DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9804#0104
78 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY
by placing the ruin of the Palace later as well as by
placing its beginnings earlier ; and that Mr. Evans already
definitely places it in B.C. 1450, fifty years later in the
XVIIIth Dynasty than he did two years ago, and implies
that all that he insists on is that the end must have
come before 1400.1 In the second place Mr. Evans's
latest dates for the Middle Minoan Periods as shown
on the wall cases of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford,
are not earlier than Berlin by nearly so many centuries
as they are later than Sinai. A system in which Middle
Minoan II. ends at 2200, and Middle Minoan III. carries
us on to 1800, is all the difference in the world from
one in which the Xllth, XHIth, and XVth Dynasties
begin in 3459, 3246, and 2533. It would not be sur-
prising, too, were Mr. Evans to bring his dates down
lower still, if we can infer anything from some lately
published arguments of Dr. Mackenzie's, developed at
present in quite a different connection, but certain in
time to point their obvious moral.
While seeking support for his theory that within the life
of the Palace at Knossos a Carian civilisation is superseded
by an Achaean, Dr. Dorpfeld has recently suggested that
both at Knossos and at Phasstos there were two different
types of Palace, the one later than the other.2 Dr.
Mackenzie, as Dr. Dorpfeld would himself probably now
admit, has decisively shown that he is wrong.3 It is not
the case, either at Knossos or at Phasstos, that a Middle
Minoan Palace, in which living-rooms are grouped round
a great Central Court, is superseded by a Late Minoan
Palace, in which the centre point is no longer a Court,
1 Contrast the Cases in the Ashmolean, in which L.M. II. is
given as " 1600 to 1450 " withE.C. p. 10, where 1500 is given as its
final point. See also P.T. p. 131, where he says that the Palace
Period " can hardly be brought down later than the close of the
fifteenth century."
2 Ath. Mitt. xxx. 1905, pp. 257-97.
1 B.S.A. xi. pp. 181-223.
by placing the ruin of the Palace later as well as by
placing its beginnings earlier ; and that Mr. Evans already
definitely places it in B.C. 1450, fifty years later in the
XVIIIth Dynasty than he did two years ago, and implies
that all that he insists on is that the end must have
come before 1400.1 In the second place Mr. Evans's
latest dates for the Middle Minoan Periods as shown
on the wall cases of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford,
are not earlier than Berlin by nearly so many centuries
as they are later than Sinai. A system in which Middle
Minoan II. ends at 2200, and Middle Minoan III. carries
us on to 1800, is all the difference in the world from
one in which the Xllth, XHIth, and XVth Dynasties
begin in 3459, 3246, and 2533. It would not be sur-
prising, too, were Mr. Evans to bring his dates down
lower still, if we can infer anything from some lately
published arguments of Dr. Mackenzie's, developed at
present in quite a different connection, but certain in
time to point their obvious moral.
While seeking support for his theory that within the life
of the Palace at Knossos a Carian civilisation is superseded
by an Achaean, Dr. Dorpfeld has recently suggested that
both at Knossos and at Phasstos there were two different
types of Palace, the one later than the other.2 Dr.
Mackenzie, as Dr. Dorpfeld would himself probably now
admit, has decisively shown that he is wrong.3 It is not
the case, either at Knossos or at Phasstos, that a Middle
Minoan Palace, in which living-rooms are grouped round
a great Central Court, is superseded by a Late Minoan
Palace, in which the centre point is no longer a Court,
1 Contrast the Cases in the Ashmolean, in which L.M. II. is
given as " 1600 to 1450 " withE.C. p. 10, where 1500 is given as its
final point. See also P.T. p. 131, where he says that the Palace
Period " can hardly be brought down later than the close of the
fifteenth century."
2 Ath. Mitt. xxx. 1905, pp. 257-97.
1 B.S.A. xi. pp. 181-223.