The Journal of the American School of Classical ...

d i n i n g i n t h e s a n c t ua r y o f d e m e t e r a n d k o r e

Hesperia Th e J o ur nal of t he A m e r i c a n S c ho ol of Cl assi c al S t u d i e s at At he n s Vo l u m e 8 0 2011

Copyright © The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, originally published in Hesperia 80 (2011), pp. 635–655. This offprint is supplied for personal, non-commercial use only. The definitive electronic version of the article can be found at .

1

hesperia Tracey Cullen, Editor Editorial Advisory Board Carla M. Antonaccio, Duke University Angelos Chaniotis, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton Jack L. Davis, American School of Classical Studies at Athens A. A. Donohue, Bryn Mawr College Jan Driessen, Université Catholique de Louvain Marian H. Feldman, University of California, Berkeley Gloria Ferrari Pinney, Harvard University Sherry C. Fox, American School of Classical Studies at Athens Thomas W. Gallant, University of California, San Diego Sharon E. J. Gerstel, University of California, Los Angeles Guy M. Hedreen, Williams College Carol C. Mattusch, George Mason University Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, University of Thessaly at Volos Lisa C. Nevett, University of Michigan Josiah Ober, Stanford University John K. Papadopoulos, University of California, Los Angeles Jeremy B. Rutter, Dartmouth College A. J. S. Spawforth, Newcastle University Monika Trümper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Hesperia is published quarterly by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Founded in 1932 to publish the work of the American School, the journal now welcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek archaeology, art, epigraphy, history, materials science, ethnography, and literature, from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperia is a refereed journal, indexed in Abstracts in Anthropology, L’Année philologique, Art Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Current Contents, IBZ: Internationale Bibliographie der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur, Numismatic Literature, Periodicals Contents Index, Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies, and TOCS-IN. The journal is also a member of CrossRef. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is a research and teaching institution dedicated to the advanced study of the archaeology, art, history, philosophy, language, and literature of Greece and the Greek world. Established in 1881 by a consortium of nine American universities, the School now serves graduate students and scholars from more than 180 affiliated colleges and universities, acting as a base for research and study in Greece. As part of its mission, the School directs ongoing excavations in the Athenian Agora and at Corinth and sponsors all other American-led excavations and surveys on Greek soil. It is the official link between American archaeologists and classicists and the Archaeological Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and, as such, is dedicated to the wise management of cultural resources and to the dissemination of knowledge of the classical world. Inquiries about programs or membership in the School should be sent to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 6–8 Charlton Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5232.

he s per ia 80 (201 1) Pages 635–6 5 5

Goddess, Lost Ancestors, and Dolls A C u lt u ra l B i o g ra p hy of t he Ay i a I r i n i Te r rac ot ta S tat ue s

ABS TRAC T A biographical approach to the study of material culture reveals that an object’s meaning usually varies in different episodes of its life history. This article examines the terracotta statues from the temple at Ayia Irini on Kea in three contexts of experience: (1) their initial context in the Bronze Age temple; (2) their reuse in the Iron Age phase of the temple; and (3) their “permanent” exhibition in the Archaeological Museum of Kea. Although the meaning with which the statues were imbued has varied in these contexts, they have retained the status of sacred objects.

As late as the 1960s, almost nothing was known about religious spaces in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Aegean.1 The excavation of the temple at Ayia Irini, on the northwest coast of the island of Kea, was the first in a string of discoveries in the major settlements of the Cyclades and the northeastern Peloponnese that have increased our understanding of religion and religious spaces in these areas. Moreover, Ayia Irini offered the archaeological world a spectacular and unparalleled religious assemblage (especially for its period), consisting of over 32 terracotta statues, half to three-quarter life-size, which were published by Miriam Caskey (Fig. 1).2 The cultural biography of these statues is the subject of this article.3 The approach followed here was initiated by Igor Kopytoff in 1986.4 Arguing that commoditization is a process and not a condition (an all-ornothing state of being), he proposed a biographical approach to the analysis of the value of things.5 Kopytoff suggested that when constructing the 1. I would like to extend my thanks to the following people and institutions for reading various versions of this paper, offering comments and corrections, and responding to requests for permits and information: Miriam Caskey, Jack L. Davis, Alkis Dialismas, Julie Fairbanks, Rodney D. Fitzsimons, Carol Hershenson, Kathleen M. Lynch, Timothy Matney, Alexandros Phasianos,

Brian W. Trail, the Archaeological Receipts Fund of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and the 21st Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and its director, Mariza Marthari. This article is based on a paper coauthored with Brian W. Trail and presented in 2007 at the 108th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in San Diego.

© The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

2. Keos II. On the absence of anthropomorphic cult images on Crete, see Marinatos and Hägg 1981. 3. For the genre of cultural biography, see Kopytoff 1986; Rawson 1993; Gosden and Marshall 1999; Papadopoulos and Smithson 2002. 4. Kopytoff 1986. 5. Kopytoff 1986, p. 73.

636

evi gorogianni

b

a biography of an object, one should ask questions similar to those one asks about a person in a traditional biography. Such an interrogation would not only lay bare the qualities with which things are endowed in each context, thereby revealing their trajectories of transformation, but also expose latent features of the societies that adopted them. Indeed, biographies of things cast in relief something that might otherwise remain obscure: “Objects are not simple residues of social interaction but are active agents in shaping identities and communities.”6 Thus, by observing how the meanings of objects are defined and redefined in the different contexts in which they are put to use, we gain valuable insight into the society that has adopted and utilized them. In this article I explore the character of the Ayia Irini statues in their various settings and describe the phases in their collective biography as they were moved from one context to another. This approach reveals the meaning with which they were invested through their involvement in social interactions, informing us not only about the statues but also about the communities that valued them. I examine the 3,600-year-old statues in three experiential contexts: (1) their initial installation in the temple, where they were displayed or stored during the Late Bronze Age; (2) their

Figure 1. Terracotta statues from the temple at Ayia Irini: (a) statue 1-1, front (p.H. 0.98, est. H. 1.05 m); (b) statue 1-2, back (p.H. 0.55, est. H. 1.20 m). Photos courtesy Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati

6. Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002, p. 8; see also Gosden and Marshall 1999, p. 169; Miller 2005, pp. 8–10.

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

637

reuse during the Early Iron Age (and later), when at least one of the heads formed the focal point of worship within the ruins of the temple; and (3) their modern exhibition in the Archaeological Museum of Kea, following their designation as archaeological objects. I argue that the statues preserved a sacred character in all three contexts. During the Bronze Age, their sanctity derived from their direct connection to the divine; in the Iron Age they gained additional associations with mythical ancestors; and in their current museum setting their sacred inflection stems from the nonspiritual, but equally powerful, inclusion of the statues as antiquities within the symbolic inventory of the Greek nation. The sacred character with which the statues were endowed is a topos in their cumulative biography, and it dictates an atmosphere of reverence and veneration that has secured them against violation or infringement by human agency. The statues were discovered during the University of Cincinnati excavations led by John L. Caskey in the 1960s and 1970s.7 The existence of an ancient settlement at Ayia Irini had been known well before excavations began.8 It was not until the 1950s, however, when Caskey was looking for sites that would allow him to refine the Cycladic cultural sequence (as his previous work at Eutresis and Lerna had done for the Early and Middle Helladic sequence), that plans for a full-scale exploration of the site began.9 In the end, Ayia Irini turned out to be a much more interesting site than Caskey had anticipated. Over the course of the excavations, which continued on and off until 1976, Caskey uncovered an impressive settlement that had been established in the Early Bronze Age and reached its floruit at the end of the Middle Bronze Age and in the early phases of the Late Bronze Age, the period to which most of the extant remains date. At that time the site was fortified with a sturdy circuit wall, a long stretch of which still stands along its northern side.10 Contained within this wall was an extensive town provided with a network of streets complete with a drainage system and a series of private houses, as well as one monumental structure (House A) interpreted as the house of the leader, and a sanctuary, dubbed the temple, whose rooms were filled with fragments of dozens of female terracotta statues (Fig. 1).11 7. The results of the excavations, first presented in preliminary reports, are summarized in Caskey 1971, 1972, and 1979; a series of final reports has appeared (Keos I–VII, IX, X), with others in preparation (Keos XI, XII). See also Hershenson 1998; Morgan 1998; Morris and Jones 1998; Schofield 1998. 8. Local antiquarians such as Konstantinos Manthos ([1877] 1991, p. 32) and Ioannis Psyllas (1921, p. 303) mention the site, as do Gabriel Welter (1954, cols. 50–52) and Kathryn Scholes (1956, p. 11), the scholars who introduced the archaeological world to the potential of Ayia Irini.

9. Caskey and Caskey 1960; Caskey 1960, 1968. Until that time, knowledge of Cycladic cultural history was derived almost entirely from Phylakopi on Melos (Atkinson et al. 1904; Barber 1974; Renfrew et al. 2007). 10. Other parts of the wall are visible beneath the waters on the eastern and western sides of the peninsula, but its exact course cannot be reconstructed with certainty. 11. For House A, see Keos III. For town planning during the main phases of the site, see Schofield 1998. The fragments represent at least 32 statues (Keos II, p. 35).

638

evi gorogianni

Figure 2. Plan of the temple. T. Ross,

after Caskey 1962, p. 282, fig. 4, and Caskey 1966, p. 368, fig. 2

I MAGES OF TH E G ODDESS The temple itself was built during Ayia Irini Period IV, when Middle Minoan (MM) II pottery was in fashion (corresponding approximately to the 18th century b.c.).12 In its initial incarnation, the temple was a square, 6 x 6 m, two-room building accessed from the east (Fig. 2, rooms 1 and 2). Soon afterward, however, it was enlarged through the addition of more rooms on the east side, so that the two original rooms became the inner recesses of a new oblong building that measured 26 x 6 m.13 M. Caskey observes that the new construction itself is a sign of historical continuity: “The designers of the new building were obliged to preserve and include the older unit. It is not by chance that Room 1, where most of the terracotta statues ultimately lay, continued to be special on into Late Bronze Age times.”14 The temple was preserved in this form with minor alterations until its destruction at the end of Ayia Irini Period VIIb, when Late Minoan (LM) IB/Late Helladic (LH) II pottery was in use (approximately the 15th century b.c.). The structure, however, retained its ritual character well into historical times.15 During the excavation of the temple, statue fragments were found in almost every room except room 4, and even outside the confines of the building.16 The majority were uncovered in room 1, which belonged to the original Middle Bronze Age nucleus of the building (Figs. 3, 4).17 Several fragments recovered from other rooms proved to join with fragments found in room 1.18 Exactly where the statues were originally housed and how they were displayed is unknown, but the excavators believe that they were stored in room 1, explaining the scatter of fragments elsewhere as

12. Caskey 1998, p. 124. Caskey (2009, p. 145) also notes that the ritual character of the building was established from its inception. 13. Caskey 1964, p. 326; see also Caskey 2009, pp. 144–145. 14. Caskey 1998, p. 125. 15. Caskey 1964, p. 333. 16. Keos II, p. 5. 17. Caskey 1964, p. 327; 1971, p. 385; Keos II, p. 1. 18. The stratigraphy of the temple has not received final publication. Nevertheless, from the summary discussion included in Keos II (pp. 4–23), it is evident that the statues come from a variety of contexts (destruction deposits and fills). It is also noteworthy that fragments from the same figure were found in contexts dating to later periods, such as LH IIIA–IIIC (e.g., Keos II, pp. 71– 73, nos. 5-1 and 5-2; cf. tables of findspots, pp. 14–23).

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

Figure 3. Fragments of terracotta statues as found in the destruction deposit in room 1. Caskey 1964, pl. 55:c

Figure 4. Terracotta statue 7-1 as found in the destruction deposit in room 1. Photo courtesy Department of

Classics, University of Cincinnati

639

640

evi gorogianni

the result of post-depositional processes.19 M. Caskey also suggests that room 1 could have been an adyton, an inner sanctum to which only a select few were allowed access on a regular basis.20 Indeed, the fact that this room, the ancient nucleus, was not only preserved, but also converted into the innermost space of the new oblong building, is telling. The choice to preserve the initial form of the “old temple” while increasing its distance from the entrance may indicate not only the venerable status of the original structure, but also an effort to control and restrict access to the space and its contents.21 The large collection of terracotta figures would have occupied at least one-third of that dark room,22 creating an eerie experience for those entering for the first time, as their eyes slowly acclimated to the darkness. The statues are freestanding and range in size from 70 to 120 cm (Fig. 1).23 They all represent female figures wearing flounced skirts and tight bodices that, to varying degrees, leave the breasts uncovered in typical Minoan fashion. Some of the figures are adorned with garlands around their necks, while their hair is arranged in long single locks that flow down their backs. They are made of a distinctive local coarse reddish clay; some preserve traces of red, white, and yellow paint. Despite the difficulties inherent in establishing a strict chronological sequence for these figures, some observations can be made. One of the statues is definitely Mycenaean in date, since it was found in a LH III context and none of its numerous fragments seem to join with statues from other rooms.24 As for the others, M. Caskey considers it highly unlikely that they were all made at the same time; she categorizes them into different groups and interprets them as the products of different craftsmen at different periods.25 How can the accumulation of a large number of statues over an extended period of time be accounted for? One explanation is that it reflects a long, cyclical process of production, use, and ultimately replacement and storage.26 The decision to store the statues instead of disposing of them after use indicates that they were not regarded as mere utilitarian objects; they had a sacred inflection and thus could not be discarded or destroyed.27 Another possibility is that many of the figures were in use at the same time. Scholars have long debated the nature of Minoan religion and whether 19. Caskey 1964, p. 327; 1971, p. 385; Keos II, p. 4. The fragments could have been scattered during cleaning and renovation following the destruction of the building. Initially, the excavators proposed two other scenarios to account for the dispersal: the statues were housed in a second-story room and fell into room 1 when the floor collapsed (Caskey 1964, pp. 327–329; 1971, p. 385), or they were housed on both the ground floor and the second story (Caskey 1964, pp. 328–329). Both theories were abandoned; neither is mentioned in Keos II. 20. Keos II, p. 4. 21. Cf. the discussion of Egyptian temple design by Shafer (1997, p. 6),

who notes that in Egypt cult images dwelt inside a small, dark room in the temple, which was considered the focus of the cosmic order. See also Morenz 1973, pp. 86–87. 22. Keos II, pp. 35–36. 23. Keos II, p. 36. 24. See Keos II, pp. 25, 97–106, group 15. 25. Keos II, p. 32. 26. The excavators did not address the issue of wear on the figures prior to the destruction of the temple. M. Caskey (Keos II, p. 23) noted that the fragments were found in varying states of preservation depending on their findspots and their exposure to fluctuating sea levels. On the other hand, Caskey

also observed that “fragments found close together at the northwest end of Room 1, having shared the same postdestruction history, were by no means all in the same condition.” Caskey attributes this variability to differences in the initial firing of the figures, but it is possible that other factors, such as exposure to natural forces, affected their condition before the temple was destroyed. 27. The storage of the figures after the end of their use life is also consonant with the later Greek custom of keeping all dedications within the temenos. (I thank Kathleen Lynch for this observation.)

