24On the dating and character of the

‘Zakros pits deposit’Lefteris Platon

The relative dating of closed ceramic contexts orisolated finds brought to light in Aegean, or evenbroadly East Mediterranean, Bronze Age sites hasalways been central to Peter Warren’s interests.1 Themost important result of his profound and long-timeoccupation with this difficult and complicated matterwas the writing — in cooperation with the late VronwyHankey — of an ambitious, and to date also unique,book in which all the problems relating to the datingof contexts are confronted, with special emphasis onthe development of pottery in the prehistoric Aegean. 2

It is hoped that the present article will show the breadthof knowledge as well as the perspicacity of the inspirerof this magnificent work, by reopening the discussionon the dating and character of a specific ceramicassemblage, which occupied the relevant bibliographyfrom very early on. It is impressive that Peter Warren,20 years ago, without having to hand the data drawnfrom recent excavations in the same district and thegreat number of publications written on the subjectfrom 1989 onwards, actually touched upon all theaspects of the problem in spite of the fact that, then, hehimself described it as ‘unresolved’.

The assemblage under discussion comprises thedeposits of large quantities of pottery from two deepcavities excavated in the bedrock at least partly byhuman hand; they are known as the ‘pits’ investigatedby David Hogarth in 1901, on one of the two low hillson which the Zakros settlement spread.3 Thisassemblage, although it still remains essentiallyunpublished,4 has posed considerable problems forthose engaged with the dating of Minoan pottery.5

Specialists have been less concerned about thecharacter of the deposits, which bears directly, as willbe shown below, upon the question of their dating. Thecontext comprised thousands of potsherds and about ahundred unbroken or restorable clay vases, mainlysmall and medium sized, together with a limitednumber of finds belonging to other types or made ofother materials such as loom weights, a few fragmentsof stone vessels and tools and very few small bronzeobjects.6 According to the excavator’s description inhis preliminary report, the bulk of the material wasnot found stratified, a fact attributed by him either to asingle deposition, or to its later disturbance.7 Betterknown to scholars are the drinking vessels, familiar

from the descriptions of Hogarth and Dawkins — whofinally undertook the study of the pottery — and fromthe display of the best specimens in the HerakleionMuseum. They represent mainly two types: the straight-sided cup and the handled rounded cup.8 Regardingthe decoration, the main features are the almost equalpresence of the light-on-dark and dark-on-light motifs,amongst which various types of spirals and tendrils,the use of the ripple motif and the absence of red colour,particularly for the addition of horizontal bands.9

Most scholars have accepted as fact that thesedeposits represent a ‘closed’ context, at least as regardsdating. Nevertheless, their precise chronologicalposition in the frame of the historical development ofthe Zakros settlement, as well as their place in relationto other, also considered as ‘closed’, Cretan pottery

1 Warren 1965; 1980; 1987; 1991; 1995; 1999; 2006; 2007;Alexiou and Warren 2004.

2 Warren and Hankey 1989.3 Hogarth 1901, 123–9.4 Apart from two vases presented by the excavator himself

barely one year after his excavation at Zakros (Hogarth 1902,335–8, pl. XII). A number of pieces probably derived fromthe pits are now in the British Museum and have been brieflydescribed by Forsdyke (1925, 96, pl. VIII; 99, fig. 126; 102,fig. 130; 111–12, f igs. 140–3). In addition, some vasefragments now in the Copenhagen Museum, have beenpresented by Blinkenberg and Johansen in CVA, 26–7, pl.32, 33. For some photographs of isolated ceramic finds, seePopham 1967, pls. 78a and b. The old presentation of the pitsceramic material by Dawkins (1903, figs. 1–19) comprisesonly some sketches of a small number of clay vessels.

5 For a fruitful discussion on this matter, see Warren and Hankey1989, 76–8. I owe warmest thanks to the British School atAthens for its recent permission to publish the material fromthe old excavations made by Hogarth at Zakros. It is hopedthat the presentation of the pits material will appear soon,either in the form of an extensive article or of a monographin the BSA Studies series.

6 Hogarth 1901, 124–9.7 Hogarth 1901, 124, 126; Dawkins 1903, 248.8 Dawkins 1903, 248–9, 251–2.9 Dawkins 1903, 251–2; Warren and Hankey 1989, 77. The

addition of red coloured bands between the ordinary blackones in the ‘dark-on-light style’ comes into fashion in eastCrete during the LM IB period. Cf. Floyd 1998, 188.

244 LEFTERIS PLATON

assemblages remain problematical. The table (TABLE24.1) shows that to date the Zakros pits assemblagehas been considered by different, or even the same,scholars as representing ‘the end of MM period’, ‘theMM IIIB phase’,10 ‘the transitional phase called usuallyMM IIIB–LM IA’11, the ‘early LM IA period’12 and,finally, ‘the advanced or final LM IA’, chronologicallyequated to that of the final destruction of Akrotiri,Thera.13 These conflicting views are due to the factthat, a century after its excavation, the pits assemblagestill remains unpublished, aside from its relativelydetailed description by Dawkins in 1903.14 This createsambiguities, resulting in its rather arbitrary comparisonwith other unpublished pottery assemblages alsothought to be ‘closed’, such as those from areas p42,c30 and c4315 — and, more recently Building 2 Room216 — at Palaikastro, and quarter D (areas 29–31) atGournia.17 A second reason for this apparently widevariety of views is the confused terminology used byscholars: the terms ‘MM IIIB’, ‘MM IIIB–LM IA’ and‘early LM IA’ may well represent essentially the samechronological phase, placed around the beginning of

the 16th century BC, equated to that which on Therarepresents the so-called ‘Seismic Destruction Levels’of the local settlement.18 Viewed in this light, theproposed dates for the deposition of the pit assemblagescould be confined to just two: the end of the MM IIIBperiod and the end of LM IA, with the latter betterrepresented in the literature by the final destructionlayer at Akrotiri.

