Introduction

The seascape in Aegean Prehistory Edited by Giorgos Vavouranakis Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens Volume 14 The seascape in Aegean Prehistory Edited by Giorgos Vavouranakis Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens Volume 14 3 To Matti Egon, – a distinguished representative of Greek maritime culture 5 © Copyright The Danish Institute at Athens, Athens 2011 The seascape in Aegean Prehistory Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens Volume 14 General Editor: Erik Hallager Graphic design: Erik Hallager Printed at Narayana Press Printed in Denmark on permanent paper conforming to ANSI Z 39.48-1992 The publication was sponsored by: Institute for Aegean Prehistory Cypriot Ministry of Education and Culture Matti Egon The Psycha Foundation Konsul Georg Jorck og hustru Emma Jorck’s Fond ISBN: 978-87-7934-571-3 Distributed by: AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS Langelandsgade 177 DK-8200 Århus N www.unipress.dk Gazelle Book Services Ltd. White Cross Mills, Hightown Lancaster LA1 4XS, England www.gazellebooks.com The David Brown Book Company (DBBC) P.O. Box 511 Oakville, CT. 06779, USA www.davidbrownbookco.uk Front cover: Motif from lost Mochlos ring Drawing G. Vavouranakis with the assistance of G. Manginis 6 Contents 9 List of contributors 11 Preface Giorgos Vavouranakis 13 Introduction Giorgos Vavouranakis 31 The paradox of early voyaging in the Mediterranean and the slowness of the Neolithic transition between Cyprus and Italy Albert J. Ammerman 51 Fishing (in) Aegean seascapes: early Aegean ishermen and their world Tatiana Theodoropoulou 71 Further thoughts on the International Spirit: maritime politics and consuming bodies in the early Cyclades Despina Catapoti 91 Funerary customs and martime activity in Early Bronze Crete Giorgos Vavouranakis 119 Towards a conceptualisation of the sea: artefacts, iconography and meaning Ina Berg 139 Fish and ships: Neopalatial seascapes in context Matthew Haysom 161 A view from the sea John G. Younger 185 Politics of the sea in the Late Bronze Age II-III Aegean: iconographic preferences and textual perspectives Vassilis P. Petrakis 235 Import-ant Aegeans in Cyprus: a study on Aegean imports in Late Bronze Age non-mortuary contexts in Cyprus Sophia Antoniadou 7 8 251 Overseas migrations at the end of the Late Bronze Age in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean: some relections Anastasia Leriou 271 An epilogue: histories from the sea Kostas Kotsakis 283 Index Preface The idea about this volume came up during a meeting with a friend, who is not an archaeologist, but he has been involved in several archaeological and museum exhibition projects, some of which were about maritime archaeology. He suggested that I prepared a volume on prehistoric maritime activity. I objected that I was not a marine archaeologist and that I only enjoyed the sea as a tourist. When I wrote about the importance of the sea I usually adopted a land-based approach. He then proposed that I prepared a volume which would examine the sea and maritime activity from a land-based perspective. I begun to think about my irend’s proposal and several research questions emerged. Was the Aegean Sea simply a means of survival in Prehistory or did it attain further signiicance? How did prehistoric people experience the sea? Did they even consider such issues? Did they form collective attitudes and views and how were these attitudes formed? Did the sea carry positive or negative connotations? Where there particular maritime activities that were either favoured or avoided at speciic time periods? Did the sea separate or bring together lands and people? What was the place of the sea within the area of ideology, political and metaphysical? Does prehistoric art picture the sea and maritime activity and in what way? What was the importance of imports as products of maritime activity in the shaping of human experiences and collective attitudes? It became evident that the theme of the volume was rather demanding and would be best handled by a group of people. All invited authors responded immediately and enthusiastically. Although I suggested the topics of their chapters, they were allowed enough freedom to formulate their texts in their own way. A few months after the invitations, the irst drafts started coming in my e-mail account and I started the editorial. This proved to be a rather long process with a signiicant impact upon the theme of the volume. As I engaged with drafts, reviews and comments, my perspective upon the sea transformed. My vocabulary grew more sophisticated and my approach to maritime culture became nuanced, problematized and more sea-focused than before. Nevertheless and despite such a transformation of my disciplinary armour, I maintained an interest in relatively conventional and terrestrially based ways of examining the seascape as part of the wider social landscape. As a result, my own standing point for viewing the sea and for forming a personal seascape, still swings like a pendulum between land and water. This land-based appreciation of the sea might be bearing the inluence of personal experiences. I have spent signiicant periods of time on large islands, such as Crete and Cyprus, which may easily evoke the illusion of a mainland. I also visit Laurio frequently, a place where the changes of scenery are sharp. On the one hand, there are several hill slopes with pine trees and vines. On the other, the coast, the islands of Makronisos and Kea and the open sea are almost always visible. It is not always easy to be certain whether Laurio is the tip of the mainland and not just a large island. These personal notes only wish to highlight that the Aegean is a closed sea with so many islands and fjord-like gulfs that the land and the sea are constantly interlocked with each other. As a result, the Aegean may be inhabited in several possible ways, depending both on the features of each speciic habitat, but also on human choice, which renders the sea a constituent of society and, hence, a topic of interest for any 11 researcher of the so-called ‘human condition.’ The present book is ofered as a contribution to this kind of research. Before closing, I wish to thank the following: Tassos Bellas, for prompting me to start this book; Eleni Mantzourani, for her advice, always practical and efective, particularly during the stage of the book proposal and the search for authors; the Danish Institute at Athens for reviewing and accepting the book for publication; especially Erik Hallager for trusting both editor and authors for the inal outcome. I also thank him for his copious eforts and meticulous work during all the stages of the book. It has been more than a pleasure working with him. I wish to thank all the authors for doing their best to contribute a series of very interesting chapters and for responding to my editorial requests promptly. Working with each one and all of them has been a great, pleasant experience. I also thank the group of reviewers, who, unfortunately, have to remain anonymous. Their comments improved the quality of this book signiicantly. The Department of Antiquities in Cyprus, the Institute of Aegean Prehistory, the N.P. Goulandris Foundation Museum of Cycladic Art, the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome, Prof. C. Adelman, Dr. C. Broodbank, Dr. S. 12 Hatzisavvas, Dr. L. Platon and Prof. C. Renfrew kindly allowed the reproduction of illustrations from their publications. Most of the maps are based on Daniel Dalet’s maps (Mediterranean: http://dmaps.com/carte.php?lib=ancient_mediterranean_ sea_map&num_car=5860&lang=en, http://dmaps.com/carte.php?lib=eastern_mediterranean_ sea_map&num_car=3160&lang=en; Aegean: http://d-maps.com/car te.php?lib=g reece_ map&num_car=2268&lang=en, http://d-maps. com/carte.php?lib=aegean_sea_map&num_ car=3172&lang=en; Cyprus: http://d-maps. com/car te.php?lib=cypr us_map&num_ car=2150&lang=en). Last but not least, I wish to thank all the sponsors of the publication: The Danish Institute at Athens, the Institute of Aegean Prehistory, Mrs Matti Egon, the Ministry of Culture of Cyprus, Konsul Georg Jorck og hustru Emma Jorck’s Fond and the Psycha Foundation. My research regarding the overall theme of the book was based upon my postdoctoral work in the University of Athens with a grant by The State Scholarship Foundation (IKY). February 2011 Giorgos Vavouranakis Introduction* Giorgos Vavouranakis This book is about the relationship between the people and the sea in the prehistoric Aegean. It explores how people understood the sea as an integral part of their way of life and examines the role the sea played in the prehistoric societies of the archipelago. It may at irst seem obvious - even selfevident – that there had been a close relationship between people and the sea, since the Aegean Archipelago is the dominant feature of its wider area. It spreads over a total area of about 214,000 sq km. This is a bit less than the overall land area of the Greek state today, which is almost 132,000 sq km.1 This large area of water includes over 1000 islands, many of which are populated today. The Aegean Sea and its islands epitomise Greece in the minds of many people today. Nonetheless, we should remember that the land that borders the Aegean features the important mountain range of