Bennet LabRev 2002-Libre

8/9/2019 Bennet LabRev 2002-Libre

1/6

11 MILLENNIAL AMBIGUITIES

ohn

Bennet

'Born' in the year

1900, Minoan

archaeology

spans

the

twentieth

century.

One

hundred

years ago it scarcely existed. Evans' excavations at

tau Tselevi i leefala inaugurated

the

field; his monumental publication of the site (Evans 1921-35) defined its nature. The

publication s full title, The Palace

of Minos

at Knossos:

a comparative account of

the

successive

stages

of the

early Cretan

civilization as illustrated

by

the

discoveries at

Knossos

better

illustrates its goal: Evans identified

the

site with its ancient

name,

Knossos,

associated it

with

a mythical king of Crete, Minos, and

provided

far more

than

a

catalogue of finds and their archaeological contexts. He offered a vision of Minoan

society, structured around a tripartite scheme of grorvth, florescence and decay (Evans

1906;

cf.

Hamilakis this volume on Evans evolutionism), a vision that he

did

his best

to reify, situating it within the real spaces of his extensive reconstructions on

the

site

of Knossos.

In

the

wake

of his pervasive influence, it is easy to forget, however, that

Evans

was

not the first to explore the site. Leaving aside

the

possibility of its exploration

in the first century of our era, in Nero s day (Evans 1909: 108-10), the first serious

excavations at Knossos were carried

out in

1878

by

(the appropriately named) Minos

Kalokairinos (Driessen

1990: 14-43;

cf.

Kopaka

1992; 1993).

Despite these antecedents, it is the date (even the time) Evans began his excavations

at Knossos that we tend to

use

to mark

Minoan

archaeology's beginning. And such

celebration is popular at the moment, given the strange effect

that

round

numbers

and

multiple zeroes have

on

us.

On

23 March 2000, at the site itself, the British School at

Athens and the Iraklion eforeia jointly sponsored a day of celebrations commemorating

the centenary of the very

day that

Evans commenced, beginning

at

11.00 a.m. - the

very time that Evans' notebook tells

us he

began - with a ceremony

in

the West

Court

of the palace.

The general tone of the events

surrounding

the Evans centenary is celebratory,

emphasising both Evans' achievement and the way he has shaped the field,

and

continues to

do

so

in many

ways. Celebrating

Evans

achievement, however, is

not

the

goal of this volume. 'Revisiting the

Labyrinth

is, of course,

code

for are-evaluation

of the enterprise

that

is Minoan archaeology. Like another recent volume devoted to

Mycenaean Greece (Galaty and

Parkinson 1999),

this one seeks to

rethink

its subject.

For millennia are ambivalent dates. In the year 2000 we stand, Janus-like, gazing

both

backwards into the

past

and forwards to (what

we

imagine as) the future. The

papers

MILLENNIAL AMBIGUITIES

215

in this

volume

share this feature: they look both backwards, to Evans and his time,

and

forwards,

to a

future (perhaps

a

range

of alternative futures) for

Minoan

archaeology. The papers do share one feature: they have been commissioned to reflect

contemporary theoretical positions.

In

this sense, the rethinking is polemical

in

its

stance. It will, of course,

be

interesting to see what scholars

in another

hundred years

will make of the collection

..

but I don t have

my

crystal ball to hand. So, I offer a

contemporary reflection

on

and reaction to a rather diverse group of

papers

that seek

to challenge the status quo in Minoan archaeology.

ZOOMING IN

This volume does not constitute a systematic attempt to re-examine all aspects of the

field, but certain coherent

groups do

emerge,

and

I discuss the

papers within

those

groups.

The Past in

the

Present: Archaeologies of Minoan

Archaeology

Minoan archaeology - the archaeology of a single island, 250

km

long, just over 8000

km

2

in area. Not only is the enterprise spatially restricted, but the field's overwhelming

emphasis (shared by

this volume) is

on the palat ial period,

at its broadest a

millennium

or so between c.

2000

and

1200

B.C. (For an

emerging

interest in

the

broader sweep of Cretan archaeology, see Cavanagh and Curtis 1998; Chaniotis 1999).

This

period

is defined

by

the emergence of a specific architectural type, the Minoan

palace', so far attested

in

'canonical' form

at only

four sites, Knossos, Phaistos, Malia

and Kato Zakros, although some would dispute the number, maybe doubling

or

trebling it.

What s

all

the

fuss about? This seems a

very

narrow time period and a

restricted area to place in a spotlight on the stage of contemporary world archaeology.

