Abbreviations other than those in standard use:

PK I–VII. ‘Excavations at Palaikastro I' to VII’. I in BSA 8 (1901–1902) 286–316; II in BSA 9 (1902–3) 274–387; III in BSA 10 (1903–4) 192–321; IV in BSA IV (1904–5) 258–308; V in BSA 12 (1905–6) 1–8; VI in BSA 60 (1965) 248–315; VII in BSA 65 (1970) 203–242.

PKU. The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations 1902–6 (BSA Supplementary Paper 1), 1923.

PKU II. ‘Unpublished objects from Palaikastro and Praisos’ BSA 40 (1939–40) 38–59.

PK Settlement. ‘Minoan Settlement at Palaikastro’ Darcque and Treuil (Eds.), L'Habitat Egeen Prehistorique, Paris, forthcoming.

PK Survey. ‘An Archaeological Survey of the Roussolakkos Area at Palaikastro’ BSA 79 (1984) 129–159.

PK 1986. ‘Excavations at Palaikastro, 1986’ BSA 82 (1987) 135–154.

PK 1987. ‘Excavations at Palaikastro, 1987’ BSA 83 (1988) 259–282.

Zakros. Platon, N., Zakros, New York, 1971.Google Scholar

¹ The excavations were carried out under the auspices of the British School at Athens. We are grateful to the Managing Committee of the School and in particular Prof. J.N. Coldstream, Chairman, for continued support and encouragement. We are also grateful to Dr I. Tzedhakis and Dr N. Papadakis for permission to excavate and for providing K. Kotzagiorgi as the representative of the Greek State. Funding was provided by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the British Academy and private donors. Driessen would like to acknowledge the support of a N.F.W.O. travel Grant. Without the combined support and assistance of all of the above the work could not have taken place.

The excavations were directed by L.H. Sackett and J.A. MacGillivray. The architects were J. Driessen and R. Bridges, the surveyor D. Smyth. S. Dandali was the Administrative Assistant. Trench supervisors were C. Broodbank, M. Burnham, E. Cline, J. Cocking, S. Hemingway, S. Huxley, C. Klinchamers, W. McLaughlin, M. Prent, S. Thorne and A. Zissimatou assisted by A. Aertssen, H. Davis, A. Jerome, G. Kuiken, O. Matsari, N. Galanidou and M. Kanetaki. The video notebooks were kept by S. MacGillivray. The apothekc was run by M. Webb, who was also excavation archivist. The pottery was studied by A. Farnou, C. MacDonald and W. Niemeier with the assistance of B. Niemeier. J. Musgrave very kindly studied the human bone and the anatomy of the statuette. Soil sampling and processing was supervised by A. Sarpaki assisted by K. Flint and D. Makris who also marked and recorded bone. Conservation was carried out by G. Duff with the assistance of N. Nikakis. Special conservation of the ivory statuette was undertaken by A. Nikakis kindly provided by the Archaeological Service. Eighteen workmen were supervised by the School's foreman, N. Dhaskalakis, and four washerwomen were supervised by M. Webb. Distinguished scholars such as S. Chrysoulaki, S. Hood, A. Kanta, A. Karetsou, M. Popham and P. Waarren visited the site and we are grateful for their comments.

The general report was written by MacGillivray incorporating a text by Driessen. Included are reports on special studies by A. Sarpaki, J.-P. Olivier and J. Weingarten, to whom we are most grateful for their time and knowledge. The plans are the work of Driessen, Bridges and Smyth, the photography is by Sackett processed by S. MacGillivray, the drawings of the pottery and small finds are by J. Clark, the hieroglyphic seal in Fig. 16 by Olivier and the sealing in Figs. 17 and 18 by G. Bierenbroodspot.

² The orientations used in the following summary are adjusted to ‘site north’ as shown in Figs. 3 and 10 to facilitate the reader.

