Minoanisation in its earliest phase

Analysis of variability in how Cycladic communities adopted and adapted Cretan and Minoanising forms of material culture is particularly important for the earliest stages of the phenomenon. The beginning of the Minoanisation phenomenon has typically been dated to the later MBA, when Cretan imports were relatively common at Cycladic sites, and local pottery styles were influenced by Cretan ones (Scholes Reference Scholes1956, 38–9; Davis Reference Davis1984; Barber Reference Barber1981; Reference Barber1984; Davis Reference Davis1986; Papagiannopoulou Reference Papagiannopoulou1991; Broodbank Reference Broodbank2004; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou Reference Knappett, Nikolakopoulou, Laffineur and Greco2005; Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008; Nikolakopoulou Reference Nikolakopoulou2009; Reference Nikolakopoulou2013). Cretan technologies and practices were adopted at all three major Cycladic settlements in the later MBA, particularly in the realm of weaving (Cutler Reference Cutler, M.-L. and Laffineur2012) and pottery production and consumption patterns (Knappett and Nikolakopoulou Reference Knappett, Nikolakopoulou, Laffineur and Greco2005; Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008; Berg Reference Berg2007a; Reference Berg2007b; Hilditch Reference Hilditch2008; Gorogianni, Abell and Hilditch Reference Gorogianni, Abell and Hilditch2016). In addition, the use of Cretan Linear A on locally produced objects (Caskey Reference Caskey1970; Karnava Reference Karnava, Brodie, Doole, Gavalas and Renfrew2008) and, perhaps, a lead weight based on Cretan metrological standards (Davis Reference Davis1986, no. Q-1) first appeared at Ayia Irini in the later MBA.

The later MBA was a period that witnessed major changes on Crete as well, with the breakdown of the cultural regionalism of MM II and emergence of more unified cultural, economic and perhaps political power at Knossos, although the latter continues to be an area of much debate (recently, e.g. Knappett and Schoep Reference Knappett2000; Schoep Reference Schoep, Driessen, Schoep and Laffineur2002; Adams Reference Adams2006; Bevan Reference Bevan2010; Carinci and La Rosa Reference Carinci and La Rosa2013; Rethemiotakis and Christakis Reference Rethemiotakis and Christakis2013). Major social, economic and perhaps political changes in MM III Crete probably resulted in new Cretan strategies of exchange and interaction with the Cyclades, a possibility that has been discussed in detail by Wiener (Reference Wiener and Gale1991; Reference Wiener and Koehl2013), as well as Knappett and Nikolakopoulou (Reference Knappett, Nikolakopoulou, Laffineur and Greco2005; Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008). Imported Melian/Theran jars and jugs in MM III deposits at Knossos have been cited as evidence for changing relationships between the Cyclades and Knossos in particular, since Cycladic imports from other parts of Crete in the same period are rare (Evans Reference Evans1921, 557–61; MacGillivray Reference MacGillivray1984; Knappett Reference Knappett, Tampakaki and Kaloutsakis2006). The concentration of Cycladic imports at MM III Knossos also marks a shift from the previous period, when Cycladic imports were rare throughout Crete (MacGillivray Reference MacGillivray1984, 153; Sotirakopoulou Reference Sotirakopoulou, Philippa-Touchais, Touchais, Voutsaki and Wright2010, 834–5; Van de Moortel Reference Van de Moortel, Philippa-Touchais, Touchais, Voutsaki and Wright2010, 880). The later MC imports at Knossos have been interpreted as evidence either of tribute (Evans Reference Evans1921, 561; Scholes Reference Scholes1956, 38; MacGillivray Reference MacGillivray1984, 156) or of the intensification and increased valuation of contacts between Knossos and the Cyclades (Knappett Reference Knappett, Tampakaki and Kaloutsakis2006; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008, 36–7). The presence of not only Cycladic, but also Dodecanesian and Milesian imported pottery at MM IIIA Knossos suggests that palatial elites there were actively cultivating new exchange relationships with the wider Aegean in that period (Knappett, Mathioudaki and Macdonald Reference Knappett, Mathioudaki and Macdonald2013, 16).

