GrCrNPa

From Seshat Data Browser
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA ♣ ♥

♠ Original name ♣New Palace Crete♥

♠ Alternative names ♣Neopalatial Crete; Crete of the Second Palaces♥

♠ Peak Date ♣1500-1450 BCE ♥


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣1700- 1450 BCE ♥ The Neopalatial era is divided in Middle Minoan III (1700-1600 BCE), Late Minoan IA (1600-1500 BCE) and Late Minoan IB (1500-1450 BCE) periods. [1]

♠ Degree of centralization ♣quasi-polity♥ Some scholars see the island divided into small independent "states" centered upon large monumental complexes generally known as "palaces". [2] Others favours Knossian hegemony implying that Crete was politically unified under the control of the Knossian ruler [3] Yet other have favored the idea of independent political formations emulating Knossos. [4]

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ ♥

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣Old Palace Crete ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣continuity ♥
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣Monopalatial Crete ♥
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ Cretan Broze Age Civiliazation or Minoan Civilazation♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥ km squared.

♠ Capital ♣ none ♥ Neopalatial Crete is divided into territorial entities centered upon large urban centers that served as the main political and economic centers of their region; these are Kastelli-Chania in West Crete, Knossos, Hagia Triada (and Phaistos), and Galatas in Central Crete, Malia in East-central Crete, and Gournia, Petras and Zakros in East Crete. [5] The high degree of homogeneity characterizing the material culture of the period has been interpreted as indicative of a large, island-wide integrating political structure - that was argued to be Knossos - with dependent political centers emulating the "capital." [6] Recent studies, however, have shown that the evidence, on which the theory of the assumed Knossian hegemony was based, is insecure. [7] Knossos was the most important cultural and ideological centre of Crete, but not its administrative “capital”.

♠ Language ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Information of the spoken and written language of Bronze Age Cretans during the Neopalatial period is scant due to the limited number of written documents. The few preserved documents were written in Linear A script which is still undeciphered. [8] What language was recorded in Linear A documents is an issue of vivid debate. Some consider it part of the eastern family of Indo-European languages and have attempted to connected it to Luwian or Hittite while others connected to Semitic, Phoenecian, Indo-Iranian, or Tyrrenian. [9] It is possible however that Linear A express a pre-Hellenic Aegean linguistic substrate "which was enriched over time throughout possible migrations to the island, as well as various extra-Cretan contacts with other linguists elements, including Greek world. Thus, we could speaking of an age-old indigenous 'Minoan' language that survived in some parts of Crete until the first millennium B.C. and appears as "Eteocretan" on inscriptions such as those from Praisos and Dreros." [10]

General Description

Crete is a large island in the Eastern Mediterranean. Here we consider the phase of its history best known as the Neopalatial Era. This period followed a series of conflagrations at the end of the Old Palace era (1700 BCE), which affected almost all Cretan sites. Little agreement exists about the causes of these destructions. Although it has been generally argued that these were possibly caused by earthquake, the senario of war conflicts among major political centers of the period cannot be excluded. [11][12] The Neopalatial era ended, in 1450, in a similar way to the previous phase: the central complexes (except for the one at Knossos), many important buildings and whole settlements were violently damaged by fire and abandoned, and the Cretan presence in the Aegean and the Near East came to an end. The causes of these destructions have also been a topic of vivid debate: a massive natural disaster (earthquake), war, internal disruption or system collapse have all been suggested as possible explanations [13], though perhaps human rather than natural causes are more likely[14].

Population and Political Organization

Some scholars argue that, during the Neopatial period, the island was divided into small independent "states" centered upon large monumental complexes generally known as "palaces"[15][16][17][18] Others favour the notion of a Knossian hegemony, that is, the notion that Crete was politically unified under the control of the ruler at Knossos[19][20][21] Yet other have favored the idea of independent political formations emulating Knossos[22][23][24]

The population of Crete at this time has been estimated at 242,000[25], 216,000-271,000[26] and 260,000[27]. As for Knossos, the largest urban centre in the whole of Prehistoric Greece, Whitelaw estimated Knossian population to 25,000-30,000 people replacing his previous estimate of 14,000-18,000 individuals[28][29]

Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ ♥ The following were coded through pers. comm. with Kostis Christakis

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ suspected unknown ♥ The area of Crete is 8,336 square kilometres. However, according to the most widely accepted narrative Crete, was divided into regional polities controlled by political factions residing in monumental court-centered building compounds, generally known as "palaces", built in large urban centers. How many regional polities were there? Expert input may be needed to code this variable.

