DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.7382#0029
CRETE
T,he importance of the contacts between Egypt and Crete cannot be over-
emphasized. For one thing, they give the only positive and absolute dates
which can be assigned to the Minoan Periods. Although Egyptologists may still
be quarrelling over the dates of the earlier dynasties, yet every year they are getting
nearer to an agreement, and already by well-nigh universal consent the beginning of
the Xllth Dynasty is dated to c. 2200 (Hall) or 2000 (Meyer) and with it the Middle
Minoan II Period. The Old Kingdom chronology is still in dispute, but there is now
little doubt that the 1st Dynasty is to be placed soon after the middle of the fourth
millenium b.c.1
The discoveries of the last few years have somewhat disturbed the easy old equation—
IVth Dynasty = Early Minoan II, Xllth Dynasty = Middle Minoan II, XVIIIth
Dynasty = Late Minoan II—but not seriously.
The connection of Egypt with Crete possibly begins in the days when King Menes2
conquered the north of Egypt. Some of the inhabitants fled, crossed the sea and
settled in the fertile Messara Plain: hence the ivory figures, etc.3 It is they who may
have started the Bronze Age in Southern Crete.4
Dr Frankfort5 holds that the east of Crete was in advance of the centre (i.e. Knossos)
owing to the early advent of bronze from Anatolia. It is hardly possible to deny that
the south was also in advance. Knossos was still in the Stone Age when early dynastic
vessels appear.
Here perhaps is the place for a statement reiterated later. Egyptian stone vessels in
Crete are much better evidence than those found on the mainland. That is to say,
wherever they are found they may be used for dating.6 This was in all probability
due to the fact that the Cretans were great workers in stone themselves. Steatite
and porphyry, liparite and serpentine were easily obtainable, as well as marble and the
curious variegated stones of Mokhlos. Therefore they were unlikely to treasure the
Egyptian specimens as did the inhabitants of the mainland.
So much for the Stone Age and Early Minoan Period, though it may be remarked
in passing that no Cretan work of this time has appeared in Egypt. The First Inter-
1 Cf. however Scharff in J.E.A. xvm. p. 275, for arguments for a lower date and his references there.
2 Dr Hall considers it to have been a much more gradual affair, for Menes is probably a composite figure
including Narmer and Aha. He points out that the connections with the Delta, though considerable, are
not sufficient to justify so convenient an assumption.
3 See below under Platanos. These figures, however, are considerably later in date than their prototypes.
4 See P. of M. ii. i. chapter ii for whole period.
5 See Frankfort, Asia, Europe and the Aegean, and their Earliest Interrelations, p. 94.
6 See below under Knossos and Mycenae. They are however in any case very risky. A Middle Pre-
dynastic bowl of the same shape as No. 22 was found at Tell el Amarna in 1929 in a pure late XVIIIth
Dynasty deposit.
3
T,he importance of the contacts between Egypt and Crete cannot be over-
emphasized. For one thing, they give the only positive and absolute dates
which can be assigned to the Minoan Periods. Although Egyptologists may still
be quarrelling over the dates of the earlier dynasties, yet every year they are getting
nearer to an agreement, and already by well-nigh universal consent the beginning of
the Xllth Dynasty is dated to c. 2200 (Hall) or 2000 (Meyer) and with it the Middle
Minoan II Period. The Old Kingdom chronology is still in dispute, but there is now
little doubt that the 1st Dynasty is to be placed soon after the middle of the fourth
millenium b.c.1
The discoveries of the last few years have somewhat disturbed the easy old equation—
IVth Dynasty = Early Minoan II, Xllth Dynasty = Middle Minoan II, XVIIIth
Dynasty = Late Minoan II—but not seriously.
The connection of Egypt with Crete possibly begins in the days when King Menes2
conquered the north of Egypt. Some of the inhabitants fled, crossed the sea and
settled in the fertile Messara Plain: hence the ivory figures, etc.3 It is they who may
have started the Bronze Age in Southern Crete.4
Dr Frankfort5 holds that the east of Crete was in advance of the centre (i.e. Knossos)
owing to the early advent of bronze from Anatolia. It is hardly possible to deny that
the south was also in advance. Knossos was still in the Stone Age when early dynastic
vessels appear.
Here perhaps is the place for a statement reiterated later. Egyptian stone vessels in
Crete are much better evidence than those found on the mainland. That is to say,
wherever they are found they may be used for dating.6 This was in all probability
due to the fact that the Cretans were great workers in stone themselves. Steatite
and porphyry, liparite and serpentine were easily obtainable, as well as marble and the
curious variegated stones of Mokhlos. Therefore they were unlikely to treasure the
Egyptian specimens as did the inhabitants of the mainland.
So much for the Stone Age and Early Minoan Period, though it may be remarked
in passing that no Cretan work of this time has appeared in Egypt. The First Inter-
1 Cf. however Scharff in J.E.A. xvm. p. 275, for arguments for a lower date and his references there.
2 Dr Hall considers it to have been a much more gradual affair, for Menes is probably a composite figure
including Narmer and Aha. He points out that the connections with the Delta, though considerable, are
not sufficient to justify so convenient an assumption.
3 See below under Platanos. These figures, however, are considerably later in date than their prototypes.
4 See P. of M. ii. i. chapter ii for whole period.
5 See Frankfort, Asia, Europe and the Aegean, and their Earliest Interrelations, p. 94.
6 See below under Knossos and Mycenae. They are however in any case very risky. A Middle Pre-
dynastic bowl of the same shape as No. 22 was found at Tell el Amarna in 1929 in a pure late XVIIIth
Dynasty deposit.
3