As Wiener (Reference Wiener and Gale1991; Reference Wiener and Koehl2013) argued, the development of new Knossian strategies for engaging with the Cyclades in MM III perhaps should be expected, since the Cyclades provided access to not only island resources and products, but also mainland ones, via the Western String trade route (Davis Reference Davis, J.L. and J.F1979; Cherry and Davis Reference Cherry and Davis1982); among these, significantly, were the ore deposits of Lavrion, which seem to have been a major resource in the MBA–LBA Aegean (Stos-Gale and Macdonald Reference Stos-Gale, Macdonald and Gale1991). Knappett (Reference Knappett, Tampakaki and Kaloutsakis2006) and Knappett and Nikolakopoulou (Reference Knappett, Nikolakopoulou, Laffineur and Greco2005; Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008) have also argued, however, for Cycladic agency in promoting new relationships with Knossos and enabling increased interaction between the Cyclades and Crete.

The degree of Cycladic agency in the development and intensification of Minoanisation during the later MBA was addressed in Davis's (Reference Davis1986) study of Period V at Ayia Irini. In the conclusions to the volume, Davis (Reference Davis1986, 105–7) laid out a case for the continuity of settlement and culture at Ayia Irini. He argued that there was no evidence for a military takeover or for the presence of a Cretan colony or enclave within the Period V settlement, given the continuity of material culture and technologies from Period IV into Period V, the remarkable heterogeneity of material culture from Period V deposits, the lack of some features of Cretan assemblages and the immediate rebuilding and expansion of the Period V fortification wall in the early phases of Period VI. He argued instead that the adoption of Minoanising technologies and material culture at Ayia Irini was driven primarily by economic motivations, as Aegean trade intensified and Keians tried to compete in island markets dominated by Cretan products and craft specialists (Davis Reference Davis1984; Davis and Lewis Reference Davis, Lewis, Knapp and Stech1985; Davis Reference Davis1986, 105–7). Certainly, the local production of Minoanising objects in the islands is a major factor in the archaeological visibility of the Minoanisation phenomenon in later MC assemblages (Davis Reference Davis1984; Papagiannopoulou Reference Papagiannopoulou1991).

Although Davis emphasised economic reasons for the adoption of Cretan technologies to make Cretan products, the problem of why such products became appealing to Cycladic islanders in the first place remains obscure. Davis and Gorogianni (Reference Davis, Gorogianni, Brodie, Gavalas and Doole2008) argued that the desire for Minoanising objects in Cycladic communities was driven by increased social stratification and competition between Cycladic elites, who adopted Minoanising material culture and practices in order to demonstrate connections with Cretan ways of doing things, which came to represent some measure of elite status. But, if Davis and Gorogianni (Reference Davis, Gorogianni, Brodie, Gavalas and Doole2008) are correct that Cretan ways of doing things become enmeshed with elite ones, why did this process escalate so significantly in the later MC?

Trade and interaction between Crete and the Cyclades in the MBA

One argument is that trade between Crete and the Cyclades intensified during the later MBA and that the increasing interaction and availability of Cretan objects drove changes in social values in the Cyclades (Knappett and Nikolakopoulou Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008; Nikolakopoulou Reference Nikolakopoulou2009). Knappett and Nikolakopoulou (Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008, 37–8) reported an increase in Cretan imports in Phase C deposits at Akrotiri and argued that such objects themselves acted as a colonial force, reshaping values and the social context of consumption as they were used.

