Conclusion Navigating a World of Mountains, Coasts and Islands Diachronic Evidence for a Connected Southeast Crete Emilia Oddo and Konstantinos Chalikias The proceedings published in this volume focus on the diachronic overview of current archaeological knowledge in Southeast Crete. Thanks to the fieldwork conducted in the last 50 years, this previously remote area of the island has been the subject of scholarly attention; far from being periphery to major players across Crete, the archaeological sites of the Southeast have revealed a dynamic economy, lasting patterns of occupation, and a rich culture. Our interest in southeast Crete as a distinct region started shortly after our 2016 AIA colloquium on the Southern Ierapetra Isthmus, which resulted in the publication of Exploring a Terra Incognita on Crete, Recent Research on Bronze Age Habitation in the Southern Ierapetra Isthmus. Several papers there challenged us to think beyond the confines of the Ierapetra Isthmus and to examine how the region around Ierapetra had been integrated into broader intra-regional, social and economic networks since antiquity. The organization of the conference South by Southeast, whose proceedings are published in this volume, provided contributions from a larger pool of scholars. It is thanks to these contributions that we started considering the Southeast as a distinct region embracing a larger geographical area and a broader chronological frame, while, at the same time, questioning what defines it as a region. Regions are often elusive to the archaeological data. There are many ways of defining a region, depending on the variable or criteria one chooses to determine its boundaries. These criteria however are difficult to pin down, so much so that the history of the discipline of regionalism in archaeology and anthropology is constellated by much scholarly debate on what makes a region a region (see below).1 If it is difficult to identify a region at a specific moment in time, it is all the more complicated to assume that one region 1 The bibliography on regionalism is vast and reducing it to an unbiased, brief, list is treacherous. For our purpose, the following publications, on the Aegean and beyond, provide interesting discussion: Nichols 1996; Bennet and Galaty 1997; Billman and Feinman 1999; McGuire et al. 1994; Runnels 2000; Hicks 2002; Stanish 2003; Relaki 2004; Parsons 2004; Galaty 2005; Balkansky 2006; Kantner 2005; 2008, Kowalewski 2008. South by Southeast (Archaeopress 2022): 139–148 could exist and be identified diachronically. Thus, in our case, switching from the Bronze Age context of Exploring a Terra Incognita to embrace a more diachronic perspective in this volume, made the elusiveness of the concept of region concrete. In this final chapter, we incorporate the results of the contributions presented in this volume to establish what the Southeast is, attempting to define it as a region according to two main criteria: geography and culture. By ‘culture’, we mean the collective traits emerging from the analysis of the material culture, which pertains to a society’s organization and way of life. As we shall see, Tsipopoulou said it right in this volume’s introduction when she suggested that a region has little to do with geography and more to do with other shared traits. In fact, if from a geographical perspective, it is possible to outline the Southeast and hypothesize its existence diachronically, from a cultural point of view the limits of the Southeast are less cohesive and more variable. In other words, while always remaining a geographical region, only rarely we can identify it as a cultural region. As it will be outlined below, the clearer picture of the Southeast as a cultural region is the one emerging from the Neopalatial period. The Southeast as a geographical region Geographically, the Southeast encompasses an area bordered to the West by the Myrtos valley and to the East by Cape Goudouras. By no means are sites immediately east of Cape Goudouras excluded (for example, Kato Zakros is featured in the proceedings); many of these were culturally and economically associated with nearby settlements, many of which lay on the South coast. The northern boundaries of this c. 45km long coastal strip are a bit ambiguous, though there are certain distinct land formations such as the Thrypti Mountains or the eastern slopes of the Dikti massif that limited the amount of interaction between sites on the north and south coast of the island. On the other hand, geographical features like the Ierapetra Isthmus or the Siteia Emilia Oddo and Konstantinos Chalikias Archaeological fieldwork: the perceived remoteness of southeast Crete corridor connecting modern-day Makrygialos to the north coast would have undoubtedly facilitated traffic. The physical remoteness and lack of large settlements and administrative centers in the Southeast contributed to how little we know about the area from an archaeological perspective. This perceived isolation of the Southeast seems to encompass almost all time periods. Nevertheless, rather than a geographical consequence, this isolation might be simply a product of the reduced attention of scholarship in this area. While sites in central and northeastern Crete housed extensive and systematic excavations ever since the beginning of archaeological interest on the island, the Southeast appeared to lag generally. The arbitrary attempt to define the fluidity and complexity of cultural and economic interaction through the set limits of a geographical area are necessary as a kind of platform or arena on which we are to test out our hypotheses of a perceived Southeast; this allows us to explore various scenarios and to examine the viability of specific proposals or theories. It also forces us to re-evaluate our notion of what belongs to the ‘south,’ what to the ‘east,’ and how flexible we can be with assigning particular sites or communication and exchange networks to the Southeast. Arthur Evans explored the southeastern part of the island while traveling from Ierapetra East to Makygialos and then north to Siteia (Brown and Bennett 2001). He mentioned a few sites but did not decide to excavate any. Harriet Boyd Hawes, in her archaeological explorations of the Ierapetra Isthmus, included the small coastal valley of Agia Photia, geographically not part of the Isthmus, but ca. 11km to the East of Ierapetra. There, Boyd excavated an Early Minoan rock shelter which can hardly