An Island Economy : Ierapetra and Crete in the Roman Empire

AN ISLAND ECONOMY: IERAPETRA AND CRETE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

by Scott Charles Gallimore April 22, 2011

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Classics

UMI Number: 3460751

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3460751 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Copyright by Scott Charles Gallimore 2011

ii

For Mom, Dad, Neil, Andrew, and Lindy. Your support over the years has been a source of inspiration

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are numerous individuals and institutions that I must thank for their support and encouragement over the past few years. First and foremost, I express my gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee, J. Theodore Peña, L. Vance Watrous, Stephen L. Dyson, and Bradley A. Ault, for their continual enthusiasm as I progressed from formulating a topic to completing the final manuscript. My committee chair, J.T. Peña, has been instrumental in helping me push to produce the highest quality work possible, and has pointed out numerous ways in which I could improve upon my arguments and organization. Vance Watrous introduced me to Crete in the summer of 2005 and offered regular guidance as I came to focus my research more and more on the island‟s Roman period history. Stephen Dyson‟s insight and advice has been of great help as I have tried to organize my thoughts and research in the course of writing my dissertation. Last, but not least, Brad Ault always kept his door open for all of those times I needed advice about the dissertation or any other topic. I would also like to thank John Dugan, who was a mentor and friend during my time in Buffalo. He was always willing to lend a friendly ear when questions or troubles arose, and offered sage advice whenever I was in need of it. In addition, Neil Coffee has been of great help these past few months as I have tried to deal with several bureaucratic and scheduling issues that arose as I reached the end of the dissertating process. My time at the University at Buffalo was financially supported by regular teaching assistantships, as well as a series of College Fellowships. Financial support also came from the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. First as the John Williams White Fellow, and then as the Edwards Capps Fellow, I was able to complete a large proportion of my research and writing during a two year tenure in Athens. While at the American School, I received iv

encouragement from several individuals, and would like to thank Guy Sanders, Margie Miles, Denver Graninger, Sherry Fox, Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, and Jack Davis for all of the support and advice they provided. My ability to complete the dissertation is owed in large part to a year spent as the Crake Doctoral Fellow at Mount Allison University, and I express my gratitude to the Crake Foundation and Bruce Robertson for the opportunity to make that final push to complete my thesis. I must also thank Vili Apostolakou of the KD Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in East Crete, whose support made this study possible. Vili permitted me to study several ceramic assemblages from her rescue excavations in and around Ierapetra, and has accommodated my research at every turn. My analysis of these ceramics took place at the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete in Pacheia Ammos, Crete in July 2007 and SeptemberOctober 2009. I thank Tom Brogan, director of the Study Center, for permitting to use these facilities and for always making the extra effort to ensure I had everything I needed to complete my analyses in a timely fashion. In addition, I must thank Eleanor Huffman for answering every question I had while at the Study Center, and Kathy Hall for conserving a number of the vessels I analyzed. Throughout my time as a graduate student there have also been numerous other individuals who have offered their support, advice, criticism, and friendship, including Sabine Beckmann, Matthew Buell, Alicia Carter, Kostas Chalikias, Benjamin Costello, Yuki Furuya, Mark Hammond, Jason Harris, Kapua Iao, Sarah James, Jenny Muslin, Yota Pantou, Cathy Person, Benjamin Sullivan, and Martin Wells. This is by no means a complete list and I am grateful to everyone who has offered encouragement over the years.

v

Finally, I must thank my parents, Chuck and Lorrie Gallimore, for all of the support they have provided over the years, and my wife, Lindy, whose enthusiasm for my work has never wavered. It is because of their encouragement that I was able to bring this project to completion.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables and Illustrations .................................................................................................... xiii Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... xx CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: DEFINING ROMAN CRETE ................................................................................ 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6 Crete and Rome...................................................................................................................... 7 Hellenistic Crete ........................................................................................................... 7 The Creation of Roman Crete ..................................................................................... 10 Crete at the End of the Republic ................................................................................. 16 Crete under the Romans.............................................................................................. 25 The End of Roman Crete ............................................................................................. 30 A Chronological Scheme for Roman Crete ......................................................................... 32 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 40 CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY OF ROMAN CRETE .................................................................... 42 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 42 Sources of Evidence for Roman Crete ................................................................................. 43 Travelers’ Accounts .................................................................................................... 43 Archaeological Data ................................................................................................... 49 Literary Sources .......................................................................................................... 67 Epigraphic Texts ......................................................................................................... 72 Numismatic Finds ....................................................................................................... 77 Secondary Literature on Roman Crete ................................................................................. 80 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 86

vii

CHAPTER 4: THE POLIS OF IERAPETRA ............................................................................. 87 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 87 Modern Ierapetra and Local Geography .............................................................................. 88 The Disappearance of Ierapetra ........................................................................................... 92 Earliest History .................................................................................................................... 97 Hellenistic Ierapetra ........................................................................................................... 104 Topography ............................................................................................................... 107 Territorial Expansion................................................................................................ 108 Political Structures ................................................................................................... 117 Religion ..................................................................................................................... 118 Economy .................................................................................................................... 119 Roman Ierapetra ................................................................................................................. 128 Topography ............................................................................................................... 129 Territory .................................................................................................................... 136 Political Structures ................................................................................................... 143 Religion ..................................................................................................................... 147 Economy .................................................................................................................... 147 Decline of the Site ..................................................................................................... 155 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 159 CHAPTER 5: THE POTTERY ................................................................................................. 161 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 161 The Excavations ................................................................................................................. 161 Assariotaki Plot......................................................................................................... 163 Pangalou Plot ........................................................................................................... 165 Yiomelaki Plot ........................................................................................................... 168 Study Methodology............................................................................................................ 174 Selection of Catalogue Pottery ................................................................................. 175 Phasing ..................................................................................................................... 176 Quantification ........................................................................................................... 178 Format of the Catalogue..................................................................................................... 180 Part 1: Hellenistic Pottery ....................................................................................................... 182 East Cretan Cream Ware ................................................................................................... 182 Finewares .................................................................................................................. 184 viii

Common Wares ......................................................................................................... 193 Amphorae .................................................................................................................. 197 Lamps ........................................................................................................................ 199 Finewares – Cretan ............................................................................................................ 200 Finewares – Imported ........................................................................................................ 206 Attic ........................................................................................................................... 209 Aegean....................................................................................................................... 210 Lagynos Ware ........................................................................................................... 211 Gray Wares ................................................................................................................ 212 Mold-Made Bowls ...................................................................................................... 216 Pergamene Sigillata ................................................................................................... 218 Common Wares ................................................................................................................. 218 Basins ......................................................................................................................... 220 Jars ............................................................................................................................ 222 Pithoi .......................................................................................................................... 224 Cookwares.......................................................................................................................... 224 Casseroles ................................................................................................................. 226 Cookpots ................................................................................................................... 228 Jars ............................................................................................................................ 229 Brazier Lugs .............................................................................................................. 230 Amphorae ........................................................................................................................... 232 Crete.......................................................................................................................... 235 Italy ........................................................................................................................... 237 Knidos ....................................................................................................................... 238 Kos ............................................................................................................................ 239 Rhodes ....................................................................................................................... 239 Thasos ....................................................................................................................... 240 Unidentified............................................................................................................... 241 Stamped Handles ...................................................................................................... 242 Part 2: Roman Pottery ............................................................................................................. 244 Finewares – Cretan ............................................................................................................ 244 Finewares - Imported ......................................................................................................... 249 Eastern Sigillata A .................................................................................................... 249 Eastern Sigillata B .................................................................................................... 253 ix

Italian Sigillata ......................................................................................................... 259 Cypriot Sigillata ........................................................................................................ 263 Pontic Sigillata.......................................................................................................... 265 Çandarli Ware .......................................................................................................... 267 Corinthian Relief Ware ............................................................................................. 271 African Red-Slip ........................................................................................................ 272 Phocaean Red-Slip .................................................................................................... 280 Cypriot Red-Slip........................................................................................................ 287 Egyptian Red-Slip ..................................................................................................... 288 Common Wares ................................................................................................................. 289 Basins ........................................................................................................................ 292 Bottles ....................................................................................................................... 296 Bowls ......................................................................................................................... 297 Jugs/Jars ................................................................................................................... 298 Lids............................................................................................................................ 301 Pithoi/Storage Jars ................................................................................................... 301 Small Pots ................................................................................................................. 302 Tubs ........................................................................................................................... 304 Votive Dishes ............................................................................................................ 305 Unidentified Shapes .................................................................................................. 305 Cookwares.......................................................................................................................... 306 Casseroles ................................................................................................................. 310 Cookpots ................................................................................................................... 312 Frying Pans ............................................................................................................... 316 Lids............................................................................................................................ 319 Jars ............................................................................................................................ 319 Pompeian Red Ware ................................................................................................. 320 Amphorae .......................................................................................................................... 322 Crete.......................................................................................................................... 325 Aegean....................................................................................................................... 337 Africa......................................................................................................................... 342 Egypt ......................................................................................................................... 346 Italy ........................................................................................................................... 347 Spain ......................................................................................................................... 350 x

Syria-Palestine .......................................................................................................... 351 Unknown Provenance ............................................................................................... 353 Unidentified............................................................................................................... 354 Lamps ................................................................................................................................. 357 Miscellaneous .................................................................................................................... 362 Part 3: Pottery from Kato Mertia ............................................................................................ 365 Late Hellenistic ......................................................................................................... 366 Early Roman ............................................................................................................. 367 Late Roman ............................................................................................................... 369 Late Antique .............................................................................................................. 370 CHAPTER 6: IERAPETRA AND CRETE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE ................................. 373 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 373 Analytical Concepts ........................................................................................................... 375 Difficulties of Economic Reconstruction .................................................................. 375 Theoretical Background............................................................................................ 378 Free Market versus the Command Economy ............................................................ 381 The Function of Ports ............................................................................................... 387 Growth versus Decline .............................................................................................. 391 Assessment of Quantification .................................................................................... 393 Late Hellenistic .................................................................................................................. 394 Ierapetra in the Late Hellenistic Period ................................................................... 395 Ierapetra and its Chora in the Late Hellenistic Period ............................................ 400 Ierapetra and Late Hellenistic Crete ........................................................................ 404 Crete and the Hellenistic Economy........................................................................... 407 Proto-Roman ...................................................................................................................... 416 Ierapetra in the Proto-Roman Period ....................................................................... 418 Ierapetra and Crete’s Developing Trade Relations.................................................. 425 Early Roman ...................................................................................................................... 430 Ierapetra in the Early Roman Period ....................................................................... 431 Crete and Cyrenaica ................................................................................................. 446 Ierapetra, Crete, and the Early Roman Economy..................................................... 452 Late Roman ........................................................................................................................ 467 Ierapetra in the Late Roman Period ......................................................................... 468 xi

Crete’s Changing Economic Role ............................................................................. 476 Late Antique....................................................................................................................... 480 Ierapetra in Late Antiquity........................................................................................ 481 Crete’s Economic Role in Late Antiquity.................................................................. 487 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 497 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 499 Bibliography and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 503 Tables and Illustrations ............................................................................................................... 554

xii

LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS (Appended at End)

TABLES 1.1

Survey Chronologies for Roman Crete

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10

Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Contexts of Unknown Date Assariotaki Plot Raw Data Proto-Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Proto-Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types Pangalou Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Proto-Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts

5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24

xiii

5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44 5.45 5.46 5.47 5.48 5.49 5.50 5.51 5.52

Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Proto-Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Contexts of Unknown Date Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Proto-Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae xiv

5.53 5.54 5.55 5.56

from Proto-Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types

FIGURES 1.1 1.2 1.3

Map of Sites on Crete Referred to in Dissertation Architectural Remains from Ierapetra Sarcophagus Lid from Ierapetra

2.1

Map of Metellus‟ Conquest of Crete

3.1 3.2

Map of Survey Projects Carried out on Crete Map of Roman Poleis which Minted Coins

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4. 4.5 4.6 4.7

Map of the Isthmus of Ierapetra with Modern Towns Labeled Map of Modern Ierapetra Roman Mole in Harbor of Ierapetra Onorio Belli‟s Plan of the Large Theater at Ierapetra Onorio Belli‟s Plan of the Small Theater at Ierapetra Bronze Age and Iron Age Sites in the Isthmus of Ierapetra Bronze Age and Iron Age Sherds from the Yiomelaki Plot, Ierapetra Map of Hellenistic Cretan Poleis which Negotiated Treaties with Ierapetra Map of Hellenistic Regions in Eastern Mediterranean which Negotiated Treaties with Ierapetra Possible Location of Ierapetra‟s Hellenistic Harbor Estimated Chora of Ierapetra at the End of the Second Century B.C.E. Findspots of Amphora Stamps from Ierapetra Sites on Crete which Produced Hellenistic Amphorae Plan of Ierapetra Drawn by Ian Sanders Seasonal Stream Demarcating Western Limit of Ancient Ierapetra Hypothetical Extent of Roman Ierapetra

4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16

xv

4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10

5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17

Possible Location of Cardo Maximus and Decumanus Maximus in Ancient Ierapetra Location of Identified Ancient Structures in Ierapetra Wall Situated Along Shoreline of Ierapetra Reconstruction of Formal Administrative Chora of Roman Ierapetra Reconstruction of Broader Economic and Administrative District under the Control of Roman Ierapetra Map Showing Locations of Port Sites on Crete Sites on Crete which Produced Roman Amphorae Katalimata Monasteraki in the Cha Gorge Location of Three Rescue Excavation Plots Plan of the Assariotaki Plot Sites on Crete with Published Roman Pottery ECCW Cups (1-5, 7-9), Kantharoi (10-13), Cylindrical Jugs (14), Bowls (15-17, 19) ECCW Bowls (18, 20-23), Plates (27-30), Basins (32, 34) ECCW Basins (33, 35, 37-42), Kraters (43), Hydriae (44-45) ECCW Hydriae (46), Pithoi (47-49), Amphorae (50-55) ECCW Amphorae (56-61), Lamps (62). Local Fineware Bowls (64-68) Local Fineware Bowls (69-71), Plates (72-76), Skyphoi (77). Imported Fineware Cups (80-82), Kantharoi (84) Imported Fineware Cups (83), Plates (85), Kraters (86-87). Lagynos Ware (89). Gray Ware Cups (90-91), Bowls (92), Plates (93-97, 100). Gray Ware Jars (101-103). Common Ware Basins (108-110, 112-114) Common Ware Basins (111, 115-118). Common Ware Jars (119-120) Common Ware Jars (121-125). Common Ware Pithoi (127). Casseroles (128-135). Casseroles (136-137). Cookpots (138-141). Jars (142-143). Amphorae (146-147) Amphorae (148-152, 154-155, 157-161, 163). Local Fineware Cups (168) Local Fineware Cups (169), Bowls (170-172), Plates (173-174), Jars (175), Lids (176). Eastern Sigillata A (177-184) Eastern Sigillata A (185-186). Eastern Sigillata B (188-201). xvi

5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44

Italian Sigillata (203-208, 210) Italian Sigillata (213). Cypriot Sigillata (214). Pontic Sigillata (215, 217). Çandarli (218-226) Çandarli (228-229). African Red-Slip (231-232, 234-246, 248-249, 254) African Red-Slip (250-253, 255-256). Phocaean Red-Slip (259-266, 268) Phocaean Red-Slip (267, 270-280) Cypriot Red-Slip (283). Egyptian Red-Slip (284). Common Ware Basins (285-292) Common Ware Basins (293-303) Common Ware Basins (304). Common Ware Bottles (305, 307). Common Ware Bowls (308-311). Common Ware Jars (313-315) Common Ware Jars (316-317, 320, 322). Common Ware Pithoi (324-327). Common Ware Small Pots (328-332, 335) Common Ware Small Pots (333-334, 336-338). Common Ware Tubs (340). Common Ware Votive Dishes (341). Casseroles (344, 348). Cookpots (353, 361) Casseroles (345-347, 349). Cookpots (350, 351, 359) Cookpots (352, 354-357, 362) Cookpots (358, 360, 363-365, 367, 369) Cookpots (366, 368). Frying Pans (370-373, 376, 382) Frying Pans (374-375, 377-379, 384) Frying Pans (380-381, 383, 385). Cookware Lids (387-389) Cookware Jars (390-391). Pompeian Red Ware (392-395). Cretan Amphorae (400-401, 404) Cretan Amphorae (397-399, 402-403, 405-406, 408, 410) Cretan Amphorae (407, 409, 411, 413, 416-419, 424) Cretan Amphorae (420-421, 423, 425-426, 434) Cretan Amphorae (422, 427-430, 433) Cretan Amphorae (431, 435). Aegean Amphorae (438-440, 445-447). African Amphorae (455, 462) Aegean Amphorae (442-444, 450). African Amphorae (451-454, 458). Italian Amphorae (469) African Amphorae (456-457, 459-461). Egyptian Amphorae (463). Italian Amphorae (467). Spanish Amphorae (470). Syria-Palestine Amphorae (472) Syria-Palestine Amphorae (473-477). Knossos 18 Amphorae (478-479). Unidentified Amphorae (480-481) Unidentified Amphorae (482, 485-486, 488). Lamps (493, 507). Amphora Stands (513-514) Location of Kato Mertia Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Hellenistic (KM1-KM7); Early Roman (KM10, KM12) xvii

5.45 5.46 5.47 5.48 5.49 5.50 5.51 5.52 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16

Kato Mertia Pottery: Early Roman (KM9, KM11, KM13, KM16-KM27, KM30); Late Roman (KM41) Kato Mertia Pottery: Early Roman (KM28-KM29, KM31KM37); Late Roman (KM40, KM42-KM43, KM46-KM48) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Roman (KM44-KM45, KM49KM51, KM54); Late Antique (KM56-KM62) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Roman (KM52-KM53, KM55); Late Antique (KM63-KM73) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM74-KM77, KM80KM81, KM83) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM77, KM79, KM84KM85, KM88) Kato Mertia Pottery (KM86-KM87, KM89) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM90-KM93). Location of Hellenistic Settlements in Isthmus of Ierapetra Administrative Centers on Roman Crete Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Ierapetra Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Gortyn Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Eleutherna Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Berenice View of Isthmus of Ierapetra from Dikte Mountains Standard Cretan Amphora Forms of the Early Roman Period Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Ierapetra Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Gortyn Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Eleutherna MRC Cretan Amphora Types Distribution of Cretan Amphorae from Fourth to Fifth Century C.E. Examples of TRC Ovoid and Cylindrical Amphora Types Examples of TRC Globular Amphora Types Distribution of Cretan Amphorae from Sixth to Seventh Century C.E.

PLATES 5.1 5.2 5.3

East Cretan Cream Ware East Cretan Cream Ware; Late Hellenistic Pottery; Early Roman Pottery Amphora Stamps; Early Roman Pottery xviii

5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique Pottery Late Roman Amphorae Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique Pottery and Lamps Miscellaneous Objects and Kato Mertia Pottery

xix

ABSTRACT

The overall aim of this study is a comprehensive analysis of the Cretan polis of Ierapetra during the Roman period and the consideration of the role of this center within the broader historical and economic contexts of Roman Crete and the Mediterranean as a whole. To accomplish this goal, consideration is given first to some broader issues concerning Roman Crete. This includes asking how and when the island became Roman, what is the time span for which the designation „Roman Crete‟ is relevant, what factors led to Crete‟s administrative, economic, and cultural transformation into a Roman territory, and when does Crete cease to be Roman. These topics have not been sufficiently addressed in the scholarship of Roman Crete, and a preliminary evaluation provides a foundation from which to gain a better understanding of the history of Ierapetra. Following an assessment of the types of evidence available to scholars of Roman Crete and of the way in which secondary literature has made use of these sources, the discussion turns to Ierapetra and an attempt to provide an overview of our current level of understanding of the city. Topics addressed include the earliest history of the site, reconstructions of the topography, territory, politics, religion, and economy of the Late Hellenistic and Roman poleis, and the postantique transformation of the site into an archaeological relic. At the heart of the study is the analysis of three ceramic assemblages recovered from rescue excavations in the western part of Ierapetra. A fourth assemblage from the rural site of Kato Mertia, located approximately 6.5km north of Ierapetra, also was examined. Recording a diachronic history of the city from circa 150 B.C.E. to the seventh century C.E., this pottery shows that Ierapetra grew into a major Cretan polis in the Late Hellenistic period and reached the

xx

apex of its prosperity in the Early Roman period due to its role as a transshipment port for goods being transported across the Mediterranean. Diocletian and Constantine‟s Empire-wide reorganizations changed the Mediterranean economic landscape, leading to Ierapetra‟s decline when Cretan trade focused on other ports. This decline continued unabated until the city was a shell of its former self by the seventh century. Thus, this outline shows the historical trajectory of an eastern polis and demonstrates that its rise and fall are connected directly to pan-Mediterranean exchange networks. By building on connectivity models proposed by P. Horden and N. Purcell in The Corrupting Sea, an additional outcome is the use of Ierapetra, and Crete as a whole, as proxies for understanding the evolving economic relationships between the eastern and western Mediterranean throughout the course of the Roman Empire.

xxi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

In his study of formation processes in the archaeological record, M.B. Schiffer notes that “…neither the historic record nor the archaeological record gives up its secrets about the past easily”.1 For anyone who studies Roman Crete, this observation is a sobering reminder of the obstacles in place. The island of Crete has always served as a haven for Bronze Age and Iron Age scholars, with the Roman period serving as a minor backdrop to a more illustrious past. Neglected for the most part by ancient authors and modern archaeologists, only recently has the Roman history of Crete begun to reveal its secrets (Fig. 1.1). Perhaps no site on the island has been more reticent to divulge its past than Ierapetra, a city located along the southeast coast. The few scraps of ancient testimonia that remain, along with descriptions recorded by travelers from the fifteenth through the nineteenth century, indicate that Ierapetra would have been one of the largest cities of Hellenistic and Roman Crete. Its position as a port city suggests much of its prosperity must have derived from economic connections. The city remains understudied, however. Fundamental questions, such as when was the site founded, what was its size and topography, how and when did the city rise to prominence, and when did it go into decline, are rarely, if ever, addressed. R. Osborne observes that archaeological attention devoted to Roman Greece as a whole remains limited, and although Roman Crete has witnessed something of a growth in interest over the past two decades, attention directed toward Ierapetra continues to be negligible.2 While a study of Ierapetra alone

1 2

Schiffer 1987: 7. Osborne 2004: 89.

1

cannot provide the final piece of the puzzle for a holistic understanding of Roman Crete, it can serve as an important step toward understanding the Roman history of the island. A fundamental difficulty with studying Ierapetra is the almost complete lack of visible archaeological remains. Wandering through the modern city leaves one with few indications that an ancient site once occupied this location. Architectural and sculptural remains appear next to park benches or on street corners in a few random spots (Figs. 1.2, 1.3), but the presence of an ancient city is masked. Thus, one important goal is to reintroduce the city of Ierapetra to modern scholarship and provide a comprehensive overview of the site based on previously published data and the analysis of several ceramic assemblages obtained from rescue excavations. Any study of a topic concerning Roman Crete also must address another important issue. For lack of a better term, scholars who have engaged in answering questions concerning the Roman period of the island have been somewhat insular in their focus. Studies rarely consider broader issues of the Roman world, a point emphasized by W.V. Harris.3 Even relationships such as Crete‟s union with Cyrenaica as a joint province from at least 27 B.C.E. until circa 295 C.E. are underemphasized. The primary consequence is that scholars working outside of Crete are unfamiliar with the history of the island and its potential for shedding light on economic connections across the Mediterranean. In addition to providing an overview of Ierapetra, this study will attempt to integrate the city, and Roman Crete as a whole, into broader discussions of the Roman economy. As a transshipment point along trade routes between the eastern and western Mediterranean, Crete can serve as a proxy for understanding changing relationships between these two regions. The following chapter begins the analysis with the consideration of several methodological queries concerning the study of Roman Crete. Only in the past two decades has 3

Harris 1999: 353.

2

the island‟s Roman period history become a significant point of focus and several important questions remain unaddressed. For instance, how and when did Crete become Roman? What administrative, economic, and cultural changes brought about this transformation? How did Crete evolve under Roman hegemony during the course of the Empire? When and why did Crete cease to be Roman? While this study does not claim to have definitive answers to all of these questions, it will seek to clarify our understanding of Roman Crete and the processes that brought about its creation, prosperity, and decline. This assessment will also provide a contextual foundation on which an analysis of the polis of Ierapetra can be founded. In addition, a systematic chronology for Roman Crete will be presented, with the aim of providing explicit date ranges for different periods to facilitate comparison with other studies. Chapter 3 examines the various types of evidence available to scholars of Roman Crete, how they have been employed, and further research questions for which they can be used. Sources of evidence that are discussed include travelers‟ accounts, archaeological data, literary sources, epigraphic texts, and numismatic finds. Most of these sources have limitations based on sporadic preservation and inadequate publication, but a critical appraisal shows the breadth of information available to scholars. An effort also will be made to document the relevance of these sources to the study of Ierapetra. Finally, secondary literature concerning Roman Crete will be assessed to demonstrate progress made in the study of this period of the island‟s history. Focus shifts to the city of Ierapetra in Chapter 4. A primary aim here is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge of the site. Included in this overview is an examination of the earliest history of the site, an assessment of the topography, territory, politics, religion, and economy of both the Late Hellenistic and Roman poleis, a consideration of when and why the site may have gone into decline, and a reflection on the post-antique

3

transformation of Ierapetra into an archaeological relic. Discussion will include the Late Hellenistic period in order to document the development of the site prior to Roman conquest and provide a context for Ierapetra‟s growth under Roman rule. The overall goal of this chapter is to document the limitations of our current understanding of the site and to introduce a series of questions to be addressed in subsequent chapters. For example, what are the qualitative and quantitative differences between the economy of Late Hellenistic and Roman Ierapetra? How integrated was the city in the Roman economy? How does Ierapetra compare to other poleis on Crete? Does the decline of the site reflect a shift in economic focus to other parts of the island? A detailed presentation of ceramic assemblages from three rescue excavations in the city of Ierapetra comprises Chapter 5. An additional assemblage from the rural site of Kato Mertia, located approximately 6.5km north of the city, was analyzed to provide comparative material from Ierapetra‟s chora. Over 500kg of material was studied, dating from the second century B.C.E. to the seventh century C.E. Hellenistic and Roman pottery is presented separately, and the ceramics within each section are divided by functional class. The final chapter offers a synthesis of the ceramic data and the implications of this material for understanding the history of Late Hellenistic and Roman Ierapetra. In addition, it considers the potential role of the city, and Crete as a whole, in the broader Mediterranean economy. To serve as a theoretical foundation for this synthesis, several concepts from P. Horden and N. Purcell‟s work, The Corrupting Sea, will be employed. The discussion is chronological and reassesses the picture of Ierapetra and the Cretan economy in a diachronic outline. A primary aim is an improved understanding of the historical trajectory of the site from its rise in the Hellenistic period to its decline in Late Antiquity. The integration of Ierapetra, and Crete, into discussions of the Roman economy will also demonstrate the ability of this region to

4

serve as a proxy for understanding changes in East-West trade relations over the course of the Roman Empire. In the past few decades, modern Ierapetra has undergone numerous changes, including an economic resurgence due to a rapidly expanding agricultural enterprise based on greenhouse crops. Expansion and development resulting from this enterprise have increased the need for the local Archaeological Service to conduct rescue excavations to document Ierapetra‟s ancient ruins. While these individuals express frustration at the random nature of these excavations and the pressures imposed by development, archaeologists working in Ierapetra convey hope that future digs will continue to fill in lacunae in our picture of the city. Nikos Papadakis, the former head of the Archaeological Service, offers perhaps the best summary of the difficulties facing archaeological research in Ierapetra, and the benefits that can derive from this work: Today the Archaeological Service is really waging war against the materialistic interests that demand the obliteration of our past, controlling building in the Vigliá district which has been declared an archaeological area, looking after certain noteworthy ruins and collecting up all finds that appear. However it is almost impossible to excavate the whole area of the ruins of Hierápytna which, if it were only possible, could become one of Crete‟s most important archaeological centers both for research and for the visitor.4 Ierapetra has been neglected for too long and the time has come for the city, and Crete, to reveal their pasts and stake their claims in Roman history.

4

Papadakis 1986: 37.

5

CHAPTER 2 DEFINING ROMAN CRETE

INTRODUCTION The overall aim of this study is a comprehensive analysis of the polis of Ierapetra during the Roman period and the consideration of the role of this center within the broader historical and economic contexts of Roman Crete and the Mediterranean as a whole. A significant obstacle lies in the path of undertaking this project, however. Roman Crete has become the focus of increasing scholarly attention only recently. This is illustrated well by a conference held in 2000 entitled Creta romana e protobizantina, and the subsequent publication of a four volume proceedings containing 92 papers.1 In previous decades, only a small number of scholars engaged in answering the myriad questions pertaining to Crete‟s Roman history. While this long overdue intensification of study is heartening, certain essential issues have remained overlooked. Specifically, we must address how and when Crete became Roman.2 To properly define Roman Crete involves a number of different issues. How did Hellenistic Crete differ from Roman Crete? What was Rome‟s relationship with the island prior to conquest? Is there evidence of Romanization before Crete was brought under Rome‟s control? Can we use the conquest of the island between 69 and 67 B.C.E. as the definitive turning point for the creation of Roman Crete? There are also conceptual issues to address. For instance, on what types of social and cultural beliefs did the Romans have to build? How should Crete be considered as an administrative unit and did this change over time? Can the island be considered 1

Livadiotti and Simiakaki 2004. G. Harrison (1988) provides a detailed overview of the historical and archaeological evidence associated with Rome‟s early contact with Crete. My own aim in addressing this issue is to focus the discussion onto the question of what do we mean by the term “Roman Crete”. 2

6

as a single entity or was there regional variation? Consideration of Crete under Roman rule introduces several additional questions. Should the overall conception of Roman Crete be thought of as static or did it evolve? How did the shift of the Roman Empire into western and eastern administrative units affect Crete? Can we document the creation of a Christian society on the island and does this influence our notion of Crete in later centuries? At what point should we no longer consider Crete to be Roman and instead place it firmly in the Byzantine world? Underlying most, if not all, of the above questions is the fact that there is no standardized chronology in place for discussing Roman Crete. Different scholars and projects have their own conceptions of periods in Cretan history. While terms such as Early Roman and Late Roman are in common use, the dates associated with these phases tend to be divergent. This affects the ability to compare data. Thus, along with addressing the above questions, and in essence attempting to define Roman Crete, an additional necessity is the elucidation of a chronological scheme for the island. The first part of this chapter will examine the history of Rome‟s relations with Crete, while the second part will introduce the chronology to be used throughout this study.

CRETE AND ROME Hellenistic Crete Crete found itself in a unique position after the death of Alexander the Great and the dawning of the Hellenistic era. The island was the only part of Greece to remain untouched after Alexander‟s wave of conquest. There are no clear indications as to why Crete was ignored, but one could imagine that the death of Alexander may not have represented as significant an event for Cretans as it did for other Greeks.

7

Despite the island‟s avoidance of the turmoil of the latter part of the fourth century B.C.E., ancient sources do not portray Hellenistic Crete as peaceful. Our main source of historical knowledge for this period, Polybius, whose account borders on polemic, consistently describes Crete as war-torn and home to men of deplorable values. Later authors, including Livy, often adopt this same view, creating what became the accepted interpretation of the island. G. Harrison suggests that Polybius‟ negative attitude toward Crete was the product of its lack of support for Greece during the numerous conflicts of the period, particularly at the Battle of Pydna.3 Whatever the reason, scholars have begun to examine Hellenistic Crete in a more critical light. According to P. de Souza, the economic and political strength of Crete at the time of Roman conquest is evidence of more prosperity than ancient sources tend to acknowledge.4 A certain degree of conflict is undeniable, based on the large number of preserved treaties between city-states, but these texts also provide indications of extensive relations across Crete.5 The existence of a Hellenistic θοηλόλ on the island implies some degree of cooperation between citystates, although S.L. Ager does not believe that this Cretan θοηλόλ had as extensive an organizational structure as other Greek federal leagues.6 Numerous difficulties remain in attempting to characterize the island during this period, even as the scholarly opinion of Hellenistic Crete changes. One problem is the invisibility of Hellenistic Crete in ancient sources and modern research programs. The island‟s apparent limited role in major events of Hellenistic history results in only scant mentions within literary sources, and the small number of thoroughly investigated Hellenistic sites further hinders research. Survey archaeology has succeeded in filling in some gaps by providing an increasingly cogent

3

Harrison 1994: 137. de Souza 1998: 112. 5 The main source for these treaties is Chaniotis 1996. 6 Ager 1994: 2. See also Mijnsbrugge 1931: 73. 4

8

picture of settlement during this period, and the results from excavations at Eleutherna, Trypetos, and Mochlos should also augment our current state of knowledge as they become available. Interpreting the slight historical presence of Hellenistic Crete in the literary record, however, continues to be a two-fold problem. First, how do we explain Crete‟s reduced role in Hellenistic history compared to other regions? And second, when we do possess references to the island, can we accept them at face value? With respect to the first question, we do not possess the relevant information to assess why Crete was isolated from the events of Hellenistic Greece, or why the island chose to avoid participation in these events. For the second question, ancient authors, following Polybius, tend to view Crete in a negative light, meaning scholar must assess critically any references they encounter. Within the complex picture that is Hellenistic Crete lie clues to defining the island‟s relationship with Rome as it evolved from initial contact to conquest. E. Gruen has outlined the difficulty of this task for Hellenistic Greece as a whole by asking “... to what extent did Rome undertake official commitments in the Greek East, on what models, and to what ends?”7 Rome was successful in avoiding any strict responsibilities and instead fostered a series of informal alliances. This appears compatible with the available evidence for Crete. No treaties exist between Cretan poleis and Rome, and it is not until the conquest of the island that Rome attempted any direct intervention into the island‟s affairs. How then did Roman interaction with Crete evolve?

7

Gruen 1984: 13.

9

The Creation of Roman Crete A. Chaniotis states that “the coming of Rome was the most significant turning point in the history of Crete since the destruction of the Minoan palaces”.8 Roman contact with Crete began long before any attempt to conquer the island. The earliest attested connection occurred at some point between 217 and 209 B.C.E. when a certain Leukios, son of Gaios, dedicated a well and nymphaeon at the site of Itanos to Ptolemy IV Philopater and Arsinoë (IC 3.4.18).9 This provides a terminus ante quem for some type of Roman presence on the island. At the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 B.C.E., the interaction between Rome and Crete appears more official, since Livy (33.3.10) records a contingent from the city of Gortyn fighting with Rome. S. Alcock traces the overall starting point for the history of Roman Greece “at least to the beginning of the second century BC and the Second Macedonian War (200-197 BC),” suggesting contact with Crete solidified during a period of intensifying relations with the Greek world.10 Not long afterward, the first involvement of Rome in Crete‟s affairs is attested. In 194 B.C.E., during treaty negotiations with Nabis of Sparta, Rome ordered Nabis to abandon his relations with Crete (Livy 34.35.9). Specifically, he had to hand over control of his possessions on Crete to Rome. No names of cities are provided, and it is questionable whether Rome did exert direct control over any Cretan poleis at this time. If there were cities under her control, Gortyn was not one of them since, in the following year, Hannibal was given temporary refuge there (Nep. Hann. 9). Rome played the role of arbitrator during numerous treaty negotiations between antagonistic poleis in the second century B.C.E. As Gruen notes, the institution of interstate arbitration was predominately Greek, and Rome‟s initial dealings with this type of mediation

8

Chaniotis 2008: 83. Baldwin Bowsky 2001: 35. 10 Alcock 1993: 9. 9

10

were with Greek states in southern Italy.11 The Roman Senate does not appear to have been comfortable with assuming the role of arbitrator in the eastern Mediterranean in the early second century B.C.E.12 As Roman power in Greece expanded, however, the Senate began to welcome requests for arbitration, although Gruen questions whether this was done congenially or in an attempt to solidify control over the eastern Mediterranean.13 The earliest example of Roman assistance in interstate arbitration on Crete occurred in 189 B.C.E. when Q. Fabius Labeo helped to negotiate a treaty between Kydonia and an alliance of Gortyn and Knossos (Livy 37.60). He also attempted to secure the release of numerous Romans and Italians (who were born of Italy, but presumably not Roman citizens) said to be prisoners throughout the island, but only Gortyn complied. Five years later, Roman arbitration aided in resolving a land dispute between Gortyn and Knossos after the former had annexed some lands of Knossos (Polyb. 22.15).14 Roman assistance was again requested in 174 B.C.E. when, according to Livy (41.25.7), a certain Quintus Minucius arrived on the island to address problems that had arisen. Livy does not specify what these problems were or which poleis were involved, and the resulting treaty lasted for only six months. Tiberius Claudius Nero and Marcus Decimus came two years later to renew friendships and to ascertain Crete‟s feelings toward Perseus, the king of Macedonia (Livy 42.19.8). Rome was soon at war with Perseus and this conflict provides important, if not ambiguous, information about her relations with Crete, since mercenaries from the island are recorded fighting both with and against Roman forces.15

11

Gruen 1984: 99-101. Gruen (1984: 101-5) records several early examples including failed attempts to negotiate with Philip V in 198 B.C.E. and with Antiochus III in 196 B.C.E. 13 Gruen 1984: 105. 14 The Roman commission, which included Appius Claudius, convinced Gortyn to return to Knossos the lands that had been annexed. 15 For Cretan mercenaries fighting with Rome against Perseus, see Livy 42.35.6-8. For Cretan mercenaries from Phalasarna and Knossos fighting with Perseus, see Livy 42.51.7. The origin of Cretans fighting with Rome is not provided, but one could hypothesize that at least some of these men came from Gortyn. Later in his work, Livy 12

11

Roman assistance in treaty negotiations on Crete continued into the second half of the second century B.C.E. An embassy from Rhodes convinced the Roman Senate in 154/153 B.C.E.to send a commission to help negotiate an end to their war with Crete (Polyb. 33.15.3-4). Mediation also was still required between poleis on the island, and one of the most complex episodes of Roman arbitration soon followed. In 145 B.C.E., following the death of Ptolemy VI Philometer, a Ptolemaic garrison stationed at Itanos, located in the far northeastern corner of the island, was withdrawn. The city of Ierapetra quickly took advantage of this situation and launched an invasion of the territory of Praisos, 22km southwest of Itanos, resulting in the destruction of this polis. Ierapetra also seized control of the sanctuary of Zeus Diktaios in northeast Crete and the island of Kouphonisi, located off the southeast corner of the island. Both had been under Itanian control.16 A Roman arbitrator, Servius Sulpicius, arrived on Crete in 141 B.C.E. to negotiate an end to this conflict, but Itanos felt his decision was unfavorable and appealed to the Roman Senate.17 The Senate asked the city of Magnesia on the Meander in Asia Minor to serve as arbitrator, but their decision in favor of Itanos did not quell the hostilities. By 112 B.C.E., the conflict had renewed and the Roman consul L. Calpurnius Piso again requested that Magnesia serve as arbitrator. The decision was still in favor of Itanos.18 A point of significance is that both poleis would accept the Roman decision to hand over mediation to a third party.

(43.7.1-4 – 170 B.C.E.) tells us that a Cretan embassy at Rome agreed to recall all of the mercenaries serving with Perseus, and at the end of the conflict (44.25.8 – 168 B.C.E.), Gortyn was the location to which hostages of Perseus and Eumenes were sent. 16 Evidence for this dispute is epigraphical. The inscriptions in question are IC 3.4.9 and 3.4.10. The first, 3.4.9, is a composite of two identical inscriptions, one found at Itanos, the other at Magnesia on the Meander in Asia Minor. For discussions of these texts, see Guarducci 1942: 91-111; Sherk 1969: 78-85 (document 14=IC 3.4.10); Ager 1996: 431-46; Chaniotis 1996: 307-10 (treaty 49=IC 3.4.9), 333-7 (treaty 57=IC 3.4.10). 17 cf. Ager 1996: 443. 18 cf. Chaniotis 1996: 335-6.

12

Rome‟s role as arbitrator in Cretan treaty negotiations provides important insight into the social and administrative structures of Hellenistic Crete. We should not consider Hellenistic Crete as simply a war-torn island, but the number of attested conflicts is conspicuous. At this time, Crete was not a unified island and instead functioned as a conglomeration of independent city-states whose alliances with one another were fluid. The relationship between Gortyn and Knossos is a good illustration of this since their position as allies or enemies changed regularly. A Hellenistic Cretan koinon did exist, but is considered by scholars to have been much more unstable than other federal leagues which arose in the Greek world.19 Only when Gortyn and Knossos were in accord does it appear that this koinon could exist. This would have been to Rome‟s advantage during her conquest since there was no long-standing tradition of unification from which Crete could manage an effective resistance. There is little evidence to suggest that Rome‟s initial relationship with Crete extended beyond its position as mediator. While there is the literary attestation of Nabis of Sparta handing over his Cretan possessions to Rome, no supporting evidence exists that Rome gained control of any part of the island before the first century B.C.E. Crete, thus, may serve as a paradigm for Gruen‟s view of Roman arbitration in Greece when he states: “Roman envoys made repeated trips abroad, giving the appearance of interest and paying lip service to Hellenic complaints. Seldom could they boast of tangible accomplishments”.20 Consideration of the lack of evidence for Romanization on Crete during the third and second centuries B.C.E. corroborates this view. In this case, we can view Romanization as the adoption or presence of Roman religious and political institutions, architectural styles, Latin usage, Roman nomina, or western material culture. None of these are apparent on Crete at any point during the Hellenistic period, with the

19 20

Mijnsbrugge 1931: 73; Ager 1994: 2. Gruen 1984: 130.

13

exception of Roman names. M. Baldwin Bowsky suggests that most Roman names attested during the second and first century B.C.E. belong to Romans and not to Cretans or other Greeks who had adopted Roman nomina.21 This adheres to a pattern in the Greek East where traders followed Senators who were on official business. There are few other indications of western influences. With respect to pottery, for instance, Ierapetra is the only site to have produced evidence of Italian ceramics before the first century B.C.E.22 According to P. van Dommelen and N. Terrenato, the relevance of Romanization “... has proven to be somewhat problematic for Mediterranean contexts: in many regions, Roman impact turns out, at first sight, to be rather minimal, especially after initial conquest and in the first centuries of Republican rule”.23 While Crete adheres to this general paradigm, processes of Romanization would have been different in the eastern and western Mediterranean. Numerous scholars suggest that the impact of Roman institutions and material culture in the eastern Mediterranean was minimal. C. Bradford Welles, for example, argues that the only tangible indication of Romanization in the Greek world is the increased presence of Roman names.24 M. Rostovtzeff offers a similar opinion when stating that “… the „romanization‟ of the Hellenistic world was slight, the „hellenization‟ of the steadily expanding Latin world much more conspicuous”.25 Alcock has refined Rostovtzeff‟s idea and believes that a significant feature of the Roman presence in the Greek world was a revival of Greek culture.26 As Rome‟s control solidified, large numbers of Roman citizens desiring Greek educations arrived from the West. These Romans had

21

Baldwin Bowsky 2001: 37. Platon 1951: 449. He reports finds of Gnathian black-glaze vessels at the site. 23 van Dommelen and Terrenato 2007: 7. 24 Bradford Welles 1965: 42-5. 25 Rostovtzeff 1941: 1301. 26 Alcock 1993: 16-7. 22

14

specific expectations concerning Greek culture and Alcock argues that this caused “… the Greeks to redefine themselves and their achievements under Roman rule”.27 This eventually led to the rise of the Second Sophistic movement during the second and third centuries C.E. Roman expansion into the Greek East, thus, did influence the population, although this appears to be more of a rehellenization of traditional cultural values rather than the adoption of western customs. One important caveat concerning this viewpoint, however, is that Alcock‟s focus is primarily on mainland Greece, specifically the province of Achaia. The influx of western Romans seeking an association with Greek culture may not have been as strong in other regions. On Crete, this phenomenon is difficult to identify based on available evidence. G. Harrison believes that high proportions of imported Roman finewares and amphorae encountered during surveys in eastern Crete argue for an active degree of Romanization.28 Pottery evidence provides little indication of cultural or administrative changes, however, and is not proof that Cretans were becoming Romanized. Mosaic evidence from Knossos, described by R. Sweetman, can offer some additional insight. The earliest attested mosaics from the Knossos region, datable to the first century C.E., both employ a black-and-white style reminiscent of western types.29 Sweetman suggests this could relate to the presence of Italian settlers at Knossos. K. Dunbabin argues that similar finds of black-and-white mosaics datable to the first century C.E. at several Greek sites indicate a strong Italian tradition at this time.30 By the early second century, an eastern style based on the Greek preference for grids becomes predominate at Knossos. As a

27

Alcock 1993: 17. Harrison 2000: 545-6. 29 Sweetman 2003: 527-8 no. 9, 531 no. 15; 2004b: 1177. The two mosaics in question, known as the Apollinaris mosaic and the Pateraki plot mosaic, were uncovered in the area of the Venezeleion Hospital, located in the northwest corner of the Knossos Valley (cf. Catling 1976-1977: 21). 30 Dunbabin 1999: 210-1. Sites at which mosaics of this type appear include Corinth, Olympia, and Philippi. 28

15

Roman colony, perhaps the influx of western settlers at Knossos brought about a similar revival of Greek culture as seen on the mainland. While this brief discussion of Romanization with respect to Crete extends beyond the Late Hellenistic period, it shows that much more analysis is required to assess how Roman influence during any period impacted the island. If the mosaic evidence from Knossos is an indication, one possibility is that an increased Roman presence during the Late Hellenistic period led more and more to a revival of Greek culture on the island rather than the adoption of western traits.

Crete at the End of the Republic Roman concern for Crete continues to be attested during the early first century B.C.E. According to Plutarch (Luc. 2.3), Sulla‟s attendant, Lucullus, visited the island around 87/86 B.C.E. and succeeded in winning favor. Whether this meant that all of Crete was sympathetic to Sulla, or only select poleis, cannot be ascertained. This positive relationship between Rome and Crete did not last, however. Ancient sources propose a variety of reasons for why Rome‟s opinion of Crete changed, including the island‟s role in piracy, its support of Mithridates VI, and Rome‟s desire for conquest.31 Plutarch (Pomp. 29.1) describes Crete as one of the two main sources for piracy in the eastern Mediterranean, along with Cilicia. Mythology suggests a close affiliation between Crete and piracy for most of its recorded history, at least in the eyes of other Greeks. Stories about Minos often have a ring of brigandry to them and Odysseus claimed to be a Cretan pirate during his wanderings after the sack of Troy.32 Hellenistic Crete appears to have been home to a large

31 32

App. Sic. 6.1; Flor. 1.42.1; Memnon 29.5 = FGrH 434. de Souza 1999: 15, 18-9. Hom. Od. 17.425.

16

contingent of pirates if one wishes to believe a comment to that regard from Polybius (4.8.11). In support of Polybius are accounts of the First Cretan War fought between Rhodes and several cities on Crete, possibly over plundering activities of the latter.33 One neglected question, however, is what exactly do scholars mean by the term piracy in relation to Crete. P. Brulé dedicates an entire monograph to Cretan pirates, but concentrates more on their actions rather than on the nature of this institution.34 Were they independent brigands plundering of their own accord, or were they acting in a quasi-official capacity through attachments to various citystates? The site of Phalasarna on the far western coast of Crete offers support for the latter interpretation. F.J. Frost and E. Hadjidaki speculate that the city derived much of its revenue from piracy during the Hellenistic period.35 They even suggest that Phalasarna represents “the only Greek pirate port that has ever been thoroughly investigated”.36 Support for Phalasarna‟s role in piracy comes from the fact that the site may have gone out of use sometime around 67 B.C.E. when the island was being conquered by Rome. Finds of catapult stones, a lack of identified pottery after the first half of the first century B.C.E., and several large boulders used to blockade the harbor support this conclusion.37 Frost and Hadjidaki‟s theorize that Q. Caecilius Metellus, the general commissioned with subduing Crete, physically closed the harbor and destroyed the town, with the aim of removing a pirate base from the island‟s shores. This could suggest that Metellus removed the vestiges of Cretan piracy and that Pompey‟s command in 67 B.C.E. to suppress piracy in the Mediterranean did not include Crete. That the First Cretan War,

33

Brulé 1978: 29-56; Perlman 1999: 132-3; de Souza 1999: 80-4. This war was fought from ca. 205-200 B.C.E., with Ierapetra possibly one of the main combatants. 34 Brulé 1978. 35 Frost and Hadjidaki 1990: 513. 36 Frost and Hadjidaki 1990: 527. 37 Hadjidaki 1988: 472, 475; Frost and Hadjidaki 1990: 525.

17

which appears to have been instigated by the activities of Cretan pirates, was fought against Rhodes by cities on Crete could also suggest a certain official capacity behind piracy on the island. Arguing for direct affiliations between poleis and pirates is difficult, however, given the complex nature of piracy in antiquity. Even if pirates did operate out of the harbors of coastal centers on Crete, or in other regions, we cannot classify them as early examples of privateers. According to N.K. Rauh, “… the distinction between privateers and pirates is not clearly recognizable in the ancient experience”.38 While an ancient city may have had pirates as part of its population, no evidence exists for official charters granting these brigands permission to plunder on behalf of the polis. How then should we view the role of piracy on Crete? Rauh‟s work on Cilician piracy may offer some insight. Although Cilicia was home to a large number of pirates, Rauh believes that most of the individuals were not of Cilician origin.39 Instead, they were attracted to the region for the opportunities piracy provided. Rough Cilicia in the southeastern part of Asia Minor, argues Rauh, was particularly suitable for supporting piracy due to three attributes: the presence of strong fortresses; a traditional lack of centralized political control; and the ability of pirate leaders to develop commercial ties to trade centers in the region.40 The isolated nature of the region, coupled with limited outside control, enabled several pirate kingdoms to emerge. These kingdoms prospered from their ability to exchange plunder, including slaves, based on their economic ties. In this regard, Cilician pirates became an important component of the economic fabric of the eastern Mediterranean.

38

Rauh 1997: 271. Rauh 1997: 279. 40 Rauh 1997: 272. 39

18

How does Cilician piracy compare to Cretan piracy? At least two of the attributes which made Rough Cilicia a haven for pirates are not evident on Crete. With the possible exception of Phalasarna, the island boasts no coastal fortresses which can be directly associated with pirates. In addition, while Crete did lack a centralized government in the Late Hellenistic period, several poleis, including Gortyn, Ierapetra, Knossos, and Lyttos, established themselves as regional powers in control of large territories.41 In other words, there would have been limited opportunities for independent pirate kingdoms to arise on Crete. Perhaps this is where some type of affiliation with a city-state becomes relevant. Coastal centers like Ierapetra or Phalasarna could offer protection and developed economic networks, two characteristics likely of great appeal to pirates in the region. A detailed discussion of Ierapetra‟s potential role in piracy will be presented below in Chapter 4. At the very least, Cilician and Cretan piracy appear to have had distinct characteristics, owing in large part to the unique geographical and political situations of each region. A passage from Dio Cassius (36.23.2), quoted by P. de Souza, implies that Rome‟s reaction to piracy in the eastern Mediterranean during the Hellenistic period initially was inconsistent.42 Specifically, it can be characterized as a few random attempts at intervention. Only after the situation became unmanageable did the Senate decide to intercede with strength. One location in which Rome enforced her will was Crete. In 72/71 B.C.E., Marcus Antonius, father of Mark Antony, was tasked with subjugating the island.43 The ancient sources are unanimous in their portrayal of the unsuccessful nature of Antonius‟ campaign, even suggesting that the general and his army were bound in the same shackles they had brought to bind their

41

Bennet (1990: 202 table 3) has estimated the Hellenistic territories of these four city-states: Gortyn – 920 km2; Ierapetra – 1050 km2; Knossos – 770 km2; Lyttos – 600 km2. 42 de Souza 1999: 148. 43 Diod. Sic. 40.1.1; Flor. 1.42.2-3; Livy Ep. 97.

19

Cretan prisoners. Cretan pride in this victory appears to have been short-lived, however. An embassy was dispatched to Rome soon after the battle to plead for peace.44 In response, the Senate proposed a series of terms for Crete far too harsh to be accepted, including a tribute set at 4000 talents per annum. Upon their refusal, the consul Q. Caecilius Metellus was dispatched to conquer Crete. He succeeded, following a three year campaign between 69 and 67 B.C.E. (Fig. 2.1).45 Plutarch (Pomp. 29.1-4) describes this campaign as being so brutal that Pompey intervened on behalf of Crete, only to see his legates besieged by Metellus along with the Cretans.46 While piracy may have been a motivating element in Rome‟s desire to conquer Crete, it likely was not the primary cause. N. Metendis argues that Crete‟s support for Mithridates VI lay behind Rome‟s desire to conquer the island.47 His evidence is a coin type issued by Metellus following his victory. These tetradrachms, of which five examples are known, were struck at Gortyn sometime between 66 and 63 B.C.E.48 The obverse bears a portrait bust of Roma flanked on either side by an elephant, a reference to a military victory by one of Metellus‟ ancestors in Africa. A bust of Artemis Ephesia occupies the reverse. Metellus‟ choice of Artemis Ephesia is conspicuous because there is no evidence for her cult on Crete. Instead, Metendis believes this imagery relates to the massacre of Roman citizens at Ephesus in 88 B.C.E. The conquest of Crete, thus, marked the official end to this conflict. We are now faced with the query of whether the date of 67 B.C.E. can be taken as the beginning of Crete as a Roman territory. The island was under Roman control at this time, but it 44

App. Sic. 6.1; Dio Cass. 36.17-18; Diod. Sic. 40.1.1-2. App. Sic. 6.1-2.; Dio Cass. 36.1, 36.18; Diod. Sic. 40.1; Livy Ep. 99-100; Memnon 48 = FGrH 434; Phlegon of Tralles 12.12 = FGrH 257; Plut. Pomp. 29.4; Vell. Pat. 2.34, 2.38. 46 Plutarch portrays Pompey in a negative light and suggests he offered support to Cretan pirates during a justified attempt to suppress them. 47 Metendis 1998: 122. Several literary sources mention Crete‟s loyalty to Mithridates VI including: App. Sic. 6.1; Flor. 1.42.1; Memnon 29.5 = FGrH 434. 48 Burnett, Amandry, and Ripollès 1992: 216-7 nos. 901-3. 45

20

remains to be seen if administrative structures were altered and processes of Romanization begun. One conspicuous aspect of Crete‟s history following its subjugation is that there is no literary evidence of any subsequent resistance to Roman rule. The island fought to maintain its autonomy, but made no effort to restore it after 67 B.C.E. With respect to the conversion of Crete into a Roman territory, Livy (Ep. 100) relates that in 66 B.C.E., “Q. Metellus perdomitis Cretensibus liberae ad id tempus insulae leges dedit” (Quintus Metellus completely subdued the Cretans and established regulations for an island which up to that time had been free).49 This statement is ambiguous, since the regulations in question are not outlined in detail. Perhaps Livy is referring to the union of Crete with Cyrenaica to form a joint province. Some scholars, including Baldwin Bowsky, suggest that this province was created soon after 67 B.C.E.50 Two coin issues dating to this period could be evidence of this. Both are attested in Cyrenaica, with the first depicting a helmeted female head and the inscription ΡΩΜΗ on the obverse and a bee on the reverse, while the second has the same iconography, but with the inscription ΚΡΖΣ on the obverse and ΚΤΡΑ on the reverse.51 The bee traditionally is associated with Crete as a symbol rather than Cyrenaica. An additional silver coin type, commissioned by Publius Licinius and dated to around 55 B.C.E., has a bust of Libya on the obverse and a bust of Creta-Artemis on the reverse.52 Other scholars contend that the union of Crete and Cyrenaica as a joint province did not occur until after the Battle of Actium in 27 B.C.E. G. Harrison, for instance, calls into question the dates of the coin issues mentioned above and observes that no magistrate is known who

49

Translation from the Loeb edition. Baldwin 1983: 3-6. 51 Robinson 1927: ccxi, pl. xxxix nos. 1-4. 52 Robinson 1927: cciii no. 2 bis a. 50

21

controlled both regions simultaneously until after 27 B.C.E.53 As the Roman Republic increasingly became strained through civil war, Crete appears separate from Cyrenaica in most literary accounts. Cretan archers were part of Caesar‟s forces in Gaul and Alexandria, but fought with Pompey in the Civil War.54 Pompey also used the island as a source of grain, and although Cyrene is mentioned in the same list of states which aided Pompey, there is no indication it was joined with Crete.55 Following the assassination of Caesar, Brutus and Cassius were assigned to govern Crete and Cyrenaica (App. B.Civ. 3.1.8). This is not proof that these two places were joined administratively, however. A passage from Cicero (Phil. 2.97), implying that Brutus was assigned to Crete, suggests they were controlled separately.56 Crete also played a role during the conflict between Mark Antony and Octavian. Antony‟s eastern focus placed Crete within his region of control. According to Cicero (Phil. 2.97), he was quite magnanimous toward the island: “nuper fixa tabula est qua civitates locupletissimae Cretensium vectigalibus liberantur, statuiturque ne post M. Brutum pro consule Creta provincia” (Lately an advertisement has been posted, whereby the most wealthy communities of the Cretans are being exempted from tribute, and it is ordained that after the proconsulship of Marcus Brutus Crete should be no longer a province).57 Cicero makes no

53

Harrison 1985: 368-9. Caes. B Gall. 2.7; B Alex. 1.1; B Civ. 3.4.1, 3.4.3. 55 Caes. B Civ. 3.5.1. The passage reads “Frumenti vim maximam ex Thessalia, Asia, Aegypto, Creta, Cyrenis reliquisque regionibus comparaverat” (He had collected a very large quantity of corn from Thessaly, Asia, Egypt, Crete, Cyrene, and other districts). Translation from the Loeb edition. 56 Cicero (Phil. 2.100) used Brutus‟ proconsulship of Crete as evidence that Antony was forging decrees of Julius Caesar after his death. According to a decree of Caesar promulgated by Antony, Crete would no longer be a province after the proconsulship of Brutus. Brutus had no association with Crete while Caesar was living, meaning Caesar could not have foreseen the conditions necessary for this decree to be enacted. 57 Translation from the Loeb edition. 54

22

mention of Cyrenaica joined with Crete. Antony also was said to have granted part of the territory of Crete to Cleopatra as a gift in 36 B.C.E.58 In the decades following 67 B.C.E., the fluid nature of Crete‟s position under Roman hegemony makes it difficult to label the island as Roman. Rome had gained control of Crete during a volatile period of her history and the conditions may not have been present to firmly entrench the island within the sphere of Roman control. Romanization within Crete also appears to be minimal in the period between 67 and 27 B.C.E. According to de Souza, there was no significant disturbance to Cretan cities as a result of the Roman conquest, and it was sometime afterward when population and agricultural exploitation increased.59 R. Sweetman argues that the Hellenistic period on Crete did not come to an abrupt end in 67 B.C.E.60 A similar line of thought appears in the Knossos Pottery Handbook when G. Forster states: “The generally accepted date for the foundation of the Roman colony at Knossos, soon after 27 BC, provides us with a convenient starting point for what we will define as the „Roman period‟ for the sake of this handbook”.61 At Knossos, most studies imply that very little happened between the Roman conquest and the foundation of the colony, which itself leaves little to no trace in the archaeological record.62 Only two structures have evidence for destruction around 67 B.C.E.: a shrine to Glaukos and a house with a wine press.63 A structure possibly built after 67 and destroyed prior to the founding of the colony in the Staphylakis plot, located a few hundred meters west of the Minoan palace on the southeast slope of Monasteraki Kephala hill,

58

Dio Cass. 49.32.5; Plut. Ant. 54. Spyridakis (1970: 87) argues that the polis of Itanos would have been part of this gift given the fact it had housed a Ptolemaic garrison in the past. 59 de Souza 1998: 116. 60 Sweetman 2007: 67. 61 Forster 2001: 137. 62 cf. Warren 1987-1988: 88. 63 Callaghan 1978: 28; Paton 1994: 146-7.

23

has a few imported amphorae from Italy, showing that some material was trickling into Crete.64 For Gortyn, N. Allegro argues that the city did change fundamentally after the Roman conquest.65 His evidence, however, including the construction of a new residential quarter to the east of the Hellenistic one on a different alignment, dates to the final decade of the first century B.C.E., long after Metellus‟ victory.66 From a material culture perspective, changes in assemblages on Crete, including pottery, do not provide much support for Roman presence. Romanization of pottery assemblages before and after Roman conquest of a territory could be a slow process. For Britain, S. Willis shows that pottery assemblages did not change significantly following Rome‟s victory there in 43 C.E.67 S. Rotroff comes to a similar conclusion for Athens when noting that pottery only adopted a Roman character by the first century C.E., even though 86 B.C.E., the date of Sulla‟s attack on the city, is seen as the division between Hellenistic and Roman.68 On Crete, publications from several sites note a continuation of Hellenistic shapes into the late first century B.C.E. and the subsequent influence of these shapes on local Early Roman wares.69 Perhaps the most intriguing evidence derives from the excavation of the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos. Within the Hellenistic pottery assemblage from the site, six deposits have a date range continuing after 67 B.C.E.70 Four of these deposits, H33, H35, H36, and H37, were formed after 67, and in one case, H37, the deposit appears to have been closed after 27 B.C.E. A lack of any distinguishable Roman pottery led the excavators to classify them as Hellenistic. The two earliest Roman

64

Catling et al. 1981: 97. The authors use 36 B.C.E. as the date for the foundation of the colony at Knossos. Allegro 2004: 531. 66 Allegro 2004: 537. 67 Willis 1996: 191-2. 68 Rotroff 1997: 98-100. 69 Eiring 2000a: 197-8; 2001: 91; Hayes 1971: 273-4; Gortina I, 172; Gortina II, 111. 70 UM II, 121-2 (deposit H31 – pre-colony); 122-3 (deposit H32 – 100-25 B.C.E.); 123-4 (deposit H33 – 50-25 B.C.E.); 124-6 (deposit H35 – third quarter of first century B.C.E.); 126 (deposit H36 – late first century B.C.E.); 126-7 (deposit H37 – late first century B.C.E.). 65

24

deposits from the site, A1 and A2, both dating from the mid-first century B.C.E. to the early first century C.E., were assigned to this period because they did include distinguishable Roman pottery. 71 The overall classification of these deposits, analogous to the pattern seen for Britain and Athens above, suggests that that there is no clear material culture correlation for considering the period between 67 and 27 B.C.E. as Roman.

Crete under the Romans Octavian‟s ascension to supreme power in the Roman world as Augustus in 27 B.C.E., and the sense of unity this brought to the Mediterranean, may be the point when we can officially consider Crete as a Roman. S. Alcock summarizes the state of mainland Greece during this period in a way that parallels Crete: Thereafter, from the reign of Augustus to the Herulian invasion of AD 267, Achaia was a recipient of the pax Romana, experiencing the benefits of long-term peaceful coexistence, both internally and with its provincial neighbours. The former days of Greek independence had never known such a prolonged spell of peace, but it was an enforced blessing.72 It may be around this time when Crete officially was joined with Cyrenaica to form a joint province. Strabo (17.3.25) and Dio Cassius (53.12) describe Crete and Cyrenaica as a single province during discussions of the events which transpired in 27 B.C.E. These are the earliest confirmed references which attest a union of these two regions. Gortyn, located in south-central Crete, was capital of this province. Scholarship tends to view Crete in the Early Roman Empire as unremarkable. According to G. Harrison, “One must marvel at the very limited role Crete and

71

UM II, 178-90. Deposit A1 produced a Campanian figurine and a Campanian amphora, while Deposit A2 had a large number of Eastern Sigillata A sherds. 72 Alcock 1993: 14.

25

Cretans played in the first two-and-a half centuries of the Roman Empire”.73 The history of the island at this time is still of interest, however. Around 27 B.C.E. is when we begin to see changes occurring throughout the island. In fact, during the late first century B.C.E. and early first century C.E., it may be possible to identify an Augustan phase on Crete. Dio Cassius (52.2.3) records that Augustus freed the poleis of Kydonia and Lappa in western Crete for their support during his conflict with Antony. At Gortyn, soon after 27 B.C.E. construction began on the Praetorium, the governor‟s residence, confirming the city‟s, and Crete‟s, position within Rome‟s administrative network.74 The island‟s overarching θοηλόλ had also transformed by the early first century C.E., changing its official title from θοηλὸλ ηῶλ Κρεηαηέωλ to θοηλὸλ ηῶλ Κρεηῶλ. Presumably, this organization was more stable under Roman rule than it had been in the Hellenistic period. While it may be coincidental, a higher proportion of provincial magistrates tied to Crete and Cyrenaica are known from the early first century C.E. compared to subsequent centuries.75 Further evidence of Augustan influence can be seen at Knossos. This city received Crete‟s only Roman colony, although there is some debate as to the date of its founding. According to Dio Cassius (49.14), a gift of Knossian land was made to the Campanian city of Capua in 36 B.C.E.76 Velleius Paterculus (2.81) reports that Capua eventually came to receive an annual tribute of 1,200,000 sestertii from Knossos. A link between this gift of land and the foundation of a colony at Knossos is suggested by a contemporary coin issue featuring a bust of Octavian on the reverse and a bust of Antony on the obverse, along with the legend C(olonia)

73

Harrison 1988: 125. Sanders 1982: 158. 75 Baldwin 1983: 11. 76 See also Strabo 10.4.9. 74

26

I(ulia) N(obilis) C(nosus) ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum).77 Both M. Baldwin and S. Paton, however, believe the colony could have been established officially only after Augustus gained control of the Roman world, when peace was assured and the land could be guaranteed for Capua.78 Knossos is omitted from the Res Gestae in Augustus‟ list of colonies he founded in the provinces, but it is still likely that the conditions required for the city to flourish as a colony only came about in 27 B.C.E. Other evidence for Augustan involvement on Crete is found at Ierapetra. Two inscriptions dedicated to Augustus, one from the village of Episkopi to the north (IC 3.3.63) and the other from Kato Chorio to the northeast (IC 3.3.62), suggest an attempt to delineate the chora of Ierapetra.79 The city‟s gratitude toward Augustus also appears in an inscribed base (SEG 32.874), believed to have been dedicated to the Emperor, and in an unpublished, oversized statue head housed in the Ierapetra museum.80 The nature of Roman Crete after Augustus can be defined as peaceful and unified simply because there is almost no evidence to the contrary. Literary evidence provides little in the way of narrative history concerning Crete. Many authors, including Strabo and Plutarch, prefer to discuss the mythological history of the island rather than contemporary events. When contemporary references do appear, they come in the form of facts about Crete rather than its role in historical events. In the rare instances when historical narrative does feature the island, the sources are imprecise and often contradictory. For instance, several texts document a Gothic raid on territories in the eastern Mediterranean in 268 C.E.81 Of these sources, two, the SHA and Zosimus, mention Crete as a target of the Goths, while one, the SHA, describes that the Goth‟s 77

Svoronos 1972 [1890]: 89 nos. 180-3. Baldwin 1983: 5; Paton 1994: 143. 79 See Baldwin Bowsky 2006a: 565. 80 For the statue head see Baldwin Bowsky 2006a: 566. 81 Pan. Lat. 8(5).18.3; SHA Claud. 12.1; Zosimus 1.46. 78

27

overall failure in their venture was due to an outbreak of plague. Does this mean that Crete also was affected by plagues during this period? In support of some type of turmoil is the increase in Roman coin hoards attested on Crete during the third century C.E, but the small size of this sample limits its statistical relevancy.82 We also must consider that for the first three centuries under Roman rule Crete was part of a joint province. Alcock believes discussing Crete in connection with Cyrenaica is essential, but has been avoided by scholars of both regions.83 Cyrenaica came under Roman hegemony earlier than Crete, having been willed to the Senate in 96 B.C.E. by Ptolemy Apion.84 The region remained free for two decades, until 75/74 B.C.E. when it was transformed into a province. Rome was in a state of financial turmoil at that time and G.E. Rickman speculates that need for grain from Cyrenaica prompted this action.85 A.N. Sherwin-White prefers to see the provincialization of Cyrenaica as an overall attempt to exploit all possible resources from the region.86 Whatever the reason for Cyrenaica‟s formalization as a province, it came under Rome‟s control via a different set of circumstances than Crete. The connection between Crete and Cyrenaica will be a point of further discussion in Chapter 6. Diocletian separated Crete from Cyrenaica at some point in the 290s C.E. and converted the island into a single province within the Diocese of Moesia.87 Constantine later made Crete a senatorial province in the Diocese of Macedonia in the Prefecture of Illyricum.88 The period following Crete‟s separation from Cyrenaica is analogous to the previous one, with little known

82

Touratsoglou and Sidiropoulos 2000: 296. Eight of the twelve documented Roman coin hoards on Crete date to the third century C.E. 83 Alcock 1999: 179. 84 Justin 39.5; Livy Ep. 70; Tacitus Ann. 14.18. 85 Rickman 1980: 167. 86 Sherwin-White 1984: 263. 87 This division is preserved in a document known as the Laterculus Veronensis (Verona List). cf. Barnes 1982: 2018. 88 Sanders 1982: 7.

28

about the history of the island. Much of the information passed down in the sources refers to raids by various groups. Crete may have been subjected to a Vandal invasion in 457 C.E., depending on the interpretation of a passage in Procopius (Vand. 3.5.23), and became a target of Arab raids beginning in the mid-seventh century. One aspect of Crete‟s Roman history that is able to be reconstructed is the rise of Christianity on the island. Crete‟s contact with the religion came early, as outlined in the New Testament, when Paul visited the island in the first century C.E. and left his pupil, Titus, there as bishop.89 A letter, written by Dionysus of Corinth (Eus. Hist.Ecc. 4.21) in the second half of the second century to church authorities at Gortyn and Knossos, helps document the dissemination of the religion. That Christianity had spread across the island by the mid-third century is demonstrated by an event in 250 C.E. In that year, ten men from six different cities, including Gortyn, Herakleion, Knossos, Kydonia, Lebena, and Panormos, were martyred at Gortyn for refusing to worship more than one god.90 As T. Detorakis suggests, Christianity had clearly spread across the island at this time for such a variety of sites to be represented.91 From an epigraphical perspective, A.C. Bandy has compiled a corpus of Christian inscriptions from 32 Cretan sites, with most dating to the fourth century and later.92 Bishops lists provide additional evidence.93 Christian architecture tells a slightly different story, but still demonstrates the spread of the religion across the island during the Roman period. The earliest known churches date to the mid-fourth century C.E., while the primary period of construction was the mid-fifth to the mid-

89

Letter to Titus. Sanders 1982: 45. 91 Detorakis 1970: 53 n.79. 92 Bandy 1970. 93 The maximum number of bishoprics attested on Crete is 12 in the eighth century. cf. Sanders 1982: 45. 90

29

sixth century.94 This would seem to be late in the history of Crete‟s Christian movement, but most Roman sites on the island are poorly studied, meaning additional early structures could yet be identified. One question that arises out of the discussion of the rise of Christianity on Crete is whether this occurred primarily under Roman rule or Byzantine rule. Architecture and epigraphy suggest the religion rose to prominence after the fourth century. One unsettled issue in the history of Crete is when the Roman period ends and the Byzantine period begins, and this must be resolved before any holistic picture of Roman Crete can be attained.

The End of Roman Crete There are numerous opinions regarding when Crete ceased to be Roman and passed into the Byzantine realm of history. The rise of Constantine and the division of the Empire into east and west is a popular option, and several archaeological survey projects mark the fourth century C.E. as the end of the Roman period. Other surveys prefer closing dates ranging as late as the ninth century (Table 1.1). When I. Sanders was formulating chronological boundaries for his study of Roman Crete, he used 827 C.E., when Crete fell to an Arab raid led by Apochaps, as his terminal point. Yet, in his introduction he implies this date could be placed even later: The initial date of 69 BC needs no historical justification, but the terminal date might logically have been 1204, when the island was finally lost to the Roman Empire after its purchase by the Venetians. However, not only does the Arab conquest form a real historical break, but more especially the problems both archaeological and historical of the period 961-1204 are very different from those of the previous period under Roman rule.95

94 95

Sanders 1982: 129; Frend 1996: 342-3. Sanders 1982: 1.

30

Sander‟s conclusion provides us with two alternatives. First, we accept the date of 827 C.E. as the end of Roman Crete and ignore the fact that the island had been part of the Byzantine administrative network for several centuries. Second, we seek a date sometime in between 330 and 827 in the hope that it will provide a clear break between Roman and Byzantine. According to G. Harrison, the ceramic and architectural traditions of Crete during the fifth through seventh centuries C.E. are better interpreted as Roman rather than Byzantine.96 Such a statement provides support for ignoring a date circa 330 as the terminal point for Roman Crete. The island‟s limited role in historical records, however, hinders finding an alternative since so little is known about these later centuries. Arab raids beginning in the mid-seventh century against Crete stand out as a significant historical marker. An attack in 654 serves as the first documented incursion with additional raids following in subsequent decades.97 The disruptive nature of these attacks would have been felt at sites across the island and demonstrates the inability of the government at Constantinople to maintain hegemony over its territories. While the Arab raids against Crete delineate a transformation in the structure of power within the eastern Mediterranean, the evidence of their consequences before 827 C.E. is ambiguous. The raid of 674 C.E., for instance, is actually described by Theophanes as an Arab expedition wintering on the island. D. Tsougarakis notes that Theophanes documents no hostilities associated with this event.98 A continued, although minimal, presence of Late Roman imported fineware pottery and local amphora production across Crete also implies some consistency with the periods before and after the raids began.

96

Harrison 1998: 130. For the raid of 654: Michael the Syrian 2.1.44; Tsougarakis 1988: 22. Additional raids are documented for 656 (Christides 1984: 88), 671 (Bandy 1970: 89-90 no. 61), and 674 (Theophanes Chronogr. 354). 98 Tsougarakis 1988: 23. 97

31

Perhaps a more appropriate date for the end of Roman Crete comes in the first half of the eighth century. In 732/733 Emperor Leo III annexed the churches of Calabria, Sicily, and Greece, including Crete, from the papal authority in Rome and transferred their control to Constantinople.99 Although this act was religious in motivation, it finalized Crete‟s transition to the Byzantine world. The island had been firmly within the administrative jurisdiction of Constantinople as of 395, when the eastern part of the prefecture of Illyricum was placed under the administration of the eastern Empire.100 With the decision of Leo III, any ties to the western Empire were severed. The eighth century also saw the disappearance of Late Roman finewares and the almost complete cessation of Cretan amphora production. Thus, the annexation of Leo III can serve as the end of Roman Crete.

A CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME FOR ROMAN CRETE The preceding discussion highlights a notable obstacle to the continued study of Roman Crete, namely the lack of a standardized chronology for this period of the island‟s history. This problem is not unique to Roman Crete and affects the study of Roman Greece as a whole. Within the context of survey archaeology, Alcock observes that “the varying chronological schemes used by these projects (in some cases, unfortunately, never made explicit) pose undeniable obstacles to a synthesis of results”.101 For instance, the Minnesota Messenia Project classified the Roman period as circa 146 B.C.E. to 330 C.E., while the Byzantine period was circa 330 to 900 C.E.102 Surveyors associated with the Boeotia Survey preferred a time span of circa 30 B.C.E. to

99

Theophanes Chronogr. 413. cf. Tsougarakis 1988: 205. Tsougarakis 1988: 198. 101 Alcock 1993: 49. 102 McDonald and Rapp 1972: 64, 96. 100

32

250 C.E. for the Early Roman period and circa 250 to 600 C.E. for the Late Roman period.103 A tripartite division was favored by the Methana Survey. That project employed the designations Early Roman (100 B.C.E. to 100 C.E.), Middle Roman (100 to 300 C.E.), and Late Roman (300 to 700 C.E.).104 The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project labeled Early Roman as 31 B.C.E. to 400 C.E. and Late Roman as 400 to 700 C.E.,105 while the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey classified Early Roman as 31 B.C.E. to 250 C.E. and Late Roman as 250 to 700 C.E.106 Additional chronological subdivisions for survey projects in Greece are outlined by D. Pettegrew.107 Alcock suggests that a standardized chronology based on all of these surveys may be first to third century C.E. for Early Roman and fourth to early seventh century for Late Roman, but she notes this is only an approximation.108 An additional problem arising from these numerous schemes is the variable terminology used to define different phases of Roman history. Scholars employ a number of different terms, including Roman, Early Roman, Middle Roman, Late Roman, Early Christian, Late Antique, Byzantine, Early Byzantine, and Protobyzantine, with no coherent agreement of what chronological range each defines. G.D.R. Sanders notes that the choice of any of the above labels implies certain assumptions about a region‟s social structures and material culture.109 Several scholars have attempted to provide solutions. For the Argolid and the Corinthia, J. Hjohlman proposes Late Roman for the period from 300 to 500 C.E. and Late Antique for the sixth and seventh centuries C.E.110 Late Antique is meant to be neutral and to indicate that Roman, Christian, or Byzantine do not, of their own account, provide an accurate reflection of the 103

Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985: 158 Table 7. Bowden and Gill 1997a: 77. 105 Alcock et al. 2005: 152 Table 1. 106 Tartaron et al. 2006: 455 Table 1. 107 Pettegrew 2007: 747 Table 1. 108 Alcock 1993: 36. 109 Sanders 2004: 163-4. 110 Hjohlman 2005: 128. 104

33

archaeological record at this time. Sweetman also suggests the use of the term Late Antique for Crete to cover the period from the fifth century C.E. to the Arab invasion in 827.111 Inconsistencies with Roman chronology on Crete appear in both survey and excavation reports. For survey, the small number of projects which offer explicit date ranges for the Roman period, as documented in Table 1, show little agreement. With respect to excavations, the use of the term Early Roman is consistent, but the same is not true for the following period. At Knossos, the labels Early Christian and Late Antique appear, while at Gortyn and Eleutherna, the same period is termed Late Roman and Protobyzantine. These labels appear to indicate dates ranging from some point in the fourth century C.E. until the seventh or eighth centuries C.E. At the same time, the most recent typology of Cretan amphorae, developed from finds at Gortyn, includes Middle Roman examples, a range covering the third and fourth centuries C.E.112 My own aim in proposing a specific chronology for this study is not to provide the definitive answer of how to define the various periods of Roman Crete. Instead, I intend to offer an explicit indication of the periods, and their respective date ranges, to be employed in this study, and to demonstrate the benefits of a critical assessment of the chronology of Roman Crete. The scheme I propose is as follows: Late Hellenistic: 220 B.C.E. - 67 B.C.E. Proto-Roman: 67 B.C.E. – 27 B.C.E. Early Roman: 27 B.C.E. – 295 C.E. Late Roman: 295 C.E. – 457 C.E. Late Antique: 457 C.E. – 732/3 C.E. First Period Byzantine: 732/3 C.E. – 827/8 C.E. Much of the justification for this chronology has been presented above, but will be reiterated here to emphasize the reasoning behind the choice of dates. 111

Sweetman 2004a: 317. Sweetman argues that the terms Christian and Byzantine are both misleading with respect to Crete during this period. 112 Portale and Romeo 2000: 417; Gortina V.3, 261.

34

Defining a date range associated with the Late Hellenistic period is necessary in this study. This will facilitate comparisons between Hellenistic and Early Roman political structures, settlement patterns, and material culture. The beginning date of 220 B.C.E. relates to the destruction of the polis of Lyttos at the hands of Knossos.113 It is a convenient choice for several reasons. First, although Hellenistic Crete was the scene of numerous internal conflicts, this marks one of the first attestations of the destruction of a major polis at the hands of another.114 Analysis of the destruction layers also provides one of the most important chronological markers for Hellenistic pottery on Crete.115 For Greece as a whole, Gruen argues that the Battle of Pydna in 167 B.C.E. “marked a great divide for Rome‟s role in the Hellenistic world”.116 He believes Rome‟s policy toward Greece, and her role in treaty negotiations, changed after this battle. While this may be the case for the mainland, Crete provided little in the way of support during the Battle of Pydna and may have been isolated from subsequent repercussions. An additional advantage of the earlier date is that the first attested Roman contact occurs shortly after 220, placing all pre-conquest Roman concern for Crete into the Late Hellenistic period. The end date is 67 B.C.E., marking the completion of the conquest of the island by Metellus. Designating the period from 67 B.C.E. to 27 B.C.E. as Proto-Roman is meant to reflect that Crete at this time was no longer Hellenistic, but cannot be considered fully Roman. The history of the period suggests a certain lack of stability. Not until the establishment of the pax Romana under Augustus did Crete achieve full integration into the Roman world. As noted above, further corroboration comes from the material culture of the island and the lack of 113

See Polyb. 4.53.3-54 for an account of the destruction of Lyttos. The city was resettled and is attested as an ally of Gortyn during a conflict with Knossos in 184 B.C.E. (Polyb. 22.15). 114 Two other examples are the destruction of Applonia by Kydonia in 171 B.C.E. (Polyb. 28.14) and Phaistos by Gortyn around 150 B.C.E. (Strabo 10.4.14). 115 For an overview of these excavations see Rethemiotakis 1984. For a discussion of the significance of the site‟s destruction layers for dating Hellenistic pottery from Crete, see Englezou 2005: 94. 116 Gruen 1984: 17.

35

apparent Romanization prior to the reign of Augustus. One also can cite the confusion concerning Crete‟s relationship with Cyrenaica before 27 B.C.E. Knossos may have been refounded as a colony as early as 36 B.C.E., but other indications suggest it was not until after the Augustus achieved the position of supreme power in the Roman world in 27 when this position was solidified. The actions of Mark Antony could suggest that Crete retained a degree of autonomy if the island was freed from its provincial yoke after the proconsulship of Brutus. All of these considerations impart hesitation in distinguishing the period between 67 and 27 B.C.E. as Roman. From a political perspective, however, Crete was under Roman control and had begun its transition away from independence. Thus, the term Proto-Roman is used. The Early Roman period is considered here as lasting from 27 B.C.E. until 295 C.E. Beginning with the reign of Augustus, Crete appears entrenched firmly within the Roman world. Processes of Romanization are more noticeable, although for some cities, such as Knossos, they do not become evident until the end of the first century C.E.117 Beyond ambiguous references to turmoil, such as the mid-third century C.E. Gothic raid mentioned above, all evidence points to a harmonious existence for these three centuries. Even allusions to famine are absent, with only one inscription from Ierapetra, dated to either the first century B.C.E. or first century C.E., suggestive of a grain shortage during this period.118 This date range also considers Crete‟s relationship with Cyrenaica. The Early Roman period designated here marks the confirmed duration of their union as a joint province. At some point in the final decade of the third century, Diocletian separated Crete from Cyrenaica and

117

Sweetman 2006: 427; 2007: 61. IC 3.3.12. Other evidence for grain shortages on Crete date before (SEG 9.2 – 330/326 B.C.E.) or after (IC 4.285 – 381 C.E.) this period. 118

36

converted it into a single province within the diocese of Moesia.119 Most accounts of Roman Crete date this change between 295 and 297 C.E.120 T.D. Barnes prefers to date Diocletian‟s creation of dioceses and the division of provinces to 293 C.E.121 Three contemporary inscriptions from Gortyn may attest evidence of the division. The first, IC 4.281, mentions a proconsul of Crete and Cyrenaica named Aglaus. The next two, IC 4.282 and 283, record the name of M. Aurelius Byzes, who was the praeses of Crete. M. Aurelius Byzes, thus, may be the first magistrate of the new independent province.122 The selection of 295 C.E. as the divide between Early and Late Roman reflects the administrative change which must have occurred at some point between 293 and 297. Crete‟s separation from Cyrenaica marks a clear break in the history of the island. Constantine did intervene in the political arrangement of Crete by placing the island in the diocese of Macedonia in the prefecture of Illyricum, but this was subsequent to Diocletian‟s initial reorganization.123 I designate from 295 C.E. to 457 C.E. as Late Roman, a period marked by alterations to Crete‟s political structure, its economic role, and its isolation from conflict. The governor still resided at Gortyn, but there would have been changes to the overall administration of the province. Before Diocletian, imperial authority resided primarily at Rome, even if emperors were itinerant and spent little time in the capital. Diocletian‟s restructuring of the Principate into a tetrarchy, and its division into east and west, forced provinces into one half of this divide. The

119

T.D. Barnes (1982: 205) suggests the Laterculus Veronensis, the text in which this separation is described, “depicts the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire as they were between 314/5 and 324, the western provinces as they were between 303 and 314”. 120 For example, Sanders 1982: 6. 121 Barnes 1982: 225. 122 None of the three inscriptions can be dated to a specific year. According to Guarducci (1950: 281-2), based on the titles of the Emperors named within, IC 2.281 should date after 286 C.E. (but before the separation of Crete from Cyrenaica ca. 295 to 297), and IC.282 and 283 should date between 293 and 305 C.E. 123 Not. Dig.; Hierokles Synecdemos 694.3-651.2.

37

inclusion of Crete in the diocese of Moesia, and soon afterwards Macedonia, placed the island in the eastern half of the Empire. Crete‟s role in trade changed at this time. An examination of find spots for Cretan amphorae from the fourth century onwards shows a high concentration of vessels at sites around the Black Sea, a region characterized by a large military presence. Crete, thus, may have become been part of the annona militaris. The evidence for this will be presented in detail in Chapter 6. This period also sees the rise to prominence of Christianity on the island, with the completion of the first churches. The earliest of these buildings appear to date to the fourth century and include a small church constructed at Olus and the converted Temple of Pythian Apollo at Gortyn.124 A concluding date for the Late Roman period on Crete is difficult to determine. No clear event marks a break in Crete‟s history. The choice of 457 C.E. is based on historical criteria and reflects more of a symbolic change to the status of the island. Procopius (Vand. 3.5.23) records a Vandal attack on territories in Greece during that year that could include Crete. The passage is not clear on this point: “Ἰιισρηοὺς οὖλ ἐιείδεηο θαὶ ηῆς ηε Πειοπολλήζοσ ηῆς ηε ἄιιες Ἑιιάδος ηὰ πιεῖζηα θαὶ ὅζαη αὐηῇ λῆζοη ἐπίθεηληαη (And so he plundered Illyricum and most of the Peloponnese and of the rest of Greece and all the islands which lie near it)”.125 One must assume, as previous scholars of Roman Crete have done, that Crete is included among the islands mentioned by Procopius.126 Even if the Vandals bypassed Crete, the event remains significant for its insight into the state of the Roman world at this time. The territory of Greece, including Crete, was no longer surrounded by a buffer zone of allied provinces. Crete‟s borders were exposed to attack, a situation which became amplified with the commencement of Arab raids in succeeding centuries. 124

Sanders 1982: 91-2, 108. Translation from the Loeb edition. 126 For instance, Sanders 1982: 9. 125

38

Amphora production on Crete also suggests that the mid-fifth century was a time of transition. A typology of amphora forms developed by excavators at Gortyn shows that four standardized types were produced from the first through third century C.E.127 This number remained consistent in the fourth century, although the morphology of Cretan amphorae shows some alterations from the earlier forms.128 That the whole of Crete would produce such a small number of types suggests a degree of economic unification across the island. One advantage of a limited number of distinct types is that it made Cretan products recognizable across the Mediterranean. J.T. Peña notes there is some evidence that consumers were able to identify different types of amphorae at sight, meaning they would have been aware of their contents and provenance.129 This makes the change in Cretan amphora production during the fifth century all the more puzzling. The number of forms produced on the island increased dramatically at this time, with as many as 16 distinct forms manufactured from the fifth through eighth century C.E.130 This suggests that the economic unity seen across Crete in early periods diminished. Poleis across the island may have become more independent and begun producing amphorae for their own specific goods. The final period of Crete‟s Roman history is designated Late Antique and lasts from 457 to 732/733 C.E. I have argued above why 732/733 marks an appropriate date for the end of the Roman Crete and the beginning of the Byzantine history of the island. Overall, the Late Antique period on Crete was a time of transition. From the fifth to seventh centuries C.E., the ceramic record of the island became increasingly characterized by the presence of several imported Late Roman finewares, particularly African Red-Slip and Phocaean Red-Slip. Amphora production on

127

Gortina V.3, 269-75. Gortina V.3, 275-9; Yangaki 2005: 185-9. 129 Peña 2007: 64-5. 130 Gortina V.3, 302-13. Yangaki 2005: 189-97. 128

39

the island also diversified, with a substantial increase in the number of vessel forms being produced.131 Christian basilicas became commonplace at many sites on Crete, with the majority constructed between the mid-fifth to mid-sixth century.132 A succession of massive earthquakes, known as the Early Byzantine Paroxysm, shook the island during the fifth and sixth centuries, likely causing widespread destruction.133 This period also may be characterized by increasing isolation of settlements from one another. Pottery evidence indicates that local products rarely were exported beyond polis borders. The fact that certain poleis, such as Ierapetra, show evidence for decline during these centuries, while others, including Gortyn and Chersonesos, appear to maintain a degree of prosperity could suggest, at least economically, Crete transformed more and more into the Hellenistic pattern of independent city-states.134 When Arab raids commenced in the mid-seventh century, the end of Crete‟s Roman history was near. Leo III formalized this with the annexation of the island‟s church administration, ushering Crete securely into the Byzantine world.

CONCLUSIONS Roman Crete has witnessed a significant increase in scholarly interest during the past two decades. This interest, however, has not corresponded with attempts to assess critically the character of the island under Roman rule and to trace out the history of Crete as a Roman territory. While 67 B.C.E. serves as a convenient starting point for Roman Crete, evidence for Rome‟s contact with the island is more complex and necessitates a refined view. Interest in Crete 131

Gortina V.3, 260-1, 264-6, 269-79, 302-313; Portale and Romeo 2000; Yangaki 2004-2005: 512-8; 2005: 189, 194-7. 132 Sanders 1982: 129. 133 Pirazolli et al. 1982: 32; Pirazolli 1986; 1988: 157. 134 For instance, the pottery class known as ceramica sovradipinta, or painted ware, was produced independently at several sites across Crete including Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 69; Yangaki 2005: 127-31), Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 86101; Vitale 2008), and Pseira (Poulou-Papadimitrou 1995: 1122, 1126). Very few, if any, fragments of these vessels, are found at sites on Crete other than their production center.

40

began at the end of the third century B.C.E., gradually building up to the conquest of the island and its formalization as a province. Crete‟s Roman history was also long-lived and an examination of the evidence shows that not until the early eighth century C.E. was the island finally entrenched in the Byzantine world. Within Crete‟s history we can also trace out additional markers for recognizing distinct periods. The result is a more clarified view of the historical progression of Roman Crete.

41

CHAPTER 3 THE STUDY OF ROMAN CRETE

INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, discussion focused on outlining the conditions for the creation of Roman Crete, describing the nature of the island under Roman rule, and introducing a chronological scheme to be used throughout this study. The necessity of those enquiries implies that Roman Crete is understudied. While true, this observation fails to emphasize what work has been done, and the potential for future study. The present chapter aims to examine the sources of evidence available to scholars of Roman Crete by assessing how they have been employed in previous studies and proposing programs of research for which they may be useful. A discussion of primary sources, including travelers‟ accounts, archaeological data, literary sources, epigraphic texts, and numismatic finds, occupies the first part of the chapter. Secondary literature, and its use of these categories of evidence, is the focus of the second part of the chapter. Providing an account of the various sources of evidence for Roman Crete serves two purposes. First, documenting the primary evidence available for study, and noting its diversity and potential for research, is necessary before beginning any large-scale project. Second, by assessing the limitations of this evidence, in particular the sporadic preservation and inadequate publication, the need for critical appraisal of these sources should become apparent. An effort also will be made to point out specific instances where each category of evidence relates to the site of Ierapetra.

42

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE FOR ROMAN CRETE Travelers’ Accounts The classification of travelers‟ accounts as primary evidence may appear peculiar, but, much like the other types of sources presented below, these accounts can augment our understanding of the history and archaeology of Crete. Numerous travelers, ranging from diplomats to naturalists to antiquarians, visited Crete from the fourteenth through the nineteenth century, and many recorded detailed accounts of the archaeological remains they encountered. Greece as a whole was an ideal destination for diplomats and academics seeking insight into classical history, geography, natural history, and a variety of other subjects. Travel to Greece was different than the Grand Tour in Italy, however. According to R. Eisner, even by the eighteenth century “… Greece remained beyond the reach of tourists who lacked a diplomatic or scholarly motive as well as an adventurous temperament and the means to mount an expedition into a strange and awkward land”.1 On Crete, for instance, many travelers initially came to the island for a reason unrelated to searching for ancient remains. The first documented travelers to Crete arrived during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Symonis Semeonis, an Irish cleric who left Ireland in 1323 on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, came to the island during his eastward journey.2 Semeonis was intent on observing all aspects of life in the regions he visited, including geographical features, customs, dress, prices (recorded in Venetian currency), and bureaucracy.3 He often compared these with life back in Ireland. One observation of Semeonis concerning Crete is of particular interest when he

1

Eisner 1991: 64. M. Esposito (1960) has published an edition and English translation of Semeonis‟ account, which was written in Latin. 3 Esposito 1960: 7-8; Scott 2005: 981. 2

43

mentions Gypsies on the island in 1323.4 This is the earliest reference to Gypsies being present in Europe. A century after Semeonis‟ visit, Cristoforo Buondelmonti spent time on Crete between 1414 and 1420.5 An Italian born in Florence, Buondelmonti was an accomplished cartographer who used his travels to Greece to gain an understanding of the physical geography and sailing conditions of the region. He is considered the first cartographer who paid specific attention to Greece and its islands.6 Along with mapping and describing the geography of Crete, Buondelmonti also had an additional goal in mind when he came to the island. He wanted to document the “hundred cities” attested in classical literature, which shows he had antiquarian leanings to go along with his geographical background.7 Another Italian traveler, Cyriacus of Ancona, born to a wealthy Italian family of merchants, also spent much of his adult life traveling through the eastern Mediterranean. His mission was often diplomatic in nature, but his fascination with antiquity led him to record details about a large number of the inscriptions, structures, and artifacts he encountered. His copious descriptions of this material, and the notable accuracy of these recordings, have led many scholars to term Cyriacus “the founding father of modern classical archaeology”.8 His journey to Crete came late in his life, during the year 1445. One difficulty with studying Cyriacus‟s accounts of his travels to the island, however, is that several of his original manuscripts have been lost, and those that do remain are published in sporadic fashion. While no complete account of Cyriacus‟ visit to Crete is available, E. Bodnar

4

Esposito 1960: 8. van der Vin 1980: 135. 6 van der Vin 1980: 138. 7 For an edition and French translation of Buondelmonti‟s account, see Van Spitael 1981. No English translation of this manuscript has been published. 8 Bodnar 2003: ix. 5

44

has published English translations of several of his journal entries which describe his time on the island.9 Following Cyriacus, nearly a century passes before detailed accounts about Crete reappear. The next significant record derives from Francesco Barozzi, who wrote a description of the island in 1577/1578.10 Using the term traveler to describe Barozzi is something of a misnomer, however. He was born on Crete in 1537 to a Venetian noble family. After being educated in Padua, Barozzi spent time living in Italy and Crete, and became an important part of the intellectual fabric of the island.11 A noted mathematician, he helped to found the first Neoplatonic Academy on Crete at Rethymno in 1562. Barozzi‟s interests as an antiquarian also are evident in his description of the island, and he was particularly interested in copying the texts of inscriptions. Perhaps the most influential account of Crete recorded before the nineteenth century was written by Onorio Belli, an Italian from Vicenza who was active on the island from 1583 to 1599. Belli was an intellectual, botanist, and physician who came to work for the Venetian governor of Crete. Soon after arriving on the island, the governor, Luigi di Antonio Grimani de Servi, decided to make a personal tour of the whole of Crete to assess its state of affairs.12 During this tour, Belli was able to examine the antiquities of the island and even convinced the governor to conduct excavations in a few locations. Belli‟s description of his investigations provides one of the most important accounts of the archaeological history of Crete.13 For numerous sites, he

9

Bodnar 2003. For an edition and Modern Greek translation of Barozzi‟s account, se Kaklamanis 2004. No English translation of this manuscript has been published. 11 Holton 1991: 7-8. 12 Falkener 1854: 4. 13 Several editions and translations of Belli‟s manuscript have been published including ones in English (Falkener 1854), Modern Greek (Spanakis 1968), and Italian (Beschi 1999). 10

45

recorded inscriptions and drew plans of standing remains. Often, these plans are the only existing evidence of these buildings. The seventeenth century saw travelers continue to make Crete part of their itineraries. This includes Francesco Basilicata, a Venetian military engineer who spent time on Crete between 1612 and 1638. Basilicata‟s skill as a cartographer makes him noteworthy in the tradition of map-making on the island.14 In fact, data from Basilicata‟s maps of Crete became the foundation for numerous later maps which depict the island. During his time on Crete, he also composed a brief description of the physical geography and antiquities he encountered.15 Basilicata‟s geographic mindset is apparent in his text since he records the most complete list of Cretan place-names during the Venetian period. His account is also significant for being among the last preserved before the Ottomans finalized their conquest of the island in 1669.16 An English merchant named Bernard Randolph came to Crete in 1680, a decade after the establishment of Ottoman rule.17 Along with observations of interest to antiquarians, Randolph focused on describing, often in polemical fashion, the state of affairs on Crete in the years since the Ottoman conquest. For instance, he claimed that the population of Crete in 1680 was approximately 80,000 individuals, whereas it had been over one million before the Ottomans came.18 Another traveler who was critical of Ottoman rule, and of local inhabitants whose neglect had resulted in the deterioration of many ancient remains, was Joseph Pitton de Tournefort. A French botany professor who toured Crete from 1700 to 1702, he became disheartened with his attempt to document unique plant life on the island and turned his attention 14

Clutton 1982: 48. The exact duration of Basilicata‟s stay on the island is unknown. For an edition and Modern Greek translation of this text, see Spanakis 1969. No English translation of this manuscript has been published. 16 The Cretan War between the Venetians and Ottomans over the island lasted from 1645 to 1669. cf. Detorakis 1994: 226-44. 17 Randolph 1687. 18 Randolph 1687: 93-4. 15

46

to studying antiquities he encountered.19 Tournefort also summarized the findings of all previous travelers to Crete. All of the travelers who visited Crete from Semeonis to Tournefort showed interest in the history and archaeology of the island. Each made efforts to document preserved remains, catalogue inscriptions, provide accounts of natural history, outline routes of passage, and make connections between ancient sources and modern sites. The dawning of the nineteenth century brought about an increase in the number of travelers and a further intensification of this burgeoning scholarly interest. At the very beginning of the century, Antonio de Torres Y Ribera, a Spanish antiquarian, came to Crete in search of ruins and antiquities. Like many travelers before him, his two accounts include detailed recordings of numerous inscriptions along with descriptions of any architectural finds he encountered.20 He also carried on the tradition of Tournefort by summarizing the reports of earlier travelers. In 1817, an Austrian botanist named Franz Sieber visited Crete, desiring to collect specimens of plant and animal life. His account includes numerous details about ancient remains, and also demonstrates an inherent fascination with ethnography.21 For instance, in his discussion of Ierapetra, he suggests that the darker skin of many of the inhabitants points to an Egyptian origin for most of the town‟s population.22 A seminal work in the nineteenth century scholarly tradition of Crete is the account of Robert Pashley, an English traveler who spent most of the year 1834 on the island. Pashley had a background in Classics, which enabled him to identify many of the remains he came across with ancient sites mentioned in literary and epigraphic sources. He also described archaeological remains across Crete and provided an important portrayal of the state of life on the island at that 19

Stoneman 1987: 90-2. For his account, Tournefort 1717. An English translation appeared a few decades later (Tournefort 1747). 20 Torres Y Ribera 1805, 1808. No English translation of either work has been published. 21 Sieber 1823. 22 Sieber 1823: 94.

47

time, including an assessment of geography, the state of living conditions, the language, and the impact of Ottoman rule.23 Soon after Pashley, in 1845, a French botanist named Felix-Victor Raulin arrived on Crete and commenced a thorough survey of the island‟s natural history. His two volume manuscript focuses primarily on physical geography and a description of plant and animal life, but also provides some insights into archaeological remains.24 Captain Thomas Spratt is another traveler whose account of his trip to Crete is considered a pinnacle of nineteenth century scholarship.25 A British naval officer who toured the island in 1865, Spratt produced a two volume summary of his visit. This work is famous for its discussion of the topography, geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history of the island. Spratt‟s primary purpose in visiting Crete was to undertake a topographical and geographical survey. To accomplish this goal, he believed that it also was necessary “to collect reliable information regarding the local names, population, and ancient cities, many of them being as yet undiscovered or undescribed”.26 Few travelers were as thorough as Spratt in their descriptions of ancient remains and his account enables us to reconstruct the state of preservation of many sites at that time. Another traveler who came to Crete around the same time as Spratt was a German classicist named Conrad Bursian. He traveled through most of Greece seeking to document geographical features and classical remains. The second volume of his multi-volume account describes his trip to Crete.27 Travelers continued to visit Crete into the latter part of the nineteenth century, but a change becomes apparent in the goals these individuals had when they came to the island. Archaeology was beginning to formalize in the Greek world at this time, including the 23

Pashley 1970 [1834]. Raulin 1869. 25 Spratt 1865. 26 Spratt 1865: 2. 27 Bursian 1868. 24

48

organization of the first excavations. While in many ways foreign travelers to Crete were continuing a tradition begun several centuries earlier, they also were trying to stake their own claims to excavate archaeological sites. Heinrich Schliemann, for instance, attempted to acquire land on the site of Knossos unsuccessfully in 1883 during his visit to the island.28 An American, W.J. Stillman, also made a futile venture for a dig at Knossos.29 Only some of these early endeavors by travelers to acquire land for excavation were successful. The Italian archaeologist, Federico Halbherr, had triumphs at several sites across the island and in many ways can be seen as a transitional figure.30 He is among the first scholars to engage in systematic excavations on Crete, paving the way for numerous subsequent projects. Much of Halbherr‟s energy was also dedicated to epigraphy and he laid the groundwork for the systematic collection of Cretan inscriptions in what would eventually become the Inscriptiones Creticae. He also went on to become the first director of the Suola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. Around the same time, thanks to the creation of the British Cretan Exploration Fund after 1897, Sir Arthur Evans began his work at Knossos.31 By the beginning of the twentieth century, the conversion of Crete from travelers‟ destination to archaeological workplace had been completed.

Archaeological Data Archaeology provides the largest and most diverse body of evidence for the study of Late Hellenistic and Roman Crete. This evidence is not without limitations, however. Contrary to the systematic manner in which scholars have approached Bronze Age and Iron Age archaeology on

28

Gill 2000: 518. Dyson 1998: 72. 30 Halbherr produced a series of reports under the heading “Cretan Expedition” which recorded results of excavations at several sites and documented epigraphical finds. See, for instance, Halbherr 1896a, 1896b, 1897, 1901a, 1901b. 31 Gill 2000: 517-8. 29

49

the island, the collection of Late Hellenistic and Roman data has been more random. Most sites reveal finds from these periods only through rescue excavations carried out by the local Archaeological Service. Scholarship which attempts to interpret Hellenistic and Roman material is also limited. For instance, the first attempt to provide a holistic synthesis of archaeological evidence from Roman Crete did not occur until the 1970s. During that decade, a PhD student at the University of Sheffield named Ian Sanders undertook a dissertation aimed at identifying all of the know Roman sites on the island. His final product, published posthumously in 1982, included a gazetteer documenting several hundred sites, ranging from small agricultural farmsteads to large poleis.32 Sanders‟ untimely death from cancer shortly after defending his dissertation prevented him from building on his work and beginning an analysis of the island‟s social, political, religious, and economic structures. Based on the quantity and types of settlements documented by Sanders, Roman Crete was densely occupied. Archaeological surveys carried out since the 1970s have confirmed this pattern and the number of documented Roman sites on Crete has increased exponentially in only a few decades. Excavations of Hellenistic and Roman sites still lag behind their Bronze Age and Iron Age counterparts, however. Almost all excavation data concerning Roman Crete derives from only three sites: Gortyn, Knossos, and Eleutherna. While rescue excavations across the island do reveal Roman layers, these digs are rarely published, with a short preliminary report often the only source of information. That only three sites provide the lion‟s share of archaeological information should not discourage us from acknowledging the importance of these excavations. Gortyn, located in the Mesara plain in south-central Crete and the capital of the province of Crete and Cyrenaica, has

32

Sanders 1982. The gazetteer can found in pp. 135-75.

50

been excavated since 1884 under the aegis of the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene.33 Distinguished as the largest archaeological site on Crete, the earliest investigations, carried out by Federico Halbherr, focused in the area of the Odeon in the northwest part of the site. Numerous important figures in Italian archaeology have directed excavations at the site, including G. Gerola, A. Maiuri, M. Guarducci, and D. Levi. Much of the focus through the first half of the twentieth century was aimed at uncovering public structures, including the Temple of Apollo Pythios, the Temple of Isis, and the Odeon. The sanctuary atop the acropolis, which forms the northwest corner of the site, was also investigated at this time.34 Antonio di Vita was named director of excavations in 1978, and he has focused much of his attention on excavating the Praetorium, which served as the residence and offices of the provincial governor. Di Vita is also responsible for organizing a monograph series which has described archaeological work carried out at Gortyn from the 1970s to the present. To date, seven volumes have been published. Four detail work in and around the Praetorium, while three others examine sculptural finds, Hellenistic fortifications, and Archaic through Late Hellenistic inscriptions respectively.35 More specialized volumes have also appeared, including one on the city‟s large theater and another on painted ceramics produced in the Late Antique period.36 The benefit of this robust publication record is that Gortyn is now the best published Roman site on the island. Excavations at Gortyn continue to expand, and recent seasons have seen as many as six different teams investigating parts of the site. Since 2002, much of Di Vita‟s focus has been on

33

See Di Vita (1984: 69-90) for a detailed outline of the history of investigations at Gortyn from 1884 to 1984. Rizza and Santa Maria Scrinari 1968. 35 Gortina I, Gortina II, Gortina V, and Gortina VI all publish architectural remains, stratigraphy, ceramics, and other finds from the Praetorium and surrounding area. Gortina III looks at sculptural finds, Gortina IV at Hellensitic fortifications, and Gortina VII at inscriptions. 36 See Montali 2006 for the discussion of the theater and Vitale 2008 for the painted ceramics. 34

51

what he terms the Byzantine Quarter, a series of shops and domestic structures located in the vicinity of the Praetorium and the Temple of Apollo Pythios.37 These excavations will help clarify the history of the site, and of Crete, during the sixth through eighth centuries C.E. Documentation of Roman remains has also formed part of the focus of archaeological investigations at Knossos, located in north-central Crete. Home to the largest of the excavated Minoan palaces, excavations began at the end of the nineteenth century under the direction of Sir Arthur Evans. Interest in the Roman history of Knossos, arising for the most part in the second half of the twentieth century, has never garnered the same scholarly attention as the Bronze Age, but a great deal of information is available. Most work on Roman Knossos occurs for one of two reasons: first, post-Bronze Age occupation levels must be removed from a structure to reveal Minoan layers; second, rescue excavations around the site encounter Roman material. The Unexplored Mansion, a large Bronze Age domestic structure located to the northwest of the palace, is an example of the former scenario. To uncover this house, archaeologists had to first remove a series of well stratified deposits dating from the Early Iron Age through the Roman period.38 Excavators came to appreciate the important contribution these deposits could make to understanding the post-Bronze Age chronology and material culture of Knossos, and Crete as a whole. A detailed publication of these finds appeared in 1992, which included analyses of Roman pottery, lamps, coins, plaster sculptures, terracotta objects, metal and bone finds, and glass vessels.39 A similar set of circumstances is also apparent in the publication of finds from

37

For reports of the excavations in the Byzantine Quarter, see AR 49 (2002-2003): 80-1; AR 50 (2003-2004): 82-3; AR 51 (2004-2005): 112-3; AR 53 (2006-2007): 109-10; AR 54 (2007-2008): 106; AR 55 (2008-2009): 91-3. 38 Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion took place from 1967 to 1968, 1971 to 1973, and 1977. cf. UM II, vii. 39 UM II.

52

the Sanctuary of Demeter, located north of the palace, where Roman material was encountered above earlier layers.40 Rescue excavations throughout the Knossos valley are also commonplace. Excavators often encounter Roman buildings and material culture during these digs, and there is strong tradition of associated publications. Examples include chamber tombs excavated in the hills surrounding the valley,41 an Early Roman house found in a field near the palace,42 building remains revealed during construction of the Stratigraphical Museum and University of Crete Medical Faculty building,43 both northwest of the palace, and a few other random pits and test trenches.44 The construction and expansion of the Venezeleion Hospital, northwest of the palace, has also produced numerous Roman finds during rescue excavations, including a Christian basilica.45 There are a few instances, however, where excavation of Roman remains at Knossos has been the primary goal of excavators. The Villa Dionysos, a large Roman domestic structure located a few hundred meters north of the British dig house to the west of the palace, and excavated in 1935, 1957 to 1958, 1961, and 1971, is an exception.46 Sir Arthur Evans made the Villa one of the principal focuses of excavation at Knossos in 1935.47 The main publication available is a pottery report compiled by John Hayes, although a few other reports on the mosaics and history of the Villa are also available.48 In addition, of particular importance for

40

Coldstream 1973: 46-55. Wardle 1972: 271-83; Catling et al. 1976; Carington-Smith 1982. 42 Catling et al. 1981: 85-104. 43 Stratigraphical Museum (Roman material): Warren 1987-1988. University of Crete Medical Faculty: Paton 1991; Hayes 2001a; Sweetman and Becker 2005. 44 Hayes 1971; Catling and Waywell 1977 45 For the basilica, see Frend and Johnston 1962. Remains identified during the expansion of this building are published in Catling et al. 1982. 46 Hayes 1983: 97. 47 Payne 1935: 164-5. 48 For the pottery, see Hayes 1983. For additional reports, see: Paton 1998, 2000; Sweetman 2003: 521-7. 41

53

understanding the nature of the site in the Late Hellenistic through Late Antique periods is the Knossos Urban Landscape Project, an intensive survey which will better define the boundaries of the settlement during all periods and supplement an earlier survey conducted by M.S.F. Hood and D. Smyth.49 We also should not ignore work completed on Late Hellenistic Knossos, including several pottery publications.50 Eleutherna, situated approximately 40km west of Knossos, is the third Roman site which has been subject to systematic excavation and publication. Located inland about 10km from the coast, the site comprises a large hill known as Pyrgi and the surrounding valleys. The earliest excavations occurred in 1928 when a British archaeologist, H. Payne, investigated several different parts of the site and revealed a series of structures ranging in date from the Archaic through Late Roman periods.51 From 1984 to the present, the University of Crete has conducted excavations at Eleutherna, which serve as field schools for students in the school‟s archaeology program. Digging has focused on three distinct regions, termed sectors by the excavators, with a different professor in charge of each. Sector I, excavated under the direction of P. Themelis, comprises part of the valley east of Pyrgi hill. Several domestic structures have been revealed, with most of the material datable to the Roman period. T. Kalpaxis has directed excavations in Sector II, located on the acropolis of Pyrgi hill, where evidence for Archaic to Hellenistic and Late Roman to Late Antique settlement has been uncovered. Sector III consists of a Geometric to Archaic necropolis, located in the valley west of Pyrgi in an area known as Orthi Petra. Excavations there are directed by N. Stampolides.

49

Knossos Urban Landscape Project: AR 52 (2005-2006): 108; AR 53 (2006-2007): 108; AR 54 (2007-2008): 100-2; AR 55 (2008-2009): 94. Hood and Smyth 1981. 50 Homann-Wedeking 1950; Callaghan 1978, 1981; Coldstream 1973, 1999; Eiring 2001; Eiring, Boileau, and Whitbread 2002. 51 Woodward 1929: 224-6.

54

Published material of interest to Roman scholars derives from Sectors I and II, and mostly comprises ceramic material datable from the fourth century C.E. and later. C. Vogt published a series of deposits, which subsequently was expanded upon in a dissertation on Late Roman and Late Antique pottery from Eleutherna by A. Yangaki.52 Very little Early Roman material has been published from the site, with the exception of some Italian Sigillata stamps analyzed by M. Baldwin Bowsky.53 There is also one pottery volume concerned with Hellenistic pottery.54 Beyond the ceramic material, a dissertation on sixth and seventh century C.E. skeletal remains has been completed.55 Overall, there appears to be a shift in interest toward this later period of Roman history on Crete. Much of the recent scholarship from Gortyn, Knossos, and Eleutherna discusses material from the fourth through the eighth centuries C.E., and pottery reports from excavations at Itanos and Pseira in eastern Crete do the same.56 Unfortunately, the same degree of interest does not appear evident for the Early Roman period, which is particularly troubling with respect to the lack of detailed pottery reports outside of Gortyn and Knossos.57 Hellenistic pottery studies beyond those from Knossos also are rare, although their numbers have increased in the past decade, particularly for eastern Crete.58 The concentration of archaeological knowledge at Gortyn, Knossos, and Eleutherna obscures the fact that there were many other large centers present on Crete during the Roman

52

Vogt 2000; Yangaki 2005. Baldwin Bowsky 2009. 54 Kalpaxis et al. 1994. 55 Bourbou 2004. 56 Xanthopoulou 2004; Poulou-Papadimitriou 1995; Poulou-Papadimitriou and Nodarou 2007. 57 In addition to the pottery reports mentioned above from Gortyn and Knossos, there are publications of Early Roman material from Kommos (Kommos IV), Chania (Khania 1.1; Raab 2001), and Lappa (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988). For the Late Roman and Late Antique periods, there are reports from Ayia Galini (Vogt 1991-1993) and Rethymno (Kalokyris 1955). See also Francis et al. 2000 for ceramics from the cave sanctuary at Agiasmati. 58 For example, Eiring 2000b; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b; Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004; VogeikoffBrogan et al. 2004; Englezou 2005; Vogeikoff-Brogan, Boileau, and Nodarou 2008. 53

55

period. For some sites, the lack of available data is a matter of publication rather than excavation. Preliminary reports in Archaeological Reports (AR) and the Archaiologikon Deltion (ArchDelt) for the past few years at Kissamos, for instance, demonstrate that this site now rivals Gortyn, Knossos, and Eleutherna for the amount of material that has been recovered. Kissamos, a port city located in the northwest corner of Crete, has been subject to a large number of rescue excavations in recent years, and archaeologists are attempting to sort out a picture of the Roman city. The city holds the distinction of being the largest modern harbor on the island and material from the site will be significant for our understanding of Crete‟s economic history. Ierapetra, the primary focus of the present study, is excluded from much of the above discussion because of a lack of published archaeological evidence available for consultation. The city may have been the largest port center on Crete in the Roman period, and was the most important polis in the eastern part of the island. This conclusion can be derived from literary testimonia and accounts of travelers who passed through Crete from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century C.E.59 Little of the ancient city is visible above the ground, however, and one can pass through the modern town and have no conception that a major ancient center once stood there. The site has never been subject to systematic excavation, instead revealing its history piece by piece through rescue excavations. In his gazetteer, Sanders provides a lengthy entry about Ierapetra and includes a plan.60 This plan records three confirmed Roman structures: the mole of the harbor, the small theater, and a wall west of the harbor. A possible location for the large theater is also posited. Beyond the gazetteer entry, Sanders focuses only on the evidence for the two theaters, for which detailed plans were drawn by Onorio Belli in the sixteenth century.61

59

A detailed discussion of this evidence will be presented in Chapter 4. Sanders 1982: 139, fig. 49. 61 Sanders 1982: 57-9. For the publication of Belli‟s plans see Falkener 1854: 11-14. 60

56

Ierapetra has received little attention from scholars of all disciplines. A few studies have delved into the city‟s sculptural record, although they represent a superficial treatment of this subject.62 The most in-depth research into the archaeology of the site has involved Late Hellenistic ceramic studies. N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, for instance, speculates that a class of pottery she terms East Cretan Cream Ware, which is common in the Mirabello Bay and Siteia regions of eastern Crete, was produced at Ierapetra.63 Additional evidence for Hellenistic amphora production derives from a small number of stamped handles that bear the city‟s name. These handles have been found at Mochlos, Trypetos, and the Isthmus of Ierapetra on Crete, as well as Alexandria in Egypt, and Callatis in Bulgaria.64 There has yet to be any corresponding study of Roman ceramics from the site. Chersonesos, a port city in north-central Crete, has also been subject to limited scholarly interest, despite a robust archaeological record. Rescue excavations are prevalent, as demonstrated by numerous accounts in Archaiologikon Deltion and Kritika Chronika, but there are few syntheses of these results. D. Hadzi-Vallianou has discussed several excavations with respect to their information on architecture, while L. Chaniotaki-Starida and M. Mari have emphasized results from several rescue excavations which elucidate aspects of Chersonesos during the fourth through seventh centuries.65 Sanders also details the archaeological remains from the site attested at the time he was writing his dissertation.66 Chersonesos was one of the largest port cities on the north coast of Crete in the Roman period and, according to literary

62

Raftopoulou 1975; Apostolakou 1980; Beschi 1985; Kane and Reynolds 1985; Portale 1992-1993; Dörig 1994. Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 70-2; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 328-9. 64 Mochlos: Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329, pl. 128.a-b. Trypetos: Papadakis 2000: 123 no. 51 (=SEG 47.1410). Isthmus of Ierapetra: Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. Alexandria: Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992: 640 (=SEG 42.805); Marangou-Lerat 1995: 123-4; Marangou 2000: 250; Cankardes-Senol 2007: 44-5. Callatis: Buzoianu and Chelu -Georgescu 1983: 167 no. 34 (=SEG 34.737). 65 Hadzi-Vallianou 1985: 123-66; Chaniotaki-Staridi and Mari 2004. 66 Sanders 1982: 59-61 (theater), 95-101 (basilicas), 144-6 (gazetteer entry). Sanders (1982: 144 fig. 53) also includes a plan of the site. 63

57

sources, served as the primary harbor for the polis of Lyttos.67 The city was independent, though, a point emphasized by C. Kritzas who notes epigraphical evidence for the name Χερζολεζίωλ πόιης and for independent magistrates.68 It also has one of the best documented Roman aqueducts on the island.69 Available archaeological evidence suggests that Chersonesos had a diverse economy. Three amphora production sites, fish tanks, and purple dye workshops are attested, in addition to large harbor works.70 The evidence for large-scale amphora production is intriguing given the site‟s connection to Lyttos, a major wine producing center. Cretan amphorae bearing tituli picti found at Pompeii mention Lyttos more than any other site on Crete.71 Amphora production is not documented at Lyttos, or in its surrounding hinterland, suggesting Lyttian wine was packaged in amphorae produced at Chersonesos. Some evidence for Chersonesos‟ involvement in wine or olive oil trade, perhaps connected to Lyttos, is now available in the form of 90 ostraca, datable between the second half of the second century C.E. and the first half of the third century C.E., which either record transactions on an estate or of a wholesale merchant. These texts, published by N. Litinas, may elucidate aspects of the economy of the city.72 Chersonesos is ripe for a synthetic study which would illuminate aspects of Crete‟s domestic and international economy, and available evidence from the site will serve as important comparanda for Ierapetra. Along with investigations of individual sites, there are other topics of interest to archaeologists on Crete which would benefit from further study. Two examples, the study of

67

Strabo 10.4.14. An inscription (IG 12.5.723) may be referring to Chersonesos with the phrase “Λύηηηοη οἱ πρὸς ζαιάζζεη” (The people of Lyttos who are by the sea). 68 Kritzas 2007: 796. 69 Oikonomaki 1986. He dates construction of this aqueduct to the period between 110 and 140 C.E. 70 For amphora production at the site see Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991: 493-9; Marangou-Lerat 1995: 448. For the fish tanks and harbor works see Leatham and Hood 1957-1958: 266-73. For evidence of purple dye production see Boekschoten 1962. 71 Marangou-Lerat (1995: 131-3) records 44 examples. Tchernia (1986: 241) puts the number at 31. 72 Litinas 1999, 2008.

58

domestic architecture, for which there has been minimal treatment, and further investigations into Roman shipwrecks, of which there are thus far only seven documented examples, would be fruitful undertakings.73 The growing knowledge of local and imported marble on the island could also be exploited further to examine evidence for economic connections and local preferences concerning building materials. 74 An additional source of archaeological data that cannot, and should not, be ignored is survey archaeology. This includes regional surveys and one goal-oriented survey undertaken by the École française d'Athènes aimed at locating evidence of amphora production on the island.75 Crete is one of the best surveyed parts of the Mediterranean when one considers the percentage of walkable land that has been covered. According to T. Cunningham and J. Driessen, as of 2004 (the year of publication of their paper), approximately 1100 of Crete‟s 8300 square kilometers had been walked by surveyors, a number that has since increased.76 Even though “...most survey projects on the island have been carried out by and for prehistorians,” many have collected data from Hellenistic and Roman sites.77 The practice of survey has a long history on Crete, dating back at least to the walking tours of travelers who visited the island. Archaeologists who came to work on Crete beginning in the late nineteenth century also expressed an interest in scouring the modern landscape in search of ancient sites. This early interest in landscape archaeology laid the groundwork for numerous

73

For a study of domestic architecture on Crete, see Harrison 2004. The seven shipwrecks are catalogued by Parker (1992: 62, 111, 162, 270) as nos. P68, P214-215, P359-361, and P681. See also Leatham and Hood 1957-1958: 27880 (=P68). 74 For evidence of marble quarrying on Crete, see Durkin and Lister 1983 and Harrison 1990. For a discussion of imported stone, see Paton and Schneider 1999 and Pensabene and Lazzarini 2004. 75 Amphora production survey: Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989; Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991; Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992. 76 Cunningham and Driessen 2004: 102. Moody et al. (2003: 42-3, table 2) is a good place to look for bibliography associated with the numerous survey projects undertaken on Crete. 77 Cunningham and Driessen 2004: 101.

59

subsequent surveys. According to M.S.F. Hood, P. Warren, and G. Cadogen, who conducted their own walking tours in the 1960s: Crete has perhaps been more thoroughly explored than any other part of Greece. Pashley (Travels in Crete (1837)) and Spratt (Travels and Researches in Crete (1865)) identified many ancient Greek and Roman cities. At the end of the nineteenth century came Evans, and the Italians Halbherr, Mariani, Savignoni, and Taramelli, who began the search for Bronze Age sites continued by Pendlebury, Kirsten, and others between the wars. Much has also been contributed by a series of distinguished Antiquities Officers, I. Hatzidakes, St. Xanthoudides, and Sp. Marinatos; and since the war by N. Platon, whose very full annual reports in Kritika Khronika have provided a valuable record of current excavations and discoveries. In recent years P. Faure has located many new sites in the course of exploring the caves of Crete.78 The work of Hood and his colleagues in the 1960s was transitional compared to their predecessors. Instead of touring the whole of Crete in search of archaeological sites, these later surveyors began to focus more and more on specific regions. Hood, for instance, carried out investigations in different parts of western Crete, including the province of Ayios Vasilios to the south of Rethymno, because of a notable lack of identified Bronze Age sites in that region. 79 By the 1970s, survey archaeology in the Greek world was beginning to formalize as a discipline. Projects such as the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition, carried out in the southwestern Peloponnese in the 1950s and 1960s, had demonstrated the benefits of a systematic investigation of a landscape while also attempting to understand regional geography.80 In addition, while most surveyors were still interested primarily in the settlement history of individual periods, such as the Bronze Age on Crete, they were paying increased attention to documenting the entire settlement history of specific regions. On Crete, for instance, L. Vance Watrous conducted a survey of the Lasithi Plain that sought to document the area‟s Neolithic 78

Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964: 50. Hood 1965, 1967; Hood and Warren 1966. 80 McDonald and Rapp 1972. 79

60

through Late Roman history.81 He also described Venetian and Ottoman occupation and exploitation of the plain. Around the same time, D.J. Blackman and K. Branigan conducted an intensive survey of the Ayiofarango Valley in south-central Crete aimed at identifying patterns of long-term settlement history.82 The past three decades has witnessed the proliferation of survey archaeology on Crete. Including the earlier projects mentioned above, no fewer than 26 surveys have been carried out across the island in that time span (Fig. 3.1).83 M. Gkiasta has recently completed a dissertation that examines the history of survey archaeology on Crete and the various methods employed by these projects.84 That the rise in popularity in studying Roman Crete over the past 30 years overlaps with this increase in archaeological survey is not coincidental. Ian Sanders, one of the first scholars to dedicate his research specifically to the Roman period of Crete, employed results from surveys and his own tours of the island to compile a gazetteer of Roman sites for his dissertation in the 1970s.85 His work has been the catalyst for all subsequent studies of Roman Crete, many of which are connected to survey projects.

81

Watrous 1982. The survey of the plain took place in the summer of 1973 and formed the basis for Watrous‟ dissertation, completed in 1974. 82 Blackman and Branigan 1975, 1977. 83 Ayios Vasilios Valley: Hood and Warren 1966; Moody, Peatfield, and Markoulaki 2000. Ayiofarango Valley: Blackman and Branigan 1975, 1977. Galatas: AR 52 (2005-2006): 107; AR 53 (2006-2007): 107; AR 54 (20072008): 104-5. Gavdos: Kopaka 2000. Gournia: Watrous et al. 2000; Watrous et al, forthcoming. Ierapetra/Chryssi Island: Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. Itanos: AR 46 (1999-2000): 141; AR 47 (2000-2001): 134; AR 50 (2003-2004): 89; AR 51 (2004-2005): 100-1. Kavousi: Haggis 2005. Khania: Moody 1987; Raab 2001. Knossos: Hood and Smyth 1981; AR 52 (2005-2006): 108; AR 53 (2006-2007): 108; AR 54 (2007-2008): 100-2; AR 55 (2008-2009): 94. Kommos: Hope Simpson 1995. Lasithi: Watrous 1982. Malia: Müller-Celka 2000; AR 51 (2004-2005): 107-8; AR 53 (2006-2007): 104. Nerokourou: Vagnetti, Christopoulou, and Tzedakis 1989: 87. Palaikastro: MacGillivray and Sackett 1984. Pediada: Panagiotakis 2003. Praisos: Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999. Pseira: Betancourt and Davaras 2002; Betancourt, Davaras, and Hope Simpson 2004, 2005. Rethymno: Schiering 1982. Siteia: Tsipopoulou 1989. Southeast Crete: Schlager 1991; Schlager et al. 1997, 2001. Sphakia: Nixon et al. 1988, 1989, 1990. Sybrita: Belgiorno 1994. Vrokastro: Hayden 2004a. Western Mesara: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004. Ziros: Branigan 1998. 84 Gkiasta 2008. 85 Sanders 1982. He also conducted a survey of the Mesara plain in the mid-1970s aimed at identifying Hellenistic and Roman settlements (Sanders 1976).

61

Not all of the surveys carried out on Crete have documented Hellenistic and Roman sites, however. Some smaller projects, such as the Palaikastro survey in northeast Crete, for instance, have only identified Bronze Age sites. The goal of that survey, undertaken in 1982 by archaeologists associated with the British excavations at the Minoan site of Palaikastro, was to document the extent of settlement of the city.86 Only a small area was walked, with no evidence of post-Bronze Age occupation appearing. In other cases, a lack of publication of results makes it difficult to assess whether certain surveys have identified Hellenistic and Roman material. Projects in western Crete which have described settlement datable to the Hellenistic and Roman periods include the Ayios Vasilios Valley Project (AVVP), the Khania Archaeological Survey Project (KASP), and the Sphakia Survey. M.S.F. Hood and P. Warren made an initial survey of the Ayios Vasilios valley, located on the south coast between the Sphakia and Mesara plains, in the 1960s, documenting large quantities of fifth to seventh century C.E. material, along with other Hellenistic and Roman finds.87 Fieldwork has since recommenced in the region, including identification of Hellenistic and Roman sites, with the organization of the Ayios Vasilios Valley Project in 1991, under the direction of J. Moody and A. Peatfield.88 Moody was also the driving force behind KASP, a survey of the Akrotiri peninsula and the territory of the city of Khania in northwest Crete, which she undertook for her dissertation in the 1980s.89 Hellenistic and Roman settlement data recovered during that project was subsequently studied by H. Raab.90 The Sphakia Survey, a Canadian project led by L. Nixon, S. Price, J. Moody, and O. Rackham, also conducted its fieldwork in the mid-1980s.91 Notable for being the most extensive 86

MacGillivray and Sackett 1984: 129. Hood and Warren 1966: 166, passim. 88 Moody, Peatfield, and Markoulaki 2000; AR 47 (2000-2001): 140. Fieldwork was conducted in 1991, 1994, 1997, and 2000. 89 Moody 1987. 90 Raab 2001. 91 Nixon et al. 1988, 1989, 1990. 87

62

survey on Crete based on area covered, surveyors documented consistent levels of Hellenistic and Early Roman settlement, followed by an increase in site numbers after the third century C.E. The Mesara Plain in south-central Crete has seen substantial portions of its territory walked by surveyors, including I. Sanders who aimed to document Hellenistic and Roman sites in the mid-1970s.92 D.J. Blackman and K. Branigan examined the area of the Ayiofarango Valley, located along the south coast, in the early 1970s.93 That survey is intriguing for being among the few on Crete to document attrition in site numbers beginning in the fourth century C.E. Interpreting settlement patterns around the Minoan palace of Phaistos, at the western end of the plain, was the goal of the Western Mesara survey, led by L.V. Watrous and D. HadziVallianou from 1984 to 1987.94 They documented a vibrant countryside in the Late Hellenistic period, which fluctuated in its settlement levels during the next few centuries. Excavators at harbor site of Kommos, west of Phaistos, also sought to contextualize their site within its surrounding territory. A survey led by J. Shaw from 1977 to 1979 succeeded in documenting numerous Hellenistic and Roman sites, followed by an apparent attrition in site numbers after the third century similar to the Ayiofarango Valley.95 In north-central Crete, attempts to understand the landscape around the Minoan palace of Knossos have led to several surveys which have documented Hellenistic and Roman remains. M.S.F. Hood and D. Smyth compiled these findings, along with an assessement of physical geography, in a short monograph.96 More recently, T. Whitelaw has organized the Knossos Urban Landscape Project (KULP), which will supplement the earlier findings of Hood and

92

Sanders 1976. Blackman and Branigan 1975, 1977. 94 Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004. 95 Hope Simpson 1995: 325, 397. 96 Hood and Smyth 1981. This is the second edition of the monograph, which was published originally in 1958. 93

63

Smyth.97 A survey around the Minoan palace of Galatas in the Pediada plain, led by L.V. Watrous from 2005 to 2007, documented limited settlement before the Late Roman period.98 The Pediada is an inland plain similar to the Lasithi plain to the east. Watrous also conducted a survey in that region in the early 1970s, and encountered an analogous pattern of settlement.99 N. Panagiotakis has also engaged in an extensive investigation of the Pediada plain and northcentral region of Crete.100 He encountered limited Hellenistic material during his survey, but did note extensive Roman settlement. It is eastern Crete which has seen the highest number of survey projects. The northern end of the Isthmus of Ierapetra, for instance, has been home to three overlapping projects known as the Vrokastro, Gournia, and Kavousi surveys. All three were organized under the aegis of the American School of Classical Studies, and documented similar patterns of settlement history, including significant increases in site numbers in the Late Roman period.101 The Vrokastro Survey, directed by B.J. Hayden, intended to document settlement around the sites of Vrokastro and Istron along the northern coast during fieldwork seasons from 1986 to 1989. Watrous directed the Gournia Survey, which focused on identifying settlement patterns around the Bronze Age site of Gournia between 1992 and 1994. Survey in the vicinity of Kavousi was carried out by D. Haggis between 1988 and 1990 as part of his dissertation research. Other surveys in this region include a project undertaken on the island of Pseira to the north.102 Connected to the American-led excavations of a Bronze Age town on the southeast coast of the island, very little Hellenistic and Roman settlement was identified before the sixth century C.E. At the southern

97

AR 52 (2005-2006): 108; AR 53 (2006-2007): 108; AR 54 (2007-2008): 100-2; AR 55 (2008-2009): 94. Watrous, personal communication. 99 Watrous 1982. 100 Panagiotakis 2003. 101 Vrokastro: Hayden 2004a. Gournia: Watrous et al. 2000, forthcoming. Kavousi: Haggis 2005. 102 Betancourt and Davaras 2002; Betancourt, Davaras, and Hope Simpson 2004, 2005. 98

64

end of the Isthmus of Ierapetra, Kostas Chalikias, a PhD student at the University of Heidelberg, recently undertook a survey around the city of the Ierapetra and the island of Chryssi, located approximately 15km to the south.103 He has documented a similar pattern of settlement to the surveys in the northern part of the Isthmus. Farther to the east, several surveys, including the Southeast Crete Archaeological Land Survey, the Praisos Survey, the Ziros Survey, the Itanos Survey, and research around the site of Agia Photia near Siteia, have documented varying levels of Hellenistic and Roman settlement.104 Most of these projects, however, have been subject to limited publication, making interpretation of their results difficult. One problem faced by surveys in this region, as outlined by J. Whitley for the Praisos Survey, is the lack of regional pottery publications.105 This hinders the ability to date post-Bronze Age material encountered on sites with any degree of accuracy. There are several difficulties associated with interpreting survey data from Crete, not the least of which is the limited publication of several projects. Different methodologies employed by various survey projects pose obstacles for anyone attempting broader meta-analyses of settlement patterns on Crete. Attempts at such a synthesis have been undertaken for the Bronze Age with varying results.106 H. Raab has summarized the results of numerous surveys which documented Hellenistic and Roman sites on Crete, but often notes how different methodologies affected her ability to compare data.107 During the explication of the methodologies employed by the Vrokastro Survey Project in northeastern Crete, the problem of comparing survey data was addressed with respect to three issues: (1) the intensity of the survey carried out by each project; 103

Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. Southeast Crete: Schlager 1991; Schlager et al. 1997, 2001. Praisos: Whitley 1999. Ziros: Branigan 1998. Itanos: AR 46 (1999-2000): 141; AR 47 (2000-2001): 134; AR 50 (2003-2004): 89; AR 51 (2004-2005): 100-1. Agia Photia, Siteia: Tsipopoulou 1989. 105 Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999: 253. 106 For instance, see Driessen 2001. Driessen (2001: 53) noted several difficulties concerning different methodologies he faced when attempting to synthesize survey data for settlement patterns in Minoan Crete. 107 Raab 2001: 22-44. 104

65

(2) distinctions in survey design which may result in biases or specific directions of research (for instance, the likelihood of identifying small sites); (3) differences in recording systems and types of observations which are made.108 Even issues which might be considered minor during the creation of a research design can have far-reaching implications. The definition of what constitutes a site, for example, turns out to be a remarkably complex problem. According to E. Banning: We need to have specific criteria for identifying localities that may have been loci of past human behavior, and cannot always be certain that “sites” were not created by some natural phenomenon or by modern activities. Furthermore, at least in some regions of the world, it is likely that every part of the landscape has been a locus of human behavior at some time or other.109 Each project appears to have different thresholds by which they define a site in the archaeological landscape. Whether sites from one survey are equivalent to sites from another project is a question which must be addressed. There are other considerations for the use of survey data as an archaeological tool in studying Roman Crete. Cunningham and Driessen note the bias of most survey projects on the island toward lowland plains and coastal areas.110 Only one published project, the Lasithi Survey, can be considered an inland survey with a focus on an upland plain.111 An additional difficulty is the lack of attention surveyors have paid to various theoretical frameworks employed for interpreting Roman survey data on mainland Greece. In particular, questions have begun to arise concerning the universal observation that there was a Late Roman and Late Antique population growth based on a regular documentation of increased numbers of sites during these periods. The 108

Hayden, Moody, and Rackham 1992: 306. Banning 2002: 81. 110 Cunningham and Driessen 2004: 102. 111 For this survey see Watrous 1982. The recently completed Galatas Survey Project, conducted in the inland Pediada plain under the direction of L.V. Watrous, will provide a second example when fully published. N. Panagiotakis (2003) conducted a survey in north-central Crete which included the upland Pediada plain. 109

66

suggestion now, as outlined by D. Pettegrew, is that this increase in site numbers is the result of differing capabilities at identifying Early Roman versus Late Roman pottery. 112 For the Methana survey, H. Bowden and D. Gill observe that “...it is evident that the Late Roman component on a site will have a relatively high profile, which must skew our perception of the scale of activity in this period”.113 D. Haggis hints at this problem during his presentation of the results of the Kavousi Survey on Crete when stating “Early Roman (2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.) fine wares were not readily apparent under the veneer of fourth-sixth century red-slipped wares, jars, amphorae and cooking pots”.114 The conclusion of numerous Cretan surveys, including the Kavousi, Lasithi, Sphakia, Vrokastro, and Western Mesara projects, that settlement increased in the Late Roman period, thus, may not be an accurate reflection of the data.115 Consideration of such theoretical models would be of great benefit to surveyors on Crete, and would help provide a more clarified picture of Roman settlement on the island.

