Introduction

1The LM IIIB settlement at Phaistos, mostly considered scattered and insubstantial, eludes any attempt at explanation not so much because of a total lack of evidence but rather due to the absence of occupation layers, defined structures and related closed deposits, which would allow scholars to answer questions about the extent, nature and chronology of the human occupation.

2Since Clelia Laviosa (1963-1964; 1970; 1977) began dealing with the ‘Mycenaean’ period at Phaistos, a period which had been long neglected, it became apparent that the site had been continuously inhabited during LM III, including LM IIIB, a point which has also been stressed in the thorough survey of LM III Crete by Athanasia Kanta (1980: 100-101). Since that survey, the large amount of data collected in the new campaigns of research at Haghia Triada and Kommos allowed scholars to adopt a comparative approach to the settlement dynamics of the Mesara sites and prompted Vincenzo La Rosa (e.g. 19