Pindos, the plains of Thessaly and Macedonia and, next to Greece, Turkey, with the solid landmass of Asia Minor. These places have always accommodated extensive and lourishing communities that were not related to the sea at all. Furthermore, many people on Mt Ida in Crete had never seen the sea in the recent past, despite being on an island, while until recently many Greeks living close to the coast had not known how to swim. A maritime way of life may be an obvious option, but it is neither the only nor an inevitable one in the Aegean. There is always room for choice in the relation between people and the sea and this relation may acquire various forms and diferent degrees of intimacy. Such diversity is relected in the Greek language, which has several words that refer to the sea (e.g. θάλασσα, πόντος, πέλαγος, ωκεανός). Jean-Nicolas Corvisier2 has distinguished a similar diversity Introduction in his recent examination of the relationship between Greeks and the sea in Antiquity. The sea was a source of food and, consequently, of ishing income. It was also a medium for travel and the establishment of colonies and trade, which were practices that brought people closer together. At the same time, the sea was an alien and dangerous place, with storms causing shipwrecks, pirates looting merchant vessels and coastal settlements and naval battles over disputes of military and political power and domination. Finally, the sea was part of religious and ritual activity, with shrines and temples dedicated to gods and goddesses that protected the sea and the harbours. More importantly, Corvisier points out that the Greeks did not simply live of maritime activity. They had also developed diferent attitudes towards the sea. In the same vein, Astrid Lindenlauf3 has recently pointed out that some ancient authors, like Plato, deined the sea as a medium that united different lands (Pl. Phd. 109B). Others, like Herodotus, saw the sea as a place of no return, a dangerous away-place where things and people get lost forever. Corvisier places the starting point for the formation of such collective attitudes in the Dark Ages and the Archaic period. He argues that the Homeric epics and other poems fused the memories of the * I would like to thank Michael Boyd, Keith Branigan and George Manginis for reading this chapter. The text beneited signiicantly from their observations and corrections. Nevertheless, the responsibility for any shortcomings stays with me. 1 Wikipedia 2010a; Wikipedia 2010b; Wikipedia 2010c. 2 Corvisier 2008. 3 Lindenlauf 2003, 417-9. For a detailed review of diferent attitudes of the Greeks towards the sea, Lesky 1947. 13 past with the sea itself. Such memories included the extensive maritime travels that took place in the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the Late Bronze Age and also the violent collapse of this world with the fall of the Mycenaean palatial societies. Such fusion created a world of myths and legends, which was situated in the sea. This world became important when the Phoenicians started travelling to Greece and prompted the Greeks to re-open themselves to the maritime activity. Corvisier4 does not see any similar formation of collective attitudes in Prehistory, although his treatment of the period acknowledges the importance of the sea. The latter is a means for subsistence in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods, for travel and exchange in the Early and Middle Bronze Age and for the establishment of the Mycenaean power in the second part of the Late Bronze Age. This argument supposes that the sea simply relected the main features of social structure in Prehistory and lacked the signiicance it attained later, in Antiquity, when the richness and diversity of human involvement cast the sea as important in its own respect and, hence, an operational element of ancient Greek society. This book aims to change the above instrumental view of the sea in Aegean Prehistory. It argues that maritime activity before 1200 bc imbued the sea with meaning and established a relationship between people and the sea that was similarly complex, diverse and dynamic to that which Corvisier suggests for Antiquity. As a result, the sea should not be seen as a passive feature of the environment but, rather, an active constituent of the social web in Prehistory. The rest of this Introduction aims to situate the above aim of the book within the current disciplinary, and wider intellectual framework. It starts with an overview of recent theoretical and methodological trends irst in ‘landscape archaeology’ and then in ‘seascape archaeology.’ Each overview ends with an outline of relevant developments within Aegean archaeology. The Introduction concludes with a guide to the chapters and to the ways in which each one of them contributes to the major theme of the book. 14 Landscape and seascape archaeology Landscape archaeology The discipline of archaeology has already developed the necessary concepts, methods and ield techniques for the pursuit of the above research agenda, mainly within the ield of landscape archaeology. The latter had been until recently divided between two diferent approaches. The positivist and empiricist approach,5 which mostly operated within the paradigm of processual archaeology, aimed at reconstructing the features of the natural environment in the past and the ways in which people adapted to their environment. Survey – and particularly of-site survey – was one of the main ield practices of this approach since the survey inds show changes in patterns of human habitation of the land. The aid of environmental archaeology has also been a key to this approach. The second approach followed a post-processual interpretative research trajectory6 and argued that people do not simply live on the surface of the earth and adapt to the natural environment; rather, people imbue their surroundings with meaning. As a result, the features of the environment become embodiments of the values that herald the composition of any society.7 This role allows the environment to afect the agency of people. This dynamic view of the relationship between people and their environs has several repercussions on how we understand the landscape. First, there is no a priori distinction between natural and manmade features, because they all attain a social role. In addition, the meaning of each of the above features depends upon the speciic people and their speciic actions. Diferent people or activities may emphasize diferent aspects of the environment, which is thus perceived hierarchi4 Corvisier 2008, 11-35. Indicatively see Rossignol & Wandsnider 1992. 6 E.g. see Edmonds 1999; Ingold 2000; Tilley 1994. 7 For the importance of collective values in society, see Cohen 1985. 5 Giorgos Vavouranakis cally, as some features always come to the fore of human perception and others retreat to the background and are perceived in a relatively indistinct manner. Such a process is very much similar to the way in which an artist selects a part of his/her surroundings in order to frame it and paint it on the canvas. If we use the metaphor of the painting to understand the social role of the landscape, the latter may be seen as a canvas that is continuously re-painted, since diferent groups of people may adhere to different social values, resulting in diferent signiications of the same features of the environment than before. Past meanings may be erased completely or they may leave a faint trace upon the canvas, which is thus rendered a palimpsest of past habitations and their signiications. As such, the landscape is more than a social artefact. It is an active repository of collective memory and value and, consequently, an even more active constituent of society. It becomes a secondary social agent.8 This means that the landscape is socially active but has a lesser ontological status than the human agents, since it is not independent as they are, but its social role is inextricably linked to their actions and values.9 There has been a serious attempt to override the division between processual and post-processual approaches to the issue of the landscape during the last decade. Surface surveys have moved beyond the search for sites presented as “dots on the map.”10 They have become regional projects, which show an increased sensitivity towards the social determinates of human behaviour and aim at the comprehensive understanding of human activity in the landscape.11 In addition, processual archaeologists focused on the importance of human cognition in the use of space. For example, E. Zubrow12 has suggested that the relationship between people and space may be seen operating at two levels: one level comprises the spatial reality, where things actually happen; another level is the cultural representation of this reality, such as the “mental map,” which is culturally situated. This idea of layers is highly reminiscent of GIS (Geographical Information Systems),13 which are computer applications that record and process spatial data in layers, while they are also able to tag Introduction non-spatial data in a spatial manner. Archaeological applications of GIS aim at modelling human action in space, e.g. predictive modelling of site distribution or site catchment analysis. Although early GIS projects were rather positivist and empiricist, in that they