♠ Polity Population ♣ suspected unknown ♥ people. Rackham and Moody argued that the population of palatial Crete (Middle Minoan II-Late Minoan I or 1800-1450 BCE) was about 216,000-271,000.[30] For population estimates see also Branigan.[31] Expert input may be needed to produce a figure for the population of a typical regional polity in this period.

♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣[25,000-30,000] ♥ inhabitants. Knossos is the largest site of Neopalatial Crete. The estimated site size is about 60-80 hectares making Knossos the largest urban centre of Prehistoric Greece. [32] Whitelaw estimated Knossian population to 25,000-30,000 people replacing his previous estimate of 14,000-18,000 individuals [33]

Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ [1-6] ♥ levels. Excavated testimonies supplemented with information from systematic survey projects provide a sound starting point for the reconstruction of settlement hierarchies during the New Palace period. [34] According to the most widely accepted narrative Crete was divided into regional polities controlled by political fractions residing in monumental complexes, generally known as "palaces", built at the center of large urban centers. These large towns -their extend is 25 ha or more- were the "capitals" of the regional quasi-polities dominating the political landscape of Crete. Small towns, their size varies from 10 to 4 ha, were scattered in the hinterland. They were provided with substantial central buildings which in their architectural layout emulate these of the capital towns. Villages, hamlets and farmhouses were in the periphery of these towns and even in remote and marginal areas.

♠ Administrative levels ♣ 5 ♥ levels. [1-5] 1: village heads; 2: town heads; 3: district heads; 4: regional governors; 5: central government. As for many other facets of Neopalatial societies, evidence for administration is limited and consists mostly of clay archival documents. [35] We may assume that villages and town were controlled by local leaders whose in their turn were under the administration of high ranking government officials. It seems likely that the control was local and related to small territorial units. Texts deal mostly with agricultural staples (cereal crops, olive oil and olives, wine, figs and some other unidentified goods) and occasionally with dependent work-force, livestock, craft products, wool, and pottery. [36] The cornerstone of political economies was the exploitation of agricultural wealth. Staples were kept in central stores and were used for the needs of a limited number of individuals [37] They sustained elite and dependent craftsmen and laborers, financed state enterprises, and were consumed in large-scale ceremonial events in order to project political and social power and reaffirm social status. Archival data shows that goods were collected thought taxation. Whether they were produced in land owned by the central administration or land that was privately owned cannot be determined. [38] The preserved documents only record the transactions in which the central administration was directly interested, and thus do not provide a complex picture of all economy and administrative aspects of a given sociopolitical setting. The juxtaposition of archaeological material excavated in sites where archival documents were found with goods recorded in the tables shows that Linear A tablets cover only part of the administrative concerns [39] Important craft goods and raw material (ingots, tusk of ivory, steatite ext.) used for the production of precious artifacts whose possession and display were critical to the state's ability to clay legitimacy and stored in the stores of the central administration [40] were not mentioned in tablets. According to Schoep "the absence of any reference to such goods in the tablets is surprising and cannot be explained in terms of lack of interest on the part of administration in the production and/or aqcuisition of craft goods, since this is contradicted by the archaeological evidence. The possibility that documents other than tablets were concerned with craft goods must be seriously considered." [41] The variety of sealed documents (single-holes nodules, two-hole hanging nodules, roundels, noduli and flat-based nodules) used for sealing perishables documents highlight the importance of documents written in perishable materials in the Neopalatial administration. Officials surveyed the countryside and brought back information to the central administration. Clay tablets "were dealing with one kind of obligations, which mainly concerned agricultural commodities, while sealed documents related to other kind of transactions, involving a different, perhaps wider geographical scale and commodities and/or matters of a different administrative status. At the end of the administration cycle the information from the tablets was copied onto documents in perishable materials, to which single-hole hanging nodules may have been attached." [42]

♠ Religious levels ♣ suspected unknown ♥ levels. Male and female figures depicted in various iconographic media were often identified as priests and priestesses.[43] The frequency of such depictions during the New Palace period has been interpreted as " a need for a more pronounced identity arose as a result of the greater consolidation of the ruling class." [44] The sacerdotal figures were dressed with sumptuary adorned robes and dresses, have special hairstyles and hold insignia of their authority (curved axes, double-axes, stone maces, and ritual objects). They were also often accompanied by certain symbolic images: animal heads (scarified victims), winged creatures, and animals attacker/predators. All evidence points to a division between priest and priestess: priest were associated with hunting and perhaps in the daily administration while priestess to pouring of libations, processions, bringing offerings and performing dances. The most important ritual performed by priestesses was the impersonation of the goddess. According Marinatos "Minoan priesthood was a permeant profession and not a stage in the "career" of the nobility". and "I would think that the priesthood in palatial Crete formed a strong corporation from the ranks of which the priest-king and the goddess impersonator were chosen." [45] It should be noted, however, that because of the absence of sound information all these are speculations.