Furthermore, it is to be noted that the most recentresearch favours dating the pit assemblage to the endof the LM IA period.19 (TABLE 24.2) Two factors havebeen important for such an attribution:

1. The observation, mainly by the Zakros PublicationTeam but also by colleagues working on the potteryof neighbouring Palaikastro, that a pure LM IAstyle, at least of the type occurring at Knossos, isreally absent in the far east of Crete.20 Conse-

10 Evans 1928, 218, fig. 125; Platon 1971, 242.11 Evans 1928, 472, fig. 279; Platon 1974, 24; MacGillivray

and Driessen 1990, 403; Warren 1991, 337.12 Furumark 1972, 80; Betancourt 1985, 130.13 Betancourt 1978, 381, 384; Hood 1978, 686–7; Niemeier

1980, 18; MacDonald 1997, 271–2; Warren 1999, 895; Vande Moortel 1997, 392, n. 240.

14 Dawkins 1903, 248–54.15 Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 21; Hood 1978, 686–7; Warren

and Hankey 1989, 77–8.16 Knappett and Cunningham 2003, 169–71.17 Warren and Hankey 1989, 77–8; Warren 1999, 895.18 Marthari 1990, 66; Warren 1991, 338; this dating has been

suggested in: Warren and Hankey 1989, 67; Hood 1996;MacDonald 1996, 17; Warren 1999, 896; Knappett 2000, 230;Hood 2005, 53.

19 See, e.g. Hatzaki 2007, 173, 183.20 Platon 1999a, 678; 2004, 387–90; 2010, 226.

TABLE 24.1: Different datings of the ‘Zakros pits’ assemblage.

MM IIIB MM IIIB–LM IA transitional Early LM IA LM IA

N. Platon 1973a Evans 1921–35 Bosanquet 1903 Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923N. Platon 1974 Warren and Hankey 1989 Dawkins 1905 Hood 1978

MacGillivray and Driessen 1990 Furumark 1941 Betancourt 1978Warren 1991 Popham 1967 MacGillivray et al. 1987

Macdonald 1997Warren 1999L. Platon 1999aL. Platon 2002Knappet and Cunningham 2003L. Platon 2004Popham 2004Hatzaki 2007

TABLE 24.2: Recent dating of the ‘Zakros pits’deposit.

Warren 1991 MM IIIB–LM IA transitionalMacdonald 1997 LM IAWarren 1999 LM IAL. Platon 1999a LM IAL. Platon 2002 LM IAL. Platon 2004 LM IAPopham 2004 LM IAHatzaki 2007 LM IA

245ON THE DATING AND CHARACTER OF THE ‘ZAKROS PITS DEPOSIT’

quently, in these sites, several assemblagespreviously called MM IIIB–LM IA probablyrepresent the LM IA period in eastern Crete.Recently, an attempt was made to set apart someof the MM IIIB–LM IA assemblages, thought torepresent an earlier, MM IIIB, horizon;21 however,their separation from the LM IA ones is mainlybased on the relative frequency of forms anddecorative motifs in the specif ic contexts,something which in the case of the pits is of limitedvalue. Apart from the fact that the depositionappears to have had a special meaning, it is worthnoting that while Hogarth clearly states that thedark-on-light pottery from pits comprises four-fifths of the total,22 Dawkins, comparing the sameassemblage with the earlier levels from p42 atPalaikastro, raises the presence of the light-on-darkpottery of pits to 50 per cent!23

2. The presence in the pit assemblage of at least onevase — a handled cup of the ‘cup-rhyton’ typedecorated with reeds (FIG. 24.1),24 which findsclose parallels only in LM IB assemblages,amongst them that of the final destruction of theneighbouring palace at Zakros. The cup-rhytontype in particular is completely absent from theclosed LM IA context at Akrotiri, occurring onlyin two assemblages from Knossos thought to beLM IA;25 however, the dating of these contexts hasrecently been reconsidered, and now moved to LMIB as well.26 Warren and Hankey note the problemconcluding:27

‘…either (1) the pits and closely connecteddeposits (Palaikastro p42 lower levels, c43 and

Gournia D29–31) would relate to the horizon ofthe destruction on Thera in LM IA, pure or mature,or even later; or the alternative (2) is that only thepits continued being used into mature LM IA orlater. But there is no good reason for singling outone find from apparently homogeneous materialand giving it a later date. This problem isunresolved…’.

To date, within the sequence of the ceramic phasesdefined from studied Zakros closed contexts, the pitassemblage appears, at first sight, to represent the‘Zakros IV’ phase, which marks a wide destructionhorizon on the coastal site.28 The most importantbuilding — regarding location, architecture andmovable f inds — belonging to this phase wasinvestigated just outside the east palace façade, at a levelabout 2 m below the floor levels of the latter.29 Theexcavator suggested that this building was actually apart of the first palace on the site and dated its finalfilling, after some wavering, to MM IIIB;30 it is worthnoting at this point that he compared the pottery relatedto it with that from the pits.31 The study of the material32

showed that this chronological comparison is basicallyvalid, since the two assemblages share some, almostexact, parallels (FIG. 24.2). The typological and stylisticanalysis of the same pottery, combined with theapparently complete absence in Zakros of assemblageswhich could be attributed to a pure LM IA style,persuaded the author that the assemblage from the

21 Knappett and Cunningham 2003, 141–2, 159–60.22 Hogarth 1901, 126.23 Dawkins 1905, 287.24 Dawkins 1903, 253, fig. 17; Warren and Hankey 1989, 78;

MacDonald 1997, 271–2; Koehl 2006, 220.25 Evans 1930, 277–9, fig. 186; Catling, Catling and Smyth

1979, 44–51, fig. 31, pl. 9.26 The presence of this specific type obliged Van de Moortel to

date these assemblages either in a ‘final LM IA’, or in a veryearly LM IB period: Van de Moortel 1997, 558. For a possibleLM IB dating of this deposit, see: Niemeier 1980, 76;MacDonald 1990, 87; Driessen and MacDonald 1997, 162;Platon 2007. For a probable re-dating, from the LM IA to theLM IB period, of the East Stairs context in the palace ofKnossos, see: Hatzaki 2007, 173. For a good summary onthis matter, see Koehl 2006, 59–60.