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

641

it was monotheistic or polytheistic.28 Arthur Evans was a proponent of the monotheistic view and held that Minoan religion revolved around a principal female deity, the Mother Goddess, who assumed or was worshipped in many guises, not unlike a medieval Madonna.29 More recently, others have maintained that the Minoans, like their Mediterranean and Near Eastern neighbors, venerated a pantheon of deities, some of which were male.30 The statues might therefore be considered representations of the many guises of a single goddess, or of several goddesses protecting agriculture, renewal, and fertility.31 Whether the statues represented a single deity or many, it is reasonable to assume that they were imbued with a sanctity that protected them from the fates of more mundane objects. In ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Near Eastern ritual, as well as contemporary Hindu practice, anthropomorphic cult images are treated as manifestations of deities: the deity is present in the image.32 Such rituals include not only prayer, sacrifice, and procession, but also the dressing, bathing, and feeding of the images, a clear indication that such representations are not merely symbols but the actual objects of religious devotion.33 It is possible that the terracotta statues of Ayia Irini were likewise perceived as the timeless, enduring representatives of the deity or deities residing within the temple for the benefit of the settlement. The forms and features with which the inhabitants of Ayia Irini endowed these statues, consciously or otherwise, tell yet another story. Although the statues were produced locally, they are represented in a costume characteristic of the elite women of the Aegean world and usually interpreted as a product of contact with Minoan society.34 Indeed, the material recovered from the buildings at Ayia Irini demonstrates that the inhabitants enjoyed a high standard of living. This prosperity was probably the result of the site’s location at an important maritime crossroads, which allowed it to participate in the procurement of metal from Laurion and mediate exchanges between Crete and the Greek mainland.35 These exchanges supplied Ayia Irini with an abundance of imports that attest to the breadth and strength of Kean trading contacts. Imported pottery from Crete, other Aegean sites (including the eastern Aegean), and the Greek mainland was plentiful throughout the Middle Bronze Age until the destruction at the end of Ayia Irini Period VIIb, after which the mainland prevailed as the almost exclusive source of imported wares.36 Other aspects of the material culture of the site tell a story of the rise and fall of the Aegean “powers,” as 28. For a summary of the debate, see Moss 2005, pp. 1–2. 29. PM II, pp. 277–278. 30. Nilsson 1950, pp. 392–393; Dickinson 1994; Goodison and Morris 1998, p. 132. 31. Without discounting the possibility that the figures were representations of the goddess(es), M. Caskey (Keos II, pp. 41–42) has suggested a third alternative: the figures represent worshippers waiting for an epiphany of the deity, whose cult figure was kept elsewhere or was nonexistent

(i.e., the cult was aniconic). 32. Romano 1988, p. 131; Davis 1997; Meskell 2004, p. 89. 33. For Hindu practices, see Davis 1997, pp. 19, 23. For Egypt, see Sauneron 1960, pp. 80–93; Meskell 2004, p. 94; see also Morenz (1973, pp. 87, 150–156), who comments on the relationship between the god and the image as well as the process of “vitalizing” the image (p. 155). For other ancient parallels, see Bittel 1970, p. 13 (Hittites); Oppenheim 1977, pp. 188–198 (Mesopotamia); Romano

1988 (early Greece). 34. For more on Minoan fashion and its symbolism and function, see Gullberg and Åström 1970; German 2000; Laffineur 2000; Lee 2000; Stephani 2002. 35. Davis 1979; Davis et al. 1983. See also Schofield 1982. 36. Keos XII; see also Davis 1980; Davis et al. 1983; Davis and Gorogianni 2008. For Mycenaean influence in the Aegean islands, see also Marthari 1988; Schallin 1993, 1998.

642

evi gorogianni

attested by local emulation of aspects of Minoan culture, including fashion (already noted in the costume of the statues), wall painting, Linear A script, and weights and measures, as well as technologies represented by Minoan loom weights and a faster potter’s wheel.37 This adoption of cultural traits by the inhabitants of the Cycladic communities has previously been interpreted as a manifestation of Cretan cultural or political imperialism, often referred to as a “Minoan thalassocracy,” on the basis of a passage in Thucydides (1.4); or else as “Minoanization,” a term that draws attention to this process of acculturation and the function of the foreign fashions within the local context.38 In a recent reassessment of the phenomenon, however, it is suggested that the local communities emulated these styles in an attempt to identify themselves as belonging to a “new environment” in the Aegean at the time, an environment in which the “fashions” prevalent on the island of Crete, and later on the Greek mainland, were the cultural language of power that communities appropriated to serve their symbolic and economic needs.39 In this scenario, the Ayia Irini statues embodied the community’s desire to integrate itself into the Aegean network, which was, of course, the very cornerstone of its prosperity.40 This prosperity, however, did not last forever. Following the LM IB/ LH II destruction, the settlement shrank and was finally abandoned at the end of the LH IIIB period. While settlement activity at the site appears to have come to an end at this time, however, the temple itself preserves evidence of use throughout the final phases of the Bronze Age, when it suffered yet another destruction.41

LO S T A NCESTO RS Even after the destruction and general abandonment of the site at the end of the Bronze Age, parts of the temple continued in use as places of veneration. In the Iron Age, cult activity took place in rooms 1, 2, 3, and 6, as attested by floor levels containing vessels of a ritual character, as well as structures such as a bench (room 3, northeast wall) and shrine BB (room 6) (Figs. 2, 5).42 Room 1, however, is the focus of this discussion, because of the Iron Age shrine that was established within it.43 During the 8th century b.c., a stone pavement (the “Geom. Shrine Floor” in Fig. 5) was laid down and a structure of rough stone blocks was built on top of it in the northwestern part of the room. The stone structure collapsed at some point during the late 8th century b.c. and was removed by the excavators in 1963,44 revealing in situ a base in the form of a terracotta ring, surrounded 37. Davis 1980, pp. 258–259. 38. See, e.g., Hägg and Marinatos 1984; Wiener 1991; Broodbank 2004; Laffineur and Greco 2005; Davis and Gorogianni 2008; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2008. 39. Davis and Gorogianni 2008, pp. 339–340 and passim. 40. For the concept of network theory and its application, see Brood-

bank 2000; Knappett, Evans, and Rivers 2008; Malkin, Constantakopoulou, and Panagopoulou 2009. 41. M. Caskey (2009, p. 146) notes that although it is not certain whether all the rooms of the temple continued to be used for cult purposes, corridor 5 and room 6 preserved indisputable evidence for the continuation of worship in Mycenaean times and for the

knowledge and emulation of the earlier (predestruction) cult tradition. 42. Caskey 1998, p. 127. 43. According to the excavators, this room was continuously used for ritual, except for a probable hiatus indicated by the absence of pottery dating to early and middle LH IIIC (Caskey 1964, p. 332; Caskey 2009, p. 149). 44. Caskey 1964, p. 333.

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

Figure 5. Composite stratigraphic section of room 1. Keos II, p. 9, fig. 1

45. Caskey 1964, p. 330; 1998, p. 127; 2009, p. 150. The deposits from this shrine also included the skirt of another statue (Keos II, p. 6). 46. The evidence for the continued use of the southeastern part of room 1 includes burned deposits, fragments of various drinking vessels dating to the

643

by flat stones and supporting the worn head of a statue (Fig. 6).45 While the southeastern part of the room continued in use as a shrine long after the 8th century,46 the area blocked by the fallen stones has a terminus ante quem in the later part of that century, as the pottery attests (Fig. 5).47 It is unknown how much earlier than the 8th century b.c. the head might have been reclaimed from the ruins of the temple and put on display, either in room 1 or elsewhere, or whether other statues or fragments were similarly exhibited.48 What is clear is that early in the 8th century this area was organized as a shrine: the statue pieces were reclaimed from the Bronze Age ruins, put on display, and treated as a focus for ritual behavior. In this respect, the temple at Ayia Irini is consistent with a wider pattern observed at several sites of Iron Age date in Greece. During the 9th and 8th centuries, a multitude of Bronze Age sites, ranging in function from sanctuaries to settlements and cemeteries, show continuous use or, in the case of abandoned sites, reuse as centers of ritual activity. Indeed, some of the most important rural and nonurban sanctuaries of the Classical period, such as Olympia, Delphi, Isthmia, Kalapodi, and Epidauros, as well as the Argive Heraion, Eleusis, and the Menelaion near Sparta, seem to be characterized by a Bronze Age heritage.49 6th and early 5th centuries b.c., and a small structure that may have been a Hellenistic shrine (Caskey 1964, pp. 333–334). 47. Caskey 1964, p. 330. 48. M. Caskey (Keos II, p. 40) does not think that the reuse of the head was an isolated phenomenon and cites the

discovery of two more ring bases in the Late Geometric shrine. She also notes that a number of the statues are missing their heads, a phenomenon that could be attributed to similar cases of reuse. 49. Polignac 1984, pp. 38–39; see also Antonaccio 1994b, pp. 86–93; Morgan 1995; Isthmia VIII.

644

evi gorogianni

The reuse of abandoned sites was not the result of frugality. These prehistoric sites were probably rehabilitated by local populations seeking to acknowledge their ancestors (real or imagined) and to make a claim on the landscape by establishing ritual practice.50 In the words of Carla Antonaccio:

Figure 6. Head of terracotta statue 1-1 reused on a ring base in the Iron Age shrine. Photo courtesy

Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati

Bronze Age sites, in different ways, served as anchors in a system of moorings which strengthened or unified a territory. . . . These anchors, fastening on to a site of past significance, used the past to lay claim to present power.51 Like cult activity at other Bronze Age sites, the continued use of the temple at Ayia Irini anchored communities on Keos to the landscape and its past.52 Antonaccio also observes that “cult is located not only to structure physical territory, but to articulate borders at points of contact between different groups.”53 François de Polignac, using the Argive Heraion as an example, has suggested that sanctuaries in the Iron Age were meeting 50. Antonaccio 1994b, pp. 92, 102. See also Isthmia VIII, pp. 380, 382, 386–387. 51. Antonaccio 1994b, p. 103. 52. The island itself was not populous at this time. A surface survey conducted in the area around Ayia Irini (Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991a) showed that the evidence for habitation during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods is in fact rather thin.

Of the 71 sites (and many more off-site locations), only nine preserved ceramic material of those periods (Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991b, p. 330, fig. 17:1; Sutton 1991, pp. 245–247). Nevertheless, whatever the number and size of the Protogeometric and Geometric communities on the island, they existed in a network that connected them with other Saronic Gulf communities, as indicated by Attic and

Corinthian pottery (Sutton 1991, pp. 245–247). During the Archaic period, four of the Kean communities evolved into the tetrapolis, the independent and autonomous city-states of Koressos, Ioulis, Poieessa, and Karthaia (RE XI, 1921, cols. 181–189, s.v. Keos [L. Bürchner]; XXI, 1951, cols. 1270– 1276, s.v. Poieesa [E. Kirsten]); Whitelaw and Davis 1991, pp. 265–266). 53. Antonaccio 1994a, p. 103.

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

645

Figure 7. Inscribed votive cup base of the 6th century b.c. found in the southeast corner of room 1. Photo

courtesy Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati

points and arenas of symbolic and physical competition among surrounding communities and their elites. During the Geometric period, the Heraion at Prosymna was a “rural, even rustic, cult place with no notable building” at a “halfway house” location, which probably functioned as a point of mediation for the communities in the Argive plan.54 According to Polignac,

54. Polignac 1994, pp. 4–5. 55. Polignac 1994, p. 5. 56. Caskey 1964, pp. 333–334. The inscription on the base of the cup reads (Anthippos, having prayed, dedicated this kylix to Dionysos); the statement of citizenship, (from Ioulis) was added to the right of the dedication. The cult of Dionysos was very popular in the poleis of Ioulis and Karthaia, which in the Hellenistic period issued coins bearing the head of the god or his insignia (Mantzourani 1991, pp. 157, 159; Reger and Risser 1991, p. 307).

most of the major rural cults can be considered . . . to have been rallying and meeting points for the local populations. They were the locations of festivals that it is tempting to liken to fairs, those ritual gatherings that Louis Gernet has shown to have been occasions for exchanging hospitality and for sharing between the neighboring communities, which participated in them on a relatively equal footing and which found in them an opportunity to settle trade deals, arrange alliances and marriages, and compete in rustic games.55 Although the sanctuary at Ayia Irini never attained the scale of the sanctuaries discussed by Polignac, it is fair to say that it played a similar role as a point of mediation among the communities of the island and beyond. It is noteworthy, for example, that an inscribed cup of the 6th-century b.c. (Fig. 7), which has been taken as evidence that the sanctuary of the historical period was dedicated to Dionysos, was offered by Anthippos, a citizen of Ioulis—an inland community—rather than Koressia, the nearest of the Classical cities to Ayia Irini.56 The fact that the shrine never developed into a fully equipped Classical sanctuary with canonical monumental temples should be understood within the context of local historical conditions.

646

evi gorogianni

What distinguishes Ayia Irini from other Iron Age sites with a Bronze Age ancestry is its unique manner of maintaining a concrete connection with its heritage. To my knowledge, Ayia Irini offers the only case of the reuse of a Bronze Age religious artifact in an Iron Age context in a focused and intentional way. What did the head dug out of the ruins represent to those who preserved it? I suggest that it was a tangible representation of lost ancestors, and thus a focal point where the communities of the island would gather to celebrate their common ancestry.57 At Ayia Irini, that celebration would have taken the form of cult activity in the temple, specifically at the shrine in room 1.58 At the center of the cult was the statue head on its ring base, and perhaps other heads as well. The archaeological evidence for ritual behavior includes the shrine, votive gifts in the form of pottery and burnt offerings, and the reuse of a monumental building, namely, the temple. The actual form of the ritual can, of course, be questioned, since details of such activities are usually unrecoverable by archaeologists.59 Despite the uncertainties, it is safe to say that the statue head became the focus of ritual activity predicated on the perceived sacred character of the object. For the inhabitants of the island, the statue head would have alluded to the lost ancestors whose abode lay in ruins but whose lingering memory led people from the surrounding area back to this abandoned settlement to worship. This veneration was supported by a long oral tradition that included accounts of a union between the Kean princess, deep-girdled Dexithea, and King Minos of Crete, which marked the beginning of a royal lineage that flourished on the island. The remnants of this oral tradition have survived the centuries in the words of Pindar and Bacchylides,60 and, last but not least, in the work of Konstantinos Manthos, a local antiquarian of the 19th century who reported the presence of a Minoan colony in the bay of Ayios Nikolaos.61 57. An alternative interpretation endorsed by the excavators views the head as a representation of Dionysos. Following the discovery of the cup dedicated to that god by Anthippos (n. 56, above), J. Caskey (1964, p. 332) identified room 1 as a sanctuary of Dionysos. “Working back in time from the shrine of ca. 500 b.c.,” wrote M. Caskey (2009, p. 151), “. . . with no significant breaks in the pottery sequence, there is every reason to believe that the same divinity was worshipped in the temple during Geometric and Protogeometric times as well.” This theory is plausible: the appearance of the name Dionysos in Linear B texts (KH Gq 5, PY Ea 102, Ea 107, Xa 06, Xa 1419; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, pp. 127, 411; Melena 2000–2001, esp. p. 358; Duev 2008, esp. pp. 226–227) suggests the presence of the god elsewhere in

Greece in the Late Bronze Age, and M. Caskey has established continuity of ritual behavior at Ayia Irini from the Late Bronze Age onward. Nevertheless, the conclusion has yet to be corroborated by other types of evidence, and the interval between the Iron Age shrine and the dedication of the cup is long enough to have permitted a change in the identity of the deity or deities worshipped there. 58. Antonaccio (1994a, p. 398) defines cult as “a pattern of ritual behavior in connection with specific objects, within a framework of spatial and temporal coordinates”; the broader category of ritual behavior may “include (but not necessarily be restricted to) prayer, sacrifice, votive offerings, competitions, processions, and construction of monuments.” 59. Antonaccio 1994a, p. 398.

60. According to Bacchylides (1.112–128), after Minos arrived at the island and “tamed” Dexithea he sailed off, leaving part of his crew behind. The association between Crete and Kea is reiterated by Pindar (Pae. 4.1– 53), who reports that after the death of Minos, Euxantios, the fruit of the union, declined his share of his father’s estate. 61. Manthos ([1877] 1991, p. 32), probably influenced by the Classical tradition of the colonization of the island by Cretans, reported the existence of a colony founded by Minos himself in the bay of Ayios Nikolaos. He located the colony at Koressia in the southernmost lobe of the bay, however, rather than at Ayia Irini, and connected it with the remains of the Classical acropolis of Koressos.

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

647

G ODDES S ES A N D D OLL S : TH E MODER N EP IP H AN Y

62. Davis 1997. 63. Davis 1997, p. 9. 64. Davis 1997, p. 9. 65. Davis 1997, pp. 14–50. 66. Davis 1997, p. 20. 67. For the relationship between colonialist perspectives and the museum, see Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002, pp. 2–5. 68. Davis 1997, p. 21. 69. See Hamilakis 2007, pp. 125– 167.