♠ Military levels ♣ ♥ levels.

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ ♥

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ ♥

♠ Professional priesthood ♣present♥ Male and female figures depicted in various iconographic media were often identified as priests and priestesses. [46] The frequency of such depictions during the New Palace period has been interpreted as " a need for a more pronounced identity arose as a result of the greater consolidation of the ruling class." [47] The sacerdotal figures were dressed with sumptuary adorned robes and dresses, have special hairstyles and hold insignia of their authority (curved axes, double-axes, stone maces, and ritual objects). They were also often accompanied by certain symbolic images: animal heads (scarified victims), winged creatures, and animals attacker/predators. All evidence points to a division between priest and priestess: priest were associated with hunting and perhaps in the daily administration while priestess to pouring of libations, processions, bringing offerings and performing dances. The most important ritual performed by priestesses was the impersonation of the goddess. According Marinatos "Minoan priesthood was a permeant profession and not a stage in the "career" of the nobility" and "I would think that the priesthood in palatial Crete formed a strong corporation from the ranks of which the priest-king and the goddess impersonator were chosen." [48] It should be noted, however, that because of the absence of sound information all these are speculations.

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣present♥ "Gradually, during the Early Modern period (3000-2200 BC), the Cretans evolved all the characteristics that we think of as being distinctively Minoan. Only the 'palaces' remained unbuilt. The 'palace' society (c.2000-1380 BC) was clearly very advanced in its orderly and bureaucratic organization, showing a strongly rational and practical side with highly developed craft technologies, and yet it also possessed all the imaginative power and childlike freshness of a very young culture." [49]

♠ Examination system ♣ ♥

♠ Merit promotion ♣ ♥

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ present ♥ The central complexes of large urban centers may have served for governmental purposes. [50]

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ absent♥

♠ Judges ♣absent ♥

♠ Courts ♣ absent♥

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣absent ♥

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣present♥
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣ ♥
♠ markets ♣inferred present♥ The existence of markets in the Aegean did not enjoy scholarly support for many decades, mostly due to the wide and uncritical acceptance of the Polanyian paradigm of ancient economies. Palatial institutions were seen as the only regulators of any economic transaction. Acting as redistributive agents, they were thought to draw upon raw materials and labour from the hinterland in order to produce and distribute specialized artisanal goods. In recent years, however, new perspectives have effectively challenged not only the redistributive role of governing institutions but also the negative attitude towards the existence of market and market-like systems in the Aegean. [51] Once people started looking for them, markets have begun to appear in much earlier chronological horizons, shaping the emergence of state administrative institutions. [52] ( Garraty and Stark 2010). Although there are some constrains in recognizing and understanding markets in prehistoric societies, the market is an economic process which should developed further in Bronze Age Crete.
♠ food storage sites ♣ suspected unknown ♥ The only known free-standing storage complexes are the Northeast House at Knossos [53] and the the Bastione at Hagia Triada. [54] Although there is no doubt for the storage function of these complexes, their "public" character is entirely uncertain. [55] Might the Northeast House have been a communal storehouse under the control of the community or of an elite group independent of that residing within the palace, or was it under the control of the central palace authority? A convincing answer to this question cannot be given; it would depend, to a certain extent, on the theoretical context adopted by each scholar in the approach to the Neopalatial polities. Those who see political organization under a heterarchical interpretative scheme would be in favor of a scenario according to which the wealth stored in the complex would be in the hands of the community or a powerful faction competing with the central administration. On the contrary, those who assign an important role to the ruling group residing within the palace, would see government officials as the managers of the stored goods within the setting of the highly specialized Knossian economy. It is highly unlikely that the Northeast House, built close to the palace, the seat of a ruling group that would have controlled many aspects of the daily life of the inhabitants of the city and other centers, would have been an independent storage unit under communal or factional control. The same arguments apply in the case of the Bastione at Hagia Triada.

Transport infrastructure

♠ Roads ♣present♥
♠ Bridges ♣present♥
♠ Canals ♣absent♥
♠ Ports ♣ present♥

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ present ♥ Stones extracted systematically from quarries were gypsum, porous limestone, and sandstone. [56]

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ ♥
♠ Written records ♣present♥
♠ Script ♣present♥ Cretan Hieroglyphic (1700-1600 BCE) and Linear A (1700-1450 BCE). [57]
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣present♥

Kinds of Written Documents

♠ Lists, tables, and classifications ♣present♥ [58]
♠ Calendar ♣unknown♥
♠ Sacred Texts ♣unknown♥
♠ Religious literature ♣unknown♥
♠ Practical literature ♣absent♥
♠ History ♣absent♥
♠ Philosophy ♣absent♥
♠ Scientific literature ♣absent♥
♠ Fiction ♣absent♥


Money

♠ Articles ♣inferred present♥ It has been generally argued that in ancient societies economic transactions were also based on fruitful barter. [59]
♠ Tokens ♣inferred present♥ It has been generally argued that in ancient societies economic transactions were also based on fruitful barter. [60]
♠ Precious metals ♣inferred present♥ It has been generally argued that in ancient societies economic transactions were also based on fruitful barter. [61]
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ absent♥
♠ Paper currency ♣ absent♥

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ absent♥
♠ Postal stations ♣ absent♥
♠ General postal service ♣ absent♥

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ ♥ The following were coded through pers. comm. with Kostis Christakis

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ present ♥
♠ Bronze ♣ present ♥
♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥
♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥

Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ present♥
♠ Atlatl ♣ ♥
♠ Slings ♣ ♥
♠ Self bow ♣ present♥ "The hieroglyphs include bows, arrows, spears and daggers, Molloy wrote. As the script is untranslated, these hieroglyphs may not represent literal spears, daggers and weapons, he said, but their existence reveals that weaponry was key to Minoan civilization."[1]
♠ Composite bow ♣ ♥
♠ Crossbow ♣ absent♥
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ absent♥
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ absent♥
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ absent♥
♠ Handheld firearms ♣absent ♥

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ ♥
♠ Battle axes ♣ present♥ "Preserved seals and stone vessels show daggers, spears and swordsmen. Images of double-headed axes and boar's tusk helmets are also common in Cretian art, Molloy reported."[2]
♠ Daggers ♣ present♥ "For example, weapons such as daggers and swords show up in Minoan sanctuaries, graves and residences, Molloy reported in November in The Annual of the British School at Athens."[3]
♠ Swords ♣ present♥ "For example, weapons such as daggers and swords show up in Minoan sanctuaries, graves and residences, Molloy reported in November in The Annual of the British School at Athens."[4]
♠ Spears ♣ present♥ "Preserved seals and stone vessels show daggers, spears and swordsmen. Images of double-headed axes and boar's tusk helmets are also common in Cretian art, Molloy reported."[5]
♠ Polearms ♣absent♥

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ ♥
♠ Donkeys ♣ ♥
♠ Horses ♣ ♥
♠ Camels ♣ absent♥
♠ Elephants ♣ absent♥

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ ♥
♠ Leather, cloth ♣present ♥
♠ Shields ♣ present♥ "Hunting scenes often featured shields and helmets, Molloy found"[6]
♠ Helmets ♣present ♥
♠ Breastplates ♣ absent♥
♠ Limb protection ♣ absent♥
♠ Chainmail ♣ absent♥
♠ Scaled armor ♣ absent♥
♠ Laminar armor ♣ absent♥
♠ Plate armor ♣absent ♥

Naval technology

♠ Small vessels (canoes, etc) ♣present♥
♠ Merchant ships pressed into service ♣ ♥
♠ Specialized military vessels ♣ ♥

Fortifications

♠ Settlements in a defensive position ♣present ♥
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ ♥
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ ♥
♠ Ditch ♣ ♥
♠ Moat ♣ absent♥
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ present♥
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ present♥
♠ Fortified camps ♣ ♥
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ absent♥
♠ Long walls ♣absent ♥ km.
♠ Modern fortifications ♣ absent♥

Phase II Variables (polity-based)

Institutional Variables

♠ RA ♣ ♥

Limits on Power of the Chief Executive

Power distributed

♠ Constraint on executive by government ♣ ♥
♠ Constraint on executive by non-government ♣ ♥
♠ Impeachment ♣ ♥

Social Mobility

Status

Elite status

♠ elite status is hereditary ♣ ♥

Religion and Normative Ideology

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni ♥

Deification of Rulers

♠ Rulers are legitimated by gods ♣ inferred present ♥ Referring to the appearance of palaces in the Old Palace period: "The great wave of innovation that accompanied their advent had two main effects in the religious sphere. On the one hand, it involved the transfer of collective rituals, based on the communal consumption of food and drink, and on ritual interments, inside the palaces, with the explicit purpose of integrating forms of religious practice already established in the surrounding territory. On the other hand, in the context of a social strategy designed to reinforce the power of the dominant groups, it led to the creation of a palace religion. This received a decisive impulse from the importation of objects, ideas, beliefs and symbols from the Near East. The elites involved in this process were seeking 'to claim affinity with distant elites and represent themselves at a local level as qualitatively different beings'. From now onwards, and up to the end of the Bronze Age, the groups that controlled the palace system worked to achieve a progressive concentration of the exploitation of sacrality as a means of exercising social control." [62]

