Minoan Crete has been the subject of intense and constant study by archaeologists since its emergence from myth to archaeological reality at the beginning of the century. Yet there is still enormous controversy even over such fundamental details as who the Minoans were and what language they spoke. No written historical records from the time survive (or if they do. they have not yet been deciphered) so almost everything we know is deduced from physical remains, fleshed out somewhat by writings from Classical Greece, almost one thousand years after the destruction of Knossos.

Nevertheless it is not hard to forge some kind of consensus from the theories about the Minoans, and this is what is set out below: fresh discoveries may yet radically change this view. One of the central arguments is over dating. The original system, conceived by Sir Arthur Evans, divided the period into Early, Middle and Late Minoan, with each of these again divided into three sub-periods - a sequence that has become extremely complicated and cumbersome as it has been further qualified and sub-divided. Arcane distinctions between the pottery styles of Early Minoan lIa and lIb have no place in a brief history and used here is a simpler system (following the archaeologist Nikolaos Ptaton) of four periods: pre-palatial, proto-palatial or First Palace, neo-palatial or New Palace, and post- palatial.