Consideration of the Site of Akrotiri as a Minoan Settlement

Among other things, it requires a realistic evaluation of the varieties of relationships that might have existed and, subsequently, an approximate determination of those that actually did. It also invites a re-examniation of the material evidence for interconnections between Crete, the Cyclades, the Greek Mainland and even the littoral of Asia Minor during the late 16th and 15th Centuries B.C., the period when the so-called "Minoan Thalassocracy" is most likely to have existed. All that can be offered here are some general suggestions concerning approach, preliminary clarification of terminology, and the types of individual studies that would be necessary for us to consider the problem in some depth.

The second, longer part of the paper offers a preliminary evaluation of comparisons and contrasts between Theran and contemporary architecture in the Aegean, and might serve as a written sketch for the type of discrete analyses, mentioned above, that could be made. I begin with a discussion of building arrangement at Akrotiri which, on the basis of what is now visible, appears to be more haphazard, even more whimsical, than the more orderly arrangement of towns on Melos and Crete. A comparison of building plans, necessarily limited, stresses similarities with Crete: the living quarters set above the first floor work and storage rooms, as well as the typical entrance way with a lobby bordered by stairs leading to an upper floor, all characteristics of a class of Minoan house. Concerning separate room features, the pier-and-door partitions at Akrotiri definitely suggest a close relationship with Crete, as do the indented facade, the lustral basin, and the use of wooden dowelling used to bind timbers to ashlar masonry. On the other hand light wells, so popular in Crete, are yet to be found on Thera, nor is there a corresponding variety of columnar structures or, so far, pillar crypts. Conversely, projecting cornices such as those separating floors at Akrotiri are unknown in Minoan buildings excavated, although they seem to be indicated on models, nor in Crete are the wall openings (windows, doors) framed by means of vertical and horizontal lines of ashlar blocks.

PART I:

An evaluation of the degree of relative "Minoanization" at the MB III - LB  site of Akrotiri on the island of Thera requires a more detailed presentation of evidence than the necessarily limited format of this paper can provide. Such a study could, however, certainly become the subject of a more extended future work exploring the subject in detail; perhaps even a congress such as this would be an appropriate forum for such a many-faceted theme. Nevertheless, a few suggestions can be made here concerning ways to approach the subject.

First, a truism: without the benefit of contemporary historical records from the area, we must admit candidly at the outset that we will never arrive at a clear determination that can be stated definitely as a fact, a reminder of our inevitable state of at least partial ignorance. Thus, we are always, when dealing with historical themes from this period, working with relative shades of possibility, recent statements of assumptions phrased as facts notwithstanding.

A first stage of the inquiry should be to clarify the terminology that will be used. We must be clear, for instance, when using the word "Minoan" that we are specifying definite, determinative characteristics, impressions, styles reflected by the often heterogeneous elements of Cretan Bronze Age culture. An allied concern should be the clarification of the relative states of relationships between Akrotiri and Crete that are historically possible, from the densest percentage of Minoan habitation at Akrotiri (truly a Minoan settlement or at least a town inhabited by people totally assimilated into the Cretan cultural sphere) through the range of possibilities ⁽¹⁾ such as Minoan rule over an indigenous population, simple Minoan presence (via a limited number of technicians, settlers, traders), a Minoan overlay on an indigenous population, a Minoan trading post or trading partner, a simple Minoan contact or (in this case an impossibility) no Minoan contact at all.

We should also spend the time weighting the possibilities of interconnection in social, economic, and political terms, prefacing our considerations by stating the types of material evidence that may not be available (e.g. the amount of MB inhabitation that preceded the LB I remains that are presently visible, the restricted limits of the present excavation, or the possibility that the Akrotiri settlement was created by indigenous Therans moving from one part of the island to another).

We must also consider to what extent the remarkable state of preservation of the remains at Akrotiri, matched in the Aegean perhaps only by the Residential Quarter of the East Wing of the Palace at Knossos, might prejudice the process of comparison. The presence of projecting cornices separating storeys at Akrotiri has not been noticed in Bronze Age Aegean architecture up to now, for instance, but are we justified in calling this a characteristic of Theran (as versus Cretan) architectural style? Or does the number of wall paintings in various rooms of the Theran structures imply that proportionately more rooms were decorated here than perhaps even in the houses at Knossos? Also, to what extent is one justified in relying upon the somewhat elusive possibility of "imported craftsmen" for what appear to us to be strictly "Minoan" features?