Literary Sources Literary sources serve as an important foundation for our knowledge of Late Hellenistic and Roman Crete. Both the quality and quantity of evidence available for these two periods varies, however. The most significant narrative accounts of Cretan history focus on the Late Hellenistic period. As documented above in Chapter 2, these sources provide a provoking glimpse at Roman relations with the island and the state of affairs on Crete at this time. For the Roman period, even though contemporary authors do mention the island, the result tends to be a collection of facts rather than any coherent historical narrative. Many authors who wrote in the 112

Pettegrew 2007: 743-4. Bowden and Gill 1997b: 84. 114 Haggis 2005: 58. 115 Haggis 2005: 87; Watrous 1982: 25; Moody, Nixon, and Price 1998: 87-90; Hayden 2004b: 275-6; Tsougarakis and Angelomatis-Tsougarakis 2004: 370-1. 113

67

first few centuries C.E., and many of those writing before this, were more interested in the earlier, mythological history of the island. As a result, our historical knowledge of Roman Crete is lacking, and any attempts to characterize the island during the Roman period, or provide a historical context for other sources of evidence, including epigraphy and archaeology, face numerous obstacles. Among the earliest authors to write detailed accounts of Late Hellenistic Crete was Polybius. Born at Megalopolis in the Peloponnese, Polybius actively engaged in politics from an early age, even achieving the rank of Hipparch of the Achaian League. Following the Battle of Pydna, fought between an alliance of Greek states and Rome in 168 B.C.E., he was brought to Rome as a hostage and wrote a detailed history of this city and its growth into a Mediterranean power. In this work, he also provides detailed commentaries about many regions of the Greek world, including Crete. Although an invaluable source for our knowledge of the Hellenistic period of the island, in many ways Polybius has also been a detriment to our understanding of this phase of Cretan history. Several scholars, including H. van Effenterre, note the polemical attitude Polybius shows toward the island.116 G. Harrison suggests that his dislike stemmed from frustration with Crete‟s role in bringing about the Roman conquest of Greece, first by supporting Philip V, and later by failing to participate in the Battle of Pydna.117 Polybius‟ stance is evident in his description of the island‟s constitution when he writes: “θαὶ κὴλ οὔηε θαη’ ἰδίαλ ἤζε δοιηώηερα Κρεηαηέωλ εὕροη ηης ἂλ πιὴλ ηειείως ὀιίγωλ οὔηε θαηὰ θοηλὸλ ἐπηβοιὰς ἀδηθωηέρας” (Now it would be impossible to find except in some rare instances personal conduct more treacherous or a public policy more unjust than in Crete).118 Only within the past two decades

116

van Effenterre 1948: 13. Harrison 1994: 137. 118 Polyb. 6.47.5. Translation from the Loeb edition. 117

68

has the persistence of Polybius‟ views of the island begun to fade as a revised view of Hellenistic Crete emerges.119 Three later writers, Livy, Diodorus Siculus, and Strabo, also provide information about Late Hellenistic Crete. Of these three, Livy, an Italian born at Padua who dedicated his life to compiling an annalistic history of Rome, is the most important for filling in the gaps within Polybius‟ account. One difficulty, however, relates to Livy‟s uncritical use of Polybius as a source, resulting in a prejudiced view against Crete.120 This portrayal helped corroborate the interpretation of earlier scholars that Hellenistic Crete was war-torn and backward. Diodorus, whose work also uses Polybius as a source, does not provide as much detail about Hellenistic Crete as Livy, but still preserves a few key details. A contemporary of Livy, Diodorus‟ account is significant for its description of the Roman conquest of Crete between 69 and 67 B.C.E.121 This event falls in the period of Livy‟s history for which we only have summaries preserved.122 Strabo, a Greek author from Asia Minor who was also active in the late first century B.C.E. and early first century C.E., provides an extensive discussion of Crete, including numerous details about the island‟s geography and mythological history.123 Polybius, Livy, Diodorus Siculus, and Strabo preserve accounts of Crete that enable us to formulate a narrative history for the Hellenistic period. Strabo‟s text also emphasizes another aspect of Cretan life that interested later Roman authors: mythology. According to L. Braccesi, a large proportion of the references to Crete in Augustan period literature, including the works of

119

de Souza (1998: 112) observes that “...while the „quarrelling cities‟ image of Crete has been revised, the idea still persists that Hellenistic Crete was a failure; a primitive, pirate-infested, aristocratic, Dorian ghetto, with nothing to recommend it beyond its ability to produce very effective mercenaries”. 120 cf. Harrison 1994: 137-8. 121 Diod. Sic. 40.1. 122 Livy Ep.97-100. 123 In particular, see Strabo 10.4.

69

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ovid, Strabo, and Vergil, focus on mythology.124 This emphasis is apparent in later authors as well. Plutarch, writing in the second century C.E., provides tales of Cretan mythology, or a recapitulation of evidence, likely derived from Polybius, about the affairs of the island in the Late Hellenistic period. This is unfortunate since Plutarch on two separate occasions mentions that he spent time on Crete.125 One intriguing possibility is that much of this Roman interest in the island‟s mythological past derived from reading the texts of several Hellenistic historians from Crete. These authors, whose fragmentary works have been compiled by F. Jacoby in his Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker,126 focused much of their discussion on describing myths associated with the ancient past of the island. S. Alcock has examined forms of memory related to Hellenistic and Roman Crete, noting that “… Hellenistic reinforcement and celebration of more local forms of memory diminished radically on Crete in early Roman times”.127 This appears to contrast with the importance Roman-period authors placed on describing the island‟s mythological past. Alcock cites the abandonment of numerous sanctuaries and cult sites across Crete soon after the Roman conquest as evidence for this phenomenon. Worship continued only at sites which “… could serve a larger, non-local audience, and that were capable of accommodating a more widely shared, nonlocal sense of the past”.128 In other words, Crete‟s population under Roman rule was intent on formulating a history that was based to a large extent on several significant mythological figures and emphasized the importance of the island as a whole. Alcock remarks:

124

Braccesi 2004. Plutarch Mor. 417E, 989E. cf. Harrison 1994: 139. 126 For a discussion of these historians see Strataridaki 1988-1989. They include Antenor (FGrH 463), Deinarchos (FGrH 465), Dosiades (FGrH 458), Echemenes (FGrH 459), Laosthenidas (FGrH 462), Menekles of Teos (FGrH 466), Petellidas of Knossos (FGrH 464), Pyrgion (FGrH 467), Sosikrates (FGrH 461), and Xenion (FGrH 460). 127 Alcock 2002: 123. 128 Alcok 2002: 121-2. 125

70

Distinct new inventions of what was vital to remember do emerge in Roman times, with these diverging in two significant ways from their predecessors. First, they stress prominent myths and legends, memories promulgated and accessible to all. Second, they are best attested in literary sources; archaeological evidence for Roman memorial practices, to date, remains rare on the ground. Three traditions appear especially highlighted: Minos and his nexus of associations; the participation of Cretan heroes in the Trojan War; and the island‟s claim to both the birthplace and the tombs of Cretan-born Zeus (Zeus Cretagenes).129 The prominence Roman authors give to Crete‟s mythological history in Roman authors, thus, can be seen as a complement to this attempt by the island‟s inhabitants to transform their past. This focus on Crete‟s mythological history does not mean that Roman literary sources are devoid of references to the island‟s contemporary history. When commentary does appear, however, it does so in the form of individual facts.130 For instance, we learn about the names of several governors of Crete and Cyrenaica from Tacitus.131 Pliny, in his magnum opus on the natural history of the Roman world, serves as one of the main sources for the commercial products supplied by Crete, particularly perishable goods for which there is no archaeological evidence.132 Galen, a physician from Pergamon who wrote numerous medical treatises, provides a variety of facts concerning the medicinal properties of Cretan wine.133 In some cases, these facts do relate to historical events. Tacitus mentions an individual exiled to Crete, suggesting that the island had this function at least during the first century C.E.134 References to an attempted Gothic raid in 268 C.E. mark the first attested conflict subsequent to the latter part of the first century B.C.E.135 Some scholars believe that a shipwreck, found approximately 200m offshore from the site of Ayia Galini at the western end of the 129

Alcock 2002: 123. Harrison 1994: 140. 131 Tac. Ann. 3.38.1; 13.30.1. 132 For a collection of these references see Harrison 1993: 110-7. 133 See Marangou-Lerat 1995: 18-22 for a catalogue of relevant passages. 134 Tac. Ann. 4.21. 135 SHA Claud. 12.1; Zosimus 1.46; Pan. Lat. 8(5).18.3. These texts mention attacks against Greece, Asia Minor, and Libya, but do not specify Crete. 130

71

Mesara plain, corroborates these accounts. According to A.J. Parker, much of the cargo comprised bronze statue and statuette fragments, and could represent part of the plunder taken by the Goths.136 An alternative interpretation considers the cargo to be part of a bronze worker‟s hoard.137 The brief mention of this attack also serves as the only evidence that Crete may have been affected by plagues which ravaged the Roman world in the second and third centuries, since this is the reason the Goths failed in their overall mission.138 Whether the island suffered from famine or food shortages at any time can be surmised only from several inscriptions.139 Revolts, uprisings, or any degree of civil unrest also are attested rarely.

Epigraphic Texts Epigraphic finds have always held a place of prominence in the scholarship of Crete. Travelers eagerly sought inscriptions when touring a site, and often recorded the texts of any examples they encountered. When archaeological excavations on Crete formalized in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the publication of inscriptions featured prominently in excavation reports.140 Many of these reports were produced by F. Halbherr, the first director of excavations at Gortyn. His emphasis on epigraphy helped to entrench the importance of these finds in the minds of later scholars. Among Halbherr‟s main contributions was the collection of a detailed record of inscriptions found on Crete. His goal was to publish these texts in a catalogue, but his death in 1930 prevented him from completing this project. A student of Halbherr‟s, Margherita

136

Parker 1992: 62 no. P68. The wreck is dated to the third quarter of the third century C.E. by a coin hoard with the latest material associated with Probus (276-282 C.E.). 137 Sanders 1982: 165. 138 SHA Claud. 12.1. The other accounts do not mention the Goths suffering from plague. 139 SEG 9.2 (330/326 B.C.E.) records a list of several dozen Greek cities, including five on Crete (Elyros, Gortyn, Hyrkatina, Knossos, Kydonia), which received shipments of grain from Cyrenaica during a period of massive crop failures. IC. 4.285 (381 C.E.) records a gift of grain to Gortyn from the emperors Gratian, Valentinianus, and Theodosius. It is unlikely that during the 700 years in between Crete always had sufficient grain supplies. 140 For example, Halbherr 1896a, 1896b, 1897, 1898; Xanthoudidis 1898.

72

Guarducci, who worked at Gortyn in the 1920s and early 1930s, took up the mantle of her mentor. Between 1935 and 1950, she published these inscriptions in a four volume work known as the Inscriptiones Creticae (IC).141 Guarducci divided the insciptions geographically, organizing them by city within a series of four regions. Volume 1 is dedicated to central Crete with the exception of Gortyn, volume 2 to western Crete, volume 3 to eastern Crete, and volume 4 to Gortyn. Supplemental texts discovered after the publication of IC can be found scattered throughout the literature.142 The only additional published corpus of Cretan inscriptions is a volume dedicated to Christian texts, compiled by A.C. Bandy.143 Crete‟s epigraphic record can be characterized by differential preservation. Each historical period from which inscriptions are known produces texts with distinct emphases in subject matter. A. Chaniotis ascribes this disparity to the changing epigraphic habit of the island over time.144 Classical and Hellenistic texts tend to be public inscriptions, commissioned by city magistrates to document judicial or administrative matters. Legal codes dominate Crete‟s corpus of Classical inscriptions, with the most famous being the Gortyn Law Code.145 The Hellenistic period is characterized by a large number of preserved treaties, second only to Athens in quantity.146 A divergent pattern emerges for the Roman period, where the majority of texts are private inscriptions, particularly epitaphs, commissioned for personal use. The distinctive nature of each period‟s epigraphic record has led to unique research traditions. Crete‟s rich collection of Classical legal inscriptions provides insight into early

141

Guarducci 1935-1950. The volumes of Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG) and L’Année Epigraphique (AE) contain numerous Greek and Latin inscriptions from Crete discovered following the publication of IC. See also Baldwin Bowsky 1995a, 2006a, 2006c; Chaniotis 1985; Chaniotis and Preuss 1990, 1991; Chaniotis and Rethemiotakis 1992. 143 Bandy 1970. Inscriptions from 34 sites (not including Ierapetra) are documented in this work. 144 Chaniotis 2004: 81. 145 The standard reference for the Gortyn Law Code (IC 4.72) is Willetts 1967. For more recent treatments, see Koerner 1993: 454-555; van Effenterre and Ruzé 1995: 357-89; Greco and Lombardo 2005. 146 The standard work for these treaties is Chaniotis 1996. 142

73

codification of law in the Greek world. From the numerous Hellenistic treaties one can obtain data for understanding social, economic, and political institutions in Hellenistic Crete. Angelos Chaniotis, in particular, has made significant contributions to our knowledge of the Hellenistic history of the island based on these texts. He has compiled a catalogue of treaties, entitled Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischer Zeit, which includes translations in German and extensive commentary. From these documents, Chaniotis has been able to examine several important issues, including pastoralism, an activity rarely attested in antiquity.147 Ierapetra also features prominently in many of these texts and F. Guizzi uses them as his primary evidence in a monograph dedicated to the Hellenistic history of the city.148 For Roman inscriptions, prosopography has been one area of focus. In particular, Martha Baldwin Bowsky, beginning with her dissertation on the subject, has systematically examined onomastic relationships and individuals recorded in inscriptions from numerous sites on Crete, including Ierapetra.149 These studies have resulted in important insights into degrees of Romanization across the island, as evidenced by the adoption of Roman names, and the participation of Cretan citizens in Roman politics.150 Chaniotis has also given some attention to the study of Cretan names during the Roman period.151 While decrees and public inscriptions of the Roman period were not absent from Crete, these have received far less attention.152 Several articles by Baldwin Bowsky relate to epigraphic

147

Chaniotis 1995, 1999 (especially pp.188-207). Guizzi 2001. 149 Baldwin 1983; Baldwin Bowsky 1994; 1999; 2004a; 2004b; 2006b. 150 Epigraphic evidence shows that Gortyn and Ierapetra had the most number of citizens participating in Roman politics at Rome and abroad. cf. Baldwin Bowsky 1995b: 53-4. 151 Chaniotis 1989. 152 Many of these decrees date to the early fourth century during the period of the tetrarchs. For instance, three cities (Knossos, Chersonesos, and Ierapetra) have produced fragments of Diocletian‟s Edictum de Pretiis (cf. Chaniotis and Preuss 1990: 189). 148

74

evidence for roads and infrastructure across the island.153 In addition, a series of studies look at texts documenting Roman arbitration over border conflicts between Knossos and Gortyn in the first century B.C.E. and first century C.E.154 Tituli picti, stamps, and graffiti on Cretan amphorae are an additional source of important information, particularly for understanding the economy of the island.155 The majority of these texts are documented outside of Crete, with most identified from sites in the region of Campania, Italy.156 Tituli picti from Campanian sites tend to refer specifically to products from the island and provide one method for reconstructing Crete‟s export market during the Roman period.157 Unfortunately, their full potential has not yet been realized by scholars of Roman Crete. A related category of finds from the island, instrumenta domestica, is also understudied. Comprising inscriptions on pottery, lead pipes, weights, tiles, and other utilitarian objects, instrumenta domestica tend to preserve the names of workshop owners, merchants, or magistrates.158 Analyzing these texts can provide insight into economic questions, including the structuring of exchange networks. Chaniotis has undertaken the only attempt at a systematic study of examples from Hellenistic and Roman Crete.159 He notes, however, that the implications of this data are unclear due to the large amount of unpublished material and the fact that most published finds derive from sanctuaries. A recent study by Baldwin Bowsky of Italian Sigillata

153

Baldwin Bowsky 2001, 2006a; Baldwin Bowsky and Niniou-Kindeli 2006. Rigsby 1976; Baldwin Bowsky 1986-1987. 155 For a catalogue of these texts see Marangou-Lerat 1995: 123-78. 156 See, for example, De Caro 1992-93. There are also examples from other regions including Gaul and Britain. cf. Liou 1987: 91, 112; Williams 2003: 29. 157 CIL 4.5526 from Pompeii reads (vinum) CRET(icum) EXC(ellens). cf. Callender 1965: 16. Another text from Gaul (Liou 1987: 91 no. F 132) reads CRET(icum vinum). 158 Chaniotis 2005: 92. 159 Chaniotis 2005. 154

75

stamps attested on Crete, although informative, also demonstrates the relative deficiency of known assemblages of this type of material.160 Bias in findspot is an additional difficulty faced by scholars interested in the island‟s epigraphic record. Three cities have produced nearly one quarter of the Roman inscriptions from Crete: Gortyn, Knossos, and Lyttos.161 Long-term excavations at Gortyn and Knossos explain the number of finds at those sites. Lyttos has not been subject to the same degree of investigation, but, with no modern settlement built atop its remains, provides a fertile ground for recovering inscriptions.162 Among the remaining Roman sites, the distribution is by no means equal, as suggested by the slender third volume of the IC dedicated to east Crete. Ierapetra is included in this volume and the number of recovered inscriptions from the site does not provide an accurate reflection of its size and importance during the Roman period. For instance, Ierapetra has produced only one example of a monumental inscription from a public building.163 Gortyn, on the other hand, has produced nine. A final consideration is the recent publication of a corpus of ostraca from Chersonesos. Excavations at that site in 1995 unearthed an archive of 90 ostraca dealing either with transactions on an estate or of a wholesale merchant.164 Nikos Litinas, who published this corpus, dated the ostraca between the second half of the second century C.E. and the first half of the third century C.E.165 The implications of these texts have not been realized fully because of their recent publication. Given Chersonesos‟ role as a major port city on the north coast of Crete, this

160

Baldwin Bowsky 2009. Chaniotis 2004: 76. 162 For instance, see Chaniotis and Rethemiotakis 1992. 163 Baldwin Bowsky 1995a: 263-7. This inscription (AE 1995.1621) is from an architrave and preserves part of the titulature of an emperor who cannot be identified. Baldwin Bowsky suggests one reason for the lack of finds of such inscriptions at Ierapetra, and on Crete in general, is due to Venetian collecting. 164 Litinas 1999, 2008. See Mandalaki 1999 for a description of the excavation of these ostraca. 165 A terminus post quem is provided by the name Βῆρος on one of the texts suggesting a date after 160-169 C.E. (Lucius Verus), or 234-238 C.E. (Maximius and Maximus). cf. Litinas 2008: 20. 161

76

archive will provide important information about transactions along Crete‟s coasts. It also should provide comparanda for other port cities on the island, including Ierapetra.

Numismatic Finds In a similar manner to inscriptions, Hellenistic and Roman coins were among the first archaeological artifacts systematically studied on Crete in the final decades of the nineteenth century. In 1890, J.-N. Svoronos published a catalogue of Classical through Roman coins minted by Cretan poleis.166 He organized his discussion by polis and included commentary on local history, geography, and mythology. Most of the attested Cretan coin issues are presented in this catalogue. Svoronos‟ volume also is a more in-depth treatment of coin finds from Crete than a British Museum volume produced a few years earlier by W. Wroth.167 Following this initial emphasis on producing catalogues, numismatic finds from Crete have seen only scattered interest. Half a century passed before another monograph appeared on the subject. In the 1960s, a French scholar, George Le Rider, undertook a study of Cretan coinage from the Classical and Hellenistic periods.168 He aimed to build on the earlier work of Svoronos and provide more commentary and thematic discussion. While Le Rider succeeds at this objective, there have been few attempts to follow up his work. A paper from the most recent Cretological Congress, published in 2006, argues, in similar fashion to Le Rider, that more synthesis and thematic study is necessary in the study of Cretan coinage.169 With respect to Roman coinage, since the publication of Svoronos‟ catalogue, there have been few attempts to undertake synthetic studies.

166

See Svoronos 1972 [1890] for a republication of this volume. Wroth 1886. 168 Le Rider 1966. 169 Metendis and Stefanakis 2006: 295-6. 167

77

That work on coinage since Svoronos has been limited does not mean there have been no additions to the corpus of Cretan coins. Excavations at Eleutherna, Gortyn, and Knossos have produced thousands of numismatic finds, many of which are published in preliminary and final reports. From Gortyn, for instance, a large number of coins have been presented.170 Coins from Eleutherna and Knossos do not appear in the same quantity as Gortyn, but still represent important assemblages.171 The most recent report from Gortyn, published in the Gortina V.3 excavation volume, also makes one of the first attempts to synthesis Roman coinage data from Crete and to assess topics such as coin circulation across the island. Supplementing these excavation reports are finds from numerous rescue excavations across the island. Most of these are unpublished, however, and Crete lacks any standardized system of recording coin finds. N. Metendis and M. Stefanakis stress that such a system is needed to facilitate any attempt at examining coins from these multiple collections. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Crete minted primarily bronze and silver coinage. Gold coins are rarely found on the island, although some finds are thought to be local issues.172 Minting was far more prevalent during the Hellenistic period when at least 38 poleis are documented issuing coins.173 In the Roman period, the number drops to 10 poleis (Fig. 3.2). Under Roman rule, only select cities were granted the privilege of minting coins, while Hellenistic poleis could mint of their own accord. The height of Roman coin minting on Crete came during the reigns of the Julio-Claudian emperors (27 B.C.E. to 69 C.E.).174 By the time of Nero‟s death in 69, few Cretan cities were still issuing coinage, however. Many sites, including Ierapetra, had ceased minting under the Emperor Caligula (r. 37-41 C.E.), when provincial issues 170

Gortina I, 153-63; Gortina II, 77-103; Gortina V.3, 655-720. Eleutherna: Sidiropoulos 2000. Knossos: UM II, 323-31. 172 Spratt (1887) suggests that three gold coins he recovered were struck at Lyttos and Polyrrhenium. 173 Sanders 1982: 10 fig. 2. 174 Sanders 1982: 13 n.132. 171

78

began replacing local ones.175 This pattern lasted for a century, but by the mid-second century C.E. even these provincial issues were being replaced by larger-scale Roman issues produced at a small number of mints across the Empire.176 Only two Cretan cities, Kydonia and Lappa, continued to mint coins into the third century C.E., and this may relate to Augustus having granted them the status of civitates liberatae shortly after 27 B.C.E.177 Although major synthetic analyses of Crete‟s Roman coinage may be lacking, smaller studies focused on specific topics have appeared. Understanding iconography on coins, which R. Duncan-Jones argues is a poorly resolved issue in numismatic studies,178 has interested some scholars of Roman Crete. Metendis, for instance, suggests the main reason behind the conquest of Crete by the Romans was their association with Mithridates VI based on the iconography of Artemis Ephesia on coins minted by Metellus after his victory.179 Another issue of some interest is the role coinage can play in elucidating aspects of the broader Roman economy. According to K. Harl, “although there are many books about Roman coins, they are, for the most part, numismatic works devoted to the study of the coins as objects rather than as evidence for the economic and social life of the Roman world”.180 Several scholars have begun to examine this with respect to Crete, including S. Garraffo who looks at coin circulation at Gortyn, and Metendis who analyses the change in monetary standards when Cretan mints switched from the drachma to the denarius.181 C. Howgego notes that the relationship between trade and coinage is uneven since the flow of money was not equivalent to the flow of goods.182 As a major

175

Sanders 1982: 13. UM II, 323. 177 Sanders 1982: 13. cf. Dio Cass. 51.2.3 for Kydonia and Lappa‟s status under Augustus. 178 Duncan-Jones 2005: 459. 179 Metendis 1998: 122. 180 Harl 1996: 1. 181 For coin circulation at Gortyn, see Garraffo 2004 and Gortina II, 104-10. For the switch in monetary standards, see Metendis 2004. 182 Howgego 1994: 7. 176

79

transshipment point along east-west trade routes, Crete would be an ideal case study for a comparative analysis of the relationship between monetary flow to the island and the evidence for trade.183 With respect to Ierapetra, aside from a brief treatment by Svoronos in his catalogue, little work has been done.184 V.E. Stefanaki has analyzed bronze coin issues minted by Ierapetra and outlined their relationship to the economy of the city in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.185 A coin hoard recovered from the site (IGCH 352 = RRCH 374), dating between 44 and 42 B.C.E., and suggested to have been deposited by a Pompeian veteran returning after the defeat at Pharsalus in 48 B.C.E., has commanded most of the attention.186 Two additional Hellenistic hoards have been recovered from the site, but have received little notice.187 Coin hoards on Crete, overall, have not been subject to detailed analysis. One reason could be the small number of identified examples. I. Touratsouglou and K. Sidiropoulos catalogued only 12 known Roman coin hoards from the island, with most dated to the third century C.E.188

SECONDARY LITERATURE ON ROMAN CRETE Primary sources available for the study of Roman Crete are abundant, even if the quality of evidence is sometimes lacking. How scholars have made use of these sources sheds light on the state of research into Crete‟s Roman history. Monographs and conference proceedings, in particular, serve as effective signposts for registering levels of interest in the period. That the

183

Howgego suggests (1994: 8) that comparison with archaeological-defined patterns of other movable goods, such as pottery, could help elucidate aspects of monetary flow. 184 Svoronos 1972 [1890]: 183-95. 185 Stefanaki 2001, 2006. 186 Raven 1938 (especially pp.146-7 for its interpretation); Hackens 1971; Caramessini-Oeconomides and Kleiner 1975. 187 The first, CH VIII 349, is from a burial and dates to ca. 200 B.C.E. The second, IGCH 318, is also from a burial and may be contemporary in date to CH VIII 349, or a little later. 188 Touratsoglou and Sidiropoulos 2000: 296.

80

majority of these larger works have appeared only in the past three decades indicates scholarly attention is on the rise. Among the seminal works in the study of Cretan antiquity is J.D.S. Pendlebury‟s Archaeology of Crete: an Introduction.189 Pendlebury was a British archaeologist whose interests primarily lay in the Bronze Age. He served as the Curator of Knossos from 1929 to 1934 and conducted excavations at several sites in central Crete, including Karphi. Noted for his extensive walking tours across the island, Pendlebury had an unparalleled knowledge of the topography and settlement history of Crete. While the title of his book, published shortly before his death in 1941, does not imply any bias toward one period of Cretan history, Pendlebury‟s interest in the Bronze Age, which receives over 250 pages of commentary, is evident. The section on Roman Crete comprises 12 pages.190 Following Pendlebury, there are few publications which provide even this degree of emphasis on the Roman history of the island. One exception may be the series of Cretological Congresses, which have been held roughly every six years since 1961.191 Papers presented at these congresses are published in multi-volume proceedings, and several contributions are often dedicated to aspects of Roman Crete. The dissertation work of Ian Sanders in the 1970s looked to transform the way scholars viewed Roman Crete. Sanders was a graduate student at the University of Sheffield who compiled a gazetteer of all known Roman sites and remains on the island. He also assessed the available evidence for several topics, including economy, religion, and architecture. The main shortcoming of his work is a lack of synthetic discussion. Sanders passed away from cancer shortly after completing his dissertation, which was published posthumously under the title

189

Pendlebury 1939. Pendlebury 1939: 365-76. Sanders (1976: 131) noted this discrepancy during his own work on Roman Crete. 191 The tenth such Cretological Congress was held in 2006. 190

81

Roman Crete, and did not have the time to expand his research.192 It was nearly a decade before additional book-length projects would appear. A volume with the same title as Sanders, but in Modern Greek, appeared several years later, written by D. Tsougarakis.193 This work, although slender, does a good job of synthesizing in more detail several of the topics discussed by Sanders.194 The next major study in English is The Romans and Crete, by George Harrison.195 An American scholar who has participated in several archaeological survey projects on the island, Harrison aimed to build upon the evidence presented in Roman Crete. His background in classical philology is evident from his keen attention to literary and epigraphic sources, often presented in complementary fashion to the archaeological data. This work lacks an overall organizational scheme, however, making it difficult to follow all of the various themes as they are presented. Appearing around the same time as Harrison‟s book was a monograph published by Antigone Marangou-Lerat dedicated to amphora production on Crete.196 As part of an École française d'Athènes survey project organized by J.-Y. Empereur to search for evidence of Cretan amphora production, Marangou-Lerat was able to gain a thorough understanding of this industry.197 Her monograph includes detailed discussions of all kiln sites documented by the survey, a typology of Cretan amphora types, and a collection of all known epigraphic and literary references to Cretan wine. While some aspects of this work, such as the amphora typology, are now out of date, it remains a standard reference for scholars interested in Cretan amphora production and kiln sites. 192

Sanders 1982. Tsougarakis 1990. 194 Tsougarakis (1988) also published a companion book dedicated to the fifth through twelfth centuries of Cretan history. 195 Harrison 1993. 196 Marangou-Lerat 1995. 197 Reports of the results of this project can be found in Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989, Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991, and Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992. 193

82

The most recent monograph dedicated to the archaeology and history of Roman Crete is a volume by Holly Raab. Building on her dissertation work, including analysis of ceramic assemblages from rescue excavations and surveys conducted in the Akrotiri peninsula of western Crete, Raab produced an important assessment of rural settlement patterns across the island. This book also provides a detailed discussion of Cretan survey projects which have identified evidence of Hellenistic and Roman sites. There has been a hiatus in the publication of monographs dedicated to Roman Crete since Raab‟s volume appeared. Instead, much of the more recent contributions to the field have been in the form of conference proceedings and other collections of papers. Two such edited volumes appeared in the late 1990s. The first, entitled Post-Minoan Crete, is the publication of a series of papers presented at a symposium held at the British School in Athens in 1995.198 Sixteen papers appear in this volume, all with the intended aim of emphasizing periods of Cretan history after the Bronze Age. While only a small number of these papers address subjects related to Crete‟s Roman history,199 the symposium itself demonstrated the desire by many scholars to place a stronger focus on Crete‟s post-Bronze Age history. A separate volume, entitled From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders, appeared in 1999.200 Edited by Angelos Chaniotis, this book is a collection of invited papers written by experts in economic history from numerous periods of Cretan history. One of the main goals of this volume was to provide opportunities for comparative studies by showing how scholars of different periods address similar questions. A selection of papers concerned with the economy of Roman Crete appears at the end.201 Chaniotis also sought to contextualize these papers by framing them with several synthetic articles. John

198

Cavanagh et al. 1998. See within the papers by Karafotias, Metendis, de Souza, Paton, and Harrison. 200 Chaniotis 1999. 201 See within the papers by Marangou, Paton and Schneider, Baldwin Bowsky, and Litinas 199

83

Bintliff, Susan Alcock, and William Harris composed these syntheses and discuss not only achievements in the scholarship of economic history by Cretan researchers, but also avenues for future studies. The end of the twentieth century saw the organization of a conference entitled “Creta romana e protobizantina”. This week-long symposium, held in September 2000, represents perhaps the most significant indication that interest in Roman Crete is increasing. Organized under the auspices of the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 102 speakers from eight countries met in Herakleion to discuss the history of Crete from the first century B.C.E. to the seventh century C.E. Topics covered include history, epigraphy, numismatics, city and territory, public and private architecture, ceramic studies, sculpture, mosaics, glass and bronze objects, and archaeometry. Ninety-two of these papers were collected in a four-volume proceedings, including contributions in English, French, German, Italian, and Modern Greek.202 While the majority of these papers (42 out of 92) are concerned with Gortyn, Knossos, and Eleutherna, many other sites are represented and the wealth of information concerning Roman Crete is currently unsurpassed. Within all of the above monographs and collections of papers, Ierapetra often receives minimal treatment. G. Harrison has commented that “frustratingly little, especially, is known about Hierapetra”.203 A lack of published data from the site results in few attempts by scholars to engage in research programs. This is well illustrated by the Creta romana e protobizantina volumes, where no papers can be found dedicated to Ierapetra. Several articles have been published, but of more interest here are two monographs dedicated to the site. The presence of these volumes could argue against the site being understudied, although this is not the case.

202 203

Livadiotti and Simiakaki 2004. Harrison 1991: 116.

84

Nikos Papadakis, who served as the head of the Archaeological Service in east Crete during the 1980s and 1990s, published the first volume.204 Commissioned by the Town Council of Ierapetra, Papadakis‟ intention was to create a guidebook that would introduce readers to the whole of the history of Ierapetra. He includes chapters on the Hellenistic and Roman history of the city, but also emphasizes Ierapetra‟s later history, including its Venetian and Ottoman occupations. Papadakis‟ own description of his objective shows that the work is not a substitute for a detailed investigation of the archaeology of the ancient city: The purpose of this publication is neither to write a detailed history of Ierápetra, as some people have mistakenly presumed, nor yet to provide a simple guide book for the holiday visitor. It is my aspiration that this book will fall somewhere between these two – not a dry history but much more than a mere tourist information booklet.205 The second work, by Antonis Εois, even bears the title “Roman Ierapetra” (in Modern Greek).206 A Bronze Age archaeologist who has focused much of his attention over the past few decades on the Early Minoan site of Vasiliki, approximately 10.5km north of Ierapetra, Zois aimed to create a resource that would facilitate further study of Ierapetra by Roman scholars. His volume is not a synthetic work, but instead represents a collection of primary and secondary references. He includes reports from rescue excavations, newspaper articles concerning finds of ancient objects, selected passages from travelers‟ accounts, commentary on ancient Ierapetra in modern scholarly works, and primary references including literary and epigraphic texts, all of which he translates into Modern Greek. A third volume dedicated to the study of Ierapetra also has been published. This monograph, a detailed account of Hellenistic Ierapetra published by Francesco Guizzi, aims to

204

Papadakis 1986. This edition is an English translation of the original Greek volume from 1982. Papadakis 1986: 7. 206 Zois 2002. 205

85

examine literary and epigraphic evidence to reconstruct the history of the city from its foundation to the Roman conquest.207 Revised from his dissertation, Guizzi offers a thorough account of the available evidence for Ierapetra‟s Hellenistic period history. His terminal date of 67 B.C.E., however, shows that a similar treatment is still needed for the Roman city.

CONCLUSIONS For any scholar interested in undertaking a study of Hellenistic or Roman Crete, there is a considerable quantity of evidence available from several different types of sources. Travelers‟ accounts, archaeological data, literary sources, epigraphic texts, and numismatic finds can all be mobilized in an effort to gain a better understanding of the history of the island. The use of these different categories of evidence has varied and each has significant potential for addressing a wide array of research questions. Secondary literature concerning Roman Crete has become more and more prevalent in the past few decades, indicating scholarly interest in this period of the island‟s history is increasing. A comprehensive study of Ierapetra is overdue, however, and this study will hopefully provide at least a preliminary attempt at employing all available sources of evidence for understanding the history of this polis.

207

Guizzi 2001. The main corpus of evidence derives from a series of preserved isopoliteia treaties between Ierapetra and other poleis on Crete.

86

CHAPTER 4 THE POLIS OF IERAPETRA

The capital town of the district of the same name, this lovely town of south-eastern Crete basks indolently in the arms of the open sea, and appropriately those who loved her and were bound to her have named her “The Bride of the Libyan Sea”.1

INTRODUCTION Scholarly interest in Roman Crete has increased significantly during the past three decades. Lacking in this proliferation of research, however, is a comprehensive assessment of the history and archaeology of the polis of Ierapetra. Francesco Guizzi produced a monograph concerned with the Hellenistic history of the city, but ended his discussion with the Roman conquest.2 Some attention has been given to Ierapetra‟s epigraphic, numismatic, and sculptural finds,3 but little additional work has been completed. A primary goal of this study is to produce a thorough overview of ancient Ierapetra during the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods. Ierapetra was the dominant polis of eastern Crete and one of the most important administrative centers on the island in antiquity. For research into Hellenistic and Roman Crete to continue to produce results, centers such as Ierapetra, for which study has been minimal, must factor more and more into our discussions. The chapter comprises five sections, beginning with a review of the history of the modern town and an evaluation of local geography. Descriptions of Ierapetra recorded by travelers

1

Papadakis 1986: 9. Guizzi 2001. 3 Raven 1938; Hackens 1971; Caramessini-Oeconomides and Kleiner 1975; Raftopoulou 1975; Apostolakou 1980; Beschi 1985; Kane and Reynolds 1985; Portale 1992-1993; Baldwin Bowsky 1994, 2006a; Dörig 1994; Stefanaki 2001. 2

87

during the fifteenth through nineteenth centuries comprise the second section, which aims to document the formation processes behind the current lack of ancient remains present in the city. The next section evaluates available evidence for the earliest history of the site. This is followed by a description of Hellenistic Ierapetra, including assessments of the city‟s topography, territorial expansion, political structures, religion, and economy. An analysis of Roman Ierapetra, involving the same issues addressed for the Hellenistic polis, follows this. In addition, the section on Roman Ierapetra will examine available evidence for the city‟s apparent decline in the Late Antique period.

MODERN IERAPETRA AND LOCAL GEOGRAPHICAL Situated in the Lasithi prefecture along the south coast of east Crete, Ierapetra is the southernmost city in Europe. The city lies at the southern edge of the Isthmus of Ierapetra, a narrow valley linking the south coast with the Bay of Mirabello to the north (Fig. 4.1). Only 15km in length, this valley, formed between the Dikte and West Siteia mountain ranges to the west and east respectively, is the narrowest part of Crete. According to early eighteenth century traveler Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, the Isthmus resembles an amphitheater, carved out between these mountains.4 Ierapetra also possesses a good natural harbor, although it is not sheltered from all sides. When ancient sources discuss this city, they describe it as a polis of Crete, but do not provide much geographic information beyond the distance from Ierapetra to other sites on the island.5

4

Tournefort 1717: 48. Strabo (10.4.3) reports that Minoa, a site under the control of Lyttos to the west, was located 60 stades from Ierapetra. The Stadiasmus Maris Magni (319) describes an itinerary from Samonium to Ierapetra to Biennos where Samonium is 80 stades east of Ierapetra, and Biennos 70 stades west. The same passage also records a distance of 350 stades between Ierapetra and Psykhion to the west. Additional measurements appear in the Tabula 5

88

There has been no break in settlement continuity at Ierapetra between antiquity and the present, although the town appears to have maintained a fairly small population for a number of centuries. In 1837, British traveler Robert Pashley reported that 300 Christian and Muslim families inhabited Ierapetra and the surrounding plain.6 A few decades later, Thomas Spratt wrote that the population of the town was 2000 individuals, of which over half were Turkish.7 Spratt also described modern Ierapetra as “low-walled and miserable”, a sentiment shared by many travelers.8 A census in 1900 recorded a population of 2166, and Ierapetra appears to have maintained a consistent size until the twentieth century.9 Ierapetra is currently the fourth largest city on Crete and boasts a population of approximately 15,000 people. Thus, a significant degree of expansion has occurred during the past century. The impetus for this expansion can be traced to the year 1966, when the first greenhouses began to appear in the area.10 Making use of the region‟s consistently warm weather, these structures are used to cultivate a variety of different vegetables. Greenhouses now dominate the landscape around Ierapetra, and revenue obtained from crop sales has made the city one of the wealthiest in Greece.11 It is no coincidence that rescue excavations undertaken in the city commenced in the early 1970s at the same time construction of greenhouses became common and the modern town began to expand. Modern Ierapetra hugs the shoreline of Crete‟s south coast and is semi-circular in shape (Fig. 4.2). The densest collection of buildings appears in the southern part of the city in an area

Peutingeriana, including a distance of 32 miles between Ierapetra and Inatos to the west, and 20 miles between Ierapetra and Biennos. cf. Pendlebury 1939: 24-5. 6 Pashley 1970 [1837]: 323-4. 7 Spratt 1865: 253. 8 Spratt 1865: 255. 9 Papadakis 1986: 27. 10 Papadakis 1986: 93-4. 11 Papadakis (1986: 94) records that, in 1981, 1500 acres of land, mainly to the west of Ierapetra, was covered by greenhouses. That number has increased significantly in the past few decades.

89

known as the Old Town. This neighborhood, which lies in the Aliki district of Ierapetra, served as the main focus of settlement after antiquity, and is home to a Venetian fortress constructed in the thirteenth century. When Ierapetra expanded, it did so to the north and east, and now occupies a series of districts known as Manolianá, Paramithias, Kampos, Tsiveri, and Livadia. The Viglia district to the west, characterized by minimal modern construction, is home to the largest concentration of ancient remains. Hellenistic and Roman material is also found in the Aliki, Manolianá, and Paramithias districts, with minimal finds in the more eastern sectors. The natural topography around the city of Ierapetra, including shorelines, appears to have undergone minimal change since antiquity. Based on an assessment of sediments and submerged archaeological remains in this region, N.D. Mourtzas concludes that local shores have only submerged approximately 1.20m in the past 2000 years.12 This contradicts an earlier hypothesis of K. Davaras that there had been an uplifting of sediments around Ierapetra.13 With respect to climate, Ierapetra is one of the warmest cities in Europe with an average annual temperature of approximately 20ºC.14 Overall, a warm, arid climate similar to the drier parts of Palestine characterizes the region, prompting some scholars to describe southeast Crete as a European Sahara.15 Average annual rainfall figures recorded during periods of the twentieth century typically measure between 400 and 600mm.16 L.G. Allbaugh reports a lower figure of approximately 209mm for the period between 1894 and 1929, representing a particularly dry stretch.17 As M. Wagstaff suggests, though, the average rainfall in the region of Ierapetra should have exceeded the minimum of 240mm calculated as necessary for cereal cultivation in the Near 12

Mourtzas 1988: 1558-61, 1563. Submerged remains include buildings at Stomio, 9km east of Ierapetra, and rock cut structures at Koutsonari, 8km east of the city. 13 Davaras 1975. 14 Wagstaff 1972: 276. 15 Rackham 1972: 284; Grove and Rackham 2001: 318. 16 Allbaugh 1953: 468; Wagstaff 1972: 276; Rackham and Moody 1996: 34. 17 Allbaugh 1953: 44, 468. The figure of 207mm was converted from 8.14 inches.

90

East.18 Most of the rainfall occurs between the months of October and March, and almost no standing water can be attested around the city during the summer months. Seasonal streams and torrents appear during the wet season and empty into the sea.19 In addition, Ierapetra can be buffeted by strong winds, particularly the southern, dust-laden, Sirocco wind which develops over the Sahara.20 While greenhouse agriculture is the dominant economic enterprise associated with modern Ierapetra, oleoculture is also important to the region. A long-standing connection between Ierapetra and olive cultivation is apparent, stretching back for at least the past few centuries. Francesco Basilicata, who visited the town in the early seventeenth century, notes that the surrounding territory produced an abundance of oil, much of it destined for Venice.21 During the late seventeenth century, Bernard Randolph writes that the town had “a very fine plain full of olive trees and some fine gardens”.22 Tournefort makes a similar observation at the turn of the eighteenth century, as does Spratt in the mid-nineteenth century.23 One unanswered question is when olives became the dominant crop in the region. Despite an emphasis on viticulture in Crete under the Venetians, the account of Basilicata suggests that oleoculture was a dominant agricultural enterprise at Ierapetra.24 How far back into antiquity can we trace this pattern? Recent findings from survey archaeology imply that olive groves, and oleoculture, may have been an important component of this region‟s landscape since at least the Early Roman period. This evidence for this will be discussed in detail below.

18

Wagstaff 1972: 276. Zois 2002: 60. 20 Wagstaff 1972: 280. 21 Spanakis 1969: 31. 22 Randolph 1687: 75. 23 Tournefort 1717: 24, 48; Spratt 1865: 254. 24 For Venetian emphasis on viticulture, see Triandafyllidou-Baladie 1988: 133-6 and Stallsmith 2007: 164. 19

91

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ANCIENT IERAPETRA Before commencing any discussion of the history of ancient Ierapetra, it is necessary to ask why a Hellenistic and Roman polis, once populated by thousands, has left almost no traces on the modern landscape. We would expect at least some ancient buildings to still be standing, no matter how extensive the modern expansion of the town has been. Documenting the formation processes behind the disappearance of an ancient site is no simple task, however. Ierapetra, for instance, is last mentioned in literary sources in the sixth century C.E.,25 and archaeological investigations did not commence until the early 1970s. This leaves a fairly substantial chronological gap for trying to determine what happened to the site. In order to document the transformation of ancient Ierapetra into an archaeological ruin, we must turn to the accounts of travelers. From the fourteenth through nineteenth century, diplomats, naturalists, and antiquarians traveled across Europe to examine the remains of GrecoRoman civilization. Many of these travelers recorded accounts of their journeys, including descriptions of the sites they visited. These accounts can preserve a diachronic narrative of the deterioration of an ancient site. Ierapetra was included in the itineraries of travelers who came to Crete and there are numerous accounts that discuss the city. Travelers first began to record their observations about Ierapetra in the early fifteenth century. Prior to this, we possess limited knowledge of the state of the town. Crete fell into Venetian hands in 1204, and citizens from Ierapetra participated in uprisings against their new masters in 1212, 1364, and 1370, but there are no accounts of how these events affected the ancient ruins.26 The only extensive modification to the town that can be attested is the construction of a Venetian fortress at the southern tip of the harbor, which commenced in the 25

Hierokles Synecdemus 649; Stephanus Byzantinus s.v. Ἱεράπσηλα. Crete was sold to the Venetians for 1000 silver marks on 12 August 1204. cf. Detorakis 1994: 143-4. For the dates of the uprisings, see Papadakis 1986: 21. 26

92

early thirteenth century.27 In 1317, a group of pirates established a base on Chryssi Island, located approximately 15km south of Ierapetra, but it is unknown if they attempted to pillage the town.28 Among the earliest travelers to visit Ierapetra was Cristoforo Buondelmonti, an Italian cartographer who came to Crete in 1415 to map the island‟s topography and shipping lanes. While visiting the city, he observed a large expanse of ancient buildings and temples west of the modern town, which was situated where the current Old Town lies.29 He also mentioned that part of Ierapetra‟s ancient port was preserved in the form of a man-made stone mole stretching into the sea from the eastern shore of the Old Town. This is one of the few remains still visible today (Fig. 4.3). According to Buondelmonti, most of this ancient harbor had silted up, however, and comprised a fertile field at that time. Cyriacus of Ancona, another Italian who is considered by many to be the father of modern classical archaeology, arrived a few decades after Buondelmonti, in 1445. At Ierapetra, he also saw reminders of a large ancient city, including theaters, colonnaded structures, and numerous statues stretching out over a vast area.30 He describes one of the buildings as a temple possibly dedicated to Demeter and Kore.31 This is the only specific documentation of a temple ever recorded at Ierapetra. Cyriacus‟ description also implies that these extensive ancient remains were being ignored by the local inhabitants. We next possess detailed accounts from the late sixteenth century, including that of Francesco Barozzi, a Venetian nobleman born on Crete who toured the island in search of antiquities. He comments that Ierapetra must have been a large and famous city in antiquity

27

Papadakis 1986: 55. Detorakis 1994: 202. 29 Van Spitael 1981: 103. 30 Bodnar 2003: 189, diary IV.5. 31 Bodnar 2003: 189, diary IV.8. 28

93

based on visible ruins including numerous columns of various colors.32 A contemporary description from the late sixteenth century also characterizes Ierapetra as a once noble city in antiquity, but now home only to a fortress. Around 1580, Onorio Belli, the private physician to the Venetian governor of Crete, examined the ruins of Ierapetra. He described several structures, including two theaters and an amphitheater, and drew plans of the two theaters, which are the only drawings of Ierapetra‟s ancient buildings known to exist (Figs. 4.4, 4.5).3334 Belli also mentions that the city was devastated by an earthquake in 1508, and this must have affected the remains as they were seen by earlier travelers. One also wonders what the consequences of pirate raids against the city and its surrounding coast in 1522 might have been.35 In the early seventeenth century, a Venetian military engineer named Francesco Basilicata comments that there were abundant fragments of buildings and columns scattered to the west of the modern town.36 Basilicata‟s account is also significant for being the last to describe Ierapetra before the city was occupied by Turkish forces in 1647.37 There are no accounts describing the affects of any attacks against the city, although a letter dated to 1660 does mention peasants from Ierapetra standing at arms against their Turkish masters.38 An English traveler named Bernard Randolph, who came to Ierapetra in 1679, does not mention the ancient ruins to any great extent.39 He does note that Ierapetra lacked a secure port and was sacked by a French privateer in 1675. Perhaps ancient statues and other artifacts were among the goods looted in this raid. By the turn of the eighteenth century, a French botanist 32

Kaklamanis 2004: 192-3. Falkener 1854: 11; Spanakis 1968: 150. 34 Spanakis 1940: 5. 35 Detorakis 1994: 202. 36 Spanakis 1969: 41. 37 Detorakis 1994: 226-44. 38 Karathanasi 1973: 91-3. 39 Randolph 1687: 74-5. 33

94

named Joseph Pitton de Tournefort portrays Ierapetra as a small town with large areas of ruins and columns standing at random in several fields.40 Ancient Ierapetra appears to have deteriorated quite significantly by the beginning of the nineteenth century. A Spanish traveler, Antonio de Torres Y Ribera, mentions the presence of numerous structures in an account written in Latin, but precedes this by describing them as “tristissimas ruinas” (the saddest of ruins).41 Earlier travelers did not express this same pessimistic view of the state of preservation, suggesting that in the few hundred years since Buondelmonti‟s visit, a substantial amount of degradation had taken place. A few decades later, in 1823, Franz Sieber, a German botanist, came across a poor market town “lately desolated by a violent earthquake”.42 He may be describing the effects of an earthquake known to have struck Ierapetra in 1780, although this would suggest that the town had still not recovered four decades later.43 With respect to the ruins, Sieber observes that there were columns standing in a few places, while others had been incorporated into the construction of numerous houses or “hollowed out for bowls and troughs for domestic use”.44 In other words, the inhabitants of the modern town were using the ancient remains as a quarry to obtain building materials for modern structures. Robert Pashley, who came to Ierapetra a few years after Sieber, unfortunately offers no description of the ruins aside from a brief mention that he had seen the town.45 In 1865, Thomas Spratt, a British naval captain, came to Crete to thoroughly document the geography, culture and ancient remains of the island. For Ierapetra, he describes the modern town as “low-walled and miserable” and the ancient ruins as deserving of “no particular 40

Tournefort 1717: 50. Torres y Ribera 1805: 265-71. 42 Sieber 1823: 93. 43 Another option is an earthquake in 1810, but there are no records of it affecting Ierapetra. cf. Plataki (1950: 496) who notes other bad earthquakes attested for Crete in 1246, 1304, 1490, 1508, 1547, 1612, 1665, and 1856. 44 Sieber 1823: 94. 45 Pashley 1970 [1837]: 271. 41

95

notice”.46 He does offer an important discussion of the two theaters and the amphitheater, but in all three cases it appears that all that remained were the concrete cores of walls with the overall plans no longer distinguishable.47 He also references a series of foundations, along with aqueducts and cisterns, scattered about the plain to the west. An earthquake in 1856 appears to have been responsible for substantial destruction. Accounts of Felix-Victor Raulin and Conrad Bursian, who came to Ierapetra around the same time as Spratt, also describe little more than a scatter of ruins, with few preserving any type of distinguishable plan.48 By the end of the nineteenth century, the preservation of the remains had degraded even further. Federico Halbherr, an Italian who was one of the first archaeologists to engage in systematic excavations on Crete, had the following to say about ancient Ierapetra: “but to-day of all this there remains but few traces”.49 The ancient city seen by Buondelmonti and Cyriacus was no longer there, having been devastated by earthquakes and mined for building materials by modern inhabitants. Halbherr confirms that the ancient city was being used as a quarry and mentions that he had even witnessed one property owner taking down part of one of the theaters. One would also expect that an attack of 3000 Greek rebels against Turkish forces stationed in Ierapetra in 1897 would have affected the state of preservation of any standing ancient ruins.50 The final removal of the ancient city from the modern landscape came during the twentieth century. A photograph taken in 1938, and published by Nikos Papadakis, shows a man standing on an unidentified set of ancient ruins in the Viglia district of Ierapetra.51 A few years later these ruins were gone. During World War II, German soldiers stationed in Ierapetra

46

Spratt 1865: 253, 263. Spratt 1865: 260-3. 48 Raulin 1869: 164; Bursian 1868: 578. 49 Halbherr 1893: 11. 50 Papadakis 1986: 25. 51 Papadakis 1986: 44. 47

96

demolished all standing remains of ancient buildings to accommodate their machine gun emplacements and to prevent any allied landing force from having possible defensive positions. The result is that Ierapetra‟s history now lies entirely beneath the soil.

EARLIEST HISTORY Travelers‟ accounts help explain why so few ancient remains are present in Ierapetra and enable us to understand why certain questions, such as when the site was founded, are so difficult to answer. How can we hope to assess any potential Bronze Age and Iron Age occupation at Ierapetra when so little evidence is available for later periods? The current terminus ante quem for the earliest occupation of the site is the mid-fifth century B.C.E. based on an Attic RedFigure amphora described by K. Davaras in 1980.52 Earlier arguments had placed the foundation of Ierapetra in the fourth century B.C.E., when the site first minted coins.53 Absence of evidence for any pre-fifth century B.C.E. inhabitation is conspicuous, particularly when one considers the ubiquity of Bronze Age sites across Crete. J.D.S. Pendlebury commented about the density of Bronze Age occupation on the island in the late 1930s, and the number of known sites has grown exponentially since then.54 Much of the difficulty in assessing aspects of Ierapetra‟s earliest history is tied to the local tradition of archaeology. Since the 1970s, the Greek Archaeological Service has carried out rescue excavations throughout the city in response to development. Archaeologists do not chose where these excavations occur, making them somewhat random, and they must be as efficient as possible in documenting any remains they encounter. This hinders attempts to thoroughly document the stratigraphic sequence of a given excavation. In 52

ArchDelt 27 (1972) B‟2: 647, pl. 602. See also: Papadakis 1986: 78-80; Erickson 2005: 653. Perlman (2004: 1166) also argues for a foundation date during the latter part of the fifth century. 53 Kirsten 1942: 83; Brulé 1978: 149. For the earliest coinage minted at Ierapetra in the fourth century B.C.E. (struck on an Aiginetan standard) see Svoronos 1972 [1890]: 388. 54 Pendlebury 1939: 285.

97

addition, Ierapetra‟s water table lies very close to the surface, which makes excavating below Roman levels somewhat infeasible. A lack of evidence has not prevented some scholars from speculating that Ierapetra was settled in the Bronze Age. In some cases, arguments can even be found suggesting the city was home to a Minoan palace.55 While it is difficult to imagine a large palatial center situated at Ierapetra based on current evidence, arguments for Bronze Age settlement at the site are not without justification. The Isthmus of Ierapetra was home to several important prehistoric settlements (Fig. 4.6), and Ierapetra‟s position at the southern entrance to this Isthmus enabled it to control access to that region. Why would populations have waited several millennia before exploiting this location? If Gournia, located on the Bay of Mirabello to the north, was the hegemonic power in the region during the Bronze Age, as suggested by J. Soles,56 it would have required a presence on the south coast, particularly for solidifying trade relations with regions of North Africa. For instance, what was the port of disembarkation for imported goods from North Africa found in the Isthmus, including three Egyptian cornflower beads from a Late Minoan IIIA-B context (ca. 1400-1200 B.C.E.) at the site of Episkopi, approximately 7km north of Ierapetra?57 Several harbors along the north coast, including the site of Mochlos, are possibilities, but should we also not expect a port to the south? Kostas Chalikias argues that some type of settlement must have existed along the southern shore of the Isthmus in the Bronze Age. His evidence derives from a survey of Chryssi Island, approximately 15km south of Ierapetra, which has identified numerous prehistoric sites.58 Several of these sites were engaged in purple dye

55

Haggis 2005: 38; Watrous and Schultz, forthcoming. Soles 1991: 75-6. Watrous and Schultz (forthcoming), along with suggesting the presence of Bronze Age settlement at Ierapetra, argue the site would have controlled territory independent of Gournia. 57 Phillips 2008: 44 no. 67. The three beads from Episkopi are the most from any site on Crete. 58 Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. 56

98

production, and Chalikias believes this industry was controlled by a larger center along Crete‟s south coast. If a Bronze Age site did exist beneath the modern town of Ierapetra, its location remains hidden. Rescue excavations carried out in the city have yet to identify any evidence of prehistoric inhabitation.59 This leads to four possibilities. First, any Bronze Age settlement at Ierapetra was not extensive, perhaps more akin to a harbor facility such as Kommos, but on a smaller scale. In this scenario, the hypothetical settlement has been missed by rescue excavations. A second option is that any prehistoric inhabitation was not located within the boundaries of modern Ierapetra, but was concentrated in a different area. The Sphakia survey in southwest Crete, for instance, has identified several examples of itinerant sites at which a settlement shifts its location through time.60 That the earliest published finds from Ierapetra, a Red-Figure amphora and several Red-Figure pelikes, all derive from the city‟s Manolianá district, the central part of the modern town, east of the main concentration of identified Hellenistic/Roman structures, could suggest any earlier settlement had a different footprint than the later town.61 Next, we should not discount the possibility that prehistoric material has been unearthed at Ierapetra, perhaps in the form of residual pottery from a Roman structure, but has yet to be identified. Pottery from rescue excavations undertaken at Ierapetra is never washed before going into storage, making the identification of any Bronze Age material difficult. My own analysis of pottery from three rescue excavations in the Viglia region of Ierapetra produced a single Bronze Age tripod leg and a small handful of Iron Age sherds, suggesting some early material is present (Fig. 4.7). The presence of

59

For these reports see the annual Chronika presented in Archaiologikon Deltion. Moody, Nixon and Price 1998: 89-92. Some examples of itinerant sites documented by this survey are Anopolis, Araden, and Tarrha/Agia Roumeli,. 61 Papadakis 1986: 78-80. 60

99

only four early sherds, however, argues against any extensive settlement in the Viglia district. Finally, we must consider the possibility that there was no Bronze Age settlement at Ierapetra. If we consider the fourth option, that the foundation of Ierapetra occurred after the Bronze Age, one possibility is to argue for settlement arising in the Iron Age. Overall, the late Iron Age on Crete (7th-6th century B.C.E.) witnessed an increase in settlement in several different regions, as demonstrated by the results of the Mesara, Vrokastro, Kavousi and Lasithi plain surveys.62 One proposal, outlined by the same scholars who suggests that the earliest settlement of Ierapetra occurred in the fourth century B.C.E., argues that the foundation of site was contemporary with the foundation of Istron in the seventh century B.C.E.63 Other scholars contend that Ierapetra was an Iron Age foundation of the site of Oleros, located approximately 9km to the northwest.64 They suggest that a procession originating in Ierapetra that made its way to the Sanctuary of Athena Oleria points to this association.65 Alternatively, a procession originating in Ierapetra may imply it was the dominant site, and B. Hayden offers an equally plausible scenario that Ierapetra founded Oleros.66 Another possibility is that inhabitation in the area of Ierapetra was initiated by settlers from the site of Profitis Ilias. Occupying a hilltop at the southern edge of the West Siteia mountain range, Profitis Ilias was a large center located approximately 4.5km north of Ierapetra. During the Iron Age, it was one of the only settlements present in the Isthmus of Ierapetra, and

62

In the Mesara, Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou (2004a: 313) note that Phaistos grew in size and there was growth in the number of surrounding settlements. The Vrokastro region also saw an increase in settlement in this period (Hayden 2004a: 172). Settlement in the Kavousi region seems to have coalesced with the rise of the large nucleated center at Azoria (Haggis et al. 2004: 340-1; Haggis 2005: 85). In the Lasithi plain, Watrous (1982: 21) documented the rise of several substantial communities. 63 Hayden 1997: 139; Sjögren 2003: 87. 64 Kirsten 1942: 83; Brulé 1978: 149. 65 For evidence of this procession, see FGrH 460 Fr. 15 = Steph. Byz. s.v. Ὤιερος. 66 Hayden 1997: 141.

100

by far the largest.67 Its proximity to the south coast of the Isthmus indicates Profitis Ilias would be the most credible mother-city for any Iron Age foundation at Ierapetra. If Profitis Ilias corresponds to the ancient site of Larisa attested in Strabo, as some scholars have argued, this represents a further connection with Ierapetra.68 According to Strabo: “θαὶ ἐλ ηῇ Κρήηῃ πόιης ἡ λῦλ εἰς Ἱεράπσηλαλ ζσλοηθηζζεῖζα, ἀθ’ ἧς θαὶ ηὸ ὑποθείκελολ πεδίολ λῦλ Λαρίζηολ θαιεῖηαη” (and in Crete is a city Larisa, now joined to Hierapytna, whence the plain that lies below is now called the Larisian Plain).69 Support for Profitis Ilias as Larisa comes from its proximity to Ierapetra and the fact it was abandoned by the second half of the fourth century B.C.E.70 Strabo, however, provides no date for the synoicism between the two sites. Whether Profitis Ilias was the ancient center of Larisa is in many ways irrelevant to relating its abandonment to a synoicism with Ierapetra. Along with Profitis Ilias, the site of Azoria, located approximately 17km northwest of Ierapetra, was abandoned during the first quarter of the fifth century, suggesting defensible mountain locations were no longer a primary concern within the region of the Isthmus.71 If Ierapetra was founded during the seventh or sixth century B.C.E., this may have been connected with a

67

Watrous, forthcoming. Watrous forthcoming. 69 Strabo 9.5.19. Translation from the Loeb edition. Profitis Ilias is only one site which has been associated with the site of Larisa. Some scholars (Faure 1959: 201; 1963: 18; 1967: map 1; van Effenterre and Bougrat 1967: fig. 1.) associate it with a site adjacent to the modern village of Kalamafka, approximately 10.5km northwest of Ierapetra. Arthur Evans suggests the site of Kentri, 3.5km north of Ierapetra (Frothingham 1896: 463; Spyridakis 1990: 39). Azoria at the northeastern edge of the Isthmus is another option (Guizzi 2001: 308-9). For L. Bürchner (1922: 180910) and M. Guarducci (1942: 19-20), even without the identification of a specific site as Larisa, they feel the Larisian Plain attested by Strabo must correspond to some part of the Isthmus. cf. Guizzi 2001: 306-10 for a detailed account of these arguments. 70 Erickson (2000: 314) dates the abandonment to circa 325 C.E. See also Watrous forthcoming(a). Some scholars suggest that the synoicism of Larisa with Ierapetra was forced (AR 41 [1994-1995]: 65; Watrous et al. 2000: 477). Strabo offers no indication of a negative connotation attached to this event and the adoption of Larisa‟s population may have been a peaceful event, as L. Mariani has suggested (1895: 319 n.1). 71 Haggis 2005: 86; Haggis et al. 2007: 305. 68

101

population movement toward the coast. D. Haggis observes that overall numbers of coastal sites on Crete greatly increased at this time.72 Trade patterns are another source of evidence for tracing Ierapetra‟s early history. Much of the evidence for sixth century exchange indicates that western Crete was an important link in trade networks joining the Peloponnese with Egypt and Libya.73 Pottery assemblages analyzed by Erickson at western sites, such as Eleutherna, tend to contain large numbers of imports.74 Two literary passages also suggest connections with western Crete. First, Herodotus mentions a Samian colony established at Kydonia in 524 B.C.E., and later ousted by a group from Aegina in 519 B.C.E.75 T.J. Figueira argues that there were commercial reasons behind the Aeginetans‟ desire to settle at Kydonia, while Erickson notes the Samians likely came under pressure to abandon their role in the trade network between Greece and North Africa.76 Next, Thucydides describes an Athenian attack on Kydonia in 429 B.C.E., possibly representing an attempt to disrupt Peloponnesian trade activity with North Africa during the Peloponnesian War.77 At some point during the fifth century B.C.E., there is a sharp decline in imported goods at sites in western Crete, indicating trade relations were no longer prosperous.78 Athenian intervention, as recorded by Thucydides, could be one reason behind this. Figueira argues for a link between the removal of Aeginetan influence from trade networks in the first half of the fifth

72

Haggis 2005: 86. Erickson 2000: 251, 367. 74 Erickson 2000: 246. 75 Hdt 3.59. 76 Figueira 1981: 278; Erickson 2000: 256. There is some epigraphic evidence for an Aeginetan presence at Kydonia including three grave stelai in the Aeginetan script (Jeffery 1961: 316 nos. 29a-c) and an early fifth century graffito in a similar script listing the names of two Kydonian mercenaries on the Temple of Seti in Abydos, Egypt (Jeffery 1961: 314, 316 no. 30b). I thank Benjamin Sullivan for pointing out these references to me. 77 Thucy. 2.85. cf. Erickson 2005: 656. An additional passage in Thucydides (4.53-54) describes an Athenian exhibition against Egypt in 454 B.C.E., possibly representing an attempt to intervene in Peloponnesian trade. cf. Erickson 2005: 653. 78 Erickson 2000: 262. 73

102

century and the decline of evidence for trade on Crete.79 Whatever the reasons for this decline, when evidence of a recovery appears in the second half of the fifth century, it comes almost exclusively from sites in eastern Crete including Ierapetra.80 An increased focus of trade associated with the Cyclades may be responsible for this shift. As trade networks with eastern Crete grew, Ierapetra‟s own prosperity appears to have increased. P. Perlman even contends that individuals from western Crete may have followed this trade.81 She notes that the name Sosos, attested on several mid-second century B.C.E. amphora stamps from Ierapetra, is known mainly from western Crete and the stamps could represent evidence of part of this family having relocated to Ierapetra for commercial purposes. Among the islands of the Cyclades, Rhodes benefited greatly from the new trade arrangement. By the late fourth century B.C.E., this island had become one of the largest suppliers of products shipped in amphorae, with examples of these vessels found across the Hellenistic world.82 As Rhodian influence spread, it may have prompted a connection between Rhodes and Ierapetra. For instance, two early names recorded for the site of Ierapetra, Kamiros and Kyrba, have Rhodian associations. Kamiros is attested by Stephanus Byzantinus, and Guizzi notes that a polis of the same name appears on Rhodes as part of a three site synoicism around 408/407 B.C.E.83 With respect to Kyrba, also mentioned by Stephanus, Strabo describes the founder of Ierapetra as a certain Kyrbas from Rhodes.84 These toponymns may relate to connections with Rhodes arising at a time when Ierapetra was creating its own foundation myth. According to Guizzi, the terminus ante quem for any 79

Figueira 1981: 279. Erickson 2005: 653. Other sites in east Crete producing imports at this time include Itanos and Olus. 81 Perlman 1999: 147. 82 For arguments that Rhodian amphorae first date to the second half of the fourth century see Grace 1963: 329 and Delos XXVII, 281. Rhodian amphorae were also the largest component of the cargo of the Kyrenia shipwreck dated between 310 and 300 B.C.E. cf. Parker 1992: 231-2 no. 563. 83 Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἱεράπσηλα. Guizzi 2001: 285. 84 Strabo 10.3.19. 80

103

foundation myth associated with Ierapetra is the destruction of Praisos around 145 B.C.E., when the site would have needed to justify its conquest of an established polis.85 This argument rests on the, perhaps no longer tenable, assumption that Ierapetra was a relatively new settlement in eastern Crete, much younger than most of the other centers. Without any concrete evidence we can only speculate on the influence Rhodes may have had on Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Ierapetra, although it does appear that both began a contemporary rise to power as their roles in trade increased.

HELLENISTIC IERAPETRA With the exception of Guizzi‟s monograph on the Hellenistic history of Ierapetra, there has been very little scholarly attention given to the Hellenistic city. V.E. Stefanaki has examined some coin issues minted by Ierapetra during this period, while N. Vogeikoff-Brogan has described a type of pottery, known as East Cretan Cream Ware, which she believes was produced in or around the town.86 Most of the evidence we have for this period of the city‟s history comprises a series of treaties negotiated by Ierapetra with other centers. A. Chaniotis observes that, of the 74 attested treaties negotiated by Cretan poleis, Ierapetra is named in 17 (Figs. 4.8, 4.9).87 Only Gortyn and Knossos boast more references. These texts provide insight into the city‟s rural and urban economy, religious institutions, and political structures, although some bias is noted. According to Chaniotis: These documents reflect the primary concerns of the Cretan communities in this period: the occupation of land suitable for agricultural activities, the defence of inherited territory or the conquering of neighbours‟ territory, and the creation of

85

Guizzi 2001: 298. An inscription from Ierapetra (IC 3.3.8) dated to the first century B.C.E. appears to be related to a foundation myth and mentions a certain Eteanor as part of the foundation. 86 Stefanaki 2001, 2006; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b, 2004; Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004. 87 Chaniotis 1996: 173.

104

new possibilities for economic activities especially for those citizens who did not own land.88 Even with this limitation, the relative dearth of other sources makes these treaties an invaluable resource. Treaties negotiated by Ierapetra first appear in the mid-third century B.C.E. Unfortunately, this leaves us with a significant gap in our knowledge of the city after the midfifth century B.C.E., when the earliest evidence for settlement appears. The first attested treaty related to Ierapetra is an agreement with the site of Praisos, located approximately 35km to the east.89 The city also came to an accord with Arkades to the west circa 230 B.C.E. Around the same time, Ierapetra began fostering several asylia, or inviolability, agreements with centers across the Aegean, including the Sanctuary of Asklepios on Kos and the island of Tenos.90 A treaty dated to 227-224 B.C.E. between the city and Antigonos of Macedonia is also attested. The number of known treaties negotiated by Ierapetra greatly increases by the end of the third century B.C.E. Agreements with Gortyn, Itanos, Lato, Lyttos, Priansos, Praisos, one unnamed polis (perhaps Biennos), and a colony established by Ierapetra in the territory of Arkades are attested around this time.91 Ierapetra also negotiated a treaty with the island of Rhodes at the turn of the century, perhaps related to a war fought between the two sides, and an asylia agreement with Teos in Asia Minor.92 The large number of treaties, and the geographic diversity of the regions with which Ierapetra was developing relationships, indicates the city was growing in power and prestige. Corroborating evidence derives from an inscription found at the 88

Chaniotis 2004: 77. IC 4.4.1 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 5. 90 Sanctuary of Asklepios on Kos: Rigsby 1996: 146 no. 43. Tenos: IG 12 suppl. 304. 91 Gortyn: IC 4.174 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 27. Itanos: IC 3.4.5-6 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 19-20. Lato: IC 1.16.16 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 22. Lyttos: IC 3.3.3B = Chaniotis 1996 no. 26. Priansos: IC 3.3.4 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 28. Praisos: Chaniotis 1996 no. 21. Unnamed polis: IC 3.3.6 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 35. Ierapetra‟s colony: IC 3.3.5 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 74). 92 Rhodes: IC 3.3.3A. Teos: IC 3.3.2. 89

105

site of Gortyn. Dated to 183 B.C.E., IC 4.179 is an accord between numerous Cretan poleis and Eumenes II of Pergamon. Cretan sites are named in list form, and one interpretation suggests this register represents a ranking of the island‟s city-states as of the early second century B.C.E. Thirty-one poleis are named, with Gortyn, Knossos, Phaistos, Lyttos, Rhaukos, and Ierapetra at the head of the list.93 Gortyn and Knossos were the most powerful centers at this time, hence their prominent position in the treaty. Ierapetra represents the first eastern polis in the list, suggestive of its geographic importance, and is also the first port city to be named. With the subsequent destructions of Rhaukos in 166/165 B.C.E. and Phaistos around 150 B.C.E., Ierapetra would have assumed a position as one of the preeminent poleis of Hellenistic Crete.94 Ierapetra‟s growth continued in the second half of the second century B.C.E. An event of particular importance for the city‟s expansion was the conquest of the polis of Praisos in 145 B.C.E. The withdrawal of a Ptolemaic garrison stationed Itanos in the far northeastern corner of Crete appears to have emboldened Ierapetra to launch an invasion of Praisos‟ territory. Ierapetra also attempted to annex lands surrounding Itanos, but had to relinquish those gains after a long sequence of arbitration which was described above in Chapter 2. Following the conquest of Praisos, Ierapetra found itself in control of a territory that covered most of the eastern part of Crete. One can imagine that these extensive holdings brought about further increases to the city‟s prosperity. The fact that Metellus specifically targeted Ierapetra during his conquest of Crete from 69 to 67 B.C.E. indicates the city was among the most powerful poleis on Crete. What follows is an outline of the city‟s Hellenistic topography, territorial expansion, political

93

IC 4.179.3-4. Polybius (30.23.1) mentions the destruction of Rhaukos at the hands of Knossos and Gortyn while IC 4.182 records a division of territory between the two the centers that includes the territory of Rhaukos. Strabo (10.4.14) describes the destruction of Phaistos by Gortyn. 94

106

structures, religion, and economy, which will emphasize key factors that led to the development of the Roman polis.

Topography The topography of Hellenistic Ierapetra is a difficult topic to explore. By the time of the Roman conquest of Crete in 67 B.C.E., one would expect that Ierapetra was a large, flourishing polis based on the prosperity suggested by the numerous third and second century B.C.E. treaties negotiated by the city. Almost no features associated with the Hellenistic phase of the Ierapetra‟s history can be reconstructed, however. As a result, we are unable to develop any interpretation about certain fundamental issues, such as the size and layout of the polis at this time. Hellenistic pottery does appear in rescue excavations, but preliminary reports offer little detail about this material. K. Lehmann-Hartleben is one of the only scholars to have attempted to describe some aspect of the topography of Hellenistic Ierapetra. His interest lay in documenting ancient harbors. For Ierapetra, he suggests that the Hellenistic harbor should be associated with a small lagoon, located at the boundary of the Viglia and Aliki districts, in the southwest part of the city (Fig. 4.10).95 In the mid-fifteenth century, Cyriacus of Ancona described this lagoon, which measures approximately 0.4ha in size, as the site of a Roman naumachia, an interpretation which several later travelers also adopted.96 Accepting that Ierapetra, or any Cretan city, possessed a feature as unique as a naumachia in antiquity is problematic, however. Outside of Rome, very few naumachia can be securely identified. Interpreting this feature as a harbor is much more feasible. 95

Lehmann- Hartleben 1923: 201. For Cyriacus‟ initial description, see Bodnar 2003: 189, diary IV.5. Later travelers who adopted this interpretation include Onorio Belli (Falkener 1854: 11) and Thomas Spratt (1865: 255). 96

107

Territorial Expansion We next need to explore the territory which came to be under Ierapetra‟s control during the Hellenistic period. Defining the territory of either the Hellenistic or Roman polis of Ierapetra first requires consideration of some methodological issues, however. In particular, we must define what is meant by the term “territory” with respect to a Greek polis. Of initial importance is the selection of terminology to be used to characterize Ierapetra‟s territory. According to M.H. Hansen, a Greek city “… had a hinterland called chora or ge, and a polis by the sea had a harbour, called limen or epineion”.97 In consideration of Ierapetra‟s location within the Greek world, the term chora seems appropriate for defining the city‟s territory, in place of other potential designations such as hinterland or suburbium. Second, we must establish a set of characteristics for assessing which areas fell within Ierapetra‟s territorial boundaries. Defining the extent of any city‟s chora in antiquity can be a difficult task. Several scholars have reevaluated the definition of a chora/suburbium, including N. Morley who believes it is a somewhat arbitrary term and could relate to either an area characterized by a certain set of activities, or be based on territorial homogeneity.98 R. Witcher, in an attempt to limit the dichotomy between city and chora, suggests that all urban boundaries, such as walls, customs barriers, or pomeria, were permeable, making it difficult to determine where the limits of any center ended.99 While uncertainty is the norm when it comes to determining how extensive a city‟s territory was in antiquity, there are methods for evaluating what comprised a chora. For instance, John Leonard writes that “ports and hinterlands, in particular, together represent inseparable 97

Hansen 2006: 101. Morley 1996: 83. 99 Witcher 2005: 21. 98

108

economic units fundamental to the predominately rural, agriculture-based economies of the ancient Mediterranean world”.100 For him, port cities often served as outlets for economically rich chorae.101 Large coastal centers such as Ierapetra provided a venue for inland landowners to distribute their products, and also served as a source for imported goods. Thus, adjacent regions to a port city that demonstrate both administrative and economic connections could be considered to be part of that center‟s chora. Leonard notes, however, that the situation is more complex than just a linear economic relationship between port and chora.102 A significant amount of exchange would have occurred between settlements within a specific chora, and one must also factor in the use of smaller ports as outlets for the distribution of goods. Large harbors were not the only means by which imports and exports entered or left a region. The fact that Ierapetra‟s chora likely included smaller port centers along the north and south coasts of Crete could serve to mask some of the economic connections the city had with its territory. P. Horden and N. Purcell, in their work The Corrupting Sea, are able to provide some insight into this dilemma. In attempting to provide a more appropriate definition for a site in the Greco-Roman world, they observe that settlements represent “… sites of shifting, overlapping ecologies”.103 When describing larger centers, Horden and Purcell prefer to “… conceive of towns less as separate and clearly definable entities and more as loci of contact or overlap between different ecologies”.104 In other words, even though settlements within Ierapetra‟s chora may have had connections with any number of ports, the overarching administrative and economic control for these connections was focused at Ierapetra itself. 100

Leonard 2005: 12. Leonard 2005: 946. 102 Leonard 2005: 638-9, 963. 103 Horden and Purcell 2000: 108. 104 Horden and Purcell 2000: 100. 101

109

If a chora, therefore, comprises a region that was a formal administrative district managed by a large center, characteristics for assessing which settlements fell within this territory should include evidence of economic and administrative connections. For Ierapetra specifically, there are three sources of evidence we can mobilize to document these connections in the Hellenistic period. First, settlement patterns attested in neighboring regions by survey archaeologists possess some indicators that Ierapetra exerted influence over these areas. For example, in the Hellenistic period, Ierapetra may have been the focus of a nucleated settlement pattern, commonly attested in the Hellenistic Greek world.105 Results of the Gournia survey show no significant settlement in the Isthmus during the Hellenistic period, with only 12 sites documented.106 Most were field sites and farms, and only one settlement, located next to the modern town of Kato Chorio, grew to village size during the Late Hellenistic period. An analogous pattern emerges from the nearby Kavousi Survey where no significant Hellenistic activity was recorded until the first century B.C.E.107 The Vrokastro Survey also identified a nucleated settlement pattern concentrated around the polis of Istron.108 Next, the numerous treaties negotiated by Ierapetra with other centers on Crete often identify sites under the control of each polis and document settlements positioned at the boundaries between different regions. Thus, these documents provide the most direct indications of where Ierapetra‟s territorial boundaries lay at a given time. The third source of evidence is the presence at another site of material culture manufactured at or around Ierapetra, perhaps serving as a marker that it fell within Ierapetra‟s chora. For instance, N. Vogeikoff-Brogan suggests a

105

Alcock 1994: 179. Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 107 Haggis 2005: 86. 108 Hayden 2004a: 186, 191. She notes, however, that pottery recovered from the site of Istron dates primarily from the seventh to fourth centuries B.C.E. suggesting a reduction in size during the Hellenistic period, possibly due to the influence of Ierapetra. 106

110

class of ceramics known as East Cretan Cream Ware was produced in the vicinity of Ierapetra, and attestations of the ware at nearby sites, including Myrtos and Mochlos, indicate they were under Ierapetra‟s control.109 Before commencing an attempt to reconstruct Ierapetra‟s Hellenistic chora, there is one final methodological issue to consider. The boundaries of any territory in antiquity were fluid and chronology is an important factor to consider. We must be explicit about the point(s) in time during which we are trying to establish the extent of a chora. For Ierapetra, my goal is the reconstruct the city‟s Hellenistic chora as of the end of the second century B.C.E. The city had likely reached the acme of its Hellenistic expansion by that time and we will be able to document the maximum geographic area that fell under Ierapetra‟s control. A map outlining the proposed extent of Ierapetra‟s territory at the end of the second century B.C.E. shows a vast chora under the city‟s control (Fig. 4.11). The next step is justifying why this chora incorporates these specific boundaries. Looking to the southwest first, the port site of Myrtos, situated approximately 14km to the west, appears to have been under the control of Ierapetra. Evidence derives from finds of East Cretan Cream Ware at the site. As noted above, this class of ceramics is thought to have been produced in the vicinity of Ierapetra. Pottery evidence presented below in Chapter 5 demonstrates that examples of this ware were dominant in Hellenistic period contexts at Ierapetra, indicating the site must have had some control over its production and distribution. Petrographic analysis carried out on specimens of East Cretan Cream Wares shows that the fabric corresponds well to the geology of the Myrtos valley.110 This suggests that either the clay was transported to Ierapetra for production, or manufacture occurred

109 110

Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 70-2; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 331. Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 328-9; Vogeikoff-Brogan, Nodarou, and Boileau 2008: 329-30.

111

at some location near Myrtos. In either case, Myrtos appears to have formed part of Ierapetra‟s chora. Ierapetra‟s southwestern expansion may not have continued too far past Myrtos, however. The city negotiated several treaties with centers positioned west of the Myrtos Valley, including Priansos, Arkades, and possibly Biennos.111 Negotiating isopolity treaties with these centers would have provided access to necessary pasture land, and may have enabled Ierapetra to settle any surplus population beyond its borders. Chaniotis suggests this was the primary purpose of these isopolity treaties, since more than half of the preserved examples from Crete were resolved between Ierapetra and other Cretan poleis.112 Corroborating evidence derives from one of these agreements (IC 3.3.5 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 74), possibly from the early second century B.C.E., concluded between Ierapetra and a nearby colony of its own settlers dwelling in the territory of Arkades. This settlement clearly demonstrates an attempt by the city to distribute its population. Whether Ierapetra had any direct control over territory in the vicinity of Priansos and Arkades remains an open question, however. That Ierapetra founded a colony in this region is conspicuous, but the fact it was situated in the vicinity of Arkades indicates the settlement was established within the chora of another center. H. and M. van Effenterre suggest Ierapetra did have some influence in the region and may have even conquered the site of Biennos. 113 They argue that, by the time the treaties between Ierapetra and Priansos were negotiated, Biennos was under Ierapetra‟s control and the pasture land available for use by Priansos and Ierapetra encompassed the territory of Biennos. Countering this argument, A. Chaniotis highlights an

111

Priansos: IC 4.174 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 27; IC 3.3.4 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 28. Arkades: IC 3.3.1B = Chaniotis 1996 no. 14. Biennos: IC 3.3.6 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 26. 112 Chaniotis 1999: 203 and n.32 for a list of these treaties. 113 van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1994: 124.

112

asylia decree between Biennos and Teos in Asia Minor from around 204 B.C.E. (IC 1.6.1), and the listing of Biennos in the pan-Cretan treaty with Eumenes II of Pergamon in 183 B.C.E. (IC 4.179.6).114 Chaniotis notes further that an early third century B.C.E. treaty between Ierapetra and an unknown polis (IC 3.3.6 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 26) may represent Biennos. Thus, there is no clear indication that Ierapetra controlled territory west of Myrtos and its chora must have abutted the districts of Biennos, Priansos, and other settlements. Turning now to the northwest, a variety of different clues enable a reconstruction of Ierapetra‟s chora boundary. The site of Oleros appears to have been part of this territory. Along with references to a procession from Ierapetra to the Sanctuary of Athena Oleria mentioned above, there is a treaty between Lyttos and Ierapetra dating to around 200 B.C.E. (IC 3.3.3B = Chaniotis 1996 no. 26) which designates that the territory of Oleros belonged to Ierapetra at that time.115 Farther north, the situation is somewhat more confusing. Limited Hellenistic settlement in the Isthmus of Ierapetra led Vogeikoff-Brogan to suggest that “the lack of any major Hellenistic sites on the northern half of the Isthmus could … possibly indicate that this area represented an “apple of discord” between Lato, Hierapytna, and possibly Lyttos.”116 Ierapetra‟s northwestern chora boundary, thus, may have been in a region of continual conflict. An inscription dated to circa 100 B.C.E., found near the Minoan site of Vasiliki, has been interpreted by H. and M. van Effenterre as a casualty list erected by Ierapetra related to struggles in the region.117 It also suggests that Vasiliki was a holding of Ierapetra. A passage from Strabo, mentioning the site of Minoa being under the control of Lyttos, is of additional interest. 118 Minoa should represent a site along the north coast, possibly situated at Pacheia Ammos, Gournia, or 114

Chaniotis 1999: 199 n.27. cf. Guizzi 2001: 310-2. 116 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 117 SEG 39.967; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1989. 118 Strabo 10.4.3. 115

113

Istron, indicating a notable limitation to the northwest expansion of Ierapetra.119 An agreement between the sites of Lato and Ierapetra, dating to 111/110 B.C.E. (SEG 26.1049 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 59), designates the area around the site of Istron as the boundary between the two poleis.120 This suggests that Ierapetra had control of this area by the end of the second century B.C.E. Overall, Ierapetra‟s territorial boundary to the northwest appears to have been fluid, expanding and contracting depending on its relations with sites in the area. Ierapetra‟s expansion of its chora to the northeast and east is where the site had its highest degree of success. Excavators at Azoria have interpreted the reinhabitation of the site during the third century B.C.E., in the form of a round building, possibly a tower, as the establishment of a garrison from Ierapetra.121 Along the north coast, D. Haggis connects the growth of the port of Tholos in the first century B.C.E. with Ierapetra‟s spreading interests in the last quarter of the second century B.C.E.122 Pottery evidence, specifically finds of East Cretan Cream Ware, has also led Vogeikoff-Brogan et alia to suggest that Mochlos was under the hegemony of Ierapetra.123 According to Vogeikoff-Brogan, the primary reason for Ierapetra‟s interest in Mochlos may have been its position as a strategic port along the north coast, giving Ierapetra control over eastern access to the Bay of Mirabello.124 Additional evidence derives from a treaty between Rhodes and Ierapetra (IC 3.3.3A), dating to around 200 B.C.E. Among the stipulations in this treaty, Ierapetra agreed to make available its ιηκέλας θαὶ ὁρκαηήρηα (harbors and naval stations) to the Rhodians.125 Since the site of Ierapetra appears to have had only a

119

Guizzi 2001: 312-4 with associated bibliography. For discussions of this boundary see: van Effenterre and Bougrat 1969: 37-8; Garlan 1976: 303; Guizzi 2001: 314-7. 121 Haggis 2005: 86; Haggis et al. 2007: 305. 122 Haggis 1996: 202. 123 Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 331. 124 Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 217. 125 IC 3.3.3A.10. There has been some debate concerning how to translate ὁρκαηήρηα, which also appears in the treaty between Rhodes and Olus (SEG 23.547.26). Brulé (1978: 51) suggests the term either translates as anchorages 120

114

single harbor during this period, the mention of multiple ports could be a reference to establishments such as Mochlos along the north coast. Ierapetra also negotiated treaties with two poleis to the east, Praisos and Itanos.126 A principal focus again may have been the city‟s expanding population and lack of suitable land. Ierapetra‟s interests in eastern eventually turned hostile, however. Following the death of Ptolemy VI in 145 B.C.E., the Ptolemaic garrison previously stationed at Itanos was removed by his successor, Ptolemy VII Epiphanes, who was facing numerous attacks on his own borders.127 Ierapetra, emboldened by this alteration to the power structure in east Crete, almost immediately seized upon the opportunity, attacking and destroying the site of Praisos, and appropriating its territory.128 By removing Praisos, Ierapetra eliminated the only threat between itself and Itanos, located in the far northeast corner of Crete. K. Branigan notes that an increase in settlement numbers around the site of Ziros, dating sometime during the third or second century B.C.E., could correspond to Ierapetra‟s acquisition of territory in this region after the conquest of Praisos.129 Itanos soon felt the effects of this rapid expansion when Ierapetra attempted to annex the Sanctuary of Zeus Diktaios and the island of Kouphonisi, both of which were under Itanian hegemony. As described above in Chapter 2, the conflict over these holdings lasted for several decades and involved attempts at arbitration by Rome and the site of Magnesia on the Meander in Asia Minor. In the end, Itanos retained control, indicating Ierapetra‟s chora did not extend too far past Praisos.

(mouillages) or pirate dens (repaires). Spyridakis (1980: 122) prefers the latter interpretation and uses the presence of this word as evidence for Rhode‟s attempt to control Cretan piracy. A more widely accepted interpretation is that ὁρκαηήρηα translates as naval stations, a usage attested in Pausanias (1.6.6). cf. Gabrielsen 1997: 40-1; Perlman 1999: 158 n.15. 126 Praisos: IC 3.4.1 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 5 (early 3 rd cen. B.C.E.). Itanos: IC 3.4.5 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 19 (ca. 219-204 B.C.E.); IC 3.4.6 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 20 (late 3rd cen. B.C.E.). 127 Spyridakis 1970: 82-3. 128 For evidence of this conflict see IC. 3.4.9.45-7 and Strabo 10.4.12. 129 Branigan 1998: 87-8.

115

The chora of Ierapetra can thus be defined with respect to its boundaries to the west, north, and east. While the southern boundary appears to be the southern shore of Crete, the city did have some island holdings. In particular, Chryssi Island, located 15km south of Ierapetra, appears to have been under the control of the city. Kostas Chalikias has surveyed Chryssi for his dissertation and notes that as many as 18 Hellenistic sites can be identified.130 Exploitation of natural resources, including purple dye, salt, sponges, timber, and so on would have been the primary motive for control of this island and it likely formed part of Ierapetra‟s territory. J. Bennet estimates that Ierapetra controlled a territory of approximately 1050km2 in the Hellenistic period.131 Based on my own reconstruction of the city‟s chora (Fig. 4.11), his figure appears to be appropriate, and would only vary depending on where certain boundaries are drawn.132 Bennet, unfortunately, does not map out the territories of Hellenistic poleis, but does provide a table listing the estimated territories for seven cities, including Ierapetra. Gortyn had the second largest territory at 920km2, while Knossos was third at 770km2. Following them was Lyttos (600km2), Lato (230km2), Kydonia (120-180km2), and Itanos (79km2). One point of significance is that Bennet estimates the territory for every large polis whose chora may have abutted Ierapetra: Gortyn, Itanos, Lato, and Lyttos. This indicates that all of the land in eastern Crete was in the hands of a few powerful centers, but by the end of the second century B.C.E., Ierapetra was preeminent in terms of square kilometers controlled.

130

Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. Bennet 1990: 202 table 3. 132 Based on the boundaries outlined in Figure 4.11, Ierapetra‟s territory covered an area of between 1100 to 1200km2. 131

116

Political Structures Political institutions and offices characteristic of Hellenistic Ierapetra can be reconstructed from epigraphic evidence. A treaty between Ierapetra and Rhodes dated to circa 200 B.C.E., for instance, mentions a δακοθραηίαλ (democracy) in place at Ierapetra (IC 3.3.3A.69). Similar allusions to democracy at other Cretan sites, including Gortyn, Knossos, and Olus, have led scholars to suggest that democratic governments did function on the island.133 At the head of Ierapetra‟s government may have been an elected board of ten officials known as kosmoi.134 Two fourth century B.C.E. authors, Ephoros (FGrH 70 F 149) and Aristotle (Pol. 2.7.5-6), mention that the municipal governments of Cretan cities tended to have ten kosmoi as their chief magistrates. An inscription dated to the second century B.C.E. from Ierapetra (IC 3.3.9), concerned with providing doors and pillars to several temples, lists ten individuals who can be interpreted as the city‟s kosmoi. This suggests that, at least in Ierapetra, there existed a body similar to that described by Ephoros and Aristotle.135 Minor officials also are attested. For example, fourteen individuals charged with issuing coinage, the largest number known from any site on Crete, are recorded for the period between 200 and 67 B.C.E.136 R.F. Willetts suggests that some form of tribal system was in place at Ierapetra during the Hellenistic period. Based on a clause in an early second century B.C.E. treaty with Priansos (IC 3.3.4.13-15) he believes that “among other privileges, that of ἐπηγακία (intermarriage) is granted to all those who are tribal kinsfolk (ὅζοη θα ἔωληη ἔκθσιοη παρ’ ἑθαηέροης)”.137 Thus, marriage between different communities should have been possible provided tribal affiliations were

133

Willetts 1955: 171; Guizzi 2001: 326-8. Willetts 1965: 65. 135 cf. Willetts 1965: 65-7. 136 Masson 1979: 75-82. These names appear on coins minted by the city, suggesting they were the individuals responsible. 137 Willetts 1955: 27. 134

117

attested. Ierapetra also may have possessed an organized syssitia, or communal meal system based on revenue from taxation.138 Syssitiae are acknowledged by Aristotle (Pol. 2.2.10) and Strabo (10.4.18) as an integral part of Cretan municipal life. Chaniotis has noted the importance of shepherding, an occupation well attested at Ierapetra, for maintaining this organization.139 Hellenistic Ierapetra also played a role in Cretan politics beyond its borders, including membership in a pan-Cretan koinon. This koinon is similar to other federal leagues attested in the Greek world, but was much more unstable and disbanded regularly.140 The state of this union depended on relations between Gortyn and Knossos. That Ierapetra was a member is apparent from the aforementioned inscription that records a treaty between Eumenes II and numerous Cretan poleis. M. van der Mijnsbrugge interprets this roll of Cretan cities as a membership list for the koinon as of the early second century B.C.E. A passage from Polybius (29.10.6), which describes events in the year 163 B.C.E., mentions that all Cretan cities were members of this koinon.141 So long as the organization was active, one can presume that Ierapetra was a member.

Religion Evidence for religion at Ierapetra derives from inscriptions, coinage, and sculptural finds. From these clues, one can reconstruct that the city‟s inhabitants worshipped a number of different deities and that many temples and shrines would have dotted the landscape. R.F. Willetts and K. Sporn have summarized much of the evidence for Hellenistic cult at Ierapetra, and I present here only a brief summary of their findings.142

138

For discussions of this institution see: Kirsten 1948: 130-2; Petropoulou 1985: 81-2; Talamo 1987; Link 1991: 107-28; Chaniotis 1999: 193-7. 139 Chaniotis 1999: 193-7. 140 Mijnsbrugge 1931: 73; Ager 1994: 2. 141 cf. Mijnsbrugge 1931: 25. 142 Willetts 1962: passim; Sporn 2002: 52-60.

118

At the head of Ierapetra‟s pantheon may have been Apollo Dekataphoros, Athena Polias, and several incarnations of Zeus.143 Apollo and Athena are listed first in a dedication to numerous deities found in the city (IC 3.3.9.1-3), which speaks to their importance. Apollo Pythios also was worshipped at Ierapetra, and Athena is attested as Athena Oleria and Athena Samonia.144 Zeus appears with several epithets, including Diktaios (IC 3.3.5.12), Oratorios (IC 3.3.5.11), and Brontaios (IC 3.3.13). A cult to the twelve gods, rarely attested on Crete, was present at Ierapetra.145 The city also appears to be the only location in eastern Crete with evidence for cults of Aphrodite and Ares.146 Artemis is named in a dedication dating to the fourth or third century B.C.E. (SEG 32.873), while Dionysos may have been part of the Theodaisia festival held in the month Theodaisios.147 Dionysos‟ head, in the form of a young man crowned with ivy, also appears on Late Hellenistic coinage minted at Ierapetra.148 Statues of Asklepios and Hygeia found around the city may attest some form of cult dedicated to these deities as well.149 The Kouretes and Korybantes also appear in at least one inscription (IC 3.3.5.14-15), suggesting some degree of worship. A final consideration is that Ierapetra participated in cult activity at other centers. In particular, one should think of the procession from the city to the sanctuary of Athena Oleria at the site of Oleros to the northwest.150

Economy The economy of Hellenistic Ierapetra would have been extensive. Evidence exists for members of the city‟s population participating in pastoralism, viticulture, and perhaps piracy. 143

Sporn 2002: 59. Apollo Pythios: IC 3.3.5.13; Athena Oleria: IC 3.3.3B.13, 3.3.5.12, 4.174.59; Athena Samonia: IC 3.3.5.13. 145 IC 3.3.9.1-2. This cult is also known from Knossos (IC 1.8.13.25). cf. Willetts 1962: 291. 146 IC 3.3.3B.14; IC 3.3.5.14. cf. Willetts 1962: 284, 286. 147 For the festival: IC 3.3.1B.8. For the month: IC 3.3.7.20; Trümpy 1997: 192. 148 Willetts 1962: 220; Sporn 2002: 55. 149 Sporn 2002: 57. 150 As attested by Xenion (FGrH 460 Fr. 15 = Steph. Byz. s.v. Ὤιερος). 144

119

Ierapetra‟s coastal position also suggests that aspects of maritime trade, including transshipment and port taxes, are important to consider. While the city‟s economy inevitably would have been more extensive than just these activities, they serve as a good foundation for addressing this topic. Pastoralism is difficult to study in antiquity because of its non-sedentary lifestyle and lack of material remains. Scholars interested in analyzing this activity in the Greco-Roman world tend to have limited evidence available for interpretation, and instead often rely on ethnographic parallels. H.A. Forbes summarizes this dilemma: The few scholars who have considered the nature and structure of ancient Greek and Roman pastoralism have previously employed a model which is heavily dependent on accounts of recent pastoralists and/or the organization of mediaeval and later pastoralism in the Mediterranean area.151 Ierapetra is among the only cities in the whole of the Mediterranean for which a significant corpus of evidence connected with pastoralism survives. The primary source of this evidence is the numerous treaties negotiated by the city.152 According to Chaniotis, a percentage of the population of Ierapetra engaged in “specialized pastoralism in connection with transhumance”. 153 An early third century B.C.E. treaty between Ierapetra and Praisos preserves a long section concerned with the use of pasture land.154 Issues discussed include permission for flocks from one city to graze on the land of another, and regulations concerning the seasonal movement of herds across the landscape. Three additional treaties, negotiated by Ierapetra with Arkades, Priansos, and Lato, also preserve sections documenting the mutual use of pasture land.155 In addition, the majority of these texts include customs exemptions for goods transported by land, a 151

Forbes 1994: 187. For studies of pastoralism at Ierapetra, and on Crete as a whole, see Chaniotis 1995, 1999. 153 Chaniotis 1999: 199. 154 IC 3.4.1 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 5, ll. 33-68. 155 Arkades: IC 3.3.1B = Chaniotis 1996 no. 14, ll. 1-3; Priansos: IC 3.3.4 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 28, ll. 27-30; Lato: SEG 26.1049 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 59, ll. 13-15. 152

120

regulation Chaniotis relates to the habitual movement of shepherds and their herds across polis borders.156 The geographic range of the centers with which Ierapetra treated could indicate a substantial number of flocks were involved and that pastoralism was an important component of the city‟s economic backbone. The territory over which shepherds from Ierapetra could graze their flocks would have been extensive. By negotiating agreements with upland centers, including Lato, Praisos, Priansos, and Arkades, Ierapetra opened up territory to the east, west, and north for use by pastoralists. Shepherds also would have been able to transfer their flocks from the lowland and coastal plains around Ierapetra to the higher mountain plains whenever necessary because of these open borders. Chaniotis notes that another significant aspect of these texts is that they imply the long-term stationing of flocks in the territory of another polis, indicating a number of citizens must have dedicated most of their time to pastoralism and transhumance.157 Viticulture comprised another component of Ierapetra‟s economy. Although the results of the Gournia survey, undertaken in the northern half of the Ishmus of Ierapetra, suggest that much of this area was uninhabited during the Hellenistic period, this should not preclude at least some of the land being given over to cultivation. Agricultural production also may have included oleoculture since this activity is attested in the region by the Early Roman period.158 Evidence for the production of amphorae at or around Ierapetra in the Hellenistic period is the strongest indicator that at least some portion of the surrounding land was under cultivation. In addition, Ierapetra stands alone as the only Cretan Hellenistic polis known have produced stamped amphorae, a trait usually associated with wine vessels. Stefanaki suggests a date after 145 B.C.E. for these stamped vessels based on iconography, although G. Finkielsztejn notes they are similar 156

Chaniotis 1999: 200. Chaniotis 1999: 199. 158 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 157

121

in style to Rhodian stamps dated from the mid-third to first half of the second century B.C.E.159 At present, there are twelve published examples: seven from Alexandria in Egypt, one from Callatis along the Black Sea, one from Trypetos in northeast Crete, two from Mochlos, and one from a site in the Isthmus of Ierapetra (Fig. 4.12).160 These stamps preserve the ethnic Ἱαραπσηλίωλ or Ἱεραπσηλίωλ, and often the name of an individual, possibly the owner of the amphora workshop.161 The evidence from these handles has provided much fodder for debate concerning the extent of the Cretan wine industry and its role in the broader Hellenistic economy. On one side are scholars who believe viticulture on Crete only supplied local needs. According to Chaniotis, “there is no indication that subsistence farming was replaced by production oriented toward the export of agricultural products”.162 For wine specifically, Chaniotis argues that the small number of Cretan amphora stamps is too exiguous to be used as evidence for wine trade before the Roman period.163 He also notes that finds of imported amphorae are limited across Crete, calling into question whether places like Rhodes had any coherent economic strategy involving the island.164 For P. Brulé, the absence of Cretan amphorae on Delos, one of the largest trade centers of the Hellenistic Aegean, is a conspicuous indication that Crete was not a wine supplier.165 The strength of the above arguments lies in the lack of evidence which can be mobilized to counter them. As archaeological work continues across Crete, however, some indicators are beginning to appear suggesting the island engaged in more than just subsistence farming. For 159

Stefanaki 2001: 135-8; Finkielsztejn 2002: 138. Alexandria: Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992: 640 (= SEG 42.805); Cankardes-Senol 2007: 44-45. Callatis: Buzoianu and Cheluţ -Georgescu 1983: 167 no. 34 (= SEG 34.737). Trypetos: Papadakis 2000: 123 no. 51 (= SEG 47.1410). Mochlos: Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329, pl. 128.a-b. Isthmus of Ierapetra: Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 161 Chaniotis 2005: 98-9. 162 Chaniotis 1999: 184. 163 Chaniotis 1988: 71-2; 1999: 184; 2005: 97-9; 2008: 86. 164 Chaniotis 2005: 97-8. 165 Brulé 1978: 157, n.6. 160

122

instance, the number of documented amphora production sites on Hellenistic Crete continues to grow. Initially, production of Hellenistic amphorae was only attested at the kiln site of Keratokambos-west on the south coast.166 Production of these vessels is now attested in at least seven additional centers, including Gortyn, Ierapetra, Knossos, Kommos, Lato pros Kamara, Matala, and Trypetos (Fig. 4.13).167 Amphora production at Ierapetra involved the manufacture of a number of different forms in several distinct fabrics. N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, for instance, notes that evidence for amphorae produced in or around Ierapetra in a fabric known as East Cretan Cream Ware do not match the fabric of the majority of the stamped handles naming the site.168 That manufacture of these vessels would require multiple forms and fabrics could suggest that wine production in the region went beyond the levels of subsistence. With respect to the lack of identified Hellenistic Cretan ceramics outside of the island, Vogeikoff-Brogan notes that very little Hellenistic pottery has been studied from Cretan sites, making the identification and classification of vessels such as Cretan amphorae very difficult.169 That few containers have been identified outside of Crete does not mean they are not there. In addition, most Hellenistic amphorae were unstamped, and quantifying only stamped fragments can skew indications of trade in this period.170 We must also consider the forms of many of the known Cretan Hellenistic amphora types. Examples from Ierapetra and Knossos, for instance, appear to imitate Koan and Rhodian vessels.171 A. Hesnard argues that imitation vessels were

166

Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991: 499-507; Marangou-Lerat 1995: 67. Gortyn: Gortina I, 263; Gortina V.3, 264-6; Papadopoulos 1989: 45. Ierapetra: Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 70; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 328-9; Vogeikoff-Brogan, Nodarou, and Boileau 2008: 329-30. Knossos: Eiring, Boileau, and Whitbread 2002: 59-60. Kommos and Matala: Hope Simpson 1995: 336; Kommos IV, 318-9. Lato pros Kamara and Trypetos: Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 420-2. 168 Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 216. 169 Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 217; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329. 170 Empereur 1982: 219; Lawall 2005. 171 Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 330; Eiring, Boileau, and Whitbread 2002: 61. 167

123

intended to carry the same type of wine as the native region, in this case Kos or Rhodes.172 Thus, vineyards associated with Ierapetra may have been producing “Koan” or “Rhodian” wine for distribution locally and, perhaps, abroad. This increases the difficulty of identifying Cretan vessels outside of the island because they will be grouped among the variant fabrics of commonly identified types. While it is difficult to assess whether Ierapetra exported goods, the city would have played a role in maritime exchange. During the Hellenistic period, Rhodes began showing an increased interest in eastern Crete likely tied to the island‟s position on trade routes between North Africa and Greece. As Vogeikoff-Brogan notes, “the Cretans might not themselves have undertaken the transport of their products, but they certainly were aware of the island‟s strategic location on Mediterranean trade routes”.173 D. Viviers comes to a similar conclusion and suggests that clauses in several treaties concerned with imposing customs dues on goods transported by sea demonstrate this was an important source of revenue for certain poleis.174 A treaty negotiated between Praisos and the communities of Siteia and Stalitai (IC 3.6.7B) at the beginning of the third century B.C.E. suggests shipping lanes were of interest to Cretan poleis in the Hellenistic period. This text mentions that ships regularly sailed along the south coast, from the south coast to the north coast, and from Crete to other regions.175 Perhaps the most contentious issue with respect to the economy of Hellenistic Ierapetra is whether any part of the city‟s population engaged in piracy. Hellenistic Crete as a bastion for pirates was a commonly held opinion of the island in antiquity. In an epigram from the Greek Anthology (7.654), a certain Leonidas of Tarentum describes Cretans as follows: 172

Hesnard 1986: 75; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 330. In similar fashion, Papadopoulos and Paspalas (1999: 1801) argue that “Mendaian” wine came to represent production of Chalkidike as a whole. 173 Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 219. 174 Viviers 1999: 229. 175 cf. Baldwin Bowsky 1994: 15-6.

124

Αἰεὶ ιεηζηαὶ θαὶ ἁιηθζόροη οὐδὲ δίθαηοη Κρῆηες. ηίς Κρεηῶλ οἶδε δηθαηοζύλελ; ὡς θαὶ ἐκὲ πιώοληα ζὺλ οὐθ εὐπίολη θόρηῳ Κρεηαηεῖς ὦζαλ Σηκόισηολ θαζ’ ἁιὸς δείιαηολ. θἠγὼ κὲλ ἁιηδώοης ιαρίδεζζη θέθιασκαη, ηύκβῳ δ’ οὐτ ὕπο Σηκόισηος.

5

The Cretans are ever brigands and pirates, and never just; who ever heard of the justice of a Cretan? So they were Cretans who threw me, unhappy Timolytus, into the sea, when I was traveling with no very rich cargo. I am bewailed by the seagulls, and there is no Timolytus in this tomb.176 A sufficient amount of similar anecdotes are preserved from antiquity to have warranted the dedication of an entire book to the subject of Cretan piracy.177 Despite attempts to revise this polemical view of Cretans as pirates, based on her own assessment of the evidence, P. Perlman concedes “… I do not intend to suggest that Cretans never or only occasionally resorted to piracy. There is far too much evidence for Cretan pirates to entertain such revisionist history, even if I were inclined to do so”.178 The question, then, is whether Ierapetra should be considered one of the island‟s pirate states. Both Brulé and Guizzi have classified piracy as part of the economic base of the city,179 and A. Petropoulou describes Ierapetra as “eine Seeräuberstadt”.180 Does the evidence support these claims? The strongest substantiation for Ierapetra‟s involvement in piracy derives from narratives associated with the First Cretan War, fought between Ierapetra, and possibly other Cretan states, and Rhodes.181 This conflict is reconstructed from several loosely connected sources,182 with an inscription from the island of Kalymnos (SIG3 567) beginning the narrative. This text documents that Ierapetra launched two separate, and in the end unsuccessful, expeditions against Kos and 176

Translation from the Loeb edition. Brulé 1978. He records 26 Cretan pirate raids attested in literary and epigraphic sources (1978: 66-7). 178 Perlman 1999: 137. 179 Brulé 1978: 9; Guizzi 2001: 356. 180 Petropoulou 1985: 43. 181 For a detailed discussion of this war see Brulé 1978: 29-56. 182 Herzog (1902) was the first to begin associating texts with this war, but Perlman (1999: 132-3) has argued that only a few are relevant. 177

125

Kalymnos in 206 or 205 B.C.E.183 On its own, this inscription attests an isolated conflict between Ierapetra and these two islands. There is no indication of any Rhodian involvement. Nonetheless, numerous scholars have interpreted the events portrayed in this text as the impetus for a Rhodian war against Crete. As passage from Diodorus Siculus (27.3), where he describes troubles caused by a group of seven Cretan pirate ships in Rhodian controlled waters, is often cited as describing another event connected to this war.184 The leap in interpretation is whether the attacks on Kos and Kalymnos by Ierapetra should be grouped among the troubles caused by these Cretan ships. There are notable divergences in these two accounts. In the inscription from Kalymnos, there is no mention of Cretan pirates, nor is piracy considered a motive for either of the two expeditions. Diodorus does not specify a city of origin for the seven pirate ships, and this would not be a sufficient force to launch an attack against Kos and its deme. If there is a connection between these narratives, it may be found in an inscription which records a treaty negotiated between Ierapetra and Rhodes, dated to circa 200 B.C.E. (IC 3.3.3A). If the attacks against Kos and Kalymnos mark the commencement of the First Cretan War, then this treaty should represent its culmination. Contemporary treaties negotiated between Rhodes and Chersonesos, and Rhodes and Olus may suggest these cities also were part of the war.185 The treaty makes no mention of Kos or Kalymnos, however, making it debatable whether those earlier attacks can be connected to a subsequent conflict with Rhodes. Two clauses found in the treaty between Ierapetra and Rhodes make reference to piracy, but are ambiguous concerning Ierapetra‟s involvement.186 In both instances, the city declares it will fight piracy associated with other Cretan sites. As Perlman notes, the treaty never specifies

183

Several other inscriptions appear to relate events from this conflict (SIG3 568-570; SGDI 3590, 3624). cf. Gabrielsen 1997: 53-4; Perlman 1999: 132. 185 SEG 41.768 (Chersonesos and Rhodes); SEG 23.547 (Olus and Rhodes). 186 IC 3.3.3A.51-58, 79-82. 184

126

that Ierapetra had previously engaged in piracy, or that the site would never support pirates in the future.187 Spyridakis has taken these clauses as evidence of an anti-piratical policy associated with Ierapetra and believes this is one of the primary reasons behind the decline of Cretan piracy during the succeeding century.188 Since there is no source directly connecting Ierapetra with piracy, it may be possible to presume that the city did not engage in this activity and attempted to maintain honest economic relations. A consideration of the location and site of Ierapetra may provide some insight into the city‟s potential role in piracy. Only one site on Crete, Phalasarna on the far western coast, is considered with any degree of confidence to represent a pirate base. The excavators, F.J. Frost and E. Hadjidaki, consider the site to be the only excavated example of a Greek pirate port.189 Evidence for this was discussed in Chapter 2, but of additional interest is the presence of substantial fortifications, including several towers and a defensive wall.190 The harbor itself appears to have been enclosed, an interpretation supported by the description of Skylax (47) that Phalasarna was a ιηκὴλ θιεηζηός (closed port). In the Stadiasmus (319), Phalasarna is described as a ὅρκος, a designation shared by Ierapetra (326). J. Leonard defines a ὅρκος as a mediumsized, natural or artificial harbor with a circular or ring-like shape.191 Alternatively, he suggests it could mean an inner harbor or basin, an interpretation which fits with the facilities at Phalasarna and Ierapetra, if the site of the supposed naumachia can be considered the Hellenistic harbor. Ierapetra, however, does not produce any remains of fortifications dating to the Hellenistic period, although this is not proof that they did not exist. The similarity in port facilities between Ierapetra and Phalasarna, thus, could suggest active piracy at the site. On the other hand, a 187

Perlman 1999: 133. Spyridakis 1970: 39. 189 Frost and Hadjidaki 1990: 527. 190 Hadjidaki 1988: 468-79; Frost and Hadjidaki 1990: 515-25. 191 Leonard 1997: 192. 188

127

comparison with pirate ports in Cilicia suggests a different interpretation. Strabo (14.3.2) comments that the rugged coastline of Cilicia was ideal for pirate harbors, and was exploited as such by the Pamphylians and Rough Cilicians.192 Rugged is not an adjective typically applied to Crete‟s south coast. Perhaps Ierapetra‟s need for an inner harbor ties into the lack of natural protection offered by the coastline. At the very least, Ierapetra‟s harbor infrastructure is suggestive of piracy being a possible source of income. In the end, however, we cannot be sure either way.

ROMAN IERAPETRA Despite possessing the distinction of being the last stronghold to fall to the Romans during their conquest of Crete, Ierapetra prospered under Roman rule. Very little work has been done on Roman Ierapetra and an overview is long overdue. Evidence available for study includes inscriptions, literary sources, preliminary reports from rescue excavations, descriptions of standing remains recorded by travelers, and data from several survey projects, including the Gournia, Kavousi, and Vrokastro surveys. I will also cite some findings of Kostas Chalikias who has surveyed the area around Ierapetra and Chryssi Island to the south for his dissertation. An analysis of these sources enables us to begin reconstructing the city‟s Roman period topography, territory, political structures, religion, and economy. In addition, I will discuss relevant evidence for when and why the site went into decline.

192

cf. de Souza 1999: 97.

128

Topography The lack of standing Roman remains at Ierapetra suggests the site is a suitable paradigm for L. Binford‟s statement that “the archaeological record is ravaged by „time‟s arrow‟”.193 In the 1970s, Ian Sanders produced a plan of ancient Ierapetra, but was able to identify very few structures (Fig. 4.14).194 A wall, the small theater, and a possible location for the large theater, are all that is documented. Scholars have placed the ancient city in the Viglia region of Ierapetra, located directly west of the modern town. Numerous rescue excavations in this area have revealed dozens of Roman buildings. Remains are also present from beneath modern Ierapetra, and excavations have revealed Roman structures in the Aliki region southeast of Viglia and in the Paramithias region to the north. The lack of any standing structures, and limitations to excavation and publication, does make it difficult to try and add to Sanders‟ plan. We can, however, at least hypothesize the extent of the ancient site. The southern limit of Roman Ierapetra was the shore along the Libyan sea. A. Zois suggests that the eastern boundary was the Plateia Plastiria, located in the heart of the modern town.195 To the west, according to Spratt, “the chief part of the city occupied a level and low plateau between a watercourse opening to the sea near the large theatre and amphitheatre, and another nearly a mile more to the west of it”.196 Sanders agrees that this large seasonal stream demarcates the western limit of the city (Fig. 4.15).197 To the west of this stream lies a cemetery consisting of at least 32 first and second century C.E. tombs, indicating the town proper did not continue to this point.198 A large cemetery also represents the northern boundary of the 193

Binford 1981: 196. Sanders 1982: 139 fig. 49. 195 Zois 2002: 10-1. Zois proposes that a large wall identified in this plateia may have been part of a city wall. An alternative suggestion is that it was part of a very large building. cf. ArchDelt 32 (1977 [1984]) B‟2: 388. 196 Spratt 1865: 262-3. 197 Sanders 1982: 139. 198 AR 53 (2006-2007): 98. Among these graves are the only four documented monumental tombs in eastern Crete. 194

129

city. Rescue excavations in the Paramithias region at the site of Ierapetra‟s new secondary school, and in the nearby A. and D. Malliotaki plot, revealed a total of 62 graves.199 In between these two sites, excavations in the Tsolakaki plot uncovered a wall interpreted by the excavators as the peribolos for the cemetery.200 This indicates a conscious attempt to delineate this necropolis from the city. Thus, a rough outline of the limits of Roman Ierapetra can be presented, showing a city which stretched for at least 1.45km from east to west and covered an area of approximately 150 ha (Fig. 4.16). Sanders suggests that Gortyn, the capital city of Roman Crete, also extended for about 150 ha, indicating Ierapetra would have been one of the largest cities on the island.201 S. Alcock has calculated the overall area of several large-rank sites on mainland Greece, noting that most hover just below the 100ha mark.202 G. Woolf observes that, in the Roman East, there were primarily small and large-rank centers, with few middle-rank centers present.203 By no means the largest city in the East, Ierapetra should be considered among the large-rank centers. Within these proposed boundaries for Roman Ierapetra, there appear several clues that the ancient city would have been constructed on some type of grid plan. The two largest roads in modern Ierapetra, Kyprou, which runs north-south, and Dimokratias, which runs east-west, are reminiscent of an ancient Cardo Maximus and Decumanus Maximus respectively (Fig. 4.17). They intersect at the boundary between the Viglia and Manolianá districts. Rescue excavations along both of these streets have produced evidence of a large numbers of ancient buildings. No date can be posited for these hypothetical ancient roads, and there is no specific reason they must

199

Secondary school excavations: ArchDelt 52 (1997 [2003]) B‟3: 1048-9; ArchDelt 53 (1998 [2004]) B‟3: 879-80; ArchDelt 54 (1999 [2005]) B‟3: 868-9. A. and D. Malliotaki plot: ArchDelt 52 (1997 [2003]) B‟3: 1047-8. 200 ArchDelt 53 (1998 [2004]) B‟3: 880. 201 Sanders 1982: 156. 202 Alcock 1993: 160-3, fig. 56. 203 Woolf 1997: 6.

130

be associated with the Roman town. Perhaps this layout originated in the Hellenistic period, with these two streets forming the backbone of the city throughout its history. We can also document the locations of the structures plotted by Sanders on his plan, including the two theaters and a large wall, within these proposed boundaries (Fig. 4.18). The wall, for which the preserved section runs along the top of the shore west of the harbor for approximately 160m, is almost the only visible standing remain to be found in the modern town (Fig. 4.19). A recent analysis of this structure by M. Mari documents three building phases, with the overall style of construction interpreted as opus incertum mixtum.204 The first phase, datable to the end of the third century or beginning of the fourth century C.E., comprises a semicircular tower and a gate. Between the fourth and sixth centuries, the wall was expanded in two phases, although no specific date ranges for construction can be determined. Mari suggests there are some similarities between this wall and other contemporary fortification walls at Nikopolis, Constantinople, and Thessaloniki.205 Perhaps its construction relates to some type of threat being faced by the city, or represents a response to an attack, such as the Gothic raid of Crete in 268 C.E.206 Perhaps the best known structures from Roman Ierapetra are two theaters, designated as small and large. Onorio Belli first described these theaters in detail and drew plans of both in a manuscript which has been edited and published by E. Falkener, S.G. Spanakis, and L. Beschi (Figs. 4.4, 4.5).207 The small theater was located in the modern town near the eastern edge of the ancient city next to the church of Timios Stavros.208 Based on Belli‟s plan, it appears to be a

204

Mari 2010: 200-4. Mari 2010: 206 SHA Claud. 12.1; Zosimus 1.46. 207 Falkener 1854; Spanakis 1969; Beschi 1999. 208 Falkener 1854: 12-3; Sanders 1982: 57-9, 139. 205

131

typical Roman theater built up using radial vaults and may date to the second century C.E.209 Part of the concrete core of a wall is all that remains. The location of the large theater is no longer well defined, but it does appear to have been west of the small theater, near the sea.210 Belli notes that this theater was partially excavated out of a large hill, although both Sanders and F. Sear have commented on several irregularities with his interpretations and plan of the structure.211 Unfortunately, no one has speculated on the date of this theater. Its style of construction, partially incorporating an excavated hill slope, could suggest a Hellenistic origin since this is more characteristic of Greek theaters than Roman.212 One would expect Hellenistic Ierapetra to have boasted a theater. At Gortyn, a similar pattern is apparent where a larger theater built into the slopes of the Acropolis hill may have been constructed in the Hellenistic period, while a smaller example with a freestanding cavea may date to the second century C.E.213 Along with the two theaters, Belli describes the remains of an amphitheater located just to the east of the large theater.214 According to Belli, this structure was excavated out of the space between two small hills, a style of construction similar to the amphitheater at Corinth.215 In contrast, Gortyn‟s amphitheater, now known to lie beneath the village of Agia Deka, was freestanding and built up using radial vaults.216 K. Welch argues that the Corinth amphitheater was built in the late first century B.C.E. or early first century C.E., based on style of construction.217 Perhaps a similar date, or one a little later in the first century C.E., can be posited for Ierapetra‟s 209

cf. Sear 2006: 297-8. Falkener 1854: 13; Sanders 1982: 59, 139. 211 Sanders (1982: 59) questions whether the staircases and vaults described by Belli are characteristic of a theater built into a hill, unless they were meant to extend its slope. Sear (2006: 296-7) notes that, while the overall plan of the theater seems authentic, several of the elements have odd orientations and placements. 212 cf. Lawrence 1996: 205. 213 cf. Sanders 1982: 61-3. 214 Falkener 1854: 14; Sanders 1982: 139. It is Spratt (1865: 261) who informs us of the location of the amphitheater relative to the large theater. 215 Falkener 1854: 14. For the amphitheater at Corinth see Corinth I.1, 89-91. 216 Di Vita 1986-1987: 328, 329, fig. 13. 217 Welch 1999: 133-40. 210

132

amphitheater. That Ierapetra could boast this type of building is impressive since they were not common in Roman Greece. According to Welch, only Greek cities that were Roman colonies, provincial capitals, or poleis with a large Roman presence possessed amphitheaters.218 Ierapetra must fit into the last category. Only a small number of additional public structures can be defined. This includes a bath complex of unspecified date, revealed through excavation at the corner of Nikophoros Phokas road and Kyprou road.219 Extensive hypocaust systems uncovered in two rooms of this bath suggest the presence of a caldarium and tepidarium. A parallel for the shape and orientation of these two rooms may be observed in the Olympian baths at Athens, published by J. Travlos, where an oblong caldarium lies adjacent to an orthogonal tepidarium.220 The Olympian baths date sometime between 124 to 131 C.E., suggesting the structure at Ierapetra may also date to some point in the second century C.E. Spratt mentions a large, palatial type structure with many rooms standing at the southwest corner of the city, but any evidence of this has disappeared.221 A large architrave block with a Latin inscription to an unidentified emperor, published by Baldwin Bowsky (AE 1995.1621), presumably derives from a large public building.222 It was found in the Viglia district, but has no specific provenance. Another public structure may be attested by the presence of 50 large stones in the northeast corner of the Plateia Tzamiou in the Aliki district, including numerous marble pieces.223 At the Phot. Parthenaki plot in the Viglia district, excavations turned up 30 marble architectural elements associated with an unknown building.224 Perhaps one or both of these 218

Welch 2007: 182. ArchDelt 45 (1990 [1995]) B‟2: 455-6. 220 Travlos 1949. See also Nielson 1990: 32 no. C.255. 221 Spratt 1865: 263. 222 Baldwin Bowsky 1995a: 263-7. 223 Zois 2002: 12. 224 ArchDelt 29 (1973-1974 [1980]) B‟3: 931. 219

133

stone hoards should be associated with a temple, of which there are no attested examples at Ierapetra. With respect to imported stone which may have adorned public buildings in Ierapetra, S. Paton and R. Schneider document several different types of marble and granite from Greece, the Aegean, Asia Minor, and Egypt.225 J. Clayton Fant argues that the distribution of marble, for which the quarries were imperial property, was not a component of market exchange, but instead was controlled under a system of imperial allocation.226 While W.V. Harris contends that “… most of the marble used in Crete cannot have been presented by the emperor”, at least some of the imported stone attested at the site likely arrived as a part of imperial largesse. One public structure omitted from the discussion thus far is the naumachia described by Cyriacus and Belli, which is associated with a small lagoon west of Ierapetra‟s harbor.227 As mentioned above, K. Lehmann-Hartleban prefers to interpret the so-called naumachia as the city‟s Hellenistic harbor, a suggestion which seems more acceptable.228 This harbor may have continued in use during the Roman period and may be an example of a darsena, or protected inner harbor. R. Meiggs argues that the darsena located between the harbors of Claudius and Trajan at Portus was constructed under Claudius and functioned as a port for smaller ships.229 Recent archaeological investigations conducted around Portus by S. Keay and M. Millet corroborate this interpretation and show that the darsena there was under construction by the mid-first century C.E.230 Ierapetra may have possessed the same type of secondary harbor, suitable for accommodating smaller boats in a protected environment.

225

Paton and Schneider 1999: 288-9, table 3. Documented types include Pentelic from Greece, Scyretic and Chian from the Aegean, Phrygian and Proconnesian from Asia Minor, and Mons Claudianus granite from Egypt. See also Pensabene and Lazzarini 2004: 766. 226 Fant 1993: passim. 227 Bodnar 2003: 189, diary IV.5; Falkener 1854: 11. 228 Lehmann- Hartleben 1923: 201. 229 Meiggs 1973: 159-60. 230 Keay et al. 2005: 250-7, 275-7.

134

Ierapetra‟s primary harbor was located at the eastern edge of the ancient town where the landscape forms a partially sheltered bay. Spratt was the first to offer a detailed description, depicting an impressive feature comprising both an inner and outer harbor.231 According to Spratt, the mole of the harbor was formed by piling up massive blocks as an extension of natural reefs. These blocks are still visible today sitting just below the surface of the water (Fig. 4.3). Lehmann-Hartleben suggests that this harbor had two phases of construction: Claudian and Hadrianic.232 For both phases, he reconstructs an inner and outer basin. Spratt notes that the Roman harbor had silted up after antiquity and become formed part of the landscape of the southern tip of the city, a condition attested by Buondelmonti in the early fifteenth century. 233 A rescue excavation carried out in the Aliki district in 2007 encountered massive quantities of debris, including architectural spolia, rooftiles, bricks, and other finds, in the area once occupied by the inner harbor.234 Problems with the water table halted these excavations after only a few days, but one suggestion is that the debris represents a post-antique attempt to backfill the area of the harbor. Other structures documented through rescue excavation include numerous houses and a variety of walls and buildings of unknown function.235 Several of the houses have preserved courtyards, and one, revealed in the Io. Malliotaki plot along Pavlou Kouper road in the Viglia

231

Spratt 1865: 254-5. Lehmann-Hartleben 1923: 201-2, fig. 37. 233 Van Spitael 1981: 105. 234 Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. 235 The following plots have produced evidence of Roman houses at Ierapetra: Io. Poniadaki plot: ArchDelt 30 (1975 [1983]) B‟2: 349. Th. Zachariadaki plot: ArchDelt 30 (1975 [1983]) B‟2: 349. Alex. Misedaki plot: ArchDelt 31 (1976 [1984]) B‟2: 378-9. Emm. Petichaki plot: ArchDelt 35 (1980 [1988]) B‟2: 520. Venetias Karsirma-Zigaki plot: ArchDelt 37 (1982 [1989]) B‟2: 390. G. Tzouveleka plot: ArchDelt 37 (1982 [1989]) B‟2: 390. A. Chatzaki plot: ArchDelt 37 (1982 [1989]) B‟2: 389. Eug. Chiotaki plot: ArchDelt 37 (1982 [1989]) B‟2: 389. Io. Malliotaki plot: ArchDelt 51 (1996 [2001]) B‟2: 655. Pangalou plot: ArchDelt 53 (1998 [2004]) B‟3: 878-9; ArchDelt 54 (1999 [2005]) B‟3: 869-70; Apostolakou 2002: 336-41. 232

135

district, includes a room with a mosaic measuring 40 square meters.236 The mosaic consists mainly of linear motifs and bears the inscription ΔΙ΢ΙΩΝ (SEG 49.1232). Aspects of the infrastructure of Roman Ierapetra have also been revealed by several excavations, including a long stone-built drain uncovered in a field beneath a greenhouse,237 and several roads.238

Territory Defining the territory of Roman Ierapetra involves many of the same issues described above for the Hellenistic polis. For example, the term chora will again be employed to characterize the city‟s territory. With respect to chronology, the end of the second century C.E. is an appropriate point at which reconstruct Ierapetra‟s chora. This is the period when the city likely achieved the apex of its prosperity under Roman rule, suggesting its territorial holdings would have reached their maximum extent. In addition, evidence available for defining Ierapetra‟s chora is more extensive for the Early Roman period than for subsequent phases. Assessing which areas fell within Ierapetra‟s territorial boundaries is more difficult for the Roman polis, however. Attested public documents, like the corpus of Hellenistic treaties, are rare. Survey archaeology continues to aid in interpretation, but projects undertaken in regions east of Ierapetra tend to be poorly published, or have produced data for the Roman period which is ambiguous with respect to which poleis controlled specific territories. Cretan cities still possessed extensive chorae under Roman rule, a fact demonstrated by border disputes attested between Knossos and Gortyn. In the first century B.C.E. and first century C.E., Roman arbitrators were needed to settle disagreements between these two poleis concerning the limits of

236

ArchDelt 51 (1996 [2001]) B‟2: 655. ArchDelt 54 (1999 [2005]) B‟3: 869. 238 G. Siganou plot: ArchDelt 53 (1998 [2004] B‟3: 878. G. Tzoulveleka plot: ArchDelt 37 (1982 [1989]) B‟2: 390. Pavlou Kouper 40: ArchDelt 34 (1979 [1987]) B‟2: 405. 237

136

their respective territories.239 The site of Rhaukos, approximately 15km southwest of Knossos and 18km northeast of Gortyn, tends to be named as a boundary in inscriptions related to these conflicts, indicating both poleis controlled an extensive chora. Ierapetra may have also possessed a large territory, but the site was somewhat unique in the Early Roman period. The majority of Cretan ports at that time were controlled by a larger, inland center. Polyrrhenia had Kissamos, Gortyn controlled Matala and Lasaia, Knossos managed Herakleion and Amnisos, and Lyttos relied on Chersonesos. Ierapetra, on the other hand, was the dominant site in its region, and exerted control over inland settlements and other coastal centers. In order to define Ierapetra‟s chora at the end of the second century C.E., we must also consider that it comprised two distinct components. This contrasts with the Hellenistic period when the city‟s territory could be characterized as a single administrative district. A series of boundary inscriptions found at several sites in the Isthmus of Ierapetra, dating to the mid-first century C.E., appear to delineate a formal administrative region under the control of the city.240 These texts are found no farther than 7km outside of the city, however, suggesting Ierapetra‟s chora had diminished in size significantly following the Roman conquest. Evidence of Roman period arbitration concerning the boundary between Gortyn and Knossos implies that the territories of Cretan poleis were well defined under Roman rule. Boundary inscriptions associated with Ierapetra are a further indication of this phenomenon. While Ierapetra‟s formal administrative chora may be defined by the findspots of these boundary inscriptions, additional evidence suggests the city exerted influence beyond this area. Settlement patterns documented by survey projects in the Isthmus of Ierapetra and other regions of eastern Crete show evidence of Ierapetra influencing the growth of settlement and placement

239 240

Rigsby 1976; Baldwin Bowsky 1986-1987. IC 3.3.25-29; SEG 49.1231.

