The Minoan Past in the Past: Bronze Age Objects in Early Iron Age Burials at Knossos, Crete

173 Pages·2016·6.56 MB·English

The Minoan Past in the Past:
Bronze Age Objects in Early Iron Age Burials
at Knossos, Crete
A thesis submitted to the
Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Classics
of the College of Arts and Sciences
2016
by

Alice Crowe

B.A. Boston University, 2014

Committee Chairs: A. Kotsonas, Ph.D. and Eleni Hatzaki, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Knossos is one of the few Aegean Bronze Age (BA) palatial centers at which occupation
continued uninterrupted into the Early Iron Age (EIA); as a result, the site, and especially its
burial record, provides a unique setting for a study of the use of the Minoan past in general, and
of BA objects in particular, in EIA society. About thirty Knossian EIA tombs have produced BA
objects, which would have been between 100 and 1,400 years old at the time of their
redeposition. Through an analysis of the morphologies and EIA contexts of these reused BA
objects, this thesis examines how and for what purposes the BA past was employed during the
EIA. The study also explores how and from where the BA objects were acquired, in what periods
of the EIA they were redeposited, and in what kinds of tombs and with what kinds of objects
they were placed.
This analysis suggests that BA objects are unlikely to have been “heirlooms”—objects
passed down within a kin group—but rather functioned as “antiques.” It also shows that most
were probably robbed from Final Palatial - Postpalatial—rather than from earlier Minoan—
tombs. Additionally, the analysis reveals a stark difference in the morphologies and functions of
BA objects redeposited during periods in which the BA was the “recent past” and in periods
during which it was the “deep past.” In the Subminoan period (11th century)—only circa 100
years removed from the end of the BA—the materials and shapes of the antique BA objects were
ones that were no longer able to be produced in the EIA, and the restricted distribution of these
objects indicates that one elite group monopolized this seemingly exotic past. In the
Protogeometric “B” - Orientalizing periods (late 9th to 7th centuries)—circa 400 years removed
from the end of the BA—the materials and motifs of the BA objects resembled those of EIA
burial goods and thereby fit within the constructs of EIA ideologies. The objects were also
ii
dispersed within several tombs of moderate wealth, which suggests that the use of past objects
was not only more inclusive but also one of several competing means of expressing status.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the constant support, assistance, and
advice of many UC faculty members, colleagues, friends, and family members. First and
foremost, I would like to thank my committee chairs, who entrusted me with this topic and
constantly guided me throughout the research and writing process. Antonis Kotsonas has
tirelessly provided feedback on all aspects of this thesis, and has both challenged and encouraged
me. I am grateful for the time and patience that he has invested in this project, and I greatly
appreciate having him as a mentor and advisor. Eleni Hatzaki has offered much insightful
guidance on this thesis, and discussions with her have greatly influenced how I approached the
topic. I also owe many thanks to the other UC Classics faculty members, who have provided
continual academic and professional mentoring throughout my graduate career, and to Todd
Whitelaw, who kindly offered the advice and resources necessary for solving the mystery of
“Hogarth’s seals.”
Many UC graduate students have provided much needed support throughout this process.
In particular, I would like to thank Sarah Beal for her helpful and insightful edits (provided at all
hours of the day) and for her constant enthusiastic support; the “boys of summer”—especially
Mitch Brown and Simone Agrimonti—who welcomed me with open arms into the brotherhood;
Haley Bertram and Maura Brennan for listening to and laughing with me; and Charles Sturge for
our always stimulating discussions about everything from LH IIIC to English football stadiums.
Finally, I would most especially like to thank my sisters, Mary and Anna Crowe, and my parents,
Patricia and Vincent Crowe. Their constant support over the years and their interest (feigned or
otherwise) in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age is forever appreciated. Without them, none of
this could have been accomplished.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: THE (RE)USE OF THE PAST ........................................ 1
HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP: APPROACHING THE EIA REUSE OF BA MATERIAL IN
AEGEAN BURIALS ..................................................................................................................... 4
EIA BURIAL PRACTICES AND THE FUNERARY LANDSCAPE OF KNOSSOS ............... 6
KNOSSIAN ANTIQUES: ASSEMBLAGE, ANALYSIS, AND EIA KNOSSIAN SOCIETY .. 8

CHAPTER 2: BA LARNAKES IN KNOSSIAN EIA TOMBS ............................................. 11
CRETAN BA LARNAKES ......................................................................................................... 12
CRETAN EIA BURIAL CONTAINERS .................................................................................... 17
BA LARNAKES IN EIA CONTEXTS AT KNOSSOS ............................................................. 18
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 3: BA SEALS IN KNOSSIAN EIA TOMBS ...................................................... 49
PROTOPALATIAL-POSTPALATIAL CRETAN SEALS ........................................................ 50
GEOMETRIC AND ORIENTALIZING SEALS ....................................................................... 54
BA SEALS IN EIA CONTEXTS AT KNOSSOS ...................................................................... 56
CONCLUSIONS ON BA SEALS IN EIA KNOSSIAN TOMBS AND COMPARISONS FROM
ELSEWHERE IN CRETE............................................................................................................ 79

