with
the
ideological
beliefs"
(Hamilakis
2002b:
186)'.
His
they
and
cosmological
share
work
which
interactions
in
demonstrated
has
these
far
taking
that
the
were
arena of
place
mainly
so
involved
deployment
"the
bodily
active
and
and
manipulation
of
pleasures
consumption
including eating, drinking and intoxication" (Hamilakis 2002b: 186). The lack of clearly
defined territories and the shifting spheres of political influence on the island are seen as
frequent
tokens
extremely
unstable
social
situation
of
an
with
events of political crisis
clear
Under
"factions"
these
themselves were constantly changing
conditions,
unrest.
and social
boundaries.
For
Hamilakis,
the "palaces" were only one aspect of this wider
shifting
and
size
being
by
"rather
than
themselves", these monumental constructions are
ends
process;
historical
"the
as
accidents of a continuous struggle", in a society where "power
portrayed
hands
(Hamilakis 1997/98,2002b).
constantly
were
shifting
prestige"
and

"Factions in the samebroader social group are united by cosmologies and ideologies, and
competition takes the form of material culture "wars", including the conspicuous consumption and
ritual "sacrifice" of food, drink and artefacts. These artefacts are bound to maintain a stylistic
similarity, since all factions within the same broader group share the same symbolic vocabulary"
(Hamilakis 2002b: 186).

202

[12.21 Critique
discipline
into
be
the
of
our
and must
practices
embedded
Any new theory must
interpreting
dealing
in
its
particular
problems
and
with
adequacy
of
evaluation
withstand
formulations
be
Often,
theoretical
tend
to
new
circumstances.
socio-historical
particular
to
the
if
of
new
approaches
on
concept
attention
closer
pays
one
and
relatively abstract
in
Bronze
Middle/Late
Age
Crete,
issue
organization
of sociopolitical
"power" and the wider
by
is
Abstraction
be
to
no
means
reprehensible;
after
confirmed.
broader
appears
pattern
this
is
bear
in
What
building
to
integral
theory
crucial
the
process.
of
part
it
an
constitutes
all,
by
be
the
to
is
elegance of
mesmerized
ourselves
however,
that
allow
not
should
we
mind,
be prepared instead to critically evaluate the possibilities of their actual
but
to
abstractions,
in
this section the
to
basis
this
assess
On
going
are
the
we
suggestion,
of
application.
"factionalism"
"heterarchy"
to
the
our
of
understanding
and
as
such
concepts
of
contribution
in
The
"palatial
this
ultimate
aim
of
particular.
authority"
and
"palatial phenomenon"
direct
both
thinking
demonstrate
be
that
archaeological
along
to
concepts
will
enterprise
highly
in
be
lines
that
considered
problematic
a
number
of
can
of
enquiry
specific
very
some
lead
is
they
towards an
that
the
problem
most
vital
detailed respects; undoubtedly,
framework which does not free us from "evolutionary" thinking despite
epistemological
the
to
opposite.
claims
As mentioned earlier, Schoep argues that the operation of a "heterarchical" system
distribution
by
be
inferred
in
Crete
the
of
widespread
empirically
may
of organization
She
beyond
"palatial"
(i.
the
sector.
several resources e. economic, ritual, architectural)
defines these resourcesas "valuable", but no explanation is given as to from where this
"value" originates. Put simply, what is it exactly that makes these features/activities
"valuable"? Why are storage magazines, pillar crypts, lustral basins, feasting etc. an
indication of "value" and "status"? Could it be the case that the only reason we accord a
is
because
been
have
long
to
the
they
associated with
above
precisely
of
significance
surplus
the "palace"? But if it is indeed so, then is it not also the case that the special significance we
features
but
is
dynamic
in
the
these
to
a
of
past
not
so
much
product
negotiation
attribute
highly
definition
determinist
More
in
"value"
the
and
worrisome,
of
a
static
present?
of
rather
if those resourcesare seen as "valuable" and a potential source of status because of our
decision to portray them as such, does it not also follow that this decision has been (once
informed
by
bias
)
the
very
much
we seek to challenge (i. e. "palace")?
very
again!
Interestingly, the tendency to project a predetermined set of "values" onto the past is
"endogenous/production-oriented"
the
what
precisely
and the "exogenous/consumptionoriented" models also sought to do (i. e. emphasis on "land" and "exotica" respectively) [see

203

fashion,
however,
both
far
they
In
Three].
clarified
consistent
Chapter
more
Two,
Chapter
"status"
into
only
under
conditions
of
scarcity
source
a
transformed
"values"
were
that these
In
the
the
to
case
of
resources).
access
(i. e. limited quantity of and/or restricted
distributed
it
is
that
however,
a
set
of
renders
widely
precisely
what
model,
"heterarchical"
into a "source of power"? This takes us back to the question we posed earlier:
resources
distribution
"status"
the
of
such
as
a
to
resources
wide
tendency
be
perceive
it
the
that
could
longstanding
from
the
their
so-called
with
association
stems
indicium and/or vehicle
"palatial economy"?
it
in
by
Hamilakis,
that
this case as well,
appears
Moving now to the model proposed
detected.
As
be
earlier,
"evolutionary"
mentioned
tradition
may
the
close affinities with
"ostentatious
the
distribution
around
resources"
the
of
that
widespread
Hamilakis claims
destruction
boundaries",
"territorial
lack
the
multiple
episodes
and
of
Cretan landscape,the
buildings
the
"Neopalatial"
observations
confirming
in
empirical
are
to
various
attested
look
his
however,
A
2002c).
(Hamilakis
closer
at
model,
"factional"
competition
operation of
its
from
"evolutionary"
differ
does
latter
predecessors either
the
markedly
not
indicates that
does
hand,
Hamilakis
On
interpretation.
to
the
not
seem
one
level
or
methodology
of
at the
for
"archaeology
the
every
single
aspect
of
almost
as
representation",
the
of
principle
escape
for
"factional
into
is
translated
competition";
of/medium
a
expression
"Neopalatial" record
demonstrate
"factionalism"
fails
he
the
hand,
to
workings
of
captures
why
the
other
on

decentralization"
"power
than
the
notion
of
effectively
"Neopalatial" societymore
be
if
"factional
More
1987)2.
to
the
can
relatedto concepts
(Marinatos
competition"
point:
be
diffusion,
basic
level,
the
then
the
samecan
at
most
suchaspowernegotiationand/or
"palatial
"decentralization"
for
the
of
authority".
claimed
These observations are crucial for two main reasons: first, they indicate that, at a
do
foregoing
break
free
level,
from
"evolutionary"
the
models
not
principles
conceptual
(i.
"values",
ideas
formations,
predetermined
archaeology of
e.
predetermined
social
and/or
Although
as an epistemological tactic, reference to and/or partial
representation).
is
terminologies
and
quite common, one would expect that
of
previous
models
modification
in
least
this particular case, a more radical redefinition of the "evolutionary" package
at
forget
in
been
Let
foregoing
have
Minoan
trends
that
the
attempted.
us
not
after
all,
would
(if
"anti-evolutionary")
"post-evolutionary"
in
themselves
not
present
as
archaeology
is
Furthermore,
this
a point of crucial significance, what these new
and
perspective.
2 In the 1987 edited volume "The Function of the Minoan Palaces" (Hgg & Marinatos 1987),
Marinatos put forward an alternative interpretive scenario for understanding the nature and character
of "power" in "Neopalatial" Crete; the basic idea was that of "power decentralization" (i. e. "the
functions of the palace are spread out and appropriated by officials" (Marinatos 1987: 333).

204

"palatial"
is
to
of
society
understanding
not necessarily opposed
developments contribute our
Although they quite rightly remind us of the fact
image
that
society.
"evolutionary"
of
to the
issue
inherently
broader
the
organization
of
social
are
complex
that "power" relations and
"hierarchical
hypothesis
the
is
that
to
authority"
suggest
cannot
phenomena, there no reason
"complexity". In fact, this point is also inferred from the very writings of
that
accommodate
has
hand,
in
Schoep
her
Hamilakis;
the
argued
one
of
recent papers that
one
on
Schoep and
idea
does
"polity"
(Schoep
to
the
"heterarchy"
counter
not
necessarily
run
of
a
the concept of
has
hand,
Hamilakis,
the
20-22);
assertedthat some "factional" groups of
other
on
2002b:
been
have
"successful"
have
than
those
others
more
and
"Neopalatial"
would
may
period
the
(Hamilakis
2002b:
"palaces"
185-6).
in
the
that
so-called
been the ones
resided

It could be argued at this point that the most thought-provoking form of

in
has
been
Crete
by Carl Knappett.
"palatial
the
phenomenon"
advanced
of
understanding
His approach was based upon the premise that a socio-political institution (in this case, the
"state") should not be taken as a given and that emphasis should be laid instead on the
institution
"the
that
this
organizational
possibilities"
manifest
of
encompasses
exploration
(Knappett 1999: 639). Knappett rejects the tendency to suppress variability "through the
(i.
"the
into
types"
is
societal
types
e.
creation
of
rigid
and
polarized
social
classification
rigid
instead
in
that
we
can
achieve
greater
professes
subtlety
and
and
resolution
our
unhelpful")
interpretations, if we examine political institutions in terms of "axes of variation" (Knappett
1999: 635). He claims that "centralization' 'and "decentralization/diffusion" are not absolute
terms, but rather two idealized extremes of an organizational continuum; to further
Knappett
this
moves on to suggest that in early societies (i. e. which
point,
substantiate
"lacked the necessaryinfrastructure to achieve direct and continuous administrative
"decentralized"
forms
society"),
of
of "(state) power" would have been probably
penetration
the only meansto achieve a high degree of "control over wide areas" (Knappett 1999: 619).
This point is of crucial significance and what makes it even more promising analytically is
yet another suggestionthat Knappett makes: in order to overcome the indirect and irregular
it
the
of
power
wielded, a "state" (i. e. a large-scale integration mechanism) would be
nature
have
likely
to
sought accessto the "imaginary means of production" (which Knappett
more
"ideology"
with
and "ritual") rather than direct control of the "material means of
equates
(which
he
equateswith "economy") (Knappett 1999: 619). Despite the immense
production"
analytical potential of this premise, however, Knappett fails to specify what these "material
symbols of ideology" actually stand for (for reasons that will become more apparent in what
follows). What precisely does the term "ideology" imply? How does it
relate to "ritual"?
Why do those terms hold "special" value? Where does this "value" derive from
and under

205

it emerge and develop? Last but not least, what sort of link do these
does
what circumstances
"power"?
issue
the
of
concepts establish with

"Paradigm":
to
"Power"
From
112.31

Further thoughts on the "House" alternative

"static"
to
"organizational
idea
as
opposed
continuum"
the
of an
Drawing upon
first
it
is
1999),
that
(Knappett
of
all,
could
suggest,
we
forms of "social organization"
"palaces"
the
accommodated and/or
define
so-called
with precision whether
impossible to
(i.
elite)
"ruler",
intentions
membership
e.
or
a
of
exclusive
group
a
of
a
the
strategic
served
formations;
these
that
to
edifices
could
monumental
assert
"competing"
societal
number of
be
"alternatives"
the
(as
to
a
would
aforementioned
opposed more) of
be linked with one
for
be
determinism
Such
allowed
at an empirical
cannot
highly deterministic assumption.
both
disposal
to
accommodate
perfectly
seems
level, as the evidence currently at our
At
(i.
terms
two
"heterarchy"
the
a conceptual
mutually
exclusive).
are
not
e.
"hierarchy" and
is
have
hand,
that the actions and practices
to
acknowledge
what we also
level, on the other
by
informed
have
been
(in
the
"palaces"
in
cases)
strategic
most
the
would
taking place
individuals);
by
(groups
and/or
intentions and goals of several generations of people
king,
elite
form
(be
that
a
an
or
several
of
authority
a
particular
with
structure
a
equating
it
is
indeed
if
dynamism.
But
fail
the
this
this
to
case,
could
capture
"factions"), we simply
is
long
have
to start with?
the
to
tried
be
question
wrong
the
answer
that
we
question
also
least,
(or
is
"non-issue"
in
"
the
"who
issue
if
not
at
a
really
And the
power?
was/were
of

forward
then
should
we
put
as an alternative?
what
enquiry),
centralconcernof our
Even if we acknowledge the inherently dynamic (hence analytically elusive) nature
intriguing
is
during
that
the so-called
that
thing
"power",
remains
particularly
one
of
"palatial" period(s), the manifestation and practical negotiation of socio-political
to
a very specific morphological and
continuous
reference
made
relations/strategies
functional "vocabulary". The referential process at work during the period(s) in question was
in
but
link
"palaces"
the
to
and
actions
not
only
also at an islandso-called
conditions
shown
it
"palaces"
formed
level;
that
the
therefore,
was
argued
an expression/aspect of a wider
wide
form
did
by
because
the
that
they
they made reference to
and
acquired
precisely
continuum
that continuum. This observation cannot help us provide an answer to the question "who
but
do
is
in
it
"
direct
what
can
nevertheless
power?
our attention to a (far more?)
was/were
crucial issue: empowerment.But how exactly should the term "empowerment" be
understood?

206

"palace"
its
investigation
"emergence"did not
the
of
and
As mentionedearlier,our
but
"unprecedented"
"special"
isolated,
act
rather
latter
as
a
and
phenomenon
an
the
as
treat
broader
be
to
the
reference
socio-historical
only
with
assessed
could
significance
whose
did
first
These
lead
in
it
the
to the
conditions
place.
not
that
possible
made
conditions
institution
but
full
to
the
rather
construction
socio-political
of
an
a
power
of
establishment
(morphological/functional)
a
and
monumentalized
ritualized
architectural complex, which
foremost,
First
"palace"
the
broadly
and
as
was
a
valuable.
ritual
site,
recognized
vocabulary
(ritualized)
(Bell
1992),
formalized
it
that
were
otherwise
practices
ordinary
that
in the sense
being
Storage
important
and
consumption.
and
storage
undoubtedly
the
most
with
"palace"
(as
"house"
"house")
integral
the
time,
the
and
at
of
a
a
elements
consumption were
"consumption",
differentiated
"palatial
What
this
to
storage"
and
rule.
was no exception
between
Through
two
the
the
was
an
association
established.
whereby
however, was
means
West
Court
(interestingly,
features
the
the
of
one
earliest
roads
of
of
the elaborate procession
(literal
"palatial"
the
"palace"),
or
metaphorical)
was
surplus
placed
within
sort
of
some
the
"hoarding" was combined with the ritualization
highly
This
of
element
ritualistic
complex.
What
large-scale
"raw",
(i.
in
therefore,
"sharing"
consumption
events).
came
e.
came out
of
"cooked"; what was "contributed", was subsequently "redistributed". The transformative
in
further
by
"coming
"House"
the
the
this
accentuated
and
out"
of
was
ritual
of
element
itself (i. e. "Central Court"/inside and "West Court"/outside). If anything, the "House" seems
bound
inextricably
been
have
up with the notion of "hospitality", and thus encapsulated
to
have
been
far
[see
to
time
the
a
wider
socio-political
appears
concern
and/or
strategy
what at
Chapter Eight, Chapter Eleven]. At the end of the day, this is precisely why the so-called
"palace" could also be taken to constitute a monument; in a way, its morphological and
functional character served as a memory device, a mechanism of reiteration of this broadly
sharedvalue.

In view of the abovesuggestionswe could thereforeclaim that if the "palace" is a

"representation" of some kind, then this representation would have to be one of widely
After
and
not
of
values
exclusive
power.
all, the "palace" appearsto be a dominant
relevant
and highly prominent version of a particular (historically specific) and broadly decipherable
way of seeing and being in the world. Whoever used or made claim to this structure (be that
a king, an elite or several "factions") would have thus adhered to the rules of a very specific
social code (i. e. the "House"), a code which also served as a means for empowerment on/in
various other occasions/situations around the Cretan landscape at the time (i. e. the funerary
and settlementarena).

207

may

brings
"palace"
(once
)
to
the
to what
us
closer
again!
approach
an
Interestingly, such
is
it
is
To
important
this
why
defined
explain
so,
the
realm.
paradigmatic
be broadly
as

drawn
in
been
In
have
this
the
thesis.
conclusions
general
this
point what
to recapitulate at
laid
"palaces"
the
the
redefining
period
upon
of
was
emphasis
previous chapters, particular
"emergence"
[see
Chapter
before
Nine].
Our
their
the
Eight],
period
as
as well
[see Chapter
"palatial"
"prepalatial"
data
if
the
and
that
so-called
demonstrated
approached
we
analysis
in
(i.
"palatial",
its
terminological
"palace"
mind
paraphernalia
e.
term
and
the
sets, without
be
faced
broad
(i.
Five],
[see
Chapter
two
then
"villas"
would
with
e.
we
etc)
"palatial-type",
in
(practical
the
significance
dwelling
and
symbolic)
traditions
elevating
island-wide)

does
"practical
What
the
term
"House"
and
precisely
respectively.
"Settlement" andthe
it
be
to
imply
consider
associated
with
could
we
grounds
what
and
on
symbolic significance"
in
human
beings
As
Kuhn
"paradigm"?
are
situated
always
claims,
the conceptof a
because,
facilitate
their
(i.
actions
essentially,
which
conditions
paradigmatic)
e.
structural
in
to
themselves
the
them
situate
beings
ontologically
allowing
human
require a medium
Giddens explains that these conditions ought to be viewed as an
1970).
(Kuhn
world
traditions of execution and
so,
and,
even
more
resources
symbolic
materialities,
of
amalgam
1984); the material aspect of these conditions is precisely what allows
(Giddens
expression
(Cretan)
but
the
"paradigm"
the
link
also
past.
only
with
present
with
the
concept
not
to
us
be
frameworks.
"House"
"Settlement"
can
also
seen
as
paradigmatic
and
By extension,

In our analysisof the Cretanrecord,only a few aspectsof theseparadigmswere

highlighted through an investigation of the funerary and settlement evidence [see Chapter
Ten, Chapter Eleven]. What we demonstrated, in particular, is that in practice (i. e.
in
but
to
principles
can constrain
also enable action(s)
performance), reference paradigmatic
but
it
directs
the
the
the
at
same
rules
provides
general
of
a
paradigm
game,
ways;
various
time empowers people becauseit facilitates effective action, it provides the basis upon which
decipherable
(and
degrees
Even
become
legitimate
to
various
socially
contested).
or
actions
be
however,
linked
directly
importantly,
can
a
paradigm
with strategies of
more
definition,
in
(i.
the case of the
e.
concrete
monumentalization,
ritualization):
objectification
"palatial" project for instance, which we have decided to define as a "ritualized/monumental
house", what we are witnessing is an obvious tendency to vitalise something that matters,
it
forward
it
through time and over space.
and
reworking
carrying

In acknowledging the above, however, we bring the "emergence of the palatial

in
Crete
into
higher
level preservation (Marquardt 1992). What operates
a
phenomenon"

as a

integration
in Crete during the period(s) in question (i. e. "Settlement"
mechanismof
and
"House" respectively) is what allows us analysts to establish a senseof unity for
our object

208

"Settlement"
"House"
question.
and
research
are
coherent
a
thus
construct
and
of study
in
front
the
(i.
definition
also
showed
as
we
particular
and
regions)
e.
dominant ways of
become
because
Koryfi,
they
they
archaeologically
visible
are
Myrtos-Phournou
of
example
but
to
the
the
external
us,
observers;
also
put
simply,
to
the
past
of
people
only
not
relevant
(for
insiders)
in
define
but
broadly
the
themselves
categories
as
also
they are what we may
for themselves (for the outsiders).
from
different
looks
that to which we have
very
Our archaeological programme now
however, that as a "postmodernist" would
it
be
the
But
case,
could
grown accustomed.
deductive
is
(yet
Although
overly
exercise?
another)
the
proposed programme
perhaps claim,
level
to
to
seems
run counter
paradigmatic
to
analysis
archaeological
the suggestion elevate
least
far
is
by
"postmodernist"
the
forward
the
ideas
as
school,
at
as
past
concerned,
put
to the
in
fact
indications
further
that
the
approach
we
are
revealing
proposing
may
there are some
in
in
detail
follows.
is
is
Why
this
more
what
so
explained
be the most effective.

[12.41 Epilogue

At the broadest of levels, it could be argued that any attempt to investigate the
history of Minoan archaeology (or any other discipline) involves a journey back in time, or
(Kuhn
"exposure"
"out-of-date
described,
to
theory
Kuhn
an
scientific
and
practice"
once
as
1970: vii). Essentially therefore, a study of the history of archaeology is a study of a certain
doubt
distant)
is
different
from
(not
is
Minoan
that
this
there
so
no
past
past: although
it
is
fact
"out-of-date";
behind
has
happened
leaving
it
that
the
remains
already
prehistory,
(articles,
books,
).
In
traces/remains
than
material
our quests to
more
excavations
etc.
nothing
is
have
this
this
and
a
of
crucial
past
point
significance
shown no
we
understand
reluctance to expressing concrete and straightforward opinions. Amidst several
developments in the field, we pointed out that the "palace" appeared to rise in prominence
(in the caseof "evolutionists") or to decline in importance (in the case of "postmodernists").
At the level of interpretation, we consciously moved beyond the diverse readings and
"palace"
but
the
of
also turned our heads away from the details of those
understandings
intellectual
dilemma, agonising, inconclusiveness
often
which
exhibit
clear
signs
of
writings
instance,
For
have
decided
to use the general term "evolution" when,
uncertainty.
we
and

209

intellectual
has
development,
this
movement
exhibited
four
clear
its
of
centuries
through
(Trigger
1989a,
1998).
dynamism,
reorientation;
radical
even
and
transformation,
of
signs
lump
decided
into
have
to
those
all
tendencies,
readings
"centrifugal"
a
we
Despite these
"wholeness"
being
to
to
this
(more
than
refer
not)
as
often
larger paradigmatic whole and
thing.
the
same
one and

has
been
level
the
of
paradigm
particularly popular
at
The practiceof categorising
discussion
"postmodemist"
of
our
earlier
the
and
much
on
school,
of
the
confines
within
Four].
[see
Chapter
But
"postmodern"
though
has
even
writings
upon
relied
"evolution"
(and
develop
times
towards
the
at
polemic)
attitude
to
critical
such
a
"postmodernists" seem
in
do
historiography),
their
to
the
(i.
they
discipline
same
seem
unwilling
e.
the
past of
former
in
While
distant
they
the
the
case
consciously
past.
to
more
understand
attempts
(i.
they speak of
thus
to
opinion-making
e.
and
category-making
themselves
commit
for
in
is
"diversity",
"detail"
the
they
that
thing
past
room
the
and
allow
only
"evolution"),
do
in
it
is
they
the
the
But
then
that
simply
not make the
case
of
past,
why
"subjectivity".
higher
level
(Marquardt
do
have
interpretations
1992)?
Why
to
they
to
bring
their
a
to
choice
level
"diverse
Why
they
to
the
interpretive
of
readings"?
are
unwilling
at
quest
their
stop
(i.
"evolutionary"
the
thought
the
complexity
e.
recent
past)
and
not
of
the
complexity
tame
distant
identification
highly
(i.
The
the
this
past)?
of
e.
evidence
of the archaeological
be
indirect
(and
in
"postmodernist"
itself
thought
may
seen
as
an
yet
oxymoronic element
highly plausible) argument in favour of broad category-making. If category-making cannot
be avoided even by those advocating against it, then the time for the emergence of a new

importantly,
in
but,
in
Minoan
even
more
code
archaeology
of
a
new
moral
question
be
than
closer
as
a
whole
may
practice
we think.
archaeological
It is for this reason that the present thesis set out to demonstrate that a "postfuture
indeed)
be
(and
for
Minoan archaeology without
can
should
guaranteed
evolutionary"
having
us resort to uncompromising relativism, cognitive anarchy and/or an
necessarily
"anything goes" epistemological mentalite (Fotiadis 1994: 546-7). Largely drawing upon
Marquardt's concept of archaeological dialectics (Marquardt 1992) and Wylie's "options
beyond objectivism and relativism" (Wylie 1991a), we argued that this aim could be
if
decided
to revise drastically the ethical basis/principles on
only
archaeologists
achieved

3 For instance,Watson mentions that there were many "sceptics" amongst the
community of
"evolutionary" thinkers who never made the claim "that we can ever reach complete, perfect, certain
knowledge of the empirical world, or, that even if we did, this would constitute knowledge of
ultimate
being or reality" (Watson 1992: 260). Clark on the other hand, has recently reminded us that by
way
of contrastto Herbert Spencer's progressive and teleological notions of evolution, Darwinian
evolution did not presupposethat evolutionary processesare progressive (Clark 2000: 94).

