Talk:Minoan civilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within classical antiquity.
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Minoan civilization, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Top This article has been rated as a Top priority article
Peer review Minoan civilization has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Archive 2
Archive 3 (dispute about inclusion of Minos/Plato)


According to this website, the catastrophe the ended the LMIB phase happened in 1490 BC. NOTE: Sonchis showed Solon the "Atlantis" enscriptions in 590 BC. Sonchis said they were 9,000 years old. But, we know that Atlantis was the Minoan Civilization. If, instead of 9,000 years, the enscriptions actually read, 900 years, then 1490 BC is again indicated. http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/26.html

Contents

[edit] Confusion between Minoan and Eteocretan?

I noticed that there are confusing linkages on Wikipedia between Eteocretan and Minoan. It seems that Eteocretan (written in Greek-like letters) and true Minoan (written earlier in linear script A) is being hopelessly confused. Look it, folks. The business of Minoan history is confusing enough without making it harder for everyone to obtain the information they need. I changed some text under "Language and writing" but it seems that when you type in Minoan into the search field to the left, it will wisk you straight to Eteocretan. This is absolutely nuts. Just not the same thing! --Glengordon01 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] politics section

dear god! if we can't reform it, can we delete it until it is rewritten? Novium 07:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, when you say "dear god!", could it be the feminist extremism that makes you cringe? But why oh why can you not believe that the Minoans were pie-in-the-sky, peace-loving vegans? :P Perhaps it's the androphobic absolutes like the following that make you sick to your stomach:

  • "Whereas depictions exist of men showing deference to women, not one shows women deferring to men."
  • "Unlike their contemporaries, who possessed obvious “strong-man” male rulers, the Minoans show almost no trace of male rule at all."

Yes, surely not one! No trace at all! We cannot let the males dominate! Oogabooga.

You see, this is why 99% of the human population must be destroyed (oops, did i say that?). Most people are just interested in fluff they read in sci-fi books. Any critical analysis or infusion of, say, ethnological evidence (or lack of) of such societies, well, just throw that out the window. It's those damn males making trouble again. What do we do when, as with some subjects, crackpot authors outnumber serious adults 1400-to-1? The whole goddamn Aegean studies are being screwed by this stupidity and Wikipedia's relativism just isn't going to help us.

So when will it be the "right time" to finally kick the WP:NPOV cult in its ass, strap the loonies to a bed and force-feed medication? Hmm? --Glengordon01 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay that was my rant. Now constructivity. I would say that this article is an example of confusing the matrifocal religion and visual symbolisms with the actual everyday life of Minoans. So we need to get rid of those silly man-hating absolutes and start talking about substantial stuff. When I hear "Minoan politics", I daydream about silly things like:

  • Palace hierarchy and economy
  • Development of beaurocratic administration
  • Interrelationship of cities such as Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, etc
  • The trade relationship between Keftiu and other kingdoms (Egypt, Greece, Anatolia)
  • Oh, and of course, man-hating vegans

--Glengordon01 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole section is rather absurd. I mean really, what could we say if we avoided resorting to sheer fantasy? "Palaces" like knossos may or may not have been palaces. they may or may not have been political or religious in nature. they may or may not have etc etc etc. If we wanted to stick to fact, we'd be left with extremely dry descriptions of the architecture and etc. Basically, we'd have a site report. I'm rambling. What I maen is, I think the politics section is useless because we know so little about the minoans, anything we write on their politics will be little better than historical fiction (in that even the most plausible theories rely on the most ambigious evidence) Novium 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere in the middle is the truth. So we're both pessimistic. Congratuations, you've joined the dark side with me! :) But I also know that there is some information that we can talk about here. Politics can be both internal and external. So the internal stuff has to be stuff explaining what the palaces are for (centers of commerce and religion most likely). How did the different cities exchange goods or distribute those goods? Labrys as symbol of "divine authority" of the king or chief could be another topic.

I know what you're saying about "historical fiction". It makes me cringe too but in the end, isn't history in one way or another a matter of interpretation? Bite my tongue! The whole goal for me is to find an explanation of history that takes everything into account and leaves no stone unturned. On the topic of Minoans, we're lucky if an author leaves us with a pile of rubble. I guess I'm just gonna have to write my own books which no one will buy to avoid those Original Research baffoons on Wikipedia >:P

The "matriarchal theory" on this article can be explained and then smashed (since ethnologists have never found a provenmatriarchy anywhere in the world). If I recall Marija Gimbutas is a majormost culprit in that regard but I don't think she's the epitome of feminist evil either. I would say there's something to gain from her perspective if handled right. But personally, I'm suspecting that the "Creatrix goddess" is merely the deity that the king marries in a "sacred marriage" to legitimize his authority to rule the peasants. Similar to US politics, hehe.

