Excavation and surface survey indicate that the Galatas Kephala was first occupied in Early Minoan I (Buell 2014a; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011: 195), whereas the first recorded architectural remains at the settlement belong to Middle Minoan IA. Following Middle Minoan IB, the Kephala was abandoned unTil Middle Minoan IIIA when an extensive building program, which included a palatial complex, was initiated (Figure 8.2). Besides the palace, Middle Minoan IIIA witnessed the construction of several new, elite residential buildings on the Kephala, including Buildings 1, 6, and 7. Building 3, which was initially constructed in Middle Minoan IA-IB, was also rebuilt in this period (Rethemiotakis 2007-2008:105, 2008-2009:9597). Following a destruction event at the end of Middle Minoan IIIA - probably the result of an earthquake - all buildings, including the palatial compound, were immediately rebuilt and occupied in Middle Minoan IIIB. As was the case for other Neopalatial palaces on Crete (i. e., Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, and Zakros) the complex at Galatas consisted of four wings organized around a central courtyard. Occupying an area of nearly 1 ha, the palace possessed spaces
Figure 8.2 Plan of the palace of Galatas (redrawn from Rethemiotakis and Christakis 20ii:figure 2).
For storage, ceremonial activities, and industry. Galatas ultimately lost its palatial character in the early Late Minoan IA as only a small part of the palace remained in use (Rethemiotakis 2002:63). The settlement continued to be occupied until the end of Late Minoan IB when it was destroyed by fire. Besides the buildings that have been excavated, the University at Buffalo survey has identified the remains of a number of other Neopalatial structures spread throughout the settlement (Buell 2014b; Figure 8.3). Although a precise date cannot be assigned to these buildings, it is assumed, based on the dates of their associated surface pottery, that they are contemporary with the Middle Minoan IIIA-B palace.
Coordination of BuIldings and Spaces
According to Smith (2007:8), simple coordination refers to cases in which buildings and spaces are arranged with specific reference to one another. At Galatas, all features of the urban environment shared a common reference to the palace in that they all possessed a general north-south orientation (Figure 8.3). Because all buildings of
Figure 8.3 Site plan of the city of Galatas (redrawn and adapted from Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011:figure 1).
THE RISE OF A MINOAN CITY
The palace complex were oriented with respect to the central courtyard, this space should be seen as the principal organizing feature of the city. What makes this more acute is that buildings situated in different topographical locations, including Building 1 and two other buildings identified by the University at Buffalo survey, adhered to this common orientation (Buell 2014b; Figure 8.3). Topography, therefore, did not seem to be a key factor in the orientation of buildings on the Kephala.
BuIldings and spaces at Galatas were also constructed with reference to streets. Roads, streets, and paths serve as key elements in the armature of urban environments because they provide coherence for different structures and they unite these same buildings (MacDonald 1986:256; see also Creekmore, Chapter 2 in this volume). These features also help social actors in their negotiations within a particular environment because they may be used to direct individuals to spaces important in structuring and enforcing social relationships (Lynch 1960:49-62). Evidence for the construction of
Roads and streets at Galatas is unfortunately quite limited.1 There does, however, seem to have been a main north-south artery (i. e., a main city street) on the Kephala, which ran from the bottom of the hill through the settlement and then up to the palace. Large urban blocks, with narrow alleyways providing access to individual buildings within these blocks, were laid out along it (Rethemiotakis 2008-2009:94-95). Once the street reached the southern courtyard of the palace, it split into two branches with each one running along opposite sides of the palace's exterior before joining together at the northern-most part of the palace, creating a ring road. Because the main street led up to and terminated at the palace, it can be said that it possessed a specific directional quality that situated the palace as the most prominent feature in the urban environment. This was reinforced by the fact that as one traveled toward the palace, one was constantly moving upward in elevation. The effect of this is that the palace would have been seen to loom above the individual, creating a visual effect wherein it was made more imposing (cf. Moore 1996:92-120). According to Rapoport (1990:107), the use of higher elevation is a nearly universal nonverbal cue indicating higher status. The belief that this was indeed planned is suggested by the fact that there was an open courtyard on the palace's southern side (the direction of its major approach), which provided travelers with an unobstructed view of the palace and its monumental southern facade (cf. Letesson and Vansteenhuyse 2006:93-94). This concern for providing clear views of the palace's monumental facades was repeated on its northern and eastern sides, as neither topographical features nor architecture restricteD the views of these elements. In fact, because the palace occupied the most prominent part of the settlement on the northern tip of the ridge, it was visible in some areas to the north and east for distances of nearly 6 km as verified by geographic information system (GIS) viewshed analysis (Buell 2014b). Given its placement on the Kephala, the power and prestige of the palace would have been communicated to both local inhabitants and visitors to The city.
