Minoan metalworking in the postpalatial period: A deposit of metallurgical debris from palaikastro

The Annual of the British School at Athens

Volumn 91, Issue , 1996, Pages 213-252

  Hemingway, Séan ^a   Harrison, Paul ^b  

^a Department of Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008550096     PISSN: 00682454     EISSN: 20452403     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0068245400016488     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Branigan's works, despite certain problems with his typology, are still an essential starting-point for any further research on Minoan metalwork in these earlier periods. See AMEMBA (review by L. Vagnetti, Archeologica Classica, 27 (1975), 413-17); also K. Branigan, Copper and Bronze Working in Early Bronze Age Crete (SIMA 19; Lund, 1968).
2. See C. F. MacDonald, ‘A Knossian weapon workshop in Late Minoan II and III A’, in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds), Function of the Minoan Palaces (Göteborg, 1987), 293-5.
3. See e.g. O. Dickinson, The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge, 1994), 101.
4. The only early synthesis of LM III material was made by J. Pendlebury in The Archaeology of Crete: An Introduction (London, 1939), 237-66. Contemporary archaeologists have reacted to the need for a proper reassessment of the LM III period, and new excavations have increased our knowledge by generating supplementary material from well-stratified contexts. There is no better example of this than the recent excavations at Palaikastro, which have provided a good LM III stratigraphic sequence, showing the LM III settlement to be much more substantial than was originally perceived (see PK 1988 429-35; PK 1990 137-41). Issues surrounding the relative date of the destruction of the palace at Knossos and the introduction of Linear B have been hotly debated. See e.g. M. R. Popham, The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos (SIMA 12; Göteborg, 1970); E. Hallager, The Mycenaean Palace at Knossos: Evidence for the Final Destruction in the III B Period (Stockholm, 1977). On the Knossos tablets see J. Boardman and L. R. Palmer, On the Knossos Tablets (Oxford, 1963); T. G. Palaima, ‘The development of the Mycenaean writing system’, in J.-P. Olivier and T. G. Palaima (eds), Texts, Tablets and Scribes (Minos supp. vol. 10; Salamanca, 1988), 269-342 J. Driessen, An Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace at Knossos (Leuven, 1990). Likewise, several specialized studies have been conducted on different aspects of LM III culture. Some recent contributions have focused on the problem of the ‘warrior graves’, and consequently the nature of the occupation of the palace at Knossos in LM II-LM III. See J. Bennet, ‘Knossos in context: comparative perspectives on the Linear B administration of LM II-III Crete’, AJA 94 (1990), 193-211 10.2307/505949 W.-D. Niemeier, ‘Mycenaean Knossos and the age of Linear B’, SMEA 80 (1982), 219-81; D. Doxey, ‘Causes and effects of me fall of Knossos in 1375 B.C.’, OJA 6 (1987), 301-24. On the ‘warrior graves’ see I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, ‘Noch einmal zu den “Kriegergräbern” von Knossos’, Jahrbuch des römischgermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz (1985), 196-214. A recent Conference in Athens was devoted entirely to Postpalatial Crete. See A. Farnoux and J. Driessen (eds), La Crète mycénienne (Paris, forthcoming). A comprehensive catalogue of LM III sites and pottery has been published (A. Kanta, The LM III Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites, Pottery and their Distribution (SIMA 58; Göteborg, 1980), and a systematic analysis of Postpalatial architectural forms has been undertaken. On LM III architecture see B. J. Hayden, ‘Aspects of village architecture in the Cretan Post-Palatial period’, in P. Darcque and R. Treuil (eds), L'Habitat égéen préhistorique (BCH supp. vol. 19; Paris, 1990), 203-13. A number of research programmes involving joint scientific and archaeological investigations have begun to approach issues of trade. For the stirrup jar trade see H. W. Catling, J. F. Cherry, R. E. Jones, and J. T. Killen, ‘The Linear B inscribed stirrup jars and west Crete’, BSA 75 (1980), 49-113 A. Farnoux and J. Driessen, ‘Inscriptions peintes en linéaire B à Malia’, BCH 115 (1991), 71-97.10.3406/bch.1991.6861 For the metals trade see A. B. Knapp, ‘Ethnicity, entrepreneurship and exchange: Mediterranean inter-island relations in the Late Bronze Age’, BSA 85 (1990), 115-53 (with previous bibliography).
5. These fragments belong to period 15 in the local Palaikastro ceramic typology. Palaikastro was a regional centre of pottery production, and the large quantities of pottery uncovered in the new excavations will provide a valuable stratified sequence when all of this material has been studied and published. It should be noted that the classification LM III A2/B is one used at Palaikastro. It is a relative term that signifies the period at the site which corresponds stratigraphically to the pottery from Knossos after its final destruction and into the LM III B 1 period. Popham (n. 5) would classify this pottery as LM III A 2. Hallager (n. 5) would classify this pottery as LM III B. In absolute terms, this period falls approximately in the first half of the 13th cent. BC. See P. Warren and V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol, 1987), esp. 88-90, 169. The redefining of period 15 as LM III B will place this pottery in the latter half of the 13th cent. BC and into the beginning of the 12th cent. I gratefully acknowledge Dr J. A. MacGillivray's assistance in determining the date of the pottery from this deposit.
6. See U. Zwicker, ‘Bronze age metallurgy at Ambelikou-Aletri and arsenical copper in a crucible from Eplscopi-Phaneromeni’, in EMC 63-8, esp. 63; pl. 9. 1.
7. Bellows to Tuyères, 117, fig. 14. For a discussion of ancient bellows see J. Davey, ‘Some ancient Near Eastern pot bellows’, Levant, 11 (1979), 101-11.10.1179/007589179790211626
8. R. F. Tylecote, Metallurgy in Archaeology (London, 1962), 36. On identifying different kinds of slags see also H.-G. Bachmann, ‘Early copper smelting techniques in Sinai and in the Negev as deduced from slag investigations’, in P. T. Craddock (ed.), Scientific Studies in Early Mining and Extractive Metallurgy (British Museum; London, 1980), 103-19.
9. New Kingdom period (LBA) tuyères from Timna have been interpreted as being used in this way. See B. Rothenburg, The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (London, 1988), 194-5, 201.
10. AHM 19, table 12.
11. Some more recent scholarship has been devoted to bronze age crucibles. For discussion of EBA and MBA Aegean crucibles see AMEMBA 68-71. De Jesus has collected bronze age Anatolian examples: see de Jesus (n. 11), 416. For bronze age crucibles in general see R. F. Tylecote, ‘Metallurgical crucibles and crucible slags’, in J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin (eds), Archaeological Ceramics (Washington, 1982), 231-42. See also AHM 16-21.
12. See A. Farnoux, ‘Mallia, 2: nord de l'Atelier de Sceaux’, BCH 114 (1990), 912-19, esp. 915-17 and fig. 10.
13. See C. Davey, ‘The metalworkers’ tools from Tell Edh Dhiba'i’, London University Institute of Archaeology Bulletin, 20 (1983), 169-86.
14. Other methods are possible. Prof. J. D. Muhly of the University of Pennsylvania has suggested to me that in the case of larger crucibles, such as 91/3427 and 91/3428, the charge of fuel for heating the metal could instead have been contained within the crucible, so that the crucible essentially acted as a ‘crucible furnace’. This would mean that less metal would have been melted in the large crucibles at one time. Prof. Muhly believes that the thick walls of the crucibles, which retain heat inside the crucible but also insulate the metal from external heat, and the lack of evidence for scorched exterior surfaces (which would have been in direct contact with furnace fuel if the alternative model for use is accepted) on the bronze age crucibles that he has examined, support his hypothesis. It is true that the preserved exterior surfaces of the Palaikastro crucibles 91/3427 and 91/3428 do not have any clear signs of burning. There is evidence, however, for a thin exterior layer of sandy clay, only visible near the rims of both crucibles, that may have coated the bottoms but is no longer preserved. I am grateful to Prof. Muhly for discussing this material with me.
15. There is no compelling evidence, as yet, to suggest that copper was smelted on Crete in the Bronze Age. Platon's identification of the industrial installation at Zakros as an ore processing and smelting unit is far from secure. See N. Platon, ‘L'exportation du cuivre de l'île de Chypre en Crète et les installations métallurgiques de la Crète minoenne’, in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Relations Between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000-500 B.C.’ (Nicosia, 1979), 101-10; see also J. D. Muhly, ‘Metals and metallurgy in Crete and the Aegean at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age’, Temple University Aegean Symposium, 5 (1980), 25-36, esp. 28; id., ‘The development of copper metallurgy in late bronze age Cyprus’, in BATinM 180-96, esp. 184-5. It is necessary to go much further afield for actual furnaces. One important site with LBA smelting installations is Kition, Cyprus: see Karageorghis, Demas, et al. (n. 15), 388-429. For scanty evidence on the Greek mainland see Sp. Iakovidis, ‘The Mycenaean bronze industry’, in EMC 213-31.
16. J. Deshayes, Les Utiles de bronze de l'Indus au Danube (Paris, 1960), 256. It also falls under Buchholz's Type III. See H. G. Buchholz, Zur Herkunft der kretischen Doppelaxt (Munich, 1959), 8 also J. Bouzek, The Aegean, Anatolia, and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C. (SIMA 29; Göteborg, 1985), 41-6, esp. 45-6. It should be noted that while elliptical shaft holes are usually considered to be a Mycenaean trait of double axes, the shape is also a technical improvement because it secures the axe handle better than circular shaft holes do. Such technical improvements do not necessarily imply a cultural (Mycenaean) association.
17. PKU I 119, and pl. 25 g-h.
18. This handle type appears on the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck, and at Enkomi, Tell Abu Hawam, and Tiryns (with a triple band, attached to a cauldron). For the Gelidonya wreck see G. Bass, Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck (Philadelphia, 1967), 107, cat. no. B177; fig. 116, cat. no. 177; fig. 117, no. B177. For Enkomi see CBMW 164, nos. 2-3, and pl. 26 b. For Tell Abu Hawam see R. W. Hamilton, ‘Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam’, QDAP 4 (1935), 18, no. 36; pl. 33. 36. For Tiryns see G. Karo, ‘schatz von Tiryns’, AM 55 (1930), pl. 34. 2. Whenever closely datable, these handle fragments belong to the LM III C period.
19. For an example with a single annular band and partial circle see Karo (n. 30), pl. 34. 2, left side. This handle occurs on a cauldron vessel opposite a second handle with a complete circle. For several other examples of complete circular handles see Matthäus (n. 6), 108-12 and pls 10, 12. Although these handles are usually associated with tripod cauldron vessels, there is no reason why they could not have belonged to simple cauldrons. The closest parallels from Mycenae and Argos (Matthäus (n. 6), nos. 86, 88, 90, 91) have two annular bands. Sometimes one band is even slightly raised above the other, as occurs in the Palaikastro mould fragments. Another set of handles with singular annular bands and complete circles occurs on a tripod cauldron now in the Mitsotakis Collection and probably from Crete: see L. Marangou (ed.), Minoan and Greek Civilization from the Mitsotakis Collection (Athens, 1992), 241-2, no. 309. Since our corpus of extant LBA bronze handles is relatively small, it is entirely possible that the Palaikastro mould fragments represent a variant type.
20. See T. E. Levy and S. Shalev, ‘Prehistoric metalworking in the southern Levant: archaeometallurgical and social perspectives’, World Archaeology, 20 (1989), 358.10.1080/00438243.1989.9980078 For an actual lost-wax mould of the old Babylonian period associated with an assemblage very similar to the Palaikastro material see Davey (n. 23), fig. 5.
21. Branigan argues that the EM II bronze double axe mould from Vasilike was used to cast wax models for clay lost-wax moulds: see AMEMBA 82-3. There are no extant objects from early Minoan times that would have necessitated the use of a lost-wax mould. For a discussion of the pros and cons of metal, stone (open and bivalve), and clay (open and bivalve) moulds, according to modern experiments using the different techniques, see P. Betancourt, ‘The origin and diffusion of metallic shaft-hole implements in the Aegean Early Bronze Age’ (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1970), 14-49.
22. See C. Laviosa, ‘Una forma minoica per fusione a cera perduta’, ASA 1967-1968), 499-510. This hand would most likely have been attached to a wooden figure. The bronze locks of hair which Evans attributed to a large-scale male statue have been reinterpreted convincingly by Hägg as hairpieces belonging to smaller statuettes. See R. Hägg, ‘The bronze hair-locks from Knossos: a new interpretation’, AA 98 (1983), 543-9.
23. See C. Verlinden, Les Statuettes anthropomorphes Crétoises en bronze et en plomb, du IIIe millénaire au VIIe siècle av. J.-C. (Archaeologia Transatlantica, 4; Louvain-la-Neuve, 1984); C. Verlinden, ‘La métallurgie minoenne et la fonte à la cire perdue: expérimentations sur un procédé antique’, BCH 110 (1986), 41-52.10.3406/bch.1986.1786 Several of these bronze statuettes have been found at Palaikastro: see PKU I 122-4.
24. Matthäus (n. 6), 329.
25. Evidence for the double mantle technique previously appeared only much later, in the Iron Age, with the cauldron leg moulds from Lefkandi. See M. R. Popham and L. H. Sackett, Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboia 1964-1966 (London, 1968), 29, fig. 67.
26. It is worth mentioning that a LM III bronze hoard from House C at Kato Zakros has an assemblage very similar to the kinds of objects that were cast from these moulds. It includes double axes, other tools, and parts of a tripod cauldron with handle. See D. G. Hogarth, ‘Excavations at Zakros, Crete’, BSA 7 (1900-1901), 121-49, esp. 134-5. fig. 46.
27. Bass (n. 30), 221.
28. Kanta (n. 5), 189. Excavations from the period 1987-94 have unearthed seven buildings, each of which was extensively reoccupied, leaving only small gaps (e.g. the yard/garden over Building 5, s and E sections).
29. The majority of metalwork datable to the LM III period at Palaikastro comes from tombs. The very use of metal objects for burial goods indicates that there was some surplus metal that could be used as disposable wealth. Most of the items are either weapons or tools (dagger, knife, cutter, razor, and ‘sickle’). Circular mirrors, a bronze ring, and a silver ring illustrate that other less utilitarian items were also manufactured. See PKU I 115-20. For references to the LM III cemeteries see PK Settlement, 409-12.
30. On the problems of reuse of metals see A. B. Knapp, J. D. Muhly, and P. M. Muhly, ‘To hoard is human: late bronze age metal deposits in Cyprus and the Aegean’, RDAC (1988), 233-62. The LM III hoard from Zakros―Hogarth (n. 40)’ can be added to their corpus of hoards.
31. I would like to thank Dr Hector W. Catling, Dr Vassos Karageorghis, and Dr Hartmut Matthäus for discussing this material with me. This section of the paper has benefited from their comments. I would also like to thank the following people and institutions for their assistance in studying many of the existing rod tripods: Dr Demos Christou and the staff at the Archaeological Museum at Nicosia, Cyprus; Dr Stuart Swiny and the staff at CAARI, Nicosia, Cyprus; Dr David Romano of the University Museum, Philadelphia; the staff at the Herakleion Archaeological Museum; Dr Katie Demakopoulou and the staff at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens.
32. This terminology is defined by Catling in his fundamental work on Cypriot bronzework. See CBMW 190-1.
33. P. J. Riis, ‘Rod tripods’, Acta Archaeologia, 10 (1939), 1-30.
34. See J. L. Benson, ‘Bronze tripods from Kourion’, GRBS 3 (1960), 7-16.
35. Catling reaffirmed his position in a more recent article. See H. W. Catling, ‘Workshop and heirloom: prehistoric bronze stands in the east Mediterranean’, RDAC (1984), 69-91.
36. See T. Cross, ‘Bronze tripods and related stands in the eastern Mediterranean from the twelfth through the seventh centuries B.C.’ (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of North Carolina, 1974). 48-9.
37. See F. Lo Schiavo, E. Macnamara, and L. Vagnetti, ‘Late Cypriot imports to Italy and their influence on local bronzework’, PBSR 53 (1985), 1-71.
38. For example, A. Demetriou in a study of Cypro-Aegean interconnections in the Iron Age considers the stands to be late Cypriot III products and thus not directly relevant to relations in the Iron Age. See A. Demetriou, Cypro-Aegean Relations in the Early Iron Age (SIMA 83; Göteborg, 1989), 27-30, esp. 30.
39. Catling (n. 50), 74.
40. See N. Platon, Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete (New York, 1971), 125.
41. I noticed this myself on the tripod stand from Kourion in the University Museum and on several of the examplesn now housed in the Archaeological Museum in Nicosia, Cyprus. Macnamara (n. 53) notes even greater variation in the stands from Sardinia and south Italy. On a stand from a private collection at Oristano she writes: ‘moreover, the volutes are clearly defined on the outer side, on the inner face they are sometimes distinct and sometimes virtually indefinable’ (p. 36); and on fragments from the Piediluco-Contigliano hoard: ‘the volutes, which are flat in the inner side, are very eccentric’ (p. 41).
42. Of the eighteen complete examples catalogued in Matthäus’ volume on Cypriot bronzework, eight belong to the group of larger stands mentioned earlier.
43. Of course, it is possible that the handle would have been hammered to fit the cauldron, which could mean that the diameter would have been different. However, it is likely that the mould for the attachment plate would have been made to fit the shape of the vessel as closely as possible. The precise placement of the handle on the vessel is also debatable. The attachment plate could be placed as high as the rim, a parallel for which can be seen in Matthäus (n. 6), pl. 10 no. 72.
44. Kanta (n. 5), 324; PK Settlement, 406-7.
45. It is entirely possible that future excavations will produce more early evidence for rod tripods on Cyprus. Most of the contexts for the rod tripods are not very secure to begin with, and the chronology of the stands has been one of the major issues of debate among scholars. Bass, in discussing the material from the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck, has argued that the stands may very well begin in LC II B or even LC II A: Bass (n. 30), 108-9 (‘We may conclude, therefore, that even the most thorough study of bronze tripods and stands, of the types under discussion, cannot lead to strong conclusions in our present state of knowledge; there is simply not enough material which may be dated by stratigraphy and carefully documented tomb groups: p. 109), 117-18. Bass reaffirmed his opinion in a recent article: G. Bass, ‘Evidence of trade from bronze age shipwrecks’, in BATinM 69-82, esp. 72.
46. Matthäus, ‘Heirloom or tradition?’ (n. 52).
47. A well-known passage in the Bible (1 Kings 7: 27-37) describes similar large metal bases decorated with scenes in relief. Furtwängler was the first to associate these large-scale stands with the Cypriot miniatures: see A. Furtwängler, Sitzungsberichte der bay. Akad. der Wissenschaften, pt. 2 (1899), 420-33.
48. J. M. Webb and J.-C. Courtois, ‘A steatite relief mould from Enkomi’, RDAC (1979), 151-8; V. Karageorghis, ‘A late bronze age mould from Hala Sultan Tekké’, BCH 113 (1989), 439-46.10.3406/bch.1989.4734
49. E. Macnamara and N. Meeks, ‘The metallurgical examination of four Late Cypriot III stands now in the British Museum’, RDAC (1987), 57-60. Using X-ray fluorescence on these examples, they determined that lost-wax casting was an important factor. In fact, one of the smaller stands appeared to have been cast whole: S. Pickles, Metallurgical Changes in Late Bronze Age Cyprus (University of Edinburgh Occasional Paper 17; Edinburgh, 1988) 15-19, 31 (no. 18), 37-9.
50. H. W. Catling and V. Karageorghis, ‘Minoica in Cyprus’, BSA 55 (1960), 109-27; M. Popham, ‘Connections between Crete and Cyprus between 1300-1100 B.C.’, in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000-500 B.C.’ (Nicosia, 1979), 178-91; A. B. Knapp, ‘Cyprus, Crete, and copper: a comment on Catling's paradox’, RDAC (1990), 55-63 E. K. Mantourani and A. J. Theodorou, ‘An attempt to delineate the sea-routes between Crete and Cyprus during the Bronze Age’, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), The Civilizations of the Aegean and their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000-600 B.C. (Larnaka, 1991), 39-56.
51. Lo Schiavo, Macnamara, and Vagnetti (n. 53).
52. Other metallurgical material was discovered in Building 1 during the excavations. This material is currently being studied by Dr D. G. Evely and will appear as part of the forthcoming Building 1 publication.