² Branigan's works, despite certain problems with his typology, are still an essential starting-point for any further research on Minoan metalwork in these earlier periods. See AMEMBA (review by Vagnetti, L., Archeologica Classica, 27 (1975), 413–17)Google Scholar; also Branigan, K., Copper and Bronze Working in Early Bronze Age Crete (SIMA 19; Lund, 1968).Google Scholar

³ See MacDonald, C. F., ‘A Knossian weapon workshop in Late Minoan II and III A’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds), Function of the Minoan Palaces (Göteborg, 1987), 293–5.Google Scholar

⁴ See e.g. Dickinson, O., The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge, 1994), 101.Google Scholar

⁵ The only early synthesis of LM III material was made by Pendlebury, J. in The Archaeology of Crete: An Introduction (London, 1939), 237–66.Google Scholar Contemporary archaeologists have reacted to the need for a proper reassessment of the LM III period, and new excavations have increased our knowledge by generating supplementary material from well-stratified contexts. There is no better example of this than the recent excavations at Palaikastro, which have provided a good LM III stratigraphic sequence, showing the LM III settlement to be much more substantial than was originally perceived (see PK 1988 429–35; PK 1990 137–41). Issues surrounding the relative date of the destruction of the palace at Knossos and the introduction of Linear B have been hotly debated. See e.g. Popham, M. R., The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos (SIMA 12; Göteborg, 1970)Google Scholar; Hallager, E., The Mycenaean Palace at Knossos: Evidence for the Final Destruction in the III B Period (Stockholm, 1977).Google Scholar On the Knossos tablets see Boardman, J. and Palmer, L. R., On the Knossos Tablets (Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar; Palaima, T. G., ‘The development of the Mycenaean writing system’, in Olivier, J.-P. and Palaima, T. G. (eds), Texts, Tablets and Scribes (Minos supp. vol. 10; Salamanca, 1988), 269–342Google Scholar; Driessen, J., An Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace at Knossos (Leuven, 1990).Google Scholar Likewise, several specialized studies have been conducted on different aspects of LM III culture. Some recent contributions have focused on the problem of the ‘warrior graves’, and consequently the nature of the occupation of the palace at Knossos in LM II–LM III. See Bennet, J., ‘Knossos in context: comparative perspectives on the Linear B administration of LM II–III Crete’, AJA 94 (1990), 193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Niemeier, W.-D., ‘Mycenaean Knossos and the age of Linear B’, SMEA 80 (1982), 219–81Google Scholar; Doxey, D., ‘Causes and effects of me fall of Knossos in 1375 B.C.’, OJA 6 (1987), 301–24.Google Scholar On the ‘warrior graves’ see Kilian-Dirlmeier, I., ‘Noch einmal zu den “Kriegergräbern” von Knossos’, Jahrbuch des römischgermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz (1985), 196–214.Google Scholar A recent Conference in Athens was devoted entirely to Postpalatial Crete. See A. Farnoux and J. Driessen (eds), La Crète mycénienne (Paris, forthcoming). A comprehensive catalogue of LM III sites and pottery has been published (Kanta, A., The LM III Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites, Pottery and their Distribution (SIMA 58; Göteborg, 1980Google Scholar), and a systematic analysis of Postpalatial architectural forms has been undertaken. On LM III architecture see Hayden, B. J., ‘Aspects of village architecture in the Cretan Post-Palatial period’, in Darcque, P. and Treuil, R. (eds), L'Habitat égéen préhistorique (BCH supp. vol. 19; Paris, 1990), 203–13.Google Scholar A number of research programmes involving joint scientific and archaeological investigations have begun to approach issues of trade. For the stirrup jar trade see Catling, H. W., Cherry, J. F., Jones, R. E., and Killen, J. T., ‘The Linear B inscribed stirrup jars and west Crete’, BSA 75 (1980), 49–113Google Scholar; Farnoux, A. and Driessen, J., ‘Inscriptions peintes en linéaire B à Malia’, BCH 115 (1991), 71–97.Google Scholar For the metals trade see Knapp, A. B., ‘Ethnicity, entrepreneurship and exchange: Mediterranean inter-island relations in the Late Bronze Age’, BSA 85 (1990), 115–53 (with previous bibliography).Google Scholar

