Introduction
Author(s): Nicoletta Momigliano
Source: British School at Athens Studies , 2007, Vol. 14, KNOSSOS POTTERY HANDBOOK:
NEOLITHIC and BRONZE AGE (MINOAN) (2007), pp. 1-8
Published by: British School at Athens
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40916594
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
British School at Athens Studies
This content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Introduction
Nicoletta Momigliano
That the pattern [of A. J. Evans's chronology] is too
neatly symmetrical is almost self-evident. It also has an
empire-building note to it, for the scheme, worked out
from the ruins at Knossos, was imperiously extended
to the whole of Crete, though it is now certain that at
least some of it will not work at all for other sites, such
as Phaestos. And why should it? (Finley 1968, 16-17)
'Prehistory' was not a time when people told their
own story in terms of changes in pottery styles (Fitton
2002, 25)
AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE VOLUME
This volume presents, in broad outline, one aspect of
the archaeology of Knossos: the development of its
prehistoric pottery, from its beginnings in the Neolithic
period until the end of the Bronze Age. In other words,
this volume offers the most up-to-date overview of the
prehistoric pottery sequence of this important
archaeological site, and, in addition, includes previously
unpublished material (e.g. FIGS. 2.11-13, 3. 12-17, 6.17).
The focus will often be on fine decorated wares, partly
because of the nature of much of the material available
for study, and partly because these wares are usually
more sensitive chronological indicators.
The site of Knossos needs no introduction. Nowadays,
with the exception of the Acropolis of Athens, it is the
most visited in Greece, and indeed one of the most
visited in the whole Western world (Papadopoulos 1997,
99-101). It has played a central role in the history of
Crete throughout several millennia, and also in the
history of scholarship on Aegean prehistory.
Its prehistoric pottery sequence formed the backbone
of Arthur John Evans's well-known tripartite chronological
system of Early, Middle and Late Minoan
periods, criticised by Finley in the passage cited above,
and of his Early, Middle and Late Neolithic periods.
Despite being beset with other problems as well
(McNeal 1973; Dickinson 1994, 9-12; and also below),
Evans's basic system is still in use today and, mutatis
mutandis, has been applied to other Aegean regions.
Thus, if only for historical reasons, the Knossos pottery
sequence, created by Evans and his assistant, Duncan
Mackenzie, and improved upon by later generations of
scholars, has played a crucial role in Aegean prehistory.
In the last few decades, however, new excavations and
museum-based studies of Knossian pottery have so
thoroughly questioned and modified Evans's dating of
ceramic assemblages and definition of his ceramic
phases that it seemed desirable to present a new
synthesis of the Knossos sequence. This volume could
thus claim to be the first publication since Evans's The
Palace of Minos (1921-35) that provides, within one
cover, an overview of the main developments of
Knossian pottery from the Neolithic to the end of the
Bronze Age.
This volume, however, is not meant to be a corpus of
all the prehistoric pottery discovered at Knossos. Its
focus is on local ceramic production, and on the most
common fabrics, wares and forms or shapes found at
this site. By 'local' is simply meant pottery whose
production, distribution and consumption appears to
be mostly (though not exclusively) restricted to the
Knossos-Archanes region, and especially to the Bronze
Age palace and surrounding settlement (for possible
location of some pottery workshops near Mount Juktas
see Day 1988; MacGillivray 1987 and Chapter 4).
Since this is not a corpus of Knossian Neolithic and
Bronze Age pottery, it cannot supersede the actual
detailed publication of deposits from Evans's and from
more recent excavations, a task that has been carried
out by a number of scholars since the 1950s, with more
useful work still to be done. Moreover, its emphasis is
on the more common fine wares and their chronological
development, which generations of scholars at Knossos
have considered to be 'local' because of their high
frequency in north-central Crete - an emphasis partly
due to the nature of much of the material available for
study (see also below). The main focus, thus, will not
be on other (equally if not more interesting) aspects
of Knossian ceramics such as technology, function
or depositional processes, although such topics
will inevitably be considered in the following chapters,
for they have a bearing on the reconstruction of the
ceramic sequence and history of the site. While this
volume will not provide answers to all possible
questions concerning Knossian ceramics, it is hoped
that it will point the reader in the right direction, at
least in terms of relevant publications.
I am fully aware that '"prehistory" was not a time when
people told their own story in terms of changes in
pottery styles' (Fitton 2002, 25), and that a ceramic
sequence is only a tool, not an end in itself. Moreover,
pottery phases are merely taxonomic devices, and as
This content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2 NICOLETTA MOMIGLIANO
such are subject to a certain amount of arbitr
and interpretation, even if they are based on
assemblages that are real physical entities
products of past human actions. In other words,
deposits are real things - their materiality ine
- representing specific points in a continuous
ceramic development, created by a variety of
sitional processes; ceramic phases, however,
cluster deposits with similar features into larger
are merely useful classificatory and interpretativ
invented by archaeologists, not real entities em
in the archaeological record, ready to be
(although at times some archaeologists seem to
this). In spite of these limitations, however, one
stress that most archaeological studies which a
wider issues can benefit from a well-defined ceramic
sequence, and sometimes can only be built upon this
kind of framework (e.g. Warren 1999; Cullen 2001, 9).
It is primarily thanks to studies of pottery sequences
and synchronisation between various Cretan, Aegean
and Near Eastern sites that one can analyse and
reconstruct, for example, different patterns of interand
intra-regional interaction in Neolithic or early
Prepalatial Crete, diverging developmental trajectories
in the late Prepalatial period (especially in EM III:
Momigliano 1999^), or sequences of construction and
destruction which affected those icons of Minoan
archaeology, the so-called palaces, with all the
implications for the study of the dynamics of power
within the island and beyond (Schoep and Knappett
2005; MacGillivray, Chapter 4).
It is hoped that the sequence presented here will provide
a useful tool to our colleagues for comparative purposes
only, facilitating the synchronisation between developments
at Knossos and at other sites in Crete and in the
Aegean, and stimulating enquiries beyond ceramic
phases and chronology. One should also stress that this
is not meant to be a scheme to be imposed on other
sites: the history of Minoan archaeology has shown more
than once that 'Knossocentric' (or 'Phaistocentric')
views of Minoan ceramic developments have been rather
detrimental to scholarship, and neither the editor nor
the contributors to this volume, to echo Finley's words,
are in the business of empire-building. Regionalism in
ceramic production, discrete historical trajectories of
various Cretan regions, and even the simple fact that
different sites yield different depositional histories (i.e.
stratigraphic sequences), should discourage any
simplistic use of this sequence elsewhere. Indeed, I hope
that what might be imitated (if anything) is the more
basic approach of working out the local sequence and
phasing, and understanding its relationship to other
assemblages in Crete and elsewhere, before attempting
to relate these to the long-established Evans-Mackenzie
scheme (see also below). Moreover, even after a century
of studies, there are still some gaps in our understanding
of Knossos, as highlighted in the following chapters,
while current and future research, presenting new
material and integrating more fully the study of fabrics,
technologies and functions of Knossian ceramics is
likely to add to and/or change substantially the picture
presented here.
THE EVANS-MACKENZIE KNOSSOS
POTTERY SEQUENCE AND SUBSEQUENT
DEVELOPMENTS (c. 1900-2000)
The sequence proposed in this volume is the cumulative
result of more than 100 years of excavations and studies
at this site. The main stages in its development are
briefly described below. For the sake of brevity, I shall
not discuss every single work that contained information
relevant to the Knossos pottery sequence, but merely
summarise, more or less in chronological order, works
that have made new and original contributions to the
understanding of Knossian stratigraphy and ceramic
phasing (more detailed and thematic discussions will
also be found in Chapters 1-6). Thus, seminal syntheses
on Aegean chronology by Warren and Hankey (1989)
and Manning (1995; 1999) are omitted, for these focused
on the establishment of accurate calendar dates for
existing ceramic phases of the sequences accepted at
the time. Also omitted are the Kamares volume by
Walberg (1976) and some relevant works by Levi (e.g.
i960 and 1976), but for other reasons. On the one hand,
Walberg's volume, although original in many respects,
was largely based on published illustrations, rather than
first-hand knowledge of the pottery, stratigraphy and
documentary evidence from Knossos; on the other,
Levi's publications include misconceptions about the
Knossian stratigraphy and/or Knossian ceramics (as
well as other basic methodological flaws), which are so
serious that, arguably, they have impeded rather than
helped our understanding of Minoan ceramic phasing.
The first modern archaeological investigations of
Knossos were conducted in 1878 by a member of
the Herakleion-educated bourgeoisie, the aptly
named Minos Kalokairinos (Kopaka 1995). He
discovered remains of a large building attributed to the
'Mycenaean' period, for, under the influence of
Schliemann's spectacular discoveries at Mycenae, most
remains of the Bronze Age were so dubbed (Karadimas
and Momigliano 2004; Cadogan 2006). These were
followed by Evans's epoch-making excavations, which
started on 23 March 1900 and continued, with various
interruptions, until 193 1 (Brown 1983; Hood and Taylor
1 981; Momigliano 1 999*2).