The latest chapter in the life history of the statues began in 1960 when they surfaced during the very first season of excavation at Ayia Irini. In this phase, the statues were first transformed into archaeological objects, and eventually into exhibits in a museum. Such a dramatic change of context, character, and audience has a strong impact on the meaning of artifacts and their perception by the public, as has been strikingly illustrated by Richard Davis’s examination of audience responses to Hindu religious images.62 Davis demonstrates that the “appropriation, relocation, and redisplay of an object” dramatically alter the perception of the object by different audiences. Setting and presentation play integral and constructive roles in the way an object is perceived, since they guide the attention of the viewer in the act of observation and establish parameters for the range of physical actions that can be directed toward the object.63 Moreover, according to Davis, the viewer’s frame is not just a set of interpretive strategies but something more global and diffuse, related to the viewer’s perspectives on the cosmos, divinity, and expressions of identity.64 In one of his test cases, Davis contrasts and explicates audience responses to images in a Hindu religious setting and in a North American museum.65 In India, images enveloped in the religious aura and the colorful sensual surroundings of the temple stand as the embodiment of a god who transcends them and touches the viewer. In the North American museum, however, the statues are stripped of all the ritual paraphernalia of their original setting and set on a pedestal in an “austere exhibition mode.”66 The only item that contextualizes them is the label, which itself transforms the statues into objects of art meant to appeal to the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities. The differences in visual presentation and placement in these two contexts, Davis notes, correspond to very different ontological and moral premises held by the respective audiences: Indian cosmology versus a Western, Cartesian outlook on the world, tempered by colonialism.67 Thus their “meanings,” as well as the comportment of the spectators, are entirely different.68 Similarly, the transformation of the statues of Ayia Irini into archaeological objects exposed them to an audience far removed from the worshippers of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age. Nevertheless, the treatment of the statues following their discovery evoked reactions from modern viewers and handlers that were in some ways quite similar to those we attribute to their ancient counterparts. In the twenty years that elapsed between the completion of work at the site in 1983 and the first exhibition of the statues, they were in storage and hidden from the public eye. During this time the archaeologists, local and foreign alike, played a role remarkably similar to that of the shaman.69 A shaman is a revered person who is personally connected with the divine and communicates this knowledge and experience for the benefit of a larger audience. In a similar way, archaeologists functioned as mediators between the sacred (the statues) and the profane (the people); they were the ones who remained in contact with the statues, either studying them or safeguarding

648

evi gorogianni

them, but certainly controlling access to them. During these two decades, apart from their detailed publication in a volume of the final excavation report on the site,70 the statues made fleeting appearances in conference papers and in paintings, such as the watercolors by the well-known Greek artist Alekos Phasianos, which he later published in a book dedicated to the antiquities of the island (Fig. 8).71 This prolonged seclusion of the cult images intensified public longing for the (dolls), as the locals call them, which was evident in pleas from the Kean community to the local archaeological authorities and excavators for their permanent display.72 70. Keos II. 71. Phasianos 1988, pp. 21, 61. 72. See, e.g., the comments by local authorities during the discussion that

followed the presentation of a paper on the statues at a conference in 1994 (Mouzakis 1998).

Figure 8. Watercolor painting of terracotta statue 1-2 by Alekos Phasianos. Phasianos 1988, p. 21

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

73. Venieri 2002. 74. Nomoi 5351/1932, art. 1, par. 1; 3028/2002, art. 21, par. 1. See also Petrakos 1982, p. 16 and passim. 75. Kopytoff 1986, p. 73. See also Hamilakis 2007. 76. Makriyannis [1907] n.d., book , chap. 1, p. 355. 77. Hamilakis and Yalouri 1999, p. 127.

649

Since 2001 the statues have been exhibited in a simple yet elegant museum in Ioulis.73 The museum itself is largely devoted to Ayia Irini; the second floor is dedicated exclusively to the presentation and explanation of the site, while the first floor hosts a display of local artifacts from later periods of ancient history (Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman). The most prominent feature of the exhibition is the statues themselves. After walking through a hall containing pottery and other artifacts from the excavations at Ayia Irini and the nearby Neolithic site of Kephala, one enters a second hall where the statues are on display. Twelve of the best-preserved figures are presented in a transparent case in the middle of the room so that visitors are able to view them from all sides (Fig. 9); a separate case houses the head from the Iron Age shrine. Approaching the exhibit, the visitor sees the statues against the background of a large photograph of the temple on the wall. This alignment of the artifacts with an image of the building in which they were found is meant to remind the visitor of their original context. The display of the statues together as a group and their location in the second, inner room of the museum further evoke their presumed placement in room 1 of the temple. The effort made by the designers of the museum to preserve the link between the statues and their original setting invites the visitor to perceive the statues as sacred. This effort is reinforced, especially in the case of Greek tourists, by the national perception of antiquities in general, according to which the statues are indeed sacred by the mere fact of their antiquity. From the beginning of the formation of the modern Greek state in the 19th century, antiquities were taken out of the private (and thus commercial) sphere. Greek antiquities by law are the property of the state, regardless of where they are found, whether on public or private land.74 Thus, the Greek state has prevented antiquities from becoming commodities by making them literally priceless, and by including them, along with the flag and the Orthodox Christian religion, in the symbolic inventory of Greek society, thereby bestowing on them a “sacred” character.75 Perhaps the most evocative illustration of the equation between antiquities, the state itself, and cultural identity is an anecdote in the memoirs of Yiannis Makriyannis (1797–1864), a general in the Greek war of independence and subsequently a major contributor to the first Greek constitution. Learning that some Greek soldiers were planning to sell two ancient statues to Europeans, Makriyannis took them aside and admonished them not to sell the antiquities at any price, because “it is for these that we fought.”76 With that simple utterance, which became legendary, Makriyannis transformed antiquities from commodities to be sold into singularized artifacts that symbolically belonged to the same category as such concepts as “freedom” and “fatherland,” for which the fighters were ready to sacrifice their lives. In modern Greece, as Yannis Hamilakis and Eleana Yalouri have demonstrated, antiquities are viewed within an ideological framework dominated by religious overtones and connotations.77 They argue that the process of nation building in the 19th century often generated narratives that combined seemingly opposite forces, such as Christianity and the pagan culture manifested in artifacts of the past. This peculiar mix of opposing forces has turned antiquities into an “indispensable apparatus

Figure 9. The terracotta statues on display in the Archaeological Museum of Kea. Choremi-Spetsieri, Vlassopoulou, and Venieri 2002, pp. 18–19, fig. 13

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

651

for ritual [and] commemorative ceremonies, and . . . stages for powerful emotive icons in performances of national memory.”78 In support of their claim, Hamilakis and Yalouri show that the official rhetoric surrounding antiquities is charged with religious expressions, which have in turn imbued the objects with such immense symbolic capital that they actually sacralize whatever place they happen to occupy.79 Likewise, Giorgos Hourmouziadis has expounded the similarities between archaeological sites and museums on the one hand and sacred locations (e.g., churches) on the other: both evoke formalized behavior characterized by notions of respect and often silence.80 For instance, although museums operate within the context of the tourist industry, modest dress is required for admission and visitors who exceed the acceptable noise levels (usually teenagers in packs) are reminded by disapproving guards that they are in a museum.81 The exhibition of the statues from Ayia Irini generates emotional reactions in most who see it. In the visitors’ book at the museum, people record their impressions, which resonate with a sense of mystery inspired by the ancient figures. Many tourists, Greeks and foreigners alike, describe the encounter as a discovery. Among the general public, the finds from Ayia Irini are not widely known, and the initial assumption that this is another provincial museum with a nondescript collection is proved wrong by the epiphany of the statues. Moreover, among Greek visitors, a commonly expressed emotion is a sense of pride in local Kean and national history. In this setting the statues play the same role in ancestor worship as they probably did during the Iron Age, albeit for a very different audience.

CON C LU S ION Objects that escape the ravages of time and capture the interest and imagination of diverse audiences, from pharaonic mummies to the kula rings of the Trobrianders, undergo a transformation more far-reaching than a simple change of environment or context.82 Group consensus usually ascribes to the objects an alternative function or meaning in their new setting. It follows, then, that as audiences or “communities of response” change, the meaning of the objects is amended accordingly.83 It matters not whether the new audience fully understands the former meaning(s) of an object; in most cases the new meaning, value, and function bear only a tangential relationship (or none at all) to its perceived values and functions in former societies or contexts, since the meaning of an object is assigned on the basis of cultural interpretive strategies that are learned, shared, and susceptible to change.84 78. Hamilakis and Yalouri 1999, p. 132. 79. See also Hamilakis and Yalouri 1996; Plantzos 2008, pp. 15, 23. 80. Hourmouziadis 1984, p. 18; Hamilakis and Yalouri 1999, p. 118; Golemis 2000. Hamilakis (2001) has also discussed the case of public exhibition of antiquities in the Metro

stations in Athens, where again the very presence of antiquities determines acceptable public behavior, which is structured by notions of purity and pollution as well as respect. 81. Plantzos (2008, pp. 15–16) refers to the recent ban on posing for pictures in front of antiquities in museums as a “show of veneration” to the

objects themselves. 82. See Kopytoff 1986, p. 83; Lubar 1993, p. 197; Maquet 1993, p. 35. 83. Maquet 1993, p. 35. For the phrase “communities of response,” see Fish 1980, p. 171. 84. Davis 1997, p. 9.

652

evi gorogianni

In the case of the Ayia Irini statues, it is interesting that although their “communities of response” and contexts have changed substantially over time, their sacred inflection has remained a salient feature throughout their biography. In the three contexts I have examined—their original display or storage in the Late Bronze Age temple, the redisplay of at least one head in the makeshift Iron Age shrine set in the rubble of the destroyed temple, and their exhibition in the modern museum—the statues are signs of “memories of experience” enveloped in an aura of religious mystery constructed by the respective worldviews of each group of viewers.85 In the Bronze Age, the statues were the timeless embodiments of the many guises of the goddess or goddesses of the Minoan pantheon associated with agriculture, renewal, fertility, and the prosperity of the settlement. The figures were kept in a room sheltered from profane gazes and were probably regularly accessible to only a few. Although we are unsure about the details of their display and the rituals in which they were involved, their careful preservation within the temple indicates that they were perceived as sacred. On another level, these figures and the temple itself were the tangible representations of the divine favor and prosperity that the community enjoyed in the early stages of the Late Bronze Age because of its role within the Aegean exchange networks. Despite the abandonment of the site and the destruction of the temple, the figures did not lose their sacred character. As the reuse of at least one head in a cult setting indicates, they continued to command reverence in the Iron Age. The recovered head became the focus of a religious ritual that functioned as a link to the lost ancestors who had inhabited the site in years past and performed the great deeds commemorated in local mythological tradition. Finally, the head anchored the local community in the landscape, thus providing it with a sense of place while serving as a mediation point for the communities of the island and beyond. In their modern setting, even after their designation as archaeological artifacts and objects of art, the statues still have religious overtones. The resilience of their sacred character, even in the museum context, might seem odd, especially in comparison to the changes in the perception of the Indian cult images discussed above when placed in a similar setting. In this case, however, the secret lies in the conceptual intersection of the interpretive strategies shared by both past and modern audiences. The centrality of antiquities in the building of the Greek nation has transformed the statues into objects of veneration to be curated by specialists and guardians and displayed to the public in a way that is emotionally engaging and meaningful, since they constitute symbolic capital for the nation-state and a focus of pride for an entire community.

85. Prown 1993, pp. 9–10.

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s

653

REF ERENCES Antonaccio, C. M. 1994a. “Contesting the Past: Hero Cult, Tomb Cult, and Epic in Early Greece,” AJA 98, pp. 389–410. ———. 1994b. “Placing the Past: The Bronze Age in the Cultic Topography of Early Greece,” in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, ed. S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, Oxford, pp. 70–104. Atkinson, T. D., R. C. Bosanquet, C. C. Edgar, A. J. Evans, D. G. Hogarth, D. Mackenzie, C. Smith, and F. B. Welch. 1904. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos ( JHS Suppl. 4), London. Barber, R. 1974. “Phylakopi 1911 and the History of the Later Cycladic Bronze Age,” BSA 69, pp. 1–53. Bittel, K. 1970. Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites, New York. Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge. ———. 2004. “Minoanization,” PCPS 50, pp. 46–91. Caskey, J. L. 1960. “The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid,” Hesperia 29, pp. 285–303. ———. 1962. “Excavations in Keos, 1960–1961,” Hesperia 31, pp. 263– 283. ———. 1964. “Excavations in Keos, 1963,” Hesperia 33, pp. 314–335. ———. 1966. “Excavations in Keos, 1964–1965,” Hesperia 35, pp. 363– 376. ———. 1968. “Lerna in the Early Bronze Age,” AJA 72, pp. 313–316. ———. 1971. “Investigations in Keos, Part I: Excavations and Explorations, 1966–1970,” Hesperia 40, pp. 359–396. ———. 1972. “Investigations in Keos, Part II: A Conspectus of the Pottery,” Hesperia 41, pp. 357–401. ———. 1979. “Ayia Irini, Keos: The Successive Periods of Occupation,” AJA 83, p. 412. Caskey, J. L., and E. G. Caskey. 1960. “The Earliest Settlements at Eutresis: Supplementary Excavations, 1958,” AJA 29, pp. 126–167. Caskey, M. E. 1998. “Ayia Irini: Temple Studies,” in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian 1998, pp. 123–138.

———. 2009. “Dionysos in the Temple at Ayia Irini, Kea,” in , ed. D. Danielidou, Athens, pp. 143–163. Cherry, J. F., J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani, eds. 1991a. Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times (Monumenta Archaeologica 16), Los Angeles. ———. 1991b. “Greek and Roman Settlement and Land Use,” in Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991a, pp. 327–347. Choremi-Spetsieri, A., C. Vlassopoulou, and G. Venieri. 2002. Kea: History and Antiquities, Athens. Davis, J. L. 1979. “Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age,” in Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (UCLAMon 14), ed. J. L. Davis and J. F. Cherry, Los Angeles, pp. 143–157. ———. 1980. “Minoans and the Minoanization at Ayia Irene,” in Thera and the Aegean World. Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978, ed. C. Doumas, London, vol. 2, pp. 257–260. Davis, J. L., and E. Gorogianni. 2008. “Potsherds from the Edge: Defining the Limits of Minoanized Areas of the Aegean,” in : A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (McDonald Institute Monographs), ed. N. J. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas, and C. Renfrew, Cambridge, pp. 339–348. Davis, J. L., E. Schofield, R. Torrence, and D. F. Williams. 1983. “Keos and the Eastern Aegean: The Cretan Connection,” Hesperia 52, pp. 361– 366. Davis, R. H. 1997. Lives of Indian Images, Princeton. Dickinson, O. T. P. K. 1994. “Comments on a Popular Model of Minoan Religion,” OJA 13, pp. 173–184. Duev, R. 2008. “Zeus and Dionysus in the Light of Linear B Records,” in Colloquium Romanum. Atti del XII Colloquio Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma, 20–25 febbraio 2006

(Pasiphae 1–2), ed. A. Sacconi, M. Del Freo, L. Godart, and M. Negri, Pisa, vol. 1, pp. 223– 230. Fish, S. E. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge. German, S. C. 2000. “The Human Form in the Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, ed. A. E. Rautman, Philadelphia, pp. 95–110. Golemis, C. 2000. “ ,” 77, pp. 11–12. Goodison, L., and C. Morris. 1998. “Beyond the ‘Great Mother’: The Sacred World of the Minoans,” in Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence, ed. L. Goodison and C. Morris, London, pp. 113–132. Gosden, C., and Y. Marshall. 1999. “Cultural Biography of Objects,” WorldArch 31, pp. 169–178. Gullberg, E., and P. Åström. 1970. The Thread of Ariadne: A Study of Ancient Greek Dress (SIMA 21), Göteborg. Hägg, R., and N. Marinatos, eds. 1984. The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982 (SkrAth 4º, 32), Stockholm. Hamilakis, Y. 2001. “Antiquities Underground,” Antiquity 75, pp. 35–36. ———. 2007. The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece, Oxford. Hamilakis, Y., and E. Yalouri. 1996. “Antiquities as Symbolic Capital in Modern Greek Society,” Antiquity 70, pp. 15–60. ———. 1999. “Sacralising the Past: The Cults of Archaeology in Modern Greece,” Archaeological Dialogues 6, pp. 115–135. Hershenson, C. 1998. “Late Helladic IIB at Ayia Irini, Keos,” in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian 1998, pp. 161–168. Hourmouziadis, G. 1984. “ ,” 18, pp. 15–20. Isthmia VIII = C. Morgan, The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early

