MYCENAEAN ACROPOLEIS IN THE AEGEAN AND CYPRUS: SOME COMPARISONS

The transition from Late Cypriot II to Late Cypriot III, namely the period ca. 1200 BC, has been studied on many occasions during the last two decades; various controversial theories have been put forward regarding the destruction, abandonment or rebuilding of the old urban Late Bronze Age centres and, in two cases, the building of new short-lived military outposts near the south-east coast and on the western coast of Cyprus at Pyla-Kokkinokremos and MaaPalaeokastro. The writer has suggested that both these settlements were founded by refugees from the Aegean, f leeing from the disturbances in their homelands. A small number of scholars have persistently refused to accept that the Mycenaean Greeks ever settled in Cyprus, without feeling the need to explain how the Cypriots started speaking Greek and considering themselves as Greeks; others suggest that the hellenization of Cyprus occurred to a certain degree in the 11th century BC, with the appearance of Aegean funerary architecture on the island for the first time. The process of hellenization was not something which occurred overnight, rather it lasted for more than a century.1 The phenomena observed at Maa-Palaeokastro and Pyla-Kokkinokremos, the only new settlements so far known to have been founded in Cyprus ca. 1200 BC, provided some of the arguments in favour of an Aegean origin for both. Some scholars expressed doubts; Alison South, the excavator of the important Late Cypriot IIC settlement at Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios, in an attempt to correlate the events which caused the abandonment and ultimate destruction of Building X at this site (a prosperous large town built well before 1200 BC and without any defensive character in its architecture) and the foundation, destruction and rebuilding of MaaPalaeokastro (a purely military outpost with formidable fortifications), suggested that it seems more plausible...that the settlers were Cypriots who were sufficiently alarmed by events (whatever these may have been) to feel it necessary to move to this excellent defensive position. Previously it had been suggested that the military outposts might not have belonged to outsiders; they may have constituted parts of the defensive system of a prosperous Cypriot state or states which were seeking to protect themselves against attacks from without.2 In his review of the publication of Maa-Palaeokastro, Ian Todd doubts the Mycenaean/Aegean origin of the founders of this settlement: the local Cypriot elements are sufficiently strong to indicate that the population was probably not composed entirely of foreign refugees, and the presence of any foreigners remains to be proved.3 The theory of South and Todd is extremely weak, at least in the case of Maa-Palaeokastro, where there is no major Late Cypriot II settlement in its vicinity. Even if there were one, its inhabitants would have f led inland into the mountainous region west of Maa to protect themselves in time of danger, from where they could easily watch the sea, rather than enclose themselves within a narrow strip of land, exposed to attacks from the sea and obliged to walk half a kilometer outside their fortifications for their supply of water. The arguments put forward in the published reports of the excavations at both PylaKokkinokremos and Maa-Palaeokastro need not be repeated;4 these sites will be compared

______________________
1 2 3 4 V. KARAGEORGHIS, The Prehistory of an Ethnogenesis, in V. KARAGEORGHIS (ed.), Proceedings of the International Symposium Cyprus in the 11th Century B.C. (1994) 1-9. A. SOUTH, in D.W. RUPP (ed.), Western Cyprus. Connections (1987) 89; A.K. SOUTH and I.A. TODD, In Quest of the Cypriote Copper Traders: Excavations at Ayios Dhimitrios, Archaeology 38 (1985) 47. I.A. TODD, Review of Karageorghis and Demas 1988 (infra n. 4), AJA 95 (1991) 548. V. KARAGEORGHIS and M. DEMAS, Pyla-Kokkinokremos. A Late 13th Century B.C. Fortified Settlement in Cyprus (1984); V. KARAGEORGHIS and M. DEMAS, Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979-1986 (1988).

