You are on page 1of 270

1

THE DARK AGE OF GREECE
by

Immanuel Velikovsky

www.varchive.org/dag/index.htm

2

A Technical Note
I have been asked by the compliers of the Velikovsky archive to briefly explain the present condition of Velikovsky’s unpublished manuscript entitled The Dark Age of Greece. Velikovsky worked on the manuscript of The Dark Age of Greece fairly intensively during the last years of his life, drawing in part on the library research of Edwin Schorr, a graduate student at the University of Cincinnati, whom he employed for this pupose in Princeton for several summers in a row in the midseventies. Readers of Pensée know Schorr under his nom de plume Israel M. Isaacson, which he used to protect himself from the wrath of his professors at Cincinnati. At the time that I began to work for Velikovsky in 1976, the manuscript was still “work in progress.” While Velikovsky was writing and rewriting the main text, my task was to annotate the material, drawing in part on the voluminous notes and photocopies of articles prepared by Schorr and partly on my own research. In addition, Velikovsky and I co-authored certain sections; others, written solely by me, were to have been included in a supplement to the book. Subsequent to 1980, pursuant to Elisheva Velikovsky’s wishes, I moved some of these contributions from the main text into footnotes and removed the rest from the manuscript altogether. Several of them were published in Kronos VIII.2 in 1983. Another planned supplement to The Dark Age of Greece was to have been Edwin Schorr’s work on Mycenae, Applying the Revised Chronology. This detailed study on the archeology of Mycenae was commissioned by Velikovsky and written specifically for this purpose. Although incomplete, it is an impressive work of scholarship that deserves publication. Jan Sammer

In this edition Jan Sammer’s annotations are distinguished from Velikovsky’s text by being placed in square brackets and displayed in red letters. All such annotations should be understood as being by Jan Sammer, unless marked with the initials EMS, in which case they are by Edwin Schorr. In conformity with reliable information we have received with respect to Velikovsky’s plan for the book, we have included Schorr’s and Sammer’s work as a supplement to The Dark Age of Greece. The Editors

3

PREFACE
The task of my few words is to ask prominent scholars to reconsider their opinions about the dark age of Greece in the light of Velikovsky’s present book. My personal difficulty is mainly caused by the fact that a short preface cannot be a scholarly treatise and therefore it is impossible to ask here all the questions which arise when Velikovsky’s theory is applied to our special problem. And as I am not an archaeologist, but a Greek scholar, I am not able to control how far Velikovsky is right in questions of stratigraphy. Here I depend on his quotations of archaeological reports and it is not possible for me to decide how far his selection of passages from these reports is subjective. My difficulty is that now I have to accept the view that the period of Geometric style overlaps, at least partially, the Mycenaean and Minoan period. This is new for me, but I admit that it is not impossible that two different artistic approaches can exist at the same time. But the most important problem in connection with the present book is how far this theory is dictated by the whole of Velikovsky’s chronological system and how far his results in the present study are valid independently from it. Velikovsky puts the “true time of the events recounted in the Iliad in the second half of the eighth century and the beginning of the seventh. . . . The time in which the drama of the Iliad was set was -687; yet the poet condensed the events of more than one year into the tenth year of the Trojan siege, the time of the Iliad’s action.” Velikovsky came to this date because he identified the description of the battle between the gods in the Iliad with a cosmic catastrophe. His date for the conquest of Troy is unusually late. As Homer had to live after the events he describes, the space of the time between Homer and the classical Greek literature seems to me personally to be too short. But the main question is about the interrelation between Velikovsky’s chronological system and the single historical facts. Or in other words: does this system solve the concrete difficulties in our approach to ancient history? The present book tries to solve such a serious problem, namely, does the so-called dark age of Greece really exist? Is the supposed span between Mycenae and classical Greece too long? Are we not in this case victim of a false Egyptian chronology, which was invented by Egyptian patriots in order to show that the Greeks were in comparison with the Egyptians mere children? Was the history of Egypt in reality much shorter than it is supposed today? If this could be shown, then the problem of the dark age of Greece would disappear. Only open-minded specialists can reject or accept Velikovsky’s solutions. One thing is clear: the new book treats a real problem. It was not its author who created it. The whole complex of questions was re-opened by the decipherment of the Linear B script, when it was definitely shown that the Mycenaeans were Greeks, speaking a language which was an older stage of the linguistic substrate of the Iliad and Odyssey. It is a merit of the new book that it offers an original solution for a real problem. Will there be a sufficient number of good specialists who are prepared to wrestle with the proposed solution? Prof. David Flusser Hebrew University

4

The Reconstruction of Ancient History
The history of the ancient East is an interwoven nexus, embracing Egypt, Israel, Syria and Mesopotamia, known also as the Biblical lands. The interconnections extend to Asia Minor, to Mycenaean Greece, and to the Mediterranean islands— Cyprus, Crete, and the Aegean archipelago. The histories of many of these nations are, for most of their existence, devoid of absolute dates and depend on interrelations with other nations. The chronologies of the Mycenaean civilization in Greece and of the Minoan civilization on Crete are built upon contacts with Egypt, for Egypt’s chronology is considered reliable. In turn, the widespread Mycenaean and Minoan contacts and influences found in the archaeological sites of many countries are distributed on the scale of time by detailed study of Mycenaean and Minoan pottery and its development. This pottery is found in countries as far apart as Italy and the Danubian region. Egyptian History Although Egypt’s chronology is used to determine the dates of other cultures, Egypt had no written account of its history, and the earliest surviving effort to put its past into a narrative is from the pen of Herodotus of the mid-fifth century before the present era, regarded by modern historians as largely unreliable.1 Though various king-lists from earlier times have been preserved, it is the list of Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Hellenistic times, (third pre-Christian century) that served the historiographers as the basis for making a narrative out of the Egyptian past. The names read on monuments were equated, often by trial and error, with Manethonian dynasties and kings. The mathematics of history, it was agreed, could not be entrusted to Manetho, and is largely borrowed from the sixteenth-century European chronographers, notably Joseph Scaliger, and his sixteenth- and seventeenth-century emulators Seth Calvisius and others,2 who dated in the same tables also various mythological motifs, such as the scandals among the Olympian gods or Heracles’ heroic exploits. With the reading of the Egyptian hieroglyphs achieved in the nineteenth century, some selected dates of Scaliger were used by Lepsius (1810-84) to date the monuments and thus the reigns of the kings of Egypt whose names were on the monuments. Lepsius was, for instance, of the view that Ramses II was the pharaoh of the Exodus—and thus Biblical history, too, was drawn into a comprehensive scheme on which other histories could find their first foothold. Such was also the case with “Hittite” history because of a peace treaty of Ramses II with one of the

Chronicles. and made a complete circle in 365 x 4 = 1460 years. the historical past was twice interrupted for centuries when the land fell into neglect. the latest of these coinciding with the beginning of the age of the Patriarchs which ends with the migration of the fourth generation to Egypt because of drought in Canaan. With the decipherment of the multitudinous Egyptian texts. and Prophets and the post-Babylonian period in the books Nehemiah. Each king counted the years from his coronation—Egypt had no continuous timetable. The historical events until the Exile to Babylon are further narrated in the books of Joshua. It was known that the Egyptian civil year consisted of 365 days. The First Intermediate Period intervened between the epochs that received the names of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. most notably by trying to ascertain the length of the years of a king. a few references to a star spdt were found. Biot and others decided that astronomical calendric calculations could be used to ascertain the dates of the Egyptian dynasties. Archaeological work in Egypt showed that besides the so-called pre-dynastic times.5 Hittite kings (Hattusilis). Hebrew History Hebrew history has a narrative that consists of the book of Genesis—the history of the world in which catastrophic events (the Deluge. usually relying on the highest year of his reign found recorded on monuments. . the Second Intermediate Period between the Middle and New Kingdoms.” This made it possible to build a chronology of Egypt around the few dates so fixed—and much work was spent in such an effort. Kings. refinement could be achieved in various ways. Following a sojourn in Egypt. With this as a basis. events could be dated within the 1460-year-long “Sothic cycle. from which the data are incomplete. the New Kingdom consists of the Manethonian dynasties Eighteen. and of the later prophets. This part of the history is considered largely legendary. Astronomical Dating3 Even before Young and Champollion first read the hieroglyphic texts in the 1820s. or the number of years allotted to dynasties and kings. Judges. the Exodus—the subject of the other four books of the Pentateuch—inaugurates the historical period. approximately a quarter of a day short of the true sidereal year. was soon disregarded. Thus the calendric dates of the Egyptians would gradually have fallen out of their proper place in relation to the seasons. Nineteen and Twenty— what follows is called the Late Kingdom. and were interpreted as recording the heliacal4 rising of the southern fixed star Sirius—and if from monuments it could also be learned in which months and on what day the star rose heliacally. Ezra. in Egyptian texts no reference to calculating by Sothic observations was ever found. the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) come to the fore. the overturning of the Tower of Babel. However. Manethonian mathematics.

others under Amenhotep III or his heir Akhnaton of the same dynasty (the time of the el-Amarna correspondence).6 Many non-Scriptural books with varying degrees of historical veracity add and take over where the Old Testament ceases its narrative. they disagree among themselves. the date was still centuries earlier than the earliest considered dates for the Exodus on the Egyptian time-scale. not yet deciding whether the Egyptian history would need extirpation of “ghost centuries” or the Israelite history extension by the insertion of “lost centuries. in leveling the two histories by synchronizing the end of the Middle Kingdom and the Exodus. during the Egyptian New Kingdom. with the Amalekites that the Israelites met on their flight from Egypt. supposedly in the first quarter of the twelfth century). accompanied by hurricanes and followed by a disruption of the sea. some placing the Exodus under Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty. the Jewish historian of the days of Emperor Vespasian. the collapse of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt on the eve of its being overrun by the Hyksos. of vermin. and equally so for the rest of their histories. Additional data I found in an inscription carved on a stone shrine found at el-Arish on the Egyptian-Palestinian frontier. by volcanic phenomena in the desert and then by the prolonged “Shadow of Death” of the years of wandering. I looked for similar descriptions in Egyptian literary relics and found them in a papyrus ascribed to a certain Ipuwer. prostrated as it was by the natural disaster described in the Ipuwer Papyrus. namely. Taking the latest possible date for the events described in the papyrus Ipuwer. that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt took place after the Second Intermediate period. However. whether at its very beginning or several generations later. an eyewitness and survivor of the events. to trace contemporaneity also in subsequent generations. If the parallels in texts elucidated by me are not a matter of coincidence. down to the time of Alexander of Macedon. The autochthonous Arab sources. some placing it under Ramses II or Merneptah of the Nineteenth Dynasty (“Israel Stele” ). The Revised Chronology My approach to the problem of the synchronization of ancient histories took the following form. then the test would be in whether it would be possible. Upon realizing that the Exodus was preceded and accompanied by natural disturbances described as plagues of darkness. and some as late as the Twentieth Dynasty (after Ramses III repelled the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea. of earthquake. as .” The next clue in my work of reconstruction was in equating the Asiatic Hyksos (called Amu by the Egyptians) that overran Egypt. So many various dates for the Exodus—a point that connects the Hebrew and the Egyptian histories— could be contemplated because these two histories as they are usually taught are remarkably out of contact for the entire length of the New Kingdom. It was agreed since the days of Josephus Flavius.

the Egyptian and the Israelite. while tidal waves swept other tribes from their lands. his marshal Joab invaded Arabia. which of the two histories would require readjustment—is the Israelite history in need of finding lost centuries. I could establish that this queen came to Jerusalem and had reliefs depicting her journey to the Divine Land carved on the walls of her temple at Deir el-Bahari. He was further shown to be the alter ego of the Scriptural Zerah. only to be pursued to the Sinai Desert. In Hebrew history and legend she lives as the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon. who captured the capital of the Amalekites (el-Arish being the ancient Hyksos capital Avaris) put an end to the Amalekite-Hyksos domination from Mesopotamia to Egypt. I could establish that the period of the Judges. .7 preserved by medieval Moslem historians. whose enterprise started similarly and ended identically. sack the palace and temple of Jerusalem. and events. Was it ca. Amenhotep II was identified with the king whom an ancient epic poem portrayed as leading an enormous army against the city of Ugarit. and the numerous letters on the clay tablets of the elAmarna archive present a perfect ground for comparison as to persons. was the time of the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and that Saul. the time the Biblical scholars would assign to Saul’s capture of the Amalekite fortress. names. Did Jehoshaphat and his generals and Ahab and his adversaries in Damascus exchange letters with Amenhotep III and his heir Akhnaton across the centuries? At first we left the problem open. The last three chapters of the first volume of Ages in Chaos deal with the el-Amarna correspondence. evicted from the Hedjaz by plagues of earthquakes and vermin. In Egypt the Eighteenth Dynasty came into existence. The furnishings of the Temple. or ca. the former is out of step with historical reality by over five centuries. Scores of identifications and parallels are brought forth. The next generation saw Thutmose III invade Judea. It so happened that the books of Kings and Chronicles are especially rich in many details of the events that took place under these kings. thus inaugurating the New Kingdom. or does the Egyptian history require excision of ghost centuries? Soon it became a matter of certainty that of the two timetables. the time the Egyptologists would place the fall of Avaris? King David fought the remnants of the Amalekites. while Amenhotep I ruled in Egypt. carried away by Thutmose. -1030. were depicted by him on a temple wall in Karnak. These depictions match the Biblical record of some of the Temple furnishings. refer to a several-centuries-prolonged occupation of Egypt by the Amalekites. places. when the population was oppressed by the Amalekites and Midianites. 1580. and impose a tribute on the now-divided country. Solomon accordingly had to be a contemporary of Thutmose I and of Hatshepsut. if the reconstruction is correct then the time in Judah must be that of King Jehoshaphat and in Israel of King Ahab.

and Hellenistic. the five centuries of the Dark Age are inserted between the Helladic and the Hellenic or. The Mycenaean Age in Greece and the contemporary and partly preceding Minoan Age on Crete have no chronologies of their own and depend on correlations with Egypt. thus providing a link between Mycenaean history and the established Egyptian chronology. Mycenaean ware was also ascribed to the same period. Thus the shortening of Egyptian history by the elimination of phantom centuries must have as a consequence the shortening of Mycenaean-Greek history by the same length of time. The Greek Past The theme pursued in this volume is the basic design of Greek history—the passage of the Mycenaean civilization and the intervening Dark Age of five centuries duration before the Hellenic or historical age starts ca. as just said. in other nomenclature. -700 to the conquest of the East by Alexander of Macedon. this was the beginning of the Hellenistic Age. 700 years before the present era.” At this point five centuries of dark ages are inserted into Greek history.8 A chronology with centuries that never occurred made necessary the introduction of “Dark Ages” between the Mycenaean and the Hellenic periods in Greece. It ends not long after the conquest of Troy. Objects inscribed with the names of Amenhotep II. Then excavations at el-Amarna in Egypt established the presence of Mycenaean ware in Akhnaton’s short-lived city.” Since Akhnaton’s capital existed for only about a decade and a half. and stretches from ca. and the Indus (-331 to -327). were like a calendar leaf. Such quantities of Mycenaean ware came to light in the course of the excavations that a street in el-Amarna was dubbed “Greek Street. the Euphrates. Greek antiquity is conventionally divided into three periods—Helladic. Athens of the Hellenic. a very precise dating for the Mycenaean ware could be evinced. and Alexandria of the Hellenistic. This structure of the Greek past is subjected to a reexamination as to the historicity of the Dark Age. regularly put about -1200. The first and most important consequence was a radical recasting of Greek history. found at Mycenae. the culture of Greece was spread through the Orient and was itself modified by oriental elements. Mycenae can be regarded as the cultural center of the Late Helladic period. The Helladic period in its later subdivision comprises the Mycenaean civilization. It was therefore concluded that the Mycenaean civilization was at its apogee in the days of Amenhotep III and Akhnaton of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty. With his march toward the Nile. Since Akhnaton’s conventional date was the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries before the present era. Hellenic. By . Amenhotep III and Queen Tiy of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The Hellenic period embraces the Ionian and classical ages. following the Mycenaean and preceding the Ionian ages. Its last generation is dubbed “the Heroic Age. In this scheme.

usually termed “dark ages. If Akhnaton flourished in -840 and not in -1380. but beyond that. more in the nature of a lacuna. and the Late Mycenaean period would accordingly move forward by about half a thousand years on the scale of time. in no place did it create such discomfort as in Hellenic history. As we shall read on a later page. There it is an inveterate problem that dominates the so-called Homeric question: The historical period in Greece. events in the histories of the peoples of the ancient world coincide all along the centuries. a sudden sunrise with no predawn light in a previously profoundly dark world. with the sun starting its day at zenith—from almost five hundred years that divide the end of the Mycenaean Age from the Hellenic Age. Chaldeans. with the fall of the Middle Kingdom and the Exodus synchronized. There existed tenacious memories of the time of the tyrants who ruled in the late eighth and seventh centuries. of exquisite rhythm. and finally with those of the Greeks. of a grandeur unsurpassed in world literature. Against this set-up the Homeric Question grew to ever greater proportions. The years in between are without history on Greek soil. Thus by the 1890s the Hellenists were coerced by the evidence presented by the Egyptologists to introduce five centuries of darkness between the end of the Mycenaean Age and the beginning of the Hellenic. The Greek or Hellenic time does not start until about 700. the Mycenaean civilization would have run its course. In Volume I of Ages in Chaos it was shown in great detail why Akhnaton of the Eighteenth Dynasty must be placed in the latter part of the ninth century. Yet independently of the results attained in Ages in Chaos. In the light of—or better to say—in the darkness of the Homeric problem. of perfect form. not a single inscription or written word survived.5 In Ages in Chaos we have seen that. Assyrians. there was some consternation on the part of classical scholars when first the fact dawned on them that between the Mycenaean age and the historical Greek time there was a span. there was complete darkness.9 the end of the twelfth century before the present era. of several centuries’ duration. we will try to . In the end they accepted the Egyptian plan as being valid for Greece—still without having investigated the evidence on which the claim of the Egyptologists was founded. the problem of blank centuries. with a resulting correspondence which denotes synchronism. Although the enigma of “dark centuries” reappears in many countries of the ancient East. For a space of over one thousand years records of Egyptian history have been compared with the records of the Hebrews. is ushered in by the sudden and bright light of a literary creation—the Homeric epics. the ceramics from Mycenae found in the palace of Akhnaton are younger by five or six hundred years than they are presumed to be. the Hellenic Age.” increasingly claims the attention of archaeologists and historians.

(New York. II (Bucuresti. we should return to the problem of the deciphered Linear B script. one built on the evidence of Greece itself. thus instead of any new discovery reducing the question to smaller confines. 1912)] 2. References 1. 1977). By heliacal rising is meant the first appearance of a star after invisibility due to conjunction with the sun.” Supplement to Peoples of the Sea. first published in Pensée IVR IV (1973). and having done this. See my essay. They wrote long before the Egyptian hieroglyphics were deciphered. the other on relations with Egypt. London.” cited above.10 orient ourselves by scanning some early chapters of Greek archaeology. Ion Ghica. 4. every subsequent discovery enlarged the confines and decreased the chances of finding a solution. 5. Two timetables are applied simultaneously to the past of Greece. [Cf. “Astronomy and Chronology. 3. See my “Astronomy and Chronology. . vol. Istoriile lui Erodot.

11 CHAPTER I: THE HOMERIC QUESTION .

Aeschylus. which preceded the Trojan War by several decades. had an inexhaustible store of themes to draw upon. These legends lived in Greek lore. Yet of Mycenae and of her heroes such a treasure of legend is preserved in Greek lore that some of the heroes of that kingdom in the Argive plain and their contemporaries are more familiar to us than leaders of other races and other times much more recent. Greece had another civilization. Ask oblivion! “They had no poet. Heroes of other times and nations are too often not known at all. Rampant stone lions in relief crown the gate of Mycenae. it spread over Greece and over the Helladic islands. Achilles. centered on the island of Crete to the south. Nestor. and about the sign in favor of Atreus that was seen in the sun retracing its course. and Odysseus are better remembered and more widely known than most of the military leaders of the great wars of our own century. Sophocles. by continuing to the south. Agamemnon. Inside the gate. crosses the Corinthian Isthmus and. Their names were . brothers who quarreled over the throne. immediately to the right. the so-called Minoan. There is hardly any problem in the entire history of literature that occupies the minds of scholars as much as the origin of the Homeric epics—the Iliad and the Odyssey—especially the question as to the time of their origin. The place is deserted. and gold and jewels—but no history known to modern man. It centered at Mycenae. called also the Ionian or Hellenic Age. Agamemnon and Menelaus were sons of Atreus. He follows the rocky road uphill and reaches the fortification wall of the ancient citadel.”1 This is said not just of heroes but of whole civilizations. the scene of some of the most celebrated events of the human past. The world of these legends. . cruel and heroic and treacherous. Before the historical age of Greece started. he is shown the shaft graves of the ancient kings. and they died. It was closely contemporaneous with the last phase of another civilization. and rich relics—pottery of exquisite forms. and Greek tragic poets of the fifth century. occupied the fantasy of the Greeks. and legends were told about Atreus and Thyestes. and Euripides. These two great cultures left cities and palaces. king of Mycenae. no village occupies the site. . vestiges of it were found in many places of the ancient world. ruined and deserted. Menelaus.12 The Setting of the Stage A traveller afoot. and on the Argonaut expedition to Colchis on the Caucasian coast of the Black Sea. Resting at the gate. may arrive at Mycenae before the sunset of the second day. steadily on the road. the traveller has before him the Argive plain. marching from Athens westward. Another cycle of legends centered on Thebes in Boeotia. .

but had nothing to commend them. The Odyssey tells of the long wanderings of Odysseus. Virgil’s Aeneid. the Trojan War was the main event of the past. he shows a very great knowledge of that time—yet he knew the world of the seventh century. on the Aegean shore of Turkey. one of the heroes of that siege. competing in this with the exploits of Alexander of Macedon. Chios. an adventurer with rich imagination. after proclaiming that he would find Troy there. then through the Middle Ages. a war expedition in which many leaders. a low hill near the Dardanelles. Several apocryphal writings pretending to tell something of him were composed in Greece. or a succession of wandering poets. kings of cities in Greece. and sometimes it is also argued that there was no historical siege of Troy and that the story of the war is but the poet’s creation. ruled by King Priam. all and sundry. and many other poets followed in the path of the ancient bard. one of the defenders of Troy. who as a cabin boy went on a merchant ship bound for America that suffered shipwreck. Salamis. Having grown rich through the years of adventures. through the age of the Roman Empire. But in the nineteenth century. Beyond this the tradition is very meager as to the personality of the poet and the events of his life. However in the 1870s the skeptics were confounded by Heinrich Schliemann. took part. Among the early authors Aeschylus. Colophon. Many Greek and Latin authors referred to it. Through the classical period of Greece. Among the cities and islands that claimed to have been his birthplace were Smyrna. though their source was invariably Homer. Sophocles and Euripides wrote cycles of tragedies dealing with the personalities of the Homeric epics and with their families.2 he was a clerk in Holland. When did he live and create? In his great epics he described the Mycenaean world which supposedly ended almost five centuries before him. Schliemann went to Hissarlik. Tradition has it that Homer was a blind bard who lived and wandered on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. Rhodes. Argos.13 The Iliad tells of the events of the final stage of the siege of Troy by the host of the Achaeans under Agamemnon. and the capture of a fortress named Ilion or Troy. each of whom added of his inspiration to the epics. on his circuitous way home. king of Mycenae. Schliemann’s advance .” the view prevailed that the Trojan War was part of the imagery of a poet and Troy itself had never existed. for whom Achilles of the Iliad served as the model. There are those who argue that the author of the Iliad and Odyssey was not one man but a group of bards. in the “age of reasonableness” that followed the “age of reason. Petersburg. is famed as emulation of Homer’s Odyssey. an importer in St. and Athens. telling the story of the peregrinations of Aeneas. could not be easily relegated. However. to the domain of fancy. through the Hellenistic age that followed. a man not to miss the California goldrush. The Odyssey appears to be just a story of fancy. too.

” the leader of the Achaeans at the siege of Troy. If anything. in the Argive plain. and Queen Tiy. still later as Troy VIIa. but he did not come to terms with the owners of the land. one beneath the other. having obtained a concession. One scholar announced that the find and its treasures date from the Byzantine age (first millennium A. At the beginning of this century Arthur Evans.14 public announcement as to his intent to discover Troy was met partly with disbelief and sarcasm. but mostly with indifference. but in time the royal graves came to be accepted for what they were—of an era preceding the historical period in Greece—however not of Agamemnon and his house who supposedly lived in the thirteenth or early twelfth century. gold vessels with oriental designs. How was this figured out? In the buildings and tombs of Mycenae cartouches of Amenhotep II. Soon he cabled to King George of the Hellenes that he had opened the grave of his predecessor among the five large shaft tombs which he discovered hewn in rock. He dug. In 1876 Schliemann. Schliemann was wrong again in his identification. Amenhotep III. but of an age several centuries earlier.D). the Minoan civilization appeared as the dominant of the two. Later tablets with the Linear B script were found in large . The Minoan civilization could be traced to various stages separated by definite interruptions—Early Minoan. The age of these pharaohs in the conventional timetable belongs to the first half of the fourteenth century.3 He identified the second city from the bottom as the Troy of which Homer sang: it was a fortress. for which he made a bargain offer. seemingly destroyed in a violent earthquake. but right in the main: here were for all to see rich relics of the Mycenaean civilization. went to the Argive plain in Greece. and pottery. All kinds of voices were now heard. with gold crowns and gold masks and much jewelry. and Late Minoan—and it was the Late Minoan age that ran parallel with the Mycenaean age.5 and in Akhnaton’s shortlived city Akhetaton. destroyed much valuable material and disturbed some of the archaeological sequence. called by him Linear A and Linear B. On Crete Evans also found tablets with incised signs of two scripts. strong and rich in treasures. and next intended to dig on Crete. but he discovered beneath the mound of Hissarlik the remains of seven cities. with the skeletons of their occupants. now crowned with success. a silent world of bygone days. wife of Amenhotep III and mother of Akhnaton were found. to Mycenae. Schliemann made further diggings at Tiryns. deposits of typical Mycenaean pottery were unearthed. It was Evans’ excavations on Crete that established the contemporaneity of Mycenaean ware with that of the Late Minoan period.4 Later scholars identified King Priam’s city as the sixth from the bottom. dug at Knossos on Crete and brought to light the Minoan civilization—palaces and frescoes and paved courts. to locate the tomb of Agamemnon. “king of men. Middle Minoan.

1875) Schliemann distinguished four cities. Don Marquis. 5. p. and still later they were deciphered.15 numbers at Pylos and at other ruined cities on the Greek mainland. Blegen ascribed the destruction to a human foe. This is the view of C. S. 1880) he recognized seven. D. In his later autobiography he exposes his letter-report as more fantasy than truth. Of this shipwreck Schliemann wrote to his sisters in Hanover an exciting account of miraculous escape from death. A. pp. 1930). C. . References 1. J. Schaeffer. 2. 1948). F. 4. argued in his Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de l’Asie occidentale (IIIe et IIe millenaires) (Oxford University Press. 53-57. In Troy and Its Remains (London. quoting Pope. 225. Aegyptiaca (Cambridge. The City and Country of the Trojans (London. But we are ahead of our story. Pendlebury. 3. in Ilios.

. B.” On the one hand.16 Why no Literary Relics from Five Centuries? The Dark Ages left no literary remains. Wace challenged this view. Now. with an intimate knowledge of a vanished civilization and no art of writing in between? Alan J. A society seems suddenly to have become illiterate. when it is admitted that the Greeks of the Late Bronze Age could read and write the Linear B Script. it is still believed by some that in the transition time. Bowra in his book Homer and His Forerunners puts the problem in straight terms: There is no evidence whatsoever that the Mycenaean script continued anywhere in Greece after c. this is surely not an accident. “the Homeric poems contain material which is older than 1200. at the close of the Bronze Age and in the early period of the ensuing Iron Age. the Greeks forgot how to read and write until about the eighth century when they adapted the Phoenician alphabet. and in his preface to Ventris’ and Chadwick’s Documents in Mycenaean Greek (1956) wrote that future discoveries and study would “undoubtedly make clear” whether the Dark Age was really dark: The orthodox view of classical archaeologists is that there was a ‘Dark Age’ when all culture in Greece declined to barbarism. Even now.” Is this not an impasse—the poet separated from his subject by almost five centuries.1 Bowra expresses his wonder at “this astounding state of affairs. This is undeniably a most remarkable phenomenon. since this suits both the latest datable elements in his details and his general outlook.2 . 1200. when the new and totally different Greek alphabet makes its first appearance.” It “undermines any hope that the transmission of heroic poetry was maintained by a succession of written texts from the time of the Trojan War.” On the other hand. Bowra states his conviction that we can be “reasonably confident that Homer worked in the latter part of the eighth century. It is incredible that a people as intelligent as the Greeks should have forgotten how to read and write once they had learned how to do so. for which it is hard to find either a parallel or an explanation. and to have remained so for centuries. There is no trace of writing of any kind in the sub-Mycenaean and Protogeometric periods. the Age of Bronze to that of Iron. or indeed before the middle of the eighth century. . How and why this happened we do not know. M. not even a single word on a sherd or a few characters on a clay tablet. but not one has been found. A single scratched letter from this period would be enough to show that writing survived.

J.C. The Iliad preserves facts about the Trojans which could not have been known to anybody after the fall of Troy VIIa. what is the testimony? “. 1955) pp. Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics). L. 120. the Greeks forgot how to read and write” refers to almost every classicist who agrees that the Dark Age left no written record because none was written. . “The Linear Scripts” in The Cambridge Ancient History. . . 3.17 Then where are the documents. Page in History and the Homeric Iliad. p. d’A. 5. “and no reason whatever to assume that the art of writing was practiced in Greece between the end of the Mycenaean era and the eighth century B. .. 1959) p. . Jeffrey convincingly disputes the “perishables” theory. 26. V. (Berkeley.. vol. . Sir Maurice Bowra. some fortunate discovery will possibly one day reveal them to us. 321.”5 Then back to the question one hundred pages earlier: “How did the truth survive through the Dark Ages into the Iliad?”6 References 1. p. the Greeks left writing on imperishable materials. 122. cf. 1961) p. 4. . ch. Letters or literary texts may well have been on wooden tablets or some form of parchment or even papyrus. Ibid. yet Denys Page and many other scholars state unequivocally that an accurate picture was somehow preserved. In the quoted passage the words “it is still believed by some that . The view that all writing during the Dark Ages was on perishable materials. 221. 1972) p. 2. as nothing was found in the preceding eighty years of excavation in Greece. Homer and His Forerunners (Edinburgh. . 6. R. Ibid. as well as on perishable ones. In The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford. xxviii.. . II. XIII (1971) p. P. Rhys Carpenter is among those who argue that an oral tradition stretching over centuries was not capable of preserving a detailed picture of Mycenaean Greece (Folk Tale. 1-2. none of which was found. The Greek Dark Ages (London.” writes Denys L.” A quarter century since this was written nothing has been found that would substantiate this hope. .”4 And one hundred pages later: “. 17. and again from the eighth century on. The contention that during the Dark Ages the Greeks wrote only on perishables does not carry weight. Chadwick. such as papyrus or wood. is thus rather difficult to uphold. In Mycenaean times. Ca. Desborough.3 “There is no scrap of evidence. such as baked clay or stone. H.

p. We are now in effect asking what happened at Troy during the Dark Ages of Greece. In Troy there is “silence profound and prolonged” as if time itself had stopped. now put by archaeologists ca.1 This observation of Denys Page.C. following that city’s destruction at the end of the Mycenaean Age? References 1. -1260. Now at last there is silence. A poet having composed the poems in the twelfth century would not be able to introduce into them innumerable references to the Iron Age in Greece and the post-Phrygian Age in Asia Minor of the seventh century. he could not have lived in the days of the Trojan War (or shortly thereafter) in the 12th century. it was argued. D. is in the nature of amazement: out of a mound covering a ruined place. p.”2 Thus not only did Homer know of the kingdom and people of Mycenae that were buried for centuries of the Dark Ages. but he knew also of the kingdom and people of Troy who. 1100-700 B. there was nothing on the surface of the mound that could disclose to the poet the many intricate details which he webbed into his epics. Vol. for the site is barren of deposits which might be referred to the period c. or by Blegen himself. The site of Troy was reoccupied late in the seventh century. But the same author stresses that “the Iliad preserves facts about the Trojans which could not have been known to anybody after the fall of Troy VIIa. but there was never yet a chapter left wholly blank. it enveloped Troy too. Page. and forgotten in the darkness of the Dark Ages. therefore. an archaeologist expects to extract stray objects that accumulated there in the space of centuries.: and this is the answer which we must accept—that there is nothing at Troy to fill the huge lacuna.” Antiquity. some chapters in the story were brief and obscure. . 31.18 Troy in the Dark Ages The Dark Age enveloped Greece. 2. Not one sherd of proto-geometric pottery is known to have been found at Troy—not by Schliemann. Professor of Greek at the University of Cambridge. were dead.. buried.C. too. Ibid. from the [beginning of] the 11th to the [end of the] 8th century B. but from the fall of Troy. 221. or by Doerpfeld. XXXIII (1959). Was the site of Troy alone in Asia Minor an archaeological void for five hundred years. profound and prolonged for 400 years. It is realized that Homer knew the scene of the Aegean coast of Asia Minor of the eighth and seventh centuries. until Homer’s time. For 2000 years men had left traces of their living there. “The Historical Sack of Troy.

especially on the plateau. the names of which are mentioned in the documents of the second half of the second millennium. “that until now in Central Anatolia not only no Phrygian.”2 Even after only a few decades of settlement a town should leave discernible relics for archaeologists. the repeatedly undertaken efforts to close the hiatus by relics of Phrygian art “cannot be harmonized with the results of archaeological study. According to Akurgal. but altogether no cultural remains of any people. like the Lycians and the Carians. The old nations of Asia Minor. are there possibly some vestiges of occupation by other peoples? “It is startling.” If there is no sign of Phrygian occupation for the period. in recent years important archaeological work was done . despite all industrious archaeological exploration of the last decades. but it comes from the pen of one of the foremost authorities on archaeology and art of Asia Minor. did not themselves leave any sign of their occupation of the country from before -750.” Nothing was left by any possible survivors of previous occupants. i. namely by Hittites.e. . are archaeologically. the early Iron Age. .” The huge land of Asia Minor for almost five centuries is historically and archaeologically void.1 “. seem to be quite irretrievably lost for us. . Asia Minor has no history for a period of close to five centuries. i. but the Phrygians. Certain scholars disagree with this verdict. . the period between 1200 and 750. and nothing by any people or tribe that could have supplanted them. usually under such circumstances potsherds or a few beads. None of the Phrygian finds and none of the oriental ones found with them can be dated earlier than the eighth century. first noticeable about 700 or later ..” “Such results compel us to exclude from the study of Asia Minor between 1200 and 750 any Phrygian presence and heritage. with their material heritage.” writes Akurgal. is enwrapped in darkness.19 The Dark Age in Asia Minor Like Greece and the Aegean. The cause of the interruption in the flow of history about 1200 is assumed to lie in some military conquest. Also on the rim of Asia Minor the darkness of the Dark Age is complete: “In the south of the peninsula. are found. too. . here. in Mersin. the period from 1200 to 750 for most parts of the Anatolian region lies still in complete darkness. came to light that could be dated in time between 1200 and 750. Ash and kitchen refuse are ubiquitous finds wherever there . Tarsus and Karatepe. Today [1961]. .. or a clay figurine.e. who are supposed to have been these conquerors. Hence the cultural remains of the time between 1200 and 750 in central Anatolia. Thus the explanation that the end of the Anatolian civilization about 1200 was due to the incursion of the Phrygians is not supported by archaeological finds. Professor Ekrem Akurgal of the University of Ankara.

his Phrygische Kunst (Ankara. p. Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander (Berlin. is hardly less than miraculous. actually a period of almost five hundred years. cf. . pp. References 1. Akurgal. p. 1955). not even tombs. 5-7.000 square miles in extent there should. 2. 1961). 112. as Akurgal claims. from a period counted not just by decades but by centuries. Ibid.. be found nothing. But that on an area over 250.7.20 was human habitation.

nor Thucydides. and in the interior of Asia Minor. tenth. but more than four centuries—is passed over in silence by Greek poets. he could hardly have omitted to refer in some direct or only indirect way to the more than four centuries of the Dark Age that separated him from the epic events he described. if only in passing? Neither Herodotus. as most scholars now believe. Hellenists and historians in general use the term Dark Age for the twelfth. or the period that lies between the Mycenaean and Archaic ages. nor the chronographers of the Renaissance. applied themselves to the illumination of the Dark centuries. nor literary remains. Homer displays a surprising knowledge of details no longer existent in the Greek world of his day: . are a creation of modern scholarship in Hellenic studies for the period from which we have neither history. much occupied with the Greek past. the latter being the opening of the Ionian period that in due course developed into the Classical period. Diodorus of Sicily or Pausanias in their voluminous writings have devoted as much as a single passage to the Dark Age—if there was one? Neither the Roman writers. is that no Greek historian. have a concept of a Dark Age for the period following the Trojan War and preceding the historical age in Greece. on the Aegean islands and shores.21 The Homeric Question The idea of a wide gap separating the Mycenaean Age from the historical age of Greece has gained almost universal acceptance since it was first advanced more than a century ago. and it is only since the last decades of the nineteenth century that the term Dark Age in Greek history has been used. The term. much later. nor did Roman writers. then how are we to explain that a period—not covering just a few decades. or poet used the term Dark Age or dark centuries or any substitute for such a concept. Homer lived and created at the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century. The reader may think that the term is bequeathed to us from ancient times. philosophers and historians alike? Should not Aristotle or. however. Because no literary documents and almost no signs of culture could be found for that long period. it came to be known as the Dark Age.1 nor Xenophon—the Greek historians—had anything to say about a four or five centuries’ span that separated the Greek history from the Mycenaean. and most of the eighth centuries. Despite being separated by five centuries from the Mycenaean civilization of which he sings. Why did no poet—and Greece had many—ever mention a lengthy Dark Age. eleventh. and if the Trojan War took place just before the beginning of the Dark Age. philosopher. ninth. and the concept as well. from Greek historians or philosophers of the classical period. The fact. The time from about -1200 to 750 is the Dark Age in continental Greece. If. Greece had also many outstanding philosophers.

yet in Homer’s day there was no science of archaeology. . and apparently never returned there. .” The boar’s tusk helmet described by Homer was reconstituted by Reichel from slivers of tusk found in many Bronze Age graves. . . “It is difficult to imagine Homer transmitting a description of an object which we could not visualize . The Homeric poems contain elements from widely differing ages.” One such object is the clasp which fastened the cloak of Odysseus when on his way to Troy. . The following evaluation is from the pen of M.” If the Mycenaean Age closed with the twelfth century and Homer composed at the end of the eighth.” On the other hand in Homer are found descriptions of objects “which cannot have found a place there before the 7th century. Where then did he get these details from the past? So writes one author in the preface to his translation of the Iliad. four and a half centuries constitute a hiatus. and separate the poet from the objects he describes. no written history to assist the historical novelist. even to take us into the Mycenaean Age . Nilsson: “To sum up. a description that fits a vessel actually disinterred in the Mycenaean strata which according to the conventionally written history were deposited some five centuries before Homer began to compose his epics. For four centuries at least no one could possibly have seen a boar’s tusk helmet . But all these efforts were spent unprofitably. the dates of which could not be much earlier or later than the first half of the 7th century). “It points to the second decade of the 7th century as the time of the composition of the Odyssey (unless it is an interpolation.22 We know from the archaeological evidence that Homer attempts to archaeologize. . Some scholars have expended enormous efforts in trying to separate passages of the epics and ascribe their authorship to different generations of poets. The blending of elements testifying to the Mycenaean Age together with elements the age of which could not precede the seventh and certainly not the eighth century is a characteristic feature of the Iliad. There is considerable evidence in Homer which without any doubt refers to the Mycenaean Age.” Nilsson . .2 As an example of such knowledge. The most bewildering fact is. . and their authors at the end of their labors usually declared their perplexity. that the Mycenaean elements are not distributed according to the age of the strata in the poems. from contemporaries of the events to the final editor of the poems in the seventh century. however. P. The technique of metal inlay of the shield of Achilles—described by Homer in the Iliad—was practiced in Greece in the Bronze Age and “disappeared before its close. the author cites Homer’s description of Nestor’s cup with doves on its handles.

M. They are inextricably blended. V.17) which tells of a period of political chaos and economic deprivation after the fall of Troy. Rieu.] 2. pp. That the end of the Mycenaean Age was followed by several decades of migrations and poverty is a fact that is discussed at some length below (section “A Gap Closed”). Homer and Mycenae (1933). 158-59. But Thucydides’ words cannot be construed as referring to a period of time longer than a century. 1953). (London. 3. E. P. . The Iliad. [A passage from the first book of Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars (I. How is it credible that the former elements were preserved through the centuries and incorporated in poems whose composition may be about half a millennium later?”3 References 1. is sometimes cited as a reference to the Dark Ages.23 continued: “The Mycenaean and the orientalizing elements differ in age by more than half a millennium. Nilsson.

and to the Caucasian coast. And if Hissarlik is the site of Troy. to various deities and other mythological figures (Thetis in the case of Achilles). with more mythology in it than history: neither in its cause nor in its conduct did this conflict seem to reflect historical events. whether of Agamemnon in Mycenae. but not before centuries passed. and this. The cause of the war. or of Nestor in Pylos. returning only to find violent death waiting for him in his own town and house or. having forged their national unity in war. like Agamemnon. from among . some unfaithful. Zeus. leaving their own spouses to be ravished or besieged by suitors in the meantime. as an organized force. Yet a success of the protracted expedition. victorious in war. some in cohort with their scheming lovers and having to be avenged by their children—but little is said of the continuing royal houses. across the Black Sea. to protect the marine route through the Hellespont. the last excavator of the site. should have made the Hellenes. the personal tragedies having ended in family blood-baths. which presumably for close to five hundred years presents only a picture of void enveloped in primeval darkness. though it is presumed that some wretched inhabitants settled in hovels. we are told. if undertaken. according to tradition. Of the defenders of Troy. Nothing is known of the subsequent history of these city states. was a seduction or abduction of the spouse of one of the Helladic chiefs. as some scholars have theorized. Athene. there is the additional incongruity of a great war effort the goal of which was to capture a fortress occupying not much more than two acres of land (Troy VIIa)—so Carl Blegen. raised the leaders of all Hellas to undertake a mobilization and campaign to the coast of Asia and to endure hardships for ten years. Then in a matter of hardly half a generation a curtain descends on Achaean Greece. And what of the participation of Ares. and in some cases even their parenthood. Victory and triumph are followed by only a few wretched returns home. Those of the heroes who succeed in returning find their wives. the lights are extinguished. and other divinities? The emphasis is on the courage and proficiency of a few single heroes who trace their descent. exploit the success by expansion of overseas trade and traffic. Nothing is heard of the return to Greece of the Achaeans. or of Menelaus in Sparta. the leader of the expedition. With the end of the siege of ten years’ duration and the fall of Troy. like Odysseus.24 The Allies of Priam I must admit that not so long ago I tended to consider the Trojan War as a legend. or of Odysseus in Ithaca. spending another ten years striving to reach home by a round-about way. It is as if in the theater the curtain descended for the last time. the navy of the Achaeans—of which the second book of the Iliad gives a record enumerating the number of ships that carried the warriors from each of the cities1—is as if no more existent. some faithful. and then five hundred years of impenetrable darkness. We hear of single warriors. The curtain of darkness descends also on Troy—and the void endures there almost as long as in Greece. the hall hurriedly locked.

and Sargon II (-726 to -705). like Odysseus. Midas. the conqueror of Samaria and of the Israelite tribes. and he. Phrygians are named as allies of Priam. and it is generally accepted that they were Mycenaean Greeks—actually the last generation of them. is even more than his father an object of legendary motifs—whatever he touched turned to gold. spends a decade or so in wanderings. but this is not an ethnic designation. The time of their migration to Asia Minor is not known. according to the chronicle of Hieronymus. Tradition has it that the first king in their new domicile was Gordias.25 those who survived the siege.” their king. by knowing the allies we may be guided to the proper time. The identification of both these nations carries indications as to the century to which the most famous war of ancient times needs to be ascribed.3 also Ethiopians are counted among his allies. also called Danaans. Strangely. By knowing the correct century of the events we may obtain an insight into the interplay of nations and races and perhaps come to realize the true reason for the conflict that summoned the Achaean host to the Troad. and the story of his selecting the site for his capital Gordion is a well known legend. I scarcely ever found a discussion of the nationality of the people of Troy. Of the Phrygians it is told that their origin stems from Thrace. sometimes designated as the Heroic Generation—the question of which race were the people of Priam was left unanswered by Homer. But at least let us look at Priam’s allies. Here some clear indications come to the fore. moved westward to stop the penetration of the Phrygians. we read also very little—as if they evaporated into thin air—with the exception of Aeneas and his household.6 Soon the Phrygians came into conflict with the Assyrians who opposed the penetration of newcomers into central Asia Minor. he had the ears of an ass—yet he was a historical figure as well who. in that substantial portion of the enormous literature on the Trojan War and Troy that I consulted. north of Macedonia.5 The son of Gordias. reigned from -742 to -696. Thus while it is known that the besiegers of Troy were Achaeans. the region surrounding Troy. west of the Hellespont. and if we are still not helped in our pursuit—which nation did the Achaeans fight at Troy?—at least we see a ray of hope that.4 and the opinion is expressed that Homer’s reference to the Phrygians is an anachronism. No Phrygian antiquities from before the first half of the eighth century have been found.2 In the Iliad they are regularly referred to as “the people of Priam.7 Altogether the Phrygian kingdom in Asia Minor had . It seems that in one of the earliest waves of the eighth century migrations the Phrygians moved from Thrace over the Hellespont to Asia Minor. before reaching Italy.

a great king who played a conspicuous role in the politics of the Near East.10 makes it quite certain that they were put on their migration by the natural events of that year—described at some length in Worlds in Collision:11 by the world-wide upheavals. He was on friendly terms with Assurbanipal. -687 Gordion was overrun by the Cimmerians. in conflict with the Cimmerians. noted that of the royal mounds (kurgans) only three could be dated before the Cimmerian invasion of the early seventh century which put an end to the Phrygian kingdom. the year -687 saw the end of their kingdom. with its capital at Sardis. king of Assyria. feeling the threat of the growing Assyrian empire. themselves pursued by the Scythians. While the displaced Phrygians may have continued to live for a time in the western confines of Asia Minor. The Homeric epics were created on the Asia shore of Asia Minor. king of Lydia. in particular to that of the Lydian Kingdom to the west.8 Already the Körte brothers.13 . II Kings. Phrygia was exposed to the occupation and influence of neighboring states. while threatening Jerusalem with capture and its population with eviction and exile. would limit the period of the Trojan War to the years between -720 and -687. displacing the Phrygians westward. a nomadic race from the steppes of Russia. Phrygians as allies of Priam. their original homeland is often thought to have been the Crimea in southern Russia. grandson of Sennacherib. It appears that the Cimmerians did not tarry for any length of time in Phrygia. -687 or soon thereafter. the early excavators of Gordion. they were but transient conquerors. like the Scythians. The time they came from their native land. and II Chronicles. Mireaux ascribed also the very events of the poems to the time of Gyges. frightening apparitions in the sky. it is most probable that Homer was a contemporary of Gyges. then.26 a short duration. -687 (or possibly 701) was also the year that Sennacherib met his famous debacle as described in the books of Isaiah. traversing the coastal routes of the Caucasus.9 Little is known of its history besides the fact that ca. Lydia was ruled by Gyges. which enabled that country to free itself from the supremacy of Assyria. and probably the number of royal successions did not exceed this number. in the hinterland of the Troad. who soon followed them on the coastal roads of the Caucasus. toward the Lydian kingdom and the Aegean coast. as well as by the changes in climate that made many accustomed pursuits and agricultural practices obsolete. earthquakes. moreover. They occupied Gordion. king of Egypt. After the passing of the Cimmerians. The Cimmerians came from the north. he supported Egypt’s rise to independence: he sent Ionian and Carian detachments to Psammetichus.12 This view was also offered and supported with arguments by Emile Mireaux.

15 The possibility of an Ethiopian landing at Troy in the days of the Ethiopian pharaoh Tirhaka need not be dismissed because of the remoteness of the place: as just said. highly regarded for their military prowess. G. vol. close to the middle of the seventh century. Cf. II. The Greek Myths (London. 83. See below. or separated from it by one generation only. pushing towards the Hellespont. p. 5. the Ethiopian warrior who came to the help of Troy. Strabo. 3. alarmed by rumors of hordes of Cimmerians. and A. What is called here Ethiopians were actually Sudanese: in Egyptian history the Ethiopian Dynasty and their most glorious period is dated from ca. -712 to -663. ed. Troy was located in the vicinity of the Hellespont. 89. would reasonably limit the time of the conflict also to the end of the eighth and the beginning of the seventh century. Geography XII. repeated reference to Phrygians as Priam’s allies leaves the question open whether Priam’s people were not Phrygians themselves. 6. 4. 12ff. [Eusebius Werke. 1970).7. sent in the reverse direction Carian and Ionian mercenaries to assist the Egyptian king Psammetichus in throwing off the Assyrian hegemony. Justin. Gyges. While the Greek expedition may have had some limited success. who is thought to have lived at the end of the eighth century or the beginning of the seventh.” 2. 1904) pp. A correct historical placement of the Trojan War may contain a clue to its real cause: we can surmise that the Helladic city-states. Thus it seems that if the participants in the Trojan War all belong to the eighthseventh century. R. VII. crossed by armies in ancient times. 92. (Istanbul. Actually. and expelled the Ethiopian from Egypt proper. Koerte. by Alexander..] Modern historians usually calculate the date of Midas’ death as -676. 1913). 14. should the migrating Cimmerians or displaced Phrygians attempt to cross the straits into mainland Greece. by Darius I. It was under Midas that the Phrygian . united under the leadership of Agamemnon and moved across the Aegean sea to preclude the invasion of their land. no.8. Helm (Leipzig. pp. Arrian.3. and possibly at an earlier date. References 1. Gordion (Berlin. XI. and by other conquerors before them. section “Mycenaean City Names in the Iliad. must have been either a contemporary of the siege of Troy. The tradition concerning Memnon.7. Ekrem Akurgal writes that their “first archaeological traces appear in the middle of the eighth century. when Ashurbanipal pursued Tirhaka to Thebes. 1955). occupied it.” Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey. preceded by dispossessed Phrygians. the king of Sardis.14 the Ethiopian allies of Priam must date in all probability to the period when the Ethiopians were one of the most honored nations. Homer.27 The allies of Priam also included Ethiopians under Memnon. Graves. R. its forces were wrecked and dispersed in the natural upheavals that accompanied the fall of Troy. The Anabasis of Alexander.

Young. 10. also idem. Mellink. p. IV. The non-royal tumuli were much more numerous. 1955). 70.] [R. The Cimmerian destruction level was found in 1956. p. No Phrygian presence can be recognized in the archaeology until the middle of the eighth century—and soon after the start of the seventh. p. 1904).14) there is reference to the land of the Cimmerians. 54f. vol. See R. 320. was excavated in 1957— Young. . Sargon’s campaign against Midas and the Phrygians.111-2) Nestor recalls the death of his son Antilochos who died by the spear of “the glorious son of shining Dawn. I. the excavator of Gordion. 1950” in Archaeology 3 (1950) pp. ch. Les poèmes homériques et l’histoire grecque. which took place in -715. 1938). the Phrygian kingdom was destroyed in the catastrophic Cimmerian invasion. “The Royal Tomb at Gordion.” Archaeology 10 (1957) pp. Mireaux. Sargon’s expedition was. [According to Assyrian records. and the Phrygians. The dates of Gyges’ reign are given as -687 to -652 by H. 3. Cf. A royal tomb. 196-199. see Young. See M. Later in the Odyssey the Ethiopian warrior is mentioned by name as “great Memnon. 11. “The Nomadic Impact: Gordion” pp. Die Kunst Anatoliens.C. Young. P. IV. “The Excavations at Yassihuyuk-Gordion. iv. Bk.] In the Odyssey (XI. Gelzer and as -690 to -657 by H. 13. 217-219. Akurgal. Young. p. E. p. Cf. Mireaux. 1953” in American Journal of Archaeology 59 (1955). 14. was the result of Midas’ conspiring with the king of Carchemish against Assyria.185-202) which is the epithet reserved for Memnon. Gordion (Berlin. This is also when Midas met his end (by suicide. 522) Those called here Ethiopians actually were the inhabitants of what is today Sudan. as archaeology also attests. not altogether successful in pacifying the region. according to Eusebius. S. [In the Odyssey (III. 16.” (Od. 7.” Anadolu Arastirmalari (Istanbul.. S. 9. 8.] [Gustav and Adolf Körte. and continuing disturbances brought Sargon several more times to the defense of his northwestern frontier. Mushki.” (Od. “Mita.28 kingdom reached the peak of its power. E. 15. he finally met his death there in battle in -705. L’Asie mineure et l’Assyrie (Louvain. 92) and Strabo Geography I. “Gordion: Preliminary Report. 37. 21). 1948-49). Herodotus. Naster. perhaps of Gordias. and his capital Gordion was burned to the ground. Winckler. and if Homer knew of the presence of the Cimmerians in Asia Minor. however. Gordion 1956: Preliminary Report” in American Journal of Archaeology 61 (1957) p. Les poèmes homériques et l’histoire grecque. estimated a period of “a half century” or more for the flourishing of Phrygian culture at the site—“The Nomadic Impact” in Dark Ages and Nomads. about the year 676 B. XI. 54. 12. (Paris. then the scene is not earlier than -687. (Chron.

upon his departure. sixty or seventy years before the fall of Troy. the Greek historian Timaios (ca. or. 2. References 1. fled the fortress. He was a native of Sicily. Fabius Pictor gave -747 as the date of Rome’s founding. a Greek author. the first king to reign in the new capital of Latium. But a more popular tradition had Aeneas himself as the founder of Rome. a city built almost three centuries later by colonists from Phoenicia. . imagined the beginning of Aeneas’ travels. of which Rome was a dependent city. A still better known legend has Romulus for the founder of Rome. the history of which he wrote from the earliest times to -264. But is there a conflict between the founding dates of Carthage in Timaios and in Philistos? A refugee from Troy in the first half of the twelfth century could not find Carthage. and he could not be associated with the founding of Rome either directly or by one of his descendants of several generations. Virgil’s creation is regarded as the greatest of Roman epics. and -753. Philistos’ date for the foundation of Carthage. he lost his wife in the escape.29 Aeneas Following the fall of Troy Aeneas. the generally accepted view is that it was founded in the second half of the ninth century. the traditional date of Rome’s foundation. Aeneas’ further wanderings brought him finally to Latium in Italy. -346 to ca. shortly before the foundation of Rome. only single passages survived in authors who quoted him. Virgil. Timaios was the first to fix the chronology of the Olympiads. regarded as authoritative in antiquity. Alba Longa. This is the way Virgil. but Philistos’ dating of the Trojan War is unknown. According to the Roman legendary tradition. to take her own life. through Numitos in direct descent from Ascanios. Timaios placed its foundation in the year -814.2 Philistos. however. the conventional year of Troy’s fall. is thought to be in conflict with Timaios’ date because the Trojan War would need to be placed in the middle of the eighth century. Rome was founded. the gap between -1183. a Trojan hero second only to Hector. the fate of Aeneas was the subject of poetic tradition. born in -435. according to Varro. -250) followed this tradition. but already before Virgil. in the first century before our era. Aeneas and his little band of companions landed at Carthage. sometimes Romulus is made a descendant of Aeneas and Ascanios. in another version. Upon visiting Thrace and the islands of the Aegean Sea.1 As to Carthage. in -753. himself carrying his aged father on his back and leading his young son by the hand. son of Priam. Carthage is across the straits from Sicily. the land of the Latini. placed Carthage’s foundation “a man’s life length” before the Trojan War. there Queen Dido fell in love with him. and following a sojourn on Crete. he became the progenitor of the Romans through his son Ascanios. being more than four centuries wide. of that history. his refusal to make Carthage his home and Dido his wife caused her. studied the subject drawing on Greek authors.

more precisely in -776. Tradition has it that the Olympic games were initiated by Pelops. the first year of the first Olympiad having been -776. This is shown by the fact that the early games were held at eight-year intervals.”5 This information permits the rough guess that some fifty to sixty years passed between the founding of the Olympic Games in Nestor’s youth and the Trojan War. That this passage from the Iliad is a reference to the Olympic Games was understood already in antiquity.30 Olympic Games in the Iliad The recording of events in ancient Greece was by the years of the Olympiads. For in Elis a great debt was his [Neleus’] due: a four-horse team of racing horses and their chariot that would have contended in the games and raced to win the tripod.7 This means that Homer knew of the Olympic games and had Nestor refer to them as an event that began to be celebrated several decades before the drama that is the subject of the Iliad. each driving a four-horse team. Olympia was located in the district of Elis in the western part of the Peloponnesian peninsula. since eight terrestrial years equal five synodical years of Venus.3 typical for Venus festivals. Homer tells. an immigrant from Phrygia in Asia Minor. However. The fact that these games are mentioned as taking place when . An important contest at the Olympiads was among charioteers. or Mars. Later they were celebrated every four years. it is beyond dispute that the beginning of time reckoning by Olympiads was in the eighth century. . In the Iliad the aging Nestor recalls that soon after the rebuilding of Pylos his father Neleus sent from Pylos a team of four horses with a chariot to race for a tripod for a competition to be held at Elis.6 . four years apart. or two and a half synodical periods of Venus. “two generations of mortal men had [already] perished: those who had grown up with him and they who had been born to these in sacred Pylos. as we gather from a discussion of it by the geographer Strabo. was but a young man at the time of the rampage of Heracles-Mars through the western Peloponnese—he himself saw all his elder brothers killed by the god and his native Pylos burned to the ground4 —but by the tenth year of the siege of Troy. Another account ascribes the founding of the festival to Heracles. as a celebration of his conquest of Elis. the future king of Pylos. But the fine steeds were detained by the Elean king and their driver was sent home to Pylos empty-handed. or the planet Venus. and he was king in the third age. . Nestor. the festival also honored Athene. The eighth century was a time when the planet Mars was prominent among the heavenly bodies and caused much destruction on earth.1 In Worlds in Collision the identity of Heracles with the planet Mars was brought out from the statements of several ancient authors:2 While the founding of the games was attributed to Heracles.

26. Homer. 3. 2. 12. X 43ff. 688-692. pp. by R.. Apollodorus II. R. Eratosthenis catasterismorum reliquiae. 1878: “Tertia est stella Martis quam alii Herculis dixerunt. Iliad XI.3. III.1. 5. Olympian Odes. Diodorus Siculus IV. 4. transl.2.. Strabo. C. 1935). reporting the opinion of Varro. Pindar.8.2. 698-701. Pausanias V. The Minoan-Mycenean Background of Greek Athletics (Philadelphia. Iliad XI. was a young man gives some indication of the time in which the Trojan War was fought. Robert.2 .68.3.6 and V. Saturnalia iii. 5-6. 7.3. 82-83. W. Ridington. ed.31 Neleus. Fabula 273. Book. Iliad. Lattimore (1951). Pausanias II. References 1.30. 250-252.” Cf. Macrobius. 6. I.7. Geography VIII. Homer. the father of Nestor. Hyginus. Homer.

32 CHAPTER II: MUTE WITNESSES .

Young wrote: The Phrygian Kingdom was . His view was invalidated. the Troy of the excavators. The second level. Blegen. was found to have been contemporaneous with the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty of the Egyptian New Kingdom. Carl Blegen identified forty-six layers of occupation of the mound of Hissarlik. The sixth city of Troy is conventionally placed in the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries before the present era. and properly so. at the apex of its power toward the end of the eighth century. a dating which ultimately depends on Egyptian chronology.33 Troy and Gordion When Schliemann dug through the strata of Hissarlik’s hill. however. Blegen specified eight separate levels of occupation in this stratum alone. was shown to have been in existence during the Old Kingdom of Egypt. intermediate examples have yet to be found. great walls of a fortress. Though separated in time by five hundred years or thereabouts. on the second level from the virgin ground beneath. As to the date of the Phrygian Gate and wall of Gordion. when it apparently extended as far to the southeast as the Taurus and was in contact with Assyria. It ended in a violent earthquake.1 needs to be cited: “In their batter as well as their masonry construction the walls of the Phrygian Gate at Gordion find their closest parallel in the wall of the sixth city at Troy. Troy II. he discovered. identified by Wilhelm Doerpfeld as the Ilion of the siege.3 Eighthcentury Gordion is similar to thirteenth-century Troy. looked for a fortress that fell not due to an earthquake. and was therefore also too early for the Trojan War. . but divided them between the nine strata of occupation classified by Doerpfeld. Troy VI was a well-built fortress. thus he identified the Troy sung by Homer as Troy VIIa. and thus long before the traditional date for Troy’s fall. yet intermediate examples of the peculiar way of building the gate and the wall beg to be found.4 . . and in the same level some treasures. This period of power was apparently the time of the adornment and fortification of its capital city. The end of Troy VI. This points to the eighth century for the erection of the city wall and gate. Here an observation by Rodney Young. the excavator of the Phrygian capital Gordion. because a correlation with Egypt made it appear too early for Troy. but in a siege and assault.” But a gulf of time separates these two constructions in the conventional timetable. if so. the two fortifications may well represent a common tradition of construction in northwestern Anatolia.2 Still today no intermediate examples have been found. all of which he attributed to Priam’s Troy.

the Phrygian fortifications at Gordion. dating from the late eighth. admittedly very much earlier. In 1950 Rodney Young led there a team and then returned for many seasons sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania Museum. It was in the form of a large double gateway with a central courtyard.] 3. without any other close antecedents.] . [The Phrygian Gate of Gordion was uncovered in 1953 by a team from the University of Pennsylvania led by Rodney Young.” p.34 References 1.” American Journal of Archaeology. its date. was excavated by the Koerte brothers at the beginning of this century. “Gordion 1953. Gordion. it displays technical skills that speak of a long period of development. they must lie in west Anatolia rather than on the plateau. . 2. The masonry. The date of the Phrygian remains found at Gordion was ascribed to the late eighth and early seventh centuries before the present era. in fact. [Whereas the Trojans had a long tradition of building in stone. could well have been part of the same tradition of building in stone. the Trojan fortifications were standing and in use as late as the ninth century. If any links exist to fill this time-gap. . was put sometime in the eighth century. 52): “. the Phrygian gateway appears suddenly. with its sloping batter and its more or less regular coursing recalls neither the cyclopean Hittite masonry of the Anatolian plateau in earlier times. Young. nevertheless. This apparent contradiction is also noted by Young (“The Nomadic Impact: Gordion. [The post-Hittite and pre-Phrygian levels at Gordion have not provided the much looked-for intermediate examples. R. Since it belonged to the Phrygian period. (1954).] 4. nor the commonly prevalent contemporary construction of crude brick. the capital of Phrygia. The planning of the [Phrygian] gateway and the execution of its masonry imply a familiarity with contemporary military architecture and long practice in handling stone for masonry.” According to the revised chronology. like that of most of the Phrygian constructions at Gordion. The closest parallel is the masonry of the walls of Troy VI.

Atop the gate. that we can hardly admit it to have been borrowed from any other country.5 . Rock-cut Phrygian tomb “The resemblance in idea is complete. and it is more likely to belong to the eighth century. belong to the ninth and eighth centuries. Ramsay went on: I do not think it is allowable to place the Mycenaean gateway earlier than the ninth.2 He considered the scheme “so peculiarly characteristic of Phrygia. .”6 when the invasion of Asia Minor by the Cimmerians put an end to the Phrygian culture and art. M.”3 “It is not allowable to separate them [the Phrygian and Mycenaean monuments] in time by several centuries.35 The Lion Gate of Mycenae The Lion Gate of Mycenae was the entrance to the city. to fortify their city in the Phrygian style with lions over the gate. Similar bas-reliefs of two lions rampant facing each other are found in a number of places in Phrygia in Asia Minor. . .” He found himself “driven to the conclusion that the Mycenaean artists either are Phrygians or learned the idea from the Phrygians.” wrote W.C. Historically there is certainly good reason to assign at least part of the fortifications of Mycenae to the time when the Argive kings [the tyrants of the eighth century] were the greatest power in Greece [here follow the names of several authorities among the historians who hold the same view].1 The Lion Gate of Mycenae Arslantas. The end of the Phrygian kingdom is a fixed date.” in Ramsay’s view.”4 “The Phrygian monuments. The view to which I find myself forced is as follows.8 . about 675 B. There was in the eighth century lively intercourse between Argos and Asia Minor: in this intercourse the Argives learned . Ramsay in 1888. . two lions rampant are carved in stone relief.

” when this kingdom had intercourse with Asia Minor. such as objects bearing the cartouches of Amenhotep II. The Egyptologist Flinders Petrie made the following reply: “[A] matter which demands notice is Professor Ramsay’s conclusion that the lion gateway is of as late a date as the eighth century B. . The debate between Ramsay and Petrie took place before Evans’ archaeological work on Crete. Amenhotep III.C.36 On the other hand. Phoenicia and Egypt. the almost universal opinion of archaeologists rejects this hypothesis. This results from assuming it to be derived from Phrygian lion groups. .”9 I quote this opinion of Ramsay with the special intention of showing how this viewpoint was invalidated. but only to argue that the fortifications of the Lion Gate belong to the period 800-700 B. it seems that the Phrygian designs are not the only source of this motive for Mykenae. from a period well preceding the Phrygian models. Oriental influences found in the remains of Mycenae are “precisely what we should expect in a kingdom like the Argos of the eighth century.12 Therefore Petrie decidedly opposed Ramsay in his estimate of eighth century for the Lion Gate and the fortification wall of Mycenae.14 but the Egyptologist demanded of the classical scholar that he disregard this evidence in favor of the time scale of Egypt.15 conveying the idea that Mycenae must have borrowed the image from there. in exactly the same attitude. As however we now have a wooden lion. and Queen Tiy.13 Here is a case where evidence from Anatolia pointed to the eighth century. . there rampant lions were found engraved on Late Minoan gems. In the section “The Scandal of Enkomi” we shall read how Evans objected to the chronological . He had discovered heaps of Mycenaean ware in Egypt of the time of Akhnaton. “I wish however to express no opinion here about the date of the Mycenaean tombs and about Mycenaean pottery. .”10 In Egypt of the latter part of the Eighteenth Dynasty a single instance of a rampant lion (not two rampant lions facing each other as at Mycenae and in Phrygia) made Petrie claim Egypt as a possible place of origin of this image rather than Phrygia. on the ground of not knowing of any other prototype.16 Yet one should not lose sight of the fact that Crete’s chronology was also built upon relations with Egypt.C. .11 Equally impressive was the discovery at Mycenae of a number of objects of Eighteenth-Dynasty date. dated to 1450 in Egypt . He could not but conclude that these heaps coming from Mycenae must be dated to the fourteenth century.

37

implications of Cypriote archaeology by stressing relations between the Egyptian and the Minoan (Cretan) chronologies on the one hand, and Minoan and Cypriote on the other. In Ages in Chaos it was shown in great detail why the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt must be placed in the latter part of the ninth century. Thus even if Crete was the original source of the motif, Mycenae and Phrygia both deriving it thence, the dependence of Cretan chronology on that of Egypt constitutes the crux of the problem.17 Let us keep in mind that in the 1880s and 1890s classical scholars of the stature of W. M. Ramsay (1851-1939) questioned the inclusion of the Dark Ages of several hundred years’ duration between the Mycenaean past and the Ionic age in Greece. And let us not overlook what was the supposedly crushing argument for wedging more than half a millennium into the history of ancient Greece.

References
1. Cf. especially the relief on the “Lion Tomb” at Arslan Tash near Afyonkarahisar (fig.) 2. Ramsay, “A Study of Phrygian Art,” Journal of Hellenic Studies IX (1888), p. 369. [Ramsay, “Studies in Asia Minor,” Journal of Hellenic Studies III (1882), p. 19—but see G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966), p. 173.] 3. Ramsay, “A Study of Phrygian Art,” pp. 369-370. [Earlier representations of two rampant lions facing each other are known from Crete; however, it is for the carving technique on stone on a monumental scale that Mycenae seems to be indebted to Phrygia. For a link to Assyria, see L. M. Greenberg, “The Lion Gate at Mycenae,” Pensée IVR III, p. 26.] 4. Ibid., p. 70. 5. [Emilie Haspels in Highlands of Phrygia (Princeton, 1971) dates the Phrygian reliefs at Arslan Tash to “the last third of the eighth century B.C., the period of the ‘Phrygian City’ of Gordion” (vol. I, p. 135; cf. vol. II, pl. 131-32). E. Akurgal, however, puts the same reliefs in the early sixth century, deriving them from Ionian, and ultimately Egyptian models—Die Kust Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander (Berlin, 1961) pp. 86-90, 95. EMS ]. 6. Ramsay, “A Study in Phrygian Art,” p. 351. 7. [Ramsey considered the Mycenaean relief “much more advanced in art” though “not necessarily later in date” than the Phrygian Lion Tomb: “Some Phrygian Monuments,” Journal of Hellenic Studies III (1882) p. 257. For evidence of Phrygian influence on eighthcentury Greece, see R. S. Young, “The Nomadic Impact: Gordion” in Dark Ages and Nomads c. 1000 B.C.: Studies in Iranian and Anatolian Archaeology, ed. by M. J. Mellink (Leiden, 1964), p. 54.] 8. U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, “Oropos und die Graer,” Hermes XXI (1886), p. 111, n. 1, and idem, Isyllos von Epidauros (Berlin, 1886), p. n.1; B. Niese, Die Entwicklung der homerischen Poesie (Berlin, 1882), p. 213, n. 1. A. S. Murray and S. Reinach are also among those cited by Ramsay as concurring with his opinion (p. 370, n. 3). 9. Ramsay, “A Study of Phrygian Art,” pp. 370-71. 10. Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, “Notes on the Antiquities of Mykenae,” Journal of Hellenic Studies XII (1891), pp. 202-03. [Petrie also attempted to fix the dates of many of the finds from the Mycenaean tombs by comparing them with objects from Egypt whose antiquity he considered to be well-established.]

38 11. Cf. J. D. S. Pendlebury, Aegyptiaca (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 111ff. [V. Hankey and P. Warren, “The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (University of London) XXI (1974), pp. 142-152.] 12. Cf. Pendlebury, Aegyptiaca, pp. 53-57; Hankey and Warren, “The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age.” 13. Boardman notes that monumental sculpture of this kind is unknown in Greece from the time the Lion Gate of Mycenae was built until the eighth century: “More than five hundred years were to pass before Greek sculptors could [again] command an idiom that would satisfy these aspirations in sculpture and architecture.” Greek Art (New York, 1964), p. 22. [A few other 500-year enigmas appear at Mycenae. See below, Supplement, “Applying the Revised Chronology,” by Edwin Schorr.] 14. [In The Sea People Sandars points out the stylistic similarity between the Lion Gate of Mycenae and the Lion Gate of Boghazkoi. EMS] 15. [Some of these gems were known even before Evans’ digs—see for instance the intaglio in G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, History of Art in Primitive Greece II (London, 1894), pp. 214 and 246, depicting two rampant lions facing each other in a way similar to that on the Lion Gate. Cf. also the gems shown in Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, ed. F. Matz and H. Bisantz (Berlin, 1964) nos. 46, 144, 145, 172.] 16. [N. Platon, (“Cretan-Mycenaean Art,” Encyclopaedia of World Art IV [New York, 1958], p. 109) thought that “the technique of the execution [of the Lion Gate] is clearly inspired by Cretan sculpture.” But the Cretan sculptures, unlike those in Phrygia, are miniatures, and Platon needs to assume “the effective translation of a miniature theme into a major sculptural creation” (R. Higgins, Minoan-Mycenaean Art [New York, 1967], p. 92). Sandars in The Sea Peoples points out the similarity of the monumental carving style of the Lion Gate of Boghazkoi in central Anatolia to the Lion Gate of Mycenae.] 17. [The discovery of Late Helladic IIIB pottery in strata excavated underneath the gate is used to establish the date of its construction.] But this pottery, too, is dated on the basis of relations with Egypt.

39

Olympia
The scholarly world without any further deliberation decided not to bring the Mycenaean Age down to the first millennium, but this decision did not eliminate the disturbing facts. At the same time another one-man battle was being carried on at the other end of the front. Greek antiquities, commonly regarded as belonging to the eighth and seventh centuries, were declared by a dissenting authority to date from the second millennium, to have been contemporaneous with the Mycenaean Age, and even to have partly preceded it. According to the accepted view the Mycenaean ware came to an end in the second millennium, and the Dorian invasion subsequently brought a “primitive” art, a pottery with incised designs; later a pattern of painted geometric designs developed, reaching its full expression by the late eighth century. Thereafter new motifs were brought into Greek art—griffins, sphinxes and other oriental figures; this is the period of the orientalization of the art of Greece in the seventh century. This scheme was accepted; and today, with only slight variations, it is the credo of archaeological art. According to Dörpfeld in the second millennium two or three different cultures met in Greece.1 Dörpfeld insisted that the geometric ware ascribed to the first millennium was actually contemporaneous with, and even antecedent to, the Mycenaean art of the second millennium, and that the “primitive” pottery was also of the second millennium. The archaeological evidence for the contemporaneity of the geometric and Mycenaean ware and of all other products of these two cultures, and even of the partial precedence of the geometric ware, was the basic issue for Dörpfeld, who spent a lifetime digging in Greece. Observing that the Mycenaean Age is contemporaneous with the period of the Eighteenth dynasty, and that the geometric ware is contemporaneous with the Mycenaean ware, he referred the geometric ware also to the second millennium.2 This aroused much wrath. A. Furtwängler, who during the excavations of Olympia in the western Peloponnesus, under the direction of Curtius, was the first to attach importance to bits of pottery, and who spent over a quarter of a century classifying small finds, bronzes, ceramics and other products of art, and devised the system of their development, disagreed on all points.

40

Dörpfeld chose to prove his thesis on the excavations of Olympia, on which he and Furtwaengler had both worked since the eighties of the last century. In those early days Curtius, one of the excavators of Olympia, was strongly impressed by proofs of the great antiquity of the bronzes and pottery discovered under the Heraion (temple of Hera) at Olympia; he was inclined to date the temple in the twelfth or thirteenth century and the bronzes and pottery found beneath it to a still earlier period, and this view is reflected in the monumental volumes containing the report of the excavation.3 At that time Furtwängler was also inclined to disregard the chronological value of occasional younger objects found there.4 New excavations under the Heraion were undertaken by Dörpfeld for the special purpose of establishing that the finds, as well as the original Heraion, date from the second millennium.5 But the excavated bronzes and pottery strengthened each side still more in its convictions. Each of the two scholars brought a mass of material to prove his own point—Dörpfeld, that the geometric ware, which he had himself found together with the Mycenaean at such sites as Troy and Tiryns6 was contemporaneous with the Mycenaean ware and therefore belongs to the second millennium; Furtwängler, that the geometric ware is a product of the first millennium, and especially of the ninth to eighth centuries, and is therefore separated from the Mycenaean by einer ungeheueren Kluft (a tremendous chasm).7 Who but an ignoramus, argued Furtwängler, would place in the second millennium the geometric vases found in the necropolis near the Dipylon Gate at Athens?8 Were there not found, he asked, in this same necropolis, porcelain lions of Egyptian manufacture dating from the Twenty-sixth, the Saitic, Dynasty of Psammetichus and Necho?9 Were not also a great number of iron tools found beneath the Heraion in Olympia? The Mycenaean Age is the Late Bronze Age; the Geometric Age that of iron. It is true, claimed Furtwängler, that a few iron objects have been found in the Mycenaean tombs—but they only show that iron was very precious at the time these tombs were built. Both sides linked the question of the date of the origin of the Homeric epic to the question at hand. Most scholars claimed that the epics originated in the eighth century. But, according to the dissident Dörpfeld, they originated five or six centuries earlier, in the Mycenaean Age, which is also the Geometric Age. The dispute was waged with ungehörigen persönlichen Beleidigungen (outrageous personal slander);10 and a quarter century after one of the disputants (Furtwängler) was resting in his grave the other, (Dörpfeld), then an octogenarian, filled two volumes with arguments. They vilified each other on their deathbeds, and their pupils participated in the quarrel. In the end the followers of Dörpfeld, the dissident scholar, deserted him and went over to the camp of his detractors.

41

But by that time he had already been completely discredited, and his obstinacy made him a target for further attacks by the younger generation of scholars properly trained in the science of archaeology, who are able at a glance to tell the exact age and provenance of a sherd. They have no doubt whatsoever that the Mycenaean Age came to a close ca. -1100 and that the real Geometric Age belongs to the ninth and eighth centuries, and for a long time now the issue has not been open to dispute. But this does not mean that the facts ceased to perplex. According to E. A. Gardner, “fragments of geometrical vases . . . have been found on various sites in Greece together with late examples of Mycenaean pottery.”11 When then did the Mycenaean Age end, ca. -1100 or ca. -700? In this dispute between the two scholars, both were guided by the chronology of the Egyptologists, according to which the Eighteenth Dynasty ended in the fourteenth century, the Nineteenth came to a close before ca. -1200, and the Twenty-sixth Dynasty belongs to the seventh and early part of the sixth centuries. In their application of these undisputed facts to the past of Greece, both disputant scholars agreed that the Mycenaean Age belongs to the second millennium. The Geometric Age did not follow the Mycenaean Age, but was of the same time or even earlier, argued one scholar (Dörpfeld), and was he wrong? The Geometric Age belongs to the first millennium, argued the other scholar (Furtwaengler), and was he wrong? Wrong was their common borrowing of dates for the Mycenaean Age from the Egyptologists. In view of the fact that later generations of archaeologists followed Furtwaengler and not Dörpfeld, it is worthwhile to reproduce the assessment of the latter as an archaeologist by one who knew him and his work, herself a great figure in classical studies built on Mycenaean and Classical archaeology, H. L. Lorimer, author of Homer and the Monuments (1950). In her Preface to that book Lorimer writes:
I wish to record the debt which in common with all Homeric archaeologists I owe to a great figure, forgotten to-day in some quarters and in others the object of an ill-informed contempt. To Wilhelm Dörpfeld, the co-adjutor of Schliemann in his later years and long associated with the German Aracheological Institute in Athens, scholars owe not only the basic elucidation of the sites of Tiryns and Troy which ensured their further fruitful exploration, but the establishment of rigidly scientific standards in the business of excavation, an innovation which has preserved for us untold treasures all over the Aegean area. That in later years he became the exponent of many wild theories is true but irrelevant and does not diminish our debt. In his own realm his work, as those testify who have had access to the daily records of his digs, was as nearly impeccable as anything human can be. . .

Olympia. IV). pp. Searls and W. [Quite early on. 3. discount the “erroneous tradition” (H.. and they seemingly confirmed a late eighth century date.42 This is an evaluation of Dörpfeld as an archaeologist from the hand of a scholar who did not follow the lonely scholar on his “wild theories. Herrman. In 1880 more bronzes were discovered in the black stratum beneath the floor of the Heraion (Olympia.1) he dated to -1096. I. Heiligtum und Wettkampfstaette [Munich. 85-88. 1972] pp. and an intermediate structure. 5. Dinsmoor. The contemporaneity of the Mycenaean and early Geometric wares. ed. section “A Palace and a Temple at Tiryns. vol. Furtwaengler.] 6. 1935) vol. (Berlin.” The archaeological work that brought him to his theories regarding the sequence of pottery styles was impeccable. 93-94. E. and none beneath the Heraion. 7. Munich. I. 1925). Furtwängler had become convinced that none of the bronzes found at Olympia could be dated before the eighth century (“Bronzefunde aus Olympia. E.” Only small quantities of Mycenaean ware were found at Olympia. which in his view was never completed. Die Ergebnisse der von dem deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabungen. A. nor was it replaced by it. 1890-97). if true.” American Journal of Archaeology 49 [1945] p. See below. Olympia und seine Bauten [Munich. “This geometrical style is very old. Alt-Olympia (Berlin. Kunze. Today scholars find no basis for positing this intermediate temple and.1) Elsewhere (V. IV. the tradition then would accord well with the findings of the archaeologists who place the first temple ca. 10 vols. pp. Homers Odyssee. it existed before and next to the Mycenaean art. Kleine Schriften.16. 2. “Zur Geschichte und zu den Denkmälern Olympias” in 100 Jahre deutsche Ausgrabung in Olympia [Munich. 1906. Olympia. 1972] p.-V. this meant that the temple had to be somewhat more recent. H. p. Adler.3. die Wiederherstellung des ursprünglichen Epos (Munich. Furtwängler later admitted that the evidence of several small finds. the original temple which. Curtius and F. I. contains the clue to the removal of the last argument for the preservation of the Dark Ages between the Mycenaean and Greek periods of history. [Dörpfeld distinguished three consecutive temples—the existing Heraion. The Elean tradition recorded by Pausanias has the Olympia Heraion built “about eight years after Oxylus came to the throne of Elis. Mallwitz. 304ff.. reprinted in Kleine Schriften (Munich. “Das Alter des Heraion und das Alter des Heiligtums von Olympia. E. furthermore. indicating a much more recent date of construction of the temple. 11). If it was in fact fought in the late eighth.” Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Philologischen Klasse der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.16. vol. W.” Abhandlungen Berl. References 1.6) he puts Oxylus two generations after the Trojan War. -650 (A. Dörpfeld. 1879. and his theories were wild mainly because he did not make the final step and free Greek archaeology and chronology from the erroneous Egyptian timetable. The tradition is “erroneous” only if the Trojan War is placed in the thirteenth or early twelfth centuries. 339-421).” W. “The Date of the Olympia Heraeum. had been rejected by him at the time because it diverged too radically from accepted views. on the basis of the geometric pottery found beneath the first temple. 1912). on the evidence of Pausanias (V.” (V. In 1906 he published his influential study of the objects newly dug up from beneath the floor of the Heraion (“Das Alter des Heraion und das Alter des Heiligtums . Dörpfeld. 4. B. 1972] pp. Akad. 12. 1912. 73) of Pausanias which originally led Dörpfeld to his early dating of it. built at the beginning of the ninth century.

E. 10. 11. When it was recognized that the Mycenaean pottery was of a higher antiquity. 12. Gardner. Ancient Athens (New York. Ramses II and his Time (1978) in which monuments now attributed to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty are redated for the most part to the subsequent period of Persian domination. 1886) p.” according to E. 9. .C. 87. 157-58. Gardner.” Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen Klasse der koeniglich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) in which he concluded that the Heraion and the pottery associated with it belong in the latter part of the seventh century. Of course. it was also found that the Dipylon graves must belong to a later time. However.] [The two porcelain lions were found in tombs excavated in 1891 near the Dipylon Gate. 1902) p.” Tiryns (London. 1902) pp. p. 157.] Dörpfeld. . A. was dated originally to the tenth or ninth centuries B. . I. Alt-Olympia. Dipylon ware was at one time “commonly held to be the most ancient pottery in Greece .] [The Dipylon period. cf. together with “vases of characteristic Dipylon ware. vol. A. . Mycenaean pottery was “recognized” as being “of a higher antiquity” largely because of synchronisms with Egypt. 8. Ancient Athens (London. According to Schliemann. so named after the funeral vessels first discovered near the Dipylon Gate at Athens by the Greek Archaeological Society in 1873-74. .43 von Olympia.

signed by the potter Aristonothos which. Phoenician. “In general there was not apparent in the tombs we opened any wide differences of epoch. porcelain. and many sepulchral chambers investigated.C. with A. not far from Famagusta. and many other places in the Greek islands and in Egypt.1 A necropolis was cleared. For all we could say. it is argued.C. to the . supposedly of the fifteenth to the fourteenth centuries. From the Egyptological point of view many objects belong to the time of Amenhotep III and Akhnaton. Since the objects are representative of Mycenaean culture. to a thorough examination. the archaeologist stressed “its relationship. We shall follow him in his efforts to come out of the labyrinth. making the contours of men and animals appear to be perforated. The same method of dotted lines is to be seen again on a pinax [plate] from Cameiros [on Rhodes] in the [British] Museum. typical of the tombs of Enkomi. He submitted a vase. Is it possible that the Mycenae and Enkomi vases are seven or eight centuries older?” Analyzing the workmanship and design of sphinxes or grifins with human forelegs on the vase. with their names inscribed. From the Assyrian. and gold found in the tombs all presented one and the same difficulty. This feature is very characteristic. . particularly with that of Egypt. Aegean culture came into contact with the cultures of the Orient. In 1896 the British Museum conducted excavations at the village of Enkomi. .” However the pottery.44 “The Scandal of Enkomi” The lengthening of Egyptian history by phantom centuries must have as a consequence the lengthening of Mycenaen-Greek history by the same length of time. the excavator questioned the true time of the Mycenaean Age. That vase also is assigned to the seventh century B. the site of an ancient capital of Cyprus. Murray in charge.” “From first to last there was no question that this whole burying-ground belonged to what is called the Mycenaean Age. ivory. on the one hand. gems. The dark outlines of the figures on the vase are accompanied by white dotted lines. and unavoidably embarrassing situations were in store for archaeology. cannot be older than the seventh century B. and Greek viewpoint the same objects belong to the period of the ninth to the eighth or seventh centuries. S. glass. representing the combat of Menelaos and Hector over the body of Euphorbos. But as the Mycenaean Age is linked to the Egyptian chronology he found himself at an impasse. “The same peculiarity of white dotted lines is found also on a vase from Caere [in Etruria]. the whole burying-ground may have been the work of a century. On Cyprus. the characteristics of which are already abundantly known from the tombs of Mycenae . bronze.

the ancient capital of Assyria. with a dog running alongside the horses as at Enkomi. “The conception is so singular. VI.” But how could this be if the objects found in Enkomi date no later than the 12th Century? Comparing the two objects. and on the other hand to the pattern which occurs on a terracotta sarcophagus from Clazomenae. the harness of the horses being also similar. The ivories of the Enkomi tombs are very similar to those found by Layard in the palace of Nimroud. found in Enkomi.” An oblong box for the game of draughts. a carving of a man slaying a griffin. so closely resembles a similar hunting scene on one of the pyxides from Nimroud that only details such as the hairdo of one of the chariot followers or the flying gallop of the animals mark the Enkomi piece as a work of the second millennium B.) is a fragmentary relief of a chariot in pursuit of a lion to the left.C. The date of the palace is given as 850-700 B. Winter wrote: A hunting scene depicted on a rectangular panel from an ivory gaming board of ‘Cypro-Mycenaean’ style found at Enkomi. “must date from a period when the art of Assyria was approaching its decline.45 fragmentary vase of Tell el-Amarna (see Petrie.” five or six centuries after the reputed end of the Mycenaean age. [in Ionia] now in Berlin.” .C. Plate 27) and a fragment of fresco from Tiryns (Perrot and Chipiez. separated by some four centuries from the Nimroud pyxis.C. and is found in two instances among the ivories discovered by Layard in the palace at Nimroud.. 545). J.” The connection between the Mycenaean and Aristonothos vases caused “a remarkable divergence of opinion. that there can hardly be much difference of date between the two—somewhere about 850-700 B. with its blanketed horses and chariot with six-spoked wheel. even among those who defend systematically the high antiquity of Mycenaean art.C. and the similarity of our bronze to the ivory so striking.” The problem of pottery which belongs to two different ages is repeated in ivory.” The style of the sculpture (of Nimroud) “is more archaic than on the Enkomi casket. It is a subject which appears frequently on the metal bowls of the Phoenicians. for example.2 A bronze of Enkomi repeats a theme of the Nimroud ivories. There is. a work of the early sixth century B. I. representing a woman at a window. “Among the Nimroud ivories (850-700 B.C. Tell el-Amarna. “the man being remarkable for the helmet with chin strap which he wears.

He is satisfied that they were the invention of a later age (about 700 B. . the queen of Amenophis [Amenhotep] III.” and a pair of scales of a balance like the one figured on the Arkesilaos vase. Among the pottery of “the ordinary Mycenaean and pre-Mycenaean type” gems were found. But it may fairly be questioned whether these differences can represent any very long period of time. and in having a handle.” “On the other hand. not only in her features.” there were found two similar silver rings. ornamented with six discs.).” Next are the objects of gold. in being of a more advanced artistic style. But such finds are separated by a wide span of time from the twelfth century.” Murray surveyed the glass: In several tombs. of course. to whom he offers an oblation. The silver vases of the Enkomi tombs “are obviously Mycenaean in shape. and there is no doubt that this fantastic idea spread rapidly westward. differing but slightly in shape and fabric from the . but also in the way in which her hair is gathered up at the back in a net. which hitherto have played so conspicuous a part in determining the Mycenaean antiquities as being in some instances of that date (fifteenth century). It is contended by Reichel3 that metal greaves are unknown in Homer. just as on the sixth century vases of this shape. . Two figures in this costume may be seen on an Assyrian sculpture from Nimroud of the time of Assurnazirpal (884-860). found at Ialysos [on Rhodes] and Mycenae. but particularly in one. too. which is assigned to the Dipylon period. “One of them. as well as a large tripod “with spiral patterns resembling one in Athens.46 “Another surprise among our bronzes is a pair of greaves.C.” A pendant “covered with diagonal patterns consisting of minute globules of gold soldered down on the surface of the pendant” was made by “precisely the same process of soldering down minute globules of gold and arranging them in the same patterns” that “abounds in a series of gold ornaments in the British Museum which were found at Cameiros in Rhodes” and which were dated to the seventh or eighth century.”4 As for the porcelain. and must therefore be placed in the same rank as those other cartouches of her husband. it “may fairly be ranked” with the series of Phoenician silver and bronze bowls from Nimroud of about the eighth century.). were found in the Enkomi tombs.” Greek vases of this shape “differ. is identical in shape with the pin which fastens the chiton [tunic] on the shoulders of the Fates on the Francois vase in Florence (sixth century B.C. Gold pins were found in a tomb of Enkomi. A porcelain head of a woman from Enkomi “seems to be Greek. one with hieroglyphics and the other engraved on the bezel “with a design of a distinctly Assyrian character—a man dressed in a lion’s skin standing before a seated king. A scarab “bears the cartouche of Thi [Tiy].” Bronze fibulae. we found vases of variegated glass.

but he shrank from it.” Consequently the question is.) based on scanty observations collected from the poor remains of a foreign settlement in Egypt. As curator of Greek and Roman antiquities of the British Museum. and dating from the seventh and sixth centuries. so that again we are confronted with Helbig’s theory of a lapse of seven centuries during which little artistic progress or decline had been effected. as we know from the pages of Herodotus.C. about 1400 B. In matters of chronology it is no new thing for the Egyptians to instruct the Greeks. all he asked was that the age of the Mycenaean period be reduced. or even later in some cases. It appears that he had found certain fragmentary specimens of this particular glass ware beside a porcelain necklace. Equally the relationship between it and the bronze Phoenician bowls is undeniable. that is to say. It is admitted that this new patera had been a foreign import into Egypt.C. He did not dare to revise Egyptian chronology. Murray comes to the conclusion that “Phoenicians manufactured the glass ware of Gurob and Enkomi at one and the same time.5 our Enkomi specimens must follow suit. He quoted an author (Helbig) who thought that all Mycenaean culture was really Phoenician culture. The endeavor of the excavator of Enkomi was directed toward bringing the Mycenaean Age closer in time by five or six hundred years.C..C.47 fine series of glass vases obtained from the tombs of Cameiros. however. so that there would be no chasm between the Mycenaean Age and the Greek Age. that these slight differences of shape and fabric bring our Enkomi glass vases into direct comparison with certain specimens found by Professor Flinders Petrie at Gurob in Egypt. he constantly had before him the numerous connections and relations between Mycenaean and Greek art. the development of which remained at a standstill for seven centuries. How to do this he did not know. what was that time? For the present we must either accept Professor Petrie’s date (about 1400 B. or later.6 It was necessary to assume a state of hibernation of almost seven hundred years. In 1896 there was found in a tomb at Thebes in Egypt a bronze patera [a shallow vessel] which in shape and decoration has so much in common with the bronze Phoenician bowls from Nimroud that we feel some surprise on being told that the coffins with which it was found belong unmistakably to the time of Amenophis [Amenhotep] III or the first years of Amenophis IV [Akhnaton]. and then allowing a reasonable interval of time for the slight changes of shape or fabric which may have intervened. or fall back on the ordinary method of comparing the glass vessels of Gurob with those from Greek tombs of the seventh century B. It happens. to which belonged an amulet stamped with the name of Tutankhamen. If Professor Petrie is right in assigning his vases to about 1400 B. With this last remark the excavator at Enkomi came close to the real problem. and now in the British Museum. which .

Murray justly pointed out.” namely. “is of great interest as representing the type of the famous gold cup of the Vapheio tomb. “so full of suggested chronological deductions and—if its authors [i. as Dr. to some Greek painted vases of the sixth century B. Evans wrote. eight of which are well known designs of the time of Akhnaton (Amenhotep IV).8 These cups. like the porcelain figures “which present the most remarkable resemblance. and makes it “the immediate predecessor of the Ionian Greek art of the seventh century B. dated to the fourteenth century. Evans insisted that the material supplied by the Cypriote graves “takes us back at every point to a period contemporary with that of the mature art of the class as seen in the Aegean area. Are not the flasks of the Enkomi tomb almost as numerous in Egyptian tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty? A fine gold collar or pectoral inlaid with glass paste.” The metal ring of Enkomi. One of the silver vases of Enkomi. A. and the other saw the very same Mycenaean objects disinterred in the Egypt of Akhnaton. S. Evans. but he felt that this was an unsolvable problem. “a chronology which brings the pure Mycenaean style down to the Age of the Tyrants” of the eighth century. as their marvellous repousse designs sufficiently declare. He tried to disconnect the link between Mycenaean and Egyptian archaeologies and chronologies. all pointing in the same direction.C. he concluded with regret that “views so subversive” should come from so high an authority in classical studies. the Enkomi finds date from the apogee of the Mycenaean Age. with cartouches of the heretic Akhnaton. has gold pendants in nine different patters.” and so on. Murray and his collaborators] will pardon the expression—archaeological insinuations.” but he built his argument on the manifold connections of Mycenaean art with Egypt of the Eighteenth Dynasty. is especially important because “he was not a pharaoh whose cartouches were imitated at later periods.” and this despite his own admission that a number of objects from Enkomi point to a later age. found in enkomi. The proposal to reduce the time of the Mycenaean Age was rejected by the scholarly world. .. came out against Murray’s work.C. belong to the most perfect period of Mycenaean art.” Nevertheless. Two scholars clashed because one of them saw the close connection between Mycenaean art and the Greek art of the seventh century.48 could not be explained if an interval of many centuries lay between them.e.”7 Evans had to admit that “nothing is clearer than that Ionian art in many respects represents the continuity of Mycenaean tradition. “but are not found a century later.” This should establish that the theory of the latency of Mycenaean art for six or seven centuries after its flowering in the second millennium cannot help to solve the problem of Enkomi. Arthur J. at the time having just embarked on a long series of excavations at Knossos on Crete.

I have referred to this question in the chapter dealing with Ras Shamra in Ages in Chaos. Murray’s case was lost. Middle. the other weak. one strong. R. His weak point was his anxiety to disregard the connection between Mycenaean culture and the Egyptian world of the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty.”11 The Mycenaean Age started at the same time as the Late Minoan Age.C. whenever a piece of it is found in place in an ancient city.C.” wrote H. as follows: Excavations of the British Museum at Enkomi and Hala Sultan Tekke (near Larnaka on Cyprus) have brought to light tombs filled with objects of Minoan or Mycenean art.13 The verdict with regard to Enkomi was. He had built its defense on two points. Therefore. independent of Egypt. now mostly in the British Museum. as we did with the Egyptian. But there is none. His strong point was this: he analyzed and made clear the close interrelation between Mycenaean culture and the early Greek culture of the seventh century.49 The Mycenaean Age has no timetable of its own independent of that of Egypt. which was built and destroyed in the fourteenth century? The verdict in the matter of the age of Mycenae was unanimous: its period of greatest influence is dated between the fifteenth and the twelfth centuries. and checking the results of excavation with its aid. Sir Arthur Evans finds that the Bronze Age pottery and with it the general culture of Crete divides itself into three main chronological periods: Early. most of which cannot be later in date than the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B. in the words of Hall. and Late. It was asked. we would have needed to take into account all Minoan and Mycenaean chronological material. The Egyptian objects found in them are . Which fact should be given greater weight by an unbiased judge: the close relation between Mycenaean and Greek cultures or the fact that Mycenaean ware was found in the city of el-Amarna (Akhet-Aton).10 who served as curator of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the British Museum.9 “The chronological scheme depends ultimately upon Egyptian datings of Aegean pottery. Dr. it dates the context between about 1375 [the first year of Akhnaton according to the presently accepted chronology12 and 1225 B. on which to calculate the ages of the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures. each of which again is divided into three sub-periods. But in el-Amarna of Akhnaton scattered heaps of Mycenaean ware were found. “Using this Egyptian evidence as his guide. If Evans had had some evidence.. and little of it was received in the coastal countries after the middle of the thirteenth century.C. This [Mycenaean] ware did not appear in large quantities in Egypt until about 1375 B. Hall.

and fine Egyptian necklaces of gold also.15 He denied that the graves of Enkomi had been re-used. Thus the graves on the acropolis are “all intermingled with each other in a seemingly arbitrary way. “in Cyprus it was perpetuated. The finds are still evaluated by Egyptian chronology. In recent years French and French-British campaigns at Enkomi18 have failed to solve the problems left by the British Museum excavations of 1896. and cannot be earlier than the tenth or ninth century. and life during this transitional age was dull and poverty-stricken. . too. The golden tiaras and bands certainly seem to connect with those of the Myceanean shaft-graves. one would adjudge to the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty. in 1896. which. the second part (out of three) of this third period.14 Thus. unenterprising and dim. such as a bronze tripod . But at the same time there are many objects of later date. Probably. its Late or third period. .” I ask: Was the excavator to be blamed for something that was not his fault? The allegation that possibly objects dating from two different epochs were mixed up in Murray’s archaeological heaps does not meet his main arguments. “the scandal of Enkomi. as we have seen in Chapter I.”16 A generation after the excavations at Enkomi. “Cyprus no less than Greece itself passed through a long and tedious Dark Age.”and after the Mycenaean Age came to its close elsewhere. the greater part of the treasure of gold-work found in the tombs and now in the British Museum is of this early date. Somewhere I came upon the expression. mother of Akhnaton] have been found here as at Mycenae. other excavators opened more graves there and passed the following judgment: The burials in the graves belong to the second or Bronze Age. had to be taken as a Dark Age.”17 What does this mean? It means that simple and great questions are eclipsed by nomenclatures. from their style. being all of the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties.” “Cyprus withdrew into herself. . B (10 graves) and C (8 graves) also a few belong to Late Bronze IA and IB.50 demonstrably of this date. Rings of Akhenaten [Akhnaton] and a scarab of Teie [Tiy. more precisely to the subdivisions A (9 graves). We learn from this case the fact which both sides admitted: the Greek culture of the seventh century has many interrelations with Mycenaean culture. His elaborated statements dealt with simultaneous relationships of single objects with Egypt of the fourteenth century and Assyria and Greece of the ninth and eighth centuries. The resulting chronological gap. and not later. which are demonstrably of the Dipylon period. in effect the excavator of Enkomi is accused of having been unable to distinguish burials of different ages in a grave.