654 Iron Age Sanctuary (Isthmia VIII), Princeton 1999. Keos = Keos: Results of Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati under the Auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens II = M. E. Caskey, J. L. Caskey, S. Bouzaki, and Y. Maniatis, The Temple at Ayia Irini, Part I: The Statues, Princeton 1986. III = W. W. Cummer and E. Schofield, Ayia Irini: House A, Mainz 1984. IV = A. H. Bikaki, Ayia Irini: The Potters’ Marks, Mainz 1984. V = J. L. Davis, Ayia Irini: Period V, Mainz 1986. VI = H. S. Georgiou, Ayia Irini: Specialized Domestic and Industrial Pottery, Mainz 1986. VII = J. C. Overbeck, Ayia Irini: Period IV. Part I: The Stratigraphy and the Find Deposits, Mainz 1989. IX = D. E. Wilson, Ayia Irini: Periods I–III. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlements, Mainz 1999. X = E. Schofield, Ayia Irini: The Western Sector, Darmstadt 2011. XI = L. Morgan, Ayia Irini: The Wall Paintings from the Northeast Bastion, in prep. XII = E. Gorogianni and R. D. Fitzsimons, Ayia Irini: Northern Sector: Stratigraphy and Architecture, in prep. Knappett, C., T. Evans, and R. Rivers. 2008. “Modelling Maritime Interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age,” Antiquity 82, pp. 1009–1024. Knappett, C., and I. Nikolakopoulou. 2008. “Colonialism without Colonies? A Bronze Age Case Study from Akrotiri, Thera,” Hesperia 77, pp. 1–42. Kopytoff, I. 1986. “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process,” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai, Cambridge, pp. 64–91. Laffineur, R. 2000. “Dress, Hairstyle, and Jewellery in the Thera Wall Paintings,” in The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera,

evi gorogianni Hellas, 30 August–4 September 1997, ed. S. Sherratt, Athens, pp. 890– 906. Laffineur, R., and E. Greco, eds. 2005. Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), Liège. Lee, M. 2000. “Deciphering Gender in Minoan Dress,” in Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, ed. A. E. Rautman, Philadelphia, pp. 111–123. Lubar, S. 1993. “Machine Politics: The Political Construction of Technological Artifacts,” in Lubar and Kingery 1993, pp. 197–214. Lubar, S., and W. D. Kingery, eds. 1993. History from Things: Essays on Material Culture, Washington, D.C. Lyons, C. L., and J. K. Papadopoulos, eds. 2002. The Archaeology of Colonialism, Los Angeles. Makriyannis, I. [1907] n.d. , ed. G. Vlachogiannis, repr. Athens. Malkin, I., C. Constantakopoulou, and K. Panagopoulou, eds. 2009. Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean, London. Manthos, K. [1877] 1991. , ed. L. G. Mendoni, Athens. Mantzourani, E. 1991. “Coins and Commentary,” in Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991a, pp. 157– 159. Maquet, J. 1993. “Objects as Instruments, Objects as Signs,” in Lubar and Kingery 1993, pp. 30–40. Marinatos, N., and R. Hägg. 1981. “Anthropomorphic Cult-Images in Minoan Crete?,” in Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium, 1981, ed. O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, Bristol, pp. 185–201. Marthari, M. 1988. “The Mycenaean Expansion in the Cyclades,” in The Mycenaean World: Five Centuries of Early Greek Culture, 1600–1100 B.C., ed. K. Demakopoulou, Athens, pp. 56–57. Melena, J. L. 2000–2001. “24 Joins and Quasi-joins of Fragments in the Linear B Tablets from Pylos,” Minos 35–36, pp. 357–369.

Mendoni, L. G., and A. I. Mazarakis Ainian, eds. 1998. Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Proceedings of an International Symposium, KeaKythnos, 22–25 June 1994 (Meletemata 27), Athens. Meskell, L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies Past and Present, Oxford. Miller, D. 2005. “Materiality: An Introduction,” in Materiality, ed. D. Miller, Durham, N.C., pp. 1–50. Morenz, S. 1973. Egyptian Religion, trans. A. E. Keep, Ithaca. Morgan, C. 1995. “From Palace to Polis? Religious Developments on the Greek Mainland during the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition,” BICS 40, p. 250. Morgan, L. 1998. “The Wall Paintings of the North-East Bastion at Ayia Irini, Kea,” in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian 1998, pp. 201– 210. Morris, C., and R. Jones. 1998. “The Late Bronze Age III Town at Ayia Irini and Its Relations,” in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian 1998, pp. 189–199. Moss, M. L. 2005. The Minoan Pantheon: Towards an Understanding of Its Nature and Extent (BAR-IS 1343), Oxford. Mouzakis, G. 1998. “Discussion,” in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian 1998, p. 139. Nilsson, M. P. 1950. The MinoanMycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion (SkrLund 9), 2nd rev. ed., New York. Oppenheim, A. L. 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Chicago. Papadopoulos, J. K., and E. L. Smithson. 2002. “The Cultural Biography of a Cycladic Geometric Amphora: Islanders in Athens and the Prehistory of Metics,” Hesperia 71, pp. 149–199. Petrakos, V. 1982. , Athens. Phasianos, A. 1988. , Vourkari, Kea. Plantzos, D. 2008. “Archaeology and Hellenic Identity, 1896–2004: The Frustrated Vision,” in A Singular Antiquity: Archaeology and Hellenic

a c u lt u r a l b i o g r a p h y o f t h e ay i a i r i n i s tat u e s Identity in Twentieth-Century Greece (Benaki Museum Suppl. 3), Athens, pp. 11–30. PM = A. J. Evans, The Palace of Minos, 4 vols., London, 1921–1935. Polignac, F. de. 1984. La naissance de la cité grecque: Cultes, espace, et société, VIII e–VII e siècles avant J.-C., Paris. ———. 1994. “Mediation, Competition, and Sovereignty: The Evolution of Rural Sanctuaries in Geometric Greece,” in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, ed. S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, Oxford, pp. 3–18. Prown, J. D. 1993. “The Truth of Material Culture: History or Fiction?,” in Lubar and Kingery 1993, pp. 1–19. Psyllas, I. 1921. , Athens. Rawson, J. 1993. “The Ancestry of Chinese Bronze Vessels,” in Lubar and Kingery 1993, pp. 51–73. Reger, G., and M. Risser. 1991. “Coinage and Federation in Hellenistic Keos,” in Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991a, pp. 305–315. Renfrew, C., N. Brodie, C. Morris, and C. Scarre, eds. 2007. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974–77 (BSA Suppl. 42), London.

Romano, I. 1988. “Early Greek Cult Images and Cult Practices,” in Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29 June, 1986 (SkrAth 4º, 38), ed. R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, and G. C. Nordquist, Stockholm, pp. 127–133. Sauneron, S. 1960. The Priests of Ancient Egypt, trans. A. Morrissett, New York. Schallin, A.-L. 1993. Islands under Influence: The Cyclades in the Late Bronze Age and the Nature of Mycenaean Presence (SIMA 111), Jonsered. ———. 1998. “The Nature of Mycenaean Presence and Peer Polity Interaction in the Late Bronze Age Cyclades,” in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian 1998, pp. 175–187. Schofield, E. 1982. “The Western Cyclades and Crete: A ‘Special Relationship,’” OJA 1, pp. 9–26. ———. 1998. “Town Planning at Ayia Irini, Kea,” in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian 1998, pp. 117– 122. Scholes, K. 1956. “The Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age: A Synopsis,” BSA 51, pp. 9–40. Shafer, B. E. 1997. “Temples, Priests, and Rituals: An Overview,” in

Evi Gorogianni Univ ersit y of Akr on department of ant hr op ol o g y and c l assic al studie s 24 4 olin hal l akr on, ohio 4 4325-1910 [email protected]

655

Temples of Ancient Egypt, ed. B. E. Shafer, Ithaca, pp. 1–30. Stephani, L. 2002. “ ,” 82, pp. 19–29. Sutton, R. F. 1991. “Ceramic Evidence for Settlement and Land Use in the Geometric to Hellenistic Periods,” in Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991a, pp. 245–263. Venieri, G. 2002. “ ,” 85, pp. 148–151. Ventris, M., and J. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd ed., Cambridge. Welter, G. 1954. “Von Griechischen Inseln: Keos I,” AA 1954, cols. 48– 93. Whitelaw, T. M., and J. L. Davis. 1991. “The Polis Center of Koressos,” in Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991a, pp. 265–281. Wiener, M. H. 1991. “The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade,” in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Papers Presented at the Conference Held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989 (SIMA 90), ed. N. H. Gale, Jonsered, pp. 325– 350.

BEYOND THALASSOCRACIES

Edited by

© Oxbow Books 2016 Oxford & Philadelphia www.oxbowbooks.com

Front cover: LH IIIA2/IIIB1clay ram’s head rhyton from Grotta (Naxos). Naxos Archaeological Museum. Courtesy: Andreas Vlachopoulos, photo: Chronis Papanikonopoulos © Ephorate of Antiquities for the Cyclades. Back cover: LM IA ivory signet ring from a LC II context at Phylakopi (after Bosanquet and Welch 1904, 193, Fig. 162).

CONTENTS

Preface Contributors

Luca Girella, Evi Gorogianni and Peter Pavúk Luca Girella and Peter Pavúk Jana Mokrišová Amy Raymond, Ivonne Kaiser, Laura-Concetta Rizzotto and Julien Zurbach

Salvatore Vitale Jason W. Earle Andreas G. Vlachopoulos Evi Gorogianni

Natalie Abell and Jill Hilditch

vii viii

vii

Contents

Joanne Cutler Bryan Feuer Carl Knappett Michael L. Galaty Index of Geographical Names Index of Personal Names

Society, culture and communication in Czech history

CONTRIBUTORS

Natalie Abell

Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age Fouilles exécutées à Malia. Le Quartier Mu V: Vie quotidienne et techniques au Minoen Moyen II

Jason W. Earle

Joanne Cutler

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology NOSTOI: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Bryan Feuer

The Northern Mycenaean Border in Thessaly. BAR International Series 176. Oxford 1983, Mycenaean Civilization KOSMOS. Jewellery,

Contributors Michael L. Galaty

Ivonne Kaiser Light and Shadow: Isolation and Interaction in the Shala Valley of Northern Albania

Luca Girella

Kretisch geometrische Keramik – Form und Dekor: Entwicklung aus Tradition und Rezeption Carl Knappett

An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society Network Analysis in Archaeology Jana Mokrišová Evi Gorogianni

Peter Pavúk Jill Hilditch

Mittel- und spätbronzezeitliche Keramik

Contributors Griechenlands. Sammlung Fritz Schachermeyr III Troia VI Früh und Mitte. Keramik, Stratigraphie, Chronologie.

, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi

Amy Raymond Andreas G. Vlachopoulos

Laura-Concetta Rizzotto

“Sein zum Tode...” Untersuchungen zu den gesellschaftlichen Strukturen anhand der Nekropolen und Gräber der protogeometrischen und geometrischen Epoche aus Mittel- und Ostkreta

Julien Zurbach

Salvatore Vitale Civiltà & Forme del Sapere (Archeologia)

Country in the city Forms and functions of agro-pastoral activities in Mediterranean pre-Classical cities (Aegean and Western Mediterranean Protohistory) La main-d’oeuvre agricole en Méditerranée archaïque. Statuts et dynamiques économiques

8 KEIAN, KEI-NOANISED, KEI-CENAEANISED? INTERREGIONAL CONTACT AND IDENTITY IN AYIA IRINI, KEA Evi Gorogianni

Introduction Ayia Irini is one of the sites that has played a pivotal role in the discussion of the phenomena of material culture change during the MBA and LBA, phenomena often called Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation. These phenomena had been discussed sporadically (Atkinson et al. 1904; Mackenzie 1904; Evans 1928, 229–252; Starr 1954; Buck 1962) prior to the exploration of the site by John L. Caskey of the University of Cincinnati from 1960 to 1976.1 His excavations revealed a small (in terms of acreage) but long-lived site strategically located in a sheltered harbour and beside a freshwater spring and with some interruptions endured as a settlement until the end of LH IIIA. The site seemed to be well connected, indicated by imports streaming in during every period of its history. Nevertheless, during the MBA and LBA periods, locally produced material culture seems to change, following trends current in the contemporary palatial communities on Crete and also in other island and coastal communities of the Aegean, even though it never lost its strong connection to the Mainland (Barber 1987, 161). Thus, right from the beginning of archaeological investigation, Ayia Irini’s engagement with the ‘outside world’ and cultural change were central to the research agenda. As early as 1967, scholars (Warren 1967; Caskey 1969; Hood 1971, 52, 118; Davis 1979; 1980; 1986; Cherry and speculating on the status of the site, its relationship to the political systems in Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece, and the mechanisms behind cultural change. 2 These processes and mechanisms were usually discussed as one overarching phenomenon, in terms that approximated a process through which one group (usually politically and

perhaps culturally ‘inferior’) adopts the beliefs, practices and/or material culture predilections of the ‘dominant’ group, which is thought to have assumed political and/ or economic control (albeit the degree and the physicality some scholars argued for acculturation through the presence of colonies and actual Minoan or Mycenaean immigrants (e.g. Scholes 1956, 38, 40; Immerwahr 1960; Branigan 1981, while others rejected or avoided the subject with more benign but no less pervasive views of the cultural process that emphasised the active role of Aegean communities in adopting cultural traits and practices (Davis 1979; 1980; 1984a; Davis et al. 1983; Davis and Cherry 1984; Marthari 1990; more recently Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2008). Not unlike previous narratives about similar sites in formulations was the introduction of foreign elements (artefacts or practices) into the cultural repertoire of one period, which altered the local idiom. Such perspectives were based on a binary perception of categories (such as local and foreign, and purity and hybridity) and cultural entities based on the geographical and chronological spread of traits, which were considered markers of the spread of a particular cultural group (Jones 1997, 16–26; Lucy 2005, 87–91). Recently, a number of scholars have problematized these relationships (Sherratt 1999; Broodbank 2004; Davis and Gorogianni 2008; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2008; Panagiotopoulos 2012) following a growing number of voices in the wider discipline of archaeology that such binary categorisation is too simplistic (see Lucy 2005).