⁶ See e.g. the many fine volumes of the Prähistorische Bronzefunde series, several of which treat Postpalatial Minoan bronze artefacts: Matthäus, H., Die Bronzegefäβe der kretisch-mykenischen Kultur (PBF 2.1; Munich, 1980)Google Scholar; Avila, R. A. J., Bronzene Lanzen- und Pfeilspitzen der griechischen Spätbronzezeit (PBF 5.1; Munich, 1983)Google Scholar; Pilali-Papasteriou, A., Die bronzenen Tierfiguren aus Kreta (PBF 1.3; Munich, 1985).Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Furumark, A., The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification (Stockholm, 1941), 405, fig. 70.Google Scholar

⁸ These fragments belong to period 15 in the local Palaikastro ceramic typology. Palaikastro was a regional centre of pottery production, and the large quantities of pottery uncovered in the new excavations will provide a valuable stratified sequence when all of this material has been studied and published. It should be noted that the classification LM III A2/B is one used at Palaikastro. It is a relative term that signifies the period at the site which corresponds stratigraphically to the pottery from Knossos after its final destruction and into the LM III B 1 period. Popham (n. 5) would classify this pottery as LM III A 2. Hallager (n. 5) would classify this pottery as LM III B. In absolute terms, this period falls approximately in the first half of the 13th cent. BC. See Warren, P. and Hankey, V., Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol, 1987), esp. 88–90, 169.Google Scholar The redefining of period 15 as LM III B will place this pottery in the latter half of the 13th cent. BC and into the beginning of the 12th cent. I gratefully acknowledge Dr J. A. MacGillivray's assistance in determining the date of the pottery from this deposit.

⁹ See PK 1991 141, fig. 21. 2.

¹⁰ H. Catling in MUM, 220 and pl. 207. 5. See also Evely, R. D. G., ‘The “bellows” nozzle’, in Mountjoy, P. (ed.), Four Early Mycenaean Wells from the South Slope of the Acropolis at Athens (Gent, 1981), 80–5, fig. 34.Google Scholar The identification of this object as a bellows has been questioned. See Kilian, K., ‘Ein mykenisches Beleuchtungsgerät’, in Φίια έπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μύλωναν δια τα 60 έτη του ανασϰαφιϰού του έργου, i (Athens, 1986), 152–66Google Scholar, who finds many parallels for this shape that appear to have been used as torches.

¹¹ In Israel ‘diverted’ tuyères have been excavated at Tel Zeror (Palestine) and Hazor. See Bellows to Tuyères, 117, and 116, fig. 13 a, c. The excavator's association of the Tel Zeror tuyères with Cypriot pottery and possibly with Cypriot metalworkers may be significant. See Kohavi, M., ‘Notes and news: Tel Zeror’, IEJ 15 (1965), 254Google Scholar; also Ohata, K., Tel Zeror, ii (Tokyo, 1967), pl. xlvi. 5.Google Scholar For the Hazor tuyères see Yadin, Y., Hazor, i (Jerusalem, 1958), 106, pls 98. 30–1, 170. 1.Google Scholar Yadin dates then to MB II/LBA and identifies them as crucibles, although de Jesus recognizes them as tuyères: see de Jesus, P. S., The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia (BAR 74; Oxford, 1984), 48 n. 30.Google Scholar ‘Diverted’ tuyères dating to the late 18th or early 19th Dynasty, approximately contemporary with this deposit, have recently been discovered as part of a metallurgical installation at Qantir, Egypt. See Pusch, E. B., ‘Metallverarbeitende Werkstätten der frähen Ramessidenzeit in Qantir-Piramesse/Nord’, Ägypten und Levante, 1 (1990), 75–113, esp. 85, figs. 5–6.Google Scholar

¹² See Zwicker, U., ‘Bronze age metallurgy at Ambelikou–Aletri and arsenical copper in a crucible from Eplscopi–Phaneromeni’, in EMC 63–8, esp. 63; pl. 9. 1.Google Scholar