While their argument that Cretan objects played an important role in ‘colonising’ the Cyclades is compelling, it may not apply equally to all island communities. A recent assessment of Cretan imports at Ayia Irini suggests that MM imports made up a slightly smaller proportion of the assemblage in Period V than in the previous period (Gorogianni and Abell Reference Gorogianni, Abell, Hilditch, Beestman-Kruijshaar, Revello Lami, Rückl and Ximeriforthcoming). Of the approximately 25% of the Period IV assemblage which seems to have been imported (Overbeck Reference Overbeck1982, 40; Abell Reference Abell2014b, 353–4), Crego calculated that ‘Minoanising’ ware was nearly twice as common as the next most common imported ware, Grey Minyan, from the mainland, in all but the earliest phase of the period (Table 2; Crego Reference Crego, Felten, Gauss and Smetana2007, 337 fig. 4). Although Overbeck (Reference Overbeck1982; Reference Overbeck1989a) and Crego (Reference Crego, Felten, Gauss and Smetana2007) did not distinguish between Minoan imports from Crete and Minoanising imports from elsewhere, macroscopic fabric analysis in Area B suggests that much of their ‘Minoanising’ ware category is made up of Cretan products, the vast majority of which are reported to be miscellaneous jars, jugs and medium–large closed vessels, both painted and plain (Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989a; Abell Reference Abell2014b, 356–9, 364–5). In Period IV, that is, it seems that local interest in Cretan pottery was focused primarily on products transported in ceramic containers, rather than on the ceramics themselves. Nevertheless, the importation of Cretan ceramics and other products was not, at least at Ayia Irini, a new feature of the later MC period.

Table 2.

Relative percentages of imported wares in Period IV subphases and Period V, after Crego Reference Crego, Felten, Gauss and Smetana2007, 337, fig. 4 and calculations based on count of vessels reported in Davis Reference Davis1986.

An additional aspect of interaction between Keians and Cretans in Period IV is relevant for considering the changes in material culture that occurred in Period V. The adoption of Cretan technologies like the potter's wheel and warp-weighted loom by Cycladic communities has been interpreted as a fundamental component of the Minoanisation phenomenon in the later MBA, since these techniques first appeared at Phylakopi and Akrotiri in that period, and they came into common use at Ayia Irini (Davis Reference Davis1984; Davis and Lewis Reference Davis, Lewis, Knapp and Stech1985; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou Reference Knappett, Nikolakopoulou, Laffineur and Greco2005; Berg Reference Berg2007a; Reference Berg2007b; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008).Footnote ³ Unlike Akrotiri and Phylakopi, however, these technologies were used at Ayia Irini already in the earliest phases of Period IV, well before the traditional start of the Minoanisation phenomenon in the Cyclades. The adoption of these technologies, which require a lengthy period of apprenticeship to master, strongly suggests that long-lasting and direct contact took place between Keian and Cretan craftspeople in Period IV, probably enabled through the mobility of some Cretan craftspeople (Abell Reference Abell2014a).

Locally produced, wheel-fashioned ceramics, Cretan-style loomweights and Minoanising cooking vessels were rare in Period IV deposits (Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989a). Most local ceramic and textile production employed non-Minoanising techniques and, at least in the case of pottery, resulted primarily in non-Minoanising objects. There is no obvious Cretan influence in Period IV burial practices, architecture or other aspects of local society. Thus, despite good evidence for exchange and the mobility of at least a few craftspeople between Kea and Crete in Period IV, the community as a whole cannot be considered as ‘Minoanised’, at least in the sense that this term is generally used to describe the later MBA–LBA Cyclades.