210

is
Although
doubt
(past
there
that
operates.
no
practice
and
epistemological
current
which
by
diversity,
humanity
complexity,
characterised
messiness,
are
of
conditions
present)
forces
(Bakhtin
1981:
(potentially)
270),
centrifugal
a
other
several
heteroglossia and
that
past
necessitates
as
a
social
as
well
we
also
to
commit
present
social
a
commitment
image
is of
and
of
wholeness
unity;
such
an
a
commitment
the
of
to
maintenance
ourselves
for, if it is indeed the casethat "the natural state" of humanity "is mess"
importance
critical
both
level
270),
then
1981:
as
well
as
an
epistemological
at
an
ontological
(Bakhtin
in
be
"unity"
to
as
viewed
projects
or,
other words, as "a matter of
ought
"wholeness" and
1990: 30). The establishment and justification of order as
Emerson
&
(Morson
work"
imply
Joyce
2002:
79)
1994:
552;
in
(Fotiadis
that
disorder
our
reference
to
point
opposed
in
human
life
(i.
(i.
to
as
our
attempts
understand,
of,
as
well
e.
ontology)
e.
our experience
be dialogue, responsibility, communication; principles, in other words,
should
epistemology)
is
in
It
idea
interconnectedness.
the
of
view of the above problematique that
founded upon
level
the
that
at
particularly
of epistemological practice, such a shift of
we ended up asserting
if
decided
deconstruction
be
to
the
only
we
view
realised
as
point of
could
perspective
departure and not as the termination point of our analytical enquiry. Although the
identification of "fallacies" and "internal contradictions" does indeed lead to the repudiation
(i.
dominant
"palace"
it
the
categories
and
questions
e.
question),
what
also
of previously
is
allows nevertheless the rearrangement of pending evidence and, thus, the possibility of
broadly-relevant
In
categories4.
seeking to apply these methodological
new,
constructing
(and for that matter also ethical) principles to Minoan archaeology, we advocated a more
rigorous approach, which would seek to replace the current plethora of objections against the
"emergence of civilization" with concrete opinion- making. What should become of central
for
Minoan
archaeologists at this critical stage of the discipline is the development
concern
(and
yet equally inclusive) means of talking and writing about this particular
of alternative
Cretan
The
"emergence
the
past.
of
of House Society" may be seen as a broadly
segment
"intelligible" programme, a programme "realisable" in practice, a programme that can drive
intellectual
the
towards
a
reworking
of
and physical means necessary to build new,
us
forms
of understanding Cretan prehistory. One of the main reasons why it has the
concrete
is
it
do
issue
that
to
the
so
emphasizes
potential
of broadly shared (past and present) social
values.

4Theterm"suspension"(Marquardt1992)
encapsulates
perfectly this duality (i. e. "deconstruction"as
a meansfor "reconstruction").

211

Bibliography

Societal
Complexity.
Evolution
In
Theory
General
B.
(1982)
of
of
Abbott-Segraves,
Theory
Explanation
Abbott-Segraves
(eds.
),
in
B.
J.
M.
Rowlands,
C.,
and
and
Renfrew,
Archaeology: The SouthamptonConference.New York: Academic Press,287-300.
Adams, E. (2004) PowerRelationsin Minoan Palatial Towns: An Analysis of Neopalatial
Knossos and Malia. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 17(2): 191-222.
Art
Late
Age
Figurative
Bronze
Knossos.
In
Hamilakis,
Gender
(2002)
the
B.
of
and
Alberti,
Y. (ed.), Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking Minoan' Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Grab
bei
Lebena auf Kreta. Archologischer
Frhminoisches
Ein
S.
(1958)
Alexiou,

Anzeiger 1-10.
Alexiou, S. (1960)New Light on Early Minoan Dating: Early Minoan Tombs at Lebena.
Illustrated LondonNews 6: 225-227.
Alexiou, S. (1961-62)Ot IIpw'rotvwtxoi icpoti

Ac

voSxat qc

tttc
ticov
,

IIpo to uvcotxwvpvOwv.Kpqr: KXpovnx 15-16: 88-91.

.
Alexiou, S. (1967) Apxattitcc

xat v1ia x

pw

teat avacoXtKr KpijTS.

A xriov 22(B2): 480-488.

ApXaioAoyuxv
Alexiou, S. (1979) Tct ii uat axpo7t 41; aril Mtvo w

Kptil.

Kp?7ro).oyia 8: 41-56.

Alexiou, S. (1992) Lebena-Tombs. In J.W. Myers, E. E. Myers and G. Cadogan (eds.) The
Aerial Atlas ofAncient Crete. London: Thames and Hudson, 164-167.

Alexiou, S. and P.Warren (2004) The Early Minoan TombsofLebena, SouthernCrete

(Studiesin MediterraneanArchaeology 30). Svedalen:Paul Astroms Frlag.
Alland, A. (1970)Adaptation in Cultural Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.
Allbaugh, L. G. (1957) Kp#j. Yzo&etypamcEpeuva.AOtva: EX.1vo-ApptxavtKv
E tt itiptov.
Allegrette,A. and M. Schmid(1997) Rapport sur les travaux of ectues la Crypte Hypostyle
de Malia en 1996. Bulletin de la Correspondance Hellenique 121(2): 790-92.

Allen, S. (1998) Regionsand the World Economy: The Coming Shapeof Global Production,
Competitionand Political Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

212

Old
Palace
Period
Crete.
from
Unpublished
in
PhD
Groups
the
Pottery
S.
(1978)
Andreou,
Cincinnati.
University
of
Dissertation,
Politics
Value.
In
Appadurai,
A.
Commodities
the
Introduction:
of
and
(1986)
A.
Appadurai,
Cambridge:
Cultural
Perspective.
Commodities
in
Things:
Life
Social
of
(ed.), The
CambridgeUniversity Press,3-63.
Exercises
Political
Eight
Thought.
New
in
Present:
Past
Between
(1977)
H.
and
Arendt,
York: Penguin Books.

Current
Changing
Form
Function.
Households:
(1982)
Netting,
R.
and
J.
E.
Arnould,
and
Anthropology 23(5): 571-576.
London:
Oxford
University
1760-1830.
Revolution,
Industrial
The
S.
(1948)
T.
Ashton,

Press.
Austin:
Essays.
University
Four
Texas
Information:
Dialogic
The
M.
(1981)
M.
of
Bakhtin,
Press.
Minneapolis:
University
Dostoevsky
Poetics.
Problems
M.
(1984)
M.
s
of
of
Bakhtin,

MinnesotaPress.
Austin:
Other
Essays.
University
Late
Texas
Genres
Speech
(1986)
M.
M.
of
and
Bakhtin,
Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1993) Toward a Philosophy of the Act. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Triada.
della
di
Haghia
Annuario
Scuola
Grande
Tomba
Tholos
La
1)
(1930-3
L.
a
Banti,
Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 13-14: 155-251.
Bapty, I. and T. Yates (eds.) (1990)Archaeology after Structuralism. London: Routledge.
Barber, R.L.N. (1987) The Cycladesin the BronzeAge. London: Duckworth.
Barnes,B. (2000) UnderstandingAgency: Social Theory and ResponsibleAction. London:

SagePublications.
Barrett, J.C. (1987a)Fields of Discourse.Critique ofAnthropology 7: 5-16.
Barrett, J.C. (1987b) Contextual Archaeology.Antiquity 61: 468-473.
Barrett, J.C. (1988) Fields of Discourse:Reconstructinga Social Archaeology. Critique of
Anthropology 7: 5-16
Barrett, J.C. (1994a) Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain,

BC Oxford:Blackwell.
2000-1200
Barrett, J.C. (1994b) Defining Domestic Spacein the Bronze Age of SouthernBritain. In
ParkerPearson,M. and C. Richards(eds.), Architecture and Order: Approachesto
Social Space.London: Routledge,87-97.
Barrett, J.C. (1998) The Politics of Scaleand the Experienceof Distance:The Bronze Age
World System.KVHAA Konferenser40: 13-35.
Barrett, J.C. (2000) A Thesison Agency. In Dobres, M. -A and J.E. Robb (eds.), Agency in
Archaeology.London: Routledge,61-68.

213

Structure
Problem
Archaeological
Duality
the
the
Agency,
and
the
of
of
C.
(2001)
Barrett, J.
London:
Today.
Theory
Polity
Press,
141Archaeological
),
(ed.
I.
Hodder,
In
Record.

164.
In
Prehistory.
Rosen,
Study
R.
M.
(ed.
),
Time
Temporality
the
of
C.
(2004)
and
and
J.
Barrett,
University
Pennsylvania
Museum
Philadelphia:
World.
Ancient
of
in
the
of
Temporality
Archaeology and Anthropology, 11-27.
Areas
Ritual
Minoan
III/Late
Analysis
the
A
S.
(1988)
ofMiddle
of
P.
structural
Barshinger,
Minoan I Minoan Crete. PhD Dissertation, State University of New York at
Binghamton, Ann Arbor Michigan: UMI.

Cultural
Analysis
Phenomena.
Fox,
In
Description
Richer
Toward
and
of
(2002)
F.
a
Barth,
Oxford:
Culture.
Berg,
23.36.
Beyond
Anthropology
(eds.
),
King
J.
B.
G.
R. and
Paladin.
London:
Mythologies.
(1973)
R.
Barthes,
Fontana.
London:
Text.
Music,
Image,
(1977)
R.
Barthes,
Sage
London:
Publications.
Writings.
Essential
G.
(1998)
Bataille,
Baubck, B. (1994) Transnational Citizenship. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Structures.
Sage
Society:
Myths
London:
Consumer
The
J.
(1998)
and
Baudrillard,

Publications.
Oxford:
Holocaust.
Polity.
Modernity
the
(1989)
Z.
and
Bauman,
Bauman,Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Sociologically.
Oxford:
Thinking
Blackwell.
T.
May
(2001)
Z.
Bauman, and
Baurain,C. and P. Darcque(1990) Cinq ansde fouilles au Nord-Est du palais de Malia. In
llercpaypEvaTovZ'T'Aze0vobqKprlro).oycxovL'uve5plov.Xavu: 4)a.o?.oyux6Ei A oyoq
135-39.
Xpvatooc,
Beaudry,M. C. (1989) HouseholdStructureand the Archaeological Record: Examplesfrom
New World Historical Sites.In MacEachern,S., Archer, D. and R. Garvin (eds.),
Householdsand Communities(Annual Charcoal Conference21). Calgary: University of
Calgary, 201-208.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. London: Sage Publications.
Behrens, B. (1985) Society, Government and the Enlightenment: The Experience of 18`h

CenturyFrance and Prussia. London: Thamesand Hudson.

Bell, V. (ed.) (1999) Perfonnativity and Belonging. London: SagePublications.
Bender,B. (1993) Cognitive Archaeology and Cultural Materialism. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 3(2), 257-260.
Bender,B. (1998) Stonehenge:Making Space.Oxford: Berg.
Bender,D. (1967) A Refinementof the Conceptof Household: Families, Co-Residence,and
Domestic Functions. American Anthropologist 69: 493-504.

214

Linear
B
Perspectives
Comparative
the
Context:
in
on
Knossos
Bennet, J. (1990)
94(2): 193-211.
Journal
American
Crete.
II-III
LM
ofArchaeology
Administration of
Sage
Publications.
London:
Giving.
Sociology
of
Berldng, H. (1999)
Qualitative
Quantitative
Anthropology:
Methods
in
Research
and
Bernard, H. R. (1994)
Sage
Publications.
Hills:
Beverly
Approaches.
Science,
Hermeneutics
Relativism:
Objectivism
Beyond
and
and
J.
(1983)
Bernstein, R.

Press.
Pennsylvania
University
Philadelphia:
of
Praxis.
Critical
Interrogations.
New
York:
Theory:
Postmodern
(1991)
Kellner
D.
Best, S. and
Guilford Press.
Ware. Philadelphia: University
Cretan
White-On-Dark
East
(1984)
P.
P.
Betancourt,

Museum,University of Pennsylvania.
University
Pottery.
Princeton:
Princeton
History
The
P.
(1985)
P.
ofMinoan
Betancourt,
Press.
E.,
Lyon,
R.
F.,
Matson,
F.
S.,
K,
Koss,
R.,
Montgomery,
Myer,
T.
Gaisser,
P.,
P.
Betancourt,
G.H. and C. P. Swann(1979). Vasilike Ware:An Early Bronze Age Pottery Style in
Astrms
Frlag.
Paul
Gteborg:
Crete.
Stearns
W.
R.,
C.,
Onyshkevych,
Farrand,
J.
D.,
L., Hafford, W. B.
Mulily,
P.,
P.
Betancourt,
Excavation
Chrysokamino,
Research
Crete,
(1999)
1995-1998.
Evely
D.
and
at
and
Hesperia 68 (3), 343-370.
Culture.
London:
Routledge.
Location
The
(1994)
K.
H.
of
Bhabha,
Human
Sciences.
Vol. 1: The Possibility of
Philosophy
(1979)
the
R.
and
Bhaskar,
Naturalism (HarvesterPhilosophyNow 8). Brighton: HarvesterPress.
Bierstedt,R. (1974) TheSocial Order. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Binford, L.R. (1962) Archaeologyas Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2): 217-225.
Binford, L.R. (1973) Inter-AssemblageVariability: The Mousterian and the `Functional'
Argument. In Renfrew, C. (cd.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in
Prehistory. London: Duckworth, 227-254.
Binford, L. R. (1989) Debating Archaeology. London: Academic Press.

Bintliff, J. (1984) Structuralismand Myth in Minoan Studies.Antiquity 58: 33-38.

Norwegian
Bintliff, J. (1993)Why Indiana Jonesis Smarterthan the Post-Processualists.
Archaeological Review26: 91-100.
Blackman,D. (1997) Archaeologyin Greece1996-1997.Archaeological Reports43: 1-125.
Blackman,D. and K. Branigan, (1973) An Unusual Tholos Tomb at Kaminospelio, S. Crete.
Kprnix Xpovi x 27: 18-36.
Blackman,D. andK. Branigan(1975) An Archaeological Survey of the South Coast of
Crete. Annual of the British School at Athens 70: 17-36.

215

Survey
An
Archaeological
Lower
Catchment
(1977)
the
K.
Branigan
D.
of
of
Blackman,
and
School at Athens 72: 30-80.
British
Annual
Sites.
The
the
Valley:
of
Ayiofarango
the

Early
Minoan
Tholos
The
Excavation
Tomb at
(1982)
K.
Branigan
D.
of
an
Blackman, and
Ayia Kyriaki, Ayiofarango, SouthernCrete.Annual of the British School at Athens 77:
1-57.
A
Comparative
Study. New York: Plenum.
Households:
Houses
E.
(1994)
R.
and
Blanton,
Centralization:
Beyond
E.
(1998)
R.
steps towards a theory of egalitarian behavior
Blanton,

in Archaic states. In G.M. Feinmanand J. Marcus (eds.) Archaic States. SantaFe, New
Mexico: School of American ResearchPress.
G.
Feinman
M.
Kowalewski,
S.
E.
E.,
R.
and L. M. Finsten (1993) Ancient
Blanton,
Mesoamerica: a comparisonof changein three regions. 22dedition. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Blanton, R.E., G.M. Feinman,S.A. Kowalewski and P.N. Peregrine(1996) A dualfor
(Mesoamerican
the
theory
evolution
of
civilization. Current
processual
Anthropology 31: 1-14.
Bleicher, J. (1980) Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method Philosophy and

Critique. London: Boston& Henley.

Bloch, M. (1995) The Resurrectionof the House amongstthe Zafimaniry of Madagascar.In
Carsten,J. and S.Hugh-Jones(eds.), About the House: Levi-Straussand Beyond.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,69-83.
Blunt, A. and C. McEwan (eds.) (2002) Postcolonial Geographies.London: Continuum.
Bonacasa,N. (1967-68)Patrikies:Una StazioneMedio-Minoica fra Haghia-Triada e Festes.
Annuario della ScuolaArcheologica di Atene e delleMissioni Italiane in Oriente 45-46:
7-54.
Bosanquet,R.C. (1901/02)Excavationsat Palailastro. Annual of the British School at
Athens8: 286-316.
Bosanquet,R.C. and R.M. Dawkins (1902-03) Excavationsat PalaikastroII, Annual of the
British Schoolat Athens9,274-387.
Bosanquet,R.C. and R.M. Dawkins (1923) The UnpublishedObjectsfrom the Palaikastro
Excavations1902-1906(Annual of the British School at Athens Suppl. 1). London:
Macmillan.

Boughey,A. S. (1971)Man and the Environment.New York: Macmillan.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:

Routledge.
Bourdieu,P. (1991) Languageand SymbolicPower. Cambridge:Polity Press.

216

University
History
Idea.
Berkeley:
The
Evolution:
(1984)
J.
an
P.
of
of California
Bowler,

Press.
American
Exploration
Society's
Report
Gournia:
(1905a)
the
A.
H.
of
Boyd-Hawes,
Excavations at Gournia, Crete, 1901-1903. Transactions of the Department of
Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania 1: 7-44.

American
Exploration
Gournia:
Report
Society's
(1905b)
H.
A.
the
of
Boyd-Hawes,
Excavationsat Gournia, 1904.Transactionsof the Department ofArchaeology,
University of Pennsylvania 1: 177-190.

Boyd-Hawes, H., Williams, B. E. Seager,R.B. and E.H. Hall (eds.) (1908) Gournia, Vassilik-i
Sites
Isthmus
Philadelphia:
American
Prehistoric
Other
the
oflerapetra.
on
and
Exploration Society,FreeMuseum of Scienceand Art.
Braidotti, R. (1994) Nomadic Subjects.New York: Columbia University Press.
Branigan, K. (1968) The MesaraTholoi and Middle Minoan Chronology. Studi Micenei ed
Egeo-Anatolici 5: 12-31.
Branigan, K. (1970) The Tombs ofMesara. London.

Branigan,K. (1976) A New Tholos Tomb at Kamilari. Studi Micenei ed EgeoAnatolici 17:
167-171.
Branigan,K. (1987) The Economic Role of the First Palaces.In Hgg, R. andN. Marinatos
(eds.), TheFunction of theMinoan Palaces.Stockholm: Astrom, 245-249.
Branigan, K. (1988) Pre-Palatial. The Foundations of Palatial Crete. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Brani gan, K. (1991) Funerary Ritual and Social Cohesion in Early Bronze Age Crete.

Journal ofMediterranean Studies1(2): 183-192.

Branigan,K. (1992) The Early Keep, Knossos:A Reappraisal.Annual of the British School
at Athens87: 153-163.
Branigan,K. (1993) Dancing with Death: Life and Death in SouthernCrete, ca. 3000-2000
B. Amsterdam:Hacker.
Branigan,K. (1998) The Nearnessof You. In Branigan, K. (ed.), Cemeteryand Societyin
the AegeanBronzeAge. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,13-26.
Branigan,K. (2001) Aspectsof Minoan Urbanism. In Branigan, K. (ed.) Urbanism in the
AegeanBronzeAge. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,38-50.
Broodbank,C. (1989) The Longboat and Society in the Cycladesin the Keros-SyrosCulture.
AmericanJournal of Archaeology 93: 319-337.
Broodbank, C. (1993) Ulysses without Sails: Trade, Knowledge and Power in the Early
Cyclades. World Archaeology 24(3): 315-331.

Broodbank,C. (1999) Colonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean.
In Halstead,P. (ed.), Neolithic Societyin Greece.Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
15-41.

217

Cyclades.
Cambridge:
Early
Archaeology
the
Island
An
of
Broodbank, C. (2000a)
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Island
Centre:
An
Age
Analysis of
Bronze
Early
Perspectives
an
C.
(2000b)
on
Broodbank,
Oxford
Cyclades.
Journal
Archaeology
in
(Keros)
the
of
Daskaleio-Kayos
Pottery from
19(4): 323-342.

for
Critical
Archaeology
Themes
Introduction:
(1999)
Goodman,
a
M.
of
Bruck, J. and
Goodman
(eds.
),
Making
M.
Places
J.
in
In
Bruck,
the
Settlement.
and
Prehistoric
Archaeology.
London:
UCL
Press,
1-19.
Settlement
Themes
in
World.
Prehistoric
Aztec State: A View from
Exchange
Market
the
Specialization,
(1980)
and
M.
E.
Brumfiel,
459-478.
21:
Anthropology
Current
Huexotla.
In
Miller
D.,
M.
Rowlands
in
Factional
society.
M
(1989)
complex
E.
competition
Brumfiel,
& C. Tilley (eds)Domination and Resistance.London: Routledge, 127-139
Societies:
Complex
An
Exchange
Specialization,
Earle
(1987)
T.
M.
E.
and
Brumfiel,
and
Introduction. In Brumfiel, E. and T. Earle (eds.), Specialization,Exchangeand Complex
Societies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1-9.
Giddens'
Structuration:
A
Critical
Theory
)
(1991)
Jary
(eds.
D.
G.
A.
C.
of
Bryant,
and
Appreciation. London: Routledge.
Buchli, V. and G. Lucas (2001) Models of Production and Consumption. In Buchli, V. and
G. Lucas (eds.), Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past. London: Routledge. 21-25.
Burja, J.M. (1973) The Dynamics of Political Action: A New Look On Factionalism.

AmericanAnthropologist 75: 132-152.

Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex'. London: Routledge.
Byrd, B. (1994) Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate:The Emergenceof the
SouthwestAsian Village. American Antiquity 59(4): 639-666.
Cadogan,G. (1983) Early and Middle Minoan Chronology. American Journal of
Archaeology87: 507-518.
Cadogan,G. (1988) SomeMiddle Minoan Problems.In French,E.B. and K. A. Wardle
(eds.), Problemsin GreekPrehistory: Paperspresentedat the CentenaryConferenceof
the British Schoolof Archaeology at Athens,ManchesterApril 1986.Bristol: Bristol
ClassicalPress,95-99.
Cadogan,G. (1992) Myrtos-Pyrgos.In Myers, J.W., Myers, E.E. and G. Cadogan(eds.), The
Aerial Atlas ofAncient Crete. London: Thames& Hudson, 202-209.
Cadogan,G. (1997) The Role of the Pyrgos Country House in Minoan Society, In Hgg, R.
(ed.), TheFunction of the Minoan Villa'. Stockholm: SvenskaInstitutet i Athen, 99-103.
Cadogan,G. (2000) Domestic Life at Minoan Myrtos-Pyrgos.Ilenpay va H' dteOvos
KprnW,oyixoEvvepiovA. (1). Hpx to: Etiatpcia Kpgitxwv Iatopu v Me. ctd v, 169174.

