An Island in Crisis?

Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete

Author(s): Scott Gallimore
Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Vol. 123, No. 4 (October 2019), pp. 589-617
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.123.4.0589

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.123.4.0589?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
article
An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering
the Formation of Roman Crete
Scott Gallimore

This paper critically assesses the transformation of material culture assemblages on Crete
between its conquest by Rome in 69–67 B.C.E. and the mid first century C.E. by first
applying the frameworks of eventful archaeology and globalization. These paradigms
demonstrate that the conquest, despite being an important historical event, was not
the primary impetus behind transformation of material culture assemblages but instead
served as a preliminary step for gradual transition that varied in pace across Crete. Previ-
ous analyses have highlighted the mid first century C.E. as the point when transformation
becomes evident even at sites resistant to change up to that point. An explanation of the
specific factors that led to this situation, however, is lacking. Building on an argument
tied to globalization that investment is a key variable behind gradual transformation, this
paper examines economic developments on Crete before and after Rome’s conquest—in-
cluding infrastructure expansion, increase in agricultural output, and the growth of social
and economic networks—that permitted increased connectivity with other regions of the
Roman empire. These developments, which led to intensification of economic contacts
by the mid first century C.E., particularly with Italy, provided a conduit for transforma-
tion to reach all sectors of the island.1

introduction
The island of Crete was conquered by Rome between 69 and 67 B.C.E. fol-
lowing a three-year military campaign led by Q. Caecilius Metellus. In spite of
the island’s loss of independence after this conquest, there is debate whether
67 B.C.E. should be the starting point for Roman Crete. Sweetman, for in-
stance, argues against the Hellenistic period coming to an abrupt end at this
time, noting that evidence for significant change in some parts of the island
took more than a century to manifest.2 Some scholars have instead pointed
to 27 B.C.E., a date that coincides with the earliest confirmed evidence for the
union of Crete and Cyrenaica as a joint Roman province and with the foun-
dation of a Roman colony at the site of Knossos.3 Sanders, to the contrary,

1
This paper originated as a keynote address delivered at the Open Meeting of the Cana-
dian Institute in Greece in May 2018. I thank David Rupp and Jonathan Tomlinson for the
invitation. Jane Francis read an earlier draft and provided numerous helpful suggestions. I
also want to thank Editor-in-Chief Jane Carter for her comments and guidance, in addition
to three anonymous reviewers for the AJA. Their recommendations helped me address
several shortcomings and approach the topic from some different perspectives. Figures are
my own unless otherwise noted. All translations are my own.
American Journal of Archaeology
2
Sweetman 2007, 67.
Volume 123, Number 4
3
Strabo (17.3.25), writing about events in 27 B.C.E., provides the earliest reference to
Crete and Cyrenaica as a joint province. For the interpretation that the Roman colony at
October 2019
Knossos was founded in 27 B.C.E., and not in 36 B.C.E. as had been previously argued, see
Pages 589–617
Paton 1994, 143. An example of 27 B.C.E. as the significant date for Roman Crete appears
DOI: 10.3764/aja.123.4.0589 in Coldstream et al. 2001 (137): “The generally accepted date for the foundation of the
Roman colony at Knossos, soon after 27 BC, provides us with a convenient starting point
www.ajaonline.org for what we will define as the ‘Roman period’ for the sake of this handbook.”

589

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
590 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
deemed that the conquest of Crete by Rome denoted This is a bold statement that supports the importance
a clear starting point for his seminal book on Roman of studying Rome’s early interactions with the island.
Crete “that needs no historical justification.”4 This Rome’s initial contact with Crete in the early second
issue is not unique to the island. Attempts to define century B.C.E. was peaceful, bringing to bear the ques-
a clear break between Hellenistic and Early Roman tion of why attitudes changed over time. In 194 B.C.E.,
Greece in general have proven difficult.5 Interactions during treaty negotiations with Nabis of Sparta, Rome
with Rome, including military conflicts and treaty arbi- ordered Nabis to abandon his relations with Crete.
tration, define much of the Hellenistic period through- Livy’s (34.35.9) description of this is intriguing: “in
out the Greek world. Such long-term contact hinders Creta insula ne quam urbem haberet, quas habuisset
attempts to determine a precise date for when Helle- redderet Romanis” (on the island of Crete he should
nistic is no longer an applicable chronological label for not exercise influence over any city, and those over
archaeological finds. which he had exercised influence, he should hand over
This paper aims to problematize the conquest of to the Romans). While the verb haberet implies some
Crete and to assess its role in the transformation, or degree of control over certain Cretan poleis by Nabis,
lack thereof, of archaeological assemblages on the is- Karafotias argues that a more suitable translation is “to
land (fig. 1). Following an overview of Rome’s contact exercise influence,” suggesting that Nabis had a series
with Crete, including the conquest of the island and of alliances.8 Based on Polybius’ (13.6–8) account of
the possibility that it led to a period of crisis, the dis- Crete, Nabis’ primary contacts may have been pirates
cussion turns to an assessment of transformation on and mercenaries, although we must view Polybius’
Crete through the perspectives of eventful archaeol- negative assessments of the island with caution.9
ogy and globalization.6 These concepts enable a robust The extent to which Rome did adopt the alliances
appraisal of available evidence that will shed light on established by Nabis is unknown since, for most of
the role that Rome’s invasion played in transforming the second century B.C.E., its relationship with Crete
traditions of material culture. Rather than promoting manifested as an arbitrator during numerous treaty
sudden change, the invasion served as a preliminary negotiations between antagonistic poleis. Examples
step along a much more complex path. Building on an include a praetor named Q. Fabius Labeo who helped
argument tied to globalization that investment is a key negotiate a treaty between Kydonia and an alliance of
variable behind gradual change, this article considers Gortyn and Knossos in 189 B.C.E., resolution of a dis-
additional potential stimuli for transformation by fo- pute between Gortyn and Knossos when the former
cusing on the development of the island’s economic annexed some Knossian lands, a legate named Q. Mi-
infrastructure before and after the conquest. This dem- nucius who addressed problems between unspecified
onstrates that the expansion of economic networks poleis in 174 B.C.E., and a complicated property dis-
and appropriate infrastructure for supporting large- pute between Hierapytna and Itanos in eastern Crete
scale trade during the century following Metellus’ that involved several rounds of arbitration by members
invasion led to an escalation in material evidence for of the Roman Senate and the city of Magnesia-on-
transformation that brings about a different picture of the-Meander in Turkey between 141 and 112 B.C.E.10
Crete from the mid first century C.E. onward. Gruen has discussed the institution of interstate arbi-
tration, noting that it was predominantly Greek and
the roman conquest of crete
As Chaniotis observes, “the coming of Rome was
the most significant turning point in the history of 8
Karafotias 1998, 106–8. According to Karafotias, Cretan
Crete since the destruction of the Minoan palaces.”7 poleis that forged alliances with Nabis may have included Ap-
tera, Kera, and Polyrrhenia, and possibly Knossos, Kydonia, and
Rhaukos.
4
Sanders 1982, 1. 9
For Polybius’ negative opinion of Crete, see Harrison 1994.
5
Alcock (1993, 9), e.g., has argued that the formalization of 10
For the negotiations conducted by Q. Fabius Labeo, see
Achaia as a province in 27 B.C.E. should not be considered the Livy 37.60.2–6. For the dispute between Gortyn and Knossos,
starting point for a discussion of Roman Greece. see Polyb. 22.15. For Q. Minucius, see Livy 41.25.7. For the con-
6
For previous discussions of globalization and Roman Crete, flict between Hierapytna and Itanos (ICr 3 4 9–10), see Guar-
see Sweetman 2007, 2011, 2013. ducci 1942, 91–111; Sherk 1969, 78–85; Ager 1996, 431–46;
7
Chaniotis 2008a, 83. Chaniotis 1996, 307–10, 333–37.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 591

fig. 1. Map of Crete with main sites discussed in the text.

that Rome’s initial dealings in this type of mediation battle of this war, the Battle of Pydna in 168 B.C.E.,
were with Greek states in southern Italy.11 Rome in fact resulted in Rome adopting a different stance toward
was uncomfortable with assuming the role of arbitra- the Greek world.15 Crawford argues that this included
tor in the eastern Mediterranean in the early second deliberate attempts at economic exploitation of the
century B.C.E. because of failed attempts at nego- eastern Mediterranean, a point discussed in more de-
tiations with Philip V and Antiochus III.12 As Roman tail below.16 Crete did not fight against Rome in this
power in Greece expanded, however, the senate began battle, however, and this may have isolated the island
to welcome requests for arbitration, although Gruen from repercussions in the succeeding decades. The
questions whether this was done congenially or in an Roman Senate continued to arbitrate conflicts on the
attempt to solidify control over this region. island, including the property dispute between Hiera-
There is limited evidence to suggest that Rome’s pytna and Itanos mentioned above, but other forms
relationship with Crete in the second century B.C.E. of contact remained limited. Crete thus may serve as
extended beyond its role in interstate arbitration. One a paradigm for Gruen’s view of Roman arbitration in
exception is the Third Macedonian War. In 172 B.C.E., Greece; as he states: “Roman envoys made repeated
two Roman officials, Tiberius Claudius Nero and Mar- trips abroad, giving the appearance of interest and pay-
cus Decimus, came to the island to ascertain Crete’s ing lip service to Hellenic complaints. Seldom could
feelings toward Perseus, king of Macedonia. Rome they boast of tangible accomplishments.”17 Little ap-
was soon at war with Macedonia, and this conflict pears to have changed by the early first century B.C.E.,
provides important, though ambiguous, information although we do hear of Lucullus, an attendant of Sulla,
about Rome’s relationship with Crete since mercenar- visiting the island in 87/6 B.C.E. in an attempt to win
ies from the island are recorded fighting both with and favor (Plut., Vit. Luc. 2.3).
against Roman forces.13 By the end of the war, all Cre- Within a decade of Lucullus’ visit, relations between
tan forces had sided with Rome, and the site of Gortyn, Rome and Crete turned hostile. In 72/1 B.C.E., Mar-
located in the Mesara plain in the south-central part cus Antonius, father of Mark Antony, was tasked with
of the island, served as the location to which Mace- subjugating the island.18 Antonius had been granted
donian hostages were sent.14 For Gruen, the decisive imperium infinitum to deal with threats of piracy,
and Crete was his primary target. Florus (1.42.2–3)
11
Gruen 1984, 99–101.
12
Gruen 1984, 101–5.
13
For Cretan mercenaries from unspecified poleis fighting seus. For Gortyn as the destination for Macedonian hostages,
with Rome against Perseus, see Livy 42.35.6–8. For Cretan see Livy 44.25.8.
mercenaries from Phalasarna and Knossos fighting with Per- 15
Gruen 1984, 16–7.
seus, see Livy 42.51.7. 16
Crawford 1977.
14
According to Livy (43.7.1–4), in 170 B.C.E. a Cretan em- 17
Gruen 1984, 130.
bassy at Rome agreed to recall all mercenaries fighting with Per- 18
Diod. Sic. 40.1.1; Flor. 1.42.2–3; Livy, Epit. 97.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
592 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
records that a Cretan fleet defeated Antonius’ force structures in and around Phalasarna’s harbor from
before it even reached shore. Metellus’ subsequent in- 1986 to 1988, speculate that the city derived much of
vasion in 69 B.C.E. began with an assault on Kydonia its revenue from piracy during the Hellenistic period
in western Crete.19 In 68 B.C.E., he besieged Knossos. (fig. 2).21 They even suggest that Phalasarna may rep-
At this point, Crete sent legates to Gnaeus Pompey resent “the only Greek pirate port that has ever been
to request favorable terms for surrender that they did thoroughly investigated” and that Metellus physi-
not expect from Metellus. Pompey dispatched a legate cally closed the harbor and destroyed the town with
named Octavius to negotiate these terms. After seiz- the aim of removing a pirate base from the island’s
ing Eleutherna that same year, Metellus then besieged shores.22 Support for this interpretation consists of a
Lappa, where Octavius and his forces were stationed. lack of finds datable after the first half of the first cen-
The city was captured, Octavius’ auxiliary troops were tury B.C.E., including coins or pottery, and a series of
slaughtered, and he was forced to flee to the eastern large ashlar blocks that may have been used to block
part of the island with the remaining Cretan forces. the entrance to the main channel of the harbor.23 Frost
The final assault in 67 B.C.E. was against Hierapytna and Hadjidaki argue that the blocks were placed delib-
in southeastern Crete, although many of the defend- erately, rather than falling because of an earthquake,
ers there, including the commanders, apparently aban- and could be associated with Metellus’ invasion. The
doned the city before Metellus’ army arrived. The significance of this evidence will be discussed in more
Cretan ships carrying those fleeing were destroyed in detail below.
a storm shortly after they left the harbor. Piracy may not have been the only motivating fac-
Antonius’ mandate indicates that Crete’s associa- tor. According to Florus (1.42.1), Crete’s support for
tion with piracy was an important motivation behind Mithridates VI two decades earlier was a significant
Rome’s attack on the island. This is consistent with influence behind Rome’s desire to conquer the island.
historical descriptions of Crete. Plutarch (Vit. Pomp. For evidence, Metenidis points to a coin type issued by
29.1) describes Crete as one of the two main sources Metellus following his victory.24 These tetradrachms,
for piracy in the eastern Mediterranean, along with of which five examples are known, were struck at Gor-
Cilicia. Polybius (4.8.11) also writes that the island tyn sometime between 66 and 63 B.C.E.25 A portrait
was home to large contingents of pirates. According to bust of Roma flanked by elephants adorns the obverse
Dio Cassius (36.23.2), for most of the Hellenistic pe- in reference to a military victory in North Africa by one
riod Rome’s reaction to piracy in the eastern Mediter- of Metellus’ ancestors. The reverse displays an image
ranean was inconsistent and comprised a few random of Artemis Ephesia. Metellus’ choice of Artemis Ephe-
attempts at intervention.20 Only after the situation be- sia is conspicuous because there is no evidence for her
came unmanageable by the first half of the first century cult on Crete. Metenidis argues that this imagery re-
B.C.E. did the Senate decide to intercede with strength. lates to the massacre of Roman citizens at Ephesus in
Piracy was also a factor behind Metellus’ invasion. Dio- 88 B.C.E., an event that precipitated Rome’s war with
dorus Siculus (40.1) reports that during discussions Mithridates and its subsequent retaliation against his
between the Roman Senate and envoys from Crete in allies, including Sulla’s siege of Athens in 87/6 B.C.E.
the interval between the attacks, senators continued to These coins thus commemorated the conquest of
emphasize the island’s association with piracy. Crete as an act of vengeance related to that earlier
There may be archaeological evidence connected conflict.
to Rome’s antipirate stance on Crete. When Roman According to de Souza, we should also consider
forces invaded in 69 B.C.E., another site they may the opportunity to exploit Crete economically as an
have targeted was Phalasarna, located on the far west- important motive. Viewing the invasions of Antonius
ern coast. Frost and Hadjidaki, who excavated several and Metellus as “a deliberate act of imperialism,” he

19
Sources that discuss this invasion include Appian, Sicilia
6.1–2; Dio Cass. 36.1, 36.18; Diod. Sic. 40.1; Livy, Epit. 99– 21
Frost and Hadjidaki 1990, 513.
100; Memnon 48 = FGrHist 434; Phlegon of Tralles 12.12 = 22
Frost and Hadjidaki 1990, 527.
FGrHist 257; Plut., Vit. Pomp. 29.4; Vell. Pat. 2.34, 2.38. See also 23
Hadjidaki 1988, 472, 475; Frost and Hadjidaki 1990, 525.
Sanders 1982, 3–4. 24
Metenidis 1998.
20
See also de Souza 1999, 148. 25
Burnett et al. 1992, 216–17, nos. 901–3.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 593
lowing Antonius’ attack, Crete sent envoys to Rome
to request peace. These pleas were, at first, received
positively, but the tribune Lentulus Spinther issued
his veto and imposed several harsh terms including a
per annum tribute of 4,000 talents (Diod. Sic. 40.1.3).
It is unlikely, however, that Crete could afford such an
exorbitant amount, and de Souza may be adhering too
closely to an idea critiqued by Gruen that “finds war
and greed tantamount to imperialism.”29 Even the most
optimistic appraisal of the island’s economy in the Late
Hellenistic period could not identify such a substantial
degree of surplus available for annual tribute.30 The
amount set by Lentulus Spinther was unmanageable
and left the envoys no choice but to reject the terms.