It

is

true that

the material culture of Bronze Age Crete offers some spectacular

objects - on display in museums in Crete and

beyond

- and structures visible

to

tourists on the island itself. But

then

so

do many

other parts of the

world

- Egypt,

Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica, China. Those areas also offer writing. So does Crete, in

three scripts,

although

two of

them

(rather stubbornly) resist decipherment. It cannot

be

the material or

the

writing, then,

that

assigns a central place to Crete in archaeologies

of the west. Rather, the significance of Minoan archaeology lies in its status as

explaining

the

origins of European civilisation. Within the formation of

modern

western attitudes, Egypt and Mesopotamia came to

be

constructed as oriental

others

to

western

Europe (Said 1978), but their pre-Islamic pasts, explored and reconstructed

by western scholars in a colonial context (e.g., Larsen

1996), could be incorporated

within the

narrative

that

culminated in western

Europe. The significance of

the

palatial

society of Crete is

that

it

was

the earliest - prior even to the civilisation of

mainland

Greece - manifestation of Europeanness, the beginning of a cultural

thread

that ran

through

Greece and Rome to the Latin

west

and, ultimately, to the nation states of

modern

Europe

(including Greece itself). A

prominent

trend in

the perception

of Sir

Arthur Evans by his contemporaries was the way his discoveries shed light' on


2/6

216

JOHN BENNET

European origins. Indeed,

L.R.

Farnell,

in

his introduction (phrased as a letter to

Evans

himself) to a

volume

produced by the

Oxford

Philological Society

in

1927 to

celebrate Evans' 75th birthday praises him as

one who

has done more

than any in this University [sc. Oxford], we may

say

more than any

in this nation, to reveal

and

illuminate the ancient

European

culture of the Mediterranean.

(Farnell, in Casson 1927: v)

It

is not difficult to see how

such

claims

embody

a

nationalist

project, claiming the

earliest

past

of

an area

only recently (1898)

freed from oriental domination

as

part

of a larger history of European achievement. A similar discourse surrounded the

earliest synthetic accounts of

the

prehistoric

remains from

the Greek mainland:

As the outcome of all these discoveries and the studies based

upon

them,

there

stands

revealed a distinct and

homogeneous

civilization, - a civilization

so singular

in

many aspects that scholars have been

slow

to see in it a

phase

of unfolding Hellenic culture.

At

first,

indeed, it was pronounced

exotic and

barbarous; but the wider the area laid under contribution / and brought into

comparison, the stronger has grown the evidence, if not the demonstration,

of its substantially indigenous and Hellenic character.

(Tsountas and Manatt 1897: 10-11)

In

this case, the link claimed was a

narrower

one,

between

the Mycenaean age and

the recently formed nation-state of Greece.

It

was il( the broader conceptualisation of

European

relations

with

Greece, particularly in the eighteenth

century

(e.g. Constant ine

1984; Herzfeld 1987; Morris 1994: 15-26), that Greece s ethnic identity became

implicated

in

a

grander narrative of European progress

since antiquity.

The ways in which archaeology has

been

deployed in nationalist projects by modern

nation-states (and other groups) has been explored

in

a

number

of collections (e.g.,

Gathercole and Lowenthal 1990; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Meskell1998) and the first

three

papers

in this volume fit loosely into that category, representing a refreshing

reflexivity d. Hodder 1999)

in Minoan

archaeology. Preziosi takes a broad frame of

reference - the emergence of museums from the eighteenth century - while Hitchcock

and Koudounaris and McEnroe focus more specifically -

on

Evans reconstructions at

Knossos d., also Klynne 1998) and

the

ideological context

in which

Evans

conducted

his travels

and

excavations on Crete respectively.

It

is interesting to compare these re

evaluations

of

Evans s

work as a product

of

its

time

with others,

such

as Bintliff's

exploration of Minoan flower power (Bintliff 1984), or MacGillivray's examination of

Evans s individual psychology (MacGillivray 2000).

Ultimately, this

group

of

papers

is

about

how we

view

the inventor(s) of Minoan

archaeology and the nature of Minoan archaeology. The other

papers

in the volume

focus

on

specific reconstructions of

the Minoan

past.

Agency: Peopling the Minoan World

The

quest

for

an understanding

of the

prehistory

of

mainland

Greece arose from the

attempts by nineteenth-century (and earlier) scholars to relate

the

Homeric texts to


217

specific places and the archaeological remains found in such locations (most recently,

Allen 1998: 35-109).

Whatever the weaknesses

in logic

or

technique of Schliemann and

his contemporaries, there was an implication that the archaeological remains of the

Mycenaean period were created and

used

by historical figures. Although there was a

considerable

backlash

against

such

a

view of

the Bronze Age in the

wake

both of

the

decipherment of Linear B (e.g. Finley 1978) and of Renfrew's Emergence

of Civilisation

(Renfrew 1972), the

very

existence of Linear B

at

a number of major sites and an

emerging sense of continuity from Late Bronze Age to the age of the 'polis', reinforce

the notion that mainland Mycenaean culture is more 'historical'. Minoan culture,

belonging

to

an

age inaccessible

through

the

Homeric

texts,

has

a

mythic

quality.

