The Current Excavations
Early Byzantine
(600 to 827 A.D.)
The main occupation of the Byzantine period appears
to be
a reoccupation of an earlier Hellenistic fort. The excavation has
uncovered
parts of a large house, however, located outside of this fort and to its
south near the modern shore line.
Late Hellenistic
(1st Century B.C.)
The remains of the Late Hellenistic fort were partly excavated by Seager
who identified them as Roman houses. The current excavation found that
these "houses" extended over an area nearly 60 m. long and continued
in a line which connected with the eastern circuit wall of the fort that
was already known from Seager's work on the island. Cleaning revealed two
groups of connected rooms set behind, and to the north of, a continuous
wall that extended the whole length of the area exposed. They might be described
best as "garrisons" located just inside a continuous circuit of
fortification wall which forms a large circle around the whole island.
The western group contains about nine rooms, many of them divided in two
by a spur wall, and most of them previously excavated. Room 1 contained
Eastern Sigillata A ware along with evidence for cooking and a large stone
platform in the northwest corner of the room which probably served as a
sleeping platform. The room could be entered through a doorway in its east
wall and may have provided access to a rectangular bastion that projected
from the south side of the room. All of the rooms in this section adjoined
one another and, entered from the east, north or west, they formed a solid,
unbroken line of wall on their south. The section of rooms to the east,
which were also excavated by Seager, were arranged a little differently.
They were set back behind a terrace wall or rampart that projected to the
south leaving an open space between the buildings and the actual line of
wall. A series of terraces lay in the space between these two building groups
behind the same line of wall, and a wide staircase appears to have led up
from one terrace to another, past an exedra on the third terrace, into the
interior of the complex.
New excavations on either side of the area excavated by Seager uncovered
two stratified layers in this fort, the uppermost Early Byzantine and the
lower containing more examples of Eastern Sigillata A ware and Hellenistic
relief ware, as well as coarse storage and cooking wares. The most striking
discovery in this lower level, however, was a small terracotta head of Jupiter
Serapis, one of the most popular gods in the Late Hellenistic period, especially
important to mercenaries serving in Crete who are known to have made dedications
to him (Sanders, pp. 36-37). Just to the south of this fortification the
excavation has also uncovered a large building which may have served as
a communal workshop. Two of its rooms were provided with bench presses,
the earliest examples known of this type of press; one was used to crush
olives to make olive oil and the other to press wool, perhaps for the manufacture
of felt.
Further work is required before the Late Hellenistic period at Mochlos can
be fully understood. At the moment there are several possible explanations
for the remains which have been found here. The Ptolemies had been active
keeping peace in the area since the 3rd century, and Patroklos, commander
of the Ptolemaic forces in the Chremonidean War, established a garrison
at nearby Itanos which the Ptolemies maintained well into the 2nd century.
In the 2nd century they established another garrison at Leuke off the southeast
coast of Crete and they may have felt a need to establish still a third
as an additional base for their activities in eastern Crete and other operations
in the Aegean. The city states of Hierapytna and Praisos who both claimed
this area of Crete may also have attempted to secure the strategic harbor
at Mochlos for themselves. In the middle of the 2nd century when war broke
out between Praisos and Itanos, largely as a result of a dispute over the
administration of the Shrine of Zeus Diktaios at Palaikastro, Praisos may
have felt a need to secure its northern frontier; later after war broke
out between Praisos and Hierapytna and Praisos was completely destroyed,
Hierapytna took up the territorial claims of Praisos and pursued the war
against Itanos. It might also have felt a need to secure the northern approach
to the isthmus which led straight overland to the city. In 115 B.C. Hierapytna
appealed directly to the Roman Senate to arbitrate its conflict with Itanos.
It did so first through the mediation of itinerant justices from Magnesia
on the Maeander, later through a Roman commission headed by Q. Fabius. In
112 the consul Calpurnius Piso was instructed to resolve the dispute and
re-establish the border between Itanos and Hierapytna. Rome was now an active
player in the area, but it may not have been until the next century that
it actually required troops in the area.
