Lost in Translation: Settlement Organization in Postpalatial Crete—A View from the East

Abstract

This contribution will consider problems and issues related to understanding architecture and urbanism in postpalatial Crete in its larger Mediterranean context, with reference particularly to Philistia but also to Cyprus and mainland Greece (Fig. 13.1). Comparisons with Philistia and Cyprus are relevant because many scholars have argued for a migration to these regions in the form of large scale colonization, and they have attempted to identify Aegean influences and even direct architectural transfers in these regions (as outlined in sections 13.2 and 13.4). This paper takes a more moderate or minimalist position: that any migration to these regions from the Aegean was limited and entangled, taking the form of what Knapp (2008: 266–8, 289, 292, 356; see also Hitchcock and Maeir 2013) has termed a ‘hybridization process’. However, a comparative approach among the Mediterranean regions has value regardless of where one positions oneself on the issue of migration, cross-cultural influence, and/or interconnections (see now Knapp and Manning 2016). The value lies in cross-cultural patterning that may be identified based on common postpalatial changes in social organization, structures, and practices; levels of technology; climate; and geography. It is the search for such patterning that typifies the approach to studying culture in cultural anthropology (e.g. Haviland et al. 2011). The benefit in identifying architectural patterns and differences across IIIC pottery-producing cultures can help to identify both common social practices and regional differences. Furthermore, we will argue that understanding architecture on multiple scales (urbanism, curation, design, and technique) in this era should emphasize IIIC commonalities, rather than past studies that have privileged and over-emphasized continuities with the palatial Bronze Age. While such continuities are interesting and worth drawing attention to, emphasizing them minimizes the significance of the breakdown and diminishing of official architectural styles. In addition, given that the data base for architecture is much smaller than for ceramic studies, a comparative approach can bring new insights gained by using different methods—as in Driessen’s study of complementarity in the different use of similar spaces by males and females as indicated by different types of artefact patterning in each space (see chapter 5).