The street system also linkeD three courtyards (i. e., the southern, northwestern, and northern courtyards), which were themselves built with specific reference to the palace as they were positioned on its periphery. Because these three courtyards interrupted the linear flow of the primary street system, they would have served as junctions or nodes wIthin the armature of the city of Galatas. Given the
Ceremonial functions of these courtyards, as will be discussed, and their architectural elaborations, which included the ashlar facades of the palace walls that faced them, the streets that connected them would have possessed prominence in the minds of travelers (cf. Lynch 1960:50-51). In addition to directing individuals to places of social interaction, the palace's abilities to command both material and human labor would have been reflected in the construction of the street system. Thus, apart from having served as a unifying or structuring element, one that helped in the simple coordination of buildings and spaces, Galatas's street system served as a materialized form of ideology as it helped to highlight the social position of those responsIble for its construction.
THE rise of a
Minoan city
One inal element that highlights the notion of simple coordination is that there may have been districts of similarly designed buildings within the city of Galatas. Unfortunately, given the current focus of excavation on the monumental core, we are, at present, unable to discuss the presence and composition of speciic neighborhoods. In contrast, districts, which often possess multiple neighborhoods, are discernible in Galatas's archaeological record, for these areas are usually separated from each other through the use of homogenous architecture (Smith 2010:140). The distinct architectural forms and the social activities conducted within districts provide them with speciic social identities, which, in turn, allow observers to mentally visualize them (Lynch 1960:66; Smith 2010:140). At Galatas, two or perhaps three distinct districts are apparent within its architectural remains.
Galatas's monumental core served as an administrative district, for it acted as the political, economic, and ideological center for the city and the region. This urban core was surrounded by a number of large, freestanding structures (i. e., Buildings 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7), all of which possessed a number of architectural elaborations including the use of ashlar masonry, wall paintings, or specialized rooms like the Minoan Hall complex.2 Given the size and elaboration of some of these residences, it may be that these buildings comprised an elite district at Galatas. A nonelite district may have existed at the fringes of the settlement as a number of walls belonging to distinct, small structures constructed from ieldstones were identiied by the University at Buffalo survey (Buell 2014b). Because these houses were constructed in a common architectural style, seem to have been about the same size, and were all located
Within the same general area, it may be that they formed a discrete district of residential units on the fringes of the settlement at Galatas. Within such a scenario, one where successive districts radiated out from a central point, Galatas's monumental core served as the city's epicenter or nucleus (cf. Park et al. 1925).
When buIldings, spaces, and their layouts are constructed in clearly articulated and directed space, they can be said to be formally arranged (Lynch 1960:105-108; Steinhardt 1990:5-12; Smith 2007:12). At Galatas, formality is recognized in the construction of the courtyards associated with the palace (i. e., the central, southern, northwestern, and northern courtyards) as each one was constructed in a clearly delineated space and each one possessed a clearly recognizable and simplistic (i. e., easily understood) architectural form, consisting of a large open space facing at least one of the palace's monumental facades (cf. Lynch 1960:105-108). Because the courtyards served as junctions or breaks in the transportation network of the settlement, they would have forced travelers to make decisions, and, as a consequence, attention would have been heightened and nearby elements perceived with more than normal clarity (Lynch 1960:7273). One particular element that would have been noticed was the change in architectural form from rubble and mudbrick house exteriors to the ashlar facades of the palace that framed the activities conducted within these spaces. Because of the expense of the ashlar facades, individuals would have been constantly reminded of the power and wealth of those who commissioned their construction while using the courtyards or simply passing through them.
The relative levels of accessibility and visibility among Galatas's courtyards suggests that there was a hierarchy of courtyards and that each one was designed to be used by a specific group of people. The central courtyard, which occupied the central position of the palatial complex, was quite restricted in terms of both accessIbility and visIbility. The narrowness of the corridors that provided access into the central courtyard, for example, produced a funneling effect as one moved from the street into it, limiting the number of people that could enter concurrently. Two of the three corridors also possessed flights of steps, which, given the uneven ground levels, limited visibility into the central courtyard and the activities conducted
Within it. The restricted nature of both the accessIbility and visibility into the central courtyard suggests that it was only used by select groups of individuals, perhaps the elite (cf. Gesell 1987:125).