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea Despite the pivotal role of the site for the discussion of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation, it has been decades since these phenomena were discussed with Ayia Irini as the focus.3 A reappraisal of the phenomena of cultural contact in the form of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation for Ayia Irini is therefore long overdue. This paper utilizes the major research efforts undertaken during the last decade at the site, particularly the completion of the Ayia Irini Northern Sector Archaeological Project (AINSAP) co-directed by Overbeck, Donna Crego, and Natalie Abell. This paper approaches the topic of cultural change by examining locally produced pottery from Ayia Irini and categories, such as implements used in textile production, architecture, and wall-painting. The author also highlights the diachronic perspective and tracks the timing of these processes of change and emulation, as the timing and duration of the phenomena hold nuances that should in the Aegean is considered to have started (with notable exceptions) in the MBA, peaked in LC I, and tapered off in LC II (Broodbank 2004, 49), a time span which, at least for the ‘early adopters’ (Rogers 1962, 283) such as Phylakopi, Akrotiri and Ayia Irini, amounts to a couple of centuries. During such a protracted period of time, it is highly unlikely that the same conditions or attitudes are represented (especially if Minoanisation was a directed process either by the Minoan palatial centres or by Aegean elites). The same applies to Mycenaeanisation, which began in LC II as Minoanisation declined, although the process may be suspected to have begun long before as the mainland Greek palatial polities and their associated elites dynamically entered the Aegean network as trading partners probably via proxies or independent entrepreneurs. The purpose of a in the process of cultural interaction between different parties and Ayia Irini, which will provide a better idea about how the processes worked. This paper assumes that Aegean communities in different regions have been interconnected to different degrees or intensity. This contact was probably not between different ‘cultural groups’ with connotations of biological and ethnic distinctions, as is sometimes assumed by the use of the Helladic, Cycladic, and Minoan designations that ultimately characterise material culture groupings (for a summary of the intricacies in identifying ethnic groups in material culture groupings, see Lucy 2005, 91–94). Rather, it was among groups of people that probably shared a general ideology modalities by doing things in similar but distinct ways (e.g., Dietler and Herbich 1998). It was in the context of these contacts that communities in the Southern Aegean, from the

137

western coast of Asia Minor to the coast of the Peloponnese, and from a notional northern boundary set between Keos and the Izmir region to Kythera and Karpathos (Broodbank 2004, 48; Davis and Gorogianni 2008, 343–345), seem to adopt non-local traits and emulate artefact styles and practices that were prevalent in communities on the island of Crete (Minoanisation) and, later, in palatial communities of the Greek Mainland (Mycenaeanisation). Even though physical forms of control or dominance cannot be wholly excluded as part of these processes, evidence is not communities such as Ayia Irini were controlled in one way or another by the Cretan or Mainland palaces, nor that everything about the phenomena was elite driven. In fact, and that archaeological signatures on the ground cannot be satisfactorily explained by single explanations, such as a physical colonial presence, the Versailles effect, colonialism or even indigenous elite emulation (Branigan 1981; 1984; Wiener 1984; 1991; 2013; Barber 1987, 194–200; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2008). Rather, the archaeological record seems to have been the product of a number of processes and actions; a deconstruction of the phenomenon into separate contributing processes is therefore in order. This paper attempts explore that deconstruction for Ayia Irini in order to begin moving away from treating the cultural processes as monolithic, and to start not only acknowledging the macro-level processes that were surely in operation but also discerning the aspects of the identities and motivations of the agents (both individual and group) responsible for affecting change in the local cultural idiom. In this paper, after a discussion that establishes the for the settlement of Ayia Irini, a diachronic examination of pottery shapes produced by local potters acts as a point of departure for a discussion of changes ushered in by dining practices, eating and cooking habits are often considered good indicators of cultural change, changing socio-political environments, and migration (Branigan Hamilakis 1999; 2008; Broodbank 2004, 59–60; Joyner 2007; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008; Karageorghis and Kouka 2011). The discussion of the pottery is then supplemented and at times contrasted to changes in other media, such as architecture and textile production. The overall discussion 2005; 2010; Maran and Stockhammer 2012), the power of objects in the context of intercultural contact (Gosden 2004; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2008; Knappett 2011; van Pelt 2013), and theories of small-scale migration (Anthony 1990; 1992; Burmeister 2000).

138

Evi Gorogianni

Table 8.1 Chronological concordances in the Aegean. Absolute dates after Manning (2010, 23, tab. 2.2). Even though length of a generation is variable depending on the average age of parents at time of reproduction, for the purposes of this chart generational length is 20 years. Aegean

Relative chronology

Approximate absolute dates BC

Ayia Irini Period I Hiatus II III Hiatus

Early Bronze Age

EB I EB II EB III

3500–3000 3000–2650 2650–2200 2200–2000

Middle Bronze Age

MB I MB II MB III LB I LB II LB III/LH IIIA LB III/LH IIIB LB III/LH IIIC

2000–1900 1900–1800 1800–1700 1700–1600 1600–1400 1400–1300 1300–1200 1200–1100

Late Bronze Age

assemblage, it is useful to provide context for the site, not only in terms of its habitational history but also in terms of its scale, character, and internal social structure. The latter is particularly germane for understanding the interaction between polities and/or agents (both formal and informal) originating from the Aegean communities as well as from the palatial sites of Crete and the Mainland. Since there is a fair amount of literature that expounds on the latter external parties to these interactions, this section aims to clarify the community who were involved in this contact. Caskey’s excavations revealed a long habitational history presence dating to the very end of the Neolithic period or the beginning of the EBA (Period I). Non-seasonal habitation probably started in EB II (Wilson 1999, 1; 2013) and after a very prosperous period (Periods II–III), unlike Phylakopi and perhaps Akrotiri, Ayia Irini seems to have been abandoned during the EC III and the beginning of the MBA. It was then re-inhabited during the MH II/ MM IB–II (Period IV) (Overbeck 1984b, 109; 1989b, 1; Wilson 1999; 2013), enjoying immediate prosperity. The site continued to prosper during the remainder of the MBA and the beginning phase of connected to the phenomenon of Minoanisation (Periods V and VI). The site then suffered a massive destruction during LB II (LH IIA–B/LM IB) (Caskey 1972, 393–397, 1979, 1985). The generation that immediately rebuilt or reoccupied

IV V VI VII VIII

Generations

5 5 5 12 3

to be economically prosperous, especially in comparison with the previous phase (Caskey 1962, 273), while the distribution of deposits belonging to this period may indicate that the settlement shrank in size (Hershenson 1998, 162; Gorogianni 2008, 131–132). Nevertheless, a moderate revival seems to have occurred during LH IIIA (Period VIII); the site grew (although it never regained its pre-LB II destruction prosperity) and it seems to have been connected with the outside world (Gorogianni and Abell forthcoming). Moreover, during this phase the material culture provides evidence for a reorientation of the site’s cultural references from Crete to the Mainland (Caskey 1972, 397–398; Morris and Jones 1998). The end of Period VIII is marked by yet another destruction, which also brought the end of the site as a place of habitation, even though it continued until the early Hellenistic period as a site for ritual (Caskey 1964, 323; Butt 1977; Caskey 2009). The character of the site seems to be peculiar in a number of ways. Unlike the other Minoanised sites in the Cyclades (e.g., Akrotiri and Phylakopi), Ayia Irini was re-established anew in MM/MC II, an event that entailed colonists from other parts of the Aegean coming to the island with the express purpose of establishing a community that would exploit the perceived advantages of a well-protected harbour, its geographical location along major maritime routes, and a short distance from the Lavrion mines that enabled participation in the increasing demand for metals by the state-level societies of Crete and presumably Aegina (Overbeck 1982; Overbeck and Crego 2008; Crego 2010; Abell 2014b).4 The intentional character of this colonizing expedition is underscored by a recent discovery of another, probably contemporaneous, site in the eastern part of the

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea island, found beneath the theatre of the Classical/Hellenistic city of Karthaia (Panagou 2012).5 The discovery of a second site on the island, contemporaneous to and with a similar (but not identical) range of imports as Ayia Irini (which does not seem to have survived into the later MBA), should probably be interpreted as the result of a diffuse, yet intense, interest in establishing outposts on the island. Thus it seems that Ayia Irini began anew in Period IV as a village-sized community no bigger than its EBA predecessor. The resident population in the Period IV community probably counted no more than 150–200 people, which was also the size of the early Cycladic centre (Davis 1984b, 20, n. 17; Broodbank 2000, 218, n.2). The MBA expanded in Period V to include an area that was one third 1986, 102), a project that was likely spurred on by a rise in population growth, both as a result of normal population rates and also perhaps from a migration stream (or perhaps trickle) most likely originating from the places where the original migrants had come from (Anthony 1990; 1992). the Period V wall, including its unexcavated areas) is approximately one hectare (0.75 hectare according to Renfrew 1972, 237, table 14 V; see also Davis 1984b, 20, n.17; Cherry et al. 1991, 219), which makes Ayia Irini the smallest of the Neopalatial Minoan or Minoanised ‘urban’ 1990, 129). Even if we allow for a larger site-size based on the estimate that 40% of it is underwater (Caskey 1978, 760; Davis 1984b, 20, n.17; Mourtzas and Kolaiti 1998, 680–681; Gorogianni 2008, 117–118), Ayia Irini still would not exceed 1.2 hectares; it would be a very small harbour Broodbank 2004, 71). During the following Periods VI and VII, which are considered the main phases of the site, the population wall since surface surveys have revealed a nucleated settlement pattern for the MBA and LBA periods, similar to Melos, with very few loci of probably seasonal occupation

139

functional diversity and involvement in regional and interregional networks coupled with evidence for carefully 1998, 119–120). Moreover, Ayia Irini exhibited features expected in much larger Minoan urban communities, such as Minoan imports, Minoanised local vessels, and Minoaninspired wall-paintings, architectural features, technologies (weaving, pottery making, writing, and mensuration), and cultural practices (religion, cooking, and dining). Thus, Ayia Irini’s situation presents an apparent paradox. a city) in terms of its population size, yet it preserves all the trappings of much larger urban communities. Moreover, its size enforced face to face interaction, so the internal social structure may have been non-hierarchical (although making perhaps being open to a large proportion of its residents and leadership decided on an ad hoc basis (at least prior to Period VII when House A seems to dominate the architectural and perhaps political landscape of the town), interpretation for the makeup of Ayia Irini is that it was a 1994, 142–146), who were either actively involved in trading or acted as middlemen and organised transhipment (and possibly extraction) of the mineral resources as well as other products in demand by Aegean elites. Agents from the site would have come into contact with agents, formal or informal, from the palatial communities of Crete and later those from the Mainland, as well as agents originating from other nodes of the Aegean exchange network. These activities and the connections, life-histories, and aspirations of these agents and their families (Helms 1988), as well as the overarching historical circumstances, are expressed themselves and their abodes, albeit to different degrees, with all the latest fashions prevalent in the Aegean at a time.

187–188; Cherry et al. 1991, 229–230). The population probably numbered approximately 280–335 residents, or 6

Therefore, even when the site attained its largest population in early LBA, it never became large enough to inhibit faceto-face interaction among its residents.7 Despite its compact size, Ayia Irini is considered an of considerable size on the island during its main period of occupation (Cherry et al. 1991, 219) and it displays

Pottery is prominent in the discussion of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation. Archaeologists often consider pottery an ideal barometer of cultural change and contact (Rice 1987, replacement) and durability in the archaeological record. beginning at the end of the nineteenth century centred on remarks about pottery (Dumont and Chaplain 1888,

140

Evi Gorogianni

more intensely after the excavations of Phylakopi (Edgar 1904; Mackenzie 1904, 264, 271–272) and Knossos (Evans 1928, 229–252). Key to this discussion was the change in the decorative motifs and shapes from a local selection to one that imitated motifs and shapes present in the Cretan

it is possible to exploit more fully the incredible store of information provided by the excavated deposits than has been done to date. The data from the Ayia Irini deposits, however, cannot be used in the same ways as data from excavations of the modern era. The site, like many other excavations of

interpretation, cultural change was massive and rapid during LB I, suggesting a Minoan takeover, at least of Melos

methodologies and archaeological practices (Gorogianni 2008, 88–115; 2013) that have impacted the ceramic material available for study. Since the primary goal in the

II, he suggested that Minoan and Mycenaean pottery might 198–199), signalling that during this period the Aegean trade balance started shifting towards the Mycenaeans. More recent publications on pottery have disputed Phylakopi in particular, Davis and Cherry demonstrated that the Cretan-inspired shapes and decorative motifs were integrated gradually into the ceramic repertoire of the site (Davis and Cherry 1984; 1990; 2007), while Berg showed gradual, since she demonstrated that the Cretan technology of the potter’s wheel was adopted slowly and gradually, more closely approximating a generational apprenticeship model (Berg 2007a; 2007b, 82–86, 138–140; see also Earle, this volume). Similar conclusions were reached about other sites, such as Akrotiri (Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2005; 2008) and Miletus (Raymond et al., this volume), among others, necessitating more sophisticated explanatory models both for the adoption of the technologies of pottery manufacture and for the emulation of decorative motifs and shapes. Understanding of the ceramic change attributable to Mycenaeanisation has also shifted; Mountjoy and Ponting showed that the Mycenaean imports from greater Athens already during the LH II period at both Phylakopi and Ayia Irini (Mountjoy and Ponting 2000, 172–173), suggesting that perhaps the processes of Minoan import substitution on behalf of Mycenaean production centres had already started in the previous period, which had generally been hailed as the apex of Minoanisation. Publications of the pottery from Ayia Irini have shown that the emulation of Cretan prototypes started in a limited fashion in Period IV (Abell 2014a, nos. 651–653, 668; 2014b), was more decisive in Period V (Davis 1986, 1, 85), and continued into the following periods until the site started changing its focus of imports from Crete to the Mainland sometime during Period VII, if not earlier (see Mountjoy and Ponting 2000, 173). The pace of the introduction of new elements into the local ceramic repertoire cannot be the archaeological practices used at the time of excavation

the stratigraphy (i.e., ceramic assemblage was processed with this primary goal in mind, and with procedures that prioritised the recording and preservation of only the chronologically informative parts of the assemblage; perceived provenance was a secondary interest. Therefore, locally produced, undecorated ceramics and coarse wares were greatly impacted by these procedures, as shown in Table 8.2, which summarises the information on discarded materials (Gorogianni in progress). However, a fair number of locally produced ceramics preserving features pertaining to shape and decoration were retained, especially if the features unambiguously identify the shape of the vessel, and hence carried the potential for chronological or typological development. The discussion that follows focuses mostly on locally produced pottery from Ayia Irini from the Northern Sector (unless otherwise stated), since imported pottery has been summarily treated elsewhere (Gorogianni and Abell forthcoming). This focus seeks also to undo an injustice, since far less attention has been paid to the locally produced assemblage, with a few notable exceptions such as the vessels of special use (Georgiou 1986) and the conical cups, the overwhelming majority of which were produced locally (Davis and Lewis 1985; Wiener 1984; Berg 2004; Hilditch 2014; Knappett and Hilditch 2015). This relative lack of interest has been partly attributed to the unattractive appearance of the local raw materials, a red brown clay matrix with chloritic schist inclusions (Davis and Williams 1981; Hilditch in progress) used by local craftspeople to produce medium to very coarse red brown vessels that occasionally were covered in an off-white or yellow slip

Table 8.2 Summary data based on Ayia Irini excavations discarding practices. Period

V VI VII

% assemblage extant after discard

% imports in extant material

41 12 17

46 73 47

Calculated % imports in original assemblage 18 9 8

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea

141

in order to reproduce the dark-on-light aesthetic popular in the late MBA and LBA Aegean. This relatively understudied category was one of the main foci of the Ayia Irini Northern Sector Archaeological Project, since locally produced vessels provide particularly acute insights into the processes of cultural transmission and migration. Therefore, this section focuses on the preliminary results of two distinct strands of research pertaining to the local ceramic production: 1) the adoption and use of

between open shapes of Minoan inspiration, such as conical, Keftiu, and semiglobular cups, and those of the CycladoAeginetan tradition, mostly burnished or plain wares and shapes such as Cycladic cups, goblets, pedestaled bowls, panelled cups,8 as well as plates, saucers, and bowls (Table 8.3a). Cretan-inspired shapes, such as bridge-spouted or hole-mouthed jars, and rhyta, seem to dominate the category of closed shapes for pouring, whenever shape recognition

in detail elsewhere (Abell and Hilditch, this volume; Gorogianni et al. 2016); 2) the choices of vessel shapes and their correlations with imports present at the site. Information about the Period IV ceramic repertoire is derived from other parts of the settlement, since that material is not well represented in the Northern Sector. Traces of Minoan traits in local ceramic production are present almost from the reestablishment of the site in Period IV. The potter’s

legs), lamps of different types (with a pedestal or with a

potters did not show particular interest in using it (Abell and Hilditch, this volume; Gorogianni et al. 2016), rather following (for the most part) practices that were a locally idiosyncratic medley of Cycladic, Aeginetan, and Mainland traditions. The Period IV assemblage seems to conform to the Helladic/Cycladic aesthetic, preferring vessels with Period V is well represented in the Northern Sector with culture on the Cyclado-Helladic cultural idiom becomes more pronounced at the site. The local burnished ware seems to wane in popularity, Cretan shapes are adopted, and a purely local ware known as Yellow-Slipped developed to conform to the matt-painted MC aesthetic is now reoriented to match the new standards. The change is not only aesthetic but also technological. The aggressive adoption of the wheel during this period for small shapes both open and closed (Abell and Hilditch, this volume; Gorogianni et al. 2016; see also Davis and Lewis 1985) mainly of Cretan inspiration certainly contributed to the transformation of local production and tastes. The use of the wheel in local vessels increases from 2% of the assemblage in Period IV to 58% in Period V (Gorogianni et al. 2016). This widespread and enthusiastic adoption and apprenticeship in a community of practice to become proficient, can probably be connected to a trickle of migration from Crete but also to the appeal of Cretan-like material culture on the consumer side, which signals the reorientation of the community’s cultural focus towards Crete. Nevertheless, this was not a process of cultural substitution, in which the residents, newcomers and not, said ‘out with old in with the new.’ Preferences at the dinner

presence of groups from Crete. These shapes, especially, indicate the introduction of another ‘new technology’ in everyday domestic life that further supports the introduction of immigrants from Crete and especially women within the community of existing residents at Ayia Irini. And yet not all Cretan shapes were adopted in the Minoanised repertoire of the local ceramic production. The Minoan imports of the same period show that there were at least four shapes that cup, and a number of pouring vessels, such as the ewer, lentoid jug, the oval mouthed amphora, and the truncated jug (Table 8.3).9 The following period, Period VI, continues uninterrupted from Period V, with the persistence of the same trends; all of the same styles are in evidence in terms of decorative after the destruction at the end of the previous period, a destruction that provides the opportunity not only for rapid rebuilding, but also for the manifestation of the new aesthetic integrating ‘Minoan’ features and proportions (Gorogianni Indeed, in many respects, the ceramic assemblage changes steadily. Local potters continue the practices of the use of the potter’s wheel during Period V, artisans in Period VI steadily increase the use of technology of rotative kinetic energy in the local ceramic production (Gorogianni et al. Minoanising shapes of the Cyclado-Aeginetan tradition, such as the Cycladic cup and goblet, are underrepresented, although they continue to be present in the assemblage (Table 8.3). Minoanising shapes dominate in the preferences is secure in the sherd material, conical and semiglobular cups (in the open shape category) predominate in the Northern Sector, as do hole-mouth jars (in the medium-large closed category), and lamps, pithoi, trays or baking dishes (among the ‘other shapes’) in the plain or tripod variety. The locally produced assemblage in Period VII presents an almost identical picture. The use of rotative kinetic energy

