1 LM III pottery at Palaikastro has been addressed by Furumark (1941), Kanta (1980: 189-193), MacGillivray (1997a; 2007), Hatzaki (2007), and will be by Cunningham (in press), Macdonald (Macdonald & Hemingway forthcoming), and Langohr (Langohr & Letesson in preparation). For a more detailed summary, including the 1902-1906 excavations, see Appendix 1 at the end of this chapter.
2 The area under investigation since 2013 by the Palace and Landscape at Palaikastro (PALAP) project, under the direction of Carl Knappett, Alexandra Livarda and Nicoletta Momigliano, lies to the south and east, in a shallow gully, and while substantial and interesting remains of LM III date have been uncovered, there is a possibility that the area forms a different neighborhood and pending further study the material will not be discussed here, though at present it seems to support the conclusions of this paper.
3 Long term permanent settlement in the maritime plain at Palaikastro is only testified during the Bronze Age (EM IIA-LM IIIA2) and then again following WWII (ca. 1950-present day). During the Greek and Roman periods the uninhabited area was used for the site of a sanctuary of Dictaian Zeus (Crowther 1988); otherwise settlement in the coastal plain was limited and usually seasonal, sporadic and shifting.
4 It is difficult to keep up with or make sense of the various chronological attributions for these deposits in the early reports by Bosanquet and Dawkins (see references). For one thing they may not always agree, but never acknowledge any disagreement. For another, they usually attribute dates by reference to either this filled-in lustral basin (i.e. LM IIIA1-2), or the “latest” deposits (i.e. LM IIIB-C), again in Block Gamma or in Block Pi. Playing connect-the-dots can end up with a moebius strip of dating where a deposit can be said to be earlier than itself and the disagreement ends up being too large – for example, two fragmentary rhyta from Block Pi, room 3 (Dawkins 1903-1904: 214, fig. 5; Bosanquet & Dawkins 1923: 104-105, fig. 88) one of which bears a stylised, somewhat elongated octopus, are said by Dawkins to go with the filled-in lustral basin (i.e. LM IIIA1-2) but by Bosanquet to be possibly even later than the other rooms in Block Pi (i.e. LM IIIB-C). But two things are clear: the fill material in the lustral basin is stratigraphically and stylistically earlier than the final deposits in Block Gamma; and the unity of the final deposits on the site was as immediately and consistently clear to the early excavators as it was for us in the 1986-2003 campaign or even during the current programme. See Appendix 1 for more detail.
5 As noted long ago by Hallager (1987) working strictly with Cretan material we would place the end of LM IIIA1 after the start of LH IIIA2.
6 The publication of Palaikastro Building 4 (Macdonald & Hemingway forthcoming) will address this issue in more detail; Macdonald has made a case for a date still within LM IIIA2 for the end of Period XV. Here I privilege communication over accuracy as I believe most scholars would see this as early LM IIIB, even if they could ultimately be persuaded otherwise.
7 In the preliminary report the tankard with birds and rosette (Bosanquet & Dawkins 1902-1903: 318, fig. 17) is presented without mention of findspot in the section discussing Block Gamma, room 9; however, in Bosanquet & Dawkins 1923 (92-93, fig. 77) the tankard is identified as coming from “the street between Blocks B and G” (i.e. Main Street).
8 The single vase published from this area (Fig. 13.16: 2) (Bosanquet & Dawkins 1923: 109-110, fig. 94) was assigned by Furumark (1941: 106) to “LM IIIB: 1” and the context is also listed in Period XVI below; however, the shape can be LM/LH IIIA2 and the decoration has an exact parallel on a LH IIIB1 stirrup jar (Mountjoy 1999: 107, fig. 129.1) so it could also be early enough to fall within Period XV.
9 There is no material illustrated from Block Epsilon save a sherd from a stirrup jar (Fig. 13.16: 1) (Bosanquet & Dawkins 1923: 113, fig. 98) decorated with what Bosanquet calls a “conventionalised octopus” (cf. Chatzi-Vallianou, this volume, Fig. 5.29, for a similar motif on a stirrup jar from an LM IIIB context at Gouves). The area was disturbed and had Hellenic remains above, so close dating is not possible but the structure of re-used ashlar as in Blocks Gamma and Chi would fit with Period XIV-XV constructions; the stirrup jar sherd may be later.
10 Popham relates this material from House N to the filled-in lustral basin in Block Gamma (possibly as they did tests there as well), but in light of what we now know about the local sequence it is clear that this is Period XV.
11 See Montgomery 1993: 158, citing Reid et alii (1975) Room Abandonment Measure; high density of whole pots on floors indicates total settlement abandonment.