¹³ Bellows to Tuyères, 117, fig. 14. For a discussion of ancient bellows see Davey, J., ‘Some ancient Near Eastern pot bellows’, Levant, 11 (1979), 101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See Wainwright, G. A., ‘Rhekhmire's metal-workers’, Man, 44 (1944), 94–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The author argues persuasively that these scenes are representations of melting (p. 94). It is possible, however, that the blowpipes are being used to refine the metal within the crucible (oxidize the melt), as well as simply to heat the furnace. For a compilation of depictions of Egyptian metalworkers using these long blowpipes and discussion of the iconography see Scheel, B., ‘Studien zum Metallhandwerk im alten Ägypten, III: Handlungen und Beschriften in den Bildprogrammen der Gräber des Neuen Reiches und der Spätzeit’, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur, 14 (1987), 247–64.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Bellows to Tuyères, 117. A useful determining factor, when considered in conjunction with the overall character of the tuyère, is the diameter of the blowhole. Among the thick fabric coarse ware tuyères, such as those discussed here, it is possible to differentiate two sizes, each of which Tylecote suggests usually had different uses. A coarse ware blowpipe with a small hole, c. 1.0–1.5 cm, was most frequendy used for the melting process, for both heating and refining. Those with larger blowholes, c. 2–3 cm, were used for smelting that required large quantities of ore and, consequently, a much larger furnace. The metalsmith often had a third type of tuyère (with a blowhole diameter of 1–3 cm) that was more finely made, often ornamented, and used for smithing. The depiction of these finer blowpipes, held in one hand and used for localized heating, such as soldering, occurs in New Kingdom Egyptian tomb paintings. See de G. Davies, N., The Tomb of Rhekhmire at Thebes, pt. 2 (New York, 1943), 52; pls 3, 52–3.Google Scholar Actual LBA examples of the larger-sized smelting tuyères have been found on Cyprus at Apliki, Enkomi, and Kition. See Bellows to Tuyères, 111, fig. 6; Dikaios, P., Enkomi Excavations 1948–1958 (Mainz, 1969–1971), pl. 126.Google Scholar 27–8 and index s.v. ‘Terracotta objects: tuyère’ (p. 940); Karageorghis, V., Demas, M., et al., Excavations at Kition, v.1 (Nicosia, 1985)Google Scholar, appendices 5–6, esp. p. 409. See also Muhly, J. D., ‘The organization of the copper industry in late bronze age Cyprus’, in ESC 298–314, esp. 299, 308, and fig. 35. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Tylecote, R. F., Metallurgy in Archaeology (London, 1962), 36.Google Scholar On identifying different kinds of slags see also Bachmann, H.-G., ‘Early copper smelting techniques in Sinai and in the Negev as deduced from slag investigations’, in Craddock, P. T. (ed.), Scientific Studies in Early Mining and Extractive Metallurgy (British Museum; London, 1980), 103–19.Google Scholar

¹⁷ New Kingdom period (LBA) tuyères from Timna have been interpreted as being used in this way. See Rothenburg, B., The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (London, 1988), 194–5, 201.Google Scholar

¹⁸ AHM 19, table 12.

¹⁹ Some more recent scholarship has been devoted to bronze age crucibles. For discussion of EBA and MBA Aegean crucibles see AMEMBA 68–71. De Jesus has collected bronze age Anatolian examples: see de Jesus (n. 11), 416. For bronze age crucibles in general see Tylecote, R. F., ‘Metallurgical crucibles and crucible slags’, in Olin, J. S. and Franklin, A. D. (eds), Archaeological Ceramics (Washington, 1982), 231–42.Google Scholar See also AHM 16–21.

²⁰ Catling in MUM 219–20, and pls 199, 206–7. The bridge over the spout of many of these examples, not evident on the Palaikastro examples, may be to separate the slag from the metal when pouring. See also Tylecote (n. 19), 20, fig. 13 l, and p. 18, fig. 11. A small, nearly complete, crucible from Platon's 1976 excavation of a house south of the harbour road at Kato Zakros (now on display in the Siteia archaeological museum) also has a covered spout. See Platon, N., ‘Ανασϰαφή Ζάϰρου’, PAE 1976B (Athens, 1979), 419–39Google Scholar, esp. 436. In E. M. Platon's examination of all of the workshop areas at Zakros he dates the crucible on the basis of the sherds associated with it to the Proto-palatial period. See Platon, E. M., ‘The workshops and working areas of Minoan Crete: the evidence of the palace and town of Zakros for a comparative study’ (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Bristol, 1988), 181.Google Scholar I would like to thank Dr Colin Macdonald, Curator of the Stratigraphical Museum, Knossos, for his assistance when I studied the Unexplored Mansion crucibles in July 1993.

