17
Minoan Archaeology Perspectives for the 21st Century Sarah Cappel Ute Günkel-Maschek Diamantis Panagiotopoulos

Minoan Archaeology - Aegeus Society...3 The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology From the Renaissance Until the Arrival of Sir Arthur Evans in Crete* Nektarios Karadimas To Nicoletta

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    11

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Minoan Archaeology

Perspectives for the 21st Century

Sarah Cappel

Ute Günkel-Maschek

Diamantis Panagiotopoulos

© Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2015 Registration of copyright: D/2015/9964/24ISBN: 978-2-87558-394-9ISBN PDF version: 978-2-87558-395-6Printed in Belgium by CIACO scrl - printer number 91617 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted or translated, in any form or by any means, in any country, without the prior permission of Presses universitaires de Louvain

Graphic design: Marie-Hélène Grégoire Cover image: © Ute Günkel-Maschek

Distribution: www.i6doc.com, on-line university publishers Available on order from bookshops or at Diffusion universitaire CIACO (University Distributors) Grand-Rue, 2/141348 Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumTel: +32 10 47 33 78Fax: +32 10 45 73 [email protected]

Distributor in France:Librairie Wallonie-Bruxelles46 rue Quincampoix75004 Paris, FranceTel: +33 1 42 71 58 03Fax: +33 1 42 71 58 [email protected]

This book has been printed with the inancial support from the Institute of Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP)

I

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements III

“Minoan Archaeology”: The Heidelberg Conference Between Past and Future

Sarah Cappel, Ute Günkel-Maschek, Diamantis Panagiotopoulos V

Conference Programme IX

Dealing with “Minoan”: 111 Years of Minoan archaeologY

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology: From the Renaissance Until the Arrival of

Sir Arthur Evans in Crete

Nektarios Karadimas 3

Exhibiting the Minoan Past: From Oxford to Knossos

Yannis Galanakis 17

Data in Progress: exPloring the cretan lanD- anD citYscaPe

Chryssi Island: New Evidence on the Bronze Age Settlement Patterns of the Ierapetra Area

Konstantinos Chalikias 37

Making the Invisible Visible: Ground Penetrating Radar at Papadiokampos, Crete

Antonia Stamos 53

Capturing the Dynamics of the Minoan Mortuary Space in South Central Crete

Sylviane Déderix 61

Minoan Cityscapes: Urban Planning in Neopalatial Crete

D. Matthew Buell 77

let’s coMe together: Places anD sPaces of social anD ritual interaction

The Places and the Role of Consumption in MM II Phaistos

Giorgia Baldacci 95

Deining Minoan “Cult Rooms”: Past and Present Approaches to the Archaeology of CultKathrin Müller 109

Between the Physical and Metaphysical: Exploring Aspects of Communication in the

Temple Tomb at Knossos

Mark S. Peters 125

(De)Constructing Identities Through Architecture in LM III Crete

Panagiota A. Pantou 135

Peer Pressure: social structures froM a “Minoan” PersPective

For an Archaeology of Minoan Society. Identifying the Principles of Social Structure

Jan Driessen 149

All Aboard: The Longboat and a Heterarchical Interpretation of the Mochlos Cemetery

Steven T. Karacic 167

Social Complexity and Gender Inequality in Prepalatial Crete: An Argument of Reason

or a Reason for Argument?

Maria Mina 181

Connecting with Selves and Others: Varieties of Community-Making across Late Prepalatial Crete

Emily S.K. Anderson 199

II

Social Variation in Middle Bronze Age Knossos: Palaeodietary Evidence

Argyro Nafplioti 213

On the Household Structure of Neopalatial Society

Emmanouela Apostolaki 223

Manpower and Neopalatial Architecture: The Architectural Project as a Meaningful Experience

Maud Devolder 241

Be(hav)ing “Minoan”: negotiating life anD Death through Practice anD PerforMance

Recreating the Past: Using Tholos Tombs in Protopalatial Mesara

Ilaria Caloi 255

The Body Brand and Minoan Zonation

Anna Simandiraki-Grimshaw 267

Cultural Performances at the Beginning of the Bronze Age: Early Minoan I and II Cemeteries as

Stages for Performance

Katy Soar 283

Performance Theory in Minoan Rituals and the Ambiguity of Minoan Symbols

Maria Chountasi 299

(A) Choreographed Frenzy: A Sequence of Steps Towards Understanding Movement and Dance

in Aegean Bronze Age Iconography

Céline Murphy 311

A Portable Goddess: On Performative and Experiental Aspects of Figures and Figurines

Katarzyna Zeman-Wisniewska 319

“Minoan” Material entangleMents: DocuMenting anD interPreting “Minoan” (?) craftsManshiP

Minoan Pottery: From Materials to Materiality

Carl Knappett 329

Pots and Potters: Thoughts on Ceramic Technology and the Craftsmen behind the Product

Sebastian Traunmüller 341

Transmediterranean Knowledge and Minoan Style Reliefs in Tell el Dabca: An Attempt at

Paradigm Shift

Constance von Rüden 355

Minoan Archaeology: The Pretence of Being Through Perception, Retention and Recollection

Iro Mathioudaki 367

closing reMarks

Formulating Minoan Research in the 21st Century

Peter Warren 377

List of Contributors 381

3

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology

From the Renaissance Until the Arrival of Sir Arthur Evans in Crete*

Nektarios Karadimas

To Nicoletta Momigliano α ω φ α

The article aims to systematically present the period from the Renaissance until the be ginning of the 1890s, when

ArthurΝEvansΝirstΝarrivedΝinΝCreteέΝItΝdiscussesΝhowΝscholarsΝdiscoΝveredΝandΝidentiiedΝprehistoricΝsitesΝinΝCrete,ΝdeinedΝcultures andΝcoinedΝterms,ΝwhichΝinspiredΝEvansΝinΝtheΝconstructionΝofΝhisΝMinoanΝparadigmέΝInΝdoingΝso,Νit resurrects the work of scholars, such as Buondelmonti, Müller, Hoeck, Pashley and Spratt, and it assesses their

importanceΝinΝtheΝdeveΝlopΝmentΝofΝMinoanΝstudies,ΝshowingΝtheΝintellectualΝdebtΝthatΝEvansΝowedΝtoΝthemέΝMore­over, this article aims to show that the period before the 1890s was no tabula rasa for Mi no an archaeology, but an

important and interesting phase, in which important discoveries and theo ries took place, some of which continue

toΝinluenceΝcurrentΝscholarshipέ

Arguably, most works on the history of Minoan archaeology begin with Sir Arthur Evans’s ex cava tions at Knossos,

thus implying that the period before him represents for Minoan studies some kind of tabula rasaέ1 However, while

Evans remains the main discoverer of the material re mains of what he called “Minoan civilisation”, in terms of his

interpretations,ΝheΝisΝmuchΝindebtedΝtoΝpreviousΝscholarshipέΝόorΝcenturiesΝbeforeΝEvans,ΝotherΝscholarsΝwereΝinte­rested in what we now call the prehistoricΝtimesΝofΝCreteμΝonΝtheΝoneΝhand,ΝphilologistsΝandΝhistorians,ΝwhoΝneverΝviΝsiΝtedΝtheΝisland,ΝworkedΝthroughΝtheirΝlibrariesΝandΝstudiedΝtheΝancientΝhistoryΝofΝCreteνΝonΝtheΝotherΝhand,Νtravel­lers,ΝwhoΝactuallyΝsetΝfootΝonΝtheΝisland,ΝmadeΝtheΝirstΝtopographicalΝandΝarΝchaeΝoΝlogicalΝobservationsέΝThisΝarticleΝdiscusses this long period of “Minoan studies” before Evans, which lasted almost 500 years, and is divided into

fourΝmainΝsectionsμΝ1)ΝfromΝtheΝReΝnaisΝsanceΝtoΝ1κβίνΝβ)ΝtheΝdecadeΝbetweenΝ1κβίΝandΝ1κγί,ΝwhichΝsawΝtheΝemer­genceΝofΝveryΝinΝluentialΝstudiesΝonΝancientΝCreteΝbyΝscholarsΝbasedΝatΝtheΝuniversityΝofΝGöttingenνΝγ)ΝtheΝperiodΝofΝ1κγί–1κιη,ΝwhichΝsawΝtheΝirstΝarchaeologicalΝandΝtopographicalΝresearchesΝonΝtheΝislandνΝandΝ4)ΝtheΝperiodΝofΝ1κιθ–1κλ4,ΝrepresentingΝtheΝphaseΝbetweenΝSchliemann’sΝdiscoveriesΝatΝMycenaeΝandΝEvans’sΝirstΝvisitΝtoΝCreteέ

I. The Unseen Foundations of Minoan Archaeology (From the Renaissance Until 1820)

The Renaissance was a cultural movement that deeply shaped modern thinking largely through the renewed stu­dyΝofΝancientΝclassicalΝ textsΝandΝancientΝcivilisationέΝAsΝfewΝ“pre­Dorian”ΝmaterialΝ reΝmainsΝwereΝknown,ΝmostΝscholars,Ν philologistsΝ andΝhistoriansΝ exclusivelyΝbasedΝ theirΝ ideasΝonΝ anΝcientΝwrittenΝ sourcesέΝByΝmeticulouslyΝexamining the Homeric poems and other ancient works, they endeavoured to describe the religion, politics, ethics,

socialΝorganisationΝofΝCreteΝduringΝtheΝώeΝroicΝorΝώomericΝtimes,ΝasΝtheΝprehistoricΝtimesΝwereΝcommonlyΝcalledΝatΝthatΝperiodέ

InΝtermsΝofΝreligionΝandΝsocialΝorganisation,ΝitΝisΝinterestingΝtoΝnoteΝthatΝscholars,ΝsuchΝasΝWilliamΝMitford,ΝbelievedΝthat kings in Heroic and Homeric times exercised supremacy in matters of re li gion in addition to their political ob­ligationsέβΝKingsΝwereΝeffectivelyΝconsideredΝtoΝbeΝPriest­Kings,ΝaΝtermΝthatΝwasΝfrequentlyΝemployedΝinΝώomericΝdiscussionsΝofΝtheΝ1κth–1λthΝcenΝturiesέΝTheΝbestΝexampleΝwasΝMinosΝhimself,ΝasΝsuggestedΝbyΝύottfriedΝώerrmannΝ

* MostΝpartΝofΝtheΝpresentΝarticleΝisΝbasedΝonΝmyΝunpublishedΝPhέDέΝdissertationΝ“ProlegomenaΝtoΝAegeanΝArchaeologyνΝfromΝtheΝRe­naissanceΝuntilΝ1κιθ”Ν(UniversityΝofΝBristol,Νβίίλ)έΝIΝwouldΝlikeΝtoΝthankΝmyΝsupervisorΝDrΝσicolettaΝMomiglianoΝforΝherΝhelpΝandΝcontinuousΝsupport,ΝasΝwellΝasΝmyΝexaminersΝProfέΝύeraldΝCadoganΝandΝDrΝSilkeΝKnippschildέ1ΝSee,ΝforΝexampleμΝMcDonaldΝ1λθι,ΝchaptersΝI–IVνΝWarrenΝ1λιη,Ν1–1β,ΝespέΝ1βνΝStiebingΝ1λλγ,Ν1β4–4βνΝόittonΝ1λλθ,Νλ–4θέβΝMitfordΝ1ικ4,Νθη–θέ

