The Frescoes from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos: A Reconsideration of their Architectural Context and a New Reconstruction of the Crocus Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discovered in 1923 during excavations led by Duncan Mackenzie, the frescoes were found in a deposit in Space E on the ground floor of the building. Subsequent publication of the Monkeys and Birds Fresco suggested that the composition originally decorated a room on an upper floor of the House of the Frescoes. Shaw's close reading of the original excavation reports written by Mackenzie, however, yields no evidence for an upper storey. Shaw's review of the archaeological evidence and architectural comparanda suggests further that the House of the Frescoes may have been one-storied and that Room H-3 is the most likely candidate for frescoed decoration. Part Two, undertaken primarily by Chapin, publishes a new reconstruction of the Crocus Panel that incorporates 14 previously unpublished fresco fragments in addition to the 14 fragments previously attributed to the composition. Stylistic and iconographic associations confirm the distribution of red-flowered crocuses, undulating bands, and an olive tree, but evidence for the attribution of two agrimia and blue-flowered crocuses remains weak. Detailed stylistic and iconographic analysis places the Crocus Panel within the Neopalatial tradition of wall painting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".