An Island Economy : 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

UMI Number: 3460751

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The 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 manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3460751 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Copyright by Scott Charles Gallimore 2011

ii

For Mom, Dad, Neil, Andrew, and Lindy. Your support over the years has been a source of inspiration

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThere 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 iv

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 SeptemberOctober 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.

v

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.

vi

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

vii

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 viii

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 ix

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 x

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 xi

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

xii

LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS(Appended at End)

TABLES 1.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 Survey Chronologies for Roman Crete Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Contexts of Unknown Date Assariotaki Plot Raw Data Proto-Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Proto-Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts Assariotaki Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types Pangalou Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Proto-Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts xiii

5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44 5.45 5.46 5.47 5.48 5.49 5.50 5.51 5.52

Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Proto-Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts Pangalou Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for All Periods Combined Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Hellenistic Period Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for All Roman Period Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Contexts of Unknown Date Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Proto-Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Early Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Late Antique Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Proto-Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Early Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Finewares from Late Antique Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae xiv

5.53 5.54 5.55 5.56 FIGURES 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4. 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16

from Proto-Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Early Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Roman Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Local and Imported Amphorae from Late Antique Contexts Yiomelaki Plot Raw Data for Amphora Types

Map of Sites on Crete Referred to in Dissertation Architectural Remains from Ierapetra Sarcophagus Lid from Ierapetra Map of Metellus Conquest of Crete Map of Survey Projects Carried out on Crete Map of Roman Poleis which Minted Coins Map of the Isthmus of Ierapetra with Modern Towns Labeled Map of Modern Ierapetra Roman Mole in Harbor of Ierapetra Onorio Bellis Plan of the Large Theater at Ierapetra Onorio Bellis Plan of the Small Theater at Ierapetra Bronze Age and Iron Age Sites in the Isthmus of Ierapetra Bronze Age and Iron Age Sherds from the Yiomelaki Plot, Ierapetra Map of Hellenistic Cretan Poleis which Negotiated Treaties with Ierapetra Map of Hellenistic Regions in Eastern Mediterranean which Negotiated Treaties with Ierapetra Possible Location of Ierapetras Hellenistic Harbor Estimated Chora of Ierapetra at the End of the Second Century B.C.E. Findspots of Amphora Stamps from Ierapetra Sites on Crete which Produced Hellenistic Amphorae Plan of Ierapetra Drawn by Ian Sanders Seasonal Stream Demarcating Western Limit of Ancient Ierapetra Hypothetical Extent of Roman Ierapetra xv

4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10

Possible Location of Cardo Maximus and Decumanus Maximus in Ancient Ierapetra Location of Identified Ancient Structures in Ierapetra Wall Situated Along Shoreline of Ierapetra Reconstruction of Formal Administrative Chora of Roman Ierapetra Reconstruction of Broader Economic and Administrative District under the Control of Roman Ierapetra Map Showing Locations of Port Sites on Crete Sites on Crete which Produced Roman Amphorae Katalimata Monasteraki in the Cha Gorge Location of Three Rescue Excavation Plots Plan of the Assariotaki Plot Sites on Crete with Published Roman Pottery ECCW Cups (1-5, 7-9), Kantharoi (10-13), Cylindrical Jugs (14), Bowls (15-17, 19) ECCW Bowls (18, 20-23), Plates (27-30), Basins (32, 34) ECCW Basins (33, 35, 37-42), Kraters (43), Hydriae (44-45) ECCW Hydriae (46), Pithoi (47-49), Amphorae (50-55) ECCW Amphorae (56-61), Lamps (62). Local Fineware Bowls (64-68) Local Fineware Bowls (69-71), Plates (72-76), Skyphoi (77). Imported Fineware Cups (80-82), Kantharoi (84) Imported Fineware Cups (83), Plates (85), Kraters (86-87). Lagynos Ware (89). Gray Ware Cups (90-91), Bowls (92), Plates (93-97, 100). Gray Ware Jars (101-103). Common Ware Basins (108-110, 112-114) Common Ware Basins (111, 115-118). Common Ware Jars (119-120) Common Ware Jars (121-125). Common Ware Pithoi (127). Casseroles (128-135). Casseroles (136-137). Cookpots (138-141). Jars (142-143). Amphorae (146-147) Amphorae (148-152, 154-155, 157-161, 163). Local Fineware Cups (168) Local Fineware Cups (169), Bowls (170-172), Plates (173-174), Jars (175), Lids (176). Eastern Sigillata A (177-184) Eastern Sigillata A (185-186). Eastern Sigillata B (188-201). xvi

