final neolithic crete and the southeast aegean () || chapter 4: the final neolithic in crete:...

Chapter 4: The Final Neolithic in Crete: Terminology and Chronology

The Term “Final Neolithic”Although the term of Final Neolithic (FN) was used in my previous chapters it has not been prop-erly explained yet. In this book neither new material nor a new hypothesis for FN are presented for mainland Greece and thus the book does not contribute to the discussion on the term’ s use in that part of the Aegean. Instead, I will focus rather on the usefulness (or not) of the term Final Neolithic in the Cretan and south Aegean contexts only – a problem that was already discussed by Sampson almost three decades ago.1

The origins of the term’s introduction to the chronology of prehistoric Crete go back to 1972.2 At present several chronological systems and several different labels for the same periods (in abso-lute dates) are used. Additionally, the chronological terminologies of the latest Neolithic period in Crete and other Aegean islands do not correspond to the terminology used for neighbouring Anatolia, a fact which raises a series of problems in the reconstruction of cultural interactions in the broader geographical context.3 This also contributes to the poor understanding of events and processes during the fourth millennium BC, which may be linked to population movements. A better coordination between different terminologies (the Late Neolithic/Aegean Late Neolithic in the Dodecanese, the Final Neolithic in Crete, and the Late Chalcolithic in Anatolia) is essential for more accurate analysis of material culture and settlement changes during the period of interest in the large area between the Greek mainland, in the west, and western and southern Anatolia, in the east. Such attempts have been made by Sampson, but the ongoing changes in Sampson’s terminologies, as well as numerous problems concerning the chronology of individual sites, do not help to establish order.4 Elsewhere, I have discussed thoroughly the problems of Cretan chronology in the fourth millennium BC. Since then new evidence has been revealed and new solutions to the problems proposed.5

The problem of the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in Crete and elsewhere in the southeastern Aegean starts with the inadequate and often confusing chronological terminol-ogy and the lack of reliable absolute dates for most of the fourth millennium BC. It goes back to the beginning of Cretan archaeology when the foundation under the later commonly accepted Cretan chronology was based on the evidence yielded during the excavation at Knossos. Unfortunately, the next hundred years of research have not improved the situation very much, and it seems that the isolation of particular regions and individual sites from the broader geographical and chrono-logical contexts will continue for some time at least. The dominance of Knossos in every discussion on the Cretan Neolithic seems to be justified by the richness of the material coming from the site and its relatively good publication. However, building up the entire terminological and chronologi-cal construction, on the basis of a single site, with a rather spatially restricted and poorly preserved strata representing the period in question, is a risky approach. The most recent modification of Cretan Neolithic chronology, worked out by Tomkins, is also based almost entirely on the material stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos.6 This limitation of the chronological basis to the

1 Sampson 1984.2 Renfrew 1972, 68 and 71–72.3 Coleman 1992, 262.4 Sampson 1984, 1989, 1992, 2006 and 2007; see also Chapter 7 (p. 302–303).5 Nowicki 2003, for the most recent revision of the Cretan Final Neolithic see Tomkins 2007 and Tomkins 2008.6 Tomkins 2007; 2008.

Brought to you by | New York University Elmer Holmes Bobst LibraryAuthenticated

Download Date | 10/7/14 8:49 PM

62 Chapter 4: The Final Neolithic in Crete: Terminology and Chronology

pottery from one site undermines the reliability of the proposed sequence of diagnostic features during the last phases of the Neolithic in Crete.

The problem is even more complicated in the Dodecanese, where the chronological sequence has been built on the basis of two caves (with some stratigraphy recorded but not re-examined against any multi-phased settlement sequence) and a few open-air sites where only a single short phase is represented.7 The chronological sequence of the Dodecanese, elaborated over two decades on such limited evidence, was later completely changed as the result of the problematic dating of a single site, Ftelia on Mykonos, in the Cyclades. This problem will be thoroughly discussed in Chapter 7. A chronological sequence for the southwest coast of Anatolia during the fourth millen-nium BC does not exist at all, since no proper settlement material has been revealed and published so far. The closest sites are situated on the edges of, or even beyond, the area of our interest (Afro-disias, Elmali, and Liman Tepe).

Confusions surrounding the transition between the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Crete arose when Arthur Evans presented his chronology based on the stratigraphy of the Knossian tell.8 The excavator assumed that the latter period emerged from the former and that apart from obvious differences in material culture there was also significant continuity through both periods. Evans suggested that the introduction of copper should be seen as a milestone making the beginning of his “Minoan” civilization. For this single initial phase he used three terms: 1) “transitional Age”, 2) “Chalcolithic phase”, and 3) “Early Minoan I”. Evans also referred to a vague “Sub-Neolithic” period/phase.9 The “Sub-Neolithic”, according to Evans, was the period or phase following the “Upper Neolithic”. It was “of short duration” and “a period of transition to new methods”,10 par-ticularly in the production of pottery. The “Sub-Neolithic” was described together with the Neo-lithic, but at the same time it was included in the discussion of Early Minoan I. Evans introduced the “Sub-Neolithic” term to characterise a short-lasting transitional phase between the Neolithic and the fully developed Bronze Age, and to explain the continuation of some pottery characteristics into EM I. Because the material was, however, extremely poor and not very distinctive from what he called EM I, the “Sub-Neolithic” phase/style was not clearly illustrated on Evans’ chronological diagram, but was put within brackets as a supplementary description of the EM I period.11 This “Sub-Neolithic” seems to have been used to describe the end of the long Neolithic tradition on the island in a less abrupt way than if the Neolithic were followed immediately by the Bronze Age. The weakest point of Evans’ system, however, was the lack of clear definition of the “Sub-Neolithic”. Was it a chronologically distinctive phase?12 Was it only partly or entirely contemporary with EM I?13 Was it a short phase at the very beginning of the EM I period which might be better represented elsewhere, and in Knossos is only slightly marked? Was it only a pottery style which was Neo-lithic “continuation” within EM I?14 When a few years later a Neolithic deposit (with architectural remains and a copper axe) was found immediately under the Central Courtyard, Evans classified

7 Sampson 1987; 1989; 2007.8 This stratigraphy was best illustrated in Evans’ trench in the West Court, see Evans 1903–04, fig. 7, 19–22.9 Evans 1921, 32 and 57–58. The term “Sub-Neolithic” used in Evans’ report in 1904 (Evans 1903–04, 21–22) was ap-plied to a stratum called by him Early Minoan I, but D.E. Wilson pointed out that in fact this stratum should be regard-ed as a mixed deposit including LN and EM IIA material and not a separate phase (Wilson 1985, 35 and 140; Wilson 1994, 24). Evans’ “Sub-Neolithic” from his later publication (Evans 1921, 38 and 56), was a more elaborated term, but still very unclear whether it was a real phase of the Neolithic or just a pottery style/tradition within EM I.10 Evans 1921, 38 and 57.11 Evans 1921, fig. 4 on p. 33.12 Evans 1921, 38.13 This is presented in a rather confusing way in Evans 1921, 38 (especially 5 last lines) and 56. It seems, however, that the “Sub-Neolithic” was either partly preceding (and partly overlapping) EM I or entirely overlapping early EM I. This can be concluded from Evans’ descriptions of the “Sub-Neolithic” “as of short duration” (Evans 19021, 38) and EM I which “must be taken a considerable interval of time” (ibid., 56).14 Evans 1921, 56.



