No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The ‘Proto-palatial façade’ at Knossos1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 September 2013
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of Evans' ‘Proto-palatial façade’ at Knossos, which casts doubts not only on the date but also on the very existence of such a façade, at least as envisaged by Evans. It is argued that Evans' ‘façade’ is composed of two distinct and unrelated sections. One, the N section, is a wall which can be assigned to the Pre-palatial period; the other, the S section, is probably just part of the paving of the West Court, and belongs to the Neo-palatial period.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1992
References
2 BSA 9 (1902–), 19–21. See also Mackenzie, , Day-book of the Excavations at Knossos, 1925, 1–15Google Scholar; Evans, , PM ii. 667–70.Google Scholar
3 Cf. PM i. 192; ii. 667.
4 PM i. 127–31; cf. ii. 665–6.
5 PM i. 203.
6 I started the re-examination of these tests while I was working on my Ph.D. thesis (Momigliano, N., MM I A Pottery from Evans' Excavations at Knossos (London, 1989), 35Google Scholar and appendix 1). I continued this project during the summer of 1990.
7 The first two are mentioned in PM i. 129, the third in PM ii. 666.
8 PM i. 149.
9 PM i. 148–9, fig. 109; AR 20 (1973–4), 34; 34 (1987–8), 69, fig. 96; M. S. F. Hood, pers. comm.
10 Evans argued that even the façade of the New Palace at Knossos originally went back to MM I, though it was remodelled in MM III; both façades ‘belong to the same general period, and the chronological gap between the two foundations cannot be great’ (PM ii. 666).
11 PM i. 129.
12 See e.g. Hood and Taylor, The Bronze Age Palace at Knossos (BSA supp. vol. 13), no. 47; Indelicato, S. Damiani, Piazza pubblica e palazzo nella Creta minoica (Rome, 1982), 58Google Scholar; MacGillivray, J. A., Pottery of the Old Palace Period at Knossos and its Implications (Ph.D. thesis: Edinburgh, 1986), 31, 35, and fig. 5Google Scholar; Warren, P., The Aegean Civilizations (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar, plan on p. 84. The only critical opinion seems to be that of D. Levi, who thinks that the slabs forming the S section may be the remains of either an earlier paved court or a retaining wall connected with a rather small earlier West Court: ‘Non è facile, a né forse utile, andare a cercare una spiegazione di questa serie di lastroni in linea obliqua. Potrebbe trattarsi di un rimasuglio di lastricato corrispondente al resto di lastricato che vediamo esistere ancora verso il portico Ovest, O potrebbe trattarsi del resto di un muro di contenimento di un piazzale occidentale assai ristretto,’ Festos e la Civiltà minoica ii, fasc. i (Rome, 1981), 35–6.
13 I am most grateful to Vasso Fotou for useful discussions and advice upon these matters.
14 It is, unfortunately, not known when this test was carried out.
15 PM i. 129 n. 2. The sherds now kept in box no. 549 amount to 321. This tiny discrepancy with the number of sherds reported by Evans (319) may be due to subsequent breaks, or it may be that the pottery from the test at the back of Magazine 12 has been misplaced (see below).
16 Cf. Pendlebury's, dating, ‘MM I; MM III; some Neolithic and EM’, in Pendlebury, J. D. S.et al., A Guide to the Stratigraphical Museum in the Palace at Knossos, with Dating of the Pottery in the Stratigraphical Museum, i (H. W. and J. D. S. Pendlebury), ii (E. Eccles, M. Money-Coutts, J. D. S. Pendlebury), iii: The Plans (M. Money-Coutts, J. D. S. Pendlebury) (London, 1933–1935).Google Scholar See also MacGillivray (n. 12), 35.
17 Sometimes the title of the boxes does not correspond to the wooden label kept inside. In some cases it can be shown that the title of the box is wrong, in others that the wooden label has been misplaced. For a history of the Stratigraphical Museum, and other information on labels, boxes etc., see J. D. S. Pendlebury (n. 16), 1–2; Popham, M. R., The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos: Pottery of the Late Minoan III A Period (SIMA 12) (Göteborg, 1970), 11–15, esp. 12–13.Google Scholar As pointed out by Popham (p. 12), the wooden labels (when not misplaced) are more reliable than the titles of the boxes.
