Santorini and its eruption in the Late Bronze Age

Chapter 2. Earth: The Minoan eruption in its archaeological landscape

(For the pdf version of this document with correct page references download the chapter 2 pdf.)

 

•  Akrotiri and Santorini in context

 

The island of Santorini and the Late Bronze Age town of Akrotiri are anomalies. The dramatic caldera and the tephra-clad cliffs of Santorini set it apart from other Greek islands. The archaeological excavations at Akrotiri reveal a Bronze Age town with unprecedented preservation not only of artefacts but also of the upstanding architecture that is so often lost at other sites. In order to assess how important this island was in the Late Bronze Age the effects of this anomalous degree of preservation must be removed. To place Akrotiri and Santorini in context it is necessary to look at how populated the island was, what links it had with other Cycladic islands, with Crete and with the Greek mainland and how important was it to the trading system that existed at that time. Then we can see how its loss, which after all is the minimum impact of the eruption, affected those other Bronze Age centres.

•  Late Bronze Age settlements on Santorini

 

The shape of the island of Santorini was significantly altered during the course of the Minoan eruption; therefore any assessment of where sites are located on Santorini should be made using the Bronze Age landscape rather than the present one. There are a number of different interpretations of what the Bronze Age landscape may have looked like and these will be addressed in greater detail in chapter 3. In summary here though, the general consensus at the present time is that a caldera existed in the southern half of the island before the Minoan eruption, and that there was no strato-volcano of any significant height covering the position of the Minoan vent (Heiken and McCoy 1984; Friedrich et al. 1988; Druitt and Francaviglia 1992) . Figure 2.7 illustrates the proposition put forward by Heiken and McCoy for the pre-eruption shape of the island (Heiken and McCoy 1984) .

Figure 2. 7 The modern islands of the Santorini archipelago are shown in light grey. The black line outlines a reconstruction of the Late Bronze Age shoreline according to Heiken and McCoy (1984). Sites are shown where Late Bronze Age material has been located. Akrotiri is highlighted in bold.

 

The archaeological sites on Santorini are obviously hard to locate because of the thick volcanic deposits draping the Bronze Age landscape, however either because of erosion or, more often, quarrying of the tephra deposits a number of Bronze Age sites have been located (see figure 2.7 and table 2.1). Akrotiri is the main site and this is where the modern research effort has been concentrated. A number of other sites have undergone some excavation; unfortunately the recording of many of them has been poor.

Table 2. 1 Archaeological sites found on Santorini and the type of material recovered.

Akrotiri: Extensive LC I town

References: (Doumas 1978; Doumas 1980; Doumas 1983; Hardy et al. 1990a) , (Barber 1981, no 40) ,

Alphouzos: Buildings

References: (Fouqué 1879) , (Barber 1981, no 48)

Archangelos: Walls and pottery

References : (Doumas 1983, p27)

Ayios Nikolaos: Stone column base

References: (Marinatos 1968, p57)

Balos: Buildings

References: (Fouqué 1879; Doumas 1983, p45) , (Barber 1981) no 41.

Cape Akrotiri : Pottery

References: (Marinatos 1976, p12; Forsyth 1997, p45)

Cape Colomvos : Tombs

References: (Lenormant 1866; Scholes 1956) , (Barber 1981) , no 42

Exomiti: Pottery

References: (Hiller von Gaertringen 1899-1909; Scholes 1956) , (Barber 1981) , no 43

Ftellos: Buildings

References: (Doumas 1973; Marthari 1982; Barber 1987; Marthari 1987) , (Barber 1981) , 44

Kamara (Potamos): Buildings

References: (Hiller von Gaertringen 1899-1909; Doumas 1983) , (Barber 1981) , no 45.

Katsadhes: Pottery

References: (Marinatos 1968) , (Barber 1981) , no 49

Kokkino Vouno (Mavro Rhachidi): Walls, pottery

References: (Marinatos 1969, p35-36; Doumas 1983, p55-56) , (Barber 1981) , no 50

Mavromatis Quarry: Finds

References: (Doumas 1983, p45)

Megalochori Quarry: Pottery

References: (Hiller von Gaertringen 1899-1909, Thera 1, p307; Sperling 1973, p26)

Mesa Vouno (Selladha): Pottery

References: (Lenormant 1866; Hiller von Gaertringen 1899-1909)

Oia Quarry: Finds

References: (Doumas 1983, p129)

Profitis Ilias: Walls pottery

References: (Sperling 1973, p34)

The site at Akrotiri is obviously the major site so far discovered and Doumas has included a number of sites as suburbs of Akrotiri (Doumas 1983, p45) . He states that Balos and Mavromatis quarry may have been suburbs of the town whilst Kamara (Potamos) may have been part of it. Attempts to determine the limits of the site have so far failed but Doumas estimated the size of the town as approximately 200,000 m 2 (20 ha), of which around 10,000 m 2 have been uncovered. Because there are so many unknown variables it is not possible to provide a very precise estimate of the size of the population but Doumas proposed that there must have been several thousand inhabitants (Doumas 1983, p45) .