THE RISE OF A MINOAN CITY
The open space oF the central courtyard was framed by an elaborate architectural setting uTilizing ashlar masonry, which created a boundary for the ceremonial activities conducted within it. Deposits containing many drinking, pouring, and serving vessels - along with faunal refuse (Rethemiotakis 1999a, 1999b, 2002:56-57) and architectural spaces including areas for cooking, storage, and dining (e. g., Rooms 17 and 22) - were found within close proximity to the central courtyard, suggesting that feasting and associated ritual activities took place in this area (cf. Borgna 2004; Dietler and Hayden 2001; Gero 1992). Unequal social relationships between local elites (those who were able to participate in the activities in the central courtyard) and other segments of society (those who were not), may have been stressed and reaffirmed through the process of exclusion. Likewise, the act of inclusion served the purpose of creating a sense of group identity among those permitted into this space through the communal act of sharing food and drink (cf. Hayden 2001:28; Potter 2000:471; Wright 2004:134). And finally, the relative scale of the feast demonstrated the palace's abilities, and thus its position within society, to command substantial amounts of foodstuffs collected through tribute assessments within the territory.
The rest of the community may have used the northern, northwestern, and southern courtyards, for these were each easily accessed via streets that led into and through them, and they were highly visible. As with the central courtyards, the open public courtyards almost certainly served as venues for ceremonial activities, as suggested by the presence of exedras, raised causeways, or tripartite facades (Rethemiotakis 2002-2003:78-80). The latter are often connected to ceremonial activities because of their appearance in conjunction with cultic activity in Minoan iconography (e. g., the relief rhyton from Kato Zakros, the "GranD Stand" fresco from Knossos, etc.) (Goodison 2004; Shaw 1978:443-445, figures 17 and 18). Additional evidence for ceremonial activity can be seen in the southern courtyard where a baetyl was located. Like the tripartite facades, these objects often appear in Minoan glyptic art in association with ritual or ceremonial activity (Warren 1990:193). The material remains recovered in these areas also support their association with ritual or ceremonial activities as a number of objects related to
These activities - including pedestalled chalices, animal figurines, and a stone libation table - were found within close proximity to the northern and southern courtyards (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2013). The close proximity of the palace suggests its sponsorship of the activities conducted within these courtyards. It may be that ceremonial activities were conducted in all courtyards at the same time in an effort to unite groups of people together in a social setting (cf. Fitzsimons, Chapter 7 in this volume, for a similar case of building civic identity through ceremonial activities).
The promotion of messages connected to wealth, power, and status was also reflected in the monumentality of buildings and spaces within the city of Galatas. For Trigger (1990:119), the principledefining feature of monumental architecture is that both its scale and elaboration exceed the requirements of utilitarian or practical functions that a particular building is intended to perform. Through the conspicuous consumption of both materials and human labor, power relations are displayed and reinforced (Trigger 1990:124-125, 128). Thus, monumental buildings play an active role in both the constitution and the reproduction of asymmetrical relations of power and authority (Fisher 2009:184). Monumental architecture should be considered to be a form of indexical communication because it is concerned with claims of advancement in wealth and status (cf. Blanton 1993). In fact, it serves as a relatively efficient means of indexical communication because these types of buildings, given their size, were visible to large populations and their seemingly permanent nature guarantees that they would have been seen by many people over a long period of time (Blanton 1989:413; DeMarrais et al. 1996:18). As Dovey (1999:15-16) argues, monumental edifices can provide illusions of stability and/or change, and they help to promote anD differentiate group identity. These types of buildings are often constructed when group solidarity is needed most, such as during periods of sociopolitical or economic stress (Abrams 1989:62). In a specifically Minoan context, Driessen (1995), for instance, argues that there was a period of monumental building following the Santorini eruption at the end of Late Minoan lA in an effort to help stabilize society. Surely, this could also be said for the formation of a polity, especially one such as Galatas, which, as will be discussed later, may have been built by Knossos as it expanded its state system.
Measuring the monumentality of a building (i. e., a quantitative analysis) is a difficult task, especially given the poor state of
Preservation of Galatas's architectural remains (cf. Abrams 1989, 1994; Abrams and Bolland 1999). Instead, a number of qualitative aspects may be used to verify a particular building's monumentality. These aspects may include the use of specialized masonry styles, the presence of certain decorative elements, and the complexity of design and layout. Further qualitative variables may include the relative permanence of a construction, its location within a settlement, its degree of visibility, and its ubiquity (cf. Moore 1996:139-140).3 It is these qualitative elements that make monumental buildings both imageable and legible (Lynch 1960), ensuring that their meanings are quite clear and easily understood by observers.
