OVERSEAS CONNECTIONS OF KNOSSOS AND CRETE IN THE SIXTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES BC: INSIGHTS FROM THE UNEXPLORED MANSION

In relation to previous periods, Archaic and Classical Crete presents a contraction in the material record and the evidence for overseas connections. This phenomenon has attracted wide-ranging attention in the scholarship, much of which focuses upon the major Cretan city of Knossos. The present article reviews the evidence from Knossos which suggests a decline in overseas connections and revisits the problem in the light of Archaic and Classical pottery from abroad found at the settlement site of the ‘Unexplored Mansion’. On the basis of these finds, I argue that the impression of decline has been exaggerated, and has been partly shaped by methodological problems in the study of ceramics.


Crete in the Orientalising vis-à-vis Archaic and Classical periods
The Early Iron Age is known as a period of prosperity for Crete, with overseas imports peaking at different sites, especially the cemeteries of Knossos and Eleutherna. This wealth is also evident at sanctuaries: at the interregional sanctuary of Syme Viannou, decorated pottery and bronze cut-out votive plaques are copiously attested in the seventh century BC (Kotsonas , ; Prent , -).At the shrine of the Idaean Cave, ivory, bronze and faience artefacts of Egyptian, Near Eastern and local craftsmanship are attested from the ninth to seventh centuries BC (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki ).Cretan pottery and gold jewelry of the late eighth to early seventh century BC were also exported to sites in the Aegean and beyond (Kotsonas a, ; , ).Consequently, the first half of the Orientalising period represents 'a peak in the mobility within Crete and in the development of a complex pattern of connectivity overseas' (Kotsonas , ).
Rather than targeting the question of why these early phases of the Iron Age have yielded such rich finds for the island, what has been hitherto deemed as a much more perplexing and interesting question by Classical archaeologists working on Crete is a vivid contrast between this documented earlier wealth and the absence of excavated, well-stratified deposits for the final decades of the seventh century, as well as for the subsequent -year period. Brice Erickson, a scholar who has shed new light on Archaic and Classical Crete (Erickson ; ), has stressed that all evidence for affluence such as bronze and monumental offerings, imports, terracotta votives and elaborately decorated ceramics gradually disappears from the island around  BC (Erickson , -), and he has noted that 'nearly every facet of the craft and artistic production . . .points to a decline or changed priorities in the sixth century' (Erickson , ).Hence, the  Brock ; Coldstream and Catling ; Kotsonas a; b.All dates are BC unless otherwise specified.The terms 'Orientalising', 'Archaic' and 'Classical' stand for the th, th and th centuries BC respectively.The abbreviations 'EC', 'MC', and 'LC' refer to the 'Early Corinthian', 'Middle Corinthian' and 'Late Corinthian' periods.Similarly, 'CA' and 'CC' denote the Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical eras.'Suppl.Cat.' and 'Suppl.evidence of pottery, the re-examination of fifth-century ceramic imports to Knossos presented below can have considerable implications for this theory.

Confining the chronological 'lacuna' to Knossos
In his doctoral thesis and subsequent publication, Erickson (; ) pioneeringly suggested a first chronological sequence for the plain fine-ware production of three major Cretan cities between  and  BC: Eleutherna, Knossos and Gortyn.Moreover, he established that several Cretan sites, including Phalassarna, Kydonia, Eleutherna, Gortyn, the Vrokastro area and Praisos, probably survived the 'collapse' of the sixth century (Erickson , -, -, -, -, -, -).To Erickson, these findings suggest that the purported 'lacuna' might be a mirage caused by the criteria of excavation and publication of Cretan material, the vagaries of preservation, processes of site formation, as well as the difficulties of identifying and dating undecorated fine-ware (Erickson , ; , vii, , , , , ; cf.Haggis et al. ,  n. ).However, Erickson follows traditional scholarship in maintaining that Knossos is the only Cretan site which presents an occupational 'hiatus' between c.  and  BC (Erickson , -, -).

Purpose and scope of the current study
The present paper revisits established assumptions on Archaic and Classical Knossos by examining published and especially unpublished fine-ware ceramics from the British excavations at the site of the Knossos Unexplored Mansion.I use this highly datable type of evidence to reassess the validity of provocative albeit counterintuitive master narratives of chronological gaps at Knossos during the sixth and fifth centuries BC.Through a case study of intrusive and unstratified material, I hope to problematise, even with non-ideal evidence, how methodological conventions and sampling biases can affect the construction of site histories.Notwithstanding my focus on the pottery from the Unexplored Mansion, I make select references to material from other locations at Knossos, which is relevant to the purposes of my study.Other types of evidence, such as epigraphical, architectural, and sculptural evidence, are not discussed, for reasons of brevity and focus.
A major goal is to re-examine Erickson's hypothesis that Knossos presents a hiatus of activity and especially of overseas imports between  and  BC (Erickson , ).Only one excavation has targeted the sixth century at Knossos,  and it has proven unsuccessful in tracing good contexts (Erickson , ).However, relevant material is not missing altogether, as has previously been suggested (Erickson , ,  n. ).This fact is shown here through the reexamination of ceramic evidence from the Unexplored Mansion, which raises novel insights into activity in sixth-century Knossos and the access of the local community to overseas products.
Another objective of this project is to revisit the existence of an import 'gap' at Knossos between c.  and  BC, based again on unpublished ceramic imports from the Unexplored Mansion.This material can challenge the notion of a break in overseas imports to Crete during the Classical period and contribute to the discussion of the various scenarios put forward by Erickson in order to explain the alleged absence of foreign products.

KNOSSOS AND THE UNEXPLORED MANSION IN THE SIXTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES
Evidence for human activity at Knossos in the sixth-fifth centuries According to traditional scholarly views, Knossos experienced a severe decline in population, if not a wholesale abandonment, during the sixth century. A reduction in all classes of material culture,  A fact that already indicates that our excavation sample for this period is narrow.


Coldstream and Huxley , ; Erickson , -; , , , .See however Trainor , who illustrates that concentrations of Archaic material in four areas west of the Minoan Palace were recovered in recent years through intensive survey (Knossos Urban Landscape Project) and contradict traditional views of a EIRINI PAIZI  especially pottery, is taken to show an economic recession and demographic contraction at the city in the sixth century (Erickson , ).After exhaustive attempts to identify Archaic Knossian pottery (Erickson , ), Erickson (, ) concluded that 'not a single scrap of pottery can be dated within the lean period of c. - BC'.I believe this is not the case, as explained below.
Numerous signs of resumed activity and boom are recognised in Knossos of the Late Archaic period.According to Nicolas Coldstream and George L. Huxley (, ), 'every major excavation in the town has yielded stratified deposits of Late Archaic times, in which the local pottery can be dated by a steady flow of Attic BF and BG imports'.However, the second and third quarters of the fifth century are viewed as 'still a dark chapter in the city's history' (Erickson , ; cf. Coldstream and Macdonald , ).The situation changes again in the end of the Classical era, when a greater number of datable deposits and vestiges of religious architecture appears (Coldstream and Huxley , -; Erickson , -), but a disruption of overseas trade is assumed for  to  BC (Erickson , ; , , , ).
An important factor that has contributed to the impression of an Archaic lacuna with lasting repercussions in the Classical period is the fact that the rich Early Iron Age cemeteries on the northern and southern outskirts of the city show almost no traces of use after / BC (Brock , ; Coldstream , ; Huxley , ; Coldstream and Catling , ; Coldstream and Huxley , -; Kotsonas , ).The rite of cremation, which had culminated in ostentation and opulence during the Orientalising period, disappears in the following  years, along with most funerary evidence. This abrupt disappearance of tombs at the turn of the seventh to the sixth century, which went hand in hand with a simultaneous downturn in the quality and elaboration of local fine-ware pottery, has undoubtedly contributed to the difficulties in the identification of Archaic pottery and the creation of a well-established local typology (Brock , ; Coldstream and Huxley ; Kotsonas , -).
It is not only the evanescence of funerary ostentation that has been blamed for the poor archaeological record of the city.A demise in cultic activity and in the quantity and quality of offerings is often surmised for Archaic Knossos (Coldstream and Huxley , ; Erickson , ).Although a modest increase of activity at Knossian sanctuaries is assumed for the Classical period (Coldstream and Huxley , , ), sanctuaries of the fifth century are thought to epitomise the absence of imports between  and  better than any other type of context (Erickson ,  n. ).Despite this impression, excavations of the British School at the sanctuary of Demeter, on the Lower Gypsades hill and the Shrine of Glaukos east of the Minoan Palace of Knossos, have yielded stratified Attic imports from the middle and the end of the fifth century. Knossian settlement contexts in the form of wells and pits have produced evidence which is restricted to the early sixth, late sixth and early fifth centuries.However, exceptions exist, and their significance has been underestimated.Excavations above the Royal Road, the Minoan monumental paved road which leads from the town to the north entrance of the Minoan Palace of Knossos, have produced unstratified finds which I date to the period of the Archaic 'gap': a Corinthian kotyle of Lawrence's type V (- BC)  and a white-style exaleiptron or convexsided pyxis (- BC; Coldstream b, , no.M., pl.).Additionally, excavations south-west of the Palace of Knossos brought to light a Classical surface with a wall fragment of sixth-century break of activity in the city.This Archaic material, which has been identified by Conor Trainor and Antonis Kotsonas, even includes Lakonian kraters and local imitations, as well as other imports from mainland Greece (Trainor , ).


an Attic red-figure krater, depicting perhaps Oedipus and the sphinx, from c. -,  as well as an Attic skyphos of c. . This handful of imports, along with the ones discussed in the present study, suggests that Knossos was not completely unoccupied and cut off from the rest of the world at - and - BC.
To sum up, the disappearance of burials and decorated pottery in Knossos of the sixth and fifth centuries is the main reason why the city is believed to have been abandoned during these centuries.However, the large quantity and wealth of Late Archaic deposits with overseas imports and local pottery undermines the hypothesis of a -year abandonment of the city in the sixth century, a sudden reoccupation with immediate reestablishment of trade relations with the Aegean around - BC, and another disruption of overseas connections at .Taking into account the fact that cremations had become less numerous, albeit richer, in the seventh century prior to their eclipse in the sixth (Kotsonas ; ; ), the likelihood is that the right to formal burial was gradually becoming more exclusive in the Orientalising period.Social changesperhaps a redefinition of elite practices and arenas for elite displaymay have led to a dramatic reduction of archaeologically visible burials during the Archaic period (cf.Chapman ; Morgan ).What is more, signs of ritual activity during the sixth and fifth centuries BC at Knossos are present in the form of imported Attic pottery from the sanctuary of Demeter and the shrine of Glaukos, and domestic activity is attested by Late Archaic wells and pits, sporadic sixth-and fifth-century finds, as well as a Classical road surface in the areas of the Royal Road and the South-West Houses.

The Unexplored Mansion
The Site The Minoan Unexplored Mansion is a large residential building (. x . m) of Late Minoan date, situated approximately  m north-west of the Minoan Palace of Knossos (Popham and Sackett -, ; Popham , ).The site immediately neighbours the Little Palace and now lies east of the Knossos Stratigraphical Museum.This wider area has yielded extensive traces of domestic activity from the Late Bronze Age to the Roman period.The Mansion was discovered in  by Arthur Evans, who only uncovered its ashlar-built eastern façade (Popham , ) and south-eastern sector (Popham and Sackett -, ; Popham , , , , ).Systematic excavations were conducted in the s and s by Hugh Sackett and Mervyn Popham and were published in detail (Popham ; Sackett ; cf.Popham and Sackett -).Indeed, the Unexplored Mansion is one of the best published excavations in the Knossos valley and a reference work for the archaeology of Crete.
The northern, central and southern parts of the site are dominated by substantial remains of three second-to-third-century AD buildings erected directly above the Minoan Unexplored Mansion: the North House, the East House and the House of the Diamond Frescoes (Popham , -; Sackett , , -).No architectural remains of other periods survive.The reason for this is that, in the Late Minoan IB/II and imperial Roman periods building at Knossos involved more substantial walls and foundations.In the intervening periods, flimsier structures erected above the densely built Neopalatial and Final Palatial town seem to have faced stability problems (Coldstream and Huxley , ; Hatzaki and Kotsonas , ).Hence, the notoriously deep foundations of second-century AD buildings damaged all stratigraphic horizons above the monumental Minoan structure (Sackett , xii).
It is not only the intensive building activity of the Late Minoan and Roman periods that has resulted in a very complex stratigraphy.Since the Final and Post-Palatial periods and especially since the Early Iron Age, the site attracted stone robbing and was turned into a quarry of massive dressed blocks (Popham and Sackett -, ; Popham , -; Sackett , ).In addition to quarrying pits, a glut of rubbish pits and abandoned wells filled with debris constitute the main evidence for domestic activity of the Sub-Minoan to the Hellenistic eras  EIRINI PAIZI  (Sackett , xii, ).Such activities disturbed the stratigraphy (Popham , ).Most of the material from these periods, including the group treated here, is strongly fragmented, but the surface of the fragments tends to be well-preserved.This suggests that the sherds were not moved around or exposed for long before deposition.
The Archaic and Classical pottery from the Knossos Unexplored Mansion Understanding the methodological choices involved in the publication of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion is essential for the comprehension of the excavation contexts and their finds.In the present section I explain the reference systems and the nomenclature of find groups used in Sackett's () edited volume of the Greek and Roman material from the Unexplored Mansion, as well as the stratigraphic contexts which yielded the Archaic and Classical imported pottery examined in the following analysis and catalogue.
Archaic and Classical pottery recovered from the area of the Unexplored Mansion can be identified into  groups, conventionally christened as 'deposits'.They were defined as such by Nicolas Coldstream, who worked on the Early Iron Age ceramics from the Unexplored Mansion, and Peter Callaghan, who studied the Archaic to Hellenistic finds from the site.The term 'deposit' is not always to be understood in its strict sense (cf.Schiffer , -).Most of the groups represent pit fills or parts of them, often contaminated with later material.Nonetheless, there are also assortments of material which have been grouped together as 'deposits' even though they do not come from the same stratigraphic horizon (Coldstream , ; Callaghan , -).Because of these problems, I will not use the expression 'deposit' in the rest of this article.Instead, I will refer to agglomerations of pottery which come from the same archaeological context as 'stratigraphic units' and to chronological or random groupings of ceramic finds from different contexts as 'pottery groups'.
Coldstream generally dealt with the Early Iron Age material, but his 'pottery group' GH is a collection of ceramic finds of miscellaneous dates.Indeed, fragments of finely decorated Corinthian pottery were included in this assemblage, some of which fall between the Transitional (-/ BC) and the Middle Corinthian periods (/-). Two fragments from this 'pottery group' -GH. (Suppl.Cat. here: Coldstream , , no.GH., pls , ) and an unpublished piece (Suppl.Cat.)are re-examined in the catalogue and analysis that follow.
Callaghan claimed that all the Archaic material from the Unexplored Mansion is confined to the last quarter of the sixth and the first quarter of the fifth centuries (Callaghan , -), observing the purported lacuna of c. - BC.The Late Archaic material he published comprises 'stratigraphic units' H-H, which are all pit fills, and the 'pottery group' H, which consists of three different stratigraphic assemblages.The chronology seems to be based on individual Attic imports and thus, by questioning the date of a single imported piece, one can cast doubts on the dating of the 'stratigraphic unit' it belongs to.For instance, 'stratigraphic unit' H is based on the dating of rim fragment no. to - BC (Callaghan , , no.H., pl.).The piece is designated as an Attic skyphos, though it is actually a cup-skyphos.The parallel Callaghan offers is a bolsal of c.  (Agora XII, no.).In fact, Attic skyphoi of this type can date as early as  (Agora XII, no.).In my view, the concave inset lip of the specimen from Knossos suggests a date around  (Agora XII, , no.), which undermines the absolute conviction that stratigraphic unit H is no later than -.Comparable chronological issues are raised by two unpublished fragments from 'stratigraphic units' H and H, which are examined below (Suppl.Cat. and ).
The Classical period is represented in the Unexplored Mansion only by 'stratigraphic unit' H and 'pottery group' H.The former (H) constitutes the fill of Well  in the northern sector of the excavation.The well was abandoned when a level of hard rock was reached below the Minoan floor, and it was subsequently filled with debris (Callaghan , ).The sherds most useful for dating  Coldstream , , nos GH.-GH..Coldstream suggested a date in the EC period following Payne's chronological scheme (c.- BC).