16. 1964] pp. 9. Aegean Archaeology (London. 126-29). note 2. 13. Excavations in Cyprus. 23-24. of the date of the Trojan War and other past events also depend on Egypt. Adding to the controversy. p. Homerische Waffen 2nd ed. R. but now assigned by the associated pottery to the eighth century B. A. Murray. 1927-1931 (Stockholm.C.. 1915). Excavations in Cyprus (London: British Museum.” in A. 154-55). The ancient Greek calculations of such past events as the time of Minos. M. See also H. 165ff. p. S. pp. W. Hall. 11. the conventional date of this king. S. XXVII (1947). of the Return of the Heracleidae. 16.3. Ibid. 4. Illahun. and Evans in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Flinders Petrie. 17. 2. who accepts the Egyptian-based date. note. 12. p. C. Smith. M. 3 (1940). By analogy to the Enkomi stand and other contemporary examples. of Heracles. “Mycenaean Cyprus as Illustrated in the British Museum Excavations. 15. 1977] pp. 70. Murray. R. 18. son-in-law of Akhnaton. 14. As was noted above. Since the above evaluation of the time of Tutankhamen by Petrie. XXX (1900). G. -1350. Compare also Plate 18 with two identical glass vases which are assigned to Rameses II. Catling judged the Pnyx tripod to be a twelfth-century heirloom. “Excavations at Enkomi.” in Comptes rendus. Casson. 23. 1901). 7. Ancient Cyprus (London. Wright. p. “Excavations at Enkomi. 59. 1891) Plate 17. This point needs to be kept constantly in mind when one is examining the older scholarly literature on these subjects. 201. the Oldest Civilization in Greece (London. H. 6. 10. assigning both it and a very similar example recently discovered in a contemporary grave on the island of Thera to the eighth century.” Biblical Archaeologist III No. “Nouvelles découvertes à Enkomi (Chypre). . Murray. B. LII (1948). W. variously dated. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Revue archéologique. Claude F. (Iraq 38 [19 ] pp. 9-10) 3.” in Murray.51 References 1. 575. [The tripod mentioned by Hall is dated to the twelfth century by H. Sir W. 1901). p. “Excavations at Enkomi. 129ff. has been reduced to ca. S. 1900). Evans. 2. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. 199ff. A. Paris. Rolley Les trepieds a cuve cluee [Fouilles des Delphes 5. now challenges Catling’s assessment of the Pnyx tripod. Kahun and Gurob (London. Reichel. Walters. E.” loc.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute XXX (1900) pp. Smith and Walters. “Epic of Conquest. I. E. Murray. Paris. Gjerstad and others. 3. the conventional date of the reign of Amenhotep III has been reduced to the end of the fifteenth and the first quarter of the fourteenth century. Aegean Archaeology. 64. Hall. Schaeffer. p. cit. Catling Cypriote Bronzework in the Mycenaean World [Oxford. since the time of the Murray-Evans controversy the age of Akhnaton and of Tutankhamen has been reduced by a few decades. H. (Vienna. 1934). Two gold cups with designs representing men hunting bulls were found in a beehive tomb at Vapheio in the neighborhood of Sparta. American Journal of Archaeology. Hall. Since the beginning of the present century. 5. 8.—E. 1949. H. 1937). pp. It was compared to a tripod found in a grave on the Pnyx in Athens. ].

I chose Tiryns. On the site of the palace and. Together with Mycenaean ware. The excavators felt that many facts point to the conclusion that the Greek temple was built over the Mycenaean palace very shortly after the palace was destroyed by fire.52 Tiryns The same problem that caused the difference of opinions at Enkomi and at the Heraion of Olympia arose at other excavated sites.7 However. on its original foundations a smaller edifice was built. Frickenhaus and continued in the following years. the Greek temple was built in the seventh century. Tiryns was excavated by Schliemann and Doerpfeld in 1884-85. they felt. disagreed as to when it was destroyed. To demonstrate this on another case of Greek archaeology.1 geometric ware of the eighth century and archaic ware of the sixth century were found.4 When the excavation of Tiryns was resumed in 1905 by a team headed by A. In their opinion the Mycenaean pottery was the refuse of an early stage of the palace. foundations of a palace were discovered. among them many little flasks in which libations had been brought to the sacred place. the excavators refused to accept the end of the Mycenaean Age in the second millennium as the time of the destruction of the palace. must have been inherited.5 The altar of the temple was an adaptation of the Mycenaean palace altar.6 the plan of the Mycenaean palace was familiar to the builders of the temple. Tiryns was destroyed simultaneously with Mycenae and the palace was burned down. even the worship of Hera. there was a temple of Hera in Tiryns which was deserted when the Argives vanquished the city in -460. the terracotta figures and flasks of archaic (seventh-century) type were offerings of the pilgrims to the Greek temple of Hera. the floor of the palace served as the floor of the temple. special attention was paid to the question of the time in which the Mycenaean palace there was destroyed. south-east of Mycenae. who agreed with him as to the time the palace had been built. Along with Mycenae. it was an important center of Mycenaean culture.3 From Greek literature it is known that in early Greek times. But his collaborator Doerpfeld. identified as the temple of Hera of Greek times. and decided that the palace had survived until the seventh century.8 After deliberating on the evidence. in the eighth or seventh century and until the first part of the fifth century. in part.2 According to Schliemann. A continuity of culture from Mycenaean to Greek times was claimed. and mixed with it.9 . In later times Tiryns was occasionally visited by travelers coming to pay homage to the sacred place of bygone days. and their opinions differred by six hundred years. On the acropolis.

”12 A decade later. Although Blegen’s arguments seemed to carry weight when he denied that the Myceaean palace had survived the Mycenaean Age by almost five centuries. that the inhabitants of the palace did not undertake any alteration for the entire period of more than half a millennium. near Corinth.”13 The critic (C. W.10 and that in one part of the palace the refuse of centuries was preserved. Blegen) agreed that the temple had been built immediately after the palace was destroyed.—how is it then possible that this same area was later covered over with almost purely Mycenaean debris?14 He therefore concluded that “the later building within the megaron at Tiryns is not a Greek temple” but “a reconstruction carried out toward the end of the Mycenaean Period after the destruction of the palace by fire.C.”18 In a book on the architecture of the palace of Tiryns. both architectural and chronological. when the temple of Hera was found to be very similar in plan to a Mycenaean building excavated at Korakou. M.53 Frickenhaus and his team realized that their explanation required some unusual assumptions: for instance. onward. but he could not agree that the temple was a building of the seventh century. How is it possible. the question whether or not the building is the temple of Hera remains unanswerable. because it was clear to them that “the fire of the palace was followed immediately by the erection of the temple. while in another part life went on. who had been “involved in a number of difficulties. if a Greek temple was established at the Mycenaean level in the megaron [the throne room] and if the open court before the megaron was used at its Mycenaean level from the seventh century B. “grave doubts” were expressed about the correctness of the above interpretations of the excavators of Tiryns.” He also denied the significance of the capital of a Doric column found during the excavation of the temple. K. Nilsson. its floor not even showing signs of wear. they appeared without force when he asserted that the building erected on the foundations of the palace was not a Greek temple.16 Because it is as inconceivable that the Greek temple was built in the thirteenth century as it is that the Mycenaean palace stood until the seventh century without alterations.11 But the excavators knew no other explanation.17 Nilsson confessed his inability to draw a conclusion: “The time of the reconstruction being uncertain. Muller.15 Blegen’s view was also questioned by an eminent classicist. another excavator of that city. arrived at the conclusion that the difference of opinions is irreconcilable. P. .

p. pp. 38. [The late eighth-century pottery was found immediately above. 1972) p. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton.. H. Mylonas. Plommer in Journal of Hellenic Studies 97 (1977). p.]. [Mylonas. before its proper place. p. Frickenhaus placed it in the middle of the seventh century (Tiryns I. Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstaetten. Frickenhaus. 31ff. But see Notes for the contrary view of Mylonas and others. 32) supports Blegen’s view].. p. Schliemann. pp. in the lower town. Ibid.54 but he shared the view of the scholars who ascribe the palace fire to about -750 and consider the edifice a Greek temple. Tiryns I. p.. [However. 137ff. who argues that the temple was built five centuries after the burning of the megaron. p. 10. 4. 132. See A. Rudolph. 48-52. Frickenhaus. 214ff. Frickenhaus. Tiryns (London. 6.19 Most of the archaeologists agreed on the continuity of the culture and cult of both buildings. Korakou. Ibid.)] 8. p. 52) and Jantzen. Mylonas. 51. 33. (Fuehrer durch Tiryns. pp. Alin. a Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth (American School of Classical Studies at Athens [Boston. Pausanias was one of those pilgrims in the year 170 of the present era. on the plain and in a wall chamber: see W. pp.) 9. J. W. 35. Tiryns vol. 1975) p. 130. 1962). Jantzen. “Tiryns 1968” in Tiryns ed.. 7. Frickenhaus.” Cf. Per Alin (Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstaetten. p. Die Hera von Tiryns (Athens. 31-40. 3. 333. Voigt-Lander. 12. 475-77) thought the floor of the later structure may have been at a higher level. or mixed with. But see G. p. Nilsson (The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion [Lund.20 but each of the attempts to bridge the chasm of almost five hundred years met with insurmountable difficulties. 16. Ibid. “the debris and potsherds which we should expect from the seventh century and subsequently during the period when the temple was in use. Ibid. 11. p. 15. — EMS] 2.. H. U. References 1. 1921] p. pushed back into history. 32. 33) reaffirm Frickenhaus’ conclusion that the later building is a Greek temple. Jantzen. 1912). ]. Blegen noted. 49. Tiryns III. U. p. 5. Tiryns I pp. a conclusion which has recently been argued by Mylonas (Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. p. 1886). (Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. [At the same time. Late Helladic IIIB/C wares on the citadel. W. . Blegen. P. 14. p. The answer would not be difficult if the Mycenaean Age were not displaced by this interval of time. W. 1966).. Per Alin Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstaetten auf dem griechischen Festland (Lund. have almost completely vanished. 36. [K. 8. C. 31. Frickenhaus. Tiryns III Die Architektur der Burg und des Palastes (Augsburg. 242. M. 1927] pp. 34. Cf. Tiryns. Muller. 81-82. Jantzen (Maintz. 5f. 13. Tiryns (Athens. Fuehrer durch Tiryns (Athens. pp. pp. 1930). Tiryns I. I. Wright in American Journal of Archaeology 84 (1980). p. 33. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion . Fuehrer durch Tiryns. 1971) p. p. 93. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Muller.

Tiryns III. Rodenwaldt. Under these circumstances the doubt concerning the identity seems unreasonable. if the building itself is not accepted as satisfactory evidence.” Additional sacred objects were found by Muller in 1926 (Tiryns III. p. Nilsson inclined more to the view of Frickenhaus that the later building was indeed a Greek temple. writing in 1950 (Homer and the Monuments. 235. Lorimer. More recently Per Alin (see above. 14) brought additional arguments in support of Blegen]. idem. “Zur der monumentalen Architektur in Griechenland. It is difficult to conceive what purpose it could have served through the long post-Mycenaean period if not that of continuing to house the ancient cult.” Athenische Mitteilungen 44 (1919). see above.2.” But it was against exactly such a possibility that Blegen had brought arguments a quarter of a century earlier. B.— EMS] . quoted by K. “that . 1950). An attempt to explain them in the light of Blegen’s theory was made by Alin (Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstaetten p.1). they were assigned dates from the mid-eighth to the mid-seventh centuries. Muller. [However. . he stressed the evidence for the cult of Hera: “the thousands of votive terracottas of a standing and seated goddess and others cannot be so lightly pushed aside as is done by Mr. Rodenwaldt himself agreed with Blegen in placing the destruction of what he considered a rebuilt megaron in Mycenaean time: Tiryns II. .) in a refuse pit. and he argued that “we know from votive deposits that there was a temple on the acropolis of Tiryns. 214ff. . In the same year W. 20. But cf. the megaron remained intact and uninhabited until it perished in a conflagration probably ca. pp. n. and not a smaller megaron of Mycenaean time. Muller in Tiryns III. 750. 95 and n. [Time did not help to reconcile the divergent views. 19. 6 about the floor level].” she wrote. 207ff. Mylonas had argued that the later Greek temple was built long after the destruction of the Mycenaean megaron by new settlers who followed the plan of the by then five-hundred-years-old ruins. Cf. Dinsmoor published The Architecture of Ancient Greece (New York. in which he advocated Blegen’s solution (p. “Mykenische Studien I” in Jahrbuch des deutschen archaeologischen Instituts 34 (1919) p. Jantzen in his Führer durch Tiryns (Athens. [Nevertheless. 1975). 435) admitted that at “Tiryns the circumstances are obscure” yet opted for Frickenhaus’ and Muller’s conclusion.2. 21 and n. Blegen” . pp. G. 18. This view is also followed by U. p. “It appears certain. n. 33). who nevertheless sees a continuation of the religious cult from Mycenaean into archaic times (p. 179-180. . H. n. footnote 213 about the floor level. pp.55 17. above. [However. 32)].

For many more 500-year enigmas. 5. Kleine Schriften. was the time in which pottery and other antiquities of the Mycenae class were produced for the home market of Greece and possibly in Greece itself” (Murray)1 was pronounced an “archaeological insinuation” (Evans)2 The other attempt at synchronizing the geometric with the Mycenaean ware by ascribing them to the second millennium (Doerpfeld) was called “the naivete of complete ignorance” (Furtwängler). Hall.3 The separation of the Mycenaean Age from the Greek Age by five hundred years of Dark Age was paid for with an ever-growing mass of conflicting facts. . Coldstream’s article on hero cults in Journal of Hellenic Studies (1976). Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 30 (1900). But some of the objects from these graves can be shown. Already in the shaft tombs of Mycenae some of the finds bore conflicting and unreconcilable evidence: Nor .6 References 1. 3. The theory that “a period covering the seventh century and extending. p. 2. to be of far later date than others. 1892). The Oldest Civilization of Greece (London. I. R. 4. 57. are separated by close to five hundred years. S. 456. 16. See J. 200. p. This makes the presence of objects of two different epochs in the Mycenaean graves in Greece very enigmatic. p. It has been usual to regard all the contents of the acropolis-graves at Mycenae as dating more or less to the same period.5 The epochs. Because two timetables are applied simultaneously to the past of Greece—one built on the evidences of Greece itself.” Pensée IVR. vol. see.”4 The same author admitted that the graves in Greece were as a rule not re-used. is the evidence of Greek excavation always as simple and convincing as it looks. [Hall later retracted his opinion for the shaft graves of Mycenae. p. EMS] 6. no. Handbook of Greek Archaeology (New York. Israel M. H. A. if we are not to throw aside all that we have learned of the development of early Greek art. N. but the same 500-year enigma has since been found in other Late Helladic tombs throughout the Aegean. as usual. 1901). into the eighth century. Isaacson. 5-20. the other on the evidences of relations with Egypt—a clash of opinions in matters of age appraisal is almost inevitable. . . Furtwängler. Murray. “Applying the Revised Chronology. H.56 Mute Witnesses The divergence of almost five hundred years in the archaeological age evaluations repeats itself with respect to many sites of the Greek past. 4 (Fall 1994). perhaps. Evans.

1 Of bronze figurines of men from the votive cave he wrote: “These Cretan figures have been dated. “The style of the head is exceptionally fine. . to Late Minoan III. Its superficial resemblance to a group of Cretan Geometric bronzes is noteworthy. Would the animal figures from the same assemblage make the decision easier? “Again there is as yet no reason to believe that bronze animal votives were being made uninterruptedly from Minoan to Geometric times. It should then be possible to distinguish the early from the late. . The Dictaean Cave on Crete supplied the Cretan Collection in Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum with many objects. the Minoan ware in its latest style must be found contemporary with the geometric ware and the same perplexing relations would be discovered on Crete as were discovered in continental Greece. with the Minoan and the Geometric ages contesting for them. there is much in the style to be explained. as we maintain.”4 The bronze male and female figurines divided the experts. Boardman published a study of the Cretan Collection and tried to classify the finds by their style and affiliation. the Minoan civilization continued until the eighth century or even until the later part of it.”2 Of the bronze figures of women from the same cave.”6 .” The layers in which it was found “suggest a Middle Minoan III-Late Minoan I context” and this “considerably complicates the problem to which no solution is offered here. of course. which belong in the eighth century. the author says: “Although no such figures of women have been recovered from Late Minoan III deposits [elsewhere]. . apparently by style. they must be related in some way to the well-known Geometric type of mainland Greece which exhibits the same characteristics. although Pendlebury3 thought some might be Geometric. But if. it is likely that the cruder specimens from the cave are of this date.57 A Votive Cretan Cave On Crete a long interval is thought to separate the last period of the Minoan civilization from the late Geometric period in art and history.”5 Next came knives with human heads at the end of the handles. and four hundred years if Leonard Palmer is right in claiming that it endured to almost -1200. the cave was a votive place in the Late Minoan III age and an abundance of bronze figures was stored there. six hundred years of Dark Age if Evans is right that the Minoan civilization came to its end in -1400. J. and although the shape of the blade and solid handle point to the latest Bronze Age. then. but it is not easy.

the Geometric of the eighth century and the Archaic (of the seventh-sixth centuries).C. but the decoration of the small bosses is more Geometric in spirit. the hallmark of their age—throw some light on the problem? For the storage jars with reliefs. The example from Knossos was published by Evans as Minoan. Will not then the pottery—vases and dishes. (pithoi) from the Dictaean Cave. entered upon a Dark Age which the still inadequate archaeological record can illuminate but little and the literary record not at all. .”10 Then what is the verdict of the fifth expert. Crete.”7 Thus bronze figurines. familiar with the opinions of the other four? “It is tempting to see in these pieces the immediate predecessors of the finely moulded and impressed pithoi of seventh-century Crete.13 . The case of the votive Dictaean Cave and its contents was selected here to illustrate how the problem stands on Crete. with the rest of Greece. There are several Cretan examples of heads or masks being used to decorate the necks of vases. . but for these the independent inspiration of mainland Greece or the islands can be adduced. Some Cretan vases have a very characteristic decoration on them and it could be expected that this would help solve the problem of the age. and the difference frequently amounts to more than half a millennium. . . and the cave fragments are best regarded as purely Minoan in date. seem Minoan.”11 The very same features tend to confuse the experts.58 A “cut-out plaque from the cave . The dress and pose. rings and plaques perplex the art expert when he tries to determine the period from which they date. . The outline of the features is common in Cretan Geometric. but it does not. and the signs on the cheeks thought to be signs in a linear script. with elbows high. is of a woman with a full skirt.” But two other authorities9 “have them Minoan. two authorities8 “imply a Geometric date. . The verdict drawn by the art expert quoted on these pages did not clarify the issue by its recourse to our ignorance of what transpired during the Dark Age: After the collapse or overthrow of the major Bronze Age civilizations of the Aegean world in the twelfth century B. .12 In other cases the confusion is still greater when a decision is to be made between the Minoan (or Mycenaean) of the second millennium. . The patterns are purely Geometric. The technique and the decoration tell against this.

20. 3. The Cretan Collection in Oxford (Oxford University Press. The Cretan Collection. Ibid. 2. Annuario della R. and Pendlebury.59 References 1. The Archaeology of Crete. 12. Schaefer. 1961). S. 332. 6. 334. F. 9.. 5. p. 57. p. 9. 129. 8. 1939) p. Ibid.. 10. Ibid.. loc.. The Cretan Collection. p. p. 43. 7. 103. Scuola Archeologica di Atene XV-XVI (1932-33) p. Tenos und Boiotien (1957). . Jahrhunderts v. Les Vases grecques a relief (Paris. Ibid. p. p. Rhodos. Mustili. 144. 7.. J. cit. p. Ibid. 42f. Ibid. 11.5. 4. D. p. Pendlebury. 13.-6. Boardman.. 2 Studien zu den griechischen Reliefpithoi des 8. Chr. aus Kreta. Boardman. The Archaeology of Ancient Crete: An Introduction (London. p. 8. n. Ibid. J.. 1922) pp. Courby.

in southern Etruria. von Vacano in his Etruscans in the Ancient World (1960) comments with wondering: . 1878]. are found vaulted structures erected by the Etruscans: they are of the type known as “false vaulting. vol.The Mycenaean corridor design and tholos [circular domed tomb] structures are related to the vaulted buildings which make their appearance in the orientalizing period in Etruria—and here it is even more difficult to solve. The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria [London. is placed so not by a true verdict. Aristonothos (fig. [After the monuments of Mycenae and Tiryns received.” (G. n. some scholars attempted to age the Etruscan tombs by five hundred years to make them contemporary with their Mycenaean conterparts: so “striking” was the similarity. so “evident” the relation of the two architectural styles. p. “There is an obvious link between the design of the Aristonothos crater and another earthenware vessel. n. 6. . on the outskirts of Veii. 154) was unanimously rejected by experts (e. between the rivers Arno and Tiber. 368. Von Vacano.2 A dilemma no less serious is posed by a vase fashioned by a Greek master who signed it with his name. between -675 and -650 he studied in Athens. 265. cf. I. A. p. even though the connection itself is undisputed. References 1. The remains of the city walls of Populonia. Dennis.1 The Etruscan vaulted chambers impress one by their similarity to Mycenaean architecture.’”3 It becomes ever clearer that the end of the Mycenaean Age. dates in the second millennium.60 Etruria The Etruscans are thought to have arrived in northern Italy sometime before the end of the eighth century before the present era. that if the Mycenaean tombs belong in the second millennium. 81. ). and is one of the earliest painted chamber-tombs of Etruria. The Dawn of .: their gateways may well have had arches rounded like the entrance doors to the Grotta Campana. .C.. the ones found in Etruria “are probably not of inferior antiquity. The vase was found at Cerveteri. put at ca. then migrated to Syracuse (Sicily) and later to Etruria (Tuscany). In Etruria. Vetulonia and Rusellae. p.. The Etruscans in the Ancient World.) But what of the contents of the tombs. which dates from the second half of the seventh century B.g.” O. Other Etruscan structures of the seventh-sixth centuries also show such similarity. scarcely less often discussed and more than five hundred years older. -1200. op. consisting of huge stone blocks which have a ‘Mycenaean’ look. W. on the basis of Egyptian chronology.2. p. Mosso. the vase known from the principal figure decorating it as ‘the Warrior Vase of Mycenae.. which invariably consisted of Etruscan products of the eighth century and later? The surmise that this situation reflected “a reappropriation of a very ancient sepulchre” (Dennis. do not date further back than the end of the sixth century B.C. cit. one expert argued.

p. lxix. 1955). von Cles-Redden. transl. p. cit. 393). op. dated to ca. A. N. The sepulchral slabs used in some Etruscan tombs. as the revised timetable postulates. but rather of Minoan Crete (von Cles-Redden.. five hundred years of darkness intervened. n.. 1911]. p. The types of columns used in Etruscan buildings derive from columns of Knossos and Mycenae. A Guide to Etruscan Antiquities (Florence. 150. But had not the Cretan palaces with their frescoes been destroyed many centuries earlier? (c) Burials. See I. resemble those found by Schliemann at Mycenae (Dennis. Boethius and J. M. 180. The Buried People: A Study of the Etruscan World. B. S. 1970) p. Etruscan and Roman Architecture (Baltimore. 35. Von Vacano. The famous Etruscan frescoes. [Numerous other Etruscan cultural traits reflect Mycenaean models.(S. Modona. (a) Columns. von Cles-Reden. op. B. 1954).] 2. Also Etruscan burial customs appear to be derived from Mycenaean models (S. 78 and pl. did the Etruscans find the models for their wooden columns? (b) Frescoes. then. 82. Ibid. The Buried People. and these people first arrived on the scene in the middle of the eighth century. Isaacson. by C.)] 3. op. yet most difficult to account for if. p. The Buried People: A Study of the Etruscan World. Where. the two cultures were contemporary. p. Woodhouse [New York. 81. such as those that decorate the tombs near Veii. M. “Applying the Revised Chronology. Ward-Perkins. . 1955]. 5ff. p. p.” Pensée IX (1974). The oldest is the Grotta Regolini Galassi. as the conventional scheme requires.C. 122.. especially those bearing reliefs of men and animals. cf.) But it is presumed that no Mycenaean or Minoan structures were left standing in Etruscan times. p. There was no reason to suppose that the tombs had been built by anyone but the people who used them. 92.p. 9). something that would be not unexpected if. transl. p. 1911) pp. 47. by C. p. and have nothing in common with the Doric columns of seventh and sixth-century Greece.61 Mediterranean Civilization [New York. Woodhouse (New York. The Etruscans in the Ancient World. Cles-Reden. The Dawn of Mediterranean Civilization (New York. The relation of these eighthcentury tombs to the five-hundred-years-earlier structures of Mycenean Greece has remained a puzzle. A. cit.. 392-93. p. M. von Cles-Redden. cit. 143). display an “obvious reminiscence of Crete”—however not of Crete of the Dark Ages.

7 Moreover. these traditions are especially important in linking the Greek colonization of Sicily with the closed of the Mycenean age. only late Geometric ware appears with the arrival of the Greeks. is absent. In Sicily the time between the end of the Mycenean age and the beginning of Greek colonization is an absolute void. All the evidence we have examined argues against a long gap between the Mycenean age in Sicily and the arrival of the Greek colonists in the seventh century.1 Not till the beginning of the seventh century is the gloom dispelled by the arrival of the first Greek colonists. are found tholos tombs of the Mycenean type. founded by migrants from Crete and Rhodes at a date fixed by the ancient chronographers as -689.62 Sicily In Mycenean times Sicily had a prosperous civilization that carried on a busy commerce with the Helladic city-state of mainland Greece and the Minoan empire of Crete. a detailed comparison of the motifs in use in the seventh century with those on Mycenean ware caused much amazement among art historians. one of the Greek heroes returning from Troy: and Virgil has Aeneas.3 Inside of one of the tombs were found gold bowls and seal rings manufactured in a style that derives from Mycenean gold work.4 Yet neither the tombs nor the objects found inside them can be dated before the end of the eighth century. It is a puzzle how “splendid gold rings” with incised animal figures. This civilization disappears from view about the same time that the chief Mycenean centers were destroyed.6 The decorative motifs used by the Greek colonists are once more under strong Mycenean influence. A little to the north of Agrigento. sail along the southern coast of the island and admire flourishing Gela and two other Greek settlements which by all accounts did not come into existence till the beginning of the seventh century. Minoan influences were identified in the shape and decoration of pottery discovered at Gela. with a total lack of archaeological remains: even the Protogeometric and Geometric pottery which elsewhere is claimed to span the Dark Age. and five centuries of darkness are said to descend on the island. but not even a suggestion of how the motifs could have been transmitted through the Dark Ages. and help explain the many survivals of Mycenean culture in the Greek colonies of seventh century Sicily. Tradition also claimed that Gela’s founder was Antiphemos. so reminiscent of Mycenean objects and having nothing in common with contemporary Greek prototypes could have been manufactured by Greek colonists in the seventh century if “a real Dark Age”5 of five hundred years’ duration did in fact separate them from the latest phase of the Mycenean civilization. somewhat west of Gela on Sicily’s southern coast. the Trojan hero. presenting the same problems.2 Besides furnishing further proof our dating of the Trojan War. The earliest of the Greek settlements was at Gela on the southern coast. Then why is it necessary for historians to postulate a five hundred year long Dark Age between the two epochs? Of the sherds found on the island some were .

1969). Sicily Before the Greeks p. 6. vol. p. Aeneas. Sicily Before the Greeks p. E. 5. Brea.)” . 1965). New Series. Sicily Before the Greeks (New York. p. References 1. Griffo and L.B.63 fragments of “exactly the same pottery as that found in Egypt in the ruins of Tell el Amarna. Brea. L. III (1948). p.C. Aeneas. 4.” Papers of the British School at Rome. G. p. Gela: The Ancient Greeks in Sicily (Greenwich. The Aeneid Book III. Sicily and Rome (Princeton. p. Ancient Greek Sculpture of South Italy and Sicily (New York. Brea. Connecticut. T. Dunbanin “Minos and Daidalos in Sicily. 8 It was the erroneous timetable of Egypt which caused the historians to remove the Mycenean civilization of Sicily into the second millennium. lines 671-673 3. severing its links to its Hellenic successor. 130. cf. Galinsky. Sicily and Rome. Langlotz. 175. 1968). von Matt. p. 15. Langlotz. P.J. XVI. p. 47. 83 8. 9. 86. vol. 174. Ancient Greek Sculpture of South Italy and Sicily . Karl Galinsky. the capital of Pharaoh Amenophis IV [Akhnaton] (1372-1355 B. . Sicily Before the Greeks p. 7. 130 2. Brea. 1966). 15.

Later the powerful Chaldean and Persian empires succeeded to confine them to the steppes north of the Caucasus. would have survived. Stone constructions of the type. the design of animal bodies in ” ‘flying gallop” in which the animal is represented as stretched out with its forelegs extended in a line with the body and its hind legs thrown back accordingly. “they are the youngest of all nations.” wrote the historian Rostovzeff.”1 It was the great disturbances and movements of people of the eighth and seventh centuries before the present era that brought these nomadic tribes from the depths of Asia to the doorstep of the civilized nations of the ancients East—Assyria.”5 To explain the use by the Scythians of the corbelled vault of the type common in the Mycenaean period. despite the lack of even a single exemplar between the twelfth and seventh centuries. “I have no doubt.” reported the fifth-century Greek historian Herodotus. long ago.”6 We. had they existed. however. that the corbelled vault was continuously employed in Thrace. .” .64 Mycenae and Scythia “According to the account which the Scythians themselves give. Egypt and Greece. needs to place their arrival fully five centuries after the last of the Mycenae citadels had been abandoned. the accepted timetable. The tombs of the Scythian kings in the Crimea were built in a way “surprisingly reminiscent of Mycenaean constructions. Siberia and the Far East. must begin to have doubts about a scheme which needs to postulate a five hundred year tradition of work in stone for which not a thread of evidence exists. Formerly the Scythians dwelt east of the Araxus2—their first settlements in southern Russia date to the end of the eighth century.”4 the burial chamber consisting of “enormous blocks of dressed stone set to overlap each other so as to meet in the center in an impressive vault. menacing Egypt and helping to bring about the downfall of Assyria. The appearance of the Scythians on the scene of the ancient East coincides in revised scheme with the final years of the Mycenaean civilization. Gregory Borovka in his Scythian Art writes of “the striking circumstance that the Scytho-Siberian animal style exhibits an inexplicable but far-reaching affinity with the Minoan-Mycenaean. on the contrary. Nearly all its motives recur in Minoan-Mycenaean art.”7 Solomon Reinach. about the time also that the Assyrians clashed with them in the vicinity of Lake Urmia.3 In the course of the decades that followed the Scythians attained the peak of their power.8 For instance. and in Greece and in Asia Minor as well. called attention to certain striking resemblances between Scythian and Minoan-Mycenaean art. from the Mycenaean period onwards. it recurs only in Scythia. is at once characteristic of Minoan-Mycenaean art and foreign to that of all other ancient and modern peoples. “although we possess no examples. it was suggested that there must have been a continuing tradition going back to Mycenaean times. .

T. E. Caria and Lycia)—Ibid. reappears again in Scythian and Siberian art. too. reappear in Minoan and Mycenaean art. 1975). Bk. and in Asia Minor (Pontus.. while the hind quarters are turned upwards? Can the agonized writhings of a wounded beast or fury of his assailant be more simply rendered?”9 ”Other motives of the [Scythian] animal style. An interval of some 500 years separates them. Rice. p. which flows through today’s Afghanistan. a riddle. Similar “Mycenaean type” constructions of the Scythians were found in Bulgaria (at Lozengrad). 44. R. the two are too widely separated in space and time. The Scythians. 38: “Il a déjà été question d’une rondelle de bois . 144 bis “Lion au galop sur une rondelle en bois mycénienne. 1922) p. Rostovzeff. Arch. We may cite the animals with hanging legs and those which are curled almost into a circle. But what appeared to them most surprising was the fact that two such similar art styles should be separated not only by a vast geographical distance. Herodotus. See Rice. . 230. 77. the kinship between the two provinces of art remains striking and typical of both of them. 5. The Araxus may be either the Oxus. (London 1928). often represented in the Aegean with reverted head. H. IV. or the Volga. 194) also considered the plan of the tombs to be of Mycenaean derivation. 7. . 5.65 Another example of great similarity in style is in “the Siberian gold and bronze plaques depicting scenes of fighting animals. Conversely. 6. 78. 3e série. 2. p. In the reign of Sargon II (-722 to -705). Still. ”How are we to explain this far-reaching kinship in aim between the two artistic schools? It remains. on the face of it. The Histories. Altan Oba “The Golden Barrow”) and Tsarskij Kurgan (“Royal Barrow”). 3. The Scythians. the standard motif of the MinoanMycenaean lion. Minns (Scythian and Greeks..” p. p. p.”10 References 1. ch. Instituts zu Wien. Rice. “How often are the animals depicted with the body so twisted that the forequarters are turned downwards. Durn in Jahrhefte der k. “La représentation du galop dans l’art ancient et moderne” in Revue archéologique. X (1907).” Borovka supplies his description with illustrations. Immediate relations between Minoan-Mycenaean and Scytho-Siberian civilizations are unthinkable. but also by an enormous gulf in time. Cambridge.” The similarity first observed by Reinach and elaborated upon by Borovka is very unusual. M. p. 8. Reinach. The Scythians (London. T. 96. p. Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford. 1913. 53. E. tome XXXVIII (1901) fig. 4. S. g.

Borovka. sur laquelle est figuré un lion bondissant. who termed a Scythian depiction of a deer with its head turned around “a Mycenaean survival. 144 bis) pour la rapprocher d’une plaque d’or sibérienne représentant un cheval attaqué par un tigre. 53-54. Borovka. Scythian Art. 10. 260).66 mycénienne. . 54 Similar observations were made by Minns (Scythian and Greeks. Cheval et tigre offrent également ce singullier motif des membres postérieurs rejetés vers le dos et l’enclosure (fig. 58). découverte en Egypte.” He also compared an ibex on a casket from Enkomi. p. Scythian Art. l’arrièretrain soulevé avec une telle violence que les rattes de derrière vinnent toucher le front (fig.” 9. Cyprus to similar Scythian depictions. 114). Nous reproduisons ici cette figure (fig. pp. p.

67 CHAPTER III: WORDS SET IN CLAY .

a seven-town coastal strip mentioned in the Iliad finds a parallel in a strip of seven coastal settlements referred to on one of the tablets. was not found. originally not fired but only dried. and when subsequently more tablets inscribed with these characters were found in other sites of the Greek mainland—at Mycenae and at Thebes—the name Mycenaean became rather regularly applied to the script.3 but when read—and the story will be told on subsequent pages—they were found to contain no literary text: they were regularly archive notes. Nevertheless. it came rather suddenly. celebrated by Homer. who found tablets with incised signs of two scripts. Linear B had been first discovered on Crete by Sir Arthur Evans.4 again. on the western coast of the Peloponnese. would have disintegrated long ago. Blegen selected for his first dig a prominent hilltop. was the capital of Nestor. in the second part of the thirteenth century before the present era—the preferred time for the Trojan War. in his estimate.2 Already early during the work of excavation Blegen unearthed scores of tablets written in the Linear B script. as soon as he began to lift the earth from his first trench. and much pottery of Mycenaean time. which he termed Linear A and Linear B. And to Blegen’s great satisfaction Pylos was found repeatedly mentioned on the tablets retrieved from the palace he identified as Nestor’s . For over a decade after their discovery the tablets were neither published nor read. A great conflagration raged over the structure. The profusion of tablets found in Pylos made the archaeologists question whether the script was Minoan or had its origin on the mainland of Greece. which seemed to him eminently suitable to be the site of a royal palace.68 Pylos Pylos in Messenia.5 Nestor’s name. and in fact. and soon there were hundreds of them.1 In 1939 Carl Blegen came to Messenia to search the countryside for signs of the ancient city of Pylos with Nestor’s famous palace. and his allies. since most furniture. He soon arrived at the conclusion that the palace was Nestor’s : the building he excavated had been occupied. pottery. interesting parallels could be drawn with the Homeric epics: Pylos is mentioned at the head of nine other towns that profess allegiance to it—both in Homer and on the tablets. or human and animal census or storage inventory. however. king of Mycenae. the elderly statesman in the league headed by Agamemnon. were it not for the fire that destroyed the palace and baked the tablets. against Priam.6 . king of Troy. a short distance from the sea. extensive structures began to appear. The tablets. dealing with taxation or conscription. the contents of the storage rooms and archives were not removed: but humans all fled.

p.” 4. Rawson. were found. 1966) vol. 689. . loc. cit. 5. They were published in 1951 (The Pylos Tablets: A Preliminary Transcription) and the decipherment was completed by 1953. as in so many other parts of the site. 3. a few glazed sherds of Late Geometric Style. See below. . p. . pt. 2. 7. p. 1. 422. Blegen and M. in the upper black layer . 8. siege. 419. Iliad XI. W. Ibid. Ibid. The Palace of Nestor. I. 591-94. The Palace of Nestor. I. Ibid. section “Linear B Deciphered. no signs of warfare.7 However.8 The palace presented Blegen and his collaborators with problems not unlike those that were to occupy him later at Troy. 6.. 424.69 Blegen placed the destruction not long after the Trojan War. 422.3f. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. along with the usual Mycenaean pottery. 9. pp.”9 References 1. 300.. p. vol.. The Palace of Nestor. re-occupation by people of another culture or occupation in general were found. . 3ff. at the close of the Mycenaean Age. In the report of the excavations Blegen wrote: “In some places . 1. I (Princeton. . Blegen and Rawson. where similar deposits were encountered. vol. p. Odyssey III. C. Iliad II. pt.

but seriatim. Consequently the Ionic culture must show great affinity with the Mycenaean heritage. with no centuries intervening. Nor was the decipherment facilitated by the manner in which Sir Arthur Evans published the texts of the Linear B tablets—not all at once. in her treatise Homer and the Monuments wrote of this script and of the efforts to read it: “The result is wholly unfavorable to any hope entertained that the language of the inscriptions might be Greek.70 Linear B Deciphered For a long time the Linear B script did not disclose its secret to those who worked on its solution. In 1950 the eminent authority on Homeric Greece. 1953. I believe that when the Minoan writings unearthed in Mycenae are deciphered they will be found to be Greek. Yet even after the Linear B tablets were found on the mainland of Greece their language was not thought to be Greek. I also claim that these texts are of a later date than generally believed. “No ‘Dark Age’ of six centuries’ duration intervened in Greece between the Mycenaean Age and the Ionian Age of the seventh century.” . in the accepted chronological scale: the Ionian age. Lorimer. Helen L. Efforts to read the tablets made by classical philologists were unsuccessful. When Blegen discovered the Linear B tablets on the Greek mainland in the ruins of the ancient palace in Pylos. first of all. but this was not a view that had many supporters.” Nevertheless. on the occasion of addressing the Forum of the Graduate College of Princeton University on October 4. and therefore I have claimed that the Linear B script would prove to be Greek. Greek writing appears for the first time in the eighth century. and never took place. the result was negative. the break in culture being but the consequence of natural upheavals of the eighth century and of the subsequent migrations of peoples. I formulated my expectations: I expect new evidence from the Minoan Scripts and the so-called Hittite pictographs. was separated from the Mycenaean Age by five hundred years. The reason for that was. according to conventional chronology. the final stage of the Mycenaean Age that ended abruptly. One of the most important and far-reaching theses of the reconstructin of ancient history is in the conclusion that the so-called Dark Ages of the Greek and Anatolian histories are but artifacts of the historians. they were ascribed to the Heroic Age of Troy. The Mycenaean Age ended in the eighth century and was followed by the Ionic times. Texts in the Minoan (Linear B) script were found years ago on Crete and in Mycenae and in several other places on the Greek mainland. and whatever clue was tried out.

.” But a few years more and Ventris found the true solution. but the last passage in the address was quoted from my Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History. That it was Greek never entered his head.” He “guessed that the language was related to Etruscan . None of his queried correspondents came upon the right trail. . Palmer testified as to the stand the Hellenic scholars and Ventris himself had taken prior to the achievement. The remarkable fact stands out that not one of the scholars concerned suggested that the language could be Greek. . The ancient script “that for the last half century and longer has baffled archaeologists and linguists has been decoded finally—by an amateur.” served as a cryptographer during World War II.’ which records what could be deduced by the most eminent living authorities from the archaeological and other evidence available at the time preceding the decipherment of the script. in his book Mycenaeans and Minoans. “was ‘almost certain’ that the language of his tablets was ‘Minoan’ .1 When speaking to the Princeton Forum in October 1953 I did not know that a young English architect was by then on the verge of publishing the solution to the riddle of the Linear B script.” “It figures in the so-called ‘Mid-Century Report. like Schliemann who since boyhood was determined to find Troy and the tomb of Agamemnon.2 Ventris as a boy attended a lecture by Sir Arthur Evans on the Minoan tablets with unread scripts and.71 The address was printed as a supplement to Earth in Upheaval. Palmer wrote: “Evans ventured no guess at the possible affinities of the Minoan language. was intrigued to decipher the script of which he heard Evans speak. In 1962 Leonard R. who was the first to find the tablets on Greek soil. an architect and “leisure-time scholar of pre-classic scripts. Even then loud voices of skepticism and opposition made themselves heard. The script that had been tried without avail in a variety of languages—Hittite. This wrong diagnosis was maintained by Ventris right up to the final stages of his decipherment. Nor did the possibility that the Linear B tablets concealed the Greek language occur to Michael Ventris. published eight years earlier. Sumerian and Basque among others—was found by Ventris to be Greek. and the April 9. a merchant and an architect. .3 . 1954 front page news of The New York Times made known the exciting performance of decoding Linear B by Michael Ventris. Thus the greatest discoveries in the world of classical studies were made by non-specialists.” Also Blegen. he privately distributed the replies in 1950 as The Languages of the Minoan and Mycenaean Civilizations (known as the “Mid-Century Report” ). In 1949 he had sent out a questionnaire on Linear B to leading authorities on Aegean questions. in 1945. But Ventris was not immediately on the right path.” Ventris. Only six months passed since my addressing the Graduate Forum.

to regain literacy in the eighth century? Thus the problem already answered in Ages in Chaos was brought into relief. thus outlining the projected Ages in Chaos and its sequel volumes. J. To the even greater surprise of the scholarly world the names of the deities of the Greek pantheon. one would like to say. .72 But the method being perfected disclosed more and more Greek words and names which could not result from a mistaken decipherment. only to be confronted with the riddle of the Mycenaean tablets written in Greek more than five hundred years before the oldest known Greek inscription in alphabetic characters adapted from the Hebrew-Phoenician script. I stated. that of Prof. Chadwick. Ventris died young.. grew now to astonishing. pp. In this publication. but not without creating some puzzling situations. without any elaboration. 2. the findings to which I had come in the work of reconstruction of ancient history. in an auto accident. The entire field of early Greek civilization experienced the greatest shock since the discovery of Troy. 3. instead of being solved. proportions. Cf. 1ff. One of the most tantalizing riddles of classical archaeology was solved.g. became as bitterly defended by the new generation of classical scholars. and a heretical idea crept into the minds of a few scholars: is there some mistake in the accepted timetable? In the last century a Dark Age of five centuries’ duration between the Mycenaean and the Ionian ages was forced upon the scholars of the Greek past by students of Egyptology. supposedly “created” by Homer and Hesiod. References 1. soon after his triumph. and in three quarters of a century this notion. first bitterly opposed. were found on the deciphered Linear B tablets. Homeric. The Decipherment of Linear B (Cambridge. E. distributed only to a limited number of large libraries in Europe and America. The reading of these tablets in the Greek language raised the question: How could a literate people in the fourteenth century become illiterate for almost five centuries. 1958). The Homeric Question. Beattie in Journal of Hellenic Studies 76 (1956).

“and between them they killed two Trojans with tablet names Pyrasos and Ophelestas. there was no contact with Egypt during the Dark Ages and until the seventh century. grew more urgent. occurs at Knossos. or Zeus with Europa in the depiction of a bull carrying a woman.73 The Greek Pantheon When the texts in Linear B were read the so-called Homeric problem did not approach a solution but.5 In Homer Laodokos’s father is Antenor and on a Pylos tablet Laodokos holds land in a village or suburb where Antenor is mayor. singing among the Muses. and a third Simoeisios. if the epos was not yet completed in the Mycenaean Age. and a “wealth of Trojan names. Since antiquity it had been believed that “Homer and Hesiod were the first to compose Theogonies. Dionysus’ name was found on a Pylos tablet.4 Not less unexpected were the names of Achaean heroes known from the Homeric epics when found on the Pylos and Knossos tablets. the Iliad and the Odyssey. In Homer Laodokos is from Pylos. and Kastor’s at Knossos. are found in Pylos. have namesakes in Homer. Achilles’ name is found both a Knossos and at Pylos. and that of Tros.. Webster. admittedly. Athene was deified in Knossos. corrupted in the later versions of the epics to look as a private name. Telamonian Teucer. “Unfortunately the establishment of Neritos as a good Mycenaean name does not help the difficult geographical problem of Ithaca’s location. come upon calling a hero after the river Nile. asked T. The Minotaur and centaurs were recognized as likely Mycenaean images.. Artemis and Hermes were worshipped in Pylos.3 With Greek gods and goddesses spelled by their names on the tablets. whose father’s name. Ajax (called by his patronymic “Telamonian”) and his brother. and give the gods their epithets. “Mycenaean names int he story are Amphiaros . where the tablet with his name was found. and it was thought to be a misnomer for some Greek term. Anthemos. it was conducive to recognize Apollo in a figure on a vase. more enigmatic. more perplexing.” too. contrariwise. B. and how could a bard of one of those centuries. or Poseidon in a figure depicted driving a chariot over the sea.2 Hera. Zeus and Poseidon were worshipped in Pylos and Knossos.” Hector’s name and Priam’s name. The name Neritos in met in both.”1 Therefore reading the names of Greek gods and goddesses on the Linear B tables from Knossos on Crete and Pylos on the mainland was something of a shock to classical scholars. Aigyptos of the Odyssey has a namesake on a Knossos tablet. but the name was found on a table as that of a sheep owner.” The campaign of the Seven against Thebes and the sack of the city by the Epigoni are alluded to by Homer.

43-48. From Mycenae to Homer (London. Ibid. [Page.74 (Knossos). L. n. 1973). Page. H. 279. Gray. Herodotus II. 7. 286 Ibid.21) had a namesake at Knossos. “Mycenaean Names in Homer. pp 183-192. p. 10.”6 Nestor of Homer “has Mycenaean titles”. Chadwick wondered that the tablets “unexpectedly reveal the worship of gods and goddesses known from classical sources” —Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge University Press. is it not a cause for wonder that the poet should know these names and titles and use them for his epics? References 1. pp. 121. Webster. 159-160.9 “The epithet hippiocharmes (chariot-fighter). Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton. From Mycenae to Homer. 9. Cf. 275] 3. 1956). Polyphontes (Pylos). 48. which is applied to Troilos in the Iliad and to Amythaon (a name found on the Pylos tablets) in the Odyssey. H. [Page.] 6. “Les Institutions religieuses mycéniennes” — III “Les dieux et leur culte” in Minos XI (1972). 1958) 5. History and the Homeric Iliad. Not less amazing are the attributes and adjectives accompanying the names as used by Homer and found on the tablets. p.] 4. 1959). pp. 218. A. 8. G. 197-199. Phegeus’ name. 190 and 209. [M.7 Agamemnon’s title wanax is “certainly Mycenaean”.10f) is found also on a tablet from Mycenae. p. [D. In Pylos a man was called Theseus and men at Knossos bore the names Selenos and Iakchos known from the Odyssey. Heubeck. pp.. 1966. pp. Mylonas. Ventris and J.. “The evidence of the tablets” is “that such formulae as Telamonian Ajax were Mycenaean titles. 103. a name known from the Iliad (XVII. has been recognized as derived from the Mycenaean word for chariot. From Mycenae to Homer. n. . The Trojan Pedasos (Iliad VI. History and the Homeric Iliad.8 “king of men” is a title most probably “remembered from Mycenaean poetry” half a millennium before Homer.”10 If five hundred years separate Homer from the tablets. 188 and 209. Eteocles. 286-288. p. p. [M. D. p. B. Chadwick. R. 55 . These and the following examples are from T. Ibid. found in the Iliad (V. 107. pp. F. History and the Homeric Iliad (University of California Press.” One of the sons of Eteocles in Pylos was called Alektryon. pp. second ed. Adrados. 96-106.53 2.. Aus der Welt der fruehgrieschischen Lineartaflen (Goettingen.. Webster. (Cambridge University Press. The name Aeneas is read on a tablet from Mycenae. 1966).” Journal of Hellenic Studies 78 (1958). Ventris and J. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. pp. p.602). Ibid. Adrastos.] Webster.

separated from the Mycenaean Age by dark centuries. know how to describe so many places—some of them very obscure places—all over Greece? How could he know that there were many doves .”2 At the same time. . though selective. many of them small. . another is rocky. one place is rugged. There are scores of localities in the list and many of them. one place is on a riverbank. But to assume that almost a hundred names of localities that were but abandoned mounds in the time when the Iliad was put to writing survived in that manner implies nothing short of a miracle. But would generations of bards carry over centuries of the Dark Ages the multitudinous names of towns and villages of which nothing was extant for century upon century? It is conceivable that a few names of ancient palace cities would defy time and survive in the memory of bards. many of them no more extant. did not survive into the modern Ionian Age. One place is a meadowland.C. actually about half.”4 But is it a solution that bards transmitted all those names?5 And where did the bards sing? Was not the land without palaces and with hardly any houses of occupation? Denys Page continues on the subject with growing wonderment: “Descriptive epithets are attached to some fifty of the place names. of the contributions in ships made by various cities and towns of the Achaeans or Greeks of the Heroic Age to the expedition against Troy. another has many flowers. By assuming that the oral delivery from one generation to another can account for the survival of the epics. have had such an extensive and detailed knowledge of these localities? Archaeological research has already identified the ruins of quite a few sites which had not been rebuilt and were not known in the classical period of Greece. one place is rich in vineyards. “There is no escape from this conclusion: the names in the Catalogue afford proof positive and unrefuted that the Catalogue offers a truthful. and no reason whatsoever to assume. . description of Mycenaean Greece.75 Mycenaean City Names in the Iliad Most notable among the passages in the Iliad traceable to Mycenaean times is the so-called Catalogue of Cities and Ships. that the art of writing was practiced in Greece between the end of the Mycenaean era and the eighth century B. another is famous for its sheep. Many of the epithets are distinctive. not generally applicable.”3 Yet “it is inconceivable that such a list should have been first compiled during or after the Dark Ages. and it is safe to assume that future digging will reveal more of the cities of this list. “how could an Ionian poet living in the 10th or 9th or 8th century B. “there is no scrap of evidence.” “Let us ask.” Page continues. another on the seashore.C. it is also necessary to assume that a long list of localities. then how could the Greek poet. In the view of Denys Page. was capable of surviving by means of such oral tradition.1 It is an enumeration. in the second book of the Iliad.

