Giacobbe Giusti, GIAMPIETRINO: Magdalena Penitente, Hermitage

Giacobbe Giusti, GIAMPIETRINO: Magdalena Penitente, Hermitage

 

 

Bibliography[

• Bock, Darrell L. (2004), Breaking The Da Vinci Code, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, pp. 143–144, ISBN 978-1-4185-1338-2
• Bradshaw, Peter (February 27, 2018), « Mary Magdalene review – toothless attempt to overturn Sunday school myths: Rooney Mara brings her customary intensity to the title role as Jesus’ ‘favourite pupil’, but the result is a bit too solemn to be a convincing reinvention », The Guardian
• Campbell, Lorne (2009), « The New Pictorial Language of Rogier van der Weyden », in Campbell, Lorne; Van der Stock, Jan, Rogier Van Der Weyden: 1400-1464 : Master of Passions, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, pp. 2–64, ISBN 9789085261056
• Carr, Flora (March 30, 2018), « The Real Reason Why Mary Magdalene Is Such a Controversial Figure », TIME
• Casey, Maurice (2010), Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching, New York City, New York and London, England: T & T Clark, ISBN 978-0-567-64517-3
• Crossan, John Dominic (1995), Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, San Francisco, California: HarperOne, ISBN 0-06-061662-8
• « Life of Mary Magdalen », William Caxton‘s English version of the Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine
• Chilton, Bruce (2005), Mary Magdalene: A Biography, New York City, New York, London, England, Toronto, Ontario, Sydney, Australia, and Auckland, New Zealand: Image Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-385-51318-0
• Dalton, Stephen (February 27, 2018), « Mary Magdalene: Film Review », The Hollywood Reporter
• DeConick, April D. (2011), Holy Misogyny: Why the Sex and Gender Conflicts in the Early Church Still Matter, New York City, New York and London, England: Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN 978-1-4411-9602-6
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2004), Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-518140-9
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2006), Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-530013-0
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2014), How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, New York City, New York: HarperOne, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6
• Erhardt, Michelle; Morris, Amy (2012), « Introduction », Mary Magdalene: Iconographic Studies from the Middle Ages to the Baroque, Studies in Religion and the Arts, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, ISBN 978-90-04-23224-2
• Ferguson, George (1976) [1954], « St. Mary Magdalene », Signs and Symbols in Christian Art, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp. 134–135
• Foss, Clive (1979), Ephesus After Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-22086-6
• Geneva Press (2008), The Presbyterian Handbook for Pastors, Louiseville, Kentucky: Geneva Press, ISBN 978-0-664-50299-7
• Green, Mary E. (2014), « Mary Magdalene, the Myrrh Bearer », Eyes to See: The Redemptive Purpose of Icons, New York City, New York, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Denver Colorado: Morehouse Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8192-2939-7
• Haag, Michael (2016), The Quest For Mary Magdalene: History & Legend, London, England: Profile Books, ISBN 978-1847659385
• Hailes, Sam (March 6, 2018), « Why Mary Magdalene is the Hollywood film Christians have been waiting for: This new movie paints a clear picture of Jesus, says Sam Hailes », Premiere Christianity
• Haskins, Susan (2005) [1993], Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor, New York City, New York: Pimplico, ISBN 1-8459-5004-6
• Herzog, William R. (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster Knox Press, ISBN 0-664-22528-4
• Hinkle, Mary (2003) [1986], « Mary Magdalene », in Fahlbusch, Erwin; Lochman, Jan Milič; Mbiti, John; Pelikan, Jaroslav; Vischer, Lukas; Bromiley, Geoffrey W.; Barrett, David B., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, J-O, 3, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, England, Leiden, The Netherlands, and Boston, Massachusetts: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Brill, pp. 446–448, ISBN 0-8028-2415-3
• Johnston, Barbara, « Sacred Kingship and Royal Patronage in the La Vie de la Magdalene: Pilgrimage, Politics, Passion Plays, and the Life of Louise of Savoy » (Florida State), R. Neuman, Dissertation, PDF, 88–93
• Jones, Roger; Penny, Nicholas (1983), Raphael, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0300040524
• Kelly, Henry Ansgar (2006), Satan: A Biography, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521604024
• Kim, Young Richard (2015), Epiphanius of Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, pp. 37–39, ISBN 978-0-472-11954-7
• King, Ross (2012), Leonardo and the Last Supper, New York City, New York and London, England: Bloomsbury, ISBN 978-0-7475-9947-0
• Kugelmann, Robert (1983), The Windows of Soul: Psychological Physiology of the Human Eye and Primary Glaucoma, London, England and Toronto, Canada: Associated University Presses, ISBN 0-8387-5035-4
• Lang, J. Stephen (2003), What the Good Book Didn’t Say: Popular Myths and Misconceptions About the Bible, New York City New York: Citadel Press, ISBN 0-8065-2460-X
• Levine, Amy-Jill; Allison, Dale C. Jr.; Crossan, John Dominic (October 16, 2006), The Historical Jesus in Context, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-00992-9
• Maisch, Ingrid (1998) [1996], Mary Magdalene: The Image of a Woman through the Centuries, translated by Maloney, Linda M., Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Presss, ISBN 0-8146-2471-5
• Powell, Mark Allen (1998), Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Louiseville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 168, ISBN 978-0-664-25703-3
• Pringle, Denys (1998), « Magdala », The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, II: L-Z (excluding Tyre), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-39037-0
• Roper, Lyndal (2016), Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet, New York City, New York: Random House, ISBN 9780812996203
• Sabar, Ariel (2016), « The Scholar Who Discovered the ‘Jesus’s Wife’ Fragment Now Says It’s Likely a Fake », The Atlantic
• Sanders, E. P. (1993), The Historical Figure of Jesus, London, England, New York City, New York, Ringwood, Australia, Toronto, Ontario, and Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin Books, ISBN 0-14-014499-4
• Schaberg, Jane (2004) [2002], The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament, New York City, New York and London, England: Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN 0-8264-1645-4
• Strong, Steven; Strong, Evan (2008), Mary Magdalene’s Dreaming: A Comparison of Aboriginal Wisdom and Gnostic Scripture, Lanham, Maryland, Boulder, Colorado, New York City, New York, Toronto, Ontario, and Plymouth, England: University Press of America, ISBN 978-0-7618-4281-1
• Wilson, Kenneth (2011), Methodist Theology, Doing Theology, London, England and New York City, New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, ISBN 978-0-5670-8135-3
• Witcombe, Christopher L. C. E. (June 2002), « The Chapel of the Courtesan and the Quarrel of the Magdalens », The Art Bulletin, New York City, New York: College Art Association, 84 (2): 273–292, doi:10.2307/3177269, JSTOR 3177269
• Wright, N. T. (March 1, 2003), The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, 3, Eugene, Oregon: Fortress Press, ISBN 978-0800626792

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Venice, Museo Storico Navale (navy museum), wooden model of galley with rowers.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Galère de l’Ordre de Malte, reconstitution du Musée d’histoire navale de Venise.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Battle between Venetian and Holy Roman fleets; detail of fresco by Spinello Aretino 1407–1408.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Triumph of Poseidon and Amphitrite showing the couple in procession, detail of a vast mosaic from Cirta, Roman Africa (ca. 315–325 AD, now at the Louvre)

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Byzantine ship attacking with Greek fire. Madrid Skylitzes manuscript, 11th century.

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Odysseus and the Sirens, Ulixes mosaic at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis, Tunisia, 2nd century AD

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

A Roman naval bireme depicted in a relief from the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia in Praeneste(Palastrina),^[29] which was built c. 120 BC;^[30] exhibited in the Pius-Clementine Museum (Museo Pio-Clementino) in the Vatican Museums.

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Venetian great galley with three sails taking pilgrims to Jerusalem (Conrad Grünenberg 1486/7).

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

The Byzantine fleet repels the Rus’ attack on Constantinople in 941. The Byzantine dromons are rolling over the Rus’ vessels and smashing their oars with their spurs.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Contemporary depiction of the battle of Lepanto in 1571 that shows the strict formations of the opposing fleets. Fresco in the Gallery of Maps in Vatican Museum.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

A model of a Maltese design typical of the 16th century, the last great era of the war galley

A galley is a type of ship that is propelled mainly by rowing. The galley is characterized by its long, slender hull, shallow draft and low freeboard (clearance between sea and railing). Virtually all types of galleys had sails that could be used in favorable winds, but human strength was always the primary method of propulsion. This allowed galleys to navigate independently of winds and currents. The galley originated among the seafaring civilizations around the Mediterranean Sea in the late second millennium BC and remained in use in various forms until the early 19th century in warfare, trade and piracy.

Galleys were the warships used by the early Mediterranean naval powers, including the Greeks, Phoenicians and Romans. They remained the dominant types of vessels used for war and piracy in the Mediterranean Sea until the last decades of the 16th century. As warships, galleys carried various types of weapons throughout their long existence, including rams, catapults and cannons, but also relied on their large crews to overpower enemy vessels in boarding actions. They were the first ships to effectively use heavy cannons as anti-ship weapons. As highly efficient gun platforms they forced changes in the design of medieval seaside fortresses as well as refinement of sailing warships.

The zenith of galley usage in warfare came in the late 16th century with battles like that at Lepanto in 1571, one of the largest naval battles ever fought. By the 17th century, however, sailing ships and hybrid ships like the xebec displaced galleys in naval warfare. They were the most common warships in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Ages, and later saw limited use in the Caribbean, the Philippines and the Indian Ocean in the early modern period, mostly as patrol craft to combat pirates. From the mid-16th century galleys were in intermittent use in the Baltic Sea, with its short distances and extensive archipelagoes. There was a minor revival of galley warfare in the 18th century in the wars among Russia, Sweden and Denmark.

Definition and terminology

The term « galley » derives from the medieval Greek galea, a smaller version of the dromon, the prime warship of the Byzantine navy.^[1] The origin of the Greek word is unclear but could possibly be related to galeos, dogfish shark.^[2] The word « galley » has been attested in English from c. 1300^[3] and has been used in most European languages from around 1500 both as a general term for oared warships, and from the Middle Ages and onwards more specifically for the Mediterranean-style vessel.^[4] It was only from the 16th century that a unified galley concept came in use. Before that, particularly in antiquity, there was a wide variety of terms used for different types of galleys. In modern historical literature, « galley » is occasionally used as a general term for various types of oared vessels larger than boats, though the « true » galley is defined as the ships belonging to the Mediterranean tradition.^[5]

The English-built Charles Galley, a « galley frigate » built in the 1670s. It was not a « true » galley, but the term still became part of its name due to its oars.

Ancient galleys were named according to the number of oars, the number of banks of oars or lines of rowers. The terms are based on contemporary language use combined with more recent compounds of Greek and Latin words. The earliest Greek single-banked galleys are called triaconters (from triakontoroi, « thirty-oars ») and penteconters(pentēkontoroi, « fifty-oars »).^[6] For later galleys with more than one row of oars, the terminology is based on Latin numerals with the suffix -reme from rēmus, « oar ». A monoreme has one bank of oars, a biremetwo and a trireme three. Since the maximum banks of oars was three, any expansion above that did not refer to additional banks of oars, but of additional rowers for every oar. Quinquereme (quintus + rēmus) was literally a « five-oar », but actually meant that there were several rowers to certain banks of oars which made up five lines of oar handlers. For simplicity, they have by many modern scholars been referred to as « fives », « sixes », « eights », « elevens », etc. Anything above six or seven rows of rowers was not common, though even a very exceptional « forty » is attested in contemporary source. Any galley with more than three or four lines of rowers is often referred to as a « polyreme ».^[7]

Archaeologist Lionel Casson has used the term « galley » to describe all North European shipping in the early and high Middle Ages, including Viking merchants and even their famous longships, though this is rare.^[8] Oared military vessels built on the British Isles in the 11th to 13th centuries were based on Scandinavian designs, but were nevertheless referred to as « galleys ». Many of them were similar to birlinns, close relatives of longship types like the snekkja. By the 14th century, they were replaced with balingers in southern Britain while longship-type « Irish galleys » remained in use throughout the Middle Ages in northern Britain.^[9]

Watercolor of United States ships at the battle of Valcour Island, depicting several « row galleys« ; similar function, but based on very different designs than Mediterranean galleys.

Medieval and early modern galleys used a different terminology than their ancient predecessors. Names were based on the changing designs that evolved after the ancient rowing schemes were forgotten. Among the most important is the Byzantine dromon, the predecessor to the Italian galea sottila. This was the first step toward the final form of the Mediterranean war galley. As galleys became an integral part of an advanced, early modern system of warfare and state administration, they were divided into a number of ranked grades based on the size of the vessel and the number of its crew. The most basic types were the following: large commander « lantern galleys », half-galleys, galiots, fustas, brigantinesand fregatas. Naval historian Jan Glete has described as a sort of predecessor of the later rating system of the Royal Navy and other sailing fleets in Northern Europe.^[10]

The French navy and the British Royal Navy built a series of « galley frigates » from c. 1670–1690 that were small two-decked sailing cruisers with a set of oarports on the lower deck. The three British galley frigates also had distinctive names – James Galley, Charles Galley and Mary Galley.^[11] In the late 18th century, the term « galley » was in some contexts used to describe minor oared gun-armed vessels which did not fit into the category of the classic Mediterranean type. In North America, during American Revolutionary War, and other wars with France and Britain, the early US Navy and other navies built vessels that were called « galleys » or « row galleys« , though they were actually brigantines or Baltic gunboats.^[12] This type of description was more a characterization of their military role, and was in part due to technicalities in administration and naval financing.^[13]

History

Among the earliest known watercraft were canoes made from hollowed-out logs, the earliest ancestors of galleys. Their narrow hulls required them to be paddled in a fixed sitting position facing forwards, a less efficient form of propulsion than rowing with proper oars, facing backwards. Seagoing paddled craft have been attested by finds of terracotta sculptures and lead models in the region of the Aegean Sea from the 3rd millennium BC. However, archaeologists believe that the Stone Agecolonization of islands in the Mediterranean around 8,000 BC required fairly large, seaworthy vessels that were paddled and possibly even equipped with sails.^[14] The first evidence of more complex craft that are considered to prototypes for later galleys comes from Ancient Egypt during the Old Kingdom (c. 2700–2200 BC). Under the rule of pharaoh Pepi I (2332–2283 BC) these vessels were used to transport troops to raid settlements along the Levantine coast and to ship back slaves and timber.^[15]During the reign of Hatshepsut (c. 1479–57 BC), Egyptian galleys traded in luxuries on the Red Sea with the enigmatic Land of Punt, as recorded on wall paintings at the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari.^[16]

Assyrian warship, a bireme with pointed bow. 700 BC

Shipbuilders, probably Phoenician, a seafaring people who lived on the southern and eastern coasts of the Mediterranean, were the first to create the two-level galley that would be widely known under its Greek name, diērēs, or bireme.^[17] Even though the Phoenicians were among the most important naval civilizations in early Antiquity, little detailed evidence have been found concerning the types of ships they used. The best depictions found so far have been small, highly stylized images on seals which depict crescent-shape vessels equipped with one mast and banks of oars. Colorful frescoes on the Minoan settlement on Santorini (c. 1600 BC) show more detailed pictures of vessels with ceremonial tents on deck in a procession. Some of these are rowed, but others are paddled with men laboriously bent over the railings. This has been interpreted as a possible ritual reenactment of more ancient types of vessels, alluding to a time before rowing was invented, but little is otherwise known about the use and design of Minoan ships.^[18]

In the earliest days of the galley, there was no clear distinction between ships of trade and war other than their actual usage. River boats plied the waterways of ancient Egypt during the Old Kingdom (2700–2200 BC) and seagoing galley-like vessels were recorded bringing back luxuries from across the Red Sea in the reign of pharaoh Hatshepsut. Fitting rams to the bows of vessels sometime around the 8th century BC resulted in a distinct split in the design of warships, and set trade vessels apart, at least when it came to use in naval warfare. The Phoenicians used galleys for transports that were less elongated, carried fewer oars and relied more on sails. Carthaginian galley wrecks found off Sicily that date to the 3rd or 2nd century BC had a length to breadth ratio of 6:1, proportions that fell between the 4:1 of sailing merchant ships and the 8:1 or 10:1 of war galleys. Merchant galleys in the ancient Mediterranean were intended as carriers of valuable cargo or perishable goods that needed to be moved as safely and quickly as possible.^[19]

Dionysus riding on a small galley-like craft in a painting from the Dionysus cup by Exekias, from c. 530 BC^[20]

The first Greek galleys appeared around the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. In the epic poem, the Iliad, set in the 12th century BC, galleys with a single row of oarsmen were used primarily to transport soldiers to and from various land battles.^[21] The first recorded naval battle, the battle of the Deltabetween Egyptian forces under Ramesses IIIand the enigmatic alliance known as the Sea Peoples, occurred as early as 1175 BC. It is the first known engagement between organized armed forces, using sea vessels as weapons of war, though primarily as fighting platforms. It was distinguished by being fought against an anchored fleet close to shore with land-based archer support.^[22]

The first true Mediterranean galleys usually had between 15 and 25 pairs of oars and were called triaconters or penteconters, literally « thirty- » and « fifty-oared », respectively. Not long after they appeared, a third row of oars was added by the addition to a bireme of an outrigger, a projecting construction that gave more room for the projecting oars. These new galleys were called triērēs (« three-fitted ») in Greek. The Romans later called this design the triremis, trireme, the name it is today best known under. It has been hypothesized that early types of triremes existed as early as 700 BC, but the earliest conclusive literary reference dates to 542 BC.^[23] With the development of triremes, penteconters disappeared altogether. Triaconters were still used, but only for scouting and express dispatches.^[24]

The first warships

A reconstruction of an ancient Greek galley squadron based on images of modern replica Olympias

The earliest use for galleys in warfare was to ferry fighters from one place to another, and until the middle of the 2nd millennium BC had no real distinction from merchant freighters. Around the 14th century BC, the first dedicated fighting ships were developed, sleeker and with cleaner lines than the bulkier merchants. They were used for raiding, capturing merchants and for dispatches.^[25] During this early period, raiding became the most important form of organized violence in the Mediterranean region. Maritime classicist historian Lionel Casson used the example of Homer‘s works to show that seaborne raiding was considered a common and legitimate occupation among ancient maritime peoples. The later Athenian historian Thucydidesdescribed it as having been « without stigma » before his time.^[26]

The development of the ram sometime before the 8th century BC changed the nature of naval warfare, which had until then been a matter of boarding and hand-to-hand fighting. With a heavy projection at the foot of the bow, sheathed with metal, usually bronze, a ship could incapacitate an enemy ship by punching a hole in its planking. The relative speed and nimbleness of ships became important, since a slower ship could be outmaneuvered and disabled by a faster one. The earliest designs had only one row of rowers that sat in undecked hulls, rowing against tholes, or oarports, that were placed directly along the railings. The practical upper limit for wooden constructions fast and maneuverable enough for warfare was around 25-30 oars per side. By adding another level of oars, a development that occurred no later than c. 750 BC, the galley could be made shorter with as many rowers, while making them strong enough to be effective ramming weapons.^[27]

The emergence of more advanced states and intensified competition between them spurred on the development of advanced galleys with multiple banks of rowers. During the middle of the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean powers developed successively larger and more complex vessels, the most advanced being the classical trireme with up to 170 rowers. Triremes fought several important engagements in the naval battles of the Greco-Persian Wars (502–449 BC) and the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), including the battle of Aegospotami in 405 BC, which sealed the defeat of Athens by Sparta and its allies. The trireme was an advanced ship that was expensive to build and to maintain due its large crew. By the 5th century, advanced war galleys had been developed that required sizable states with an advanced economy to build and maintain. It was associated with the latest in warship technology around the 4th century BC and could only be employed by an advanced state with an advanced economy and administration. They required considerable skill to row and oarsmen were mostly free citizens who had years of experience at the oar.^[28]

Hellenistic era and rise of the Republic

 Hellenistic-era warships

A Roman naval bireme depicted in a relief from the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia in Praeneste(Palastrina),^[29] which was built c. 120 BC;^[30] exhibited in the Pius-Clementine Museum (Museo Pio-Clementino) in the Vatican Museums.

Odysseus and the Sirens, Ulixes mosaic at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis, Tunisia, 2nd century AD

As civilizations around the Mediterranean grew in size and complexity, both their navies and the galleys that made up their numbers became successively larger. The basic design of two or three rows of oars remained the same, but more rowers were added to each oar. The exact reasons are not known, but are believed to have been caused by addition of more troops and the use of more advanced ranged weapons on ships, such as catapults. The size of the new naval forces also made it difficult to find enough skilled rowers for the one-man-per-oar system of the earliest triremes. With more than one man per oar, a single rower could set the pace for the others to follow, meaning that more unskilled rowers could be employed.^[31]

The successor states of Alexander the Great‘s empire built galleys that were like triremes or biremes in oar layout, but manned with additional rowers for each oar. The ruler Dionysius I of Syracuse (ca. 432–367 BC) is credited with pioneering the « five » and « six », meaning five or six rows of rowers plying two or three rows of oars. Ptolemy II (283-46 BC) is known to have built a large fleet of very large galleys with several experimental designs rowed by everything from 12 up to 40 rows of rowers, though most of these are considered to have been quite impractical. Fleets with large galleys were put in action in conflicts such as the Punic Wars (246-146) between the Roman republic and Carthage, which included massive naval battles with hundreds of vessels and tens of thousands of soldiers, seamen and rowers.^[32]

Most of the surviving documentary evidence comes from Greek and Roman shipping, though it is likely that merchant galleys all over the Mediterranean were highly similar. In Greek they were referred to as histiokopos (« sail-oar-er ») to reflect that they relied on both types of propulsion. In Latin they were called actuaria (navis) (« ship that moves ») in Latin, stressing that they were capable of making progress regardless of weather conditions. As an example of the speed and reliability, during an instance of the famous « Carthago delenda est« -speech, Cato the Elder demonstrated the close proximity of the Roman arch enemy Carthage by displaying a fresh fig to his audience that he claimed had been picked in North Africa only three days past. Other cargoes carried by galleys were honey, cheese, meat and live animals intended for gladiator combat. The Romans had several types of merchant galleys that specialized in various tasks, out of which the actuaria with up to 50 rowers was the most versatile, including the phaselus (lit. « bean pod ») for passenger transport and the lembus, a small-scale express carrier. Many of these designs continued to be used until the Middle Ages.^[33]

Roman Imperial era

Depictions of two compact liburnians used by the Romans in their campaigns against the Dacians in the early 2nd century AD; reliefs from Trajan’s Column, c. 113 AD.