²¹ The profile of 91/3427 is very similar to that of the crucible represented in the scene from the tomb painting of Rhekmire (c.1450 BC). See Davies (n. 15), pl. 52. The shape is also very similar to earlier Anatolian crucibles from a workshop in the Karum area at Kultepe. See Özgüç, T., ‘Report on a workshop belonging to the late phase of the colony period (I B)’, Belleten, 19 (1955), 77–80, esp. 78, fig. 27.Google Scholar Unfortunately, the final publication provides little more detailed information. See Özgüç, T., Kultepe-Kanis, ii (Ankara, 1986), 50Google Scholar; also Schmidt, E. F., Anatolia through the Ages: Discoveries at the Alishar Mound 1927–29 (Chicago, 1931), 81–2Google Scholar, fig. 118, for a smaller example of a similar shape, but with a thick knobbed handle at the side.

²² See Farnoux, A., ‘Mallia, 2: nord de l'Atelier de Sceaux’, BCH 114 (1990), 912–19, esp. 915–17 and fig. 10.Google Scholar

²³ See Davey, C., ‘The metalworkers’ tools from Tell Edh Dhiba'i’, London University Institute of Archaeology Bulletin, 20 (1983), 169–86.Google Scholar

²⁴ Other methods are possible. Prof. J. D. Muhly of the University of Pennsylvania has suggested to me that in the case of larger crucibles, such as 91/3427 and 91/3428, the charge of fuel for heating the metal could instead have been contained within the crucible, so that the crucible essentially acted as a ‘crucible furnace’. This would mean that less metal would have been melted in the large crucibles at one time. Prof. Muhly believes that the thick walls of the crucibles, which retain heat inside the crucible but also insulate the metal from external heat, and the lack of evidence for scorched exterior surfaces (which would have been in direct contact with furnace fuel if the alternative model for use is accepted) on the bronze age crucibles that he has examined, support his hypothesis. It is true that the preserved exterior surfaces of the Palaikastro crucibles 91/3427 and 91/3428 do not have any clear signs of burning. There is evidence, however, for a thin exterior layer of sandy clay, only visible near the rims of both crucibles, that may have coated the bottoms but is no longer preserved. I am grateful to Prof. Muhly for discussing this material with me.

²⁵ There is no compelling evidence, as yet, to suggest that copper was smelted on Crete in the Bronze Age. Platon's identification of the industrial installation at Zakros as an ore processing and smelting unit is far from secure. See Platon, N., ‘L'exportation du cuivre de l'île de Chypre en Crète et les installations métallurgiques de la Crète minoenne’, in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Relations Between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000–500 B.C.’ (Nicosia, 1979), 101–10Google Scholar; see also Muhly, J. D., ‘Metals and metallurgy in Crete and the Aegean at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age’, Temple University Aegean Symposium, 5 (1980), 25–36, esp. 28Google Scholar; id., ‘The development of copper metallurgy in late bronze age Cyprus’, in BATinM 180–96, esp. 184–5. It is necessary to go much further afield for actual furnaces. One important site with LBA smelting installations is Kition, Cyprus: see Karageorghis, Demas, et al. (n. 15), 388–429. For scanty evidence on the Greek mainland see Iakovidis, Sp., ‘The Mycenaean bronze industry’, in EMC 213–31.Google Scholar

²⁶ Deshayes, J., Les Utiles de bronze de l'Indus au Danube (Paris, 1960), 256.Google Scholar It also falls under Buchholz's Type III. See Buchholz, H. G., Zur Herkunft der kretischen Doppelaxt (Munich, 1959), 8Google Scholar; also Bouzek, J., The Aegean, Anatolia, and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C. (SIMA 29; Göteborg, 1985), 41–6Google Scholar, esp. 45–6. It should be noted that while elliptical shaft holes are usually considered to be a Mycenaean trait of double axes, the shape is also a technical improvement because it secures the axe handle better than circular shaft holes do. Such technical improvements do not necessarily imply a cultural (Mycenaean) association.