5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17

5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44

Italian Sigillata (203-208, 210) Italian Sigillata (213). Cypriot Sigillata (214). Pontic Sigillata (215, 217). andarli (218-226) andarli (228-229). African Red-Slip (231-232, 234-246, 248-249, 254) African Red-Slip (250-253, 255-256). Phocaean Red-Slip (259-266, 268) Phocaean Red-Slip (267, 270-280) Cypriot Red-Slip (283). Egyptian Red-Slip (284). Common Ware Basins (285-292) Common Ware Basins (293-303) Common Ware Basins (304). Common Ware Bottles (305, 307). Common Ware Bowls (308-311). Common Ware Jars (313-315) Common Ware Jars (316-317, 320, 322). Common Ware Pithoi (324-327). Common Ware Small Pots (328-332, 335) Common Ware Small Pots (333-334, 336-338). Common Ware Tubs (340). Common Ware Votive Dishes (341). Casseroles (344, 348). Cookpots (353, 361) Casseroles (345-347, 349). Cookpots (350, 351, 359) Cookpots (352, 354-357, 362) Cookpots (358, 360, 363-365, 367, 369) Cookpots (366, 368). Frying Pans (370-373, 376, 382) Frying Pans (374-375, 377-379, 384) Frying Pans (380-381, 383, 385). Cookware Lids (387-389) Cookware Jars (390-391). Pompeian Red Ware (392-395). Cretan Amphorae (400-401, 404) Cretan Amphorae (397-399, 402-403, 405-406, 408, 410) Cretan Amphorae (407, 409, 411, 413, 416-419, 424) Cretan Amphorae (420-421, 423, 425-426, 434) Cretan Amphorae (422, 427-430, 433) Cretan Amphorae (431, 435). Aegean Amphorae (438-440, 445-447). African Amphorae (455, 462) Aegean Amphorae (442-444, 450). African Amphorae (451-454, 458). Italian Amphorae (469) African Amphorae (456-457, 459-461). Egyptian Amphorae (463). Italian Amphorae (467). Spanish Amphorae (470). Syria-Palestine Amphorae (472) Syria-Palestine Amphorae (473-477). Knossos 18 Amphorae (478-479). Unidentified Amphorae (480-481) Unidentified Amphorae (482, 485-486, 488). Lamps (493, 507). Amphora Stands (513-514) Location of Kato Mertia Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Hellenistic (KM1-KM7); Early Roman (KM10, KM12) xvii

5.45 5.46 5.47 5.48 5.49 5.50 5.51 5.52 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 PLATES 5.1 5.2 5.3

Kato Mertia Pottery: Early Roman (KM9, KM11, KM13, KM16-KM27, KM30); Late Roman (KM41) Kato Mertia Pottery: Early Roman (KM28-KM29, KM31KM37); Late Roman (KM40, KM42-KM43, KM46-KM48) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Roman (KM44-KM45, KM49KM51, KM54); Late Antique (KM56-KM62) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Roman (KM52-KM53, KM55); Late Antique (KM63-KM73) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM74-KM77, KM80KM81, KM83) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM77, KM79, KM84KM85, KM88) Kato Mertia Pottery (KM86-KM87, KM89) Kato Mertia Pottery: Late Antique (KM90-KM93). Location of Hellenistic Settlements in Isthmus of Ierapetra Administrative Centers on Roman Crete Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Ierapetra Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Gortyn Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Eleutherna Proportions of Early Roman Imported Finewares at Berenice View of Isthmus of Ierapetra from Dikte Mountains Standard Cretan Amphora Forms of the Early Roman Period Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Ierapetra Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Gortyn Proportions of Late Roman/Late Antique Imported Finewares at Eleutherna MRC Cretan Amphora Types Distribution of Cretan Amphorae from Fourth to Fifth Century C.E. Examples of TRC Ovoid and Cylindrical Amphora Types Examples of TRC Globular Amphora Types Distribution of Cretan Amphorae from Sixth to Seventh Century C.E.

East Cretan Cream Ware East Cretan Cream Ware; Late Hellenistic Pottery; Early Roman Pottery Amphora Stamps; Early Roman Pottery xviii

5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique Pottery Late Roman Amphorae Early Roman, Late Roman, and Late Antique Pottery and Lamps Miscellaneous Objects and Kato Mertia Pottery

xix

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 postantique 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

xx

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.

xxi

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 2

Schiffer 1987: 7. Osborne 2004: 89.

1

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 has3

Harris 1999: 353.

2

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

3

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

4

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.

5

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 considered1

Livadiotti and Simiakaki 2004. 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.2

6

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.

7

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 citystates, 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 4

Harrison 1994: 137. de Souza 1998: 112. 5 The main source for these treaties is Chaniotis 1996. 6 Ager 1994: 2. See also Mijnsbrugge 1931: 73.

8

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.

9

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 9

Chaniotis 2008: 83. Baldwin Bowsky 2001: 35. 10 Alcock 1993: 9.

10

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 12

Gruen 1984: 99-101. 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

11

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.

12

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 20

Mijnsbrugge 1931: 73; Ager 1994: 2. Gruen 1984: 130.

13

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 22

Baldwin Bowsky 2001: 37. 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.

14

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 28

Alcock 1993: 17. 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.

15

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 32

App. Sic. 6.1; Flor. 1.42.1; Memnon 29.5 = FGrH 434. de Souza 1999: 15, 18-9. Hom. Od. 17.425.

16

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 citystates? 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.

17

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 39

Rauh 1997: 271. Rauh 1997: 279. 40 Rauh 1997: 272.

18

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.

19

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 was under Roman control at this time, but it44

App. Sic. 6.1; Dio Cass. 36.17-18; Diod. Sic. 40.1.1-2. App. Sic. 6.1-2.; Dio Cass. 36.1, 36.18; Diod. Sic. 40.1; Livy Ep. 99-100; Memnon 48 = FGrH 434; Phlegon of Tralles 12.12 = FGrH 257; Plut. Pomp. 29.4; Vell. Pat. 2.34, 2.38. 46 Plutarch portrays Pompey in a negative light and suggests he offered support to Cretan pirates during a justified attempt to suppress them. 47 Metendis 1998: 122. Several literary sources mention Cretes loyalty to Mithridates VI including: App. Sic. 6.1; Flor. 1.42.1; Memnon 29.5 = FGrH 434. 48 Burnett, Amandry, and Ripolls 1992: 216-7 nos. 901-3.45

20

remains to be seen if administrative structures were altered and processes of Romanization begun. One conspicuous aspect of Cretes history following its subjugation is that there is no literary evidence of any subsequent resistance to Roman rule. The island fought to maintain its autonomy, but made no effort to restore it after 67 B.C.E. With respect to the conversion of Crete into a Roman territory, Livy (Ep. 100) relates that in 66 B.C.E., Q. Metellus perdomitis Cretensibus liberae ad id tempus insulae leges dedit (Quintus Metellus completely subdued the Cretans and established regulations for an island which up to that time had been free).49 This statement is ambiguous, since the regulations in question are not outlined in detail. Perhaps Livy is referring to the union of Crete with Cyrenaica to form a joint province. Some scholars, including Baldwin Bowsky, suggest that this province was created soon after 67 B.C.E.50 Two coin issues dating to this period could be evidence of this. Both are attested in Cyrenaica, with the first depicting a helmeted female head and the inscription on the obverse and a bee on the reverse, while the second has the same iconography, but with the inscription on the obverse and on the reverse.51 The bee traditionally is associated with Crete as a symbol rather than Cyrenaica. An additional silver coin type, commissioned by Publius Licinius and dated to around 55 B.C.E., has a bust of Libya on the obverse and a bust of Creta-Artemis on the reverse.52 Other scholars contend that the union of Crete and Cyrenaica as a joint province did not occur until after the Battle of Actium in 27 B.C.E. G. Harrison, for instance, calls into question the dates of the coin issues mentioned above and observes that no magistrate is known who

49 50

Translation from the Loeb edition. Baldwin 1983: 3-6. 51 Robinson 1927: ccxi, pl. xxxix nos. 1-4. 52 Robinson 1927: cciii no. 2 bis a.

21

controlled both regions simultaneously until after 27 B.C.E.53 As the Roman Republic increasingly became strained through civil war, Crete appears separate from Cyrenaica in most literary accounts. Cretan archers were part of Caesars forces in Gaul and Alexandria, but fought with Pompey in the Civil War.54 Pompey also used the island as a source of grain, and although Cyrene is mentioned in the same list of states which aided Pompey, there is no indication it was joined with Crete.55 Following the assassination of Caesar, Brutus and Cassius were assigned to govern Crete and Cyrenaica (App. B.Civ. 3.1.8). This is not proof that these two places were joined administratively, however. A passage from Cicero (Phil. 2.97), implying that Brutus was assigned to Crete, suggests they were controlled separately.56 Crete also played a role during the conflict between Mark Antony and Octavian. Antonys eastern focus placed Crete within his region of control. According to Cicero (Phil. 2.97), he was quite magnanimous toward the island: nuper fixa tabula est qua civitates locupletissimae Cretensium vectigalibus liberantur, statuiturque ne post M. Brutum pro consule Creta provincia (Lately an advertisement has been posted, whereby the most wealthy communities of the Cretans are being exempted from tribute, and it is ordained that after the proconsulship of Marcus Brutus Crete should be no longer a province).57 Cicero makes no

53 54

Harrison 1985: 368-9. Caes. B Gall. 2.7; B Alex. 1.1; B Civ. 3.4.1, 3.4.3. 55 Caes. B Civ. 3.5.1. The passage reads Frumenti vim maximam ex Thessalia, Asia, Aegypto, Creta, Cyrenis reliquisque regionibus comparaverat (He had collected a very large quantity of corn from Thessaly, Asia, Egypt, Crete, Cyrene, and other districts). Translation from the Loeb edition. 56 Cicero (Phil. 2.100) used Brutus proconsulship of Crete as evidence that Antony was forging decrees of Julius Caesar after his death. According to a decree of Caesar promulgated by Antony, Crete would no longer be a province after the proconsulship of Brutus. Brutus had no association with Crete while Caesar was living, meaning Caesar could not have foreseen the conditions necessary for this decree to be enacted. 57 Translation from the Loeb edition.

