Thera's Eruption into our Understanding of the Minoans

I shall consider briefly all the evidence preserved (settlements, architecture and building techniques; use of wall-painting; pottery; household equipment; food, farming and the economy; conspicuous consumption on works of applied art; and administration) and lacking (notably tombs), comparing it with that from Crete to look for similarities and differences.

This should reveal to what extent we may see Cretan ways of daily living and social organization as adapted to Thera and what limitations the smaller island put on the Cretan systems; how much Thera shared in the apparent Cretan prosperity of the time; to what extent religion was a universal 'glue' in Late Bronze I society and, not least, how much we lack in our knowledge of Crete that Thera is able to set aright.

Twenty-two years ago Professor Marinatos began to dig Akrotiri. The discoveries that he, Professor Doumas and many others have made, and the wealth of evidence they have presented, not least at the Thera conferences, have erupted upon us and so transformed our understanding that 1967 now stands out as a watershed in Aegean Bronze Age studies. We have learnt so much more of the details of daily life in one Cycladic town, and of the complexity of its prosperity, art, culture and religion, that it is hard to remember how little was known before Akrotiri. Research has raced ahead into the dynamics of the explosion, while everything archaeological that can be analysed has been - or will be - analysed.

A Minoan archaeologist hesitates to discuss Thera in terms of its own Cycladic traditions. Others know far more. But he may tackle a less studied topic: how has the progress in Thera affected our knowledge of Minoan Crete? This theme has not been explored extensively, except in three areas.

The first of these has been the eruption: did it or did it not cause the destructions and abandonments of settlements in Late Minoan IB Crete, and what is the evidence? Then there are religion and art, where the large-scale recovery of frescoes at Akrotiri has revolutionized views of Minoan attitudes to both, in particular in emphasizing the importance of theme (with its many religious implications) in Bronze Age art, which there was no chance to appreciate beforehand (N. Marinatos 1984, 34). The iconographers will tell us much more on this topic at this conference. The third principal topic has been how Crete affected Thera: what was the nature of the Minoan cultural influence and was there or was there not a Minoan sphere of political interest, or even an empire, in the South Aegean?

I shall not attempt the first two topics at all. Instead, I shall start from Thera to try to see how much it teaches us about Late Minoan I Crete. This will involve some discussion of the Minoan and Minoanizing traits of Thera - the material that is the key evidence for any discussion of thalassocracy - only when they are relevant to the present inquiry, of how does Thera fill the gaps in Crete? As a result of Thera, what do we have clues to now that we did not know before?

ARCHITECTURE

1.   Town plan:

Palyvou (1986) and Shaw (1978) have discussed the plan of excavated Akrotiri. We do not know where in the town the excavated part lies, nor how large the town was, although Palyvou suggests an attractive reconstruction of Akrotiri in the pre-eruption landscape (which would make the top of the hill to the east and the suggested harbour to the south-west the natural limits for the town). They, and others, agree that there is no close similarity as yet to any Cretan town plan but, rather, reminiscences.

The easily visible regular block system of Gournia, Palaikastro or Zakro is not apparent. The best parallels in Crete for the combination of large free-standing houses and blocks, separated by seemingly irregular streets and alleys, at the moment are likely to be Mallia and perhaps Tylissos. (But note that little has been dug at Tylissos beyond Houses A, B and Γ, and the same is true on a larger scale at Knossos, so that we have little sense of relationships in either of those two towns.) An equally valid parallel, however, is Phylakopi II, suggesting that Akrotiri's plan is best seen as part of an established Cycladic tradition, and that there is no need to claim any distinct Cretan element to explain the arrangement of buildings and spaces. The most fruitful approach is to follow Palyvou who emphasizes internal factors in the settlement: access, lighting and drainage. The communal need to cope with these requirements argues for citizens of Late Cycladic I Akrotiri in agreement among themselves, rather than obeying any externally imposed planning authority (which might have demanded East Cretan-style regularity); while the irregular pattern of streets is likely to be following first and foremost that of Middle Bronze Age and earlier Late Bronze I Akrotiri.

