DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.7519#0027
xxiv
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CRETE
Minoan (E.M., M.M. and L.M.) i, n and III1. Admittedly
recent research seems to show that both M.M.li and L.M.n
were practically confined to Knossos and Phaistos and that it
might be better to call M.M.ii and L.M.ifi M.M.li and L.M.n
respectively, but that would merely mean that a mass of im-
portant literature already written would be thrown into con-
fusion, and after all the names are mere labels and of no value
in themselves. One day perhaps we shall be able to talk in
terms of dynasties and regnal years, but until then the present
system cannot be bettered. It must, however, be allowed to
be elastic. Because L.M.ia begins at Knossos at a particular
date, that is not to say that provincial towns, such as the
Kastellos above Tzermiadha in Lasithi, discarded all their
M.M.1116 vessels on the same day. So too, while we admit that all
over the Near East the Bronze Age falls into three main periods,
we must guard against insisting that the Helladic and Cycladic
Periods must be exactly parallel to the Minoan. We must
allow the possibility that the Neolithic Period in Crete over-
laps the Proto-dynastic Period in Egypt and that Early Helladic
may overlap into Middle Minoan. Meanwhile, until we have
got something better to put in its place the terminology which
has acted so well for so long must be kept, and the more
subdivisions we can make in it the better.
I have unrepentantly used the term Late Helladic 1, II and
in for Mycenaean 1,11 and III. L.H. is more convenient than
Myc, it does not attempt to ram the name of a city down the
throat of a country, and, as we shall see, we must have some
distinction between Crete and the Mainland, so L.M. will
not do.2 As I say these names are only labels they have no
intrinsic magic of their own.
1 Certainly there would be nothing to be gained by adopting the
suggestions of M. Franchet in his introduction to Hazzidakis' Tylissos
Minoenne. He, with insufficient knowledge, acquired on a flying
visit to Crete, based an inferior system of chronology for the island
apparently on that of prehistoric provincial France. Of his criticisms
of the work of every one who had been to Crete before, the less said
the better. Nor is Aberg's sweeping division into Prepalatial,
Kamarais and Late Minoan anything but a retrogression. See note
at the end of the introduction. As Frankfort, Studies, II, 125, n.,
says, none of the alternative schemes alters the sequence of the remains
in any way and therefore they do not add to our insight.
2 We can talk of XVIIIth Dynasty work without implying that
the Pharaohs of that Dynasty did it themselves. So too all we
imply by L.H. work is work done in Hellas during the Late Bronze
Age.
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CRETE
Minoan (E.M., M.M. and L.M.) i, n and III1. Admittedly
recent research seems to show that both M.M.li and L.M.n
were practically confined to Knossos and Phaistos and that it
might be better to call M.M.ii and L.M.ifi M.M.li and L.M.n
respectively, but that would merely mean that a mass of im-
portant literature already written would be thrown into con-
fusion, and after all the names are mere labels and of no value
in themselves. One day perhaps we shall be able to talk in
terms of dynasties and regnal years, but until then the present
system cannot be bettered. It must, however, be allowed to
be elastic. Because L.M.ia begins at Knossos at a particular
date, that is not to say that provincial towns, such as the
Kastellos above Tzermiadha in Lasithi, discarded all their
M.M.1116 vessels on the same day. So too, while we admit that all
over the Near East the Bronze Age falls into three main periods,
we must guard against insisting that the Helladic and Cycladic
Periods must be exactly parallel to the Minoan. We must
allow the possibility that the Neolithic Period in Crete over-
laps the Proto-dynastic Period in Egypt and that Early Helladic
may overlap into Middle Minoan. Meanwhile, until we have
got something better to put in its place the terminology which
has acted so well for so long must be kept, and the more
subdivisions we can make in it the better.
I have unrepentantly used the term Late Helladic 1, II and
in for Mycenaean 1,11 and III. L.H. is more convenient than
Myc, it does not attempt to ram the name of a city down the
throat of a country, and, as we shall see, we must have some
distinction between Crete and the Mainland, so L.M. will
not do.2 As I say these names are only labels they have no
intrinsic magic of their own.
1 Certainly there would be nothing to be gained by adopting the
suggestions of M. Franchet in his introduction to Hazzidakis' Tylissos
Minoenne. He, with insufficient knowledge, acquired on a flying
visit to Crete, based an inferior system of chronology for the island
apparently on that of prehistoric provincial France. Of his criticisms
of the work of every one who had been to Crete before, the less said
the better. Nor is Aberg's sweeping division into Prepalatial,
Kamarais and Late Minoan anything but a retrogression. See note
at the end of the introduction. As Frankfort, Studies, II, 125, n.,
says, none of the alternative schemes alters the sequence of the remains
in any way and therefore they do not add to our insight.
2 We can talk of XVIIIth Dynasty work without implying that
the Pharaohs of that Dynasty did it themselves. So too all we
imply by L.H. work is work done in Hellas during the Late Bronze
Age.