137

of sites in certain areas. There are numerous villas attested in the landscape outside of Ierapetra‟s official chora that may have been tied economically and administratively to the larger center as well. A series of small ports along the northeastern and southeastern coasts of Crete may also have connections to Ierapetra. For this larger territory that may have had economic and administrative ties to Ierapetra, we must again turn to the discussions of Horden and Purcell concerning towns and settlements in antiquity. They argue that larger sites served “... as loci of contact or overlap between different ecologies”.241 While Ierapetra possessed a territory delineated by a series of boundary inscriptions, it also served as the focus of economic, administrative, and perhaps cultural influence for a wider region. Thus, not only will I define the limits of the city‟s formal chora, I will also attempt to demarcate the wider region for which Ierapetra was the principal settlement. Ierapetra‟s official chora can be defined using a series of boundary inscriptions found at several sites in the southern half of the Isthmus of Ierapetra (Fig. 4.20). This corpus of nine nearly identical texts records the work of a certain Q. Paconius Agrippinus (PIR2 P 27), charged by the emperor Claudius with fixing roads and establishing boundaries at Ierapetra. Five of the relevant inscriptions were published by Guarducci (IC 3.3.25-29) and four others were recently presented by Baldwin Bowsky (SEG 49.1231).242 Of the nine, five have an associated findspot and four are of unknown provenance. One of the texts (IC 3.3.25) was recovered from the area of Ierapetra‟s harbor and is the only one confirmed to have been found in Ierapetra proper.243 IC 3.3.26 helps with the eastern boundary of the city‟s chora since Baldwin Bowsky was able to reconstruct its findspot near a small bridge along the regional road between Ierapetra and the

241

Horden and Purcell 2000: 100. Baldwin Bowsky 2006a. 243 Baldwin Bowsky 2006a: 561-3. 242

138

small village of Vainia, approximately 3.5km to the northeast.244 Two of the inscriptions come from the village of Kato Chorio, 7km to the northeast (IC 3.3.28-29).245 Finally, one of the newly published texts was found in the village of Kentri 3.5km north of Ierapetra. The site of Episkopi also may have been part of this territory since it became the seat of Ierapetra‟s bishop in the Late Antique period.246 In addition, evidence of two inscriptions datable to late first century B.C.E. or early first century C.E. helps clarify the northern boundary. According to Baldwin Bowsky, two dedications to Augustus, one from Kato Chorio (IC 3.3.62) and one from Episkopi (IC 3.3.63), may be evidence of chora boundaries at that time.247 From these inscriptions, one can delineate the limits of Ierapetra‟s chora, at least to the north and east. The west remains undefined, but Ierapetra‟s territory does appear to have extended farther into the Isthmus than it did along the south coast. Within the confines of this chora, several sites and structures have been documented, likely under the hegemony of Ierapetra, including a villa complex identified just to the west of the presumed limits of the ancient town.248 At Kentri, excavations and chance finds suggest the presence of several buildings possibly associated with a small village there.249 One assemblage of ceramics presented below in Chapter 5 derives from a rural settlement known as Kato Mertia, located a few hundred meters southwest of Episkopi. This site would have been situated within the formal administrative district of Ierapetra. The West Siteia and Dikte mountain ranges, which bound the Isthmus of Ierapetra along its eastern and western sides, would have functioned as their own set of borders. Ierapetra‟s

244

Baldwin Bowsky 2006a: 563. Baldwin Bowsky 2006a: 564-5. 246 Tsougarakis 1988: 231; Sanders 1982: 140. 247 Baldwin Bowsky 1994: 10; 2006a: 565-6. 248 ArchDelt 31 (1976 [1984]) B‟2: 378-9; Zois 2002: 28-31. 249 ArchDelt 29 (1973-1974 [1980]) B‟3: 897-8; Zois 2002: 47. 245

139

chora, thus, was confined to the coastal plain around the city and the lowland valley of the Isthmus as far north as the site of Episkopi (Fig. 4.20). This represents an area of approximately 30km2, greatly reduced from the 1050km2 the city is believed to have controlled at the end of the second century B.C.E. We can now turn our attention to defining the broader economic and administrative district over which Ierapetra appears to have exerted influence by the end of the second century C.E. (Fig. 4.21). Documenting demonstrable connections between sites in this wider region and Ierapetra is difficult, however. Epigraphic evidence is lacking and there are few categories of material culture for which their presence at a site would signify a direct connection to Ierapetra. For numerous sites, potential relationships with Ierapetra must be reconstructed from a variety of historical and archaeological clues. One site at which clues for a connection with Ierapetra are present is Tholos, a small port located 20km northeast of Ierapetra in the Kampos plain along the shore of the Bay of Mirabello. D. Haggis argues that Ierapetra founded a settlement at Tholos in the late second or early first century B.C.E. to help establish control over shipping along Crete‟s north coast.250 Large warehouse structures have been identified at Tholos and the nearby site of Sta Lenika, suggesting these settlements were engaged in transshipment trade, and perhaps facilitated the movement of goods between the north and south coasts.251 What is conspicuous about the foundation of Tholos is that is appears to coincide with a significant decline in settlement at the site of Mochlos, farther to the northeast. Mochlos offers some ambiguous evidence of Early Roman settlement, but appears have fallen out of use by the end of the first century B.C.E.252 Ierapetra

250

Haggis 1996: 190-1. Haggis 2005: 87, 90-3 no. 1 (Tholos), 125-6 no. 57 (Sta Lenika). 252 Roman houses at Mochlos are described by Seager (1909: 275-6), but later excavators could find no evidence of this (Soles and Davaras 1996: 222). A coin recently found at the site dating to 34-32 B.C.E. suggests inhabitation 251

140

controlled Mochlos in the Late Hellenistic period, which indicates that the city would have been directly involved in the establishment of settlement at Tholos. Unlike Mochlos, Tholos was not enclosed by mountains, meaning it was much easier to transport goods from that site overland to the south coast.253 Farther to the west lies another small port along the shore of the Bay of Mirabello. Pacheia Ammos has produced evidence of a large structure located approximately 200m from the shore which has been interpreted by some scholars as a warehouse.254 A. Kelly notes that there is a small bath complex attached to this building, suggesting it was actually a sea-side villa.255 This bath complex was connected to an aqueduct that has been traced to the site of Vasiliki, 3km to the south, and may be part of a system that is also attested at Episkopi.256 Could a villa at Pacheia Ammos be connected to an aqueduct system originating in the chora of Ierapetra without some type of administrative association with that city? Most likely, Pacheia Ammos and Tholos were small ports economically and administratively tied to Ierapetra, even if they fell outside of the territory delineated by Ierapetra‟s boundary inscriptions. Influence over Pacheia Ammos and Tholos implies Ierapetra had control over the entire Isthmus of Ierapetra. Baldwin Bowsky helps us to better define this territory, at least to the west, when she suggests that “the larger Hierapytnan domain extended nevertheless from Oleros to Chryse Island, and as far west as the Minoan harbor town near Myrtos”.257 A handful of rescue excavations and other studies have produced evidence of activity in this region, including the

did continue after the conquest of Crete until some unknown date. cf. AR 52 (2005-2006): 103; Brogan and Vogeikoff 2006: 426 fig. 658. 253 Haggis 1996: 200-3. 254 cf. Sanders 1982: 140. 255 Kelly 2006: 394. 256 Kelly 2006: 394; Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 257 Baldwin Bowsky 1994: 10.

141

presence of several Roman buildings at the Early Minoan site of Vasiliki.258 O. Rackham and J. Moody also believe that a planned field system is identifiable near the village of Monasteraki on the eastern side of the Isthmus.259 Several survey projects carried out in the northern part of the Isthmus suggest Ierapetra had a direct influence on settlement patterns. The Kavousi survey, conducted by D. Haggis in the Kampos plain to the northeast of the Isthmus, identified no fewer than five village-sized sites spaced at regular intervals of 1.5 to 2.0km down the entire length of the plain.260 This pattern is also visible in the results of the Gournia survey, where a village-size site at Kamina at the southern edge of the Kampos plain appears to be a continuation of this line of settlements.261 These large sites persist at regular intervals throughout the Isthmus, but are clustered closer together than in the Kampos plain. Four sites in the middle of the Isthmus may have developed together as pairs to provide mid-way stopping points for traffic moving between the north and south coasts. A survey undertaken by the Greek Archaeological Service directly west of the Gournia survey also recorded several village-sized sites at intervals on a north-south axis.262 Ierapetra‟s control over the Isthmus may have dictated this need for regularly spaced settlements. According to Baldwin Bowsky, “a network of highways and byways, planned fields, villas and amphora production facilities appear to have been organized to control import and export within and from the hinterland of Hierapytna”.263 In order to maintain access with ports at Pacheia Ammos and Tholos, and to ship and receive goods to and from these sites, Ierapetra

258

Zois 2002: 43-6. Rackham and Moody 1996: 146-7. 260 Haggis 2005: 87. The sites in question are Tholos, Kambos, Chordakia, Petras, and Sta Lenika. 261 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 262 V. Apostolakou, personal communication. 263 Baldwin Bowsky 2006a: 569. 259

142

required a sufficient infrastructure to be in place. The settlement pattern identified by various survey projects was part of this infrastructure. While Ierapetra‟s territorial boundaries to the west appear to be quite similar to those established in the Hellenistic period, the east is more problematic to interpret. Along the south coast, Baldwin Bowsky suggests that amphora production sites at the Roman villa of Makry Gialos and the site of Lagada were part of Ierapetra‟s reorganized territory.264 There are also fish tanks at Pherma, 10km east of Ierapetra, falling into this zone.265 Surveys in the regions of Praisos and Ziros, both areas under Ierapetra‟s control at the end of the second century B.C.E., provide inconclusive data concerning Roman period settlement patterns, however. For the Praisos region, J. Whitley notes that almost no evidence for Early Roman settlement was documented.266 K. Branigan identified only a very small number of Roman sites within the vicinity of Ziros.267 There are no indications that Ierapetra exerted influence over either region in the Early Roman period, and the city may have withdrawn from these regions sometime before or after the Roman conquest of Crete in 67 B.C.E.

Political Structures Evidence for Ierapetra‟s political institutions and magistracies is more extensive in the Roman period than might be expected, considering the lack of preserved public inscriptions. The few texts that do survive attest several government offices. For instance, at least for the Early Roman period, the head governing body of the city continued to be the kosmoi.268 One innovation to occur at this time was the creation of the position of protokosmos, the head of the 264

Baldwin Bowsky 2006a: 567. Davaras 1975. 266 Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999: 256. 267 Branigan 1998: 87-90. 268 Pałuchowski 2005a: 13. 265

143

kosmoi.269 This individual was responsible for erecting dedications, publishing decrees and laws, maintaining relations with other centers, and overseeing the finances of the city.270 Names of four protokosmoi are attested from Ierapetra, dating between the early first century C.E. and the first half of the second century C.E.271 Whether kosmoi continued to exist after the second century C.E. is unknown. Ierapetra‟s government structure also included a boule. This group is attested in an inscription dating to 125 C.E. (IC 3.3.7), which names about 50 individuals including a Βοσιῆς πρήγηζηος (head of the boule).272 A connection with the kosmoi can be seen by an attestation of one of the city‟s protokosmoi in the same inscription. The Hellenistic institution of the syssitia was maintained during the Roman period, although with a different organizational structure. An inscription from Lyttos (IC 1.18.11), dating to the second or third century C.E., provides the main evidence for this. The text implies a similar type of communal meal to the syssitia was organized at Lyttos, but funding came from wealthy citizens of the polis rather than from the community at large.273 An inscription from Ierapetra dating to 125 C.E. (IC 3.3.7) mentions several individuals, all associated with the boule or kosmoi of the city, in connection with a sodalitas or dining club. Perhaps this sodalitas is related to the new type of syssitia, although an alternative interpretation is that it was a private club organized by the city‟s elite. A Cretan koinon, of which Ierapetra was a member, continued to exist. One high-ranking citizen from the city, a certain T. Flavius Sulpicianus Dorio (PIR2 F 374), even achieved the rank of high priest of this koinon in 129 C.E., according to an inscription from Gortyn (IC 4.275).

269

Pałuchowski 2005a: 13. Pałuchowski 2005a: 26-7. 271 Etearchos (SEG 32.871 – early 1st cen. C.E.); Zoilos (SEG 32.869 – end of 1st, beginning of 2nd cen. C.E.); Aristagoras (SEG 32.872 – first half of 2nd cen. C.E.); Flavius Titianus Hyperanthes (IC 3.3.7 – 125 C.E.). 272 Pałuchowski 2006: 98-106. 273 Pałuchowski 2005b: 431-2. 270

144

Ierapetra also was one of five poleis in the province of Crete and Cyrenaica to be named members of the Panhellenion organized under Hadrian and based in Athens.274 A certain Flavius Sulpicianus Dorio, son of the Sulpicianus who held the high priesthood of the Cretan koinon, was archon of the Panhellenion from 161 to 165 C.E.275 That individuals from Ierapetra could achieve such high ranking positions at this time could be related to patronage from Hadrian and the overall prosperity of Ierapetra in the second century. An over life-sized statue of Hadrian found at Ierapetra, and now located in the Istanbul museum, is suggestive of some type of relationship between the emperor and the city.276 Leading citizens from Ierapetra also achieved positions in the government at Rome. L. Flavius Sulpicianus Dorio Polymnis (PIR2 F 375), son of the archon of the Panhellenion, was honored by his father for achieving tribunician rank and being the quaestor of Bithynia.277 This Polymnis also appears to have relocated with part of his family to Puteoli in Campania. G. Camodeca argues for an association of this branch of the Flavii with Ierapetra based on an inscription naming Polymnis‟ widow, Iulia L.f. Valeria Marciana Crispinilla, found at Puteoli.278 Another branch of Flavii Sulpicianii from Ierapetra also relocated to Italy during the second century C.E. T. Flavius (Claudius) Sulpicianus (PIR2 F 373), a man of senatorial rank, was named to the Arval Brotherhood at Rome between 169 and 176.279 J. Reynolds accepts the Cretan origin of this family, which developed strong ties to politics at Rome.280 This branch reached its zenith during the late second century when T. Flavius (Claudius) Sulpicianus 274

Spawforth and Walker 1985: 79-80. The other member cities from this province were Apollonia, Cyrene, Gortyn, and Lyttos. See also Harrison 1993: 229-34. 275 Oliver 1970: 101-2 no. 11 = IG 22 4076. 276 For the statue see Mendel 1914: 316-20 no. 585. Other statues of Hadrian are attested on Crete from the sites of Gortyn, Kissamos, Knossos, and Lyttos. Their presence lead Beschi (1974: 219) to suggest that Hadrian visited the island at some point between 122 and 125, although no mention of this is recorded in any source. 277 IC 3.3.20-21; Baldwin Bowsky 1994: 42 no. 35. 278 AE 1986.155. cf. Camodeca 1983-1984, 1987. 279 CIL 6.32383b. 280 Reynolds 1982: 682.

145

arranged for his daughter to marry Helvus Pertinax. When Pertinax became emperor, he named his father-in-law praefectus urbis.281 After Pertinax was killed, Sulpicianus put himself up for emperor with the Praetorians, but was defeated by Didius Julianus.282 In 197 C.E., he was among 29 of the foremost members of the Roman Senate condemned to death by Septimius Severus.283 An eastern family rising to this degree of prominence at Rome during the first two centuries C.E. is documented rarely. According to R. Syme, before the reign of Hadrian, most eastern senatorial families originated from dynastic or regal houses.284 Roman scorn for contemporary Greeks had subsided enough by the mid-second century for other families to gain power.285 Much of the Sulpicianii‟s prosperity could have derived from Hadrianic patronage and also may have been owed to capitalizing on economic relations between Crete and Italy. One important question, however, is whether these families maintained ties with Ierapetra and Crete. Syme argues that most relocated senatorial families did not uphold relationships with their home provinces after the first generation.286 For instance, with respect to senatorial families from Narbonensis, Syme states that “on the known evidence, few even among the sons of Narbonensis seem to attach value or care to keeping up local ties”.287 While an origin from Ierapetra can be posited for several branches of Flavii Sulpicianii who moved to Italy, they likely did not maintain ties with the city for any extended period.

281

Dio Cass. 74.7.1. Dio Cass. 74.11.1-6; Herodian 2.6.8. 283 Dio Cass. 76.8.4. 284 Syme 1958: 510. 285 Hammond 1957: 78-9. 286 Syme 1986: 2. 287 Syme 1986: 2. 282

146

Religion Evidence for religion in Roman Ierapetra is sparser than for the Hellenistic polis, owing to the lack of public inscriptions and identified temples. Presumably, most of the Hellenistic cults were maintained, although there are several deities attested only in the Roman period. For instance, Zeus appears in the first century C.E. with a new epithet, Melichios, which is shared by Hera (IC 3.3.14.1-3). The month Poseidanios is recorded in a first century C.E. inscription (SEG 32.871.4), likely named for the god Poseidon.288According to Sporn, the cult of Demeter and Kore attested in IC 3.3.12.1-2 also belongs to the Roman period.289 Cyriacus of Ancona claims to have come across a temple of Demeter and Kore during his tour of the city in the fourteenth century.290 Worship of the imperial cult appears in the form of a dedication to Divus Augustus (SEG 32.874). A monumental statue of Hadrian recovered from the site, but now found in the Istanbul Museum, could also be evidence of an emperor cult.291 Worship of Egyptian deities at Ierapetra is first attested in the Early Roman period. Although the cult of Isis and Serapis appeared on Crete during the Hellenistic period, the only evidence from Ierapetra is a Roman sarcophagus, now housed in the Istanbul museum, with scenes associated with this cult.292 The sarcophagus was crafted in Asia Minor, but used by a citizen of Ierapetra who was likely an initiate.

Economy Roman Ierapetra would have been characterized by a diverse economy. The site could depend on revenue brought in by its port and from agricultural production in the surrounding 288

cf. Trümpy 1997: 192-3. Sporn 2002: 55. 290 Bodnar 2003: 189, diary IV.8. 291 Mendel 1914: 316-20 no. 585 292 Sanders 1982: 37, 47. For the sarcophagus see: Mendel 1912: 135-45 no. 40; Kater-Sibbes 1973: 58 no. 342. 289

147

region. We should consider the harbor first since Ierapetra‟s role as a large port city provided the impetus for its prosperity under Roman rule. In the Early Roman period, there were few other ports on Crete which could rival the size of Ierapetra. Two examples are Chersonesos and Kissamos, both on the north coast. Most port sites on Crete comprised small-scale facilities, or stretches of coast on which ships could beach (Fig. 4.22). Ierapetra, on the other hand, had a constructed double harbor, placing it on par with the larger port cities of the eastern Mediterranean. Ierapetra benefited from its position along several important trade routes, including those traveling north to south and east to west. As a major harbor along Crete‟s south coast, and one of the first to be encountered by ships coming from the south or east, the city would have served as an important transshipment point along these trade routes and also as a gateway for imports and exports to travel in and out of Crete. Evidence from other sites in the Roman world demonstrates that large ports often had detailed systems of taxation related to imports and exports passing through their warehouses. The best example of such customs fees is preserved in a large inscription recovered from Ephesus, dating to 62 C.E. (SEG 39.1180). This long text outlines numerous conditions and dues to be paid on a variety of goods which might pass through Ephesus‟ harbor.293 One could hypothesize that a similar set of conditions, perhaps copied down in a now lost inscription, were established for the harbor at Ierapetra. Presumed control of several harbor establishments along the Bay of Mirabello to the north also suggests the city could derive revenue from ships passing along Crete‟s north coast. Ierapetra‟s position along these important trade routes may have inspired merchants to come to the site soon after the Roman conquest of Crete. Baldwin Bowsky suggests that several non-imperial names attested for inhabitants of the city “point together toward Italian traders and 293

For detailed discussions of this inscription see Engelmann and Knibbe 1989 and Cottier et al. 2008.

148

their later descendants as a dominant source of Roman influence and patronage at Hierapytna”.294 Several inscriptions from Gortyn (IC 4.278, 290, 291) provide direct evidence for Italian traders active on Crete, and it is likely they were also present at Ierapetra. The lucrative import/export trade out of Ierapetra also may have attracted local citizens to follow exchange networks west to Italy. As described above, at least two branches of the Flavii Sulpicianii family relocated to Italy in the Early Roman period, including one attested at Puteoli, based on an inscription dating to around 170 C.E. (AE 1986.155).295 Puteoli was one of the largest port cities in Italy and, during the first century C.E., served as the destination for the Alexandrian grain fleet. One question that arises concerning the port at Ierapetra is the size of ship capable of berthing there. G. Houston argues “… that the great ports – those which most readily draw our attention – were anomalous, and that most of the seaborne trade of the Roman Empire was carried out at very simple ports or at coastal towns with no man-made facilities at all”.296 Was Ierapetra one of these “great ports”? During his reign, Claudius issued a decree offering incentives to anyone who constructed a ship capable of carrying at least 10,000 modii (70 tons) of grain to serve the annona for six years.297 L. Casson considers this to be the minimum size of ship deemed useful by the Roman government.298 Houston acknowledges an additional implication of this decree, namely that there would have also been numerous ships smaller than 70 tons employed in shipping grain.299 For Claudius‟ decree to be effective, however, there had to be a sufficient infrastructure of suitable harbors in place along the grain route for these larger 294

Baldwin Bowsky 1994: 25. These names include Aemilius, Antonius, Cornelius, Junius, Varia, and Vipstanus which are all attested among Italian traders active in the Greek East. 295 cf. Camodeca 1987. 296 Houston 1988: 554. 297 Gai. Inst. 1.32c; Suet. Claud. 18-19. 298 Casson 1971: 171. 299 Houston 1988: 558.

149

ships. The contemporary construction of the double harbor at Ierapetra, perhaps under the patronage of Claudius, implies it was a port intended for berthing large ships. Perhaps there were even distinct functions intended for the two components of this harbor. An inscription from Thasos (IG 12 Suppl. 348; SEG 17.417), dated to the second half of the third century B.C.E., stipulates that only ships of 130 tons or greater could use the inner harbor, while smaller ships occupied the outer harbor. There is no evidence to confirm an analogous regulation at Ierapetra, but it is a possibility. Additional support for Ierapetra‟s ability to berth large ships comes from ethnographic and literary evidence. Houston cites numerous instances from the nineteenth and twentieth century where ships up to 140 tons unloaded their wares after beaching. This helps to explain the lack of large-scale port facilities along Crete‟s south coast, with the exception of Ierapetra, since most ships would have been able to beach along the coast. Even if ships were too large to beach, or perhaps even too large to berth at Ierapetra, they could have still made use of these sites. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (3.44.3) and Strabo (5.3.5) both remark that ships bigger than 150 tons could not enter the river port at Ostia, and instead were offloaded using smaller ships. An analogous operation at Ierapetra would enable even the largest of the ships documented in the Roman world to be accommodated at this site.300 Having argued that large vessels could dock at Ierapetra, the next step is to examine the feasibility of Cretan amphora-borne products being loaded on these ships before they continued their journey westward. Similar „piggy-back‟ commodities have been identified in the Roman world, including the attachment of African Red-Slip production C vessels to shipments of North African olive oil in the third and fourth centuries C.E.301 Not all grain ships would have served as

300 301

For a discussion of oversized freighters in antiquity see Casson 1971: 184-9. Peacock et al. 1990: 83.

150

carriers of Cretan goods, however. Epigraphic evidence from Ephesus in Asia Minor (IEph 211) indicates that only in the rarest of circumstances would Egyptian grain destined for Rome as part of the annona be rerouted to other destinations.302 This argues against ships officially attached to the annona unloading grain at Ierapetra and, as a result, freeing up space for Cretan amphorae. It may even be the case that the massive grain ships attested in the Roman world did not dock at ports like Ierapetra in their haste to get to Rome, and instead much of the traffic through the site could have comprised private merchants. Much of the traffic through Ierapetra‟s harbor, particularly in the Early Roman period, may have consisted of merchant ships engaged in the private sale of grain. Increasingly, evidence from a variety of sources, including documents from the Murecine Archive at Pompeii, shows a larger percentage of individuals privately participating in the grain trade than has previously been appreciated. These independent vessels would have docked at Ierapetra and may have offloaded part of their cargos there. Wine and olive oil amphorae could then serve as replacements in the ship‟s hold. After unloading some commodity from a ship, it would be necessary to replace this loss with a new consignment, preferably of a marketable type. According to S. McGrail, ancient and modern ships require a careful balance of cargo in their holds to ensure a safe voyage.303 Too little or too much can cause boats to founder, run aground, encounter steering difficulties, or be unable to handle sufficient wind in their sails. To fit a ship with an adequate cargo would require an understanding of a concept known as the stowage factor. McGrail explains that the purpose of stowage factors is to “convert known weights of cargo into stowed volumes and thus the position of the centre of mass can be calculated”.304 Using ethnographic data, he compiled a list of stowage factors for a variety of goods relatable to 302

cf. Wörrle 1971; Casson 1980: 23-5; Garnsey 1988: 255. McGrail 1989: 355. 304 McGrail 1989: 356. 303

151

those carried on ancient ships. Several are relevant to this discussion: wheat, 1.18-1.34 m3/tonne; wheat in bags, 1.34-1.50 m3/tonne; barley, 1.36-1.50 m3/tonne; barley in bags, 1.45-1.67 m3/tonne; wine in casks, 1.62-1.78 m3/tonne; wine in cases, 1.67-1.95 m3/tonne; olive oil in casks, 1.67-1.73 m3/tonne.305 If the casks and cases used here are comparable to ancient amphorae, this implies that these vessels had similar stowage factors to grain. Wine and olive oil amphorae would thus be excellent substitutes for grain within a ship‟s cargo and this should help explain the predominance of Cretan amphorae in regions of Italy regularly visited by grain ships. Among the goods shipped out of Ierapetra, wine and olive oil would have been dominant. Within the Isthmus, olive oil may have been the main agricultural product. While the export of olive oil from Crete thus far has not been attested, W. Harris speculates that the island may have been a net exporter of olive oil in the Roman period.306 Finds of large trapeta and millstones by the Gournia survey at several sites have demonstrated that, not only was olive oil produced in the Isthmus, this production may have exceeded the needs of local consumption.307 Sites with identified trapeta tend to produce large amounts of imported pottery and local amphorae, suggesting they engaged in some form of exchange. The predominance of olive groves in the region attested at least by the Venetian period also points to an emphasis on oleoculture in the territory of Ierapetra. We should not discount the presence of viticulture in the area, but this may not have been the city‟s primary economic resource. The area around Ierapetra does not boast a dense concentration of amphora production sites. Of the island‟s 23 known kiln sites that produced Roman amphorae, only two are located

305

McGrail 1989: 356 Table 1. Harris 1999: 357. 307 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. Presses were noted at six sites. 306

152

within the city‟s territory (Fig. 4.23).308 This includes a manufacturing center attested in the Isthmus of Ierapetra and a kiln site known at the village of Makry Gialos. One option is the Ierapetra was a site of amphora production, analogous to the Hellenistic city, although no evidence of this has been documented. Numerous finds of local amphorae at many sites in the Isthmus do point to the use of these vessels as packaging of liquid commodities produced in the region, and manufacture must have occurred at more sites than have been identified at present.309 Transshipment of goods between the north and south coasts was facilitated by the reorganized settlement pattern described above. According to Baldwin Bowsky, tied closely to this overland transport was a well organized road system.310 The Claudian boundary inscriptions discussed above make an effort to distinguish between cart traffic and pedestrian traffic, and show that Ierapetra was attempting to organize its territory to assist transport of goods and people across the Isthmus and to other sites on Crete. Along with facilitating transshipment, and engaging in oleoculture and viticulture, the region around Ierapetra produced additional commodities. The Gournia survey identified evidence of beekeeping and honey production at four sites in the Isthmus, although the scale of production is suggestive of local consumption.311 Vogeikoff-Brogan notes additional evidence would have appeared if the survey had included more of the mountainous terrain in the region. Both Pliny (NH 21.46) and Dioscurides (de Materia Medica 2.101) praise the quality of Cretan honey, particularly for its medicinal value. Trade in this commodity is attested at Pompeii, where

308

Kissamos, Nopighia-Drapania, Palaiochora (Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989); Kydonia (AR 53 [2006-2007]: 117-8); Eleutherna (Yangaki 2004-2005: 521); Herakleion, Chersonesos-east, Chersonesos-west, Chersonesos-northwest, Keratokambos-east, Keratokambos-west, Dermatos (Empereur, Krtizas, and Marangou 1991); Knossos (Hayes 1983: 140; ArchDelt 1997[2003] B‟2: 991); Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 390-1); Kommos, Matala (Kommos IV, 318-9); Tsoutsouros-east, Tsoutsouros-west, Arvi, Lagada, Makry Gialos, Trypetos (Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992); Gournia survey site 86 (Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming). 309 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 310 Baldwin Bowsky 2006a: 569. 311 Vogeikoff-Brogan forthcoming.

153

excavators recovered a Cretan amphora with a titulus pictus (CIL 4.5741) suggesting the vessel had been filled with thyme-flavored honey.312 On Crete, the most robust evidence for honey production occurs in the west. Both the Akrotiri peninsula and Sphaki surveys produced large numbers of ceramic beehive fragments indicative of a relatively large scale of honey production in the Roman period.313 A bee appears on the coinage of several cities in western Crete, perhaps tied to this industry.314 Bees also are associated with the iconography of Hellenistic Ierapetra, but there is no evidence to suggest this continued into the Roman period.315 Epigraphic evidence suggests the collection of salt may have formed part of the economic base of Roman Ierapetra. Davaras published a second century C.E. inscription from the site (SEG 32.869) which mentions a body of men known as the αιωροί.316 Their job was to guard the saltpans, possibly associated with a marshy area just to the west of the ancient port in the Aliki district. Davaras also cites the island of Gavdos, located off of the southwest coast of Crete, as another good source of salt.317 Along with supplying local and export needs, salt from Ierapetra may have been needed for the preservation of fish. At the site of Pherma, approximately 10km to the east, there are a series of small fish tanks presumed to be Roman.318 These tanks only could have sustained local needs, but Ierapetra is a probable consumer since it was the largest site in the region. Only one series of fish tanks on Crete, those identified at Siteia on the northeast coast, are considered large enough to have provided for more than just the local population.319

312

cf. Peña 2007: 104-5. Francis 2006: 380. 314 Francis 2006: 386. 315 For instance, a bee appears on two stamped amphora handles from Ierapetra. cf. Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992: 640 no. 6; Marangou-Lerat 1995: 124 no. E2; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 216 fig. 15.2. For bees on Hellenistic coinage from Ierapetra see Stefanaki 2001: 133-4. 316 Davaras 1980: 1-8. 317 Davaras 1980: 3. 318 Davaras 1974. 319 Sanders 1982: 136. A series of ten tanks have been identified along with a series of holes that suggest the tanks were roofed. 313

154

Pastoralism may have continued to be part of the economy of Ierapetra, although the evidence for this is minimal. Settlement density of the Isthmus at this time could argue against the keeping of large flocks, but shepherds may have had room in the mountainous regions to the east and west. The evidence for Roman pastoralism on Crete, as Chaniotis has summarized, is brief and consists of epigraphic and literary accounts.320 Vitruvius (1.4.10) mentions pasturing of cattle at the boundary between Gortyn and Knossos suggestive of the keeping of large herds. Next, two first century C.E. inscriptions, one from Pyloros (IC 1.25.3) and one from Gortyn (SEG 23.593), preserve dedications to the Kouretes for the safeguarding of livestock. Finally, a document from the sanctuary of Diktynna in west Crete (IC 2.11.3), dated to the end of the first century B.C.E., includes several clauses concerned with the employment of slaves to perform shepherding duties. Chaniotis also suggests that large-scale bone working at several sites points to continued exploitation of animal resources in this period.321

Decline of the Site At some point after the third century C.E., Ierapetra appears to have gone into decline. Analogous to the obscurity surrounding the earliest history of the site, almost nothing is known about this decline. Available clues do suggest settlement at Ierapetra waned, but the extent of this, and when it happened, are open to interpretation. Evidence for Ierapetra‟s decline is most securely attested for the seventh century, but the process may have begun earlier. The latest datable inscription from the site is a Latin fragment of Diocletian‟s Edictum de Pretiis (IC 3.3.64), erected in 301 C.E. Since Ierapetra has never been subject to any systematic excavation, and since most of the epigraphic finds have been made by

320 321

Chaniotis 1999: 212. Chaniotis 1999: 212. He cites industries at Lappa and Knossos.

155

chance, this evidence is negligible. At most, it suggests the site can serve as a paradigm for the changing epigraphic habit of the Roman world. According to R. MacMullen, following the second quarter of the third century C.E., fewer and fewer inscriptions are documented at sites across the Mediterranean.322 A small number of fourth century literary sources make mention of Ierapetra, including Servius who names it as one of the 24 cities of Crete in his commentary on Vergil‟s Aeneid (ad Aen. 3.106). Specifically, he mentions that: “et primo quidem centum civitates; unde hecatompolis dicta est; post viginti et quattuor, inde ut dicitur duas, Gnoson et Hierapydnam” (and in the beginning the island had one hundred cities, from which it was called the “hundred-stater”; afterwards there were twenty-four cities, of which, as it is said, there are two [prominent], Knossos and Ierapetra).323 The implication of Servius‟ observation is that Ierapetra was still flourishing to some extent at this time. Gortyn‟s absence from this description of Crete is conspicuous, however, and one wonders how familiar Servius was with Crete if he failed to mention the island‟s capital among its prominent cities. An additional fourth century text that discusses Ierapetra is a bishop‟s list that lists the city‟s Bishop as a participant in the Council of Sardica in 343 C.E.324 During the second half of the fourth century, earthquakes may have begun to take their toll on the site. A large tremor struck the eastern Mediterranean, including Crete, around 365 C.E. and could have caused some destruction at Ierapetra.325 Overall, a high frequency of large earthquakes characterizes the period from the fourth through the sixth century C.E. in the eastern Mediterranean. Scholars have termed this phenomenon the Early Byzantine tectonic

322

MacMullen 1982: 244. Translation by the author. 324 Tsougarakis 1988: 224. 325 Pirazzoli 2004: 1210-2; Yangaki 2005: 253-6. Sites on Crete known to have suffered destruction include Eleutherna, Gortyn, and Lyttos. Ammianus Marcellinus (26.10.15-19) describes this earthquake and its effects on Alexandria in Egypt. 323

156

paroxysm.326 One result of these quakes was a substantial uplift in shore levels along the western side of Crete, in some locations by as much as nine meters.327 While the island‟s eastern shorelines did not experience this same uplift, Ierapetra must have suffered damage from these earthquakes.328 Further consideration of the literary record shows that texts mentioning Ierapetra are rare after the fourth century. Two sixth century authors, Hierokles (Synecdemus 649) and Stephanus Byzantinus (s.v. Ἱεράπσηλα), both appear to consider Ierapetra to be a polis, but they do not provide any specific details about the site. These are the latest literary texts to mention the site. Procopius, unfortunately, does not refer to Ierapetra. Bishops lists continue to register the city as one of the sees of Crete in this later period, but they provide no means of characterizing Ierapetra. Several texts from the seventh century C.E., while they make no mention of Ierapetra, do provide information about circumstances affecting Crete that would have had consequences for the city. Shortly after 650 C.E., sources record the beginning of a regular succession of Arab raids against Crete. The island‟s south coast may have faced the brunt of these attacks and D. Tsougarakis suggests that these raids may be the reason for the decline of a number of south coast sites in the seventh century.329 The earliest attack is attested in 654, based on a passage from Michael the Syrian (2.1.44).330 Two years later, in 656, came another raid which V. Christides argues could have resulted in the temporary occupation of part of the island.331 These attacks may have reached their zenith in 674 when Theophanes (Chronogr. 354) records an Arab 326

Pirazzoli 1986. Thommeret, Y. et al. 1981; Pirazolli et al. 1982: 32, 36. 328 Examination of the shoreline of Ierapetra shows that it has actually subsided at least 1.2m since antiquity. cf. Mourtzas 1988: 1558-61, 1563. 329 Tsougarakis 1988: 270. 330 cf. Tsougarakis 1988: 22. 331 Christides 1984: 88. 327

157

expedition wintering on Crete. Tsougarakis observes, however, that Theophanes mentions no hostilities associated with this expedition, but the presence of large, armed force would have caused at least some degree of turmoil.332 Raids continued into the eighth and ninth centuries, culminating with the conquest of the island by Saracens in 827/828 C.E. There is no question that Crete was raided in the seventh century, but can we confirm that Ierapetra was a target of these attacks? In some cases, raids are known to have been directed at other locations, such as an assault against Herakleion around 671 C.E.333 A Neolithic and Late Minoan IIIC refuge settlement known as Katalimata Monasteraki (Figs. 4.6, 4.24), located in the Cha Gorge on the eastern side of the Isthmus of Ierapetra approximately 12.5km northeast of Ierapetra, produces the strongest evidence that the city suffered from these attacks. K. Nowicki excavated this site, which is located on a series of precarious terraces, and, along with Prehistoric material, found evidence for what he terms an Early Byzantine occupation.334 The terminus post quem for this Early Byzantine activity is 643-644 C.E. based on a bronze coin dated to the third regnal year of Constans II. Pottery recovered from the site also is suggestive of the seventh century and the absence of Glazed White Ware from Constantinople argues against an eighth century date. Nowicki interprets the finds from Katalimita as evidence that the site “... was used as a refuge place around the middle and in the second half of the seventh century A.D., more than occasionally and by more than a single family”.335 Occupation was attested on at least four or five terraces and, as Nowicki argues, should be associated with the period of raids recorded

332

Tsougarakis 1988: 23. For the inscription describing this attack see Bandy 1970: 89-90 no. 61. 334 Nowicki 2008: 66-8. 335 Nowicki 2008: 85. 333

158

between 654 and 678 C.E.336 Only people facing extreme circumstances would consider occupying a location like Katalimata. Settlers would have come from sites in the Isthmus and possibly from Ierapetra itself. That it was the south coast and not the north coast being attacked, and thus that it was mainly settlers from the southern half of the Isthmus who took up residence at Katalimata, is suggested by the presence of numerous contemporary refuge sites listed by Nowicki along the south coast.337 The consequences of these raids for Ierapetra may be visible in several bishop lists. An account from the mid-eighth century ranks the city‟s bishopric in sixth place out of twelve while another list from the late tenth century has it falling to eighth position.338 With the exception of Gortyn, all of the sites listed ahead of Ierapetra are from the northern part of the island. In addition, at some point in the Late Antique period, Ierapetra‟s bishopric appears to have moved its seat outside of the city to the site of Episkopi, where remains of a Christian basilica have been identified.339

CONCLUSIONS Ierapetra is a city characterized by a diverse, and somewhat obscure, history. Our current picture shows a site beginning its rise to power in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E., achieving a position among the preeminent poleis of Crete in the Hellenistic period, reaching the peak of its prosperity in the Early Roman period, and undergoing some type of decline by the seventh century C.E. Numerous questions remain unanswered, however. When was the site first 336

Nowicki 2008: 85-7. Nowicki 2008: 86. Sites he mentions include several between Anatoli and Kalamafka, approximately 10km northwest of Ierapetra, as well as a few south of Anatoli in the area of Elliniki Koriphi and Xocheroi. He also notes seeing Early Byzantine pottery on the summits of Hagios Stephanus Kastello and Keraton above Keratokambos, which is approximately 30km west of Ierapetra. 338 Detorakis 1994: 116, 138. 339 Tsougarakis 1988: 231; Sanders 1982: 140. 337

159

founded? Did Hellenistic Ierapetra engage in production beyond subsistence which resulted in goods for export? Was the economy of Roman Ierapetra as prosperous as the city‟s position on important trade routes would suggest? Did the site begin going into to decline before the commencement of Arab raids in the mid-seventh century? These and many other questions cannot be properly addressed without the addition of new data. With the presentation of pottery evidence in the following chapter, I hope to address many of these questions and provide more detailed answers based on this new information.

160

CHAPTER 4 THE POTTERY

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is the presentation of a detailed catalogue of Late Hellenistic and Roman pottery recovered from three rescue excavations in the city of Ierapetra. Pottery from a fourth rescue excavation at the site of Kato Mertia, located approximately 6.5km north of Ierapetra, will also be presented separately at the end of the chapter. The first section discusses the three urban rescue excavations, while the next two sections outline the methodology of the study and the format of the catalogue. Ceramic finds from these three excavations are then presented in two parts: 1. Late Hellenistic; 2. Roman. Finally, the site of Kato Mertia is summarized including an abbreviated description of the ceramic finds.

THE EXCAVATIONS Most of the pottery analyzed during this study derives from three separate rescue excavations in the city of Ierapetra (Fig. 5.1). All three plots are located within the Viglia district, a region directly west of the modern town. Known as the Assariotaki plot, the Pangalou plot, and the Yiomelaki plot, these excavations were carried out by the KD Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities under the direction of Vili Apostolakou.1 Before describing each of the rescue excavations in detail, a brief note on methodology is required. Although pottery was analyzed from three plots, in no case was the entire ceramic 1

I would like to thank Vili Apostolakou, Ephor of the KD Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, for her permission to study this pottery. All of the analysis was undertaken at the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete in Pacheia Ammos and my thanks also go out to Tom Brogan, Eleanor Huffman, and all of the INSTAP staff for their assistance.

161

assemblage examined. This was a conscious decision reflecting considerations of time and the goals of the study. Time constraints for carrying out the analysis of the pottery brought about two options. The first was to examine all, or at least most, of the pottery assemblage from a single rescue excavation within the ancient city. A second option was to examine a portion of the pottery assemblages from several, in this case three, rescue excavations. As the overall goals of this study are to provide an overview of the ceramic record of Ierapetra during the Roman period, and to use this data to answer questions about the economy of the city and its relation to other centers on Crete and in the Mediterranean as a whole, I felt it more prudent to undertake the second option and look at a proportion of the pottery from several excavations. For the Assariotaki plot this equals approximately 70% of the pottery assemblage, while for the other two it represents approximately 20 to 25% of the respective material. While it is inevitable that important data were missed, significant patterns still should be apparent and a more extensive picture of the ceramic record of the ancient city can be presented. An additional consideration for the analysis of material from these rescue excavations is the methodology employed by the excavators. By necessity, archaeologists engaged in rescue excavations must achieve a compromise between maximizing the amount of data recovered from a site and minimizing the time spent digging. As a result, rescue excavations at Ierapetra tend to involve the systematic removal of specific units of soil (perhaps 0.15m to 0.25m per layer), often referred to as spits, rather than switching contexts based on soil changes. While this method permits digging to be completed in a timely manner, the consequence is a limited understanding of the stratigraphy of the site. Each excavated layer could potentially comprise several distinct stratigraphic units, or individual stratigraphic units may appear as part of different layers. To compensate for this compulsory component of rescue excavation archaeology, I have found it

162

necessary to assess the ceramic material recovered from each layer critically to determine which pottery is in phase and decide whether residual and intrusive material can be associated with layers excavated above or below the context in question. A more detailed discussion of the methodology for phasing pottery employed in this study can be found below.

Assariotaki Plot Excavation of the Assariotaki plot took place in 2000.2 This plot is located southeast of the church of the Archangel Michael on Pavlou Kouper/Dimokratias, the main road heading west out of Ierapetra. Eleven 4x4m trenches were opened, revealing a large domestic structure which included an outer courtyard and inner atrium (Fig. 5.2). Prior to excavation, the plot had served as a parking area and was almost completely devoid of vegetation. The constant presence of automobiles resulted in very hard and compact upper soil layers. An attempt to excavate these layers by hand proved too difficult and a bulldozer was brought in to remove the top 0.4m from each of the trenches. All of the trenches revealed walls, while other identified features included a cistern, a well, a hearth, several floors of packed earth, and a road which continued to the east beyond the plot. Pottery from the first four trenches was analyzed during this study with the bulk of the material deriving from trenches 1, 2, and 3. Trench 1, located in the northeast corner of the plot, produced all of the Hellenistic pottery.

Examined Contexts Trench 1

2

northeast corner of plot; top 0.40m of trench, comprising light brown, hard soil, removed with bulldozer

For a preliminary report of this excavation see ArchDelt 55 (2000 [2009]) B‟2: 1044-5.

163

Layer 1: 0.20-0.25m of soil removed; two large stones (one worked) found blocking entrance to Roman period well; well has diameter of 0.45m, depth of 5m; in southeast corner of trench was a paved area of stones (road?); beneath paving was wall foundation comprising stones and lime mortar. Date: Second half of first century B.C.E. (Black-glaze ring base; Eastern Sigillata A base; intrusive pottery from surface layer includes Late Roman amphora body sherd with combed decoration and two Ottoman fineware body sherds) Layer 2: significant amount of pottery recovered; structure of well more apparent – begins square, but became rounded after 0.15-0.20m; in west part of trench a compact dirt floor identified along with a small structure (cistern?); wall, parallel to paved area, identified in north part of trench; large amounts of ash and charcoal found in this layer. Date: ca.110-50 B.C.E. (Knidian amphora stamp; East Cretan Cream Ware beveled rim plates) Layer 3: beneath paved area/road, an earlier floor surface identified. Date: 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (Knidian amphora stamp; brazier lugs; West-Slope ware body sherd) East Extension: attempt to trace whether paved area continued east; determined that it does continue beyond limits of plot. Date: Unknown (mixed fill ranging from Late Hellenistic to Late Roman pottery) Trench 2

located south of trench 1; bulldozer used to remove top 0.40m of soil. Layer 1: deep fill containing large amounts of pottery; revealed a north-south wall 0.60m beneath surface constructed of small worked stones and lime mortar. Date: Late Antique (TRC2 amphora) Layer 2: fill to east of north-south wall containing moderate amount of pottery. Date: Fifth-Sixth century C.E. (LRA1 amphorae; LRA4 amphora; Agora M273 amphora)

Trench 3

located south of trench 2; bulldozer used to remove top 0.40m of soil. Layer 1: deep fill analogous to Trench 2, layer 1; contained large amounts of pottery; in northwest part of trench, north-south and east-west wall foundations revealed abutting one another; foundations sit approximately 0.50m beneath surface. 164

Date: Late Sixth to Seventh century C.E. (AfRS form 106; TRC2 amphora; LRA7 amphora) Layer 2a: fill of soft soil east of north-south wall; contained large amounts of pottery; corner of two walls identified; also revealed a floor surface associated with walls. Date: 250-350 C.E. (AfRS form 45A; AfRS form 50A; Knossos type 3 casserole; ARC1c amphora; MRC2b amphora; Kapitän 2 amphora; MR4/Agora G199 amphora; intrusive material from layer 1 includes Teapot [a fiaschetta] type lamp) Trench 4:

located directly west of Trench 5 (which is directly west of Trench 1); bulldozer used to remove approximately top 0.40m of soil. Layer 2a: numerous well built walls identified including large east-west foundation wall; in northern part of trench, a semi-circular area containing a fill of small stones of lime mortar identified. Date: First to Second century C.E. (Italian Sigillata body sherd; ESA body sherds; ESB body sherd; intrusive from upper layers includes AfRS body sherd)

Pangalou Plot Excavated from 1998 to 1999, the Pangalou Plot is located a few hundred meters inland from the coast along the regional road to Kalamafkas, a town northwest of Ierapetra. Several preliminary reports are available.3 Excavation revealed two structures, likely houses, joined together with no alley or road between them. Only a small proportion of the recovered pottery was Hellenistic in date, suggesting the main focus of occupation was during the Roman period. A greenhouse stood on the site prior to excavation and had greatly disturbed the upper soil layers. As a result, excavators chose to remove the top 0.4 to 0.5m of disturbed soil with a bulldozer. Thirteen trenches were opened and pottery was analyzed from six of these (2, 5, 9-12). Of these trenches, 2 and 5 were part of the western structure and 9 to 12 were part of the eastern structure. Numerous stone-built walls were revealed throughout the plot along with a grave 3

ArchDelt 53 (1998 [2004]) B‟3: 878-9; ArchDelt 54 (1999 [2005]) B‟3: 869-70; Apostolakou 2002: 336-41.

165

constructed of orthogonal gypsum slabs and mortar in Trench 2 containing the remains of seven individuals. Other identified features include stone-paved floors, a built stone platform, and several storage vessels sunk into the ground. Trench 5 also produced several nearly complete amphorae (all in fragmentary form) preserved in situ on a floor surface.

Examined Contexts Trench 2

located in the northwest part of western house; bulldozer used to remove 0.40 to 0.50m of top soil. Layer 11: located in southern part of trench abutting several foundation walls; fill with moderate amount of pottery. Date: Fifth to Sixth Century C.E. (LRA 5/6 amphora)

Trench 5

located in central part of plot; trench comprises large part of room in western house; bench revealed in one corner; bulldozer used to remove 0.40 to 0.50m of top soil. Layer 7: floor surface on which large number of amphorae sat, mendable to complete or nearly complete states; these vessels believed to be in situ; many sherds from this layer show evidence of burning; small “hoard” of seven bronze coins recovered from a clay vessel; description of layer suggests a destruction context. Date: 350-400 C.E. (AfRS form 50B; MRC2b amphorae). Possible this context should be associated with earthquake of ca. 365 C.E. Layer 9: small trench revealed in central part of Trench 5; contained primarily Hellenistic material. Date: 150-50 B.C.E. (Black-glaze vessels; East Cretan Cream Ware flaring rim bowl; EC2 amphora)

Trench 9

located in eastern part of plot; part of eastern structure; bulldozer removed top 0.40 to 0.50m of soil. Layer 2: fill context comprising large amounts of pottery, stones, and tile; may represent a period of dumping after the abandonment of the structure. Date: post-sixth century C.E. (datable sherds primarily from first few centuries C.E.)

166

Layer 3: another fill context containing large amounts of material including pottery, tile, and stones; animal bones also common in southwest part of layer; part of a floor may have been revealed in southeast part of trench. Date: Fifth to sixth century C.E. (MRC3 amphora; TRC2 amphora; LRA4 amphora) Layer 4: fill of loose soil containing large amounts of pottery and other finds; part of a wall identified. Date: Second half of fourth century C.E. (AfRS form 50B) Layer 5: soil contained large amounts of ash and charcoal suggesting presence of a hearth; significant quantities of pottery and animal bones recovered from layer. Date: First half of fourth century C.E. (AfRS form 50A; AfRS form 50B) Trench 10

located in eastern part of plot, part of eastern structure; numerous walls revealed in this trench; bulldozer used to remove top 0.4 to 0.5m of soil. Layer 2: fill layer comprising large amounts of residual pottery. Date: Post- sixth century C.E. (LRA1 amphorae) Layer 3: comprised mainly a north-south wall built of worked stones and lime mortar; built structure appears to abut it; numerous stones appeared in soil of this layer, presumably from wall. Date: First half of sixth century C.E. (PRS form 3E; TRC9 amphora) Layer 4: layer comprised mainly of soil fill with abundant finds including pottery; small unidentified structure revealed near a wall. Date: Fifth century C.E. (PRS form 3A; LRA2 amphora; intrusive from layer above is PRS form 3F) Layer 5: built structure, possibly a bench, filled with soil and pottery. Date: 150-250 C.E. (Çandarli form H1-4 base; ARC1b amphora; MRC1 amphora) Layer 6: small layer comprising very few finds; part of a wall revealed. Date: 75-150 C.E. (AfRS-A body sherd; ESB form 58/70; Çandarli form L19)

Trench 11

located in eastern part of trench, part of eastern structure; bulldozer used to remove top 0.4 to 0.5m of soil. Layer 2: layer of fill revealing part of a wall; numerous tile fragments recovered. Date: Post-fifth century C.E. (AfRS-D body sherd) Layer 3: fill layer of loose soil. Date: Late fourth to fifth century C.E. (Egloff 172/LRA 7 amphora)

167

Trench 12

large trench (8.5 by 4m) located toward eastern end of plot; part of eastern structure; several large walls and wall foundations revealed; bulldozer used to remove top 0.4 to 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: deep, extensive layer requiring several days of digging; part of a northwest-southeast wall revealed; very little pottery considering amount of soil removed. Date: Sixth century C.E. (AfRS form 105; PRS form 3E; PRS form 3F; PRS form 3H) Layer 2: comprised central part of trench; part of corner of wall revealed along with a possible door or entranceway; large amount of pottery from this layer. Date: Second half of fourth century C.E. (AfRS form 50B; AfRS form 59A; MRC2b amphora; intrusive from layer above includes PRS forms 3C, 3E, 3F) Layer 3: floor context comprised of compact earth; numerous finds recovered. Date: Late third to early fourth century C.E. (AfRS form 32/58; ARC1b amphora)

Yiomelaki Plot Excavation of the Yiomelaki plot, located near the shore directly west of the presumed location of the large theater, took place in 2001 and 2002.4 This plot was the most extensively excavated of the three, comprising 26 trenches along with the subsequent removal of many of the baulks in between. The top layers had been disturbed by previous building activity and, following an initial exploratory program of excavation in five trenches to assess the extent of disturbance, the excavators switched to removing the top 0.5m of soil with a bulldozer since the walls were at least 0.6m below the surface. Numerous walls were revealed representing a large structure and one interpretation is that the building is a warehouse. There was evidence for destruction in numerous layers, including roof collapses, toppled walls, and burning. Several of these destruction layers are datable to the first century B.C.E., and may be related to the Roman attack in 67 B.C.E. Pottery was examined from most of the trenches, with an emphasis falling on

4

On the site plan published by Sanders (1982: 139 fig. 49), the Yiomelaki plot would be just to the west of the gate marked to the west of the large theater.

168

material from trenches opened during the 2002 season. Exceptions were trenches 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 15 from which no pottery was examined. While Roman pottery was dominant, this plot produced a large amount of Hellenistic material along with the only finds of pre-Classical pottery.

Examined Contexts Trench 1

Located in western part of plot; dug without machinery to determine level at which architecture begins. Surface: very hard soil with moderate quantities of stones and roots. Date: Unknown (some Roman material of unknown date)

Trench 2

Located in western part of plot; dug without machinery to determine level at which architecture begins. Layer 2: fill context with large amounts pottery broken into small sherds; removal of this layer revealed two walls. Date: Third to fourth century C.E. (Kapitän 2 amphora) Layer 4: fill context with some evidence for destruction in form of burned patches of soil and abundant charcoal. Date: 75-25 B.C.E. (East Cretan Cream Ware beveled rim plate; ESA form 3)

Trench 6

Located in western part of plot; first trench initially dug with bulldozer to remove top 0.5m of soil. Layer 2: fill layer with large amount of pottery; wall visible at bottom of layer. Date: Third to fourth century C.E. (Kapitän 2 amphora) Layer 3: part of a room with several walls visible; fewer finds compared to upper levels. Date: 75-125 C.E. (ESB form 70; ESB form 80; Dressel 2-4 amphora)

Trench 7

located in central part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: thin layer of fill with little ceramic material or other finds. Date: Post-antique (no good datable pottery) Layer 2: layer of fill containing large amount of stones, but little pottery; can be dated only by stratigraphy. 169

Date: Post-sixth century C.E. (date suggested by layers below) Layer 4: layer of fill with stones, pottery (including large amounts of Hellenistic material). Date: First half of sixth century C.E. (PRS form 3F) Layer 7: several walls visible; fill comprises stones and moderate amount of pottery; evidence for a floor paved with gypsum slabs. Date: Fourth century C.E. (Keay 25 amphora) Layer 9: evidence for destruction in formed of burned soil, charcoal; little evidence for architecture. Date: Hellenistic (Black-glaze body sherds; Early Hellenistic cookpot) Trench 8

Located in central part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: later phases of walls from lower level preserved, but evidence for destruction (fallen stones); moderate amount of pottery. Date: Second half of fifth century C.E. (PRS form 3C; LRA2 amphora; LRA 5/6 amphora) Layer 2: several walls visible with evidence for destruction; large amount of pottery present in fill. Date: Fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (Corinthian relief ware; LRA 5/6 amphora)

Trench 9

Located in western part of plot; bulldozer used to remove top 0.5m of soil. Limited material recovered from this trench, but some architecture present. Layer 2: fill of loose soil with small amount of pottery covering part of a wall. Date: First century B.C.E. (East Cretan Cream Ware everted rim cup; ESA form 17; possibly intrusive from layer above is ARC2a amphora)

Trench 12

Located in northern part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil; almost no evidence for Roman material in this trench. Layer 1: Several walls visible; top half of locally-produced amphora and two silver cups recovered from one of the walls. Date: Second half of first century B.C.E. (East Crete type 1 amphora) Layer 3: Several walls visible; fill contains moderate amounts of pottery. Date: First half of first century B.C.E. (East Cretan Cream Ware beveled rim plate) Layer 4: Layer of fill with moderate amounts of pottery.

170

Date: Mid-Second to mid-first century B.C.E. (Black-glaze body sherds; East Cretan Cream Ware beveled rim plate, kantharos; Knidian amphora body sherds) Layer 8: Fill layer with small amounts of pottery; mainly stones in the fill. Date: Hellenistic (no good datable pottery) Trench 13

Located in central part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 2: Evidence for a wall within a matrix of hard soil; a few sherds present along with bits of shell and some charcoal. Date: Second half of first century B.C.E. (ESA form 4A) Layer 3: Wall present, perhaps part of a room; moderate amount of pottery and other finds. Date: Mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (Black-glaze body sherds; East Cretan Cream Ware basins, everted rim cups, Echinus bowls, rolled-rim plate; Gray ware plates; Rhodian amphora) Layer 4: Fill layer with small amounts of pottery. Date: Hellenistic (no good datable pottery) Layer 5: Fill layer with small amounts of pottery. Date: Hellenistic (no good datable pottery) Layer 6: Fill layer with small amounts of pottery. Date: Hellenistic (no good datable pottery)

Trench 14

Located in central part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 2: Evidence for roof destruction based on significant presence of tiles; small amount of pottery found; other finds include large stone slab, stone basin, pieces of marble, lime, and plaster. Date: Third to fifth century C.E. (MRC3 amphora)

Trench 17

Located in central part of plot; bulldozer used to remove top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: fill layer mainly containing pottery; much of the material was weathered; some construction material, perhaps from a wall; an inscription on a large stone slab also recovered. Date: Mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (AfRS type A(ii) stamp)

Trench 18

Located in central part of plot; bulldozer used to remove top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: sandy soil containing numerous small stones and large amounts of pottery, tile, animal bone, and marble fragments; features revealed during the removal of this layer include an east-west wall and a drain. 171

Date: Late sixth to seventh century C.E. (Cypriot Red-Slip form 9B/C) Layer 4: fill context containing large amount of pottery; quantity of pottery appears to exceed the amount of soil; pithos revealed within this layer. Date: Fourth to Sixth century C.E. (dated stratigraphically; no good datable pottery) Layer 6: fill context containing large number of finds, particularly pottery. Date: Third to fourth century C.E. (AfRS-C body sherd; Kapitän 2 amphora; intrusive from layers above is PRS form 10C) Layer 9: southeast of drain, revealed in layer 1; contained large amount of wall plaster; this layer laid down on virgin soil which had no finds of any kind. Date: 75-150 C.E. (ESB form 62; ESB form 70; Italian Sigillata stamp OCK type 1213; Beltrán 1 amphora; intrusive from layer above is Africana 1 amphora) Trench 20

Located in central part of plot; bulldozer used to remove top 0.5m of soil. Layer 2: fill of loose soil containing small stones and moderate quantities of charcoal; finds included large amount of pottery, some tile, and fragments of a stone gourna. Date: First century C.E. (ESB body sherds; intrusive from layer above were AfRS body sherds) Layer 3: fill very similar in composition to layer 2 above, but containing more animal bones. Date: 75-25 B.C.E. (East Cretan Cream Ware everted rim cup, mold-made relief bowls; Black-glaze plates, cups; Gray ware plates; Pergamene sigillata; ESA form 3)

Trench 21

Located in eastern part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: thin context of accumulated fill over a destruction context; soil described as hard; small stones were present, but very few finds were noted. Date: Mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (AfRS form 50A) Layer 2: destruction layer containing large amounts of roof tiles, but little pottery; soil described as hard, contained bits of ash and charcoal; this layer produced several pieces of Early Iron Age pottery. Date: First century B.C.E. (Black-glaze body sherds; ESA body sherds)

Trench 22

Located in eastern part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 2: fill layer below several walls of Roman date. Date: Late Hellenistic (Knidian amphora toe)

172

Trench 23

Located in eastern part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: Fill layer with very little material present. Date: First century C.E. (ESB form 29) Layer 2: Destruction layer with numerous tile fragments; no pottery from soil beneath this layer. Date: First century B.C.E. (Black-glaze body sherds; ESA body sherds)

Trench 24

Located in eastern part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: Fill layer with numerous tile fragments, glass fragments, animal bones, and ceramic sherds. Date: Second half of fourth century C.E. (AfRS form 50B; MRC1 amphora; MRC3 amphora) Layer 2: Several large stones may be evidence of a wall; tile fragments common. Date: First half of third century C.E. (Çandarli form H1; Çandarli form H3) Layer 5: Large quantity of plaster fragments, perhaps associated with walls in upper layers; little soil compared to finds. Date: First century C.E. (Italian Sigillata form 20; ESB body sherds)

Trench 25

Located in southeastern part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: Fill layer with abundance of finds; numerous tile fragments present along with large quantities of bronze and iron. Date: Seventh century C.E. (AfRS form 106; PRS form 10C) Layer 2: Fill layer associated with a wall; numerous fragments of plaster likely associated with the wall; other finds include mosaic tesserae, bone pins, stone bowl, and lamps. Date: Mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (AfRS form 50A; Kapitän 2 amphora; MRC2b amphora; intrusive from layer above is AfRS form 105 and Keay 52 amphora) Layer 3:Fill layer similar in composition to layer above; appears to be associated with a wall. Date: First half of third century C.E. (Çandarli form H4)

Trench 26

Located in southeastern part of plot; bulldozer removed top 0.5m of soil. Layer 1: Destruction layer; most of the material is scrappy; large amount of pottery recovered. Date: Seventh century C.E. (PRS form 10C)

173

Layer 3: Several walls visible; small amount of pottery present. Date: First half of third century C.E. (Çandarli form H2; Çandarli form H3; Çandarli form H4) Martyr 13/7 removal of baulk left between Trenches 13 and 7. Layer 2: layer of hard, compact soil containing a few sherds and other finds. Date: 75-25 B.C.E. (East Cretan Cream Ware basins, type 1 amphora; Knidian amphora; ESA form 4A) Martyr 13/11 removal of baulk left between Trenches 13 and 11. Layer 3: layer of compact soil containing a small amount of pottery. Date: First century B.C.E. (Black-glaze body sherds; ESA body sherd) Martyr 23/24 removal of baulk left between Trenches 23 and 24. Layer 1: layer of compact soil containing pebbles and some pottery. Date: Second century C.E. (ESB form 60; ARC1b amphora; Çandarli base sherd) Layer 3: layer of compact soil containing few sherds. Date: First century B.C.E. (Black-glaze cup; East Cretan Cream Ware beveled rim plate; ESA body sherd)

STUDY METHODOLOGY For both the Late Hellenistic and Roman ceramics, the pottery first was divided into five classes: finewares, common wares, cookwares, amphorae, and lamps. A sixth class, miscellaneous, was employed for loomweights, amphora stands, and other odds and ends. Cookwares comprise vessels which would have been subject to direct heat during food preparation. Common wares, a class for which food preparation was one of many potential functions, were not subject to direct heat regularly and instead would have been employed for mixing and related tasks during the early stages of food preparation. For each of these pottery classes the material was grouped chronologically and further subdivided. Finewares were separated into local and imported material, assigned to specific

174

wares where possible, and associated with known forms. Common wares and cookwares were sorted by shape, with examples of basins, bottles, bowls, jars, jugs, lids, pithoi, and votive dishes noted for common wares, and casseroles, cookpots, frying pans, jars, and lids noted for cookwares. Amphorae were first assigned a regional provenance and then further partitioned into known forms with material of unknown provenance grouped together. Finally, lamps were divided by form. The only exception to the above divisions occurs in the presentation of some of the Hellenistic material. A number of finds from this period can be identified with a known fabric termed East Cretan Cream Ware. This fabric encompasses finds from several of the above classes, including finewares, common wares, amphorae, and lamps. Several scholars suggest that this ware was a product of Ierapetra and it will be presented separately within the Late Hellenistic pottery section.

Selection of Catalogue Pottery The criteria for selecting pieces for cataloguing comprised a number of considerations. First, no pottery of any date has been published from Ierapetra. The material presented here, therefore, will introduce the ceramic record of the city from the second century B.C.E. through the seventh century C.E. to scholars. As a result, I have attempted to assemble as representative a sample of wares as possible. Next, a principal goal of studying pottery from Ierapetra is to use this material as a tool for understanding the site‟s history and economic relationships as they evolved through time. To ensure that an accurate picture of the history of Ierapetra can be reconstructed, material has been catalogued that represents the entire time span between the Late Hellenistic and Late Antique periods. Third, publications of Roman pottery from Crete are now

175

available from no fewer than eleven sites (Fig. 5.3).5 These publications include large amounts of material from all ceramic classes and contain discussions of local production. I have included representative examples of finds from all of the ceramic classes attested at Ierapetra to facilitate comparison with assemblages on Crete and beyond the island‟s borders. The catalogue comprises mainly diagnostic sherds, including rims, bases, and handles. Body sherds were selected as separate catalogue entries when no diagnostic pieces for a certain shape or pottery type could be identified, or when they preserve unique elements such as decoration. For lamps, all fragments of identified types were included.

Phasing During analysis of the pottery, an effort was made to determine the phasing of each catalogued piece. That is to say, there was an attempt to distinguish between pieces that were in phase in their respective contexts versus those which could be residual or intrusive. This is important particularly for locally produced wares since many questions remain unanswered concerning the chronology of pottery manufactured on Crete. Any insight into the dating of local products would benefit not only other excavations, but survey projects as well. The first step is to define the categories associated with phasing. According to J.T. Peña, residuality can be defined as “any sherd deposited initially before the beginning of the formation of the deposit”.6 This definition is not without difficulty, as Peña notes, but serves as an

5

Agia Galini: Vogt 1991-1993. Agiasmatsi Cave: Francis et al. 2000. Eleutherna: Vogt 2000, 2004; Yangaki 2005. Gortyn: Gortina I; Gortina II; Gortina V.3. Itanos: Xanthopoulou 2004. Knossos: Frend and Johnston 1962; Hayes 1971, 1983, 2001a; Coldstream 1973: 46-55; Catling et al. 1981: 85-104; Warren 1987-1988; UM II. Kommos: Kommos IV, 312-20. Kydonia: Khania 1.1, 209-11; Raab 2001. Lappa: Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988. Pseira: Poulou-Papadimitriou 1995. Rethymno: Kalokyris 1955. 6 Peña 1998a: 6.

176

important foundation from which to approach aspects of phasing.7 To facilitate the phasing of pottery from the excavations in Ierapetra, the categories proposed for the Palatine East excavations in Rome were adopted: in phase, indeterminable, residual, and unknown.8 To this list I also propose to add the category of intrusive. A sherd is in phase when its form beginning date is later than or equal to the beginning date of the context. If the beginning date of a pottery form predates the beginning of the context‟s deposition, but the end date postdates the beginning of deposition it is considered indeterminable. Residual sherds are those for which the end date of the pottery form predates the beginning of a context‟s deposition. Sherds of unknown phasing are characterized by insufficient evidence to support any conclusion. Finally, intrusive pottery can be defined as any sherd for which the form beginning date post-dates the end date of a context. The application of these categories varies in its relevance for pottery from the three rescue excavations. Several deposits have either indeterminable date ranges or ranges which cover several centuries. Many of the contexts represent fills where material of different dates was deposited together, or the deposits were disturbed, either during antiquity or in modern times. There is also the aforementioned issue of excavation methodology that results in distinct stratigraphic layers either grouped together in one context or split among several contexts. For many locally produced wares, the only option is to phase them as unknown since there is not enough information to support any conclusion about their chronology. With respect to these pieces, one hopes that future studies of Cretan pottery will be able to employ this data to better assess the dating of local forms.

7

Peña 1998a: 6, 8. Some difficulties include determining the beginning date of a context, determining the end date of a pottery class, and realizing that pottery can have an extended use-life. 8 Peña 1998a: 8; Peña 1999: 60.

177

Quantification All of the pottery analyzed during this study was quantified using two different methods: RBHS (rims, bases, handles, body sherds) counts and weights. R. Tomber argues that these two measures can provide useful, and often compatible, data.9 RBHS counts and weights are employed by numerous excavations, including at Corinth,10 which should facilitate comparison with quantified assemblages from other sites. Most of the excavations on Crete with quantified material have used comparable methods. Agia Galini, Eleutherna, Gortyn, and Knossos all employ sherds counts as part of their quantification schemes, while Eleutherna also relies on sherd weights to an extent.11 Counts and weights are obtained through direct measurement rather than estimation.12 From counts we learn two pieces of information: the proportion of a pottery type in the assemblage, and the average number of sherds into which vessels of different pottery types break.13 Weight enables the determination of the proportion of each type in an assemblage and shows the relative weight between types.14 Within a single assemblage, however, both measures can be misleading since more fragile pottery types will break into higher numbers of sherds and heavier types will be overrepresented. Thus, neither sherd count nor sherd weight is an effective measure for comparing different types within an assemblage, but they are useful for comparing separate assemblages, particularly like pottery types with like.15 K.W. Slane notes an additional consideration with respect to weight. In a study of material from Corinth, she found that pottery left to dry for an extended period had a different 9

Tomber 1993: 149-50. Slane 2003: 322-3. 11 Agia Galini: Vogt 1991-1993: 44 fig. 3. Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 31. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, passim. Knossos: Hayes 1983: 112; UM II, 148. 12 Orton 1989: 96. 13 Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993: 168. 14 Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993: 168. 15 Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993: 168; Tomber 1993: 149. 10

178

weight than when first measured.16 A lack of consideration for length of time between washing and weighing could result in distorted measurements unreflective of actual patterns in the data. All of the pottery from the rescue excavations studied here was weighed within one week of washing, and this will hopefully provide a measure of consistency even if some sherds were not as dry as they would be if weighed at a later date. A final note for the quantification of this pottery is a potential difficulty regarding the collection protocol. As Peña observes, scholars should take into account their collection procedures when interpreting patterns apparent in quantitative data.17 Such procedures could include only keeping sherds reaching a minimum size threshold, or only those which are diagnostic. When quantitative figures from assemblages characterized by distinct collection protocols are compared, any differences encountered could be a result of the collection and not reflect any actual distinctions between the proportions of different pottery classes. That this is an important consideration for the Ierapetra pottery is necessitated by a disparity in the collection protocol for one of the rescue excavations. For both the Pangalou and Yiomelaki plots excavators kept all of the pottery encountered during the respective excavations. No size threshold is apparent for these sherds, with numerous examples measuring less than one square centimeter in size. Collection of material at Kato Mertia, the rescue excavation in the chora of Ierapetra from which pottery will be presented at the end of this chapter, also followed this pattern. The same cannot be said for the Assariotaki plot. Analysis of the pottery from this plot quickly revealed that only diagnostic sherds, specifically rims, bases, and handles, were kept from the excavation. When body sherds were retained, it was due to some characteristic feature such as ribbing or decoration. The same 16

Slane 2003: 324. She notes that the discrepancy in weights for pottery reweighed two years later was as high as 10 to 15%. 17 Peña and McCaw 2007: 153-4.

179

quantification methods were employed for this assemblage as for the other two, but with the understanding that any specific patterns developed from this data could be the result of the types of sherds collected. During the synthesis of the pottery data in the following chapter, an account of how the quantification data from the Assariotaki plot relates to the data from the Pangalou and Yiomelaki plots will be undertaken to see what distinctions might be present. The quantified material from Ierapetra has been recorded separately for each plot and divided by period and pottery class. This data is presented in Tables 2 to 57.

FORMAT OF THE CATALOGUE The main part of the catalogue is divided into Late Hellenistic and Roman sections, with further subdivisions within each for different classes of pottery and specific wares. Material from Kato Mertia is presented at the end. The primary subdivision in each section is that of pottery classes. Each class is then subdivided by ware, form, or region as necessary. An introductory account of the history of study and necessary background information for the type of pottery under consideration begins each subsection, including reference to standard typologies, the region(s) of production, and distribution patterns. Following this is a short treatment of the specific pieces which are part of the catalogue. I then provide a list of the relevant fabrics for each pottery type, which includes the location of manufacture. The intention of describing the fabrics in this way is to eliminate redundancy within the catalogue entries, particularly when numerous pieces within a specific class have an identical fabric. This should also facilitate comparison of these fabrics with others described in the literature. The only exception is when a section has only a few catalogued pieces and it is easier to incorporate the fabric descriptions into

180

the catalogue entries themselves. The system for fabric descriptions devised by the excavations at Corinth is employed in this study.18 The catalogue has a continuous numbering system beginning with 1 and finishing with 518. Material from Kato Mertia is labeled KM1 to KM93. Almost all of the catalogue entries, with a few exceptions, have associated profile drawings. A number of pieces also have associated photographs. The breakdown of each entry is as follows: 1. The relevant figure and/or plate where images can be located. 2. Provenance information including the accession number, excavation plot, and context. 3. Vessel form, type of fragment(s) preserved, and specific form when applicable. 4. A list of relevant measurements. 5. Fabric class with description of any variations. 6. A brief description of the morphology and characteristics of the piece in question including specific features of decoration and defects. Terms for descriptions are based on standards employed at Corinth found in Corinth Excavations: Archaeological Manual.19 7. Comparanda from other sites on Crete and/or across the Greco-Roman world where relevant. 8. Date of the piece and/or of its associated context, and its phasing category. In addition, the following abbreviations can be found within the catalogue:

18 19

approx.

approximately

D.

diameter

Sanders 1999: 477-8 (Appendix 2). Sanders et al., No Date.

181

Fig.

Figure

H.

height

L.

length

n.a.

not ascertainable

N.I.

Not Illustrated

no(s).

number(s)

Pl.

Plate

Th.

thickness

All of the measurements are recorded in centimeters and colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart. Height is only recorded for pieces where a complete profile from rim to base is preserved with a few exceptions. Length is provided when diameter is not a relevant measurement.

Part 1: Hellenistic Pottery EAST CRETAN CREAM WARE East Cretan Cream Ware (henceforth ECCW) encompasses a variety of different pottery forms sharing a homogenous fabric. This ware predominates in the Mirabello region of Crete and was first recognized by N. Vogeikoff-Brogan and J. Eiring during analyses of pottery at Mochlos and Pyrgos Myrtos respectively.20 Vogeikoff-Brogan describes the fabric as a “…yellow, soft, and silty fabric in several hues depending on the degree of firing. The most distinctive hue is pale

20

Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 70-2; Eiring 2000b.

182

green (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). Pottery of this group usually carries a fugitive black or red slip”. 21 A detailed petrographic analysis also has been published.22 At present, scholars believe Ierapetra to be the site of production for ECCW.23 Several reasons favor this hypothesis. Ierapetra was the largest Hellenistic polis in East Crete, making it a logical center for pottery production, and ECCW is predominate at sites in the region, such as Mochlos, presumably under Ierapetra‟s control.24 In addition, the site is the only Hellenistic Cretan polis known to have produced stamped amphorae, although in a different fabric.25 Petrographic analysis also offers supporting data with identified inclusions corresponding well to the geology of the Myrtos valley approximately 15km to the west of Ierapetra. This suggests that either the clay was transported to Ierapetra for production, or manufacture occurred at some location nearby. 26 The justification for presenting ECCW separate from the Hellenistic classes below includes its frequency at Ierapetra, where it is the most common fabric type in Hellenistic deposits, and the possibility of production at or near the site. Isolating these finds also facilitates their use as a source of comparative material. ECCW at Ierapetra appears in a variety of forms including cups, bowls, mold-made relief bowls, plates, kantharoi, basins, jugs, kraters, hydriae, pithoi, amphorae, and lamps. Based on the material analyzed from Ierapetra it is possible to divide the ECCW fabric into two subtypes: fine and coarse. The primary difference is the amount and size of the

21

Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 70-1. Vogeikoff-Brogan, Nodarou, and Boileau 2008: 330, 332-3. 23 Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 328-9. 24 Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 331. 25 Vogeikoff-Brogan (2004: 216) notes the difference in fabric between the stamped handles and ECCW amphorae. Production in both fabrics would have been contemporary since the stamped handles share similarities in iconography with coins issued by Ierapetra following the conquest of Praisos in 145 B.C.E. cf. Stefanaki 2001: 1379. 26 Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 328-9; Vogeikoff-Brogan, Nodarou, and Boileau 2008: 329-30. 22

183

inclusions contained within the clay matrix. Finewares and lamps appear exclusively in the fine fabric while common wares and amphorae were manufactured in both the fine and coarse fabrics.

ECCW fine fabric. Soft, very pale brown (10YR 8/4) to pale yellow (2.5Y 8/2), with a granular break and smooth, powdery feel. Rare, fine to small, subrounded to angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; rare, fine to small, subrounded, tabular, black inclusions; a few pieces preserve rare, fine to small, subrounded, tabular, red inclusions. Red or black slip tends to be preserved. Provenance: Ierapetra region.

ECCW coarse fabric. Soft to medium hard, very pale brown (10YR 8/4) to pale yellow (2.5Y 8/2), with a granular break and smooth to rough, powdery feel. Few to frequent, small to medium, subrounded to angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; few to frequent, small to medium, subrounded, tabular, black inclusions; rare, small, subrounded to rounded, tabular to spherical, red inclusions. Black or red slip occasionally preserved. Provenance: Ierapetra region.

Finewares (1-31) Several different types of drinking vessels are attested in the ECCW fabric. Analogous to Pyrgos Myrtos, the most common were everted rim cups (1-7).27 The general shape comprises a flaring rim with tapered or rounded lip, often set off from the exterior wall of the body by a shallow groove, and a tall, globular body with a false ring foot. A few of the pieces from Ierapetra have triangular rims (1-3), while the others are characterized by more blunted (4, 5), or 27

Eiring 2000b: 54.

184

more rounded (6) rims. There also is an example of a recessed base (7). Examples from Pyrgos Myrtos and Kommos often bear a single oval or strap handle attached to the inner face of the rim and midpoint of the body, but no piece from Ierapetra preserves this feature.28 Almost all of the pieces retain at least faint traces of a red or black slip. According to Eiring, examples of everted rim cups from Knossos, where the shape is common, differ in that they are shallower, the base is not as deeply cut, and the rim diameter is greater than the height, while finds from Kommos are closer in shape to the southeast Crete finds, although with a taller profile.29 Production of this form begins in the third century B.C.E., but pieces with a profile like that seen on the Ierapetra material appear by the end of the second century and last through the first century B.C.E.30 A less common drinking vessel shape at Ierapetra is the cylindrical cup with only one example noted (8). Unlike Knossos, where this was the most widely used Hellenistic drinking vessel, this form is not well attested in southern Crete.31 The piece from Ierapetra also adheres to a pattern where examples of this shape from southern Crete tend to have larger diameters than the Knossian vessels and a lack of decoration.32 One shared feature between the Ierapetra cup and first century B.C.E. Knossian examples is a slightly flaring profile, also attested on an unillustrated example from Pyrgos Myrtos.33 A single hemispherical cup, in a style analogous to examples from the Athenian Agora, is represented by one false ring foot with exterior ridging (9). This piece is most closely related to a late variety found at Athens characterized by a conical or hemispherical profile, and a small

28

Eiring 2000b: pl. 27a.1; Kommos IV, 292 nos. 850-851. Eiring 2001: 93-4. 30 Eiring 2000b: 55. 31 Eiring 2000b: 56; 2001: 92. 32 Eiring 2000b: 56. 33 Eiring 2000b: 57. For an example of a cylindrical cup with flaring profile from Knossos see UM II, 122 no. H32.2. 29

185

number of exterior ridges.34 While this shape appears rarely after 175 B.C.E., there are sporadic examples attested at Athens through to the end of the second century B.C.E.35 In fact, the closest parallel from the Agora to the Ierapetra cup derives from a Sullan context of the early first century B.C.E., and is dated by S. Rotroff between 150 and 100.36 One imported vessel of this form (80) also appears at Ierapetra, suggesting that local examples had an Attic influence. An additional type of drinking vessel found at Ierapetra is the kantharos, of which four examples were identified (10-13). The typical form of ECCW kantharoi comprises a tall, vertical lip leading to a rounded junction at the shoulder, a globular body, and a ring foot. Two strap handles would be present attached just below the lip and to the mid-point of the shoulder. Three of the pieces correspond to this type (10-12). Parallels are recognized at Pyrgos Myrtos.37 Eiring argues that this kantharos shape is local to southern Crete and developed from the baggy type of kantharos produced in earlier periods. He further suggests that these vessels should date after the third and second century B.C.E. A base fragment from a kantharos also was identified (13) consisting of a ring foot and globular body with a series of gouged vertical lines along the exterior wall. Cylindrical jugs in a style common at Knossos were encountered rarely at Ierapetra. One example was identified (14) consisting of a flaring rim with tapered lip and convex moldings on the interior and exterior. At Knossos, a series of distinct workshops for this form have been isolated based on differences in the shape of the base and rim moldings. The products of the socalled Base-Ring Workshop appear to most closely match the jug from Ierapetra, suggesting this

34

Agora XXIX, 112. Agora XXIX, 113. 36 Agora XXIX, 279 no. 351. 37 Eiring 2000b: 56, pl. 28b.3. 35

186

could have been the source of influence for the local potters.38 According to P.J. Callaghan, cylindrical jugs were produced at Knossos from the late third century B.C.E. until some point shortly after 150 B.C.E.39 There is not a sufficient corpus of material from southeast Crete to indicate whether a similar date range should be shared by products from this region. Bowls of various forms appear in the ECCW fabric including flaring rim bowls (15), Echinus bowls (16-23), and mold-made relief bowls (24-25). While flaring rim bowls tend to occur with relative frequency at Greek sites in the Aegean, they were not common at Ierapetra. The example presented here (15) matches well with bowls late in the evolution of the form when the walls were steeper and the shoulder carination was more distinct.40 A date around the midsecond century B.C.E. can be assigned to flaring rim bowls of this type. The most common type of bowl at Ierapetra was the Echinus bowl, a trait also shared by Knossos, Pyrgos Myrtos, and Mochlos.41 Two types appear at Ierapetra, distinguished by the degree to which the rim is inturned. Four of the bowls have distinctly inturned rims (16-18, 22) whereas the remaining four have slightly inturned rims (19-21, 23). There also is variation in the manner in which these bowls were slipped. Half of the bowls were partially or completely slipped (16-18, 23), two were unslipped (20, 22), and two were rim-dipped (19, 21). According to Eiring, rim-dipped bowls should date late in the Hellenistic period.42 All of the Echinus bowls from Ierapetra appear to have shallow rather than deep profiles. Of further interest is the presence on two of the bowls (22, 23) of a single, horizontal handle. These handles are pinched, giving them a triangular profile. This type of handle may be characteristic of workshops in

38

Callaghan 1981: 38-9. Callaghan 1981: 38. 40 Callaghan 1981: 51; Eiring 2001: 102. 41 Eiring 2000b: 57-8; 2001: 98; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 71. 42 Eiring 2000b: 57. 39

187

southeast Crete since the only other attested examples come from Myrtos Pyrgos and Mochlos.43 At Mochlos these handles appear on bowls from the second and first centuries B.C.E.44 Mold-made relief bowls were encountered sporadically at Ierapetra. Finds of similar vessels are attested in the ECCW fabric at Mochlos.45 The two examples presented here are floral bowls (24-25), a type well known from Athens. This suggests that at least part of the influence for local products came from Attic models. Based on material from the Athenian Agora, Rotroff suggests that production of floral bowls may not have occurred after the mid-second century B.C.E.46 Both of the bowls from Ierapetra bear nymphaea lotus petals as a primary component of their relief design. One of the bowls also includes acanthus leaves (24), while the second incorporates a spiral/circular design into its motif (25). Among the various types of plates encountered, those characterized by a beveled rim were most common (26-29). Vogeikoff-Brogan observes an analogous pattern at Mochlos, and a few examples appear at Knossos.47 These plates tend to have an outward thickened rim with a beveled- out lip. They are very shallow in profile with straight, flaring walls. This shape may be late in the ECCW repertoire since the pieces from Knossos tend to date to the first century B.C.E. Vogeikoff-Brogan suggests a date around 70 B.C.E. for some of the Mochlos material, perhaps corroborated by the presence of several of the Ierapetra pieces in mid-first century B.C.E. contexts.48 One example of a rolled rim plate was part of the assemblages (30). This type was the most common plate in Attica during the Hellenistic period,49 but does not appear to have shared the same popularity on Crete. That ECCW plates may have had occasional interior 43

Eiring 2000b: 58; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 71. Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 71. 45 Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 71. 46 Agora XXII, 18. 47 Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 72; UM II, 122 no. H32.8, 124 no. H33.17, 125 nos. H35.13-14. 48 Vogeikoff-Brogan, personal communication. 49 Agora XXIX, 142-3. 44

188

decoration is suggested by one piece (31) which preserves two incised concentric grooves and a central spiral stamp on its floor.

1. Fig. 5.4, Pl. 5.1 (AS. 44; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Everted rim cup, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. ECCW fine fabric, but fired reddish yellow (7.5YR 8/6) at surface; red slip (10R 5/6) well preserved on interior and exterior. Globular body; flaring rim with tapered lip. Comparanda: examples with similar shape attested at Gortyn (Gortina I, 188 no. 83), Kommos (Kommos IV, 279 nos. 658-661, 283 no. 715, 286 nos. 767-770, 288 no. 800, 292 nos. 850-851), and Pyrgos Myrtos (Eiring 2000b: 54, pls. 27, 28a). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (in phase). 2. Fig. 5.4 (AS. 26; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 2). Everted rim cup, rim sherd. D. of rim 9cm. ECCW fine fabric, but fired reddish yellow (7.5YR 8/6) at surface; black slip well preserved. Globular body; groove where rim and exterior wall meet; flaring rim with tapered lip. Comparanda: see no. 1 above. Date: context of ca.110-50 B.C.E. (in phase). 3. Fig. 5.4 (AS. 50; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Everted rim cup, rim sherd. D. of rim 5cm. ECCW fine fabric; fugitive black slip partially preserved. Globular body; pronounced groove where rim meets exterior wall; flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 1 above. Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (in phase). 4. Fig. 5.4 (YM. 145; Yiomelaki; Trench 9, layer 2). Everted rim cup, rim sherd. D. of rim 7cm. ECCW fine fabric; matte black slip well preserved. Globular body; shallow groove where rim and exterior wall meet; flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 1 above. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 5. Fig. 5.4 (AS. 19; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Everted rim cup, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. ECCW fine fabric; fugitive black slip only visible on exterior. Globular body; interior and exterior walls slightly impressed where rim begins; flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 1 above. Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (in phase). 6. N.I. (YM. 177; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Everted rim cup, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW fine fabric, fired brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) at surface; matte black slip well preserved. Flaring rim with tapered lip. Comparanda: see no. 1 above. Date: context of mid-second to midfirst century B.C.E. (in phase). 7. Fig. 5.4, Pl. 5.1 (YM. 323; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Everted rim cup, base sherd. D. of base 3.5cm. ECCW fine fabric; fugitive black slip partially preserved. False ring foot, cut underfoot; flat floor; globular body. Comparanda: see no. 1 above. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 8. Fig. 5.4 (YM. 174; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Cylindrical cup, rim sherd. D. of rim 11cm. ECCW fine fabric, fired yellow (10YR 7/8) at surface; light red slip (2.5YR 6/6) well preserved. Cylindrical body; outturned, squared lip. Comparanda: examples with similar form 189

attested at Knossos dating from 100 to 75 B.C.E. (Eiring 2001: 94 fig. 3.1.h) and at Prygos Mrytos (Eiring 2000b: pl. 28c.1). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 9. Fig. 5.4, Pl. 5.1 (YM. 116; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 3). Hemispherical cup, base sherd. D. of base 5cm. ECCW fine fabric; faint traces of black slip. Ring base; convex underside; three parallel grooves on exterior wall just above foot; band of shallow rouletting above grooves. Comparanda: no parallels identified on Crete; closest parallel from Athens is example dated to last half of second century B.C.E. (Agora XXIX, 279 no. 351). Date: context of first century B.C.E. (residual). 10. Fig. 5.4 (PG. 13; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Kantharos, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. ECCW fine fabric; faint traces of black slip. Globular body; junction at shoulder; two parallel grooves below lip on exterior wall; vertical rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar examples attested at Pyrgos Myrtos (Eiring 2000b: pl. 28b.1-3). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 11. Fig. 5.4 (YM. 122; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 7). Kantharos, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. ECCW fine fabric; red slip (2.5YR 5/8) partially preserved. Globular body; junction at shoulder; two parallel grooves just below lip on exterior wall; vertical rim with squared lip. Comparanda: see no. 10 above. Date: context of fourth century C.E. (residual). 12. Fig. 5.4 (YM. 18; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Kantharos, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW fine fabric, fired yellow (10YR 8/6) at surface; matte black slip poorly preserved. Globular body; junction at shoulder; two parallel grooves just below lip on exterior wall; strap handle attached just below grooves on rim; vertical rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 10 above. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 13. Fig. 5.4 (YM. 245; Yiomelaki; Martyr 13/7, layer 2). Kantharos, base sherd. D. of base 4.5cm. ECCW fine fabric; appears to be unslipped. Ring foot with triangular profile; concave underside; sloping floor; globular body; exterior wall has series of parallel, vertical, gouged lines. Comparanda: no identified parallels. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (unknown). 14. Fig. 5.4 (AS. 47; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Cylindrical jug, rim sherd. D. of rim 15cm. ECCW fine fabric; no slip preserved. Series of interior and exterior convex moldings where rim meets wall; flaring rim with tapered lip. Comparanda: similar to examples from Knossos datable between 200-175 B.C.E. (Callaghan 1981: 40 nos. 9, 16). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (residual). 15. Fig. 5.4 (PG. 46; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 9). Flaring rim bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 15cm. ECCW fine fabric; unslipped. Flaring, concave walls with steep profile; flaring rim with rounded lip; outer face of rim is concave. Comparanda: similar examples attested at Knossos (Callaghan 1981: 51 no. 40; UM II, 121 no. H30.7). Date: context of 150-50 B.C.E. (in phase). 16. Fig. 5.4 (YM. 195; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 11cm. ECCW fine fabric; black slip poorly preserved. Flaring, echinoid walls which gradually thicken 190

toward floor; inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar in shape to piece from Pyrgos Myrtos (Eiring 2000: pl. 29a.1). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 17. Fig. 5.4 (AS. 45; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 21cm. ECCW fine fabric; flaking, matte, black slip partially preserved. Inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (unknown). 18. Fig. 5.5 (AS. 24; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 2). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim approx. 12cm. ECCW fine fabric; hints of brownish-red slip. Thin, flaring, echinoid walls; inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar example from Little Palace Well at Knossos datable between 150-125 B.C.E. (Callaghan 1981: 51 no. 42). Date: context of ca. 110-50 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 19. Fig. 5.4 (AS. 43; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW fine fabric, fired brownish-yellow (10YR 6/6) at surface; red slip partially preserved on rim, drips down exterior wall. Thin, flaring, echinoid walls; inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar to example from Pyrgos Myrtos (Eiring 2000b: pl. 29b.1). Date: context of 150-ca. 110 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 20. Fig. 5.5 (PG. 47; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 9). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 13cm. ECCW fine fabric; appears to be unslipped. Inturned rim with rounded lip; clay smeared on exterior of rim and wall. Comparanda: similar to example from Knossos datable between 100 to 25 B.C.E. (UM II, 122 no. H32.6). Date: context of 150-50 B.C.E. (in phase). 21. Fig. 5.5 (YM. 251; Yiomelaki; Trench 1, surface). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 20cm. ECCW fine fabric; black slip with patches of red preserved on rim. Slightly inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar in shape to piece from Knossos (UM II, 121 no. H30.5). Date: context of indeterminate date (unknown). 22. Fig. 5.5 (AS. 28; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 2). Echinus bowl, rim sherd with handle. D. of rim 11cm. ECCW fine fabric; no slip preserved. Inturned rim with rounded lip; pinched, triangular handle attached to wall just below rim. Comparanda: Echinus bowls with horizontal handles attested at Mochlos (Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 71) and Pyrgos Myrtos (Eiring 2000b: 57-8); one example from Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos has loop handle (Coldstream 1973: 36 no. F.26), while some pieces from Kommos have a horizontal handle with a central groove on the top and bottom (Kommos IV, 289 no. 820, 296-7 nos. 904-905). Date: context of ca.110-50 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 23. Fig. 5.5, Pl. 5.1 (YM. 3; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW fine fabric; faint hints of black slip. Inturned rim with rounded lip; pinched, triangular handle attached to wall just below rim. Comparanda: see no. 22 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 24. Pl. 5.1 (YM. 292; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Mold-made relief bowl, body sherd. ECCW fine fabric; black slip partially preserved. Relief design: nymphaea lotus petals below 191

four Acanthus leaves; two parallel grooves above Acanthus leaves. Comparanda: the nymphaea lotus petals on this piece appear to be analogous to the short petal variety (Agora XXII, 3) as seen on an example from the Athenian Agora (Agora XXII, 46 no. 13). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (residual). 25. Pl. 5.1 (YM. 330; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Mold-made relief bowl, body sherd. ECCW fine fabric; black slip partially preserved. Relief design: nymphaea lotus petals curving inward toward stalk; circular/spiral design also present. Comparanda: an example with a similar design is attested at the Athenian Agora (Agora XXII, 51 no. 62). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (residual). 26. N.I. (YM. 237; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 4). Beveled rim plate, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW fine fabric; black slip well preserved. Flaring, straight walls; exterior wall below rim has series of shallow convex moldings and a rectangular groove; outward thickened rim with beveled-out lip. Comparanda: examples of this type of plate attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 116 no. 49; Gortina V.3, 7 type C.1), Knossos (UM II, 122 no. H32.8), and Mochlos (VogeikoffBrogan 2000b: pl. 36b.1-3). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 27. Fig. 5.5 (YM. 20; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Beveled rim plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 27cm. ECCW fine fabric, fired yellow (10YR 7/6) at surface; red slip poorly preserved. Flaring, straight walls; outward thickened rim with beveled-out lip. Comparanda: see no. 26 above. Date: context of second century B.C.E. (intrusive). 28. Fig. 5.5, Pl. 5.1 (YM. 117; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 3). Beveled rim plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 23cm. ECCW fine fabric, fired pink (7.5YR 8/4) at surface; matte red slip well preserved. Flaring, straight walls; outward thickened rim with beveled-out lip; rim has sharp, triangular profile. Comparanda: see no. 26 above. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (in phase). 29. Fig. 5.5, Pl. 5.1 (YM. 144; Yiomelaki; Trench 9, layer 2). Beveled rim plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 22cm. ECCW fine fabric; fugitive black slip partially preserved. Flaring, straight walls; outward thickened rim with beveled-out lip. Comparanda: see no. 26 above. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (in phase). 30. Fig. 5.5 (YM. 176; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Rolled rim plate, rim sherds. D. of rim 18cm. ECCW fine fabric; faint traces of black slip. Horizontal incised line where rim meets interior wall; rolled rim with rounded lip;. Comparanda: piece with similar rim form from Athenian Agora datable between 150 to 110 B.C.E. (Agora XXIX, 313 no. 688). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 31. N.I. (YM. 94; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Plate, base sherd. D. of base 6cm. ECCW fine fabric; faint traces of black slip. Ring foot; sloping floor; decoration on floor includes two parallel circular grooves and a central spiral stamp. Comparanda: no analogous examples attested on Crete. This type of decoration can be seen on a plate from the Athenian Agora datable to the second century B.C.E. (Agora XXIX, 403 no. 1609). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 192

Common Wares (32-49) Several different common ware vessel forms were produced in the ECCW fabric. Basins of various morphologies were attested most frequently (32-42). In both the Hellenistic and Roman periods, basins appear in relative abundance compared to other common ware shapes. A function related to food preparation and/or agricultural production can be surmised. Basins have not been associated previously with the ECCW fabric, but the material from Ierapetra shows they were a product of this ware. J.N. Coldstream observes a sequence of development in rim form for basins with examples from the second half of the third century B.C.E. characterized by hawksbeak rims, while later pieces have plain, flat rims.50 By the end of the Hellenistic period a series of parallel grooves appears on the top of the rim. The earlier, hawksbeak rims, are represented here by two examples (32-33), both with the characteristic downturned lip. Vessels with the later plain, flat rim are also present (34-36), including one with a preserved basket handle (36). One example (34) may be early in the development of this rim form since it shares parallels with several vessels from Crete dated to the end of the third century B.C.E.51 Two examples have grooves on the top (37-38). There also are a series of miscellaneous basin rim forms represented including one with a slightly thickened rim (39) and two with concave grooves on the outer surface of the rim (40-41). A ring foot from a basin also is preserved (42). Kraters in the ECCW fabric were not common at Ierapetra, with only one example attested (43). This piece has a thin, outturned rim with a rounded lip. Kraters are another form not previously acknowledged as part of the ECCW corpus. This example shares some similarities

50 51

Coldstream 1999: 335. Skodrou 2000: pl. 16a.43.4δ; UM II, 111 no. H19.6.

193

with bell kraters, found at Knossos in contexts as late as the mid-second century B.C.E.52 There is no overhanging rim, however, and, while the rim is flaring, there is a subtle carination at the neck rather than a smooth transition suggesting it may be a later derivation. Three examples of hydriae with molded rims and thickened, rounded lips of a type known from Pyrgos Myrtos and Knossos were recovered from the assemblages (44-46).53 P.J. Callaghan suggests this rim form is characteristic of the second century B.C.E. and later.54 Close parallels to the vessels from Ierapetra occur at Pyrgos Myrtos, where finds were rim-dipped according to Eiring.55 The Knossos vessels, dated by Callaghan to circa 150 B.C.E., do not have as intricate moldings as those from southeast Crete suggesting the latter are later in date. Eiring proposes a date toward the end of the second century or beginning of the first century B.C.E. for the Pyrgos Myrtos material, a chronology likely shared by the Ierapetra hydriae. A final group of common ware ECCW vessels were three pithoi (47-49). All are thickwalled, but show variant types of rims. One example (47) has a knobbed rim with a flattened profile, another (48) is characterized by a downturned rim with rounded lip, while the third (49) has a thickened, vertical rim with an external flange. Hellenistic pithoi have received minimal treatment in publications of ceramic assemblages and only a small number of vessels have been published, making it difficult to contextualize the finds from Ierapetra.56

32. Fig. 5.5 (AS. 38; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW coarse fabric, fired yellow (10YR 8/6) at surface. Globular body; incised groove on interior wall below rim; downturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: closest parallel from Crete is example from Knossos dated to last quarter of third century B.C.E. (UM II, 104 no. H13.22);

52

Callaghan 1981: 49. Pyrgos Myrtos: Eiring 2000b: 58. Knossos: Callaghan 1981: 52 no. 44; UM II, 110-1 nos. H18.17-20. 54 Callaghan 1981: 52. 55 Eiring 2000b: 58. 56 A few examples have been published from Knossos: Warren 1987-1988: 87-8, fig. 6; UM II, 102 no. H12.59. 53

194

similar in form to two vessels from Athenian Agora dated to third century B.C.E. (Agora XXIX, 348 nos. 1091, 1093). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (residual). 33. Fig. 5.6 (YM. 186; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 28cm. ECCW coarse fabric; fugitive black slip preserved on interior. Straight, flaring walls; slightly downturned, rectangular rim with squared lip. Comparanda: similar to examples from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 15 no. A.1.B, pl. 3.d) and Knossos (UM II, 104 no. H13.21). Date: context of midsecond to mid-first century B.C.E. (residual). 34. Fig. 5.5 (AS. 31; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 24cm. ECCW coarse fabric, fired yellow (10YR 7/6) at surface. Flaring, convex walls; horizontal rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar to example from Little Palace Well at Knossos dated to 150125 B.C.E. (Callaghan 1981: 52 no. 45). Date: context of ca.110-50 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 35. Fig. 5.6 (YM. 171; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 17cm. ECCW coarse fabric. Globular body; horizontal, slightly flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar to examples attested at Kissamos dated to the end of the third/beginning of the second century B.C.E. (Skodrou 2000: pl. 16a.43.4δ) and Knossos dated to the end of the third century B.C.E. (UM II, 111 no. H19.6). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (residual). 36. Pl. 5.1 (YM. 244; Yiomelaki; Martyr 13/7, layer 2). Basin, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW coarse fabric. Horizontal rim with rounded lip; basket handle partially preserved, attached to top surface of rim. Comparanda: no parallels attested on Crete. Date: context of 7525 B.C.E. (unknown). 37. Fig. 5.6 (AS. 74; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 36cm. ΔCCW coarse fabric. Straight, flaring walls with shallow ribbing on interior; flaring rim with rounded lip; incised groove at either end of top surface of rim. Comparanda: similar to several vessels from Knossos (Eiring 2001: pl. 3.8.c; UM II, 183 no. A1.24). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 38. Fig. 5.6 (YM. 185; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW coarse fabric; red slip preserved on interior. Thick, flaring rim with rounded lip; groove at either end of top surface of rim. Comparanda: see no. 37 above. Date: context of mid-second to midfirst century B.C.E. (in phase). 39. Fig. 5.6 (AS. 39; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW coarse fabric. Thick, straight, flaring walls; thickened rim with slightly outturned lip. Comparanda: closest published example is from Unexplored Mansion at Knossos dated to end of third century B.C.E. (UM II, 111 no. H19.6). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (unknown). 40. Fig. 5.6 (AS. 30; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW coarse fabric, fired brownish-yellow at the surface. Thick, convex walls; horizontal rim, concave at end. Comparanda: similar to example from Knossos dated from 50-1 B.C.E. (Hayes 1971: 266 no. 30). Date: context of ca. 110-50 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 195

41. Fig. 5.6 (YM. 222; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW fine fabric; fugitive black slip partially preserved. Horizontal rim with two parallel grooves at end; part of horizontal handle preserved just below rim. Comparanda: similar piece attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 15 no. A.2.A, pl. 3.i). Date: context of second century C.E. (residual). 42. Fig. 5.6 (AS. 33; Assariotaki plot; Trench 1, layer 2). Basin, base sherd. D. of base 12cm. ECCW coarse fabric. Ring foot; flat underside; globular body. Date: context of ca.110-50 B.C.E. (unknown). 43. Fig. 5.6 (AS. 51; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Krater, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW fine fabric. Thin-walled; flaring rim with rounded lip; grooves on interior and exterior of outer part of rim give lip a knobbed appearance. Comparanda: no parallels published on Crete; possibly derived from earlier bell kraters (cf. Callaghan 1981: 49 nos. 35-36). Date: context of 150ca.110 B.C.E. (unknown). 44. Fig. 5.6 (AS. 37; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Hydria, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. ECCW fine fabric. Blunt flange where exterior wall begins; molded rim with concave exterior surface and thickened, rounded lip. Comparanda: similar examples attested at Knossos (Callaghan 1981: 52 no. 44; UM II, 110-11 nos. H18.17-20) and Pyrgos Myrtos (Eiring 2000b: 58, pl. 30a.1-4). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (in phase). 45. Fig. 5.6 (YM. 313; Yiomelaki; Trench 22, layer 1). Hydria, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. ECCW fine fabric. Blunt flange where exterior wall begins; molded rim with thickened, rounded lip and concave exterior surface. Comparanda: see no. 44 above. Date: context of 150-50 B.C.E. (in phase). 46. Fig. 5.7 (YM. 92; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Hydria, rim sherd. D. of rim 18cm. ECCW coarse fabric. Thick-walled; molded rim with thickened, rounded lip and concave exterior surface. Comparanda: see no. 44 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 47. Fig. 5.7 (YM. 212; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Pithos, rim sherd. D. of rim 40cm. ECCW coarse fabric; very pale brown slip (10YR 8/4) well preserved. Thick-walled; flattened, knobbed rim. Comparanda: no known parallels from Crete. Date: context of first century C.E. (residual). 48. Fig. 5.7, Pl. 5.1 (YM. 35; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Pithos, rim sherd. D. of rim 32cm. ECCW coarse fabric with inclusions ranging in size from small to very large. Thick-walled; downturned rim with rounded lip; on interior surface of rim is a large, shallow groove. Comparanda: rim type similar to examples from Knossos (Warren 1987-1988: 87-8, fig. 6; UM II, 102 no. H12.59), but overall shape of vessel is different. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (residual). 49. Fig. 5.7 (AS. 91; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Pithos, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. ECCW coarse fabric. Thick, vertical neck; sooting on interior and exterior; thickened, vertical rim with 196

exterior flange. Comparanda: no known parallels from Crete. Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (residual).

Amphorae (50-61) Much of the scholarly discussion concerning ECCW has been directed toward amphorae. This reflects a growing interest in attempting to define a larger role for Crete as a supplier of certain commodities, such as wine, during the Hellenistic period. Analysis of pottery assemblages from Agios Nikolaos, Mochlos, Pyrgos Myrtos, and Trypetos has enabled the definition of three ECCW amphora types.57 A folded rim, cylindrical neck, vertical handles elliptical in section, and long ovoid body ending in a piriform toe characterize the first type. The second type, for which only two stamped handles are preserved, is an imitation of Rhodian amphorae, while the third type imitates Koan vessels. Type 1 is the best represented of the three in the assemblages from Ierapetra (50-54). All of the identified pieces have the characteristic folded, triangular rim, with slight variations analogous to comparable examples from other sites on Crete. The most complete example (50) is unique for having a slightly swollen neck, more akin to the later Cretan ARC4 amphora. This could suggest it is late in the development of this type. A piriform toe could also derive from a type 1 amphora (55), but is smaller than most of the published specimens. A few examples of the East Crete type 3 amphora also were recorded (5657). Three rim sherds in the ECCW fabric appear to represent an undocumented amphora form produced in or around Ierapetra (58-60). This form is characterized by an outward thickened rim and rounded lip with a large, concave groove on the top surface. The neck is cylindrical and the rim diameter is consistently 7cm. A Hellenistic amphora described by J.A. 57

Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 418; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329.

197

Riley at Berenice has an analogous rim form.58 On Crete, one example was identified in the Kato Mertia assemblage presented below (KM6), and the type also appears to be present at Itanos.59 The fabric and rim diameter of the Berenice vessel are different than the Ierapetra pieces, however, which could suggest that both regions were producing amphorae modeled on the same general type.60 One additional sherd (61) is part of a solid amphora toe for which there are no known parallels in the ECCW fabric.

50. Fig. 5.7, Pl. 5.2 (YM. 63; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 1). Amphora, rim, neck, and handle sherds; East Crete type 1. D. of rim 10cm. ECCW coarse fabric. Convex neck; folded rim with rounded lip; oval handles attached to upper neck and shoulder. Comparanda: same type as examples attested at Agios Nikolaos, Mochlos, Pyrgos Myrtos, and Trypetos (Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 418; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329); no attested parallels for a swollen neck in this type. Date: context of second half of first century B.C.E. (in phase). 51. Fig. 5.7 (YM. 80; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type 1. D. of rim 9cm. ECCW fine fabric. Slight impression where exterior wall meets rim; folded rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 50 above. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 52. Fig. 5.7 (YM. 316; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type 1. D. of rim 8cm. ECCW fine fabric. Thin-walled, cylindrical neck; folded rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 50 above. Date: context of fourth sixth century C.E. (residual). 53. Fig. 5.7 (YM. 247; Yiomelaki; Martyr 13/7, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type 1. D. of rim n.a. ECCW fine fabric. Thick-walled, cylindrical neck; folded rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 50. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 54. Fig. 5.7 (YM. 40; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type 1. D. of rim 9cm. ECCW fine fabric. Thick-walled cylindrical neck; folded rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 50 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 55. Fig. 5.7 (AS. 18; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Amphora, toe; East Crete type 1? Preserved H. 4.6cm; largest D. 5.2cm. ECCW coarse fabric. Small, piriform toe; solid throughout; rounded bottom; junction where lowest part of wall meets toe. Comparanda: see no. 50 above, but

58

Riley 1979: 143 no. D92. Xanthopoulou, personal communication. 60 The fabric is described as 5YR 5/6 (yellowish red) with gray grits, while the rim diameter is recorded as circa 12.6cm. 59

198

published examples of East Crete type 1 amphorae tend to have thicker toes. Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (unknown). 56. Fig. 5.8 (YM. 86; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type 3. D. of rim 10cm. ECCW fine fabric; pale yellow slip (2.5Y 8/2) well preserved. Thin-walled, cylindrical neck; shallow groove where exterior wall meets rim; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Mochlos and Pyrgos Myrtos (Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 418; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 57. Fig. 5.8, Pl. 5.1 (PG. 45; Pangalou; Trench; Trench 5, layer 9). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type 3. D. of rim 10cm. ECCW fine fabric. Thick-walled, cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with squared lip; some smearing of clay visible on exterior of rim and wall. Comparanda: see no. 56 above. Date: context of 150-50 B.C.E. (in phase). 58. Fig. 5.8 (YM. 33; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type. D. of rim 7cm. ECCW coarse fabric. Thin-walled, cylindrical neck; slight impression where wall meets rim; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; large groove on top of rim. Comparanda: no published parallels on Crete, but does appear at Itanos (Xanthopoulou, personal communication). This type attested at Berenice where Riley speculates it could be local (Riley 1979: 143 no. D92). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (residual). 59. Fig. 5.8 (YM. 22; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 5). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type. D. of rim 7cm. ECCW fine fabric. Thin-walled, cylindrical neck; some small, shallow grooves on interior neck just below rim; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; large groove on top of rim. Comparanda: see no. 58 above. Date: context of first century C.E. (residual). 60. Fig. 5.8 (YM. 87; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type. D. of rim 7cm. ECCW fine fabric. Thin-walled, cylindrical neck; shallow, incised groove on exterior of neck approximately 1cm below rim; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; large groove on top of rim. Comparanda: see no. 58 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 61. Fig. 5.8 (AS. 80; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Amphora, toe; form n.a. Preserved H. 7.2cm; largest D. 7.8cm. ECCW fine fabric. Solid, cylindrical toe with flat bottom; connected to thick-walled, rounded amphora base; interior surface of base is convex. Comparanda: no published parallels from Crete. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual).

Lamps (62-63) Two ECCW lamps were recorded (62-63). Wheel-made lamps in this fabric are attested at Mochlos and Pyrgos Myrtos.61 A flat base, handles similar to the one-handled Echinus bowls 61

Eiring 2000b: 59; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 72.

199

(22-23), and a raised rim characterize these vessels. The Ierapetra material, however, appears distinct from this general type. One of the pieces (62) preserves part of the shoulder and discus of a lamp, and has two concentric grooves on the shoulder. In addition, the rim does not show the same raised profile as the other examples from east Crete. The second lamp (63) is a discus fragment from a mold-made vessel preserving a relief design of a nude female figure, perhaps Aphrodite, holding drapery behind her with both arms. Figural designs otherwise are not attested on ECCW lamps.

62. Fig. 5.8 (YM. 104; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Lamp, shoulder and discus fragment. D. of discus 4cm. ECCW fine fabric; no evidence of slip. Discus has two concentric grooves along interior edge. Comparanda: overall form is the same as other Hellenistic lamps on Crete except for lack of a raised rim; no other examples preserve same type of grooves along discus edge. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (unknown). 63. Pl. 5.1 (YM. 79; Yiomelaki; Trench 6, layer 3). Lamp, discus sherd. Preserved L. 3.1cm; preserved W. 2.9cm. ECCW fine fabric; slip preserved which transitions between black and dark reddish grey (5YR 4/2). Discus fragment from mold-made lamp: relief design of nude female figure (Aphrodite?) with head and lower legs missing; figure is holding drapery behind her with both hands; part of fill hole may be preserved against her left leg. Comparanda: no comparable examples of this design attested on Crete. Date: context of 75-125 C.E. (residual).

FINEWARES – CRETAN (64-79) Along with the ECCW vessels described above, numerous examples of other Cretan Hellenistic finewares are attested at Ierapetra. The study of Crete‟s Hellenistic finewares has intensified in the past few decades with more and more published material now available for consultation. In particular, a recent volume by M. Englezou is helpful because it presents a large corpus of ceramic finds from several sites in central Crete.62 Understanding the island‟s Hellenistic pottery is not without difficulty, however. Despite the increase in publication, only a 62

Englezou 2005.

200

small number of sites are represented, most of which are located in the central part of Crete. Chronology also proves problematic since there are few well-dated contexts. Three sites with known destruction events serve as the foundation for local chronologies. They include Lyttos, Apollonia, and Phaistos, destroyed in 221/220 B.C.E., 171 B.C.E., and circa 150 B.C.E. respectively.63 Numerous gaps in the sequence are evident, particularly the first part of the third century B.C.E. and the first century B.C.E. Compounding this is an overall lack of Attic influence on Cretan pottery noted across the island for this period.64 The work of P.J. Callaghan at Knossos provides some assistance in overcoming the impediments for dating Hellenistic pottery on Crete. His detailed publication of finds from the Shrine of Glaukos, the Little Palace Well, and the Unexplored Mansion document sequences of development for a variety of fineware, common ware, and cookware forms.65 J.N. Coldsteam offers a few addenda to these sequences, and they serve as an important foundation for understanding Hellenistic pottery on the island.66 There is one other notable problem, however, and that is the lack of detailed fabric descriptions for products from various workshops. For instance, Knossian material is described as follows: “... the usual orange or orange-buff clay is carefully prepared, crisply fired, and may receive a coat of black paint achieving at least a semi-lustrous metallic gloss”.67 Fabrics have been described for finds from Lyttos, Phaistos, and Pyrgos Myrtos, but it remains difficult to associate specific pieces with known production sites.68 For the Ierapetra material, three distinct fabrics were noted and are described below. Of these, HL Local Fineware fabric 1 closely 63

Englezou 2005: 26. See Polybius 4.53.3-54 for an account of the destruction of Lyttos. Polybius (28.14) also describes the destruction of Apollonia, while Strabo (10.4.14) is the source for the devastation at Phaistos. 64 Englezou 2005: 147. 65 Callaghan 1978; 1981; UM II, 100-36. 66 Coldstream 1999: 333-49. 67 Coldstream 1999: 334 68 Englezou 2005: 397-8 (Phaistos), 401 (Lyttos); Eiring 2000b: 54.

201

parallels a fabric observed at Pyrgos Myrtos which Eiring identifies as his type B.69 This fabric characterizes a large proportion of the non-ECCW Hellenistic finewares, corroborating the interpretation that it derives from some location in southeast Crete. Knossian products may also be represented since HL Local Fineware fabric 3 adheres to available descriptions of finds produced at that center. With respect to HL Local Fineware fabric 2, the rarest of the three, one possible association is the site of Phaistos. Englezou describes products from this workshop as reddish in color with several types of inclusions visible, analogous to the examples from Ierapetra.70 Supporting this supposition is the parallel between a fragment of imitation WestSlope ware from Ierapetra in this fabric (78) and a piece from Gortyn with a similar fabric and design.71 The Phaistos workshop, proposed as the source of the Gortyn vessel, produced several different vessel shapes with imitation West-Slope decoration. A variety of different forms are represented among the finds including two Echinus bowls (64-65). For one of these bowls (64), the slip appears to have been applied through a dipping process. A flaring rim bowl (66), characterized by a steep wall analogous to the ECCW example above (15), also appeared. Other bowls include two vessels with exterior flanges (67, 71), one with an appliqué band along the exterior of the rim and two incised wavy lines on top of the rim, and two with vertical squared lips and parallel grooves just below the rim (69-70). Several plate types were identified including one example with a vertical rounded lip (72) that closely resembles a shape documented by J.-P. Morel attested at Athens and Delos.72 One of the Hellenistic imports below (87) may be representative of this same shape and a parallel is

69

Eiring 2000b: 54. Fabric type B is described as “hard fired, darker pinkish buff with some dark and white grits and voids in the surface”. 70 Englezou 2005: 397. 71 Gortina I, 194 no. 101. 72 Morel 1981: 152-55 (Type 2250 plates). Athens: Agora XXXII, 212 no. 901. Delos: Morel 1986: 485 no. 148.

202

noted at Gortyn.73 Two plates with downturned rims adhere to a type late in the development sequence of Crete‟s Hellenistic pottery (73-74).74 Englezou describes a type of fish-plate, produced on Crete in the third century B.C.E., which may be a predecessor for these later plates.75 Several pieces with rolled rims were also attested (75-76). Skyphoi were rare among the Hellenistic pottery at Ierapetra with only a small number of pieces identified. The vessel presented here (77) has a large diameter (20cm) and does not have an outturned rim like typical Attic products found on Crete.76 Skyphoi were an Early Hellenistic shape and production on Crete is attested between the end of the third century B.C.E. and the beginning of the second century B.C.E.77 Two additional decorative pieces were identified. The first is the only example of WestSlope decoration attested at Ierapetra (78). West-Slope ware was not common on Crete, although production is attested at Knossos and Phaistos.78 Cretan pottery bearing this type of design date between the mid-third century B.C.E. and the third quarter of the second century B.C.E.79 The body sherd from Ierapetra has decoration comprising a series of linear and wavy lines incised into a black slip. A piece with a very similar design is attested at Gortyn.80 Finally, a fragmentary appliqué decoration in the form of a fish was identified (79), for which there are no known parallels on Crete.

HL Local Fineware fabric 1. Soft to medium hard, pink (7.5YR 7/4) to very pale brown (10YR 8/4), with a smooth break, and smooth, powdery feel. Small, rare to few, angular, tabular, milky 73

Gortina V.3, 6 type A.1. Catling et al. (1981: 91) observe that attested examples on Crete tend to be first century B.C.E. in date. 75 Englezou 2005: 250 table 20, 252-3. 76 For instance, see Callaghan 1978: 5-6 nos. 3-9. 77 Englezou 2005: 190 table 5. 78 Englezou 2005: 318-22. 79 Englezou 2005: 320. Most examples are clustered during the late third/early second century B.C.E. 80 Gortina I, 194 no. 101. 74

203

white inclusions. Small, rare, angular, tabular, black inclusions. When slip is preserved, tends to be red in color. Provenance: Southeastern Crete.

HL Local Fineware fabric 2. Soft, red (2.5YR 5/8) to light red (2.5YR 6/6 – 6/8), with a conchoidal break and smooth, powdery feel. Fine to small, rare, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions. Small, rare, sub-angular to angular, tabular, black inclusions. Fine, rare, angular, tabular to platy, sparkling white inclusions. Red or black slip tends to be preserved. Provenance: Region of Phaistos, Crete?

HL Local Fineware fabric 3. Soft to medium hard, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6 – 7.5YR 7/6), with a smooth break and smooth, powdery feel. Small, rare to few, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions. When slip is preserved, tends to be red in color. Provenance: Region of Knossos, Crete?

64. Fig. 5.8 (AS. 27; Assariotaki plot; Trench 1, layer 2). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 21cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 3; matte, red slip (2.5YR 5/6) covers rim and top part of interior and exterior walls. Flaring, echinoid walls; inturned rim with rounded lip, scraped flat on top surface. Comparanda: similar to vessels from Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (UM II, 122 no. H32.6) and the Athenian Agora (Agora XXIX, 342 no. 1020). Date: context of ca.110-50 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 65. Fig. 5.8 (YM. 9; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Echinus bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 28cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 3; black slip preserved on interior. Thick, flaring, echinoid walls; vertical rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 66. Fig. 5.8 (YM. 329; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Flaring rim bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 14cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 2; internal light red slip (2.5YR 6/8). Flaring, slightly convex walls; thin-walled; flaring rim with rounded lip and concave outer surface. Comparanda: similar

204

rim form attested at Knossos (Eiring 2001: 103 fig. 3.5.k) datable to 125-100 B.C.E. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (residual). 67. Fig. 5.8 (YM. 290; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Local Fineware fabric 1; hints of reddish slip. Flaring, convex walls; vertical rounded lip, outwardly thickened to form a small flange. Comparanda: similar to examples from Knossos dated between 175-150 B.C.E. (UM II, 118 nos. H28.30-32). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (residual) 68. Fig. 5.8, Pl. 5.2 (YM. 26; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 17cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 3; dusky red slip (2.5YR 3/2). Flaring, convex walls; vertical, squared lip; two parallel curved incised lines on top surface of rim; outer surface of rim has appliqué band with regular impressions. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 69. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 175; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 11cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 3; reddish slip poorly preserved. Flaring, echinoid walls; two horizontal grooves on exterior wall below lip; vertical, squared lip. Comparanda: similar example attested at Knossos (Eiring 2001: 100, 101 fig. 3.4 f.). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 70. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 196; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 1; faint traces of slip. Flaring, echinoid walls; two horizontal grooves on exterior wall below lip; vertical, squared lip, outwardly thickened slightly. Comparanda: see no. 69 above. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 71. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 232; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 13cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 1; light red slip (2.5YR 6/6) partially preserved. Flaring, convex walls; rolled rim with rounded lip and exterior, triangular flange. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (residual). 72. Fig. 5.9 (AS. 76; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 22cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 3; lustrous, black gloss well preserved. Flaring, convex walls; walls thicken away from rim; vertical rounded lip; slight carination where lip meets body. Comparanda: similar to type documented at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 6 type A.1); form also parallels imported gray ware plate discussed below (87). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 73. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 72; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 20cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 1; flaking, red slip (2.5YR 5/6) partially preserved. Straight, flaring walls; downturned rim with rounded lip; rim also has slight inward projection. Comparanda: this type of plate commonly attested across Crete. For a close parallel see example from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos dated between 100-25 B.C.E. (UM II, 122 no. H32.9). Date: context of first century B.C.E. (in phase). 74. Fig. 5.9 (AS. 42; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Local Fineware fabric 1; red slip (2.5YR 5/6) partially preserved. Slightly convex walls; downturned rim with triangular profile and tapered lip; lip turns in slightly. Comparanda: overall form 205

similar to example from Unexplored Mansion datable to the late first century B.C.E. (UM II, 126 no. H36.3); rim shape similar to another plate from Knossos dated between 70-25 B.C.E. (Catling et al. 1981: 100 no. V.360). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (intrusive). 75. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 190; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3. Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 21cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 3; internal light red slip (2.5YR 6/6). Straight, flaring walls; rolled rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar example attested at Knossos from second quarter of second century B.C.E. (UM II, 110 no. H18.9). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 76. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 328; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 3; black slip partially preserved. Straight, flaring walls; rolled rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 75 above. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (residual). 77. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 312; Yiomelaki; Trench 22, layer 2). Skyphos, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 20cm. HL Local Fineware fabric 1; pale yellow slip (10YR 8/2) with red paint. Flaring, convex walls; vertical, rounded lip; horseshoe handle. Comparanda: closest example is vessel from Athenian Agora (Agora XXIX, 258 no. 154). Date: context of Late Hellenistic date (indeterminate). 78. Pl. 5.2 (AS. 49; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Vessel shape n.a., body sherd; West-Slope Ware. HL Local Fineware fabric 2; matte, black slip well preserved. Horizontal groove at top of sherd; decoration in form of incised lines. Comparanda: incised design nearly identical to example attested at Gortyn dated to mid-second century B.C.E. (Gortina I, 194 no. 101). Date: context of 150-ca. 110 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 79. Pl. 5.2 (YM. 216; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Vessel shape n.a., decorative element. HL Local Fineware fabric 1. Part of appliqué decoration in shape of a fish. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of first century C.E. (residual).

FINEWARES – IMPORTED Imported Late Hellenistic finewares have not received much discussion in pottery reports from Crete. Most publications emphasize local products, giving the impression that Crete was not a strong market for imported pottery types with the exception of a few Attic pieces. According to Eiring, after Attica, “other foreign sources do not make a presence until the second century, when Asia Minor supplies what little there is”.81 The situation at Ierapetra contrasts with this standard picture. A variety of imports were identified including Attic products and a large 81

Eiring 2001: 91.

206

proportion of gray ware vessels likely originating from Asia Minor. The impression is one of a relatively vibrant import market with a particular emphasis on eastern products. Several different fabrics are described below related to these imports and the variety helps to emphasize the numerous locations from which Ierapetra received products. Of these, fabrics 3 and 4 are gray ware fabrics from Asia Minor, fabric 6 represents Campana C products from Sicily, fabric 7 is Pergamene in origin, and fabric 2 is likely Attic based on similarities to descriptions of products from Athenian workshops.82 Fabrics 1 and 5 cannot be assigned a specific provenance, but do have characteristics suggesting an Aegean origin.

HL Import Fineware fabric 1. Medium hard, reddish yellow (5YR 6/8 to 7.5YR 7/6), with smooth to granular break and smooth feel. Small, few to frequent, angular to subrounded, tabular, milky white inclusions. Black glaze tends to be preserved. Provenance: Aegean?

HL Import Fineware fabric 2. Medium hard, light red (2.5YR 6.8) to red (2.5YR 5/6), with smooth to conchoidal break and smooth feel. Small, rare to few, angular to subrounded, tabular, milky white inclusions; Fine, few to frequent, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions (mica). Black glaze tends to be preserved. Provenance: Attica.

HL Import Fineware fabric 3. Soft to medium hard, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2 to 10YR 6/1), with smooth to conchoidal break and smooth feel. Small, rare, angular, tabular, milky white

82

For instance, Agora XXII, 14.

207

inclusions; fine, few to frequent, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions (mica). Black glaze tends to be preserved. Provenance: Asia Minor.

HL Import Fineware fabric 4. Soft to medium hard, light brownish gray (10YR 6/1), with smooth to conchoidal break and smooth feel. Small, rare to few, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions. Black glaze tends to be preserved. Provenance: Asia Minor.

HL Import Fineware fabric 5. Soft, white (10YR 8/2), with smooth to granular break and smooth, powdery feel. Small, rare, angular to subrounded, spherical, milky white inclusions; small, rare, angular, spherical black grits. Provenance: Unknown, although Cyprus is a possibility.

HL Import Fineware fabric 6. Medium hard, light brownish gray (10YR 6/1), with smooth break and smooth feel. Small, rare, angular to subrounded, tabular, black inclusions; fine, few to frequent, angular, tabular, sparkling white inclusions. Flaking, black glaze tends to be preserved, characterized by smooth, greasy feel. Provenance: Sicily.

HL Import Fineware fabric 7. Medium hard, light red (2.5YR 6.8), with smooth break and smooth, powdery feel. Small, rare to few, angular to subrounded, tabular, milky white inclusions;

208

Fine, few to frequent, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions (mica). Flaking black glaze preserved. Provenance: Region of Pergamon, Asia Minor.

Attic (80-84) A variety of imported finewares attested at Ierapetra appear to originate from Attic workshops. These vessels comprise several different forms including cups, kantharoi, plates, kraters, and one small votive lid. Attic products may be identified as HL Import Fineware fabric 2 vessels since this micaceous red fabric compares well with descriptions of Athenian vessels. Several types of Attic drinking vessels were attested including a hemispherical cup (80) and a kantharos (81). The hemispherical cup has a series of ridges along the exterior wall and appears similar to an ECCW example described above (9). This piece matches Athenian cups with a conical profile described by Rotroff.83 The kantharos has a shape reminiscent of Attic vessels from the late fourth century B.C.E.84 It could represent an example of an Early Hellenistic product residual here in a later layer. One plate (82), characterized by a horizontal rim with a groove that forms a small ledge, appears to be Attic in origin. Similar pieces are noted from late second century/early first century B.C.E. contexts at Athens.85 Kraters are represented by a base sherd (83) with a concave shape and no evidence for moldings. No parallels for this shape were identified. Finally, a small, unslipped votive lid (84) of possible Attic provenance was recovered. This piece is conical in shape with a rounded lip.

83

Agora XXIX, 112-3. Agora XXIX, 258 no. 160. 85 Agora XXIX, 314 nos. 694-695. 84

209

80. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 75; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Hemispherical cup, base sherd. D. of base 3cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 2. False ring foot comprised of a ridge; underside of foot is flat; series of at least five ridges on exterior wall. Comparanda: similar piece attested in Athens dated to circa 200 B.C.E. (Agora XXIX, 279 no. 356). Example of local manufacture in ECCW fabric described above (9). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (residual). 81. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 100; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Kantharos, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 9cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 2; lustrous, black glaze well preserved. Thin, flaring, slightly convex walls; flaring, rounded lip; strap handle with rotelle. Comparanda: similar piece attested at Athenian Agora (Agora XXIX, 258 no. 160) datable from 315-300 B.C.E. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (residual). 82. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 74; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 16cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 2; black glaze well preserved. Horizontal rim with rounded lip; incised groove forms ledge on lower and upper surface of rim where exterior wall terminates. Comparanda: closest parallels from Athens are two pieces from Agora (Agora XXIX, 314 nos. 694-695) datable between 110-86 B.C.E. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 83. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 99; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Krater, base sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Import Fineware fabric 2; lustrous, black glaze well preserved on interior. Rounded foot; thick, concave walls. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (residual). 84. Pl. 5.2 (PG. 49; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 9). Lid, rim sherd. D. of rim 3.5cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 2. Vertical, rounded lip; vessel shape is conical, coming to a point at the top. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of 150-50 B.C.E. (unknown).

Aegean (85-88) Aegean production centers outside of Athens also were represented at Ierapetra, although assigning provenances for products from this region is difficult. Identified material of Aegean provenance included two bolsal cups (85-86), a form comprising a hemispherical body with a rounded or tapered lip and two loop handles. Bolsal cups are datable to the earliest phases of Hellenistic history. They are residual here in Late Hellenistic contexts, but provide evidence of earlier occupation at Ierapetra. A carinated cup (87) resembles a type of vessel produced on Knidos during the Late Hellenistic period.86 The Knidian vessels have a micaceous gray fabric, 86

For instance, see some examples from Ephesus: Meriç 2002: 29 nos. K26-K35.

210

however, suggesting this piece is an imitation from another production center. One krater also was identified (88) boasting an intricate molded design.

85. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 17; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Bolsal cup, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 12cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 1; black glaze partially preserved. Flaring, echinoid walls; vertical, tapered lip; part of horizontal handle preserved. Comparanda: similar to examples from Athenian Agora dated to late fourth century B.C.E. (Agora XXIX, 259-60 nos. 168-169). Comparable examples from Shrine of Glaukos at Knossos (Callaghan 1978: 5 nos. 1-2). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (residual). 86. Fig. 5.9 (YM. 27; Yiomelaki; Trench 23, layer 2). Bolsal cup, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 18cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 1; black glaze partially preserved. Flaring, echinoid walls; vertical, rounded lip; both attachments to horizontal handle preserved. Comparanda: see no. 85 above. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (residual). 87. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 91; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Carinated cup, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 10cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 1. Vertical, rounded lip; body has distinct carination; horseshoe handle preserved. Comparanda: form is similar to gray ware Knidian vessels including several examples attested at Ephesus (Meriç 2002: 29 nos. K26-K35), but fabric is not Knidian. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 88. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 101; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Krater, base sherd. D. of base 9cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 1; lustrous, black glaze preserved on exterior. Molded foot with flat bottom surface and several convex moldings on exterior surface; convex walls. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (residual).

Lagynos Ware (89) Lagynos ware is represented by a single small rim sherd of a lagynos (89) similar in shape to examples from Berenice and Cyprus.87 This is considered the most ubiquitous of the Hellenistic class of light-ground ceramics, and is characterized by a fine white, cream, or pink slip.88 Named for the most commonly attested shape, excavators at Pergamon also have designated it Pitane ware based on a large number of finds from that site.89 G. Leroux was the

87

Berenice: Dent, Lloyd, and Riley 1976-1977: 151 no. 24. Cyprus: Vessberg and Westholm 1956: 65, fig. 28.6. Agora XXIX, 225. 89 Boehringer and Krauss 1937: 122-3. 88

211

first to discuss this class of pottery in detail and also presented numerous examples from several sites.90 This ware had a wide distribution, appearing at sites in the eastern and western Mediterranean.91 Pergamon has produced the largest assemblages, suggesting production occurred in or around this site, but there were additional productions in other regions.92 Manufacture flourished from the mid-third to the mid-second century B.C.E.93

89. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 309; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 2). Lagynos, rim sherd. D. of rim 4cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 5; white slip (10YR 8/2) well preserved. Outturned rim with rounded lip; at bottom of exterior of rim is small rounded flange. Comparanda: A few pieces of lagynos ware attested at Knossos (Homann-Wedeking 1950: 189, pl. 15d; Englezou 2005: 72 no. 285); for parallels of this rim form see examples from Berenice (Dent, Lloyd, and Riley 1976-1977: 151 no. 24) and Cyprus (Vessberg and Westholm 1956: 65, fig. 28.6). Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual).

Gray Wares (90-103) A large proportion of the imported Hellenistic fineware vessels at Ierapetra comprised of gray wares. Finewares with gray fabrics were common in the Hellenistic period, arising from centers in both the eastern and western Mediterranean. Eastern products are less well documented than those from the West, which have benefited from large-scale studies including J.-P. Morel‟s compendium of black-glaze forms.94 Gray wares are attested rarely on Crete, with few references in any published reports. One exception is the identification of several pieces of Gnathian black-glaze ware, an import from Italy, at Ierapetra by N. Platon.95

90

Leroux 1913. For a list of relevant bibliography see Agora XXIX, 226-7 n. 35. 92 PF II, 109-10; Agora XXIX, 225. 93 Agora XXIX, 227. 94 Morel 1981. 95 Platon 1951: 449. 91

212

Among the attested gray wares are a small number of cups including one with a flaring rim (90) similar to Morel type 7222 cups.96 Another vessel, representative of either a large cup or bowl (91), is characterized by a vertical rounded lip. A bowl also was identified with an outward thickened rim (92). While the majority of the gray wares at Ierapetra appear to have an Aegean or Ionian provenance, one vessel may originate from the western Mediterranean. A plate recovered from the Pangalou plot (93) appears to be an example of Campana C, a ware produced in Sicily. N. Lamboglia describes Campana C as readily identifiable due to its gray fabric, although that statement fails to account for other contemporary gray ware productions.97 A.R. Scott provides a concise summary of Campana C: These are made of a dense clay, medium gray to light gray in color, often with black specks in it, with breaks that weather smooth. The outer surface is smooth. The glaze is black, sometimes with a brown or olive cast, and fairly lustrous to rather lustrous, with a characteristically soapy feel to it. The glaze peels easily, leaving a smooth gray or olive wash beneath. The forms are low and angular, and the feet are broad and low, with a wide unglazed resting surface that frequently has a groove running around it.98 Export of Campana C began in the mid-second century B.C.E. and continued through the first century B.C.E.99 The vessel in question is an example of Morel type 2252 plates.100 In the eastern Mediterranean, this shape is noted at Delos in Campana C and at Athens in Campana B.101 There are no previous attestations on Crete. Along with the Campana C vessel above, plates were the most common gray ware form attested. One example (94) has a flaring, squared lip with a blunt triangular ledge along the 96

Morel 1981: 405-6, pls. 22-23. Lamboglia 1952: 156. 98 Scott 2008: 9. 99 Morel 1981: 47. 100 Morel 1981: 153. 101 Delos: Morel 1986: 485 no. 148. Athens: Agora XXXII, 212 no. 901. 97

213

interior wall below the top surface of the rim. A similar type of plate appears at the site of Labraunda in Asia Minor.102 Beveled rim plates appear among the gray ware vessels including an example (95) analogous to the ECCW vessels described above (26-29). Two additional plates provide examples of different forms (96-97), although neither has attested parallels on Crete. One fragment from a plate base bears a palmette stamp (98), while another base fragment has two post-cocturam graffiti in the form of an X bounded by straight lines (99). At the site of Neuss in Germany, J. Kütter observes that vessels bearing X graffiti tend to have firing defects and may have been marketed as seconds.103 This plate from Ierapetra does appear to be overfired. Finally, a fish-plate (100) similar to examples from the Athenian Agora was identified.104 Several gray ware jars were attested including one with an exterior flange (101) that is similar to Morel type 5100 jars.105 Another example has an offset vertical rim with tapered lip (102), while the third vessel comprises the base and lower body of a jar or large beaker (103).

90. Fig. 5.10 (AS. 41; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Flaring rim cup, rim sherd; Morel form 7222. D. of rim 11cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 4; black glaze well preserved. Globular body; flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: no published examples from Crete. Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 91. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 102; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Cup/bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 14cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 3; lustrous, black glaze well preserved. Vertical, rounded lip. Comparanda: no identified parallels. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (residual). 92. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 193; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 22cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 4. Flaring, convex walls; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (unknown).