Ptellos a meadowland. Enispe windy. when a league of towns was forming in Boeotia. The Catalogue of the Ships in Homer’s Iliad (Oxford University Press. cit. [Kirk writes: “. 1946). 1400-900 (London. J.G. 56-58. 1964). also Chadwick in Minos” (1975) pp.” But cf. See above. .” ]. 123. History and the Homeric Iliad. 1946). Cf. Page. Lazenby. Cf. op. History and the Homeric Iliad p. Chadwick (Minos [1975]. Page. it is the despair of anyone endeavoring to solve it within the framework of the accepted chronological timetable. 4.76 at Messe (if anyone could still find the place). The Language and Background of Homer Cambridge. F. Much of the substance of the Catalogue of Achaean contingents in the second book of the Iliad. . p. Page. Ca. R. Philistines and Greeks: B. See R. nor was there recovered a palace in which a bard upon return from Greece could sing of those Mycenaean cities. 6. [Several scholars claim the Catalogue to be a compilation of the late eighth or early seventh centuries. [Carpenter (Folk Tale. Rhys Carpenter. Fiction. References 1. that Aegylips was rugged. and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Berkeley. pp. .] 7.7 The problem of the Mycenaean heritage in the Homeric poetry is staggering and remains unresolved through hundreds of volumes dealing with it. . cit. Fiction. Minoans. 56-58). 10: “The Catalogue . Page. and vineyards at Hine (if it had not yet been swallowed up by the lake). . . 1930). can hardly have been completed more than a generation or so later than the final upheaval. and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Berkeley.C. Hope Simpson and J. disrupted by the Dorian invasion. Burn. . 1970). . [A. which gives a complex and largely accurate survey of the Mycenaean geography.. Cf.” His view that Homer wrote about recent events does not in fact contradict the assertions by Page and others that the Catalogue refers to Mycenaean times. Here again is the fivehundred year controversy. has all the appearance of being a genuine document dating from before the Dorian invasion and the Ionian migration. towns and hamlets—so impoverished was the Greek region of Asia Minor during the Dark Ages.] 2. . 178-79) denies the possibility of such accurate transmissions and argues instead that the Catalogue points “to the situation in early archaic classical times when Pheidon had extended his rule over Argos. . Helos on the coast?6 And is it thinkable that the bards came to Greece from the Aegean coast of Asia Minor towards the end of the Dark Ages? But Asia Minor together with its Ionian coast was also immersed in a Dark Age. Folk Tale. pp. Folk Tale. . with the highland of Anatolia being quite empty of any human habitation. 123. op. S. section “The Dark Age in Asia Minor. 175. . Kirk. p. Chadwick held a similar view. 3. Olosson white. Fiction. . p. p.] 5. See Rhys Carpenter. and Saga in the Homeric Epics. 122.

77

The Mycenaean Dialect
When Mycenaean Linear B was deciphered by Michael Ventris, it was thought to be an archaic form of Greek, preceding Homer by almost five centuries. A name was proposed for it—“Old Achaean.” However, a closer examination of Mycenaean resulted in a startling conclusion expressed by A. Tovar: “But contrary to what we expect from Greek documents of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C., the Mycenaean dialect is not seen to be closer to protoGreek than are Homer or Thucydides. If sometimes Mycenaean shows very primitive features, it also sometimes appears more advanced than the dialects of the first millennium.“1 John Chadwick, who collaborated with Ventris in the decipherment of Linear B, writes: “Since 1952 important new work has modified the general view and this has entailed a shift of emphasis, and the abandonment of the name proposed for this dialect, ‘Old Achaean.’”2 The Mycenaean Linear B dialect was found to be best preserved in the southern (Arcado-Cyprian) group, and to be distinct from the Ionian-Attic dialect; the theory that Mycenaean was the mother tongue of all Greek dialects conflicts with the fact expressed in these words: “But Mycenaean presents many dialectal phenomena of quite recent aspect and is in some traits as far from ‘common [early] Greek’ as the dialects known a millennium later.”3 Against the view of E. Risch that Mycenaean was the proto-language of all Greek dialects, Tovar writes: “The weak point in Risch’s argument is that it ignores the fact that against the innovations which appear in Mycenaean (and Arcado-Cyprian), Ionic shows many old forms.” E. Benveniste, too, expressed his criticism of the view of Mycenaean as proto-Greek, or “Old Achaean”: It must be admitted that according to the hypothesis maintained by Risch during this period [the 450 years between the last Mycenaean texts and the first literary testimony in eighth-century Greek] a remarkable conservation of Mycenaean was upheld in its Arcado-Cypriote dialect and a profound evolution of Mycenaean in its Ionian dialect took place. Is it not more plausible to assume that in the epoch of our tablets the Ionian (not represented in the tablets) already substantially differed?4 Four hundred and fifty years passed between the last Mycenaean texts and the first literary testimony. Is not the confusion discussed here a result of this erroneous premise? If the true figure is something like sixty years and not five hundred, all perplexities disappear.
References
1. A. Tovar, “On the Position of the Linear B Dialect,” Mycenaean Studies, ed. by E.L. Bennet, Jr. (University of Wisconsin Press, 1964). 2. J. Chadwick, Decipherment, p. 78. 3. Tovar, p. 146. 4. E. Benveniste in Etudes myceniennes (Paris, 1956) p. 263.

78

Cadmus
The classical Greek alphabet, its order of letters, and their form, were borrowed from the Hebrew-Phoenician alphabet; alpha, beta, gamma, delta, are but Grecized aleph, beth, gimel, daleth of the Hebrew language.1 In early times Greek was also written from right to left, as Hebrew is still written today. Cadmus, the legendary hero who came to Greece from Phoenicia and founded Thebes in Boeotia, is credited with the introduction of the Hebrew or “Phoenician” alphabet to the Greek language; in its Hellenized early form the alphabet is called Cadmeian. As Herodotus tells the story,
The Phoenicians who came with Cadmus . . . introduced into Greece, after their settlement in the country, a number of accomplishments, of which the most important was writing, an art till then, I think, unknown to the Greeks. At first they used the same characters as all the other Phoenicians, but as time went on, and they changed their language, they also changed the shape of their letters. At that period most of the Greeks in the neighborhood were Ionians; they were taught these letters by the Phoenicians and adopted them, with a few alterations, for their own use, continuing to refer to them as the Phoenician characters—as was only right, as the Phoenicians had introduced them.2

However, Cadmus, the founder of Thebes, preceded by several generations the Trojan War; on this the Greek tradition is unanimous. Tradition also has it that the Cadmeian alphabet originally consisted of sixteen letters and that four additional characters were introduced later, about the time of the Trojan War.3 The Theban cycle of legends deals with the time preceding the Trojan War. Thebes in Boeotia was outside of the Mycenaean dominion. No contingent from Thebes participated with the other Greek cities in the Trojan War for, according to tradition, Thebes as a city had been reduced shortly before the new war started. With the conventional date of the Trojan War in the beginning of the twelfth century, Cadmus needed to be placed in the fourteenth: his dynasty comprised several generations of rulers before the Epigoni conquered and ruined the Boeotian Thebes; some of the Epigoni later participated in the siege of Troy. This order of events in the semi-historical, semi-legendary Greek past conflicts with the fact that the Cadmeian alphabet has not been found in Greece before about the middle of the eighth century. Furthermore, because of certain characteristics in their form, the earliest Cadmeian letters bear the best resemblance to the HebrewPhoenician letters of the ninth century—as exemplified by the Mesha stele.4 But in Greece no inscription in Cadmeian letters was found that could be attributed to even so early a time as the ninth century. Therefore among the classical

79

epigraphists a protracted debate was waged between those who claimed a date in the ninth century as the time the Cadmeian alphabet was introduced into Greece and those who claimed the seventh century.5 Yet independently of the question whether the Cadmeian letters originated in the ninth or in the seventh century, it is generally agreed that the fourteenth century is out of the question;6 but even should we follow the proponents of the earlier date—that of the mid-ninth century, we still would be at pains to harmonize dates so far apart as the ninth and fourteenth centuries, the date assigned to Cadmus. If the tradition about Cadmus, the originator of the Greek alphabet, has any historical value,7 and if Cadmus lived in the ninth century, his descendants, participants in the Trojan War, could not have flourished about -1200.
References
1. Aleph means “ox” in Hebrew; beth means “house” etc. The corresponding letter names have no meaning in Greek. 2. Herodotus, The Histories V. 58 (transl. by A. de Selincourt, 1954). 3. [There were three traditions, each of which placed him at a different period—three, six or nine generations before the Trojan War. See R. B. Edwards, Kadmos, the Phoenician (Amsterdam, 1979), pp. 165f.—EMS] 4. King Mesha of Moab was a contemporary of King Ahab of Samaria. See Ages in Chaos, vol. I, Sections, “Mesha’s Rebellion,” and “The ‘Great Indignation.’” 5. At that time the Cadmeian alphabet had not been found in Greece before the seventh century. However, since this debate between Carpenter and Ullman, an inscription of the middle of the eighth century has come to light, the earliest known inscription in Greek employing the Cadmeian letters. 6. Cf. the debate between Rhys Carpenter (“The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet,” American Journal of Archaeology 37 [1933] pp. 8-29) and B. Ullman (“How Old is the Greek Alphabet?” in American Journal of Archaeology 38 [1934] pp. 359-381). Cf. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet and Early Phoenician Scripts (Ann Arbor, 1975). [Cf. also Carpenter’s reply: “The Greek Alphabet Again” in the same journal, vol. 42 (1938) pp. 58-69. While Carpenter defended a date ca. -700 for the adoption of the alphabet by the Greeks, Ullman argued for “the eleventh or twelfth century or even earlier as the time for the introduction of the alphabet into Greece.” A. Mentz (“Die Urgeschichte des Alphabets,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 85 [1936] pp. 347-366) judged Ullman’s proposed dates to be too low and suggested ca. -1400 as the date for the adoption of the alphabet, based on the Cadmus tradition. W. Dörpfeld, (Alt-Olympia II (Berlin, 1935) pp. 401-409), V. Berard Les Pheniciens et l’Odyssée (Paris, 1927-28) held similar views. Cf. also Livio C. Stecchini, “The Origin of the Alphabet,” The American Behavioral Scientist IV. 6 (February, 1961), pp. 2-7]. 7. [M. C. Astour has suggested (Hellenosemitica [Leiden, 1967] p. ) that Linear B, the administrative script of the Myceneans and Minoans, was what the later Greeks remembered as phoinikeia grammata, or “Phoenician letters,” introduced by Cadmus. There appears to be little justification for such a view since the Linear B script had, as far as is known, no connection to Phoenicia, whereas the Greek alphabet was directly adapted from the ninth-eighth century Hebrew-Phoenician script. Herodotus’ statement on the subject could not be less ambiguous. In the same book, Astour vigorously defends Cadmus’ Phoenician origin (pp. 147ff.) Cf. J. Rason, “La Cadmée, Knossos et le lineaire B,” Revue archeologique (1977) p. 79].

80

CHAPTER IV: A GAP CLOSED

81

Seismology and Chronology
Independently of my effort to construe a synchronical history starting with the common event that overwhelmed and vexed all nations of the globe—the great catastrophe that ended the Middle Kingdom—a similar effort was made by Claude F. A. Schaeffer, Professor at College de France. The reader of Ages in Chaos is familiar with his work of excavating Ras-Shamra (Ugarit) from the chapter carrying this title. He observed in Ras-Shamra on the Syrian coast obvious signs of great destruction that pointed to violent earthquakes, tidal waves, and other signs of a natural disaster. At the occasion of his visit to Troy, excavated by C. Blegen, Schaeffer became aware that Troy was destroyed by the elements—and repeatedly so—at the same times when Ras-Shamra was destroyed. The distance from the Dardanelles, near which the mound of Troy lies, to RasShamra is about six hundred miles on a straight line. In modern annals of seismology no earthquake is known to have affected so wide an area. Schaeffer investigated the excavated places in Asia Minor, and the archaeologists’ reports, and in every place found the same picture. He turned his attention to Persia, farther to the East--and the very same signs of catastrophes were evident in each and every excavated place. Then he turned his attention to the Caucasus—and there, too, the similarity of the causes and effects was undeniable. In his own excavations on Cyprus he could once more establish the very same series of interventions by the frenzied elements of nature. He was so impressed by what he found that during the next few years he put into writing a voluminous work, Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de l’Asie occidentale (IIIe et IIe millennaires), published by Oxford University Press in 1948. In over six hundred pages supplemented by many tables, he presented his thesis. Several times during the third and second millennia before the present era the ancient East was disturbed by stupendous catastrophes; he also found evidence that in the fourth, as well as in the first millennium, the ancient East went through great natural paroxysms, but their description Schaeffer reserved for future publications. In the published work covering the third and second millennia, Schaeffer discerned five or six great upheavals. The greatest of these took place at the very end of the Early Bronze, or the Old Kingdom in Egypt. At each of these occurrences, life was suddenly disturbed and the flow of history interrupted. Schaeffer also indicated that his acquaintance with European archaeology made him feel certain that Europe, too, was involved in those catastrophes; if so, they must have been more than continental—actually global in dimension. Thus Schaeffer, like myself, came to the conviction that the ancient world was disturbed by repeated upheavals. We even arrived at the same number of disturbances, a common realization of their grandiose nature, and the same relative dating of these events. However, we came to the same conclusions travelling by

Mesopotamia. A. and Persia. by describing the past of nations and civilizations as the history of dynasties. Asia Minor. Far from it—because. The philosophy of the history of antiquity of the East appears to us singularly deformed”—namely. In concluding his book Schaeffer epitomized: “Our inquiry has demonstrated that these repeated crises which opened and closed the principal periods . compared with the vastness of these all-embracing crises and their profound effects. the accepted timetable. however. . . Schaeffer also made clear his stand even before he became aware of my work. he envisaged the possibility of shortening the Egyptian history. The almost superhuman enterprise of unravelling the manifold ramifications of the recent tribulations of this planet was not committed all to one scholar. Schaeffer. Palestine. In this there was a considerable assurance of our having closely approached the historical truth.” I regard myself very fortunate that the task of presenting the archaeological evidence from the lands of the Middle and Near East was performed by a scholar of great stature. we are in agreement as to the relative chronology. He wrote: “The value of absolute dates adopted by us depends. Claude F. were caused not by the action of man. the exploits of conquerors and all combinations of state politics would appear only very insignificant. In correspondence.82 entirely diffferent routes.” Thus the absolute dates used in his work are dependent on chronology that in its turn depends on historical documents. not the absolute one. . But he adds: “On the other hand. rather than as a history of great ages. but not to the extent claimed in Ages in Chaos. to an extent on the degree of precision obtained in the field of study of the historic documents that can be used for chronology and that derive from those collected in Egypt. At the end of his long discourse. In other words. Then how can we be in agreement as to the times of the catastrophes? The answer lies in the fact that both of us relate these catastrophes to the termination of the (identical) great periods in history. understandably. As to the chronology—in his printed work Schaeffer follows with certain reservations. A reader unequipped to follow Schaeffer through his large and technical volume may well let the the last chapter (Resume et Conclusion) impress him by its questions and answers. today we no longer depend so completely on epigraphic documentation for an absolute chronology. and by ignoring the role physical causes played in their sequence. thanks to the improvement of archaeological methods.

At least some of the events may be placed in a chronological order with the help of ancient Israelite sources: namely.2 at the time of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army in the days of Hezekiah. evidenced by Klimasturz. son of Ahaz. It appears. Lapland and Iceland (Edda). Calendars were repeatedly thrown out of order and reformed—and the reader will find abundant material in the second part of Worlds in Collision and also in Earth in Upheaval. from Mexico. starting with -776. or Theomachy. annalists and astronomers. was together with the beginning of the seventh a period of great natural upheavals. partly to Asia Minor. These changes moved entire nations to migrations. Moon (Aphrodite).1 The Trojan War was waged to the accompaniment of blows exchanged by the planetary gods— Earth (Hera). in which Mars endangered the Earth at nearly regular intervals during this century. These celestial phenomena could not have taken place in the sky over Troy alone: the entire world had to witness the events. and many references in the cuneiform literature ascribe its cause to Nergal (Mars). if they were not mere creations of the bard. but only the testimony of nature was presented. In Worlds in Collision an effort was made to recognize in the description of theomachy and of the natural phenomena that accompanied the battle of the gods. another disturbance occurred with the contrary effect: the Sun appeared to return several degrees to the east before proceeding on its regular westward path. change of climate. overflooding. that in the Iliad Homer telescoped into a few weeks events that took place in the space of several decades.83 Celestial Events in the Iliad The eighth century. witnessed in all parts of the world. Earthquakes. actually the entire part II (Mars) of that book. and. China and Japan. It would require repeating close to two hundred pages of Worlds in Collision. preoccupied the minds of men and repeatedly intervened in human history. and other populations descended from the north. That they were not can be deduced from the fact that these very events. Populations migrated. on the day when King Ahaz was interred the motion of the Earth was disturbed so that the Sun set before its appointed time. Mars (Ares) and Jupiter (Zeus). of the Near and Far East. however. and this material could be multiplied by any dedicated researcher. the events that took place in the sky and on earth between -747 and -687. did not spare a single land. Perturbations in the celestial sphere. The true time of the events recounted in the Iliad was the second half of the eighth and the beginning of the seventh centuries before the present era. India. are also described in sacred epics from Finland (Kalevala). The siege of Troy might therefore have been an effort of the Greeks to plant a foothold on the coast of Asia Minor. Venus (Athene). Peru. Pestilence also broke out. It is asserted in the rabbinical literature that the second disturbance rectified the effects of the first—and this is also the meaning of the sentence in Isaiah 38:8: “So the sun returned ten degrees by . of course. the South Sea Islands. should we desire here to evidence and illuminate this in some detail. by the poets and dramatists. where no human testimony.

The people fled and the king [Romulus] upon his father’s [Mars’] steeds soared to the stars.11 We must not forget that the Romans and the Greeks worshipped their gods in the planets.10 and the 23rd of March was the most important day in the Roman cult of Mars. son of Atreus. and therefore Homer’s time cannot be any earlier than the end of the eighth century. and not later than -687.84 which degrees it was gone down.9 Romulus was a contemporary of Hezekiah. the ninth campaign of his reign.14 Thus we come to realize that it was a rather late time. Atreus and Thyestes. Atreus and Thyestes.12 The siege of Troy under Agamemnon followed by less than one generation the natural disturbances of the days of his father Atreus.6 The fixing of the event to the early spring of -687 is made on the strength of the information from Hebrew sources that the event took place on the night of Passover. during the second campaign of Sennacherib against Judah. . . This version is recorded by Apollodorus and several other authors. for another version of the story tells of a reversal of the sun’s motion. separated in time. and Atlas lifted the burden of the sky . the Sun set earlier than usual. though the sky was clear. -687. the time of the Iliad’s action. must have taken place. “during the night the fixed stars did not appear. on the 23rd of March. according to Seneca. where we learn that in the year -687. . and Agamemnon. contesting the throne of Mycenae—when. the sky was riven by shooting flames. such as the Homeric Hymn to Ares (Mars) are addressed directly to the planet as an astral power. as illuminated Worlds in Collision. on March 23rd.”3 In Greek legendary tradition the first event took place in the days of the two brothers. clearly Homer could not have lived before the events he described.5 The event described as the reversal of motion of the sun took place.4 Yet a certain compression or amalgamating of two events. a contemporary of the latter king of Jerusalem. But more probably he wrote several . In the middle of the night stars fell like rain. being contemporaries of Ahaz and Hezekiah. not as gods of the planets. Invocations to the gods.”8 This date is also confirmed by Roman sources—Romulus found his end during a celestial-terrestrial catastrophe connected with the planet Mars: Both the poles shook. when this king of Mycenae competed with his brother Thyestes for the crown of the realm and the Sun was disrupted in its motion.13 yet the poet condensed the events separated by decades into the tenth year of the Trojan siege. The exact date for the last of this series of catastrophes7 is provided by the records of the astronomical observations of the Chinese. . it seems that the time in which the drama of the Iliad was set was the second half of the eighth century. The sun vanished and rising clouds obscured the heaven .

10. The Statesman 268e.. fn. twilight’s messenger. 252f. where an expected delay in the setting of the Sun during the siege of Troy is mentioned. p. Euripides. summon the fires of night . xii. instead of obfuscation. 6. Roscher. too. Ovid. and -701. “The night was bright” adds the Tso Chuen commentary (J. . 15. directly affect the Earth. 245-253. Fasti.106. Cf. See Worlds in Collision. 11.C. 1846). 81. The statement is based on old Chinese sources ascribed to Confucius. . s. Bk. W. Cf. to the elucidation of some complex chronological problems. . II. Chap.85 decades after the Trojan War. pp. cf. scholium to the Iliad II. rather than loses. -776 is also connected with celestial events between Venus and Mars that did not. Thyestes: “Not yet does Vesper. XVIII. its historical validity. “. 4. II. 3. See Worlds in Collision. and the first invasion in 715.v. Ginzberg. 9. 367. section “When Was the Iliad Created?” 2. The Chinese Classics vol.” ] 14. transl. If to harmonize the involved chronological problems the debacle of Sennacherib’s army needs to be placed fifteen years earlier (not in -687 but in -701). the ploughman with oxen yet unwearied stands amazed at his supper hour’s quick coming. Augustine. and probably to an even later date. and the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign in -729. Biot. (Paris.] 7. If not of one. E. god-like exploits. “Ares. 80). p. L. 14th ed. Apollodorus. its mythological parts also serve. describing the wanderings of Odysseus after the Trojan War. Pirkei Rabbi Elieser 52. Catalogue general des étoiles filantes et des autres meteors observés en Chine après le VIIe siècle avant J. Plato The Statesman 269a. [See also Worlds in Collision. in the Fifth and Twenty-first Books. . Placed in its true time. the story in the Iliad gains. 8. See Worlds in Collision. and. a distancing between the poet and the Trojan War. when the events of the war had become enveloped in a veil due to a certain remoteness in time. as we have seen. Electra 699-730.” [See also Iliad II 413ff. 27. . The Odyssey. (Philadelphia. however. Plato.] 5. VI. Seneca. II Kings 20:9ff. With theomachy displayed on the celestial screen. Vol. n. At least two conjunctions between Venus and Mars are described in the Iliad. The time of the birth of the Iliad must be lowered to -747 at least. The City of God. W. then I would need to change the date for the last global catastrophe from -687 to -701 or -702.” 13. 1929) vol. The other dates are -747. “Mars” in Encyclopaedia Britannica. pp. then we must assume that two poets of unique genius lived close in time to one another. Legge. section “March 23rd. Tractate Sanhedrin 96a. on the assumption that both Homeric poems were the product of one author. lines 489ff. Hippolytus on Isaiah. W. and sources cited above. and obtained a halo of heroic. Ausfürhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. requires. the Trojan War may obtain some historical plausibility. Bk. References 1. H. Orestes 996-1012. p. The Legends of the Jews. Fowler. See Worlds in Collision. 1. ch. by J. 12. Frazer.” [Cf.

and the ships of the Achaeans.”6 Under the heading Lands Which Have Been Separated by the Sea Pliny mentions: “The sea has torn Sicily from Italy. .” and other similar instances. All the roots of many-fountained Ida were shaken and all her peaks.”3 Pliny described the changes in land and sea distribution. the Shaker of the Earth. and beneath did Poseidon cause the vast earth to quake and the steep crests of the mountains.2 Strabo cited Democles “who recalls certain great earthquakes some of which long ago took place about Lydia and Ionia as far north as the Troad.4 Hiera. were accompanied also by terrestrial changes—Earth. More lately there have been some smaller islands formed. . Then terribly thundered the father of the gods and men from on high. islands which have now been long famous. . and by their action not only were villages swallowed up.1 Strabo of the first century before the present era and Pliny of the first century of this era were well aware of the physical changes that the area of western Asia Minor and of the Aegean islands did undergo. Some of these changes are ascribed to the time of the Trojan War or the time closely preceding or following it.86 Changes in Land and Sea The celestial phenomena that pervade the narrative of the Iliad and even dominate it in books five.7 Cyprus from Syria. rising suddenly out of the sea. and Thia. and his abode be made plain to view for mortals and immortals . “Land is sometimes formed . And seized with fear in the world below was Aidoneus. called Hera. a plot of land was seen “rising from the bottom of the foaming main. When the sun finally lighted the earth again. So great was the din that arose when the gods clashed in strife. and a tidal wave submerged the Troad. . And lakes arose from swamps. twenty and twenty-one. participated in the strife among the gods. the last of which appeared in his own time. Lest above him the earth be cloven by Poseidon. but was hidden in the briny depths of the sea” . In the Iliad these terrestrial disturbances are narrated too: earthquakes shook the Trojan plain amid the battle of the celestial gods. Halone. lord of the shades . but Mount Sipylus was shattered—in the reign of Tantalus. Euboea from Boeotia. .5 Pindar said that “the isle of Rhodes was not yet to be seen in the open main. . are recorded to have risen up in this way. Therasia. and the city of the Trojans. . then it was born in the darkness—the sun was absent.” and he names them: Anapha. but others may refer to earlier upheavals. Nea. Delos and Rhodes. Thera.

Antirrhium. Zephyrium to Halicarnassus. derived from misinterpreting the Iliad and from following an erroneous chronology as well. Europe and Asia by the Propontis and Pontus.000 paces “with many persons on them.11 Minor changes they were not: the Bosporus tearing Asia apart from Europe. like the breaking of the Mediterranean into the Ocean at Gibraltar were major changes. Smaller changes where single cities were engulfed or isles born could have been the after-effects of the cataclysms. and first of all. Acarnania has been overwhelmed by the Ambracian Gulf. Some of these changes occurred earlier and some later. but for the most part they occurred in historical times. Actually. and the same testimony comes from all quarters of the globe. To the confusion of the Furtwängler-Dörpfeld debate. More lately we see what has been produced by our inland sea. the sea has rent asunder Leucas. In the effort to regard the fantastic events in the sky as pure invention or flights of poetic imagination.13 a misreading of the Iliad brought more confusion.87 Under the heading Islands Which Have Been United to the Main Land Pliny mentions Antissa which was added to Lesbos. Elice and Bura [on the Gulf of Corinth]9 from the island of Cea the sea suddenly tore off 30. the memory of them survived. Carl Blegen rejected Wilhelm Doerpfeld’s identification of Troy VI with the Troy of the siege because he found that the walls and structures of Troy VI had been destroyed by an earthquake apparently oblivious of the fact that the Iliad contains a description of an earthquake at the final stage of the siege. and formerly in the same place. the Hellespont and the two Bospori. even today they have not completely subsided.”8 Pliny tells about Cities Which Have Been Absorbed by the Sea: Pyrrha and Antissa. which for hundreds of years still agitated the distorted strata of the earth. Lands Which Have Been Totally Changed Into Seas: the sea has totally carried off certain lands. and made the tragedy complete. also Sipylus in Magnesia. . and the like in other places. Achaia by the Corinthian.10 These descriptions by Pliny have corroborating references in other classical authors. if we are to believe Plato. a very celebrated city. the earth feeds on itself: it has devoured the very high mountain of Cybotus with the town of the Curites. the terrestrial changes described by Homer were also kept out of the discussion. which was called Tantalis.12 Thus Blegen became besieged by contradictions. And not to speak of bays and gulfs. and half of the city of Tyndaris in Sicily. for an immense space where the Atlantic Ocean is now extended. And besides these.” In like manner it carried off Eleusina in Boeotia.

the sea parting the mainland from the island. E. 6. Murray (1925). Hiller.” .T. so that the whole sea boiled and blazed. L. Earth in Upheaval (New York. A. transl. 93. See also above. 1955). Natural History II. . Pliny. Ovid. Pausanias II.88 References 1.6. Geography. section “Olympia.” Cf. . Troy. 12. which broke through the neck of the land and formed the straits [of Messina]. 94. Seneca.26. were first to venture upon the scene. at the time of their marine supremacy. VI passim.” transl. Pindar.56-67. Geography I. Strabo. Blegen et al.”] 3. Cf. three generations before Agamemnon. [The story of Thera and Therasia is told at greater length by Strabo: “For midway between Thera and Therasia fires broke forth from the sea and continued for four days. Metamorphoses Bk. vol. Cf.. Pliny.] 4. [For geological and archaeological evidence. Bostock and H. Aristotle. C. On the great volcanic eruption on Thera in Late Minoan times. XV. 1949). Quaestiones Naturales VI. Seneca. 1958). Meteorologica I.16. VIIb and VIII. The Iliad. Metamorphoses XV. “Seventh Olympian Ode. De Rerum Natura Bk.16. [Tantalus’ reign is traditionally placed two generations before Atreus and Thyestes i. II.49. Pliny. I.. Cf.” Gymnasium 82 (1975). See above. see I. After the cessation of the eruption. the bibliography collected by S. Strabo goes on to tell of many other changes that occurred in the region of the Mediterranean.25. Natural History II. 7. in addition to the works cited above Lucretius. 3. “Seismology and Chronology. pp. by J. Riley (London. 85: “Some say that great earthquakes occurred. transl. Stratigraphie Comparée (Cambridge. 1853). by H. IV (Princeton. among them the opening up of the strait at the Pillars of Heracles.89. VII. Sandys (Loeb Classical Library. Jones (1949). . II. Velikovsky. “Die Explosion des Vulkans von Thera.”—Geography I. 13. 9. Bk.18. or Gibraltar.] 8. Settlements VIIa. Strabo. the Rhodians.] 5. T.8.e. 290-91. by J. and the fires cast up an island which was gradually elevated as though by levers and consisted of burning masses—an island with a stretch of twelve stadia in circumference.23. W. 17. Quaestiones Naturales VI. [Diodorus Siculus IV. transl. 11. by A.3.5. 10. also Ovid. Natural History. cf. XX. Claude F. 32-74. Schaeffer.3. 29. 2. 1919). Diodorus XV.

these upper and lower figures are already pulled together on the chronological timetable. moving presumably along the Adriatic coast. was it a pestilence or a famine. Yet it cannot be denied that there was some interruption between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Greece and elsewhere. then. they abandoned the south Aegean islands even as they deserted the central Peloponnese. For some reason and for some cause over which they had no control they found life in Greece and in the southern Aegean so unendurable that they could not remain. and the Dorian invasion was made to continue over the sea to Crete. he comes to the conclusion: “Despite the fact that there is no indication that the late Myceneans were driven out by any human intervention. was it a change of climate? and he continues: “In the seventh book of his History Herodotus recounts that Crete was so beset by famine and pestilence after the Trojan War that it became virtually uninhabited until its resettlement by later inhabitants. which in the later stage showed much affinity with the Mycenaean. was also terminated.”1 But when the hinges of history are fastened at correct levels the ghost centuries vanish and the chasm is shown to be imaginary. crossed into the Peloponnese and occupied Sparta.89 A Gap Closed A chronology with centuries that never occurred made necessary the introduction of “Dark Ages” between the years -1100 and -750 in many areas of the ancient world. In the absence of any other known cause for the cessation of the Mycenaean world.”2 And Carpenter asks: “What caused them to evacuate their towns and villages?” From here on he gropes in the dark and asks. occurred in the entire ancient East? In his book Discontinuity in Greek Civilization. and still some 400 years are unaccounted for—thus it is spoken of the “mysterious spell of Dark Ages. becoming the progenitors of this severe and puritan tribe. after reviewing the evidence on the mainland in its various regions and on the islands. But the Minoan civilization on Crete. no smooth and evolutionary transition took place from the Mycenaean to the Ionian Age. . (1966) Rhys Carpenter stands before observations made by a number of investigators in the archaeology of Greece and the Helladic islands and. There were great migrations in the eighth century and in the first part of the seventh. Could Herodotus by any chance have had access to a true tradition?”3 There is a rather vague reference to the Dorian wandering: the Dorians migrated from Thrace and. What kind of interruption. the Dorian invasion was considered as the most probable. one by one.

C.”4 It was some natural event: “A ‘time of trouble’ was occasioned by climatic causes that brought persistent drought with its attendant famine to most mainland Greece. ‘he decides. in Alberg’s words. after which the country is without any discoverable sign of occupation and seems deserted’?10 . “seem to have moved into a depopulated land.. in a monograph on the island of Aegina. must have become almost totally submerged early in the first millennium B. during the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties in Egypt.” But was there any specific cause for the climatic change? Carpenter surveys the available evidence: G. since they did not enter the Peloponnese until long after the collapse had already taken place. the Delta was repeatedly flooded and earth was heaped against the towns to protect them. when unseasonal and excessive flooding took place in Egypt: in the eighth century.C. . ’ It can hardly be supposed that there was a complete depopulation.8 and in the sixth year of Taharka.. under the Libyan king Osorkon II. an immense tract of comparatively low-lying land in which a number of large rivers converge. “a definite instance of interruption of cultural continuity.”9 But how could these instances in Egypt of the eighth and early seventh centuries help to understand what happened in Greece at the end of the Mycenaean Age if this end occurred shortly after -1200? Carpenter goes on: Even more spectacular. V.7 in the days of Shabaka. R. “the land was like the sea. too. breaking all the dykes.” writes Carpenter.90 It was not the Dorians who dispossessed the original population of eastern and central Greece: “The Dorian Greeks. 16) “. Discussing the island of Kos.” There must have been some serious disaster..” (p.The Dorians had nothing whatever to do with the collapse of Mycenaean civilization. maintains that it became uninhabited after the Mycenaean Age. . the Nile rose. Welter. Desborough “was puzzled at finding ‘no clue as to the cause of its final desertion’ in Late Mycenaean times.. How else shall we explain the fact that the rich and active phase of the Hungarian Bronze Age known to archaeologists as Bronze IV and dated by Alberg as lasting from about 1000 to about 850 B. d’A. ending their century-long prosperity. (the drought period in Greece!) met. is the inference from circumstantial evidence that the Hungarian plain. and yet there is no clear evidence of continuity into the Protogeometric period.’”5 Carpenter stresses here. but somewhat insecure chronologically.”6 In his search for climatic changes and physical upheavals Carpenter comes to cite three cases. Desborough holds that the island of Melos had been abandoned by its Mycenaean inhabitants. ‘an unexpected and sudden end. and it was this unbelievable condition of their native abode that forced the Mycenaeans to emigrate.

. and subsequent mass movements of populations. and from that moment Evans filled his volumes on Knossos (The Palace of Minos) with the evidence of seismic catastrophes that terminated the great ages of Minoan civilization.11 As set forth at great length in Worlds in Collision. at stated turn of years there has recurred like a plague brought down upon you a celestial current. . cause destruction of earthly things through burning heat. drastic changes in climate. and there was nobody able or willing to defend the island from invaders.12 The interruptions in the flow of Minoan civilization had baffled Evans until the day when he experienced an earthquake on Crete. . one of the Seven Wise Men of antiquity. not to be rebuilt again. it succumbed to the ravages of nature. part II. The Minoan civilization of Crete did not succumb to the Dorians. Now he understood the nature of the agent of the destruction that he observed in the ruins of the palaces: the agent was not an enemy reaching the island. and if the Dorians reached the devastated island. though told in mythic guise. The Cimmerians descended from Russia into Asia Minor and engulfed the Phrygian kingdom. he would have been led to the realizations familiar to readers of Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval. Latins were pushed from their homeland into Italy by newly arrived tribes—these were only a few of the migrating hordes that then moved in many directions all around the globe. disturbances in the position and direction of the terrestrial axis. without knowledge of what has taken place in older times either in our land or in yours. it was only because in desperation they looked for any room to move into. I quote from Plato’s Timaeus in Carpenter’s translation. All this. inasmuch as a deviation of the celestial bodies moving past the earth does. The speaker is an Egyptian priest and the listener is Solon. . wherefore you have to begin all over again. like children. is true. . . whereas among you and other nations that chance to be but recently endowed with the art of writing and civilized needs. . leaving only an unlettered and uncivilized remnant. quoted by him. with frightening apparitions in the sky. it is written down and preserved in our temples. Dorians presumably reached Crete.91 The words in Carpenter’s preface to his 1966 book reveal that were he to follow Plato. So this is the reason why among us here oldest traditions still prevail and whenever anything great or glorious or otherwise noteworthy occurs. Digging on Crete Arthur Evans arrived at the conclusion that each of the various stages of civilization on the island had come to its end in enormous natural paroxysms until the last of the stages found its end in the overturned palaces and cities. the world in the eighth and seventh centuries before the present era was going through a series of natural catastrophes. at long intervals.13 . .

the returning Heraclid Greeks who at an earlier date had migrated northward. and repeatedly so. Gams and R. Nordhagen17 of Germany. Certain changes did take place between the end of the Mycenaean and the beginning of the Ionian ages—but they are better understood not by assuming four or five hundred intervening dark years. and of changes in climate that made agricultural experience dependent on former climates inapplicable. P.92 Spyridon Marinatos detected a devastation ascribed by him to an overwhelming wave coming from the north and sweeping over the mountainous island and carrying also ashes of volcanic eruptions.”15 That climate changed. but by the very fact of dislocations created by catastrophes. and since the works of the Scandinavian scientists A. Migrations were the consequences of destruction of domiciles. R. in Asia Minor and in many other places. as the work of Helmut de Terra in Mexico18 and the inquiry of C. Whether the catastrophic changes that accompanied and followed these upheavals were by themselves enough to cause the end of the Mycenaean Age. however. no effort needs to be spent to prove the point anew. E. There were no dark ages in between. These upheavals of nature were responsible for the break in continuity that is found in Greece. by Assyrian annalists and Hebrew prophets.20 This double change is documented equally well in the New World (Helmut de Terra).22 The Mycenaean age came to its end in the catastrophic events of the eighth and seventh centuries—thus there were no Dark Ages between the Mycenaean Age and the Greek or Ionian Age. The change was global. is wholy insufficient to explain so great a disaster. But there were no Dark Ages and the four centuries inserted between the Mycenaean and Greek periods are unreal. Sernander16 and others. Thus we have the explanation of the fact that so much in common is found in the late Mycenaean and early Greek ages.21 The upheavals of nature continued through the major part of the eighth century and climaxed in the last great cosmic disturbance which I was able to date on March 23rd. and also in many other documents of the literate peoples of the world. the great Mycenaean age came to its close not before the eighth century was over. There was a disruption in occupation of lands and a discontinuity in civilizations. The climate in Europe that changed in the eighth century to dry and warm changed soon again to wet and cold. and also of H. subsequent plagues. Blytt. between the eighth and seventh centuries is well documented.14 “A normal earthquake. or whether the migrations and invasions contributed. Zeuner19 amply document. E. Of the changes in nature many eloquent descriptions were left by their contemporaries. Cities with their palaces crumbled. and also an explanation of the fact that . surviving populations migrated and were partly replaced by new settlers—in the case of Greece by the Dorian invaders. -687. Brooks and F.

Herodotus (II. Sernander. Evans. however. Vandier. the quoted passages are from Timaeus 22 C-D and 23 A-B. [V. 52. cf. (Cambridge University Press. Breasted. 425ff. Carpenter. R. Carpenter. p. 72. pp. IV. Carpenter. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology vol.. The date of this inundation. idem. La haute crue du Nil et l’averse de l’an 6 du roi Taharqa (Cairo. p. P. [J. loc. The Pleistocene Period (London.] 8. Discontinuity in Greek Civilization.” Gymnasium 82 (1975). Vermeule. Discontinuity. Earth in Upheaval. cf. there was some break in continuity.. (Chicago. 123.” Antiquity XIII (1939).2 (1923). the Coptos Stele of Taharka in V. Climate through the Ages 2nd edition (New York. 11. the very year assigned to the first Olympiad.” Incunabula Graeca XXV. vii. Sec. 86. Mass. 7.” 13. Marinatos. R. Discontinuity. 13-348. XXVI (Göteborg. 1949). p. d’A.” This fact “has very serious consequences for the traditional conception of the Dorian invasion. Andrewes. L. 10. Desborough emphasizes that the abandoned sites were not occupied by any other race: “Nowhere is there any evidence of settlement by new peoples. Cf. 1906). The Palace of Minos at Knossos (1921-1935). Marinatos. Hiller. Zeuner.” Journal of American Archaeology vol 63. References 1. Ibid. 1 (January. The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors. “History and Archaeology in the Last Century of the Mycenaean Age. cf. R. p. calculated by Carpenter. Brooks. 19. but the entire East Mediterranean basin at the end of the Late Helladic IIIB ceramic phase—The Final Collapse of Santorini (Thera).] 15. “Die Explosion des Vulkans von Thera. 16. The description of the inundation may actually refer to a later upheaval. J. 17. which is questionable. The Ancient Records of Egypt. section “Crete. Carpenter. 2. 743. M. The Greeks (London.] 5. these were evidently flood control measures. 1964). Carpenter. 137) describes the construction of massive earthworks during the reign of Sabacon (Shabaka). .” Mitteilungen der geographischen Gesellschaft in Muenchen. 251-252. 9.. no. [For a review of the extensive literature. “The Volcanic Destruction of Minoan Crete.” 14. loc. Mellink. 429. 1957). A.. Earth in Upheaval. 171. 58. E.” See The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors (London. “The Volcanic Destruction of Minoan Crete. loc. R. Cf. 1967). Postglaziale” in Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte ed. 18.. section “Phaethon. 1967). 4. pp. 59: Herodotus VII. cit. cf. 1970). Vikentiev. VII (1926). p. 6. Ibid. Desborough.3 (1968). pp 32-74.” 12. 1966). Max Ebert. and yet that. is -776. p.. “The Decline and End of Minoan and Mycenaean Culture” in A Land Called Crete (Northampton. on the other hand. pp. “Postglaziale Klimaaenderungen und Erdkrustenbewegungen in Mittel-Europa. Carpenter. Pomerance has suggested that the collapse of Thera and the resulting tsunami devastated not only Crete. The Discontinuity in Greek Civilization. 157-58.” p. 3. 1930). Man and Mammoth in Mexico (London. 1076-77. p. cit. La famine dans l’Egypte ancienne (1936). 74. 33. the basis of this calculation is the accepted chronology of the Libyan Dynasty. p. section “Crete. no. vol. J. 1945). cit. “Archaeology in Asia Minor. 1959). 58.93 no literary relics and scarcely any archaeological ones are found from the four or five centuries of the presumed Dark Ages. Worlds in Collision. Carpenter. pp. p. “Klimaverschlechterung. pp. XVI.

” Antiquity 50 (1976). “Climatic Change in Mycenaean Greece. 22. pp. Donley. 46-50. Bryson. “Drought and the Decline of Mycenae” in Antiquity 48 (1974). as documented in Worlds in Collision (esp. see R. in the eighth century. would have been a direct consequence of shifts in the inclination of the terrestrial axis in the eighth and early seventh centuries. E. A. Cf. 76. p.” in Hesperia 48 (1979). [Carpenter dated the change to a dry climate to before -1200. L.” Antiquity 42 (1968). p. he posited “a northward shift of the Saharan drought zone into southern Europe. Betancourt. 126. P. The shift was reversed. no longer able to sustain the large populations characteristic of late Mycenaean times.” . H.] 21. 10) with the resulting famine causing the abandonment of large areas. Cf. For a recent review of the physical evidence for Carpenter’s thesis. Carpenter’s inability to explain the cause of these shifts has invalidated his thesis in the eyes of many of his colleagues—cf.” (p. in his view. pp. Wright. The shifts in the Earth’s climatic zones. H. also J.C. with the return of a wet climate. “A Drought in the Late Eighth Century B.94 20. Man and Mammoth in Mexico. if real. section “March 23rd. 40-45. Worlds in Collision. sections “Poles Uprooted” and “A Hemisphere Travels Southward” ) and in Earth in Upheaval. “The End of the Greek Bronze Age. H. Camp. Lamb and D.

7 . and in it he stretched the history of his land and nation to a gargantuan length. certain advantages were seen in moving the Trojan War to greater antiquity than the inroad of the Peoples of the Sea into Egypt. He calculated that the last year of the ten-year-long siege of Troy fell in the year that in the modern calendar corresponds to -1183. the conquered. computed to have taken place in -1174. a Chaldean priest who flourished in Babylon in the first part of the third century. and introduced the Greek language and Hellenistic civilization. us History of Babylonia and Chaldea.95 Competing for a Greater Antiquity The date of Trojan War is traditionally placed in the beginning of the twelfth century before the present era: this tradition goes back to Eratosthenes. This is. however. When the Greeks under the leadership of Alexander of Macedon subjugated Mesopotamia and Egypt. a Greek scholar in the employ of Ptolemy III Euergetes in the third pre-Christian century. belonged to cultures more exalted. and a contemporary of Berosus—composed under Ptolemy II Philadelphus the story of his nation. then his reasoning should be viewed as tendentious. the erudites in what was once Babylonia and equally so in Egypt felt an urge to prove to their conquerors that they.6 Manetho—a Greek-writing Egyptian. his genealogies of kings and dynasties are preserved in the writings of the Fathers of the Church.5 Eratosthenes. Pamphilius. differing calculations were made. in fact. and soon thereafter established there Greek dynasties of Seleucus and Ptolemy. Only in recent years has a trend showed itself among the Homeric scholars to remove the date in question by a few decades into the past4—into the thirteenth century: with the chronological scheme arranged according to the timetable of Egyptian history. because more ancient. In order to do so he ascribed unnatural lengths of reign to earlier kings and also invented kings (his list largely disagrees with the cuneiform king-lists). and Julius Africanus. too. did not connect in any way the events that took place in the days of Ramses III with the Trojan expedition. Eusebius.1 This date is still upheld today by many scholars—a very unusual case of adherence to a chronological computation made over twenty-two centuries ago. wrote his famed Babyloniaca. or. and dealing with an event presumably nine hundred years earlier. Was there any special intent in Eratosthenes’ effort to place the Trojan War more than nine centuries before his own time? If his motive was to prove that the Greeks were an ancient nation. and a few passages from it are preserved by Josephus.3 but that of Eratosthenes survived until our time as the conventional date of Troy’s fall. Berosus. the case.2 In antiquity some other.

without knowledge of what has taken place in older times in our land or in yours. In his calculations of the time of the Trojan War he was evidently guided by the same motive as Berossus and Manetho. since their first contacts with the Egyptians. . too. [but] you and other nations that chance to be but recently endowed with the art of writing and civilized needs at stated turn of years there has recurred like a plague brought down upon you. Because of written records stored in their temples. he was of Greek origin. the Egyptians were aware of the past of their land. wherefore you have to begin all over again like children. When the Egyptians came under foreign domination they experienced an even greater need to impress their masters with the excellence of their culture and its duration. whereas to the Persians. Like Berosus. . to show the antiquity of his nation. the Greeks applied the name “barbarians. . leaving only an unlettered and uncivilized remnant. a hundred years later. the king-priest who was about to meet Sennacherib in battle when the latter’s host was destroyed by a natural cause. Born in Cyrenaica. in order not to be counted as barbarians. despite the magnificence of their court and bearing.340 years9—quite a long time if we should consider that from the foundation of Rome to the present day not even a quarter of such time has passed. it is written down and preserved in our temples. Manetho tried to impress the Greek masters with the fact that his nation was already ancient when the Greeks only began to emerge from their barbarous state. they wished to provoke and sustain a feeling of admiration on the part of the subjugators. the date of -1183 for the end of the Trojan War served that purpose. complete dynasties were invented by him. namely.11 . and whenever anything great or otherwise noteworthy occurs. developed for them a feeling of respect bordering on awe.” With excessive claims as to national antiquity the orientals were combatting their own feelings of shortcomings as politically subordinate nations. who gave the following account to Herodotus: From their first king until Sethos. Such an attitude toward the Greeks was already expressed almost three centuries earlier in the narrative of the priest of Sais to Solon as told in the Timaeus by Plato.10 Eratosthenes was a contemporary of Manetho and Berosus. Calculating three generations to a century.”8 The same pride in the antiquity of the nation is found also in the narrative of another priest of Sais. 341 generations passed. a celestial current. . . Such claims could produce in the Greeks a feeling of their own inadequacy and inferiority—they had. “so this is why among us here oldest traditions still prevail.96 The regnal years ascribed to single Manethonian dynasties (30 in number until shortly before the arrival of Alexander in Egypt) are excessively long: kings are often invented—no monumental confirmation of the existence of many of them was ever found. Herodotus found that it would comprise 11.

traditionally put at -753 or -747. Troy. 142. both them lived in Egypt in the Ptolemaic age in the third century before the present era. Forsdyke. 5. 130-146. (New York. IV (1958) pp. Burn. vii.. 1966) p. vol. Cf. for instance. nor before him Homer.14 References 1. 215. Transl. adopted by Eratosthenes and more or less tentatively accepted in so many modern books. [London. Appian dated it after the founding of Rome.C. and on the reliance of modern historians of Greece on Egyptian chronology and order of dynasties as offered by Manetho.C.” Another writer adds: “sober historical judgement must discard the ancient chronological schemes in toto. Philistines. History and the Homeric Iliad (University of California Press. 6. put the Trojan War a little more than 800 years before his time. Starr. But they found support for its historical existence in the Egyptian chronology built on Manetho’s list of dynasties—the Mycenaean Age was dated by the archaeologically documented contacts of Mycenaean sites with Egypt. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton. 9. “Dates in Early Greek History.” (G. “The Mycenaean Age. Eusebius. Vorderasiatisch-ägyptische Gesellschaft (1908). 10-13 and idem. 1967) p.12 However. 1956) pp. 1977). 1ff.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 55 (1935) pp. Werke (Leipzig. Cf. Minoans. vol. 1961) p. KLIO 35 (1942) pp. 67. 159: ” (the date) given by Eratosthenes is nothing but a guess proceeding from flimsy premises which could not possibly have led to a scientific calculation. Greece Before Homer (London. they are nothing more than elaborate harmonizations of myths and legends which were known in later times and have no independent value whatever for historical purposes. 96. 10. 52-54: “It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the traditional date of the Trojan War. 8. Berossus und die Altorientalische Chronologie. 7. [A. or ca. See I.97 The “Dark Age” inserted between the Mycenaean and Ionic ages originated in the old calculations performed by Eratosthenes as to the time of the Trojan War. 2. (Doubleday: New York. Isaac Newton (The Chronologyes of Ancient Kingdoms Amended.” Cf. It is not excluded that Eratosthenes based himself on Manetho. 1959) p. by Rhys Carpenter in Discontinuity in Greek Civilization (Cambridge University Press. Thus Eratosthenes found support in Manetho and Manetho in Eratosthenes. J. idem. 1930) pp. nor any other Greek historian or philosopher ever referred to such a Dark Age. 1194-84.” Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple (Princeton. Velikovsky. P. and Other Problems. See the volume Manetho in the Loeb Classical Library. is absolutely worthless” being based on Eratosthenes’ “wild overestimate of the average length of a generation. VII. Schnabel. 31. C. neither Eratosthenes. -1250. Herodotus. the Dorian Invasion. 1728]) recognized this hidden intent of Berosus and Manetho and therefore refused to give them credence . Mylonas. Cf. R. Chronicle in Eusebius. The Trojan War. “Die babylonische Chronologie in Berossos Babyloniaca. 60.” Mitteilungen. also D. Peoples of the Sea. and Greeks: B. 28ff. 4. Page. 1400-900 (London. Herodotus II. The Origins of Greek civilization: 1100-650 B. 1966) p. p. 1913).] 3.13 it is a creation of modern historians. Blegen et al. See also F. n. Cornelius. also G.