THE RISE OF A MINOAN CITY
The cost of buIlding, both in terms of materials and human labor, is reflected in all stages of the palace at Galatas's creation. Prior to its construction, suitable building space for the palace had to be prepared. This included the leveling of ground and the construction of a number of retaining walls and terraces to help supporT the building against the edge of the ridge, especially in the areas of the northern and eastern wings of the palace. Because the preparatory work was quite complex and time consuming, there was considerable expenditure in terms of both materials and human labor (cf. Fotou 1990). The high cost of building is also reflected in the ordinary utilitarian walls of the palace, for these walls, which were constructed of rubble foundations with plastered mudbrick superstructures, could be quite long (upward of ca. 30 m) and many were required in the construction of the building, which approached nearly 1 ha in total area (cf. Devolder 2012).
Important areas oF the palace, including the walls of the central court, the Minoan Hall in the northern wing, the Pillar and Columnar Halls in the eastern wing, and the external walls of the palatial complex, were itted with extensive facades of limestone ashlar blocks, several of which bore mason's marks similar to those found at Knossos. The limestone itself was quarried from the area of Alagni, a distance of 4 km from Galatas (Rethemiotakis 2002:60). Other specialized materials and building techniques, including the use of special stones for pillars and column bases and the construction of elaborately paved floors, were used to decorate select areas of the palace complex, including the Minoan Hall and the Pillar and Columnar Halls (Rethemiotakis 2000-2001:127, 2002:60, 20022003:79). Gypsum, which was quarried from an outcrop 13 km away, was used as a building material for the door jambs and two pillar
Bases of the Minoan Hall (Chlouveraki 2005:294-305). The excavators also uncovered a fragment of a miniature pictorial fresco in the Pillar Hall (Rethemiotakis 1999b, 2002:57, plate XVIa). This fragment may have formed part of a landscape scene complete with a red wavy terrain line, stylized rocks, and a floral arrangement. Based on stylistic afinities with frescoes from Knossos, Rethemiotakis (2002:57) argues that those at Galatas may have been the work of painters trained at Knossos. The Knossian mason's marks and Knossian-style frescoes found at Galatas suggest that there was a special relationship between the two cities. The presence of these architectural elements may serve as an indication of the deployment of skilled stone masons and artists from Knossos to the Galatas Kephala (Bevan 2010:42-43; Chlouveraki 2002; Warren 2004:160). Whatever the case may be, these particular elements document the arrival of a new sociopolitical order, one with speciic elements of Knossian design, in an area that possessed no previous comparable architectural traDition.
The areas that employed specialized materials and techniques in their construction were all highly conspicuous spaces where visitors may have participated in a number of special activities. Although the evidence is far from complete, the Pillar Hall and, perhaps, the Columnar Hall, may have served as the locations for commensal activities, judging from their semi-ixed features (i. e., hearths and benches) and close connection to the East Magazines, and areas associated with food preparation (i. e., Rooms 11 and 12) (Christakis 2008:50-15, igure 15; Rethemiotakis 1999a, 1999b, 2002). Because of the restricted access and visIbility of these interior spaces, it is hypothesized that they were used only by elites. In this way then, architectural elaboration served as a material agent at Galatas, one that complemented a number of specialized activities that drew separate audiences together (e. g., the general populace in the courtyards outside of the palace and groups of elites within the interior rooms of the palace).
Each stage in the construction oF the palace and, indeed, as Abrams (1989:54) reminds us, its continued maintenance, required much in terms of organization or central planning, along with the ability and authority to command both materials and human labor. In the case of Minoan Crete, this may have been derived from both specialized craftsmen, either itinerant or attached to the palace, and corvee labor. It is even possible that through participation in monumental building projects, such as that of the palace of Galatas, these
Individuals developed a sense of identity wIth their city and ruler as they took pride in their endeavors, as was the case in a number of historically documented examples (e. g., SmIth 2000; Pauketat 2000).