The Term “Final Neolithic” 63

it as coming from the “concluding phase of the Upper Neolithic” which “was of relatively short duration”.15 Unfortunately, Evans did not remark on the stratigraphic relationship between these houses (i.e. the “concluding” phase of the Upper Neolithic) and his “Sub-Neolithic” as described in the previous volume.

Pendlebury adopted Evans’ chronology, but he made several comments which altered the per-ceived character of the transition between the Neolithic and Bronze Age. According to this revised chronology the Upper Neolithic phase “seems to have been a short, transitional one”.16 Yet, he characterised also the next period (EM I) as “in the nature of a transition” suggesting that the earlier stages of it were “rather to be styled Sub-Neolithic”.17 In Pendlebury’s chronology the char-acter of the “Sub-Neolithic” became even more difficult to define; it was seen as a regional style (present in central and south Crete, absent in east Crete) more than a period, following the Upper Neolithic, and passing smoothly into EM I.18 It can be concluded from Pendlebury’s differentiation between the two: “… at the very end of the Neolithic Period and in Sub-Neolithic times there was an entirely local development …”, that Sub-Neolithic was not regarded as the last part of the Neolithic, but it was a separate chronological unit.19 Why, however, was the Neolithic identified as “a period” whereas there were only Sub-Neolithic “times”? In both chronologies (Evans’ and Pendlebury’s) it becomes clear that there was a problem, for some material, in distinguishing between the latest Neolithic and the earliest EM I. One may ask why these scholars did not develop a clearer chrono-logical table with the “transition” phase classified on its own, or alternatively as the last phase of the Neolithic or the very first phase of the EM I period? The traditional division of the Neolithic into Early, Middle, and Late, and the EM I into EM IA and IB, was not helpful in finding the right chron-ological place for the last Neolithic phase, which showed more similarities to the early EM I period, than to the earlier Neolithic ones. All these problems arose mostly due to the unclear stratification in the Knossos excavations. For a better understanding of the nature of that enigmatic “Sub-Neo-lithic” it is necessary to move to Faistos.

The Neolithic material from Faistos was first classified as later than Neolithic Knossos (and as preceding the “chalcolithic” – Early Minoan period) by Pernier.20 Later on, Levi pushed the dis-cussion on the Neolithic–Bronze Age transition as seen from the Faistian point of view in a more confusing direction. Levi objected to Evans’ tripartite scheme for the EM period, describing it as “a single transitional phase between the Chalcolithic period and the beginning of the palatial civili-zation”.21 We can simply ignore Levi’s remark on the Early Minoan period, but his use of the term Chalcolithic might suggest that it was different from that meant by Pernier – and in fact in this publication Levi used Chalcolithic to define the Faistian Neolithic.22 It was divided into two strata in which the sherds “[with] polished surface are very lustrous black in colour and already have a design applied in a white colour and in red ochre”.23 This Faistian “Sub-Neolithic”, however, did not have much in common with the label first introduced by Evans. The two terms were drifting in two different directions, and the gap was still to be properly researched.

The late chronological position of the Faistian deposits in relation to Neolithic Knossos was given still stronger emphasis after the investigations at the latter site undertaken by J.D. Evans. The excavations in 1957–60 yielded stratified deposits that were interpreted as ending somewhere at the turn of the fifth millennium BC, and thus the crucial transitional phase between the Neolithic

15 Evans 1928, 8; according to J.D. Evans this was equal with his Stratum I (J.D. Evans 1994, 16).16 Pendlebury 1939, 41.17 Pendlebury 1939, 47.18 H. W. Pendlebury, J. D. S. Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1935–36, 23–24.19 Pendlebury 1939, 25.20 Pernier 1935, 107.21 Levi 1964, 5.22 Elsewhere this period was also described as “sub-neolitica”, see Levi 1965, 224.23 Levi 1964, 4.




and EBA, and/or the phase labeled by A. Evans “Sub-Neolithic”, was according to the excavator missing.24 The latest deposit was found in Stratum I, which was interpreted by J.D. Evans as still earlier than the Faistian Neolithic.25 The British scholar, however, considered the possibility that Pernier was right to suggest that the Neolithic in Faistos may have been “partly or whole contem-porary with E.M. at Knossos”.26 At the turn of the 1960s, excavations in the West Court at Knossos brought to light material later than Stratum I, showing some similarities to the Faistos Neolithic pottery.27 Unfortunately, the state of preservation of this deposit, its mixed character and its lack of proper publication meant that the dispute on the chronological relationship between the latest Knossos material and Neolithic Faistos continued without any definite consensus on the character, length and date of the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age.28 The entire concept of latest Neolithic Knossos being earlier than Neolithic Faistos has appeared to be wrong after Tomkins published his chronological table of the Knossian Neolithic strata.29

The term “Sub-Neolithic” became a convenient label for deposits which did not have all the characteristics of the Knossian Neolithic, but were (or seemed to be) too “Neolithic” for EM I con-texts. It was useful in particular for the description of such problematic finds from extensive sur-veys.30 There were, however, also weak points of the term. Among them the most important were its incompatibility with the terminology used for other areas of the Aegean, and a continued uncer-tainty as to its contemporaneity with the EM I period. The term “sub-Neolithic” was still used in 1968 by K. Branigan in his fundamental work on Prepalatial Crete for the period between Knossos Stratum I and the EM I.31

Renfrew was aware of the problem of the Neolithic – Bronze Age transition and its terminology when writing: “… the importance of the so-called ‘sub-neolithic’ material is insufficiently recog-nized”. According to him the material classified in this group bridged “the gap between the latest Neolithic of Phaistos and the Early Minoan”.32 The term Sub-Neolithic was not accepted by Renfrew as a label for this period; instead, he referred to the phase as the “Latest Neolithic” and made a very significant remark: “it may be that this Latest Neolithic could be divided into several phases”.33 It was, however, several years before Renfrew defined and introduced to the Cretan chronology the term “Final Neolithic”. The later evolution in Renfrew’s chronological system has not only changed the general understanding of the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, but stands in apparent contradiction to his earlier, above quoted ideas.