The Battle of Actium in 31 BC between the forces of Augustus and Mark Antony marked the peak of the Roman fleet arm. After Augustus’ victory at Actium, most of the Roman fleet was dismantled and burned. The Roman civil wars were fought mostly by land forces, and from the 160s until the 4th century AD, no major fleet actions were recorded. During this time, most of the galley crews were disbanded or employed for entertainment purposes in mock battles or in handling the sail-like sun-screens in the larger Roman arenas. What fleets remained were treated as auxiliaries of the land forces, and galley crewmen themselves called themselves milites, « soldiers », rather than nautae, « sailors ».^[34]

The Roman galley fleets were turned into provincial patrol forces that were smaller and relied largely on liburnians, compact biremes with 25 pairs of oars. These were named after an Illyrian tribe known by Romans for their sea roving practices, and these smaller craft were based on, or inspired by, their vessels of choice. The liburnians and other small galleys patrolled the rivers of continental Europe and reached as far as the Baltic, where they were used to fight local uprisings and assist in checking foreign invasions. The Romans maintained numerous bases around the empire: along the rivers of Central Europe, chains of forts along the northern European coasts and the British Isles, Mesopotamia and North Africa, including Trabzon, Vienna, Belgrade, Dover, Seleucia and Alexandria. Few actual galley battles in the provinces are found in records. One action in 70 AD at the unspecified location of the « Island of the Batavians » during the Batavian Rebellion was recorded, and included a trireme as the Roman flagship.^[35] The last provincial fleet, the classis Britannica, was reduced by the late 200s, though there was a minor upswing under the rule of Constantine (272–337). His rule also saw the last major naval battle of the unified Roman Empire (before the permanent split into Western and Eastern [later « Byzantine »] Empires), the battle of Hellespont of 324. Some time after Hellespont, the classical trireme fell out of use, and its design was forgotten.^[36]

Triumph of Poseidon and Amphitriteshowing the couple in procession, detail of a vast mosaic from Cirta, Roman Africa (ca. 315–325 AD, now at the Louvre)

Middle Ages

A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the high Middle Ages (c. 11th century). Large high-sided sailing ships had always been formidable obstacles for galleys. To low-freeboard oared vessels, the bulkier sailing ships, the cog and the carrack, were almost like floating fortresses, being difficult to board and even harder to capture. Galleys remained useful as warships throughout the entire Middle Ages because of their maneuverability. Sailing ships of the time had only one mast, usually with just a single, large square sail. This made them cumbersome to steer and it was virtually impossible to sail into the wind direction. Galleys therefore were still the only ship type capable of coastal raiding and amphibious landings, both key elements of medieval warfare.^[37]

Eastern Mediterranean

In the eastern Mediterranean, the Byzantine Empire struggled with the incursion from invading Muslim Arabs from the 7th century, leading to fierce competition, a buildup of fleet, and war galleys of increasing size. Soon after conquering Egypt and the Levant, the Arab rulers built ships highly similar to Byzantine dromons with the help of local Coptic shipwrights from former Byzantine naval bases.^[38] By the 9th century, the struggle between the Byzantines and Arabs had turned the Eastern Mediterranean into a no man’s land for merchant activity. In the 820s Crete was captured by Andalusian Muslims displaced by a failed revolt against the Emirate of Cordoba, turning the island into a base for (galley) attacks on Christian shipping until the island was recaptured by the Byzantines in 960.^[39]

Western Mediterranean

In the western Mediterranean and Atlantic, the division of the Carolingian Empire in the late 9th century brought on a period of instability, meaning increased piracy and raiding in the Mediterranean, particularly by newly arrived Muslim invaders. The situation was worsened by raiding Scandinavian Vikings who used longships, vessels that in many ways were very close to galleys in design and functionality and also employed similar tactics. To counter the threat, local rulers began to build large oared vessels, some with up to 30 pairs of oars, that were larger, faster and with higher sides than Viking ships.^[40] Scandinavian expansion, including incursions into the Mediterranean and attacks on both Muslim Iberia and even Constantinople itself, subsided by the mid-11th century. By this time, greater stability in merchant traffic was achieved by the emergence of Christian kingdoms such as those of France, Hungary and Poland. Around the same time, Italian port towns and city states, like Venice, Pisa and Amalfi, rose on the fringes of the Byzantine Empire as it struggled with eastern threats.^[41]

After the advent of Islam and Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th century, the old Mediterranean economy collapsed and the volume of trade went down drastically.^[42]The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, neglected to revive overland trade routes but was dependent on keeping the sea lanes open to keep the empire together. Bulk trade fell around 600-750 while the luxury trade increased. Galleys remained in service, but were profitable mainly in the luxury trade, which set off their high maintenance cost.^[43] In the 10th century, there was a sharp increase in piracy which resulted in larger ships with more numerous crews. These were mostly built by the growing city-states of Italy which were emerging as the dominant sea powers, including Venice, Genoa and Pisa. Inheriting the Byzantine ship designs, the new merchant galleys were similar dromons, but without any heavy weapons and both faster and wider. They could be manned by crews of up to 1,000 men and were employed in both trade and warfare. A further boost to the development of the large merchant galleys was the upswing in Western European pilgrims traveling to the Holy Land.^[44]

Venetian great galley with three sails taking pilgrims to Jerusalem (Conrad Grünenberg 1486/7).

In Northern Europe, Viking longships and their derivations, knarrs, dominated trading and shipping, though developed separately from the Mediterranean galley tradition. In the South galleys continued to be useful for trade even as sailing vessels evolved more efficient hulls and rigging; since they could hug the shoreline and make steady progress when winds failed, they were highly reliable. The zenith in the design of merchant galleys came with the state-owned great galleys of the Venetian Republic, first built in the 1290s. These were used to carry the lucrative trade in luxuries from the east such as spices, silks and gems. They were in all respects larger than contemporary war galleys (up to 46 m) and had a deeper draft, with more room for cargo (140-250 t). With a full complement of rowers ranging from 150 to 180 men, all available to defend the ship from attack, they were also very safe modes of travel. This attracted a business of carrying affluent pilgrims to the Holy Land, a trip that could be accomplished in as little 29 days on the route Venice-Jaffa, despite landfalls for rest and watering or for respite from rough weather.^[45]

Development of the true galley

Late medieval maritime warfare was divided in two distinct regions. In the Mediterranean galleys were used for raiding along coasts, and in the constant fighting for naval bases. In the Atlantic and Baltic there was greater focus on sailing ships that were used mostly for troop transport, with galleys providing fighting support.^[46] Galleys were still widely used in the north and were the most numerous warships used by Mediterranean powers with interests in the north, especially the French and Iberian kingdoms.^[47]

During the 13th and 14th century, the galley evolved into the design that was to remain essentially the same until it was phased out in the early 19th century. The new type descended from the ships used by Byzantine and Muslim fleets in the early Middle Ages. These were the mainstay of all Christian powers until the 14th century, including the great maritime republics of Genoa and Venice, the Papacy, the Hospitallers, Aragon and Castile, as well as by various pirates and corsairs. The overall term used for these types of vessels was gallee sottili (« slender galleys »). The later Ottoman navy used similar designs, but they were generally faster under sail, and smaller, but slower under oars.^[48] Galley designs were intended solely for close action with hand-held weapons and projectile weapons like bows and crossbows. In the 13th century the Iberian Crown of Aragon built several fleet of galleys with high castles, manned with Catalan crossbowman, and regularly defeated numerically superior Angevin forces.^[49]

From the first half of the 14th century the Venetian galere da mercato (« merchantman galleys ») were being built in the shipyards of the state-run Arsenal as « a combination of state enterprise and private association, the latter being a kind of consortium of export merchants », as Fernand Braudel described them.^[50] The ships sailed in convoy, defended by archers and slingsmen (ballestieri) aboard, and later carrying cannons. In Genoa, the other major maritime power of the time, galleys and ships in general were more produced by smaller private ventures.

A 3D model of the basic hull structure of a Venetian « galley of Flanders », a large trading vessel of the 15th century. The reconstruction by archaeologist Courtney Higgins is based on measurements given in contemporary ship treatises.^[51]

Illustration of a 15th-century trade galley from a manuscript by Michael of Rhodes (1401–1445) written in 1434.

In the 14th and 15th centuries merchant galleys traded high-value goods and carried passengers. Major routes in the time of the early Crusades carried the pilgrim traffic to the Holy Land. Later routes linked ports around the Mediterranean, between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (a grain trade soon squeezed off by the Turkish capture of Constantinople, 1453) and between the Mediterranean and Bruges— where the first Genoese galley arrived at Sluys in 1277, the first Venetian galere in 1314— and Southampton. Although primarily sailing vessels, they used oars to enter and leave many trading ports of call, the most effective way of entering and leaving the Lagoon of Venice. The Venetian galera, beginning at 100 tons and built as large as 300, was not the largest merchantman of its day, when the Genoese carrack of the 15th century might exceed 1000 tons.^[52] In 1447, for instance, Florentine galleys planned to call at 14 ports on their way to and from Alexandria.^[53] The availability of oars enabled these ships to navigate close to the shore where they could exploit land and sea breezes and coastal currents, to work reliable and comparatively fast passages against the prevailing wind. The large crews also provided protection against piracy. These ships were very seaworthy; a Florentine great galley left Southampton on 23 February 1430 and returned to its port at Pisa in 32 days. They were so safe that merchandise was often not insured.^[54] These ships increased in size during this period, and were the template from which the galleass developed.

Transition to sailing ships

As early as 1304 the type of ship required by the Danish defence organization changed from galley to cog, a flat-bottomed sailing ship.^[55]

During the early 15th century, sailing ships began to dominate naval warfare in northern waters. While the galley still remained the primary warship in southern waters, a similar transition had begun also among the Mediterranean powers. A Castilian naval raid on the island of Jersey in 1405 became the first recorded battle where a Mediterranean power employed a naval force consisting mostly of cogs or nefs, rather than the oared-powered galleys. The battle of Gibraltar between Castile and Portugal in 1476 was another important sign of change; it was the first recorded battle where the primary combatants were full-rigged ships armed with wrought-iron guns on the upper decks and in the waists, foretelling of the slow decline of the war galley.^[56]

The transition from the Mediterranean war galley to the sailing vessel as the preferred method of vessel in the Mediterranean is tied directly to technological developments and the inherent handling characteristics of each vessel types. The primary factors were changing sail design, the introduction of cannons aboard vessels, and the handling characteristics of the vessels.

The sailing vessel was always at the mercy of the wind for propulsion, and those that did carry oars were placed at a disadvantage because they were not optimized for oar use. The galley did have disadvantages compared to the sailing vessel though. Their smaller hulls were not able to hold as much cargo and this limited their range as the crews were required to replenish food stuffs more frequently.^[57] The low freeboard of the galley meant that in close action with a sailing vessel, the sailing vessel would usually maintain a height advantage. The sailing vessel could also fight more effectively farther out at sea and in rougher wind conditions because of the height of their freeboard.^[58]

Under sail, an oared warship was placed at much greater risk as a result of the piercings for the oars which were required to be near the waterline and would allow water to ingress into the galley if the vessel heeled too far to one side. These advantages and disadvantages led the galley to be and remain a primarily coastal vessel. The shift to sailing vessels in the Mediterranean was the result of the negation of some of the galley’s advantages as well as the adoption of gunpowder weapons on a much larger institutional scale. The sailing vessel was propelled in a different manner than the galley but the tactics were often the same until the 16th century. The real-estate afforded to the sailing vessel to place larger cannons and other armament mattered little because early gunpowder weapons had limited range and were expensive to produce. The eventual creation of cast iron cannons allowed vessels and armies to be outfitted much more cheaply. The cost of gunpowder also fell in this period.^[59]

The armament of both vessel types varied between larger weapons such as bombards and the smaller swivel guns. For logistical purposes it became convenient for those with larger shore establishments to standardize upon a given size of cannon. Traditionally the English in the North and the Venetians in the Mediterranean are seen as some the earliest to move in this direction. The improving sail rigs of northern vessels also allowed them to navigate in the coastal waters of the Mediterranean to a much larger degree than before.^[60] Aside from warships the decrease in the cost of gunpowder weapons also led to the arming of merchants. The larger vessels of the north continued to mature while the galley retained its defining characteristics. Attempts were made to stave this off such as the addition of fighting castles in the bow, but such additions to counter the threats brought by larger sailing vessels often offset the advantages of galley.^[61]

Introduction of guns

Painting of the battle of Haarlemmermeer of 1573 by Hendrick Cornelisz Vroom. Note the use of small sailing vessels and galleys on both sides.

From around 1450, three major naval powers established a dominance over different parts of the Mediterranean using galleys as their primary weapons at sea: the Ottomans in the east, Venice in the center and Habsburg Spain in the west.^[62] The core of their fleets were concentrated in the three major, wholly dependable naval bases in the Mediterranean: Constantinople, Venice and Barcelona.^[63] Naval warfare in the 16th century Mediterranean was fought mostly on a smaller scale, with raiding and minor actions dominating. Only three truly major fleet engagements were actually fought in the 16th century: the battles of Preveza in 1538, Djerba in 1560 and Lepanto in 1571. Lepanto became the last large all-galley battle ever, and was also one of the largest battle in terms of participants anywhere in early modern Europe before the Napoleonic Wars.^[64]

Occasionally the Mediterranean powers employed galley forces for conflicts outside the Mediterranean. Spain sent galley squadrons to the Netherlands during the later stages of the Eighty Years’ War which successfully operated against Dutch forces in the enclosed, shallow coastal waters. From the late 1560s, galleys were also used to transport silver to Genoese bankers to finance Spanish troops against the Dutch uprising.^[65] Galleasses and galleys were part of an invasion force of over 16,000 men that conquered the Azores in 1583. Around 2,000 galley rowers were on board ships of the famous 1588 Spanish Armada, though few of these actually made it to the battle itself.^[66] Outside European and Middle Eastern waters, Spain built galleys to deal with pirates and privateers in both the Caribbean and the Philippines.^[67]Ottoman galleys contested the Portuguese intrusion in the Indian Ocean in the 16th century, but failed against the high-sided, massive Portuguese carracks in open waters.^[68]

Despite the huge loss of men and material after the loss of the Spanish Armada in 1588 Spain maintained four permanent galley squadrons. Together they formed the largest galley navy in the Mediterranean in the early 17th century. They formed the backbone of the Spanish war fleet and were used for ferrying troops, supplies, horses and munitions to Spain’s Italian and African possessions.^[69] The Ottoman Turks attempted to contest the Portuguese rise to power in the Indian Ocean in the 16th century with Mediterranean-style galleys, but were foiled by the formidable Portuguese carracks. Even though the carracks themselves were soon surpassed by other types of sailing vessels, their greater range, great size and high superstructures, armed with numerous wrought iron guns easily outmatched the short-ranged, low-freeboard Turkish galleys.^[68] The Spanish used galleys to more success in their colonial possessions in the Caribbean and the Philippines to hunt pirates^[70] and were used sporadically in the Netherlands and the Bay of Biscay.^[71]

Ottoman galleys in battle with raiding boats in the Black Sea; Sloane 3584 manuscript, c. 1636

Galleys had been synonymous with warships in the Mediterranean for at least 2,000 years, and continued to fulfill that role with the invention of gunpowder and heavy artillery. Though early 20th-century historians often dismissed the galleys as hopelessly outclassed with the first introduction of naval artillery on sailing ships,^[72] it was the galley that was favored by the introduction of heavy naval guns. Galleys were a more « mature » technology with long-established tactics and traditions of supporting social institutions and naval organizations. In combination with the intensified conflicts this led to a substantial increase in the size of galley fleets from c. 1520–80, above all in the Mediterranean, but also in other European theatres.^[73] Galleys and similar oared vessels remained uncontested as the most effective gun-armed warships in theory until the 1560s, and in practice for a few decades more, and were actually considered a grave risk to sailing warships.^[74] They could effectively fight other galleys, attack sailing ships in calm weather or in unfavorable winds (or deny them action if needed) and act as floating siege batteries. They were also unequaled in their amphibious capabilities, even at extended ranges, as exemplified by French interventions as far north as Scotland in the mid-16th century.^[75]

Heavy artillery on galleys was mounted in the bow, which aligned easily with the long-standing tactical tradition of attacking head on, bow first. The ordnance on galleys was heavy from its introduction in the 1480s, and capable of quickly demolishing the high, thin medieval stone walls that still prevailed in the 16th century. This temporarily upended the strength of older seaside fortresses, which had to be rebuilt to cope with gunpowder weapons. The addition of guns also improved the amphibious abilities of galleys as they could make assaults supported with heavy firepower, and were even more effectively defended when beached stern-first.^[76] An accumulation and generalizing of bronze cannons and small firearms in the Mediterranean during the 16th century increased the cost of warfare, but also made those dependent on them more resilient to manpower losses. Older ranged weapons, like bows or even crossbows, required considerable skill to handle, sometimes a lifetime of practice, while gunpowder weapons required considerably less training to use successfully.^[77] According to a highly influential study by military historian John F. Guilmartin, this transition in warfare, along with the introduction of much cheaper cast iron guns in the 1580s, proved the « death knell » for the war galley as a significant military vessel.^[78] Gunpowder weapons began to displace men as the fighting power of armed forces, making individual soldiers more deadly and effective. As offensive weapons, firearms could be stored for years with minimal maintenance and did not require the expenses associated with soldiers. Manpower could thus be exchanged for capital investments, something which benefited sailing vessels that were already far more economical in their use of manpower. It also served to increase their strategic range and to out-compete galleys as fighting ships.^[79]

Mediterranean decline[edit]

The Battle of Lepanto in 1571, naval engagement between allied Christian forces and the Ottoman Turks.

Atlantic-style warfare based on heavily armed sailing ships began to change the nature of naval warfare in the Mediterranean in the 17th century. In 1616, a small Spanish squadron of five galleons and a patache was used to cruise the eastern Mediterranean and defeated a fleet of 55 galleys at the battle of Cape Celidonia. By 1650, war galleys were used primarily in the wars between Venice and the Ottoman Empire in their struggle for strategic island and coastal trading bases and until the 1720s by both France and Spain but for largely amphibious and cruising operations or in combination with heavy sailing ships in a major battle, where they played specialized roles. An example of this was when a Spanish fleet used its galleys in a mixed naval/amphibious battle in the second 1641 battle of Tarragona, to break a French naval blockade and land troops and supplies.^[80] Even a purely Mediterranean power like Venice began to construct sail only warships in the latter part of the century. Christian and Muslim corsairs had been using galleys in sea roving and in support of the major powers in times of war, but largely replaced them with xebecs, various sail/oar hybrids, and a few remaining light galleys in the early 17th century.^[81]

No large all galley battles were fought after the gigantic clash at Lepanto in 1571, and galleys were mostly used as cruisers or for supporting sailing warships as a rearguard in fleet actions, similar to the duties performed by frigates outside the Mediterranean.^[81] They could assist damaged ships out of the line, but generally only in very calm weather, as was the case at the Battle of Málaga in 1704.^[82] For small states and principalities as well as groups of private merchants, galleys were more affordable than large and complex sailing warships, and were used as defense against piracy. Galleys required less timber to build, the design was relatively simple and they carried fewer guns. They were tactically flexible and could be used for naval ambushes as well amphibious operations. They also required few skilled seamen and were difficult for sailing ships to catch, but vital in hunting down catching other galleys and oared raiders.^[83]

The largest galley fleets in the 17th century were operated by the two major Mediterranean powers, France and Spain. France had by the 1650s become the most powerful state in Europe, and expanded its galley forces under the rule of the absolutist « Sun King » Louis XIV. In the 1690s the French galley corps (Corps des galères) reached its all-time peak with more than 50 vessels manned by over 15,000 men and officers, becoming the largest galley fleet in the world at the time.^[84]Though there was intense rivalry between France and Spain, not a single galley battle occurred between the two great powers after, and virtually no battles between other nations either.^[85] During the War of the Spanish Succession, French galleys were involved in actions against Antwerp and Harwich,^[86] but due to the intricacies of alliance politics there were never any Franco-Spanish galley clashes. In the first half of the 18th century, the other major naval powers in the Mediterranean Sea, the Order of Saint John based in Malta and of the Papal States in central Italy, cut down drastically on their galley forces.^[87] Despite the lack of action, the galley corps received vast resources (25-50% of the French naval expenditures) during the 1660s centuries.^[88] It was maintained as a functional fighting force right up until its abolishment in 1748, though its primary function was more of a symbol of Louis XIV’s absolutist ambitions.^[89]

The last recorded battle in the Mediterranean where galleys played a significant part was at Matapan in 1717, between the Ottomans and Venice and its allies, though they had little influence on the final outcome. Few large-scale naval battles were fought in the Mediterranean throughout most of the remainder of the 18th century. The Tuscan galley fleet was dismantled around 1718, Naples had only four old vessels by 1734 and the French Galley Corps had ceased to exist as an independent arm in 1748. Venice, the Papal States and the Knights of Malta were the only state fleets that maintained galleys, though in nothing like their previous quantities.^[90] By 1790, there were less than 50 galleys in service among all the Mediterranean powers, half of which belonged to Venice.^[91]

Use in northern Europe

Dutch ships ramming Spanish galleys in the Battle of the Narrow Seas, October 1602.

Oared vessels remained in use in northern waters for a long time, though in subordinate role and in particular circumstances. In the Italian Wars, French galleys brought up from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic posed a serious threat to the early English Tudor navy during coastal operations. The response came in the building of a considerable fleet of oared vessels, including hybrids with a complete three-masted rig, as well as a Mediterranean-style galleys (that were even attempted to be manned with convicts and slaves).^[92] Under King Henry VIII, the English navy used several kinds of vessels that were adapted to local needs. English galliasses (very different from the Mediterranean vessel of the same name) were employed to cover the flanks of larger naval forces while pinnaces and rowbarges were used for scouting or even as a backup for the longboats and tenders for the larger sailing ships.^[93] During the Dutch Revolt (1566–1609) both the Dutch and Spanish found galleys useful for amphibious operations in the many shallow waters around the Low Countries where deep-draft sailing vessels could not enter.^[86]

While galleys were too vulnerable to be used in large numbers in the open waters of the Atlantic, they were well-suited for use in much of the Baltic Sea by Denmark, Sweden, Russia and some of the Central European powers with ports on the southern coast. There were two types of naval battlegrounds in the Baltic. One was the open sea, suitable for large sailing fleets; the other was the coastal areas and especially the chain of small islands and archipelagos that ran almost uninterrupted from Stockholm to the Gulf of Finland. In these areas, conditions were often too calm, cramped and shallow for sailing ships, but they were excellent for galleys and other oared vessels.^[94] Galleys of the Mediterranean type were first introduced in the Baltic Sea around the mid-16th century as competition between the Scandinavian states of Denmark and Sweden intensified. The Swedish galley fleet was the largest outside the Mediterranean, and served as an auxiliary branch of the army. Very little is known about the design of Baltic Sea galleys, except that they were overall smaller than in the Mediterranean and they were rowed by army soldiers rather than convicts or slaves.^[95]

Baltic revival and decline

A painting of the Battle of Grengamin 1720 by Ferdinand Perrot (1808–41) showing a large Russian galley engaging Swedish frigates at close range. Note the crowded fighting platform (rambade) in the bow.

Galleys were introduced to the Baltic Sea in the 16th century but the details of their designs are lacking due to the absence of records. They might have been built in a more regional style, but the only known depiction from the time shows a typical Mediterranean vessel. There is conclusive evidence that Denmark became the first Baltic power to build classic Mediterranean-style galleys in the 1660s, though they proved to be generally too large to be useful in the shallow waters of the Baltic archipelagos. Sweden and especially Russia began to launch galleys and various rowed vessels in great numbers during the Great Northern War in the first two decades of the 18th century.^[96] Sweden was late in the game when it came to building an effective oared fighting fleet, while the Russian galley forces under Tsar Peter I developed into a supporting arm for the sailing navy and a well-functioning auxiliary of the army which infiltrated and conducted numerous raids on the eastern Swedish coast in the 1710s.^[97]

Sweden and Russia became the two main competitors for Baltic dominance in the 18th century, and built the largest galley fleets in the world at the time. They were used for amphibious operations in Russo-Swedish wars of 1741–43 and 1788–90. The last galleys ever constructed were built in 1796 by Russia, and remained in service well into the 19th century, but saw little action.^[98] The last time galleys were deployed in action was when the Russian navy was attacked in Åbo (Turku) in 1854 as part of the Crimean War.^[99] In the second half of the 18th century, the role of Baltic galleys in coastal fleets was replaced first with hybrid « archipelago frigates » (like the turuma or pojama) and xebecs, and after the 1790s with various types of gunboats.^[100]

Both the Russian and Swedish navies were based on a form of conscription, and both navies used conscripts as galley rowers. This had several advantages over convicts or slaves: the rowers could be armed to fight as marines, they could be also used as land soldiers and invasion force, and they could be taught better and more skilled than convicts or slaves. Since most naval conscripts came from coastal parishes and towns, most were already experienced seafarers when they entered the service.

Southeast Asia

Galley from Banten, 1598

Various types of indigenous galley-like vessels are used in Southeast Asia, namely: lancaran, penjajap, kelulus, lanong, garay, kora-kora, and karakoa. During the turn of the 16th century, mediterranean influence came, mainly by Ottoman influences of sultanates in Nusantaran archipelago. A royal galley (ghali kenaikan raja) of Malacca sultanate built approximately in 1453 is called Mendam Berahi (Malay for Suppressed Passion). It is 60 gaz (67 m) in length and 6 depa (11 m) in width. This ghali had 3 masts and able to carry 400 men, 200 of them were rowers in 50 rowing line. It is armed with 5 bow-mounted rentaka and ramming beam.^[101]

Acehnese in 1568 siege of Portuguese Malacca used 4 large galley 40-50 meter long each with 190 rowers and 3 masts. They were armed with 12 large camelos (3 at each bow side, 4 at stern), 1 basilisk (bow-mounted), 12 falcons, and 40 swivel guns. By then cannons, firearms, and other war material had come annually from Jeddah, and the Turks also sent military expert, master of galleys, and technicians.^[102] In 1575 siege, Aceh used 40 two-masted galleys with Turkish captains carrying 200-300 soldier of Turk, Arab, Decanis, and Aceh origins. The state galleys of Aceh, Daya, and Pedir is said to carry 10 meriam, 50 lela, and 120 cecorong (not counting the ispinggar). Smaller galley carry 5 meriam, 20 lela, and 50 cecorong.^[103] Western and native sources mention that Aceh had 100-120 galleys at any time (not counting the smaller fusta and galiot), spread from Daya (west coast) to Pedir (east coast). One galley captured by Portuguese in 1629 is very large, and it was reported there were total 47 of them. She reached 100 m in length and 17 m in breadth, had 3 masts with square sails and topsails, propelled by 35 oars on each side and able to carry 700 men. It is armed with 18 large cannon (five 55-pounders at the bow, one 25-pounder at the stern, the rest were 17 and 18-pounders), 80 falcons and many swivel guns. The ship is called « Espanto do Mundo » (terror of the universe), which probably a free translation from « Cakra Dunia« .^[101]

Two Dutch engravings from 1598 and 1601 depicted galley from Banten and Madura. They had 2 and 1 mast(s), respectively. Major difference from mediterranean galleys, Nusantaran galley had raised fighting platform called « balai » in which the soldier stood, a feature common in warships of the region.^[104] Sultanate of Goa of mid 17th century had « Galle » 40 m long and 6 m breadth, carrying 200-400 men. Other galle of the kingdom varied between 23-35 m in length.^[101]

Construction

Illustration of an Egyptian rowed ship of c. 1250 BC. Due to a lack of a proper keel, the vessel has a truss, a thick cable along its length, to prevent it from losing its shape.

Galleys have since their first appearance in ancient times been intended as highly maneuverable vessels, independent of winds by being rowed, and usually with a focus on speed under oars. The profile has therefore been that of a markedly elongated hull with a ratio of breadth to length at the waterline of at least 1:5, and in the case of ancient Mediterranean galleys as much as 1:10 with a small draught, the measurement of how much of a ship’s structure that is submerged under water. To make it possible to efficiently row the vessels, the freeboard, the height of the railing to the surface of the water, was by necessity kept low. This gave oarsmen enough leverage to row efficiently, but at the expense of seaworthiness. These design characteristics made the galley fast and maneuverable, but more vulnerable to rough weather.

The documentary evidence for the construction of ancient galleys is fragmentary, particularly in pre-Roman times. Plans and schematics in the modern sense did not exist until the 17th century and nothing like them has survived from ancient times. How galleys were constructed has therefore been a matter of looking at circumstantial evidence in literature, art, coinage and monuments that include ships, some of them actually in natural size. Since the war galleys floated even with a ruptured hull and virtually never had any ballast or heavy cargo that could sink them, not a single wreckage of one has so far been found. The only exception has been a partial wreckage of a small Punic liburnian from the Roman era, the Marsala Ship.^[105]

On the funerary monument of the Egyptian king Sahure (2487–2475 BC) in Abusir, there are relief images of vessels with a marked sheer (the upward curvature at each end of the hull) and seven pairs of oars along its side, a number that was likely to have been merely symbolical, and steering oars in the stern. They have one mast, all lowered and vertical posts at stem and stern, with the front decorated with an Eye of Horus, the first example of such a decoration. It was later used by other Mediterranean cultures to decorate seagoing craft in the belief that it helped to guide the ship safely to its destination. These early galleys apparently lacked a keelmeaning they lacked stiffness along their length. Therefore, they had large cables connecting stem and stern resting on massive crutches on deck. They were held in tension to avoid hogging, or bending the ship’s construction upwards in the middle, while at sea.^[15] In the 15th century BC, Egyptian galleys were still depicted with the distinctive extreme sheer, but had by then developed the distinctive forward-curving stern decorations with ornaments in the shape of lotus flowers.^[106] They had possibly developed a primitive type of keel, but still retained the large cables intended to prevent hogging.^[16]

A schematic view of the mortise and tenon technique for shipbuilding that dominated the Mediterranean until the 7th century AD.^[107]

The design of the earliest oared vessels is mostly unknown and highly conjectural. They likely used a mortise construction, but were sewn together rather than pinned together with nails and dowels. Being completely open, they were rowed (or even paddled) from the open deck, and likely had « ram entries », projections from the bow lowered the resistance of moving through water, making them slightly more hydrodynamic. The first true galleys, the triaconters (literally « thirty-oarers ») and penteconters (« fifty-oarers ») were developed from these early designs and set the standard for the larger designs that would come later. They were rowed on only one level, which made them fairly slow, likely only 5-5.5 knots. By the 8th century BC the first galleys rowed at two levels had been developed, among the earliest being the two-level penteconters which were considerably shorter than the one-level equivalents, and therefore more maneuverable. They were an estimated 25 m in length and displaced 15 tonnes with 25 pairs of oars. These could have reached an estimated top speed of up to 7.5 knots, making them the first genuine warships when fitted with bow rams. They were equipped with a single square sail on mast set roughly halfway along the length of the hull.^[108]

Trireme

 trireme

The stern of the modern trireme replica Olympias with twin side rudders

By the 5th century BC, the first triremes were in use by various powers in the eastern Mediterranean. It had now become a fully developed, highly specialized vessel of war that was capable of high speeds and complex maneuvers. At nearly 40 m in length, displacing almost 50 tonnes, it was more than three times as expensive as a two-level penteconter. A trireme also had an additional mast with a smaller square sail placed near the bow.^[109] Up to 170 oarsmen sat on three levels with one oar each that varied slightly in length. To accommodate three levels of oars, rowers sat staggered on three levels. Arrangements of the three levels are believed to have varied, but the most well-documented design made use of a projecting structure, or outrigger, where the oarlock in the form of a thole pin was placed. This allowed the outermost row of oarsmen enough leverage for full strokes that made efficient use of their oars.^[110]

The Athlit ram, a preserved original warship ram from around 530–270 BC. It weighs nearly half a tonne and was probably fitted to a « five » or a « four ».^[111]

The first dedicated war galleys fitted with rams were built with a mortise and tenontechnique, a so-called shell-first method. In this, the planking of the hull was strong enough to hold the ship together structurally, and was also watertight without the need for caulking. Hulls had sharp bottoms without keelsons in order to support the structure and were reinforced by transverse framing secured with dowels with nails driven through them. To prevent the hull from hogging there was a hypozoma, a thick cable that connected bow with stern. It was kept taut to add strength to the construction along its length, but its exact design or the method of tightening is not known.^[112] The ram, the primary weapon of ancient galleys from around the 8th to the 4th century, was not attached directly on the hull but to a structure extending from it. This way the ram could twist off if got stuck after ramming rather than breaking the integrity of the hull. The ram fitting consisted of a massive, projecting timber and the ram itself was a thick bronze casting with horizontal blades that could weigh from 400 kg up to 2 tonnes.^[109]

Roman era

Galleys from 4th century BC up to the time of the early Roman Empire in the 1st century AD became successively larger. Three levels of oars was the practical upper limit, but it was improved on by making ships longer, broader and heavier and placing more than one rower per oar. Naval conflict grew more intense and extensive, and by 100 BC galleys with four, five or six rows of oarsmen were commonplace and carried large complements of soldiers and catapults. With high freeboard (up to 3 m) and additional tower structures from which missiles could be shot down onto enemy decks, they were intended to be like floating fortresses.^[113] Designs with everything from eight rows of oarsmen and upwards were built, but most of them are believed to have been impractical show pieces never used in actual warfare.^[114] Ptolemy IV, the Greek pharaoh of Egypt 221–205 BC, is recorded as building a gigantic ship with forty rows of oarsmen, though no specification of its design remains. One suggested design was that of a huge trireme catamaran with up to 14 men per oar and it is assumed that it was intended as a showpiece rather than a practical warship.^[115]

With the consolidation of Roman imperial power, the size of both fleets and galleys decreased considerably. The huge polyremes disappeared and the fleet were equipped primarily with triremes and liburnians, compact biremes with 25 pairs of oars that were well suited for patrol duty and chasing down raiders and pirates.^[116] In the northern provinces oared patrol boats were employed to keep local tribes in check along the shores of rivers like the Rhine and the Danube.^[117] As the need for large warships disappeared, the design of the trireme, the pinnacle of ancient war ship design, fell into obscurity and was eventually forgotten. The last known reference to triremes in battle is dated to 324 at the battle of the Hellespont. In the late 5th century the Byzantine historian Zosimus declared the knowledge of how to build them to have been long since forgotten.^[118]

Middle Ages

The earliest medieval galley specification comes from an order of Charles I of Sicily, in 1275 AD.^[119] Overall length 39.30 m, keel length 28.03 m, depth 2.08 m. Hull width 3.67 m. Width between outriggers 4.45 m. 108 oars, most 6.81 m long, some 7.86 m, 2 steering oars 6.03 m long. Foremast and middle mast respectively heights 16.08 m, 11.00 m; circumference both 0.79 m, yard lengths 26.72 m, 17.29 m. Overall deadweight tonnage approximately 80 metric tons. This type of vessel had two, later three, men on a bench, each working his own oar. This vessel had much longer oars than the Athenian trireme which were 4.41 m & 4.66 m long.^[120] This type of warship was called galia sottil.^[121]

The dromon and the galea

14th-century painting of a light galley, from an icon now at the Byzantine and Christian Museum at Athens

The primary warship of the Byzantine navy until the 12th century was the dromon and other similar ship types. Considered an evolution of the Roman liburnian, the term first appeared in the late 5th century, and was commonly used for a specific kind of war-galley by the 6th century.^[122] The term dromōn (literally « runner ») itself comes from the Greek root drom-(áō), « to run », and 6th-century authors like Procopius are explicit in their references to the speed of these vessels.^[123] During the next few centuries, as the naval struggle with the Arabs intensified, heavier versions with two or possibly even three banks of oars evolved.^[124]

The accepted view is that the main developments which differentiated the early dromons from the liburnians, and that henceforth characterized Mediterranean galleys, were the adoption of a full deck, the abandonment of rams on the bow in favor of an above-water spur, and the gradual introduction of lateen sails.^[125] The exact reasons for the abandonment of the ram are unclear. Depictions of upward-pointing beaks in the 4th-century Vatican Vergil manuscript may well illustrate that the ram had already been replaced by a spur in late Roman galleys.^[126] One possibility is that the change occurred because of the gradual evolution of the ancient shell-first construction method, against which rams had been designed, into the skeleton-first method, which produced a stronger and more flexible hull, less susceptible to ram attacks.^[127] At least by the early 7th century, the ram’s original function had been forgotten.^[128]

The dromons that Procopius described were single-banked ships of probably 25 oars per side. Unlike ancient vessels, which used an outrigger, these extended directly from the hull.^[129] In the later bireme dromons of the 9th and 10th centuries, the two oar banks were divided by the deck, with the first oar bank was situated below, whilst the second oar bank was situated above deck; these rowers were expected to fight alongside the marines in boarding operations.^[130] The overall length of these ships was probably about 32 meters.^[131] The stern (prymnē) had a tent that covered the captain’s berth;^[132] the prow featured an elevated forecastle that acted as a fighting platform and could house one or more siphons for the discharge of Greek fire;^[133]and on the largest dromons, there were wooden castles on either side between the masts, providing archers with elevated firing platforms.^[134] The bow spur was intended to ride over an enemy ship’s oars, breaking them and rendering it helpless against missile fire and boarding actions.^[135]

Standardization

From the 12th century, the design of war galleys evolved into the form that would remain largely the same until the building of the last war galleys in the late 18th century. The length to breadth-ratio was a minimum of 8:1. A rectangular telaro, an outrigger, was added to support the oars and the rowers’ benches were laid out in a diagonal herringbone pattern angled aft on either side of a central gangway, or corsia.^[136] It was based on the form of the galea, the smaller Byzantine galleys, and would be known mostly by the Italian term gallia sottila (literally « slender galley »). A second, smaller mast was added sometime in the 13th century and the number of rowers was rose from two to three rowers per bench as a standard from the late 13th to the early 14th century.^[137] The gallee sottili would make up the bulk the main war fleets of every major naval power in the Mediterranean, assisted by the smaller single-masted galiotte, as well as the Christian and Muslim corsairs fleets. Ottoman galleys were very similar in design, though in general smaller, faster under sail, but slower under oars.^[138] The standard size of the galley remained stable from the 14th until the early 16th century, when the introduction of naval artillery began to have effects on design and tactics.^[139]

A Venetian galea sottila from the late 15th century from Vittore Carpaccio‘s Return of the Ambassadors in the series Legend of Saint Ursula (1497–1498). Note the oars arranged in groups of three according to the alla sensile rowing method.

The traditional two side rudders were complemented with a stern rudder sometime after c. 1400 and eventually the side rudders disappeared altogether.^[140] It was also during the 15th century that large artillery pieces were first mounted on galleys. Burgundian records from the mid-15th century describe galleys with some form of guns, but do not specify the size. The first conclusive evidence of a large cannon mounted on a galley comes from a woodcut of a Venetian galley in 1486.^[141] The first guns were fixed directly on timbers in the bow and aimed directly forwards, a placement that would remain largely unchanged until the galley disappeared from active service in the 19th century.^[142]

The ubiquitous bow fighting platform (rambade) of early modern galleys. This model is of a 1715 Swedish galley, somewhat smaller than the standard Mediterranean war galley, but still based on the same design.

With the introduction of guns in the bows of galleys, a permanent wooden structure called rambade (French: rambade; Italian: rambata; Spanish: arrumbada) was introduced. The rambade became standard on virtually all galleys in the early 16th century. There were some variations in the navies of different Mediterranean powers, but the overall layout was the same. The forward-aiming battery was covered by a wooden platform which gave gunners a minimum of protection, and functioned as both a staging area for boarding attacks and as a firing platform for on-board soldiers.^[143]After its introduction, the rambade became a standard detail on every fighting galley until the very end of galley era in the early 19th century.^[144]

In the mid-17th century, galleys reached what has been described as their « final form ».^[145] Galleys had looked more or less the same for over four centuries and a fairly standardized classification system for different sizes of galleys had been developed by the Mediterranean bureaucracies, based mostly on the number of benches in a vessel.^[10] A Mediterranean galley would have 25-26 pairs of oars with five men per oar (c. 250 rowers), 50-100 sailors and 50-100 soldiers for a total of about 500 men. The exceptions were the significantly larger « flagships » (often called lanternas, « lantern galleys ») that had 30 pairs of oars and up to seven rowers per oar. The armament consisted of one heavy 24- or 36-pounder gun in the bows flanked by two to four 4- to 12-pounders. Rows of light swivel guns were often placed along the entire length of the galley on the railings for close-quarter defense. The length-to-width ratio of the ships was about 8:1, with two main masts carrying one large lateensail each. In the Baltic, galleys were generally shorter with a length-to-width ratio from 5:1 to 7:1, an adaptation to the cramped conditions of the Baltic archipelagos.^[146]

A single mainmast was standard on most war galleys until c. 1600. A second, shorter mast could be raised temporarily in the bows, but became permanent by the early 17th century. It was stepped slightly to the side to allow for the recoil of the heavy guns; the other was placed roughly in the center of the ship. A third smaller mast further astern, akin to a mizzen mast, was also introduced on large galleys, possibly in the early 17th century, but was standard at least by the early 18th century.^[147]Galleys had little room for provisions and depended on frequent resupplying and were often beached at night to rest the crew and cook meals. Where cooking areaswere actually present, they consisted of a clay-lined box with a hearth or similar cooking equipment fitted on the vessel in place of a rowing bench, usually on the port (left) side.^[148]

Model of the French Dauphine

Side view. Dauphine was built in 1736 and survived until the French Revolution.

Front view. Contemporary model on display at Toulon naval museum.

Propulsion

Throughout their long history, galleys relied on rowing as the most important means of propulsion. The arrangement of rowers during the 1st millennium BC developed gradually from a single row up to three rows arranged in a complex, staggered seating arrangement. Anything above three levels, however, proved to be physically impracticable. Initially, there was only one rower per oar, but the number steadily increased, with a number of different combinations of rowers per oar and rows of oars. The ancient terms for galleys was based on the numbers of rows or rowers plying the oars, not the number of rows of oars. Today it is best known by a modernized Latin terminology based on numerals with the ending « -reme » from rēmus, « oar ». A trireme was a ship with three rows of oarsmen, a quadrireme four, a hexareme six, and so forth. There were warships that ran up to ten or even eleven rows, but anything above six was rare. A huge forty-rowed ship was built during the reign of Ptolemy IV in Egypt. Little is known about its design, but it is assumed to have been an impractical prestige vessel.