Time moves in phases that are often of considerable length, such as Protopalatial and

Neopalatial .

The

primacy

of Knossos as an archaeological site

has led

many to

suppose

a political

unity

for the island, suppressing material culture differences

between different regions. Further contributing to the mythic quality is

an

emphasis

on

religion in

Minoan

studies.

Although

we

have more

textual evidence on cult from

the mainland, the enormous value - both iconographic and monetary - placed on

sealstones and

signet

rings,

often from poorly

defined contexts,

has contributed

to a

largely atemporal picture of Minoan ritual and, perhaps, to an implausible view both

of Minoan culture and politics (although

d.

Goodison

and

Morris 1998).

We

might even think

of distinctions

between

the way

in which

Mycenaean and

Minoan cultures are discussed as embodying a series of binary oppositions:

Mycenaean Minoan

historical mythic

Schliemann Evans

particularising generalising

Such a

view has militated against the

identification of

particular trends

- in political

units (Knossos in control versus multiple polities), in historical phases (such as the LM

I period; d., however,

Driessen and

McDonald

1997),

or

in

individual behaviour.

The

wanax

at

Late Bronze Age Pylos, for example, carried out actions

documented

in the

Linear B tablets found there and probably sat on an elaborate seat

in

the main

megaron at the

site,

framed

by fresco representations

designed

to

boost his authority

and link his presence to events of palace-sponsored conspicuous consumption

(McCallum 1987; Davis and Bennet 1999).

He

may

even have been

called Enkheliawon

(Ventris and

Chadwick

1973: 265,454).

No such

reconstruction

has been

claimed for

any individual Minoan palace. Political actors have been constructed anonymously by

combining the

apparent

emphasis

in

iconography on

ritual with a recognition

that

there must have been some form of political authority - the so-called 'priest-king'. The

generally

anonymous appearance

in frescoes (and

other representational

art)

has

contributed

to this picture.

It

is

against

such a

picture

that both Alberti and

Nikolaidou

react. Alberti,

successfully in my opinion,

undermines the

simplistic distinctions

between

male and

female applied to (rather than observed in) Minoan fresco representations. Exploiting

the inconsistencies

inherent

in any

interpretative

scheme,

he

questions the existence

in

Minoan society of the hard and fast distinctions - familiar to many of us as western


3/6

218

JOHN

BENNET

Europeans - between two genders. Nikolaidou,

perhaps

rather less successfully,

attempts

to reinstate

the

individual within

three areas

of

Minoan

life:

the

bUilt

environment, craft production and ritual. However, trapped within the 'generalising',

mythic framework

of

Minoan

archaeology,

she

is

reduced

to

using

subjunctive

would in

many

cases to suggest, rather than clearly identify individual behaviour.

In

different ways, both Alberti and

Nikolaidou

are

trying

to

break

down a

generalising, normative

view

to facilitate

the notion that

artefacts and architecture

having a meaning (or multiple meanings) created, negotiated and manipulated

by

individuals. Such an

ideal

is not new in

Minoan

archaeology. Some years ago,

at

the

Cambridge Colloquium

on

Minoan

Society

held

in

1981, Sheena

Crawford

expressed

her

frustration at the

way

the quality of evidence

in

Minoan archaeology militated

against the kind of approaches now

espoused

by Alberti and Nikolaidou (Crawford

1983). (Interestingly, Lucia Nixon, one of the organisers of the colloquium bemoaned

the sheer volume

of finds' available to the arch aeologist [ Nixon 1983: 241]). It is

not

clear just how much the database

has

changed since the early 1980s to enable studies

like those

of

Alberti and

Nikolaidou.

Major

contributory

factors must

be the broad

acceptance of material culture studies in archaeology outside the Minoan field (e.g.,

Shanks and Tilley 1987: 79-117) and more recent attempts to reinstate the role of

individuals

in archaeological

interpretation

(e.g., Dobres and Robb 2000).

There are other signs that the generalising, normative facade of Minoan archaeology

is

beginning

to crack. Dawn Cain, for example,

has

recently

attempted

to see

some

of

the more famous

works

in Minoan representational art, not as generic scenes, but as

scenes embodying specific narratives (Cain 1997; 2001). Also, in Crete s earliest

prehistory,

Broodbank and Strasser

have

made us

think

of its colonisation not as a

chance effect of

expanding

'Neolithic' popUlations

but

as a deliberate act

by

a

group

of

individuals

(Broodbank and Strasser 1991). Similarly, the

individual

and distinctive

colonisation trajectories of the islands of the Aegean archipelago outlined by John

Cherry some years ago (Cherry 1990), are

now

being used to suggest individual

histories (Broodbank 1999; 2000).