In his “Emergence of Civilization” Renfrew objected to the term “Sub-Neolithic” in writing: “most of the so-called ‘sub-neolithic’ material would be better described as final Neolithic in the sense established here”.34 Yet, Renfrew’s interpretation of this period went much farther from what most previous scholars regarded as Sub-Neolithic.35 In fact, Renfrew eliminated the Cretan Late

24 Evans 1964, 132–240.25 “The Phaistos Neolithic would seem to represent a later phase still and one which is not represented at Knos-sos …”, see Warren et al. 1968, 276.26 Warren et al. 1968, 276, but this must be a misspelling, and J.D. Evans presumably thought “contemporary with E.M.I at Knossos”.27 Evans 1971, 95–117.28 For the discussion on this issue see Wilson 1984, 137–140; Wilson and Day 2000, 50–51 and especially 54; Manteli 1993.29 Tomkins 2007.30 See for example Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 51, 58, and 73; Hood 1965, 110 and 112.31 Branigan 1970, 11.32 Renfrew 1964, 118.33 Renfrew 1964, 119.34 Renfrew 1972, 71.35 Renfrew writes: “I would like to suggest, therefore, that Stratum I at Knossos (Knossian Late Neolithic), the Neo-lithic strata with painted ware at Phaistos, and the “sub-neolithic” finds from Partira, the Eileithyia Cave and Phourni be together assigned to this present hypothetical final neolithic” (1972, 71).




Neolithic by including Stratum I at Knossos in his Final Neolithic period.36 Given that the “sub-ne-olithic” deposits had a chronological position of their own,37 the Final Neolithic would consist, in Renfrew’s opinion, of three phases, represented by: 1) the late Neolithic deposit of Knossos, 2) Neolithic Faistos and 3) the “sub-neolithic deposits”. Why, however, did Renfrew combine three different chronological phases into one period?38 The painful consequence of this new terminology was the grouping of chronologically different sites (separated by almost 1000 years) into a single period. A solution of the problem might have been achieved by dividing the Final Neolithic into phases, as Renfrew had earlier suggested,39 but he seems to have abandoned that idea when estab-lishing the new terminology. Renfrew’s chronological sequence between the Late Neolithic and Early Minoan I as proposed in 1972, was a step backwards in comparison to his ideas published in 1964.

The chronological differentiation between the Late Neolithic and Final Neolithic in Crete gradually disappeared and the problem became rather a matter of personal preference for one or another of these labels. Warren in an article published in 1976, did not use the term Final Neolithic, but the Late Neolithic in his chronological table.40 However, he used the term in the text, when he wrote that “we have a Late and Final Neolithic development in Crete (and the Cyclades) of at least a thousand years. Equally clearly there is much more to be learnt about these numerous Cretan Late Neolithic communities, especially their dating …”. Further on, Warren mentioned Faistos and the earliest Eileithyia Cave, describing them as those “Late Neolithic communities”.41 In a paper published in 1980, Warren accepted entirely the definition of the Final Neolithic as proposed by Renfrew, including in it also Stratum I at Knossos.42 Some doubts about the justification of this term versus Late Neolithic II, however, may be found in Warren’s and Hankey’s book published in 1989.43

The Final Neolithic as a period was most comprehensively discussed by L. Vagnetti and P. Belli.44 Although Vagnetti accepted the term Final Neolithic she understood its problematic char-acter when describing it as a phase “piu intuita che conosciuta” and stressing the need for new excavations and studies of the material.45 The phase was clearly regarded as a post-Late Neolithic one and not as a substitute for the Late Neolithic.46 In her study of the Faistian Neolithic pottery Vagnetti suggested the replacement of the earlier terms of “Chalcolithic”, “Latest Neolithic” and “Subneolithic” with “Neolitico Finale”, following Renfrew’s system, and rightly pointing out that the term “Chalcolithic might be confusing in the Aegean area”.47 Neolithic Faistos was put together with Gortina, the Miamou Cave, the earliest deposit from Eileithyia, the Lasithian sites excavated

36 In fact Renfrew went even further in extending this period on the entire Late Neolithic when writing “However, the date of 3720 B.C (B.M. 279) from the late neolithic Stratum IV [sic!] at Knossos reminds us that Stratum I there, and possibly Stratum II also, must fall within the span of the Aegean final neolithic”, Renfrew 1972, 72. According to J.D. Evans “the transition to the late Neolithic takes place gradually in the course of Stratum II” (Evans 1964, 225) and radiocarbon sample B.M. 279 which indeed comes from Stratum IV represents the Early Neolithic II period (Evans 1994, 17).37 Renfrew 1972, 71.38 According to Renfrew “some of the Phaistos material represents a later Neolithic phase than Stratum I a[t] Knos-sos”, Renfrew 1972, 113–114.39 Renfrew 1964, 118.40 Warren 1976, fig. 3 on p. 215.41 Warren 1976, 217.42 Warren 1980, 489.43 Warren and Hankey 1989, 6; this label was defended versus Late Neolithic II proposed by Coleman.44 See especially Vagnetti and Belli 1978; Vagnetti 1996.45 Vagnetti 1973a, 126.46 Vagnetti 1973b, 7.47 Vagnetti 1973a, 9.




by Pendlebury, and Platyvola, in a period seen as a transition to EM I.48 Unlike Renfrew, however, Vagnetti did not include in this phase Stratum I at Knossos – a rather significance difference which is often forgotten.49 Since then the problem continued of a real or theoretical gap between the latest Neolithic stratum at Knossos and the last Neolithic occupation at Faistos. In Vagnetti’s chronolog-ical system the Final Neolithic is much shorter than that proposed by Renfrew and accepted by Warren and Hankey. A similar position was taken by Manteli and Evely who pointed to apparent differences between Knossos Stratum I and the last Neolithic phases in Faistos (“Knossos stratum I should not be simply equated with FN Phaistos”).50 The most important conclusion of Vagnetti’s and Belli’s study was the identification of “… a FN phase which is differentiated from the LN and the EM all over the island, although its differentiation from the EM period really needs more discus-sion”.51 The Final Neolithic in Crete was, therefore, “a phase transitional from LN to EM I, which, although anticipating EM features, retains very much of the long preceding Neolithic tradition … something different from the preceding and following periods”.52 Although Vagnetti did not divide formally the Final Neolithic into sub-phases she remarkably stated that the “Phaistos culture” may represent an earlier stage and the “Partira–Ayios Nikolaos” a later one.53 This conclusion went very much in the same direction as Renfrew’s comment in 1964.54 The same chronological differentia-tion between the Faistos and Partira deposits was made by Hood. In the British scholar’s opinion, however, the later stratum of Faistos and the Partira material were contemporary respectively with Knossian EM IA and IB.55 This hypothesis goes rather too far in eliminating much of the Final Neo-lithic as a period and presenting it as a local style contemporaneous with the Latest Neolithic and EM I at Knossos.56 Although some overlap between the latest Final Neolithic material and very early EM I deposits must be seriously considered, such a long-lasting co-existence of different styles of pottery on the island seems to be rather unlikely.