Rowing

Modern reconstruction of a cross-section of an ancient Greek trireme, showing the three levels of rowers.

Ancient rowing was done in a fixed seated position, the most effective rowing position, with rowers facing the stern. A sliding stroke, which provided the strength from both legs as well as the arms, was suggested by earlier historians, but no conclusive evidence has supported it. Practical experiments with the full-scale reconstruction Olympias has shown that there was insufficient space, while moving or rolling seats would have been highly impractical to construct with ancient methods.^[149] Rowers in ancient war galleys sat below the upper deck with little view of their surroundings. The rowing was therefore managed by supervisors, and coordinated with pipes or rhythmic chanting.^[150] Galleys were highly maneuverable, able to turn on their axis or even to row backwards, though it required a skilled and experienced crew.^[151] In galleys with an arrangement of three men per oar, all would be seated, but the rower furthest inboard would perform a stand-and-sit stroke, getting up on his feet to push the oar forwards and then sitting down again to pull it back.^[151]

The faster a vessel travels, the more energy it uses. Reaching high speed requires energy which a human-powered vessel is incapable of producing. Oar system generate very low amounts of energy for propulsion (only about 70 W per rower) and the upper limit for rowing in a fixed position is around 10 knots.^[152] Ancient war galleys of the kind used in Classical Greece are by modern historians considered to be the most energy efficient and fastest of galley designs throughout history. A full-scale replica of a 5th-century BC trireme, the Olympias was built 1985–87 and was put through a series of trials to test its performance. It proved that a cruising speed of 7-8 knots could be maintained for an entire day. Sprinting speeds of up to 10 knots were possible, but only for a few minutes and would tire the crew quickly.^[153] Ancient galleys were built very light and the original triremes are assumed to never have been surpassed in speed.^[154] Medieval galleys are believed to have been considerably slower, especially since they were not built with ramming tactics in mind. A cruising speed of no more than 2-3 knots has been estimated. A sprint speed of up to 7 knots was possible for 20–30 minutes, but risked exhausting the rowers completely.^[155]

Rowing in headwinds or even moderately rough weather was difficult as well as exhausting.^[156] In high seas, ancient galleys would set sail to run before the wind. They were highly susceptible to high waves, and could become unmanageable if the rowing frame (apostis) came awash. Ancient and medieval galleys are assumed to have sailed only with the wind more or less astern with a top speed of 8-9 knots in fair conditions.^[157]

Galley slaves

: Galley slave

Model of a Venetian three-banked galley rowed alla sensile, with three rowers sharing a bench but handling one oar each

Contrary to the popular image of rowers chained to the oars, conveyed by movies such as Ben Hur, there is no evidence that ancient navies ever made use of condemned criminals or slaves as oarsmen, with the possible exception of Ptolemaic Egypt.^[158]Literary evidence indicates that Greek and Roman navies relied on paid labor or ordinary soldiers to man their galleys.^[159][160] Slaves were put at the oars only in times of extreme crisis. In some cases, these people were given freedom thereafter, while in others they began their service aboard as free men. Roman merchant vessels (usually sailing vessels) were manned by slaves, sometimes even with slaves as ship’s master, but this was seldom the case in merchant galleys.^[161]

It was only in the early 16th century that the modern idea of the galley slave became commonplace. Galley fleets as well as the size of individual vessels increase in size, which required more rowers. The number of benches could not be increased without lengthening hulls beyond their structural limits, and more than three oars per bench was not practicable. The demand for more rowers also meant that the relatively limited number of skilled oarsmen could not keep up with the demand of large galley fleets. It became increasingly common to man galleys with convicts or slaves, which required a simpler method of rowing. The older method of employing professional rowers using the alla sensile method (one oar per man, with two to three sharing the same bench) was gradually phased out in favor of rowing a scaloccio, which required less skill.^[162] A single large oar was used for each bench, with several rowers working it together and the number of oarsmen per oar rose from three up to five. In some very large command galleys, there could be as many as seven to an oar.^[163]

An illustration from 1643 showing the layout of rowing benches as well and placement of rowers on a galley with 16 pairs of oars. It also shows a rower at the top of the stroke using the standing rowing technique typical of a scaloccio rowing.

All major Mediterranean powers sentenced criminals to galley service, but initially only in time of war. Christian naval powers like Spain frequently employed Muslim captives and prisoners of war. The Ottoman navy and its North African corsair allies often put Christian prisoners to the oars, but also mixed volunteers. Spain relied on mostly servile rowers, in great part because its organizational structure was geared toward employing slaves and convicts.^[164] Venice was one of few major naval powers that used almost only free rowers, a result of their reliance on alla sensilerowing which required skilled professional rowers. The Knights of Saint John used slaves extensively, as did the Papal States, Florence and Genoa. North African ghazicorsairs relied almost entirely on Christian slaves for rowers.^[165]

Sails

 

In ancient galleys under sail, most of the moving power came from a single square sail. It was rigged on a mast somewhat forwards of the center of the ship with a smaller mast carrying a head sail in the bow. Triangular lateen sails are attested as early as the 2nd century AD, and gradually became the sail of choice for galleys. By the 9th century lateens were firmly established as part of the standard galley rig. The lateen rig was more complicated and required a larger crew to handle than a square sail rig, but this was not a problem in the heavily manned galleys.^[166] Belisarius’ Byzantine invasion fleet of 533 was at least partly fitted with lateen sails, making it probable that by the time the lateen had become the standard rig for the dromon,^[167]with the traditional square sail gradually falling from use in medieval navigation in the Mediterranean.^[168] Unlike a square sail rig, the spar of a lateen sail did not pivot around the mast. To change tacks, the entire spar had to be lifted over the mast and to the other side. Since the spar was often much longer than the mast itself, and not much shorter than the ship itself, it was a complex and time-consuming maneuver.^[169]

Armament and tactics

Main article: Galley tactics

In the earliest times of naval warfare boarding was the only means of deciding a naval engagement, but little to nothing is known about the tactics involved. In the first recorded naval battle in history, the battle of the Delta, the forces of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III won a decisive victory over a force made up of the enigmatic group known as the Sea Peoples. As shown in commemorative reliefs of the battle, Egyptian archers on ships and the nearby shores of the Nile rain down arrows on the enemy ships. At the same time Egyptian galleys engage in boarding action and capsize the ships of the Sea Peoples with ropes attached to grappling hooks thrown into the rigging.^[170]

Introduction of the ram

The ram bow of the triremeOlympias, a modern full-scale reconstruction of a classical Greek trireme.

Around the 8th century BC, ramming began to be employed as war galleys were equipped with heavy bronze rams. Records of the Persian Wars in the early 5th century BC by the Ancient historian Herodotus (c. 484-25 BC) show that by this time ramming tactics had evolved among the Greeks. The formations adapted for ramming warfare could either be in columns in line ahead, one ship following the next, or in a line abreast, with the ships side by side, depending on the tactical situation and the surrounding geography. The primary methods for attack was either to break through the enemy formation or to outflank it.^[171] Ramming itself was done by smashing into the rear or side of an enemy ship, punching a hole in the planking. This did not actually sink an ancient galley unless it was heavily laden with cargo and stores. With a normal load, it was buoyant enough to float even with a breached hull. Breaking the enemy’s oars was another way of rendering ships immobile, rendering them easier targets. If ramming was not possible or successful, the on-board complement of soldiers would attempt to board and capture the enemy vessel by securing it with grappling irons, accompanied by missile fire with arrows or javelins. Trying to set the enemy ship on fire by hurling incendiary missiles or by pouring the content of fire pots attached to long handles is thought to have been used, especially since smoke below decks would easily disable rowers.^[172] Rhodes was the first naval power to employ this weapon, sometime in the 3rd century, and used it to fight off head-on attacks or to frighten enemies into exposing their sides for a ramming attack.^[173]

A successful ramming was difficult to achieve; just the right amount of speed and precise maneuvering were required. Fleets that did not have well-drilled, experienced oarsmen and skilled commanders relied more on boarding with superior infantry (such as increasing the complement to 40 soldiers). Ramming attempts were countered by keeping the bow towards the enemy until the enemy crew tired, and then attempting to board as quickly as possible. A double-line formation could be used to achieve a breakthrough by engaging the first line and then rushing the rearguard in to take advantage of weak spots in the enemy’s defense. This required superiority in numbers, though, since a shorter front risked being flanked or surrounded.^[174]

Boarding prevails

The Byzantine fleet repels the Rus’ attack on Constantinople in 941. The Byzantine dromons are rolling over the Rus’ vessels and smashing their oars with their spurs.

Despite the attempts to counter increasingly heavy ships, ramming tactics were gradually superseded in the last centuries BC by the Macedonians and Romans, both primarily land-based powers. Hand-to-hand fighting with large complements of heavy infantry supported by ship-borne catapults dominated the fighting style during the Roman era, a move that was accompanied by the conversion to heavier ships with larger rowing complements and more men per oar. Though effectively lowering mobility, it meant that less skill was required from individual oarsmen. Fleets thereby became less dependent on rowers with a lifetime of experience at the oar.^[31]

By late antiquity, in the 1st centuries AD, ramming tactics had completely disappeared along with the knowledge of the design of the ancient trireme. Medieval galleys instead developed a projection, or « spur », in the bow that was designed to break oars and to act as a boarding platform for storming enemy ships. The only remaining examples of ramming tactics were passing references to attempts to collide with ships in order to destabilize or capsize them.^[175]

Byzantine ship attacking with Greek fire. Madrid Skylitzes manuscript, 11th century.

The Byzantine navy, the largest Mediterranean war fleet throughout most of the early Middle Ages, employed crescent formations with the flagship in the center and the heavier ships at the horns of the formation, in order to turn the enemy’s flanks. Similar tactics are believed to have been employed by the Arab fleets they frequently fought from the 7th century onwards. The Byzantines were the first to employ Greek fire, a highly effective incendiary liquid, as a naval weapon. It could be fired through a metal tube, or siphon mounted in the bows, similar to a modern flame thrower. The properties of Greek fire were close to that of napalm and was a key to several major Byzantine victories. By 835, the weapon had spread to the Arabs, who equipped harraqas, « fireships », with it. The initial stages in naval battles was an exchanges of missiles, ranging from combustible projectiles to arrows, caltrops and javelins. The aim was not to sink ships, but to deplete the ranks of the enemy crews before the boarding commenced, which decided the outcome. Once the enemy strength was judged to have been reduced sufficiently, the fleets closed in, the ships grappled each other, and the marines and upper bank oarsmen boarded the enemy vessel and engaged in hand-to-hand combat.^[175] Byzantine dromons had pavesades, racks along the railings, on which marines could hang their shields, providing protection to the deck crew.^[176] Larger ships also had wooden castles on either side between the masts, which allowed archers to shoot from an elevated firing position.^[134]

Battle between Venetian and Holy Roman fleets; detail of fresco by Spinello Aretino 1407–1408.

Later medieval navies continued to use similar tactics, with the line abreast formation as standard. As galleys were intended to be fought from the bows, and were at their weakest along the sides, especially in the middle. The crescent formation employed by the Byzantines continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages. It would allow the wings of the fleet to crash their bows straight into the sides of the enemy ships at the edge of the formation.^[177]

Roger of Lauria (c. 1245–1305) was a successful medieval naval tactician who fought for the Aragon navy against French Angevin fleets in the War of the Sicilian Vespers. At the Battle of Malta in July 1283, he lured out Angevin galleys that were beached stern-first by openly challenging them. Attacking them in a strong defensive position head-on would have been very dangerous since it offered good cohesion, allowed rowers to escape ashore and made it possible to reinforce weak positions by transferring infantry along the shore. He also employed skilled crossbowmen and almogavars, light infantry, that were more nimbler in ship-to-ship actions than heavily armed and armored French soldiers.^[178] At the battle of the Gulf of Naples in 1284, his forces launched clay cooking pots filled with soap before attacking; when the pots broke against the enemy decks, they became perilously slippery and difficult for heavy infantry to keep their feet on.^[179]

Gun galleys

The earliest guns were of large calibers, and were initially of wrought iron, which made them weak compared to cast bronze guns that would become standard in the 16th century. They were at first fixed directly on timbers in the bow, aiming directly forwards. This placement would remain largely unchanged until the galley disappeared from active service in the 19th century.^[142] The introduction of heavy guns and small arms did not change tactics considerably. If anything, it accentuated the bow as the offensive weapon, being both a staging area for boarders and the given position for small arms and cannons. The galley was capable of outperforming sailing vessel in early battles. It retained a distinct tactical advantage even after the initial introduction of naval artillery because of the ease with which it could be brought to bear upon an opposing vessel.^[180]

Contemporary depiction of the battle of Lepanto in 1571 that shows the strict formations of the opposing fleets. Fresco in the Gallery of Maps in Vatican Museum.

In large-scale galley-to-galley engagements, tactics remained essentially the same until the end of the 16th century. Cannons and small firearms were introduced around the 14th century, but did not have immediate effects on tactics; the same basic crescent formation in line abreast that was employed at the battle of Lepanto in 1571 was used by the Byzantine fleet almost a millennium earlier.^[181] Artillery on early gun galleys was not used as a long-range standoff weapon against other gun-armed ships. The maximum distance at which contemporary cannons were effective, c. 500 m (1600 ft), could be covered by a galley in about two minutes, much faster than the reload time of any heavy artillery. Gun crews would therefore hold their fire until the last possible moment, somewhat similar to infantry tactics in the pre-industrial era of short range firearms.^[182] The weak points of a galley remained the sides and especially the rear, the command center. Unless one side managed to outmaneuver the other, battle would be met with ships crashing into each other head on. Once fighting began with ships locking on to one another bow to bow, the fighting would be fought over the front line ships. Unless a galley was completely overrun by an enemy boarding party, fresh troops could be fed into the fight from reserve vessels in the rear.^[183]

Ceremonial symbolism

The Galley Subtle, one of the very few Mediterranean-style galleys employed by the English. This illustration is from the Anthony Roll (c. 1546) and was intended as its centerpiece.

Galleys were used for purely ceremonial purposes by many rulers and states. In early modern Europe, galleys enjoyed a level of prestige that sailing vessels did not enjoy. Galleys had from an early stage been commanded by the leaders of land forces, and fought with tactics adapted from land warfare. As such, they enjoyed the prestige associated with land battles, the ultimate achievement of a high-standing noble or king. In the Baltic, the Swedish king Gustav I, the founder of the modern Swedish state, showed particular interest in galleys, as was befitting a Renaissance prince. Whenever traveling by sea, Gustav, the court, royal bureaucrats and the royal bodyguard would travel by galley.^[184] Around the same time, English king Henry VIII had high ambitions to live up to the reputation of the omnipotent Renaissance ruler and also had a few Mediterranean-style galleys built (and even manned them with slaves), though the English navy relied mostly on sailing ships at the time.^[93]

Despite the rising importance of sailing warships, galleys were more closely associated with land warfare, and the prestige associated with it. British naval historian Nicholas Rodger has described this as display of « the supreme symbol of royal power … derived from its intimate association with armies, and consequently with princes ».^[185] This was put to perhaps its greatest effect by the French « Sun King », Louis XIV, in the form of a dedicated galley corps. Louis and the French state created a tool and symbol of royal authority that did little fighting, but was a potent extension of absolutist ambitions. Galleys were built to scale for the royal flotilla at the Grand Canal at Versailles for the amusement of the court.^[186] The royal galleys patrolled the Mediterranean, forcing ships of other states to salute the King’s banner, convoyed ambassadors and cardinals, and obediently participating in naval parades and royal pageantry. Historian Paul Bamford described the galleys as vessels that « must have appealed to military men and to aristocratic officers … accustomed to being obeyed and served ».^[187]

Gouache of a late 17th-century French royal galley. The vessel is richly decorated with red and blue damask, brocade and velvet for the stern canopy and flags, and carved gilded ornaments on railings, outrigger and hull.

Sentencing criminals, political dissenters and religious deviants as galley rowers also turned the galley corps into a large, feared, and cost-effective prison system.^[188] French Protestants were particularly ill-treated at the oar and though they were only a small minority, their experiences came to dominate the legacy of the king’s galleys. In 1909, French author Albert Savine (1859–1927) wrote that « [a]fter the Bastille, the galleys were the greatest horror of the old regime ».^[189] Long after convicts stopped serving in the galleys, and even after the reign of Napoleon, the term galérien (« galley rower ») remained a symbolic general term for forced labor and convicts serving harsh sentences.^[190]

Being a galley rower did not carry such stigma at Baltic, where galley rowers were conscripts: rather they considered themselves as marine soldiers. The main building of the Finnish Naval Academy at Suomenlinna, Helsinki bears the nickname Kivikaleeri (« Stone Galley ») as a legacy of the era.

Surviving examples

La Liberté, a full-scale replica of a 17th-century galley in Switzerland, though without any rowing benches

Original vessels

The naval museum in Istanbul contains the galley Kadırga (Turkish for « galley », ultimately from Byzantine Greek katergon), dating from the reign of Mehmed IV (1648–1687). She was the personal galley of the sultan, and remained in service until 1839. She is presumably the only surviving galley in the world, albeit without its masts. It is 37 m long, 5.7 m wide, has a draught of about 2 m, weighs about 140 tons, and has 48 oars powered by 144 oarsmen.

Reconstructions

A 1971 reconstruction of the Real, the flagship of John of Austria in the Battle of Lepanto (1571), is in the Museu Marítim in Barcelona. The ship was 60 m long and 6.2 m wide, had a draught of 2.1 m, weighing 239 tons empty, was propelled by 290 rowers, and carried about 400 crew and fighting soldiers at Lepanto. She was substantially larger than the typical galleys of her time.

A group called « The Trireme Trust » operates, in conjunction with the Greek Navy, a reconstruction of an ancient Greek Trireme, the Olympias.^[191]

Ivlia is a replica Greek bireme built at Sochi on the Black Sea in 1989 which spent six seasons touring round Europe with volunteer crews.

Archaeological finds

In 1965, the remains of a small Venetian galley (fusta) sunk in 1509 were found in Lake Garda, Italy. The vessel had been burned and only the lower hull remained.^[192]

In the mid 1990s, a sunken medieval galley was found close to the island of San Marco in Boccalama, in the Venice Lagoon.^[193] The hull has been dated, for the context and the C14 analysis, between the end of the XIII and the beginning of the XIV century.

The excavation and the photogrammetric survey (photogrammetry) and 3D laser scanner of this important testimony of medieval nautical archaeology has started in 2001 through two complex executive phases.^[194] The stratigraphic excavation of the wreck was in fact performed entirely underwater, according to the archaeological methodologies. The survey of the hull was instead realized after the setting in dry the entire medieval perimeter of the submerged island. This operation took place through the infixation of a continuous barrier consisting of sheet piles and the use of water pumps. This long excavation and documentation campaign was directed by underwater archaeologist Marco D’Agostino and, as deputy director, by his colleague Stefano Medas.

The lower hull is mostly intact and it was not recovered due to high costs.

