(with Carl Knappett) Defining Middle Minoan IIIA and IIIB at Palaikastro

17Defining Middle Minoan IIIA and IIIB

at PalaikastroCarl Knappett and Tim Cunningham

INTRODUCTION

There is a rather uneven pattern of activity followingthe destructions that hit sites across the island at theend of the Protopalatial period (MM IIB). The palatialcentres of Knossos, Malia and Phaistos show clearevidence for rebuilding and regeneration during MMIIIA, as do many other sites in central Crete. In eastCrete, however, there appears to be an abrupt break,and at many sites it is very difficult to identify anyclear MM IIIA activity, or at most indications ofonly sporadic occupation (see this volume: Petras,Zakros, Myrtos–Pyrgos). Palaikastro, however, is onesite in eastern Crete that does show clear evidence forrebuilding and regeneration during MM III. Thismay not be unconnected to the apparent lack of anymajor MM IIB destruction horizon, though this mayin part be an artefact of the archaeological record.Whatever the causes, the architectural, stratigraphicand ceramic evidence from Palaikastro provides anexcellent opportunity for defining two phases of theearly Neopalatial sequence that may have broaderrelevance for eastern Crete as a whole, notwithstandinginevitable inter-site differences in ceramic andarchitectural traditions.

That said, the evidence for MM III from Palaikastrois neither widely-known in the literature, nor is it foundall over this large town. It comes chiefly from BlockM (FIG. 17.1), also referred to in some recentpreliminary publications as Area 6, though here wefavour the original assignation of Block M made bythe first excavators in the early 1900s. During theseearly excavations, Block M was not properly explored,but was simply labelled as what looked like arecognisable ‘block’, alongside other town blocks thatwere more or less fully excavated. This 1902–06campaign did not reveal many clearly recognisable MMIII levels, a situation that Dawkins attributes to thecontinued use of houses from their rebuilding after theMM II destructions all the way through to LM II orIII.1 Where MM III and LM I deposits are found, hegoes on, is where houses have been altered or rebuilt,in the process covering up certain deposits (e.g. inBlock B, in several parts of Block D, in Block Xsi 20–25, and Block Pi 38–42).

Subsequently, in the 1962–63 campaign of Pophamand Sackett, MM III was identified in a few areas, inGamma 48 and Trench DD.2 This material wasmentioned without being fully published in thesereports, as most of the attention was devoted to therather more substantial LM IB remains from House N.However, the unpublished pottery has since beenrestudied and published,3 allowing for a cleareridentif ication of MM IIIA and IIIB depositsrespectively. Yet it is only with the recent excavationssince 1986 that deposits with clearer stratification andmore abundant material have been unearthed, allowingnot only for a more robust subdivision into MM IIIAand B, but also a fuller grasp of the character of theMM III period at the site.

This is not to say, however, that MM IIIA and B arefound abundantly throughout the Buildings (1 to 7)excavated in the last 20 years. After the first few yearsof the campaign, MacGillivray and Driessen state that‘the MM II of the previous excavators should now beregarded as MM IIB/IIIA in Knossian terms’, while‘the MM III of the old excavations belongs to the MMIIIB/LMIA transition in central Crete’.4 Discoverieson the east façade of Building 7 certainly helped torefine the sequence further, as detailed in the 1992preliminary report.5 But it was really with theexcavation of Area/Building 6, the ‘Block M’ ofBosanquet and Dawkins, in 1991, 1994, 1996 and2003, that the nature of MM III occupation atPalaikastro began to reveal itself more completely.6 Itis only in this 1998 publication that a clear distinctionis made between MM IIIA and IIIB, thanks to thesubstantial, stratified finds from Block M.

Although the island-wide terminology of MM IIIAand B is used in the above publications, the recentexcavations at Palaikastro do employ in the first instance

1 Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923.2 Popham and Sackett 1965; 1970.3 Knappett and Collar 2007.4 MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 403.5 MacGillivray et al. 1992, 133.6 MacGillivray et al. 1998.

184 CARL KNAPPETT AND TIM CUNNINGHAM

Fig. 17.1. Plan showing location of Block M in Roussolakkos settlement.

