1 Seager 1909, 1912; Soles 1988, 1992; Branigan 1991; Manning 1994; Whitelaw 1983, 2004; Colburn 2008.
2 Soles 1988, 1992.
3 Seager 1912, 11–3.
4 Evans 1921, 1–30; for discussion, see Hamilakis 2002.
5 Mackenzie 1903, 157–58.
6 Hamilakis 2002, 6.
7 Hamilakis 2002, 6; Legarra Herrero 2009, 29–32.
8 Seager 1912, 7–13.
9 Branigan 1970, 48–9; Warren 1972, 255–68; for further discussion see Cherry 1983, 1986; Hamilakis 2002.
10 Haggis 1999, 55.
11 Cherry 1983, 33.
12 Cherry 1983, 38.
13 Cherry 1986, 20–8.
14 Zois 1982, 207–11; Whitelaw 1983, 324–26.
15 Soles and Davaras 1992, 1994, 1996.
16 Soles 1988, 49; 1992.
17 Soles 1988, 60–1.
18 Soles 1992, 251–55.
19 Many prefer to view the household as a nuclear family (Whitelaw 1983, 2007; Soles 1992; Leggara Herrero 2014. However, Driessen (2010b, 2012) has recently challenged this assumption, suggesting the possibility of matrilineal and matrilocal kin groups constituting the household.
20 Soles 1988, 1992, 2001.
21 Haggis 2002; Schoep and Knappett 2004; Day et al. 2010; Legarra Herrero 2014; Driessen 2010a, 2010b.
22 Branigan (1991), Mee (1993), Walberg (1993), TenWolde (1994), Manning (1994), and Colburn (2008) all follow the work of Soles in arguing for a hierarchical community at Prepalatial Mochlos. Whitelaw (1983, 2004) also interprets Mochlos as having a hierarchical social organization, but he builds his argument on population estimates (1983) and explores the possibility of horizontal social structures (2004). Watrous has published the only objection to Soles’s interpretation of the Mochlos cemetery. In a review of EM and MM Crete, Watrous questioned the unequal distribution of grave goods and differentiation in architectural elaboration. He also warned against inferring social rank from mortuary data (Watrous 1994, 713). However, Watrous later changed his opinion, arguing for EM II ranked societies in his 2001 addendum to his previous article (Watrous 2001, 221–23).
23 Soles 1988, 50–1; 1992, 255–58.
24 Soles 1988, 50.
25 Soles 1992, 41–3.
26 Soles 1992, 42, 65–71, 73–7, and 79–83.
27 Soles 1992, 88–92 and 43–51.
28 Unusualness was preferred to the more commonly used z-score because it avoids the mean and standard deviation, which would frustrate attempts to locate outliers within the dataset. For a further discussion, see Drennan (2009).
29 Soles 1988, 50; Branigan 1991, 99; Colburn 2008, 212.
30 Soles does not publish the measurements for every slab. In his 1988 article, he remarks that slabs over 1 m in length are common along the western terrace (1988, 50). However he only publishes three slabs which surpass this benchmark. The measurements are as follows; Tomb I, westernmost stone in the southern wall: 1.10 by 0.23 by 0.90 m (1992, 42 n. 14), Tomb II, southernmost stone in the western wall: 1.98 by 0.28 by 1.26 m (1992, 43 n. 17), Tomb IV, largest stone in the western wall: 1.32 by 1.05 m (1992, 54 n. 32).
31 Soles 1992, 45–6.
32 Soles 1988, 50; 1992, 207–10 and 255–58.
33 The Tombs with slabs from the southern slope are IX/X, XIII, XVI, XIX, XX/XXI, XXIII/Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Theta.
34 Soles does not count the total number of slabs in Tomb XVI. In fact, he did not uncover the northern wall of the tomb (1992, 88–9), but Seager (1912, 66–7) notes the continuation of slabs along this wall.
35 Soles 1992, 87.
36 Soles 1992, 43, 68, and 103.
37 Soles 1992, 55–6.
38 Seager 1912, 40–2; Davaras 1975, 101; Soles 1992, 56–7.
39 Soles 2001, 233–35.
40 Soles 1992, fig. 21.
41 Soles 1992, 62; Legarra Herrero 2014, 242–43.
42 Legarra Herrero 2014, 243.
43 Soles 1992, 111–12.
44 Soles and Davaras 1992, 424.
45 Soles 1992, 219.
46 Soles 1988, 57; 1992, 257; Branigan 1991, 99; Colburn 2008, 212.
47 Soles 1992, 257.
48 Soles 1992, 257.
49 Seager 1912, 70.
50 Seager 1912, 76.
51 Legarra Herrero 2014, 221–22.
52 Soles 1988, 57; Branigan 1991, 98–9; Colburn 2008, 212–13.
53 Soles 1988, 57.
54 Drennan 2009, 223–24.
55 Parker Pearson 1999, 28.
56 Binford 1971, 20–9.
57 Tainter 1978, 128–36.
58 Soles 1988, 50.
59 Parker Pearson 1999, 84–94.
60 Keswani 2004, 8–9.
61 Legarra Herrero (2009, 44; 2014, 53) coined the term “off-island”. This is a far more versatile term than “exotica” which the original version of this paper employed and is the topic of an article by Colburn (2008).
62 The tombs with off-island goods are I, II, III, IV/VI, V, VII, IX/X, XI, XIII, XVI, XVIII, XIX.1, XIX.2, XX/XXI, XXII, XXIII/Alpha, Gamma, Iota, Kappa, Lambda, and Zeta. Legarra Herrero (2014, 222) uses the quantity of grave goods as a proxy for determining the best preserved tombs, and then compares the amounts of wealth from the tombs which he believes to be the best preserved. This approach has an inherent level of circularity that can be minimized by focusing on the presence or absence of goods.
63 Soles 1992, 110.
64 Seager 1912, 66.
65 Soles 1992, 100.
66 Day et al. 2010, 216.
67 Betancourt 2006, 185; Broodbank 2000, 292–99.
68 Carter 2004, 293–98.
69 Seager 1909, 290; Broodbank 1989, n. 37.
70 Broodbank 2000, 258–60.
71 Broodbank 2000, 288.
72 Broodbank 1989, 333–34; 2000, 287–89.
73 Broodbank 2000, 287.
74 Whitelaw 1983, 332–33; Haggis 2002, 128–31; Hayden 2003, 47–8, 67–8.
75 Broodbank 2000, 289.
76 Haggis 2002, 126–28.
77 Legarra Herrero 2009, 34–9.
78 Hayden 1995, 65–72.
79 Hayden 1995, 22–5.
80 Hayden 1995, 21–5.
* I would like to thank James Wright for encouraging me to pursue this topic and reading several drafts of this paper. I also want to thank everyone from Heidelberg University who organized the conference “Minoan Archaeology: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century”. Finally, I want to express my gratitude to all those who attended the conference and commented on my paper, particularly Jan Driessen and Borja Legarra Herrero who were so kind as to provide me with advanced copies of their research.