2.   Buildings:

For this inquiry the main lesson from the buildings of Akrotiri is the reminder of how much is missing in Crete. Akrotiri fills gaps and clears misconceptions.

(1)      Nowhere in Crete are walls of ashlar masonry preserved to a height of three storeys. The lack led to doubts as to how much ashlar was used at all to such a height rather than mud brick (Shaw 1973, 189 - 190, 194 - 195, with telling quotations from original excavation reports) or other materials such as small stones set in mud (Shaw 1973, 88 - 90). Akrotiri changes the possibilities in Crete. Similarly, no remains in Crete show corbelled projecting of upper ashlar storeys as found in Akrotiri, but this is also a possibility now - and in fact may be shown on the Arkhanes house model (Lembesi 1976; Shaw 1978, 435).

(2)     Akrotiri has confirmed beyond doubt (e.g. in Xeste 3 room 5) that the two long, narrow and side-by-side spaces found in many Cretan buildings were for staircases and their returns.

(3)     Akrotiri gives firm evidence for the frequent use of windows (and a development from local-style ashlar window-frames to Cretan-style wooden frames: Palyvou 1984), for which we have nothing comparable in Crete. In attempting reconstructions of Minoan buildings we may now go beyond the Town Mosaic of Knossos for models and suggest buildings that will have upper floors of ashlar and windows placed to serve internal needs more than external appearances.

(4)     While the buildings dug to date at Akrotiri have no light-wells (or possibly one, in the House of the Ladies: S. Marinatos 1974, 8; Palyvou 1986, 184n. 11) nor pillar crypts/storerooms, and only a few rooms with central columns (Shaw 1978, 433; Doumas 1983, 53), and just one Cretan-style basin, they do show elements of Cretan architecture - such as the hall or polythyron, pier-and-door divisions, the use of gypsum, entrances opening onto lobbies, and perhaps paved upper floors (Shaw 1978, 433 - 434) - that were easy for the Therans to assimilate, or were appropriate for the Cretans to export because any Minoan en poste had to have them.

There is no certainty about whose was the initiative for introducing these features - Therans or Cretans? - because, of course, we do not know the nationalities of the inhabitants of the Akrotiri houses. The local tradition that seems evident in the town plan should make us cautious in claiming a strong Cretan hand in directing the details of building the houses. A further argument for caution is that the Akrotiri houses do not have all the Cretan-style elements they could: Phylakopi for instance has a pillar crypt and a 'Mansion' (Renfrew 1978, 405 - 412), both lacking at present on Thera. The selectivity at Akrotiri may be a clue to Therans as making the choices rather than resident Cretans. More excavation, however, may easily change this argument.

All the same, LM IA was a boom time in the Cretan building industry of which the LC I schemes at Akrotiri, with their Cretan-type halls and details that include a unique importation of Cretan gypsum among the island towns (Gale et al. 1988), may well be a particular part. Akrotiri joins the Cretan sites in displaying the astonishing wealth of skills in Late Bronze I. In Crete these were probably concentrated among a fairly small group of masterbuilders who worked from the palatial centres or, as provincials, followed the patterns of the palatial centres. We may imagine, then, either that Cretan experts went to Thera, as it were escorting the gypsum, or that Therans came to Crete to learn. One of these explanations is correct, or both are, to explain the presence of so many intricacies of Cretan building at Akrotiri. It is impossible that both are false. (A similar argument applies to the introduction of North Syrian-style ashlar masonry into Cyprus in the 13th century: either Syrians went to Cyprus and taught the skills, or Cypriots went to Syria and learnt, or both events happened.)