185DEFINING MIDDLE MINOAN IIIA AND IIIB AT PALAIKASTRO

7 Knossos Pottery I.8 Brogan and Hallager 2011.9 Warren 1991; the Pit VI deposit, though very large and in

relatively good condition, was nonetheless pit fill. Generally,sites which have used the ‘transitional’ label, such as Zakros,have been dealing with pit deposits, while sites with primarydestruction deposits (such as Kommos Central Hillsides,Palaikastro Block M) have separated MM IIIB from LM IAwithout difficulty.

10 Kommos Kiln.11 Knappett and Cunningham 2003. These contexts referred to

as Room R1/3 and EP 87 in this paper; Block M as ‘Area 6’and the SE Building as ‘Building 6’.

12 Knappett and Cunningham 2012.13 Likewise Room 10a. Further detail can be found in Knappett

and Cunningham 2012, 31–3.

a local site sequence. It uses Roman numerals, so theearliest identified phase is PK Period I. In the local sitesequence what we are dealing with in MM IIIA andIIIB are Periods VIII and IX respectively, while LM IAis Period X. The utility of first establishing a local sitesequence before shifting to the island-wide terminologyhas been rigorously underlined of late in the KnossosPottery Handbook, in which pottery groups takeprecedence.7 This methodology comes in particularlyhandy when some modifications are to be suggested tothe island-wide sequence. For example, the LM IBphase is currently undergoing some revision at manysites, with two if not three sub-phases being identified;in this case it is essential to work first with local sitephasing.8 When revisions to island-wide phasing aresuggested on the basis of local sequences, but no localphasing independent of the island-wide one is given,then problems do tend to arise; as, for example, in theproposed introduction of a new phase ‘MM IIIB–LMIA transitional’, based principally on a single depositat Knossos,9 or the division of LM IA into three sub-phases proposed at Kommos.10 Here we are notsuggesting any alteration to the orthodox division ofMM III, stemming from Evans, into MM IIIA and IIIB;our site periods VIII and IX correspond, we argue, tothese two phases respectively; and hence we will talkdirectly in our discussion of MM IIIA and IIIB.

ARCHITECTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY

The principal reasons why Block M sees such goodpreservation of these phases are that the buildings weredestroyed at the end of MM IIIB, possibly seismically,and were barely re-inhabited thereafter. This contrastsstrongly with much of the rest of the town thus farexcavated, which sees considerable construction andoccupation in both LM I and LM III. Two of the mainMM IIIB deposits from the seismic destruction of thearea, Rooms 10a/11a and 45, have already beenpublished, in an extensive paper aimed at defining thecharacter of MM IIIB and LM IA at Palaikastro andclarifying some previous misunderstandings.11 Ourconclusions presented there still hold true in the lightof considerable further study, and we will offer furtherevidence in this paper on the character of MM IIIB atPalaikastro. Little mention was made in this paper ofMM IIIA, and so we will turn our attention to this phasein particular. While it has received some definition inthe preliminary reports, we are now in a position toprovide a fuller definition of this phase, in the contextof our completion of work on the Proto- and Neopalatialoccupation of Block M.12

The MM III levels in Block M are clearly stratifiedbeneath LM IA levels, identifiable as such thanks tothe frequent co-occurrence of diagnostic glossy dark-on-light pottery and layers of tephra from the Theraneruption. These LM IA levels provide a terminus antequem; a terminus post quem is in many locationsprovided by substantial MM II fills, probably dating

to MM IIA rather than MM IIB. This does notnecessarily mean that MM IIB is ‘missing’, but ratherthat the continuous nature of occupation through MMIIB and IIIA meant that few deposits with pottery werelaid down. In the SE Building of Block M it seems thatthese large fills were put in place as part of newconstruction activity at the start of the MM IIB period.Indeed the architectural layout of Block M may havereally begun to take shape in this period, with only somestructural modifications at the beginning of MM IIIA.The central court/polythyron/reception room (Rooms9 and 3), with its similarity to the typical ‘Minoan Hall’,may have been merely a modif ication, albeit asignificant one, to a pre-existing building laid out alongsimilar lines; in fact, we have no direct evidence pinningthe construction of this complex to the start of MMIIIA as opposed to earlier. Pottery from the bottom ofthe substantial drain in Room 12a, which is clearlydraining the open court of Room 9a, appears to be MMIIB; while on the earliest cobbles in Street B–M, wherethis drain leaves the building, we find MM IIIA pottery.This suggestion of architectural change in both MMIIB and MM IIIA is found elsewhere in the buildingtoo. The levels beneath the slabs of the court and raisedplatform (Rooms 9a–9b) contain MM IIA pottery,hinting at a construction date in MM IIB; if there weremodifications in MM IIIA, they are not discernible.However, many of the rooms that open off the court,particularly Rooms 4–8, all show evidence linking theirfirst use to MM IIIA: they have MM IIIA pottery ontheir floors, as well as foundation deposits datable toMM IIIA (rather than MM IIB).13

That there were modifications in MM IIIA followingon from activity in MM IIB is also suggested by thesequence in Room 45, located in the NW Building ofBlock M (FIG. 17.2). Here we see a clear stratifiedsequence with MM IIIA (context 45.3 in FIG. 17.3)over MM IIB (context 45.2 in FIG. 17.3), neitherassociated with architecture. Moreover, the MM IIIAlevel is itself stratified beneath a substantial deposit ofMM IIIB pottery (context 45.4 in FIG. 17.3), already


Fig. 17.2. NW Building of Block M.


published in full and referred to as the EP87 closet.14

While this stratification of MM IIIA over MM IIB isnot encountered in many other places in the Block,MM IIIB is found over IIIA elsewhere, such as inRooms 6 and 8. This again points to the continuity ofoccupation in Block M. However, it should be notedthat the MM IIIB deposits are in many cases primaryor almost so, such as those in Rooms 10a, 11a and45.15 These and other deposits indicate a probableseismic destruction of the Block; this is observedelsewhere on the site too, such as in Trench DD.16

Having described the general stratigraphic andarchitectural situation, we now deal with MM IIIA andIIIB in turn, discussing the contexts and the broadcharacteristics of the pottery found therein.

MIDDLE MINOAN IIIA

Block M reveals numerous contexts assignable to MMIIIA. The location of these contexts is shown on FIG.17.4 — one can see that they occur primarily in the SEand NW Buildings. It is this period that sees the mostbuilding activity in Block M. The principal potterydeposits are in the lower levels at the west side of theSE Building, such as rooms 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In Rooms4 and 8 MM IIIA pottery lies on trodden earth (Room4) and ‘mosaiko’ schist paved (Room 8) floors atheights of 10.45 and 10.24 masl respectively. Rooms 4and 5 both have foundation deposits datable to MMIIIA,17 that in the latter Room associated with MM IIIApacking material at 10.28–10.68 masl. In Room 6 a

number of MM IIIA pots were found on a floor at 10.35masl (context 6.1 in FIG. 17.5), while Room 7 next dooralso had MM IIIA levels at the same height (FIG. 17.5).Rooms 9a and b, 12 and 13 were also all presumablyin use at this time, though they do not have any potterydeposits of this period of use. Room 15 too has an MMIIIA deposit, and there is some MM IIIA material inan early level of the Street to the East of the Building(Street B–M, at 10.45 masl). The SW Building wasonly excavated superficially, revealing predominantlyLM IA material. Room 19, an open space, perhaps analley between the SE and SW buildings did show MMIIIA material, though this may have come from the SEBuilding, where it is well testified.

The NW Building has good evidence for MM IIIAoccupation, in Rooms 40–42, associated with the firstinstallation and use of the wine press; in Room 43;Room 45, where the MM IIIA pottery is stratifiedbeneath the substantial MM IIIB pottery depositpublished in 2003; in Room 49, where there is a drainwith MM IIIA pottery; in Room 52; and in Room 64.

We do not have a wide range of pottery from thesecontexts, but there are certain diagnostic traits which

Fig. 17.3. Section in Room 45.

14 Knappett and Cunningham 2003.15 See Knappett and Cunningham 2003, where referred to as

Rooms R1/3, and EP87.16 Knappett and Collar 2007.17 MacGillivray et al. 1999, pl. CI.


Fig. 17.4. Plan showing location of MM IIIA contexts in Block M.


7 8 9

SEC

TIO

N D

14

13102

14

1210

11

71

2

70

4

70

4

reb

uild

66

2

70

6

66

16

22

6

53

4

1

1. B

ott

om

of p

it/w

all 7

06.

2. B

row

n, c

laye

y so

il. C

on

text

6.4

. 3.

Bro

wn

so

il, s

oft

, sto

nes

. Co

nte

xt 4

.4-5

.4.

Th

in le

nse

s o

f gre

yish

san

d o

ver r

edd

ish

cla

y - f

loo

r? C

on

text

4.4

.5.

Bro

wn

so

ft s

oil,

sto

nes

, lik

e 3,

rest

ing

on

su

rfac

e/flo

or.

Co

nte

xt 4

.2-3

.6.

Dar

k b

row

n s

oil

bel

ow

tro

dd

en s

urf

ace.

Fo

un

dat

ion

dep

osi

t 16

1 p

roje

cted

fro

m S

. 7.

As

3. C

on

text

5.3

.8.

Slo

pin

g la

yer o

f co

llap

sed

or d

um

ped

pla

ster

an

d w

all d

ebri

s. C

on

text

5.2

.9.

As

5. C

on

text

5.2

. Fo

un

dat

ion

dep

osi

t 16

8 p

roje

cted

fro

m N

.10

. Sh

erd

an

d s

ton

e; C

on

text

6.3

.11

. Sim

ilar t

o 1

0; la

rger

frag

men

ts o

f sh

erd

an

d s

ton

e. C

on

text

6.2

.12

. Des

tru

ctio

n d

ebri

s. C

on

text

6.1

.13

. Red

dis

h b

row

n, c

laye

y so

il lit

tle

sher

d.

14. W

ater

bo

rne

fin

e g

rave

l. C

on

text

6.1

.

NW

SE

Roo

m 4

Roo

m 5

Roo

m 6

aRo

om

6b

12.0

0

11.0

0

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

Fig. 17.5. Section through Rooms 4–8, showing MM IIIA and IIIB stratification.


Fig. 17.6. MM IIIA ledge-rim bowls.

Fig. 17.7. MM IIIA tall conical cups.

Fig. 17.8. MM IIIA white-on-dark straight-sided cups.

Fig. 17.9. MM IIIA ripple straight-sided cups.


can occur in combination with featherwave (FIG. 17.10)a related dark-on-light skeuomorphic motif fromwhich ripple probably evolved. Whereas ripple barelyoccurs in any MM IIB contexts across the island,featherwave is well attested, at sites such as Malia21

and Myrtos–Pyrgos.22 The appearance of ripple, notattested in any earlier levels at Palaikastro, does seemto be a marker for the beginning of the MM III periodacross the island (notwithstanding an occasional frag-mentary occurrence in MM IIB).

Hemispherical cups are less common, but oneexample bears the same tight thin white-on-dark spiralsas seen at Phaistos;23 the same kinds of spirals are alsofound on a bridge-spouted jug from the early cobblesof Street B–M (FIG. 17.12). This motif has goodparallels in MM IIIA contexts. A rather special case,something of a hybrid between a hemispherical and acarinated cup, has white-on-dark dotted meanders,sparse added red (thus making it a rare late example ofpolychromy), and eggshell-thin walls (FIG. 17.11). Ithas already been presented in a preliminary report,where MacGillivray notes parallels with an examplefrom Beirut.24 This is a good example of the kind ofpottery that seems MM IIB in style, but which is foundin MM IIIA contexts — there are also cases, albeit noteggshell ware, from Akrotiri on Thera.25

18 See also Knappett and Collar 2007, fig. 14.19 See also Knappett and Collar 2007, fig. 15.20 Girella 2007.21 Poursat and Knappett 2005.22 Cadogan and Knappett in preparation.23 Girella 2007.24 MacGillivray et al. 1998, 239–40, fig. 15.25 Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2008, fig. 20.

Fig. 17.12. MM IIIA bridge-spouted jug.

Fig. 17.10. MM IIIA eggshellKamares cup.

Fig. 17.11 (below). MM IIIA bowlwith ripple and featherwave.

distinguish the pottery from what goes before (MMIIB) and comes after (MM IIIB). Most characteristicare plain ledge-rim bowls (FIG. 17.6), which do notoccur in MM II, and mark the beginning of theNeopalatial period much as they do at Knossos andelsewhere on the island. They suggest a new mode ofproduction centred on rapid production of smalldrinking vessels, later epitomised by the conical cup.These Palaikastro ledge-rim bowls, however, are notsloppily made, often having a neatly tooled, distinctledge rim.18 Tall conical cups also occur, often with afaint S-profile (FIG. 17.7). These two types — the ledge-rim bowl and tall conical cup — do continue into MMIIIB, but with some slight changes (see below). A thirdtype of plain cup, though usually with a handle, is thecarinated cup: in its plain form this seems to berestricted solely to this phase, and is notably smallerthan the monochrome slipped versions preceding itin MM II.19 By MM IIIB the carinated cup hasdisappeared altogether.

In the decorated table wares, it is the straight-sidedcup that we encounter most often in this phase. It isrelatively broad-based, though also tall, and has eithera straight profile at the base or a bevel. The straight-sided cup is mostly dark-slipped with simplewhite-on-dark bands (FIG. 17.8). Some cases exhibit alarge thick retorted white-on-dark spiral at themid-body, with good parallels from MM IIIA contextsat Phaistos.20 However, white-on-dark dots do notoccur, certainly not in the manner seen frequently atKnossos in MM IIIA on straight-sided cups (andneither are the cups at Palaikastro ever ridged). Wedo, though, see examples with dark-on-lighttortoiseshell ripple (FIG. 17.9). This ripple style,which becomes much more common in MM IIIB, alsooccurs on other shapes, both open and closed, bowlsand bridge-spouted jars respectively. On bowls it


Fig. 17.13. Plan showing location of MM IIIB contexts in Block M.


Fig. 17.14. MM IIIB ledge-rim bowls.

Fig. 17.15. MM IIIB tall conical cups.

MIDDLE MINOAN IIIB

This phase is also well represented in Block M,principally in the SE Building where we have somerich deposits, seemingly from a seismic destruction.Contexts occur in Rooms 6 (e.g. context 6.3), 7 and 8(FIG. 17.5), 10a and 11a (published in 2003 as RoomR1), Room 14 (a substantial tumble) and Room 16a.In the SW Building MM IIIB is found in Rooms 32and 36, and in the NW Building in Rooms 37, 38, 42(wine press), 43, 44, 45 (EP87, published in 2003),46, 53 and 54. MM IIIB material is stratified over MMIIIA in the following locations: Room 6, 8, 42 and 45.The location of these deposits across the Block isshown in FIG. 17.13.

Most of the MM IIIB pottery types occurring atPalaikastro are present in the deposits from Rooms 11aand 45, already fully published.26 Further substantialdeposits repeat many of the same types, particularlythe ledge-rim bowls and tall conical cups (FIG. 17.14–15). The former reprise the MM IIIA type, but with aless pronounced ledge and a little less carefully made(FIG. 17.14). The latter are similar to those of MM IIIA,but with a greater tendency towards an S-profile (FIG.17.15); they are also far more plentiful in this phase.

Fig. 17.16. MM IIIB straight-sided cup.

Fig. 17.17. MM IIIB petaloid loops onbridge-spouted jar.

26 Knappett and Cunningham 2003.


27 Hatzaki 2007, fig. 5.13.28 Warren 1991.29 Macdonald 2013 (this volume Chapter 2).30 Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2008, fig. 8.31 See Knappett and Cunningham 2003, fig. 20, on a ewer.32 Driessen 1999.

Straight-sided cups commonly have flanged andbevelled bases, whereas in MM IIIA they were morefrequently bevelled or straight (FIG. 17.16). These cupscontinue to be predominantly dark-slipped with simplewhite-on-dark decoration of bands. White-on-darkcontinues to be well-represented, while dark-on-lightdecoration, almost exclusively in the form of tortoise-shell ripple, increases in quantity. This combinationmirrors that seen in Knossian MM IIIB pottery, thoughan interesting difference in eastern Crete is that white-on-dark continues to be popular even into LM IA, bywhich time it has seriously receded in the centre of theisland. However, in both the centre and the east a keydefining feature of the beginning of LM IA is theemergence of glossy dark-on-light decoration. In centralCrete this includes spiral and reeds,27 while in easternCrete reeds are almost absent but instead we see floralscroll and diagonal branches, for instance. Nonetheless,we should not be too stark in our definitions: while wemay seek to create neat chronological divisions, ceramicstyles undergo continuous change. This is a basicparadox that will always trouble our efforts tocategorise. Thus when we see occasional pieces ofglossy dark-on-light ware in what we would otherwiseconsider to be primary MM IIIB contexts, this does notundermine the entire system. It is quite natural for dark-on-light styles to be already under development beforewhat we recognise as the LM IA period is underway. Inthis sense all periods are always inherently ‘transitional’,given the constant nature of stylistic change; the rarepresence of some glossy dark-on-light should beexpected in MM IIIB, and does not justify the creationof a new phase, such as ‘MM IIIB-LM IA transitional’.28