Desborough. . See for example the above-mentioned story told to Herodotus by a priest of Sais. it is acknowledged that it was Ctesias’ writings which actually formed the basis of Eratosthenes’ system. 1963). pp. in part he may have been influenced also by Manetho. writers like Hekataeus and Herodotus (II. Since antiquity scholars have questioned the reliability of Ctesias. Snodgrass. also Forsdyke. 1972) p. 14. the opinion of Plutarch in his Life of Artaxerxes. were misled by the Egyptians. d’A.145) put the Trojan War into the 14th-12th centuries—they. R. 321.] V.] [Eratosthenes became librarian of the Library of Alexandria in -240. 1-21. Cf.] 11. 12. 68-79. and must have had access to Manetho’s writings. The Greek Dark Ages (London. 13. Frank Manuel. Isaac Newton. Greece Before Homer. too. [Eratosthenes allegedly relied on the Spartan king-lists to establish his chronology. But since the date he gives is identical to that computed by Ctesias. Cf.98 as chronographers. A. 1971) pp. The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh. Historian (Harvard University Press. [As early as the fifth century. M.

Was Tiryns’ palace rebuilt in the Mycenaean or in the Ionic Age—in other words. The historians were startled because the Minoan-Mycenaean . with the conventional chronological scheme not questioned. unoccupied by any of the twenty intermediate generations. to the surprise of many Hellenist scholars proved the language to be Greek. and if not. the so-called Homeric problem did not approach a solution but. the Danubian region. grew more urgent. if some five hundred years separate them? In what way does one explain the affinity of Mycenaean art of the pre-twelfth century with the art of Scythia. a clash of opinions is almost inevitable. with scarcely any traces of human activity surviving? And if such was the case. more enigmatic. but then also to Tiryns. Cyprus. The list of archaeological sites discussed could be enlarged to encompass almost every excavated place in the area. how could it be that for almost five hundred years the building lay abandoned. contemporary with similar Phrygian monumental sculptures. or a tomb belong? The holders of conflicting views are usually at equal disadvantage in meeting archaeological facts that. since they left nothing of their own. contrariwise. Pylos and a number of other ancient sites on the mainland of Greece and the Peloponnesos. carved in the peculiar position of standing erect on their hind legs facing a pillar that divides them. with hardly any of them standing a chance of escaping the very same perplexing state of affairs.99 Summing Up Having started on a journey that first took us to Mycenae. does a stratum. habits and armaments were well known to Homer who knew equally well the life. How is it that Greece and the entire Aegean area of the Mycenaean Age suddenly became depopulated. we found at all sites one and the same embarrassing problem: close to five hundred years between conflicting evidences or discordant views. no relic whatsoever? The alternative situation is equally beset with perplexing evidence. and armaments of the eighth and seventh century. separated by nearly half a millennium.1 What I call here “the perplexing state of affairs” often took the form of a dispute— to which of the two ages. in the Bronze Age or in the Iron Age? And if the first alternative is selected. more perplexing. how does one explain the many centuries’ gap? How is it that the wall of the Phrygian Gate at Gordion is built like that of Troy VI. the Troad and the interior of Asia Minor. Are the Mycenaean lions. habits. how is it that so many details of Mycenaean life. Olympia. a building. point simultaneously to two widely separated ages. though a Dark Age of several centuries’ duration intervened? When the decipherment of the Mycenaean Linear B script. and Etruria of the eighth and seventh centuries? Was the great strife between Furtwaengler and Doerpfeld ever resolved? Because two timetables are applied simultaneously to the past of Greece. also on Crete.

the dating depends on contacts with other countries that have an absolute chronology of their own. a root hidden from sight and discussion? The Mycenaean Age in Greece and in the Aegean. built by Akhnaton and abandoned in the same generation. whatever their persuasion. Chaldeans.2 When a cartouche of Queen Tiy was found at Mycenae.100 inscriptions are ascribed by them at the latest to the twelfth century. the explorer and the critic. Mycenaean ware was found in profusion. the error must have spread through more than one land and vitiated more than one nations’s chronology. arts—the same Nemesis disturbs the excavator. For a space of over one thousand years records of Egyptian history have been compared with the records of the Hebrews. . and Egypt was selected for that purpose. How could a people that was already literate forfeit its literacy so completely for over four hundred years? The very fact that none of the Greek philosophers. The problem is once more thrown to Egypt. and this is not disputed. historians. statesmen or poets ever referred to a Dark Age preceeding the Ionic Age and separating it from the Mycenaean Age. Where lies the root of all this confusion. arms. We have already dwelt on the subject. the ware was regarded as contemporary with Akhnaton. If the ages of Amenhotep III. Wherever we turn—poetry. In Volume I of Ages in Chaos it was shown in great detail why Akhnaton of the Eighteenth Dynasty must be placed in the latter part of the ninth century. and the Late Mycenaean period would accordingly move forward by about half a thousand years on the scale of time. As I have already stressed on several occasions on preceding pages. If Akhnaton flourished in -840 and not in -1380. geographers. that stratum was dated accordingly to ca. Assyrians. with the fall of the Middle Kingdom and the Exodus synchronized. and was dated to the fourteenth century. do not have an absolute chronology of their own. but it needs repetition in the light of what was brought to discussion all through the foregoing chapters and sections. and from all sides the very same problem in various forms mockingly stares in the face of all of them. and the earliest Greek texts were of the eighth century. should have been enough to cast doubt on the soundness of the overall construction. with a resulting correspondence which denotes synchronism. In an extended examination of the Egyptian chronology its structure was put on a scale and found wanting. When in the short-lived city of Akhet-Aton. Now it is clear that if there is a miscalculation in Egyptian datings. and finally with those of the Greeks. architecture. -1400. the ceramics from Mycenae found in the palace of Akhnaton are younger by five or six hundred years than they are presumed to be. events in the histories of the peoples of the ancient world coincide all along the centuries. In Ages in Chaos we have seen that. as well as the Minoan Age on Crete.

5-20. not damaged by unchained forces of nature. The field has been plagued by the presence of the Dark Age—a presence only schematic. to cities and citadels and kingdoms. classical studies could take a deep breath. If it can be shown that the Egyptian timetable is off its hinges. The removal of the Dark Age from the historical sequence unshackles what was for centuries shackled and releases the scholarly endeavor from travelling on the same circular paths with no exit from the modern version of the Cretan Labyrinth.” Archaeometry 20 (1978) p. no. The natural catastrophes of the eighth century and of the beginning of the seventh brought an end to the civilization that centered at Mycenae in Greece. awaited the conquerors.” Pensée Vol. “Dating the Aegean Bronze Age Without Radiocarbon. they did it only after a period of protest and resistance. they will have to part with the phantom centuries. See the article of Israel M. “Applying the Revised Chronology. Moreover. “The Aegean prehistorians have no choice but to adapt themselves to the Egyptologists”—J. Actually. It engendered and continues to engender an ever-growing scholarly literature. when in the eighties of the nineteenth century.101 of Tiy and of Akhnaton. Nevertheless. their having been guilty only of not perceiving that the problems they dealt with were not problems at all. even the profile of the Greek mainland changed and many islands submerged and others emerged. IV. These changes moved entire nations to migrations in the hope that beyond the horizon fertile lands. The conclusion at which we have arrived is this: between the Mycenaean and the Ionian Ages there was no Dark Age. it is even more difficult to part with them. and have the history of Greece and the development of its writing as a normal process without a four-hundredyear gap. References 1. it rehabilitates scholars accused of ignorance or negligence. the bondage of these studies and their dependence on Egypt may terminate. This explains the break in continuity—the change is not due to some intervening dark ages that left no vestige of themselves. the Hellenists were coerced. archaeological and cultural. 4 (1974). but to the paroxysms of nature and the migrations. Isaacson. as soon as unreal centuries are stricken out. But now that three generations of historians have lived with those dark centuries as a historical reality. never in effect. need to be reduced by about five hundred years. to introduce those five dark centuries. pp. Classical studies have been troubled by many unresolved situations. . 212. 2. Cadogan. upon the evidence presented by Egyptologists. but one followed the other. sooner or later. with only a few decades intervening.

102 SUPPLEMENT .

103 APPLYING THE REVISED CHRONOLOGY * MYCENAE by Edwin M. Schorr .

Pensée. . pp. Schorr is a student of the ancient East Mediterranean and Near East. with special emphasis on the present tome. Isaacson. showing instances of archaeological discoveries from Greece. In 1974 (under a nom de plume ) he wrote an article in the journal Pensée. The following supplement is an updated portion of that article.104 Foreword Mr. IVR IX [1974]. Anatolia and North Syria which lend support to Velikovsky’s revision of ancient history (I. 5ff). “Applying the Revised Chronology”. and a doctoral candidate (MA. ABD) in preclassical Aegean archaeology. Since 1969 he has proofread and performed research on the later volumes in the Ages in Chaos series.

one should expect. as well as costly and beautiful artifacts. For this reason one calls that period. Since the absolute dates for Mycenae and the entire East Mediterranean Late Bronze Age come directly from Egypt. Upon his return from that long war. According to tradition.C. and why. that Heracles performed his twelve labors. the city’s founder was the legendary hero Perseus. that numerous 500 to 700-year problems trouble those who deal with Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age—which is the topic of the present essay. 1. and the later Greeks attributed its fortifications of tremendous stones to mythical giants. One of the city’s last heroic kings was Agamemnon. Between the Gate and the building known as the Granary (Fig. A). German. Mycenae is one of the most thoroughly excavated and studied places in the world.105 The Entrance to the Citadel Both literary accounts and archaeological discoveries indicate that the ancient city of Mycenae in the Peloponnese of Greece was the political and cultural center of the Late Bronze Age (or “Late Helladic [LH]”) Greece. Orestes and Electra. a later king of Mycenae. long ago resolved in favor of the Egyptian time scale. who studied the stone carving and the gateway it surmounts. Velikovsky treated the Lion Gate of Mycenae (Fig. In the present volume. who does accept a thirteenth-century attribution for the gate. C). late nineteenth-century art historians and excavators. in one of the earliest systematic campaigns at a Late Helladic (LH) center. ” Since Mycenae is the type-site for LH Greece. originally ascribed them to the eighth century B. he also showed how adherents to Egyptian chronology pushed the date back by half a millennium to ca. 1. For over a century now. recently concluded that “more than five hundred years were to pass before Greek sculptors could [again] command an idiom which would satisfy these aspirations in sculpture and architecture. The debate over those 500 years. its culture and its material remains “Mycenaean. its history and its relics will be of chief concern in this essay. 1250 B. B. the one-eyed Cyclopes. Work still continues there on a yearly basis. for which crime his children. his queen and her paramour murdered him in the palace. J.(1) First excavated by Heinrich Schliemann in the 1870’s. Greek and British prehistorians have revealed a wealth of archaeological information. took their terrible revenge.(2) if Immanuel Velikovsky’s revised chronology is valid. It was for Eurystheus. John Boardman. . and brought out how. Wace dug a test trench in 1920.. still presents problems for modern archaeologists. commander of the pan-Hellenic expedition against Troy.C.” (3) The Lion Gate was the main entrance-way of Mycenae. A. Thus.

then beneath it and the tenth.(11) That solution. That layer. Wace differentiated thirteen layers. the area was a perfect sedimentation trap. so that it also collected the material that constantly rolled or washed down from above. yet the trench showed no evidence that those centuries actually transpired.e. 500 years. which represent only 150 to 200 years.(9) In the 1920’s. was only about 1/6 the total thickness of the ten layers beneath it. its seventh-century pottery. disturbed by the 400-year-later material. contained a significant number of fragments of Orientalizing ware (i. Neither was there a seventh-century layer distinguishable from the eleventh-century one. One thin layer contained pottery of two styles customarily separated by hundreds of years. then. the evidence of centuries’ duration.. First.C.(7) On the average.(8) but there was none.).(6) The bottom ten layers belonged exclusively to the period of construction until late in the pottery phase known as LH III C (set at 1250 . proposing that its LH III C contents were deposited centuries after they were made. but follow his original assessment.). which had collected between the fortification wall. he changed his mind. seventh to sixth century B. at most 150-200 years. and the Granary. one would still expect a layer of “wash.).” (i. in fact. the spot collected all tangible evidence of those who passed along the route.C. with the fourth side open to the steeply sloping ground of the citadel. Wace considered the eleventh layer. however.106 The location was ideal for two reasons.” (5) the findings are of particular interest to us. must represent the passage of ca.(4) Second. 15-20 years. the gate. Even if the site was abandoned for centuries. . should still appear somewhere in the section—if not within the eleventh layer. It was. It is very important to note that the eleventh layer contained no pottery dated to 1050-700 B. and “is the main basis for trying to date the fall of Mycenae. still runs into the same problem as before—unless removed (for no apparent reason).” consisting of ashes and dissolved mud brick from ruined structures on the citadel to lie above the eleventh-century pottery and below that of the seventh. however. and reduced the age of the entire layer. that. thinner than one of the earlier layers representing ca.1100/1050 B. Other scholars(12) do not accept Wace’s redating. in addition to “eleventh-century” LH III C pottery. The eleventh layer from the bottom. one would expect some evidence of that fact to appear in that trench near the gate. enclosed by three walls. as if centuries of debris and/or wash had been removed before the seventhcentury pottery was deposited.C. yet none does. all constructed in the middle of the Late Helladic (LH) III B period (ca. If people continued to inhabit. which. Since that trench provides the best stratigraphical section of the site.(10) Some thirty years later.. to be “the last true Mycenaean stratum. 15-20 years. by the accepted scheme. and leave Mycenae between the eleventh century and the seventh. either as pottery or as wash. it followed immediately after the tenth layer.C. each of those layers represented ca. enter. 1250 B.e. being near the gate and along the main street into the city. and began to form in the twelfth century).

C. 1956).107 despite the seventh-century material. and that there might be a break (ibid. p. D). Boardman. A. Weinberg) (Locust Valley. 4. 75. ibid. Hankey and P. 1050 B. 63-64 n. 129-130. etc. More to the point. 1964-65. by Egyptian reckoning) immediately preceded the seventh-sixth century Orientalizing ware.C. which lies much closer to the Granary. 1972]. 68 [1973]. 1921-23. 126). 21 (1974). 110-115.” in The Aegean and Near East (ed. 1964]. S. pp. 34. one might say—as numerous scholars once did—that LH III B-C pottery (1350-1100/1050 B. Italy (Taranto). where the slope was much more precipitous. 33. “The Lion Gate and Grave Circle Area. Troy. 8. Warren. “The Last Days of Mycenae. 4. Ibid.” Archaeological Reports 1964-65. If Mycenaean pottery had not received its absolute dates from Egypt. 1971].C. etc. 3.. p. see V. “Archaeology in Greece. J.. Furumark. of London) (henceforth BICS). The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm. The Greek Dark Ages [London.. . A. NY. “A Note on the Recent Excavations at Mycenae. 69. Chios. More recently. but it was better stratified than he believed. J. 1. References 1. V. 134-5) had it end at 1125 B. 6.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (Univ. Mylonas. 3-5. did not grant Argolid LH III C the extra 50 years which Snodgrass postulated. on the basis of that and other stratigraphical sections from Prosymna. pp. 142-152. current scholarly disagreements on chronology are of interest. Kythera. H. Although Furumark (1941. A. and fig. 7. W. D. Sparta (Therapne). 2. pp. on the basis of style.” BSA 68 [1973]. IV. D. p. 1941). p. (1967). though he later conceded that Wace’s eleventh layer possibly extended into the early eleventh century (“Late Burials from Mycenae. 50-year differences seem rather inconsequential. 11. especially pp. Crete (Vrokastro). p. Realizing that he chose his Argolid dating in order to have continuous occupation there until the next pottery style (Protogeometric) arrived. 9. Attika. p. “The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. in W. For our purposes. Lacy. 79). p. 25 (1921-23). 100). 18. the eleventh layer belongs mainly to the twelfth century. 11. Megaw. in the Argolid. A. 22. pp. 115) assigned the end of the LH III C to ca. G. Snodgrass (The Dark Age of Greece [Edinburgh. Taylour. 1964). the first Grave Circle (Fig. S. M. Wace. Desborough (The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors [Oxford.” BSA. pp. 1) was perhaps correct in viewing that narrow alley-way as a dumping ground. then. K) (A.. pp. Wace. 10. 221-2. 221. Tiryns. Pylos.” Annual of the British School at Athens (henceforth BSA). J. but compared to the 500-700-year problems treated in this volume. Cf. 34-36. pp. p. Evans (The Palace of Minos [London. p. p. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton. Greek Art (New York. Lacy. 1935]. Pausanias I:16. he ackowledged that the duration might be too long.. the very thick layer of wash from higher up the citadel overlying the cult center (Fig. 19. A. as we shall presently see. Athens. 1. Greek Pottery in the Bronze Age (London. 5. 1100. 1966). and still later in the hinter regions. pp. 57-124). 260). B. 21. Wace. p. also had a layer of washed debris above it (Wace.(13) and also. 1967). pp.

Therapne: see n. For a fuller discussion.” Papers of the British School at Rome. H. H.1 (Princeton. 253. Janzen) (Maintz. 371. see E. p... U.” Archäologischer Anzeiger (henceforth Arch. 265. 83 (1968). Huxley) (Park Ridge. p. mixed with. N. below. S.” Hesperia. Coldstream and G. 1971). Anz. Desborough.108 12. section “Troy”. 90. pp. 1. Rudolph. Hall. The Western Greeks (Oxford. Athens: for eighth-century pottery mixed with LH III C in a well. Prosymna: see n.and early seventh-century ware immediately above. U. Broneer. “Tiryns Stadt: Sondage 1968” also in Tiryns VIII. Coldstream. 181. (1971). 99. For late eighth. 402-403. p. Tiryns: for the debate over the twelfth. Rudolph. E. 1956). Scoglio del Tonno (near Taranto): for seventhcentury ware mixed with LH III C. 1975). 13. W. see W.. in Kythera (ed. and below Late Minoan III pottery. 3) (1948). see C. 10 and n. 1948). pp.g. Troy IV. see T.” see below. N. see J. U. Vrokastro: for late eighth-century ware immediately above. and idem. or mixed with. mixed with. Vrokastro (Philadelphia. Kythera: for the lack of material between LH III B2 and the eighth century.. “Tiryns: Unterburg 1968 etc. 114.). Jantzen et al. J. pp.. p. “Tiryns-SynoroIria 1965-1968. 231233. 427428. Fig. For more recent discoveries of late eighthcentury pottery immediately above. section Tiryns. below. 152. pp. Jantzen) (Mainz. J.or seventh-century date of the “temple. Doehl. Chios: for the abandonment of Emborio from LH III C till the late eighth century. pp. 16 (N. 93. see O.” in Tiryns VIII (ed. 108-109. see Snodgrass. p. 8 (1939). see below. in the lower town. 305-306. 99-100. “A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis. 154. 1973). “Minos and Daidalos in Sicily. on the plain. Excavations in Eastern Crete. pp.K . 158. Troy: for an early eighth-century sherd beneath LH III C structures with no evidence of later disturbance. and in a wall chamber. 1914). 89-90. 1973. pp. and beneath apparently uncontaminated LH III C layers. Late Helladic IIIB/C wares on the citadel. 77. “Tiryns 1968” in Tiryns V (ed. pp. Blegen et al. other cases also exist. 97. 28. see ibid. Dunbabin.

those graves . 1100 B. the excavator of the Albanian graves. then. he saw “close analogies in the details of the burial customs.C. F. D). Since the graves’ contents are mainly contemporaneous with the early Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. contemporaneous with Schliemann’s (now called Circle A).1 In the 1950’s I. that they could have arrived in Albania at the time of their manufacture in Greece. G. V. The two circles have furnished some of the richest and most exciting finds to come from Mycenae. ran Snodgrass “up against the fundamental difficulty of chronology. and remained in vogue in the north for centuries. or.7 A. Snodgrass still decided to follow Prendi rather than Hammond.8 Further analysis. 1100-600 B. those burials belong no earlier than the eleventh century B. some of which seemed to belong to the twelfth century.” “remarkably close. in fact. however. Emily Vermeule. Comparing the Mycenaean examples to Albanian grave mounds. . Luce gave credence to Hammond’s case.109 The Grave Circles Immediately south of the Lion Gate and the Granary.. and immediately preceding the early Mycenaean Period.10 Perplexed by the latest items from the Albanian grave mounds. 1.12 If. Snodgrass agreed that “at first sight Hammond’s dating . containing twenty-four more princely graves.”9 Since Albania was extremely conservative throughout antiquity. Prendi and Snodgrass are correct in assigning the earliest Albanian material to ca. for the most part. and J.”4 The weapons from the Albanian graves also display “astonishing similarities” to those from the Mycenaean Grave Circles. typologically. at first claimed that. N. That circle (Circle B). while others seemed to be 600 years later. .”3 Regarding the construction technique. L.” because the earliest Albanian pottery and weapons do resemble material of.C. and the contents of the graves. Schliemann discovered a circle (Fig. he felt that there could have been a centuries-long “time-lag” between the creation of goods in Greece and their transmission to Albania.6 There is a very serious drawback. alternatively.11 More recently.2 Seeking the origin of such grave circles. but to ca.5 After considering several factors. however. Hammond recently maintained that they came to Mycenae from Albania. however.C. “the similarities indeed are remarkably close. Hammond concluded that “the answer can only be that the tumulus-burials of Albania . Prendi. the structure of the mortuary chambers. Papadimitriou and G. and to the west of the Lion Gate. as Hammond claimed. from any prehistoric European site. which contained six royal graves. a noted Bronze Age archaeologist and art historian. . . or. are the antecedents” of the Mycenaean burials.C. despite “close analogies.” indeed “astonishing” similarities (Hammond). beginning a bit before it and discontinued while Circle A was still in use. he has continued to assign them 500-600 years later than does Hammond. Mylonas discovered a second circle outside of. seems a natural one. archaeologists have assigned them to the seventeenth-sixteenth (or early fifteenth) centuries B. is. M. without evolving as they had to the south.. He thus assigned the Albanian graves not to the sixteenth-eleventh centuries.

the graves contained much wealth in the form of gold masks. buckles and patterned gold discs from the various graves to be products of the Geometric Age (so-named for the geometrical patterns on its pottery). gold and silver cups and goblets. judged the golden breastplates.17 An authority on Greek art. (Fig. He also described animal representations on the gold objects as “identical” in style to the seventh/sixth century examples.110 obviously cannot be the “antecedents” and models for graves which are 500 years older at Mycenae. some plain.C. 2A and 2B). In addition to the bodies of the Mycenaean rulers and their families. remind one very much of Syro-Anatolian relief sculptures—especially those six to seven centuries later in date. P. but because . sword handles. dating controversies arose. etc. If they really belong to the seventeenth to sixteenth centuries B.15 The ninth century “neo-Hittite” relief of a stag hunt from Malatya in North Syria is strikingly close in iconography to the “sixteenth-century” stele above one of the graves at Mycenae (Figs. Almost immediately after the discovery of such objects in the first Grave Circle..C. as well as the general carving technique. diadems. Gardner. which one scholar compared to the ninth century Malatya relief. One of the graves produced a gold ring depicting warriors in a chariot hunting a stag with peculiar antlers.20 Because of those similarities Gardner felt that the Shaft Graves were not far removed in date from the seventh century. 2B).13 Over a number of the interments in the two Grave Circles of Mycenae stood twenty-two stone stelae. several authorities see a 500year discontinuity before the custom of placing tombstones over graves resumed its vogue in Greece.19 Other late nineteenth-century authors noted still more similarities between the Shaft Grave artifacts and those of the seventh-sixth centuries B. gold jewelry and foil. The scenes of hunting and battle depicted. showing the same subject. which placed the Shaft Grave period some 500 years before the Geometric Age.16 Figure 2A: Hittite stag hunt Figure 2B: Mycenaean stele with carving same motif The burials inside the two Grave Circles consist of stone-lined shafts.14 More important than the 500-year problem is the subject matter on some of the sculpted stelae. inlaid daggers and swords. others decoratively carved.18 He made that assessment before the chronological sequence for pre-historic Greece received its dates from Egypt.

and sometimes contemporaneous. p. thus assigning the graves to the twelfth-tenth centuries B. 600 years.111 much of the art was obviously more primitive. 6. “if we are not to throw aside all that we have learnt of the development of early Greek art. It is true that Gardner. that he proclaimed that. 1973). they piously deposited later material. 66 (1971).” BSA. that the Greeks re-opened graves dating to the early Eighteenth Dynasty after ca.. pp. 173. V. 31-32. Luce. and the IndoEuropeans. he decided to allow some time for development. (1967). the Grave Circles of Mycenae. 1650-1510 B. R. Vermeule The Art of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae [Norman. and “remain puzzling” to scholars today. 2. Mylonas (1966. Hall of the British Museum was so struck by the resemblance of the artifacts from Grave Circle A to “later” material. OK. however. the Shaft Grave contents. before anyone suspected that a centuries-long Dark Age followed the Mycenaean Period. (1975). Hall and others formed their opinions seventy-five to a hundred years ago. pp.” at least some of the objects belong to ca. Ibid. J. as we shall presently see. therefore. pp. it has resurfaced for other graves at Mycenae. 236) set the dates at ca. p.” BSA. Vermeule. still present “extraordinarily difficult” problems for. 49. 1975).. 259.C. p. Birchall) (London. 35. 3. 4. If they really belong to the sixteenth (or early fifteenth) century. since hundreds of years were to elapse before similar graves and artifacts supposedly reappeared. while E. pp.22 He proposed.. like the stelae and the circles themselves. 259. 22. 5. See also his “The Dating of Some Burials in Tumuli in South Albania. His theory for those graves is universally rejected23—although. (1971). p. . The burials and artifacts of Crave Circle A only span about three generations. 1975]. 49) lowered the final date to ca. Crossland and A. pp.27 References 1. 1450 B. Hammond. Homer and the Herioc Age (London. but instead of looting or re-using them. What they had “learned of the development of early Greek art”26 had to be unlearned and re-learned. 91. 189-195. Hammond.24 then their resemblance to later graves and objects seems all the more remarkable. “Tumulus Burial in Albania. 8. still valid today. 900 B. 13-14 n.C. as most authorities now assume. separating it by an unbridgeable “gap of emptiness”25 from the later objects which they considered to be similar or identical. Even after nearly eighty years of re-education since Hall made that remark. 26 n.C.R.21 which is almost precisely where they would fall under the revised dates for the early Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Their observations on style are. 62 (1967). H. pp.C. nevertheless. Snodgrass. or later. 90. 229-241 and “Grave Circles in Albania and Macedonia” in Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean (ed.

1901). 2 B from Mycenae to M. 180. For other. 10. 12. Actually. though less striking. C.) 9. pp. 1961] . pp. pls. pp. Hittite Art 2300-750 B. 150. There were later Mycenaean tombstones (E. pp. having a revival in the eleventh or tenth century. G. Budge. 48. Hall..C. analogies. 8. 1878) p. but are of much finer execution (see R. E. Barnett and M. 16. K. 16. 76) for the stag hunt. 12. As Velikovsky has shown (1978. p. pp. 1891). Vermeule. pp. Early ninth-century sculptures of the Assyrian King Assurnasirpal also show affinities to the Shaft Grave reliefs. Vermeule. Richter. etc. 165-168). Friis Johansen (The Attic Grave-Reliefs of the Classical Period [Copenhagen. 1971] p. Falkner. Totenkult [Archaeologia Homerica III W] [Philadelphia. C. 49. Schuchhardt. and D. 65-66).. Sellers) ( New York. compare fig. 8. 885-860 B. The Sculptures of Assur-Nasir-Apli II. For their duration. pls. see p. Vieyra. scholars have dated the Malatya sculptures anywhere from the fourteenth century to the eighth because of the conflict between Egyptian and Assyrian criteria. pp. Hall. The Archaic Gravestones of Attica [London. 78. (1974). For the dates. pl. 77. 318. Boardman (Greek Burial Customs [London. (1975) p. follow both. 1914] . E. P. p. 67. [London. 1951] . Gardner in a book review of Schliemann’s Mycenae in Quarterly Review.g. (London.g. and E. 42. [London. 1962] .112 7. 1-2 and M. 145 (Jan. 47) and some scholars (e. The Oldest Civilization of Greece (Philadelphia. 38) reject such continuity.D. Kurtz and J. Assyrian Sculptures in the British Museum: Reign of Ashur-Nasir-Pal. fig. . 1972] . 229. Andronikos. Schliemann’s Excavations (tr. 304. 1943].C. 16. 302. 1955). see Hankey-Warren. 10-11). 13. 11. but I follow Vieyra’s ninth-century date (ibid. p. Greece in the Bronze Age [Chicago. -Apr. (1901). by the revised chronology those few stones now placed between the sixteenth/fifteenth century examples and the eleventh/tenth century ones.

ornaments. to judge by their more robust size than that of their followers. who produced beautiful poetry. by their weapons and by their favorite scenes of art. soldiers. silver and niello (a black metallic compound).113 Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems The Shaft Grave rulers. jewelry. bowls. which had enjoyed direct contact with Egypt for centuries before the Shaft Grave Period. In Egypt itself an ornamental axe head from the earliest years of the Eighteenth Dynasty depicts an Aegean . etc. Crete. one need only look to the vases and metal objects flora the two grave circles and from contemporary and only slightly later find-spots throughout the East Mediterranean. during Pharaoh Thutmose III’s reign. which they took with them to their graves. tombs and pottery were at first rather poor.g. but Especially drew from the more sophisticated Minoans of Crete.” Their houses. several swords. ivory carvings. though possibly acquired via Minoan intermediaries.2 Both Crete and Greece entered the Late Bronze Age at about the same time. via Crete)—between Greece and Egypt throughout the Mycenaean Age. merchants. were hunters and warriors who began consolidating the rather barbaric villages of Greece into a formidable empire. sent many of the objects and provided much of the artistic inspiration found among the contents of the Grave Circles. We can relate those events to Egyptian history because of the culture contact—both direct and indirect (e. The Greeks had taken over the East Mediterranean trade routes.. By the time of the last interments in the Shaft Graves. By the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty and during the Nineteenth. which one can firmly link to the beginning of the New Kingdom in Egypt. At the start of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt they imported and copied objects and ideas from many regions.1 One can trace all those developments during the span of the Grave Circles—from their inception towards the end of the Middle Helladic period till the special treatment accorded to Circle A during the Late Helladic III B period. which displayed artistic uniformity throughout Greece and her colonies. built sumptuous tombs. To illustrate that link during the Shaft Grave period. daggers and vessels from the Shaft Graves display designs and scenes composed of inlaid gold. importing luxury items from every direction and exporting their own goods throughout the Aegean and Near East. They brought their people from a comparatively backward Middle Helladic existence into the Late Helladic period. the Mycenaeans had not only embraced Minoan artistic trends. and had conquered Crete itself.. reminiscent of early New Kingdom Egypt. For example. scribes and skilled artisans. etc.. aptly named “the Mycenaean Age. the Greek rulers resided in palaces within fortified city-states. developed an intricate economic system supporting herders and farmers. poets. but had taken over former Minoan colonies throughout the Aegean. sealstones. with some of the hunting scenes of definite Egyptian origin. since they preferred to lavish their wealth on precious weapons.

probably used as a drinking vessel. with the iconography of both weapons very closely related to the inlaid weapons of the Shaft Graves. for example.. shape and decoration to the cups. turned to their colleagues. and strapped Aegean archaeologists with a plethora of problems arising from such early dates. including the stele and ring already mentioned. an author has recently made the same observation as struck Schliemann and Eduard Meyer in the 1880’s while many of the vessels shown in the Eighteenth Dynasty frescoes correspond to Shaft Grave artifacts. depict metal vessels which correspond in material. and the palaces and villas of Crete. pitchers. despite the huge gap in time. Schiering and Vermeule.6 Again like their nineteenth century precursors. animal-headed containers and figurines which excavators have found in the rich graves of Mycenaean Greece. and certainly deriving . Frescoes in the tombs of the Theban nobles who served Hatshepsut and Thutmose III portray foreign emissaries whose physiognomy. Schliemann also found a three-dimensional silver stag having a hollow. conical pouring vessels. The archaeologists of Egypt and the Levant have also discovered a number of actual Aegean exports of (and slightly later than) the Shaft Grave Period in contexts which are clearly contemporaneous with Thutmose III. who lacked a reliable dating system of their own.C.3 Since such firm links between the early Eighteenth Dynasty and the Shaft Graves establish a synchronism. jars. depict stags—a favorite subject of Mycenaean two-dimensional art. goblets. Aegean archaeologists.4 and set forth his case for subtracting over 500 years from the standard chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty in accordance with Egyptian and Near Eastern circumstances. a dagger.8 In one of the richest graves of Circle A. the Egyptologists. the mansions on Santorini. and its companion piece. noted the similarities between the “second millennium” gold and electron masks from the Mycenaean Grave Circles and a seventh-century bronze mask from Crete and sixth-century gold masks from Bulgaria. barrel-shaped body and a spout on the back. who had employed the pharaonic lists of Manetho and astronomical computations to determine absolute dates for the New Kingdom.114 griffin. some resemble Protogeometric and Geometric ware over 500 years later. they assigned the Grave Circles to the seventeenth-sixteenth/early fifteenth centuries B. Velikovsky has already shown the highly dubious nature of the assumptions which the Egyptologists made in order to construct their dating system. shows animals at a “flying gallop” inspired by Aegean art. pigmentation. Transferring the results of their calculations to the Aegean. each feeling that. Those and later frescoes. modern scholars still compare some of the Shaft Grave artifacts to those of the Greek Archaic Period (seventh to sixth century). Possibly an import from Anatolia. hair style and dress exactly resemble Aegean portraits of themselves. an otherwise undetected continuity linked the Mycenaean and the much later examples. along with Thutmose III’s bas relief from Karnak.7 Many of the artifacts from the Grave Circles.5 At the Aegean end.

Andronikos).15 Roughly half a millennium later. then lost its popularity for a long time. Desborough.115 inspiration from that region. . Though different in material and in style from the Mycenaean example. amber trinkets.18 Responding to that assessment. in Macedonia was another cemetery site at Vergina. long dress pins. since they assign the Shaft Graves 600 years earlier. and enclosed by circles of stones.13 Five hundred years after the Shaft Grave period in the eleventh or tenth century. Once again Hammond assigned the first tombs earlier than the Grave Circles of Mycenae.14 as it had in the late thirteenth. with an apparent gap dividing them. spiral ornaments. At about the same latitude. the people of Vergina were both wealthy and warlike. and there are those scholars who look for such conditions in contemporary Greece.10 It comes from the Kerameikos cemetery of Athens. as well as most scholars had dated them on the basis of tenth century artifacts inside the tombs. again disappeared for centuries. its earliest tombs were stone-lined shafts. roofed with wood. and again regained its popularity during the eighth century. and became characteristic of the Aegean during the early Mycenaean Age (sixteenth to fifteenth centuries). Roughly half a millennium separates the corresponding phases of its popularity and scarcity. gold jewelry. beyond those mentioned by Hammond.. especially Austro-Hungary. northern influence again spread into Greece. it still reminded its discoverer of that find. however. where the stag had long been “a charged symbol. and is dated over 500 years after the Shaft Grave stag.16 In the tenth to ninth centuries. but fail to find them. Like Mycenae. still other similarities to the Shaft Graves.C. Snodgrass19 again noted that it was 500 years earlier than the excavator (M. 1100 B. while Prendi and Snodgrass dated them 500 years later. Northern burial rites. he himself.20 There are. ca. burying with them their weapons. In addition to amber.” it seems to be a metallic copy of a ceramic model. at ca. with some scholars even speculating that the rulers of Mycenae may have been newly-arrived immigrants from the North.12 returning near the end of the thirteenth century. the tribes of Central Europe. cultural traits and taste in art also found their expression in the Shaft Graves. supposedly centuries earlier. barrel-shaped body. so far.9 Excavations in Greece have. to the east. containing very primitive pottery. produced only one other comparable grave offering in the form of a threedimensional ceramic stag with a hollow. As at Mycenae. it again became “not uncommon”. which pose problems for those convinced of Vergina’s late date.—a date which poses its own problems for those seeking to connect the Athenian model to similarly-made ceramic figurines of the Mycenaean Age.C.11 Baltic amber first appeared in Greece in the Shaft Graves.17 Between the Danube and Mycenae lay the burials of Albania which Hammond considered the antecedents of the Shaft Graves. had a life—style and customs very similar to that of the Shaft Grave princes of Mycenae. 925 B. probably used to hold liquid.

an authority on Greek art. it is easy to see similarities. direct or indirect. currently placed 500 years earlier.” “amazing. He noted “comparable and unmistakable similarities” (vergleichbar und unverkennbar Ahnen) to a number of the golden garter belts from both grave circles. and probably belonging to the eighth. “first.”30 since compass-drawn patterns of any kind are difficult. probably used as a garter belt.116 spiral hair coils of bronze and gold wire. with the gold examples most noteworthy for their contrast to the general impoverishment and the particular scarcity of gold now seen for that period. Contrasted with tenthcentury Greece. but difficult to see any link..27 Quite recently he published a beautifully decorated T-shaped band.. Desborough. which he felt did not begin prior to the late twelfth century B.26 Other gold ornaments from the Shaft Graves.” while “the most remarkable fact” is that the strong northern element did not “penetrate the rest of Greece at this period.” and “most remarkable” for the tenth century fits well the Shaft Grave Period. who has made the most thorough study of that type of pottery. often indistinguishable from the Mycenaean examples. concentric circles and semi-circles comprise “one of the most common features” of eleventh-century Protogeometric pottery. There was a number of special coils of gold wire in the Shaft Graves of Mycenae. as well as contemporary examples in gold or bronze at Kirrha and Eleusis. Gardner originally assigned to the Geometric Age. their burials are without parallel22 their warlike society is “the first clear example of one. when women started to use long pins with globular pins to fasten . wrote a book detailing the history of dress pins in Greece. not earlier than the tenth century B. used for hair—rings.”23 their wealth is “amazing. still cause problems for modern excavators who cannot bring them down that late.”24 What is unique.25 Not only at Vergina but elsewhere in Greece coils of bronze or gold wire. K. Several of the ornamental gold discs from Circle A showed “the frequent use of the compass” to form the embossed and engraved rosettes and concentric circle designs. Kübler characterized four ninth-century gold bands as having a “closely related” (nahverwandten) and “completely similar forerunners” (völlig gleiche Vorläufer) in the gold work of Mycenae over 600 years earlier. In 1956 P. citing his example as still further proof of a “direct connection” (unmittelbarer Zusaromenhang) between the metalwork of the Shaft Grave Period and that of the early first millennium. finger-rings.C. which P.29 Compass-drawn. etc. to detect during the intervening half millennium. considered the sudden appearance of such precise motifs to be the result of a 500-year later “new Athenian invention.28 With such finds separated by several centuries. Jacobsthal. When publishing the early finds from the Kerameikos cemetery of Athens. again became popular in the eleventh to tenth centuries.C. if not impossible. and many objects strongly influenced by the north21—all familiar features from the Shaft Graves.31 In Grave Circle A Schliemann discovered long dress pins. however. some with globular heads.

there had to be a connection between the pins of Mycenae and Argos.”34 Still there was an embarrassing gap. and this cannot be bridged. Despite the affinities of the Shaft Grave pins to those beginning in the late twelfth century. both of which added new substance to the controversy. Sandars. but that their remains have so far eluded excavators. unlike Desborough. In a footnote he acknowledged the existence of Schliemann’s finds and observed that two of them do “look like forerunners of the sub-Mycenaean pintype. among the lower classes who did not embrace Minoan fashions. This must be coincidence: they are separated by an interval of 400 years.37 which. and that Mycenae is very close to Argos and provides a “local predecessor” for the pins there. only to return after 400 years. and no evidence of survival. but at the end of the Mycenaean Age women again dressed as they had 400 years earlier. During the course of that discussion.39 . two of which closely resembled the earliest ones of his series. E. or. that the pins and dress did survive in Greece itself. and becoming “a common feature of the period. 35 The excavator of Argos found similar long dress pins worn at the shoulders. still felt that the time gap was too enormous for there to have been a conscious revival. suggested that there might have been a change in dress after the Shaft Grave period.”32 Other scholars of about that time also agreed that the history of Greek pins ought to begin in the late twelfth century. the later pins constituted a “radical change” from everything during the intervening 400 years.38 but constituted “a radical change” from nearly everything which the present chronological scheme places between the two periods. did not want to connect the Shaft Grave pins to the later examples but. who speciallized in metallurgy. He felt that since they were so similar in style and usage. With no evidence that similar pins existed in Greece to span the gap. possibly due to Minoan influence (or warmer weather). Desborough attached some importance to the later pins. Circle B produced still more “seventeenth-sixteenth-century” long pins with globular heads (some of rock crystal) clearly worn at the shoulders of women.117 thick clothing at their shoulders. and so close geographically.36 Desborough. he declined to include them in his survey. but datable to the late twelfth century. not with the Shaft Grave examples. not only in regard to pins. felt that the assumption that 400 years passed without any examples to connect the pins of Mycenae to the very similar ones which started Jacobsthal’s series was “rather too sweeping. Bielefeld. bore numerous similarities to the culture of the seventeenth-sixteenth centuries. since they” had a bearing on the vital matter of the origins of the whole sub-Mycenaean culture towards the end of the twelfth century.33 N. Aware of the pins from Mycenae. he suggested that the pins and dress might have survived in the East. faced with the same centuries—long gap. granting that the shape and function were similar. and made the gap even more embarrassing. archaeologists found and published Grave Circle B at Mycenae and a cemetery only about seven miles away at Argos. alternatively.

. or in Greece itself—though even those who believe in survival do not agree where it took place. the East. which a recent writer considered “wholly untypical of Helladic workmanship at that time. the Northwest.” possibly due to a colder climate. noted that the later pins “appear somewhat abruptly. and felt some sympathy for the hypothesis of revival. Like Bielefeld he preferred to see the pins survive somewhere to bridge the gap. which span the centuries. He concluded that “the origins of the straight pin in Greece need to be reconsidered. as yet undetermined (to the North. similar in function and style. rather than view the similarities as merely coincidental. centuries which Jacobsthal and others. silver and niello. since no inlaid objects have been discovered in contexts later than LH III B. Homer gives such extensive details of the design and of its manufacture that late nineteenth and early twentiethcentury scholars like C. We return to the vessels and daggers with inlaid designs and scenes of gold. either the Shaft Grave pins were some sort of aberrant phenomenon. saw the “clear .46 That is. was far less concerned with the short distance between the graves of Mycenae and Argos than the huge gap in time. One of the Shaft Grave swords bore a geometric meander design on its hilt. . considered unbridgeable. Tsountas and K Friis Johansen felt that the technique lasted until the poet’s time. who reject the notion of survival. while excavators have found no inlaid metal after the LH III B period. and as close as ca. Since Greece.” and more akin . which link the Shaft Graves to the early Eighteenth Dynasty. which would explain the description of the finished product but not of the manufacturing technique. purely hypothetical. . too.C. has not produced the intermediate examples. despite so much excavation. long concerned with metal work and the Dark Ages. and possibly until the destruction of the Late Helladic palaces towards the end of the LH period. but conceded that those regions show no evidence of spanning the gap either. but. scholars are forced to ask “how was it remembered?” during the intervening half millennium. he looked to more likely (and colder) areas to the north and northwest.43 Now that experts generally date Homer to the eighth century B. in any case.118 Snodgrass.44 Some45 postulate that individual pieces may have survived as heirlooms or been rediscovered centuries later.”40 Bielefeld confessed a similar perplexity when he stated that the whole topic involves difficulties which at present are not fully resolved.41 Under the present chronology. or else pins existed somewhere. He. like Desborough. since the evidence is lacking or inconclusive for all areas).42 When describing the inlaid metal decoration of Achilles’ shield in the Iliad. seven miles away. which Egyptian chronology assigns to the thirteenth century. which only incidentally resembled pins 400 years later. The inlay technique first appeared in Greece among the Shaft Grave artifacts. Others doubt that possibility and prefer to believe that the tradition of oral poetry kept the memory of the objects and the technique alive47—a theory frequently employed to explain Homer’s extensive knowledge of the culture which scholars now date half a millennium before his time. antecedents” from the Shaft Graves. and continued through the early Mycenaean Age.

however.C. Wide and J.. but which the metrical formulae of oral poetry kept fresh in the Greeks’ memory. supposedly followed LH III C at Mycenae and elsewhere in Greece. Since the Shaft Graves showed a close link to the early Eighteenth Dynasty. since the Middle Bronze Age ware of the Peloponnese and Boeotia still resembled the familiar Iron Age pottery from the Kerameikos cemetery of Athens. Despite that long interval.55 Those pots of ca. as did other weapons during the early Mycenaean period.53 there is “a striking difference” in the repertory of shapes between LH III C and sub-Mycenaean. the latter of which are of special interest. Gardner. silver-plated rivets lasted from ca. with its distinctive shapes and geometrical designs.52 so that the Shaft Grave vases deserve some consideration. The earliest locally-made vases from the Shaft Graves are pretty homely compared to the roetal work. 1550-1400 then returned ca. 1050-900 B. with several classicists conjecturing that Homer chronicled weapons which had gone out of use centuries before his time. supposedly 400-600 years earlier. Still. with each group of classicists championing examples on one side or the other of that lacuna51—a very familiar situation. with the earliest writers. supposedly followed immediately after the last phase of Mycenaean pottery (LH III C) in Western Attica. and Schliemann himself.49 Since the Cypriote swords with silver studs are contemporaneous with the rise of the epics. Although the “Submycenaean” pots of ca. which archaeologists now place centuries after the. They include goblets and storage vessels.50 Between the two groups of swords there is at present a gap of 700 years. and separated the two sets of pottery by some 500 years. less than fifteen miles northeast of Athens.C. Egyptian chronology discredited that notion.54 and both LH III C and sub-Mycenaean vases seem unlikely progenitors of protogeometric ware.48 A number of the swords had their handles attached by bronze rivets plated with silver or gold. chronologically it was still 500 years too old to connect with the Athenian Iron Age ware. Shaft Grave period (despite some problems with that placement) show some marked similarities to the Shaft Grave pots. as we shall see again and again in the present essay. 1125-900 B. 700 B. 1125 B. On present evidence.C.58 While his find did help geographically. Homer sings of gold-studded and “silver-studded swords” in his epics. Karageorghis felt it more likely that Homer sang of the weapons of his own day. V. Wide proudly announced his discovery in 1894 of the long-sought “missing link” (das fehlende Glied) bridging the two groups at the site of Aphidna. to the Middle Helladic (MH) ware at the tide of. and immediately preceding the Shaft Grave Period. Böhlau therefore proposed that while the upper classes used LH pottery. the .119 to the decorative scheme which started to become popular some 500 years later.C. on Cyprus. the exotic imports and the much finer Mycenaean pottery which soon followed.56 Numerous scholars have long noted resemblances of the earliest “Iron Age” pottery of Greece. S. pottery is the major element which Aegean archaeologists employ to establish relative sequences and absolute dates for the pre-classical period. like Conze.57 making them contemporaneous. and Protogeometric pots of ca. which has provoked yet another debate among Homericists.

Geschichte des Alterthums I (Stuttgart. 18-22. the excavators termed that resemblance “astounding.Y. p. that some of the earliest Iron Age ware of Greece. 16 and figs. like others. 2.64 However one tries to solve the 500-year ceramic problem. Schiering. Kerameikos IV (Berlin. Ibid. esp. 109. 45. 5. “Masken am Hals Kretisch-mykenischer und früh-geometrischer Tongefässe. 17. 11. Third Millennium Diffusion (Oxford. Tiryns (New York. possibly in some remote region to the north.60 More recently scholars have rejected the notion that geometrical MH pottery survived alongside LH ware in the Mycenaean world. 19. N. R. N. p.” Some regard the origin of the new Iron Age ware as “obscure”. pp. 79 (1964).since it explained the similarity of styles otherwise dated 500 years apart. 82-279. its wheel made and handmade forms. 148-151.120 humble folk continued to make and use their older style throughout those same 500 years. Kübler. (1975). 401) both noted the similarity to Mycenaean works at least 200 years earlier. 1970). even as late as 1935. K. pp. Peoples of the Sea (Garden City. 20. pp. the former suggesting that the technique survived in Crete and Cyprus to return to Greece later. and its incised and painted decoration. Vermeule. rejected a derivation from such a source. R. p. 184. somehow “by-passing the Mycenaean phases” to link up with the 500-year-older MH tradition. n. p. 145-147 (with references to fundamental work by Evans.” Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (henceforth JdI). 15-16. and as marking “a new era in the art of the Greek lands. pp. 245. Many. 3. 89. Kantor. resembles the pottery which culminated in the Shaft Grave vases from Mycenae. p. was equally dissatisfied with a direct development from the latest Mycenaean ware.63 Desborough. passim. pp. p. which it supposedly succeeded directly. 6. (1975). 10. 7. 1952) passim. p. at which point the native ware again came to the forefront. 8. 1977) pp.. pp.. with its distinctive fabric. 23-26. 27ff.V. Vermeule.Y. 4. Nicholls . Velikovsky. the fact remains today. 205-244. W. Vermeule. although he. 17. (1972). 1884). 1885). 21) and Snodgrass ([1971]. Higgins (Greek Terracottas [London. T. Vermeule. Furumark and Vercoutter). I.65 and at the site of Asine. who has made the most thorough study of the earliest Iron Age geometrical ware. I. H.”62 They still note closer similarities to MH ware 500 years earlier than to the intervening LH pottery a matter which “raises a host of problems. E. p. Schliemann. less than twenty miles southeast of Mycenae.18. Hankey-Warren. 108. Burton-Brown. Ages in Chaos I (Garden City. (1974). 1943). Vermeule. Velikovsky. E. (1972).”66 References 1. Meyer. (1972).. 1967]. 9. Ibid. until the disappearance of the aristocracy and its cultural remains. as in Schliemann’s time. still see the earliest Iron Age pottery of Greece as “a clear break”61 and a “separate entity” from the latest Mycenaean ware. 15. pp..59 Their idea that the older geometrical pottery coexisted with LH ware appealed to a number of contemporary scholars. however.