27 Warren and Hankey 1989, 78. Macdonald (1997, 271–2)prefers to interpret the presence of the reed cup-rhyton in thepits assemblage as evidence for the existence of an earlyvariant of the type, without a handle.

28 Platon 1999a, 678; 2004, 387–90; Gerontakou forthcoming.29 Platon 1970, 209–10, 246; 1971, 241; 1972, 159–60; 1973b,

138; 1974, 225–6; 1975, 343, 351.30 Platon 1970, 248–51; 1971, 242; 1972, 166–8, 170–1, 173;

1973b, 154.31 Platon 1973a, 243.32 Made by Mrs Eleni Gerontakou, member of the Zakros

Publication Team.

Fig. 24.1. ‘Cup-rhyton’ from the ‘pits’decorated with reeds.

246 LEFTERIS PLATON

so-called ‘Old Palace’,33 as well as that from the pitsshould be attributed to the LM IA period; This period,in the case of Zakros or rather the far eastern part ofCrete, is represented by a style which includes severalMM features (earlier characterised as ‘MM IIIB–LMIA’). Moreover, the chronological coincidence betweenthe filling in of the ‘Old Palace’ — and, consequently,the beginning of the construction of the new palace —and the deposition of large quantities of pottery intothe pits, led to the plausible conclusion that these two

events were directly related to each other.34 Thisconclusion was supported by the character of thedeposits, which, according to preliminary reports,comprised pottery of a rather high quality, possiblycoming from a clearing-out of a palatial building. Other

33 Or ‘The East Sector Building’: Platon and Gerontakouforthcoming.

34 Platon 1999a, 679; 1999b, 46, n. 46. 2002, 153.

Fig. 24.2. Representative pottery from the Zakros ‘Old Palace’ (left) and the Zakros ‘pits’ (right).

247ON THE DATING AND CHARACTER OF THE ‘ZAKROS PITS DEPOSIT’

scholars seem to be adopting this idea, to judge fromthe most recent bibliographic reference to this matter.35

However, new evidence forces the author to reopenboth questions — that of the dating and that of the natureof the Zakros pits deposit. Through a recent Europeanproject aiming to identify and record the conservedarchaeological material from Zakros,36 it becamepossible for us to obtain a nearly complete photographicarchive of the clay vessels from Hogarth’s excavationon the site stored in the Herakleion Museum.37 Theobjects coming from the pits, about a hundred innumber, are for the most part datable to the Zakros IVphase, in accordance with the views expressed above;nevertheless, they also include some pieces whichwould fit into this time bracket only with difficulty.38

This now seems supported by information drawnfrom a letter sent to the author by the late MervynPopham, written only a few months before his death39

(FIG. 24.3). In this, he announced that he had nearlycompleted the study for the final publication of thematerial from the pits; in the same letter he includedall the mock-ups destined for the illustration of hiswork, asking for the help of the Zakros PublicationTeam on the chronological comparison of thisassemblage with other contexts from Zakros then underexamination. He also expressed his view that thecontents of the pits came from the clearing-out of abuilding — probably without knowledge of similarviews published by the author a few months earlier,40

about the clearing-out of the ‘Old Palace’ and thedeposition of part of its pottery in the pits. This latteris confirmed by his supposition, in the same letter, thata good candidate for the provenance of the pits materialwould be the so-called ‘Strong Building’.41 Indeed, inthe last comparative mock-up of his study, he includeda cup-rhyton from this building,42 considering it a goodparallel to some specimens from the pits (FIG. 24.4).

The information contained in Mervyn Popham’sletter confirms that the pit deposit can no longer beconsidered as homogeneous. Firstly because, as maybe seen in one of his mock-ups, the abovementionedcup-rhyton is not a single specimen but one of several(FIG. 24.5); secondly, because the parallels in Popham’sillustration, those from the Strong Building inclusive,43

do not belong to the LM IA but to the LM IB period, asis confirmed by stratigraphy. A quick glance into otherillustrations included with the same letter proves thepresence, albeit limited, of undoubtedly LM IB pottery.Amongst others, one could mention an almost entirelypreserved baggy alabastron (FIG. 24.6) which, regardingshape and decoration, has good parallels in secure LMIB layers at Zakros (FIG. 24.7) and Mochlos;44 as wellas some minor sherds, one of which obviously belongsto a vase decorated in the style of the ‘Special PalatialTradition’, of LM IB as well (FIG. 24.8).45 Later thanthe Zakros IV period also appears to be the part of arounded cup decorated with olive sprays rendered inthe light-on-dark style, but nevertheless stylistically

35 Hatzaki 2007, 183.36 This project, titled ‘Minwikov Anavktoro kai Oikismov~

Zavkrou. Melevth kai Gnwrimiva tou Cwvrou me to Koinov’,was co-funded by the European Social Fund and NationalResources — (EPEAEK II) PYTHAGORAS.

37 Thanks are due to K. Archontaki and K. Christopoulou,members of the Zakros Publication Team, who undertook thistask, working for several days, in difficult conditions, in theWest Storeroom of the Herakleion Museum, where Hogarth’sexcavation material had been stored up to that time.

38 Such as, for instance, the lower part of a cup with white spotsscattered on a black slip, which has close parallels in thePhaistos phases Ib, II and III: Levi 1976, no. 1370, pl. 127e;no. 1895, pl. 179h; no. 4892, pl. 210g. According to Girella(2007, 242), in south-central Crete this style begins in theMM IIB period, but its use continues in MM IIIA and IIIB.In addition, one juglet decorated with a white spiral drawnon a black slip recalls an almost similar vase from the closedcontext of Anemospelia at Archanes: Sakellarakis andSakellarakis 1997, 426, figs. 387, 395.