emphasized quantitative analysis, recent trends bring GIS closer to phenomenological approaches to the landscape.14 For example, recent visibility and accessibility studies are more sensitive to social aspects of the landscape, such as important monuments, and the results of such studies have affected site catchment analysis. As a result, the technological tool of GIS has facilitated a more holistic approach to the landscape than before. In addition, the growing engagement of postprocessual archaeologists in ield projects has allowed a better understanding of the restrictions that ield data impose upon interpretation, usually due to the lack of contextual information.15 Furthermore, the immediate and wide adoption of most new technological tools has facilitated a growing appreciation for quantitative analysis. All the above developments have resulted in a renewed and holistic approach to the landscape,16 where environmental restrictions and the need of people to adapt and secure their subsistence efectively are taken into account but, at the same time, it is accepted that land use practices are culturally contingent. The landscape, as a whole, on the one hand has to be protected as part of cultural heritage17 and, on the 8 For the role of secondary social agents see Gell 1998. On the issue of ‘relative ontology’ and the discarding of the dualism between animate and inanimate beings see Alberti & Bray 2009. 10 Bintlif 2000a. 11 E.g. see Alcock & Cherry 2003. 12 Zubrow 2005. E. Zubrow is one of the major pioneers of cognitive archaeology (Renfrew & Zubrow 1994). 13 It is not a coincidence that E. Zubrow has been heavily involved into the development of GIS applications for archaeology (Allen et al. 1990). For an overview of the contribution of GIS in archaeology with relevant bibliography, see Lock 2003, 164-82. 14 Llobera 2005. 15 Hodder 1996. 16 For details see chapters in David & Thomas 2008. 17 Council of Europe 2004; also papers in Doukellis & Mendoni 2004. 9 15 other hand, has to be approached as an autonomous object of archaeological study. Landscape archaeology in Greece18 Until the beginning of the 21st century, landscape archaeology in Greece had been mainly approached as “long-term history,”19 namely as intensive survey. Acheson and Davies20 follow the development of this sub-disciplinary ield and trace the irst systematic attempts to understand the relationship between people and their environment in the early 1970s and the Minessota Messenia Expedition.21 Forty years later, surveys have developed into regional projects, interested in of-site human interaction with the environment, agricultural population dynamics and the role of political institutions and socio-economic structures in settlement patterns and land use strategies. Regional projects have also started to incorporate ethnographic work in their methodologies, including oral history and the traditions of the recent past. There is a tendency, on the one hand, to break away from the notion of the completely neutral scientist, detached from his/her object of study and, on the other hand, to actively engage with the people that inhabit the areas of ieldwork today and have a speciic sense of place. There is also a recently growing interest in the role of social memory and the role of monuments as parameters that may afect the mental maps that guide human action in the landscape.22 Such an interest has not grown into full-scale research about the social role of the landscape until recently. Interpretative attempts had been restricted to the presence of the natural world in art and speciically iconography, or the so-called “sacred geographies.”23 The latter has largely revolved around studies such as tomb and hero cult,24 the topography of sanctuaries25 with emphasis on naturally demarcated areas of cult, such as the peak sanctuaries of Bronze Age Crete,26 and the role of funerary monuments, such as the tholos tombs of southern Crete, in marking the boundaries of a community.27 The last decade has seen the growing inluence of the post-processual landscape agenda. Given and Knapp28 conducted and published the results 16 of a regional survey project, which explored the dynamic relationship between people and environment and its results, namely the various landscapes (agricultural, mining, ritual, ideational) that stemmed out of the same region in Cyprus, namely the area of Politiko at the Troodos southern foothills. Beyond surveys there have been studies that examine the visibility, architectural monumentality and social signiicance of burial locales, such as the Middle and Late Bronze Age burial monuments of the Peloponnese29 and the Late Bronze Age tombs of the Dodecanese.30 The inluence of such landscape research has been particularly intense in Minoan archaeology. Two years before the new millennium, K. Branigan31 argued that the Bronze Age tholoi were strategically located in relation to their respective settlements. Day and Wilson32 have attempted to explain the special status of Knossos within Crete and have underlined two parameters. The irst parameter is the long period of occupation of the site, spanning back to the Neolithic period. The second parameter is the a key role of Knossos in craft production and exchange, which resulted in the acquisition and consumption of high quality pottery in the so-called ‘palace of Minos.’ As a result, Knossos attained a pivotal place within both the economic and ritual landscape. Barrett and Damilati33 have built upon the work of Day and Wilson and have 18 For more details on the history of landscape archaeology in Greece, albeit with a special emphasis on Crete, Gkiasta 2008; Vavouranakis in press. 19 Term introduced by Cherry et al. 1991. 20 Acheson & Davies 2005. 21 McDonald & Rapp 1972. 22 Alcock 2005; but see the critique on the value of the sense of place in interpreting survey data by Bintlif 2000b. 23 Bintlif 2000a. 24 Antonaccio 1995. 25 Alcock & Osborn 1994. 26 E.g. Peatield 1990. 27 Bintlif in Blackman & Branigan 1977. 28 Given & Knapp 2003. 29 Boyd 2002. 30 Georgiadis 2003. 31 Branigan 1998. 32 Day & Wilson 2002. 33 Barrett & Damilati 2004, 166-7. Giorgos Vavouranakis seen a landscape of familiar agricultural activities at Knossos, evoked by the conspicuous consumption of pottery, food and drink in the palace. This has been contrasted to Poros-Katsambas and an exotic landscape, which alluded to the knowledge of foreign lands and technical expertise, accumulated over perilous maritime voyages. This landscape hinged upon the use and deposition of imported Cycladic pottery, metal craft activity and the relatively large scale working of obsidian from Melos at Poros. J. Driessen34 has argued that the palaces may have been built in such a way as to organize the perception of their topographical surroundings and provide the people in them with a series of meaningful vistas. My own research35 has examined changes in topography and architectural monumentality of Bronze Age tombs, east of the Lasithi massif as attempts by the Cretan communities to signify the landscape with commonly accepted values in order to respond to wider socio-historical transformations. L. Hitchcock36 has examined a variety of evidence and themes of Minoan archaeology, especially related to the palaces (tree and pillar cult, the role of water in ritual activity, lustral basins, the presence of the natural world in the iconography of seals and pottery vessels) and has argued that most of the features of the natural environment in Crete had been imbued with meaning and value that supported the socio-political institution of the palace. Finally, Soetens37 has conducted a GIS project, regarding the spatio-temporal structure and arrangement of the Cretan peak sanctuaries, such as their relation to both manmade and natural features of the landscape, as well as the characteristics of the space in between these places of cult. This study examined the topographical and geological characteristics of the areas where peak sanctuaries are situated, the distance of these sanctuaries from settlements, accessibility and visibility from various types of sites (settlements, other sanctuaries, caves), relation to roads and relation to settlement catchment areas based on terrain digital modelling. This study is an example of the new holistic approaches to landscape with the aid of new technology. Introduction The archaeology of maritime culture The need for an examination of the social signiicance of the sea had already been acknowledged before any post-processual landscape agenda. In 1978, C. Westerdahl38 coined the term «mariculture», an English neologism and an attempt to translate the Swedish word sjöbruk and the Finnish merenkäytto, which signify human utilization of maritime space by boat (settlement, ishing, hunting, shipping, pilotage, lighthouses, seamark maintenance) in contrast to an agropastoral way of life. According to Westerdahl, mariculture creates a maritime cultural landscape, which in turn may be deined as the mapping and imprinting of the functional aspects of the surroundings in the human mind. The maritime cultural landscape was used by Westerdahl as a heuristic device for the co-examination of material remains both under the water (e.g. shipwrecks) and on land (e.g. harbour installations), including islands, mainland coastal areas and inland water ways. The natural features of both terrestrial and marine environment (e.g. coastline changes and sea currents) should combine with the recording of maritime traditions of the recent past and of place names in order to understand sea routes and seafaring practices. He proposed that such a device would allow a better management of the Nordic archaeological heritage. Westerdahl’s concepts did not escape severe criticism. For example, Hunter39 argued that they only suited heritage management strategies and were inadequate for the study of the past itself, because they isolated maritime activities from land activities, e.g. trading communities living in harbour towns from the centralized authorities that were situated inland and controlled trade. He further argued that maritime culture should not be regarded as a distinct 34 Driessen 2004. Vavouranakis 2007. 