257. 36. p. 24. pp. idem. (1972). Snodgrass. 290. pp. 18. 1.(Gottingen. near Beroea. E. 28. pp. p. 1954). 1966). 133. Snodgrass. 29. 172 No. p. . Snodgrass.. 226-228. see also B. cf. 529 (from a plundered Shaft Grave south of Circle A). 38. pp. Mahr et al. 1961). 1950). 34. Higgins. Kerameikos VI. 241. The Mecklenburg Collection. review of Deshayes’ Argoa etc. Snodgrass. 17 (1970). 127-128. pp. “Analysis and Provenience of Minoan and Mycenaean Amber. 1. 253-254. 108-110). p. 319 No. 219-220. 147. Desborough. Lorimer. 257. 1934). 1970) pp. pp. 1968). p. (1972). N. (1971). 252 (circles). pp. F. 42. 62). 1956) p. Schliemann.. Snodgrass. 98-100. 70-71. 26. 31. 39. 266. pp. (1971). Harris/ [New Zealand. 358. Schliemann. (New York. 225. pp. J. 1. 114. 30. Homer and the Monuments (London. 217. n. p. 295-299. 230-231. (1972). 34. Luce. 2. 47. n. 131. could have been an heirloom (Blegen- 12. 26.E. 47-48. 2 (1961). Schmuck (Archaeologia Homerica I C). 133: late tenth century. (1971). pp. n. 15. (1971). pp. Matz. Vermeule. Deshayes. 128. 39. The Art of Crete and Early Greece (tr. (1975) p. 94 (1974). 27.. 16. pp.” Greek. ibid. Snodgrass. Desborough. 91. “Some Evidence of Religious Continuity in the Greek Dark Age. (1971). 1200-700 BC” in Auckland Classical Essays Presented to E. review of Hammond’s A History of Macedonia. 304-305. 167 No. 33. 353 No. “The Cemeteries of Eleusis and Mycenae”. cf.000 B. 32. p. pp. 309-310 (climate). 1050-1000 B.. 21. B. ca. (1975). (later revised to ca. (1971). 20 V.” Balkan Studies. 29. Jacobsthal. p. 2 (Berlin. Ancient Mycenae (Princeton. 1 and n. pp. Argos: les fouilles de la Deiras (Paris. 28. pp. Bielefeld. 17. 15. 53-54 (19589). 9-11. 37.). Mylonas. 61-63.” BICS. 23. 248. 41-43. 48. Kübler. 13) believed in continuity in Greece itself. 1957) pp. 49. (1972). p.C. remark on p.C. p. 282-283). pp. K. and often cited as LH III B in date of manufacture (e. Bielefeld. (1980). 319-320. (1972). 38-39. H.W. by A. 403-404. Desborough. 383-385: cf. 59. Desborough. 40. 145 (referring to the combination of the compass with a multiple brush). 19. p. Luce. 89: ca. (1971). p. 108. Snodgrass. Beck et al.M. p. though he could only cite two examples which might belong to those two hundred years (Cf. 25. Vermeule. 37. p. 13. Higgins. A. Greek Pins (Oxford.. 20. Mycenae (New York. Hammond. pp. 1880) p. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 99 (1955). pp 72. (1972).121 (“Greek Votive Statuettes and Religious Continuity. Mylonas.1 (Berlin. The inlaid silver cup found in the debris of the LH III B palace at Pylos. Luce. 22-26. 14. in Gnomon. etc.. 253. 161-162. 41 (1969). Greek and Roman Jewelry (London. 219-220:early tenth century. 144-145. (1972). 1962). 1970]. 22. pp. R. loc. Snodgrass. pp. Kerameikos V. 151. pp. 32. Blaiklock /ed. G. ibid. pp. 28. ibid. Keep) (New York. (1971). cit.g. “An Early Iron Age Cemetery at Vergina. 174. Dietrich.C. Desborough. 99. 220. ibid. Bielefeld. to which add G. (1972). 41. Andronikos. 218 fig. pp. (1968). 93. M. Bielefeld. JHS. 9 (1968). Sandars. 89. pp. H. C. (1961). p. 235. 227. pp. II Tiryns. “A Minoan Cemetery on Upper Gypsades: The Bronzes. Desborough. ibid. (1968).. pp. 392 (cp. Desborough. (1975). 158. Ibid. Vermeule. Venneule. Snodgrass. 185-186. K. Roman and Byzantine Studies (Henceforth GRBS). pp. 92. 35. p. Desborough. 481 (rosettes). 205. Snodgrass.” BSA. Kübler. P. p.

Gray.20) resembles an enlarged “Vapheio cup” (P. it is of interest to note that. p. pp. for the Mycenaean Period see Vermeule. (1975). and. p. pp. 24-28. Ernst Grumach (Berlin. pp. pp. 110. pls. (1964). it need not have been several centuries in duration. 126. Compare the shape (not handles) of ibid.. 28-29. n. 63.C.. pl. p. the shape of ibid. “An Historical Homeric Society ?. 213-214. p. C. 278. (1972) p. 57-58. Gray. 47. but postulated that there were silver-studded swords during those centuries (as yet undiscovered) to bridge the lacuna (cf. 46. Webster.113. Karageorghis (Europa. D.. 70 A. 81b. 577.S. (1964). Luce. when the Cypriots had no swords whatever (H. it shows that such objects were still in use (possibly made) until the destructions marking the transition from LH III B to C. Manatt.. pp. below “A Chariot Vase. V. 184. Page. 1) (Göttingen.. pp. pp. p. Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (Glasgow. G. 560. 1400-1200 B. (1957). Luce. scholars’ similar beliefs on chariots. Les Vases Sicyoniens (Rome. G. Kirk. nevertheless. Karo. 123.). Luce. 102) suggested that Homer’s poetry may have inspired the swords of Cyprus rather than vice versa. 43a. 74 (1954). 101-102. (1950). and.122 Rawson. Desborough. (1975). 52. 8 No. Tsountas & J.” JHS 94 (1974) p. In that regard. 20. Friis Johansen. I. . 1933]. Kirk. ibid. 4. 51. 3-4. . T. p. p. Kirk. Salamis in Cyprus (London. Fittschen. 224) for which. 1964) p. K. From Mycenae to Homer (New York. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age:Other Arts and Crafts [Swedish Cyprus Expedition (henceforth SCE) IV. Cypriote Bronzework in the Mycenaean World [Oxford. (1970). the repertory of pots called “Submycenaean” has both grown and shrunk due to new discoveries and reclassification (cf. As he notes (loc.S. 62). 1D] [Lund.L. Lorimer. 273-274. but if there was a temporal lapse. 55. D. do not. E. JHS. idem. (1971).G. 63.. Luce (1975. 44. Webster. 1966 [reprint of 1923 edition]). 134-135. pl. 1978) acknowledged the seven-hundred-year-gap in the evidence to date..” ns. 92. p. and seem to be 500-year throwbacks. The Language and Background of Homer (Cambridge. Burton-Brown.B. 2.. 1964). 35 IV. p.H. 159-160. pp. 1964] pp. Catling. for the Dark Age see Snodgrass. n. 168.1 to Mylonas. p. Desborough. 1966) pp. (1972). no one has discovered a silver-studded sword on Cyprus earlier than ca. History and the Homeric Iliad (Los Angeles. 176-183. Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai [Munich. 324. pp. 54. 33). 1976). Amphora 590 (G. that. Aström et al. On one point. currently seen as their contemporaries. 176. 63. K. (1956) pp. “Homerica from Salamis (Cyprus)” in Europa: Studien. “kyanos” might designate niello rather than glass paste. p. Ibid. Styrenius. Gray (ibid.F. 1967). pp. W. Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford. (1972). by the present chronology. pl. 167-168. 49. (1975). note the gigantic cups carried by Aegeans in Egyptian frescoes. p. 700 B. 1969). there is a surprising gap from ca. p. The Mycenaean Age (New York. in fact. 14. Some shapes clearly derive from the lates LH series. while others. .. (1954) p. 17. Homer and the Oral Tradition (New York. 50. pp. D. n. pp. p. Snodgrass. 1973). p. Any misconceptions which Homer had about fabrication techniques— which were probably known only to a small guild of artisans—need have no chronological implications (cf. (1972). pl. 7). “Metal-working in Homer”. 5-6. of still greater interest. a generation or so would suffice..C. cit. Der Schild des Achilleus (Archaeologia Homerica II. see Vermeule. 171) shows points of resemblance to C. 1952). 292. and letter to roe of Oct. 1972]. 48. 139.S. 61-62. 26. the handled kalathos (ibid. Karageorghis. below). 762). 22. 35. p. 1959). 19 A 1452-1453 to Mylonas.) V. Snodgrass. xxv. 12-14) felt that Homer’s description of the process was very erroneous and implied a long break. 56. so far. and Desborough. 100. 43. 42-43 (where he takes an even firmer stand than in his earlier work. 64 a-b. 53. L. although one might wonder how familiar Homer was both to and with seventhcentury Cyprus. 53. The period between the probable manufacture date and time of deposition of the Pylos cup would be more than adequate.G.E. 1897). Strong. 45.

278-279. 1 and Cook. pp. 3) felt that the 600-700-year gap in the evidence invalidated that suggestion (see. A History of Greek Art I (New York. 120-122). N. 407. and Milojcic. 161 and n. 205-218 ( a view caustically attacked that same year by A. 55 No. p. 21 (1896) p. 1968]. Coldstream. 1. 45. p. Heurtley and T. 11-14. 5 for MH vessels “skipping periods and occurring again after a lapse of time”. 78. V. Asine: Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922-1930 (Stockholm. pl. Schliemann.” Ath. Lacy. p.C. (1971) pp. 9].G. pp.” n. 126. proposed that Mycenaean ware lasted an extra 500 years. 21. Ibid. C.g. 1938). The Origins of Greek Civilization (New York.” ns. 34. R. 400-403. Mitt.” American Journal of Archaeology (henceforth AJA). 402. p. Milojcic. 64 (1960). figs 4-7. “Aphidna in Nordattika. (1964) p. (1972). as we shall see [below “Other LH III Figural Pottery. C. “Excavations in Melos 1899: The Pottery. 42-44. 57. however. Emmons) (New York. 1961). 303. 1972) p. Greek Geometric Pottery [London. p. p. (19648-49). Mitt. Gilbert and J. p.” BSA. 1939).” reprinted in Kleine Schriften I (Munich. For Böhlau’s contribution. Snodgrass.B. p.123 Submycenaean Studies (Lund. “The Tholos Tombs of Marmariane.). (1978). for Thessaly see W.. (1972). E. 407-409. 59. pp. Broneer.W. Ho Taphikos Kyklos B ton Mykenon [Athens. p. H. Greek Painted Pottery (London. “The Mycenaeans in Achaia. 100. pl. p. Furtwängler [Das Alter des Heraion und das Alter des Heiligtums von Olympia. 89. (1972). 64. figs. Folsom. M Robertson. Starr. 1967) pls. and I would not claim that the pots were made in the same place. 63. 1975). p. 1973) pl. Persson. 140. 5 (1898-99). Kraiker. 455-457]. 103-106. Cook. along with many other artifacts and customs show similarities more easily explained by a closer link than scholars now see. p. 298. 1967). 66. by the same men. 18-20 above. who had.M. Kübler & W. 287. by S. pp. P. Hall. Demargne. Anz. Walters. 60. 126. Vermeule. Handbook of Greek Pottery (London. idem. cf. W. pl.” Arch. p. “Das Alter des Heiligtums von Olympia. 11 and Desborough (1952. 1. 384. O. p. (1901). Alt Olympia I (Berlin. cf. 65. against direct evolution from LH pottery. 49. . pp. pp. 279. p. 31 (bottom center). 418-419. see ibid. Skeat. 1935). coexisting with the later geometrical ware). n. E. The Birth of Greek Art (tr.14. 1964). the amphoriskoi from Circle B (e. Verdelis and others subscribed to that hypothesis to explain the ribbed pedestal on nintheighth-century vessels from Thessaly as derived from MH goblets.. Dorpfeld. Kerameikos I (Berlin. pp.A. 31 (1930-1). 589. History of Ancient Pottery I (New York. 39. 93 and n. cf. 15.). 2-11 and ns. Cook. pp. pl. Dörpfeld. 1948-1949. pl. 1973]. W. 33) and between contemporaneous groups of ninth-century pots made in different areas (Snodgrass.C. (1939). 171 on tea cups. The Palace of Nestor III (Princeton. 58. 31 (1906). (1971). at the same time. 97. Skeat. 15-16. Demargne. Blegen et al. 128B) show similarities to Styrenius. n. p. They. In addition to those already cited above (ns.. “Die dorische Wanderung im Lichte der vorgeschichtlichen Funde.” Athenische Mittheilungen (henceforth Ath. (1967). Wide. The admitted differences are often slighter than those between contemporaneous Submycenaean pots from the same area with their “considerable variation” in shape and decoration (Desborough.” BSA. Desborough. to C. For the retention of MH ware in Albania and Macedonia supposedly 500 years after their disappearance in the south. 4-6. and to K. 63 above on Thessaly).. 287. The resemblances are generic. W. p. Frödin and A. 62. 34. but J. Mylonas. 94-97. “The Pottery” in Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (JHS supplement 4) (London. see “The Grave Circles. Edgar. 63. (1885). Gardner. S.g. 305. 1904). including those from Circle B at Mycenae. 1905). 61. (1952). 57-64) cf. 1911) pp.S. R. pp...

however. unroofed corridors into the hillsides. ca. to the neighboring hilly slopes to the west and southwest. experienced renewed activity. Enough ceramic material remained in the tomb. and most belonging to the ninth-seventh centuries. Since the LH II pottery phase corresponds to the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose III. there was a problem with Trachonas since. sunk into the softer rock of the relatively flat land west of their citadel. as he had noted earlier. Palestine and at Carthage. the tomb’s excavator. And those from 950-600 B. numerous archaeologists have tried to connect the two groups. resembling huge beehives. but the earliest ones. over which they heaped a tremendous mounds of earth.C. to indicate an LH II date for its fabrication and use.2 There are tombs of the “right” date on Cyprus. 600 years earlier. and possibly silted over with wash and forgotten during the centuries of disuse. which began towards the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty and extended through the subsequent reigns of the Ramesside pharaohs. assigned it to the fifteenth century B.. although excavators assume that Syro-Phoenicia was the place of origin for both groups. with the example from Circle B constituting its sole appearance in the country. despite its close proximity to Syria. Circle B. The Mycenaean rulers turned from simple. They also began to protect their citadel with thick walls of stone. enlarging its shaft to form an entrance to a new “built tomb. notably at Enkomi. in fact.3 The built tomb of Circle B marks the last burial inside the Grave Circles. abandoned for centuries. there are.” with a stately chamber and saddle-shaped roof constructed of stone blocks. Noting the same “striking parallels” between the examples of 1550-1200 B.C. especially since the Iron Age examples encircle that region and appear at Levantine colonies. 950 B. after its subsequent robbery. Furthermore. with developmental stages running parallel after a 600-year interval. In the LH III B period. stone-lined shafts (and the one Syrian built tomb).C. its example is 500 years younger than those of Syria. capping them with corbelled.4 both Grave Circles.124 Later Use of the Grave Circles Not very long after the Shaft Grave burials. Archaeologists have discovered the type at roughly the same period on Crete (also one example) and Cyprus and especially in Syria. Urartu. A 250-year gap separates them. no such tombs known from Syro-Phoenicia during the second period..C. with the earliest Iron Age tombs resembling not the latest Bronze Age examples. in Asia Minor. a Mycenaean ruler disturbed one of the interments in Circle B. where it originally developed. Mylonas. then hollowed out gigantic circular tombs which they lined with stone. stone-built domes. Mylonas saw “striking parallels” to the tombs of Syria and Trachonas on Cyprus. There they excavated long. but the 500-year problem still exists and has grown with time. none dating earlier than ca.G. suffered an ignoble fate when the workmen excavating the . Excavations have found similar Iron Age built tombs in large numbers on Cyprus. The tomb type is foreign to Greece. the farthest from the citadel..1 but.

They made sacrifices and dedicated idols inside the circle. When the “thirteenth-century” Mycenaeans decided to enlarge their city.8 Although space inside the citadel was at a premium. requiring the construction of a giant retaining wall to the west over five meters high. many of them over older graves. At the new surface they constructed a new enclosure wall of two concentric rings of stone slabs filled with earth and capped by horizontal stone slabs. the Mycenaeans treated Circle A. only to have his own tomb pillaged after his death. and again when the excavators of the beehive tomb destroyed part of Circle B and heaped dirt over the rest of it. Circle A originally lay west of. as well as the contemporary sacrifices and dedication of idols. with a reverence singular for that age. some scholars have considered Circle A as a sacred burial precinct.11 unique for thirteenth-century Greece. some of which they plundered. robbing the dead. to which we shall return). both during the period of its burials in MH-LH I. which lay directly in the path of their urban expansion. the beehive tombs. adding tons of earth above the graves until they formed a higher.9 they spared Circle A. and the inhabitants crowded buildings around that area. The next evidence of such a practice in Greece—again involving older graves sunk into the earth and lined with stone walls or stone slabs encircled by a later wall to form a sacred precinct—took place in Attica at Athens” and at Eleusis roughly 500 years later. on the other hand. they were notorious for their lack of piety towards the deceased.5 Circle A. longer wall in the area of the “prehistoric cemetery” to the west. enjoyed a completely different lot during the same period. In fact. enclosing Circle A within the city proper. stating that “respect for older burials is something quite . and casting aside their bones. tombs. the vast labor that went into deflecting the city fortification around the circle. then raising the old grave stelae to the new level to designate the individual burials below. when the owner of the built tomb violated the earlier Shaft Grave he expropriated.and all the other graves of rich and poor residents or Mycenae. to correspond to the higher grade of the city’s interior—a massive engineering feat. neighboring. and into creating the circle as it now appears.125 last of the great beehive tombs (the so-called Tomb of Clytemnaestra. and at the time of the first extensive fortification of the city in LH III A. the building all around but not above Circle A.6 Like Circle B.7 Unlike Circle B and so many other graves in the vicinity. building structures over earlier tombs. In fact.12 Scholars regarded the latter two cases as the beginnings of hero shrines in Greece. They extended their fortification wall farther than mere concern for defense or for urban planning dictated. and outside the settlement proper. even surface. they faced the problem of what to do with Circle A.10 Considering the lack of respect for other. by building another. and heaped the earthen mound to cover that tomb over the rest of Circle B. We already saw some evidence of the disrespect for their dead predecessors which the Mycenaeans displayed at Circle B. they decided to raise its level as a whole. sliced through the eastern portion of the Grave Circle.

pp.and early twentieth-century scholars synchronized them. 140. pp. Ibid. people. 1935) p. explains why no one knew of the circle. A. 183. 1968). including Circle B. 47. Velikovsky. SCE. 2. (1957). (1966). C. or when workmen constructed the present road. p. after the discovery of the latter ca. Arch. If wash . intersected by that tomb. 164. 1948). Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Even a century after Schliemann’s fabulous discovery. still the stelae. see Isaacson. E. Ussishkin. For a fuller discussion. Mylonas. p. “The Necropolis from the Time of the Kingdom of Judah at Silwan. 32-53. 1934) pp. The Life and Death of Carthage (tr. that. p. and the special honor accorded to the dead of Circle A would date to the eighth century—all linked in time with similar items and traits of a supposedly later era. Jerusalem.C. a cistern and an aqueduct over the western side of the circle in modern times. Westholm. n.C. 1450 B. “Amathus” SCE II (Stockholm.14 yet. p. and many of the contents of the Shaft Graves of both circles. Gjerstad. p. pp. re-established worship and dedications at Circle A some 500 years later. 150. 107 2. Westholm. SCE I (Stockholm. cf. 14-15. pp.15 as if there suddenly arose “the revival of some kind of consciousness in a people who had previously lacked it” during the intervening half millennium. 3. 143-144). 130. 123. when Egyptian chronology made the Shaft Graves of Circle A and all their contents no later than ca. with which some late nineteenth.17 were not alone in their problems. (1957). (1974). Sjöqvist.” The Biblical Archaeologist.2 (Stockholm. 42 (1967).. pp. Mylonas. Idem.. Picard. pp. D. Karageorghis. Under such a revision they no longer stand isolated from 400-600-year-later. as with nearly every other example of real or presumed thirteenth-century cults throughout the Aegean. the Shaft Graves would belong to the eleventh-tenth centuries. “Enkomi” in E. 239. 30. 33 (1970). Gjerstad et al. and despite all the finds since then. 147-148.” With the beginning of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty redated by over 500 years. as in most other cults. IV. It is of further interest for the cult at Circle A itself.126 new at this time [the eighth century]” and “foreign” to all earlier periods. Pickard. “Installations cultuelles retrouvées au Tophet de Salambo. E. p. but still comparable artifacts and customs of the eleventh-eighth (and later) centuries. until its chance discovery in the 1950s (Mylonas. the built tomb of Circle B. pp. 152. grave construction. who were forced to “throw aside all that we have learnt of the development of early Greek art” (Hall). References 1.16 From the above account we see that the late nineteenth-century savants.” Rivista degli Studi Orientali.13 The similar instance from Circle A stands in isolation 500 years earlier. 5. (1974). 52. 98. the built tomb would fall into the late tenth century. The earthen mound of the beehive tomb.) II (1941). and the cult at Circle A prove vexing to contemporary archaeologists. 45-46. p. again. 4. and with which even current scholars still compare. 1807. 145. 57. and seek (despite difficulties) to relate them. 189-199. A. and C. (1967b). 570-573. “Built Tombs in Cyprus” Opuscula Archaeologica (henceforth pp. by D. Collon) (London. G. which also covered the Grave Circle. Hankey-Warren. there is a sharp break soon after its initiation. apparently stirred by the same feelings as their predecessors.

. Knossos: The Sanctuary of Demeter [London. J. 341).A. Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide (Princeton. 61. pp. Vermule. they could have even used a fence or a rope cordon. p. Mylonas (ed. Mylonas. 161). 16. “Activity in the Athenian Agora: 1966-1967. pp. 20-21. Vermeule. 12. Wace. Athens: H. pp. 96-99. 275-279. while Wace and others had the activity at Circle A follow that at B by ca. 18. 152. Cf. p.. pp. p. 22. Eleusis and the Eleusian Mysteries (Princeton. pp. all agree on an LH III B date for both. 124) are as perplexed as their colleagues. “Observations on Seventh-Century Sculpture. 130-131. G. 60. p.A. p. 408-409. the other in disfavor centuries later.” Hesperia.” in G. even if so. 194. clay slabs. and R. pp. 90-96. 8-17. 17. 30 years. pp. 1977]. 84.. Eleusis: Mylonas. 90. (1966). As to the lack of doors.” ns. KurtzBoardman. Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State [Cambridge. idem. (1972). 1961). pp. Coldstream. Circle B might not have suffered deliberate abuse if it was not visible at the time (see n. such as skins. pp. but do see a 500-year lacuna in the evidence (and cf. 96 1976). pp. 1973]. 88. Mylonas. 104-105. p. Bastias. stone slabs. 119-120). (cf. He later changed his mind. p.127 already covered the circle before LH III B. Of far greater concern for the safety of the fortress as a whole is the fact that two entrances into the citadel from the Northeast (Fig. F. the apparent disrespect of that period might have the same explanation as more recent encroachments—ignorance of its existence. bothered by the present lack of archaeological material to fill 500-year voids at numerous centers of religious activity—the one matter for which everyone believes in continuity throughout that half millennium—postulate that there was no break. cit. Thompson.2 [1973-4]. pp. plan 3.The same could apply to Circle A. pp. 192-194. (1921-23). but was violated at about the same time. Other recent authors.M. 394-401. pp. 106-107. 96-99) regarded it as such. fig. pp. 60.” JHS. Mylonas (loc. Christopoulos and J. 1976]. 28-31. pp. the Mycenaeans had other devices for blocking passages. curtains. Louis. O. Blegen-Rawson. 18-19. 25-26). 111. 9-10. 17.Vermeule. (1966). Snodgrass. 15. figs.) Studies Presented to P. 10. following Wace. (1972). “The Cult of the Dead in Helladic Times. 25). pp. 50 years or more (Mylonas. 9. As to his first reservation. Some modern writers like Desborough (1972. ibid. ibid. Wace. 278-287). and also envisioned an honor guard for Circle B (Mycenae: A Guide to Its Ruins and Its History [Athens. 24. Mylonas. or. like Snodgrass (1971. pp. 11. Ibid. 57. 25-32). if the two circles represented two different groups. 40). tr. “Hero-cults in the Age of Homer. since Circle B not only did not receive similar honor. ibid. originally (1951. 15. 5 above). 299-230. 422. 38. Grace. 96. See above “The Grave Circles. 8. pp. Papachadzis (“Religion in the Archaic Period” in The Archaic Period [ed. Circle A was obviously very special to the people of Mycenae. Dickinson (“Archaeological Facts and Greek Traditions. Sherrard] [London. 178-179). 51. and because Circle A. 78-80. N. 16-25) and N. (1976). 6. 2. Coldstream ([1976]. pp. Coldstream. 62-63. (1966).. 94-96. D. p. (1971). 1972].” Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of the University of Birmingham.. 69. Mylonas. 32. pp. one might have been in esteem. 71. 109. etc. 84. 1951). (1955). had no doors to bar them (Mylonas. idem. which did not have a doorway. 37 (1968). Robinson I (St. Dietrich (1970. (1971). Tomlinson (Greek Sanctuaries [London. 11. 28. Still. 298-302. 13. 1949). Mylonas and others have the activity at Circle A precede that at B by ca. showed no evidence of doors to bar the uninitiated and animals (1966. P. 64. 7. p. (1956). Whether sacred or not. p. pp. 14.” AJA 46 (1942) p.) postulated that troops could protect them. Q) near the vital water supply. 90. 1 P. 1975]. 181).

comparing them to the warriors on another mixing bowl (Fig. Figure 3: The Warrior Vase Figure 4: Krater signed by Aristonothos For quite some time after its discovery. 5A). They regarded its peculiar bull’s head handles as definitely derived from those found on eighth-century vases. decorative ceramic bowl.(3) That same vase is now firmly assigned to the early LH III C period. Over seventy years ago. some even ascribed both bowls to the same man. 1. (2) They felt that still other technical and stylistic features of the bowl and its decoration indicated a date between 700 and 650 B. he dubbed it “the Warrior Vase. D. early seventh century B.C. The more recent discoveries of two other LH III C handles of the same type(6) has provided companion pieces. for the Warrior Vase. they stood in isolation from the much later handles. which Egyptian chronology fixes at ca.C. Mackenzie replied to those who derived its bull’s head handles from eighth-century prototypes. Because of its friezes of soldiers. Schliemann discovered the fragments of a large.” It is probably the best known piece of Late Helladic pottery (Figs.) on the basis of style.e. originally thought to be their prototype. . 4) painted by a known seventh-century artist. 1200 B. that the Warrior Vase itself proved that such a device “had a much earlier history. scholars dated the bowl to the seventh century B..” (5) Still. 3.128 The Warrior Vase In one of the buildings closest to Circle A (Fig. used for mixing water and wine. but has not alleviated the problem.C. F).. They unhesitatingly attributed the soldiers on the bowl to the Protoattic Period (i.C.(4) leaving as problems the peculiar handles and the figural style.(1) They likewise considered the registers of spearmen as a development from the eighth-century processional friezes on funerary jars found near the Dipylon Gate at the Kerameikos cemetery of Athens.

C. R.C.” part of a “’holding operation. she concluded that the original idea. only the most developed forms of ca. both as a decorative and a functional device. there would be no problem in deriving the developed handles from the double loops on vases from the Protogeometric Period (i. but since scholars now assign LH III C to ca. and since Oakeshott “searched in vain” for double loops earlier than that date. while independent Cypriote chronology has fixed the latter in the early seventh. 1050 B. again began to look like articulated bull’s heads. first seen in the three LH III C examples.. as early scholars believed. Oakeshott treated the topic in great detail.and early twentieth-century scholars assigned the same dates to the Warrior Vase and the Cypriote pot. but there is a lacuna of at least 150 years between the developed LH III C bull’s head handles and the earliest known “debased” double loops. only later degenerating into mere double loops of clay. and were “very similar” to those of the Warrior Vase. was to fashion a fully-articulated bull’s head attachment.C. she assumed that the Iron Age examples descended from those on the Warrior Vase. “the gap between the Cypriote products and .. (at the earliest) on. If the LH III C vases belonged to ca.(9) A vase from Cyprus displays not only “very similar” handles. e.C.) onward. After Egyptian chronology set the former into the early twelfth century.C. In 1966 N. She spoke of “a continuous tradition” from LH III C onward.’ almost a tactical retreat. of all the numerous Iron Age handles from the Protogeometric Period onward. now artistically rendered as horns surmounting a bovine face. scholars had always considered bull’s head handles as a later development from double-loop handles. Additionally.. reversing the previous consensus. 700 B. 700 B. which they supposedly engendered. the decoration of the Cypriote bird and the friezes of filling ornaments above the handle are also “very similar” to other LH III C pots.(10) Late nineteenth. no earlier than ca.” (8) Her evidence for a “continuous tradition” is solid from perhaps 1050 B. but also a similar bird to those depicted on the Warrior Vase. 1200 B.129 Figure 5A: Bull’s head handles from the Warrior Vase Fig 5B Bull’s head handles on a seventh-century vase Irrespective of the absolute dates for LH III C pottery. but.(7) Oakeshott branded the early Iron Age handles “very debased.

like Vermeule(16) still see analogies between the friezes of men on the Warrior Vase and those on eighth-century pottery. did so at a time.130 the Warrior Vase. but seem to have come about suddenly.. The second problem is. Unlike earlier commentators. The first is that. modern scholars. with nothing similar to fill the gap. modern specialists must see the Warrior Vase as ca. and devoid of historical connection with eighth-century figural pottery. two problems arose.(11) Confronted by a lacuna of 500 years between the “typologically closest. 500 years really do separate the Warrior Vase from the later pottery. 700 B. after such a long break in the artistic tradition. who assigned the painted figures on the Warrior Vase to the seventh century. W. but also eliminates the problems. Oakeshott suggested “that a continuous tradition culminated in this area [Cyprus] in a revival. has widened” by half a millennium. Coldstream has termed “the darkness of taboo on figured representation in Greek art. O. N. which unsettles the idea of “a continuous tradition” and observing the closest similarities between fully-developed bull’s head handles of the seventh century (which went through ca. Oakeshott. The turn-of-the-century scholars. there is.” “very similar” examples of bull’s head handles. there seems to have been what J.C.” Because he felt that eighth-century painters who “revived” the figural style did so as a result of experimentation and “with no earlier models to guide them. faced with a gap of at least 150 years. She concluded that “this is a feature of great interest that others must elucidate.C. recently spoke of “an obvious link” between them.” and because he also considered that artistic revival to be the eighth century’s “most striking innovation of all.” came to resemble so closely the figural style of ca. to which they are typologically closest. 450 years earlier than.” (12) We shall soon see that numerous scholars note a revival of LH III C pottery styles in Cyprus and throughout the East Mediterranean after a 500-year gap. during the intervening centuries. when there was a general consensus that the latest Mycenaean pictorial pottery lasted that late. which remain today. as . who also saw that similarity. which was a natural development from an only-slightly-earlier “invention. and without any ascertainable forerunners) was in a quandary. like his predecessors impressed by the close similarity of the soldiers on that bowl to seventh-century figures. why there should have been a centuries-long period when figures disappeared from art—a phenomenon which one recent observer considered both “strange” and “curious. von Vacano.” (15) Despite those problems.” (14) one must explain how the style of ca. but who had the former develop from the latter. still. 350 years of continuous evolution from double loops) and 500-year-older handles (which were just as fully developed.(17) If.” (13) A chronological revision of 500 years not only elucidates the feature. After Egyptian chronology pushed the end of Mycenaean civilization some 400 years earlier than they believed (and the Warrior Vase 100 years still earlier). however. 1200 B.

(1896). Ibid.. 115-116. an “obvious” similarity. R. The similarity is very striking. 8. “Bemerkungen zum ältesten Kunsthandelwerk auf griechischem Boden. ibid. p. Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm. pp.” JHS. as L. Broneer. pp. 12. pp. but there can be no “link. Pottier. 2. 114. 357. Hirmer. pp. E. (1907). 1941) motifs 7. Ohnefalsch-Richter. 20.” BSA. p. and 61. Euboea 1964-66 (London. S. N. Crete and Mycenae (New York. Pottier. (1939). (1966). 291. “Cretan Palaces and the Aegean Civilization III. “one might almost say that the decorators of Protoattic pottery took up the animal [and human] designs where their predecessors of late Mycenaean times had left off. .. without anything comparable between the two. 114-115. (1967). D. F. 5. Excavations at Lefkandi. Hermann] [London. O. Popham and L. but. Dümmler. 6. (1905). 14.” (19) With 400 years separating the end of one from the beginning of the other. Ibid. vol. 1893]. 10. Pottier. p. 31 (1907) p. Mackenzie. 86 (1966). 132. N.. 11. 248.” ) 7. I. pp. Ibid. R. M. 9. The spearmen of the Warrior Vase not only resemble the men depicted on seventh-century Protoattic Pottery from Greece. concentric arcs. 63-64) long ago recognized those and other similarities to LH III C decoration. J. Furumark. p. Marinatos and M. Oakeshott. and zigzags. figs 38-39 (from another “Warrior Vase.” obvious or otherwise. 4. p. 20-21. 13 (1888). Walters.17-18. (1968). 297-298. Woolley justly noted. 121. Mitt. H.48-52 (esp. 245-248. pp. although not all of his considerations are valid for dating purposes. in his Kypros. 28 and 350 respectively. 3. “the similarity is very striking” indeed! References 1.131 everyone has noticed. 353-54.” Ath. (1896). 49).10. Coldstream. 44. p. 19-23. 6)(18) Regarding Greek art. 114. 224. “Horned-head Vase Handles. 232-33 and captions. ibid. p. 1.” Revue Archeologique 28 (1896) pp. pp. 121. Oakeshott. the Bible and Homer [tr. 433. Lacy. 36-37. “Documents ceramiques du Musee du Louvre. For similarly decorated LH III birds.. Ibid. p. idem. currently dated sometime between the late eighth century and the sixth (fig. they also look “remarkably” similar to soldiers painted on terracotta roof tiles from Phrygia in Asia Minor. 13 (1906-07). “Observations sur la ceramique mycenienne. pp. 1968).” Bulletin du correspondance hellenique (henceforth BCH). see A. M. n. S. 13. Sackett. 1960) pls.

166-168. 1978) concurs. Whereas he dated the tiles to the late eighth century. 361. Broneer. Woolley. L. W. E. by S. (1939). p. Die Kunst Anatoliens [Berlin. 45-47.132 15. B. O. von Vacano. 209 (endorsing the view of others). an assessment with which M. 19. 100. Dietrich. Vermeule. 64. 88. cf. and irrespective of which region influenced the other. p. 31. pls. 18. Akurgal. (1972) p. 17. 1961) pp. p. pl. Mellink (letter of Oct. Ogilvie) (Bloomington. 1961] p. The Etruscans in the Ancient World (transl. 16. . Mesopotamia and the Middle East (London. 1955] p. the Phrygian spearmen more closely resemble the art of seventh-century Greece than that of either the eighth or the sixth. (Phrygische Kunst [Ankara. (1970). 22. 1965) p. E. Whatever their true date. VII C) assigns them to the sixth. 81. C.

In eighth-century representations. chariots. Each sherd depicts part of an open-work chariot transporting two soldiers. One would hardly object if the model was incapable of improvement.” and who has also grappled with the problem of the Dark Age.(7) Integrally related to that controversy is yet another one concerning Homer’s references to chariots and chariot warfare. Although friezes of people in chariots were fairly common in Mycenaean art. H. Between that time and their appearance as swift. supposedly another 400 or more years after the Late Helladic III Chariot Vase. which modern scholars note during that “Dark Age.” led Snodgrass to conclude that chariots disappeared from Greece for 400 years. which some date to the thirteenth century. coupled with the impoverished picture of the Greeks. but found again in eighth-seventh-century chariot scenes.(1) Regarding the chariots themselves. still believed that chariots disappeared for centuries. manoeuverable vehicles on a mixing bowl.(3) The lack of evidence for chariots between the twelfth and eighth centuries. they had passed through a total of three developmental stages.(2) and alongside the chariot which seems not to have changed for 400 years.” (5) Nevertheless. rather “than to add chariots to the long list of war-gear that failed to survive the Mycenaean period. 400 years later. not to return until the eighth century.(4) Despite that admitted lack of evidence for continuity. where they are cumbersome box-like devices. on those two sherds both the spearmen and the drivers wear their shields in a manner “unique in chariot iconography” of the Myceanaean Age.(8) . Snodgrass. and did not reappear in Greece until the eighth century or later. we have already alluded to their first appearance in Greece on the Shaft Grave ring and tombstones.(6) The debate—at times rather heated—still continues.133 A Chariot Vase Somewhere in the vicinity of the Warrior Vase was another LH III C mixing bowl. Only two tiny fragments of that vase are presently known—both retrieved from the heap of debris left behind by Schliemann’s workmen. and been instrumental in compiling that “long list of war-gear. but there is no evidence of its existence during those intervening centuries. which scholars place between the end of the Mycenaean Period and the eighth century. look like “direct descendants” of the twelfth-century type. showing no further modifications. sporting a procession of chariot-borne troops. then returned to their old form. Catling preferred to follow those who believed that chariots did persist in their old form throughout the Dark Age. other models make their first known appearance. who has specialized in. light-weight. the so-called Chariot Vase of Mycenae ca. others to the eighth—which “raises a serious problem” for philologists as well. and thus remained unchanged for another 400 years.

p. 210. 1973]. idem.2 [1973-74]. its armies continued to employ war chariots long after the Greeks had ceased to use them. pp. 1969] pp. and the lack of evidence probably signalled a lack of real chariots—a conclusion with which G. Greenhalgh. postulating that at least the aristocrats still used chariots during the Dark Age. Vol. idem. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art (Lund. Greenhalgh. its art continued to have figural representations at a time when Greece did not. p. I F) (Göttingen. 2. The Catalogue of the Ships in Homer’s Iliad (Oxford. Snodgrass.” BCH 90 [1966]. “The Military Use of the Chariot in the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age. The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh. . For discussions favoring the eighth century. 5.” American Journal of Archaeology 79 (1975). 225. 34. Despite all that. pp. 433. p. (1964. G. Greenhalgh (1973. II. 8. 19) noted that the absence of evidence seems entirely due to the lack of any figural representations in contemporary Greek art. Salamis in Cyprus [London. “A Mycenaean Puzzle from Lefkandi in Euboea. pp. 109-110. however. British and Cyrenaic Chariots. G. Greenhalgh. 6. Catling (1968). Third ed. pp. 840) agreed. “Homeric. 1975]. it has produced some actual chariot remains (V. pp. 839. 6) still held his original position that probably no one could afford such a luxury during the Dark Age. Luce. 92-110. Wiesner. “A propos des quelques representations de chars sur des vases chypriotes de l’Age du Fer. esp. 3. 2 [Cambridge. pp.134 References 1. Early Greek Warfare (Cambridge. des Gagniers. 159-163. p. Dickinson (“Archaeological Facts and Greek Traditions. 4. 78).” The Cambridge Ancient History. pp. 7. The Language and Background of Homer (Cambridge. S. J. Cyprus has that same embarrassing gap from the twelfth century till the eighth/seventh (Karageorghis. 76 (1972). 29-39). M. 1973). Kirk (“The Homeric Poems as History. 1974]. 101. 68-69. its Mycenaean and Archaic pottery. 48. ibid. 39-40) and O. 93. 1971). 1971).” n. p. 40. Littauer. K. pp. H. Kirk. 70 and n. 175. 1964). 19. That observation is certainly true for Greece and the Aegean—a source of consternation for art historians. pt. Snodgrass. pp. p. 17). 1968). review of Greenhalgh’s Early Greek Warfare in Journal of Hellenic Studies 94 (1974). For discussions that waver between Mycenaean times and the eighth century. 1971). Snodgrass (see n. 15-17). Anderson. with the seventh-century examples even resembling the Mycenaean model (Karageorghis. Kirk. Fahren und Reiten (Archaeologia Homerica. believe that chariots persisted in Cyprus throughout the Dark Age. n. pp. 48. Early Greek Warfare [Cambridge. as we shall soon see. idem. (1973. idem and J. idem.. p. Karageorghis. 163). F.” American Journal of Archaeology 69 (1965).. A. p.” Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of the University of Birmingham 12. and all commentators. 123. 39-40) all concur with Catling. 63.” AJA. “Greek Chariot-borne and Mounted Infantry. W. p. For discussions favoring Mycenaean times. pp. V.” n. See J. P. Catling. p. p. Ahlberg. 176 and J. 11. Cyprus. both for actual remains and for representations of chariots. 1971). 19. and its terracotta models frequently depict chariots. 184 and “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems. 1964). 1970). Early Greek Armour and Weapons (Edinburgh. 349-352. see Kirk. p. 69). 1975] pp. see Snodgrass. Hope Simpson and J. p. 4-5. 145-146 and “The Entrance to the Citadel. American Journal of Archaeology 72 (1968). was both part of the Greek world and in close contact with the Orient where the vehicle presumably persisted. (1975). Lazenby. (Homer and the Homeric Age [London. La Ceramique Chypriote de style figure [Rome. including Snodgrass (1964. R. “An Historical Homeric Society?” Journal of Hellenic Studies 94 (1974). p. 29-39. Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Lund.

throughout the Mycenaean empire) is the “Close Style. Tiryns. Lacy recently found it “interesting to notice that the same phenomenon occurred again four hundred years later in the profusion of ornaments” that covered the so-called Dipylon pottery of the eighth century. they had little other than the better-known works of the first millennium with which to compare them. was mixed with.4 some of which early controversies Velikovsky has chronicled above for Olympia. Rhodes.135 Other LH III Figural Pottery Throughout the area of Schliemann’s excavation-south of Grave Circle A. At Mycenae itself archaeologists discovered a number of Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian objects. but because of the discovery of Late Helladic (soon followed by Minoan) remains was so fresh.1 It is even more interesting that the individual motifs on the Close Style vases. which fill all the exposed surface area of the pots. as in the case of the Warrior Vase. triangles. confronted with Egyptian evidence. “Vehement disputes” erupted between those accepting Egyptian reckoning. Queen Tiy. a number of Aegean specialists believed that Mycenaean civilization immediately preceded the seventh century B. there appeared vast quantities of ornamental LH III B-C pottery fragments. as well as in Wace’s trench beside the Lion Gate. had to reassess their dates for Mycenaean culture. find their most striking parallels to designs on the seventh-century “Orientalizing” pottery of Greece. One system of decorating the LH III C pottery from that area (in fact. and it completely .” a term which art historians use to describe compact designs arranged in friezes of water fowl. Amenhotep III and his wife. Cyprus. Sicily. Crete. it did not explain depictions of Mycenaean objects in Eighteenth-Dynasty murals. Those who rejected the Egyptian scheme usually branded the New Kingdom exports to the Aegean as centuries-old heirlooms. and those challenging it as 500-700 years too early.3 Aegean archaeologists. Egyptologists noted that the earliest Mycenaean artifacts in Grave Circle A corresponded to the early Eighteenth Dynasty. Flinders Petrie found a large quantity of LH III A . and excavators outside Egypt began finding Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty objects beside Mycenaean ware throughout the Levant and the Aegean.5 That explanation was weak for a number of reasons it assumed that the Mycenaeans only collected 500-700-year-old Egyptian artifacts to the complete exclusion of Egyptian items produced in their own day. loops.. Enkomi and Mycenae.2 In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Italy and the Eastern Aegean. rosettes.C. That interest heightens when we recall that at a number of excavations throughout that same area (including Wace’s trench by the Lion Gate) eighth-seventh century pottery immediately overlay. including some which bear the cartouches of Pharaoh Amenhotep II.early LH III B pottery in Pharaoh Akhnaten’s short-lived capital of Akhetaten in Egypt. or even lay beneath LH III B-C ware. semi-circles and other motifs.

and showed that there was hardly enough LH III BC pottery to last from ca. seemed to flow directly into the seventh-century ware of the Greek world. Melos. LH III pottery continued that late. They looked to islands like Sicily. still wanted the end of the era to last long into the first millennium. more than any other Mycenaean product. Most other Aegean prehistorians.6 but Egyptologists countered with strong and at times unfair retorts. Of all the places on the fringe of the Mycenaean world to which scholars looked for centuries-long retention of Mycenaean life and art. realizing that the Late Helladic Period had to be as early as the Eighteenth-Nineteenth Dynasties of Egypt. Many. they postulated that somewhere in the far-flung Mycenaean empire. exploration of those areas revealed the same pattern as in Greece itself. who felt that the inception of the period had to be that old. Cyprus afforded a unique setting for the . 1350-700 B. Since the latest Mycenaean vases still resembled so closely 8th-7th century ones. Rhodes. pushed the beginning of the Mycenaean Age into the mid-second millennium B. Cyprus and the east coast of Turkey as places where the tradition could have survived no matter what occurred in Greece proper. and with Greece no longer a possible area of continuity. Wide and their followers had proposed a 500-year-earlier overlap of MH and LH styles. Crete. Cecil Torr was one Aegean specialist who did question the Egyptian chronological scheme. if not earlier still.C. Furtwängler. like the Greek mainland itself.7 and Torr gained no appreciable following.9 When further excavation revealed still more New Kingdom Egyptian material alongside the youngest Mycenaean vases. fell prey to Dorian invaders. None of those championing the heirloom theory even dared to consider that the very basis for dating the New Kingdom of Egypt might be incorrect. Beloch. many envisioned an overlap of LH III and Geometric styles. Aegina. whom early archaeologists . Since archaeologists agreed that Protogeometric and Geometric pottery also preceded the seventh century. through his discoveries and his writings was largely responsible for pushing back LH I-LH III A/ early LH III B to the sixteenth-fourteenth centuries.136 failed to explain the presence of LH pottery in bona fide Eighteenth Dynasty contexts in Egypt itself. and even Petrie who. art historians had to abandon the notion that LH III co-existed with geometric ware as late as the eighth-seventh century in Greece itself.11 According to Greek tradition. and accepting the absolute dates furnished by the Egyptologists.10 Little by little. one of the great pioneers in the study of pottery decoration was among that school’s foremost proponents.have blamed for the obliteration of Mycenaean culture. with LH III C dying out by the late eleventh century.as well as some modern ones .C.C. just as Böhlau. still had the remainder of the Mycenaean Age last into the eighth century.8 The LH III BC figural pottery. most of those places. and thereby connect directly with the similar products of the eighth-sixth centuries B.. outside of the mainland.

along with some Levantine accretions. and historical darkness. which provided the required continuity. Sicily. and still note. and during the LH III C period it received numerous Mycenaean colonists. Cyprus enjoyed a “special relationship” with the Aegean world. That theory is extremely popular24 and explains why art historians refer to seventh-century Aegean ware with its Levantine and renascent Mycenaean elements as “Orientalizing. and influencing the pottery shapes and decoration of Greece. Aegina. like its counterpart in Greece. as both early and modern excavators have hypothesized.16 and throughout the period between the end of LH III in Greece and the eighth century. Crete. showing little connection with. Even those who reject his opinion do not view it as a continuation of figural LH III. its people were extremely conservative. Rhodes. archaeological obscurity. cultural desolation. and no evolution from the Late Bronze Age ware. which it supposedly superceded immediately. and near enough Phoenicia to share in its presumed prosperity.18 P. in a “backwash” to their place of origin hundreds of years later. and since they see too many close resemblances for the similarities to be merely “fortuitous. for some reason not fully understood. Dikaios once claimed that its Iron Age ware. Cyprus and eastern Anatolia seems a direct continuation of LH III BC shapes and decoration. including skilled artisans steeped in the art of their homeland. resembling instead 500-year-older Middle Bronze Age pottery.19 Dikaios and others (including his critics) noted some instances where Cypriote Iron Age ware.13 it imported tremendous quantities of LH III pottery.”22 they view the phenomenon as a “renaissance. too. and finally sent the Greek products. that the late eighthseventh century pottery of Greece.17 Despite all those positive factors. followed the same pattern as the rest of the Mycenaean world at the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Cyprus. reflecting many features of Mycenaean culture well into the eighth-seventh centuries.” .15 its late eighth-seventh century pottery shows some close similarities to LH III C shapes and especially decoration. which scholars originally felt would continue the LH III tradition for centuries. some have conjectured that the Mycenaean ceramic and decorative traditions passed beyond the Greek world to Phoenicia. they need a mechanism to explain the revival. seems to have bypassed Late Bronze Age ceramics. 400 years separating the last LH III C figural ware from the earliest return to that bygone style.”23 Even so. with ca. It.14 it was far enough away from the Aegean centers to escape the turmoil which they encountered. abandonments. suffered its own long period of destructions. Melos.20 Since countless authorities have long noted.12 It never fell victim to the Dorians.21 since they have not found artistic continuity in any of those areas. Since no corner of the Greek world kept the style alive during those centuries.137 continuation of Mycenaean figural art. made its appearance suddenly on the island. in fact. importing and exporting finished products (including pottery).

if one must limit oneself to only one medium for 400 years of continuous patterning. Still. but followed the same course as did the 500-year-earlier decorations. Yet another problem with Phoenicia. is that some “Mycenaean” elements begin to appear in eighth-century Greece. and one can only speculate about its possible ornamentation. there is still no evidence that the Levant fared any better than did Cyprus or Greece in continuing the LH III artistic tradition until the seventh century.30 in any instance. when Greece was undergoing a Dark Age. which the accepted scheme places in the eleventh century.25 it did send Oriental products (including the alphabet) to Greece in the ninth-seventh centuries.138 The Levant did receive quite a bit of LH III pottery. additionally many of the curvilinear motifs and naturalistic figures (especially human) found on seventh-century “Orientalizing” ware. Bothered by those facts some scholars. .28 For continuity of decorative ivories and metalware the situation in the Levant presents as big an obstacle as in Greece (and as big a source of consternation). LH III C-type pottery did not last as long as it did in Greece itself—none of which helps the survival theory for the Levant any more than at all the other places suggested over the last century. A Twentyfirst Dynasty document from Egypt. and it did inspire. propose that Near Eastern metalwork. retaining. literary sources give a much brighter picture for Phoenicia.C. carpenters and a master craftsman.31 Despite the popularity of the notion of a Phoenician link to explain the close similarities of two sets of Aegean vases now dated half a millennium apart. Between the Mycenaean Age and the ninth century. then returning LH III decoration. from which Kings David and Solomon purchased lumber and hired seafarers. 27 Phoenicia therefore seemed an ideal place to foster LH III pottery until the seventh century. it lends itself more readily to geometrical patterns than to the curvilinear. before there are any signs of Oriental influence on Greek art.26 indicates a very strong position for contemporary Lebanon. Greece is as probable a candidate as Phoenicia. 1200 to 900 B. did not come from the Levant.29 The only Levantine medium for continuity that is left is patterned fabric. as the source of. the case is completely unproveable. which several people now see as the most likely source for LH III motifs’ survival. naturalistic ornaments and figures of LH III C and seventh-century ware. and most reminiscent of the LH III C style. stone masons. the Bible portrays tenth-century Phoenicia as an independent land. some of the decoration found on seventh-century Greek pottery. The facts are that the Levant did not export painted pottery to seventh-century Greece. and made its own imitation of LH III C shapes and decoration (the so-called Philistine ware). While there certainly was ornamental cloth. ivory carvings and decorated fabrics kept the designs (if not the pot shapes) alive over those centuries. evolving directly from the stiffer forms of native Greek ornament which immediately preceded them. and it could have preserved some LH III decoration. since there is no evidence of either product from ca. and disregards its nonappearance in other media. who still favor the theory. since all the cloth has vanished. LH III shapes and decoration made only a very small impact on the Levantine ceramic industry as a whole} and even in Philistia.