Landscapes:

Phenomenology

versus Ecology

The archaeology of landscapes is perhaps one of the areas

in

archaeology that has

displayed

the largest

growth

in the 1980s and 1990s. Its prominence has

been

fuelled

partly by the expansion in

regional

studies projects designed to explore the

relationships

between

humans and their

environments .

A major

secondary

factor,

however, has undoubtedly been the emergence of broadly phenomenological

approaches

within

archaeology

(e.g., Barrett 1994; Edmonds 1999;

Gosden

1994;

Thomas

1996; Tilley 1994). The two trends

are

reflected

to

different

degrees

in

contemporary landscape

archaeologies (e.g., Fisher

and

Thurston

1999;

Knapp

and

Ashmore

1999; Bradley 2000). For Bender (1999) and

Stoddart

and Zubrow (1999),

these two trends - a broadly ecological, or scientific approach versus a cultural or

phenomenological

one - are characteristic of

American

and British archaeological

discourses respectively.

That there should be two

papers in

this collection

on

landscape is

not

surprising,

MILLENNIAL AMBIGUITIES 219

given both its prominence

within

the

broader

field, and also the number of regional

studies

projects

completed or

underway on

the island of

Crete. Crete is also an

island

that

offers an almost 10,000

year

history of human occupation. The

two papers

well

exemplify the 'Transatlantic divide . Haggis, employing an ecological model and

regional

data, primarily

from his own Kavousi-area

survey

(Haggis 1996), examines

change in

the

landscape, something that he clearly perceives as distinct from the

human world.

His goal is to understand

the nature

of

the

pre-palatial to

proto-palatial

phase.

In doing

so, he sets up a dichotomy

between

an integrated landscape, in which

settlement is ahierarchical and dispersed, and a connected landscape, in

which

settlement

is hierarchical

and

nucleated. The former,

he

argues, is stable,

and

emerges

in the Kavousi region in the pre-palatial period (EM III-MM IA) continuing into the

proto-palatial

(MM IB-II). The lat ter is

unstable

and is a product of state (or palatial;

Haggis conflates the two) intervention in the landscape. Such a

pattern

only affects the

Kavousi region

in

the Neopalatial period. Day

and

Wilson, on the other hand use

multiple landscapes (economic, ritual, symbolic, historical) to explore the

unique

status

that Knossos enjoyed on Minoan Crete as a cosmological centre d. Soles 1995; Kotsakis

1999).

Much

of

the production

and

consumption

of ceramics,

they

argue,

was related

to Knossos'

unique

status as a ceremonial centre, which has much to do with the long

history of occupation there.

To

compare the two

approaches is

perhaps

invidious, but it is worth pointing out

that published regional studies

data

from Crete tend to be confined to the areas away

from major centres.

At the time

of

writing, it

is impossible to discuss in detail

the

landscapes surrounding the major palaces using systematically collected, intensive

archaeological survey data. Day and Wilson's contribution relies

on

the fact that the

region of Knossos is

well

known through

its

long history

of exploration

d.

Hood and

Smyth 1981) and their own studies of ceramics. In this respect, we eagerly await

publication of

archaeological

work

in

the

vicinity

of

Phaistos d.

Watrous et

al. 1993)

and Malia

d.

Muller 1990; 1998) and initiation of the first systematic survey of the

Knossos region. To

some

extent, therefore, the

comparison between

the

two

papers in

this

volume

is a comparison

between apples

and oranges': the material culture of a

large, central site excavated over a century versus that of a series of small, rural sites

evidenced

by surface remains. Ideally we

need both

types of

data

for both types

of

sites in order to carry out either an ecological or a phenomenological

approach

effectively.

Production and Consumption: Pots and

Politics

The

study of ceramics has,

from

the outset,

been

central to

Minoan

archaeology.

Shifting styles of fine-ware

pottery were used

as the basis for

Evans s

tripartite cultural

scheme and have

been

refined ever since (e.g., Betancourt 1985). In keeping

with

the

discipline'S origins in

antiquarianism

and connoisseurship, some

Minoan

fine-ware

pottery has even been subject to the identification of individual artists in the way that

Beazley

attributed pots

in

the Athenian

Black-

and

Red-figure styles

d. Cherry

1992).

In the 1970s and 1980s, provenance studies became increasingly

important

(e.g., Jones


4/6

220

JOHN BENNET

1986), offering the possibility (not always realised) of

pinpointing production

centres

and therefore charting the distribution of pottery within Crete and beyond. Since then,

pottery

study

has

increased in sophistication,

employing

chemical and

petrographic

analyses as provenance indicators at the micro level, within the island itself, and

combining them

with

detailed

studies,

along the

lines of the chaine

opera

o re model,

of

the

processes of manufacture.

