Gournia,
Archanes and Ayia Triada: Palaces or Not?
by Ioannis Georganas
AYIA TRIADA
b) Interpretation
The architectural and archaeological
evidence from Ayia Triada clearly shows us that the site played
primarily an economic role. This can be seen at the numerous
storage areas, and the different administration/archive centres,
with their large numbers of Linear A documents. These tablets
record mainly the collection and redistribution of agricultural
commodities such as wheat, oil, olives, figs, wine, and so forth.
However, there is no provision
for religious activity. As we have already mentioned, we have
no evidence for cult paraphernalia and areas dedicated to religious
ceremonies. This element is crucial for our question whether
Ayia Triada was a palatial site or not, as it is well known that
the Minoan palaces served a religious function too. This absence,
therefore indicate that Ayia Triada could not have been a palace.
But if it was not a palace what was it? Watrous (1984:133-4) has suggested that Ayia Triada
was part of a network of a particular group of Minoan villas
(Type 1). These villas were residences of estate owners who contributed
a portion of the produce from their estates to the local palace
(in this case the palace of Phaistos). These estates were agriculturally
self-efficient and supervised also a number of other local industries
such as pottery manufacture, metalworking, and so on. In addition,
the owners of these estates must also have been given some power
to manage certain local affairs. In other words, they were the
administrative centres of specific areas. In this respect, the
owner of such a villa does not seem so different from the ko-re-te
of the Mycenaean period.
Back |
Next  |