142

Evi Gorogianni

Table 8.3a Summary data based on occurrence of locally produced open shapes in the assemblage of the Northern Sector of Ayia Irini (Non-Minoan inspired shapes are in italics; shapes of indeterminable inspiration are underlined). a. Open shapes Bell cup or bowl Bowl Bowl (flaring) Carinated one-handled cup Conical cup Cup Cup with flaring rim Cycladic bowl Cycladic cup Goblet Globular one-handled cup Kantharos Keftiu cup Panelled cup Rounded cup Salt disc Saucer or ledge rim bowl Semiglobular (rounded) cup Spouted bowl Open vessel Total open shapes Total open shapes (%)

V

Shape in V Imports

3 0 0 12 0 5 3 29 12

yes no yes yes yes yes no yes yes

2 9 0 1 1 0 10 0 14 101 62

yes yes yes no no yes yes yes yes

VI

Shape in VI imports

VII

Shape in VII imports

0 0 1

yes yes no

7 2

yes yes

93 1

yes yes

0 2 1 1

yes yes yes no

2

yes

2

yes

0

yes

0 0

yes yes

0

yes

1 2 1 103 92

yes no yes

1

yes

8 22 48

Table 8.3b Summary data based on occurrence of locally medium-large closed shapes in the assemblage of the Northern Sector of Ayia Irini (Non-Minoan inspired shapes are in italics; shapes of indeterminable inspiration are underlined). b. Medium large, closed shapes Alabastron Amphora or hydria Beaked jug Bridge-spouted jar Closed vessel Colar-necked jar Ewer Hole-mouthed jar Jar Jug Large closed vessel Lentoid jug Oval-mouthed amphora Piriform jar Rhyton Spouted jar Spouted jar Truncated jug Total medium–large, closed shapes Total medium–large, closed shapes (%)

V

Shape in V imports

VI

Shape in VI imports

0 1 4 6

yes yes yes yes

0

yes

0 10

yes yes

0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 0

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes

0 2 0 1 1

yes no yes yes no

0 22

yes

13

0

VII

Shape in VII imports

0

yes

0 0 0

yes yes yes

0 0 0 1

yes yes yes no

0 0

yes yes

0

yes

yes

14

1

30

1

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea

143

Table 8.3c–d Summary data based on occurrence of small closed and other shapes in the assemblage of the Northern Sector of Ayia Irini (Non-Minoan inspired shapes in italics; shapes of indeterminable inspiration are underlined). c. Small, closed shapes

V

Shape in V imports

Feeding bottle Small, closed Total small, closed shapes Total small, closed shapes (%)

0 0 0

yes

3

yes

d. Other shapes Basin Blossom bowl Button Cooking pot Crucible Firebox Flower pot Lamp Lamp with stick handle Large open vessel Lid Marked sherd Pedestaled lamp Pithos Plaque Strainer Table (pierced) Tray (baking dish) Trefoil-mouthed strainer jug (double vase) Tripod tray (baking dish) Tripod spouted cup Total other shapes Total other shapes (%) Total

1 0

no no

VI

Shape in VI imports

2 0 2 4

no yes

0

yes

0

no

1 3

no no

5 0 3

yes yes no

1 2 1

no no no

1 14

no no

2

no

9

no

1

no

40 25 163

0

8 17 46

0

increases very moderately proportionately to the previous period (Gorogianni et al. Hilditch, this volume). Moreover, Minoan shapes (Table 8.3) again seem to be present in the assemblage, such as semiglobular and conical cups (in the open shape category), lentoid jugs (in the medium-large closed), blossom bowls, Cycladic and Helladic tradition are also present, such as the goblet and the Cycladic bowl. the Northern Sector contains only one locally produced cup or tumbler out of 63 specimens (all the rest are imported mostly open shapes) that were preserved for study and publication; therefore not much can be said about local production during this period. Morris, who has studied the deposits of this period extensively, maintains that the greatest proportion of the deposits are made up of domestic wares which were probably local, since she describes them

0

1

VII

Shape in VII imports

0 0 0

yes

1

no

1 0 1

no no no

1

no

1 1

no no

1

no

0

yes

1 8 7 112

no

yes

0

as having a “smoothed, dark red surface” (Morris and Jones 1998, 191). Among the domestic wares, the typical shapes are tripod cooking pots, jars and conical cups (Morris and Jones 1998, 191), and there is also a local coarse carinated and Hershenson n.d.). Although full publication of the deposits of this period must be awaited, based on Morris and Hershenson’s preliminary observations and on the meagre evidence from the lone Period VIII deposit in the Northern Sector, a drastic change appears to have occurred in the ceramic landscape of the site with the local pottery being produced only in the plain ware category.

To summarise the trends represented in the data from the Northern Sector (Table 8.3), the assemblage of Period IV

144

Evi Gorogianni

to contemporary Cycladic and Aeginetan traditions with continuity from the shape-ranges of earlier periods elsewhere

food production, is attested even in the earlier phases of Period IV (Cutler 2012; Abell 2014b). Thus, although the Aeginetan-Helladic groups of the community, the presence

beginning of cultural change towards the Minoan tradition are only present in 2% of the assemblage, mostly small open shapes, that had been produced on the potter’s wheel. In the next period, Period V, some of the shapes, mainly open ones for the consumption of drink and food, continue to but the assemblage also includes a substantial portion of Minoan-inspired shapes in all categories, such as open for serving, closed for pouring, and special shapes, such as lamps and baking dishes. The range of shapes that are imitated during Period VI and VII is narrower in all categories (except perhaps the specialty shapes of Minoaninspiration).10 It is also clear that the multivalent nature of the Mainland, and the Cyclades, although the absence of popular drinking shapes on Crete (e.g., the ogival cup) in Period VII may indicate that the dining table fashions of Ayia Irini. This trend which is otherwise obscured by the general preference for Minoan shapes both at Ayia Irini and the Mainland palatial centres, is consonant with Mountjoy imported vessels of Period VII belonged to the so-called ‘Athens super-group’ rather than having been imported from Crete (Mountjoy and Ponting 2000). Although the data from the Northern Sector is limited for Period VIII, Morris and Hershenson’s work seems to imply that the local ceramic production changes character and is altered to produce predominantly domestic wares. At first glance, the data appear to substantiate the obvious, underlying proclamations that were made decades ago: Ayia Irini was Minoanised but at the same time maintained a strong connection to the Mainland, especially during Periods V to VI, and later the cultural focus shifts towards the Mainland palatial centres (Barber 1987, 161; see putting this data into perspective and in context with data from other artefactual categories allows a much more complex picture to be drawn for the site, one that overcomes binary oppositions between local and non-local, Minoanised and non-Minoanised. As stated above, Ayia Irini was re-established anew in Period IV over the remains of the EBA settlement. Recent interpretations of the material assemblage have suggested that the original population was composed of settlers from Central Greece, Aegina, and Crete (Overbeck and Crego 2008; Crego 2010; Abell 2014b); these settlers were probably a mixed population of men and women, since material culture that is customarily linked with female productive activities, such as textile work and

the upright loom, and the tripod cooking pot, attest to the presence of a group originating from Crete, a group that included women and was probably intermarried within the community.11 This original population of ‘apex families’ (Anthony 1990, 904) seems to have grown over time and reached a extending the boundary of the site and for the construction growth at the end of Period IV should probably be attributed both to the growth of the original settling families and also to a contributing migration stream, or trickle in the case of Ayia Irini, probably originating from the places of origin of the original settlers (Anthony 1990; 1992). Indeed, the Crete and also to the Cyclades and the Mainland in terms of style. Nevertheless, whatever potter(s) were responsible for the production of both the Minoan and non-Minoan shapes seem to have been well-versed in the use of the local raw materials and recipes because there is essentially no difference macroscopically in the recipes used for either category (Hilditch in progress), which perhaps indicates the ‘naturalisation’ of distinct migrant communities to form elements of the ‘old countries’ reinforced by continued network contact with places where those shapes were dominant in local production and use. Indeed, although the archaeological record for this period is patchy because of the LBA overburden, deposits do not seem to be characterised by concentrations that could amount to distinct cultural groups. This cultural mix is also understandable in view of the small size of a community that promoted face-to-face interaction and mutual dependence for survival. of the terms ‘local’ or ‘non-local’ in discussions of material culture. In a recent paper by Abell and the author, it was suggested that “the regular and intimate interaction among of a new local identity, one that involved an element of cosmopolitanism that linked the community with different parts of the Aegean,” a process that the authors called ‘material naturalisation’ (Abell and Gorogianni 2014; see also van Dommelen 2006, 137). Studies on modern immigrants show that integration or assimilation is usually achieved within three to four generations, whereas factors such as choice of residence (in a homogeneous ethnic enclave or in a culturally mixed neighbourhood) and degree

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea Table 8.4 First appearance of elements in the ‘Minoan cultural package’. Minoan cultural package

IV

Pottery

X X

(imports) (emulation of shapes) (emulation of decoration) (use of potter’s wheel) Cooking technology (tripod cooking pots) Textile production (upright loom) Administrative technologies (metrology) (writing) Wall paintings Architecture

V

VI

X X

X X X X

X

X X X X

of interaction with the host community, among others, speed or slow down the process (Rumbaut et al. 2006; of a small community like Ayia Irini, it is safe to assume that interaction between distinct cultural communities was intense and that people could not avoid being exposed to each other and their material culture. Thus, within the span to evoke ‘emulation’ of foreign prototypes past perhaps the middle or end of Period V, at least in terms of pottery usage and production. If the population of Ayia Irini was Minoanised (as well as Aeginetinised and Helladicised), does this mean that they were so in every element of the whole so-called appearance of different elements of the Minoan package and record is not skewing our picture of the earlier periods, the table shows a scaled introduction of different elements and in early deposits of Period IV (technologies of the potter’s wheel, upright loom, and Cretan cuisine or at least Cretan (additional pottery shapes and decoration, administrative practices), and others were made manifest in later phases, such as Period VI (architecture, wall paintings, and religious package (apart from their shared inspiration from Minoan cultural practices) if they were introduced at different times (probably as a result of different processes) and were most likely products of different historical and socio-political circumstances? Probably not. If cultural change, such as the local production of material culture based on Minoan prototypes, at Ayia Irini in Period IV and V can be connected to small scale population

145

movements,12 of families bringing technological and cultural knowledge, slightly different processes must be hypothesised for other media in Periods VI and VII, especially since this cultural mix did not produce an entirely distinctive cultural idiom inspired koine in the Aegean. Implements for textile production, as well as architecture and wall painting, reveal the variability of processes that contributed to the change of material culture locally, which occurred over a long period of time. After the initial introduction of the vertical loom with its discoid loom weights in Period IV, local craftswomen continue to use it for their creations well into Mycenaean times. Excavations of the site yielded locally manufactured loomweights of the discoid variety (Cutler 2011; 2012; Gorogianni et al. 2015) showing the total and exclusive appropriation of this technology locally. Nevertheless the recovery of discoid loomweights in non-local fabrics from the same deposits (Gorogianni et al. 2015) indicates that this process of appropriation was not an exclusively local phenomenon, and highlights the operation of a network of associations between the site and other Aegean locales from which these loomweights came along with their associated weavers. The inference is that this technology its continued use was supported and perhaps reproduced through a network of associations with sites/nodes beyond Ayia Irini that were also using this same technology. Thus, their associated aesthetic ideals, over time became part of the Aegean cultural mainstream especially by LM IA (Davis and Gorogianni 2008). The building of architectural spaces with wall paintings in emulation of Minoan prototypes similarly supports the participation of the site in a new environment, in which a Minoan inspired cultural idiom is the language of power. Yet it also provides great insight into additional processes and agents’ actions during Periods VI and VII. The building presence of a commissioner, an overseer/architect/master painter and a building/painting crew with each one of these point of view of the commissioner(s), this person or group was surely part of the aspiring elite at Ayia Irini who wanted to assert their position within the community (Gorogianni power in the region that referenced the palatial culture of Minoan Crete, which had entered the cultural mainstream of the Aegean and been brokered by a number of Aegean agents from several Aegean sites. If the desire for such a space implies the emulation of practices of predominant fashions for political reasons, the actual concept and execution of the commissioned space presupposes an experienced master/

146

Evi Gorogianni

overseer and crew who were well versed in the local building locally available, as well as in the predominant fashions. Lyvia Morgan, in her forthcoming book about the wall paintings of the Northeast Bastion, argues convincingly that the crew responsible for the miniature frescoes of the Northeast Bastion was composed of an itinerant master painter and “a combined workforce of local craftsmen alongside experienced painters from Crete and/or Thera (and perhaps Melos)” (Morgan forthcoming a, 732). This suggestion strives to explain the truly entangled nature of the wall paintings, which, although they are clearly embedded in the Minoan rules for the medium (which in turn implies experienced craftspeople belonging to a wider community of practice) and innovative, nevertheless preserve evidence of less experienced hands (e.g., the ones responsible for the to a local craftsman (Morgan forthcoming a, 726–732). Morgan also problematises the issue of whether the wall painters should be considered distinct from the masons that were responsible for the structure. Although she does have been no such distinction because the Linear B texts preserve references to masons and carpenters but not to wall plasterers or painters (Morgan forthcoming a, 730–731). Therefore, wall paintings and the architectural spaces in which they were executed were probably the products of and its decoration. The introduction of Minoan style architectural elements as seen in the Northeast Bastion, in House A (the eastern part of it), and in other buildings of the settlement, seems spaces in terms of the organisation of rooms, their functions, Letesson 2013), and concomitantly should be attributed to masons or architects that belonged to communities of practice that built spaces in this particular idiom. On the other hand, the walls themselves were built out of the same schist and marble slabs that were locally available and had been used in the traditionally local axial houses that are widespread across the entire site. master/overseer was dispatched from the palaces of Minoan of active palatial participation in driving the trends of cultural change in the Aegean. There is no doubt that the palaces, especially Knossos, during Period VI or LM IA, were at the height of their power and perhaps more actively involved in the trade of added value commodities, such as pottery, alongside metals (Sherratt 1999, 176–177) than in the previous period. The data from imports to the Northern

Sector preserve a glimpse of this process (Gorogianni in progress). Cretan imports continue to comprise the predominant type of import. Nevertheless, although the proportion of Cretan imports from all of Crete remains the same as during the previous period, the analyses from the Northern Sector show that imports from a North-central Cretan origin increased dramatically over the previous period to the detriment of imports from other Cretan locales. Similarly, in contrast to the previous period in which trade was split between the trade of commodities in storage containers and trade of open shapes, in Period VI imported open shapes markedly increased in comparison to closed ones, further substantiating a change in the character of trade between the two locales. of ties with Ayia Irini at this time by sending out a master painter or architect to assist with the building of the Northeast Bastion. The Northeast Bastion, though, was hardly the only building with Minoan-style features built during this period built during Period VI), which suggests on the one hand that prosperity was widespread among the groups of the site and allowed for greater investment in the architectural landscape of the town, and on the other hand that perhaps this building activity reveals competition among family the exact involvement of palatial agents in this general competitive climate is unknown, but perhaps the expansion of House A and its dominance in Period VII might perhaps be indicative of which family group ended up winning the support of the palace agents and the control of the site. As stated above, although Cretan palace societies were certainly at the height of their power, they may not have been driving the Aegean trends toward emulation deliberately. By Period VI, the Aegean world had already incorporated the Minoan aesthetic into the idiom of the major production centres. This trend is not observed only in the production of local products that conform to the Minoan aesthetic but also in the importation of Minoanising products from non-Cretan production centres, places like Aegina, Melos, and the Mainland. A survey of the motifs that appear on the local and imported pottery of Period VI in the Northern Sector shows on all of the predominant fabric categories; similarly, shapes like the Keftiu, straight-sided and semi-globular cups, and bridge-spouted jars are also present in almost all the major fabric categories, local or imported (Gorogianni in progress). Therefore, appearing Minoan may not have been a conscious consideration any more than appearing fashionable and en par with the Aegean neighbours, an objective that perhaps took comparatively little effort for ‘early adopters’ such as Ayia Irini, even though the site was not a major production centre, at least in terms of exports.