As shown above, the term “Final Neolithic” was introduced in order to differentiate the last phase of the Neolithic period and to replace the old term Sub-Neolithic, which at the turn of the 1960s and in early 1970s already seemed inadequate. Unfortunately, despite good intentions the new label produced more confusion than order in the chronology of Crete. It has never been clearly explained why the “final” phase of Neolithic lasted for a millennium or more,57 and why the label “final” was better than simply a “late” designation subdivided into phases.58 If there was good evidence for development of metallurgy and for changes in the social organization of Aegean soci-eties at this time, the word “chalcolithic” would be certainly much more appropriate and more in line with Anatolian chronology. If, however, the changes were less significant than was the case in Anatolia, the Late Neolithic could be divided into more phases (I, II and III if necessary). One of the most serious failures of the term “Final Neolithic” as defined by Renfrew was that despite the word “final” it described an extraordinarily long period, undivided into shorter sub-phases.

48 Vagnetti 1973a, 125.49 According to Vagnetti “the settlement at Festos as a whole is presumably a little later than Stratum I at Knossos, or perhaps contemporary with its very end”, Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 157; later this chronological relation was expressed in a following way: “… the earliest layers at Phaistos start … before the very end of the LN at Knossos” (Vagnetti 1996, 37).50 Manteli and Evely 1995, 11.51 Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 158.52 Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 159 and 161.53 Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 161; Vagnetti 1973b, 8.54 Renfrew 1964.55 Hood 1990, pl. XLI.56 Such a chronology is similar to J.D. Evans’ opinion, see Warren et al. 1968.57 See for example the comment by A. Sampson: “… it appears that the so called Final Neolithic is a very long period that starts around 4300 and lasts till 3500–3300 BC and cannot possibly be named Final since it covers the better part of the Late Neolithic” (Sampson 1989, 712).58 Coleman 1992, 252.




From the perspective of over fifty years of controversy concerning the chronological relation between the latest Neolithic stratum at Knossos and the Neolithic deposits at Faistos the results of the most recent studies of the Knossian material by Tomkins are significant if, surprising. Not only has he not found any gap between Knossos Stratum I and the Neolithic Faistos material, but he has reconstructed a full and continuous sequence at Knossos, chronologically overlapping with Neolithic Faistos at least from Stratum II.59 Tomkins’ reevaluation of the Knossian material, and his new division of the Final Neolithic into four phases, goes even farther away from the original idea of this term, and against Vagnetti’s description of the period as a short lasting and transitional one between the Late Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age. In Tomkins’ chronology the FN would last between 4500 and 3100/3000 BC.60 His chronological system, however, is partly in agreement with Vagnetti’s “early” and “late” division of the FN61 and with my modification of this into FN I and FN II.62 Tomkins agrees that his last phase, i.e. FN IV, is markedly different from the previous ones (FN I–III) which show more continuation with the LN period.63

In the light of new discoveries and the most recent research the term Final Neolithic, as defined by Renfrew, can no longer be defended. If it continues to be used as initially described we will encounter the following problems:1. Archaeological sites chronologically very distant (separated by 1000 years or more) will

be classified within the same period, despite their obvious and archaeologically recog-nizable differences.The advantage of Tomkins’ new chronological system is that it may help to locate specific sites/assemblages within one of the four shorter phases, and thus to construct a more detailed sequence of settlement and material culture change. On the other hand it can be used only at sites with rich pottery assemblages, well preserved and stratified. It may work at Knossos, but be of limited value when addressing other kinds of sites. The advantage of the two-phase division (FN I and FN II) – as proposed in this book – is that it allows us to differentiate, within a relatively short period of five to six hundred years, two different settlement systems in Crete. The second phase also introduced many new elements of material culture and social organiza-tion. These two phases can be identified on the basis of the surface evidence on its own.

2. The pottery of very different traditions will be placed within the same chronological period, although it is already possible to classify it into separate groups and phases.Both systems, 1) Vagnetti’s and my two FN phases, and 2) Tomkins’ four phases, allow us to avoid this problem, though Tomkins’ system – if applicable beyond Knossos – can be more precise for the last LN and the early FN periods.

3. Changes in settlement pattern in Crete (and population growth and/or decline), which most probably took place within a short period at the very end of the Neolithic, will be seen as an extremely long-lasting (over 1000 year) process.Vagnetti’s chronology rightly points to a much shorter duration for the most essential changes in Crete. In Tomkins’ system, differences between his FN I, II and III are limited to minor changes in pottery, with settlement patterns largely omitted from the discussion; Tomkins agrees that FN IV represents a very different pottery tradition, but settlement changes, in his opinion, are mostly the results of local Neolithic population expansion, and no external factors, such as migrations, are considered. On the contrary, the chronology proposed in this book not only points to different pottery traditions, but clearly separates settlement of the early FN (FN I) from the entirely new pattern of the latest FN phase (FN II).

59 Tomkins 2007, 36 and 39.60 Tomkins 2007, 32 and 44.61 Vagnetti 1973a.62 Nowicki 2003.63 Tomkins 2007, 32 and 33.




4. Crete will be isolated from other areas not because of its real cultural isolation, but its chronological terminology.Both Vagnetti’s and Tomkins’ systems are inconvenient for broader comparisons, since the term FN is not used for the areas east of Crete. The only possible solution might be a clear chronological concordance between the FN on Crete, LN II in the Dodecanese and LCh 3–5 in western Anatolia. This will be proposed in the later part of this book.

5. Confusion between the terms Late and Final Neolithic will continue.Vagnetti’s system introduced some order into the issue, whereas Tomkins’ chronology raises completely new problems concerning the justification of the term of the Final Neolithic itself and especially the justification of the archaeological markers for its beginning.

6. The important transitional period immediately preceding the beginning of the Bronze Age will lack a clear term of reference.64In this respect Vagnetti’s system is much more helpful for understanding the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, and allows to compare the two last phases of the Neolithic with each other. This distinction between the first and the second phase of the FN period in Crete, and historical explanations for it, have been thoroughly discussed by me else-where.65 Tomkins’ system extends Vagnetti’s early Final Neolithic backwards, to the Late Neo-lithic period, and makes the crucial phase of change (Tomkins’ FN IV) only one of his long (1500 years) sequence – in my opinion too long for the term “final”. What might be the key moment for the beginning of the FN is the shift of the Mesara population to high places such as Faistos and the Gortina acropolis: this phenomenon has not been thoroughly analysed yet.