102

Hellström 1965: 75 no. 348. Kütter 2008: 80-99. 104 Agora XXIX, 317 nos. 730-731, 733. 105 Morel 1981: 331-7. 103

214

93. Fig. 5.10, Pl. 5.2 (PG. 31; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Plate, rim and body sherds; Campana C, Morel type 2252. D. of rim 26cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 6; lustrous, black glaze well preserved. Flaring, straight walls; vertical, rounded lip, slightly inturned. Comparanda: Examples of this shape are noted from the Athenian Agora (Agora XXXII, 212 no. 901 – Campana B) and Delos (Morel 1986: 485 no. 148 – Campana C). Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 94. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 194; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Import Fineware fabric 4; faint traces of black glaze. Straight, flaring walls; on interior wall just below rim is a blunt, triangular ledge; flaring, squared lip with slight overhang. Comparanda: no parallels attested on Crete. Similar example attested at Labraunda in Asia Minor (Hellström 1965: 75 no. 348). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 95. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 304; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 4). Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Import Fineware fabric 4; faint traces of black glaze. Straight, flaring walls; beveled-out rim with slight overhang. Comparanda: for local examples of this form see nos. 26-29 above. Date: context of Hellenistic date (indeterminate). 96. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 107; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Plate, base sherd. D. of base 7cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 3; lustrous, black glaze well preserved, fired pink (7.5YR 7/4) on part of base. Short, ring foot; underside of foot is flat; above foot on interior of base are series of small ledges; flat floor; globular body. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 97. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 187; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 18cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 4; matte, black glaze well preserved. Flaring, straight walls; rolled rim with squared lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (unknown). 98. Pl. 5.2 (YM. 30; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Plate; floor sherd. HL Import Fineware fabric 4. Sloping floor with one palmette stamp preserved. Comparanda: no parallels identified on Crete. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 99. Pl. 5.2 (YM. 44; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Plate, base sherd. D. of base 4cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 4. False ring base; underside of base is slightly recessed; convex walls; sloping floor; on exterior wall near base are two identical post-cocturam graffiti in the form of an X within a square of four detached lines; vessel is overfired. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 100. Fig. 5.10 (YM. 178; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Fish-Plate, base sherd. D. of base 6cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 3; faint traces of black glaze. Ring foot; flat floor with ledge at center leading to concave depression. Comparanda: closest examples appear at Athenian Agora (Agora XXIX, 317 nos. 730-731, 733) variously dated from late third to early first century B.C.E. No parallels attested on Crete. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (indeterminate).

215

101. Fig. 5.11 (PG. 32; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Import Fineware fabric 3; thin, black glaze partially preserved. Inturned, tapered lip with rounded exterior flange; globular body. Comparanda: form is similar to Morel type 5100 jars (1981: 3317); no parallels identified on Crete. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 102. Fig. 5.11 (YM. 118; Yiomelaki; Martyr 13/7, layer 3). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 4; faint traces of black glaze. Conical neck; offset rim with vertical, tapered lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (unknown). 103. Fig. 5.11 (YM. 215; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Jar, base and body sherds. D. of base 9cm. HL Import Fineware fabric 4; traces of black gloss. Ring foot; underside and top side of floor are convex; globular body. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of first century C.E. (residual).

Mold-Made Bowls (104-106) Several fragments of imported mold-made bowls, a popular drinking vessel in Hellenistic assemblages, were identified. S. Rotroff provides a concise description: “This is an approximately hemispherical, moldmade bowl, without foot or handles, decorated all over its exterior surface with designs and figures in relief”.106 Production of these bowls lasted from the third through the mid-first century B.C.E., although A. Laumonier argues for the height of production being between circa 166 and 69 B.C.E.107 The development of this form as a ceramic vessel likely occurred at Athens, with Alexandrian silver and gold relief bowls used as models.108 Mold-made bowls are common throughout the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, including on Crete. At Knossos, numerous examples of local and imported mold-made bowls appear, with the majority of imports deriving from Ionian workshops.109 Two of the vessels attested at Ierapetra appear to be Attic products based on their fabric (104-105). The first (104) bears a palmette and slave mask, an occasional design element on

106

Agora XXII, 1. Delos XXXI, 3. 108 Agora XXII, 7. 109 Eiring 2001: 101-2; UM II, 132. 107

216

Attic bowls.110 A body sherd from an imbricate bowl comprises the second vessel (105). According to Rotroff, these bowls, characterized by decoration in the form of overlapping leaves or petals, were produced from the last quarter of the third century to the early first century B.C.E.111 The example from Ierapetra consists of overlapping small fern leaves, a design also seen on a bowl from Knossos.112 A third bowl (106) may derive from a workshop in Asia Minor, based on parallels with vessels found on Delos, and has a design comprising a series of grooves and rows of acanthus leaves.113

104. Pl. 5.2 (YM. 217; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Mold-made bowl, body sherd. HL Import Fineware fabric 2; interior dark bluish gray glaze (5PB 4/1); exterior light red glaze (2.5YR 6/8) transitioning to bluish gray (5PB 6/1). Thin-walled body sherd with relief design: palmette to left of slave mask; raised band above and then a series of spirals. Comparanda: no parallels identified on Crete with this design type; can be seen on some Attic bowls (eg. Agora XXII, 55 no. 97, 56 nos. 102, 104, 57 nos. 108, 110). Date: context of first century C.E. (residual). 105. Pl. 5.2 (YM. 105; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Mold-made bowl, body sherd. HL Import Fineware fabric 2; thin, matte, black glaze partially preserved. Body sherd from an imbricate bowl: overlapping, small fern leaves. Comparanda: example attested at Knossos (UM II, 132 no. H38.83). Date: context of the mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 106. Pl. 5.2 (YM. 52; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Mold-made bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Import Fineware fabric 1; red slip (2.5YR 5/6) well preserved. Vertical, rounded lip with relief design: two horizontal grooves above a row of acanthus leaves. Comparanda: closest parallels to this design appear at Delos from Ionian workshops including an example from the workshop of Philon (Delos XXXI, 268 no. 1300) and examples from the workshop of Heraios (Delos XXXI, 305 no. 3190, 306 no. 3482). Similar example from Knossos (UM II, 132 no. H38.80). Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (residual).

110

For instance, Agora XXII, 55 nos. 97, 56 no. 102, 104, 57 nos. 108, 110. Agora XXII, 16. 112 UM II, 132 no. H38.83. 113 Similar vessels from Delos include an example from the workshop of Philon (Delos XXXI, 268 no. 1300) and examples from the workshop of Heraios (Delos XXXI, 305 no. 3190, 306 no. 3482). 111

217

Pergamene Sigillata (107) Additional evidence for products from Asia Minor at Ierapetra comes from a sherd of Pergamene relief ware (107). This piece has an appliqué decoration in the form of a group of three ivy leaves with a cluster of berries on both sides and a third berry cluster at the bottom of the middle leaf. A similar design appears on several products found at Pergamon, corroborating this was the site of manufacture.114 This ware is characteristic of the Late Hellenistic period and developed alongside other eastern sigillata wares including Eastern Sigillata A.115 Otherwise unattested on Crete, there is an example of Pergamene Sigillata with this same relief design from the Athenian Agora.116

107. Pl. 5.2 (YM. 331; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Skyphos(?), body sherd. HL Import Fineware fabric 7; matte, black glaze partially preserved. Carination at top of sherd demarcated by two parallel, horizontal incised lines; sherd preserves appliqué decoration in form of group of three ivy leaves with cluster of berries on both side and a third berry cluster at bottom of middle ivy leaf. Comparanda: unattested on Crete, but an example is published from the Athenian Agora (Agora XXIX, 408 no. 1647). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (in phase).

COMMON WARES Common wares in non-ECCW fabrics were attested rarely among the Hellenistic material from Ierapetra. Only a small number of shapes are represented, including basins, jars, and pithoi. Within these categories, there are a variety of forms, including a small number of possible imports, but the range of material is not as great as seen for ECCW products. Four distinct fabrics were noted for the common ware vessels described below. The first two appear local and share similarities with fabrics attested for other Hellenistic and Roman

114

PF II, 98-9 nos. E67-E85; PF VI, 213 no. 12; PF VII, 191-2 nos. 99-104. Agora XXIX, 237. 116 Agora XXIX, 408 no. 1657. 115

218

pottery classes. The third fabric also may be local, although it bears similarities to fabrics attested from North Africa. A micaceous matrix is characteristic of the fourth fabric which is represented only by one example (118). This particular basin may be an import from Asia Minor.

HL Common Ware fabric 1. Medium hard to hard, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6 to 7.5YR 7/6), with a granular break and rough feel. Small to medium, frequent to common, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; small to medium, frequent, angular, tabular, black inclusions; small to medium, few to frequent, rounded, tabular to spherical, red inclusions. Provenance: Southeastern Crete.

HL Common Ware fabric 2. Medium hard to hard, pink to very pale brown (7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 8/4), with a smooth break and rough feel. Small to medium, frequent, angular to subangular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; small to medium, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Southeastern Crete.

HL Common Ware fabric 3. Hard, red to light red (2.5YR 5/8 to 2.5YR 6/6), with a granular break and harsh feel. Small to medium, common, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small to medium, few, angular to subangular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Unknown.

219

HL Common Ware fabric 4. Hard, red (2.5YR 5/6), with a granular to hackly break and rough feel. Small, frequent to common, angular, tabular to platy, sparkling white inclusions; small, frequent, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Region of Didyma, Asia Minor.

Basins (108-118) Of the non-ECCW common ware finds, basins were the most ubiquitous form. Several rim variants are represented, including examples that resemble ECCW vessels. There may be one, and perhaps two, examples of Early Hellenistic basins characterized by convex moldings on the exterior rim or upper wall. The first (108) has a downturned rim with squared lip and convex moldings just below the rim. Two vessels from Kommos of Late Classical date that appear to be predecessors for this form are the closest parallels.117 A molded rim with convex grooves on the exterior characterizes the second basin (109), for which there are similar vessels identified at Knossos and Kommos.118 Another basin has a globular body, thickened at the shoulder, and outturned rim with squared lip (110). Handles appear on several basins including an example with a globular body and flaring rim (111). Attached to the upper body is a loop handle folded back toward the wall. A common form with parallel grooves on the top surface is represented by two examples (112113), the second of which preserves part of a basket handle on the top of the rim. One basin has a horizontal rim with concave exterior surface (114), while another bears a series of triangular

117 118

Kommos IV.1, 258 no. 468, 264 no. 535. Knossos: UM II, 122 no. H32.11. Kommos: Kommos IV.1, 287 no. 781.

220

projections on top of a downturned rim (115). An additional piece has a horizontal rim with squared lip that is shaved flat on the top surface (116). A type from Gortyn appears similar.119 There also may be imported basins scattered throughout the assemblages. One vessel of unknown provenance (117) has an outward thickened rim with rounded lip and preserves a coarse light red slip on the exterior surface. A second possible import (118), perhaps from Asia Minor, has a vertical squared lip with a downturned exterior flange. U. Wintermeyer published a Late Hellenistic basin from Didyma with an analogous profile.120

108. Fig. 5.11 (YM. 170; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3) Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 40cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1. Flaring, convex walls; convex moldings on exterior wall just below rim; downturned rim with squared lip. Comparanda: closest parallels are two basins from Kommos of Late Classical date (Kommos IV.1, 258 no. 468, 264 no. 535), although this piece from Ierapetra seems later. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (residual). 109. Fig. 5.11 (YM. 198; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 29cm. HL Common Ware fabric 3; hints of very pale brown (10YR 7/4) slip. Flaring, straight walls; molded rim with series of grooves on exterior surface and squared lip. Comparanda: closest parallels are vessels from Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (UM II, 122 no. H32.11) and Greek Sanctuary at Kommos (Kommos IV, 287 no. 781). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 110. Fig. 5.11 (YM. 288; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 27cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1. Globular body, thickened at shoulder; outturned rim with squared lip. Comparanda: same general shape as examples from Knossos from second half of second century B.C.E. to first century B.C.E. (Coldstream 1999: 342 no. W11; UM II, 122 no. H32.10). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 111. Fig. 5.12 (YM. 324; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Basin, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 27cm. HL Common Ware fabric 2; white slip (2.5Y 8/2) well preserved. Globular body; junction on exterior wall where rim begins; outturned rim with squared lip; loop handle folded against wall. Comparanda: same general form as vessel from Knossos dated to last quarter of second century B.C.E. (Englezou 2005: 70 no. 268). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (residual). 112. Fig. 5.11 (PG. 62; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 4). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 24cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1; black slip partially preserved on exterior. Flaring rim with rounded lip; top surface of rim is flat and has incised groove at either end; globular body that thickens away 119 120

Gortina V.3, 446 type A V 2.1/3. Wintermeyer 2004: 80 type Pi 1.11.

221

from rim. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 113. Fig. 5.11 (YM. 199; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Basin, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Common Ware fabric 2. Flaring, convex walls; horizontal rim with squared lip; two small grooves on top surface of rim; basket handle partially preserved. Comparanda: ECCW basin described above with same general shape (36). For this rim type see vessel from Knossos (Catling et al. 1981: 94 no. V316). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 114. Fig. 5.11 (YM. 16; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Common Ware fabric 1; faint traces of brownish slip on interior. Flaring, slightly convex walls; thick, horizontal rim with concave outer surface. Comparanda: similar in form to an example from Knossos (UM II, 188 no. A2.70). Date: context of first half of first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 115. Fig. 5.12 (YM. 121; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 28cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1. Flaring, convex walls; downturned rim with rounded lip; concave groove on top surface of rim; series of triangular projections on top of rim. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of second half of first century B.C.E. (unknown). 116. Fig. 5.12 (YM. 231; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 26cm. HL Common Ware fabric 3. Flaring, convex walls; blunt, horizontal rim with squared lip, flat on top surface. Comparanda: similar to vessel from Gortyn of Late Hellenistic date (Gortina V.3, 446 type A V 2.1/3). Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (residual). 117. Fig. 5.12 (YM. 29; Yiomelaki; Trench 23, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 37cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1; light red slip (2.5YR 6/6) on exterior surface. Flaring, slightly concave walls; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (unknown). 118. Fig. 5.12 (YM. 143; Yiomelaki; Trench 9, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim approx. 30cm. HL Common Ware fabric 4. Flaring, convex walls; vertical squared lip with slightly downturned exterior flange; flange has groove on top surface. Comparanda: closest parallel is vessel attested at Didyma (Wintermeyer 2004: 80 type Pi 1.11). Date: context of first century B.C.E. (unknown).

Jars (119-125) Along with basins, a variety of different types of jars were noted among the assemblages. A folded rim characterizes two jars (119-120), while a downturned rim with rounded ridge on the exterior wall appears on a third (121). One vessel represents a type of olpe with a conical neck 222

and horizontal rim (122). While most olpe finds tend to bear decoration, this piece only preserves a slip. Three additional examples have variations of a flaring or outturned rim (123-125).

119. Fig. 5.12 (YM. 28; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. HL Common Ware fabric 2. Flaring, convex walls; folded rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (unknown). 120. Fig. 5.12 (YM. 19; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1. Globular body; folded rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (unknown). 121. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 249; Yiomelaki; Martyr 13/7, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. HL Common Ware fabric 3. Cylindrical neck; rounded ridge just below rim on exterior wall; downturned rim with tapered lip. Comparanda: similar to several examples from Knossos dated to the early third century B.C.E. (Coldstream 1999: 331 nos. Q32-Q33; UM II, 101 nos. H12.4243). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (residual). 122. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 161; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Jar/Olpe, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1; pink slip (7.5YR 7/4) well preserved. Conical neck; midway down interior of neck is small ledge; horizontal rim with squared lip; shallow groove on top surface of rim. Comparanda: similar to several examples from Knossos (eg. UM II, 111 nos. H18.11-15, 117 nos. 1, 3). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 123. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 250; Yiomelaki; Trench 1, surface). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 14cm. HL Common Ware fabric 3. Concave neck; flaring, rounded lip with triangular flange on exterior. Comparanda: similar to vessel from Knossos dated to the last quarter of the second century B.C.E. (Englezou 2005: 69 no. 260). Date: context of indeterminate date (unknown). 124. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 73; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 2). Jar/Olpe, rim sherd. D. of rim 15cm. HL Common Ware fabric 2; light red slip (2.5YR 6/6) partially preserved. Cylindrical neck; outturned rim with rounded lip; groove on top surface of rim. Comparanda: same general form as examples from Knossos dated to last quarter of second century B.C.E. (eg. UM II, 117 no. H27.3). Context of first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 125. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 211; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 9cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1. Globular body; flaring rim with rounded lip; distinct ledge on inside of rim where body begins; spout in form of thickened band of clay with circular hole punched through. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of first century C.E. (residual).

223

Pithoi (126-127) While the majority of attested pithoi sherds were examples of ECCW vessels, several pieces in other fabrics also were identified. This includes a large body fragment (126) from a banded pithos similar in type to a vessel recovered at Knossos during the Stratigraphical Museum excavations.121 The second pithos (127), which could also be a large stamnos, has a similar rim form to a vessel also found at Knossos.122 According to J.N. Coldstream, this shape has been recorded only in fragmentary form with the exception of one nearly complete vessel recovered from the Unexplored Mansion.123

126. N.I. (YM. 60; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 2). Pithos, body sherd. Th. 2.5cm. HL Common Ware fabric 1; very pale brown slip (10YR 7/4) on exterior; inclusions are large, rounded, and spherical unlike other examples with this fabric. Thick-walled, globular body; three raised, horizontal bands preserved. Comparanda: example of banded Hellenistic pithos attested at Knossos (Warren 1987-1988: 87-8, figs. 5-6). Date: context of first century B.C.E. (unknown). 127. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 230; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Pithos/Stamnos, rim sherd. D. of rim 31cm. HL Common Ware fabric 2; fired weak red (2.5YR 5/2) at core. Globular body; thickened, sharply outturned rim with squared lip. Comparanda: similar example from Knossos dated between 175-150 B.C.E. (Coldstream 1999: 340 no. U17). Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (residual).

COOKWARES Cookwares did not comprise a large proportion of the Late Hellenistic pottery assemblage at Ierapetra. Only a small number of forms were noted of which the most common were casseroles, a pattern also noted at Knossos and Athens.124 A few cookpots in various shapes also

121

Warren 1987-1988: 87-8, figs. 5-6. Coldstream 1999: 340 no. U17. 123 Coldstream 1999: 336. See UM II, 101 no. H12.45 for the nearly complete vessel. 124 Knossos: Callaghan 1981: 53. Athens: Agora XXXIII, 166 chart 16. 122

224

appeared along with a small number of trefoil-mouthed jars and two brazier lugs. Frying pans and lids were absent from the assemblages, or too fragmentary to catalogue. Almost all of the Hellenistic cookwares share a homogenous fabric, classified below as HL Cookware fabric 1. Whether this is a local or imported fabric is difficult to assess. The same confusion arises at Knossos where distinguishing between imported and local Hellenistic cookwares is challenging.125 A small number of examples are characterized by a distinct, somewhat micaceous fabric, perhaps representing imports from the region of Ephesus. A third fabric also is described attributable to the two brazier lugs.

HL Cookware fabric 1. Medium hard, reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4 – 5YR 4/4) to red (2.5YR 5/6 – 5/8), with smooth to granular break and harsh feel. Surface tends to be somewhat blackened. Small to medium, angular, rounded to tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Unknown.

HL Cookware fabric 2. Medium hard, reddish brown (5YR 5/4), with a granular to hackly break and harsh feel. Surface tends to be blackened. Small to large, frequent, angular to subrounded, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions; fine to small, common, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions (mica). Provenance: Region of Ephesus, Asia Minor?

HL Cookware fabric 3. Hard, red (2.5YR 5/6), with granular to hackly break and harsh feel. Small to large, frequent, angular, spherical to tabular, milky white inclusions; small to medium, 125

Homann-Wedeking 1950: 174.

225

angular, tabular, black inclusions; small to medium, few, subrounded, spherical to tabular, red inclusions; fine to small, few, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Region of Kos and Knidos in the Aegean.

Casseroles (128-137) The casserole, or lopas as it can be described, was the most common Hellenistic cookware shape at Ierapetra. Almost all of the examples were variants of a common type characterized by a flanged-in rim (129-134). The flange suggests a lid would be paired with these vessels. This type is common at other sites on Crete and was produced from at least the early third century B.C.E. until the first century B.C.E.126 Straight shoulders became predominate in the second century B.C.E., while a carinated shoulder is characteristic of earlier versions.127 Most of the Ierapetra pieces have straight shoulders suggesting they are later in the development sequence. One example catalogued here represents a miniature version with a carinated shoulder (128). Several of the vessels (129-131, 133) have various types of horizontal handles preserved. Two of the casseroles with flanged-in rims also appear to have globular bodies (133-134). A globular body is also apparent on another vessel (135) which has an interior flange not well distinguished from the neck. One of the casseroles (136) parallels a Hellenistic type found at Berenice. Riley has termed this type Hellenistic Cooking Ware 4 and suggests it was common at the site until the late first century B.C.E.128 It also has a flanged-in rim, but the shape is distinct from the examples discussed above.

126

Englezou 2005: 289. Eiring 2001: 131. 128 Riley 1979: 243. 127

226

An additional casserole (137) has a unique shape not previously documented on Crete. The neck is almost horizontal leading to a carinated shoulder and globular body. A distinct, micaceous fabric also is apparent (HL Cookware fabric 2). Comparable examples appear in western Asia Minor, specifically at the sites of Ephesus and Didyma, and it was likely an import from this region.129 A date range for these vessels is not specified, however.

128. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 200; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Casserole, rim sherd. D. of rim 9cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Carinated shoulder; cylindrical neck; flanged-in rim with tapered lip. Comparanda: parallels known from Knossos dated from 200-150 B.C.E. (Callaghan 1981: 53 no. 49) and Phaistos (Portale 2000: 83-4, pl. 41.c); an example of a miniature casserole attested at Knossos (Hayes 1971: 261 no. 39). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 129. Fig. 5.13 (AS. 36; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Casserole, complete profile from rim to base. D. of rim 17cm. HL Cookware fabric 1; fired black at core. Flat base; straight, slightly flaring walls; horseshoe handle, pressed against exterior wall; flanged-in rim with squared lip. Comparanda: similar to two examples from Knossos (Catling et al. 1981: 95 nos. V326-327). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (in phase). 130. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 213; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Casserole, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 12cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Straight, slightly flaring walls; horizontal handle attached to rim and upper body; flanged-in rim with squared lip. Comparanda: see no. 129 above. Date: context of first century C.E. (residual). 131. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 172; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Casserole, rim and sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Cookware fabric 1. Slightly convex walls; horizontal handle attached to underside of rim and upper body; flanged-in rim with squared lip. Comparanda: closest parallel is piece from Knossos (Homman-Wedeking 1950: 186 no. 2a, fig.25d). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 132. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 103; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Casserole, rim sherd. D. of rim approx. 18cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Thin, straight, slightly flaring walls; flanged-in rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar examples attested at Mochlos (Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: pl. 36d nos. 1-2). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 133. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 254; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 1). Casserole, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Cookware fabric 1. Carination between neck and shoulder; strap handle attached to rim; flangedin rim with squared lip attached to horizontal neck. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (residual). 129

Ephesus: Gassner 1997: 103 nos. 370-372. Didyma: Wintermeyer 1984: 241, 250 fig. 2.3 type LH 1.

227

134. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 227; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 9). Casserole, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. HL Cookware fabric 1. Thin-walled, globular body; thick, flanged-in rim with squared lip. Comparanda: similar example attested from Knossos dating to late fourth/early third century B.C.E (UM II, 101 no. H12.53). Date: context of Hellenistic date (indeterminate). 135. Fig. 5.13 (YM. 201; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Casserole, rim sherd. D. of rim 9cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Globular body; flanged-in rim with squared lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 136. Fig. 5.14 (AS. 34; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Casserole, rim sherd. D. of rim 34cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Cylindrical body; flanged-in rim with slightly inturned, rounded lip. Comparanda: appears to be example of Hellenistic Cooking Ware 4 attested at Berenice (Riley 1979: 244 nos. D425-427); one example from Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos is similar (Coldstream 1973: 49 no. J26). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 137. Fig. 5.14 (AS. 35; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Casserole, rim sherd. D. of rim 20cm. HL Cookware fabric. 2. Thick-walled globular body, carinated at neck; horizontal neck; vertical rounded lip, slightly outturned. Comparanda: this type is documented at Ephesus (Gassner 1997: 103 nos. 370-372) and Didyma (Wintermeyer 1984: 241, 250 fig. 2.3 type LH 1). Date: context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (unknown).

Cookpots (138-141) Cookpots were not encountered as frequently as casseroles in Hellenistic deposits. Several examples share a homogenous fabric, a globular or spherical body, and flaring rims (138-140). One of these (138) preserves a series of concave grooves on the exterior of the rim in similar fashion to examples from Mochlos.130 Another vessel preserves an outward and inward thickened vertical rim forming a blunt T (141). While globular cookpots were produced throughout the Hellenistic period,131 the examples from Ierapetra appear closest in form to versions later in the series at Knossos datable to the second and first centuries B.C.E.132

130

Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 73, pl. 36f. Englezou 2005: 285. 132 Eiring 2001: 131. 131

228

138. Fig. 5.14 (YM. 327; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm; HL Cookware fabric 1. Globular body; flaring rim with rounded lip; series of concave grooves on exterior of rim. Comparanda: identical to type of neckless cookpot attested at Mochlos and possibly considered an import (Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 73, pl.36f). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (indeterminate). 139. Fig. 5.14 (YM. 202; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 14cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Globular body; flaring squared lip. Comparanda: no matching parallels from Crete. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (unknown). 140. Fig. 5.14 (YM. 285; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 2). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 16cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Thin-walled, spherical body; flaring rim with squared lip, slightly offset. Comparanda: similar to piece from Knossos (UM II, 125 no. H35.17). Date: context of postsixth century C.E. (residual). 141. Fig. 5.14 (YM. 239; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 4). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim approx. 24cm. HL Cookware fabric 2. Slightly convex neck; vertical outward and inward thickened rim coming to a blunt T. Comparanda: parallels from Knossos (Hayes 1971: 266 nos. 41-42). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (indeterminate).

Jars (142-143) Only a small number of Hellenistic jars in a cookware fabric were identified and this form may not have been common at Ierapetra. One example (142) comprises the lower half of a jar with relatively thick walls and a flat base. The second piece (143) is part of a trefoil-mouthed pitcher.

142. Fig. 5.14 (YM. 45; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Jar, base sherd. D. of base 6.5cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Flat base; thick-walled, globular body. Comparanda: no matching parallels from Crete. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (unknown). 143. Fig. 5.14 (YM. 326; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Trefoil-mouthed jar, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim approx. 9cm. HL Cookware fabric 1. Carinated shoulder; vertical rounded lip; strap handle attached near top of rim. Comparanda: no parallels from Crete. Date: context of 7525 B.C.E. (unknown).

229

Brazier Lugs (144-145) The Assariotaki plot produced two lugs which served as vessel supports on braziers. Representing a common Hellenistic type, these braziers consist of a cylindrical lower half, slightly widened at the bottom, which rests on a foot and has a receptacle for fuel and ash. The upper portion is a hemispherical fire bowl with an opening to accommodate air circulation. Attached to the fire bowl are three lugs which form a sort of tripod stand.133 This type of brazier, produced roughly from 150 to 50 B.C.E., is scarce on mainland Greece, with only a few examples known from Corinth and Athens.134 They also are rare on Crete, and Knossos preserves the only published examples.135 Locations where this type is common include Delos and the Cycladic islands, Egypt, and coastal sites in Asia Minor and Syria-Palestine.136 Given this widespread distribution, one aspect that has puzzled scholars is the location of production. A. Conze suggests Athens was the main producer, with Delos serving as an export hub.137 W. Deonna prefers Delos as the production center, while M. Borda argues for either Athens or Delos.138 D. Burr suggests production occurred in Asia Minor.139 Both C. Le Roy and C. Scheffer place production in Alexandria, while P.M. Fraser instead argues for Rhodes.140 J. Gunneweg and I. Perlman, based on results from neutron activation analysis (NAA), conclude that a provenance in the Aegean is most likely.141 This supports earlier suggestions by H.

133

Mayence 1905: 374. Corinth: Corinth VII.3, 119-20 nos. 646-647. Athens: Thompson 1934: 392 no. D 76; 421 no. E 150; ArchDelt 23 (1969 [1970]) B‟2: 65-7; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000a: 307-8 nos. 38-41. 135 Catling et al. 1981: 95 no. V.332; Hayes 1983: 138 no. 234; Warren 1987-1988: 87; UM II, 129 nos. 22-28; Coldstream 1999: 348 nos. X 98-100. Two additional pieces are on display in the Agios Nikolaos Archaeological Museum. 136 Didelot 1997: 377 with n. 6-7. 137 Conze 1890: 141. 138 Deonna 1948: 70; Borda 1976: 181. 139 Burr 1933: 189. 140 Le Roy 1961: 500; Scheffer 1981: 87; Fraser 1972: 287-8, n.285. 141 Gunneweg and Perlman 1984: 234-5. 134

230

Thompson and M.R. Leonard for a similar origin.142 O. Didelot notes that the majority of these braziers have a homogenous fabric, implying a major production center, likely in the Aegean somewhere between Kos, Mindos, and Knidos.143 Both of the Ierapetra pieces have fabrics analogous to Didelot‟s description of the products from this hypothetical major production site and likely originate from this source.144 Both of the lugs presented here appear to depict the head of a satyr. The first (144) shows a satyr with an oval-shaped head and hair arranged in symmetrical locks parted down the middle. Examples of the same type, described by Conze as his type 3 brazier lug and by Mayence as his type 4D lug, appear at Knossos.145 This type tends to be referred to as a head with shaggy or bristling hair. The second lug (145) has a squatter head than the first example and boasts a crown of ivy leaves. Conze classifies this as his type 2 lug, while Mayence describes it as his type 4C.146 A raised band frames the two heads and both are broken at their respective attachments to the braziers.

144. Pl. 5.2 (AS. 57; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Brazier lug; Conze type 3, Mayence type 4D. Preserved H. 10.4cm; upper L. 6cm. HL Cookware fabric 3. Bearded head: hair arranged in symmetrical locks parted down the middle; flat nose; raised, arched eyebrows; beard appears to be arranged in locks, but not well preserved. Relief frame around head; broken at attachment to brazier. Comparanda: same type appears at Knossos (UM II, 129 no. 22; Coldstream 1999: 348 no. X99). Date: Context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (in phase). 145. Pl. 5.2 (AS. 58; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Brazier lug; Conze type 2, Mayence type 4C. Preserved H. 10cm; upper L. 6cm. HL Cookware fabric 3; also has slip ranging from light red (2.5YR 6/6) to pink (7.5YR 7/4) preserved on exterior. Bearded head: hair arranged in locks; crowned with ivy leaves; flat nose; raised, arched eyebrows; rectangular protruding beard is concave with some locks visible, blackened at edge. Raised frame around head; broken at 142

Thompson 1934: 467-8; Leonard 1973: 21-2. Both Thompson and Leonard speculate that Siphnos could be the site of production because it had a modern production of braziers similar in form to the Hellenistic type. 143 Didelot 1997: 381. 144 Didelot (1997: 318, n. 15) describes the fabric as ranging in color from 2.5YR 4/6 – 4/8 (red) with numerous inclusions including volcanic rocks, quartz, and mica. 145 Conze 1890: 126-9; Mayence 1905: 390-2. Knossos: UM II, 129 no. 22; Coldstream 1999: 348 no. X99. 146 Conze 1890: 122-6; Mayence 1905: 388-9.

231

attachment to brazier. Comparanda: same type appears at Knossos (UM II, 129 nos. 25-26). Date: Context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (in phase).

AMPHORAE Hellenistic amphorae were not common at Ierapetra compared to Roman amphorae, with most of the examples representing local or Aegean products. Imported finds are attested from Knidos, Kos, Rhodes, and Thasos along with one vessel from Italy and several unidentified forms presumably of Aegean origin. Cretan products include types in several different fabrics with the exception of ECCW amphorae which are discussed above. A small collection of stamped handles also is documented. Hellenistic amphora finds on Crete are not well documented compared to other pottery classes. This implies that both locally produced and imported vessels were not common components of pottery assemblages across the island. At Knossos, most published amphorae are local products, with only a small number of imports documented.147 Gortyn reveals a more diverse Hellenistic amphora assemblage than Knossos, but the number of vessels encountered is still low.148 Stamped amphora handles, a source of much interest for scholars of the Hellenistic economy, are also rarely attested. A. Chaniotis mobilizes all of this evidence to suggest that Crete did not play a strong role in trade within the Hellenistic Aegean.149 Small numbers of local vessels on sites could indicate that agricultural energy was not geared toward surplus production, while a lack of imported amphorae argues against Crete being included in any coherent Aegean trade strategy. N. Vogeikoff-Brogan is the most vocal opponent against this line of thought,

147

Eiring 2001: 129. Gortina V.3, 264-9. The total count for attested Hellenistic amphora fragments in this pottery volume is 125. 149 Chaniotis 2005: 97-8. 148

232

arguing that the limited attention paid to Hellenistic ceramics on Crete skews perceptions of the island‟s economic role.150 The finds from Ierapetra share similarities with the assemblages from Gortyn. Several different types of amphorae are represented, but the overall number of sherds and vessels is much lower than in the Roman period. A range of fabrics is attested for these vessels indicative of a variety of distinct provenances.

HL Amphora fabric 1. Medium hard, reddish yellow (5YR 7/6 to 7.5YR 8/6), with a smooth to slightly granular break and smooth, powdery feel. Small to medium, angular to subrounded, spherical to tabular, milky white inclusions; small to medium, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Pieces tend to preserve a very pale brown slip (10YR 8/2 to 8/4). Provenance: Crete, likely in region of south-central or southeastern coast.

HL Amphora fabric 2. Medium hard, reddish yellow (5YR 7/8), with a conchoidal break and rough feel. Small, few, angular, spherical to tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions; small, rare, angular, tabular to platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Italy.

HL Amphora Fabric 3. Medium-hard to hard, yellowish red (5YR 5/6 to 5/8), with a smooth to granular break and smooth surface. Small to medium, few to frequent, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small to medium, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Very pale brown slip (10YR 8/4) may be preserved. Provenance: Knidos. 150

Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 217; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329.

233

HL Amphora Fabric 4. Medium hard, pink (7.5YR 8.4) to very pale brown (10YR 7/4), with a smooth to granular break and smooth surface. Small to medium, few to frequent, angular, platy to tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few to frequent, angular, tabular, black inclusions; small, rare, subrounded to rounded, tabular, red inclusions; fine, few, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Kos.

HL Amphora fabric 5. Hard, light red (2.5YR 6/6 to 6/8), with a granular break and rough feel. Small, few to frequent, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular to subrounded, tabular, black inclusions; fine, few, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Rhodes.

HL Amphora fabric 6. Hard, gray (10YR 5/1), with a smooth break and rough feel. Small to large, few, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions. Provenance: Unknown, possibly from the Aegean.

HL Amphora fabric 7. Medium hard, white (10YR 8/2), with a granular to hackly break and rough feel. Small to medium, common, angular to subangular, tabular to spherical, black inclusions; small, few, angular to subangular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; medium, subangular to rounded, tabular to spherical, red inclusions. Provenance: Unknown.

234

Crete (146-151) The manufacture of Hellenistic amphorae on Crete is not as well understood as Roman amphora production on the island. During a French survey of Crete aimed at identifying amphora kiln sites in the late 1980s, only two Hellenistic amphora types, the Amphore Crètoise (AC) 5 and 7, were identified.151 When excavators at Gortyn revised the overall classification scheme of Cretan amphorae a decade ago, the number of documented Hellenistic amphorae remained at two.152 Additional types, specifically imitations of Rhodian and Koan amphorae, are attested at other sites, including Knossos and Ierapetra.153 At the time of the French survey, the only kiln site associated with Hellenistic amphora production was Keratokambos-west, located on the south coast.154 The number has since increased with production now documented at Gortyn, Ierapetra, Knossos, Kommos, Lato pros Kamara, Matala, and Trypetos (Fig. 4.13).155 At Ierapetra, the majority of Hellenistic Cretan amphorae appear in the ECCW fabric described above. Vessels in other fabrics also are attested, implying amphorae came to the site from several different production centers, perhaps even other kiln sites in the surrounding region. Among the forms represented are examples of both types from the Gortyn classification, including the Ellenistico Cretese 1 (EC1) (146), thought to be equivalent to the AC5 amphora in Marangou‟s classification.156 The EC1/AC5 is considered a product of the region of Gortyn and attested vessels appear at Gortyn and Phaistos.157 Examples of EC2 amphorae (147-148),

151

Marangou-Lerat 1995: 66-7. Portale and Romeo 2000: 417; Gortina V.3, 264-6. These types are known as the EC1 and EC2. 153 Knossos: Eiring 2001: 129. Ierapetra: East Crete type 2 and 3 amphorae are imitations of Rhodian and Koan vessels respectively. cf. Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 418; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329. 154 Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991: 499-507; Marangou-Lerat 1995: 67. 155 Gortyn: Gortina I, 263; Gortina V.3, 264-6; Papadopoulos 1989: 45. Ierapetra: Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 70; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 328-9; Vogeikoff-Brogan, Nodarou, and Boileau 2008: 329-30. Knossos: Eiring, Boileau, and Whitbread 2002: 59-60. Kommos and Matala: Hope Simpson 1995: 336; Kommos IV, 318-9. Trypetos: Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 421-2. 156 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 66. 157 Gortina I, 267 no. 272; Gortina II, 385 no. A42; Gortina V.3, 265 no. 1. 152

235

equivalent to the AC7, also appear.158 This type is much better documented on Crete, with vessels identified at several different sites. Among the most interesting Hellenistic amphora finds at Ierapetra was a small number of vessels characteristic of the East Crete type 1 amphora (149-150), but not in the ECCW fabric. This indicates that production of this type could have occurred at multiple centers. The rim diameter of these vessels is also slightly larger than the ECCW examples. One possibility is that they are products of Ierapetra, analogous to ECCW amphorae, but were manufactured in a different fabric. Ierapetra‟s Hellenistic potters did make use of several clay beds based on the evidence of stamped handles bearing the city‟s name. Vogeikoff-Brogan observes that the fabric of the stamped handles, presumably manufactured at or around Ierapetra, is distinct from the ECCW fabric.159 Finally, a local Hellenistic amphora of unidentified type (151) was encountered.

146. Fig. 5.14 (YM. 85; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, rim sherd; type EC1. D. of rim 12cm. HL Amphora fabric 1, but with higher density of inclusions. Conical neck; thick, flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn and Phaistos (Gortina I, 267 no. 272; Gortina II, 385 no. A42; Gortina V.3, 265 no. 1). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 147. Fig. 5.14 (YM. 24; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 5). Amphora, rim sherd; type EC2. D. of rim 10cm. HL Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; groove where exterior wall of neck meets rim; outward thickened rim with squared lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 265-6 no. 2), Knossos (Catling et al. 1981: 94 nos. V308-V310; UM II, 190 no. A2.107), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 288 no. 812, 289 nos. 819, 828, 290 nos. 829-830). There is also an example in the Agios Nikolaos Museum (Marangou-Lerat 1995: 67). Date: context of first century C.E. (residual). 148. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 25; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 5). Amphora, rim sherd; type EC2. D. of rim 9cm. HL Amphora fabric 1; rare, large white and black inclusions noted. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 147 above. Date: context of first century C.E. (residual). 158 159

Gortina V.3, 265; Marangou-Lerat 1995: 265. Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 216.

236

149. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 305; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type 1. D. of rim 11cm. HL Amphora fabric 1; rare, large white and black inclusions noted. Cylindrical neck; folded rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: same type as examples attested at Agios Nikolaos, Mochlos, Pyrgos Myrtos, and Trypetos (Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 418; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329); several examples noted above (50-54) in ECCW fabric. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 150. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 307; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; East Crete type 1. D. of rim 13cm. HL Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; folded rim with rounded lip; underside of rim also rounded Comparanda: see no. 149 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 151. Fig. 5,15 (YM. 119; Yiomelaki; Martyr 13/11, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 9cm. HL Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; flaring, squared lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified on Crete. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (unknown).

Italy (152) One Italian Dressel 1B amphora was attested (152). Following Dressel‟s original classification of the type, N. Lamboglia created three subdivisions based on morphology, and A. Tchernia provides a detailed list of characteristics to help justify this tripartite division.160 Dressel 1B vessels were produced at several kiln sites in Italy and date from the first quarter of the first century B.C.E. to the last decade of that century.161 Several fabrics have been noted for these amphorae. This piece does not have the characteristic Campanian “black sand” fabric and must derive from another region of Italy. While distribution of this type was primarily in the western Mediterranean,162 examples of Dressel 1B vessels have been attested in the eastern Mediterranean as well, including on Crete at Gortyn and Knossos.163 Their appearance at sites on Crete occurs after 67 B.C.E.

160

Lamboglia 1955: 246-50; Tchernia 1986: 309-20. For production sites see Peacock 1977b and Hesnard et al. 1989: 21-30. 162 Peacock and Williams 1986: 90. 163 Lund 2000a: 82-3. He notes finds in Greece, Turkey, and Egypt. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 267-8 no. 6. Knossos: Hayes 1971: 269 no. 51; Catling et al 1981: 92-4 no. V307. 161

237

152. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 126; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type Dressel 1B. D. of rim 14cm. HL Amphora fabric 2; very pale brown slip (10YR 8/4) well preserved on exterior. Conical neck; thin, folded rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 267-8 no. 6) and Knossos (Hayes 1971: 269 no. 51; Catling et al 1981: 924 no. V307). Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (residual).

Knidos (153-155) The most frequently encountered imported Hellenistic amphorae at Ierapetra, including two stamped handles (164-165) discussed below, are Knidian vessels. A similar pattern appears at Athens where Knidian amphorae are the dominant imported type encountered from the second century B.C.E. onwards.164 Based on material from Berenice, J.A. Riley describes these vessels as his Hellenistic Amphora type 4.165 Knidian amphorae are readily identifiable by their fabric and form, including their typical conical toe with rounded ledge. The assemblages at Ierapetra produced several examples of this vessel type (153-155), including body sherds, rims, and toes. On Crete, stamped handles from Knidian amphorae are well attested, but few other sherds from this vessel type are noted.166

153. N.I. (YM. 37; Yiomelaki; Trench 12, layer 4). Amphora, body sherds; Knidian type. HL Amphora fabric 3. Globular body. Comparanda: examples attested at Chania (Khania 1.1, 205 no. 87-P0079), Gortyn (Gortina II, 372; Gortina V.3, 268 no. 7), Knossos (Coldstream 1999: 348 no. X85; UM II, 140 nos. X20-X24), Praisos (IC 3.6.28), and Trypetos (Papadakis 2000: 121-2 nos. 44-47). Other finds are noted at sites around Herakleion and at Xerokambos (MarangouLerat 1995: 90). Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase). 154. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 139; Yiomelaki; Trench 9, layer 2). Amphora, toe; Knidian type. HL Amphora fabric 3. Solid, conical toe with rounded bottom; rectangular ledge about one third of 164

Grace 1985: 7; Koehler and Wallace Matheson 2004: 163. Riley 1979: 128. 166 Chania: Khania 1.1, 205 no. 87-P0079. Gortyn: Gortina II, 372; Gortina V.3, 268 no. 7. Knossos: Coldstream 1999: 348 no. X85; UM II, 140 nos. X20-X24. Praisos: IC 3.6.28. Trypetos: Papadakis 2000: 121-2 nos. 44-47. Other finds are noted at sites around Herakleion and at Xerokambos (Marangou-Lerat 1995: 90). 165

238

the way from bottom of toe. Comparanda: see no. 153 above. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (indeterminate). 155. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 246; Yiomelaki; Martyr 13/7, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; Knidian type. D. of rim 9cm. HL Amphora fabric 3. Outward thickened rim with rounded lip; cylindrical neck. Comparanda: see no. 153 above. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (indeterminate).

Kos (156) Koan amphorae are rare at Ierapetra despite the fact that vessels produced at the site appear to imitate amphorae from that island. A few examples are noted from Chania and Trypetos, but, overall, Koan vessels are not well attested on Crete.167 The piece from Ierapetra (156) comprises a double-round handle with the lower attachment still preserved.

156. Pl. 5.2 (YM. 81; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 2). Amphora, handle. Preserved L. 15.9cm. HL Amphora fabric 4. Double-round handle with lower attachment preserved. Comparanda: examples attested at Chania (Raab 2001: 72 no. 100; Khania 1.1, 78 no. 84-P0472, 205 no. 71P0849) and Trypetos (Papadakis 2000: 122-3 nos. 48-50). Date: context of first century B.C.E. (indeterminate).

Rhodes (157-158) After Knidian amphorae, vessels from Rhodes were the next most common imported amphora type attested at Ierapetra. Amphora production on Rhodes appears to have begun in the latter part of the fourth century B.C.E., with these vessels comprising the largest component of the cargo of the Kyrenia shipwreck dated between 310 and 300 B.C.E.168 Rhodian amphora stamps and chronology have been subject to a great deal of study, with the volume produced by

167

Chania: Raab 2001: 72 no. 100; Khania 1.1, 78 no. 84-P0472, 205 no. 71-P0849. Trypetos: Papadakis 2000: 1223 nos. 48-50. 168 For arguments that Rhodian amphorae first date to the second half of the fourth century see: Grace 1963: 329; Delos XXVII, 281. Kyrenia shipwreck: Parker 1992: 231-2 no. 563.

239

G. Finkielsztejn serving as an important basis for analysis.169 Rhodian amphorae are mainly attested on Crete in the form of stamps.170 Ierapetra produces several finds including two stamped handles discussed below (166, KM8), along with a toe (157) and a rim (158).

157. Fig. 5.15 (PG. 9; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Amphora, toe. HL Amphora fabric 4. Cylindrical toe with rounded ends; wall becomes thinner away from toe. Comparanda: examples attested at Agia Pelagia (Alexiou 1972: 233 fig. 3α-γ), Apollonia (SEG 34.914), Gortyn (Gortina I, 266 no. 271, 329-30 no. 345; Gortina II, 372; Gortina V.3, 268-9 no. 8; Rizza and Santa Maria Scrinari 1968: 66 no. 13), Knossos (Hayes 1971: 261 no. 42; Coldstream 1999: 348 no. X83; UM II, 138-40 nos. X3-X19; IC 1.8.40), Kommos (Kommos IV, 131-2 nos. 92-94), Kouphonisi (Perlman 1999: 156 no. 26), Phaistos (Levi 1965-1966: 576 nos. 1-8; IC 1.23.29-30), Phalanna (IC 2.18.1), Praisos (IC 3.6.29-30), Sybrita (IC 2.26.30), Trypetos (Papadakis 2000: 115-21 nos. 1-43), and Xerokambos (Perlman 1999: 157 nos. 41-4). Date: context of sixth century C.E. (residual). 158. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 197; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd. D. of rim 9cm. HL Amphora fabric 5. Cylindrical neck; rolled rim with squared lip. Comparanda: see no. 157 above. Date: context of mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. (in phase).

Thasos (159) A single Thasian amphora appeared at Ierapetra. Thasos produced amphorae from the fifth century B.C.E. through the second century B.C.E., with exports found throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Most attestations of Thasian amphorae on Crete have been in the form of stamped handles.171 The one example from Ierapetra (159), based on a typology introduced by Y. Grandjean, appears to most closely match post-250 B.C.E. (Period V) vessels.172

169

Finkielsztejn 2001. Agia Pelagia: Alexiou 1972: 233 fig. 3α-γ. Apollonia: SEG 34.914. Gortyn: Gortina I, 266 no. 271, 329-30 no. 345; Gortina II, 372; Gortina V.3, 268-9 no. 8; Rizza and Santa Maria Scrinari 1968: 66 no. 13. Knossos: Hayes 1971: 261 no. 42; Coldstream 1999: 348 no. X83; UM II, 138-40 nos. X3-X19; IC 1.8.40. Kommos: Kommos IV, 131-2 nos. 92-94. Kouphonisi: Perlman 1999: 156 no. 26. Phaistos: Levi 1965-1966: 576 nos. 1-8; IC 1.23.29-30. Phalanna: IC 2.18.1. Praisos: IC 3.6.29-30. Sybrita: IC 2.26.30. Trypetos: Papadakis 2000: 115-21 nos. 1-43. Xerokambos: Perlman 1999: 157 nos. 41-4. 171 Apollonia: SEG 34.914. Dreros: Demargne and Effenterre 1937: 21 nos. 1-2. Knossos: UM II, 138 no. X1. 172 Grandjean 1992: 543, 564 no. 74. 170

240

159. Fig. 32 (AS. 62; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 1). Amphora, rim, neck, and handle. D. of rim 7cm. HL Amphora fabric 3. Shallow groove on exterior wall where neck meets rim; flaring, tapered lip; oval handle with several ridges on top surface. Comparanda: examples (usually stamped handles) attested at Apollonia (SEG 34.914), Dreros (Demargne and Effenterre 1937: 21 nos. 1-2), and Knossos (UM II, 138 no. X1). Date: context of second half of first century B.C.E. (residual).

Unidentified (160-163) The lack of any publication dedicated to the systematic identification of different Hellenistic amphora types hinders the ability to document accurately all vessels encountered at a site. A small number of unidentified vessels were attested at Ierapetra. Most appear to be Aegean in origin, and one cannot rule out that some may have been produced on Crete. Three of the vessels (160-162) have no identified parallels, while one may be similar to a type documented at Didyma in Asia Minor (163).173

160. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 240; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 4). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 10cm. HL Amphora fabric 2. Cylindrical neck; rolled rim with rounded lip; underside of rim bears triangular groove. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (unknown). 161. Fig. 5.15 (YM. 282; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 7). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 19cm. HL Amphora fabric 5. Cylindrical neck, pinched where its meets rim; horizontal rim with rectangular profile and squared lip, slightly offset from neck. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of fourth century C.E. (residual). 162. N.I. (YM. 291; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Amphora, body sherd; unidentified type. HL Amphora fabric 6. Relatively thick-walled body; regular, broad, shallow grooves on exterior wall. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (unknown). 163. Fig. 5.15 (AS. 32; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 9cm. HL Amphora fabric 4. Cylindrical neck; short, downturned rim tapering to a point; rounded lip. Comparanda: closest parallel is an amphora from Didyma (Wintermeyer 2004: 26 no. 217) datable to third or second century B.C.E. Date: context of ca.110-50 B.C.E. (residual). 173

Wintermeyer 2004: 26 no. 217.

241

Stamped Handles (164-167) Analogous to other sites on Crete, only a small number of stamped handles appeared at Ierapetra. Two of the stamps are Knidian (164-165), one is Rhodian (166), and one is of unidentified provenance (167). Both of the Knidian stamps, although fragmentary, can be associated with a known Knidian Type (KT) based on a typology created by Virginia Grace: KT 740 (164) and KT 1055 (165).174 There is insufficient text preserved on the Rhodian stamp to assign it to a specific eponym. Amphora stamps continue to be documented rarely on Crete. Chaniotis notes that few stamps are found in publications and those that are available for study are of limited statistical value.175 M. Guarducci included the examples known to her in the Inscriptiones Creticae, but little was added to this corpus until the past two decades. Excavations at Knossos, Kommos, and Trypetos have provided the largest number of finds,176 while a catalogue of Rhodian stamps attested on Crete by P. Perlman also has introduced several new pieces.177 One would expect that a port city the size of Ierapetra would have produced more than four stamped handles between these three assemblages. Of additional interest is the absence of any stamped handles from Ierapetra itself even though they are documented at other sites. Almost all of the Hellenistic material analyzed from the three rescue excavations post-dates 150 B.C.E. and could miss the period when stamps were most common. Another explanation is that

174

I would like to thank Tania Panagou for identifying the two Knidian stamps and providing the relevant parallels and bibliography. 175 Chaniotis 2005: 97. 176 Knossos: UM II, 137-41. Kommos: Kommos IV, 131-2. Trypetos: Papadakis 2000. 177 Perlman 1999: 162-6.

242

Ierapetra‟s role in Aegean trade during this period was less extensive than has been hypothetically reconstructed. This will be discussed further in Chapter 6. The first Knidian stamp (164) bears the eponym Kleombrotos, a name attested on stamps from several sites with different spellings including Κιεύ(κ)βροηος, Κιεύλβροηος, and Κιεόλβροηος.178 Theudotos is the fabricant/potter, while an unusual form of the ethnikon, Κληδίοσ, appears on the stamp. There also is an unidentified device present. There are no published examples of this stamp, although V. Grace documents four unpublished examples in her archives from Athens (Agora: SS 8893, SS 1048), Delos (TD 2833), and Alexandria (Benachi letter 12.XI.1953 sheet 2.10 = ABC 1).179 Grace dates Kleombrotos to period IVB in the Knidian chronology (167-146 B.C.E.), and more specifically to “shortly before the middle of the 2nd century”.180 S. Rotroff suggests he was active for the entirety of period IVB.181 The second Knidian stamp (165) preserves Timasikrates as the eponym and Nikanor as the fabricant/potter. Κλίδηα is the form of the ethnikon, a rare variant. This stamp type is common and Grace records 123 known examples in her archives, including numerous published pieces.182 Grace dates Timasikrates to the end of period V of the Knidian chronology (146-108 B.C.E.).183 The Rhodian stamp (166) does not have sufficient letters preserved for specific identification. Also unidentified is the fourth stamp (167) which bears a figural design in the form of a person or deity facing left and looking down toward the ground. The figure appears to be wearing a helmet and is holding a spear in his/her left hand. The right arm is bent at the elbow and outstretched. This stamp may be representative of a coin type from its region of origin.

178

Jöhrens 1999: 148 no. 448. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Archives, Virginia R. Grace papers (cited with permission). 180 Grace 1985: 37. 181 Agora XXIX, 469. 182 Eg. Grace 1934: 272 no. 209; Delos XXVII, 326 no. E63. 183 Grace 1985: 34; Jöhrens 1999: 176 no. 555 179

243

164. Pl. 5.3 (AS. 59; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 3). Amphora, handle; Knidian. HL Amphora fabric 3. Oval handle. Stamp: rectangular; top half smoothed away; KT 740. [Ἐπὶ δακηοργοῦ Κιε] οκβρόηοσ [Θεσ]δό ηοῦ Κλίδηοσ device Comparanda: there are no published examples of this stamp type, but Grace identifies four unpublished examples in her archives from Athens (Agora: SS 8893, SS 1048), Delos (TD 2833), and Alexandria (Benachi letter 12.XI.1953 sheet 2.10 = ABC 1). See no. 153 above for examples of Knidian amphorae and stamps attested on Crete. Date: stamp type dates to midsecond century B.C.E.; context of 150-ca.110 B.C.E. (in phase). 165. Pl. 5.3 (AS. 22; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 2). Amphora, handle; Knidian. HL Amphora fabric 3. Handle: elliptical in section with stamp. Stamp: bull‟s head at center, surrounded by text; KT 1055. Ἐπὶ Ση[καζηθρ]άη[εσ]ς Νηθ[άλο Κλίδηα] / boukranion [ρος] Comparanda: None from Crete. Grace lists 123 known examples of this type in her archives of which numerous pieces are published (eg. Grace 1934: 272 no. 209; Delos XXVII, 326 no. E63). See no. 153 above for examples of Knidian amphorae and stamps attested on Crete. Date: stamp type dates to last quarter of second century B.C.E.; context of ca.110-50 B.C.E. (in phase). 166. Pl. 5.3 (PG. 125; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 3). Amphora, handle; Rhodian type. HL Amphora fabric 4. Round handle with part of rectangular stamp. Stamp: only the first few letters preserved. Ἐπὶ Ἀv[ Comparanda: see no. 157 above for examples of Rhodian amphorae and stamps on Crete. Date: context of late third to early fourth century C.E. (residual). 167. Pl. 5.3 (YM. 236; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 4). Amphora, handle; unidentified type. HL Amphora fabric 7. Oval handle with most of round stamp. Stamp: human figure facing left; appears to be looking down and may be wearing a helmet on head; holding spear in left hand; right arm bent at elbow and outstretched. Comparanda: no parallels for this stamp have been identified. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (unknown).

Part 2: Roman Pottery FINEWARES – CRETAN (168-176) Among the assemblage of Roman finewares recovered from Ierapetra were a series of vessels of Cretan manufacture. Locally produced finewares are noted at sites across Crete and 244

would have provided alternatives to imported sigillatas and red-slip wares. A description of these wares from Knossos provides an indication of their overall function and popularity on the island: This group of wares comprises a substantial proportion of the whole volume of slipped fine wares dating from the Early Roman period at Knossos. Produced in ever-decreasing quantities from the Augustan period onwards, the ware is technically speaking not sigillata and was not intended as a serious competitor to the finer imported wares... The vessels produced in this ware served simply to supplement the popular terra sigillata wares imported at the time.184 Quantification of fineware types encountered at the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos provides a clear picture of the declining popularity of local products from the first to the second century C.E.185 At Gortyn the pattern may vary since fineware shapes manufactured in local fabrics, including plates and bowls, appear throughout the Roman levels of the site. The Gortyn vessels adopt a different character over time, however, closely resembling Knossian products in the first two centuries C.E., but subsequently becoming simpler in design with fewer indications of decoration.186 These later versions seem to adopt the characteristics of common ware vessels. The situation at Ierapetra closely resembles that of Knossos. Finewares of Cretan manufacture are most common during the first century C.E., and become less and less frequent in succeeding centuries. Developing a clear picture of the quantity of Early Roman local finewares at the site proves problematic, however. Much of the difficulty stems from an inability to distinguish between Late Hellenistic and Early Roman products. In particular, there is no clear indication of when production of vessels in the East Cretan Cream Ware fabric ceased. A feasible option is that manufacture of ECCW continued into the Early Roman period and that some vessels should be considered in phase rather than residual at that time. If ECCW did

184

Forster 2001: 153. UM II, 162-3, figure 2. 186 For instance, see the discussion on plates in Gortina V.3, 418. 185

245

continue this late, it would increase the proportion of locally-manufactured vessels present at Early Roman Ierapetra. The Ierapetra material falls into two fabric categories, with most of the vessels characterized by R Local Fineware fabric 1. While local finewares were common in the Early Roman assemblages, and as residual pieces in later contexts, most of the sherds were undiagnostic, with only a small number of identifiable vessel forms present. Cups, mugs, bowls, plates, dishes, jars, and one carinated lid are attested, suggesting most of the fragments would have derived from these types of vessels. One cup has a cylindrical thin-walled body with a horizontal rim and small handle produced from impressed clay (168). There are no identified parallels from Crete, but the fabric suggests it is a local product. A thin-walled mug (169) is reminiscent of several imported products popular at Knossos during the second and third centuries C.E.187 According to G. Forster, these mugs may have originated from Asia Minor and the northern Aegean.188 The Ierapetra vessel differs in its handle placement (attached to the upper rim rather than the lower rim and shoulder) and the presence of a concave neck not seen on these imported products. It also derives from a first century C.E. context and could represent an earlier, local version of this type of mug. Several types of bowls in local fabrics were identified at Ierapetra. This includes one with an echinoid shape (170) and another with an outward thickened rim with a squared lip (171). A third bowl has an outward thickened rim with squared lip and two horizontal grooves on the exterior wall (172) similar to a piece from Knossos dated to the early first century C.E.189 One plate with a knobbed rim (173) was attested that does not match any products thus far identified on Crete. Local potters also may have tried to imitate imported fineware types. A dish with an 187

Forster 2001: 151, 152 fig. 4.7.j-m. Forster 2001: 151. 189 UM II, 195 no. B2.62. 188

246

outward thickened rim and straight, flaring walls (174) appears similar to Çandarli ware form 2 vessels found at the site. Imitations of Çandarli ware are attested on Crete at Eleutherna and Knossos, including at least one version of a form 2 dish.190 Several types of jars also appear, including one with an outturned rim that is thickened at the shoulder (175). A jar of similar type was found at Knossos in a late first century B.C.E./early first century C.E. context.191 Finally, a carinated lid with a biconical body (176) was attested similar to an example known from the Unexplored Mansion.192

R Local Fineware fabric 1. Soft to medium hard, fine, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6 to 7/5YR 7/6), with a smooth to granular break and a smooth, powdery feel. Fine to small, rare, angular, tabular, milky white grits; small, rare, angular, tabular to spherical, black grits. Light red to red slip tends to be preserved. Provenance: Crete, but specific region unknown.

R Local Fineware fabric 2. Soft to medium hard, fine, light red (2.5YR 6/6) to light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), with granular break and smooth feel. Fine to small, few, angular, tabular, milky white grits. Red slip tends to be preserved. Provenance: Crete, but specific region unknown.

168. Fig. 5.15 (PG. 39; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Cup, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 6cm. R Local Fineware fabric 1. Thin, flaring, slightly convex walls; horizontal rim with squared lip; vertical handle in form of impressed band of clay attached from underside of rim to upper body. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (unknown). 190

Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 120-1 nos. 117, 178 (imitations of form 4 dished). Knossos: UM II, 243 no. R1.10 (imitation of form 2 dish). 191 UM II, 187 no. A2.56. 192 UM II, 191 no. B1.17.

247

169. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 208; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Cup, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 9cm. R Local Fineware fabric 2. Thin-walled, globular body with carinated shoulder and concave neck; Slightly outturned rim with tapered lip; round handle attached to exterior surface of rim and upper body. Comparanda: may imitate series of thin-walled Knidian wares attested at Knossos (Forster 2001: 151, 152 fig. 4.7.j-m). Date: context of the first century C.E. (in phase). 170. Fig. 5.16 (PG. 54; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Local Fineware fabric 1. Thin, flaring, echinoid walls; inturned, rounded lip. Comparanda: similar to a type documented at Gortyn in Late Antique contexts (Gortina V.3, 426 type III 1.1/3). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 171. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 286; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. R Local Fineware fabric 1; faint traces of red slip. Cylindrical body; Outward thickened rim with squared lip. Comparanda: no parallel identified. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (unknown). 172. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 289; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 6cm. R Local Fineware fabric 1; red slip (10R 5/8) partially preserved. Thin, flaring, slightly concave walls; outward thickened rim with squared lip; two horizontal grooves on exterior wall below rim. Comparanda: similar example from Knossos dated to early first century C.E. (UM II, 195 no. B2.62). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (intrusive). 173. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 128; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm. R Local Fineware fabric 2. Knobbed rim with rounded lip; straight, flaring walls; exterior wall has small ledge near rim. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (unknown). 174. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 297; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd. D. of rim approx. 23cm. R Local Fineware fabric 2; red slip (10R 5/8) partially preserved. Straight, flaring walls; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comments: appears to be imitation of Çandarli ware form 2. Comparanda: imitations of Çandarli form 4 at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 120-1 nos. 117, 178), and imitation of Çandarli form 2 at Knossos (UM II, 243 no. R1.10). Date: context of seventh century C.E. (residual). 175. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 209; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. R Local Fineware fabric 1; light red slip partially preserved (2.5YR 6/6). Globular body, thickened at shoulder; outturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar example attested at Knossos dated to late first century B.C.E./early first century C.E. (UM II, 187 no. A2.56). Date: context of first century C.E. (indeterminate). 176. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 165; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Lid, base sherd. D. of base 3cm. R Local Fineware fabric 1. Biconical body; flat top surface. Comparanda: similar example attested at Knossos dated to early first century C.E. (UM II, 191 no. B1.17). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual).

248

FINEWARES – IMPORTED Eastern Sigillata A (177-187) Analysis of the pottery revealed a total count of 73 fragments of Eastern Sigillata A (ESA). Considered to be the earliest of the red-slip tablewares, ESA emerged around 150 B.C.E. and persisted until some point in the early second century C.E.193 Scholars initially believed that ESA originated at the site of Pergamon and in early reports it is often referred to as Pergamene.194 K. Kenyon, based on material from Samaria, subsequently renamed the ware Eastern Sigillata A to remove any geographical bias other than suggesting it was eastern in origin.195 It also has been referred to as Eastern Terra Sigillata I (ETS-I) in the literature.196 Two unanswered questions concerning ESA include how and where it was manufactured. J.W. Hayes and H. Meyza suggest possible manufacturing techniques using molds, while K. Slane notes that all of the pieces identified at Tel Anafa were wheelmade.197 Since these two distinct interpretations refer to the same forms, this indicates that more work is necessary to define the manufacturing techniques for ESA. My examination of pieces from Ierapetra shows that, analogous to the Tel Anafa material, they appear to be wheelmade. The question of where the ware was produced is even more controversial. Two neutron activation analysis studies undertaken in the 1980s argue for production in Cyprus.198 A subsequent study refutes this conclusion, instead preferring a location somewhere along the coastal Levant.199 Recent

193

Agora XXXII, 19. For an early argument for Pergamon as the source for this ware see Zahn 1904: 448. 195 Samaria-Sebeste III, 283. 196 Gunneweg, Perlman, and Yellin 1983: 10. 197 Hayes 1997: 20-1, fig. 6; 2001c: 146 fig. 1; Meyza 2000: 237-9, fig. 1; Tel Anafa II.i, 269. 198 Gunneweg, Perlman, and Yellin 1983: 11-3; „Amr 1987: 21-2, 148-52. 199 Slane et al. 1994: 60. 194

249

archaeometric work carried out by G. Schneider seems to corroborate these findings and proposes a location between Tarsos and Antioch.200 Of additional interest for discussions of the provenance of ESA is a recent attempt to use literary sources to link production to the site of Rhosus, which is within the accepted region of manufacture based on Schneider‟s archaeometric studies. J. Poblome first proposed this connection based on a passage from Cicero (Att. 6.1.3), which mentions ceramic tableware vessels from this site.201 Several articles have followed supporting this hypothesis,202 although an alternative interpretation offered by K. Greene suggests Cicero was referring to metalware products.203 While Rhosus may have been one of the production centers for this ware, Hayes notes that there must have been several different kiln sites given the proliferation of ESA and the sheer quantity of vessels produced.204 ESA has been subject to several typologies. The first comprehensive description of types can be found in the publication of finds from Antioch by F.O. Waagé.205 Subsequent excavations at Samaria prompted excavators there to propose a revised scheme with 28 forms.206 In the mid1980s, Hayes published what has now become the standard typology for the ware in Atlante II based on previously published material and finds he analyzed at Paphos, Cyprus.207 ESA spread across the eastern and central Mediterranean, appearing in major centers such as Rome and Carthage.208 Finds in Italy are not uncommon, although they tend to cluster at

200

Schneider 1995: 416; 2000: 532. Poblome et al. 2001: 144. The passage in Cicero reads “vasa rhosica mandavi” (I have ordered the Rhosian vases). Another reference to this type of pottery can be found in Athenaeus (6.229c). 202 Malfitana, Poblome, and Lund 2005: 199-200; Lund 2005: 237-8; Lund, Malfitana, and Poblome 2006; 2008. 203 Greene 2008. 204 Hayes 2001c: 146-7. 205 Waagé 1948: 22-5, 33-5, 39-40. 206 Samaria-Sebeste III, 309-42. 207 Atlante II, 9-48; Paphos III, 32-6. 208 Agora XXXII, 18. 201

250

sites along the southern Adriatic coast and in Campania.209 On Crete, both Knossos and Gortyn have produced assemblages in addition to a few pieces recovered from Chania.210 At Ierapetra, most of the finds are examples of large plates, specifically Atlante II forms 3 and 4 (177-183). These appear to be the earliest pieces of ESA to reach the site and tend to be the only „Roman‟ fineware found in deposits containing predominately late Hellenistic types and shapes. The Gournia Survey notes that examples of form 4 plates were “popular locally”.211 Two other vessels also fall into this same chronological period, including an example of an Atlante II form 17 cup (184), characterized by a black, rather than red, slip, and an Atlante II form 22 cup (185). The remaining pieces are two Atlante II form 39 bowls (186-187).

ESA fabric. Medium hard, very pale brown (10YR 8/4) to pink (7.5YR 8/4), with a granular or smooth break. Rare fine to very small angular to subrounded, spherical to tabular, milky white inclusions. Weak red (2.5YR 4/4) to red (2.5YR 5/6) slip often preserved, but tends to be matte and fugitive. Provenance: Region of Antioch, Syria.

177. Fig. 5.16, Pl. 5.2 (YM. 287; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 3). Plate, base sherd; Atlante II form 3. D. of base 12cm. ESA fabric. Ring foot, recessed inside of foot; flat floor; burnished surface; fugitive slip with evident double-dipping streak. Stamped decoration: circular rouletted grooves surrounded palmette stamps; inside of palmettes are three additional circular grooves and central floral stamp. Comparanda: examples of this form are found at Knossos (Hayes 1971a: 252 nos. 1-2; 257 nos. 1-2; 263 no. 1; Coldstream 1973: 47 nos. J3-4; UM II, 181 no. A1.1; 185 nos. A2.8-9a; 194 no. B2.40). Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (in phase).

209

Malfitana, Poblome, and Lund 2005: 201. They note that there are relatively high quantities at Pompeii and Puteoli. 210 Knossos: UM II, 150-2; Hayes 1971: 252-3, 257, 263-4; Coldstream 1973: 46-7; Catling et al. 1981: 89; Warren 1987-1988: 91; ΑrchDelt 52 1997 [2003] B‟3: 991. Gortyn: Gortina I, 200-3; Gortina II, 127; Gortina V.3, 26-9. Chania: Raab 2001: 71 no. 90. 211 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming.

251

178. Fig. 5.16, Pl. 5.3 (YM. 235; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 4). Plate, base and floor sherds; Atlante II form 3. D. of base 15cm. ESA fabric; almost no slip preserved. Ring foot, recessed inside of foot; flat floor; burnished surface. Stamped decoration: two overlapping circular roulette grooves surrounding palmette stamps. Comparanda: see no. 177 above. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (in phase). 179. Fig. 5.16 (PG. 109; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Plate, base sherd; Atlante II form 3. D. of base n.a. ESA fabric. Ring foot: recessed inside of foot; flat floor. Comparanda: see no. 177 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 180. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 120; Yiomelaki; Trench 13, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd; Atlante II form 4A. D. of rim approx. 16cm. Variation of ESA fabric: soft, light red (2.5YR 6/6) fabric with rare, fine, small sparkling white inclusions. Inturned rim with tapered lip, thickened away from lip. Comparanda: examples of this form attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 28) and Knossos (Hayes 1971a: 252 no. 3; UM II, 181 no. A1.1; 185 nos. A2.7, 9b; 194 no. B2.40; 199 no. C1.31). Date: context of second half of first century B.C.E. (in phase). 181. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 207; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Plate, rim sherds; Atlante II form 4A. D. of rim 15cm. ESA fabric. Inturned rim with tapered lip, thickened away from lip; burnished surface. Comparanda: see no. 180 above. Date: context of first century C.E. (indeterminate). 182. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 248; Yiomelaki; Martyr 13/7, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd; Atlante II form 4A. D. of rim 25cm. ESA fabric. Inturned rim with tapered lip, thickened away from lip. Comparanda: see no. 180 above. Date: context of 75-25 B.C.E. (in phase). 183. Fig. 5.16 (YM. 322; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Plate, rim and body sherds; Atlante II form 4A. D. of rim 18cm. ESA fabric. Inturned rim with tapered lip, thickened away from lip. Comparanda: see no. 180 above. Date: context of fourth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 184. Fig. 5.16, Pl. 5.2 (YM. 62; Yiomelaki; Trench 9, layer 2). Cup, rim sherd; Atlante II form 17. D. of rim approx. 20cm. ESA fabric, but with black slip. Vertical rim with rounded lip and slightly concave exterior surface; interior of rim preserves several convex moldings. Comparanda: one example of this form attested at Knossos (UM II, 191 no. B1,10); ESA with a black slip is unattested on Crete. Date: context of first century B.C.E. (in phase). 185. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 219; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Cup, rim sherds; Atlante II form 22. D. of rim 11cm. ESA fabric. Vertical rim with tapered lip; burnished surface. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 29) and Knossos (Hayes 1971a: 257 no. 3; UM II, 182 no. A1.1; 194 no. B2.34; 199 no. C1.30; 207 no. C2.49). Date: context of second century C.E. (residual). 186. Fig. 5.17 (PG. 33; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Bowl, complete profile from rim to base; Atlante II form 39. D. of rim 11cm; D. of base 3.5cm; preserved H. 3.5cm. ESA fabric. Ring foot, recessed inside of foot; flat floor; flaring, echinoid walls; inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: no examples of this form have been identified on Crete. Date: context of postsixth century C.E. (residual). 252

187. N.I. (PG. 7; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 6). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form 39. D. of rim n.a. ESA fabric. Inturned rim with rounded lip; burnished surface. Comparanda: see no. 186 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (indeterminate).

Eastern Sigillata B (188-202) Another common Early Roman imported fineware at Ierapetra was Eastern Sigillata B (ESB), represented by 77 fragments. This ware is well attested on Crete and has been found at Chania, Gortyn, Herakleion, Knossos, Kommos, and Lappa.212 R. Zahn was the first to isolate the ware, naming it Samian in accordance with literary references describing Samos as a pottery production center.213 Few, if any, scholars adhere to this supposition now and the majority prefer the name termed by Kenyon, Eastern Sigillata B. 214 Further research has shown that the ware occurs in two subtypes, ESB1 and ESB2. Hayes notes that ESB1 and ESB2 correspond to Samian B and Samian A respectively in H. Robinson‟s classification for the Athenian Agora.215 ESB1 tends to be harder and less micaceous than ESB2, and boasts a better quality slip.216 Over the past decade several scholars have begun refining the dates for ESB. Hayes notes that the earliest version appears at Delphi prior to 69 B.C.E. and may be represented by a single example at Athens.217 To avoid confusion, Hayes suggests the name Proto-ESB for these

212

Chania: Raab 2001: 72 no. 92. Knossos: Hayes 1971: 258, 264, 270; 1983: 118, 138; Coldstream 1973: 48, 54; Warren 1987-1988: 91; UM II, 156-8; Banou 2004: 898. Gortyn: Gortina I, 202; Gortina II, 128-9; Gortina V.3, 303. Herakleion: ArchDelt 20 1965 [1968] B‟3: 562, pl. 708.b. Kommos: Kommos IV, 315 no. 9. Lappa: GavrilakiNikoloudaki 1988: 52 no. Π4330 (fabric and profile suggest ESB). 213 Zahn 1904: 447. 214 Samaria-Sebeste III, 283. 215 LRP, 10. Chronology necessitated that the order of the names be reversed. 216 For a more detailed description of these two subtypes see Agora XXXII, 32-3. 217 Agora XXXII, 31, 161 no. 431. Delos XXVII, 247 nos. D50-52. In total, 12 fragments of this early ware were identified.

253

pieces.218 It is sometime around 25 to 20 B.C.E. when ESB1 appears as a characteristic ware. The shift to ESB2 begins around 40 C.E. and it becomes common around 70 C.E.219 Previous interpretations placed a strict division between ESB1 as only early and ESB2 as only late, but J. Lund observes that the difference between the two subtypes is no longer chronologically distinct.220 More and more, scholars are identifying transitional forms and noting an overlap. Another important contribution for discussions of chronology is a growing awareness that ESB has a terminal date after 150 C.E.221 A. Martin notes, based on a suggestion from Hayes, that some ESB2 finds from Olympia should date to the second half of the second century.222 Analysis of material from Corinth appears to corroborate this conclusion, and Slane now suggests that imports of ESB continued into the early third century.223 This reinterpreted chronology helps to eliminate the dilemma that there was no dominant imported fineware in the eastern Mediterranean between 150 and 200 C.E. One piece from Ierapetra (193) may date to this later period. The origin of ESB also is gaining clarification. Hayes originally suggested Tralles in Asia Minor as the site of production based on a passage of Pliny (HN 35.46).224 Pliny mentions that Tralles was a site of pottery production and, coupled with the predominance of ESB at surrounding sites such as Ephesus, the hypothesis seemed sound. Recent archaeometric work has done much to corroborate Hayes' supposition and Schneider observes that clay samples from the region of Tralles provide the closest match to ESB samples from several sites in the eastern

218

Agora XXXII, 31 n.6. Atlante II, 51. 220 Lund 2003: 126. 221 For the date of 150 C.E. as the terminal date for ESB see: LRP, 10; Atlante II, 51. 222 Martin 1997: 212 n.11. 223 Slane 2000: 309 n.47. She notes also that scholars at Ephesus had been making the same observation. 224 LRP, 9. 219

254

Mediterranean.225 Lund suggests that production could have also occurred at Ephesus based on its proximity to Tralles and the significant quantity of finds from that site.226 The distribution of ESB is not as widespread as for ESA. The primary regions of its influence include western Asia Minor and the Aegean. Forms of ESB1 also penetrated quite far to the south, the north, and the east with finds present in the Black Sea region, the Sudan and Ethiopia in Africa, and India.227 It is not until the introduction of ESB2 that examples appear in Cyprus or Italy.228 A reduction in the number of sites where the ware is found also characterizes ESB2 compared to ESB1, although the regions of distribution stay relatively consistent. As for typologies, the standard continues to be that proposed by Hayes in Atlante II.229 The ESB2 portion of this typology has required little revision beyond some aspects of chronology as mentioned above. ESB1, on the other hand, has seen the addition of a variety of new forms. According to Hayes, ESB1 “displays a multiplicity of shapes, not readily classifiable”.230 Several excavations at Ephesus, published by S. Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger and U. Outschar respectively, have brought to light variants and new types of ESB1.231 At Ierapetra, finds of ESB2 were much more significant than ESB1, a pattern similar to Gortyn.232 This suggests that imports of the ware were not common along the south coast of Crete until the second half of the first century C.E. Among the finds of ESB1 were three identifiable pieces (188-190), representing Atlante II forms 14, 29, and 36. ESB2 examples comprised Atlante II forms 53 (191), 60 (192-194), 62A (195), 70 (196-198), 58/70 (199-200), and 80 (201-202). These include several of the most common ESB2 forms. For the examples of 225

Schneider 1995: 416 n.4; 1996a: 54, 59; 1996b: 189. Lund 2003: 127-8. 227 Lund 2003: 129. See his notes for the relevant bibliography. See also Agora XXXII, 36. 228 Lund 2003: 129-30. 229 Atlante II, 49-70. 230 Agora XXXII, 37. 231 Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger 1995: 254-5; Outschar 1996: 49-54. 232 Gortina V.3, 31. 226

255

form 60, two types were noted, distinguished by the degree of articulation of the rim. One vessel shows little articulation (192), a characteristic Hayes suggests is associated with earlier versions of the form.233 A well articulated rim occurs on two pieces (193-194), suggesting they are later in the development sequence. The first of these most articulated vessels (193) derives from a context of the second half of the second century C.E. and may offer further evidence for the extended production history of this ware. For several of the other vessels (199-200), it was difficult to categorize them as either form 58 or form 70. Both forms have vertical squared rims with an exterior flange and appear to be distinguished by rim diameter. Form 70 vessels, often described as cups, have an average diameter of 7.5-14 cm, while form 58 vessels, referred to as plates, have an average diameter of 12-18cm.234 The sherds from Ierapetra are not preserved with enough detail to warrant an accurate calculation of rim diameter.

ESB1 fabric. Medium hard, yellowish red (5YR 5/8) to reddish yellow (7.5YR 8/6), with a conchoidal break. Frequent fine sparkling inclusions (mica); rare fine to small angular, spherical, milky white inclusions. Lustrous, red (10R 5/6) to light red (10R 6/8) slip often well preserved. Provenance: Region of Tralles, Asia Minor.

ESB2 fabric. Soft, light red (2.5YR 6/6) to yellowish red (5YR 5/8), with a conchoidal break. Common fine sparkling inclusions (mica); rare fine to small angular to subrounded, spherical, milky white inclusions. Lustrous, light red (10R 6/8 to 2.5YR 6/8) slip often partially preserved, but tends to show evidence of flaking. Provenance: Region of Tralles, Asia Minor.

233 234

Agora XXXII, 39. Atlante II, 63, 66.

256

188. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 65; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 2). Plate, rim sherds; Atlante II form 14. D. of rim n.a. ESB1 fabric. Thin-walled; flaring, convex walls; vertical rim with rounded lip; small incised groove on interior of rim. Comparanda: one example attested at Knossos (UM II, 194 no. B2.29). Date: context of fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (residual). 189. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 167; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cup, rim sherds; Atlante II form 29. D. of rim 9cm. ESB1 fabric, but with mottled pink slip. Two small, incised grooves on exterior wall; slightly inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Knossos (UM II, 194 no. B2.20, 199 no. C1.19) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 32). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 190. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 83; Yiomelaki; Trench 23, layer 1). Bowl, base sherd; Atlante II form 36. D. of base 3cm. ESB1 fabric. Ring foot: recessed inside of foot; sloping floor; foot slightly offset from exterior wall. Comparanda: unattested on Crete. Date: context of first century C.E. (in phase). 191. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 7; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd; Atlante II form 53. D. of rim 18cm. Fabric transitional between ESB1 and ESB2. Slightly inturned rim with rounded lip; rim thickened compared to body. Comparanda: examples attested at Knossos (UM II, 212 no. N1.9; 221 no. F2.9; 242 no. D6.4) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 32). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 192. Fig. 5.17 (PG. 19; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Atlante II form 60. D. of rim n.a. ESB2 fabric. Inturned rim with tapered lip; rim set off from exterior wall, but not well pronounced. Comparanda: examples with less articulated rim attested at Knossos (Hayes 1983: 118 no. 32; UM II, 212 no. N1.11; 224 no. T1.2; 235 no. D4.1); body sherd from this form identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E68). Date: Context of sixth century C.E. (residual). 193. Fig. 5.17, Pl. 5.3 (YM. 53; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Dish, complete profile from rim to base; Atlante II form 60. ESB2 fabric. D. of rim 12cm; preserved H. 3.7cm. Flat floor; interior wall set off from floor by pronounced ledge; flaring, convex walls; inturned rim with tapered lip; rim set off from exterior wall. Stamp decoration on floor: two circular grooves surrounding palmettes. Comparanda: examples with more articulated rims attested at Knossos (Coldstream 1973: 48 no. J16; 54 no. K25; Hayes 1983: 118 no. 33; UM II, 221 no. F2.12; 226 no. T2.1; 230 nos. D1.2-4; 232 no. D3.6), Gortyn (Gortina II, 128-9 nos. 1-2; Gortina V.3, 32), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 52 no. Π4330). Date: 150-200 C.E. (indeterminate; possibly in phase). 194. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 218; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Atlante II form 60. D. of rim 20cm. ESB2 fabric. Incised groove separates rim from interior wall; inturned rim with tapered lip; rim set off from exterior wall. Comparanda: see no. 193 above. Date: context of second century C.E. (in phase).

257

195. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 88; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cup, complete profile from rim to base; Atlante II form 62A. D. of rim n.a.; preserved H. 3.8cm. ESB2 fabric. False ring foot with small groove on exterior; flat floor; flaring, convex walls; downturned rim with rounded lip and convex groove on top surface. Comparanda: one example attested at Knossos (UM II, 224 no. T1.4). Date: Context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 196. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 319; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Cup, rim sherd; Atlante II form 70. D. of rim 8cm. ESB2 fabric. Vertical rim with squared lip and exterior flange; small incised groove on interior of rim. Comparanda: examples are attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 129 no. 3; Gortina V.3, 32), Herakleion (ArchDelt 20 1965 [1968] B‟3: 562, pl. 708.b), Knossos (UM II, 206 no. C2.36; 215 no. N2.10; 219 nos. F1.5-6; 221 no. F2.15; 230 no. D1.1; 236 no. D4.3), Kommos (Hayes 2000a: 315 no. 9). Date: Context of fourth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 197. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 77; Yiomelaki plot; Trench 6, layer 3). Cup, rim sherd; Atlante II form 70. D. of rim 10cm. ESB2 fabric. Vertical rim with squared lip and exterior flange: rouletting present on flange. Comparanda: see no. 196 above. Date: Context of 75-125 C.E. (in phase). 198. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 106; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cup, rim sherd; Atlante II form 70. D. of rim 9cm. ESB2 fabric, but with mottled pink gloss well preserved. Vertical rim with squared lip and exterior flange; rouletting present on flange; convex moldings on interior and exterior of rim. Comparanda: see no. 196 above. Date: Context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 199. Fig. 5.17 (PG. 35; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Plate or cup, rim sherd; Atlante II form 58 or 70. D. of rim n.a. ESB2 fabric. Vertical rim with squared lip and exterior flange; small, incised groove on interior of rim. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 200. Fig. 5.17 (PG. 78; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 6). Plate or cup, rim sherd; Atlante II form 58 or 70. D. of rim n.a. ESB2 fabric. Vertical rim with squared lip and exterior flange; small incised groove on exterior of rim. Date: Context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 201. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 76; Yiomelaki; Trench 6, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form 80. D. of rim 15cm. ESB2 fabric. Two grooves on exterior wall below lip; beveled-in lip. Comparanda: examples known from Knossos (Coldstream 1973: 48 no. J15; UM II, 212 nos. N1.7-8; 221 no. F2.19; 224 no. T1.5, 232 no. D3.7) and Gortyn (Gortina II, 129 no. 5; Gortina V.3, 32); also identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E69). Date: Context of 75-125 C.E. (in phase). 202. N.I. (YM. 66; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form 80. D. of rim approx. 26cm. ESB2 fabric. Two grooves on exterior wall below lip; beveled-in lip. Comparanda: see no. 201 above. Date: Context of fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (residual).

258

Italian Sigillata (203-213) Twenty-five fragments of Italian Sigillata appeared among the assemblages. To begin any analysis of this ware, which is among the best documented in the Roman world, one should consult the Conspectus, a compilation of studies on chronology, distribution, and production, and typology. An earlier typology can be found in Atlante II.235 The dates for the beginning of the ware are well established as sometime between 40 to 30 B.C.E. with exports to the East commencing by 15 to 10 B.C.E.236 For the end of production, however, less detail is known, but it appears that the late Italian series may have been produced from around 70 C.E. until some point after 150.237 As a dating tool for the late first century B.C.E. and first century C.E., Italian Sigillata is almost unrivalled due to a series of closely dated contexts, mainly from provinces in the west and north of the Roman world.238 Production occurred at numerous centers across Italy including Arezzo, Pisa, Padua, Torrita di Siena, Rome, Ostia, and Puteoli.239 The homogenous nature of the fabrics produced by each of these centers, when examined macroscopically, hinders attempts at assigning specific pieces to their workshops unless they bear stamps. P.M. Kenrick defines four Italian Sigillata fabrics based on material recovered at Berenice, but notes that the results were “disappointing” when he attempted to match these to other fabric descriptions in the literature.240

235

Atlante II, 361-406. Agora XXXII, 42. 237 Agora XXXII, 41. 238 For a description of these contexts see Kenrick 1985: 129-31; Conspectus, 39-43. 239 Conspectus, 4-13. Production also is documented at Sicily in Syracuse and Morgantina. Hayes (Agora XXXII, 42) observes that the production centers at Arezzo, Pisa, the lower/middle Tiber Valley, and the Naples/Puteoli region are the most significant for studying finds in the eastern Mediterranean. 240 Kenrick 1985: 128-9. Specifically, he tried to compare his four fabrics to the twelve defined by Alarcão for Conimbriga (1975: 3-5), but could find only one match. 236

259

Italian Sigillata had a widespread distribution, with examples found as far away as the site of Arikamedu in India.241 In the eastern Mediterranean, Martin observes that the number of finds is not homogenous between regions, with portions of mainland Greece producing significant quantities for the entire chronological range of the ware, while sites in Asia Minor produce small quantities which tend to be Early Roman in date.242 A list of eastern Mediterranean sites compiled by Poblome shows that there are even some sites at which Italian Sigillata is more common than the combined total of attested Eastern Sigillata wares.243 On Crete, the ware is found at Chania, Gortyn, Knossos, Kommos, and Lasaia.244 A variety of different forms were identified at Ierapetra including Conspectus forms 20 (203-204), 21 (205), 22 (206), 23 (207), and 34 (208). Of these, the example of form 34 is interesting since it developed late in the production history of this ware, suggesting imports of Italian Sigillata to Ierapetra continued for some time. Two pieces of relief ware, one early (209), and another late (210), also turned up. The first (209) is a small body sherd with an image of a winged female figure (Nike?) preserved. Nike is attested on relief vessels produced at Arezzo, suggesting a possible provenance.245 The second relief vessel (210), identified by the rim shape and presence of rouletting, derives from the late series of Italian Sigillata relief ware, a category not well studied in comparison to the rest of the ware.246

241

Wheeler et al. 1946: 34-40. Martin 2006: 175-9. 243 Poblome 2004: 23. The sites are Stobi, Corinth, Olympia, Tarsos, Antioch, Alexandria, Cyrene, Berenice, Sabratha, Leptiminus, and Carthage. 244 Chania: Raab 2001: 71. Gortyn: Gortina I, 202-6; Gortina II, 125; Gortina V.3, 36-8. Knossos: Hayes 1971: 258, 264, 270; Coldstream 1973: 47; Hayes 1983: 132, 138; Warren 1987-88: 90-1; UM II, 153-6. Kommos: Kommos IV, 315-6. Lasaia: Blackman and Branigan 1975: 31. 245 Oxé 1933: 47-8 no. 15a-c, 49 no. 20-21, 65 no. 80; Dragendorff and Watzinger 1948: 64-5, 177 no. 8 and 12-14, 228 no. 512. 246 For studies of Late Italian relief ware see Lavizzari and Paola 1972; Conspectus, 13-6; Medri 1992; Rossetti Tella 1996; Bergamini 2005. 242

260

In addition, parts of three planta pedis stamps were recorded (211-213). M. Baldwin Bowsky recently compiled a list of all of the published stamps from Eleutherna, Gortyn, Knossos, and other sites, but the material from Ierapetra does not provide much of a supplement.247 Two of these stamps were illegible (211-212), but the third (213) preserves the initials SEX·M·P (OCK type 1213).248 The name expands to Sex(tus) M(urrius) P(isanus) who is attested at Pisa, specifically the Isola di Migliarino production site. As a producer he dates between 60 and 150 C.E. A stamp which reads S xm P is attested at Gortyn and may represent the same individual.249

Italian Sigillata fabric 1. Soft, light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/6) to light red (2.5YR 6/6), with a smooth break. Rare fine to small angular to subrounded, spherical to tabular, milky white and sparkling inclusions. Lustrous, red slip (10R 5/6 to 2.5YR 4/6) typically well preserved. Provenance: Italy, but specific region unknown.

Italian Sigillata fabric 2. Soft, pink (5YR 7/4) to reddish yellow (5YR 7/6), with a smooth break. Rare fine to small angular to subrounded, spherical to platy, milky white and sparkling inclusions. Lustrous, red gloss (10R 5/6 to 2.5YR 4/6) typically well preserved. Provenance: Italy, but specific region unknown.

203. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 157; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Plate, base sherd; Conspectus form 20. D. of base 7cm. Italian Sigillata fabric 1. Ring base: chamfered on exterior surface; groove on exterior surface; narrow resting surface. Flat floor, thickens near foot. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 125 no. 4; Gortina V.3, 37), Knossos (Hayes 1971a: 264 nos. 9,

247

Baldwin Bowsky 2009: 160-2 tables 1a-c; 2011: 120-1 tables 8.1a-b. OCK type 1213. An Italian Sigillata stamp of this type has also been recorded at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 38, 631-2). 249 Gortina V.3, 38, 631-2. 248

261

11-12, 270 no. 11; UM II, 198 nos. C1.7-10, 205 nos. C2.13-15, 211 nos. N1.2A-4, 215 no. N2.6, 219 no. F1.2), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 315 no. 12). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 204. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 23; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 5). Plate, rim sherd; Conspectus form 20. D of rim n.a. Italian Sigillata fabric 1. Flat floor with several bands of rouletting preserved; vertical rim with tapered lip and convex moldings on exterior. Comparanda: See no. 203 above. Date: context of first century C.E. (in phase). 205. Fig. 5.17 (PG. 149; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd; Conspectus form 21. D. of rim n.a. Italian Sigillata fabric 1. Vertical rim with tapered lip and convex moldings on exterior; part of quarter round molding between rim and floor preserved. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 37) and Knossos (UM II, 198 no. C1.13, 215 no. N2.5). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 206. Fig. 5.17 (AS. 25; Assariotaki; Trench 1, layer 2). Cup, rim sherd; Conspectus 22. D. of rim n.a. Italian Sigillata fabric 1. Vertical rim with tapered lip and convex moldings on interior and exterior. Comparanda: examples attested at Knossos (Hayes 1971a: 258 no. 11, 264 no. 13; Hayes 1983: 132 no. 205; UM II, 186 no. A2.26, 191 no. B1.1, 193 nos. B2.10, 14-15, 198 no. C1.6, 205 no. C2.8). Date: context of ca.110-50 B.C.E. (intrusive). 207. Fig. 5.17 (PG. 106; Pangalou; Trench 11, layer 3). Cup, rim sherd; Conspectus form 23. D. of rim n.a. Italian Sigillata fabric 2. Vertical rim with tapered lip and convex moldings on interior and exterior; uppermost molding has rouletting. Comparanda: examples attested at Knossos (Hayes 1971a: 264 no. 14, 260 no. 13). Date: context of late fourth to fifth century C.E. (residual). 208. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 271; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Cup, rim sherd; Conspectus form 34. D. of rim 16cm. Italian Sigillata fabric 1. Flaring, convex walls; vertical rim with tapered lip; slightly downturned exterior flange. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 38, pl. 7.f) and Knossos (UM II, 244 no. R2.3). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 209. Pl. 5.3 (PG. 131; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 5). Chalice(?), body sherd; Italian Sigillata relief ware. Italian Sigillata fabric 2. Relief design with parts of two figures preserved: one figure appears to be winged female (Nike?) who is being grasped by two hands. Comparanda: examples of Italian Sigillata relief ware well attested at Knossos (Hayes 1971a: 270 no. 6; Hayes 1983: 138 nos. 206-207; UM II, 186 no. A2.24, 191 nos. B1.4, 193, B2.1, 3-6, 198 nos. C1.1-3, 204 no. C2.1, 215 no. N2.7, 220 nos. F2.1a-b, 244 no. R2.1). Date: context of first half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 210. Fig. 5.17 (YM. 166; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cup, rim sherd; Dragendorff form 29 (late Italian Sigillata relief ware). D. of rim n.a. Italian Sigillata fabric 2. Rim slightly outturned at lip; groove on interior of rim; several bands of rouletting preserved on exterior. Comparanda: unattested on Crete. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (indeterminate).

262

211. Pl. 5.3 (YM. 256; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 1). Cup/bowl, base sherd; unidentified form. D. of base n.a. Italian Sigillata fabric 1. Sloping floor. Heel of planta pedis stamp with part of one letter preserved: letter could be a C, G, O, or Q. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (residual). 212. Pl. 5.3 (YM. 299; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Cup/bowl, base sherd; unidentified form. D. of base n.a. Italian Sigillata fabric 1. Toes of planta pedis stamp preserved, but no letters visible. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 213. Fig. 5.18, Pl. 5.3 (YM. 61; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cup, base sherd; Conspectus form 34. D. of base 4cm. Italian Sigillata fabric 2. Ring base, rectangular in profile; sloping floor. Planta pedis stamp preserved which reads SEX·M·P (OCK type 1213). Comparanda: a stamp from Gortyn, which reads S xm P, may represent the same individual (Gortina V.3, 38, 631-2). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase).

Cypriot Sigillata (214) A single fragment of Cypriot Sigillata came to light during analysis of the pottery. Hayes was the first to isolate this ware and named it believing that Cyprus was the place of origin.250 This suggestion has not been without controversy. A. Negev, based on finds of Cypriot Sigillata near kilns at the site of Oboda in Israel, prefers the name Nabataean Sigillata and believes that Oboda was the place of production.251 The results of an NAA study led J. Gunneweg, I. Perlman, and J. Yellin, who refer to the ware as ETS-II (Eastern Terra Sigillata II), to postulate a provenance somewhere along the southern coast of Asia Minor.252 A subsequent NAA study, however, did suggest a Cypriot origin, and a majority of scholars now accept that production occurred on the island.253

250

Hayes 1967: 65. Negev 1986: xix. He even suggests that the clay for these vessels may have been transported from Cyprus to the Oboda for production there. 252 Gunneweg, Perlman, and Yellin 1983: 15. Slane (1989: 222, n.20) rejects this hypothesis, noting that the comparative sherds used from the south coast of Asia Minor may not have been manufactured there. 253 „Amr 1987: 192. 251

263

Hayes defined the main typology of Cypriot Sigillata based on finds from the House of Dionysos at Paphos, Cyprus.254 The ware dates from the early first century B.C.E. through the second century C.E., with exportation beginning sometime between 40 to 20 B.C.E.255 Outside of Cyprus, the Levant was the main consumer, while the Aegean produces relatively few finds.256 Crete may be the exception and Lund suggests it was the main non-Cypriot consumer of Cypriot Sigillata in the late first century B.C.E.257 This is based on the recovery of 62 pieces of the ware from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, most from contexts of the late first century B.C.E. and early first century C.E.258 Asides from the Unexplored Mansion, finds on Crete are sporadic. Hayes published a single example from the Villa Dionysos at Knossos and seven fragments are attested at Gortyn.259 D.J. Blackman and K. Branigan note a single sherd from the site of Lasaia in the Ayiofarango Valley.260 The piece from Ierapetra (214) is a krater designated Atlante II form P40. According to Lund, this is one of the most common exported forms.261 From evidence at Marina el-Alamein in Egypt, smaller versions of this type date to the second half of the first century C.E. and continue into the second century.262 Larger versions, of which the krater from Ierapetra is an example, date to the second century C.E.

214. Fig. 5.18 (YM. 272; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Krater, rim sherd; Atlante II form P40. D. of rim 13cm. Soft, light reddish brown fabric (2.5YR 6/4), with a smooth break and fine to small, rare fine to small sparkling white (mica and quartz) inclusions; weak to dusty red gloss 254

Paphos III, 38-48; Atlante II, 79-91. Atlante II, 80. 256 Lund 1997: 205; Agora XXXII, 53-4. Hayes notes that finds of Cypriot Sigillata in the Aegean tend to be contemporary with Eastern Sigillata A. 257 Lund 1997: 204. 258 UM II, 152. 259 Hayes 1983: 138 no. 210. Gortina V.3, 39. 260 Blackman and Branigan 1975: 31. 261 Lund 1997: 202, fig. 1. 262 Daszewski 1995: 30. 255

264

well preserved (2.5YR 4/2 – 3/2). Thin-walled, globular body; knobbed rim with rounded lip; exterior of rim has a recessed convex band; top of rim has slightly raised edge. Comparanda: this form has been documented at Knossos (UM II, 236 no. D4, 10; 251 no. U30a) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 39). Date: context of second half of the fourth century C.E. (residual).

Pontic Sigillata (215-217) Four pieces of Pontic Sigillata were recorded from Ierapetra. This ware is not well attested on Crete and only appears at Knossos and Kommos.263 Pontic Sigillata is now seen as a distinct series of products manufactured at several different kiln sites in the region of the Black Sea. Dragendorff first suggested that there was a regional sigillata industry in this area which manufactured products comparable to those from Arezzo.264 The introduction of the term „Pontic‟ to distinguish this ware occurred in the publication of material from the Terme del Nuotatore excavations in Ostia.265 T. Knipowitsch undertook the first systematic study of Pontic Sigillata, believing it was a product of Asia Minor.266 He catalogued 46 types divided between four categories based mainly on chronology.267 Hayes made the next attempt at typology and his scheme of 13 types remains the standard.268 This typology may be out of date, however. Based on finds from sites in the Black Sea region, D.V. Zhuravlev suggests that Pontic Sigillata consists of at least 50 types. 269 He also divides the ware into three subcategories: Pontic Sigillata A, B, and C.270 Pontic Sigillata A was the most common, while Pontic Sigillata B and C flourished at a later date. An additional

263

UM II, 159; Kommos IV, 315 no. 10. Dragendorff 1895: 32-7. 265 Ostia II, 9, n.9. 266 Knipowitsch 1929. 267 Knipowitsch 1929: 12-21 (category B – types 1-11); 21-9 (category C – types 12-18); 29-37 (category D – types 19-31); 37-52 (category E – types 21A, 22A, 26A, 32-46). 268 Atlante II, 92-6. 269 Zhuravlev 2002: 255. 270 Zhuravlev 2002: 256-60 (Pontic Sigillata A); 260 (Pontic Sigillata B); 260-1 (Pontic Sigillata C). 264

265

study by Zhuravlev closely examines a specific type of Pontic Sigillata vessels, those with vertical rims.271 The chronology and distribution of the ware is beginning to be sorted out. In the region of the Black Sea, Pontic Sigillata is common from the early first century C.E. through to the third century C.E., and possibly later.272 The period of exportation dates roughly between 50 and 150 C.E., and presumably Pontic Sigillata A is the product being transported to other sites.273 For Sidi Khrebish, Kenrick suggests finds of the ware date between 75 to 150 C.E., while at Knossos most of the pieces date to the early second century.274 Along with Crete and Cyrenaica, areas producing finds of Pontic Sigillata outside of the Black Sea region include Greece and the Aegean, the Adriatic, and Italy.275 The finds from Ierapetra fall into known types, including Atlante II form 4 (215) and Atlante II form 10 (216). The other piece (217) does not correspond to any of the types in Atlante II, but does match well with a vessel recently published by Hayes from the Athenian Agora which he describes as an early form.276

Pontic Sigillata fabric. Soft, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) to pink (5YR 7/4), with a smooth to conchoidal break. Fine to small, rare sparkling and milky white inclusions. Light red to red slip (10R 4/6 to 6/8) tends to be well preserved. Provenance: Region of the Black Sea.

271

Zhuravlev 2009. Kenrick 1985: 275. 273 Kenrick 1985: 275; Zhuravlev 2002: 254. 274 Kenrick 1985: 275; UM II, 159. 275 Agora XXXII, 54. Kenrick (1985: 273) has a list of known and probable sites where Pontic Sigillata appears. 276 Agora XXXII, 203 no. 823. 272

266

215. Fig. 5.18 (YM. 255; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 1). Hemispherical bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form 4. D. of rim 17cm. Pontic Sigillata fabric. Inturned rim with a rounded lip. Comparanda: this form has been documented at Knossos (UM II, 224 no. T1.11) and Kommos (Kommos IV, 315 no. 10). Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (residual). 216. Pl. 5.3 (PG. 94; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Cup, rim sherd; Atlante II form 10. D. of rim n.a. Pontic Sigillata fabric. Beveled-in lip. Relief design on exterior: rosette; architectural structure with two columns/pillars. Comparanda: this form is unattested on Crete. Date: context of fifth century C.E. (residual). 217. Fig. 5.18 (YM. 321; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Bowl, rim sherd; undocumented form. D. or rim n.a. Wall thickens near rim, marked by series of small incised grooves; below grooves is a ledge; inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: for an example similar to this form see Agora XXXII, 203 no. 823. Date: context of fourth to sixth century C.E. (residual).

Çandarli Ware (218-229) Finds of Çandarli ware at Ierapetra total 38 pieces. This ware was identified by S. Loeschcke following the excavation of a kiln site in the village of Çandarli, a port city of Pergamon.277 As a result, Çandarli is the only one of the Eastern Sigillata wares associated with a definitive kiln site. The earliest occurrence of the ware is during the first century B.C.E., and it appears to last into the fourth century C.E.278 Çandarli continues to be the common name for the ware, with an alternative being Eastern Sigillata C as proposed by Kenyon.279 Some scholars, including A. Martin, prefer the latter term because of increasing evidence that Çandarli was manufactured at several different centers.280 For instance, C. Meyer-Schlichtmann suggests that production occurred at Pergamon,281 and J.-Y. Empereur and M. Picon note that Çandarli is among the wares produced

277

Loeschcke 1912. An additional kiln site producing the ware has recently been discussed by Bounegru (1996). LRP, 317; Agora XXXII, 50-1. 279 Samaria-Sebeste III, 283. 280 Gortina II, 130. 281 PF VI, 13-4. 278

267

at the site of Grynion, 30km south of Pergamon.282 With respect to distribution, it is within this widening region of production where the ware is most common. Finds also occur from the Black Sea to Cyrenaica in North Africa.283 Çandarli is common in the Aegean, but is almost unattested in the Levant and in Italy except for a few pieces.284 On Crete, it has been found in numerous excavations including at Chania, Eleutherna, Gortyn, Knossos, Kommos, and Lappa.285 Examples of forms H2, H3, and H4 also were identified during the Gournia Survey.286 Loeschcke proposed the first typology for the ware when he documented 42 forms recovered from the Çandarli kiln site.287 Most of this material dates to the first half of the second century C.E., which established an initial chronological boundary. The next typology, proposed by Hayes, dealt with a later series common from the mid-second century until at least the midthird.288 Hayes then presented an overall revised typology of Çandarli ware including an Augustan series (12 forms), a selective series of Loeschcke forms (seven forms), and his five later forms.289 This remains the standard typology in use. One unresolved issue in the study of Çandarli ware is when production ceased. Mounting evidence now suggests that exports continued into the early fourth century C.E. A deposit at Mytilene, dated to around 320-340 based on coin evidence, includes all of the late Çandarli forms as well as some early fourth century African Red-Slip pieces.290 Additional evidence comes from Corinth where Slane suggests that two Çandarli pieces from a Tetrarchic context

282

Empereur and Picon 1986: 144. LRP, 317; Atlante II, 72. 284 LRP, 317-8. 285 Chania: Raab 2001: 72 no. 91. Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 103-4. Gortyn: Gortina II, 130-1; Gortina V.3, 33-5. Knossos: Coldstream 1973: 47 nos. 11-12; Hayes 1983: 104, 118; Warren 1987-1988: 91, 93; UM II, 158-9. Kommos: Kommos IV, 314-5 nos. 1-5. Lappa: Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 61-2 nos. Π4341-4341β. 286 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming nos. E72 (form H2), E71, E73 (form H3, E74 (form H4). 287 Loeschcke 1912: 360-89. 288 LRP, 318-22. This typology is repeated in Atlante I, 231. 289 Atlante II, 71-8. 290 Charitonidis 1961: 209-10. 283

268

dating to around 300 C.E. are contemporary with the deposit.291 More recently, A. Yangaki observes that two complete Çandarli vessels from a deposit linked to the 365 C.E. earthquake at Eleutherna likely were imported to the site in the early fourth century. Hayes also considers that some finds of the ware from the Villa Dionysos at Knossos could date after the mid-third century based on associated material.292 Finally, Hayes notes that one piece from a deposit of the second half of the fourth century at the Athenian Agora, classified as Phocaean Red-Slip, may be a late Çandarli product.293 It seems certain now that exports did continue after the end of the third century C.E. The material from Ierapetra represents the latest series of the ware. A possible sherd of the Augustan series bearing a stamp was identified by the Gournia Survey, suggesting Çandarli was arriving in the region at that time.294 Six of the catalogued pieces are examples of hemispherical bowls, either Atlante II form L19 (218-219) or form H3 (223-226). Examples of the other common late forms, H1 (220-221), H2 (222), and H4 (227-229), also appeared. There is no definitive evidence to suggest that any of the pieces were exported after the mid-third century, although three of the pieces (221, 223-224) were found in association with African RedSlip form 45A and 50A vessels, suggesting they should date at least to the mid-third century and possibly later.

Çandarli fabric. Medium hard, light red (2.5YR 6/6) to reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), with a smooth to conchoidal break. Fine to small, rare to few, angular, platy to tabular, milky white

291

Slane 1994: 146-7. Hayes 1983: 104. 293 Agora XXXII 83, 237 no. 1231. This piece, classified as Phocaean Red-Slip form 1, would be an example of Çandarli form H4. For a similar example from Knossos, see Hayes (2001a: 440 no. A40). 294 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E75. 292

269

inclusions; fine to small, rare, angular, platy sparkling inclusions. Red slip (10R 5/6 to 2.5YR 5/8) tends to be well preserved; often thicker on interior than exterior. Provenance: Region of Çandarli, Asia Minor.

218. Fig. 5.18 (YM. 320; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form L19. D. of rim 12cm. Çandarli fabric. Vertical rim with tapered lip; lip blackened from firing; slightly downturned exterior flange, delineated from lower wall by impressed groove. Comparanda: examples attested at Chania (Raab 2001: 72 no. 91), Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 34), Knossos (UM II, 219 no. F1.9, 221 no. F2.21, 224 no. T1.7, 233 no. D3.8, 236 no. D4.7, 243 no. R1.1, 246 no. R3.1), Kommos (Kommos IV, 315 no. 6), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 61-2 no. Π4341). Date: context of fourth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 219. Fig. 5.18 (PG. 79; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 6). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form L19. D. of rim 13cm. Çandarli fabric. Vertical rim with tapered lip; slightly downturned exterior flange with turning marks visible on surface. Comparanda: see no. 218 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 220. Fig. 5.18 (YM. 8; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form H1. D. of rim 26cm. Çandarli fabric. Straight, flaring walls; rounded groove on exterior wall where rim begins; turning marks on exterior wall; outward thickened rim with squared lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 131 no. 4; Gortina V.3, 34), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 118 nos. 1-5; UM II, 232 no. D3.4a), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 314 nos. 1-2). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 221. Fig. 5.18 (AS. 13; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form H1. D. of rim n.a. Çandarli fabric. Straight, flaring walls; below rim on exterior wall is rounded groove with single, shallow incision above and below; outward thickened rim with squared lip. Comparanda: see no. 220 above. Date: context of second half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 222. Fig. 5.18 (YM. 279; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Dish, rim sherd; Atlante II form H2. D. of rim 18cm. Çandarli fabric. Straight, flaring walls; turning marks visible on exterior wall; outward thickened rim with squared lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 131 no. 5; Gortina V.3, 34) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 118 nos. 6-13, 132 nos. 197-198; UM II 232 no. D3.4b, 244 no. R2.6, 251 nos. U20-22); also identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E72). Date: Context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 223. Fig. 5.18 (AS. 14; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form H3. D. of rim 15cm. Çandarli fabric. Vertical rim with tapered lip; exterior flange. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 103 nos. 144-145), Gortyn (Gortina II, 131 no. 6; Gortina V.3, 34), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 118 nos. 26-31, 134 no. 199; UM II, 231 no. D2.2, 242 no. D6.7, 244 no. R2.7, 251 nos. U23-24), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 314-5 nos. 4-5); also 270

identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming nos. E71, E73). Date: context of second half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 224. Fig. 5.18 (AS. 15; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form H3. D. of rim 10cm. Çandarli fabric. Vertical rim with tapered lip and exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 223 above. Date: context of second half of the third century C.E. (indeterminate). 225. Fig. 5.18 (YM. 46; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form H3. D. of rim 12cm. Çandarli fabric. Vertical rim with tapered lip and exterior flange; incised groove on flange. Comparanda: see no. 223 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 226. Fig. 5.18 (YM. 277; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Bowl, rim sherd; Atlante II form H3. D. of rim 11cm. Çandarli fabric, with slip burned off of rim from firing. Vertical rim with tapered lip and exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 223 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 227. N.I. (YM. 96; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Dish, rim sherd; Atlante II form H4. D. of rim 10cm. Çandarli fabric. Inturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 103-4 nos. 1-2, 208-210, 576), Gortyn (Gortina II, 131 no. 7), and Knossos (UM II, 246 no. R3.2, 247 nos. S1.1-2, 251 nos. 25-26); also identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E74). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 228. Fig. 5.19 (YM. 278; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Dish, rim sherd; Atlante II form H4. D. of rim 19cm. Çandarli fabric. Inturned rim with rounded lip; turning marks visible on exterior wall. Comparanda: see no. 227 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 229. Fig. 5.19 (AS. 77; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Dish, base sherd; Atlante II form H4. D. of base 15cm. Çandarli fabric. Ring base, angled on exterior, vertical on interior; slightly curving floor. Comparanda: see no. 227 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual).

Corinthian Relief Ware (230) A bowl fragment bearing an exterior design in high relief appears to be an example of Corinthian Relief Ware. This ware was produced at Corinth, and perhaps at Patras, from the second half of the second century to the end of the third century C.E., and possibly even into the beginning of the fourth century.295 Corinthian Relief Ware consists of mold-made cups/pyxides,

295

Malfitana 2007: 135-9 (for chronology), 141-5 (for production). Brief discussions of the ware can be found in LRP, 412, LRP Suppl., 536, and Atlante I, 255-6. See Agora XXXII, 111 n.7 for a list of basic bibliography.

271

bowls/plates, and trullae.296 The exterior walls are decorated with relief designs covering a variety of themes. D.C. Spitzer undertook an initial classification of these themes, while D. Malfitana has added several new types of scenes.297 Finds of this ware are prevalent at Corinth and in the Adriatic, and have been attested across the Mediterranean.298 On Crete, Gortyn is the only site with published examples.299 The piece from Ierapetra (230) is either from a cup or pyxis, and bears a relief design of a structure with a pitched roof and pediment. It may represent a temple or shrine and appears similar to a triangular structure attested on a sherd from Argos.300

230. Pl. 5.3 (YM. 149; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 2). Cup/Pyxis, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. Fine, medium hard, very pale brown (10YR 8/3), with smooth to conchoidal break; small, rare, angular to subrounded, tabular, white and black inclusions; thin, pink slip (5YR 7/4) well preserved. Cylindrical walls; relief design on exterior: structure with pitched roof and pediment (temple?); rolled rim with rounded lip; rouletting along exterior of rim. Comparanda: Corinthian relief ware attested on Crete at Gortyn (Gortina II, 225-6; Gortina V.3, 74-5); the relief design has no direct parallels, but may be similar to a triangular structure found on a piece from Argos (AbadieReynal 2007: 155 no. 254, pl. 36). Date: context of fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (residual).

African Red-Slip (231-258) The most common imported fineware attested at Ierapetra was African Red-Slip (AfRS), accounting for 109 fragments. AfRS was produced from the end of the first century C.E. until the seventh century C.E. and was distributed widely across the Mediterranean. The ware has seen a variety of names employed to describe it. F.O. Waagé proposed the term Late Roman A and B in

296

Malfitana 2007: 40. Spitzer 1942: 166-72 (type 1: labors of Herakles), 172-9 (type 2: battles), 179-90 (type 3: ritualistic scenes), 1902 (type 4: hunting scenes). Malfitana (2007: 97-112) has eight types of scenes: 1. labors of Herakles; 2. battles; 3. Dionysiac scenes; 4. theoxenia scenes; 5. landscape scenes; 6. vegetative designs; 7. Homeric scenes; 8. unidentified. 298 Malfitana 2007: 149 fig. 74. 299 Gortina II, 225-6; Gortina V.3, 74-5. 300 Abadie-Reynal 2007: 155 no. 254, pl. 36. 297

272

a study of material from the Athenian Agora.301 In Italy, N. Lamboglia preferred to designate finds as terra sigillata chiara.302 It was K. Kenyon who first coined the name African Red-Slip during her study of ceramics from Sabratha in Libya, but it did not appear in print until the publication of Hayes‟ Late Roman Pottery.303 Hayes also suggests that this name should only apply to African fabrics which were exported regularly. The production of AfRS continued uninterrupted throughout the course of its history, but the region of production did shift several times. Carthage and its surrounding territory was responsible for the earliest products, designated AfRS production A.304 This was the most common of all of the AfRS series, but was distributed almost exclusively within the western Mediterranean.305 AfRS production A is rare on sites in the eastern Mediterranean and there are only a handful of finds attested on Crete at Gortyn, Knossos, and Kommos.306 One AfRS-A body sherd was identified at Ierapetra. The next series, termed AfRS production C, is associated with east-central Tunisia and arose around 200 C.E.307 While this series was the first to be distributed across the whole of the Mediterranean, it also saw the lowest production run of any AfRS series.308 By the fourth century, the focus of production had shifted back to the Carthage region in the form of AfRS production D.309 Distribution was again widespread, but did not match production A for sheer quantity of vessels produced. There also was a minor series, termed AfRS production E, associated with the south-central coastal regions of Tunisia.310

301

Waagé 1933: 294-8. Lamboglia 1941. 303 LRP, 13 n.1. 304 Atlante I, 13. 305 Fentress and Perkins 1987: 208-9, figs. 2, 3. 306 Agora XXXII, 71. Gortyn: Gortina I, 206; Gortina II, 132-3; Gortina V.3, 41. Knossos: Hayes 1983: 104; UM II, 227 no. T3.11a. Kommos: Kommos IV, 315 no. 7. 307 Atlante I, 14. 308 Fentress and Perkins 1987: 208. 309 Atlante I, 15. 310 Atlante I, 16. 302

273

A substantial number of forms were produced in AfRS fabrics, with the majority characterized by distinct morphologies. This large number of forms has given rise to an equally impressive number of typologies. Among the earliest was a classification of forms proposed by Lamboglia based on finds in Italy.311 Subsequently, two additional schemes appeared formulated by J.W. Salomonson and E.M. Stern from material produced by separate excavations in Africa.312 The most widely accepted AfRS typology continues to be that proposed by Hayes in Late Roman Pottery.313 This typology was not the end, however. A. Carandini et alia compiled a comprehensive collection of forms for Atlante I based on all of the earlier typologies.314 There also have been subsequent revisions as new forms are discovered and data on known forms becomes clearer.315 The prevalence of AfRS at sites in the Roman world has led to its use as an important chronological marker for excavation and survey. In his typology in Late Roman Pottery, Hayes proposes a date range for each form, which has served as the basis for further discussion and revision. One of the difficulties with Hayes‟ chronology is a reliance on finds from Athens without much additional corroborating evidence from other sites.316 As data from additional sites and excavations has become available, revised dates are becoming possible. For instance, evidence from a series of forts abandoned during the early fifth century in Raetia has been a great benefit for refining the dates of several fifth century forms.317 Excavations in Carthage at the Theodosian Wall have produced an important series of material datable to the period of the wall‟s construction around 425 C.E. that seems to demarcate between pre-Vandal and Vandal 311

Lamboglia 1958, 1963. Salomonson 1968: 98-124; Stern 1968: 150-1, pl. 3, fig. 2. 313 LRP, 18-211 with later revisions in LRP Suppl., 484-90. 314 Atlante I, 11-122. 315 For instance, see: Fulford and Peacock 1984: 49-87; Lund 1995: 475-548; Bonifay 2004: 155-210. 316 Slane 2008: 474. 317 Hayes 1977: 280-1. 312

274

AfRS forms.318 J. Lund has assessed the chronology of each documented AfRS form with an aim to provide date ranges based on the most up to date information.319 M. Bonifay also has reconsidered the chronology of several forms.320 One impediment remains for closely dating these forms, however. Lund notes that the long production history of many AfRS types, along with the possibility the vessels were in use for several decades, hinders the ability to provide specific chronologies with any degree of accuracy.321 One additional, recent contribution to the study of AfRS concerns the actual manufacture of these vessels. Based on a careful analysis of numerous AfRS examples, including the documentation of the series of production steps involved in their manufacture, J.T. Peña concludes that an earlier inference of Hayes that molds were used for throwing these vessels is mistaken.322 Instead, throwing was done without the use of molds, and the pieces were then subjected to a series of procedures, including the slow the turning of vessels on a wheel to shave off excess clay, in order to achieve the desired shape. Stamped decoration is characteristic of many AfRS vessels, arising at some point during the early fourth century C.E.323 These stamps appear on the floors of vessels and have been subject to an extensive typology by Hayes.324 He includes an earlier series (styles A-C) dating from approximately 325 to 440 C.E. and a later series (styles D-E) which introduces a variety of Christian motifs. The AfRS pieces attested at Ierapetra represent some of the most common identified forms. Most of the catalogued pieces are production C (231-241, 243-248). Examples of AfRS-C 318

Neuru 1980. Lund 1995: 475-548. 320 Bonifay 2004: 155-210. 321 Lund 2010. 322 Peña 2010: passim. 323 Agora XXXII, 70. 324 LRP, 218-29. This typology was republished in Atlante I, 122-36. 319

275

include form 33 (231), 45A (232-233), and 50 (234-241, 243-248). The prevalence of form 50 dishes adheres to the pattern that this was the most ubiquitous AfRS-C type.325 One form 50 vessel (242) is characterized by an AfRS-D fabric, suggesting it was produced by one of the emerging AfRS-D workshops in an effort to imitate products already on the market. AfRS-D vessels come from early or late in the series (249-258), with a notable lacuna of forms from the fifth century. The early pieces include examples of forms 32/58 (249), 59A (250-252), and 61A (253). The small number of sixth and seventh century finds represent forms 105 (254-255) and 106 (256). With respect to the form 105 plates, Hayes suggests that vessel size is a chronological indicator, with smaller diameter examples earlier than larger diameter examples.326 This implies that plate 254 (d. 28cm) should be earlier than plate 255 (d. approx. 40cm). An example from Corinth with a small diameter in a late context may argue against this, however.327 Plate 255 also is characterized by a much coarser fabric than typical AfRS vessels. According to Bonifay, coarse clay and a thin slip is characteristic of ARS production in the seventh century C.E.328 One stamped fragment of a male figure, possibly Bacchus, also was recovered (258), along with a stamp featuring radiating acanthus leaves (257).

AfRS-C fabric. Hard, red (2.5YR 5/6) to light red (2.5YR 6/6), with a matte slip of the same color. Granular break and smooth to rough feel. Small, rare to few, angular to subrounded, tabular to platy, milky white inclusions. Provenance: Region of east-central Tunisia.

325

Cabras 2007: 35 fig. 3. LRP, 167-9. 327 Slane and Sanders 2005: 269-70 no. C3.11. 328 Bonifay 2004: 207. 326

276

AfRS-D fabric. Hard, red (10R 5/6) to light red (2.5YR 6/6), with a matte slip of the same color. Granular break and smooth to rough feel. Few, small to medium, angular to subrounded, tabular to platy, milky white and sparkling inclusions. Provenance: Region of Carthage, Tunisia.

231. Fig. 5.19 (PG. 36; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd; Hayes form 33. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Thick, flaring, convex walls; rectangular, horizontal rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: this form is unattested on Crete. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 232. Fig. 5.19 (AS. 5; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Bowl, rim sherd; Hayes form 45A. D. of rim 31cm. AfRS-C fabric. Broad, flaring rim with rounded lip; near lip on interior is shallow, incised groove; band of rouletting on top surface of rim. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 136-7 nos. 6-8; Gortina V.3, 43), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 118 no. 41; UM II, 250 nos. U5-U6), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 53-4 no. Π4345). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (residual). 233. N.I. (AS. 4; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd; Hayes form 45A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Broad, flaring rim with rounded lip; band of rouletting on top surface of rim. Comparanda: see no. 232 above. Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (in phase). 234. Fig. 5.19 (AS. 12; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50A. D. of rim 38cm. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 106), Gortyn (Gortina II, 137 nos. 9-11; Gortina V.3, 43), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1013), Knossos (UM II, 250 no. U7), Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 54 no. Π4346), and Chania and Kissamos (Dello Preite 1984: 184 table 5); also identified during the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E87). Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (in phase). 235. Fig. 5.19 (PG. 37; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical tapered lip. Comparanda: see no. 234 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 236. Fig. 5.19 (PG. 63; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 4). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, straight walls which thicken near base; vertical tapered lip. Comparanda: see no. 234 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 237. Fig. 5.19 (PG. 130; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 5). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, straight walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 234 above. Date: context of first half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 277

238. Fig. 5.19 (YM. 296; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 234 above. Date: context of seventh century C.E. (residual). 239. Fig. 5.19 (YM. 300; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, straight walls; vertical tapered lip. Comparanda: see no. 234 above. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (in phase). 240. Fig. 5.19 (YM. 31; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, straight walls; vertical tapered lip. Comparanda: see no. 234 above. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (in phase). 241. Fig. 5.19 (YM. 243; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50B. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 106), Gortyn (Gortina I, 210 nos. 149-150; Gortina II, 137 no. 13; Gortina V.3, 43), and Knossos (UM II, 250 no. U9). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (in phase). 242. Fig. 5.19 (YM. 181; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50B. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-D fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 241 above. Date: context of second half of fifth century C.E. (residual). 243. Fig. 5.19 (PG. 38; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50B. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; shallow, incised groove on exterior wall below lip; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 241 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 244. Fig. 5.19 (AS. 61; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50B. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, straight walls; vertical rounded lip; part of lip blackened by sooting. Comparanda: see no. 241 above. Date: context of Late Antique date (residual). 245. Fig. 5.19 (PG. 64; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 4). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50B. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 241 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (in phase). 246. Fig. 5.19 (PG 68; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50B. D. of rim approx. 29cm. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 241 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (in phase). 247. N.I. (PG. 147; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50B. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, straight walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 241 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (in phase).

278

248. Fig. 5.19 (AS. 65; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 50B. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-C fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 241 above. Date: context of Late Antique date (residual). 249. Fig. 5.19 (PG. 113; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 3). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 32/58. D. of rim 34cm. AfRS-C fabric; slip slightly mottled on exterior. Flaring, convex walls; slightly downturned rim with rounded lip; shallow, incised groove on top surface of rim. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 47) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 118 no. 47). Date: context of late third to early fourth century C.E. (in phase). 250. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 57; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 59A. D. of rim 29cm. AfRS-D fabric. Flaring, convex walls which thicken away from rim; rectangular, horizontal rim with rounded lip; two grooves on top surface of rim resulting in raised band. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 107 no. 73), Gortyn (Gortina II, 139 nos. 24-28; Gortina V.3, 47), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1013), and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 122 no. 52). Examples also noted at Kissamos and Matala (Dello Preite 1984: 184 table 5). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 251. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 126; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 5). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 59A. D. of rim 32cm. AfRS-D fabric. Flat base, slightly offset from wall; raised floor, offset from interior wall by ledge; flaring, convex walls with series of gouged vertical lines along exterior; rectangular, horizontal rim with rounded lip; broad, raised ledge covering central part of top surface of rim between two grooves. Comparanda: see no. 250 above. Date: context of first half of fourth century C.E. (in phase). 252. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 71; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 59A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-D fabric. Flaring, convex walls; rectangular, horizontal rim with rounded lip; raised ledge covering central part of top surface of rim between two grooves. Comparanda: see no. 250 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (in phase). 253. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 34; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 61A. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-D fabric. Flaring, slightly convex walls; inturned rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 107-8 no. 3), Gortyn (Gortina I, 208 no. 141; Gortina II, 140-1 nos. 33-36; Gortina V.3, 47-8), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1013), Knossos (UM II, 250 no. U14), and Matala (Dello Preite 1984: 184 table 5); form 61 dish also identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming). Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 254. Fig. 5.19 (PG. 20; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Plate, rim sherd; Hayes form 105. D. of rim 28cm. AfRS-D fabric. Thick, straight, flaring walls; knobbed rim, flat on top surface. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 52-3; Yangaki 2005: 113-4), Gortyn (Gortina I, 209 no. 146; 212 no. 158; Gortina II, 148-9 nos. 90-93; Gortina V.3, 51), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1013), and Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 442 no. A49). Examples also noted at Agios Evstratios, Agios Iorgos, Agios Savvas, Kissamos, Lasaia, and Patsos (Dello Preite 1984: 189 table 8); also identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming nos. E94E95). Date: context of sixth century C.E. (in phase). 279

255. Fig. 5.20, Pl. 5.4 (YM. 11; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 2). Plate, rim sherd; Hayes form 105. D. of rim approx. 40cm. AfRS-D fabric, but coarser and with thin slip only visible on interior. Straight, flaring walls; groove where rim meets interior wall; knobbed rim, flat on top surface; core of rim fired black. Comparanda: see no. 254 above. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 256. Fig. 5.20 (AS. 7; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Plate, rim sherd; Hayes form 106. D. of rim n.a. AfRS-D fabric, but somewhat coarse with poorly preserved reddish brown slip (2.5YR 4/4). Rolled rim; piece appears slightly overfired. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 53-4; Yangaki 2005: 114) and Gortyn (Gortina II, 149 nos. 94-95; Gortina V.3, 51). Examples also noted from Dia and Kissamos (Dello Preite 1984: 189 table 8). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (in phase). 257. N.I. (YM. 303; Yiomelaki; Trench 17, layer 1). Dish, stamped floor fragment; form n.a. AfRS-D fabric. Piece is weathered. Stamp: consists of radiating palm branches, Hayes style A(ii). Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina I, 212-3 no. 159; Gortina II, 139 no. 24; 150 no. 97; 151 no. 101; Gortina V.3, 53) and Knossos (Warren 1987-88: 103 fig. 51). Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (in phase). 258. Pl. 5.3 (PG. 73; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, stamped floor fragment; form n.a. AfRS-D fabric. Stamp: weathered; preserves part of male figure holding an object in left arm; possibly a representation of Bacchus (Hayes style E(ii), type 223; LRP, 261-3). Comparanda: this motif not attested on Crete. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (intrusive).

Phocaean Red-Slip (259-282) Phocaean Red-Slip ware (PRS) accounted for 56 fragments among the imported finewares. Production of PRS began sometime during the fourth century C.E. and continued into the second half of the seventh century.329 Common across the coastal zones of the eastern Mediterranean, PRS only appears in significant quantities in the West in eastern Italy and the site of Conimbriga in Portugal.330 By the fifth century, it was the most common imported fineware in the eastern Mediterranean, supplanting African-Red Slip in this region. On Crete, this ware is very well attested, having been identified previously at Agia Galini, Agios Ioannis, Agios Iorgos, Agios Nikolaos, Dia, Eleutherna, Frangokastelli, Gortyn, Itanos, Kali Limenes, Kissamos, 329 330

Agora XXXII, 86. LRP Suppl., 525-6.

280

Knossos, Lasaia, Matala, Panaghia, Patsianos, Plakias, Pseira, Sellia-Agia Marina, SelliaKambos, and Sellia-Phinikias.331 According to A. Dello Preite, PRS represents approximately 57% of the Late Roman imported fineware market on Crete.332 F.O. Waagé first identified PRS as a unique production based on material from the Athenian Agora and termed it Late Roman C.333 Scholars continued employing this designation for several decades and the ware was the last of the Late Roman finewares to be assigned a specific geographic provenance. A kiln site was identified at the site of Phocaea in Asia Minor, prompting Hayes to rename the ware Phocaean Red-Slip.334 A secondary production at the nearby site of Grynion was identified subsequently, distinguishable by chemical testing. 335 Proximity to the site of Çandarli also is conspicuous and the Phocaean industry could represent a later development of that ware.336 Hayes undertook the first typology of PRS, defining 10 forms. This has remained the standard, although some scholars continue to suggest refinements.337 In particular, M. Gichon employed sixth century material, specifically form 3 vessels, from the site of En Boqeq in Israel to propose a more nuanced breakdown of variants during this period.338 A typology also has been prepared by Hayes, and reiterated in Atlante I, for stamps, a common feature on the floor of

331

Agia Galini: Vogt 1991-1993: 43-9. Eleutherna: Vogt 2000: 55-6; Yangaki 2005: 115-9. Gortyn: Gortina I, 2137; Gortina II, 155-92; Gortina V.3, 55-65. Itanos: Xanthopoulou 2004: 1016. Knossos: Frend and Johnston 1962: 221-2; Hayes 2001a: 433; UM II, 161. Lasaia: Blackman and Branigan 1975: 31-2. Pseira: Poulou-Papadimitriou 1995: 1121 no. P2757. For the other sites on Crete where PRS is attested see Dello Preite 1984: 184-6, 189. 332 Dello Preite 1984: 197, table 13. His count for PRS is 565 vessels out of a total of 983 which also includes African red-slip C and D, and Cypriot Red-Slip. 333 Waagé 1933: 298. 334 LRP Suppl., 525. For the publication of the kiln site in Phocaea see Langlotz 1969: 379-81. 335 Empereur and Picon 1986. 336 cf. Agora XXXII, 83. 337 LRP, 325-46. The typology present in Atlante I (231-2) is a brief summary of the forms as outlined by Hayes 338 Gichon 1993: 175-86.

281

many PRS vessels.339 Floral designs are characteristic of early stamps, while the most common late iconography includes animals and Christian motifs such as crosses. There have been some attempts at refining chronology for the ware. For instance, M. Mackensen uses material from Iatrus to better define the dates for several of the form 3 variants.340 Also of note is a fifth century deposit along the Adriatic coast of Italy at S. Giacomo degli Schiavoni which produces variants of form 1 and small versions of form 3.341 This provides important evidence for the development of these early forms, showing that the small versions of form 3 predate the larger examples. The PRS material from Ierapetra consists of the two most common forms, 3 and 10. Of the 24 catalogued pieces, 20 are examples of form 3 (259-278), two are form 10 (279-280), and two are fragments of stamped floors (23-24). These also are the two main forms identified in the Isthmus by the Gournia Survey.342 Among the 20 catalogued versions of form 3, several variants are attested including 3A (259), 3C (260-262), 3E (263-266), 3F (267-275), 3G (276), and 3H (277-278). Form 3 has a long history in the PRS repertoire, beginning at some point in the early fifth century and lasting until the third quarter of the sixth century.343 The two stamped fragments (281-282) both represent a running animal, perhaps a dog or a hare. According to Hayes, this motif was used after 500 C.E.344 One additional consideration for the PRS assemblage from Ierapetra is the fabric of several of the vessels. The majority of the material represents the characteristic fabric associated with the main production site at Phocaea. Six of the pieces, however, have a different fabric 339

LRP, 346-68. According to Hayes (Agora XXXII, 84), it is larger vessels as opposed to smaller vessels which are more often stamped. 340 Mackensen 1991. 341 Albarella et al. 1993: 170-1. 342 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming nos. E76-E81. Other identified forms in the Isthmus include form 1 (E82), form 2 (E83), and form 8 (E84). 343 Agora XXXII, 87. 344 LRP, 357.

282

(263-266, 269, 278). Excavations at Eleutherna have produced PRS material distinguished into three fabric groups.345 The first two fabrics derive from the region of Phocaea based on chemical and mineralogical analysis, and consist of the bulk of the finds. A softer, reddish yellow to brownish fabric, with a poorly adhering slip, characterizes the third fabric, which is similar to alternate fabric of the Ierapetra material. Although the initial assumption was to classify these pieces as derivative of a different workshop in the Phocaea region (perhaps Grynion),346 subsequent chemical and mineralogical testing indicates the possibility of a Cretan provenance.347 This could be the origin of these pieces from Ierapetra, which could be imitations of PRS form 3 vessels.348

PRS fabric 1. Medium hard, red to light red (2.5YR 5/6 – 6/6), with smooth break and smooth to rough feel. Rare, small, rounded, spherical to tabular, milky white inclusions; rare, fine to small, sub-rounded, platy sparkling white inclusions. Few, fine to large vughs and vesicles. Slip of similar color to fabric tends to be preserved. Provenance: Region of Phocaea, Asia Minor.