36 Hitchcock 2007. 37 Soetens 2006. 38 C. Westerdahl expressed these views in his Ph.D. dissertation. They became widely known later in a paper that summarized his main research results (Westerdahl 1992). 39 Hunter 1994. 35 17 entity. Rather, each culture may have a maritime component. This component may be stronger or weaker, depending upon the degree of dependence of each culture upon the sea and maritime activity. As much as Hunter was right in pointing out the possible connections between a maritime and a terrestrial way of life, it is impossible to disregard the paramount role of the sea for the life of various communities and the inluence it exerts upon their habits.40 The role of the sea was the aim of two conferences41 that took place in the 1990s and brought together specialists on all aspects of maritime culture of the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. The proceedings included topics such as oceanography, ship building, ship iconography, shipwrecks, harbours, seafaring, the movement of people, ideas and techniques and trade and exchange through sea travels, the recording of maritime afairs in prehistoric scripts, and the social aspects of maritime connections, such as the question of the so-called ‘Minoan thalassocracy.’ Nevertheless, the need for a research framework that would co-examine all the above aspects of maritime culture remained implicit in both conferences, with the exception of B. Knapp,42 who drew upon Westerdahl’s work and employed the term ‘maritime landscapes’ to describe places that people dwell for trade, piracy, subsistence or simply travel and also sailing routes, shipwrecks, maritime ports and coastal constructions in general and their toponyms. The lack of a unifying conceptual and methodological framework is a general feature for seascape archaeology in the Aegean, despite the important progress of its various research components. Thus, the Tropis series and the Enalia journal publish most new research results on topics related to marine archaeology. The latter may also boast the excavation of several important shipwrecks, such as the ones at Cape Gelidonya,43 Ulu Burun,44 Iria45 and, more recently, Pseira.46 Shipwrecks in combination with iconography have advanced our understanding of prehistoric ships.47 Excavations at sites such as Kommos48 have signiicantly promoted our knowledge of prehistoric harbours and their installations. Another component of seascape archaeology is the study of trade, which is a vast 18 topic in itself and is receiving constant research attention,49 especially since it is a key to understanding prehistoric economies and their role in socio-historical evolution in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. Island archaeology A third component is island archaeology, a sub-disciplinary ield of its own and perhaps the only one where it is possible to ind interpretative attempts similar to the landscape paradigms.50 This tendency is easily understood if we consider the fact that islands, especially in the Aegean, have been intensively surveyed. The paradigmatic roots of such a research focus lie in the view of ‘islands as laboratories.’ Islands are bounded in a very clear manner by the sea. As a result, they comprise obvious units of research analysis and especially regional projects, that may elucidate the biogeography of the islands.51 The insular character of islands was challenged in the 1990s. Although it is impossible to disregard the radical shift in habitat that the sea imposes, it was pointed out that the notion of the ‘laboratory’ sees people exactly like animals and does not allow space for social choice. Furthermore, it carries with it a colonial baggage of seeing non-Western communities, especially the ones inhabiting the Paciic islands, as culturally stagnant and primitives. Finally and most importantly, island biogeography is land oriented and approaches the sea as a medium that 40 Westerdahl 1994. Laineur & Basch 1991; Swiny et al. 1997. 42 Knapp 1997. 43 Bass 1967. 44 Pulak 1998. 45 Phelps et al. 1999. 46 Evely 2007-8, 96. 47 Wedde 2000. 48 Shaw & Shaw 2006. 49 A full list of publications on trade is beyond the scope of this Introduction. However, indicative key contributions to the topic include Gale 1991, Knapp & Cherry 1994, Laineur & Greco 2005 and Macdonald et al. 2009. 50 For a recent and short history of island archaeology see Berg 2010. 51 Evans 1973; Berg 2010, 18 for the inluence of such views to island survey projects in Greece. 41 Giorgos Vavouranakis divided diferent lands only, and, hence, creates isolated insular communities. Gosden and Pavlides52 challenged the above view through their ieldwork and demonstrated that the Arawe islands in the western Paciic had been constantly oriented to areas outside this island group. This world of maritime connections was called ‘seascape’ in order to underline the fact that “space and society are mutually constitutive”53 and, also, in order to provide a maritime equivalent of landscape archaeology. It is interesting to note that this paper belongs to a special issue of the Archaeology in Oceania, devoted to the discussion of the term “social landscape.”54 This discussion builds upon the same basis of post-processual landscape archaeology, namely the conceptual premise that the landscape is shaped by human action, which is guided by speciic social values and collective attitudes. As such it inluences human action not only through its environmental constraints, but, more importantly, by ofering a sense of place that may structure the future activities of people. Rainbird55 joined the voices that criticised the notion of ‘islands as laboratories’ and asked for an application of the principles of landscape phenomenology into the archaeology of islands. His views prompted a strong response and a call for a more careful assessment of the potential contribution of island biogeography.56 An attempt to reply to such a call was published in the year 2000. It was C. Broodbank’s book titled ‘An island archaeology of the Early Cyclades,’57 which has provided the basis for the further development both of island and of seascape archaeology. Broodbank took issue with post-processualists on insularity as a social construct and acknowledged that the degree of isolation or connectivity of islands is historically contingent. According to Broodbank and in order to understand these connections we should not restrict ourselves either to exclusively terrestrial or maritime only approaches. Island life has many dimensions that crosscut landscapes and seascapes, which thus combine into “islandscapes.”58 Nevertheless, behind the above phenomenological overtones lay a much more positivist basis. Broodbank acknowledged the importance of the constraints of the Cycladic natural environIntroduction ment upon seafaring (e.g. the seasonal changes of sea currents or the availability of resources for ship building and maintenance), while his analysis of connectivity between islands and between island and mainland coasts was based upon “Proximate Point Analysis” (henceforth PPA),59 a mathematical model for predicting patterns of connection in spatial networks that had already been used in Oceania. Such modeling allowed Broodbank to argue that not all major sites occupied a ‘central’ place in the Early Cycladic network of maritime interaction. This network hinged upon the quest for food resources, raw materials, demographic growth and social reproduction and conferred power and prestige to speciic individuals that were involved in maritime travel. Broodbank falls into the wide category of scholars that attempted to transcend the divide between processual and post-processual paradigms, which, as noted above, has constituted a wider tendency within landscape studies during the last ten years. Despite the criticism that has targeted both the positivist and the interpretative aspects of his book,60 the latter is valuable for opening discussion about islands not just in the Aegean, but all over the world.61 From the numerous contributions to 52 Gosden & Pavlides 1994. Gosden & Pavlides 1994, 163. 54 Gosden & Head 1994, 113. 55 Rainbird 1999a. 56 Broodbank 1999; Irwin 1999; Keegan 1999; Terrell 1999; van Dommelen 1999; cf. Rainbird’s (1999b) response. 57 Broodbank 2000. 58 Broodbank 2000, 21-5. 59 Broodbank 2000, 180-95. 