be located these days (Betancourt 2000). Further to the East, R.C. Bosanquet excavated a trial trench on the island of Kouphonisi that produced evidence for Middle Minoan activity (Bosanquet 1902–1903: 276– 277). Deep mountain valleys characterize the coastal region under discussion (e.g. Myrtos). Rivers originate in the uplands of the Dikti massif to the northwest and the Thrypti mountain range to the north/ northeast and empty into the Libyan Sea (e.g. Agia Photia). Further to the east, the landscape is marked by several canyons (e.g. Perivolakia) that originate in the east Siteia Mountains and descent dramatically into the sea. Sandwiched between the Dikti Mountains and the Thrypti massif is the Ierapetra Isthmus that hosts one of Crete’s largest and most fertile coastal plains. Further to the East, a break in the mountainous landscape between the Thrypti Mountains and the East Siteia mountains features a hilly corridor that connects the north coast with the south coast at the bay of Makrygialos. Even though both the southern Ierapetra Isthmus and the coastal valley at Makrygialos were suitable for agriculture and the development of land routes for trade and transportation, many areas of the Southeast consist of rugged terrain, unsuitable for the foundation of large coastal communities and limiting their access to arable land as well as their means of connecting with other settlements in their vicinity. This picture is in many ways reminiscent of the landscape in the southern Asterousia Mountains. Therefore, the sea was the connecting link for many communities of the Southeast, and one can reasonably conclude that most trade and transportation must have taken place along the coast. A ship, for example, would have been more suitable for larger cargo vs. transporting goods over the mountains using pack animals. On land, one can imagine that there existed two important routes running on a south-north axis, connecting the south with the north coast at the Ierapetra Isthmus and further east at the Siteia corridor. Minor land routes ran over the mountains, incorporating various communities into broader social and economic networks. Pendlebury in his extensive survey of archaeological sites on Crete mentioned several that were located in southeast Crete (Pendlebury 1939: 126, 147, 179, 266, 296), however, no major excavation took place until archaeologists from the Greek Archaeological Service began venturing into this region under Stylianos Alexiou, Nikolaos Platon, and Costis Davaras. Thus, Davaras, the head of the Lasithi Ephorate of Antiquities in the early 1970s, is credited with the excavation and study of several sites along the Southeast (e.g. Roman Hierapytna, Ferma fishtanks, Minoan villa in Makrygialos) and was instrumental in the preservation of Chryssi island that was destined to become a NATO target range (Matzourani 2012: xxiii). An extensive survey conducted by Sinclair Hood, Peter Warren, and Gerald Cadogan in the 1960s identified several sites in the area (Hood, Cadogan, and Warren 1964: 50–99). Two of them, Myrtos-Pyrgos and MyrtosFournou Koryphi, were systematically excavated at the end of the 1960s and, then, in the 1970s–1980s (Warren 1972; Cadogan 1977–1978). Significant enhancement of our archaeological knowledge of the Southeast has come from the 140 Conclusion. Navigating a World of Mountains, Coasts and Islands most recent (1990-present) fieldwork by the Greek Archaeological Service, its multiple collaborations with the Institute for Aegean Prehistory in East Crete, as well as several archaeological projects led by colleagues at several academic institutions. These recent explorations have led to the re-examination of old excavations (for Makrygialos, see Mantzourani 2011; for Roman Hierapytna, see Gallimore 2011) but also the discovery and excavation of new sites such as Chryssi Island (Apostolakou et al. 2016; Apostolakou, Brogan, and Betancourt 2012; Brogan et al. 2019), Livari (Papadatos and Sofianou 2015), Bramiana (Apostolakou et al. 2019), Schinokapsala (Papadatos et al. 2019), and Kentri (Sofianou 2019). on offshore islands such as Chryssi and Kouphonisi hint at already established maritime networks that fostered interaction, communication, and exchange among coastal communities in the Southeast. We believe that even though the evidence is so far missing, such early exploratory endeavors might date back to the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods based on the findings from Gavdos island but also Livari (Kopaka and Matzanas 2009; Carter et al. 2016). By the EM I period, the Southeast had already become an avenue for exchanging commodities and technological knowledge. The strongest evidence comes from Livari in the eastern part of our area of focus. There, the excavation of a Prepalatial cemetery exposed interesting links to the Early Minoan Mesara in terms of the ceramic imports and the distribution of tholos architecture in the far Southeast, known until recently as an exclusive characteristic of the Mesara region. The strong links between these two regions suggest that the sea must have played a significant role in funneling ideas and goods throughout the south coast (Nodarou 2015: 72; Papadatos and Nodarou 2018: 293; forthcoming; Papadatos and Sofianou 2015: 44, 46, 48, 56, 64, 75). One might add the burial cave at Agia Photia (Hawes et al. 1908: 56; Betancourt 2000: 117) along the south coast that might correspond to a settlement in close proximity, showing an increase in settlement locations along the coast. These archaeological projects provided a clearer picture of the settlement history of the Southeast, especially of the Bronze Age, allowing for a comprehensive study of its interactions with other major cultural, political, and religious centers across the island. However, the same is not valid for archaeological projects concerned with the later historical periods. Indeed, no major Archaic or Classical settlements have been identified in this part of Crete due to the general lack of systematic fieldwork in the region during the past decades (for a discussion on the dearth of settlements see Erickson, this volume). Even for the later Hellenistic and Roman periods when the area becomes the territory of powerful city-states like Hierapytna, Praisos, and Ambelos, the archaeological work is largely the result of rescue excavations at sites like Myrtos, Ierapetra, Makrygialos, and Xerokambos and is found scattered in dozens of