What might be a positive solution to the problem of the term Final Neolithic? Is the term itself inadequate or is chronological definition, as proposed by Renfrew in 1972, incompatible with the archaeological evidence? Which one of the above presented chronological systems and terminolo-gies can best clarify the sequence of changes in Crete and the southeast Aegean between the latest Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age? Is Sampson’s system, giving up the term of Final Neolithic in favour of a more detailed division of Late Neolithic, superior to Vagnetti’s and my shorter two-phase period at the end of the LN and called the FN? Is Tomkins’ most recent system, with four phases of the long FN, a better answer to the problems around the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age? Answers to the above questions are not easy due to the very limited archaeological evidence available, but the evidence is substantially richer than that availa-ble several decades ago when Renfrew and Vagnetti proposed their hypotheses.

Archaeological evidence from Crete and from the Aegean islands clearly indicates that there is a need to differentiate a separate period or at least a phase (or phases) at the end of the Neo-lithic. This cannot be, however, chronologically equal with Renfrew’s definition of the Final Neo-lithic. Tomkins’ more recent proposal makes the period even longer than Renfrew’s, and that is the weakest point of his new chronology. The crucial question concerning Tomkins’ system is why the long and subdivided phase I (FN IA and IB) was included at all in the Final Neolithic period, and not classified within the Late Neolithic? The term Final Neolithic may be defended if it follows Vag-netti’s definition of this period.66 In this book, therefore, I will follow Vagnetti’s terminology, with a small modification as proposed elsewhere,67 based on the most recent field studies. This allows the Late Neolithic in Crete to last until the early centuries of the fourth millennium BC and the Final Neolithic proper (with two phases “early” [I] and “late” [II]) would fill only part of the first and most

64 Some authors labelled this phase also “Terminal Neolithic” (Sampson 1989), or “Latest Neolithic” in a sequence 1) Late Neolithic, 2) Final Neolithic (=LN II), 3) Latest Neolithic (Wilson 1999, 227).65 Nowicki 2003.66 Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 157–162.67 Nowicki 2003.




of the second half of the fourth millennium, probably 500 to maximum 700 years (see below). In this sequence the FN I would be the last phase of the Late Neolithic pottery local tradition, whereas the FN II would mark a new phase in pottery manufacturing, with a number of features found also in the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia, and being a direct predecessor of the EM I styles.

The chronology proposed by Sampson is also commonly used, especially for the east Aegean islands. The Late Neolithic II (divided into two phases a/A and b/B), and/or the Aegean Late Neo-lithic (ALN) 1–4 for the Aegean islands, was used by Sampson instead of Renfrew’s Final Neolith-ic.68 In this system the LN IIb and ALN 4 was to be roughly synonymous with Vagnetti’s Final Neo-lithic late. It seems, however, that Sampson misdated the Cretan material, in particular the earliest part of the FN, which adds serious problems to his own chronological concordances between the Dodecanese and Ftelia on Mykonos (for more detailed discussion on this see Chapter 7). Initially, Sampson included Faistos into his ALN 4, together with Partheni Leros and Alimia. The Cretan FN sequence shows, however, that Faistos started earlier than ALN 4 and continued through the EBA (and later). Faistos must be dated, therefore, to both the Cretan FN phases (I and II), and according to the early Sampson’s terminology it would be contemporary with part of ALN 3 and the entire ALN 4. Alternatively, ALN 4 (if extended as far back as the first half of the fourth millennium BC) should be divided into two phases (early and late). Later changes introduced by Sampson to his chronol-ogy (see Chapter 7), if accepted for Crete, would push down Faistos (in the LN Ib) to 4800–4200 BC.

The chronology proposed recently by Tomkins constitutes a separate problem. It is based on the new studies of the pottery sequence at Knossos, but the Final Neolithic term cannot be justified by the pottery development alone – it must have some historical explanation, reflected in changes other than pottery, to separate it from the more adequate sequence of the Late Neolithic phases. The introduction of the additional period, labeled “the Final Neolithic”, at the end of the Neolithic period, makes sense if it represents important historical processes and events, which might stress the “final” character of this period in the long Neolithic sequence. It seems that in Crete there is such a key historical moment, reflected in the rearrangement of the settlement pattern in the Mesara and the foundation of hilltop settlements at Faistos and Gortina. Monastiraki Katalimata and Azoria may well have been part of the same process.

Returning to Tomkins’ system, it must be emphasized that the beginning of his FN period (FN IA) is not related to the foundation of Faistos that is probably more than a half a millennium later, and dates to Tomkins’ FN II (according to the chronology accepted in this book – FN I). Considering that Tomkins’ FN I phase is a very long one, and additionally divided into two sub-phases (IA and IB), such an exclusively pottery orientated terminology may introduce further confusions in the understanding of the historical and social processes which characterised the latest centuries of the Neolithic in Crete. Tomkins’ expansion of the Final Neolithic to almost 1500 years, stands against all the previous objections to the terminology and in particular the meaning of the term “Final”.

Another solution to all the problems regarding the term Final Neolithic in Crete might be a modification of the Cretan chronology according to Sampson’s division of the Late Neolithic into LN I (a and b) and II (a and b). However, the term Final Neolithic has some advantages when reconstructing historical processes which took place towards the end of the long Aegean Neolithic period, immediately before the Early Bronze Age.

In the terminology proposed in this book the Final Neolithic describes indeed substantial, sometimes dramatic, changes which affected most of the Aegean, including the coastal Aegean region of western Anatolia. Pottery, often used for the description of chronological phases, may have reflected these changes to some degree, some of them in a more obvious way, some less so.

68 In 1984 Sampson (Sampson 1984, 249) proposed to label this period Aegean Late Neolithic 1, 2, 3, 4, and these should be abbreviated as ALN 1, 2, 3, 4, but later in 1989 (Sampson 1989, 709–718) the same author introduced the abbreviation LAN (Late Aegean Neolithic). For the clarity of terminology, here I propose to use his ALN label instead of LAN.




However, its greatest change is not at the beginning nor at the end of the period, but “across” it. Tomkins’ division into four separate sub-phases might suggest an uninterrupted continuation of the pottery technology through all these phases, whereas the evidence suggests a different sce-nario. At Knossos the transition between Tomkins’ FN III and IV may look less dramatic, but else-where in Crete this division is very abrupt.

In this book I will follow, therefore, the earlier – and in my opinion better – chronological system that I have proposed elsewhere.69 In this, the Final Neolithic, divided into two phases, rep-resents the period of cultural, social, economic, and settlement changes leading to the emergence of the Bronze Age in Crete, and not just gradual changes in pottery characteristics. In this system FN I is equal with Tomkins’ FN II (at least a part of it) and III together, and FN II with Tomkins’ FN IV; Tomkins’ FN I and a part of FN II belong still, in my opinion, to the LN period and are chrono-logically very distant from the relocation of settlements in some parts of Crete to hilltops and places like Katalimata. The proposed terminology is in fact a modification of Vagnetti’s chronology, and can be easily translated into Sampson’s definition of the Late Neolithic70 and the Near Eastern Late Chalcolithic.