128

Vassos KARAGEORGHIS

here with some fortified settlements in the Aegean to try to establish similarities in their history and common criteria for their selection as defensive outposts. Before doing so, however, a brief account should be given of the history and character of both these Late Cypriot sites. Both sites may have been founded ca. 1200 BC, although the foundation of PylaKokkinokremos might be slightly earlier. They are both situated on or close to the coast, in fact Maa-Palaeokastro is a promontory washed on three sides by the sea (Pls. Xa-b). It has vertical cliffs on each side; the tip of the promontory is rocky but lower and could be reached easily if the sea is calm. The promontory has a f lat rocky surface, ideal for building houses; its two large bays provide safe anchorage for the ships of all those who sail to it. These geomorphic characteristics are clearly visible from a distance to people who sail towards the western coast of Cyprus. The defensive character of the architecture of this settlement is quite clear; a cyclopean wall across the neck of the promontory with a dog-leg gate and a watch tower intra muros, next to the gate, protected the inhabitants from any hostile threat from the landward side. A thick wall along the narrow tip of the promontory, provided with an inner curtain wall and a watch tower, provided safety against any attacks from the seaward side. The long sides of the promontory, rocky and vertical, provided natural protection. The domestic architecture comprises four building units which differ considerably from the one or two-room houses which are scattered all over the site. Building I, with its cement f loors and ashlar walls, may have fulfilled an important function within the community as an official residence.5 Buildings II and III are characterized by a large hall with a central hearth, a feature which is constantly found in Mycenaean domestic and palatial architecture. There are also smaller rooms in each of these two buildings which were used as storerooms. Sherds were employed in the construction of their hearths, as at Tiryns.6 The function of these rooms was the preparation, consumption and disposal of food. Their association with drinking cups is noteworthy. Building III was mainly for storage, and its large pithoi are clearly indicative of its function. The discovery of clay bathtubs in association with this room, probably fallen from an upper f loor, is significant. The importance of the introduction of clay and limestone bathtubs, as well as bathrooms, ca. 1200 BC on several Cypriot sites, features previously unknown in the domestic architecture of Cyprus, will be discussed by the writer in a forthcoming study. Inadequate attention has been paid to the large central hearths in communal halls and the occurrence of bathtubs and bathrooms at Maa-Palaeokastro and other Late Cypriot IIC-Late Cypriot IIIA sites in Cyprus by scholars dealing with the end of the Late Bronze Age on the island; however, the importance of central hearths in early 12th century BC sites in Palestine has been recognized by their excavators as indicative of connections with the Aegean.7 Stress was laid in the final excavation report of Maa-Palaeokastro on the importance of the cyclopean walls and the dog-leg gate, the locally made Mycenaean IIIC:1b style pottery, the Handmade Burnished (Barbarian) ware, the bronze violin-shaped fibulae, the gold-studded rivet of a dagger, the metallurgical activity at the settlement and the abundance of arrowheads and sling bullets and the curious reels of unbaked clay which have their parallels in the Aegean and at Ashkelon in Palestine. The settlement was violently destroyed by fire a few years after its foundation. In the publication it was suggested that those who destroyed it may have been pirates, adventurers, or remnants of the Sea Peoples. The fact that the settlement was rebuilt more modestly on a much smaller scale, on the debris of the destruction layer, and that there was a cultural continuity between the first and the second f loor, makes it certain that whoever destroyed the settlement took no part in its reconstruction.8

______________________
5 6 7 8 KARAGEORGHIS and DEMAS 1988 (supra n. 4) 57. KARAGEORGHIS and DEMAS 1988 (supra n. 4) 61. T. DOTHAN and M. DOTHAN, People of the Sea. The Search for the Philistines (1992) 245. KARAGEORGHIS and DEMAS 1988 (supra n. 4) 266.