PRS fabric 2. Soft, reddish yellow (5YR 6/8 – 7/8), with smooth to conchoidal break and smooth, powdery feel. Rare, small to medium, rounded, spherical milky white inclusions; rare, small, rounded, spherical black inclusions. Light red slip (2.5YR 6/6) tends to be poorly or partially preserved. Provenance: Unknown. 345

Vogt 2000: 55-6; Vogt 2004: 924-8 Vogt 2000: 56. 347 Aloupi, Kilikoglou, and Day 2000: 219; Vogt 2004: 925-8. 348 One imitation of PRS form 3 was identified during the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E85). 346

283

259. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 44; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3A. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 1. Vertical tapered lip with rounded exterior flange; blackened along rim. Comparanda: examples of form 3A attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 171 no. 27; Gortina V.3, 59) and Knossos (Frend and Johnston 1962: 221 no. 17, 228 no. 96). Date: context of fifth century C.E. (residual). 260. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 1; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3C. D. of rim 23cm. PRS fabric 1. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rim with squared lip and rounded exterior flange; outer face of rim slightly concave. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 117), Gortyn (Gortina II, 172 nos. 40-50; Gortina V.3, 59), and Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1018 pl. 4.2). Date: context of sixth century C.E. (residual). 261. Fig. 5.20 (YM. 180; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3C. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 1. Flaring, slightly convex walls; vertical rim with squared lip and rounded exterior flange; rouletting along outer face of rim. Comparanda: see no. 260 above. Date: context of second half of fifth century C.E. (in phase). 262. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 100; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3C. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 1. Vertical rim with squared lip and rounded exterior flange; outer face of rim concave. Comparanda: see no. 260 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 263. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 139; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3E. D. of rim 30cm. PRS fabric 2. Vertical rim with rounded lip and rounded exterior flange. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 117 nos. 414, 610), Gortyn (Gortina I, 217 no. 175; Gortina II, 173 nos. 54-62; Gortina V.3, 59-60), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1018 pl. 4.4), Knossos (Frend and Johnston 1962: 222 no. 21), and Rethymno (Vogt 19911993: 45 no. α, fig. 4.1). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 264. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 17; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3E. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 2. Thick, flaring, convex walls; vertical rim with rounded lip and rounded exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 263 above. Date: context of sixth century (residual). 265. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 143; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 3). Dish, rim sherd; Atlante II form 3E. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 2. Flaring, slightly concave walls; vertical rim with squared lip and rounded exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 263 above. Date: context of late fourth to fifth century C.E. (in phase). 266. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 144; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 3). Dish, rim sherd; Atlante II form 3E. D. of rim 27cm. PRS fabric 2. Thin, flaring, slightly concave walls; vertical rim with squared lip and rounded exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 263 above. Date: context of late fourth to fifth century C.E. (in phase).

284

267. Fig. 5.21, Pl. 5.4 (PG. 27; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Dish, complete profile; Hayes form 3F. D. of rim 29cm; H. 6.2cm. PRS fabric 1; slip burned off part of rim. Low ring foot; flat floor; part of stamped cross preserved on floor; flaring, convex walls; outward thickened rim with squared lip; two shallow grooves on outer surface of rim. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 117-8 nos. 369, 386, 389, 392, 403, 415, 524, 611-617), Gortyn (Gortina I, 215 nos. 165, 167; Gortina II, 173-5 nos. 63-85; Gortina V.3, 60), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1018 pl. 4.5-8, 1021 pl. 6.1) Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 438 nos. A.16-17), and Rethymno (Vogt 1991-1993: 47 no. δ, fig. 4.4-5). Date: context of fifth century C.E. (intrusive). 268. Fig. 5.20 (PG. 18; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes from 3F. D. of rim 23cm. PRS fabric 1. Short, inturned thickened rim with squared lip and exterior rounded flange; band of rouletting along outer surface of rim. Comparanda: see no. 267 above. Date: context of sixth century (in phase). 269. N.I. (YM. 302; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 4). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3F. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 2. Flaring, straight walls; short, vertical rim with beveled in lip and rounded, slightly downturned, exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 267 above. Date: context of first half of sixth century (in phase). 270. Fig. 5.21 (PG. 15; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3F. D. of rim 22cm. PRS fabric 1. Flaring, slightly convex walls; short, vertical rim with beveled in lip and rounded, exterior flange; outer surface of rim is concave. Comparanda: see no. 267 above. Date: context of sixth century C.E. (in phase). 271. Fig. 5.21 (PG. 16; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3F. D. of rim 25cm. PRS fabric 1. Short, vertical thickened rim with squared lip and rounded, exterior flange; two bands of rouletting on outer surface of rim; rim offset from exterior wall by junction. Comparanda: see no. 267 above. Date: context of sixth century C.E. (in phase). 272. Fig. 5.21 (PG. 72; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3F. D. of rim 23cm. PRS fabric 1. Short vertical rim with squared lip and rounded, slightly downturned, exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 267 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 273. Fig. 5.21 (PG. 93; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3F. D. of rim 34cm. PRS fabric 1. Short, thickened vertical rim with squared lip. Comparanda: see no. 267 above. Date: context of fifth century C.E. (intrusive). 274. Fig. 5.21 (PG. 99; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3F. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 1. Short, vertical rim with beveled in lip and rounded, exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 267 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 275. Fig. 5.21 (PG. 146; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3F. D. of rim 24cm. PRS fabric 1. Flaring, convex walls; outward thickened rim with squared lip and

285

small, downturned exterior flange; band of rouletting along exterior of rim. Comparanda: see no. 267 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 276. Fig. 5.21 (YM. 294; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3G. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 1. Flaring, straight walls; vertical rim with rounded lip; rim offset from exterior wall by junction. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 175-7 nos. 86103; Gortina V.3, 60) and Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 438 no. A.18). Date: context of seventh century C.E. (residual). 277. Fig. 5.21 (PG. 2; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3H. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 1. Flaring, straight walls; vertical rim with rounded lip and rounded exterior flange. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 118 nos. 618-619), Gortyn (Gortina II, 177 no. 104; Gortina V.3, 60), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1018 pl. 4.3), and Knossos (Frend and Johnston 1962: 222 no. 22). Date: context of sixth century C.E. (in phase). 278. Fig. 5.21 (PG. 3; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 3H. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 2. Thick-walled; vertical rim with rounded lip and rounded exterior flange; outer face of rim is concave; thick-walled. Comparanda: see no. 277 above. Date: context of sixth century C.E. (in phase). 279. Fig. 5.21 (YM. 295; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 10C. D. of rim 25cm. PRS fabric 1. Flaring, slightly convex walls; thickened rim with rounded lip, slightly concave on bottom; rim slightly offset from exterior wall. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 119 nos. 254, 255, 288-290, 417), Gortyn (Gortina II, 1812 nos. 116-118; Gortina V.3, 61-2), Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 443 no. B.1), Pseira (PoulouPapadimitrou 1995: 1121 no. PS2757), and Rethymno (Vogt 1991-1993 no. γ, fig. 5.5-7). Other examples have been noted at Kissamos, Matala, and Patsianos (Dello Preite 1984: 189 table 8). Date: context of seventh century C.E. (in phase). 280. Fig. 5.21 (YM. 15; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 6). Dish, rim sherd; Hayes form 10C. D. of rim n.a. PRS fabric 1. Flaring, slightly convex walls; thickened rim with rounded lip, slightly concave on bottom surface; rim offset from wall by ledge. Comparanda: see no. 279 above. Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 281. Pl. 5.3 (PG. 117; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 3). Dish, stamped floor fragment; form n.a. PRS fabric 1. Stamp: animal, possibly a hare, facing to the right (Hayes motif 35; LRP, 357). Comparanda: similar to stamp attested at Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 435 no. A5); an example of this type also known from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 64). Date: context of late third to early fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 282. Pl. 5.3 (PG. 74; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Dish, stamped floor fragment; form n.a. PRS fabric 1. Stamp: back legs of running animal, possibly a hare or dog, preserved (Hayes motif 35; LRP, 357). Comparanda: see no. 281 above. Date: context of first half of sixth century (residual).

286

Cypriot Red-Slip (283) One piece of Cypriot Red-Slip came to light from the three plots. This ware, first isolated by Waagé who termed it Late Roman D, was classified Cypriot Red-Slip by Hayes who believed at the time that Cyprus was the place of origin.349 Recently, he speculates that this ware does not have a Cypriot origin and instead suggests a source somewhere in mainland Asia Minor.350 H. Meyza argues, based on the results of archaeometric studies, that Cyprus was the origin of Cypriot Red-Slip, but that there may have also been a local production at Perge on the southern coast of Anatolia.351 Hayes undertook the first typology of the ware, which Meyza has since revised.352 Cypriot Red-Slip is not distributed widely beyond the Levant and Meyza notes that finds outside that region are concentrated only in Constantinople, Chios, Cyrenaica, Crete, and Spain. 353 On Crete, the ware cannot be considered common. Finds occur at Gortyn and Knossos, and also have been attested in smaller quantities at Itanos, Ayios Savvas, and Kissamos.354 Hayes published one piece from Ierapetra now stored in the Knossos study collection.355 Comparison of the quantity of Late Roman fineware imports at Gortyn by Dello Preite shows that from the fourth to the seventh century, Cypriot Red-Slip accounted for less than 2% of the market.356 The vessel from Ierapetra (283) represents one of more common Cypriot Red-Slip types, designated form 9 by Hayes and form K1/3 by Meyza.

349

Waagé 1948: 52; LRP, 371. Hayes 2001b: 277, n.26 351 Meyza 2007: 20. 352 LRP, 371-86 with additions in LRP Suppl., 589-90 and Atlante I, 239. Meyza 2007: 43-81. Meyza organizes his typology by designating forms previously identified by Hayes with an H and newly identified forms with a K. 353 Meyza 2007: 101. 354 Knossos: Hayes 2001a: 438 no. A 32, 443-5 no. B 5; Coldstream 1973: 55 no. K 29. Gortyn: Gortina I, 217-8; Gortina II, 193-6; Gortina V.3, 65-6. Itanos: Sanders 1982: 138, n.6; Xanthopoulou 2004: 1016. Ayios Savvas: Sanders 1982: 164. Kastelli Kissamos: Dello Preite 1984: 185 table 6, 189 table 8, 191. 355 LRP, 375 no. 14. 356 Dello Preite 1984: 197, table 13. 350

287

283. Fig. 5.22 (YM. 34; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 1). Dish, rim sherd; Meyza form K1/3; Atlante II form 9. D. of rim n.a. Medium hard, red (2.5YR 5/6), with a conchoidal break and smooth feel; contains small, rare, angular, platy, milky white and sparkling (mica) inclusions; flaking, reddish brown slip (2.5YR 4/4) well preserved, blackened along exterior of rim. Inturned rim with tapered lip, offset from exterior wall. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina I, 217-8 no. 179; Gortina II, 194-6; Gortina V.3, 66), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1016), Kissamos (Dello Preite 1984: 189 table 8), and Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 443-5 no. B5); also identified during the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E99). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (in phase).

Egyptian Red-Slip (284) Another ware represented by a single sherd is what Hayes tentatively describes as Egyptian Red-Slip.357 Production is presumed to have occurred in Egypt based on the quantity of finds in that province. This ware, including its various subtypes, was not exported widely and only a small number of finds are present in Greece.358 Gortyn on Crete may be an exception, however, since that site has produced large quantities of Egyptian Red-Slip C from excavations at the Praetorium.359 Among the finds are several unattested forms, and many of the pieces date to the eighth century C.E., perhaps confirming that production of this ware continued after 700 C.E.360 The lone find from Ierapetra (284) appears to be a flagon or flask, and is crudely made. It was found in a destruction context possibly associated with an earthquake during the second half of the fourth century C.E. This would make it an early example of this ware on Crete. Egyptian Red-Slip also has been documented in the hinterland of Ierapetra in the form of a single rim

357

LRP, 387-401. Agora XXXII, 92-3. Hayes notes that a series of six bottles/flagons are documented from the Athenian Agora. 359 Gortina V.3, 69-71. Egyptian Red-Slip A also has been identified in small quantities at Gortyn (Gortina II, 197; Gortina V.3, 68) and Eleutherna (Vogt 2004: 930). 360 Gortina V.3, 70. Hayes had suggested previously that the ware may have been produced after 700 C.E. (LRP, 401). 358

288

sherd from dish identified during the Gournia Survey.361 Hayes and Kossyva suggest a date for this piece in the seventh century C.E.

284. Fig. 5.22 (PG. 76; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Flask, rim sherd. D. of rim 2cm. Medium hard, light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), with a conchoidal break and smooth feel; reddish slip poorly preserved. Narrow, globular body; concave neck with exterior concave moldings at midpoint; vertical, squared lip; strap handle preserved on one side. Appears to be hand-made with some evidence of tool marks where clay was shaved off. Comparanda: no identified parallels. Date: context of 350-400 C.E. (unknown).

COMMON WARES Common wares comprise one of the largest categories of Roman ceramic material at Ierapetra. A number of different forms are attested including basins, bottles, bowls, jars/jugs, lids, pithoi/storage jars, small pots, tubs, one votive dish, and some decorated pieces of unknown shape. Several different fabrics are attested among the common wares. R Common Ware fabric 1 occurs most frequently and is similar in character to HL Common Ware fabric 1, perhaps suggesting local production. R Common Ware fabric 2 resembles ECCW and could indicate a later tradition using the same clay source. Other fabrics appear with varying frequency and at least three may represent imported products. R Common Ware fabrics 6-8 have characteristics suggestive of regions other than Crete and an examination of the vessels associated with them suggests they originate from Asia Minor or the Levant. Common ware fabrics also have been described in detail at several other sites on Crete, suggesting a degree of comparison should be possible. At Knossos, the main fabric is termed

361

Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E101.

289

buff-cream ware and is described as a “...rather soft-fired orange-buff to cream-coloured clay”.362 While this is comparable to R Common Ware fabrics 1, 2, and 5 at Ierapetra, this type of clay appears common across Crete and would have been used at multiple centers. Gortyn records 20 common ware fabrics, including three specified as dolia fabrics.363 Several of these, such as fabrics A-D, are comparable to ones noted below and could suggest Ierapetra and Gortyn received some of their products from the same production centers.

R Common Ware fabric 1. Medium-hard, reddish yellow (5YR 6/8 – 7.5YR 7/6), with a smooth to conchoidal break and smooth to rough, powdery feel. Small to medium, frequent to common, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; small, few to frequent, angular, tabular, black inclusions; occasional pieces have small, rare to few, subangular to rounded, spherical to tabular, red inclusion. Provenance: Southeastern Crete.

R Common Ware fabric 2. Medium-hard to hard, white to very pale brown (2.5Y 8/2 to 10YR 7/4), with a smooth to granular break and smooth to rough, powdery feel. Small, few, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Southeastern Crete.

R Common Ware fabric 3. Hard, red to light red (2.5YR 5/8 – 2.5YR 6/6), with a conchoidal break and rough feel. Small, frequent to common, angular to subangular, tabular, milky white

362

UM II, 174 Gortina V.3, 414-7. A list of common ware fabrics from Gortyn also appears in Gortina II, 293-5, and the authors of the later volume indicate when two fabrics are comparable. 363

290

inclusions; small, frequent, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Crete, but specific region unknown.

R Common Ware fabric 4. Hard, yellowish red (5YR 5/8 – 7.5YR 5/6), with a granular break and harsh feel. Small, few to frequent, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Crete, but specific region unknown.

R Common Ware fabric 5. Medium-hard, pink (5YR 7/4 to 7.5YR 8/4), with a conchoidal break and smooth to rough, powdery feel. Small to medium, few, angular to subangular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Crete, but specific region unknown.

R Common Ware fabric 6. Medium-hard, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), with a conchoidal break and rough feel. Fine, abundant, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions. Light red slip (2.5YR 6/6) tends to be preserved. Provenance: Region of Didyma, Asia Minor.

R Common Ware fabric 7. Hard, sandy, yellowish red (5YR 5/8), with a conchoidal break and rough feel. Fine, common, angular, platy to tabular, sparkling white inclusions; small, frequent, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions. Provenance: Syria-Palestine.

291

R Common Ware fabric 8. Hard, red (2.5YR 5/8), with a granular break and rough feel. Fine to small, common, angular, tabular to platy, sparkling white inclusions; small, few to frequent, angular to subangular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Region of Anemurium, Cilicia.

Basins (285-304) Basins were by far the most ubiquitous common ware shape attested at Ierapetra. Knossos and Gortyn also produce significant numbers of these vessels.364 Many of the examples adhere to a specific shape that is acknowledged as the standard basin type of Roman Crete. Hayes, who termed these Type 1 basins, describes them as follows: “... it comprises a flat base (left rough underneath), straight obliquely sloping sides, and a flat rim, generally grooved above the edges.”365 One example with a complete profile was preserved (285) and numerous other versions of this standard type appear (286-289). Examples with grooves also appear at several sites in the Isthmus of Ierapetra based on finds from the Gournia Survey.366 Several basins had shapes similar to the standard type described above with some slight variations. For instance, one vessel (290) has no grooves on the top surface of the rim, but does have one on the exterior surface giving the rim a concave face. This same feature also appears on a second basin (291). Rims with lips overhanging the inner wall of the basin appear on two examples (292-293), neither of which has grooves evident. One of these basins (293) also preserves part of a strap handle. An additional variant piece is a basin with a flaring rim (294).

364

Knossos: Hayes 1983: 108; UM II, 176. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 439. Hayes 1983: 108-9. 366 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming. 365

292

Outward thickened rims characterize two basins (295-296) with the first preserving a large concave groove on the exterior surface of the rim. The latter vessel has a slight groove giving the rim a knobbed appearance. A late form is represented by one piece with an inturned rim (297), similar to types noted at Corinth from the mid-fifth century C.E. onwards.367 Numerous basins were encountered with some type of decorative scheme including appliqué and incised designs. Hayes suggests these attempts at decoration, which are not common on basins in the eastern Mediterranean, may be in imitation of metalware types. 368 He suggests further that these vessels were not for everyday use, but instead fulfilled some religious or ritual function. Three basins catalogued below bear appliqué decoration. The first two (298299) have a frilled band along the lower edge of the exterior rim. A third (300) bears two separated frilled bands on the exterior rim. Incised decoration also appears on several examples (301-302). One basin with notched decoration was identified by the Gournia Survey in the Isthmus of Ierapetra, suggesting the presence of these vessels is not solely an urban phenomenon.369 The final basins to be discussed likely represent imports to Ierapetra during the Early Roman period (303-304). They are characterized by downturned rims that have a slight overhang above the interior wall. The fabric is very micaceous and there are faint traces of a reddish slip on the interior and exterior, invoking comparisons with Eastern Sigillata B vessels. One example of this type is recorded at Knossos, classified there as a local product.370 The fabric suggests an

367

Slane and Sanders 2005: 265 nos. 2.44-2.45. Hayes 1983: 111. 369 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E7. 370 UM II, 244 no. R2.11. 368

293

Asia Minor origin and basins of this type are known from Didyma in Late Hellenistic and Early Roman contexts.371

285. Fig. 5.22 (YM. 5; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Basin, complete profile from rim to base; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 32cm; H. 17.2cm. R Common Ware fabric 2. Flat base and floor, roughly finished on bottom; flaring, straight walls; flaring rim with squared lip; top surface of rim is flat with incised grooves at either end. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 160 no. 139), Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 447 type A VII 1.1/1), Knossos (Frend and Johnston 1962: 227-8 nos. 81, 86; Hayes 1971: 266 no. 39; Coldstream 1973: 48 no. J.20; UM II, 203 nos. C1.111-112, 217 no. N2.42, 238 nos. D4.47-48, 245 no. R2.22, 248 no. S1.18), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 318 no. 38). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 286. Fig. 5.22 (YM. 132; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim approx. 40cm. R Common Ware fabric 2. Flaring, straight walls; flaring rim with rounded lip; top surface of rim is flat with incised groove at either end. Comparanda: see no. 285 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 287. Fig. 5.22 (YM. 32; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 1). Basin, rim and handle sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 39cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Flaring, straight walls; flaring rim with squared lip; top surface of rim is flat with incised groove at either end; horizontal handle attached to underside of rim and upper body. Comparanda: see no. 285 above. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 288. Fig. 5.22 (PG. 41; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 4). Basin, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 29cm. R Common Ware fabric 2. Flaring, straight walls with interior ribbing; body is pinched where neck begins; flaring rim with rounded lip; top surface of rim flat with incised groove at either end. Comparanda: see no. 285 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (in phase). 289. Fig. 5.22 (PG. 85; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Basin, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim approx. 40cm. R Common Ware fabric 5. Flaring, straight walls; flaring rim with a squared lip; top surface of rim has incised grooves at either end. Comparanda: see no. 285 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (unknown). 290. Fig. 5.22 (AS. 72; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 27cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Globular body; wall tapers where rim begins; flaring rim with concave exterior surface and squared lip. Comparanda: similar to example from Gortyn (Gortina II, 305 no. 85; Gortina V.3, 464 type B VIII 1.5/2). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (unknown).

371

Wintermeyer 1984: 245 type SH I.3, fig. 8a.3-4; 2004: 15-6 nos. 25-27.

294

291. Fig. 5.22 (PG. 66; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 3. Cylindrical body; horizontal rim with rounded lip and concave outer surface. Comparanda: similar in general form to type from Gortyn datable to second century C.E., although the rim of the piece from Ierapetra has a rounded rather than flat top surface (Gortina V.3, 457 type A VIII 3.5/1). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 292. Fig. 5.22 (PG. 25; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 25cm. R Common Ware Fabric 4. Flaring, straight walls, thickened near rim; flaring, rounded lip. Comparanda: similar to type documented at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 445 type A V 2.1/2). Date: context of 350-400 C.E. (unknown). 293. Fig. 5.23 (YM. 260; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 1). Basin, rim and handle sherds. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 1. Straight, flaring walls; Flaring rim with rounded lip; rim continues past inner wall of vessel to form a distinct ledge; strap handle partially preserved. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: Post-antique context (residual). 294. Fig. 5.23 (YM. 158; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 1). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 38cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Globular body; flaring rim with squared lip. Comparanda: similar to type documented at Gortyn datable between the third and seventh century C.E. (Gortina V.3, 467 type C II 3.2/1). Date: context of second half of fifth century C.E. (indeterminate). 295. Fig. 5.23 (PG. 21; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 18cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Flaring, straight walls; exterior surface of neck just below lip is concave; vertical, squared lip with shallow groove on top surface. Comparanda: closest parallel is basin identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E10). Date: context of sixth century C.E. (unknown). 296. Fig. 5.23 (YM. 184; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 1). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 26cm. R Common Ware fabric 2. Straight, flaring walls; inwardly thickened rim with rounded lip; shallow groove on exterior of rim. Comparanda: not parallels noted. Date: context of second half of fifth century C.E. (unknown). 297. Fig. 5.23 (YM. 258; Yiomelaki; Trench 9, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 26cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Flaring, convex walls; inturned rim, thickened at end, with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar type attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 465 type B XII 3.1/1); also appears similar to examples from mid-fifth century to sixth century C.E. (Slane and Sanders 2005: 265 nos. 2.44-2.45). Date: context of first century B.C.E. (intrusive). 298. Fig. 5.23 (YM. 160; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Basin, rim and body sherds. D. of rim 40cm. R Common Ware 4. Flaring, convex walls; flaring rim with slightly concave outer surface; vertical, rounded lip protrudes above rim; at bottom of exterior of rim is appliqué band with regular impressions. Comparanda: example with similar rim form attested at Unexplored Mansion (UM II, 225 no. T1.21d). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (indeterminate).

295

299. Fig. 5.23 (PG. 55; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 5. Horizontal rim with rounded lip, thickened at end; top surface of rim is flat; bottom of outer surface of rim has appliqué decoration in form of band of clay with regular impressions. Comparanda: basins with this type of rim decoration are commonly attested on Crete, but none have the same rim form as this example. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 300. Fig. 5.23 (PG. 145; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 5. Flaring, straight walls; flaring rim with rounded lip, thickened near connection with body; two bands of frilled appliqué decoration, one along bottom surface of lip and another along top of exterior wall where rim begins. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 301. Fig. 5.23 (YM. 203; Yiomelaki; Trench 6, layer 2). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 18cm. R Common ware fabric 1. Flaring, straight walls; thickened, flaring rim with squared lip; on outer surface of rim is frilled appliqué decoration. Comparanda: similar to type documented at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 479 DEC A VII). Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (unknown). 302. Fig. 5.23 (YM. 253; Yiomelaki; Trench 21, layer 1). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 1. Flaring, convex walls; vertical squared lip; series of wavy incised lines on exterior wall. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (unknown). 303. Fig. 5.23 (YM. 269; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 35cm. R Common Ware fabric 6; faint traces of light red slip (2.5YR 6/6) on inside and outside. Globular body; downturned rim, thickened at end, with rounded lip; slightly inwardly thickened; globular body. Comparanda: numerous examples appear at Didyma in Hellenistic and Early Roman contexts (Wintermeyer 1984: 245 type SH I.3, fig. 8a.3-4; Wintermeyer 2004: 15-6 nos. 25-27). An example appears at Knossos (UM II, 244 no. R2.11). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 304. Fig. 5.24 (YM. 317; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Basin, rim sherd. D. of rim 29cm. R Common Ware fabric 6; faint traces of red slip (10R 5/6) on inside and outside. Globular body; downturned rim, thickened at end, with rounded lip; slightly inwardly thickened. Comparanda: see no. 303 above. Date: context of fourth to sixth century C.E. (residual).

Bottles (305-307) Bottles were encountered infrequently at Ierapetra, in contrast to Gortyn where they are relatively common. The few examples noted below are from several distinct types, including an

296

example of a type documented at Gortyn with a conical neck and outward thickened rim (305).372 A second vessel is missing its lip (306), but bears a cylindrical neck and globular body. The final bottle (307) appears to be late in form and is characterized by a cylindrical neck with vertical, rounded lip and a globular body. There is some exterior ribbing on the neck and body.

305. Fig. 5.24 (YM. 148; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 2). Bottle, rim sherd. D. of rim 2.5cm. R Common Ware fabric 3. Conical neck; outward thickened rim with tapered lip, triangular in profile. Comparanda: similar to type documented at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 523 type VI 2.1/1). Date: context of fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (unknown). 306. N.I. (AS. 56; Assariotaki; Trench 4, layer 2). Bottle, neck and body sherds. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 5; faint traces of buff slip on exterior. Cylindrical neck broken just below rim; globular body. Comparanda: no published parallels on Crete. Date: context of Early Roman date (unknown). 307. Fig. 5.24 (PG. 42; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Bottle; rim and body sherds. D. of rim 3cm. R Common Ware fabric 3. Vertical, rounded lip; cylindrical neck with exterior ribbing and no distinction from rim; globular body, thickened near neck. Comparanda: closest parallel for form is example from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 522 type III 2.4/1). Date: context of fifth century C.E. (unknown).

Bowls (308-311) Unslipped bowls in common ware fabrics appear in a variety of forms at Ierapetra. The quantity and types of these vessels are fewer than have been documented at Gortyn, but the examples noted here do tend to have parallels on Crete.373 Two examples have similar shapes, including rounded lips. The first (308) comprises a knobbed rim and is somewhat thick-walled. Similar examples appear at Knossos.374 The second (309) has a slight carination at the shoulder, resulting in a more vertical rim. A third vessel is much shallower in profile and is characterized

372

Gortina V.3, 523 type VI 2.1/1. Gortina V.3, 423. 374 Hayes 2001a: 445 nos. 18-22. 373

297

by a flaring, rounded lip with a blunt, rounded exterior flange (310). The final bowl has a distinctly inturned rim with a squared lip (311), analogous to a type noted at Gortyn.375

308. Fig. 5.24 (AS. 66; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 14cm. R Common Ware fabric 1; reddish yellow ship (5YR 6/6) well preserved. Knobbed rim formed by shallow groove on exterior wall below lip; thick-walled. Comparanda: similar to examples from Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 445 nos. 18-22). Date: context of first half of fifth century C.E. (in phase). 309. Fig. 5.24 (YM. 12; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 2). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 18cm. R Common Ware fabric 2. Vertical, rounded lip; carination just below rim leading to slightly convex walls. Comparanda: closest parallel is a type documented at Gortyn (Gortina II, 299 no. 31; Gortina V.3, 426 type III 1.2/2); fairly similar to no. 308 above. Date: context of mid-third to fourth century C.E. (in phase). 310. Fig. 5.24 (YM. 221; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 1. Flaring, convex walls; flaring, rounded lip with blunt, rounded flange; exterior surface of rim concave. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of second century C.E. (unknown). 311. Fig. 5.24 (YM. 261; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 1). Bowl, rim sherd. D. of rim 28cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Flaring, echinoid walls; inturned rim with squared lip. Comparanda: similar to a type attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 301-2 no. 61; Gortina V.3, 435 type X11 1.1/2). Date: Post-antique context (residual).

Jugs/Jars (312-322) Several different types of jars and jugs were identified among the common ware finds. By far the most ubiquitous type comprised a concave neck and offset rim, triangular in profile, with a tapered or rounded lip (312-317). This form is described in detail by Hayes based on finds at Knossos at the Villa Dionysos.376 He refers to it as Jug type 1, and notes it is common in destruction contexts in the villa. Several other sites on Crete record finds of this jug type,

375 376

Gortina II, 301-2 no. 61; Gortina V.3, 435 type X11 1.1/2. Hayes 1983: 109.

298

including the Gournia Survey, indicating it was common across the island.377 It seems to date sometime from the second century C.E. into the fourth century. Other attested jars represent a variety of different shapes. One example (318) has a flaring, squared lip that hangs over the interior wall creating a ledge. Another vessel (319) has a curved rim with an inturned, rounded lip and a strap handle with several distinct ridges on the top surface. A piece from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos appears similar.378 There may be two examples of trefoil-mouthed jars (320-321), the second of which was found covered in heavy concretions and may have been reused in the construction of a wall. The final jar is similar to the type 1 vessels described above with an offset rim that is triangular in profile (322). A different shape is apparent, however, and this jar may be an example of a type of perfume container attested at Knossos.379 The buff fabric is similar to the Knossos finds and Hayes notes that this vessel type is found across the Mediterranean in the Roman period and may have a connection with Spanish garum amphorae. A second century C.E. date is posited for the Knossos pieces.

312. Fig. 5.24 (PG. 77; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 6). Jar, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 8cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Concave neck; rim offset from neck with vertical rounded lip, slightly inturned. Comparanda: examples of this type attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 148, fig. 26.b-d), Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 510-3 type A X), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 128 nos. 141-144, 147; UM II, 243 no. R1.11, 254 nos. U107-108), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 318 nos. 35-37). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 313. Fig. 5.24 (YM. 48; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 7cm. R Common Ware fabric 4. Concave neck; offset rim with vertical, tapered lip. Comparanda: see no. 312 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate).

377

Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 148, fig. 26.b-d. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 510-3 type A X. Knossos: UM II, 243 no. R1.11, 254 nos. U107-108. Kommos: Kommos IV, 318 nos. 35-37. Gournia Survey: Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E17. 378 UM II, 254 no. U114. 379 Hayes 1983: 132 nos. 168-170.

299

314. Fig. 5.24 (YM. 6; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 8cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Concave neck; rim offset from neck with vertical, tapered lip. Comparanda: see no. 312 above. Date: context of first half of the third century C.E. (indeterminate). 315. Fig. 5.24 (PG. 110; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Jar, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 5cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Cylindrical neck with smears of clay on exterior surface; rim offset from neck with vertical, rounded lip; underside of rim has semicircular groove creating an overhang. Comparanda: see no. 312 above. Date: context of 350-400 C.E. (indeterminate). 316. Fig. 5.25 (YM. 93; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Jar, rim and handle sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 9cm. R Common Ware fabric 4. Concave neck; rim offset from neck with vertical, rounded lip; strap handle attached to outer surface of rim. Comparanda: see no. 312 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 317. Fig. 5.25 (PG. 67; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 7cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Concave neck; rim offset from neck with vertical, rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 312 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 318. N.I. (PG. 137; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 5). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm. R Common Ware fabric 2. Concave neck; flaring, squared lip; lip extends beyond interior wall creating a ledge. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of 150-250 C.E. (unknown). 319. Fig. 5.25 (AS. 85; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Jar, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 4. Conical neck; Inturned, rounded lip; rim is curved with convex outer surface and concave inner surface; strap handle with several distinct ridges along the top, attached to rim and top of neck. Comparanda: similar example from Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (UM II, 254 no. U114). Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (indeterminate). 320. Fig. 5.25 (PG. 61; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 4). Jar, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 6cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Concave neck; vertical, rounded lip; just below interior of lip is distinct horizontal ledge; oval handle attached to neck. Comparanda: type with similar rim form, but different handle, documented at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 508 type A IV 1.1/2). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 321. N.I. (PG. 23; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Spouted jar, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 1. Trefoil rim with rounded lip, slightly flaring; cylindrical neck; globular body; piece covered in heavy concretions. Comparanda: similar in form to type documented at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 514 type C I 2.4/1). Date: context of sixth century C.E. (unknown). 322. Fig. 5.25 (YM. 49; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 6cm. R Common Ware fabric 2. Concave neck; offset, thickened rim with tapered lip, triangular in profile. Comparanda: appears similar to jar shape interpreted as perfume pot by Hayes at Villa Dionysos at Knossos (Hayes 1983: 132 nos. 168-170). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 300

Lids (323) Analogous to cookwares at Ierapetra, lids were not common in any of the three plots. The one example noted here (323) appears to be a stopper, and is handmade with a rounded lip. The fabric is unique among the common wares, but is similar to R Amphora fabric 6 which is associated with vessels from the region of Syria-Palestine.

323. Pl. 5.4 (YM. 95; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Lid/Stopper, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm. R Common Ware fabric 7. Handmade disc with rounded lip. Comparanda: ceramic stoppers of different shape and style attested at Knossos (Hayes 1971: 271 no. 23; UM II, 218 no. N3.7); fabric similar to R Amphora fabric 6 which is associated with vessels from Syria-Palestine. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (unknown).

Pithoi/Storage Jars (324-327) A small number of pithoi and large storage jars were encountered, comprising two general forms. Two examples (324-325) have inturned rims and lips resulting in a closed shape. The other form is characterized by an outward thickened rim with two different types noted (326-327). This second type is similar to Hellenistic amphorae from Ierapetra described above, suggesting some type of development from that tradition. A similar phenomenon has been noted at Gortyn.380 Another feature of the Gortyn material shared at Ierapetra is the similarity in fabric among the vessels.381 Three of the vessels are examples of fabric 1 (324, 326-327) while the fourth (325) comprises fabric 2.

380 381

Gortina V.3, 526. Gortina II, 341.

301

324. Fig. 5.25 (YM. 220; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Pithos/Large storage jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 16cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Rounded shoulder; inturned, rounded lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of second century C.E. (unknown). 325. Fig. 5.25 (PG. 65; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Small pithos/large storage jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm. R Common Ware fabric 2. Globular body; ridge where rim meets exterior wall; inturned rim with rounded lip; rim also outwardly thickened; globular body. Comparanda: no parallels identified on Crete, although somewhat similar to no. 324 above. Shape is similar to piece from Berenice (Riley 1979: 318 no. D748). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 326. Fig. 5.25 (PG. 81; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 2). Pithos, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 1. Concave neck; outward thickened rim with a triangular profile and rounded lip. Comparanda: no identified parallels. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (unknown). 327. Fig. 5.25 (YM. 36; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Pithos, rim sherd. D. of rim 39cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Outward thickened rim with rounded lip; cylindrical neck. Comparanda: closest parallel is form documented at Gortyn (Gortina II, 341 no. 421; Gortina V.3, 528 type B V 2.4/1), but rim morphology varies. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (unknown).

Small Pots (328-339) A rather ubiquitous common ware form was a category termed here small pots. This classification is employed by excavators at Gortyn to describe a series of vessels which share traits with bowls, mugs, cups, and jugs. It seemed suitable to replicate that classification given the presence of numerous fragments of this type of vessel found at Ierapetra. Among the finds were two pieces with very thin-walled, globular bodies and vertical lips (328-329) similar to a type documented at Gortyn that first appears at the end of the third century C.E.382 A comparable type had the same overall shape, but with an outward thickened rim and rounded lip (330-332). One example with a concave groove on the top surface of the rim also was noted (333).

382

Gortina V.3, 484 type A I 1.1/1.

302

Two vessels have flaring lips, including one where the body has light ribbing on the exterior (334). The second example (335) has a tapered, flaring lip and a series of convex grooves on the exterior wall. There also are several pieces with distinct ridging on the exterior surface. Two of these vessels (336-337) have parallels at Gortyn and Knossos respectively.383 The third (338) may represent an import, and an almost identical vessel is attested at Anemurium in Cilicia from a context with a terminus ante quem of the middle or third quarter of the third century C.E.384 Examples are known from Gortyn.385 A final small pot noted here has a different form compared to the vessels described above. It comprises a globular body with a carinated shoulder and a vertical, rounded lip (339).

328. Fig. 5.25 (PG. 114; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 3). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 7cm. R Common Ware fabric 3. Thin-walled, globular body; vertical, tapered lip. Comparanda: similar to type documented at Gortyn datable to end of third century C.E. (Gortina V.3, 484 type A I 1.1/1). Date: context of late third to early fourth century C.E. (in phase). 329. Fig. 5.25 (PG. 128; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 5). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 6cm. R Common Ware fabric 4. Thin-walled globular body; vertical, rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 328 above. Date: context of first half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 330. Fig. 5.25 (YM. 57; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. R Common Ware fabric 4. Globular body; flaring, rounded lip. Comparanda: closest parallel is type attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 322 no. 254; Gortina V.3, 492 type B II 3.1/2). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 331. Fig. 5.25 (YM. 42; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 6cm. R Common Ware fabric 3. Thin-walled globular body; outward thickened rim with rounded lip, outturned. Comparanda: see no. 330 above, but this piece has much thinner walls. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 332. Fig. 5.25 (YM. 214; Yiomelaki; Trench 20, layer 2). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 6cm. R Common Ware fabric 3. Globular body; flaring, thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 330 above. Date: context of first century C.E. (unknown).

383

Gortina II, 323 no. 259; Gortina V.3, 485 type A II 1.1/2; UM II, 252 no. U.41. Williams 1989: 100 no. 585, fig. 62. 385 Gortina II, 322 no. 249; Gortina V.3, 491 type B II 1.1/11. 384

303

333. Fig. 5.26 (YM. 147; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 2). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 9cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Concave neck; outturned rim with rounded lip; concave groove on top surface of rim. Comparanda: similar in shape to type at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 486 type A IV 1.2/6). Date: context of fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (unknown). 334. Fig. 5.26 (PG. 120; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. R Common Ware 1. Globular body with external ribbing; flaring, squared lip. Comparanda: similar to type documented at Gortyn (Gortina II, 322 no. 249; Gortina V.3, 491 type B II 1.1/8). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 335. Fig. 5.25 (PG. 4; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Common Ware fabric 1; light red slip (2.5YR 6/8) well preserved. Cylindrical body with grooves on exterior wall; flaring, tapered lip. Comparanda: no similar examples documented on Crete. Date: context of sixth century C.E. (unknown). 336. Fig. 5.26 (AS. 52; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Small pot, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 7cm. R Common Ware fabric 3; reddish brown slip (5YR 5/4) on exterior. Cylindrical body; distinct ridging along exterior wall; flaring, rounded lip, slightly thickened; small vertical handle attached to rim and upper part of body. Comparanda: similar to examples from Gortyn (Gortina II, 323 no. 259; Gortina V.3, 485 type A II 1.1/2). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (unknown). 337. Fig. 5.26 (YM. 233; Yiomelaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Globular body with distinct ribbing on exterior surface; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar to example from Unexplored Mansion (UM II, 252 no. U.41). Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (unknown). 338. Fig. 5.26 (AS. 90; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. R Common Ware fabric 8; red slip (10R 5/6) well preserved on exterior. Globular body with fine ridging along exterior wall; flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: examples of this form found at Gortyn (Gortina II, 322 no. 249; Gortina V.3, 491 type B II 1.1/11); also attested at Anemurium in Cilicia (Williams 1989: 100 no. 585, fig. 62). Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (indeterminate). 339. N.I. (PG. 121; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Small pot, rim sherd. D. of rim 10cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Globular body with carination at shoulder; vertical, rounded lip. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown).

Tubs (340) A single large cylindrical tub with a flaring rim was identified (340). Hayes describes several vessels of this type from the Villa Dionysos at Knossos, and suggested at the time that 304

they were unique to Knossos.386 They since have been attested at Gortyn.387 Hayes posits a variety of functions for these vessels including churns, or portable containers for “urine, vomit, and the like”.388 Unlike the pieces from Knossos, however, this tub from Ierapetra does not appear to preserve any handles.

340. Fig. 5.26 (YM. 206; Yiomelaki; Trench 6, layer 2). Tub, rim and body sherds. D. of rim 25cm. R Common Ware fabric 1. Straight, flaring walls; broad ribbing and several wavy incised lines on exterior wall; flaring rim with squared lip. Comparanda: similar to vessels recovered from the Villa Dionysos at Knossos (Hayes 1983: 109, 132 nos. 173-176) and to a type documented at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 466 type C II 1.3/1). Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (unknown).

Votive Dishes (341) A small plate (341) with an inturned, squared lip, straight flaring walls, and a series of concentric grooves on the interior surface could be an example of a votive dish. The small size would be ideal for holding in the palm of the hand and the shallow profile would deter from any practical use.

341. Fig. 5.26, Pl. 5.4 (YM. 159; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 1). Shallow dish, rim sherds. D. of rim 9cm. R Common Ware fabric 4. Flaring, straight walls with series of concentric grooves on interior surface; walls thicker near lip; inturned, squared lip. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of second half of fifth century C.E. (unknown).

Unidentified Shapes (342-343) Two body sherds, perhaps from jugs or pitchers, preserve incised decoration. The first (342) has evident burnishing marks on the exterior surface and a series of small gouged lines 386

Hayes 1983: 109. Gortina V.3, 466 type C II 1.3/1. 388 Hayes 1983: 109. 387

305

along with a schematic representation of a tree. Some form of a tree also is present on the second piece (343), which preserves a series of horizontal grooves above the incised design. No parallels for either piece were noted.

342. Pl. 5.4 (PG. 26; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Shape may be a pitcher or jar, body sherd. R Common Ware fabric 3. Body sherd with vertical burnishing marks; incised/gouged decoration in form of small lines; on right side may be a schematic representation of a tree. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 343. Pl. 5.4 (YM. 268; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Shape may be a jar, body sherd. R Common Ware fabric 2. Body sherd with parallel, horizontal grooves over an incised design of a tree. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown).

COOKWARES Finds from Ierapetra encompass a variety of different cookware shapes, including casseroles, cookpots, frying pans, lids, and trefoil-mouthed jars. Pompeian Red Ware also is described in this section. Roman cookwares are characterized by a series of standardized forms common throughout the eastern Mediterranean. These forms likely originate from several, as yet unidentified, large-scale production centers. For instance, for material from Knossos, Hayes observes that: The mass of finds are, however, of the highly standardized ribbed varieties current throughout the Aegean region in the second and third centuries A.D., which may have been made in one or two major centres (as yet unlocated), and which are here best regarded as imports, despite their massive numbers.389 That almost three decades later, archaeologists continue to be unsure of the location of these cookware production centers indicates much work needs to be done with this class of ceramics.

389

Hayes 1983: 105.

306

A few candidates have been proposed as large-scale producers of exported cookwares, with Ephesus the most convincing option. Several pottery publications from Ephesus suggest local production of cookwares and the shapes and fabric appear consistent with finds across the eastern Mediterranean.390 Another possible production center has been suggested at Phocaea, the primary site of manufacture of Phocaean Red-Slip ware. J.-Y. Empereur and M. Picon note that near the kiln site identified with Phocaean Red-Slip production is another assemblage of kiln debris comprising large amounts of cookwares.391 Presumably, the cookware vessels at this site, if exported, would have been part of the same distribution network as Phocaean Red-Slip. A third production site may have been located on the island of Samos, although archaeometric research is needed to confirm this suggestion.392 Aiding the study of cookwares on Crete are published fabric typologies from excavations at Eleutherna, Gortyn, and Knossos.393 To facilitate comparisons of material from Ierapetra with these sites, I have created a typology of seven fabrics based on finds from the site. The first two fabrics are very similar, with the primary difference being the quantity of mica: low in fabric 1 and high in fabric 2. These two fabrics represent the majority of the cookware finds from Ierapetra and compare favorably with a cookware fabric described from Ephesus.394 Analogous fabrics are noted at Eleutherna and Gortyn, and it may be similar to the main cookware fabric

390

Outschar 1993: 49; Gassner 1997: 173; Meriç 2002: 96-7; Turnovsky 2005: 636; Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger and Schneider 2005: 63; Yona Waksman and Tréglia 2007: 646-7. 391 Empereur and Picon 1986: 143. The Phocaean Red-Slip kiln also is discussed in Mayet and Picon 1986. 392 Yona Waksman and Tréglia 2007: 648 based on a suggestion made by Isler 1969: 221. They indicate this production would have occurred in the south-central part of the island. 393 Eleutherna: Vogt 2000: 76; Yangaki 2005: 36-7. Gortyn: Gortina II, 346-9. Knossos: Hayes 1983: 106. 394 The fabric is described in several studies from Ephesus and can be summarized as: hard, porous, micaceous, red (2.5YR 4/6) to reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4) to reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) to gray (N 5/1 - 4/1) with a high proportion of white and dark gray to black inclusions.

307

described by Hayes and L.H. Sackett for Knossos.395 At Berenice, Riley‟s Imported Cooking Ware „A‟ could be representative of this fabric.396 With respect to fabrics 3, 4, and 5, the first two appear to have parallels at one or more sites on Crete, while fabric 5 does not appear similar to any of the described fabrics on the island.397 Fabric 6, which is attested for one of the casseroles (344), is a close match to a fabric described by Sackett at the Unexplored Mansion for casserole finds.398 The final fabric, 7, is characteristic of one cookpot and may be similar to a Late Roman micaceous cookware fabric first described by G.D.R. Sanders at Corinth.399 Sanders argues for Asia Minor as the location of production. Whether any of the above fabrics represent local Cretan cookware production is undocumented at this time.

R Cookware fabric 1. Medium hard, red (2.5YR 4/6 – 5/8) to reddish yellow (5YR 6/6 – 7/8) to dark gray (5YR 4/1), with granular, occasionally hackly, break and harsh feel. Surface tends to be fired gray to dark gray (N 5/1 – 4/1). Small to large, common, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small to medium, frequent angular, tabular, black inclusions; fine to small, rare to few, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions (mica). Rare, small to medium vesicles and channels. Provenance: Region of Ephesus, Asia Minor?

395

Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 36 fabric 3. Gortyn: Gortina II, 347 fabric 1. Knossos: Hayes 1983: 106; UM II, 168. Riley 1979: 239. 397 Fabric 3 is possibly similar to one described at Gortyn (Gortina II, 347 fabric 2). Fabric 4 has parallels at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 76 sub-group 21.32; Yangaki 2005: 37 fabric 10). 398 UM II, 169. Examples characterized by this fabric include UM II, 228 no. T4.6b, 243 no. R1.4, and 253 no. U73 among others. 399 Sanders 1999: 463 fabric C; Slane and Sanders 2005: 255 n. 21. 396

308

R Cookware fabric 2. Medium hard, red (2.5YR 4/6 – 5/8) to reddish yellow (5YR 5/6 – 7/8), with granular break and harsh feel. Core occasionally fired gray (7.5YR 5/1) and surface tends to be blackened. Small to large, common, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small to medium, frequent angular, tabular, black inclusions; fine to small, common, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions (mica). Rare, small to medium vesicles and channels. Provenance: Region of Ephesus, Asia Minor?

R Cookware fabric 3. Hard, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3 – 3/4) to weak red (2.5YR 4/2), with granular break and rough feel. Surface tends to range from gray (5YR 5/1) to dark bluish gray (5PB 4/1). Small to medium, common, angular, tabular milky white inclusions; small to medium, frequent, angular, tabular black inclusions; small to medium, few, subrounded, spherical red inclusions; small, rare, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Unknown.

R Cookware fabric 4. Hard, brown (7.5YR 5/4) to dark brown (7.5YR 4/4), with a granular break and rough feel. Surface tends to be blackened. Small to medium, common, angular, tabular milky white inclusions; small to medium, frequent, angular, tabular black inclusions; medium, few subrounded, spherical to tabular, red inclusions; rare, small, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Unknown.

R Cookware fabric 5. Medium hard, yellowish red (5YR 4/6 – 5/8), with a hackly break and rough feel. Surface tends to be blackened. Small to medium (with the occasional large grit),

309

common, angular to subrounded, tabular, milky white inclusions; small to medium frequent, angular, tabular black inclusions. Provenance: Unknown.

R Cookware fabric 6. Medium hard, pink (7.5YR 7/4), with dark bluish gray (10B 4/1) surface; granular break and rough feel. Small to medium, frequent, angular, tabular milky white inclusions; fine to small, frequent, angular, platy sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Unknown.

R Cookware fabric 7. Medium hard, reddish brown (5YR 4/4) with conchoidal, slightly granular, break and rough feel. Small, few to frequent, angular to subrounded, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions; fine to small, few to frequent, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions (mica). Provenance: Asia Minor.

Casseroles (344-349) Analogous to other sites on Crete, casseroles were not a common component of the cookware repertoire at Ierapetra.400 Identified vessels have a carinated body and a flaring or downturned rim, and Riley suggests the shape was first introduced in the late first or early second century C.E.401 Based on finds from the Villa Dionysos at Knossos, Hayes identifies three types of casseroles of which examples of types 2 (344-347) and 3 (348-349) are attested at

400

These vessels are also noted to be rare at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 180), Gortyn (Gortina II, 358), and Knossos (UM II, 168) 401 Riley 1979: 259 (Mid Roman Cooking Ware 1).

310

Ierapetra.402 Hayes‟ types are slightly different in their morphology than the ones described by Riley from Berenice, suggesting Crete may have been supplied by different centers than Cyrenaica.403

344. Fig. 5.26 (AS. 21; Assariotaki; Trench 1, east extension). Casserole, rim sherd; Hayes type 2. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 6. Thin, biconical body with regular ribbing; flaring rim with thickened, rounded lip. Comparanda: attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 358 nos. 65-66; Gortina V.3, 553 type A VII 1.1/2, pl. 196.a), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 1983: 106, 122 nos. 81-89; Warren 1987-1988: 97 fig. 33c; UM II, 233 no. D3.12, 243 no. R1.4, 248 no. S1.14), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 317 nos. 26-28); also identified by the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E54). Date: context of unknown date (unknown). 345. Fig. 5.27 (YM. 164; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Casserole, rim and handle sherd; Hayes type 2. D. of rim 19cm. R cookware fabric 2. Biconical body; flaring rim with rounded lip; spined handle attached to underside of rim and upper body. Comparanda: see no. 344 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 346. Fig. 5.27 (YM. 136; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Casserole, rim sherd; Hayes type 2. D. of rim 19cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Biconical body; flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 344 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 347. Fig. 5.27 (YM. 314; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Casserole, rim and handle sherd; Hayes type 2. D. of rim 20cm. R Cookware fabric 2. Biconical body, slightly concave at neck; flaring rim with rounded lip; strap handle attached to underside of rim, neck. Comparanda: see no. 344 above. Date: context of fourth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 348. Fig. 5.26 (AS. 86; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Casserole, rim and handle; Hayes type 3. D. of rim 13cm. R Cookware fabric 3. Biconical body, upper part is concave; thin, downturned rim with rounded lip; small strap handle, attached just below rim. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 554 type B IX 1.1) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 106, 126 no. 90; UM II, 253 no. U73). Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (indeterminate). 349. Fig. 5.27 (YM. 270; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Casserole, rim sherd; Hayes type 3. D. of rim 14cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Biconical body; slightly downturned rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 348 above. Date: context of second half of the fourth century C.E. (residual).

402 403

Hayes 1983: 106. Riley 1979: 259-62.

311

Cookpots (350-370) Globular cookpots were common at Ierapetra, a pattern mimicked at Eleutherna, Gortyn, and Knossos.404 Many of the cookpots fall into a small number of standardized types, including several Early Roman types described by Hayes based on material from Knossos. His type 1 cookpots (351-353) are characterized by a downturned rim, while his type 2 cookpots (354-356) tend to have flaring rims. Both are attested at Berenice, and are also very common at Ephesus, suggesting they may have originated from that site.405 For the Late Roman period, a shape with a flaring rounded lip, well attested on Crete, is common (366-368). Similar to this type is a piece with a flaring squared lip (370) analogous to types attested at Eleutherna and Gortyn.406 One other late form (369), characterized by an offset, triangular rim, is similar to examples attested at Corinth in contexts of the second half of the fifth century and later.407 Other cookpot forms were rarer among the assemblages, often with a single attested example (350, 357-22). Among these vessels is an early form with flaring rim and interior flange (350), and a later form with a ridged flange (357). One vessel has a stepped neck leading to a flaring, rounded lip (358), while another has a similar rim, but a conical neck (359). An outturned, tapered lip and vertical squared lip characterizes two cookpots respectively (360-361). Two additional vessels have vertical squared lips thickened to a blunt T (362-363). An imported cookware documented at Corinth, and known as Late Roman micaceous Aegean ware, may be represented at Ierapetra in the form of a cookpot with an offset triangular rim and cylindrical neck (364).408 A similar form appears at Knossos, and at Corinth without the cylindrical neck,

404

Eleutherna: Vogt 2000: 79; Gortyn: Gortina II, 370; Gortina V.3, 538-53; Knossos: UM II, 170. Berenice: Riley 1979: 263-5 (Mid Roman Cooking Ware 3 and 3a). Ephesus: Gassner 1997: 174 nos. 713-716, pl. 57. 406 Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 171 nos. 566, 680, 429 fig. 40.h. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 542 type B IV 1.2/1. 407 Slane and Sanders 2005: 264 nos. 2.35-2.36. 408 Sanders 1999: 463 fabric C; Slane and Sanders 2005: 255 n. 21. 405

312

but the closest match is a piece from Berenice.409 One additional vessel from Ierapetra has the same general shape in a different fabric (365).

350. Fig. 5.27 (YM. 162; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 18cm. R Cookware fabric 1; exterior light yellowish brown slip (10YR 6/4). Flaring, slightly convex walls; flaring rim with rounded lip; short, tapered interior flange. Comparanda: similar examples attested at Knossos dated from the late first to the mid-second century C.E. (Coldstream 1973: 49 no. J27) and Gortyn from a context dated between the second to fourth centuries C.E. (Gortina V.3, 544 type BVII 1.2/1); additional piece from Knossos dated between early to mid-second century C.E. bears similar type of slip (UM II, 237 no. D4.30d). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 351. Fig. 5.27 (AS. 54; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Cookpot, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 15cm. R Cookware fabric 3. Thin-walled, spherical body; concave neck; downturned rim with squared lip. Comparanda: examples from Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 158 fig. 29 nos. 7-9), Gortyn (Gortina II, 351 nos. 11-12), and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 105, 122 nos. 56-57); also identified during the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E42). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (residual). 352. Fig. 5.28 (YM. 21; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 5). Cookpot, rim sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 19cm. R Cookware fabric 4. Spherical body; concave neck; downturned rim with rounded lip; groove on underside of rim. Comparanda: see no. 351 above. Date: context of first century C.E. (in phase). 353. Fig. 5.26 (YM. 56; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Cookpot, rim and handle sherd; Hayes type 1. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 1. Spherical body; concave neck; downturned rim with tapered lip; spined handle attached to rim and body. Comparanda: see no. 351 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual). 354. Fig. 5.28 (AS. 68; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Cookpot, rim sherd; Hayes type 2. D. of rim 17cm. R Cookware fabric 2. Spherical body with shallow ribbing on exterior; flaring rim with squared lip. Comparanda: examples at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 158 fig. 29 nos. 10-13; Yangaki 2005: 426 fig. 37.c-d), Gortyn (Gortina II, 352 nos. 14-16; Gortina V.3, 544 type B VII 1.1/2), Knossos (Coldstream 1973: 49 no. J26; Hayes 1983: 105, 122 nos. 58-64, 138 no. 226; Warren 1987-88: 97 fig. 33a, 102 fig. 48; UM II, 233 no. D3.13, 237 no. D4.32, 243 no. R1.7), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: pl. 9 nos. 1, 3-4), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 57 nos. Π4352-4353); also identified during the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E44). Date: context of Late Antique date (residual). 355. Fig. 5.28 (PG. 118; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Cookpot, rim and handle sherd; Hayes type 2. D. of rim 17cm. R Cookware fabric 2. Spherical body; flaring rim with rounded lip; strap 409

Corinth: Slane and Sanders 2005: 264 no. 2.34. Knossos: Frend and Johnston 1962: 226 no. 62. Berenice: Riley 1979: 275 no. D581.

313

handle attached to lower side of rim and body. Comparanda: see no. 354 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 356. Fig. 5.28 (YM. 150; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cookpot, rim and handle sherds; Hayes type 2. D. of rim 17cm. R Cookware fabric 4. Spherical body with incised groove a few centimeters below rim on exterior wall; flaring rim with rounded lip; spined handle attached to lower side of rim. Comparanda: see no. 354 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 357. Fig. 5.28 (PG. 127; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 5). Cookpot, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 20cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Thin-walled, spherical body with exterior ribbing; inturned rounded lip with exterior flange; flange has distinct ridge on top surface; strap handle with central groove attached to lower part of rim, body. Comparanda: parallels of this type attested at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 158 fig. 29 no. 16; Yangaki 2005: 427 fig. 38.c), Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 552 type CVII 3.2/1), and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 126 nos. 94, 98; Hayes 2001a: 440 no. A35; UM II, 253 no. U77); also attested by the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E46). This form appears at Berenice (Riley 1979: 258-9 nos. D497-D497a) and Ephesus (Gassner 1997: 175 nos. 723-724). Date: context of first half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 358. Fig. 5.29 (YM. 55; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 22cm. R Cookware fabric 1; some blackening of rim. Spherical body; stepped neck; flaring rounded lip. Comparanda: closest parallel is example from context at Gortyn dated to first half of fourth century C.E. (Gortina V.3, 548 type CIV 1.1/2). Date: context of first half of third century (indeterminate). 359. Fig. 5.27 (YM. 151; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 14cm. R Cookware fabric 1; exterior fired weak red (2.5YR 4/2). Spherical body with carinated shoulder; straight, flaring neck; flaring rounded lip. Comments: may be an earlier version of no. 358 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (unknown). 360. Fig. 5.29 (AS. 89; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 19cm. R Cookware fabric 2. Outturned, tapered lip; vertical neck, thickened near rim; carinated shoulder leading to slightly globular body. Comparanda: closest parallels are examples documented at Gortyn from a context dated between the second to fourth centuries C.E. (Gortina V.3, 547 type C II 3.1/8) and Knossos (Frend and Johnston 1962: 226 no. 67). Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (indeterminate). 361. Fig. 5.26 (PG. 148; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm. R Cookware fabric 5. Spherical body; concave neck; vertical squared lip. Comparanda: closest parallel is type from Gortyn which appears in Late Antique contexts (Gortina V.3, 546 type C II 1.1). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 362. Fig. 5.28 (PG. 56; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm. R cookware fabric 1. Vertical squared lip, thickened to blunt T; slightly concave neck with carination at shoulder leading to slightly concave walls; thin-walled. Comparanda: closest parallel is example from Knossos dated to first half of second century C.E. (UM II, 237 no.

314

D4.30e); a piece similar to this shape identified by Gournia survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E38). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 363. Fig. 5.29 (YM. 163; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 13cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Slightly convex walls; carinated shoulder leading to cylindrical neck; vertical squared lip, thickened to blunt T. Comparanda: see no. 18 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 364. Fig. 5.29 (PG. 6; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 13cm. R Cookware fabric 7. Globular body; cylindrical neck; offset, triangular rim with tapered lip. Comparanda: similar rim form attested in Late Roman micaceous Aegean ware at Corinth from a context dated to second half of fifth century C.E. and later (Slane and Sanders 2005: 264 no. 2.34) and in a micaceous fabric at Berenice (Riley 1979: 275 no. D581). On Crete a similar example attested at Knossos (Frend and Johnston 1962: 226 no. 62). Date: context of sixth century C.E. (indeterminate). 365. Fig. 5.29 (YM. 47; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 17cm. R Cookware fabric 4. Spherical body; cylindrical neck; flaring, thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar in general shape to no. 21 above, but with different rim form. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (unknown). 366. Fig. 5.30 (PG. 8; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Cookpot, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim 13cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Thick-walled, spherical body; flaring lip with broad, shallow groove on top surface; round handle, attached to rim and body. Comparanda: common late type on Crete; examples attested at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 167 fig. 33.1-5; Yangaki 2005: 424 fig. 35.ac, 425 fig. 36.a-h), Gortyn (Gortina II, 360 no. 71; Gortina V.3, 542 type B IV 1.1/1), and Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1025 pl. 9.6-8). Date: context of late sixth century C.E. (indeterminate). 367. Fig. 5.29 (PG. 28; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Cookpot, rim and body sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 5; blackened exterior. Spherical body with shallow ribbing along exterior wall; flaring squared rim. Comparanda: similar to no. 366 above, but with a more vertical rim. Date: context of fifth century C.E. (indeterminate). 368. Fig. 5.30 (YM. 205; Yiomelaki; Trench 6, layer 2). Cookpot, rim and handle sherd. R Cookware fabric 5. Spherical body with some exterior ribbing; flaring rounded lip; round handle attached to rim and body. Comparanda: see no. 366 above. Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 369. Fig. 5.29 (YM. 108; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim 12cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Spherical body; flaring, offset rim with tapered lip, triangular in profile. Comparanda: similar rim form to examples from Corinth (Slane and Sanders 2005: 264 nos. 2.35-2.36). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (intrusive). 370. Fig. 5.30 (PG. 10; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Cookpot, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 1. Slightly convex walls; flaring squared lip. Comparanda: may be similar to

315

types documented at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 171 nos. 566, 680, 429 fig. 40.h) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 542 type B IV 1.2/1). Date: context of sixth century C.E. (indeterminate).

Frying Pans (371-386) Frying pans were the second most common type of cookware encountered at Ierapetra. Several different forms are represented of which three are dominant. The first has an inturned rounded lip with an exterior flange and flat base (372-376). A second common type has an outward thickened rim (377-379) and is analogous to type 1 pans described by Hayes.410 The third is characterized by a flaring rim with rounded lip that is beveled-in (380-384), and is classified by Hayes as his type 2 frying pans.411 Other examples did not occur with any degree of frequency. This includes one vessel (371) with an inturned rounded lip comparable to finds of Pompeian Red Ware at the site (eg. 392). One pan with a beveled-in lip that contains several ridges (385) may be a variant since it bears similarities to the form described above with flaring rim and beveled-in lip. Finally, a shallow frying pan was noted bearing a long cylindrical handle (386). This type is described by Riley at Berenice and also occurs at Ephesus.412

371. Fig. 5.30 (AS. 11; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Frying pan, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 4. Thick, straight, flaring walls; inturned rim. Comparanda: similar in form to type documented at Gortyn from a context dated between the second to fourth centuries C.E. (Gortina V.3, 556 type C III 1.1/2, pl. 197.e). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (residual). 372. Fig. 5.30 (AS. 1; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Frying pan, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 3. Thick, straight, flaring walls; exterior ribbing; inturned rounded lip with horizontal, exterior flange. Comparanda: similar in form to several examples from Eleutherna 410

Hayes 1983: 107. This type corresponds to one noted at Berenice (Riley 1979: 253-6 Early Roman Cooking Ware 6). 411 Hayes 1983: 107. 412 Berenice: Riley 1979: 273-4 Late Roman Cooking Ware 4. Ephesus: Gassner 1997: 180 nos. 750, 754.

316

(Yangaki 2005: 180 no. 196, 435 fig. 46.b), Gortyn (Gortina II, 360 nos. 74-75; Gortina V.3, 550 type C V 2.1/2, pl. 197.p), Knossos (UM II, 252 no. U67), and Rethymno (GavrilakiNikoloudaki 1988: 55 no. Π4331). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 373. Fig. 5.30 (YM. 125; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Frying pan, rim sherd. D. of rim 21cm. R Cookware fabric 3. Thick, straight, flaring walls; shallow exterior and interior ribbing; inturned rounded lip with horizontal, exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 372 above. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (indeterminate). 374. Fig. 5.31 (PG. 98; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base. D. of rim 27cm; H. 5.2cm. R Cookware fabric 1; grey-black exterior. Flat base and floor; straight, flaring walls; vertical tapered lip with exterior flange. Comparanda: similar to no. 372 above, but lip is not inturned. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 375. Fig. 5.31 (YM. 204; Yiomelaki; Trench 6, layer 2). Frying pan, rim sherd. D. of 24cm. R Cookware fabric 4. Flaring, slightly concave walls; inturned rounded lip with exterior flange. Comparanda: see no. 372 above. Date: context of third to fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 376. Fig. 5.30 (PG. 102; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 6). Frying pan, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 1. Straight, flaring walls; inturned tapered lip with exterior flange; flange has two broad, shallow grooves on top surface. Comparanda: similar to no. 372 above, but with grooved flange. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 377. Fig. 5.31 (YM. 54; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 22cm; H. 4.1cm. R Cookware fabric 4. Flat floor and base; straight, flaring walls; outward thickened rim with squared lip; top surface of rim shaved flat. Comparanda: see parallels from Chania (Raab 2001: 68 no. 34), Eleutherna (435 fig. 46.e), Gortyn (Gortina V.3 554 type AIII 2.4), Knossos (Coldstream 1973: 49 no. J30; UM II, 252 no. U64), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 317 nos. 24-25). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 378. Fig. 5.31 (YM. 84; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base; Hayes type 1. D. of rim 33cm; H. 4.7cm. R Cookware fabric 2. Flat floor and base; interior smoothed; abrasive surface where base meets exterior wall; flaring, slightly concave walls; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; top of rim shaved flat. Comparanda: see no. 377 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 379. Fig. 5.31 (YM. 275; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base. D. of rim 21cm; H. 5.1cm. Flat base and floor; flaring, convex walls; groove on exterior wall near base; knobbed rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: same general shape as nos. 377-378 above. Date: context of second half of third century C.E. (unknown). 380. Fig. 5.32 (AS. 70; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base; Hayes type 2. D. of rim approx. 40cm; H. 6.5cm. R Cookware Fabric 4. Very low false ring base; flat floor; thick, straight, flaring walls; flaring rim with rounded lip, beveled-in on top 317

surface with incised grooves at both ends. Comparanda: examples attested from Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 179 no. 700, fig. 46.c), Gortyn (Gortina II, 360 no. 71), Knossos (Coldstream 1973: 49 no. J31; Hayes 1983: 126 nos. 103-109, 138 no. 230; UM II, 248 no. S1.11, 252 no. U65), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 55 no. Π4347); also identified by the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E57). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 381. Fig. 5.32 (AS. 78; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base; Hayes type 2. D. of rim 26cm; H. 5.6cm. R Cookware fabric 1, with blackened exterior. Flat base and floor; straight, flaring walls; flaring rim with rounded lip, beveled-in on top surface. Comparanda: see no. 380 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 382. Fig. 5.30 (PG. 29; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base; Hayes type 2. D. of rim n.a.; H. 4.9cm. R Cookware fabric 1; light bluish gray slip (5B 8/1) on exterior. Flat base and floor; straight, flaring walls; flaring rim with rounded lip, beveled-in on top surface. Comparanda: see no. 380 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 383. Fig. 5.32 (PG. 108; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base; Hayes type 2. D. for rim 35cm; H. 6.9cm. R Cookware fabric 5. Flat base and floor; thick, flaring, slightly convex walls; flaring rim with rounded lip, beveled-in on top surface. Comparanda: see no. 380 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 384. Fig. 5.31 (YM. 276; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Frying pan, rim sherd; Hayes type 2. D. of rim 26cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Flaring rim with squared lip, beveled-in top surface. Comparanda: see no. 380 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 385. Fig. 5.32 (AS. 88; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base. D. of rim 22cm; H. 3.6cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Flat base and floor; straight, slightly flaring walls; beveled-in lip with series of ridges on top surface. Comparanda: no parallel examples published on Crete. Date: context of third century C.E. (unknown). 386. Pl. 5.4 (PG. 89; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Fyring pan, rim and handle sherds. D. of rim n.a. L. of handle 10.7cm. R Cookware fabric 3. Outward thickened rim; straight sloping walls; thin-walled; cylindrical handle, tapering slightly away from attachment; end is hollow; several fingerprint impressions mark attachment to body. Comparanda: similar to Late Roman Cooking Ware 4 described from Berenice (Riley 1979: 273-4, especially no. 567); several examples are known from Gortyn (Gortina II, 361 no. 86) and from Ephesus in Asia Minor (Gassner 1997: 180 nos. 750, 754). Date: context of fifth century C.E. (indeterminate).

318

Lids (387-389) There were few lids among the assemblages, with most of the fragments similar in shape to the first two catalogued pieces below (387-388). This is the typical lid form encountered on Cretan sites and is described by Hayes as his type 1 lid based on material from Knossos.413 Another example (389) has a form similar to a type of Italian cookware attested at Knossos, but with a fabric more characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean.414

387. Fig. 5.32 (AS. 67; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Lid, rim and handle sherd; Hayes type 1. D. 17cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Rounded lip; straight, flaring walls, slightly ribbed; cylindrical knob at top. Comparanda: similar to examples from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 560 type A III 1.2a/2) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 106, 122 no. 75). Date: context of Late Antique date (residual). 388. Fig. 5.32 (PG. 40; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 4). Lid, rim and handle sherd; Hayes type 1. D. n.a. R Cookware fabric 4. Rounded lip; straight, flaring walls with exterior and interior ribbing; cylindrical knob at top. Comparanda: see no. 387 above. Date: second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 389. Fig. 5.32 (YM. 137; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Lid, rim sherd. D. 26cm. R Cookware fabric 1. Outward thickened rim with rounded lip; flaring, slightly convex walls. Comparanda: similar to example of from Knossos classified as imported cookware from Italy (Hayes 1983: 126 nos. 111-112). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate).

Jars (390-391) Jars with trefoil-mouths were not common in any of the three assemblages. A similar pattern can be discerned at Gortyn, while at Knossos this form is apparent in contexts of the second and third century C.E.415 One example from Ierapetra (390) appears to match later forms attested at Gortyn and Knossos rather than the earlier version common at the Villa Dionysos and Unexplored Mansion. This piece also is characterized by the same fabric identified for the

413

Hayes 1983: 106, 122 no. 75. Hayes 1983: 122 no. 75. 415 Gortyn: Gortina II, 364-5; Gortina V.3, 558-9. Knossos: Hayes 1983: 106; UM II, 174. 414

319

Gortyn examples. Another vessel (391) has parallels at Knossos in common ware fabrics, although at Ierapetra it appears in a cookware fabric.

390. Fig. 5.33 (YM. 315; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Trefoil-mouthed jar, rim and handle sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 1. Carinated shoulder; concave neck; flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar to examples from Gortyn (Gortina II, 365 no. 109; Gortina V.3, 559 type AV 1.2) and Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 438 no. A14). Date: context of fourth to sixth century C.E. (indeterminate). 391. Fig. 5.33 (PG. 53; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Jar, rim sherd. D. of rim 8cm. R Cookware fabric 1; blackened on exterior. Thin-walled; concave neck; rim offset from neck with vertical, tapered lip. Comparanda: this form tends to appear in common ware fabrics (eg. UM II, 254 no. U108). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate).

Pompeian Red Ware (392-396) Pompeian Red Ware comprises frying pans/baking dishes and lids produced in a wide variety of fabrics. Distribution was across the whole of the Roman world during the first two centuries C.E. The ware gained its name, first coined by Loeschcke, from the color of the internal slip which appeared similar to the red wall paintings famous at Pompeii.416 Several centers in Italy, including in Campania, are considered to be production centers and there would have been kiln sites in numerous additional provinces. C. Goudineau conducted an important early study of Pompeian Red Ware, summarizing all of the excavated material known at the time and compiling a catalogue of known pieces.417 Soon after this came a seminal work by D.P.S. Peacock in which he provides the first concise description of fabrics attributable to this ware.418 The first of these fabrics is the most widespread and was interpreted by Peacock to have originated in Campania based on the presence of

416

Loeschcke 1909: 271. Goudineau 1970. 418 Peacock 1977a: 149-56. 417

320

volcanic material such as augite. A tentative Aegean or eastern Mediterranean origin is speculated for the second fabric, attested frequently at the Athenian Agora.419 An additional fabric believed to be of Italian origin is known from finds at Caesarea Maritima.420 On Crete, Pompeian Red Ware appears to have been common only at Knossos.421 A few fragments are noted from Gortyn, but finds at other sites are undocumented.422 While Knossos has pieces characterized by Peacock‟s fabric 1, none of the Ierapetra material displays this fabric.423 Associating any of the Ierapetra material with known fabrics is difficult, although the pieces below categorized as either R Cookware fabric 1 or 2 could be related to Peacock‟s fabric 2. No Pompeian Red Ware lids appear at Ierapetra, but there are several frying pan varieties. One type has a slightly inturned rounded lip (392), while a second type features a flaring rim with rounded lip (393-394). Two additional vessels are characterized by rounded lips (395-396).

392. Fig. 5.33 (PG. 84; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Frying pan, rim and base sherd. D. of rim 26cm. R Cookware fabric 2; internal light red slip (2.5 YR 6/8). Flat base and floor; flaring, slightly convex walls; slightly inturned rounded lip. Comparanda: similar example attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 25, pl. 4.h). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 393. Fig. 5.33 (PG. 60; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 4). Frying pan, rim and body sherd. D. of rim 32cm. R Cookware fabric 5; internal light red slip (2.5YR 6/8). Thick, flaring, straight walls; flaring rim with rounded lip; beveled-in on top surface. Comparanda: similar to examples from Knossos (UM II, 248 no. S1.11). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 394. Fig. 5.33 (YM. 4; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Frying pan, rim sherd. D. of rim 34 cm. R Cookware fabric 4; no slip preserved. Thick, straight, flaring walls; flaring rim with rounded lip; beveled-in on top surface. Comparanda: see no. 393 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (residual).

419

For instance, Agora V, 42 no. G191. Blakely, Brinckman and Vitaliano 1989. A detailed description of some of the Italian fabrics based on mineralogical analysis, including Peacock‟s fabric 1, can be found in Peña 1990. 421 Hayes 1971: 253 no. 20; Hayes 1983: 108; UM II, 168. 422 Gortina V.3, 25. 423 Hayes 1983: 126 nos. 113-116. 420

321

395. Fig. 5.33 (YM. 113; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Frying pan, complete profile from rim to base. D. of rim 29cm; H. 3.8cm. R Cookware fabric 1; internal red slip (2.5YR 5/6). Flat base and floor; straight, flaring walls, slightly thickened near base; rounded lip. Comparanda: form similar to pans from Gortyn (Gortina II, 359 no. 70) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 126 no. 102; UM II, 192 no. B1.24). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 396. N.I. (PG. 103; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 6). Frying pan, rim sherd. D. of rim n.a. R Cookware fabric 4; internal light red slip (2.5YR 6/8). Straight, flaring walls, thickened near base; rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 395 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase).

AMPHORAE During the Roman period, amphorae account for the largest component of the three assemblages based on sherd weight. While most of the material is of Cretan origin, with numerous workshops represented, significant quantities of imports also were noted from both the eastern and western Mediterranean. Products of the Aegean, Africa, Egypt, Italy, Spain, SyriaPalestine, and unidentified centers are presented below to correspond with detailed amphora studies already available from Eleutherna, Gortyn, and Knossos.424 A variety of amphora fabrics are documented from both the local and imported vessels. Fabrics 1 and 2, and to a lesser extent 7, correspond to Cretan vessels. Fabric 3 appears to be African in origin, specifically Tunisian, although it also represents products from other centers with similar clay types. An African origin may also be posited for fabric 10. A micaceous matrix characterizes fabrics 5 and 8, which seem to have origins in different parts of the Mediterranean. Fabric 5 appears in association with Aegean products, while fabric 8 corresponds to several western finds. The unique geology of Syria-Palestine is represented by the sandy nature of fabric 6, which is characteristic of several types from that region. Egypt is represented by fabrics 4 and 9, while the Campanian black-sand fabric is described below as fabric 11.

424

Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 181-219. Gortyn: Gortina II, 371-89; Gortina V.3, 260-410. Knossos: Hayes 1983: 140-63.

322

R Amphora fabric 1. Soft to medium hard, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6 to 7.5YR 7/6), with a smooth break and smooth, powdery feel. Occasional pieces fired light red (2.5YR 6/6) at core. Rare to few, small to medium, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions. Rare, small to medium, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Crete, but specific region is unknown.

R Amphora fabric 2. Soft to medium hard, pink (7.5YR 7/4) to very pale brown (10YR 8/4), with smooth break and smooth, powdery feel. Small, rare to few, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; small, rare to few, angular, tabular, black inclusions; a few pieces preserve small, rare, rounded, tabular to spherical, red inclusions. Provenance: Crete, but specific region is unknown.

R Amphora fabric 3. Medium hard to hard, red (2.5YR 5/6) to light red (2.5YR 6/8), with rough feel. Few to frequent, small to medium, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; few to frequent, small to medium, angular, tabular, black inclusions; a few pieces have rare, fine, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Tunisia.

R Amphora fabric 4. Medium hard, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), with a smooth to conchoidal break and rough feel. Frequent to common, small to medium, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; few, small to medium, angular, tabular, black inclusions; rare,

323

fine to small, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Few to frequent, medium to large, planar voids. Provenance: Egypt.

R Amphora fabric 5. Medium hard, light red (2.5YR 6/6) to reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), with a conchoidal break and rough feel. Small, frequent, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; small, few to frequent, angular, tabular, black inclusions; fine to small, common, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Asia Minor, perhaps in the region of Cilicia.

R Amphora fabric 6. Hard, sandy, yellowish red (5YR 5/6) to reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), with a granular to conchoidal break and harsh, powdery feel. Frequent to common, small to medium, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; few to frequent, small to medium, angular, tabular to spherical, black inclusions; rare, fine, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Syria-Palestine.

R Amphora fabric 7. Medium hard, yellowish red (5YR 5/8 to 7.5YR 5/6), with a smooth to conchoidal break and smooth, powdery feel. Small, few to frequent, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, spherical, black inclusions. Provenance: Crete, but specific region unknown.

R Amphora fabric 8. Medium hard, light brown (5YR 6/4 to 7.5YR 6/4), with a conchoidal break and smooth feel. Small, few, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; small,

324

few, angular, spherical to tabular, black inclusions; fine, few, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Unknown.

R Amphora fabric 9. Soft to medium hard, sandy, reddish yellow (7.5 YR 7/6) to yellow (10YR 7/6), with smooth, powdery feel. Small, rare to few, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions. Provenance: Egypt.

R Amphora fabric 10. Hard, gray (10YR 6/2), with a conchoidal break and rough feel. Small, frequent, angular, tabular to spherical, milky white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions; fine, few to frequent, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Africa.

R Amphora fabric 11. Hard, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), fired light red at core (2.5YR 6/8), with conchoidal break and rough feel. Common, small, angular, tabular to spherical, sparkling black inclusions; Few, small to medium, angular, tabular, milky white inclusions. Provenance: Campania, Italy.

Crete (397-435) The study of Cretan amphorae of Roman date has become a progressive field of research over the past few decades. Early on, archaeologists had indications of amphora production on the island in the form of stamps, tituli picti, and graffiti on amphorae mentioning Cretan wine. This

325

corpus is robust at Pompeii, but examples appear at other sites across the Mediterranean.425 The recognition of unmarked amphorae as Cretan, however, did not begin until the 1970s. Excavators in the Athenian Agora identified an amphora type common in the first and early second centuries C.E. which was also widespread at Pompeii.426 A provenance on Crete was first postulated for this type in the publications of the Terme del Nuotatore excavations at Ostia.427 Riley followed by suggesting a Cretan origin for MR2 amphorae recovered from Berenice.428 The publication of several Cretan amphora types identified during excavations at the Villa Dionysos at Knossos by J.W. Hayes served to supplement this discussion, 429 while C. Panella subsequently argued that Dressel 43 amphorae could have a Cretan provenance.430 Cretan amphorae also were identified in France, Isthmia, and at Gortyn at this time.431 A survey undertaken from 1988-1990 by the French School, along with representatives from the local ephoreias in Crete, clarified the state of amphora production on the island.432 Seventeen production sites were identified. This number has since increased following the excavation and identification of kiln sites and wasters in several other locations. A. MarangouLerat offers a detailed account of the production sites documented by the French survey and their products in a monograph dedicated to Cretan amphora production in which she also catalogues

425

See CIL volume 4 for examples of stamps, tituli picti, and graffiti on Cretan amphorae from Pompeii. For instance, CIL 4.5512, 5526, and 5529, which are discussed by Callender (1965: 16). For a catalogue of these texts see Marangou-Lerat 1995: 123-78. 426 For early finds of Cretan amphorae at Athens see Agora V, 43 no. G 107, 48 no. H 20, 93 no. M 102; Grace 1979 [1961]: 13, figs. 32-33. For a description of this type from Pompeii see Panella 1974-1975: 159-60. An example of this type also was identified at Isthmia. cf. Gebhard 1973: 103-4, fig. 53. 427 Ostia I, 101, figs. 467-468; Ostia III, 476-7, 631 no. 35, pl. 47 fig. 373; Ostia IV, 225-6, pl. 36 fig. 260. It is in Ostia III where this type is first identified as Cretan. 428 Riley 1979: 180-3. 429 Hayes 1983: 140-5. Types 1-6 are presented as possible local forms. 430 Panella 1986: 620-2. 431 France: Liou 1987: 91, 112. Isthmia: Peppers 1986: 95. Gortyn: Gortina I, 263-72. 432 Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989; Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou, 1991; Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992.

326

finds of Cretan amphorae throughout the Roman world and collects all available literary and epigraphic references concerning these vessels and their contents. 433 A supplementary contribution of the French survey was the creation of the first systematic classification of Cretan amphorae.434 This typology only documented production up to the early fourth century C.E., however, despite available evidence for post-fourth century production on the island. As early as 1988, P. Rendini refers to evidence for Late Roman amphora production at Gortyn.435 Knossos provides similar evidence in the form of a local sixth century C.E. amphora from the Byzantine Basilica and several observations by Hayes.436 C. Vogt also notes that several types of Cretan amphorae continued in use until the sixth century C.E. at Eleutherna.437 A modified typology of forms produced up to the eighth century C.E. based on material excavated at Gortyn has been proposed by E.C. Portale and I. Romeo.438 This typology is divided into four chronological periods: EC (Ellenistico Cretese: 3rd-1st cen. B.C.E.); ARC (AnticoRomano Cretese: 1st cen. C.E. – first half of 3rd cen. C.E.); MRC (Medio-Romano Cretese: 3rd-4th cen. C.E.); TRC (Tardo-Romano Cretese: 5th-8th cen. C.E.). It includes two Hellenistic forms, four Early Roman, three Middle Roman, and eleven Late Roman. Further studies continue to modify this typology. A. Yangaki, for instance, uses excavated material from Eleutherna to

433

Marangou-Lerat 1995. See especially pp. 35-60 for descriptions of the amphora production sites. Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989: 554. The original typology consisted of four types (AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4). Three more types (AC5, AC7, AC8) were added later. cf. Empereur, Krtizas, and Marangou 1991: 520. 435 Gortina I, 268. See also Gortina II, 371; Rendini 1989: 648; 1990: 234. 436 Frend and Johnston 1962: 229 no. 101; Hayes 2001a: 434. Riley, however, suggests the amphora published by Frend and Johnston may be residual in its context because it has mortar adhering to it (1979: 181). 437 Vogt 2000: 90-91. 438 This typology was introduced in Portale and Romeo 2000 and can be found in final form in Gortina V.3, particularly pp. 260-1, 264-6, 269-79, 302-313. It is divided into four chronological periods: EC (Ellenistico Cretese: 3rd-1st cen. B.C.E.); ARC (Antico-Romano Cretese: 1st cen. C.E. – first half of 3rd cen. C.E.); MRC (MedioRomano Cretese: 3rd-4th cen. C.E.); TRC (Tardo-Romano Cretese: 5th-8th cen. C.E.). 434

327

propose the addition of several new forms and variants, and has refined the chronology for some of the types documented by Portale and Romeo.439 Perhaps the most significant hindrance to the current study of Cretan amphorae is a lack of fabric descriptions of material from known kiln sites. Marangou does not describe fabrics when discussing production centers and no other study has attempted to link finds from excavations to specific kiln sites based on fabric analysis. In particular, this is troubling for forms which would have been produced at multiple locations. For example, the MRC2b amphora is believed to have been manufactured at Keratokambos-east, Dermatos, Gortyn, Makry Gialos, and perhaps Eleutherna.440 Amphora wasters from Keratokambos have been subject to analysis through Neutron Activation Analysis, but this is useful only for someone undertaking a scientific study of Cretan amphorae.441 Several publications have descriptions of local amphora fabrics thought to represent products from nearby workshops.442 In some cases, however, „local‟ could very well represent a production center in another part of the island. The Sphakia Survey identified a Cretan amphora fabric, but was unable to associate it with a specific production center or production centers due to the nature of fabric descriptions from these kiln sites.443 For finds from Eleutherna, Yangaki has developed a typology of the most common fabrics, several of which are attested for amphorae and may be associated with production in the area of the city.444 Thus, it should now be possible to identify these amphorae in other parts of Crete. Fabrics 1, 2, and 7 described above are associated with Cretan vessels.

439

Yangaki 2004-2005: 507-20; 2005: 189, 194-7. Gortina V.3, 277; Yangaki 2004-05: 521; Yangaki 2005: 186. 441 Krywonos et al. 1982: 65. 442 For instance, Hayes 1983: 140. 443 Moody et al. 2003: 85. This fabric is termed „Cretan‟ tan fine calc sand fabric. 444 Yangaki 2005: 34-7. 440

328

A number of different Cretan amphora types were documented at Ierapetra, including all four Early Roman types. These forms bear the designation ARC from a typology created at Gortyn, which stands for Antico-Romano Cretese. For the ARC1 amphora, often referred to as the Cretan 1, three variants were noted. ARC1a vessels (397) are characterized by a vertical rounded lip with a slight junction where the exterior neck meets the rim. This type dates from the first century C.E. to the mid-third century, and Marangou suggests production occurred at Dermatos, Kissamos, and Palaiochora, with kiln sites also documented at Chania, Gortyn, and Knossos.445 ARC1b amphorae were the most common Early Roman type encountered at Ierapetra (398-405). Characterized by an outward thickened rim with rounded lip, this form was produced during the second and third centuries C.E.446 Production is attested at numerous centers, including Arvi, Chersonesos, Dermatos, Kissamos, Lagada, Matala, Palaiochora, Trypetos, and Tsoutsouros east and west.447 Knossos also may have been a manufacturing site.448 ARC1c amphorae, which appear to be the latest variant of this form, are less well documented at Ierapetra (407-410). They are characterized by an ovoid body, thickened at the shoulder, which leads to a cylindrical neck. The rim is vertical with a concave surface on the interior. Examples date from the early third to the late fourth century C.E., with production documented at Keratokambos-east.449 ARC1 amphorae were the most common Cretan amphora type identified during the Gournia Survey, confirming their ubiquity in the region of Ierapetra.450 ARC2, or Cretan 2, amphorae, derived from the Koan amphora tradition, are rare at the site (411-412). This type is among the earliest Roman amphora forms produced on Crete, dating 445

Marangou-Lerat 1995: 68. Chania: AR 53 (2006-2007): 117-8. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 270. Knossos: Hayes 1983: 140. 446 Gortina V.3, 271 447 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 71. 448 Hayes 1983: 140. 449 Gortina V.3, 271; Marangou-Lerat 1995: 73. 450 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming.

329

from the late first century B.C.E. to the second century C.E.451 It is characterized by a rolled rim and double round handles. Production is attested at Chersonesos-east, Dermatos, Herakleion, Keratokambos-west, and Lagada.452 Also rarely attested at Ierapetra were ARC3 amphorae (413), a type produced at Dermatos and Trypetos from the early first century C.E. through the third century C.E., and also referred to as the Cretan 3.453 This form consists of globular body, concave neck, and squared rim, and also tends to have a wider rim diameter (ca. 10-15cm) than most Early Roman Cretan amphorae. Examples of both the ARC2 and ARC3 types were noted by the Gournia Survey.454 ARC4 amphorae were common (414-417), and developed out of the Rhodian amphora tradition. Initially classified as Dressel 43 vessels, and then as the Cretan 4, this type spread across the Mediterranean. The form is characterized by a convex neck, a folded rim with a groove at the lower part of the exterior, and round handles with triangular peaks at the top. Production is documented at Dermatos, Herakleion, and Tsoutsouros-east.455 A traditional view from Crete suggests ARC4 vessels were manufactured from the mid-first to mid-second century C.E.456 Finds of these amphorae in Gaul and Britain in contexts dated to the second half of the third century C.E., however, could suggest production lasted much longer.457 Several later types of Cretan amphorae were attested at Ierapetra in varying quantities. This includes one example of an ARC1-MRC transitional form (418), attested previously at Gortyn and dated to the third and fourth centuries C.E.458 MRC1 vessels, with MRC a designation created by excavators at Gortyn which stands for Medio-Romano Cretese, appear 451

Gortina V.3, 273. Marangou-Lerat 1995: 77-8. 453 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 82; Gortina V.3, 82. 454 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming. 455 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 85-6. 456 Gortina V.3, 275. 457 Lemaître 2000: 467 fig. 2; Vilvorder, Symonds, and Rekk 2000: 479-80. 458 Gortina V.3, 277-9 no. 17 452

330

sporadically (419), characterized by a vertical, rounded lip and thin-walled, cylindrical necks with distinct ribbing on the interior and exterior surfaces. This form dates from the mid-second to the mid-fourth century C.E.459 The most common third to fourth century Cretan type at Ierapetra was the MRC2b (420-425), dated from the mid-third to the mid-fifth century C.E.460 Production may have occurred at Dermatos, Gortyn, Keratokambos-east, Makry Gialos, and Eleutherna.461 While the outward thickened rim with rounded lip is similar to earlier Cretan forms, the neck is more conical on these later vessels, a trait magnified in Late Roman types. In addition, a halfsize variant of the MRC2b amphora (425) bearing a ZA graffito on the shoulder was attested at Ierapetra. A final form present at the site, contemporary with the MRC1 and MRC2b, was the MRC3 amphora (426-429), possibly produced at Keratokambos-east from the mid-third to the late fifth century C.E.462 Finds of Late Roman and Late Antique Cretan amphorae at Rome were dominated by the TRC2 (430-432), an ovoid amphora with an outturned rim and conical neck. TRC stands for Tardo-Romano Cretese, a designation employed by archaeologists at Gortyn. At Gortyn, the TRC2 dates from the mid-fifth to the seventh century C.E.463 No production centers have been documented, although numerous variants are noted suggesting manufacture at different sites. Much rarer at Ierapetra was a more slender type of amphora characteristic of this later period of production on Crete. Specifically, one TRC6 vessel (433) was encountered. Along with the TRC4 and TRC5, this form represents a new tradition in Cretan amphora production, with a movement away from the ovoid body shape. The chronology is unclear, with production perhaps lasting from the sixth through the seventh century, and one hypothesis is that amphorae of this 459

Gortina V.3, 372. Gortina V.3, 276-7. 461 Gortina V.3, 277; Yangaki 2004-2005: 521; Yangaki 2005: 186. 462 Gortina V.3, 277, 372. 463 Gortina V.3, 304. 460

331

general type were manufactured at Chersonesos.464 Also believed to originate from Chersonesos is an example of a TRC9 amphora (434), a type considered to be an imitation of the LRA1.465 This specific piece is similar to LRA1 variant A vessels described by S. Keay.466 The final vessel catalogued here (435) represents a unique form recovered alongside numerous Cretan amphorae in a deposit from the Pangalou plot. Characterized by a Cretan fabric, this vessel has a folded rim with concave exterior surface and rounded lip. The narrow, globular body is typically of Cretan amphorae, although a preserved toe is uncharacteristic of Late Roman types. Nearly complete in preservation, this amphora could be contemporary with its deposit. The closest parallel is a vessel from Eleutherna, which appears to share the same body shape and rim morphology.467 An amphora identified at Gortyn is also similar.468

397. Fig. 5.34 (YM. 1; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1a. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 8. Convex neck; very slight junction where exterior wall meets rim; vertical, rounded lip with groove on interior surface. Comparanda: examples attested at Chania (Raab 2001: 68 no. 38), Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 183-4), Gortyn (Gortina II, pl. 49b; Gortina V.3, 270-1 no. 10), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 143 type 2; Warren 1987-88: 93 figs. 31-32; UM II, 214 no. N1.49), Kommos (Kommos IV, 320 no. 53), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 40-1 type β/4). Finds have also been noted from Kissamos and Loutro (Marangou-Lerat 1995: 68-9) along with Aptera, Phalasarna, Nopighia-Drapania (Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989: 555 fig. 3a, 564 figs. 15a-b, d), and Herakleion (Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991: 489 figs. 6a-b). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 398. Fig. 5.34 (AS. 63; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Amphora, rim, neck, and handle sherd; type ARC1b. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Thin-walled, cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; shallow groove on top of interior surface of rim; part of oval handle preserved. Comparanda: examples attested at Chania (Khania 1.1, 119 no. 73P-0225, 125 no. 70-P1129, 157 no. 73-P0711; Raab 2001: 68 nos. 35-37, 69 no. 47), Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 184), Gortyn (Gortina II, 373, pls. 140d, 141a; Gortina V.3, 271), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 143 type 2; UM II, 179 fig. 6 nos. 4, 6-8, 248 nos. S1.22-24, 254 no. U119), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 38 type β/2). Finds have also been noted at Kissamos (Marangou464

Gortina V.3, 308. Gortina V.3, 310; Marangou-Lerat 1995, 48, 60. 466 Keay 1984: 269. 467 Yangaki 2005: 182 no. 58, 439 fig. 50e. 468 Gortina II, 380 no. A330, pl.149d. 465

332

Lerat 1995: 71), Nopighia-Drapania and Aptera (Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989: 565 figs. 16a, 16d), and Makry Gialos (Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992: 639 fig. 6). There are also examples recovered from the sea around Crete including at Kouremonos near Palaikastro (Simossi 1988: 25 fig. 4), Kouphonisi (Marangou-Lerat 1995: 72), and Loutro (Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989: 564-5, figs. 15e, 16f). Date: context of Late Antique date (residual). 399. Fig. 5.34 (AS. 79; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Amphora, rim and handle; type ARC1b. D. of rim 7cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Thin-walled, slightly concave neck; vertical, rounded lip; concave groove near top of interior surface of lip; oval handle, attached just below rim. Comparanda: see no. 398 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 400. Fig. 5.33 (PG. 59; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 4). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1b. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 7. Cylindrical neck; vertical, rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 398 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 401. Fig. 5.33 (PG. 86; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1b. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 9. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip, slightly outturned. Comparanda: see no. 398 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 402. Fig. 5.34 (PG. 116; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1b. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; slightly flaring rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 398 above. Context of late third to early fourth century C.E. (residual). 403. Fig. 5.34 (YM. 129; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora, rim and handle sherd; type ARC1b. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Shoulder thickens near neck; thin-walled, slightly concave neck; vertical, rounded lip; oval handle partly preserved. Comparanda: see no. 398 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 404. Fig. 5.33 (YM. 146; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1b. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip which is beveled-in on interior surface; rim is outturned. Comparanda: see no. 398 above. For a close parallel to this rim form see example from Dermatos kiln site (Marangou-Lerat 1995: pl. 6 fig. 38.A41). Date: context of fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (residual). 405. Fig. 5.34 (YM. 156; Yiomelaki; Trench 19, layer 9). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1b. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Slightly flaring rim with rounded lip; a little offset from slightly concave neck. Comparanda: see no. 398 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 406. Fig. 5.34 (YM. 50; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1b-c. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; vertical, rounded lip, slightly thickened; part of oval handle preserved. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate).

333

407. Fig. 5.35 (AS. 83; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Amphora, rim to shoulder with one handle; type ARC1c. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 7. Shoulder thickens where neck begins; cylindrical neck with ribbing on exterior surface; vertical rim with squared lip; interior of rim is concave; oval handle. Comparanda: examples known from Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: p.187 fig. 43 nos. 7, 10; Yangaki 2005: 184 no. 130) and Gortyn (Gortina II, 373, pl. 141.a; Gortina V.3, 2712 no. 10). Date: context of 250 to 350 C.E. (indeterminate). 408. Fig. 5.34 (PG. 129; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 5). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1c. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; vertical, rounded lip; interior of rim slightly concave. Comparanda: see no. 407 above. Date: context of first half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 409. Fig. 5.35 (PG. 136; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1c. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Vertical, rounded lip; interior of rim slightly concave; cylindrical neck. Comparanda: see no. 407 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 410. Fig. 5.34 (YM. 273; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1c. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; vertical, rounded lip; rim is curved with convex exterior and concave interior. Comparanda: see no. 407 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 411. Fig. 5.35 (YM. 141; Yiomelaki; Trench 9, layer 2). Amphora, rim and handle sherds; type ARC2a. D. of rim 9cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Cylindrical neck; rolled rim with rounded lip; part of double round handle preserved, but one half broken away. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 185 nos. 170, 709), Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 273-4 no. 11), Knossos (eg. UM II, 214 no. N1.43), Makry Gialos (Marangou-Lerat 1995: 78), and Matala (Crile and Davaras 1963: 49 pl. 5.2). Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 412. N.I. (YM. 155; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, base sherd; type ARC2. Preserved H. 2.5cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Blunt, rounded toe; concave on inside; flaring walls. Comparanda: see no. 411 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (indeterminate). 413. Fig. 5.35 (YM. 82; Yiomelaki; Trench 23, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC3. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Slightly concave neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip, slightly outturned; bottom of outer surface of rim steps down to outer wall of neck. Comparanda: examples attested at Chania (Raab 2001: 72 nos. 101, 103), Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 274-5 no. 12), Knossos (Hayes 1971: 269 no. 52; Hayes 1983: 141-3 type 1; UM II, 190 nos. A2.102-104), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 319 no. 46). Other pieces are noted from Agios Nikolaos, Eleutherna, Kaloi Limenes, and Loutro (Marangou-Lerat 1995: 82-3), and at Herakleion (Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991: 492 fig. 9). Date: context of first century C.E. (in phase). 414. N.I. (YM. 111; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, handle; type ARC4. Preserved H. approx. 11.6cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Oval handle with distinct peak at top. Comparanda: examples attested at Axos (Marangou-Lerat 1995: 86), Gortyn (Gortina II, pl. 140e; Gortina V.3,

334

275 no. 13), and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 143-4 types 3-5; UM II, 189-90 no. A2.101, 214 no. N1.47, 223 nos. F2.39a-b). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 415. N.I. (YM. 115; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, handle; type ARC4. Preserved H. 15.7cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Round handle with triangular peak at top. Comparanda: see no. 414 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 416. Fig. 5.35 (YM. 135; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC4. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Cylindrical, slightly convex, neck; vertical, rounded lip; groove on exterior wall which undercuts lower part of rim. Comparanda: see no. 414 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 417. Fig. 5.35 (YM. 318; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 4). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC4. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 7. Slightly convex neck; vertical, squared lip; exterior of rim undercut leaving distinct groove. Comparanda: see no. 414 above. Date: context of fourth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 418. Fig. 5.35 (PG. 107; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type ARC1-MRC. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 8. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: type attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 277-9 no. 17). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 419. Fig. 5.35 (PG. 134; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type MRC1. D. of rim 7cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Thin-walled, cylindrical neck with interior and exterior ribbing; vertical, rounded lip with groove on interior. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 275-6 no. 14), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 142 fig. 20 nos. A7-A9; UM II, 248-9 nos. S1.28-29, 255 nos. U123-124), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 40-1 type β/4). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 420. Fig. 5.36 (AS. 82; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Amphora, rim, neck, both handles; type MRC2b. R Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; slightly offset vertical, rounded lip; oval handle. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 186-8) and Gortyn (Gortina II, pls. 141d, 146a, 149c; Gortina V.3, 276-7). Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (indeterminate). 421. Fig. 5.36, Pl. 5.5 (PG. 111; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Amphora, rim, body, handle sherds; type MRC2b. D. of rim 5cm; D. at widest point 34cm; preserved H. 51.2cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Globular body with exterior ribbing; shoulder thickens at neck; cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 420 above. Date: context of 350400 C.E. (indeterminate). 422. Fig. 5.37, Pl. 5.5 (PG. 112; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Amphora, rim, body, handle sherds; type MRC2b. D. of rim 5cm; D. at widest point 36.2cm; preserved H. 53.2cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Globular body with exterior ribbing; shoulder thickens at neck; cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 420 above. Date: context of 350-400 C.E. (indeterminate).

335

423. Fig. 5.36 (PG. 75; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Amphora, rim, neck, handle sherd; type MRC2b. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; oval handle. Comparanda: see no. 420 above. Date: context of 350-400 C.E. (indeterminate). 424. Fig. 5.35 (PG. 115; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type MRC2b. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 7. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; groove where interior of rim meets neck. Comparanda: see no. 420 above. Date: context of late third to early fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 425. Fig. 5.36, Pl. 5.5 (PG. 51; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Amphora, rim, neck, handle sherds; type MRC2b (half-size variant). D. of rim 4cm; D. at widest point approx. 18.4cm; preserved H. 33.2cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Narrow, globular body with exterior ribbing; shoulder thickened just below neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; small groove where rim meets exterior of neck. Graffito preserved on shoulder: appears to read ZA. Comparanda: see no. 420 above for finds of MRC2b amphorae. No half-size variant of this type has been previously attested. Date: context of 350-400 C.E. (indeterminate). 426. Fig. 5.36 (PG. 135; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type MRC3. D. of rim 7cm. R Amphora fabric 8. Cylindrical neck, slopes slightly inward; outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 188) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 277 no. 16). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (indeterminate). 427. Fig. 5.37 (YM. 127; Yiomelaki; Trench 14, layer 2). Amphora, rim and handle sherd; type MRC3. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Cylindrical neck, slopes slightly inward; outward thickened rim with rounded lip, slightly outturned; part of oval handle preserved. Comparanda: see no. 426 above. Date: context of third to fifth century C.E. (in phase). 428. Fig. 5.37 (YM. 10; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora, rim and handle sherd; type MRC3. D. of rim 7cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Slightly conical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip, slightly outturned; part of oval handle preserved. Comparanda: see no. 426 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 429. Fig. 5.37 (YM. 267; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; type MRC3. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Outward thickened with rim with rounded lip; bottom of exterior of rim is flat creating a junction between wall and rim; conical neck. Comparanda: see no. 426 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (intrusive). 430. Fig. 5.37 (AS. 53; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Amphora, rim and handle sherd; type TRC2. D. of rim 9cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Conical neck; outturned rim with rounded lip; oval handle. Comparanda: well attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 190-1) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 303-6 no. 64). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (indeterminate). 431. Fig. 5.38 (AS. 55; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Amphora, rim and handle sherd; type TRC2. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Conical neck; outturned rim with rounded lip; oval

336

handle, pinched at attachment to neck. Comparanda: see no. 430 above. Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (indeterminate). 432. N.I. (AS. 64; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Amphora, rim, neck, handle; type TRC2. D. of rim 9cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Conical neck; outward thickened rim with squared lip, slightly outturned; oval handle. Comparanda: see no. 430 above. Date: context of Late Antique date (indeterminate). 433. Fig. 5.37 (PG. 122; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type TRC6. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Vertical, rounded lip, slightly outward thickened; cylindrical neck. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 192 no. 726) and Gortyn (Gortina II, 374, pl. 146b; Gortina V.3, 308 no. 68). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 434. Fig. 5.36 (PG. 142; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type TRC9. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 7. Junction between exterior wall and rim; vertical rim with slightly inward thickened, rounded lip; outer surface of rim is slightly concave. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 186-7 fig. 43.14; Yangaki 2005: 192-3 no. 507) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 310-1 no. 71). Local eighth century imitations of LRA1 amphorae have also been identified on Pseira (Poulou-Papadimitrou 1995: 1124 no. PS2700). Date: context of first half of sixth century C.E. (indeterminate). 435. Fig. 5.38, Pl. 5.5 (PG. 50; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Amphora, rim, body, handle sherds; unidentified Crete type. D. of rim 7cm; D. at widest point 24.8cm; preserved H. 42.6cm. R Amphora fabric 7. Beginning of toe preserved; narrow, globular body with exterior ribbing; cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip and concave exterior surface. Comparanda: closest parallel is example from Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 182 no. 58, 439 fig. 50e), believed to be of Cretan manufacture. A vessel from Gortyn also appears similar (Gortina II, 380 no. A330, pl.149d). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown).

Aegean (436-445) Based on sherd count and weight, amphorae of Aegean provenance were the second most common after Cretan vessels. These containers comprise a disparate set of types, with examples attested from several locations across the Aegean. Among these are pinched handles representing the Agora G199/MR4 amphora (436-437). This form, attested at Knossos,469 is found in the eastern and western Mediterranean, with a concentration of finds along the southern coast of

469

Hayes 1983: 147-8 type 17, 156-8 type 45.

337

Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Marina el-Alamein in Egypt.470 According to Lund, this distribution pattern mirrors that of Cypriot Sigillata, although the date range of these amphorae (first century C.E. to fourth century C.E.) is longer. Production is documented at several kiln sites in Rough Cilicia along the southern coast of Asia Minor and has also been suggested for Cyprus.471 Lund argues, without the support of archaeometric data, that finds with micaceous fabrics originate in Cilicia, while non-micaceous examples derive from Cyprus. Additional vessels with probable origins in Asia Minor include one Pamphylian type amphora (438). Finds of these vessels only occur in eastern Mediterranean contexts and have not been identified previously on Crete.472 Their date range is the late first century B.C.E. through the first half of the fourth century C.E. The most common Aegean amphora type attested at Ierapetra, also of probable Asia Minor origin, was the Kapitän II/Niederbieber 77 (439-441). This form is well documented on Crete, with examples known from Eleutherna, Gortyn, Knossos, and Rethymno, along with several identified pieces from sites in the Isthmus.473 It comprises a vertical, tapered lip with exterior flange on top of a tall, conical neck and an ovoid body. Dating from the third to fourth century C.E., it appears across the Mediterranean and even occurs in small quantities in northern Europe. Three pieces are catalogued here, representing numerous other fragments. The Agora M273, a form attested on Crete at Eleutherna and Gortyn, also appears at Ierapetra (442-443).474 Defined first by Robinson at the Athenian Agora,475 this form has been subject to some confusion in scholarly discussion. According to M. Bonifay and D. Piéri, the 470

Lund 2000b: 569-70. Lund 2000b: 569-70; Rauh 2004: 331; Paphos III, 91 type III. 472 Rauh 2004: 329-30. 473 Eleutherna: Vogt 2000: 82-3; Yangaki 2005: 197-9. Gortyn: Gortina I, 277; Gortina II, 373, pl. 145c-d; Gortina V.3, 295-6 no. 49. Knossos: Hayes 1983: 155 type 37; UM II, 249 no. S1.31, 255 no. U144. Lappa: GavrilakiNikoloudaki 1988: 42-3 type δ. Gournia Survey: Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming nos. E36-E37. 474 Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 206-7 no. 57. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 349-50 no. 94. 475 Agora V, 109. 471

338

designation Agora M273 has been used to refer to a heterogeneous group of amphorae.476 In other words, it often serves as a catch-all for several similar vessel types. P. Arthur defines the Agora M273 as “one of a series of rather similar ribbed amphorae common to the Aegean and the Black sea from the third to the sixth centuries”.477 He also suggests that the Samos Cistern type amphora is a later derivation of the M273, perhaps indicating an origin in or around Samos. The two rim sherds attested at Ierapetra are both suggestive of the standard Agora M273 vessel type described by Arthur. The LRA1 is among the most common vessels encountered in the Mediterranean from the fourth through seventh century C.E. Production occurred at numerous centers in southern Asia Minor and Cyprus, and perhaps at sites in other regions.478 The variety of fabrics possible for LRA1 vessels can make it difficult to associate specific pieces with individual kiln sites based on macroscopic analysis. With respect to overall form, LRA1 amphorae have vertical rims with rounded lips leading off of cylindrical necks. The body is cylindrical and has regular ribbing on the exterior surface. Handles attach just below the rim and to the upper shoulder. Wine is considered to be the primary content. Several examples are catalogued below (444-448), including one piece (444) with a rim form similar to Keay variant B vessels for this type.479 Examples of Keay variant A also were identified (445-447).480 One additional piece is a body sherd with part of a red titulus pictus preserved on the exterior (448). A small number of examples were noted from sites in the Isthmus by the Gournia Survey.481

476

Bonifay and Piéri 1995: 114. See also Bonifay and Villedieu 1989: 35. Arthur 1998: 167. 478 Williams 2005: 162-7. 479 Keay 1984: 269. 480 Keay 1984: 269. 481 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E35. 477

339

Among the most common Late Roman and Late Antique Aegean amphora finds at the site were LRA2 vessels, a phenomenon also attested in the Isthmus.482 Most of the finds are body sherds, however, with rims and other diagnostic pieces unattested. As a result, only one example is catalogued below (449), representative of numerous other identified vessels. The same situation is documented for LRA3 vessels which only appear at Ierapetra in the form of undiagnostic body sherds.483 LRA2 amphorae are among the most ubiquitous storage vessels from the fourth to seventh centuries C.E. Production of this form has been suggested at several sites in Greece and the Aegean, including Chios, Knidos, and Kounoupi in the Argolid.484 Wine and olive oil were carried in these vessels, with olive oil thought to be the dominant product.485 The form is easily identifiable and includes a globular body with regular ribbing that becomes narrower at the shoulder. A conical neck and flaring rim with rounded lip, forming a cup-like shape, also characterize the shape. A final amphora is considered of Aegean origin based on fabric (450). Characterized by an outward thickened rim, triangular in profile, with a rounded lip and cylindrical neck, the closest parallel is a piece from Gortyn dated to the first quarter of the third century C.E.486

436. N.I. (AS. 92; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Amphora, handle; type MR4/Agora G199. R Amphora fabric 5. Pinched handle with central groove. Comparanda: this type attested at Knossos (Hayes 1983: 147-8 type 17, 156-8 type 45); fabric is similar to finds from the Biçkici kiln site in Cilicia (Rauh 2004: 331). Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (indeterminate). 437. N.I. (AS. 93; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Amphora, handle; type MR4/Agora G199. R Amphora fabric 2. Pinched handle with central groove. Comparanda: see no. 436 above, except

482

Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming nos. E30-E34. The final example (E34) is noted to have a Cretan fabric and may be related to the TRC10, a local imitation of the LRA2 type. cf. Gortina V.3, 311 no. 72. 483 Body sherds of this type are also known from the Isthmus. cf. Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming. 484 Arthur 1998: 167. 485 Karagiorgou 2001: 147. 486 Gortina V.3, 298, pl. 74.f.

340

fabric is similar to one described by Hayes (Paphos III, 91 type III, fabric 2) from Paphos, Cyprus of probable Cypriote origin. Date: context of 250-350 C.E. (indeterminate). 438. Fig. 5.38 (YM. 242; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; Pamphylian type. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 5. Cylindrical neck; vertical, rounded lip, slightly thickened on both sides. Comparanda: no parallels attested on Crete; appears similar to Pamphilian type amphorae described by Rauh (2004: 329-30, fig. 2). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 439. Fig. 5.38 (PG. 96; Pangalou; Trench 2, layer 11). Amphora, rim and neck sherds; type Kapitän II/Niederbieber 77. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Conical neck with broad ribbing; vertical, tapered lip with exterior flange below a concave groove; part of handle attachment preserved. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 82-3; Yangaki 2005: 197-9), Gortyn (Gortina I, 277; Gortina II, 373, pl. 145c-d; Gortina V.3, 295-6 no. 49), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 155 type 37; UM II, 249 no. S1.31, 255 no. U144), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 42-3 type δ). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 440. 5.38 (PG. 87; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Amphora, rim and handle sherds; type Kapitän II/Niederbieber 77. D. of rim n.a. R Amphora fabric 3. Conical neck with broad ribbing; exterior flange preserved, but rim missing; spined handle. Comparanda: see no. 439 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 441. Fig. N.I. (PG. 133; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type Kapitän II/Niederbieber 77. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Vertical, tapered lip with exterior flange beneath a concave groove. Comparanda: see no. 439 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 442. Fig. 5.39 (AS. 75; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Amphora, rim, neck, and handle sherd; type Agora M273. D. of rim 11cm. R Amphora fabric 5. Cylindrical neck; vertical, rounded lip, slightly outturned; oval handle, attached near rim. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 206-7 no. 57) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 349-50 no. 94). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (unknown). 443. Fig.5.39 (PG. 119; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type Agora M273. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 5. Slightly convex neck; shallow groove where exterior wall meets rim Vertical, rounded lip, slightly outward thickened. Comparanda: see no. 442 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (unknown). 444. Fig. 5.39 (AS. 2; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA1. D. of rim 7cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Cylindrical neck; vertical, rounded lip, somewhat inwardly thickened. Comparanda: LRA1 amphorae attested at Agia Galini (Vogt 1991-1993: 59-61), Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 84-6; Yangaki 2005: 199-201), Gortyn (Gortina I, 276; Gortina II, 375; Gortina V.3, 327-31 no. 84), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1022), Knossos (Frend and Johnston 1962: 222 no. 28; Hayes 2001a: 442 no. A57, 450 no. B61, 451 no. B66), and Pseira (Poulou-Papadimitrou 1995: 1124 no. PS.2699). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (indeterminate).

341

445. Fig. 5.38 (PG. 82; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA1. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 6. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip and concave exterior surface, slightly outturned. Comparanda: see no. 444 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (indeterminate). 446. Fig. 5.38 (YM. 13; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA1. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Outward thickened rim with rounded lip and concave exterior surface. Comparanda: see no. 444 above. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (intrusive). 447. Fig. 5.38 (PG. 83; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA1. D. of rim 7cm. R Amphora fabric 6. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with concave exterior surface, slightly outturned. Comparanda: see no. 444 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (indeterminate). 448. Pl. 5.6 (YM. 280; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Amphora, body sherd; type LRA1. Preserved W. 5.4cm; preserved L. 5.6cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Body sherd with interior ribbing; exterior has buff slip and part of titulus pictus in red paint preserved; letters are unidentified. Comparanda: see no. 444 above. For examples with tituli picti preserved see pieces from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 329 figs. 157-158). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (intrusive). 449. Pl. 5.4 (PG. 124; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Amphora, body sherds; type LRA2. R Amphora fabric 1, but hard rather than soft to medium hard. Thick-walled, globular body with combed decoration. Comparanda: examples attested at Agia Galini (Vogt 1991-1993: 61-2 type β), Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 83-4; Yangaki 2005: 201-3), Gortyn (Gortina II, 374; Gortina V.3, 352-4 no. 98), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1022), and Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 450 no. B64); also attested in Isthmus by Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming). Date: second half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 450. Fig. 5.39 (YM. 182; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 13cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim, triangular in profile, with rounded lip. Comparanda: closest parallel is example from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 298, pl. 74.f). Date: context of second half of fifth century C.E. (unknown).

Africa (451-462) The largest complement of western amphorae identified at Ierapetra derives from North Africa. Most of the material dates to the first few centuries C.E., although a small number of vessels do appear to be Late Roman or Late Antique in date. Overall, quantities of African

342

amphorae are not high, which is equivalent to a pattern noted at Gortyn.487 On the other hand, African types were noted at numerous sites during the Gournia Survey, implying they were brought in regularly to this region.488 Several rare types were identified, including a Tripolitanian type amphora (451) which may in fact be of Late Hellenistic date. It has the hard, red fabric and black skin characteristic of vessels from that region. A common type of African amphora at Ierapetra was the Africana 1/Keay 3 vessels (452-453). Of Tunisian origin, this type was described first by F. Zevi and A. Tchernia and is characterized by a cylindrical body and a thickened, outturned rim.489 According to C. Panella and S. Keay, the rims show two variants, with variant A representative of the material at Ierapetra.490 Variant A vessels date from the end of the second century C.E. to the beginning of the third century and perhaps later.491 While distribution is mainly in the western Mediterranean, finds do appear in the east, including at Gortyn.492 Three other vessels identified at Ierapetra share a similar rim morphology to the Africana 1/Keay 3A amphora (454-456), but in all three cases the rim diameter is smaller than what is considered standard for that type. Examples Dressel 30/Keay 1 vessels were attested in two variants (457-458). The base of a variant A amphora (457) appears to be a third century C.E. African equivalent of the Gauloise 4 amphora produced in Gaul. African imitations of this type have been identified at Knossos indicating they were shipped to Crete.493 Gortyn produces examples of variant B vessels of which one rim sherd (458), with its characteristic ridging on the exterior surface, was noted at

487

Gortina V.3, 279. Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E29. 489 Zevi and Tchernia 1969. 490 Ostia III, 575-9; Keay 1984: 100-1. 491 Bonifay 2004: 107. 492 Gortina V.3, 280 no. 19. 493 Hayes 1983: 153 type 33. 488

343

Ierapetra.494 Neither type appears to be widely distributed to the eastern Mediterranean, nor are they common on Crete. There was one example of a Keay 25 amphora noted (459), a type with 26 attested variants.495 On Crete, examples occur at Eleutherna and Gortyn and the overall date range appears to be the late third/early fourth century C.E. to the fifth century.496 The piece from Ierapetra may be a variant B vessel.497 A large toe from a Keay 62 amphora, possibly variant A, also appeared (460).498 This type is noted at Gortyn and Knossos.499 In addition, two unidentified African forms were attested (461-462) and are associated with this region based on fabric.

451. Fig. 5.39, Pl. 5.4 (YM. 224; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; Tripolitanian type. D. of rim 19cm. R Amphora fabric 3; surface of vessel is black ranging to strong brown (7.5YR 4/6). Conical neck; flaring, triangular rim with rounded lip; groove on underside of rim. Comparanda: no parallels attested on Crete. Date: context of second century C.E. (residual). 452. Fig. 5.39 (PG. 140; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type Africana 1A/Keay 3A. D. of rim 11cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Slightly convex neck; tall, outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 280 no. 19). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 453. Fig. 5.39 (YM. 109; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, rim sherd; type Africana 1A/Keay 3A. D. of rim 10cm. R Amphora fabric 3; very pale brown slip (10YR 8/4) on exterior. Outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 451 above. Date: context of 75150 C.E. (intrusive). 454. Fig. 5.39 (YM. 133; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Conical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; handle attachment preserved on neck. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate).

494

Gortina V.3, 281-2 no. 21. Keay 1984: 184-212. 496 Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 210-11 nos. 53, 135. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 313-5 no. 75. 497 Keay 1984: 185. 498 Keay 1984: 335-8. 499 Gortyn: Gortina II, 375; Gortina V.3, 320-1 no. 78. Knossos: Hayes 2001a: 449 no. B58. 495

344

455. Fig. 5.38 (YM. 134; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Outward thickened rim with rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 454 above. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 456. Fig. 5.40 (YM. 228; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 5cm. R Amphora fabric 8. Conical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; interior of rim is slightly concave; part of handle attachment preserved. Comparanda: see no. 454 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (residual). 457. Fig. 5.40 (YM. 131; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora, base sherd; type Dressel 30/Keay 1A. D. of base 7cm; preserved H. 7.4cm. R Amphora fabric 10. Flaring ring base; underside of base is convex; slightly concave walls flaring out as move away from base. Comparanda: examples attested at Knossos (Hayes 1983: 153 type 33). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (in phase). 458. Fig. 5.39 (PG. 138; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 5). Amphora, rim sherd; type Dressel 30/Keay 1B. D. of rim 12cm. R Amphora fabric 2. Offset, vertical rim with rounded lip and two shallow grooves on outer surface; underside of rim is concave; slightly concave neck with exterior ribbing. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 281-2 no. 21). Date: context of 150-250 C.E. (in phase). 459. Fig. 5.40 (YM. 283; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 7). Amphora, rim sherd; type Keay 25B. D. of rim 18cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Cylindrical neck; slightly flaring rim with rounded lip; slightly outward thickened compared to neck. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 210-11 nos. 53, 135) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 313-5 no. 75). Date: context of fourth century C.E. (in phase). 460. Fig. 5.40 (YM. 263; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 2). Amphora, toe; type Keay 62. Preserved H. 9.6cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Solid, conical toe with junction leading to rounded end with slightly flaring edges; inside of toe has raised rectangular ledge; sloping walls. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 375; Gortina V.3, 320-1 no. 78) and Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 449 no. B58). Date: context of late sixth to early seventh century C.E. (residual). 461. Fig. 5.40 (PG. 90; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Amphora, toe; unidentified type. Preserved H. 6.6cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Conical toe with solid bottom half; interior floor of toe is flat; sloping walls narrow away from toe. Comments: likely from some form of Tunisian cylindrical amphora. Date: context of first half of sixth century C.E. (unknown). 462. Fig. 5.38 (YM. 229; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 10cm. R Amphora fabric 3; pale yellow slip (10YR 8/2) well preserved. Cylindrical neck; rolled rim with rounded lip. Comments: fabric suggests a Tunisian origin. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown).

345

Egypt (463-466) Amphorae from Egypt were rare, with most attested examples representing Late Roman forms. One example of an Amphore Égyptienne 3 (AE3) did appear in the form of a rim sherd with a vertical, thickened, rounded lip and cylindrical neck (463). The form is described by Empereur and Picon as biconical, with a production history lasting from the Late Hellenistic period through the fifth century C.E.500 Production occurred predominately in the Nile Delta and Mariout region of Egypt, and examples have been found distributed across the Mediterranean including several regions in the West.501 On Crete, examples are attested at Knossos in addition to several vessels recovered from probable shipwreck contexts along the north coast.502 The fabric of the Ierapetra vessel is distinct from that of typical Egyptian vessels, but does appear similar to one described by Riley for possible Egyptian amphorae at Berenice.503 The LRA7 amphora, the typical Egyptian wine container of the Late Roman and Late Antique periods, is represented at Ierapetra by several fragments (464-466). The term LRA7, first proposed during the American excavations at Carthage,504 and corresponding to Peacock and Williams class 52,505 encompasses a series of small, ribbed containers of similar form. M. Egloff divides vessels of this form into several types, noting it was difficult to create any clear divisions between them.506 Production occurred at several sites in Egypt and appears to have lasted from the late fourth through to the late seventh or early eighth century C.E.507 While most common in Egypt and North Africa, the form also can be found in many regions of the Roman 500

Empereur and Picon 1989: 234-5. Tomber and Williams 2000: 46. 502 Knossos: Hayes 1983: 158 type 50. Shipwrecks: Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlazaki, and Papadakis 2000: 448 nos. 515-517. 503 Riley 1979: 208 no. 302. 504 Hayes 1976: 117. Riley (1979: 224-5) classified this type under the heading Late Roman Amphora 6. 505 Peacock and Williams 1986: 204-5. 506 Egloff 1977: 111, 114-6. 507 For evidence of production see: Ballet and Picon 1987: 38; Ballet et al. 1991: 134-40; Empereur and Picon 1989: 244. For chronology see: Bailey 1998: 129; Tomber and Williams 2000: 45. 501

346

world, including numerous sites in the western Mediterranean.508 The various fragments from Ierapetra all have slightly different morphologies characteristic of the varied nature of this amphora class. One of the toes (464) is comparable with Egloff 172 vessels, while another (465) appears closer to Egloff 173 or 174 containers. The other catalogued piece (466) comprises a number of joining body sherds not easily relatable with any specific variant.

463. Fig. 5.40 (YM. 223; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; type AE3. R Amphora fabric 9. Cylindrical neck; vertical, thickened, rounded lip. Comparanda: examples appear at Knossos (Hayes 1983: 158 type 50) and several nearly complete vessels have been recovered from probable shipwreck contexts along the north coast of Crete (Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlazaki, and Papadakis 2000: 448 nos. 515-517). Date: context of second century C.E. (indeterminate). 464. N.I. (PG. 105; Pangalou; Trench 11, layer 3). Amphora, toe; type Egloff 172/LRA7. R Amphora fabric 4. Part of cylindrical toe with rounded ledge; broken off at top before wall begins. Comparanda: this type is common at Gortyn (Rendini 1990: 239; Gortina II, 375; Gortina V.3, 339-44 no. 89) and one fragment has turned up at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 89-90). Date: context of late fourth to fifth century C.E. (indeterminate). 465. N.I. (AS. 9; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Amphora, toe; type LRA7. R Amphora fabric 4. Conical toe, broken off at top and bottom; solid throughout; broad ribbing on exterior. Comparanda: see no. 464 above. Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (indeterminate). 466. Pl. 5.6 (PG. 43; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Amphora, body sherds; type LRA7. D. at widest point 21.1cm. R Amphora fabric 4. Conical body with deep ribbing on exterior; smears of clay also present. Comparanda: see no. 464 above. Date: context of fifth century C.E. (indeterminate).

Italy (467-469) Finds of Italian amphorae at Ierapetra were sporadic, with only a small number of fragments from three different types encountered. These types range in date from the first century C.E. into the Late Roman period, suggesting that Italian wine consistently was rare on 508

Bailey 1998: 129-35; Riley 1979: 225; Tomber and Williams 2000: 46-8.

347

the site. Italian amphorae appear to have been more common at other sites on Crete including Gortyn and Knossos.509 In addition, a rim from a Dressel 1B vessel was discussed above in the Hellenistic amphora section (152). One example of a Dressel 2-4 amphora turned up in the Yiomelaki plot (467), a form considered by Peacock and Williams to be “the most important western Mediterranean wine amphora of the early Empire”.510 Dressel 2-4 amphorae were distributed widely across the Roman world, reaching as far as India in the east.511 Production of the type appears to have begun sometime in the first century B.C.E. and evidence now suggests it lasted into the early third century C.E.512 While this amphora type was produced in several different provinces, the piece in question appears to be of Italian provenance. Analysis of the fabric enables a more precise origin to be assigned to Campania. This large toe has what Peacock has termed the “black sand” fabric associated with ceramic production in the region of Mount Vesuvius.513 The toe is less squat than what is typical for Campanian Dressel 2-4 vessels, but the fabric is unmistakable. A terminus ante quem of 79 C.E. can thus be assigned to this piece since the eruption of Vesuvius may have resulted in the destruction of the Campanian wine industry.514 Several pieces in this same fabric were identified during the Gournia Survey along with one sherd of this type presumed to have originated in northern Italy.515 Two separate bases, although similar in form, appear to be from two distinct amphora types. One (468) derives from a MR1 amphora, based on Riley‟s classification,516 and the other

509

Gortina V.3, 267-8, 289-90, 324-7; Hayes 1983: 141. Peacock and Williams 1986: 106. 511 Gupta, Williams, and Peacock 2001. 512 Zevi 1966: 216; Freed 1989: 616. 513 For a description of this fabric see Peacock 1977b: 149-53. 514 Williams and Peacock 2005: 143. 515 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming nos. E25-E27 (Campanian Dressel 2-4), E28 (North Italian Dressel 2-4). 516 Riley 1979: 177-80. 510

348

is an example of a Keay 52 type amphora (469).517 MR1 vessels were produced from the first through the fifth century C.E. and their origin is now known to be in Sicily, particularly the site of Naxos on the east coast where kiln sites are documented.518 They mainly had a central Mediterranean distribution pattern, although examples are known from various eastern sites and from several locations in Britain.519 Wine was the probable content and P. Reynolds argues that the rise in quantity of MR1 vessels in the second half of the fourth century corresponds to the decline in Keay 1 wine vessels from Mauretania and could represent an attempt to replace these supplies.520 As has been suggested for the fragments of MR1 amphorae found at Gortyn, the example from Ierapetra likely came to the site in the fourth or fifth century during the proliferation of its distribution.521 Keay 52 amphorae were one of the most common amphora types produced in Italy in the Late Roman and Late Antique periods with production lasting from the late third to the seventh century C.E.522 While production of these vessels continued after the decline of MR1 amphorae, Reynolds argues that Keay 52 were not a direct successor of this earlier type and instead represent a separate wine industry tradition.523 Keay suggested the form had an eastern Mediterranean provenance based on its characteristic micaceous fabric.524 In a subsequent study, Arthur demonstrated these vessels were produced in the Calabrian region of southern Italy based on their predominance in pottery assemblages there, a fact now supported by the identification of

517

Keay 1984: 267-8. Wilson 1990: 264. Peña (1999: 74) suggests that production may have occurred in northeast Sicily as well. Riley had previously hypothesized a Tunisian origin for these vessels (Riley 1979: 179). 519 Wilson 1990: 264. 520 Reynolds 1995: 68-9. Along with MR1 amphorae Reynolds also notes the rise in quantity of Forumpopuli, Empoli, and Keay 52 vessels. 521 Gortina V.3, 290. 522 Arthur 1989b: 135; Saguì 1998: 322. The earliest documented evidence for Keay 52 amphorae derives from contexts of the last decade of the third century C.E. at the Palatine East excavations in Rome (Peña 1999: 72). 523 Reynolds 1995: 68. 524 Keay 1984: 267. 518

349

kiln sites in the region.525 There is speculation that production occurred in northeast Sicily as well.526 These vessels are common in Italy and Gaul, but also appear in North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.527 A gas-chromatography analysis of Keay 52 amphorae from the Schola Praeconum in Rome shows wine was the primary content.528

467. Fig. 5.40, Pl. 5.6 (YM. 78; Yiomelaki; Trench 6, layer 3). Amphora, toe; type Dressel 2-4. Preserved H. 15.5cm. R Amphora Fabric 11. Solid, cylindrical toe with rounded end; walls of toe are slightly concave. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 372; Gortina V.3, 289-90 no. 37) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 149 type 20; UM II, 183 no. A1.30). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (residual). 468. N.I. (AS. 94; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Amphora, base sherd; type MR1. D. of base 10cm. R Amphora fabric 8. Footed base: recess inside of foot is concave; wall has junction just above base. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 215 no. 59) and Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 290 no. 38). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 469. Fig. 5.39 (YM. 14; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 2). Amphora, base sherd; type Keay 52. D. of base 9cm. R Amphora fabric 8. Footed base: recess inside of base is concave. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 387 no. A174; Gortina V.3, 324-6 no. 82). Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (indeterminate).

Spain (470-471) Six fragments of Spanish amphorae appeared among the three plots, representing the Beltrán 1/Dressel 7-11 and Beltrán 2A types respectively. The first type (470) has a thick, flaring rim with a concave outer surface and rounded lip. Hayes designated this form as his type 9 amphora based on material from Knossos.529 It also appears at Gortyn.530 Based on a compilation of forms identified by Dressel, M. Beltrán classified it as his form 1 and suggested fish sauce 525

Arthur 1989b: 134-5; Pacetti 1998: 187. Saguì 1998: 322. 527 Agora V, 106 no. M234; Arthur 1989b: 134; Bonifay and Villedieu 1989: 33; Reynolds 1995: 69; Pacetti 1998: 192. 528 Rothschild-Boros 1981: 86. Support for this derives from a pitch lining preserved on the example from the Agora (M234). 529 Hayes 1983: 146 type 9. 530 Gortina V.3, 284 no. 26. 526

350

was the product contained in these vessels based on tituli picti.531 Production appears centered around the region of Cádiz with a few isolated workshops elsewhere. The fabric of the vessel from Ierapetra matches more closely with the material from Gortyn than the examples from Knossos.532 A handle recovered from the Yiomelaki plot is the sole evidence of the Beltrán 2A amphora (471), a type also documented in small quantities at Gortyn and, possibly, Knossos.533 The handle is oval with part of the neck attachment preserved. Production of this type occurred in the southern regions of Spain from the early first century C.E. until the mid-second century.534 Distribution was widespread, including numerous centers in the eastern Mediterranean.535

470. Fig. 5.40 (YM. 114; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, rim sherd; type Beltrán 1/Dressel 7-11. D. of rim approx. 14cm. R Amphora fabric 3; a few large to very large white and black grits; thick white slip (2.5Y 8/2). Cylindrical neck; junction where rim meets exterior wall of neck; thick, flaring rim with rounded lip and concave outer surface; lip has slight overhang. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 284 no. 26) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 146 type 9). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (in phase). 471. N.I. (YM. 262; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 1). Amphora, handle; type Beltrán 2A. Preserved H. 9.1cm. R Amphora fabric 3; very pale brown slip (10YR 8/4) on exterior. Oval handle with neck attachment preserved; slopes slightly inward. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 284-5 no. 27) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 146 type 11, 146-7 type 12). Date: context of seventh century C.E. (residual).

Syria-Palestine (472-477) Analogous to other eastern Mediterranean centers, amphorae originating from the region of Syria-Palestine begin appearing in large numbers at Ierapetra in the Late Roman and Late 531

Beltrán 1970: 388-420. Vessels documented at Gortyn have a granular, reddish fabric with fine black inclusions and mica (Gortina V.3, 284) while material from Knossos has a buff fabric with fine inclusions (Hayes 1983: 146). 533 Gortina V.3, 284-5 no. 27. Hayes‟ type 11 from the Villa Dionysos (1983: 146 type 11) represents the same general form as the Beltrán 2A, although he suggests it is not the same. See also Hayes 1983: 146-7 type 12. 534 Beltrán 1970. 535 Riley 1979: 161. 532

351

Antique periods. Two types are dominant: the LRA4 and LRA 5/6. Numerous fragments of both forms were attested at Ierapetra. LRA4 amphorae, dating from the fourth through seventh centuries C.E., originated in the Gaza region of Palestine and are believed to represent the ancient vessel type designated Gazition.536 Characterized by a cylindrical body culminating in a rounded lip with small round handles and occasional smearing of clay on the exterior surface, these amphorae are found across the Mediterranean. They are represented at Ierapetra by numerous fragments and appear to be a common imported wine container of the Late Roman and Late Antique periods. Catalogued pieces include several different rim fragments corresponding to variants attested by G. Majcherek (472-476).537 The LRA5/6 is a small wine container manufactured from the first century C.E. through the eight century C.E., but was exported widely across the Mediterranean from the fourth through seventh century C.E. The body is globular and leads to a cylindrical neck with rounded lip. Handles are small and round, similar in shape to LRA4 vessels. A recent publication of several hundred LRA5/6 vessels recovered from excavations at Caesarea Maritima documents the variety of this amphora type.538 One rim sherds of this form are catalogued from Ierapetra (477).