147

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea Appearing fashionable, or more Minoan, was indeed the the target group that the residents of Ayia Irini sought to convince by putting on Minoan airs? The answer inevitably involves the regional context, since it is unlikely that any Cretan, at least of the palatial kind, would have been impressed by these efforts. If the relationship of Ayia Irini to Attica, at least the southern tip of it, was initially one of exploitation of the latter (especially considering that Ayia Irini was established as an off-shore settlement for the exploitation of the metal resources of the Lavrion region), it is during this period that the balance seems to shift. Even though the interrelations between Attica and Kea are for increasing socio-political complexity in Attica, and especially in Thorikos (Papadimitriou 2010; see also Servais and Servais-Soyez 1984), support the emergence of a group that perhaps sought to control closely the coveted metals, a group with which Keian entrepreneurs had to negotiate a little more intensely (or more competitively) than before, leading to a tightening of sorts in the relationship between the two regions. in the local ceramic assemblage because of its multicultural character with Cycladic, Cretan, and Helladic shapes being used at the same time, and the general Minoanisation of the early Late Helladic repertoire (Table 8.5). Yet, one aspect of the shape repertoire perhaps indicates most clearly that the cultural focus for Ayia Irini producers and consumers shifts away from Crete: notably absent from Period VII assemblages (LM IB/LH IIA) of the Northern Sector (and probably the rest of the site for that matter), is the ogival assemblages on Crete at this time (Brogan and Hallager Irini drinking and dining fashions do not follow Cretan ones, even though the predilection for conical cup use does not cease and continues to be produced well into period VIII. At the same time, no clearly Mycenaean shapes, such as the rounded goblet, or the alabastron are introduced in the local production either. Yet, the growing importance of Mainland production centres, to the detriment of the close link between

Table 8.5 First appearance of elements in the ‘Mycenaean cultural package’. The elements of the package or else cultural diacritics are compiled based on the lists provided in Feuer 2011 (512–514). Mycenaean cultural package

VI

Pottery (imports) (emulation of shapes) (emulation of decoration) Cooking technologies Textile production Administrative technologies (writing) Wall paintings Architecture (secular) Architecture (mortuary) Religious practices (figurines) Mortuary practices Personal adornment (boar’s tusk helmet) Wanax ideology

VII

VIII

X X

X X

seems to undergo a change of character. On the one hand, local ceramic production seems to have been reduced, if not produced. Even though the raw materials of the island were e.g., see in the previous periods the local workshop(s) did produce painted tablewares that were used (or at least found) in the same contexts as their imported counterparts. Nevertheless, provenance seem to eclipse almost totally the need or desire for such vessels in the local fabric, leaving to the local workshops mostly utilitarian or otherwise domestic wares. Moreover, this substitution should also be interpreted as evidence for a change in the economic realities of the site as well as in the Aegean as a whole. Conversely, the persistence of shapes that are considered ‘Minoan’ in the local ceramic production, whose origins had been ‘Minoan,’ such as the tripod cooking pots as well as the conical cups, perhaps indicates a continuation of the local population element which did not change their cooking habits and continued ‘traditional’ practices in the face of increasing Mycenaean

(Gorogianni and Abell forthcoming; see also Mountjoy Mycenaean style cooking wares at the site). artefacts that bear strong associations with Mycenaean culture, such as the boars’ tusks from a helmet (Cummer

The following period, Period VIII, sees these trends exaggerated. Imports from Crete are substantially reduced (Gorogianni and Abell forthcoming) and local production

This volume focuses on whether processes of acculturation often called Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation are similar to or different from each other. In an effort to evaluate this hypothesis considering the site of Ayia Irini, an important site for intercultural contact, this paper examined locally

148

Evi Gorogianni

produced pottery from the Northern Sector of Ayia Irini and considered it in conjunction with inferences gauged by other categories of craft production, such as textile production, wall painting and architecture. This investigation has shown, at the very least, that the processes of Minoanisation purposes, are in fact not uniform nor can they be explained by a single phenomenon or process. The diachronic analysis diacritics that have often been considered to compose a cultural package shows clearly that these elements were introduced into the Keian cultural idiom over the course of several centuries, defying their attribution to a single explanation or to a singular cultural package. Indeed the archaeological assemblage seems to have been produced by a number of processes and agentic responses that range from small scale migrations, to the Versailles effect, eclectic emulation of culturally powerful prototypes, to name a few. Moreover, the paper also aims to problematise the meaning of local culture as it is implied in the unpronounceable title, especially in the case of Ayia Irini, a settlement that seems to have been founded by a multicultural population in Period partial abandonment at the end of Period VIII or LH IIIA. At least in the case of Minoanisation, Minoan fashions and technologies (especially those that have to do with pottery and textile production) seem to be fully incorporated in the local idiom and, dare I say, identity just as much as Mainland and Cycladic ones. If Minoanising trends get to stand out more prominently, this is owed to the fact that Minoan fashions seem to be the visual language of power, one that could have been perhaps promoted by the Cretan palaces deliberately, especially in Period VI or LM IA. Nevertheless, what is becoming increasingly clear is that the establishment of Minoan fashions and their incorporation into the idioms the fact that the trade and exchange partners of Ayia Irini had also selectively adopted Minoan elements, albeit to differing degrees and by different social groups. As for Mycenaeanisation, the paper suggests that perhaps the processes had already started earlier than LC II, the period usually hailed as the start of the phenomenon. The general Minoanisation of the Aegean, including that of the the processes at work, and so does the fact that Ayia Irini was abandoned as a residential site at the end of Period VIII, not allowing us to witness the transformations at their most diagnostic in LH IIIB and LH IIIC, just as we do on Naxos or Kos (see Vitale this volume; Vlachopoulos

of which pottery is a supreme example; even though imports wares, local craftspeople do not imitate Mycenaean wares or insert technological markers used in the production of Mycenaean pots (Abell and Hilditch, this volume). Nor was architecture or other categories of material culture affected the boar’s tusk helmet retrieved from House A. All in all, Mycenaeanisation appears to be an elite strategy which attempted to preserve the importance and function of the site as a transhipment centre for the metals trade, a strategy that did not seem to bear fruit as Ayia Irini was ultimately abandoned as a residential site at the end of Period VIII and continued only as a focus for ritual activity (Caskey et al. 1986; Caskey 2009; Gorogianni 2011). This abandonment should be considered and explained in the on east to west passages, rather than north to south ones, the islands of the Dodecanese, premier stopping points on the journey to the eastern Mediterranean, as well as altered routes for accessing the ores of Lavrion overland.

I would like to take this opportunity and give credit and thanks to the following individuals for their various contributions and/or comments to this paper (although I am solely responsible for any mistakes and omissions): Hershenson, Jill Hilditch, Jack Davis, Carl Knappett, and Brian Trail. I am also thankful to Marisa Marthari, Panayiotis Hatzidakis, and Maria Koutsoumbou of the Cyclades Ephorate, as well as to the Ayia Irini Excavations Committee at the University of Cincinnati, for permission support of this research, I extend my thanks to the Institute of Aegean Prehistory, the Mediterranean Archaeological Trust, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the University of Akron.

Notes 1

Mycenaean palatial society did not have the same impact on local material culture as Minoan had done in the past. 2

additions rather than truly incorporated in the local idiom,

A selection of publications include: Abell 2014b; Bikaki 1984; Caskey 1962; 1964; 1966; 1971; 1972; 2009; Caskey et al and Lewis 1985; Davis 1979; 1980; 1984; 1986; Davis et al. 1983; Gale et al. 1984; Georgiou 1986; Gorogianni 2008; 2011a; 2013; Hershenson 1998; Morris and Jones 1998; G.

Wilson 1987; 1999; 2013. Caskey was rather cautious on the subject, limiting himself to statements that harbored no uncertainty or speculation, and

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea

3 4

5

viewing the site as a trading post of sorts. He used the term ‘Cretan’ when absolutely sure of the provenance of an artifact, especially ceramics, and allowed for the use of ‘Minoan’ as a general stylistic term. With the exception of Abell 2014a and Gorogianni et al. 2016. The new establishment at Ayia Irini was started by a diverse group of settlers that probably originated from Central Greece (Overbeck 1982; Overbeck and Crego 2008), Aegina (Crego 2010), and Crete (Abell 2014b). The evidence comes from the excavations of the theatre conducted by Dr. Tania Panagou, under the auspices of an EU funded project that targets the conservation and restoration of the monuments at Karthaia, directed by Prof. Eva Simantoni-Bournia of the University of Athens (Bournia et al. forthcoming; Panagou 2012). The theatre is located in the south slope of the acropolis of Karthaia and dates to the 4th c. BCE. Excavations revealed that the theatre’s koilon

11

149

These Cretan technologies appear in archaeological deposits of Ayia Irini in Period IV and almost contemporaneously at Kolonna (Cutler this volume; Gauss and Smentana 2007; Abell 2014a), with the exception of the potter’s wheel which shows up earlier (Gorogianni et al. 2016; Gauss 2007; Abell 2014a). Compared to the other Cycladic Minoanised settlements, Ayia Irini was an early adopter, therefore it is fair to hypothesize that Cretan groups came to the island directly from Crete or via Aegina.

of the graves is consistent with the Helladic and Cycladic traditions. might have also been extra impetus for migration.

topical excavations uncovered prehistoric deposits (Panagou 2012). A preliminary inspection by Ayia Irini researchers,

6

dates to early Period IV and contains almost the entire range of imports found at the contemporary settlement of Ayia Irini. The population estimates for Ayia Irini vary widely. Originally, the population of Ayia Irini during the main phases of the settlement was estimated between 780–1250 people based on size that was broadly comparable to the one residing in the polis of Koressos (Cherry et al. 1991, 229–230; Whitelaw

and lower the population estimate. Recently, Whitelaw has suggested a global density of 200–225 persons/ hectare for Neopalatial towns (Whitelaw 2001, 27), which would make Ayia Irini, at 1.2 ha, a town of 260 people. Even though, as Whitelaw himself cautions, Aegean urbanism is not a unitary phenomenon, his estimates approximate urban densities on the island in modern times (pre-WW II), which are reported to be as high as 280 persons/hectare (Whitelaw and Davis 1991, 281, n.7). Therefore, 280–335 residents is a more plausible population estimate for the early LBA habitation. 7 A population of 500±100 residents is the suggested demographic threshold beyond which face to face interaction is discouraged and more complex structures start to emerge et al. 2000). 8 The paneled cup should also be added to this list. Even though there are no extant specimens from the Northern Sector, it is one of the most common cup shapes of Period V, even though it is not as common in the local fabric (see Davis 1986, 85–86). 9 The absence of at least locally produced ewers and oval mouthed amphorae might be attributed to an accident of preservation rather than a conscious choice on the part of the consumers at Ayia Irini, since the shapes occur in other periods of the settlement. 10 This phenomenon might very well be attributed to an accident of preservation, even though a cursory look at the deposits from House A from this same period reveals a few more shapes (bowl, footed saucer, saucer, and loop-handled bowl).

Abell, N. D. (2014a) Migration, Mobility, and Craftspeople in the Aegean Bronze Age: A Case Study from Ayia Irini on the Island of Kea. World Archaeology 46(4), 551–568. Abell, N. D. (2014b) Reconsidering a Cultural Crossroads: A Diachronic Analysis of Ceramic Production, Consumption, and Exchange Patterns at Bronze Ayia Irini, Kea, Greece. PhD, University of Cincinnati. Abell, N. D. and Gorogianni, E. (2014) Material Naturalization: On the Impact of Craftspeople and Their Products in Encouraging Culture Change at Ayia Irini, Kea, Greece. In Why Things Matter? Conference held at California State University Anthony, D. W. (1990) Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthropologist 92(4), 895–914. Again. American Anthropologist 94(1), 174–176.

eds. (1904), Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos. Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, Suppl. Paper 4. London, The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. Barber, R. L. N. (1987) The Cyclades in the Bronze Age. London and Iowa City, Duckworth and Iowa University Press. Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I., Zukerman, A. and Maier, A. M. (2008) Cooking Identities: Aegean Style Cooking Jugs and Cultural Interaction in Iron Age Philistia and Neighboring Regions. American Journal of Archaeology 112(2), 225–246. Berg, I. (2004) The Meanings of Standardization: Conical Cups in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Antiquity 78, 74–85. Berg, I. (2007a) Meaning in the Making: The Potter’s Wheel at Phylakopi, Melos (Greece). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26, 234–252. Berg, I. (2007b) Negotiating Island Identities: The Active Use of Pottery in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Cyclades. Gorgias Dissertations 31. Piscataway, Gorgias Press. Bikaki, A. H. (1984) Ayia Irini: The Potter’s Marks. Keos, IV. Mainz on Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. Bournia, E., Panagou, T. and Maurokordatou, D. (forthcoming)

150

Evi Gorogianni

. Branigan, K. (1981) Minoan Colonialism. Annual of the British School at Athens 76, 23–33. Branigan, K. (1984) Minoan Community Colonies in the Aegean. In R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June 1982 Brogan, T. M. and Hallager, E. eds. (2011) LM IB Pottery: Relative Chronology and Regional Differences. Acts of a Workshop Held at the Danish Institute at Athens in Collaboration with . Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 11, 1–2. Athens, The Danish Institute at Athens. Broodbank, C. (2000) An Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Broodbank, C. (2004) Minoanisation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 50, 46–91. Buck, R. J. (1962) The Minoan Thalassocracy Re-Examined. Historia 11, 129–137. Burmeister, S. (2000) Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current Anthropology 41(4), 539–567. Butt, K. L. (1977) A Deposit of Archaic and Classical Greek Pottery at Ayia Irini, Keos. Hesperia 46, 299–314. Caskey, J. L. (1962) Excavations in Keos, 1960–1961. Hesperia 31, 263–283. Caskey, J. L. (1964) Excavations in Keos, 1963. Hesperia 33, 314–335. Caskey, J. L. (1966) Excavations in Keos, 1964–1965. Hesperia 35, 363–376. Caskey, J. L. (1969) Crises in the Minoan-Mycenaean World. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 113(6), 433–449. Caskey, J. L. (1971) Investigations in Keos. Part I: Excavations and Explorations, 1966–1970. Hesperia 40, 359–396. Caskey, J. L. (1972) Investigations in Keos. Part II: A Conspectus of the Pottery. Hesperia 41, 357–401. 1974–1978, 755–766. Caskey, J. L. (1979) Ayia Irini, Keos: The Successive Periods of Occupation. American Journal of Archaeology 83, 412. Caskey, M. E. (2009) Dionysos in the Temple at Ayia Irini,

Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History. Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands From Earliest Settlement to Modern Times. Monumenta Archaeologica 16, 217–232. Los Angeles, UCLA Institute of Archaeology. Crego, D. M. (2010) Ayia Irini IV: A Distribution Center for the Middle Helladic World? In A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki and J. Wright (eds.), Mesohelladika. The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8–12 mars 2006. Suppl. 52, Ayia Irini: House A. Keos III. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. Cutler, J. (2011) Crafting Minoanisation: Textiles, Crafts Production and Social Dynamics in the Bronze Age Southern Aegean. PhD, University College London. Cutler, J. (2012) Ariadne’s Thread: The Adoption of Cretan Weaving Technology in the Wider Southern Aegean in the MidKOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegaeum 33, 145–154. Leuven and Liège, Peeters. Davis, J. L. (1979) Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades Papers in Cycladic Prehistory. UCLAMon 14, 143–157. Los Angeles, UCLA Institute of Archaeology. Davis, J. L. (1980) Minoans and Minoanization at Ayia Irini, Keos. In C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World II. , 257–260. London,

Cycladica. Studies in Memory of N.P. Goulandris. Proceedings of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983, 15–23. London, British Museum Press. Davis, J. L. (1984b) Cultural Innovation and the Minoan Thalassocracy at Ayia Irini, Keos. In R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June 1982. SkrAth 4° Davis, J. L. (1986) Ayia Irini: Period V. Keos V. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. A Pottery Seriation Study. In MacGillivray and Barber (eds.), 148–161.

