ANTIQUITY, LVIII 1984 PLATES III & IV

Structuralism and myth in Minoan studiesJ O H N L. B I N T L I F F

John Bintliff writes to us: 'If we archaeologists cannot honestlv support the conscious rôle of socialpedagogue, perhaps more fruitfully we may turn to the competing subjectivities of archaeologicalinterpretation to seek insights into ourselves and our own age. ' This article is an attempt toanalyse archaeological interpretations of the bronze age Minoan society for such insights. DrBintliff is a Lecturer in the School of Archaeological Sciences, Bradford University, Yorkshire. Hefurther asserts that this article is 'a very long gestation from your [the Editor's] own courses at

Cambridge, 1968-71, in the history of archaeology!'

Nick Humphrey, of King's College, Cambridge, ina recent broadcast on Human Evolution, made thefollowing comments (slightly paraphrased from mynotes of the radio broadcast) : 'Man, in comparisonto the chimp is a forgetful ape. Chimps inexperiments have a remarkable visual memory,recalling for example 25 complex patterns. Somehumans can do the same, but rarely, and oftenwhere there is a brain malfunction as with epilepsyor damage to the parietal lobes. In effect it ischaracteristically pathological. Why was this facil-ity suppressed? In order to replace this means ofstoring knowledge with a new way of thought. Notone of counting objects or observations as parti-cular, but instead ordering such data into generalmodels of things and situations, as with the PlatonicIdeal forms. This was the birth of symbolicthought.'

I would now like to develop this theme further.In this shift from empirical accumulation to con-trolled comparison and cataloguing, the goal of thesymbolizing mind to reduce novelty to order mustlead inevitably to oversimplification. Moreover, thedesire for a smooth functioning of everyday socialand emotional life tends to call forth a set of basiccategories to define other people, one's relationshipto them, and to define activities and aims. It is herethat the more specific sense of Structuralismappears, where the vast mass of experience that onemeets is conquered by the operation of a set ofcataloguing principles, whereby one can coordinateone's path amidst the world and its infinite units ofanimate and inanimate objects.

Ian Hodder, as the acknowledged leader of'Structuralist Archaeology', has recently raised thestimulating issue of the neglect by archaeologists ofthis symbolic filter in their interpretation of pastsocieties. For example, a collection of animal bonesof a particular species from an archaeological site,need not represent valid evidence for its localdominance in the economy, since the cultureconcerned may utilize the differential disposal ofbones from separate species to emphasize certainbelief structures shared by the community.

Whilst pointing out that I do support the generalprinciple of seeking to identify the symbolic filter inactivity debris and physical structures uncoveredby the archaeologist, we must also take account,first and foremost, of the constraints on our overallinterpretations imposed by the nature of thearchaeological record: namely, that we have at anyone point in time a highly biased palimpsest of thepast. Of course we are continually pushing back ourknowledge in matters of detail, and the advent ofhypothesis-testing as a principle (though hardly yetin practice!) will doubtless improve the consistencyof our performance in shedding light on aspects ofthe past previously considered unapproachable byarchaeology. Nonetheless I don't think I ampreaching to the unconverted when I claim thatthere will almost certainly always be a gap in ourknowledge, preventing us from drawing definitiveconclusions as to the nature of past ideologies,political authority, social interactions of otherkinds, and further complex aspects of early societ-ies.