60 Knappett et al. (2008) have argued that Broodbank assumes that the sites in the Cyclades are evenly distributed, while the links between diferent sites are considered to be equal to each other. As a result, Broodbank’s PPA is too simple to be applied to any other context, e.g. the Middle Bronze Age Aegean. Catapoti (this volume) argues that Broodbank’s social modelling of the Early Cycladic maritime network is supericial because the ‘craftsmen’ and ‘traders’ and ‘navigators’ that have replaced the traditional notions of ‘technology’ and ‘trade’ that had been proposed by Renfrew (1972) are not accompanied by an in-depth analysis of the signiicance of the human subject and his/her agency. 61 Berg (2010, 19) provides an account of this inluence with relevant references. 53 19 this discussion, I would like to single out Knapp’s62 recent book, which draws upon Broodbank’s work in order to examine changes in the insularity and connectivity of prehistoric Cyprus. Knapp63 employs the discussion on the boundedness of islands and hence the formation of islandscapes in order to discuss identity and social evolution in prehistoric Cyprus and especially the rise of elites in the Late Bronze Age. Seascape archaeology During the last decade, in the years after the publication of Broodbank’s book, seascape archaeology has established itself as a distinct ield of archaeological research, and this has probably been the fruit of the heated discussions during the 1990’s that have been briely sketched above. Such a development is best exempliied by the publication of a specially dedicated issue of World Archaeology in 2003, titled ‘Seascapes.’ The research agenda of the volume and, by extension, of this ield of research was laid out by G. Cooney64 in the introductory chapter. Cooney expresses views similar to Westerdahl’s and argues that an efective study of the lives of people living on islands or coastal areas requires the acceptance of the centrality of the sea both in their lives and, consequently, in the approach that such research adopts. Such a thesis has important theoretical and methodological ramiications. Thus, functional approaches may not be the best way to understand communities who may not have distinguished between the ritual and the mundane aspects of their way of life. A more holistic approach is required in order to understand the constant dynamic interplay between people and their maritime environs. During this interplay a community learns how to survive and adapt to their speciic environment and its restrictions and usually mark its natural features accordingly. This is a process of socialization of the environment, which thus becomes a constituent of society. A meticulous understanding of this process requires a contextual approach and, hence, a co-operation of methods traditionally developed in maritime archaeology, landscape archaeology and environmental – particularly marine – science. 20 Furthermore, contextual approaches should be accompanied by comparison of diferent case studies so as to avoid the usual post-processual pitfall of producing a-historical statements about the past. This agenda was implemented with individual contributions that touched upon a variety of related themes, such as the ritualization of the sea and of various maritime activities as a way to channel and codify the knowledge to survive in speciic environments,65 the diverse ways to perceive the sea66 and the inhabitation and exploitation of coastal environments as processes of anchoring social memory upon speciic places and of creating distinct social identities.67 In 2007 P. Rainbird68 came back to the discussion of island archaeology. A series of ethnographic and archaeological case studies led him to the conclusion that island archaeology has to become a component of an ‘archaeology of the sea(s).’ He argues that maritime culture exists as a distinct way of life, but it is also a feature of mainland coastal communities that have to be co-examined with islanders because it is the sea as the space in-between coasts that brings the latter together and, hence, matters most. The crux of the distinctiveness of maritime life lies not only in the speciic activities, such as ishing, seafaring etc., but in the speciic bodily engagement with the sea, which entails “a certain combination of sensory registers … derived from practical experience in a particular place and time.”69 Such embodied experience leads to the shaping of the maritime cultural persona. As a result the sea shapes the character of the communities that live close to it 62 Knapp 2008. Before Knapp, Clarke (2002) has also examined the relationship between insularity and connectivity and has argued that the distinct identity of Late Neolithic Cyprus lay upon a socially constructed collective attitude that promoted boundedness in expense of external relations, which would threaten to erode the cultural uniformity of the communities on the island. 63 Knapp 2008. 64 Cooney 2003. 65 Barber 2003; McNiven 2003; Phillips 2003; Van de Noort 2003. 66 Lindenlauf 2003; Van de Noort 2003. 67 Breen & Lane 2003; O’ Sullivan 2003. 68 Rainbird 2007. 69 Rainbird 2007, 58. Giorgos Vavouranakis and, in return, people get to know the “textures of the sea,”70 which participate in and afect both the everyday and the exceptional, both the mundane and the ritual aspects of social life. Rainbird applies his views to four case studies, namely Malta, Scandinavia, Polynesia and Britain. This way he conducts a socio-historically situated phenomenological analysis that then allows him to contrast the conclusions from one case study to another. The recognition of seascape archaeology was consolidated by the inclusion of several relevant chapters in the recent Handbook of landscape archaeology.71 Nevertheless, this development paradoxically creates questions about the distinctiveness of seascape archaeology, since it implies that is still a splinter of land-based research. Inevitably, we are reminded again of Hunter’s72 views, that maritime culture is only a component of culture as a whole, equally specialized to other components (e.g. agriculture or industrial culture). Although Hunter’s argument was based on a functional basis, it is possible to transfer its logical principles to the phenomenological approaches that dominate seascape studies today. Thus, it is possible to consider whether the experience of maritime life and the perception of the sea entail anything fundamentally diferent than the perception of the land, or whether they should simply be considered as a special case study of landscape archaeology. Seascape archaeology and Aegean Prehistory The Aegean Sea seems to be the perfect place to explore the above questions, because it features frequent shifts in land and water, with its many islands bounded by the mainland coastline of Greece and Asia Minor. It is this relative lack of open stretches of seawater that promoted the “the frogs around the pond” (Pl. Phd. 109B) impression of the Aegean, which entails an essentially land-based perception of the sea. Unfortunately and despite this great potential, Aegean seascape studies have been rather sporadic and not at all systematic. Georgiadis73 has employed the seascape concept to emphasize the orientation of some Mycenaean tomb dromoi at Rhodes toward the coast. The latter is considered to be a Introduction liminal place between land and sea and, hence, a metaphor for the liminality of the tomb as a place between life and death. Rainbird74 includes a discussion about the importance of seafaring in the Neolithization of the Aegean, but only to contrast the latter to Malta, his main case study in the Mediterranean. Berg75 has argued against the usual assumption about the importance of environmental and technological restrictions to seafaring in the Bronze Age Aegean. She has demonstrated that from the Middle Bronze Age onwards, the available ship technology allowed sailing against the wind, while the climate at the time was diferent, and the sailing season longer, than today. Thus, seafaring was an issue of social choice, notwithstanding the subsistence necessities imposed by the diverse environment of the Aegean littoral. Watrous76 has recently argued that prehistoric ports were agents of social change. He employs the dynamic environment of late medieval cities in Europe and their contribution to the coming of the Renaissance as an analogy that may explain the growing importance of the Minoan harbour towns of Gournia and Kommos in the New Palace period. Finally, the aforementioned study by Knapp,77 regarding the changes in the insularity and connectivity of Cyprus in Prehistory, has to be mentioned again, as it comprises a further and important contextual study of the signiicance of the sea and maritime activity and their role in the socio-historical evolution of the Cypriot communities. All the above studies are very important, because they have advanced our understanding of maritime culture in the prehistoric Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. Nevertheless, they also demonstrate the great scarcity of seascape studies. The present volume aims to remedy this situation and close part of such a research gap. 70 Rainbird 2007, 47. David & Thomas 2008. 72 Hunter 1994. 73 Georgiadis 2003, 26-33. See also papers in a post-graduate symposium, edited by Georgiadis & Muskett (2002). 74 Rainbird 2007, 79-84. 75 Berg 2007. 76 Watrous 2007. 77 Knapp 2008. 