Evans's excavations at Knossos, and those made by
other archaeologists at various Cretan sites during the
first decade of the 20th century, revealed a new 'culture'
or 'civilisation', and rivalled in importance those made
by Schliemann at Troy and Mycenae a generation
earlier. Evans named this civilisation 'Minoan' and the
period in which it flourished the 'Minoan Age', terms
and notions borrowed from other scholars (Karadimas
and Momigliano 2004). Evans also immediately set out
This content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
INTRODUCTION 3
Table o.i: Summary of the Evans-Ma
The Palace of Minos and major subse
Evans and Mackenzie Furumark (1941a, 1941^) Various authors
(1900-35) (c. 1953-2000)
Lower/Early Neolithic Aceramic
Early Neolithic I
Middle Neolithic Early Neolithic II
Middle Neolithic
(Furness 1953; Evans 1994)
Upper/Late Neolithic Late Neolithic I
Late Neolithic II
Late Neolithic II / Final
Neolithic
(Manteli 19930, I993^)
'Sub-Neolithic' EM I EM IA
EM IB
(Advanced) EM I (Hood 1966, 197 10, 19900)
EMU EMIIA
EMIIB
(Warren 1972/7; Evans 1972)
EM III EM III or Pre-polychrome MM
IA
(Hood 19620)
MMIA MMIA Early
MM IA Late (with
decoration)
(Hood 19620)
MM IB MM IB
MMIIA MMIIA
MMIIB MMIIB
MM IIIA MM IIIA
MM IIIB MMIIIB
MM IIIB / LM IA transition
(Warren 199 10)
LM IA (early and 'mature') LM IA Early
LM IA Late
(Popham 1977; Warren 1999)
LMIB LMlB
LMII LMII
(subdivided into
IIB, and partly c
with mainland L
LM IIIA LM IIIA: 1 LM IIIAi
LM IIIA: 2 LM IIIA2
LM IIIB LM IIIB: 1 LM IIIB
(Desborough 1964; P
1965, 1967)
LM IIIC LM IIIB: 2 LM IIIC
(Desborough 1964; Po
1965, 1967)
Sub-Minoan Sub-Minoan Sub-Minoan
to systematise the new discoveries and place them within
a wider historical perspective. In this taxonomic effort,
a significant building block was the creation of a
chronological system based on changes in the material
culture of prehistoric Crete over time, especially as
observed at Knossos. Pottery, because of its abundance
and virtual ubiquity, naturally played an important part.
Evans's most elaborate descr
pottery sequence can be foun
The Palace of Minos (1921-35)
of earlier classificatory at
summarised as follows.
Already after the first excavation campaign at
Knossos in the spring of 1900, Evans discovered NeoThis
content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
4 NICOLETTA MOMIGLIANO
lithic levels, and distinguished between an earlier
'Kamares' and a later 'Mycenaean' palace, both belonging
to the Bronze Age (Evans 19000, 6-7, and passim).
The former was characterised by the presence of ceramic
vessels decorated in white and red pigments over
a dark ground, and named Kamares after the Cretan
cave where the first examples of this pottery were discovered
(Myres 1895; Mariani 1895; Hogarth and
Welch 1 90 1, 78), while the latter was characterised
by the presence of ceramics decorated in lustrous
reddish-brown paint over a buff ground, comparable
with the 'Mycenaean' wares discovered by Schliemann
and others. Duncan Mackenzie, Evans's field director,
further suggested that the 'Mycenaean' palace was
also followed by a period of 'decline', characterised by
'decadent' architecture and pottery, usually referred to
in subsequent literature as the 'reoccupation' phase
(Momigliano 1996).
The next major development in the history of
the Knossian pottery sequence is represented by
Mackenzie's 1903 article in which, for the first time,
the Scotsman attempted a phasing of both Neolithic
and 'Minoan' pottery into three main stages each, and
in which the labels Lower, Middle and Upper Neolithic
as well as Early, Middle and Late Minoan were used
consistently (Mackenzie 1903). (Interestingly, in the
same Journal of Hellenic Studies volume Dawkins (1903,
249) still used the terms 'Kamares' and 'Mycenaean'
ware.) Some years later, in the first volume of The Palace
of Minos, Evans stressed the 'logical and scientific'
nature of these tripartite divisions, for they matched
what he saw as an evolutionary sequence of 'rise,
maturity, and decay' characteristic of biological and
cultural developments (Evans 1 921, 25; see also McNeal
1973; McEnroe 1995). In addition, in the case of the
'Minoan Age', the tripartite scheme roughly, and
conveniently, corresponded to the Egyptian Early,
Middle and New Kingdom periods.
