DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.15680#0259
THE SUCCESSIVE SETTLEMENTS AT PHYLAKOPI
239
reference in a wider context. In this connection it is of special importance
that the resnlts of the great discoveries made by Schliemann and Dürpf'eld
at Hissarlik are now available for coinparison, since the appearance of the
monumental work on Troy.1
In view of discoveries like those to which reference has been made, an
idoa of the importance of the work carried out by the British School in Melos
may be gained from the fact that, notwithstanding later discoveries in the
Cyclades, Phylakopi still remains outsidc Crete the most important pre-
historic site in the Aegean. Indeed the resnlts of exploration in other
islands go to show that Phylakopi will probably remain for a long time if not
always the tj'pical pre-historic site in the Cyclades. It is the only one yet
discovered that exhibits the Cycladic Civilization in all the out-standing
phases of its development from the earliest beginnings to the era of decline.
S 2.—The Earliest Beginnings of SettZement at Phylakopi.
In considering the successive Settlements at Phylakopi in relation to each
other and in their wider Aegean reiations it will not be necessary here to
view these in the order of their discovery. In that connection it will be
sufficient to fall back upon what has been said in a previous chapter (pp.
1-13) and proeeed at once to the discussion of the Settlements in their
historical order.2
After the discovery in 1896 and the exploration in 1897 of the cist-
tomb cemetery at Pelos in Melos, it was natural to expect evidence relating
to the same early period at Phylakopi as well.3 Such evidence had not been
fortheoming in the west part of the site where excavation up tili that time
had been chiefly carried on. When, however, in 1898 our Operations came
to be extended eastwards, we found, in a circumscribed region east of the
palace next the rock and underlying the walls of the earliest period, a deposit
which on the domestic sidc corresponded in character with the tomb-deposit
of Pelos. There is no doubt that this deposit was domestic in character, not-
withstanding the absence of any definite traces of dwellings. Otherwise,
however, it was found to have the marks of gradual and natural accumulation
which are characteristic of the undisturbed deposit of very early inhabited
sites in the Aegean and elsewhere. Besides, as has been pointed out by
Mr. Edgar in Iiis paper on the potteiy, ' there was no trace of burial or of
human bones.' A burying-place corresponding to this settlement probably
existed somewhere not far distant, but it was not discovered by us. On the
other band the settlement answering to the necropolis at Pelos still remained
undiscovered when in 1899 work was given up in Melos. The discovery of
the primitive settlement at Phylakopi was thus all the more welcome as
1 Wilhelm Dörpfeld, Troja und Ilion. " See also Ji.S.A. iv. 18-20.
Athen, Beck und Barth, 1902. 3 B.S.A. iii. 73-4 and 35-51.
239
reference in a wider context. In this connection it is of special importance
that the resnlts of the great discoveries made by Schliemann and Dürpf'eld
at Hissarlik are now available for coinparison, since the appearance of the
monumental work on Troy.1
In view of discoveries like those to which reference has been made, an
idoa of the importance of the work carried out by the British School in Melos
may be gained from the fact that, notwithstanding later discoveries in the
Cyclades, Phylakopi still remains outsidc Crete the most important pre-
historic site in the Aegean. Indeed the resnlts of exploration in other
islands go to show that Phylakopi will probably remain for a long time if not
always the tj'pical pre-historic site in the Cyclades. It is the only one yet
discovered that exhibits the Cycladic Civilization in all the out-standing
phases of its development from the earliest beginnings to the era of decline.
S 2.—The Earliest Beginnings of SettZement at Phylakopi.
In considering the successive Settlements at Phylakopi in relation to each
other and in their wider Aegean reiations it will not be necessary here to
view these in the order of their discovery. In that connection it will be
sufficient to fall back upon what has been said in a previous chapter (pp.
1-13) and proeeed at once to the discussion of the Settlements in their
historical order.2
After the discovery in 1896 and the exploration in 1897 of the cist-
tomb cemetery at Pelos in Melos, it was natural to expect evidence relating
to the same early period at Phylakopi as well.3 Such evidence had not been
fortheoming in the west part of the site where excavation up tili that time
had been chiefly carried on. When, however, in 1898 our Operations came
to be extended eastwards, we found, in a circumscribed region east of the
palace next the rock and underlying the walls of the earliest period, a deposit
which on the domestic sidc corresponded in character with the tomb-deposit
of Pelos. There is no doubt that this deposit was domestic in character, not-
withstanding the absence of any definite traces of dwellings. Otherwise,
however, it was found to have the marks of gradual and natural accumulation
which are characteristic of the undisturbed deposit of very early inhabited
sites in the Aegean and elsewhere. Besides, as has been pointed out by
Mr. Edgar in Iiis paper on the potteiy, ' there was no trace of burial or of
human bones.' A burying-place corresponding to this settlement probably
existed somewhere not far distant, but it was not discovered by us. On the
other band the settlement answering to the necropolis at Pelos still remained
undiscovered when in 1899 work was given up in Melos. The discovery of
the primitive settlement at Phylakopi was thus all the more welcome as
1 Wilhelm Dörpfeld, Troja und Ilion. " See also Ji.S.A. iv. 18-20.
Athen, Beck und Barth, 1902. 3 B.S.A. iii. 73-4 and 35-51.