 

The buildings so far excavated at Akrotiri appear to follow the lines of earlier buildings of the Middle Cycladic (MC) period that were destroyed in what has been termed the Seismic Destruction Level (SDL) early in the LM IA period (see figure 2.5) . Sondage excavations and trials have confirmed that the site of Akrotiri appears to have been occupied continuously since the Late Neolithic (Sotirakopoulou 1990) . MC graves have been reported at Karageorghis Quarry (Doumas 1983, p28) and excavations at Ftellos (Doumas 1973; Marthari 1982) included MC period buildings. A valid conclusion would seem to be that there was a distinct Cycladic tradition on the island and that the settlement at Akrotiri was not a direct colony of Crete . This is in contrast with, for example, the Kastri settlement on Kythera which does seem to be a Minoan colony (Coldstream and Huxley 1972) .

 

The distribution of sites across Santorini appears intensive, especially in the south of the island. This may have been because the north was more inhospitable due to the older strato-volcanoes in that area. The site of Akrotiri dominates the island with satellite suburbs but there is evidence of rural sites and farmsteads scattered across the island. The amount of sites identified on Santorini is surprising given that no normal pedestrian survey would locate sites under the volcanic overburden. The distribution of a stratified site hierarchy is more indicative of Minoan than Cycladic site distribution and appears anomalous when compared with other Cycladic islands (Davis and Cherry 1990, p191) .

•  Cycladic settlement patterns

 

As Davis points out at the start of his 1992 survey of archaeology in the Aegean, the level of information on Cycladic sites has been relatively poor (Davis 1992, p699) . Information had concentrated on the three sites of Phylakopi on Melos , Ayia Irini on Kea and Akrotiri on Santorini, with the site of Phylakopi, which had the longest stratigraphic sequence, providing the dating framework for the Cycladic culture area. Recently this has changed a little with a number of islands being investigated by survey methods (Renfrew and Wagstaff 1982; Cherry et al. 1991) as well as excavation and the publication of older excavations.

 

Because of the excavations and hence the greater quality of information of these three main sites, trade and interconnection theory had tended to concentrate on Kea, Melos and Santorini. The Western String Network was a theory developed by Schofield as a way of showing how those sites provided a conduit between the more dominant Minoan, and the increasingly sophisticated mainland sites, and the Near East (Schofield 1982) . More recent work, for example the survey of Mikre Vigla on Naxos , has challenged this. Mikre Vigla has traces of monochrome painted wall plaster associated with a main building (structure 7) and pottery at the site ranges from EC to LC III in date with some Middle Minoan (Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989) . There are loomweights of the Minoan discoid type and pottery analysis has confirmed that large quantities of pottery were imported from Melos and from Crete (Davis 1992, p740) . This may well mean that Naxos was more involved with trading connections and it is possible that archaeological theories of interaction such as the Western String Trading network are products of modern site survival rather than archaeological truth.

 

The archaeological evidence from the islands of Melos and Kea does however present a different picture of site distribution from the hierarchical distribution of sites found on Santorini. As Davis and Cherry, outline despite a number of different types of survey on Melos over a period of time, there has been no evidence for any other site on the island in the LC I period other than Phylakopi (Cherry 1982; Renfrew 1982, p39) . A modern survey on Kea used an intensive survey approximately 20 km in size around the 1 ha site of Ayia Irini (Cherry et al. 1991) . This would take in any hinterland that might have been exploited by the main town. Very little pottery or chipped stone artefacts were recovered by the survey and those sites which were located only produced at maximum a handful of sherds. They conclude,

"Speaking, then, of the immediate hinterland of Ayia Irini, it seems clear that MCyc-LCyc II finds are so scarce that one may question whether there existed any settlements outside the centre, let alone whether there was a hierarchy of settlement."

(Cherry et al. 1991, p220-221)

 

Other islands of the Cyclades provide little evidence for occupation during this period. No Cycladic sites seem to have been directly affected by the eruption as no extant layers of tephra have been recorded. Some small number of shards were found at the site of Melos (Renfrew 1978) . The only Cycladic island for which any impact has been suggested is Anaphi to the east of Santorini. Yokoyama had suggested that the island was inundated by a tsunami to a height of 50m on the evidence of pumice remains (Yokoyama 1978) . As explained in chapters 4 and 5 this conclusion is now untenable and any conclusions based upon that argument by other writers should be severely questioned. Barber has no sites listed on the island (Barber 1981) and exploratory work by Gale and Stos-Gale on the island suggested that there was no conclusive evidence that the island had been exploited during this period for its natural deposits.