By the summer of 1904, Evans and Mackenzie had
already established a further subdivision of Early,
Middle and Late Minoan into three sub-phases each
(Early Minoan I, II, III, etc), resulting in a total of nine
phases, as clearly indicated by Mackenzie's sketch of
the West Court section in his 1904 daybook of the
excavations at Knossos (Momigliano 19990, 52~4> figs-
19-20). This basic ninefold framework, which according
to Evans (19060, 4) nicely echoed and could replace the
Homeric 'nine years of Minos'Odyssey 19, 178-9), was
first illustrated in the papers that he presented at the
1904 Cambridge meeting of the British Association for
the Advancement of Science and at the 1905 Archaeological
Congress in Athens (Evans 19050, 19060,
respectively). In 1906 Mackenzie published another
article focusing on the Middle Minoan pottery of
Knossos (Mackenzie 1906), in which he created the first
pottery groups (in the sense of groups of ceramic
assemblages/deposits) employed to define ceramic and
chronological phases at Knossos, based on stylistic and
stratigraphical observations. These groups were also
interpreted as reflecting specific ev
or catastrophes) punctuating the his
Further refinements to the ce
Knossos, which took place betw
publication of the first volume o
of Minos (1921), can be found in
sources, such as Mackenzie's excav
Evans's early draft of his Palace
entitled The Nine Minoan Periods
The latter shows, for example, t
Late Minoan III into A, B and C
way by the early 1910s. But it
publication of The Palace of Minos
and Mackenzie produced the
sequence of ceramic (and chr
Neolithic (subdivided into 'Lower
and 'Upper' or 'Late'); EM I (including SubNeolithic),
EM II and EM III; MM IA, MM IB, MM
IIA, MM IIB, MM IIIA, MM IIIB; LM IA, LM IB;
LM II, LM IIIA, LM IIIB, LM IIIC; and 'SubMinoan'
or 'Proto-Geometric' (see TABLE 0.1). Evans
(1928, 362-4, 472) also referred to a transitional MM
IIIB/LM IA phase, but stressed that this did not really
apply to Knossian ceramics.
Afterwards, Mackeprang's article (1938, 546-51),
though providing a useful summary, did not add much
to our understanding of the Knossos sequence. Arne
Furumark, on the other hand, made important
refinements and modification in his monumental work
on Mycenaean pottery and Mycenaean chronology, first
published in 194 1 (Furumark 194 10, 1941^), the year of
Evans's death. In these volumes, Furumark provided
further subdivisions of LM IIIA and LM IIIB into
earlier and later stages, producing the following
sequence: LM IIIA: 1 , LM IIIA: 2; LM IIIB: 1 , LM IIIB:
2, and Sub-Minoan (Furumark 19410, passim and
especially 9, 26-7, 29, 171, 175; Furumark 1941^, 85,
103-9). Furumark's subdivision of LM IIIA into an
earlier and later stage did represent a proper exercise in
phasing of ceramic assemblages, but his subdivision of
LM IIIB could be seen as a rather confusing exercise in
re-labelling, for Furumark's LM IIIB: 2 effectively corresponded
to (and replaced) Evans's LM IIIC, and was
considered by Furumark himself to be contemporary
with his Mycenaean IIIC: 1 phase (Furumark 194 10,
178-9; Furumark 1941/*, 106-9). Thus, while his
distinction between LM IIIA: 1 and LM IIIA: 2 has found
wide acceptance, most scholars have retained Evans's LM
IIIB and IIIC labels, as shown in TABLE 0. 1 (Desborough
1964, 167; Popham 1965, 316 and especially 334 n. 44;
Popham 1967, 346; Kanta 1980, 3-5).
The above-mentioned debate about the LM IIIB2 /
LM IIIC label exemplifies one of the main problems
inherent in Evans's system for the Cretan Bronze Age,
and its exported versions: labels such as EM I, EM II,
etc usually have been employed in a combined stylistic
and chronological meaning. For instance EM I pottery
This content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
INTRODUCTION 5
is shorthand for the pottery in vogue dur
period, or for the particular style of pot
defines or illustrates the EM I chronologic
particular site (for pottery styles do, of c
spatial and temporal limits). But sometim
confusingly, terms such as EM III, LM IB
as in the example above, LM IIIB2, have b
mere stylistic labels, independent of ch
correlations. For example, Evans himself wro
III pottery continued in eastern Crete wh
already started at Knossos, or that LM
overlapped with LM II (Evans 1921, 108; E
322). More recently, a number of scholar
the labels 'MM IIIB', 'MM IIIB / LM IA
and 'early LM IA' for the same deposits (D
Macdonald 1997, 15-23, and esp. Hatzaki,
5 of this volume). In other words, these labe
employed as stylistic indicators or descriptor
taking into account the chronological impl
such terms have for the understanding o
sequence and its relative chronology in the w
context. To maintain that it does not matter whether
we call a deposit, for example, MM IIIB or early LM
IA is perhaps naive, for whether one likes it or not, these
labels have acquired a primarily chronological
significance, and their employment inevitably gives the
impression that Minoan Crete has a properly defined
MM IIIB, MM IIIB / LM IA transition, LM IA Early
and LM IA Late ceramic sequence, with properly
defined chronological and ceramic phases, which is
certainly not the case, at least at present. All of the above
are examples of a system in which, to paraphrase and
adapt Renfrew's words (1972, 54) the suggestion that
EM III follows EM II seems tautological, and the claim
that EM III pottery in eastern Crete could be largely
contemporary with MM I in central Crete (or that LM
IB is contemporary with LM II) sounds like nonsense
(cf. Andreou 1978, 8-10; Dickinson 1994, 9-12).
