ierapetra and crete in the roman empire

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


from Proto-Roman Contexts


from Early Roman Contexts


from Late Roman Contexts


from Late Antique Contexts

5.14 Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae









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









5.32 Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae









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









5.51 Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae


xv








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


at Gortyn


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

ierapetra and crete in the roman empire

Documents