39 Dated 1 May 2000.40 Platon 1999a, 679; Platon 1999b, 46, n. 46.41 For the Strong Building, see Platon 1968, 156–62; 1969, 209–

18; 1970, 218–19; 1971, 244–7; 1972, 179–83; 1974, 215.42 Platon 1969, 216, pl. 264a.43 Platon 1969, pl. 264b; Platon 2010, 233–4, figs. 26–28.44 Platon 1967, 175, pl. 158a; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 82.

Platon 2010, 235, fig. 35.45 Cf. Müller 1997, 353, pl. 40. On the first use of the term

‘Special Palatial Tradition’, see Betancourt 1985, 140–8.46 Evans (1928, 474–5, fig. 282a) publishes the same piece

wrongly thinking that it came from Knossos. On the ‘OliveSpray Painter’, see Popham 1967, 341; Betancourt 1985, 145;Müller 1997, 273–4.

47 Evans 1921, 595–6, fig. 437; see also MacGillivray 2007,136–8, fig. 4.24: 2, 6.

48 Sakellarakis and Sakellarakis 1997, 418, fig. 384.49 Cf. Betancourt 1990, fig. 25, no. 494.50 For a close parallel from the ‘Grande Frana’ at Phaistos, see

Levi 1976, no. 5784, pl. 207d. For a recent dating of theGrande Frana deposit in the beginning of the MM III period,see Girella 2001, 73. Another similar vase comes fromKommos, from a context (15) which has been dated to the

close to the work of the so-called ‘Olive Spray Painter’,attributed to the end of the LM IB period (FIG. 24.9).46

This observation forced the author to study in greaterdetail the rest of the pits pottery accessible to him todate, looking for the probable presence of morechronological phases in it. Thus, now, the possibilityof the existence of a phase corresponding to the MMIIIA period of central Crete cannot be excluded,especially when taking account of the presence of apart of a rounded cup decorated in the mature Kamaresstyle (FIG. 24.10),47 which survives in early MM IIIcontexts such as Archanes Anemospelia48 andKommos49. To the same phase also fit better a lowcylindrical cup with red bands drawn on a darkbackground (FIG. 24.11), a second cylindrical cupdecorated with a large white spiral50 and the better

248 LEFTERIS PLATON

MM III period, now equated with MM IIIA: Betancourt 1990,fig. 25, no. 493. For a reconsideration of the dating of theMM III contexts at Kommos, see: Girella 2007, 238–41;Betancourt forthcoming.

51 Evans 1928, 216, fig. 121b; Zervos 1956, fig. 448.52 Evans 1921, 593–600.

known flask on display in the Herakleion Museum,51

which actually represents the final phase of the MMpolychrome style.52 Nevertheless, it should be stressedthat the presence of all these pieces in a somewhat laterassemblage, namely the ‘Zakros IV’ phase, could bejustified to a certain degree if they were considered tobe heirlooms. However, the interval between the twoperiods appears to be rather wide, especially now withthe dating of the ‘Zakros IV’ destruction horizon tothe end of the LM IA.

Consequently, the material from the pits representsmore than one period, although for the majority belongs

to the ‘Zakros IV’ phase, which has been identified withthe LM IA of central Crete. The use of the pits continued,even though in a limited way, into the LM IB phase,while the discovery of a peculiar askos with very coarse

Fig. 24.3. Letter referring to the Zakros ‘pits’ material, sent to the author by Mervyn Popham.

249ON THE DATING AND CHARACTER OF THE ‘ZAKROS PITS DEPOSIT’

Fig. 24.4. ‘Cup rhyton’ from the‘Strong Building’ at Zakros.

Fig. 24.5. Mock-up illustration for Popham’s unpublished study of the Zakros ‘pits’ material, withthree further examples of ‘cup-rhyta’.

250 LEFTERIS PLATON

decoration (FIG. 24.12), might suggest their occasionaluse even later. Thus, one of the two hypothesesexpressed by Warren and Hankey in 1989, that the pitsremained open till the end of the LM IA or even laterinto the LM IB period, appears to be confirmed.

On the matter of the nature of the pits depositions,there is, again, no unanimity of opinion. The twoexcavators of Zakros, Hogarth53 and Nikolaos Platon,54

are in agreement that it represents votive depositionsof material originally belonging to a shrine which

probably stood on the top of the same hill. In addition,Nikolaos Platon underlines the presence, among thefinds, of a good number of clay lamps,55 associating

53 Hogarth 1901, 126–8.54 Platon 1974, 24.55 Hogarth 1901, 129, f ig. 41. The completely preserved

specimens number 19 in total.

Fig. 24.6 (above). Baggy alabastron fromthe Zakros ‘pits’, illustrated by Popham.

Fig. 24.7 (right). Alabastron from the ‘destructionlayer’ of the LM IB Zakros palace.

Fig. 24.8 (above). Sherd from the ‘pits’, belonging tothe LM IB ‘Special Palatial Tradition’, pictured inPopham’s mock-up.

Fig. 24.9 (right). Rounded cup from the ‘pits’,decorated with olive sprays in the light-on-dark style.

251ON THE DATING AND CHARACTER OF THE ‘ZAKROS PITS DEPOSIT’

them with nocturnal ceremonies.56 Although such ashrine could not be identified, a somewhat similardeposition, this time belonging to the MM period butdefinitely coming from a shrine, came to light a little tothe west and at a higher level, near the side of the gorge,at a location known as ‘Kalyvomouri’.57 A completelyopposite view has been expressed by Zois, who sees inthe material from the pits ordinary rubbish deposits, ofa purely domestic character.58 He notes the absence fromthe contents of the pits of clearly ceremonial vessels andfigurines, considering that one of the rhyta — the onlyone whose existence he was aware of — was simply usedas a funnel. He also comments ironically on the ‘nightceremonies’, including the clay lamps to the ordinaryfinds from domestic contexts.