Crete in Crisis?
Concerning the two invasions of Crete, the interval
between these attacks warrants more attention for the
insight it can provide about transformation in the ar-
chaeological record. As discussed above, the island was
fig. 2. Plan of the harbor area of Phalasarna, area where the active during this period, sending envoys to negotiate
ashlars were excavated marked with a square (after Frost and
Hadjidaki 1990, 514, fig. 1; courtesy Trustees of the American
with the senate at Rome. One question is whether the
School of Classical Studies at Athens). initial attack by Antonius and the consequent decision
to send envoys—which suggests a fear that a second
invasion could follow—led to a period of crisis on the
believes that the Roman senate saw in Crete a means island. Driessen, who has considered how stress related
to boost the republic’s weakened economy.26 As men- to the Middle Bronze Age volcanic eruption of Thera
tioned above, Crawford has argued that Rome’s policy impacted Minoan civilization, argues that recognition
toward the eastern Mediterranean changed after the that a disaster is forthcoming can alter a population’s
Battle of Pydna and focused more on conscious eco- behavior, affecting material culture identified within
nomic exploitation.27 As examples, he cites the impo- destruction deposits.31 Driessen developed this idea
sition of a per annum monetary tribute on Macedonia from his earlier concept of “an ‘archaeology of crisis’
and Illyria in 167 B.C.E.—a protocol previously em- which can identify adaptations or changes in differ-
ployed only for western regions like Spain—and the ent domains of material culture caused by stress.”32
reopening of Macedonian gold and silver mines in 158 Evidence in support of these conditions could include
B.C.E., which had been closed since 167 B.C.E. Addi- changes to settlement patterns, population numbers,
tional examples are provided by de Souza, including ritual activity, and subsistence strategies.33 For a re-
Tiberius Gracchus confiscating revenues from Asia in gion anticipating an invasion, rapid construction of
133 B.C.E., Rome annexing Cyrene in 74 B.C.E., Pom- fortifications might also be evident. Driessen does
pey’s conquests in the east and subsequent demands emphasize, though, that the presence of data poten-
for tribute in the 60s B.C.E., and Rome appropriat- tially associated with an “archaeology of crisis” is not
ing Cyprus’ revenue and royal treasury in 58 B.C.E.28
Support for a Roman policy of economic exploitation
of Crete derives from events that occurred between 29
Gruen 1984, 288.
the two invasions, by Antonius and Metellus. Fol- 30
For contrasting views of the extent to which Crete engaged
in export of surplus goods during the Hellenistic period, see
Chaniotis 1999, 2005; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004; Hadjisavvas
and Chaniotis 2012.
26
de Souza 1998, 112. 31
Driessen 2013, 12.
27
Crawford 1977, 42–5. 32
Driessen 2002, 256.
28
de Souza 1998, 113 n. 2. 33
Driessen 2002, 256.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
594 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
enough by itself to establish a crisis without care- second attack. Diodorus’ reference to a council is sug-
ful scrutiny of the stimuli behind these changes and gestive of a koinon of Hellenistic city-states known to
whether they are widespread and cumulative across a have existed on the island.39 Unlike other Greek fed-
culture. The problem for the invasions of Crete is that eral leagues, however, the Cretan koinon was unstable,
archaeology tends to lack the necessary resolution to convening only when certain poleis like Gortyn and
associate material culture—and evidence suggestive Knossos were not hostile to each other. As none of
of transformation—within such a narrow interval of the sources specify which centers participated in the
time, in this case, 72–69 B.C.E. council, our ability to assess whether there was equal
An additional challenge for identifying a period of concern across the island is limited.
crisis on Crete is the excavation tradition of Late Hel- When Metellus’ attack came, some Cretan city-
lenistic and Early Roman remains on the island. Very states sided with the Roman forces or remained
few sites have seen a concerted focus on these periods neutral. For certain sites, there may have been little
that has resulted in detailed publications. Gortyn and motivation to support Lasthenes and his allies. At Pol-
Knossos are the two exceptions.34 Eleutherna in central yrrhenia in northwestern Crete, for example, a statue
Crete has been subject to excavations for several de- base with a dedication to Metellus has been recov-
cades, but published material focuses on Late Roman ered.40 Polyrrhenia had a long-standing enmity against
levels.35 Hierapytna in southeastern Crete has also seen Kydonia and may have seen the invasion as an oppor-
recent attention, including publication of Late Helle- tunity to gain an advantage over its rival. Sanders ar-
nistic through Late Roman pottery, although only a gues that Metellus used the harbor of Kisamos, which
small part of the city has been studied.36 Archaeologi- was controlled by Polyrrhenia, as his base.41 Metellus’
cal evidence for Metellus’ invasion, despite the brutal- invasion focused primarily on subduing city-states in
ity described in ancient sources, is rare.37 Along with the northern half of the island, including Kydonia,
the indications of destruction at Phalasarna discussed Lappa, Eleutherna, and Knossos. An exception is the
above, a Shrine of Glaukos at Knossos may have been southern coastal site of Hierapytna, which served as
destroyed at that time, and there may be contemporary the final stronghold for the island’s defenders. None
destruction levels at Hierapytna and Mochlos in east- of these sites, however, have indicators that point to
ern Crete.38 Metellus attacked sites across Crete, yet we even a brief period of crisis between the two invasions.
have few archaeological indicators of those incidents. Focus on the northern half of Crete means that
Discussions of the two Roman invasions can also Gortyn, one of the island’s largest city-states, was all
gloss over the uneven response of city-states on Crete but ignored by Metellus’ forces. This suggests that
to Rome’s hostility. Antonius’ initial attack was not Gortyn either sided with Rome in this conflict or re-
countered by the entire island. The battle took place mained neutral. Several scholars, including Sanders
off the coast of Kydonia in northwestern Crete, with and Bowsky, have argued that Gortyn exhibited a pro-
a man named Lasthenes, who had connections to Ky- Roman attitude in the decades prior to Rome’s inva-
donia and Knossos, leading the city’s forces (Appian, sions.42 This perspective may benefit from hindsight
Sicilia 8). Diodorus (40.1) records that, in the after- since Gortyn was named the capital of the joint Roman
math, a council was convened, with 30 men selected province of Crete and Cyrenaica and was the location
to travel to Rome to appeal to the Senate to avoid a where Roman merchant families settled after 67 B.C.E.
before spreading out to other parts of the island.43 This
includes individuals whose family names are attested
at Delos and other parts of the eastern Mediterranean,
34
For Gortyn, see Di Vita 1988, 2000–2001, 2004; Di Vita
and Martin 1997; Allegro and Ricciardi 1999; Di Vita and Rizzo some of whom may have been frequenting Gortyn
2011. For Knossos, see Homann-Wedeking 1950; Hayes 1971, prior to 69 B.C.E. Epigraphic evidence from the first
1983; Wardle 1972; Coldstream 1973, 1999; Callaghan 1978,
1981; Callaghan et al. 1981; Carington Smith 1982; Warren
1987–1988; Sackett 1992a; Forster 2009. 39
Mijnsbrugge 1931, 73; Ager 1994, 2.
35
Vogt 2000; Yangaki 2005. 40
ICr 2 13 14.
36
Gallimore 2015. 41
Sanders 1982, 3.
37
See, e.g., Flor. 42.3.7. 42
Sanders 1982, 5; Bowsky 1999, 342.
38
Callaghan 1978, 28; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2014, 6, 45; Galli- 43
For the attestation of Roman names at Gortyn earlier than
more 2015, 276. they appear at other sites on Crete, see Bowsky 2011, 432.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 595
century B.C.E. at Gortyn identifies members of the fol- nean, and many of the completed projects have pub-
lowing families: Antonia, Caecilia, Doia, Grania, Iunia, lished results in preliminary or final form (fig. 3).49 The
Marcia, Octavia, Terentia, and Vibia.44 One argument varied chronologies used by these projects demon-
is that, following Mithridates’ attack against Delos in strate a confusing lack of consistency in deciding when
88 B.C.E., traders sought different locations at which to Hellenistic ends and Roman begins (table 1). While
establish networks, with Gortyn the one site on Crete some place the transition between Hellenistic and
receiving attention.45 Early Roman at the end of the first century B.C.E. (i.e.,
Ayiofarango Valley, Chryssi Island, Galatas, Lasithi,
critiquing the significance of metellus’ and Vrokastro), others base their division on Metellus’
invasion invasion (i.e., Akrotiri Peninsula, Gournia, Kavousi,
Metellus’ invasion stands as an important histori- Knossos, and Western Mesara).50 This discrepancy
cal episode for Crete, but we still lack a critical under- impacts how we interpret changes to settlement pat-
standing of its overall significance for short-term and terns and land use across the island along with the pace
long-term transformation of material culture tradi- of those transitions. When the Western Mesara survey
tions. Disasters, whether natural in origin or manufac- documents six newly established Early Roman sites
tured in the form of warfare, tend to be highly visible in that show greater dispersal than settlements in earlier
the archaeological record. Lucas suggests this is due to periods, did this actually occur directly following the
the irreversibility of destruction deposits, which there- invasion based on the chronology the project used or
fore preserve more material for scholars to interpret.46 was it a phenomenon that took longer to develop? A
This visibility can be a distraction that, as Grattan similar issue is apparent on mainland Greece where
observes, may push scholars to interpret the impacts scholars, including Alcock and Stewart, point to vary-
of those events without critical scrutiny and without ing periodization schemes for survey projects and the
elaborating on specific data points that demonstrate a increasing difficulty of synthesizing data suggestive of
connection between the event and any indications of broader patterns of transformation.51
transformation.47 The conquest of Crete, for the most Another situation influenced by Metellus’ invasion
part, does not follow this paradigm. Archaeological is the interpretation of the small number of sites with
evidence for both invasions is lacking, and there is no destruction deposits possibly associated with that
indication of crisis in the years between the two at- event. Phalasarna is important to consider here. As
tacks. Sweetman has demonstrated that for much of discussed above, excavators at that site have connected
the island it took decades before pottery types, artis- a lack of finds datable after the mid first century B.C.E.
tic traditions, and architectural styles shifted toward and the presence of the large stones blocking the main
a new normal.48 Rather than a disaster distracting us channel of the harbor to an attack by Roman forces in
from a critical assessment of Crete’s transition from 69 B.C.E. This, in turn, is used to support the asser-
Hellenistic to Roman, Metellus’ invasion is puzzling tion that Phalasarna housed a contingent of pirates.
for its absence of archaeological indicators. The evidence for all this is underwhelming and links
Yet, the conquest does hold sway over archaeologi- back to the unease voiced by Grattan about the way
cal fieldwork and interpretation in some contexts. One that disasters can distract from critical scrutiny of
example is survey archaeology and its treatment of
Hellenistic versus Early Roman. Crete is among the
most thoroughly surveyed regions in the Mediterra-
49
For an overview of survey archaeology on Crete, see Gkia-
sta 2008.
50
Akrotiri Peninsula: Raab 2001, 84–5. Ayiofarango Valley:
Blackman and Branigan 1977, 72–7. Chryssi Island: Chalikias
44
Bowsky 2011, 433–36, table 37.1; 437, table 37.2. The fol- 2013, 15. Galatas: Watrous et al. 2017, 108. Gournia: Watrous
lowing inscriptions are relevant here: ICr 1 25 3 (Iunia); ICr 4 et al. 2012, xxv. Kavousi: Haggis 2005, xxxi. Knossos: Hood and
216 (Grania); ICr 4 221A (Antonia); ICr 4 221B (Marcia); ICr Smyth 1981, 22. Lasithi: Watrous 1982, 70. Vrokastro: Hayden
4 221C (Octavia); ICr 4 290 (Doia); ICr 4 362 (Terentia); ICr 4 2004, 200–5. Western Mesara: Watrous et al. 2004, 351. Some
400 (Caecilia); ICr 4 456 (Vibia). additional survey projects, including the Sphakia Survey and
45
Bowsky 1999, 311; 2011, 440. the Ziros survey employ a broad Graeco-Roman periodization
46
Lucas 2008, 63. that encompasses more than 1,000 years of history. For those
47
Grattan 2010, 180–81. projects, see Nixon et al. 1988, 170; Branigan 1998, 75.
48
Sweetman 2007, 2011, 2013. 51
Alcock 1993, 49; Stewart 2013–2014, 120.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
596 Scott Gallimore [aja 123

fig. 3. Map of areas (shaded gray) covered by survey projects on Crete associated with table 1.

evidence. As a narrative, the story of Late Hellenistic resent the underlying scaffolding within social systems
Phalasarna is intriguing, but more evidence is needed that govern practices within them.55 Sewell argues that
to demonstrate a direct association with Rome’s as- change to these structures can occur as a result of five
sault on Crete. A similar concern can be raised for overlapping factors: “the multiplicity of structures, the
the destruction deposits at the Shrine of Glaukos at transposability of schemas, the unpredictability of re-
Knossos, the Yiomelaki Plot at Hierapytna, and the source accumulation, the polysemy of resources, and
Beam-Press Complex at Mochlos that have been con- the intersection of structures.”56 Schemas are transfer-
nected to Metellus’ invasion.52 While the publications able sets of rules that help guide the performance of
in all three cases maintain a degree of skepticism in social life, while resources can be human or nonhu-
making that association, they are additional examples man and tend to have an unequal distribution across
of interpretation gravitating toward a known histori- a society. Concerning the transformation of structures,
cal event. An implication is that other projects may Sewell distinguishes between events and happenings
see those deposits as fixed chronological points that where only the former leads to disarticulation followed
influence their own assessment of finds. The results by some form of novel rearticulation.57 A happening
could affect subsequent interpretations of the pace of may be of historical significance for a society but lacks
change for material culture traditions. Combined with the potential to transform structures. Thus, an event
the issue of periodization schemes used by survey proj- is a set of compounding circumstances resulting in
ects on Crete, this does suggest that the significance of disruptions to resources and schemas that lead to sus-
the conquest and its transformative potential needs to tained transformation of structures.58 The applicability
be critiqued. of this model for archaeology is that Sewell recognized
the importance of information stored in objects as
Eventful Archaeology material representations of structures, schemas, and
One framework that may be beneficial for evaluating resources within a society.59 His discussion is imbued
the impact of the conquest of Crete is eventful archae- with materiality and emphasizes the importance of
ology.53 This developed from an approach promoted space since events will affect social structures tied to
by Sewell known as “eventful sociology” that sought
to incorporate social theory with historical inquiry by
focusing on the potential of events to transform struc-
tures within a society.54 Structures in this context rep- 55
Sewell 2005, 129. This is comparable to North’s (1990, 4)
definition of an institution as a “constraint that human beings
devise to shape human interaction.”
56
Sewell 2005, 140; discussion 139–43.
52
Supra n. 38. 57
Sewell 2005, 218.
53
Beck et al. 2007; Bolender 2010. 58
Sewell 2005, 228. See also Bolender 2010, 5.
54
Sewell 2005. 59
Sewell 2005, 187–88.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 597
table 1. Classical through Late Roman periodization used by 12 survey projects on Crete.
Survey Project Periodization
Hellenistic Roman
Classical
Early Late Early Middle Late
Akrotiri Peninsula early 5th–late late 4th–3rd c. 2nd–mid 1st c. mid 1st c. – 4th–9th c. C.E.
4th c. B.C.E. B.C.E. B.C.E. B.C.E.–4th c.
C.E.
Ayiofarango Valley no finds mid 4th–late 1st c. B.C.E. mid 1st c. B.C.E.–4th c. C.E.
Chryssi Island no finds late 4th–late 1st c. B.C.E. late 1st c. B.C.E.–5th c. C.E.
Galatas 480–323 323 B.C.E.–1 C.E. 1–300 C.E. – 300–700 C.E.
B.C.E.
Gournia 500–323 323–66 B.C.E. 66 B.C.E.–400 – 400–700 C.E.
B.C.E. C.E.
Kavousi 480–323 ca. 323–69 B.C.E. 69 B.C.E.–4th – 4th–7th c. C.E.
B.C.E. c. C.E.
Knossos 500–67 B.C.E. 67 B.C.E.–400 – 400–827 C.E.
C.E.
Lasithi 480–1 B.C.E. 1–300 C.E. – 300–700 C.E.
Sphakia 1000 B.C.E.–962 C.E. (includes Greek, Roman, First Byzantine, Arab periods)
Vrokastro 5th–4th c. 330–1st c. B.C.E. 1–150 C.E. 150–425 C.E. 425–800 C.E.
B.C.E.
Western Mesara 500–323 323–150 150–66 66 B.C.E.–400 – 400–828 C.E.
B.C.E. B.C.E. B.C.E. C.E.
Ziros no finds 3rd c. B.C.E.–9th c. C.E.
No finds = no confirmed finds; no chronology given.
Note: See supra n. 50 for the publications of these surveys.