There are other important methodological issues
ingrained in the tripartite Minoan system that we
inherited from Evans and Mackenzie, and its application
as a model elsewhere, such as the (pseudo-) ethnic
connotations that terms such as Minoan, Helladic and
Cycladic have assumed, at least in the writings of some
scholars (Renfrew 1996; Karadimas and Momigliano
2004; and especially Whitley 2006, with further
references). Obviously it is well beyond the scope of this
volume to suggest a completely new chronological
scheme for the whole of the Aegean, but it seems
increasingly evident that archaeologists could benefit
from a better integrated pan-Aegean chronological
scheme, with purely chronological labels such as Early,
Middle and Late Bronze Age, in which the deposits and
stratigraphic sequences of individual sites might be
correlated in a less confusing and more satisfactory way.
I would like to suggest that Aegean archaeologists of the
21st century need to rethink the current chronological
frameworks and terminologies in a more systematic and
radical way, instead of merely tinkering with old
schemes and labels (such as Minoan, Helladic and
Cycladic), which often no longer reflect the mentalities
and objectives of modern practitioners. The excellent
SCIEM 2000 project (www.SCIEM2000.inf0/),
although providing crucial contributions to the
understanding of synchronisation across the eastern
Mediterranean, has not yet addressed this more
fundamental issue.
I have discussed above some of the shortcomings
inherent in Evans's system, which become particularly
acute when adapted to (or imposed upon) other sites in
Crete and in the Aegean, especially when dealing with
periods in which strong regional variation can be
observed in pottery production and consumption, and
when labels such as EM III or MM IA are not employed
as stylistic and chronological descriptors. The ongoing
debate on the synchronisation of Protopalatial and early
Neopalatial Knossos and Phaistos could be used as just
one of many examples (Betancourt 1985, 90-114; Levi
i960; Walberg 1976; MacGillivray 1998, 15, 97-102;
Macdonald 2002, 36-7; Hatzaki, Chapter 5 of this
volume). But even at Knossos itself new excavations and
further studies of Evans's material have highlighted
difficulties which can sometimes be encountered in
assigning single vases or even entire deposits to one or
another phase in the Evans-Mackenzie scheme. As
pointed out by several scholars (Popham 19700, 11;
Andreou 1978, 2; Momigliano 1 991, 151; MacGillivray
1998, 16), some of these problems stemmed from the fact
that Evans's The Palace of Minos was not a proper site
publication, and did not provide a sufficiently detailed
discussion of the stratigraphy and of the finds. Much
of what was excavated by Evans is still unpublished, and
much of what he did publish did not provide adequate
information for a standard site publication, even for his
own times (Wace 1935; Momigliano 1999^).
In spite of some remaining difficulties, since the
1950s new excavations and new studies of Evans's
material have considerably improved our understanding
of the pottery sequence at Knossos. Thus, in 1953,
Furness published an article on the Neolithic pottery
of Knossos, in which she produced a new subdivision
of Early and Middle Neolithic, on the basis of stylistic
and stratigraphical analysis (see Chapter 1). A few years
later, Sinclair Hood, during his 1957-61 excavations
along the Royal Road and in the palace, discovered
important homogeneous deposits and excellent
stratified sequences, especially for the Prepalatial and
Protopalatial periods. Among the main results of Hood's
investigations vis-a-vis the Knossos pottery sequence,
one could list the discovery of a key EM I deposit
(assigned by him to an early phase of EM I, or EM IA:
see, however, Chapters 1 and 2); a properly stratified
sequence for EM II - III, which allowed for the first time
a clear definition of EM III ceramics at Knossos; an
equally well stratified sequence of MM IA-IIA floor
deposits; and the first 'pure' LM IB deposit, stratified
above 'classic' LM I A (Hood 19620, 1966; see also this
This content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6 NICOLETTA MOMIGLIANO
volume, Chapters 2-5). At the time of writing, Hood's
excavations remain unpublished, but thanks to the
excavator's generosity many scholars have been able to
study this material, and their publications of closely
comparable deposits have provided more evidence
supporting and clarifying his suggestions, especially
concerning the EM and MM sequence (Andreou 1978;
Momigliano 1991; Cadogan et al. 1993; Wilson 1994;
Wilson and Day 1994, 1999, 2000; Momigliano and
Wilson 1996; MacGillivray 1998; Knappett 1999^;
Momigliano 20000).