Table 1: The relative position of the Final Neolithic proposed in this book compared with the chronologies of Vagnetti, Tomkins and Sampson.

Terminology in this book

Vagnetti71 Tomkins72 (Knossos CC stratum)

Sampson73

FN II FN late FN IV (IC) ALN4/LN IIBFN I FN early FN III (IIA) ALN 3–4/LN IIBLN/FN I LN/FN FN II (IIB) ALN 3/LN IIALN LN FN I (III) ALN 1–2/LN IB

ChronologyControversies about terminology, and especially the confusion caused by unclear definitions and continuous change in definitions, constitute a significant problem in the understanding of the Final Neolithic/Late Neolithic II in the south Aegean. Another, equally disturbing, is the regionally uneven nature of the evidence available for both the relative and absolute chronology of the period. Especially notable is the case of the Dodecanesian sites, whose relative and absolute chronologies have experienced a number of substantial changes for the last 25 years (see Chapter 7). Another example of chronological misinterpretation in the past occurred regarding Stratum I (and to some degree also Stratum II) at Knossos (Central Court). These were for a long time regarded as earlier

69 Nowicki 2003.70 The entire FN in Crete, with its two phases, would overlap with Sampson LN IIb (ca. 3800–3200 BC), Sampson 2008a, 393–396.71 Vagnetti 1996.72 Tomkins 2007.73 Sampson 1984. It seems that ALN 4 was longer than the Cretan FN II and it may have overlapped partly with FN I. There is, however, a problem with Sampson’s phasing of the Cretan deposits and particularly with his squeezing of Vagnetti’s Final Neolithic early and late into a single phase. As will be shown later, the Faistos Neolithic should not be equaled with Sampson’s ALN 4. The ALN 4 term should be reserved for Vagnetti’s late Final Neolithic (here FN II), whereas ALN 3 should be seen as partly contemporary with Vagnetti’s early Final Neolithic (FN I). Faistos was inhab-ited through both FN I and II, thus it should be allocate in Sampson’s ALN 3 and 4, but probably only during LN IIb (according to Sampson 2008a, 393–396).



Chronology 71

than Neolithic Faistos, but recently redefined, re-dated and placed as in part contemporary with FN Faistos, in the transition between the Neolithic and Bronze Age.74 The absolute chronology of all the Aegean islands, including Crete, in the period is hard to fix because of the lack of radiocarbon dates and well-stratified datable imports from the Near East and Egypt.

The establishment of an absolute chronology for the sites discussed in this book is additionally difficult because most of the sites are dated on the basis of surface material only. However, the FN pottery can be securely placed at least within the broad FN I–II period (with the majority of the sites belonging to the second of these phases). The transition between FN II/LN IIb and the earliest EM I/EB I is better understood than it was several decades ago when many sites identified during archae-ological surveys were often dated to the joint FN–EB I periods (see above on the terminology). In Crete, the very distinctive characteristics of FN I and FN II pottery make surface material a relatively useful tool for the dating of individual sites. The possibility and importance of defining surface FN pottery in contrast to that of EM I was stressed by Haggis in relation to his Kavousi survey.75 But limited surface assemblages of FN II and earliest EM I date can be sometimes difficult to date more precisely. There is also a possible chronological overlap of pottery produced in two different technological traditions (FN I and FN II) often assumed to represent two chronological periods. The issue of overlaps of pottery “phases” is controversial, due to the predominant opinion that the particular pottery characteristics should reflect particular chronological period, perhaps with only minor regional differences/delays.76 However, the duration of the period in which an earlier (FN I) pottery technology/style/fashion was entirely replaced by a new (FN II) one depended on the character of processes or events which caused the pottery change. A transitional chronological period during which two technologically/stylistically different pottery groups were not only in use, but also produced together, may have lasted as long as a few generations. Some regions and some groups of people, for different reasons, may have been more resistant to pottery innovations than others.

This last remark is especially important for the dating of the sequence of settlement changes between FN I, FN II and EM I in Crete, because the latter were probably the results of immigra-tion processes, with the new technology of pottery manufacture being introduced from beyond the island. If the changes in pottery technology and styles were indeed introduced by foreign people the parallel existence of different pottery groups, as well as their regional isolation, might well have lasted longer than would be the case if the changes were indigenous.

In stratified contexts the first appearance of new pottery characteristics can be used as the marker of a new chronological period. However, the situation is more complicated when trying to date a site’s occupation on the basis of surface evidence only. In such a case the problem of chron-ological overlap of different pottery groups matters. Is the presence of pottery with FN I character-istics among surface material of mainly FN II date, the evidence that the site was occupied during two chronological periods, or the result of the use and/or production of both groups of pottery during the same period? There is no good stratified evidence in Crete that might shed more light on the question, and the problem has not been solved by new studies of the FN material, either at Knossos77 or Faistos.78 Some co-existence of FN I and II pottery can be expected in regions with a strong history of pre-FN II settlement, as for example in the Ierapetra Isthmus. On the other hand, this phenomenon was absent, or is difficult to identify, in the areas where FN II settlement seems

74 For the history of this problem see Tomkins 2007, 14–18; a redefinition of Strata II and I, their new subdivision into different stratigraphically layers IIB and IIA, and considerable changes in the description and interpretation of the stratigraphic sequence within Statum I, undertaken several decades after the excavation, require a cross-examination by new digging.75 Haggis 2005, 47.76 For some problems concerning the issue in the later periods in Crete see Momigliano 2007, 5.77 Tomkins 2007, 35–44.78 Di Tonto 2009.




to have expanded on previously very sparsely populated land, such as the East Siteia region, the southern coast of the Rethymnon Isthmus, and the Palaiochora region; here the FN II material is very rarely accompanied by FN I pottery (if at all).

Better understanding of the problem of overlaps between FN I and FN II pottery might clarify the circumstances in which some of the FN I sites were abandoned and some FN II settlements were founded. Continuity or discontinuity between FN I and II is a crucial issue for the reconstruction of chronological sequence in Crete in the fourth millennium BC. Comparative studies of the FN I and II material from the two largest Cretan sites, Knossos and Faistos, indicate considerable differences between the regions. Further studies in other parts of the island have confirmed this view.