particular locations.60 This, in fact, prompted the ini- seek evidence for transformation that could be tied to a
tial adoption of Sewell’s model into archaeology for its known historical event without demonstrating the di-
potential to investigate built landscapes and the trans- rect relationship.64 Agency is also an issue of concern.
formation of spaces.61 An eventful approach may suggest a degree of passiv-
Eventful archaeology is not without its limitations. ity on behalf of a population, with agency only com-
One concern addresses the extent to which the para- ing to the foreground in response to an event.65 This
digm is actually able to demonstrate a connection be- can, in addition, create a sense that particular societies
tween an event and transformation.62 Archaeology is vary only between stasis and disruption, with limited
rife with examples where this process is alleged but not consideration of longer-term processes that impact
documented specifically. Grattan notes that this is a resources, schemas, and structures.66 To address these
common problem for interpretations related to the im- limitations, we must first avoid viewing events a pri-
pact of volcanic eruptions on human societies.63 Dries- ori as the cause of any subsequent transformation
sen emphasizes a similar point, that archaeologists may evident in the archaeological record. Events must

60
Sewell 2005, 259–60.
61
Beck et al. 2007. 64
Driessen 2013, 9.
62
Beck et al. 2007, 847. 65
Beck et al. 2007, 847, 851.
63
Grattan 2006. 66
Beck et al. 2007, 848.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
598 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
also not be analyzed in isolation but instead must be including Harrison, are also reticent to consider Crete
contextualized as part of the dynamic historical trajec- and Cyrenaica as a joint province before 27 B.C.E.72
tories that define different societies. Eventful archaeol- According to Harrison, the dates of the above coin is-
ogy can be helpful as a framework if it results in specific sues are debatable, and no magistrate is confirmed to
documentation of indicators for change to structures, have controlled both regions simultaneously before
or lack thereof, in addition to a careful assessment of 27 B.C.E. Chevrollier, on the other hand, believes the
the connection of those indicators to a particular event. numismatic data does support the creation of this
With respect to the aftermath of Metellus’ invasion province as early as 67 B.C.E.73
of Crete, Livy (Epit. 100) records: “Q. Metellus per- No ancient source records a specific rationale for
domitis Cretensibus liberae in id tempus insulae leges why Crete and Cyrenaica were joined. One modern
dedit” (Upon subduing the Cretans, Quintus Metellus perspective is that the decision was arbitrary.74 Chev-
established regulations for an island that had been free rollier disagrees and instead points to three potential
up to that time). Livy provides no details about spe- reasons: a joint province would increase the economic
cific regulations, and from the perspective of political viability of both regions, would help to limit piracy in
structures, change after 67 B.C.E. is difficult to docu- the Libyan Sea, and would limit the geographic isola-
ment. Sanders observes that the aftermath of the at- tion of both areas.75 These motivations hint at a con-
tack saw “the normal Roman method of utilizing the nection between Rome’s conquest of Crete and the
pre-existing city-state system and only adding a gov- issues of piracy and the potential of economic exploi-
ernor to superintend their behavior.”67 Perhaps Livy is tation, but both of these are also long-term situations
referring to the union of Crete and Cyrenaica as a joint that already existed when Metellus invaded and likely
province, although there is no consensus as to whether continued to be of concern in the decades following.
that occurred directly after Metellus’ victory or four Material culture traditions were slow to transform
decades later in 27 B.C.E.68 This debate centers around after the conquest. Sweetman has argued that a dis-
several coin issues attested in Cyrenaica and perhaps tinction between sites in the northern part of Crete
datable to the years after 67 B.C.E. The first depicts and the southern half can be seen with respect to how
a helmeted female bust and the inscription ΡΩΜΙ on quickly new constructions appear in addition to the in-
the obverse and a bee on the reverse, while the sec- troduction of novel artistic traditions.76 Southern sites,
ond has the same iconography but with the inscrip- like Gortyn, Hierapytna, Myrtos, Makry Gialos, and
tion ΚΡHΤ on the obverse and ΚΥΡΑ on the reverse.69 Kouphonisi, have clearer indications of these changes
A third coin issue, datable to 44/3 B.C.E., features a from the mid first century B.C.E. onward. At Gortyn,
bust of Libya on the obverse and a bust of Creta Arte- an Italian-style black-and-white mosaic constructed
mis on the reverse, with an inscription on both sides in Room XI of the Odeion dates to the first half of the
initially read as P. LICIN. PRO Q., suggesting that a first century B.C.E., perhaps to the period right after
certain Publius Licinius was a proquaestor for both the conquest of the island (fig. 4).77 The chronology
Crete and Cyrenaica.70 A subsequent study by Grant, of finds at these southern sites, though, must be con-
however, showed that the inscription on the reverse sidered carefully. For many, the attested evidence dates
should read P. LEPID. PRO Q., an interpretation that to the latter part of the first century B.C.E. or early first
argues instead that there were independent magistrates century C.E., dates that would again suggest a period
attached to each region at this time.71 Other scholars, of at least several decades before substantive change
becomes evident. This is the case for Makry Gialos,
where a western-influenced, atrium-style house with
67
Sanders 1982, 4. three mosaic floors was constructed in the early first
68
Strabo (17.3.25) preserves the earliest attested reference
to the joint province when he is discussing events of 27 B.C.E.
69
Robinson 1927, 211, pl. 39.1–4.
70
Robinson 1927, 203, no. 2 bis a. 72
Harrison 1985, 368–69.
71
Grant 1946, 35–6. Some scholars argue that Grant was mis- 73
Chevrollier 2016, 14.
taken in assigning the P. LEPID. inscription to the reverse of the 74
Bechert 2011, 99.
coin and that it should instead be associated with the obverse. In 75
Chevrollier 2016, 14–5.
either case, it suggests two different proquaestors for Crete and 76
Sweetman 2011, 443–45.
Cyrenaica in 44/3 B.C.E. See Chapman 1968; Perl 1970. 77
Sweetman 2013, 197–98.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 599
tion.83 Spain is an interesting case in this context since
initially it appears to have lacked an understanding of
Rome’s political system. The local culture emphasized
loyalty to an individual leader, a structure not con-
ducive to Rome’s structure of senatorial rule. When
Scipio Africanus went to Spain in 208–207 B.C.E.,
local populations hailed him as their king.84 While
that was unfavorable to Rome, as Dyson notes, “the
Romans could not afford an extended garrison sys-
tem, and here, as in northern Italy, they had to create
a stable frontier based on powerful, friendly border
fig. 4. Drawing of an Italian-style black-and-white mosaic from
Room XI of the Odeion at Gortyn (after Pernier 1925–1926, magnates.”85 Rome’s preference for maintaining the sta-
67, fig. 62; courtesy Italian Archaeological School at Athens). tus quo with respect to political and cultural structures
and schemas following its conquest of new territory
during the republic limited the impact of an invasion
century C.E.,78 and at Myrtos, where an Italian-style as a cause of disarticulation.
mosaic uncovered in a bathhouse dates to the same The establishment of the principate under Augustus
period.79 brought about different circumstances. Much of the
There is very little evidence that suggests structural day-to-day administration of provinces was still over-
transformation across Crete directly following its con- seen by local magistrates under the overarching au-
quest in 67 B.C.E., although this may not be surprising thority of a governor tied to the government at Rome.
within the broader context of Rome’s provincial expan- Those local administrators, however, had increasing
sion during the republic. Revell has explored the po- opportunities to gain status in the capital and even
tential of eventful archaeology for evaluating the role of rise to the position of senator.86 The Italy-dominated
Rome’s conquest in the transformation of social struc- senate admitted these individuals begrudgingly, with
tures and material culture in western regions like the the rise of western-based senators occurring largely
Iberian Peninsula.80 The conquest of Spain in the late by the mid to late first century C.E., followed by those
third and early second centuries B.C.E. often involved from eastern provinces.87 There was thus incentive for
violent sieges and the destruction of urban centers.81 elite individuals in provincial society to adopt more
Revell observes, though, that there is a “temporal mis- Roman customs, and they thereby served as conduits
match” between the formalization of Hispania Citerior for those ideals to other sectors of the population. In
and Hispania Ulterior as provinces, likely in 198 or 197 Spain, Augustus engaged in major building projects,
B.C.E., and any significant evidence for architectural including refinements to urban centers such as the con-
transformation or other Roman characteristics.82 In- struction of fora, baths, basilicas, and amphitheaters as
stead, change and transition only become readily ap- well as infrastructure like drainage systems, roads, and
parent by the late first century B.C.E., coinciding with aqueducts. Revell observes that regions conquered by
the establishment of the principate under Augustus. Rome after the establishment of the imperial govern-
Revell argues, thus, that evidence from Spain and ment, such as Britannia and Dacia, show much less of
other western regions, such as southern France, does a temporal gap between conquest and indications of
not support interpreting Roman conquest as the pri-
mary impetus behind any subsequent transforma-

83
Revell 2010, 154.
84
Dyson 1985, 185. Dyson also observes that the subsequent
78
For the excavations of the house, see Papadakis 1979, 1980. revolt in Spain may have partially been a result of false reports of
For the mosaic, see Sweetman 2013, 206. Scipio’s death.
79
Sweetman 2013, 207–9. 85
Dyson 1985, 186.
80
Revell 2010. 86
Garnsey and Saller 2015, 22–3.
81
E.g., the destruction of Castellet de Banyoles by Roman 87
Sherwin-White (1973, 259–60) notes that this process be-
forces ca. 200 B.C.E. See Noguera et al. 2014. gan largely under the emperors Claudius and Nero, increasing
82
Revell 2010, 152–53. under later rulers including Vespasian and Trajan.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
600 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
transformation.88 Her analysis—focused on the west- Amenability of southern Crete to Roman rule and
ern provinces of the Roman empire but also applicable the institutions it introduced may also be related to tra-
to eastern regions conquered in the second and first ditions of international contact documented for sites
centuries B.C.E.—demonstrates that happenings like in this area during the Late Hellenistic period. Hiera-
the conquest of a specific region can distract from a pytna provides an informative case study that contrasts
consideration of gradual transformation in succeed- a pattern seen at many northern sites like Knossos,
ing decades. where analysis of Hellenistic ceramic assemblages
rarely documents imports. Nonlocal material that is
Globalization identified at those sites tends to be of Attic origin, with
In an effort to explore the role of gradual change a smaller number of vessels originating from Asia Mi-
following Rome’s conquest of Crete, Sweetman has nor.93 At Hierapytna, a recent study of Hellenistic and
promoted evaluating available evidence through the Roman pottery from three rescue excavations revealed
lens of globalization.89 To define this concept, she cites a much higher proportion of imports, dominated by
Waters: “A social process in which the constraints of fine ware, coarse ware, cookware, and amphoras from
geography on social and cultural arrangements recede southern Turkey, Knidos, Rhodes, and Cyprus.94 The
and in which people become increasingly aware that same types of pottery, particularly amphoras, are also
they are receding.”90 One advantage of globalization is identified regularly at sites in Egypt, including Alexan-
that it leaves room for the adoption of Roman cultural dria.95 Cankardeş-Şenol notes that 300,000 Hellenistic
elements and the revitalization of the local culture, amphora fragments have been documented at Alex-
both in varying degrees depending on the region. The andria, of which 69% are imports.96 Of those imports,
process of globalization also supports intentional and most originate from Rhodes (73%) or Knidos (17%).
nonintentional stimuli for change, along with favor- Hierapytna is one of the few Late Hellenistic sites on
ing a longer timeline for transition than concepts like Crete specifically known to have exported goods to
romanization, which tend to suggest much more rapid Egypt. Amphoras found at Alexandria have stamped
transformation. handles indicating their origin at Hierapytna.97 While
For Crete, Sweetman argues that globalization pro- fewer than 10 of these handles have been identified,
vides a means of explaining the apparent dichotomy they combine with the data for imports at Hierapytna
between the northern and southern halves of the is- to suggest that the city, which in the Hellenistic and
land, described above, with respect to their evidence, Roman periods had the largest harbor on Crete’s south
or lack thereof, for cultural transformation during the coast, was an important node along trade routes con-
second half of the first century B.C.E. As she observes, necting Asia Minor and the southeastern Aegean with
“Gortyn and other areas of the south coast had been North Africa.
loyal to Rome, which meant not only that officials, The site of Phoinix-Loutro, located on the south-
administrators, and new settlers would have been wel- western coast of Crete, also has evidence for trans-
come, but also that there most likely was an active in- formation during the second half of the first century
terest in accepting elements of Roman culture such as B.C.E. Phoinix-Loutro developed into an active harbor
language and imperial cult.”91 At Gortyn, modifications complex by the end of the first century B.C.E., provid-
to the city commenced soon after Rome’s conquest. ing an important node for imports and exports for the
These included the construction of a large gymnasium region of Sphakia. Survey of the site in the late 1980s
complex known as the Praetorium, which began in the recovered 655 sherds datable to the Greek and Roman
first half of the first century B.C.E. and continued into periods, of which 535 were identified as Roman.98 This
the first decade of the first century C.E.92