Akrotiri, viewed as part of the Cretan building boom, supports the idea of considerable wealth in Crete in the New Palace period. It may also support the idea that a strong factor in the Minoan interest in the South Aegean, and one that may explain the arrival of Cretan-style building, was the need to export people to relieve a pressure from over-population on resources in Crete, rich though they were (Warren 1984). The simultaneous appearance of small and somewhat isolated farmsteads on Thera (Barber 1987, 64 - 66 and n. 15), familiar enough in Crete, may also be evidence of Cretans coming to settle.

FINDS

1.   Pottery:

The LM IA pottery from Akrotiri (estimated at about 7.5% of the total of vases: Barber 1987, 171) shows that there was a much more intense exporting of Cretan pottery than before. The amounts abroad, however, are very small compared to the vast quantities of LM IA pottery at Cretan sites. The most revealing find perhaps is the pithos - Theran or Cretan? - full of askoi (Delta room 16: S. Marinatos 1972, 21, Pl. 31b). Were the askoi exported packed into it, as on the Ulu Burun boat where the cargo included pithoi, probably Cypriot, packed with Cypriot pottery (Bass 1986, 279; Pulak 1988, 11 - 13)?

For the Minoanizing pottery in Thera, it is easier to imagine Theran potters adapting Cretan elements into their repertoire rather than Cretans coming to pot - and, as outsiders, learning to reproduce the island's own tradition. If correct, this gives a little more base to the attitude that plays down the involvement of Cretan craftsmen in building Akrotiri.

The Theran pottery in Crete (Kommos: Shaw 1977, 238, Pl. 52a, d; and Pyrgos: Cadogan 1978, 80 - 81, Fig. 32; 1984a) is so little that we cannot imagine how the Cretans may have viewed it, or why it was received. It may be worth noting that little foreign pottery from any source has been found in LM I Crete.

The pieces of probably Theran pottery from Cyprus at Hala Sultan Tekke (Bailey 1976, 13, Pl. 11d: BM 98 12-1 312; Åström 1977, 7) and, found with LM IA pottery, at Toumba tou Skourou (Vermeule and Wolsky 1978, 300 - 302, Fig. 6 - 7, T. 1. 340, P268) probably join the White Slip I bowl from the old excavations on Thera (Cadogan 1972, 5 - 6) and (probably) the Tell el Yahudiyeh juglets (Åström 1971), and, from the new excavations, the Syrian amphora (S. Marinatos 1976, 15, 30, Pl. 49b), Syro-Palestinian gypsum vases (Warren 1979, 106 - 107) and a few other items such as the ostrich egg, in being evidence that Thera - and the South Aegean - shared in the extra-Aegean trade of Crete. While it is possible that Thera had its own direct links with Cyprus, it would be foolish to claim that this was necessarily the case, especially in view of the longevity of Cretan contacts with the Levant.

2.   Daily life:

For the chores and details of daily life in the Aegean Late Bronze Age Akrotiri puts flesh onto our skinny ideas. Gamble's discussions (1978; 1979) of the Akrotiri animal bones and of the importance for the island of cattle as beasts of burden and of sheep for their wool are supported by the depiction in the Miniature Fresco of flocks and a mandra. Bones and pictures illuminate the likely pattern in Crete where we have learnt (following Killen 1964) that the wool industry flourished in Linear B times. There is little reason to doubt that this was the case also in Linear A times.

The much discussed Minoanizing details, including the Cretan-influenced, locally-made pottery and the Cretan-style manufacture of stone vases in Thera (Warren 1978; 1979), tell us far more about Theran and island life than about Cretan. For Crete, it is hard to see that they reveal much beyond the spread of Cretan ideas and technology and, as in building, the chance to see what was more popular or more easy to transmit. But as we do not know what nationalities were the people in Thera and the other islands enjoying or making the Minoan-style essentials and improvements of life, that helps little. The cases for a 'Versailles effect' (Wiener 1984) and/or for arguing that introduction of these vital daily details implies at least some resident Cretans (Cadogan 1984b) are still open.