References

1. Jump up^ Pryor (2002), pp. 86–87; Anderson (1962), pp. 37–39
2. Jump up^ Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott Galeos, A Greek-English Lexicon
3. Jump up^ Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989), « galley »
4. Jump up^ See for example Svenska Akademiens ordbok, « galeja » or « galär  » and Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, « galeye« 
5. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), pp. 1, 42; Lehmann (1984), p. 12
6. Jump up^ Casson (1971), pp. 53—56
7. Jump up^ Murray (2012), p. 3
8. Jump up^ Casson (1995), p. 123
9. Jump up^ Rodger (1997), pp. 66—68
10. ^ Jump up to:^ab Glete (1993), p. 81
11. Jump up^ Winfield (2009), pp. 116—118
12. Jump up^ Karl Heinz Marquardt, « The Fore and Aft Rigged Warship » in Gardiner & Lavery (1992), p. 64
13. Jump up^ Mooney (1969), p. 516
14. Jump up^ Wachsmann (1995), p. 10
15. ^ Jump up to:^ab Wachsmann (1995), p. 11–12
16. ^ Jump up to:^ab Wachsmann (1995), pp. 21–23
17. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 57–58
18. Jump up^ Wachsmann (1995), pp. 13–18
19. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 117–21
20. Jump up^ Casson (1971), pp. 68–69
21. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), p. 25
22. Jump up^ Wachsmann (1995), pp. 28–34
23. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, pp. 32–35
24. Jump up^ Casson (1991), p. 87
25. Jump up^ Casson (1991), pp. 30–31
26. Jump up^ Casson (1991), pp. 44–46
27. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, (2000), pp. 27–32
28. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), pp. 38–41
29. Jump up^ D.B. Saddington (2011) [2007]. « the Evolution of the Roman Imperial Fleets, » in Paul Erdkamp (ed), A Companion to the Roman Army, 201-217. Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN978-1-4051-2153-8. Plate 12.2 on p. 204.
30. Jump up^ Coarelli, Filippo (1987), I Santuari del Lazio in età repubblicana. NIS, Rome, pp 35-84.
31. ^ Jump up to:^ab Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), pp. 48–49
32. Jump up^ Morrison (1995), pp. 66–67
33. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 119–23
34. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), pp. 78–80
35. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), pp. 80–81
36. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), pp. 82–85
37. Jump up^ Rodger, (1997), pp. 64–65
38. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 53–55.
39. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 96–97
40. Jump up^ Unger (1980), p. 80
41. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 75–76
42. Jump up^ Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne; the thesis appears in chapters 1–2 of Medieval Cities (1925)
43. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 40, 47
44. Jump up^ Unger (1980), p. 102–4
45. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 123–126
46. Jump up^ Glete (2000), p. 2
47. Jump up^ Mott (2003), pp. 105–6
48. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), pp. 64–69
49. Jump up^ Mott (2003), p. 107
50. Jump up^ Braudel, The Perspective of the World, vol. III of Civilization and Capitalism (1979) 1984:126
51. Jump up^ Higgins, Courtney Rosali (2012) The Venetian Galley of Flanders: From Medieval (2-Dimensional) Treatises to 21st Century (3-Dimensional) Model. Master’s thesis, Texas A&M University [1]
52. Jump up^ Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II I, 302.
53. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), p. 57
54. Jump up^ Mallett (1967)
55. Jump up^ Bass, p. 191
56. Jump up^ Mott (2003), pp. 109–111
57. Jump up^ Hattendorf and Unger (2003) pp, 70
58. Jump up^ Glete (2000) pp 18
59. Jump up^ Glete, (2000) pp. 23
60. Jump up^ Glete, (2000) pp. 28
61. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974) pp. 252
62. Jump up^ Glete (1993), p. 114
63. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), p. 101
64. Jump up^ Glete (1993), pp. 114–15
65. Jump up^ Glete (2000), pp. 154, 163
66. Jump up^ Glete (2000), pp., 156, 158-59
67. Jump up^ Bamford (1973), p. 12; Mott, 113-14
68. ^ Jump up to:^ab Mott (2003), p. 112
69. Jump up^ Goodman (1997), pp. 11–13
70. Jump up^ Bamford (1973), p. 12
71. Jump up^ Mott (2003), pp. 113–14
72. Jump up^ See especially Rodger (1996)
73. Jump up^ Glete (2003), p. 27
74. Jump up^ The British naval historian Nicholas Rodger describes this as a « crisis in naval warfare » which eventually led to the development of the galleon, which combined ahead-firing capabilities, heavy broadside guns and a considerable increase in maneuverability by introduction of more advanced sailing rigs; Rodger (2003), p. 245. For more detailed arguments concerning the development of broadside armament, see Rodger (1996).
75. Jump up^ Glete (2003), p. 144
76. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 264–66
77. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), p. 254
78. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), p. 57
79. Jump up^ Glete (2003), pp. 32–33
80. Jump up^ Glete (2000), p. 183
81. ^ Jump up to:^ab Jan Glete, « The Oared Warship » in Gardiner & Lavery (1992), p. 99
82. Jump up^ Rodger (2003), p. 170
83. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 14–18
84. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), p. 52
85. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), p. 45
86. ^ Jump up to:^ab Lehmann (1984), p. 12
87. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 272–73
88. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 23–25
89. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 277–278
90. Jump up^ Bamford, (1974), pp. 272–73; Anderson, (1962), pp. 71–73
91. Jump up^ Glete (1992), p. 99
92. Jump up^ Rodger (1997), p. 208–12
93. ^ Jump up to:^ab John Bennel, « The Oared Vessels » in Knighton & Loades (2000), pp. 35–37.
94. Jump up^ Rodger (2003), pp. 230–30; see also R. C. Anderson, Naval Wars in the Baltic, pp. 177–78
95. Jump up^ Glete (2003), pp. 224–25
96. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), pp. 91–93; Berg, « Skärgårdsflottans fartyg » in Norman (2000) pp. 51
97. Jump up^ Glete, « Den ryska skärgårdsflottan » in Norman (2000), p. 81
98. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), p. 95
99. Jump up^ Bondioli, Burlet & Zysberg (1995), p. 205
100. Jump up^ Jan Glete, « Den ryska skärgårdsflottan: Myt och verklighet » in Norman (2000), pp. 86–88
101. ^ Jump up to:^abc Reid, Anthony (2012). Anthony Reid and the Study of the Southeast Asian Past. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN978-981-4311-96-0.
102. Jump up^ Boxer. The Acehnese attack on Malacca in 1629. pp. 119–121.
103. Jump up^ Iskandar, Teuku (1958). De Hikajat Atjeh. Gravenhage: KITLV. p. 175.
104. Jump up^ Lode (1601). Tweede Boek. Amsterdam. p. 17.
105. Jump up^ Coates (1995), p. 127
106. Jump up^ This flower-inspired stern detail would later be widely used by both Greek and Roman ships.
107. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 41–42
108. Jump up^ Coates (1995), p. 136–37
109. ^ Jump up to:^ab Coates (1995), pp. 133–34; Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), pp. 165–67
110. Jump up^ Coates (1995), pp. 137–38
111. Jump up^ Casson (1991), pp. 135–36
112. Jump up^ Coates (1995), pp. 131–32
113. Jump up^ Coates (1995), pp. 138–40
114. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), p. 77
115. Jump up^ Shaw(1995), pp. 164–65
116. Jump up^ Hocker (1995), p. 88
117. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), pp. 80–83
118. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), p. 85
119. Jump up^ See both Bass and Pryor
120. Jump up^ Morrison p. 269
121. Jump up^ Landström
122. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 123–125
123. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 125–126
124. Jump up^ Pryor (1995), p. 102
125. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 127
126. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 138–140
127. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 145–147, 152
128. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 134–135
129. Jump up^ Pryor (1995), pp. 103–104
130. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 232, 255, 276
131. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 205, 291
132. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 215
133. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 203
134. ^ Jump up to:^ab Pryor (1995), p. 104
135. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 143–144
136. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), pp. 52, 54–55
137. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), p. 64
138. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), pp. 66–69
139. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), pp. 55–56
140. Jump up^ Pryor refers to claims that stern rudders evolved by the Byzantines and Arabs as early as the 9th century, but refutes it due to lack of evidence. Anderson (1962), pp. 59–60; Pryor (1992), p. 61.
141. Jump up^ Lehmann (1984), p. 31
142. ^ Jump up to:^ab Guilmartin (1974), p. 216
143. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), p. 200
144. Jump up^ Lehmann (1984), pp. 32–33
145. Jump up^ Jan Glete, « The Oared Warship » in Gardiner & Lavery (1992), p. 98
146. Jump up^ Jan Glete, « The Oared Warship » in Gardiner & Lavery (1992), pp. 98–100
147. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), p. 17
148. Jump up^ Lehmann (1984), p. 22
149. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, The Athenian Trireme, pp. 246–47; Shaw (1995), pp. 168–169
150. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, The Athenian Trireme, pp. 249–52
151. ^ Jump up to:^ab Morrison, Coates & Rankov, The Athenian Trireme, pp. 246–47
152. Jump up^ Coates 1995, pp. 127–28
153. Jump up^ Shaw (1995), p. 169
154. Jump up^ Shaw (1995), p. 163
155. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 210–211
156. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, The Athenian Trireme, p. 248
157. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), pp. 71–75
158. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 325–26
159. Jump up^ Rachel L. Sargent, « The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare », Classical Philology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jul., 1927), pp. 264–279
160. Jump up^ Lionel Casson, « Galley Slaves », Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 97 (1966), pp. 35–44
161. Jump up^ Unger (1980), p. 36
162. Jump up^ From Italian remo di scaloccio from scala, « ladder; staircase »; Anderson (1962), p. 69
163. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 226–227
164. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 109–112
165. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 114–119
166. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 47–49.
167. Jump up^ Basch (2001), p. 64
168. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 153–159
169. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), p. 42
170. Jump up^ Wachsmann (1995), pp. 28–34, 72
171. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), pp. 42–43, 92–93
172. Jump up^ John Coates (1995), pp. 133–135
173. Jump up^ Casson (1991), p. 139
174. Jump up^ Casson (1991), pp. 90–91
175. ^ Jump up to:^ab Hocker (1995), pp. 95, 98–99.
176. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 282
177. Jump up^ Pryor (1983), pp. 193–194
178. Jump up^ Pryor (1983), pp. 184–188
179. Jump up^ Pryor (1983), p. 194
180. Jump up^ Rose (2002), pp. 133
181. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 157–158
182. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 199–200
183. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 248–249
184. Jump up^ Jan Glete, « Vasatidens galärflottor » in Norman (2000), pp. 39, 42
185. Jump up^ Rodger (2003), p. 237
186. Jump up^ For more information on the royal flotilla of Louis XIV, see Amélie Halna du Fretay, « La flottille du Grand Canal de Versailles à l’époque de Louis XIV : diversité, technicité et prestige » (in French)
187. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 24–25
188. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 275–278
189. Jump up^ Bamford (1973), pp. 11–12
190. Jump up^ Bamford (1973), p. 282
191. Jump up^ The Trireme Trust
192. Jump up^ Scandurra, Enrico (1972), pp 209–10
193. Jump up^ AA.VV., 2003, La galea di San Marco in Boccalama. Valutazioni scientifiche per un progetto di recupero (ADA – Saggi 1), Venice
194. Jump up^ D’Agostino – Medas, (2003), Excavation and Recording of the medieval Hulls at San Marco in Boccalama (Venice), the INA Quarterly (Institute of Nautical Archaeology), 30, 1, Spring 2003, pp. 22–28

Further reading

• Anderson, Roger Charles, Oared fighting ships: From classical times to the coming of steam. London. 1962.
• Bamford, Paul W., Fighting ships and prisons: the Mediterranean Galleys of France in the Age of Louis XIV. Cambridge University Press, London. 1974. ISBN 0-8166-0655-2
• Basch, L. & Frost, H. « Another Punic wreck off Sicily: its ram » in International journal of Nautical Archaeology vol 4.2, 1975. pp. 201–228
• Bass, George F. (editor), A History of Seafaring, Thames & Hudson, 1972
  • Scandurro, Enrico, Chapter 9 The Maritime Republics: Medieval and Renaissance ships in Italy pp. 205–224
• (in Italian) Bragadin, Marc’Antonio, Le repubbliche marinare (I grandi libri d’oro), Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1974. ISBN 2560007802093 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN.
• Capulli, Massimo, Le Navi della Serenissima – La Galea Veneziana di Lazise.Marsilio Editore, Venezia, 2003.
• Gardiner, Robert & Lavery, Brian (editors), The Line of Battle: Sailing Warships 1650–1840. Conway Maritime Press, London. 1992. ISBN 0-85177-561-6
• Casson, Lionel, « Galley Slaves » in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 97 (1966), pp. 35–44
• Casson, Lionel, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton University Press, 1971
• Casson, Lionel, The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1991. ISBN 0-691-06836-4
• Casson, Lionel, « The Age of the Supergalleys » in Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, University of Texas Press, 1994. ISBN 0-292-71162-X [2], pp. 78–95
• D’Agostino, Marco – Medas, Stefano, Excavation and Recording of the medieval Hulls at San Marco in Boccalama (Venice), the INA Quarterly (Institute of Nautical Archaeology), 30, 1, Spring 2003, pp. 22–28
• Glete, Jan, Navies and nations: Warships, navies and state building in Europe and America, 1500–1860. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm. 1993. ISBN 91-22-01565-5
• Glete, Jan, Warfare at Sea, 1500–1650: Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe. Routledge, London. 2000. ISBN 0-415-21455-6
• Guilmartin, John Francis, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, London. 1974. ISBN 0-521-20272-8
• Guilmartin, John Francis, »Galleons and Galleys », Cassell & Co., London, 2002 ISBN 0-304-35263-2
• Hattendorf, John B. & Unger, Richard W. (editors), War at Sea in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Woodbridge, Suffolk. 2003. ISBN 0-85115-903-6 [3]
  • Balard, Michel, « Genoese Naval Forces in the Mediterranean During the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries », pp. 137–49
  • Bill, Jan, « Scandinavian Warships and Naval Power in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries », pp. 35–51
  • Doumerc, Bernard, « An Exemplary Maritime Republic: Venice at the End of the Middle Ages », pp. 151–65
  • Friel, Ian, « Oars, Sails and Guns: the English and War at Sea c. 1200-c. 1500 », pp. 69–79
  • Glete, Jan, « Naval Power and Control of the Sea in the Baltic in the Sixteenth Century », pp. 215–32
  • Hattendorf, John B., « Theories of Naval Power: A. T. Mahan and the Naval History of Medieval and Renaissance Europe », pp. 1–22
  • Hattendorf, John B.and Richard W. Unger, eds. War At Sea In The Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge. 2003.
  • Mott, Lawrence V., « Iberian Naval Power, 1000–1650 », pp. 103–118
  • Pryor, John H., « Byzantium and the Sea: Byzantine Fleets and the History of the Empire in the Age of the Macedonian Emperors, c. 900-1025 CE », pp. 83–104
  • Rodger, Nicholas A. M., « The New Atlantic: Naval Warfare in the Sixteenth Century », pp. 231–47
  • Runyan, Timothy J., « Naval Power and Maritime Technology During the Hundred Years’ War », pp. 53–67
• Hutchinson, Gillian, Medieval Ships and Shipping. Leicester University Press, London. 1997. ISBN 0-7185-0117-9
• Knighton, C. S. and Loades, David M., The Anthony Roll of Henry VIII’s Navy: Pepys Library 2991 and British Library Additional MS 22047 with related documents. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot. 2000. ISBN 0-7546-0094-7
• Lehmann, L. Th., Galleys in the Netherlands. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam. 1984. ISBN 90-290-1854-2
• Morrison, John S. & Gardiner, Robert (editors), The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times. Conway Maritime, London, 1995. ISBN 0-85177-554-3
  • Alertz, Ulrich, « The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Medieval and Later Galleys », pp. 142–62
  • Bondioli, Mauro, Burlet, René & Zysberg, André, « Oar Mechanics and Oar Power in Medieval and Later Galleys », pp. 142–63
  • Casson, Lionel, « Merchant Galleys », pp. 117–26
  • Coates, John, « The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Ancient Galleys », pp. 127–41
  • Dotson, John E, « Economics and Logistics of Galley Warfare », pp. 217–23
  • Hocker, Frederick M., « Late Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic Galleys and Fleets », pp. 86–100
  • Morrison, John, « Hellenistic Oared Warships 399-31 BC », pp. 66–77
  • Pryor, John H. »From dromon to galea: Mediterranean bireme galleys AD 500-1300″, pp. 101–116.
  • Rankov, Boris, « Fleets of the Early Roman Empire, 31 BC-AD 324 », pp. 78–85
  • Shaw, J. T., « Oar Mechanics and Oar Power in Ancient Galleys », pp. 163–71
  • Wachsmann, Shelley, « Paddled and Oared Ships Before the Iron Age », pp. 10–25
• Mallett, Michael E. (1967) The Florentine Galleys in the Fifteenth Century with the Diary of Luca di Maso degli Albizzi, Captain of the Galleys 1429–1430. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1967
• Mooney, James L. (editor), Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships: Volume 4. Naval Historical Center, Washington. 1969.
• Morrison, John S., Coates, John F. & Rankov, Boris,The Athenian Trireme: the History and Reconstruction of An Ancient Greek Warship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2000. ISBN 0-521-56456-5
• Murray, William (2012) The Age of Titans: The Rise and Fall of the Great Hellenistic Navies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-538864-0
• (in Swedish) Norman, Hans (editor), Skärgårdsflottan: uppbyggnad, militär användning och förankring i det svenska samhället 1700–1824. Historiska media, Lund. 2000. ISBN 91-88930-50-5
• Pryor, John H., « The naval battles of Roger of Lauria » in Journal of Medieval History 9. Amsterdam. 1983; pp. 179–216
• Pryor, John H., Geography, technology and war: Studies in the maritime history of the Mediterranean 649-1571. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1992. 0-521-42892-0 [4]
• Rodger, Nicholas A. M., « The Development of Broadside Gunnery, 1450–1650. » Mariner’s Mirror 82 (1996), pp. 301–24.
• Rodger, Nicholas A. M., The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain 660–1649. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 1997. ISBN 0-393-04579-X
• Rose, Susan, Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000–1500.Routledge. London. 2002.
• Rodgers, William Ledyard, Naval Warfare Under Oars: 4th to 16th Centuries, Naval Institute Press, 1940.
• Tenenti, Alberto Piracy and the Decline of Venice 1580–1615 (English translation). 1967
• Unger, Richard W. The Ship in Medieval Economy 600-1600 Croom Helm, London. 1980. ISBN 0-85664-949-X
• Winfield, Rif (2009) British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1603–1714: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. Seaforth, Barnsley. ISBN 978-1-84832-040-6

Look up galley in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Galleys.

•  « Galley« . Encyclopædia Britannica(11th ed.). 1911.
• John F. Guilmartin, « The Tactics of the Battle of Lepanto Clarified: The Impact of Social, Economic, and Political Factors on Sixteenth Century Galley Warfare ». A very detailed discussion of galley warfare at the Battle of Lepanto
• (in Spanish) Rafael Rebolo Gómez – « The Carthaginian navy »., 2005, Treballs del Museu Arqueologic d’Eivissa e Formentera.
• « Some Engineering Concepts applied to Ancient Greek Trireme Warships », John Coates, University of Oxford, The 18th Jenkin Lecture, 1 October 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Golden cup from a LH IIA Mycenaean grave at Vapheio, one of a pair known as the « Vapheio Cups« . This cup is believed to be of Minoan manufacture while its twin is thought to be Mycenaean. National Archaeological Museum, Athens.

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Fresco of children boxing, recovered from the island of Santorini

 

Minoan civilization

Period	Bronze Age Europe
Dates	c. 2600 – c. 1100 BC
Major sites	Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, Zakros
Preceded by	Cycladic culture
Followed by	Mycenaean Greece

Ancient history
Preceded by prehistory
Ancient Near East
Sumer · Egypt · Elam · Akkad Babylonia · Canaan Hittite Empire · Crete · Syro-Hittite states Neo-Assyrian Empire · Urartu ·
Classical antiquity
Greece · Persia Hellenism · Rome · Africa · Late Antiquity
East Asia
China · Korea · Japan
South Asia
Indus Valley Civilization · Vedic India ·Maha Janapadas Mauryan India · Chola India Satavahana India · Gupta India
Mesoamerica
Andes
See also
History of the world · Ancient maritime history Protohistory · Axial Age · Iron Age Historiography · Ancient literature Ancient warfare · Cradle of civilization
Followed by the Middle Ages
v t e

Bronze Age v t e

↑ Chalcolithic

Near East (c. 3300–1200 BC) Anatolia, Caucasus, Elam, Egypt, Levant, Mesopotamia, Sistan, Canaan Late Bronze Age collapse South Asia (c. 3300–1200 BC) Indus Valley Civilization Bronze Age South Asia Ochre Coloured Pottery Cemetery H Europe (c. 3200–600 BC) Aegean (Cycladic, Minoan, Mycenaean),Caucasus, Catacomb culture, Srubna culture, Beaker culture, Unetice culture, Tumulus culture, Urnfield culture, Hallstatt culture, Apennine culture, Canegrate culture, Golasecca culture, Atlantic Bronze Age, Bronze Age Britain, Nordic Bronze Age East Asia (c. 2000–300 BC) Erlitou, Erligang, Gojoseon, Jomon, Majiayao, Mumun, Qijia, Siwa, Wucheng, Xindian, Yueshi

arsenical bronze writing literature sword chariot

↓Iron Age

The Minoan civilization was an Aegean Bronze Age civilization on the island of Crete and other Aegean islands which flourished from about 2600 to 1100 BC. It preceded the Mycenaean civilization of Ancient Greece.^[1] The civilization was rediscovered at the beginning of the 20th century through the work of British archaeologist Arthur Evans. It has been described as the earliest of its kind in Europe,^[2] with historian Will Durantcalling the Minoans « the first link in the European chain ».^[3]

The term « Minoan », which refers to the mythical King Minos, originally described in the pottery of the period. Minos was associated in Greek mythology with the labyrinth and the Minotaur, which Evans identified with the site at Knossos (the largest Minoan site). According to Homer, Crete once had 90 cities.^[4]

The Minoan period saw trade between Crete and Aegean and Mediterranean settlements, particularly the Near East. Through their traders and artists, the Minoan cultural influence reached beyond Crete to the Cyclades, Egypt‘s Old Kingdom, copper-bearing Cyprus, Canaan and the Levantine coast, and Anatolia. Some of its best art is preserved in the city of Akrotiri on the island of Santorini, which was destroyed by the Thera eruption.

Although the Minoan language and writing systems (Linear A) remain undeciphered, and are the subject of academic dispute, they apparently conveyed a language entirely different from the later Greek. The reason for the end of the Minoan period (around 1400 BC) is unclear; theories include Mycenaean invasions from mainland Greece and a volcanic eruption of Thera.

Etymology

The term « Minoan » refers to the mythical King Minos of Knossos. Its origin is debated, but it is commonly attributed to archeologist Arthur Evans (1851–1941).^[5]Minos was associated in Greek mythology with the labyrinth, which Evans identified with the site at Knossos.

However, Karl Hoeck had already used the title Das Minoische Kreta in 1825 for volume two of his Kreta; this appears to be the first known use of the word « Minoan » to mean « ancient Cretan ».

Evans probably read Hoeck’s book, and continued using the term in his writings and findings:^[6] « To this early civilization of Crete as a whole I have proposed—and the suggestion has been generally adopted by the archaeologists of this and other countries—to apply the name ‘Minoan’. »^[7] Evans said that he applied it, not invented it.

Hoeck, with no idea that the archaeological Crete had existed, had in mind the Crete of mythology. Although Evans’ 1931 claim that the term was « unminted » before he used it was called a « brazen suggestion » by Karadimas and Momigliano,^[6] he coined its archaeological meaning.