It is to be noted here, that Popham also supportedthe view that the material came from the clearing-outof a specific building.59 Moreover, the author himselfhad formulated a similar hypothesis, although stressingthe high quality of the ceramic finds, something whichcould be attributed to their probable palatialprovenance.60 Such a deposition might be part of aconsecration ceremony, directly related to the beginningof a broad building programme, the centre of which

would be the foundation of the new palace, a religious— and political — act of high significance.61

In the light of the two archive sources to whichreference has been made above, the question of thecharacter of the deposits should be re-examined.Popham’s unpublished mock-ups show the presence ofa number of cup-rhyta in the pits, just one of whichwas known before. Cup-rhyta are mainly ceremonialvessels, very rare in ordinary domestic assemblages,and usually related to religious or palatial contexts.62

56 Platon 1974, 24–5.57 Platon 1975, 371–4.58 Zois 1991, 144–559 In the letter to the author, mentioned above (FIG. 24.3). A

similar view has also been expressed in the past by Betancourt(1978, 384).

60 Platon 1999a, 679; 1999b, 46, n. 46; 2002, 153; Hatzaki2007, 183.

61 Platon 2004, 390.62 For an extensive discussion of the contexts in which the rhyta

occurs during LM IB, see Koehl 2006, 299–310. For the cup-rhyton type especially, idem, 310.

Fig. 24.10 (above). Part of a roundedcup from the ‘pits’ decorated in themature Kamares style.

Fig. 24.11 (above). Cylindrical cup fromthe ‘pits’, decorated with red bands ona dark background.

Fig. 24.12. Askos with coarsedecoration from the Zakros ‘pits’.

252 LEFTERIS PLATON

Consequently, for the LM IB period, there are goodreasons to consider the assemblage at least ‘non-domestic’.63 For the period of the main deposits of thepits, the unusually high quality of the drinking andserving vessels should be considered in the first place:this is far above the standard represented in othercontexts, even that from the Old Palace, in the presenceof masterpieces of the potter’s art and the ratio betweenfine and plain wares.64 To this period also belongs awonderful clay rhyton,65 as well as at least one highquality stone serving vessel (FIG. 24.13).66 These datacould be completed by the addition of three interestingpots overlooked by scholars, even though one wasalready known in the literature,67 as well as formingpart of the display in the Herakleion Museum.

This is a conical cup with celestial symbols in reliefon the outside, usually identified with the crescentmoon and the solar disk (FIG. 24.14). The registrationof the remaining restored pots in the HerakleionMuseum showed that this object actually belonged toa small set of three pieces. The second piece is a smalljug of the type usually called a ‘milk-jug’, whichpreserves a plastic ornament, probably rendering thecrescent moon alone (FIG. 24.15). The third piece hasbeen preserved in a fragmentary state, but itshypothetical restoration is feasible: it is a small jar withrope-like relief decoration, which repeats on one sidethe combination of the crescent and disk, and on theother side shows the roughly rendered head of anagrimi, i.e. a wild goat (FIG. 24.16).68

Apart from this interesting set, the pits materialincludes seven more ‘milk-jugs’ and seven miniatureclay models of vessels (FIG. 24.17), which are oftenfound in tombs and are usually thought to be votive incharacter. The presence of 19 unbroken clay lamps isalso worth noting: most of them come from the smallerof the pits (FIG. 24.18).69 The state of preservation of

63 A similar ceremonial use has also been proposed for the twolarge, rock-hewn wells in Area 6 at neighbouring Palaikastro,at least regarding some periods after the LM IB. Driessen,MacGillivray and Sackett 2006, 381–2; MacGillivray, Sackettand Driessen 2007, 1, 225–6. For the fill which sealed anotherwell at the same site it is reported that it contained only earlierpottery (MM IIIB and LM IA), although this is comparedwith that from a context which is securely dated to the LM IBperiod. Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 21.

64 Hogarth 1901, 127.65 Hogarth 1902, 338, pl. XII, right; Dawkins 1903, 252–4.66 Hogarth 1901, 124.67 Dawkins 1903, 254; Zervos 1956, fig. 386.68 A short reference to this piece is included in Dawkins 1903,

254. The same symbols in combination occur in other mediabesides the pottery in Minoan iconography: Zervos 1956,figs. 444, 446, 447; CMS I S. no. 106.

69 Hogarth 1901, 129. It has to be noticed, that lamps have beenbrought to light also in peak sanctuaries sites, where, it hasbeen considered that, they had been used for lightingceremonial activities taking place at night. Kyriakidis 2005,139–40.

Fig. 24.13. Clay rhyton (left) and stone servingvessel (above) from the Zakros ‘pits’.

253ON THE DATING AND CHARACTER OF THE ‘ZAKROS PITS DEPOSIT’

Fig. 24.14 (above). Conical cup withcelestial symbols in relief.

Fig. 24.15 (right). ‘Milk-jug’ with acrescent ornament rendered in relief.

Fig. 24.16. Fragments of a small jar with rope-like relief ornaments, depicting the head of a wild goatand celestial symbols.

Fig. 24.17 (below). Miniature clay vessels from the Zakros ‘pits’.

254 LEFTERIS PLATON

70 For the combination of the symbols of the sun — or star —and the moon and its probable origin from other EastMediterranean religions, see: Xanthoudides 1900, 29–36;Crowley 1989, 188. For instance, a combination of the sunand moon symbols is included in the representation of aBabylonian cylinder seal imported to Crete, dated to the endof the third millennium BC (Evans 1928, 265–6, fig. 158 =CMS II.2 no. 206 ). Crowley (1989, 124–5) briefly discussesthe various combinations of the celestial bodies in Aegeanand East Mediterranean iconography, considering that therayed symbols render ‘star disks’. This was also the view ofEvans (1921, 514–5), who much earlier had maintained that,in one case at least, the same arrangement of symbols wasused to render the crescent and the Evening Star.