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ inferred present♥ [63] Minoan Crete: The tiara is a sign of both royalty and divinity in Syria, Hittite Anatolia, and Minoan Crete. This suggests that the Minoan god was probably conceived as a king of his pantheon. It further suggests that we can never know for sure if one particular representation shows the god or the king. Because this ambiguity is deliberate, it need not concern us much. [64] King is considered the chief priest. “The Greeks, who did not have divine kingship, rejected the idea of proskynesis.” However, it must be concluded that “Crete had a Near Eastern type of theocracy. This final point may serve as a definition of sacral kingship. Evans was right after all; sacral kingship did exist in Crete. The monarch (and his mythical prototype, the Storm God) was acknowledged as divine.” Rings with the Storm God date to the New Palace epoch. They were designed during the period of one royal dynasty (which may have comprised some four to five kings), and this dynasty promoted the Storm God as a patron of kingship. [65]

Normative Ideological Aspects of Equity and Prosociality

♠ Ideological reinforcement of equality ♣ inferred absent ♥ Archaeological and iconographic evidence for status- and sex-based segregation during rituals. "For example, at Ayia Triada stone chalices appear to have been used in the rooms belonging to the Quartiere signorile di nord-ovest, where, according to Robert Koehl, the rites of the andreion were performed, while hundreds of conical cups, which were probably involved in the same rites of ritual consumption, were found in the nearby storeroom.81 The technical and morphological standardization of these vessels, devoid of stylistic elaboration, and the difference in the raw material between the chalices and the cups are clear signs of the unlikelihood of interaction between elites, at the focal center of the rite, and the public, which may have watched or participated but only as anonymous actors. [...] In Minoan ritual, the distance between the common populace and the elites was metaphorically expressed in iconographic representations such as the genii and the enthroned deity (which appear, for example, on the wellknown ring from Tiryns). Among examples of this iconographic type that show serving and pouring activities, the Kamilari clay model best illustrates these activities as tasks of subordinates or nonhuman beings, excluded from social exchange." [66] "Evidence from frescoes also suggests that Minoan society was sex-segregated, at least at ceremonial gatherings. The Grandstand fresco portrays women in elegant flounced dresses sitting together and apart from a large undifferentiated red mass of men dressed (like the agricultural workers on the Harvester Vase) only in breechcloths with codpieces, their chests and limbs bare. [...] The representations on sealstones and in frescoes show major gender differences as well. There are clear representations of powerful men and women, but their power is expressed in different ways. Female deities usually sit on a platform associated with a small built structure, perhaps an altar or shrine; animals and people bearing gifts approach them. In a couple of instances the women are accompanied by supernatural animals, a leashed griffin in the fresco from Xeste 3 at Akrotiri (Pl. 7.2), Thera, and “genii” on a gold finger ring from Tiryns on the mainland (but datable to the very end of the Neopalatial period). [...] Powerful human men also appear: men standing erect hold out a staff in front of them in the Commanding Gesture, as on the “Master” seal impression from Chania (Pl. 7.3), and on the Chieftain Cup from Ayia Triada; and in the ship fresco from the West House, Akrotiri, men sit bundled up either alone in open shipboard cabins or under awnings. Several important human women can also be detected, but they are not obviously wielding or enjoying power. [...] More women than men, however, appear in powerful roles, at a larger relative scale, and their importance seems assured by the number of them who sit on camp stools, stools like hassocks, and thrones (chairs with arm rails and backs)." [67]

♠ Ideological thought equates rulers and commoners ♣ inferred absent ♥ Archaeological and iconographic evidence for elite-commoner distinction in rituals. "For example, at Ayia Triada stone chalices appear to have been used in the rooms belonging to the Quartiere signorile di nord-ovest, where, according to Robert Koehl, the rites of the andreion were performed, while hundreds of conical cups, which were probably involved in the same rites of ritual consumption, were found in the nearby storeroom.81 The technical and morphological standardization of these vessels, devoid of stylistic elaboration, and the difference in the raw material between the chalices and the cups are clear signs of the unlikelihood of interaction between elites, at the focal center of the rite, and the public, which may have watched or participated but only as anonymous actors. [...] In Minoan ritual, the distance between the common populace and the elites was metaphorically expressed in iconographic representations such as the genii and the enthroned deity (which appear, for example, on the wellknown ring from Tiryns). Among examples of this iconographic type that show serving and pouring activities, the Kamilari clay model best illustrates these activities as tasks of subordinates or nonhuman beings, excluded from social exchange." [68]
♠ Ideological thought equates elites and commoners ♣ inferred absent ♥ Archaeological and iconographic evidence for elite-commoner distinction in rituals. "For example, at Ayia Triada stone chalices appear to have been used in the rooms belonging to the Quartiere signorile di nord-ovest, where, according to Robert Koehl, the rites of the andreion were performed, while hundreds of conical cups, which were probably involved in the same rites of ritual consumption, were found in the nearby storeroom.81 The technical and morphological standardization of these vessels, devoid of stylistic elaboration, and the difference in the raw material between the chalices and the cups are clear signs of the unlikelihood of interaction between elites, at the focal center of the rite, and the public, which may have watched or participated but only as anonymous actors. [...] In Minoan ritual, the distance between the common populace and the elites was metaphorically expressed in iconographic representations such as the genii and the enthroned deity (which appear, for example, on the wellknown ring from Tiryns). Among examples of this iconographic type that show serving and pouring activities, the Kamilari clay model best illustrates these activities as tasks of subordinates or nonhuman beings, excluded from social exchange." [69]

