ierapetra and crete in the roman empire
Post on 09-Feb-2016
90 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
-
AN ISLAND ECONOMY: IERAPETRA AND CRETE
IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
by
Scott Charles Gallimore
April 22, 2011
A dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of
the University at Buffalo, State University of New York
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Classics
-
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3460751Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
UMI Number: 3460751
-
ii
Copyright by
Scott Charles Gallimore
2011
-
iii
For Mom, Dad, Neil,
Andrew, and Lindy. Your support
over the years has been
a source of inspiration
-
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are numerous individuals and institutions that I must thank for their support and
encouragement over the past few years. First and foremost, I express my gratitude to the
members of my dissertation committee, J. Theodore Pea, L. Vance Watrous, Stephen L. Dyson,
and Bradley A. Ault, for their continual enthusiasm as I progressed from formulating a topic to
completing the final manuscript. My committee chair, J.T. Pea, has been instrumental in
helping me push to produce the highest quality work possible, and has pointed out numerous
ways in which I could improve upon my arguments and organization. Vance Watrous introduced
me to Crete in the summer of 2005 and offered regular guidance as I came to focus my research
more and more on the islands Roman period history. Stephen Dysons insight and advice has
been of great help as I have tried to organize my thoughts and research in the course of writing
my dissertation. Last, but not least, Brad Ault always kept his door open for all of those times I
needed advice about the dissertation or any other topic.
I would also like to thank John Dugan, who was a mentor and friend during my time in
Buffalo. He was always willing to lend a friendly ear when questions or troubles arose, and
offered sage advice whenever I was in need of it. In addition, Neil Coffee has been of great help
these past few months as I have tried to deal with several bureaucratic and scheduling issues that
arose as I reached the end of the dissertating process.
My time at the University at Buffalo was financially supported by regular teaching
assistantships, as well as a series of College Fellowships. Financial support also came from the
American School of Classical Studies in Athens. First as the John Williams White Fellow, and
then as the Edwards Capps Fellow, I was able to complete a large proportion of my research and
writing during a two year tenure in Athens. While at the American School, I received
-
v
encouragement from several individuals, and would like to thank Guy Sanders, Margie Miles,
Denver Graninger, Sherry Fox, Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, and Jack Davis for all of the support
and advice they provided.
My ability to complete the dissertation is owed in large part to a year spent as the Crake
Doctoral Fellow at Mount Allison University, and I express my gratitude to the Crake
Foundation and Bruce Robertson for the opportunity to make that final push to complete my
thesis.
I must also thank Vili Apostolakou of the KD Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical
Antiquities in East Crete, whose support made this study possible. Vili permitted me to study
several ceramic assemblages from her rescue excavations in and around Ierapetra, and has
accommodated my research at every turn. My analysis of these ceramics took place at the
INSTAP Study Center for East Crete in Pacheia Ammos, Crete in July 2007 and September-
October 2009. I thank Tom Brogan, director of the Study Center, for permitting to use these
facilities and for always making the extra effort to ensure I had everything I needed to complete
my analyses in a timely fashion. In addition, I must thank Eleanor Huffman for answering every
question I had while at the Study Center, and Kathy Hall for conserving a number of the vessels I
analyzed.
Throughout my time as a graduate student there have also been numerous other
individuals who have offered their support, advice, criticism, and friendship, including Sabine
Beckmann, Matthew Buell, Alicia Carter, Kostas Chalikias, Benjamin Costello, Yuki Furuya,
Mark Hammond, Jason Harris, Kapua Iao, Sarah James, Jenny Muslin, Yota Pantou, Cathy
Person, Benjamin Sullivan, and Martin Wells. This is by no means a complete list and I am
grateful to everyone who has offered encouragement over the years.
-
vi
Finally, I must thank my parents, Chuck and Lorrie Gallimore, for all of the support they
have provided over the years, and my wife, Lindy, whose enthusiasm for my work has never
wavered. It is because of their encouragement that I was able to bring this project to completion.
-
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables and Illustrations .................................................................................................... xiii
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... xx
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2: DEFINING ROMAN CRETE ................................................................................ 6
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6
Crete and Rome...................................................................................................................... 7
Hellenistic Crete ........................................................................................................... 7
The Creation of Roman Crete ..................................................................................... 10
Crete at the End of the Republic ................................................................................. 16
Crete under the Romans.............................................................................................. 25
The End of Roman Crete ............................................................................................. 30
A Chronological Scheme for Roman Crete ......................................................................... 32
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY OF ROMAN CRETE .................................................................... 42
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 42
Sources of Evidence for Roman Crete ................................................................................. 43
Travelers Accounts .................................................................................................... 43
Archaeological Data ................................................................................................... 49
Literary Sources .......................................................................................................... 67
Epigraphic Texts ......................................................................................................... 72
Numismatic Finds ....................................................................................................... 77
Secondary Literature on Roman Crete ................................................................................. 80
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 86
-
viii
CHAPTER 4: THE POLIS OF IERAPETRA ............................................................................. 87
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 87
Modern Ierapetra and Local Geography .............................................................................. 88
The Disappearance of Ierapetra ........................................................................................... 92
Earliest History .................................................................................................................... 97
Hellenistic Ierapetra ........................................................................................................... 104
Topography ............................................................................................................... 107
Territorial Expansion................................................................................................ 108
Political Structures ................................................................................................... 117
Religion ..................................................................................................................... 118
Economy .................................................................................................................... 119
Roman Ierapetra ................................................................................................................. 128
Topography ............................................................................................................... 129
Territory .................................................................................................................... 136
Political Structures ................................................................................................... 143
Religion ..................................................................................................................... 147
Economy .................................................................................................................... 147
Decline of the Site ..................................................................................................... 155
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 159
CHAPTER 5: THE POTTERY ................................................................................................. 161
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 161
The Excavations ................................................................................................................. 161
Assariotaki Plot ......................................................................................................... 163
Pangalou Plot ........................................................................................................... 165
Yiomelaki Plot ........................................................................................................... 168
Study Methodology ............................................................................................................ 174
Selection of Catalogue Pottery ................................................................................. 175
Phasing ..................................................................................................................... 176
Quantification ........................................................................................................... 178
Format of the Catalogue ..................................................................................................... 180
Part 1: Hellenistic Pottery ....................................................................................................... 182
East Cretan Cream Ware ................................................................................................... 182
Finewares .................................................................................................................. 184
-
ix
Common Wares ......................................................................................................... 193
Amphorae .................................................................................................................. 197
Lamps ........................................................................................................................ 199
Finewares Cretan ............................................................................................................ 200
Finewares Imported ........................................................................................................ 206
Attic ........................................................................................................................... 209
Aegean....................................................................................................................... 210
Lagynos Ware ........................................................................................................... 211
Gray Wares ................................................................................................................ 212
Mold-Made Bowls ...................................................................................................... 216
Pergamene Sigillata ................................................................................................... 218
Common Wares ................................................................................................................. 218
Basins ......................................................................................................................... 220
Jars ............................................................................................................................ 222
Pithoi .......................................................................................................................... 224
Cookwares.......................................................................................................................... 224
Casseroles ................................................................................................................. 226
Cookpots ................................................................................................................... 228
Jars ............................................................................................................................ 229
Brazier Lugs .............................................................................................................. 230
Amphorae ........................................................................................................................... 232
Crete .......................................................................................................................... 235
Italy ........................................................................................................................... 237
Knidos ....................................................................................................................... 238
Kos ............................................................................................................................ 239
Rhodes ....................................................................................................................... 239
Thasos ....................................................................................................................... 240
Unidentified............................................................................................................... 241