²⁷ See PKU I 117–18, and pl. 25 a–b.

²⁸ PKU I 119, and pl. 25 g–h.

²⁹ See Matthäus (n. 6), pls 8–12. The slight taper apparent in 91/3447e would be compatible with a tool like a chisel, or a cauldron leg.

³⁰ This handle type appears on the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck, and at Enkomi, Tell Abu Hawam, and Tiryns (with a triple band, attached to a cauldron). For the Gelidonya wreck see Bass, G., Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck (Philadelphia, 1967), 107, cat. no. B177Google Scholar; fig. 116, cat. no. 177; fig. 117, no. B177. For Enkomi see CBMW 164, nos. 2–3, and pl. 26 b. For Tell Abu Hawam see Hamilton, R. W., ‘Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam’, QDAP 4 (1935), 18, no. 36Google Scholar; pl. 33. 36. For Tiryns see Karo, G., ‘schatz von Tiryns’, AM 55 (1930), pl. 34. 2.Google Scholar Whenever closely datable, these handle fragments belong to the LM III C period.

³¹ For an example with a single annular band and partial circle see Karo (n. 30), pl. 34. 2, left side. This handle occurs on a cauldron vessel opposite a second handle with a complete circle. For several other examples of complete circular handles see Matthäus (n. 6), 108–12 and pls 10, 12. Although these handles are usually associated with tripod cauldron vessels, there is no reason why they could not have belonged to simple cauldrons. The closest parallels from Mycenae and Argos (Matthäus (n. 6), nos. 86, 88, 90, 91) have two annular bands. Sometimes one band is even slightly raised above the other, as occurs in the Palaikastro mould fragments. Another set of handles with singular annular bands and complete circles occurs on a tripod cauldron now in the Mitsotakis Collection and probably from Crete: see Marangou, L. (ed.), Minoan and Greek Civilization from the Mitsotakis Collection (Athens, 1992), 241–2, no. 309.Google Scholar Since our corpus of extant LBA bronze handles is relatively small, it is entirely possible that the Palaikastro mould fragments represent a variant type.

³² See Levy, T. E. and Shalev, S., ‘Prehistoric metalworking in the southern Levant: archaeometallurgical and social perspectives’, World Archaeology, 20 (1989), 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an actual lost-wax mould of the old Babylonian period associated with an assemblage very similar to the Palaikastro material see Davey (n. 23), fig. 5.

³³ See Bernabò-Brea, L., Poliochni: Città preistorica nell'isola di Lemnos, i (Rome, 1964), 591Google Scholar; pl. 85 d.

³⁴ Branigan argues that the EM II bronze double axe mould from Vasilike was used to cast wax models for clay lost-wax moulds: see AMEMBA 82–3. There are no extant objects from early Minoan times that would have necessitated the use of a lost-wax mould. For a discussion of the pros and cons of metal, stone (open and bivalve), and clay (open and bivalve) moulds, according to modern experiments using the different techniques, see Betancourt, P., ‘The origin and diffusion of metallic shaft-hole implements in the Aegean Early Bronze Age’ (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1970), 14–49.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Laviosa, C., ‘Una forma minoica per fusione a cera perduta’, ASA 1967–1968), 499–510.Google Scholar This hand would most likely have been attached to a wooden figure. The bronze locks of hair which Evans attributed to a large-scale male statue have been reinterpreted convincingly by Hägg as hairpieces belonging to smaller statuettes. See Hägg, R., ‘The bronze hair-locks from Knossos: a new interpretation’, AA 98 (1983), 543–9.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Verlinden, C., Les Statuettes anthropomorphes Crétoises en bronze et en plomb, du III^e millénaire au VII^e siècle av. J.-C. (Archaeologia Transatlantica, 4; Louvain-la-Neuve, 1984)Google Scholar; Verlinden, C., ‘La métallurgie minoenne et la fonte à la cire perdue: expérimentations sur un procédé antique’, BCH 110 (1986), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Several of these bronze statuettes have been found at Palaikastro: see PKU I 122–4.

³⁷ Matthäus (n. 6), 329.