22

mention of Cyrenaica joined with Crete. Antony also was said to have granted part of the territory of Crete to Cleopatra as a gift in 36 B.C.E.58 In the decades following 67 B.C.E., the fluid nature of Cretes position under Roman hegemony makes it difficult to label the island as Roman. Rome had gained control of Crete during a volatile period of her history and the conditions may not have been present to firmly entrench the island within the sphere of Roman control. Romanization within Crete also appears to be minimal in the period between 67 and 27 B.C.E. According to de Souza, there was no significant disturbance to Cretan cities as a result of the Roman conquest, and it was sometime afterward when population and agricultural exploitation increased.59 R. Sweetman argues that the Hellenistic period on Crete did not come to an abrupt end in 67 B.C.E.60 A similar line of thought appears in the Knossos Pottery Handbook when G. Forster states: The generally accepted date for the foundation of the Roman colony at Knossos, soon after 27 BC, provides us with a convenient starting point for what we will define as the Roman period for the sake of this handbook.61 At Knossos, most studies imply that very little happened between the Roman conquest and the foundation of the colony, which itself leaves little to no trace in the archaeological record.62 Only two structures have evidence for destruction around 67 B.C.E.: a shrine to Glaukos and a house with a wine press.63 A structure possibly built after 67 and destroyed prior to the founding of the colony in the Staphylakis plot, located a few hundred meters west of the Minoan palace on the southeast slope of Monasteraki Kephala hill,

58

Dio Cass. 49.32.5; Plut. Ant. 54. Spyridakis (1970: 87) argues that the polis of Itanos would have been part of this gift given the fact it had housed a Ptolemaic garrison in the past. 59 de Souza 1998: 116. 60 Sweetman 2007: 67. 61 Forster 2001: 137. 62 cf. Warren 1987-1988: 88. 63 Callaghan 1978: 28; Paton 1994: 146-7.

23

has a few imported amphorae from Italy, showing that some material was trickling into Crete.64 For Gortyn, N. Allegro argues that the city did change fundamentally after the Roman conquest.65 His evidence, however, including the construction of a new residential quarter to the east of the Hellenistic one on a different alignment, dates to the final decade of the first century B.C.E., long after Metellus victory.66 From a material culture perspective, changes in assemblages on Crete, including pottery, do not provide much support for Roman presence. Romanization of pottery assemblages before and after Roman conquest of a territory could be a slow process. For Britain, S. Willis shows that pottery assemblages did not change significantly following Romes victory there in 43 C.E.67 S. Rotroff comes to a similar conclusion for Athens when noting that pottery only adopted a Roman character by the first century C.E., even though 86 B.C.E., the date of Sullas attack on the city, is seen as the division between Hellenistic and Roman.68 On Crete, publications from several sites note a continuation of Hellenistic shapes into the late first century B.C.E. and the subsequent influence of these shapes on local Early Roman wares.69 Perhaps the most intriguing evidence derives from the excavation of the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos. Within the Hellenistic pottery assemblage from the site, six deposits have a date range continuing after 67 B.C.E.70 Four of these deposits, H33, H35, H36, and H37, were formed after 67, and in one case, H37, the deposit appears to have been closed after 27 B.C.E. A lack of any distinguishable Roman pottery led the excavators to classify them as Hellenistic. The two earliest Roman

64 65

Catling et al. 1981: 97. The authors use 36 B.C.E. as the date for the foundation of the colony at Knossos. Allegro 2004: 531. 66 Allegro 2004: 537. 67 Willis 1996: 191-2. 68 Rotroff 1997: 98-100. 69 Eiring 2000a: 197-8; 2001: 91; Hayes 1971: 273-4; Gortina I, 172; Gortina II, 111. 70 UM II, 121-2 (deposit H31 pre-colony); 122-3 (deposit H32 100-25 B.C.E.); 123-4 (deposit H33 50-25 B.C.E.); 124-6 (deposit H35 third quarter of first century B.C.E.); 126 (deposit H36 late first century B.C.E.); 126-7 (deposit H37 late first century B.C.E.).

24

deposits from the site, A1 and A2, both dating from the mid-first century B.C.E. to the early first century C.E., were assigned to this period because they did include distinguishable Roman pottery. 71 The overall classification of these deposits, analogous to the pattern seen for Britain and Athens above, suggests that that there is no clear material culture correlation for consi

An Island Economy : Ierapetra and Crete in the Roman Empire

Documents

Transcript of An Island Economy : Ierapetra and Crete in the Roman Empire