The earlier MBA relationship between Kea and Crete seems to have been rather different from other contemporary Creto-Cycladic relations. At Akrotiri and Phylakopi, Cretan technologies were not in use (Knappett and Nikolakopoulou Reference Knappett, Nikolakopoulou, Laffineur and Greco2005; Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008; Berg Reference Berg2007a; Reference Berg2007b; Cutler Reference Cutler, M.-L. and Laffineur2012). At Akrotiri, Cretan imports from Phase A contexts were relatively rare, increased in Phase B and reached a peak in Phase C (Nikolakopoulou Reference Nikolakopoulou2009, 33; pers. comm.). The situation is somewhat less clear at Phylakopi, where Papagiannopoulou (Reference Papagiannopoulou1991, 119) reported a decrease in Cretan imports from earlier to later MC, based on rarer MM IIIA than MM II imports. However, as Hood (Reference Hood, Renfrew, Brodie, Morris and Scarre2007, 250) noted in his study of Minoan imports at Phylakopi, MM IIIA is difficult to date closely based on stylistic analysis alone, which may have resulted in an over-representation of datable MM II in comparison with MM IIIA imports at that site. On the other hand, Hood (Reference Hood, Renfrew, Brodie, Morris and Scarre2007, 248, 253) also argues that MM imports in general are more common at Ayia Irini than at Phylakopi, and Berg (Reference Berg2007b, 111 fig. 33), although she does not discuss the earlier MC period, reports that imports were consistently less than 5% of the assemblage from later MC–LC II at Phylakopi. Similarly, imports were very rare at earlier MC Paroikia on Paros, while Minoan or Minoanising imports in particular were almost non-existent (Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989b, 14–15, 18–19, 21–4). In sum, of the major Cycladic sites of the earlier MC period, the material culture of Ayia Irini differs in the presence of more imported ceramics generally, more Cretan and/or Minoanising imports in particular and good evidence for direct interaction and apprenticeship between Keian and Cretan craftspeople.

It seems likely that these differences are related to the role of Ayia Irini in processing and providing access to Lavrion metals in Aegean exchange networks (Davis Reference Davis, J.L. and J.F1979; Gale Reference Gale, Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian1998). Over the course of the MBA–LBA, the economic base of Ayia Irini seems to have been rooted in the role of the town as an exchange hub linking culturally diverse regional networks of central and southern mainland Greece, Aegina and the Cyclades, as well as Crete. It is likely that people were drawn to the area in order to access resources from Lavrion, which was a prominent source of metals for the wider Aegean throughout the Bronze Age (Davis Reference Davis, J.L. and J.F1979; Stos-Gale and Macdonald Reference Stos-Gale, Macdonald and Gale1991). The presence of metals and metallurgical debris in deposits of all phases at Ayia Irini attests to the role of the community not only as a stopover for people on their way to Lavrion, but also as a location where metals were processed and probably exchanged (Cummer and Schofield Reference Cummer and Schofield1984; Davis Reference Davis1986; Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989a; Wilson Reference Wilson1999; Schofield Reference Schofield2011). Accordingly, residents of Ayia Irini seem to have had better access to wide-ranging exchange networks in the earlier MBA than did residents of Phylakopi or Akrotiri.

As with these other Cycladic communities, however, the later MBA marked a significant change in the material culture of the community, despite little change in the proportion of Cretan imports in the assemblage. Given the evidence discussed above for Keian–Cretan trade and interaction already in the earlier MC period, however, it is unlikely that an intensification of trade with Crete and the concomitant availability of more abundant Cretan products was the primary impetus for shifting values at Ayia Irini during the later MC period, although it may well have impacted residents of Akrotiri as suggested by Knappett and Nikolakopoulou (Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008).

Sample and methodology

Since ceramics make up the most abundant dataset in Period V, the discussion below focuses on the pottery catalogued in Davis's (Reference Davis1986) publication. Nearly all sherds of Period V are presented by Davis (Reference Davis1986, 4), which ensures that analysis of his volume is not biased substantially by selection of particular kinds of ceramics for publication. On the other hand, some pottery was discarded prior to publication as part of the typical post-excavation processing procedure at Ayia Irini (Gorogianni Reference Gorogianni2008, 102–5; Gorogianni Reference Gorogianni2013). In Period V, nearly 60% of the assemblage (roughly, by volume) seems to have been discarded (Gorogianni and Abell Reference Gorogianni, Abell, Hilditch, Beestman-Kruijshaar, Revello Lami, Rückl and Ximeriforthcoming, table 2; for specific deposits, see also Gorogianni Reference Gorogianni2008). Analysis of excavation records and the remaining ceramic lots in the Northern Sector and in Area B have demonstrated that coarse, plain wares made up the majority of discarded pottery, regardless of chronological period (Gorogianni Reference Gorogianni2008, 351; Abell Reference Abell2014b, 10–12). Given the relatively coarse nature of local Keian fabrics, this pattern of discard probably affected primarily local plain wares, especially larger – and, correspondingly – coarser vessels, particularly when chronologically or typologically diagnostic features like rims or bases were not preserved (Gorogianni Reference Gorogianni2008, 351; Abell Reference Abell2014b, 10–12). The preserved dataset, which is made up primarily of feature and/or decorated sherds in imported and local ceramic wares, should, nevertheless, be reasonably well suited to a discussion of Minoanisation in the ceramic assemblage, since the major category of missing evidence – plain and coarse local sherds with few distinctive shape or decorative characteristics – is a ceramic category that is unlikely to be especially sensitive to changes in ceramic fashions.