John D. Evans's 1969-70 excavations in the West
Court added considerably to our understanding of the
Neolithic sequence. Through the study of these data,
Manteli (19930, J993^) established a more detailed
phasing of Late Neolithic into LN I, LN II and Final
Neolithic, while Peter Tomkins, using both A. J. Evans's
and J. D. Evans's material, has now produced a complete
revision of Neolithic Knossos, of which a synthesis is
presented in Chapter 1. Moreover, J. D. Evans's
investigations, combined with Warren's 1972 excavations
on the southern side of the Royal Road, also
allowed for the subdivision of Knossian EM II into an
earlier and later sub-phase (Evans 1972; Warren 1972/*;
Wilson 1985), and an earlier suggestion by Hood (19710,
37-8) to subdivide EM II into three sub-phases (EM II
A, B and C) was abandoned.
M. R. Popham's studies of A. J. Evans's LBA material
(Popham 1964, 1965, 1967, 1969, 19700) and his
excavations of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion
(MUM) provided and continue to provide, even after
his untimely death, the most substantial contribution
to the understanding of the LM Knossian sequence (see
Popham 1984; excavation seasons carried out in 1968,
1972, 1973 and 1977). The MUM excavations, in
particular, provided clear stylistic and stratigraphic
evidence for a satisfactory definition of the LM II and
LM III A 1 phases. Moreover, as shown by Hatzaki
(Chapter 6), the MUM also provided stratigraphical
evidence to distinguish earlier and later stages for LM
IIIB. P. M. Warren's late i97os-early 1980s excavations
of the Stratigraphical Museum Extension Site
(jokingly abbreviated as SEX) have also provided good
stratigraphic evidence for understanding the LBA
Knossian sequence, especially for the LM IIIC ceramic
phase (Warren 1981, 1983, 1997), and so have the 2001
and 2002 excavations of the Little Palace North Section
site by Hatzaki (see Chapter 6). Finally, excavations
directed by C. F. Macdonald, N. Momigliano and
David Wilson in the early 1990s have produced useful
evidence for the stratigraphy and better definition of
the Prepalatial and Protopalatial ceramic sequence
(Momigliano and Wilson 1996; Macdonald and
Knappett, in press).
The revisions made to A. J. Evans's sequence in the
studies and excavations discussed above have been
summarised in the right-hand column of TABLE 0.1.
Naturally, this constituted a starting point that could
hardly be ignored. But how should one present a new
synthesis of this and other ongoing work? One simple
option was merely to provide an adequate discussion of
deposits that matched closely the existing phases of
Evans's modified sequence, as outlined in TABLE 0.1.
I felt, however, that this approach would be unsatisfactory
for a number of reasons. First, this would
add little new information and thus provide no real
intellectual justification for the production of a
substantial new monograph. Second, I was aware that
studies already under way in the late 1990s were already
rendering the existing sequence out of date. Last but
not least, the problems inherent in Evans's system and
labels, as discussed above, strongly suggested the
exploration of other avenues.
THE SEQUENCE IN THIS VOLUME
The approach we adopted is basically that described in
Cadogan et al. (1993; see also Renfrew 1972, 53-5;
Andreou 1978, 10-11). Our local sequence was first
established on the basis of stratigraphic and stylistic
observations, without recourse to any labels such as EM
IIB or MM IA, and without attempting to fit our data
into a pre-existing ceramic sequence. We identified a
number of suitable ceramic deposits, which we clustered
into relatively homogeneous groups, that is, groups of
deposits that shared a large number of ceramic features
(not just one or two 'type-fossils') and, whenever
possible, a similar stratigraphy, suggesting contemporaneity
or close temporal spacing. These groups were
then named after the ceramic deposit(s) that was (were)
deemed to be the most representative and/or important
for other reasons. The groups are formed by deposits
excavated during A. J. Evans's and more recent
investigations, the latter often providing the best
stratigraphic evidence. The limitations inherent in
studies of A. J. Evans's material are well known (see
this volume, passim, and Momigliano 1991, 154): it is
often (but not always) heavily selected, excavated by
artificial spits, with materials from different contexts
stored together, etc. It would be misleading, however,
to infer that this large body of material could not provide
any useful information. Sometimes even A J. Evans's
excavations have yielded unselected and relatively wellstratified
deposits, as, for example, in the case of most
tests dug beneath the palace floors and of Neolithic
'Stratum a' in the Central Court (excavated in 1924).