Chronology and history

Minoan chronology, Minoan pottery, and Dating the Thera eruption

Minoan chronology

2500–2400 BC[8]	EMI	Prepalatial
2300–2100 BC	EMII
2100–2000 BC	EMIII
2000–1900 BC	MMIA
1900–1850 BC	MMIB	Protopalatial (Old Palace Period)
1850–? BC	MMIIA
?–1750 BC	MMIIB	Neopalatial (New Palace Period)
1700/1750–1600 BC	MMIIIA
1600–1550 BC	MMIIIB
1550–1500 BC	LMIA
1500–1450 BC	LMIB	Postpalatial (at Knossos; Final Palace Period)
1450–1400 BC	LMII
1400–1300 BC	LMIIIA
1300–1200 BC	LMIIIB

Instead of dating the Minoan period, archaeologists use two systems of relative chronology. The first, created by Evans and modified by later archaeologists, is based on pottery styles and imported Egyptian artifacts (which can be correlated with the chronology of Ancient Egypt). Evans’ system divides the Minoan period into three major eras: early (EM), middle (MM) and late (LM). These eras are subdivided—for example, Early Minoan I, II and III (EMI, EMII, EMIII).

Another dating system, proposed by Greek archaeologist Nicolas Platon, is based on the development of architectural complexes known as « palaces » at Knossos, Phaistos, Malia and Kato Zakros. Platon divides the Minoan period into pre-, proto-, neo- and post-palatial sub-periods. The relationship between the systems in the table includes approximate calendar dates from Warren and Hankey (1989).

The Thera eruption occurred during a mature phase of the LM IA period. Efforts to establish the volcanic eruption’s date have been controversial. Radiocarbon datinghas indicated a date in the late 17th century BC;^[9][10] this conflicts with estimates by archaeologists, who synchronize the eruption with conventional Egyptian chronology for a date of 1525–1500 BC.^[11][12][13]

Overview

History of Crete

Although stone-tool evidence exists that hominins may have reached Crete as early as 130,000 years ago, evidence for the first anatomically-modern human presence dates to 10,000–12,000 YBP.^[14][15] The oldest evidence of modern human habitation on Crete are pre-ceramic Neolithic farming-community remains which date to about 7000 BC.^[16] A comparative study of DNA haplogroups of modern Cretan men showed that a male founder group, from Anatolia or the Levant, is shared with the Greeks.^[17] The Neolithic population lived in open villages. Fishermen’s huts were found on the shores, and the fertile Mesara Plain was used for agriculture.^[18]

Early Minoan

The Early Bronze Age (3500 to 2600 BC) has been described as indicating a « promise of greatness »^[19] in light of later developments on the island. The Bronze Age began on Crete around 2700 BC.^[20] In the late third millennium BC, several locations on the island developed into centers of commerce and handiwork; this enabled the upper classes to exercise leadership and expand their influence. It is likely that the original hierarchies of the local elites were replaced by monarchies, a precondition for the palaces.^[21]

Middle Minoan

At the end of the MMII period (1700 BC) there was a large disturbance on Crete—probably an earthquake, but possibly an invasion from Anatolia.^[22] The palaces at Knossos, Phaistos, Malia and Kato Zakros were destroyed.

At the beginning of the neopalatial period the population increased again,^[23] the palaces were rebuilt on a larger scale and new settlements were built across the island. This period (the 17th and 16th centuries BC, MM III-Neopalatial) was the apex of Minoan civilization. After around 1700 BC, material culture on the Greek mainland reached a new high due to Minoan influence.^[21]

Late Minoan

Another natural catastrophe occurred around 1600 BC, possibly an eruption of the Thera volcano. The Minoans rebuilt the palaces with several major differences in function.^[24][21][25]

Around 1450 BC, Minoan culture reached a turning point due to a natural catastrophe (possibly an earthquake). Although another eruption of the Thera volcano has been linked to this downfall, its dating and implications are disputed. Several important palaces, in locations such as Mallia, Tylissos, Phaistos and Hagia Triada, and the living quarters of Knossos were destroyed. The palace in Knossos seems to have remained largely intact, resulting in its dynasty’s ability to spread its influence over large parts of Crete until it was overrun by the Mycenaean Greeks.^[21]

Foreign influence

The influence of Minoan civilization is seen in Minoan handicrafts on the Greek mainland. The shaft graves of Mycenae had several Cretan imports (such as a bull’s-head rhyton), which suggests a prominent role for Minoan symbolism. Connections between Egypt and Crete are prominent; Minoan ceramics are found in Egyptian cities, and the Minoans imported items (particularly papyrus) and architectural and artistic ideas from Egypt. Egyptian hieroglyphs were models for Minoan pictographic writing, from which the Linear A and Linear B writing systems developed.^[18]Archaeologist Hermann Bengtson has also found a Minoan influence in Canaaniteartifacts.

Minoan palace sites were occupied by the Mycenaeans (who adapted Linear A Minoan script for their own language) around 1420–1375 BC.^[26][21] Their language, a form of Greek, was written in Linear B. The Mycenaeans tended to adapt (rather than supplant) Minoan culture, religion and art,^[27] continuing the Minoan economic system and bureaucracy.^[21]

During LMIIIA (1400–1300 BC), Amenhotep III noted k-f-t-w (Kaftor) as one of the « Secret Lands of the North of Asia » at Kom el-Hatan.^[28] Also mentioned are Cretan cities (such as Amnisos, Phaistos, Kydonia and Knossos) and toponymsreconstructed as in the Cyclades or the Greek mainland. If the values of these Egyptian names are accurate, the pharaoh did not value LMIII Knossos more than other states in the region.^[29]

After about a century of partial recovery, most Cretan cities and palaces declined during the 13th century BC (LHIIIB-LMIIIB). The last Linear A archives date to LMIIIA, contemporary with LHIIIA.

Knossos remained an administrative center until 1200 BC. The last Minoan site was the defensive mountain site of Karfi, a refuge which had vestiges of Minoan civilization nearly into the Iron Age.^[30]

Geography

Knossos

Gortyn

Clickable map of Greece, with major Minoan sites

Crete is a mountainous island with natural harbors. There are signs of earthquake damage at many Minoan sites, and clear signs of land uplifting and submersion of coastal sites due to tectonic processes along its coast.^[31]

According to Homer, Crete had 90 cities.^[4] Judging by the palace sites, the island was probably divided into at least eight political units at the height of the Minoan period. The north is thought to have been governed from Knossos, the south from Phaistos, the central-eastern region from Malia, the eastern tip from Kato Zakros and the west from Chania. Smaller palaces have been found elsewhere on the island.

Major Minoan archaeological sites include:

• Palaces:
  • Knossos – the largest^[32] Bronze Age archaeological site on Crete; was purchased for excavations by Evans on March 16, 1900.
  • Phaistos – the second-largest^[32] palatial building on the island, excavated by the Italian school shortly after Knossos
  • Malia – the subject of French excavations, a palatial center which provides a look into the proto-palatial period
  • Kato Zakros – palatial site excavated by Greek archaeologists in the far east of the island, also known as « Zakro » in archaeological literature
  • Galatas – confirmed as a palatial site during the early 1990s
• Agia Triada – administrative center near Phaistos
• Gournia – town site excavated in the first quarter of the 20th century
• Pyrgos – early Minoan site in southern Crete
• Vasiliki – early eastern Minoan site which gives its name to distinctive ceramic ware
• Fournou Korfi – southern site
• Pseira – island town with ritual sites
• Mount Juktas – the greatest Minoan peak sanctuary, associated with the palace of Knossos^[33]
• Arkalochori – site of the Arkalochori Axe
• Karfi – refuge site, one of the last Minoan sites
• Akrotiri – settlement on the island of Santorini (Thera), near the site of the Thera Eruption
• Zominthos – mountainous city in the northern foothills of Mount Ida

Settlements

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Minoan fresco, showing a fleet and settlement

See also: Historical urban community sizes and List of largest cities throughout history

Knossos had an estimated population of 1,300 to 2,000 in 2500 BC, 18,000 in 2000 BC, 20,000 to 100,000 in 1600 BC and 30,000 in 1360 BC. Gortyn was also a noted Minoan settlement.^[34][35][36]

Beyond Crete

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Minoan copper ingot

The Minoans were traders, and their cultural contacts reached Egypt’s Old Kingdom, copper-containing Cyprus, Canaan and the Levantine coast and Anatolia. In late 2009 Minoan-style frescoes and other artifacts were discovered during excavations of the Canaanite palace at Tel Kabri, Israel, leading archaeologists to conclude that the Minoan influence was the strongest on the Canaanite city-state. These are the only Minoan artifacts which have been found in Israel.^[37]

Minoan techniques and ceramic styles had varying degrees of influence on Helladic Greece. Along with Santorini, Minoan settlements are found^[38] at Kastri on Cythera, an island near the Greek mainland influenced by the Minoans from the mid-third millennium BC (EMII) to its Mycenaean occupation in the 13th century.^[39][40][41]Minoan strata replaced a mainland-derived early Bronze Age culture, the earliest Minoan settlement outside Crete.^[42]

The Cyclades were in the Minoan cultural orbit, and (closer to Crete) the islands of Karpathos, Saria and Kasos also contained middle-Bronze Age (MMI-II) Minoan colonies or settlements of Minoan traders. Most were abandoned in LMI, but Karpathos recovered and continued its Minoan culture until the end of the Bronze Age.^[43] Other supposed Minoan colonies, such as that hypothesized by Adolf Furtwängler on Aegina, were later dismissed by scholars.^[44] However, there was a Minoan colony at Ialysos on Rhodes.^[45]

Minoan cultural influence indicates an orbit extending through the Cyclades to Egypt and Cyprus. Fifteenth-century BC paintings in Thebes, Egypt depict Minoan-appearing individuals bearing gifts. Inscriptions describing them as coming from keftiu (« islands in the middle of the sea ») may refer to gift-bringing merchants or officials from Crete.^[46]

Some locations on Crete indicate that the Minoans were an « outward-looking » society.^[47] The neo-palatial site of Kato Zakros is located within 100 meters of the modern shoreline in a bay. Its large number of workshops and wealth of site materials indicate a possible entrepôt for trade. Such activities are seen in artistic representations of the sea, including the « Flotilla » fresco in room five of the West House at Akrotiri.^{[citation needed]}

Agriculture and cuisine

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

The partially-restored « campstool fresco » from Knossos

See also: Cretan cuisine

The Minoans raised cattle, sheep, pigs and goats, and grew wheat, barley, vetch and chickpeas. They also cultivated grapes, figs and olives, and grew poppies for seed and (perhaps) opium. The Minoans also domesticated bees.^[48]

Crops, including lettuce, celery, asparagus and carrots, grew wild on Crete. Pear, quince, and olive trees were also native. Date palmtrees and cats (for hunting) were imported from Egypt.^[49] The Minoans adopted pomegranates from the Near East, but not lemons and oranges.

They may have practiced polyculture,^[50] and their varied, healthy diet resulted in a population increase. Polyculture theoretically maintains soil fertility and protects against losses due to crop failure. Linear B tablets indicate the importance of orchards (figs, olives and grapes) in processing crops for « secondary products ».^[51]Olive oil in Cretan (or Mediterranean) cuisine is comparable to butter in northern European cuisine.^[52] The process of fermenting wine from grapes was probably a factor of the « Palace » economies; wine would have been a trade commodity and an item of domestic consumption.^[53] Farmers used wooden plows, bound with leather to wooden handles and pulled by pairs of donkeys or oxen.

Seafood was also important in Cretan cuisine. The prevalence of edible molluscs in site material^[54] and artistic representations of marine fish and animals (including the distinctive LM IIIC « Octopus » stirrup jar), indicate appreciation (and occasional use) of fish by the economy. However, scholars believe that these resources were not as significant as grain, olives and animal produce. « Fishing was one of the major activities…but there is as yet no evidence for the way in which they organized their fishing. »^[55] An intensification of agricultural activity is indicated by the construction of terraces and dams at Pseira in the Late Minoan period.

Cretan cuisine included wild game; Cretans ate wild deer and boar and meat from livestock. Wild game is now extinct on Crete.^[56]

Not all plants and flora were purely functional, and arts depict scenes of lily-gathering in green spaces. The fresco known as the Sacred Grove at Knossos depicts women facing left, flanked by trees. Some scholars have suggested that it is a harvest festival, or ceremony, to honor the fertility of the soil. Artistic depictions of farming scenes also appear on the Second Palace Period « Harvester Vase » (an egg-shaped rhyton), on which 27 men led by another carry hoes. This demonstrates the importance of farming as an artistic motif.

The discovery of storage areas in the palace compounds has prompted debate. At the second « palace » at Phaistos, rooms on the west side of the structure have been identified as a storage area. Jars, jugs and vessels have been recovered in the area, indicating the complex’s possible role as a re-distribution center for agricultural produce. At larger sites such as Knossos, there is evidence of craft specialization (workshops). The palace at Kato Zakro indicates that workshops were integrated into palace structure. The Minoan palatial system may have developed through economic intensification, where an agricultural surplus could support a population of administrators, craftsmen and religious practitioners. The number of sleeping rooms in the palaces indicates that they could have supported a sizable population which was removed from manual labor.

Tools

Tools, originally made of wood or bone, were bound to handles with leather straps. During the Bronze Age, they were made of bronze with wooden handles. Due to its round hole, the tool head would spin on the handle. The Minoans developed oval-shaped holes in their tools to fit oval-shaped handles, which prevented spinning.^[48]Tools included double adzes, double- and single-bladed axes, axe-adzes, sickles and chisels.

Society and culture

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

The « saffron-gatherers »

The Minoans were primarily a mercantilepeople who engaged in overseas trade. After 1700 BC, their culture indicates a high degree of organization. Minoan-manufactured goods suggest a network of trade with mainland Greece (notably Mycenae), Cyprus, Syria, Anatolia, Egypt, Mesopotamia and westward as far as the Iberian peninsula. Minoan religion apparently focused on female deities, with women officiants.^[57] While historians and archaeologists have long been skeptical of an outright matriarchy, the predominance of female figures in authoritative roles over male ones seems to indicate that Minoan society was matriarchal, and among the most well-supported examples known.^[58]

Saffron trade

A fresco of saffron-gatherers at Santorini is well-known. The Minoan trade in saffron, the stigma of a naturally-mutated crocus which originated in the Aegean basin, has left few material remains. According to Evans, the saffron (a sizable Minoan industry) was used for dye.^[59] Other archaeologists emphasize durable trade items: ceramics, copper, tin, gold and silver.^[59] The saffron may have had a religious significance.^[60]The saffron trade, which predated Minoan civilization, was comparable in value to that of frankincense or black pepper.

Fashion

Minoan men wore loincloths and kilts. Women wore robes with short sleeves and layered, flounced skirts. The robes were open to the navel, exposing their breasts.^[61]Women could also wear a strapless, fitted bodice, and clothing patterns had symmetrical, geometric designs.

Language and writing

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

One side of the Phaistos Disc

Main article: Minoan language

Knowledge of the spoken and written language of the Minoans is scant due to the small number of records found. Clay tablets, dating to around 3000 BC, were found with Aegean scripts.^[62] Clay tablets were apparently in use around 3000 BC or earlier. Two clay cups from Knossos had remnants of ink, and inkwells similar to animal-shaped Mesopotamian inkstands have been found.^[63] The Eteocretan language, written with a Euboean-derived alphabet after the Greek Dark Ages, is believed to be a descendant of Minoan; however, there is not enough source material in either language to allow a firm conclusion.

The earliest dated writings found on Crete are Cretan hieroglyphs. It is unknown whether the language is Minoan, and its origin is debated. Although the hieroglyphs are often associated with the Egyptians, they also indicate a relationship to Mesopotamian writings.^[63] They came into use during MMI, and were used at the same time as Linear A (18th century BC; MM II). The hieroglyphs disappeared during the 17th century BC (MM III).

Linear A served as the foundation for Linear B, which recorded the earliest attestedform of the Greek language: Mycenaean Greek. Although Linear B was deciphered by Michael Ventris in 1952, the earlier scripts remain a mystery. Nearly all the tablets, written in the Linear B script, seem to be inventories of goods or resources. Others are inscriptions on religious objects associated with a cult. Because most of the inscriptions are economic records rather than dedicatory inscriptions, the translation of Minoan remains a challenge. Unless Eteocretan is its descendant, the Minoan language may have become extinct during the Greek Dark Ages (a period of economic and sociopolitical collapse).^[64]

Religion

Minoan religion

The smaller of two Minoan snake goddess figurines

The Minoans seem to have primarily worshiped a Great Goddess, and their society has been described as matriarchal.^{[65][66][67][68][69][70]} Some scholars see in the Minoan Goddess a female divine solar figure.^[71][72] Some evidence of male gods exists, but depictions of Minoan goddesses vastly outnumber those of gods.^[73] Although some depictions of women may be images of worshipers and priestesses officiating at religious ceremonies (as opposed to deities), goddesses seem to include a mother goddess of fertility, a goddess of animals and female protectors of cities, the household, the harvest and the underworld. They are often represented by serpents, birds, poppies or an animal on the head.

According to Nanno Marinatos, « The hierarchy and relationship of gods within the pantheon is difficult to decode from the images alone. »^[74] Marinatos disagrees with earlier descriptions of Minoan religion as primitive, saying that it « was the religion of a sophisticated and urbanized palatial culture with a complex social hierarchy. It was not dominated by fertility any more than any religion of the past or present has been, and it addressed gender identity, rites of passage, and death. It is reasonable to assume that both the organization and the rituals, even the mythology, resembled the religions of Near Eastern palatial civilizations. »^[74] It even seems that the later Greek pantheon would synthesize the Minoan female deity and Hittite goddess from the Near East.^[75]

Symbolism

Minoan horn-topped altars, which Arthur Evans called Horns of Consecration, are represented in seal impressions and have been found as far afield as Cyprus. Minoan sacred symbols include the bull (and its horns of consecration), the labrys(double-headed axe), the pillar, the serpent, the sun-disc and the tree.

The Bull Leaper, from Knossos (Heraklion Archaeological Museum)

Haralampos V. Harissis and Anastasios V. Harissis posit a different interpretation of these symbols, saying that they were based on apiculturerather than religion.^[76] A major festival was exemplified in bull-leaping, represented in the frescoes of Knossos^[77] and inscribed in miniature seals.^[78]

Burial practices

Similar to other Bronze Age archaeological finds, burial remains constitute much of the material and archaeological evidence for the period. By the end of the Second Palace Period, Minoan burial was dominated by two forms: circular tombs (tholoi) in southern Crete and house tombs in the north and the east. However, much Minoan mortuary practice does not conform to this pattern. Burialwas more popular than cremation.^[79] Individual burial was the rule, except for the Chrysolakkos complex in Malia. Here, a number of buildings form a complex in the center of Mallia’s burial area and may have been the focus for burial rituals or a crypt for a notable family.^{[citation needed]} Evidence of possible human sacrifice by the Minoans has been found at three sites: at Anemospilia, in a MMII building near Mt. Juktas considered a temple; an EMII sanctuary complex at Fournou Korifi in south-central Crete, and in an LMIB building known as the North House in Knossos(explanation of abbreviations).

Architecture

Restored model of a Minoan house found in Archanes

Minoan cities were connected by roads paved with blocks cut with bronze saws. Streets were drained, and water and sewagefacilities were available to the upper class through clay pipes.^[80]

Minoan buildings often had flat, tiled roofs; plaster, wood or flagstone floors, and stood two to three stories high. Lower walls were typically constructed of stone and rubble, and the upper walls of mudbrick. Ceiling timbers held up the roofs.

Construction materials for villas and palaces varied, and included sandstone, gypsumand limestone. Building techniques also varied, with some palaces using ashlarmasonry and others roughly-hewn, megalithic blocks.

Palaces

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Storage jars at Knossos

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Ruins of the palace at Knossos

Palaces (anaktora) are the best-known Minoan building types excavated on Crete. They are monumental buildings with administrativepurposes, as evidenced by large archivesunearthed by archaeologists. Each palace excavated to date has unique features, but they also share aspects which set them apart from other structures. Palaces are often multi-story, with interior and exterior staircases, lightwells, massive columns, storage areas and courtyards.

The first palaces were constructed at the end of the Early Minoan period in the third millennium BC at Malia. Although it was formerly believed that the foundation of the first palaces was synchronous and dated to the Middle Minoan period (around 2000 BC, the date of the first palace at Knossos), scholars now think that the palaces were built over a longer period in response to local developments. The main older palaces are Knossos, Malia and Phaistos. Elements of the Middle Minoan palaces (at Knossos, Phaistos and Malia, for example) have precedents in Early Minoan construction styles.^[81] These include an indented western court and special treatment of the western façade. One example is the House on the Hill at Vasiliki, dated to the Early Minoan II period.^[82] The palaces were centers of government, administrative offices, shrines, workshops and storage spaces.^{[83][self-published source][84]}

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Bull-Leaping Fresco found at Knossos

The Middle Minoan palaces are characteristically aligned with their surrounding topography. The MM palace of Phaistos appears to align with Mount Idaand Knossos is aligned with Mount Juktas,^[85] both on a north-south axis. Scholars suggest that the alignment was related to the mountains’ ritual significance; a number of peak sanctuaries (spaces for public ritual) have been excavated, including one at Petsofas. These sites have yielded clusters of clay figurines and evidence of animal sacrifice.