Davis's (Reference Davis1986) catalogue is grouped by ware, which he assigned to a broad region of production based on typo-stylistic parallels and macro- and microscopic fabric analyses (Davis and Williams Reference Davis and Williams1981). Red-brown, moderately fine to coarse, schist-rich Keian fabrics are easily distinguishable from most non-local fabrics on the basis of colour, texture and inclusions. Ongoing fabric analysis of Period V deposits in the Northern Sector, a collaboration of Jill Hilditch with Evi Gorogianni and Rodney Fitzsimons, suggests that ceramics arrived from more regions than Davis hypothesised, but, in large part, Davis's assignation of provenance remains useful, with imports from Crete, Melos and/or Thera and mainland Greece being the most common in Period V deposits. This basic pattern has been confirmed in the most recent macroscopic fabric studies (Gorogianni Reference Gorogianni2008; Gorogianni and Abell Reference Gorogianni, Abell, Hilditch, Beestman-Kruijshaar, Revello Lami, Rückl and Ximeriforthcoming; Hilditch pers. comm.).Footnote ⁴

The goal of this paper is not to provide a detailed assessment of the precise trade partners to whom residents of Ayia Irini had access. Rather, it considers broadly what kinds of functions and shapes were represented in imported wares, as well as the proportions of Minoanising and non-Minoanising elements in the assemblage overall. In particular, I am interested not just in the make-up of the Minoanising assemblage, which Davis has already established, but in how non-Cretan imports and local products fit into that assemblage, as well as what kinds of different practices or interaction patterns are represented by the non-Minoanising component of the assemblage. To accomplish this goal, I counted the number of vessels reported by Davis for each Period V deposit according to shape and ware; entries that included multiple vessels without specific quantification were counted according to the lowest number of vessels possible. So, for example, ‘several’ jars were counted as two jars; five tripod legs were counted as two tripod vessels and so on. The results of the quantification are presented in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. This quantification serves to highlight similarities and differences in the kinds of ceramics imported from different regions, as well as in the popularity of particular shapes, regardless of ware.

Fig. 3.

(a) Number and (b) relative percentage of vessels by ware and shape based on count of catalogued pottery in Davis Reference Davis1986. * = Minoanising shapes. Bridge-spouted/hole-mouthed (Brdg-sp/h-mth) jars are considered as Minoanising, despite the fact that some (a minority) are Cycladic variants that are not clear imitations of the Cretan version of this shape. (*) = categories of bowl, cup, jar and jug that include both Minoanising and non-Minoanising versions; vessels that can be classed only as open or closed are not well enough preserved to be tied to specific shapes (Minoanising or otherwise). Hdl-less = handleless; Oval-mth = oval-mouthed; S&B = slipped and burnished.

Fig. 4.

(a) Number and (b) relative percentage of local vessels by ware and general shape category based on count of catalogued pottery in Davis Reference Davis1986. Brdg-sp/h-mth = bridge-spouted/hole-mouthed.

Fig. 5.

(a) Number and (b) relative percentages of imported vessels by ware and general shape category based on count of catalogued pottery in Davis Reference Davis1986. Brdg-sp/h-mth = bridge-spouted/hole-mouthed; S&B = slipped and burnished.