External politics would be about relationships with known trading partners. We know that Crete was trading across the Eastern Mediterranean and there are Egyptian records talking about their relationship with Keftiu. So there's something there, even if it's not a Minoan-centric perspective. If you can translate the Linear A tablets, be my guest. But even without the Linear A tablets to help we can still find something to talk about without going totally sci-fi. We gotta think like Encyclopedia Britannica, which will be, like, a billion times better than sucky Wikipedia will ever be :P --Glengordon01 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I've cut the politics section, as no one seemed inclined to tackle that beast. If someone wants to rewrite it, or create a new section, or put it back, be my guest. But it really was dragging the article down. Novium 06:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an icky situation, I agree. I need to make a safari to the university anyways. I was just there, darnit, I coulda looked that up but I was too busy with the interrelationship of Etruscan and Babylonian myth. Sigh. Average public libraries, even in major cities (or at least Canadian ones) are completely useless when it comes to Minoans, Etruscans or any other people that have been unfortunate enough to be labeled "obscure". Many authors just like to make them into "metaphysical mysteries" so that their latest book becomes a best-seller coffee-table book. Anything connected to Atlantis and tarot cards is an automatic hit at Chapters. >:P --Glengordon01 22:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least have some information about the Minoan government/political system? I have to qrite a report about Minoan government and I came to wikipedia only to find that there was no informnation available at all. I really need this information. --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫횆tell me about it 01:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Next time you have to write a report, don't use Wikipedia. It's not a reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless you want a report full of wakko Troy in the Fens bollocks. --5telios 12:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warfare once again

I moved the following self-referent contention here:

"The Minoans had a rich repetoire of weaponry and images with strong martial symbolism and active combat from many of the palatial sites. Academic investigations into this interesting field are changing our perceptions of this important society, but there are people who dogmatically deny the presence of violence in this society to the degree that they silence debate by deleting any mention of this topic in Wikipedia. As a prehistoric society, the Minoans shared much with the wider prehistoric world they interacted with and it is both unprecedented and contrary to the factual evidence to state that Minoans never engaged in combat or warfare."

The "combat" may be a reading of the boys-boxing frescos. Or it may not actually refer to anythging in particular. The martial symbolism is more than vague: in what medium? one would ask for a start. The "academic investigations" should go into References, for a beginning, with a concise report on the moot areas worked into the article. A remark like "the Minoans shared much with the wider prehistoric world they interacted with..." is no substitute for information. --Wetman 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn. Even I, as opposed as I am to the lovely peaceful flower loving hippy conception of the minoans, find that ridiculous. I'm surprised I didn't notice it. Although I have to say, part of that last sentence is not completely bad. It is true that the minoans were part of a larger bronze age world. And there does seem to be a whiff of the mythical lost utopia about Crete when people go on and on about a perfect, pacifist, matriarchial society in tune with nature's rythmns and blah blah blah. Still. It's from left field, as far as I am concerned. I would have expected to see it on the talk page, oh, a year and a half ago when there was someone strongly pushing the whole utopian thing really hard...but still. Novium 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Novium, though my reading makes me think warfare was peripheral to Minoan palace culture. "Minoans and warfare" is a perfectly valid subheading. The current controversy needs to be encapsulated, with some references and a sense of what the arguments are based on, which is more enlightening than declarations of conclusions. The section should be a report on current thinking. But not an oration. --Wetman 11:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completely unreadable for a layman

Hate to tell you guys this but however clear the information in this article may be to Minoan expert academics, it is completely unreadable for the majority of laymen who might actually read it on the internet. For instance; "On the Greek mainland, LHIIB began during LMIB," What in the hell does that mean? That is one of many utterly cryptic sentences to be found here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.230.241.247 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] society and culture

This section is "doing my head in". Part of me wants to remove the whole thing and start again, part of me wants to fill it with requests for citations, part of me wants to break it up, perhaps have a separate article on the pax minoica / thalassocracy idea. Does anyone want to suggest a course of action. I have problems with a whole lot of this section but I can never get beyond the first three paragraphs which I find both annoying and difficult to correct without rewriting completely. Ayone want to offer advice or help?--5telios 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The section should be broken up. Minoan religion should be spun off as a sub-article, and the human sacrifice stuff should be in there; right now, the length of that section is giving undue weight to a fairly minor issue in Minoan studies. The "pax minoica" stuff should also be a sub-article; all of this should be done according to summary style, leaving summaries of the sub-articles in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Perseus Project

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0165

The original by Plato, which is a primary source.

