DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0232
GROUPS 217
MM III period. His earlier argument for their MM III dating rested on the naturalistic style of
certain motifs. On the other hand, Evans also recognized that the majority of the impressions
showed both the Hieroglyphic B script and a glyptic style which he dated to MM II. A late
dating for the Deposit also rested on the idea that the Linear A script supplanted the MM II Hi-
eroglyphic B script in MM III.
A MM III dating for the Deposit has been defended by John Reich, whose main argument
goes back to Evans's statements regarding the naturalistic style of some of the motifs. As fur-
ther support for a MM III dating he refers to the presence of "MM III" ceramic in the immedi-
ate vicinity of the Deposit; to a comparison of the associated roundels with those from MM III
and LM I deposits; to Prisms or Prism impressions from MM III contexts; and, finally to a MM
IIIB dating for the material in the Vat Room Deposit. These points may be treated singly:
1) There is no decisive stratigraphic evidence for attributing the Hieroglyphic Deposit to ei-
ther MM IIB or to MM III. The "MM III" finds that Evans mentions as belonging to the corri-
dors of the West Wing are not described.
2) At the turn of the century hardly any seals or sealings were known from unmixed con-
texts earlier in date than the MM IIIB Temple Repository, which was dug in 1903. Intuitively,
Evans associated the majority of the impressions from the Deposit with stylistically similar, unex-
cavated seals to form a group which he dated to MM II. Most of the motifs from the Deposit, in
fact, belong to the Hieroglyphic Deposit Group, of which examples have been excavated from
MM II contexts in Phaistos, Knossos and Malia. The nodules bearing impressions from the De-
posit have a unique and characteristic shape and color and thus seem to belong together as one
find group. Naturalistic and hieroglyphic designs occur on the same nodules and thus one cannot
argue that the more "advanced" designs were impressed later than those of the main hieroglyphic
group.
None of the naturalistic motifs which so impressed Evans are more naturalistic (i.e. later)
than examples from the MM IIB Phaistos sealing deposit, which came to light long after his
death. The naturalism of some motifs can be discounted as a criterion for a later dating of the
Deposit, and the style of the majority of the impressions actually argues strongly for a MM II
dating.
3) Although in 1901 it seemed likely that the MM II Hieroglyphic B script was replaced in
MM III by the Linear A script, this idea does little to help date the Deposit. In fact, the cursive
writing signs scratched into the sealed clay nodules of both the Hieroglyphic Deposit and the MM
IIB Phaistos sealing deposit (Motifs 56:8 and 9) are of the Protolinear script. The presence of
the Hieroglyphic B and Protolinear scripts in the Deposit are evidence for a MM II dating rather
than a later one.
4) Mason's marks similar to those on the walls in the area of the Deposit also occur in MM
III contexts. However, these particular marks could easily begin earlier and even if the parts of
the walls with the marks were indisputably of MM III date, the lower parts could be older.
5) Reich states that MM III ceramic was found in the "immediate vicinity" of the Deposit
(i.e. in the Theatral Area). However, Evans actually dated this area to MM II on the strength
of the ceramic found there. Even if MM III ceramic had been found in the Theatral Area, this
locus is not directly linked to the Deposit. Nor is the ceramic from nearer findspots of help in
dating the Deposit.
6) A comparison of the roundels found in the Deposit with those from MM III and LM I
MM III period. His earlier argument for their MM III dating rested on the naturalistic style of
certain motifs. On the other hand, Evans also recognized that the majority of the impressions
showed both the Hieroglyphic B script and a glyptic style which he dated to MM II. A late
dating for the Deposit also rested on the idea that the Linear A script supplanted the MM II Hi-
eroglyphic B script in MM III.
A MM III dating for the Deposit has been defended by John Reich, whose main argument
goes back to Evans's statements regarding the naturalistic style of some of the motifs. As fur-
ther support for a MM III dating he refers to the presence of "MM III" ceramic in the immedi-
ate vicinity of the Deposit; to a comparison of the associated roundels with those from MM III
and LM I deposits; to Prisms or Prism impressions from MM III contexts; and, finally to a MM
IIIB dating for the material in the Vat Room Deposit. These points may be treated singly:
1) There is no decisive stratigraphic evidence for attributing the Hieroglyphic Deposit to ei-
ther MM IIB or to MM III. The "MM III" finds that Evans mentions as belonging to the corri-
dors of the West Wing are not described.
2) At the turn of the century hardly any seals or sealings were known from unmixed con-
texts earlier in date than the MM IIIB Temple Repository, which was dug in 1903. Intuitively,
Evans associated the majority of the impressions from the Deposit with stylistically similar, unex-
cavated seals to form a group which he dated to MM II. Most of the motifs from the Deposit, in
fact, belong to the Hieroglyphic Deposit Group, of which examples have been excavated from
MM II contexts in Phaistos, Knossos and Malia. The nodules bearing impressions from the De-
posit have a unique and characteristic shape and color and thus seem to belong together as one
find group. Naturalistic and hieroglyphic designs occur on the same nodules and thus one cannot
argue that the more "advanced" designs were impressed later than those of the main hieroglyphic
group.
None of the naturalistic motifs which so impressed Evans are more naturalistic (i.e. later)
than examples from the MM IIB Phaistos sealing deposit, which came to light long after his
death. The naturalism of some motifs can be discounted as a criterion for a later dating of the
Deposit, and the style of the majority of the impressions actually argues strongly for a MM II
dating.
3) Although in 1901 it seemed likely that the MM II Hieroglyphic B script was replaced in
MM III by the Linear A script, this idea does little to help date the Deposit. In fact, the cursive
writing signs scratched into the sealed clay nodules of both the Hieroglyphic Deposit and the MM
IIB Phaistos sealing deposit (Motifs 56:8 and 9) are of the Protolinear script. The presence of
the Hieroglyphic B and Protolinear scripts in the Deposit are evidence for a MM II dating rather
than a later one.
4) Mason's marks similar to those on the walls in the area of the Deposit also occur in MM
III contexts. However, these particular marks could easily begin earlier and even if the parts of
the walls with the marks were indisputably of MM III date, the lower parts could be older.
5) Reich states that MM III ceramic was found in the "immediate vicinity" of the Deposit
(i.e. in the Theatral Area). However, Evans actually dated this area to MM II on the strength
of the ceramic found there. Even if MM III ceramic had been found in the Theatral Area, this
locus is not directly linked to the Deposit. Nor is the ceramic from nearer findspots of help in
dating the Deposit.
6) A comparison of the roundels found in the Deposit with those from MM III and LM I