Analysis of published Period V deposits: Local wares

The Minoanisation of the Period V ceramic assemblage is apparent especially in the many local versions of Cretan shapes, whereas the local Period IV assemblage had been dominated by a variety of bowl, goblet and jar shapes that are paralleled elsewhere in the Cyclades, Aegina and mainland Greece (Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989a). Although Minoanising shapes and decorative styles were common in Period V, they were not the only ones made by local potters (Figs. 3, 4, 6).

When all local wares are taken into consideration, the most common shape in Period V deposits, by far, was the Minoanising handleless cup (Figs. 3, 6a ). Proportionally, however, the shape did not form as substantial a part of the drinking assemblage as it did in Periods VI and VII; although Davis reported 179 handleless cups from deposits throughout the site, thousands of such vessels were deposited in House A and the Western Sector alone in Periods VI and VII (Cummer and Schofield Reference Cummer and Schofield1984; Schofield Reference Schofield2011). The two most common open shapes apart from handleless cups were KeftiuFootnote ⁵ cups (Figs. 3, 6b ) and Cycladic cups (Figs. 3, 6d ). Other relatively popular shapes were rounded cups, goblets, baking pans or trays and tripods, of which all but goblets are Minoanising shapes (Figs. 3, 6c, g, s–u ). Tripod jars and trays are perhaps under-represented in Davis's (Reference Davis1986) publication, since tripod fragments were common at the site and, thus, regularly discarded by the excavators.

Nearly all common imported shapes were also manufactured locally (Table 3; Figs. 3, 6). A few shapes were more common among the imported than the local wares: panelled cups, common in Melian/Theran wares; hole-mouthed or bridge-spouted jars, most common in Melian/Theran and Minoan wares; beaked jugs, most common in Melian/Theran wares; lentoid jugs and oval-mouthed amphorae, present only in Minoan wares; and hydriae and kantharoi, present in mainland or unknown wares (Figs. 3, 6d, f, j–l, o, p ). Other shapes common among imports but less well represented in local wares in Davis's (Reference Davis1986) catalogue include both large and small closed vessels and miscellaneous open vessels for which a clear profile was not identifiable. This pattern in the current data, especially with respect to large closed vessels, probably reflects post-excavation discard patterns that privileged decorated ceramics, as well as fabrics and wares that appeared to be imported over coarse local ones (compare the proportion of closed to small open vessels preserved in local versus imported wares in Figs. 4a , 5a ).

Table 3.

Common tableware shapes in Period V (after Davis Reference Davis1986).

Local wares in Period V deposits were classified according to surface treatment. In addition to plain and burnished wares, two painted wares existed: Yellow-Slipped Ware, in which the surface of the vessel was coated in yellow slip and painted with designs in dark paints (sometimes bichrome), and Painted Ware, in which dark or light paint was used for designs either on the untreated surface of the clay or, more rarely, over a dark slip. Although similar kinds of surface treatment are attested in Period IV, burnished ware was much more common than painted wares (especially among tablewares), whereas burnished ware became significantly less popular in Period V.

In Period V, Cycladic cups were common in local burnished ware, as were goblets (Figs. 3, 6d, g ); both shapes are derived from popular open shapes of the previous period. The most common shapes in Painted Ware were Minoanising rounded cups and miscellaneous closed vessels with unidentifiable profiles (Figs. 3, 6c ). Keftiu cups, rounded cups and miscellaneous closed vessels were the most common in Yellow-Slipped Ware (Figs. 3, 6b, c ). In general, burnished ware included primarily non-Minoanising shapes, while painted wares included primarily Minoanising ones. Thus, the increase in the popularity of painted wares in comparison to burnished ware in Period V seems to be tied to the increased popularity of Minoanising shapes (Davis Reference Davis1986, 85).

Fig. 6.