139

As an alternative to the still-popular hypothesis of survival, other scholars have postulated a native revival, whereby the Greeks of the late eighth-seventh centuries found 500-year-old vases, liked what they saw, and imitated some of the shapes and much of the ornamentation. 32 Such rediscoveries certainly fit the numerous cases where the later Greeks seem to have returned to cities, houses, wells, palaces, tombs and cult places supposedly abandoned for nearly half a millennium.33 Still, one had to explain why only then, and at no time during the previous 500 years did the Greeks decide to return to those palaces and copy the bygone art. There is a popular notion, to which we shall return that the later Greeks, hearing Homer’s epics, gained a new pride in their heritage, and consciously sought out the relics of the Trojan War heroes.34 Taking that antiquarian devotion one step further, some observers have proposed that the later Greeks recognized the LH III BC ware in those places as belonging to the “Age of Heroes,” and copied it to strengthen their ties of identity with their forebears.35 K. de Vries has challenged that view on the reasonable that the eighth-seventh-century Greeks would not have been knowledgeable enough to identify the particular type of pottery used in the Heroic Age after so long a gap.36 C.G. Starr recently called the similarities of late eighth-seventh-cerntury wares to LH III BC pottery “particularly puzzling and intriguing.”37 There have been several attempts to explain that phenomenon in terms of a fifth-century revival or survival, but none stands up to careful scrutiny. Some 75 years ago C.C. Edgar, who recognized that seventh-century ware resembled LH III C, just as eleventh-century Protogeometric resembled sixteenth-century Middle Bronze ware, felt that somehow the two revivals, after “obscure” 500-year gaps, followed the same pattern, arid probably had the same explanation, whatever it happened to be.38 Wide, Böhlau, Dörpfeld, Furtwängler and others, who favored survivals rather than revivals, sought to explain the similarities by synchronizing the Geometrical and Mycenaean styles, but they also ran afoul of 500 years.39 While I would not equate Middle Helladic with Protogeometric or LH III C with Orientalizing ware, since each group does have very distinctive shapes and designs which the other lacks, I would point out that, under a dating system which has eliminated 500 years, the early idea of co-existing styles would explain close similarities, which, under the current chronological framework, merely puzzle and intrigue.
References
1. Lacy, (1967), p. 223. 2. Cf. above “The Entrance to the Citadel,” ns. 8-13. 3. J.D.S. Pendlebury, Aegyptiaca (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 53-57. More recently, see HankeyWarren, (1974). 4. Demargne, (1964), p. 8. 5. E.g. A.S. Murray, Excavations in Cyprus (London, 1900), pp. 21-24; D.G. Hogarth. Excavations at Ephesus (London, 1908). p. 242. 6. C. Torr, Memphis and Mycenae (Cambridge, 1896).

140 7. E.g., H. Hall, (1901), pp. 56-59 (to which see Torr’s response in his review of Hall’s book in The Classical Review 16 (1902), pp. 182-187 (esp. p. 187). 8. References in Tsountas-Manatt, (1897), p. 321, n. 1. 9. A Furtwängler, “Die Bronzefunde aus Olympia and deren Kunstgeschichtliche Bedeutung,” Berlin Abhandlungen 4 (1879), pp. 45-47 (reprinted in Kleine Schriften I (Munich, 1911), pp. 373-375; F.Dümmler, “Zu den Vasen aus Kameiros,” JdI, 6 (1891), pp. 270-271; Murray, (1900), p. 23; Hall, (1901), p. 36, n. 1; cf. Demargne (1964, p. 271) and Cook (1972, pp. 310, 312-313) for modern comments. 10. Cook, loc. cit.; Hall, (1901), pp. 36, 45, 62-63, III, 132, 137, 221-222, 229, 246, 255 n. 1, 259-260, 264-265, 274, 279, 283; A. Evans, “A Mycenaean Treasure from Aegina,” JHS,13 (1892-3) pp. 224, 226. 11. Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 134-135. 12. H. Walters, “On Some Antiquities of the Mycenaean Age Recently Acquired By the British Museum,” JHS, 17 (1897), pp. 63-64, 77; Hall, (1901), pp. 36, 63, III, 132, 137, 221, 229, 264-265; More recently, cf. P. Amandry, “Plaques d’or de Delphes,” Ath. Mitt, 77 (1962), p. 54, and C. Berard, Eretria III (Bern, 1970), pp. 42-43; cf. ns. 15-16 below. 13. Hall, (1901), p. 221; V. Karageorghis, Cyprus (London, 1970), p. 67. 14. Karageorghis, ibid., pp. 61-64; H. Catling, “Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age,” CAH3 II. 2 (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 198-201, 207-213; Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 29, 314, 365. 15. H Karageorghis, ibid., p. 67; idem, “Notes on Some Mycenaean Survivals in Cyprus During the First Millennium B.C.,” Kadmos, I (1962), pp. 72-77; idem, (1967a), pp. 167170 and (1969), p. 14; A.R. Burn, Minoans, Philistines and Greeks, etc (London, 1968), p. 230. 16. Gjerstad, (1948), pp. 298-299; P. Dikaios, “Fifteen Iron Age Vases,” Report of the Department of Antiquities. Cyprus [henceforth RDAC], 1937-9 (pub’d, 1951), pp. 134, 137138; idem, A Guide to the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia, 1961), p. 63; Karageorghis, (1962), p. 76; idem, Treasures in the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia, 1962), pp. 4, 16-17; idem, “Some Cypriote Painters of Bulls in the Archaic Period,” JdI, 80 (1965), pp. I, 10-12, 14. 17. Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 94 (source of the quote), 444 (list of references); Desborough, (1972), pp. 49-57, 145. 18. Desborough, ibid., pp. 49-57 (pace the disclaimer on p. 57); Catling, (1968), pp. 53, 221, 301; idem, (1975), pp. 193-196, 209-213; Karageorghis, (1969), p. 23; idem, (1970), pp. 66, 151. 19. Dikaios, “An Iron Age Painted Amphora in the Cyprus Museum,” BSA, 37 (1936-7), p. 58 n. 3. Others (e.g. Gjerstad, (1948), pp. 282-287) disagree with that assessment. Again, as with Submycenaean (see above “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems,” n. 54), some Late Cypriote (LC) III pottery and other artifacts obviously follow LC II, and some obviously precede the Cypro-Geometric period, but I would question the continuity within, and the homogeneity of LC III (cf. J. Du Plat Taylor, “Late Cypriot III in the Light of Recent Excavations, etc.,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly [henceforth PEFQ], 88 [1956], p.30) The Iron Age Cypriots did paint representations on some of their pottery, but those were not as common as, and did not directly continue the LH III C figures. There were gaps—some huge—during which many familiar forms disappeared entirely, or else bore little or no similarity to the earlier style; the closest resemblances to LH III B-C motifs belong not to the earliest “post-Mycenaean” ware of Cyprus but to the eighth-seventh centuries, as if a renascence only then took place (Snodgrass, (1971), p. 94; Desborough, (1972), p. 51; Karageorghis-des Gagniers, (1966), pp. 4-6, 15, 47, 62, 94-95, 101, 107-112; cf. n. 16 above). 20. P. Dikaios, “Principal Acquisitions of the Cyprus Museum, 1937-1939, RDAC, 1937-39 (pub’d, 1951), p. 200, idem, (1961), pp. 203-204; Gjerstad, (1948), pp. 216, 283 (for which, cf. SCE vol. II [Stockholm, 1935], p. 276), 293-294; J.F. Daniel, “Two Late

141 Cypriote III Tombs from Kourion,” AJA, 41 (1937) pp. 71, 73-74 (to which see Catling’s objection, (1964), pp. 52-53). In addition to the citations of ns. 9, 16 above, see inter alia Cook, (1972), pp. 41, 44; Edgar, (1904), p. 106; Starr, (1961), p. 244; Broneer, (1939), p. 361; Berard, (1970), pp. 42-43; Friis Johansen, (1966), pp. 5, 9, 19, 34, 48-50, 55-56, 63-64, 131; J. P. Droop, “Dipylon Vases from the Kynosarges Site,” BSA, 12 (1905-6), pp. 84-85, 90-91; D. Burr, “A Geometric House and a Proto-Attic Votive Deposit,” Hesperia, 2 (1933), p. 632; J. Pendlebury, The Archaeology of Crete (London, 1939) p. 335; R. Young, Late Geometric Graves and a Seventh Century Well in the Agora (Athens, 1939), pp. 49. 177, 186-187. 217;W. Taylour, Mycenaean Pottery Italy and Adjacent Areas (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 113, 116, 120, 136, 142, 157; E. Vermeule “The Fall of the Mycenaean Empire,” Archaeology 13 (1960), p. 74; J. Boardman, The Cretan Collection in Oxford (Oxford, 1961) pp. 57-58, 144 (confusion and debates over dating), 151; E. Brann, The Athenian Agora VIII; Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery (Princeton, 1962), pp. 15, 19, 43, 48, 51; E. Langlotz, Ancient Greek Sculpture of South Italy and Sicily (tr. A. Hicks) (New York, 1965), p. 15; G.K. Galinsky Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton, 1969), pp. 82-84, 89; J.L. Benson, Horse, Bird &Man (Amherst, 1970), (Amherst, 1970), pp. 5-6 and passim J. N. Coldstream, “The Cesnola Painter: A Change of Address,” BICS, 13 (1971), p. II; etc. etc. Vermeule, (1960), p. 74. Demargne, (1964), p. 271. J. Droop, “The Pottery from Arcadia, Crete,” Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 12 (1925), p. 11 (whence the term “backwash” ); M. Hartley, “Early Greek Vases from Crete,” BSA, 29 (1930-1), pp. 62, 64, 86-37; D. Levi, “Early Hellenic Pottery of Crete,” Hesperia 14 (1945), pp. 1, 9-10; Cook, (1972), p. 41; R. Higgins, Minoan and Mycenaean Art (New York, 1967), p. 190. Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 107-109; F. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant (Cambridge, 1951); V. Hankey, “Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle East,” BSA, 62 (1967), pp. 104-147; idem, “Mycenaean Trade with the South-Eastern Mediterranean,” Melanges de L’Universite Saint Joseph, 46.2 (1970), pp. 11-30. Velikovsky, (1977, pp. 129-138 and 1978, pp. 80-81) has redated that document and the entire dynasty to the Persian Period. II Sam. 5:11; I Kings 5:15-32, 7:13-46; II Chron. 2:1-15. Benson, (1970), p. 5; Cook, (1972), p. 41; Robertson, (1975), pp. 23-24. For ivories, see below “Ivory Carvings,” ns. 6-7; For metalware, many authorities have long noted that ninth-seventh-century Phoenician decorated bowls “continue the tradition” of similar bowls from Ugarit of Eighteenth Dynasty date (e.g., H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient [Baltimore, 1963], pp. 150, 195; Strong, (1966), p. 53; S. Moscati, The World of the Phoenicians [tr. A. Hamilton] [London, 1968], pp. 67-68), and closely resemble Nineteenth-Dynasty metalware from Tell Basta in Egypt (e.g., W.K. Simpson, “The Vessels with engraved designs and the Repoussé Bowl from the Tell Basta Treasure,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies [henceforth JNES], 24 [1965], p. 28). As in the case of Greek figural art (cf. “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems,” ns. 57-66 and ns. 1-28 above). Orientalists treating decorated metalware have split into two camps. Those who have championed survival attribute extraordinary conservatism to Phoenician artisans who, without leaving a trace, somehow continued to produce metalware in the ninth-sixth centuries, which differed little, if at all, from Eighteenth-Nineteenth Dynasty antecedents (e.g., Murray, (1900), pp. 27-29; Hall, (1901), pp. 137, 251-252; C. Schaeffer, Ugaritica II [Paris, 1949], p. 47). Those advocating revival proposed a conscious copying of 500-year-old forms (e.g., J.L. Myres, Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus [New York, 1914], p. 275; cf. Hall, “Oriental Art of the Saite Period” in CAH1 III [Cambridge, 1925] [ed. J.B. Bury et al.], p. 327; Dikaios, (1951), p. 137; Strong, (1966), p. 53; for a fuller discussion, cf. Isaacson, (1974), p. 15). Some of the metal bowls from

21.

22. 23. 24.

25.

26. 27. 28. 29.

142 uncertain contexts have provoked heated debates between those who, seeing Minoan Mycenaean and Egyptian New Kingdom analogies, have assigned them to the Late Bronze Age (e.g., Myres, Ibid, pp. 457-460; Fr. von Bissing, “Eine Bronzeschale mykenischer Zeit,” JdI, 13 [1898], p. 37; idem, Ägyptisch oder Phoinikisch?,” JdI, 25 [1910], pp. 193-199; idem, “Untersuchungen fiber die ’phoinikischen’ Metal schen,” JdI, 38-39 [1923-1924], p. 190), and those who, acknowledging the 500-year-older elements, still insisted on ninth-sixth-century dates for those same items (e.g. Murray, ibid., pp. 2729; Hall, ibid., [1901], pp. 137, 251-252, [1925], p. 327; F. Studniczka, “Der Rennwagen in Syrisch-phoinikischen Gebiet,” JdI, 22 (1907), p. 75; H. Schäfer, Ägyptische Goldschmiedearbeiten [Berlin, 1910], p. 66; E. Gjerstad, “Decorated Metal Bowls from Cyprus,” Op. Arch., 4 (1946), pp. 2-17). For similar problems with Aegean bronzes, cf. below “A Terracotta Figurine and a Terracotta Head,” n. 16. For decorated Phoenician textiles as the chief medium of continuous transmission, cf, inter al., H. Payne, Necrocorinthia (Oxford, 1931), p. 54; Benson, (1970), pp. 55, 111-113, 122-123; Cook, (1972), p. 41. From the extremely rare specimens of later Greek cloth that have survived, one sees that, at least by the classical period, the Greeks could and did transfer curvilinear and naturalistic designs to cloth from paintings on smooth surfaces, where such motifs are far quicker and easier to create (cf. G. Richter, A Handbook of Greek Art [New York, 1969], pp. 380-383). It is somewhat hazardous to reconstruct the actual designs of textiles from their depictions in paintings, since the latter may show a style less rigid than, and possibly completely different from those on the cloth itself. (H. Kantor, “The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B.C.?” AJA, 51 (1947), pp. 43-44); nevertheless, to judge by Mycenaean Age frescoes, Aegean textile workers had already begun to adorn cloth with representational designs including floral motifs, monsters and animals, which seem to have vanished from Dark Age pottery, only to “return” in the seventh century (cf. E. Evans, (1935), vol. II [1928], fig. 456, pls. 25-27, and vol. III [1930], figs. 25-26—if correctly restored and interpreted; Vermeule, (1971), p. 193 and pi. 28A-B; S. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera VII [Athens, 1976], p. 36 and pi. 65). While it is true that Homer mentioned “colorful” Phoenician cloth (II. VI; 289-295), he does not describe its design, which might merely have been woven stripes; he does, however, describe the representational adornments of battle scenes and flowers which Helen and Andromache created on cloth (II. III;125-128; XXII:441). If the “taboo” on figural pottery did not extend to textiles, Greek artisans could have kept the styles alive as easily as the Phoenicians allegedly did. Benson, (1970), passim; Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 54, 417-418; Cook, (1972), pp. 41-43. But cf. J. Carter, “The Beginning of Narrative Art in the Geometric Period,” BSA, 67 (1972) pp. 25-58, who seeks to push back the earliest Oriental influence. Benson, ibid., passim; Brann, (1962), p. 19. Cf. above “The Entrance to the Citadel,” n. 13 and “Later Use of the Grave Circles,” n. 14; below “The Palace,” ns. 6-8 and “The Design of the Palace,” n. 31. Cf. n. below. Benson, (1970) passim; Karageorghis, (1962), pp. 72, 76-77. K, de Vries, review of Benson’s Horse. Bird & Man, AJA,76 (1972), pp. 99-100. Starr, (1961, p. 244.) Edgar, (1904, p. 106.) Cf. “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems,” n. 60 and n. 9 above.

30.

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

143

Bronze Tripods
Somewhere in the area of Grave Circle A and the house which contained the Warrior Vase, Schliemann discovered fragments of a bronze cooking cauldron supported by three legs. Unfortunately, he did not record its exact provenience (which would have helped to fix its precise date),1 but it is of more interest for its relative position in the history of Aegean metallurgy than its specific location inside the citadel of Mycenae. Both its shape and its area of discovery help to define its chronological limits within the Mycenaean period. Stylistically the tripod cauldron could be as early as the LH III A period, which corresponds to the reigns of Pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaten; both stylistically and stratigraphically it seems to be no later than the LH III C period, so that, in broad terms, archaeologists have assigned its date of fabrication and its subsequent burial sometime within the fourteenth-twelfth centuries.2 Snodgrass recently called its shape “particularly important,” and noted its “close resemblance” to the bronze tripods of the eighth century from3 Olympia. Many archaeologists have long observed that close resemblance, and since it is essentially a utilitarian object, they believed that there must have been a continuous production of similar bronze tripods between the two ages.4 Today one sees that at the end of the Mycenaean Age there apparently occurred “a precipitous decline in the technique and employment of Bronze.” Presumably, the Mycenaeans no longer had access to their sources of copper and/or tin ore to form new bronze, did not have enough old bronze artifacts and scrap to melt down to create new objects, and also lost the technology to cast the metal in complex molds.5 Therefore, despite the close similarities of eighth-century bronze tripod cauldrons to Mycenaean specimens, all the excavation of the last century reveals no evidence for the continuous manufacture of bronze tripods of that distinct form, or, indeed, of any form during the Dark Age.6 Catling, a specialist in the Aegean bronzework of the Mycenaean Age, felt that the close resemblance of eighthcentury tripod cauldrons from Olympia and elsewhere in Greece to the Late Helladic examples, as well as the close resemblance of a highly developed eighthcentury cuirass from Argos to an example from fourteenth-century Dendra (both places less than ten miles from Mycenae and from each other) implied continuous production for at least those two classes of bronze objects, despite the present gap of centuries in the evidence.7 Snodgrass, also a specialist in metal work, and on the Dark Age as well, took the same position vis-à-vis Catling, with regard to tripods and body armor as he did with chariots, feeling that, despite the close similarities, a 400-600-year gap in the evidence indicated the the eighth-century items did not evolve directly from their Mycenaean antecedents.8 The tripod cauldrons were very effective for heating meals over a cooking fire, but they had their disadvantages. Because of their massive size and weight, their boiling contents and their own heat over the flame, one could not remove them from the

Because there are numerous LH III C examples and a few precisely similar ones in contexts as late as the eighth century. which one could remove from the fire. noting that resemblance. consisting of a hollow tripod stand upon which one placed a separate cauldron.10 It is of no little interest that the bronze tripod stands of the LH III C period. who studied the numerous tripods. one of the most ornately decorated Cypriote tripod stands. endorsing earlier opinion. despite the complete lack of evidence. and tripod cauldrons during the Dark Age. then supposedly vanishing (except for rare heirlooms and much later clay models). but instead had to ladle what one could of the boiling liquid from their interior. bring to the table. replacing one-piece tripod cauldrons. separated the Mycenaean Age example from its much later counterparts. presumably from a cauldron of LH III C date. in the continuity of chariots. probably belongs to the eighth century. In the LH III C period the Cypriots developed an improved model. which separates similar examples. but the one Levantine ivory carving. ”9 Catling. which Catling considered stylistically closest to that stand.11 followed the same course as. he postulated that all the tripod stands in later contexts were prized antiques. but felt perplexed that so many centuries. and still others as well. believed that there must be some kind of connection. showed Levantine motifs which seemed to derive from somewhat earlier ivory carvings. looks very similar to animal-head attachments found on eighth-seventh-century Eastern cauldrons imported to Greece. the archaeologists’ impasse has also had a direct effect on Homeric scholarship. allow to cool. while the other regards them as a reflection of the eighth- .14 As in other cases that we have already seen. Those tripods present similar chronological problems to the one-piece Mycenaean tripod cauldrons which they came to replace.C. Rejecting continuity of manufacture after that time. and from which one could pour the contents. preserved through the centuries. Benson. recently called the new tripods “one of the most often cited examples of continuity between the Late Bronze Age and the Geometric Period in the Aegean. It is of still greater interest that a bronze bull’s head attachment. and who did believe. while one of the closest Cypro-Levantine metalwork analogies dates to the seventh century B. including the Dark Age stands.13 Furthermore. since Homer mentions bronze corselets and tripods in his epics. which came to replace the eighth-century Greek tripod cauldrons. Catling and others. which offered nothing remotely similar. nevertheless dated all the tripod stands to the LH III C period.12 as if history repeated itself with one 500-year throwback evolving from and supplanting another 500-year throwback. body armor. presumably also of LH III C date.144 fire beneath them. One group of scholars heralds those references as accurate memories of the Mycenaean Age. and physically resemble other Eastern tripod stands of the seventh century. who noted the close similarity of an example from an eighth-century Athenian context to those of LH III C date.

modern philologists and archaeologists have run into the same problems (and still more) as their predecessors. ibid. (1971). pp. Greek and Roman Bronzes (New York. abandoned for nearly half a millennium. (1968). chariots and tripods. References S. in fact. and Desborough. 284. pp. One particular passage. referring to an aborted chariot race for a tripod at or near Olympia shortly before the Trojan War (Iliad XI: 698-702) sparked one of the first chronological debates in Homeric scholarship.21 As happened with contemporary and analogous debates over the foundation dates of Rome and Carthage—either the era of the Trojan War heroes or the ninth/eighth century22— the ancients decided to resolve the arguments by accepting both traditions—all three were founded in the Heroic Age. (1934-35). At the end of the fifth century the Greeks. cit. which Velikovsky has recorded above Olympia. 637.23 did not end the debate. in fact. (1968).16 a problem which still troubles modern authors. that the Trojan War fell sometime during the fourteenth-twelfth centuries B. 5. Catling. Doeringer. pp. which sparked the heated quarrel between Furtwängler and Dörpfeld. pp. p. (1972. p. 1968). pp. Benton. 4. 29. p. n. Evans. “The Evolution of the Tripod-Lebes. as Homer recounted. then refounded at the later date. W. Mitten. 1929).G.17 especially since some archaeologists feel that the eighth-century tripods found at Olympia. D. via Egyptian reckoning. (1971). 169-170. pp. 237-238. loc. Writers of the Roman period argued whether or not the hard made a poetic allusion to the famous Olympic Games of his own day. 35 (1934-35). (1935). Pausanias.C. vol. 19. then as now. 281-283. compounds itself because of two conflicting chronological schemes’ The Greeks of the classical period attributed the foundation of the Olympic chariot races to a pre-Trojan War hero such as Pelops.24 Rather than resolving ancient literary debates over Olympia. 629.15 Regarding two sources of literary controversy Homer refers to tripods as prizes at chariot races.C. calculated that the first recorded Olympic Games took place in 776 B. Lamb. 169-170.F. which so closely resemble the centuries-older Mycenaean examples. II (1928). created yet another 500-year problem for Olympia. and S.” BSA. (1968). Snodgrass. 281-285. Catling. and those who opted for the early eighth.19 at a time when they had come to believe. using native accounts. Heracles or Atreus. Snodgrass. 3. cf. pp. who over 1800 years ago related that compromise for the Olympics. and for the same reason—Egyptian chronology placed Mycenaean objects and institutions half a millennium before similar objects and institutions again appear.. Benton. and. 1.18 The controversy. 76. prizes for the winners of the early Olympic Games. . 314-318. A. 76-77. Master Bronzes from the Classical World (Los Angeles. 2.20 A dispute then arose between those who assigned the foundation of the Olympics to the thirteenth century. in Popham-Sackett. 399.145 century world in which Homer and his audience lived. 5. idem. pp. 44.) 6. Snodgrass. were. p.

30. 62.” GRBS. cf. 50. 1962). 563.6-7. ibid. p. 54. J. review of Catling’s Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. 11. 123.” BCH. 535 (although see p. at about the same date. For the Bronze Age in general. p. Charbonneaux. 9. 137. By a chronological revision. Stubbings. Watson) (New. 3 (1960). 197. Tripods: probably Mycenaean: F. 16. they served as the original models before. pp. whose similarity to eighth-century bronze tripods is due to their rough contemporaneity.. (1914).R. 223. 132-135. 119. Stubbings. 87.York. 271. p. 325. Catling in Popham-Sackett. Gnomon. 17-19. “Bronze Tripods from Koran. 194. “Crafts and industries” in Wace-Stubbings (ibid. Snodgrass not only pointed to their absence but also to clay models manufactured during the eleventh-eighth centuries. F.” (p. 436. so that they turned to clay substitutes. (1973-4). 23. H. Ridington. Schöbel. Greece before Homer (London. 222. (1968). pp. 41. idem. 18. probably eighth-century: P. p. 1. Ahlberg. 119. K.) 19. n. Sjöqvist. (1971). 194. pp. 114-115. 154-155. 15. Catling. 281-285. (1934-35). A Catalogue of the Nimrud ivories [London. 44. 73.2. (1971) pp. 123. New York.(1974). 10. pp. p. p. 353. “Une tombe géometrique d’Argos. 7 and cf. clay tripods had a very long history in the Aegean before the advent of the Mycenaean Age. p. p.” Catling (ibid. the clay models only started to appear in the late tenth century. (1968). (1929). (1968). 132-134. ibid. see Velleius Paterculus I:8. 1935). Hall. Strabo VIII. 216-217. By a chronological revision. 271. (1971). . (1971). cuirass. Lamb. probably Mycenaean: Dickinson. Corselet: Mycenaean or eighth century: Snodgrass. Benton. pp. (1961). pp. J. and the poorer people’s utensils during the time of Mycenaean metal examples. once bronze stands began to reappear in Greece. whose production had supposedly ceased long beforehand the clay “substitutes” ceased being made at the end of the eighth century. the “Dark Age” clay examples did not come after the Mycenaean Period and before the revived widespread use of bronze tripods in the eighth century. G. Aström. p. p. p. 223.3. 419). 14. probably eighth-century: Snodgrass. 145. Greek Bronzes (tr. 3.L. 271. 10. E. 8.C. 506-510. 34. p. J. 215).. Benson. the latest “heirlooms” and all the clay “copies” preceded the bronze stands of LH III C date. pp. 17. 49). 16. The Ancient Olympic Games (Princeton.1-2. 400.” rather than immediately replacing the bronzes at the end of the twelfth century. 30. Catling. Snodgrass. idem. (1971a. For Atreus. Pindar (Olympians X: 5559). but were still “remarkably close to their metal originals. 75. Catling. p. 12. To bolster his case for the discontinuity of bronze tripods during the Dark Age. 13. 92. Actually. p. 171177. Dickinson. Barnett. pp. p. 285. p. when bronze replaced clay. between the two periods of similar bronze examples. W. Pausanias V. see Catling. 251. 325. 1967). 215-217). pp. attributed the Games to Heracles. see Pausanias V:7. pp.. 1962). 285. pp. Forsdyke. noted that they did not exist during the time of the twelfth-century bronze stands. J. 20. Mylonas. as evidence that the Greeks of that era. A Companion to Homer (London. 1957]. 3 9 (1965). The east pediment of the early fifth century temple of Zeus at Olympia showed Pelops’ chariot race. Snodgrass (1971). The ceremonial date of 1184/3 B. Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Ithaca. 321. p. “Priam’s Troy and the Date of its Fall. 345 and idem. which many considered the first Olympic Game. n. “Arms and Armour” in Wace and Stubbings.146 7. 522n. (1974). 1921. Tripods. pp. Boardman. 198 and n. Courbin.C. 1956). For the resemblance.” Hesperia 33 (1964). cf. Regarding clay “substitutes. 1924). pp. Snodgrass. The Odes of Pindar (New York. pp. 356. Snodgrass. (1972). The Minoan-Mycenaean Background of Greek Athletics (Philadelphia. 8 above).). For heirlooms. “more surprisingly.8. 1966). experienced a bronze shortage. 345. (R. pp. 37. 43. The ivory carving from Assyria comes from a deposit whose limits are 824-703 B. 81 (1957). 251. (1964). xxv. (1964). pp. 29. whose resemblance to seventh-century bronze stands is due to their contemporaneity (cf. 216-217. (1973-4). p. instead. pp.4. cf. pp. Sandys.6-8.

Hellanicus and Hecataeus. Forsdyke.). dismiss their calculations as worthless (in addition to those already cited. see G. He assigned the earliest temple of Hera at Olympia to the reign of a king whose grandfather fought at Troy (Ibid. pushing it back much too far.C. the Isthmian. 1972]. accepting both traditions. pp. Contemporary archaeologists. (only about 200 years before Ctesias’ own time). S. p. the unification of Attica. H-V. 23. Phoenicians in the Aegean.R. Kunze. below “The Design of the Palace. Despite the faith that the ancients placed in those three late classical sources. . pp. Of special interest. below “The Design of the Palace. Carthage and Her Remains (London.1).2. (1973-4). 1962]. see n. below]. as well as irreconcilable discrepancies between different versions of the list. trusting Pausanias. who also relied directly on fallacious Egyptian accounts to fix dates for events in Greek prehistory . pp. Ionia [cf. 208-209 and ns. 68-74). As we shall see below. 11]. Dinsmoor. Olympia: Heiligtum und Wettkampfstätte [Munich. Although even such respected Egyptologists as Hall. 13. etc. 1972].) 24.g. Mallwitz. 1-2. Phoenician colonization of the West Mediterranean. Etruscans in Italy. 500 years later than Dörpfeld. 1972]. Davis. Nemean and Olympic Games. V:3. 16. pp. where the ancients unanimously attributed something to the Mycenaean Age. p. had Carthage’s foundation both before the Trojan War and in the ninth century. (1968).. names and reqnal years of Manetho’s list of pharaohs. which is ca. “Greek Athletics” in The Archaic Period (1975.” n. 22. Lazarides. See Velleius Paterculus 1:8. (1977). Even the fall of the neo-Assyrian empire in 612 B. ibid. Pythian. 17 above and D. pp. Breasted and Gardiner have noted gross errors in the number.I. In addition to Velikovsky’s treatment above. see Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1. pp. 1972]. but modern archaeologists and historians can date it no earlier than the ninth-seventh centuries (e.5. but also at Prosymna [cf. 489-493. below]. pp.. “Zur Geschichte und zu den Denkmälern Olympias” in 100 Jahre deutche Ausgrabung in Olympia [Munich. Cyrene. he dated some 265 years too early—actually to the period of its foundation (Forsdyke. 21. Perachora and Foce del Sele in Italy. the Mycenaean [or Trojan] colonization of Sicily. Searls and W. the sculpture of Daedalus. Athens’ institution of the archonship and its participation in the league of Calauria [cf.1-2. Dickinson. For Rome. South Italy. Modern authorities (e.. relied very heavily on the works of Ctesias (late fifth century) and Manetho (early third century). V:4. There are far more instances today. writing in the late third century B. pp. 93-94.” AJA. Persia and the Greeks [London. 85-88. see H.147 was the estimate of Eratosthenes of Alexandria who. and in the Ages in Chaos volumes has proposed his revision for the entire structure of later Egyptian history. Appian (Roman History VIII:1. pp.C. 8.generally four to five centuries too old.C. the arrival of the alphabet [cf. the temple to Artemis in Brauron. 72. n. cf. For recent discussions. 49 (1945). Olympia und seine Bauten [Munich.132). “The Date of the Olympia Heraeum.6. 34-35).5. Manetho’s “history” of Egypt is roughly twice as long as modern scholars view it (A. Thera [cf. date the foundation to the mid-seventh century. Velikovsky (ibid. dynasties. 68.. Without any direct knowledge. and C.” ns. maintained. who adhere to the present chronological system.. 11-13) completely mistrust Ctesias’ work. A. 30-33. Hernnan. these three writers all drew on the still earlier texts of Herodotus. Pausanias. the first temples to Hera not only at Olympia. Phrygians in Anatolia. 3-5). Picard.E.1-74. 11). 18]. n. Chios. 205-244) has convincingly challenged Manetho’s scheme and the modern one which it helped to create. n below]. 61-62). pp. etc. Gardiner. he purported to recount Assyrian history. 1861). they still base much of the present chronological scheme for Egypt on his account (Velikovsky. who have studied the actual remains (A. For references to Carthage.B. 62. the prominence of Argos. p. order. Burn. and other regions.. even modern scholars. pp.g. Ancient debates between those advocating the Late Helladic Period and those championing the ninth-seventh centuries for various events were by no means rare. Egypt of the Pharaons [New York.

the Greeks seem to have made no figurines of any kind. C. nearly-life-size terracotta head of a female (possibly a . and leave remains (including figurines) at both Mycenae and Tiryns during the archaic period. for nearly two of those intervening centuries. but definitely LH III A-B in modelling and decoration. which lies between Mycenae and Tiryns). excavating among the houses south of Grave Circle A. instead of leaving them cut off by centuries from the archaic group. which would help to fix their date.e. linking all three to form a tight little LH III group. which resembled the later examples and came from contexts that might as easily have been late as early. Blegen realized that people did live in. Despite all these considerations.148 A Terracotta Figurine and a Terracotta Head Somewhere at Mycenae. could have belonged to the archaic period. He finally decided to assign those two breadmakers to a time 500 years later than other archaeologists had assumed. because of their discovery at citadels whose main period of occupation was the Mycenaean Age.. “separated from them by a long interval” of 500-600 years. but did connect them with the large group of seventh-sixth-century figurines. by the present chronological scheme. isolated position. it could have helped to bolster the date which archaeologists had long believed. along with a similar example that he found at the site of Tiryns. unpainted and crude. Still.3 In 1896 C. Schliemann discovered a fragmentary clay figurine which. which makes stylistic dating equally difficult. however. the new one assumed their former. Displacing the other two terracottas. seems to represent someone kneading dough to form loaves of bread. and most probably in the same general region as the Grave Circle and the buildings to the south of it. many authorities note the remarkable similarity of eighth-sixth century terracottas to those of the LH III period—a matter which has elicited wonder and sparked debates involving 400-600 years over individual figurines. seventh-sixth centuries). He therefore felt that Schliemann’s finds. Blegen published another breadmaker terracotta of unknown provenience. It became the sole Mycenaean “antecedent” of the later group.2 Blegen was not alone in his dilemma. during which similar figurines seem not to have been made. and there are many analogous breadmaker figurines from the Peloponnese (including examples from Tiryns and Prosymna. so he could not lower its date. Tsountas. that belong to the archaic period (i. discovered a brightly painted. both are fragmentary. Blegen’s example was certainly of LH III style. Since his figurine did “at first glance” look “like a comparable piece” to Schliemann’s finds. For despite the break in continuity.1 In fact. there were no similar LH III examples with which one could associate them. archaeologists nevertheless felt that Schliemann’s two finds were LH III in date. He did not record the exact provenience (and the associated material) of either example. but could not prove for the examples from Mycenae and Tiryns.

and in modelling large-scale creations of clay. but in the end decided that the old statues “had no influence whatsoever on the new Greek types. rather than merely returning to them 500 years later.”4 Art historians have long noted the close similarity of the first monumental Greek statues of the seventh-sixth centuries to the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty sculpture in Egypt. tiny figures. have been on constant display during the centuries of the Dark Age when. . he felt that the Mycenaean pieces could also have supplied an even more accessible. He wanted to believe that. The Mycenaeans who visited Egypt at that time and copied other contemporary arts of their hosts. Grace V.8 Like Müller. Müller to speculate whether the large-scale sculpture.149 sphinx). such as the terracotta head. rather than to older native works. the façades of the beehive tombs. returning to Egypt after centuries of allegedly broken contact. and with that question as his point of reference. classical art made a new beginning. he observed something in 1934 which is equally valid today: “The relationship of the Minoan-Mycenaean culture of the second millennium and the classical civilization of the first is one of the most pressing problems of present-day archaeology. the Shaft Grave stelae. however. which one finds from the seventh century onward in Greece. contrasted with the more ubiquitous. according to present evidence.9 Still. The monumental proportions of the head.”7 More recent authorities have also noted the Mycenaeans’ skill at producing monumental stone sculpture. might.5 Müller observed that the Mycenaeans could and did create larger-scale sculpture. they too ran into the problem of the huge gap separating the monumental thirteenth-century sculptures from those of the seventh century. “The Beginnings of Monumental Sculpture in Greece. Unlike Müller. and felt it improbable that once they did return. the Greeks produced no other sculptures. . he doubted that the Greeks frequented cult centers throughout the Dark Age. there were still any Mycenaean sculptures on view. had a centuries-old tradition behind it. seem not to have imitated their sculpture. He therefore considered it reasonable that native Greek sculpture. the Dark Age of no similar sculpture forced such conclusions upon the art historians. “created their sculpture anew.C. such as the terracotta head from Mycenae.” also noted the nearly-life-size Mycenaean creations as possible models for monumental archaic sculpture. Like Müller. and just as natural a source of inspiration as Egypt did to seventh-century artists. like the contemporary Egyptian works. which art historians have assigned to the thirteenth century B. he felt that seventh-century Greeks. Müller. and cited literary statements that the later Greeks preserved early sculptures for centuries. Vermeule parodied the frequently-expressed sentiment that “the thrust toward monumental sculpture is somehow innate in [Mycenaean] Greece but will lie dormant” for over 500 years. .”6 A few years later F. albeit nonEgyptian in inspiration. did decide to copy them. looking to Egypt and the Levant. led V. such as the Lion Gate. Apparently their descendants of the Archaic Period. Mycenaean civilization died . E. and seeing for the first time those same colossal works (by now quite ancient).

centuries-long lack of two-dimensional representations on carved gems and ivory plaques. Schiering published a small terracotta face of unknown provenience. one must constantly take that “long step” whenever tracing the development of so many strikingly similar artifacts of two cultural phases supposedly separated by half a millennium. has its own 600-year problem as well.”10 As if its own 600-year problems with size and morphology were not enough. the face was fashioned in a mold. With specific regard to representational art. Observing the face’s stylistic affinities to those on large-scale terracotta statues from the island of Kea. the Kean statues and the Asine head have their own 500600-year problems—the former with stratigraphy. The shape of the face “seems to foreshadow. and immediately preceding the return of such similar specimens again seems “strange” and “curious”. something which scholars have traditionally considered an important invention of the early seventh century. or the loss of the skill to adorn them.13 Now the terracotta face. and to a small head from the town of Asine.14 at which time it “completely transformed” the Greek terracotta industry. which separates the figures found in each of these media during the eighth to sixth centuries from the strikingly similar figures in each of those media during the LH III period. If that face really belongs to the late thirteenth century. at a time when there was no dearth of clay and paint. probably came from the region around Mycenae.15 Realizing the problem. immediately following a long period when such figures flourished. ivory and semiprecious stones. that head has created still others. glyptic and painting. and when . one had to take “a long step” (einen weiten Schritt) from the end of the Mycenaean Age to their return ca. Schiering sandwiched the face between the latter two sculptures. and threedimensional ivory and bronze statuettes. but noting its similar clay composition to Tsountas’ discovery. For bronze. its mode of manufacture also points to that same period. its size fits well a series of seventh-century heads.C.150 Not only the monumental size of the terracotta head looked to the seventh century. however. then it must have disappeared for ca. which are now dated to the sixteenth century. Though its style does resemble the other problematical sculptures. one can postulate a shortage of raw material. then the earliestknown Greek mold must go back that far.12 the latter with style. Distinct from all other Mycenaean terracottas presently known.” and “anticipates in an uncanny way the so-called ‘Dedalic’ style which was to emerge some six centuries later. Schiering couselled that. like its three companion pieces. and shall continue to see. W. There is also a contemporary. less than twenty miles southeast of Mycenae. now dated to the thirteenth or twelfth century.18 The complete departure from all representational art in sculpture.16 As we have seen. he noted that it. we already noted the “taboo” on figures on painted pottery of the Dark Age. though its impact seems negligible. too. 500 years only to re-emerge in the seventh century.11 Like the Mycenaean head.17 and have just seen a similar “taboo” on stone and clay sculpture—both large and small. or the lack of funds to commission the work. in order to follow the history of terracotta heads. but more importantly. to the thirteenth-century head from Mycenae. 700 B.

Grace. 5.20 not only poses problems regarding art and religion. 194-195. Caskey assumed.g.” Hesperia 4 (1935).. 11. 23. Caskey. and Nicholls. Vermeule.H. 28. “Observations on Seventh-Century Sculpture. Schiering. Morgan II. G. p. 16. E. (1964). pp. For some 400-600-year debates arising from those similarities. ibid. pp. 164-165. He discovered the idols amid a fifteenth-century destruction layer. p.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene. Richter. only to revive it centuries later in forms so reminiscent of the Mycenaean Age. 4. The fact that the later examples so closely resemble the earlier ones and that terracottas “disappear almost without a trace” between the two eras. p. felt that it enjoyed uninterrupted attendance from its foundation late in the Middle Bronze Age until the Hellenistic period. 8-9. pp. Greek Sculpture (New York.194. p. pp. Müller. (1972). Frickenhaus. pp. 3. Blegen. 1912). pp. pp. Higgins. see C. 188. and cf. (1964). 461-472. Metropolitan Museum Studies 5 (1934). Richter. 12.L. Mylonas. 17. At both periods the terracottas comprise one of the most conspicuous manifestations of Greek religion. cf. 229 (cf. Kouroi (London. Higgins. (1975. 222 (phi-shaped figurines). p. p. (1972).H. (1941). on the basis of pottery finds from the “intervening” 500 years from other . p. see Furumark. pp. (1967). p. 11). Barron.” AJA 46 (1942) p. Robertson. p. see Higgins. 8. (1967). 52. 2-3. C. 1-2. 4. 1968). 214. 9.21 References 1. “The Terracotta Figurines from the North Slope of the Acropolis. 104. For remarkable similarities. C. 810 (1946-48).(1967). I. 123. For numerous archaic breadmakers. F. Whitman. 1415. pp. 14. 158. 1970). above “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems. J. Experts often have difficulties distinguishing examples of the two groups. with the room which contained the idols constituting the most revered part of the temple. Korai (London. p.(1975). Pl. Boardman. (1966). “Die Hera von Tiryns” in Tiryns I (Athens. Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge. see A. 22. p.19 Specifically. and debates arise. “The Proportions of Kouroi. pp. (1969). (1939). 3941. p. 6. Vermeule. (1964). 7. 82 (1978). pp. For a closer date for that figurine. Higgins. p. p. and became common again in the eighth-seventh centuries. once again. Benson. 2. Young. 93-94.” AJA. 83. For related problems. which itself constitutes one of the few legacies of prehistoric Greece whose continuity throughout the Dark Age no one seriously questions. S. ns. p. pp. immediately above which was a continuous sequence of material which began only in the tenth century. 6) actually refers to the Shaft Grave Stelae. 10-20 and “The Religious Center of Mycenae. 24 and 141 (references). it is far more difficult to explain why the Greeks interrupted the flow of figural art for so long. (1970). Boardman. J. idem. E. reminiscent of conditions 500 years earlier. 1958). terracotta figurines were “ubiquitous” during the LH III period.151 artisans did continue to fashion ceramic objects and to adorn them. (1934). N. (1969). “A Mycenaean Breadmaker. 10. 61.” n.. pp. 341. Mass.” 26-34 below.(1970). 56-57. but is. the excavator of the temple at Kea. but the point is valid for LH III sculpture. and Vermeule. as we have seen. 88. idem. 1960). Guralnick.

asserted that it was “Impossible chronologically” for the presently-known sequence of Cretan terracottas to have exerted any influence on the example from Asine. Alexiou sought to connect a tenth or ninth-century Cretan head to the example from Asine. 18. p. 326-333. but extremely similar to seventh-sixth century bronze statuettes in form and facial features (see R. pp. above “Other LH III Figural Pottery. Casson. that experts often cannot decide to which epoch individual pieces belong. see the supposedly continuous use of a religious sanctuary on Crete. see below “The Religious Center of Mycenae. p. K. pp. 5-6). 219. 399. Lamb. 6-7. (1976).” n. n. which is the logical. 317. . (1961). which Egyptian chronology dates to ca. pp. 19. as well as the pattern for “continuity” of religious cults with a 500-year lacuna in evidence [most often between ca. 7. 21. Nicholls (1970.(1961). 14.. 6. for a gap in Greece during the Dark Age. As others have noted. 20. which has led to consternation equivocation and scholarly debates (Cf. Mitten-Doeringen. p. with no intervening material to mark the half millennium which supposedly transpired [Evans. 29. 200. etc. Boardman. 15 and “Bronze Tripods. and. Similarly. (1928). S. where eleventh-century devotees performed the same rites and left identical offerings to those of the sixteenth century. 19. 12).) Cf. after which time they seem to have abandoned their use for centuries (ibid. tombs. for Near Eastern bronzes. bronzes. 1971]. 79-80. 181. Snodgrass. (1970). 42 (1922). 128. some Mycenaean Age bronzes are strikingly similar to those 500-600 years later . ivory plagues: see below “Ivory Carvings. pp. 14. if there really were five “intervening” centuries (Caskey. p. and cf. Snodgrass.” JHS. pp. 34. of the early Mycenaean Age to the early Iron Age. 123.(1962). (cf. 142.” Syria 27 [1950]. jewelry. 1963. 19. and will see for the resemblance of buildings. 207. Karageorghis. n. who used molds to form “eggshell” pottery during the Middle Bronze Age.” n. some eighth-seventh century bronzes so closely resemble Late Minoan ones. cf. Schaeffer. p. see Charbonneaux. Schiering. 14. Similarly. ibid. followed by an eighth-century renewal. (1964).something especially evident in the case of the youthful horned god from Enkomi on Cyprus. Both those cases fit the pattern we have seen. since all the Cretan heads so far discovered are later than the Asine head. p. 1200 B. 74-75. 192. there is no other evidence for mold-made terracottas for another 500 years. 4-5 above. 399-401. 15. For loss of skills except for modelling and decorating clay. Boardman’s 500-year later date for a head which Evans classified as Minoan (Boardman. 44. 33-42). which lay immediately below. cf. pp. p. 417-418. 29-30. “Kinyras.” n. p. “Excavations in Keos. pots. ibid.152 parts of the building. 16. 118-119). now dated to the twelfth century.C. 13. 1200 and 700 B. “On the Identification of the Horned God of Enkomi-Alasia” in C. Schiering.” n. Carved gems. pp. Snodgrass. (1971). Coldstream and Higgins in Coldstream. ivory statuettes. pp. The Minoans. Etude sur les anciens cultes chypriotes. seem to have continued their use into the Shaft Grave period for animal-shaped vessels. 16. cf. the Asine head bears a striking resemblance to a series of terracotta sculptures from post-Minoan Crete. claiming that the latter example showed Cretan influence. p. while Schiering. ns. pp. that tenth-century Keans had removed 500 years of floors from the room with the idols.” Hesperia 33 [1964]. above “The Warrior Vase. 17. idem.. pp. Dussaud. 5-9.” n. Despite that gap. the only reasonable conclusion. who admitted the possibility of Cretan influence on the Asine head. p. “Bronzework of the Geometric Period and Its Relation to Later Art. 15). above “The Warrior Vase. indeed. however non-Mycenaean and Cretanizing it appeared. In Greece itself. pp.. Alasia I [Paris. 13.. Cf.C. (1967). (1962b). 47-48. pp. Higgins. although there is no evidence of continuity in Crete. (1968). (1971). p. 5.” ns. except for Schiering’s example. 2 above. 134. 103. cited an eighth-century Cretan terracotta as proof of the revival of the Asine type of head (1964.]). p. 24. 17. Ibid. Hadjioannou. (1929).