Thus the sentence: "The Greek term Minoites was coined after Evans use" shall be deleted, and the Platonic text shall be included, the same way the Biblical text is included in the article.

Anyone who disagrees, please provide your primary sources.

The sentence (Greek: Minoikos Politismos) shall be reinstalled, anyone who disagrees, provide your sources, and not your original research. --Mimon 14:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mimon, you'd better read the no original research policy once more; Wikipedia relies upon secondary sources, not primary. In other words, we rely upon what modern scholars say about the Minoans, not Plato. If you want to include the notion that Plato and the ancient Greeks thought that the Minoans were a Greek people, you'll need to find support for this idea in modern scholarship, and I doubt you'll be able to do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


You better read what you are writing, because i have not written anywhere that the Minoans were Greek people, or please do show us, where i wrote such a thing.

Instead i added the quote from Plato , the same way that the mythic quote about the labyrinth is added and the quote from the Bible about Kaphtara, why did you delete Plato's quote?

Also i added the term Minos as presented in the Liddell & Scott Greek lexicon, and added the source as well, why did you delete that? Do you have another lexicon that presents the term in another language, maybe?

Why did you delete these 2 sources?

I shall revert back to the sources, unless you find the sources to be wrong or something. I did not add any comments in regards to the Greekness of the Minoans and i did not add any original research as you claim, i did not add anything to put it more simple. I only added sources as they are, nothing more nothing less. --Mimon 15:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You've already made a string of comments about the Greekness of the Minoans above, when you were editing as User:62.103.252.148, and you wrote: "We certainly are unable to write the culture was replaced by another, for the culture is very very similar, so similar that one can say identical for a) In language(decipherement of Linear A using the Linear B), b) In The pottery c) On the accounts of the Greeks that even consider Mino as their godlike ancestor who gave them their laws." You are arguing that Plato (and the Cretans of his time) recognized Minos as a Greek lawgiver and thought the Minoans were Greek. Since you haven't provided any secondary sources (i.e. modern scholarship) that backs up these ideas I'm reverting your edits as original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In the edit that you just edited: has anybody made in the article any such comments?

I do not see any.

Is there something else, that you would like to address? I ask you why did you delete the sources. I do not see any addition about the Greekness of the Minoans nor by myself not by anybody else, and i still await for the reason that you deleted the Liddel & Scott Lexicon, and Plato's quote? from the sources.

Will you answer the question? Or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mimon (talk • contribs).

If you didn't include those sources as a continuation of the argument you're making on this talk page, then they're simply irrelevant to the article. However, given that you've already claimed that the Minoans were Greek, it's easier to assume that you're including them to "prove" this fact. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Lol, given that i have wrote no such thing, you are only making assumptions.

These sources include quotes about Minos the term, since this article is about the Minoan Civilization, these sources, belong here. If you have any sources that cancel my sources, please provide them. And i hardly believe that you are in the position to decide what belongs and what does not belong in this article. The same way that the Biblical quote is there and the quote about the mythic labyrinth, the same way Plato's quote belongs in this article. Also the definition of the term Minos certainly belongs in the Minoan article for that is its definition, if you disagrre with the definition as provided by the sourced Liddell & Scott lexicon, then please provide another lexicon about the term Minos.--Mimon 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you didn't contribute as User:62.103.252.148? I find that very unlikely. I also don't see any "Biblical quote"; perhaps you can explain what you're referring to. At any rate, since we have no evidence for what the Minoans called themselves, and no evidence that they were Greeks, this speculation about the meaning and history of "Minos" and related terms is not relevant to this article; it may belong in Minos. I'm taking it out again; since you will no doubt disagree with this, let me recommend that instead of reverting back to your edit, you either A) find some modern scholarship that supports your arguments or B) get some input from other editors. Please note that other people have participated in the discussion on this talk page, and so far no one's agreed with your position. Also, you might want to make yourself familiar with the three-revert rule, if you haven't already. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


What the above user said or did is completely irrelevant, also your continuing assumptions are completely irrelevant. I added quotes, that are sourced, and i added no comments and no original research of any sort.

These quotes belong in here whether you like it or not. I will add them on the Minos article and i will also add them in here for they are relative.

The same way this text belongs here:

"The term "Minoan" was coined by the British archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans taking the name of the mythic "king" Minos. Minos was associated in myth with the labyrinth, which Evans identified as the site at Knossos. It is not known whether "Minos" was a personal name or a title. What the Minoans called themselves is unknown, although the Egyptian place name "Keftiu" (*kaftāw) and the Semitic "Kaftor" or "Caphtor" and "Kaptara" in the Mari archives apparently refers to the island of Crete. In the Odyssey which was composed after the destruction of the Minoan civilization, Homer calls the natives of Crete Eteocretans meaning, 'true Cretans'."

The same way the definition of the term Minoan and Plato's reference belong in here.

Your rejection shows that you have an ulterior motive of deleting anything that gives any relation to the Greeks. That is your problem, Wikipedia does not belong to you, dear Sir, nor can you decide what is relevant or not, especially without offering any reason.

The quotes belong here whether you like it or not. Or you can always state your reason for deleting them, if you keep on talking about the above user and his ulterior motives you simply prove your inability to address a very simple question.

Why do you delete sourced quotes that are relevant to the article? WHY?--Mimon 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you're denying that you contributed as User:62.103.252.148, even though your account was created on June 16 and you're continuing the IP's arguments. Regardless of what you say, it's quite clear that you edited as that IP.
As I've already explained, the material you want to include is irrelevant to the article. Bear in mind that the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that the Minoans were not Greeks, we don't know what language they spoke, and we don't know what they called themselves. Nevertheless, you insist ([1]) that the article start "The Minoan Civilization (Greek:: Μίνως)", as if "Μίνως" was the native language term for the Minoan civilization. You further insist on including a reference to Plato's Laws, in which the origin of the 5th century BC legal system on Crete is traced back to Minos. Apparently, you feel this reference is relevant because this shows that Cretan (i.e. Greek) laws can be traced back to Minoan society. Therefore (you apparently think), Minoans are Greeks. As I've already said many times, this is your interpretation of Plato (a primary source), and unless you can demonstrate that your opinion is shared by reputable scholarship, this is obvious original research, and cannot be included in the article. So please stop complaining that I haven't explained myself, I have, several times. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Akilleus is correct here: Plato (who flourished in the 5th century BC) is not a reliable source for the racial make-up and/or language of a people that lived over a thousand years before his time. semper fictilis 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


The reliability of Plato is another subject which is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is why should not his reference be added in the article? Why not? Is it relevant or is it not? Yes it is.

Also why does Akhilleus delete the term Minos which is sourced from the Liddell Scott lexicon?

Where exactly is Akhilleus correct?

Also Akhilleus, do not continue to make assumptions, because they are exactly that assumptions, and nothing else.

Will you offer a valid reason as to why you delete the references? Or will you keep assuming? --Mimon 21:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What you are trying to insert is incorrect. Modern archaeologists, historians, and linguists are agreed that Minoans were not Greek. They don't know quite what they were. But no one believes they are Greek. semper fictilis 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What am trying to insert is straight up lifted from the perseus project, a very valid, and scholarly source. I have not written anywhere that the Minoans were Greeks, nowhere, so i do not see why you keep on accusing of me doing so. What i am trying to insert is valid sources, scholarly material. The Greekness of the Minoans is another subject. The subject here is why should referenced scholarly sources should not be added? Why? --Mimon 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Since, none of the individuals that refute my sources have offered any valid reason as to why they are doing so, thus the material i simply cited will be added as they were before. If you find a reason that they should not, please provide it. Regards.--Mimon 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mimon, the reason has been explained to you; you are simply unwilling to accept the explanation. If you revert back to your version you'll be going against a consensus of editors and you'll be violating the three revert-rule, as well as Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. If for some reason you haven't read the no original research policy, please do so now. If you revert again, you may be blocked from editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason, tell us. You have not said anything. Why do you delete sources? WHY? This is not original research, and if it is, quote the passage that makes it be. I have not added any points as you claim and accuse me of, i have only cited sources, and you delete them without offering any reason as to why you do so. Say the reason.--Mimon 22:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is like hitting my head against a brick wall. Do you understand the difference between a primary and secondary source? Do you understand that when you cite Plato, you're citing a primary source?
At any rate, please note that you've been reported for your 3RR violation: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Mimon_reported_by_User:Akhilleus_.28Result:.29. If you self-revert (i.e., go back to this revision, you will not be in violation of the 3RR, so consider reverting your last edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The en occurred during LMIA (and LHI)

The en links to a disambiguation page. Which of the pages is actually meant?Gakrivas 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question. And what is LHI? the terms LMI, etc. is explained, but LH? Brando130 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's Late Helladic I--Helladic is the dating system used for the Bronze Age on the Greek mainland. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it must be an old vandalism that no one has caught. Most likely, the "en" was probably the Thera eruption, I would imagine...but I'm not changing it in case I am wrong. :) 70.20.228.140 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bull Leaping

Does anyone else think the bull-leaping section is a little excessive? It seems to me to have fallen prey to the usual flights of fancy that seems to effect people wherever the Minoans are concerned. I mean, the pictures are kind of vague, and while there has been a lot of interpretation of them, a lot of it seems to be mostly unsubstantiated (due to the lack of evidence, etc). For example, I remember a discussion in a seminar on bull leaping that bulls do not toss their heads up like the article assumes they do (the placing of hands on the sacred horns to be vaulted up etc etc etc). Any thoughts? Novium (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg

hey guys, this image clearly represents a Minoan woman, it was shot at Akrotiri, why then is it linked to Phoenicia? need expert opinion if anyone can help. ;) Eli+ 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the people who researched and published the book "Phoenicians: Lebanon's Epic Heritage" disagree with your controversial opinion to the extend that they feature it on the front cover of their book.[2] That is why it is linked to Phoenicia. ;} - Gennarous (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Because a New Age writer of self-published books (the only books published by his publisher are his) says so we should believe him? See the amazon.com review that says "On the cover of this book is a detail from one of the frescoes found on the Greek, Aegean island of Thera (Santorini). This site was destroyed by a volcanic eruption in 1623 BC. It is not "Phoenician", or Lebanese!
On Thera, scenes/decorations depicted on wall frescoes are replicated on the daggers which have been found in the shaft graves of the Greek mainland city of Mycenae. Indeed, the same type of dagger has been found on Thera. Ships depicted on one of the frescoes on Thera are identical to ships depicted on signet rings, as per examples from graves on the Greek mainland site of Tyrins. Boar's tusk helmets depicted on another fresco at Thera are attested to on the entire Greek mainland as well as on Krete and are described in great detail as being worn by the Greeks besieging Troy in Homer's Iliad. A lady depicted on an adjacent fresco to the one pictured on the cover wears ear rings identical to those which are found in another of the shaft graves at Mycenae. The writing of Mycenaeans, known as "Linear B", was translated in 1954 by the Englishman Michael Ventris: it is Greek & dates to the 15th century BC. How do Mycenaean/Greek motifs come to be used as illustrating the world of Lebanese/Phoenicians? This book is propaganda. You don't have to go beyond the front cover to realise this.
The book itself is not a scholarly publication. --Doug Weller (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thank you Doug Eli+ 17:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibalism

Evidence of cannibalism in the Minoan civilization should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? What sources are there? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a show on PBS called Secrets of the Dead which talked about the demise of the Minoans. They mention that Human remains were ritually chopped up and scraped in a manner that is in accordance with cannibalism.

http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/15.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/?p=61

http://books.google.com/books?id=rg4rTjo0OCQC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=cannibalism+knossos&source=web&ots=XBurQG0rZ_&sig=6TpC7LfLmhbZ7UWPpf5q8Jx6AFg&hl=en#PPA93,M1

(The book source says the Minoans were destroyed by the Mycenaeans, dispite plenty of evidence that the Minoans were already decimated by a tsunami. It's a glorified travel guide, so have your grain of salt handy.)72.78.23.7 (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There should already be a bit in there about human sacrifice and cannibalism, mostly based off site reports. Well, that and the national geographic article about a site (which the excavators never bothered to write up and publish). grrr. Novium (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minoan History Link Suggestion

Lost History-The Search for Minoan CannibalismTokarski21 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration

Surely there should be at least some reference to the 'restoration' of Minoan fresco's and architecture by Evans? It makes me wince to see the images presented on the page as truly representative of Minoan art without even a qualifying Restored Fresco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.144.69 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)