12 All local save the griffon tub from Block Pi, room 9, which may be from Episkopi Ierapetra (Fig. 13.14, P9 right).
13 Though not often mentioned these were also noted in the 1902-1906 excavations, e.g. from Block Chi, room 13, and Block Gamma, room 9 (four examples) (Bosanquet & Dawkins 1923: 112).
14 Note that in her Table 6.3 Hatzaki includes the material from the filled-in Lustral Basin (‘bath-room’) of Block Gamma at Palaikastro. This material is earlier stratigraphically and while very little of it has been published (Bosanquet & Dawkins 1902-1903: 315-316, figs 14-15) it is probably closer to the ‘Long Corridor Cists’ group from Knossos, or perhaps only a bit later; e.g. the kylix (Bosanquet & Dawkins 1902-1903: fig. 14.1) is large and has thin-within-thick banding, but only one handle (as drawn; note Bosanquet mentions it may have had two).
15 See also our Figs 13.9: 8,13.10: 5,13.10: 9.
16 The Zygouries vertical whorl-shell kylix (Fig. 13.10: 4) and stemmed bowl (Fig. 13.10: 3) are fragmentary and could be intrusive.
17 See also our Fig. 13.11: 15.
18 At Malia, Quartier Nu these were found with similarly pierced lids, so the holes are more likely for securing those than for hanging.
19 E.g. glossy dark-on-light once thought to be LM IA now starting in MM IIIA, slashed tripod legs and cross-hatched decoration on pithoi from LM IIIC to LM IIIA2, etc.
20 Only a single fragment of an amphoroid krater thus far from Sissi in a context with a possible LM IIIA2 terminus post quern (C. Langohr, pers. com.).
21 Even then, potting as a craft is less likely to hew to an easily understood rate of transmission, compared to e.g. weaving, where more information can be drawn from such changes in the ‘chaîne opératoire’ (among others Knappett 1999; Knappett & Nikolakopoulou 2008; Cutler 2012).
22 I have tried to avoid dealing with the funerary evidence from these periods, as the bulk of the tomb material is unstudied and difficult of access and what has been illustrated is generally without meaningful context. There is a temptation to make too much of tomb assemblages precisely because they do not have any inconvenient contextual information to muddy the stylistic waters, and oddly, at the same time use them as a settlement proxy. We do not have to look far to find examples of intensive settlement patterns that yet lack funerary evidence or cultures where the degree of investment in funerary practices likewise stand in contrast to the scope and complexity of settlements. However, it is very clear that while there are indications of at least a couple of tombs that may start in period XIV, and it is likely that some might continue beyond Period XV, every single one that has been published or made accessible, including recent Ephoria work and surveys, belongs mainly if not entirely to Period XV.
23 In the figures the vessels identified as imports represent a minimum.
24 Bosanquet ( & Dawkins 1923: 109) describes the context as “near the surface”. Dawkins (1903-1904: 207) in the original report said it “[…] must be associated with the latest series of walls”; he also linked it to Block Gamma, room 9 (see above, Period XV). Two sherds bore “degenerate octopus” arms.
25 Virtually no pottery, aside from a deep bowl, was published, and the report notes that only one fragment of Kamares (i.e. MM I-II) and few of “Mycenaean” (LM I) were found. The bulk of the ceramics are Period XV at least (Dawkins notes that they resemble the material from the latest deposits at Roussolakkos). All of that would suggest that perhaps the buildings are truly late constructions, but the presence of cut doorjamb bases in the ‘megaron’ of House C, forming a pier-and-door partition, would indicate that this building at least goes back to LM I if not earlier.
26 Note that cup KP1 (Fig. 13.28: 1) from a test below the LM IIIB floor on Kastri looks to be Period XIV/LM IIIA2 early stylistically, while KP4 (Fig. 13.28: 4), with the ribbed walls, would be typical of Period XV (Sackett et alii 1965: 293, fig. 14).
27 One monochrome deep bowl from Building 1 (Fig. 13.29: 9) flares unevenly; compare the right and left profile in the drawing.
28 Wiener 2003: 250 suggests 1315-1305 BC.
29 Recent 14C dates from Assiros Toumba, Central Macedonia (Wardle et alii 2014), are far enough out of line with other evidence to prohibit easy incorporation into any working chronological scheme at this point.
30 Though Nowicki (2000: 226-228) does present an initially gradual withdrawal from coastal sites, he tends to date this to late LM IIIB (at Palaikastro for example, amalgamating the Period XV abandonment with the Period XVI limited reoccupation; Nowicki 2000: 50-51).