Clearly a prerequisite is to consider in detail, and with appropriate consultation with the relevant experts, the various categories of material evidence: pottery, including the stone vases, wall painting, architecture, religious items or scenes, even the tools, along with the evidence for writing and the systems of weighting. The "living context" of the West House, the most completely intelligible architectural unit so far uncovered at Akrotiri, should be compared in detail, once its excavation is complete, with various houses of that type in Crete.

The process of comparison, however, would hardly be valid unless we considered the "Cycladic" nature of the material from Thera as it matches up against the contemporary contexts at Phylakopi (Melos) and Hagia Irini (Kea) where the question of the continuation of indigenous Cycladic elements, the influence of Crete and/or the Mainland, have been considered individually. Comparison with the contexts at Kythera and Hagios Stephanos would also help clarify our general perspective. Relative proportions of material in terms of form, number, and possible origin, aided by appropriate scientific analyses ⁽²⁾, would add perspective to our inquiry. Thus in order to consider the matter in the most objective way, our "spectrum of consideration" must necessarily be an inclusively broad one.

One by-product of such a study would be the development, theoritecally and procedurally, of a new basis for reconsidering the so-called Minoan "Thalassocracy", about which so much has been written in the past. In a similar way it would also add perspective to our consideration of Bronze Age relationships within the Aegean during the first half of the Second Millennium B.C.

PART II

Even though the question of Akrotiri postulated as a Minoan settlement is a theme requiring extended discussion, I nevertheless think that one aspect of the subject, that of the architecture (with which I am more familiar), can provide one ground for initial consideration. Despite the incomplete nature of the excavation, we can still reflect upon the architecture of the site from the points of view of building relationships ground plans, room arrangements as well as specific materials and techniques used in building construction.

Building relationships

At Akrotiri we seem to be dealing with a relatively more prosperous settlement than, for instance, Gournia on Crete or Phylakopi (the Second City) on the island of Melos ⁽³⁾. The architectural style, the various embellishments (e.g. rooms divided by pier-and-door partitions, elaborately painted walls) reflect an economic basis that can be compared with Palaikastro in Crete or, even more to the point, with the three houses excavated within the residential quarters at Tylissos, or even with some of the separate buildings within the still unexcavated town at Knossos (e.g. the House of the Frescoes, The Royal Villa). Of course we do not know if at Akrotiri the late Professor Marinatos came down into the center of the town or at least within the center's immediate environs. Certainly, however, the appearance of such rather closely set buildings suggests that we are not dealing with "villas" (an elusive term, at its best) but rather with a prosperous residential district, probably the satellite of a commercial or at least economic center that is not far away, quite possibly east of the excavated section.

No single building of the Akrotiri settlement has been completely excavated and no complete ground plan is yet available. Several of the interior rooms and superimposed floors remain uncleared. Many of the latter will perhaps necessarily have to remain covered until the immmensly difficult and expensive job of reconstructing and reinforcing the side walls, floors and ceilings is undertaken in the future. Even at this stage the spectre of another earthquake at tremor-prone Thera is an unsettling thought.

Despite such limitations one can still say that at Akrotiri we are dealing with at least seven separate building units (groups of rooms) of which at least two (the West House, "Complex" B/D) were of at least two storeys and at least two (Ashlar Buildings 3, 4) were of three storeys in height. With the possible exception of Ashlar Building 4, all of these structures seem to be houses. The B/D group, in contrast to the regular internal arrangemenet of the others (e.g. The West House, Ashlar Building 3) is an agglomeration of rooms somewhat similar to those of block E 1 - 6 at Gournia. Indeed, B/D seems to combine three separate residences within what is essentially the same structural unit.

One of the more striking differences between the arrangement of buildings at Akrotiri and contemporary ones elsewhere is that the former are not set neatly along the side of the street. One can not expect here the sophistication of a grid-like plan, already known in Egypt, but at Mallia (Areas D, Z), Palaikastro (e.g. groups II, III, IV), Gournia (Blocks A, C, E, F) in Crete, and even at Phylakopi in Melos (Atkinson et al. 1904, Fig. 25), separate house plans generally conform to an overall street pattern, individual buildings being set back-to-back or side-to-side in order to form the rough block (Hutchinson, 1951, touches on the subject). Even at Hagia Irini on Kea, probably less prosperous than Thera, the street pattern was fairly carefully observed despite the fact that lateral growth there had been restricted by the shores of the peninsula on three sides and a fortification wall landwards (Caskey 1971, fig. 3). At Akrotiri, along the only street fully excavated ("Telchines Street" to "Triangle Square") the "Pylon" (actually a covered entrance way) has been allowed to project into the thoroughfare. Moreover, while at Akrotiri many of the buildings are set at rough right angles to the cardinal points of the compass, the askew settings of the West House and Ashlar Building 4 create an unusual character uncommon elsewhere in the Aegean towns of this period. The placement of the West House, projecting as it does into the "plateia" or, for that matter, the awkward addition of the stairway-entrance rooms D 4 - 6, suggest a surprising freedom of action on the part of th inhabitants or, conversely, a lack of controls usually not attested in Minoan Crete to the south.