♠ Ideology reinforces prosociality ♣ ♥

♠ production of public goods ♣ ♥

References

  1. Shelmerdine, C. W. 2008. "Background, sources, and methods," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 4.
  2. Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Polities and palaces: some problems in the Minoan state formation,” in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. F. (eds.), Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge, 19-45; Bennet, J. 1990. "Knossos in context: comparative perspectives on the Linear B administration of LM II-III Crete," American Journal of Archaeology 94, 193-211; Christakis, K.S. 2008. The Politics of Storage. Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete (Prehistory Monographs 25), Philadelphia, 2-7; Bevan, A. 2010. "Political geography and palatial Crete," Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 23, 27-54.
  3. Betts, J.H. 1967. " New light on Minoan bureaucracy. A reexamination of some Cretan seals," Kadmos 6, 15-40; Hallager, E. and B. P. 1996. "The Knossian bull-political propaganda in Neo-palatial Crete," in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Heidelberg, 10-13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12), Liège, 547-56; Wiener, M. W. 2007. "Neopalatial Knossos: rule and role," in Betancourt, P.P., Nelson, M. C., Williams, H. (eds), Krinoi kai Limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (Prehistory Monographs 22), Philadelphia 231-42.
  4. Schoep, I. 1999. "Tables and territories: reconstructing Late Minoan IB political territories throughout undeciphered documents," American Journal of Archaeology 103, 201-21; Soles, J. S. 1995. "The function of a cosmological center: Knossos in palatial Crete," in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds.), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum12), Liège, 405-14; Knappett, C. J. and Schoep, I. 2000. "Continuity and change in Minoan political power," Antiquity 74, 365-71.
  5. See the various contributions in Driessen, J. Schope, I. and Laffineur, R. 2002. Monuments of Minons. Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum 23), Liège; Christakis, K.S. 2008. The Politics of Storage. Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete (Prehistory Monographs 25), Philadelphia, 2-7; Bevan, A. 2010. "Political geography and palatial Crete," Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 23, 27-54.
  6. e.g. Wiener, M. W. 2007. "Neopalatial Knossos: rule and role," in Betancourt, P.P., Nelson, M. C., Williams, H. (eds), Krinoi kai Limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (Prehistory Monographs 22), Philadlphia 231-42.
  7. Schoep, I. 2002. " The state of the Minoan palaces or the Minoan palace-state?," in Driessen, J., Schoep, I., and Laffineur, R. (eds), Monuments of Minos. Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14-15 December 2001 (Aegeaum 23), Liège, 15-33.
  8. Tomas, H. 2010. " Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A," in Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 340-55; Boulotis, C. 2008. "The art of Cretan writing," in Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M., Rethemiotakis, G., and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, N. (eds), From the Land of the Labyrinth. Minoan Crete, 3000-1100 B.C., New York, 67-78.
  9. Nagy, G. 1963. "Greek-like elements in Linear A," Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 4, 181-211; Owens, G. 1999. "The structure of the Minoan language," Journal of Indo-European Studies 27, 15-56; Owens, G. 2007. Η Δομή της Μινωικής Γλώσσας, Heraklion; Palmer, L. 1958. "Luvian and Linear A," Transactions of the Philological Society 57, 75-100; Best, J. 2001. "The first inscription in Punic: vowel differences in Linear A and B," in Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. (eds), In Memoriam: Cyrus H. Gordon, Münster, .....; Chadwick, J. 1967. The Decipherment of Linear B. Cambridge, 34.
  10. Boulotis, C. 2008. "The art of Cretan writing," in Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M., Rethemiotakis, G., and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, N. (eds), From the Land of the Labyrinth. Minoan Crete, 3000-1100 B.C., New York, 70.
  11. (La Rosa 1999, 81-89) V. La Rosa. 1999. "Πολιτική εξουσία και σεισμικές καταστροφές στη Μινωική Κρήτη: η περίπτωση της Φαιστού" in Κρήτες Θαλασσοδρόμοι, edited by A. Karetou. Heraklion
  12. (Cadogan 2014, 43-54) G. Cadogan. 2014. "War in the Cretan Bronze Age: the realism of Stylianos Alexiou". Kritika Chronika 34: 43-54.
  13. (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 106-109) Jan Driessen. and Colin F. Macdonald. 1997. The Troubled Island. Minoan Crete Before and After the Santorini Eruption. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique; Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory
  14. (Christakis 2008, 144-146) Kostis S. Christakis. 2008. The Politics of Storage. Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete. Philadelphia, Pa.: INSTAP Academic Press.
  15. (Cherry 1986, 19-45) John F. Cherry. 1986. “Polities and palaces: some problems in the Minoan state formation,” in Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, edited by Colin Renfrew and John F. Cherry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. (Bennet 1990, 193-211) John Bennet. 1990. "Knossos in context: comparative perspectives on the Linear B administration of LM II-III Crete." American Journal of Archaeology 94: 193-211
  17. (Christakis 2008, 2-7) Kostis S. Christakis. 2008. The Politics of Storage. Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.
  18. (Bevan 2010, 27-54) Andrew Bevan. 2010. "Political geography and palatial Crete." Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 23: 27-54.
  19. (Betts 1967, 15-40) John H. Betts. 1967. " New light on Minoan bureaucracy. A reexamination of some Cretan seals." Kadmos 6: 15-40
  20. (Hallager and Hallager 1996, 547-556) E. and B.P. Hallager. 1996. "The Knossian bull-political propaganda in Neo-palatial Crete," in POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Heidelberg, 10-13 April 1994, edited by Robert Laffineur and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique; Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory
  21. (Wiener 2007, 231-242) M.W. Wiener. 2007. "Neopalatial Knossos: rule and role" in Krinoi kai Limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw, edited by Philip Betancourt, Michael Nelson and Hector Williams. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press
  22. (Schoep 1999, 201-221) Ilse Schoep. 1999. "Tables and territories: reconstructing Late Minoan IB political territories throughout undeciphered documents." American Journal of Archaeology 103: 201-21
  23. (Soles 1995, 405-414) J.S. Soles. 1995. "The function of a cosmological center: Knossos in palatial Crete" in POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Heidelberg, 10-13 April 1994, edited by Robert Laffineur and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique; Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory
  24. (Knappett and Schoep 2000, 365-371) Carl Knappett and Ilse Schoep. 2000. "Continuity and change in Minoan political power," Antiquity 74: 365-71.
  25. (Branigan 2000, 38-50) Keith Branigan. 2000. "Aspects of Minoan urbanism," in Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by Keith Branigan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