4

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology

inΝ1κίβμΝ“PriesΝterΝundΝKönigΝbestandenΝbeiΝdenΝύriechenΝinΝeinerΝPersonέΝMinosΝwarΝKönigΝundΝPriesterέ”γ The

notionΝofΝaΝPriest­KingΝwasΝalsoΝadoptedΝbyΝArthurΝEvansΝhimself,ΝwhoΝsoughtΝtoΝidentifyΝportraitsΝofΝPriest­KingsΝinΝaΝseriesΝofΝLateΝBronzeΝAgeΝseals,Νand,ΝmostΝfamously,ΝinΝaΝreliefΝfrescoΝknownΝasΝtheΝ“Priest­King”έ4

TheΝigureΝofΝMinosΝisΝalsoΝimportantΝforΝotherΝissuesΝconcerningΝtheΝreligious,ΝsocialΝandΝpoliticalΝorganisationΝofΝprehistoricΝCrete,ΝwhichΝfoundΝtheirΝwayΝintoΝtheΝworkΝofΝtheΝ“father”ΝofΝMinoanΝarΝchaeologyέΝManyΝcontra­dictoryΝancientΝύreekΝmythsΝexistedΝaroundΝKingΝMinosμΝmostΝancientΝauthorsΝsupportedΝtheΝexistenceΝofΝaΝsingleΝperson,ΝwhileΝothersΝspokeΝofΝtwoΝMinosesέ5 To solve this problem, most scholars suggested that there had been

twoΝMinosesμΝtheΝirstΝwasΝtheΝlawgiverΝandΝtheΝsecondΝtheΝmasterΝofΝtheΝseasέθ The problem became more acute

towardsΝtheΝendΝofΝtheΝ1κthΝcentury,ΝwhenΝIndo­EuropeanΝstudiesΝbegunέΝSomeΝscholars,ΝsuchΝasΝJacobΝBryant, WilliamΝώolwell and WilliamΝJonesΝnoticedΝmanyΝsimilaritiesΝbetweenΝMinosΝandΝotherΝmythicalΝiguresΝfromΝotherΝcultures,ΝsuchΝasΝtheΝEgyptianΝMenes,ΝtheΝIndianΝMenus,ΝandΝtheΝύermanΝMannousέι Other scholars preferred

comparisonsΝwithΝtheΝJewishΝMoses,ΝwhoΝhadΝclimbedΝMountΝSinaiΝtoΝreceiveΝtheΝlawsΝfromΝhisΝύod,ΝinΝtheΝsameΝwayΝasΝMinosΝhadΝclimbedΝMountΝIdaΝtoΝreΝceiveΝtheΝlawsΝfromΝZeusέ8 Besides their almost identical names, these

iguresΝsharedΝaΝnumberΝofΝfeaturesμΝtheyΝwereΝsonsΝofΝgods,ΝirstΝkings,ΝandΝhadΝintroducedΝlawsΝandΝartsΝtoΝtheirΝpeopleέΝBeΝcauseΝofΝthis,ΝsomeΝscholars,ΝsuchΝasΝAllwoodΝandΝPlass,ΝarguedΝthatΝMinos’sΝnameΝindicatedΝaΝtitleΝorΝaΝdynastyν9ΝandΝthisΝbecameΝaΝcrucialΝtenetΝinΝEvans’sΝreconstructionΝofΝMinoanΝCreteέ10

WhileΝ philologistsΝ andΝhistoriansΝ triedΝ toΝ understandΝCrete’sΝmostΝ distantΝ pastΝ throughΝ theΝ availableΝwrittenΝevidence,ΝCreteΝwasΝ becomingΝ theΝ centreΝ ofΝ intenseΝ archaeologicalΝ interestέ11Ν όromΝ theΝRenaissanceΝ onwards,ΝtravellersΝvisitedΝtheΝislandΝinΝincreasingΝnumbersέΝUnsurprisingly,ΝduΝΝringΝthisΝperiodΝinterestΝinΝnon­classicalΝsitesΝorΝmonumentsΝwasΝveryΝlimitedέΝClassicismΝpreΝvailedΝinΝEuropeΝduringΝtheΝ1ηth–1κthΝcenturies,ΝandΝthisΝcausedΝtravellersΝtoΝviΝsitΝmainlyΝclassicalΝmonumentsέ1β This phenomenon was further accentuated by the publication of

WinΝckelmann’sΝGedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen WerkeΝ (1ιηη),1γΝandΝfromΝ1ιθβΝonwardsΝbyΝStuart’s and Revett’s magnum opus, The Antiquities of Athensέ

TwoΝCretanΝsites,ΝwhichΝwereΝdatedΝtoΝMinos’sΝtimes,ΝwereΝtheΝmostΝpopularΝattractionsμΝKnossosΝ(orΝύnossusΝasΝitΝwasΝusuallyΝcalledΝatΝthatΝperiod)ΝandΝtheΝLabyrinthΝofΝMinosέΝTheΝrenewedΝinΝteΝrestΝinΝtheseΝsitesΝwasΝdueΝtoΝtheΝintellectualΝrevolutionΝofΝtheΝRenaissance,ΝwhichΝsoonΝreachedΝVenetianΝCreteέΝTheΝeighthΝbookΝofΝτvid’sΝMetamorphoses, devotedΝtoΝtheΝstoryΝofΝMinos,ΝpiquedΝvisitors’ΝinterestΝinΝtheΝlatterέΝInΝparticular,ΝafterΝtheΝinven­tion of the printing press, Ovid’s Me tamorphoses underwent many editions, which sometimes included elaborate

illustrationsΝofΝMinos’sΝlabyrinth,ΝbasedΝonΝcoinsΝfoundΝatΝKnossosέ14

ReferencesΝtoΝtheΝancientΝsiteΝofΝKnossosΝstartedΝtoΝappearΝinΝVenetianΝdocumentsΝatΝtheΝendΝofΝtheΝ14thΝcenturyέΝKnossosΝhadΝ largelyΝdisappeared,ΝbutΝ itsΝoriginalΝ locationΝwasΝneverΝ forΝgottenέΝόollowingΝStraboΝ(Xέ4έι),ΝwhoΝwroteΝthatΝtheΝsiteΝofΝKnossosΝwasΝβηΝstadiaΝfromΝtheΝsea,ΝmostΝtravellersΝremarkedΝthatΝwalls,ΝpotsherdsΝandΝcoinsΝofΝtheΝcityΝofΝKnossosΝexistedΝveΝryΝcloseΝtoΝaΝsmallΝvillage,ΝwhichΝfromΝtheΝbeginningΝofΝtheΝ1ηthΝcenturyΝADΝwasΝ

γΝώerrmannΝ1κί1–1κίβ,ΝβμγίίέΝInΝtheΝsameΝway,ΝKarlΝAugustΝBöttigerΝnotedΝaΝfewΝyearsΝlaterμΝ“die Priester und Kö nige, eins in dersel­ben Person, repräsentiren oft selbst die Götter”Ν(BöttigerΝ1κβθ,Ν1μβίκ)έ4ΝEvansΝ1λίί–1λί1,Ν1η–θνΝ1λβκ,Νιι4–ληέΝόorΝtheΝ“Priest­King”Νfresco,ΝseeΝalsoΝCoulombΝ1λιλνΝσiemeierΝ1λκκνΝSherrattΝβίίίνΝShawΝβίί4έ5ΝEέgέ,ΝώomerΝ(Iliad,Ν ,Ν44κ–4η4),ΝώerodotusΝ(Iέ1ιγ),ΝandΝThucydidesΝ(IέκΝandΝIέβ)ΝspokeΝofΝoneΝMinos,ΝwhileΝDiodorusΝofΝSicilyΝ(Bibliotheca Historica,ΝIVέηλ)ΝmentionedΝtwoΝMinosesέθΝόorΝexampleμΝMarshamΝ1θλθ,Νβηβ–ηθ,Νβλί–λγνΝBanierΝ1ιγλ–1ι4ί,Νγμ4κβ–η1ηνΝTressanΝ1ιλι,Νγγγ–η4έι BryantΝ1ιιη,Νβμ414–4ίνΝHolwellΝ1ιλγ,ΝβιλνΝJonesΝ1ιλ4,Νprefaceέ8ΝEέgέ,ΝtheΝόrenchΝmonkΝώuetΝsuggestedΝthatΝMinosΝandΝMosesΝwereΝtheΝsameΝpersonΝ(seeΝBanierΝ1ιγλ–1ι4ί,Νγμ4κθνΝTressanΝ1ιλι,Νγγη–γθ)έΝEvansΝhimself,Νalso,ΝusedΝtoΝcompareΝMinosΝtoΝMosesΝatΝleastΝinΝhisΝirstΝAegeanΝpublicationsμΝ“MinôsΝtheΝCretanΝMoses”Ν(EvansΝ1κλ4,Νγι1)νΝ“MinosΝisΝtheΝCretanΝMoses”Ν(EvansΝ1λί1,Ν11θ)έ9ΝAllwoodΝ1ιλλ,ΝβιγνΝPlassΝ1κγ1,Ν1ιλέ10ΝInΝ1λίθΝEvansΝwroteΝforΝexampleμΝ“LeΝtermeΝ‘minoen’ΝaΝauΝmoinsΝl’avantageΝdeΝneΝpasΝdépasserΝlesΝconinsΝd’uneΝneuΝtralitéΝeth­nographiqueέΝSeΝservirΝdeΝ‘Minos’ΝcommeΝdeΝ‘César’ΝouΝdeΝ‘Pharaon’ΝneΝsusciteΝpasΝlesΝquestionsΝembrouilléesΝdesΝCariensΝetΝdesΝPélasges,ΝdesΝAchéens,ΝouΝmêmeΝdesΝLibyensέ”11ΝόorΝgeneralΝinformationΝaboutΝtravellersΝtoΝCrete,ΝseeΝRiceΝ1λγγνΝώemmerdinger­IliadouΝ1λθινΝSimopoulosΝ1λιί–κηνΝWarrenΝ1λιβ,Νβίίίέ1β See, for example, ύeorgopoulouΝetΝalέΝβίίινΝSveΝ1λλγέ1γΝTranslatedΝintoΝEnglishΝinΝ1ιθθΝas Relections concerning the Imitation of the Grecian Artists in Painting and Sculpture.14ΝEέgέ,ΝSalomonΝ1ηηινΝSprengΝ1ηθγνΝMicyllusΝ1ηκβέΝτneΝofΝtheΝbestΝeditionsΝwasΝmadeΝbyΝύeorgeΝSandysΝinΝ1θβθΝ(reΝpublishedΝinΝ1θγβ),ΝwhoΝhadΝvisitedΝCrete,ΝtheΝ“ύortynΝLabyrinth”ΝandΝpossiblyΝtheΝsiteΝofΝKnossosΝasΝwellέ

5

Nektarios Karadimas

knownΝasΝMaΝkryΝtoichosΝ( α ο χο )έΝAmongΝtheΝdozensΝofΝvisitorsΝwhoΝvisitedΝKnossosΝaΝfewΝareΝworthyΝofΝmenΝtionμΝτnorioΝBelliΝ(visitΝinΝ1ηκθ),ΝόrancescoΝBasilicataΝ(inΝ1θγί)ΝandΝClaudeΝEtienneΝSavaryΝ(inΝ1ιιλ)έ15