Is is also unusual to find a single structure such as the West House apparently forming a "block" of its own rather than being incorporated into a house grouping, as in the case of the houses on the hill north of the palace at Kato Zakros or in the town at Palaikastro. On the other hand, this type of individual setting may have been adopted as well for the houses at Tylissos in Crete and, if further excavation takes place in Central Crete, especially in the town at Knossos, it may well prove to have been the accepted form there as well. It is true of certain structures at Kea (A, T) and is also a tendency noticeable, although our evidence remains incomplete, in somewhat later Mycenaean architecture on the Mainland.

This spontaneous, if not somewhat haphazard, arrangement at Akrotiri may naturally not be typical of the town as a whole, and we must await further excavation to be certain. If typical, however, it is possible that it may be connected with the founding of the town during the latter part of the Middle Bronze period - a time about which we unfortunately know little of the architectural history at the Akrotiri site.

Room grouping

Since the West House is the only building for which we know the entire area, and it is smaller than many of the structures presently only partly exposed, we cannot enter into a profitable analysis of relative sizes. Concerning the matter of room arrangement, however, we are more fortunate ⁽⁴⁾. It is clear, for instance, that we are dealing with buildings of which the chief residential unit was on the upper floor(s), with many of the first floor rooms being reserved for work and/or storage. Such an arrangement seems to have been preferred for the West House, for the three clear subdivisions of the B/D group (D 1-9; D 10-16; B 1-8) and probably will also prove to be true of Ashlar Building 3. This arrangement is typical of a certain type of Minoan House (e.g. many of the houses at Kato Zakros, the Gypsades West House, Mallia House Zb) but is also found at Kea (House A).

By contrast, in many Mainland houses the long, often single-storeyed spaces were often used for a variety of functions, including working and living, rather than being composed of separate but interconnecting rooms devoted to specific household activities. Another feature common to both Akrotiri and Crete is that in some cases the main entrance into the building opens on to a lobby (often with a large room adjoining) and with stairs nearby leading to an upper floor (e.g. at Thera, The West House, Rooms 1-2, also D 4-7, D9, D15 and in Room 5 of Ashlar 3. Examples from Crete are those listed above).

Room features and construction details

Certain room features and/or construction details at Akrotiri clearly mirror techniques which became common on Crete during this period and which, presumably, originated on that island. Foremost is the pier-and-door partition scheme, clearly visible in three of the Theran houses (Ashlar 3 and 4, D1). Such interior supports, built up in wood but set upon stone bases, were used to partition off areas in order to provide privacy or, when open, to allow air to circulate or people to move about freely between one room and another (Graham 1969, 86, 95, 165). The shapes of the bases at Thera, of the "I" and "L" types, are quite like their counterparts on Crete (Shaw 1973, 148), and their apparent popularity at the former can probably be taken to indicate a close relationship between the two islands. Outside of Crete and Thera, the only other examples I am acquainted with are a few, probably intended for single doorways, from Phylakopi (Atkinson et al. 1904, 59) and multiple doorways leading into the later Mycenaean megaron at Tiryns and possibly into the so-called "King's Hall" at Gla (Room I) in Boeotia (Mylonas 1966, Pl. 51, 76).

Another positive correspondence with Crete is the presence, along the impressive northern face of Ashlar Building 2, of alternating projections and recesses (Marinatos 1974, Pl. 16, 17). In Crete, as my colleague J.W. Graham has pointed out (Graham 1969, 162 f.), these are usually to be associated with window openings, but this relationship is not so clear at Akrotiri. It is even more significant that a so-called "lustral basin" was discovered on the ground floor of Ashlar Building 3 (Room 3) (Marinatos 1976, 24 - 25, Figs. 3 - 4) ⁽⁵⁾, and there is no doubt that however one may interpret these rooms, whether for bathing or libation or both, that the "lustral basin" remains an architectural leitmotif unique to Minoan architecture and life. Positive comparison between Akrotiri and Crete can also be made in the use of wooden dowels to join timber beams to ashlar blocks (as in Doumas 1974, 201), a technique developed by the Minoans in the Middle Minoan period and which continued until at least the end of Late Minoan I (Shaw 1973, 166 f.). The same technique was quite popular later among the Mycenaeans, especially at Pylos and Tiryns.