MYCENAEAN ACROPOLEIS IN THE AEGEAN AND CYPRUS

129

Pyla-Kokkinokremos is a rocky plateau situated ca. 800m. from the coast of the northern part of Larnaca Bay (Pls. Xc-XIa). With its sandy beach the bay is ideal for drawing up ships. The plateau is quite conspicuous in the area, clearly visible to people arriving by sea. Its highest point is 63 m. above sea-level; there is a deep ravine to the south-east, and down below there must have been a marshy area in antiquity, now dried up. The coast line may also have been nearer to the south-eastern side of the plateau than it is nowadays. Because of the height of the plateau and its abrupt sides a fortification wall of the same thickness as that of MaaPalaeokastro was unnecessary, but there was one, nevertheless, ca. 65cm. thick. The entire plateau was ringed with about 200 complexes or building units along its edge, conceived by the same architect; the owner of each unit had to construct his part of the defensive wall (the back wall of his house). There is no water supply on the plateau, hence the numerous pithoi in which water could be stored. Only a very small area of the plateau has been excavated and there is no evidence for any outstanding building complexes which differed from the ordinary habitations. There was metallurgical activity at the site and the inhabitants possessed luxury goods. They were relatively prosperous, but were anxious for their safety. They used torches, probably for signaling danger, of a type which is known also from Tiryns. The relatively high percentage of Late Minoan III pottery at the site, including a fragment of a very large pithos, as well as a fragmentary limestone trough with horns of consecration in relief on its exterior surface, betray a Cretan element among the population. The pottery included two much-discussed skyphoi. Whether they imitate Late Helladic IIIB2 or Late Helladic IIIC:1b skyphoi is not of crucial importance here. The vast majority of the pottery was of Late Cypriot IIC date, including a late Mycenaean IIIB bell krater decorated with a chariot scene. The chariots are of the new light rail type, introduced to the Aegean ca. 1200 BC. The population f led in face of an imminent danger a few decades after 1200 BC. They left all their valuables such as alabaster vases and Minoan and Mycenaean vessels on the f loors of the houses; they hurriedly concealed their treasures including gold jewellery and foil, two silver ingots, a fragment of a copper ingot and tools and other objects of bronze in the hope that they would come back and rescue them. As usually happens, they never managed to do so. The people responsible for the abandonment of Pyla-Kokkinokremos, and indeed for the abandonment or destruction of other urban centres like Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios, were probably the same people who were responsible for the destruction of Maa-Palaeokastro. The presence of objects of Cypriot type and manufacture as well as metallurgical activity with the use of local copper ingots at Maa and Pyla are not disturbing; some contact with the local population was inevitable, despite all the measures the newcomers would take in selecting the site of their settlement and in fortifying themselves, not knowing beforehand the intentions of the local population.9 The events which caused this turmoil in Cyprus are part of an episode which lasted for several years. This may explain why the nature and sequence of events is different at the various sites which were affected.10 It is true that the settlement at Pyla-Kokkinokremos does not present the same highly defended aspect as Maa-Palaeokastro; however, the factors favouring identification of it as a defensive outpost built by foreigners are not unlike those at Maa-Palaeokastro. The site is new, built at the very end of LC IIC. It is quite visible from the sea, it had no water supply of its own and several of the finds betray a strong foreign element among its population, namely from Minoan Crete. If local people had wished to defend themselves they would have done so by f leeing behind the hilly plateau where they would not be visible from the sea and where they would have an ample water supply. The height of the plateau, much greater than at Maa, and its steep sides rendered the construction of a stronger fortification wall unnecessary. It is also possible that during the early years in the life of the settlement (at the very end of the 13th century BC) the inhabitants were not as fearful and their sense of emergency not as acute as a few years later, and the refugees had time to settle in large numbers and in regularly

______________________
9 10 KARAGEORGHIS and DEMAS 1988 (supra n. 4) 263. Cf. also SOUTH (supra n. 2) 89.

130

Vassos KARAGEORGHIS

distributed building units around the edge of the plateau without feeling the necessity to take up to the plateau large boulders for a cyclopean wall. It will be of interest to investigate the possible existence of other sites which might have been used as defensible outposts like Maa-Palaeokastro and Pyla-Kokkinokremos. Sinda in the Mesaoria plain is of a different character, but it may have served as a defensive outpost before the population gradually moved to Enkomi.11 The site of Lara, north of Maa, has not yielded any evidence which might qualify it as such.12 The area along the northern coast has not been fully investigated and unfortunately it is now inaccessible for archaeological research. The remote site of Moulos, east of Kyrenia, might be a candidate;13 this promontory, with the sea on three sides of it, deserves to be investigated carefully in the future. It would also be of interest to investigate the possible existence of similar defensive outposts along the SyroPalestinian coast where Sea Peoples might have established themselves. Another course of investigation may be followed concerning the occurrence of any radical changes in the use of cooking pots and other coarse wares of domestic use, as has been undertaken in the Levant. The possibility that some of the Mycenaean-type figurines of the 12th century BC may be of local manufacture strengthens the argument for the existence of a foreign element in the population.14 Turning to the Aegean, there are several sites which may have been inhabited by Mycenaeans after the destruction of the palaces of the Peloponnese and the dissolution of the Mycenaean empire. One such site is Koukounaries on the island of Paros in the Cyclades. A glance at the map of the Aegean region will demonstrate immediately the strategic position of the Cycladic islands and their importance in the political and cultural development of the region in the prehistoric period when the sea was the only means of intercommunication. These barren rocky islands could not, of course, contribute to the development of Aegean culture in the same way as the plains of Thessaly or the Argolid, but they had a different role to play which emanated from their particular insular character and their central position in the Aegean Sea. Whenever there was a population movement from the eastern Aegean to the west or vice versa, the Cyclades were inevitably involved. Already at the end of the Early Helladic II period, when some of the island sites of the north-east Aegean such as Poliochni and Thermi were abandoned, their inhabitants settled as refugees in small, short-lived fortified settlements in the Cyclades such as those on Syros, Naxos, Delos and elsewhere.15 In the same way, when the Mycenaean centres in the Peloponnese started to dwindle and the occupants of the palaces f led with their followers, some of them found a safe refuge in the Cyclades which they could reach easily in small ships and where they could settle in safe outposts. It is not only their proximity to the Mycenaean mainland which made them attractive to the refugee population, but also their geophysical character; the many rocky outcrops near small sandy beaches and their remoteness from large urban centres offered ideal conditions for safe settlement. Such settlements could not be permanent; the lack of available land and often of water supply and the inhospitable conditions of the environment in general dictated only an ephemeral abode, suitable for the psychology of the refugee whose main preoccupation was safety, especially when f leeing in an emergency. But even in such cases, as for example the Phoenician settlements in the central and western Mediterranean, safety was the main criterion for choosing remote places to settle, not knowing the intentions of the local population. Sites which were easily defensible like Cape Bon, Carthage, Motya and Tharros are but a few examples.

______________________
11 12 13 14 15 V. KARAGEORGHIS, The End of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus (1990) 12-13. KARAGEORGHIS and DEMAS 1988 (supra n. 4) 263, n. 16. V. KARAGEORGHIS, Chronique des fouilles et dcouvertes archologiques Chypre en 1961, BCH 86 (1962) 374-77. Cf. V. KARAGEORGHIS and A. CAUBET, Mycenaean or Mycenaean?, RDAC (1996) 83-86. Ch.G. DOUMAS, EBA in the Cyclades: Continuity or Discontinuity?, in E.B. FRENCH and K.A. WARDLE (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory (1988) 25-29; Idem, Early Helladic III and the Coming of the Greeks, Cretan Studies 5 (1996) 60.