archaeological reports usually issued by the Ephorate of Antiquities (for a discussion on Hellenistic and Roman Hierapytna, see Chalikias 2011: 95–103, 105– 110; Gallimore 2011: 104–158). Only recently have some attempts been made to study sites like Hierapytna in a more comprehensive manner (Gallimore 2011; for the systematic excavations at the Roman theater, Sofianou 2020). By the EM II period the South and Southeast witness the foundation of several settlements that took advantage of the suitable conditions for trade and agriculture that existed in the area. Well-known among these sites is Myrtos-Phournou Koryphi which overlooked the southern coast (Warren 1972). Study of the pottery has shown strong links to the Mirabello area and one wonders if some of the goods reached the site via the Ierapetra Isthmus and were then shipped to the settlement by boat along the south coast. Recently, excavations at a burial cave in Schinokapsala have produced interesting results regarding the far-flung connections of a rather small, rural mountainous community. Some of the finds there date between EM IIB – MM IA and show strong links to the Mirabello and the Mesara area, a surprising fact when one considers the remoteness of the site (Papadatos et al. 2019). Such findings imply how interconnected the Southeast already was since the Early Bronze Age. The Southeast in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Studies of settlement patterns in southeast Crete have produced ample evidence for the existence of sizable communities during the Late Neolithic and Final Neolithic periods, many of which have been found in naturally defensible locations (Nowicki 2015). At first sight, the conscious foundation of settlements on remote peaks and hilltops appears to be a response to threats (internal or external) that forced people into the mountains, leaving the lowlands and coastal areas to foreign elements. Evidence from Chryssi, Kouphonisi, and coastal Goudouras, though, might suggest a different narrative, one that shows attempts by local communities to explore new habitats and natural resources (Chalikias 2015: 39). Final Neolithic activity The following Protopalatial period is marked by the appearance of larger settlements, some of which must have functioned as regional economic and cultural centers. Myrtos-Pyrgos seems to be the dominant site in the Myrtos valley (Cadogan 1977–1978) while in the southern Ierapetra Isthmus we are still missing a large settlement (for a discussion on the Protopalatial 141 Emilia Oddo and Konstantinos Chalikias settlement pattern in the Ierapetra Isthmus, see Chalikias 2013: 41). Protopalatial activity on Chryssi Island begs the question regarding the existence of a large site on the opposite coast, though such a settlement has thus far not been discovered (Chalikias 2011: 65– 67). A possible candidate could be Vainia Stavromenos with its fortified rocky citadel though such a hypothesis must be further confirmed through excavation. Recent excavations at the site of Bramiana provide a good picture of rural settlement activity, economic practices and trade patterns during the MM IIB and early MM III period (Apostolakou et al. 2019: 71). Despite its size and rural location, Bramiana was surprisingly able to acquire ceramic goods from as far as Palaikastro and the Mesara, suggesting that the trade and communications networks already established during the Early Minoan period were still very much in use. This picture is strengthened by the evidence for human presence on the islands of Chryssi and Kouphonisi. Both sites show signs of Middle Minoan activity tied to the exploitation of the islands for purple dye production (for Chryssi, Brogan et al. 2019: 97; for Kouphonisi, Bosanquet 1902– 1903: 276–277). Large numbers of crushed murex shells in MM II levels at the site of Kommos (Van de Moortel 2007: 182) in combination with similar activity on the aforementioned islands might point to the existence of an extensive and highly complex maritime network that was involved in the production and distribution of goods for local and overseas consumption. Such an organized endeavor was more than the work of individual merchants and must have involved several elite groups. The finds from Chryssi raise many questions regarding the role of a dependent settlement on an offshore island that must have relied on the sites of the opposite coast for supplies and other provisions. Even though the island was largely dependent on the settlements of the opposite coast, its size and the nature of its finds suggest a thriving trading center actively engaged in the production and distribution of certain goods (e.g., purple dye). At the same time, this center must have been also operating as a local market for the circulation and consumption of goods from coastal sites up and down the southeast part of Crete (i.e. Kato Zakros, Palaikastro). Little is known about the Southeast during the Postpalatial period. Sites like Chryssi, the Minoan villa at Makrygialos, the monumental building at Gaidourophas, or the Minoan villa at Myrtos-Pyrgos display signs of an abrupt, sudden abandonment at the end of LM IB, followed in many cases by fire destruction, a pattern known from other sites throughout Crete. Not a single LM II or LM III settlement from the Southeast has been excavated so far and all we know about the settlement patterns of the region during that time period comes from non-systematic surveys (Nowicki 2000). Several LM III tombs and cemeteries have been excavated though most of them are either unpublished or poorly studied (Eaby 2007). The Southeast after the Bronze Age Grouping together what we know about the Southeast after the Bronze Age in one subchapter does not seem reasonable, as it is difficult to imagine that periods covering several centuries yielded so little archaeological information to date. Certainly, current and future studies will enrich this picture. The contributions dedicated to the historical periods (see Erickson; Sofianou; Gallimore, this volume) in this publication have demonstrated a continuity of occupation in the Southeast, with the usual focus on the coast and the related trading networks that connected different parts of the island. The only exception appears to be the period between LM IIIC and the Geometric period, where a significant shift in settlement location has been observed, consistent with what we see across the island (Nowicki 2000). Most of the Bronze