472. Fig. 5.40 (AS. 73; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA4. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 6. Rounded shoulder; clay accretions on exterior wall; shallow groove between lip and exterior wall; vertical, rounded lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 86-8; Yangaki 2005: 207-9 nos. 737-738), Gortyn (Gortina I, 276; Gortina II, 375, pl. 144.a-b; Gortina V.3, 332-4 no. 86), Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1022), and Pseira (Poulou-Papadimitriou 1995: 1124 no. PS.3856). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (indeterminate).

536

Mayerson 1992. Majcherek 1995. 538 Johnson 2008b. 537

352

473. Fig. 5.41 (PG. 91; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 4). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA4. D. of rim 7cm. R Amphora fabric 6. Rounded shoulder; vertical, rounded lip; interior surface of rim slightly concave. Comparanda: see no. 472 above. Date: context of fifth century C.E. (indeterminate). 474. Fig. 5.41 (PG. 132; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA 4. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 6. Rounded shoulder; groove where exterior wall meets rim; vertical, rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 472 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (indeterminate). 475. Fig. 5.41 (YM. 264; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA 4. D. of rim n.a. R Amphora fabric 6. Rounded shoulder; vertical, rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 472 above. Date: context of mid-third to mid-fourth century C.E. (indeterminate). 476. Fig. 5.41 (YM. 142; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type LRA 4. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 9. Globular body; vertical rounded lip. Comparanda: see no. 472 above. Date: context of fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (in phase). 477. Fig. 5.41 (PG. 97; Pangalou; Trench 2, layer 11). Amphora, rim and body sherds; type LRA5/6. D. of rim 10cm. R. Amphora fabric 3. Globular body, combed on exterior; cylindrical neck; vertical, squared lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Agia Galini (Vogt 1991-93: 62-4 type γ), Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 209; Vogt 2000: 88), Gortyn (Gortina I, 276; Gortina II, 375; Gortina V.3, 334-8 no. 87), and Itanos (Xanthopoulou 2004: 1022). An example also recovered among finds of Middle Minoan shipwreck off the island of Pseira (Hadjidaki, personal communication). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (indeterminate).

Unknown Provenance (478-479) Two rims (478-479) were recovered from an amphora type of unknown provenance. Hayes describes this form as his type 18 amphora based on finds from the Villa Dionysos excavations at Knossos.539 These vessels, characterized by a conical neck and mouth with inward thickened rim, tend to appear in second and third century C.E. contexts across the Mediterranean. Excavators at Gortyn suggest an eastern Mediterranean origin for the type based on macroscopic analysis of the fabric,540 and S. Martin-Kilcher argues for Greece as the region of production

539 540

Hayes 1983: 149. Gortina V.3, 300.

353

based on analysis of material from Augst, Switzerland.541 A variety of fabrics are attested, however, suggesting manufacture may have occurred at several locations. Crete may even be a place of origin since some finds from Knossos and Gortyn have fabrics difficult to distinguish from local products.542 D. Malfitana also has speculated on a Cretan origin for this type.543 At Berenice, Riley notes examples that are characterized by a local fabric.544 Both of the pieces from Ierapetra share the basic shape of this type, although the second example (479) has an interior thickened rim in the form of a concave flange. Interior ribbing is noted for both necks and the fabric appears similar to that described for examples from Knossos and Gortyn.

478. Fig. 5.41 (PG. 30; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type Knossos 18. D. of rim n.a. R Amphora fabric 5. Conical neck with interior ribbing; inward thickened rim, triangular in shape, with squared lip. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 299-300 no. 57) and Knossos (Hayes 1983: 149 type 18; UM II, 249 no. S1.30). Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual). 479. Fig. 5.41 (PG. 150; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; type Knossos 18. D. of rim 14cm. R Amphora fabric 5. Conical neck with slightly convex walls and light interior and exterior ribbing; inward thickened rim with rounded lip; thickened portion has appearance of concave flange, rounded at both ends. Comparanda: see no. 478 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (indeterminate).

Unidentified (480-489) Analogous to all assemblages of Roman ceramics, a number of amphorae remain unidentified with respect to form and provenance. Some of the vessels have fabrics similar to

541

Martin-Kilcher 1994: 440 n.583. Gortina V.3, 300. 543 Malfitana 2004: 246. 544 Riley 1979: 235 nos. D398-D399. 542

354

forms described above suggesting possible places of origin, but no definitive parallels have been recognized. Where possible, however, comparable examples are noted. One vessel (480), characterized by an offset, vertical rim with rounded lip, concave neck, and oval handle with a ridged top surface, attached just below the rim, is perhaps similar to Keay 49 amphorae.545 No date or provenance has been posited for this type. Two additional amphorae (481-482) have possible parallels at Gortyn. The first (481) has a rolled rim, cylindrical neck with exterior ribbing, and a large round handle. A piece from Gortyn, suggested to be an Aegean or Cretan product, appears similar, as does the Saraçhane type 42 amphora documented by Hayes.546 The second (482) also bears a rolled rim with rounded lip and cylindrical neck.547 A conical base fragment with the beginnings of toe (483) is suggestive of Knossos type 38 vessels described by Hayes.548 Berenice also serves as a source of possible comparanda for several unidentified amphorae. This includes a solid, conical toe with spiral ribbing on the exterior (484) and a vessel (485) with a rolled rim and concave exterior surface in addition to a semi-circular gap between the bottom of the rim and exterior wall of the neck.549 One additional amphora (486), characterized by a flaring rim, triangular in profile, and conical neck with thick ribbing, may be similar to a vessel attested at Ephesus.550 Three additional containers (487-489) have no suggested parallels, although one (487) has a fabric analogous to Kapitän II/Niederbieber 77 amphorae suggesting a possible provenance.

480. Fig. 5.41 (AS. 71; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Amphora, rim, neck, and handle sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 5. Concave neck; offset, vertical rim with 545

Keay 1984: 263-4. Gortina V.3, 358, pl. 73c; Hayes 1992: 73 type 42. 547 Gortina V.3, pl. 79c. 548 Hayes 1983: 155. 549 Riley 1979: 176 no. D211, 209 no. D311. 550 Gassner 1997: 187 no. 779, pl. 61.779. 546

355

rounded lip; oval handle with several ridges on top surface, attached to bottom surface of rim. Comparanda: may be similar to Keay 49 vessels (Keay 1984: 263-4) for which there is no date concerning origin. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (unknown). 481. Fig. 5.41 (PG. 95; Pangalou; Trench 2, layer 11). Amphora, rim and handle sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Cylindrical neck with shallow exterior ribbing; rolled rim, flat on bottom surface; large round handle. Comparanda: closest parallel is a piece documented from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 358, pl. 73c) which is suggested to be either an Aegean or Cretan product. It also may be related to a type defined by Hayes at Saraçhane (1992: 73 type 42). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (unknown). 482. Fig. 5.42 (PG. 123; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 8cm. R Amphora fabric 7. Cylindrical neck; rolled rim, flat on bottom surface, with rounded lip. Comparanda: similar to piece from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, pl. 79c). Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 483. N.I. (YM. 39; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Amphora, base; unidentified type. R Amphora fabric 3. Conical base with exterior ribbing; beginning of small toe preserved, but rest is broken off. Comparanda: fabric and shape are close to Knossos type 38 amphorae described by Hayes (1983: 155). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (unknown). 484. Pl. 5.6 (YM. 154; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Amphora, toe; unidentified type. Preserved H. 8.6cm. R Amphora fabric 9. Conical toe with rounded bottom; solid throughout; spiral ribbing on exterior surface. Comparanda: similar in form to example from Berenice (Riley 1979: 176 no. D211). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (unknown). 485. Fig. 5.42 (YM. 68; Yiomelaki; Trench 8, layer 2). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Slightly concave neck; semi-circular gap between bottom of rim and exterior wall of neck; rolled rim with rounded lip and concave exterior surface. Comparanda: examples closest parallel appears to be vessel from Berenice believed to be local to that area (Riley 1979: 209 no. 311); similar vessel also attested at Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (UM II, 255 no. U.136). Date: context of fourth to first half of fifth century C.E. (unknown). 486. Fig. 5.42 (YM. 274; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 13cm. R Amphora fabric 8. Conical neck; flaring rim with triangular profile and rounded lip; outer surface of rim has series of ridges. Comparanda: similar example attested at Ephesus (Gassner 1997: 187 no. 779, pl. 61.779). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (unknown). 487. N.I. (YM. 266; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 1). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 13cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Thick-walled; conical neck with heavy external ribbing; horizontal rim with triangular profile and rounded lip. Comparanda: no identified parallels; fabric is similar to examples of Kapitän II/Niederbieber 77 amphorae possibly suggesting a similar provenance. Date: context of second half of third century C.E. (unknown).

356

488. Fig. 5.42 (YM. 97; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Amphora, rim and handle sherds; unidentified type. D. of rim 6cm. R Amphora fabric 1. Groove on interior surface just below lip; flaring, rounded lip, slightly outward thickened; oval handle. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (unknown). 489. N.I. (PG. 141; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 3). Amphora, rim sherd; unidentified type. D. of rim 4cm. R Amphora fabric 3. Thin-walled, cylindrical neck; outward thickened rim with rounded lip; outer surface of rim comes to blunt point. Comparanda: no parallels noted. Date: context of first half of sixth century C.E. (unknown).

LAMPS (490-509) Lamps comprise a very small proportion of the finds at Ierapetra. All of the pieces were very fragmentary and no complete vessels were identified. Most of the examples are Cretan products, with only a few imports noted. One peculiarity of the Ierapetra material is a lack of Cretan mold-made ivy leaf type lamps despite previous documentation of finds from the site.551 A single example was noted (490), in contrast to the type‟s popularity at other sites on Crete. Production of ivy leaf lamps is attested at Kissamos in western Crete, and exports are documented at several sites across the eastern Mediterranean, including Berenice, Miletus, and Caesarea Maritima.552 Far more common at the site were Cretan derivations of the popular Broneer type XXV lamp (491-503).553 These lamps are common across Crete and occur in several varieties at Ierapetra, including several with relief designs on the discus (491-492, 494, 496-497). The only recognizable scene among these designs (491) shows a gladiator battling a bear or lion reared up

551

For previous finds at Ierapetra see Apostolakou 1987: 43-4 nos. 1-3. Production at Kissamos: Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989: 559, 561 fig. 9; Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992: 644, 646 fig. 10a. Berenice: Bailey 1985: 4-5 nos. 7-18. Miletus: Menzel 1969: 19 no. 53. Caesarea Maritima: Sussman 1995. 553 Corinth IV.2, 83-7. An earlier typology by Loeschcke (1919: 237-49) classifies this as a type VIII lamp. 552

357

on its hind legs.554 Most of the pieces have either petals along the shoulder (491-494), or plain shoulders separated from the discus by one or more grooves (495-498). Two pieces had several rows of globules along the shoulder (501-502), a variant known to have been produced in Athens, Cyrenaica, Italy, and Tunisia.555 One lamp with globules at Knossos may be a local product, suggesting evidence for Cretan production.556 A final variant of the Broneer type XXV lamp attested at Ierapetra bears a wreath decoration along the shoulder (503). This is the most common mold-made lamp design encountered at Knossos.557 Other identifiable examples from the site include a handle from a single-handed hanging lamp (514), for which production is documented at Kissamos,558 two pointed nozzles of a type attested at Amnisos in north-central Crete (515-516),559 one spout from a late „teapot‟ type lamp (517), and a piece that is currently unidentified (518). A final vessel (519) appears to be an import, perhaps related to Samaritan type 2 lamps produced in the Levant during the third and fourth centuries C.E.560 This type is otherwise unattested on Crete. The lamps from Ierapetra break down into three fabric categories. At Gortyn there are at least nine fabrics attested.561 Over half of the pieces from Ierapetra share the same fabric, classified as Lamp fabric 1 below. This appears to parallel fabric 1 in the Gortyn classification, the most common fabric noted at that site. The second Ierapetra fabric is nearly identical to that of Hellenistic East Cretan Cream Ware described above and could suggest the continued use of

554

A scene of a gladiator battling a bear or large cat is found on lamps from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 130 no. 238), the Idaean Cave (Saupona 1998: 44 no. 188) and Knossos (UM II, 283 no. L353). An example from Berenice also preserves this scene (Bailey 1985: 134 no. 938). 555 Athens: Corinth IV.2, 70-3. Cyrenaica: Bailey 1985: 128-9 nos. C890-C893. Italy: BMC ii, 375-6. Tunisia: Bailey 1985: 78 no. C539. 556 UM II, 300-1 no. L613. 557 UM II, 291 no. L454, 291-2 nos. L455-L471. 558 Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989: 562 fig. 12. 559 Betancourt et al. 2000: 225-7 nos. 120-129. 560 Sussman 1983: 73-4, 85; 2008: 243 nos. 155-157. 561 Gortina II, 264-5.

358

these clay beds into the Roman period. A hard matrix with a gray color characterizes the third fabric and may represent imported products.

Lamp fabric 1. Soft, reddish yellow (5YR 6/8 – 7.5YR 8/6) to pink (7.5YR 7/4), with a smooth to slightly granular break and smooth, powdery feel. Small, rare to few, subrounded to angular, tabular, milky white inclusions; small, rare, subrounded to angular, tabular, black inclusions; small, rare, angular, platy, sparkling white inclusions. Provenance: Crete, but specific region unknown.

Lamp fabric 2. Soft, very pale brown (10YR 8/4) to pale yellow (2.5Y 8/2), with a smooth break and smooth, powdery surface. Small, rare, angular, spherical to tabular, milky white inclusions; small, rare, angular, spherical to tabular, black inclusions. Provenance: Southeastern Crete.

Lamp fabric 3. Medium hard, gray (10YR 6/1) to dark gray (10YR 4/1), with smooth to slightly granular break and smooth surface. Small, few, angular to subrounded, spherical to tabular, milky white inclusions. Provenance: Unknown, but could be somewhere in the Levant.

490. Pl. 5.6 (YM. 225; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Lamp, nozzle and neck sherd; Cretan mold-made ivy leaf type. Lamp fabric 1; dark reddish brown slip (2.5YR 3/3) well preserved. Mold-made; rounded nozzle attached to elongated neck. Comparanda: popular type on Crete attested at Amnisos (Betancourt et al. 2000: 214-5 no. 107), Eleutherna (Stampolidis et al. 2004: 203-5 nos. 140-143, 145), Gortyn (Gortina I, 222 no. 184; Gortina II, 266-8 nos. 1-8; Gortina V.3, 115-8 nos. 8-59; Lyon Caen and Hoff 1986: 54 no. 121), Knossos (Hayes 1971: 269 nos. 62-63; Wardle 1972: 276 nos. 5-6, 278 no. 102; Coldstream 1973: 50-1 nos. J34-J39; CaringtonSmith 1981: 291 nos. 133-137; Warren 1987-1988: 92 fig. 17; UM II, 265-75 nos. L81-L251), 359

Kommos (Kommos IV, 321-4 nos. 1-35), and Matala (Lempesi 1969: 247, pl.278b). Examples are also noted from the Agios Nikolaos Museum (Apostolakou 1987: 37-43 nos. 1-23), the Herakleion Museum (Mercando 1974: 235, pl. 34), and the Archaeological Collection of Ierapetra (Apostolakou 1987: 43-4 nos. 1-3); also identified during the Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming nos. E71-E72). Date: context of second century C.E. (indeterminate). 491. Pl. 5.6 (PG. 88; Pangalou; Trench 9, layer 3). Lamp, discus, shoulder, and nozzle sherds; Broneer type XXV. Preserved L. 7.8cm; Preserved W. 6.5cm. Lamp fabric 1; light red slip (2.5YR 6/8). Mold-made; petal decoration along shoulder; raised edge where discus begins; two fill holes preserved on discus; figural design on discus including gladiator (bestiarius) to the left fighting with a lion or bear reared up on its hind legs to the right. Comparanda: examples of Broneer type XXV lamps are common on Crete and are found at Amnisos (Betancourt et al. 2000: 215-8 nos. 108-111), Eleutherna (Stampolidis et al. 2004: 201 no. 136; Yangaki 2005: 220-3), Gortyn (Gortina II, 269-74 nos. 9-29; Gortina V.3, 121-41 nos. 64-457), the Idaean Cave (Saupona 1998: 72-81 type 5), Knossos (Wardle 1972: 276 nos. 1, 2, 4; Coldstream 1973: 51 nos. J42-J43; UM II, 278-300 nos. L294-L612; Warren 1987-1988: 98 fig. 34, 99 fig. 38, 102 fig. 49), Kommos (Kommos IV, 329 nos. 75-76), Matala (Lempesi 1969: 246-8, pl. 279), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 67 no. Π4367). Lamps of this type also are recorded in the Herakleion Museum (Mercando 1974: pls. 35-38). Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 492. Pl. 5.6 (AS. 81; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 2). Lamp, shoulder and discus sherd; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 2. Mold-made; petal decoration along shoulder; groove where discus begins; part of unidentified figural scene preserved on discus. Comparanda: see no. 491 above. Date: context of fifth to sixth century C.E. (residual). 493. Fig. 5.42 (AS. 8; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Lamp, handle and shoulder sherd; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 2; brownish-black slip faintly preserved. Mold-made; handle narrows away from body; has two parallel grooves. Raised edge where shoulder meets discus; petal decoration along shoulder. Comparanda: see no. 491 above. Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (residual). 494. Pl. 5.6 (PG. 12; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 7). Lamp, shoulder and discus sherd; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 1. Mold-made; shoulder decorated with series of petals; two grooves separating shoulder from discus; part of unidentified design preserved on discus. Comparanda: see no. 491 above. Date: context of 350-400 C.E. (residual). 495. N.I (PG. 48; Pangalou; Trench 5, layer 9). Lamp, nozzle sherd; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 1. Mold-made; rounded nozzle with circular wickhole; two raised edges where nozzle meets body. Comparanda: see no. 491 above. Date: context of 150-50 B.C.E. (intrusive). 496. N.I. (YM. 311; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 2). Lamp, shoulder and discus sherd; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 1; reddish brown slip (2.5YR 4/4) partially preserved. Shallow groove separates shoulder from discus; small part of possible figural decoration preserved on discus. Comparanda: see no. 491 above. Date: context of post-sixth century C.E. (residual).

360

497. Pl. 5.6 (YM. 226; Yiomelaki; Martyr 23/24, layer 1). Lamp, shoulder and discus sherd; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 1. Shoulder has two parallel grooves separating it from discus; part of figural design preserved on discus. Comparanda: see no. 491 above. Date: context of second century C.E. (indeterminate). 498. Pl. 5.6 (YM. 89; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Lamp, discus, shoulder, and nozzle sherd; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 1; slip varying from red (2.5YR 5/8) to black (10YR 2/1) well preserved. Two shallow grooves separate discus from shoulder; fill hole at center of discus; nozzle has some evidence of sooting. Comparanda: see no. 491 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (indeterminate). 499. N.I. (PG. 104; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 6). Lamp, handle; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 1; weak red slip (2.5YR 4/2) well preserved. Oval handle with two parallel incised lines on top surface. Comparanda: see no. 491 above. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (indeterminate). 500. N.I. (YM. 123; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 7). Lamp, discus and shoulder sherds; Broneer type XXV. Lamp fabric 1. Discus contains a petalled rosette (number of petals unknown); fill hole at center of discus; shoulder separated from discus by shallow groove. Comparanda: see no. 491 above; for examples of this discus type see pieces from Knossos (UM II, 292-4 nos. L472L498). Date: context of fourth century C.E. (residual). 501. Pl. 5.6 (AS. 6; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 1). Lamp, shoulder and discus sherd; Broneer type XXV, decorated with globules. Lamp fabric 2. Mold-made. Discus: two concentric grooves near outer edge; filling hole near center. Shoulder: at least four rows of globules present. Comparanda: examples attested at Gortyn (Gortina I, 225 no. 192; Gortina V.3, 141-3 nos. 458487), Knossos (Wardle 1972: 276 no. 101; Coldstream 1973: 50 no. J48; UM II, 300-1 nos. L613-L635), and Kommos (Kommos IV, 327 no. 61). Date: context of late sixth to seventh century C.E. (residual). 502. N.I. (YM. 310; Yiomelaki; Trench 7, layer 2). Lamp, shoulder and nozzle sherd; Broneer type XXV, decorated with globules. Lamp fabric 1. Rounded shoulder with at least four rows of globules preserved; piece is weathered. Comparanda: see no. 501 above. Date: context of postsixth century C.E. (residual). 503. Pl. 5.6 (YM. 58; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Lamp, shoulder and discus sherd; Broneer type XXV, „wreath-and-mask‟ variant. Lamp fabric 1; brown slip (7.5YR 5/2) well preserved. Mold-made; shoulder delineated by grooves on either side; preserved decoration is a wreath running the length of the shoulder; sloping discus with no evidence of decoration. Comparanda: examples attested at Knossos (UM II, 291 no. L454 and 291-2 nos. L455-L471). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 504. Pl. 5.6 (YM. 51; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Lamp, handle sherd; Single hanging lamp type. Preserved L. 5.8cm. Lamp fabric 1. Long, cylindrical handle with ring at end. Comparanda: this type attested at Eleutherna (Stampolidis et al. 2004: 206 no. 148), Gortyn (Gortina II, 276 nos. 33-34), Kissamos (Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989: 562 fig

361

12), and Knossos (UM II, 303-4 nos. L658-L673). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate). 505. N.I. (AS. 69; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Lamp, nozzle sherd; unidentified type. Lamp fabric 2. Hand-made; nozzle comes to blunted, triangular point; blackened at end. Comparanda: similar to type attested at Amnisos (Betancourt et al. 2000: 225-7 nos. 120-129) and Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 236, 238 no. 751). Date: context of Late Antique date (residual). 506. N.I. (PG. 101; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Lamp, nozzle sherd; unidentified type. Lamp fabric 1. Hand-made; nozzle comes to blunt, triangular point; no evidence of sooting. Comparanda: see no. 505 above. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (in phase). 507. Fig. 5.42 (AS. 84; Assariotaki; Trench 3, layer 2). Lamp, spout, handle sherd; Teapot (a fiaschetta) type. D. of spout 4cm. Lamp fabric 1. Hand-made; spout has outturned rounded lip, cylindrical neck, and sloping shoulder; blackened around lip. Part of vertical handle preserved attached to spout and shoulder. Comparanda: this type of lamp documented at Amnisos (Betancourt et al. 2000: 224-5 nos. 118-119), Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 94, 192-3 fig. 46; Yangaki 2005: 239-41 nos. 248, 355, 402, 438-439, 752), Gortyn (Gortina I, 227-8 nos. 199-201; Gortina II, 282-9 nos. 46-74; Gortina V.3, 171-80 nos. 1016-1262), and Knossos (Hayes 2001a: 440 no. A43, 451 nos. B68-B69). Hellenistic examples of this form also have been noted at Kommos (Kommos IV, 329 nos. 78-79). Date: context of 250-300 C.E. (indeterminate). 508. N.I. (PG. 22; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Lamp, nozzle sherd; unidentified type. Lamp fabric 1. Hand-made; large, rounded nozzle with sooting around the edge. Comparanda: no parallels identified on Crete. Date: context of sixth century C.E. (unknown). 509. Pl. 5.7 (YM. 98; Yiomelaki; Trench 26, layer 3). Lamp, shoulder, nozzle, and discus sherd; unidentified type. Lamp fabric 3. Flat shoulder with wide space between discus and nozzle; along both sides of shoulder are series of raised petals; raised ledge separates discus from shoulder. Comparanda: no parallels identified on Crete. May be related to Samaritan type 2 lamps (Sussman 1983: 73-4, 85; 2008: 243 nos. 155-157). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (indeterminate).

MISCELLANEOUS (510-518) The three rescue excavations also produced a small number of miscellaneous ceramic finds. This includes a terracotta statuette (510) possibly representing Isis. If Isis is being portrayed, the piece fits A. Anastassides‟ description of type 2 Isis figurines based on material from Cyprus.562 Along with a sarcophagus recovered from Ierapetra bearing an Isis cult scene, 562

Anastassides 2000: 193.

362

this figurine provides evidence for her worship at the site.563 A nose from a life-size terracotta mask also appeared (511), similar to examples attested at Gortyn and Knossos.564 Among the architectural elements attested in the assemblages were several vaulting pins, of which one is catalogued (512). These pins have been interpreted as supports for air insulation, or as antiearthquake devices.565 Examples are known from numerous sites across Crete. Two amphora stands were identified, the first of which (513) corresponds to the standard type with rounded lips and concave walls known from sites across Crete, including several production centers.566 The second stand (514) parallels a type documented at an amphora production site at Trypetos in east Crete.567 Other items include several pieces possibly used for craft production or other activities. This includes a pestle (515) with a biconical profile and concave surfaces. Unlike most attested pestles on Crete, however, this example was terracotta, not stone. A polisher created from an amphora handle (516) has evidence of use in the form of striations along the polishing surface. J.T. Peña has collected evidence for the reuse of amphora handles in this fashion.568 One half of a mold for an unidentified object (517) was attested, but was too weathered to indicate the type of product for which it was employed. Finally, a tripod stand used for firing pottery (518) appeared in the Yiomelaki plot, although there was no associated kiln debris or wasters. For all of these items it is difficult to assess whether they are contemporary with the contexts with which they were associated. In some cases, such as with the amphora stands, they

563

For the sarcophagus see: Mendel 1912: 135-45 no. 40; Kater-Sibbes 1973: 58 no. 342. Gortina II, 367 no. 1; UM II, 360 nos. 75-77. 565 Air insulation: Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991: 497; UM II, 256 no. U165. Anti-earthquake devices: Hayes 1983: 103. 566 Markoulaki, Empereur, and Marangou 1989: 559, 561 fig. 8; Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991: 493, 495, 507, 510, 516; Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992: 634, 638. 567 Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992: 636 fig. 3c. 568 Peña 2007: 152-3. 564

363

may be residual since these tend to occur primarily in Early Roman (first and second century C.E.) contexts on Crete. The fabrics are described individually for each catalogue entry.

510. Pl. 5.7 (PG. 80; Pangalou; Trench 10, layer 6). Terracotta statuette. Preserved. H. 6.3cm. Soft, pale yellow (10YR 8/2), with a smooth break and smooth, powdery feel; small, rare, angular, tabular milky white inclusions; small, rare, angular, tabular black inclusions. Female figure (Isis?) with long neck, hair in braids; overlapping garments joined by triangular clasp just below neck; horn preserved on top of right side of head; appears to be round object sitting atop head (sun disc?); flat back; hollow except for area of head. Comparanda: no parallels identified on Crete. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (unknown). 511. Pl. 5.7 (YM. 43; Yiomelaki; Trench 25, layer 3). Nose from terracotta mask. Preserved H. 4.5cm; largest W. 3.4cm. Medium hard, reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6), with a conchoidal break and smooth feel; small, rare, angular, tabular, white and black inclusions. Molded; nostrils consist of two punched holes; tip of nose overhangs slightly. Comparanda: similar to pieces from Gortyn (Gortina II, 367 no. 1) and Knossos (UM II, 360 nos. 75-77). Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (unknown). 512. N.I. (AS. 60; Assariotaki; Trench 2, layer 1). Vaulting pin. Soft, very pale brown (10YR 7/3), with a smooth break and smooth, powdery feel; small to medium, frequent, angular, spherical to tabular white inclusions; small, few, angular, tabular black inclusions. Cylindrical with rounded flange at one end. Comparanda: coincides with Type B vaulting pins based on typology from Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 566); examples noted at Chania (Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991: 495), Eleutherna (Stampolidis 2004: 215 nos. 180-181), Knossos (Hayes 1983: 132 nos. 171-172; UM II, 246 no. R3.3a, 256 no. U165), and Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 70 no. Π4339); also identified during Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E62). Date: context of Late Antique date (unknown). 513. Fig. 5.42 (YM. 130; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora stand. D. at top 18cm; D. at bottom 12cm; H. 7.6cm. Soft, pale yellow (5Y 8/2), with a smooth to conchoidal break and smooth, powdery feel; small to medium, frequent, angular, spherical to tabular, white and black inclusions. Squared base with exterior surface shaved to an angle; concave walls; flaring rounded lip. Comparanda: examples found at Ayia Galini (Vogt 1991-1993: 71 fig. 17.7-8, 72), Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 95, 198 fig. 49; Yangaki 2005: 243-4), Knossos (Hayes 1971: pl. 39c; Hayes 1983: 165; UM II, 190 no. A2.109, 202 nos. C1.99-100, 203 no. C1.122, 214 no. N1.46, 217 no. N2.45, 231 no. D1.14, 239 nos. D4.83-84), Rethymno (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988: 61 nos. Π4498-4499). One example also noted by Gournia Survey (Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming no. E12) Date: context of first half of third century C.E. (unknown). 514. Fig. 5.42 (YM. 64; Yiomelaki; Trench 24, layer 2). Amphora stand. D. approx. 8cm; preserved H. 2.9cm. Medium hard, pink (7.5YR 8/4), with a smooth break and smooth, powdery feel; small, rare, angular, rounded to tabular, white and black inclusions. Straight, flaring walls; shallow ribbing on interior; outward thickened rim with interior tapered flange. Comparanda: 364

closest parallel is an amphora stand documented at a kiln site in Trypetos (Empereur, Marangou, and Papadakis 1992: 636 fig. 3c). Date: context of first half of the third century C.E. (unknown). 515. Pl. 5.7 (YM. 168; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Pestle. Maximum H. 5.9cm; maximum D. 4.9cm. Medium hard, very pale brown (10YR 8/4), with smooth break and smooth feel; small, few, subrounded, spherical to tabular, milky white inclusions; small to medium, few, angular, tabular, black inclusions. Biconical; top and bottom surfaces are concave; concave sides; rounded edges. Comparanda: pestles on Crete tend to be stone (eg. UM II, 395 nos. S55a-S55b). Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (unknown). 516. Pl. 5.7 (PG. 69; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 2). Handle. H. 6.2cm; W. 5.1cm. Medium hard, reddish yellow (5YR 7/6), with a smooth break and smooth feel; small, few, angular to subrounded, spherical to tabular, white and black inclusions. Handle which has been reused as a polisher; one side smoothed down, shows evidence of parallel striations. Comparanda: no parallels identified. Date: context of second half of fourth century C.E. (unknown). 517. Pl. 5.7 (YM. 169; Yiomelaki; Trench 18, layer 9). Mold. H. 4.5c; W. 3.1cm. Soft, very pale brown (10YR 7/4), with a smooth to conchoidal break and smooth, greasy feel; small, rare, angular, tabular, white and black inclusions. One half of mold for unidentified object; rounded lips at either end; globular body; no indications of any decoration. Comparanda: no parallels attested from Crete. Date: context of 75-150 C.E. (unknown). 518. Pl. 5.7 (PG. 24; Pangalou; Trench 12, layer 1). Tripod stand. Hard, reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6), with a smooth break and rough feel; small, frequent, angular, tabular white and black inclusions. Comparanda: no identified parallels. Date: context of sixth century C.E. (unknown).

Part 3: Pottery from Kato Mertia In 2003, archaeologists from the KD Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities excavated the site of Kato Mertia, located approximately 6.5km north of Ierapetra (Fig. 5.43). Designated as a rural settlement, the site had first been identified during an archaeological survey conducted by the KD Ephoreia within the Isthmus of Ierapetra in response to the proposed construction of an airport. Excavation soon followed in the form of 13 trenches along with occasional removal of martyrs in between. Architectural remains were noted in several locations and substantial quantities of brick and tile were recovered. More than one building appears to have been present and the site may have functioned as a small agricultural hamlet in the chora of

365

Ierapetra. Sites of similar character have been identified by the Kavousi and Gournia surveys, conducted in the same region.569 Settlement history at Kato Mertia was long-lasting, with the earliest ceramic material dating to the Late Hellenistic period and the latest to the Ottoman period. Whether there was continuity of inhabitation at the site throughout its entire history is difficult to ascertain, but it does produce ceramic evidence from all periods between Hellenistic and Ottoman to some degree. The bulk of the material is Late Roman and Late Antique in date suggesting the site reached its settlement peak at this time. Material from other periods tends to be isolated to only a few trenches indicating smaller inhabitation. For instance, Late Hellenistic pottery only appears in trenches 2, 10, and 12, while Early Roman material is limited to trenches 2, 4, 8, 10, and 12. A summary of the Late Hellenistic through Late Antique ceramic material recovered from Kato Mertia provides an important rural comparandum for the excavations within Ierapetra proper. Patterns evident in the urban assemblages can be tested against the rural assemblage and the spread of imports assessed. The Kato Mertia material also provides evidence for seventh century occupation which is somewhat lacking in the three rescue excavations in Ierapetra. Pottery from this site is described below by period in an abridged format meant to demonstrate the types of materials present.

Late Hellenistic (Fig. 5.44, Pl. 5.7) Only a handful of Late Hellenistic sherds appeared at this site, suggesting the earliest settlement was much smaller than its later incarnations. Included among the material are two ECCW beveled rim plates (KM1-KM2), two ECCW pithoi (KM3-KM4), a handle from a lid

569

Haggis (2005: 87) notes that by the Late Roman period there are least five village-size sites in the Kavousi region, while the Gournia survey identified 11 sites of this size (Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming).

366

(KM5), an ECCW amphora of a type similar to nos. 58-60 above (KM6), one Knidian amphora toe (KM7), and a fragmentary stamped Rhodian amphora handle (KM8). The majority of the Hellenistic material comprises fragments of ECCW vessels, implying this site was under the influence of Ierapetra. While imports to Kato Mertia appear to be rare at this time, the presence of a Knidian amphora is interesting, particularly since this is the most common imported type attested in Ierapetra. The Rhodian stamped amphora handle has no text preserved, but does appear to bear part of some kind of device.



ECCW beveled-rim plates (KM1-KM2); ECCW pithoi (KM3-KM4); Lid handle (KM5); ECCW amphora similar to nos. 58-60 above (KM6); Knidian amphora toe (KM7); Rhodian stamped amphora handle (KM8).

Early Roman (Figs. 5.44-5.46, Pl. 5.7) Kato Mertia produced little in the way of local Roman finewares from any period. Colorcoated wares, common in Early Roman assemblages across the island, are represented here in small quantities, including several bowl fragments (KM9-KM11). The first two (KM9-KM10) are similar to vessels from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, while the third (KM11) parallels a type documented at Gortyn.570 Imported finewares also are sporadic until the third century C.E. when Çandarli ware begins to appear on the site. Eastern Sigillata A is almost unattested, with the exception of one example of a form 4 plate (KM12), while Eastern Sigillata B (KM13) and Italian Sigillata (KM14-KM15) are represented by only a few small fragments. There also is a single base sherd of Cypriot Sigillata noted (KM16). Çandarli ware is the most common of the

570

KM9: UM II, 195 no. B2.63. KM10: UM II, 195 no. B2.58. KM11: Gortina II, 299 no. 31; Gortina V.3, 426 type III 1.1/2.

367

Early Roman imported finewares. Several base fragments are documented (KM17-KM18), along with one Hayes form H4 rim (KM19). Among the common wares are numerous fragments of basins. Many of the examples have flaring or horizontal rims with small grooves on the top surface (KM20-KM22). One piece (KM22) preserves a horizontal handle with a thumb impression at the center in a style noted by H. Sackett to be characteristic of early vessels.571 Also found among the common wares are two Hayes type 1 jugs (KM23-KM24), based on his classification of material from the Villa Dionysos at Knossos,572 and a mug similar to vessels from that same site (KM25).573 Cooking wares are common among the Early Roman material, predominately in the form of cookpots. Several different shapes are attested including two vessels similar to a type from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (KM26-KM27),574 and one Hayes type 2 cookpot (KM28).575 Additional cookware vessels include a frying pan (KM29), analogous to nos. 372-376 above, and a jar (KM30) similar to a vessel from the Unexplored Mansion.576 Early Roman Cretan amphorae are found in rather large quantities, although most of the pieces were body fragments from one of several possible forms. Identified types include the ARC1a (KM31), ARC1b (KM32), ARC1c (KM33), and ARC2 (KM34). A small number of imports were noted, including an Africana 2 rim (KM35) and a toe from a Dressel 2-4 amphora (KM36), characterized by a black-sand fabric like no. 462 above.

571

UM II, 176. Some examples where this can be seen include UM II, 196 no. B2.92, 203 no. C1.112, and 217 no. N2.42. 572 Hayes 1983: 109, 128 no. 147. 573 Hayes 1983: 128 nos. 150-151. Hayes describes this as the „urnetta a collarino’ shape. 574 UM II, 196 no. B2.81. 575 Hayes 1983: 105, 122 nos. 58-64, 138 no. 226. 576 UM II, 196 no. B2.80.

368

Lamps are rare at Kato Mertia, with two fragments identified, both from Early Roman types. Cretan mold-made ivy leaf lamps are represented by a handle (KM37) and the second piece is a discus with rosettes from a Broneer type XXV lamp (KM38).



Local color-coat bowls (KM9-KM11); ESA form 4 (KM12); ESB form 63 (KM13); Italian Sigillata (KM14-KM15); Cypriot Sigillata (KM16); Çandarli ware (KM17KM19); Basin with horizontal/flaring rim and grooves on top surface (KM20-KM21); Basin with horizontal handle with central thumb impression (KM22); Hayes type 1 jug (KM23-KM24); Mug similar to Hayes 1983: 128 nos. 150-151 (KM25); Cookpots similar to UM II, 196 no. B2.81 (KM26-KM27); Hayes type 2 cookpot (KM28); Frying pan like nos. 372-376 above (KM29); Jar similar to UM II, 196 no. B2.80 (KM30); ARC1a amphora (KM31); ARC1b amphora (KM32); ARC1c amphora (KM33); ARC2 amphora (KM34); Africana 2 amphora (KM35); Dressel 2-4 amphora (KM36); Cretan mold-made ivy leaf lamp (KM37); Broneer type XXV lamp (KM38).

Late Roman (Figs. 5.46-5.48) Pottery from the Late Roman period, with the exception of finewares and amphorae, is more difficult to identify than from the other periods. This could suggest a break in inhabitation at the site, or minimal occupation compared to other periods. With respect to the finewares, two forms of African Red-Slip are attested, 48B (KM39) and 50 (KM40-KM43), with the latter being much more common. Early Phocaean Red-Slip also is evident from attestations of form 1A (KM44) and 1B (KM45) dishes. Also of interest are several examples of imitation African RedSlip in a local fabric (R Local Fineware fabric 1). One example is a form 61 dish (KM46) and the other two are form 67 plates (KM47-KM48). These pieces appear to be unslipped, but are suggestive of a similar type of imitation ceramic tradition attested at Eleutherna.577

577

Yangaki 2005: 121-3.

369

Very few diagnostic common ware and cookware vessels can be associated with this period. One basin (KM49), characterized by a flaring rim and globular body with exterior ribbing, is similar to a form attested at Corinth in contexts of the fourth and fifth century.578 The fabric is local, although the shape could show influence from mainland Greek ceramic traditions. Amphorae were again common in contexts of this period, with Cretan vessels represented almost exclusively. Analogous to the urban deposits at Ierapetra, MRC2b vessels are the most common (KM50-KM53). One MRC1 amphora (KM54) and one MRC3 vessel (KM55) also were identified.



AfRS, form 48B (KM39), form 50 (KM40-KM43); PRS, form 1A (KM44), form 1B (KM45); Local imitation AfRS, form 61 (KM46), form 67 (KM47-KM48); Basin with flaring rim and ribbed exterior (KM49); MRC1 amphora (KM54); MRC2b amphorae (KM50-KM53); MRC3 amphora (KM55).

Late Antique (Figs. 5.47-5.52, Pl. 5.7) Pottery of Late Antique date is readily identifiable at Kato Mertia, owing in large part to detailed catalogues of finds from Gortyn, Eleutherna, and Knossos. Imported finewares appear in their highest quantities at this time, with the majority of the material comprising various forms of Phocaean Red-Slip. PRS form 3 and its variants are the most common (KM56-KM69), and the latest identifiable piece is an example of form 10C (KM70). African Red-Slip is represented by a form 105 plate (KM71) and several base fragments (KM72-KM73). A nearly complete Cypriot Red-Slip form 2 bowl (KM74) also appears.

578

Personal observation.

370

Common wares are dominated by basins, including several examples of a type common in late sixth century assemblages at Corinth, and also evident at Knossos (KM75).579 Other basins include two different vessels with outward thickened rims (KM76-KM77), one of which comprises a complete profile from base to rim (KM76). Two bowls of a type with knobbed rims (KM78-KM79) documented at Knossos were identified as was a complete cup with a conical profile (KM80).580 In the tradition of Late Antique assemblages on Crete, a small, trefoilmouthed jug (KM81) was attested similar to a type found at Gortyn.581 A fragment of a beehive (KM82), similar in form to a late variety described by J. Vroom, suggests small-scale beekeeping on the site.582 Within the Isthmus of Ierapetra, ceramic beehives were encountered sporadically by the Gournia Survey.583 A large collection of Late Antique cookpots is present at Kato Mertia and these vessels provide a better sample of this shape than any of the Ierapetra deposits. Two of the cookpots are characterized by concave grooves on the top surface of rim and are similar to a type documented at Gortyn (KM83-KM84).584 Most of the examples, however, are of the same basic type (KM85-KM90). They comprise a thick-walled, globular body with a flaring rim. A thick strap handle tends to be preserved, attached to the outer surface of the rim and the mid-point of the body. These are similar to cookpot no. 366 described above. Amphora finds are dominated by the Cretan TRC2 (KM91), the body fragments of which comprise the bulk of the assemblage based on sherd weight. Imported amphorae are rare, although one example each of a LRA1 (KM92) and LRA5/6 (KM93) vessel were identified.

579

Corinth: Slane and Sanders 2005: 272-3 nos. 3.45-3.46. Knossos: Hayes 2001a: 442 no. A45. Hayes 2001a: 445 nos. B18-22. 581 Gortina V.3, 517-8 type II. 582 Vroom 2005: 50-1. 583 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 584 Gortina V.3, 541 type BII 3.1/4. 580

371



PRS, form 3 (KM56-KM69), form 10 (KM70); AfRS, form 105 (KM71), unidentified (KM72-73); Cypriot Red-Slip form 2 (KM74); Basin similar to Hayes 2001a: 442 no. A45 and Slane and Sanders 2005: 272-3 nos. 3.45-3.46 (KM75); Basin with outward thickened rim – complete profile (KM76); Basin with outward thickened rim (KM77); Bowls similar to Hayes 2001a: 445 nos. B18-22 (KM78-KM79); Cup – complete profile (KM80); Small, trefoil-mouthed jug similar to Gortina V.3, 517-8 type II (KM81); Beehive (KM82); Cookpots similar to Gortina V.3, 541 type BII 3.1/4 (KM83-KM84); Cookpots like no. 366 above (KM85-KM90); TRC2 amphora (KM91); LRA1 amphora (KM92); LRA5/6 amphora (KM93)

372

CHAPTER 6 IERAPETRA AND CRETE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

INTRODUCTION In his seminal work, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, M. Rostovtzeff comments that “Cyprus, a part as it were of the oriental world, occupied a peculiar position, and so did Crete”.1 Rostovtzeff considers that all of the Greek islands developed individualized characteristics based on their own unique political, social, and economic connections, but Crete and Cyprus were distinctive for being positioned at the threshold between Greece and the eastern kingdoms. Crete, thus, experienced strong influences from Asia Minor, the Levant, and North Africa. Only in the past few decades has a sufficient amount of research been directed at Hellenistic and Roman Crete to enable us to assess the accuracy of Rostovtzeff‟s view. Herein lies a difficulty, however. Scholars interested in these periods of Cretan history have tended to be, for lack of a better term, somewhat insular in their approach. For instance, W.V. Harris observes that many studies of Hellenistic and Roman Crete do not make reference to contemporary issues in the study of the ancient economy.2 S. Alcock, in addition, questions why Crete and Cyrenaica are always treated as isolated regions in the Early Roman period, with limited consideration of their relationship as a joint province.3 According to Harris, “Crete has often had the classic Mediterranean effect of colonizing the minds of scholars who come to visit it”.4 Consequences arising from this “colonization” are two-fold. First, limited appreciation of methodological and theoretical issues of interest to 1

Rostovtzeff 1941: 222. Harris 1999: 353-4. 3 Alcock 1999: 179. 4 Harris 1999: 353. 2

373

classical scholars working outside of Crete restricts the potential for gaining a clearer picture of the island‟s Hellenistic and Roman history. One worry is that research on Crete into these periods will fall into a stagnant cycle where the same questions are addressed and little progress is made. Harris cites numerous examples of promising topics to consider, a small sample of which includes urbanization, the role of slave labor, and the net flow of financial resource into and out of the island.5 The second consequence involves the limited dissemination of knowledge concerning Hellenistic and Roman Crete beyond the small circle of researchers engaged in studying Cretan history. An observation of Harris is relevant in this context. He notes that in Fernand Braudel‟s book, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, the index entry for Crete says passim.6 Is there any book dedicated to Hellenistic or Roman history, with the exception of those focused on Crete, that boasts so a detailed a record of the island that the citations are too numerous to list? The answer to that question must be no. For instance, in the recently published Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, the chapter dedicated to the eastern Roman world makes only a few scattered references to Crete.7 As a major transshipment hub, the island deserves a fuller discussion within the context of ancient economic history. In order to accomplish this goal, however, scholars across the GrecoRoman world must be made aware of the contributions Crete can make to our understanding of Hellenistic and Roman history. This chapter aims to discuss Crete in an expanded context by assessing the role of Ierapetra, and the island as a whole, in the broader Mediterranean economy. Following a preliminary consideration of several basic concepts that will be employed throughout this analysis, the discussion will turn to a period-by-period assessment of the economic life of 5

Harris 1999: 357-8. Harris 1999: 353. 7 Alcock 2007: 684, 688. 6

374

Ierapetra, and Crete, in the Late Hellenistic, Proto-Roman, Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique periods. Within each of these sections, there will three distinct levels of analysis: (1) An attempt to reconstruct the economy of the city of Ierapetra and its chora. (2) A consideration of the role of Ierapetra within the broader economic framework of the island of Crete. (3) An examination of the function of Crete within the broader Mediterranean economy, including an assessment of the use of the island as a proxy for better understanding the changing economic relationships between the eastern and western Mediterranean. While much of the data for addressing these topics will derive from a synthesis of the ceramic material presented above, all available sources of evidence will be discussed. One hopes that, by the end of this study, we will have advanced our understanding of Ierapetra and Crete, and demonstrated the need for including this island in dialogues concerned with larger issues of Hellenistic and Roman economic history.

ANALYTICAL CONCEPTS Difficulties of Economic Reconstruction Before beginning a period-by-period analysis of the evidence for economic life at Ierapetra, it will be helpful to consider some basic concepts that are employed in this study. First, some preliminary deliberation is necessary concerning the problems facing any project which attempts to reconstruct economic connections and devise an economic model of a polis or region. In his study of the ancient economy, Moses Finley felt that one detriment of previous scholarship

375

was the use of too much generalization.8 For instance, even though the Roman Empire comprised a single administrative unit, at least in the first few centuries C.E., economic relationships were not so universal. Finley believed our understanding of the ancient economy would benefit from introducing more specific analysis, whether qualitative or quantitative, to assessments of patterns of exchange and distribution. More recently, Neville Morley has commented on the long-running debate in Classics over the characterization of the ancient economy, noting that: The great advances in archaeology over the last few decades, especially in the analysis of the forms and fabrics of pottery and the excavation of shipwrecks, and the enormous quantities of material that have been collected and classified, have made surprisingly little difference to this debate.9 This viewpoint is somewhat disheartening, considering the important role that archaeological finds such as pottery play in attempts to reconstruct economic patterns. Morley does clarify his perspective by observing that the collection and publication of archaeological data varies between regions, and that scholars tend to only be able to document non-perishable goods, such as ceramic containers, rather than perishable commodities.10 He does contend, however, that evidence collected through archaeology is available in greater abundance, and subject to less bias, than data obtained from literary sources. Numerous scholars have attempted large-scale reconstructions of the ancient economy based on archaeological data. Examples include J.T. Peña‟s assessment of Rome in the first half of the fourth century C.E., C. Wikham‟s attempt to document economic relationships across the Mediterranean and northern Europe between the fifth and eighth century C.E., and P. Reynold‟s use of data from Spain to describe Mediterranean-wide exchange networks during the Roman 8

Finley 1985: 33. Morley 2007b: 5. 10 Morley 2007b: 5-6. 9

376

period.11 Analogous to these studies, my own analysis of the economic life of Ierapetra and Crete relies primarily on ceramic evidence. Herein lies much of the difficulty surrounding economic reconstruction. While pottery is found in abundant quantities at sites across the Greco-Roman world, and often sheds light on short-distance and long-distance economic patterns and relationships, it only provides part of the picture we need. Ceramics are non-perishable goods, even though, in some cases such as with amphorae, they were used as packaging for perishable commodities. Most of the myriad products available for distribution in antiquity are not visible in the archaeological record and we rely on pottery to tell the story of their distribution. This is predicated on the assumption that the presence of imported ceramics in a site‟s assemblage is a reflection of other goods received from the same region of origin. For Ierapetra, thus, one hopes that ceramics will provide sufficient documentation of the numerous economic connections the city developed, and that changes to the ceramic record are a reflection of alterations to the economic life of the city. In the sections below, I have tried to consider the role of perishable commodities in the Cretan economy as extensively as possible. Often, these products are only mentioned in literary sources and it is difficult to assess whether they were only intended for local use or if they were tied to some export economy. In addition, when considering the context of Ierapetra in the economy of Crete, and Crete‟s role in the broader Mediterranean economy, it is important to note that the bulk of the island‟s published ceramic record derives from only a few, large-rank centers. The fact that Crete is understudied means that a preliminary attempt at reconstructing the island‟s economy will be beneficial, but the ability to refine the discussion below will come from the addition of assemblages from smaller settlements across Crete.

11

Peña 1999; Wickham 2005; Reynolds 2010.

377

Theoretical Background In the introduction to The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, the volume‟s editors provide a summary of scholarly advances in the study of the ancient economy since the late nineteenth century.12 Topics emphasized in this synopsis include the use of models, often based on concepts developed by social scientists, to explain and understand patterns in available data, and the focus of scholars on documenting economic performance. When considering how scholars in the current century can build upon this earlier work, they enumerate three challenges to address: (1) find methods for documenting economic performance with greater accuracy; (2) develop a clearer picture of the relationship between economic structures and performance; (3) examine circumstances behind the eventual collapse of the Greco-Roman economy.13 Underlying all of these challenges is the need to incorporate theoretical perspectives into any discussion of the ancient economy. There is no shortage of theories and models available to scholars of ancient economic history. Many, like the consumer city, or related concepts like the underdevelopment of the Roman economy, have persisted for several decades, even when faced with overwhelming attempts to discredit their basic theses.14 For instance, with respect to Moses Finley‟s seminal work, The Ancient Economy, which is often the catalyst for debates about the ancient economy, R. Saller makes an interesting observation: “Since its publication in 1973, a series of scholars have attacked it and pronounced the central thesis “demolished.” And yet, it has recently been republished in a third edition (2003), edited by Ian Morris, and continues to be the target of

12

Morris, Saller, and Scheidal 2007: 1-7. Morris, Saller, and Scheidal 2007: 7. 14 In P. Garnsey and R. Saller‟s view (1987: 43), the Roman economy was underdeveloped meaning “that the mass of the population lived at or near subsistence level”. 13

378

attack for new work”.15 One reason that Finley‟s views continue to have a central place in scholarship of the Greco-Roman economy is a lack of viable alternatives. Fernand Braudel‟s publication of his magnum opus, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, has provided some of the more recent stimuli for considering the Greco-Roman economy in a different light.16 Braudel observed that economic relationships across the Mediterranean were numerous, complex, and fluid. He preferred not to focus only on large coastal centers and the effects they had on the state of the economy, but instead examined the interplay of all regions and settlements regardless of their degree of marginalization. From the perspective of the Greco-Roman economy, P. Horden and N. Purcell‟s book, The Corrupting Sea, is an important bridge for considering Braudel‟s theories in an ancient context. Several innovative ideas proposed by Horden and Purcell offer exciting avenues by which to approach a study of Ierapetra‟s, and Crete‟s, economic role in the Mediterranean. Their concepts of microecologies and dispersed hinterlands, in particular, shed enticing light on the ancient economy and its organization while moving beyond the traditional notion of the consumer city. Horden and Purcell avoid the label “city” when discussing ancient sites, instead preferring the term “settlements” to represent “… sites of shifting, overlapping ecologies”.17 These settlements exist within a series of varied microecologies where the divide between rural and urban is blurred. Horden and Purcell define microecologies as follows: Our definition of the microecology, therefore, is a locality (a „definite place‟) with a distinctive identify derived from the set of available productive opportunities and the particular interplay of human responses to them found in a given period. It is not the solid geology or the characteristics of the climatic zone, the relief or the 15

Saller 2005: 223. Braudel 1972. 17 Horden and Purcell 2000: 108. 16

379

drainage, that of themselves define microecologies. It is rather the interaction of opportunities: for animal husbandry, foraging, hunting, intensive agriculture, forest management, horticulture, fishing, or whatever – and, as the final but by no means the least ingredient, for engagement in larger networks of redistribution.18 They suggest this definition offers two advantages over traditional views of the Mediterranean. First, it is adaptable and enables change to be interpreted with greater ease. Second, boundaries between regions are permeable and flexible, removing the need to create fixed geographic limits. The concepts of settlements and microecologies are applicable to Ierapetra and Crete. Ierapetra was the dominant settlement in eastern Crete, but must be contextualized within the ecological background of the Isthmus of Ierapetra and the other regions of its chora. We can also consider Ierapetra within the context of eastern Crete and Crete as whole. For larger-scale studies, Crete is often considered as an individual microecology within the broader Mediterranean world. There also is its relationship of the island with the region of Cyrenaica to consider, at least in the Early Roman period. Thus, we are able to analyze Ierapetra and Crete at many different levels, all of which provide important insights for understanding the economic life of the city, and its relationships with other regions on Crete and across the Roman world. Conceptualizing sites in this manner is helpful, but an additional step is required for considering economic relationships. In the context of arguing against distinct geographic regions, definable by a series of boundaries, Horden and Purcell also question the notion of hinterlands, particularly as a source of supplies for large centers. Instead they suggest that: If the term hinterland is to be retained, then the presumption should be that what is in question is fragmented, not a compact domain that can be mathematically modeled and limned on a map… The dispersed, changeable, hinterland has, we suggest, been the Mediterranean norm.19

18 19

Horden and Purcell 2000: 80. Horden and Purcell 2000: 112.

380

Many of the larger settlements across the Mediterranean, with Rome the prime example, could not sustain their population by relying only on production from the surrounding countryside. Goods had to be brought in from other regions, often from great distances. This is a basic tenet of the consumer city model. Horden and Purcell note several times, however, that consumer cities are inflexible constructs with an oversimplified linear relationship between supply and consumption. That model also fails to take into account production within an urban center and the fact that a city like Rome, or any smaller settlement, would have served as part of its own hinterland. Crete served as a hinterland for many different parts of the Roman world. Evidence shows that the island supplied Rome and settlements in Italy, and also distributed goods to North Africa, Greece, northern Europe, and the Danube frontier. Relations with these regions were not always consistent, however, and one important step is to understand when and why Crete commenced or ceased supplying specific locations.

Free Market versus the Command Economy By the Early Roman period, if not earlier, exchange of Cretan goods across the Mediterranean was extensive. What mechanisms stimulated this distribution? According to N. Morley, there are three primary means by which goods were circulated in ancient exchange networks: (1) commodities passed from consumer to producer in local marketplace; (2) goods moved through intermediaries, whether merchants, shopkeepers, or the like, before reaching the consumer; (3) redistribution of supplies which involved moving them from the place of production to the place of consumption.20 The first two methods fall under the heading of market exchange, while the third method can perhaps be referred to as the command economy. S. 20

Morley 2007a: 580.

381

Williams employed that particular term to describe the increasing government influence on economic networks and distribution beginning under Diocletian and the tetrarchs.21 I use the term here in order to differentiate between market exchange and government-controlled redistribution.22 If we consider market exchange first, some component of the vast distribution of Cretan products must be owed to private dealings between producers and consumers, perhaps with intermediaries playing some role. Italian traders are attested at Gortyn in the first century B.C.E. (IC 4.290-291) and M. Baldwin Bowsky notes that many of the Roman names that become common in Cretan cities have connections to economically active families in the eastern Mediterranean.23 When we also consider that auctions would have been a common site in port cities across the Mediterranean, the implication is that Ierapetra, and Crete, engaged in market exchange for the dissemination of some of their products.24 Documenting the extent of Cretan participation in market exchange is difficult, however, since, as Morley observes, “archaeological evidence … can show that goods were being moved, but rarely by whom, or whether the movement represents trade or redistribution”.25 Some scholars would suggest that levels of market exchange were extensive. P. Temin, for instance, has even argued for the existence of a market economy in the Early Roman period.26 According to Temin: Market exchange was ubiquitous, and market prices moved together in ways typical of markets, albeit imperfectly co-ordinated ones. The early Roman Empire did not have the market economy of elementary economics textbooks, but it did 21

Williams 1985: 126-39. Morley (2007b: 100) also uses „command economy‟ to describe the state‟s increasing influence over distribution in the Roman period. 23 Baldwin Bowsky 1999: 330. 24 Andreau 1999: 149. 25 Morley 2007a: 580. 26 Temin 2001. 22

382

have the type of market economy seen in other advanced agricultural economies.27 He goes on to contend, in contrast to M. Finley, that there was a significant degree of economic interdependence in the Roman economy.28 M. Fulford also argues for interdependence between communities in the Roman world, particularly those along the coast, although Morley has recently questioned whether this phenomenon can be attested to any significant degree in an ancient context.29 While market exchange likely did play a key role in the distribution of goods across the Greco-Roman world, Temin may be exaggerating the situation by describing this exchange in the context of a market economy. For instance, with respect to the ability of Roman communities to obtain adequate supplies of grain on a regular basis, he uses an inscription from Lete in Macedonia to argue that intervention in the grain market was extraordinary and unusual, while “in normal times, people could buy food in markets”.30 In contrast, Fulford notes that grain supply was uneven across the Mediterranean and that consumers faced numerous difficulties when attempting to compensate for harvest failures and inadequate food supplies.31 A discussion of grain serves as a suitable avenue for turning the discussion to the second method by which Cretan goods would have been distributed: the command economy. Government influence over distribution arose primarily in two contexts: (1) the collection of money taxes or taxes in kind from provinces; (2) redistribution of goods for the annona, which involved the supply of necessary commodities, such as grain and olive oil, to Rome, and later Constantinople, and the army.

27

Temin 2001: 181. Temin 2001: 181. 29 Fulford 1987; Morley 2007b: 95-6. 30 Temin 2001: 176. 31 Fulford 1987: 67. 28

383

In 1980, Keith Hopkins introduced a model of the Roman economy in which the obligation of money taxes and money rent, and their disbursement away from their source, stimulated and supported the gradual development of trade networks.32 He later refined this model to incorporate money taxes and money rent into a larger framework of systems which helped to stimulate economic growth and trade networks in the Roman Empire.33 Among the main points of contention in this “taxes and trade” model is the extent to which money taxes replaced taxes in kind in the Early Roman Empire. When we consider the province of Asia Minor, for instance, a common view is that the region paid most of its taxes in cash.34 P. Erdkamp argues that this view is misleading, however, and notes that there is evidence for many parts of Asia Minor, particularly inland regions, paying taxes in kind.35 Regions like Crete may have also shipped goods to Rome in form of taxes in kind. This is attested at least for the city of Knossos in the Early Roman period. Augustus had founded a colony at Knossos perhaps as early as 36 B.C.E. and given some of the city‟s land to Capua in Campania. Velleius Paterculus (2.81) informs us that these lands brought in an annual tribute of 1.2 million sestertii for Capua. Tituli picti on amphorae found in the vicinity of Capua show that wine packaged in these containers had been shipped to that region as part of this tribute, indicating that Knossos paid its taxes at least partially in kind.36 Perhaps other Cretan centers did the same. If we turn next to the redistribution of goods for the annona, it is important to note that government intervention in the supply of goods to Rome had begun during the Republican period.37 Under Augustus in the late first century B.C.E., this institution was formalized into the

32

Hopkins 1980. Hopkins 1995-1996. 34 For example, see Katsari 2011 35 Erdkamp 2005: 219-20. 36 cf. De Caro 1992-1993. 37 Lo Cascio 2007: 639-40. 33

384

annona civica, which was under the aegis of the praefectus annonis at Rome. Grain was initially the focus of the annona, although olive oil and pork were eventually added to the list of commodities supplied to the city. In addition, by the year 332 C.E., a separate annona civica had been established for the city of Constantinople, with most of the necessary supplies coming from Egypt.38 To assess how the redistribution of goods for the annona civica would have affected the economic life of Crete, a brief description of the organization and shipment of grain to Rome is necessary. Contracts were negotiated by the praefectus annonae with individuals known as navicularii, who were either ship owners or ship captains.39 For a set period of years, these navicularii agreed to use their vessels in the service of the annona and transport supplies, such as grain from Egypt, to the capital. The emperor Claudius even established laws which granted economic incentives to navicularii who provided ships exceeding a specific size threshold. Specifically, he sought ships capable of carrying at least 10,000 modii (70 tons) of grain that were willing to serve the annona for six years.40 Grain ships could be significantly larger than this, however, and Lucian relates a story about a massive Alexandrian grain ship named the Isis which had to dock at Piraeus after being blown off course.41 Based on Lucian‟s description, this vessel may have had a carrying capacity exceeding 1,000 tons. During the first century C.E., the destination for these ships was the port of Puteoli, but by the early second century C.E. this had been changed to Portus. Many of these ships attached to the annona would have needed to stopover at ports during their journey to Rome, or perhaps engage in transshipment, transferring their cargo

38

Jones 1964: 84. Sirks 1991: passim; Lo Cascio 2007: 640-1. 40 Gai. Inst. 1.32c; Suet. Claud. 18-19. 41 Luc. The Ship or the Wishes. For a discussion of this story, see Casson 1950. 39

385

between ships when docked at certain harbors. A coastal center such as Ierapetra, with a constructed double harbor as of the mid-first century C.E., would have been a suitable destination for these vessels. With respect to the massive grain carriers documented in literary sources, however, these ships may not have passed through Ierapetra. In a treatise written about the corrupt leadership of Flaccus, who was appointed prefect of Egypt in 32 C.E., the first century C.E. Jewish philosopher, Philo, relates a story that the emperor Caligula informed Herod the quickest way to reach Rome was to board one of the enormous grain ships which set out from Alexandria (In Flaccum 26).42 According to Caligula, these ships sailed directly for Puteoli, with their captains aiming to make the journey in as little time as possible. Thus, any navicularii passing through Ierapetra with their grain carriers likely were sailing smaller vessels. We must consider that the annona civica also stimulated a brisk market exchange in commodities such as Egyptian grain. Increasingly, evidence from a variety of sources, including documents from the Murecine Archive at Pompeii, shows a larger percentage of individuals privately participating in the grain trade than has previously been appreciated.43 In fact, B. Sirks speculates that this “free-market” exchange may have even exceeded the quantity of imports supplied by the annona.44 Ierapetra may have functioned as an important stopover or transshipment port for ships engaged in this supplemental trade. The Roman government also played a role in the redistribution of supplies for military forces stationed across the Empire. One point of debate, however, is whether any type of official, consistent annona for the army was in place before the end of the third century C.E. Some scholars contend that there is no concrete evidence for the centralized distribution of goods to military forces in the first few centuries C.E., and that even archaeological evidence, such as the 42

cf. Casson 1980: 123-4. For this archive, see Camodeca 1999. 44 Sirks 1991: 363. 43

386

presence of Dressel 20 amphorae which were used to package olive oil from the Baetican region of Spain, can be explained in the context of market exchange.45 By the time of Diocletian, increasing military expenditures owing to numerous conflicts and attempts to stabilize Rome‟s frontier defences led to the establishment of a permanent annona militaris.46 Armies now received supplies from beyond the regions in which they were stationed and areas such as the Aegean geared much of their production toward supplying these forces. This is of particular importance for understanding the economy of Crete in the Late Roman and Late Antique periods since at least some of the poleis on the island appear to have become participants in the annona militaris. Influence of a command economy may also be evident in other ways at Ierapetra. The exchange of certain products, such as medicinal plants and marble, are believed to have been under imperial control. Thus, the import or export of such goods to and from Ierapetra would indicate a degree of government influence. The evidence for these specific commodities will be discussed below.

The Function of Ports In the Greco-Roman world, ports possessed a number of different functions and were home to a vast array of economic activities. Of primary importance is the role that these sites played in the distribution of imports and exports. John Leonard observes that ports were fundamentally linked to the surrounding countryside, and served as outlets for the supply of goods produced in that territory.47 This exchange could occur over short-distances, such as between centers in a single province, or over long-distances, such as between centers in different 45

Cherry 2007: 730-1; Lo Cascio 2007: 638. Giardina 2007: 757-8. 47 Leonard 2005: 952. 46

387

parts of the Mediterranean. Hellenistic treaties from Crete often preserved clauses concerned with the importation of goods from other centers on the island by sea. This indicates that regional distribution of products was common at ports on Crete. By the Roman period, Cretan products can be attested across the Roman world, indicating that long-distance exchange also became an important part of the economic function of these centers. Ports also operated in additional capacities when they formed part of exchange networks. Coastal centers on Crete may have often participated in transshipment, which involves moving goods to intermediate locations before they are sent to their final destination. D. Haggis speculates that warehouse facilities present at Tholos and Sta Lenika, two small ports located along the Bay of Mirabello, were constructed to serve a role in transshipment.48 These settlements sat at one terminus of an overland route that lead to Ierapetra and would have helped to facilitate the movement of goods between the north and south coasts. A warehouse facility revealed in the Yiomelaki plot at Ierapetra may have also served a function in transshipment, and this activity would have formed an important component of the economic life of the city. For many ships traveling through the Mediterranean, ports served as stopover points along a journey. While at anchor, provisions could be replenished and there is some evidence from Crete of infrastructure designed to accommodate the acquisition of supplies. A. Kelly notes, for instance, that two ports on the island have preserved sections of aqueducts that appear to have functioned as fresh water sources for ships.49 The first is located at Lebena, one of the ports of Gortyn, while the second appears at Agia Pelagia, located on the north coast approximately 20km northwest of Knossos. Ports also engaged in other economic activities. According to D. Engels:

48 49

Haggis 1996: 200-3. Kelly 2006: 395-6.

388

Commercial cities located on major trade routes would also derive much income providing goods and services to long-distance traders, travelers, and tourists. These functions enabled many cities providing these services to grow larger than cities providing services only to their local hinterlands.50 Comparative evidence from coastal centers such as Pompeii and Ostia enables us to consider the range of goods and services Ierapetra may have provided. First, the itinerant nature of sea travel would have necessitated that lodging be available at ports for sailors whose vessels were at anchor. At Pompeii, for instance, T. Kleberg has identified no fewer than 17 hospitia which would have functioned as inns. Hotels and inns are also noted at Ostia.51 Along with the shortterm accommodation of sailors and merchants, a story related by Paul in the Book of Acts (27.911) indicates that long-term lodging was also possible at Cretan ports. During a journey from Lycia to Italy, Paul boarded a ship that passed along the south coast of Crete and stopped at the port of Kaloi Limenes, located to the south of Gortyn. The ship had reached Kaloi Limenes at the end of the sailing season and a debate arose whether it was preferable to continue westward along Crete‟s southern shore to the port at Phoinix, which was better suited for berthing a ship during the winter. This indicates that ships arriving at Cretan ports at the end of the sailing season would have stayed at anchor for several months, and the crews and passengers would require lodging for that period. Associated with many of the inns identified at Pompeii and Ostia are retail establishments, particularly those related to food and drink. S. Ellis has identified at least 158 such outlets at Pompeii, based on the presence of a service counter.52 The large, itinerant population of a port would have necessitated that numerous food and drink bars be present in accessible locations. These establishments would have stimulated the local economy by 50

Engels 1990: 126. Meiggs 1973: 428-30; Hermansen 1981: 192-4. 52 Ellis 2004: 374. 51

389

providing venues from which products from the surrounding countryside could be distributed. Another industry often associated with inns was prostitution. Brothels have been identified at numerous port sites, including Ostia and Pompeii. While R. Laurence considers this activity to have been deviant, and perhaps relegated to the alleys and lower-income areas of a city,53 T. McGinn argues that there was a degree of economic importance associated with prostitution.54 He notes that the widespread practice of this activity, and its potential for a brisk trade, would have brought in quite a bit of revenue. Other economic activities common to ports would have involved banking and money lending. J. Andreau comments that assayers, money changers, bankers, and financers would have been a common sight at coastal centers.55 These individuals helped to facilitate transactions at a port, and also ensured that liquid resources, such as money, were available to merchants. Numerous other professions may also have been practiced in a port such as Ierapetra. Based on evidence from Ostia and Rome, a number of guilds can be attested in the Roman world, many of which had associations with shipping and trade.56 Among guilds attested in Ostia and Rome that may have functioned at other ports, there are fabri navalium (ship builders), saburrarii (loaders of ballast), geruli (stevedores), phalangarii (individuals who carried wine and oil amphorae), and urinatores (skin divers who retrieved merchandise lost overboard).57 The combination of various types of economic activities attested in Greco-Roman ports, along with the role these sites played in exchange networks, would have stimulated the local economy and ensured that local products were distributed and that there was a steady influx of

53

Laurence 1994: 70-8. McGinn 2004: 71. 55 Andreau 1999: 149. 56 Meiggs 1973: 311-34. 57 Fabri Navalium – CIL 14.69; Saburrarii – CIL 14.448; Geruli – CIL 6.9438-9439; Phalangarii – CIL 6.7803; Urniatores – CIL 14.303. See Loane (19 :14 n.3) for a list of other relevant guilds. 54

390

money into the city. So long as the port continued to function in this same fashion, the economy of a particular center would flourish.

Growth versus Decline For each chronological section below, as assessment is made concerning the possibility that Ierapetra was experiencing growth or decline. These are common enough concepts in the study of the ancient economy, but are too often applied without specific indications of what they mean? What characteristics of a site like Ierapetra demonstrate growth in one period, but decline in another? An explicit outline of some definite traits will be important for documenting the state of Ierapetra in a given period. In the past decade, the study of economic growth has come to the forefront of Roman scholarship, with a particular emphasis on how the Early and Late Empire differ. R. Saller provides an important overview of how to approach the study of economic growth, including several definitions and cautions for relevant questions.58 Many studies focus on the relevance of proxy data for illuminating long-term patterns. K. Hopkins employs this concept in his seminal study of Roman taxation, and a more recent example is F. de Callataÿ‟s use of shipwrecks, along with copper and lead pollution data preserved in ice cores and peat bogs, to assess trends.59 W. Jongman also proposes that changes in animal bone assemblages are relevant to understanding economic growth.60 Many of these proxies for studying economic growth have notable flaws. Use of animal bones, for instance, fails to take into account the type of animals represented, and shipwreck data is affected by numerous factors, including cargo durability and visibility, and differential 58

Saller 2005: 228-37. Hopkins 1980. Callataÿ 2005. 60 Jongman 2007: 191-3. 59

391

exploration of certain regions.61 Proxy data is not without use, however, provided its strengths and weaknesses are assessed critically.62 Overall the pattern shown by much of this data is a general reduction in economic growth during the Late Roman period. This pattern appears common across the Mediterranean, although this illustrates one of main limitations to the current approach to studying economic growth: its lack of resolution. Most proxy data currently under investigation have a broad scope interpretable across numerous regions, or the Empire as a whole. With respect to the Late Roman period, for instance, this is in direct contrast to the typical way in which the economy has been viewed by scholars. According to A. Giardina, most of the emphasis for this later period has been on local economies and the diversity of the Mediterranean.63 As a result, a heterogeneous picture of the Late Roman economy with interspersed regions displaying growth, equilibrium, or decline has arisen. Considering the concepts of growth versus decline on a more localized scale, there are several characteristics which we can employ to assess how Ierapetra was faring in a given period. This includes: growth/contraction of city; growth/loss of population; endurance/discontinuation of civic offices and functions; increase/decrease in productivity; increase/decrease in economic connections; increase/decrease in standard of living. For example, evidence for settlement increase in the Isthmus of Ierapetra during the Early Roman period, coupled with indications of extensive building activity, including the construction of public edifices like theaters, suggests the city was experiencing growth at that time. In contrast, the apparent abandonment of buildings in the three rescue excavation plots by the sixth century, to be discussed below, indicates that the city was likely in decline.

61

Scheidal 2009: 50-1; Wilson 2009b: 71-3. Wilson 2009b: 73. 63 Giardina 2007: 747. 62

392

Assessment of Quantification A final concept to consider before beginning a period-by-period discussion of the evidence for economic life at Ierapetra is whether the differences in collection protocols for ceramic finds from the various rescue excavation plots affect the quantification data.64 The collection protocol for the Assariotaki plot was based on diagnostic sherds, while the Pangalou and Yiomelaki plots were based on total collection. Although data from all three plots does present a coherent picture, a closer examination of the results from the Assariotaki plot shows several notable deviations in its numbers. One overall impression from all three plots is a distinct change in the proportions of several ceramic classes between Hellenistic and Roman period assemblages. Common wares comprise by far the highest proportion of ceramics by weight in Late Hellenistic contexts, for instance, while amphorae account for a low percentage of the finds.65 In addition, finewares occur in higher proportions in Late Hellenistic assemblages than in Roman ones. During the Roman period, amphorae become the dominant ceramic class in all three plots. This change is most evident in the Assariotaki plot where the overall proportion of amphorae in all Roman period contexts is 72% by weight. These vessels are absent from Early Roman contexts in this plot, however, despite the fact that they form significant components of contemporary assemblages in the Pangalou and Yiomelaki plots.66 The emphasis on collecting diagnostic sherds is likely the reason for this discrepancy. Early Roman amphorae tend to lack any form of decoration on their body, whereas Late Roman and Late Antique vessels often bear some type of combed design. Body sherds from Early Roman amphorae, thus, were not deemed diagnostic and 64

The quantification is presented in Tables 2-57. Assariotaki: Common Wares 61%, Amphorae 20%. Pangalou: Common Wares 66%, Amphorae 7%. Yiomelaki: Common Wares 67%, Amphorae 18%. 66 All Early Roman Cretan amphorae identified in the Assariotaki plot were residual in Late Roman and Late Antique contexts. 65

393

were not collected. A similar phenomenon is apparent in the collection protocols of many archaeological surveys. Several scholars note that surveyors tend to collect higher numbers of body sherds from Late Roman and Late Antique amphorae because these are easier to identify and associate with specific types than Early Roman examples.67 Since all sherds were collected in the Pangalou and Yiomelaki plots, this problem is not encountered. The main consequence of this pattern is that data from the Assariotaki plot must be assessed carefully when presented in the sections below.

LATE HELLENISTIC (220 – 67 B.C.E) Over half a century ago, M. Rostovtzeff observed that a study of Hellenistic Crete was necessary for a holistic understanding of Greece in this period.68 The work of numerous scholars, including P. Brulé, A. Chaniotis, A. Petropoulou, and N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, has greatly increased our understanding of the Hellenistic history of the island since Rostovtzeff‟s study. 69 For the city of Ierapetra specifically, F. Guizzi‟s monograph on the Hellenistic polis provides a coherent assessment of available epigraphic and literary evidence. What is lacking from many Hellenistic sites on Crete, however, are published assemblages of material culture which can shed additional light on topics of interest, such as the organization of the island‟s economy. The analysis of several Late Hellenistic ceramic assemblages from rescue excavations in Ierapetra is one attempt to begin resolving this dilemma. Pottery evidence from Ierapetra can help us address several historical queries. For example, what characteristics comprise the economy of the polis during the Late Hellenistic period? Are exchange networks visible between Ierapetra and its chora, and do these networks 67

Sanders 2004: 165; Pettegrew 2007: 743-4; 2010. Rostovtzeff 1941: 247. 69 Brulé 1978; Chaniotis 1996, 1999; Petropoulou 1985; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004. 68

394

expand as the city gained more and more territory? What types of goods were produced by the city and its holdings? Was this production aimed primarily at subsistence, or is there evidence for an export economy? Connections beyond the chora can also be explored. For instance, is there evidence of economic networks in place between Ierapetra and other parts of Crete? If so, then what was the extent of these connections and what goods were exchanged? Looking even farther afield, we can consider whether Crete played a role in the broader Hellenistic economy. Is there evidence for organized exchange networks between Crete and other regions? Did these networks arise within the context of a free market, or develop as part of a command economy? What types of goods were imported and exported from the island? The last set of questions, centered on Crete‟s potential participation in the economic life of the Hellenistic world, has been a topic of some contention in recent years. On one side of the argument are scholars who believe that Crete‟s Hellenistic economy was aimed primarily at subsistence. Others believe the island‟s agricultural production exceeded subsistence levels, meaning there were items available for export. An improved characterization of Ierapetra‟s Hellenistic economy will help shed new light on this debate.

Ierapetra in the Late Hellenistic Period While an analysis of ceramic assemblages from three rescue excavations cannot hope to fill in all of the lacunae we have with respect to Late Hellenistic Ierapetra, it will serve to improve upon the picture we already have. If we consider first the range of Hellenistic pottery types present in these excavations, a regular pattern is apparent. Common wares comprised the highest proportion of finds, consistently totaling over 60% of the assemblages by weight. 70 Finewares also formed a relatively high proportion, ranging between 7% and 13%, despite their 70

Assariotaki: 61%; Pangalou: 66%; Yiomelaki: 67%.

395

small size.71 Amphorae, on the other hand, varied between 7% and 20% of the assemblages by weight, with only a small amount of those totals comprising imports.72 Part of the reason for the similarities between the three assemblages could relate to the types of structures from which this material derived. Excavations in both the Assariotaki and Pangalou plots revealed domestic structures, and the high proportions of common ware and fineware vessels could correlate to their use in a variety of household activities. The structure present in the Yiomelaki plot may be interpreted as a warehouse in the Roman period, but could have possessed a different function in the Hellenistic period. Several mid-first century B.C.E. contexts revealed evidence of destruction in this plot, perhaps associated with the Roman siege of the city in 67 B.C.E. The type of structure which stood on the site prior to the Roman conquest is difficult to characterize, but it may also have comprised a house of some type. An additional point of interest is that the low number of Hellenistic amphorae present in these structures, in comparison to other ceramic classes, could suggest Ierapetra‟s economy was not based on the large-scale production of commodities which required these vessels for packaging, or that other types of containers were used for transporting these products. The dominant type of Hellenistic pottery at Ierapetra was East Cretan Cream Ware, which encompassed the majority of the fineware, common ware, amphora, and lamp finds. For each of these ceramic classes, a greater diversity of shapes was also noted than previously has been described for the ware. The prevalence of ECCW at the site, and the variety of shapes attested, seems to corroborate suggestions that its production occurred in or around Ierapetra.73 Even if manufacture occurred at a nearby site, perhaps in the vicinity of Myrtos, Ierapetra was clearly the primary consumer. The dominance of the ware at the site may also substantiate claims 71

Assariotaki: 7%; Pangalou: 13%; Yiomelaki: 7%. Assariotaki: 20%; Pangalou: 7%; Yiomelaki: 18%. 73 Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 328-9. 72

396

that finds at other settlements, including Pyrgos Myrtos and Mochlos, are an indicator they were under the control of Ierapetra.74 Among the numerous finds of ECCW at Ierapetra were several pieces that display some degree of Attic influence, including a hemispherical cup, two mold-made bowls, a rolled-rim plate, a decorated plate base, and a basin.75 For the hemispherical cup and mold-made bowls, Attic pieces were identified at Ierapetra with similar shapes.76 A commonly held opinion of Cretan Hellenistic ceramic traditions is that Attic pottery had little influence on local shapes and production.77 The small sample of finds from Ierapetra appears to contrast this viewpoint and suggests that some potters in the region either trained in Attic workshops, or used examples of imported vessels as models for creating their own repertoire of forms. Overall, craftsmen engaged in pottery manufacture at or around Ierapetra relied on the imitation of foreign vessels to develop many local ceramic shapes. Numerous vessel types share similarities with examples known from workshops in Knossos, for instance, and the two main amphora types produced at the site were based on Koan and Rhodian precedents. G. Finkielsztejn also observes that a Rhodian amphora stamp type, datable between the mid-third to the first half of the second century B.C.E., appears to be the model for the small number of stamped handles known from Ierapetra.78 While ECCW dominates Ierapetra‟s ceramic record, finds of Attic pottery, along with Attic-inspired vessels in the ECCW fabric, points to a stronger tradition of imports than has been acknowledged for many other sites on Crete. Imported pottery also came from other regions, with most of the examples deriving from sources in Asia Minor. This includes an extensive 74

Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 331. These pieces are catalogue entries 9, 24-25, and 30-32 respectively. 76 Catalogue entries 80 and 104-105. 77 cf. Englezou 2005: 147. 78 Stefanaki 2001: 135-8; Finkielsztejn 2002: 138. 75

397

collection of gray ware vessels, a casserole likely produced in the region of Ephesus, and two brazier lugs. The use of Ierapetra as a transshipment or stopover port along exchange routes between the Aegean and North Africa could explain the presence of these vessels. Ships carrying goods from Asia Minor may have offloaded ceramic wares and other products when docked in the city‟s harbor. Imported amphorae also appear in limited numbers, mostly originating from Asia Minor, which suggests Ierapetra received foreign wine supplies on a regular basis. Among these vessels, Knidian examples were the most common. The same pattern is visible at Athens where Knidian amphorae are dominant from the second century B.C.E. onwards.79 Increasing Roman involvement in the Aegean by the mid-second century B.C.E., particularly the naming of Delos as a free port, appears to have significantly curtailed the Rhodian wine industry.80 Rhodian wine continued to be exported into the first century B.C.E., with examples of amphorae from that island present at Ierapetra, but overall quantities were reduced. D. Gibbins argues that, by the second half of the second century B.C.E., much more focus fell on Knidian wine production.81 To some extent, imported Hellenistic pottery appears to be more prevalent at Ierapetra than other sites on Crete, based on available pottery publications. According to J. Eiring, the few Hellenistic imports that do appear at other centers mostly derive from Attica or Asia Minor.82 Caution is required when interpreting Ierapetra‟s relatively impressive number of finds, however, because the presence of certain types of ceramics, such as stamped amphora handles often used by scholars to illustrate levels of exchange, was limited. Only four stamped handles were identified from the three rescue excavation plots, of which two were Knidian, one Rhodian, and one of unknown provenance. A Rhodian stamp also appeared as part of the Kato Mertia

79

Grace 1985: 7; Koehler and Wallce Matheson 2004: 163. Gibbins 2001: 218. 81 Gibbins 2001: 218. 82 Eiring 2001: 91. 80

398

assemblage in the Isthmus of Ierapetra. On the other hand, the absence of stamped handles may not be a feature of too much concern. Some scholars, including J.-Y Empereur and M. Lawall, have observed that most Hellenistic amphorae were unstamped and quantifying only stamped fragments can skew indications of exchange in this period.83 Despite the low numbers of stamped amphora handles, there is a sufficient corpus of imported pottery attested at Ierapetra to suggest that a regular succession of foreign ships visited the city. Our current understanding of the infrastructure of Ierapetra‟s Hellenistic harbor argues against the site being able to accommodate a large number of ships simultaneously, however. K. Lehmann-Hartleben speculates that a small lagoon, often labelled by travelers as a Roman naumachia, was the site of Ierapetra‟s Hellenistic harbor.84 Measuring 0.4ha in size, only a small number of ships could feasibly dock in this lagoon at one time. Ierapetra appears to have maintained a naval fleet in the Hellenistic period since the city is credited with launching two military expeditions against Kos and Kalymnos in 206/205 B.C.E.85 One also would expect that private merchants and other citizens owned boats which were docked at the city. These considerations, coupled with evidence for foreign ships visiting Ierapetra based on finds of imported pottery, suggests we need to reconsider our views of the city‟s harbor. While evidence for the construction of a large double harbor in the area of a sheltered bay along the ancient city‟s eastern shore dates to the Roman period, this same locale could have served as Ierapetra‟s main port in the Hellenistic period as well. Perhaps the small lagoon housed Ierapetra‟s fleet, or was intended for use by local citizens.

83

Empereur 1982: 219; Lawall 2005. Lehmann-Hartleben 1923: 201. 85 These attacks are attested in several inscriptions, including SIG3 567, SIG3 568-570, SGDI 3590, SGDI 3624. cf. Herzog 1902; Brulé 1978L: 29-56; Perlman 1999: 132-3. 84

399

Pottery evidence from Ierapetra, thus, provides an impetus for reconsidering some aspects of the topography of the Hellenistic city. In addition to the harbor, this material may shed light on the expansion of ancient Ierapetra into the Viglia district. Prior to this study, the earliest ceramic material attested at the site was a series of Red-Figure amphorae and pelikes found in the city‟s Manolianá district, the earliest of which dates to the mid-fifth century B.C.E.86 The Yiomelaki plot produced a small number of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age sherds, but the next earliest material attested in the three rescue excavation plots was several vessels, including two bolsal cups and two basins, datable to the late fourth or early third century B.C.E.87 Overall, very little material dating to before the first half of the second century B.C.E. appeared in the three assemblages. Since the vast majority of the attested Hellenistic pottery dates to the mid-second century B.C.E. and later, this could indicate the period when the site expanded. A date sometime around the mid-second century B.C.E. also coincides with Ierapetra‟s capture of the city-state of Praisos to the east, an event which may have led to an influx of population that required the city to increase its size.

Ierapetra and its Chora in the Late Hellenistic Period That the expansion of the city of Ierapetra may coincide with the expansion of the city‟s chora demonstrates the strong relationship between the two. By the end of the second century B.C.E., Ierapetra controlled the largest territory of any polis on Crete. Within this chora, there is evidence that the city attempted to establish an infrastructure that would facilitate contact and exchange. Hellenistic settlement in the Isthmus of Ierapetra, for instance, demonstrates a pattern suggestive of overland trade. Chaniotis argues that overland shipment would have been of

86 87

ArchDelt 27 (1972) B‟2: 647, pl. 602; Papadakis 1986: 78-80; Erickson 2005: 653. Catalogue entries 85-86 and 108-109.

400

minimal significance in Hellenistic Crete, with the majority of exchange taking place through ports. Vogeikoff-Brogan, on the other hand, believes that the importance of land transport on Crete has been underestimated.88 In the Isthmus, although Hellenistic settlement was limited, the Gournia Survey documented a string of no fewer than six sites situated on a north-south axis (Fig. 6.1).89 The northernmost site, known as Halepa, is located along the Bay of Mirabello, a few hundred meters east of Pacheia Ammos. Founded at some point in the Late Classical or Early Hellenistic periods, L.V. Watrous speculates that Halepa was tied to Ierapetra‟s commercial expansion.90 Ceramic finds include an Attic black-glaze cup, amphorae in the ECCW fabric, and at least one imported amphora. Halepa, thus, functioned as a small northern port within Ierapetra‟s chora, and the line of sites within the Isthmus accommodated overland trade between the north and south coasts. Ierapetra had access to numerous smaller ports within its territory of similar character to Halepa. Among them was Mochlos, which has produced evidence of a temporary occupation between the last decades of the second century B.C.E. and the first half of the first century B.C.E.91 Vogeikoff-Brogan, who argues Mochlos was resettled by Ierapetra, notes that the site provided control of the eastern access to the Bay of Mirabello.92 She also suggests demographic reasons were behind this occupation, since Ierapetra often needed to settle excess population outside of the city based on evidence from numerous isopolity treaties. Along with controlling access to the Bay of Mirabello, Mochlos provided another port from which goods could be brought to and from Ierapetra by means of overland transport. If this is the case, however, why was Ierapetra‟s settlement of Mochlos so short-lived? The site served a purpose in Ierapetra‟s 88

Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 219. Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. The sites in question are 23, 66, 77, 88, 114, and 139. 90 Watrous, forthcoming. 91 Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 216. 92 Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004: 216-7. 89

401

economic infrastructure, yet fell out of use a few decades after settlement had been reestablished. Mochlos, which is enclosed by mountains, was not a location from which overland trade was easily feasible. This may have prompted a consideration of other options, including the foundation of a settlement at Tholos in the late second or early first century B.C.E.93 As a port also situated along the northeastern shore of the Bay of Mirabello, but without the geographic isolation of Mochlos, Tholos provided better access to overland routes to Ierapetra. A treaty negotiated in the late third century B.C.E. between Praisos and Stalitai, a small port located approximately 20km east of Ierapetra in the area of the modern village of Makry Gialos, includes two stipulations that can help us assess Ierapetra‟s relationship with sites in its chora.94 First, the treaty granted Praisos permission to impose customs dues on goods passing through Stalitai‟s harbor. One would assume that Ierapetra necessitated that a similar set of conditions be in place at small ports within its territory, with the larger polis retaining the revenues from these custom dues. Second, Praisos had the right to levy taxes on murex and fish. The need for specific regulations concerning taxes on commodities like murex, from which purple dye is obtained, demonstrates their economic importance. Ierapetra may have levied taxes on similar goods at many sites within its chora, although we lack the epigraphic evidence to confirm this. Within the treaty between Praisos and Stalitai, there is another clause of interest. Along with confirming its economic jurisdiction over Stalitai, Praisos gained control of several unnamed islands. D. Viviers speculates that Kouphonisi, located near the southeast corner of Crete, was one of these islands.95 Itanos may have also held claim to Kouphonisi around this time and R. C. Bosanquet suggests a detachment from Itanos‟ Ptolemaic garrison took up 93

Haggis 1996: 200-3. IC 3.4.7 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 64. cf. Viviers 1999: 225. 95 Viviers 1999: 225-6. 94

402

residence there.96 Kouphonisi was the site of purple dye production dating back to the Bronze Age, and this industry may have also been practiced in the Hellenistic period.97 In addition, the strategic position of Kouphonisi provided it with a degree of control over westbound shipping lanes that passed by Crete‟s south coast. In light of these characteristics, one should not be surprised that Ierapetra attempted to gain control of Kouphonisi after conquering Praisos. The island was part of the territorial dispute between Itanos and Ierapetra attested in several inscriptions.98 Although Itanos retained control at the end of this dispute, the economic advantages provided by Kouphonisi would have been of great benefit to Ierapetra and complemented the extensive network of ports and production already in place. If Ierapetra was intent on establishing a sufficient infrastructure to accommodate contact and exchange between settlements within its chora, we must then ask what types of goods were involved. Finds of ECCW amphorae at several sites, including Myrtos, Halepa, and Mochlos, indicate that wine and/or olive oil were transported on a regular basis. All three of these sites are small ports within Ierapetra‟s chora, suggesting wine and oil was also exported from the region to other territories. A stamped handle from Ierapetra has also been attested at the site of Trypetos.99 Situated at the northeastern edge of Ierapetra‟s territory, Trypetos must have received commodities, such as wine, from the larger center. Ceramics will not provide the whole story, however, and a large proportion of goods produced and exchanged by Ierapetra and its holdings would have included perishable items that are not visible to archaeologists. Kostas Chalikias suggests that extensive Hellenistic settlement on Chryssi Island, including two fortified sites, may have been established by Ierapetra to exploit 96

Bosanquet 1939-1940: 71. Bosanquet 1939-1940: 71-2; Alcock 2007: 684. 98 IC 3.4.9; 3.4.10. For discussions of these texts, see Guarducci 1942: 91-111; Sherk 1969: 78-85 (document 14=IC 3.4.10); Ager 1996: 431-46; Chaniotis 1996: 307-10 (treaty 49=IC 3.4.9), 333-7 (treaty 57=IC 3.4.10). 99 Papadakis 2000: 123 no. 51 (=SEG 47.1410). 97

403

the island‟s natural resources, including purple dye, salt, timber, and sponges.100 Purple dye production was also a component of the economy of Stalitai. Ierapetra gained control of this port following the conquest of Praisos in 145 B.C.E. We can consider a few other types of products manufactured by Ierapetra and its chora. Epigraphic evidence documents the extensive participation of Ierapetra‟s population in pastoralism and transhumance. The large number of flocks involved would have provided a variety of economic opportunities, including the manufacture of foodstuffs, such as cheese, worked bone implements, and wool for textiles. Shepherds may have also supplemented their income by gathering medicinal herbs from the countryside. The role of pastoralism in the economy of Hellenistic Crete will be discussed in more detail below.

Ierapetra and Late Hellenistic Crete A discussion of pastoralism provides a suitable avenue for considering Ierapetra‟s relationships with other regions on Crete. Within the numerous treaties negotiated between Ierapetra and other centers on the island are clauses concerned with the mutual use of pasture land. In other words, shepherds could move their flocks between the territories of numerous poleis without penalty. This movement of shepherds and flocks across polis borders may also be linked to additional clauses found in these treaties that exempted goods transported overland from customs dues.101 A treaty negotiated between Lato and Ierapetra at the end of the second century B.C.E. (SEG 26.1049), for instance, includes the creation of a free-trade route between the north and south coasts.102 Examples of goods transported across such overland routes could

100

Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. Chaniotis 1999: 200. 102 cf. Viviers 1999: 229. 101

404

be textiles, foodstuffs, medicinal plants, dyes and pigments, and honey. Amphora-borne commodities may have also been exchanged overland across polis borders. A concern in many of the preserved treaties between Cretan poleis was the exchange of goods between regions. This demonstrates that cities like Ierapetra must have fostered economic connections outside of its chora. Exempting goods transported by land from customs was mutually beneficial to all parties involved since it provided shepherds access to substantial territories of grazing land, and provided means of importing and exporting certain goods, like foodstuffs and textiles, with minimal difficulty. Not all exchange between regions on Crete was subject to this degree of leniency, however. The same treaties which exempted goods transported by land from customs dues are often explicit in noting taxes will be levied on goods transported by sea. F. Guizzi cites numerous examples and notes that these taxes were one of the principal sources of revenue for Cretan poleis.103 Exemptions from customs dues for goods brought in by sea are attested in only three treaties, and even then payment of some taxes is necessary, and the owner had to swear the materials were being exported for personal use.104 Financial connections between Cretan poleis also may have developed in ways other than just the exchange of goods. According to Guizzi, property speculation, money lending, and other financial transactions could occur across polis borders.105 Two treaties, one negotiated between Ierapetra and Priansos (IC 3.3.4 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 28) and another between Lato and Olus (IC 1.16.5 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 61), show some concern for the establishment of real estate and property boundaries within the chorae of the respective poleis. Guizzi speculates that problems

103

Guizzi 1999: 240. Three treaties with exemption from taxes on transport of goods by sea: SEG 41.742 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 38 (Eleutherna and Aptera; early second century B.C.E.); SEG 26.1049 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 59 (Lato and Ierapetra; 111/110 B.C.E.); IC 1.16.5 = Chaniotis 1996 no. 61 (Lato and Olus; 110/109 – 109/108 B.C.E.). cf. Chaniotis 1999: 200. 105 Guizzi 1999: 243. 104

405

could arise if these borders were unclear, but once established, citizens from either territory could then “… buy and sell, lend and borrow, or secure any other type of contract”.106 Within the agreement between Lato and Olus, there is an additional stipulation requiring that all transactions of this sort be recorded on an official register to avoid future legal problems. In other words, polis and chora boundaries were not only permeable with respect to the exchange of goods, it was also possible for citizens from different regions to purchase or sell property, and engage in money lending. Guizzi hesitates to impose too strict an interpretation on the evidence from these treaties, but does note one important point: The evidence does not allow us to define more precisely the range of financial activities, but we should not underestimate the terminology used in the two main pieces of evidence from Lato and Hierapytna. Terms like daneizein and daneizesthai, or synallassein, prove that money transactions took place in Hellenistic Crete, even on a local scale.107 Thus, the independent nature of Cretan city-states and their respective chorae did not prevent a wide variety of transactions from taking place, including those involving money. Perhaps some evidence of these types of transactions may be visible in the island‟s numismatic record. With respect to documenting specific types of exchange or financial transactions between Ierapetra and poleis outside of its chora, pottery evidence from the three rescue excavation plots provides limited insight. Numerous examples of Hellenistic finewares and common wares from the three assemblages could derive from Knossos, based on fabric and similarities in shape to products identified at that site. Other vessels, including one example of imitation West-Slope ware and an EC1 amphora, perhaps originated from the region of Gortyn.108 While these finds do suggest some type of connection between Ierapetra and these regions, the pottery evidence alone

106

Guizzi 1999: 243. Guizzi 1999: 243. 108 Catalogue entries 78 and 146. 107

406

fails to emphasize the extent of these relationships and the range of transactions which may have occurred. Other forms of data, including the epigraphic record and numismatic finds, will need to be mobilized to better assess potential networks between separate regions on Crete.

Crete and the Hellenistic Economy The evidence presented above shows that Ierapetra developed economic connections within its chora and with regions outside of its borders. We must now consider whether these extensive relationships also enabled the city, and Crete as a whole, to participate in larger exchange networks within the Hellenistic world. This has been a subject of some debate, with scholars arguing for and against Crete‟s participation in Hellenistic trade. While these arguments were presented above in Chapter 4, they can be restated in light of their importance. Scholars on one side of the spectrum argue that Crete‟s Hellenistic economy was aimed primarily at production for local subsistence. A. Chaniotis is the main proponent and observes there is little evidence for any agricultural production beyond subsistence across the island.109 With respect to the small number of stamped amphora handles from Ierapetra found outside of Crete, he argues that number is too small to suggest an organized wine trade before the Roman period.110 A lack of imported Hellenistic amphora finds at sites across Crete also points to the island‟s limited role in international exchange. In addition, P. Brulé suggests that the absence of Cretan amphorae on Delos, one of the largest trade centers of the Hellenistic Aegean, is a conspicuous indicator that Crete did not ship wine beyond its own shores.111 As noted above, the strength of these arguments lies in the lack of evidence which can be cited in opposition. For some scholars, however, the lack of evidence is viewed as favorable, 109

For instance, see Chaniotis 1999: 184. Chaniotis 1988: 71-2; 1999: 184; 2005: 97-9; 2008: 86. 111 Brulé 1978: 157, n.6. 110

407

given how limited the study of Hellenistic Crete has been. N. Vogeikoff-Brogan argues that the small number of pottery publications from Crete hinders the ability to identify Cretan pottery, particularly amphorae, outside of the island. Thus, while stamped handles can be recognized, body sherds and even other diagnostic pieces are undistinguished. This coincides with a recent observation concerning Hellenistic amphorae that most were unstamped and quantifying only stamped fragments can skew indications of trade in this period.112 W.V. Harris also notes that some aspects of Crete‟s Hellenistic economy need to be reevaluated.113 In particular, he points to evidence available from the site of Kydonia in northwestern Crete, including a third century B.C.E. inscription (IC 2.1.10). This text documents the purchase of vineyards by the city, which were then gifted to several proxenoi (citizens who represented the polis in other regions). The proxenoi may have then leased these plots to other farmers. Based on figures provided in the inscription, the average size of the vineyards was approximately 0.6ha and they were located predominately in the southern part of the Akrotiri peninsula and in the countryside surrounding Kydonia.114 While Harris admits the vineyards appear to be quite small, he suggests that they do seem “… to imply a thoroughly commercialized viticulture”.115 In consideration of whether wine produced at these vineyards may have been an object of trade, Harris asks, “But are we to suppose that the city of Kydonia, which in the late-fourth and early-third centuries used symbols of the wine-trade on its cointypes, made wine for purely local consumption?”116 North-central Crete produces additional evidence perhaps suggestive of commercialized viticulture. Near the village of Agia Pelagia, located along the coast approximately 20km 112

Empereur 1982: 219; Lawall 2005. Harris 1999: 357. 114 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 10-2 no. T12. 115 Harris 1999: 357. 116 Harris 1999: 357. 113

408

northwest of Knossos, rescue excavations conducted between 1972 and 1976 revealed a building, datable to the third century B.C.E., which the excavators termed a rural installation. 117 This structure consists of nine rooms, and appears to have functioned as a production and storage facility for wine. Pressing of grapes occurred in the western half of the complex where a small, rectangular space, situated north of a paved courtyard, produced evidence of grape pips and waterproof surfaces. The must was then collected in a number of basins located in a suite of storerooms in the eastern part of the structure. Numerous fragments of amphorae were identified in the area around the complex, but there is no direct evidence to suggest these vessels were used to package wine produced in this installation. A second agricultural complex identified at the site of Phaistos, located approximately 12km west of Gortyn, can shed more light on Cretan wine production in the Hellenistic period. Excavated in the mid-1960s by Doro Levi, this late fourth century B.C.E. building is made up of several rooms, one of which contains a large wine press.118 Storage basins were also identified, likely intended for the fermenting of the wine. Adjacent to this structure, Levi identified a stack of foreign amphorae. One possible interpretation is that these vessels were being reused as packaging containers for wine from this facility. J.T. Peña has summarized a significant body of evidence for the reuse of amphorae as packaging containers in the Roman world and notes that “... it should be anticipated that it would be possible to identify facilities for the packing of fish products, fruits, etc. that employed used amphorae in connection with their operations”.119 While only a small number of such facilities have been identified, mostly at Pompeii, one important characteristic of each is the presence of various types of amphorae collected together,

117

ArchDelt 31 (1976 [1984]) B‟2: 354-7. cf. Marangou-Lerat 1995: 61-3; Marangou 1999: 270. Levi 1965-1966: 569-88. 119 Peña 2007: 82. 118

409

presumably to be reused in some fashion as packaging containers.120 The wine production facility at Phaistos, with its associated collection of foreign amphorae, may have also engaged in the operation of reusing these vessels. Perhaps the owners of the complex had few other options. The site of Trypetos in northeastern Crete has produced the earliest confirmed evidence for Hellenistic amphora production on Crete, datable to the late third century B.C.E.121 Thus, Cretan merchants in the early fourth century may have had to reuse foreign vessels because the island‟s own amphora manufacturing tradition had yet to develop. The possible reuse of imported amphorae for the packaging of Cretan wine could also have implications for considering why many Hellenistic amphora forms manufactured by Cretan potters imitate foreign vessel shapes. As mentioned above, A. Hesnard argues that imitation vessels were intended to carry the same type of wine as the native region.122 Thus, examples of Koan- and Rhodian-inspired vessels produced at Ierapetra and Knossos, for instance, could suggest they were intended to package locally produced “Koan” or “Rhodian” wine.123 According to G. Finkielsztejn, there are also examples of Knidian-inspired amphorae manufactured on Crete.124 Knidian-type vessels in a local fabric appear at Trypetos as well.125 This reliance on imitations of foreign types by local potters could suggest these vessels were intended for shipping wine and other products beyond Crete‟s borders as part of the exchange networks of regions like Kos and Rhodes. In this scenario, Cretan amphorae would be difficult to

120

Identified facilities of this type at Pompeii include the Officina del Garum degli Umbrici (1.12.8), the Casa di Q. Mestrius Maximus/Lupanar di Amarantus complex (1.9.11-12), the Casa del Vinario (9.9.6-7), and perhaps the Casa della Nave Europa (1.15.3). cf. Peña 2007: 82-97. Peña (2007: 97-8) also speculates that a building at Corinth may have evidence for this activity as well. 121 Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 425. 122 Hesnard 1986: 75; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 330. In similar fashion, Papadopoulos and Paspalas (1999: 1801) argue that “Mendaian” wine came to represent production of Chalkidike as a whole. 123 Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 330; Eiring, Boileau, and Whitbread 2002: 61. 124 Finkielsztejn 2002: 138. In particular, he notes a vessel from a Proto-Roman context at the Unexplored Mansion in Knossos (UM II, 178 fig. 6.1, 1183 no. A1.29) which appears to be a hybrid of Koan and Knidian characteristics 125 Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 425 fig. 7d-e.

410

identify outside of the island because they would be grouped among the variant fabrics of commonly identified types. Coinciding with the above evidence for viticulture on Hellenistic Crete, several survey projects have identified settlement patterns suggestive of increased agricultural exploitation during this period. The Kommos Survey and the Khania Archaeological Survey Project, for instance, both documented an increase in the number of Hellenistic sites compared to the Classical period.126 In the Mesara Plain, the number of sites almost doubles between these two periods.127 Watrous notes that many of these new settlements were established on agriculturally marginal land, an indicator that farmers were making extensive use of the countryside. Activities attested at many of these sites include beekeeping and textile production. This evidence for intensified settlement in the Mesara, which appears to have been geared at production beyond subsistence levels, is also interesting to consider in light of evidence of amphora production now documented at three sites in the region: Gortyn, Kommos, and Matala.128 The latter two are ports, and merchants at these sites may have used these vessels for packaging wine and other products for transport to other regions of Crete, or destinations farther afield. If we turn now to the always contentious evidence for stamped amphora handles from Ierapetra found at sites outside of Crete, the agricultural intensification and evidence for viticulture seen in several regions across the island could help us interpret these finds. While few in number, these stamps may be indicative of the regular export of amphora-borne commodities from Crete to regions in the eastern Mediterranean. These products would have derived from numerous regions even if a few vessels from Ierapetra are all we can identify at present.

126

Hope Simpson 1995: 397; Raab 2001: 156. Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004a: 326. 128 Gortyn: Gortina I, 263; Gortina V.3, 264-6; Papadopoulos 1989: 45. Kommos and Matala: Hope Simpson 1995: 336; Kommos IV, 318-9. 127

411

According to Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou, it may be possible to describe Cretan ports as “… stepping stones on a sea route, which began on the islands of Rhodes and Cos, and the Cnidian peninsula and ended in Egypt”.129 This also suggests that Crete‟s exchange networks may have evolved in the context of a free market since they appear to be linked to the economies of several Aegean regions, including Kos, Knidos, and Rhodes, which exchanged goods widely in this period, although more evidence is needed to confirm this supposition. While much of the emphasis has thus far fallen on viticulture, wine may have only formed one component of Crete‟s potential corpus of exported goods. To properly assess any potential role the island played in the broader Hellenistic economy, we must consider the extent to which non-perishable goods were being shipped. Most emphasis on Cretan trade in the Hellenistic period falls on archaeologically visible artifacts, including amphorae, and by association the goods packaged in these vessels such as wine and oil, and Hadra vases, of which no examples appeared at Ierapetra. The latter were a type of large, decorated jar produced in the regions of Knossos and Phaistos.130 They are found outside of Crete in Egypt and various centers in Greece. Their findspots, and somewhat limited numbers, argue against these vessels functioning as large-scale export items, and Chaniotis suggests that they should be connected to Cretan mercenaries since their findspots tend to be places where these soldiers could be found.131 Hellenistic Crete would have produced a large number of perishable commodities, including honey. Chaniotis has suggested that “...we have no reason to assume that Cretan honey and wax were exported outside the island before the Imperial period”.132 A papyrus text (SB 14.12074), originating from the Arsinoite nome in Egypt, and dated to the early to mid-third

129

Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 427. Chaniotis 2005: 100. 131 Chaniotis 2005: 100. 132 Chaniotis 1999: 209. 130

412

century B.C.E., argues against this assumption.133 Among the products listed in this document is κέιη Κρεηηθὸλ (Cretan honey). Several other types of honey also are listed and A.E. Hanson suggests the text should be taken in “a medical context... because it is in this area that one can parallel recommendations for the use of specific kinds of honey”.134 The earliest archaeological evidence for beekeeping on Crete derives from Knossos in the second century B.C.E. Numerous finds of Hellenistic beehives at sites identified during the Sphakia Survey could predate the Knossian evidence, but this material cannot be dated precisely.135 Finds of beehives were also noted by the Mesara Survey, perhaps indicative of a large-scale industry in that region.136 This papyrus suggests an earlier date for the industry should be posited.137 Perhaps this text also lends support to a legend documented in several authors (Diod. Sic. 5.65.2; Columella, Rust. 9.4) that beekeeping was invented in the mountains of Crete. Medicinal products may have been another perishable commodity exported from Crete. While there are few literary attestations documenting Hellenistic Crete as a supplier of medicinal products, Theophrastus (Historia plantorum 9.16.3), writing in the fourth century B.C.E., classified Crete as one of the best locations for obtaining medicinal plants. The significant evidence from Hellenistic Crete for pastoralism and transhumance, which suggests exploitation of upland and mountainous regions, may be relevant here since it is from upland areas that medicinal plants could be obtained. A significant point with respect to most medicinal herbs is that they were never cultivated, but instead were obtained from areas of wild growth. Shepherds managing their flocks in mountain ranges and upland plains could have supplemented their 133

This text was first published by A.E. Hanson (1972). Hanson 1972: 163. 135 Francis 2006: 386. Svoronos (1972 [1890]: 321 no. 2) documents Hellenistic coinage from the site of Tarrha with a bee as part of the iconography. cf. Moody et al. 1998: 89. 136 Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004a: 328. 137 Francis 2006: 384. Francis notes that the late date for documented Hellenistic beekeeping on Crete could be a consequence of the limited documentation of Classical and Hellenistic sites on the island or an indication that nonceramic materials were used for beehives. 134

413

income by collecting and exchanging these herbs. In a description of a sixth century B.C.E. Cretan shepherd, Epimenides, Diogenes Laertius (1.112) notes that along with maintaining a flock of sheep he also may have engaged in collecting plants. Part of the supply of medicinal plants collected by shepherds may have been exported out of Crete. Otherwise, why would Theophrastus praise the island for its supplies of these products if there were not made available in other regions? The papyrus text discussed above suggests at least small quantities of goods like honey made their way beyond Crete‟s shores, perhaps intended for medicinal use. According to Galen (de antidotis 1.14.9-10), Julius Caesar made use of medicinal plants from Crete, indicating a terminus ante quem for their export should be the mid-first century B.C.E., although supplies were likely available before that time. Textile and leather production, for which there is some evidence on Hellenistic Crete, also could have been more extensive than is currently hypothesized and involved the manufacture of some products meant for export.138 Several types of timber appear to have been exported from the island as early as the Classical period, including cypress and juniper, and they may have been gathered from mountain slopes.139 All of this evidence suggests that Crete‟s Hellenistic economic relations were more extensive than is currently appreciated, but developed in a way that cannot be quantified directly. A final consideration, and one that is necessary for any account of Crete‟s role in Hellenistic trade, is piracy. That cities on the island were engaged in some form of piracy is confirmed by the overwhelming literary evidence in reference to this activity. 140 Ierapetra is considered a pirate base by many scholars, including Rostovtzeff.141 He also argues that there

138

Chaniotis 1999: 207. van Effenterre 1948: 111; Meiggs 1982: 200, 424; Chaniotis 1999: 209. 140 cf. Perlman 1999: 137. 141 Rostovtzeff 1941: 785. 139

414

was a revival in Cretan piracy after 150 B.C.E., perhaps connected to the increase of this activity in Cilicia. Despite the negative connotations attached to pirates in antiquity, they did have an impact on the economic life of the Hellenistic world. According to N.K. Rauh, Cilician pirates prospered because they developed commercial ties that enabled them to exchange their plunder, including slaves.142 Strabo (14.5.2) describes the importance of Delos, in particular, as a slave market, and V. Gabrielsen speculates that Cretan ports were also home to this same enterprise.143 The ability to supply slaves to markets on Crete, and abroad, would have been a lucrative business for Cretan pirates, and would have benefited poleis that had some affiliation with these individuals. Gabrielsen also notes that slave markets were not the only means by which captives could be “sold” by pirates.144 The collection of ransoms for anyone captured by pirates would have been an important source of revenue as well. Overall, the role of Ierapetra and Crete in the Late Hellenistic economy requires further clarification. Evidence from Ierapetra, including imports from Attica and Asia Minor, suggests the site functioned as either a transshipment or stopover port tied to developed exchange networks between the Aegean and North Africa. While there are some indications that the city also exported goods to these regions, more evidence is needed to confirm this hypothesis. One important question concerning Hellenistic Crete, however, is whether indications of Cretan trade are skewed by only considering ceramic evidence. Perhaps much of Crete‟s export market in this period was dedicated to perishable goods where literary and epigraphic evidence serve as the primary indicators of this trade. This makes documenting Crete‟s economic position difficult, but suggests it may be more extensive than is currently appreciated.

142

Rauh 1997: 272. Gabrielsen 2003: 391. 144 Gabrielsen 2003: 392-5. 143

415

PROTO-ROMAN (67 – 27 B.C.E) In the month of March, 45 B.C.E., a certain Servius Sulpicius Rufus wrote a letter to Cicero (Fam. 4.5) that contained a poignant assessment of the state of Greece. According to Sulpicius: ex Asia rediens cum ab Aegina Megaram versus navigarem, coepi regiones circumcirca prospicere. post me erat Aegina, ante me Megara, dextra Piraeus, sinistra Corinthus, quae oppida quodam tempore florentissima fuerunt, nunc prostrata et diruta ante oculos iacent. (As I was on my way back from Asia, sailing from Aegina toward Megara, I began to gaze at the landscape around me. There behind me was Aegina, in front of me Megara, to the right Piraeus, to the left Corinth; once flourishing towns, now lying in ruins before one‟s eyes.)145 Numerous scholars have interpreted this passage as a literal representation of Greece in the second half of the first century B.C.E. Rome was to blame for this situation since its economic exploitation of regions in the eastern Mediterranean and numerous civil wars, with battles often fought on Greek soil, had inevitably led to impoverished conditions. As George Finlay states: “The celebrated letter of Sulpicius to Cicero, so familiar to the lovers of poetry from the paraphrase of Lord Byron, offers irrefragable testimony to the rapid decline of Greece under the Roman government”.146 In the past few decades, this traditional view has undergone substantial revision. According to S. Alcock, the appeal of this idea to nineteenth century scholars was tied to their belief that civilizations were comparable with living organisms.147 In other words, like any living creature, a civilization passed through a life cycle, with decline an inevitable stage. Alcock

145

Fam. 4.5.4. The letter is dated to mid-March in the year 45 B.C.E. Translation from the Loeb edition. Finlay 1844: 54. 147 Alcock 1993: 1-3. 146

416

prefers a more critical view of Greece during these decades, although she is hesitant to argue against some degree of desolation: The situation in Greece at the end of the first century BC must, in many regions, have been equally grim. Some caution, however, is required before envisioning such scenes across the whole country: a uniform military presence, and uniformly dire conditions, have been taken as read in many previous studies of this period, but I shall argue at various points in this work that the negative impact of warfare was both more localized and less long-lasting than is often accepted. Even so, the harsh treatment of Greece, particularly in the first century BC can hardly be denied, and must certainly be taken into account in assessing conditions under the reign of Augustus.148 A refined view, thus, considers Greece on a more localized level by assessing the state of different regions. Such an assessment is also possible for the site of Ierapetra and the island of Crete. When considering the period between the conquest of Crete in 67 B.C.E. and the ascension of Augustus in 27 B.C.E., a number of issues are apparent. In particular, we must consider how Ierapetra and its citizens adapted to life under Roman rule. For instance, can we register any changes to the economic life of the city? Did Ierapetra maintain ties with its chora? If so, are any changes apparent in this territory suggestive of some type of reorganization? Can we still attest economic connections between Ierapetra and other regions on Crete? Is there evidence for Ierapetra, and Crete, participating in broader exchange networks across the Mediterranean? This period is a time of transition on Crete and data from Ierapetra will help us document the numerous changes which occurred.

148

Alcock 1993: 14.

417

Ierapetra in the Proto-Roman Period Several literary sources preserve accounts of the conquest of Crete by Q. Caecilius Metellus, but only one mentions Ierapetra specifically. Dio Cassius (36.18) records that the city may have been the site of several different battles. Following the loss of Kydonia, the Cretan general Aristion retreated to Ierapetra, but was resisted there by a certain Lucius Bassus, a Roman seemingly in control of the city. Aristion was soon joined by Octavius, the legate of Pompey who had been dispatched to oppose Metellus so that the Cretans could surrender to Pompey. Ierapetra served as an effective stronghold for a short period, but the approach of Metellus with the main component of his army caused the commanders to abandon the town. Soon after sailing out of the city, a storm arose, causing the ships to be driven ashore. Dio goes on to report that Metellus conquered the entire island soon after this and one could presume that this involved some sort of siege, or at least punishment, of Ierapetra for its role in opposing his forces. The Yiomelaki plot produces several contexts with evidence for destruction, including roof collapses and burned patches, datable around the mid-first century B.C.E.149 Barring some connection with an isolated event, such as a fire, these contexts could document an attack against the city. H. and M. van Effentere may offer some corroborating evidence in the form of an inscription (SEG 39.967), found at the site of Vasiliki to the north of the city.150 Discussed above in Chapter 4, this inscription is dated traditionally to 100 B.C.E. and interpreted as a casualty list erected by Ierapetra as a result of border conflicts at that time. An alternative interpretation proposed by the authors connects this casualty list to the attack by Metellus. 151 This

149

These contexts are: Trench 2, layer 4; Trench 7, layer 9; Trench 21, layer 2; Trench 23, layer 2. van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1989. 151 van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1989: 104. 150

418

interpretation does beg the question, however, of why this inscription would have been erected at Vasiliki rather than Ierapetra. The transition to Roman control would have been evident in a number of different ways on Crete. One would expect that cities on the island, including Ierapetra, would have owed tribute to Rome after the three year conquest of the island. According to M. Crawford, “In her dealings with foreign powers Rome had for some time taken the convenient view that since wars were always the fault of the other party, the other party should reimburse Rome for the outlay she had been forced to undertake”.152 Following Marcus Antonius‟ failed attempt to conquer Crete in 72 B.C.E., the Roman Senate had requested a remarkably high tribute of 4000 talents in response to the island‟s plea for peace.153 Sanders compares this sum to the 8500 talents which had been collected annually by Rome from all of the eastern provinces before Pompey‟s conquests.154 One wonders if Rome purposefully set Crete‟s tribute at such an unreasonable amount to force the island into rejecting her terms and thus provide justification for launching a second attack. Whether Crete did pay tribute after 67 B.C.E., and what amount this involved, is difficult to assess. The strongest evidence for Cretan cities owing some form of annual payment to Rome derives from accounts of Mark Antony‟s dealings with the island. Cicero, in a speech delivered in 44 B.C.E. (Phil. 2.97), was critical of Antony‟s decision to exempt wealthy Cretan cities from taxation.155 Unfortunately, Cicero provides no names of specific poleis beyond describing them as “civitates locupletissimae Cretensium” (the wealthiest cities of Crete). There is also no confirmation that Antony actually succeeded in passing a bill through the Roman senate which

152

Crawford 1977: 43. App. Sic 6.1; Diod. Sic. 40.1-2. 154 Sanders 1982: 3. 155 See also Dio 46.23.3. 153

419

did exempt these centers from tribute. M. Baldwin Bowsky suggests that Ierapetra may have been one of the cities to which Cicero was referring.156 Whether this is accurate is impossible to assess based on available evidence, but Ierapetra was likely one of the wealthiest cities on Crete at the time, along with Gortyn, Knossos, Kydonia, and Lyttos (Fig. 6.2). At the very least, Antony‟s attempt to exempt some Cretan cities from paying tribute indicates that some form of annual payment was required by these poleis after 67 B.C.E. The imposition of a tribute on Cretan cities, including Ierapetra, after Rome conquered the island indicates that this event brought about administrative changes. When we consider ceramic evidence from Ierapetra, however, there are not many other changes that can be documented. The three rescue excavations at Ierapetra did produce several contexts datable between 67 and 27 B.C.E., but material from these contexts is almost exclusively Hellenistic in character. This pattern holds at most sites across Crete. At Gortyn and Knossos, for instance, Hellenistic shapes continue to be manufactured into the late first century B.C.E.157 The state of local ceramic production at Ierapetra, including ECCW vessels, is difficult to assess during this period. No clear break exists for when local Hellenistic wares cease to be manufactured. Contributing to this problem is the high number of ECCW finds in Early Roman contexts. There is insufficient data to determine whether these finds, which tend to comprise body sherds, are residual, or represent a continuation of production into the Early Roman period. One possibility is that vessels in this fabric continue to be manufactured into the first century C.E. At present, ECCW beveled-rim plates, of which there are several examples documented at Ierapetra (26-29), may represent the latest attested form produced in this fabric. Plates of this

156 157

Baldwin Bowsky 1994: 9. Eiring 2000a: 197-8; 2001: 91; Hayes 1971: 273-4; Gortina II, 111.

420

type only appear in the latest Hellenistic levels at other Cretan sites, including Knossos and Mochlos, and may be a form that arose around the time of the island‟s conquest.158 Similar difficulties arise when trying to interpret the state of amphora production in Proto-Roman Ierapetra. There is no documented Roman amphora production at the site and it is unknown when the Hellenistic tradition ceases. Some evidence suggests that manufacture of these vessels did continue after 67 B.C.E. One ECCW vessel, an example of the East Crete type 1 shape recovered from a context of the second half of the first century B.C.E. (50), has a convex neck characteristic of later Cretan 4 amphorae. This could represent a transitional piece that looks ahead to Roman traditions. A previously unidentified ECCW amphora type, represented by three rim sherds (58-60), also could be a form which developed late in the manufacturing tradition of this ware.159 Two of these pieces are currently interpreted as being residual in Early Roman contexts, while the third derived from a Late Antique fill. A similar vessel, also considered to be a Late Hellenistic product, is documented at Berenice from an Early Roman level.160 While local traditions of pottery production are difficult to document at Ierapetra during the Proto-Roman period, a small number of imports do begin to appear that indicate new economic connections were arising. This includes finds of Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) in ProtoRoman contexts. Specifically, the class of large plates, Atlante II forms 3 and 4, and a type of cup, Atlante II form 22, are identified in most of these deposits. The presence of these ESA vessels may serve as a chronological marker to help date the associated contexts to the period after the conquest of Crete, but before the rise of Augustus due to a lack of other Roman

158

Knossos: UM II, 122 no. H32.8, 124 no. H33.17, 125 nos. H35.13-14. Mochlos: Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000b: 72, personal communication. 159 An example of this type also appears at Itanos (Xanthopoulou, personal communication). 160 Riley 1979: 143 no. D92.

421

material.161 A piece of Pergamene Sigillata, recovered from one of the Proto-Roman contexts in the Yiomelaki plot, also may be contemporary with these ESA finds. ESA did not disseminate widely to the countryside around Ierapetra at this time, since only a small number of finds were documented by the Gournia Survey.162 One ESA vessel was identified at Kato Mertia. Knossos provides an early attestation of the ware on Crete in a pit of mixed material dated to the late second/early first century B.C.E,163 but finds begin appearing in quantity at that site only around the mid-first century B.C.E.164 The peak of ESA importation at Knossos appears to be the late first century B.C.E. to the early first century C.E.165 Popular early forms at Knossos are Atlante II form 3 and 4 plates, analogous to Ierapetra. ESA also appears sporadically at Gortyn in late second B.C.E. contexts, although an expansion in imports can be documented beginning around the mid-first century B.C.E.166 Of additional interest is finds of ESA at Berenice, which increase in quantity in the mid-first century B.C.E. in a nearly identical fashion to Crete.167 Cypriot Sigillata, with a presumed provenance on Cyprus, also becomes common at Knossos at this time, based on material recovered from the Unexplored Mansion.168 J. Lund considers the large quantity of Cypriot Sigillata at that site an indication that Crete was the largest consumer of the ware outside of Cyprus in the second half of the first century B.C.E.169 Evidence from Ierapetra and Gortyn, where finds of Cypriot Sigillata are reduced compared to

161

Proto-Roman contexts with finds of ESA appear in the Assariotaki and Yiomelaki plots. Assariotaki plot: Trench 1, layer 1. Yiomelaki plot: Trench 2, layer 4; Trench 9, layer 2; Trench 13, layer 2; Trench 20, layer 3; Trench 21, layer 2; Trench 23, layer 2; Martyr 13/7, layer 2; Martyr 13/11, layer 3; Martyr 23/24, layer 3. 162 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming; Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 163 UM II, 151 (Pit 65). 164 UM II, 123 no. H33.1; Hayes 1971: 263-4 nos. 1-4. 165 UM II, 151. 166 Gortina II, 127; Gortina V.3, 28. 167 Kenrick 1985: 223. 168 UM II, 152. 169 Lund 1997: 204.

422

Knossos, may suggest that the dissemination of the ware was unequal across Crete.170 The countryside around Ierapetra, with the exception of one piece at Kato Mertia, produces no finds of Cypriot Sigillata. Knossos may have developed some unique trade relation at this time, although the presence of even a small number at Ierapetra is a further indication of a changing economic climate. Pottery evidence can only tell us so much about Proto-Roman Ierapetra, however. Certain topics, such as alterations to the political landscape, or changes in the city‟s topography, remain difficult to address. The building present in the Yiomelaki plot appears to have suffered damage at the time of the Roman attack and other structures may have shared this same fate. How soon rebuilding commenced after 67 B.C.E., and whether it also coincided with an expansion or contraction of the polis, is unknown. We must also consider that it is difficult to document Ierapetra‟s relationship with its chora, and with other regions on Crete, at this time. Settlement patterns in the Isthmus of Ierapetra and nearby regions change after 67 B.C.E., perhaps connected with a reorganization of the landscape under Roman rule. The Isthmus of Ierapetra boasts more than double the number of Early Roman sites compared to the Late Hellenistic period, according to the Gournia Survey, while a similar increase in settlement was documented by the Kavousi Survey in the Kampos Plain to the northeast.171 Both regions formed part of Ierapetra‟s chora in the Late Hellenistic period and may still have been under the city‟s influence at this time. A post-67 B.C.E. increase in settlement also occurs in the Akrotiri peninsula and the Lasithi Plain.172 This is not a standard pattern across the island, however, since the Mesara and Sphakia surveys documented consistent

170

Ierapetra produced a single sherd of Cypriot Sigillata (214), while Gortyn has documented only a small number of pieces (Gortina V.3, 39). 171 Gournia Survey: Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. Kavousi: Haggis 2005: 86-7. 172 Akrotiri: Raab 2001: 140. Lasithi: Watrous 1982: 24.

423

settlement numbers between the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, while the Galatas and Vrokastro surveys saw a reduction in the number of sites in the latter period.173 One difficulty with survey archaeology, however, is that it lacks sufficient resolution to determine exactly when the shift in settlement pattern occurred between the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. With respect to Ierapetra, the evident increase in rural site numbers documented by the first century C.E. suggests this process might have begun in the previous century, although we cannot determine whether it happened before or after 27 B.C.E. Excavations at Kato Mertia in the Isthmus may shed some light on this issue. While the site did produce examples of Late Hellenistic Rhodian and Knidian amphorae, the bulk of the material, including ECCW beveled rim plates and an ECCW amphora, may date to some point around the mid-first century B.C.E. Perhaps settlement at the site intensified at that time. The presence of numerous Hellenistic pithoi sherds at Kato Mertia would seem to be indicative of some kind of agricultural production and storage possibly related to an increasing emphasis on creating surpluses. While at least part of Ierapetra‟s chora may have seen an expansion in settlement at this point, there are few indicators available which inform us about Ierapetra‟s potential economic relationships with other regions of Crete. Presumably, the activity of pastoralism did not cease after the Roman conquest and shepherds still moved their flocks across the landscape. This would involve crossing between the chorae of different poleis. Perhaps the agreements in place in the Late Hellenistic period were maintained, enabling goods and services to be exchanged across polis borders. Public treaties on Crete are rarely documented after the Late Hellenistic period. One possibility is that the provincial government established at Gortyn by the Romans

173

Mesara: Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004: 351. Sphakia: Nixon et al. 1989: 207-8; 1990: 217. Galatas: Watrous, personal communication. Vrokastro: Hayden 2004a: 200-1.

424

became the main source of administrative dealings, such as negotiating agreements between different poleis. In this scenario, an agreement between Ierapetra and Lyttos, for instance, would have been preserved in some, perhaps perishable, format at Gortyn, rather than published in an inscription at one or both sites.

Ierapetra and Crete’s Developing Trade Relations The second half of the first century B.C.E. was a period of transition across the Mediterranean. Even before Octavian ascended to supreme power in 27 B.C.E., the Mediterranean had been transformed from a disconnected sea controlled by independent kingdoms into a Roman lake. Writing in 56 B.C.E., Cicero (de Cons. Prov. 12.31) refers to the Mediterranean as “unum aliquem portum tutum et clausum” (to a degree one harbor, protected and enclosed). Developments in the Cretan economy, including the economic life of Ierapetra, coincide with this transition and suggest that Crete became a participant in the broader Mediterranean economy during this period. Evidence presented above suggests that there was some degree of surplus production on Crete in the Late Hellenistic period and that these surpluses may have been intended for export. For cities on Crete to have exported goods in the Proto-Roman period, there has to be some indication that surpluses were still being produced. Following the conquest by Metellus, Crete is documented as a source of supplies for Roman military forces.174 The ability to supply Roman armies with grain and other commodities demonstrates that Crete was capable of production beyond subsistence. In addition, it suggests that much of the initial impetus for Cretan involvement in the economic sphere of Rome came within the context of a command economy.

174

Caes. B Gall. 2.7; B Alex. 1.1; B Civ. 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.5.1.

425

Evidence of Italian traders becoming more active in the Aegean at this time suggests that some degree of free market exchange was also being practiced.175 Such traders are attested in two inscriptions at Gortyn (IC 4.290-291), dated by M. Guarducci to the period shortly after 67 B.C.E. Based on these texts, she argues that the conquest of Crete was the stimulus for Italian economic interest in the island.176 J. Hatzfeld, who prefers a date in the mid-first century C.E. for these inscriptions, offers the alternative interpretation that ships avoided Crete as an east-west transshipment point during the mid-first century B.C.E.177 Italian interest in Delos, which had arisen in the second century B.C.E., made that island the preferential exchange hub in his opinion.178 Additional prosopographic evidence, however, indicates that several Roman gentes recognized as being economically active in the eastern Mediterranean at this time are attested on Crete.179 Baldwin Bowsky suggests that Crete represents an example of the phenomenon where traders followed Roman senators who were on official business in the East.180 Crete‟s economic relationships within the Roman Mediterranean in the Proto-Roman period, thus, may have developed both in the context of a command economy and as market exchange. Ceramic evidence from Ierapetra and other sites on Crete can help clarify this situation. Imported pottery datable to this period is documented at numerous sites on Crete. This includes finds of ESA and Cypriot Sigillata from the regions of Antioch and Cyprus respectively, and the appearance of several western wares. Dressel 1 amphorae from Italy, for which wine is the presumed content, appear on Crete by the mid-first century B.C.E., with examples attested at

175

Sites where such inscriptions are found include Apamea (CIL 3.365), Argos (CIL 1.746=CIL 3.531), and Ephesus (CIL 1.3443=CIL 3.14195). Delos produces the largest number of these inscriptions (CIL 1.714=CIL 3.7237=CIL 3.13690; CIL 1.738=CIL 3.7240=CIL 3.14203=AE 1905.36; CIL 1.830=AE 1908.176; CIL 1.831). 176 Guarducci 1950. 177 Hatzfeld 1917: 157-60. 178 Hatzfeld 1917: 32. 179 Baldwin Bowsky 1999: 330. She employs the gentes identified in the dissertation work of N.K. Rauh (1986) as the basis for this interpretation. 180 Baldwin Bowsky 2001: 37.

426

Knossos and Gortyn.181 The lone example of this amphora type identified at Ierapetra also dates to the second half of the first century B.C.E. Other western wares appearing at this time include finds of Italian thin-walled wares, and a Campana C black-glaze dish from Sicily at Ierapetra.182 While the latter vessel was residual in a Late Antique context, it presumably arrived at Ierapetra after 67 B.C.E., when Italian traders became active on Crete.183 What were the mechanisms that brought these products, including wine and fine tablewares, to Crete? According to L. Casson, the island may have become a participant in exchange networks between the eastern and western Mediterranean during the first century B.C.E.184 Specifically, he argues that grain shipped from eastern provinces, including the Levant, could bypass Rhodes and Delos and take a more direct route to Italy along the south coast of Crete. The increased presence of ESA, and to a lesser extent Cypriot Sigillata, at Cretan sites after 67 B.C.E. could confirm this suggestion. ESA, for instance, was produced at or around the city of Antioch in Syria, a region likely visited by the grain ships in question, and may have served as a piggy-back commodity on these vessels. Grain ships and other vessels carrying cargos destined for Italy may have stopped at Cretan ports during the period between 67 and 27 B.C.E. One important question, though, is whether ports like Ierapetra were functioning only as stopover harbors, or were engaging in some form of transshipment. To address this question, we must consider potential Cretan exports from this period that would be visible to archaeologists. Wine, olive oil, and other products packaged in amphorae are our best hope of documenting evidence for Proto-Roman exchange of Cretan 181

Knossos: Hayes 1971: 269 no. 51; Catling et al. 1981: 92-4 no. V307. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 267-8 no. 6. Hayes 1971: 264 nos. 5-7. These pieces of Thin-walled ware derive from a possible pre-Augustan context identified in well KW/51/13. 183 Finds of Italian black-glaze at Delos become common after 150 B.C.E. and Morel (1981: 486-8) suggests this could be related to the presence of Italian traders at the site. He does note further, however, that traders are attested at other sites without a corresponding rise in Italian ceramic finds. 184 Casson 1984: 80. 182

427

goods. One difficulty with studying amphora production on Crete, however, is that there is no indication when the Hellenistic manufacturing tradition ends and the Roman tradition begins. Two amphora types often referred to as the Cretan 2 (=ARC2) and Cretan 3 (=ARC3) are the two oldest Roman forms manufactured on Crete, datable from at least the late first century B.C.E.185 The Cretan 2 derives from the Koan amphora tradition, which was imitated by several manufacturing sites on Hellenistic Crete, including Ierapetra.186 Material from Kommos may show the development of the Roman type out of this Hellenistic tradition.187 Finkielsztejn believes that imitation Koan vessels began to be produced on Crete during the first century B.C.E. and may have been related to Roman influence in the eastern Mediterranean.188 Rome‟s presence helped to stabilize economic relations in the east and the adoption of Koan forms could suggest Crete was becoming more involved in Aegean trade patterns. Evidence showing that Crete was participating in east-west trade during the Proto-Roman period could also suggest there was no break in the tradition of manufacturing amphorae in a Koan tradition on the island. The development of the Cretan 3 type, presumably at or around Knossos where it is most common, may have come later in the first century B.C.E. when Cretan producers were seeking additional packaging for surplus goods meant for export.189 If Crete did become involved in East-West transshipment in the Proto-Roman period, is it possible to document Cretan exports outside of the island at this time? The earliest evidence for Cretan amphorae at Berenice dates to the end of the first century B.C.E. or beginning of the first 185

cf. Gortina V.3, 273-5 nos. 11-12, 372. In the Gortyn typology, Cretan 2 vessels are known as the ARC2 form and Cretan 3 vessels as the ARC3. 186 Imitations of Koan vessels were produced at Knossos (Eiring 2001: 129), Ierapetra (East Crete type 3 Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004: 418; Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004: 329), and perhaps Kommos (Kommos IV, 273 no. 620, 318-9). 187 Kommos IV, 318-9. 188 Finkielsztejn 2002: 138. 189 Hayes (1983: 140, 141-3 type 1=ARC3) notes these are among the most common local amphorae attested at Knossos. This type is rare at Gortyn (Gortina V.3, 274) and almost non-existent at Ierapetra with the exception of one example.