33

34 A N T I Q U I T Y

For the still unconverted may I offer a chasteningillustration of this truism. Recently an award forAmateur Archaeology in Britain was given to astudy of World War II invasion defences or'pillboxes' (Wills, 1979). The amateur archaeolo-gist concerned was worried that so many were beingdestroyed, and wished to record them for posterity.You might think that a series of standing monu-ments of the 19405 would best be approached viaofficial records. But it soon became apparent thatonly the most general directive survives orderinglocal authorities to see to their defences. At adistrict level civil defence groups set to work, inways unrecorded in official files, erecting a systemof these concrete keeps and their associated lines ofanti-tank pyramids. The essential task of thearchaeologist was to plan all surviving units of suchsystems in each area, with the assistance of a host ofpresent-day local informants, then to interpret forhimself, on the basis of detailed local maps andlocational inferences, what specific strategy hadbeen intended for the defence of each segment oflandscape. The same general point has beenstressed in recent discussions of the art of drama-tized reconstructions of history ('faction') in themedia, such as the BBC television series on the lifeof Charles Darwin, where the deficiencies of thesources required imaginative leaps to complete acoherent narrative, even for this well-documentedperiod and career (Railing, 1980).

As archaeologists then, we shall have to continuein the foreseeable future, as in the past, to bridgethat gap between what the data permit us to inferas strict scientists, and what we would like to be ableto pronounce on as historians or 'social analysts'.We do this by the use of Models or generalizationsabout what we think is going on. These models tendhowever to become somewhat rigid from scholar toscholar. It is my belief and experience that it is notonly worthwhile, but indeed necessary, to view themajor theories and interpretations of scholarsproducing general syntheses from archaeologicaldata, in the context of their authors' social andeducational background, and philosophical andemotional stances—for possible elucidation of repe-titive themes in their work. To take an obviousexample, scholars of my generation have frequentlydrawn attention to a potential PhD topic incomparing the political speeches and known sympa-thies of Professor Colin Renfrew, with the stress inhis archaeological writings on competitive elites andprivate-enterprise entrepreneurs as stimuli to socie-

tal advance. The study of Gordon Childe'sarchaeological theories in the context of his Socialistbeliefs has demonstrated very important interac-tions between a personal stance and the interpreta-tion of ambiguous pre-historic data, as PeterGathercole has shown (Gathercole, 1971).

To stand Structuralist Archaeology on its head, itmay be necessary therefore not only to investigatepatterning in the archaeological record, with a viewto obtaining evidence of symbolic structures in pastbehaviour, but also to study the patterns inferred bythe archaeologist in terms of the symbols andstructures he wishes to identify in the rarelyclear-cut archaeological record. When I hear, forinstance, that a Structuralist study has been con-ceived, in order to compare and contrast the King'sand the Queen's Apartments in Minoan palaces, Iam very conscious that the initial structure of 'King'versus 'Queen' is a hypothetical distinction frommute groundplans, originating primarily in a set ofsemi-myths about Minoan society—a wished-forstructure imposed long ago upon the excavateddata. The raw truth about the strength of theevidence identifying Minoan rulers can be revealedby quoting from Gerald Cadogan: 'I am much lesscertain that the rulers of Minoan Crete until 1450were men, whether kings, priests or gods, or any orall combined, rather than women.' He also suggeststhat the key Priest-King Fresco might be a womanand a priestess! (Cadogan, 1976, 9 and 54).

Let us take this approach and apply it in a briefdiscussion of the social and historical context ofMinoan archaeology.

In terms of the general history of Archaeology wecan broadly categorize the nineteenth century as anera of 'stages'. Human development as revealed bythe nascent discipline was to be set into theframework of the consecutive great ages of Stoneand Metal, and their detailed subdivisions, whichwere correlated in their turn with distinct forms ofsocial structure that had been derived from a hazyethnography and a mixture of historical andmythical sources. The broad belief in the primacyof the tracing of 'stages' reflected the optimisticmood of 'Progress' towards the affluent industrialsociety of Victorian Western Europe, a path whichimperialism was meant to hasten and history tounderline. By the end of the century the individualfeatures of local cultures were being recognized,allowing distinct culture histories to be written, andsetting the broad approach for much of this century(i.e. that of Culture History, as described and

S T R U C T U R A L I S M A N D M Y T H I N M I N O A N S T U D I E S 35

condemned by Lewis Binford, 1968). The Historyand Classics training of most archaeological'synthesizers' within this tradition has combinedwith personal belief structures to inf luence the kindof historical events and forms of society which theyhave claimed to recognize in the archaeologicaldata. Details of how societies worked and whatideologies were held have been obtained fromanalogy with other, better-documented societiesand by the process of 'empathy' whereby oneponders on the data until an insight appears into themind of early man (as Jacquetta Hawkes, 1981, hasrecently described for us).

However, although 'stages' and 'Social Evolu-tion' have remained central to historical andarchaeological studies until quite recently, theoriginal associated dogma that political and techno-logical complexity was a direct reflexion of adesirable level of 'Progress' or 'Advancement' in asociety, experienced a sharp decline from the latterpart of the last century. This mirrored a growingawareness within intellectual l i fe as a whole of thesocial and spiritual inadequacies of Western indus-trial society (familiar to us today from the novels ofthe Realist School, and the penetrating art ofDegas, Toulouse-Lautrec, and the later Post-Impressionists). In literary and artistic l i fe anattempt to flee from these disturbing realities isseen in the sunset gaiety of the end of the centurywith its escapist overtones (as with the literally andspiritually superficial art of the Impressionists andArt Nouveau, or the literary atmosphere of the'Naughty Nineties'), and especially in attemptssuch as that of Gauguin to flee to a supposedpre-Industrial paradise, in order to recapture theEarth's lost youth and innocence. J. H. Plumb haswritten of the early decades of the present century:'If the belief of a man of [H. G.] Wells's passionateand intelligent humanism could be so battered andundermined, it is notr surprising that lesser menwere unable to withstand the climate of despair thatengulfed the Western world . . The disillusion ofthese years is apparent in painting, in music, inliterature, everywhere in the Western world we arebrought up sharply by an expression of anguish, bythe flight from social and historical reality into afrightened, self-absorbed world of personal feelingand expression. Intellectual life, outside science,has pursued much the same course as artistic life'(Plumb, 1971, xii-xiv).

Into this context I believe it appropriate to set thevoyage of intellectual discovery charted by Sir

Arthur Evans in Crete, and thereby of our domi-nant images of ancient Mmoan society. For as hishalf-sister Joan comments appositely: 'He was aromantic who needed escape from the present.' Shefurther states, that by 1904: 'He had set out to find ascript; he had found four and could read none ofthem. But Time and Chance had made him thediscoverer of a new civilization, and he had to makeit intelligible to other men. Fortunately it wasexactly to his taste: set in beautiful Mediterraneancountry, aristocratic and humane in feeling; creat-ing an art brilliant in colour and unique in form. . .It provided him with enigmas to solve and oracles tointerpret, and opened a new world for eye and mindto dwell in; a world which seemed to isolate himfrom a world in which he had found no place'(Evans, 1943, 173, 350). (PL. ίνα).

Evans's revitalization of a wondrous world ofpeaceful prosperity, stable divine autocrats and abenevolent aristocracy, owes a great deal to thegeneral political, social and emotional 'Angst' inEurope of his time. He succeeded brilliantly inconjuring up both a physical and imaginative worldof the lost civilization that dominates our vision ofthe Minoans even today. Hogarth complained that,'Restorations like the Throne Room are not aquestion of methods, but of the gratifying of adesire to reconstruct tangibly what must otherwiseonly be imagined' (letter to Evans, reproduced inCottrell, 1961, 137), and Leonard Cottrell addswith insight: 'But physical restoration of the walls,floors, columns and porticoes, satisfied only a partof Evans's nature. It was more diff icult, andtherefore more attractive, to discuss the moral andspiritual basis of the Minoan civilization' (idem,154). Even in the authoritative Palace of Minos,Vol. 3, Evans permits himself the famous incanta-tion to that lost wonderworld, in his vision on theGrand Staircase:

'It revives as no other part of the building, the remotepast. It was indeed, my own lot to experience its strangepower of imaginative suggestion, even at a time when thework of reconstitution had not attained its presentcompleteness. During an attack of fever. . . and temptedin the warm moonlight to look down the staircase well, thewhole place seemed to awake awhile to life and move-ment. Such was the force of the illusion that the PriestKing with his plumed crown, great ladies, tightly girdled,flounced and corseted, long-stoled priests, and after thema retinue of elegant and sinewy youths—as if theCup-Bearer and his fellows had stepped down from thewalls—passed and repassed on the flights below' (Evans,ill, 301).

A N T I Q U I T Y

In the same vein there is the merging byPendlebury of that vision of the ancient Minoanparadise with his own escapist, rustic paradise ofearly modern Crete, seen for example in hisdelightful identification of the Minoan 'stock' inpresent-day Cretans: 'Many a village boy might bethe direct descendant of the Cup-Bearer of thePriest-King, and who can deny the possibility thathe may be? Minoan too, is the sense of style whichyour modern Cretan has above all other Greeks'(Pendlebury, 1971, 267). And read his commentaryon the representation of the so-called 'Great MotherGoddess and her boy-god son': 'He is one of thosesoulless, fawn-like, heartless boys whom you meetin the wilder parts of Crete today' (idem, 273).

Evans saw the Minoans as the source of all futureGreek civilization, ignoring any original Mycenae-an contribution: 'Can it be doubted that the artisticgenius of the later Hellenes was largely the outcomeof that inherent in the earlier race in which they hadbeen merged?' (Evans, 1912, 278). The Myce-naeans were 'only a provincial variant' (op. cit.,282), 'a mainland plantation' of the Minoan (op.cit., 281), and even the Homeric myths wererevamped Minoan tales (op. cit., 288). Wacehowever replied that 'the Minoan domination overthe Mainland has been grossly overestimated. It has'been pointed out that if we lacked all historicaldocuments we should, if we used similar argu-ments, maintain that there was an Athenian domi-nation of Etruria in later days' (cf. Pendlebury,1971, 229). Worse was to come, with the suggestionthat the Mycenaeans had taken over the Minoancivilization in the period of its height—i.e. concur-rent with the Palace Style, which Evans describedas 'the magnificent style of vase-painting prevalentat Knossos in the great days of the Palace' (cf.Evans, 1901, 51), but which good Minoanists arenow quick to interpret as degenerate.

The rude assaults of the Mycenaeanists, so itseemed to Evans, seemed to parallel the samepostulated attack of their Mycenaeans on his islandparadise, and both he vigorously resisted. To thisday a resistance movement fights alongside theancient Minoans: if Mycenaeans came by LMII,their styles are degenerate, their achievements oflittle note—but to many even this admission isinsupportable. And clearly if anything praise-worthy is to be attributed to the Mycenaeancivilization as a whole, a Minoanist will look, asEvans did, to the Minoan source for the wholeprocess—just as Peter Warren has done (1977).

The picture of the Minoan palace civilization asone of happy social equilibrium with lords andpeasants all cheerfully occupying their respectiveplaces (PL. ivb), is neatly brought out in thisheart-warming vision of Gerald Cadogan's on theMinoan elite: 'The inhabitants of the countryhouses will have helped social cohesion by takingcertain responsibilities from the peasants andmediating between them and the central authori-ties' (Cadogan 1971). Likewise Paul Halstead(1981) offers us a Minoan Welfare State, with thepalaces as regional centres of Supplementary Benef-its and Spiritual Healing.

Before the palaces, we have the even happiervision of completely egalitarian communities of theEarly Minoan and neolithic periods. Todd White-law (1983) hovers in his acceptance of such a societyfor the pre-palatial era. Bintliff 's (1977) study ofMinoan social change also envisaged an earlyegalitarian society of hamlets scattered over theCretan landscape, united by the Palace Periodunder a centralized theocracy. This integration wasachieved through the medium of a national cult,whose creation was marked by the establishment ofa hierarchy of peak sanctuaries and ceremonialcentres (Bintl iff , 19773, Pt. I ch. 7, Pt. II ch. 8;I977b; Blackman and Branigan, 1977).