If

there is

one

area in

which

large

amounts

of new

data have been generated within Minoan archaeology

in

the

past

ten years, it is

in

the

study of ceramics.

The emphasis on production and distribution by the new generation of ceramic

analysts

has produced

significant insights

into the

'social life' of

Minoan

ceramics,

overturning pre-conceptions about the lack of complexity in pre-palatial distribution

or the

nature

of palatial production (e.g., Day and Wilson 1998; this volume; Wilson

and

Day

1994;

Knappett

1999b; Whitelaw

et

al. 1997). It is to this tradition

that

both

van de Moortel s and Knappett s contributions belong. Both see the production,

distribution

and

consumption of

ceramics as

implicated

in

cultural behaviour

and not,

therefore, part of a distinct 'economic' life within Minoan society. Van de Moortel

explicitly links

her

analysis of

pottery production

in

the

transitional

period between

Proto- and Neo-Palatial (MM II-LMIA) to

the

question of

whether

Knossos came to

control other areas of Crete - particularly the Mesara - in this period. She argues that

the

huge quantities of ceramics and their

consumption

in

some

cases as

prestige

artefacts' imply a significant position for ceramics within socio-political culture on

Minoan

Crete.

In her

view, in

other words, pots can pe

used as political indicators. She

concludes, using

her

concept of 'technological profiles' (i.e. the degrees of labour

investment, standardisation and skill employed

in

manufacture), that there is nothing

in

ceramic

production

in

the

Mesara that

confirms a Knossian take-over

during

this

period. Knappett s contribution, in keeping with his other work (e.g., Knappett 1999a),

situates the insights

derived from

ceramic analysis

within broader

questions

about

Minoan socio-political organisation. Like

Van

de Moortel, he also uses ceramic

production as a case-study, but, unlike her, works from a theoretical point of view

toward

the

case-study

rather

than

vice

versa. His contribution outlines

an

ambitious

sociological approach to conceptualising

Minoan

society, advocating an initial,

analytical

separation

of economic, political and

cultural

aspects before recombining

these in the overlapping terms 'political economy , 'political culture and 'economic

culture . Only through the apparently contradictory practices of analytical separation

and recombination can the

complexities of Minoan socio-cultural behaviour

be

understood. My reservations about Knappett s work stem mainly from the compressed

framework

in

which it

is

presented

as a

short contribution

in this volume. I look

forward

to its future development at greater length.

Of all the contributions, those that use the insights gained through detailed

interaction

with

ceramic

data

-

in

which

I

would

also

include Day

and

Wilson s

contribution - seem to offer the most cogent conclusions about the nature of Minoan

society. Nevertheless, as a non-ceramicist,

nagging at the back

o my

mind

is the

idea

that overemphasis on the quality data offered by ceramics

might have

privileged their

contribution to questions about broader political relations. We

need

similar detailed

studies

of other artefact categories and technologies (including writing: d.

Knappett

,


221

and Schoep 2000) embedded in their social, economic and political contexts of

production, distribution

and

consumption

to set alongside the insights based on

analysis of ceramics.

zOOMING

OUT

A volume like this one can never satisfy all readers, nor can it hope to be

comprehensive. But what

missed opportunities might

there be.

From

my

point

of

view, I

am

surprised

not

to see

anything about

text

and

language, areas

ripe

for re

evaluation

in

a broader context. To

return

to the theme of the earlier contributions,

Evans originally

got

interested in

Minoan culture through

texts (Brown 1993: 35; d.

Evans 1894) and we are now in a position, fifty years after the decipherment of Linear

B

where

we

understand that

script's

use

and

development both on

Crete (e.g., Driessen

2000) and

on

the

mainland

well

enough

to use it as a route into the

nature

of society

and political economy

in

'Post-Palatial' or Mycenaean Crete. In the Palatial period,

Cretan

Hieroglyphic, Linear A and sealing systems

have

much to offer also,

even

in

advance of a decipherment d., e.g., Duhoux 1998; Hallager 1996; Schoep 1994; 1996;

1999).

Studies of language

ought

to have some implications for identity on what is (for

Homer at

least:

Odyssey

19.172-180;

d.

Sherratt 1996) a multicultural island. The

study

of ethnicity

has

been a

prominent trend

in archaeology (e.g., Jones 1997;

Shennan

1989; although, d. Banks 1994 for an anthropologicalview that questions it as a valid

category).

It

is

striking,

in

my view, that

we still

use the

terms Minoan

and

Mycenaean

d.