18 Cf. AR 30 (1973–4), 34; 34 (1987–8), 69, fig. 96; personal observation by the author.
19 A good deal of material which Evans assigned to MM I A is now called EM III by Hood and Cadogan. Cf. N. Momigliano (n. 6), 26, 38, 172–8; ead., BSA 86 (1991), 152–3; 267–8.
20 PM i. 129 n. 4. No further information on this test could be gathered. In 1913 Mackenzie was not at Knossos, so one must rely on Evans's notes, which give no details. The sherds now kept in box 362 amount to 654, while the total number of sherds reported by Evans is 626. However, I believe that this small discrepancy is due to subsequent breaks, and that in this case one should not assume later misplacement.
21 Cf. Hood, S., ‘Mason's marks in the palaces’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm, 1987), 202–12.Google Scholar The slab was of limestone; it measured 1.90 m E–W and 1.60 m N–S, and was 0.27 m thick.
22 Mackenzie (n. 2), 12–14. Indeed, the first 15 pages of this day-book offer a good discussion of previous tests connected with the ‘Proto-palatial Façade’ and of the supposed Proto-palatial west entrance system in general. Mackenzie also mentions another test made by Evans before World War I below the third slab from the S end. According to Mackenzie, in this case, too, the latest pottery was MM I A. This test is not reported in Pendlebury's Guide to the Stratigraphical Museum in the Palace at Knossos (i.e. either the pottery has not been kept, or it has not been identified).
23 PM ii. 666. Note that Evans's count and classification of the pottery do not seem to agree with Mackenzie's.
24 Neither Evans nor Mackenzie reported the number of sherds recovered from this test. I counted 694 sherds assignable to Neolithic and Subneolithic in general; 2 EM II; 25 MM in general; and 3 MM III B/LM I A (total 724.)
25 For parallels for the cup see e.g. Popham, M. R., The Minoan Unexplored Mansion (BSA supp. vol. 17), pl. 142, 1–11, esp. 4, 6, 7.Google Scholar Among the MM III–LM I A material which is too fragmentary to be drawn, one can mention a rim fragment of a thick-sided conical cup.
26 Mackenzie (n. 2), 10. Cf. Pendlebury (n. 16). The wooden label in box no. 365 is written in Greek and is now almost illegible. I could only make out the following: ‘… ϑεμέλιου πρὸς Νότ … από χοντά τού τοίχου N. 8.’ The title of the box is ‘In front of Propylaeum at S.corner of Old Palace (West wall) foundation where it joins wall. N8. 25’. My analysis of the pottery kept in this box is: 100 fragments Neolithic and Subneolithic in general; 8 fragments EM and later. Of these 8 fragments, 5 are not particularly diagnostic, but 3 rim fragments of wheelmade conical cups can be assigned to MM III/LM I. Unfortunately they are not very photogenic and too small to be worth drawing.
27 The other being the NE corner of the West Central Insula (Fig. 1).
28 Cf. Pendlebury (n. 16). Both the title of the box and the wooden label report the same information.
29 I counted 80 sherds: 74 can be classified as Neolithic in general; 6 are later than Neolithic, of which 5 are undiagnostic, but 1 is a fragment which belongs to a MM II–III conical cup.
30 Pendlebury (n. 16). Cf. also above. I was unable to find any reference to this test in Mackenzie's day-book for 1908.
31 Box no. 363 contains 358 sherds in total; box no. 364 contains 4 sherds assignable to the Neolithic period and 84 sherds assignable to MM III/LM I.
32 On other tests connected with the west entrance, see also MacGillivray, J. A., ‘Cycladic jars from Middle Minoan III contexts at Knossos’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Stockholm, 1984), 155.Google Scholar
33 Cadogan, G., ‘What happened at the Old Palace of Knossos?’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm, 1987), 71–3.Google Scholar