  26. (Rackham and Moody 1999, 97) Oliver Rackham and Jennifer Alice Moody. 1999. The Making of the Cretan Landscape, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  27. (Renfrew 1972, 249) Colin Renfrew. 1972. The Emergence of Civilization, London: Oxbow Books
  28. (Whitelaw 2004, 147-158) Todd Whitelaw. 2004. "Estimating the population of Neopalatial Knossos" in Knossos: Palace, City, State: Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion organized by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans's Excavations at Knossos, edited by Gerald Cadogan, Eleni Hatzaki and Adonis Vasilakis. London: British School of Athens.
  29. (Whitelaw 2014, 143-144) Todd Whitelaw. 2014. "Political formations in Prehistoric Crete". BICS 57: 143-144.
  30. Rackham, O. and Moody, J. 1999. The Making of the Cretan Landscape, Manchester and New York, 97.
  31. Branigan, K. 2000. "Aspects of Minoan urbanism," in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield, 38-50.
  32. Whitelaw, T. 2001. "From sites to communities: Defining the human dimensions of Minoan urbanism," in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield,15-37.
  33. Whitelaw, T. 2000. "Beyond the palace: a century of investigation in Europe’s oldest city," BICS 44, 223-26; Whitelaw, T. 2001. "From sites to communities: defining the human dimensions of Minoan urbanism," in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield, 15-37; Whitelaw, T. 2004. "Estimating the population of Neopalatial Knossos," in Cadogan, G., Hatzaki, E. and Vasilakis, A. (eds), Knossos: Palace, City, State: Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion organized by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans's Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12), London, 147-58; Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of Prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford 114-76; Whitelaw, T. 2014. "Political formations in Prehistoric Crete", BICS 57, 143-44.
  34. See the various contributions in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield. See also Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Polities and palaces: some problems in the Minoan state formation,” in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. F. (eds), Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge, 19-45; Driessen, J., and Macdonald, C.F. 1997. The Troubled Island. Minoan Crete Before and After the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liège; Bevan, A. 2010. "Political Geography and Palatial Crete," Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 23, 27-54; Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 61-83.
  35. e.g. Hallager, E. 1996. The Minoan Roundel and Other Sealed Documents in the Neopalatial Linear A Administration (Aegaeum 14), Liège; Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca; Weingarten, J. 2010. " Minoan seals and sealings," in Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 317-28; Tomas, H. 2010. " Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A," in n Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 341-55.
  36. Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 178-89.
  37. Christakis, K. S. 2008. The Politics of Storage. Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete (Prehistory Monographs 25), Philadelphia; Christakis, K. S. 2011. "Redistribution and political economies in Bronze Age Crete," American Journal of Archaeology 115, 197-205.
  38. Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 190.
  39. c.f. Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 191.
  40. e.g. Halbherr, F., E. Stefani, and L. Banti. 1977. “Haghia Triada bel period tardo palaziale,” ASAtene 55, 1-296; Watrous, L. V. 1984. “Ayia Triada: A New perspective on the Minoan villa,” American Journal of Archaeology 88, 123-34; Platon, L. 1993. " Ateliers plateaux minoenes: use nouvelle image," BCH 117, 103-22
  41. Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 191.
  42. Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 197.
  43. See the discussion in Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia, 127-46.
  44. Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia, 127.
  45. See the discussion in Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia, 145-46.
  46. See the discussion in Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia, 127-46.
  47. Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia, 127.
  48. See the discussion in Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia, 145-46.
  49. (Castleden 2002: 4-5) Castleden, R. 2002. Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete. Routledge Press.
  50. See the various contributions in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June, 1984 (SkrAth 4o, 35), Stockholm; Driessen, J., Schoep,I. and Laffineur, R. (eds), Monuments of Minos. Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14-15 December 2001 (Aegeaum 23), Liège.
  51. Galaty, M. L., D. Nakassis, and W. A. Parkinson. 2011. Introduction: Why redistribution. In M. L. Galaty, D. Nakassis, and W. A. Parkinson (eds), Redistribution in Aegean Palatial Societies. AJA 115.2: 176-77; Parkinson, W. A., D. Nakassis, and M. L. Galaty. 2013. Introduction. In W. A Parkinson, D. Nakassis, and M. L. Galaty (eds), Crafts, Specialists, and Markets in Mycenaean Greece. AJA 117: 413-22.
  52. see various contributions in Garraty, C. P. and B. L. Stark (eds). 2010. Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. Boulder, University of Colorado Press.
  53. Evans, A. 1928. The Palace of Minos at Knossos, II, London, 414-30
  54. Privitera, S. 2010. I granai del re. L’immagazzinamento centralizzato delle derrate a Creta tra il XV e il XIII secolo a.C., Venezia, 104-5; Privitera, S. 2014. Long-term grain storage and political economy in Bronze Age Crete: contextualizing Ayia Triada’s silo complexes,” American Journal of Archaeology 118, 429-49.
  55. Christakis, K. S. 2014. "Communal storage in Bronze Age Crete: re-assessing testimonies," Κρητικά Χρονικά ΛΔ, 201-18.
  56. Shaw, J. W. 2009. Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques (Studi di Archaeologia Cretese VII), 28-38.
  57. Tomas, H. 2010. " Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A," in n Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 341-55.
  58. Tomas, H. 2010. " Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A," in n Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 341-55.
  59. e.g. Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 78.
  60. e.g. Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 78.
  61. e.g. Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 78.
  62. D'Agata, A.L. and A. Hermary. 2012. Ritual and cult in Crete and Cyprus from the third millennium to the first millennium BC: towards a comparative framework. British School at Athens Studies 20: 273-288.
  63. (Jennifer Larson, Oxford workshop January 2017)
  64. (Marinatos 2010: 168)
  65. (Ibid, 184-85) Marinatos, N. 2010. Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine. University of Illinois Press.
  66. Borgna, E. 2004. Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 73(2): 247-279.
  67. Younger, J.G. and P. Rehak. 2008. Minoan culture: religion, burial customs, and administration. In Shelmerdine, C.W. (ed) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age pp. 165-185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Borgna, E. 2004. Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 73(2): 247-279.
  69. Borgna, E. 2004. Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 73(2): 247-279.