³⁸ Evidence for the double mantle technique previously appeared only much later, in the Iron Age, with the cauldron leg moulds from Lefkandi. See Popham, M. R. and Sackett, L. H., Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboia 1964–1966 (London, 1968), 29, fig. 67.Google Scholar

³⁹ See AMEMBA 201–2. It seems possible that the Minoan metalsmiths' adoption (readoption?) of the clay mould technique for simple object types was motivated by the destruction of the palaces in LM I B, the consequent termination of organized trade in bulk metals and finished metal objects except at Knossos, and the apparent discontinuity of specialized stonecarving workshops that produced stone moulds. See Warren, P., Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge, 1967), 190–1.Google Scholar Branigan suggests that stonecarving workshops made the stone moulds for the metalsmiths. In a similar way, the stonecarvers depended on the metalsmiths to make bronze tools for them. See Branigan, K., ‘Graft specialization in Minoan Crete’, in Minoan Society (Bristol, 1983), 23–32, esp. 28.Google Scholar Of course, one must always be conscious of the potential gaps in the archaeological record. Clay moulds were most probably used in addition to the stone moulds in the workshops of the palaces and by smaller workshops in the Palatial periods. Stone moulds may appear in LM III contexts in future excavations.

⁴⁰ It is worth mentioning that a LM III bronze hoard from House C at Kato Zakros has an assemblage very similar to the kinds of objects that were cast from these moulds. It includes double axes, other tools, and parts of a tripod cauldron with handle. See Hogarth, D. G., ‘Excavations at Zakros, Crete’, BSA 7 (1900–1901), 121–49, esp. 134–5. fig. 46.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Bass (n. 30), 221.

⁴² Kanta (n. 5), 189. Excavations from the period 1987–94 have unearthed seven buildings, each of which was extensively reoccupied, leaving only small gaps (e.g. the yard/garden over Building 5, s and E sections).

⁴³ The majority of metalwork datable to the LM III period at Palaikastro comes from tombs. The very use of metal objects for burial goods indicates that there was some surplus metal that could be used as disposable wealth. Most of the items are either weapons or tools (dagger, knife, cutter, razor, and ‘sickle’). Circular mirrors, a bronze ring, and a silver ring illustrate that other less utilitarian items were also manufactured. See PKU I 115–20. For references to the LM III cemeteries see PK Settlement, 409–12.

⁴⁴ Evidence for metalworking from Building 1 in the LM I and LM II/III A 1 periods may also be an indication that metalworking was practised somewhere in the vicinity over a long period of time. A later (LM III C?) stone mould from a field near the Minoan settlement could be from a metalworkshop at Palaikastro as well. See Xanthoudides, S., ‘Μήτραι αρχαίαι εϰ Σητείς’, Arch. Eph. (1900), 26–50 and pls 3–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ On the problems of reuse of metals see Knapp, A. B., Muhly, J. D., and Muhly, P. M., ‘To hoard is human: late bronze age metal deposits in Cyprus and the Aegean’, RDAC (1988), 233–62.Google Scholar The LM III hoard from Zakros—Hogarth (n. 40)— can be added to their corpus of hoards.

⁴⁶ I would like to thank Dr Hector W. Catling, Dr Vassos Karageorghis, and Dr Hartmut Matthäus for discussing this material with me. This section of the paper has benefited from their comments. I would also like to thank the following people and institutions for their assistance in studying many of the existing rod tripods: Dr Demos Christou and the staff at the Archaeological Museum at Nicosia, Cyprus; Dr Stuart Swiny and the staff at CAARI, Nicosia, Cyprus; Dr David Romano of the University Museum, Philadelphia; the staff at the Herakleion Archaeological Museum; Dr Katie Demakopoulou and the staff at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens.

⁴⁷ This terminology is defined by Catling in his fundamental work on Cypriot bronzework. See CBMW 190–1.