93
Coldstream et al. 2001, 91.
94
Gallimore 2015, 271–74.
95
Elaigne 2002; Cankardeş-Şenol 2007a; Cankardeş-Şenol
88
Revell 2010, 154. and Şenol 2013; Şenol 2018, 378–91, nos. 319–26; 401–3, nos.
89
Sweetman 2007, 2011. 333–35; 408–10, nos. 341–42.
90
Waters 1995, 3. 96
Cankardeş-Şenol 2007a, 61–3.
91
Sweetman 2011, 449. 97
Empereur et al. 1992, 640; Cankardeş-Şenol 2007b, 44–5.
92
Lippolis 2000, 404–31. 98
Francis 2017, 512–16, tables 1–2.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 601
included imported wares dated to the late first cen- of established structures at Knossos coinciding with a
tury B.C.E. to early first century C.E., such as Eastern resistance to foreign cultural traits. Change becomes
Sigillata A and Cypriot sigillata. The presence of 112 more perceptible by the mid first century C.E. and is
fragments of Italian sigillata shows that the harbor saw readily identifiable within a few decades afterward.
regular ship traffic from the west. As Sweetman comments, “At this point (the late first
At Knossos, Sweetman has conducted a thorough and second centuries A.D.), Knossos begins to flour-
assessment of evidence associated with transforma- ish and benefit from its elevated Roman status.”105 The
tion at the site, observing that architecture, burials, increasing importance of Crete as a critical nexus along
pottery, mosaics, and other types of material culture Mediterranean trades routes during the first century
are consistent with Hellenistic traditions in the century C.E. appears to have helped to spur transition.
after Metellus’ invasion.99 This is evident, for instance, Herein lies a limitation with the application of glo-
in Late Hellenistic levels of the Unexplored Mansion, balization on Crete. While it does provide an informa-
located to the northwest of the Minoan Palace and tive perspective for considering the different tempos
excavated in 1967–1968 and 1971–1973, with some of change across the island after Metellus’ invasion, it
additional work completed in 1977. While the primary lacks explanatory power for evaluating why the mid
goal was to investigate a large Minoan structure, sub- first century C.E. shows an increase in evidence for
stantial post–Bronze Age remains, including Hellenis- transformation at sites like Knossos. Sweetman’s ar-
tic and Roman houses, were documented.100 Three of gument that Crete’s prominent position within the
the Hellenistic deposits—H35 (floor deposit beneath Mediterranean trade networks led to prosperity that
the North House court), H36 (fill above level H35), promoted adoption of novel structures and schemas
and H37 (secondary fill in a pit)—are dated between is intriguing. Yet, it does not provide a clear outline of
50 and 25 B.C.E.101 Pottery types present within these why this prosperity suddenly became more palpable in
deposits, including cylindrical cups, carinated cups, the mid first century C.E. Is there some type of event
everted rim cups, cylindrical jugs, bowls with over- that precipitated this, or is it a case of gradual change
hanging rims, flaring rim bowls, olpai, hydriai, lekanai, reaching a tipping point at this time?
casseroles, and cooking pots, are entirely consistent
with earlier Hellenistic traditions.102 Several of these an economic perspective
types are also present in the earliest Roman-period When discussing the applicability of globalization to
deposits identified by the excavation, which date into the study of Early Roman Crete, Sweetman observes
the early first century C.E.103 A Roman colony was es- that “the different changes that took place . . . from the
tablished at Knossos by at least 27 B.C.E., but this had first century A.D. onward are a result of intentional
little impact on transformation.104 From the perspec- (investment) and nonintentional (influence of east-
tive of globalization, this demonstrates a persistence ern trends) factors, rather than the simple result of
influence of one culture upon another.”106 The issue
of investment deserves further attention, especially
with respect to its role in the development of Crete’s
99
Sweetman 2007, 67–73; 2011, 447–49.
100
Sackett 1992a. export economy under Roman rule. Products from
101
Callaghan 1992, 124–27. Crete, most notably commodities packaged in am-
102
For a discussion of Hellenistic pottery types at Knossos, phoras, are documented in almost every province of
see Coldstream et al. 2001, 91–135. the empire during the first and second centuries C.E.,
103
Sackett 1992b, 178–90. This includes deposits A1 (de- in some cases in substantial quantities (fig. 5).107 This
struction deposit on the floor of the Southwest House, mid
first century B.C.E.–early first century C.E.) and A2 (fill over is well illustrated by evidence from Rome where Cre-
the central and south areas of excavation and selected Augus- tan amphoras comprise 5% of total amphora finds
tan material not from the destruction deposit, mid first cen- in the mid first century C.E., rising to 11.83% by the
tury B.C.E.–early first century C.E.). Hellenistic types present
in these deposits include oinochoai, kantharoi, juglets, bowls,
black-glazed fine ware, and cookware shapes such as casseroles
and cooking pots.
104
Among other things, there is a surprising lack of epigraph- 105
Sweetman 2011, 448.
ic evidence, including Latin inscriptions, for the new colony at 106
Sweetman 2011, 450.
Knossos. See Bowsky 2004. 107
Gallimore 2015, 286–93.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
602 Scott Gallimore [aja 123

fig. 5. Map of the Roman empire showing distribution of Cretan amphoras, first–second century C.E. Sites with evidence
of Cretan amphoras before 25 C.E. are labeled.

mid second century C.E.108 The growth of the island’s Crete (150–67 B.C.E.), marked by substantive change
export economy, particularly during the Early Roman to political control of the landscape.110 In particular,
period, has not been well explored. One aspect that the largest city-states on the island—Gortyn, Hiera-
deserves more attention is an apparent increase in ev- pytna, Knossos, Kydonia, Lato, and Lyttos—acquired
idence for Cretan exports during the second quarter substantial territories at this time that may have helped
of the first century C.E., a point that will be discussed to promote agricultural specialization.111 Despite this
in more detail below.109 That date lines up well with shift in landscape control, there are few indications that
indications of increasing transformation on Crete by Crete engaged in the export of surplus goods. Chani-
the middle of the first century C.E. and suggests that otis argues that the island’s Late Hellenistic economy
there could be a correlation. focused on subsistence-based production, with exter-
nal connections organized mainly around pirate raids,
Crete’s Economic Infrastructure in the Late Hellenistic supply of mercenary soldiers, and the slave trade.112
Period Vogeikoff-Brogan counters that the study of Hellenis-
Before assessing economic developments on Crete tic Crete remains preliminary and that more study and
after 67 B.C.E., it is necessary to consider the island’s publication of Late Hellenistic pottery produced on
infrastructure for production and trade in the Late Hel-
lenistic period. Hadjisavvas and Chaniotis argue that
the Hellenistic period did have a distinct late phase on
110
Hadjisavvas and Chaniotis 2012, 166.
111
Bennet (1990, 202, table 3) estimates the size of the Late
Hellenistic territories of these city-states as follows: Gortyn =
108
Rizzo 2003, 146, table 26b; 180, table 30b. 920 km²; Hierapytna = 1050 km²; Knossos = 770 km²; Kydonia
109
For this phenomenon, see Martin-Kilcher 1998, 514; Gal- = 120–180 km²; Lato = 230 km²; Lyttos = 600 km².
limore 2015, 287–89. 112
Chaniotis 1999, 184; 2008b, 7–8.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 603
the island is required to ensure it is identified beyond ern end of ancient Kydonia dating sometime between
Crete’s shores.113 the second half of the fourth to the late third or early
Archaeological and textual evidence for agricultural second century B.C.E.122 Two stamped handles were
activity on Hellenistic Crete has almost exclusively recovered during rescue excavations in 2003 for a new
been associated with viticulture.114 Much of the at- Khania Bank complex that are contemporary with the
tested archaeological remains date to the Early Hel- structure and apparently of local production.123 They
lenistic period. One example is a third-century B.C.E. read TEAI and TEAN, respectively, and may refer to
rural installation at Agia Pelagia, located approximately the workshop or owner of the workshop where the
20 km northwest of Knossos along Crete’s north coast, amphoras were manufactured. An unpublished handle
which was excavated from 1972 to 1976.115 This struc- of the same type, but with a circular device between
ture has nine rooms including one (Room 3) coated TE and AN, is also known from rescue excavations at
in hydraulic plaster. While a press was not identified, Lappa to the east of Kydonia.124 The practice of stamp-
the structure is interpreted as a production and storage ing amphora handles is intriguing for its implications
facility for wine. A similar building was identified at for trade but the evidence is still too limited to con-
Phaistos in the Mesara plain during excavations in the firm production geared toward export at Kydonia at
1960s.116 Built in the late fourth century B.C.E., it com- this time.
prised several rooms and held a large wine press. Frag- For the Late Hellenistic period, data associated with
ments of amphoras from Rhodes, Knidos, Kos, and agricultural production follow the same pattern as seen
possibly Kerkyra were found next to the structure, per- above. Documented structures are small-scale, rarely
haps being stored for reuse as packaging containers.117 attested, and are scattered across the island. At Knos-
At Kydonia, a third-century B.C.E. inscription de- sos, excavations to the west of the Minoan palace in
scribes the purchase of vineyards by the city-state that 1977 revealed a building datable to the half-century
were then gifted to foreigners from other city-states prior to Metellus’ invasion.125 Identified features in-
on Crete and regions like Delphi.118 The size of the clude a wine press and treading floor and a collection
vineyards ranges from approximately 0.17 to 1.91 ha, basin coated in hydraulic plaster. An adjacent struc-
and Marangou-Lerat estimates that average annual ture may have been the storage facility; one pithos was
production was 300 liters for the smallest plots and identified, although there were likely more in antiquity.
up to 4,000 liters for the largest ones.119 According to In the northeastern part of Crete at the site of Mochlos,
Harris, this inscription implies “a thoroughly com- there is evidence for oleoculture. Excavations along
mercialized viticulture” at Kydonia, where production the south slope of the site revealed a structure with
was geared at least partially toward trade.120 Kydonian eight rooms, datable to the late second to first century
coins from the late fourth to the early third centuries B.C.E., referred to as the Beam-Press Complex.126 The
B.C.E. often bear the image of a wine amphora, an in- name derives from a feature identified in Room 6 that
dication that such concerns went beyond subsistence comprises a platform of large stones paved with flat
production.121 Amphora production has recently been slabs of schist next to a stone support for a wooden
documented during excavations of a house at the east- beam.127 Crushed olive stones found within this room
point to production of olive oil. Finally, rescue exca-
vations from 2003 to 2004 at Loutra in northwestern
113
Vogeikoff-Brogan 2004, 217. Crete have also revealed a farmstead with a beam press
114
For a discussion of the literary evidence, see Marangou- for olive oil production contemporary with the struc-
Lerat 1995, 5–13. ture at Mochlos.128
115
Karetsou 1976; Marangou-Lerat 1995, 61–3.
116
Levi 1965–1966.
117
Levi 1965–1966, 575–77. For the reuse of amphoras as
packaging containers, see Peña 2007, 61–118.
118
ICr 2 10 1. For discussion of this text, see Chaniotis 1988, 122
Kataki 2009, 96–102.
82–3; Marangou-Lerat 1995, 10–13; Hadjisavvas and Chani- 123
For the stamps, see Kataki 2009, 102.
otis 2012, 167. 124
M.W. Bowsky, pers. comm. 2018.
119
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 13. 125
Carington Smith 1994.
120
Harris 1999, 357. 126
Vogeikoff-Brogan 2014.
121
Wroth 1886, 28, pl. 7.10; Svoronos 1972, 101, no. 14, 127
Vogeikoff-Brogan 2014, 16–20.
pl. 9.6. 128
Tsatsaki and Nodarou 2014, 287–89.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
604 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
Survey archaeology does not provide much of a to early first century B.C.E.), and Trypitos (early to
supplement to the evidence described above. Several mid second century B.C.E.).134 Four distinct types are
regions of the island, including the Lasithi plain in cen- attested, classified as Amphore Crètoise (AC) 5, AC6,
tral Crete and the Kavousi area in northeastern Crete, AC7, and AC8. Complete examples of AC5 vessels are
saw greatly reduced settlement during the Hellenis- lacking, but identified fragments are characterized by
tic period.129 For Lasithi, seven sites are documented a globular body, tall outward-flaring neck, horizontal
in the Classical and Hellenistic periods compared to rim with squared or rounded lip, and oval handles.135
22 for the Orientalizing and Archaic periods. The AC6 amphoras have a cylindrical or stepped toe, ovoid
Kavousi region was largely abandoned from the fifth body, tall conical neck, rolled rim with rounded lip, and
to the first century B.C.E., with only a few sherds of square or oval handles.136 Amphoras from Knidos may
Hellenistic pottery found at two sites (Lakkos Am- be an influence on this type, particularly when con-
beliou and Agios Antonius) and some indications of sidering the morphology of the toe.137 The AC7 has
small-scale reoccupation of the site of Azoria in the a round button toe, globular body, cylindrical neck,
third and second centuries B.C.E.130 In the western outward thickened rim with rounded or squared lip,
Mesara in south-central Crete, on the other hand, the and oval handles.138 Koan and Rhodian amphoras have
number of Hellenistic sites was 42, compared to 20 been suggested as influences.139 The final type, the
for the Classical period.131 New settlements were also AC8, is characterized by a squat cylindrical toe, ovoid
attested regularly on more marginal land, which was body that turns sharply at the shoulder, concave neck,
interpreted as an indication that agricultural produc- rolled rim with square lip, and oval handles.140 Gortyn
tion was intensifying.132 Most survey projects on the may have been the main production center for AC5
island, however, struggle with specifying whether evi- and AC8 vessels, while Lato pros Kamara is the site
dence for agricultural production and other economic typically associated with AC6 amphoras.141 Most of
activities occurred during the Early or Late Hellenis- the other sites, such as Loutra, Knossos, Keratokam-
tic period. The Galatas survey in central Crete, for bos, Myrtos Pyrgos, Hierapytna, and Mochlos, manu-
instance, identified a Hellenistic site near the modern
village of Alagni, where nearly a dozen wine presses
were attested.133 Most of these presses are considered
to be Roman in date, although one or two could be as- 134
Kydonia: see supra n. 122. Loutra: Tsatsaki and Noda-
sociated with the Late Hellenistic site.
rou 2014. Gortyn: Portale and Romeo 2001, 264–66. Kerato-
Evidence for amphora manufacture on Late Hel- kambos: Marangou-Lerat 1995, 52–3, 67. Knossos: Eiring et al.
lenistic Crete is more robust and may provide the 2002, 59–60. Lato pros Kamara: Vogeikoff-Brogan and Aposto-
strongest indicator of some type of trade activity. Pro- lakou 2004, 421. Myrtos Pyrgos: Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apos-
duction is currently documented at 10 sites (from west tolakou 2004, 417. Hierapytna: Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004,
to east): Kydonia (mid fourth to early second century 328–29; 2008, 329–30. Mochlos: Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apos-
tolakou 2004, 417. Trypitos: Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolak-
B.C.E.), Loutra (late second to third quarter of first ou 2004, 420–22. For a map showing the location of these sites,
century B.C.E.), Gortyn (mid second to late second see Gallimore 2018, 378, fig. 2.
or early first century B.C.E.), Knossos (Late Helle- 135
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 66. An alternative classification for
nistic), Keratokambos (first century B.C.E.), Lato this type is the Ellenistico Cretese type 1. See Portale and Ro-
pros Kamara (second century B.C.E. or later), Myr- meo 2001, 265, pl. 39a–b.
136
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 89–91, pl. 22.
tos Pyrgos (late second to early first century B.C.E.), 137
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 90.
Hierapytna (Late Hellenistic), Mochlos (late second 138
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 67. An alternative classification for
this type is the Ellenistico Cretese type 2. See Portale and Ro-
meo 2001, 265–66, pl. 39c–d.
139
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 67; Eiring 2000, 58; Vogeikoff-
129
Watrous 1982, 22–3; Haggis 2005, 85–8. Brogan 2000, 71.
130
For the reoccupation of Azoria, see Haggis 2005, 86; Hag- 140
Empereur et al. 1991, 520, fig. 57; 522. An alternative clas-
gis et al. 2007, 305. sification for this type is the Ellenistico Cretese type 3. See Por-
131
Watrous et al. 2004, 318–38. tale 2011, 125.
132
Watrous et al. 2004, 326. 141
Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004, 421; Portale
133
Watrous et al. 2017, 100. 2011, 124–25.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 605
factured variants of AC7 jars.142 The type attested at networks with Egypt.149 Hierapytna has evidence to
Trypitos has similarities to both the AC6 and AC7.143 support this in the form of a treaty negotiated with
Yet, there is almost no evidence for the export of Rhodes dated to ca. 200 B.C.E.150 The text includes
any of the above types. Hadjisavvas and Chaniotis a stipulation that Hierapytna make its λιμένας καὶ
observe that “the products of the relevant workshops ὁρματήρια available to the Rhodians. Limen refers to a
are known primarily or exclusively from the site of natural or artificial harbor of large size, while hormate-
production and its immediate vicinity.”144 The only ria can be translated as “anchorages” in this context.151
exception is the stamped handles from Hierapytna, As discussed above, there is ceramic evidence from
a few of which have been identified at Alexandria in well into the Late Hellenistic period that Hierapytna
Egypt, Callatis in Romania, and Mochlos and Trypi- aided in the transshipment of goods from the south-
tos on Crete.145 Even then, the number of attested ves- eastern Aegean to Egypt.
sels, fewer than 10, cannot support the interpretation Hadjisavvas and Chaniotis argue that there is an
that regular trade occurred with any region. Hadjisav- insufficient number of imports on Late Hellenistic
vas and Chaniotis argue that there are two contexts Cretan sites from regions like Rhodes to support pro-
in which wine production and amphora manufacture posing there were regular trade connections.152 For
can be conjectured on Late Hellenistic Crete.146 The Cretan ports, the benefit in fact was not the poten-
first is the thousands of Cretan mercenaries known tial to receive goods from incoming ships but rather
to have served in armies across the eastern Mediter- Cretans may have focused more on the collection of
ranean. Treaties associated with these individuals customs dues. Viviers observes that a common clause
include stipulations ensuring they received adequate within the numerous treaties negotiated between city-
supplies of goods including wine.147 In that scenario, states on Hellenistic Crete concerns the collection of
wine packaged in Cretan amphoras may have traveled customs dues on goods transported by sea.153 These
with the mercenaries or been sent to areas where they same treaties also specify that goods transported
were stationed. The other context is the syssitia, the overland are exempt from customs regulations. Cities
common meal organized by and for citizens in city- like Hierapytna had the potential to collect revenue
states across the island.148 This institution dates back through participation in networks that connected dif-
to the Archaic period on Crete and required a regular ferent parts of the eastern Mediterranean. The few im-
supply of wine that may have been an important stimu- ports and exports that have been documented support
lus behind production. the presence of these networks. Hierapytna gained
Despite the lack of evidence discussed above, Crete control of numerous ports along the north and south
was not isolated from Hellenistic exchange networks. coasts of eastern Crete during the Late Hellenistic pe-
Perlman suggests that Rhodes may have developed riod, which would have provided additional oppor-
relationships with sites on Crete as part of its trade tunities to control shipping lanes and gain access to
customs revenue.154