Tsountas

and

Manatt

1897: 11) of those societies

that inhabited

the

Bronze Age Aegean

d.

Hamilakis this volume), since they are

modern

coinages,

culture-historical

terms that

define areas of broad material culture similarity, not

groups with any social or political reality at any particular time

in

the Bronze Age.

Perhaps

it is

the

possibility

that

Knossos controlled

the whole island

in

the

Palatial

period

that prevents us from thinking of ethnic distinctions in that

period

(see now

Hitchcock 1999),

but

studies of identity based on material culture are emerging for

periods

of the

Minoan

Bronze Age that lie outside this

volume s

emphasis:

the

'Post

Palatial' (e.g., Preston 1999), the Iron Age (e.g., Hoffman 1997),

and

the 'Pre-Palatial'

(e.g.,

Carter

1998; Day, Wilson and Kiriatzi 1998; d. Betancourt

et

al. 1999).

These are just some areas that I would like to see receive the same sort of treatment

embodied in

many

of

the

contributions

to this volume.

Other readers

will certainly

have

other reactions and will also

be

able to cite their own examples of work not

represented. I

do

hope, however, that potential readers will make allowances for the

volume s

selective coverage, accept its explicitly theoretical

position

and use

the

implicit challenge

in

refining

and

expanding

their

own

views Minoan

archaeology.

If

the

volume

inspires a reflexive moment in archaeologists

at

the

beginning

of a new

millennium, and brings at least some aspects of Minoan archaeology into discourse

with the

wider

field of global archaeology, then, irrespective of the value of its

individual

components, it will

have

achieved a large part of its goal.


5/6

222

JOHN BENNET

References

Allen, S.H. 1998. Finding the Walls of Troy: Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlik.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Banks, M. 1996. Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions. London: Routledge.

Barrett,

J.C

1994. Fragments from Antiquity:

n

Archaeology of Social

Life

in Britain,

2900-1200

Be Oxford: Blackwell.

Bender, B. 1999. Introductory comments [to Fisher and Thurston 1999]. Antiquity,

73:

632-4.

Betancourt , P.P. 1985. The History o f Minoan Pottery. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Betancourt, P.P., Muhly, J.D., Farrand, W.R., Stearns, c. Onyschkevych, L., Hafford, W.B. and

Evely,

D.

1999. Res earch and excavation

at

Chrysokamino, Crete 1995 - 1998.

Hesperia

68:

343-70.

Bintliff, J.L. 1984. Structuralism

and

myth

in

Minoan studies. Antiquity, 58: 33-8.

Bradley, R. 2000.

n

Archaeology of Natural

Places.

London: Routledge.

199?- Colonization and configuration in the insular Neolithic of the Aegean. In

NeolIthIc SocIety m Greece (ed. P. Halstead). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press

pp.

15-

41. '

Broodbank,

C 2000.

n

Island Archaeology of

the

Early Cyclades.

Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Broodbank,

C ,

and Strasser, T.F. 1991. Migrant farmers and the neolithic colonization of

Crete. Antiquity,

65:

233-45.

Brown, A. 1993. Before Knossos ... Arthu r Evans s Travels in the Balkans and Crete. Oxford:

Ashmolean Museum.

Cain,

CD.

1997. The

question

of

narrative in Aegean

Bronze Age art. Doctoral dissertation,

. Department of History of Art, University of Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

Cam, CD. 2001. Dancing in the dark: deconstructing a narrative of epiphany

on

the Isopata

ring. American Journal of Archaeology, 105: 27-49.

Carter,

T.

1998. Reverberations

in

the

international

spirit':

thoughts

upon

'Cyc1adica'

in

the

Mesara.

In

Cemetery

and

Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (ed.

K.

Branigan). Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press,

pp.

59-77.

Casson,

S.

(ed.) 1927. Essays in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Sir Arthur Evans in Honour ofhis

75th Birthday. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cavanagh, W., Curtis, M. (eds) 1998. Post Minoan Crete: Proceedings of

the

First Colloquium

on Post-Mmoan Crete. London: British School

at

Athens.

Chaniotis : A (ed.) 1999. From Minoan

Farmers to

Roman

Traders:

Sidelights on

the

Economy of

AncIent

Crete.

Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Cherry, J.F. 1990. The first colonization of the Mediterranean islands: a review of recent

research. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology,

3:

145-221.

Cherry, 1992. Beazley in the Bronze Age? Reflections

on

attribution studies in Aegean

In EIKDN: Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology (eds R.

and J.L. Crowley). Liege: Universite de Liege (Aegaeum 8),

pp.

123-44.

Constantme,

D. 1984. Early

Greek

Travellers and the Hellenic Ideal. Cambridge:

Cambridge

Universi ty Press. .