71 21 Seascapes in the prehistoric Aegean In order to understand how each chapter contributes to the overall aim of the volume, I would like to briely re-capitulate the main points made so far. Seascape archaeology has been a specialized ield of landscape archaeology. They share the same conceptual principles and have similar – albeit not identical – methodologies, but they difer greatly in their subject matter. Maritime culture has a rather distinct character and, consequently, its material remains demand special attention. Both seascape and landscape archaeologies followed similar developments, both in theory and in practice. From the functionalist approaches and the inluence of environmental restrictions to human strategies of survival and subsistence, research has turned its focus upon the dynamic relationship between people and their surroundings, their mutual shaping and the social signiicance of the human perception of the environment. Perception does not require empathy, but rather a contextual examination of material culture and the ways in which it became part of the bodily engagement of people with their maritime surroundings and created a socio-historically contingent maritime culture. The concept of the seascape as both the medium and the outcome of human engagement with the sea, is now the dominant heuristic device for studying maritime culture, because it entails the combination of coastal, island and underwater archaeological research. This way, research focus falls upon the sea, which is not just the space in-between diferent lands, but a textured and knowledgeable place that facilitates a speciic way of life. In practice, this emphasis upon the sea should not downplay the importance of related material remains on land, since the great majority of the archaeological record comes from the land rather than from submerged sites or shipwrecks, while the importance of the latter has to be assessed within their wider context, including terrestrial inds. A seascape archaeology of the prehistoric Aegean should be particularly complemented by land-focused studies because of the frequent shifts of land and water that characterize the Aegean Sea. Such a method has already proven to be both viable and 22 fruitful. Breen and Lane78 have avoided a ship-centric view in their examination of the east African coast and have managed to produce a nuanced narrative about the changes in the inhabitation of this coast from the late 4th millennium bc until the 16th century ad. The present volume follows the same methodological trajectory in order to illuminate the importance of maritime culture and the perception of the sea in the prehistoric Aegean according to the theoretical basis mentioned above. The various contributions have been arranged in chronological order. Thus, Albert Ammerman begins by examining pre-Neolithic sites in Cyprus. As a result, the examination of Aegean seascapes starts from outside the Aegean proper. Such a start helps us perceive our object of study as a whole. Ammerman’s analysis identiies a paradox: the spread of the so-called Neolithic package slowed down signiicantly in the Aegean, despite the considerable maritime traic in the area and despite the fact that it had been spreading through sea travel in the eastern Mediterranean, especially from Syria and Turkey to Cyprus. In order to explain this paradox, Ammerman argues for the importance of a speciic way of life based on foraging and ishing and presents a reading of the sea as a vast inviting place because it was full of food. Such a perception of the sea did not necessitate the adoption of agriculture which, after all, saw the sea as an uninviting place. Tatiana Theodoropoulou transfers the focus to the Neolithic and back into the Aegean and speciically its northern part. Her chapter stresses the inevitable restrictions that natural habitats impose upon human agency. She employs zooarchaeological data from various coastal sites from Lemnos to the Thermaic gulf so as to demonstrate that coastal communities had adopted a generalised and diverse strategy of exploiting a wide array of marine resources. Communities living at the border between diferent natural habitats opted for more cost-efective, albeit complex, subsistence strategies. Finally, the intense interest of inland communities in marine resources may be attributed to the symbolic capital of these resources and, by extension, of mar- 78 Breen & Lane 2003. itime life. As a result, the human response to the natural environment is always channelled through a social and cultural ilter. Despina Catapoti examines one of the best known social phenomena in the Aegean, namely the ‘International Spirit,’ a network of economic and social exchange based on seafaring that spread in the Cyclades and the southern Aegean at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Catapoti follows Rainbird’s79 theoretical call and provides an account that places human embodiment at the centre of archaeological inquiry, which is essential in order to give the appropriate depth to Broodbank’s call for a sea-centred understanding of the early Cycladic island communities. Thus, the technology and material implements associated with the ‘International Spirit,’ such as metal daggers, obsidian blades and marble igurines have to be seen not only as markers of cultural identity or of personal prestige, but implements of a speciic way of bodily performance that complemented the experience of seafaring and encapsulated collectively accepted values and codes of behaviour. The expression and presentation of selfhood lay more than anything else at the heart of the phenomenon of the ‘International Spirit.’ Giorgos Vavouranakis also focuses on the Early Bronze Age, but moves to Crete and to the place of the sea within ‘sacred geography’ and speciically within funerary ritual. Within the context of Early Minoan funerary rites, the seascape became a resource for a symbolic exegesis of the rules by which human agency should abide. As such, the seascape was cast as a medium that fuelled social interaction and thus an active constituent of the social web. Through this process, the Cretan communities made sense of the impact of the ‘International Spirit’ and adopted a sea-centred perception of the world. This perception diminished in importance in the last part of the Early Bronze Age, when emerging land disputes on Crete and the simultaneous transformation of the ‘International Spirit’ resulted in an alternative landscape perception of the world. This perception set the conceptual basis for the social processes that culminated with the emergence of the irst palaces. The next two chapters, written by Ina Berg and Matthew Haysom examine Crete again, but move to the Late Bronze Age and, speciically, the New Palace era. Both papers place a lot of emphasis on iconography, which is always a key to understanding the ways in which people perceive the world. Having two chapters with similar topics emphasizes the importance of Crete in the early stages of the Late Bronze Age, a time of great prosperity for the island, which probably became the basis for the later legend of the ‘Minoan thalassocracy.’ Ina Berg tackles the Late Minoan Marine Style pottery, namely high-quality vessels, produced, used and consumed in close relation to the Minoan palaces. She analyses the decoration, shapes, and ind contexts of these vessels. She links her results to the physical features of marine animals, their habitat requirements and also to the human practices and patterns regarding the exploitation of these animals. Her analysis demonstrates a contrast between the frequent depiction of the marine world on vessels and the relative lack of seafood in the Minoan diet. A further consideration of this contrast within the overall context of Minoan maritime activities suggests another contrast between a familiar seascape of coastal waters and an unknown seascape of open waters. Matthew Haysom tackles the place of the marine world within elite imagery as a whole (pottery, frescoes, seals, faience and bronze items) and contrasts it to the exploitation of sea resources such as ish, salt and murex shells, with particular emphasis on the settlement of Pseira, a small islet of the north coast of east Crete, in the bay of Mirabello. Haysom concludes that whilst the Minoans may have been involved in maritime activity and some places may have led a maritime way of life, the Neopalatial imagery shows that the palatial elites had adopted a largely a land-centred worldview. John Younger also focuses on iconography and the question of worldviews in the Late Bronze Age but moves north of Crete, to the well-known settlement of Akrotiri, Thera. He chooses to explore the importance of the visual perception of the world, which has played an important role in the development of landscape archaeology. He thus examines 79 Rainbird 2007. 