THE RISE OF A MINOAN CITY
SmIth (2007:25) argues that the presence of similar buildings and layouts within a series of related cities suggests some adherence to a common plan or idea of city planning. Standardization can be discussed in terms of common architectural inventories, spatial patterns, orientation, and metrology (Smith 2007:25). Although there may have been earlier monumental buildings, which served as predecessors to the palaces, the earliest unambiguous evidence for the development oF the first (i. e., Protopalatial) palaces belongs to the Middle IB-II periods (Schoep 2004; Shaw 2009:161; Warren 1987:47). The palace at Galatas seems to be one of the earliest constructeD in the Neopalatial period, for those at Malia, Phaistos, and Zakros were seemingly built in either Late Minoan IA or IB (Carinci 1989; La Rosa 2002; MacDonald 2002; Platon 2004; van Effenterre 1980:336-337). Although it is poorly understood because of intensive rebuilding throughout its life history, it seems as though a new palace was also constructed in Middle Minoan III at Knossos (MacDonald 2002).
Despite their relative periods of construction, all of the palaces employed similar concepts in planning, design, and function, although they often differed in scale and configuration. For example, although each palace's central courtyard shares proportions of roughly 1:2 and all, wIth the exception of that at Zakros, follow a general north-south orientation, their relative areas differ dramatically.4 Additionally, although other spaces such as storage, those devoted to ritual and ceremony, and "residential suites" were present and often possessed similar architectural forms, they were often positioned in different places within the palaces (McEnroe 2010:87). It can thus be stated that on the one hand, each palace possessed similar types of areas dedicated to specific functions, while on the other hand, these areas were often of dissimilar sizes and situated in different locations.
Turning to orientation, four of the five palaces shared a similar north-south orientation, falling within about 15 degrees of one another (Shaw 1973:47). Zakros is the only palace that does not share the general north-south orientation. Many buildings, within each of
These cities, regardless of their topographic situation, shared a similar orientation to their respective palaces. Malia, for example, provides a good example of this because of its flat topography. Here, where builders were not limited by topography, buildings were constructed following a similar orientation to the palace (McEnroe 1979:342; Shaw 1973:52). Such an orientation, which according to Shaw (1973) and later Goodison (2004) was a long-standing principal of design going back to at leasT the Protopalatial period, may have been the product of a cosmological desire to orient the buildings in the western wings of the palaces to the rising sun, which was itself an important iconographical element present in depictions of ritual activity in glyptic art (e. g., Goodison 2001:plates XVIIIa-XVIIIe).
As noted in the introduction to this paper, both metrology and modularity have been utilized in discussions of Minoan architectural planning. Graham (1960, 1987), Preziosi (1983:489-493), and Cherry (1986), for instance, have proposed that the Minoans used a common metrological system in their buildings. As the issue stands today, however, there is no scholarly agreement on this subject as each scholar proposes a different standard of measurement. Generally speaking, as Smith (2007:29) notes, although the metrology of ancient cities has been examined, the results, as is the case for Minoan Crete, are often not widely accepted and remain controversial. Preziosi (1983) and later Palyvou (2002:170-171, plate LVI) suggest that the palaces may have been laid out according to the principles of a grid-based design, following the 1:2 proportions of the central courts, which represented one half of an original square module. McEnroe (1984:601), however, points out several shortcomings to this approach, including the extreme flexibility of this application and the fact that building histories (e. g., construction, reconstruction, rebuilding, and destruction) are seldom taken into account. Given the inherent problems with these two approaches, neither metrology nor modular planning can at presenT be used as reliable evidence for urban planning in Minoan cities.
On the basis of the evidence previously detailed, certain key aspects of the Minoan city of Galatas were centrally planned as they possessed some degree of simple coordination, formality, and mon-umentality. Architectural elements following these principles of
Design were constructed with the very specific intention of conveying messages concerned with the promotion of status differentiations and social cohesion, those which are associated with Rapoport's mid - and low-level meanings. Relative levels of accessIbility and visIbility within and between spaces were used as a means of further reinforcing these very specific sociopolitical messages. Further, this planning followed a somewhat standardized formula; one which was, perhaps, developed in the preceding Protopalatial period, and can be seen in cities geographically removed from each other. This suggests the existence of some preconceived ideas concerning the planning of Minoan cities. Given the specific messages conveyed by Galatas's built environment, it is posited that the city, or at least spe-ciic parts of it such as the urban core, was built at the behest of a central authority - perhaps, given certain architectural affinities, one originating from Knossos. It is of interest that the city of Galatas was built in an area that, as we shall see, was sparsely populated and where no prior city existed. The rapid construction of the city corresponded to a complete restructuring of the local political and socioeconomic situation. Through this restructuring, the inhabitants of Galatas's hinterlands became intimately bound to the new city and, as a consequence, its rulers.
World History
