² The results of the soundings at the South Front of the Palace are reported by N. Momigliano and S. Hood above, pp. 103–27, 128–50. The sealings (following KPSI 74–5): Q-1–22 = Table 1. Clearly the sealings from the Room of the Seal Impressions and the Room of the Clay Signet belong to a single upper floor deposit (see Momigliano above, n. 8). In addition to Q-1–22, Evans, mentioned (BSA 7 (1901), 16)Google Scholar a number of fragmentary nodules, some with ‘partial impressions of intaglios [which] were probably due to the preliminary and tentative use of the signets to test the consistency of the clay’; but these can no longer be located. The tablets (following Olivier, J.-P., Les Scribes de Knossos; Rome, 1967Google Scholar): Room of the Clay Signet, B 1055 (VIR); probably also from this area, Fh 1056, Fh 1057, Fh 1059 (OLE); Ga 1058 (PYC); Dl 1060, Dp 1061 (OVIS, LANA); Od 1062, Od 1063 (LANA).

Evans's assignment of Q-1–7 to an LM III B ‘Lapidary's Workshop’ on the basis of their ‘very late animal designs’ seems tendentious. The excavation notebooks locate Q-1–7 as well as Q-8–17 in the Room of the Seal Impressions (KSPI 74). There is also no support for Evans's judgement of their late style; Q-1–7 all have good parallels in secure LM III A or earlier contexts: Younger, J. G., ‘The lapidary's workshop at Knossos’, BSA 74 (1979), 261–2 n. 14Google Scholar; see below, n. 8. Boardman, J. also doubts an LM III B date for the Workshop: ‘It is most probable that the workshop is to be dated to LM IIIA:1, pre-destruction. From its identifiable contents, or rather the pieces attributed to it, it is clear that it could not be of a much later date’ (in On the Knossos Tablets, ii (Oxford, 1963), 20Google Scholar; on its shifting location: pp. 70–1). It may now well be doubted that there was such a Workshop at all (see below, n. 14).

³ Refs. in Momigliano, above, pp. 111, 112, and n. 18; see below, n. 8.

⁴ PM ii. 768, dating the matrix to a level ‘not later than LM I’. However, the excavation daybooks of 24–26 Apr. 1901 described its discovery above the floor of the Palanquin fresco, i.e. deep in the level with fragments of Linear B tablets, thus part of the final destruction deposit; see the remarks of Momigliano, above, pp. 109–11.

⁵ The four are: the goddess ring-matrix, and sealings from the equally prominent collared bitch gem, Q-21, plus Q-8 and Q-13 (below, p. 154 and n. 6). There are also more problematic connections. (1) Evans assigned three sealings impressed by the same gem to the East Hall Border Deposit (D-21) and to the SW Basements (Q-15 and Q-17). He was positive that these sealings came from two different deposits, but (acording to KSPI 74) there may have been an accidental duplication on his part. (2) A-5, assigned by Evans both to the SW Basements and the Archives Deposit, is now represented by just a single nodule (judged by KSPI 75 as more likely to have come from the Archives); either a second nodule has gone missing or this was an error on Evans's part.

⁶ Three of the four seal impressions in the tiny Arsenal Deposit have external connections: Va and Vd are very similar to seal impressions found in the SW Basements (see below, p. 154), and Vc = S–1 from the Corridor of the Sword Tablets (see now Hiller, S., ‘The “Corridor of the Sword Tablets” and the “Arsenal”’, in Olivier, J.-P. (ed.), Mykenaïka (BCH supp. 25; 1992), 314).Google Scholar Identical seal-types common to different deposits are in fact very rare at Knossos: KSPI 98 confirms just six cases as certain (two of which are from adjoining or near rooms).

⁷ The significance of these cross-references was discussed by Palmer, L. R. in On the Knossos Tablets, i (Oxford, 1963), 197.Google Scholar

⁸ An LM I B destruction date was argued by Kenna, V. E. G., ‘The chronology of sealings in the southwest basement of the palace at Knossos,’ Kadmos, 4 (1965), 74–8.Google Scholar Although Kenna was certainly correct in judging that some seal-devices were earlier types, many of his stylistic evaluations were entirely subjective and thus not convincing. Seals probably of earlier manufacture: in addition to the clay matrix, which is from an LM I design (below, p. 153), there are two seals from the LM I Cretan Popular Group, Q-14 and 0–16 (ASLBA II, 118, 124); and Q-13 is assigned to the LM I Master of the Eleusis Matrix (ASLBA II, 128), a hand I find unpersuasive though the date is likely. In addition, Q-2/3 and Q-4 have parallels in LM I B/LH II A contexts (Younger (n. 2), n. 14). Seals of probable LM II–III A styles: Q-4 and Q-15/17 of the Dot-eye Mumps Group, c.1430–1400 (ASLBA IV, 71, 72); Q-1 of the Squirrel Eyes and Muzzle Group, c.1450–1425 (ASLBA IV, 60); Q-6 and Q-7 of the Spectacle Eye Group, c.1410–1385 (ASLBA V, 134, 135).

⁹ Cf. the Room of the Chariot Tablets, which does contain some sealing-types perhaps suggesting an earlier destruction date: SSMC II, 10–11. In the SW Basements, however, all (non-fragmentary) sealings are of types common at Mycenaean Knossos and on the mainland, either having been pressed down over fairly thick cords or, less commonly, leather sacks (Table 1); thus they secured commodities of some kind, perhaps small quantities of wool as listed on some tablets here: e.g. Od 1062–3 (above, n. 2). Evans mentioned a bronze hinge from a small chest in the Room of the Seal Impressions (PM ii. 767): this was possibly sealed by HM T 343 (Q-7), with its imprint of a cylindrical object wrapped in leather thongs.

¹⁰ PM ii. 769, n. 2, assumed a Knossos origin for the sealing; Betts, J. H. (‘New light on Minoan bureaucracy’, Kadmos, 6 (1967), 26–7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argued that the ring-owner, not the sealing, had travelled. On the clay see Weingarten, J., ‘Late bronze age trade within Crete: the evidence of seals and sealings,’ in Gale, N. H. (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90; Jonsered, 1991), 303–24.Google Scholar

¹¹ Pini, I., ‘Neue Beobachtungen zu den tönernen Siegelabdrücken von Zakros’, AA 1983, 570–1 and pl. 10.Google Scholar Evans had already noted this discrepancy (PM ii. 769 and n. 1), but did not take the matter further.

¹² On look-alikes as a multiform of the same glyptic unit see Weingarten, J., ‘The multiple sealing system of Minoan Crete and its possible antecedents in Anatolia’, OJA 11 (1992), 25–37.Google Scholar The use of look-alike rings and gems was very common at LM I B Zakro (Pini (n. 11), 563–72; SSMC I, 289–93) and at MM III B Knossos (Weingarten, loc. cit.).

¹³ Betts (n. 10), 22, thought that the blurred lines of the matrix could have been caused by its use as a mould. This blurriness means that the matrix cannot have been the impressing agent of any extant sealing, all of which are crisply drawn. Note that rivet-marks visible on the ring impressions suggest that the original ring(s) was (were) probably not made of gold but of bronze; at least, all existing rings with rivets are of bronze (I am grateful to Prof. Dr I. Pini for this observation).

¹⁴ Younger (n. 2), 265–7, proposed that the steatite ‘core’ from the ‘Lapidary's Workshop’ ( = AM 1938.1087; with cow and suckling calf) was a block for reproducing gold foil (?) ring bezels; while this is another possible method for making replica rings, the core is unlikely to be earlier than LM III A (loc. cit.). S. Hood in this volume (p. 137), finds no mention of this core (nor of two unfinished lentoids) in Evans's notebooks or excavation reports. Without such key evidence securely located, there is no compelling reason to accept the reality of the Lapidary's Workshop (PM iv. 594–5); see n. 2 above.

¹⁵ Sealing Bureaucracy: two look-alike rings stamped sealings found in Archives Rooms 7 and 8 at Pylos ( = CMS I. 307; I supp. 173—the latter, two combination nodules of class XII B—and cf. the Danicourt ring, CMS XI. 272).

¹⁶ On disputes concerning the qa-si-re-u's rank and functions, see Sealing Bureaucracy.

¹⁷ wi-na-jo's oil ration: Fh 1059; his association with a qa-si-re-wi-ja: K 875.

¹⁸ Originally thirteen names: J. Chadwick, cited by Melena, J. L., ‘Studies on some Mycenaean inscriptions from Knossos dealing with textiles’, Minos, supp. 5 (Salamanca, 1975), 34–5.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Deger-Jalkotzy, S., E-QE-TA (Wien, 1978), 97.Google Scholar Cf. ‘the chariot atelier of the ra-wa-ke-ta' at Pylos (PY Ea 421, Ea 809).

²⁰ Gill, M. A. V., ‘The Knossos sealings: some reflections’, CMS Beiheft o (Berlin, 1974, 35).Google Scholar

²¹ KSPI 74: very similar but not identical gems. Vd is assigned to the Group of Lions with Occipital Dots (dated c.1460–1435: ASLBA IV, 67–8).

²² Fiandra, E. and Ferioli, P., ‘Clay sealings in the Orient, Nubia, Egypt, and the Aegean’, in Palaima, T. G. (ed.), Aegean Seals, Sealings and Administration (Aegaeum 5; 1990), 225 n. 15Google Scholar; Veenhof, K. R., ‘Cuneiform archives: an introduction’, in Veenhof, K. R. (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries (Istanbul, 1986), 16 and n. 69.Google Scholar

²³ What is one to make of the fourth seal impression found in the Arsenal, Vb, stamped by a Prepalatial (sic!) ivory bar or cube? Pini, I. (‘The Hieroglyphic Deposit and the Temple Repositories at Knossos’, Aegaeum, 5 (1990), 34–5)Google Scholar, insists that the sealing too must be of Prepalatial date; but Vb is stamped on a class VII nodule, a type which first appears (as far as we know) in MM II B and only becomes common in LM I B SSMC I, 283–89 and fig. 1; II, 15). Might not the ivory bar or cube have been a carefully preserved Minoan heirloom, usurped by a ‘Mycenaean’ more for the value of its ivory than for its potential administrative use?

²⁴ The SW Basements add another twist to the history of Minoan seals at LH III B/C Pylos. Q-19 (the so-called ‘young minotaur’ seal, PM iv. 387, fig. 321), probably of LM I manufacture, depicts a most unusual scene—a seated cynocephalus in profile, arms raised in adoration (?) before a tree and a standing man. Q-19 finds a very close parallel on a sealing from Pylos, , CMS I. 377Google Scholar: cynocephalus in frontal-profile view, arms raised before a standing man. One wonders what curious link between the palaces of Knossos and Pylos led to the preservation and use of these rare heirloom gems (see Younger (n. 2), n. 13), especially as the cynocephalus is otherwise absent in post-LM I B glyptic (the exception, CMS II. 3, 103, from Kalyvia, is itself an LM I survival: Pini, I., ‘Chronological problems of some Late Minoan signet rings’, Temple University Aegean Symposium, 8 (1983), 41).Google Scholar

²⁵ Updating and correcting SSMC II, appendix V.

²⁶ Apparently found with the Great Tablet (As 1516) in the Doorway South of the Hall of the Colonnades. Unfortunately, the exact location of combination nodules stamped by the ra-wa-ke-ta's seal is uncertain: KSPI 75 hesitates between assigning HM 214–15 to the Domestic Quarter (Doorway South of the Hall of the Colonnades) and the Room of the Egyptian Beans; however, Gill noted that their size, type, and colour closely resemble other nodules from the Domestic Quarter, the provenance we favour.

²⁷ KSPI and above, n. 26.

²⁸ KSPI 68.

²⁹ Above, n. 26.