142
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 67; Eiring et al. 2002, 61; Tsat- 149
Perlman 1999, 151.
saki and Nodarou 2014, 292. For the sites in eastern Crete (i.e., 150
ICr 3 3 3A.
Myrtos Pyrgos, Hierapytna, and Mochlos), a form designated 151
For limen, see Leonard 1997, 192. The translation of hor-
as East Cretan Type 1 appears to be a version of the AC7. See materia as “anchorages” is suggested by Brulé (1978, 51). Some
Vogeikoff-Brogan et al. 2004, 329, pl. 127. suggested alternatives include “pirate dens” (Spyridakis 1980,
143
Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004, 425, fig. 7d–e. 122) and “naval stations” (Gabrielsen 1997, 40–1; Perlman
144
Hadjisavvas and Chaniotis 2012, 167. 1999, 158 n. 15).
145
Buzoianu and Cheluţă-Georgescu 1983, 167, no. 34; Em- 152
Hadjisavvas and Chaniotis 2012, 168 n. 84.
pereur et al. 1992, 640; Papadakis 2000, 123, no. 51; Vogeikoff- 153
Viviers 1999, 225–26, 229. An example of this clause ap-
Brogan et al. 2004, 329; Cankardeş-Şenol 2007b, 44–5. pears in a treaty negotiated between Praisos and Stalis in eastern
146
Hadjisavvas and Chaniotis 2012, 168. Crete in the late third century B.C.E. (ICr 3 6 7). Guizzi (1999,
147
For discussion of these treaties, see Petropoulou 1985, 240) notes that there are some exceptions to this clause (ICr 1
15–31. 16 5; SEG 26 1049; SEG 41 742), but in each case the owner
148
For this practice, see Kirsten 1942, 130–32; Petropoulou swore that goods were being brought in only for personal use.
1985, 81–2; Talamo 1987; Link 1991, 107–28; Chaniotis 1999, 154
For a discussion of this expansion, see Gallimore 2015,
193–97. 23–9.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
606 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
Despite a lack of evidence for market-oriented pro- A growing presence of imported pottery suggests
duction and trade of goods during the Late Hellenistic that Crete’s connections within the eastern Mediter-
period on Crete, there is a clear presence of infra- ranean were increasing. This was occurring over the
structure that would have provided a foundation for course of several decades, and there is little indication
developments apparent after 67 B.C.E. This includes that it spurred an intensification in exports from the
evidence for agricultural production, traditions of am- island. Evidence for Cretan exports during the late
phora manufacture, and networks tied to institutions first century B.C.E. and early first century C.E. is neg-
like the syssitia and the supply of provisions for merce- ligible. Cretan amphoras are found at the North Afri-
naries. Crete’s growth into a major exporter of surplus can site of Berenice (see fig. 5), which was located in
goods, and the concomitant impact that growth had on one half of the joint province of Crete and Cyrenaica
the transformation of material culture traditions across during this period, but they account for less than 1%
the island, required the expansion of those conditions of the total amphora assemblage.160 Deposits at Ber-
rather than their establishment. enice also include 34 fragments of late first-century
B.C.E. or early first-century C.E. lamps manufactured
Economic Developments in the Early Roman Period on Crete.161 Ostia, Italy, in a deposit dated to the first
The conquest of Crete by Rome does not appear decade of the first century C.E., appears to have four
to have interrupted the flow of ship traffic that used examples of Cretan amphoras.162 Also in Italy, a single
Cretan harbors for transshipment during the Late Cretan amphora is documented at Pompeii during this
Hellenistic period. Casson, in fact, argues that grain period, and, in North Africa, two others are known
ships from the eastern Mediterranean heading west from Leptis Magna.163 There is also one amphora from
may have passed by Crete’s shores more regularly after Crete from the La Chretienne H shipwreck near the
67 B.C.E.155 He suggests that this was due to destruc- shore of Saint-Raphaël, France, dated 15–20 C.E. and
tion suffered by the island of Delos, one of the main another from the Capo Graziano C shipwreck off the
trading hubs in the Aegean, during attacks by Mithri- north coast of Sicily dated to the first decade of the
dates’ forces in 88 and 69 B.C.E.156 Imported pottery, first century C.E.164
particularly fine ware like Eastern Sigillata A (ESA), Collection of customs dues continued at Mediter-
becomes more common at southern sites like Gortyn ranean ports under Roman rule, as indicated in an in-
and Hierapytna during the second half of the first cen- scription from Ephesus dated to 62 C.E. that describes
tury B.C.E. At Gortyn, ESA is very rare in the second specific conditions and dues for numerous types of
century B.C.E., with one fragment each of cup forms goods.165 This likely remained an important source of
2A and 20A attested.157 For the second half of the first revenue for Cretan harbors. To develop the surplus
century B.C.E., 11 fragments from various types have and infrastructure necessary to support large-scale ex-
been identified. At Hierapytna, a single ESA fragment ports, however, investment and accumulation of capi-
from a form 17 cup dates to the second half of the sec- tal on Crete had to extend beyond collecting customs
ond century B.C.E.158 A gap ensues before dozens of dues. Building on the Late Hellenistic institutions de-
fragments, particularly from plate forms 3 and 4, begin scribed above, agricultural output needed to increase,
to appear in assemblages from the mid first century connected industries like amphora production had
B.C.E. onward. Some northern sites also witness an
increase in imported wares by the late first century
B.C.E. The excavations at the Unexplored Mansion
at Knossos uncovered 62 fragments of Cypriot sigil-
160
Riley 1979, 181–82, fig. 28.
161
Bailey 1985, 4–5, 122–23.
lata datable to the late first century B.C.E. or early first 162
Hesnard 1980, 145, pl. 2.2; Rivello 2002, 440, fig. 2. Both
century C.E.159 publications describe these vessels as Rhodian but the latter
publication by Rivello also lists them as type Dressel 43, which
is an alternative designation for AC4 vessels from Crete.
163
Di Vita 1968, 72; Fulford and Wallace-Hadrill 1999, 75–7;
155
Casson 1984, 80. Timby 2004, 388.
156
Tang 2005, 14, 32. 164
Santamaria 1984, 41, no. 31; Parker 1992, 118, no. 235;
157
Lippolis 2001, 28. 143, no. 307.
158
Gallimore 2015, 116, no. 124. 165
SEG 39 1180. See Engelmann and Knibbe 1989; Cottier
159
Sackett 1992b, 152. et al. 2008.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 of:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 607
to expand, and social and economic networks tied to
export activity needed to be cultivated. From the mid
first century B.C.E. to the mid first century C.E., there
is evidence for each of those conditions.
An increase in agricultural output is indicated by an
expansion in settlement documented in some regions
during the second half of the first century B.C.E., in-
cluding in the Akrotiri Peninsula in northwestern
Crete.166 The survey there identified a single site with
confirmed Late Hellenistic material and four others
with finds that were either Late Hellenistic or Early
Roman date. By the late first century B.C.E., the num-
ber of sites is 14, with 10 additional scatters point-
ing to an increase in activity. The Galatas region in
central Crete, on the other hand, attests a reduction
in site numbers between Late Hellenistic and Early
Roman, going from 16 to 10.167 In the southwestern
corner of the Galatas survey zone in the area of the
modern village of Alagni, as mentioned above, finds
of wine presses increase at this time, indicating an
isolated pocket of increased agricultural activity. Two
large wine production installations identified in the
same part of the countryside may date to this period
(fig. 6).168 This region is interesting since it presents
an alternative picture for exploitation and resource
investment that may provide a reason for fewer settle-
ments. The Pediada, where Galatas is located, is one
of the island’s many upland plains, which were impor- fig. 6. Wine press installation near Alagni identified by the
Galatas survey: top, possible pressing floor; bottom, wine
tant sources for medicinal plants.169 Pliny the Elder
press, small catch basin, and channel leading to a larger basin
(HN 25.94) named Crete as the supplier of the best (S. Beckmann).
medicinal plants in the Roman empire. These plants
were not cultivated but instead collected from the wild.
One argument associated with the Galatas settlement lenistic and Early Roman periods, the Gournia sur-
pattern is that part of the landscape was purposely left vey identified six settlements with evidence of olive
abandoned to promote the growth of wild herbs and presses including two (sites 46 and 66) with facilities
plants, ensuring a ready supply for export.170 large enough to suggest production beyond the needs
The Isthmus of Ierapetra, the narrowest part of east- of local subsistence.171 An additional site found in the
ern Crete, provides further indications of increased center of the isthmus has evidence for Early Roman
concern with infrastructure expansion. Along with amphora production.172 Olive oil production is also
an increase from 10 to 20 sites between the Late Hel- well attested in the neighboring Kampos plain dur-
ing the same period.173 There, as noted above, the
Kavousi survey documented almost no evidence for
166
Raab 2001, 140.
Late Hellenistic settlement but did identify six sites
167
Watrous et al. 2017, 110. datable to some point in the first century B.C.E.174
168
Watrous et al. 2017, 113.
169
Crete has more upland plains and more endemic plant spe-
cies than any other part of the Mediterranean. See Rackham and
Moody 1996, 28, 54. For the argument that these plains were 171
Watrous et al. 2012, 84, 87.
the main locations from which medicinal plants were collected 172
Watrous et al. 2012, 87 (site 86).
on Crete, see Rouanet-Liesenfelt 1992, 182–83. 173
Haggis 2005, 87.
170
Watrous et al. 2017, 116. 174
Haggis 2005, 86.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
608 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
One of those sites, Tholos, located on the coast a few AC4, were manufactured from the late first century
kilometers north of the modern village of Kavousi, B.C.E. through the third century C.E. (fig. 8). AC1
saw the construction of a large horreum, or warehouse, amphoras have a rounded base, ovoid body, cylindri-
during the first or second century C.E. (fig. 7).175 The cal neck, rounded or tapered rim, and round handles.
structure, which measures approximately 55.7 x 9.6 m, A button toe, ovoid body, cylindrical neck, rolled rim
is interpreted by Haggis as a component of transship- with rounded lip, and double-round handles character-
ment trade between the north and south coasts of the ize AC2 vessels, while AC3 amphoras have a button
Isthmus of Ierapetra.176 Additional structures, located toe, globular body, cylindrical neck, squared rim, and
to the east of the horreum, may also be warehouses rounded handles. AC4 are characterized by a button
and suggest a robust infrastructure for storing and toe, ovoid body, swollen neck, folded rim, and handles
transshipping goods. Hierapytna lies approximately with a prominent horn on the top. AC1–AC3 vessels
19 km to the south, with the isthmus providing a flat had an average capacity of 24–25 liters and AC4 jars a
route between the two sites, conducive to overland capacity of 12–13 liters.180
transport. Construction at Tholos was likely prompted Roman amphora kiln sites on Crete have not been
by increasing economic activity in this region. Similar well studied, and there is a limited understanding of
concern for coastal infrastructure can be seen in other their chronology and the fabrics associated with their
parts of the island. Kelly has identified two aqueducts, specific products. In her overview of amphora produc-
one at Lebena in south-central Crete and the other at tion on Crete, Marangou-Lerat dates only one, at Kisa-
Agia Pelagia, which may have been built to supply fresh mos, to before the mid first century C.E.181 For most of
water to ships.177 She suggests that this could have oc- the kilns, she assigns a date based on the chronology
curred as early as the first century C.E. of the amphora types that they manufactured, arguing
Amphora production increased considerably be- that no Roman type on Crete was produced before 50
tween the Late Hellenistic (mid second to late first C.E.182 Subsequent study of pottery from Cretan sites,
century B.C.E.) and Early Roman (late first century such as Gortyn, has shown that the AC2 and AC3 ap-
B.C.E. to third century C.E.) periods, from 10 docu- peared at least by the late first century B.C.E. or early
mented manufacturing sites to at least 18.178 From west first century C.E.183 A small number of AC4 amphoras
to east, they are Kisamos, Palaichora, Nopighia, Kydo- have been documented outside of Crete in deposits
nia, Eleutherna, Matala, Gortyn, Heraklion, Knossos, dating to the early first century C.E., so this type was
Tsoutsouros (two kilns), Dermatos, Keratokambos also being produced at this time.184 This lack of clear
(two kilns), Chersonesos (three kilns), Arvi, Gournia chronological knowledge hinders the evaluation of the
survey site 86, Makry Gialos, Lagada, and Trypitos.179 expansion of amphora manufacturing after 67 B.C.E.
Unfortunately, the relationship between Late Helle- on Crete since there is not enough data to determine
nistic and Early Roman amphora types on Crete has the extent to which there was continuity with Helle-
never been investigated. This means that there is lim- nistic traditions in different parts of the island. The
ited understanding about whether the Early Roman absence of fabric descriptions is also problematic; only
types evolved from Hellenistic predecessors and, if a single site, the Hellenistic manufactory at Loutra,
so, when this might have happened. Four types, AC1– has seen detailed fabric study including petrographic
analysis.185 The consequence is that finds of Cretan
amphoras documented outside of the island cannot
175
Haggis 1996; 2005, 90–3.
176
Haggis 1996, 193, 200–6.
177
Kelly 2006, 395–96.
178
Gallimore 2018, 378, fig. 2. 180
Vidal and Corredor 2018, 303–8, table 1.
179
Thirteen of these sites (Kisamos, Palaichora, Nopighia, 181
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 36–60.
Matala, Heraklion, Tsoutsouros, Dermatos, Keratokambos, 182
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 67–89.
Chersonesos, Arvi, Makry Gialos, Lagada, and Trypitos) were 183
Portale and Romeo 2001, 372.
studied by Marangou-Lerat (1995, 35–60). For the other sites, 184
This includes four examples at Ostia and one from the
see Hayes 1983, 140 (Knossos); Portale and Romeo 2001, Capo Graziano C shipwreck off the north coast of Sicily. See
270 (Gortyn); Yangaki 2005, 186 (Eleutherna); Whitley et Hesnard 1980, 145, pl. 2.2; Parker 1992, 118, no. 235; Rivello
al. 2006–2007, 117–18 (Kydonia); Watrous et al. 2012, 168 2002, 440, fig. 2. See also supra n. 162 for discussion of the iden-
(Gournia survey site 86). For a map showing the location of tification of these vessels as AC4 amphoras.
these sites, see Gallimore 2018, 378, fig. 2. 185
Tsatsaki and Nodarou 2014.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 609

fig. 7. Plan of a large horreum (warehouse) and other Roman remains at Tholos (after Haggis 2005, fig. 23b; courtesy D.C.
Haggis and INSTAP Academic Press).