23 the ‘lotilla’ fresco from the West House, which is similar to Roman and medieval portolans, carrying naval information about speciic places. Furthermore, the inclusion of unconventional elements in the fresco suggests that the artist had adopted the position of a passive observer. This particular point of view allows a glimpse into the ways in which the sea was perceived: On the one hand, it was a bridge that allowed Minoan cultural elements to be introduced into Cycladic art. On the other hand, it was a medium that iltered this introduction and separated the artist from its subject, the viewer from the viewed, and broke the culturally contingent hierarchy of perception of the time. Vassilis Petrakis transfers the focus of the book to the later part of the Late Bronze Age and to the Mycenaean world. Similarly to Haysom he examines the representations of the sea and of maritime activity in relation to the palatial elites at the time, discussing two quite diferent types of evidence. On the one hand, there are various artistic representations. On the other hand, there are the Linear B tablets. Finally, Petrakis examines the place of marine imagery in the Post-palatial period and contrasts it to the palatial context. After a deservedly extensive discussion, Petrakis concludes that the Linear B record shows that long-distance overseas travel was not tightly controlled by the palatial elites. This afected the presence of marine imagery and its rare occurence is thus meaningful. Perhaps the palaces decided to turn to topics more worthexploiting for the ideological promotion of their authority. Warship imagery saw a revival in the Post-palatial period in pictorial pottery. On the one hand, this change may relect a need to balance the demise of fresco painting. On the other, it relects the turbulent times of the period, which opened new opportunities for gathering symbolic capital and prestige through risky – and even heroic – sea voyages. The next two chapters by Sophia Antoniadou and Natasha Leriou take us again outside the Aegean proper in order to explore how the Aegean was perceived in Cyprus. Both chapters build upon Knapp’s80 work regarding the changes in the connectivity and insularity of Cyprus in Prehistory. Antoniadou focuses on the inluence of Aegean 24 imports on various aspects of Cypriot society during the Late Bronze Age. She conducts a contextual analysis, mainly of pottery but also seals, bronze and ivory objects, and concludes that Aegean imports may have appealed to the Cypriot elites at irst, but, as time went by, the people of Cyprus did not consider them exotic at all. This chapter illustrates the results of the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the Late Bronze Age, which was the ofspring of intense and elaborate networks of contact and trade in the whole of the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean and demonstrates the ways in which the sea may connect diferent lands. Leriou’s chapter places an emphasis on people and the question of ethnic identity, through her examination of the so-called Aegean migration to Cyprus in the 12th and 11th centuries bc. The high degree of familiarity between the Aegeans and the Cypriots during the 14th and 13th centuries bc, which preceded the Aegean migration, as outlined by Antoniadou, may be held responsible for the lack of any post-migration antagonism between the two population elements of the island. The sea then continued to operate as a bridge that connected the Aegean world with Cyprus, even during the turbulent times of the end of the Bronze Age and, according to Leriou, it was the need to contrast this harmonious relationship to the Phoenicians, who also started to settle in Cyprus, that led to the later stressing of the Aegean descent of the Cypriots in the Archaic period. The above chapters do not claim to have exhausted the topic of the seascape in regards to Aegean Prehistory, but they have covered important ground. Geographically they range from the north to the southern Aegean and even to Cyprus, outside the Aegean proper. Chronologically they span from the earliest Prehistory to the very end of the Bronze Age. There is a greater focus on Crete and the Mycenaean world and a lesser focus on the Cyclades and Cyprus, but this was inevitable, as this was an efect of the speciic themes of interest covered in this book, which included the questions of seafaring, marine subsistence resources, contact and 80 Knapp 2008. Giorgos Vavouranakis trade. These were examined in relation to a wide array of material evidence and illuminated the importance of social choices and of a maritime way of life in early Prehistory, the notion of identity, the ideology of the elites, and the ritual appropriation of the sea contacts. The themes of the volume are critically reviewed in the inal chapter by Kostas Kotsakis, who relects upon the concepts of liminality, movement and embodiment. He argues that research should Introduction further explore the ways in which maritime travel entails a speciic bodily engagement with the sea, allows people to move beyond cultural boundaries and gives sailors a transcultural identity, as they live between and betwixt borders of terrestrial life. With these concluding thoughts and on behalf of all the authors, I wish to ofer this book in the hope that the study of the seascape will become more frequent and systematic in the future. 25 Bibliography Acheson, P.E. & J.L. Davies 2005 ‘Περιφερειακές μελέτες, αρχαιολογική επιφανειακή έρευνα και αρχαιολογία τοπίου στην Ελλάδα’, Το ελληνικό τοπίο. Μελέτες ιστορικής γεωγραφίας και πρόσληψης του τόπου, Π.Ν. Δουκέλλης (επιστ. επιμ.), Αθήνα, 33-58. Alberti, B. & T.L. Bray 2009 ‘Animating archaeology: of subjects, objects and alternative ontologies: introduction’, CAJ 19.3, 337–43. Alcock, S.E. 2005 Archaeologies of the Greek past. Landscape, monuments and memories, Cambridge. Alcock, S.E. & J.F. Cherry (eds.) 2003 Side-by-side survey: comparative archaeological survey in the Mediterranean region, Oxford. Alcock, S.E. & R. Osborn (eds.) 1994 Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and sacred space in ancient Greece, Oxford. Allen, K.M.S., S.W. Green & E.B.W. Zubrow (eds.) 1990 Interpreting space: GIS and archaeology, London. Antonaccio, C. 1995 An archaeology of ancestors. Tomb cult and hero cult in early Greece, Lanham. Barber, I. 2003 ‘Sea, land and ish: spatial relationships and the archaeology of South Island Maori ishing’, WorldArch 35.3, 434-48. 26 Barrett, J. & K. Damilati 2004 ‘‘Some light on the origins of them all’: generalization and the explanation of civilization revisited’, in The emergence of civilization revisited, J.C. Barrett & P. Halstead (eds.), (Sheield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6), Sheield, 140-69. Bass, G.F. 1967 Cape Gelidonya: a bronze age shipwreck (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series 57.8), Philadelphia. Berg, I. 2007 ‘Aegean Bronze Age seascapes – a case study in maritime movement, contact and interaction’, in Mediterranean crossroads, S. Antoniadou & A. Pace (eds.), Athens, 387-405. Berg, I. 2010 ‘Re-capturing the sea’, Shima: The international journal of research into island cultures 4.1, 16-26. Bintlif, J.L. 2000a ‘Beyond dots on the map: Future directions for surface artefact survey in Greece’, in The future of surface artefact survey in Europe, J.L. Bintlif, M. Kuna & N. Venclová (eds.), (Sheield Archaeological Monographs 13), Sheield, 31-43. Bintlif, J.L. (with assistance from O. Dickinson, P. Howard & A. Snodgrass) 2000b ‘Deconstructing the ‘Sense of Place’? Settlement systems, ield survey and the historic record: A case study from central Greece’, PPS 66, 123-50. Blackman, D. & K. Branigan 1977 ‘An archaeological survey of the lower catchment of the Ayiofarango valley’, BSA 72, 1384. Boyd, J.M. 2002 Middle Helladic and early Mycenean mortuary practices in the southern and western Peloponnese (BAR International Series 1009), Oxford. Branigan, K. 1998 ‘The nearness of you: proximity and distance in Early Minoan funerary landscapes’, in Cemetery and society in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan (ed.), (Sheield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1), Sheield, 13-26. Breen, C. & P.J. Lane 2003 ‘Archaeological approaches to East Africa’s changing seascapes’, WorldArch 35.3, 469-89. Broodbank, C. 1999 ‘The insularity of island archaeologists: comments on Rainbird’s ‘islands out of time’’, JMA 12.2, 235-9. Broodbank, C. 2000 An island archaeology of the early Cyclades, Cambridge. Cherry, J.F., J.L. Davies & E. Mantzourani 1991 Landscape archaeology as longterm history. Northern Keos in the Cycladic islands from earliest settlement until modern times (Monumenta Archaeologica 16), Los Angeles. Clarke, J. 2002 ‘Insularity and identity in Prehistoric Cyprus’, in World Giorgos Vavouranakis islands in Prehistory. International insular investigations. V Deia international conference of Prehistory, W.H. Waldren & J.A. Ensenyat (eds.), (BAR International Series 1095), Oxford, 537-44. Cohen, A.P. 1985 The symbolic construction of community, London. Cooney, G. 2003 ‘Introduction: seeing land from the sea’, WorldArch 35.3, 323-8. Corvisier, J.