Late palaces are characterized by multi-story buildings with west facades of sandstone ashlar masonry; Knossos is the best-known example. Other building conventions included storage areas, north-south orientation, a pillar room and a western court. Architecture during the First Palace Period is identified by a square-within-a-square style; Second Palace Period construction has more internal divisions and corridors.^[86] Furthermore, the palace of Knossos was not just a regular palace that the Minoans built. The Palace of Knossos was the biggest palace that the Minoan people had ever constructed. The palace is about 150 meters across and it spreads over an area of some 20,000 square meters, with its original upper levels possibly having a thousand chambers. The palace is connected to the mythological story of The Bull of Minos, since it is in this palace where it was written that the labyrinth existed. Focusing on the architectural aspects of the Palace of Knossos, it was a combination of foundations that depended on the aspects of its walls for; the dimensions of the rooms, staircases, porticos, and chambers. The palace was designed in such a fashion that the structure was laid out to surround the central court of the Minoans. Aesthetically speaking, the pillars along with the stone paved northern entrance gave the palace a look and feel that was unique to the Palace of Knossos. The space surrounding the court was covered with rooms and hallways, some of which were stacked on top of the lower levels of the palace being linked through multiple ramps and staircases.^[87] Others were built into a hill, as described by the site’s excavator Arthur John Evans, « …The palace of Knossos is the most extensive and occupies several hills. »^[88] On the east side of the court there was a grand staircase passing through the many levels of the palace, added for the royal residents. On the west side of the court, the throne room, a modest room with a ceiling some two meters high,^[34] can be found along with the frescoes that were decorating the walls of the hallways and storage rooms.

Plumbing

During the Minoan Era extensive waterways were built in order to protect the growing population. These system had two primary functions, first providing and distributing water, and secondly relocating sewage and stormwater.^[89] One of the defining aspects of the Minoan Era was the architectural feats of their waste management. The Minoans used technologies such as wells, cisterns, and aqueducts to manage their water supplies. Structural aspects of their buildings even played a part. Flat roofs and plentiful open courtyards were used for collecting water to be stored in cisterns.^[90] Significantly, the Minoans had water treatments devices. One such device seems to have been a porous clay pipe through which water was allowed to flow until clean.

Columns

Columns at Knossos

One of the most notable Minoan contributions to architecture is their inverted column, wider at the top than the base (unlike most Greek columns, which are wider at the bottom to give an impression of height). The columns were made of wood (not stone) and were generally painted red. Mounted on a simple stone base, they were topped with a pillow-like, round capital.^[91][92]

Villas

A number of compounds known as « villas » have been excavated on Crete. These structures share features of neopalatial palaces: a conspicuous western facade, storage facilities and a three-part Minoan Hall.^[93] These features may indicate a similar role or that the structures were artistic imitations, suggesting that their occupants were familiar with palatial culture. The villas were often richly decorated, as evidenced by the frescos of Haghia Triadha Villa A.

Art

 Minoan art

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Fresco from the Palace of Minos at Knossos

The largest collection of Minoan art is in the museum at Heraklion, near Knossos, on the northern coast of Crete. Minoan art and other remnants of material culture, especially the sequence of ceramic styles, have been used by archaeologists to define the three phases of Minoan culture (EM, MM, LM).

Since wood and textiles have decomposed, the best-preserved (and most instructive) surviving examples of Minoan art are its pottery, palace architecture (with frescos which include landscapes), stone carvings and intricately-carved seal stones.

Frescoes were the primary art form of Minoan culture.^{[citation needed]} They include many depictions of people, with sexes distinguished by color; the men’s skin is reddish-brown, and the women’s white.^[94] Several frescoes at Knossos and Santorini survive. In contrast to Egyptian frescoes, Crete had true frescoes. Probably the most famous fresco is the bull-leaping fresco.^[95]

Pottery

 Minoan pottery

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Marine style Minoan decorated jug, 1575–1500 BC (Brooklyn Museum)

A variety of wares were produced in Crete. Early Minoan ceramics were characterized by patterns of spirals, triangles, curved lines, crosses, fish bones, and beak-spouts. During the Middle Minoan period, naturalistic designs (such as fish, squid, birds and lilies) were common. In the Late Minoan period, flowers and animals were still characteristic but more variety existed.

The palace style of the region around Knossos is characterized by geometric simplicity and monochromatic painting. Late Minoan art resembles that of Mycenae. Minoan knowledge of the sea was continued by the Mycenaeans in their frequent use of marine forms as artistic motifs. The so-called « marine style », perhaps inspired by frescoes, has the entire surface of a pot covered with sea creatures, octopus, fish and dolphins, against a background of rocks, seaweed and sponges.

Jewelry

The Minoans created elaborate metalwork with imported gold and copper.^[96] Bead necklaces, bracelets and hair ornaments appear in the frescoes,^[97] and many labrys pins survive. The Minoans apparently mastered faience and granulation, as indicated by a gold bee pendant. Minoan metalworking included intense, precise temperature, to bond gold to itself without burning it.^{[citation needed]}

Metal vessels

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Golden cup from a LH IIA Mycenaean grave at Vapheio, one of a pair known as the « Vapheio Cups« . This cup is believed to be of Minoan manufacture while its twin is thought to be Mycenaean. National Archaeological Museum, Athens.

Metal vessels were produced in Crete from at least as early as EM II (c. 2500) in the Prepalatial period through to LM IA (c. 1450) in the Postpalatial period and perhaps as late as LM IIIB/C (c. 1200),^[98] although it is likely that many of the vessels from these later periods were heirlooms from earlier periods.^[99] The earliest were probably made exclusively from precious metals, but from the Protopalatial period (MM IB – MM IIA) they were also produced in arsenical bronze and, subsequently, tin bronze.^[100] The archaeological record suggests that mostly cup-type forms were created in precious metals,^[101] but the corpus of bronze vessels was diverse, including cauldrons, pans, hydrias, bowls, pitchers, basins, cups, ladles and lamps.^[102] The Minoan metal vessel tradition influenced that of the Mycenaean culture on mainland Greece, and they are often regarded as the same tradition.^[103]Many precious metal vessels found on mainland Greece exhibit Minoan characteristics, and it is thought that these were either imported from Crete or made on the mainland by Minoan metalsmiths working for Mycenaean patrons or by Mycenaean smiths who had trained under Minoan masters.^[104]

Warfare and the « Minoan peace »

According to Arthur Evans, a « Minoan peace » (Pax Minoica) existed; there was little internal armed conflict in Minoan Crete until the Mycenaean period.^[105] However, it is difficult to draw hard-and-fast conclusions from the evidence^[106] and Evans’ idealistic view has been questioned.^[107]

No evidence has been found of a Minoan army or the Minoan domination of peoples beyond Crete, and few signs of warfare appear in Minoan art: « Although a few archaeologists see war scenes in a few pieces of Minoan art, others interpret even these scenes as festivals, sacred dance, or sports events » (Studebaker, 2004, p. 27). Although armed warriors are depicted as stabbed in the throat with swords, the violence may be part of a ritual or blood sport.^{[citation needed]}

On mainland Greece during the shaft-grave era at Mycenae, there is little evidence for major Mycenaean fortifications; the citadels follow the destruction of nearly all neopalatial Cretan sites. Warfare by other contemporaries of the ancient Minoans, such as the Egyptians and the Hittites, is well-documented.

Skepticism and weaponry

Giacobbe Giusti, Minoan civilization

Fresco of children boxing, recovered from the island of Santorini

Despite finding ruined watchtowers and fortification walls,^[108] Evans said that there was little evidence of ancient Minoan fortifications. According to Stylianos Alexiou (in Kretologia 8), a number of sites (especially early and middle Minoan sites such as Aghia Photia) are built on hilltops or otherwise fortified.^{[full citation needed]} Lucia Nixon wrote, « We may have been over-influenced by the lack of what we might think of as solid fortifications to assess the archaeological evidence properly. As in so many other instances, we may not have been looking for evidence in the right places, and therefore we may not end with a correct assessment of the Minoans and their ability to avoid war. »^[109]

Chester Starr said in « Minoan Flower Lovers » (Hagg-Marinatos, eds. Minoan Thalassocracy) that since Shang China and the Maya had unfortified centers and engaged in frontier struggles, a lack of fortifications alone does not prove that the Minoans were a peaceful civilization unparalleled in history.^{[full citation needed]} In 1998, when Minoan archaeologists met in a Belgian conference to discuss the possibility that the Pax Minoica was outdated, evidence of Minoan war was still scanty. According to Jan Driessen, the Minoans frequently depicted « weapons » in their art in a ritual context:

The construction of fortified sites is often assumed to reflect a threat of warfare, but such fortified centres were multifunctional; they were also often the embodiment or material expression of the central places of the territories at the same time as being monuments glorifying and merging leading power.^[110]

Stella Chryssoulaki’s work on small outposts (or guardhouses) in eastern Crete indicates a possible defensive system; type A (high-quality) Minoan swords were found in the palaces of Mallia and Zarkos (see Sanders, AJA 65, 67, Hoeckmann, JRGZM 27, or Rehak and Younger, AJA 102).^{[full citation needed]} Keith Branigan estimated that 95 percent of Minoan « weapons » had hafting (hilts or handles) which would have prevented their use as such.^[111] However, tests of replicas indicated that the weapons could cut flesh down to the bone (and score the bone’s surface) without damaging the weapons themselves.^[112] According to Paul Rehak, Minoan figure-eight shields could not have been used for fighting or hunting, since they were too cumbersome.^[113] Although Cheryl Floyd concluded that Minoan « weapons » were tools used for mundane tasks such as meat processing,^[114] Middle Minoan « rapiersnearly three feet in length » have been found.^[115]

About Minoan warfare, Branigan concluded:

The quantity of weaponry, the impressive fortifications, and the aggressive looking long-boats all suggested an era of intensified hostilities. But on closer inspection there are grounds for thinking that all three key elements are bound up as much with status statements, display, and fashion as with aggression;… Warfare such as there was in the southern Aegean early Bronze Age was either personalized and perhaps ritualized (in Crete) or small-scale, intermittent and essentially an economic activity (in the Cyclades and the Argolid/Attica).^[116]

Archaeologist Olga Krzyszkowska agreed: « The stark fact is that for the prehistoric Aegean we have no direct evidence for war and warfare per se. »^[117]

Collapse

Between 1935 and 1939, Greek archaeologist Spyridon Marinatos posited the Minoan eruption theory. An eruption on the island of Thera (present-day Santorini), about 100 kilometres (62 mi) from Crete, occurred during the LM IA period (1550 – 1500 BC). One of the largest volcanic explosions in recorded history, it ejected about 60 to 100 cubic kilometres (14 to 24 cu mi) of material and was measured at 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index.^{[118][119][120]} The eruption devastated the nearby Minoan settlement at Akrotiri on Santorini, which was entombed in a layer of pumice.^[121]Although it is believed to have severely affected the Minoan culture of Crete, the extent of its effects has been debated. Early theories proposed that volcanic ash from Thera choked off plant life on the eastern half of Crete, starving the local population;^[122] however, more-thorough field examinations have determined that no more than 5 millimetres (0.20 in) of ash fell anywhere on Crete.^[123] Based on archaeological evidence, studies indicate that a massive tsunami generated by the Thera eruption devastated the coast of Crete and destroyed many Minoan settlements.^{[124][125][126]} Although the LM IIIA (late Minoan) period is characterized by affluence (wealthy tombs, burials and art) and ubiquitous Knossian ceramic styles,^[127] by LM IIIB Knossos’ wealth and importance as a regional center apparently declined.

Significant remains have been found above the late Minoan I-era Thera ash layer, implying that the Thera eruption did not cause the immediate collapse of Minoan civilization.^[128] The Minoans were a sea power, however, and the Thera eruption probably caused significant economic hardship. Whether this was enough to trigger a Minoan downfall is debated. Mycenaean Greece conquered the Minoans during the late Minoan II period, and Mycenaean weaponry has been found in burials on Crete soon after the eruption.^[129]

Many archaeologists believe that the eruption triggered a crisis, making the Minoans vulnerable to conquest by the Mycenaeans.^[124] According to Sinclair Hood, the Minoans were most likely conquered by an invading force. Although the civilization’s collapse was aided by the Thera eruption, its ultimate end came from conquest. Archaeological evidence suggests that the island was destroyed by fire, with the palace at Knossos receiving less damage than other sites on Crete. Since natural disasters are not selective, the uneven destruction was probably caused by invaders who would have seen the usefulness of preserving a palace like Knossos for their own use.^[130] Several authors have noted evidence that Minoan civilization had exceeded its environmental carrying capacity, with archaeological recovery at Knossos indicating deforestation in the region near the civilization’s later stages.^[131][132]

Genetic studies

A genetic study published in the journal Nature in August 2017 concluded that the Minoans were genetically closely related with the Mycenaean Greeks. Their genomes were similar though not identical. The same study also stated that at least three-quarters of DNA of both the Minoans and the Myceneans came from the first Neolithic-era farmers that lived in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Sea.^[133]

A 2013 mtDNA genetic study was conducted by a research team that analyzed some DNA from ancient Minoan skeletons that were sealed in a cave in Crete’s Lassithi Plateau between 3,700 and 4,400 years ago, as well as other Greek, Anatolian, western and northern European samples, and North African and Egyptian samples.^[134][135] They then compared the skeletal mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on through the maternal line, with that found in a sample of 135 modern and ancient populations from around Europe and Africa. The researchers found that the Minoan skeletons were genetically very similar to modern-day Europeans — and especially close to modern-day Cretans, particularly those from the Lassithi Plateau. They were also genetically similar to Neolithic Europeans, but distinct from Egyptian or Libyan populations.^[136] « We now know that the founders of the first advanced European civilization were European, » said study co-author George Stamatoyannopoulos, a human geneticist at the University of Washington. « They were very similar to Neolithic Europeans and very similar to present day-Cretans. »^[135]

Other genetic studies have also found that the ancient Minoans exhibited many Middle Eastern maternal genetic lineages, from populations in contemporary Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, and that « the female [Minoan genetic] component is influenced by Asia and the Middle East as well as Europe. »^{[137][138][139]} Additionally, the study carried out by Stamatoyannopoulos’s team did not analyze paternal DNA, and acknowledged that previous research found Middle Eastern genetic influences for both the ancient Minoans paternal and maternal lineages.^[134]

See also

Minoan civilization.