Some features common to Minoan buildings, however, are absent so far at Akrotiri. For instance, no lightwell has yet been identified positively at Akrotiri. Also, columns, which are so common in the larger structures on Crete, appear relatively infrequent at Thera (only in B 2, which has a single column base on its upper floor, and a base to the south of Ashlar 4). Finally there are so far no canonical pillar crypts such as are found on the lower floors of structures in Crete (e.g. Tylissos (House A), The Royal Villa at Knossos).

Conversely, there are some features common to Theran buildings that do not appear, as far as I know, on Crete. Such, for instance, is the restricted use of vertical wooden supports within interior walls, although we should remember that, as on Crete, horizontal timbers were commonly placed between masonry courses and were often used for framing ceiling and roof construction (Shaw 1973, 139 - 156; Doumas 1974, 201; Marinatos 1970 - 1976, passim). Nor is there any parallel on Crete for the projecting cornices which occur regularly at intervals in Ashlar 2 and which mark, apparently, the transition between one storey and another - but this could be a fluke of preservation since ashlar walls are rarely preserved up to the level of the first storey in Crete (Shaw 1973, 83 - 106 for the variety; Doumas 1974, 202). It is instructive from this point of view to note that such a cornice may appear on the interesting building model found recently at Archanes. The most typical Theran technique, however, and one that does seem to have been restricted to the island, is the attractive and elaborate framing of projecting ashlar blocks used around door and window frames, a technique most recently studied by Doumas (1974, 202 f.) This tradition may have been a long-lasting one, for such construction still characterizes Theran architecture, where ashlar construction is used today. The technique in Minoan times, in any case, probably constituted a local, non-derived form representing a Theran, if not a uniquely Cycladic, approach to construction.

SUMMARY

If we consider the problem in general, it is clear that the architecture of Akrotiri participates in the "Bronze Age South Aegean" approach to building, aspects of which, especially from the technical point of view (e.g. ashlar masonry, dowelling) are later transferred to Mycenaean palatial architecture. Certain close connections with Crete are clear as well, in particular the common use of the pier-and-door partition. Such room dividers indicate the presence at Akrotiri of a way of life which was so crucial to the owners/builders that is affects even the internal structural framework of the buildings. Especially significant is the "lustral basin" in Ashlar 3, for as form almost unique to Crete it represents an even more personal element of Cretan life.

The presence of these clearly Cretan (to us, Minoan) architectural leitmotifs, however, represents only aspects of the Theran architectural vocabulary. The lack of conformity with certain Cretan planning characteristics (e.g. irregular block and street arrangement) and apparently unique elements of regional style (the ashlar framework around wall openings) certainly evidence a locally developed tradition of building. The inherent suggestion is that local masons were responsible for the buildings' execution, and that the present structures represent a phase of local architectural development which post-dates any original period of experimentation, perhaps awkward, with forms and/or techniques originally developed in Crete. Thus it is in conformity with the evidence presently available to view the town at Akrotiri, whether settled partially by people from Crete or not, as participating in a cultural tradition, an affluent one in this case, in which indigenous and "Cretan" elements have been combined to create a consistent regional style.

- (1). Mr. Michael Bales, a graduate student at the University of Toronto, has begun a thorough study of the various possibiliies.

- (2). Dr. R.E. Jones of the Fitch Laboratory of the British School of Archaeology in Athens, for instance, is attempting to determine the possible (Theran?) origin of nippled ewers found at Kea, Pyrgos, Kommos and elsewhere.

- (3). General plans and block plans of most of the sites referred to in the text are to be found in Sinos (1971), Graham (1969), and Shaw (1973). The most up-to-date plan of the Theran group is on Plan B in Thera VII (Marinatos 1976). That of Kea is in Caskey, 1971. Plans of numerous Mycenaean sites can be found in Mylonas (1966).

- (4). Mr. John McEnroe, a graduate student at the University of Toronto, is presently writing his dissertation on building and room relationships in Minoan Crete.

-------------------------------------