Ironically, the ceramic deposits that have suffered most
are those from higher levels and often associated with
the written documents, which prompted Evans to dig
Knossos in the first place.
The groups thus established were subsequently
placed in a series by means of stratigraphic and stylistic
analysis. The result was the left-hand column in TABLE
0.2, which is what appears the most acceptable and
satisfactory sequence for Knossos at the time of writing,
but will inevitably be susceptible to improvements and
changes in the future.
This content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
INTRODUCTION 7
Table 0.2: The new Knossian ceramic sequence, suggested Neolithic and Minoan labels,
and approximate calendar dates.
Knossos sequence (2007) Suggested Suggested approximate calendar Suggested approximate
Group name Neolithic and dates BC (high chronology for calendar dates BC
Minoan labels LBA), adapted from Tomkins (low chronology for LBA)
(Chapter 1, this volume), adapted from Warren and
Manning (1995, 1999,) Rehak and Hankey (1989) and Warren
Younger (200 1 ), Manning and ( 1 998, 2006)
Bronk Ramsey (2003)
Stratum X IN (Aceramic) 7000-6500
Strata Dt-VIII EN 6500-5900
Strata VII-VIB
Strata VIA-V LN I 5300-4900
Stratum IV LN II 4900-4500
Stratum IIIB FN LA 4500-4200
Stratum IIIA FN IB 4200-3900
Stratum IIB FN II 3900-3600
Stratum IIA FN III 3600-3300
Stratum IC FN IV 3300-3000
EM I Well EMI 3000-2650 ~
West Court House EM II A (Early) 2650-2550
North-East Magazines (tests EM II A (Late) 2550-2450
beneath floors)
South Front EM IIB 2450-2200
South Front House EM III (Early) 2200-2150
Foundation Trench
Upper East Well EM III (Late) 2 1 50-2050
House C / RRS Fill MM IA 2050-1950 20th century
Early Chamber beneath MM IB 19 50- 1900 19th century
West Court
Royal Pottery Stores MM IIA 1900-1850 1800-1750
Trial KV MM IIB 1 850-1800 1750-1700
West and South Polychrome MM IIIA 1800- 17 50 1700- 1640
Deposits
KS 178 stone-built MM IIIB 1750-1675 1640-1600
compartment
MM IIIB / LM IA transition
around 1600
Gypsades Well (Upper LM IA 1675-1580 1600-1510
Deposit)
SEX North House LM IB 1 580-1490 15 10-1430
Minoan Unexplored LM II 1490-1430 1430-1390
Mansion (MUM) South
Sector
Long Corridor Cists LM IIIAi 1430-1370 1390-1360
MUM Pits 8, 10, 1 1 LM IIIA2 1 370-1320 1 360-1330
Makritikhos 'Kitchen' LM IIIB Early 1320-1250 1330-1250
MUM North Platform Pits LM IIIB Late 1 250-1200 1 250-1 190
SEX Southern Half group LM IIIC 1 200-1 100 11 90-1 100
Once we had worked out the relative sequence, we
tried to relate our groups to other deposits and
sequences both in Crete and in other Aegean regions,
whenever feasible. Finally, we attached to our groups
the long-established and widely utilised labels of
the Evans-Mackenzie scheme, in a way that seemed
to fit best not only their traditional use, but also
Aegean-wide developments. This has not been
employed (or, rather, re-employed) for 'imperialistic'
purposes, so that this scheme should be imposed on
the rest of Crete, but to show how our sequence
correlates to the Evans-Mackenzie scheme, and be
we felt this would be helpful to our readers, if
because most scholars are more used to and have m
chronological correlations with terms and phases
as EM I. In addition, one could argue that if ther
place where labels such as EM I, EM II, etc ca
used with some legitimacy, it is Knossos, where
system was created in the first place. Thus, in
following chapters terms such as EM I, MM IB,
IIIC will often be used, for the sake of brevit
shorthand for our pottery groups.
This content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8 NICOLETTA MOMIGLIANO
Regionalism and different historical trajectories
within the island, and the fact that deposits are often
created by events and actions of a very localised nature,
cannot produce very precise and harmonious links
between the pottery styles and phases of different sites
and areas within Crete. Even sites as close as Poros,
Archanes and Knossos, some of whose pottery was most
likely produced in the same workshops, probably located
near or on the hills of Mount Juktas (Day 1988;
MacGillivray 1987), have yielded close, but not exactly
matching deposits and sequences. Many of the
differences between them are undoubtedly functional,
that is, due to the different nature and function of these
sites (and the detailed and systematic analysis and
comparison of different assemblages from Poros,
Archanes and Knossos could, no doubt, lead to
interesting results). Other discrepancies, however, may
be chronological, precisely because different sites have
different depositional histories. That ceramic deposits
may be the result of pan-Cretan 'events' is probably
more often the exception than the rule.
