Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Minoan Architecture and UrbanismNew Perspectives on an Ancient Built Environment$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Quentin Letesson and Carl Knappett

Print publication date: 2017

Print ISBN-13: 9780198793625

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2020

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198793625.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 30 November 2021

Lost in Translation

Lost in Translation

Settlement Organization in Postpalatial Crete—A View from the East

Chapter:
(p.289) 13 Lost in Translation
Source:
Minoan Architecture and Urbanism
Author(s):

Louise A. Hitchcock

Aren M. Maeir

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198793625.003.0021

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

Keywords:   Cyclades, Haghia Triada, Kavousi Vronda, Malia, Palaikastro, Tylissos, Vasiliki, feasting

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .