Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:49:21.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Late Minoan Tomb at Ayios Ioannis near Knossos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

J. N. Coldstream  and
M. S. F. Hood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In January 1959, when a trench was being dug in order to lay a water pipe in connection with the building of an orphanage (Κέντρον βρεφῶν “Ἤ Μητέρα”) on the south edge of Ayios Ioannis between Knossos and Herakleion a sinking of the ground suggested the presence of a collapsed tomb chamber. As the site lay within the Knossos area, Dr. St. Alexiou, Ephor of Antiquities for Crete, kindly invited the School to make trials there during the course of their excavations at Knossos in the summer of 1959.

The tomb which these trials revealed proved to be Minoan, and assignable to the L.M. II period, to judge from the remains of a couple of clay vases, a stemmed goblet (A.1) and an alabastron (A.2), which had evidently belonged with the original burial or burials. The deep-cut dromos, narrow with distinctly inward leaning sides, was of a type which it is often suggested may be of Mycenaean origin. But this is disputable, and the tomb at Ayios Ioannis appears to be as early as, if not earlier than, any of the tombs with this type of dromos on the Greek mainland. At Mycenae itself tombs with dromoi like this are not attested before L.H. III. On the other hand both at Mycenae and at Knossos there are tombs with shorter dromoi whose sides lean inwards, and some of these tombs may be earlier in date. Tomb 529 at Mycenae, with a short dromos whose sides lean markedly inwards, is assignable to L.H. I–II.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 63 , November 1968 , pp. 205 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The tomb was just west of centre in square C3 on the map in Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area.

2 Wace, A. J. B., Chamber Tombs at Mycenae (1932) 126 f.Google Scholar; Mycenae, An Archaeological Guide (1949) 14.

3 Wace, , Chamber Tombs 99 Google Scholar, fig. 41, pl. xlix.

4 The late Dr. J. C. Trevor was to have studied these skeletons. Professor A. N. Poulianos has now kindly undertaken the cleaning and study of them (see Appendix, p. 218).

5 See p. 215 n. 31.

6 Iron penannular ring (Plate 54, a). D. 0·03–0·04 m. Probably recent.

7 PT 3.

8 PT 34 f., fig. 32. For comparable tomb façades in Crete, see BSA xlvii (1952) 248. Evans, , The Tomb of the Double Axes (1914) 21 Google Scholar, pl. iii, figs. 32, 33a (Tomb 5); 34 pl. vi, figs. 47, 53 (Tomb of the Double Axes).

9 MonAnt xiv (1904) 510, figs. 3–4 (Tomb 9).

10 PT 35.

11 Schachermeyr, F., Die minoische Kultur des alten Kreta (1964) 277 and 344 n. 4 with references.Google Scholar

12 Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area, Nos. 2, 4.

13 Cf. PT 21.

14 Snodgrass, A. M., Early Greek Armour and Weapons (1964) 38 f.Google Scholar, has a full discussion with references. For Cretan examples, see Boardman, , CCO 49 f.Google Scholar; BSA xxxviii (1937–8) 113, pl. xxviii, 183–4, from Karphi. Disc-shaped ornaments, like long pins, are very common in graves of the ‘Tumulus Culture’ horizon in Europe.

15 Cf. Sandars, , BSA liii–liv (1958–1959) 235.Google Scholar

16 Higgins 67.

17 PT 33, 12d (wrongly listed as 12c!).

18 ChronP 105.

19 PT 25, 6h and fig. 17.

20 Higgins 52.

21 AE 1899, 101–2.

22 Evans, A., The Shaft Graves and Bee-Hive Tombs of Mycenae (1929) 43.Google Scholar

23 AJA xxxiv (1930) 408. One is illustrated by Åborg, , Chronologie iv (1933) 35, fig. 58.Google Scholar

24 Karo, , Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (1930–1993) 173 f.Google Scholar, esp. pl. xviii, 245–7, from Grave IV.

25 Mylonas, G. E., Ancient Mycenae (1957) 144–5.Google Scholar Cf. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology vii (1964) 5, fig. 7. Deshayes, , Deiras 205 Google Scholar, implies that there were pins on both shoulders.

26 e.g. Prosymna 255. Persson, , New Tombs at Dendra (1942) 37 Google Scholar, fig. 36, 3.

27 Prosymna 285; Deiras 204 f.

28 e.g. LMS 50–1.

29 Lorimer 336 f. Cf. Higgins 92.

30 e.g. Piggott, S., Ancient Europe (1965) fig. 58.Google Scholar Gimbutas, M., Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965), fig. 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Sandars, N., Bronze Age Cultures in France (1957) 10 fGoogle Scholar, For the end c. 1300 B.C., e.g. Müller-Karpe, H., Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit (1959)Google Scholar; c. 1200 B.C., e.g. Čujanova-Jilkova, E., ‘Die östliche Gruppe der Böhmisch-Oberpfälzischen Hügelgräberkultur’, in Památky archeologické 55 (1964) 60 Google Scholar: chart.

32 In the case of cremation burials it is, of course, impossible to know how the pins were worn.

33 They had virtually disappeared from the greater part of the Greek world by the end of the seventh century B.C. (Lorimer 351).

34 Pins of the ‘Tumulus Culture’ horizon are illustrated by Gimbutas, M., Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Åborg, , Chronologie v (1935).Google Scholar Cf. Childe, , Danube (1929) pl. xi.Google Scholar

35 Henschel-Simon, E., QDAP vi (1938) 169–90.Google Scholar

36 As vividly brought out by Schaeffer in Ugaritica ii (1949) 49 f. But see Piggott, S., Ancient Europe (1965) 111 n. 62.Google Scholar

37 Feustel, R., Bronzezeitliche Hügelgräberkultur im Gebiet von Schwarza (Weimar, 1958) 50.Google Scholar

38 Lorimer 340.

39 Cf. Piggott, S., Ancient Europe (1965) 104–5.Google Scholar

40 Feustel, loc. cit. But to the west on the Rhine the evidence from tumulus graves suggested that women's skirts were shorter. In Scandinavia, but somewhat later, there are mini-skirts (Piggott, S., loc. cit., pl. xxiii).

41 Cf. Kraiker, , Kerameikos i. 82.Google Scholar Higgins 92. Desborough, , LMS 54.Google Scholar

42 Cf. LMS pl. 24 b, c, for the two types.

43 BSA liii–liv (1958–9) 237.

44 Dunand, , Fouilles de Byblos, Atlas II, pl. clxxx, 17206.Google Scholar

45 e.g. Prosymna 285, fig. 107, 5. There are some from Karphi, Subminoan: BSA xxxviii (1937–1938) pl. xxviii, 4.Google Scholar

46 Lamb, W., Thermi (1936) 201, pl. xxvii, 4Google Scholar: not well stratified, but probably Early Bronze Age.

47 Hesperia xxx (1961) 169 f. with references. Cf. Boardman, , BSA lv (1960) 146 f.Google Scholar for Crete. AJA xli (1937) 72 f. for equivalents from Cyprus.

48 AA 1948–9, 33 f. For this group, which is contemporary with the ‘Tumulus Culture’ horizon and has long pins with unperforated shanks, see Garašanin, M. V., BRGK xxxix (1958) 75 f.Google Scholar

49 e.g. Gimbutas 40, fig. 10, 20 and 23.

50 Cf. Beneš, A., Sborník NM v Praze xiii (1959) fig. 1, 5Google Scholar; Gimbutas pl. 56, 4–6.

51 Hesperia xxx (1961) 176.

52 AJA xli (1937) 80, Tomb 25, i, fig. 10. ‘The earliest of the pots from Kaloriziki Tomb 25 look L.C. IIIB 2 = Proto-White-Painted, e.g. cups, pl. 4, 96–9, cf. LMS, pl. 15d. For rival systems of correlation with the Mycenaean sequence, see Furumark, , Op Arch iii (1944) 258.Google Scholar On Furumark's system the pots from the tomb would be contemporary with Myc. IIIC 2 (i.e. Submycenaean) and the beginning of Protogeometric’ (J. N. Coldstream).

53 Ibid. 72 f. But he considered them to be mostly copies of Cypriot Early Bronze Age vases found by chance! See now, however, Coldstream, J. N. and Karageorghis, V., Nouveaux documents pour l'étude du Bronze Récent à Chypre (Études Chypriotes iii) (1965), 196–7.Google Scholar

54 e.g. One from a Middle Helladic grave at Corinth ( Åborg, , Chronologie iv (1933) fig. 58Google Scholar). Cf. AE 1899 pl. 10, 19, from Chalandriani (Syros).

55 e.g. Müller-Karpe, H., Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit (1959) esp. pl. 104 from Peschiera.Google Scholar Jacobsthal, , Greek Pins (1956) fig. 392Google Scholar, 5 and 18, from Aigion.

56 e.g. Beneš, A., Sborník NM v Praze xiii (1959) fig. 1, 5–9Google Scholar, with perforated swelling and square-sectioned shank, assigned to the early horizon of the ‘Tumulus Culture’ in Central Bohemia. Cf. Gimbutas 276, fig. 183, 2.

57 From Beneš, loc. cit., fig. 1.

58 e.g. Mozsolics, A., Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens (1967) 148–9, pl. 7, 1Google Scholar; 138, pl. 28.

59 Hammond, N. G. L., Epirus (1967)Google Scholar passim. The four sites with tumuli are: Vajzë, Vodhine, Kakavi, and Bodrishte.

60 e.g. Garašanin, M. V., BRGK xxxix (1958) 80, fig. 13.Google Scholar

61 Hammond, op. cit. 359 f., fig. 25 B. The drawing makes the head look globular; but Hammond describes the shape, which shows in the illustration in BUSS 1957, 2, 76 f., fig. 2h.

62 Hammond, op. cit., fig. 17, 14. Prendi, , BUSS 1957, 2 Google Scholar, 110 (French summary).

63 Hammond, op. cit., esp. 312–13.