Schematic of selected Period V shapes based on illustrations in Davis Reference Davis1986. Non-Minoanising shapes are outlined, Minoanising ones are filled. (a) handleless cup; (b) Keftiu cup; (c) rounded cup; (d) Cycladic cup; (e) panelled cup; (f) kantharos; (g) goblet; (h) pedestalled bowl; (i) Cycladic spouted jar; (j) bridge-spouted/hole-mouthed jar; (k) beaked jug; (l) lentoid jug; (m) juglet; (n) trefoil-mouthed jug; (o) oval-mouthed amphora; (p) hydria; (q) stick-handled lamp; (r) pedestalled lamp; (s) baking tray; (t) tripod tray; (u) tripod jar.

Most published Minoanising vessels, however, were not painted in imitation of Cretan light-on-dark (LoD), polychrome, or dark-on-light (DoL) styles and were, instead, left undecorated. Plain ware was by far the most common local ware in Davis's (Reference Davis1986) publication (Figs. 3, 4). Nearly all Minoanising and non-Minoanising shapes are represented, with the exception of a few, like pedestalled bowls and panelled cups (Fig. 6e, h ). The most popular Minoanising shapes, including Keftiu cups, were usually plain (Fig. 6b ). Only rounded cups were more commonly decorated than plain (Fig. 6c ). Among non-Minoanising shapes, Cycladic cups were also common in plain ware (Fig. 6d ). It is likely that this pattern reflects actual production patterns, rather than being an effect of post-excavation discard practices, since decorated sherds were more likely to be kept than plain ones.

The increased preference for plain tablewares in Period V compared to Period IV is noteworthy. In Period IV, tablewares were more common in burnished ware than plain ware, which was used primarily for larger closed, cooking or utilitarian shapes, although a few plain tablewares are reported from Period IV deposits of all phases (Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989a; Abell Reference Abell2014b, fig. 177). The shift in local ceramic production in Period V was not, therefore, limited to merely replacing traditional burnished shapes with direct imitations of Minoan vessels as a marker of elite status, since high-quality imported Minoan ceramics in the Cyclades were typically painted, especially in the LoD or polychrome styles (Davis Reference Davis1986; Hood Reference Hood, Renfrew, Brodie, Morris and Scarre2007; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou Reference Knappett and Nikolakopoulou2008). Plain and less highly burnished tablewares became more common in the latest phase of Period IV (IVc), which suggests that the change in production in Period V was a relatively gradual one (Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989a).Footnote ⁶ Finally, since some local products of Period IV incorporated the use of white or polychrome paint on a dark ground, it must have been possible for local potters in Period V to manufacture more direct imitations of LoD or polychrome painted Cretan ceramics, if they wished. The fact that they did not do so suggests that factors other than increased accessibility to or desirability of Cretan dark-ground pottery impacted local ceramic production choices in this period.

Analysis of Period V deposits: Imports

In addition to changes in local production, Period V also witnessed a shift in import patterns. The most common imported wares in Period V were Cretan and Melian/Theran wares, while mainland wares were rarer (Table 2, Fig. 5) (Davis Reference Davis1986; Gorogianni and Abell Reference Gorogianni, Abell, Hilditch, Beestman-Kruijshaar, Revello Lami, Rückl and Ximeriforthcoming). In contrast, in Period IV, mainland wares were only somewhat less common than Minoan wares, with Melian/Theran (i.e. Cycladic) wares being comparatively rare (Table 2). The major change in import patterns from Period IV to V at Ayia Irini, therefore, was not a shift in the proportion of imported Cretan pottery, but rather, a sharp decrease in mainland imports alongside an increase in Melian/Theran imports (Gorogianni and Abell Reference Gorogianni, Abell, Hilditch, Beestman-Kruijshaar, Revello Lami, Rückl and Ximeriforthcoming). A decrease in mainland imports – at least in the form of Grey Minyan ware – between the earlier and later MC periods has also been noted at Phylakopi and Akrotiri (Nikolakopoulou Reference Nikolakopoulou, Felten, Gauss and Smetana2007, 355–6).