428

century C.E., indicating shipments of wine and other products to that region may have only commenced after Crete and Cyrenaica became a joint province.190 Cretan lamps are also attested at Berenice beginning in the late first century B.C.E.191 The situation is harder to gauge in the western Mediterranean. In Italy, for instance, the majority of wine from the eastern Mediterranean appears to have come from Kos and Rhodes based on the predominance of amphorae from those regions. This is the pattern identified by A. Hesnard at the Longarina in Ostia, although she also notes that imitations of Koan and Rhodian amphora forms can cause difficulties in identifying provenance.192 She includes no Cretan vessels in her account of amphorae from an Augustan (late first century B.C.E./early first century C.E.) deposit, although one of her pieces may be an example of a Cretan 4 (=ARC4) wine amphora.193 It is the Augustan period during which the earliest confirmed Cretan imports to Italy are identified. Evidence from Pompeii, however, might suggest these products began arriving earlier, perhaps even before 27 B.C.E. J. Timby hints at this idea when noting that “the earliest examples [of Cretan amphorae] at Benghazi are recorded from deposits dating to the Augustan period, and there would similarly appear to be examples of the same fabric in the Augustan levels and possibly earlier from Pompeii”.194 She documents no specific finds to substantiate this claim, although such evidence may be available from the House of Amarantus (1.9.11-12). Among the pre-79 C.E. deposits excavated by M. Fulford and A. Wallace-Hadrill in this house, one large context datable to the second and first century B.C.E. includes a Cretan amphora as a recorded find.195 The authors provide no specific identification of this vessel, nor is it included in the 190

Riley 1979: 181. Bailey 1985: 122-3, 193. 192 Hesnard 1980: 145. In another study, Hesnard (1986) outlines some of the issues involved with identifying imitation Koan and Rhodian amphorae. 193 Hesnard 1980: pl.2.2. 194 Timby 2004: 388. 195 Fulford and Wallace-Hadrill 75-7, 127 table 1. The deposit in question is Group C (context groups 10-14). 191

429

pottery catalogue. Thus, one cannot distinguish the type of amphora in question, or whether it does date prior to 27 B.C.E., but the nature of the deposit makes this a possibility. Published, quantified ceramic assemblages from Pompeii are rare, unfortunately, making it difficult to clarify the picture possibly suggested by the House of Amarantus find. One quantified study of ceramic material from the House of the Vestals (6.1.7) did not produce evidence of Cretan amphorae until the second half of the first century C.E.196 If finds do appear at Pompeii datable to the Proto-Roman period, this would indicate that Crete had begun shipping products such as wine to the West at this time. Whether the city of Ierapetra participated in these networks is difficult to assess, but imports attested there from both the Levant and Italy suggest the city functioned as a transshipment port in the Proto-Roman period.

EARLY ROMAN (27 B.C.E. – 295 C.E) It is during the Early Roman period when we possess the highest quantity and quality of evidence concerning the economic life of Roman Crete. As a result, we can develop a thorough understanding of the state of Ierapetra, the city‟s role in the Cretan economy, and Crete‟s role in the Early Roman economy. One point of additional interest involves attempting to determine to what extent economic developments during this period evolved out of earlier connections, or arose due to new opportunities brought about the pax Romana. According to M. Rostovtzeff, when we consider the characteristics of both the Hellenistic and Roman economies, “we may notice a similar pattern (process) in the organization of various branches of economic life. In this no revolutionary changes were made, but the recasting and rearrangement of methods of the past led to improvements”.197 With respect to Ierapetra and its

196 197

De Sena and Ikäheimo 2003: 307 table 3. Rostovtzeff 1941: 1302.

430

chora, certain elements of the city‟s economic infrastructure, including overland transport across the Isthmus, and small ports along the north and south coast, remained consistent, although they do expand under Roman rule. Thus, much of the foundation for the city‟s ability to engage in large-scale transshipment trade in the Early Roman period is owed to developments from previous centuries. In this sense, Ierapetra‟s economic development can be seen as part of “… the social and economic heritage that the Hellenistic world transmitted to the Roman Empire”.198 This may be an oversimplification, however, and may not give proper credit to the significant economic impact that Roman rule had on regions of the eastern Mediterranean in the Early Roman period. An assessment of evidence from Ierapetra should help shed light on this issue.

Ierapetra in the Early Roman Period Changes to Ierapetra‟s ceramic record become more and more apparent during the last quarter of the first century B.C.E. As noted above, Eastern Sigillata A and some western wares had begun appearing by the middle of the century, but now the Hellenistic character of the pottery assemblages begins to diminish. Black-glaze wares disappear, while several types of sigillata wares become predominant. Other aspects of the ceramic record, particularly imports, also reflect the changing situation at Ierapetra. The city appears to have developed a role as a transshipment port between the eastern and western Mediterranean in the Proto-Roman period, and evidence indicates this continued in Early Roman times. One method for documenting Ierapetra‟s participation in exchange networks is an analysis of imported Early Roman finewares at Ierapetra, along with comparisons of the quantities of these wares with assemblages at Gortyn and Knossos. Based on individual sherd counts, Eastern Sigillata A is the most common Early Roman fineware at 198

Rostovtzeff 1941: 1301.

431

Ierapetra (Fig. 6.3). Eastern Sigillata B and Çandarli ware also occur with relative frequency, while other imported finewares, including Italian Sigillata, are less common. This pattern contrasts with Gortyn (Fig. 6.4) and Knossos (Fig. 6.5). At both, Eastern Sigillata B is most common.199 Also of interest is the low proportion of Italian Sigillata attested at Ierapetra compared to the other two sites. Quantities of Cypriot Sigillata, Pontic Sigillata, and Çandarli ware seem similar across the island. Amphora evidence shows similar patterns. At Ierapetra, Early Roman amphora finds are dominated by Cretan vessels, which account for 83% of the finds by sherd count. This implies that the city‟s supply of commodities such as wine and olive oil came mainly from local sources. The majority of the imported vessels comprise wine containers from various centers in the eastern Mediterranean. Western amphorae, including products from Africa, Italy, and Spain, represent only 3% of the total imports from the site. Among these finds are the only Early Roman vessels attested at Ierapetra for which fish sauce is considered to be one of the primary contents. This includes an Africana 2 amphora, identified at the site of Kato Mertia, and two Spanish forms, the Beltrán 1/Dressel 7-11 and Beltán 2A. On Crete, overall, garum amphorae are not well attested. J. Hayes calculated that only 1.5% of amphora finds at the Villa Dionysos at Knossos consisted of Spanish garum amphorae, for instance.200 Providing information about the proportion of African garum amphorae is more difficult, however, since many of these vessels also functioned as olive oil containers. The limited number of finds of garum amphorae at sites across Crete raises the question of how this commodity was obtained by Ierapetra and other sites, although one possibility is that garum was not a common component of the island‟s diet. Assuming this is not the case, one

199 200

Gortyn: Gortina II, 125, 127-8, 30; Gortina V.3, 28, 32, 34, 37, 39. Knossos: UM II, 150, 152-3, 156, 158-9. Hayes 1983: 160 Table 13.

432

option is that garum arrived at Cretan sites as a non-traditional content in certain types of containers. Potential evidence for this scenario derives from a mid-second century C.E. shipwreck, known as the Grado wreck, which sunk in the northeastern Adriatic near the site of Aquileia.201 Amphorae recorded as part of the cargo included two North African olive oil containers, the Africana 1 and Tripolitania 1, an Aegean wine container, the Knossos 19, and a fish sauce container referred to as the Grado 1 type, perhaps produced in the northern Adriatic.202 At the time the ship was undertaking its voyage, however, the Africana 1, Tripolitania 1, and Knossos 19 were being employed as packaging containers for two different types of fish sauce, with the Africana 1 and Knossos 19 holding one variety, and the Tripolitania I the other. J.T. Peña has interpreted this as “unequivocal evidence” that these amphorae were being reused.203 According to Peña, one or more facilities dedicated to the packaging of fish products may have collected used examples of several different types of containers and then systematically reused them for the packaging of their products. Africana 1 and Knossos 19 amphorae are attested at both Gortyn and Knossos, and perhaps some of these containers had come to these sites carrying the same type of fish sauce documented on the Grado wreck.204 Of these two types, only the Africana 1 is documented at Ierapetra. A second option to consider is that garum arrived on the island in some type of nonceramic container. Finally, there may have been some degree of local production of this commodity on the island. Pompeii has produced a Cretan amphora with a titulus pictus (CIL 4.5668) that reads Ga(ri) fl(os) gem(inus).205 Assuming this was the primary content of this

201

Parker 1992: 197 no. 464. Auriemma 2000. 203 Peña 2007: 72-3. 204 Gortina V.3, 280 no. 19 (Africana 1), 293 no. 45 (Knossos 19); Hayes 1983: 149 type 19 (Knossos 19), 153 type 32 (Africana 1). 205 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 143 no. P70. 202

433

vessel, and it was packaged on Crete, this text suggests production of garum occurred on the island. No archaeological evidence of this industry has been documented, although fish tanks are attested at several sites, including Pherma, 10km east of Ierapetra.206 Collection of salt, a necessary component of garum production, also appears to have occurred at Ierapetra based on an inscription published by K. Davaras (SEG 32.869).207 Other finds of western amphorae at Ierapetra include wine vessels from Italy, specifically the Dressel 2-4. These amphorae were also the most common Early Roman imports documented by the Gournia Survey, which also recorded finds of African amphorae and a few Italian Forlimpopuli wine vessels.208 At Gortyn and Knossos, western amphorae account for 18% and 13% of imported amphorae respectively.209 This is a significantly higher percentage than attested at Ierapetra, implying stronger western connections at these two sites. One possibility is that, by the time ships originating from western ports reached Ierapetra, an eastern port and one of the final destinations on Crete for any ship traveling from the West, they had already offloaded their wares, which were distributed at sites in the western and central parts of the island. A comparison with the ceramic record of Berenice in Cyrenaica also introduces notable distinctions. With respect to the fineware assemblages, Italian sigillata is dominant at Berenice, while several classes of eastern finewares, including Eastern Sigillata B, appear in small quantities (Fig. 6.6).210 Quantification of amphorae at Berenice shows similar results. In the first century C.E., 13.5% of the total amphorae found at the site, including wine, olive oil, and garum containers, were of western provenance, a much higher percentage than any of the documented

206

Leatham and Hood 1957-1958; Davaras 1974, 1975. Davaras 1980: 1-8. 208 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming. 209 Gortina V.3, 279-91 nos. 18-41; Hayes 1983: 160 table 13. 210 Kenrick 1985: 514-5. 207

434

assemblages on Crete.211 Over the next few centuries the source for these western imports changes, but Berenice and other sites in Cyrenaica, overall, had higher proportions of ceramics coming from the West.212 Ostensibly, all of this data suggests that Ierapetra did not have strong connections with the western Mediterranean and was much more eastern in its focus. This was not the case, however, and evidence presented below will document the city‟s role in Early Roman exchange networks across the whole of the Mediterranean. Evidence of imported pottery at Ierapetra indicates that foreign ships passed through the city‟s harbor on a regular basis on their way to other destinations. For instance, Eastern Sigillata A and B, found at Ierapetra in high quantities, appear at Pompeii and other sites in Italy. Of additional interest are MR4 amphorae from Cilicia and Cyprus, characterized by pinched handles. Several examples were identified at Ierapetra and their distribution in Italy is primarily at Pompeii and Ostia.213 Other ceramics appear from eastern regions, including a small common ware pot, perhaps originating from the site of Anemurium in Cilicia.214 The one oddity may be a lack of Egyptian pottery at Ierapetra, although this fits a common pattern across the Mediterranean in the Early Roman period. At Rome and Ostia, for instance, Rizzo observes that from the first to fifth century C.E., Egyptian amphorae never account for more than one percent of the amphora assemblage at either site.215 The volume of this transshipment traffic may have increased greatly compared to Late Hellenistic and Proto-Roman levels considering the harbor of Ierapetra underwent two phases of construction in the first and second century C.E.216 Assessment of the types of imports attested at 211

Riley 1979: 114, 412-3. Riley 1979: 415. 213 Panella 1986: 622; Auriemma and Quiri 2004: 49. 214 This pot is no. 338 in the pottery catalogue. Examples on Crete are also attested at Gortyn (Gortina II, 322 no. 249; Gortina V.3, 491 type B II 1.1/11). For an example from Anemurium see Williams 1989: 100 no. 585. 215 Rizzo 2007: 663 table 1. 216 Lehmann-Hartleben 1923: 201. 212

435

Ierapetra suggests one of the main functions of the site was the transshipment of products from the eastern Mediterranean to the provinces in the western Roman world. In particular, ships involved in the transport of grain from Egypt to Rome may have regularly passed through Ierapetra‟s harbor. The evidence for this will be discussed in detail in a later section. The expansion of Ierapetra‟s role as a port during this period, to a large extent, may be owed to economic developments brought about Roman demands for taxes and staple goods. In 1980, Keith Hopkins introduced a model of the Roman economy in which the obligation of money taxes and money rent, and their disbursement away from their source, stimulated and supported the gradual development of trade networks.217 Although other factors, such as taxes in kind, influenced trade networks, Hopkins argues that increase in money taxes and money rent following Roman conquest provided the most substantial impact. He later refined this model to incorporate money taxes and money rent into a larger framework of systems which helped to stimulate economic growth and trade networks in the Roman Empire.218 While scholars have accepted Hopkins‟ conclusions with varying degrees of skepticism, it does appear that much economic development in the Early Roman period originated within the context of this command economy structure. Among the main points of contention in the “taxes and trade” model is the extent to which money taxes replaced taxes in kind in the Early Roman Empire. When we consider the province of Asia Minor, for instance, a common view is that it paid most of its taxes in cash.219 Paul Erdkamp argues that this view is misleading, however, and notes that there is evidence for

217

Hopkins 1980. Hopkins 1995-1996. 219 For example, see Katsari 2011 218

436

many parts of Asia Minor, particularly inland regions, paying taxes in kind.220 These regions would transport these taxes to port sites from which they would be exported to Italy. If we consider what role a city like Ierapetra may have played in this taxation network, its ability to facilitate the transshipment of these taxes to the West as a major port would have aided in promoting economic growth. Many of these ships passing through Ierapetra‟s harbor would have taken on supplemental cargos of Cretan goods, and the need for numerous other types of financial transactions, whether related to money lending, prostitution, food and lodging, or ship building and repair, would have increased. Ierapetra‟s function as a transshipment port would have brought about numerous opportunities for the export of local products. In addition, merchant ships based at the site could have also carried goods to locations across the Mediterranean. Ships anchored at Ierapetra would have replaced any offloaded cargo with Cretan products. This served not only an economic function, but a practical one as well. S. McGrail notes that ancient ships, like modern ones, would have considered stowage factors a primary concern for a safe voyage and would have tried to maintain an optimal amount of cargo on board a ship.221 Amphora-borne commodities from Crete must have been considered an ideal replacement since they were exported in such abundance during this period. With respect to the grain trade, and grain ships passing through the harbor of Ierapetra, Cretan goods did not necessarily have to be loaded onto ships dedicated to the annona. There is growing evidence for large-scale private enterprise engaged in the Roman grain trade, and these ships may have been the primary means of transporting Cretan goods to the western Mediterranean.222

220

Erdkamp 2005: 219-20. McGrail 1989: 355-6. 222 cf. Casson 1980: 25-6; Camodeca 1999. 221

437

We next need to ask what types of exports may have been shipped from Ierapetra. While Crete as a whole produced countless products which may have been exported from sites like Ierapetra (a full discussion of these products can be found below), wine is often granted preeminent consideration in modern scholarship. Textual evidence for amphora-borne commodities from Crete, whether passages in literary sources or tituli picti preserved on amphorae, almost exclusively relate to wine.223 W.V. Harris speculates that Crete may have also been a net exporter of olive oil, although he acknowledges that there is no evidence to support this claim.224 An assessment of olive oil production on Crete in antiquity by D. Hadzi-Vallianou seems to suggest that the majority of evidence for olive cultivation dates from Minoan to Hellenistic times.225 The most significant evidence for Roman production now derives from the countryside around Ierapetra, based on the results of the Gournia Survey. Six sites have produced evidence of trapeta and olive mills of sizes suggestive of production beyond the needs of local subsistence.226 Combined with evidence for amphora production in the Isthmus, and references from Venetian and Ottoman period travelers to oleoculture in this region, Ierapetra appears to have been an olive oil export center. With respect to other, perishable commodities that may have been exported from Ierapetra, Vogeikoff-Brogan speculates that pastoralism continued to form part of the city‟s economic backbone under Roman rule.227 Goods produced in association with a pastoralist economy could include textiles and worked bone implements. The Gournia Survey also identified some evidence for beekeeping at Roman sites in the Isthmus, although the scale of this

223

For a collection of these references, see Marangou-Lerat 1995: 15-29. Harris 1999: 357. E. Malamut (1988: 389 n.48-49) also notes the complete lack of evidence for olive oil exports from Crete during any period of its Roman history. 225 Hadzi-Vallianou 2004. See Sanders 1982: 32 for some evidence to the contrary. 226 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 227 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 224

438

industry may have only been geared at subsistence.228 The collection of salt, mentioned above, is also of interest. In addition, Ierapetra‟s continued control over areas such as Chryssi Island, a location of purple dye production in the Bronze Age and Hellenistic periods, could suggest this commodity was also produced in or around the city, possibly for export. We must also consider what role money taxes or taxes in kind played in the export of products from Ierapetra. Very little evidence is available concerning any form of taxes levied on Crete and its cities under Roman rule and we have no way of assessing what types of taxes Ierapetra may have paid. One possibility is that at least part of the island‟s payment of taxes was in the form of taxes in kind. Some evidence from the port city of Chersonesos in north-central Crete is relevant in this context. In 1995, during a rescue excavation at Chersonesos, an archive of 130 ostraca (90 of which were legible) was recovered.229 These texts likely date between the second half of the second century C.E. to the first half of the third century C.E., and may record the export of liquid commodities, either wine or oil, from the city.230 The ostraca divide into two groups. One type records the date, followed by a list of names with a number and an abbreviated measure, κε, interpreted as either κε(ηρεηής) or κε(ηρεηαί). The second type records the date, then one or two names associated with amounts denoted as X or ρ, with the former suggestive of denarii and the latter a smaller denomination. Dates tend to fall in one of three time spans: March to April (when wine barrels are reopened); June; November to December (olive harvest). N. Litinas suggests two interpretations for this archive. First, it represents goods brought to Crete from abroad for sale. Second, it records local products being exported from Crete. If the latter interpretation

228

Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. Litinas 1999, 2008. 230 A terminus post quem is provided by the name Βῆρος on one of the texts, suggesting a date after 160-169 C.E. (Lucius Verus) or 234-238 C.E. (Maximius and Maximus). cf. Litinas 2008: 20. 229

439

holds, then the reason for export would either be market exchange or the payment of taxes in kind. The possibility that the commodities described in these texts were intended for export is intriguing in light of the abundant documentation for Cretan amphorae found abroad. Litinas, when offering this interpretation, might not appreciate fully the implications of the available evidence, however. Chersonesos was the port of Lyttos, an inland center and one of the larger cities on Crete. Lyttos is the city most often mentioned on tituli picti identified on Cretan amphorae at Pompeii.231 No amphora production has ever been documented in or around Lyttos, although three amphora kiln sites are known from Chersonesos.232 Wine produced in the region of Lyttos may have been transported to Chersonesos in containers other than amphorae and packaged for export at the harbor. A late fourth century C.E. ostraca archive from Carthage, not cited by Litinas, is informative in this context.233 This archive also divides into two groups, with one set of texts recording shipments of containers carrying oil brought to Carthage by ship, while the second inventories weighed and unweighed oil stored in two buildings. According to J.T. Peña, the majority of the oil recorded in these ostraca, which appears to be consigned as taxes destined for Italy, was transported to Carthage in oil skins and packaged in amphorae during weighing for export.234 He notes that similar evidence of packaging oil in amphorae at harbor facilities is documented in Baetica and Tunisia. All documented amphora production on Crete is attested near the coast, with no kiln sites known from inland regions. The Chersonesos archive could document the same set of operations and be a record of amounts and payments for wine brought 231

Tchernia (1986: 241) records the number of instances at 31 while Marangou-Lerat (1995: 131-3) instead records 52. 232 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 44-7. 233 Peña 1998b. 234 Peña 1998b: 212.

440

from Lyttos and packaged in amphorae for export. The recording of specific quantities in the ostraca could also relate to function of the commodities in question as tax payments. Perhaps a similar set of mechanisms was in place at Ierapetra. The primary impediment to this hypothesis, however, is the lack of evidence for amphora production in the city. Hellenistic production is attested based on pottery types common in the region, but there are no such indications for the presence of Roman kilns. Few areas around Ierapetra are located far away from the coast, perhaps negating some of the need for transporting products in non-ceramic containers to a port for packaging. The evidence for amphora production in the Isthmus, documented by the Gournia survey, could have served as a replacement for urban kilns sites, since the coast was only a few kilometers in distance. At the very least, one reason that ships docked at Ierapetra may have been to take on cargoes of Cretan products that were consigned for the payment of taxes in kind. The ability for Ierapetra to export large quantities of goods derived from a thriving chora, the boundaries of which were described above in Chapter 4. In the Isthmus of Ierapetra, a large number of rural sites were established in the Early Roman period, of which 11 were villagesized.235 Often spaced less than 500m apart, the locations of the settlements trace two distinct paths. One leads south from Pacheia Ammos to the site of Vasiliki, and the other leads southwest from the port of Tholos to the southern part of the Isthmus, and presumably Ierapetra. The latter route relied on a series of village-sized settlements spaced at regular intervals in the Kampos Plain, northeast of the Isthmus, to accommodate traffic. In the central part of the Isthmus is a cluster of four sites which may have served as waypoints for any cart and foot traffic moving through the Isthmus. A survey around Ierapetra itself, conducted by Kostas Chalikias, did not

235

Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming.

441

document any significant evidence of Early Roman sites, but he notes that transformations to the landscape in this area have made the identification of any ancient settlements difficult.236 Analogous to the settlement pattern documented in the Late Hellenistic period, sites are situated in a manner that facilitates the transshipment of goods overland between the north and south coasts. Thus, Ierapetra continued to modify its infrastructure to take advantage of the natural trade corridor provided by the Isthmus (Fig. 6.7). The increased number of sites also means that agriculture likely intensified in this region. Goods moving south were likely destined for Ierapetra, while goods moving north could have reached one of several small ports under the city‟s control. D. Haggis argues that several such sites along the north coast, including a warehouse establishment at Tholos, a villa at Pacheia Ammos, and the site of Agriomandra, where there is an underwater deposit of amphorae, functioned as small ports under Ierapetra‟s hegemony.237 With respect to Tholos in particular, Haggis suggests that the port “… functioned as a contingency harbor and temporary storage facility for the annona along the AlexandriaRome corn route”.238 The cargo offloaded at Tholos would be transported overland through the Isthmus to Ierapetra and placed on ships in Ierapetra. John Leonard argues that smaller ports were economically significant during the Roman period, functioning as stopovers for cabotage trade, and facilitating the export and import of goods into a region.239 Haggis does suggest some alternative interpretations for the ports associated with Ierapetra, including their use as transshipment ports for goods deriving from North Africa that would be transported overland from Ierapetra.240 They also could have facilitated movement of non-annona goods from the East being shipped to the West. The option 236

Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. Haggis 1996: 202-5. For the suggestion that the structure at Pacheia Ammos is a villa see Kelly 2006. 238 Haggis 1996: 205. 239 Leonard 2005: 39, 952. 240 Haggis 1996: 204-5. 237

442

of a port connected to the annona was favored because it adheres to the sentiment that only certain sailing routes were plausible for ancient ships. For instance, L. Casson uses the voyage of Paul described in Acts to illustrate that prevailing winds and currents hindered ships from effectively sailing along the northern coast of Crete.241 Evidence is beginning to mount arguing for a more robust degree of sailing along Crete‟s north coast, however. All complete or nearly complete Egyptian amphorae recovered from shipwreck contexts along Crete‟s shores come from waters along the north coast,242 and tituli picti at western sites, including Pompeii, show that wine from Lyttos and Aptera, both shipped from northern ports, were very common.243 Philostratus (V A 4.34) also mentions that Apollonius of Tyana sailed from Kydonia to Knossos when visiting the island. In addition, evidence of deep-sea wrecks in the Skerki Bank near Sicily, including one with Cretan amphorae,244 suggests that a revision of our perception of ancient sea travel is in order. If there was a healthy level of ship traffic along the northeast coast of Crete, this would have benefited the economic position of Ierapetra. Ierapetra was not the only city on Crete to prosper under Roman rule. Documenting relationships between Ierapetra and other centers on the island is difficult, however. Boundary inscriptions preserved from sites around Ierapetra, along with attested border conflicts between Knossos and Gortyn in the first century B.C.E. and first century C.E., suggest that several poleis still maintained independent chorae at this time. Exchange of goods and other financial transactions must have occurred across these boundaries, although we lack the evidence to document them. Amphora-borne commodities would serve as the best hope for documenting intra-island exchange, since most Cretan sites produce numerous finds of local amphorae in a

241

Casson 1950: 48. Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlazaki, and Papadakis 2000: 448 nos. 515-517. 243 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 131-3. 244 McCann and Oleson 2004: 129-36. 242

443

variety of fabrics. A complete dearth of fabric descriptions associated with the 23 known kiln sites on the island makes it impossible to associate vessels with specific regions of production, however. Even if the provenance of Cretan amphorae at any given site cannot be assessed, one important insight these vessels do offer about relationships across Crete is the degree to which Cretan poleis were unified in their economic strategies. During the entire span of the first through third centuries C.E., only four amphora types are known to have been manufactured on the island (Fig. 6.8). In some cases, such as with the three variants of the Cretan 1 amphora, production occurred at numerous sites across Crete, including Arvi, Chania, Chersonesos, Dermatos, Gortyn, Keratokambos-west, Kissamos, Knossos, Lagada, Matala, Palaiochora, Trypetos, and Tsoutsoursos-east and west. This remarkable degree of consistency may have been of strategic importance to producers on the island who wanted any product packaged in an amphora manufactured on the island to be recognized as “Cretan”. Peña speculates that “... many inhabitants of the Roman world were able to identify several different classes of amphorae at sight, and may have tended to regard each of these as the container for a general type or specific variety of wine, oil, fish product, or fruit”.245 He cites as evidence a passage from Pliny (HN 14.66) which describes how wine from the site of Taurominium in Sicily was often passed off as wine from the region of Messana, also on Sicily, when packaged in lagonae. The limited number of amphora forms produced on Crete between the first and third centuries C.E. could suggest that producers on the island were cognizant of this same type of situation. Amphora-borne commodities would be recognizable in these vessels, and

245

Peña 2007: 64.

444

individual producers could use tituli picti, or in the case of the workshop at Dermatos, stamps, to highlight the specific region from which the contents derived.246 One final consideration of Ierapetra‟s economic role in the Early Roman period is the collection of customs dues for goods passing through its harbor. With respect to ports like Ierapetra, a particular tax to consider is the portorium, a tithe intended for inter-provincial trade and trade across the boundaries of the Empire.247 Originating in the Republican period, this tax was maintained during the Empire.248 Revenues related to the portorium went directly to the state. While there is no direct evidence for the collection of these taxes on Crete, they do appear to have been of direct concern at several ports in Cyrenaica.249 Since these two regions formed a joint province, the regulations governing one territory may have been applicable to the other. The most robust evidence for portoria collection derives from the site of Ephesus in the form of a monumental inscription dated to 62 C.E. known as the lex portorii Asiae (SEG 36.1027).250 This text is a customs list for goods traveling to and from Ephesus by land and sea and it compares well to similar inscriptions known from Numidia.251 While no comparable text has been recovered from Ierapetra, the position of the port as a gateway to and from Crete would suggest that collection of these taxes occurred. The exception would be ships related to the annona, since those goods were exempt from customs dues.252

246

For examples of stamped amphorae from Dermatos, see Marangou-Lerat 1995: 124-5. The most thorough study of the portorium continues to be de Laet 1949. 248 For changes in the collection of portoria see Brunt 1990: 406-14. 249 Lack of evidence for Crete: de Laet 1949: 65 n.1, 295 n.4. Cyrenaica: Dig. 19.2.61; de Laet 1949: 295. 250 This text was first published by Engelmann and Knibbe (1989). For a detailed discussion of its implications see Cottier et al. 2008. 251 AE 1914.234; CIL 8.4508 = CIL 8.18643 = AE 1966.547 = AE 2003.1895. 252 cf. Wilson 2009a: 217. 247

445

Crete and Cyrenaica Most of the above discussion looks at Crete as an isolated region within the Mediterranean. Since Crete was an island, it did maintain a degree of independence throughout its history, but an additional context must be considered. During the Early Roman period, Crete was joined with the North African region of Cyrenaica and this must have had some effect on the economic and administrative organization of the island. These two regions are rarely considered together in modern scholarship, although Susan Alcock acknowledges that a comparative study “... would help determine the extent to which Crete followed its own peculiar trajectory (governed by its geographical position, natural resources, previous political history, and cultural memories) or became a cog much like other cogs in the imperial machine”.253 Crete and Cyrenaica have distinct histories that have likely hindered previous attempts to discuss them as a joint province. Both came under Roman control through different circumstances, for instance. Cyrenaica was willed to Rome in 96 B.C.E. by Ptolemy Appion and formed into a province in 75/74 B.C.E. Crete was conquered during a three year campaign from 69 to 67 B.C.E. and organized into a province shortly afterwards. When the two regions were joined as a single province remains a topic for debate, with the earliest confirmed evidence for their union dating to around 27 B.C.E.254 For all of the similarities which can be attested between these two regions, including the use of halved coins as a form of currency,255 Crete and Cyrenaica can be characterized more by their differences. Crete was not a frontier territory like Cyrenaica, at least not until the Arab conquest of North Africa. Preserved edicts from Cyrenaica document the provincial governor 253

Alcock 1999: 179. Strabo (17.3.25) and Dio Cassius (53.12) describe Crete and Cyrenaica as a single province during discussions of events which transpired in 27 B.C.E. 255 For examples from Knossos, see UM II, 324, 328 nos. 103-104, 330 no. 192. For examples from Cyrenaica, see Buttrey 1983: 30. 254

446

often had troubles in dealing with different ethnic populations, a phenomenon not well attested on Crete.256 Cyrenaica also was more prone to rebellion than Crete. For example, an uprising is attested in that region in 73-74 C.E., and some of Cyrenaica‟s population participated in the Jewish Revolt of 115-117 C.E. The above discussion of differences in the quantities and types of Early Roman ceramic imports attested at Cretan and Cyrenaican sites could imply that both regions participated in distinct exchange networks. Sources which describe shipping routes in antiquity may corroborate this situation. With respect to ships sailing from Alexandria, P. Arnaud discusses two main routes attested in ancient sources.257 The first, described in detail by Paul in the Book of Acts, went east from Alexandria, winding along the coast of Syria-Palestine and the southern shore of Asia Minor, and perhaps Cyprus, before reaching Crete.258 A papyrus from the second century C.E. (P.Bingen 77) appears to describe this route. The second itinerary traveled west from Alexandria along the coast of Cyrenaica before heading to Italy. This route is attested in both literary (Josephus Vita 15-16) and papyrological (P.Mich 8.490) sources. Arnaud notes that both appear in the Edictum de Pretiis of Diocletian. The latter route was considered to be faster, but the itinerary passing by Crete could be sailed for a longer period during the sailing season.259 Ceramic and documentary evidence, thus, seems to document a situation where Crete and Cyrenaica operated in distinct economic spheres. What about evidence for exchange between the two regions? Can some degree of economic contact be attested since these two territories were unified as a single province? The answer is yes and no depending on which territory is under discussion. Berenice in Cyrenaica produces evidence of several types of Cretan products,

256

Sanders 1982: 7. Arnaud 2007: 333. 258 Acts 27, 28.11-14. 259 Arnaud 2007: 333. 257

447

including amphora-borne commodities such as wine. Cretan wine may have begun arriving in Cyrenaica by the late first century B.C.E. based on amphora evidence. During the first century C.E., the Cretan 2 amphora (labeled by Riley as the ER1) is considered the most common imported amphora type, suggesting a significant amount of Cretan wine, and perhaps other products, were entering the region.260 Examples of the Cretan 4 wine amphora, based on Rhodian precedents, also may appear in the first century C.E., but Riley groups them under the general category of “miscellaneous amphoras with horned handles”, making specific quantities difficult to determine.261 Cretan lamps appeared in varying quantities at Berenice starting in the late first century B.C.E. Early pieces tend to be examples of Cretan mold-made ivy leaf type lamps, which D. Bailey suggests are based on Hellenistic precedents.262 In the second century, Cretan amphorae of several types drop off dramatically in quantity at Berenice. Only Cretan 1 vessels show a small rise in numbers.263 The shipment of large quantities of Cretan wine to cities such as Rome in the second century C.E., the evidence for which will be discussed below, may have siphoned supplies away from centers like Berenice. The city may have begun receiving wine shipments from other regions to compensate. MR1 amphorae, a wine container from Sicily, rise in popularity at the site in the second century as does the MR4, produced in Cilicia and Cyprus.264 While wine shipments between Crete and Cyrenaica may have diminished in the second century C.E., Cretan lamps became quite common at Berenice.265 Specifically, examples of the Broneer XXV type lamp, also designated Loeschcke type VIII, appear in large quantities at that 260

Examples of ARC1 amphorae (Riley‟s MR2) appear in the late first century B.C.E. cf. Riley 1979: 180-1, fig. 28. For attestations of ARC2 vessels (Riley‟s ER1) see Riley 1979: 145, fig. 14. 261 Riley 1979: 147-9, fig. 15. Catalogue entries D108-D109 appear to be examples of the Cretan ARC4. 262 Bailey 1985: 4. 263 Riley 1979: 181 fig. 28. 264 MR1: Riley 1979: 178 fig. 26. MR4: 187 fig. 32. 265 Bailey 1985: 122-3, 193.

448

site in contexts dating to the first half of the second century C.E. Many documented pieces have the name Gamos stamped on their base, likely an indication of the owner of the workshop. Bailey argues that Gamos was based out of Berenice and that these lamps are local products. Subsequent consideration shows that Gamos was a Cretan producer and that the finds at Berenice are imports from Crete.266 Chaniotis suggests Campanian potters established this lamp industry on the island, noting a similarity to Campanian-made lamps with the signature fecit Gamus.267 Gamos would thus be the Hellenized version of the Latin name. Cyrenaica appears to have been the only major importer of Cretan lamps since Miletus and Caesarea Maritima are the only other sites with attested examples.268 Both of these sites produce only a single example of the Cretan mold-made ivy leaf type. An attempt to identify imports from Cyrenaica to Crete proves far more difficult. Ships from Cyrenaica were visiting Cretan shores regularly, if a passage from Philostratus (V A 4.34.3) can be believed, and one would expect at least a few of them carried goods intended for exchange.269 Documenting what types of commodities these might be is problematic, however. Cyrenaica does not appear to have exported amphora-borne commodities, such as wine or olive oil, in any quantity in the Early Roman period, or at least not in vessels produced locally.270 Even in Berenice, local amphorae form a very low proportion of the overall Early Roman amphora assemblage. Much of Cyrenaica‟s economy in this period may have been based on the shipments of perishable commodities. According to J. Reynolds, the primary export of Cyrenaica in the first

266

Chaniotis 2005: 105-7. L. Mercando (1974: 236) had posited a Cretan origin for the Gamos lamps a decade before the publication of the Berenice material. 267 Chaniotis 2005: 106-7. 268 Miletus: Menzel 1969: 19 no. 53. Caesarea Maritima: Sussman 1995. 269 This passage specifically refers to North Africans sailing to Crete to visit the sanctuary of Asklepios at Lebena along the southern coast near Gortyn. 270 Riley 1979: 412.

449

century C.E. was grain.271 A reference to oil and grain shipments in the second century C.E. (Dig. 19.2.61) could suggest that the former was also an export, although Riley notes the difficulty in identifying any local container which would have been used for this trade.272 The potential of grain being shipped regularly to Crete is of interest, particularly when we consider the nature of grain cultivation on Crete and the island‟s potential for self-sufficiency. Evidence for grain cultivation on Crete, and the degree to which the island was selfsufficient, is limited. Crete is not listed as one of the provinciae frumentariae,273 but at the same time there is almost no evidence to suggest the island required assistance in feeding its population. There are two attested times when Crete required shipments of grain be brought in to alleviate famine. The first occurred sometime between 330-326 B.C.E. when grain shortages appear to have afflicted much of the eastern Mediterranean. An inscription from Cyrenaica, the Stele de Cereali (SEG 9.2), records a number of Greek cities, including five on Crete, that received emergency shipments of grain at this time.274 The second instance came in 381 C.E., according to a decree of a certain Serapammon (IC 4.285) which thanks the emperors Gratian, Valentinianus, and Theodosius for supplying grain to Gortyn in a time of need. From these two inscriptions, however, are we to believe that during the intervening period of over 700 years, the island was never in need of grain from foreign sources? Did famine never strike, and if so, were supplies always readily at hand to alleviate the difficulties? An inscription from Ierapetra (IC 3.3.12), dating to the first century B.C.E. or first century C.E., which may discuss a famine, is the only evidence for grain shortage during the Roman period before 381.

271

Reynolds 1958-1959: 24. Riley 1979: 415. 273 cf. Cic. Dom. 10.25; Att. 9.9.2. 274 The five Cretan cities were Elyros, Gortyn, Hyrkatina, Knossos, and Kydonia. 272

450

Based on a reading of a passage from Vergil‟s Aeneid (3.121-146), G. Harrison suggests that Crete‟s droughts and famines were considered proverbial in antiquity.275 If this was the case, we would expect more evidence to be preserved documenting specific instances of crop failure on the island. Harrison‟s interpretation may exaggerate the situation since the drought that afflicted Aeneas and his men appears to be the result of a misinterpreted oracle rather than conditions common to Crete.276 References in Caesar (B.Civ. 3.5.1) and Statius (Sil. 2.66-67) mention Crete as a grain producer, but there are also several other regions listed, including Cyrenaica, making the extent of Crete‟s supplies difficult to determine. The island may have been a fairly robust producer of grain when some more modern evidence is considered. As a Venetian holding, Crete was unique for being an exporter of wheat, and there is only one recorded instance during the Venetian period when grain had to be imported to the island.277 According to L.G. Allbaugh, in the mid-twentieth century, Crete was self-sufficient in barley, but had to import half of the wheat it consumed.278 One modern counterargument to Crete‟s apparent ability to grow various types of grain successfully derives from rainfall data compiled for Herakleion between 1952 and 1980.279 During this period, precipitation only reached levels necessary for the cultivation of grain crops in one out of every three years. One possibility is that microclimates played to Crete‟s advantage and that surpluses could be moved around the island to places of need. This might be suggested by a Hellenistic treaty negotiated between Ierapetra and Arkades, dated between 227 to 224 B.C.E. (IC 3.3.1B), where one clause exempts grain exports from taxation. Another possibility is

275

Harrison 1993: 278. For one possible instance of a crop failure attested in the epigraphic record of Ierapetra see IC 3.3.12 (first century C.E.). 277 Stallsmith 2007: 57. 278 Allbaugh 1953: 18. 279 Reger 1994: 90. 276

451

that Crete was capable of acquiring grain from beyond its borders on a regular basis. Cicero (Off. 3.50) hints at a situation that regions placed on well-traveled trade routes, such as Rhodes, were capable of easily avoiding food shortages.280 Crete was part of similar networks and may have benefited from the same set of circumstances. Crete would have also benefited from an additional mechanism for obtaining grain in times of need: its administrative union with the grain-rich region of Cyrenaica. The lack of commemorative inscriptions present on Crete that outline the successful abatement of famine may be the result of the governor of Crete and Cyrenaica redirecting supplies where they were needed within the province. Such decisions and decrees would form a paper trail between the two regions, but not one likely to survive in modern times. It also would negate some of the need for commemorative inscriptions because it was part of the administrative organization within the province rather than reliance on outside, extraordinary forces. In this context, grain may have been the primary export from Cyrenaica to Crete in the Early Roman period, even if this cannot be documented archaeologically. It also suggests that Crete and Cyrenaica shared an intricate economic relationship when they were joined as a province.

Ierapetra, Crete, and the Early Roman Economy Crete appears to have had economic ties with Cyrenaica even if they are difficult to document in the archaeological record. Many other economic connections developed during this period. Among these connections, there is evidence for exchange both in the context of a command economy and market exchange. The combination of the two enabled Crete to maintain a significant degree of prosperity throughout the first three centuries C.E.

280

cf. Morley 2007b: 25.

452

In the first century C.E., the largest market for Cretan wine outside of Crete was Campania and its various centers, including Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis, and Puteoli. Campania was an important market for many eastern products at this time, such as Eastern Sigillata A and Eastern Sigillata B fineware vessels.281 The attraction of eastern commodities, including Cretan wine, may be owed to Campania‟s connection to the Alexandrian grain trade during the first century. At this time, Puteoli was the destination for grain ships from Alexandria, including vessels attached to the annona and private merchants. The cargoes would be offloaded at Puteoli and placed on smaller ships which would then transport the grain north along the Tyrrhenian coast to Ostia, and then up the Tiber river to Rome. Our best evidence for the route taken by these Alexandrian ships to Italy derives from the New Testament. In chapters 27 and 28 of the Book of Acts, Paul describes a sea journey from Lycia along the southern coast of Asia Minor to Italy in which he spent part of his time shipwrecked on the island of Malta.282 Both in Lycia and in Malta, Paul boarded ships bound for Italy from Alexandria and he outlines the route they took and the ports they visited. Of particular significance is his mention of these grain ships passing along the south coast of Crete. He even indicates that these ships would stop at ports along this shore, a fact supported by an inscription (IC 2.20.7) from the site of Phoinix in southwest Crete set up by the helmsman of one of these Alexandrian ships. Presumably, at least some of these ships would take on supplemental cargoes as saleable ballast, and one of the primary mechanisms for the movement of Cretan amphorae to the West may have been the grain trade. Cretan wine, thus, can be seen to a large extent as a piggy-back commodity.

281 282

Lund 2003: 129-30; Malfitana, Poblome, and Lund 2005: 201. Acts 27, 28.11-14.

453

This situation changed when Trajan made Portus the destination for the Egyptian grain fleet following the completion of a hexagonal harbor around 112 C.E. The result was a decrease of finds of Cretan amphorae in the existing Campanian cities, but an increase in finds at Rome and Ostia. A. Tchernia was the first to make this observation about Cretan wine distribution.283 He noted that Cretan wine only became common at Rome and Ostia after Portus began receiving Alexandrian grain ships. Combined with the high quantities of these Cretan amphorae present at Campanian sites in the first century C.E., a connection with Egypt seems clear. This hypothesis has never been tested quantitatively, although to do so does impose some difficulties. First and foremost is the lack of quantified pottery assemblages from Campanian sites. While numerous pottery reports from Rome and Ostia provide numerical data, the same is not true for Pompeii, Herculaneum, Puteoli, or other sites in the region. One exception is a study of ceramic assemblages from the House of the Vestals (6.1.7) at Pompeii by E. De Sena and J. Ikäheimo.284 They identified Cretan amphorae only in contexts datable between circa 50 to 79 C.E., and note they account for approximately 1% of wine amphorae based on estimated vessel count.285 What is available in addition to that study is an account of A. Marangou from the mid1990s, outlining her findings in several storerooms. Her goal was to assess the number of Cretan vessels present at these sites. Marangou‟s results show that Pompeii preserves over 420 examples of complete or nearly complete Cretan wine amphorae, Herculaneum over 50 examples, and Oplontis over 20.286 To these numbers must be added numerous undocumented fragments. Marangou does not provide data for Puteoli, but one could presume the results would be similar. A mid-second century C.E. pottery assemblage from that site produces 13 fragments of Cretan

283

Tchernia 1986: 244, 298. De Sena and Ikäheimo 2003. 285 De Sena and Ikäheimo 2003: 307 Table 3. 286 Marangou 1994: 138-40; 1995: 130 284

454

amphorae suggesting finds were still present at that time.287 Cretan amphorae also have been attested at Stabiae and Naples.288 The situation is better to the north. Several excavations at Rome provide quantified data for amphora finds from the first and second centuries. G. Rizzo summarizes much of this data in his book Instrumenta Urbis.289 He divides the finds between four periods: Neronian, Flavian, Trajanic, and Antonine. During the Neronian period, the mid-first century C.E., Cretan amphorae represent approximately eight percent of the wine amphora assemblage at Rome, increasing to twelve percent in the Flavian period (last quarter of the first century C.E.).290 By the time of the Antonines in the mid-second century, Cretan amphorae account for twenty percent of wine vessels, nearly triple the amount from a century before. A recent critique of this form of quantitative documentation has been raised by A. Wilson. He argues that quantifying vessel numbers at a site without consideration of capacity is misleading.291 For instance, he states that “…later Roman wine amphorae were much smaller than their early imperial counterparts, so that the amount of wine represented by the later part of wine lines is actually much smaller than the percentage of amphora counts suggests”.292 It is to Rizzo‟s credit that he incorporates quantitative data for capacity into his study to outline proportions of wine of different origins at Rome. For wine from Crete, based on number of liters attested at the site, the proportions are slightly lower for the Neronian through Trajanic period, but almost identical in the Antonine period. Cretan wine by consumption in liters accounts for approximately 5% of the market in the Neronian period, 10% in both the Flavian and Trajanic 287

Garcea, Miraglia, and Soricelli. 1983-1984: 281. De Caro 1992-1993: 309; Marangou-Lerat 1995: 130. 289 Rizzo 2003: 146-207. 290 Rizzo 2003: 207 table 33b. The specific numbers are: Neronian 7.83%; Flavian 12.05%; Trajanic 13.84%; Antonine 20.13%. 291 Wilson 2009a: 230. 292 Wilson 2009a: 231. 288

455

periods, and 20% in the Antonine period.293 There is a dramatic increase by the mid-second century C.E., likely related to the reorganization of the Alexandrian grain trade. These data permit two conclusions. First, Portus taking over as the final destination for Alexandrian grain ships did affect the supply of Cretan wine to Rome. Second, the proportion of Cretan wine in Rome during the later first century, approximately twelve percent in the Flavian period by vessel count and ten percent by consumption in liters, is significant and this commodity appears to have controlled a respectable share of the market even at this time. The evidence from the third century shows a different picture. A deposit from the Palatine East excavations dating between 290 and 312 or 315 produced only one example of a non-residual Cretan amphora, while a deposit dating between 250 and 300 from the Crypta di San Bonaventura, also on the Palatine, produced no examples.294 Cretan wine appears to have disappeared from Rome by the early fourth century, although, as J.T. Peña notes, the supply had begun diminishing long before this.295 The implications of this decline will be discussed in further detail below. At Ostia, a similar pattern emerges for the Early Roman period, except that the overall quantities of Cretan wine are lower. Cretan amphorae are not identified in the first century levels of the Longarina or the Case delle Pareti Gialle.296 A few examples turn up in first century levels of the Domus dei Pesci, but do not compare to the close to 50 vessels attested there from the first half of the second century.297 The most complete data derives from excavations at the Terme del Nuotatore. Present there in low numbers in the first century, Cretan amphorae account for nearly

293

Rizzo 2003: 205 table 32a. The specific numbers are: Neronian 4.88%; Flavian 9.83%; Trajanic 10.09%; Antonine 20.02%. 294 Peña 1999: 82; Carignani and Pacetti 1989: 611. 295 Peña 1999: 154. 296 Hesnard 1980: 145; Zevi and Pohl 1970: 75. 297 Geremia Nucci and Leone 2003: 66 figs. 7-9.

456

five percent of wine amphorae during the mid-second century, and reach a peak of seven and a half percent in the early third century.298 After 250 C.E., though, Cretan wine mostly disappears from Ostia, although a few examples of Cretan amphorae are still present in the late third and early fourth century levels of the Domus dei Pesci.299 A counter argument to the above proposal, that the Alexandrian grain trade was the main impetus for shipping Cretan wine to Italy, does appear in the literature. Horden and Purcell, for instance, observe that the endowment of land around Knossos to Capua in Italy is the reason for the high number of Cretan amphorae in Campania.300 They are citing a study of Marangou, but neglect to mention that she also argues for a connection with the Alexandria to Rome grain trade as part of the reason for the high quantity of vessels.301 The relationship between Knossos and Capua is enticing as a justification for Cretan wine attested in Campania, particularly since Velleius Parterculus (2.81) values the annual tribute sent from Knossos at 1.2 million sestertii. Amphorae at Capua have been found with tituli picti indicating they had been shipped there as part of this payment.302 The main difficulty in arguing for the preeminence of this tribute as the mechanism for bringing Cretan wine to Italy is that it does not account for why Rome becomes such a large-scale consumer in the second century C.E. In addition, the attestation of Cretan wine amphorae at Brundisium in Italy,303 which Strabo (6.3.7) describes as a stopover for ships headed to Rome, suggests this commodity was not arriving solely as tribute from Knossos. One final note concerning the presence of Cretan amphorae in Pompeii and other regions of Campania is necessary. Marangou-Lerat and Peña have both documented evidence of

298

Panella 1989: 175 fig. 20, 177 figs. 23-24. Geremia Nucci and Leone 2003: 66 fig. 10, 67 fig. 11. 300 Horden and Purcell 2000: 219. 301 Marangou 1994: 140. 302 De Caro 1992-1993. 303 Auriemma and Quiri 2006: 227-30. 299

457

amphorae from Crete being reused at Pompeii, and perhaps other Campanian sites, for the packaging of locally-produced wine and/or fish products.304 The numerous finds of these vessels in the atrium of the Casa di Q. Mestrius Maximus, which may have functioned as a packaging facility for locally-produced commodities after 62 C.E., seems to indicate that many were intended for reuse. These amphorae, which originally carried wine or other products from Crete, may have arrived in this region either on ships with cargos destined for Rome, or as part of the tribute sent from Knossos to Capua. The latter scenario is interesting to consider since the amphorae, in addition to their contents, would have been the property of landowners in Capua. Perhaps this made them both suitable and available for reuse as packaging containers for commodities produced in this region of Italy. The draw of amphora-borne commodities from Crete to Italy was, to a large extent, stimulated by the island‟s participation in economic networks centered on the supply of grain to Rome. Crete‟s economic role in the Mediterranean was more complex than just this association, however. Distribution of Cretan amphorae across the Mediterranean and northern Europe demonstrates the widespread diffusion of Cretan goods to numerous provinces and cities, and suggests that market exchange played a role in the economic life of the island. The connections with Cyrenaica documented above, for instance, show that there was a strong north-south trade of Cretan products. Along with Cyrenaica, Cretan wine is attested in Egypt at Alexandria, Mons Claudianus, Tebtynis, and El Alamein based on amphora finds.305 Vessels of first century date have even been recovered from a shipwreck context in the waters around Alexandria.306 In Greece, the Cretan 1 amphora is very common at Athens in the first and second century C.E., and also appears at Corinth, indicating these centers were markets for products from the 304

Marangou-Lerat 1995: 142; Peña 2007: 108-9. Marangou 2004: 1029. 306 Empereur 1998: 615; 2000: 601. 305

458

island.307 At Olympia, A. Martin notes that Cretan vessels are the most common amphorae found in a context of the late second/early third century C.E.308 In the West, the distribution of Cretan amphorae-borne commodities shows that exchange extended beyond just an association with the Alexandrian grain trade. S.E. Alcock recently published a distribution map showing 43 Roman sites with finds of Cretan vessels.309 Another map, published by Marangou, shows 48 sites.310 Even a few years later, however, neither of these maps is up-to-date. Both of them omit finds at several sites in Italy including Brundisium and San Foca,311 and Pisa and Vada Volaterrana.312 Other Mediterranean sites in Europe which were overlooked include Augst, Magdalensberg, Cartegna in Spain, and Brijuni in Croatia.313 Sites further north are also omitted including Lyon and several sites in northern Gaul, along with finds in Britain.314 Cretan wine also was consumed in frontier regions, including Pannonia, Moesia Secunda, and modern day Serbia.315 That is not a complete list of additional sites to supplement the distribution maps of Alcock and Marangou, but it does help illustrate the wide dispersal of Cretan goods. With respect to these sites, however, one overlooked consideration is the types of amphorae present. S. Lemaître observes that the proportion of Cretan 1 versus Cretan 4 vessels at Lyon is inverse

307

Athens: Agora V, 43. Corinth: Slane 2003: 328-9. Many of the vessels at Corinth are considered local products because of similarities in fabrics and difficulty associating them with known production sites on Crete. My own observation of these finds suggests their fabric is similar to products from the Chersonesos workshops suggesting they may derive from the part of Crete. 308 Martin 1996: 127-8. 309 Alcock 2007: 688. 310 Marangou-Lerat 2002: 133 map 2. 311 Auriemma and Quiri 2006: 227-30. 312 Del Rio et al. 2000: 449-50. 313 Augst: Martin-Kilcher 1994: 350. Magdalensberg: Schindler Kaudelka and Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger 2006: 1589. Cartegna: Reynolds 1995: 70. Brijuni: Vidrih Perko and Pavletić 2000: 265. 314 Gaul: Lemaître 2000: 467-8; Vilvorder, Symonds, and Rekk 2000: 479-80. Britain: Williams 2003. 315 Pannonia: Bezeczky 1987: 27; Keleman 1988: 129 fig. 3.1; Hárshegyi 2008: 173-4. Moesia Secunda: Dyczek 2002: 694 fig. 6. Serbia: Bjelajac 1996: 39-41.

459

compared to Ostia in the period between 190 and 250 C.E., for instance.316 Cretan 4 vessels are the main type documented in Britain and northern Gaul, as well as in Pannonia and Serbia. Many of these finds, including some vessels dated between 250 to 300 C.E. at Corinth,317 argue for a much later production history of this type than has previously been acknowledged.318 One intriguing possibility for this dichotomy in distribution between Cretan 1 and Cretan 4 vessels, both of which are believed to have functioned primarily as wine containers, is a connection of the latter to military supply networks. The earliest attested Cretan 4 find in Britain, dated to circa 50 C.E. from the site of Caerleon, bears two tituli picti, one of which suggests a military connection.319 A titulus pictus on the shoulder describes the quantity and quality of the wine, while the second text on the handle names a specific legion. It could be the case that this vessel and its contents were requisitioned for use by the military, particularly since the two texts appear to have been written in different hands. There is additional evidence for connecting Cretan wine to the Roman military connection along the Danube frontier. In that region, Cretan 4 amphorae are attested as early as the mid-first century C.E.320 They are documented at forts in Pannonia, although P. Hárshegyi notes that they are overall rare and tend to be limited to sites along the amber route.321 It could be that Crete was not directly a part of military supply networks, but wine, or other products, packaged in Cretan 4 vessels did make their way to military sites through various exchange mechanisms. Why these goods arrived in this region predominately in Cretan 4 and not Cretan 1 amphorae warrants further investigation.

316

Lemaître 2000: 464. ARC4 vessels account for 0.5% of the assemblage at Ostia and 11% at Lyon. Slane 2004: 366-9. 318 Marangou-Lerat (1995: 84-9) suggested a date range between the second half of the first century C.E. and the second century C.E. At Gortyn, finds occur only sporadically in the third century (Gortina V.3, 275 no. 13). 319 Burnham et al. 1994: 310-2; Williams 2003: 28; Nonnis and Ricci 2007: 199-200. 320 cf. Dyczek 2002: 688. 321 Hárshegyi 2008: 173. 317

460

The discussion above has pointed to the widespread supply of Cretan amphorae-borne products in the western, northern, and southern provinces of the Roman world, but has neglected to acknowledge eastern sites. The reason for this is that supplies of Cretan goods may have been limited in Asia Minor and the Levant. On her map, Marangou lists Samos and Miletus as the only eastern sites with finds of Cretan amphorae.322 To this can be added finds at Ephesus, Caesarea Maritima, Ashkelon, and Paphos and Kition on Cyprus.323 The overall impression from all of these sites is that Cretan wine was rare. As a transshipment point, Crete appears to have facilitated exchange between the north and south and from the east to the west. Perhaps not much trade passed through the island intended for eastern destinations, a notion supported by the small quantities of western goods at sites on Crete. Another possibility is that Cretan goods shipped to eastern provinces were not packaged in amphorae and are invisible archaeologically. While much of this discussion of possible exports from Ierapetra, and Crete, has focused on amphora-borne products, including wine and olive oil, Cretan merchandise was far more diverse. Several commodities which may have been regularly or occasionally packaged in Cretan amphorae include honey, garum, and psilothrum, an unguent used for shaving or the removal of hair. Honey may have been transported in these vessels occasionally based on two tituli picti from western sites. One from Pompeii (CIL 4.5741) lists thyme-flavored honey as the primary content,324 while the second from Narbonne reads flos mellis.325 Pliny (HN 21.46, 21.49, 29.119) and Dioscourides (de material medica 2.101) praise the quality of Cretan honey and wax, implying it was exported. Based on research by J. Francis, it appears that Roman period honey

322

Marangou-Lerat 2002: 133 map 2. Ephesus: Gassner 1997: 184 no. 757; Meriç 2002: 88 nos. K514, K516; Bezeczky 2004: 87. Caesarea Maritima: Blakeley 1987: 53-4. Johnson 2008b: 101 no. 1219. Ashkelon: Johnson 2008a: 151-2. Paphos: Paphos III, 90, 94 no. 36. Kition: Marquié 2004: 260. 324 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 143 no. P69. cf. Peña 2007: 104-5. 325 Liou 1993: 137; Marangou-Lerat 1995: 149 no. P101. 323

461

production on Crete was predominant in the western half of the island. The Sphakia and Akrotiri peninsula surveys documented several hundred fragments of beehives.326 Very little evidence for beekeeping appears in the Isthmus of Ierapetra. A single beehive fragment was identified at Kato Mertia and only a few were found by the Gournia Survey suggesting this may not have been a product shipped regularly from Ierapetra.327 Fish tanks are found at several sites, but tend to be small and incapable of producing supplies for more than just the surrounding region.328 One titulus pictus on a Cretan amphora from Pompeii (CIL 4.5668) describes the contents as Ga(ri) fl(os) gem(inus).329 Despite the evidence for fish tanks on the island, there is no attested garum production, making it difficult to determine whether this product could have been exported from Crete, or is an indication of reuse of a Cretan vessel as a packaging container at another site. Salt would have been available if needed, as suggested by Pliny (HN 31.39), who describes the process by which it was collected on Crete, and by an inscription from Ierapetra (SEG 32.869) implying collection of salt at the site.330 With respect to psilothrum, we can again cite evidence from Pompeii in the form of two tituli picti (CIL 4.2613, 4.2614) identified on Cretan vessels naming this substance as the primary content. The notations preserved in the texts of these tituli picti led Peña to speculate that the psilothrum was packaged in these amphorae at a center on Crete.331 Even more important for the island‟s economy than amphora-borne commodities like wine may have been medicinal herbs, and Pliny (HN 25.53) names Crete as the best source for these plants.332 Exchange in medicinal plants was imperially controlled and would indicate that 326

Francis 2006. Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 328 Davaras 1974, 1975; Harrison 1993: 191-4. 329 Marangou-Lerat 1995: 143 no. P70. 330 Davaras 1980: 1-8. 331 Peña 2007: 104 Table 5.4, 107-8. 332 Chaniotis 1999: 209-10, 219-20; Rouanet-Liesenfelt 1992; Taborrelli 1994. 327

462

the emperor had estates on Crete to govern this industry. One consideration, however, is that medicinal plants tend to be gathered in the wild rather than cultivated. Thus, they are collected from suitable locations, which on Crete would be upland locations and mountain slopes. Vogeikoff-Brogan speculates that the collection of these herbs occurred on the mountain slopes in the Isthmus of Ierapetra, although it is difficult to confirm since this is an archaeologically invisible industry.333 Dye works are evident on Crete, including the production of purple dye which also may have been under Imperial control.334 While most of the evidence for production of purple dye on Crete dates to the Hellenistic period or earlier, there is documented production at Chersonesos and on the island of Kouphonisi.335 Both of these sites have associated harbors, implying at least some of the supplies were exported. Dye works were not isolated to only purple and Crete was also regarded for the production of a type of white pigment known as paratonium, according to Pliny (HN 35.36). E. Gliozzo has identified deposits of this material in the central-west part of the island.336 Pliny also describes several items available from Crete, including seaweed (HN 32.22) and sponges (HN 13.48), suitable for dyeing cloth. I. Sanders has speculated that manufacture of textiles also occurred on the island.337 A variety of other trade items are attested in literary and archaeological sources. Vitruvius (2.9.13-14) and Pliny (HN 16.197) praise the quality of Cretan cedar and cyprus wood. Whetstones were an object of trade and are even specified in a decree concerning the sailing of

333

Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. Morley 2007b: 38. 335 Hellenistic evidence for production: Raab 2001: 11. Chersonesos: Boekschoten 1962. Kouphonisi: Rackham and Moody 1996: 206-8. 336 Gliozzo 2007: 74. 337 Sanders 1982: 32. 334

463

ships from the island (Dig. 39.4.15).338 Cretan lamps have been identified in large quantities at Berenice and also appear at Miletus and Caesarea Maritima.339 In western Crete, mines for copper and, possibly, for gold have been identified with the products a likely source for export.340 A variety of food products also must be considered as export items based on statements from Pliny, including Cyprian figs (HN 13.15), onions (HN 19.32), and quinces (HN 4.20, 15.10). Possible evidence for glass production occurs at several sites, including Knossos and Tarrha, although the scale is not indicative of an industry geared toward export.341 All or some of the above-mentioned products may have exported from Cretan ports to some extent during the Early Roman period. Tracing their potential distribution is difficult, although finds of Cretan amphorae at sites across the Roman world could be an indicator that many other Cretan goods were being shipped to these sites as well. For products, such as medicinal plants, for which distribution was imperially-controlled, one might expect that shipments were geared primarily toward Rome. We must also consider that the above description of products risks portraying Crete as a single hinterland, and does not reflect the complexity of production and supply on the island. While wine may have been produced across the whole of the island, and Crete can be labeled as a wine-producing region, the same geographic dominance was not necessarily true for all commodities. Honey and wax, copper and gold mining, and manufacture of the white pigment paraetonium are confined mainly to the western half of the island based on available evidence. Whetstones may have derived mainly from around the site of Olus where quarries for these 338

Pliny (HN 36.164) notes the quality of Cretan whetstones. T.A.B. Spratt (1865: 126) suggested these whetstones came from a quarry near the site of Olus, a suggestion supported by Sanders (1982: 18). 339 Berenice: Bailey 1985: 4-5, 122-7, 193. Miletus: Menzel 1969: 19 no. 53. Caesarea: Sussman 1995. 340 Davies 1935: 267; Sanders 1982: 33. 341 Knossos: UM II, 458-9. Tarrha: Weinberg 1960: 100. See also Weinberg 1959 and Taborrelli 1994. T.S. Buechner (1960: 116-7), however, argues that the finds of glass cullet at Tarrha do not demonstrate production at the site. Instead, the site could have stored cullet for sea transport, a fact supported by the predominance of finds near the shore.

464

objects have been noted. The Isthmus of Ierapetra produces more evidence for large-scale olive oil production than any other part of Crete. Medicinal herbs, perhaps one of the backbones of the Early Roman Cretan economy, would have been gathered primarily from mountain slopes and in upland plains. Overall, the sum of goods produced on Crete for export derived from numerous, diverse settlements and regions all of which contribute to the idea of a coherent Cretan economy. One additional important question concerning Crete‟s role in the Early Roman economy is whether it maintained a measure of consistency. Available evidence suggests that this was not the case. By the mid-third century, Cretan wine had all but disappeared from Rome and Ostia.342 Shipments of Cretan goods were still making their way to Gaul and Britain in small quantities, where the latest finds date between 250 and 275.343 In the eastern Mediterranean, Cretan amphorae appear in contexts from the mid-third to the early fourth century at Argos,344 Corinth,345 Athens,346 Berenice,347 and Alexandria,348 suggesting some level of exchange was maintained with these centers. At Berenice, a graph of the chronological distribution of Cretan amphorae shows that it was not until the mid-third century that Cretan 1 vessels became common at the site.349 This coincides with the decrease in finds in Italy and may suggest an attempt by Cretan merchants to exploit different markets. Cretan wine did not suddenly disappear from Rome and Ostia in the mid-third century, however. The evidence from the Palatine East and other sites shows that the number of Cretan amphorae dropped off gradually over the course of the century. A reduction in transshipment trade passing by Crete may be partially to blame. In the second half of the second century C.E., a 342

Carandini and Panella 1981: 500-1. Lemaître 2000: 467; Vilvorder, Symonds, and Rekk 2000: 479-80. 344 Abadie-Reynal 1989: 145. 345 Slane 2004: 366-7. 346 Agora V, 68 no. K112. 347 Riley 1979: 181. 348 Marangou 2004: 1035. 349 Riley 1979: 181 fig. 2. 343

465

series of plagues broke out across the Roman world that devastated the population of several regions. According to E. Lo Cascio, these plagues “… drastically reduced the productive basis from which the imperial state drew its financial resources”.350 Egypt was among the hardest hit by these outbreaks and W. Scheidal observes that they had a negative impact on economic growth and production in that region.351 A reduced population meant that less tax could be collected, likely resulting in fewer ships passing through harbors on Crete. In fact, if Egyptian grain was not hindered in some manner at this time, why did Commodus feel it necessary to organize an African grain fleet in 192 C.E. (SHA Com. 17.7)? Literary references also record that Alexandria, and Egypt as a whole, suffered from occasional riots and rebellions including that of Lucius Messius Aemilianus in 261 C.E.352 Aemilianus was the prefect of Egypt and is said to have seized control of the granaries. By the end of the third century, the distribution networks of Egyptian grain had been reorganized. Egypt had been an important source of grain for Rome, but by this time much of the responsibility had been assumed by the African fleet. According to A. Sirks, the terminus ante quem for Egyptian grain no longer supplying the city is 308 to 311 C.E. during the civil war between Constantine and Maxentius when Constantine cut off African supplies and caused largescale famine at Rome.353 As Egypt was not a target of Constantine, one can ascertain that Egyptian grain was no longer supplying Rome, since this would have alleviated much of the famine. This implies that even before Constantinople became the primary consumer of Egyptian grain under Constantine, these supplies were redirected away from Rome. Sirks has suggested that the change came under Diocletian during his reorganization of the provinces and the military

350

Lo Cascio 2007: 646. Scheidal 2002: 114. 352 SHA Gallieni 4.1. 353 Sirks 1991: 199. 351

466

at the end of the third century. In this scenario, Egyptian grain was being used to supply eastern armies.354 How these changes affected the economy of Ierapetra and Crete will be discussed in the Late Roman and Late Antique sections below.

LATE ROMAN (295 – 457 C.E.) At some point between 293 and 297 C.E., Diocletian separated Crete from Cyrenaica and made it an independent province. This alteration to the administrative structure of the island was part of a vast array of changes which culminated with the division of the Roman world into eastern and western halves. Economic structures also changed at this time, and C. Wickham observes that “The western and eastern Mediterranean need to be looked at separately, because their exchange systems were largely independent”.355 He is referring to the period after 400 C.E., but the conditions that led to this dichotomy first appear with the reorganizations of the Roman Empire under Diocletian and Constantine. The changing economic climate had significant impact on Crete, and some scholars even speculate that the island‟s export economy had ceased by the beginning of the fourth century C.E.356 The actual consequences were not so dire, as will be discussed below. Ierapetra, however, appears to enter a period of decline beginning in the fourth century, which becomes more and more evident with each successive century. The changing economic relations instigated by the reorganizations of the Empire were not favorable to a city that relied heavily on east-west transshipment. When this faltered, the city did not find a suitable alternative to maintain its prosperity.

354

Sirks 1991: 200. Wickham 2005: 709. 356 For instance, see Marangou 1999: 278. 355

467

Evidence for this decline appears in Ierapetra‟s ceramic record and also in an examination of the state of the buildings present in the three rescue excavation plots. To contextualize this apparent decline, several issues must be addressed. Why is the city not able to maintain the growth and prosperity it achieved during the Early Roman period? What economic role did Ierapetra fulfill on Crete, and farther afield, at this time? Does a decline of the urban center also correspond to a decline or contraction of Ierapetra‟s chora? How did the alteration to administrative and economic structures across the Roman world at this time affect other centers on Crete, and the overall economic role of the island? Available evidence for this period of Ierapetra‟s, and Crete‟s, history is not as extensive as for the Early Roman period, but a clearer picture of the state of the island after the third century should be attainable.

Ierapetra in the Late Roman Period Evidence for a decline at Ierapetra beginning in the fourth century is apparent from the Assariotaki, Pangalou, and Yiomelaki assemblages. Gaining sufficient resolution to document a specific period of transition from Early Roman to Late Roman in the city is difficult, however. Like most eastern Mediterranean sites, the dominant imported fineware at Ierapetra during the fourth and first half of the fifth century C.E. is African Red-Slip, specifically production C.357 Overall, African Red-Slip production C is the most ubiquitous imported fineware at the site during the Late Roman and Late Antique periods, accounting for 47% of fourth to seventh century imported finewares (Fig. 6.9). African Red-Slip production D and Phocaean Red-Slip, typically far more common on eastern Mediterranean sites, only account for 19% and 32% of the assemblages respectively. In contrast, at Eleutherna African Red-Slip C represents 2% of the 357

Atlante I, 14. Production of African Red-Slip C, lasting from the third through fifth century C.E., was centered on central Tunisia with several documented workshops including a large kiln site at Sidi Marzouk Tounsi. cf. Bonifay 2004: 50-1.

468

Late Roman/Late Antique imported finewares and at Gortyn 9% (Figs. 6.10-6.11).358 Study of the production history of African Red-Slip shows that production C had a lower output compared to production D, belying its popularity at Ierapetra.359 Conditions must have been in place which limited the importation of later fineware products to the site. An assessment of finds at Kato Mertia and in the Isthmus of Ierapetra by the Gournia Survey presents a different picture. At rural sites around Ierapetra, African Red-Slip D and Phocaean Red-Slip occur in far greater quantities than African Red-Slip C. At Kato Mertia, there also were several examples of imitation African Red-Slip documented, a type unattested in the urban assemblages. The pieces in question are all copies of forms 61 and 67 of the African ware, but produced in a local fabric.360 Several potential explanations for this disparity can be posited, including the notion that ports along the north coast may have served as disembarkation points for shipments of these wares and facilitated their transport to inland sites. What is most plausible, however, is that the material from the three urban rescue excavation plots does not offer an accurate reflection of the overall ceramic record of Ierapetra in these later periods. While disconcerting, this notion proves to be of great significance for understanding the Late Roman and Late Antique city. Evidence, to be discussed below, shows that Ierapetra had begun to contract in the Late Roman period, with inhabitation focusing more and more in the eastern part of the site near the harbor. The structures found within the Assariotaki, Pangalou, and Yiomelaki plots, all located within the western and central parts of the Roman city, appear to have been abandoned by the sixth century. For Ierapetra‟s inhabitants to desert buildings located in what had been the heart of the ancient city, some kind of decline must have been in effect.

358

Eleutherna: Vogt 2004: 923-30. Gortyn: Gortina V.3, 42-66, 68-71. Fentress and Perkins 1987: 208-10. 360 Imitations of African Red-Slip on Crete are also attested at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 121-3). 359

469

Amphora evidence also proves interesting in this discussion. Analogous to the Early Roman period, amphorae remain the dominant component of the ceramic assemblages at Ierapetra. Local vessels continue to predominant, but imports are attested from the Aegean, Asia Minor, and Africa. Most of the imported vessels appear to be containers for wine and olive oil. Quantification data from the Pangalou and Yiomelaki plots show that the proportion of imported amphora-borne commodities increased in this period.361 This suggests that the city was receiving fewer supplies from local producers, although an alternative interpretation is that these producers were relying more on non-amphora containers for transporting their products than in previous centuries. The Gournia Survey also documented an increase in amphora-borne products from foreign sources, with most of the finds deriving from the Aegean, Asia Minor, and Africa.362 Overall, this is the same pattern seen at other sites on Crete and across the Aegean.363 With the exception of a MR1 wine amphora from Italy, and the African material, however, western products are unattested. A destruction context in the Pangalou plot (Trench 5, layer 7), datable to the second half of the fourth century C.E., produced over a dozen complete or nearly complete amphorae in fragmentary form on a floor surface. Several contemporary destruction deposits were also noted in the Yiomelaki plot.364 All of these contexts may be evidence of damage inflicted during one or more earthquakes. The nature of the Pangalou context is telling because of the presence of numerous complete amphorae left fragmented on a floor surface, along with a small coin hoard and other pottery. The implication is that this structure was destroyed and not reinhabited 361

In the Pangalou plot, Cretan amphorae account for 91% of Early Roman amphorae (Table 35) and 84% of Late Roman amphorae (Table 36). In the Yiomelaki plot, the numbers are 82% and 64% respectively (Tables 54-55). As discussed above in the section on preliminary considerations, the Assariotaki plot produced no examples of amphorae in Early Roman contexts due to the collection protocol. This means that the proportion of Early Roman versus Late Roman imports cannot be compared for this plot. 362 Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming. 363 For instance, A. Yangaki (2005: 264-5) notes the same provenances for finds at Eleutherna and Athens. 364 Trench 8, layer 1; Trench 14, layer 2.

470

afterward. Several contexts in the Assariotaki plot also point to a similar kind of abandonment. In trench 3 of that plot, for instance, pottery between layers 2 and 1 jumps in date from circa 350 C.E. to the sixth century, indicating that structure was likely abandoned at some point in the second half of the fourth century. Earthquake damage may have been one of the causes for the abandonment of these structures. The consequences of earthquakes on Crete are well discussed.365 Seismologists have termed the period from the mid-fourth to the sixth century the Early Byzantine tectonic paroxysm to emphasize the ubiquity of large, destructive earthquakes that affected the eastern Mediterranean at this time.366 These earthquakes were even severe enough to cause the western part of Crete to uplift by as much as nine meters in some locations.367 Most of the discussion focuses on an earthquake attested for the year 365 C.E. (Amm. Marc. 26.10.15-19), and archaeologists have suggested that several sites on Crete were affected, including Chersonesos, Eleutherna, Gortyn, Kissamos, and possibly Lyttos.368 Whether the earthquake of 365 is to blame for the damage attested at Ierapetra cannot be ascertained. There were multiple earthquakes at this time and any or all could have caused a transformation of the city. Damage suffered during earthquakes is a plausible reason for the troubles evident in the three rescue plots during the Late Roman period. Earthquakes do not provide the entire story, however. For example, even if the buildings in these plots were destroyed, why was the city so quick to abandon them? Were the resources for repair and rebuilding not available? If resources were limited, what circumstances had led to the decrease in Ierapetra‟s prosperity?

365

For instance, see Steiros, Papagiorgiou, and Markoulaki 2004. Pirazolli 1986. 367 Pirazolli et al. 1982: 28; Pirazolli 1988: 161; Thommeret et al. 1981. 368 Chersonesos: Chaniotaki-Starida and Mari 2004: 288-9. Eleutherna: Yangaki 2005: 43-62. Gortyn: Di Vita 19791980. Kissamos: Markoulaki, Christoudoulakos, and Phrankikolaki 2004: 363. Lyttos: Harrison 1993: 320. 366

471

We can next turn to evidence for Ierapetra‟s relationship with its chora and see if the same economic turmoil is visible. Survey archaeology documents that there was an increase in settlement in several regions of the city‟s territory in Late Roman times. Late Roman settlement generally shows a distinct pattern compared to Early Roman landscapes in Greece as a whole. As Alcock notes: As we have seen, the Late Roman period (generally defined as beginning in the fourth and ending in the seventh century AD) witnessed a high degree of dispersed settlement in the countryside, which could be taken as evidence for a lessening interest in nucleated residence as an economic and social strategy, for an increasing involvement in intensive agricultural production, and – possibly – for demographic growth.369 On Crete an increase in settlement beginning in the fourth century has been documented by the Galatas, Gournia, Kavousi, Lasithi, Mesara, Sphakia, and Vrokastro surveys.370 No change in settlement density was recorded by the Akrotiri Survey in the western part of the island, while two other regions, the Ayiofarango Valley and Kommos, saw a decrease in site numbers.371 Of significance to Ierapetra is the increase in settlement in its direct vicinity identified by the Gournia and Kavousi surveys. For the Isthmus, the overall settlement pattern remained consistent, with the majority of the sites documented in the Early Roman period showing no evidence of a hiatus in occupation.372 Several new settlements were also identified, including a number of small farmsteads. Most of these sites were founded in the middle part of the Isthmus, suggesting a concerted attempt to intensify the exploitation of agricultural land in that region. Vogeikoff369

Alcock 1993: 218-9. Galatas: Watrous, personal communication. Gournia: Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. Kavousi: Haggis 2005: 87. Lasithi: Watrous 1982: 25. Mesara: Tsougarakis and Angelmatis-Tsougarakis 2004: 370-1. Sphakia: Moody, Nixon, and Price 1998: 87-90. Vrokastro: Hayden 2004b: 275-6. 371 Akrotiri: Raab 2001: 156. Ayiofarango Valley: Blackman and Branigan 1977: 75. Kommos: Hope Simpson 1995: 399-400. 372 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 370

472

Brogan notes that good soils and abundant waters sources made this area ideal for agriculture. In the southern part of the Isthmus, near Ierapetra, Kostas Chalikias also documented an increase in sites, based on a survey around the city.373 To the northeast, in the Kampos Plain, D. Haggis notes that settlement density increased, and that several sites, including the coastal settlement at Tholos, continued to flourish.374 In Chapter 3 above, several arguments were outlined which call into question the overall validity of these patterns, including the fact that Late Roman pottery is more readily identifiable causing an inflation in site numbers. This should, by no means, discount that settlement density in Late Roman times was high, but suggests that the pattern may be more similar to the Early Roman period than is recognized. The possibility that rural settlement did increase around Ierapetra in the Late Roman period also should be contextualized in consideration of the possible abandonment of buildings in the city, beginning in the second half of the fourth century C.E. Even in a situation where settlement did increase in the Isthmus, this does not necessarily represent some kind of demographic growth. The reduction in population at Ierapetra would either offset rural growth, or result in a net demographic loss. One intriguing possibility concerning Ierapetra‟s loss of urban population, in combination with high rural settlement density, is that there were a growing number of coloni functioning in the Isthmus of Ierapetra. Coloni became an important part of the Late Roman landscape and, as A. Giardina notes, represent a category of agricultural workers of free status who were nonetheless tied to the land.375 The immobility of these workers was beneficial to the tax structure of the Empire since it guaranteed that land would be worked. Whether coloni were

373

Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. Haggis 2005: 87. 375 cf. Giardina 2007: 748-50. He also notes that after 332 C.E., laws in the Codex Theodosiana and Codex Justiniana become increasingly interested in this class of workers. 374

473

active around Ierapetra, or anywhere in Crete, cannot be assessed with any degree of certainty, but the amount of land under cultivation from the fourth century onwards would imply that agricultural activity was abundant and perhaps included workers of this type. One important issue, for which we lack sufficient evidence to address properly, is whether the boundaries of Ierapetra‟s chora changed during the Late Roman period. The city likely maintained strong connections with rural settlements in the Isthmus and small northern ports like Tholos. Overland routes leading from the Bay of Mirabello to Ierapetra are still apparent, indicating transshipment of products between the north and south coasts still occurred. How far Ierapetra‟s territory extended beyond the Isthmus at this time cannot be ascertained, however. If Ierapetra‟s chora did continue to comprise the areas of the Isthmus of Ierapetra and the Kampos plain to the northeast in the Late Roman period, then the increase in settlement density in both regions is conspicuous. A higher number of rural settlements suggests that agricultural exploitation intensified. As mentioned above, however, amphora evidence from Ierapetra suggests that the proportion of commodities packaged in this vessels deriving from foreign sources compared to local sources increased at this time. This may, in fact, indicate that farmers in Ierapetra‟s chora and surrounding regions were relying less and less on transporting goods, like wine and olive oil, to the city in amphorae. This means that Ierapetra continued to be supplied primarily by its chora, even if the archaeological record does not document this fact. An intensification of agricultural production in Ierapetra‟s territory may have also been in response to changing administrative structures characteristic of the Roman Empire after Diocletian and Constantine. During the late third century and early fourth century, both emperors reestablished a centralized taxation system, which included more taxes being imposed on sites

474

across the Empire. K. Hopkins argues that taxes at this time came to be dominated more and more by taxation in kind.376 In response to this increasing burden, a larger proportion of the land around Ierapetra may have needed to be exploited in order to produce a sufficient surplus to meet the cities tax requirements. The transshipment of tax payments from regions in the eastern Mediterranean may have also continued to factor into Ierapetra‟s economic role, and perhaps helps to explain why imported amphora-borne commodities become more common at the site in this period. While there are some indications that Ierapetra maintained close ties with its chora, what can be said about the city‟s relations with other parts of the island? At Corinth, for instance, a deposit dated to the end of the third century C.E. shows that most of the site‟s ceramic material was local in provenance at this time, suggesting an enhanced reliance on regional trade. 377 A transition is thus apparent at Corinth as markets fluctuated during the reorganization of the Empire. There are no contemporary, closely-dated deposits at Ierapetra, meaning a similar reliance on local trade networks cannot be documented.378 We would expect, however, that some type of contact was maintained during this period and that exchange was occurring across polis borders. Analogous to the early Roman period, there is evidence that a unified economic strategy was maintained by centers on Crete. A revised typology of amphora forms developed by excavators at Gortyn shows that kiln sites on the island predominately produced only three distinct types of vessels.379 These forms are designated MRC1-3, with MRC standing for Medio-

376

Hopkins 1980: 123-4. Slane 1994: 164. 378 Peña (1999: 153) has noted how few deposits datable to the end of the third century/beginning of the fourth century C.E. have been published. 379 This typology was introduced in Portale and Romeo 2000 and can be found in final form in Gortina V.3, particularly pp. 260-1, 264-6, 269-79, 302-313. 377

475

Romano Cretese (Fig. 6.12). Producers of commodities packaged in these vessels must have still relied on the use of specific amphora types to aid in the identification of provenance of the contents by merchants and consumers. A transformation is also apparent in this period, however. Along with identifying the three types documented at Gortyn, excavators at Eleutherna recognized a fourth MRC amphora form.380 Termed the MRC4, this vessel type has only been documented at Eleutherna and could represent a container unique to that region. A similar type of unique find appeared at Ierapetra in the form of an amphora attested in the destruction deposit (Trench 5, layer 7) of the Pangalou plot. This vessel, designated number 435 in the catalogue in Chapter 5, consists of a rim shape, narrow body, and evidence for a toe that are not characteristic of Cretan amphorae from this period, although vessels from Eleutherna and Gortyn may be similar.381 The presence of these unique shapes at Eleutherna and Ierapetra could indicate that, along with the standardized containers used by producers across the island, independent manufacturing traditions were also arising which created vessels to package goods from specific regions. Evidence for this apparent economic regionalism will become more extensive in the Late Antique period, to be discussed below.

Crete’s Changing Economic Role According to A. Marangou, Crete‟s export economy may have ceased by the end of the third century or beginning of the fourth century C.E.382 In fact, she even suggests that the “… flourishing of the Cretan wine-producing economy under the Roman administration collapsed

380

Yangaki 2004-2005; 2005: 189. Yangaki 2005: 182 no. 58, 439 fig. 50e; Gortina II, 380 no. A330, pl.149d. 382 Marangou 1999: 278. 381

476

towards the end of the Roman Imperial period (c. AD 300)”.383 Harris notes that we currently lack viable models for explaining why Cretan exports disappear from Mediterranean markets at this time. There are two possible scenarios we must consider. First, exports from the island did cease, meaning the lack of identified commodities outside of Crete is a real phenomenon. From this perspective, we have to consider what factors led to the island‟s inability to produce sufficient surpluses for export. The second scenario is that exports did continue, but scholar have failed to identify markers, such as amphorae, which point to the exchange of Cretan goods. According to Alcock, in the Late Roman period “Greece conceivably could have become a more important resource for the eastern Roman world than had previously been the case, though the archaeological trade studies necessary to verify such a suggestion are sadly lacking”.384 In the past two decades studies have arisen to fill in the lacunae lamented by Alcock, and many do seem to confirm her belief that Aegean played a stronger economic role in the East after Diocletian. O. Karagiorgiou shows that Aegean products, particularly those shipped in Aegean LRA2 amphorae, were a primary component of the annona militaris.385 Wickham acknowledges that Constantinople, while receiving most of its grain from Egypt, was supplied in wine and oil by Palestine, Cilicia/North Syria, and the Aegean.386 Crete also appears to have played a role, with the apparent supply of products to armies stationed around the Black Sea, to be discussed in detail below. Overall, Crete had to adapt to a different economic climate where its previous role as a transshipment point and supplier to most of the Roman world was modified to focus primarily on

383

Marangou 1999: 278. Alcock 1993: 220. 385 Karagiorgiou 2001. 386 Wickham 2005: 76, 708. 384

477

the eastern Mediterranean. Thus, the island likely did continue to function as transshipment point and exporter, but for within a limited geographical context. The distribution of Cretan amphora-borne commodities in the Late Roman period, or lack thereof, has been the force behind the negative opinions of the island‟s economy. In the fourth and first half of the fifth century, Cretan products are attested in far fewer locales compared to earlier periods. In the western Mediterranean, the only confirmed attestations occur at Naples and Ostia, although some finds also may appear at Rome.387 In the eastern Mediterranean, Cretan amphorae can be found at Alexandria, Argos, Athens, and Berenice, along with a few vessels identified at sites along the Black Sea coast including Babadag-Topraichioi, Callatis, and Illychovka (Fig. 6.13).388 The implications of finds at Black Sea sites will be discussed below. At several of these sites, however, scholars note that finds of Cretan vessels appear in much lower quantities than in previous centuries. This implies that, while Cretan goods such as wine and olive oil were still being shipped beyond the islands borders, and predominately to sites in the eastern Mediterranean, quantities of these goods may have been reduced. For instance, J. Rougé argues that Cretan contact with the Berenice quickly dropped off after the island was separated from its provincial ties with Cyrenaica, implying that neither region engaged in exchanging goods with the other to the same extent as in the Early Roman period.389 Evidence of amphora-borne commodities attested in fewer locations might be misleading, however. When A. Marangou compiled the first typology of Cretan amphorae, she only documented production up to the early fourth century C.E., despite evidence for post-fourth

387

Naples: Arthur 1998: 166. Ostia: Geremia and Leone 2003: 67 fig. 11. Rome: Whitehouse et al. 1982: 69 no. 145. Alexandria: Marangou 2004: 1036 nos. 8-10, 13. Argos: Ivantchik 2002: 383 no. 130, 388 no. 131. Athens: Agora V, 68 no. K112; Böttger 1992: 371 no. 71. Berenice: Riley 1979: 181. Babadag-Topraichioi: Opaiţ et al. 1988: 223 type 11. Callatis: Scorpan 1977: 284 type 19. Illychovka: Sazanov 1997: 92 fig. 2.22). 389 Rougé 1966: 92. 388

478

century production at several sites on the island.390 Later forms were considered variants of earlier types, and were thought to have only been intended for distribution of products within Crete. Publication of a revised typology of forms, which documents production up to the eighth century C.E., has begun to change this view.391 Scholars outside of Crete still may be unfamiliar with this new typology, and as knowledge of these later forms disseminates, more and more sites will likely be identified to which Crete shipped its products in the Late Roman period. The most conspicuous aspect of this apparent reduced role of Crete in the Late Roman economy, based on the limited identification of the island‟s amphora-borne commodities outside of Crete, is the loss of western markets such as Rome. After the end of the fourth century, most Cretan exchange occurred with regions in the eastern Mediterranean. In the Early Roman section above, changes to the Egyptian grain trade, particularly the redirection of supplies away from Rome, was viewed as the main reason behind Crete‟s loss of these western markets. Diocletian was primarily responsible for the reorganization of Egypt‟s grain supply, preferring to use these surpluses for eastern military forces. Diocletian‟s reorganization also may have affected the Aegean. T. Barnes has shown that Diocletian spent much of his time during the final decade of the third century along the Danube frontier attending to military matters.392 Evidence of Diocletianic building inscriptions at numerous sites in this region seems to confirm this view.393 To accommodate the vast amount of supplies required by these military forces, including wine and oil, Diocletian would have turned to the Aegean among other regions. Many parts of the Aegean and Greece were capable of producing agricultural surpluses, and the proximity to the

390

Marangou-Lerat 1995: 67-94. Evidence for later production can be cited from Eleutherna (Vogt 2000: 90-1) and Gortyn (Gortina I, 268; Rendini 1989: 648; 1990: 234). 391 Portale and Romeo 2000; Gortina V.3, 260-1, 264-6, 269-79, 302-13. Several forms were also added by Yangaki (2004-2005: 507-20; 2005: 189, 194-7). 392 Barnes 1976: 177-8, 181; 1982: 196. 393 Zahariade 1999: 554; Poulter 2007: 30.

479

Danube region would have facilitated supply networks. Many products were being attracted to this area, including Baetican olive oil which appears to have supplied eastern armies in the late third and early fourth centuries.394 Prior to this reorganization, the onus of supply had fallen on the local networks. At Tibiscum, for instance, from the mid-third century until Diocletian‟s reorganization the majority of attested amphorae are Pontic in origin.395 Finds of Cretan amphorae at several sites around the Black Sea are significant in this context because they imply that the island had some involvement in supplying these northern military forces. A fuller exposition on the subject of Crete as a participant in the annona militaris will be given in the Late Antique section below when the evidence is more extensive. One important note before that discussion, however, is that amphora evidence shows that Ierapetra was not part of this supply network. Thus, with the loss of east-west trade and a lack of involvement in this new Cretan enterprise, there was little hope for the city to maintain the level of prosperity seen in Early Roman times.

LATE ANTIQUE (457 – 722/723 C.E.) The Late Antique period marks the final stages of Ierapetra‟s, and Crete‟s, Roman history. Significant changes are demonstrable across the island at this time, eventually resulting in the transformation of Crete into a Byzantine territory. For Ierapetra specifically, the decline evident in the previous period becomes even more pronounced. This decline can be tied directly to the city‟s increasing marginalization as a port city after the fourth century C.E. While Crete continued to play a role in the Mediterranean economic sphere, Ierapetra made fewer and fewer contributions to the island‟s economic output.

394 395

Remesal Rodriguez 1977-1978: 120. Benea 2000: 428.

480

Several topics need to be addressed in consideration of the state of Ierapetra and Crete in Late Antiquity. Why was the city, which had relied on transshipment exchange as an integral part of its ecology, unable to adapt when its economic role was reduced? How did a decline at Ierapetra affect its relationship with its chora and other regions on Crete? If other centers on Crete continue to show evidence for prosperity, what conditions enabled this, and what economic role did the island play at this time? One difficulty with discussing Crete in the Late Antique period is that certain sources of evidence, such as epigraphic texts and literary references, are far less abundant compared to earlier periods. Instead, we must rely primarily on archaeological evidence to discuss Ierapetra as it reached the end of its Roman history.

Ierapetra in Late Antiquity There is significant evidence to indicate that Ierapetra was in decline during these later centuries. Archaeological material, primarily ceramics, serves as the main source. Other forms of evidence, including inscriptions and literary references, are of little help. As a result, the effects of certain changes can only be assumed. For instance, increases in taxation discussed in the previous section must have continued to play a role in all centers of the Mediterranean, including Ierapetra. One also can wonder at the implications of the apparent disbandment in most cities of their long-established curia/boulē administrative systems.396 C. Wickham suggests a number of possible reasons for this reform. Taxation was now primarily a responsibility of the centralized imperial government rather than local administrative bodies. In addition, the substantial increases in the number of senators meant that more individuals could rise above the levels of local government. The curia/boulē system had become out-of-date in a more centralized political system. 396

Wickham 2005: 596-7.

481

The loss of municipal governments meant that poleis would have to compete more for influence from a central government. On Crete, the only city documented to have received imperial patronage was Gortyn. In the first half of the seventh century C.E., the emperor Heraclius rebuilt the city after a devastating earthquake, including the establishment of an artisanal quarter which may have existed into the eighth century.397 Such benefaction was rare in the eastern Mediterranean and Ierapetra does not appear to have been a recipient. According to Wickham, “Gortyn was a key strategic centre, and the capital of Crete, but interventions of this kind were by now entirely unparalleled on the mainlands, even in periods when the emperors securely controlled them”.398 When we consider the state of Ierapetra, evidence of imported fineware pottery attested at the site is indicative of a decline at this time. From the fourth century onwards, African Red-Slip and Phocaean Red-Slip are the primary fineware imports attested at Ierapetra. Cypriot Red-Slip and Egyptian Red-Slip appear in much smaller quantities. Data presented in the Late Roman section shows that African Red-Slip production C, manufactured from the mid-third to the midfifth century C.E., accounts for the majority of the finds (Fig. 6.9). Following the mid-fifth century, it appears that fineware imports to Ierapetra began to drop off. This pattern is in direct contrast to what is seen at almost all other sites on Crete and across the eastern Mediterranean. Another interesting point concerning the fineware assemblage at Ierapetra is a lack of post-sixth century finds. Only a few African Red-Slip and Phocaean Red-Slip pieces can be assigned to the seventh century. In fact, very little pottery from the three rescue excavations dates after the sixth century. Other sites on Crete, including Eleutherna, Gortyn, Pseira, and Itanos, all have assemblages dating to the seventh century and after. Rural sites around Ierapetra

397 398

Zanini and Giorgi 2002. Wickham 2005: 628.

482

also display a different pattern of finds of imported fineware. At Kato Mertia, Phocaean Red-Slip is by far the most common, with African Red-Slip production C marginal in comparison. The Gournia Survey documented widespread dissemination of these later finewares into the Isthmus.399 Several fragments of Cypriot Red-Slip, and one Egyptian Red-Slip sherd datable to the seventh century, were even identified on rural sites. Thus, the chora of Ierapetra displays the traditional pattern of fineware imports, while Ierapetra itself does not. The uncharacteristically low numbers of African Red-Slip production D and Phocaean Red-Slip in Ierapetra, coupled with the lack of seventh century finds, are strong indicators that the city‟s port was no longer experiencing the same level of ship traffic as it had in previous centuries. Characterization of Late Antique contexts in the Assariotaki, Pangalou, and Yiomelaki plots, along with the pottery they produce, also points to another variable we must consider. Deposits dated to the Late Antique period typically comprise large fills of pottery of all dates, with the ceramic material often exceeding the quantity of soil in the deposit.400 Pottery in these fills also is of poorer quality than earlier deposits. These fills could be evidence of dumping activity and would suggest that the buildings had been abandoned and were being used for the deposition of refuse. The material from these three urban rescue excavation plots, thus, may not offer an accurate reflection of the overall ceramic record of Ierapetra in these later periods. The significance of the abandonment of the structures in these plots is also relevant when we consider they were all located near the center of the Roman city, which is to the west of the main component of the modern town. Overall, the Roman city and the modern city of Ierapetra display different settlement footprints and an unanswered question is when the shift in settlement concentration occurred. That the structures identified in all three rescue excavations were being

399 400

Hayes and Kossyva, forthcoming; Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. The excavators of the Yiomelaki plot noted that fact for several contexts.

483

used as refuse dumps by the sixth century implies that the part of the city in which they are located was at least partially abandoned. At this time, settlement must have come to focus more and more around the area of the harbor. Ierapetra may have also been facing difficulties with its harbor, and was perhaps no longer able to sustain the same levels of ship traffic as it had in earlier periods. In the early fifteenth century, Cristoforo Buondelmonti commented that part of Ierapetra‟s ancient harbor had silted up, and now comprised a fertile field.401 When did this silting action begin? A rescue excavation undertaken in 2007 in the area of Ierapetra‟s ancient harbor revealed significant evidence of post-antique attempts to backfill this region.402 Large quantities of architectural spolia, roof tiles, bricks, and other debris were identified during three days of digging. Excavations ceased after that short period because of difficulties with the water table. For postantique inhabitants of the city to purposefully backfill part of the ancient harbor, an action which must have occurred before the visit of Buondelmonti, silting must have made the port unusable. In all likelihood, silting began during antiquity and may have caused significant problems for shipping at Ierapetra by the Late Antique period. Wickham suggests that “Cities in this region [Byzantine heartland of Greece, the Aegean, and Anatolia] remained prosperous, by and large, until the late sixth or early seventh century”. 403 Ierapetra, it appears, may have been an exception. The city‟s chora, on the other hand, does show evidence of a degree of prosperity. While the extent of the chora in this period cannot be ascertained, in the area of the Isthmus, a dense settlement pattern is evident into the sixth or seventh century.404 Finds of imported finewares and amphorae, including wine and olive oil

401

Van Spitael 1981: 103. Kostas Chalikias, personal communication. 403 Wickham 2005: 626. 404 Vogeikoff-Brogan, forthcoming. 402

484

containers from the Aegean and North Africa, suggest exchange and some level of transshipment were being maintained within this territory. Perhaps the analysis of ceramic assemblages from a site in Ierapetra that was not abandoned in the Late Antique period would help shed light on the relationship the city must have maintained with its chora. In consideration of Ierapetra‟s potential relationships with regions on Crete outside of its chora, some indicators suggest that poleis on the island were becoming less interconnected. Local pottery is rarely found outside of its region of production, suggesting trade links were not as vibrant as in earlier periods. Amphora production also adopts a different character. Beginning in the fifth century, amphora types manufactured on Crete become more diverse. Evidence from Gortyn and Eleutherna shows that no fewer than 16 forms were being produced and material from outside of the island may suggest this number is too small.405 All of these forms are designated as Tardo Romano Cretese (TRC), based the typology developed at Gortyn. According to A. Yangaki, the development of numerous, new amphora forms for packaging commodities on Crete indicates that the rural economy of the island was still flourishing.406 Perhaps this is an accurate assessment of regions where many of these forms are documented, but what does this say about Ierapetra where only the TRC2 amphora was common? This diversity in amphora production may be illustrative of the growing independence of centers on Crete, since the standardization of forms evident in earlier periods appears less applicable. Two overall manufacturing traditions can be identified within the vast number of Late Antique Cretan amphora forms. First, a series of vessels were manufactured which maintained the traditional ovoid or cylindrical shape of early Cretan amphorae, although in some 405

Portale and Romeo 2000; Gortina V.3; Yangaki 2004-2005: 512-8; 2000: 189, 194-7. Along with the 16 types described in these publications, A. Opaiţ (2004: 24) suggests one additional form, designated previously as the Benghazi LR14 (Riley 1979: 232 no. D376) and the Saraçhane type 22 (Hayes 1992: 69), may have a Cretan provenance. 406 Yangaki 2004-2005: 522-3.

485

cases the body is narrower (Fig. 6.14). The TRC1, TRC2, and TRC4 are among the most commonly identified shapes identified from this tradition, and are also the forms most readily attested outside of the island between the fifth and seventh centuries. Second, a series of smaller, globular amphora types begin to be produced, with many of these forms thus far only documented at Eleutherna (Fig. 6.15). A. Yangaki places eight forms into this category: TRC7, TRC8, TRC10, TRC12, TRC13, TRC14, TRC15, TRC16.407 Most of these forms have smaller dimensions than traditional Cretan amphorae, along with other divergent characteristics such as wider rim diameters. One possibility is that this new series of forms were intended primarily for use as olive oil containers. According to O. Karagiorgou, the large capacity and wide mouth associated with the Aegean Late Roman Amphora 2 (LRA2) suggests that those vessels were intended mainly for the transport of olive oil.408 While she also notes some evidence for their use as wine containers, morphology, origin of production (the olive producing Aegean), and distribution patterns, including to non-olive producing regions like the North Balkans and Britain, argue for its function as an oil container. The morphology of many of these globular Cretan amphorae shares characteristics with LRA2 vessels. This does not preclude them from being used as wine containers, or containers for other goods, but could suggest that olive oil also was packaged within them. A small number of these vessels have been identified outside of Crete, including at Tau-Kipchak in the Crimean Peninsula and possibly at Rome.409 Horden and Purcell note that only recently have scholars begun to question the assumed homogeneity of Roman culture across the Mediterranean.410 Perhaps in these later centuries, the

407

Yangaki 2007: 768-70. Karagiorgou 2001: 147-9. 409 Tau-Kipchak: Sazanov 1997: 92, fig. 2.21. Rome: Ricci 1998: 186, fig. 12.3). 410 Horden and Purcell 2000: 28. 408

486

degree of homogeneity had also shifted within individual provinces. Ierapetra produces examples of only a small number of TRC amphora types, and centers on Crete may have come to rely more and more on locally produced forms to package commodities produced in those regions.

Crete’s Economic Role in Late Antiquity A consideration of Crete‟s role in trade can help explain why Ierapetra can be characterized as a site in gradual decline during Late Antiquity. In the Late Roman section above, it was noted that Cretan goods, such as wine, were attested almost exclusively at sites in the eastern Mediterranean. This was in large part due to the reorganization of supply networks under Diocletian and Constantine, after which the northern armies and Constantinople became the foci of distribution. Crete may have become part of the annona militaris for supplying military forces stationed along the Black Sea. There is significant evidence from the Late Antique period to corroborate this hypothesis. This includes a decree of Justinian dated to 536 C.E. that is concerned with the creation of a new magistracy, the quaestura exercitus.411 The primary duty of this magistrate, whose region of operation included Moesia Secunda, Scythia, Caria, Cyprus, and the Cycladic islands, was to ensure the efficient supply of troops stationed along the northeastern frontier. These troops were stationed in Moesia Secunda and Scythia, and supplied from Caria, Cyprus, and the Cyclades. One could hypothesize that Crete is subsumed here as one the Cycladic islands. The Aegean was an important source of supplies for the annona militaris at this time, based on the presence of wine and olive oil amphorae, including the LRA1, LRA2, and Agora

411

Jones 1964: 280. Primary sources: Just. Nov. 41; John Lydus Mag. 2.28-29.

487

M273, at many sites around the Black Sea.412 Cretan may have also supplied goods to military forces in this region, as well as maintained economic connections with other regions in the eastern Mediterranean. No fewer than 29 sites produce evidence that they were supplied with Cretan amphora-borne commodities between the sixth and the seventh centuries (Fig. 6.16). Twenty of these sites are located either in Moesia Secunda or Scythia, suggesting Cretan wine was part of the annona militaris. The remaining nine sites are scattered throughout the eastern and central Mediterranean. The presence of Cretan goods at a site in Late Antiquity is confirmed mainly through the identification of Cretan amphorae, which would have served as packaging for goods such as wine and olive oil. It is only recently that scholars working outside of Crete have begun recognizing the presence of Late Antique Cretan amphora forms at their sites, particularly in regions of the Black Sea. A. Opaiţ and A. Sazanov acknowledge the presence of Cretan vessels at 15 sites in Moesia Secunda and Scythia.413 Additional finds can be documented at BabadagTopraichioi, Callatis, Iatrus, Murighiol, Tau-Kipchak, and Tropaeum Traiani.414 Several different Cretan amphora forms appear at these sites including small quantities of TRC1 and TRC2 vessels. The majority of the finds, however, constitute the TRC4 amphora, a type with a narrower body than had been standard for Cretan amphorae in previous periods.415 This type had been identified as a unique form around the Black Sea as early as 1960, but was not recognized as Cretan until the past decade.416 One additional type, currently classified as the Benghazi LR14

412

Arthur 1998: 167; Karagiorgou 2001; Opaiţ 2004: 96; Swan 2007: 261-2. Opaiţ 2004: 24; Sazanov 2007: 807-8. The sites in question are Tomis, Histria, Axiopolis, Argamum, Constantinople, Ibida, Chersonesos, Tyritake, Illychovka, Panticapaeum, Kitei, Chersonesos de Zeno, Tsibillium, and Zelenii Mis. 414 Babadag-Topraichioi: Opaiţ et al. 1988: 233 type 11. Callatis: Scorpan 1977: 283 type 18. Iatrus: Böttger 1967: 259, 275, pl. 14.48, pl. 11.2. Murighiol: Opaiţ 1988: 151 no. 136. Tau-Kipchak: Sazanov 1997: 92 fig. 2.21. Tropaeum Traiani: Barnea et al. 1979: 186 no. 31. 415 For a description of this type see Gortina V.3, 306-7 no. 66. 416 Zeest 1960: 120 type 99. 413

488

or the Saraçhane type 22, has been suggested by A. Opaiţ to be of Cretan provenance based on fabric. It is found at several of the sites mentioned above,417 but outside of the Black Sea and Constantinople, it has been identified only at Corinth, and is not part of any typology of Cretan amphorae.418 The form is the only Late Antique Cretan amphora type currently attested at Constantinople, assuming it is Cretan in origin. J. Hayes observes that Cretan vessels do not appear at that site with any degree of regularity in this period, suggesting the island may not have been one of the city‟s primary suppliers.419 This pattern of distribution could suggest that these Cretan amphorae transported wine primarily. Wickham, for instance, speculates that oil and grain sent to Constantinople were state-supplied, but wine was not.420 If Cretan wine was destined for the northern armies, this may have limited the supply available to be shipped to Constantinople for the purpose of private enterprise. What is most intriguing about the Cretan amphora types present at these Black Sea sites is the fact that only the TRC2 is documented at Ierapetra. TRC4 vessels (and related forms TRC5-TRC6) are almost unattested at the site, with the exception of a single vessel noted above as catalogue entry 433. They also do not appear at Kato Mertia, or at any of the sites identified by the Gournia Survey. This contrasts with Gortyn, where TRC4 amphorae account for 10.7% of the identified TRC vessels based on sherd count.421 Eleutherna produces very few fragments of this form, but it may be the most common Late Antique type attested at Itanos.422 An example of this form was recovered from the sea at Chersonesos and the TRC6, an amphora type with a very

417

Opaiţ 2004: 24; Riley 1979: 232 no. D376; Hayes 1992: 69. Slane and Sanders 2005: 278 no. 4.22. 419 Hayes, personal communication. 420 Wickham 2005: 708. 421 Total TRC4 sherds = 156. Total sherds from identified TRC types = 1459. Data obtained from Gortina V.3, 30212. 422 Eleutherna: Vogt 2000: 91-2, fig. 43.6, 8-9; Yangaki 2005: 191-2 no. 276. Itanos: Xanthopoulou, personal communication. 418

489

similar morphology to the TRC4, appears to have been produced at that same site.423 A lack of publication of ceramic finds from Chersonesos hinders any attempt to identify more examples. The significant presence of TRC4 vessels at Gortyn and Itanos, and perhaps Chersonesos, suggests these sites were participants in the annona militaris. As a provincial capital, Gortyn may have had a role in mobilizing Cretan supplies intended for distribution to the army. Overall, with the exception of Gortyn, much of Crete‟s economic focus shifted to the north coast at this time. Large port cities arose at Kissamos, Herakleion, Chersonesos, Siteia, and Itanos, and a Late Antique settlement was established on the island of Pseira. By the Venetian period, most of the economic focus of Crete was tied to these northern ports. The fact that TRC4 vessels do not appear to have been employed as packaging containers for goods produced in or around Ierapetra suggests the site and its chora were not participants in the annona. Cretan goods were not shipped exclusively to sites along the Black Sea coast, however, and there was a degree of market exchange still in place. While the annona militaris and the supply of Constantinople took precedence, merchants still engaged in transporting goods for profit. Even navicularii who were tied directly to the annona may have dabbled in private trade when the opportunity permitted. This is suggested by a law recorded in the Codex Theodosiana for the year 396 C.E. (13.5.26), which states that ship captains engaged with the annona had to return their boats to their ports of origin within two years of setting out. The annona had to be delivered in the first year, a fact which “would have allowed quite enough time for a serious amount of trade on the side”.424 In fact, private trade is considered the mechanism behind the

423

For the TRC4 vessel recovered from the sea around Chersonesos see Leatham and Hood 1958-1959: 273, fig. 9.4. For attested manufacture of TRC6 vessels at Chersonesos see Gortina V.3, 389 n.110, citing evidence from Marangou-Lerat 1995: 63. 424 Wickham 2005: 711.

490

movement of LRA1 amphorae up the Nile.425 With respect to the potential market exchange of Cretan amphora-borne products, these goods are attested at nine sites in the eastern and central Mediterranean, including Alexandria, Argos, Athens, Berenice, Corinth, Olympia, Thasos, Thessaloniki, and possible Rome.426 Almost without exception, the amphorae attested at these Mediterranean sites used to package Cretan products are examples of TRC1 or TRC2 vessels. This is in direct contrast to the finds at sites around the Black Sea, perhaps suggesting there was a purposeful distribution pattern behind this dichotomy. More evidence is required to corroborate this suggestion. TRC2 amphorae were the dominant Late Antique amphora type at Ierapetra and were documented in notable quantities at Kato Mertia. If Ierapetra did have a role in long-distance exchange at this time, it was tied to shipments of goods packaged in TRC2 vessels, destined for sites in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. Overall, the export of goods packaged in amphorae from Crete implies that wine and olive oil still formed an important component of the island‟s agricultural production. Medicinal products, including herbs and other types of plants, likely were still being exported at this time also. These were perhaps Crete‟s most important exports during the Early Roman period and it is unlikely there would have been a substantial drop-off. Of interest in this context are references in the Geniza archive from Cairo, dated between the tenth and twelfth

425

Wickham 2005: 711. Alexandria: Marangou 2004: 1035 nos. 12, 14. Argos: Aupert 1980: 440 no. 326; Ivantchik 2002: 383 no. 130, 388 no. 131. Athens: Böttger 1992: 371 no. 72. Berenice: Riley 1979: 233 no. D377. Corinth: Williams and Zervos 1988: 98, pl. 33.4; Slane and Sanders 2005: 278 nos. 4.22, 4.26. Olympia: Martin 1996: 129; 2000: 430. Thasos: Abadie-Reynal and Sodini 1992: 60 no. CC361. Thessaloniki: ArchDelt 21 (1966) B‟2: 335, pl. 349γ; Pazaras 2009: 225, fig. 2.68; Papanikola-Bakirtzi, forthcoming. Rome: Whitehouse et al. 1982: 69 no. 145; Ricci 1998: 372 fig. 12.3. Some publications of Cretan pottery (eg. Gortina V.3, 304; Yangaki 2005: 190) also include Carthage in this list. I do not agree with this conclusion and note that the amphorae in question are published by Fulford and Peacock (1984: 130 nos. 44, 47) in the African amphora section based on fabric and forms, both of which are reminiscent of the Tunisian cylindrical amphorae common in this period. 426

491

century. Several texts in this archive mention medicinal plants being exported from Crete.427 These documents also mention cheese as a Cretan export.428 Unless there was a hiatus in exports between the Early Roman and post-Roman periods, supply of these plants must have continued throughout Late Antiquity. According to Horden and Purcell, medicinal herbs are “not obscure accidents of Mediterranean production, but illustrate the acme of intensification and specialization which are to be seen in the Mediterranean garden, and which represent one of the most important protections against omnipotent risk”.429 One implication of medical herbs as a viable export in the Late Antique period is that the trade of archaeologically invisible commodities still played an important role in the economy of Crete. A similar argument has been made for Egypt in Late Antiquity. Egypt at this time had a large-scale textile industry likely geared at least partially toward export, as suggested by texts from Oxyrhynchus.430 In this case, archaeology is deceptive because the export of these textiles cannot be documented through concrete evidence. Perhaps the small number of finds of Egyptian ceramics at Ierapetra and in the Isthmus datable to this period is indicative of the import of perishable commodities from Egypt. At the same time, it should be accepted that perishable commodities from Crete were also being exported, perhaps to Constantinople, and perhaps without associated cargoes of amphorae or other archaeologically identifiable products. Along these same lines, Crete may have been involved in the exchange of slaves during the Roman period, including in Late Antiquity. Eighth and ninth century accounts of European slaves being transported across the Mediterranean show that some were shipped to Crete, although M. McCormick speculates that the island served mainly as a temporary stopover for

427

Goitein 1967: 47. Goitein 1967: 46. 429 Horden and Purcell 2000: 223. 430 Wickham 2005: 713. For discussions of Egypt‟s textile industry see Wipszycka 1967 and van Minnen 1987. 428

492

these individuals on their way to their final destination.431 This does raise the possibility, however, that Crete participated in the transshipment of slaves in early periods as well. The overall driving force for the Late Antique economy in both halves of the Mediterranean was the annona organized to supply Rome, Constantinople, and military forces. In the western Mediterranean, this resulted in an almost complete domination of African products. This was not the case in the eastern Mediterranean, where ceramics from Egypt are not found in the same overwhelming quantities.432 One possibility is that a large proportion of Egyptian merchandise was traded in the form of perishable goods, such as linen or textiles. African products, based on the presence of different amphora types and African Red-Slip fineware vessels, also dominate western finds in the eastern Mediterranean at this time. Their overall quantities, however, are relatively small compared to local products.433 J.-P. Sodini notes that African goods never achieve the same dominance in the East as eastern goods do in the West in Late Antiquity.434 Other western products, such wine packaged in Italian Keay 52 amphorae, are documented in much smaller amounts and in fewer locations. In 439 C.E., a major problem arose in the West with the capture of Carthage by Vandals. This action essentially severed the tax link between Rome and Carthage, and the traditional view is that the African economy went into decline.435 Most scholars, including C. Panella, would now argue against this suggestion of overt decline, particularly when one considers that several new African amphora types were created during this period.436 Some effects were felt in the eastern Mediterranean, particularly with respect to the distribution of African Red-Slip. Many of the 431

McCormick 2001: 252. cf. Duncan-Jones 2004: 37-8. 433 Wickham 2005: 711. 434 Sodini 2000: 191. 435 Wickham 2005: 711. For a summary of the typical viewpoint concerning the African economy following the Vandal conquest see Panella 1993: 643-4. 436 Panella 1983: 58. 432

493

forms produced in this period are absent from eastern sites, or attested in very small quantities.437 At Ierapetra, these Vandal forms were unidentified, although they do appear to some extent in the Isthmus. Gortyn produces only a handful of fragments for most of these forms.438 When North Africa was retaken in 534 C.E. by forces organized by Constantinople, there was a renewed presence of African Red-Slip at most eastern Mediterranean sites, particularly a series of large plates, designated Hayes forms 103-105. C. Abadie-Reynal argues that the distribution of African Red-Slip in the East at this time was based on a different economic premise than Phocaean Red-Slip, the dominant eastern fineware.439 In her view, the distribution of African Red-Slip was tied to long-distance exchange, particularly the annona, based on its predominance at Constantinople and major port cities. Phocaean Red-Slip, on the other hand, was tied more to local commercial networks.440 Of additional interest are the implications that a fluctuating supply of African goods had for eastern products being shipped west. The loss of some, but not all African supplies, appears to have prompted a reinvigoration of eastern imports to the West in the Late Antique period. P. Arthur argues, with respect to the presence at numerous sites in Italy and Gaul of the Samos Cistern type, a wine container believed to have been produced in the Aegean, that “…it is feasible, given the Byzantine concern over her Italian territory, that commodity supply was state procured through taxation and purchase”.441 He goes on to suggest that finds of eastern amphoraborne goods in the West, particularly in Italy, implies restricted redistribution to areas of prime concern to the Byzantine government.442 This is essentially in reference to goods packaged in the 437

For instance, at Corinth. cf. Slane 2008: 474. Gortina V.3, 48-9. 439 Abadie-Reynal 1989. 440 An exception to this phenomenon may be the presence of a significant quantity of Phocaean Red-Slip found at Conimbriga in Spain. cf. LRP Suppl., 525. 441 Arthur 1985: 256. 442 Arthur 1989a: 83. 438

494

standard eastern Mediterranean “package”, the LRA1-7 amphora types. A large proportion of these vessels at the Crypta Balbi in Rome would seem to support this,443 as would their presence at more obscure sites, including Vada Rosignano Marittimo Livorno in Italy.444 These amphorae also appear at numerous sites in Gaul,445 and among Catalan sites in Spain account for 20% of amphora finds between the late fifth and mid-sixth centuries.446 At Carthage they account for 2530% of all amphora fragments during this same period.447 P. Reynolds suggests it was primarily coastal sites which received products packaged in these vessels, although it is interesting to note that they are attested as far west as Britain.448 It is within this broad context of Mediterranean trade that we can try to situate Crete in Late Antiquity. Ierapetra, much like other major centers on Crete, including Gortyn and Eleutherna, received the full complement of the eastern Mediterranean package. Examples of LRA1-7 are found at the site and several of these forms also appear in varying quantities at Kato Mertia and other sites in the Isthmus. Ierapetra, and Crete, thus, were still receiving goods from a variety of sources in the East. African goods also are attested at Ierapetra, and in the Isthmus, although their overall quantities are low. This pattern also can be seen at other sites on Crete,449 and at other major port cities in the eastern Mediterranean, including Thessaloniki and Corinth.450

443

Saguì 1998: 317-8. Del Rio and Vallebona 1996. 445 Bonifay and Villedieu 1989: 18, fig. 1; Bonifay and Piéri 1995: 108-13. 446 Keay 1984: 428. 447 Panella 1983: 55. British excavations at the site record a 100% increase in eastern amphora finds at this time. cf. Fulford and Peacock 1984: 258. 448 Reynolds 1995: 72. For finds in Britain: see Arthur 1998: 161-2. 449 At Gortyn Late Antique African amphorae, with the exception of spatheia (LRA8) appear in very small amounts. cf. Gortina V.3, 313-24. 450 Thessaloniki: Papanikola-Bakirtzas, forthcoming. Corinth: Slane and Sanders 2005: 290. 444

495

The Aegean and Palestine were the primary wine-supplying regions in the East.451 Crete was a component of the former. Why, then, do sites across the island, including Ierapetra, produce large numbers of vessels from other wine-exporting regions? Could the island not produce sufficient supplies for its own population? Wickham would attribute these supplies to “capillary trade” and the continued presence of commercial networks in the eastern Mediterranean.452 This is an important consideration, since the role of the state can easily be over-emphasized with respect to Late Antique exchange. When supply networks in the East began to be affected negatively in an analogous fashion to African networks, they appear to disintegrate more rapidly than in the West.453 Arab conquests are the primary reason for the loss of many supply networks since vital economic regions, including Egypt, were no longer under Constantinople‟s sway. The Aegean was affected greatly by this “breakdown of the Mediterranean system”, with regionalism quickly becoming the norm.454 At Corinth, for instance, Slane and Sanders note that there is an increasing regionalism in ceramic material during the sixth and seventh centuries. The ceramic record of Crete in the seventh century and later is difficult to interpret, largely because there have been limited studies of the archaeology of this period. The island likely fell into the same pattern noted for the rest of the Aegean, and relied more on local and regional exchange networks. By this point, however, Ierapetra had likely become a shell of its former self and may not have played a significant economic role on Crete or in the Mediterranean.

451

Wickham 2005: 714. Wickham 2005: 781. 453 Wickham 2005: 716. 454 Wickham 2005: 780-1. 452

496

CONCLUSIONS By their very nature, settlements positioned on coasts serve as thresholds through which a given region can maintain social, cultural, economic, and administrative connections. Crete, as an island, was particularly reliant on its ports to establish relationships with other regions across the Mediterranean. Ierapetra was one such Cretan port city and a discussion of its historical trajectory from the Late Hellenistic through Late Antique periods shows that the site went through numerous transitions. The earliest evidence for Ierapetra developing economic connections outside of Crete dates to the mid-fifth century B.C.E., when the site may have been part of exchange networks between the Aegean and North Africa. By the Late Hellenistic period, the city had grown into one of the most powerful poleis on Crete and had, perhaps, developed a series of complex economic relationships with other centers on the island and within the eastern Mediterranean. The role of Crete in the Hellenistic economy still requires further clarification, but evidence is mounting that the island‟s participation in exchange networks was far more extensive than has presently been acknowledged. While serving as a transshipment port for goods passing from the eastern to the western Mediterranean during the Early Roman period, Ierapetra may have reached the pinnacle of its prosperity. Ierapetra, and Crete, featured prominently in exchange networks stretching across the Roman world at this time When Diocletian and Constantine reorganized economic and administrative structures across the Mediterranean, Ierapetra saw many of its economic connections from previous centuries disappear. Crete was no longer involved in transshipment between East and West, and instead primarily functioned as a component of distribution networks within the eastern Mediterranean. In this context, the changing economic life of the island of Crete reflects the changing economic relationships between the eastern and western

497

Mediterranean, and the island can serve as a proxy for understanding these transitions. In these later periods, Crete participated in the annona militaris for armies stationed around the Black Sea. Ierapetra does not appear to have contributed supplies to the annona, however, and archaeological evidence points to a decline in the city beginning in the fourth century. This decline becomes more evident in successive centuries and resulted in the contraction of the town and the loss of the city‟s status as a major port city of Crete. What is significant about this discussion of Ierapetra‟s historical trajectory is that the city‟s Roman period prosperity was tied to its role in Mediterranean exchange networks. When these networks were strong, Ierapetra flourished. As these networks disappeared, the city was not able to adapt and fell into a decline. Horden and Purcell have discussed the connection between ports and long-distance exchange. Using several Medieval ports in Italy as examples, including Amalfi, Genoa, and Pisa, they argue that long-distance exchange was not a principal component of their early growth. Instead, “… trade (in both luxuries and staples) and the development of a rural hinterland seem to have exercised powerful influences on each other”.455 John Leonard has also emphasized the fundamental link between a coastal center and its rural chora.456 The development of Ierapetra‟s chora in the Hellenistic period was of vital importance to the city‟s ability to participate in Mediterranean-wide exchange networks in later periods. Eventually, however, Ierapetra appears to have come to rely too much on these networks and was not able to sustain its prosperity based solely on its relationship with its chora. Thus, the rise and fall of Ierapetra must be viewed within the context of Mediterranean exchange and shows that scholars need to look beyond Crete‟s shores when discussing sites on the island.

455 456

Horden and Purcell 2000: 117. Leonard 2005: 952.

498

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS

This study has attempted to fill in a lacuna in our understanding of the history of Roman Crete. The city of Ierapetra has received minimal scholarly attention and there are few published assemblages of material available for publication. Pottery from three rescue excavations in the Viglia district of Ierapetra served as the basis for undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the history of this Cretan polis. This is the first ceramic material to be presented from the site and will provide an important addition to other published pottery assemblages from centers on the island. A fourth assemblage from the rural settlement of Kato Mertia, located approximately 6.5km north of Ierapetra, was also discussed in order to provide a comparison between city and chora. The pottery amounted to roughly 500kg of material, ranging in date from the second century B.C.E. to the seventh century C.E. Careful examination of these assemblages enabled a picture of the history of the site to be reconstructed. Before commencing a discussion of Ierapetra, it was necessary to first examine several methodological issues concerning Roman Crete. Several significant topics, including when and how Crete became a Roman territory, have not been sufficiently treated by scholars. An assessment of the evidence for Crete‟s contact with Rome shows that their relationship was complex and developed gradually over the course of several centuries. The conquest of the island between 69 and 67 B.C.E. came after nearly one and a half centuries of Roman contact. It took several decades after 67 for Roman control of Crete to solidify, however, and not until the ascension of Augustus can we use the term “Roman Crete” with full confidence. Crete‟s Roman

499

history was also long-lived and an examination of the evidence shows that not until the early eighth century C.E. was the island finally entrenched in the Byzantine world. Following a detailed assessment of the types of evidence available to scholars of Roman Crete, the discussion turned to providing an assessment of our current knowledge of the site. While many topics concerning the city‟s history can be addressed, limitations in evidence leave gaps in our understanding. The earliest evidence for settlement at Ierapetra, for instance, dates to the mid-fifth century B.C.E., even though it is likely there was Bronze Age and/or Iron Age occupation at the site. A point of significance in this section was the reconstruction of the city‟s chora in both the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. Port cities were fundamentally linked to the countryside, and an understanding of the extent of the city‟s holdings was important for subsequent discussions of the economic life of Ierapetra. After a detailed presentation of the pottery evidence obtained from the various rescue excavations, the study culminated with a synthetic discussion of this ceramic data and a diachronic model of the historical trajectory of Ierapetra. Few poleis in the eastern Mediterranean have received the detailed treatment granted to Ierapetra in the form of a systematic discussion of the history of the site. The city rose to prominence in the Late Hellenistic period, and evidence suggests that the site, and Crete as a whole, may have begun participating in exchange networks with other regions of the eastern Mediterranean. The extent of Crete‟s export economy in this period is difficult to document, however, and one important consideration is that the exchange of perishable goods may have formed a significant component of the island‟s economic foundation. Following the conquest of the island, the ceramic record soon shows developing economic connections between Ierapetra and the eastern and western Mediterranean. The presence of notable quantities of Eastern Sigillata A, along with the first indications of Italian ceramics in the

500

form of a Dressel 1 amphora and Campana C plate, demonstrate the city had become an important transshipment port. Similar evidence is available from other sites on Crete, demonstrating that economic connections were becoming more visible. The height of prosperity for Ierapetra came in the Early Roman period when the city continued to engage in transshipment, including participation in the transport of grain from Alexandria to Rome. Evidence for abundant quantities of Cretan amphorae in Italy confirms the island‟s role in the transshipment of goods to the West, and help to explain the prosperity seen across Crete at this time. While most accounts of Roman Crete describe wine as the major commodity supplied in amphorae from the island, this study speculates that Ierapetra may have been a supplier of olive oil as well. Evidence for large-scale olive oil production in the Isthmus of Ierapetra suggests that within the city‟s territory oil was being produced on a scale beyond the needs of subsistence. The end of the third century C.E. brought about an end to the prosperity of Ierapetra. Diocletian separated Crete from its provincial partner Cyrenaica, and East-West economic relations diminished. The loss of western markets appears to have affected the city greatly and it could not re-establish its economic footing based solely on exchange networks based in the eastern Mediterranean. Amphora evidence suggests Crete continued to supply goods on a largescale, particularly to military forces stationed around the Black Sea, but Ierapetra was not part of this distribution network. Evidence for earthquake damage in the latter part of the fourth century also points to a decline since there is little evidence for repairs or reconstruction of the structures in question. This situation becomes increasingly amplified during the Late Antique period when the buildings in all three urban rescue excavation plots show evidence of abandonment, and

501

instead functioned as refuse dumps. Ierapetra must have contracted in size during this period, with settlement concentrating around the area of the harbor. What is significant about this historical reconstruction about Ierapetra is the clarity we have concerning the rise and fall of the site. These changes in fortune appear to be the result of exogenous factors, specifically changes to Mediterranean trade patterns. When trade routes included the port, the prosperity of city reached substantial heights. When trade routes diverted to other centers on Crete, and Ierapetra was no longer a focal point, the city entered a decline from which it could not recover. From these findings it is significant to note, thus, that the history of Ierapetra, and its fluctuating prosperity, can serve as a proxy for understanding economic relationships between the eastern and western Mediterranean. The city rose and fell depending on how strong the connections were between the two regions and Ierapetra could not overcome the loss of western markets following economic and administrative rearrangements under Diocletian and Constantine. As a polis, Ierapetra deserves a place in the discussion of other major eastern Mediterranean centers, including Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, Constantinople, Corinth, Ephesus, Gortyn, and Thessaloniki. A broader consideration of changing exchange networks and exogenous factors can perhaps provide insight into historical changes at these sites as well. Ierapetra received benefits and consequences from its relationship with Rome. By examining the change in prosperity in light of ceramic evidence and broader economic patterns, we can obtain an unparalleled view of the rise and fall of an eastern polis and its role in the Roman economy.

502

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abadie-Reynal, C. 1989. “Céramique et commerce dans le bassin égéen du IVe au VIIe siècle,” in Hommes et richesses dans l’empire byzantin 1. IVe-VIIe siècle, ed. C. Abadie-Reynal, 143-59. Paris. ___. 2007. La céramique romaine d’Argos (fin du IIe siècle avant J.-C. – fin du IVe siècle après J.-C.). Études Péloponnésiennes 13. Athens. Abadie-Reynal, C. and J.-P. Sodini. 1992. La ceramique paleochretienne de Thasos: Aliki, Delkos, fouilles anciennes. Études Thasiennes 13. Athènes. AE = L’Année Epigraphique. Ager, S.L. 1994. “Hellenistic Crete and ΚΟΗΝΟΓΗΚΗΟΝ.” JHS 114: 1-18. ___. 1996. Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C. Berkeley. Agora V = Robinson, H. 1959. Agora V. Pottery of the Roman Period: Chronology. Princeton. Agora XXII = Rotroff, S.I. 1982. Agora XXII. Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls. Princeton. Agora XXIX = Rotroff, S.I. 1997. Agora XXIX. Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Tableware and Related Material. Princeton. Agora XXXII = Hayes, J.W. 2008. Agora XXXII. Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports. Princeton. Agora XXXIII = Rotroff, S.I. 2006. Agora XXXIII. Hellenistic Pottery: the Plain Wares. Princeton. Alarcão, A.M. de. 1975. “Les sigillées italiques,” in Fouilles de Conimbriga IV, les sigillées, eds. J. de Alarcão and R. Étienne, 1-66. Paris. Albarella, U. et al. 1993. “S. Giacomo degli Schiavoni (Molise): an early fifth century AD deposit of pottery and animal bones from central Adriatic Italy.” PBSR 61: 157-230. Alcock, S.E. 1993. Graecia Capta: the Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge. ___. 1994. “Breaking up the Hellenistic world: survey and society,” in Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, ed. I. Morris, 171-90. Cambridge. ___. 1999. “Introduction: three „R‟s‟ of the Cretan economy,” in Chaniotis, ed., 175-80.

503

___. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories. Cambridge. ___. 2007. “The eastern Mediterranean,” in Scheidel, Morris, and Saller, eds., 671-97. Alcock, S.E. et al. 2005. “Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part VII: Historical Messenia, Geometric through Late Roman.” Hesperia 74: 147-209. Alexiou, S. 1972. “Aλαζθαθή εηο Aγίαλ Πειαγίαλ Ζξαθιείoπ.” Archaiologika analekta ex Athenon 5: 230-44. Allbaugh, L.G. 1953. Crete: a Case Study of an Underdeveloped Area. Princeton. Allegro, N. 2004. “Gortina al momento della conquista romana: il dato archeologico,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 531-8. Aloupi, E., V. Kilikoglou, and P.M. Day. 2000. “Provenance and technological characterization of fine tableware,” in Themelis, ed., 207-35. „Amr, K. 1987. The Pottery from Petra: a Neutron Activation Analysis Study. BAR Int. Ser. 324. Oxford. Anastassides, A. 2000. “Isis in Hellenistic and Roman Cyprus.” RDAC 2000: 191-6. Andreau, J. 1999. Banking and Business in the Roman World. Cambridge. Apostolakou, S. 1980. “Ζ Κόξε ηεο Ηεξάπεηξα.” ArchDelt 35 A‟ [1986]: 31-6. ___. 1987. “Λύρλoη "θξεηηθoύ" ηύπoπ,” in Eηιαπίλε. Tóκoς ηηκεηηθóς γηα ηoλ θαζεγεηή Nηθóιαo Πιάηωλα, 35-44. Herakleion. ___. 2002. “Ννκόο Λαζηζίνπ.” Kritiki Estia 9: 333-45. AR = Archaeological Reports. ArchDelt = Archaiologikon Deltion. Archibald, Z.H., J.K. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen, eds. 2005. Making, Moving and Managing: the New World of Ancient Economies, 323-31 BC. Oxford. ARHE = AAVV. 1989. Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherche. Collection de l‟École Française de Rome 114. Rome. Arnaud, P. 2007. “Diocletian‟s Price Edict: the prices of seaborne transport and the average duration of maritime travel.” JRA 20: 321-36.

504

Arthur, P. 1985. “Naples: notes on the economy of a Dark Age city,” in Papers in Italian Archaeology IV. Part iv: Classical and Medieval archaeology, eds. C. Malone and S. Stoddart, 247-59. BAR Int. Ser. 246. Oxford. ___. 1989a. “Aspects of the Byzantine economy: an evaluation of amphora evidence from Italy,” in Recherches sur la Céramique Byzantine, eds. V. Déroches and J.-M. Spieser, 79-93. BCH suppl. 18. Athens. ___. 1989b. “Some observations on the economy of Bruttium under the later Roman empire.” JRA 2: 133-42. ___. 1998. “Eastern Mediterranean amphorae between 500 and 700: a view from Italy,” in Saguì, ed., 157-84. Atlante I = Anselmino, L. et al. 1981. Atlante delle forme ceramiche I. Ceramica fine romana nel bacino Mediterraneo (medio e tardo impero). EAA Supplement 1. Rome. Atlante II = Hayes, J.W. et al. 1985. Atlante delle forme ceramiche II. Ceramica fine romana nel bacino Mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero). EAA Supplement 2. Rome. Aupert, P. 1980. “Objets de la vie quotidienne à Argos en 585 ap. J.-C.,” in Études Argiennes, 395-457. BCH suppl. 6. Athens. Auriemma, R. 2000. “Le anfore del relitto di Grado e il loro contenuto.” MEFRA 112: 27-51. Auriemma, R. and E. Quiri. 2004. “Importazione di anfore orientali nell‟Adriatico tra primo e medio impero,” in Eiring and Lund, eds., 43-55. ___. 2006. “Importazioni di anfore orientale nel Salento tra primo e medio Impero,” in Les routes de l’Adriatique antique: géographie et économie, eds. S. Čače, A. Kurilić, and F. Tassaux, 151-65. Pessac / Zadar. Bailey, D.M. 1985. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), Volume III, Part 2: the Lamps. Supplements to Libya Antiqua V. Tripoli. ___. 1998. Excavations at El-Ashmunein V. Pottery, Lamps and Glass. London. Baldwin, M.A.W. 1983. Fasti Cretae et Cyrenarum: Imperial Magistrates of Crete and Cyrenaica during the Julio-Claudian Period. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Michigan. Baldwin Bowsky, M.W. 1986-1987. “Roman arbitration in central Crete: an Augustan proconsul and a Neronian procurator.” CJ 82: 218-29. ___. 1994. “Cretan connections: the transformation of Hierapytna.” Cretan Studies 4: 1-44.