Absolute chronology is more complicated. New evidence published in this book, and particu-larly comparisons of material culture and settlement characteristics, should help better dating com-parison of regions so far mainly researched in isolation. A thorough comparative analysis between FN Crete, LN II Dodecanese and LCh Anatolia might improve the relative chronology of individual sites and different areas of the Aegean, and help compare the Cretan FN sites with regions where more reliable absolute dates are available. To achieve that, however, more fieldwork is needed in the Dodecanese and coastal Anatolia.

Fixing reliable absolute dates for the Cretan FN is a difficult task. For the sake of clarity I will start my analysis by noting the highest and the lowest dates for the end of the FN and transition to the EB period. The highest was presented by Warren and Hankey, at around 3500 BC,79 and the lowest by Manning, who preferred 3100/3000 BC.80 The choice between these two dates has con-siderable consequences for the establishing of the beginning of the both Final Neolithic phases.

Regarding Warren’s and Hankey’s date a brief comment is needed about the relative position and dating of Stratum I at Knossos, which for a long time was regarded as preceding the Neolithic deposit at Faistos (see above). If that interpretation had been correct, Stratum I should be treated as a pre-FN I horizon. Warren and Hankey, however, believed that “the uppermost Neolithic Stratum I, and the latest Neolithic levels generally, comprise Final Neolithic.”81 Tomkins’ new chronological interpretation of Stratum I shifted it up to the transition between the Final Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age, and put its lowest substratum in his latest FN phase (Tomkins FN IV: 3300–3000 BC).82 In Tomkins’ chronology only the lowest substratum of Stratum I (IC) and Stratum II are contempo-rary with FN Faistos. Stratum IC is considerably later than the latest Neolithic C14 date obtained so far from Knossos (BM 716 from the northwestern slope of Kefala, Trench FF), also Stratum II postdates BM 716. Warren and Hankey located BM 716 early in the fourth millennium BC,83 and furthermore according to them “FN probably lasted to at least 3650/3500 BC on the evidence of BM 716’s lower 1sigma limit”.84 Unfortunately, BM 716 has a “big standard error”85 (about a half a millennium), and its use even for the general dating of the “late FN IB/early FN II context” at Knos-sos,86 brings more problems than solutions to the question of the beginning of the FN in Crete.87 In fact, BM 716 is of little value for fixing the absolute chronology of the Cretan FN, as it is less precise than approximate dates calculated on the basis of the relative sequence of LN–FN I–FN II deposits and settlement changes in Crete in the broader east Aegean context.

According to Tomkins’ comparative analysis of the Neolithic pottery from Faistos and Knossos, the foundation of Faistos and Gortina (and thus the beginning of the Final Neolithic in Crete, as

79 Warren and Hankey 1989.80 Manning 1995; 2008.81 Warren and Hankey 1989, 12.82 Momigliano 2007, 7.83 Warren and Hankey 1989, 121.84 Warren and Hankey 1989, 121.85 Evans 1994, 18.86 Tomkins 2007, 35.87 Tomkins 2007, 38.



Chronology 73

proposed in this book) probably took place during Stratum IIB at Knossos (Tomkins FN II), close to (but post-dating) the BM 716 date, with its broad range ca. 4000–3500 BC. In such circumstances an early date for the beginning of the Bronze Age, around 3500 BC, becomes doubtful because it does not leave enough time for two FN phases and all the development observed during that time in Crete. If the FN occupation of Faistos started after the lower limit of BM 716, the century 3800–3700 BC seems the earliest possible date and the century 3600–3500 BC the latest. The best compromise at the moment seems to be 3700–3600 BC.

There is no reliable evidence for the estimation of the duration of the two phases of the FN in Crete. The period must have lasted several centuries, however, considering the thickness of the deposits in Faistos, and relevant deposits in Knossos (Tomkins’ Central Court Stratum IIB and IIA and IC),88 and the fact that during the later phase (FN II) of the period an entirely new set of pottery technologies/styles/shapes appeared, and developed further in very sophisticated EM I wares. New light is shed on the duration of the FN II period in Crete, as defined in this book, by the sites presented in the gazetteer below. The analysis of settlement and its changes indicates a complex picture of initial settling down, expansion, relocation, territorial organization, abandonment and nucleation. It is obvious that all these changes, as observed for example in the East Siteia area, would have required time, probably not less than two or even three centuries. It would be much more problematic to estimate the duration of the FN I period; the number of sites is much smaller and there is little complexity (recorded as yet) in FN I settlement apart from Knossos and Faistos. Whether this is an argument for a short duration of FN I it is dangerous to speculate – the Faistos and Mesara evidence tends to suggest a different scenario.

Returning to the above discussed date of the beginning of the Bronze Age in Crete, Warren and Hankey pointed to the many links between EM I material and that of Troy I and stated that “the Troy I dates above indicate a beginning for EM I by at least 3000/2900 BC”.89 Thus, a six hundred year gap still remained in the Warren/Hankey chronology between the earliest possible end of FN and the latest possible beginning of EM I. There was no further basis of evidence on which to draw any more precise line between these periods, and Warren and Hankey wrote that “with Cretan FN lasting to at least 3500 BC (see above) EM I will have begun within 3500 BC–3000/2900 BC …” They supplemented this relatively secure date with a very tentative remark, as follows: “quite possibly early in that range, given some pre-Troy I links”.90 We can expect this “early in that range” to be somewhere between 3500–3300 rather than around 3500 BC.

Manning pointed that “there is at present little evidence for the date of the beginning of the EBA in Crete, the Cyclades or Southern Greece” and later on gave arguments for “a date of c. 3100–3000 BC for the beginning of the EBA in the southern Aegean”.91 Manning’s remark on “an appar-ent ‘gap’… in the fourth millennium BC across much of central and southern Europe, the Aegean and Anatolia” does not concern Crete because no radiocarbon dates have been taken from sites which on the basis of their pottery would be included in Vagnetti’s Final Neolithic, which certainly covered much of the fourth millennium BC. In Crete, there is no curious fourth millennium gap in the radiocarbon samples, but there is a research gap in the sequence of excavated settlements. Knossos B 716 is in my opinion still Late Neolithic, and with its huge error margin is, as mentioned above, not helpful for dating the sites discussed in this book.92 Unfortunately, three recently exca-

88 Tomkins 2007, 35–44.89 Warren and Hankey 1989, 122.90 Warren and Hankey 1989, 122.91 Manning 1995, 168.92 For the latest radiocarbon date from Knossos (BM 716) see Warren and Hankey, 175, and Manning 1995, 170. Man-ning pointed out that the so called fourth millennium gap for radiocarbon dates is “a product of the sparse evidence at present, rather than of cultural or historical processes” (Manning 1995, 169).




vated FN sites which might help to solve the above discussed chronological problems, Azoria,93 Katalimata,94 and Petras,95 have not yielded good organic samples for C14 dating.