218

J.
A.,
Momigliano,
N.,
MacGillivray,
Whitelaw,
C.
F.,
Macdonald,
M.,
P.
G.,
Day,
Cadogan,
Middle
Minoan
Pottery
Groups
Minoan
Early
(1993)
Wilson
E.
D.
and
at
T. M. and
88:
21-28.
Athens
School
British
Annual
the
at
Knossos.
of

"House
Frescoes".
from
Annual
Paintings
the
the
Unpublished
of
M.
(1968)
of the
Cameron,
British School at Athens63: 1-31.
Frescoes
Particular
Minoan
Reference
Study
General
A
M.
(1974)
with
to
of
Cameron,
Unpublished Wall Paintingsfrom Knossos.UnpublishedPhD Dissertation, University of
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.
Campbell, C. (1989) TheRomanticEthic and the Spirit ofModern Consumerism.Oxford:
Blackwell.
Carinci, F. (1989) The "III FaseProtopalaziale".SomeObservations.In Laffineur, D. (ed.).
Egeen
du BronzeMoyen au BronzeRecent (Aegaeum3).
Monde
Le
Transition:
Etat
A Liege: 73-80.
de
1'
Universite
Carinci, F. (1997) Pottery Workshops at Phaestos and Haghia Triada in the Protopalatial
Period. In Laffineur, R. (ed.), TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in
the Aegean Bronze Age. Liege: Universite dc Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 7380.
Carinci, F. and V. LaRosa (2002) Festas: Per un Riesame della Cronologia delle Rampe

Minoiche. Annuario della ScuolaArchaeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in

Oriente 80: 870-879.
Carneiro,R.L. (ed.) (1967) TheEvolution of Society: Selectionsfrom Herbert Spencer's
Principles of Sociology.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carrithers,M. (2005) Anthropology as a Moral Scienceof Possibilities. Current
Anthropology 46(3): 433-46.
Carsten,J. and S. Hugh-Jones(1995) Introduction. In Carsten, J. and S. Hugh-Jones(eds.),
About the House: Levi-Straussand Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 146.
Carter,T. (1994) SouthernAegeanFashion Victims: An Overlooked Aspect of Early Bronze
Age Burial Practices. In Ashton, N. and A. David (eds.), Stories in Stone. London:
Lithics Study Society, 127-144.
Carter,T. (1998) Reverberationsof the International Spirit: Thoughtsupon "Cycladica" in
the Mesara.In Branigan, K. (cd.), Cemeteryand Society in the AegeanBronzeAge.
Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress,59-77.
Carter,T. (2004) Mochlos and Melos: A Special Relationship?Creating Identity and Status
in Minoan Crete.In Day, L. P., Mook, M. S. and J.D. Muhly (eds.) Crete Beyond the
Palaces:Proceedingsof the Crete 2000 Conference.Philadelphia:INSTAP Academic
Press,291-307.

219

Oxford:
Society.
Network
Blackwell.
Rise
The
the
M.
(1996)
of
Castells,
Theory
Network
for
Exploratory
Society.
the
Materials
M.
(2000)
of
an
Castells,
Archaeological
Greece,
1973-74.
in
Reports
Archaeology
20: 3-41.
(1974)
W.
H.
Catling,
Greece
1986-87.
Archaeological
in
Reports 33: 3-6 1.
Archaeology
(1986/7)
W.
H.
Catling,
Evidence
Rethinking
for
Food
Periphery?
the
A
Passive
D.
(2001)
and Drink
Catapoti,

Consumptionfrom the Early Minoan JIb SettlementatMyrtos-Phournou Koryfi. Paper

Presentedat the 6thAnnual Round Table of the Sheffield Centre for Aegean
Archaeology,"Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece", Sheffield, January
2001.
Catapotis,M. (2004) CopperSmelting in the Early Bronze Age Southern Aegean: A
Technologicaland Contextual Analysis. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of
Archaeology,University of Sheffield.
Catapotis,M. andY. Bassiakos(in press)Copper Smelting at the Early Minoan Site of
Chrysokaminoon Crete. In Day, P.M. and R.C.P. Doonan (eds.) Metallurgy in the Early
BronzeAge Aegean.Oxford: Oxbow Press.
Champion, T. (1989) Introduction. In Champion, T. (ed.), Centre and Periphery. London:

Unwin Hyman, 1-21.

Chapman,R. (2003) Archaeologiesof Complexity.London & New York: Routledge.
Chapouthier,F. and J. Charbonneaux(1928) Fouilles Executees Malia. Premier Rapport:
Etudes
Cretoises I. Paris.
du
Palais,
Exploration

Chapouthier,F. andP. Demargne(1942) Fouilles Executees Malia. TroisiemeRapport:

Exploration du Palais, Bordures Orientales et Septentrionales,Etudes Cretoises VI.
Paris.
Chapouthier,F., Demargne,P. and A. Dessenne(1962) Fouilles Executeesa Malia.
QuatriemeRapport: Exploration du Palais, Bordure Meridionale et Recherches
Complementaires,EtudesCretoisesXll. Paris.
Chapouthier,F. and R. Joly (1936) Fouilles ExecuteesaMalia. DeuxiemeRapport:
Etudes
du
Palais,
CretoisesIV. Paris.
Exploration
Chase-Dunn, C. and T. Hall (eds.) (1991a) Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist

Worlds.Boulder, Col.: Westview.

Chase-Dunn,C. and T. Hall (1991b) ConceptualisingCore/PeripheryHierarchiesfor
ComparativeStudy. In Chase-Dunn,C. and T. Hall (eds.), Core/PeripheryRelations in
Precapitalist Worlds.Boulder, Col.: Westview, 5-44.
Cherry, J.F. (1983) Evolution, Revolution and the Origins of Complex Society in Minoan
Crete.In Kryszkowska, 0. and L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan Society.Bristol: Bristol
ClassicalPress,33-45.

220

Aegean.
State
in
Prehistoric
Proceedings of the
Emergence
the
The
F.
(1984)
J.
of
Cherry,
Cambridge Philological Society30: 18-48.
Isolation
Interaction
Stream:
in
Early East
Islands
the
(1985)
F.
and
J.
out
of
Cherry,
Mediterranean Insular Prehistory. In Knapp, A. B. and T. Stech (eds.), Prehistoric
Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLA Institute of
Archaeology Monograph 25). Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology, 12-29.

Cherry, J.F. (1986) Polities and Palaces:SomeProblemsin Minoan StateFormation. In

Renfrew, C. and J.F. Cherry (eds.), Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,19-45.
Cherry, J.F. (1987) IslandsOrigins: The Early Prehistoric Cyclades.In Cunliffe, B. (ed.),
Origins: TheRoots of EuropeanCivilization. London: BBC Books, 15-29.
Cherry, J.F. (1990) The First Colonization of the MediterraneanIslands: A Review of Recent
Research.Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 3: 145-221.
Childe, V. G. (1925) The Dawn of European Civilization. London: Keegan Paul.
Childe, V. G. (1929) The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon.

Childe, V. G. (1935). ChangingMethods and Aims in Prehistory: PresidentialAddress for

1935.Proceedingsof the Prehistoric Society 1: 1-15.
Childe, V. G. (1936) Man makes himself. London: Watts.

Childe, V. G. (1950) Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Oslo: Aschehaug.

Childe, V. G. (1951) Social Evolution. London: Watts.
Childe, V. G. (1956) Piecing together the Past: TheInterpretation ofArchaeological Data.
London: Rutledgeand Kegan Paul.
Chippindale,C. (1993) Ambition, Deference,Discrepancy,Consumption:The Intellectual
Backgroundto a Post-ProcessualArchaeology. In Yoffee, N. and A. Sherratt(eds.),
Archaeological Theory: Whosets the Agenda?Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,
27-36.
Christakis,K. S. (2004) Palatial Economy and Storagein Late Bronze Age Knossos.In
Gadogan,G., Hatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace, City, State.British
Schoolat AthensStudies12,299-307.
Chryssoulaki,S. (1997) NerokourouBuilding I and its Placein Neopalatial Crete. In Hgg,
R. (ed.), TheFunction of the `Minoan Villa'. Stockholm: SvenskaInstitutet I Athen, 2732.
Chryssoulaki,S. (2004) AmbelesKato Zakrou. Ap%al&.oyzK6vAekrfov 53 (B), 882-3.
Clarke,D.L. (1968)Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.
Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworksof Power. London: SagePublications.

221

Cohen,
Culture.
In
A.
P.
(ed.
)
Belonging:
The
Belonging:
of
(1982)
experience
P.
A.
Cohen,
Cultures.
Manchester:
Rural
British
Manchester
in
Organization
Social
Identity and
University Press,

Community.
London
New
Construction
York:
Symbolic
The
of
(1985)
and
P.
A.
Cohen,
Routledge.
Macmillan.
Basingstoke:
Theory.
Structuration
(1989)
I.
J.
Cohen,
Press.
UCL
London:
Diasporas.
Global
(1997)
Cohen, R.
Pluralities
Engendering
Archaeology:
Tensions,
Gero
(1991)
M.
J.
W.
M.
and
Conkey,
and
An Introduction to Women and Prehistory. In Gero, J.M. and M. W. Conkey (eds.),
Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, 3-30.

Study
Gender.
Advances
Archaeology
Spector
(1984)
in
J.
the
W.
M.
and
of
Conkey,
and
Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1-38.
Connerton,P. (1989)How SocietiesRemember.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Coser,L. A. (1977)Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context.
Harcourt Brace& Company.
Cowgill, G.L. (2004) Origins and Developmentof Urbanism: Archaeological Perspectives.
Annual ReviewofAnthropology 33: 525-49.
Crumley, C. L. (1987) A Dialectical Critique Of Hierarchy. In T. C. Patterson & C. W. Gailey
(Eds.) Power Relations And State Formation, 155-159. Washington, Dc: American

Anthropological Association.
Crumley, C.L. (1995) HeterarchyAnd The Analysis Of Complex Societies.In R.M.
Ehrenreich,Crumley, C.L. And J.E. Levy (eds.) Heterarchy And TheAnalysis Of
ComplexSocieties,ArchaeologicalPapersOf The American Anthropological
AssociationNumber 6, Arlington, Va: American Anthropological Association, 1-5.
Crumley, C.L. (2001) Communication,Holism, And The Evolution Of Sociopolitical
Complexity. In Haas,J. (Ed.) From Leaders To Rulers. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers:New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow, 19-33
Cucuzza,N. (1992) Mason's Marks at Haghia Triadha. Sileno 17: 1-12.
Cultraro,M. (2001) L'annello di Minosse: Archaeologia dellaRegalit nell' EgeoMinoico.
Milan: Longanesi.
Cunningham,T. (2001) Variations on a Theme: Divergencein SettlementPatternsand
SpatialOrganizationin the Far East of Crete during the Proto- and Neopalatial Periods.
In Branigan,K. (ed.), Urbanism in the AegeanBronzeAge. Sheffield: Sheffield
AcademicPress,72-86.
Dailey, S. (1984)Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities. London: Longman.

222

In
Nicolet,
C.
Aux
Origines
de
Cite
Minoenne.
(ed.
)
Gournia,
S.
(1984)
Damian-Indelicato,
1' Hellenisme: La Crete et la Grece.Hommagea Henri van Effenterre, Presentepar le
Centre G. Glotz. Paris: Publicationsde la Sorbonne,47-54.
Damian-Indelicato, S. (1988) Plaidoyerpour un Meilleur Usage du mot Palais en
Etudes
Anciennes90: 65-83.
des
Revue
ArchaeologieMinoenne.
(Dwii.S Ehicias. ApXatoAoyix
vci poiacpciovAy%aS
Davaras,C. (1971a) flpwtiop.wcwucv
Av)exca c AO'vwv 4: 392-7.
e:
Apa).
E11csiac.
Ayia
a)wrt
C.
(1971b)
a 2,197-99.
Davaras,

Davaras,C. (1972) The Oval Houseat Chamaizi Reconsidered.Apxazo1.

oyzK6Av)c,cra e
AOi vwv 5(2): 283-8.
Davaras,C. (1973) Mat kpcuvatet; T7 E
Tov T'

A, EOvobq KpP7TO)O 1KOll Zvvec5pIov,

tyrostSoudav iov Xaat iov. He rpayptva

A'. Hp& &o,

46-53.

Davaras,C. (1985) Apxtrcicrovtx atotxcia ti is YMI'E7tau),

toi Maxp"cLko.

17c2rpaypi-varov E' AicOvos Kpriro). oyixo vv&Bpiov, A'. Hpx)tto, 77-92.

Davaras,C. (1997) The `Cult Villa' at Makrygialos. In Hgg, R. (ed.), The Function of the
'Minoan Villa'. Stockholm: SvenskaInstitutet i Athen, 117-35.
Davaras,C. and P.P. Betancourt(2004) TheHagia Photia CemeteryI: The Tomb Groups
Philadelphia:
INSTAP
Architecture.
Academic Press.
and
Dawkins, R.M. (1904-05) Excavationsat PalaikastroIV. Annual of the British School at
Athens 11: 258-92.
Day, L. P., Coulson,W. D.E. and G.C. Gesell (1986) Kavousi, 1983-84:The Settlementat
Vronda.Hesperia 55: 355-87.
Day, L. P. and Snyder,L. M. (2004) The "Big House" at Vronda and the "Great House" at
Karphi: Evidencefor Social Structurein LMIIIC Crete. In Day, L. P., Mook, M. P. and
J.D. Muhly (eds.) Crete beyondthe Palaces: Proceeding of the Crete 2000 Conference.
Philadelphia:INSTAP Academic Press,63-79.
Day, P.M. and M. Relaki (2002) Past Factions and Present Fictions: Palaces in the Study
of
Minoan Crete. In Driessen, J.M., Schoep, I. and R. Laffineur (eds.), Monuments
of
Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum 23). Liege: Universite de Liege,

University of Texas at Austin, 217-34.

Day, P.M. and D.E. Wilson (1998) ConsumingPower: KamaresWare in Protopalatial
Knossos.Antiquity 72: 350-8.
Day, P.M. and D.E. Wilson (2002) Landscapesof Memory, Craft and Power in Prepalatial
and Protopalatial Knossos. In Hamilalds, Y. (ed.), Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking
Minoan Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow, 142-66.

223

Change
Practice
Eating
Ceramic
Drinking
(2004)
Wilson
the
E.
D.
and
M.
of
and
P.
Day,
and
in Early Bronze Age Crete.In Halstead,P. and J.C. Barrett (eds.) Food, Cuisine and
Society in PrehistoricGreece.Oxford: Oxbow, 45-62.
Specialization
in
Reassessing
Pre-Palatial
Kyriatzi
(1997)
E.
E.
D.
Wilson,
M.,
P.
and
Day,
Cretan Ceramic Production. In Laffineur, R. (eds.), TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen
Age
(Aegaeum
16).
Liege:
Universite
Bronze
de
Aegean
Liege,
in
the
Craftsmanship
and
Histoire de 1'Art et Archeologie de la Grece Antique, University of Texas at Austin,
Programin AegeanScripts and Prehistory, 275-289.
Day, P.M., Wilson, D.E. and E. Kyriatzi (1998) Pots, Labels and People: Burying Ethnicity
in the Cemeteryat Aghia Photia, Siteias.In Branigan, K. (ed.), Cemeteryand Society in
the AegeanBronzeAge. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,133-149.
Deetz, J. (1982) Households:A Structural Key to Archaeological Explanation. In Wilk, R.
Archaeology
),
Household:
Building
Prehistory
(eds.
W.
L.
Rathje
the
of
of
a
and
Domestic Life (American Behavioural Scientist 25(6)). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications,717-24.
Deetz, J. (1998) Discussion:Archaeologistsas StorytellersHistorical Archaeology 32: 94-6.
Demargne,P. (1945) Fouilles Executees Malia: Exploration desNecropoles,Premier
Fascicule, Etudes Cretoises VII. Paris.
Demoule, J-P. and C. Perles (1993) The Greek Neolithic: A New Review. Journal of World

Prehistory 7: 355-416.
Deshayes,J. and A. Dessenne(1959) Fouilles ExecuteesaMalia: Exploration desMaisons
Etudes
d'Habitation,
Deuxieme
Fascicule,
Quartiers
CretoisesXI. Paris.
et
Dickinson, O.T.P.K. (1994) TheAegeanBronzeAge. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Dietler, M. (1994) "Our Ancestorsthe Gauls": Archaeology, Ethnic Nationalism, and the
Manipulation of Celtic Identity in Modern Europe.American Anthropologist 96: 584605.
Dietler, M. and B. Hayden (eds.) (2001) Feasts: Archaeological
Perspectives on Food, Politics

and Anthropological

and Power. Washington and London:

Smithsonian

Institution Press.
Dimopoulou,N. (1997) Workshopsand Craftsmenin the Harbour Town of Knossosat
Poros-Katsambas. In Laffineur, R. (ed.), TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and
Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 16). Liege: Universite de Liege,
Histoire de 1'Art et Archeologie de la Grece Antique, University of Texas at Austin,

Programin AegeanScripts and Prehistory, 433-8.

Dimopoulou,N. (1998) IIpoS-Kaiaa ut.. ApXaioAoyucv
de).Tlov48(B2): 450-9.

224

Dimopoulou, N. (2004) To c tivcto zT KvaOaovatov IIpo-KazaaE.ut. In Gadogan,G.,

Hatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace, City, State.British School at
Athens Studies 12,363-80.

Dittmar, H. (1992) TheSocial PsychologyofMaterial Possessions:To have is to be.

Hertfordshire: HarvesterWheatsheaf.
in
Archaeology: Paradigmof Platitutde?In
Agency
E.
Robb
J.
(2000)
M.
Dobres, -A. and
Dobres,M. -A. and J.E. Robb (eds.) Agencyin Archaeology. London & New York:
Routledge,3-17.
Douglas, M. and B. Ishcrwood (1979) The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of
Consumption.London: Allen Lane.
Downson, T.A. (2000) Homosexuality,QueerTheory and Archaeology. In Thomas,J. (ed.),
Interpretive Archaeology:A Reader. London: Leicester University Press,283-9.
Dowson, T. A. and J.D. Lewis-William (eds.) (1994) ContestedImages: Diversity of
Interpretation in Southern African Rock Art Research. Johannesburg: Witwaterstrand

Univcrsity Press.
Driessen,J.M. (1982) To be in Vogue in LMIa? The Minoan Hall in Domestic Architecture
Acta
Archaeologica
Lovaniensia
Crcte.
21: 27-92.
on
Driesscn,J.M. (1989-90)The Proliferation of Minoan Palatial Architectural Style.1. Crete.
Acia A rchaeologicaLovaniensia28-9: 3-23.
Dricssen,J. (2001) History and Hierarchy. Preliminary Observationson the Settlement
Patternof Minoan Crete. In Branigan, K. (ed.) Urbanism in the AegeanBronzeAge.
Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress,51-71.
Dricssen,J.M. (2002) The King must die: SomeObservationson the Use of Minoan Court
Compounds.In Dricsscn,J.M., Schoep,I. and R. Laffineur (eds.), MonumentsofMinos:
Rethinking theMinoan Palaces(Aegaeum23). Liege: Univcrsite de Liege, University of
Texasat Austin, 1-14.
Dricsscn,J.M. (2004) The Central Court of the Palaceat Knossos.In Cadogan,G., Hatzaki,
E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace, City, State (British School Athens Studies
at
12). London: British School at Athens, 75-82.
Driessen,J.M. and C.F. Macdonald(1997) The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before
and
after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum12). Liege: Universite de Liege, University of
Texasat Austin.
Driessen,J.M. and JA MacGillivray (1989) The Neopalatial period in Crete. In Laffineur,
R. (cd.), Transition: Le Monde Eggendu BronzeMoyen au Bronze Recent(Aegaeum3).
Li6ge: Univcrsite de Liege, 99-111.

225

Driessen,J.M. and I. Schoep(1995) The Architect and the Scribe. In Laffineur, R. and W. -D.
Niemeier (eds.), POLITEIA: Societyand Statein the AegeanBronze Age (Aegaeum12).
Liege: Universite de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 649-64.
Monuments
)
(2002)
Rethinking
(eds.
Laffineur
R.
I.
Schoep,
M.,
J.
ofMinos:
and
Driessen,
de
Liege,
University
Texas
Universite
Liege:
23).
(Aegaeum
Palaces
Minoan
of
at
the
Austin.
University
Press.
Haven:
Yale
New
Man
(1965)
R.
Dubos,
adapting.
Eade, J. (ed.) (1997) Living the Global City. London: Routledge.
Eagleton, T. (1986) Against the Grain. London: Verso.

Organization
Complex
Chiefdom:
Social
TheHalelea
Economic
K.
(1978).
T.
of
a
Earle,
and
District Kaua'i, Hawaii. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Museum of
Anthropology.
Efstratiou N. (1985)Ayios Petros: A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades(British
Archaeological Reports241). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Efstratiou, N., Karetsou,A., Banou, E.S. and D. Margomenou(2004) The Neolithic
Settlementat Knossos:New Light on an Old Picture. In Gadogan,G., Hatzaki, E. and A.
Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace, City, State.British School at Athens Studies 12,3949.
Elias, N. (1978) The Civilizing Process. Volume. I: The History ofManners. Oxford:

Blackwell.
Engels,F. (1978) The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.Bejing: Foreign
LanguagePress.
Evans,A. J. (1901) The Palaceof Knossos.Annual of the British School at Athens 7: 1-120.
Evans,A.J. (1921) The Palace ofMinos at Knossos:A ComparativeAccount of the
SuccessiveStagesof the Early Cretan Civilization as illustrated by the Discoveries at
Knossos.Volume I. London: Macmillan.
Evans,A.J. (1928) The Palace ofMinos at Knossos:A ComparativeAccount of the
SuccessiveStagesof the Early Cretan Civilization as illustrated by the Discoveries at
Knossos.Volume II. London: Macmillan.
Evans,A.J. (1930) The Palace ofMinos at Knossos:A ComparativeAccount of the
SuccessiveStagesof the Early Cretan Civilization as illustrated by the Discoveries at
Knossos.Volume III. London: Macmillan.
Evans,A. J. (1935) The Palace ofMinos at Knossos.- A ComparativeAccount of the
SuccessiveStagesof the Early Cretan Civilization as illustrated by the Discoveries at
Knossos.Volume IV. London: Macmillan.