Different functional categories of pottery were imported from different regions. Nearly all Grey Minyan imports were open vessels, especially goblets (Fig. 6 g); among rarer mainland painted wares, both larger closed and fine open vessels were reported (Fig. 5). Although the proportion of mainland wares was smaller in Period V than in Period IV, the functional range of shapes was similar between the two periods: in Period IV, most mainland imports also were fine drinking vessels, with very few closed vessels imported (Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989a; Abell Reference Abell2014b, 372–5).

Similar functional categories were imported in Melian/Theran and Minoan wares, although small, open vessels were more common in Melian/Theran than Minoan wares (Figs. 3, 5). Some shapes – especially jugs, bridge-spouted or hole-mouthed jars, small closed vessels, cooking vessels and lamps – were imported almost exclusively in Melian/Theran and Minoan wares. In other words, in Period V the general patterns of importation of Minoan and Melian/Theran wares are more similar to each other, in terms of the functional categories represented, than they are to mainland wares. The pattern of importation of Cretan wares also seems to have changed to include more tablewares between Periods IV and V, while Melian/Theran wares seem to have had a similar pattern of distribution across functional categories throughout Periods IV and V (Abell Reference Abell2014b, 372–5, 383–7). As mentioned above, however, while the proportion of Cretan imports overall did not change significantly from Period IV to Period V, Melian/Theran imports became much more common (Table 2).

According to Davis's (Reference Davis1986) catalogue, large closed vessels were the most common imports among Cretan wares in Period V (Fig. 5). Keftiu cups, rounded cups, bowls, hole-mouthed or bridge-spouted jars and lentoid jugs were relatively common as well, while various small closed and pouring shapes, lids, lamps and a tripod were also reported (Figs. 3, 5, 6b, c, j, l, q, r, u ). In Melian/Theran wares, the most common shapes in Period V were panelled cups, Cycladic cups, hole-mouthed or bridge-spouted jars and miscellaneous closed vessels (Figs. 3, 5, 6d, e, j ). Cycladic cups (termed ‘carinated bowls’ in Period IV) and bridge-spouted or hole-mouthed jars were popular shapes in Period IV. Panelled cups, rare in earlier Period IV deposits and usually in Melian/Theran Cycladic White Ware, did not become popular until the end of Period IV (phase IVc), when importation and local production of Minoanising pottery also increased (Overbeck Reference Overbeck, MacGillivray and Barber1984; Reference Overbeck1989a). Some Minoanising rounded cups, Keftiu cups, bowls, a jug and even a baking tray were also imported in Melian/Theran wares in Period V (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7.

Imported Melian/Theran Minoanising vessels (after Davis Reference Davis1986; courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati). Drawings are not to scale. Bridge-spouted and hole-mouthed jars (AG-3, E-21, AA-70) have a variety of profiles and decorative schemes, not all of which are strictly Minoanising (e.g. AG-3).

In general, the most common shapes in imported wares were non-Minoanising (Table 3; Fig. 3). Imported panelled cups and goblets were each about twice as common as imported Minoanising shapes like Keftiu and rounded cups, as well as hole-mouthed or bridge-spouted jars, the most common pouring vessels (Table 3). Traditional Cycladic cups, meanwhile, were equally as common as those Minoanising shapes. The fact that panelled cups were one of the most popular drinking shapes of Period V and were the most popular imported drinking shape overall suggests that such vessels were accorded new value in eating and drinking practices at Ayia Irini during Period IVc–V. Finally, although several tableware shapes were imported in Melian/Theran plain ware (Figs. 3, 5), only three plain tableware vessels were reported among Minoan imports (Davis Reference Davis1986, 25, 48, 65, nos. E-28, V-13, AG-11), and none were reported in mainland wares. Therefore, it seems that local consumption patterns began to incorporate not only plain local tablewares, but also imported Cycladic ones, which, like local wares, included both Minoanising and non-Minoanising shapes (Fig. 3).