³ Betancourt, P.P., East Cretan White-on-Dark Ware, Philadelphia 1984, 14–16.Google Scholar

⁴ Stos-Gale, Z. et al. in Jones, J.E. (Ed.) Aspects of Ancient Mining and Metallurgy, Bangor 1988, 24, 32.Google Scholar

⁵ It seems unlikely to the excavators that there would have been a major copper smelting operation at Palaikastro in view of the archaeo-metallurgists claim that there are few, if any, substantial copper sources in Crete.

⁶ Tzedhakis, Y. and Chryssoulaki, S., ‘Routes minoennes: un rapport preliminaire’ BCH 113, 1989, Fig. 32.Google Scholar

⁷ Et.Cret. XI, 55 Pl. 16.2; Zakros, 122. We are grateful to M. Popham for his assistance with the restored drawing in Fig. 6.

⁸ Caubet, A., Courtois, J.-C. and Karageorgis, V., ‘Enkomi (Fouilles Schaeffer 1934–1966): Inventaire Complementaire’ RDAC 1987, 24–5 Cat. 12 Fig. i Pl. VII.Google Scholar We are grateful to G. Duff for this reference.

⁹ Sakellarakis, I., To Elephantodonto kai I Katergasia tou sta Mykenaika Chronia, Athens 1979, 70–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Niemeier, W.-D., Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos, Berlin 1985, 43–51.Google Scholar We are grateful to Niemeier for identifying the sherd for us.

¹¹ This was suggested last season by C. Macdonald but not accepted at the time because of the lack of close parallels for the jar.

¹² The terracotta is very similar in construction and material to statuettes from the sanctuary at Piskokephalo near Siteia which the excavator assigns to the MM period, PAE 1952, 633–4 Fig. 13. Our piece, however, is certainly LM III, and possibly belongs to the early stages of LM IIIB.

¹³ The jar is quite similar to an example found in Room Δ3 of the old excavations, PKU 107–8 Fig. 91, and should be regarded as contemporary. Fragments of a similar jar were also found in the reoccupation levels of Building 3.

¹⁴ Niemeier, supra n. 10, 197 Fig. 67.10. Unfortunately, the Palaikastro goblet was found while cleaning the section of the trial for drawing and so its context is not secure.

¹⁵ i) dans l'essai de ‘lecture’ ci-dessous, les crochets droits indiquent l'endroit ou la surface cesse d'exister, que ce soit par disparition ou par abrasion du contour des lignes gravées; un signe dont il reste une trace (cf. le dessin en Fig. 16) sûre mais non identifiable a été rendu par •; un signe dont il reste peut-être une trace est rendu par – devant le crochet droit; les signes pour lesquels une identification est proposée sont cités suivant la numérotation d'Evans dans Scripta Minoa i, Oxford 1909, 232–3 (comme ils sont tous douteux à des degrés divers, on les a tous pointés); 2) les signes sont arbitrairement ‘lus' de gauche à droite (sur l'empreinte, évidemment).

¹⁶ Scripta Minoa, Oxford 1909, 150.

¹⁷ I am extremely grateful to the Dutch artist Gerti Bierenbroodspot for the drawing of PK/88/1311 in Figs. 17 and 18. Though accurate in all details, note that it is not precisely to scale. My thanks also to the CMS Redaktion for the photograph used in Fig. 19.

¹⁸ Noduli (sing. nodulus) are ‘sealings that do not seal’, that is, nodules without any form of attachment what soever; they never could have sealed anything. Noduli have been interpreted as dockets and thus mini-documents: Weingarten, J., ‘Some Unusual Minoan Clay Nodules’, Kadmos 26, 1986, 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and its Addendum, Kadmos 26, 1987, 38–43.

¹⁹ Weingarten supra n. 18, Addendum: A–12 and A–13.

²⁰ Type Zeta' (MMIIIB–LMI): Sapouna-Sakellarakis, E., Minoikon Zoma, Athens 1971, 110–115.Google Scholar

²¹ Curiously drawn in three segments, more like the stag's legs than his own arms.