Some other isolated examples of dark-on-lightdecorated wares that are ‘too early’ include a bowldecorated with an open spiral from Knossos in an MMIIIA context,29 and an interesting specimen fromAkrotiri that combines open dark-on-light spirals withripple and dark-on-light.30 Dark-on-light motifs, otherthan ripple, identif ied in MM IIIB contexts atPalaikastro include crescents (pithoid jar example;hemispherical cups); spirals,31 and petaloid loops, suchas on small bridge-spouted jars (FIG. 17.17).

There is abundant evidence for this phase ofoccupation in Block M, a phase that can be labelledMM IIIB for a number of reasons. First, there is thematter of stratigraphy: it is well stratified over MM IIIAlevels and beneath LM IA levels (e.g. context 6.3 inFIG. 17.5). To be safe we could stick to our site phases:IX is well stratified between VIII and X; but for reasonsoutlined earlier we feel we can leapfrog this stage quitequickly. Secondly, the ceramic development betweenMM IIIA and this subsequent stage is what one mightexpect of successive phases: a great deal of continuityin shapes and styles, but with some relatively minorchanges observable in certain details, such as themorphology of the ledge-rim bowls, the changingprofile of the straight-sided cups, the increasing quantity

and range of tortoiseshell ripple, etc. And thirdly, thereare sufficient links with contexts from other sites onthe island, and most usefully with Knossos, where wealso see plentiful ripple (especially on in-and-out bowls,as at Palaikastro), though very few other glossy dark-on-light styles; the continued use of white-on-dark,sometimes in juxtaposition with dark-on-light on asingle vessel; the development of ‘crude’ plain warehandleless cups; the disappearance of carinated cups;the occasional last vestiges of polychrome; and, on atechnological level, the extension in the use of thepotter’s wheel to larger and larger vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

What our study of Block M shows is considerablecontinuity between MM II, MM III and LM I. Thecontinuity between MM II and III is particularlysignificant as it is the transition from the Proto- toNeopalatial period; this time sees some significantgeopolitical changes, such as the sudden rise toprominence of Knossos at the expense of all otherpalaces on the island (see other contributions in thisvolume, notably that on Phaistos). Indeed, it is at thisvery moment at the beginning of MM IIIA that aMinoan Hall is built in Block M, a decidedly centralCretan architectural form not encountered anywhereelse on the site.32 Furthermore, it also appears that thecontinuity seen at Palaikastro is not typical of EastCretan sites. Elsewhere in the far east of Crete it isvery difficult defining MM IIIA or B, for example atZakros and Petras, and indeed further towards the centreof the island at Myrtos Pyrgos and Pseira. While thismight in part be due to the vagaries of preservation, itprobably reflects a political reality too, with theoccupants of Palaikastro adapting quickly to the newgeopolitics. Just as a new palace was built at Galatasin MM IIIA, it makes one wonder whether the putativepalace at Palaikastro may have been built at this time(although it may yet prove not to exist at all!).

However, what also seems clear is that while someof the inhabitants of Palaikastro were able to adaptrapidly to the fluid political situation at the start of whatwe call the MM IIIA period, they were less well-positioned to react positively come the end of MM IIIB.The seismic event that appears to have destroyed thebuildings of Block M may have coincided with localpolitical events that involved some kind of backlashagainst Knossian expansionism. Not only is theKnossian-style Minoan Hall not rebuilt, the whole Block


to the traditional MM IIIA and IIIB division?’, in MHPot & Sync: 233–55.