INSIGHTS FROM THE UNEXPLORED MANSION
 are five fragments of the fourth century, including two Attic cup-kantharoi (Callaghan , , no.H.-, pl.).Nonetheless, the well also yielded significant amounts of residual, fifthcentury pottery (Callaghan , ).Unpublished ceramics from this fill, which belong to the period of the Archaic 'gap' and the Classical 'break' in imports, will be discussed in the following section (Suppl.Cat. and ).The second body of material, 'pottery group' H, is a collection of Archaic and Classical sherds from different contexts.I consider here three unpublished Archaic fragments of H (Suppl.Cat.-), which represent residual Classical material in later levels.
Most of the pottery pieces given in the present catalogue and analysis were not included in the publication of .The reason is that they derive from fills of chronologically non-homogeneous material or constitute residual material of later, Hellenistic and Roman, layers (Suppl.Cat.-, -, , , , , -). Beside the aforementioned specimens from pit fills H, H and H, there are two further fragments that come from interesting stratigraphic horizons.These include: import Suppl.Cat., from an earth floor (GF) dated by Coldstream (, ) to the seventh century.Moreover, Suppl.Cat. is a Corinthian import and derives from Trench I Pit XI.This is a massive layer, the upper fill of which contained the 'stratigraphic unit' H, which is assigned to the Late Classical period (Callaghan , , no.H, pls -).Last but not least, another fragment out of context is Suppl.Cat., a Cypriot import published under Hellenistic 'pottery group' H (Callaghan , , no.H., pl.).Certain characteristics of the decoration of this piece indicate that a different date should be attributed to it than to the rest of the assemblage.

ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL POTTERY FROM THE UNEXPLORED MANSION
The present section discusses in detail the provenance, style and chronology of select published and unpublished imported pottery from the Knossos Unexplored Mansion which dates to c. / - and - BC.As noted above, these periods are represented poorly in the published ceramic record of Knossos and the rest of Crete.
The material includes pottery which I identify as Attic, Corinthian, Laconian and Cypriot fine ware.Provenance is assigned on the basis of macroscopic inspection of the fabric and other technical features.Stylistic and morphological analyses are used to address typological and chronological questions.

Attic ware
Sixteen Attic fragments can be assigned, on stylistic grounds, to the assumed lacunae of the Archaic and Classical periods at Knossos (c./- and - BC).They comprise five blackfigure pieces (Suppl.Cat.-), three red-figure fragments (Suppl.Cat.-) and eight blackglazed fragments (Suppl.Cat.-), which mostly come from open shapes.The arrangement of the material in the catalogue and the following analysis is based on the criteria of ware, shape and date.
The first black-figure fragment (Suppl.Cat.) comes from the base of a Little Master cup (Suppl.Fig. ).This is suggested by the tall, all-black stem, the high hollow cone that runs from the base up inside the stem, the carination of the interior cone's walls and the sharp angle ('heel') at the transition from the cone to the foot's underside (cf.CVA: New York  (), , ; Heesen , -).The main production period of Little Master cups is usually placed between c.  and  (Ure , ; Fellmann , ; Heesen , , , -).The solid stem of


fragment , as well as the abrupt change of angle from the lower to the upper interior part of the stem advocate for a date of manufacture between  and  BC.   Fragment Suppl.Cat. is a Cassel cup (Suppl.Fig. ).Only a small part of the cup's floor with rays on the outside is preserved, but the following features are typical of this shape: the solid black disc surrounding the stem of the cup; the added red circle on the top of a slightly wider, white circle at the edge of the solid disc, just below the rays; and the reserved medallion on the inside. The best parallels for the form of the rays on this specimen (thin, closely spaced and a little hastily drawn judging from their irregular widths and heights), as well as for its combination of circles of added colours, are assigned to the third quarter of the sixth century BC.  According to the comparanda and the conventional floruit of Cassel cups of which Suppl.Cat. seems to be a standard example -I suggest a date between c.  and  BC.
Black-figure fragment Suppl.Cat. constitutes the upper part of the bowl and beginning of the rim of a Droop cup (Suppl.Fig. ).This identification is facilitated by the sharply offset, concave lip and the reserved thin band below the rim, on the inside. The fragment also preserves a figural zone at the handle level (cf.Ure , , -, class III).Since the lower chronological limit for the production of Droop cups is still a matter of debate,  the date of the piece can be best judged from the style of the figures.The figural scene shows a horse and its rider in silhouette technique.The silhouette figures are schematically rendered, except for the anatomical details and swelling joints of the rear legs of the horse.The hasty drawing without incision suggests a date in the Late Archaic period, even though the attention paid to the anatomical joints may suggest a dating to the period just before the simplification of black-figure forms on drinking vessels between  and . Taking into account the production dates suggested by scholars for its shape and the combination of both progressive and regressive characteristics in its drawing style, I believe it is safest to ascribe a date between  and  BC to this sherd.
Fragment  comes from the wall of a black-figure krater (Suppl.


and careful incision at the border of the sleeve and the hair locks, the clearly drawn white dots, the stiff posture of the figure with the chest twisted to the front and the articulation of the body as a sum of distinct parts that stand on their own, are more typical for the style of the third rather than the fourth quarter of the sixth century BC.
The only closed Attic black-figure specimen in the current catalogue is fragment Suppl.Cat., from the central body zone of a white-ground lekythos decorated with palmettes and a human figure who is striding between them (Suppl.Fig. ).The palmette frieze is bounded below by a checkerboard and can thus be classified among the small lekythoi attributed to the Beldam Painter's workshop.These were produced mainly in the second through third quarters of the fifth century (ABL, -, esp.-, ; Kurtz , -, ; Boulter , -).Despite the acknowledged scarcity of examples with human figures in the palmette zone of such lekythoi, a great number of pieces which recall  with reference to their decorative syntax, the style of the palmettes, as well as the secondary ornaments, come from graves of Kerameikos and the North Cemetery of Corinth and are dated between  and  BC.   Fragments Suppl.Cat. and  constitute Attic red-figure column kraters.Suppl.Cat. is a rim (and neck) fragment and is decorated with a reserved band with interlaced lotus buds on the top (Suppl.Figs  and ).The decoration and the profile can be assigned broadly to the fifth century BC.The lotus-buds on the lips of early kraters are attested since the Late Archaic period (Agora XXX, ; Mannack , ), when, however, they present a stout form, are widely spaced and have large crude dots in the interstices between them (Agora XII, ; Agora XXX, ; Mannack , ).Conversely, from  BC, the mouth and neck of red-figure column kraters acquired a canonical form that shows little change until  (Agora XXX, -; CVA: Berlin  (), ; Mannack , -, -).From  on, the rim of red-figure column kraters is more commonly adorned with an ivy berry (CVA: Berlin  (), ; Campenon , -).Taking into account the closest parallels for the style of the lotus buds  and for the rim profile,  the most probable date for fragment  is -.
Similarly, fragment Suppl.Cat. comes from the handle plate of a red-figure column krater (Suppl.Figs  and ).It is glazed on all sides except the top, which is decorated with a palmette flanked by tendrils.Again, the profile allows only for a broad dating to -. Handle plates of column kraters adorned with a black lyre palmette are developed already in the late sixth century (Mannack , ; cf.Agora XXX, ), but the following details of the palmette on the piece from Knossos point to a slightly later date: the palm leaf has a reserved semi-circular heart, four instead of two volutes on its base and  well-sized, broadly spaced petals.These features recur on kraters painted by the Earlier Mannerists, who were active from the s to the s. The palmettes on their work diverge from canonical palmettes, which have a black heart and two volutes at the base (Mannack , -).Accordingly, the decorative details of fragment  suggest a date between  and .These features are missing from , thus an early fifth-century date can be excluded.In the ensuing quarter of the century, a second type of bell-krater is introduced and shows upwards-curled loop handles and a flaring rounded mouth.A variety of these early loop-handled bell kraters, produced between  and , has a quite distinct rounded rim, furnished with a sharp edge on the top of its inside, as well as a series of protruding exterior mouldings just below the lip. This is exactly the class to which the fragment from Knossos belongs.This class can be easily distinguished from the continuous profile of late fifth-and fourth-century examples (CVA: ).The sherd must therefore date between  and .
Fragments Suppl.Cat. and  are bases of Corinthian skyphoi with a reserved band of parallel vertical lines on their lower body.Since no traces of a figured zone survive, the fragments are included in the category of black-glazed ware.The low-flaring ring foot of these skyphoi and the reserved band of rays above the base is very suggestive of a date within the fifth century BC.  In particular, fragment Suppl.Cat. has a very wide base (about  cm in diameter) and sturdy walls, which can be contrasted to the stubby examples from the beginning of the fifth century (Agora XII, ; Kerameikos IX, ; Oakley , ), as well as to the delicate specimens which occur from c.  (Suppl.Figs  and ). Furthermore, the lower body of the piece from Knossos shows no sign of the gradual contraction that gives late fifth-and fourth-century Corinthian skyphoi an egg-shaped profile (Talcott , ; , ; Boulter , ; Agora XII, ; Oakley , ).The vertical lines above the foot are tightly crammed, as opposed to the rather widely spaced rays on skyphoi from the first half of the fifth century;  but they are still more neatly drawn than on some late fifth-century pieces. Hence, the base rays on this vessel poise on the brink of the final stage, before the replacement of vertical lines by hasty crosshatching (cf.Talcott , ; Agora XII, ; Oakley , ).Given its substantial foot, the thick straight lower walls, and the rather later fifth-century appearance of its base rays, Corinthian skyphos Suppl.Cat. can be dated to -.
Fragment Suppl.Cat. is less perplexing (Suppl.Fig. ).Its estimated base diameter is not very narrow (about  cm) in proportion to the rest of the skyphos, which seems to have been of small size in general.Its foot is mildly flaring and has the concave outer profile that is common from c.  BC (Agora XII, ); additionally, it is not as shallow and widely splaying as in late fifth-and fourth-century examples (cf.Talcott , ; Agora XII, ; Oakley , ).Moreover, the walls are neither too delicate nor too thick, and they find parallels from the third ).The rays above the foot are identical in style with those of the previously discussed Corinthian skyphos: they are tidy, but closely spaced.Hence, the traits of base Suppl.Cat. indicate that it dates to the same period as Suppl.Cat. (c.-).
The Attic black-glazed ware Suppl.Cat. and  are bases of Attic skyphoi of type A with horizontal handles (Suppl.Figs  and ; Agora XII, -).They have features typical of the fifth century: a projecting torus foot with a black outer edge and a reserved underside with small circles and a dot in the centre (Agora XII, -).Additionally, their lower body shows the gentle concave curve which appears after  BC, but not the pronounced S-shaped profile of late fifth-and fourth-century Attic skyphoi (Talcott , ; Agora XII, ; Rotroff and Oakley , ).Since this double curve is not yet as prominent as on examples from - BC,  the two pieces from Knossos can be assigned to the third quarter of the fifth century, with Suppl.Cat. perhaps to be placed later than Suppl.Cat. because of its slightly more developed lower body curve.  Fragments Suppl.Cat. to  are rims of one-handlers of the all-glazed variety (Suppl.Figs  and ; Agora XII, ; Kerameikos IX, ).The thickened rims of this sub-class are very characteristic because of their top surface, which is usually flat, slightly rounded or inwards sloping (Agora XII, ; Rotroff and Oakley , ).This type of rim seems to have been popular mostly during the second and third quarters of the fifth century. Earlier specimens from about - BC are attested, but they are extremely few and their rims tend to have a little projection or overhang to the inside ( Kerameikos IX, pl., no. [before /]) find numerous parallels from the Athenian Agora and the Kerameikos from contexts dated between  and  BC.Another important indication that these one-handlers date before the last quarter of the fifth century is the profile of their wall: both Suppl.Cat. and  have a substantial part of their bodies preserved and show no trace of the double curve that starts forming on the outside wall of these bowls after c.  (Agora XII, ; Rotroff and Oakley , ).Based on the comparable vases mentioned above, fragments Suppl.Cat. and  can be dated to about - BC, with Suppl.Cat. possibly dating from the later s due to the vestigial outturning of its rim.
Lastly, fragment Suppl.Cat. shares some characteristics of a subcategory of black-glazed bowls with deep wall and convex-concave profile and may therefore be identified as such (Suppl.Fig. ).These characteristics are the projecting ring foot, the sharp contrast between its concave outer foot edge and the gently convex curve of the body, as well as its rounded inner  Suppl.Cat. and  have two further features that might be chronologically significant (Boulter , ) and corroborate the above suggested date.First, they both have a scraped groove at the junction between the body and the foot.The overwhelming majority of known examples with such a groove are dated between  and  BC: Agora XII, nos , , , , .Second, the reserved underside of Suppl.Cat. is covered by red wash, a characteristic which Boulter (, ) dates to the mid-th century.


foot face and resting surface (Agora XII, ).However, the foot of Suppl.Cat. is considerably lower and less projecting than that of other published examples from this class.The best comparison is a bowl from the Athenian Agora dated to - (Agora XII, , no., fig.).A further feature that might speak for a similar date range for Suppl.Cat. is the circle of dilute glaze around the solid black disc at the centre of the bowl's underside, a decorative trend that does not appear on the undersides of various drinking vessels before the second quarter of the fifth century BC and is characteristic of the third quarter of the same century. In view of these considerations, I suggest a date for fragment Suppl.Cat. to -.
To recapitulate,  unpublished but diagnostic Attic fragments from the Unexplored Mansion have been discussed above and most date from the purported gaps of c. /- and - BC.The black-figure Little Master (Suppl.Cat.) and Cassel cups (Suppl.Cat.) were produced in the third quarter of the sixth century.The Droop cup (Suppl.Cat.) and the wall fragment of a krater (Suppl.Cat.) are also black-figure but have a wider range of possible dates within the late sixth to early fifth centuries and the second half of the sixth century respectively.The black-figure and white ground pattern lekythos belongs to the second to third quarters of the fifth century.The two column kraters (Suppl.Cat.-) and the loop-handled bell krater (Suppl.Cat.) are red-figure and were produced in - (Suppl.Cat.-) and - (Suppl.Cat.) respectively.The black-glazed pieces come from - BC.They comprise Corinthian (Suppl.Cat., ) and Attic skyphoi (Suppl.Cat., ) datable to -, one-handlers (Suppl.Cat.-) from -, and a fragment of a deep bowl with convex-concave profile (Suppl.Cat.) probably from - BC.
All in all, the present assemblage, in juxtaposition with Coldstream and Callaghan's deposits from the Unexplored Mansion and other sites in the Knossos valley, conveys the impression that Attic pottery was present in Knossos from the beginning of the sixth century to the end of the fifth century, with imports peaking around - and from  BC onwards.The diagnostic material which is assignable to the alleged period of interrupted overseas relations in / - and - BC seems to have been previously overlooked.This can be justified by the fact that the appealing notion of mysterious occupation gaps has inhibited the identification of the pieces in question, as has the residual or intrusive nature of most of those fragments.

Corinthian ware
This section treats five Corinthian imports from the Unexplored Mansion datable to the sixth and fifth centuries BC.They consist of one open drinking vessel (Suppl.Cat.) and four closed vessels, particularly pyxides (Suppl.Cat.-).Two of the fragments (Suppl.Cat., ) can be assigned to the class of Conventionalising ware,  a style which encompasses vases with linear, patterned or stylised floral ornaments and ranges from c.  to  BC (Newhall , ; Corinth VII , ; Corinth VII , -; Bentz , -,  n. ).The remaining three vases (Suppl.Cat.-) are adorned with similar motifs but cannot be classified as Conventionalising, due to their earlier date (- BC; cf.Corinth VII , ; Bentz , -).The chronological development of shapes in the Conventionalising styleand of nonfigured Archaic and Classical Corinthian pottery in generalis still not fully understood (Bentz , ), and this makes it hard to establish a narrow range of production dates.Nonetheless, available studies and comparisons strongly indicate dates which fall into the alleged gaps of / - and - BC.The fragments are discussed below according to shape and chronological criteria.
 Also known as Pattern ware (Corinth XIII, -) or Linear style (Corinth XV , ). The estimated diameter of the base is  cm.For the formal distinction between 'small' and 'large' kotylai, see Corinth VII , ; Bentz , , -.


and black horizontal bands and stripes, a syntax which is typical of Late Corinthian white style (Payne , -; Corinth VII  ; Corinth VII , ; Corinth XIII, ).This type of decoration developed fully in the second quarter of the sixth century (LC I) and persisted for over two centuries (LC II-III; Bentz , , , ).Studies of the development of the shape in the Early to Late Corinthian periods emphasise the following chronological criteria: the decorative style, the profile of the foot and the curvature of the underside (Corinth VII , -; Bentz , -).The decoration of Suppl.Cat. offers only a terminus post quem of c.  for its manufacture, but the profile of the foot-ring is reminiscent of Lawrence's type V (cf.Corinth VII , , , An , fig.).Type V was common during the first half of the sixth century and did not survive thereafter (Bentz , ).Moreover, the flatter bottom (Bentz , , fig.) and heavier and thicker foot profile developed in the advanced and late fifth century (Rafn , -, no.-:, figs -; Bentz , fig.) is not observable on kotyle Suppl.Cat..Lastly, the application of red without black undercoat on the exterior of the ring-foot seen on the piece from Knossos first occurs on Corinthian kotylai in the end of the second quarter of the sixth century (Bentz , ).Thus, a combination of morphological and stylistic details indicates a date between  and  BC for .
Fragments Suppl.Cat. and  fall into the category of powder pyxides, a shape which reached its fully blown formof a low cylinder box with a flat-topped, slip-on cover, grooved mouldings and pattern decorationin the Early and Middle Corinthian periods (c./- BC) but persisted until Classical times (Payne , -; Amyx , ; Corinth VII , ; Corinth XIII, ).Humfry Payne (, ) argued that the ornaments become 'looser' with time, but Patricia Lawrence (, ) warned that their stylistic development is poorly understood.Below, I try to narrow down the date range of the two pyxides from the Unexplored Mansion (Suppl.Cat., ).
Powder pyxis Suppl.Cat. is a fragment of the centre of the lid or the floor (Suppl.Fig. ).The solid disc in the centre of the exterior is painted with purple over black, and the same applies to the circular band separating the two reserved zones with vertical strokes.The use of purple on black undercoating is characteristic of the first half of the sixth century BC.During the second half of the century, not only does the use of purple become occasional and finally extinct, but when any added colours are used, they are applied directly on the clay, not over a black ground (Corinth VII , ).The flat surfaces of powder pyxides of the seventh century tend to sport more elaborate and carefully drawn patterns and stylised floral motives  than those of the following century and of Suppl.Cat.. The latter parameter in combination with the above discussed conventions in the application of added colours suggests a date between  and  BC for Suppl.Cat..
Fragment Suppl.Cat. is the body sherd of another powder pyxis (Suppl.Figs  and ). It has previously been published as Early Corinthian (Coldstream , , no.GH., pls , ), but a number of features suggest a later date.Not only is the pattern decoration of Corinthian pottery more elaborate on late seventh-century pieces  than on Suppl.Cat., but earlier pyxides also tend to have a slightly convex body, which flares considerably towards the bottom (Payne , , no., fig.; Corinth VII , , An , pl.).In the course of the following century, the ridges and mouldings of the lids have the propensity to diminish (Corinth  These include multiple zones of continuous or grouped vertical bars or upright zigzags with neat, straight strokes combined with dotted bands, tongues, petals or wheel-motifs.Cf.CVA: Oxford  (), IIIc, pl.: and pl.:.;Dunbabin , , no., pl.; Corinth VII , , An , pl.; Corinth XV , nos , , , , pls -.
 In the th century, powder pyxides tend to bear simpler combinations with a maximum of two rows of bars or zigzags alternating with bands, lines or painted grooves and ridges.The strokes of the zigzags gradually become more curled, giving a squiggly appearance to the zigzags.Cf. the following MC and LC I-II examples: Corinth XIII, no.-t, pl., no.-, pl., nos -, -, pl., no.-, pl.; Lawrence , nos E-E, pl.; Boardman and Hayes , , , no., pl.. The difference of clay colour in Suppl.Cat. and  (YR / and YR / respectively) suggests they belong to different vessels.

EIRINI PAIZI
 XIII, ).Classical examples become higher (Corinth XIII, ), and their walls start to curve slightly inwards (Corinth VII , ).In addition, the vertical zigzags on the reserved friezes degenerate into densely packed, elongated wavy lines, with no angled transitions from one stroke to the other (Corinth XIII, -, nos -, -, -, -, pl.).All things considered, pyxis Suppl.Cat., which has a broad, low cylinder body and is decorated with neat zigzags which are not as angular as those on Early Corinthian examples, is more likely to date within the sixth century BC.Taking also into consideration the fact that the vertical wiggly lines typically appear on the sides of such pyxides during the first half of the sixth century, rather than its second half in which horizontal grooves and ridges prevail (Corinth VII , ), a date in the years between  and  BC seems to be most adequate for the piece.
Vase Suppl.Cat. is a base fragment of a white style convex-sided pyxis of either the unhandled or the handled variety (Suppl.Figs  and ).The unhandled variety became common in the sixth century (Payne , ) and from c.  to  it was frequently fashioned in white style (Payne , ; Corinth VII , ) but shows little morphological development (Bentz , ).Therefore, if pyxis Suppl.Cat. belongs to the convex type without handles, it can be only generally assigned the broad chronological range of  to .
The same date range applies if Suppl.Cat. is a fragment of a convex-sided pyxis with upright handles.The shape existed in the Corinthian repertoire from c.  to  (Amyx , -; Corinth VII , ), but the first white style specimens appear in the second quarter of the sixth century (Payne , , no., fig.; Bentz , ; Corinth XV , , no., pl.; Amyx , ).The latest examples come from contexts of - (Dunbabin , , no., pl.).The form of the body of the handled variety is chronologically significant (Bentz , -; Corinth XIII, ; Corinth VII , ), but the profile of the body is not well preserved on Suppl.Cat..Therefore, it is not possible to suggest a date of manufacture more precise than  to .
Fragment Suppl.Cat., which is a shoulder and upper body fragment of a pyxis, has part of an upright cylindrical handle preserved and can be safely assigned to the respective category of convexsided specimens (Suppl.Fig. ).Unfortunately, the full profile of the body, which is the most important chronological criterion, does not survive.However, the steepness of the shoulder of Suppl.Cat. suggests it was manufactured around  or later.In addition, the white style decoration and the style of the tongues, which are sloppily drawn and petal-shaped (rather than neatly painted scallop-shaped) also support a date in the Late Corinthian period (cf.Payne , , nos , fig. [LC II] and , pl. [LC I]).Thus the fragment can be placed between  and .
Previously, the latest Corinthian imports from the Unexplored Mansion were dated to the Early Corinthian period (c.-; cf.Sackett and Coldstream , -).The discussion of fragments Suppl.Cat.- has hopefully demonstrated that this impression is not correct.Suppl.Cat., published previously in Coldstream's catalogue of Geometric to Archaic stray finds as late Orientalising (Coldstream , , no.GH., pls , ), is a powder pyxis from the first half of the sixth century.Fragments Suppl.Cat. and  most likely date from - and - respectively, while the convex pyxides Suppl.Cat.- cannot be dated more precisely than - because of the current state of the research on their shape.
The finds in question show that Corinthian imports to Knossos and its environs from the Middle and Late Corinthian periods are attested.Some of these fragments were produced during the purported chronological lacunae of the sixth and fifth centuries, and there is no compelling reason to obscure the wide date range of the rest in order to observe a hypothetical hiatus, made up of arguments ex silentio.Although the number of Conventionalising and pattern Corinthian wares from the sixth to fourth centuries BC known from Knossos remains small and most of them still do not derive from safe contexts, I hope that the above analysis may discourage the creation of an ungrounded argument in which an apparent absence of such imports has to point to a discontinuity of socio-economic connections between Crete and the Peloponnese in the sixth and fifth centuries.
Moreover, it has often been implied or explicitly stated in earlier scholarship that Conventionalising ware was manufactured exclusively for local use and was not exported to INSIGHTS FROM THE UNEXPLORED MANSION  other regions of Greece and the Mediterranean (Salmon , ; Benson , ).This assumption has often been based on the 'aesthetically unappealing' aspect of this pottery (Corinth VII , ; cf.Benson , -; , ), or predicated on the premise that Corinth lost its foreign markets to Athens during the sixth and fifth centuries. This impression has been challenged by Martha K. Risser, who demonstrated that Corinth did continue to export Conventionalising pottery to regions spanning from the Black Sea to southern France and Spain and from northern Greece to Cyprus and North Africa (Corinth VII , -).This point is confirmed by my identification of Corinthian Conventionalising pieces at the Unexplored Mansion.

Laconian ware
Connections between Knossos and the Peloponnese in the sixth century BC are indicated not only by the Corinthian, but also by the Laconian material from the site of the Unexplored Mansion, which consists of a previously unpublished fragment of a stirrup-handled krater of the all-glazed variety (Suppl.Cat., Suppl.Fig. ).
The fragmentary state of krater Suppl.Cat. presents a challenge for the exact dating of the piece.Primary chronological indicators for this type of krater, Stibbe's class F, are: the proportion of the vessel's height to its maximum diameter, the dimensions of the foot, as well as the angle between the upper part of the handle (the 'strap') and the lower, column-like part (the 'grip'; Stibbe , -).These criteria are of little use in the case of Suppl.Cat., since only part of the rim, the neck and the beginning of the strap handle survive.However, a review of the shape's development can help establish a chronology that places the piece in the times during which Knossos is supposed to have yielded no imports.
Fully developed all-glazed Laconian kraters appear already in the beginning of the sixth century and are distinguishable by the straight vertical contours of their necks, their square or triangular rim profile and the pointed and downward projecting lower end of the strap handle (Stibbe , , nos F-F, figs -, pl..-).In the next  years the rims become higher and thicker, as well as slightly concave on the outside; the necks become shorter and, although they are still straight in profile, often show a subtle inclination outward, while the lower end of the strap is usually less protruding and angular (Stibbe , -, nos F-F, figs -, pls .-.).Finally, around -, the rims of Laconian stirrup kraters develop a distinctive rounded top which slopes outward and downward.This slope affects the point at which the upper end of the rim meets the strap handle, where an angle and downward slant are now formed.Last but not least, the exterior profile of the neck becomes discernibly concave and the neck slopes outward more than before (Stibbe , -, nos F-F, figs -).
Taking into consideration the chronological development of the shape, it seems that Suppl.Cat. should be grouped with the kraters of the second and third quarters of the sixth century.This is suggested by the thickness and the profile of the rim, the straight line of the neck, as well as the absence of the sloping top and slant at the junction between the upper rim end and strap handle which characterise Late Archaic kraters.All parallels for Suppl.Cat. are dated in the second and third quarters of the sixth century (Stibbe , -, nos F, F, F, F, figs , , , ).Hence, the Laconian krater from the Unexplored Mansion supports the contention that mainland Greek pottery continued to reach Crete and Knossos in the interval of the sixth century BC, which was hitherto regarded as a 'Dark Age'.

Cypriot ware
Four fragments of imported Cypriot vessels revealed during the excavations at the Unexplored Mansion of Knossos are of particular interest to the present study (Suppl.Cat.-).A Cypriot origin has been inferred on the basis of the fabric and surface treatment of the  Bentz , : 'It is an indisputable fact that by the middle of the sixth century, Corinth has been replaced by Athens as the principle producer of fine painted pottery for export.'EIRINI PAIZI  fragments. They derive from closed shapes (Suppl.Cat.-), except Suppl.Cat., which is a bowl.Three decorative techniques are represented: White Painted (Suppl.Cat.), Bichrome (Suppl.Cat., ) and Black-on-Red (Suppl.Cat.).
The most common Cypriot vases imported and copied at Knossos and other Cretan sites were Black-on-Red and Bichrome jugs and juglets (cf.Coldstream , ; Bourogiannis , ., .-; Karageorghis et al. , , -), usually interpreted as containers of perfumed oils (Coldstream , ; Schreiber , -; Bourogiannis , .; Kotsonas a, ).The overwhelming majority are found in cemeteries.In view of these tendencies, the four Cypriot fragments from the Unexplored Mansion that are about to be discussed appear to be quite unusual.Their order has been determined according to ware and chronology.
Suppl.Cat. derives from a White Painted, large closed vessel, possibly a belly-handled amphora with a wide, straight neck and a swollen annular rim (Suppl.Figs  and ).This form occurs in Cypriot White Painted types IV to VI (Gjerstad , -).Bichrome Red II (V) parallels exist from Kition-Bamboula, with a rounded outer rim profile and banded decoration on both the outside and inside of the lip and neck (Salles , , no., fig.).Further comparisons for types IV and V derive from contexts of the sixth and early fifth centuries BC (Karageorghis and Raptou , , , , tomb , nos  and , pl.LXVI; Karageorghis , , , tomb , no., pl.CCXLVI; Fourrier , -, , fig., -).Despite the general adequacy of the aforementioned parallels, the discernible downward flare of the neck on fragment Suppl.Cat. is untypical for types IV-V amphorae, the necks of which are usually straight and upright or tapering downward.Alternatively, Suppl.Cat. could represent a large oval jug with an erect neck and vertical handle from rim to shoulder (cf.Gjerstad , , fig.LXIV:).To conclude, I suggest that the fragment could be identified as a White Painted amphora or a large, oval, vertical-handled jug of Einar Gjerstad's types V, VI or VII and can be thus dated between the Cypro-Archaic II (- BC) and Cypro-Classical II (- BC) periods.
The site of the Unexplored Mansion has also yielded two fragments of Cypriot Bichrome vases (Suppl.Cat.-).Vessel Suppl.Cat. is from a barrel-shaped jug, a form attested for the first time in Knossos and Crete (Suppl.Fig. ).Barrel-shaped jugs exist in White Painted and Bichrome wares I-V (Gjerstad , ) but the early bobbin-shaped types I-IIIwith rounded sides and a raised nipple at the end of each body halfcan be easily distinguished from later specimens (Gjerstad , fig.:-).From type IV onwards the cylindrical body becomes markedly more elongated and tapering towards the ends of each side, resembling the shape of an ostrich egg (Gjerstad , ; see also Gjerstad   The White Painted sherd () is covered with a white slip on which the black banded decoration is applied.The Bichrome (-) fragments have a white undercoating as well, but the linear designs and circles with which they are adorned are in black and red colour.The Black-on-Red fragment (Suppl.Cat.) has a matte red glaze as a ground for its black lines and bands.The black on both the Bichrome and the Black-on-Red is of violet or purple colour, while on the White Painted piece it varies from matte black to matte brown.

INSIGHTS FROM THE UNEXPLORED MANSION
 IV]), and these are the stages to which vessel Suppl.Cat. belongs, as suggested by its tapering preserved sides.
The decoration points to a similar conclusion: concentric circles of different thickness and colour fill most of the jug's rounded sides and leave little unadorned space, a characteristic of the 'circle style' types IV and V.The violet hue of the black paint is also in congruence with these stages (Gjerstad , -, , -; , ).Comparisons for the decoration and the tapering sides of Suppl.Cat. are found among Gjerstad's Bichrome V jugs (Gjerstad , fig.XLIX:,; , fig.:) and Bichrome IV specimens from the necropolis of Salamis (Karageorghis , , tomb , no., pl.CCIV, , tomb , no., pl.CCLVI).Taking into consideration potential inaccuracies in the relative and absolute chronology of the shape and the contexts of its parallels, I believe that it is best to attribute jug Suppl.Cat. to the categories Bichrome IV-V of the Cypro-Archaic period (- BC).
The other Bichrome fragment (Suppl.Cat.) is from the shoulder of a medium-sized closed vessel, perhaps a pinched-rim jug (Suppl.Fig. ).A diagnostic portion of the profile is not preserved, but the light purple to brownish hue of the dark paint characterises Bichrome V to VII vessels (Gjerstad , -, -).Furthermore, the lotus or trefoil ornament that is located on the shoulder zone, below a series of black and red lines and bands covering the neck, becomes much more common in this highly simplified form of types V and VI (Gjerstad , ).The stylistic parallels include numerous Bichrome V juglets from Cypro-Archaic II (Karageorghis , -, tomb , nos  and , pl.CXXIII, -, tomb , no. from within the chamber, pl.CXLVI, -, tomb A, nos-, pl.CLXVII) through Cypro-Classical IA contexts in Salamis (Karageorghis , , no. from the dromos, pl.CXXXIV, , tomb , no., pl.CCXLVI).All things considered, Suppl.Cat. probably represents a Bichrome V-VI vessel of Cypro-Archaic II to Cypro-Classical I date (- BC).
The final Cypriot piece (Suppl.Cat.) is a large Black-on-Red bowl with an offset or raised, contracted rim (Suppl.Figs  and ).The oblique, straight and upwards flaring profile of the rim is comparable to Gjerstad's handled Black-on-Red II (IV) bowls (Gjerstad , pl.XXXVII: -).The decoration agrees with this classification: a black band covers the inside and outside of the rim, continues below the junction of the rim and shoulder on the exterior and is replaced by a reserved zone with dark vertical stripes on the preserved exterior part of the body.Hence, the bowl is dateable to the Cypro-Archaic period (- BC).The carination on the shoulder of Suppl.Cat. is a vexing characteristic, which is uncommon on type IV bowls.
To summarise, the excavations at the Unexplored Mansion have produced four Cypriot sherds that do not exactly fit established views regarding the disappearance of Cypriot imports to Knossos and Crete.Cypriot pottery post-dating  BC has rarely been recognised before.The above discussed fragments seem to break that pattern, as well as represent a new range of Cypriot shapes attested on Crete.
The Bichrome barrel-shaped jug (Suppl.Cat.) and the Black-on-Red bowl (Suppl.Cat.) belong stylistically to types of the Cypro-Archaic period (- BC).One cannot assert with certainty that those vessels were imported to Knossos during the lacunae of - and -, but this should also not be excluded.The White Painted piece (Suppl.Cat.) is a puzzle, but since most of the parallels are of later types (V-VII), it may be wiser to group it chronologically with the Bichrome jug (Suppl.Cat.), which is certainly of type V or VI and can be reasonably placed in the Cypro-Archaic II or the Cypro-Classical I period (currently - BC).
It is noteworthy that vessels Suppl.Cat. and  were published by Peter J. Callaghan under the Hellenistic 'pottery group' H (Callaghan , , no.H.-, pl.).Callaghan compared Suppl.Cat. to a Bichrome V amphora from the pre-Persian levels of Olynthos (Olynthos V, , no.P., pl., colour pl.xxxiii).The parallel indeed bears a very similar decoration and has been grouped by the excavators among Late Archaic finds (Olynthos V, ).Nevertheless, Callaghan's inclusion of vases Suppl.Cat. and  in a Hellenistic assortment of sherds can be misleading.I argue that Suppl.Cat. is of Cypro-Archaic style and Suppl.Cat. is a product of the Cypro-Archaic II to Cypro-Classical I periods.
Leaving the discussion on absolute chronology aside, the Cypriot imports from Knossos identified above add to our knowledge of Cypriot shapes imported to the site.Earlier imports EIRINI PAIZI  largely consist of the commonly attested Black-on-Red and Bichrome juglets with concentric circles which appear in Cretan Early Iron Age cemeteries and have been associated with the perfume trade (Coldstream and Catling , ; Schreiber , -; Kotsonas a, -).The amphora (Suppl.Cat.) and the bowl (Suppl.Cat.) correspond to Cypriot shapes that were more commonly exported to the Levant during the Early Iron Age (Georgiadou , -) and perhaps indicate the transportation of such shapes to Crete through Levantine middlemen.The barrel jug (Suppl.Cat.) and pinched rim jug (Suppl.Cat.) attest to the importation of Cypriot slow-pouring vessels to Crete during the Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods, as well as their use in domestic sites.

COMPARABLE MATERIAL FROM KNOSSOS
Notwithstanding the emphasis of this study on the material from the Unexplored Mansion, I think it is worth mentioning select comparable pieces which derive from other excavations of the British School in the Knossos valley and have been re-examined by the author.These pieces demonstrate that some well-known settlement contexts of Archaic and Classical Knossos might extend into the purported lacunae of the sixth and fifth centuries BC and that the relevant evidence may have been overlooked owing to the entrenched belief in the 'gaps'.

Attic ware
Several Attic fragments of the present catalogue, from the Unexplored Mansion, find parallels among the ceramic corpus of significant Archaic and Classical stratigraphic contexts at Knossos.Starting with the black-figure shapes, a Band cup from - BC, which is contemporary to Suppl.Cat., is a sporadic find of the Royal Road excavations (Coldstream b, , pl. ).What is more, a Cassel cup fragment, like Suppl.Cat., which preserves part of its base rays and myrtle band, was uncovered in the south-east drain of the Roman Villa Dionysos and was dated to the last quarter of the sixth century (Coldstream and Hatzaki , , no.S., pl.).This production date was probably predicated on the assumption that Attic imports do not reach Knossos before / BC, but the sherd in question is very close stylistically to fragment Suppl.Cat. and probably belongs to c. - as well.Turning to red-figure, column kraters are the commonest shape of this ware at Knossos.They begin to appear already around  BC in the Royal Road, where they have lotus buds of distinctively early (triangular and stiff ) form on the top of their rims (Coldstream b, -, no.M., pl.).However, the lotus-and-chain pattern on the rim fragment of a red-figure column krater from Pit X of Trench  in the area of the South-West Houses (Coldstream and Macdonald , , no. K., fig. , pl. ) resembles  very closely and should be placed within the same date range (c.-).

Corinthian ware
Corinthian pottery of the sixth and fifth centuries BC is attested not only at the Unexplored Mansion, but also among other Knossian contexts.The shapes which are attested comprise kotylae and powder pyxides.
A Corinthian kotyle, like Suppl.Cat., has base rays and was recovered in the upper fill of a well by Villa Ariadne in  (Coldstream b, , no.H., pl.).Although it was published as Early Corinthian, the loose form of its vertical squiggles does not find parallels before the Middle Corinthian period (Corinth XV , no., pl.).Furthermore, a Corinthianising black-glazed kotyle from Well H of the Royal Road, which was treated as an intrusion by Apparently Knossos and other Cretan cities could have engaged in an exchange of ceramic goods manufactured in Laconia during the period in question, and it is not unlikely that the island belonged to the same exchange network that linked mainland Greece with North Africa in the same yearsas already suggested by Erickson ().In fact, Tocra and the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Cyrene have also produced Laconian stirrup kraters in the period of - BC, to which Suppl.Cat. and its aforementioned parallel are dated (Boardman and Hayes , nos -, pl.; Schaus , -, nos -, pls -).

Cypriot ware
Pottery of Cypriot origin postdating  BC and deriving from settlement contexts has rarely been recognised at Knossos, but two exceptions exist: two Black-on-Red II juglets, one from the Little Palace and one from the Unexplored Mansion.The former was found in a scrappy Orientalising layer (Hatzaki et al. , , no. B., pl. d ).The latter piece, a jug unearthed in Room  of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion, is obviously an intrusion to the Minoan strata (Coldstream , , no.GH., pl.).Although it has been classified as Black-on-Red II, its decoration does not necessarily exclude a Black-on-Red III (V) date (cf.Gjerstad , figs XXXVIII:, [Black-on-Red II] and LII: [Black-on-Red III]).Thus, the two fragments are Cypro-Archaic, like vases Suppl.Cat. and  of the present study.

SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Unexplored Mansion, Knossos and Crete in the sixth century BC The Unexplored Mansion, one of the best published projects at Knossos, was used here to test hypotheses on the Archaic period of the site.Based on the rarity of known well-stratified contexts, it has previously been argued that the area has yielded hardly any evidence for activity, including overseas imports, for the first three quarters of the sixth century BC.Nevertheless, my above analysis of a select group of mostly residual and intrusive Archaic overseas imports from the Unexplored Mansion supports the notion that the site might not have been completely abandoned between  and  BC.On the contrary, residents of the area seem to have


imported and consumed dining equipment (Suppl.Cat.-, , ) and cosmetic containers (Suppl.Cat., ) from mainland Greece (Attica, Corinth and Laconia), which were manufactured between the first and third quarters of the sixth century.Additionally, tableware and slow-pouring vessels from the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus) (Suppl.Cat., ) may have reached the site at any time during the Cypro-Archaic period, which spans from the mideighth to the early fifth century BC.
The previous treatment of some of the material from the Unexplored Mansion also raises important methodological issues.It was formerly thought that the latest imports at the site comprised a number of Corinthian sherds in black-figure and pattern decoration.These were designated as Early Corinthian and squeezed in the last quarter of the seventh century on the basis of Payne's chronological scheme.However, the present study has demonstrated that the date for some of these sherds, such as the published fragment Suppl.Cat., needs to be revised as Middle Corinthian.In addition, I have identified a number of further Middle Corinthian imports from the Unexplored Mansion, such as Suppl.Cat., , which were previously unpublished.My study has also shown that the final publication of the site excluded a Laconian stirrup krater (Suppl.Cat.), which can be dated between the second and third quarters of the sixth century, and Attic black-figure pottery of c. -/ BC (Suppl.Cat.-).Last but not least, I have demonstrated that previously unpublished pieces, which can be dated only broadly, such as the Corinthian Conventionalising fragments Suppl.Cat.- and the Cypro-Archaic fragments Suppl.Cat. and , may fall within the assumed 'lacuna' of - BC.
The ways in which scholarly choices made in the study and publication of the material may have obscured the understanding of the archaeology of the sixth century in Knossos are also identifiable in the case of other excavated contexts in the Knossos valley.I have mentioned that comparisons for Attic Suppl.Cat.- and  appear in the Royal Road, as well as in mixed levels above the Villa Dionysos.The date range previously attributed to these Archaic pieces has been compressed to help maintain the 'hiatus' of - devoid of finds.Likewise, I have argued that a black-glazed Laconian stirrup krater from Well  of the Venizeleion area, which is comparable to fragment Suppl.Cat., was dated broadly, thus implicitly undermining the possibility that any finds derive from the 'critically lean' period of - BC.These examples suggest how questionable methodological choices in the publication of Archaic remains from Knossos have reaffirmed the notion of the 'gap' of - BC and the associated traditional views of Archaic Crete.
Notwithstanding the new identification of mainland Greek imports to Knossos, the reexamination of previously published deposits from the Royal Road, the area of the South-West Houses, Well  at the Venizeleion and the Unexplored Mansion confirms that Attic pottery is thinly attested before - BC.  Nevertheless, this cannot be taken to confirm the hypothesis that Knossos presents the most extreme case of decline or abandonment during the Archaic period.Knossos has yielded Archaic material of the same quantity and unstratified nature as Gortyn, the major city of the Messara valley that is thought to have destroyed Knossos in the sixth century (Erickson , -).In arguing for the floruit of Archaic Gortyn, Erickson (, ) has observed that the 'the complicated building history of Gortyn makes one suspect damage to Archaic and Classical structures, which might account for the disproportionately slight survival of material from these periods'.I find this argument convincing, and I think it also applies to Knossos.
This discussion has considerable implications for the archaeology of Crete and the notion of the island's 'Archaic gap'.Few scholars still believe that sixth-century Crete was struck by natural catastrophes (Boardman , ; Erickson , -, ), was paralysed by internal warfare or was afflicted by changes in economic opportunities and in the exchange networks of the Mediterranean.Despite more nuanced understandings of the problem promoted by the INSIGHTS FROM THE UNEXPLORED MANSION  excavation of a rich Archaic settlement at Azoria and by numerous recent publications, the notion of the 'Archaic gap' has not been abolished.The results of the present study, combined with sixthcentury evidence from sites like Praisos, Itanos, Azoria, Axos and Kato Syme, enhance the impression that the Archaic 'hiatus' is not uniform and should encourage scholars to seek subregional and site-specific explanations for the short-term boom of some sites and the bust of others in the sixth century, rather than generalising scenarios which cover the entire island.
The fifth century BC at the Unexplored Mansion, Knossos and Crete The Unexplored Mansion has produced significant evidence that militates against the disappearance of overseas products at Knossos in - BC.The overwhelming majority of off-island imports discussed here represent Attic dining vessels and belong to the fifth century.The red-figure column kraters Suppl.Cat.- are datable to the first to third quarters of the fifth century and may or may not have entered Crete during the purported 'break' in imports.However, the white-ground pattern lekythos Suppl.Cat., the red-figure bell krater Suppl.Cat., the black-glazed one-handlers Suppl.Cat.- and bowl Suppl.Cat., and the Corinthian and Attic skyphoi (Suppl.Cat.-) can be placed with confidence between  and  BC.In addition to the Attic pieces, the Unexplored Mansion has yielded two Corinthian Conventionalising pyxides (Suppl.Cat.-), which cannot be more closely dated within the time span of c. - BC, but may well fall into the part of the Classical period which is under-represented at the site.The same is true for the White-Painted Cypriot Suppl.Cat., which is broadly dated to the Cypro-Archaic II-Cypro-Classical II period (- BC) and the Bichrome Cypriot Suppl.Cat. which is Cypro-Archaic II or Cypro-Classical I (- BC).
The choice to exclude these pieces from the publication of the post-Bronze Age remains of the Unexplored Mansion has enhanced the impression that the fifth century, especially its second to third quarters, is virtually unattested at the site.I have sought to correct this impression and show that the Unexplored Mansion has produced imports which challenge the notion of a -year break in overseas imports to Knossos starting c.  BC.
Imported material that falls within the assumed import 'lacuna' of the fifth century has also been unearthed at other sites within the Knossos valley.The Classical road in the area of the South-West Houses yielded Attic pottery of the second quarter of the fifth century, including a loop-handled bell krater like Suppl.Cat., which was decorated with a red-figure scene (Coldstream and Macdonald , , no Notwithstanding this evidence, imported finds dating from  to  BC seem to be less copiously attested at Knossos than overseas imports dating to the first and fourth quarters of the fifth century.I am reluctant to follow Erickson in interpreting the paucity of overseas imports at Knossos in - and, more broadly, on Crete in - (Erickson , -) as a result of measures taken by Athens against the Peloponnesian trade with Crete and North Africa in the context of the Peloponnesian War and its prelude.My scepticism derives from the lack of alignment in the chronological limits of the 'break' in foreign products in the different parts of Crete, which was established by Erickson himself.After an influx of Attic and Laconian fineware in the cemeteries and settlements of western Crete during -, off-island pottery is taken to cease there between  and  (Erickson , ).For the cemetery of Orthi Petra, at Eleutherna, Erickson (, -) proposes a temporary 'hiatus' in foreign products around -, contemporary to the purported 'lacuna' at Knossos.For the cemetery of Itanos, he claims that the Attic and Cycladic imports cease at about , but reappear around - (Erickson , ).I prefer to interpret these patterns in the light of regional fluctuations in the demand and supply of foreign products, especially since Attic pottery circulated throughout the Mediterranean mainly due to its good quality (Cook , ) and EIRINI PAIZI  irrespectively of military events (MacDonald , -, , -).Also, given the analysis above, I wonder on the possible impact of the vagaries of preservation or of methodological choices in the documentation of the material on the shaping of the patterns in question.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/./S.


Fig.' refer to the catalogue and figures of this article published as Supplementary Material.


Rotroff and Oakley (, ) date this type of rim to c. - BC.But examples from the second quarter of the century are also known: Kerameikos VII, , no.., appendix  (- BC). Kerameikos IX, .Compare Agora XII, fig., no. (c.) with no. (- BC), which have the same rim diameter but different depth. Cf.Agora XII, , nos  (c. BC) and  (c. BC), fig..Compare also the remarks on the development of the rim in Agora XII, .
. N., fig.) and a red-figure column krater comparable to Suppl.Cat..Also, the Sanctuary of Demeter has produced Attic pottery of the second and third quarters of the fifth century (Coldstream a, , , no.C., fig. [- BC], -, no.H.- [c. BC]).These finds suggest a continuation of overseas contacts between Knossos and mainland Greece throughout the Classical period.
Coldstream,  has the low splaying foot of Corinthian kotylai of Lawrence's type V (Corinth VII , , fig.),  Coldstream b, , fig., pl..The suggested date of late th-early th century BC is somewhat too early in my view.INSIGHTS FROM THE UNEXPLORED MANSION  which were produced during the first half of the sixth century (Corinth VII , ).Our fragment Suppl.Cat. also has a type V foot.A powder pyxis with reserved zones decorated with groups of vertical zigzags, which recalls fragment Suppl.Cat., derives from the Villa Ariadne well (Coldstream b, , no.H., fig., pl.).It finds very close comparisons among the Middle Corinthian pyxides of the Examilia grave published by Lawrence (, nos E-E, pl.), just as pyxis Suppl.Cat., and it undoubtedly falls in the purported sixth-century 'gap'.ware Knossos is rich in Laconian pottery and local imitations and constitutes the only site on Crete that currently competes with the cemetery of Orthi Petra at Eleutherna, where Laconian kraters and cups are attested from the beginning of the sixth century down to the Late Archaic period. The present section addresses Knossian finds, besides fragment Suppl.Cat., which fall into the category of Laconian stirrup kraters.A Laconian krater has surfaced during rescue work in Well  at the area of the Venizeleion hospital and is ascribed a broad date within the sixth century (Erickson , , no., fig.:).No excavation records survive for the well (Coldstream b, ; Coldstream and Huxley , ).After inspection of the sherd, I believe it is a close counterpart of Suppl.Cat. of the present catalogue and its date can be narrowed down to c. - BC.