Clearly much more work remains to be done in terms
of synchronisation, from the micro-regional level (e.g.
comparing the histories and relationships of northcentral
Cretan sites such as Knossos, Archanes, Poros,
Galatas, etc) to the rest of Crete, and from the Aegean
to the whole of the eastern Mediterranean, but this
updated Knossian sequence should be a first step in the
right direction. Undoubtedly some colleagues will
challenge some of our EM and LM labels and chronological
attributions (or even the inclusion of specific
deposits in one or the other group), but we hope that at
least our discussion of the stratigraphic evidence and our
basic sequence of groups of deposits will be welcomed
and less controversial. The results of our work are
summarised in TABLE 0.2, and the full discussion of the
stratigraphic and stylistic evidence upon which this is
based will be found in the following chapters.
ORGANISATION OF CHAPTERS
The discussion of the ceramic sequence has been
organised into chapters which match the expertise of
individual authors, and follow, approximately, wellestablished
subdivisions of Cretan prehistory such as
Prepalatial, Protopalatial and Neopalatial first
suggested by N. Platon (19560, 19610) and subsequently
refined by other scholars (Hallager 19880,
1988^; Rehak and Younger 1998, 2001). Thus, Chapter
1 covers the Neolithic and ventures into the beginning
of the Prepalatial period; Chapter 2 deals with the early
Prepalatial phases (EM I-IIB); Chapter 3 is devoted to
the late Prepalatial phases (EM III-MM IA); Chapter
4 discusses the Protopalatial period, traditionally
spanning the MM IB-IIB ceramic phases, but here also
including MM IIIA; Chapter 5 covers the Neopalatial
MM IIIB-LM IB phases; and Chapter 6 covers the
Final Palatial and Postpalatial periods (LM II-IIIC).
Because this is a multi-author volume, and because
of the quirky history of scholarship on Minoan
ceramics, readers should not expect absolute uniformity
of approaches, styles and content throughout the book.
The basic information and the basic structure of the
chapters, however, follow a strict pattern. Each begins
with a brief introduction on the period and history of
relevant scholarship. Then, for each pottery group there
is a section on the archaeological contexts, discussing
the character and nature of the deposits, the relevant
stratigraphic and stylistic evidence for their position
in the pottery sequence, and including a list of the main
deposits. Deposits are normally listed in clockwise
order in relation to the Bronze Age palace, starting from
the West Court, followed by deposits from the
surrounding town and cemeteries.
In the list of deposits, numbers such as B.I.i and
D.I. 2, preceded by the abbreviation KSM (Knossos
Stratigraphical Museum), refer to those marked on the
wooden boxes housing the relevant pottery and given
in Pendlebury's Guide to the Stratigraphical Museum at
Knossos (Pendlebury et al. 1933-5); tne box numbers
refer to the other system of numeration marked on the
wooden boxes, which was given to Evans's material
once it was moved from the original Pottery Archives
in the palace to its present location in the KSM
(Momigliano 19990, 58, 134). This should facilitate the
location of material discussed in this volume for readers
who may wish to see it with their own eyes (the only
proper way to study ceramics).
Archaeological contexts and list of deposits are, in
turn, followed by a section on the characteristics of the
ceramic group, articulated through a description of
most common fabrics (in the sense of ceramic paste),
wares (in the sense of surface finish/treatment/
decoration), forms and their shapes (in the meaning
employed by Furumark, 19410, 1; Walberg, 1976, 14).
As already mentioned, on the whole more attention has
been paid to what are usually referred to as fine
decorated wares because of the nature of much of the
material available for study (i.e. deposits heavily selected
by Evans and Mackenzie or subsequent excavators).
Moreover, these wares appear to be more susceptible
to change and more diagnostic for chronological
purposes. Fabrics and other technological features,
however, besides providing useful information on other
aspects of Cretan prehistory, can also be useful
chronological indicators, as well illustrated by
Tomkins's chapter, and it is hoped that more studies
in the future will focus on these subjects.
Finally, there is a section on the relative chronology
of the pottery group/ceramic phase, discussing
synchronisation with other Cretan deposits and with
other Aegean or eastern Mediterranean regions.
In addition to the black-and-white illustrations
embedded in the text, the volume is provided with a
CD, which contains further illustrative material, mostly
in colour.
This content downloaded from
147.251.69.18 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:22:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms