Structural Ism and Myth in Minoan Studies

8/3/2019 Structural Ism and Myth in Minoan Studies

1/8

A N T I Q U I T Y , L V I I I 1984 P L A T E S III & IV

Structuralism and myth in Minoan studiesJOHN L. BINTLIFF

John Bintliff writes to us: 'I f we archaeologists cannot honestlv support th e conscious rle of socialpedagogue, perhaps more fruitfully we may turn to the competing subjectivities of archaeologicalinterpretation to seek insights into ourselves and our own age. ' This article is an attempt toanalyse archaeological interpretations of the bronze age Min oan society for such insights. D rBintliff is a Lecturer in the School of Archaeological Sciences, Bradford University, Yorkshire. Hefurther asserts that this article is 'a very long gestation from your [the Editor's] own courses atCambridge, 1968-71, in the history of archaeology!'

N i c k H u m p h r e y , of King 's C ollege , Cambridge , ina recent broadcas t on Hu ma n E volu t ion , made thefollowing comments (slightly paraphrased from m ynotes of the rad io broadcas t) : ' M a n , in co m p a r i s o nto the c h i m p is a fo rge t fu l ape . C h i m p s inexperiments have a remarkable visual memory,recall ing for e x a m p le 2 5 com plex pat terns . Somehum ans can do the same, but ra re ly , and of tenwhere there is a bra in ma lfunc t ion as with ep i lepsyor damage to the parietal lobes. In effect it ischaracterist ically p a th o lo g ica l . Why w as this facil-it y suppressed? In order to replace this means ofs tor ing k n o wle d g e w i th a new way of th o u g h t . N otone of co u n t in g o b je c t s or observat ions as par t i -cular , but instead orde ring such data into genera lmodels of th in g s and s i tu a t io n s , as w i t h th e Pla ton icIdeal fo rm s . This was the b i r th of symbo licth o u g h t . '

I w o u l d now like to develop th is theme f u r t h e r .In th is sh i f t f rom e m p i ri c a l a c c u m u l a t i o n to co n -trolled compar ison and ca ta lo g u in g , th e goal of thesymbol iz ing m i n d to reduce novel ty to order mustlead inev i tab ly to oversimplification. Moreover, thedesire for a s m o o th funct ion ing of e v e ry d a y socialan d e m o t io n a l l ife tends to call fo r th a set of basiccategories to define other people, one's relationshipto t h e m , and to d ef in e a c t iv i t i e sand a im s . It is herethat the m o re spec if ic sense of S t ru c tu ra l i s mappears, where the vast mass of experience that onemeets is co n q u e re d by the o p e ra t io n of a set ofcataloguing pr inc iples , w h e r e b y one can c o o r d i n a t eone's path amidst the world and its inf in i te units o fan i m at e and i n a n i m a t e objec ts .

Ian H odde r, as the ackno wledged leader of'S tructura l is t A rchaeology ' , has recent ly ra ised thestimulating issue of the neglect by archaeologistsofthis symbolic f i l ter in the ir in terpre ta t ion of pastsocieties. For e x a m p le , a col lect ion of an im al bonesof a particular species from an archaeological site,need no t represent va l id ev idence for its loca ldominance in the e co n o m y , s in ce the c u l t u r econcerned may util ize the different ial disposal ofbones f r o m separate species to emphasize certainbelief s tructures shared by the community .

Whilst pointing out tha t I do support the generalpr inc iple of seeking to ident i fy th e symbolic f i l ter inactivity debr is and physica l s t ructures uncoveredby the archaeologis t , we must a lso take account ,f irst and foremost , of the constra in ts on our overa l lin terpre ta t ion s imposed by the na ture of thearchaeological record : na me ly , tha t w e have a t anyone p o in t in t i m e a highly b iased p al impsest of thepast. Of course we are co nt inu al ly pushing back ourknowledge in matters of d e ta i l , and the a d v e n t ofhypothes is - tes t ing as a p r in c ip le ( th o u g h h a rd ly yetin practice!) wil l doubtless im p ro v e th e consistencyof our p e r f o r m a n c e in s h e d d in g light on aspects ofthe pas t prev ious ly cons idered u napp roac hable byarchaeology. Nonetheless I don't th ink I ampr eac h i ng to the u n co n v e r te d wh e n I c la im th a tthere wil l almost cer ta in ly a lwa ys be a gap in ourknowledge , preventing us from drawing def in i t ivec onc l us i ons as to the n a tu re of past ideologies,poli t ical a u t h o r i t y , social in te ra c t io n s of o th e rkinds, and fu r th e r co m p le x as p e c ts of early societ-ies.

33


2/8

34 A N T I Q U I T YFor the still unco nve r te d may I offer a chas teningillustration of this t ru ism. Recently an award fo rAmateur Archaeology in Britain was given to as tudy of World War II invasion defences or'pi l lboxes ' (Wills , 1979). T he amateur archaeolo-gist concerned was worried th at so ma ny were being

destroyed, and wished to record them for posteri ty.Y ou mi ght th in k tha t a series of s tanding monu-ments of the 19405 would best be approached viao f f i c i a l records. But i t soon became apparent tha tonly th e most general directive survives orderinglocal authorit ies to see to their defences. A t adistrict level civil defence groups set to work, inways unrecorded in o f f i c i a l files, erect ing a systemof these concrete keeps an d the ir associated l ines ofant i - tank pyramids. The essential task of thearchaeologist was to plan al l surviving uni ts of suchsystems in each area, with the assistance of a host ofpresent -day local informants , then to interpre t fo rhimself , on the basis of detailed local maps andlocational inferences, w h a t specific strategy hadbeen intended for the defence of each segment oflandscape. T he same general point has beenstressed in recent discussions of the art of drama-tized reconstructions of history ( 'faction ') in themedia, such as the BBC television series on the lifeof Charles Darwin, where th e deficiencies of thesources requ ired ima gina tive leaps to complete acoherent narrative, even fo r t h i s we l l - do cume nte dperiod and career ( Ra i l i ng , 1980).

A s archaeologists then, w e shall have to co nt i nuein th e foreseeable f u t u r e , as in the past , to bridgethat gap between what the data permit us to inferas strict scientists, and w hat we w ould l ike to be ableto pronounce on as historians or 'social analysts'.W e do this by the use of Models or generalizationsabout what we think is going on . These models tendhowever to become somewhat r igid from scholar toscholar. It is my belief and experience that it is notonly worthwhile, but indeed necessary, to view themajor theories and interpre ta t ions of scholarsproducing general syntheses from archaeologica ldata, in the context of their authors ' social andeducational background, and phi losophica l andemotional stancesfor possible elucidation of repe-titive themes in the i r work . T o take an obviousexample, scholars of my genera t ion have f requent lydrawn attention to a potent ia l P hD topic incom paring the poli t ica l speeches and kno wn sympa-thies of Professor Colin Renfrew, with the stress inhis archaeological writ ings on co mpe tit ive eli tes andprivate-enterprise entreprene urs as stimuli to socie-

ta l advance . The s tudy of Gordon Chi lde 'sarchaeological theories in the context of his Socialistbeliefs has demo nstra ted very impo r tant interac-t ions between a personal stance and the interpreta-tion of ambiguous pre -his tor ic da ta , as PeterGathercole has shown (Gathercole , 1971).To stand Struc turalist Arc haeolo gy on i tshe a d , itmay be necessary therefore not only to investigatepattern ing in the archaeological record, with a viewto obta ining evidence of symbolic structures in pastbehaviour, but also to study th e patterns inferred bythe archaeologist in terms of the symbols andstructures he wishes to identify in the rarelyclear-cut archaeo logical record. W hen I hear , fo rinstance, that a Structuralist study has been con-ceived, in order to compare and contras t th e King'sand the Queen's Apartments in Minoan palaces, Iam very conscious that the init ial s t ructure of 'King '

versus 'Queen' is a hypothet ica l dis t inct ion frommute groundplans , or iginat ing prim arily in a set ofsemi-myths about Minoan socie tya wished-forstructure imposed long ag o upon th e excavateddata. The raw t ruth about th e strength of theevidence identifying Minoan rulers can be revealedby quot ing f rom Gerald Cadogan: 'I am much lesscertain that th e rulers of Minoan Crete until 1450were men, whether kings, priests or gods, or any orall combined, ra ther than w o m e n . ' He also suggeststha t the key Priest-King Fresco might be a w o m a nand a priestess! (Cadogan, 1976, 9 and 54).Let us take this approach and apply i t in a briefdiscussion of the social an d historical context ofMinoan archaeology.In te rms of the general history of Archaeology wecan broadly categorize the nineteenth century as anera of 'stages'. Huma n de ve lo pme nt as revealed bythe nascent discipline was to be set into th eframework of the consecutive great ages of Stoneand Metal, and their detailed subdivisions, whichwere correlated in their turn with dist inct forms ofsocial s t ructure tha t had been derived from a ha zyethnography and a mi xtur e of historical an d

mythical sources. The broad belief in the pr imacyof th e tracing of 'stages' reflected th e opt imis t icmood of 'Progress' towards th e affluent i ndus t r i a lsociety of V icto rian Western Euro pe, a path w hichimperial ism w as me a nt to hasten and history tounder l ine . By the end of the century th e individualfeatures of local cultures were being recognized,allowing distinct culture histories to be written, andsett ing the broad approach for much of this century(i.e. that of Culture History, as described and


3/8


4/8

ANTIQUITYIn the same vein there is the merging byPendlebury of that vision of the ancient Minoanparadise with his own escapist, rustic paradise ofearly modern Crete, seen for example in hisdelightful identif ication of the Minoan ' s tock ' inpresent-day Cretans: ' Many a village boy might bethe direct descendant of the Cup-Bearer of thePriest -King, and who can deny the possibi l i ty thathe may be? Minoan too, is the sense of style whichyour modern Cretan has above all othe r G reeks'(Pendlebury, 1971, 267). A nd read his commentaryon the representation of the so-called 'Great MotherGoddess and her boy-god son': 'H e is one of thosesoulless, fawn-l ike , heartless boys whom you meetin th e wilder parts of Crete today' (idem, 273).Evans saw the Minoans as the source of all futureGreek civi l izat ion, ignoring any or iginal Mycenae-an co nt r i but i o n: 'Can it be doubted that th e artistic

genius of the later Hellenes w as largely the outcomeof that inherent in the earlier race in which they hadbeen merged? ' (Evans, 1912, 278). The Myce-naeans were 'only a provincial variant' (op. cit. ,282), 'a mainland plantation' of the Minoan (op.ci t . , 281) , and even the Homeric myths wererevamped Minoan tales (op. cit. , 288). Wacehowever replied that ' the Minoan domination overth e Main land has been grossly overestim ated. I t has'been pointed out tha t i f we lacked all histor icaldocuments w e should, if we used simi lar argu-ments , m ainta in that there was an Ath enian dom i-nation of Etruria in later days' (cf . Pendlebury,1971, 229). W orse was to come, with th e suggestionthat the Mycenaeans had taken over the Minoancivilization in the period of its heigh t i.e. con cur-rent with the Palace Style, which Evans describedas ' the m agnif icent s tyle of vase-paint ing prevalentat Knossos in the great days of the Palace' (cf .Evans, 1901, 51 ) , but which good Minoanists arenow quick to interpret as degenerate.The rude assaults of the M ycen aeanis ts, so itseemed to Evans, seemed to paral lel the samepostulated attack of their Mycenaeans on his islandparadise, and both he vigorously resisted. T o thisday a resistance movement f ights alongside th eancient M i n o a n s : i f Mycenaeans came by L M I I ,their styles are degenerate, their ac hievem ents oflittle no te but to many even this admission isinsuppor tab le . A nd clearly if anything praise-wor thy is to be a t t r ibu ted to the Mycenaeancivilization as a whole, a Minoanis t will look, asEv a n s did, to the Minoan source for the wholeprocess just as Peter Warren has done (197 7).

T he picture of the Minoan palace civilization asone of happy social equilibrium with lords andpeasants al l cheerfully occupying their respect iveplaces (PL. ivb), is neatly brought out in thisheart-warming vision of Gerald Cadogan's on theMinoan el i te : 'The inhabitants of the countryhouses will have helped social cohesion by takingcertain responsibilities f rom the peasants andmediating between them and the central authori -ties ' (Cadogan 1971). Likewise Paul Halstead(1981) offers us a Minoan Welfare State, with th epalaces as regional centres of Supplementary Benef-i ts and S pir i tual Healing.Before the palaces, we have the even happiervision of completely egalitarian communities of theEarly Minoan and neolithic periods. Todd White-law (1983) hovers in his acceptance of such a societyfo r th e pre-palatial era. Bin t l i f f ' s (1977) study ofMinoan social change also envisaged an earlyegalitarian society of hamlets scattered over theCretan landscape, united by the Palace Periodu n d e r a central ized theocracy. This in tegrat ion w asachieved through th e medium of a national cult,whose creat ion w as marked by the establishment ofa hierarchy of peak sanctuaries an d ceremonialcentres ( B i n t l i f f , 19773, Pt. I ch. 7, Pt. II ch. 8;I977b; B lackm an and Brani gan, 1977).It may seem surprising that this romantic andidealistic vision of an innocent , s tr i fe less , fairsociety, survived to form a contro lling model for mygenera t ion, but we have to recall the 19603 rejectionof th e Materialist, Consumer ethos of the 19505,symbolized by Flower Power and the fascinationwith alte rna tive worlds such as Eastern Mystic ism,th e C ommune , Po t , a nd Lewis B i n f o rd . T hecollapse of this igoos to early '705 renewed optim-ism in the per f ec tab i l i ty or regenerat ion of modernsociety, is ref lected in the surge of archaeologicalresearch from the 19705 into th e origins of inequal-ity, th e rise of elites an d modes of coercion, th e' punch beh ind th e priest ' and so on. There hasbeen, as Bob Chapman recently commented(1979), an unnot iced shif t in the most recentarchaeological theory towards a Material is t Marxistconcern with stages of human evo lu t ion character i -zed by the i r individual modes of exp lo i ta t ion .One of the f irst major blows to the rosy-spectacled archaeologist came, in fact , w i t h are interpretat ion of the M a y a civ i l i za t ion , a mysteri-ous and complex culture once flourishing in thetropical ra in forests of Central America. Here greattemples towering above numerous other important


5/8

S T R U C T U R A L I S M A N D M Y T H I N M I N O A N S T U D I E S 37bui ldings within ceremonial centres, had long beenseen as the residences of a priestly elite, whoprovided religious integration for a dense surround-in g rural peasantry, in return for a t i the anothertheocracy. By the 19705 however the decipherm entof th e Maya glyphs an d close study of wallpaint ings , together with a contemporary shift incul tura l ethos for the archaeologists, led to a newimage for the M a y a o n e of ruthless, regionalelites, preoccupied w ith dynastic succession and thel iquidat ion of their neighbours. Study of burialssuggested that the elites were well-n ourished up tillth e catastrophic collapse of the civ i l iza t ion , whi lepeasants became increasingly underno urished anddiseased (c f. Coe, 1962; 1966; McAdams, 1972,with Culbert, 1973). Likewise, B ob Adams's classic19605 survey of the rise of Mesopotamian civiliza-t ion, with a key role being assigned to the templeideology and economy, and communal consensus,has yielded in the 19703 to a pronounced stressamong Mesopotamian theor is ts on the rise o fclasses, social strife, and minori ty economic pr iv-ileges, a scenario in w h i c h th e temples no w serve asa convenient ideological cover fo r these shifts ofpower and privilege (cf. McAdams, 1965; 1972,with Fried, 1978).In prehistoric Europe and the Aegean, ColinRenfrew has led the vanguard of ant i -sent imenta l is ts , producing 'Big Men' a nd Chief-ta ins everywhere in European pr e his to ry e go -centr ic , pushy in d iv id u a l s stirring up the sluggishpeasants towards civilization. At his extreme, fo rexample in his recent Orkney volume, the possiblereligious significanc e o f megalithic tombs and stonecircles is ignored in favour of seeing these asmarkers fo r competi t ive terr i tor ia l groups andprest ige monuments fo r chief ta ins despite th eironic parallel R enfrew draws wi th th e medieva lcathedral of St Magnus in the centre of the islandgroup (R e n f re w, 1979).In Minoan archaeology we can surely detect th esame hints of an ensuing collapse of tha t p r imi t iveparadise. The new stress on the blood lust andsacrifice elements in the bul l - l eap ing ac t iv i ty (P in -sent , 1983) is in contrast to the general ly cheeryin te rp re ta t ion reflected in P L. ma. Then there areth e dark infe rences being drawn from Peter War-ren s L a te M inoan c ann iba l i sm (Warren , 1981),and the great fuss that is being created by the claimsfor dirty deeds at Arkhanes (Sake l la rak i s &Sapouna-Sakellaraki, 1981). Before long we shallnave , I suspect, many fu r th e r instances of skul ldug-

gery raised. It is perhaps appropriate for us to pauseawhile before the floodgates burs t and note howmuch o f this could have been, and sometimes was,ant ic ipa ted long ago.Evans, for examp le, on the bull cult , compared itwith that nasty Mediterranean tradition of thea mphi the a t r e and bul l - r ing : 'I t may well be that ,long before the days when enslaved barbarians were"butchered to make a Roman holiday", captives,perhaps o f gentle blood, shared th e same fate withinsight of the "House of Minos'" (Evans, 1901, 956).Likewise , our ethnographic and historical know-ledge should have long ago led us to questionwhether any f a rming society can exist fo r thousandsof years, as the Cretan N eolithi c did, w ith theaccompanying rise of communi t i es as large asKnossos, without internal social different ia t ion ;and whether that social d ivis ion, cont inuing via1,000 years of Early Bronze A ge into th e clearlystratif ied Palace society of almost a f u r t h e r 1,000years l i f e , could be plausibly maintained by com-m u n a l consensus or involved a signif icant degree ofconflict , suppression and exploi ta t ion. The HaghiaTr iadha Chiefta in Cup, w ith its captain and troops,need not illustrate 'toy' soldiers. The Knossosfaience plaques and miniature fresco fragments ofM i d d l e Minoan date, showing house and shrinefaades, are a further object-lesson in control l ingmodels. Sinclair Hood repeats the sound case thatth e f o r m e r ar e part of a Siege-Mosaic (Hood, 1971,118 an d PI. 22), but earlier writers were happier tosee in it merely a 'Town Mosaic ' (Hutchinson,1962, 173). More remarkable is the interpretat ionof th e miniature fresco scene, as a 'fte champtre ' .Hutch inson w ri tes unabashed : 'another f ragment . .. shows an enthusiastic group of men waving spears. . . not , I t h i n k , in any hostile gesture, but rather ,as Pendlebury remarks " l ike a cheering footballcrowd'" ( idem, 181) . These peaceable interpreta-tions are the preferred p opu lar reconstruct ions (PL .me).

Furthermore, I suspect that when we have begunto recover a realistic fract ion of the Cretan neol i thi csettlemen t pattern , and its burials, and when theEarly M ino an larger sites are better understood andth e accompanying bur i a l s analysed fo r status dis-t inct ions, we shall f ind ourselves in a strongly-stratified society well before the end of the N e o l i -t h i c . This wil l inc lude th e suggestion o f ind iv idualand group conf l ic t , and will be l inked in with a newapproach to the Minoans, who as a whole will nowbe studied into the foreseeable fu tu re in terms of


6/8

ANTIQUITYlandlords and tenants , the haves and the have-nots(perhaps with dietary studies in support) , ra therthan with the old view of a p e r fe c t but increas inglyhierarchical socie ty . Again , I will repeat th e p o in tthat the data m ay already be p a r t i a l ly available fo rsuch revaluat ion , t h i n k i n g for ins tance of thevariation in gifts in Ear ly Minoan bur ia ls , or theimpl icat ion of seals and signets fo r Ea r ly Min o a npr ivate proper ty .What th is a r t ic le is suggesting, in effect , is th a t a

d o m i n a n t d ia lect ic ex is ts be tween shif ts in contem-porary ph i losophies and world views, and thechanging in terpre ta t ions of the archaeologica lrecord . Cer ta in ly new f in d s m a k e i t di f f i cu l t toavoid r e in te rp re ta t io n s , but overa l l I suspect that am o re im p o r ta n t factor is the outlook of thearchaeologist on his own world, subsequent ly reflec-ted in the messages of re inforcement he seeks andclaims to recover f rom the world of the Past.

B I B L I O G R A P H YBiNFORD, L . R . 1968. A r c h a e o lo g ic a l perspectives, in (eds) S . R .

& L. R. B in f o r d , Sew perspectives in archaeology, 5-32( Ch ic a g o ) .

B I N T L I F F , j. L. 19773. \atural environment and human settle-ment in prehistoric Greece, BAR Suppl. Ser., 28 ( O x f o r d ) .19776. New approaches to h u m a n geography, in ( d . ) F. W.Carter, An historical geography of the Balkans, 59-114(London).

B L A C K M A N , D . & . B R A N I G A N . IQ77- An a r c h a e o l o g i c a l su r v e y ,BSA, L X X I I , 13-84.

C A D O G A N , G . 1971. W a s th er e a M i n o a n l a n d e d g e n t r y ? , Instituteof Classical Studies, Mycenaean Seminar, London, 19 May1971, p r i n t e d a b s t r a c t .

1976. Palaces of Minoan Crete ( L o n d o n ) .C H A P M A N , R. w. 1979. C o m m e n t s , 47-8, o n P v a n d e V e l d e ,

Socia l a n t h r o p o l o g y o f a n e o l i t h i c c e m e t e r y , Current Anthro-pology, xx, 37-58.

C O E , M. D. 1962. Mexico ( L o n d o n ) .1966. The Maya ( N e w Y o r k ) .

C O T T R E L L , L. 1961. Th e Bull of Minos ( L o n d o n ) .CLLBERT, . p. (ed.). 1973. The ('lassie Maya collapse

( A l b u q u e r q u e ) .E V A N S , A. 1901. The Pala ce of Knossos, BSA, vu, 1-120.1912. T h e M i n o a n a n d M y c e n a e a n c l e m e n t in H e l l e n i c l i f e ,

JHS, xxxi, 277-97.1921-30. The Palace of Minos at Knossns ( L o n d o n ) .

E V A N S , j. 1943. Time an d chance ( L o n d o n ) .F R I E D , M . H . 1978. T h e State, th e c h i c k e n a nd t he egg, in (cds) R .

C o h en & E. R. S er v ic e , Origins of th e State ( P h i l a d e l p h i a ) .G A T H E R C O L E , p . 1971. Patterns in prehistory: an exam ina t io n o f

th e l a te r t h i n k i n g o f V. G o r d o n C h i l d e , World Archaeology,in, 225-32.H A L S T E A D , P . 1981. F r o m d e t e r m i n i s m to u n c e r t a i n t y : so c i a l

storage and th e r i s e o f th e M ino a n Pa l ac e , in (eds) A .

S h e r i d a n & G . B a i l e y , Economic archaeology, 187-213,B A R , Int. Ser. 96 (Oxford).

H A W K E S , j. 1981. A quest for love ( L o n d o n ) .H O O D , s. 1971. The Minoans ( L o n d o n ) .H L T C H I N S O N , R. w. i g f i z . Prehistoric Crete ( L o n d o n ) .M C . c . A D A M S , R . 1965. Th e evolution of urban society ( C h i c a g o ) .

1972. Some hypotheses of the development of early civilisa-t io ns , r ep r in ted in (ed.)M . P . Leo ne, Contemporaryarchaeology, 35964 ( E v a n s v i l l e ) .

P E N D L E B L R Y , j. D. s. 1971 (1939). The archaeology of Crete: anintroduction ( L o n d o n ) .

PINSENT, j. 1983. Bul l - l eap ing , in (eds) O. Krzyszkowska & L.N i x o n , Minoan Society, Procs. Cambridge Colloquium 1981( B r i s t o l ) .

P L L M B . J . H . 1971. I n t r o d u c t i o n to Greek Society by A. A n d r e w e s( L o n d o n ) .R A L L I N G , c . 1980. W h at i s t e l ev i s io n d o ing to h i s to r y ? , The

Listener, 10 Jan. 1980.R E N F R E W , c. 1979. Investigations in Orkney ( L o n d o n ) .S A K E L L A R A K I S , Y. Si E. S A P O L N A - S A K E L L A R A K I . Ig8l. Drama of

death in a M ino an Temple, National Geographic, Feb. 1981,205~23

W A R R E N , p . 1977. T he e m e r g e n c e o f M y c e n a e a n P a l a c e c i v i l is a -t io n , in (ed.)J . B i n t l i f f , Mycenaean geography, 68-75( C a m b r i d g e ) .

1981. Knossos: S tr a t ig r ap h ic a l M us eum Exc ava t io ns , 1 97 880, Pt. I, Archaeological Reports for 1980-81, Society forH e l l e n i c S t u d i e s ( L o n d o n ) , 7392.

W H I T E L A W , . M . 1983. T h e s e t t l e m e n t a t F o u r n o u K o r i f i ,M y r to s , an d aspects o f E a r l y M i n o a n so c i a l o r g a n i z a t io n , in(eds) O. K r z y s z k o w s k a & L. N i x o n , Minoan Society, Procs.Cambridge Colloquium 1981 ( B r i s t o l ) .

W I L L S , H . 1979. P i l l b o x e s : a s t u d y of UK d e f e n c e s 1940-41,Current Archaeology, v i, 10 , 304-6.


7/8

A narrow street in Crete

PLATE III : STRUCTURALISM AN D MYTH I N M I N OANSTUDIES

(a) From 'Searchlight of archaeology', p. 9, by .-l. C.Jenkins, (b) From 'Looking at Ancient History', p. 47 , byR.J. UnsteadSee pp.33-8 Photos: a. Blackie if Son, dlasgozi;; b. A.


8/8

A i^iiniHiii harvest procession

PLATE IV. STRUCTURALISM AND MYTH IN M I N O A N STUDIES(a) From 'The Ancient \\Oiid', p. 48, by R. Ogih-ie. (b) From 'Invoking at Ancient History', p. 49, by

R. J. ( 'nsteadSe e / > / > . JJ-ti I'lifilus: ti. O. "./'. hnuluH; h. . if ('. lihick, lutl

Structural Ism and Myth in Minoan Studies

Documents

Transcript of Structural Ism and Myth in Minoan Studies