71 Evans 1921, 514, fig. 371 and 633, fig. 470; Evans 1935, 94–5, fig. 62. For some characteristic rayed examples, see Younger1988, 92, fig. 52, 198, fig. 137; CMS I nos. 17, 179; II.3 nos.318, 367; II.6 nos. 163–164, 271–272. II.7 no. 183; II.8 no.326; III no. 344, 347; V no. 199; VII no. 174; XI nos. 1, 28,47; XII no. 116. Goodison (1989, 72–4) has gathered someof the most characteristic examples of star-like elements inthe Minoan iconography, suggesting that they actuallyrepresent the sun. By contrast, Nilsson (1950, 414–21)discussed the diff iculties of identifying the sun in theMinoan iconography — and especially in seal engraving. InEgypt, the Sun Disk appears in combination with out-stretched wings belonging to the Horus Falcon (Crowley 1989,127–8).

72 Cf. Evans 1921, 633, fig. 470; Lembessi 1967, pl. 188; CMSI no 126; IX, no. 174; X no. 245. However, it has to be notedthat Nilsson (1950, 413–4) doubts if the crescent in Minoaniconography is really to be taken for the moon.

73 The same combination, that of the new and the full moon,may appear in one of the faces of a three-sided prism fromPalaikastro (CMS II.2 no. 285c). It is to be noted here, thatHenriksson and Blomberg (1996, 112) considered that theunusual shape of the heads of the female Petsofas figurinesas they are turned suggests the phases of the moon.

74 MacGillivray (2004, 333–4) believes that the Minoansmeasured time using mainly the ancient Sumerian ‘astralcalendar’. Even if such a hypothesis were accepted, theobservation of the continuously repeated moon cycle wouldsurely have led them to connect the natural phenomenon to adivine purpose.

these lamps and their high concentration should beconsidered, by those familiar with the excavationcontexts of Zakros, at least ‘unusual’.

These observations all lead to the view that leastpart of the pits contents was connected with some kindof religious ceremonial. This may have been related tocertain celestial bodies, at least judging by the discoveryof the set described. However, the symbols found here,and also more generally in Aegean iconography, neednot represent the moon and solar disk specifically.70

Identification of the sun disk, even in seal engraving,is usually clearer, often through the emphasis given toits rays.71 The presence of the isolated moon crescentin one of the three pieces of the set probably underlinesits special place in that particular ceremony. Thecrescent, or new moon, is figured in isolation as well,sometimes associated to other religious symbols orbeings, amongst them the wild goat, which is alsoincluded in one of the vases belonging to this set.72 Forthese reasons, the disk over the crescent could ratherbe interpreted as the full (pasifahv~) moon, definingin this way the duration of a complete moon cycle.73

However, further investigation is needed in the matter,and this exceeds the aims of the present paper.

Thus, the ceremonies near the pits should be relatedto the reappearance of the new moon in the sky probablydefining in the calendar the beginning of the mooncycle.74 The main subject of these ceremonies, however,might be, as had been maintained by the author earlier,the votive deposition of material from the clearing-outof an important building, which had probably palatialor religious character. In the case of the ‘Zakros IV’period, such acts probably held the place of consecrationceremonies for the start of construction in the newpalace.75 Likewise the ceremonial deposition of materialwhich belongs to the following ‘Zakros V’ period couldbe associated with the beginning of repairs in the palaceand settlement after the first destructive blow on thesite, a little before its final destruction. It should be notedhere that evidence for a preliminary destruction eventin Zakros has been drawn from excavation in the palacearea and the settlement as well.76

Fig. 24.18. Unbroken clay lamps from the smaller of the ‘pits’.

255ON THE DATING AND CHARACTER OF THE ‘ZAKROS PITS DEPOSIT’

75 For a possible relationship between the rising or setting moonand the palace’s orientation at Zakros, see Shaw 1973, 59;Henriksson and Blomberg 1996, 103; Reid 2007, 111.

76 Platon 2010; forthcoming.77 For a similar hypothesis regarding peak sanctuaries sites, see

above, n. 69.

Finally, despite of the objections expressed by Zois,it seems that the pit ceremonies were indeed nocturnal.This is supported by the presence — and probablyvotive deposition — of the 19 (or originally more)lamps,77 as well as by the worship of the celestialepiphany of the deity in the form of the new moonproposed above, which should certainly be visible whilethe ceremonial took place.

REFERENCES

KPCS = G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki and A. Vasilakis (eds.),Knossos: Palace, City, State. BSA Studies 12. London(2004).

Alexiou, St., and P. Warren, 2004. The Early Minoan Tombsof Lebena, Southern Crete. SIMA 30. Sävedalen.

Barnard, K. A., and T. M. Brogan, 2003. Mochlos IB. PeriodIII. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisan’sQuarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. TheNeopalatial Pottery. Philadelphia.

Betancourt, P. P., 1978. ‘LM IA pottery from PriniatikosPyrgos’, in Thera and the Aegean World I. London:381–7.

——, 1985. The History of Minoan Pottery. Princeton.——, 1990. Kommos II. The Final Neolithic through MM

III Pottery. Princeton.——, forthcoming. ‘Transitional MM III–LM IA pottery at

Kommos revisited’, in C. F. Macdonald, C. Knappettand E. Banou (eds.), Intermezzo. Intermediacyand Regeneration in Middle Minoan III Crete. BSAStudies.

Blinkenberg, C., and K. F. Johansen, n.d. CVA, Denmark I,Fascicule I. Copenhagen.

Bosanquet, R. C., 1903. ‘Excavations at Palaikastro. II’, BSA9: 274–89.

Bosanquet, R. C., and R. M. Dawkins, 1923. TheUnpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations,1902–6. BSA Suppl. 1. London.

Catling, E. A., H. W. Catling and D. Smyth, 1979. ‘Knossos1975: Middle Minoan III and Late Minoan I houses bythe Acropolis’, BSA 74: 1–80.

Crowley, J. L., 1989. The Aegean and the East: AnInvestigation into the Transference of Artistic Motifsbetween the Aegean, Egypt and the Near East in theBronze Age. SIMA Pocket-book 51. Jonsered.

Dawkins, R. M., 1903. ‘Pottery from Zakro’, JHS 23:248–60.

——, 1905. ‘Excavations at Palaikastro. IV’, BSA 11:258–92.

Driessen, J., and C. Macdonald, 1997. The Troubled Island.Minoan Crete Before and After the Santorini Eruption.Aegaeum 17. Liège and Austin.

Driessen, J., J. A. MacGillivray, L. H. Sackett, 2006. ‘TheLate Minoan I period at Palaikastro. New evidence forthe Santorini eruption’, in Cretological 9: A1, 379–87.

Evans, A. J., 1921–35. The Palace of Minos at Knossos I–IV.London.

Floyd, C. R., 1998. ‘Pottery from the Plateia Buildingand East Cretan regionalism’, in P. P. Betancourt andC. Davaras (eds.), Pseira III. The Plateia Building.Philadelphia: 177–92.

Forsdyke, E. J., 1925. Catalogue of the Greek and EtruscanVases in the British Museum, I Part I. London.

Furumark, A., 1972. Mycenaean pottery. II. Chronology.Stockholm.

Gerontakou, E., forthcoming. ‘O carakthvra~ enov~shmantikouv “strwmatografikouv orivzonta”sth minwikhv egkatavstash th~ Zavkrou’, inCretological 10.

Girella, L., 2001. ‘Alcune considerazioni in margine al MMIII: Archanes e Festòs’, Creta Antica 2: 63–76.

——, 2007. ‘Toward a definition of the Middle Minoan IIIceramic sequence in South-Central Crete: returning tothe traditional MM IIIA and IIIB division?’, in F. Felten,W. Gauss and R. Smetana (eds.), Middle HelladicPottery and Synchronisms. Vienna: 233–54.

Goodison, L., 1989. Death, Women and the Sun: Symbolismof Regeneration in Early Aegean Religion. BICS Suppl.53. London.

Hatzaki, E., 2007. ‘Neopalatial (MM IIIB–LM IB): KS 178,Gypsades Well (Upper Deposit) and SEX North HouseGroups’, in N. Momigliano (ed.), Knossos PotteryHandbook. Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan). BSAStudies 14. London: 151–96.

Henriksson, G., and M. Blomberg, 1996. ‘Evidence forMinoan astronomical observations from the peaksanctuaries on Petsofas and Traostalos’, OpAth 21 (6):99–114.

Hogarth, D. G., 1901. ‘Excavations at Zakro, Crete’, BSA 7:121–49.

——, 1902. ‘Bronze-Age Vases from Zakro’, JHS 22:333–8.

Hood, S., 1978. ‘Traces of the eruption outside Thera’, inThera and the Aegean World I. London: 681–90.

——, 1996. ‘Back to basics with Middle Minoan IIIB’, inD. Evely, I. S. Lemos and S. Sherratt (eds.), Minotaurand Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete andEuboea presented to Mervyn Popham. BAR–IS 638.Oxford: 10–16.

——, 2005. ‘Dating the Knossos frescoes’, in L. Morgan(ed.), Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Mark Cameron.BSA Studies 13. London: 45–81.

Knappett, C., 2000. ‘Middle Minoan III at Knossos — wasEvans right?’, BICS 44: 230–1.

Knappett, C., and T. F. Cunningham, 2003. ‘ThreeNeopalatial deposits from Palaikastro, East Crete’, BSA98: 107–87.

Koehl, R. B., 2006. Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta. Philadelphia.Kyriakidis, E., 2005. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean. The

Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. London.Lembessi, A., 1967. ‘Anaskafhv tavfou ei~ Povron

Hrakleivou’, PAE: 195–209.Levi, D., 1976. Festòs e la civiltà minoica. Rome.

256 LEFTERIS PLATON

Macdonald, C., 1990. ‘Destruction and construction in thepalace at Knossos’, in D. A. Hardy and A. C. Renfrew(eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III.3. London:82–8.

——, 1996. ‘Notes on some Late Minoan IA contextsfrom the Palace of Minos and its immediate vicinity’,in D. Evely, I. S. Lemos and S. Sherratt (eds.), Minotaurand Centaur, Studies in the Archaeology of Crete andEuboea Presented to Mervyn Popham. BAR–IS 638.Oxford: 17–26.

——, 1997. ‘The prelude to Mycenaean Crete’, in J. Driessenand A. Farnoux (eds.), La Crète mycénienne. BCHSuppl. 30: 267–73.

MacGillivray, A., 2004. ‘The astral labyrinth at Knossos’, inKPCS: 329–38.

——, 2007. ‘Protopalatial (MM IB–MM IIIA): EarlyChamber beneath the West Court, Royal Pottery Stores,the Trial KV, and the West and South PolychromeDeposits Groups’, in N. Momigliano (ed.), KnossosPottery Handbook. Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan).BSA Studies 14. London: 105–49.

MacGillivray, J. A., L. H. Sackett et al., 1987. ‘Excavationsat Palaikastro, 1986’, BSA 82: 135–54.

MacGillivray, J., and J. Driessen, 1990. ‘Minoan settlementat Palaikastro’, in P. Darque and R. Treuil (eds.), L’ habitatégéen préhistorique. BCH Suppl. 19. Paris: 395–412.

MacGillivray, J. A., L. H. Sackett and J. M. Driessen, 2007.Palaikastro: Two Late Minoan Wells. BSA Suppl. 43.London.

Marthari, M, 1990. ‘The chronology of the last phases ofoccupation at Akrotiri in the light of evidence from theWest House pottery groups’, in D. A. Hardy and A. C.Renfrew (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III.3.London: 57–70.

Müller, W., 1997. Kretische Tongefässe mit Meeresdekor.Berlin.

Niemeier, W.-D., 1980. ‘Die Katastrophe von Thera und diespätminoische Chronologie’, JdI 95: 1–76.

Nilsson, M. P., 1950. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion andits Survival in Greek Religion. Lund (2nd ed.)