Stamped Handles ...................................................................................................... 242
Part 2: Roman Pottery ............................................................................................................. 244
Finewares Cretan ............................................................................................................ 244
Finewares - Imported ......................................................................................................... 249
Eastern Sigillata A .................................................................................................... 249
Eastern Sigillata B .................................................................................................... 253
-
x
Italian Sigillata ......................................................................................................... 259
Cypriot Sigillata ........................................................................................................ 263
Pontic Sigillata.......................................................................................................... 265
andarli Ware .......................................................................................................... 267
Corinthian Relief Ware ............................................................................................. 271
African Red-Slip ........................................................................................................ 272
Phocaean Red-Slip .................................................................................................... 280
Cypriot Red-Slip........................................................................................................ 287
Egyptian Red-Slip ..................................................................................................... 288
Common Wares ................................................................................................................. 289
Basins ........................................................................................................................ 292
Bottles ....................................................................................................................... 296
Bowls ......................................................................................................................... 297
Jugs/Jars ................................................................................................................... 298
Lids ............................................................................................................................ 301
Pithoi/Storage Jars ................................................................................................... 301
Small Pots ................................................................................................................. 302
Tubs ........................................................................................................................... 304
Votive Dishes ............................................................................................................ 305
Unidentified Shapes .................................................................................................. 305
Cookwares.......................................................................................................................... 306
Casseroles ................................................................................................................. 310
Cookpots ................................................................................................................... 312
Frying Pans ............................................................................................................... 316
Lids ............................................................................................................................ 319
Jars ............................................................................................................................ 319
Pompeian Red Ware ................................................................................................. 320
Amphorae .......................................................................................................................... 322
Crete .......................................................................................................................... 325
Aegean....................................................................................................................... 337
Africa......................................................................................................................... 342
Egypt ......................................................................................................................... 346
Italy ........................................................................................................................... 347
Spain ......................................................................................................................... 350
-
xi
Syria-Palestine .......................................................................................................... 351
Unknown Provenance ............................................................................................... 353
Unidentified............................................................................................................... 354
Lamps ................................................................................................................................. 357
Miscellaneous .................................................................................................................... 362
Part 3: Pottery from Kato Mertia ............................................................................................ 365
Late Hellenistic ......................................................................................................... 366
Early Roman ............................................................................................................. 367
Late Roman ............................................................................................................... 369
Late Antique .............................................................................................................. 370
CHAPTER 6: IERAPETRA AND CRETE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE ................................. 373
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 373
Analytical Concepts ........................................................................................................... 375
Difficulties of Economic Reconstruction .................................................................. 375
Theoretical Background............................................................................................ 378
Free Market versus the Command Economy ............................................................ 381
The Function of Ports ............................................................................................... 387
Growth versus Decline .............................................................................................. 391
Assessment of Quantification .................................................................................... 393
Late Hellenistic .................................................................................................................. 394
Ierapetra in the Late Hellenistic Period ................................................................... 395
Ierapetra and its Chora in the Late Hellenistic Period ............................................ 400
Ierapetra and Late Hellenistic Crete ........................................................................ 404
Crete and the Hellenistic Economy........................................................................... 407
Proto-Roman ...................................................................................................................... 416
Ierapetra in the Proto-Roman Period ....................................................................... 418
Ierapetra and Cretes Developing Trade Relations.................................................. 425
Early Roman ...................................................................................................................... 430
Ierapetra in the Early Roman Period ....................................................................... 431
Crete and Cyrenaica ................................................................................................. 446
Ierapetra, Crete, and the Early Roman Economy..................................................... 452
Late Roman ........................................................................................................................ 467
Ierapetra in the Late Roman Period ......................................................................... 468
-
xii
Cretes Changing Economic Role ............................................................................. 476
Late Antique....................................................................................................................... 480
Ierapetra in Late Antiquity........................................................................................ 481
Cretes Economic Role in Late Antiquity .................................................................. 487
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 497
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 499
Bibliography and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 503
Tables and Illustrations ............................................................................................................... 554
-
xiii
LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
(Appended at End)
TABLES
1.1 Survey Chronologies for Roman Crete
5.1 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined
5.2 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts
5.3 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts
5.4 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Contexts of Unknown Date
5.5 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data Proto-Roman Contexts
5.6 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts
5.7 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts
5.8 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts
5.9 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
5.10 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Proto-Roman Contexts
5.11 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Early Roman Contexts
5.12 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Late Roman Contexts
5.13 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Late Antique Contexts
5.14 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
5.15 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Proto-Roman Contexts
5.16 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Early Roman Contexts
5.17 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Late Roman Contexts
5.18 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Late Antique Contexts
5.19 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types
5.20 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined
5.21 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts
5.22 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts
5.23 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Proto-Roman Contexts
5.24 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts
-
xiv
5.25 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts
5.26 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts
5.27 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
5.28 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Proto-Roman Contexts
5.29 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Early Roman Contexts
5.30 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Late Roman Contexts
5.31 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Late Antique Contexts
5.32 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
5.33 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Proto-Roman Contexts
5.34 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Early Roman Contexts
5.35 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Late Roman Contexts
5.36 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Late Antique Contexts
5.37 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types
5.38 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined
5.39 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts
5.40 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts
5.41 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Contexts of Unknown Date
5.42 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Proto-Roman Contexts
5.43 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts
5.44 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts
5.45 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts
5.46 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
5.47 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Proto-Roman Contexts
5.48 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Early Roman Contexts
5.49 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Late Roman Contexts
5.50 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares
from Late Antique Contexts
5.51 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
5.52 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
-
xv
from Proto-Roman Contexts
5.53 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Early Roman Contexts
5.54 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Late Roman Contexts
5.55 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae
from Late Antique Contexts
5.56 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types
FIGURES
1.1 Map of Sites on Crete Referred to in Dissertation
1.2 Architectural Remains from Ierapetra
1.3 Sarcophagus Lid from Ierapetra
2.1 Map of Metellus Conquest of Crete
3.1 Map of Survey Projects Carried out on Crete
3.2 Map of Roman Poleis which Minted Coins
4.1 Map of the Isthmus of Ierapetra with Modern Towns Labeled
4.2 Map of Modern Ierapetra
4.3 Roman Mole in Harbor of Ierapetra
4.4. Onorio Bellis Plan of the Large Theater at Ierapetra
4.5 Onorio Bellis Plan of the Small Theater at Ierapetra
4.6 Bronze Age and Iron Age Sites in the Isthmus of Ierapetra
4.7 Bronze Age and Iron Age Sherds from the Yiomelaki
Plot, Ierapetra
4.8 Map of Hellenistic Cretan Poleis which Negotiated Treaties
with Ierapetra
4.9 Map of Hellenistic Regions in Eastern Mediterranean which
Negotiated Treaties with Ierapetra
4.10 Possible Location of Ierapetras Hellenistic Harbor
4.11 Estimated Chora of Ierapetra at the End of the Second
Century B.C.E.
4.12 Findspots of Amphora Stamps from Ierapetra
4.13 Sites on Crete which Produced Hellenistic Amphorae
4.14 Plan of Ierapetra Drawn by Ian Sanders
4.15 Seasonal Stream Demarcating Western Limit of Ancient Ierapetra
4.16 Hypothetical Extent of Roman Ierapetra
-
xvi
4.17 Possible Location of Cardo Maximus and Decumanus Maximus in
Ancient Ierapetra
4.18 Location of Identified Ancient Structures in Ierapetra
4.19 Wall Situated Along Shoreline of Ierapetra
4.20 Reconstruction of Formal Administrative Chora of Roman
Ierapetra
4.21 Reconstruction of Broader Economic and Administrative
District under the Control of Roman Ierapetra
4.22 Map Showing Locations of Port Sites on Crete
4.23 Sites on Crete which Produced Roman Amphorae
4.24 Katalimata Monasteraki in the Cha Gorge
5.1 Location of Three Rescue Excavation Plots
5.2 Plan of the Assariotaki Plot
5.3 Sites on Crete with Published Roman Pottery
5.4 ECCW Cups (1-5, 7-9), Kantharoi (10-13), Cylindrical Jugs (14),
Bowls (15-17, 19)
5.5 ECCW Bowls (18, 20-23), Plates (27-30), Basins (32, 34)
5.6 ECCW Basins (33, 35, 37-42), Kraters (43), Hydriae (44-45)
5.7 ECCW Hydriae (46), Pithoi (47-49), Amphorae (50-55)
5.8 ECCW Amphorae (56-61), Lamps (62). Local Fineware
Bowls (64-68)
5.9 Local Fineware Bowls (69-71), Plates (72-76), Skyphoi (77).
Imported Fineware Cups (80-82), Kantharoi (84)
5.10 Imported Fineware Cups (83), Plates (85), Kraters (86-87).
Lagynos Ware (89). Gray Ware Cups (90-91), Bowls (92),
Plates (93-97, 100).
5.11 Gray Ware Jars (101-103). Common Ware Basins
(108-110, 112-114)
5.12 Common Ware Basins (111, 115-118). Common Ware
Jars (119-120)
5.13 Common Ware Jars (121-125). Common Ware Pithoi (127).
Casseroles (128-135).
5.14 Casseroles (136-137). Cookpots (138-141). Jars (142-143).
Amphorae (146-147)
5.15 Amphorae (148-152, 154-155, 157-161, 163). Local Fineware
Cups (168)
5.16 Local Fineware Cups (169), Bowls (170-172), Plates (173-174),
Jars (175), Lids (176). Eastern Sigillata A (177-184)
5.17 Eastern Sigillata A (185-186). Eastern Sigillata B (188-201).
-
xvii
Italian Sigillata (203-208, 210)
5.18 Italian Sigillata (213). Cypriot Sigillata (214). Pontic Sigillata
(215, 217). andarli (218-226)
5.19 andarli (228-229). African Red-Slip (231-232, 234-246,
248-249, 254)
5.20 African Red-Slip (250-253, 255-256). Phocaean Red-Slip
(259-266, 268)
5.21 Phocaean Red-Slip (267, 270-280)
5.22 Cypriot Red-Slip (283). Egyptian Red-Slip (284). Common
Ware Basins (285-292)
5.23 Common Ware Basins (293-303)
5.24 Common Ware Basins (304). Common Ware Bottles (305,
307). Common Ware Bowls (308-311). Common Ware Jars
(313-315)
5.25 Common Ware Jars (316-317, 320, 322). Common Ware
Pithoi (324-327). Common Ware Small Pots (328-332, 335)
5.26 Common Ware Small Pots (333-334, 336-338). Common Ware
Tubs (340). Common Ware Votive Dishes (341). Casseroles
(344, 348). Cookpots (353, 361)
5.27 Casseroles (345-347, 349). Cookpots (350, 351, 359)
5.28 Cookpots (352, 354-357, 362)
5.29 Cookpots (358, 360, 363-365, 367, 369)
5.30 Cookpots (366, 368). Frying Pans (370-373, 376, 382)
5.31 Frying Pans (374-375, 377-379, 384)
5.32 Frying Pans (380-381, 383, 385). Cookware Lids (387-389)
5.33 Cookware Jars (390-391). Pompeian Red Ware (392-395).
Cretan Amphorae (400-401, 404)
5.34 Cretan Amphorae (397-399, 402-403, 405-406, 408, 410)
5.35 Cretan Amphorae (407, 409, 411, 413, 416-419, 424)
5.36 Cretan Amphorae (420-421, 423, 425-426, 434)
5.37 Cretan Amphorae (422, 427-430, 433)
5.38 Cretan Amphorae (431, 435). Aegean Amphorae (438-440,
445-447). African Amphorae (455, 462)
5.39 Aegean Amphorae (442-444, 450). African Amphorae
(451-454, 458). Italian Amphorae (469)
5.40 African Amphorae (456-457, 459-461). Egyptian Amphorae
(463). Italian Amphorae (467). Spanish Amphorae (470).
Syria-Palestine Amphorae (472)
5.41 Syria-Palestine Amphorae (473-477). Knossos 18 Amphorae
(478-479). Unidentified Amphorae (480-481)
5.42 Unidentified Amphorae (482, 485-486, 488). Lamps (493, 507).
Amphora Stands (513-514)
5.43 Location of Kato Mertia
5.44 Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Hellenistic (KM1-KM7); Early Roman
(KM10, KM12)
-
xviii
5.45 Kato Mertia Pottery: Early Roman (KM9, KM11, KM13,
KM16-KM27, KM30); Late Roman (KM41)
5.46 Kato Mertia Pottery: Early Roman (KM28-KM29, KM31-
KM37); Late Roman (KM40, KM42-KM43, KM46-KM48)
5.47 Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Roman (KM44-KM45, KM49-
KM51, KM54); Late Antique (KM56-KM62)
5.48 Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Roman (KM52-KM53, KM55);
Late Antique (KM63-KM73)
5.49 Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM74-KM77, KM80-
KM81, KM83)
5.50 Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM77, KM79, KM84-
KM85, KM88)
5.51 Kato Mertia Pottery (KM86-KM87, KM89)
5.52 Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM90-KM93).
6.1 Location of Hellenistic Settlements in Isthmus of Ierapetra
6.2 Administrative Centers on Roman Crete
6.3 Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Ierapetra
6.4 Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Gortyn
6.5 Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Eleutherna
6.6 Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Berenice
6.7 View of Isthmus of Ierapetra from Dikte Mountains
6.8 Standard Cretan Amphora Forms of the Early Roman Period
6.9 Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares
at Ierapetra
6.10 Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares
at Gortyn
6.11 Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares
at Eleutherna
6.12 MRC Cretan Amphora Types
6.13 Distribution of Cretan Amphorae from Fourth to Fifth Century C.E.
6.14 Examples of TRC Ovoid and Cylindrical Amphora Types
6.15 Examples of TRC Globular Amphora Types
6.16 Distribution of Cretan Amphorae from Sixth to Seventh Century C.E.
PLATES
5.1 East Cretan Cream Ware
5.2 East Cretan Cream Ware; Late Hellenistic Pottery; Early Roman
Pottery
5.3 Amphora Stamps; Early Roman Pottery
-
xix
5.4 Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique Pottery
5.5 Late Roman Amphorae
5.6 Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique Pottery and Lamps
5.7 Miscellaneous Objects and Kato Mertia Pottery
-
xx
ABSTRACT
The overall aim of this study is a comprehensive analysis of the Cretan polis of Ierapetra
during the Roman period and the consideration of the role of this center within the broader
historical and economic contexts of Roman Crete and the Mediterranean as a whole. To
accomplish this goal, consideration is given first to some broader issues concerning Roman
Crete. This includes asking how and when the island became Roman, what is the time span for
which the designation Roman Crete is relevant, what factors led to Cretes administrative,
economic, and cultural transformation into a Roman territory, and when does Crete cease to be
Roman. These topics have not been sufficiently addressed in the scholarship of Roman Crete,
and a preliminary evaluation provides a foundation from which to gain a better understanding of
the history of Ierapetra.
Following an assessment of the types of evidence available to scholars of Roman Crete
and of the way in which secondary literature has made use of these sources, the discussion turns
to Ierapetra and an attempt to provide an overview of our current level of understanding of the
city. Topics addressed include the earliest history of the site, reconstructions of the topography,
territory, politics, religion, and economy of the Late Hellenistic and Roman poleis, and the post-
antique transformation of the site into an archaeological relic.
At the heart of the study is the analysis of three ceramic assemblages recovered from
rescue excavations in the western part of Ierapetra. A fourth assemblage from the rural site of
Kato Mertia, located approximately 6.5km north of Ierapetra, also was examined. Recording a
diachronic history of the city from circa 150 B.C.E. to the seventh century C.E., this pottery
shows that Ierapetra grew into a major Cretan polis in the Late Hellenistic period and reached the
-
xxi
apex of its prosperity in the Early Roman period due to its role as a transshipment port for goods
being transported across the Mediterranean. Diocletian and Constantines Empire-wide
reorganizations changed the Mediterranean economic landscape, leading to Ierapetras decline
when Cretan trade focused on other ports. This decline continued unabated until the city was a
shell of its former self by the seventh century.
Thus, this outline shows the historical trajectory of an eastern polis and demonstrates that
its rise and fall are connected directly to pan-Mediterranean exchange networks. By building on
connectivity models proposed by P. Horden and N. Purcell in The Corrupting Sea, an additional
outcome is the use of Ierapetra, and Crete as a whole, as proxies for understanding the evolving
economic relationships between the eastern and western Mediterranean throughout the course of
the Roman Empire.
-
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In his study of formation processes in the archaeological record, M.B. Schiffer notes that
neither the historic record nor the archaeological record gives up its secrets about the past
easily.1 For anyone who studies Roman Crete, this observation is a sobering reminder of the
obstacles in place. The island of Crete has always served as a haven for Bronze Age and Iron
Age scholars, with the Roman period serving as a minor backdrop to a more illustrious past.
Neglected for the most part by ancient authors and modern archaeologists, only recently has the
Roman history of Crete begun to reveal its secrets (Fig. 1.1).
Perhaps no site on the island has been more reticent to divulge its past than Ierapetra, a
city located along the southeast coast. The few scraps of ancient testimonia that remain, along
with descriptions recorded by travelers from the fifteenth through the nineteenth century,
indicate that Ierapetra would have been one of the largest cities of Hellenistic and Roman Crete.
Its position as a port city suggests much of its prosperity must have derived from economic
connections. The city remains understudied, however. Fundamental questions, such as when was
the site founded, what was its size and topography, how and when did the city rise to
prominence, and when did it go into decline, are rarely, if ever, addressed. R. Osborne observes
that archaeological attention devoted to Roman Greece as a whole remains limited, and although
Roman Crete has witnessed something of a growth in interest over the past two decades,
attention directed toward Ierapetra continues to be negligible.2 While a study of Ierapetra alone
1 Schiffer 1987: 7.
2 Osborne 2004: 89.
-
2
cannot provide the final piece of the puzzle for a holistic understanding of Roman Crete, it can
serve as an important step toward understanding the Roman history of the island.
A fundamental difficulty with studying Ierapetra is the almost complete lack of visible
archaeological remains. Wandering through the modern city leaves one with few indications that
an ancient site once occupied this location. Architectural and sculptural remains appear next to
park benches or on street corners in a few random spots (Figs. 1.2, 1.3), but the presence of an
ancient city is masked. Thus, one important goal is to reintroduce the city of Ierapetra to modern
scholarship and provide a comprehensive overview of the site based on previously published
data and the analysis of several ceramic assemblages obtained from rescue excavations.
Any study of a topic concerning Roman Crete also must address another important issue.
For lack of a better term, scholars who have engaged in answering questions concerning the
Roman period of the island have been somewhat insular in their focus. Studies rarely consider
broader issues of the Roman world, a point emphasized by W.V. Harris.3 Even relationships such
as Cretes union with Cyrenaica as a joint province from at least 27 B.C.E. until circa 295 C.E.
are underemphasized. The primary consequence is that scholars working outside of Crete are
unfamiliar with the history of the island and its potential for shedding light on economic
connections across the Mediterranean. In addition to providing an overview of Ierapetra, this
study will attempt to integrate the city, and Roman Crete as a whole, into broader discussions of
the Roman economy. As a transshipment point along trade routes between the eastern and
western Mediterranean, Crete can serve as a proxy for understanding changing relationships
between these two regions.
The following chapter begins the analysis with the consideration of several
methodological queries concerning the study of Roman Crete. Only in the past two decades has
3 Harris 1999: 353.
-
3
the islands Roman period history become a significant point of focus and several important
questions remain unaddressed. For instance, how and when did Crete become Roman? What
administrative, economic, and cultural changes brought about this transformation? How did
Crete evolve under Roman hegemony during the course of the Empire? When and why did Crete
cease to be Roman? While this study does not claim to have definitive answers to all of these
questions, it will seek to clarify our understanding of Roman Crete and the processes that
brought about its creation, prosperity, and decline. This assessment will also provide a contextual
foundation on which an analysis of the polis of Ierapetra can be founded. In addition, a
systematic chronology for Roman Crete will be presented, with the aim of providing explicit date
ranges for different periods to facilitate comparison with other studies.
Chapter 3 examines the various types of evidence available to scholars of Roman Crete,
how they have been employed, and further research questions for which they can be used.
Sources of evidence that are discussed include travelers accounts, archaeological data, literary
sources, epigraphic texts, and numismatic finds. Most of these sources have limitations based on
sporadic preservation and inadequate publication, but a critical appraisal shows the breadth of
information available to scholars. An effort also will be made to document the relevance of these
sources to the study of Ierapetra. Finally, secondary literature concerning Roman Crete will be
assessed to demonstrate progress made in the study of this period of the islands history.
Focus shifts to the city of Ierapetra in Chapter 4. A primary aim here is to provide a
comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge of the site. Included in this overview
is an examination of the earliest history of the site, an assessment of the topography, territory,
politics, religion, and economy of both the Late Hellenistic and Roman poleis, a consideration of
when and why the site may have gone into decline, and a reflection on the post-antique
-
4
transformation of Ierapetra into an archaeological relic. Discussion will include the Late
Hellenistic period in order to document the development of the site prior to Roman conquest and
provide a context for Ierapetras growth under Roman rule. The overall goal of this chapter is to
document the limitations of our current understanding of the site and to introduce a series of
questions to be addressed in subsequent chapters. For example, what are the qualitative and
quantitative differences between the economy of Late Hellenistic and Roman Ierapetra? How
integrated was the city in the Roman economy? How does Ierapetra compare to other poleis on
Crete? Does the decline of the site reflect a shift in economic focus to other parts of the island?
A detailed presentation of ceramic assemblages from three rescue excavations in the city
of Ierapetra comprises Chapter 5. An additional assemblage from the rural site of Kato Mertia,
located approximately 6.5km north of the city, was analyzed to provide comparative material
from Ierapetras chora. Over 500kg of material was studied, dating from the second century
B.C.E. to the seventh century C.E. Hellenistic and Roman pottery is presented separately, and the
ceramics within each section are divided by functional class.
The final chapter offers a synthesis of the ceramic data and the implications of this
material for understanding the history of Late Hellenistic and Roman Ierapetra. In addition, it
considers the potential role of the city, and Crete as a whole, in the broader Mediterranean
economy. To serve as a theoretical foundation for this synthesis, several concepts from P.
Horden and N. Purcells work, The Corrupting Sea, will be employed. The discussion is
chronological and reassesses the picture of Ierapetra and the Cretan economy in a diachronic
outline. A primary aim is an improved understanding of the historical trajectory of the site from
its rise in the Hellenistic period to its decline in Late Antiquity. The integration of Ierapetra, and
Crete, into discussions of the Roman economy will also demonstrate the ability of this region to
-
5
serve as a proxy for understanding changes in East-West trade relations over the course of the
Roman Empire.
In the past few decades, modern Ierapetra has undergone numerous changes, including an
economic resurgence due to a rapidly expanding agricultural enterprise based on greenhouse
crops. Expansion and development resulting from this enterprise have increased the need for the
local Archaeological Service to conduct rescue excavations to document Ierapetras ancient
ruins. While these individuals express frustration at the random nature of these excavations and
the pressures imposed by development, archaeologists working in Ierapetra convey hope that
future digs will continue to fill in lacunae in our picture of the city. Nikos Papadakis, the former
head of the Archaeological Service, offers perhaps the best summary of the difficulties facing
archaeological research in Ierapetra, and the benefits that can derive from this work:
Today the Archaeological Service is really waging war against the materialistic
interests that demand the obliteration of our past, controlling building in the
Vigli district which has been declared an archaeological area, looking after
certain noteworthy ruins and collecting up all finds that appear. However it is
almost impossible to excavate the whole area of the ruins of Hierpytna which, if
it were only possible, could become one of Cretes most important archaeological
centers both for research and for the visitor.4
Ierapetra has been neglected for too long and the time has come for the city, and Crete, to reveal
their pasts and stake their claims in Roman history.
4 Papadakis 1986: 37.
-
6
CHAPTER 2
DEFINING ROMAN CRETE
INTRODUCTION
The overall aim of this study is a comprehensive analysis of the polis of Ierapetra during
the Roman period and the consideration of the role of this center within the broader historical
and economic contexts of Roman Crete and the Mediterranean as a whole. A significant obstacle
lies in the path of undertaking this project, however. Roman Crete has become the focus of
increasing scholarly attention only recently. This is illustrated well by a conference held in 2000
entitled Creta romana e protobizantina, and the subsequent publication of a four volume
proceedings containing 92 papers.1 In previous decades, only a small number of scholars
engaged in answering the myriad questions pertaining to Cretes Roman history. While this long
overdue intensification of study is heartening, certain essential issues have remained overlooked.
Specifically, we must address how and when Crete became Roman.2
To properly define Roman Crete involves a number of different issues. How did
Hellenistic Crete differ from Roman Crete? What was Romes relationship with the island prior
to conquest? Is there evidence of Romanization before Crete was brought under Romes control?
Can we use the conquest of the island between 69 and 67 B.C.E. as the definitive turning point
for the creation of Roman Crete? There are also conceptual issues to address. For instance, on
what types of social and cultural beliefs did the Romans have to build? How should Crete be
considered as an administrative unit and did this change over time? Can the island be considered
1 Livadiotti and Simiakaki 2004.
2 G. Harrison (1988) provides a detailed overview of the historical and archaeological evidence associated with Romes early contact with Crete. My own aim in addressing this issue is to focus the discussion onto the question of what do we mean by the term Roman Crete.
-
7
as a single entity or was there regional variation? Consideration of Crete under Roman rule
introduces several additional questions. Should the overall conception of Roman Crete be
thought of as static or did it evolve? How did the shift of the Roman Empire into western and
eastern administrative units affect Crete? Can we document the creation of a Christian society on
the island and does this influence our notion of Crete in later centuries? At what point should we
no longer consider Crete to be Roman and instead place it firmly in the Byzantine world?
Underlying most, if not all, of the above questions is the fact that there is no standardized
chronology in place for discussing Roman Crete. Different scholars and projects have their own
conceptions of periods in Cretan history. While terms such as Early Roman and Late Roman are
in common use, the dates associated with these phases tend to be divergent. This affects the
ability to compare data. Thus, along with addressing the above questions, and in essence
attempting to define Roman Crete, an additional necessity is the elucidation of a chronological
scheme for the island. The first part of this chapter will examine the history of Romes relations
with Crete, while the second part will introduce the chronology to be used throughout this study.
CRETE AND ROME
Hellenistic Crete
Crete found itself in a unique position after the death of Alexander the Great and the
dawning of the Hellenistic era. The island was the only part of Greece to remain untouched after
Alexanders wave of conquest. There are no clear indications as to why Crete was ignored, but
one could imagine that the death of Alexander may not have represented as significant an event
for Cretans as it did for other Greeks.
-
8
Despite the islands avoidance of the turmoil of the latter part of the fourth century
B.C.E., ancient sources do not portray Hellenistic Crete as peaceful. Our main source of
historical knowledge for this period, Polybius, whose account borders on polemic, consistently
describes Crete as war-torn and home to men of deplorable values. Later authors, including Livy,
often adopt this same view, creating what became the accepted interpretation of the island. G.
Harrison suggests that Polybius negative attitude toward Crete was the product of its lack of
support for Greece during the numerous conflicts of the period, particularly at the Battle of
Pydna.3 Whatever the reason, scholars have begun to examine Hellenistic Crete in a more critical
light. According to P. de Souza, the economic and political strength of Crete at the time of
Roman conquest is evidence of more prosperity than ancient sources tend to acknowledge.4 A
certain degree of conflict is undeniable, based on the large number of preserved treaties between
city-states, but these texts also provide indications of extensive relations across Crete.5 The
existence of a Hellenistic on the island implies some degree of cooperation between city-
states, although S.L. Ager does not believe that this Cretan had as extensive an
organizational structure as other Greek federal leagues.6
Numerous difficulties remain in attempting to characterize the island during this period,
even as the scholarly opinion of Hellenistic Crete changes. One problem is the invisibility of
Hellenistic Crete in ancient sources and modern research programs. The islands apparent limited
role in major events of Hellenistic history results in only scant mentions within literary sources,
and the small number of thoroughly investigated Hellenistic sites further hinders research.
Survey archaeology has succeeded in filling in some gaps by providing an increasingly cogent
3 Harrison 1994: 137.
4 de Souza 1998: 112.
5 The main source for these treaties is Chaniotis 1996.
6 Ager 1994: 2. See also Mijnsbrugge 1931: 73.
-
9
picture of settlement during this period, and the results from excavations at Eleutherna, Trypetos,
and Mochlos should also augment our current state of knowledge as they become available.
Interpreting the slight historical presence of Hellenistic Crete in the literary record, however,
continues to be a two-fold problem. First, how do we explain Cretes reduced role in Hellenistic
history compared to other regions? And second, when we do possess references to the island, can
we accept them at face value? With respect to the first question, we do not possess the relevant
information to assess why Crete was isolated from the events of Hellenistic Greece, or why the
island chose to avoid participation in these events. For the second question, ancient authors,
following Polybius, tend to view Crete in a negative light, meaning scholar must assess critically
any references they encounter.
Within the complex picture that is Hellenistic Crete lie clues to defining the islands
relationship with Rome as it evolved from initial contact to conquest. E. Gruen has outlined the
difficulty of this task for Hellenistic Greece as a whole by asking ... to what extent did Rome
undertake official commitments in the Greek East, on what models, and to what ends?7 Rome
was successful in avoiding any strict responsibilities and instead fostered a series of informal
alliances. This appears compatible with the available evidence for Crete. No treaties exist
between Cretan poleis and Rome, and it is not until the conquest of the island that Rome
attempted any direct intervention into the islands affairs. How then did Roman interaction with
Crete evolve?
7 Gruen 1984: 13.
-
10
The Creation of Roman Crete
A. Chaniotis states that the coming of Rome was the most significant turning point in
the history of Crete since the destruction of the Minoan palaces.8 Roman contact with Crete
began long before any attempt to conquer the island. The earliest attested connection occurred at
some point between 217 and 209 B.C.E. when a certain Leukios, son of Gaios, dedicated a well
and nymphaeon at the site of Itanos to Ptolemy IV Philopater and Arsino (IC 3.4.18).9 This
provides a terminus ante quem for some type of Roman presence on the island. At the Battle of
Cynoscephalae in 197 B.C.E., the interaction between Rome and Crete appears more official,
since Livy (33.3.10) records a contingent from the city of Gortyn fighting with Rome. S. Alcock
traces the overall starting point for the history of Roman Greece at least to the beginning of the
second century BC and the Second Macedonian War (200-197 BC), suggesting contact with
Crete solidified during a period of intensifying relations with the Greek world.10
Not long
afterward, the first involvement of Rome in Cretes affairs is attested. In 194 B.C.E., during
treaty negotiations with Nabis of Sparta, Rome ordered Nabis to abandon his relations with Crete
(Livy 34.35.9). Specifically, he had to hand over control of his possessions on Crete to Rome.
No names of cities are provided, and it is questionable whether Rome did exert direct control
over any Cretan poleis at this time. If there were cities under her control, Gortyn was not one of
them since, in the following year, Hannibal was given temporary refuge there (Nep. Hann. 9).
Rome played the role of arbitrator during numerous treaty negotiations between
antagonistic poleis in the second century B.C.E. As Gruen notes, the institution of interstate
arbitration was predominately Greek, and Romes initial dealings with this type of mediation
8 Chaniotis 2008: 83.
9 Baldwin Bowsky 2001: 35.
10 Alcock 1993: 9.
-
11
were with Greek states in southern Italy.11
The Roman Senate does not appear to have been
comfortable with assuming the role of arbitrator in the eastern Mediterranean in the early second
century B.C.E.12
As Roman power in Greece expanded, however, the Senate began to welcome
requests for arbitration, although Gruen questions whether this was done congenially or in an
attempt to solidify control over the eastern Mediterranean.13
The earliest example of Roman assistance in interstate arbitration on Crete occurred in
189 B.C.E. when Q. Fabius Labeo helped to negotiate a treaty between Kydonia and an alliance
of Gortyn and Knossos (Livy 37.60). He also attempted to secure the release of numerous
Romans and Italians (who were born of Italy, but presumably not Roman citizens) said to be
prisoners throughout the island, but only Gortyn complied. Five years later, Roman arbitration
aided in resolving a land dispute between Gortyn and Knossos after the former had annexed
some lands of Knossos (Polyb. 22.15).14
Roman assistance was again requested in 174 B.C.E.
when, according to Livy (41.25.7), a certain Quintus Minucius arrived on the island to address
problems that had arisen. Livy does not specify what these problems were or which poleis were
involved, and the resulting treaty lasted for only six months. Tiberius Claudius Nero and Marcus
Decimus came two years later to renew friendships and to ascertain Cretes feelings toward
Perseus, the king of Macedonia (Livy 42.19.8). Rome was soon at war with Perseus and this
conflict provides important, if not ambiguous, information about her relations with Crete, since
mercenaries from the island are recorded fighting both with and against Roman forces.15
11
Gruen 1984: 99-101. 12
Gruen (1984: 101-5) records several early examples including failed attempts to negotiate with Philip V in 198
B.C.E. and with Antiochus III in 196 B.C.E. 13
Gruen 1984: 105. 14
The Roman commission, which included Appius Claudius, convinced Gortyn to return to Knossos the lands that
had been annexed. 15
For Cretan mercenaries fighting with Rome against Perseus, see Livy 42.35.6-8. For Cretan mercenaries from
Phalasarna and Knossos fighting with Perseus, see Livy 42.51.7. The origin of Cretans fighting with Rome is not
provided, but one could hypothesize that at least some of these men came from Gortyn. Later in his work, Livy
-
12
Roman assistance in treaty negotiations on Crete continued into the second half of the
second century B.C.E. An embassy from Rhodes convinced the Roman Senate in 154/153
B.C.E.to send a commission to help negotiate an end to their war with Crete (Polyb. 33.15.3-4).
Mediation also was still required between poleis on the island, and one of the most complex
episodes of Roman arbitration soon followed. In 145 B.C.E., following the death of Ptolemy VI
Philometer, a Ptolemaic garrison stationed at Itanos, located in the far northeastern corner of the
island, was withdrawn. The city of Ierapetra quickly took advantage of this situation and
launched an invasion of the territory of Praisos, 22km southwest of Itanos, resulting in the
destruction of this polis. Ierapetra also seized control of the sanctuary of Zeus Diktaios in
northeast Crete and the island of Kouphonisi, located off the southeast corner of the island. Both
had been under Itanian control.16
A Roman arbitrator, Servius Sulpicius, arrived on Crete in 141
B.C.E. to negotiate an end to this conflict, but Itanos felt his decision was unfavorable and
appealed to the Roman Senate.17
The Senate asked the city of Magnesia on the Meander in Asia
Minor to serve as arbitrator, but their decision in favor of Itanos did not quell the hostilities. By
112 B.C.E., the conflict had renewed and the Roman consul L. Calpurnius Piso again requested
that Magnesia serve as arbitrator. The decision was still in favor of Itanos.18
A point of
significance is that both poleis would accept the Roman decision to hand over mediation to a
third party.
(43.7.1-4 170 B.C.E.) tells us that a Cretan embassy at Rome agreed to recall all of the mercenaries serving with Perseus, and at the end of the conflict (44.25.8 168 B.C.E.), Gortyn was the location to which hostages of Perseus and Eumenes were sent. 16
Evidence for this dispute is epigraphical. The inscriptions in question are IC 3.4.9 and 3.4.10. The first, 3.4.9, is a
composite of two identical inscriptions, one found at Itanos, the other at Magnesia on the Meander in Asia Minor.
For discussions of these texts, see Guarducci 1942: 91-111; Sherk 1969: 78-85 (document 14=IC 3.4.10); Ager
1996: 431-46; Chaniotis 1996: 307-10 (treaty 49=IC 3.4.9), 333-7 (treaty 57=IC 3.4.10). 17
cf. Ager 1996: 443. 18
cf. Chaniotis 1996: 335-6.
-
13
Romes role as arbitrator in Cretan treaty negotiations provides important insight into the
social and administrative structures of Hellenistic Crete. We should not consider Hellenistic
Crete as simply a war-torn island, but the number of attested conflicts is conspicuous. At this
time, Crete was not a unified island and instead functioned as a conglomeration of independent
city-states whose alliances with one another were fluid. The relationship between Gortyn and
Knossos is a good illustration of this since their position as allies or enemies changed regularly.
A Hellenistic Cretan koinon did exist, but is considered by scholars to have been much more
unstable than other federal leagues which arose in the Greek world.19
Only when Gortyn and
Knossos were in accord does it appear that this koinon could exist. This would have been to
Romes advantage during her conquest since there was no long-standing tradition of unification
from which Crete could manage an effective resistance.
There is little evidence to suggest that Romes initial relationship with Crete extended
beyond its position as mediator. While there is the literary attestation of Nabis of Sparta handing
over his Cretan possessions to Rome, no supporting evidence exists that Rome gained control of
any part of the island before the first century B.C.E. Crete, thus, may serve as a paradigm for
Gruens view of Roman arbitration in Greece when he states: Roman envoys made repeated
trips abroad, giving the appearance of interest and paying lip service to Hellenic complaints.
Seldom could they boast of tangible accomplishments.20 Consideration of the lack of evidence
for Romanization on Crete during the third and second centuries B.C.E. corroborates this view.
In this case, we can view Romanization as the adoption or presence of Roman religious and
political institutions, architectural styles, Latin usage, Roman nomina, or western material
culture. None of these are apparent on Crete at any point during the Hellenistic period, with the
19
Mijnsbrugge 1931: 73; Ager 1994: 2. 20
Gruen 1984: 130.
-
14
exception of Roman names. M. Baldwin Bowsky suggests that most Roman names attested
during the second and first century B.C.E. belong to Romans and not to Cretans or other Greeks
who had adopted Roman nomina.21
This adheres to a pattern in the Greek East where traders
followed Senators who were on official business. There are few other indications of western
influences. With respect to pottery, for instance, Ierapetra is the only site to have produced
evidence of Italian ceramics before the first century B.C.E.22
According to P. van Dommelen and N. Terrenato, the relevance of Romanization ... has
proven to be somewhat problematic for Mediterranean contexts: in many regions, Roman impact
turns out, at first sight, to be rather minimal, especially after initial conquest and in the first
centuries of Republican rule.23 While Crete adheres to this general paradigm, processes of
Romanization would have been different in the eastern and western Mediterranean. Numerous
scholars suggest that the impact of Roman institutions and material culture in the eastern
Mediterranean was minimal. C. Bradford Welles, for example, argues that the only tangible
indication of Romanization in the Greek world is the increased presence of Roman names.24
M.
Rostovtzeff offers a similar opinion when stating that the romanization of the Hellenistic
world was slight, the hellenization of the steadily expanding Latin world much more
conspicuous.25
Alcock has refined Rostovtzeffs idea and believes that a significant feature of the Roman
presence in the Greek world was a revival of Greek culture.26
As Romes control solidified, large
numbers of Roman citizens desiring Greek educations arrived from the West. These Romans had
21
Baldwin Bowsky 2001: 37. 22
Platon 1951: 449. He reports finds of Gnathian black-glaze vessels at the site. 23
van Dommelen and Terrenato 2007: 7. 24
Bradford Welles 1965: 42-5. 25
Rostovtzeff 1941: 1301. 26
Alcock 1993: 16-7.
-
15
specific expectations concerning Greek culture and Alcock argues that this caused the
Greeks to redefine themselves and their achievements under Roman rule.27 This eventually led
to the rise of the Second Sophistic movement during the second and third centuries C.E. Roman
expansion into the Greek East, thus, did influence the population, although this appears to be
more of a rehellenization of traditional cultural values rather than the adoption of western
customs.
One important caveat concerning this viewpoint, however, is that Alcocks focus is
primarily on mainland Greece, specifically the province of Achaia. The influx of western
Romans seeking an association with Greek culture may not have been as strong in other regions.
On Crete, this phenomenon is difficult to identify based on available evidence. G. Harrison
believes that high proportions of imported Roman finewares and amphorae encountered during
surveys in eastern Crete argue for an active degree of Romanization.28
Pottery evidence provides
little indication of cultural or administrative changes, however, and is not proof that Cretans were
becoming Romanized. Mosaic evidence from Knossos, described by R. Sweetman, can offer
some additional insight. The earliest attested mosaics from the Knossos region, datable to the
first century C.E., both employ a black-and-white style reminiscent of western types.29
Sweetman suggests this could relate to the presence of Italian settlers at Knossos. K. Dunbabin
argues that similar finds of black-and-white mosaics datable to the first century C.E. at several
Greek sites indicate a strong Italian tradition at this time.30
By the early second century, an
eastern style based on the Greek preference for grids becomes predominate at Knossos. As a
27
Alcock 1993: 17. 28
Harrison 2000: 545-6. 29
Sweetman 2003: 527-8 no. 9, 531 no. 15; 2004b: 1177. The two mosaics in question, known as the Apollinaris
mosaic and the Pateraki plot mosaic, were uncovered in the area of the Venezeleion Hospital, located in the
northwest corner of the Knossos Valley (cf. Catling 1976-1977: 21). 30
Dunbabin 1999: 210-1. Sites at which mosaics of this type appear include Corinth, Olympia, and Philippi.
-
16
Roman colony, perhaps the influx of western settlers at Knossos brought about a similar revival
of Greek culture as seen on the mainland.
While this brief discussion of Romanization with respect to Crete extends beyond the
Late Hellenistic period, it shows that much more analysis is required to assess how Roman
influence during any period impacted the island. If the mosaic evidence from Knossos is an
indication, one possibility is that an increased Roman presence during the Late Hellenistic period
led more and more to a revival of Greek culture on the island rather than the adoption of western
traits.
Crete at the End of the Republic
Roman concern for Crete continues to be attested during the early first century B.C.E.
According to Plutarch (Luc. 2.3), Sullas attendant, Lucullus, visited the island around 87/86
B.C.E. and succeeded in winning favor. Whether this meant that all of Crete was sympathetic to
Sulla, or only select poleis, cannot be ascertained. This positive relationship between Rome and
Crete did not last, however. Ancient sources propose a variety of reasons for why Romes
opinion of Crete changed, including the islands role in piracy, its support of Mithridates VI, and
Romes desire for conquest.31
Plutarch (Pomp. 29.1) describes Crete as one of the two main sources for piracy in the
eastern Mediterranean, along with Cilicia. Mythology suggests a close affiliation between Crete
and piracy for most of its recorded history, at least in the eyes of other Greeks. Stories about
Minos often have a ring of brigandry to them and Odysseus claimed to be a Cretan pirate during
his wanderings after the sack of Troy.32
Hellenistic Crete appears to have been home to a large
31
App. Sic. 6.1; Flor. 1.42.1; Memnon 29.5 = FGrH 434. 32
de Souza 1999: 15, 18-9. Hom. Od. 17.425.
-
17
contingent of pirates if one wishes to believe a comment to that regard from Polybius (4.8.11). In
support of Polybius are accounts of the First Cretan War fought between Rhodes and several
cities on Crete, possibly over plundering activities of the latter.33
One neglected question,
however, is what exactly do scholars mean by the term piracy in relation to Crete. P. Brul
dedicates an entire monograph to Cretan pirates, but concentrates more on their actions rather
than on the nature of this institution.34
Were they independent brigands plundering of their own
accord, or were they acting in a quasi-official capacity through attachments to various city-
states?
The site of Phalasarna on the far western coast of Crete offers support for the latter
interpretation. F.J. Frost and E. Hadjidaki speculate that the city derived much of its revenue
from piracy during the Hellenistic period.35
They even suggest that Phalasarna represents the
only Greek pirate port that has ever been thoroughly investigated.36 Support for Phalasarnas
role in piracy comes from the fact that the site may have gone out of use sometime around 67
B.C.E. when the island was being conquered by Rome. Finds of catapult stones, a lack of
identified pottery after the first half of the first century B.C.E., and several large boulders used to
blockade the harbor support this conclusion.37
Frost and Hadjidakis theorize that Q. Caecilius
Metellus, the general commissioned with subduing Crete, physically closed the harbor and
destroyed the town, with the aim of removing a pirate base from the islands shores. This could
suggest that Metellus removed the vestiges of Cretan piracy and that Pompeys command in 67
B.C.E. to suppress piracy in the Mediterranean did not include Crete. That the First Cretan War,
33
Brul 1978: 29-56; Perlman 1999: 132-3; de Souza 1999: 80-4. This war was fought from ca. 205-200 B.C.E.,
with Ierapetra possibly one of the main combatants. 34
Brul 1978. 35
Frost and Hadjidaki 1990: 513. 36
Frost and Hadjidaki 1990: 527. 37
Hadjidaki 1988: 472, 475; Frost and Hadjidaki 1990: 525.
-
18
which appears to have been instigated by the activities of Cretan pirates, was fought against
Rhodes by cities on Crete could also suggest a certain official capacity behind piracy on the
island.
Arguing for direct affiliations between poleis and pirates is difficult, however, given the
complex nature of piracy in antiquity. Even if pirates did operate out of the harbors of coastal
centers on Crete, or in other regions, we cannot classify them as early examples of privateers.
According to N.K. Rauh, the distinction between privateers and pirates is not clearly
recognizable in the ancient experience.38 While an ancient city may have had pirates as part of
its population, no evidence exists for official charters granting these brigands permission to
plunder on behalf of the polis. How then should we view the role of piracy on Crete? Rauhs
work on Cilician piracy may offer some insight.
Although Cilicia was home to a large number of pirates, Rauh believes that most of the
individuals were not of Cilician origin.39
Instead, they were attracted to the region for the
opportunities piracy provided. Rough Cilicia in the southeastern part of Asia Minor, argues
Rauh, was particularly suitable for supporting piracy due to three attributes: the presence of
strong fortresses; a traditional lack of centralized political control; and the ability of pirate
leaders to develop commercial ties to trade centers in the region.40
The isolated nature of the
region, coupled with limited outside control, enabled several pirate kingdoms to emerge. These
kingdoms prospered from their ability to exchange plunder, including slaves, based on their
economic ties. In this regard, Cilician pirates became an important component of the economic
fabric of the eastern Mediterranean.
38
Rauh 1997: 271. 39
Rauh 1997: 279. 40
Rauh 1997: 272.
-
19
How does Cilician piracy compare to Cretan piracy? At least two of the attributes which
made Rough Cilicia a haven for pirates are not evident on Crete. With the possible exception of
Phalasarna, the island boasts no coastal fortresses which can be directly associated with pirates.
In addition, while Crete did lack a centralized government in the Late Hellenistic period, several
poleis, including Gortyn, Ierapetra, Knossos, and Lyttos, established themselves as regional
powers in control of large territories.41
In other words, there would have been limited
opportunities for independent pirate kingdoms to arise on Crete. Perhaps this is where some type
of affiliation with a city-state becomes relevant. Coastal centers like Ierapetra or Phalasarna
could offer protection and developed economic networks, two characteristics likely of great
appeal to pirates in the region. A detailed discussion of Ierapetras potential role in piracy will be
presented below in Chapter 4. At the very least, Cilician and Cretan piracy appear to have had
distinct characteristics, owing in large part to the unique geographical and political situations of
each region.
A passage from Dio Cassius (36.23.2), quoted by P. de Souza, implies that Romes
reaction to piracy in the eastern Mediterranean during the Hellenistic period initially was
inconsistent.42
Specifically, it can be characterized as a few random attempts at intervention.
Only after the situation became unmanageable did the Senate decide to intercede with strength.
One location in which Rome enforced her will was Crete. In 72/71 B.C.E., Marcus Antonius,
father of Mark Antony, was tasked with subjugating the island.43
The ancient sources are
unanimous in their portrayal of the unsuccessful nature of Antonius campaign, even suggesting
that the general and his army were bound in the same shackles they had brought to bind their
41
Bennet (1990: 202 table 3) has estimated the Hellenistic territories of these four city-states: Gortyn 920 km2; Ierapetra 1050 km2; Knossos 770 km2; Lyttos 600 km2. 42
de Souza 1999: 148. 43
Diod. Sic. 40.1.1; Flor. 1.42.2-3; Livy Ep. 97.
-
20
Cretan prisoners. Cretan pride in this victory appears to have been short-lived, however. An
embassy was dispatched to Rome soon after the battle to plead for peace.44
In response, the
Senate proposed a series of terms for Crete far too harsh to be accepted, including a tribute set at
4000 talents per annum. Upon their refusal, the consul Q. Caecilius Metellus was dispatched to
conquer Crete. He succeeded, following a three year campaign between 69 and 67 B.C.E. (Fig.
2.1).45
Plutarch (Pomp. 29.1-4) describes this campaign as being so brutal that Pompey
intervened on behalf of Crete, only to see his legates besieged by Metellus along with the
Cretans.46
While piracy may have been a motivating element in Romes desire to conquer Crete, it
likely was not the primary cause. N. Metendis argues that Cretes support for Mithridates VI lay
behind Romes desire to conquer the island.47 His evidence is a coin type issued by Metellus
following his victory. These tetradrachms, of which five examples are known, were struck at
Gortyn sometime between 66 and 63 B.C.E.48
The obverse bears a portrait bust of Roma flanked
on either side by an elephant, a reference to a military victory by one of Metellus ancestors in
Africa. A bust of Artemis Ephesia occupies the reverse. Metellus choice of Artemis Ephesia is
conspicuous because there is no evidence for her cult on Crete. Instead, Metendis believes this
imagery relates to the massacre of Roman citizens at Ephesus in 88 B.C.E. The conquest of
Crete, thus, marked the official end to this conflict.
We are now faced with the query of whether the date of 67 B.C.E. can be taken as the
beginning of Crete as a Roman territory. The island wa
top related