On the other side of the island, at Phæstos, there was another great palace, which has been excavated by the Italian Archæological Mission. In many ways this palace was as magnificent as that of Knossos. Like Knossos, it was built on a hill on a foundation formed by levelling the buildings that had existed on the site from the Neolithic Age; and, like Knossos, though on a smaller scale, it consisted roughly of a system of buildings grouped round a central court. Some of the remains are in a better state of preservation than those of Knossos and are, therefore, useful in supplementing our knowledge of the Golden Age of ancient Crete, which we chiefly derive from Knossos. It must be remembered, however, that owing to the architectural device of levelling the old buildings as foundations for the great palaces, both Knossos and Phæstos are of less value than the other sites in Crete, as illustrating the Early Minoan Age—the period, that is, which preceded these great palaces.

There were, then, two great palaces flourishing in Crete during the same period. One naturally wonders what were the relations between them.

The established facts are few. It has been already shown, on the evidence of their respective pottery, that the original settlers at Phæstos came later than those of Knossos and took over the latter’s ceramic innovations. The great palaces of the two cities were built about the same time, possibly (in view of the likeness in style) by the same architects. Both palaces were destroyed more than once, and at approximately known dates. These are the bare facts revealed by archæology, and the ice is thin for speculation on the internal politics of the island.

Some think, with the Haweses (loc. cit., p. 70), that the first palace of Knossos was “attacked and burned at the close of the Second Middle Minoan period, possibly by the rival ruler of Phæstos.” Yet the only certainty is that Knossos was burned down at that time and Phæstos was not.

Mr. H. R. Hall has a different impression. He says (The Ancient History of the Near East, p. 45): “At the same time that the king of Knossos built his new palace in his capital ... he also built himself a southern palace in the Messarà.... As from the near neighbourhood of Knossos a fine view of the sea, the haven, and the ships of the thalassocrats could be obtained, with Dia beyond and perhaps Melos far away on the horizon, so from Phaistos itself an equally fine, but different, prospect greeted the royal eyes; from this hilltop he could contemplate on one side the snowy tops of Ida and on the other the rich lands of the Messarà.” He thinks that before the palace of Phæstos was built, the island, or at least the central portion of it, had been unified under the rule of Knossos. Legend makes Phæstos a colony of Knossos.

An obviously important fact to be remembered in any discussion on this point is that, in sharp contrast to the Mycenæan cities of the mainland, Knossos and Phæstos were in the main unfortified. It is true that M. Dussaud has suggested that Knossos was fortified, but the vast majority of scholars agree that his supposed “fortifications” were nothing of the kind. Dr. Burrows has devoted a special chapter to this point in the as yet unpublished revised edition of his book, the manuscript of which he left in my care when he died. His general conclusion is that, while there may have been some sort of fortification in the early days of Crete, Knossos established a peaceful regime when she won her supremacy in L.M.I. In any case, Knossos was not fortified in the days of her empire. She had no fear from within the island, and she had command of the seas.