In the Anatolian and Syrian contexts the sites discussed here would fall within the late stages of the Late Chalcolithic period (LCh 3–4), and before the beginning of the Bronze Age. They are certainly pre-Troy I and are presumably partly contemporaneous with Kumtepe IB and later phases of Late Chalcolithic Beycesultan and Afrodisias. Radiocarbon dates for those areas indicate that the dating for the transition between the early (LCh 1–2) and late (LCh 3–4/5) stages of the Late Chalcolithic should be put around 3800/3650 and for the end of the Late Chalcolithic somewhere between 3100 and 3000 BC.96

From the relative chronology point of view there are no reasons why the EBA might have started later in western Anatolia than in the southern Aegean. The processes recorded in these two regions must have been directly related to each other and contemporary. The transitions between LCh 4/5–EB I in western Anatolia, LN IIb–EB I in the Dodecanese, and FN–EM I in Crete, and FN–EC I in the Cyclades, probably took place around the same time, somewhere between 3500 and 3000 BC. The date 3100/3000 BC seems to be at present preferred,97 but the possibility that it is one or two centuries earlier cannot be entirely rejected. The earlier date, 3100 BC, would fit even better in the EB I sequence of settlement and pottery development in Crete, than a date around 3000 BC. The EM I period seems to have been long, and to have had at least two well differentiated phases in both aspects (settlement and pottery). The first phase (EM I early) continued the FN II settle-ment pattern with only minor alternations, but the progress was impressive in architectural skills, metallurgy, pottery production and settlement consolidation. This phase must have lasted for at least 150 to 200 years. The second phase of EM I shows a substantial settlement reorganization and fast development of social stratification. This could not be achieved within a period shorter than 150–200 years. If 300 to 400 years are accepted for EB I, this would allow an EB II start date around 2700 BC only if the EB I began between 3100 and 3000 BC. The FN II period seems to have been shorter and the estimate given above, of 200–300 years, judging from the character of the sites and settlement organization, would fit the available data.

The date of the transition between FN I and FN II, with the above reservation about a possible overlap, is the most speculative of all the dates proposed for the FN period in Crete. At present it can be only estimated by adding a hypothetical 200 to 300 years of FN II to the date of the beginning of the EBA (3100/3000 BC). A date between 3400 and 3300 BC seems to be the most reasonable com-promise between different chronologies, but it has to be treated as tentative, like all other absolute dates discussed above, with a margin of 100 to 200 years.

An important addition to the discussion on the FN chronology is data concerning settlement patterns and their changes. Though pottery is the major tool for fixing the chronology, chronologi-cal estimation based on pottery cannot contradict the picture yielded by studies of settlement. The character of FN settlement in Crete, but also in the other parts of the Aegean, indicates a sequence of processes and events characterized by insecurity, instability, relocations, abandonments, a large scale “colonization,” and a development of territorial organization. All this must have lasted many generations, but the question is how many? More evidence on that issue will be presented in other parts of this book.

To sum up, I think the beginning of the FN I in Crete should be seen as coinciding with the foundation of the settlements at Faistos and Gortina, and an absolute date for this can be tenta-

93 Haggis et al. 2007.94 Nowicki 2008b.95 Papadatos 2008.96 Manning 1995, 145; Yakar 1985, 103 and 115. Warren and Hankey (1989, 121) date Troy I “to within either side of 2900 BC”, Akerman and Schwartz 2003, 186; Sagona and Zimansky 2009, 155 and 172.97 Akerman and Schwartz 2003, 186; Sagona and Zimansky 2009, 155 and 172.



Chronology 75

tively proposed at 3700/3600 BC. The shift of the Mesara population to defensible places must have been caused by a significant change in circumstances, extending beyond Crete, and it is this which deserves to be treated as the marker of a new period, instead of some minor changes in pottery between Strata IV and III at Knossos.98 Such a historical concept of the Final Neolithic can be more robustly defended against previous criticism of the term. It requires, however, that we view pottery indicators with a rather different emphasis, with Faistos, and not Knossos, being treated as the primary source of information on new features which developed at this period. If new evidence (including new radiocarbon dates), become available from Faistos or other contemporary sites, any proposed date should be considered in close relation to them. The transition between the FN I and FN II is marked on one hand by a sudden appearance of many new settlements, especially on the Cretan coast and in the East Siteia region, and on the other hand, by very distinctive changes in pottery as recorded by Tomkins between Stratum IIA and IC. The absolute date for this transition is purely hypothetical and will have to be adjusted when new radiocarbon dates and better parallels with the Near East become available. The most commonly accepted date of 3100/3000 BC for the end of the FN in Crete is linked with the beginning of the EBA in the Anatolian chronology and cannot be manipulated on its own.

98 Tomkins 2007, 32–33.




Table 2: Absolute chronology as proposed in this book, with the FN lasting between 3700/3600 and 3100 BC and the transition from FN I to FN II somewhere between 3400 and 3300 BC.

CRETE after YEARS CRETE DODECANESE WEST ANATOLIA SYRIA

Tomkins 2007

BC This book After Sampson 2007

After Sagona & Zimansky 2009

After Akkermans & Schwartz 2003

EM I 2900 EB (EM) I EB I EB I EB I

FN IV 3000 3000LCh 5 LCh 5

3100 FN II

3200 3250LCh 4

FN III 3300 LN IIb

3400 FN I/FN II 3450LCh 3 LCh 4

3500

FN II 3600 FN I LCh 3

3700 LN 3650LCh 2LCh 1

3800 LN IIa

FN IB 3900 LCh 2

4000

4100

FN IA 4200 LN Ib LCh 1

4300 4300MCh

4400 Late Ubaid

LN II 4500

This table shows substantial differences in the interpretation and dating of the Final Neolithic in Crete as I proposed in 2003,99 and Tomkins in 2007.100 There is, however, a significant agreement on the distinctiveness of the latest phase of the FN (FN II: Nowicki; FN IV: Tomkins) as opposed to the early FN (FN I: Nowicki; FN I–III: Tomkins). In short, the term FN II used in this book is synonymous with Tomkins’ FN IV, and FN I here represents Tomkins FN II (a part of it) and III. A remaining controversial matter is the length and the structure of the earliest FN phase(s): should this be treated as a single FN I period (Nowicki) or divided into four different phases, FN IA, IB, II, and III (Tomkins)? These differences mostly affect the absolute dating of the beginning of the FN in Crete (here: 3700/3600 BC; Tomkins: 4500 BC) – not so much the transition between the early and late phases and the end of the FN period (here and Tomkins: 3100/3000 BC).

99 Nowicki 2003, 64–65; this system was an elaboration of the FN division into early and late by Vagnetti 1973a, and Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 161.100 Tomkins 2007, 13.



final neolithic crete and the southeast aegean () || chapter 4: the final neolithic in crete:...

Documents