It may seem surprising that this romantic andidealistic vision of an innocent, strifeless, fairsociety, survived to form a controlling model for mygeneration, but we have to recall the 19603 rejectionof the Materialist, Consumer ethos of the 19505,symbolized by Flower Power and the fascinationwith alternative worlds such as Eastern Mysticism,the Commune, Pot, and Lewis Binford. Thecollapse of this igoos to early '705 renewed optim-ism in the perfectability or regeneration of modernsociety, is reflected in the surge of archaeologicalresearch from the 19705 into the origins of inequal-ity, the rise of elites and modes of coercion, the'punch behind the priest' and so on. There hasbeen, as Bob Chapman recently commented(1979), an unnoticed shift in the most recentarchaeological theory towards a Materialist Marxistconcern with stages of human evolution characteri-zed by their individual modes of exploitation.

One of the first major blows to the rosy-spectacled archaeologist came, in fact, with areinterpretation of the Maya civilization, a mysteri-ous and complex culture once flourishing in thetropical rain forests of Central America. Here greattemples towering above numerous other important

L_

STRUCTURALISM AND MYTH IN M I N O A N STUDIES 37

buildings within ceremonial centres, had long beenseen as the residences of a priestly elite, whoprovided religious integration for a dense surround-ing rural peasantry, in return for a tithe—anothertheocracy. By the 19705 however the deciphermentof the Maya glyphs and close study of wallpaintings, together with a contemporary shift incultural ethos for the archaeologists, led to a newimage for the Maya—one of ruthless, regionalelites, preoccupied with dynastic succession and theliquidation of their neighbours. Study of burialssuggested that the elites were well-nourished up tillthe catastrophic collapse of the civilization, whilepeasants became increasingly undernourished anddiseased (cf. Coe, 1962; 1966; McAdams, 1972,with Culbert, 1973). Likewise, Bob Adams's classic19605 survey of the rise of Mesopotamian civiliza-tion, with a key role being assigned to the templeideology and economy, and communal consensus,has yielded in the 19703 to a pronounced stressamong Mesopotamian theorists on the rise ofclasses, social strife, and minority economic priv-ileges, a scenario in which the temples now serve asa convenient ideological cover for these shifts ofpower and privilege (cf. McAdams, 1965; 1972,with Fried, 1978).

In prehistoric Europe and the Aegean, ColinRenfrew has led the vanguard of anti-sentimentalists, producing 'Big Men' and Chief-tains everywhere in European prehistory—ego-centric, pushy individuals stirring up the sluggishpeasants towards civilization. At his extreme, forexample in his recent Orkney volume, the possiblereligious significance of megalithic tombs and stonecircles is ignored in favour of seeing these asmarkers for competitive territorial groups andprestige monuments for chieftains—despite theironic parallel Renfrew draws with the medievalcathedral of St Magnus in the centre of the islandgroup (Renfrew, 1979).

In Minoan archaeology we can surely detect thesame hints of an ensuing collapse of that primitiveparadise. The new stress on the blood lust andsacrifice elements in the bull-leaping activity (Pin-sent, 1983) is in contrast to the generally cheeryinterpretation reflected in PL. ma. Then there arethe dark inferences being drawn from Peter War-ren s Late Minoan cannibalism (Warren, 1981),and the great fuss that is being created by the claimsfor dirty deeds at Arkhanes (Sakellarakis &Sapouna-Sakellaraki, 1981). Before long we shallnave, I suspect, many further instances of skulldug-

gery raised. It is perhaps appropriate for us to pauseawhile before the floodgates burst and note howmuch of this could have been, and sometimes was,anticipated long ago.

Evans, for example, on the bull cult, compared itwith that nasty Mediterranean tradition of theamphitheatre and bull-ring: 'It may well be that,long before the days when enslaved barbarians were"butchered to make a Roman holiday", captives,perhaps of gentle blood, shared the same fate withinsight of the "House of Minos'" (Evans, 1901, 95—6).Likewise, our ethnographic and historical know-ledge should have long ago led us to questionwhether any farming society can exist for thousandsof years, as the Cretan Neolithic did, with theaccompanying rise of communities as large asKnossos, without internal social differentiation;and whether that social division, continuing via1,000 years of Early Bronze Age into the clearlystratified Palace society of almost a further 1,000years life, could be plausibly maintained by com-munal consensus or involved a significant degree ofconflict, suppression and exploitation. The HaghiaTriadha Chieftain Cup, with its captain and troops,need not illustrate 'toy' soldiers. The Knossosfaience plaques and miniature fresco fragments ofMiddle Minoan date, showing house and shrinefaçades, are a further object-lesson in controllingmodels. Sinclair Hood repeats the sound case thatthe former are part of a Siege-Mosaic (Hood, 1971,118 and PI. 22), but earlier writers were happier tosee in it merely a 'Town Mosaic' (Hutchinson,1962, 173). More remarkable is the interpretationof the miniature fresco scene, as a 'fête champêtre'.Hutchinson writes unabashed : 'another fragment. .. shows an enthusiastic group of men waving spears. . . not, I think, in any hostile gesture, but rather,as Pendlebury remarks "like a cheering footballcrowd'" (idem, 181). These peaceable interpreta-tions are the preferred popular reconstructions (PL.me).

Furthermore, I suspect that when we have begunto recover a realistic fraction of the Cretan neolithicsettlement pattern, and its burials, and when theEarly Minoan larger sites are better understood andthe accompanying burials analysed for status dis-tinctions, we shall find ourselves in a strongly-stratified society well before the end of the Neoli-thic. This will include the suggestion of individualand group conflict, and will be linked in with a newapproach to the Minoans, who as a whole will nowbe studied into the foreseeable future in terms of

A N T I Q U I T Y

landlords and tenants, the haves and the have-nots(perhaps with dietary studies in support), ratherthan with the old view of a perfect but increasinglyhierarchical society. Again, I will repeat the pointthat the data may already be partially available forsuch revaluation, thinking for instance of thevariation in gifts in Early Minoan burials, or theimplication of seals and signets for Early Minoanprivate property.

What this article is suggesting, in effect, is that a

dominant dialectic exists between shifts in contem-porary philosophies and world views, and thechanging interpretations of the archaeologicalrecord. Certainly new finds make it difficult toavoid reinterpretations, but overall I suspect that amore important factor is the outlook of thearchaeologist on his own world, subsequently reflec-ted in the messages of reinforcement he seeks andclaims to recover from the world of the Past.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

BiNFORD, L. R. 1968. Archaeological perspectives, in (eds) S. R.& L. R. Binford, Sew perspectives in archaeology, 5-32(Chicago).

BINTLIFF, j. L. 19773. \atural environment and human settle-ment in prehistoric Greece, BAR Suppl. Ser., 28 (Oxford).

19776. New approaches to human geography, in (éd.) F. W.Carter, An historical geography of the Balkans, 59-114(London).

BLACKMAN, D. & κ. BRANIGAN. IQ77- An archaeological survey,BSA, LXXII, 13-84.

CADOGAN, G. 1971. Was there a Minoan landed gentry?, Instituteof Classical Studies, Mycenaean Seminar, London, 19 May1971, printed abstract.

1976. Palaces of Minoan Crete (London).

CHAPMAN, R. w. 1979. Comments, 47-8, on P van de Velde,Social anthropology of a neoli thic cemetery, Current Anthro-pology, xx, 37-58.

COE, M. D. 1962. Mexico (London).1966. The Maya (New York).

COTTRELL, L. 1961. The Bull of Minos (London).

CLLBERT, τ. p. (ed.). 1973. The ('lassie Maya collapse

(Albuquerque).

EVANS, A. 1901. The Palace of Knossos, BSA, vu, 1-120.1912. The Minoan and Mycenaean clement in Hellenic l i fe,

JHS, xxxi, 277-97.1921-30. The Palace of Minos at Knossns (London).

EVANS, j. 1943. Time and chance (London).FRIED, M. H. 1978. The State, the chicken and the egg, in (cds) R.

Cohen & E. R. Service, Origins of the State (Philadelphia).

GATHERCOLE, p. 1971. Patterns in prehistory: an examination ofthe later thinking of V. Gordon Childe, World Archaeology,in, 225-32.

HALSTEAD, P. 1981. From determinism to uncertainty: socialstorage and the rise of the Minoan Palace, in (eds) A.

Sheridan & G. Bailey, Economic archaeology, 187-213,BAR, Int. Ser. 96 (Oxford).

HAWKES, j. 1981. A quest for love (London).HOOD, s. 1971. The Minoans (London).HLTCHINSON, R. w. igfiz. Prehistoric Crete (London).MC. c. ADAMS, R. 1965. The evolution of urban society (Chicago).

1972. Some hypotheses of the development of early civilisa-tions, reprinted in (ed.) M. P. Leone, Contemporaryarchaeology, 359—64 (Evansville).

PENDLEBLRY, j. D. s. 1971 (1939). The archaeology of Crete: anintroduction (London).

PINSENT, j. 1983. Bull-leaping, in (eds) O. Krzyszkowska & L.Nixon, Minoan Society, Procs. Cambridge Colloquium 1981(Bristol).

P L L M B . J . H . 1971. Introduction to Greek Society by A. Andrewes(London).

RALLING, c. 1980. What is television doing to history?, TheListener, 10 Jan. 1980.

RENFREW, c. 1979. Investigations in Orkney (London).

SAKELLARAKIS, Y. Si E. SAPOL NA-SAKELLARAKI. Ig8l. Drama of

death in a Minoan Temple, National Geographic, Feb. 1981,205~23·

WARREN, p. 1977. The emergence of Mycenaean Palace civilisa-tion, in (ed.) J. Bint l i f f , Mycenaean geography, 68-75

(Cambridge).

1981. Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978—80, Pt. I, Archaeological Reports for 1980-81, Society forHellenic Studies (London), 73—92.

WHITELAW, τ. M. 1983. The settlement at Fournou Korifi,Myrtos, and aspects of Early Minoan social organization, in(eds) O. Krzyszkowska & L. Nixon, Minoan Society, Procs.Cambridge Colloquium 1981 (Bristol).

WILLS, H. 1979. Pillboxes: a study of UK defences 1940-41,Current Archaeology, vi, 10, 304-6.

A narrow street in Crete

PLATE I I I : S T R U C T U R A L I S M A N D M Y T H I N M I N O A N

STUDIES

(a) From 'Searchlight of archaeology', p. 9, by .-l. C.Jenkins, (b) From 'Looking at Ancient History', p. 47, by

R.J. Unstead

See pp. 33-8 Photos: a. Blackie if Son, dlasgozi;; b. A. ̂ <\ liitick, Ijtmlon

A i^iiniHiii harvest procession

P L A T E IV. S T R U C T U R A L I S M A N D MYTH I N M I N O A N S T U D I E S

(a) From 'The Ancient \\Oiid', p. 48, by R. Ogih-ie. (b) From 'Invoking at Ancient History', p. 49, byR. J. ( 'nstead

See />/>. JJ-ti I'lifilus: ti. O.Î "./'. hnuluH; h. λ. if ('. lihick, lutl