"…(ore deposits were) too small to have permitted silver extraction in the Bronze Age, whilst the amounts of galena seem to have been too small even as a source of lead."

(Gale and Stos-Gale 1981, p191) .

 

•  Summary

 

Recent evidence from the sites of Mikra Vigla and Grotta on Naxos suggests that the island had significant links with other Cycladic islands as well as other culture groups. Naxos can therefore be considered as one of the four main islands of the Cyclades along with Santorini, Melos and Ayia Irini which had important trading links with other culture areas. These links had existed for a period of time but do not show a complete domination or colonisation by an outside culture. The area is not a cultural backwater but is involved with international trade providing a number of raw materials and finished goods.

 

However, the nucleation of sites evidenced from Phylakopi and Ayia Irini and the defensive walls around the settlements might be indicative of a feeling of threat. This defensive attitude could be a response to EC IIIA disturbances, although Ayia Irini appears to have been deserted in the MC period and the island may have been recolonised. At the current time there is no evidence for a defensive wall around Akrotiri and the distribution of sites across the island suggests the inhabitants of Santorini did not suffer from the same fears as other Cycladic islanders.

 

Doumas has estimated the size of Akrotiri as being about 20 ha and Weiner has summarised a number of other relevant settlements for the period which are shown in table 2.2 (Wiener 1990, p131) . From this table it can be seen that Akrotiri is an anomaly in terms of settlement size when compared to other Cycladic centres, being vastly greater in size and comparable to the size of the Minoan palace sites (except the massive site of Knossos).

Table 2. 2 Site size and population for selected sites in the Aegean region.

Site	Estimated size in hectares in LC-LM1	Population	Island
Knossos	75	12000	Crete
Mallia	23 +?	-	Crete
Palaikastro	20 to 36	-	Crete
Zakros	7.5 to 9	-	Crete
Gournia	2.5	700	Crete
Pseira	1.6	400	Crete (Pseria)
Akrotiri	20 ?	several 000's	Santorini ( Cyclades )
Phylakopi	2	<2000	Melos ( Cyclades )
Ayia Irini	1	780 to 1250	Kea ( Cyclades )
Kastri	1 or less	-	Kythera ( Cyclades )
Trianda	15	-	Rhodes ( Dodecanese )
Seraglio	7.5 ?	-	Kos ( Dodecanese )

 

There is a possibility that Akrotiri was a Minoan colony and was dominated by powers on Crete which then threatened other islands of the Cyclades . Certainly it would appear that the influence of Minoan civilisation had been steadily growing throughout the MBA period and was significant by the time of its destruction. However, that influence is possibly overstated because of the earthquake that struck the island in the early LM IA. This means that the town was rebuilt when the Minoanising influence was at its height. Thus there are the Minoan architectural features such as polythyra, lustral basins and horns of consecration as well as the frescoes. But there are also elements which are Cycladic in origin. As Rehak and Younger state in their article on Late Bronze Age Crete there are a number of different ways that Crete may have influenced the Cycladic islands (Rehak and Younger 1998, p137) . One of those is the Classical Greek tradition of a trading emporia linked back to the mother city and following its constitution and forms (Morkot 1996, p51) . Other forms may be more subtle such as what has been termed the " Versailles effect" where the styles of a culture are imported without political or military control (Weiner 1984) . It is difficult to say which of these paradigms Akrotiri most closely resembles but what can be stated is that Santorini must have played a very important role within the Aegean .

 

Overall Santorini appears to have functioned as a conduit or what has been termed a Gateway Community (Hirth 1978; Branigan 1991) between the Cycladic and Minoan cultures. It redistributed goods from Crete and it gathered raw materials from the Cycladic hinterland, possibly creating finished goods itself, to distribute back into the wider Eastern Mediterranean trading system. The island would have thus been an important stop on the Eastern Mediterranean trading cycle. The loss of the island would have created severe disruption, and in effect a vacuum, that could have been a major disruption to the function of Minoan society. The needs of the Minoans, in particular the Elite of that society, would not disappear and their ability to acquire items of trade and inherently power may be affected. The most significant impact of the eruption of Santorini might be a shifting of the balance of power and interaction within the Cycladic sphere and in the subsequent phase the power that would fill that vacuum.

 

Back

Next