226

Evans, J.D. (1971) Neolithic Knossos:The Growth of a Settlement.In Coles, J. (ed.),

Contributions to Prehistory offered to GrahameClark (Proceedingsof the Prehistoric
Society37,2). London: Prehistoric Society,95-117.
Evans, J.D. (1973) Islandsas Laboratoriesfor the Study of Cultural Process.In Renfrew, C.
(ed.), TheExplanation of Culture Change:Models in Prehistory. London: Duck-worth,
517-20.
Evans, J.D. (1994) The Early Millennia: Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlement. In

Evely, D., Hughes-Brock,H. andN. Momigliano (eds.), Knossos:A Labyrinth of

History. Oxford: British School at Athens, 1-20.
Fabian, J. (1983) Time and the Other: How Anthropology makes its Object. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Fairchild, E.C. (1923) Labour and the Industrial Revolution. London : Allen and Unwin.
Faure, P. (1969) Sur Trois Sortes de Sanctuaries Cretois (Suite). Bulletin de Correspondance

Hellenique 93 : 174-213.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985) Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men.

New York: Basic Books.

Feinman, G.M. (1995) The emergence of inequality. In Douglas Price T. & G. M. Feinman
(eds) Foundations of Social Inequality. London: Plenum Press, 255-275.

Feinman,G.M (2001) MesoamericanPolitical Complexity: The corporate-network

dimension.In Haas,J. (ed) From leaders to rulers. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Press,151-175.
Fentress, J. and C. Wickham (1992) Social Memory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Feyerabend,P.K. (1975)Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory

of Knowledge.

London: NLB.
Feyerabend,P.K. (1987) Farewell to Reason.London: Verso.
Feyerabend,P.K. (1988)Against Method. London: Verso.
Fiandra,E. (1961-2) I Periodi Strutivi del Primo Palazzodie Festas.Kpgr:

KdXpoviKd 15-16:

112-26.
Finch, H. L. (2001) The Vision of Wittgenstein. London: Vega.

Finley, M. I. (1951) Studiesin Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500-200 B. C. New
Brunswick: RutgersUniversity Press.
Finley, M. I. (1973) The Ancient Economy. Berkeley: University
of California Press.

Flannery,K. V. (1972) The Origins of the Village as SettlementType in

a
Mesoamericaand
the Near East: A ComparativeStudy. In Ucko, P.J., Tringham, R.
and G.W. Dimbleby

227

(eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenk-amPublishing

Company, 23-54.
Flannery, K. V. (1982) The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable for the Archaeology of the
1980s.American Anthropologist 84: 265-78.
Flannery, K. V. and M. Winter (1976) Analysing Household Activities. In Flannery, K. V.
(ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press, 34-47.

Flax, J. (1987) Postmodernismand GenderRelations in Feminist Theory. Signs: Journal of

Women in Culture and Society 12(4): 621-43

Flax, J. (1990) Postmodernismand GenderRelations in Feminist Theory. In Nickolson, L. J.

(ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism.London: Routledge,39-62.
Flinn, M. W. (1966) The Origins of the Industrial Revolution. London: Longmans.
Fortier, A-M. (1999) Remembering Places and the Performance of Belonging(s). In Bell, V.
(ed.), Performativity and Belonging. London: Sage Publications, 41-64.
Fotiadis, M. (1994) What is Archaeology's "Mitigated Objectivism" mitigated by?

Commentson Wylie. American Antiquity 59(3), 545-55

c1 apxzreKrovuxiy
Fotou, V. (1984) OzKia,
KO?7v1a2rM Neo).zO:7c e7roXeco,;ro r&a.
OTr1v
oSn1S
ToaSIcrropiaS
eroXi (;rwv zpwuvv avaxrpo)v.Ie vviva: IlavstiatiA o Icoavvivcov,
S.
icat ApxatoXayia.
Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things. London: Tavistock.

Foucault,M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane.
Foucault,M. (1980) Power/Knowledge.Brighton: HarvesterPress.
Foucault,M. (1981) TheHistory of Sexuality. VolumeI: An Introduction. London: Allen
Lane.
Foucault,M. (1984) What is Enlightenment?In Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault Reader.
Hammondsworth: Peregrine, 32-50.

Foucault,M. (1986) Of Other Spaces.Diacritics 16: 22-7.

Fox, R.G. (1977) Urban Anthropology: Cities in their cultural
settings.New Jersey.
Fox, J. W., Cook, G.W., Chase,A. F. and D.Z. Chase(1996) Questions
of political and
economicintegration: segmentaryvs. centralizedstatesamong the ancient Maya.
Current Anthropology 37: 795-821.
Foxhall. L. (1993) Oil Extraction and ProcessingEquipment in Classical Greece.In
Amouretti, M. -C. and J. Brun (eds.), La Production du vin de 1'Huile
-P.
et
en
Mediterranee (Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellenique Suppl. 26). Paris: Ecole
Francaised'Athenes, 183-200.
Foxhall, L. (2000) The Running Sandsof Time: Archaeology

and the Short-Term. World

Archaeology 31: 484-98.

Frank,A. G. (1993) Bronze Age World-System Cycles. Current Anthropology 34:

383-430.

228

Social
Stratification
Evolution
On
(1960)
H.
the
M.
and the State.In Diamond, S.
of
Fried,
(ed.), Culture in History. New York: Columbia University Press,713-31.
Social
in
Evolution.
In
C.,
Continuity
Renfrew,
Catastrophe
(1982)
J.
and
Friedman,
Rowlands, M. and B. Seagraves(eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology. New
York: Academic Press,175-96.
Friedman, J. (1994) Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage Publications.
Frost, A. (1976) The Pacific Ocean: The Eighteenth-Century's `New World'. Studies in

Voltaire and the EighteenthCentury 142: 279-322.

Gadamer,H.G. (1976) Philosophical Hermeneutics.Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Gadamer,H. G. (1981) Reasonin the Age of Science.Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.
Gadamer,H. G. (1989) Truth and Method. London: Sheed& Ward.
Galanidou,N. (1997) "Home is where the Hearth is": The Spatial Organization of the
Upper Palaeolithic Rockshelter Occupations at Klithi and Kastritsa in Northwest
Greece. (British Archaeological Reports 687). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Gall, P.L. and A. A. Saxe(1977) The Ecological Evolution of Culture: The Stateas Predator
in Succession Theory. In Earle, T. and J. Ericson. (eds.), Exchange Systems in
Prehistory. New York: Academic Press, 255-68.
Gamble, C. S. (1979) Surplus and Self-Sufficiency in the Cycladic Subsistence Economy. In
Davis, J.L. and J.F. Cherry (eds.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory. Los Angeles: UCLA

Institute of Archaeology, 122-34.

Gamble,C.S. (1981) Social Control and the Economy. In Sheridan,A. and G. Bailey (eds.),
EconomicArchaeology: Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches.
(British Archaeological Reports96). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,215-30.
Gamble,C.S. (1982) Animal Husbandry,Population and Urbanization. In Renfrew, C. and
M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity: TheArchaeology of Exploitation in Melos.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,161-71.
Gay, P. (1973) The Enlightenment. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gellner,E. (1964) Thought and Change.London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Gellner,E. (1995) Interpretive Archaeology. In Hodder, I., Shanks,M., Alexandri, A.,
Buchli, V., Carman,J., Last, J. and G. Lucas (eds.) (1995) Interpreting Archaeology:
Finding Meaning in the Past. London: Routledge,48-50.
Georgoulaki,E. (1996) Burial Evidenceand its Religious Connotationsin Prepalatial
and
Old PalaceMinoan Crete. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,University Liege.
of
Gero,J.M. (2000) The Social World of Prehistoric Facts: Genderand Power in Palaeoindian
Research.In Thomas,J. (cd.), Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader. London: Leicester
University Press,304-16.

229

Archaeology:
Engendering
)
(1991)
Women
Prehistory.
Conkey
(eds.
M.
M.
J.
and
Gero,
and
Oxford: Blackwell.
Cult
Crete.
Minoan
House
(Studiesin
in
Palace
Town,
C.
G.
(1985)
and
Gesell,
Astrms
Gteborg:
Paul
Frlag.
67).
Archaeology
Mediterranean
Cambridge:
Social
Modern
Theory.
Cambridge
Capitalism
A.
(1977)
and
Giddens,
University Press.
Cambridge:
Polity
Society.
Press.
Constitution
The
A.
(1984)
of
Giddens,
Giddens,A. (1985) Time, Space,Regionalization.In Gregory, D. and J. Urry (eds.), Social
Relations and Spatial Structures.Basingstoke:Macmillan, 65-295.
Giddens,A. (1987) Social Theory and Modern Sociology.Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gilman, A. (1981) The Developmentof Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe. Current
Anthropology 22(1): 1-23.
Gilman, A. (1991) Trajectories towards Social Complexity in the Later Prehistory of the
Mediterranean. In Earle, T. K. (ed.), Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. 146-68.

Given, M. (1998) Responses.Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11 (1): 126-8.
Goffman, E. (1971) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Press.
Gosden, C. (1994) Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gosden, C. (1999) Archaeology and Anthropology: A Changing Relationship. London:

Routledge.
Gosden,C. (2001) Collecting Colonialism: Material Culture and Colonial Change. Oxford:
Berg.
Graham, J.W. (1957) The Central Court as the Minoan bull-ring American Journal of
Archaeology 61: 255-262.
Graham,J.W. (1962) The Palacesof Crete. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Gramsci,A. (1971) Selectionsfrom the Prison Notebooks.London: Lawrenceand Wishart.
Gregory,D. (1991) Interventionsin the Historical Geographyof Modernity: Social Theory,
Spatiality andthe Politics of Representation.GeografiskaAnaler 73(B): 17-44.
Grignon, C. (2001) Commensality and Social Morphology: An Essay of Typology. In
Scholliers, P. (ed.), Food, Drink and Identity: Cooking, Eating and Drinking in Europe
since the Middle Ages. Oxford: Berg, 23-33.
Grimsley, R. (1973) The Philosophy of Rousseau. London: Oxford University Press.
Haas, J. (1982) The Evolution of the Prehistoric State. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Haas,J. (2001) Nonlinear pathsof political centralization.In Haas,J. (ed) From leaders to
rulers. London: Kluwer Academic/PlenumPress,235-243.

230

Communicative
Action.
Volume
Cambridge:
Polity
1.
Theory
The
J.
(1984)
of
Habermas,
Press.
i
'Minoan
Villa".
Stockholm:
Svenska
Institutet
Function
The
the
(1997)
)
of
Hgg, R. (ed.
Athen.

Chalice
EMI
Cultural
Implications
Typology
The
the
the
C.
(1997)
D.
of
and
of
Haggis,
Composition, Form and Style in Early Bronze Age Ceramics. In Betancourt,P.P. and R.
Lailineur (eds.), TEXNH: Craftsmen.Crafswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean
BronzeAge (Aegaeum16). Liege: Universite de Liege, Histoire de I'Art et Archeologie
de la GreceAntique, University of Texasat Austin, Program in Aegean Scripts and
Prehistory,291-9.
Gournia,
Crete.
from
Transactionsof the
Pottery
Painted
Early
H.
(1905)
E.
Hall,
DepartmentofArchaeology, University of Pennsylvania 1: 191-205.
Hall, E.H. (1912) Excavationsin Eastern Crete, Sphowigaras. Philadelphia: University
Muscum.
Hall, T. D. (1999) World-Systcms and Evolution: An Appraisal. In Kardulias, P.N. (ed.),
World SystemsTheory in Practice: Leadership, Production and Exchange. Lanham:
Rowmanand Littlcfcld Publishcrs, 1-23.
Hallager, B.P. and E. Hallagcr (1995) The Knossian Bull: Political Propagandain NeoPalatial Crete?In Laffincur, R. and W. -D. Nicmcier (eds.), POLITEIA: Societyand State
in the Aegean Brome Age (Aegaeum 12). Liege: Universite dc Liege, University of
Tcxas at Austin, 547-56.
Halstead,P. (1981) From Determinism to Uncertainty: Social Storageand the Rise of the
Minoan Palace.In Sheridan,A. and G. Bailey (eds.), Economic Archaeology: Towards
Social
Ecological
Approaches
Reports
(British
Archaeological
Int.
Integration
and
of
an
Ser.96), Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 187-213.
Halstead,P. (1988) On Redistribution and the Origin of Minoan-MyccnacanPalatial
Economics.In French,E.B. and K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory.
Bristol: Bristol ClassicalPress,519-28.
Halstead,P. (1989) The Economy hasa Normal Surplus: Economic Stability and Social
Changeamong Early Farming Communities of Thessaly,Greece.In Halstead,P. and J.
O'Shea(eds.), Bad YearEconomics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,68-80.
Halstead,P. (1990) Wastenot, want not: Traditional Responsesto crop Failure in Greece.
Rural History 1(2): 147-64.
Halstead,P. (1992) Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean:Towards a Model of Palatial
Economy.In Wells, B. (cd.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece.Stockholm: Astrm, 10516.

231

Complexity
in
Divide:
Regional
Paths
Prehistoric
North-South
The
to
(1994)
P.
Halstead,
Greece.In Mathers,C. and S. Stoddart(eds.), Developmentand Decline in the
Mediterranean Bronze Age. Sheffield: J.R. Collis, 195-219.
Halstead, P. (1995) From Sharing to Hoarding: The Neolithic Foundations of Aegean Bronze
Age Society? In Niemeier, W. -D. and R Laffineur (eds.), POLITEIA: Society and State
de
Universite
Liege,
Histoire
12).
de
1'Art
Age
(Aegaeum
Bronze
Aegean
et
the
in
Archeologie de la Grece Antique, University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean

Scripts and Prehistory, 11-20.

Halstead,P. (1997) StorageStrategiesand Stateson Prehistoric Crete: A Reply to Strasser.
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10: 103-7.

Halstead,P. andJ.C. Barrett (eds.) (2004) Food Cuisine and Societyin Prehistoric Greece.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Halstead,P. and J. O'Shea(1982) A Friend in Need is a Friend indeed: Social Storageand
In
Social
Renfrew, C. and S. Shennan (eds.), Ranking, Resource
Ranking.
Origins
the
of
Cambridge
Cambridge:
University
Press,
Exchange.
92-9.
and

Hamilakis, Y. (1995) Strategiesfor Survival and Strategiesfor Domination: Wine, Oil, and
"Social Complexity" in BronzeAge Crete. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,University of
Sheff eld.
Hamilakis, Y. (1996) Wine, Oil and the Dialectics of Power in Bronze Age Crete: A Review
of the Evidence.Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 15: 1-32.
Hamilakis, Y. (1997-8) Consumptionpatterns,factional competition and political
developmentin Bronze Age Crete.Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies42:
233-4.
Hamilakis, Y. (1998) Eating the Dead: Mortuary Feasting and the Politics of Memory in the
Aegean Bronze Age Societies. In Branigan, K. (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the
AegeanBronzeAge. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 115-32.
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(1): 38-54.
Hamilakis, Y. (2000) The Archaeology of Food and Drink Consumptionand Aegean
Archaeology.In Vaughan,S.J. and W. D. E. Coulson (eds.), Palaeodiet in the Aegean.
Oxford: Oxbow, 55-63.
Hamilakis, Y. (2001) Archaeologyand the Burden of Responsibility. In Pluciennilc,M. (ed.),
TheResponsibilitiesofArchaeologists: Archaeology and Ethics (Bar International
Series981). Oxford: Archacopress,91-6.
Hamilakis, Y. (ed.) (2002a)Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking "Minoan" Archaeology.
Oxford: Oxbow.

232

Re-Thinking
Minoan
Past?
for
"Minoan"
Future
What
Y.
the
(2002b)
Hamilakis,
"Minoan"
Rethinking
Revisited:
)
Labyrinth
Y.
(ed.
Hamilakis,
In
Archaeology.

Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow, 2-28.

in
Neopalatial
Crete.
Competition
In
Factional
Many
Chiefs?
Too
Y.
(2002c)
Hamilakis,
Driessen, J.M., Schoep, I. and R. Lafiineur (eds.), Monuments ofMinos: Rethinking the
Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum 23). Liege: Universite de Liege, University of Texas at

Austin, 179-99.
Hand, S. (ed.) (1989) The Levinas Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hannerz, U. (1996) Transnational Connections. London: Routledge.

Hansen,J.M. (1988) Agriculture in the Prehistoric Aegean:Data versusSpeculation.

American Journal of Archaeology 92: 39-52.
Haraway, D. J. (1991) Simians,Cyborgs and Women:TheReinvention of Nature. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Harre, R. (1990) SomeNarrative Conventionsof Scientific Discourse.In Nash, G. (cd.),
Narrative in Culture: The Usesof Storytelling in the Sciences,Philosophy and
Literature. London: Routledge, 81-101.
Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Harvey, P. (1996) Hybrids ofModernity. London: Routledge.

Hatzaki, E. (1996) Was the Little Palaceat Knossosthe "Little Palace" of Knossos?In
Every, D., Lemos, 1.S. and S. Sherratt(eds.) From Minotaur to Centaur: Studiesin the
Archaeology of Crete and EuboeaPresentedto Mervyn Popham. (British
Archaeological Reports 638). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 34-45
Hatzidakis,I. (1915) IIpwiotvcwtxoiTeapot7rap6To xwpiov Topvcq.ApXazoloyi,cvAeAriov
1: 59-63.
Hatzidakis,I. (1918) Mtvwixoi icpotacv Kpini1. ApXazo),
oyixv A&lrfov 4: 45-87.
Hatzidakis,J. (1912-13). An Early Minoan SacredCave at Arkalochori in Crete.Annual of
the British School at Athens 19: 35-47.
Hatzi-Vallianou, D. (1979) Ewaaza KovoE.Apxato) oy:KvA&
34:
384.
1rfov
Hayden, B. (1995) Pathways to power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In
Douglas Price T. & G.M. Feinman (eds) Foundations of Social Inequality. London:
Plenum Press, 15-86.

Hebdige,D. (1993) A Report on the Western Front: Postmodernismand the `Politics' of

Style. In Jenks,C. (ed.), Cultural Reproduction.London: Routledge,69-103.
Heidegger,M. (1962) Being and Time. London: S.C.M. Press.
Held, D. and J.B. Thompson(1989) Social Theory of Modern Societies:Anthony Giddens
and his Critics. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.

233

Culture
Society.
Alden,
Practice
Theoretical
in
Anthropology:
M.
(2001)
and
Herzfeld,

Mass.: Blackwell.
A
Approach.
Territorial
In
Economies:
Prehistoric
(1972)
C.
Vita-Finzi
S.
E.
Higgs,
and
Higgs, E.S. (ed.), Papers in EconomicPrehistory. Cambridge.CambridgeUniversity
Press,27-36.
Hitchcock, L. A. (2000) Minoan Architecture: A Contextual Analysis (Studies in

Astrms
Frlag.
Paul
Jonsered:
155).
Archaeology
Mediterranean
Hodder, I. (1982) Symbolsin Action: EthnoarchaeologicalStudiesofMaterial Culture.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.Hodder, I. (1986) Reading the Past.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Hodder, I. (1990) TheDomesticationof Europe: Structure and Contingencyin Neolithic
Societies.Oxford: Blackwell.
Hodder, I. (1991) Interpretive Archaeology and its Role. American Antiquity 56: 7-18.
Hodder, I. (1999) TheArchaeological Process:An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hodder, I., Shanks,M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman,J., Last, J. and G. Lucas (eds.)
(1995) Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. London: Routledge.
Holquist, M. (1990) Dialogism: Bakhtin and his World. London: Routledge.

Hood, M. S.F. (1958) Archaeologyin Greece1957.Archaeological Reports: 3-25.

Hood, M. S.F. (1978) TheArts in Prehistoric Greece(The Pelican History of Art).
Harmondsworih:Penguin.
Hood, M. S.F. (1990a) Autochtonsor Settlers?Evidence for Immigration at the Beginning of
the Early Bronze Age in Crete. In He rpay4ueva
tov Er' AwOvovsKpqrooyuxo
ZvvEBpiov.Xavt: biXo).oyuc6 Eh oyo; Xpvaatcop.
367-75
os,
,
Hood, M. S. F. (1994) Knossos:Soundingsin the PalaceArea, 1973-87.Annual of the British
School at Athens 89: 101-102.
Hood, M. S.F. and D. Smyth (1981). Archaeological Surveyof the KnossosArea. London:

British Schoolat Athens.

Hood, S., Smyth, D. and W. Taylor (1981) The BronzeAge Palace at Knossos:Plan and
Sections(Annual of the British School at Athens Suppl. 13). London: Thames& Hudson.
Hopkins, K. (1983) Introduction. In Garnsey,P., Hopkins, K. and G.R. Whittaker (eds.),
Trade in theAncient Economy.London: Chatto and Windus, IX-XXV.
Hudson,P. (1992) TheIndustrial Revolution. London : Edward Arnold.
Hue, M. and O.Pelon (1992) La Salle Piliers du Palais de Malia et sesAntecedents.
Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellenique 116: 1-36.
Hulme, P. (1986) Colonial Encounters:Europe and the Native Caribbean 1492-1797.
London: Methuen.

234

Hume, P. (1990) The Spontaneous Hand of Nature: Sovereignty, Colonialism and the
Enlightenment. In Hulme, P. and L. J. Jordanova (eds.), The Enlightenment and its

Shadows.London: Routledge,16-34.
Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and
Skill. London: Routledge.

Jacob,M. C. (1997) Scientific Culture and the Making of the Industrial West.Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jenkins,K. (1991) Re-thinking History. London: Routledge.
Jenkins,R. (1996) Social Identity. London: Routledge.
Jenkins,R. (2002) Foundationsof Sociology: Towards a Better Understandingof the Human
World. Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Johnson,G.A. (1973) Local Exchangeand Early StateDevelopmentin SouthwestIran. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
Johnson,M. (2004) Archaeologyand Social Theory. In Bintli! T, J. (cd.), A Companion to
Archaeology.Oxford: Blackwell, 92-109.
Jones,E.L. (1974) Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jones,S. (1997) TheArchaeology of Ethnicity: ConstructingIdentities in the Past and
Present.London: Routlcdge.
Jones,S. (cd.) (1995) Cybersociety.London: SagePublications.
Joyce,P. (1997) The End of Social History? In Jenkins, K. (ed.), ThePostmodernHistory

Reader.London:Routlcdge,341-365.
Joyce,R.A. (2002) TheLcoguagesofArchaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kanta, A. (1992). Monastiraki. In Myers, J.W., Myers, E.E. and G. Cadogan(eds.), The
Aerial Allas ofAncient Crete. London: Thames& Hudson, 194-7.
Kanta, A. and A. Tzigounaki (2000) The Protopalatial Multiple Scaling System.New
Evidencefrom Monastiraki. In Pema,M. (ed.) Administrative Documentsin the Aegean
and their Near Eastern Counterparts.Proceedingsof the International Colloquium,
Naples,Torino, 193-205.
Karantzali,E. (1996) Le BronzeAncien dans le Cycladeset en Crete: Les Relations Entre les
Deux Regions:Influence de la Grece Continentale (British Archaeological Reports 631).
Oxford: TempusReparatum.
Kardulias, P.N. (1999) Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World System. In
Kardulias, P.N. (cd), World SystemsTheory in Practice: Leadership, Production
and
Exchange.Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 179-202.
King, B.J. (2002) On PatternedInteractionsand Culture in Great Apes. In Fox, R.G.

and B.J.

King (eds.), Anthropology beyondCulture. Oxford: Berg, 83-104.

235

Archaeological
Artists'
Impressions,
Knossos:
Reconstructions
A.
(1998)
of
Klynne,
Evidence and Wishful Thinking. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11(2): 206-29.