Hatzaki, E., 2007. ‘Neopalatial (MM IIIB–LM IB): KS 178,Gypsades Well (Upper Deposit) and SEX North HouseGroups’, in Knossos Pottery I: 151–96.

Knappett, C., and T. F. Cunningham, 2003. ‘Three Neo-palatial deposits from Palaikastro, east Crete’, BSA 98:107–87.

——, 2012. Palaikastro Block M: The Proto- and NeopalatialTown. BSA Suppl. 47. London.

Knappett, C., and A. Collar, 2007. ‘Unpublished MiddleMinoan and Late Minoan I material from the 1962–3excavations at Palaikastro, East Crete (PK VIII)’, BSA102: 153–217.

Macdonald C. F., 2013. ‘Between Protopalatial houses andNeopalatial mansions: an ‘intermezzo’ southwest of thepalace at Knossos’, in Intermezzo: 21–30.

MacGillivray, J. A., et al., 1992. ‘Excavations at Palaikastro,1991’, BSA 87: 121–52.

——, 1998. ‘Excavations at Palaikastro, 1994/6’, BSA 93:221–68.

MacGillivray, J. A., and J. Driessen, 1990. ‘Minoan settle-ment at Palaikastro’, in P. Darcque and R. Treuil (eds.),L’Habitat Egéen Préhistorique. BCH Suppl. 19. Athens:395–412.

MacGillivray, J. A., H. Sackett and J. Driessen, 1999. ‘“AsproPato”. A lasting liquid toast from the master-buildersof Palaikastro to their patron’, in Meletemata: 465–68.

——, 2007. Palaikastro: Two Late Minoan Wells. BSA Suppl.43. London.

Poursat, J-C., and C. Knappett, 2005. Le Quartier Mu IV. LaPoterie du Minoen Moyen II: Production et Utilisation.Études Crétoises 33. Paris.

Sackett, L. H., and M. R. Popham, 1965. ‘Excavations atPalaikastro, VI’, BSA 60: 248–315.

——, 1970. ‘Excavations at Palaikastro, VII’, BSA 65:203–42.

Warren, P. M., 1991. ‘A new Minoan deposit from Knossos,c. 1600 BC, and its wider relations’, BSA 86: 319–40.

sees only partial reoccupation and seems to be largelyopen to the elements by the time of the Theran eruption(judging by the extensive layers of Theran ash acrossparts of all three buildings). In the subsequent LM IBphase the Block seems to be completely unoccupied,with activity represented by the construction of twodeep wells, seemingly situated within an open areademarcated by perimeter walls built to the north andeast.33 The shift in cultural affiliations away fromKnossos, at least as represented in the pottery, is quitepronounced at Palaikastro, marked in particular by theappearance of the local ‘ogival’ cup as the predominantform of drinking vessel. However, what this evidencefrom Block M appears to indicate is a possible movetowards this kind of independence as early as LM IA.

This is, however, somewhat speculative. On firmerground, the Block M evidence at the very least providesgood stratigraphic, architectural and ceramic argumentsfor defining two phases of MM III at the site. There issuff icient detail in the evidence for us to f indcomparisons with other site sequences, particularlythose in the centre of the island, thereby allowing us tocall these two phases MM IIIA and IIIB in Evans’sterminology. By specifying these two phases in this waywe can begin to establish more effectively Palaikastro’sregional status with regard to other East Cretan siteson the one hand, and central Crete on the other.

REFERENCES

Bosanquet, R. C., and R. M. Dawkins, 1923. The Un-published Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations1902–1906, Part I. BSA Supp. Paper 1. London.

Brogan, T. M., and E. Hallager (eds.), 2011. LM IB Pottery:Relative Chronology and Regional Differences.Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 11.Athens.

Cadogan, G., and C. Knappett, in preparation. MyrtosPyrgos: The Period III Pottery.

Driessen, J., 1999. ‘The dismantling of a Minoan Hall atPalaikastro (Knossians Go Home?)’, in Meletemata:227–36.

Girella, L., 2007. ‘Toward a definition of the Middle MinoanIII ceramic sequence in south-central Crete: returning 33 PK Wells.

(with Carl Knappett) Defining Middle Minoan IIIA and IIIB at Palaikastro

Documents

Transcript of (with Carl Knappett) Defining Middle Minoan IIIA and IIIB at Palaikastro