Crawford, S. 1983. Re-evaluating material culture: crawling towards a reconstruction of Minoan

society.

In

Minoan Society

(eds O. Krzyszkowska

and

L.

Nixon). Bristol: Bristol Classical

Press, pp. 47-53.

Davis, J.L.

and J.

1999. Making Mycenaeans:

warfare, territorial expansion, and

of the

other in

the Pylian

kingdom.

In Polemos:

e

Contexte Guerrier en Egee

a I Age du

Bronze

(ed.

R.

Laffineur). Liege and Austin: Universite de Liege

and

University

of Texas at Austin (Aegaeum 19), pp. 105-20.

i


223

Day, P.M., and Wilson, D.E. 1998. Consuming power: Kamares ware in Protopalatial Knossos.

Antiquity, 72: 350-58.

Day, P.M., Wilson, D.E., and Kiriatzi, E. 1998. Pots, labels and people: burying ethnicity in the

cemetery at Aghia Photeia, Siteias. In Cemetery

and

society

in

the Aegean Bronze Age (ed.

K.

Branigan). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,

pp.

133-49.

Do.bres,

M.-A, and Robb, J. (eds) 2000. Agency in Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Dnessen,

J.

1990 . n Destruction in

the

Mycenaean Palace at Knossos: A New Interpretation of

the Excavatwn FIeld-Notes of the South-East Area of

the

West Wing. Leuven: Katholieke

Universiteit.

Driessen,

J

2000. The

Scribes

of he Room of he Chariot Tablets at

Knossos:

Interdisciplinary Approach

to

the Study of a Linear B Deposit.

Salamanca: Ediciones

Universidad

de Salamanca (Minos

Supplement 15).

Driessen, J.M., and MacDonald, CF. 1997.

The

Troubled Island: Minoan Crete Before and After the

Santorini Eruption. Liege and Austin: Universite de Liege and University of Texas at

Austin (Aegaeum 17).

Duhoux, Y.

1998. Pre-Hellenic language(s) of Crete.

Journal

of Indo-European Studies,

26:

1-39.

Edmonds,

M. 1999. Ancestral

Geographies

of

the

Neolithic:

Landscapes

Monuments

and

Memory.

London: Routledge.

Evans, A.J. 1894. Primitive pictographs and a prae-Phoenician script from Crete and the

Peloponnese. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 14: 270-372.

Evans, AJ. 1906. Essai

de

Classification des Epoques

de

la Civilisation Minoenne: Resume d un

Discours Fait

au Congres

d Archeologie

a

Athenes. London: B. Quaritch.

Evans, AJ. 1909. Scripta

Minoa:

The Written Documents of Minoan

Crete

with

Special Reference to

the Archives of

Knossos

Volume

I:

The Hieroglyphic

and

Primitive

Linear Classes

with

an

Account of

the

Discovery of the Pre-Phoenician Scripts, Their

Place

in Minoan Story and Their

Mediterranean Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Evans,

AJ.

1921-36. The Palace of Minos at Knossos: A Comparative Account of he Successive Stages

of

he

Early Cretan Civilization

as

Illustrated by

the

Discoveries

at

Knossos.

4 volumes. London:

Macmillan.

Finley, M.L 1978. The

World

of Odysseus.

New

York:

Penguin

(2nd edition).

Fisher, CT. and Thursto n, T.L. (eds) 1999. Dynamic landscapes and socio-political process: the

topography of anthropogenic environments in global perspective. Antiquity,

73:

630-88.

Galaty, M.L.

and

Parkinson, W.A (eds) 1999. Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations

of an Old Idea. Los Angeles: University of California (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,

Monograph

41).

Gathercole,

P.

and

Lowenthal, D. 1990. The Politics of the Past. London: Unwin Hyman.

Goodison,

L.

and Morris, C 1998. Beyond the Great Mother': the sacred world of the Minoans.

In Ancient Goddesses:

the

Myths and the Evidence (eds

L.

Goodison and C Morris). London:

British Museum, pp. 113-32.

Gosden , C 1994.

Social

Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.

Haggis,

D.C

1996. Archaeological survey

at

Kavousi, East Crete. Hesperia 65: 373-432.

Hallager, E. 1996.

The

Minoan Roundel and other Sealed Documents in

the

Neopalatial

Linear

A

Administration. Liege and Austin: Universite de Liege and University of Texas at Austin

EAegaeum 14). .

Herzfeld, M. 1987. Anthropology Through the Looking-glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of

Europe. Cambridge:

Cambridge

University Press.

Hitchcock, L. 1999. A

Near

Eastern perspective

on

ethnicity

in Minoan

Crete: the further tale

of conical cups. In Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented

to

Malcolm

H.

Wiener

as He Enters His 65th Year (eds P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis,

R.

