² Mavriyannaki, C., ‘Modellini fittili di construzioni circolari dalla Creta minoica’, SMEA 15 (1972), 161–170Google Scholar; Hägg; Mersereau 1–3. R. Hägg has arranged the material according to site, while Mersereau opted for a chronological sorting. Unlike Hägg, who stops in the PG period, Mersereau considers Middle/ or Late Geometric (Phaistos) and Orientalizing (Gortyn kernoi) examples in her study (see Mersereau 43–46, Cat. Nos. 20–22, figs. 30–35). The Gortyn kernoi have now been properly published by Johannoswky, W., Il Santuario sull'Acropoli di Gortina [Monografie della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente XVI], Athens: S.A.I.A 2002, vol. II, 24, n.63Google Scholar. Johannowsky briefly mentions the LM ancestry of the artefact type without emphasizing the possible differences in form and function; moreover, he refers to the Archanes model as a ‘tempietto’ (at p. 24), which indicates a similar interpretation towards these models in general. Unfortunately, he does not refer to the studies by Hägg and Mersereau. On earlier Minoan architectural models (not including LM or later cylindrical models) one may consult Schoep, where methodological issues are raised.

³ Coldstream, J. N., ‘Early Hellenic pottery’, in Sackett, L. H. (ed.) Knossos: From Greek City to Roman Colony. Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion II, BSA Supplementary volume 21, London: Thames and Hudson 1992, 67–89Google Scholar (68, 80, pls. 52, 60). The ‘round house model’ (no. GB 1) with painted decoration of chevrons was found in irregular pit 44 in Room B (deposit GB), which dates from late PG to PG B.

⁴ Coldstream, J. N., ‘The Protogeometric and Geometric pottery’, in Goldstream, N. and Catling, H. W., Knossos North Cemetery. The Early Greek Tombs, BSA Supplementary volume 28, London: Thames and Hudson 1996, 217, 368Google Scholar (no.219.86). It also bears painted decoration that allows its precise dating.

⁵ Hägg 95 (abstract).

⁶ Hägg, R., ‘The Minoan hut-models: Their origin and function reconsidered’, Maquettes Colloque, 357–361Google Scholar.

⁷ Excluded here are the Orientalizing Gortyn kernoi (see supra n.2), not only because of their later date, but also for the reason that these models are attached on the top of composite ritual vessels, a practice unattested in previous examples. In view of their chronological and morphological isolation they should be treated separately. Mersereau includes them in her analysis, without questioning their classification in the same group as the earlier models. It is likely that the coincidence of the chronological and morphological difference indicate a serious difference in the significance and use of these models.

⁸ In the most recent synthesis on Postminoan Knossian pottery, these artefacts are considered as a uniform group and are classified as ‘house models’. Coldstream, J. N., Eiring, L. J. and Forster, G., Knossos Pottery Handbook. Greek and Roman [BSA Studies 7], London 2001, 46Google Scholar.

⁹ Hägg (n. 6), 358.

¹⁰ Hägg 101.

¹¹ Hägg, 101–102, Mersereau esp. 4–5 for a critical examination of possible identifications with known architectural forms. To the literature cited in these articles Hägg (n.6) should be now added, as well as Rethemiotakis, G., Ανθρωπομορφικὴ Πηλοπλαοτικὴ στην Κρὴτη απὸ τη Νεοανκτορικὴ ὲως την Υπομινωικὴ Πσρὶοδο, Athens: Athens Archaeological Society 1998, 155, n. 552–557Google Scholar.

¹² Mersereau 1 (abstract).

¹³ Mersereau 7. The relation of models and pyxides had been already advanced by Seiradaki, M. (‘The pottery from Karphi’, BSA 60 (1965), 1–37 at pp. 18, 28Google Scholar). Rethemiotakis (n. 11), 155, independently expresses a similar view with a similar argumentation with regard to the origin of the cylindrical model. He also argues that the models do not reflect any real architectural type, yet he generally agrees with their interpretation as ναΐσκοι (the models are Indexed as such). He argues that their only realistic feature is the entrance. However, his adoption of Evans’ view that these models derived from clay stands (PM II, 311–312Google Scholar), in addition to being unlikely on typological grounds, does not consider the motivation for the need of this new artefact; more significantly, his assumption that the wide distribution of ‘similar’ objects (which are in fact extremely diverse in cultural setting, use and chronology) is indicative of a ‘common’ background of beliefs and ideas (at p. 155, n. 553) is not convincing.

¹⁴ Mersereau 8–9.

¹⁵ Hägg (n. 6), 358 [my italics]. Mersereau 2, 4–5, comes to the same conclusion, although she rejects any architectural form as a possible prototype.

¹⁶ Hägg 101. Hägg follows Evans, who had also suggested that small, circular huts made of perishable materials existed in Minoan times and were the prototypes of these hut models (PM II (1928), 132). Mavriyannaki (n. 2), 170, n.47, also inclines towards the identification of the models as ‘huts’, although she refers to shepherd huts (which she compares to the modern Cretan mitata). Her conclusion is no less problematic, since there is no evidence that such constructions existed in LM III–Early Iron Age Crete.

¹⁷ Hägg 101.

¹⁸ Mersereau 4–5.

¹⁹ Mersereau 4.

²⁰ Müller–Karpe, H., Vom Afgang Roms, Berlin 1959, 48, 82, 87–88Google Scholar, pl. 19. 4: ‘Nachbildungen der Gräbern’ (88). Although he does compare the Cretan models with Italian Hausurnen, Müller–Karpe argues about a more general utilization of these models in funerary ritual. Mersereau 2–4 has rejected the link with the Italian artefacts on the basis of chronological and contextual differences. However, a discussion of this link lies beyond the scope of the present work.

²¹ Boardman, J., in ‘The Khaniale Tekke tombs II’, BSA 62 (1967), 57–75Google Scholar (66), has suggested that the Archanes model could be an old tholos tomb, re-discovered in the PG period and mistaken for an underground shrine. Despite the remarkable ingenuity of Boardman's interpretation, its acceptance involves that the inhabitants of PG B Knossos region did not know what a tholos tomb was, hence their supposed ‘misinterpretation’ of such a tomb as a shrine. However, there were at least two tholos tombs in use during PG B in the vicinity of Archanes: (1) Knossos Khanialle Tekke tomb 2, in which a PG B clay model imitating a rectangular house had been placed (Boardman, ibid., 64–65, fig. 3) and (a) Eltyna tholos (PG B) (M. Englezou, C7;ὲση της Ελτυνας με την Κνωσὸ, in Cadogan G., Hatzaki E. and Vasilakis A. (eds.) Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans's Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12), London: British School at Athens 2004, 421–431). The Tekke and Archanes models along with the slighdy earlier (late PG) Knossos North Cemetery model (see supra n.3) are the only occurrences of such models in funerary contexts, which would support the view that the practice of placing clay models in tombs was a late PG–PG B phenomenon.

²² Snodgrass, A., The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 1971, 193Google Scholar, fig. 70. Snodgrass follows Boardman's interpretation of the Archanes model representing ‘the accidental discovery of a tholos tomb.’ See supra n. 21 for an argument against Boardman's interpretation.

²³ Sakellarakis, J. and Sakellarakis, E., Archanes: Minoan Crete in a new light, Athens: Ammos 1997, 35Google Scholar, fig. 11, 566–567, figs. 565–566, where it is suggested that the context in which the model was probably found (funerary) indicates that it could well be the model of a tholos tomb. See the argument on the predictable discordance between a model's context and its actual prototype (developed infra).

²⁴ Mersereau 5.

²⁵ Long, C. R., The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus. A Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Beliefs, SIMA XLI, Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag 1974Google Scholar is still a standard reference for the iconography of this artefact. See Löwe, 23–39, for a more recent survey of the significance of the sarcophagus' imagery in relation with LM mortuary practices, with earlier references. The conclusive dating of the sarcophagus to LM IIIA2 is based on three independent pieces of evidence: (1) two cups dated in LM IIIA2 and found under the foundation courses of Tomb 4 (first presented in Rosa, V. La, ‘The painted sarcophagus: Determining the chronology’, in Sherratt, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera’, Petros Nomikos Conference Center, Thera (Hellas), 30/08–04/09/1997, Athens: Nomikos, Thera Foundation 2000, volume II, 996–997)Google Scholar. However, strictly speaking, the cups published by La Rosa date the tomb, not necessarily the sarcophagus. (2) A stylistic date of the sarcophagus paintings to LM IIIA2 has been supported by the analysis by Militello, P., Haghia Triada I. Gli Affreschi [Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente IX], Padova 1998, 305Google Scholar. (3) An LM IIIA2 date for this uniquely elaborate burial container would make it contemporary with the one-off monumentality of Haghia Triadha in this period, noted by La Rosa, V., (‘Haghia Triada à l'époque mycénienne’, in Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds.), La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale Organisée par l'École Française d'Athènes 26–28 Mars 1991, Paris: Boccard 1997, 249–266Google Scholar).

²⁶ Merousis, N., Οι Εικονογραφικοὶ Κὺκλοι των ΥΜ ΙΙΙ Λαρνὰκων. Οι Διαστὰσεις της Εικονογραφὶας στα Πλαὶσια των Ταφικὼν Πρακτικὼν, Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki 2000Google Scholar) includes a catalogued and classified corpus of LM III decorated larnakes. Even if the themes mostly do not depict aspects of funerary ritual per se, it should not be forgotten that it is an exclusively funerary artefact (a burial container) that was being decorated with those themes. This makes the characterization ‘funerary iconography’ absolutely justified. More explicit references are, however, occasionally encountered in larnax iconography: see Baxevani, K., ‘A Minoan larnax from Pigi Rethymnou with religious and funerary iconography’ in Morris, C. E. (ed.), Klados: Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream, [BICS Supplement 63, London: Institute of Classical Studies 1995], 15–33Google Scholar, for a unique to date LM IIIA2 larnax from Pigi where a prothesis scene with mourners is depicted.

²⁷ Löwe 27–28 with earlier references. The Tanagra larnakes with their painted processions of female mourners are generally examined with relation to Mycenaean and not Late Minoan burial customs, but, since the clay burial larnax constitutes a Cretan development, their reference here can be justified, as they verify the interest of Aegean LBA III imagery in themes connected with death. For the significant differences of the funerary iconography between LM III chest-shaped larnakes and the LH III Tanagra examples see the compelling arguments of N. Marinatos, (‘Minoan and Mycenaean larnakes: A comparison’, in Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds.), La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale Organisée par l'École Française d'Athènes 26–28 Mars 1991, BCH Supplement 38, Paris: Boccard 1997, 281–292Google Scholar) and Merousis, N., Η εικονογραφὶα στα πλαὶσια των ταφικὼν πρακτικὼν Οι ενδεὶζεις απὸ τις διακοσμηναϊκὴς λὰρνακες της Υ Μ ΙΙΙ Κρὴτης και της Μυκηναϊκὴς Τανὰγρας ᾿, in Aravantinos, V. (ed.), Third International Congress of Boeotian Studies (Thebes, 4–8 September 1996), I: Archaeology Επετηρὶς της Εταιρεὶας Βοιωτικὼν Μελετὼν Γ: ὰ, Athens 2000, 264–285Google Scholar.

²⁸ ‘Art is responsive to the needs of the society that produces it, and in many ways is cogent with other, contemporary cultural forms … social and stylistic change are intimately related’ (Whitley, J., Style and Society in Dark Age Greece. The Changing Face of a Pre-literate Society 1100–700 BC [New Studies in Archaeology], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991, pp. 196–197Google Scholar). It must be noted that Whitley suggests that consideration of art in context is not sufficient for its interpretation, and that aesthetic analysis and ‘acknowledgement of the motivation and prejudice of the present-day investigator’ are necessary.

²⁹ As with every artefact that has been circulated in the antiquities market, the context of this model is not safely known. The model was found in 1949 and acquired by Giamalakis in the next year. Along with the rest of the Giamalakis private collection of Cretan antiquities, the model is now kept at the Herakleion museum (Inv. no. ΣΓ 376). For a study of its origin and context, see Sakellarakis, J. A., Αρχαιολογικὴ ὲρευνα για μια αρχαιοκαπηλὶα το 1949 στην Κρὴτη ᾿, in φὶλια Επη εις Τ.Ε. Μυλωνὰν B, Athens: The Athens Archaeological Society 1987, 37–70Google Scholar. Sakellarakis identified the plundered monument as a built tomb at Phythies, N of Archanes. According to information gathered by interviewing villagers, this tomb, not locatable nowadays, was roofed with a ‘bridge-like’ dome. If this is reliable, it is likely that it was a vaulted tholos tomb, as noted by Mersereau 5, 40. However, the typological identification of the tomb is possible, not conclusive.

³⁰ Poursat, J.-Cl., ‘Les maquettes architecturales du monde Créto-Mycénien: Types et fonctions symboliques’, in Maquettes Colloque, 485–495Google Scholar (488, n.g): ‘les seules structures circulaires connues en Crète pendant cette période sont des petites tombes à tholos recouvertes d'une voûte; à une exception prés, ces modèles n'ont jamais été trouvés dans des contexts funéraires’. The same view has also been held by Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N., ‘The Giamalakis model from Archanes: Between the Minoan and the Greek worlds’, in Atti del Convegno Internazionale ‘La Transizione dal Miceneo all'alto Archaismo. Dal Plazzo alla Città, Roma: CNR 1991, 301–307Google Scholar (305): ‘The postpalatial and SM hut urns have usually been found in shrines or settlements, not in tombs’.

³¹ Mersereau 5.

³² Schoep 195, n.30. The models from Knossos (Loomweight Basement) and Menelaion (the only Early Mycenaean example) were found in fills connected with the construction of buildings. The Iouktas and Piskokephalo examples were found in ‘ritual’ contexts, and there are also the famous Kamilari models from an antechamber of a circular tomb of the Mesara type.

³³ Schoep 195, 202–210.

³⁴ Schoep 203: ‘all individual features represented in the models usually find their counterparts in Minoan architecture.’ As Schoep suggests, ‘the individual construction elements do correspond with the remains but the combination of all elements into a single composition can and did result in a somewhat fictive construction’ [my italics]. However, given the virtual uniqueness of each Minoan (particularly Neopalatial) plan in its structural details, already noted by Preziosi, D. and Hitchcock, L. A. (Aegean Art and Architecture [Oxford History of Art], Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999, p. 110Google Scholar), one should not jump to fast conclusions about ‘fictive’ constructions, since not every Minoan building is known.

³⁵ Boardman (n. 21), 65, fig. 3. This is a rectangular house model, with clear architectural parallels in contemporary residential architecture of Crete and lacks the elaboration of the contemporary Archanes model. Boardman (n. 21), 66, notes that all three examples of the ‘model in tomb’ were found in PG north central Crete (Knossos and Archanes). Hoffmann, G., Imports and Immigrants. Near Eastern Contacts with Iron Age Crete, Michigan: Ann Arbor 1997, 194Google Scholar, suggests that this pattern is meaningful and represents a regional adoption of this practice by PG Cretan elites. She further considers this practice as of Near Eastern origin, presumably imported and applied to artefacts of such clear LM III ancestry.

³⁶ Examples with no sufficient preservation status: LM IIIB1 Khania (only clay ‘door’ preserved) (Mersereau 27, no.5), LM IIIC/ SM Karphi (Mersereau, 32–33, no. 13, fig. 21), LM IIIC/ SM Karphi (Mersereau 35, no. 17) (only clay ‘door’ preserved); Examples without door fastening device: LM IIIA2 Kato Zakros (Mersereau, 23–24, no.1, fig. 8), two undated examples from Phaistos (Mersereau, 29, 30–31, nos.8, 10, figs. 15, 17) and the MG/ LG example from Phaistos (Mersereau, 43, no. 20, fig. 30).

³⁷ Belli, P., ‘L'Architettura della Tholos’ in Tsipopoulou, M. and Vagnetti, L., Achladia. Scavi e Richerche della Missione Greco-Italiana in Creta Orientale 1991–1993, Incunabula Graeca 97, Roma 1995, 89–113Google Scholar, (especially 108, figs.70–71, pls. C and D); This is not the only evidence for door fastening from the outside in the Achladia tholos, as Belli has also noted the existence of ‘a system of wooden poles against the entrance, for closing it from the outside’ (Id., ‘Architecture as craftsmanship: LM III tholoi and their builders’ in R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt (eds.) TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age [Aegaeum 16], Liège and Austin 1997, volume I, 251–255 (quotation from p. 252 [my italics]).

³⁸ It could be, although demanding more evidence, that the ‘side-niches’ in the dromoi of the Isopata Royal Tomb and the Kephala tholos in the vicinity of Knossos are related to this feature. For the Isopata Royal Tomb (destroyed in WW II), see SirEvans, Arthur (‘The prehistoric tombs at Knossos II’, Archaeologia 59 (1905), 575–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar), who had originally dated the tomb in the MM III–LM I period, according to the use of ashlar blocks with mason marks and the earliest sherd material found in it. However, he later revised his date to LM II, when the earlier pottery safely connected with interments is dated. The Kephala tholos, excavated in 1938, has been preliminarily published by Hutchinson, R. W. (‘A tholos tomb on the Kephala’, BSA 51 (1956), 64–80Google Scholar), who assigned a LM IA date for the construction of the tomb. It must be noted that, strangely for a funerary context, ‘no whole vase’ was found, ‘but only scattered sherds dating from MM IIIA to LM IIIA’ (ibid., p. 78). In reviewing Hutchinson's synthesis (Prehistoric Crete, Harmondsworth 1962), Popham, M. R. suggested that the Kephala tholos should be ‘LM II rather than LM IA as indicated by joining sherds in the fill’ (JHS 84 (1964), 210Google Scholar). Pelon also favours a LM II date (Pelon, O., Tholoi, Tumuli et Cercles Funeraires, B.E.F.A.R. no. 229, Paris: Boccard 1976, 265Google Scholar, n. 2–3, 422–423). The existence of a Minoan building and Neopalatial fine ware on the top of the Kephala hill, 30 m to the E of the tomb (Hood, S. and Smyth, D., Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area [BSA Supplement 14], London 1981, 35Google Scholar, no. 18) may account for the contamination of the chamber fill with pre-LM II material. A LM II date for its construction is here accepted. The Kephala tholos recently received final publication by Preston, L. (‘The Kephala tholos at Knossos: A study in the reuse of the past’, BSA 100 (2005), 61–123Google Scholar), with new plans, photographs and an analysis of human remains by R. Gowland.

³⁹ Bosanquet, R. C., ‘Excavations at Praesos I. Early Tombs. A’, BSA 7 (1900–1901), 240–245Google Scholar. Löwe 159 points that its earliest material dates to Geometric, but Bosanquet suggests a LM III date, characterizing the Geometric material as evidence for ancestor cult. It must, however, be mentioned that Bosanquet's report illustrates a LM style gold repoussé rosette from Tomb A (ibid., p. 243, fig. 12), which could support his hypothesis. Another feature that may be relevant to the degree of elaboration evident in LM III funerary architecture is the presence of pivot-holes at the entrance of the LM IIIB Maleme built tomb (just west of Chania) (see Davaras, C., Ανασκαφὴ θολωτου τὰφου Μὰλεμε ᾿, PAE 1966 (pr.1968), 185–188Google Scholar (pivot-holes at pp. 187–188, pl. 155b).

⁴⁰ Data for Achladia and Stylos were taken from measurements by Cavanagh, W. G. and Laxton, R. R., ‘Corbelled vaulting in the Late Minoan tholos tombs of Crete’, BSA 77 (1982), 65–77Google Scholar. For the Margharites tholos see Papadopoulou, E., Επαρχὶα Μυλοποτὰμου: Μαργαρὶτες ᾿, ADeltion 52 B'3 (1997), 1040–1041Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Schoep 191, 193 (drawings of architectural models in figs. 1, 4, 5, 7–9, 11, 13), 204–205, fig. 22 (two dimensional representations).

⁴² Palyvou, C., Ακρωτὴρι Θὴρας: Η Οικοδομικὴ Τὲχνη, Athens: Athens Archaeological Society 1999, 109–111Google Scholar, figs. 45–47. The Akrotiri eaves occur, naturally, above windows and in the horizon of upper floors or roofs.

⁴³ As almost all examples have wheel-made walls, their manufacturers were most probably potters, as Mersereau 6–7 correctly observed. As an additional point, it must be noted that the number of examples so far available from any period suggests that they were not mass-produced and therefore no apparent motivation seems to exist for a technical compromise for the sake of faster and easier manufacture.

⁴⁴ Boardman (n. 21).

⁴⁵ Although such an interpretation of the chequered motif belongs to the Minoan world, it may not be insignificant to note the resurgence of Minoan elements that (along with Attic and Oriental elements) led to the formation of the PG B Knossian style (ca. 850–810 BC), as noted by Coldstream (n. 8, 66). The chequered motif is very rare in PG B and Coldstream (n. 8) 66, does not even mention it in its basic description of the main features of this style. Such a ‘revival’ of the Minoan significance of this motif in a PG B environment would agree with the features that make Coldstream regard the ninth century Knossians as ‘a truly conservative society’: Coldstream, J. N., ‘Minos redivivus: Some nostalgic Knossians of the ninth century BC (abstract)’, in Cavanagh, W. G. and Curtis, M. (eds.) Post-Minoan Crete. Proceedings of the First Colloquium Organised by the BSA and the UCL 1995 [BSA Studies 2] London 1997, 58–61Google Scholar (60). On the stylistic character of PGB see also the recent paper by Kaiser, I. ‘Protogeometric B – Minoan and Oriental influences on a Cretan pottery style of the second half of the 9th century BC’ in Proceedings of the 9th International Cretological Congress at Elounda 1–6 October 2001, vol. A5, Herakleion: Etaireia Kritikon Meleton 2006, 63–70Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Schoep 192, Figs. 4, 5, 14, 16–18, 21. Discussion on the date of the deposit in which they were found is still not settled (Schoep 197).

⁴⁷ The only pre–LM III comparable artefact comes from Lebena Yerokambos tomb II (EM I-IIA), whose interpretation as a ‘house model’ is equally un-supported by contemporary EM architecture. It does not feature a single entrance, but bears various openings, which could well be windows, as well as an opaion, an opening on the centre of its roughly conical roof. According to Branigan, K., The Tombs of Mesara. A Study of Funerary Architecture and Ritual in Southern Crete, 2800–1700 BC (Duckworth, London 1970), 146Google Scholar), ‘our only grounds for thinking that circular huts were used at all in the Early Bronze Age is the shape of the hut-lamp from Lebena, and even this, it could be argued, was made circular for ease of manufacture or convenience of use’. With regard to the interpretation of the EM Lebena and the PG B Khaniale Tekke model as lamps, see also Parisinou, E., ‘Lighting practices in early Greece (from the end of the Mycenaean world to the 7^th century BC)’ OJA 17:3 (1998), 327–343 (at pp. 336–337Google Scholar). Either a ‘hut’ or a ‘lamp’, the Lebena example is unique and, thus, quite difficult to interpret convincingly. However, what is certain is that it cannot be connected with the LM III Early Iron Age examples considered here, because of serious differences in form (e.g. the presence of windows) and, primarily, because of the significant chronological gap. In the final publication of the site, this model is still interpreted as a ‘model of a round house (probably)’ and dated in EM I–IIA by its painted decoration (Alexiou, St. and Warren, P., The Early Minoan Tombs at Lebena, Southern Crete, SIMA XXX, Sävendalen: Paul Åströms Förlag 2004, 114Google Scholar, no.512).

⁴⁸ Hägg, 103, figs. 140 a–c, 107, Mersereau, 23–24, fig. 8, with extensive bibliographical notes. The absence of door-fastening devices, as well as the large size of the object, makes Hägg 100–101, very sceptical about it being the predecessor of the later examples. However, there are also major similarities, such as the single entrance and the overall shape, which allow the examination of the Zakros example along with all later ones. Its large size is an improper classification criterion and it should be noted that the absence of the door-fastening device is also a feature of some later examples (n. 36). In Table 1 it is demonstrated that the proportions of the Kato Zakro model are perfectly fitting with the rest of the cylindrical models.

⁴⁹ Mersereau is certainly right in noting that ‘seven models from one site may seem to be an extraordinarily large number, but this quantity must be viewed in the light of the fact that Karphi is the only extensively excavated LM IIIC town site’ (Mersereau 35).

⁵⁰ Notwithstanding the date of the final destruction of the palace, it seems that various independent pieces of evidence (most to be discussed in section IV) indicate a severe episode of some Knossian decline in LM IIIA2, which is sufficient for our case. Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss chronological arguments extensively. Discussion has so far focused on the refinement of the palace stratigraphy and LM III pottery development. However, even Mycenaean palaeography was drawn in the debate: Olivier, J.-P. (‘KN 115 = KH 115. Un même scribe à Knossos et á La Canée au MR IIIB: du supçon à la certitude’, BCH 117 (1993), 19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar) had argued for the synchronism of the Knossos and the LM IIIB1 Chania tablets, based on the alleged identification of a Knossian scribe working at Chania (or vice versa!); for its rejection see Palaima, T. G., ‘Ten reasons why KH 115 ≠ KN 115’, Minos 27–28 (1992–1993), 261–281Google Scholar, which led Olivier to withdraw the identification, but insist on a close palaeographical similarity (‘KN 115 et KH 115: rectification’, BCH 120 (1996), 823CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Although it is true that much of the debate is actually generated from the deficiency of the documentation of the contexts from the palace (even understandably for an early and pioneering excavation), Firth, R. J. (‘A review of find-places of the Linear B tablets from the palace of Knossos’, Minos 35–36 (2000–2001), 63–290Google Scholar, summary in pp. 278–281) has argued that at least some documents (his ‘Group B’) could date to LM IIIB. Although destruction horizons at Knossos may indeed be more than one, as Driessen, J. (‘Le palais de Cnossos au MR II-III: Combien de destructions?’, in Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds.), La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale Organisée par l'École Française d'Athènes 26–28 Mars 1991, Paris: Boccard 1997, 114–134Google Scholar) has most explicitly argued. The matter can only be indirectly settled through the identification of the repercussions that one such episode is expected to have had in the material record. One such strong indirect argument for a LM IIIA2 date has been provided by recent research conducted by E. Hatzaki on the LM II–IIIB settlement surrounding the palatial complex. She has concluded that ‘the archaeological data presently available suggest that LM IIIB Knossos was a poor relic of its former ‘palatial’ self and not the seat of a palatial elite in charge of an elaborate administrative system controlling much of central and western Crete’ (Hatzaki, E., ‘From Final Palatial to Postpalatial Knossos: A view from the Late Minoan II to Late Minoan IIIB town’, in G. Cadogan, G., Hatzaki, E. and Vasilakis, A., (eds.) Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the BSA and the 23^rd EPCA of Herakleion in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans's Excavations at Knossos [BSA Studies 12], London: BSA 2004, 121–126Google Scholar (125)). More evidence on a LM IIIA2 disruption from 2001–2002 excavations as well as from the ‘drop’ in the number of tombs used in cemeteries, such as Zapher Papoura, has been recently published (Hatzaki, E., ‘Postpalatial Knossos: Town and cemeteries from LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC’ in d'Agata, A. L. and Moody, J. (ed.) Ariadne's Threads. Connections Between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens SAI, 5–6/04/03 [Tripodes 3], Athens: SAI 2005, 65–95Google Scholar).

⁵¹ It could, of course, be suggested that, since the earliest one comes from eastern Crete (Kato Zakros), there is a possibility that the type developed in that region. However, this is not the correct methodology, since it may lead to absurd results. For instance, the only safely dated LM IIIB examples come from Chania, western Crete (Mersereau 25–27, nos. 3–5, figs. 11–12) and only one additional example comes from eastern Crete, from a late LM IIIB/ early LM IIIC context from Palaikastro Kastri (FIG. 1. 6) (Mersereau 27–28, no.6, fig. 13). Another example: it could be that the absence of models from LM IIIC – Early Iron Age western Crete is to be linked with the fact that round tholos tombs were seemingly no longer used there after LM IIIB (Appendix I, Table 2). However, we have material from only one W Cretan site (Chania), and the quantity of tombs known is also small. In order to have reliable results on this ground, significantly more material is needed. The possibility is not excluded that some regional pattern did exist; however, it cannot be detected on the basis of the evidence currently available.

⁵² One significant observation that needs to be stressed is that in the far west of Crete, the chronology of the dated models (LM IIIB) corresponds quite well to what Preston has called ”the earliest evidence for large-scale mortuary ostentation” exemplified in the cases of Maleme and Stylos (see infra n.91, 342) at the very same period. Although Maleme is not a tholos tomb proper (see infra this footnote), it features the extremely rare -and regionally specific- ‘pyramidoid’ dome (also built with corbelling technique) and testifies for the interest of the local communities in mortuary elaboration. Although both the number of tombs and the number of securely dated models is not as great as to exclude the possibility of a coincidence, this correlation should be kept in mind. Another remark should be offered with regard to terminology. Unfortunately under the term ‘Tholos’ Löwe classifies nearly any built tomb type (even EM circular tombs, despite substantial structural and functional differences), while in this article it only refers to those with circular ground plan and corbelled domes. Belli (n. 37), 251, also made no clear-cut distinction between circular and square ground plans of LM III tholos tombs, a potentially crucial difference, since only circular ground-plans show direct affinities with the Mainland examples.

⁵³ The uniform building technique in LM and Helladic tholos tombs has been demonstrated by the structural analysis of Cavanagh and Laxton (n. 40).

⁵⁴ One well-known example is the Koryphasion (Osmanaga) tholos, where matt–painted pottery of MH tradition has been identified. The tomb is still unpublished, apart from its pottery, for which see Blegen, C. W., ‘An early tholos tomb in western Messenia’, Hesperia 23 (1954), 158–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lolos, Y. G., ‘The Tholos Tomb at Koryphasion: Evidence for the Transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic in Messenia’ in Laffineur, R. (ed.) Transition. Le monde égéen du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Récent [Aegaeum 3], Liège: Universite de Liège 1989, 171–175Google Scholar. Additional reference should also be made to tomb 4 (late MH/ LH I) at the Niketopoulou knoll near Nichoria, published by Choremis, A., Μυκηναϊκοι καὶ Πρωτογεωμετρικοὶ τὰφοι εὶς Καρποφραν Μεσσηνὶας , ArchEph (1973), 25–74Google Scholar (at pp. 39–45).

⁵⁵ Dickinson, O. T. P. K., ‘Cretan contacts with the Mainland during the period of the Shaft Graves’ in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.) The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the 3^rd International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 31 May–5 June 1982, Stockholm 1984, 115–118Google Scholar (at p. 117) and G. S. Korres, ‘The relations between Crete and Messenia in the late Middle Helladic and early Late Helladic period’, ibid., 141–152 (at pp. 148–149).

⁵⁶ Schoep 193 (fig. 8), 194 (with past references), 195. As the excavator, H. W. Catling, has remarked, this could be a Minoan product, though it admittedly lacks close parallels from Crete. Another supposed Mycenaean (LH IIIB) ‘house model’ has recently been reported from Midea. However, as ‘there is no indication that the model was attached to any sort of flooring’ (Ostenso, A., ’The small finds’, in Walberg, G. (ed.) Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea. Results of the Greek-Swedish Excavation, Volume I: 1–2. The Excavation of the Lower Terraces 1985–1991 [Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, XLIX: I: 1–2], Stockholm 1998, 165Google Scholar. pl. 119), I strongly prefer to accept the more prudent statement by Walberg that this artefact could also be ‘fragment of an incense burner’ (G. Walberg and K. L. Giering, ‘The stratigraphy’, ibid., 45).

⁵⁷ Schoep (195–196, n.31–32) briefly refers to the golden plaque from the Mycenae Shaft Grave III, the famous ‘Siege Rhyton’ from Mycenae Shaft Grave IV and the golden plaque from Volos Kapakli tholos tomb 1 (Thessaly), as well as to depictions on LH IIIA-B palatial frescoes (e.g. from Mycenae or Pylos).

⁵⁸ Schoep 195.

⁵⁹ Schoep 198.

⁶⁰ Mersereau 14–19, particularly 15: ‘the success of this cult is due at least in part to the void left by the collapse of the Minoan palace system and its state-run religion’. The connection between the wide distribution and popularity of the MGUA and the fall of palatial administration in LM IIIA2 had already been argued by Alexiou, St. Η Μινωικὴ θεὰ μω1 ᾿ ὺψωμὲνων χειρῶν ᾿, CretChron IB' (1958), 275)Google Scholar, before its influential theorization by C. Renfrew, which Mersereau adopts. For a more recent discussion on the increase in popularity of the MGUA in LM III, see Gesell, G., ‘From Knossos to Kavousi: The popularizing of the Minoan Palace Goddess’, in Chapin, A. (ed.) ΧΑΡΙΣ. Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr [Hesperia Supplement 33], Princeton 2004, 131–150Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Mersereau 25–27, figs. 11–12, nos.3–5, with references.

⁶² Hägg 102: ‘it may be argued that the housing of a goddess in the hut-model is an innovation of the Sub Minoan period’ [my italics].

⁶³ See Hägg (n. 62). For the SM Knossos (Spring Chamber) as well as the PG B Archanes model see Mersereau 37–42, figs. 25–29, nos.18 and 19 (with references).

⁶⁴ ‘Beginning with this late model and then casting interpretations onto the earlier models without adequate considerations of their differences is procedurally faulty and has led to misunderstandings about the model type as a whole’ (Mersereau 5). The work thus criticized is Coldstream, J. N., ‘A Protogeometric Nature Goddess from Knossos’, BICS 31 (1984), 93–104 (100–101)Google Scholar. The same methodology is apparent in Rethemiotakis’ hypothesis that missing MGUA figures from LM III or Early Iron Age examples can be considered as portable finds that had been removed from the interior of the models (Rethemiotakis, G., Μινωικὰ Πὴλινα Ειδὼλια απὸ την Νεοανακτορικὴ ὲως την Υπομινωικὴ περὶοδο, Athens: The Athens Archaeological Society 2001, 136Google Scholar).

⁶⁵ Mersereau 17.

⁶⁶ The model was found in Area F of the 1963 excavation. Alexiou, St., Αμνισόϛ, ArchDeltion 19 B′ 2 Χρονικά (1964), 439Google Scholar, pl.519c; Alexiou, St., ‘Areale H (Motel Xenia)–G (Offentliches Strandbad)–F (Öffentliches Strandbad)–E (Bauten am Strand): Bericht über die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1963 und 1967’, in Schäfer, J. (ed.) Amnisos nach den Archäologischen, Historischen und Epigraphischen Zeugnissen des Altertums und der Neuzeit, Mainz: von Zabern 1992, 186–192Google Scholar (188, pl. 46. 1–2, ‘kleiner Naiskos aus Ton’); Mersereau 17, 24–25, cat. no. 2, figs. 9–10.

⁶⁷ A first presentation of this LM IIIA1–2 site anticipating its final publication has been published by Platon, L., ‘Caractère, morphologie et datation de la bourgade postpalatiale de Képhali Khondrou Viannou’, in Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds.), La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale Organisée par l'École Française d'Athènes 26–28 Mars 1991, Paris: Boccard 1997, 357–373Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ The MGUA associations of triton shells at these two sites are exclusively based on the existence of ‘snake tubes’ by Gessell, G. C., Town, Palace and House Cult in Minoan Crete, SIMA LXVII, Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag 1985, 50–52Google Scholar. Gessell's view seems to be accepted by Mersereau 18. However, even ‘snake tubes’ are not consistently found with MGUA figures: e.g. the one in Kephali Khondrou found in Corridor Z1 (L. Platon (n. 66), 362, 363, fig. 4).

⁶⁹ Inverted cups from a ‘shrine thought to belong to the MGUA’ [my italics] in LM IIIA Haghia Triadha are mentioned by Mersereau 18, n.81. The identification of this ‘shrine’ as belonging to the MGUA was suggested by Gessell (n. 68), 41–42, on the basis of ‘snake tubes’ found there. Following the point in n. 68, too much is based on the ‘exclusive’ association of snake tubes with the cult of a MGUA, which should urgently be reconsidered, in view of the numerous inconsistencies it features.

⁷⁰ For an elaborate critical discussion on the validity of the ‘great goddess’ theory (but primarily with reference to the Neopalatial period) see Dickinson, O. T. P. K., ‘Comments on a popular model of Minoan religion’, OJA 13:2 (1994), 173–184Google Scholar. The most widely accepted view is that this gesture is associated with an ecstatic/orgiastic dance ritual response to divine epiphany and that it could be equally plausibly performed either by the deity or the adorant (Matz, F., Götterscheinung und kultbild im minoischen Kreta, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner 1958Google Scholar; Brandt, E., Gruss und Gebet. Eine Studie zu Gebärden in der minoisch-mykenischen und frühgriechischen Kunst, Waldsassen: Stiftland 1965Google Scholar). See also Demisch, H. (Erhobene Hände. Geschichte einer Gebärde in der bildenden Kunst, Stuttgart: Urachhaus 1984Google Scholar) for the consideration of this gesture as an ‘Urgebärde’ (archetypal gesture) in chronologically and culturally diverse contexts ranging from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages. For more theoretically and methodologically concerned approaches see: Wedde, M., ‘On hierarchical thinking in Aegean Bronze Age glyptic imagery’, in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds.), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age [Aegaeum 12], Liège: Université de Liège et UT-PASP 1995, 493–507 (p. 496Google Scholar: interpretations offered include ‘manifestation gesture’ or ‘sign of dominance over wild beasts’; the diverse contexts of this gesture's iconography are also noted, including a monkey performing it!) and ‘Talking hands: A study of Minoan and Mycenaean ritual gesture: some preliminary notes’, in Betancourt, P. P., Karageorghis, V., Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds.) MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, vol. III (Aegaeum 20: 3), Liège: Université de Liége 1999, 911–919Google Scholar (where variants of the gesture in question are recognized); Whittaker, H., Mycenaean Cult Buildings: A Study of their Architecture and Function in the Context of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean [Monographs of the Norwegian Institute at Athens no.1], Bergen: J. Krieg AS 1997, 50–57Google Scholar (where the significance of the gesture is seen as having different significance in the Neopalatial and the LM III period); Morris, C. ‘The language of gesture in Minoan religion’ in Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R. (eds.) Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference/8e Rencontre Égéenne Internationale. Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 [Aegaeum 22], Liège: Université de Liège 2001, 245–250Google Scholar, and Cain, C. D., ‘Dancing in the dark: Deconstructing a narrative of epiphany on the Isopata ring’, AJA 105 (2001), 27–49 (p. 44)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ Baxevani (n. 26). For Late Bronze Age Aegean mourners in general (with justifiable emphasis on the Tanagra images) see Cavanagh, W. and Mee, C., ‘Mourning before and after the Dark Age’, in Morris, C. E. (ed.) Klados. Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream [BICS Supplement 63], London: Institute of Classical Studies 1995, 45–61Google Scholar. One quite significant addition to the mourning corpus has been the prothesis scene from a LH IIIC crater from the Haghia Triadha near Elis chamber tomb cemetery, published by Schoinas, C. Εικονιστικὴ παρὰστφση σε ὸστρακα κρατὴρα απὸ την Αγὶα Τριὰδα Ηλει1ας in Πρακτικὰ του Α' Δτεθνοὺς Διεπιστημονικοὺ Συμποσὶου Η Περιφὲρεια του Μυκηναϊκοὺ Κὸσμου ᾿, Lamia 1994, Lamia: ΙΔ' E.P.K.A. 1999, 257–262Google Scholar) and Vikatou, O. (῾Σκηνὴ πρδθεσης απδ το Μυκηναϊκδ νεκροταφεὶο της Αγὶας Τριὰδας ' in Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. (ed.) Forschungen in der Peloponnes. Akten des Symposions anlässlich der Feier ‘100 Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Athen’, Athen 5.5.-7.3.1998 [Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Sonderschriften Bd. 38] Athen 2001, 273–284Google Scholar.

⁷² Alexiou (n. 60), 218, pl. 11. 2. Although Alexiou includes this image in his section on ‘non-plastic’ representations of the MGUA, he mentions other suggested identifications for this figure: Sp. Marinatos identified the figure as wearing a helmet (and therefore male?), whereas N. Platon considered it as a priest wearing a mask with horned appendages. Bielefeld has identified the figure as male (see Alexiou (n. 60), 218, nn. 132–134). Another often cited figure on a larnax from Milatos is also most probably a male, as Evans had initially observed (Alexiou (n. 60), 217–218, n.128, pl. 11.1; Merousis (n. 26), 122, no. 41). A ‘bald’ (or ‘shaved’) figure from an early LM IIIB larnax from Apodoulou is also most likely male (Poliogiorgis, M., ‘ Μορφὴ με υψωὲνα χὲρια σε λὰρνακα απδ το Αποδοπὺλον᾿’, Proceedings of the 6^th International Cretological Congress, volume A2, Chania 1990, 207–232Google Scholar, with a list of other larnakes with human figures).

⁷³ Tzedakis, Y., ‘Λάρνακεϛ Υστερομινωικού νεκροταφείου Αρμένων Ρεθύμνηϛ’, AAA IV, 216–221 (at p. 221, fig. 9)Google Scholar; Merousis (n. 26), 115, no.23 (RM 1706).

⁷⁴ Marinatos, Sp., ‘Παϒκαλοχώρι’, ADeltion 15 (1933–1935)Google Scholar, Appendix, 55, fig. 12; Alexiou (n. 60), 187–188, pl. 5. 2. As this is a chance find, its date, although safely within LM IIIA-B, cannot be more closely defined. Alexiou suggests an LM IIIB date based on stylistic comparisons.

⁷⁵ Morgan, L., ‘A Minoan larnax from Knossos’, BSA 82 (1987), 171–200Google Scholar, interprets the figure with the upraised arms as a priestess (at p. 198); Coldstream and Catling (n. 4), 159, 392–393, figs. 114–115.

⁷⁶ Platon, N., CretChron H′ (1954), 516Google Scholar: ‘δύο πολύ ἐνδιαφέροντα είδώλια μορφῶν μἐ ἀνυψουμέναϛ χεῖραϛ’. Rethemiotakis (n. 11), cat. no. 157.

⁷⁷ Xanthoudhidhes, St., ‘Cretan kernoi’, BSA 12 (1905–1906), 15–18Google Scholar. Xanthoudhidhes dated it vaguely to the ‘LM III’ period; however, Alexiou (n. 60), 206, correctly observed that the rest of the vases are PG. It should be added that the Kourtes tombs have not yielded material datable before SM. Cavanagh and Mee (n. 71), 51, interpret the Kourtes figurine as a mourner. For a more recent consideration of the pottery from Kourtes see Rocchetti, L., ‘La necropoli di Curtes’, Proceedings of the 6^th Cretological Congress, volume A2 (1990), 261–265Google Scholar. This re-evaluation of the Kourtes material by Rocchetti moves towards a PG B date: the Kourtes material shows clear affinities with that from Fortetsa tomb OD, PG B vases form the Giamalakis collection and material from the Knossos Spring Chamber deposit.

⁷⁸ That an encounter with the pictorial imagery of the Knossian larnax inspired the painter of pithos 114, as suggested by Coldstream (n. 4), 393, n.39, is a very thought-provoking idea; however, it cannot account for the association of the MGUA with the cylindrical model, since this appears already in the SM period (Knossos Spring Chamber). It is, however, significant to observe that the distribution pattern of the fragments of larnax 107.124 in tombs 107, 75 (neighbouring to N) and 294 (50 m to NE) removes any reasonable doubt for the deliberate dispersal of the antique artefact, an event that cannot antedate the earlier use of these tombs (Early PG).

⁷⁹ Brock, J. K., Fortetsa. Early Greek Tombs near Knossos, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1957, 125–126Google Scholar, no. 1440, pls. 77 and 163.

⁸⁰ A feature that changed later on, when clusters of such tombs emerged, perhaps influenced by the spatial concentration of chamber tombs: e.g. Apodoulou (LM IIIA–B), Kourtes (PG B), Arkades (G).

⁸¹ See Mersereau, 22, Table 1 for a reference. Any further analysis of the distribution of these models and site types where they were found is bound to be inconclusive at the current state of our knowledge. With the exception of Chania, it is admittedly difficult to speculate on their regional importance of any other site that has yielded in LM III based on archaeological evidence alone. The relation of Archanes to Knossos in LM III presupposes a reworking of relevant material from the former, although significant preliminary work has been presented by Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. (‘Archanès à l'époque mycénienne’, BCH 114 (1990), 67–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar). For Palaikastro Kastri and Karphi see the archaeological overview by Nowicki, K., Defensible Sites in Crete c. 1200–800 BC (LM IIIB' IIIC Through Early Geometric) [Aegaeum 21], Liège: Université de Liège ct UT-PASP 2000, 50–52, 157–164Google Scholar, figs. 88–93.

⁸² Prent, M., ‘Cult activities at the palace of Knossos from the end of the Bronze Age: Continuity and change’, in Cadogan, G., Hatzaki, E. and Vasilakis, A. (eds.) Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the BSA and the 23^rd EPCA of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans's Excavations at Knossos [BSA Studies 12], London: BSA 2004, 411–419 (416, fig. 36.7Google Scholar).

⁸³ Coldstream (n. 3), 80, 472, n. 8. By defining it as ‘domestic’, Coldstream links the context of model GB 1 with the LM III examples. However, it remains unclear whether pit 44 had a domestic nature (e.g. refuse deposit). Perhaps not insignificantly, no LM III model has been found in a pit. For late PG and PG B contexts in the Unexplored Mansion, see Coldstream (n.2), 67–70: Deposits GA (three complete vases on patch of earth floor), GB, GC (lower fill of large robbing Pit 60) and three more fragmentary stratified contexts (at p. 70).

⁸⁴ Cucuzza, N., ‘Geometric Phaistos: A Survey’, in Cavanagh, W. G. and Curtis, M. (eds.) Post-Minoan Crete. Proceedings of the First Colloquium Organised by the British School at Athens and the University College of London 1995 [BSA Studies 2] London 1997, 62–68 (at p. 65Google Scholar).

⁸⁵ Merousis (n. 26); Merousis (n. 27). It is not coincidental that the Pigi larnax with its explicitly funerary imagery is also dated to ‘the end of LM IIIA’ (Baxevani, n. 26).

⁸⁶ Morgan (n. 75), 192.

⁸⁷ See the new archaeological evidence on the dating of Tomb 4 and the LM IIIA2 monumentality of Haghia Triadha presented by La Rosa, as well as Militello's stylistic analysis, all fully cited in n. 24.

⁸⁸ Merousis (n. 26), 79. According to Merousis, the iconographic themes employed in clay larnakes become standardized in LM IIIB.

⁸⁹ A LM IB destruction episode, although more or less clear in other Neopalatial complexes, still fails to be conclusively identified in the Knossos palace itself, although it appears in its borders (e.g. Royal Road) and the surrounding settlement. For an attractive treatment see Macdonald, C. F. ‘The prelude to Mycenaean Crete’ in Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds.), La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale Organisée par l'École Française d'Athènes 26–28 Mars 1991, Paris: Boccard 1997, 267–273Google Scholar; Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C. F., The Troubled Island. Minoan Crete Before and After the Santorini Eruption [Aegaeum 17], Liège: Université de Liège et UT-PASP 1997. 138–170Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ A new article by Burke, B. ‘Materialisation of Mycenaean ideology and the Ayia Triada sarcophagus’, AJA 109 (2005), 403–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar appeared after this article had been initially submitted. In it, Burke examines the persistence of earlier Minoan elements in the sarcophagus' iconography and links them to the propaganda strategies of the Mycenaean elite at Haghia Triadha. However, in exploring the issue Burke does not consider the reasons why a mortuary artefact (a limestone larnax) should have been considered a suitable venue to do so. It is this particular choice that distinguishes the sarcophagus from previous Minoan ‘elite strategies’ who do not utilise the mortuary field as explicitly, although L. Platon has recently suggested that the building depicted on the relief stone ‘Sanctuary Rhyton’ from the LM IB Kato Zakros palace may have been the Knossian Temple Tomb (Platon, L., ῾Το ανὰγλυφο ρυτδ της Ζὰκρου κὰτω απδ ὲνα νὲο σημασιολογικδ πρὶσμα ᾿, in Vlachopoulos, A. G. and Birtacha, K. (eds.) ΑΡΓΟΝΑΥΤΗΣ. Τιμητικὸς Τδμος για τον λαθηγτὴ Χρη1στο Ντοὺμα, Athens: I Kathimerini 2003, 331–366Google Scholar).

⁹¹ Preston, L., ‘A mortuary perspective on political changes in Late Minoan II–IIIB Crete’, AJA 108 (2004), 321–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹² Gesell (n. 60).

⁹³ Preston, L., ‘Contextualising the larnax: Tradition, innovation and regionalism in coffin use on Late Minoan II–IIIB Crete’, OJA 23(2) (2004), 177–197Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Voutsaki, S., ‘Social and political processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: The evidence from the mortuary practices’ in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference / 5e Rencontre égéenne Internationale, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 19941 [Aegaeum 12], Volume I, Liège: Université de Liège et UT-PASP 1995, 55–66Google Scholar; ‘Mortuary display, prestige and identity in the Shaft Grave Era’, in Kilian–Dirlmeier, I. and Egg, M. (eds.) Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Verlag des Römisch – Germanischen Zentralmuseums (Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte), Mainz: von Zabern 1999, Teil 1, 103–117Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ See also Löwe Table 4. But see the cautionary n. 52 on what she includes under ‘Tholoi’.

⁹⁶ Hamilakis, Y. ‘Eating the dead: Mortuary feasting and the politics of memory in the Aegean Bronze Age’, in Branigan, K. (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age [Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1], Sheffield: Academic Press 1998, 115–132Google Scholar. For funerary rituals in Prepalatial circular tombs see J. Murphy, ‘Ideologies, rites and rituals: A view of Prepalatial Minoan tholoi’, ibid., 27–40.

⁹⁷ Warren, P., Myrtos. An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete [BSA Supplement 7], London: Thames and Hudson 1972, 83Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ For the Kephala tholos and the Isopata Royal Tomb see supra n. 38. For Isopata tombs I, II and V see Evans, A. J., ‘The Tomb of the Double Axes and associated groups’, Archaeologia 65 (1914), 1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Preston, L., ‘Mortuary practices and the negotiation of social identities at LM II Knossos’, BSA 94 (1999), 131–143Google Scholar, for the most recent and thoughtful discussion of the evidence. The so-called ‘Temple Tomb’ seems to have been misused after early LM III (Hood and Smyth (n.38), 14), one more possible indirect indication of the post-LM IIIA1 weakening of Knossos. Forthcoming work on the Temple Tomb material by Dr E. Hatzaki will certainly illuminate many aspects of this striking building.

⁹⁹ Preston, L., ‘Final Palatial Knossos and Postpalatial Crete: A mortuary perspective in political dynamics’, in Cadogan, G., Hatzaki, E. and Vasilakis, A. (eds.) Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the BSA and the 23^rd EPCA of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans's Excavations at Knossos [BSA Studies 12], London: BSA 2004, 137–145Google Scholar (at pp. 138, 142–143). For a similar approach to Crete in general see Preston (n. 91). I arrived at a much similar conclusion independently during the preparation of this article. However, I think that the present study offers an additional support (from another, perhaps less direct, viewpoint) to this argument that is central to both articles by Preston.

¹⁰⁰ Soles, J. S., ‘Reverence for dead ancestors in prehistoric Crete’ in Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R. (eds.), Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000, Liège: Université de Liège. 229–236Google Scholar (at p. 233, n. 13).

¹⁰¹ On this methodological issue see Cole, S. G., ‘Archaeology and religion’, in Wilkie, N. C. and Coulson, W. D. E. (eds.), Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: Studies in Honour of William A. McDonald [Publications in Ancient Studies 1], Minneapolis: Centre for Ancient Studies, University of Minnesota, 49–59Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Fortes, M., ‘An introductory commentary’, in Newell, W. (ed.) Ancestors, The Hague: Mouton 1976, 1–16Google Scholar (at p. 7).

¹⁰³ Soles (n. 100), 229 (internal quotations from Fortes (n. 102), 7). Soles (n. 100), 229 mentions ‘memorial tablets, totem poles, shrines and altars, or larger monuments like spirit houses, temple tombs and pyramids’, as examples of such ‘material vehicles’.

¹⁰⁴ Whitley, J., ‘Too many ancestors’, Antiquity 76 (2002), 119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the response by Pitt, M. ‘Don't knock the ancestors’, Antiquity 77 (2003), 172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who stresses the widespread universal interest in ancestors and the subsequent response by Whitley, in Antiquity 77 (2003), 401CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This debate however, does not seriously affect the argument developed here.

¹⁰⁵ Whitley (n. 104), 122 [my italics].

¹⁰⁶ whitley (n. 104), 122 [my italics].

¹⁰⁷ Another criterion set by Whitley is that ‘being forebears, ancestors have to be linked to present generations through descent, through rituals that emphasise the idea of continuity’ (Whitley (n. 104), 122 [my italics]). The detection of such a criterion is not possible in LM III Crete, because of the lack of relevant textual evidence that would have made the ideological content of the material traces of ritual more explicit.

¹⁰⁸ Heliopoulos, Th., ‘Ζὲϝια Μιραμπὲλλου’, ADeltion 53 B′3 (1998), 881Google Scholar, pl. 389b.

¹⁰⁹ Tsipopoulou, M., Vagnetti, L. and Liston, M., ‘New evidence for the Dark Ages in the Isthmus of Hierapetra. An uplundered tholos tomb at Vasiliki’, SMEA 45 (2003), 85–124Google Scholar; Tsipopoulou, M., “Mycenoans' at the Isthmus of Hierapetra: Some (preliminary) thoughts on the foundation of the (Eteo)cretan cultural identity’, in d'Agata, A. L. and Moody, J. (ed.) Ariadne's Threads. Connections Between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens SAI, 5–6/04/03 [Tripodes 3], Athens: SAI 2005, 303–333 (at pp. 328–329Google Scholar). Tsipopolou, M., Η Αϝατολικὴ Κρὴτη στην Πρὼιμη Επογὴ του Σιδὴρου, Herakleion: Ministry of Culture/Archaeologiko Institouto Kritologikon Spoudon 2006, 71, 331Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Tsipopoulou, M. and K, Nowicki, ‘Μινωὶτες και Μυκηναὶοι στο τὲλος της Εποχὴς του Χαλκοὺ στην Αϝατολικὴ Κρὴτη’, in Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. and Papakonstantinou, M. (eds.) The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. Second International Interdisciplinary Colloquium 26–30 September 1999, Athens: Ministry of Culture, 14^th EPCA 2003, 561–580Google Scholar (at p. 563, fig. 18).

¹¹¹ Tomb 13 appears to be just a stone circle, but it was most likely a tholos with only its lower course of stones preserved. Pendlebury, J., ‘Excavations in the plain of Lasithi’, BSA 37 (1937–1938), 106Google Scholar, pl. 11. This tomb is not included in Löwe.

¹¹² Bosanquet (n. 39) and Tsipopoulou 2006 (n. 109), 241, 342.

¹¹³ Tsipopoulou, M., ‘Τὰφοι της Πρὼιμης Εποχὴς του Σιδὴρου στην Ανατολικὴ Κρὴτη’, in ΕΙΛΑΠΙΝΗ. Τιμητικδς τδμος για τον καθηγητὴ Νικδλαο Πλὰτωνα,, Herakleion: Vikelaia Vivliothiki 1987, 253–269Google Scholar, (257–258) and Tsipopoulou 2006 (n. 109), 326.

¹¹⁴ The Vrokastro ‘chamber tombs’ noted by Hall are in fact built tombs. Löwe 167 notes dimensions of Vrokastro V as if the chamber is rectangular; however, Hall notes clearly that the ground plan is circular: Hall, E. H., Excavations in Eastern Crete, Vrokastro, The Museum Anthropological Publications volume 3, Philadelphia: The University Museum 1914, 149Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Löwe, 211–212, Cat. No. 553, with earlier references. See also supra n. 38 for the chronology of the tomb.

¹¹⁶ Hahlberr, F., ‘Three Cretan necropoleis’, AJA 5 (1901), 287–293Google Scholar; Taramelli, A., ‘Notes on the necropolis of Courtes’, AJA 5 (1901), 294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Halhlberr notes the ‘omega’ shaped ground plans of the tombs (289). See also Roschetti (n. 77) on the chronology of Kourtes.

¹¹⁷ Englezou (n. 21), 421–422, fig. 37.1. It must be noted that the construction of the Eltyna tholos had destroyed earlier chamber tombs at the site.

¹¹⁸ Platon, N., CretChron H′ (1954), 516Google Scholar; Alexiou, St., ‘ Ανασκαφὴ γεωμετρικοῦ θολωτοῦ τὰφου Ροτασὶου’, CretChron IB′ (1958), 468Google Scholar respectively.

¹¹⁹ Alexiou, St., ADeltion 22 B′2 (1967), 485–486, pl. 358dGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁰ Rethemiotakis, G., ‘Κούναβοι’, ADeltion 53 B′3 (1998), 846Google Scholar.

¹²¹ Rizza, G., ‘Prinias’, ADeltion 28 B′2 (1973), 579–580Google Scholar, pl. 548b–d.

¹²² Levi, D., ‘Arkades – La Necropoli: Tombe construite ed edifici diversi’, Annuario X–XII (1927–1929), 174–380Google Scholar. Tomb E: 193–195, pl. 4; Tomb G: 198, pl. 4; Tomb R (the largest tholos): 202–304, pls. 4, 5; Tomb M: 304–312, pl. 4 (303, fig. 403); Tomb L: 312–380, pl. 4 (313. fig–41 a–b).

¹²³ Löwe 295, Cat. No. 1009; Papadopoulou, E., ‘Une tombe à tholos ‘intra muros’: le cas du cimetière MR d'Arménoi’, in Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds.), La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale Organisée par l'École Française d'Athènes 26–28 Mars 1991, Paris: Boccard 1997, 319–340Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ For Apodoulou also see Kanta, A., ‘Late Bronze Age tholos tombs, origins and evolution. The missing links’, in Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds.), La Crète Mycénienne Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale Organisée par l'École Française d'Athènes 26–28 Mars 1991, Paris: Boccard 1997, 229–247Google Scholar, where it is argued that the Apodoulou tholos tombs may be intermediate types between EM circular tombs and Mycenaean tholoi, a view not shared in the present work.

¹²⁵ Papadopoulou (n. 40).

¹²⁶ Tsipopoulou (n. 113), 254.

¹²⁷ Pendlebury, J. D. S., The Archaeology of Crete, London 1939, 319, 324Google Scholar; Platon, N., ‘Γεωμετρικὸς τὰφος Αγὶων Παρασκιων Ηρακλειου’, ArchEph 1945–1947, 47–97Google Scholar. N. Platon (ibid., 71–72, n.4–11) quotes all examples of Post-Minoan circular tholos tombs then known.

¹²⁸ N. Platon (n. 127), 72.

¹²⁹ Only fragments of a larnax (type not mentioned) with a ‘debased octopus design’ were discovered associated with a double bowl (no. 6 in the original) and an untypical figurine of a pregnant woman (no. 11 in the original). Cypriote parallels suggested to Boyd Hawes that the figurine represented the mourner (‘probably the widow’) rather than the deceased. However, this speculation remains unsupported by the scanty bone material associated with the larnax fragments. Reference: Hawes, H. Boyd, Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete, Philadelphia: The American Exploration Society 1908, 46aGoogle Scholar, pl. 10, nos. 6, 11). An early LM IIIB date for the larnax is provided by Kanta, , The Late Minoan III period in Crete. A Survey of Sites, Pottery and their Distribution, SIMA LVIII, Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag 1980, 140Google Scholar. For the figurine see Rethemiotakis (n. 11), 20, no.10, pl. 23c–d.

¹³⁰ Soles, J. S., Mochlos 1A. Period III, Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisan's Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Sites, Prehistory Monograph 7, Pennsylvania: INSTAP Academic Press 2003, 33–34, 41–42, 64, 67, 135–145Google Scholar (135), figs. 77–83, pls. 33–36, Table 1.

¹³¹ Soles (n. 130), 145. Its probable LM IB date is mentioned in p. 24. The certainty about its contemporaneity with the settlement is due to the fact that the burial ‘was sealed under wall and roof-collapse without clearly identifiable LM III pottery’ and therefore ‘was not intrusive like Graves 1 to 7’ (p. 145).

¹³² Musgrave, J. H., ‘Appendix 3: The human skeletons’ in Popham, M. R. (ed.) The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, BSA Supplementary volume 17, London: Thames and Hudson 1984, 309–310Google Scholar, Table 1. Only Burial 4 was 2 weeks old; burials 1–3 were foetuses between 32 and 38 weeks of intrauterine life.

¹³³ Persson, O. and Persson, E. ‘A note on the foetus’, in , E. and Hallager, B. (eds.), The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square Kastelli, Chania 1970–1987 and 2001, III:1 The Late Minoan IIIB:2 Settlement, Skrifter Utgivna an Svenska Instituet i Athen (40°) XLVII:III:1, Stockholm 2003, 276, fig. 52Google Scholar.

¹³⁴ Hall (n.114), 123: ‘burials of children beneath the floors’ [my italics]; Tsipopoulou (n.113), 254.

¹³⁵ McGeorge, P. J., ‘Appendix 3: Intramural infant burials in the Aegean’, in , E. and Hallager, B. (eds.), The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square Kastelli, Chania 1970–1987 and 2001, III:1 The Late Minoan IIIB:2 Settlement, Skrifter Utgivna an Svenska Instituet i Athen (4°) XLVII:III:1, Stockholm 2003, 301–303 (302)Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ Musgrave (n. 132), 309, Table 1, pl.33b.

¹³⁷ Musgrave (n. 132), 309, Table 1.

¹³⁸ Margueron, J., ‘‘Maquettes architecturales’ de Meskene-Emar’, Syria 53 (1976), 193–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muller, B., ‘Deux nouvelles ‘maquettes architecturales’ en terre cuite du moyen-Euphrate syrien’, Syria 83 (1995), 357–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁹ Margueron (n.138), 229–232.

¹⁴⁰ van der Toorn, K., ‘Gods and ancestors in Emar and Nuzi’, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 34 (1994), 30–48Google Scholar (at p. 37).

¹⁴¹ Schmidt, B. B., ‘The gods and the dead of the domestic cult at Emar: A re-assesment’, in Chavalas, M. W. (ed.), Emar: The History, Religion and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age, Bethesda, Maryland 1996, 141–163 (esp. pp. 151–152Google Scholar, n. 33 for criticism on van der Toorn). Also critical of the idea of deified ancestors in Emar is W. T. Pitard, ‘Care of the dead at Emar’, ibid., 123–140.

¹⁴² Caubet, A., , A. and Yon, M., ‘Ougarit et les maquettes architecturales’, in Maquettes Colloque, 463–471Google Scholar. Despite the morphological similarities, the analogy between Syrian and Cretan examples is not convincing, since Syrian sites have not yielded tomb types that could have served as prototypes for such ‘models’. There are some admittedly interesting similarities between the Cretan models and the earlier (15^th cent. BC) models from Ugarit, which are also cylindrical and have a conical ‘roof’. However, as already noted, Ugarit lacks entirely actual architectural prototypes for these models, which are also very limited in number (just two) and do not have a safe context. Alexiou, in the first publication of the Archanes model (‘Πρωτογεωμετρικδς ναῖσκος της Συλλογης Γιαμαλὰκη’, CretChron 4 (1950), 441–462Google Scholar), has, among others, examined the possibility that the Ugarit models were the prototypes of the Cretan examples, a view that is not shared here (in accordance with Mersereau 3), predominantly because there is no comprehensive background for such a cultural transmission, which could have created such a long-lived tradition in Crete long after the kingdom of Ugarit had ceased to exist.

¹⁴³ Caubet and Yon (n. 142), 469, report the impressive ratio ‘d'une tombe par maison’ in Ugarit.

¹⁴⁴ Pitard (n. 141), 139. The burial has been published by Goffinet, M., ‘Les tombes’, in Beyer, E. (ed.) Meskene-Emar: Dix Ans des Travaux 1972–1982, Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations 1982, 137–139Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ Schmidt (n. 141); Pitard (n. 141); Caubet and Yon (n. 142), 468.

¹⁴⁶ Pitard (n. 141), 140.

¹⁴⁷ Schmidt (n. 141), 163 [original italics].

¹⁴⁸ Caubet and Yon (n. 142), 469.

¹⁴⁹ G. Beckman, ‘Emar and its archives’ and Pitard, W. T., ‘The archaeology of Emar’, in Chavalas, M. W. (ed.), Emar: The History, Religion and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age, Bethesda, Maryland 1996, 1–12 (6), 13–23Google Scholar (16–17) respectively. Relevant evidence from Hittite documents is discussed by Laroche, E., ‘Emar, étape entre Babylone et le Hatti’, in Margueron, J. (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate: Zone des Contacts et d'Echanges. Acts du Colloque du Strasbourg 10–12 mars 1977, Strasbourg: Université des Sciences Humaines 1980, 235–244Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Fleming, D., ‘The Emar festivals: City unity and Syrian identity under Hittite hegemony’, in Chavalas, M. W. (ed.), Emar: The History, Religion and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age Bethesda, Maryland 1996, 81–121Google Scholar.