GrCrOPa

From Seshat Data Browser
Revision as of 18:40, 13 December 2021 by Admin (talk | contribs) (1 revision imported)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA ♣ ♥


♠ Original name ♣The Old Palace Crete♥

♠ Alternative names ♣Protopalatial Crete, Crete of the First Palaces♥

♠ Peak Date ♣ 1800-1700 BCE ♥


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣1900-1700 BCE ♥ The Old Palace era is divided in Middle Minoan IB (1900-1800 BCE) and Middle Minoan II A-B (1800-1700 BCE) periods. [1]

♠ Degree of centralization ♣quasi-polity♥ It is generally argued that island was divided into small independent "states" centered upon large monumental complexes generally known as "palaces". [2] These polities appear to be independent and autonomous in political and economic terms.

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ ♥

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣ Prepalatial Crete ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣ continuity ♥
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣ Neopalatial Crete ♥
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ Cretan Broze Age Civilization ♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥ km squared.

♠ Capital ♣ none ♥ The major urban centers of the period, seats of political authorities controlling the surrounding region, are Phaistos in south-central Crete, Knossos in north-central Crete, Malia, in the north area of east-central Crete, and Petras in east Crete. They create a complex and still not fully understood sociopolitical setting. [3] The largest of these centers is Malia, ca. 60 hectares, followed by Knossos, ca. 45 hectares, and Phaistos 15 hectares. None of these centers, however, could be considered as a sort of the island's capital.

♠ Language ♣ suspected unknown♥ Information of the spoken and written language of Bronze Age Cretans during the Protopalatial period is scant due to the limited number of written documents. [4] The few preserved documents were written in Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A script (Linear A was introduced at the end of the Protopalatial period at Knossos and Phaistos) are still undeciphered. What language was recorded in these documents is unknown.

General Description

Crete is a large island in the Eastern Mediterranean. Here we consider the phase of its history best known as the Old Palace or Protopalatial Era. This period began around 1900[5], and ended around 1700, with a series of conflagration across the entire island, possibly caused by earthquake, possibly by inter-island wars[6][7].

Population and Political Organization

The Old Palace period is marked by the appearance of regional states, and, in each of these, political, religious, ideological and/or economic authorities governed from “palaces”, that is, monumental court-centered building compounds such as the ones at Knossos, Malia, Phaistos and Petras[8]. However, evidence for administration is limited and consists mostly of clay archival documents. [9].

According to Renfrew, each regional state had a population of 215,000[10].

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.[11] For population estimates see also Branigan.[12] 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 ♣ 17,100♥ inhabitants. Knossos is the largest settlement of the island (ca. 57 ha) followed by Phaistos (31 ha) and Malia (24 ha.).[13] The population of Knossos is estimated to 17,100 souls and that of Phaistos and Malia to 9,300 and 7,200 respectively.

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 Protopalatial period. [14] According to the most widely accepted narrative Crete was divided into regional polities controlled by political fractions residing in monumental court-centered building compounds, generally known as "palaces", built in large urban centers. These cities, their extend varies from 60 ha (Malia and probably Phaistos) to 56 ha (Knossos), were the "capitals" of the regional quasi-polities dominating the political scape of Crete. [15] Small towns, their size varies from 3 to 5 ha., were scattered in the hinterland. Villages, hamlets and farmhouses were in the periphery of these towns and even in remote and marginal areas.

Intensively surveyed Old Palace regions provide important evidence on regional site hierarchies. In the Malia region, the survey has detected three concentric circles of villages and hamlets around the palatial centre. [16] In the Western Mesara plain, Phaistos (60 ha.) was surrounded by eight village-sized sites, including the towns of Kommos, Kalamaki, and Hagia Triada. [17]Outside these centers there were 27 hamlets, 15 farmsteads, and 11 very small sites. Settlements patterns points to the rise in occupational specialization and social diversity. Several of the larger Middle Minoan IB-II sites (1900-1800 BCE) have specialized functions; Kommos was a port, Kamares a regional place of cult, and Paterikes a pottery centre. A site close to Hagia Triada was a stone quarry. Other sites possessed elite cyclopean residencies. The large number of villages and hamlet-sized sites suggest an increased population and intensive land use. In most settlements the main productive activities were farming and stock-breeding, others led the industries and quite a few were of commercial character owing to their harbors. The road network appears extensive and presumably therefore it facilitated contacts and the transport of goods from the inland. Many harbours in small windward bays linked peripheral centres with the Aegean islands and the Levant.

In contrast to these regions controlled by palace-centered institutions, there are areas which failed to provide evidence for a developed hierarchy. [18] In the Pediada plain, the wealthiest region of the island after the Mesara, varied and intensive archaeological research has failed to detect the socio-political developments that could have led to the rise of palace-centred polities such as those which emerged in the neighboring areas of Knossos, Malia and Phaistos. [19] On the contrary, independent groups, sharing common cultural idiosyncrasies, were active in the Pediada during the early Protopalatial period. The common cultural horizon does not, of course, necessarily indicate that these centres also shared an identical socio-political organization. Each urban centre in the Pediada should be assessed within its own specific setting. Local ruling groups, indeed, might have followed their own political, social, economic and ceremonial strategies. Competition among the major centres of power over material and social resources - especially considering the fact that they operated within the same regional setting - would inevitably promote an unstable political landscape. Competition was probably intense in areas close to the territorial borders of various sub-zones. The case of the Pediada demonstrates the complexity of the Protopalatial political landscape, which cannot be reduced to simplistic models of socio-political development. Local groups can and do differ quite widely in their socio-economic choices and attitudes, breaking away from what we see as the cultural ‘mainstream’.

♠ Administrative levels ♣ [1-4] ♥ levels. 1: village heads; 2: town heads; 3: district heads; 4: central government. As for many other facets of Protopalatial societies, evidence for administration is limited and consists mostly of clay archival documents. [20]. 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.

♠ Religious levels ♣ ♥ levels.

♠ Military levels ♣ ♥ levels.

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ ♥

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ ♥

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ suspected unknown ♥

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." [21]

♠ Examination system ♣ ♥

♠ Merit promotion ♣ ♥

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ present ♥ 'Palaces" seems to be main governmental buildings of the Old Palace "states". There is no evidence for other buildings which might have been used by the governing institution, although Protopalatial cities are poorly investigated.

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ absent♥

♠ Judges ♣absent ♥

♠ Courts ♣ absent♥

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣absent ♥

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣absent♥
♠ markets ♣inferred present♥ It has been generally argued that all economic transactions were based on fruitful barter. [22] Recent research, however, suggest that market exchanges also existed in prehistory Aegean. [23]
♠ food storage sites ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Transport infrastructure

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

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ present ♥ Stones extracted systematically from quarries were gypsum, porous limestone, and sandstone. [24]

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ ♥
♠ Written records ♣present♥
♠ Script ♣present♥ The script used during the Old Palace period is the Cretan Hieroglyphic and the Linear A, the latter introduced at Knossos and Phaistos at the end of the period. [25] Ninety sylabograms, many of which equivalent to those of Linear A and B, and thirty logograms, denoting agricultural commodities, have been distinguished in Cretan Hieroglyphic. The archival documents, mostly administrative records containing lists of agricultural commodities, people and livestock, appear in a variety of forms, such as tablets, two, three and four-sided bars, medallions, nodule, flat-based nodules, roundels, one-hanging nodules, cones and crescents. They were also incised or stamped directly on objects. Assemblages of Hieroglyphic documents were found at Knossos, Malia, Phaistos, Kato Syme, Petras while isolated finds comes from may other sites. The largest assemblage was found at Malia. The script, which is not deciphered, continued to flourish and be used at least until the ends of the Middle Minoan III period (1600 BCE).
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣present♥ Cretan Hieroglyphic is a syllabic script with a number of syllabograms equivalent to those of Linear A and B. The syllabograms had a phonetic value. [26]

Kinds of Written Documents

♠ Lists, tables, and classifications ♣present♥ Most documents written in Cretan Hieroglyphic have an administrative purpose containing lists of agricultural commodities, people and livestock. [27]
♠ Calendar ♣ ♥
♠ Sacred Texts ♣ ♥
♠ Religious literature ♣ ♥
♠ 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. [28]

♠ Tokens ♣inferred present♥ It has been generally argued that in ancient societies economic transactions were also based on fruitful barter. [29]
♠ Precious metals ♣inferred present♥ It has been generally argued that in ancient societies economic transactions were also based on fruitful barter. [30]
♠ Foreign coins ♣ absent♥
♠ 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 ♣ suspected unknown ♥ ♠ Bronze ♣ suspected unknown ♥ ♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥ ♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥


Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Atlatl ♣ ♥
♠ Slings ♣ ♥
♠ Self bow ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Composite bow ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Crossbow ♣ absent♥
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ absent♥
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ absent♥
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ absent♥
♠ Handheld firearms ♣absent ♥

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ ♥
♠ Battle axes ♣ present♥
♠ Daggers ♣ present♥
♠ Swords ♣ present♥
♠ Spears ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Polearms ♣absent♥

Animals used in warfare

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

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ ♥
♠ Leather, cloth ♣ ♥
♠ Shields ♣ ♥
♠ Helmets ♣ ♥
♠ Breastplates ♣ ♥
♠ 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." [31]

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ ♥ .

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." [32] "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)." [33]

♠ 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." [34]
♠ 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." [35]

♠ 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. e.g. 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; Cadogan, G. 1994."An Old Palace period Knossos state," in in Evely, D., Hughes-Brock, H., and Momigliano, N. (eds), Knossos. A Labyrinth of History. Papers in Honor of Sinclair Hood, London, 57-68.
  3. e.g. 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; Cadogan, G. 1994."An Old Palace period Knossos state," in Evely, D., Hughes-Brock, H., and Momigliano, N. (eds), Knossos. A Labyrinth of History. Papers in Honor of Sinclair Hood, London, 57-68.
  4. 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.
  5. (Shelmerdine 2008, 4) Cynthia W. Shelmerdine. 2008. ‘Background, sources, and methods,’ in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by Cynthia W. Shelmerdine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. (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
  7. (Cadogan 2014, 43-54) G. Cadogan. 2014. "War in the Cretan Bronze Age: the realism of Stylianos Alexiou". Kritika Chronika 34: 43-54.
  8. (Manning 2008, 119) S.W. Manning. 2008. ‘: Protopalatial Crete. 5A: Formation of the palaces,’ in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by Cynthia W. Shelmerdine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. (Weingarten 2010, 317-318) J. Weingarten. 2010. ‘Minoan seals and sealings,’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), edited by E.H. Cline. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. (Renfrew 1972, 249) Colin Renfrew. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation. Oxford: Oxbow.
  11. Rackham, O. and Moody, J. 1999. The Making of the Cretan Landscape, Manchester and New York, 97.
  12. Branigan, K. 2000. "Aspects of Minoan urbanism," in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield, 38-50.
  13. Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in Schoep, 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, 156.
  14. 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 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.
  15. There is no information for the extent of Petras during the Old Palace period. The size of the Neopalatial town was about 2.5 ha.
  16. Muller, S. 1997. "L' organization d'un territory minoen," Dossiers d'Archéologie 222, 52.
  17. Watrous, L., Hadzi-Vallianou, D., and Blitzer, H. 2004. The Plain of Phaistos. Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta Archaeologica 23), Los Angeles, 278-81.
  18. Driessen, J. 2001. "History and hierarchy. Preliminary observations on the settlement pattern of Minoan Crete," in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield, 61.
  19. Rethemiotakis, G and Christakis, K. S. 2011. "landscapes of power in Protopalatial Crete: new evidence from Galatas, Pediada," SMEA 53, 195-218.
  20. e.g. 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
  21. (Castleden 2002: 4-5) Castleden, R. 2002. Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete. Routledge Press.
  22. e.g. Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 78.
  23. Christakis, K. S. 2008. The Politics of the Storage. Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete (Prehistory Monographs 25), Philadelphia, 138-39; Parkinson, W., Nakassis, D., and Galaty, M. L. 2013. "Crafts, Specialists, and Markets in Mycenaean Greece: Introduction," American Journal of Archaeology 117, 413-22.
  24. Shaw, J. W. 2009. Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques (Studi di Archaeologia Cretese VII), 28-38.
  25. Olivier, J.-P. and Godart, L. 1996. Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Instriptionum Cretae (Études Crétoise 31), Paris; Tomas, H. 2010. "Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A," in Cline, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, Oxford, 345-46.
  26. Olivier, J.-P. 1986. "Cretan writing in the Second Millennium BC," World Archaeology 17, 377-89.
  27. Karnava, A. 2000. The Cretan Hieroglyphic Script of the Second Millennium BC: Description, analysis, Function and Decipherment Perspectives (Ph.D: University of Bruxelles), 240-41; Tomas, H. 2010. "Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A," in Cline, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, Oxford, 345-46.
  28. Garrraty, C. P. 2010. "Investigating market exchange in ancient societies: a theoretical review," in Garraty, C. P. and Stark, B. L. (eds), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, Colorado, 3-32; Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 78.
  29. Garrraty, C. P. 2010. "Investigating market exchange in ancient societies: a theoretical review," in Garraty, C. P. and Stark, B. L. (eds), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, Colorado, 3-32; Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 78.
  30. Garrraty, C. P. 2010. "Investigating market exchange in ancient societies: a theoretical review," in Garraty, C. P. and Stark, B. L. (eds), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, Colorado, 3-32; Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 78.
  31. 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.
  32. Borgna, E. 2004. Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 73(2): 247-279.
  33. 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.
  34. Borgna, E. 2004. Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 73(2): 247-279.
  35. Borgna, E. 2004. Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 73(2): 247-279.