• Atlantis
• Caucasus
• Hyksos
• Minoa
• Philistines
• Sacred caves of Crete

Notes

1. Jump up^ « Ancient Crete – Classics – Oxford Bibliographies ».
2. Jump up^ Sakoulas, Thomas. « History of Minoan Crete ».
3. Jump up^ Durant, Will (1939). « The Life of Greece ». The Story of Civilization. II. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 21. ISBN 9781451647587.
4. ^ Jump up to:^a b Homer, Odyssey xix.
5. Jump up^ John Bennet, « Minoan civilization », Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 985.
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b Karadimas, Nektarios; Momigliano, Nicoletta (2004). « On the Term ‘Minoan’ before Evans’s Work in Crete (1894) » (PDF). Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici. Roma: Edizione del ‘Ateneo. 46 (2): 243–258.
7. Jump up^ Evans 1921, p. 1.
8. Jump up^ R W Hutchinson (1965). Prehistoric Crete. Pelican.
9. Jump up^ Manning, Sturt W; Ramsey, CB; Kutschera, W; Higham, T; Kromer, B; Steier, P; Wild, EM (2006). « Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700–1400 BC ». Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 312 (5773): 565–569. Bibcode:2006Sci…312..565M. doi:10.1126/science.1125682. PMID 16645092. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
10. Jump up^ Friedrich, Walter L; Kromer, B; Friedrich, M; Heinemeier, J; Pfeiffer, T; Talamo, S (2006). « Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon Dated to 1627–1600 B.C ». Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 312 (5773): 548. doi:10.1126/science.1125087. PMID 16645088. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
11. Jump up^ « Chronology ». Thera Foundation. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
12. Jump up^ Balter, M (2006). « New Carbon Dates Support Revised History of Ancient Mediterranean ». Science. 312 (5773): 508–509. doi:10.1126/science.312.5773.508. PMID 16645054.
13. Jump up^ Warren PM (2006). Czerny E, Hein I, Hunger H, Melman D, Schwab A, eds. Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149). Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Peeters. pp. 2: 305–321. ISBN 90-429-1730-X.
14. Jump up^ Wilford, J.N., « On Crete, New Evidence of Very Ancient Mariners », The New York Times, Feb 2010
15. Jump up^ Bowner, B., « Hominids Went Out of Africa on Rafts », Wired, Jan 2010
16. Jump up^ Broodbank, C.; Strasser, T. (1991). « Migrant farmers and the Neolithic colonisation of Crete ». Antiquity. 65 (247): 233–245. doi:10.1017/s0003598x00079680.
17. Jump up^ R.J. King, S.S. Ozcan et al., « Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic » Archived 2009-03-05 at the Wayback Machine.
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hermann Bengtson: Griechische Geschichte, C.H. Beck, München, 2002. 9th Edition. ISBN 340602503X. pp.8–15
19. Jump up^ Hermann Kinder & Werner Hilgemann, Anchor Atlas of World History, (Anchor Press: New York, 1974) p. 33.
20. Jump up^ Carl Roebuck, The World of Ancient Times (Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1966) p. 101.
21. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Karl-Wilhelm Welwei: Die Griechische Frühzeit, C.H. Beck, München, 2002. ISBN 3406479855. pp.12–18
22. Jump up^ Beck, Roger B.; Linda Black; Larry S. Krieger; Phillip C. Naylor; Dahia Ibo Shabaka (1999). World History: Patterns of Interaction. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell. ISBN 0-395-87274-X.
23. Jump up^ All estimates have been revised downward by Todd Whitelaw, “Estimating the Population of Neopalatial Knossos,” in G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State (British School at Athens Studies 12) (London 2004); at Moschlos in eastern Crete, the population expansion was at the end of the Neoplalatial period (Jeffrey S. Soles and Davaras, Moschlos IA 2002: Preface p. xvii).
24. Jump up^ McEnroe, John C. (1 May 2010). « Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age ». University of Texas Press – via Google Books.
25. Jump up^ (Driesson, Jan, and MacDonald, Colin F. 2000)
26. Jump up^ Carl Roebuck, The World of Ancient Times p. 77.
27. Jump up^ Roebuck, p. 107.
28. Jump up^ Kozloff, Arielle P. (20 February 2012). « Amenhotep III: Egypt’s Radiant Pharaoh ». Cambridge University Press – via Google Books.
29. Jump up^ « Minos ». Universidad de Salamanca. 1 January 1999 – via Google Books.
30. Jump up^ BBC « The Minoan Civilisation of Crete »: « The later Minoan towns are in more and more inaccessible places, the last one being at Karfi, high in the Dikti Mountains. From that time onward, there are no traces of the Minoans ».
31. Jump up^ For instance, the uplift as much as 9 metres in western Crete linked with the earthquake of 365 is discussed in L. Stathis, C. Stiros, « The 8.5+ magnitude, AD365 earthquake in Crete: Coastal uplift, topography changes, archaeological and Ihistorical signature, » Quaternary International (23 May 2009).
32. ^ Jump up to:^a b « Thera and the Aegean World III ». Archived from the original on 2010-04-25. Retrieved 2009-09-13.
33. Jump up^ Donald W. Jones (1999) Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete ISBN 91-7081-153-9
34. ^ Jump up to:^a b « The Knossos Labyrinth ».
35. Jump up^ « Minoan Life in Bronze Age Crete ».
36. Jump up^ « Atlantis Destroyed ».
37. Jump up^ « Remains of Minoan fresco found at Tel Kabri »; « Remains Of Minoan-Style Painting Discovered During Excavations of Canaanite Palace », ScienceDaily, 7 December 2009
38. Jump up^ Best, Jan G. P.; Vries, Nanny M. W. de (1 January 1980). « Interaction and Acculturation in the Mediterranean: Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Mediterranean Pre- and Protohistory, Amsterdam, 19–23 November 1980 ». John Benjamins Publishing – via Google Books.
39. Jump up^ « The Minoans ».
40. Jump up^ Hägg and Marinatos 1984; Hardy (ed.) 1984; Broadbank 2004
41. Jump up^ Branigan, Keith (1 January 1981). « Minoan Colonialism ». The Annual of the British School at Athens. 76: 23–33. doi:10.1017/s0068245400019444. JSTOR 30103026– via JSTOR.
42. Jump up^ J. N. Coldstream and G. L. Huxley, Kythera: Excavations and Studies Conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Museum and the British School at Athens (London: Faber & Faber) 1972.
43. Jump up^ E. M. Melas, The Islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos in the Neolithic and Bronze Age (Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 68) (Göteburg) 1985.
44. Jump up^ James Penrose Harland, Prehistoric Aigina: A History of the Island in the Bronze Age, ch. V. (Paris) 1925.
45. Jump up^ Arne Furumark, « The settlement at Ialysos and Aegean history c. 1500-1400 B.B. », in Opuscula archaeologica 6 (Lund) 1950;T. Marketou, « New Evidence on the Topography and Site History of Prehistoric Ialysos. » in Soren Dietz and Ioannis Papachristodoulou (eds.), Archaeology in the Dodecanese (1988:28–31).
46. Jump up^ Dickinson, O (1994) Pg. 248
47. Jump up^ Hoffman, Gail L. (1 January 1997). « Imports and Immigrants: Near Eastern Contacts with Iron Age Crete ». University of Michigan Press – via Google Books.
48. ^ Jump up to:^a b Sinclair Hood (1971) « The Minoans; the story of Bronze Age Crete »
49. Jump up^ Sinclair Hood (1971) « The Minoans; the story of Bronze Age Crete » p.87
50. Jump up^ However, Hamilakis raised doubts in 2007 that systematic polyculture was practiced on Crete. (Hamilakis, Y. (2007) Wiley.com
51. Jump up^ Sherratt, A. (1981) Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution
52. Jump up^ Sinclair Hood (1971), The Minoans; The Story of Bronze Age Crete, pp. 86
53. Jump up^ Hamilakis, Y (1999) Food Technologies/Technologies of the Body: The Social Context of Wine and Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete [1]
54. Jump up^ Dickinson, O (1994) The Aegean Bronze Age pg. 28)
55. Jump up^ https://books.google.com/books?id=g8eIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA113
56. Jump up^ Sinclair Hood (1971), The Minoans; The Story of Bronze Age Crete, pp. 83
57. Jump up^ Patricia Rosof Family History p.12
58. Jump up^ [2]
59. ^ Jump up to:^a b « Classical Views ». Classical Association of Canada. 1 January 2000 – via Google Books.
60. Jump up^ Nilsson, Martin Persson (1 January 1950). « The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion ». Biblo & Tannen Publishers – via Google Books.
61. Jump up^ « Minoan Dress ».
62. Jump up^ Hood, Sinclair. The Minoans: Crete in the Bronze Age. Thames and Hudson, 1971, pg.114
63. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hood, Sinclair. The Minoans: Crete in the Bronze Age. Thames and Hudson, 1971, pg.111
64. Jump up^ Davis, Simon (1 January 1960). « The Decipherment of the Linear A and Linear B Scripts of the Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece: Inaugural Lecture Delivered 15 April 1959 ». Witwatersrand University Press – via Google Books.
65. Jump up^ Jaqueline Tyrwhitt (1 May 2015). Society and Environment: A Historical Review. Taylor & Francis. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-317-43466-5.
66. Jump up^ Sarah Iles Johnston (2004). Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Harvard University Press. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-674-01517-3.
67. Jump up^ Bury, J. B.; Meiggs, Russell (1956). A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great (3 ed.). London: Macmillan. p. 18.
68. Jump up^ Burn, A. R. (1988). The Pelican history of Greece. Penguin. p. 38.
69. Jump up^ Hammond, N. G. L. (1967). A history of Greece to 322 B. C. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 30.
70. Jump up^ Hood, Sinclair (1967). The home of the heroes: The Aegean before the Greeks. London: Thames and Hudson. p. 90.
71. Jump up^ Evidence of Minoan Astronomy and Calendrical Practises
72. Jump up^ Marinatos, Nanno. Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine(2013).
73. Jump up^ MacKenzie 1917, p. 59
74. ^ Jump up to:^a b Nanno Marinatos (2004). « Minoan and Mycenaean Civilizations ». In Sarah Isles Johnston. Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Harvard University Press. pp. 206–207. ISBN 978-0674015173.
75. Jump up^ [3] Sailors, Cara. “The Function of Mythology and Religion in Ancient Greek Society.” East Tennessee State University, Digital Commons, 2008, dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3471&context=etd.
76. Jump up^ Harissis, Haralampos V.; Harissis, Anastasios V. (2009). Apiculture in the Prehistoric Aegean: Minoan and Mycenaean Symbols Revisited. British Archaeological Reports (S1958). ISBN 978-1-4073-0454-0.
77. Jump up^ In the small courtyard of the east wing of the palace of Knossos.
78. Jump up^ An ivory figure reproduced by Spyridon Marinatos and Max Hirmer, Crete and Mycenae (New York) 1960, fig. 97, also shows the bull dance.
79. Jump up^ Sinclair Hood (1971) The Minoans; The Story of Bronze Age Crete, pp. 140
80. Jump up^ Ian Douglas, Cities: An Environmental History, p. 16, I.B. Tauris: London and New York (2013)
81. Jump up^ D. Preziosi and L.A. Hitchcock Aegean Art and Architecture pg. 48–9, Oxford University Press (1999)
82. Jump up^ Dudley J. Moore (2015). In Search of the Classical World: An Introduction to the Ancient Aegean. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4438-8145-6.
83. Jump up^ Demetrios Protopsaltis (May 2012). An Encyclopedic Chronology of Greece and Its History. Xlibris Corporation. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-4691-3999-9.
84. Jump up^ Marvin Perry (2012). Western Civilization: A Brief History, Volume I: To 1789. Cengage Learning. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-133-71418-7.
85. Jump up^ Preziosi, D. & Hitchcock, L.A. (1999) pg. 86
86. Jump up^ Preziosi, D. & Hitchcock, L.A. (1999) Pg. 121
87. Jump up^ Scarre, Christopher; Stefoff, Rebecca (2003). « 4, Knossos Today ». The Palace of Minos at Knossos. New York: Oxford University. ISBN 978-0195142723.
88. Jump up^ Castleden, Rodney (1990). The Knossos Labyrinth : A New View of the ‘Palace of Minos’ at Knossos. London: Routledge.
89. Jump up^ J.B, Rose; A.N, Angelakis (2014). Evolution of Sanitation and Wastewater Technologies through the Centuries. London: IWA Publishing. p. 2.
90. Jump up^ J.B, Rose; A.N, Angelakis (2014). Evolution of Sanitation and Wastewater Technologies Through the Centuries. London: IWA Publishing. p. 5.
91. Jump up^ Benton and DiYanni 1998, p. 67.
92. Jump up^ Bourbon 1998, p 34
93. Jump up^ Letesson, Quentin. « Minoan Halls: A Syntactical Genealogy ». Retrieved 7 April2017.
94. Jump up^ Hood, Sinclair (1985). « The Primitive Aspects of Minoan Artistic Convention ». Bulletin de Correspondence Héllenique. Suppl. 11: 21–26.
95. Jump up^ https://books.google.com/books?id=hR5FBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA139
96. Jump up^ Thomas Sakoulas. « Minoan Art ».
97. Jump up^ « Greek Jewelry – AJU ».
98. Jump up^ Hemingway, Séan (1 January 1996). « Minoan Metalworking in the Postpalatial Period: A Deposit of Metallurgical Debris from Palaikastro ». The Annual of the British School at Athens. 91: 213–252. doi:10.1017/s0068245400016488. JSTOR 30102549.
99. Jump up^ Rehak, Paul (1997). « Aegean Art Before and After the LM IB Cretan Destructions ». In Laffineur, Robert; Betancourt, Philip P. TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age / Artisanat et artisans en Égée à l’âge du Bronze: Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference / 6e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l’art et archéologie de la Grèce antique. p. 145. ISBN 9781935488118.
100. Jump up^ Clarke, Christina F. (2013). The Manufacture of Minoan Metal Vessels: Theory and Practice. Uppsala: Åströms Förlag. p. 1. ISBN 978-91-7081-249-1.
101. Jump up^ Davis, Ellen N. (1977). The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware. New York: Garland Pub. ISBN 9780824026813.
102. Jump up^ Matthäus, Hartmut (1980). Die Bronzegefässe der kretisch-mykenischen Kultur. München: C.H. Beck. ISBN 9783406040023.
103. Jump up^ Catling, Hector W. (1964). Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 187.
104. Jump up^ Davis 1977, pp. 328–352
105. Jump up^ Niemeier, W.-B. « Mycenaean Knossos and the Age of Linear B ». Studi micenei ed egeoanatolici. 1982: 275.
106. Jump up^ « Pax Minoica in Aegean – News – ekathimerini.com ».
107. Jump up^ Alexiou wrote of fortifications and acropolises in Minoan Crete, in Kretologia 8 (1979), pp 41–56, and especially in C.G. Starr, « Minoan flower-lovers » in The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds. (Stockholm) 1994, pp 9–12.
108. Jump up^ Gere, Knossos and the Prophets of Modernism
109. Jump up^ Nixon 1983.
110. Jump up^ Driessen 1999.
111. Jump up^ Branigan 1999, pp. 87–94.
112. Jump up^ Early Aegean Warrior 5000–1450 BC Archived 2014-05-08 at the Wayback Machine. Osprey Publishing, 2013.
113. Jump up^ Rehak 1999.
114. Jump up^ Floyd 1999.
115. Jump up^ Hood, S. The Minoans, 1971. Thames and Hudson Ltd: London
116. Jump up^ Branigan 1999, p. 92.
117. Jump up^ Krzyszkowska 1999.
118. Jump up^ « Santorini eruption much larger than originally believed ». 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
119. Jump up^ McCoy, FW, & Dunn, SE (2002). « Modelling the Climatic Effects of the LBA Eruption of Thera: New Calculations of Tephra Volumes May Suggest a Significantly Larger Eruption than Previously Reported » (PDF). Chapman Conference on Volcanism and the Earth’s Atmosphere. Thera, Greece: American Geographical Union. Retrieved 2007-05-29.
120. Jump up^ Sigurdsson H, Carey, S, Alexandri M, Vougioukalakis G, Croff K, Roman C, Sakellariou D, Anagnostou C, Rousakis G, Ioakim C, Gogou A, Ballas D, Misaridis T, & Nomikou P (2006). « Marine Investigations of Greece’s Santorini or Akrotiri Volcanic Field » (PDF). Eos. 87 (34): 337–348. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..337S. doi:10.1029/2006EO340001. Archived from the original (–^{Scholar search}) on June 30, 2007.
121. Jump up^ Vergano, Dan (2006-08-27). « Ye gods! Ancient volcano could have blasted Atlantis myth ». USA Today. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
122. Jump up^ Marinatos, S (1939). « The Volcanic Destruction of Minoan Crete ». Antiquity. 13: 425–439.
123. Jump up^ Callender, G (1999). The Minoans and the Mycenaeans: Aegean Society in the Bronze Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195510283.
124. ^ Jump up to:^a b Antonopoulos, J. (1992). « The great Minoan eruption of Thera volcano and the ensuing tsunami in the Greek Archipelago ». Natural Hazards. 5 (2): 153–168. doi:10.1007/BF00127003.
125. Jump up^ Pareschi, MT, Favalli, M & Boschi, E (2006). « Impact of the Minoan tsunami of Santorini: Simulated scenarios in the eastern Mediterranean ». Geophysical Research Letters. 33 (18): L18607. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3318607P. doi:10.1029/2006GL027205.
126. Jump up^ LaMoreaux, PE (1995). « Worldwide environmental impacts from the eruption of Thera ». Environmental Geology. 26 (3): 172–181. Bibcode:1995EnGeo..26..172L. doi:10.1007/BF00768739.
127. Jump up^ Dickinson, O (1994) The Aegean Bronze Age pg. 22
128. Jump up^ « Minoan Culture Survived Ancient Volcano, Evidence Shows ». The New York Times. 28 November 1989.
129. Jump up^ Bruce Bowen: Mycenae and Minoan Crete, 2000,
130. Jump up^ Sinclair Hood (1971), The Minoans; The Story of Bronze Age Crete, pp. 58
131. Jump up^ Pendlebury & Evans 2003.
132. Jump up^ C. Michael Hogan, « Knossos fieldnotes », Modern Antiquarian (2007)
133. Jump up^ Katz, Brigit. « DNA Analysis Sheds Light on the Mysterious Origins of the Ancient Greeks ». Smithsonian.
134. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hughey, Jeffrey (2013). « A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete ». Nature Communications. 4: 1861. Bibcode:2013NatCo…4E1861H. doi:10.1038/ncomms2871. Retrieved 19 May 2013.
135. ^ Jump up to:^a b Tia Ghose, LiveScience: “Mysterious Minoans Were European, DNA Finds”, 2013,
136. Jump up^ « Minoans Were European, Genetic Study Reveals – Ancient Civilizations ». LiveScience.com.
137. Jump up^ Wolinsky, Howard (2008). « Our history, our genes. Population genetics lets researchers look back in time at human migrations ». EMBO Reports. 9: 127–9. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401164. PMC 2246420 . PMID 18246104.
138. Jump up^ Fernández, E; Pérez-Pérez, A; Gamba, C; Prats, E; Cuesta, P; et al. (2014). « Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime Colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands ». PLoS Genet. 10 (6): e1004401. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004401.
139. Jump up^ Martinz, L; Mirabal, S; Luiz, JR; Herrera, RJ; et al. (2008). « Middle Eastern and European mtDNA lineages characterize populations from eastern Crete ». Am J Phys Anthropol. 137: 213–23. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20857. PMID 18500747.

Library resources about Minoan Civilization

Online books Resources in your library Resources in other libraries

References

• Baboula, Evanthia (2000). « ‘Buried’ Metals in Late Minoan Inheritance Customs ». In Pare, C. F. E. Metals Make the World Go Round: The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe : Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 70–81. ISBN 9781842170199.
• Benton, Janetta Rebold and DiYanni, Robert. Arts and Culture: An Introduction to the Humanities. Volume 1. Prentice Hall. New Jersey, 1998.
• Bourbon, F. Lost Civilizations. Barnes and Noble, Inc. New York, 1998.
• Branigan, Keith, 1970. The Foundations of Palatial Crete.
• Branigan, Keith (1999). « The Nature of Warfare in the Southern Aegean During the Third Millennium BC ». In Laffineur, Robert. Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Egee a L’Age du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre egeenne internationale Universite de Liège, 1998. Universite de Liège, Histoire de l’art d’archeologie de la Grece antique. pp. 87–94.
• Burkert, Walter, 1985. Greek Religion. J. Raffan, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-36281-0
• Cadogan, Gerald, 1992,  » Ancient and Modern Crete, » in Myers et al., 1992, Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete.
• Callender, Gae (1999) The Minoans and the Mycenaeans: Aegean Society in the Bronze Age Oxford university press, Victoria 3205, Australia
• Castleden, Rodney (1993). Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete. Routledge. ISBN 0415040701. 041508833X.
• Catling, Hector W. (1964). Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Clarke, Christina F. (2013). The Manufacture of Minoan Metal Vessels: Theory and Practice. Uppsala: Åströms Förlag. ISBN 978-91-7081-249-1.
• Clarke, Christina (2014). « Minoan Metal Vessel Manufacture: Reconstructing Techniques and Technology with Experimental Archaeology » (PDF). In Scott, Rebecca B.; Braekmans, Dennis; Carremans, Mike; Degryse, Patrick. 39th International Symposium on Archaeometry: 28 May – 1 June 2012 Leuven, Belgium. Leuven: Centre for Archaeological Sciences, KU Leuven. pp. 81–85.
• Crowley, Janice L. (1989). The Aegean and the East: An Investigation into the Transference of Artistic Motifs between the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age. Göteborg: Åström. ISBN 9789186098551.
• Davis, Ellen N. (1977). The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware. New York: Garland Pub. ISBN 9780824026813.
• Dickinson, Oliver (1994; 2005 re-print) The Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge University Press.
• Driessen, Jan (1999). « The Archaeology of Aegean Warfare ». In Laffineur, Robert. Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Egee a L’Age du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre egeenne internationale Universite de Liège, 1998. Universite de Liège, Histoire de l’art d’archeologie de la Grece antique. pp. 11–20.
• Driessen J., Langohr C. (2014), « Recent developments in the archaeology of Minoan Crete », Pharos, 20: 75–115; doi:10.2143/PHA.20.1.3064537.
• —— (1921). The Palace of Minos: a comparative account of the successive stages of the early Cretan civilization as illustrated by the discoveries at Knossos. Volume I: The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages.
• Sir Arthur Evans, 1921–35. The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos, 4 vols. in 6 (reissued 1964).
• Floyd, Cheryl (1999). « Observations on a Minoan Dagger from Chrysokamino ». In Laffineur, Robert. Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Egee a L’Age du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre egeenne internationale Universite de Liège, 1998. Universite de Liège, Histoire de l’art d’archeologie de la Grece antique. pp. 433–442.
• Furumark, Arne (1972). Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification (Reprint 1941 ed.). Stockholm: Åström. ISBN 9185086045.
• Gates, Charles, 1999. « Why Are There No Scenes of Warfare in Minoan Art? » pp 277–284 In Laffineur, Robert, ed., Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Egee a L’Age du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre egeenne internationale Universite de Liège, 1998. Universite de Liège, Histoire de l’art d’archeologie de la Grece antique.
• Gere, Cathy. Knossos and the Prophets of Modernism, University of Chicago Press 2009.
• Gesell, G.C. (1983). « The Place of the Goddess in Minoan Society ». In O. Krzyszkowska; L. Nixon. Minoan Society. Bristol.
• Hemingway, Séan (1 January 1996). « Minoan Metalworking in the Postpalatial Period: A Deposit of Metallurgical Debris from Palaikastro ». The Annual of the British School at Athens. 91: 213–252. doi:10.1017/s0068245400016488. JSTOR 30102549.
• Hutchinson, Prehistoric Crete, many editions hardcover and softcover
• Goodison, Lucy, and Christine Morris, 1998, « Beyond the Great Mother: The Sacred World of the Minoans, » in Goodison, Lucy, and Christine Morris, eds., Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence, London: British Museum Press, pp. 113–132.
• Hägg, R. and N. Marinatos, eds. The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Stockholm) 1994. A summary of revived points-of-view of a Minoan thalassocracy, especially in LMI..
• Haralampos V. Harissis, Anastasios V. Harissis. Apiculture in the Prehistoric Aegean. Minoan and Mycenaean Symbols Revisited British Archaeological Reports S1958, 2009 ISBN 978-1-4073-0454-0.
• Higgins, Reynold, 1981. Minoan and Mycenaean Art, (revised edition).
• Hogan, C. Michael, 2007. Knossos fieldnotes, Modern Antiquarian
• Hood, Sinclair, 1971, The Minoans: Crete in the Bronze Age. London.
• Hood, Sinclair, 1971. The Minoans: The Story of Bronze Age Crete
• Hughes, Dennis, 1991. Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece. Routledge: London.
• Hutchinson, Richard W., 1962. Prehistoric Crete(reprinted 1968)
• Kristiansen, Kristiansen & Larsson, Thomas B. (2005) The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations Cambridge University Press
• Krzyszkowska, Olga (1999). « So Where’s the Loot? The Spoils of War and the Archaeological Record ». In Laffineur, Robert. Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Egee a L’Age du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre egeenne internationale Universite de Liège, 1998. Université de Liège, Histoire de l’art d’archeologie de la Grece antique. pp. 489–498.
• Lapatin, Kenneth, 2002. Mysteries of the Snake Goddess: Art, Desire, and the Forging of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-306-81328-9
• MacKenzie, Donald A. (1917). Myths of Crete & Pre-Hellenic Europe.
• Manning, S.W., 1995. « An approximate Minoan Bronze Age chronology » in A.B. Knapp, ed., The absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, radiocarbon and history (Appendix 8), in series Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) A standard current Minoan chronology.
• Marinatos, Nanno, 1993. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
• Marinatos, Spyridon, 1960. Crete and Mycenae(originally published in Greek, 1959), photographs by Max Hirmer.
• Marinatos, Spyridon, 1972. « Life and Art in Prehistoric Thera, » in Proceedings of the British Academy, vol 57.
• Matthäus, Hartmut (1980). Die Bronzegefässe der kretisch-mykenischen Kultur. München: C.H. Beck. ISBN 9783406040023.
• Mellersh, H.E.L., 1967. Minoan Crete. New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
• Nixon, L. (1983). « Changing Views of Minoan Society ». In L. Nixon. Minoan society: Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium, 1981.
• Papadopoulos, John K., « Inventing the Minoans: Archaeology, Modernity and the Quest for European Identity », Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18:1:87-149 (June 2005)
• Pedley, John Griffiths. Greek Art and Archaeology. ISBN 0-205-00133-5.
• Pendlebury, J. D. S.; Evans, Arthur (2003). Handbook to the Palace of Minos at Knossos with Its Dependencies(2nd ed.). Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0-7661-3916-6.
• Preziosi, Donald & Hitchcock, Louise A. (1999) Aegean Art and Architecture, Oxford History of Art series, Oxford University Press.
• Preston, Laura (2008). « Late Minoan II to IIIB Crete ». In Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 310–326. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521814447.014. ISBN 9781139001892.
• Quigley, Carroll, 1961. The Evolution of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis, Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Rehak, Paul (1997). « Aegean Art Before and After the LM IB Cretan Destructions ». In Laffineur, Robert; Betancourt, Philip P. TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age / Artisanat et artisans en Égée à l’âge du Bronze: Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference / 6e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l’art et archéologie de la Grèce antique. p. 145. ISBN 9781935488118.
• Rehak, Paul (1999). « The Mycenaean ‘Warrior Goddess’ Revisited ». In Laffineur, Robert. Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Egee a L’Age du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre egeenne internationale Universite de Liège, 1998. Universite de Liège, Histoire de l’art d’archeologie de la Grece antique. pp. 227–240.
• Sakellarakis, Y. & E. Sapouna-Sakellarakis (1981). « Drama of Death in a Minoan Temple ». National Geographic. 159 (2): 205–222.
• Schoep, Ilse, 2004. « Assessing the role of architecture in conspicuous consumption in the Middle Minoan I-II Periods. » Oxford Journal of Archaeology vol 23/3, pp. 243–269.
• Sherratt, Andrew; Taylor, Timothy (1989). « Metal Vessels in Bronze Age Europe and the Context of Vulchetrun ». In Best, Jan Gijsbert Pieter; De Vries, Manny M. W. Thracians and Mycenaeans: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24–26 September 1984. Leiden: Brill Archive. pp. 106–134. ISBN 9789004088641.
• Soles, Jeffrey S., 1992, The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete: And the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete, Published by ASCSA, 1992.
• Soles, Jeffrey S. (2008). Mochlos IIA: Period IV: The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery: The Sites. INSTAP Academic Press. ISBN 9781931534239.
• Warren P., Hankey V., 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol).
• Watrous, L. Vance (1991), « The origin and iconography of the Late Minoan painted larnax », Hesperia, 60(3): 285–307; JSTOR 148065.
• Willetts, R. F., 1976 (1995 edition). The Civilization of Ancient Crete. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. ISBN 1-84212-746-2
• Wright, James C. (2004). « A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society ». Hesperia. 73 (2): 133–178. doi:10.2972/hesp.2004.73.2.133. JSTOR 4134891.
• Yule, Paul. Early Cretan Seals: A Study of Chronology. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 4, Mainz 1980 ISBN 3-8053-0490-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization

http://www.giacobbegcom