Platon, L., 1999a. ‘New evidence for the occupation atZakros, before the LM I palace’, in P. P. Betancourt,V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier(eds.), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeologypresented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65thyear. Aegaeum 20. Liège and Austin: 671–81.

——, 1999b. ‘Anupovgrafa evrga tevcnh~ sta cevriaidiwtwvn, katav th neoanaktorikhv perivodo sthnKrhvth’, in I. Kilian (ed.), Eliten in der Bronzezeit.Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen.Mainz: 37–50.

——, 2002. ‘The political and cultural influence of theZakros palace on nearby sites and in a wider context’,in J. Driessen, I. Schoep and R. Laffineur (eds.),Monuments of Minos. Rethinking the Minoan Palaces.Aegaeum 23. Liège and Austin: 145–56.

——, 2004. ‘To Usterominwikov I anavktoro th~ Zavkrou:miva “Knwsov~” evxw apov thn Knwsov;’, in KPCS:381–92.

——, 2010. ‘Zakros: One or two destructions around theend of the LMIB period?’, in T. Brogan and E. Hallager(eds.), LM IB Pottery. Relative Chronology andRegional Differences. Monographs of the DanishInstitute at Athens 9. Athens: 223–44.

——, forthcoming. ‘To anavktoro kai o minwikov~ oikismov~th~ Zavkrou, livge~ movno wvre~ prin apov th megavlhkatastrofhv’, in Cretological 10.

Platon, L. and E. Gerontakou, forthcoming. ‘MM III: a“lacuna” or a “missing link” in the history of theMinoan establishment at Zakros?’, in C. F. Macdonald,C. Knappett and E. Banou (eds.), Intermezzo.Intermediacy and Regeneration in Middle Minoan IIICrete. BSA Studies.

Platon, N., 1967. ‘Anaskafaiv Zavkrou’, PAE 1967: 162–94.——, 1968. ‘Anaskafaiv Zavkrou’, PAE 1968: 149–83.——, 1969. ‘Anaskafaiv Zavkrou’, PAE 1969: 197–237.——, 1970. ‘Anaskafaiv Zavkrou’, PAE 1970: 208–51.——, 1971. ‘Anaskafaiv Zavkrou’, PAE 1971: 231–75.——, 1972. ‘Anaskafaiv Zavkrou’, PAE 1972: 159–92.——, 1973a. ‘La chronologie des réceptacles de trésors du

sanctuaire — the “Temple Repositories” — et des autresdépôts contemporains du palais de Cnossos’, inCretological 3: A´, 241–53.

——, 1973b. ‘Anaskafaiv Zavkrou’, PAE 1973: 137–66.——, 1974. Zavkro~. To nevon minwikovn anavktoron. Athens.——, 1975. ‘Anaskafhv Zavkrou’, PAE 1975: 343–75.Popham, M., 1967. ‘Late Minoan pottery: a summary’, BSA

62: 337–51.——, 2004. ‘An East Cretan Late Minoan IA vase at

Knossos’, in KPCS: 253–6.Sakellarakis, Y., and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997. Arcavne~.

Miva neva matiav sth minwikhv Krhvth. Athens.Reid, J., 2007. Minoan Kato Zakro: A Pastoral Economy.

BAR 1713. Oxford.Shaw, J. W., 1973. ‘The orientation of the Minoan palaces’,

in Antichità cretesi: studi in onore di Doro Levi I.Cronache di archeologia 12. Catania: 47–59.

Van de Moortel, A. M. P. A., 1997. ‘The transition from theProtopalatial to the Neopalatial society in south-centralCrete: a ceramic perspective’ (unpublished PhD thesis,Bryn Mawr College).

Warren, P. M., 1965. ‘The first Minoan stone vases and EarlyMinoan chronology’, KChron 19: 7–43.

——, 1980. ‘Problems of chronology in Crete and theAegean in the third and earlier second millenium B.C.’,AJA 84: 487–99.

——, 1987. ‘Absolute dating of the Aegean Late BronzeAge’, Archaeometry 29.2: 205–11.

——, 1991. ‘A new Minoan deposit from Knossos, c. 1600B.C. and its wider relations’, BSA 86: 319–40.

——, 1995. ‘Late Minoan III pottery from the city of Knossos:Stratigraphical Museum Extension site’, in E. Hallagerand B. P. Hallager (eds.), Late Minoan III Pottery.Chronology and Terminology. Athens: 157–84.

——, 1999. ‘LM IA: Knossos, Thera, Gournia’, in P. P.Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D.Niemeier (eds.), MELETEMATA. Studies in AegeanArchaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as heenters his 65th year. Aegaeum 20. Liège and Austin:894–903.

——, 2006. ‘The date of the Thera eruption in relation toAegean-Egyptian interconnections and the Egyptianhistorical chronology’, in E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger,D. Meliman, A. Schaweb (eds.), Timelines. Studies inhonour of Manfred Bietak. Orientalia LovaniensiaAnalecta 149. Leuven, Paris, Dudley: 305–21.

——, 2007. ‘New pumice analysis from Knossos and theend of Late Minoan IA’, in M. Bietak and E. Czerny

257ON THE DATING AND CHARACTER OF THE ‘ZAKROS PITS DEPOSIT’

(eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in theEastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C.III. Vienna: 495–9.

Warren, P., and V. Hankey, 1989. Aegean Bronze AgeChronology. Bristol.

Xanthoudides, S. A., 1900. ‘Mhvtrai arcaivai ek Shteiva~Krhvth~’, ArchEph: 25–50.

Younger, J. G., 1988. The Iconography of Late Minoan andMycenaean Sealstones and Finger Rings. Bristol.

Zervos, Chr., 1956. L’art de la Crète. Néolithique etminoenne. Paris.

Zois, A. A., 1991. Krhvth. H Prwvimh Epochv tou Calkouv,Tovmo~ prwvto~, Anavlush twn arcaiologikwvndedomevnwn, t. prwvto, Zavkro~. Athens.