Laffineur, and W.-D.


6/6

224

JOHN BENNET

Niemeier). Liege and Austin: Universite de Liege and University of Texas at Austin

(Aegaeum 20), pp. 371-80.

Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process: n Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hoffman, G.A. 1997. Imports and Immigrants: Near Eastern Contacts with

Iron

Age

Crete.

Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hood,

S., and Smyth,

D.

1981. Archaeological Survey of

he Knossos

Area. London: British School

at Athens (2nd edition).

Jones, RE. 1986.

Greek

and Cypriot Pottery: a Review

of

Scientific Studies. London: British School

at Athens.

Jones,

S.

1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities

in

the Past and Present. London:

Routledge.

Klynne, A. 1998. Reconstructions of Knossos: artists' impressions, archaeological evidence

and

wishful thinking. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 11: 206-29.

Knapp, A.B., and Ashmore , W. (eds) 1999. Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Knappett, C. 1999a. Assessing a

polity

in proto-palatial Crete: the Malia-Lasithi state. American

Journal of Archaeology, 103: 615-39.

Knappett,

C.

1999b. Tradition and

innovation

in

pottery forming

technology:

wheel-throwing

at Middle Minoan Knossos. Annual of

the

British School at Athens,

94:

101-29.

Knappett, c. and Schoep, I. 2000. Continuity and change in Minoan palatial power. Antiquity,

74:

365-71.

Kohl, P.L., and Fawcett, C. (eds) 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University Press.

Kopaka,

C.

1992. Nouvelle evidence

sur

la fouille Kalokairinos

a

Knossos.

In Mykenai7ca

(ed. J.

P. Olivier). Paris: de Boccard, (Bulletin de Corresp,bndance Helleniqu e Supplement 25),

pp.381-5.

Kopaka,

K

1993. New evidence on the pottery from the early excavations at the Palace of

Knossos.

Annual of the British

School

at Athens,

88: 93-102.

Kotsakis,

K

1999.

What

tells can tell: social space

and

settlement in the Greek Neolithic.

In

Neolithic Society in Greece (ed.

P.

Halstead). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,

pp. 66-

76.

Larsen, M.T. 1996.

The

Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an Antique Land. London: Routledge.

MacGillivray, J.A. 2000. Minotaur: Sir Arthur Evans and the Archaeology of

the

Minoan Myth.

London: Jonathan Cape.

McCallum, L.R. 1987. Decorative program in the

Mycenaean

Palace of Pylos: The

Megaron

frescoes. Doctoral dissertation,

Department

of

Art History,

University of Pennsylvania.

Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

Meskell, L. (ed.) 1998. Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern

Mediterranean and Middle

East.

London: Routledge

Morris,

I.

1994. Archaeologies of Greece. In Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern

Archaeologies (ed. I. Morris). Cambridge:

Cambridge

University Press,

pp.

8-47.

Muller,

S.

1990. Prospection de la

plaine de

Malia. Bulletin

de Correspondance

Hellenique,

114:

921-30.

Muller, S. 1998. Prospection de la plaine de Malia. Bulletin

de

Correspondence Hellenique, 112:

548-52.

Nixon, L. 1983.

Changing views

of Minoan society. In Minoan Society (eds O. Krzyszkowska

and L. Nixon). Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, pp. 237-43.

Preston,

L.

1999.

Mortuary

practices

and

the negotiation of social identities

at

LM II Knossos.

Annual of

the

British

School

at Athens, 94: 131-43.


225

Renfrew,

C.

1972. The

Emergence of Civilisation: the Cyclades and

the Aegean

in

the

Third Millennium

B C London: Methuen.

Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge.

Schoep,1. 1994. Ritual, politics

and

script

on

Minoan Crete. Aegean Archaeology, 1: 7-25.

Schoep, I. 1996. Minoan

administrationon

Crete:

An

interdisciplinary approach to

documents

in Cretan

Hieroglyphic

and

Linear A (MM

I/II

- LMIB) . Doctoral dissertation,

Department of Archaeology, Catholic University of Leuven.

Schoep,1. 1999. The origins of writing and administration on Crete. Oxford Journal ofArchaeology

18: 265-76.

Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Shennan, S.J. (ed) 1989.

Archaeological Approaches

to

Cultural Identity.

London:

Unwin

and

Hyman.

Sherratt, E.S. 1996.

With us but not

of us: the role of Crete in Homeric epic. In Minotaur

and

Centaur: Studies in

the

Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (eds D.

Evely, 1.S. Lemos and S. Sherratt). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum (BAR S638), pp. 87-99.

Soles, J.S. 1995. The functions of a cosmological center: I

Bennet LabRev 2002-Libre

Documents

Transcript of Bennet LabRev 2002-Libre