be associated with specific kiln sites. This eliminates from which family members tied to those landown-
much of our ability to conduct a microregional analy- ers spread out to sites across the island and to other
sis of the development of export economies across the regions in the Mediterranean.187 As discussed above,
island and instead forces us to treat Crete as a single this includes individuals whose family names are An-
economic entity. The pace of development across the tonia, Caecilia, Doia, Grania, Iunia, Marcia, Octavia,
island must have varied but a comprehensive study of Terentia, and Vibia.188
the chronology and fabrics of Hellenistic and Roman- The importance of family networks for Crete’s ex-
period Cretan amphoras is required to assist in that port activity can be documented on Cretan amphoras
interpretation. through evidence of tituli picti, which are inscriptions
Social networks tied to Crete’s export economy painted on the surface of amphoras that provide infor-
also become evident during the first century B.C.E. mation about the product packaged within, such as the
and first century C.E. Bowsky has studied epigraphi- origin, merchants involved in the sale, and the quality
cal evidence related to this development, observing of the product. At Pompeii, where a number of these
that “economic networks of Early Roman Crete can vessels have been found, these texts often attest indi-
be documented because they were grounded in a char- vidual Cretans with Roman names who participated
acteristically Roman commercial structure that kept in this trade.189 Bowsky notes that many of these mer-
business within the familia or domus, and because the chants share their names with property owners that
foundation for many business arrangements was the have been documented on Early Roman Crete.190 The
close legal and social ties that existed between family site where this evidence is clearest is Lyttos, located at
members.”186 In some cases, individuals who arrived the eastern end of the Pediada plain in central Crete.
on Crete as merchants became landowners on the
island. This is well attested at Gortyn, which served
as the focal point for economic activity on Crete and 187
Bowsky 2011, 432–39.
188
Supra n. 44.
189
For these individuals, see Chaniotis 1988, 75–8; Maran-
gou-Lerat 1995, 130–43; Bowsky 1999, 318–22.
186
Bowsky 2011, 431–32. 190
Bowsky 1999, 307.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
610 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
ples that name Lyttos are known from Herculaneum,
Neapolis, and Rome.194 Names associated with these
tituli picti and documented in the epigraphic record of
Lyttos include Polla Caecilia, Capito, M. Pompeius or
Pomponius Teupon, Terentius Priscus, and an individ-
ual boasting the initials M.K.N. (perhaps M. Claudius
or M. Calidius).195 Two of these individuals, Terentius
Priscus (CIL 4 10285) and Caecilia (CIL 4 10456),
were connected to families that had first settled at
Gortyn, instances of how Roman settlers dispersed to
different parts of the island.
Evidence for increased agricultural production, the
establishment of large-scale amphora manufacture,
and the development of social networks tied to eco-
nomic activity demonstrates a concerted effort across
Crete to accumulate capital and to become more ac-
tive within pan-Mediterranean exchange networks.
Investing in these structures provided the opportunity
to exploit the steady traffic of ships, particularly those
carrying grain from Egypt and other eastern prov-
inces, which used Crete as a transshipment point along
north–south and east–west trade routes.196 Evidence
for the expansion of Crete’s export economy comes
during the second quarter of the first century C.E.
Martin-Kilcher notes that this is when amphora-borne
goods from Crete begin appearing at Carthage.197
Quantities of Cretan products attested at other sites
across the Mediterranean also increased rapidly at that
fig. 8. Early Roman amphora types manufactured on Crete: time and, by the middle of the first century, Cretan
a, AC1 (mid first–late third century C.E.); b, AC2 (late first amphoras are found as far afield as Britain and repre-
century B.C.E.–end of second century C.E.); c, AC3 (late first
sent 5% of the total amphora assemblage at Rome.198
century B.C.E.–early third century C.E.); d, AC4 (mid first–mid
third century C.E.).

Lyttos is by far the most common city-state named on

the word οἶνος or another term for wine such as passum (sweet
Cretan amphoras at Pompeii.191 An example of these
wine), mulsum (honey wine), or vinum (wine) on occasion.
texts is: “Λύττιος (οἶνος) | Μ.] Π Τεύπωνος” (Lyttian See, e.g., Marangou-Lerat 1995, 129, no. P1; 131, no. P6 = CIL
wine, Marcus Teupon; CIL 4 6474).192 Οἶνος (wine) 4 5526; 134, no. P17 = CIL 4 6324; 141, no. P62 = CIL 4 5593;
appears in parentheses since it is rarely written out on 142, no. P67 = CIL 4 6505; 144, no. P75.
Cretan amphoras but is assumed to be the primary
194
Herculaneum: CIL 4 10806. See also Marangou-Lerat
product packaged in these vessels.193 Additional exam- 1995, 146, no. P89. Rome: Casaramona et al. 2010, 121, fig. 7.2.
195
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 132, nos. P7–11; Bowsky 1999,
318–19, nos. 31–5, 38. A titulus pictus describing Lyttian wine
at Herculaneum also preserves the name M. Pompeius/Pom-
191
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 131–32. Fifty-one tituli picti on ponius Teupon. See Marangou-Lerat 1995, 145, no. P84.
Cretan amphoras at Pompeii name Lyttos (CIL 4 6298–6302, 196
For discussion of the Egyptian grain trade as an impor-
6304, 6469–6483, 7004, 9485, 9487–9489, 9490 [x 11], 9791, tant stimulus for the development of Crete’s export economy,
10285a, 10285b, 10452, 10453 [x 2], 10454–10456, 10460 [x see Tchernia 1986, 244, 298; Peña 1999, 14, 154–55; Gallimore
5]). 2015, 289–91.
192
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 132, no. P7. 197
Martin-Kilcher 1998, 514.
193
For a discussion of the contents of Cretan amphoras, see 198
For Cretan amphoras in Britain, see Williams 2003, 28.
Gallimore 2017. Tituli picti on Cretan amphoras do include For Rome, see Rizzo 2003, 146.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 611
The above discussion is still not sufficient, however, The problem again is an almost complete lack of data
for pinpointing why the second quarter of the first to corroborate this interpretation. There is some evi-
century is significant for Crete’s economic expansion, dence, though, that Claudius was concerned with in-
unless it was a circumstance of those developments co- frastructure improvements at Hierapytna. Nine nearly
alescing after a century of investment. One additional identical inscriptions have been found at and around
variable to consider is the potential for harbor con- the site that document a certain Q. Paconius Agrip-
struction and renovation under the emperor Claudius, pinus fixing roads and establishing boundaries under
who ruled from 41 to 54 C.E. Claudius engaged in such the auspices of Claudius.205 Perhaps this concern with
projects across the Mediterranean, with the most im- improving conditions at Hierapytna extended to the
portant being construction at Portus, located at the port and coincided with the emperor’s larger program
mouth of the Tiber River, to assist in bringing grain of harbor improvements.
shipments to Rome, since the capital’s primary har- As seen with Lechaion above, focus on maritime
bor at the time was farther south along the Tyrrhenian infrastructure around the mid first century C.E. coin-
coast at Puteoli.199 Other scholars have noted the eco- cided with, or served as a prompt for, increased eco-
nomic benefits of Claudius’ harbor construction proj- nomic activity at many locations. As an island well
ects. For Lechaion, one of the harbors of Corinth in positioned within the eastern Mediterranean to ac-
Greece, Rothaus argues that major construction of the commodate ship traffic along east–west and north–
harbor ca. 45 C.E. coincides with a period of increased south trade routes, Crete would have benefited from
economic activity.200 The difficulty for studying the those developments. In particular, increase in vessels
impact, if any, of Claudius’ infrastructure improve- carrying grain from Egypt to Italy at this time appear
ments on Crete is the lack of knowledge concerning to be an important stimulus behind a visible increase
the construction history of the island’s Roman-period in Cretan exports, which may have served as a form of
harbors. The only site to have undergone significant piggyback commodity on those vessels. While analyz-
study is Chersonesos, located along the north-central ing the wine industry in Italy, Tchernia proposed that
coast,201 and publications of the harbor at Chersonesos the distribution of Cretan amphoras in that region was
have suggested only that Roman-period construction tied to Egyptian grain ships.206 He observed that during
occurred sometime during the first century B.C.E. or the third quarter of the first century C.E., Cretan ves-
first century C.E.202 sels are among the most common imported amphora
Lehmann-Hartleben argues that construction of a types attested at sites in Campania, including Pompeii,
large double harbor at Hierapytna did occur during Herculaneum, Oplontis, and Puteoli. In this century,
the reign of Claudius.203 If that assessment is correct, Puteoli was the destination in Italy for grain ships from
it suggests that sites on Crete, such as Hierapytna, ben- Alexandria. Cargoes offloaded there were placed on
efited from Claudius’ decision to engage in Mediterra- smaller ships for transport to Ostia and Rome along
nean-wide improvements to harbor infrastructure.204 the Tyrrhenian coast. Even with Claudius’ improve-
ments to Portus, it took several decades for harbors at
the mouth of the Tiber to take over as Rome’s primary
199
Meiggs 1973, 149–62. ports. Quantified studies of ceramic material from
200
Rothaus 1995, 299. these sites are limited, but Marangou examined finds
201
The first study occurred in the 1950s (see Leatham and in various storerooms, noting that Pompeii preserves
Hood 1957–1958, 267–73). More recently, the Roman Mari- more than 420 complete or nearly complete Cretan
time Concrete Study (ROMACONS) has extracted core sam- amphoras, Herculaneum more than 50 examples, and
ples from moles in the harbor, demonstrating that pozzolanic
materials from the Bay of Naples in Italy were used here by Ro- Oplontis more than 20.207 She also notes that Cretan
man builders. See Brandon et al. 2005; Vola et al. 2010. vessels are the most common amphora types attested
202
Vola et al. 2010, 561. at Puteoli in the first century C.E.208
203
Lehmann-Hartleben 1923, 201–2. This harbor complex
was first described in detail by Spratt (1865, 1:255).
204
It has also been argued that Claudius’ decision to improve
harbor infrastructure is one reason why evidence for shipwrecks 205
ICr 3 3 25–29; SEG 49 1231. See Bowsky 2006.
in the Mediterranean decreases during the first century C.E. 206
Tchernia 1986, 244, 298.
Ships in trouble had more options for finding safe anchorage. 207
Marangou 1994, 138–40.
See Robinson et al. 2012. 208
Marangou-Lerat 1995, 159.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
612 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
Sites on Crete were able to adapt to a changing eco- the most resistant regions like Knossos became much
nomic climate because of a century of investment in more amenable to Roman characteristics and mate-
economic infrastructure and institutions that built rial culture traditions from the mid first century C.E.
upon earlier Hellenistic traditions. Surplus goods were onward. Focus on one aspect of globalization, the im-
available for export, with merchant families well posi- portance of investment as an intentional stimulus, of-
tioned in numerous Cretan centers to arrange transac- fers insight into this phenomenon. From the mid first
tions.209 These connections may have helped to spur century B.C.E. to the mid first century C.E., regions
transformation owing to amplified contact with differ- across Crete were able to build on earlier traditions of
ent provinces, increased access to wealth, and incen- agricultural production, amphora manufacture, and
tives to engage more with regions like Italy. Knossos, social networks to develop an infrastructure capable
for instance, had direct associations with Campania of supporting large-scale export of goods. As pan-
since its colony was affiliated with the city of Capua. Mediterranean exchange networks began to flourish
Velleius Paterculus (2.81) records that Capua received during the first century C.E., Crete took advantage of
1.2 million sestertii in revenue every year from this ar- those circumstances and established itself as an im-
rangement. Horden and Purcell argue that Knossos’ portant economic entity within the Roman empire.
relationship with Capua was the primary stimulus be- Integration into those networks, made possible by the
hind Crete’s economic connections with Italy.210 This continuing development of economic infrastructure
may be the case for Knossos, but increased economic and institutions, provided the necessary motivation to
connectivity by the mid first century C.E. likely im- prompt adoption of Roman traits even in locales that
pacted all of Crete, and the infrastructure develop- had been resistant up to that point. These conclusions
ments needed to accommodate Cretan exports on a highlight the importance of critiquing the significance
scale seen at Campanian sites, and other parts of Italy of historical events for the role they played in the trans-
such as Rome, had been developing long before Knos- formation of cultures and the need to consider the
sos was made a Roman colony. As noted above with short-term and long-term stimuli that brought about
respect to amphora manufacture on Crete, we lack the new structures and enabled societies to adapt to dy-
resolution to see when different regions responded to namic sociopolitical landscapes.
this increased connectivity. Given that even the sites
most resistant to change, such as Knossos, began show- Scott Gallimore
Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies
ing signs of transformation after the mid first century, Wilfrid Laurier University
it is clear that investment in economic infrastructure 75 University Avenue West
before and after Rome’s conquest of the island had Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5
provided the necessary foundation for transformation. Canada
sgallimore@wlu.ca
conclusions
Applying the framework of eventful archaeology
suggests that Rome’s conquest of Crete lacks the nec- Works Cited
essary criteria to be considered an event. It was not the Ager, S.L. 1994. “Hellenistic Crete and ΚΟΙΝΟΔΙΚΙΟΝ.” JHS
cause of any substantive change to structures, sche- 114:1–18.
mas, and resources on the island. Instead, transforma- ———. 1996. Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–
90 B.C. Berkeley: University of California Press.
tion after 67 B.C.E. appears to be the result of gradual
Alcock, S.E. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman
processes for which globalization offers an instructive Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
perspective. That framework provides a way of ana- Allegro, N., and M. Ricciardi. 1999. Gortina. Vol. 4, Le fortifi-
lyzing varying rates of change across Crete because of cazioni di età ellenistica. Padua: Bottega d’Erasmo.
acceptance of or resistance to Roman cultural traits, Bailey, D.M. 1985. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi
but it lacks explanatory power for assessing why even (Berenice). Vol. 3, pt. 2, The Lamps. Tripoli: Department
of Antiquities, Ministry of Teaching and Education, Peo-
ple’s Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Bechert, T. 2011. Kreta in römischer Zeit. Mainz: Zabern.
209
For the spread of these families from Gortyn, see Bowsky Beck, R.A., Jr., D.J. Bolender, J.A. Brown, and T.K. Earle.
2011, 438, fig. 37.1. 2007. “Eventful Archaeology: The Place of Space in Struc-
210
Horden and Purcell 2000, 219. tural Transformation.” CurrAnthr 48(6):833–60.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 613
Bennet, J. 1990. “Knossos in Context: Comparative Perspec- Rescue Excavations of CEAlex in Alexandria.” In Am-
tives on the Linear B Administration of LM II–III Crete.” phores d’Égypte de la basse époque à l’époque arabe, edited
AJA 94(2):193–211. by S. Marchand and A. Marangou, 33–56. Cairo: Institut
Blackman, D.J., and K. Branigan. 1977. “An Archaeological français d’archéologie orientale.
Survey of the Lower Catchment of the Ayiofarango Val- Cankardeş-Şenol, G., and A.K. Şenol. 2013. “Preliminary
ley.” BSA 72:13–84. Remarks on Cypriot Amphorae and Stamps from Alex-
Bolender, D.J. 2010. “Toward an Eventful Archaeology.” In andria.” In The Transport Amphorae and Trade of Cyprus,
Eventful Archaeologies: New Approaches to Social Transfor- edited by M.L. Lawall and J. Lund, 56–82. Aarhus: Aar-
mation in the Archaeological Record, edited by D.J. Bolender, hus University Press.
3–14. Albany: State University of New York Press. Carington Smith, J. 1982. “A Roman Chamber Tomb on the
Bowsky, M.W. 1999. “The Business of Being Roman: The South-East Slopes of Monasteriaki Kephala, Knossos.”
Prosopographical Evidence.” In From Minoan Farmers to BSA 77:255–91.
Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete, ———. 1994. “A Late Hellenistic Wine Press at Knossos.”
edited by A. Chaniotis, 305–47. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. BSA 89:359–86.
———. 2004. “Of Two Tongues: Acculturation at Roman Casaramona, A., S. Colantonio, B. Rossi, C. Tempesta, and
Knossos.” In Colonie romane nel mondo greco, edited by G. G. Zanchetta. 2010. “Anfore cretesi dallo scavo del nuovo
Salmeri, A. Raggi, and A. Baroni, 95–150. Rome: L’Erma mercato di Testaccio.” RCRFActa 41:113–22.
di Bretschneider. Casson, L. 1984. Ancient Trade and Society. Detroit: Wayne
———. 2006. “Highways and Byways of Roman Hierapytna State University Press.
(Crete): Four New Claudian Road Inscriptions.” ASAtene Chalikias, K. 2013. Living on the Margin: Chryssi Island and
84:551–80. the Settlement Patterns of the Ierapetra Area (Crete). BAR-IS
———. 2011. “All in the Family: Forming Social and Eco- 2549. Oxford: Archaeopress.
nomic Networks on Roman Crete.” In ΣΤΕΓΑ: The Archae- Chaniotis, A. 1988. “Vinum Creticum excellens: Zum Wein-
ology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete, edited by handel Kretas.” Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handels­
K. Glowacki and N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, 431–40. Hesperia geschichte 7:62–89.
Suppl. 44. Princeton: American School of Classical Stud- ———. 1996. Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der
ies at Athens. hellenistischer Zeit. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Brandon, C., R.L. Hohlfelder, J.P. Oleson, and C. Stern. 2005. ———. 1999. “Milking the Mountains: Economic Activities
“The Roman Maritime Concrete Study (ROMACONS): on the Cretan Uplands in the Classical and Hellenistic Pe-
The Harbour of Chersonisos in Crete and Its Italian Con- riod.” In From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights
nection.” Méditerranée 104:25–9. on the Economy of Ancient Crete, edited by A. Chaniotis,
Branigan, K. 1998. “Prehistoric and Early Historic Settle- 181–220. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
ment in the Ziros Region, Eastern Crete.” BSA 93:23–90. ———. 2005. “Inscribed Instrumenta Domestica and the
Brulé, P. 1978. La piraterie crétoise hellénistique. Paris: Les Economy of Hellenistic and Roman Crete.” In Making,
Belles Lettres. Moving, and Managing: The New World of Ancient Econo-
Burnett, A., M. Amandry, and P.P. Ripollès. 1992. Roman mies, 323–31 BC, edited by Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies,
Provincial Coinage. Vol. 1, From the Death of Caesar to the and V. Gabrielsen, 92–116. Oxford: Oxbow.
Death of Vitellius. London: British Museum Press. ———. 2008a. “What Difference Did Rome Make? The
Buzoianu, L., and N. Cheluţă-Georgescu. 1983. “Ştampile de Cretans and the Roman Empire.” In The Provinces Strike
amfore inedite de la Callatis.” Pontica 16:149–88. Back: Imperial Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean,
Callaghan, P.J. 1978. “KRS 1976: Excavations at a Shrine of edited by B. Forsén and G. Salmeri, 83–105. Helsinki:
Glaukos, Knossos.” BSA 73:1–30. Suomen Ateenan-Inst.
———.1981. “The Little Palace Well and Knossian Pot- ———. 2008b. “Introduction: Diversity, Complementarity,
tery of the Later Third and Second Centuries B.C.” BSA and Connectivity in the Aegean and in Crete.” In Sailing in
76:35–58. the Aegean: Readings on the Economy and Trade Routes, ed-
———. 1992. “Archaic to Hellenistic Pottery.” In Knossos: ited by C. Papageorgiou-Banis and A. Giannikouri, 1–15.
From Greek City to Roman Colony. Excavations at the Un- Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity.
explored Mansion II, edited by L.H. Sackett, 89–136. Lon- Chapman, A.E. 1968. “Some First Century B.C. Bronze Coins
don: British School at Athens. from Knossos.” NC 8:15–6.
Callaghan, P.J., H.W. Catling, E.A. Catling, D. Smyth, A. Chevrollier, F. 2016. “From Cyrene to Gortyn: Notes on the
Spawforth, and S. Wall. 1981. “Knossos 1975: Minoan Par- Relationship Between Crete and Cyrenaica under Roman
alipomena and Post-Minoan Remains.” BSA 76:83–108. Domination (1st Century BC–4th Century AD).” In Ro-
Cankardeş-Şenol, G. 2007a. “A Statistical Essay on the Dis- man Crete: New Perspectives, edited by J.F. Francis and A.
tribution of Imported Amphorae Finds of the CEAlex Sal- Kouremenos, 11–26. Oxford: Oxbow.
vage Excavations.” In Amphores d’Égypte de la basse époque Coldstream, J.N. 1973. Knossos: The Sanctuary of Demeter.
à l’époque arabe, edited by S. Marchand and A. Marangou, London: British School at Athens.
57–75. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. ———. 1999. “Knossos 1951–61: Classical and Hellenistic
———. 2007b. “Stamped Amphora Handles Found in the Pottery from the Town.” BSA 94:321–51.

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
614 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
Coldstream, J.N, J. Eiring, and G. Forster. 2001. Knossos Pot- Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux.
tery Handbook: Greek and Roman. London: British School Empereur, J.-Y., C. Kritzas, and A. Marangou. 1991. “Recher-
at Athens. ches sur les amphores crétoises II: Les centres de fabrica-
Cottier, M., M.H. Crawford, C.V. Crowther, J.L. Ferrary, tion d’amphores en Crète central.” BCH 115:481–523.
B.M. Levick, O. Salomies, and M. Wörrle, eds. 2008. The Empereur, J.-Y., A. Marangou, and N. Papadakis. 1992. “Re-
Customs Law of Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. cherches sur les amphores crétoises III.” BCH 116:633–48.
Crawford, M.H. 1977. “Rome and the Greek World: Eco- Engelmann, H., and D. Knibbe 1989. Das Zollgesetz der
nomic Relationships.” The Economic History Review Provinz Asia: Eine neue Inschrift aus Ephesus. Bonn: Habelt.
30:42–52. Forster, G. 2009. “Roman Knossos: The Pottery in Con-
de Souza, P. 1998. “Late Hellenistic Crete and the Roman text. A Presentation of Ceramic Evidence Provided by the
Conquest.” In Post-Minoan Crete, edited by M.G. Cava- Knossos 2000 Project (1993–95).” Ph.D. diss., University
nagh and M.J. Curtis, 112–16. London: British School of Birmingham.
at Athens. Francis, J. 2017. “Roman Influences on Greek Sphakia.” In
———. 1999. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge: From Maple to Olive: Proceedings of a Colloquium to Cele-
Cambridge University Press. brate the 40th Anniversary of the Canadian Institute in Greece,
Di Vita, A. 1968. “Influences grecques et tradition orien- edited by D.W. Rupp and J.E. Tomlinson, 505–33. Athens:
tale dans l’art punique de Tripolitaine.” MÉFRA 80:7–83. Canadian Institute in Greece.
Di Vita, A., ed. 1988. Gortina. Vol. 1. Rome: L’Erma di Frost, F.J., and E. Hadjidaki. 1990. “Excavations at the Har-
Bretschneider. bor of Phalasarna in Crete: The 1988 Season.” Hesperia
———. 2000–2001. Gortina. Vol. 5, Lo scavo del Pretorio 59(3):513–27.
(1989–1995). Padua: Bottega d’Erasmo. Fulford, M., and A. Wallace-Hadrill. 1999. “Toward a History
———. 2004. Gortina. Vol. 4, Scavi 1979–1982. Padua: Bot- of Pre-Roman Pompeii: Excavations Beneath the House
tega d’Erasmo. of Amarantus (I.9.11–12), 1995–8.” PBSR 67:37–144.
Di Vita, A., and A. Martin, eds. 1997. Gortina. Vol. 2, Preto- Gabrielsen, G. 1997. The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic
rio: Il materiale degli scavi Colini 1970–1977. Padua: Bot- Rhodes. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
tega d’Erasmo. Gallimore, S. 2015. An Island Economy: Hellenistic and Ro-
Di Vita, A., and M.A. Rizzo, eds. 2011. Gortina agora: Scavi, man Pottery from Hierapytna, Crete. New York: Peter Lang.
1996–1997. Padua: Bottega d’Erasmo. ———. 2017. “Food Surplus and Archaeological Proxies: A
Driessen, J. 2002. “Towards an Archaeology of Crisis: De- Case Study from Roman Crete.” WorldArch 49(1):138–50.
fining the Long-Term Impact of the Bronze Age Santo- ———. 2018. “The Relationship Between Agricultural Pro-
rini Eruption.” In Natural Disasters and Cultural Change, duction and Amphora Manufacture on Roman Crete.”
edited by R. Torrence and J. Grattan, 250–63. London: JRA 31:373–86.
Routledge. Garnsey, P., and R. Saller 2015. The Roman Empire: Econo-
———. 2013. “Time Capsules? Destructions as Archaeo- my, Society, and Culture. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of
logical Phenomena.” In Destruction: Archaeological, Phil- California Press.
ological and Historical Perspectives, edited by J. Driessen, Gkiasta, M. 2008. The Historiography of Landscape Research
5–22. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires on Crete. Amsterdam: Leiden University Press.
de Louvain. Grant, M. 1946. From Imperium to Auctoritas: A Historical
Dyson, S.L. 1985. The Creation of the Roman Frontier. Cam- Study of AES Coinage in the Roman Empire 49 B.C.–A.D.
bridge: Cambridge University Press. 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eiring, J. 2000. “Hellenistic Pottery from Pyrgos at Myrtos.” Grattan, J. 2006. “Aspects of Armageddon: An Exploration
In Ε’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική of the Role of Volcanic Eruptions in Human History and
Κεραμική, edited by K. Kypraiou, 53–60. Αthens: Fund Civilization.” Quaternary International 151(1):10–18.
for Archaeological Resources and Expropriations. ———. 2010. “Testing Eventful Archaeologies: Eventful
Eiring, J., M.-C. Boileau, and I. Whitbread. 2002. “Local Archaeology and Volcanic ‘Disasters.’ ” In Eventful Archae-
and Imported Transport Amphorae from a Hellenistic ologies: New Approaches to Social Transformation in the
Kiln Site at Knossos: The Results of Petrographic Analy- Archaeological Record, edited by D.J. Bolender, 179–88.
ses.” In Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, productions et Albany: State University of New York Press.
diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte Gruen, E.C. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of
syro-palestinienne), edited by F. Blondé, P. Ballet, and J.-F. Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Salles, 59–65. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient det de la Médi- Guarducci, M. 1942. Inscriptiones Creticae. Vol. 3. Rome: Li-
terranée Jean Pouilloux. breria dello Stato.
Elaigne, S. 2002. “L’introduction des céramiques fine hellénis- Guizzi, F. 1999. “Private Economic Activities in Hellenistic
tiques du bassin oriental de la Méditerranée à Alexandrie: Crete: The Evidence of the Isopoliteia Treaties.” In From
Importations et imitations locales.” In Céramiques hellénis- Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Econo-
tiques et romaines, productions et diffusion en Méditerranée my of Ancient Crete, edited by A. Chaniotis, 235–45. Stutt-
orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne), edit- gart: Franz Steiner.
ed by F. Blondé, P. Ballet, and J.-F. Salles, 159–73. Lyon: Hadjidaki, E. 1988. “Preliminary Report of Excavations at the