The objects of value show a striking similarity with what has been found in Crete. In both places there are luxuries - the Akrotiri list is very similar to those of the country-houses, grand town-houses and even the palaces of Crete - but objects of really high value are missing. As at Zakro, we may assume that the occupants took such things with them before disaster came. Among the pieces of value that remained at Akrotiri the bronze vessels, the faience oddments and much of the stoneware were almost certainly made in Crete. Their being in Thera is another sign - whatever means of exchange brought them - of the surplus, and exportable, wealth and craft skill of LM I Crete. The presence of a little Linear A and of many lead weights on a Minoan standard (Petruso 1978; 1979) are hints of a probably Cretan administration that organized their getting there, and the exchanges - probably in the way that would be easiest and most profitable for Cretans - of other commodities and products throughout the South Aegean.

Another link with Crete is that we have, as yet, no LC I tombs on Thera, where the objects of great value could have been stashed, as they were in contemporary Mycenaean Greece and in Crete after it had come under Mycenaean control. In Crete we know some tombs of LM I but they are very few if not, compared to the great number of LM I settlements, truly exiguous (the richest, I suppose, being that at Poros: Lembesi 1967). We cannot speculate here on what the lack of tombs in Crete and Thera and their frequency in mainland Greece may mean in terms of the relative development of civilized societies in the Aegean, and of possible differences in attitudes to capital between Minoans and islanders on the one hand and Mycenaeans on the other. It is a topic worth further exploration.

CONCLUSIONS

(a)     In the spheres of the economy, administration and foreign relations, detailed conclusions are hard to make because different circumstances - and different people - on Thera prevented a total adoption of the Cretan ways of doing things. All the same, it looks as if they were adapted where possible, and it seems clear that Thera derived benefit from the booming prosperity of Late Minoan I Crete. Though the Theran economy was different - but probably less so than we first think - we may guess at a Cretan-connected administration in Thera somehow comparable to what we see in the provinces of New Palace period Crete. In effect it would have been an overseas extension of Crete using, to judge from the frescoes, the power of the Cretan religious and palatial establishment. Thera's extra-Aegean foreign relations were probably under the same Cretan umbrella.

How much tangible benefit Crete derived from Thera is yet harder to say, and it is difficult to see what Thera could have produced (except for dacite tripod mortars: Warren 1979, 108) that Crete did not already have. This uncertainty becomes an argument for intangible and archaeologically hard-to-find reasons for the Cretan interest in Thera. They would include -in a loose way - such often rehearsed possibilities as: relief of over-population; spreading a protective net around Crete; and use as a halting place (for which the weights are important evidence), with all the consequent attractions of an entrepot (compare, say, Hong Kong or Singapore with their rich, civilized and culturally mixed traditions), on the way to the other Cycladic islands and the Greek mainland.

(b)      In the social and political spheres, isolated farmsteads and the apparent lack of fortifications at Akrotiri are arguments that the peace and security we infer to have existed in Crete in the New Palace period was sufficiently strong to encompass Thera - but not so strong as to include Milos (Renfrew 1978, 407 - 408) or Kea (Davis 1986, 104 - 105). But even with such security, society in Thera has a different flavour from Crete, best remarked in the sheer amount of art in the houses (however they were used, and if they were houses). The different feel reinforces the idea of limitations on the Cretan models, but it is also possible that it is something more apparent than real - reflecting only the remarkable preservation of finds on Thera.

(c)      That brings us to perhaps Thera's greatest contribution to Cretan studies. It has made the invisible visible. Its beds, tables and stools; its buildings of ashlar preserved to a considerable height; being able to identify the places where the household chores of milling and weaving happened; and the thematic frescoes showing rituals that follow the year's rhythms, all these great discoveries make us think, if this is Thera, then what was Crete? How prosperous Crete must have been that Thera could share so much of its way of life.

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