Ancient CyprusAncient Cyprus

Chapter · 2017

Archaeoseismological research on Minoan Crete: Past and present

S. Jusseret; edited by S. Jusseret and M. Sintubin

In Minoan earthquakes: Breaking the myth through interdisciplinarity 223-248. Leuven University Press

A review chapter on archaeological and Earth-science approaches to earthquakes in Minoan Crete, assessing case studies, proposed building techniques and priorities for interdisciplinary research.

Jusseret reviews research on earthquakes in Minoan Crete, from Sir Arthur Evans's early interpretations at Knossos to present archaeological and Earth-science approaches. The case studies take in destruction deposits, building damage and proposed earthquake-resistant construction, and the chapter keeps the limits of the evidence in view. It has sections on archaeological approaches, with a case study for each site, on Earth-science approaches and on future directions.

The archaeological cases are rubble and ash at Phaistos, skeletons and collapsed building material at Anemospilia, pottery deposits at Knossos and Palaikastro, rebuilding at Akrotiri, and damage and clearance at Mochlos, Pitsidia, Gouves and Malia-Block Nu. The chapter goes on to fault studies, wall tilting and proposed construction techniques such as timber reinforcement (pp. 226–239).

Jusseret argues that many proposed earthquake destructions rest on ambiguous evidence and uncertain correlations between sites. Ceramic dating may span decades or centuries, so it is difficult to establish whether damage at different sites was simultaneous, though periods of rapid ceramic change may offer imperfect contexts for comparison. Excavation accounts often lack the detail needed to judge seismic damage, and Earth-science interpretations can stand apart from the archaeology. He calls for systematic data collection and collaboration among archaeologists, geologists, architects and engineers (pp. 234–240). He presents potential earthquake archaeological effects as evidence requiring evaluation, rather than proof of an earthquake.

What it records

  • Jusseret estimates that the Cretan Bronze Age could have witnessed only one or two earthquakes comparable to the AD 365 event.p. 225
  • The 1979 excavation of Anemospilia yielded four skeletons beneath rubble, which the excavators associated with the building's sudden destruction during MM IIIA.p. 228
  • Excavators at Phaistos identified oblique and X-shaped fractures and tilted walls as evidence of seismic shaking.p. 228
  • Palyvou describes rebuilding at Akrotiri that included clearing public spaces, demolishing dangerous structures and raising street pavements over debris.p. 231
  • Soles concluded that the earthquake proposed at Mochlos was local and limited to the Gulf of Mirabello area.p. 232
  • Jusseret uses the term potential earthquake archaeological effect to stress the ambiguity of archaeological evidence for earthquakes.p. 241

Where to read

  • Minoan site case studies and proposed earthquake damagepp. 227–234
  • Potential earthquake effects, dating and limits of archaeological evidencepp. 234–235
  • Proposed earthquake-resistant construction and Earth-science approachespp. 235–239

Contents

  • 1. Introduction223
  • 2. Archaeological approaches226
  • 2.1. Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos226
  • 2.2. After Sir Arthur Evans: Knossos and beyond227
  • 2.2.1. Phaistos (MM IIB)227
  • 2.2.2. Anemospilia (MM IIIA)228
  • 2.2.3. Knossos (MM IIIB)229
  • 2.2.4. Palaikastro (MM IIIB)229
  • 2.2.5. Akrotiri, Thera (MM IIIB)230
  • 2.2.6. Mochlos (LM IB)231
  • 2.2.7. Pitsidia (LM IB)232
  • 2.2.8. Gouves (LM IIIB)233
  • 2.2.9. Malia (LM IIIB)233
  • 2.3. The good, the bad and the ugly: how reliable are archaeoseismological hypotheses in Minoan contexts?234
  • 2.4. A Minoan earthquake-resistant building technology?235
  • 3. Earth-science approaches238
  • 4. A look towards the future239
  • Acknowledgments240
  • Notes241
  • References241

People, places and institutions

People

  • Sir Arthur Evanslinked the Knossos destruction to earthquakes
  • Claude Schaefferproposed regional seismic destruction layers
  • Warreninterpreted the Knossos MM IIIB deposit
  • Knappett & Cunninghaminterpreted Palaikastro Block M deposits
  • Solesinterpreted earthquake damage at Mochlos
  • Vallianouproposed earthquake damage at Pitsidia and Gouves
  • Palyvoustudied rebuilding and construction at Akrotiri
  • Driessenstudied construction and destruction at Malia

Places

  • Knossossite of earthquake interpretations and deposits
  • Phaistosfirst palace destruction and wall damage
  • AnemospiliaMM IIIA destruction and human remains
  • PalaikastroMM IIIB deposits in Block M
  • Akrotiriseismic destruction and rebuilding
  • MochlosLM IB damage to Building B.2
  • PitsidiaLM IB villa damage
  • GouvesLM IIIB potters' workshop
  • Malia-Block NuLM IIIB destruction and clearance evidence
  • Agia Triadafault and wall-fracture studies
  • Gourniawall and floor tilting study

Also named: Enkomi.

Extent pp. 223–247, 1 fig. (site map); references

Defines potential earthquake archaeological effect (PEAE)

Middle Bronze AgeLate Bronze AgeModernArchitectureChronology and DatingSettlementsHistory of Archaeology

Cited on Ancient Cyprus

1 page