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