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 615
Harbor of Phalasarna in West Crete.” AJA 92(4):463–79. A. Kalkairinos, 391–405. Heraklion: Ministry of Culture.
Hadjisavvas, S., and A. Chaniotis. 2012. “Wine and Olive Oil Kirsten, E. 1942. Das dorische Kreta. Würzburg: K. Triltsch.
in Crete and Cyprus: Socio-Economic Aspects.” In Paral- Leatham, J., and S. Hood. 1957–1958. “Sub-marine Explora-
lel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus, edited tion in Crete, 1955.” BSA 53/54:263–80.
by G. Cadogan, M. Iakovou, K. Kopaka, and J. Whitley, Lehmann-Hartleben, K. 1923. Die antiken Hafenanlagen des
157–73. London: British School at Athens. Mittelmeeres: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Städtebaues im
Haggis, D.C. 1996. “The Port of Tholos in Eastern Crete and Altertum. Leipzig: Dieterich.
the Role of a Roman Horreum Along the Egyptian ‘Corn Leonard, J.R. 1997. “Harbor Terminology in Roman Perip-
Route.’ ” OJA 15(2):183–209. loi.” In Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterra-
———. 2005. Kavousi. Vol. 1, The Archaeological Survey of the nean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny,
Kavousi Region. Prehistory Monographs 16. Philadelphia: R.L. Hohlfelder, and H.W. Swiny, 163–200. Atlanta:
INSTAP Academic Press. Scholars Press.
Haggis, D.C., M.S. Mook, M. Scarry, L.M. Snyder, and R.D. Levi, D. 1965–1966. “Bolli d’anfore e pesi fittili da Festòs.”
Fitzsimons, M.I. Stefanakis, and W.C. West III. 2007. “Ex- ASAtene 43:569–88.
cavations at Azoria, 2003–2004, Part 1: The Archaic Civic Link, S. 1991. Landverteilung und sozialer Frieden im archaisch-
Complex.” Hesperia 76(2):243–321. en Griechenland. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Harris, W.V. 1999. “Crete in the Hellenistic and Roman Econ- Lippolis, E. 2000. “Il Settore C.” In Gortina. Vol. 5, pt. 1, Lo
omies: A Comment.” In From Minoan Farmers to Roman scavo del Pretorio (1989–1995), edited by A. Di Vita, 389–
Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete, edited 513. Padua: Bottega d’Erasmo.
by A. Chaniotis, 353–58. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. ———. 2001. “Terra sigillata orientale.” In Gortina. Vol. 5, pt.
Harrison, G.W.M. 1985. “The Joining of Cyrenaica to Crete.” 3, Lo scavo del Pretorio (1989–1995). I Materiali, edited by
In Cyrenaica in Antiquity, edited by G. Barker, J. Lloyd, and A. Di Vita, 26–35. Padua: Bottega d’Erasmo.
J. Reynolds, 365–73. BAR-IS 236. Oxford: Archaeopress. Lucas, G. 2008. “Time and Archaeological Event.” CAJ
———. 1994. “Old (and False) Perceptions Die Hard.” Cre- 18:59–65.
tan Studies 4:137–47. Marangou, A. 1994. “Vin et amphores de Crète en Cam-
Hayden, B.J. 2004. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern panie.” In Εύκρατα : Mélanges offerts à Claude Vatin,
Crete. Vol. 2, The Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area edited by M.-C. Amouretti and P. Villard, 137–43. Aix-
and Related Studies. University Museum Monograph 119. en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Marangou-Lerat, A. 1995. Le vin et les amphores de Crète de
Hayes, J.W. 1971. “Four Early Roman Groups from Knos- l’époque classique à l’époque impériale. Athens: École fran-
sos.” BSA 66:249–75. çaise d’Athènes.
———. 1983. “The Villa Dionysos Excavations, Knossos: Martin-Kilcher, S. 1998. “Le vin dans la Colonia Iulia Kar-
The Pottery.” BSA 73:97–169. thago.” In El vi a l’antiguitat, edited by M. Comas I Solà and
Hesnard, A. 1980. “Un dépôt augustéen d’amphores à La P. Padrós, 511–29. Badalona, Spain: Museu de Badalona.
Longarina, Ostie.” In The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Meiggs, R. 1973. Roman Ostia. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon
Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History, edited by J.H. Press.
D’Arms and E.C. Kopff, 141–56. MAAR 36. Rome: Ameri- Metenidis, N. 1998. “Artemis Ephesia: The Political Signifi-
can Academy in Rome. cance of the Metellus Coins.” In Post-Minoan Crete, edited
Homann-Wedeking, B. 1950. “A Kiln Site at Knossos.” BSA by M.G. Cavanagh and M.J. Curtis, 117–22. London: Brit-
45:165–92. ish School at Athens.
Hood, S., and D. Smyth. 1981. Archaeological Survey of the Mijnsbrugge, M. van der. 1931. The Cretan Koinon. Amster-
Knossos Area. London: British School at Athens. dam: Hakkert.
Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study Nixon, L., J. Moody, and O. Rackham. 1988. “Archaeological
of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell. Survey in Sphakia, Crete.” EchCl 32(2):159–73.
Karafotias, A. 1998. “Crete in Search of a New Protector: Noguera, J., D. Asensio, E. Ble, and R. Jornet. 2014. “The Be-
Nabis of Sparta and His Relations with the Island.” In Post- ginnings of Rome’s Conquest of Hispania: Archaeological
Minoan Crete, edited by M.G. Cavanagh and M.J. Curtis, Evidence for the Assault on and Destruction of the Iberian
105–11. London: British School at Athens. Town Castellet de Banyoles.” JRA 27:60–81.
Karetsou, A. 1976. “Ἀνασκαφικὲς ἐργασίες: Ἁγία Πελαγία.” North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Eco-
ArchDelt 31:354–57. nomic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Kataki, E. 2009. “Khania Bank Excavation.” In Khania (Ky- Press.
donia): A Tour to Sites of Ancient Memory, edited by M. Papadakis, N. 1979. “Μακρύς Γιαλός.” ArchDelt 34:406–9.
Andreadaki-Vlazaki, 96–107. Chania, Crete: Ministry of ———. 1980. “Μακρύς Γιαλός.” ArchDelt 35:524–25.
Culture and Tourism, 25th Ephorate of Prehistoric and ———. 2000. “Σφραγίσματα ἀμφορέων ἀπὸ τὴν ἑλληνιστικὴ
Classical Antiquities. πόλη στὸν Τρυπητὸ τῆς Σητείας στὴν Κρήτη.” Tekmeria
Kelly, A. 2006. “Distributions of Cretan Aqueducts: A Win- 5:113–26.
dow onto Romanization.” In Πεπραγμένα Θ’ Διεθνούς Parker, A.J. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean
Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, edited by T.E. Detorakes and and Roman Provinces. BAR-IS 580. Oxford: Tempus

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
616 Scott Gallimore [aja 123
Reparatum. liminary Archaeology and History.” OJA 14(3):293–306.
Paton, S. 1994. “Roman Knossos and the Colonia Julia No- Rouanet-Liesenfelt, A. 1992. “Les plantes medicinales de
bilis Cnossus.” In Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Crete à l’epoque romaine.” Cretan Studies 3:175–90.
Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, edited by D. Evely, Sackett, L.H., ed. 1992a. Knossos: From Greek City to Roman
H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, 141–53. London: Colony. Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion II. London:
British School at Athens. British School at Athens.
Peña, J.T. 1999. The Urban Economy During the Early Domi- ———. 1992b. “The Roman Pottery.” In Knossos: From Greek
nate: Pottery Evidence from the Palatine Hill. BAR-IS 784. City to Roman Colony. Excavations at the Unexplored Man-
Oxford: Archaeopress. sion II, edited by L.H. Sackett, 147–256. London: British
———. 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record. School at Athens.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sanders, I.F. 1982. Roman Crete. Warminster, U.K.: Aris and
Perl, G. 1970. “Die römischen Provinzbeamten in Cyrene und Phillips.
Creta zur Zeit der Republik.” Klio 52:336–38. Santamaria, C. 1984. “L’epave ‘H’ de La Chretienne a Saint
Perlman, P. 1999. “Krētes aei Lēistai? The Marginalization of Raphael (Var.).” Archaeonautica 4:9–52.
Crete in Greek Thought and the Role of Piracy in the Out- Şenol, A.K. 2018. Commercial Amphorae in the Graeco-Roman
break of the First Cretan War.” In Hellenistic Rhodes: Poli- Museum of Alexandria. Alexandria: Centre d’Études
tics, Culture, and Society, edited by V. Gabrielsen, P. Bilde, Alexandrines.
T. Enberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle, 132–66. Sewell, W.H., Jr. 2005. Logics of History: Social Theory and So-
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. cial Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pernier, L. 1925–1926. “L’Odeum nell’Agorà di Gortina pres- Sherk, R.K. 1969. Roman Documents from the Greek East:
so il Leteo.” ASAtene 8/9:1–69. Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Bal-
Petropoulou, A. 1985. Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Gesell- timore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
schaftsgeschichte Kretas in hellenistischer Zeit. Frankfurt: Sherwin-White, A.N. 1973. The Roman Citizenship. 2nd ed.
Peter Lang. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Portale, E.C. 2011. “Contentitori da trasporto.” In Gortina Spratt, T.A.B. 1865. Travels and Researches in Crete. 2 vols.
agora: Scavi, 1996–1997, edited by A. Di Vita and M.A. London: J. van Voorst.
Rizzo, 123–82. Padua: Bottega d’Erasmo. Spyridakis, S. 1980. “Rhodes and Olus.” In Panhellenica: Es-
Portale, E.C., and I. Romeo. 2001. “Contentitori da trasporto.” says in Ancient History and Historiography in Honor of Trues-
In Gortina. Vol. 5, pt. 3, Lo scavo del Pretorio (1989–1995), dell S. Brown, edited by S.M. Burnstein and L.A. Okin,
t.I, I Materiali, edited by A. Di Vita, 260–410. Padua: Bot- 119–28. Lawrence, Kans.: Coronado.
tega d’Erasmo. Stewart, D. 2013–2014. “Rural Sites in Roman Greece.” AR
Raab, H. 2001. Rural Settlement in Hellenistic and Roman 60:117–32.
Crete: The Akrotiri Peninsula. BAR-IS 984. Oxford: Svoronos, J.-N. 1972. Numismatique de la Crète ancienne.
Archaeopress. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt .
Rackham, O., and J. Moody. 1996. The Making of the Cre- Sweetman, R.J. 2007. “Roman Knossos: The Nature of a
tan Landscape. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester Univer- Globalized City.” AJA 111(1):61–81.
sity Press. ———. 2011. “Domus, Villa, and Farmstead: The Globaliza-
Revell, L. 2010. “The Allure of the Event in Roman Provincial tion of Crete.” In ΣΤΕΓΑ: The Archaeology of Houses and
Archaeology.” In Eventful Archaeologies: New Approaches Households in Ancient Crete, edited by K. Glowacki and N.
to Social Transformation in the Archaeological Record, ed- Vogeikoff-Brogan, 441–50. Hesperia Suppl. 44. Princeton:
ited by D.J. Bolender, 151–65. Albany: State University American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
of New York Press. ———. 2013. The Mosaics of Roman Crete: Art, Archaeol-
Riley, J.A. 1979. “The Coarse Pottery from Berenice.” In ogy, and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice). Vol. 2, sity Press.
Economic Life at Berenice, edited by J.A. Lloyd, 91–467. Talamo, C. 1987. “Il sissizio a Creta.” Miscellanea Graeca e
Tripoli: Department of Antiquities, People’s Socialist Lib- Roma 12:9–26.
yan Arab Jamahiriya. Tang, B. 2005. Delos, Carthage, Ampurias: The Housing of
Rivello, E. 2002. “Nuove acquisizioni sul deposito della Lon- Three Mediterranean Trading Centres. Rome: L’Erma di
garina (Ostia Antica).” MÉFRA 114:421–49. Bretschneider.
Rizzo, G. 2003. Instrumenta Urbis I. Rome: École française Tchernia, A. 1986. Le vin de l’Italie romaine. Rome: École
de Rome. française de Rome.
Robinson, D., C. Rice, and K. Schörle. 2012. “Regional Tra- Timby, J. 2004. “Amphorae from the Excavations at Pompeii
jectories in the Growth of Roman Maritime Infrastruc- by the University of Reading.” In Transport Amphorae and
ture.” Paper read at the Roman Archaeology Conference, Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by J. Eiring and
29 March–1 April, Frankfurt. J. Lund, 383–92. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Robinson, E.S.G. 1927. Catalogue of Greek Coins of Cyrenaica. Tsatsaki, N., and E. Nodarou. 2014. “A New Hellenistic Am-
London: British Museum. phora Production Centre in West Crete (Loutra, Rethym-
Rothaus, R. 1995. “Lechaion, Western Port of Corinth: A Pre- non): Study and Petrographic Analysis of the Pottery

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] An Island in Crisis? Reconsidering the Formation of Roman Crete 617
Assemblage.” BSA 109:287–315. ed by P.T. Themelis, 37–199. Rethymnon: University of
Vidal, J.M., and D.M. Corredor. 2018. “The Roman Ampho- Crete Press.
rae Average Capacity (AC).” OJA 37(3):299–311. Vola, G., C. Stanislao, C. Rispoli, V. Morra, and M. de Genn-
Viviers, D. 1999. “Economy and Territorial Dynamics in aro. 2010. “Petrographic Quantitative Analysis of Pozzola-
Crete from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period.” In From nic Mortars from Ancient Roman Marine Concrete Cores,
Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Econo- Drilled by ROMACONS Team (2002–2009).” Rendiconti
my of Ancient Crete, edited by A. Chaniotis, 221–33. Stutt- Online Societa Geologica Italiana 11:561–62.
gart: Franz Steiner. Wardle, K.A. 1972. “Two Notes from Knossos.” BSA
Vogeikoff-Brogan, N. 2000. “Late Hellenistic Pottery from 67:271–84.
Mochlos in East Crete.” In Ε’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση Warren, P. 1987–1988. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum
για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική, edited by K. Kypraiou, Excavations, 1978–82. Part IV.” AR 34:86–104.
69–74. Αthens: Fund for Archaeological Resources and Waters, M. 1995. Globalization. London: Routledge.
Expropriations. Watrous, L.V. 1982. Lasithi: A History of Settlement on a High-
———. 2004. “The Late Hellenistic Period in East Crete.” In land Plain in Crete. Princeton: American School of Classi-
Crete Beyond the Palaces, edited by L.P. Day, M.S. Mook, cal Studies at Athens.
and J.D. Muhly, 213–20. Prehistory Monographs 10. Phil- Watrous, L.V., D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer, eds. 2004.
adelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the
———. 2014. Mochlos. Vol. 3, The Late Hellenistic Settlement: Mesara Region of Crete. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of
The Beam-Press Complex. Prehistory Monographs 48. Phil- Archaeology.
adelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Watrous, L.V., D.C. Haggis, K. Nowicki, N. Vogeikoff-Brogan,
Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., and S. Apostolakou. 2004. “New Evi- and M. Schultz. 2012. An Archaeological Survey of the Gour-
dence of Wine Production in East Crete in the Hellenistic nia Landscape. Prehistory Monographs 37. Philadelphia:
Period.” In Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern INSTAP Academic Press.
Mediterranean, edited by J. Eiring and J. Lund, 417–27. Watrous, L.V., D.M. Buell, E. Kokinou, P. Soupios, A. Sar-
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. ris, S. Beckmann, G. Rethemiotakis, L.A. Turner, S. Gal-
Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., J. Eiring, M.-C. Boileau, and I. Whit- limore, and M.D. Hammond. 2017. The Galatas Survey:
bread. 2004. “Transport Amphoras and Wine Trade The Socio-Economic and Political Development of a Contested
in East Crete in the Late Hellenistic Period: Evidence Territory in Central Crete during the Neolithic–Ottoman Pe-
from Mochlos and Pyrgos Myrtos.” In ΣΤ’ Επιστημονική riods. Prehistory Monographs 55. Philadelphia: INSTAP
Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική, edited by D. Academic Press.
Zapheiropoulou and M. Kazakou, 327–32. Αthens: Fund Whitley, J., S. Germanidou, D. Urem-Kotsou, A. Dimoula, I.
for Archaeological Resources and Expropriations. Nikolakopoulou, A. Karnava, and D. Evely. 2006–2007.
Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., E. Nodarou, and M.-C. Boileau. 2008. “Archaeology in Greece 2006–2007.” AR 53:1–121.
“New Evidence for Amphora Production in East Crete in Williams, D.F. 2003. “Cretan Wine in Roman Britain.” Jour-
the Hellenistic period: An Integrated Approach of Typolo- nal of Roman Pottery Studies 10:26–31.
gy and Thin-Section Petrography.” In Proceedings of the 4th Wroth, W. 1886. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Symposium of the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry, edited Museum: Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Crete and the Ae-
by G. Facorellis, N. Zacharias, and K. Polikreti, 327–34. gean Islands. London: Longmans.
BAR-IS 1746. Oxford: Archaeopress. Yangaki, A. 2005. La céramique des IVe-VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C.
Vogt, C. 2000. “The Early Byzantine Potter y.” In d’Eleutherna. Athens: University of Crete Press.
Προτοβυζαντινή Ελεύθερνα, τομέας 1, Β’ τόμος, edit-

This content downloaded from

137.101.23.158 on Sun, 31 May 2020 21:44:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms