104-109

Prehistoric Cycladic islanders in Crete II

Σύμμεικτα

• Ντούμας, Χρίστος Γ.

In an earlier volume of this periodical1 I published a previous article with the same title. This prompted my colleague, Yannis Sakellarakis2, to write a reply. On studying this it would appear that my original article was not properly comprehended, with the result that criticism was made which does not seem to be justified. I here attempt to note only some of the basic points of Sakellarakis’ criticism in the hope that this will help make my previous article more readily comprehensible.I hope that one can easily perceive that the ten - page article is an attempted revision of the old theory concerning Cycladic colonies in northern Crete. So I cast doubt on the value of isolated Cycladic finds as evidence in support of this theory, especially since they are not accompanied by other cultural traits which the Cycladic colonists must surely have brought with them to their new ' patria ’. Sakella- rakis has misunderstood this premise and expressed the view that my article was written “ with the aim of casting doubt on the Cycladic provenance of the finds from Tholos tomb Gamma at Archanes3 But how can such an intention be attributed to a ten - page article in which less than one page deals with the Cycladic finds from Archanes4? It would, seem, therefore, that it has not been understood that it is not the provenance of the finds which is questioned but their interpretation. And this questioning does not apply only to the finds from Archanes, but to all isolated Cycladic finds in Crete, and is based on a specific argumentation. Indeed, it is characteristic that in the first four pages of my article I am concerned with demonstrating the Cycladic provenance of these finds in Crete5. It would, therefore, have been quite schizophrenic to attempt to demonstrate the “Cycladicness” of these elements and, at the same time, to cast doubt on it.In his article Sakellarakis does not invalidate my questioning of his interpretation of his own finds. He indirectly admits this at the end of his article where he seems to tend towards my point of view by saying that “ it is still early, before we have some evidence from the contemporary settlement of Archanes, for one to reach definitive conclusions. This is the reason why it is impossible for the Cycladic presence at Archanes to be expressed more exactly ”. So much for the general aim of my article. There are, however, other misunderstandings which seem to have arisen from miscomprehension of my article and which it is necessary to enumerate :( a ) The view that certain Cycladic figurines from Crete may be local imitations is not “ supported now for the first time7”. In my article8 I noted that Branigan had expressed this view in 19719. Nor “ is it thought”10 that they are products of organised forgery. This view is simply mentioned as a possibility within the context of Branigan’s premice, for which reason it was put in a footnote8.( b ) Information about the excavation at Aghia Photia, Siteia, was by no means unknown to me when I expressed the view that this cemetery could have belonged to a Cycladic installation11. For I had seen the finds some time ago, in the Museum of Aghios Nikolaos, on the kind invitation of the excavator and had discussed his opinions with him before he expressed them in writing. Furthermore, it is not the first time I refer to Aghia Pho- tia expressing this viewpoint12. It is strange that Sakellarakis charges me with basing my opinions about Aghia Photia “ on unknown evidence”13 when on the same page he includes an extract from an article of Davaras, with which he confirms my own opinion : “The influence of Cycladic culture is so strong, that it is almost possible to speak of a Cycladic colony14 ”.( c ) Concerning the Tsepi cemetery at Marathon, I am in complete agreement with Marinatos only in connection with his view that the installation there seems to be Cycladic. However, at no time have I ever agreed with its placement in the EC I period, nor that it is an EH I cemetery15. That it belongs to the EC II period is evidenced not only by the relatively few grave goods but also by the burial customs. And it is mainly these which characterise the agents of a culture more certainly. At this point it is worth recalling Coldstream’s remark concerning the Early Minoan settlement on Kythera where, apart from the pottery tradition, “ the Cretan colonists brought their burial customs with them16”. ( d ) The view that the Cycladic inslanders had developed mercantile activities in the West Mediterranean is not my own17. It was put forward earlier by Hutchinson expressly in order to emphasise Crete’s superiority over the Cyclades during the period of acme of Phylakopi I ( Early Cycladic III). Hutchinson writes: “ The Cretans developed a merchant marine and probably a navy of their own, and they began to compete successfully with Phylakopi and other Cycladic cities, and perhaps it was because Phylakopi merchants were being squeezed out of the Aegean Seas that they pushed into the western Mediterranean and left traces of their pioneering enterprise at Marseille and on the Balearic Isles, many centuries before the Phocaeans or even the Phoenicians had penetrated to those waters18”.( e ) Speaking in my article about the conservatism of the colonists in relation to the metropolis, I refer to the morals and mores and not to the political and economic development of the colonies, as Sakellarakis seems to imply19. Ethics and customs are basic cultural elements and in these there is conservatism.The aim of this article, as I have already mentioned, is not to criticise. For this reason I did not wish to expand further by including other points where, evidently, there has been a miscomprehension. I do, however, wish to stress, yet again, that at no time have I questioned the provenance of Cy- cladic finds in Crete. I have questioned — and continue to question their interpretation as being capable of demonstrating — on their own — the existence, or not, of Cycladic installations on Crete. Certainly they attest the existenceof relations between Crete and the islands. Indeed, I believe that this premise of mine has been justified by my critic himself.

• History and Archaeology

• Αρχαιολογία
• Ιστορία, Αρχαία

Κρήτη