In the 1st century Rome grew increasingly concerned as Crete, which had
earlier supported Perseus in his wars against Rome, now supported Mithridates,
supplying him with mercenaries, receiving his emissaries and opening its
ports to Pontic ships. These actions, along with the reappearance of Cretan
piracy, provoked the Senate to demand the conquest of the island. An initial
foray sent out in 77 B.C. met with disaster, but in 68 the consul Q. Caecilius
Metellus landed on the island with three legions. He undertook the complete
subjugation of the island, conquering Cydonia in the west first, then moving
east to destroy Knossos. The Cretan Aristion played a major role in the
defense of the island and escaped to Hierapytna in 67 where he led the final
resistance against the Romans. Hierapytna was the last city to fall, and
while the details of Metellus's strategy in the conquest of the island are
unknown, it is likely that he moved troops by land and by sea. To reach
Hierapytna from Knossos, the easiest route would have taken him along the
north coast of Crete to the isthmus of Hierapytna. Mochlos offered the best
harbor at this point, and Metellus may well have established a camp here,
or taken advantage of a pre-existing one, to support his troops in their
march across the isthmus to Hierapytna.
Mycenaean (1400
to 1200 B.C.)
The excavation has uncovered the remains of thirteen houses belonging to
the Late Minoan III reoccupation of the site, dating from the LM IIIA:1 phase
to the LM IIIB phase. These
range from modest one and two room buildings to a sizable house, House A, that was
provided with its own roadway leading up over earlier LM I house walls to
the entrance. The settlement remains reflect the social stratification
of the population and also exhibit a second architectural phase corresponding
with the IIIB period. The settlement has now been fully published in Mochlos IIA, Period IV, The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery, The Sites, Philadelphia 2008.
Neopalatial (1700 to 1425 B.C.)
Ash layer, C.1.
Skull curated in basement room of B.2
Protopalatial (1900-1700 B.C.)
The excavation has uncovered only three small deposits of MM II pottery,
two in the settlement area, and one badly disturbed in Tomb Lambda where
it also discovered a Syrian cylinder seal of the Classic 1 phase, which
is dated between 1850 and 1720 B.C.
Prepalatial (3100-2000
B.C.)
The first settlers appear to have arrived on Mochlos in the Early Minoan
period, during the time that EM IB pottery was being produced at Knossos.
Seager reported remains of their settlement along the south coast and western
terrace of the island, and the current excavations have uncovered four additional
houses and half a dozen additional tombs belonging to this settlement. At
the start the settlement was apparently small, like others established in
eastern Crete at this time, but by the the second phase of the Prepalatial
period (EM II), the settlement had expanded considerably, perhaps partly
because of a large migration of settlers into eastern Crete that led to
the establishment of many new settlements. The settlers are thought to have
come from central Crete and may have been prompted to move eastwards as
a result of overcrowding in that part of Crete or as a result of conflict
between the different cultures in the northern and southern part of the
island.[9] Mochlos offered several attractions to these settlers, chief
of which were the natural harbor formed by its isthmus and the rich agricultural
plain that lay across from the island on Crete. Through the EM II and III
phases of the Prepalatial period, a period of 600 to 800 years, Mochlos
flourished as a major center of population in Crete. Many scholars have
stressed its importance during these formative years of Minoan civilization,
and Mochlos has become a model site for the study of the cultural processes
involved in the emergence of civilization.[10] The island was a center for
new industries, such as the manufacture of gold jewelry, stone vases and
faience; it was an important trading center, sending its ships to Melos
to bring back huge quantities of obsidian, and perhaps serving as a gateway
for goods coming to Crete from the Near East; it is also one of the few
sites of the period to show convincing evidence for a hierarchical social
structure.
The 1992 and 1993 excavations uncovered remains of two Prepalatial structures
in two different areas, making a total of three Prepalatial buildings which
the current excavations have exposed. The first of these, found in 1989,
is located on the water's edge beneath the LM I houses C.1 and C.5. Prepalatial
House 2, found in 1992, is located beneath Block B, midway between those
found by Seager to the west beneath Block A and to the east beneath House
C.2. The third house, discovered in 1993, lies to the north of House 1 beneath
the street that runs alongside House C.3. These houses are scattered widely
and, while some of them may be earlier than others, indicate the extent
of Prepalatial occupation over the site; later occupation often cut down
through Prepalatial levels to bedrock and it may not be possible as a result
to learn the density of this occupation.
Return to Island PageReturn to Site & Excavations
PageReturn to Mochlos Home Page
Return to Classical
Studies Home Page