CHAPTER 4: BA BEADS IN KNOSSIAN EIA TOMBS ...................................................... 80
CRETAN LBA BEADS .............................................................................................................. 81
CRETAN EIA BEADS ................................................................................................................ 85
BA BEADS IN EIA KNOSSIAN TOMBS ................................................................................. 86
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 93

CHAPTER 5: SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS: BA OBJECTS AND EIA KNOSSIAN
SOCIETY ................................................................................................................................... 98
ANTIQUE ACQUISITION ......................................................................................................... 98
A DIACHRONIC PERSPECTIVE ON ANTIQUE USE: EIA SOCIETAL CHANGES AND
THE EVOLVING USE OF BA OBJECTS ............................................................................... 102
CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 112

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 114

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 116

APPENDIX A: CATALOGUE OF ANTIQUES .................................................................. 140
vi
APPENDIX B: SEALS FROM ‘HOGARTH’S TOMBS:’ BA OR EIA CONTEXT(S)? 142

FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. 146

vii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION: THE (RE)USE OF THE PAST

Societies have long grappled with the existence of past material remains in the landscapes
of the present.1 Particularly in periods without written records, objects and structures “out of
time”2 not only provided tangible connections to an alien past3 but could also be associated with
magical properties and lost or supernatural races.4 These remains of the past were often
manipulated in order to serve agendas in the “present.”5 As a result, analyzing uses of the “past
in the past” provides insight into societal developments within the “present in the past.”
While tombs, monuments, objects, and buildings were reused in the past, this thesis
focuses exclusively on the reuse of portable objects. Objects with production dates significantly
older than that of their (re)depositional contexts are varyingly referred to within scholarly
literature as heirlooms or antiques.6 The term antique simply refers to an old object, including an
object that was disposed of and recirculated much later, while the term heirloom denotes an
inherited object connected to an ancestral lineage.7 Katina Lillios has pointed out that “to call an
object an heirloom refers primarily to how the object is treated by its owner, or to a state of
being, rather than to any essential quality of the object,” which makes it difficult to identify an

1 Schnapp 1997; Alcock 2002; Boardman 2002; Bradley 2002; Van Dyke and Alcock 2003a; Trigger 2006, pp. 40-
48; Yoffee 2007a; Georgiadis and Galou 2009.
2 The phrase “matter out of time” is adopted from Byron Hamann (2008, p. 803), who defines it as “matter that
violates the cultural ordering of temporality.”
3 Joyce 2003; Prent 2003; Yoffee 2007b.
4 Brown 1993, p. 47; Trigger 2006, p. 42.
5 Similarly, archaeological remains continue to be manipulated for present purposes in modern time (see Trigger
2006, pp. 543-545; Davis 2007; Yoffee 2007b, pp. 4-5).
6 For the use of the term heirloom, see Catling 1984; Lillios 1999; Van Dyke and Alcock 2003b; Palaima 2003. For
the use of the term antique, see Van Wijngaarden 2005; Whitley 2013.
7 For discussions of the definition of “heirloom” and distinctions between heirlooms and antiques, see Lillios 1999;
Whitley 2002, p. 226; Van Wijngaarden 2005, p. 407; Whittaker 2009, p. 5; Whitley 2013, pp. 400, 406.
heirloom archaeologically, especially in a pre- or protohistoric context.8 As a result, throughout
this thesis, reused objects found in significantly later contexts are referred to as antiques.
The concepts of object biography and object life cycles, theoretical paradigms taken from
broader anthropological and archaeological scholarship, are integral to the study of antiques. A
biographical approach to examining objects—as developed most notably by Igor Kopytoff and
Arjun Appadurai in the edited volume The Social Lives of Things—presumes that objects, similar
to people, have biographies that can be reconstructed from the time of their production (birth) to
that of their disposal (death).9 It also presumes that there is a fundamental relationship between
people and objects and that the meanings, functions, and forms of objects change through their
contact with and circulation between people.10 Throughout its “life stages,” an object’s meaning
is fundamentally shaped by its cultural context and, in some cases, linked to particular
personages or events. Accordingly, if reused after its initial disposal, the object could be
reinterpreted and given new meaning. In this situation, the object may lose the significance it had
at the time of its production and may acquire a different significance based upon its new social
and cultural context.11 The concept of object life cycles and life histories is closely connected
with the concept of object biography; however, life histories focus more on the physical changes
which an object undergoes, particularly changes during production and different uses, and also

8 Lillios 1999, p. 243. Furthermore, Lillios has also argued that once an heirloom is deposited within a grave it stops
acting as an heirloom (1999, p. 257). In fact, in prehistoric archaeology, the absence of elite goods in burials has
often been interpreted as an indication that objects were maintained in circulation as heirlooms. In historical
societies, on the other hand, textual evidence provides evidence that can assist in identifying heirlooms
archaeologically (see especially Härke 2000, pp. 383-386).
9 Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986. Following the publication of this volume, the concept of object biography has
been developed and frequently utilized in archaeological scholarship. See Gosden and Marshall 1999; Langdon
2001; Bradley 2002, pp. 49-58; Eckardt and Williams 2003; Joy 2009.
10 For ethnographic studies that examine this connection between objects and people, see Malinowski 1922; Hoskins
1998.
11 Eckardt and Williams 2003, pp. 141-143.
2