RegardingΝtheΝLabyrinthΝofΝMinos,ΝitΝwasΝoftenΝbelievedΝthatΝthisΝfamousΝstructureΝwasΝaΝcaveήquarΝryΝnearΝύor­tyn,ΝasΝthisΝisΝwellΝillustratedΝbyΝnumerousΝmapsΝofΝtheΝ1ηth–1κthΝcenΝturiesέΝItΝisΝlikelyΝthatΝthisΝidentiicationΝgrewΝinΝprominenceΝbecauseΝtheΝ“ύortynΝLabyrinth”ΝseemedΝmanmade,ΝcontainingΝnumerousΝdeadΝendsέΝThisΝbeliefΝwasΝparticularlyΝpromotedΝduringΝtheΝCretanΝRenaissanceΝbyΝtheΝVenetianΝgovernors,ΝwhoΝsoughtΝtoΝhaveΝtheΝ“real”ΝLabyrinthΝinΝtheirΝterritoryέΝύasparinoΝBarzizzaΝmentionedΝthatΝtheΝVenetianΝrulersΝofΝCreteΝregularlyΝorganisedΝpleaΝsantΝjourneysΝtoΝtheΝ“ύortynΝLabyrinth”ΝforΝmagistratesΝorΝotherΝvisitorsΝfromΝVeniceέ1θΝUsingΝonlyΝtorchesΝorΝcandles, travellers reached the last hall, which was called Trapeza, where they wrote or carved their names on the

wallsέΝώowever,ΝinΝtheΝ1κthΝcenturyΝmostΝtravellersΝsugΝgesΝtedΝthatΝtheΝ“ύortynΝLabyrinth”Νwas,ΝinΝfact,ΝaΝquarryΝthatΝprovidedΝbuildingΝmaterialsΝforΝtheΝanΝcientΝcityΝofΝύortynέΝAmongΝtheΝmostΝimportantΝvisitorsΝtoΝtheΝ“ύortynΝLabyrinth”ΝareΝCristoforoΝBuondelmontiΝ(viΝΝsitΝinΝcaέΝ141η),ΝPierreΝBelonΝ(visitΝinΝ1η4ι),ΝJosephΝPittonΝdeΝTourne­fortΝ(inΝ1ιίί),ΝJohnΝώawkinsΝ(inΝ1ιλ4),ΝCharlesΝCockerellΝ(inΝ1κ11)ΝandΝόranzΝSieberΝ(inΝ1κ1ι)έ1ι

II. The “Göttingen School” and the Idea of a Minoan Civilisation (1820–1830)

When,ΝatΝtheΝendΝofΝtheΝ1κthΝcentury,ΝtheΝdistinguishedΝύermanΝclassicistΝόriedrichΝAugustΝWolfΝ (1ιηί–1κβ4)Ν introducedΝ theΝ ideaΝofΝAltertums-wissenschaftΝorΝ“scienceΝofΝantiquity”ΝasΝaΝnewΝapproachΝtoΝtheΝstudyΝof the past, little did he know of the impact that his ideas were going to

haveΝonΝMinoanΝandΝAegeanΝstudiesΝinΝgeneralέ18 According to this new

ap proach, the ancient world was to be studied in its entirety, by encom­passingΝallΝtheΝaspectsΝofΝaΝcivilisationέΝώistoryΝhadΝtoΝbeΝconcernedΝnotΝonly with narratives of events, kings, and battles, but also with other

asΝpectsΝofΝlifeΝsuchΝasΝreligion,Νart,ΝandΝeconomyέInluencedΝbyΝtheΝideasΝandΝtheΝmethodsΝofΝtheΝnewΝAltertumswissen-

schaft,ΝthreeΝscholarsΝplayedΝaΝsigniicantΝroleΝinΝtheΝsubsequentΝstudyΝofΝMinoanΝarchaeologyμΝKarlΝτtfriedΝMüllerΝ(1ιλι–1κ4ί),ΝKarlΝόried­richΝσeumannΝ(1ιλγ–1κιί)ΝandΝparticularlyΝKarlΝώoeckΝ(1ιλ4–1κιι)Ν(igέΝ1)έΝTheyΝwereΝallΝbasedΝatΝtheΝwell­knownΝUniversityΝofΝύöttingen,Νand it is fair to say that the pub li cations of these scholars, whom one

mayΝdubΝ theΝ “ύöttingenΝSchool”,Ν establishedΝ aΝ numberΝ ofΝ inΝluentialΝtheoriesΝaboutΝprehistoricΝCreteΝthatΝhadΝaΝgreatΝimpactΝonΝmanyΝschol­ars,ΝandΝmostΝimΝportantlyΝonΝSirΝArthurΝEvansέΝInΝ1κβί,ΝσeumannΝpub­lished the Rerum Creticarum Specimen,Ν writΝtenΝ inΝ LatinέΝ όromΝ 1κβγΝuntilΝ1κβκ,ΝώoeckΝpublishedΝhisΝseminalΝthree­volumeΝworkΝKreta. Ein Ver such zur Aufhellung der Mythologie und Geschichte, der Religion und Verfassung dieser Insel, von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Römer-Herrschaft, while

inΝ1κβ4,ΝMüllerΝpublishedΝDie Dorier,ΝwhichΝwasΝalsoΝtranslatedΝintoΝEnglishΝ(inΝ1κγίΝandΝ1κγλ)έσeumann’s,ΝMüller’s,ΝandΝώoeck’sΝworksΝareΝexcellentΝexamplesΝofΝtheΝmethodsΝofΝtheΝAlter tums wissenschaft

appliedΝtoΝclassicalΝsourcesΝonΝCreteέΝόorΝtheΝirstΝtime,ΝtheΝearliestΝhistoryΝofΝCreteΝwasΝexaminedΝsystematicallyΝandΝmeticulouslyέΝThisΝinvolvedΝtheΝstudyΝofΝcomparativeΝreliΝgion,ΝtheΝetymologyΝofΝpersonalΝnamesΝsuchΝasΝMi­nos,ΝEuropaΝandΝPasiphae,ΝandΝtheΝexaminationΝofΝtoponymsέΝσotΝonlyΝmythology,ΝbutΝalsoΝancientΝartefacts,Νwhe­neverΝpossible,ΝwereΝusedΝasΝvalidΝsourcesΝforΝaΝbetterΝunderstandingΝofΝύreekΝandΝCretanΝhistoryΝandΝprehistoryέ19

The most important contributions of the Göttingen scholars to the study of Aegean prehistory were made by Müller

and,ΝinΝparticular,ΝbyΝώoeckέΝBothΝpromotedΝtheΝideaΝthatΝinΝtheΝsecondΝhalfΝofΝtheΝsecondΝmillenniumΝBCΝCreteΝ

15ΝτnΝBelli,ΝseeΝόalkenerΝ1κη4νΝBeschiΝ1λλλέΝBasilicata’sΝmanuscriptΝwasΝpublishedΝbyΝSpanakisΝinΝ1λθλέΝSavaryΝ1ικκa,Ν1λβ–λγΝandΝ1ικκb,Νβ14–1ηέΝτnΝKnossosΝbeforeΝtheΝirstΝexcavations,ΝseeΝalsoΝKopakaΝβίί4έ1θΝSeeΝWoodwardΝ1λ4λνΝύuarducciΝ1ληίέ1ι AposkitiΝβίίβ,ΝηίνΝBelonΝ1ηηγ,ΝκνΝTournefortΝ1ιίβνΝLackΝandΝMabberleyΝ1λλλ,Ν1βθνΝCockerellΝ1κβί,Ν4ίβ–λνΝSieberΝ1κβγ,Ν1μη1ί–βίΝandΝβμβλγ–λιέ18 On the Altertumswissenschaft,Ν seeΝύoochΝ1λ1γ,Νβ4–41νΝPfeifferΝ1λιθ,Ν1ιγ–ιινΝBernalΝ1λκι,Νβκί–γ1θνΝMarchandΝ1λλθ,Ν1ι–β4νΝMorrisΝ1λλιέ19ΝόorΝexample,ΝinΝtheΝirstΝvolumeΝofΝKreta, Hoeck included a small chapter on the “Gortyn Labyrinth”, reproduced a map of the

LabyrinthΝfromΝSieberΝ1κβγ,ΝandΝillustratedΝtwoΝcoinsΝofΝtheΝancientΝtownΝofΝKnossosΝ(ώoeckΝ1κβγ,Ν44ι–η4,ΝplέΝII)έ

Fig. 1 Karl Hoeck (1794 – 1877).

Cour tesy of the University of Göttin gen.

6

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology

hadΝbeenΝtheΝhomeΝofΝaΝbrilliantΝcivilisationέΝThisΝcivilisaΝtionΝwasΝdubbedΝ“minoisch”Ν(whichΝBritishΝscholars,Νin­cludingΝEvans,ΝlaterΝtranslatedΝasΝ“Minoan”),ΝwhileΝtheΝperiodΝinΝwhichΝitΝlourishedΝwasΝcalledΝ“minoischeΝZeit”έβί

Moreover,ΝώoeckΝsuggestedΝthatΝtheΝancientΝύreekΝsourcesΝhadΝattributedΝtoΝaΝsingleΝhistoricalΝorΝmythicalΝigureΝnamed Minos, a series of events which took place over a long span of time, and thus Hoeck claimed that the name

MinosΝrepresentedΝtheΝtotalityΝofΝactsΝthatΝoccurredΝduringΝaΝperiodΝofΝaboutΝtwoΝcenturiesΝbeforeΝtheΝTrojanΝWarέβ1

This notion of a “Minoan Age” appears to have been formulated by ana logy with that of the “Homeric Age”, which

wasΝalreadyΝestablishedΝbyΝtheΝearlyΝ1λthΝcenΝturyέββ

InΝviewΝofΝlaterΝdevelopmentsΝinΝMinoanΝarchaeology,ΝitΝisΝworthΝnotingΝthatΝtheΝύöttingenΝschoΝlarsΝalsoΝprodu­cedΝfairlyΝdetailedΝsuggestionsΝaboutΝtheΝchronologyΝofΝCretanΝPrehistoryΝ(igέΝβ)έΝόorΝtheΝperiodΝbeforeΝtheΝ“ReturnΝofΝtheΝDorians”ΝtheyΝmadeΝextensiveΝuseΝofΝnotionsΝofΝgrowth,Νmaturity,ΝandΝdecadenceΝ–ΝnotionsΝthatΝformedΝanΝimportantΝpartΝofΝEvans’sΝownΝMinoΝanΝchronoΝlogyέΝσeumannΝsubdividedΝCretanΝprehistoryΝintoΝtheΝpre­Minos’s,ΝMinos’sΝandΝpost­MiΝnos’sΝtimesέΝώoeck,ΝonΝtheΝotherΝhand,ΝdistinguishedΝfourΝperiodsέβγΝTheΝirstΝwasΝcalledΝpre­MiΝnoΝanΝ(vorminoisch),ΝandΝrelatedΝtoΝtheΝtimesΝbeforeΝKingΝMinosνΝduringΝthisΝperiodΝPhrygianΝandΝPhoenicianΝcolonistsΝcameΝtoΝCreteΝand,ΝthroughΝtheirΝmixingΝwithΝaboriginalΝinhabitants,ΝώoΝmer’sΝ“Eteocretans”ΝwereΝbornέΝώoeck’sΝsecondΝorΝ“Minoan”ΝperiodΝoccupiedΝtwoΝcenturiesΝbeΝforeΝtheΝTrojanΝWarνΝitΝwasΝtheΝmostΝbrilliantΝinΝtheΝwholeΝhistoryΝofΝtheΝisland,ΝduringΝwhichΝtheΝnon­ώellenicΝEteocretansΝcreatedΝaΝsplendidΝcivilisation,ΝwhichΝwasΝfartherΝaheadΝthanΝitsΝύreekΝmainΝlandΝcounterpartέΝThisΝ“MinoanΝperiod”ΝincludedΝtheΝ“MinoanΝThalassocracy”,ΝwhichΝendedΝaroundΝ1βηίΝBC,ΝandΝsoonΝafterwardsΝCreteΝcameΝunderΝaΝstrongΝώellenicΝinluenceέΝWhenΝtheΝTroΝjanΝWarΝstartedΝ(aroundΝ1βίίΝBC),ΝaΝperiodΝofΝdeclineΝandΝdecadenceΝbegan,ΝaΝpost­MinoanΝphaseέΝόorΝaΝbriefΝperiodΝofΝalmostΝ1θίΝyearsΝaΝώellenisedΝMinoanΝdynastyΝcontinuedΝtoΝrule,ΝwhichΝsurelyΝremindsΝusΝofΝEvans’sΝreoccup­ationΝperiodέΝByΝtheΝtimeΝtheΝDoriansΝarrivedΝatΝCreteΝaroundΝ1ί4ίΝBC,ΝlittleΝremainedΝofΝtheΝMinoanΝcivilisationέΝ

Müller’sΝ reconstructionΝpresentedΝ someΝ fundamentalΝdifferencesέΝTheΝmostΝ importantΝwasΝ that,Ν acΝcordingΝ toΝMüller,ΝtheΝMinoanΝCretansΝwereΝύreek,ΝandΝmoreΝspeciicallyΝDoriansέΝThisΝcouldΝbeΝprovedΝnotΝonlyΝbyΝtheΝmythΝofΝtheΝDorianΝTectamus,ΝwhoΝwasΝMinos’sΝgrandfather,ΝbutΝalsoΝbyΝtheΝcultΝofΝtheΝmainΝDorianΝgod,ΝApollo,ΝwhoΝwasΝusuallyΝassociatedΝwithΝtheΝMinoanΝCretansέΝMüllerΝdividedΝCrete’sΝmostΝancientΝtimesΝintoΝfourΝphasesέΝTheΝirstΝembracedΝtheΝirstΝDorianΝmiΝgrationΝtoΝCreteΝfromΝtheirΝoriginalΝhomelandΝinΝThessaly,ΝandΝsawΝtheΝfoundationΝofΝtemplesΝofΝApolloΝatΝDelphi,ΝDelos,ΝandΝCreteέΝDuringΝtheΝsecondΝphase,ΝtheΝacmeΝofΝtheΝMinoanΝcivilisation,ΝtheΝDorianΝCretansΝtookΝcontrolΝofΝtheΝAegeanΝseaΝandΝspreadΝtheirΝcultΝofΝApolloΝeverywhereέΝAfterΝMinos’sΝdeath,ΝtwoΝorΝthreeΝgenerationsΝbeforeΝtheΝTrojanΝWar,ΝaΝperiodΝofΝdeclineΝbeganέΝThisΝperiodΝwasΝfollowedΝinΝturnΝbyΝtheΝmainΝDorianΝmigrationέΝ

InΝviewΝofΝrecentΝcritiquesΝofΝtheΝtermΝ“Minoan”,ΝitΝisΝinterestingΝtoΝnoteΝthatΝinΝtheΝworksΝofΝMüllerΝandΝώoeckΝtheΝtermΝ“Minoan”,ΝunlikeΝtoday,ΝdidΝnotΝhaveΝracialΝorΝethnicΝconnotations,ΝbutΝesΝsenΝtiallyΝaΝchronologicalΝmean­ingέΝInΝaΝsense,ΝitΝwasΝusedΝinΝaΝwayΝsimilarΝtoΝtheΝtermΝ“Pharaonic”,ΝbecauseΝforΝtheΝύöttingenΝscholarsΝtheΝtermΝdidΝnotΝreferΝonlyΝtoΝtheΝreignΝofΝtheΝmythicalΝKingΝMinos,ΝbutΝtoΝaΝperiodΝofΝupΝtoΝtwoΝcenturiesέΝWheneverΝώoeckΝandΝMüllerΝreferredΝtoΝtheΝpreΝhisΝtoricΝinhabitantsΝofΝCreteΝtheyΝusedΝphrasesΝsuchΝasΝtheΝ“MinoanΝCretans”Ν(dieΝminoischenΝKreΝter)ΝorΝtheΝethnonymsΝEteocretansΝ(ώoeck)ΝandΝDoriansΝ(Müller),ΝifΝtheyΝwishedΝtoΝreferΝtoΝtheirΝ

βίΝτnΝtheΝtermΝ“Minoan”,ΝseeΝalsoΝKaradimasΝandΝMomiglianoΝβίί4έβ1ΝώoeckΝ1κβκ,ΝxxxiμΝ“AllesΝbedeutsameΝmehrererΝJahrhunderteΝwardΝanΝjenenΝσamenΝ(Minos)Νangereihtέ”ββΝAsΝsuggested,ΝforΝexample,ΝbyΝUvarovΝ1κ1λ,ΝιμΝ“seitdemΝderΝσahmeΝώomerΝnichtΝmehrΝeinenΝMenschen,ΝsondernΝeineΝEpocheΝbe­zeichnetέ” SeeΝalsoΝbelow,ΝsectionΝIIIέβγΝόorΝώoeck’sΝabsoluteΝdates,ΝseeΝώoeckΝ1κβγ,Νγηλ–θ1νΝ1κβκ,Ν4έ

Fig. 2 Cretan “prehistoric” periodisations by the Göttingen scholars (1820–1830).

Karl Neumann Karl Müller Karl Hoeck

Pre­Minos’sΝperiod(noΝdatesΝgiven)

όirstΝDorianΝMigration(Pre­Minoanς)Ν(beforeΝ14ίίΝBC) Pre­MinoanΝ(beforeΝ14ίίΝBC)

Minos’s period

(noΝdatesΝgiven)Minoan period

(caέΝ14ίί–1βίίΝBC) MinoanΝ(14ίί–1βίίΝBC)

Post­Minos’sΝperiod(noΝdatesΝgiven)

Period of decline

(caέΝ1βίί–1ί4ί)PeriodΝofΝdeclineήpost­MinoanΝ

(1βίί–1ί4ίΝBC)

1ί4ίμΝtheΝmainΝDorianΝinvasion DorianΝ(1ί4ίΝBCΝandΝafter)

7

Nektarios Karadimas

ethΝniΝcityέβ4ΝInterestinglyΝenough,ΝEvansΝhimselfΝinΝhisΝearlyΝworkΝdidΝnotΝuseΝtheΝtermΝ“Minoan”ΝinΝanΝethnicΝsense,ΝforΝheΝwasΝstillΝcloselyΝfollowingΝώoeck’sΝviewsέΝόorΝexample,ΝinΝtheΝearlyΝyearsΝofΝtheΝexcavationsΝatΝKnossos,ΝEvansΝconstantlyΝusedΝexpressionsΝsuchΝasΝ“MinoanΝarchitects”,Ν“MiΝnoΝanΝdynasts”ΝandΝ“MinoanΝPriest­Kings”,Νwhich certainly resembles Hoeck’s similar expressions, such as “minoischer König”, “minoischer Kreter” or “mi­noischerΝStamm”έβη

The publications of the “Göttingen School”, especially Müller’s and Hoeck’s books, had a tre men dous impact on

CretanΝscholarshipέΝVeryΝsoon,ΝMüller’sΝandΝώoeck’sΝideasΝofΝaΝ“minoischeΝZeit”ΝandΝaΝsuperiorΝCretanΝcivilisationΝspreadΝthroughΝnotΝonlyΝύermany,ΝbutΝalsoΝotherΝcountriesέΝTheΝhistorianΝEvelynΝAbbottΝwasΝnotΝwrongΝwhenΝheΝwroteΝinΝ1κλγμΝ“ώoeck’sΝKretaΝisΝstillΝtheΝbestΝbookΝaboutΝtheΝisland”έβθ

III. George Grote’s Rationalisam and the Beginning of the First Archaeological and

Topographical Researches (1830–1875)

The rationalism and philological criticism of the 18th century, so well illustrated by the “Göt tingen School”, gave

also momentum to another tendency, which regarded the use of ancient writ ten sources for historical purposes with

greatΝscepticismέΝTheΝmainΝattackΝonΝtheΝcredibilityΝofΝtheΝancientΝύreekΝtraditionΝcameΝinΝ1ιληΝwhenΝόriedrichΝAugustΝWolfΝpublishedΝhisΝProlegomena ad HomerumέΝInΝthisΝbookΝWolfΝrefusedΝtoΝacceptΝtheΝhistoricalΝexistenceΝof an individual poet called Homer, suggesting instead that the Iliad and the OdysseyΝrepresentedΝtheΝuniicationΝofΝmanyΝdifferentΝrhapsodies,ΝcomposedΝoverΝseveralΝcenturiesΝandΝcollectedΝunderΝtheΝnameΝofΝώomerέΝWolf’sΝtheoryΝsoonΝledΝtoΝtheΝdebateΝonΝtheΝ“ώomericΝquestion”,ΝwhileΝWolf’sΝfollowersΝwereΝdubbedΝanalystsέβι

InΝtheΝmidΝ1λthΝcenturyΝtheΝmostΝimportantΝreactionΝtoΝtheΝuseΝofΝmythsΝasΝhistoricalΝsourΝcesΝcameΝfromΝtheΝBri­tishΝhistorianΝύeorgeΝύrote,ΝwithΝhisΝtwelve­volume History of GreeceέΝInΝluencedΝbyΝWolfΝandΝtheΝanalysts,ΝύroteΝsuggested that Homer was not a real historical character, but was invented to explain the historical guild that was

constitutedΝtoΝconserveΝandΝtransmitΝtheΝώomericΝpoemsέΝMoreover,ΝinΝtheΝprefaceΝofΝtheΝirstΝvolumeΝpublishedΝinΝ1κ4θ,ΝύroteΝnotedΝthatΝheΝwasΝgoingΝtoΝuseΝmythsΝtoΝdescribeΝtheΝearliestΝtimesΝofΝtheΝύreeks,Νwithout,Νhowever,ΝtryΝingΝtoΝdetectΝhowΝmuchΝorΝhowΝlittleΝhistoricalΝmatterΝtheyΝcontainedέΝInΝdoingΝso,ΝheΝcomparedΝύreekΝmythsΝtoΝaΝmarvellousΝcurtainΝthatΝhidΝnothingΝandΝwouldΝgreatlyΝdisappointΝanyoneΝwhoΝopenedΝitέβκ

σonetheless,Νύrote’sΝscepticismΝaboutΝ theΝusefulnessΝofΝmythsΝstandsΝalmostΝaloneΝ inΝBriΝtishΝhisΝtoriographyέΝBritishΝscholarsΝpreferredΝtoΝfollowΝinΝtheΝstepsΝofΝtheΝ“ύöttingenΝSchool”έΝItΝisΝfairΝtoΝsayΝthatΝthisΝscepticalΝattitudeΝhadΝlittleΝifΝanyΝimpactΝonΝAegeanΝandΝCretanΝarchaeologyέΝAcΝcordingΝtoΝArnaldoΝMomigliano,ΝbyΝmakingΝthisΝdis­tincΝtionΝbetweenΝaΝmythicalΝandΝhistoricalΝύreece,ΝύroteΝ“brokeΝwithΝKέτέΝMüllerΝandΝhisΝEnglishΝadmirers”έβλΝItΝseemsΝthatΝonlyΝArthurΝEvansΝwasΝslightlyΝinluencedΝbyΝύrote,ΝbutΝonlyΝinΝtheΝearlyΝstagesΝofΝhisΝcareerέΝInΝ1κκγ,Νwhen Evans wrote a review of Schliemann’s Troja, he noted that “Archaeology has little call to concern it self with

theΝittingΝonΝofΝpoeticalΝtopographyΝtoΝalteredΝphysicalΝconditions”έγί Twenty years later, en chanted by his remar­kableΝdiscoveriesΝatΝKnossos,ΝheΝwouldΝforgetΝhisΝinitialΝscepticismέγ1

DuringΝtheΝperiodΝdiscussedΝinΝthisΝsection,ΝCreteΝcontinuedΝtoΝattractΝtravellersΝfromΝallΝoverΝEuΝrope,ΝsuchΝasΝόélixΝVictorΝRaulinΝ(visitΝinΝ1κ4η),ΝύeorgeΝPerrotΝ(inΝ1κηι),ΝandΝJohnΝSkinnerΝ(inΝ1κθι),ΝwhileΝinΝ1κθ4ΝtheΝpain­terΝEdwardΝLearΝvisitedΝKnossosΝandΝpaintedΝtwoΝuniqueΝwatercoΝloursΝ(nowΝhousedΝinΝtheΝύennadiusΝLibrary)έγβ

TwoΝtravellers,Νhowever,ΝlaidΝtheΝfoundationsΝofΝmoΝdernΝCretanΝarchaeologyμΝRobertΝPashleyΝandΝThomasΝAbelΝBrimageΝSprattέ

InΝ 1κγ4,Ν RobertΝ PashleyΝ (1κίη–1κηλ),Ν aΝ youngΝ classicsΝ donΝ fromΝ CambridgeΝ andΝ laterΝ aΝ resΝpecΝtedΝ lawyer,ΝtookΝhisΝύrandΝTourΝtoΝtheΝIonianΝislands,ΝAlbania,Νύreece,ΝandΝAsiaΝMinorΝinΝ1κγγ–1κγ4έγγΝόromΝόebruaryΝuntilΝSeptemberΝofΝ1κγ4ΝheΝtravelledΝthroughΝtheΝislandΝofΝCrete,ΝasΝrecountedΝinΝhisΝTravels in CreteΝ(1κγι)έΝώisΝbookΝcontainedΝmanyΝtopographicalΝnotesέΝPashleyΝdiscoveredΝandΝdescribedΝtheΝexistingΝvestigesΝofΝmoreΝthanΝβίΝan­

β4ΝEέgέ,ΝώoeckΝ1κβκ,Νvi,Νxxiv,Ν1κι,Ν1κλ,Νβγγ,Νβγθ,Νγθλ,Νγικ,Νγκί,Νγλ1νΝMüllerΝ1κβ4,Νβγ4έβηΝEvansΝ1λίί–1λί1,ΝββμΝ“MinoanΝarchitects”νΝ1λίβ–1λίγ,ΝγκμΝ“MinoanΝdynasts”νΝ1λίγ–1λί4,Ν4γμΝ“MinoanΝPriest­Kings”έβθΝAbbottΝ1κλγ,Ν1ββ–βγέβιΝτnΝtheΝ“ώomericΝquestion”ΝandΝinΝgeneralΝonΝWolf,ΝseeΝόerreriΝβίίιΝwithΝextensiveΝbibliographyέβκΝύroteΝ1κ4θ,Ν1μxii–xiiiέβλΝMomiglianoΝ1λθθ,ΝθγέγίΝEvansΝ1κκγ,Ν4γκέγ1ΝSeeΝalsoΝMomiglianoΝβίίθέγβΝRaulinΝ1κθλνΝPerrotΝ1κθινΝSkinnerΝ1κθκέΝτnΝLear,ΝseeΝόowlerΝ1λκ4έγγ On Pashley, see ύarnettΝβίί4έ

8

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology

cient sites, such as Eleutherna, Praesos,

andΝ KnossosέΝ WhileΝ lookingΝ forΝ theΝ ce­lebratedΝ tombΝ ofΝ Zeus,Ν heΝ climbedΝ onΝMountΝ Juktas,Ν whereΝ heΝ sawΝ cyclopeanΝwallsέγ4 Pashley also visited the “Gortyn

Labyrinth”, and re marked that it was a

caveέΝόollowingΝtheΝtraditionΝaccordingΝtoΝwhich the Labyrinth was not a cave but a

buildingΝerectedΝbyΝDaedalusΝatΝKnossos,Νhe concluded that it was “as clear as the

sunΝatΝnoonΝday,ΝthatΝtheΝgrottoΝinΝquestionΝwas no more connected with the mythical

labyrinthΝofΝCrete”έγη

ThomasΝ SprattΝ (1κ11–1κκκ),Ν navalΝ of­icerΝandΝhydrographer,ΝsurveyedΝtheΝcoastΝofΝCreteΝinΝtheΝ1κηίsΝtoΝproduceΝtheΝBri­tishΝAdmiraltyΝCharts,ΝasΝwellΝasΝtheΝinte­rior of the island for his geological map

ofΝCreteέΝInΝ1κθηΝheΝpublishedΝhisΝTravels and Researches in Crete, which focused

on the physical geography and geology

of the island, and tackled many prob­lemsΝofΝancientΝtopograΝphyέΝSprattΝvisitedΝKnos sos, about which he wrote a whole

chapΝterέΝώeΝexploredΝtheΝ“tortuousΝpasΝsa­ges and chambers” of the “Gortyn Laby­rinth”,ΝwhichΝheΝsuggestedΝwasΝaΝquarryέΝώeΝdisΝcoveredΝ theΝancientΝsiteΝofΝZakrosΝinΝeasternΝCreteέΝDuringΝhisΝexΝplorationsΝhe also collected some “primitive” seal

stones,ΝsuchΝasΝthoseΝthatΝpreviousΝtravel­lers had observed and collected in the

CyΝclaΝdes,Ν andΝ forΝ thisΝ reasonΝ theyΝ wereΝusualΝlyΝcalledΝ“isΝlandΝstones”Ν(igέΝγ)έγθΝώeΝpublishedΝthemΝinΝ1κιλ,ΝsoonΝafterΝSchliemann’sΝimpressiveΝindsΝatΝMyceΝnaeέΝMostΝofΝtheseΝsealsΝareΝnowΝdatedΝtoΝtheΝLateΝBronzeΝAgeέΝSpratt’sΝmostΝimportantΝconΝtriΝbutionΝtoΝCretanΝar chaeo logy was probably his discussion of the acropolis of Goulas near ώieraΝpytnaΝ(modernΝIerapetra)έΝAccord­ing to Spratt, the acropolis should be dated to an early date, as shown by the earliestΝandΝrudestΝCyclopeanΝwallsέγι

Pashley’s and Spratt’s books became the standard guidebooks for the island in the 19th cen tury, and inspired Ar­thurΝEvansΝwhenΝheΝstartedΝhisΝCretanΝexplorationέΝόorΝexample,ΝEvansΝwhoΝvisitedΝtheΝsiteΝofΝύoulasΝthreeΝtimes,ΝoriginallyΝwantedΝtoΝexcavateΝύoulas,ΝbecauseΝheΝthoughtΝitΝwasΝaΝprehistoricΝcitadelέγκ On the other hand he never

visitedΝtheΝ“ύortynΝLabyrinth”,ΝsimΝplyΝbeΝcause,ΝaccordingΝtoΝPashleyΝorΝSpratt,ΝitΝwasΝaΝcaveΝorΝaΝquarryέΝSimilarly,ΝfollowingΝPashley’sΝtext,ΝEvansΝvisitedΝtheΝsummitΝofΝJuktasΝtwice,ΝwhileΝinΝ1λίλΝheΝconductedΝaΝsmallΝexΝcaΝvationΝthere,ΝandΝdiscoveredΝtheΝremainsΝofΝaΝpeakΝsanctuaryέγλ

γ4ΝPashleyΝ1κγι,Ν1μβ1ί–11έγηΝPashleyΝ1κγι,Ν1μβλθ–λι,ΝseeΝalsoΝβίκέγθΝSee,ΝforΝexampleΝMilchhoeferΝ1κκγ,ΝchapterΝβΝentitledΝ“Inselsteine”έΝόorΝtheΝhistoryΝofΝ“islandΝstones”,ΝseeΝBoardman 1λθγέγιΝSprattΝ1κθη,Ν1μchapterΝXIIIέγκΝEvansΝvisitedΝύoulasΝinΝ1κλ4,Ν1κλη,ΝandΝ1κλλέΝSeeΝEvansΝ1κλη–1κλθνΝBrownΝβίί1,Νγ4γ–4ηέγλΝEvansΝ1λβ1,Ν1ηγ–θγέΝSeeΝalsoΝBrownΝβίί1,Νγγί–γ1έ

Fig. 3 Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age seals from Crete, bought

by Thomas Spratt during his travels in 1850s. After Spratt 1879.

9

Nektarios Karadimas

Date SiteKnown be-

fore 1875Excavator/Excavators

1κιιΝ(βίΝJanέΝ&ΝβιΝJanέ) MycenaeμΝTreasureΝnearbyΝCircleΝA √ DrosinosΝ&ΝStamatakis

1κιιΝ(June) SpataμΝβΝchamberΝtombs Stamatakis

1κιιΝ(endΝofΝσovέ–begέΝofΝDecέ) MycenaeμΝShaftΝύraveΝVIΝinΝCircleΝA,ΝTreasury of Atreus

√ Stamatakis

1κικΝ(βθΝMarch–θΝMay) ώeraionΝ(Argos)μΝTholosΝtomb √ Stamatakis

1κικΝ(July) PalamidiΝ(σafplio)μΝChamberΝtombs √ Potamianos

1κικΝ(endΝofΝAugέ–begέΝofΝSeptέ) PalamidiΝ(σafplio)μΝChamberΝtombs √ KastorchisΝ&ΝKondakis

1κικΝ(Decέ),Ν1κιλΝ(March–April) Knossos √ Kalokairinos

1κιλΝ(γίΝApril–ιΝJune) MenidiμΝTholosΝtomb √ Lolling

1κκίΝ(όebruary) PalamidiΝ(σafplio)μΝChamberΝtombs √ Kondakis

1κκίΝ(11ΝMarch) PalamidiΝ(σafplio)μΝ1ΝchamberΝtomb √ Lolling

1κκίΝ(endΝofΝσovέ–begέΝofΝDecέ)τrchomenosμΝTreasuryΝofΝMinyasΝandΝ

adjacent area√

SchliemannΝ(&ΝSέΝSchlie­mann)

1κκ1Ν(1βΝApril–endΝofΝApril)SchliemannΝ(withΝtheΝcol­laboration of Efstratiadis,

SayceΝ&ΝSέΝSchliemann)

1κκ4Ν(endΝofΝJanέ–begέΝofΝόebέ) AntiparosμΝAlmostΝ4ίΝtombsΝofΝtheΝEarlyΝCycladicΝperiod Bent

1κκ4Ν(1ιΝMarch–β4ΝMay) Tiryns √ SchliemannΝ(&ΝDörpfeld)

1κκηΝ(midΝofΝApril–midΝofΝJune) Tiryns √ Dörpfeld

1κκηΝ(τctober) AmorgosμΝEarlyΝCycladicΝtombs Dümmler

1κκθΝ(βιΝόebέ–1ίΝMarch) DiminiμΝTholosΝtombΝknownΝasΝLamio­s pito

√KondakisΝ&ΝKousisΝ(withΝthe collaboration of Loll­

ingΝ&ΝWolters)

1κκθΝ(March–begέΝofΝJune) MycenaeμΝAcropolisΝ(palace) √ Tsountas

1κκθΝ(begέΝofΝMay) τrchomenosμΝTreasuryΝofΝMinyas √ SchliemannΝ(&ΝDörpfeld)

1κκιΝ(1κΝτctέ–γ1ΝDecέ) MycenaeμΝΝ1ηΝchamberΝtombsΝandΝ1ΝTholos tomb

√ Tsountas

1κκκΝ(βί–βλΝMarch,ΝJune–Decέ) MycenaeμΝAcropolisΝandΝγθΝchamberΝtombs

√ Tsountas

1κκκΝ(August) EpidaurosμΝChamberΝtombs Stais

1κκκΝ(December) EleusinaμΝMycenaeanΝtomb όilios

1κκλΝ(Spring) PagasaiΝ(Volos)μΝMycenaeanΝcemeΝtery Wolters

1κκλΝ(4–1βΝApril,Ν1γΝMay–1ηΝJune) VaioμΝTholosΝtomb √ Tsountas

1κκλΝ(1κΝMay) TroizinaμΝMycenaeanΝtomb Stais

1κκλΝ(July) MycenaeμΝAcropolis √ Tsountas

1κκλΝ(σovember) PalaiopyrgosμΝMycenaeanΝpotteryΝandΝstoneΝinds Tsountas

1κκλΝ(σovember) ArkinaμΝTholosΝtomb Tsountas

1κλίΝ(summerς) Amykles Tsountas

1κλίΝ(Septέ–Decέ) MycenaeμΝAcropolisΝ&ΝβΝchamberΝtombs √ Tsountas

1κλίΝ(December) ThorikosμΝTholosΝtombΝ(knownΝasΝA) Stais

1891 MycenaeμΝTholosΝtombΝofΝClytemnestra √ Tsountas

Fig. 4 Prehistoric excavations in the Aegean during the period 1877–1892. The third column shows sites that had

been identiied as Heroic (i.e. prehistoric) before Schliemann’s excavations at Mycenae.

10

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology

IV. Between Two “Fathers”: From Schliemann to Evans (1876–1894)

InΝ1κιθ,ΝώeinrichΝSchliemannΝexcavatedΝatΝMycenaeΝwhereΝheΝdiscoveredΝtheΝ“richΝinΝgold”ΝShaftΝύravesέΝThisΝunexpectedΝdiscoveryΝchangedΝtheΝhistoryΝofΝAegeanΝprehistoricΝarchaeologyέΝUnΝtilΝthatΝtime,ΝύreekΝscholarsΝwereΝalmostΝexclusivelyΝinterestedΝinΝclassicalΝantiquities,ΝlargelyΝasΝpartΝofΝtheΝgeneralΝeffortΝtoΝlinkΝtheΝύreekΝmodernΝStateΝwithΝitsΝcelebratedΝclassicalΝpastέ4ί After Schliemann, suddenly the Greeks remembered that they also had

a Heroic past, so gloriously sung by Homer, and in the following decade, Greek archaeologists excavated almost

allΝtheΝsitesΝthatΝhadΝbeenΝidentiiedΝbyΝpreviousΝtravellersΝasΝώeroic,ΝiέeέΝprehistoric,ΝasΝclearlyΝdemonstratedΝin

igureΝ4έΝTheirΝexcavationsΝbroughtΝtoΝlightΝtheΝremainsΝofΝaΝpre­ClassicalΝcivilisation,ΝwhichΝwasΝsoonΝnamedΝ“My­cenaean”ΝbyΝύermanΝscholarsέ

InΝtheΝfollowingΝyears,ΝuntilΝEvans’sΝarrivalΝinΝCreteΝinΝ1κλ4,ΝmanyΝarchaeologicalΝresearchesΝwereΝalsoΝconduc­tedΝinΝCrete,ΝofΝwhichΝtheΝmostΝimportantΝareΝasΝfollowsέΝ

AtΝtheΝendΝofΝ1κικήbeginningΝofΝ1κιλ,ΝtakingΝhisΝcueΝfromΝSchliemann’sΝdiscoveries,ΝtheΝCreΝtanΝMinosΝKalo­kairinosΝexcavatedΝatΝtheΝwell­knownΝsiteΝofΝKnossosέ41ΝώisΝresultsΝwereΝveryΝproΝmiΝsingμΝheΝexcavatedΝpartΝofΝtheΝwestΝmagazines,ΝwhereΝheΝfoundΝpithoi,ΝLinearΝBΝinscriptions,ΝandΝmanyΝvasesέΝώowever,ΝdueΝtoΝtheΝtroubledΝpoli­ticalΝsituationΝinΝtheΝislandΝ–ΝalmostΝaΝdecadeΝbeΝforeΝtheΝCretanΝInsurrectionΝ–ΝhisΝexcavationsΝwereΝsoonΝstoppedέΝKalokairinos’sΝindsΝwereΝlaΝterΝseenΝbyΝArthurΝEvans,ΝwhoΝalsoΝvisitedΝKnossosέ

AΝsigniicantΝcontributionΝwasΝmadeΝ inΝ1κκγΝwhenΝArthurΝMilchhoeferΝpublishedΝ theΝbookΝDie An fänge der Kunst in GriechenlandέΝMilchhoefer,ΝwhoΝwasΝPrivatdozentΝinΝarchaeologyΝatΝtheΝUniΝversityΝofΝύöttingen,ΝrevivedΝώoeck’sΝ“Minoan”ΝtheoryνΝheΝarguedΝthatΝtheΝoriginsΝofΝtheΝnewlyΝdisΝcoveredΝMycenaeanΝcivilisationΝshouldΝbeΝfoundΝonΝtheΝislandΝofΝCreteέ4βΝσow,ΝforΝtheΝirstΝtime,ΝCreΝtanΝprehistoricΝarchaeologicalΝindsΝcouldΝsupportΝthisΝopinionμΝtheΝso­calledΝ“islandΝstones”,ΝCyΝcloΝpeanΝwallsΝseenΝbyΝPashleyΝandΝSpratt,ΝaΝstirrupΝjugΝrecentlyΝfoundΝinΝCrete,4γΝandΝinΝparticularΝKalokairinos’sΝnewlyΝdiscoveredΝindsΝatΝKnossosέΝMilchhoefer’sΝtheoryΝbecameΝaΝfunda­mentalΝprinΝcipleΝinΝEvans’sΝ“Minoan”ΝparadigmέΝAsΝnotedΝbyΝJohnΝMyresΝinΝhisΝobituaryΝofΝEvans,Ν“Milchhoefer’sΝAnfänge der Kunst (1κκγ)ΝmayΝhaveΝinluencedΝhimΝmoreΝthanΝheΝwouldΝafterwardsΝadΝmit”έ44

LastΝbutΝnotΝleast,ΝinΝ1κκ4,ΝaΝnewΝpieceΝofΝtheΝ“Minoan”ΝjigsawΝpuzzleΝcameΝtoΝlightέΝόedericoΝώalbΝherr,Νexplo­ringΝtheΝsiteΝofΝPraisos,ΝdiscoveredΝanΝ“Eteocretan”ΝinscriptionΝ(iέeέΝwrittenΝinΝύreekΝletΝters,ΝbutΝexpressingΝaΝnon­ύreekΝlanguage)έ4ηΝItΝwasΝthisΝinscriptionΝthatΝpersuadedΝEvansΝaboutΝtheΝcorrectnessΝofΝώoeck’sΝnon­ύreekΝtheoryΝaboutΝtheΝinΝhaΝbitantsΝofΝCreteΝinΝtheΝ“MinoanΝAge”έ

Conclusions

InΝ1κλ4,ΝwhenΝArthurΝEvansΝarrivedΝinΝCrete,ΝheΝwasΝfollowingΝinΝtheΝfootstepsΝofΝremarkableΝpreΝdeΝcessorsέΝAsΝshown in this paper, Evans not only used previous archaeological and topogra phi cal research, but also borrowed

4ί ώamilakisΝandΝYalouriΝ1λλθνΝώamilakisΝβίίιέ41ΝτnΝMinosΝKalokairinos’sΝexcavations,ΝseeΝaΝsmallΝselectionΝofΝarticlesμΝώaussoullierΝ1κκίνΝAposkitiΝ1λιλνΝKopakaΝ1λλί,Ν1λλβΝandΝ1λλθέ4βΝMilchhoeferΝ1κκγ,Ν1β1–γιέ4γΝTheΝstirrupΝjugΝwasΝpublishedΝaΝfewΝyearsΝlaterΝinΝ1κκθΝbyΝAέΝόurtwänglerΝandΝύέΝLöschckeΝ(όurtwänglerΝandΝLöschckeΝ1κκθ,Νβ4,ΝplέΝXIV,ΝnoέΝκκ)έ44ΝMyresΝ1λ41,Ν14έ4ηΝTheΝinscriptionΝwasΝpublishedΝbyΝDomenicoΝComparettiΝinΝ1κκκΝ(ComparettiΝ1κκκ,Νθιγ–ιθ)έ

Fig. 4 (continued) Prehistoric excavations in the Aegean during the period 1877–1892. The third column shows

sites that had been identiied as Heroic (i.e. prehistoric) before Schliemann’s excavations at Mycenae.

Date SiteKnown be-

fore 1875Excavator/Excavators

1891 Kampos Tsountas

1κλ1Ν(April) Tiryns √ σikolaidis

1κλβ PalamidiΝ(σafplio) √ Stais

1κλβ DiminiμΝTholosΝtomb Stais

11

Nektarios Karadimas

orΝmodiiedΝearlierΝtheoriesΝinΝorderΝtoΝinterpretΝhisΝindsέΝUnforΝtuΝnateΝly,ΝinΝhisΝpublications,ΝheΝpaidΝlittleΝtributeΝtoΝearlier scholars, whose ideas he relied upon, gi ving thus the false impression of exclusive originality in everything

thatΝrelatedΝtoΝ“Minoan”ΝCreteέΝTheΝhistoryΝofΝarchaeology,ΝinvolvingΝtheΝstudyΝofΝnowΝforgottenΝworksΝsuchΝasΝHoeck’s Kre ta, may help us not only to correct such false impressions, but more importantly, to regard the work

ofΝpastΝarchaeologistsΝwithinΝtheΝbroaderΝintellectualΝcontextΝofΝtheirΝtimeέΝAsΝύlynΝDanielΝhasΝreΝmarked,Ν“τneΝofΝthe great values of studying the history of archaeology is to realize that it is not a simple straightforward record of

discoveryνΝitΝisΝaΝrecordΝofΝdiscoveryΝmixedΝwithΝfalseΝasΝsumpΝtionsΝandΝforgeryΝandΝrefusalΝofΝestablishedΝarchaeo­logistsΝtoΝregardΝtheirΝworkΝhistoricallyέ”4θ

4θΝDaniel 1λκ1,Ν1γέ

12

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology

Bibliography

Abbott,ΝEέΝ1κλγέΝA History of Greece.ΝPartΝIέΝFrom the Earliest Times to the Ionian RevoltέΝβndΝedέΝLondonμΝLong­mans,ΝύreenΝandΝCoέ

Allwood,ΝPέΝ1ιλλέΝLiterary Antiquities of Greece as Developed in an Attempt to Ascertain Principles for a New Analysis of the Greek Tongue and to Exhibit Those Principles as applied to the Elucidation of Many Passages in the Ancient History of that Country.ΝLondonμΝJέΝDavisέΝ

Aposkiti,ΝMέ,ΝedέΝβίίβέΝChristophoro Buondelmonti, Π γ αφ η υ Κ η έ Έ α γ η υ Κ η α 1415έΝώeraklioμΝMikrosΝσaftilosέ

Aposkiti,ΝMέΝ1λικέΝ“ ω Ν α ο α ˙Νε α Νχ αΝαπ Ν Νπ Να α αφ Ν Ν ω ο έ”ΝKretologiaΝκμ κ1–λ4έ

Banier,ΝAέΝ1ιγλ–1ι4ίέΝThe Mythology and Fables of the Ancients, explain’d from HistoryέΝ4ΝvolsέΝLondonμΝAέΝMil­larέ

Belon,ΝPέΝduΝMansέΝ1ηηγέΝLes observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses memorables, trouves en Grèce, Asie, Iude, Egypte, Arabie, & autres pays estranges, rediges en trois liures.ΝParisμΝύέΝCauelletέ

Bernal,ΝMέΝ1λκιέΝBlack Athena: The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization.ΝVolέΝIέΝThe Fabrication of Ancient ύreece, 1ικ5–1λκ5έΝLondonμΝόreeΝAssociationΝBooksέ

Beschi,ΝLέ,ΝedέΝ1λλλέΝOnario Belli a Creta. Un manoscritto inedito della scuola archeologica Italiana di Atene (15κι)έΝAthensμΝScuolaΝArcheologicaΝItalianaΝdiΝAteneέ

Böttiger,ΝCέAέΝ1κβθέΝIdeen zur Kunst: Mythologie. βΝvolsέΝDresdenΝundΝLeipzigμΝArnoldischeΝBuchhandlungέ

Boardman,ΝJέΝ1λθγέΝIsland Gems: A Study of Greek Seals in the Geometric and Early Archaic Periods.ΝLondonμΝSocietyΝforΝtheΝPromotionΝofΝώellenicΝStudiesέ

Brown,ΝAέ,ΝedέΝβίί1έ Arthur Evans’s Travels in Crete, 1κλ4–1κλλέΝBAR-ISΝ1ίίίέΝτxfordμΝArchaeopressέ

Bryant,ΝJέΝ1ιιηέΝA New System, or, an Analysis of Ancient Mythology: Wherein an Attempt is Made to Divest Tradi-tion of Fable: And to Reduce the Truth to its Original Purity.ΝLondonμΝPrintedΝforΝTέΝPayneέ

Cockerell,ΝCέRέΝ1κβίέΝ“TheΝLabyrinthΝofΝCreteέ”ΝInΝMemoirs Relating to European and Asiatic Turkey, edi ted by

RέΝWalpole,Ν4ίβ–λέΝLondonμΝLongman,Νώurst,ΝRees,ΝτrmeΝandΝBrownέ

Comparetti,ΝDέPέAέΝ1κκκέΝ“IscrizioniΝdiΝvarieΝcittàΝCretesiέ”ΝMuseo Italiano di Antichità ClassicaΝβμθθλ–κθέ

Coulomb,ΝJέΝ1λιλέΝ“LeΝ‘PrinceΝauxΝlis’ΝdeΝKnossosΝreconsidéréέ”ΝBCHΝ1ίγμβλ–ηίέ

Daniel,ΝύέEέΝ1λκ1έΝIntroductionΝtoΝTowards a History of Archaeology. Being the Papers Read at the First Confe-ren ce on the ώistory of Archaeology in Aarhus, 2λ August–2 September 1λικ,ΝeditedΝbyΝύέEέΝDaniel,Νλ–1γέΝLon­donμΝThamesΝandΝώudsonέ

Evans,ΝAέJέΝ1κκγέΝReviewΝofΝTroja (δeipzig 1κκ4) by ώέ Schliemannέ AcademyΝ1κκγΝ(βλΝDecember)μ4γι–γλέ

———έΝ1κλ4έΝ“PrimitiveΝPictographsΝandΝaΝPrae­PhoenicianΝScriptΝfromΝCreteΝandΝtheΝPeloponneseέ”ΝJHSΝ14μ βιί–γιβέ

———έΝ1κλη–1κλθέΝ“ύoulasμΝTheΝCityΝofΝZeusέ”ΝBSAΝβμ1θλ–λ4έ

———έΝ1λίί–1λί1έΝ“TheΝPalaceΝofΝKnossosέΝProvisionalΝReportΝofΝtheΝExcavationsΝforΝtheΝYearΝ1λί1έ”ΝBSAΝιμ 1–1βίέ

———έΝ1λί1έΝ“TheΝPalaceΝofΝMinosέ”ΝMonthly Review θΝ(March):11η–γβέ

———έΝ1λίβ–1λίγέΝ“TheΝPalaceΝofΝKnossosέΝProvisionalΝReportΝforΝtheΝYearΝ1λίγέ”ΝBSAΝλμ1–1ηγέ

13

Nektarios Karadimas

———έΝ1λίγ–1λί4έΝ“TheΝPalaceΝofΝKnossosέ”ΝBSAΝ1ίμ1–θβέ

———έΝ1λίθέΝEssai de classiication des époques de la civilisation minoenneέ Résumé d’un discours fait au con-grès d’archologie à Athènes. Edition revise.ΝLondonμΝBέΝQuaritchέ

———έΝ1λβ1έΝThe Palace of Minos at Knossos.ΝVolέΝ1έΝLondonμΝMacmillanέ

———έΝ1λβκέΝThe Palace of Minos at Knossos.ΝVolέΝβ,ΝptsέΝ1–βέΝLondonμΝMacmillanέ

όalkener,ΝEέ,ΝedέΝ1κη4έΝDescription of Some Important Theatres & Other Remains in Crete from a MS. History of Candia by τnorio Belli in 15κ6έΝLondonμΝTrübnerέ

όerreri,ΝLέΝβίίιέΝLa questione omerica dal Cinquecento al Settecento.ΝRomeμΝEdizioniΝdiΝstoriaΝeΝletteraturaέ

όitton,ΝJέLέΝ1λλθέΝThe Discovery of the Greek Bronze Age.ΝCambridge,ΝMassέμΝώarvardΝUniversityΝPressέ

όowler,ΝRέ,ΝedέΝ1λκ4έΝEdward Lear. The Cretan Journal.ΝAthensμΝDeniseΝώarveyΝandΝCompanyέ

όurtwängler,ΝAέ,Ν andΝύέΝLöschckeέΝ1κκθέΝMykenische Vasen, vorhellenische Thongefässe aus dem Gebiete des Mittelmeeres. Im Auftrage des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts in Athen.ΝBerlinμΝAέΝAsherΝ&ΝCoέ

ύarnett,ΝRέΝβίί4έΝ“RobertΝPashleyΝ(1κίη–1κηλ)έ”ΝInΝOxford Dictionary of National BiographyέΝτxfordμΝτxfordΝUniversityΝPressέΝ

ύeorgopoulou,ΝMέ,ΝCέΝύuilmet,ΝYέAέΝPikoulas,ΝKέSέΝStaikos,ΝandΝύέΝTolias,ΝedsέΝβίίιέΝFollowing Pausanias. The Quest for Greek Antiquity.ΝAthensμΝτAKΝKnollΝPressέ

ύooch,ΝύέPέΝ1λ1γέΝHistory and Historians in the Nineteenth Century.ΝLondonΝandΝσewΝYorkμΝLongmans,Νύreen,ΝandΝCoέ

ύrote,ΝύέΝ1κ4θέΝA History of Greece. VolsέΝ1ΝandΝγέΝLondonμΝJohnΝMurrayέ

ύuarducci,ΝMέΝ1ληίέΝ“Ο Να χα ε ο Νεπ π α Ν ουΝ‘ α υ ου’Ν ΝΓ υ ο έ”ΝKretChronΝ4μηβι–βκέ

ώamilakis,ΝYέΝβίίιέΝThe Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece. Ox­fordμΝUniversityΝPressέ

ώamilakis,Ν Yέ,Ν andΝ EέΝ YalouriέΝ 1λλθέΝ “AntiquitiesΝ asΝ SymbolicΝ CapitalΝ inΝ ModernΝ ύreekΝ Societyέ”Ν Antiquity

ιίμ11ι–βλέ

ώaussoullier,ΝBέΝ1κκίέΝ“VasesΝpeintsΝarchaïques,ΝdécouvertsΝàΝKnossosΝ(Crte)έ”ΝBCHΝ4μ1β4–βιέ

ώemmerdinger­Iliadou,ΝDέΝ1λθιέΝ“LaΝCrteΝsousΝlaΝdominationΝvenitienneΝetΝlorsΝdeΝlaΝconquêteΝturqueΝ(1γββ–1θκ4)έΝRenseignementsΝnouveuxΝouΝpeuΝconnusΝd’aprsΝlesΝpélerinsΝetΝlesΝvoyageursέ”ΝStudi VenezianiΝλμηγη–θβγέ

ώerrmann,ΝMέύέΝ1κί1–1κίβέΝMythologie der Griechen, für die obern Classen der Schulen und Gymnasien.ΝBerlinμΝVossischeΝBuchhandlungέ

ώoeck,ΝKέΝ1κβγΝ–1κβι–1κβλέΝKreta. Ein Versuch zur Aufhellung der Mythologie und Geschichte, der Religion und Verfassung dieser Insel, von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Römer-HerrschaftέΝγΝvolsέΝύöttingenμΝCarlΝEduardΝRosenbuschέ

ώolwell,ΝWέΝ1ιλγέΝA Mythological, Etymological, and Historical Dictionary: Extracted from the Analysis of An-cient Mythology.ΝLondonμΝCέΝDillyέ

Jones,ΝWέΝ1ιλ4έΝInstitutes of Hindu Law; or the Ordinances of Menu, According to the Gloss of Cullúca, Compris-ing the Indian System of Duties Religious and Civil.ΝCalcuttaμΝPrintedΝbyΝτrderΝofΝtheΝύovernmentέΝ

Karadimas,Νσέ,ΝandΝσέΝMomiglianoέΝβίί4έΝ“τnΝtheΝtermΝ‘Minoan’ΝbeforeΝEvans’sΝworkΝinΝCreteΝ(1κλ4)έ”ΝSMEA

4θ(β)μβ4η–ηκέ

Kopaka,ΝKέΝ1λλίέΝ“ ωο Ν α ο α ο ,Να α αφ Ν Ν ω έ”ΝPalimpsestonΝλ–1ίμη–θλέ

14

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology

———έΝ1λλβέΝ“σouvelleΝévidenceΝsurΝlaΝfouilleΝKalokairinosΝàΝKnossosέ”ΝInΝMykenaïka,ΝeditedΝbyΝJέ­PέΝτlivier,Νγκ1–κηέΝAthensμΝcoleΝfranaiseΝd’Athnesέ

———έΝ1λλγέΝ“σewΝEvidenceΝonΝtheΝPotteryΝfromΝtheΝEarlyΝExcavationsΝatΝtheΝPalaceΝofΝKnossosέ”ΝBSAΝκκμλγ–1ίβέ

———έΝβίί4έΝ“ΗΝ ω Νπ Ν ο Ν α ο α μΝ αΝ ο Ν πο Ν ω Νπ ν”ΝInΝKnossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Cen te nary of Sir Ar-thur Evans’ Excavations at Knossos,ΝeditedΝbyΝύέΝCadogan,ΝEέΝώatzaki,ΝandΝAέΝVasilakis,Ν4λι–η1βέΝBSA Studies

1βέΝLondonμΝBritishΝSchoolΝatΝAthensέ

Lack,ΝώέW,ΝandΝDέJέΝMabberleyέΝ1λλλέΝThe Flora Graeca Story: Sibthorp, Bauer, and Hawkins in the Levant. Ox­fordμΝτxfordΝUniversityΝPressέ

Marchand,ΝSέLέΝ1λλθέΝDown from τlympusμ Archaeology and Philhellenism in ύermany, 1ι5ί–1λιίέΝPrincetonμΝPrincetonΝUniversityΝPressέ

Marsham,Ν JέΝ1θλθέΝCanon chronicus aegyptiacus, ebraicus, graecus, et disquisitiones liber non chronologicae tantum, sed & historicae antiquitatis reconditissima complexusέΝγrdΝedέΝόranekerμΝLέΝStrickέΝ

McDonald,ΝWέAέΝ1λθιέΝProgress into the Past: The Rediscovery of Mycenaean Civilization.ΝσewΝYorkμΝMacmil­lanέ

Micyllus,ΝJέΝ1ηκβέΝPub. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XVέΝLeipzigμΝIέΝSteinmanέ

Milchhoefer,ΝAέΝ1κιγέΝÜber den attischen Apollon.ΝMünchenμΝόέΝStraubέ

Mitford,ΝWέΝ1ικ4έΝThe History of Greece.ΝVolέΝIέΝLondonμΝTέΝWrightέ

Momigliano,ΝAέDέΝ1λθθέΝ“ύeorgeΝύroteΝandΝtheΝStudyΝofΝύreekΝώistoryέ”ΝStudies in Historiographyμηθ–ι4έ

Momigliano,ΝσέΝβίίθέΝ“SirΝArthurΝEvans,ΝύreekΝMyths,ΝandΝtheΝMinoansέ”ΝInΝMythos: La prhistoire g enne du XIXe au XXIe siècle après JέάCέ Table ronde international, Athènes, 21–23 σovembre 2ίί2, editedΝbyΝPέΝDarcque,ΝMέΝόotiadis,ΝandΝτέΝPolychronopoulou,Νιγ–κίέΝBCHΝSupplέΝ4θέΝParisμΝEcoleΝόranaiseΝd’Athnesέ

Morris,ΝIέΝ1λλιέΝ“PeriodizationΝandΝtheΝώeroesμΝInventingΝaΝDarkΝAgeέ”ΝInΝInventing Ancient Culture; Historicism, Periodization, and the Ancient World,ΝeditedΝbyΝMέΝύoldenΝandΝPέΝToohey,Νλθ–1γ1έΝLondonμΝRoutledgeέ

Müller,ΝKέτέΝ1κβ4έΝDie Dorier.ΝBreslauμΝJosefΝMarΝundΝKompέ

Myres,ΝJέLέΝ1λ41έΝ“SirΝArthurΝEvansΝ(1κη1–1λ41)έ”ΝProceedings of the British AcademyΝβιμβ–γθέ

σeumann,ΝCέόέΝ1κβίέΝRerum Creticarum Specimen.ΝύötΝtingenμΝώέΝDieterichέ

σiemeier,ΝWέ­DέΝ1λκκέΝ“TheΝ‘PriestΝKing’ΝόrescoΝfromΝKnossosέΝAΝσewΝReconstructionΝandΝInterpretationέ”ΝInΝProblems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeo-logy at Athens, εanchester, April 1λκ6,ΝeditedΝbyΝEέBέΝόrenchΝandΝKέAέΝWardle,Νβγη–44έΝBristolμΝBristolΝClassicalΝPressέΝ

Pashley,ΝRέΝ1κγιέΝTravels in CreteέΝβΝvolsέΝLondonμΝJohnΝMurrayέ

Perrot,ΝύέΝ1κθιέΝL’île de Crète; souvenirs de voyage.ΝParisμΝL’ώachetteΝetΝCieέ

Pfeiffer,ΝRέΝ1λιθέΝώistory of Classical Scholarship from 13ίί to 1κ5ίέΝτxfordμΝClarendonΝPressέ

Plass,ΝώέύέΝ1κγ1έΝVor- und Urgeschichte der Hellenen.ΝLeipzigμΝώartmannέ

Raulin,ΝόέVέΝ1κθλέΝDescription physique et naturelle de l’île de CrèteέΝβΝvolsέΝParisμΝAέΝBertrandέ

15

Nektarios Karadimas

Rice,ΝWέύέΝ1λγγέΝ“EarlyΝEnglishΝTravelersΝtoΝύreeceΝandΝtheΝLevantέ”ΝInΝEssays and Studies in English and Com-parative Literature, editedΝbyΝtheΝDepartmentΝofΝEnglish,ΝUniversityΝofΝMichigan,Νβίη–θίέΝAnn Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Salomon,ΝBέΝ1ηηιέ δa εétamorphose d’τvide iguréeέΝLyonμΝIanΝdeΝTournesέ

Savary,ΝCέEέΝ1ικκaέΝLettres sur la Grèce, faisant suite de celles sur l’gypt.ΝParisμΝτnfroiέ

———έΝ1ικκbέΝLetters on Greece, Being the Sequel of Letters on Egypt, and Containing Travels Through Rhodes, Crete, and Other Islands of the Archipelago. Translated from the French.ΝLondonμΝύέύέJέΝandΝJέΝRobinsonέ

Sve,ΝMέΝ1λλγέΝLes voyageurs français à Argos.ΝAthensμΝEcoleΝfranaiseΝd’Athnesέ

Shaw,ΝMέCέΝβίί4έΝ“TheΝPriest­KingΝReliefΝfromΝtheΝPalaceΝofΝKnossosέ”ΝIn Χ έ Essays in ώonor of Sara Aέ Im-merwahr,ΝeditedΝbyΝAέPέΝChapin,Νθη–κ4έΝPrinceton,ΝσέJέμΝAmericanΝSchoolΝofΝClassicalΝStudiesΝinΝAthensέ

Sherratt,ΝSέΝβίίίέΝArthur Evans, Knossos and the Priest-King.ΝτxfordμΝAshmoleanΝMuseumέ

Sieber,Ν όέWέΝ 1κβγέΝ Reise nach der Insel Kreta im griechischen Archipelagus im Jahre 1κ1ιέΝ βΝ volsέΝ LeipzigμΝόέΝόleischerέ

Simopoulos,ΝKέΝ1λιί–1λκηέΝΞ α η Ε αέΝ4ΝvolsέΝAthensμ Stachyέ

Skinner,ΝEέώέΝ1κθκέΝRoughing it in Crete in 1κ6ιέΝLondonμΝRichardΝBentleyέ

Spanakis,ΝSέ,ΝedέΝ1λθλέΝόrancesco Basilicata, Relazione 163ίέΝώeraklionμΝSfakianosέ

Spratt,ΝTέAέBέΝ1κθηέΝTravels and Researches in CreteέΝβΝvolsέΝLondonμΝJέΝvanΝVoorstέ

———έΝ1κιλέΝ“PaperΝonΝCertainΝArchaicΝύemsΝProcuredΝinΝCreteΝandΝtheΝAegeanΝIslandsέ”ΝProceedings of the Society of Antiquaries (εay 1)μ11κ–βγέ

Spreng,ΝJέAέΝ1ηθγέΝMetamorphoses Ouidii argumentis quidem soluta oratione, enarrationibus autem & allegorijs elegiaco uersu accuratissimè expositae.ΝόrankfurtμΝύέΝCoruinum,ΝSέΝόeyerabent,Ν&ΝWέΝύalliέ

Stiebing,ΝWέώέ,ΝJrέΝ1λλγέΝUncovering the Past: A History of Archaeology.ΝBuffalo,ΝσέYέμΝPrometheusΝBooksέ

Tournefort,ΝPέΝde,Ν1ιίβέΝ“DescriptionΝduΝLabyrintheΝdeΝCandie,ΝavecΝquelquesΝobservationsΝsurΝl’accroissementΝ&ΝsurΝlaΝgénérationΝdesΝPierresέ”ΝMmoires de l’Acadmie Royal des Sciencesμββ4–41έΝ

Tressan,ΝMέΝl’abbéΝde,Ν1ιλιέΝMythology Compared with History or, the Fables of the Ancients Elucidated from Historical Records. To which is Now First Added, an Enquiry into the Religion of the First Inhabitants of Great Britain. Together with Some Account of the Ancient Druids. TranslatedΝfromΝtheΝόrenchΝbyΝώέΝσorthέΝLondonμΝPrintedΝforΝTέΝCadell,ΝJunέΝandΝWέΝDaviesέΝ

UvarovΝSέΝ1κ1λέΝÜber das Vor-Homerische Zeitalter, ein Anhang zu den Briefen über Homer und Hesiod von Gott-fried Hermann und Friedrich Creuzer.ΝStέΝPetersburgμΝKaiserlicheΝAkademieΝderΝWissenschaftenέ

Warren,ΝPέMέΝ1λιβέΝ“1θth,Ν1ιthΝandΝ1κthΝCenturyΝBritishΝTravellersΝinΝCreteέ”ΝKretChron β4μθη–λβέ

———έΝ1λιηέΝThe Aegean Civilizations.ΝσewΝYorkμΝElsevier­Phaidonέ

———έΝβίίίέΝ“EarlyΝTravellersΝfromΝBritainΝandΝIrelandέ”ΝInΝCretan Quests: British Explorers, Excavators and Historians,ΝeditedΝbyΝDέΝώuxley,Ν1–κέΝLondonμΝBritishΝSchoolΝatΝAthensέ

Winckelmann,ΝJέJέΝ1ιηηέΝGedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhau-erkunst.ΝόriedrichstadtμΝCέώέΝώagenmüllerέ

Wolf,ΝCέWέόέAέΝ1ιληέΝProlegomena ad Homerum, sive de operum homericorum prisca et genuina froma variisque mutationibus et probabili ratione emendandi. ώalleμΝLibrariaΝτrphanotropheiέ

Woodward,ΝAέMέΝ1λ4λέΝ“TheΝύortynΝ‘Labyrinth’ΝandΝitsΝvisitorsΝinΝtheΝifteenthΝcenturyέ”ΝBSAΝ44μγβ4–βηέ