⁴⁸ Riis, P. J., ‘Rod tripods’, Acta Archaeologia, 10 (1939), 1–30.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Benson, J. L., ‘Bronze tripods from Kourion’, GRBS 3 (1960), 7–16.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Catling reaffirmed his position in a more recent article. See Catling, H. W., ‘Workshop and heirloom: prehistoric bronze stands in the east Mediterranean’, RDAC (1984), 69–91.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Cross, T., ‘Bronze tripods and related stands in the eastern Mediterranean from the twelfth through the seventh centuries B.C.’ (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of North Carolina, 1974). 48–9.Google Scholar

⁵² Matthäus, H., ‘Heirloom or tradition? Bronze stands of the second and first millenium B.C. in Cyprus, Greece and Italy’, in Wardle, K. A. and French, E. B. (eds), Problems in Aegean Prehistory (Bristol, 1988), 285–93Google Scholar; id. ‘Bronzene Stabdreifüβe in Cypern und Griechenland: zur Kontinuität Ostmediterranen Metallhandwerks’, in Thomas, E. (ed.), Forschungen zur ägäischen Vorgeschichte: das Ende der mykeniseken Welt. Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums 7.-8. Juli 1984 in Köln (Cologne, 1987), 93–121.Google Scholar; id.Metallgefäβe und Gefαβuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Penode auf Cypern, mit einem Anhang der bronzezeitlichen Schwertfiinde auf Cypern (PBF 2.8; Munich, 1985).

⁵³ See Lo Schiavo, F., Macnamara, E., and Vagnetti, L., ‘Late Cypriot imports to Italy and their influence on local bronzework’, PBSR 53 (1985), 1–71.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ For example, A. Demetriou in a study of Cypro-Aegean interconnections in the Iron Age considers the stands to be late Cypriot III products and thus not directly relevant to relations in the Iron Age. See Demetriou, A., Cypro-Aegean Relations in the Early Iron Age (SIMA 83; Göteborg, 1989), 27–30, esp. 30.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For example, one might hypothesize that the mould was made to cast the leg of a large brazier stand of a type similar to the series of painted terracotta brazier stands known to have been used on Rhodes in this period. Catling has pointed out the likelihood that these braziers had metal prototypes: see CBMW 219; also Mee, C., Rhodes in the Bronze Age: An Archaeological Survey (Warminster, 1982), pl. 14.Google Scholar The large diameter of the matrix might be explained by its use as the central support of a stand like the LBA offering stand from Kouklia Xylinos, Cyprus. See Matthäus, Metallgefäβe (n. 52), pl. 109. The three engaged rods create a kind of frontality that is better offset by three legs rather than one single support.

⁵⁶ Catling (n. 50), 74.

⁵⁷ An argument could be made for the reverse restoration. If the two larger rods faced outwards, the third smaller rod would give added stability to the stand. The use of such an inner rod can be paralleled in other examples. See Matthäus, Metallgefäβe (n. 52), nos. 683, 684, pls 91–2.

⁵⁸ See Platon, N., Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete (New York, 1971), 125.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ I noticed this myself on the tripod stand from Kourion in the University Museum and on several of the examplesn now housed in the Archaeological Museum in Nicosia, Cyprus. Macnamara (n. 53) notes even greater variation in the stands from Sardinia and south Italy. On a stand from a private collection at Oristano she writes: ‘moreover, the volutes are clearly defined on the outer side, on the inner face they are sometimes distinct and sometimes virtually indefinable’ (p. 36); and on fragments from the Piediluco–Contigliano hoard: ‘the volutes, which are flat in the inner side, are very eccentric’ (p. 41).

⁶⁰ Of the eighteen complete examples catalogued in Matthäus' volume on Cypriot bronzework, eight belong to the group of larger stands mentioned earlier.

⁶¹ Of course, it is possible that the handle would have been hammered to fit the cauldron, which could mean that the diameter would have been different. However, it is likely that the mould for the attachment plate would have been made to fit the shape of the vessel as closely as possible. The precise placement of the handle on the vessel is also debatable. The attachment plate could be placed as high as the rim, a parallel for which can be seen in Matthäus (n. 6), pl. 10 no. 72.

⁶² See Muhly (n. 15), 298–314; also Karageorghis, V., The End of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus (Nicosia, 1990), 2–7.Google Scholar

⁶³ Kanta (n. 5), 324; PK Settlement, 406–7.

⁶⁴ It is entirely possible that future excavations will produce more early evidence for rod tripods on Cyprus. Most of the contexts for the rod tripods are not very secure to begin with, and the chronology of the stands has been one of the major issues of debate among scholars. Bass, in discussing the material from the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck, has argued that the stands may very well begin in LC II B or even LC II A: Bass (n. 30), 108–9 (‘We may conclude, therefore, that even the most thorough study of bronze tripods and stands, of the types under discussion, cannot lead to strong conclusions in our present state of knowledge; there is simply not enough material which may be dated by stratigraphy and carefully documented tomb groups: p. 109), 117–18. Bass reaffirmed his opinion in a recent article: Bass, G., ‘Evidence of trade from bronze age shipwrecks’, in BATinM 69–82, esp. 72.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Matthäus, ‘Heirloom or tradition?’ (n. 52).

⁶⁶ A well-known passage in the Bible (1 Kings 7: 27–37) describes similar large metal bases decorated with scenes in relief. Furtwängler was the first to associate these large-scale stands with the Cypriot miniatures: see Furtwängler, A., Sitzungsberichte der bay. Akad. der Wissenschaften, pt. 2 (1899), 420–33.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Webb, J. M. and Courtois, J.-C., ‘A steatite relief mould from Enkomi’, RDAC (1979), 151–8Google Scholar; Karageorghis, V., ‘A late bronze age mould from Hala Sultan Tekké’, BCH 113 (1989), 439–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁸ Macnamara, E. and Meeks, N., ‘The metallurgical examination of four Late Cypriot III stands now in the British Museum’, RDAC (1987), 57–60.Google Scholar Using X-ray fluorescence on these examples, they determined that lost-wax casting was an important factor. In fact, one of the smaller stands appeared to have been cast whole: Pickles, S., Metallurgical Changes in Late Bronze Age Cyprus (University of Edinburgh Occasional Paper 17; Edinburgh, 1988) 15–19, 31 (no. 18), 37–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Catling, H. W. and Karageorghis, V., ‘Minoica in Cyprus’, BSA 55 (1960), 109–27Google Scholar; Popham, M., ‘Connections between Crete and Cyprus between 1300–1100 B.C.’, in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000–500 B.C.’ (Nicosia, 1979), 178–91Google Scholar; Knapp, A. B., ‘Cyprus, Crete, and copper: a comment on Catling's paradox’, RDAC (1990), 55–63Google Scholar; Mantourani, E. K. and Theodorou, A. J., ‘An attempt to delineate the sea-routes between Crete and Cyprus during the Bronze Age’, in Karageorghis, V. (ed.), The Civilizations of the Aegean and their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000–600 B.C. (Larnaka, 1991), 39–56.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Lo Schiavo, Macnamara, and Vagnetti (n. 53).

⁷¹ Benton, S., ‘Unpublished objects from Palaikastro and Praisos, II.8: bronzes from Palaikastro and Praisos’, BSA 40 (1939), 51–9, esp. 51–2 and pl. 21Google Scholar; Maass, M., ‘Kretische Votivdreifäβe’, AM 92 (1977), 33–59.Google Scholar

⁷² Matthäus, Metallgefäβe (n. 52), 307. Metal tripods were clearly important to the Cretans in a variety of capacities. Two pieces of later evidence suggest that tripods may have been used as an early form of currency on Crete. Archaic inscriptions from Gortyn refer to tripods and lebetes as being used for money. It is generally presumed that this refers to an ancient practice in which Cretans used tripods as a unit of value. See Comparetti, D., ‘Nuovi frammenti d'inscrizioni arcaiche trovati nel Pythion’, Mon. Linc. 1 (1889), 78–118, esp. 79–85, no. 34Google Scholar; Roberts, E. S., An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy (Cambridge, 1887), 53.Google Scholar Tripods were also depicted on early Cretan coinage, so that scholars have speculated that metal tripods were used as an early form of currency on Crete in the Iron Age and perhaps earlier: see Ridgeway, W., Origin of Currency and Weight Standards (Cambridge, 1892), 314Google Scholar; Rouse, W. H. D., Greek Votive Offerings: An Essay in the History of Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1902), 385.Google Scholar

⁷³ More generally, one can say that stands were used by the Minoans in ritual contexts. The clearest examples are snake tubes which supported kalathoi: see Gesell, G., Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (SIMA 67; Göteborg, 1985), 42.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Other metallurgical material was discovered in Building 1 during the excavations. This material is currently being studied by Dr D. G. Evely and will appear as part of the forthcoming Building 1 publication.