¹ For recent discussions in handbooks see Müller Karpe, H. in Handbuch der Vorgeschichte III/I (Munich 1974) 165Google Scholar; Matz, F. in CAH II³ Part I (Cambridge 1973) 143.Google Scholar

² Evans, , The Palace of Minos I (London 1921) 286–287.Google Scholar

³ Evans, , ‘Knossos. Summary Report of the Excavations in 1900,’ BSA 6 (1899–1900) 27–28.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. 27.

⁵ PM I, 286. Cf. PM II (1928) 219–220.

⁶ PM I, 286 n. 2.

⁷ PM I, 287. See also ibid. 18 n. 2: ‘The associations of the stratum in which this monument lay are now thoroughly established.’

⁸ PM I, 287. For the Late Minoan dating of the pave ment see PM III (1930) 5.

⁹ Palmer, , ‘The Find-Places of the Knossos Tablets,’ in Palmer, L.R. and Boardman, J., On the Knossos Tablets (Oxford 1963)Google Scholar Part I, X (hereafter OKT I).

¹⁰ Palmer, , Mycenaeans and Minoans (2nd ed.London 1965) 222Google Scholar (hereafter Mycenaeans). It will be remembered that in PM I Evans used the somewhat ambiguous expression ‘below the surface of the Court’, rather than ‘below the pavement’ as Palmer claims. That this latter interpretation is correct, however, is evinced by the unmistakable description in PM II, 800–801, not quoted by Palmer: ‘It was in this stratum, near the edge of an isolated patch of pavement, about a dozen metres from the first step of the Stepped Porch, that the diorite Egyptian statue of User was found, 70 centimetres below the surface of the later paving.’

¹¹ Palmer, , A New Guide to the Palace of Knossos (London 1969) 18Google Scholar (italics his), 130 (hereafter Guide).

¹² Evans, , ‘The Palace of Knossos. The Campaign of 1904,’ BSA 10 (1903–1904) 32, fig. 10Google Scholar; for the position of the section see ibid. pl. I.

¹³ Cf. Mackenzie's measurements quoted ibid. 33. The level of the pavement indicated in the section had evidently been measured on top of a slab just outside the southernmost entrance to the Anteroom, marked ‘.45’ below datum level. The datum line is drawn in the section at 100 cm below the surface. See also the hypothetical section from the Central Court through the Throne Room system reconstructed from the published and unpublished documentation in the recent study by Mirié, S., Das Thronraumareal des Palastes von Knossos, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde (Bonn 1979) 39–42, pl. 6, 38Google Scholar (hereafter Thronraumareal).

¹⁴ See especially PM II (supra n. 10). For a complete list of references to the User Statuette see Index to PM (1936) 216, s.v. User, where the find place is established as ‘from beneath pavement of Central Court’. – Recent measurements taken at Knossos have proved the point. In the course of a re-investigation of the stratigraphy beneath the Central Court Mirié examined a rectangular depression, just outside the northern corner of the Anteroom, which might be identical with test 56 carried out in 1913 (cf. OKT I pl. XI). In this pit she found below the pavement traces of two older floor levels never published by Evans. Moreover, she was able to establish the depth of the more southerly of two drains reported by Evans to have come to light in the same stratum as the statuette. Evans' statement that the upper surface of this drain had been struck at a depth of 50 cm (PM I 287; III 5 n. 5; 19 fig. 9; cf. his notebook, OKT I pl. I) corresponds almost perfectly with Miré's reading of about 48 cm below the paving (Thronraumareal 39, 109, pl. 4–6).

¹⁵ The argument was uncritically adopted by Pomerance, L., ‘The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the 18th Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology,’ Antichità Cretesi, Studi in Onore di Doro Levi, I (Catania 1973) 25Google Scholar; cf. Pomeranče, (same title) in Pepragmena 4th Cretological Congress (Heraklion 1976 (Athens 1981) 451–52Google Scholar, and ‘The Mythogenesis of Minoan Chronology,’ in Åström, P., Palmer, L.R. and Pomerance, L., Studies in Aegean Chronology (Gothenburg 1984) 9Google Scholar. Ward, W.A., Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200–1900 BC (Beirut 1971) 80–1 n. 332Google Scholar, in complete confusion of the issue, suggests ‘The statue seems to have been found 70 cm below the surface resting on a pavement with MM II connections.‘

¹⁶ Cf. PM II 800; III 5. Evans consistently ascribed the statuette to a stratum underlying the pavement.

¹⁷ Evans (supra n. 3); PM I 286. See also PM IV Plan A (in pocket at end of Part I), where the missing slabs are indicated by a dotted line. Cf. Pendlebury, J.D.S., The Archaeology of Crete (London 1939) 143 n. 1Google Scholar, who correctly remarked that ‘at this point the paving of the Court had disappeared’.

¹⁸ OKT I, XXIV. See also Palmer, , Mycenaeans 222.Google Scholar Cf. Pomeranče (supra n. 10).

¹⁹ Boardman, , ‘The Date of the Knossos Tablets,’ in OKT, Part II 29 (hereafter OKT II).Google Scholar

²⁰ Palmer, OKT I, X; Mycenaeans 222; Guide 18, 27.

²¹ Palmer, OKT I pls. XI–XII.

²² Raison, J. quoted by Palmer, OKT I 245–247.Google Scholar M. Popham, The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos, , SIMA 12 (Lund 1970) 55–56Google Scholar (hereafter Destruction).

²³ Palmer, OKT I, X; Mycenaeans 222; Guide 18.

²⁴ OKT I 113, pls. XI–XII. While Raison (in OKT I 246) described the latest pottery from this test as ‘LM II’, it was later determined by Popham, , Destruction 55 and 56Google Scholar, as ‘LM II to early LM IIIA type’.

²⁵ Palmer, , Mycenaeans 222Google Scholar. The piece was drawn by Evans in his notebook and annotated ‘? Palace Style’ (OKT I 113, 237, pl. XII). Raison later found its ornament to resemble ‘LM IIIa2’ material (ibid. 237, 247); cf. Palmer, , Guide 67Google Scholar. Popham, , Destruction 55–56Google Scholar, remarks that the ‘motive … persists from early LM IIIA into IIIB.’

²⁶ OKT I 109, pls. XI–XII; Popham, , Destruction 55Google Scholar.

²⁷ OKT I 246, pl. XII; Popham, , Destruction 55Google Scholar. – There has been considerable confusion as to the contents and exact position of these test pits. Evans himself had repeatedly renumbered the two tests in his notebook. The locations given in PM III 5, and IV (1935) 902, fig. 877, are at variance with one another and with the 1913 notebook. As Palmer, , OKT I 109Google Scholar, convincingly suggested Evans had evidently read the sketch-plan in his notebook upside down while preparing the fourth volume of PM. However, in his discussion Palmer seems to have fallen victim to a misplaced arrow in PM IV fig. 877, which contrasts with Evans' account (ibid. 902; cf. OKT II 30 n. 7, 31 n. 1). In any case, Evans' notebook and the descriptions in PM correspondingly state that test 60 also included material from below the threshold of the Antechamber. With regard to test 59 the notebook (OKT I 113, pl. XI) remarks ‘Disturbed for corner base foundations’ and ‘Mixed owing to neighbourhood of antech. entrance’ (ibid. 113, pl. XII). –For Evans' discussion of the ‘intrusive’ Throne Room block see PM III 4–5.

²⁸ PM I 287. – Mirié, Thronraumareal 43, 50–51, dates the construction of the building to MM II. According to her, it remained in use until LM III. The sherds from test pits 59–60 date the later stairs and other modifications which became necessary in the course of successive raisings of the courtyard floor level (cf. supra n.14). These new results support Evans' rejection of the pottery found in close proximity to the Antechamber as evidence for the general sub-pavement stratigraphy in the northwestern part of the Central Court.

²⁹ Palmer, , Mycenaeans 222Google Scholar, quoting Åström.

³⁰ This observation renders the whole debate about the sub-pavement deposit in the vicinity of the find spot irrelevant, at least as far as the User Statuette is concerned. See also Åström, , ‘Remarks on Middle Minoan Chronology,’ KrChron 15–16, (1961–1962) 145 n. 52.Google Scholar The author quotes Pendlebury's observation (supra n. 17) that the context of the statuette was ‘not a sealed deposit’, and he consequently regards the stratification as ‘open to doubts’. Åström's statement was, incompletely, cited by Palmer, Mycenaeans 221, as an example of how an authority in the field had been led astray by Evans' account in PM I.