Age coastal sites seem to have been abandoned in favor of sites located inlands. In most cases these new settlements (so called refuge sites) are found perched on relatively inaccessible locations, surrounded by steep mountainous terrain that must have provided a basic first line of defense (Nowicki 2018). This settlement pattern has been often interpreted in scholarship as an attempt by the local population to flee the coastal areas and to seek protection in more remote places. Even though that is convincing for some sites, it is important There is a large noticeable gap in Middle Minoan settlement activity between the Ierapetra area and the far Southeast, largely the result of limited archaeological studies of the area. Middle Minoan fortified sites in the mountains around Oreino village (Nowicki 2008: 78) suggest tension and potential territorial disputes, a phenomenon known also from the Myrtos valley (for Mythoi Ellinika, see Nowicki 1999: 194) and other sites in East Crete (for Petras see Tsipopoulou 1999: 183). The existence of fortifications at these sites could be related to the widespread destructions of several sites around Crete during the MM IIB period. The Southeast seems to become increasingly more connected during the Neopalatial period, as recent research has suggested. Excavations from Chryssi Island have revealed many imported ceramic goods, most of which stem from sites such as Palaikastro and Kato Zakros in east Crete (T.M. Brogan, pers. comm.). Moreover, some of the finds on the Minoan settlement at Chryssi include bronze ingots and bronze vessels, clearly valuable items possibly associated with a trading hub rather than a fishing village or merely a specialized center for purple dye production (Sofianou et al. 2019). 142 Conclusion. Navigating a World of Mountains, Coasts and Islands to acknowledge that many of the larger sites found in the Southeast are not obscured or hidden from the coast (e.g. Vainia Stavromenos, Katalimata Agios Ioannis, Profitis Ilias at Kato Chorio); on the contrary, these sites are located in very strategic locations, regulating access from the coast to the mountains and vice versa as well as controlling the natural resources (e.g. pastures, water springs) of these mountain landscapes. The inhabitants of these sites were not running away from threats; they were making a statement by projecting territorial claims through a dense network of visible, well defended settlements. One should not dismiss the idea of social unrest and disruption of maritime networks along the coasts; however, the picture of the largely deserted coastal regions might be rather the result of new economic practices that drove people into the island’s interior, something that has been observed before (e.g. Whitley 1991; Perna 2009; 2011) and should not surprise. Fieldwork on Chryssi Island has shown that, during times of uncertainty and instability, the maritime networks suffered and the coastal areas experienced a crisis (Chalikias 2011: 218). other goods from the Mesara along a southern route to the Levant would have spurred economic growth and offered alternative economic opportunities for the population in the Southeast. Although the transition from the Classical to the Hellenistic period is poorly understood in our region, two settlements seem to emerge as the main territorial and economic forces in the area; Hierapytna and Praisos, with the latter being destroyed and its territory absorbed by Hierapytna after 145 BC (Gallimore 2011: 115). Their territorial disputes involved among other things the littoral waters of southeast Crete, including the island of Kouphonisi (Lefki). An increased focus on maritime activities in the Southeast is further demonstrated by the large number of Hellenistic sites on the island of Chryssi (Chalikias 2011: 91–95). The construction of a tower on the eastern part of the island (Chalikias 2011: 94) must have been a sign of Hierapytna’s attempt to protect the island’s natural resources, claim its territory, while at the same time control the profitable southern sea routes that connected southern Crete to the Levant and Egypt. Hierapytna experiences dramatic growth during the Roman period, explained in part due to the city’s location along major shipping lanes between northern Africa and Italy, as well as Italy and the Levant (Gallimore 2011: 148). The prosperity of the coastal city and its surrounding territory, not seen since the Neopalatial period, is reflected in the large number of public buildings (e.g. two theaters, one amphitheater) and the foundation of several settlements along the coast (e.g. Myrtos, Stomio, Agio Pnevma, Ferma, Makrygialos, see Chalikias 2011: 107–111). Indeed, the settlement landscape of the Early Iron Age reflects a shift in socio-economic practices and a departure from a ‘maritime-centric’ economy as visualized for the Minoan period and especially the Neopalatial world. The sea might not have been the driving force of the economy any longer due largely to disruptive circumstances and the dissolution of maritime networks, replaced eventually by agriculture, animal husbandry, and overland trade. Yet, one needs to be cautious to avoid oversimplifications when it comes to explaining the impact of watershed socioeconomic events on local settlement patterns, exchange and communication networks. Despite a shift in settlement location toward inland valleys and uplands, it is reasonable to presume that maritime activities, if limited, continued through the Early Iron Age. Archaeological evidence that points to Phoenician presence at the post-Minoan sanctuary of Kommos during the 9th century BC (Shaw and Shaw 2000: 21) as well as Egyptian and Egyptianizing objects from the Eileithyia cave that date from the late 8th century BC to the early 6th century BC (Kanta and Davaras 2011: 37, 171–187) suggest that south Crete, despite the lack of comprehensive archaeological data, must have been linked to interregional networks at least since the 9th and 8th centuries. One wonders what role, if any, sites in our area would have played in facilitating the movement of goods and people along the southern coast. Erickson’s chapter in this volume offers an interesting theory for the foundation of sites such as Hierapytna and Stalai in the 5th and 4th century BC by linking the development of port facilities in the Southeast to an increase in pottery exports from Gortyn to the Levant (Gilboa et al. 2017). The shipping of pottery and potentially During these phases, cultural practices do not appear to reflect in all cases the social, economic and political reconfiguration and often tend to follow more traditional paths. When considering funerary culture, in fact, both Perna for the LM IIIC and Eaby for the Early Iron Age have incorporated the southeast to the area between the Lasithi Massif and the Siteia Mountains and the Mirabello/West Siteia Mountains, respectively (Perna 2011; Eaby 2011). Considering the culture of the southeastern and the northeastern sites as similar takes us back to what Cadogan and especially Knappett theorized based on the southeastern Protopalatial pottery (Cadogan 1995; Knappett 1999), linking culturally and possibly politically Myrtos-Pyrgos and Malia. If culturally, therefore, southeastern and northeastern sites tended to be similar more often than not, then, the situation of the Southeast in the Neopalatial period represents an interest outlier. Southeastern connected worlds: the case of Neopalatial Myrtos-Pyrgos This volume’s contributions have emphasized the role that the coastline and the sea played in the socio-political 143 Emilia Oddo and Konstantinos Chalikias and economic organization of the southeastern region. From the Bronze Age till the Hellenistic period, the coastal sites represented the region’s driving force. In fact, they defined the region itself perhaps much more than the inland sites that shared the same southeastern culture. Thus, diachronically, the southeastern culture pertains predominantly to coastal sites. But how far inland did it stretch, and how far west/east? of potters, pottery tends to embody conservatism and, hence, a local culture (e.g. Rice 1987). However, it is precisely because of this conservatism that any stylistic change deserves special attention. From the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age, the number of archaeologically visible sites in this region increases gradually, peaking in the Neopalatial period and then declining again in the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods. Thus, the Neopalatial is perhaps the only period for which there is enough evidence to attempt a more comprehensive description of the extent of Southeastern culture. Two main elements seem to characterize the Neopalatial Southeastern culture: on the one hand, the spread of a shared and local ceramic style; on the other hand, the diffusion of a ‘villa culture,’ including not only the construction of villas or villa-like structures but also the adoption of a non-local ceramic style of North-central, Knossian, type (Oddo 2019). While we have provided a geographical identification of the southeastern region above, geography does not necessarily determine culture. As mentioned above, the fluidity of the terminology of regions and regionalism is a long and challenging debate; a common point of agreement says that people often develop different/ idiosyncratic cultures across times despite being connected by the same geographical space within the same period. That is to say, the way society understood and practiced its own cultural identity might not have been a consequence of geography but of other, often unpredictable, factors. While geographical associations might have stayed relatively unchanged, culture connected various social groups, towns, even parts of the island in different ways. Consequently, a cultural region should not be understood as a static reference model. The local style can be tracked across the region in LM IA. It is predominantly detected in the area immediately surrounding Ierapetra, which appears to have the largest concentration of sites and at least two administrative centers. West of Ierapetra, and keeping on the coastline, this style does not seem to go much farther than the Myrtos river valley, which might be seen as some type of borderline. East of Ierapetra, the local style occurs but does not reach either Zakros or Karoumes (Mantzourani 2011). Yet, Zakros and its surrounding area display a typically Knossian ceramic style (e.g. Platon 2011). It is more difficult to establish the northern limits of this region. Indeed, the distinctive Southeastern style does not seem to be identifiable at the recently excavated building at Gaidourophas, Anatoli (Y. Papadatos, pers. comm.). It is possible that it may have included only the coastal area of the Southeast. Northeastern sites like Palaikastro or even Petras must be considered, in this period, part of a different region; even despite their proximity to Zakros, Northeastern sites do not appear to share the Southeastern culture as defined in this and other contributions (Oddo 2019). In this view, therefore, Zakros and its surrounding area, including Karoumes, appears to be the Knossian buffer zone between southeast and northeast Crete. With this idea in mind, this volume aimed to define the way archaeological evidence allows us to describe the cultural development of southeast Crete, track its history of configuration and reconfiguration. Studies of Proto- and Neopalatial evidence, for example, have indicated that the cultural association of the same site, Myrtos-Pyrgos, shifted rather significantly from one period to the next. From a liaison with northeastern centers like Malia in Protopalatial time to a connection with north-central ones like Knossos in the Neopalatial period (Knappett 1999; Cadogan 1995). And yet, next to these observed ‘foreign’ links, the ceramic and architectural data at Myrtos-Pyrgos showed an interest in preserving the local identity. While the local identity may have kept steady, the extra-regional influences tended to change, fluctuate, perhaps depending on the political, social, and economic dynamics. For the Bronze Age, the diffusion of similar ceramic fabrics and styles is perhaps the quickest way to identify a distinct material culture. It is a reliable method since it includes large samples of evidence from any site (pottery sherds are the most common find in any archaeological excavation). Moreover, unlike much of the extant architecture, representing elite buildings (e.g. Myrtos-Pyrgos villa; Makrygialos villa), pottery represents society at large, since it was not used just by the elite. Finally, as most textbook would say, since pottery production relies on traditional methods passed on at the workshop level through generations It is difficult not to link the villa culture with Knossos. Whether or not there were actual architectural