DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0243
228 INFLUENCE OF THE PALACES
In Phaistos these include certain examples of cross-hatching^ , tubular drill ornament^ , centrally
radiating motifs , interlace and leaves.
As many as one third of the motifs are not clearly datable on the grounds of style to the
Old Palatial Period and were it not for their archaeological context, could as easily be considered
Prepalatial. Miscellaneous motifs and seals which are not definitely assignable to either the Pre-
palatial or to the Old Palatial Period, but rather to both periods, generally show only fair quality
workmanship. These seals include most 6g and 3 If Signets. In treating the question of what is
Prepalatial and what is Old Palatial, one must bear in mind that the dating of seals to the begin-
ning of the Old Palatial Period relies heavily on the evidence of typology and less on that of
stratigraphy. Also, the degree of chronological overlap between MM IB and MM II ceramic styles
is difficult to assess. This observation is particularly important in determining the relative chron-
ology of seals from MM I contexts, as opposed to MM II ones.
c) Although many seal impressions occur in Middle Bronze Age palatial contexts, this fact
does not in itself comprise evidence that the seals originated there. In the case of the Hieroglyph-
ic Deposit in Knossos, the impressions were stamped by seals which I believe were produced in
palatial workshops. But where the originals were produced which stamped the Phaistos impres-
sions is less clear. On their backsides the sealings from the Phaistos deposit show the impressions
of willow twigs, palm leaves, the snubbing posts of wooden boxes as well as the necks of askoi
and pithoi. Levi has suggested that the original sealings were removed from objects coming from
outside the palaces and were retained as receipts from the deliverer. 8 Fiandra, on the other hand,
interprets the sealings as testimony of the internal administration of the palace stores but not of
interregional trade.29 According to her, these sealings did not belong to an archive as such but
represent the accumulation of sealings from sixteen containers which were repeatedly sealed and
unsealed. After a certain period the sealings (most of which were badly squashed) would have
been discarded.
Pini has discussed the difficulties of both theories and supports Fiandra's idea that the seal-
ings do not represent the remains of an archive in the strict sense of the word. In any case,
the Middle Minoan tombs in Profitis Ilias and Mavro Spelio, located in the suburbs of Knossos,
yielded numerous seals, most of which show motifs similar to those from the Phaistos deposit.
These motifs include tubular drill ornament , tectonic ornament , C- and S-hooks , cross-
hatching , crosses , aligned borings and zig-zags.
As these seals came to light in the direct vicinity of the palace, they are also in a certain
sense palatial. On the other hand, to what extent does the word "palatial" describe all products
produced in the palaces? Most of the ceramic in Knossos, for example, is simple rough ware.
Thus, the seals responsible for the more modest designs in the Phaistos deposit could have been
produced in palace workshops or from those in the surrounding town.
One could likewise argue that the sealed objects in Phaistos were sent from the town im-
mediately outside the palace. The hypothesized origin of the sealed objects from the Mesara (as
suggested by Levi) creates several problems: While seal motifs similar to those from the Phaistos
deposit are well represented in urban, even palatial contexts, this is less the case for the moment,
for rural contexts such as those in the Mesara. In short, the attribution of plain or mediocre
work to workshops in the oudying or provincial areas is weak, except in the case of Malia. This
observation need not detract, however, from the concept of palatial workshops as producers of
In Phaistos these include certain examples of cross-hatching^ , tubular drill ornament^ , centrally
radiating motifs , interlace and leaves.
As many as one third of the motifs are not clearly datable on the grounds of style to the
Old Palatial Period and were it not for their archaeological context, could as easily be considered
Prepalatial. Miscellaneous motifs and seals which are not definitely assignable to either the Pre-
palatial or to the Old Palatial Period, but rather to both periods, generally show only fair quality
workmanship. These seals include most 6g and 3 If Signets. In treating the question of what is
Prepalatial and what is Old Palatial, one must bear in mind that the dating of seals to the begin-
ning of the Old Palatial Period relies heavily on the evidence of typology and less on that of
stratigraphy. Also, the degree of chronological overlap between MM IB and MM II ceramic styles
is difficult to assess. This observation is particularly important in determining the relative chron-
ology of seals from MM I contexts, as opposed to MM II ones.
c) Although many seal impressions occur in Middle Bronze Age palatial contexts, this fact
does not in itself comprise evidence that the seals originated there. In the case of the Hieroglyph-
ic Deposit in Knossos, the impressions were stamped by seals which I believe were produced in
palatial workshops. But where the originals were produced which stamped the Phaistos impres-
sions is less clear. On their backsides the sealings from the Phaistos deposit show the impressions
of willow twigs, palm leaves, the snubbing posts of wooden boxes as well as the necks of askoi
and pithoi. Levi has suggested that the original sealings were removed from objects coming from
outside the palaces and were retained as receipts from the deliverer. 8 Fiandra, on the other hand,
interprets the sealings as testimony of the internal administration of the palace stores but not of
interregional trade.29 According to her, these sealings did not belong to an archive as such but
represent the accumulation of sealings from sixteen containers which were repeatedly sealed and
unsealed. After a certain period the sealings (most of which were badly squashed) would have
been discarded.
Pini has discussed the difficulties of both theories and supports Fiandra's idea that the seal-
ings do not represent the remains of an archive in the strict sense of the word. In any case,
the Middle Minoan tombs in Profitis Ilias and Mavro Spelio, located in the suburbs of Knossos,
yielded numerous seals, most of which show motifs similar to those from the Phaistos deposit.
These motifs include tubular drill ornament , tectonic ornament , C- and S-hooks , cross-
hatching , crosses , aligned borings and zig-zags.
As these seals came to light in the direct vicinity of the palace, they are also in a certain
sense palatial. On the other hand, to what extent does the word "palatial" describe all products
produced in the palaces? Most of the ceramic in Knossos, for example, is simple rough ware.
Thus, the seals responsible for the more modest designs in the Phaistos deposit could have been
produced in palace workshops or from those in the surrounding town.
One could likewise argue that the sealed objects in Phaistos were sent from the town im-
mediately outside the palace. The hypothesized origin of the sealed objects from the Mesara (as
suggested by Levi) creates several problems: While seal motifs similar to those from the Phaistos
deposit are well represented in urban, even palatial contexts, this is less the case for the moment,
for rural contexts such as those in the Mesara. In short, the attribution of plain or mediocre
work to workshops in the oudying or provincial areas is weak, except in the case of Malia. This
observation need not detract, however, from the concept of palatial workshops as producers of