Caskey, M. E., Caskey, J. L., Bouzaki, S. and Maniatis, I. (1986) Ayia Irini: The Temple at Ayia Irini. Part I: The Statues. Keos II. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern.

Uniformitarianism in Late Cycladic I: Perspectives from Kea and Milos on the Prehistory of Akrotiri. In Hardy et al. (eds.), 185–200.

in the LC I Period: The Evidence of the Pottery. American Journal of Archaeology 86, 333–341.

the Late Bronze Age Levels. In A. C. Refrew, N. Brodie, C. Morris and C. Scarre (eds.), Excavations at Phylakopi in . British School at Athens Suppl. 42, 265–306. London, The British School at Athens. Davis, J. L. and Gorogianni, E. (2008) Potsherds from the Edge:

Northern Keos: Analysis and Interpretation of the Survey

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea

N. Brodie, J. Doole and G. Gavalas (eds.), A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge 25–28 March 2004, 379–388. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Davis, J. L. and Lewis, H. B. (1985) Mechanization of Pottery Production: A Case Study from the Cycladic Islands. In A. B. Knapp and T. Stech (eds.), Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. UCLA Monograph 24, 79–92. Los Angeles and Berkeley, University of California Press. Keos and the Eastern Aegean: The Cretan Connection. Hesperia 52, 361–366. of Later Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Ayia Irini, Keos. Hesperia 50, 291–300. Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In M. T. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, 232–263. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. Driessen, J. M. (1982) The Minoan Hall in Domestic Architecture on Crete: To Be in Vogue in Late Minoan IA? Acta Archaeologica Lovanensia 21, 27–92. Dumont, A. and Chaplain, J.-C. (1888) Les céramiques de la Grèce propre Edgar, C. C. (1904) The Pottery. In Atkinson et al. (eds.), 80–165. Evans, A. J. (1928) The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of Early, Vol. II. London, Macmillan. Hierarchies and Organizational Strategies in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 65(3), 449–470. Santorini and its Eruptions. Translated by A. R. McBirney. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. World in the LH III. In M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L. Vagnetti (eds.), documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, May 11–12 and Dec. 3–6, 1984. Magna Graecia 3, 277–282. Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. c. 1550–1400. Opuscula Archaeologica 6, 140–271. Gale, N. H., Stos-Gale, Z. and Davis, J. L. (1984) The Provenance of Lead Used at Ayia Irini, Keos. Hesperia 53, 389–406. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale (eds.), Keimelion: Elitenbildung und Elitärer Konsum von der Mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Homerischen Epoche. Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 350, 163–169. Wien, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Georgiou, H. (1986) Ayia Irini: Specialized Domestic and Industrial Pottery. Keos VI. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. Gorogianni, E. (in progress) The Pottery. In E. Gorogianni and

151

Ayia Irini: Northern Sector: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Keos. Gorogianni, E. (2008) Creation Stories: The Archaeological Site of Ayia Irini, Kea and the Production of Archaeological Knowledge. PhD, University of Cincinnati. Gorogianni, E. (2011) Goddess, Lost Ancestors, and Dolls: A Cultural Biography of the Ayia Irini Terracotta Statues. Hesperia 80, 635–655. Gorogianni, E. (2013) Site in Transition: John L. Caskey, Ayia Irini and Archaeological Practice in Greek Archaeology. Aegean Archaeology 10 (2009–2010), 1–16. Borrowed, Something New: Possible Archaeological Evidence Kea. In N. C. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner and K. Kopanias (eds.), NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Gorogianni, E. and Abell, N. D. (forthcoming) Insularity and Cosmopolitanism in Ayia Irini, Kea. In J. Hilditch, A. Kotsonas, C. Beestman-Kruijshaar, M. Revello Lami, Island, Mainland, Coastland & Hinterland Ceramic Perspectives on Connectivity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Conference at the University of Amsterdam, February 1–3, 2013. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Gorogianni, E., Abell, N. D. and Hilditch, J. (2016) Reconsidering Technological Transmission: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel at Ayia Irini, Kea, Greece. American Journal of Archaeology, 120, 1–41. Complexity in Late MBA and Early LBA Cyclades: A View from Ayia Irini. In C. Wiersma and S. Voutsaki (eds.), Explaining Change in Aegean Prehistory. Conference at the . Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books. American Journal of Archaeology 65, 165–172. Gosden, C. (2004) Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 B.C. to the Present. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Body: The Social Context of Wine and Olive Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete. World Archaeology 35(1), 38–54. Hamilakis, Y. (2008) Time, Performance, and the Production of

J. L. Crowley (eds.), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference. University of 2008. Aegaeum 29, 3–19. Liège and Austin, University of Liège / University of Texas at Austin. Hardy, D. A., Doumas, C. G., Sakellarakis, J. A. and Warren, P. M. eds. (1990) Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1: Archaeology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3–9 September 1989. London, The Thera

152

Evi Gorogianni

Helms, M. W. (1988) Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Hershenson, C. (1998) Late Helladic IIB at Ayia Irini, Keos. In Mendoni and Mazarakis-Ainian (eds.), 161–168. Hilditch, J. (2014) Analyzing Technological Standardization: Revisiting the Minoan Conical Cup. In A. Kotsonas (ed.), Understanding Standardization and Variation in Mediterranean Ceramics: Mid 2nd to Late 1st Millennium BC. BABESCH Suppl. 25, 21–33. Leuven, Peeters. Hilditch, J. (in progress) Petrographic Analysis. In E. Gorogianni Ayia Irini: Northern Sector: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Keos. Hood, S. (1971) The Minoans: The Story of Bronze Age Crete. Ancient Peoples and Places 75. New York, Praeger. Immerwahr, S. A. (1960) Mycenaean Trade and Colonization. Archaeology 13, 4–13. are they Integrating into Society? Available at: http://www. migrationpolicy.org/research/immigrants-united-states-howwell-are-they-integrating-society?pdf=integration-jimenez.pdf. Johnson, G. A. (1982) Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands and B. A. Seagraves (eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, 389–412. New York, Academic Press. Jones, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London and New York, Routledge. Joyner, L. (2007) Cooking Pots as Indicators of Cultural Change, a from Corinth, Hesperia 76, 183–227. and the Spread of Innovations. In T. Brughmans, A. Collar and The Connected Past: Challenges to Network Studies of the Past. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Karageorghis, V. and Kouka, O. (eds.) (2011) On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions. An International 2010 Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange, and PoliticoEconomic Change. Monographs in World Archaeology 21, 123–155. Madison, Prehistory Press. Knappett, C. (2011) An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press. Knappett, C. J. and Hilditch, J. (2015) Colonial Cups? The Minoan Plain Handleless Cup as Icon and Index. In C. Glatz (ed.), Plain Traditions in the Second Millennium BC Near East and East Mediterranean, 91–113.Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press. Knappett, C. and Nikolakopoulou, I. (2005) Exchange and

EMPORIA: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, .

Aegaeum 25, 175–184. Liège and Austin, University of Liège / University of Texas at Austin. Knappett, C. and Nikolakopoulou, I. (2008) Colonialism without Colonies? A Bronze Age Case Study from Akrotiri, Thera. Hesperia 77, 1–42. Letesson, Q. (2013) Minoan Halls: A Syntactical Genealogy. American Journal of Archaeology 117, 303–351. Lucy, S. (2005) Ethnic and Cultural Identities. In G. M. DíazAndreu, S. Lucy, S. Babic and D. N. Edwards (eds.), The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, 86–109. London and New York, Routledge. MacGillivray, J. A. and Barber, R. L. N. eds. (1984) The Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (In Memoriam: John Langdon Caskey, 1908–1981). Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh. Mackenzie, D. (1904) The Successive Settlements at Phylakopi in their Cretan Relations. In Atkinson et al. (eds.), 238–272. Manning, S.W. (2010) Chronology and Terminology. In E. Cline (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC), 11–28. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press. Maran, J. and Stockhammer, P. W. eds. (2012) Materiality and Social Practice: Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books. Marthari, M. (1990) The Chronology of the Last Phases of Occupation at Akrotiri in the Light of the Evidence from the West House Pottery Groups. In Hardy et al. (eds.), 57–70. Mendoni, L. G. and Mazarakis-Ainian, A. eds. (1998) Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Proceedings of an International Symposium Kea-Kythnos. 22–25 June 1994. Meletimata 27. Paris and Athens, Diffusion de Boccard; Research Centre

Miller, D. (1987) Material Culture and Mass Consumption. New York, Basil Blackwell. Miller, D. ed. (2005) Materiality. Durham and London, Duke University Press. Miller, D. (2010) Stuff. Cambridge and Malden, MA, Polity. Morgan, L. (forthcoming a) The Ayia Irini Wall Paintings: Social Context and the Miniature Frieze. Keos XI. Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press. Morgan, L. (forthcoming b) Inspiration and Innovation: The Creation of Wall Paintings in the Absence of a Pictorial Pottery Tradition at Ayia Irini, Kea. In A. Vlachopoulos (ed.), PAINTBRUSHES. Wall-Painting and Vase-Painting of the 2nd Millennium BCE in Dialogue. Conference Held at Akrotiri, Thera, 24.–26.5.2013. Athens, Melissa Publishing. Morris, C. and Hershenson, C. (n.d.) Ayia Irini, Keos: Late Helladic III. Unpublished paper. Morris, C. and Jones, R. (1998) The Late Bronze Age III Town of Ayia Irini and its Aegean Relations. In Mendoni and MazarakisAinian (eds.), 189–199. Mountjoy, P. A. and Ponting, M. J. (2000) The Minoan Thalassocracy Reconsidered: Provenance Studies of LH II A/ LM I B Pottery from Phylakopi, Ay. Irini, and Athens. Annual of the British School at Athens 95, 141–184.

8. Keian, Kei-noanised, Kei-cenaeanised? Interregional Contact and Identity in Ayia Irini, Kea

153

and L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981, 293–301. Bristol, Bristol Classical Press. Irini, Kea. In MacGillivray and Barber (eds.), 114–118. J. C. vOverbeck (ed.), Ayia Irini: Period IV. Part 1: The Stratigraphy and the Find Deposits. Keos VII, 184–205. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. Overbeck, J. C. (1982) The Hub of Commerce: Keos and Middle Helladic Greece. Temple University Aegean Symposium 7, 38–49. Philadelphia. Middle Cycladic Ayia Irini. In MacGillivray and Barber (eds.), 108–113. Overbeck, J. C. (1989) Ayia Irini: Period IV. Part 1: The Stratigraphy and the Find Deposits. Keos, VII. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. Overbeck, J. C. and Crego, D. M. (2008) The Commercial N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew (eds.), Cyclades, Cambridge 25–28 March 2004, 305–309. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. constructing Alterity in the Archaeologies of the Bronze Age Mediterranean. In J. Maran and P. W. Stockhammer (eds.), Materiality and Social Practice: Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters, 51–60. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books. 16 (2010–2012), 343–376. Papadimitriou, N. (2010) Attica in the Middle Helladic Period. In A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki and J. Wright (eds.), Mesohelladika. The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8–12 mars 2006. Bulletin de

Petruso, C. (1992) Ayia Irini: The Balance Weights. An Analysis of Weight Measurement in Prehistoric Crete and the Cycladic Islands. Keos VIII. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. Renfrew, A. C. (1972) The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London, Methuen. Rice, P.M. (1987) Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press. Rogers, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations Press of Glencoe. Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language Retention in Southern California, Population and Development Review 32(3), 447– 460. Relationship’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1, 9–25.

Bronze Age from Ayia Irini, Kea. In MacGillivray and Barber (eds.), 179–183. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 32, 155. and Kea. In Hardy et al. (eds.), 201–211. and Mazarakis-Ainian (eds.), 117–122. Ayia Irini: The Western Sector. Keos X. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. Scholes, K. (1956) The Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age: A Synopsis. Annual of the British School at Athens 51, 9–40. Servais, J., and Servais-Soyez, B. (1984) La tholos ‘oblongue’ et al. (eds.), préliminaire sur les 9e, 10e, 11e et 12e campagnes de fouilles, Sherratt, S. (1999) E pur si muove: Pots Markets and Values in the Second Millennium Mediterranean. In J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi and G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON International Conference, Held in Amsterdam, 8–9 November 1996, 163–211. Amsterdam, J.C. Gieben. Starr, C. G. (1954) The Myth of Minoan Thalassocracy. Historia 3, 282–291. Upham, S. (1990) The Evolution of Political Systems. Sociopolitics in Small-scale Sedentary Societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. van Dommelen, P. (2006). Colonial Matters: Material Culture and Postcolonial Theory in Colonial Situations. In M. Rowlands, Handbook of Material Culture, 104–123, London, SAGE. Van Pelt, W. P. (ed.) (2013) Archaeology and Cultural Mixture. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 28.1. Cambridge, University of Cambridge. Warren, P. M. (1967) Minoan Stone Vases as Evidence for Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 37–56. Human Dimensions of Minoan Urbanism. In K. Branigan (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age in Aegean Archaeology 4, 15–37. London and New York, Whitelaw, T. (2004) The Development of an Island Centre: Urbanization at Phylakopi on Melos. In J. Cherry, C. Scarre and S. Shennan (eds.), Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, 149–166. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Whitelaw, T. M. and Davis, J. L. (1991) The Polis Center of Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History. Northern Keos

154

Evi Gorogianni

in the Cycladic Islands From Earliest Settlement to Modern Times. Monumenta Archaeologica 16, 265–284. Los Angeles, UCLA Institute of Archaeology. Wiener, M. H. (1984) Crete and the Cyclades in LM I: The Tale of Conical Cups. In R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June 1982. SkrAth 4° 32, 17–26. Stockholm, Paul Wiener, M. H. (1990) The Isles of Crete? The Minoan Thalassocracy Revisited. In Hardy et al. (eds.), 128–161. Wiener, M. H. (1991) The Nature and Control of Minoan Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90, Wiener, M. H. (2013) Realities of Power: The Minoan Thalassocracy

in Historical Perspective. In R. B. Koehl (ed.), AMILLA: The Quest for Excellence: Studies Presented to Guenter Kopcke in . Prehistory Monographs 43, 149–173. Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press. Wilson, D. E. (1987) Kea and East Attike in Early Bronze II: McGill: Papers in Greek Archaeology and History in Memory of Colin D. Gordon. McGill University Monographs in Classical Archaeology and History, 35–49. Amsterdam, J. C. Gieben. Wilson, D. E. (1999) Ayia Irini: Periods I–III. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlements. Keos IX. Mainz am Rhine, Philipp von Zabern. Wilson, D. E. (2013) Ayia Irini II–III, Kea: The Phasing and Relative Chronology of the Early Bronze Age II Settlement. Hesperia 82, 385–434.

This pdf of your paper in Beyond Thalassocracies belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright. As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web until three years from publication (May 2019), unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you have queries about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow Books (editorial@ oxbowbooks.com).