similarities in the villas at Myrtos-Pyrgos and Makrygialos with Knossos, the fact remains that the need for these types of large administrative buildings is a common feature found across much of the island. Thus, it is not an isolated phenomenon. What is Knossian, however, is the style of the vessels belonging to these villas in the Southeast. The adoption of a more Knossian style, as discussed elsewhere (Oddo 2019), clashes with the persistent presence of the local 144 Conclusion. Navigating a World of Mountains, Coasts and Islands style, which keeps being produced. It is particularly interesting, moreover, that quintessentially Knossian styles, like the reed decoration, appear to be limited to the villas. to gauge the impact that such interregional role had on the culture of the region. The region’s culture might have looked outward, sharing more with other trading southern cultures, such as those from the Mesara, with which there were strong economic ties. Although the picture of a strong Knossian influence across Neopalatial Crete is somewhat accepted, it is worth exploring through which channels Knossian culture might have reached the Southeast, as it may reveal economic strategies. Perhaps, Knossos reached a level of power, then, that attempted to control virtually the entire island. As Hatzaki has suggested, it is also possible that this short-lived Knossian ‘coup,’ so to speak, failed (Hatzaki 2011). The trajectory of this attempt to control the far East, and from there the Southeast, of the island might be exemplified in the establishment of Zakros (LM IB), a possible Knossian outpost with obvious advantages for trade. In this perspective, given the role that Zakros played in the maritime networks and given the Southeastern involvement in maritime trading, it is possible that any Knossian influence reaching the Southeast came through the trading networks that connected the Southeast to the Levant with Zakros established as a major transshipment hub. Conclusions: connections? general trends and broader The case studies discussed in this volume complement and deepen those published in 2019 in the Exploring a Terra Incognita on Crete volume, forming a diachronic platform for further research on southeast Crete. Leaving aside the approaches to regionalism through other research methods like archaeological survey (e.g. Watrous et al. 2012), these volumes together represent one of the first joint efforts at exploring and defining the concept of region in Crete based on excavation material. On the basis of the contributions presented in this volume, it is our opinion that the Southeast is a good case-study to analyze the fluidity of the concept of place and region. It shows the historical mutability and even vulnerability of a region that can change with time and different social, political, and economic circumstances. In turn, and because of that, it also demonstrates how difficult it is to gather the archaeological evidence necessary to identify a region and track it and its culture. As we have seen, in fact, it is impossible to tie down firmly the Southeast to a single geographical or cultural pattern that can be observed diachronically. The apparent reduction of maritime traffic at the close of the Bronze Age and during the Geometric period offers little to reconstruct what the Southeastern culture might have looked like. Further studies are needed, certainly, but with our current knowledge, it is particularly difficult to single out a unitary Southeastern culture, as in the Neopalatial period. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that the new dispersed pattern of inhabitation was no longer a condition promoting common trends and more idiosyncratic patterns emerged. At the same time, however, the perceived isolation of the Southeastern sites needs not to have been so: new cultural dynamics might have developed, linking sites in new ways. For example, a consequence of the abandonment of the coastline and the maritime networks might have shifted local interest more inland, whether to the Northeastern region or elsewhere. Only during the Neopalatial period is it possible to talk about the Southeast as a cohesive cultural entity. In LM IA, we can observe a compact local culture that is spread across several coastal sites from MyrtosPyrgos up to (but excluding) Zakros. This perceived homogeneity, however, can be noted because it ran parallel to the Knossian-inspired material culture and the construction of elaborate buildings (villas), both a product of a Knossian attempt at hegemony, which appears to be short-lived or possibly failed. In other words, it is this intrusive ‘foreign’ culture that brings emphasis on what the local culture actually was. But what happened in the later Bronze Age and the historical periods? Further analyses are needed to verify the longevity of this cultural region, identifying whether similar common trends existed in the architecture or material culture of other periods. This fragmented cultural picture is contrasted by the growing evidence from the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods, during which the Southeast went back to participating heavily in large interregional trading networks of the eastern Mediterranean. Southeastern coastal sites become centers increasingly powerful on an interregional level, so to speak, including Crete, the Aegean, and more. During the Hellenistic time, the Southeast appears to be a compact region, thriving around the site of Hierapytna. Meanwhile, its extent might have likely been limited to Hierapytna and its immediate surroundings. Further studies are needed Meanwhile, what the studies in this volume demonstrate is that the unity of the Southeast is largely defined by its coastal nature and its dependency on maritime networks. The definition of the Southeast as a predominantly littoral region, based on economy, is tied to its settlement patterns. Indeed, generally, the defining and unifying characteristic of the Southeastern 145 Emilia Oddo and Konstantinos Chalikias References culture is its relationship with the sea and the coast, except for the periods between the LM IIIC and the Geometric, with major sites concentrated more inland. The link to the coast and the sea grows with time, from a number of small EM I sites occupying the lowland valleys along the coast (e.g. Myrtos-Phournou Koryphi) and overlooking the Libyan Sea, to the Hellenistic city state of Hierapytna whose expansion was accelerated by its maritime outlook. While it may sound trite, this realization is in fact important, because it suggests that cultural developments and settlement patterns of the region were closely correlated to major shifts that took place along maritime networks of communication, trade, and exchange. Indeed, uninterrupted occupation of any given southeastern site is rare (except for sites like Myrtos-Pyrgos, Chryssi, and perhaps Hierapytna itself). Apostolakou, V., T.M. Brogan, E. Nodarou, F.S.C. Hsu, A. Gluckman, S. Sarasin, L. Bonga and P.P. Betancourt 2019. Evidence for the settlement of Bramiana, in K. Chalikias and E. Oddo (eds) Exploring a Terra Incognita: Recent Research on Bronze Age Habitation in the Southern Ierapetra Isthmus: 69–78. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Apostolakou, S., P.P. Betancourt, T.M. Brogan and D. Mylona 2016. Chryssi and Pefka: the production and use of purple dye on Crete in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, in J. Ortiz, C. Alfaro, L. Turell, and M.a J. Martínez (eds) Textiles, Basketry and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Textiles, Cestería y Tintes en el mundo mediterráneo antiguo (Purpureae Vestes V): 199–208. València: Universitat de València. Apostolakou, V., T.M. Brogan and P.P. Betancourt 2012. The Minoan settlement on Chryssi and its murex dye industry, in M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds) KOSMOS: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010 (Aegaeum 33): 179–182. Leuven and Liege: Peeters. Balkansky, A.K. 2006. Surveys and Mesoamerican archaeology: the emerging macroregional paradigm. Journal of Archaeological Research 14: 53–95. Bennet, J. and M. Galaty 1997. Ancient Greece: recent developments in Aegean archaeology and regional studies. Journal of Archaeological Research 5: 75–120. Billman, B.R. and G.M. Feinman (eds) 1999. Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since Virú. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Brogan, T.M., D. Mylona, V. Apostolakou, P.P. Betancourt and C. Sofianou 2019. A Bronze Age fishing village on Chryssi, in K. Chalikias and E. Oddo (eds) Exploring a Terra Incognita: Recent Research on Bronze Age Habitation in the Southern Ierapetra Isthmus: 97–109. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Cadogan, G. 1995. Mallia and Lasithi: a Palace state, in Pepgramena tou Z’ diethnous kritologikou synedriou, vol. Α1: 97–104. Rethymnon: The City of Rethymnon and Historical and Folkloric Society of Rethymnon. Carter, T., D.D. Mihailović, Y. Papadatos and C. Sofianou 2016. The Cretan Mesolithic in context: new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete). Documenta Praehistorica 43: 87–102. Chalikias, K. and E. Oddo (eds) 2019. Exploring a Terra Incognita on Crete: Recent Research on Bronze Age Habitation in the Southern Ierapetra Isthmus. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Eaby, M.S. 2007. Mortuary Variability in Early Iron Age Cretan Burials. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. While social and cultural dynamics in the Southeast are beginning to emerge and become clearer, several questions remain open. Its connection to the settlements of the northern coast, especially the Mirabello and the Siteia Bay and the nature of this relationship is a particularly intriguing topic. That a link existed is certain, as shown by the cultural similarities observed in the material culture between Myrtos-Phournou Koryphi and the Mirabello Bay in the Early Minoan period, or Myrtos-Pyrgos and Malia in the Protopalatial period (Knappett 1999). But what brought these sites together and what pulled them apart? Is the Myrtos-Pyrgos – Malia ‘affair’ an exceptional case or did the Malia connection extend also to other sites in the southeast region? Had the Southeast become a distinct cultural region by that point? Concluding, it is challenging to focus exclusively on the Southeast and ignore the fact that the study area did not exist in a vacuum and might have extended culturally all the way to the southwestern tip of the Asterousia Mountains. One might convincingly argue that the region west of Myrtos-Pyrgos should be included in our area of study as maritime networks west of MyrtosPyrgos would have facilitated trade and transportation of people as easily as they did for settlements east of Myrtos-Pyrgos. Is it possible then that we have a skewed perception of the South and Southeast as there is very limited study of material from the southern Asterousia Mountains? What if excavated material from Arvi or Kaloi Limenes has strong links to pottery from Myrtos? Do we then extend the Southeast to include all of these sites? And, from a methodological point of view, are we to expect a cultural region to always have similar material culture or is that a sign of other socio-political phenomena? How do the concepts of cultural and economic regions, so-to-speak, intersect? While, for the moment, it is hard to tackle these questions, it is our hope that this volume provides a strong beginning. 146 Conclusion. Navigating a World of Mountains, Coasts and Islands ——— 2011. Regionalism in Early Iron Age Cretan burials, in J.M.A. Murphy (ed.) Prehistoric Crete: Regional and Diachronic Studies on Mortuary Systems: 165–202. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Galaty, M.L. 2005. European regional studies: a coming of age? Journal of Archaeological Research 13: 291–336. Gallimore, S.C. 2011. An island economy: Ierapetra and Crete in the Roman empire. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Gilboa, A., Y. Shalev, G. Lehmann, H. Mommsen, B. Erickson, E. Nodarou and D. Ben-Shlomo 2017. Cretan pottery in the Levant in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE and its historical implications. American Journal of Archaeology 121: 559–593. Hawes, H.B., B.E. Williams, R.B. Seager and E.H. Hall 1908. Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Ierapetra, Crete. Philadelphia. Hicks, R. 2002. Ways of inhabiting the world: landscape archaeology. American Anthropologist 104: 315–339. Kanta, A. and C. Davaras (eds) 2011. Ελουθία Χαριστήιον. Το ιερό σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας στον Τσούτσουρο. Herakleion: Δήμος Μίνωα Πεδιάδας. Kantner, J. 2005. Regional analysis in archaeology, in H.D.G. Maschner and C. Chippendale (eds) Handbook of Archaeological Methods, Vol. 1: 1179–1223. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. ——— 2008. The archaeology of regions: from discrete analytical toolkit to ubiquitous spatial perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 16: 37–81. Knappett, C. 1999. Assessing a polity in Protopalatial Crete: the Malia-Lasithi state. American Journal of Archaeology 103: 615–639. Kopaka, K. and C. Matzanas 2009. Palaeolithic industries from the island of Gavdos, near neighbour to Crete in Greece. Antiquity 83: 321. Kowalewski, S.A. 2008. Regional settlement pattern studies. Journal of Archaeological Research 16: 225–285. McGuire, R.H., E.C. Adams, B.A. Nelson and K.A. Spielmann 1994. Drawing the southwest to scale: perspectives on macroregional relations, in G.J. Gumerman (ed.) Themes in Southwest Prehistory: 239–266. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Nichols, D.L. 1996. An Overview of Regional Settlement Pattern Survey in Mesoamerica: 1960–1995, in A.G. Mustache, J.R. Parsons, R.S. Saintly and M.C. Serra Puche (eds) Arqueología mesoamericana: homenaje a William T. Sanders, Vol. 1: 59–96. México, DF: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Nodarou, Ε. 2015. Prepalatial pottery: petrographic analysis, in Y. Papadatos and Ch. Sofianou (eds) Livari Skiadi: A Minoan Cemetery in Lefki, Southeast Crete (Prehistory Monographs 50): 61–76. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Nowicki, K. 2015. Final Neolithic Crete and the southeast Aegean. Supplement 1. Aegean Archaeology 11 (2011– 2012) [2015]: 7–34. ——— 2008. Monastiraki Katalimata. Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site, 1993–2000 (Prehistory Monographs 24). Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. ——— 2018. The late 13th c. BCE crisis in the east Mediterranean. Why the case of Crete matters?, in J. Driessen (ed.) An Archaeology of Forced Migration. Crisis-induced mobility and the Collapse of the 13th c. BCE Eastern Mediterranean: 117–148. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain. Oddo, E. 2019. Pottery styles and social dynamics at Neopalatial Myrtos-Pyrgos: identifying southeast Crete as a ceramic region. American Journal of Archaeology 123: 19–44. Papadatos, Y. and E. Nodarou 2018. Pottery technology(ies) in Prepalatial Crete: the evidence from the archaeological and archaeometric study, in Β. Horejs and E. Alram-Stern (eds) Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections between the Aegean and Anatolia during the 3rd Millennium BC (Oriental and European Archaeology 10): 287–303. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. ——— forthcoming. Geographic isolation and trade networks in Prepalatial Crete: the pottery from the cemetery of Livari, southeast Crete, in J. Hilditch, A. Kotsonas, C. Beestman-Kruijshaar, M. RevelloLami, S. Ruckl and S. Ximeri (eds) Connectivity in the Ancient Mediterranean: Ceramic Perspectives on Island, Mainland, Coastland and Hinterland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Papadatos, Y. and C. Sofianou 2015. Livari Skiadi: A Minoan Cemetery in Southeast Crete. Volume I. Excavation and Finds (Prehistory Monographs 50). Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Παπαδάτος Γ., Χ. Σοφιανού, Β. Ισαακίδου, Χ. Α. Ζηκίδη. 2019. Η Προανακτορική περίοδος στη νοτιοανατολική Κρήτη: Νέα στοιχεία από τη σωστική ανασκαφή της βραχοσκεπής Βορνοσπηλιά Σχινοκαψάλων Ιεράπετρας. Αρχαιολογικο Έργο Κρήτης 5: 33. Parsons, J. 2004. Critical reflections on forty years of ‘systematic regional survey’. Paper read at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, March 31–April 4, 2004 Montreal, Canada. Perna, K. 2009. Cultural identity and social interaction in Crete at the end of the Bronze Age (LM IIIC), in C. Bachhuber and R.G. Roberts (eds) Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at St. John’s College, University of Oxford, 25–26 March 2006 (Themes from the Ancient Near East BANEA Publication Series 1): 37–41. Oxford: Oxbow books. ——— 2011. LM IIIC Burial Culture in Crete: A Socioeconomic Perspective, in J.M.A. Murphy (ed.) Prehistoric Crete: Regional and Diachronic Studies on Mortuary Systems: 119–164. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. 147 Emilia Oddo and Konstantinos Chalikias τάφος Υστερομινωικής ΙΙΙΑ-Β περιόδου στο Κεντρί Ιεράπετρας» Κύκλος Αρχαιολογικών Διαλέξεων με θέμα την Κρήτη, στο Μουσείο Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης. ——— 2020. The Roman theater of Ierapytna. The results of the first excavation campaign. Αρχαιολογικο Έργο Κρήτης 4: 595. Sofianou Ch., P.P. Betancourt, T.M. Brogan and M. Eaby 2019. Προκαταρκτικά αποτελέσματα από τις πρόσφατες ανασκαφές στο ΥΜ Ι Κτήριο Β.2 στη Χρυσή. Αρχαιολογικο Έργο Κρήτης 5: 37–38. Stanish, C. 2003. A brief americanist perspective on settlement archaeology, in J.K. Papadopoulos and R.M. Levanthal (eds) Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives:161–172. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Watrous, L.V., D. Haggis, K. Nowicki, N. VogeikoffBrogan and M. Schultz 2012. An Archaeological Survey of the Gournia Landscape: A Regional History of the Mirabello Bay, Crete, in Antiquity (Prehistory Monographs 37). Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Whitley, J. 1991. Social diversity in Dark Age Greece. Annual of the British School at Athens 86: 341–365. Rice, P.M. 2015. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Second edition (originally printed in 1987). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Relaki, M. 2004. Constructing a region: the contested landscapes of Prepalatial Mesara, on J.C. Barrett and P. Halstead (eds) The Emergence of Civilization Revisited (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6): 170–188. Oxford: Oxbow books. Runnels, C. 2000. Anthropogenic soil erosion in Prehistoric Greece: the contribution of regional survey to the archaeology of environmental disruptions and human response, in R.M. Reycraft and G. Bawen (eds) Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response (Mawell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 7): 11–20. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Sakellarakis, J.A. 1988. The Idaean Cave. Minoan and Greek worship. Kernos I: 207–214. Shaw, J.W. and M.C. Shaw 2000. Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete Volume IV: The Greek Sanctuary. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sofianou, C. 2019. Πρόγραμμα Δεκεμβρίου 2019, Δευτέρα 2 Δεκεμβρίου 2019, Ώρα έναρξης 19:00 Χρύσα Σοφιανού «Ένας ασύλητος θαλαμοειδής 148