MYCENAEAN ACROPOLEIS IN THE AEGEAN AND CYPRUS

131

The site of Koukounaries is situated at the north end of the island of Paros, on the west side of the Naousa Bay. It is a rocky outcrop of granite, rising to a height of 75m. above sea level. Its base is literally washed by the sea (Pls. XIb-c). Approaching the hill of Koukounaries from the sea, there is a small bay with a sandy beach. To the south of the hill there is f lat ground, through which runs a stream f lowing into the sea and creating what must have been marshes in antiquity. This no doubt provided an additional element of fortification for the settlement on top of the Koukounaries plateau. It recalls the site of Pyla-Kokkinokremos with its steep sides and the once marshy land on its south-western side. Entering the Bay of Naousa from the north, the hill of Koukounaries rises conspicuously ahead, and its sandy beach provided an ideal anchorage. The marshes made access to the hill difficult on its southern side and the south-eastern side was protected by the abrupt slope. On the landward side to the south-west, a gentle incline creates a passage which, through a series of terraces, gives access to the top of the hill which comprises a large plateau. It is this passage which the first settlers of Koukounaries chose to reach the plateau and up which they carried materials to build a large mansion. At the same time they constructed thick walls and bastions across the passage from the foot of the hill upwards and on the terraces in order to control access to the settlement. There was no water supply on the hill, but along the northern side of Koukounaries there must have been a spring; a stream now runs throughout the year. The fortifications do not constitute a continuous wall but rather successive lines of walls. The one which corresponds to the south side of the mansion which is built at the top of the plateau measures 1.66m. in thickness; it is preserved to a height of 3 metres. A large mansion was excavated by D. Schilardi on the plateau at the top of the Koukounaries hill in the years 1976-1982, which has been identified as a palace (Pl. XIIa).16 Its southern faade was formed by a cyclopean wall which was intended to protect the palace from possible attacks. One of its rooms has been interpreted by the excavator as a megaron. The discovery of fragments of a clay bathtub implies the existence of a bathroom on the upper f loor. This is significant not only because it supports the special character of this residence, but also because it may be compared with a similar situation in Building III at MaaPalaeokastro, noted earlier. Other rooms were used as storerooms where large quantities of objects were recovered. These include, apart from fine ware pottery and storage jars, weapons, tools, fibulae of the violin-bow type (as at Maa-Palaeokastro), a piece of ivory furniture, a piece of rock crystal, beads, buttons and spindlewhorls, gems and other artifacts. The discovery of a bronze horse bit recalls the piece of harness from Maa-Palaeokastro. No doubt horses played an important role in the life of an aristocrat or king and ref lect life in the Mycenaean palaces. All this suggests that the fortified acropolis of Koukounaries was controlled by a local wanax, who brought with him from the Mainland not only his valuables (including ivory furniture) but also his lifestyle. This palatial building was destroyed by fire during a siege according to its excavator; the defenders of the citadel brought their cattle, sheep and horses inside the walls. Human beings, including children, died during the siege. Their carbonized remains were found together with those of animals. The large number of stone balls brought up the hill was not enough to repell the attackers. A woman was hurriedly buried in the basement of the palace because the attackers had already advanced to near the fortified plateau. According to the excavator, the f loruit of the citadel should be assigned to the developed phase of Late Helladic IIIC, whereas the destruction should be put at the beginning of the advanced phase. Schilardi describes the aftermath of the attack: ...Koukounaries fell under the violent attack which devastated the citadel and burned the mansion. The invasion caused the abandonment and depopulation of the site. The invaders left no material evidence of their

______________________
16 D.U. SCHILARDI, The LH IIIC Period at the Koukounaries Acropolis, Paros, in J.A. MacGILLIVRAY and R.L.N. BARBER (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades. Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (1984) 184206; Idem, Paros and the Cyclades after the Fall of the Mycenaean Palaces, in J-P. OLIVIER (ed.), Mykenaika. BCH Sup. XXV (1992) 621-39.

132

Vassos KARAGEORGHIS

presence, and apparently, after completing their military objectives, they departed without establishing themselves in the citadel... the attackers were not interested in looting, but rather in eliminating their enemy.17 The excavator goes further to identify the invaders: Given the overall unstable conditions of the age, it is very possible that such destructions might have been inf licted by Mycenaeans, namely by groups of refugees, moving in the Aegean area and engaged in military operations, some of which were directed against Mycenaean communities. Attacks intended to eliminate adversaries, strong in trade activities, would be in line with the spirit of that age.18 Another possibility, according to Schilardi, is that the destruction may be due to sudden sea raids inf licted by pirates; this was a socially customary and honorable practice, in line with the heroic pursuits of aristocracy.19 Koukounaries continued to be occupied after the burning of the palace. Walls were built across corridors and rooms of the ruined palace exactly as at Maa-Palaeokastro after the destruction by fire. This second phase of occupation on the hill of Koukounaries lasted until the last phase of LH IIIC. It is superf luous to overemphasize the similarities of Koukounaries and MaaPalaeokastro, the character of the fortified acropolis, its destruction, rehabitation and final abandonment. The abandonment of Pyla-Kokkinokremos may have been caused by an imminent danger from pirates which the population felt a few years after it settled on the plateau. The state of insecurity and anxiety in the Aegean towards the end of the 13th century BC caused the strengthening of the fortifications at various sites such as Tiryns, the Athenian acropolis, Gla in Boeotia and elsewhere. The final collapse of the central authority in the palaces resulted in the beginning of migration movements. Local wanaktes, accompanied by groups of followers, took refuge in remote sites for protection. This may explain the phenomenon of Koukounaries on Paros. The Cyclades lay on a crucial route which connected the Mainland with Crete, Rhodes and further east with Cyprus and the Levant. The writer suggests that the destruction or abandonment of urban sites, the rebuilding of others and the foundation of the fortified acropoleis of Maa-Palaeokastro and Pyla-Kokkinokremos may be due to immigrants like those who settled on the acropolis of Koukounaries. It is also possible that these f leeing Mycenaean wanaktes may have decided to move eastwards to Cyprus and the Levantine coast, which they knew from their forefathers, having settled temporarily in remote places in the Cyclades or on Crete. This may explain some of the chronological and stylistic peculiarities of the Mycenaean IIIC:1b (local) style of Cyprus and the Levant, and the strong Cretan element in the settlement of Pyla-Kokkinokremos. It should always be remembered that the events which affected the Cyclades and possibly other sites in the Aegean, as well as Cyprus and the Levantine coast, extended over a long period of time and did not constitute a single occurrence which took place at the same time and in the same manner throughout the region. It is hoped that the study of the ceramic material from the fortified site of Ayios Andreas on the Cycladic island of Siphnos, which is currently under way, will provide a more precise chronology for the foundation of this acropolis.20 From the material already published it can be seen that some of the ceramic material is of LH IIIB2 date.21 Other sites where similar phenomena may be studied are Ayia Irini on Kea and Phylakopi on Melos.22 Another site in the Cyclades which is of importance for the present study is that of Xombourgo on the island of Tenos (Pl. XIIb). In recent years Nota Kourou has been excavating near the higher slopes of the prominent hill which dominates the whole island of Tenos, with some extraordinary results. In addition to other architectural remains including

______________________
17 18 19 20 21 22 SCHILARDI 1984 (supra n. 16) 203. SCHILARDI 1992 (supra n. 16) 638. Ibid. 639. B. PHILIPPAKI in Praktika for the years 1975: 235-37, 1976: 284-86, 1977: 357-60, and 1978: 192-94. For further references see SCHILARDI 1992 (supra n. 16) 626, n. 27. PHILIPPAKI 1976 (supra n. 20) 284-85. Cf. SCHILARDI 1992 (supra n. 16) 625.

MYCENAEAN ACROPOLEIS IN THE AEGEAN AND CYPRUS

133

a fortification wall of the Archaic period, cyclopean fortifications with a gate and tower of the Mycenaean period are now being excavated. Defensible sites on Crete are also of considerable importance for the present discussion. There is evidence that people moved to such sites as early as LM IIIB.23 One coastal site in eastern Crete, Kastri at Palaeokastro, has already been compared by Schilardi with Koukounaries as a place of refuge where newcomers (Mycenaeans) settled for protection during the Late Minoan IIIC period.24 Krzysztof Nowicki, who made a special study of a large number of refuge settlements on Crete, described the LM IIIC settlement at Palaeokastro Kastri, dominating the bay and the plain of Palaeokastro, as a pirates lair, isolated from the hinterland and closely related to the sea during a period at which piracy existed.25 It was not a place of refuge for the local population, but rather a fortified outpost for foreign settlers. Nowicki has also investigated the fortified acropolis of the Zakros Gorge (Kato Kastello), where the fortification wall dating to LM IIIC (or LM IIIB/IIIC), survives on the side of the slope for a length of 250m. and in some cases to a height of 3-3.5m. The writer does not pretend to have any experience of the fortified outposts of Crete other than Kastrokephala, west of Irakleion, which he examined in January 1997. In 1970 E. Platakis visited the site and described both its geomorphology and archaeology.26 In 1974 St. Alexiou and A. Kanta excavated for a very short period; of this excavation there is only a very preliminary note by Alexiou who describes the pottery discovered at that time as of LM IIIA or B (and probably C).27 Kanta dated the site to the LM IIIB period, but she would now accept the LM IIIC date originally proposed by Platakis.28 Kastrokephala rises about 355m. above sea level (Pl. XIIc).29 To the north lies the bay of Irakleion and the plain, whereas on the south-east side there is a deep gorge and marshy land with a spring; this marshy land may have served as an additional element of fortification and it may have been one of the reasons for the choice of the location for a fortified site (cf. Pyla-Kokkinokremos). The survival of the toponymic Linoperamata (Limnoperamata = the lakes ford) may recall the marshy land at the estuary of the river Almyros.30 The site of Kastrokephala with its steep gorge (farggi) along the south-east side (Pl. XIId) is clearly visible to those entering the Bay of Irakleion, and the choice of the site for a fortress was easy to make. The gorge and the outcrop of Kastrokephala impressed the cartographer Basilicata who produced a panoramic view of it.31 Niemeier recognized the Mycenaean character of the site, but continued to date it to the LM IIIA2 period.32 Nowicki also recognized its Mycenaean character and described it as resembling rather Mycenaean citadels than Minoan refuge settlements.33 Kastrokephala has a large, roughly triangular plateau on the top which was protected by a wall, visible along one of the sides of the triangle; it is preserved for a length of about 480m., ca. 2.10-2.20m. in thickness and with a height of 2-3.5m. It is constructed with large boulders.34 At the highest point of the site the walls of an oblong building are preserved; described by Alexiou as a garrison, it may well be part of an official residence (Pl. XIIe).

______________________
23

24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

K. NOWICKI, Topography of Refuge Settlement in Crete, Jahrbuch des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 34 (1987) 215. SCHILARDI 1992 (supra n. 16) 626. NOWICKI (supra n. 23) 215. E. PLATAKIS, Late Minoan - Sub-Minoan Buildings at Kastrokefala, Kretika Chronika 22 (1970) 511-14. St. ALEXIOU, Archaiotites kai mnimeia kentriki kai anatoliki Kriti, Deltion 29 (Chronika) (1973/74) 900901; Idem, in Kretika Chronika 26 (1974) 49-52, with previous references to the site by Buondelmonti (1415) and others. PLATAKIS (supra n. 26) 512. For a description of the site see B.J. HAYDEN, Fortifications of Postpalatial and Early Iron Age Crete, AA (1988) 3-5. The writer owes this information to St. Alexiou and A. Karetsou. He is also indebted to A. Karetsou for other information about Kastrokephala. Fr. BASILICATA, Cretae Regnum. New edition (1994) pl. IV. W.-D. NIEMEIER, The End of the Minoan Thalassocracy, in Minoan Thalassocracy, 213. NOWICKI (supra n. 23) 215. PLATAKIS (supra n. 26) 512-13; K. NOWICKI, Fortifications in Dark Age Krete, in S. VAN DE MAELE and J.M. FOSSEY (eds.), Fortificationes Antiquae (1992) 54-57.

134

Vassos KARAGEORGHIS

The consensus of opinion is that the ceramic material from Kastrokephala is LM IIIC, a view to which Kanta now subscribes. The site is certainly worthy of excavation and, together with Palaeokastro Kastri, it may show the extent and the character of the Mycenaean migration to Crete after the fall of the Mycenaean palaces; this migration probably explains the strong Cretan elements in the material culture of Cyprus of the 12th and 11th centuries BC. Vassos KARAGEORGHIS

POSTSCRIPTUM The following highly relevant article came to the notice of the writer after it was too late to include it in the main body of the text: M. BENZI and G. GRAZIADO, The Last Mycenaeans in Italy? LH IIIC Pottery from Punta Meliso, Leuka, SMEA 1996: 95-138. It refers to the establishment of Aegean refugees in Apulia, Italy, after the collapse of the Mycenaean palace system.

MYCENAEAN ACROPOLEIS IN THE AEGEAN AND CYPRUS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Xa Xb Xc XIa XIb XIc XIIa XIIb XIIc XIId XIIe

135

Aerial view of Maa-Palaeokastro, with the two bays on either side of the promontory. Aerial view of the promontory of Maa-Palaeokastro. Aerial view of the plateau of Pyla-Kokkinokremos. The excavated area of Pyla-Kokkinokremos. General view from the southwest of the acropolis of Paros-Koukounaries. On the right-hand side, the marshy land and the Bay of Naousa (photo: D. Schilardi). Paros-Koukounaries: view from the south (photo: V. Karageorghis). Paros-Koukounaries: view of the Mansion at the top of the acropolis (photo: V. Karageorghis). Tenos-Xombourgo: view of the acropolis hill from the south-west (photo: V. Karageorghis). Crete-Kastrokephala: general view from the east (photo: V. Karageorghis). Crete-Kastrokephala: the gorge along the southern edge of the plateau (photo: V. Karageorghis). Crete-Kastrokephala: architectural remains at the south-western corner of the plateau (photo: V. Karageorghis).

136

Vassos KARAGEORGHIS

Discussion following V. Karageorghis paper: M.J. Mellink (Chair): We thank Professor Karageorghis for a most instructive and enlightening paper that tried to make history out of a critical period and illuminate the matter of the Sea Peoples. Im sure there will be questions...? J.D. Muhly: According to the Gales, the copper ingots from Maa and Pyla are made of Cypriot copper, even copper from the mines at Apliki. Apliki is some distance from Pyla in particular. This must show that the refugees have considerable contact with the local population and are getting raw material from the local population, so that the fortifications must be not to protect the refugees from the locals, but from the possibility of future invasion by sea. V. Karageorghis: Yes, but when they first arrived, they did not know the intentions of the locals, so to be on the safe side, they fortified themselves both from the land and from the sea. T. Dothan: I would like to comment on one set of finds that are really very exciting, and these are the unperforated loomweights from Maa-Palaeokastro. They become very popular in settlements of the early twelfth century. We have them coming up in large quantities in Philistia [at this time]. We have them at Ekron, and Im glad I dont have to mention them later, in a room, really well preserved. We have them at Ashkelon, where they are found in rows, so they may really belong to looms. They also appear in Ashdod. This is the first time we have them in Canaan and in Philistia, just coming in during the twelfth century. So, I think this rounds out the picture: we follow them to Cyprus, we follow them to Tiryns and other sites in the Aegean. I think this is an important feature of everyday objects that belong to technology. V. Karageorghis: Thank you for mentioning this, [to] which I have references in my original text. Yesterday we spoke about the movements of goods, styles, and ideas. In order to illustrate and justify the suggestions that there were movements of people, we should try to find objects of daily life: their cooking pots, their barbarian ware, their way of life. They have bathtubs; they have hearths like those which you found at Ekron; they fortified themselves in a style which was unprecedented in Cyprus. It is these elements which we take into consideration, rather than studies of elite pottery and other luxury goods. [NB: The remainder of the discussion was unfortunately not recorded.]