²² The Minoan artist occasionally ignores the purpose of ground lines, allowing men and animals to float above, see Hood, S., ‘Primitive Minoan Artistic Conventions’, in Darcque, P. and Poursat, J.-C., L'Iconographie minoenne, Paris 1985, 21–27.Google Scholar

²³ Stag hunt references are in Buchholz, H.G., Johrens, G., Maull, I., Jagd und Fischfang, Gottingen 1975, J 46 and n. 178.Google Scholar

²⁴ Persson, A.W., The Royal Tombs at Dendra, Lund 1931, 52–3, Fig. 30, Pl. 17.Google Scholar The Tiryns stag hunt fresco (Rodenwaldt, G., Tiryns II, Athens 1912, 140–9, Pl. 15Google Scholar) might have matched these pieces in quality but its sorry fragmentary state defies serious restoration.

²⁵ A lentoid from East Crete (PM IV, 524, Fig. 471): stag attacked by a dog at its neck, a second dog and a ‘baetylic’ pillar below; no man is shown. This pillar and the stiff, seated pose of the lower dog may well suggest a sacral theme or some ‘talismanic virtue’ in the gem. A sacral theme (?) on a lentoid from Sellopoulo (Hood, S., The Arts in Prehistoric Greece, Harmondsworth 1978, Fig. 233Google Scholar), ‘a pair of hunters carrying a stag’, but note the eccentric pose of the hunter on the left (a dance?)

²⁶ The agrimi is more common in this role. Compare e.g. CMS I 199 (LHIIB–IIIA Asine): man holds salient agrimi by horns and neck; GGFR Pl. 85 (‘Mycenaean Knossos’) man grapples with an agrimi, perhaps preparatory to dragging the beast to sacrifice (pictured on a steatite vase fragment? in Kaiser, B., Untersuchungen zum Mimischen Relief, Bonn 1976, Pl. 13aGoogle Scholar = PM III Fig. 128.

²⁷ Hallager, E., The Master Impression, Goteborg 1985, Figs. 10, 11 and 14.Google Scholar

²⁸ The curve of the antlers might be confused with that of the agrimi or simply follows the curve of the ring's edge. Their huge size need not be fanciful: the red deer can develop, although rarely, as many as sixteen points on each antler (Hull, D.B., Hounds and Hunting in Ancient Greece, Chicago 1964, 79).Google Scholar

²⁹ Compare the deer on the Dendra silver goblet, supra n. 24: ‘just at the moment when it is breaking down.’

³⁰ The head could be frontal; compare the bull's head on the ‘violent’ gold cup from Vepheio (Marinatos, Sp. and Hirmer, M., Kreta, Thera und Das Mykenische Hellas, Munich 1973, Pl. 202.Google Scholar

³¹ Rather closer in time, compare the double ‘sheaf of arrows’ held by a 16th century B.C. Hittite goddess on a hammer-headed seal in the Ashmolean Museum (Hogarth, D.G., Hittite Seals, Oxford 1930, no. 196cGoogle Scholar). She is a Mistress of Plants, related on the same seal to the Mistress of Animals (van Loon, M.N., Anatolia in the Second Millenium, Leiden 1985, 11).Google Scholar If the Palaikastro object indeed descends from such an arrow bundle, it has become decorative and, perhaps in the process of elaboration, meaningless.

³² Marinatos and Hirmer (supra n. 30) Pl. 102. Kaiser (supra n. 28) 148–9, argues for a MM III A–B date for the Chieftain Cup but the strong stylistic similarities between the ‘Prince’ and the Palaikastro male figure reinforces a LM I – more likely LM IB – date.

³³ Marinatos and Hirmer (supra n. 30) Pl. 206.

³⁴ A style indicative of upper class males: Koehl, R.B., ‘The Chieftain Cup and a Minoan Rite of Passage’, JHS 106, 1986, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The boxer = Marinatos and Hirmer (supra n. 30) Pl. 107.

³⁵ Dendra (supra n. 24); Vapheio = Marinatos and Hirmer (supra n. 30) Pl. 200–3.

³⁶ Defined by Yule, P., Early Cretan Seals, Mainz 1980, 221Google Scholar: ‘elongated proportions and naturalistic but exaggerated articulation of the parts of the body.’

³⁷ Younger, J., ‘Aegean Seals: Masters and Workshops, II’, Kadmos 22, 1983, 134–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, defines this Master by his use of blank ovals for heads and tiny dots for hair. Popham, M.R. (BSA 69, 1964, 233 J.8)Google Scholar first grouped together the Isopata, Sellopoulo, Vapheio and Kalyvia rings, dating them to LM IIIA1, but Younger (idem) and Pini, I., (‘Chronological Problems of Some Late Minoan Signet Rings’, TUAS 8, 1983, 39–49Google Scholar) date them to the mid-sixteenth century B.C. (=LM I). Much depends on the pottery in the Vapheio tholos for, if the Vapheio ring is LH IIA, the whole group must be early; Popham argues that, unlike the cist (LH IIA) the tholos chamber contained LH IIB–IIIA pottery (op. cit. 219 n. 23), and thus the Vapheio ring is consistent with the LM III contexts of the other rings. Pini (loc. cit.) leaves this possibility open, instead comparing the group stylistically with known LM I rings and ring impressions. His analysis proves, at the very least, that some of the stylistic features found in the Isopata group had already started in LM IB. The new Palaikastro ring impression, from a secure LM IB context, seems a step in the direction of the Isopata Master's work, a semi-aniconic head and partially dotted hair; above all, I am tempted to view the Isopata Master's tendency to sketch and disintegrate forms (Pini loc. cit.) as (an exhausted?) reaction to the Palaikastro Master's elaborate manneristic style.

³⁸ Younger, J., The Iconography of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Sealstones and Finger Rings, Bristol 1988Google Scholar: Pose Type 11.

³⁹ One side of the nodule is entirely smooth, the result of its having been pressed against a flat wooden surface.

⁴⁰ Poursat, J.-C., ‘Sceaux et empreintes de sceaux’, in Detournay, B., Poursat, J.-C. and Vandenabeele, F., Mallia: Le Quartier Mu II, Paris 1980, 198 Fig. 262.Google Scholar

⁴¹ (a) Fiandra, E., ‘A che cosa servivano le cretule di Festos’, in Pepragmena tou B' Diethnous Kretologikou Synedriou, Athens 1968, 392Google Scholar; and (b) ‘Ancora a proposito delle cretule di Festos’, in BdA 60, 1975, 12–14, 17 Fig. 80.

⁴² Weingarten, J., ‘The Sealing Structures of Minoan Crete, I’ OJA 5, 1986, 280–1.Google Scholar On Near Eastern parallels, see Fiandra (supra n. 41 b) 19, and Heath-Wiencke, M.C., ‘Clay Sealings from Shechem, the Sudan, and the Aegean’, JNES 35, 1976, 127–130.Google Scholar

⁴³ AR 34, 1988, 75 Fig. 109.

⁴⁴ MM III = JHS 1954, 166.

⁴⁵ The half rosette motif may not be original but due to a split in the pedestal (as evidenced by the damage below the SH). This implies, however, that a second, physically separated animal has once shared the pedestal with the existing frog (which is entire). I know of no case where two animals were joined in this manner on a single pedestal.

⁴⁶ Cf. also CMS VII, 39, an amethyst recumbent lion from Mycenae (?), its base engraved with two S-spirals and a leaf.

⁴⁷ Kenna, V.E.G., Cretan Seals, Oxford 1960, 107.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ CS 134 not in Yule catalogue (supra n. 36), perhaps because of its foreign provenance, but for the chronology of hard stones: 193, 197.