State.
Crete:
The
Malia-Lasithi
in
Protopalatial
Polity
Assessing
C.
(1999)
a
Knappett,
American Journal ofArchaeology 103: 615-39.
in
Minoan
Studies.
Pots
Politics
In
Gap:
Between
Mind
C.
(2002)
the
and
Knappett,
Hamilakis, Y. (ed.), Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking Minoan' Archaeology. Oxford:

Oxbow, 167-88.
in
Change
Continuity
Minoan
Palatial
Power.
Schoep
(2000)
I.
C.
and
Knappett,
and

Antiquity 74: 365-71.

Case
Theory:
The
World-Systems
Abuse
Use
The
L.
(1989)
of the "Pristine"
P.
of
Kohl,
and
West Asian State.In Lamberg-Karlovsky,C.C. (ed.), Archaeological Thought in
America. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,21840.
Kohl, P.L. (1993) Limits to a Post-ProcessualArchaeology (or, the Dangersof a New
Scholasticism).In Yoffee, N. and A. Sherratt(eds.), Archaeological Theory: Whosets
the Agenda?Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,13-9.
Kopcke, G. (1987) The Cretan Palaces and Trade. In Hgg, R. and N. Marinatos (eds.), The

Function of theMinoan Palaces.Stockholm: Astrom, 255-60.

Kopcke, G. (2000) Handel und Kultur in Kreta und Mykene. In Siegenmorgen,H. (ed) In
Labyrinth desMinos. Kreta-die Erste EuropischeHochkultur. Karlsruhe: Biering und
Brinkmann, 181-89.
Koselleck, R. (1988) Critique and Crisis: Enlightenmentand the PathogenesisofModern
Society.Oxford: Berg.
Koster, J. (1976) From Spindleto Loom: Weaving in the SouthernArgolid. Expedition
19(1): 29-39.
Koukidis, K. (1948) To ;rvea TouavverazplapovTcovNewrepcovEA) vcovKai TaAPZEAdKia,
o zpwros ovvsraipiau6qtoo Kapou. AOTjva.
Krader,L. (1978) The Origin of the Stateamongthe Nomads of Asia. In Claessen,H. J.M
and P. Skalnik (eds.), TheEarly State.The Hague: Mouton, 93-107.
Kristiansen, K. (1987) Centre and Periphery in Bronze Age Scandinavia. In Rowlands, M.,
Mogens, L. and K. Kristiansen (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 74-86.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970) TheStructure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago: Chicago University

Press.
Laclau,E. and C. Mouffe (1985) Hegemonyand Socialist Strategy.London: Verso.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the

Mind Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

LaRosa,V. (1988) Apxato?.oyu

Et& acts 1987: Ayia Tpic &z. Kojwa Earfa 2: 329-30.

236

A
Triada.
Haghia
Recent
Bronze
Moyen
du
Bronze
Donnces
au
Nouvelles
V.
(1989)
LaRosa,
Bronze
Recent
Moyen
du
Bronze
Egeen
Monde
Le
au
Transition:
In Laffineur, R. (ed.),
81-92.
de
Liege,
Universite
Liege:
3).
(Aegaeum

Aerial
G.
Cadogan
(eds.
),
The
E.
E.
W.,
Myers,
J.
Myers,
In
and
Phaistos.
LaRosa, V. (1992b)
232-43.
&
Hudson,
Thames
London:
Crete.
Ancient
Atlas of

G.
Carratelli,
G.
A.,
LaRosa
V.,
P.
L.,
DiVita,
In
Beschi,
Conclusioni.
and
(2001)
LaRosa, V.
Accademia
Nazionale
dei
Lincei,
Roma:
di
Fests.
Scavo
dello
Anni
Cento
I
)
(eds.
Rizza
623-36.
de Phaistos. In
du
Second
Palais
Preliminaire
Revision
Une
Pour
V.
(2002a)
LaRosa,

Monuments
Rethinking
),
(eds.
R.
Laf
I.
the
Schoep,
J.
M.,
ofMinos:
incur
and
Driessen,
de
Liege,
University
Texas
Universite
Liege:
23).
(Aegaeum
of
at
Palaces
Minoan
Austin, 71-98.
della
Scuola
Annuario
Scavo
2000-2002
Festas.
di
Campagne
La
V.
(2002b)
a
LaRosa,
Archaeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 80: 635-745.
Creta
Antica
Festas?
5,43-51.
Il
Palazzo
Perche
V.
(2005)
a
LaRosa,
Capitalism.
Organized
Cambridge:
End
Polity
Press.
The
Urry
(1987)
J.
S.
of
Lash,
and
Signs
Space.
London:
Sage
Economies
Publications.
(1994)
Urry
J.
S.
and
of
Lash,
and
Latour, B. (1993) We have never been Modern. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Law, J. and J. Urry (2003) Enacting the Social. Published by the Department of Sociology

University
Studies,
Lancaster
Science
Centre
at
of
and the
http://www. lancs.ac.uk/fss/sociology/papers/law-urry-enacting-the-social.pdf
Lenski, G.E. (1966) Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York:
Mcgraw-Hill.
Levi, B. (1960) Per una nuova Classificazionedella Civilt Minoica. La Parola del Passato
71: 81-124.
Levi, D. (1957-8) Gli Scavi a Festes.Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle
Missioni Italiane in Oriente 35-36: 193-361.

Levi, D. (1961-62)La Tomba a Tholos di Kamilari Pressoa Festes.Annuario della Scuola

Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente 39-40: 7-148.
Levi, D. (1976) Festfise la Civilt Minoica. Vol. 1. Rome: Ed. dell' Ateneo.
Levi, D. andCarinci, F. (1988) Festse la Civiltd Minoica. Vol. 2: L'Arte festia nell eta
Protopalaziale: Ceramica e Altri Materiali. Roma: Edizioni dell' Ateneo.
Levinas, E. (1967) Par deli le Dialogue. Journal des Communautes 398: 1-3.
Levis-Strauss, C. (1972) The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Lewellen,T.C. (1983) Political Anthropology. SouthHadley, Massachusetts:Bergin &

Garvey.
Loader,B. (ed.) (1997) The Governanceof Cyberspace.London: Routledge.

237

Government.
Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Treatise
Second
The
J.
(1952)
of
Locke,
Societies.
London
New
York:
Tavistock.
Rural
Work
in
Family
(1984)
and
)
N.
(ed.
Long,
Objectivity
Scientific
Values
in
Knowledge:
Social
Science
and
H.
(1990)
as
Longino,
Inquiry. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Routledge.
London:
Colonialism.
Colonialism/Post
A.
(1998)
Loomba,
Macmillan
London:
View.
A
Radical
Power:
S.
(1974)
Lukes,

Macmillan
London:
Social
Theory.
Essay
in
S.
(1977)
Lukes,
Lukes, S. (ed.) (1986) Power. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lury, C. (1996) ConsumerCulture. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Colonialism.
Lyons,
C.
L.
In
Archaeology
(2002)
K.
Papadopoulos
J.
C.
L.
and
Lyons,
and
Getty
Colonialism.
Los
Angeles,
Archaeology
The
(eds.
),
K.
Papadopoulos
J.
of
and
ResearchInstitute, 1-23.
Macdonald, C. F. (2002) The Neopalatial Palaces of Knossos. In Driessen, J.M., Schoep, I.
Palaces
(Aegaeum
Rethinking
Minoan
(eds.
),
Monuments
Laffineur
the
R.
ofMinos:
and

23). Liege: Universite de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 35-54.

Macdonald, C. (2004) Ceramicand Contextual Confusion in the Old and New Palace
Periods.In Gadogan,G., Hatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace, City,
State.British School at AthensStudies 12,237-51.
Macdonald, C.F. (2005) Knossos.London: The Folio Society.
MacGillivray, J.A. (1987) Pottery Workshops and the Old Palacesin Crete. In Hgg, R. and
N. Marinatos (eds.), TheFunction of theMinoan Palaces. Stockholm: Astrm, 273-79.
MacGillivray, J.A. (1994) The Early History of the Palaceat Knossos(MMI-II). In Evely,
D., Hughes-Brock,H. and N. Momigliano (eds.), Knossos:A Labyrinth of History.
Oxford: British Schoolat Athens,45-55.
MacGillivray, J.A. (1998) Knossos:Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period London:
British Schoolat Athens.
Maclntyre, A. (1988) WhoseJustice? Whose Rationality? London: Duckworth.
Macnaghten, P. and J. Urry (1998) Contested Natures. London: Sage Publications.
Maggidis, C. (1998) From Polis to Necropolis: Social Ranking from Architectural and

Mortuary Evidencein the Minoan Cemeteryat Phourni, Archanes.In Branigan, K. (ed.),

Cemeteryand Societyin the AegeanBronzeAge. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
87-102.
Makimoto, T. and D. Manners(1997) Digital Nomad. Chichester:John Wiley.
Malinowski, B. (1944) A Scientific Theory of Culture. Chapel Hill, N. C.: University
of North

Carolina Press.
Mann, M. (1986) TheSourcesof Social Power: Volume.1. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

238

In
Hgg,
R.
N.
Palaces.
Courts
West
in
the
Festivals
and
Public
the
of
Marinatos, N. (1987)
Astrm,
Stockholm:
134-43.
Palaces.
Minoan
Function
the
The
),
(eds.
of
Marinatos
AthIov
toy1x6v
9:
53i
ApXaio.
MSaap
Kui
Msaotvo
t1a1ouda sv
Marinatos, S. (1924-5)

78.

Kpot
I1EStOos.
OoXo
IIpwiowo
xwpiov
S.
do
(1929)
tapes
icupoq
tS
ixs
Marinatos,

ApXa:o)oyixv A Xriov 12: 102-41.

ApXalO.
ZOytxdv
Mcaaapc.
Bopo
Mtvo
ITpwioti
Ao
S.
(1931)
EK
icpot
ucoi
Marinatos,
AthIov 13: 137-70.
Aijva
EUd5os.
To
I
(1938)
rr
xa1ua
Mariopoulos,
An
Study
Fisher-Gatherer-Hunters:
in
Scale
Complexity
the
W.
H.
(1985)
of
and
Marquardt,
A.
Brown
J.
(eds.),
T.
D.
Price,
States.
In
United
Eastern
from
and
the
Example
Orlando:
Complexity.
Cultural
Emergence
The
Gatherers:
of
Prehistoric-Hunter
AcademicPress,59-98.
Marquardt, W.H. (1992) Dialectical Archaeology. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Archaeological
Method and Theory, Volume 4. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 101-40.

Martin, H.-P. and H. Schumann(1997) The Global Trap. London: Zed.

Marx, K. (1973) Grundrisse: Foundationsof the Critique of Political Economy.London:
Allen Lane, New Left Review.
Marx, K. (1975) ThePoverty of Philosophy. Moscow: ProgressPublishers.
Marx, K. and F. Engels (1970) The German Ideology. London: Laurence and Wishart.
Maslow, A. H. (1943) A Theory in Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50: 370-96.
Mattingly, D. (1993) Maximum Figures and Maximizing Strategies of Oil Production?

FurtherThoughtson the ProcessingCapacity of Roman Olive Presses.In Amouretti, M. C. and J.-P. Brun (eds.), La Production du Vin et de 1'Huile en Mediterrane (Bulletin de
CorrespondanceHellenique Suppl. 26). Paris: Ecole Francaised'Athenes,438-98.
Matz, F. (ed.) (1951) ForschungenaKreta 1942. Berlin: De Gruyter.
McEnroe,J.G. (1979)Minoan House and Town Arrangement. Unpublished PhD
Dissertation,University of Toronto.
McEnroe,J.G. (1982) A Typology of Minoan Neopalatial Houses.American Journal of
Archaeology86(1): 3-19.
McGuire, R.H. (1983) Breaking down Cultural Complexity: Inequality and Heterogeneity.
Advancesin Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 91-142.
McNeal, R.A. (1973) The Legacy of Arthur Evans. California Studiesin Classical Antiquity
6: 205-20.

Mennell, S. (1991) On the Civilizing of Appetite. In Featherstone,M., Hepworth, M. and

B. S. Turner (eds.), The Body: Social Processesand Cultural Theory. London: Sage
Publications,126-56.

239

Body
Ancient
Egypt.
Fantasies
Cultural
Bodies:
and
Consuming
of
(1998)
L.
Meskell,

Society 4(1): 63-76.

Oxford:
Social
Archaeology.
Companion
A
to
(2004)
)
(eds.
Preucel
R.
Meskell, L. and
Blackwell.
107-22.
88:
Journal
American
Hearths.
Minoan
P.
(1984)
ofArchaeology
Metaxa-Muhly,
Societies
in
Age
in
Bronze
Metal
the
Quantities
Recording
A.
(2001)
of
Mtichaelidou,

Measurement:
Manufacture
A.
(ed.
)
In
Michaelidou,
East.
Near
and
Aegeanand the
Societies.
Athens:
in
Aegean
Early
Craft
Items
Counting, measuringand recording
Meke-A
Epcuvwv,
EOvtxv'ISpva
Apxatimoc,
Pcoaiio
a.
EX.
taia
c
KEvtpov
iivucrjsuat
33,85-119.
Weights
"Minoan
A
Economy:
Minoan
On
to
tribute
and
A.
(2004)
the
Mtchaelidou,
A.
Vasilakis
E.
G.,
Gadogan,
Hatzaki,
Evans.
In
Arthur
by
Currency"
and
Mediums of
(eds.), Knossos:Palace, City, State.British School at Athens Studies 12,311-21.
Miller, D. (1985) Artefacts as Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Miller, D. (1995) Consumption as the Vanguard of History. In D. Miller (ed.),
Acknowledging Consumption. London: Routledge.

Cambridge:
Shopping.
Polity.
A
Theory
(1998)
D.
Miller,
of
Miller, D. and C. Tilley (eds.) (1984) Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversity Press.
Mirie, S. (1979) Das Thronraumareal des Palastes von Knossos: Versuch einer

Neuinterpretation seiner Entstehungund seiner Function. Bonn: SaarbrckerBeitrge

zur Altertumskunde.
Momigliano, N. (1991) Middle Minoan la Pottery from Evans' Excavations at Knossos: A
Annual of the British School at Athens 86: 149-269.
Reassessment.
Momigliano, N. (1992) The'Proto-Palatial Facade'at Knossos.Annual of the British School
at Athens87: 165-75.
Momigliano, N. and S. Hood (1994) Excavation of 1987on the South Front of the Palaceat
Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 89: 103-50.

Momigliano, N. and D. E. Wilson (1996) Knossos 1993: Excavationsoutside the South

Front of the Palace.Annual of the British School at Athens 91: 1-57.
Momigliano, N. (2000) The Old PalacePeriod. In Huxley, D. (ed.), Cretan Quests:British
Explorers, Excavatorsand Historians. London: British School at Athens, 100-12.
Moody, J. (1987) The Minoan Palaceas a PrestigeArtifact. In Hgg, R. andN. Marinatos
(eds.), TheFunction of the Minoan Palaces. Stockhom: Astrm, 235-41.
Moore, H. (1995) The Problemsof Origins: Post-Structuralismand Beyond. In Hodder, I.,
Shanks,M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last, J. and G. Lucas (eds.),
Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. London: Routledge,51-3.

240

Creation
Bakhtin:
Mikhail
Prosaics.
(1990)
Stanford:
C.
Emerson
G.
S.
ofa
Morson,
and
Stanford University Press.
Clarendon
Oxford:
Hume.
Press.
David
Life
The
C.
(1980)
E.
of
Mossner,
Contributions
by
South
House
(With
Burke, B.,
The
Knossos:
(2003)
A.
P.
Mountjoy,
Christakis, K. S., Driessen, J.M., Evely, R. D. G., Knappett, C. and O. H. Krzyszkowska)

Suppl.
London:
Athens
34).
The British School at
School
British
the
at
(Annual of
Athens.
Beginning
Metal
Technology
Crete
in
Chrysokamino
the
(2004)
D.
of
J.
and
on
and
Muhly,
S.
Muhly
Crete
M.
J.
D.
(eds.
)
Beyond
L.
P.,
Mook,
Palaces:
Day,
In
the
Aegean.
and
the
Proceedingsof the Crete 2000 Conference.Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press,28389.
Mller, S (1991) Prospectionde la Plaine de Malia. Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellenique
115: 741-49.
Mller, S. (1992) Prospection de la Plaine de Malia. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique

116: 742-53
Mller, S (1996) Prospectionde la Plaine de Malia. Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellenique
120: 921-28
Mller, S (1998) Malia: ProspectionArcheologique de la Plaine. Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellenique 122: 548-52.

Murphy, J.M. (1998) Ideologies,Rites and Rituals: A View of PrepalatialMinoan Tholoi. In

Branigan,K. (ed.), Cemeteryand Societyin the AegeanBronzeAge. Sheffield: Sheffield
AcademicPress,27-40.
Murray, T. (1993) Communicationand the Importance of Disciplinary Communities: Who
Sherratt
A.
(eds.), Archaeological Theory: Whosets
N.
Past?
In
Yoffee,
the
and
owns
the Agenda?Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,105-16.
Murray, T. (ed.) (1999), Time andArchaeology (One World Archaeology 37). London:
Routledge.
Nakou, G. (1995) The Cutting Edge: A New Look at Early Aegean Metallurgy. Journal of
Mediterranean Studies 8: 1-32.

Netting, R., Wilk, R. and E. Arnould (eds.) (1984) Households: Comparative and Historical
Studiesof the Domestic Group. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Netting, R.M. (1989) Smallholders,Householders,Freeholders:Why the Family Farm works
well Worldwide. In Wilk, R. (ed.), The Household Economy: Reconsidering the
Domestic Mode of Production. San Francisco: Westview Press, 221-44.

Niemeier,W. -D. (1987) On the Function of the "Throne Room" in the Palaceat Knossos.In
Hgg, R. andN. Marinatos (eds.), The Function of theMinoan Palaces.Stockholm:
Astrom, 163-68.

241

Nicmcicr, W. -D. (1997) The Origins of the Minoan 'Villa' System. In Hgg, R. (cd. ), The
Function of the 'Minoan Villa'. Stockholm: Svenska Instituter i Athen, 15-19.

Niemeier, W. -D. (2004) When Minos Ruled the Waves: KnossianPower Overseas.In
Gadogan,G., Ilatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.). Knossos:Palace, City, State.British
Schoolat AthensStudies 12.393.98.
Nikolaidou. M. (2002) Palaces'with Facesin Protopalatial Crete: Looking for Peoplein the
First Minoan States.In Ilamilakis. Y. (cd.). Labyrinth Revisited.- Rethinking 'Minoan'
Archaeology.Oxford: Oxbow, 74-97.
O'Shea, J. (1981) Coping eich Scarcity: Exchangeand Social Storage.In Sheridan,A. and
G. Bailey (eds.), EconomicArchaeology: Towards an Integration of Ecological and
Social Approaches(British Archeological Reports96). Oxford: British Archaeological
Rcports. 167-83.
Odum, E.P. (1963) Ecology.Ncw York: Holt, Rinchart and Winston.
Olivicr, J.-P. (1989) Lcs EcrituresCrdtoiscs.In Trcuil, R., Darcquc,P. Poursat,J.-P. and G.
du
I
Bronze.
de
',
Paris:
du
Neolithique
I
Civilizations
Les
ge
et
Touchais(cds.)
geennes
PrcsscsUnivcrsitairesdc Francc,237-52.
O1mo,H.P. (1976) Grapes.In Simmonds.N. W. (cd.) Evolution of Crop Plants. London and

Ncw York: Longman.

Or
how
(Pre-)History:
People
to
Archaeology
the
Norwcgian
without
Olson, B. (1986)
and
from
Cambridge
5:
25-42.
Review
Archaeological
Past.
Uniform
M)ih
of a
createa
In
Fox,
G.
R.
B.
J.
Modernity.
Ethnographic
in
Anthropology
Culture
and
Ota, Y. (2002)
and
King (eds.), Anthropology beyondCulture. Oxford: Berg, 61-80.
Outhwaitc. W. (1985) Ilans-Georg Gadamcr. In Skinner, Q. (cd.), The Return of Grand
Theory in the Human Sciences.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,21-39.
Outram, D. (1995) TheEnlightenment.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Pagdcn,A. (1993) EuropeanEncounterswith the New World. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Palaima,T. G. (1990) Origin, Development,Transition and Transformation: The Purposeand
Techniqueof Administration in Minoan and MycenaeanSociety. In Palaima,T. G. (ed.),
AegeanSeals,Sealingsand Administration (Aegaeum5). Liege: Universite de Liege,
Histoirc dc I'Art ct Archeologic dc la Grecc Antique, University of Texasat Austin,
Programin AegeanScripts and Prehistory,83-101.
Palmer,L. R. (1963) TheInterpretation ofAfycenaeanGreek Texts.Oxford: ClarendonPress.
Palmer,R. (1996) Wine and Viticulture in the Linear A and B Texts of the Bronze Age
Aegean.In McGovern, P.E., Flemming, S.J. and S.H. Katz (eds.) The Origins and
Ancient History of IVine.Amsterdam:Gordon and Breach Publishers,269-85.

242

Palyvou, C. (2002) CentralCourts: The Supremacyof the Void. In Driessen,J.M., Schoep,I.

and R. Laffincur (eds.), MonumentsofMinos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum
23). Liege: Univcrsite de Liege, University of Texasat Austin, 167-77.
Palyvou, C. (2004) Outdoor Spacein Minoan Architecture: `Community and Privacy'. In
Cadogan,G., Hatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace, City, State (British
School at AthensStudies 12). London: British School at Athens, 207-17.
Panagiotakis,N. (2004) ContactsbetweenKnossosand the PcdiadaRegion in Central Crete.
In Gadogan,G., Hatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace, City, State.British
School at AthensStudies 12,177-86.
Panagiotopoulos,D. (1996) Das TholosgrabEin der Nekropole von Phourni (Archanes).
UnpublishedPhD Dissertation,University of Heidelberg.
Papadatos,Y. (1999)Mortuary Practices and their Importancefor the Reconstructionof
Societyand Life in Prepalatial Crete: The Evidencefrom Tholos Gammain Archanes.
Doctoral Dissertation.Unpublished Phd Dissertation,University of Sheffield.
Paribeni,R. (1913) Scavi nclla Nccropoli Preellenicadi Festo.Tombe a Tholos Scoperte
PressoII Villaggio di Siva.Ausonia 8: 13-32.
ParkerPearson,M. and C. Richards(1994) Ordering the World: Perceptionsof Architecture,
Spaceand Time. In ParkerPearson,M. and C. Richards (eds.), Architecture and Order:
Approachesto Social Space.London: Routledge, 1-37.
Patrik, L. E. (1985) Is therean Archaeological Record?Advancesin Archaeological Method
and Theory 8: 27-62.
Pelon, O. (1980) Le Palais de Malia. Vol. 5, Etudes Cretoises XV. Paris.

Pelon,O. (1983a)L'epde 3 l'acrobate et la chronologie maliote (II). Bulletin de la

CorrespondanceHellenique 89: 1004-05.
Pelon, O. (1983b) Reflexions sur la fonction politique dans
un palais minoen. In
Krzyszkowska, O. And L. Nixon (eds.) Minoan Society. Bristol, 251-57.
Pelon, O. (1986) Un Depot de Fondation au Palais de Malia. Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellenique 110: 3-19.
Pelon, O. (1987) Minoan Palaces and Workshops: New Data from Malia.
In Hgg, R. and N.
Marinatos (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Stockhom:
Svenska Institutet i
Athen, 269-72.

Pelon,O. (1989) Travaux de 1'ecolefrancaised' Athengisen Grece 1988.

Malia: Le
en
Palais.Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellenique 113: 771-85.
Pelon,O. (1992) Guide de Malia: Le Palais et la Necropole de Chrysolakkos(Avec
La
Collaborationde Andersen,E. et M. Schmid). Paris: De Boccard.
Pelon,O. (1993) La Salle Piliers du Palais de Malia et sesAntecedents:Recherches
Complementaires.Bulletin de CorrespondaneeHellenique 117: 523-46.

243

Houses
Knossos.
Protopalatial
Two
S.
Pendlebury
(1928-30)
J.
D.
W.
H.
at
Pendlebury,
and
Annual of the British School at Athens 30: 53-73.
Pendlebury,J.D.S. (1939) TheArchaeology of Crete. London: Methuen.
Inquiry
66:
Sociological
Theory.
World-Systems
Archaeology
N.
(1996)
P.
and
Peregrine,
486-95.
Perlis, C. (1992) Systemsof Exchangeand Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece.
Journal ofMfediterraneanArchaeology 5(2): 115-64.
Communities
Europe.
First
Farming
Greece:
The
in
Neolithic
Early
in
The
C.
(2001)
Perks,

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
In
Halstead,
P.
Greek
Neolithic.
in
Craft
Specialization
Vitelli
(1999)
the
K.
D.
C
Perlis, and
(cd.) Neolithic Societyin Greece.Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,96-107.
dello
Stato.
La
Librcria
Vol.
1.
Rome:
di
Festas.
Minoico
Pala
11
L.
Pcrnicr, (1935)
:o
Pcrnicr, L. and L. Banti (1951)1! PalazzoMinoico di Festbs. Vol. 2. Rome: La Libreria dello
Stato.
Petit, F. (1987) Les TorabesCirculaircs de la Mesara:Problemesd'Interp6tation des Pieces
Egge
Les
Coutumes
Funeraires
Thanatos:
R.
),
(cd.
Annexes.In Lafliineur,
en
a 1'Age du
Bronze (Aegacum 1). Liege: Univ,crsite dc Liege, Histoire de I'Art et Archeologie de la
Gr6cc Antiquc, 35-2.
Pctit, F. (1990) Les iarres Funerairesdu Minoen Ancien Iii au Minoen Rdccnt I. In
LafTincur,R. (cd.), Aegaeum6. Annales d'Archeologie Egeennede l'Universite de Liege.
Ilistoire de l'Art et Archtologie de la GreceAntique. Universite de Liege, Liege. P. 29-

57.
Pctropoulos,D.A. (1949)'EOgtaoiAcp'aaiascat aUljXo(3oiOCtqTOO
CUIWixoa.a6.

59-85.
1943-44:
ApXetov
Aaoypa(piKob
pls

Piddington,R. (1957) Malinow"ski'sTheory of Needs.In Firth, R. (ed.), Man and Culture:

An Evaluation of the Work of Bronislaw Malinowskl. London: Routledgeand Kegan
Paul, 33-51.
Platon,L. (1993) Ateliers Palatiaux Minocns: Unc Nouvcllc Image. Bulletin de
CorrespondanceHellenique 117(1): 103-22.
Platon,L. (1999) New E%idcnccfor the Occupation at Zakros before the LMI Palace.In
Bctancourt,P.P, Karagcorghis,V., Laflncur, K and W. -D. Niemeicr (eds.),
MELETEMATA: Studiesin AegeanArchaeology Presentedto Malcom H. Wiener as he
entershis 6S'kYear(Aegaeum20). Liege: Universitc de Liege, University of Texas at
Austin, 671-680.
Platon,L. (2000) Avaictoptc xapaimlptaTUc&(Tril
iic onxtaia apttci. tovu j.
Ile; rpay ,a ll' zlwO oiis Kp)lToAoyixovEvveapiovA(3): I7poioropzK7Kai ApXafa
JLU,7vz lleplooy. Iip6wWo: Etatpcia Kprtucc v Iatopixwv McT66v, 51-71.

244

Platon, N. (1951) To tcp M46

uat is Mrvci tth tcp KopWflq. Kprrax XpovirA 5: 122-4.

Platon, N. (1952a) Mwo uo EaanAu Tlisiac.

llpaiccuck rid ev Aiyva:SApxalo). oytKi

ETaipEfac,636-39.
Platon, N. (1952b) Moogtvo)w I otxia Pi. ct; AXXaSiwv. Ilpaicrzx yr sv AO, vacs

ApXazoXoyzic
c Eraipsiac 646-48.
Platon,N. (1953) Evv9 of iS Avaai aq q trS Mwwud c aiA
288-91.
cEraipeiac,
oyua
TqSevAOijvazsApXazoA,

tS EiTisiac. Ilpaxrix

Platon,N. (1954) Avaaicaq tic Mtvcotxricaa6kc(K tic EtlisiaS. llpaxttx vic ev A9iyva:S
ApXaio).oy1Kc Eraipcias, 361-363.
Platon,N. (1955) Mtvcoud aypotKiaZov EtltciaS. Ilpaxrix vjq evAOJjvaicApXacoAoyixijs
Eraipeias 232-39.
Platon,N. (1956) AvaaicacpijM1vcoux aypotxiaSEtcZov E csiac.llpaxrzK Mg ev Avazs
ApXa:oAoyuuc ETaipeiac232-40.
Platon,N. (1959) Avaaxacpf AyXa&c v Zgrci c. l7paxrtx ms ev A9vars ApXawoAoyzKi
c
Eratpslas 210-17.
Platon,N. (1960a)Avarncaq Xvpov Btvvov. l7paKrtKdyr evAOrJvatcApXaio),
oyix,Jc
Era:pefac S: 283-93.
Platon,N. (1960b) Mrvcotxrjaypotx{a flpocpiou Ha.ia ToupioXcov.HpCJTixvi; ev
AOilva:SApxatoA.
oyzKc Erazpelas294-300.
Platon,N. (1974) Zxpoc: To veov uzvonKdvavxropov. Hpx?.Ew.
Plog, F. (1977) Explaining Change.In Hill, J.N. (ed.), Explanation of Prehistoric Change.
Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press, 17-58.
Pluciennik, M. (ed.) (2001) TheResponsibilities ofArchaeologists: Archaeology and Ethics
(British Archaeological Reports 981). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Polanyi, K. (1980) The Great Transformation.New York: Rinehart.
Popham,M. (1970) The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos.Pottery of the Late Minoan
lila period (Studiesin Mediterranean Archaeology 12). Gtenborg.
Poursat,J.-C. (1983) Une ThalassocratieMinoenne au Minoen Moyen II? In Hgg, R. and
N. Marinatos(eds.), TheMinoan Thalassocracy:Myth and Reality. Gteborg: Paul
Astrms Forlag, 85-7.

Poursat,J.-C. (1988) La Ville Minoenne de Malia: Rechercheset Publications Recentes.

RevueArcheologique 1: 61-82.
Poursat,J.-C. (1987) Le debut de 1'epoqueproto-palatiale Malia. In Ei),airfti Topos
.
Hp6O eto: 461-6.
ztugrtxsVa toy KaOgyqrNtK6AaoHAdTcov.
Poursat,J.-C. (1992) Guide deMalia. Le Quartier Mu. Paris: Sites and Monuments, VII.
Poursat,J.-C. (1996) Artisans Minoens: Les Maisons-Ateliers du Quartier Mu, Etudes
Cretoises XXXII. Paris.

245

Postcolonial
Histories
Imperial
Colonialism:
After
)
(1995)
G.
(ed.
and
Prakash,

Displacements.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.
A
Reader.
Archaeology
Theory:
Contemporary
in
(1996)
)
(eds.
I.
Hodder
W.
R.
Preucel,
and

Oxford: Blackwell.
in
Modernity
17'
Development
Police-State
Well-Ordered
the
The
of
and
Raeff, M. (1975)
Review 80: 1221-43.
Historical
American
Europe.
Century
18th
and

Sociology
Wallerstein:
System
Immanuel
World
The
Chirot
(1984)
D.
C.
and
of
Ragin, and
Politics as History. In Skocpol, T. (ed.), Vision and Method in Historical Sociology.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,276-312.
Rainbird, P. andY. Hamilakis (eds.) (2001) Interrogating Pedagogies:Archaeology in
Higher Education (British Archaeological Reports 948). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Ramenofsky,A. F. and A. Steffen (1998) Units as Tools of Measurement.In Ramenofsky,
A. F. and A. Steffen (eds.), Unit Issuesin Archaeology: Measuring Time, Spaceand
Material. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press,3-17.
Rappaport, R. A. (1971) Ritual, Sanctity, and Cybernetics. American Anthropologist 73(1):
59-76.

Rapoport,A. (1990) Systemsof Activities and Systemsof Settings.In Kent, S. (ed.),

DomesticArchitecture and the Useof Space:An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,9-20.
Rehak,P. and J.G. Younger (1998) Review of AegeanPrehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final
Palatial, and PostpalatialCrete.American Journal ofArchaeology 102: 91-173.
Relaki, M. (2003) Social Arenas in Minoan Crete: A Regional History of theMesara in
South-CentralCretefrom the Final Neolithic to the End of the Protopalatial Period.
UnpublishedPhD Dissertation,University of Sheffield.
Relaki, M. (2004) Constructinga Region: The ContestedLandscapesof Prepalatial Mesara.
In Barrett, J.C. and P. Halstead,P. (eds.), TheEmergenceof Civilization Revisited.
Oxbow: Oxford, 170-88.
Renfrew, C. (1972) The Emergenceof Civilization: The Cyclades and Aegean in the Third
Millennium BC. London: Methuen.
Renfrew, C. (ed.) (1973) The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory.
London: Duckworth.
Renfrew,C. (1979) Terminology and Beyond. In Davis, J.L. and J.F. Cherry (eds.), Papers
in Cycladic Prehistory. Los Angeles:UCLA Institute of Archaeology, 51-63.
Renfrew,C. (1982) Polity and Power: Interaction, Intensification and Exploitation. In
Renfrew, C. and J.M. Wagstaff, (eds.), An Island Polity: TheArchaeology of
Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,264-290.
Renfrew,C. (1984) Approachesto Social Archaeology. Edinburgh: University Press.

246

Socio-Political
Interaction
Polity
Peer
)
(1986)
Cherry
(eds.
J.
F.
and
C.
Renfrew,
and

Change.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Rethemniotakis, G. (1991) Kant

ApvazoAoy:KvAeArfov 46(2), 394-96.

.L

Rethemniotakis, G. (1992) Kaat

ApXaio)o7zK6v4e riov 47(2), 558-60.

.L

&iC.
thX?
Kac
flc&L
To
Mtv(ALK
G.
(1992-3)
t
vtpuc
kaipio
ato
i
Rethemniotakis,

ApXaiotoyzK6vA &.riov 47-8(1), 29-64.

from
Palace
The
Evidence
Power:
Political
Social
Rank
the
G.
(1999a)
and
Rethemniotakis,
Zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen.
Ergebnisse
der
Bronzezeit:
In
Eliten
Galatas.
at

Teil 1. Bonn: Habelt.

Betancourt,
Galatas.
In
Palace
Minoan
Hearths
The
G.
(1999b)
the
at
of
Rethemniotalcis,
Studies
MELEMATA:
in
(eds.
),
W.
Niemeier
R.
Lafineur,
V.,
Karageorghis,
P.P,
and -D.
AegeanArchaeology Presentedto Malcom H. Wieneras he entershis 65f Year
(Aegaeum20). Liege: Universite de Liege, Universtiy of Texas at Austin, 721-8.
Rethemniotakis, G. (1999c) I'a

taa . Kp)rrwK Eorfa 7,224-39.

Rethemniotalcis,G. (1999d)To vEoMtvwtx avxtopo ozo ra,%ai flc&6oq xat ro Ip6

En XatoApxcOoxcwpiov.In Karetsou,A. (cd.), Kpi,rec eaAaacopOpo:.Hpw?stov:
Y7roupycio

IIo%trtaj.

toi,

91-111.

Rethemniotalcis,G. (2002) Evidenceon Social and Economic Changesat Galatasand

Pediadain the New-PalacePeriod. In Driessen,J.M., Schoep,I. and R. Laffineur (eds.),
MonumentsofMinos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum23). Liege: Universite
de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 55-69.
Rethemniotakis,G. and K. S. Christakis (2004) Cultural Interaction betweenKnossosand
Pediada:The Evidencefrom the Middle Minoan Ib Pottery. In Gadogan,G., Hatzaki, E.
City,
Palace,
Studies
State.
Knossos:
Athens
British
School
),
(eds.
Vasilakis
A.
at
and
12,169-75.
Robertson,R. (1995) Globalization: Time-Spaceand Homogeneity-Heterogeneity.In
Featherstone,M., Lash, S. and R. Robertson(eds.), Global Modernities. London: Sage
Publications,25-44.
Rose, N. (1996) Refiguring the Territory of Government. Economy and Society 25: 327-56.
Ross, S. (1962) `Scientist': The Story of a Word. Annals of Science 18: 65-86.

Rotblat, J. (ed.) (1997) World Citizenship: Allegiance to Humanity. London: Macmillan.

Rowlands,M., Larsen,M. and K. Kristiansen (eds.) (1987) Centre and Periphery in the
Ancient World. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Rupert, P. (1976) Chroniquesde Fouilles 1975.Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellenique 100:
591-745.
Rushkofl',D. (1994) Cyberia: Life in the Trenchesof Cyberspace.London: Flamingo.

247

Sackett,L. H., Popham,M. R. and P.M. Warren (1965) Excavationsat Palaikastro,VI.

Annual of the British School at Athens 60: 248-315.
Sahlins,M. D. (1958) Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle:University of Washington
Press.
Sahlins,M. D. (1972) StoneAge Economics.Chicago: Aldine.
Sahlins, M. D. (1987) Islands of History. London: Tavistock. //Repetition,

Cf. Sahlins 1985

Sahlins, M. D. and E. R. Service (eds.) (1960) Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press.
Sakellarakis,Y. (1966) Apxvat. ApXato)oyzK6vA&xiov 21: 411-9.
Sakellarakis, Y. (1967) Avarncagn Apxavwv. l7paxcax vicevA9vaigApXaioAoy,,

c, c

ETaipefas:151-161.
Sakellarakis,Y. (1968) OoX,wi6g icpoqEc tov Aytov Kpt

ov Mcaaap.. ApXaioAoyix

Av)exra eAOrivivv1,50-5.
Sakellarakis,Y. (1971) Apxcvcq. To Epyov rricApXa:oaoymK Era:pefas: 237-55.
Sakellarakis,Y. (1973a) Apxvcc. To Epyov rgcApXa:oAoyiKa EraipEfaq: 111-8.
Sakellarakis,Y. (1973b)Avaacaq Ap%avwv.llpanwd vlgevAOivaiqApXmAoymx q
Eraipeias: 167-87.
Sakellarakis,Y. (1975) Excavationsat Archanes.To Epyov rgcApXato),oyzz Eraipeiag:
163-4.
Sakellarakis,Y. (1987) Apxvcc To Epyov vicApXatoAoy:Ki Erazpeias:123-9.
Sakellarakis,Y. and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki(1976) AvaaxacpijApxavwv. Ilpaxrux rris ev
A OvazsApXa1o).
oy1Ki Eraipelas: 342-99.
Sakellarakis,Y. and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki(1991) ApXves.AOtjva: Eic6otuxijAAiiv6v.
Sampson,A. (1996) Excavationsat the Cave of Cyclope on Youra, Alonnesos.In AlramStern, E. (ed.), Die gdische Frilhzeit, 2. Serie. Forschungsbericht 1975-1993,1: Das
Neolithikum in Griechenland mit Ausnahme von Kreta
und Zypern. Vienna: Austrian

Academy of Sciences,507-20.
Sampson,A. (1998) The Neolithic and Mesolithic Occupation the Cave Cyclope,
of
of
Youra Alonnesos,Greece.Annual of the British School at Athens 93: 1-22.
Sanders,D.H. (1990) Behavioral Conventionsand Archaeology: Methods for the Analysis
Architecture. In Kent, S. (ed.), DomesticArchitecture and the Use

of

of Space:An

Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,43-72.

Sanders,I. T. (1956) Selectionof participants in a mutual aid group in
rural Greece.
Sociometry 18(4): 326-29.
Sarpaki,A. (1995) H Apxatoa.oyi1d opaitIIia iilS A ut ou
Kpin, q scatatov EUa5tx6
auv
.
AZeOVOOc KpllroAoylKOO
HpoIotopud
llc
rvvet5plov,
Z'
X6)POTiJv
Caoxtj.
rpaypeva rov
PEfluvo1991,A(2), 841-61.

248

Saxe,A. A. (1970) Social DimensionsofMortuary Practices. PhD Dissertation, University of

Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Sayer, A. (1993) PostmodernistThought in Geography: A Realist View. Antipode 25: 32044.
Schiffer, M. B. (ed.) (2000) Social Theory in Archaeology. Salt Lake City: The University of
Utah Press.
Schoep, I. (1999) The Origins of Writing and Administration on Crete. Oxford Journal of

Archaeology 18(3): 265-76.

Schoep, I. (2001) Managing the hinterland: the rural concerns of urban administration. In
Branigan, K. (ed.) Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press,87-102.
Schoep,I. (2002a)The Stateof the Minoan Palacesor the Minoan Palace-State?In Driessen,
J.M., Schoep,I. and R. LafTineur(eds.), MonumentsofMinos: Rethinking the Minoan
Palaces (Aegaeum 23). Liege: Universite de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 15-33.
Schoep, I. (2002b) Social and Political Organization on Crete during the Protopalatial

Period: The Caseof Malia in Middle Minoan Ii. Journal ofMediterranean

Archaeology 15(2): 102-25.
Schoep, I. (2004a) Assessing the Role of Architecture in Conspicuous Consumption in the

Middle Minoan I-II Periods.Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 23(3): 243-69.

Schoep,I. (2004b) The Socio-EconomicContext of SealUse and Administration at Knossos.
In Gadogan,G., Hatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State.British
School at AthensStudies 12: 283-293.
Schoep,I. and C. Knappett (2003) Le Quartier Nu (Malia, Crete): L'occupation du Minoen
Moyen II. Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellenique 127 (1), 49-86.
Schoep, I. and C. Knappett (2004) Dual Emergence: Evolving Heterarchy, Exploding
Hierarchy. In Barrett, J.C. and P. Halstead (eds.), The Emergence of Civilization

Revisited.Oxford: Oxbow, 21-37.

Schrgendorfer, A. (1951) Ein Mittelminoisches Tholosgrab bei Apesokari. In Matz, F.
(ed.), Forschungen auf Kreta 1942. Berlin: De Gruyter, 23-26.

Schortman,E.M. and P.A. Urban (eds.) (1992) Resources,Power and Interregional

Interaction. New York: Plenum Press.
Scott, J.C. (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance:Hidden Transcripts. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Scott, J.C. (ed.) (1994) Power: Critical Concepts. London: Routledge.

Seager,R.B. (1907) Report of Excavationsat Vasiliki, Crete in 1906. Transactions the

of
Department ofArchaeology,

University of Pennsylvania 2: 111-32.

249

Seager,R.B. (1908) Excavationsat Vasiliki. In Boyd-Hawes, H., Williams, B. E., Seager,

R.B. and E.H. Hall (eds.), Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus
ofHierapetra,

Crete. Philadelphia: American Exploration Society, 49-50

Seager, R.B. (1909) Excavations on the Island of Mochlos, Crete, In 1908. American Journal

273-303.
13:
ofArchaeology
Seager,R.B. (1910) Excavationson the Island ofPseira, Crete. Philadelphia: University
Museum.
Seager, R.B. (1912) Explorations in the Island ofMochlos. Boston: American School of

Classical Studiesat Athens.

Service, E.R. (1962) Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. New
York: RandomHouse.
Service, E.R. (1975) Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural
Evolution. New York: Norton.
Shanks,M. (1992) Experiencing the Past: On the Character ofArchaeology. London:
Routledge.

Shanks,M. and R.H. McGuire (2000) The Craft of Archaeology. In Thomas,J. (ed.),
Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader. London: Leicester University Press,56-70.
Shanks, M. and C. Tilley (1987a) Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Shanks,M. andC. Tilley (1987b) Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Shanks,M. and C. Tilley (1989a) Archaeology into the 1990s.Norwegian Archaeological
Review 22(1): 1-12.
Shanks,M. and C. Tilley (1989b) Questionsrather than Answers: Reply to Commentson
Archaeologyinto the 1990s.Norwegian Archaeological Review 22(1): 42-54.
Shaw,J.W. (1973) The ChrysolakkosFacades.Henpaypcva TovF' d: eOvosKprlro)oy:Ko
vvepfov,A. Hp&i&eio, 319-331.
Shaw, J.W. (2002) The Minoan Palatial Establishment at Kommos: An Anatomy of its
History, Function, and Interconnections. In Driessen, J.M., Schoep, I. and R. Laffineur
(eds.), Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum 23). Liege:

Universite de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 99-110.

Shennan, S.J. (1982) Ideology, Change and the European Early Bronze Age. In Hodder, I.
(ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
155-61.

Shennan,S.J. (2002) Genes,Memesand Human History: Darwinian Archaeology

and
Cultural Evolution. London: Thamesand Hudson.

250

Sherratt, A. (1993a) What would a Bronze Age World System look like? Relations between
Temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in Later Prehistory. Journal

of European

Archaeology 1(2): 1-57.

Sherratt, A. (1993b) Who are you calling Peripheral? Dependence and Independence in
European Prehistory. In Scarre, C. and F. Healy. (eds.), Trade and Exchange in

Prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxbow, 245-55.

Sherratt,A. (1995) Reviving the Grand Narrative: Archaeology and Long-Term Change.
Journal of EuropeanArchaeology 3(1): 1-32.
Sherratt,A. (ed.) (1997) Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives.
Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Sherratt,A. and S. Sherratt(1991) From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of the
MediterraneanBronze Age Trading Systems.In Gale,N. H. (ed.), BronzeAge Trade in
the Mediterranean (Studiesin Mediterranean Archaeology 90). Jonsered:Astrm, 35186.
Sherratt,S. (2000) Catalogueof Cycladic Antiquities in the AshmoleanMuseum. The
Captive Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simmel, G. (1958) Soziologie. Untersuchungenber die Formen der Vergesellschaftung.
Berlin.
Simmel, G. (1978) ThePhilosophy ofMoney. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
Smith, A. (1973) The Conceptof Social Change: A Critique of the Functionalist Theory of
Social Change.London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
Smith, M. E. (1985) An Aspectual Analysis of Polity Formations. In Claessen,H. J.M.,
van de
Velde, P. and M. E. Smith (eds.), Developmentand Decline: The Evolution of
Sociopolitical Organization. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey, 97-125.
Snodgrass,A. M. (1991) Bronze Age Exchange:A Minimalist View. In Gale, N. H. (ed.),
BronzeAge Trade in theMediterranean (Studiesin Mediterranean Archaeology 90).
Jonsered:Astrm, 15-20.
Soles,J.C. (1979) The Gournia House Tombs:A Study of the Architecture, Chronology

and

Useof the Built Rectangular Tombsof Crete. PhD Dissertation,University Microfilms,

Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Soles,J.S. (1988) Social Ranking in PrepapalatialCemeteries.In French, E.B.
and K. A.
Wardle (eds.), Problems in GreekPrehistory. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press,49-6 1.
Soles, J. S. (1991) The Gournia Palace. American Journal ofArchaeology 95(1): 17-78.
Soles, J. S. (1992a) The Prepalatial Cemeteries atMochlos
and Gournia and the House
Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 24). Princeton: American School
of

Classical Studiesat Athens.

251

Soles,J.S. (1992b)Mochlos. In Myers, J. W., Myers, E.E. and G. Cadogan(eds.), The Aerial
Atlas ofAncient Crete. London: Thames& Hudson, 186-93.
Soles,J.S. (2002) A Central Court at Gournia?In Driessen,J.M., Schoep,I. and R.
Laifineur, (eds.), MonumentsofMinos: Rethinking theMinoan Palaces (Aegaeum23).
Liege: Universite de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 123-32.
Soles,J.S. (2004) The 2004 Greek-AmericanExcavationsat Mochlos. Kentro (The
Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Centre for East Crete) 7: 2-5

Soles,J.S. and C. Davaras(1992) Excavationsat Mochlos 1989.Hesperia 61: 413-41.

Soles,J.S. and C. Davaras(1993) 1992 Excavations at Mochlos, Crete.American Journal of
Archaeology 97: 302.
Soles, J.S. and C. Davaras (1994) Excavations at Mochlos, 1990-1991. Hesperia 63,391436.
Soles, J.S. and C. Davaras (1996) Excavations at Mochlos, 1992-1993.Hesperia 65,175230.
Spencer, C. S. (1993) Human Agency, Biased Transmission And The Cultural Evolution Of

Chiefly Societies.Journal OfAnthropological Archaeology 12: 41-74.

Spencer,H. (1891) TheStudy of Sociology.New York: Appleton.
Stefani, E. and E. Banti (1930-31) Aghia Triadha, Tholos A. Annuario della Scuola
Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 13-14: 147-154.

Stein, G.J. (1999) Rethinking World Systems:Power, Distanceand Diasporasin the

Dynamics of Interregional Interaction. In Kardulias, P.N. (ed.), World SystemsTheory in
Practice: Leadership,Production and Exchange.Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers,153-77.
Stevenson,N. (1997) Globalization,National Cultures and Cultural Citizenship. The
Sociological Quarterly 38: 41-66.
Stoddart,D.R. (1986) On Geographyand its History. Oxford: Blackwell.
Storey,J. (1999) Cultural Consumptionand EverydayLife. London: Arnold.
Strasser, T. F. (1997) Storage and States on Prehistoric Crete: The Function of the Koulouras
in the First Minoan Palaces. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 10: 73-100.
Strasser, T. F. (1999) Bothroi in the Aegean Early Bronze Age. In Betancourt, P.P,
Karageorghis, V., Laffineur, R. and W.
Niemeier
(eds.), MELETENMTA:
-D.

Studies in

AegeanArchaeology Presentedto Malcom H. Wieneras he entershis 65`hYear

(Aegaeum20). Liege: Universite de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 813-7.
Strathern,M. (1988) The Genderof the Gift. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strauss,S. (1994) The Sizeaurus.New York: KodanshaInternational.
Tainter, J.A. (1988) The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

252

Tansley, A. G. (1935) The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Conceptsand Terms. Ecology 16:
284-307.
Tarlow, S. (1999) Bereavementand Commemoration:An Archaeology ofMortality. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Tenwolde, C. (1992) Myrtos Revisited: The Role of Relative Function Ceramic Typologies
in Bronze Age SettlementAnalysis. Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 11(1): 1-24.
Thaler, U. (2002) OpenDoor Policies? A Spatial Analysis of Neopalatial Domestic
Architecture with SpecialReferenceto the Minoan `Villa'. In Muskett, G., Koltsida, A.
Symposium
SOMA
2001:
Georgiadis
(eds.
),
M.
on Mediterranean Archaeology
and
(British Archaeological Reports 1040).Oxford: Archaeopress,112-22.
Thomas, J. (1996) Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology. London:
Routledge.
Thomas, J. (ed.) (2000) Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader. London: Leicester University
Press.
Thrift, N. (1991) For a New Regional Geography. Progress in Human Geography 15(4):
456-65.

Todaro, S. (2001) Nuove Prospettive sulla Produzione in Stile Pyrgos nella Creta
Meridionale: Il Casodella Pissidc e della Coppa su Base ad Anello. Creta Antica 2: 1128.
Todorov, T. (1984)Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle. Minneapolis: University of
MinnesotaPress.
Tomkins, P. (2000) The Neolithic Period. In Huxley, D. (ed.), Cretan Quests:British
Explorers, Excavatorsand Historians. London: British School at Athens, 76-85.
Tomkins, P. (2004) Filling in the "Neolithic Background": Social Life and Social
Transformationin the Aegeanbefore the Bronze Age. Barrett, J.C.
and P. Halstead
(eds.), TheEmergenceof Civilization Revisited. Oxbow: Oxford, 38-63.
Tomkins, P. and P.M. Day (2001) Production and Exchangeof the Earliest Ceramic Vessels
in the Aegean:A View from Early Neolithic Knossos,Crete.Antiquity 75: 259-60.
Tomkins, P., Day, P.M. and V. Kilikoglou (2004) Knossosand the Earlier Neolithic
Landscapeof the Herakleion Basin. In Gadogan,G., Hatzaki, E.
and A. Vasilakis (eds.),
Knossos:Palace, City, State.British School at Athens Studies 12,51-59.
Torrence,R. (1979) A Technological Approach to Cycladic Blade Industries. In Davis, J.L.
and J.F. Cherry (eds.) Papers in Cycladic Prehistory. Los Angeles, 66-85.
Torrence,R. (1986) Productionand Exchangeof StoneTools: PrehistoricObsidian in
the
Aegean.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Toulmin, S. (1990) Cosmopolis:The Hidden Agenda ofModernity. Chicago: University
of
ChicagoPress.

253

Trigger,

B. C. (1989a) A History

Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge

of Archaeological

University Press.

Trigger, B.C. (1989b) Hyper-Relativism, Responsibility and the Social Sciences.Canadian

Reviewof Sociologyand Anthropology 26: 776-97.
Trigger, B. C. (1998) Sociocultural Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tringham. R. (1991) Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric
Architectural

Remains.

In

Gero,

J.M

and

M. W.

Conkey

(eds.),

Engendering

Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, 93-131.

Trouillot, M. -R. (2002) Adieu, Culture. In Fox, R.G. and B. J. King (eds.), Anthropology
Beyond Culture. Oxford: Berg, 37-60.
Tsipopoulou, M. (1988) Ayia Ocoud Emcias. To vto cbp'qa. In French, E. B. and K. A.
Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory:

Papers Presented at the Centenary

Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April

1986.

Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 31-47.

Tsipopoulou, M. (1989) Archaeological Survey at Aghia Photia, Siteia. Studies in

Mediterranean Archaeology 76. Paul Astroms Frlag: Partille.
Tsipopoulou, M. (1990) NEa Eiotxsia yta tir Mwwm- xatoIi
E

cnl aril 7[Cptoxij tr1 7t6?lc tic

ciq. 17ezpa7y&a toy r' 4ieOvobq Kpriro). oyiKo EvvEbpiov, A(2). Hp6kketo, 305-

21.
Tsipopolou, M. (1991) TeK-Tovtx"io

aut toy fl rp Er tcia. S. AAA 19,1986 (1991),

171-77

Tsipopoulou, M. (1992) Aghia Photia. In J.W. Myers, E.E. Myers and G. Cadogan(eds.) The
Aerial Atlas ofAncient Crete. London: Thames& Hudson, 63-69.
Tsipopoulou,M. (1997) Palace-CenteredPolities in EasternCrete: Neopalatial Petrasand its
Neighbours. In Aufrecht, W. E., Mirau, N. A. and S.W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in
Antiquity. From Mesopotamia to Crete. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,263-77.
Tsipopoulou, M. (1999a) Before, during, after: The Architectural

Phases of the Palatial

Building at Petras, Siteia. In Betancourt, P. P, Karageorghis, V., Lafiineur, R.

and W. -D.
Niemeier (eds.), MELETF. MATA: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcom
H. Wiener as he enters his 65th Year (Aegaeum 20). Liege: Universite

de Liege,

University of Texas at Austin, 847-55.

Tsipopolou, M. (1999b) From Local Centreto Palace:The Role of Fortification in the

EconomicTransformation of the Siteia Bay Area, East Crete. In Laffineur, R. (ed.)
POLEMOS: Le ContexteGuerrier en Egee ! 'Age du Bronze. Liege: Universite de
Liege, Universtiy of Texas at Austin, 179-188.
Tsipopoulou, M. (2002) Petras, Siteia: The Palace, the Town, the Hinterland
and the
Protopalatial Background. In Driessen, J.M., Schoep, I. and R. Laffineur (eds.),

254

Universite
Liege:
23).
(Aegaeum
Palaces
Minoan
Rethinking
the
Minos:
Monuments of
de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 133-44.

in
Hinterland
Villages
"Villas"
the
(1997)
of
A.
Papacostopoulou
and
M
Tsipopoulou, and
Svenska
Stockholm:
Villa'.
Minoan
Function
the
The
(ed.
),
R.
Hgg,
In
of
Petras,Siteia.
Institutet 1 Athen, 203-14.
Tsipopoulou,

M.

and M.

Wedde

(2000)

Atap

ovias

Eva xo iifrrtvo

taXiyriiotio:

H'
Henpaypeva
EjTciaS.
ITstp
ToES
ETpwaioypacpu c
aro avawcroptx irripto iou
TIepfooc.
EWjv:
ApXaia
A(3):
Ilpoiaropcxiy
uvepiov,
ia'
KpgroAoyzKov
Ka:
4ieOvos

HpcXcto:Eiatpcia Kpi1itxwv Iatoptxwv Ms? tirv,359-77.

In
Betancourt,
Settlement.
Protopalatial
Architecture
Elements
A.
(1999)
a
of
Tzigounaki,
of
MELETEMATA:
),
(eds.
Niemeier,
W.
Laffineur,
R.
V.,
Karageorghis,
P.P,
and
-D.
his
65th
he
Wiener
H.
Malcom
Archaeology
Presented
Aegean
enters
to
Studies in
as
Year (Aegaeum 20). Liege: Universite de Liege, Universtiy of Texas at Austin, 86368. Tsigounaki??

Tzigounaki, A. (1995) IIa.atoavaxcopuaj Eyiccurdora" A3to6o1 ou. H xpovo?,cn> >cat11

garbrllg s ycirovtix i&vipa. I7&7rpayeva
roo Z' dieOvosKpgro)oytxo -vvebpiov,
PEOuvo1991, A2,895-915.

Turner, B.S. and C. Rojek (2001) Society and Culture: Principles of Scarcity and Solidarity.
London: SagePublications.
Tyree, L. E. (1975) Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence. PhD Dissertation,

University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Ucko, P.J., Tringham, R. and G.W. Dimbley (eds.) (1972) Man, Settlementand Urbanism.
London: Duckworth.
Unwin, T. (1992) ThePlace of Geography.Harlow: Longman.
Urry, J. (2000) SociologyBeyondSocieties:Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century.
London: Routledge.
Vagnetti, L. (1972-73) L'insediamento Neolittico di Festes. Annuario della Scuola
Archeologica di Atene e delle Mission Italiane in Oriente 34-35: 7-138.

Vagnetti, L. and P. Belli (1978) Charactersand Problemsof the Final Neolithic in Crete.
Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 19: 125-63.
Vallianou, D. and L. V. Watrous (1991) EwupavctaxrjEpsvvaSuttiaj Meaaaps.
Kpipo)oy: Kov.Zuvepiov.Hp c2ezo:Eraipia Kprpucthv
Heirpayhva E' 4ieOOvos
IoTopixwvE7cov5wv,113-23.
Van der Moortel, A. (2001) The Area aroundthe Kiln, and the Pottery from the Kiln and the
Kiln Dump. In Shaw, J.W., van der Moortel, A., Day, P.M. and V. Kilikoglou (2001) A
Late Minoan Ia Ceramic Kiln in South-Central Crete: Function and Pottery Production
(Hesperia Suppl.30). Princeton: Americal School of Classical Studiesat Athens, 25-110.

255

Etude
de
la
Cite
Malta
de Synthese
Le
Palais
Minoenne:
H.
(1980)
Van Effenterre,
et

(IncunabulaGraeca76). Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo.

Etudes
du Site et Exploration des
(1963)
Malia,
Effenterre
M.
H.
Van Effenterte, and van
Etudes
Cretoises XIII. Paris.
Fascicule,
Deuxieme
Necropoles,
Van Effenterre, H. and M. van EfTenterre (1976). Fouilles ExecutEes Malia. Exploration
des Maisons et Quartiers d' Habitation, Quatrieme Fascicule, Etudes Cretoises XXII.
Paris.

Effenterre.
Micheline
1997.
Towards
Study
Henri,
Neopalatial
Effenterre,
and
van
of
a
van
'Villas': Modern Words for Minoan Things. In Robin Hgg (ed.), The Function of the
'Minoan Villa': Proceedingsof the Eighth International Symposiumat the Swedish
Institute at Athens,6-8 June 1992.SkriJter Utgivna av SvenskaInstitutet 1 Athen 4, 46.
Stockholm: Paul Astrm. p. 9-13.
Van Gennep, A. (1960) The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vansteenhuyse, K. (2002) Minoan Courts and Ritual Competition. In Driessen, J.M.,

Schoep,I. and R. Laffineur (eds.), Monuments ofMinos: Rethinking theMinoan Palaces

(Aegaeum23). Liege: Universite de Liege, University of Texas at Austin, 235-48.
Vasilakis, A. (1988) Tpuinp

Kpr7rixEo-da2: 331-2.

Vasilalds, A. (1989) 0 IIpcaiotvaotKSotxtc tS tic Tpvmiifjc. Apxazo2oyia 30: 52-6.

Vasilakis, A. (1989-90a) flpoiaToptxES OEact; orril Movtj 06 'y iptas/Koa. oi Atthvcc.

Eatia 3: 64-5.
Kpr7T1K,
Vasilakis, A. (1989-90b)Tpintijt j. Kprlrwx Eoria 3: 287.
Vasilakis, A. (1995) Tpun11Tj
1986-1991:Z1t tats iov Ilpoavawccopuco
Mtvcwtxov
IIoXtitapo atrv vrta i cvcpud Kpiri'cat r avaaxacptjtiou ouctag6 ti STpu nisi g.
17ezrpayp6va
rov Z' Aie0vousKprlroAoyrxov2'vve8piov,Pi uvo1991, A(1), 69-74.
Vavouranakis, G. (2002) Towards an Elemental Approach to Early Minoan Funerary
Architecture: The Enduring Bedrock. In Muskett, G., Koltsida, A.
and M. Geogiadis
(eds.), SOMA 2001: Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (British Archaeological

Reports Int. Ser. 1040). Oxford: Archaeopress,39-46.

Veblen, T. (1925) The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study

oflnstitutions.

London: Allen and Unwin.

Vita-Finzi, C. and E. S. Higgs (1970) Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area
of
Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings ofrhe Prehistoric Society 36: 1-42.
Vitelli, K. D. (ed.) (1996) Archaeological Ethics. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

Wagstaff, J.M. (ed.) (1987) Landscapeand Culture: Geographical andArchaeological

Perspectives.Oxford: Blackwell.
Walberg, G. (1983) Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

256

Walberg, G. (1987) Early Cretan Tombs: The Pottery. In Laffineur, R. (cd.), Thanatos: Les
Egee
6 I'Age du Bronze (Aegaeum1). Liege: Universite de
Funeraires
Coutumes
en
Liege, Histoire de 1'Art et Archeologie de la GreceAntique, 53-60.
Wallerstein, I. (1974) The Modern World-System. Vol. 1: Capitalist Agriculture and the
Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic

Press.
Warren, P. (1969)Minoan Stone Vases.London: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Warren, P. (1972) Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete (Annual of the British

School at Athens Suppl. 7). London: Thamesand Hudson.

Warren, P. (1987) The Genesisof the Minoan Palace.In Hgg, R. and N. Marinatos (eds.),
TheFunction of the Minoan Palaces.Stockholm: Paul Astrom Frlag, 47-56.
Warren, P. (2004) Terra Cognita?The Territory and Boundariesof the Early Neopalatial
Knossian State.In Gadogan,G., Hatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace,
City, State.British School at Athens Studies 12,159-68.
Warren, P. and V. Hankey (1989) Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical
Press.

Watrous, L. V. (1987) The Role of the Near East in the Rise of the Cretan Palaces.In Hgg,
R. andN. Marinatos (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Stockholm: Astrom,
65-74.
Watrous, L. V. (1994) Review of AegeanPrehistory III: Crete from Earliest Prehistory
through the ProtopalatialPeriod.American Journal ofArchaeology 96: 695-743.
Watrous, L. V., Hatzi-Vallianou, D., Pope,K., Mourtzas, N., Shay,J., Shay,C.T., Bennett, J.,
Tsoungarakis,D., Vallianos, C. and H. Blitzer (1993) A Survey of the Western Mesara
Plain in Crete: Preliminary Report of the 1984,1986, and 1987 Field Seasons.Hesperia
62(2): 191-248.
Weber, M. (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen &
Unwin.

Weber, M. (1976) TheAgrarian Sociology ofAncient Civilizations. Atlantic Highlands:

HumanitiesPress.
Weingarten,J. (1990) Three Upheavalsin Minoan SealingAdministration: Evidence for
Radical Change.In Palaima,T. G. (ed.), AegeanSeals,Sealings and Administration
(Aegaeum5). Liege: Universite de Liege, 105-20.
Weingarten,J. (1994) Sealingsand SealedDocumentsat Bronze Age Knossos.In Evely, D.,
Hughes-Brock,H. and N. Momigliano (eds.), Knossos:A Labyrinth of History. Oxford:
British School at Athens, 171-88.
Westwood, S. (2002) Power and the Social. London: Routledge.
White, L. A. (1949) The Scienceof Culture. New York: Farrar, Strauss
and Cudahy.

257

White, L. A. (1959) The Evolution of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Social
Organization
Structure
Community
T.
(1979)
and
Whitelaw,
at Phournou Koryfi,
Myrtos. UnpublishedMA Dissertation,University of Southampton.
Whitelaw, T. M. (1983) The Settlement at Foumou Korifi, Myrtos and Aspects of Early
Minoan Social Organization.In Krzyszkowska, O. and L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan Society:
Proceedingsof the Cambridge Colloquium 1981. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press: 32345.
Whitclaw, T. M. (1991) The ethnoarchaeologyof recent rural settlement and land use in
Landscape
L.
E.
Mantzourani
(eds.
)
J.
F.,
Davis,
J.
Cherry,
In
Keos.
and
northwest
Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Island from Earliest
Settlements to Modern Times. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA
(Monumcnta Archacologica, 16).
Whitelaw, T. (2000) Settlement Instability and Landscape Degradation in the Southern
Aegeanin the Third Millennium BC. In Halstead,P. and C. Frederick (eds.), Landscape
Greece.
Sheffield:
Sheffield
Academic Press,134-161.
Use
Postglacial
Land
in
and
Whitclaw, T. (2001) From Sites to Communities: Defining the Human Dimensions of
Minoan Urbanism. In Branigan, K. (cd.) Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press,15-37
Whitciaw, T. (2004a) Alternative Pathways to Complexity in the Southern Aegean. In
Barrett, J.C. and P. Halstead (eds.), The Emergenceof Civilization Revisited. Oxbow:
Oxford, 232-56.
Whitclaw, T. (2004b) Estimating the Population of Neopalatial Knossos. In Gadogan, G.,
llatraki, E. and A. Vasilakis (cds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State. British School at
AthensStudies 12,147-158.
Whitciaw, T. M., Day, P.M., Kyriatzi, E., Kilikoglou, V. and D.E. Wilson (1997) Ceramic
Traditions at Early Minoan lib Myrtos, Phournou Koryphi. In Bctancourt, P.P. and R.
Laffincur (cds.), TJXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean
Bronze Age (Aegaeum 16). Liege: Universite dc Liege, University of Texas at Austin,
265-274.
Whitley, D.S. (1992) Prehistory and Post-Positivist Science: A Prolegomenonto Cognitive
Archaeology. In Schiller, M. B. (cd.), Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 4.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press,57-100.
Whitley, J., Prcnt, M. and S. Thorne (1999) Praisos IV: A Preliminary Report on the 1993
and 1994Survey Seasons.Annual of the British School at Athens 94: 215-64.
Wiener, M. II. (1984) Crete and the Cyclades in Late Minoan I: The Tale
of the Conical
Cups. In Hgg, R. and N. Marinatos (eds.) The Minoan Thalassocracy, Myth
and
Reality. Stockholm: Paul Astroms Frlag, 17-26.

258

Wiener, M. H. (1987) Tradeand Rule in Palatial Crete. In Hgg, R. and N. Marinatos (eds.),
The Function of theMinoan Palaces. Stockholm: Astrom, 261-7.
Wiener, M. H. (1990) The Isles of Crete? The Minoan Thalassocracy Revisited. In Hardy,
D. A., Doumas, C. G., Sakellarakis, J.A. and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean

World 111.Vol. 1: Archaeology. London: The Thera Foundation, 128-60.

Wiener, M. H. (1991) The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade. In Gale, N. H. (ed.),
Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90).

Jonsered:Paul Astrms Frlag, 325-50.

Wilk, R. andW. Ashmore(eds.) (1988) House and Household in the Mesoamerican Past.
Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
Wilk, R. andW. L Rathje. (1982) HouseholdArchaeology. In Wilk, R. and W. L Rathje
(eds.), Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory ofDomestic Life. Thousand
Oaks: SagePublications, 617-40.
Wilson, D. E. (1984) The Early Minoan Ha West Court House of Knossos. Unpublished PhD

Dissertation,University of Cincinnati.
Wilson, D. E. (1985) The Early Minoan Ha West Court Houseof Knossos.Annual of the
British School at Athens 80: 281-364.
Wilson, D. E. (1994) Knossosbefore the Palaces:An Overview of the Early Bronze Age
(Early Minoan I-Early Minoan III). In Evely, D., Hughes-Brock,H. andN. Momigliano
(eds.), Knossos:A Labyrinth ofHistory. Oxford: British School at Athens, 23-44.
Wilson, D. E. and P.M. Day (1994) Ceramic Regionalism in Prepalatial Crete:The Mesara
Imports at Early Minoan Ito Early Minoan IIa Knossos(With a Contribution By V.
Kilikoglou). Annual of the British School at Athens 89,1-87.
Wilson, D.E. and P.M. Day. (1999) Early Minoan lib Ware Groups Knossos:The 1907-08
at
SouthFront Tests.Annual of the British School Athens 94: 1-62.
at
Wilson, D. E. and P.M. Day (2000) Early Minoan I Chronology
and Social Practice: Pottery
from the Early PalaceTests at Knossos.Annual

of the British School at Athens 95: 21-

63.
Wilson, D.E., Day, P.M. andN. Dimopoulou (2004) The Pottery from Early Minoan I-IIb
Knossosand its Relationswith the Harbour Site of Poros-Katsambas.In Cadogan,G.,
Hatzaki, E. and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos:Palace, City, State (British School

at

AthensStudies 12). London: British School at Athens, 67-74.