505

___. 1995a. “Eight inscriptions from Roman Crete.” ZPE 108: 263-80. ___. 1995b. “Roman Crete: no provincial backwater,” in Πεπραγκέλα Z’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ, Ρέζσκλο A‟1, 42-63. Herakleion. ___. 1999. “The business of being Roman: the prosopographical evidence,” in Chaniotis, ed., 305-47. ___. 2001. “When the flag follows trade: Metellus, Pompey, and Crete,” in Roman Military Studies, ed. E. Dąbrowa, 31-72. Krakow. ___. 2004a. “Of two tongues: acculturation at Roman Knossos,” in Colonie romane nel mondo greco, eds. G. Salmeri, A. Raggi, and A. Baroni, 95-150. Rome. ___. 2004b. “From traders to landowners: acculturation in Roman Gortyn,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 33-47. ___. 2006a. “Highways and byways of Roman Hierapytna (Crete): four new Claudian road inscriptions.” ASAtene 84 [2008]: 551-80. ___. 2006b. “Roman patronage, Greek identity: how Lyttos finally won the war against Knossos,” in Πεπραγκέλα Θ’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟5, 407-19. Herakleion. ___. 2006c. “From capital to colony: five new inscriptions from Roman Crete.” BSA 101: 385426. ___. 2009. “Setting the table at Roman Eleutherna: Italian Sigillata stamps from Sector I,” in Ancient Eleutherna, Sector I: Volume One, ed. P. Themelis, 157-96. Athens. ___. 2011. “Colonia Iulia Nobilis Cnosus, the first 100 years: the evidence of Italian sigillata stamps,” in Roman Colonies in the First Century of their Foundation, ed. R.J. Sweetman, 117-34. Oxford. Baldwin Bowsky, M.W. and V. Niniou-Kindeli. 2006. “On the road again: a Trajanic milestone and the road connections of Aptera, Crete.” Hesperia 75: 405-33. Ballet, P. and M. Picon. 1987. “Recherches préliminaires sur les origines de la céramique des Kellia (Egypte). Importations et productions égyptiennes.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 1: 17-48. Ballet, P. et al. 1991. “Artisant de la céramique dans l‟Égypte romaine tardive et byzantine. Prospections d‟ateliers de potiers de Minia à Assouan.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 2: 129-44. Bandy, A.C. 1970. The Greek Christian Inscriptions of Crete. Athens.

506

Banning, E.B. 2002. Archaeological Survey. New York. Banou, E. 2004. “Ζ ειιελνξωκαϊθή Κλωζόο κεηά ηηο αλαζθαθέο ηωλ εηώλ 1996-1998: ζηνηρεία από ηελ θεξακεηθή θαη ηελ ηνπνγξαθία,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 879-907. Barnea, A. et al. 1979. Tropaeum Traiani I. Bucharest. Barnes, T.D. 1976. “Imperial campaigns, A.D. 285-311.” Phoenix 30: 174-93. ___. 1982. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, MA. Belgiorno, M.R. 1994. “Ricognizione nel territorio dell‟antica Sybrita,” in Sybrita. La valle di Amari fra bronzo e ferro, vol. 1, ed. L. Rocchetti, 201-27. Rome. Beltrán, M. 1970. Las ánforas romanas en España. Zaragoza. Benea, D. 2000. “Les amphores de Tibiscum. Les relations commerciales entre la Dacie et les territories de la Méditerranée orientale.” RCRFActa 36: 435-8. Bennet, J. 1990. “Knossos in context: comparative perspectives on the Linear B administration of LM II-III Crete.” AJA 94: 193-211. Bergamini, M. 2005. “Matrici per terra sigillata da Scoppieto: studio preliminaire dei motive iconografici.” RCRFActa 39: 71-9. Beschi, L. 1974. “Adriano e Creta,” in Antichità cretesi: studi in onore di Doro Levi, ed. G. Rizza, 219-26. Catania. ___. 1985. “La Nike di Hierapytna, opera di Demokrates di Itanos.” RendLinc 8, 40: 131-43. ___. 1999. Onorio Belli a Creta. Un manocritto inedito della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene (1587). Athens. Betancourt, P.P. and K. Davaras. 2002. Pseira VI: the Pseira Cemetery. Part 1, the surface survey. Prehistory Monographs 5. Philadelphia. Betancourt, P.P., K. Davaras, and R. Hope Simpson. 2004. Pseira VIII: the archaeological survey of Pseira Island. Part 1. Prehistory Monographs 11. Philadelphia. ___. 2005. Pseira IX: the archaeological survey of Pseira Island. Part 2, the intensive surface survey. Prehistory Monographs 12. Philadelphia. Betancourt, P.P. et al. 2000. “Σὸ ζπήιαην ηῆο Ἀκληζνῦ: ἡ ἒξεπλα ηνῦ 1992.” ArchEph 139: 179276.

507

Bezeczky, T. 1987. Roman Amphorae from the Amber Route in Western Pannonia. BAR Int. Ser. 386. Oxford. ___. 2004. “Early Roman food import in Ephesus: amphorae from the Tetragonos agora,” in Eiring and Lund, eds., 85-97. Binford, L.R. 1981. “Behavioral archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise”.” Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 195-208. Bintliff, J.L. and A.M. Snodgrass. 1985. “The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian Expedition: the first four years.” JFA 12: 123-61. Bjelajac, L. 1996. Amfore Gornjo Mezijskog Podunavlja. Archaeological Institute Belgrade Monographies no. 30. Belgrade. Blackman, D.J. and K. Branigan. 1975. “An archaeological survey on the south coast of Crete, between the Ayiofarango and Chrisostomos.” BSA 70: 17-36. ___. 1977. “An archaeological survey of the lower catchment of the Ayiofarango Valley.” BSA 72: 13-84. Blakely, J.A. 1987. Caesarea Maritima, the Pottery and Dating of Vault 1: Horreum, Mithraeum, and Later Uses. Lewiston. Blakely, J.A., R. Brinckman and C. Vitaliano. 1989. “Pompeian red ware: processing archaeological ceramic data.” Geoarchaeology 4: 201-8. BMC ii = Bailey, D.M. 1980. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum 2. Roman Lamps made in Italy. London. Bodnar, E.W., ed. 2003. Cyriac of Ancona: Later Travels. Cambridge, MA. Boehringer, E. and F. Krauss. 1937. Das Temenos für den Herrscherkult: "Prinzessinnen Palais". Altertümer von Pergamon IX. Berlin. Boekschoten, G.J. 1962. “Note on purple winning at Chersonisos, Crete.” Basteria 26: 59-60. Bonifay, M. 2004. Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d'Afrique. BAR Int. Ser. 1301. Oxford. Bonifay, M. and D. Piéri. 1995. “Amphores du Ve au VIIe s. à Marseille: nouvelles données sur la typologie et le contenu.” JRA 8: 94-120. Bonifay, M. and F. Villedieu. 1989. “Importations d‟amphores orientales en Gaule,” in Recherches sur la Céramique Byzantine, eds. V. Déroches and J.-M. Spieser, 17-46. BCH suppl. 18. Athens. 508

Bonifay, M. and J.-C. Tréglia, eds. 2007. LRCW2. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry. BAR Int. Ser. 1662. Oxford. Borda, M. 1976. Ceramiche e terrecotte greche, magno-greche e italiche del Museo civico di Treviso. Treviso. Bosanquet, R.C. 1939-1940. “Dicte and the Temples of Dictaean Zeus.” BSA 40: 60-77. Böttger, B. 1967. “Die Keramikfunde aus dem Kastell Jatrus und ihr entwicklungsgeschichtlicher Zusammenhang mit der spätantiken Keramik der Balkanländer.” Klio 48: 251-314. ___. 1992. “Die kaiserzeitlichen und spätantiken Amphoren aus dem Kerameikos.” AM 107: 315-81. Bounegru, O. 1996. “Notes sur les ateliers de Çandarli.” RCRFActa 33: 105-7. Bourbou, C. 2004. The People of Early Byzantine Eleutherna and Messene (6th-7th centuries A.D.): Bioarchaeological Approach. Athens. Bowden, H. and D. Gill. 1997a. “Roman Methana,” in A Rough and Rocky Place: the Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, eds., C. Mee and H. Forbes, 77-83. Liverpool. ___. 1997b. “Late Roman Methana,” in A Rough and Rocky Place: the Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, eds. C. Mee and H. Forbes, 84-91. Liverpool. Braccesi, L. 2004. “Creta nella letteratura Augustea,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 3-6. Bradford Welles, C. 1965. “Romanization of the Greek East: introduction.” BASP 2.2: 42-6. Branigan, K. 1998. “Prehistoric and early historic settlement in the Ziros region, eastern Crete.” BSA 93: 23-90. Braudel, F. 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Trans. S. Reynolds. London. Brogan, T. and. N. Vogeikoff. 2006. “Crete: historical times,” in Archaeology: Aegean Islands, ed. A.G. Vlachopoulos, 410-31. Athens. Brulé, P. 1978. La piraterie crétoise hellénistique. Paris. Brunt, P.A. 1990. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford. 509

Buechner, T.S. 1960. “The glass from Tarrha.” Hesperia 29: 109-17. Bürchner, L. 1922. “Kreta.” RE 11: 1718-1822. Burnett, A., M. Amandry, and P.P. Ripollès. 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage. Volume I: from the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius. London. Burnham, B.C. et al. 1994. “Roman Britain in 1993.” Britannia 25: 245-314. Burr, D. 1933. “The terracotta figurines.” Hesperia 2: 184-94. Bursian, C. 1868. Geographie von Griechenland, vol. 2. Leipzig. Buttrey, T.V. 1983. “The Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica, first century B.C. to first century A.D.,” in Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson, ed. C.N.L. Brooke, 23-42. Cambridge. Buzoianu, L. and N. Cheluţ -Georgescu. 1983. “Ştampile de amfore inedite de la Callatis.” Pontica 16: 149-88. Cabras, V. 2007. “La sigillata africana C: studi di diffusion di distribuzione di una classe ceramica,” in Bonifay and Tréglia, eds., 29-37. Callaghan, P.J. 1978. “KRS 1976: excavations at a shrine of Glaukos, Knossos.” BSA 73: 1-30. ___.1981. “The Little Palace Well and Knossian pottery of the later third and second centuries B.C.” BSA 76: 35-58. Callataÿ, F. de. 2005. “The Graeco-Roman economy in the super long-run. Lead, copper, and shipwrecks.” JRA 18: 361-72. Callender, M.H. 1965. Roman Amphorae. London. Camodeca, G. 1983-1984. “Una nuova iscrizione senatoria puteolana dell‟ età di Marco Aurelio.” Puteoli 7-8: 79-92. ___. 1987. “Una famiglia senatoria cretese in una nuova iscrizione puteolana,” in Πραθηηθά ηοσ Η’ Γηεζλούς ΢σλεδρίοσ Διιεληθής θαη Λαηηληθής Δπηγραθηθής, 114-7. Athens. ___. 1999. Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (TPSulp.): edizione critica dell’archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii. Rome. Cankardes-Senol, G. 2007. “Stamped amphora handles found in the rescue excavations of CEAlex in Alexandria,” in Amphores d'Égypte de la basse époque à l’époque arabe, eds. S. Marchand and A. Marangou, 157-60. Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 8. Cairo. 510

Caramessini-Oeconomides, M. and F.S. Kleiner. 1975. “The Hierapytna hoard. A Supplement.” RBN 121: 5-19. Carandini, A. and C. Panella. 1981. “The trading connections of Rome in the late second and third centuries: the evidence of the Terme del Nuotatore excavations, Ostia,” in The Roman West in the Third Century, eds. A. King and M. Henig, 487-503. BAR Int. Ser. 109. Oxford. Carignani, A. and F. Pacetti. 1989. “Anfore tardo-antiche dagli scavi del Palatino,” in ARHE, 610-5. Carington-Smith, J. 1982. “A Roman chamber tomb on the south-east slopes of Monasteraki Kephala, Knossos.” BSA 77: 255-91. Casson, L. 1950. “The Isis and her voyage.” TAPA 81: 43-56. ___. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton. ___. 1980. “The role of the state in Rome‟s grain trade,” in The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History, eds. J.H. D‟Arms and E.C. Kopff, 21-33. MAAR 36. Rome. ___. 1984. Ancient Trade and Society. Detroit. Catling, H.W. 1976-1977. “The Knossos area, 1974-1976.” AR 23: 3-23. Catling, H.W. and G.B. Waywell. 1977. “A find of Roman marble statuettes at Knossos.” BSA 72: 85-106. Catling, H.W. et al. 1976. “An Early Christian osteotheke at Knossos.” BSA 71: 25-47. ___. 1981. “Knossos 1975: Minoan paralipomena and post-Minoan remains.” BSA 76: 83-108. ___. 1982. “Knossos 1978. Roman finds at the Venezeleion.” BSA 77: 59-64. Cavanagh, W.G. et al., eds. 1998. Post-Minoan Crete. British School at Athens Studies 2. London. CH VIII = Wartenberg, U., M. Jessop Price, and K.A. McGregor. 1994. Coin hoards. Vol. 8: Greek hoards. London. Chaniotaki-Starida, L. and M. Mari. 2004. “Παιαηνρξηζηηαληθή Υεξξόλεζνο (4νο-7νο αη. κ.Υ.),” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 287-99. Chaniotis, A. 1985. “Eine neue lateinische Ehreninschrift aus Knosos.” ZPE 58: 182-8. 511

___. 1988. “Vinum Creticum excellens. Zum Weinhandel Kretas.” MBAH 7: 62-89. ___. 1989. “Some more Cretan names.” ZPE 77: 67-81. ___. 1995. “Problems of “pastoralism” and “transhumance” in Classical and Hellenistic Crete.” Orbis Terrarum 1: 39-89. ___. 1996. Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischer Zeit. Stuttgart. ___. 1999. “Milking the mountains: economic activities on the Cretan uplands in the Classical and Hellenistic period,” in Chaniotis, ed., 181-220. ___. 2004. “From communal spirit to individuality: the epigraphic habit in Hellenistic and Roman Crete,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 75-87. ___. 2005. “Inscribed instrumenta domestica and the economy of Hellenistic and Roman Crete,” in Archibald, Davies, and Gabrielsen, eds., 92-116. ___. 2008. “What difference did Rome make? The Cretans and the Roman Empire,” in The Provinces Strike Back: Imperial Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean, eds. B. Forsén and G. Salmeri, 83-105. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 13. Helsinki. Chaniotis, A., ed. 1999. From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete. Stuttgart. Chaniotis, A. and G. Preuss. 1990. “Neue Fragmente des Preisedikts von Diokletian und weitere lateinische Inschriften aus Kreta.” ZPE 80: 189-202. ___. 1991. “Neue lateinische Inschriften aus Knosos.” ZPE 89: 191-5. Chaniotis, A. and G. Rethemiotakis. 1992. “Neue Inschriften aus dem kaiserzietlichen Lyttos, Kreta.” Tyche 7: 27-38. Charitonidis, S. 1961. “Ἀλαζθαθαὶ Μπηηιήλεο.” Prakt 1961: 207-14. Cherry, D. 2007. “The frontier zones,” in Scheidal, Morris, and Saller, eds., 720-40. Christides, V. 1984. The Conquest of Crete by the Arabs (ca. 824): a Turning Point in the Struggle between Byzantium and Islam. Athens. CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

512

Clutton, E. 1982. “Some seventeenth century images of Crete: a comparative analysis of the manuscript maps by Francesco Basilicata and the printed maps by Marco Boschini.” Imago Mundi 34: 48-65. Coldstream, J.N. 1973. Knossos: the Sanctuary of Demeter. London. ___. 1999. “Knossos 1951-61: Classical and Hellenistic pottery from the town.” BSA 94: 321-51. Conspectus = Ettlinger, E. et al. 1990. Conspectus Formarum Terrae Sigillatae Italico Modo Confectae. Bonn. Conze, A. 1890. “Griechische Kohlenbecken.” JDI 5: 118-41. Corinth I.1 = Fowler, H.N. and R. Stillwell. 1932. Corinth I.1. Introduction: Topography, Architecture. Cambridge, MA. Corinth IV.2 = Broneer, O.T. 1930. Corinth IV.2. Terracotta Lamps. Cambridge, MA. Corinth VII.3 = Edwards, R. 1975. Corinth VII.3. Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery. Princeton. Cottier, M. et al., eds. 2008. The Customs Law of Asia. Oxford. Crawford, M. 1977. “Rome and the Greek world: economic relationships.” The Economic History Review 30: 42-52. Crile, C. and K. Davaras. 1963. “The possible site of Menelaus‟ shipwrecks.” CretChron 17: 4749. Cunningham, T. and J. Driessen. 2004. “Site by site: combining survey and excavation data to chart patterns of socio-political change,” in Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, eds. S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry, 101-13. Oxford. Daszewski, W.-A. 1995. “Cypriot Sigillata in Marina el-Alamein,” in Meyza and Młynarczyk, eds., 27-39. Davaras, C. 1974. “Rock-cut fish tanks in eastern Crete.” BSA 69: 87-93. ___. 1975. “Λαμεπηὴ ἰρπνδεμακελὴ ζηὰ Φέξκα Ἱεξαπέηξαο.” ArchDelt 30 A‟ [1978]: 149-54. ___. 1980. “Κξεηηθέο Δπηγξαθέο ΗΗΗ,” ArchEph 119 [1982]: 1–42. Davies, O. 1935. Roman Mines in Europe. Oxford. De Caro, S. 1992-1993. “Vino di Cnosso de Campani: un nuovo documento epigrafico per la storia del vino cretese in età romana.” ASAtene 70-71: 307-12.

513

De Sena, E. and J.P. Ikäheimo. 2003. “The supply of amphora-borne commodities and domestic pottey in Pompeii 150 BC-AD 79: preliminary evidenc from the House of the Vestals.” European Journal of Archaeology 6: 301-21. Del Rio, A. and M. Vallebona. 1996. “Le anfore (IV-VI/VII sec.) rinvenute negli Horrea di S. Gaetano di Vada (Rosignanon M.Mo, Li): recherché archeometriche, morfologiche, quantitative.” Archeologia e Calcolatori 7: 487-96. Del Rio, A. et al. 2000. “Anfore orientale nell‟Etruria settentrionale costiera (II sec. A.C.-VII sec. D.C.).” RCRFActa 36: 449-57. Dello Preite, A. 1984. “Le importazioni di ceramic fine a Gortina e Creta tra il IV e il VII sec. D.C.” ASAtene 46 [1988]: 177-98. Delos XXVII = Bruneau, P. et al. 1970. L'Îlot de la Maison des Comédiens. Exploration archéologique de Délos XXVII. Paris. Delos XXXI = Laumonier, A. 1977. La Céramique Hellénistique à Reliefs. Exploration archéologique de Délos XXXI. Paris. Demargne, P. and H. van Effenterre. 1937. “Recherches à Dreros I.” BCH 61: 5-32. Dent, J.S., J.A. Lloyd, and J.A. Riley. 1976-1977. “Some Hellenistic and Early Roman tombs from Benghazi.” LibAnt 13-14: 131-212. Deonna, W. 1948. La vie privée des Déliens. Paris. Detorakis, T.E. 1970. Οἱ ἃγηοη ηῆς πρώηες Βσδαληλῆς περηοδοῦ ηῆς Κρήηες. Athens. ___. 1994. History of Crete. Heraklion. Di Vita, A. 1979-1980. “I terremoti a Gortina in età romana e proto-bizantina, una nota.” ASAtene 61-62: 434-40. ___. 1984. Creta Antica: Cento anni di archeologia italiana, 1884-1984. Rome. ___. 1986-1987. “L‟anfiteatro ed il grande teatro romano di Gortina.” ASAtene 64-65: 328-51. Didelot, O. 1997. “Réchauds d‟époque hellénistique: la diffusion des signatures,” in Le moulage en terre cuite dans l’antiquité: creation et production derive, fabrication et diffusion, ed. A. Muller, 375-95. Paris. Dommelen, P. van and N. Terrenato. 2007. “Introduction: local cultures and the expanding Roman Republic,” in Articulating Local Cultures: Power and Identity under the Expanding Roman Republic, eds. P. van Dommelen and N. Terrenato, 7-12. JRA suppl. 63. Portsmouth, RI. 514

Dörig, J. 1994. “Un torse en marbre d‟Hierapetra redécouvert à Norfolk, Virginia.” Antike Plastik 23: 57-8. Dragendorff, H. 1895. “Terra Sigillata.” BJb 96-97: 18-153. Dragendorff, H. and C. Watzinger. 1948. Arretinische Reliefkeramik: mit Beschreibung der Sammlung in Tübingen. Reutlingen. Driessen, J. 2001. “History and hierarchy. Preliminary observations on the settlement pattern of Minoan Crete,” in Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. K. Branigan, 51-71. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4. London. Dunbabin, K.M.D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge. Duncan-Jones, R.P. 2004. “Economic change and the transition to Late Antiquity,” in Approaching Late Antiquity: the Transformation from Early to Late Empire, eds. S. Swain and M. Edwards, 20-52. Oxford. ___. 2005. “Implications of Roman coinage: debates and differences.” Klio 87: 459-87. Durkin, M.K. and C.J. Lister. 1983. “The rods of Digenis: an ancient marble quarry in eastern Crete.” BSA 78: 69-96. Dyczek, P. 2002. “Remarks of the supply of the Roman army from the point of view of the valetudinarium at Novae (Moesia Inferior),” in Limes XVIII: proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, eds. P. Freeman et al., 685-94. BAR Int Ser. 1084. Oxford. Dyson, S.L. 1998. Ancient Marbles to American Shores: Classical Archaeology in the United States. Philadelphia. Effenterre, H. van. 1948. La Créte et le Monde Grec de Platon à Polybe. Paris. Effenterre, H. van and M. Bougrat. 1969. “Les frontières de Lato.” CretChron 21: 9-53. Effenterre, H. van and M. van Effenterre. 1989. “Un obituaire crétois?” Ariadne 5: 99-107. ___. 1994. “La terminologie des bornages frontaliers,” in Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums, 4, eds. E. Olshausen and H. Sonnabend, 111-25. Geographica historica 7. Amsterdam. Effenterre, H. van and F. Ruzé. 1995. Nomima: recueil d'inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l'archaïsme grec, volume 2. Rome.

515

Egloff, M. 1977. Kellia III. La Poterie Copte: Quartre Siècles d’Artisant et d’Échanges en Basse-Égypte. Geneva. Eiring, J. 2000a. “Knossos at the turn of the millenium: romanitas and pottery.” RCRFActa 36: 197-203. ___. 2000b. “Hellenistic pottery from Pyrgos at Myrtos,” in Δ’ Δπηζηεκοληθή ΢σλάληεζε γηα ηελ Διιεληζηηθή Κερακηθή, 53-60. Αthens. ___. 2001. “The Hellenistic period,” in Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman, eds. J.N. Coldstream et al., 91-135. British School at Athens Studies 7. London. Eiring, J. and J. Lund, eds. 2004. Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5. Aarhus. Eiring, J., M.-C. Boileau, and I. Whitbread. 2002. “Local and imported transport amphorae from a Hellenistic kiln site at Knossos: the results of petrographic analyses,” in Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines. Productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne), eds. F. Blondé et al., 59-65. Lyon. Eisner, R. 1991. Travelers to an Antique Land: the History and Literature of Travel to Greece. Ann Arbor. Ellis, S.J. 2004. “The distribution of bars at Pompeii. Archaeological, spatial and viewshed analyses.” JRA 17: 371-84. Empereur, J.-Y. 1982. “Les anses d‟amphores timbres et les amphores: aspects quantitatifs.” BCH 106: 219-33. ___. 1998. “Alexandrie (Égypte).” BCH 122: 611-38. ___. 2000. “Alexandrie (Égypte).” BCH 124: 595-619. Empereur, J-Y. and M. Picon. 1986. “A propos d‟un nouvel atelier de “Late Roman C”.” Figlina 7: 143-6. ___. 1989. “Les regions de production d‟amphores imperials en Méditerranée orientale,” in ARHE, 223-48. Empereur, J.-Y., C. Kritzas, and A. Marangou. 1991. “Recherches sur les amphores crétoises II: les centres de fabrication d‟amphores en Crète centrale.” BCH 115: 481-523. Empereur, J.-Y., A. Marangou, and N. Papadakis. 1992. “Recherches sur les amphores crétoises III.” BCH 116: 633-48.

516

Engelmann, H. and D. Knibbe. 1989. Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia: eine neue Inschrift aus Ephesus. Epigraphica Anatolica 14. Bonn. Engels, D. 1990. Roman Corinth. An Alternative Model for the Classical City. Chicago. Englezou, Μ. 2005. Διιελζηηθή Κερακηθή Κρήηες: Κεληρηθή Κρήηε. Athens. Erdkamp, P. 2005. The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: a Social, Political and Economic Study. Cambridge. Erickson, B.L. 2000. Late Archaic and Classical Crete: Island Pottery Styles in an Age of Historical Transition. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin. ___. 2005. “Archaeology of empire: Athens and Crete in the fifth century B.C.” AJA 109: 61963. Esposito, M., ed. 1960. Itinerarium Symonis Semeonis ab Hybernia ad Terram Sanctam. Dublin. Falkener, E. 1854. Description of Some Important Theatres and Other Remains in Crete: from a ms. History of Candia by Onorio Belli in 1586. London. Fant, J.C. 1993. “Ideology, gift, and trade. A distribution model for the Roman imperial marbles,” in The Inscribed Economy, ed. W.V. Harris, 145-70. JRA Suppl. Ser. 6. Ann Arbor. Faure, P. 1959. “La Crète aux cent villes.” CretChron 13: 171-217. ___. 1963. “Nouvelles localisations de villes crétoises.” CretChron 17: 16-26. ___. 1967. “Aux frontières de l‟état de Lato: 50 toponymes,” in Europa.Studien zur Geschichte und Eipgraphik frühen Aegaeis: Festschrfit für Ernst Grumach, ed. W.C. Brice, 94-112. Berlin. Fentress, E. and P. Perkins. 1987. “Counting African Red Slip ware,” in L’Africa romana: Atti del V convegno di studio Sassari, ed. A. Mastino. 205-14. Sassari. FGrH = Jacoby, F. 1923-1958. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrH). Berlin. Figueira, T.J. 1981. Aegina: Society and Politics. New York. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Chronologie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. BAR Int. Ser. 990. Oxford. ___. 2002. “Les amphores hellénistiques de Crète et les questions des imitations d‟amphores et des timbres amphoriques à types monétaires,” in Οίλος παιαηός εδύποηος, 137-46. Herakleion. 517

Finlay, G. 1844. Greece Under the Romans. Edinburgh and London. Finley, M.I. 1985. The Ancient Economy, Second Edition. Berkeley. Forbes, H.A. 1994. “Pastoralism and settlement structures in ancient Greece,” in Structures rurales et sociétés antiques, eds., P.N. Doukellis and L.G. Mendoni, 187-96. Paris. Forster, G. 2001. “The Roman period,” in Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman, eds. J.N. Coldstream et al., 137-67. British School at Athens Studies 7. London. Francis, J. 2006. “Beehives and beekeeping in Graeco-Roman Sphakia,” in Πεπραγκέλα Θ’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟5, 379-90. Herakleion. Francis, J. et al. 2000. “Agiasmatsi: a Greek cave sanctuary in Sphakia, SW Crete.” BSA 95: 42771. Fraser, P.M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford. Freed, J. 1989. “Late stamped Dressel 2/4 amphoras from a deposit dated post 200 A.D. at villa site 10 on the Via Gabina,” in ARHE, 604-7. Frend, W.H.C. 1996. The Archaeology of Early Christianity: a History. Minneapolis. Frend, W.H.C. and D.E. Johnston. 1962. “The Byzantine basilica church at Knossos.” BSA 57: 186-238. Frost, F.J. and E. Hadjidaki. 1990. “Excavations at the harbor of Phalasarna in Crete: the 1988 season.” Hesperia 59: 513-27. Frothingham, A.L. Jr. 1896. “Archaeological news.” The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of Fine Arts 11: 373-523. Fulford, M. 1987. “Economic interdependence among urban communities of the Roman Mediterranean.” WA 19: 58-75. Fulford, M. and D.P.S. Peacock. 1984. Excavations at Carthage: the British Mission, volume 1,2. The Avenue du President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo: the Pottery and other Ceramic Objects from the Site. Sheffield. Fulford, M. and A. Wallace-Hadrill. 1999. “Toward a history of pre-Roman Pompeii: excavations beneath the House of Amarantus (I.9.11-12), 1995-9.” PBSR 67: 37-144. Gabrielsen, V. 1997. The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes. Aarhus.

518

___. 2003. “Piracy and the slave trade,” in A Companion to the Hellenistic World, ed. A. Erskine, 389-404. Oxford. Garcea, F., G. Miraglia, and G. Soricelli. 1983-1984. “Un scarico di material ceramico di età adrianeo-antonina da Cratere Senga (Pozzuoli).” Puteoli 7-8: 245-85. Garlan, Y. 1976. “Études d‟histoire militaire et diplomatique (XII-XIV).” BCH 100: 299-308. Garnsey, P. 1988. Famine and food supply in the Graeco-Roman world: responses to risk and crisis. Cambridge. Garnsey, P. and R. Saller. 1987. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley. Garraffo, S. 2004. “Problemi della circolazione monetaria a Gortina in età romana e protobizantina,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 181-92. Gassner, V. 1997. Das Südtor der Tetragonos-Agora. Keramik und Kleinfunde. Forschungen in Ephesus 13.1. Vienna. Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki, E. 1988. “Κεξακεηθή ηνπ 3νπ αη. κ.Υ. από ηελ Αξγπξνύπνιε Ρεζύκλεο.” Kritiki Estia 2: 30-72. Gebhard, E.R. 1973. The Theater at Isthmia. Chicago. Geremia Nucci, R. and A. Leone. 2003. “Ostia – sondaggio nella domus dei pesci dati preliminari sullo scavo e sul material ceramico.” RCRFActa 38: 63-8. Giardina, A. 2007. “The Transition to Late Antiquity,” in Scheidal, Morris, and Saller, eds., 74368. Gibbins, D. 2001. “Shipwrecks and Hellenistic trade,” in Hellenistic Economies, ed. Z. Archibald et al., 205-30. London. Gichon, M. 1993. En Boqeq: Ausgrabungen in einer Oase am Toten Meer, vol. 1. Geographie und Geschichte der Oase, das spätrömisch -byzantinische Kastell. Mainz. Gill, D.W.J. 2000. “Collecting for Cambridge: John Hubert Marshall on Crete.” BSA 95: 517-26. Gkiasta, M. 2008. The Historiography of Landscape Research on Crete. Leiden. Gliozzo, E. 2007. “Supplying Rome with black and white pigments,” in Papi, ed., 73-84. Goitein, S.D. 1967. A Mediterranean Society: the Jewish Communities of the World as Portrayed in the Cairo Geniza. Vol. 1: Economic Foundations. Berkeley.

519

Gortina I = Di Vita, A., ed. 1988. Gortina I. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in oriente 3. Rome. Gortina II = Di Vita, A. and A. Martin, eds. 1997. Gortina II. Pretorio: Il materiale degli scavi Colini 1970-1977. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in oriente 7. Rome. Gortina III = Romeo, I and E.C. Portale. 1998. Gortina III. Le sculture. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in oriente 8. Rome. Gortina IV = Allegro, N. and M. Ricciardi. 1999. Gortina IV. Le fortificazioni di età ellenistica. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in oriente 9. Rome. Gortina V = Di Vita, A., ed. 2001. Gortina V.3. Lo scavo del Pretorio (1989-1995). Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in oriente 12. Rome. Gortina V.3 = Di Vita, A., ed. 2001. Gortina V.3. Lo scavo del Pretorio (1989-1995), vol V.3 t.1: I materiali. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in oriente 12. Rome. Gortina VI = Di Vita, A., ed. 2004. Gortina VI. Scavi 1979-1982. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in oriente 14. Rome. Gortina VII = Magnelli, A. 2008. Gortina VII: le iscrizioni dall’età arcaica all’istituzione della provincia romana. Atti della Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, Ser. 9, Vol. 19, 233-334. Rome. Goudineau, C. 1970. “Note sur la céramique à engobe rouge-pompéien («pompejanisch-roten Platten»).” MEFRA 82: 159-86. Grace, V. 1934. Stamped amphora handles found in 1931-1932.” Hesperia 3: 197-310. ___. 1963. “Notes on the amphoras from the Koroni peninsula.” Hesperia 32: 319-34. ___. 1979 [1961]. Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade. Excavations of the Athenian Agora Picture Book no. 6. Princeton. ___. 1985. “The Middle Stoa dated by amphora stamps.” Hesperia 54: 1-54. Grandjean, Y. 1992. “Établissement d‟une typologie des amphores Thasiennes.” BCH 116: 54184. Greco, E. and M. Lombardo, eds. 2004. La grande iscrizione di Gortyna: centoventi anni dopo la scoperta, 1884-2004. Athens.

520

Greene, K. 2008. “"Rhosica Vasa" as metalwork rather than earthenware: an interpretation reinforced by philological analysis.” Facta 2: 231-3. Grove, A.T. and O. Rackham. 2001. The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: an Ecological History. New Haven. Gruen, E.S. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley. Guarducci, M. 1935-1950. Inscriptiones Creticae, 4 vol. Rome. Guizzi, F. 1999. “Private economic activities in Hellenistic Crete. The evidence of the isopoliteia treaties,” in Chaniotis, ed., 235-45. ___. 2001. Hierapytna: storia di una polis cretese dalla fondazione all conquista romana. Atti della Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, Ser. 9, Vol. 13, Fasc. 3, 277-444. Rome. Gunneweg, J. and I. Perlman. 1984. “Hellenistic braziers from Israel: results of pottery analysis.” IEJ 34: 232-8. Gunneweg, J., I. Perlman, and J. Yellin. 1983. The Provenience, Typology, and Chronology of Eastern Terra Sigillata. Qedem 17. Jerusalem. Gupta, S., Williams, D. F. and D.P.S. Peacock. 2001. "Dressel 2-4 amphorae and Roman trade with India: the evidence from Nevasa." Journal of South Asian Studies. 17: 7-18. Hackens, T. 1971. “A propos du trésor de Gierapetra 1935.” RBN 288-9. Hadjidaki, E. 1988. “Preliminary report of excavations at the harbor of Phalasarna in west Crete.” AJA 92: 463-79. Hadzi-Vallianou, D. 1985. ΢σληήρεζε κλεκείωλ, ηετληθές αλαζθαθώλ: Α πρόγρακκα επηκόρθωζες. Voroi. ___. 2004. “Διαηνθαιιηέξγεηα θαη ειαηνπαξαγωγή ζηελ Κξήηε θαηά ηε κηλωηθή θαη έωο ηελ πξωηνβπδαληηλή επνρή,” in Διαηοζοδεία: κειέηες γηα ηολ ποιηηηζκό ηες ειηάς, ed. A. Polymerou-Kamilaki, 65-130. Athens. Haggis, D.C. 1996. “The port of Tholos in eastern Crete and the role of a Roman horreum along the Egyptian „corn route‟. OJA 15: 183-209. ___. 2005. Kavousi I: the Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region. Prehistory Monographs 16. Philadelphia. Haggis, D.C. et al. 2004. “Excavations at Azoria, 2002.” Hesperia 73: 339-400.

521

___. 2007. “Excavations at Azoria, 2003-2004, part 1: the Archaic civic complex.” Hesperia 76: 243-321. Halbherr, F. 1893. “Researches in Crete.” The Antiquary 28: 110-2. ___. 1896a. “Cretan expedition I. Inscriptions from various Cretan cities.” The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of Fine Arts 11: 539-601. ___. 1896b. “Cretan expedition II. Christian inscriptions.” The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of Fine Arts 11: 602-13. ___. 1897. “Cretan expedition III. Epigraphical researches in Gortyna.” AJA 1: 159-238. ___. 1898. “Cretan expedition X. Addenda to the Cretan inscriptions.” AJA 2: 79-94. ___. 1901a. “Cretan expedition XVI. Report on the researches at Praesos.” AJA 5: 371-92. ___. 1901b. “Cretan expedition XVII. Ruins of Unknown Cities at Haghios Ilias and Prinià.” AJA 5: 393-403. Hammond, M. 1957. “Composition of the senate, A.D. 68-235.” JRS 47: 74-81. Hansen, M.H. 2006. Polis: an Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. Oxford. Hanson, A.E. 1972. “A Ptolemaic list of aromata and honey.” TAPA 103: 161-6. Harl, K.W. 1996. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700. Baltimore. Harris, W.V. 1999. “Crete in the Hellenistic and Roman economies: a comment,” in Chaniotis, ed., 353-8. Harrison, G.W.M. 1985. “The joining of Cyrenaica to Crete,” in Cyrenaica in Antiquity, eds. G. Barker, J. Lloyd, and J. Reynolds, 365-73. BAR Int Ser. 236. Oxford. ___. 1988. “Background to the first century of Roman rule in Crete.” Cretan Studies 1: 125-55. ___. 1990. “A Roman marble quarry in eastern Crete.” Cretan Studies 2: 147-50. ___. 1991. “Changing patterns in land tenure and land use in Roman Crete,” in Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region, eds. G. Barker and J. Lloyd, 115-21. London. ___. 1993. The Romans and Crete. Amsterdam. ___. 1994. “Old (and false) perceptions die hard.” Cretan Studies 4: 137-47.

522

___. 1998. “Crete the Ordinary,” in Cavanagh et al., eds., 129-34. ___. 2000. “A Roman‟s view from Vocastro: prosperity and romanisation of eastern Crete,” in Πεπραγκέλα H’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟1, 545-52. Herakleion. ___. 2004. “Organization of dwelling spaces in Roman Crete: the disiecta membra of cities,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 751-62. Harrison, G.W. and B.J. Hayden. 2005. “Roman pottery summary,” in Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete. Volume 3: the Vrokastro Regional Survey Project: Sites and Pottery, ed. B.J. Hayden, 57-79. University Museum Monograph 123. Philadelphia. Hárshegyi, P. 2008. “Roman amphorae from the East along the Ripa Pannonica.” RCRFActa 40: 173-8. Hatzfeld, J. 1917. Les trafiquants italiens dans l'Orient hellénique. Paris. Hayden, B.J. 1997. “Rural settlement of the Orientalizing through Early Classical period: the Meseleroi Valley, eastern Crete.” Aegean Archaeology 2: 93-144. ___. 2004a. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 2: the Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area and Related Studies. University Museum Monograph 119. Philadelphia. ___. 2004b. “The Roman period settlement in the Vrokastro area, eastern Crete: settlement pattern, sites, and subsistence,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 269-90. Hayden, B.J., J. Moody, and O. Rackham 1992. “The Vrokastro survey project, 1986 - 1989. Research design and preliminary results.” Hesperia 61: 293-353. Hayes, J.W. 1967. “Cypriot Sigillata.” RDAC 1967: 65-77. ___. 1971. “Four early Roman groups from Knossos.” BSA 66: 249-75. ___. 1976. “Pottery: stratified groups and typology,” in Excavations at Carthage 1975 Conducted by the University of Michigan, ed. J.H. Humphrey, 47-123. Tunis. ___. 1977. “North African flanged bowls: a problem in fifth-century chronology,” in Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond: Papers Presented to John Gillam, eds. J. Dore and K. Greene, 279-87. BAR Brit. Ser. 30. Oxford. ___. 1983. “The Villa Dionysos excavations, Knossos: the pottery.” BSA 73: 97-169. ___. 1992. Saraçhane in Istanbul, volume 2: the Pottery. Princeton. ___. 1997. Handbook of Mediterranean Pottery. Norman, OK.

523

___. 2001a. “Early Christian pottery from Knossos: the 1978-1981 finds from the Knossos Medical Faculty site.” BSA 96: 431-54. ___. 2001b. “Late Roman fine wares and their successors: a Mediterranean Byzantine perspective (with a reference to the Syro-Jordanian situation),” in La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles apr. J.-C.), eds. E. Villeneuve and P.M. Watson, 275-82. Beyrouth. ___. 2001c. “Les sigillées orientales,” in Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines III, eds. P. Lévêque and J.-P. Morel, 145-60. Paris. Hayes, J.W. and A. Kossyva. forthcoming. “Appendix E: Roman pottery,”in Watrous et al., eds. Hellström, P. 1965. Labraunda: Swedish Excavations and Researches II.1. Pottery of Classical and Later Date, Terracotta Lamps and Glass. Lund. Hermansen, G. 1981. Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life. Edmonton. Herzog, R. 1902. “Κξεηηθὸο πόιεκνο.” Klio 2: 316-33. Hesnard, A. 1980. “Un dépôt augustéen d‟amphores à La Longarina, Ostie,” in The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History, eds. J.H. D‟Arms and E.C. Kopff, 141-56. MAAR 36. Rome. ___. 1986. “Imitations et raisonnement archéologique: à propos des amphores de Rhodes et de Cos,” in Recherches sur les amphores grecques, eds. J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan, 6979. BCH suppl.13. Paris. Hesnard, A. et al. 1989. “Aires de production des Greco-italiques et des Dressel 1,” in ARHE, 21-65. Hjohlman, J. 2005. “Pyrgouthi in Late Antiquity,” in Pyrgouthi. A Rural Site in the Berbati Valley from the Early Iron Age to Late Antiquity. Excavations by the Swedish Institute at Athens 1995 and 1997, eds. J. Hjohlman, A. Penttinen, and B. Wells, 127-266. Stockholm. Holton, D. 1991. “The Cretan Renaissance,” in Literature and Society in Renaissance Crete, ed. D. Holton, 1-16. Cambridge. Homann-Wedeking, B. 1950. “A kiln site at Knossos.” BSA 45: 165-92. Hood, M.S.F. 1965. “Minoan sites in the far west of Crete.” BSA 60: 99-113. ___. 1967. “Some ancient sites in south-west Crete.” BSA 62: 47-56.

524

Hood, M.S.F. and D. Smyth. 1981. Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area. BSA suppl. 14. London. Hood, S. and P. Warren. 1966. “Ancient sites in the province of Ayios Vasilios, Crete.” BSA 61: 163-91. Hood, S., P. Warren, and G. Cadogan. 1964. “Travels in Crete, 1962.” BSA 59: 50-99. Hope Simpson, R. 1995. “The archaeological survey of the Kommos area,” in Kommos I. The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Part 1, the Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan Industries, eds. J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, 325-402. Princeton. Hopkins, K. 1980. “Taxes and trade in the Roman Empire, 200 B.C. to A.D. 400.” JRS 70: 10125. ___. 1995-1996. “Rome, taxes, rents and trade.” Kodai: Journal of Roman History 6-7: 41-75. Horden, P. and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: a Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford. Houston, G.W. 1988. “Ports in perspective: some comparative materials on Roman merchant ships and ports.” AJA 92: 553-64. Howgego, C. 1994. “Coin circulation and the integration of the Roman economy.” JRA 7: 5-21. IC = Inscriptiones Creticae. IEph = Wankel, H. 1979-1984. Die inschriften von Ephesus. Bonn. IG = Inscriptiones Graecae. IGCH = Thompson, M., O. Mørkholm, and G.M. Kray, eds. 1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York. Isler, H.P. 1969. “Heraion von Samos: eine frühbyzantinische Zisterne.” AthMitt 84: 202-30. Ivantchik, A.I. 2002. “Un puits de l‟époque paléochrétienne sur l‟agora d‟Argos.” BCH 126: 331-413. Jeffery, L.H. 1961. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. Oxford. Jöhrens, G. 1999. Amphorenstempel im Nationalmuseum von Athen. Zu den von H.G. Lolling aufgenommenen "unedierten Henkelinschriften". Mit einem Anhang: Die Amphorenstempel in der Sammlung der Abteilung Athen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Mainz.

525

Johnson, B.L. 2008a. Ashkelon 2: Imported Pottery of the Roman and Late Roman Periods. Winona Lake. ___. 2008b. “The pottery,” in Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN Final Report. Volume 1: the Objects, ed. J. Patrich, 19-206. Jerusalem. Jones, A.H.M. 1964. The Later Roman Empire 284-602: a Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey. Oxford. Jongman, W.M. 2007. “Gibbon was right. The decline and fall of the Roman economy,” in Crises and the Roman Empire, eds. O. Hekster and G. de Kleijn, 183-99. Leiden. Kaklamanis, S., ed. 2004. Francesco Barozzi. Descrittione dell’Isola di Creta (Περηγράθε ηες Κρήηες) 1577/8. Herakleion. Κalokyris, K.D. 1955. “΢πκπιεξωκαηηθή αλαζθαθή ελ Παλόξκω Κξήηεο παιαηνρξηζηηαληθήο Βαζηιηθήο.”Prakt 1955: 321-6. Kalpaxis, T. et al. 1994. Διεσζέρλα ηοκέας ΙΙ. Δλα ειιεληζηηθό ζπίηη («΢πίηη Α») ζηε ζεζή λήζη. Rethymno. Kane, S. and J. Reynolds. 1985. “ “The kore who looks after the grain”: a copy of the TorloniaHierapytna type in Cyrene.” AJA 89: 455-63. Karagiorgou, O. 2001. “LR2: a container for the military annona on the Danubian border?” in Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, eds. S. Kingsley and M. Decker, 129-66. Oxford. Karathanasi, A. 1973. “Άλέθδνηε αιιεινγξαθία ηνύ Fr. Morozoni αιιωλ Βελεηνλ κε Κξεηηθνύο ζηα ρξνληα ηνύ πνιέκνπ (1659-1660).” CretChron 25: 21-124. Karetsou, A., M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki, and N. Papadakis. 2000. Κρήηε - Αίγσπηος: ποιηηηζκηθοί δεζκοί ηρηώλ τηιηεηηώ. Kαηάιογος. Herakleion. Kater-Sibbes, G.J.F. 1973. A Preliminary Catalogue of Sarapis Monuments. Leiden. Katsari, C. 2011. The Roman Monetery System: the Eastern Provinces from the First to the Third Century AD. Cambridge. Keay, S.J. 1984. Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean. A Typology and Economic Study: the Catalan Evidence. BAR Int. Ser. 196. Oxford. Keay, S.J. et al. 2005. Portus: an Archaeological Survey of the Port of Imperial Rome. London. Kelemen, M. 1988. “Roman amphorae in Pannonia II (Italian amphorae II).” ActaArchHung 40: 111-50. 526

Kelly, A. 2006. “Distributions of Cretan aqueducts: a window onto romanization,” in Πεπραγκέλα Θ’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟5, 391-405. Herakleion. Kenrick, P.M. 1985. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), Volume III, Part 1:the Fine Pottery. Supplements to Libya Antiqua V. Tripoli. Khania 1.1 = Hallagher, E. and B.P. Hallagher, eds. 1997. The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square Kastelli, Khania 1970-1987. Vol. 1.1. From the Geometric to the Modern Greek Period. Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, 4.47. Stockholm. Kirsten, E. 1942. Das dorische Kreta. Wurzburg. Kleberg, T. 1957. Hôtels, restaurants et cabarets dans l’antiquité romaine: etudes historiques et philologiques. Uppsala. Knipowitsch, T. 1929. Die Keramik römischer Zeit aus Olbia in der Sammlung der Eremitage. Frankfurt. Koehler, C.G. and P.M. Wallace Matheson. 2004. “Knidian amphora chronology, Pergamon to Corinth,” in Eiring and Lund, eds., 163-9. Koerner, R. 1993. Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte der frühen griechischen Polis. Köln. Kommos IV = Shaw, J.W. and M.C. Shaw, eds. 2000. The Greek Sanctuary, Part 1. Princeton. Kopaka, K. 2000. “Δπηθξαλείθα έξεπλα ζηε Γάπδν. Πξνζέγγηζεηο έλνπ νηθηζκνύ,” in Πεπραγκέλα H’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟2, 63-80. Herakleion. Kritzas, C. 2007. “A new dedicatory inscription of imperial times from Chersonesos, Crete,” in XII congressus internationalis epigraphiae graecae et latinae: provinciae imperii romani inscriptionibus descriptae, eds. M. Mayer i Olivé, G. Baratta, and A.G. Almagro, 793-6. Barcelona. Krywonos, W. et al. 1982. “Neutron activation analysis of some Roman and Islamic coarse wares of western Cyrenaica and Crete.” JAS 9: 63-78. Kütter, J. 2008. Graffiti auf römischer Gefäßkeramik aus Neuss. Aachen. Laet, S.J. de. 1949. Portorium: étude sur l'organisation douanière chez les Romains, surtout à l'époque du Haut-Empire. Brugge. Lamboglia, N. 1941. “Terra sigillata chiara.” RStLig 7: 7-22. ___. 1952. “Per una classificazione preliminare della ceramica campana,” in Atti del 1 Congresso internazionale di Studi Liguri, 139-206. Geneva. 527

___. 1955. “Sulla cronologia delle anfore romane di età repubblicana (II-I secolo A.C.).” RStLig 21: 241-70. ___. 1958. “Nuove osservazioni sulla “terra sigillata chiara”.” RStLig 24: 257-330. ___. 1963. “Nuove osservazioni sulla “terra sigillata chiara” (II).” RStLig 29: 145-212. Langlotz, E. 1969. “Beobachtungen in Phokia.” AA 1969: 377-85. Laurence, R. 1994. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London. Lavizzari, P. and M. Paola. 1972. La terra sigillata tardo-italica decorata a rilievo nella collezione Pisani Dossi del Museo archeologico di Milano. Milan. Lawall, M.L. 2005. “Amphoras and Hellenistic economies: addressing the (over)emphasis on stamped amphora handles,” in Archibald, Davies, and Gabrielsen, eds., 188-232. Lawrence, A.W. 1996. Greek Architecture, Fifth Edition (Revised by R.A. Tomlinson).New Haven. Le Rider, G. 1966. Monnaies crétoises du Ve au Ier siècle Av. J.-C. Études Crétoises 15. Paris. Le Roy, C. 1961. “Réchauds déliens.” BCH 85: 474-500. Leatham, J. and S. Hood. 1957-1958. “Sub-marine exploration in Crete, 1955.” BSA 53-54: 26380. Lehmann-Hartleben, K. 1923. Die antiken Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Städtebaues im Altertum. Klio suppl. 14. Leipzig. Lemaître, S. 2000. “Les importations d‟amphores de Méditerranée orientale à Lyon au IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.” RCRFActa 36: 467-76. Lempesi, A. 1969. “Πεξηζπιινγὴ Ἀξραηνηήηωλ ἐλ Κξὴηε.” Prakt 1969: 241-9. Leonard, J.R. 1997. “Harbor terminology in Roman periploi,” in S. Swiny et al., eds., 163-200. ___. 2005. Roman Cyprus: Harbors, Hinterlands, and “Hidden Powers”. Unpublished PhD Diss., State University of New York at Buffalo. Leonard, M.R. 1973. “Braziers in the Bodrum museum.” AJA 77: 21-5. Leroux, G. 1913. Lagynos: recherches sur la céramique et l'art ornemental hellénistiques. Paris. Levi, D. 1965-1966. “Bolli d‟anfore e pesi fittili da Festòs.” ASAtene 43: 569-88. 528

Link, S. 1991. Landverteilung und sozialer Frieden im archaischen Griechenland. Stuttgart. Liou, B. 1987. “Inscriptions peintres sur amphores: Fos (suite), Marseille, Toulou, Port-laNautique, Arles, Saint-Blaise, Saint-Martin-de-Crau, Mâcon, Calri.” Archaeonautica 7: 55-139. Litinas, N. 1999. “Ostraca Chersonesi,” in Chaniotis, ed., 349-51. ___. 2008. Greek Ostraca from Chersonesos, Crete: Ostraca Cretica Chersonesi (O.Cret.Chers.). Tyche suppl. 6. Vienna. Livadiotti, M. and I. Simiakaki, eds. 2004. Creta romana e protobizantina. Padua. Loane, H. 1938. Industry and Commerce of the City of Rome (50 B.C. – 200 A.D.). Baltimore. Lo Cascio, E. 2007. “The Early Roman Empire: the state and the economy,” in in Scheidal, Morris, and Saller, eds., 619-47. Loeschcke, S. 1909. Keramische Funde in Haltern. Munich. ___. 1912. “Sigillata-töpfereien in Tschandarli.” AM 37: 344-407. ___. 1919. Lampen aus Vindonissa. Zurich. LRP = Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London. LRP Suppl. = Hayes, J.W. 1980. A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery. London. Lund, J. 1995. “Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman fine wares from the Segermes Valley – forms and chronology,” in Africa Proconsularis: Regional Studies in the Segermes Valley of Northern Tunisia II, eds. S. Dietz, L. Ladjimi Sebaï, and H. Ben Hassen, 448-629. Aarhus. ___. 1997. “The distribution of Cypriot Sigillata as evidence of sea-trade involving Cyprus,” in S. Swiny et al., eds., 201-15. ___. 2000a. “Transport amphorae as evidence of exportation of Italian wine and oil to the eastern Mediterranean in the Hellenistic period,” in Between Orient and Occident: Studies in Honour of P.J. Riis, 77-99. Copenhagen. ___. 2000b. “The “pinched-handle” transport amphorae as evidence of the wine trade of Roman Cyprus,” in Πραθηηθά ηοσ ηρίηοσ Γηεζλούς Κσπροιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ, 565-78. Lefkosia.

529

___. 2003. “Eastern Sigillata B: a ceramic fine ware industry in the political and commercial landscape of the eastern Mediterranean,” in Les ceramiques en Anatolie aux epoques hellenistique et romaine, eds. C. Abadie-Reynal, 125-36. Istanbul. ___. 2005. “An economy of consumption: the Eastern Sigillata A industry in the late Hellenistic period,” in Archibald, Davies, and Gabrielsen, eds., 233-52. ___. 2010. “Methodological constraints affecting the precise dating of African Red Slip Ware,” in Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (Tunisia). Hommage à Michel Bonifay, ed. J.H. Humphrey, 65-72. JRA suppl. 76. Portsmouth, RI. Lund, J., D. Malfitana, and J. Poblome. 2006. “Rhosica vasa mandavi (Cic., Att. 6.1.13). Toward the identification of a major ceramic tableware industry of the eastern Mediterranean: Eastern Sigillata A.” ArchCl 57: 491-507. ___. 2008. “Rhosica vasa: the quest continues.” Facta 2: 217-9. Lyon Caen, C. and V. Hoff. 1986. Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des lampes en terre cuite grecques et chrétiennes. Paris. MacGillivray, J.A. and H. Sackett. 1984. “An archaeological survey of the Roussolakkos area at Palaikastro.” BSA 79: 129-59. Mackensen, M. 1991. “Zur Datierung mediterraner Sigillata aus der spätantiken Befestigung Iatrus an der unteren Donau. Die Chronologie der Late Roman C-Formen Hayes 3 A-E.” Germania 61: 79-96. MacMullen, R. 1982. “The epigraphic habit in the Roman Empire.” TAPA 103: 233-46. Majcherek, G. 1995. “Gazan amphorae: typology reconsidered,” in Meyza and Młynarczyk, eds., 163-78. Malamut, E. 1988. Les îles de l’Empire byzantin: VIIIe-XIIe siècles. Paris. Malfitana, D. 2004. “Anfore e ceramiche fini da mensa oriental nella Sicilia tardo-ellenistica e romana: merci e genti tra Oriente ed Occidente,” in Eiring and J. Lund, eds., 239-50. ___. 2007. La ceramica «corinzia» decorata a matrice: tipologia, cronologia ed iconografia di una produzione ceramica greca di età imperiale. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta suppl. 10. Bonn. Malfitana, D., J. Poblome, J. Lund. 2005. “Eastern Sigillata A in Italy: a socio-economic evaluation.” BaBesch 80: 199-212. Mandalaki, S. 1999. “Υεξζόλεζνο: Θεάηξν.” Kritiki Estia 7: 244-58. 530

Marangou, A. 1994. “Vin et amphores de Crète en Campanie,” in Δύθραηα: mélanges offerts à Claude Vatin, eds. M.-C. Amouretti and P. Villard, 137-43. Aix-en-Provence. ___. 1999. “Wine in the Cretan economy,” in Chaniotis, ed., 269-78. ___. 2000. “The wine-trade between Crete and Egypt, a first account,” in Κρήηε – Αίγσπηος: ποιηηηζκηθοί δεζκοί ηρηώλ τηιηεηηώλ, ed. Α. Κaretsou, 250-3. Αthens. ___. 2004. “Alexandrie: une destination pour le vin crétois,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 1029-38. Marangou-Lerat, A. 1995. Le vin et les amphores de Crète de l’époque classique à l’époque impériale. Études Crétoises 30. Athens. ___. 2002. “Σν θξεηηθό θξαζί από ηα αξραϊθά κέρξη ηα ξωκαϊθά ρξόληα,” in Οίλος παιαηός εδύποηος, 131-5. Herakleion. Mari, M. 2010. “Γηεξεύλεζε Βπδαληηλνύ ηείρνπο ζηελ Κάηω Μεξά Ηεξάπεηξαο,” in Αρταηοιογηθό έργο Κρήηες 1: Πραθηηθά ηες 1ες ζσλάληεζες, 200-10. Rethymno. Mariani, L. 1895. “Antichità Cretesi.” MonAnt 6: 154-347. Markoulaki, S., G. Christoudoulakos, and C. Phrankonikolaki. 2004. “Ζ αξραία Κίζακνο θαη ε πνιενδνκηθή ηεο νξγάλωζε,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 355-73. Markoulaki, S., J.-Y. Empereur, and A. Marangou. 1989. “Recherches sur les centres de fabrication d‟amphores de Crète occidentale.” BCH 113: 551-80. Marquié, S. 2004. “Un depot de la deuxième moitié du Ier s. de notre ère à Kition-Kathari (Chypre),” in Eiring and Lund, eds., 251-62. Martin, A. 1996. “Two Roman contexts from Olympia.” RCRFActa 33: 127-34. ___. 1997. “Roman and Late Antique fine wares at Olympia.” RCRFActa 35: 211-6. ___. 2000. “Amphorae at Olympia.” RCRFActa 36: 427-33. ___. 2006. “Italian Sigillata in the East: two different models of supply (Ephesus and Olympia),” in Old Pottery in a New Century: Innovating Perspectives on Roman Pottery Studies, eds. D. Malfitana, J. Poblome, and J. Lund, 175-87. Rome. Martin-Kilcher, S. 1994. Die Romischen Amphoren aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. 2: die Amphoren für Wein, Fischsauce, Sudfruchte. Basel. Masson, O. 1979. “Cretica.” BCH 103: 57-82. 531

Mayence, F. 1905. “Fouilles de Délos exécutés aux frais de M. le duc de Loubat. Les réchauds en terre-cuite.” BCH 29: 373-404. Mayerson, P. 1992. “The Gaza „wine‟ jar (Gazition) and the „lost‟ Ashkelon jar (Askalônion).” IEJ 42: 76-80. Mayet, F. and M. Picon. 1986. “Une sigillée phocéenne tardive (“Late Roman C ware”) et sa diffusion en Occident.” Figlina 7: 129-42. McCann, A.M. and J.P. Oleson. 2004. Deep-Water Shipwrecks off Skerki Bank: the 1997 Survey. JRA suppl. 58. Portsmouth, RI. McCormick, M. 2001. Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300 – 900. Cambridge. McDonald, W.A. and G.R. Rapp Jr. 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment. Minneapolis. McGinn, T.A.J. 2004. The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World: a Study of Social History and the Brothel. Ann Arbor. McGrail, S. 1989. “The shipment of traded goods and of ballast in antiquity.” OJA 8: 353-8. Medri, M. 1992. Terra sigillata tardo italica decorate. Studia archaeologica 60. Rome. Meiggs, R. 1973. Roman Ostia, Second Edition. Oxford. ___. 1982. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford. Mendel, G. 1912. Catalogue des Sculptures Grecques, Romaines et Byzantines, vol. 1. Constantinople. ___. 1914. Catalogue des Sculptures Grecques, Romaines et Byzantines, vol. 2. Constantinople. Menzel, H. 1969. Antike Lampen in römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseum zu Mainz. Mainz. Mercando, L. 1974. “Lucerne romane del museo di Iraklion,” in Antichità cretesi: studi in onore di Doro Levi, ed. G. Rizza, 235-9. Catania. Meriç, R. 2002. Späthellenistisch-römische Keramik und Kleinfunde aus einem Schachtbrunnen am Staatsmarkt in Ephesus. Forschungen in Ephesus 9.3. Vienna. Metendis, N. 1998. “Artemis Ephesia: the political significance of the Metellus coins,” in Cavanagh et al., eds., 117-22.

532

___. 2004. “Από ηε δξαρκή ζην δελάξην: βάζε θαη κεηάβαζε ηνπ θξεηηθνύ λνκηζκαηηθνύ ζπζηήκαηνο,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 171-80. Metendis, N. and M.I. Stefanakis. 2006. Κξεηηθό λόκηζκα: ηξέρνλ λόκηζκα,” in Πεπραγκέλα Θ’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟5, 295-302. Herakleion. Meyza, H. 2000. “Early Eastern Sigillata A from Paphos, Cyprus,” in Δ’ Δπηζηεκοληθή ΢σλάληεζε γηα ηελ Διιεληζηηθή Κερακηθή, 237-44. Αthens. ___. 2007. Nea Paphos V. Cypriot Red Slip Ware: Studies on a Late Roman Levantine Fine Ware. Varsovie. Meyza, H. and J. Młynarczyk, eds. 1995. Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies. Warsaw. Mijnsbrugge, M. van der. 1931. The Cretan Koinon. New York. Minnen, P. van. 1987. “Urban craftsmen in Roman Egypt.” MBAH 6: 31-88. Montali, G. 2006. Il teatro romano di Gortina. Padua. Moody, J. 1987. The Environmental and Cultural Prehistory of the Khania Region of West Crete: Neolithic through Late Minoan III. Unpublished PhD Diss., University of Minnesota. Moody, J., L. Nixon, and S. Price. 1998. “Surveying poleis and larger sites in Sphakia,” in Cavanagh et al., eds., 87-95. Moody, J., A. Peatfield, and S. Markoulaki. 2000. “Report from the Aghios Vasilios Valley Survey,” in Πεπραγκέλα H’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟2, 359-71. Herakleion. Moody, J. et al. 2003. “Ceramic fabric analysis and survey archaeology: the Sphakia survey.” BSA 98: 37-105. Morel, J.-P. 1981. Ceramique campanienne: les formes. Rome. ___. 1986. “Céramiques à vernis noir d‟Italie trouveés à Délos.” BCH 110: 461-93. Morley, N. 1996. Metropolis and Hinterland: the City of Rome and the Italian Economy, 200 B.C. – A.D. 200. Cambridge. ___. 2007a. “The Early Roman Empire: distribution,” in Scheidal, Morris, and Saller, eds., 57091. ___. 2007b. Trade in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge.

533

Morris, I., R.P. Saller, and W. Scheidal. 2007. “Introduction,” in Scheidal, Morris, and Saller, eds., 1-12. Mourtzas, N.D. 1988. “Archaeological constructions as indicators of sea-level during the last 2000 years in the area of Ierapetra (S.E. Crete, Greece),” in The Engineering Geology of Ancient Works, Monuments, and Historical Sites: Preservation and Conservation, eds. P.G. Marinos and G.C. Koukis, 1557-64. Rotterdam. Müller-Celka, S. 2000. “Malia. Prospection de la plaine.” BCH 124: 501-5. Negev, A. 1986. The Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Nabatean Oboda: Final Report. Qedem 22. Jerusalem. Neuru, L. 1980. “Late Roman pottery: a fifth century deposit from Carthage.” AntAfr 16: 195211. Nielson, I. 1990. Thermae et Balnea: the Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths, 2 vol. Aarhus. Nixon, L. et al. 1988. “Archaeological survey in Sphakia, Crete.” EchCl 7: 159-73. ___. 1989. “Archaeological survey in Sphakia, Crete.” EchCl 8: 201-15. ___. 1990. “Archaeological survey in Sphakia, Crete.” EchCl 9: 213-20. Nonnis, D. and C. Ricci. 2007. “Supplying the Roman army. La legio II Augusta in Britannia: il contributo dei materiali inscritti,” in Papi, ed., 193-207. Nowicki, K. 2008. Monastiraki Katalimata: Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site, 1993-2000. Prehistory Monographs 24. Philadelphia. OCK = Oxé, A., H. Comfort, and P. Kenrick. 2000. Corpus Vasorum Arretinorum: a Catalogue of the Signatures, Shapes, and Chronology of Italian Sigillata, second edition. Bonn. Oikonomaki, N.E. 1986. “Σν πδξαγωγεηό ηεο Υεξζνλήζνο.” Lyktos 2: 50-98. Oliver, J.H. 1970. Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East. Hesperia suppl. 13. Princeton. Opaiţ, A. 1988. “Ceramica din aşezarea şi cetatea de la Independenţa (Murighiol), sec. V î.e.n. VII e.n.” Peuce 10: 133-82. ___. 2004. Local and Imported Ceramics in the Roman Province of Scythia (4th – 6th centuries AD). BAR Int. Ser. 1274. Oxford.

534

Opaiţ, A. et al. 1988. “Fortificaţia şi aşezarea roman tîrzie de la Babadag-Topraichioi.” Peuce 10: 183-353. Orton, C. 1989. “An introduction to the quantification of assemblages of pottery.” JRomPotStud 2: 94-7. Orton, C., P. Tyers, and A. Vince. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge. Osborne, R. 2004. “Greek archaeology: a survey of recent work.” AJA 108: 87-102. Ostia I = Carandini, A. et al. 1968. Ostia I. Le terme del nuotatore: scavo dell’ambiente IV. Studi Miscellanei 13. Rome. Ostia II = Berti, F. et al. 1970. Ostia II. Le Terme del Nuotatore: Scavo dell’ambiente I. Studi Miscellanei 16. Rome. Ostia III = Carandini, A. and C. Panella, eds. 1973. Ostia III. Le terme del nuotatore: scavo dell’ambiente V e di un saggio nell’area SO. Studi Miscellanei 21. Rome. Ostia IV = Anselmino, L., A. Carandini, and C. Panella, eds. 1977. Ostia IV. Le terme del nuotatore: scavo dell’ambiente XVI e dell’area XXV. Studi Miscellanei 23. Rome. Outschar, U. 1993. “Produkte aus Ephesus in alle Welt?” Berichte und Materialien 5: 47-52. ___. 1996. “Analyse und Dokumentation Exemplarisch Ausgewählter Keramischer Fundkomplexe,” in Hanghäus 1 in Ephesus: der Baubefund, ed. C. Lang-Auinger, 27-85. Vienna. Oxé, A. 1933. Arretinische Reliefgefässe vom Rhein. Frankfurt. Pacetti, F. 1998. “La questione delle Keay LII nell‟ambito della produzione anforica in Italia,” in Saguì, ed., 185-208. Firenze. Pałuchowski, A. 2005a. Fastes des protocosmes des cités crétoises sous le Haut Empire. Warsaw. ___. 2005b. Le regime des cites crétoises sous la Haut Empire.” Klio 87: 421-44. ___. 2006. “Le nombre des bouletes et le president de la boulè dans les cites crétoises aux deux premiers siècles de l‟empire.” Palamedes 1: 97-121. Panagiotakis, N. 2003. “L‟évolution archéologique de la Pédiada (Crète centrale): premier bilan d‟une prospection.” BCH 127: 327-430. Panella, C. 1974-1975. “Per uno studio delle anfore di Pompei.” StMisc 22: 149-65.

535

___. 1983. “Le anfore di Cartagine: nuovi elementi per la ricostruzione dei flussi commerciali del Mediterraneo in età imperiale romana.” Opus 2: 53-73. ___. 1986. “Oriente e occidente: considerazioni su alcune anfore “egee” di età imperial à Ostia,” in Recherches sur les amphores grecques, eds. J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan, 609-36. BCH suppl.13. Paris. ___. 1989. “Le anfore italiche del II secolo D.C.,” in ARHE, 139-78. ___. 1993. “Merci e scambi nel Mediterraneo tardoantico,” in Storia di Roma III.2. L’età tardoantica: I luoghi e le culture, 613-97. Turin. Papadakis, N.P. 1986. Ierapetra: Bride of the Libyan Sea. Ierapetra. ___. 2000. “΢θξαγίζκαηα ἀκθνξέωλ ἀπὸ ηὴλ ἑιιεληζηηθὴ πόιε ζηὸλ Σξππεηὸ ηῆο ΢εηείαο ζηὴλ Κξήηε.” Tekmeria 5: 113-26. Papadopoulos, J. 1989. “La ceramic tardo-ellenistica di Gortina (Creta),” in Α΄ ΢σλάληεζε γηα ηελ Διιεληζηηθή Κερακεηθή, 41-55. Ioannina. Papadopoulos, J.K. and S.A. Paspalas. 1999. “Mendaian as Chalkidian wine.” Hesperia 68: 16188. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D. forthcoming. “Ceramics in Late Antique Thessalonike,” in From Roman to Early Christian Thessalonike, eds. L. Nasrallah, C. Bakirtzi, and S.J. Friesen. Cambridge, MA. Paphos III = Hayes, J.W. 1991. Paphos III. The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Nicosia. Papi, E., ed. Supplying Rome and the Empire. JRA suppl. 69. Portsmouth, RI. Parker, A.J. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean & Roman Provinces. BAR Int. Ser. 580. Oxford. Pashley, R. 1970 [1837]. Travels in Crete, 2 vols. Amsterdam. Paton, S. 1991. “A Roman Corinthian building at Knossos.” BSA 86: 297-318. ___. 1994. “Roman Knossos and the Colonia Julia Nobilis Cnossus,” in Knossos: a Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, eds. D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, 141-53. London. ___. 1998. “The Villa Dionysos at Knossos and its predecessors,” in Cavanagh et al., eds., 123-8. ___. 2000. “The Villa Dionysos at Knossos. A domus and its decor,” in Πεπραγκέλα H’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟2, 553-62. Herakleion. 536

Paton, S. and R.M. Schneider. 1999. “Imperial splendour in the province: imported marble on Roman Crete,” in Chaniotis, ed., 279-304. Payne, H.G.G. 1935. “Archaeology in Greece, 1934-1935.” JHS 55: 147-71. Pazaras, T.H. 2009. Αλαζθαθηθές έρεσλες ζηελ περηοτή ηες Δπαλοκής Θεζζαιολίθες: ηο λεθροηαθείο ζηο Ληκόρη θαη ε παιαηοτρηζηηαληθή βαζηιηθή ζηο Μπγηαδούδη. Thessaloniki. Peacock, D.P.S. 1977a. “Pompeian Red Ware,” in Pottery and Early Commerce: Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics, ed. D.P.S. Peacock, 147-62. London and New York. ___. 1977b. “Recent discoveries of amphora kilns in Italy.” AntJ 57: 262-9. Peacock, D.P.S. and D.F. Williams. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: an Introductory Guide. London and New York. Peacock, D.P.S. et al. 1990. “Roman pottery production in central Tunisia.” JRA 3: 59-84. Peña, J.T. 1990. “Internal red-slip cookware (Pompeian red ware) from Cetamura del Chianti, Italy: mineralogical composition and provenience.” AJA 94: 647-61. ___. 1998a. “Aspects of residuality in the Palatine East pottery assemblage,” in I materiali residui nello scavo archeologico, ed. G. Federico et al, 5-19. Rome. ___. 1998b. “The mobilization of state olive oil in Roman Africa: the evidence of the late 4th-c. ostraca from Carthage,” in Carthage Papers, eds. J.T. Peña et al, 116-238. JRA suppl. 28. Portsmouth, RI. ___. 1999. The Urban Economy During the Early Dominate: Pottery Evidence from the Palatine Hill. BAR Int Ser. 784. Oxford. ___. 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record. Cambridge. ___. 2010. “The forming and slipping of African Sigillata: evidence from the Palatine East assemblage,” in Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (Tunisia). Hommage à Michel Bonifay, ed. J.H. Humphrey, 45-63. JRA suppl. 76. Portsmouth, RI. Peña, J.T. and J. McCaw. 2007. “The quantitative analysis of Roman pottery: general problems and the methods employed for the analysis of the Palatine East assemblage,” in Papi, ed., 153-72. Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1939. The Archaeology of Crete: an Introduction. London.

537

Pensabene, P. and L. Lazzarini. 2004. “Marmi, pietre colorate e maestranze a Creta in età imperiale,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 763-85. Peppers, J.M. 1986. Selected Roman Pottery, Isthmia Excavations, 1967-1972. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Perlman, P. 1999. “Krētes aei Lēistai? The marginalization of Crete in Greek thought and the role of piracy in the outbreak of the First Cretan War,” in Hellenistic Rhodes: Politics, Culture, and Society, ed. V. Gabrielsen et al., 132-66. Aarhus. ___. 2004. “Hierapytna,” in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, eds. M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen, 1165-6. Oxford. Petropoulou, A. 1985. Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte Kretas in hellenistischer Zeit. Frankfurt. Pettegrew, DK. 2007. “The busy countryside of Late Roman Corinth: interpreting ceramic data produced by regional archaeological surveys.” Hesperia 76: 743-84. ___. 2010. “Regional survey and the boom-and-bust countryside: re-reading the archaeological evidence for episodic abandonment in the Late Roman Corinthia,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 14: 215-29. PF II = Schäfer, J. 1968. Hellenistiche Keramik aus Pergamon. Pergamenische Forschungen II. Berlin. PF VI = Meyer-Schlictmann, C. 1988. Die pergamenische Sigillata aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon. Pergamenische Forschungen VI. Berlin. PF VII = Hübner, G. 1993. Die Applikenkeramik von Pergamon. Pergamenische Forschungen VII. Berlin. Phillips, J. 2008. Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: a Critical Review. Volume II. Vienna. PIR2 = Groag, E. and A. Stein. 1933. Prosopographia Imperii Romani, 2nd ed. Berlin. Pirazzoli, P.A. 1986. “The Early Byzantine tectonic paroxysm.” Zeitshcrift für Geomorphologie. Suppl. 62: 31-49. ___. 1988. “Sea-level changes and crustal movements in the Hellenic Arc (Greece). The contribution of archaeological and historical data,” in The Archaeology of Coastal Change, ed. A. Raban, 157-84. BAR Int. Ser. 404. Oxford. ___. 2004. “Tremblements de terre et movements verticaux du sol en Crète à l‟époque romaine et protobizantine,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 1207-16. 538

Pirazzoli, P.A. et al. 1982. “Crustal block movements from holocene shorelines: Crete and Antikythera (Greece).” Tectnophysics 86: 27-43. Plataki, E.K. 1950. “Οἰ ζεηζκνὶ ηῆο Κξήηε.” CretChron 4: 463-526. Platon, N. 1951. “Ἡ ἀξραηνινγηθὴ ζπιινγὴ θίλεζηο ἐλ Κξήηε θαηὰ ηὸ ἒηνο 1951.” CretChron 5: 449-50. Poblome, J. 2004. “Italian Sigillata in the eastern Mediterranean,” in Early Italian Sigillata: the Chronological Framework and Trade Patterns, eds. J. Poblome et al., 17-30. Leuven. Poblome, J. et al. 2001. “The sigillata manufactories of Pergamon and Sagalassos.” JRA 14: 14365. Portale, E.C. 1992-1993. “Due ritratti nel museo di Hierapetra (Hierapytna), Creta.” ASAtene 7071: 339-54. Portale, E.C. and I. Romeo. 2000. “Le anfore locali di Gortina ellenistica e romana.” RCRFActa 36: 417-26. Poulou-Papadimitriou, N. 1995. “Le monastère byzantin de Pseira, Crète. La céramique,” in Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, eds. E. Dassmann and J. Engemann, 1119-31. Münster. Poulou-Papadimitriou, N. and E. Nodarou. 2007. “La céramique protobyzantine de Pseira: la production locale et les importations, étude typologique et pétrographique,” in Bonifay and Tréglia, eds., 755-66. Poulter, A.G. 2007. “The transition to Late Antiquity,” in The Transition to Late Antiquity: on the Danube and Beyond, ed. A.G. Poulter, 1-50. Oxford. Raab, H.A. 2001. Rural Settlement in Hellenistic and Roman Crete: the Akrotiri Peninsula. BAR Int. Ser. 984. Oxford. Rackham, O. 1972. “Appendix II. The vegetation of the Myrtos region,” in Myrtos: an Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete, ed. P. Warren, 283-98. London. Rackham, O. and J. Moody. 1996. The Making of the Cretan Landscape. Manchester. Raftopoulou, E.G. 1975. L'enfant d'Hiérapétra. Paris. Randolph, B. 1687. The Present State of the Islands in the Archipelago. Oxford. Rauh, N.K. 1986. Senators and Business in the Roman Republic: 264-44 B.C. Unpublished PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 539

___. 1997. “Who were the Cilician pirates?” in S. Swiny et al., eds., 263-83. ___. 2004. “Pirated knock-offs: Cilician imitations of internationally traded amphoras,” in Eiring and Lund, eds., 329-36. Raulin, F.-V. 1869. Description physique et naturelle de l’ile de Crète. Paris. Raven, E.J.P. 1938. “The Hierapytna coin hoard of Greek and Roman coins.” NC 5: 133-58. Reger, G. 1994. Regionalism and Change in the Economy of Independent Delos. Berkeley. Remesal Rodriguez, J. 1977-1978. “La economia oleocola Betica: nuevas formas de analisis.” ArchEspArq 50-51: 87-142. Rendini, P. 1989. “Anfore di produzione locale e di importazione a Gortina nel periodo tardoromano e proto-bizantino,” in ARHE, 648-9. ___. 1990. “Anfore di produzione locale e d‟importazione a Gortina,” in Πεπραγκέλα ηoσ ΢Σ’ Γηεζλoύς Kρεηoιoγηθoύ ΢σλεδρίoσ A‟2, 233-40. Athens. Rethemiotakis, G. 1984. “Αλαζθαθηθή έξεπλα ζηε Λύθην.” Lyktos 1: 49-65. Reynolds, J.M. 1958-1959. “The Jewish Revolt of A.D. 115 in Cyrenaica.” PCPS 185: 24-8. ___. 1982. “Senators originating in the provinces of Egypt and of Crete and Cyrene,” in Epigrafia e Ordine Senatorio II, 671-83. Rome. Reynolds, P. 1995. Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400-700: the Ceramic Evidence. BAR Int. Ser. 604. Oxford. ___. 2010. Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean, AD 100 – 700. London. Ricci, M. 1998. “La ceramic commune dal contest di VII secolo della Crypta Balbi,” in Saguì, ed., 351-82. Firenze. Rickman, G.E. 1980. The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Cambridge. Rigsby, K.J. 1976. “Cnossus and Capua.” TAPA 106: 313-30. ___. 1996. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley. Riley, J.A. 1979. “The coarse pottery from Berenice,” in Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), Volume II, ed. J.A. Lloyd, 91-467. Supplements to Libya Antiqua V. Tripoli.

540

Rizza, G. and V. Santa Maria Scrinari. 1968. Il santuario sull’acropoli di Gortina, 1. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in oriente 2. Rome. Rizzo, G. 2003. Instrumenta Urbis I. Ceramiche fini da mensa, lucerne ed anfore a Roma nei primi due secoli dell’impero. Collection de l‟École française de Rome 307. Rome. ___. 2007. “Le importazioni romane ed ostiensi di anfore egizie tra il I e il VII secolo d.C.,” in Amphores d'Égypte de la basse époque à l’époque arabe, eds. S. Marchand and A. Marangou, 657-67. Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 8. Cairo. Robinson, E.S.G. 1927. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyrenaica. London. Rossetti Tella, C. 1996. La terra sigillata tardo-italica decorata del Museo nazionale romano. Rome. Rostovtzeff, M. 1941. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford. Rothschild-Boros, M.L. 1981. “The determination of amphora contents,” in Archaeology and Italian Society: Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Studies, eds. G. Barker and R. Hodges, 79-89. BAR Int. Ser. 102. Oxford. Rotroff, S.I. 1997. “From Greek to Roman in Athenian ceramics,” in The Romanization of Athens, eds. M.C. Hoff and S.I. Rotroff, 97-116. Oxford. Rouanet-Liesenfelt, A.-M. 1992. “Les plantes medicinales de Crete à l‟epoque romaine.” Cretan Studies 3: 175-90. Rougé, J. 1966. Récherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime au Mediterranée sous l’Empire Romain. Paris. RRCH = Crawford, M.H. 1969. Roman Republican Coin Hoards. London. Saguì, L. 1998. “Il deposito della Crypta Balbi: una testimonianza imprevedibile sulla Roma del VII secolo?” in Saguì, ed., 305-30. Saguì, L., ed. 1998. Ceramica in Italia: VI – VII secolo. Atti del Convegno in onore di John W. Hayes. Firenze. Saller, R. 2005. “Framing the debate over growth in the ancient economy,” in The Ancient Economy: Evidence and Models, eds. J.G. Manning and I. Morris, 223-38. Stanford. Salomonson, J.W. 1968. “Études sur la céramique romaine d‟Afrique: sigillée claire et céramique commune de Henchir el Ouiba (Raqqada) en Tunisie centrale.” BABesch 43: 80-145.

541

Samaria-Sebeste III = Crowfoot, J.W., G.M. Crowfoot, and K. Kenyon. The Objects from Samaria (Samaria-Sebeste III). London. Sanders, G.D.R. 1999. “A Late Roman bath at Corinth: excavations in the Panayia Field, 19951996.” Hesperia 68: 441-80. ___. 2004. “Problems in interpretating rural and urban settlement in southern Greece, AD 365700,” in Landscapes of Change: Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. N. Christie, 163-93. Aldershot. Sanders, G.D.R. et al. No Date. Corinth Excavations: Archaeological Manual. Unpublished manuscript. Sanders, I.F. 1976. “Settlement in the Hellenistic and Roman periods on the plain of the Mesara, Crete.” BSA 71: 131-7. ___. 1982. Roman Crete. Warminister. Saupona, P. 1998. Die Bildlampen römischer Zeit aus der Idäischen Zeusgrotte auf Kreta. BAR Int. Ser. 696. Oxford. Sazanov, A. 1997. “Les amphores de l‟Antiquité Tardive et du Moyen Age: continuité ou rupture? Le cas de la Mer Noire,” in La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, 87-102. Aix-en-Provence. ___. 2007. “Les amphore orientales d‟époque protobyzantine au nord de la Mer Noire: chronologie et typologie,” in Bonifay and Tréglia, eds., 803-15. Scheffer, C. 1981. Acquarossa II.1. Cooking and Cooking Stands in Italy, 1400-400 B.C. Stockholm. Scheidal, W. 2002. “A model of demographic and economic change in Roman Egypt after the Antonine plague.” JRA 15: 97-114. ___. 2009. “In search of Roman economic growth.” JRA 22: 46-70. Scheidal, W., I. Morris, and R.P. Saller, eds. 2007. The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge. Schiering, W. 1982. “Landbegehungen in Rethymnon und Umgebung.” AA (1982): 15-54. Schiffer, M.B. 1987. Formation Processes in the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque. Schindler Kaudelka, E. and S. Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger. 2006. “Le commerce entre l‟Adriatique et le Magdalensberg,” in Les routes de l’Adriatique antique: géographie et économie, eds. S. Čače, A. Kurilić, and F. Tassaux, 151-65. Pessac/Zadar. 542

Schlager, N. 1991. Archäologische Geländeprospektioin Südostkreta. Erste Ergebnisse. Bericht und Materialen 2. Vienna. Schlager, N. et al. 1997. “Minoische bis rezente Ruinen im fernen Osten Kretas. Dokumentation 1996.” OJH 66: 2-83. ___. 2001. “Pleistozäne, Neolitische, Bronzezeitliche und Rezente Runien im fernen Osten Kretas. Dokumentation 2000.” OJH 70: 157-220. Schneider, G. 1995. “Roman red and black slipped pottery form NE-Syria and Jordan – first results of chemical analysis,” in Meyza and Młynarczyk, eds., 415-22. ___. 1996a. “Chemische Zusammensetzung der Grauen Platten und anderen Keramik,” in Hellenistische und kaiserzeitliche Keramik des östlichen Mittelmeergebietes, eds. M. Herbert-Koch, U. Mandel, and U. Schädler, 53-9. Frankfurt ___. 1996b. “Chemical grouping of Roman Terra Sigillata finds from Turkey, Jordan, and Syria,” in Archaeometry 94: the proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry, eds. Ş. Demirci, A.M. Özer, and G.D. Summers, 189-96. Ankara. ___. 2000. “Chemical and mineralogical studies of Late Hellenistic to Byzantine pottery production in the Eastern Mediterranean.” RCRFActa 36: 525-36. Scorpan, C. 1977. “Contribution de la connaissance de certains types céramiques romanobyzantins (IVe – VIIe siècles) dans l‟espace istro-pontique.” Dacia 21: 269-97. Scott, A.B. 2005. “Latin learning and literature in Ireland, 1169-1500,” in A New History of Ireland: Prehistoric and Early Ireland, ed. D. Ó Cróinín, 934-95. Oxford. Scott, A.R. 2008. Cosa: the Black-Glaze Pottery 2. MAAR suppl. 5. Ann Arbor. SDGI = Collitz, H. and F. Bechtel. 1884-1915. Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, 5 vols. Göttingen. Seager, R.B. 1909. “Excavations on the island of Mochlos, Crete, in 1908.” AJA 13: 273-303. Sear, F. 2006. Roman Theatres: an Architectural Study. Oxford. SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Sherk, R.K. 1969. Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore. Sherwin-White, A.N. 1984. Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. London.

543

Sidiropoulos, K. 2000. “Ννκίζκαηα επξήκαηα,” in Themelis, ed., 261-87. Sieber, F.W. 1823. Travels in the Island of Crete in the Year 1817. London. SIG3 = Dittenberger, W. 1915-1924. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecorum, 4 vols., 3rd edition. Leipzig. Simossi, A. 1988. “Τπνβξύρηα πξνθαηαξηηθή έξεπλα ζηνλ όξκν Κνπξεκέλνπ ζην Παιαίθαζηξν ΢εηείαο.” Kritiki Estia 2: 25-6. Sirks, B. 1991. Food for Rome. The Legal Structure of the Transportation and Processing of Supplies for the Imperial Distributions in Rome and Constantinople. Amsterdam. Sjögren, L. 2003. Cretan Locations: Discerning Site Variations in Iron Age and Archaic Crete (800-500 B.C.). BAR Int. Ser. 1185. Oxford. Skodrou, M. 2000. “Διιεληζηηθή θεξακηθή από ην Καζηέιη Κηζάκνπ,” in Δ’ Δπηζηεκοληθή ΢σλάληεζε γηα ηελ Διιεληζηηθή Κερακηθή, 25-36. Αthens. Slane, K.W. 1989. “Corinthian ceramic imports: the changing pattern of provincial trade in the first and second centuries AD,” in The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, eds. S. Walker and A. Cameron, 219-25. London. ___. 1994. “The Tetrarchic recovery in Corinth: pottery, lamps, and other finds from the peribolos of Apollo.” Hesperia 63: 127-68. ___. 2000. “East-west trade in fine wares and commodities: the view from Corinth.” RCRFActa 36: 299-312. ___. 2003. “Corinth‟s Roman pottery: quantification and meaning,” in Corinth XX. Corinth the Centenary 1896-1996, eds. C.K. Williams II and N. Bookidis, 321-35. Princeton. ___. 2004. “Amphoras – used and reused – at Corinth,” in Eiring and Lund, 361-9. ___. 2008. “The end of the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth.” Hesperia 77: 46596. Slane, K.W. and G.D.R. Sanders. 2005. “Corinth: Late Roman horizons.” Hesperia 74: 243-97. Slane, K.W. et al. 1994. “Compositional analysis of Eastern Sigillata A and related wares from Tel Anafa (Israel).” JAS 21: 51-64. Sodini, J.-P. 2000. “Productions et échanges dans le monde protobyzantin (IVe-VIIe s.): le cas de la céramique,” in Byzanz als Raum: zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, eds. K. Belke et al., 181-208. Vienna.

544

Soles, J.S. 1991. “The Gournia palace.” AJA 95: 17-78. Soles, J.S. and C. Davaras. 1996. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1992-1993.” Hesperia 65: 175-230. Souza, P. de. 1998. “Late Hellenistic Crete and the Roman conquest,” in Cavanagh et al., eds., 112-6. ___. 1999. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge. Spanakis, S.G. 1968. “To ζέαηξo ζηε ξωκαϊθή Kξήηε,” in Πεπραγκέλα ηoσ B’ Γηεζλoύς Kρεηoιoγηθoύ ΢σλεδρίoσ B‟, 142-68. Athens. Spanakis, S.G., ed. 1940. Μλεκεία ηες Κρεηηθής Ιζηορίας. Relazione del nobil huomo Zuanne Mocenigo ritornato provveditore generale del Regno di Candia presentata nell’eccellentissimo consillio 17 Aprile 1589. Herakleion. ___. 1969. Μλεκεία ηες Κρεηηθής Ιζηορίας. Francesco Basilicata, Relazione 1630. Herakleion. Spawforth, A.J. and S. Walker. 1985. “The world of the Panhellenion. I. Athens and Eleusis.” JRS 75: 78-104. Spitzer, D.C. 1942. “Roman relief bowls from Corinth.” Hesperia 11: 162-92. Sporn, K. 2002. Heiligtümer und Kulte Kretas in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit. Heidelberg. Spratt, T.A.B. 1865. Travels and Researches in Crete. London. ___. 1887. “Note on three gold coins from Crete.” NC 7: 309-11. Spyridakis, S. 1970. Ptolemaic Itanos and Hellenistic Crete. Berkeley. ___. 1980. “Rhodes and Olus,” in Panhellenica: Essays in Ancient History and Historiography in Honor of Truesdell S. Brown, eds. S.M. Burstein and L.A. Okin, 119-28. Lawrence. ___. 1990. “Ἱεξάππηλα.” Amaltheia 21: 38-44. Stallsmith, A.B. 2007. “One colony, two mother cities: Cretan agriculture under Venetian and Ottoman rule,” in Between Venice and Istanbul: Colonial Landscapes in early modern Greece, eds. S. Davies and J. Davis, 151-71. Hesperia suppl. 40. Athens. Stampolidis, N.C. et al. 2004. “Catalogue of objects,” in Eleutherna: Polis-AcropolisNecropolis, ed. N.C. Stampolidis, 146-302. Athens. Stefanaki, V.E. 2001. “Sur deux monnaies de bronze inédites d‟Hiérapytna: monnayage Hiérapytnien et timbre amphoriques à l‟époque Hellénistique.” Eulimene 2: 129-42. 545

___. 2006. “Ζ νηθνλνκηθή αλάπηπμε ηεο Ηεξαπύηλαο ζην ηέινο ηεο Eιιεληζηηθήο επνρήο: Ζ αξραηνινγηθή θαη λνκηζκαηηθή καξηπξία,” in Πεπραγκέλα Θ’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ Α‟5, 303-18. Herakleion. Steiros, S.K., S. Papageorgiou, and A. Yangaki. 2004. “Καηαζηξνθή ηωλ θξεηηθώλ πόιεωλ ην 365 κ.Υ.,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 427-44. Stern, E.M. 1968. “Note analytique sur des tessons de sigillée claire D ramassés à Henchir es Srira et Sidi Aich.” BABesch 43: 146-54. Stoneman, R. 1987. Land of Lost Gods: the Search for Classical Greece. London. Strataridaki, A. 1988-1989. “The historians of ancient Crete: a study in regional historiography.” CretChron 28-29: 137-93. Sussman, V. 1983. “The Samaritan oil lamps from Apollonia-Arsuf.” Tel Aviv 10: 71-96. ___. 1995. “A giant Cretan oil-lamp from Herod‟s seaside palace at Caesarea.” IEJ 45: 278-82. ___. 2008. “The oil lamps,” in Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN Final Report. Volume I: the Objects, ed. J. Patrich, 211-92. Jerusalem. Svoronos, J.-N. 1972 [1890]. Numismatique de la Crète ancienne. Bonn. Swan, V.G. 2007. “Dichin (Bulgaria): interpreting the ceramic evidence in its wider context,” in The Transition to Late Antiquity: on the Danube and Beyond, ed. A.G. Poulter, 251-80. Oxford. Sweetman, R. 2003. “The Roman mosaics of the Knossos Valley.” BSA 98: 517-47. ___. 2004a. “Late Antique Knossos. Understanding the city: evidence of mosaics and religious architecture.” BSA 99: 315-54. ___. 2004b. “The mosaics of Roman and Early Christian Knossos: interpreting their contexts and workshop production,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 1173-88. ___. 2006. “ Knossos: processes of Romanization,” in Πεπραγκέλα Θ’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟5, 421-34. Herakleion. ___. 2007. “Roman Knossos: the nature of a globalized city.” AJA 111: 61-81. Sweetman, R. and M.J. Becker. 2005. “Knossos Medical Faculty Site: Late Antique graves and other remains.” BSA 100: 331-86.

546

Swiny, S. et al., eds. 1997. Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. CAARI Monograph Series 1. Atlanta. Syme, R. Sir. 1958. Tacitus. Oxford. ___. 1986. “More Narbonensian senators.” ZPE 65: 1-24. Taborrelli, L. 1994. “Spunti per una ricerca sulla produzione di medicamenta-aromata a l‟attività vetraria à Creta.” ArchCl 46: 441-51. Talamo, C. 1987. “Il sissizio a Creta.” Miscellanea Graeca e Roma 12: 9-26. Tartaron, T.F. et al. 2006. “The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey: integrated methods for a dynamic landscape.” Hesperia 75: 453-523. Tchernia, A. 1986. Le vin de l'Italie romaine. Rome. Tel Anafa II.i = Herbert, S.C., A. Berlin, and K.W. Slane, eds. 1997. Tel Anafa II, i: the Hellenistic and Roman pottery. JRA suppl. 10.2. Portsmouth, RI. Temin, P. 2001. “A market economy in the Early Roman Empire.” JRS 91: 169-81. Themelis, P.T., ed. 2000. Προηοβσδαληηλή Διεσζερλα, ηοκέας 1, Β’ ηόκος. Rethymno. Thommeret, Y. et al. 1981. “Late Holocene shoreline changes and seismo-tectonic displacements in western Crete (Greece).” Zeitshcrift für Geomorphologie. Suppl. 40: 127-49. Thompson, H. 1934. “Two centuries of Hellenistic pottery.” Hesperia 3: 311-476. Timby, J. 2004. “Amphorae from excavations at Pompeii by the University of Reading,” in Eiring and Lund, eds., 383-92. Tomber, R. 1993. “Quantitative approaches to the investigation of long-distance exchange.” JRA 6: 142-66. Tomber, R. and D. Williams. 2000. “Egyptian amphorae in Britain and the western provinces.” Britannia 31: 41-54. Torres Y Ribera, A. de. 1805. Insulae Augustae Cretae Periplus, Prodomus Antiquitatem Cretensium. Venice. ___. 1808. Antiquitates Cretenses. Venice. Touratsoglou, I. and K. Sidiropoulos. 2000. “Οη λνκηζκαηηθνί «ζεζαπξνί» ηεο ξωκαϊθήο Κξήηεο: κηα πξόηε πξνζεγγίζε,” in Πεπραγκέλα H’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟3, 287-96. Herakleion. 547

Tournefort, J.P. de. 1717. Relation d’un voyage du Levant. Lyon. Tsipopoulou, M. 1989. Archaeological Survey at Aghia Photia, Siteia. Partille. Travlos, J. 1949. “Ἀλαζθαθὴ ἔξεπλα παξὰ ηὸ Ὀιπκπηείνλ.” Prakt 1949[1951]: 25-35. Triandafyllidou-Baladie, G. 1988. Σο εκπόρηο θαη ε οηθολοκία ηες Κρήηες από ηης αρτές ηες Οζωκαληθής θσρηαρτίας έως ηο ηέιος ηοσ 18οσ αηώλα, 1669-1795. Herakleion. Trümpy, C. 1997. Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen. Heidelberg. Tsougarakis, D. 1988. Byzantine Crete: from the 5th century to the Venetian Conquest. Athens. ___. 1990. Ρωκαϊθή Κρήηε (1ος αη. π.Χ. - 5ος αη. κ.Χ.). Crete. Tsougarakis, D. and H. Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. 2004. “A province under Byzantine, Venetian, and Ottoman rule, AD 400-1898,” in Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer, eds., 359439. Turnovsky, P. 2005. “The morphological repertory of Late Roman/Early Byzantine coarse wares in Ephesus,” in LRCW1. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry, eds. J.Ma. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós, and M.A. Cau Ontiveros, 635-45. BAR Int. Ser. 1340. Oxford. UM II = Sackett, L.H., ed. 1992. Knossos: from Greek City to Roman Colony. Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion II. London. Vagnetti, L., A. Christopoulou, and I. Tzedakis. 1989. “Saggi negli strati neolitici,” in Scavi a Nerokourou, Kydonias. Rome. Van Spitael, M.-A., ed. 1981. Cristoforo Buondelmonti. Descriptio insule Crete et liber insularum, cap.XI, Creta. Herakleion. Vessberg, O. and A. Westholm. 1956. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. 4.3. The Hellenistic and Roman Periods in Cyprus. Stockholm. Vidrih Perko, V. and M. Pavletić. 2000. “Report on ceramics from Brijuni.” RCRFActa 36: 2639. Vilvorder, F., Symonds, and Rekk. 2000. “Les amphores orientales en Gaule septentrionale et au sud-est de la Grande Bretagne.” RCRFActa 36: 477-86. Vin, J.P.A. van der. 1980. Travelers to Greece and Constantinople. Ancient Monuments and Old Traditions in Medieval Travelers, 2 volumes. Leiden. 548

Vitale, E. 2008. La ceramica sovradipinta bizantina di Gortina. Studi di archeologia cretese 6. Padua. Viviers, D. 1999. “Economy and territorial dynamics in Crete from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period,” in Chaniotis, ed., 221-33. Vogeikoff-Brogan, N. 2000a. “Late Hellenistic pottery in Athens: a new deposit and further thoughts on the association of pottery and societal change.” Hesperia 69: 293-333. ___. 2000b. “Late Hellenistic pottery from Mochlos in East Crete,” in Δ’ Δπηζηεκοληθή ΢σλάληεζε γηα ηελ Διιεληζηηθή Κερακηθή, 69-74. Αthens. ___. 2004. “The Late Hellenistic period in East Crete,” in Crete Beyond the Palaces, eds. L.P. Day, M.S. Mook, and J.D. Muhly, 213-20. Prehistory Monographs 10. Philadelphia. ___. forthcoming. “The Isthmus in Hellenistic and Roman times: expansion in an international era,” in Watrous et al., eds. Vogeikoff-Brogan, N. and S. Apostolakou. 2004. “New evidence of wine production in East Crete in the Hellenistic period,” in Eiring and Lund, eds., 417-27. Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., E. Nodarou, and M.C. Boileau. 2008. “New evidence for amphora production in East Crete in the Hellenistic period. An integrated approach of typology and thin-section petrography,” in Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry, eds. Y. Facorellis et al., 327-34. BAR Int. Ser. 1746. Oxford. Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., et al. 2004. “Transport amphoras and wine trade in East Crete in the Late Hellenistic period: evidence from Mochlos and Pyrgos Myrtos,” in ΢Σ’ Δπηζηεκοληθή ΢σλάληεζε γηα ηελ Διιεληζηηθή Κερακηθή, 327-32. Αthens. Vogt. C. 1991-1993. “Πξνηνβπδαληηλή θεξακηθή απν ηελ Αγία Γαιήλε.” Kritiki Estia 4: 39-74. ___. 2000. “The Early Byzantine pottery,” in Themelis, ed., 37-199. ___. 2004. “Echanges et economie Proto-Byzantines d‟Eleutherna d‟apres les temoins ceramiques,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 923-44. Vroom, J. 2005. Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean, 7th to 20th Century: an Introduction and Field Guide. Utrecht. Waagé, F.O. 1933. “The Roman and Byzantine pottery.” Hesperia 2: 279-328. ___. 1948. Antioch on-the-Orontes IV. Part 1: Ceramics and Islamic coins. Princeton.

549

Wagstaff, M. 1972. “Appendix I. The physical geography of the Myrtos region: a preliminary appraisal,” in Myrtos: an Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete, ed. P. Warren, 273-82. London. Wardle, K.A. 1972. “Two notes from Knossos.” BSA 67: 271-84. Warren, P.M. 1987-1988. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum excavations, 1978-82. Part IV.” AR 34: 86-104. Watrous, L.V. 1982. Lasithi: a History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete. Hesperia suppl. 18. Princeton. ___. forthcoming. “Orientalizing–Classical Periods: population nucleation and development of the polis,” in Watrous et al., eds. Watrous, L.V. and D. Hadzi-Vallianou. 2004a. “The polis of Phaistos: development and destruction,” in Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer, eds., 307-38. ___. 2004b. “Mesara Romana (150 B.C. – A.D. 400),” in Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer, eds., 351-8. Watrous, L.V. and M. Schultz. forthcoming. “Middle Minoan III–Late Minoan I: the rise of a regional state,” in Watrous et al., eds. Watrous, L.V., D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer, eds. 2004. The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete. Monumenta Archaeologica 23. Los Angeles. Watrous, L.V. et al. 2000. “Economy and society in the Gournia region of Crete: a preliminary report on the 1992-1994 field seasons of the Gournia Project,” in Πεπραγκέλα H’ Γηεζλούς Κρεηοιογηθού ΢σλεδρίοσ A‟3, 471-83. Herakleion. ___. forthcoming. An Archaeological Survey of the Gournia Landscape: a Regional History of the Mirabello Bay, Crete, in Antiquity. Philadelphia. Weinberg, G.D. 1959. “Glass manufacture in ancient Crete.” JGS 1: 11-21. ___. 1960. “Excavations at Tarrha, 1959.” Hesperia 29: 90-108. Welch, K.E. 1999. “Negotiating Roman spectacle architecture in the Greek world: Athens and Corinth,” in The Art of Ancient Spectacle, eds. B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon, 124-45. New Haven. ___. 2007. The Roman Amphitheatre: from its Origins to the Colosseum. Cambridge.

550

Wheeler, R.E.M et al. 1946. “Arikamedu: an Indo-Roman trading station on the East coast of India.” Ancient India 2: 17-124. Whitehouse, D. et al. 1982. “The Schola Praeconium I.” PBSR 50: 53-101. Whitley, J., M. Prent, and S. Thorne. 1999. “Praisos IV: a preliminary report on the 1993 and 1994 survey seasons.” BSA 94: 215-64. Wickham, C. 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages. Oxford. Williams, C. 1989. Anemurium: the Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery. Toronto. Williams, C.K. II and O. Zervos. 1988. “Corinth, 1987: south of Temple E and east of theater.” Hesperia 57: 95-146. Williams, D. 2003. “Cretan wine in Roman Britain.” JRomPotStud 10: 26-31. ___. 2005. “Late Roman amphora 1: a study of diversification,” in Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity: the Ceramic Evidence, eds. M. Berg Briese and E.L. Vaag, 157-68. Halicarnassian studies 3. Odense. Williams, D. and D. Peacock. 2005. “The eruption of Vesuvius and Campanian Dressel 2-4 amphorae,” in Terra Marique: Studies in Art History and Marine Archaeology in Honor of Anna Marguerite McCann, ed. J. Pollini, 140-8. Oxford. Williams, S. 1985. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. London. Willetts, R.F. 1955. Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete. London. ___. 1962. Cretan Cults and Festivals. London. ___. 1965. Ancient Crete: a Social History from Early Times until the Roman Occupation. London. ___. 1967. The Law Code of Gortyn. Kadmos suppl. 1. Berlin. Willis, S. 1996. “The Romanization of pottery assemblages in the east and north-east of England during the 1st century A.D.: a comparative analysis.” Britannia 27: 179-221. Wilson, A. 2009a. “Approaches to quantifying Roman trade,” in Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems, eds. A.K. Bowman and A. Wilson, 213-49. Oxford. ___. 2009b. “Indicators for Roman economic growth: a response to Walter Scheidal.” JRA 22: 71-82.

551

Wilson, R.J.A. 1990. Sicily Under the Roman Empire: the Archaeology of a Roman Province, 36 BC – AD 535. Warminster. Wintermeyer, U. 1984. “Didyma. Bemerkungen zur Typologie und Chronologie der hellenistisch-kaiserzeitlichen Gebrauchskeramik.” IstMitt 34: 241-8. ___. 2004. Die hellenistische und frühkaiserzeitliche Gebrauchskeramik. Mainz. Wipszycka, E. 1965. L’industrie textile dans l’Egypte romaine. Warsaw. Witcher, R. 2005. “The extended metropolis: urbs, suburbium and population.” JRA 18: 120-38. Woodward, A.M. 1929. “Archaeology in Greece, 1928-1929.” JHS 49: 220-39. Woolf, G. 1997. “The Roman urbanization of the East,” in The Early Roman Empire in the East, ed. S.E. Alcock, 1-14. Oxford. Wörrle, M. 1971. “Ägyptisches Getreide für Ephesus.” Chiron 1: 325-40. Wroth, W. 1886. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Crete and the Aegean Islands. London. Xanthoudidis, S.A. 1898. “Cretan expedition IX. Inscriptions from Gortyna, Lyttos, and Lató pros Kamara.” AJA 2: 71-8. Xanthopoulou, Μ. 2004. “Παιαηνρξηζηηαληθή θεξακηθή ηεο αξραίαο Ηηάλνπ,” in Livadiotti and Simiakaki, eds., 1013-27. Yangaki, A.G. 2004-2005. “Amphores crétoise: le cas d‟Éleutherna, en Crète.” BCH 128-129: 503-23. ___. 2005. La céramique des IVe-VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C. d’Eleutherna. Athens. ___. 2007. “Amphores crétoises de forme globulaire: remarques préliminaires,” in Bonifay and Tréglia, eds., 767-74. Yona Waksman, S. and J.-C. Tréglia. 2007. “Caractérisation géochimique et diffusion méditerranéenne des céramiques culinaires «égéennes». Etudes comparées des mobiliers de Marseille, de Beyrouth et d‟Alexandrie (Ve-VIIe s.),” in Bonifay and Tréglia, eds., 645-57. Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. 1995. “Der Italiener in Ephesus.” RCRFActa 34: 253-71. Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. and G. Schneider. 2005. “Ephesian cooking vessels of the Augustan period,” in Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity: the Ceramic Evidence, edited by M. Berg Briese and E.L. Vaag, 63-7. Halicarnassian studies 3. Odense. 552

Zahariade, M. 1999. “The Tetrarchic building inscriptions and the Lower Danubian limes,” in XII Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina, 553-61. Rome. Zahn, R. 1904. “Thongeschirr,” in Priene: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895-1898, eds. T. Wiegand and H. Schrader, 394-468. Berlin. Zanini, E. and E. Giorgi. 2002. “Indagini archeologiche nell‟area del “quartiere bizantino” di Gortina: prima relazione preliminare (campagno 2002).” ASAtene 80: 212-32. Zeest, I.B. 1960. Keramicheska tara Bospora. Moscow. Zevi, F. 1966. “Appunti sulle anfore romane.” ArchCl 18: 208-47. Zevi F. and I. Pohl. 1970. "Casa delle Pareti Gialle, salone centrale. Scavo sotto il pavimento a mosaic." NSc 24: 43-244. Zevi, F. and A. Tchernia. 1969. “Amphores de Byzacenè au Bas-Empire.” AntAfr 3: 173-214. Zhuravlev, D.V. 2002. “Terra Sigillata and red slip pottery in the North Pontic region (a short bibliographic survey).” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 8: 237-309. ___. 2009. “Pontic Sigillata plates with a vertical rim from the Belbek IV Necropolis in the south-western Crimea.” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15: 25-94. Εois, Α. 2002. Ρωκαϊθή Ιεράπεηρα, κηα άγλωζηε ασηοθραηορηθή πόιε: ο θόκβος ηες αλαηοιηθής Μεζογείοσ. Athens.

553

TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Project Akrotiri Ayiofarango Galatas Kavousi Knossos Lasithi Pediada Vrokastro W. Mesara Ziros

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

Roman Period Chronology Early: mid-1st B.C.E. – 4th C.E. Late: 4th – 9th C.E. Roman: 1st – 7th C.E. Early: 1st – 3rd C.E. Late: 4th – 7th C.E. Early: 69 B.C.E. – 4th C.E. Late: 4th – 7th C.E. Roman: 67 B.C.E. – 400 C.E. Roman: 1 – 700 C.E. Roman: 1st B.C.E. – 330 C.E. Early: 1 – 150 C.E. Middle: 150 – 425 C.E. Late: 425 – 800 C.E. Roman: 150 B.C.E. – 400 C.E. Greco-Roman: 3rd B.C.E. – 9th C.E. (Late Roman: 6th – 8th C.E.) Table 1.1. Survey Chronologies for Roman Crete.1

Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) 11 0 0.03 278 13 2.57 1105 50 23.05 305 14 6.31 508 23 33.91 2207 100 65.87 Table 5.1. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined.

% 0 4 35 10 51 100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) % Lamps 1 0 0 0 Finewares 229 16 1.65 7 Common Wares 829 58 15 61 Cookwares 194 14 2.9 12 Amphorae 166 12 5.15 20 1419 100 24.7 100 Total Table 5.2. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts.

1

Bibliography for Table 1.1. Akrotiri: Raab 2001: 85. Ayiofarango: Blackman and Branigan 1975: 31. Galatas: Watrous, personal communication. Kavousi: Haggis 2005: 58. Knossos: Hood and Smyth 1981: 22. Lasithi: Watrous 1982: 67. Pediada: Panagiotakis 2003: 364. Vrokastro: Harrison and Hayden 2005: 57. W. Mesara: Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004b: 351. Ziros: Branigan 1998: 74. Additional projects were excluded either because they do not present Roman material, or because they do not specify a date range for the Roman period.

554

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 10 2 0.03 Finewares 36 5 0.77 Common Wares 211 31 6.85 Cookwares 88 13 3.16 Amphorae 331 49 28.16 676 100 38.97 Total Table 5.3. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts.

% 0 2 18 8 72 100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 0 0 0 Finewares 13 12 0.15 Common Wares 65 58 1.2 Cookwares 23 20 0.25 Amphorae 11 10 0.6 112 100 2.2 Total Table 5.4. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Contexts of Unknown Date.

% 0 7 55 11 27 100

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

% 0 7 89 2 2 100

Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) 0 0 0 2 9 0.03 18 78 0.4 2 9 0.01 1 4 0.01 23 100 0.45 Table 5.5. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data Proto-Roman Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 0 0 0 Finewares 7 7 0.05 Common Wares 79 84 1.15 Cookwares 8 9 0.05 Amphorae 0 0 0 94 100 1.25 Total Table 5.6. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts.

555

% 0 4 92 4 0 100

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) 4 3 0.01 10 7 0.3 27 18 2.05 36 24 1.05 71 48 6.9 148 100 10.31 Table 5.7. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts.

% 0 3 20 10 67 100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 6 2 0.02 Finewares 17 4 0.39 Common Wares 87 21 3.25 Cookwares 42 10 2.05 Amphorae 259 63 21.25 411 100 26.96 Total Table 5.8. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts.

% 0 1 12 8 79 100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 3 8 Local 8 22 Eastern Sigillata A 4 11 Eastern Sigillata B 2 6 Italian Sigillata 0 0 Çandarli 3 8 African Red-Slip C 6 17 African Red-Slip D 7 20 Phocaean Red-Slip 3 8 36 100 Total Table 5.9. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 1 50 Eastern Sigillata A 1 50 2 100 Total Table 5.10. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts.

556

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Local 1 14 Eastern Sigillata A 3 44 Eastern Sigillata B 1 14 Italian Sigillata 1 14 African Red-Slip D 1 14 7 100 Total Table 5.11. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 1 10 Local 1 10 Çandarli 5 50 African Red-Slip C 2 20 Phocaean Red-Slip 1 10 10 100 Total Table 5.12. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 1 6 Local 6 29 Eastern Sigillata B 1 6 Italian Sigillata 2 12 Çandarli 1 6 African Red-Slip C 5 29 African Red-Slip D 2 12 17 100 Total Table 5.13. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts.

557

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 263 79 Aegean 24 7 Africa 3 1 Egypt 1 0 Italy 1 0 Spain 2 1 Syria-Palestine 5 2 Unknown 32 10 331 100 Total Table 5.14. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 1 100 1 100 Total Table 5.15. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Proto-Roman Contexts.

Provenance Sherd Count % None attested 0 0 0 0 Total Table 5.16. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 61 86 Aegean 3 4 Africa 1 1 Unknown 6 9 71 100 Total Table 5.17. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts.

558

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 201 78 Aegean 21 8 Africa 2 1 Egypt 1 0 Italy 1 0 Spain 2 1 Syria-Palestine 5 2 Unknown 26 10 259 100 Total Table 5.18. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts.

Amphora Type

Sherd % Count ARC1b 2 1 ARC1c 1 0 ARC2 1 0 MRC2b 1 0 TRC2 3 1 Hellenistic Cretan 54 17 Unidentified Cretan 255 61 MR4/Agora G199 2 1 Kapitän 2 4 1 Agora M273 1 0 LRA1 2 1 LRA2 4 1 LRA3 1 0 Hellenistic Aegean 4 1 Unidentified Aegean 6 2 Unidentified African 3 1 LRA7 1 0 MR1 1 0 Unidentified Spanish 2 1 LRA4 1 0 LRA5/6 4 1 Unknown 32 10 331 100 Total Table 5.19. Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types.

559

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

Sherd Count

%

59 321 3672 1116 3097

1 4 44 14 37

Sherd Weight (kg) 0.24 3.8 58.75 16.31 91.08 8265 100 170.18 Table 5.20. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined.

% 0 2 34 10 54 100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 3 5 0.05 Finewares 6 9 0.1 Common Wares 50 78 0.5 Cookwares 4 6 0.05 Amphorae 1 2 0.05 64 100 0.75 Total Table 5.21. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts.

% 7 13 66 7 7 100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 56 0 0.19 Finewares 315 4 3.7 Common Wares 3622 44 58.25 Cookwares 1112 14 16.26 Amphorae 3096 38 91.03 8201 100 169.43 Total Table 5.22. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts.

%

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

0 2 34 10 54

100

Sherd Count

%

Sherd Weight (kg)

%

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 Table 5.23. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Proto-Roman Contexts.

560

0

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

Sherd Count

%

Sherd Weight (kg)

%

5 38 849 240 126

0 3 68 19 10

0.01 0.3 9.15 1.7 2.4

0 2 67 13 18

1258 100 13.56 Table 5.24. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts.

100

Sherd Count

%

Sherd Weight (kg)

%

26 106 818 322 1480

0 4 30 12 54

0.1 1.35 18.9 6.21 50.7

0 2 24 8 66

2752 100 77.26 Table 5.25. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts.

100

Sherd Count

%

Sherd Weight (kg)

%

25 171 1955 550 1490

0 4 47 13 36

0.08 2.16 30.2 8.35 37.93

0 3 38 11 48

4191 100 78.72 Table 5.26. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts.

561

100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 42 14 Local 95 30 Eastern Sigillata A 17 5 Eastern Sigillata B 23 7 Italian Sigillata 12 4 Pontic Sigillata 2 1 Çandarli 14 4 African Red-Slip A 1 0 African Red-Slip C 52 17 African Red-Slip D 14 4 Phocaean Red-Slip 42 14 Egyptian Red-Slip 1 0 315 100 Total Table 5.27. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % None Attested 0 0 0 0 Total Table 5.28. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Local 13 34 Eastern Sigillata A 7 18 Eastern Sigillata B 11 29 Italian Sigillata 1 3 Çandarli 2 5 African Red-Slip A 1 3 African Red-Slip C 3 8 38 100 Total Table 5.29. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts.

562

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 11 10 Local 29 27 Eastern Sigillata A 5 5 Eastern Sigillata B 4 4 Italian Sigillata 6 6 Çandarli 5 5 African Red-Slip C 28 26 African Red-Slip D 4 4 Phocaean Red-Slip 13 12 Egyptian Red-Slip 1 1 106 100 Total Table 5.30. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 31 18 Local 53 31 Eastern Sigillata A 5 3 Eastern Sigillata B 8 5 Italian Sigillata 5 3 Pontic Sigillata 2 1 Çandarli 7 4 African Red-Slip C 21 12 African Red-Slip D 10 6 Phocaean Red-Slip 29 17 171 100 Total Table 5.31. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 2473 80 Aegean 183 6 Africa 60 2 Egypt 9 0 Syria-Palestine 58 2 Unknown 314 10 3096 100 Total Table 5.32. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae.

563

Provenance Sherd Count % None attested 0 0 0 0 Total Table 5.33. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Proto-Roman Contexts.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 114 91 Aegean 11 9 Africa 1 0 126 100 Total Table 5.34. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 1240 84 Aegean 71 5 Africa 44 3 Egypt 1 0 Syria-Palestine 12 0 Unknown 112 8 1480 100 Total Table 5.35. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 1118 75 Aegean 101 7 Africa 15 1 Egypt 8 3 Syria-Palestine 46 0 Unknown 202 14 1118 100 Total Table 5.36. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts.

564

Amphora Type

Sherd % Count ARC1b 6 0 ARC1c 2 0 ARC2 1 0 ARC4 1 0 MRC1 4 0 MRC2b 616 20 MRC3 2 0 TRC2 68 2 TRC6 1 0 TRC9 1 0 Hellenistic Cretan 44 1 Unidentified Cretan 1727 56 Kapitän 2 20 1 Agora M273 2 0 LRA1 6 0 LRA2 18 1 LRA3 5 0 Hellenistic Aegean 13 1 Unidentified Aegean 119 4 Africana 1A/Keay 3A 2 0 Dressel 30/Keay 1B 1 0 Unidentified African 57 2 LRA7 8 0 LRA4 32 1 LRA5/6 26 1 Knossos 18 2 0 Unknown 312 10 3096 100 Total Table 5.37. Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 38 0 0.17 Finewares 975 6 9 Common Wares 7451 50 115.36 Cookwares 2743 18 30.61 Amphorae 3847 26 111.75 15054 100 266.89 Total Table 5.38. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined.

565

% 0 3 43 12 42 100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) % Lamps 0 0 0 0 Finewares 274 15 2.1 7 Common Wares 1181 62 18.9 67 Cookwares 273 15 2.36 8 Amphorae 154 8 5 18 1882 100 28.36 100 Total Table 5.39. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 38 0 0.17 Finewares 686 5 6.75 Common Wares 6214 48 95.56 Cookwares 2439 19 28.1 Amphorae 3673 28 106.2 13050 100 236.78 Total Table 5.40. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 0 0 0 Finewares 15 12 0.15 Common Wares 56 46 0.9 Cookwares 31 25 0.15 Amphorae 20 17 0.55 122 100 1.75 Total Table 5.41. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Contexts of Unknown Date.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 1 0 0.01 Finewares 276 10 2.35 Common Wares 1331 51 21.7 Cookwares 501 19 4.65 Amphorae 513 20 12.35 2622 0 41.06 Total Table 5.42. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Proto-Roman Contexts.

566

% 0 3 40 12 45

100

% 0 9 51 9 31

100

% 0 6 53 11 30 0

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 23 1 0.09 Finewares 214 4 2.15 Common Wares 2335 44 34.55 Cookwares 1180 22 13.6 Amphorae 1559 29 52.15 5311 100 102.54 Total Table 5.43. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts.

% 0 2 34 13 51 100

Pottery Class Lamps Finewares Common Wares Cookwares Amphorae Total

Sherd Count

%

Sherd Weight (kg)

%

8 122 1454 451 767

0 5 52 16 27

0.02 1.55 27.65 6.35 25.35

0 3 45 10 42

2802 100 60.92 Table 5.44. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts.

100

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Sherd Weight (kg) Lamps 5 0 0.05 Finewares 74 3 0.7 Common Wares 1094 48 11.66 Cookwares 307 13 3.5 Amphorae 834 36 16.35 2314 100 32.26 Total Table 5.45. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts.

% 0 2 36 11 51 100

567

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 369 54 Local 145 21 Eastern Sigillata A 52 8 Eastern Sigillata B 37 5 Italian Sigillata 13 2 Cypriot Sigillata 1 0 Pontic Sigillata 2 0 Çandarli 21 3 Corinthian Relief 1 0 African Red-Slip C 24 3 African Red-Slip D 12 2 Phocaean Red-Slip 11 2 Cypriot Red-Slip 1 0 686 Total Table 5.46. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 254 91 Eastern Sigillata A 24 9 276 100 Total Table 5.47. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 59 28 Local 79 37 Eastern Sigillata A 19 9 Eastern Sigillata B 28 13 Italian Sigillata 8 4 Çandarli 12 6 Corinthian Relief 1 0 African Red-Slip C 5 2 African Red-Slip D 3 1 214 100 Total Table 5.48. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts.

568

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 41 34 Local 42 34 Eastern Sigillata A 6 5 Eastern Sigillata B 5 4 Italian Sigillata 4 3 Cypriot Sigillata 1 0 Pontic Sigillata 2 2 Çandarli 6 5 African Red-Slip C 9 7 African Red-Slip D 2 2 Phocaean Red-Slip 5 4 122 100 Total Table 5.49. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts.

Pottery Class Sherd Count % Hellenistic 15 20 Local 24 32 Eastern Sigillata A 3 4 Eastern Sigillata B 4 6 Italian Sigillata 1 1 Çandarli 3 4 African Red-Slip C 10 14 African Red-Slip D 7 10 Phocaean Red-Slip 6 8 Cypriot Red-Slip 1 1 74 100 Total Table 5.50. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts.

569

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 2723 74 Aegean 499 14 Africa 113 3 Egypt 2 0 Italy 13 0 Spain 4 0 Syria-Palestine 129 4 Unknown 190 5 3673 100 Total Table 5.51. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 402 78 Aegean 105 20 Africa 3 1 Unknown 3 1 513 100 Total Table 5.52. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Proto-Roman Contexts.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 1278 82 Aegean 124 8 Africa 42 3 Egypt 2 0 Italy 10 1 Spain 2 0 Syria-Palestine 4 0 Unknown 97 6 1559 100 Total Table 5.53. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts.

570

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 491 64 Aegean 102 13 Africa 30 4 Italy 2 0 Syria-Palestine 81 11 Unidentified 61 8 767 100 Total Table 5.54. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts.

Provenance Sherd Count % Crete 552 66 Aegean 168 20 Africa 38 5 Italy 1 0 Spain 2 0 Syria-Palestine 44 5 Unknown 29 4 834 100 Total Table 5.55. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts.

571

Amphora Type

Sherd % Count ARC1a 64 2 ARC1b 123 3 ARC1c 51 1 ARC2 44 1 ARC3 7 0 ARC4 82 2 MRC2b 312 9 MRC3 34 1 TRC2 201 6 Hellenistic Cretan 212 7 Unidentified Cretan 1592 43 Pamphylian type 1 0 Kapitän II 51 1 LRA1 12 0 LRA2 48 1 LRA3 45 1 Hellenistic Aegean 144 4 Unidentified Aegean 198 6 Tripolitanian type 1 0 Africana 1A/Keay 3A 6 0 Dressel 30/Keay 1A 1 0 Keay 25B 3 0 Keay 62 2 0 Unidentified African 100 3 AE3 2 0 Dressel 1B 1 0 Dressel 2-4 11 0 Keay 52 1 0 Beltrán 1/Dressel 7-11 2 0 Beltrán 2A 2 0 LRA4 81 2 LRA5/6 48 1 Unknown 190 6 3673 100 Total Table 5.56. Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types.

572

Figure 1.1. Map of Sites on Crete Referred to in Dissertation.

573

Figure 1.2. Architectural Remains from Ierapetra (Photo: S. Gallimore). 574

Figure 1.3. Sarcophagus Lid from Ierapetra (Photo: S. Gallimore). 575

Figure 2.1. Map of Metellus‟ Conquest of Crete (after Sanders 1982: 4 fig. 1; reproduced with permission of Oxbow Books). 576

Figure 3.1. Map of Survey Projects Carried out on Crete. 577

Figure 3.2. Map of Roman Poleis which Minted Coins. 578

Figure 4.1. Map of the Isthmus of Ierapetra with Modern Towns Labeled.

579

Figure 4.2. Map of Modern Ierapetra.

580

Figure 4.3. Roman Mole in Harbor of Ierapetra (Photo: S. Gallimore). 581

Figure 4.4. Onorio Belli‟s Plan of the Large Theater at Ierapetra (after Falkener 1854: 14).

582

Figure 4.5. Onorio Belli‟s Plan of the Small Theater at Ierapetra (after Falkener 1854: 12).

583

Figure 4.6. Bronze Age and Iron Age Sites in the Isthmus of Ierapetra.

584

Figure 4.7. Bronze Age and Iron Age Sherds from the Yiomelaki Plot, Ierapetra (Photo: S. Gallimore).

585

Figure 4.8. Map of Hellenistic Cretan Poleis which Negotiated Treaties with Ierapetra. 586

Figure 4.9. Map of Hellenistic Regions in Eastern Mediterranean which Negotiated Treaties with Ierapetra.

587

Figure 4.10. Possible Location of Ierapetra‟s Hellenistic Harbor.

588

Figure 4.11. Estimated Chora of Ierapetra at the End of the Second Century B.C.E.

589

Figure 4.12. Findspots of Amphora Stamps from Ierapetra.

590

Figure 4.13. Sites on Crete which Produced Hellenistic Amphorae. 591

Figure 4.14. Plan of Ierapetra Drawn by Ian Sanders (after Sanders 1982: 139 fig. 49; reproduced with permission of Oxbow Books). 592

Figure 4.15. Seasonal Stream Demarcating Western Limit of Ancient Ierapetra (Photo: S. Gallimore). 593

Figure 4.16. Hypothetical Extent of Roman Ierapetra.

594

Figure 4.17. Possible Location of Cardo Maximus and Decumanus Maximus in Ancient Ierapetra. 595

Figure 4.18. Location of Identified Ancient Structures in Ierapetra.

596

Figure 4.19. Wall Situated Along Shoreline of Ierapetra (Photo: S. Gallimore).

597

Figure 4.20. Reconstruction of Formal Administrative Chora of Roman Ierapetra.

598

Figure 4.21. Reconstruction of Broader Economic and Administrative District under the Control of Roman Ierapetra. 599

Figure 4.22. Map Showing Locations of Port Sites on Crete. 600

Figure 4.23. Sites on Crete which Produced Roman Amphorae. 601

Figure 4.24. Katalimata Monasteraki in the Cha Gorge – Terraces Associated with Site on Left Side of Gorge (Photo: S. Gallimore). 602

Figure 5.1. Location of Three Rescue Excavation Plots. 603

Figure 5.2. Plan of the Assariotaki Plot (After ArchDelt 55 (2000 [2009]) B‟2: 1044 fig. 5; reproduced with permission of Vili Apostolakou, KD Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities). 604

Figure 5.3. Sites with Published Roman Pottery. 605

Figure 5.4. ECCW Cups (1-5, 7-9), Kantharoi (10-13), Cylindrical Jugs (14), Bowls (15-17, 19).

606

Figure 5.5. ECCW Bowls (18, 20-23), Plates (27-30), Basins (32, 34).

607

Figure 5.6. ECCW Basins (33, 35, 37-42), Kraters (43), Hydriae (44-45). 608

Figure 5.7. ECCW Hydriae (46), Pithoi (47-49), Amphorae (50-55).

609

Figure 5.8. ECCW Amphorae (56-61), Lamps (62). Local Fineware Bowls (64-68).

610

Figure 5.9. Local Fineware Bowls (69-71), Plates (72-76), Skyphoi (77). Imported Fineware Cups (80-82), Kantharoi (84). 611

Figure 5.10. Imported Fineware Cups (83), Plates (85), Kraters (86-87). Lagynos Ware (89). Gray Ware Cups (90-91), Bowls (92), Plates (93-97, 100). 612

Figure 5.11. Gray Ware Jars (101-103). Common Ware Basins (108-110, 112-114).

613

Figure 5.12. Common Ware Basins (111, 115-118). Common Ware Jars (119-120).

614

Figure 5.13. Common Ware Jars (121-125). Common Ware Pithoi (127). Casseroles (128-135).

615

Figure 5.14. Casseroles (136-137). Cookpots (138-141). Jars (142-143). Amphorae (146-147).

616

Figure 5.15. Amphorae (148-152, 154-155, 157-161, 163). Local Fineware Cups (168).

617

Figure 5.16. Local Fineware Cups (169), Bowls (170-172), Plates (173-174), Jars (175), Lids (176). Eastern Sigillata A (177-184). 618

Figure 5.17. Eastern Sigillata A (185-186). Eastern Sigillata B (188-201). Italian Sigillata (203208, 210). 619

Figure 5.18. Italian Sigillata (213). Cypriot Sigillata (214). Pontic Sigillata (215, 217). Çandarli (218-226). 620

Figure 5.19. Çandarli (228-229). African Red-Slip (231-232, 234-246, 248-249, 254).

621

Figure 5.20. African Red-Slip (250-253, 255-256). Phocaean Red-Slip (259-266, 268).

622

Figure 5.21. Phocaean Red-Slip (267, 270-280).

623

Figure 5.22. Cypriot Red-Slip (283). Egyptian Red-Slip (284). Common Ware Basins (285-292).

624

Figure 5.23. Common Ware Basins (293-303).

625

Figure 5.24. Common Ware Basins (304). Common Ware Bottles (305, 307). Common Ware Bowls (308-311). Common Ware Jars (313-315). 626

Figure 5.25. Common Ware Jars (316-317, 320, 322). Common Ware Pithoi (324-327). Common Ware Small Pots (328-332, 335). 627

Figure 5.26. Common Ware Small Pots (333-334, 336-338). Common Ware Tubs (340). Common Ware Votive Dishes (341). Casseroles (344, 348). Cookpots (353, 361). 628

Figure 5.27. Casseroles (345-347, 349). Cookpots (350, 351, 359).

629

Figure 5.28. Cookpots (352, 354-357, 362).

630

Figure 5.29. Cookpots (358, 360, 363-365, 367, 369).

631

Figure 5.30. Cookpots (366, 368). Frying Pans (370-373, 376, 382).

632

Figure 5.31. Frying Pans (374-375, 377-379, 384).

633

Figure 5.32. Frying Pans (380-381, 383, 385). Cookware Lids (387-389).

634

Figure 5.33. Cookware Jars (390-391). Pompeian Red Ware (392-395). Cretan Amphorae (400401, 404). 635

Figure 5.34. Cretan Amphorae (397-399, 402-403, 405-406, 408, 410).

636

Figure 5.35. Cretan Amphorae (407, 409, 411, 413, 416-419, 424).

637

Figure 5.36. Cretan Amphorae (420-421, 423, 425-426, 434).

638

Figure 5.37. Cretan Amphorae (422, 427-430, 433).

639

Figure 5.38. Cretan Amphorae (431, 435). Aegean Amphorae (438-440, 445-447). African Amphorae (455, 462). 640

Figure 5.39. Aegean Amphorae (442-444, 450). African Amphorae (451-454, 458). Italian Amphorae (469). 641

Figure 5.40. African Amphorae (456-457, 459-461). Egyptian Amphorae (463). Italian Amphorae (467). Spanish Amphorae (470). Syria-Palestine Amphorae (472). 642

Figure 5.41. Syria-Palestine Amphorae (473-477). Knossos 18 Amphorae (478-479). Unidentified Amphorae (480-481). 643

Figure 5.42. Unidentified Amphorae (482, 485-486, 488). Lamps (493, 507). Amphora Stands (513-514). 644

Figure 5.43. Location of Kato Mertia.

645

Figure. 5.44. Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Hellenistic (KM1-KM7); Early Roman (KM10, KM12). 646

Figure 5.45. Kato Mertia Pottery: Early Roman (KM9, KM11, KM13, KM16-KM27, KM30); Late Roman (KM41). 647

Figure 5.46. Kato Mertia Pottery: Early Roman (KM28-KM29, KM31-KM37); Late Roman (KM40, KM42-KM43, KM46-KM48). 648

Figure 5.47. Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Roman (KM44-KM45, KM49-KM51, KM54); Late Antique (KM56-KM62). 649

Figure 5.48. Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Roman (KM52-KM53, KM55); Late Antique (KM63KM73). 650

Figure 5.49. Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM74-KM77, KM80-KM81, KM83).

651

Figure 5.50. Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM77, KM79, KM84-KM85, KM88).

652

Figure 5.51. Figure 68. Kato Mertia Pottery (KM86-KM87, KM89).

653

Figure 5.52. Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM90-KM93).

654

Figure 6.1. Location of Hellenistic Settlements in the Isthmus of Ierapetra.

655

Figure 6.2. Administrative Centers on Roman Crete. 656

AfRS-A, 1

Çand., 38 PontSig, 4

ESA, 73

CypSig, 1 ItSig, 25

ESB, 62

Figure 6.3. Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Ierapetra.

Çand, 74

ESA, 82

CypSig, 7

ItSig, 104 ESB, 145

Figure 6.4. Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Gortyn.

657

AfRS-A, 1 ESA, 578 Çand, 959 PontSig, 34 CypSig, 62

ESB, 1353 ItSig, 726

Figure 6.5. Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Eleutherna.

Çand, 257

AfRS-A, 871

ESA, 1046

ESB, 354

TripSig, 615

ItSig, 1935

PontSig, 133 CypSig, 44

Figure 6.6. Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Berenice. 658

Figure 6.7. View of Isthmus of Ierapetra from Dikte Mountains (Photo: S. Beckman). 659

Figure. 6.8. Standard Cretan Amphora Forms of the Early Roman Period. 660

CypRS, 1

EgyptRS, 1

PRS, 56 AfRS-C, 82

AfRS-D, 33

Figure 6.9. Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Ierapetra.

CypRS, 26

EgyptRS, 56 AfRS-C, 154

PRS, 832

AfRS-D, 750

Figure 6.10. Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Gortyn. 661

AfRS-C, 6

EgyptRS, 1

AfRS-D, 63

PRS, 235

Figure 6.11. Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Eleutherna.

662

Figure 6.12. MRC Cretan Amphora Types. 663

Figure 6.13. Distribution of Cretan Amphorae from Fourth to Fifth Century C.E.

664

Figure 6.14. Examples of TRC Ovoid and Cylindrical Amphora Types.

665

Figure 6.15. Examples of TRC Globular Amphora Types.

666

Figure 6.16. Distribution of Cretan Amphorae from Sixth to Seventh Century C.E. 667

Plate 5.1. East Cretan Cream Ware.

668

Plate 5.2. East Cretan Cream Ware; Late Hellenistic Pottery; Early Roman Pottery.

669

Plate 5.3. Amphora Stamps; Early Roman Pottery.

670

Plate 5.4. Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique Pottery.

671

Plate 5.5. Late Roman Amphorae.

672

Plate 5.6. Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique Pottery and Lamps.

673

Plate 5.7. Miscellaneous Objects and Kato Mertia Pottery.

674