-N. 2008. Les Grecs et la mer, Paris. Council of Europe 2004 ‘European landscape convention’, in Perception and evaluation of cultural landscapes, P.N. Doukellis & L. Mendoni (eds.), (Κέντρο Ελληνικής και Ρωμαϊκής Αρχαιότητος – Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών MELETHMATA 38), Athens, XVI-XXIV. David, B. & J. Thomas (eds.) 2008 Handbook of landscape archaeology (World Archaeological Congress Handbooks in Archaeology). Walnut Creek. Day, P.M. & D. Wilson 2002 ‘Landscapes of memory, craft and power in Prepalatial and Protopalatial Knossos’, in Labyrinth revisited: rethinking ‘Minoan archaeology’, Y. Hamilakis (ed.), Oxford, 143-66. Doukellis, P.N. & L. Mendoni (eds.) 2004 Perception and evaluation of cultural landscapes (Κέντρο Ελληνικής και Ρωμαϊκής Αρχαιότητος – Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών MELETHMATA 38), Athens. Driessen, J. 2004 ‘The central court of the palace at Knossos’, in Knossos: Palace, city, state. Proceedings of the conference Introduction in Herakleion organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the centenary of Sir Arthur Evans’s excavations at Knossos, G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki & A. Vasilakis (eds.), (BSA Studies 12), London, 75-82. Edmonds, M. 1999 Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic. Landscapes, monuments and memory, London & New York. Evans, J.D. 1973 ‘Islands as laboratories for the study of culture process’ in The exploration of culture change. Models in Prehistory, C. Renfrew (ed.), London, 51720. Evely, D. 2007-8 ‘Archaeology in Greece, Crete’, AR 2007-8, 94-112. Gale, N.H. (ed.) 1991 Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean: papers presented at the conference held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989 (SIMA 90), Jonsered. Gell, A. 1998 Art and agency. An anthropological theory, Oxford. Georgiadis M. 2003 The south-eastern Aegean in the Mycenaean period: islands, landscape, death and ancestors (BAR International Series 1040), Oxford. Georgiadis, M. & G.M. Muskett (eds.) 2002 The seas of antiquity. Proceedings of the Liverpool Interdisciplinary Symposium in Antiquity, 20 May 2000, Liverpool. Given, M. & A.B. Knapp 2003 The Sydney Cyprus survey project: social approaches to regional archaeological survey (Monumenta archaeological 21), Los Angeles. Gkiasta, M. 2008 The historiography of landscape research on Crete (Archaeological Studies Leiden University 16), Leiden. Gosden, C. & L. Head 1994 ‘Landscape – a usefully ambiguous concept’, Archaeology in Oceania 29.3, 113-6. Gosden, C. & C. Pavlides 1994 ‘Are islands insular? Landscape vs. seascape in the case of the Arawe Islands, Papua New Guinea’, Archaeology in Oceania 29.3, 16271. Hitchcock, L. 2007 ‘Naturalizing the cultural: architectonicized landscape as ideology in Minoan Crete’, in Building communities: house, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond, R. Westgate, N. Fisher & J. Whitley (eds.), (BSA Studies 15). London 91-7. Hodder, I. 1996 ‘Re-opening Çatalhöyük’, in On the surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95, I. Hodder (ed.), (Çatalhöyük project volume 1, BIAA Monograph 22), Cambridge & London, 1-18. Hunter, J.R. 1994 “Maritime culture’: notes from the ield’, IJNA 23.4, 261-4. Ingold, T. 2000 The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, London & New York. Irwin, G. 1999 ‘Commentary on Paul Rainbird, ‘Islands out of time: towards a critique of island archaeology’’, JMA 12.2, 252-4. 27 Keegan, W.F. 1999 ‘Comment on Paul Rainbird, ‘Islands out of time: towards a critique of island archaeology’’, JMA 12.2, 255-8. Knapp, A.B. 1997 ‘Mediterranean maritime landscapes: transport, trade, and society on Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, in Res maritimae, Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, S. Swiny, R.L. Hohfelder & H.W. Swiny (eds.), (CAARI Monograph Series 1), Atlanta, 153-62. Knapp, A.B. 2008 Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus. Identity, insularity and connectivity, Oxford. Knapp, A.B. & J.F. Cherry 1994 Provenience studies and Bronze Age Cyprus. Production, exchange and politico-economic change (Monographs in World Archaeology 21), Madison Wisconsin. Knappett, C., T. Evans & R. Rivers 2008 ‘Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age’, Antiquity 82, 1009-24. Laineur, R. & L. Basch (eds.) 1991 THALASSA. L’ Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de Recherches Sous-marines et Océanographiques (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse, 23-25 avril 1990 (Aegaeum 7), Liège & Austin. Laineur, R. & E. Greco (eds.) 2005 EMPORIA: Aegeans in the central and eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th international Aegean conference: Italian School of Archaeology, Athens, 14-18 April 28 2004 (Aegaeum 25), Liège & Austin. Lesky, A. 1947 Thalatta. Der Weg der Griechen zum Meer, Wien. Lindenlauf, A. 2003 ‘The sea as a place of no return in ancient Greece’, WorldArch 35.3, 416-33. Llobera, M. 2005 ‘New paradigms and methods for landscape research in archaeology’, in Temps et espaces de l’homme en societé. Analyses et modèles spatiaux en archéologie. XXXVe rencontres internationals d’ archéologie et d’ histoire d’ Antibes, J.-F. Berger, F. Bertoncello, F. Braemer, G. Davtian & M. Gazenberg (eds.), Antibes, 43-53. Lock, G. 2003 Using computers in archaeology. Towards virtual pasts, London & New York. Macdonald, C.F., E. Hallager, & W-D. Niemeier (eds.) 2009 The Minoans in the central, eastern and northern Aegean – new evidence. Acts of a Minoan seminar, 22-23 January 2005 in collaboration with the Danish Institute at Athens and the German Archaeological Institute at Athens (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 8), Athens. McDonald, W.A. & G.R. Rapp (eds.) 1972 The Minnesota Messenia expedition: reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment, Minneapolis. McNiven, I.J. 2003 ‘Saltwater people: spiritscapes, maritime rituals and the archaeology of Australian indigenous seascapes’, WorldArch 35.3, 329-49. O’ Sullivan, A. 2003 ‘Place, memory and identity among estuarine ishing communities: interpreting the archaeology of early medieval ish weirs’, WorldArch 35.3, 449-68. Peatield, A.A.D. 1990 ‘Minoan peak sanctuaries: history and society’, OpAth 18.8, 117-31. Phelps, W., Y. Lolos & Y. Vichos (eds.) 1999 The Point Iria wreck: interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 BC. Proceedings of the international conference, Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998, Athens. Phillips, T. 2003 ‘Seascapes and landscapes in Orkney and northern Scotland’, WorldArch 35.3, 371-84. Pulak, C. 1998 ‘The Uluburun shipwreck: an overview’, IJNA 27.3, 188-224. Rainbird, P. 1999a ‘Islands out of time: towards a critique of island archaeology’, JMA 12.2, 216-34. Rainbird, P. 1999b ‘Nesophiles miss the boat? A response’, JMA 12.2, 259-60. Rainbird, P. 2007 The archaeology of islands, Cambridge. Renfrew, C. 1972 The emergence of civilization. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the third millennium BC, London. Renfrew, C. & E.B.W. Zubrow (eds.) 1994 The ancient mind: Elements in cognitive archaeology, Cambridge. Giorgos Vavouranakis Rossignol, J. & L. Wandsnider (eds.) 1992 Space, time and archaeological landscapes, New York & London. Shaw, J.W. & M.C. Shaw (eds.) 2006 Kommos V: The monumental Minoan buildings at Kommos, Princeton. Soetens, S. 2006 Minoan peak sanctuaries. Building a cultural landscape using GIS, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve. Swiny, S., R.L. Hohfelder & H.W. Swiny (eds.) 1997 Res maritimae, Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity (CAARI Monograph Series 1), Atlanta. Terrell, J.E. 1999 ‘Comment on Paul Rainbird, ‘Islands out of time: towards a critique of island archaeology’’, JMA 12.2, 240-5. Tilley, C. 1994 A phenomenology of the landscape, Oxford & Providence. Van de Noort, R. 2003 ‘An ancient seascape: the social context of seafaring in the early Bronze Age’, WorldArch 35.3, 40415. Introduction Van Dommelen, P. 1999 ‘Islands in history’, JMA 12.2, 24651. Vavouranakis, G. 2007 Funerary landscapes east of Lasithi, Crete, in the Bronze Age (BAR International Series 1606), Oxford. Vavouranakis, G. in press. ‘Τοπίο και αρχαιολογία στην Ελλάδα: Σημειώσεις για μια παρεξηγημένη σχέση’, Α΄ Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο Νέων Ερευνητών του περιοδικού ΔΙΑΧΡΟΝΙΑ. Σύλλογος Μεταπτυχιακών Φοιτητών Τμήματος Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Παν/μιο Αθηνών. (Διαχρονία Παράρτημα Β), Αθήνα. Watrous, L.V. 2007 ‘Harbors as agents of social change in ancient Crete’, in Krinoi kai limenes. Studies in honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw, P.P. Betancourt, M.C. Nelson & H. Williams (eds.), (Prehistory monographs 22), Philadelphia, 101-6. Wedde, M. 2000 Towards a hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age ship imagery (Peleus 6), Mannheim. Westerdahl, C. 1994 ‘Maritime cultures and ship types: brief comments on the signiicance of maritime archaeology’, IJNA 23.4, 265-70. Wikipedia 2010a ‘Aegean Sea’ in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, San Fransisco (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_ Sea 15 June 2010). Wikipedia 2010b ‘Aegean Islands’, in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, San Fransisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Aegean_Islands 15 June 2010). Wikipedia 2010c ‘Greece’, in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, San Fransisco (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece 15 June 2010) Zubrow, E.B.W. 2005 ‘Spatial analysis, time and cultural evolution’, in Temps et espaces de l’homme en societé. Analyses et modèles spatiaux en archéologie. XXXVe rencontres internationals d’ archéologie et d’ histoire d’ Antibes, J.-F. Berger, F. Bertoncello, F. Braemer, G. Davtian & M. Gazenberg (eds.), Antibes, 19-29. Westerdahl, C. 1992 ‘The maritime cultural landscape’, IJNA 21.1, 5-14. 29