Winkler, A. J. (1949) Grapes and wine. Economic Botany 3: 46-70.
Wittfogel, K. (1957) Oriental Despotism. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Woodman,R. (1995) Who possessesTara? Politics in Archaeology

of Ireland. In Ucko, P.J.

(ed.), Theoryin Archaeology: A World Perspective.London: Routledge,278-297.

259

Wright, H. T. (1994) Pre-State Political Formations. In Stein, G. and M. S. Rothman (eds.),

Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East. Madison, Wisc.: Prehistory Press, 67-84.

Wright, H.T. and G.A. Johnson(1975) Population,Exchangeand Early StateFormation in

Southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist 77: 267-89.

Wylie, A. (1985a)Putting Shakertownback together:Critical Theory in Archaeology.

Journal ofAnthropological

Archaeology 4(1): 33-47.

Wylie, A. (1985b) The ReactionAgainst Analogy. Advancesin Archaeological Method and

Theory 8: 63-111.
Wylie, A. (1988) `Simple' Analogy and the Role of RelevanceAssumption: Implications of
ArchaeologicalPractice.International Studiesin the Philosophy of Science2(2): 134-50.
Wylie, A. (1989a)The Interpretive Dilemma. In Pinsky, V. and A. Wylie (eds.), Critical
Traditions in ContemporaryArchaeology: Essaysin the Philosophy, History and SocioPolitics ofArchaeology. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,18-27.
Wylie, A. (1989b) Archaeological Cablesand Tacking: The Implications of Practice for
Bernstein's `Options Beyond Objectivism and Relativism'. Philosophy of the Social
Sciences 19: 1-18.

Wylie, A. (1991a) Beyond Obj ectivism and Relativism: Feminist Critiques and
ArchaeologicalChallenges.In Willo, N. and D. Walde (eds.), Archaeology of Gender.
Calgary: University of Calgary, 17-23.
Wylie, A. (1991b) GenderTheory and the Archaeological Record. In Gero, J. and M.
Conkey (eds.), EngenderingArchaeology: Womenand Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell,
31-56.
Wylie, A. (1992) On "Heavily DecomposingRed Herrings": Scientific Method in
Archaeologyand the Ladening of Evidencewith Theory. In Embree,L. (ed.),
Metaarchaeology.Dordrecht: Kluwer, 269-88.
Wylie, A. (1993) A Proliferation of New Archaeologies:"Beyond Objectivism
and
Relativism". In Yoffee, N. and A. Sherratt(eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who
sets the
Agenda?Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,20-6.
Wylie, A. (1994) On "Capturing Facts Alive in the Past" (Or Present):Responseto Fotiadis
and Little. American Antiquity 59(3), 556-60.
Wylie, A. (1996) The Interplay of Evidential Constraintsand Political Interests:Recent
ArchaeologicalResearchon Gender.In Preucel,R. and I. Hodder. (eds.), Contemporary
Archaeology in Theory.Oxford: Blackwell, 430-59.
Wylie, A. (2000) Questionsof Evidence,Legitimacy, and the (Dis)Unity

of Science.

American Antiquity 65(2): 227-37.

260

Wylie, A. (2003) Why Standpoint Matters. In Figueroa, R. and S. Harding (eds.), Science
Science
Technology.
New
York:
Philosophies
Issues
Cultures:
in
of
and
and other

Routledge,26-48.
Xanthoudides,S. (1906) Ex KpAtilS III: IIpoIatoptidi oucia EtcXaaigt Efcciac.
ApXaioi. oy1Ki Eco uepk: 116-55.
Xanthoudides, S. (1918) MEyac IIpa totvwtxs zcposIIpyou. ApXaio). oyzKvAsAriov 4:
136-70.
Xanthoudides, S (1924) The Vaulted Tombs ofMesara. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Yaeger, J. (2000) The Social Construction of Communities in the Classic Maya Countryside:

Strategiesof Affiliation in WesternBelize. In Canuto, M. A. and J. Yaeger (2000) The

Archaeology of Communities:A New World Perspective.London: Routledge, 123-42.
Yanagisako,S. (1979) Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups.Annual
ReviewofAnthropology 8: 161-205.
Yates, T. (1990) Archaeologythrough the Looking Glass. In Bapty, I. and T. Yates (eds.),
Archaeology after Structuralism. London: Routledge, 153-204.
Yoffee, N. (1995) Political Economy in Early MesopotamianStates.Annual Review of
Anthropology 24: 281-311.
Zimmerman, L. J. (1996) SharingControl of the Past.In Vitelli, K. D. (ed.), Archaeological
Ethics. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press,214-20.
Zois, A. (1968) Ytpxct IIpwtoivwuc7 III c7coXj?IlerrpayuevaTouB' dieOvovs
vvepfov,A'Tuos. AOrjva:OaokoyucSl
ITOA0y1KO6

oyo; o XpvoiopoS,

141-56.
Zois, A. (1976) BaaiAm I. AOva: H $v AOtjvat; Apxatoaoym Eiatpsia.
Zois, A. (1980) Avaacagn BaaXuci g IEpwtErpaq.fIpaKrz7a rjSevAvazcAppatoAoyix
Etaipeias: 331-6.
Zois, A. (1982) Gibt es Vorlufer der Minoischen Palsteauf Kreta? ErgebnisseNeuer
Untersuchungen.In Papenfuss,D. and V. M. Strocka (eds.), Palast und Htte: Beitrge
zum Bauen und Wohnenim Altertum von Archologen, Vor- und Frhgeschichtlern.
Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 207-16.
Zois, A. (1998a) Kpijti. H1Tpthzpi E7coXirov X&xo, ApXatoAoyfaKai totopfa OAwvrwv
Norm nfs vi aov anb its mo avaroAtxascoqits nto 6vrtxts ptoXes.TeiXoc 1, Tsvtx
Ezaayap xat Zxpos. AO va A 65e4tc.Apxato?oytxccMXEt1ipara-Occopia
xati flp i1.
Zois, A. (1998b) Kpnj. Hfpwtrf

EnoXil rov Xa). xo, ApXatoAoyfa Kai tatopfa 6Aa)v row

Eacarvrrls vQov az6 rig ato avaroA.txt s cosits mo 6vrtxes

;wptoXec. Tehxoc 2,
IlaAafxaorpo. Aiva A7c6 tt. Apxato oyix W4'r
aia-Ocwpia cat IIpc 11.

Zois, A. (1998c) KpAnj. H 1Tp6tur7EtcoXi rov Xako, ApXaioloyfa

Kai w-ropfa6).wv nav
Oeascov
rrfs viiaov an6 its mo avaroAtxtq wSrig nto vvxes zrcptoXt
s. Tthxoc 3,

261

Avaro)ua I orq,MUia, AaaiOi. AQi va AaS i4. Apxato?o'yuxMCLCiijaraOcwpia cat Ilp il.
Zois, A. (1998d) KpAtr. H 17pwtuq E, roXi7too Xakor,

ApXatol. oyfa Kai tazopia )a, v vv

SvTaxes
TehXoc
4,
BpEta
7ptoxes.
tt(;
mo
oc
OEor;
avaTo)tcEs
mo
cvv trjs vi orouan Tts
Kewptx4 Kp4r>) (Kvwcc Ilpyos ApXdvcc, Ku7rapiam Kai dUeg 9Eae:S). AOijva

A2to& ts. Apxato),oytKcM itjaia-Oscwpia xat Ilpe .

IIpwtri Enooii rov Xakxo, ApXaio).oyia as zozopiaoAcovTcov
Zois, A. (1998e)Kpi 'ri
.H
otaccUv

Ti;,

viaov

az6

Tic, 7Clo avaroAz

lts oU Tic 1[1o I5UTucE, 1CEploXtg.

TebXoc

5, Mecap

Kpiiv c(Ayioc OvoOoptoc,Oaioros, Ayia Tpia, Eia, IlA ravos, A; mawKxpi, Hopri,
Kovpva Kai O)xq Oeovis)Kai Nrca Kevrpixii Kpijrq (Xpzats,HepioXriMoviic
OBriy)rrpias,Aevrasii Aeiiva Kai cites eoEis).AOi va A70F-4ts. Apxatoa.oyi,ic
M ctf tia-cc pia icat IIpc il.
Zois, A. (19981)Kpfjtq. H 17pthzwEzox rou XaAxov,ApXaio).oyia Kai zaropia),wv rwv
eovcwvvi; vi aov an ri; mo avaro) ucEsan Tts nto 8vruce

p: oxEc. Teixoc 6,,dvmI

Kpi M (Apxovuiwrsaca,Aepks Kai vea pe,161Mvii l7paqrou:vo3uKsKepapetxS'mc

AvaroAua s Kai Mq). o: nS Kpi vi(;, dCp r) a, 17Aaru).a Kai ks
Alto

ts. Apxato? o'yu c ME4Tata-Oswpia

to-eis).Aijva

icat flpil.

262

iii.

! II
-dom-

1R'
II

f
W,

..
If

, Ii
V

-`
-

At-

Pl. 1.1: Images of a palace: Architectural reconstructions of Knossos (a) by G. Lappas & J.
Sardelli (Mathiolakis poster 1984), (b) by N. Gouvoussis ( Mathiolakis poster 1981)
(after Klynne 1998: Figures 7,9).

rr
AJ

V-A
Y'1
"o

z
y

N
O

w
00
o

L.
S

< :tic

C6

j
'7

i'

PI. 3.1: Ex Oriente lux: (a) Mari (b) Knossos

(after Graham 1962: Plates 2,148).

I
Early Minoan I (EMI Well)

'NVEIM:

approx
10cm

'"

11
1

Early Minoan It A (West Court House)

t c

Early Minoan ISA (E.Il. 7 /K. l tests)

-

Early Minoan 118 (South Front)

ffi

a)

VA-\

'p.
Early Minoan

Ili (Upper

East Well)

Pl. 3.2: Pottery shape charts for drinking, pouring and serving vessels from the following
areas/deposits: (a) Palace Well (Early Minoan I), (b) West Court House (Early Minoan
Ila). (c) E. II. 7/K. I tests (Early Minoan Ila), (d) South Front (Early Minoan lib) and (e)
Upper East Well (Early Minoan III) (after Day and Wilson 2002: Fig. 8.4).

t
BWOwq 3
M

dmm 4

... 1

uidmg s

"

we
wm.
WYI\YM

; 4^
or. u. .
ryf, IY(1

LM"

T"41^.

MINOAN PALACE OF (A1 ATAS

.. r_

P1.5.1: Too many palaces'? Ground plans of new palaces and/or palace-type buildings
from (a) Makrygialos (after Davaras 1997; Plan 2), (b) Petras (after Tsipopoulou 2002:
Plate XXXVIII) (c) Galatas (after Rethemiotakis 2002: Plate XII).

P1.8.1: Protopalatial Malia: (a) Ashlar

masonry, Crypte Hypostyle, (b) Minoan Hall,
Building A, Quartier Mu (after Schoep
2004a: figs. 6,7).

1969 WEST COURT SOUNDINGS

5oufA
Koulou

--

Terrace

Well

14O4-wES r CDUBJ EASLsUricw

.

CMIIA

-J

--

7. r.. o" will

TR. GG

After

WEST

COURT

fR

Bass

FF

TR. I

PALACE

FACADE

____-yQI3346r,

N
.

PI. 9.1: Knossos: Plan of 1969 West Court soundings (after Wilson 1984: Fig. 1).

Pl. 9.2: Phaistos, excavation in the

area of the ramps: (a) section G-H, (b) the three
superimposed ramps ascending towards Piazzale I the
at
end of excavation and before
restoration (after Carinci & La Rosa 2002: Figs. 2,1).

1=00
r

(b) Kamilari A

(a) Aghia K\Tlakl

flu d Ji
t.
-

-..

ZZ,

ci Platane. "

(d) Koumasa

Pl. 9.3: 7holoi associated with enclosure walls (blue) and/or paved areas (red)
(adapted from Branigan 1993).

8r
..

r
/

ti's

.1

.. x1/1!

'/, 4: ?

R:

K
41

"\

..i/
jr.

L--

= }rq

rrtw

r
a.

L"

oE
ov

Nordhuser und Sdhaus:PM IIa.

Rotes Haus. 43: FM 11b(erste Phase).
Wcsthaus:FM Jib (zweite Phase).
Hiiuser 54,56b, V, A: FM U.
MMIa.
m,
Lam..
VI:
II3uxrT,
r
l? 1 Hiuses M, K, L. S0: SM la.
Q
Rmisch.
Bau P: Undatiert.

Steinpflaster.

....
P

wM.

Msrn

Nan

w
Nw

Pl. 9.4: Paved open area at Vasiliki (west side of the excavated part of the settlement)
(after Zois 1982: Fig. 2).

",

in

P l. 9.5: Paved open area at M\ rtos-Phournou Korvfi (south border of the settlement)
(ground plan adapted from Warren 1972: detail adapted from

cc.utexas.eduJ-brucehlcc307/minoan/images/2b. jpg).
ccN%-f.

"

\ ulou tholU"
Agha I riada tholos A

Lcbcna tholul, l

Kainilan tholos A

Pl. 9.6: 7'holui anterooms with concentrations of drinking

(adapted /Tont Br nigan 1993).

cups

Aim

'

-' 61
'

Pl. 9.7: The Minoan Teapot: (i) Herakicion Museum.

(ii) M}rtos-Phournou Koryfi (after Warren 1972).

--...

a'i

/1

quiftrIl.,

...

Pl. 9.8: Spouted stone vessels from the prepalatial cemetery at Mochlos
(after Seager 1912: Pls. 1,5,6).

A1,41
-4pft

SA

-71.77

/
+
y

or%
`w

IC-Ir
as

!:,,,
a
t.

Pl. 9.9: Zoomorphic and athropomorphic spouted vessels from Koumasa

(after Xanthoudides 1924: Pls. 2,28).

aaa61

PI. 9.10: Fertility symbols'? (i) breasted jugs from Kalathiana, (ii) clay phalloi from
Platanos (after Xanthoudides 1924: Pls. 45,51).

'

7x

i
'

"":
.

..
r".

""

'"

i
----____

MT S-S

P1.10.1:The tholos tomb at Kaminospelio (after Blackman

& Branigan 1973: Pl. P).

Tholos Tomb
Phourni r
Phourni E
Vorou A
Vorou B
Myrsini
Viannos
Gypsades
Krasi A
Drakones D
Aghia Kyriaki A
Aghia Triada A

Date
EM III
MM la - 11
EM III - MM II
MM I- II
EM III - MM I
EM III - MM I
MM II - III
EM I- III
EM III - MM I
MM la/MM lb
EM I- MM II

A hia Tridha B
A esokari B

EMI-MM

SivaS
Porti II

EMI-MMI
EM III - MM II

House Tomb
Phourni 5
Phourni 6
Phourni 7
Phourni 9
Phourni 12

MM I

EM III - MM la
EM III - MM lb
MM la
MM la - lb
EM III - MM
MM la
EM III - MM 11

Phourni 16
Phourni 18

Phourni 19

EM III - MM II

Bairia Gazi

MM la

Mallia
(House of the Dead)
Vasiliki
Zakros A

MM I
MM I
MM I(a?)

Zakros B
Gournia I
Gournia VII
Gournia VIII
Mochlos F

MM I(a'?)
MM la - II
post - EM II?
post - EMII?
MM I

P1.10.2a:Prepalatial Larnax and Pithos burials: Tholoi and House Tombs

(after Papadatos 1999).

Burial Cave
P yrYos

EM I- II

Arkalies Viannos

Uknown

Galana Charakia
Viannos

EM III - MM I

Sitcia

MM I

Mavro Avlaki, Zakros

EM III - MM I

Open air
Mallia
S Noun aras
Pachya Ammos
Galana Charakia
Aghios Myron
No i eia Kissamou

MM la
MM I
EM III - MM LM
EM III - MM I
EM III - MM la
EM Ila

PI. 10.2b: Prepalatial Larnax and Pithos burials: Burial caves and open-air sites
(after Papadatos 1999).

0 If-

ro -

Io
T,
'`

ul

``

. l
"

/'

Tj

\"/,
4

J(
1

imm

._

(
j/f \f
II
`:

,',
,

Jf-

ft.

91.

L
o3
Y

lq

`J

PI. 10.3: Pithos and Larnax burials. Tholos E at Archanes (Plan of Archanes after Soles
1992: Fig. 59. Plan of Tholos E after Branigan 1993: Fig. 4.7).

(a) Mochlos. Tomb Complex

I/II/III

(b) Mochlos. Tomb Complex I V/V/VI

\
,

+
ia. Comb III

23ay.

(d) Gournes. Tomb A

PI. 111.4:: 1riding rooms to the original unit. House tombs

(adapted from Soles 1992: Figs. 16.20,11,62).

`C

(a) Archanes Tomb 3

N/

IF

(b) Mallia

House of the Dead

(c) Palaikastro "I'onmbV

tA

-====iZ

sm

__

JI

(d) Palaikastro Tomb VII

Pl. 10.5: House tombs with subdivided interiors (after Soles 1992: Figs, 60,70a, 74b, 76).

:;

(a) Vorou. 'I'holos A

(b) Aghia Triadha. Tholos A

gumbo

(c) Lcbcna, 'I bolos Y2

(d) Aghia Kyriaki
N

I.

syy)

/A

(c) Platanos. Tholos A

P1.111.6:.l ddin rooms to the original unit: Tholos tombs

(adapter! fronm Branigan 1993: Figs. 5.1,1.3.4.4,2.5.5.2).

'-

fr
".
OF,

--7,il

(a) Platanos, Tholos B

II

(b) Platanos, Tholos F

(c) Apcsokari, Tholos A

(d) Kamilari, Tholos C

Pl. 10.7: 7holoi with a standardized set of outer chambers

(after Branigan 1993: Figs. 5.2,5.2,4.5,4.17).

P1.10.8: Small entrances:

lab.
dartmouth.
U
L\
http
Archancs
(after
E,
edu/history/broni. c_agc/Cull/(tTholos
(i)
1 jp, ), (ii) Tholos at Krasi Pediadas (after Branigan 1993: Fig. 3.2).
-,

Koutsokera
iti A
T
Koumasa E
Lasaia B
Kaloi Limenes A

Date
(after Branigan 1993)
EM I
EM 1
EM 1
EMI
EMI

Lebena Yerokambos 2

EM I

Tomb

Koumasa B
Aghia Eirene e
A hia K riaki A
Chrysostomos A
Kephali A
Aghia Triada A
Koumasa A
Aghios Andonis
Aghia Kyriaki C
Aghia Kyriaki B
Lebena Zervou 3
Lebena Papoura I
Lebena Papoura lb
Drakones Z
Christos X
Aghios Kyrillos
Kamilari A

EM I
EM 1
EMI
EMI
EMI
EMI
?EM I
EM I/II
EM 1/11?
EM 1/II?
EM II
EM 11
EM II
EM II
EM II
MM 1
MM 1

Door height
m
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7

0.9
1.0
1.5
>0.4
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.5
1.1
1.4
2.0
1.0
1.8
1.0

Table 10.9: Door height of tholos tombs. The date of construction of each tholos is also given.
(data after Branigan 1993).

UQ
cd
N
U
O

'

eo
ccF
n.

an al
ca
1""

Cr

on
a
c
U

;a
.5
5b
s
Q
0

11
III
1
C'oinplcy
I
A1ohlu".
oI Uh
(; H

(b) Gournia_ Tomb III

7734

Sew

(c) MoLIiIu'

l omb Complex IV/V/V1

PI. 111.11: Access to the different compartments of late prepalatial house tombs
(adaplecl Truro Soles 1992: Figs. 16.11.20).

MP

4.
-

-mmmoo%
mom

il

;
.
r:
.

00

an
w
N
N
^J

i.

4.
cl

3i

Jz

ap

Wm

0
N
O
O
L".
N
O

7mV

E
O

C\l

Na
C`1

1J
;

O
O
O
O

a
0

Q-4

Ie

Al

------

46

P 533
EARTH

PACKIt4G

STAND OF EARTH
AND STONES

PI. 11.3: Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi: (i) Area/Room of the tub, hole and channel
(Area/Room 8), (ii) Section with tub in position over hole
(after Warren 1972b: Figs. 15,16. ).

try

P1.11.4:Myrtos PhoumouKoryfi: Settlementgrowth sequencesuggestedby Whitelaw

(after Whitelaw 1983:Fig. 62).

00
110
w
cr;
00
ON

I.

LLJ

3a
W
JJ

0
a
0

W
WS

Z
YW
CD

rA
0

.I"I'

Q60

00
o'
3

'C3
. 1

'vom

-ti

O
i
O
O

ti

GULF OF
MIRABELLO

o
..:

FOURNOU
MYRTOS
KORIFI
VALLEY

RV1
E71

LIMESTONE

PHYLLITE-

ARGLANDS
FLYSCHITE-

AND
C

Jjff

FLYSCH

f9m

ALLUVIUM

GRANITE AND
DIORITE
INTRUSIONS

10 KMS

Pl. 11.7: (a) Provenanceand productiontradition of 370 vesselsin use at MyrtosPhournouKoryfi at the time of the EM I1B destruction;(b) principal geologicalformations
of the Isthmusof lerapetra,Crete(after Whitelaw et al. 1997:Pl. CII).

PROCESSING AND SERVING BOWLS

DEEP

HEMISPHERICAL DEEP ROUND

VASILII:

I TRADITION

SHALLOW

1w

'1w
ow

MIRABELLO

TRADITION
41F

SOUTH COAST TRADITION

01V
w

-j
SMALL

PROCESSING AND SERVING VESSELS

CUP
VASILIKI

09

GOBLET

SMALL JUG

TRADITION

LARGEJUG

TEAPOT

SPOUTEDJAR

IF

MIRABELLO TRADITION

SOUTH COAST TRADITION

Pl. 11.8: Myrtos-PhournouKoryfi: (a) principal varieties of bowl in eachtradition

representedin the EM IM assemblage;(b) variantsof small processingand servingvessels
in the three traditions (after Whitelaw et al. 1997: Pl. CIII).

80
vel

av..

{
80

C::

P1.11.9:Myrtos-PhournouKoryfi: Floor depositsin: (a) room 80, (b) room 82,

(c) rooms88-92 (after Warren 1972b:Figs. 26-28).

c
.
C
b
O
N

r
a

10

oe

yB

E:
z

=a=
r

b.:
t>

'.

'

"

olwo

%4r

W)

mmm

/i!

cd

=M=m
0
a
0

el

<.

ror 7

0
a
0

0
w
en
0

--

ro
U
r,

A%m

Sf

.0,

4i

.z

i_
Aa

--67 ZC

69

AMPHORA
PITHOS
A JAR

93
,.

P1.11.12: Myrtos-Phournou Koryfi: Circulation paths in the South-Central

Cluster (after Sanders 1990: Fig. 5.3).

Pl. 11.13: Mallia, Maisons Sud: (a) Maison A, (b) Maison

B, (c) Maison C,
(d) general plan of the area (after
van Effenterre 1980: Figs. 235-237,223).

rII

Pl. 11.14: Charnaizi: (a) storage areas. (b) division of the structure into
Fig.
8 ).
from
1972:
Davaras
(adapted
sub-units
morphological/functionable

PI. 11.15: Kouphota, Aghia Photia: Division of the structure into morphological sub-units
(cross-hatching indicates rooms that cannot be ascribed to a unit with certainty)
(adapted from Tsipopoulou 1988: Fig. 1).