8 Literary critics have. but not to the period between. were. or else in parts of the urban palaces where their kings served as priests. and thereby resolve the debates of their colleagues. in fact. anachronisms 500 years out of place. and find numerous cases of “Mycenaean” language describing late material and late language describing Mycenaean material.”11 and that those same components. as we noted for tripods. . and most recently in the lower citadel at Tiryns. since they cannot neatly separate the manifestations of eighth-century Greek from those which they judge to be 500 years older. British and Greek archaeologists resumed excavations at and around a large structure southeast of Circle A which Tsountas and Wace had partly cleared long before. which “differ in age by more than half a millennium . linguistic.1 Until quite recently.9 Contemporary philologists. archaeologists have “divided themselves into two parties as if engaged in a tug of war. which he ascribed to the Mycenaean Age. roofed. and “an essential discontinuity” with Mycenaean architecture6—a Dark Age whose architectural forms also seem to be a 500-year throwback to pre-Mycenaean structures.7 With regard to Homer’s epics.”12 and for dating purposes. at Kition on Cyprus.10 The philologists. trying to aid the archaeologists to establish dates. . employing linguistic criteria in an attempt to determine the precise date of Homer’s allusions. engaged in the same tug of war for over 2000 years now.2 The recent discoveries of Late Bronze Age temples inside the cult center of Mycenae. readily confess their consternation that “‘older’ and ‘younger’ elements (whether archaeological. In the process they discovered an LH III B religious complex of altars and sanctuaries unlike any previously known in the Mycenaean world. for over a century now. 500-years-old Mycenaean reminiscences retained in the poems. are inextricably blended”—a fact which they term “most bewildering.”13 Since the linguists’ attempts to separate the elements into distinct strata has met with . scholars felt that the Mycenaean Greeks practiced their religion only at rustic shrines. now vindicate Homer.153 The Religious Center of Mycenae Starting in 1968. find themselves as perplexed as the other disputants. decided that his references to an independent priesthood and to stonebuilt. or else viewing them as a reflection of eighth-century reality.5 after a 400-500 year period which shows an abrupt abandonment of. Ayia Irini on the island of Kea (which began in the Middle Bronze Age). or social) interlock.3 Those discoveries also add urban temples and an independent clergy to a staggering list of Homeric references which one can ascribe as easily to the thirteenth-twelfth centuries as to the eighth-seventh. Those seeking to date the various institutions and objects which Homer described. 4 Archaeologists face the additional problem that the ground plan of temples starting in the eighth century seems to be a throwback to the groundplan of Mycenaean palaces and temples. even “fatal. freestanding urban temples.” either championing his references as accurate.

lake seventh-century sculpture from the island of Corfu. moreover. that there are only two positively and widely identifiable historical ‘strata’ in the world described in the Homeric poems.23 As for the material itself. as we noted above.C.19 then one should expect that those transmitting enormous. Since they come from a building of LH III 3 date. an important deposit of ivory figurines from Ephesus in Asia Minor. which would only have confused or had no meaning to themselves or their audience during the Dark Age. they can be no later than the thirteenth century B.” the LH III period and the eighth century. he saw “a pattern.” Among the discoveries inside the cult center were two fairly large ivory figurines. It remains as true today [1971] as it has been for some years past. As Snodgrass remarked. if it is true that no oral poet memorizes another bard’s songs verbatim. why did an eighth-century hard feel that he could insert language. emerging. . and why are those the only two periods in evidence? The second question goes to the very heart of the notion that oral poetry sustained Mycenaean memories through 500 years of illiteracy. unwritten secular sagas for 500 years would gradually omit or alter many of the Mycenaean details.C. altered them for centuries. If the epics in their original form were so sacrosanct that no poet.154 failure. one would further expect that the bards between the LH III period and the eighth century would have added contemporary language and references to make their epics more relevant and comprehensible to their own day and their own listeners:20 yet they seem to have done neither of those things. or even sings his own tale twice the same way. dating to the late seventhearly sixth century. with no discernible ties to the bygone works of their ancestors. the whole matter is “a sorely vexed question.15 For temples specifically.17 with the recent discoveries of Mycenaean temples encouraging those who prefer to see all of Homer’s references as genuine Mycenaean memories rather than eighth-century anachronisms. and the entire situation remains “most bewildering.21 The lion foreshadows a similarly-posed. 750 B. Consequently. who transmitted them.22 and the face reminds one very much of archaic statuary of the seventh-sixth centuries. ”16 The dating controversy still rages over temples and an astonishing number of other matters. ivory statuettes vanished towards the end of LH III only to reappear in Greece ca. most critics agree that seventh-century sculptors began their art afresh. if the epics grew through accretion. and those two pieces struck the excavators “unique” among them. and for each of a number of other items. the “tug of war” across a 500-year chasm continues. although.” wherein they belonged either to the thirteenth-twelfth centuries or the eighth-seventh. for Homer’s temples. but not between. but it cannot be shirked. .18 But two gnawing questions arise: how did the LH III and eighth-century elements become so “inextricably blended” in the poems. Ivory carving in the round was very rare in Mycenaean times. as for other matters. one of which bears some resemblance to the .14 they send the problem back to the archaeologists. including lions.24 There is. customs and objects of his own day in such a pervasive manner? On the other hand. representing a couchant lion and a very delicately modeled male head.

With the return of the Peloponnesian wheel-made figurines and female idols ca.25 Between the two “unique” LH III B ivories and comparable works of the late eighth-sixth centuries lies the centurieslong Dark Age.”31 as were those on the more schematized specimens from the shrine at Tiryns. “Homer and the Monuments: A Review. there is “a remarkable associated phenomenon.” as they had been during LH III. G. 1968. 73.e. most of the numerous handmade and wheelmade figurines of the LH III B-C period. they were “invariably raised. Something much more than an archaeological zeal on the part of the faithful needs to be invoked to explain this!”34 References 1. idem.. Carpenter. . pp. 270-280. 433-440. and a statuette of a priestess (?).C. though slightly more realistic.” Antiquity 25 (1951). One of the thirteenth-century idols had a “curious” trait: the lips formed an “archaic smile”27—a feature which derives its name from its prevalence on seventhsixth-century Greek sculpture. 2. pp.28 After the manufacture of fourteenth-thirteenth-century Greek cylindrical idols of Mycenae. p. which shows close similarities to the ivory head from Mycenae in the shape and piercing of the head. “New Light on Mycenaean Religion. in a typical Mycenaean process. the facial features. 36-40.” which. Taylour.30 In every case where the idols from the cult center still possessed their arms. p.155 specimen from Mycenae. (1950).I. i. or a deity in the set of epiphany or benediction. Folk Tale.late LH III B. pp. p. W. “Mycenae.”33 They then “kept reappearing spontaneously in widely separated parts of the country without any direct continuity that can be traced among the votive statuettes themselves. the reappearance of the goddess with raised arms. 700 B. eyes of an early seventh-century ivory sphinx from Perachora. M. like other features of contemporary terra cottas. Mylonas. The type suddenly became extinct at the end of the Mycenaean Age. J. and the recently-discovered twelfth-century ones from a shrine at Tiryns. but is essentially unknown in Greece before that era.29 there apparently follows a centuries-long break in their production throughout the Peloponnese. Finley. 91-97. when “wheel-made work in the old technique” suddenly makes a “strange revival. Lorimer.26 They range in date from LH III A . 39. 85. The peculiar rendering of the eyes on the ivory face from Mycenae also foreshadows the similar. the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries B. 1954). made a “strange revival. less than twenty-five miles northeast of Mycenae. before their virtual disappearance during the Dark Age. Myres. Pragmateiai tes Akademias Athenon..” (English summary).C. “The Cult Center of Mycenae. Other cult objects include quite a few terracotta figurines whose lower bodies were formed on a potter’s wheel as hollow tubes. That pose presumably designates a worshipper in the posture of supplication. in fact.” Antiquity 44 (1970). pp. Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Los Angeles.” Antiquity 43 (1969). until ca. 700 B. The World of Odysseus (New York.32 and. 33 (1972). 1946)..C. R. and the modeling of the hair.” terracotta figurines in general then started to become “universal throughout Greece once more.

1967). 211. “Newsletter from Greece. p. Robinson. hunting.in fact nearly everything imaginable.. 322.F. 96.(1970).(1969). pp. Semple I (ed. Snodgrass. “Homer. 226. D. 5. J. Nilsson. p. fishing. Kirk. 60-61. D. 41 a-b to Barron. 1933). pp. 7 (1940).(1972).. cf. ibid. Caskey. P. 14. (1970). ibid. al. 423-424. Havelock. The Greeks (London. 14. even the principal characters in the poems and Homer himself . M. 235. p. (1964). 123.” ns. 16.B. temples) the list also includes references to Sicily. cf. 20. pp. 159.(1961). 22. overseas trade. 17-21. cf. 82. political geography. Hesiod and the Achaean Heritage of Oral Poetry. p. for the problem of dating the language. (1976).” Hesperia.T. M. Bradeen et. ivory-inlaid furniture. 97 n. 389. Hope Simpson-Lazenby. 339. Davison.. Vermeule. 17. 454.(1954). 1954). . the brooch of Odysseus. Schweitzer. 120. 383-384. 409. pp. “Some Observations on the Origin of Triglyphs. J.” ns. shields and shield devices. 1967). twin throwing spears.A. (1974). (1933). E. Boulter et.. Loc. helmets.(1964). p. Else. p.. Dinsmoor. Snodgrass. Semple II (ed. loc. 424. W. corselets.(1962). Hope Simpson-Lazenby. Davison. Dinsmoor. Snodgrass. Kirk. p. (1950). p. Gray. 21. Mylonas. Dickinson. 2. ibid.(1970). and AJA. p.. 40. greaves (leg guards).” BSA. p. cf. p. Homer and Mycenae (London. cit. & C. Notopoulos. 8. 159. idem. Webster in Wace-Stubbings. p. ibid. (1969). Usborne) (New York. Snodgrass. and no one can make a good case for the intervening centuries. 12. p. 1973). 331. Dickinson. Tsountas-Manatt. 7. n. 257. Nilsson. C. p. 67. 11. chariots. cit. 3. Taylour. p. Idem. Bowen. Platnauer) (Oxford. (1933). “Homer and the Homeric Problem” in Lectures in Memory of L. hording.(1975). p. 121.(1964).(1954). Gray. 61. p. Amazons. p. 4. p. p. p. where one side could favor the Mycenaean Age. Havelock.0) (Göttingen.(1971). 335. p. 16. 179. Snodgrass.(1958). 24. pp. McDonald. Cp. see M.” AJA. cf. Egypt. 345. 6. bows and arrows. 15. 247-248. Andrewes. 82 (1978).M. 36-37. 309. p. pl. 275. Kirk. G. 121. Snodgrass. pp. 21. p.) (Princeton.B. 18. farming. p.E. 42-43.(1897). 223-224. above “The Bronze Age. al. Drerup. 41 c-d. 331. “Homer and the Archaeologists” in Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship (ed. pp. 19. (1933). p. 81 (1977). Nilsson. 1967).(1973-4). the other the eighth/seventh century. pp. 13. p. The Architecture of Ancient Greece (New York. thrusting spears.G.(1962). Nilsson.(1974). Robertson.A. 58. 369. pp. 26. idem. Greek Geometric Art (tr. (1972). p.. 23. Else. ibid. p. 1969) p. horse burials. Taylour. 211. W.(1970). p. 15. A.(1973). Cf. 1971 [pub’d posthumously]). cf. p. p. 257.L. Cf. M. 2. 15. “Prologue to Greek Literacy” in Lectures in Memory of L.) (Princeton. 123. cit. 178.156 T. 1950). 22.(1971).L.(1971). Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit (Archaeologia Homerica II. 187. In addition to the few items we already noted (silver-studded swords. Richter.(1967). (1970). 40. “Haus” in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encylopädie. 25 below. pl. p. p.(1971). 37-38. 45 (1950). 176. p. loc. Starr. 159. p. 40. Progress into the Past (New York. above “A Terracotta Figurine and a Terracotta Head. p. Supp. “The Homeric Question” in WaceStubbings. 511. p. 29. Snodgrass. 369. 12. B. p. 77. 9.T. 43-44. 335. Webster. Whitman. 29 (1960). pp.(1973-4). lamps. P. Taylour. 212. Cf. 10. pp. tripods. Drerup. H. For Tiryns. pp.

399). Taylour.6. the Greeks’ failure to fashion wheelmade or even handmade figurines between the peak periods of production in LH III and the eighth-seventh centuries lacks a convincing explanation. (see “A Terracotta Figurine and a Terracotta Head. too. 11. p. By the revised chronology. as in the case of the wheel-made figurines from those islands (cf. 200.” Scripta Minora [Lund]. Taylour. Even if the gap was real. (1971).” n. 20. pp. 11). 25.(1970). as well as the early Cretan and Cypriote specimens—none of which comes from Greece proper—precede the Mycenaean examples which they supposedly follow.(1970). (1969).” n. who still modeled. did not continue to make imperishable figurines during that period. Karageorghis. pp. p. i. which spanned the Dark Age.” n. cf. 1962). 22 (priestess).3. On Crete and Cyprus. pls. V. and no one seriously doubts that their religious beliefs and practices remained essentially unchanged. (1970). 399. seem to return to Greece after a centuries-long break—a fact which causes contention among experts (cf. inspired the Greek ones directly. pl.(1970). Since the Greeks continued to fashion ceramic objects. 41 to Hogarth. etc.. 30. Ibid. 34. Cf. Snodgrass. The “perishables theory” is a favorite one among historians who note very similar non-perishable remains on either side of the Dark Age (e. There were a very few Dark Age wheel-made figurines from Athens and Euboea. 3. “The Goddess with Uplifted Arms in Cyprus.(1970).. including wheel-made pottery. pp. painted and incised clay. 511 and fig. (1970). 33. Dunbabin et. Caskey.g. and Dietrich. n. he did not believe that the type returned from there after the 500-year gap in Greece itself.e. 171 (sphinx). 339-340 and figs 2-4. Taylour. but unfortunately failed to survive. 21-22.) and try to bridge the intervening centuries. pi. n. Closer to Mycenae. loc. the 18th and 19th Dynasty examples. pp. they.157 25. 27. (1972). Nicholls. writing. 42. p. to which add Dietrich. 192.J. by the revised chronology. It also apperies on the Enkomi bronze mentioned above. “The only simple explanation” for the revival which Nicholls offered (ibid. above “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems.” Nevertheless. 21. p. p. figurines. 285. 7.. By this very nature it is a hypothesis which is incapable of proof or refutation. Cp.. . 277 and cf. etc. which is the main issue of the present essay a still simpler explanation would be that art imitated life. 19771978 [2]. p. the Naxian statuette. 13) termed “inescapable. 20) is that the later figurines copied wooden models. (1970). cit. 26. pp. 17-18. Taylour. but despite their acknowledged similarity to Mycenaean specimens. the type did persist during the “Dark Age” (Desborough. ibid. 5-44)—a fact which Nicholls (ibid. decorative motifs. architectural forms. 31. p. (1978). that people from Mycenaean times onward prayed with both hands uplifted. 92 and cf. 17-18. Nicholls.(1908). pl. 34. which falls sometime during the late eleventh-tenth century (Snodgrass. al. above “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems. pp. p. 16) 29. Perachora II (Oxford. statues. and fails to explain why the Greeks. (1977). 29 above. pp. 21-22).. and that sculptors showed that pose at those times when they did produce figural art in permanent materials. 28. the sole intermediary example known is a crude bronze figurine from the island of Naxos. 32. pp. Nicholls.12 (lion) and 21. It appears much earlier in Egypt. and to T.

which required the more laborious task of digging the graves into a thick mantle of eroded debris and a cement-like mass of calcinated stones and firehardened brick within the former temple complex. those who reject a 500-year continuity or some strange revival after 500 years. ” a resurgent phenomenon” when compared to the vogue 500 years earlier—a return to ancestral tomb types and burial rites after the destruction of Mycenaean civilization. as we shall observe presently. second. postulate the influx of new people from the north.” supplanting the Mycenaean tomb types. 1125 B. presumably destroyed long before. perished in a conflagration which swept through Mycenae towards the end of LH III B. who retained burial customs whose popularity in Greece had been on the wane for half a millennium.5 The presence of the graves in the cult center.”1 Cist tombs were the most common type of grave at Mycenae. and. who published the . and throughout Greece. Desborough. and. as we noted above. and they constitute” one of the distinguishing features” of post-Mycenaean culture. according to the accepted discovery.4 Because it is difficult to trace such continuity between the two ages. along with much of the citadel. requires two assumptions: first. The sudden. but they find it easier to face “the present geographical gap in the evidence” than the chronological gap.3 The tomb type did survive into the Mycenaean Period. instead. despite the 500 years separating them. but was not nearly as common then as before and after. unless they contain the distinctive grave goods of one period or the other2—goods which. i. and seems not to span the entire time between its two major peaks before ca. during the Middle Helladic period. That kind of grave became “the most characteristic form in both eras. 500 years earlier. the late thirteenth century.” when contrasted to Late Helladic burials.158 Dark Age Burials The cult center. to bury their dead inside the city itself. though two of them had their sides lined and their roofs covered with stone slabs to form “cists. Many archaeologists reject the notion. have struck several prehistorians as both an “innovation. the evidence for the hypothetical immigrants is highly questionable.C. e. the excavators also found three graves of the eleventh-tenth centuries. and even its adherents cannot show a spread of the new tombs from the north to the south. outside and to the west of the citadel wall. Digging through the debris of the temple compound. at the same time. All three were simple pits. that the inhabitants of Mycenae decided to forsake their traditional cemetery grounds where for centuries they had interred their dead in the relatively soft ground away from their dwellings. widespread adoption of that type of burial and the rites that accompany it ca. because the graves made “an almost universal take-over. Still. which was “radically different from the old Mycenaean civilization” that it supplanted. 1125. ca. at times. look extremely similar. that they chose. also.” and the graves of both periods are so closely similar that often excavators cannot decide to which age some cists belong. 1550 and after ca.

To explain why LH III material lay over the graves.7 The condition of the two cist tombs is also revealing. which by the accepted chronology should be older than the graves. it bleached the stone cover slabs and the stone walls of the grave. then collapsed onto the graves.6 but the fact remains that there is no clear evidence that people inhabited the citadel at that time. earlier than the LH III B10 cult center. if one applies the revised chronology. in addition to the ashes it left over the grave. but built their . a few houses survived the conflagrations. fires and the ravages of time. however. Tsountas at another spot inside the western extension of the citadel walls. not to inhabit them.8 Such a great burning over that spot is difficult to explain if the grave is later than the cult center. and that only sometimes thereafter the upper stories. on top of the grave. if it was not. and rested entirely on a hard limestone promontory. One of them showed the effects of a subsequent fire so intense that. buried their dead outside of the first city wall.9 but it would be much easier to see as the result of the tremendous fire that destroyed the citadel towards the end of LH III B—if the tenth-century grave was. To the northeast of the Lion Gate Tsountas excavated some LH III houses and discovered six cist tombs datable sometime within the eleventhninth centuries.”12 The burial circumstances inside the temple complex reminded Desborough of the situation encountered by C. they then decided to rebuild the wall of a structure long-since destroyed and abandoned and of no use to them. they extended the fortification wall into the ancestral cemetery to the south and west. and to follow religious precepts. and even burned the bones of the skeleton it contained. which had somehow withstood earthquakes. in order to remove the deceased from the dwellings of the living. and for some reason even more difficult to comprehend. considered it “extremely unlikely that people living outside the walls” would enter the citadel for the sole purpose of burying their dead therein. The tombs lay under a deposit over six feet thick of LH III pottery and other remains. then one must conjecture that “the buriers decided—for some reason unknown—to destroy part of a wall” of the Mycenaean structure. in the softer ground. which fits the special circumstances at the site. and to the west—the region of sunset and death. When the rulers decided to enlarge the citadel in the LH III B period.13 There is another way to view the “late” graves under the LH III buildings in the western citadel. The town of Mycenae was originally much smaller in size. Desborough speculated that even after tremendous fires supposedly flattened the city in the late thirteenth and mid-twelfth centuries. in fact. They enclosed the shaft graves of Circle A and accorded them special reverence. to perform burials with some ease. Desborough termed the second cist “sub-mural.159 graves. but only to bury their dead. rather than the graves lying above it or cutting through it. remained intact for centuries until people entered their ground floors. still filled with LH III goods. The inhabitants.”11 because an LH III C wall rested over the eleventh-century grave—again easy to explain if the grave was older than the LH III C structure.

160

structures over numerous other graves of the MH-LH II period (seventeenthfifteenth centuries),14 which, for the most part, were cist tombs—like “the 500year-later” ones. In fact, the excavators of the temple complex found a Middle Helladic cist tomb inside the religious center and not far from the eleventh-tenthcentury ones they discovered;15 but because of the 500 years currently placed between them, they assumed the former cist was covered by the later structures, while the other cists cut into them (despite problems with fire and the overlying wall). If the LH III B period belongs not to ca. 1350-1200 B.C., but some 500 years later, the discovery of the typologically identical, but supposedly 500-year-older cists beneath the LH III B buildings in the same area. Despite the 500-600 year problems we have already noted at the cult center regarding temples, Homer, ivories, idols, tomb types and stratigraphy, the excavators found one type of object there which, more than any other factor, has served to fix the absolute dates for Mycenae’s period of greatness. Inside the temple was a faience plaque bearing the throne name of Pharaoh Amenhotep III. Quite a few identical plaques have turned up in Mycenae,16 and the pattern of Eighteenth-Nineteenth Dynasty objects together with Mycenaean material throughout the Aegean, the Levant and Egypt itself, establishes a synchronism. Egyptologists assign that king’s reign to the early fourteenth century B.C., hence the dates for, and all the chronological problems with the Mycenaean Period, Velikovsky17 places the same man in the ninth century. The direct effect of such redating for Mycenae is obvious.
References
1. Desborough, (1973), p. 91 2. Snodgrass (1971), pp. 153, 184, 384 respectively, and cf. pp. 183, 363; cf. Andrewes, (1967), p. 35; N. Verdelis, “Neue geometrische Gräber in Tiryns,” Ath, Mitt., 78 (1963), p. 56; Styrenius, (1967), p. 161; C. Thomas, “Found: The Dorians,” Expedition, 20 (1978), p. 22. 3. Cf. pp. 7-13 above. 4. Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 177-184, did try to bridge the period, but the examples are extremely few for so long a time, do not remain at any one locale throughout the period, and do leave some blanks, hence Desborough (1972, pp. 108, 266, 269) and Dietrich (1970, p. 20) remained unconvinced. 5. Desborough, ibid., p. 269. For the dispute over northern immigrants, see ns. below. 6. Desborough, (1973), p. 101. 7. Excavations have revealed no evidence of structures of the eleventh-ninth century over the cult center (ibid., p. 91), or, for that matter, anywhere in the citadel. There are some potsherds from that period inside the city (loc. cit. p. 100; idem, (1972, p. 365), but as Desborough himself noted (1973, p. 100), they are negligible in quantity. He cited Mylonas’ undocumented statement (ibid., p. 101 and “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems,” n. 34) that there were dwellings of that date higher up on the citadel. In fact, Wace (1949, pp. 23-24, 84-85, carefully studied the area in question, and said that it was abandoned at that time, a conclusion with which Mylonas, on a later page of the same book that spoke of habitation, agreed, thereby effectively negating his earlier remark

161 (1957, pp. 17, 63), More recently, Mylonas again noted that there was no evidence of Dark Age dwellings on the summit (Mycenae’s Last Century of Greatness [London, 1968], pp. 30-31, 38.) Desborough, (1973), p. 92; Megaw, (1964-65), p. 10. It would take a lot of fuel to generate a blaze hot enough to scorch the stones and the skeleton in the grave, but there were no structures on the spot from LH III C times till the Hellenistic Period—supposedly some eight centuries later. Furthermore, since the area has constantly filled with debris from higher up the slope from the time of the LH III B destruction, there should have been a very thick protective mantle of earth and rubbish between the tenth-century grave and any flammable Hellenistic structures centuries later (cf. Desborough, 1973, p. 91; Megaw, ibid., p. 10; Taylour, (1973), p. 260; K.A. Wardle, “A Group of Late Helladic III B Pottery, etc.,” BSA, 68 (1973), pp. 302303). Wardle, Ibid., p. 303. Desborough, (1973), p. 100. Ibid., p. 91. Ibid., pp. 98-99. Cf. above “Later Use of the Grave Circles,” ns. 7-9. J.P. Michaud, “Chronique des Fouilles en 1973,” BCH, 98 (1974), p. 604. Taylour, (1969), pp. 95-96. Velikovsky, (1952), pp. 229-33

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

162

The Northeast Extension
The city walls of the mid-LH III B period reached as far as wall O to the northeast. When the Mycenaeans realized that the citadel lacked an adequate supply of water to withstand a prolonged siege, they remedied the problem by extending the fortifications to the northeast, and transported water via a subterranean conduit from a natural spring to a cistern which they secretly excavated just outside the new walls, and to which they carved out an elaborate descending stepped passage with a hidden entrance just inside the wall . The exact date of the undertaking is uncertain, because the original excavation, was not fully published, but it was sometime shortly after the extension of the walls into the cemetery to the south and west, and before the end of LH III B, i.e., very late in the thirteenth century B.C.1 Mylonas called the system “the most striking construction in the citadel, a truly Cyclopean undertaking”2 and “another wonder of the ancient world.”3 Probably spurred by Mycenae’s example, both Tiryns and Athens constructed analogous underground reservoirs approached from inside the fortifications, also toward the end of LH III B (i.e., ca. 1200 B.C.).4 Vermeule termed all three “marvellous feats of design,” which inspire “admiration for the palace engineers . . . tempered by awed respect.”5 The concept of securing fresh water for a siege by such a clever device that early in human history impressed Tsountas as “astonishing.”6 Still, Karo felt that the system at Mycenae had a significance far greater than its mere construction, and that one could not view it in a historical vacuum. He noted comparable Greek water projects of the Archaic and Classical Periods and declared that, despite the huge gap in time, the similarities were not accidental, but that the Mycenaean system was the archetype for the much later undertakings.7 In fact, one can think of the famous engineering marvel of Polycrates of Samos who, in the late sixth century, had spring water conducted into his city via a large tunnel. When assessing the LH III B defensive architecture and water systems of Tiryns, Athens and especially of Mycenae, an example from beyond the Greek cultural sphere comes to mind. King Hezekiah of Judah, confronted by the Assyrian host, rebuilt the old walls of Jerusalem and erected new fortifications, hid natural springs and excavated a gigantic sinuous tunnel to carry spring water from Gihon to a reservoir at Siloam, most probably an underground cistern approached by a secret passage from inside the city. The Old Testament heralds that feat as one of his greatest secular accomplishments8 and modern archaeologists have confirmed the Biblical account, in fact, K. Kenyon called the undertaking “an event in the history of Jerusalem which is of vital historical importance.”9 The Biblical description and the actual remains are very reminiscent of what took place at the northeastern extension of Mycenae. Hezekiah’s defenses and water project belong ca. 700 B.C., while the standard chronology places the ones at Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens ca, 500 years earlier.

163

Although it is certainly possible for the same idea to occur to different people indifferent locations at different times, under the revised chronology, the water systems of Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens are roughly contemporary with that of Jerusalem. It is therefore of interest to note that the three Greek tunnels seem so “astonishing,” precisely because they appeared suddenly and fully developed, and constitute such a novelty for the region. Hezekiah’s tunnel, on the other hand, was not only the successor to the earlier, less ambitious (and militarily disastrous) attempts by the Jebusites to channel spring water into Jerusalem, but also followed upon centuries of Istaelite improvements which produced completely concealed water tunnels, making spring water accessible to besieged cities throughout Palestine at places such as Gibeon, Gezer, Megiddo and Hazor.10 Of far greater importance in determining the date of the three contemporaneous Greek water systems is the fact that in the two excavations where the archaeologists did record their findings, the results correspond to Wace’s trench by the Lion Gate. The Tirynthian and Athenian cisterns both contained pottery of the late eighth-seventh century immediately above, and mixed together with pottery from the transition of LH III B-C; they contained no ware from the “intervening” centuries and no layer of sediment to mark the passage of the five centuries which the standard chronology places between LH III B/C and the eighth/seventh century.11

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mylonas, ibid., (n. 6), p. 31. Idem, (1966), pp. 14-15, 31-33, 41-43; Vermeule, (1972), pp. 161, 268-270. Tsountas-Manatt, (1897), p. 40. II Kings 20:20; II Chron. 32: 3-5, 30; Isa. 22:9-11. In accordance with the standard chronology, J.B. Pritchard (Gibeon [Princeton, 1962], p. 64), noting close similarities between the tenth (or ninth)-century water system at Gibeon and the late thirteenth-century examples from Greece, postulated that the idea might have traveled from Mycenae to Israel. That notion gained credence from the fact that scholars then dated the very similar, second, improved system at Megiddo to the twelfth century (e.g., J. N. Schofield, “Megiddo” in Thomas, (1967), p. 320). Even without Mycenae, however, Palestine showed its own evolutionary process. Some archaeologists dated Megiddo’s first water system, a covered gallery, to the fifteenth century B.C., which would explain how the city withstood a seven-month siege by Pharaoh Thutmose III; that project was, nevertheless, far from ideal, since it left the spring exposed and at the mercy of attackers, who apparently killed the guard and cut off the city’s water supply (loc. cit.), which presumably led to Megiddo’s surrender (cf. J. Wilson in J.B. Pritchard [ed.]. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, etc. 2 [Princeton, 1955], pp. 234-238). There is also the problem of why the Jebusites of ca. 1000 B.C. felt so secure in the face of David’s siege that they taunted his army, when they had also left their spring susceptible to poison or to blockage by the enemy, and even left their septem undefended. For those failings they lost Jerusalem when Joab’s forces stormed their shaft and thereby took the city by surprise (II Sam 5:69; I Chron. 11:5-6; cf. Kenyon, Royal Cities of the Old Testament [London, 1971], pp. 25-26. Those elliptical passages are controversial, leaving it uncertain whether Joab’s men

164 entered Jerusalem via the shaft or merely cut off access to the water). The Jebusites’ failure to safeguard the spring and the shaft is difficult to explain if their system followed the inadequate first system at Megiddo, and especially if it followed the completely protected second system, and the Greek examples which supposedly inspired it. Today, after further excavation, the scenario for Israel is as follows: the unprotected Jebusite system was the earliest, followed by the first water project at Megiddo which, despite its guard, also proved vulnerable. Archaeologists have redated that project by 500 years from Thutmose III’s reign to Solomon’s (Y. Yadin, Hazor [New York, 1975], pp. 226-231)—two rulers who, under the revised chronology, were contemporaries (Velikovsky, (1952), pp. 143-177). Then followed the completely concealed and protected second tunnel at Megiddo, and the systems at Gezer, Gibeon and Hazor, and finally the tunnel of Hezekiah. There is at present a 200-year gap between the Greek tunnels which were completely concealed and the first, exposed, Palestinian ones, which came into existence in an imperfect form long after the complete abandonment of the three Greek systems—which hardly points to direct influence from that quarter; the Greek tunnels, without any known Greek antecedents, most resemble the latest Israelite tunnels after their centuries of development and improvement from inadequate local prototypes. (See Ap-Thomas, (1967), pp. 280-285; Kenyon [1971], pp. 25-26, 67-68, 102, 140; A. Negev, Archaeological Encyclopaedia of the Holy Land [New York, 1972], pp. 126, 129, 141, 204, 333; Yadin, pp. 226-231, 244, 247 for the Palestinian systems—to some of which material Rabbi J. Segal kindly referred me), (in an as yet unpublished essay, J.J. Bimson questions the Solomonic and Omrid dates for Palestinian material, reassigning it to ca. 700 B.C. which, if correct, would even more tightly cluster all the completely concealed water systems of Israel).

By the late Eighteenth Dynasty.(5) Those who look to the Orient as the place that preserved the artistic tradition meet the same difficulty there as they found for Greece. and its carving in the Aegean. . passing the technique from master to apprentice. who produced many of the ivory figurines and plaques. students of ancient ivories looked to the East as the region which carried on the artistic tradition over the centuries when it had vanished from Greece.. and other precious commodities. both places have “a sudden gap .” both in the Aegean and in the Near East. ” (6) Across those three centuries. Greece itself had a centuries-long gap in production. one cannot detect any links to connect the ninth-eighth-century creations to the very similar examples of the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries. apparently ceased. displayed distinctive Mycenaean motifs. gold jewelry. and probably from father to son. “Unlikely though it may seem . the Levant was the ancient source of the raw material as well as a center for ivory carving in antiquity. the importation of raw and finished ivory from the East. They believed. despite the close similarities of the later ivories to the Mycenaean ones. and carved gems found throughout the Aegean.(2) By the end of the Mycenaean Age. which contained hundreds of scraps of ivory. they sent the influence back to Greece.(4) with the motifs very reminiscent of Mycenaean work some five hundred years earlier. etc. “making its first reappearance” in Greece some 600 years after the Shaft Grave Period. who continued to fashion similar works without interruption until. centuries later. . For all those reasons.” (7) Despite that gap.C..C.165 Ivory Carvings Excavations in the eastern portion of the acropolis of Mycenae revealed a substantial structure. numerous authorities have long noted the close resemblence of the later group to the . which spread across the Aegean and Near East. obviously comprising the quarters and workshops of the palace artisans. and the East Mediterranean. the Mycenaean craftsmen were fashioning ivory sculptures and inlay plaques with intricate patterns and subjects. in which no ivories are known. gold leaf. heraldic and religious motifs. first appeared in Greece as tiny ornaments applied to other objects in the Shaft Graves at the beginning of the Late Helladic Period. as did those who postulated the return of Mycenaean ceramic decoration from seventh-century Phoenicia. combats with real and mythical beasts. that thirteenth-century Mycenaean ivories influenced the Levantine artisans. and the Levantine ivories of both the second and the first millennium B. They and their Syrian counterparts freely exchanged their creations. such as hunting scenes. this is yet the case. in the process mingling Eastern and Western decorative elements to form an international style. (1) Ivory. which were “now quite extinct. Ivory carving is an extremely delicate craft. warriors. .(3) Greek artisans resumed the fashioning of intricate carved ivories in the eighth century. . which only a small guild of artisans practised. probably from Syria. since from 1200-900 B.

such as Arthur Evans. D. of “predominant importance” today.(9) and other cases which have sparked scholarly debates on whether the ivories stem from the thirteenth century or the eighth.(15) As Velikovsky has recorded above (“The Scandal of Encomi”).(14) That difficulty. Also recently. S. Murray. at least. considered “the problem of the relationship” of the two displaced sets of material to be of “predominant importance. but also saw the gap that separated them. the centuries-long gap in time troubled him.” With no stylistic break. In order to bridge the gap. some of whose exports were also at Enkomi. but chronologically disjointed groups of ivory carvings.(16) in the process creating two similar. it provides no reason why the artisans stopped carving ivory. M. or of raids on the Syrian coast. with motifs scarcely. at Delos) where ivories from eighth-century contexts look Mycenaean in style. did not trouble excavators at the turn of the century. one can as readily apply it to Greece. where there was a native supply of the raw material. he assigned his ivories. changed from those of the earlier period. for the Levant.” which “should not” exist (in the latter region. Harden observed that the two chronologically distinct sets of ivories are “closely akin in style” with “little or no gap in artistic tradition. then Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the British Museum. They pushed back his dates by five hundred years. A. so that scholars proclaim them to be 500-year-old heirlooms.(11) If one accepts that theory for the Levant. to that period.166 centuries-earlier one. The ensuing problem not only disturbs modern archaeologists and art historians but. He did not believe in a Dark Age.(10) Still there is a perplexing gap. along with everything else he found at Enkomi. and. in order to sustain the art there. if at all. Mallowan recently suggested that the Levantine artists turned from ivory to media such as textiles and wood—all examples have long since perished—to keep the tradition alive. at least)..g.(8) There are some cases (e. he could find no explanation for the art to cease in Phoenicia or further inland. Whatever the effects of hypothetical invaders in Greece.” (12) Much to everyone’s consternation. implicitly trusting in the dates furnished by Egyptologists for New Kingdom pharaohs. unearthed and published a number of Mycenaean Age ivory carvings at Enkomi on Cyprus. The disadvantages of that idea are that it is completely unprovable. Kantor. rather than five hundred years earlier. and judged that the entire Mycenaean Age belonged that late. the philologists as well. both the Aegean and the Orient presently have a very long “hiatus. or how they managed to resume the art so skillfully. without requiring a hypothetical Oriental interlude. who chronicled many of these similarities. blasted Murray and the British Museum as well. since Homer’s mention . He therefore concluded that. “there should not be such a hiatus in the evidence. H. for the Levant. Observing the same close resemblances to ninthseventh-century ivory and stone reliefs that still impress (and disturb) scholars today.” (13) Yet that problem remains unresolved. dividing two sets of very similar Aegeo-Levantine ivory carvings. immediately after the break. once again. other authorities.

13. 24. Cypriote Bronzework in the Mycenaean World [Oxford. “Polity and Society. Harden.” pp. 13-14. 5 above and n. 533. 28. Les Ivoires Myceniens. 168-170. Snodgrass. pp. 1962). M. 480. 169-174.” Archaeology 13 (1960). (1956). 2. 15-16 below. Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago. (1956). 12. “Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians. p. p. Robertson. 1900). 24. (1956). 480. 13-15. . pp. H. and O. M. 111. pp. “Mycenaean Cyprus as Illustrated in the British Museum Excavations. cit. 174. H. The Phoenicians (New York. A Companion to Homer (London. W. pp. Winter. R. 1938). which I hope to document in greater detail at a later date. 9.(17) The result of Egyptian chronology’s triumph today are two epochs of ivory carving. 586. p. D. Early Ivories from Samaria (London. “Early Greek and Oriental Ivories. Webster. idem. Mylonas. pp. p. “Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving. p. ns.. pp. 23. Webster.. 1962). loc.” Journal of Hellenic Studies. 5. pp. both in Wace-Stubbings. Pursat. with a three-hundred-year break in the evidence.” Iraq.2 [1973-4]. Crowfoot. (Princeton. Stubbings. “Crafts and Industries. p. pp. 11. 170. 11. loc. The heated. Kantor. and a great many authorities who confess their bewilderment at the state of affairs which now confronts them. Evans. pp.” Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of the University of Birmingham. (Paris. pp. see Winter. 1972). Kantor.” PEFQ. five hundred years later. see V. 1964]. References 1. 38 (1976). 199-200. Cf. idem. Kantor.. specifically: pp. (1960). 14-25. (1939). 4. 1977). 1967). M. 218-221. For Mycenaean times. Karageorghis. 73. 302. and F. 16. 30 (1900). 9-11. no way to bridge or even explain the gap. 3. (1966). Nimrud and Its Remains II (London. “Ivory Carving in the Mycenaean Period. J. 156 and cf. 1966). 10. 17. 7. p. 14. ibid. E. J. 15 below. “Phoenician and Syrian Ivory Carving. 139.” p. at times.. 1968). 2 (1935). 43. pp. pp. J. 68 (1948). I. ibid. 12. For ivories. Vermeule. 6. 32. p. etc. 169-174. 4-41. 36-37. 195-196. 248. . Murray. . pp. 15. 1975). Excavations in Cyprus (London.. For the eighth century. Coldstream. and. N. Kantor. (1962). Ibid.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 15 (1956). 460-461. Coldstream. 184. etc. p.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. vicious attacks which Murray’s publication generated form a very instructive chapter in the history of scholarly attitudes towards chronology. 10-14. Kantor. see T. Mallowan. “Archaeological Facts and Greek Traditions. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. “SyroPalestinian Ivories. (1956). G. Greek Geometric Pottery (London. A History of Greek Art I (New York. 1966). p. Kantor. (1964). Mallowan. n. Barnett. Very recently.” Iraq. Barnett. p. Catling. W. 9-11. while others view it as a reference to the material again becoming common in the poet’s own day. “Homerica from Salamis (Cyprus)” in Europa: Studien. p. idem. 171. p.-Cl. (1971). & G. cit. 171. c A.167 of furniture inlaid with carved ivory plaques strikes some classicists as a thirteenthcentury memory preserved by epic poetry. Ernst Grumach (Berlin. pp. 8. (1976). showing similarities five hundred years apart. p. 360. Dickinson. 170. pp.

which they engraved with men.”7 In order to explain the “mystery. party on the basis of carved gems. as Evans later admitted. curvilinear appearance.3 Further excavation. who were probably inspired and instructed by. hard stones is an extremely precise and delicate craft which requires years of apprenticeship to master. shaping and design. again standardized the shapes of the gems. and since both the shapes and the decoration of seventh-century gems and coins so closely resembled the jewels of the Mycenaean Age. monsters and animals arranged in compositions similar to those on the ivories and gold rings. Within seventy-five years of the re-introduction of the “native art. but since he still detected remarkable similarities of seventh-century gems to Minoan-Mycenaean ones. but that they actually found and imitated 500-year-old gems.C. the early seventh-century jewelers “were in some mysterious way imitating the gems which had been made at least half a millennium earlier. the jeweler’s art perished toward the end of the Mycenaean Period. plus chronological reconsiderations.5 At first the Greeks used softer stones.6 In carving technique. Minoan artisans. when the find-spots of individual gems are . Within a few decades of their “relearning” the craft.C. They seem to have made such expert copies that even today. he dropped the idea of survival. and replaced it with one of revival. formed various shapes.2 with Cecil Torr prepared to date the entire Mycenaean Period just prior to ca. art historians could not consider Greece itself as the source of the revival.” scholars now assume that seventh-century artists not only followed a line of artistic progression similar to that of their ancestors. seemed to refute their belief. the artisans created designs which. The craftsmen of Mycenae fashioned gold rings with intricate designs of battle and hunting. but since barren centuries separated one “native” manifestation from the other. like seventh-century pottery.4 According to the current scenario. and engraved themes extremely reminiscent of those belonging to the Mycenaean Age.” they again employed the cutting wheel used 500 years earlier. and perhaps originally were. of such tiny.1 Since the shaping. By ca. Thus they once again turned to the Near East as a place for the Greeks to relearn the craft. and especially the engraving. who had had a venerable tradition in the art. 750 B. 700 B. and heraldic and religious scenes. the rulers of Mycenae not only patronized a guild of ivory carvers but also a guild of jewelers. and engraved the gems by hand with the same type of geometrical patterns and figures as one finds on contemporary pottery. “the native art of gem-cutting” returned to Greece. developed a more naturalistic. late nineteenthcentury archaeologists like Arthur Evans felt that there had been an uninterrupted tradition of Greek gem-carving from the Late Bronze Age until the historical period.168 Mycenaean Jewelry Beginning in the Shaft Grave Period. and also produced lens-shaped and almond-shaped sealstones and gems of semi-precious materials. mainly to the Mycenaean preference.

” with Greece too impoverished to create jewelry. late nineteenthcentury scholars had none of the problems with Mycenaean gems (or. the first goldsmiths at Mycenae were probably trained by.14 . more intricate works. in which the arts of filigree. the chariot-hunt ring. U). 850 B. some experts cannot decide whether they fall into the Mycenaean Age or the seventh century.” an epithet which is very appropriate when we recall the wealth of the Shaft Graves.”13 By ca. again showing filigree and granulation.11 Homer referred to Mycenae as “rich in gold.9 but he was practically alone in his skepticism. Towards the end of the Mycenaean Period there comes “a real break in continuity. hair rings. we already noted a number of 400-700-year problems. As was true of the gem-engravers. and repoussé work were carried to perfection. except for rare pieces. Other pieces of gold jewelry from Mycenae and across the Aegean have caused still more bewilderment for the excavators. Even after Egypt began to fix Mycenae’s age.” and there is a centuries-long break in the continuity of sophisticated jewelry in Greece. garters. had a profound impact on the artists there. apparently emanated from the royal workshop on the citadel (Fig. Higgins eloquently described “the superlative excellence of Mycenaean jewelry. ”12 Much of that work. Even instances when the experts know the provenience and associated material of some gems are not always helpful.. then re-introduced the old techniques and some jewelry types.10 and debates continue between experts championing dates half a millennium apart for individual gems that they discover. who kept the tradition alive during the centuries when the Greeks themselves lost it. authorities freely admit that “there will always be som [engraved gems] which defy attribution” to one side or the other of the 500year gap which now disrupts the sequence. even today. such that. which were “simple in extreme. discs. inlay. or else that late gems somehow slipped into (or were dedicated at) 500-years-older structures.C. Since jewelers engage in the “most conservative of all crafts. granulation. on the assumption that many gems are 500year-old heirlooms. which were popular in the bygone era. start to reappear.8 Before Egypt provided absolute dates for the Mycenaean Period.169 unknown. one could not assume that the Greeks began such delicate and intricate work again without the aid of non-Greek jewelers.. pins. or else one group of scholars will champion Mycenaean dates for gems which other scholars place 500 years later. at least in its final stages. with anything else) which beset modern specialists. or were themselves Minoan artisans. 1. Scholars therefore postulated that Mycenaean work which was exported to Cyprus and the Near East. Cecil Torr had no problem. In dealing with their masks. Problems began for Evans and for everyone else from the turn of the century to the present. since they sometimes judge the gems to be half a millennium older or younger than the associated material. R. for that matter. diadems. etc. since he completely distrusted the Egyptologists’ calculations. enamelling. who had had a long history of craftsmanship on Crete.

18 One therefore had to postulate that while Mycenaean techniques nay have returned from the Near East. Such a repetition of designs after so long a period “leads to the question whether there can be any connection between the two groups.16 In fact the earliest known sophisticated jewelry” of ca. which “inevitably recalls” a twelfth-century Cretan ring. from Athens. and the granulation does not resemble the Levantine type as much as it does Mycenaean work.C. also aware of their affinities to ninth-sixth century Italian. Aegean and Oriental material of the first millennium.19 The problem of gold jewelry is not confined to the Greek mainland. both for the jewelry technique and sophistication in general. “the record is a balnk” for some two hundred years after the creation of the twelfth-century rings21—which hardly helps to support the notion of continuity. 500 B. 850 B. have assigned the hoard to the period of and just prior to the Shaft Graves. which many scholars have long viewed as Mycenaean in spirit but ninth-seventh-century in date. the Greek jewelers probably also rediscovered and copied centuries-old pieces of native Mycenaean craftsmanship. Similar problems have beset a cache of jewelry now in the British Museum. ” One piece from contemporary Ithaca to the northwest displayed a complex pattern of filigree and granulation.170 There is clear evidence of Near Eastern influence on Aegean jewelry of the ninthseventh centuries.—again with a centuries-long gap separating the two groups. looks less Oriental than it does native Greek.C.22 A gold and enamel scepter from Cyprus has also become the subject of a debate between those who see its analogies to jewelry of ca. depicting a hound attacking a fawn. . Can this resemblance be due to chance?” Higgins.C. and the sudden appearance of the later jewelry. seeing such marked similarities between jewelry from Ithaca and Crete separated by 500 years.20 art historians are likewise “suddenly confronted with jewelry” of great sophistication. and those who see its resemblance to material of ca. He felt that there had to be a continuous tradition. showing both filigree and granulation.15 but any evidence that the Orient adopted and continued the Mycenaean tradition from the twelfth-ninth centuries is almost as poor as that assumed for pottery painting. purportedly from Aegina. he suggested something which he hoped was not “too far-fetched”—that Crete itself kept the art alive during the Dark Age. but the additional one that for Crete. to be a transplanted memory of . 1700-1500 B. Similarly a seventh-century Cretan ring resembles yet another twelfth-century Minoan ring. and the manufacture of enamel in particular. ivory carving and gem engraving.C. Still. felt that they could not be fortuitous. ca.17 which flourished some 500-600 years earlier. just as for Greece. Many commentators consider the Odyssey’s description of its hero’s golden brooch. but discounting the Near East as the intermediary. there were not only the problems of a 500-year difference in dates..23 The difficulties which have beset archaeologists and art historians over actual jewelryhave again provoked a 500-year “tug of war” between two schools of Homericists. while others. On Crete in the eighth or seventh century. metal work. 1200 B. .

(1969). p. (1969). Casson. pp. 209. 141-142. R Snodgrass. (1961). “The Aegina Treasure. p. 182-184. 32. 57-67) has recently re-dated much of the pertinent material from ca. 382. (1972). p. ibid. Ibid.. For a recent case in point. 300-301. 267. 32 (1932). pp. 82. 144-146..” AJA. Boardman. R. 69. p. 166167. pp. Higgins. idem. 70. p. idem (1961). pp. Ibid. pp. K. 69-70. 36. and still others do not know which position to take. (1975)... Buxton. (1892-93). while Snodgrass ((1971). 60. Greek Art (New York. pp. pp. P. see G. who originally accepted the later date. 18. pp. Evans. 1971). 20-21. “Cyrenaica. (1972). 40. 146. 38. 245-246. 1963). see M. (London. 151. 149-150. 27-32. 800 B. Ibid. (1967). (1970). 58. 52 (1957). 180. (1950).M.” BSA. E. “The Aegina Treasure Reconsidered. 134. 64. p. p. p. pp. 13. cf. pp. (1961). 7. 539. 1-4. C. pp. 143-144.. 1912). Engraved Gems of the Greeks and the Etruscans (New York. 110. Cook. 1908). (1969). 95-96. 13. Demargne. 64 (1969). p. 3). J. 20. 37 (1909). Casson and J. 345-346. (1961). 1700-1500 B. 4. 147-361. Snodgrass. 600 B. 150). 94-95. pp. Reynolds.C. p. 190. 77. 110 and n. (1963). 12. p. Evans (n. Ibid. 71 and n.” BSA. Vickers and J. p. 73. Benson. 62 (1967). 91. Torr. II. A. p. cf. p. 153. esp. idem. Hopkins. (1975). Marinatos. (1970). p. 143.(1961). 1968).” Archaeological Reports 1971-2. 8. pp. idem..H. idem. 15. Ancient Cyprus (London. Boardman (“The Khaniale Tekke Tombs. p. 2.C.171 Mycenaean jewelry design. 1968). 289-290. 23 (but see p. Sjöqvist. 223-225. Jewelry in the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia. 128-133. Robertson. 64-67. (1896). pp. 32. ca. 110. p.. 245-246. 169. p. 76.24 References 1. 32-34. p.” Hesperia. (1951). 73-74. “Early Greek Jewelry. 5.100. 136 for the “striking likeness” to late seventh-century work). (1963). Ibid. pp. (1969). pp. (1964). 206. For ca. Lorimer. 1. Evans. Higgins (1969. 90. 70 and S. See L. 95. S. p. F. see Evans. 29. (1896). Pierides. (1971). . p. 19. pp. 13-14. 42-57. Boardman. “The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady. 9. Boardman. 111-112. 22. Mycenaean Art from Cyprus (Nicosia. Torr. “Numerous Years of Joyful Life. R. (1961). (1975). Robertson. Higgins. pp. 49) remained skeptical. idem. (1961). 1971). 14. McFadden and E. J. (1892-93).M. 66 (1962).. and Robertson. “A Late Cypriot III Tomb from Kourion Kaloriziki No.. 4 above).” BSA. 21. Der Orient und die frühgriechische Kunst (Berlin. follows Boardman. pp. Richter. De Vries. idem. Cf. 197-226. Richter. idem. see R. 92-95. J. 52. 11. 1971). pp. Boardman. 156. passim. 3000-612 B. p. 17. p. 201 (but cf. 222. (1971).” A Cloisonné Staff-head from Cyprus. (1969). 23. 46 (1951). 3. Myres. 293 n. (1969). For dissatisfaction with such a late date for “Mycenaean” jewelry. pp. For the twelfth century. idem.. Higgins. p. 224-231. 145.” AJA. B. cf. Vermeule. 32. 560-561. pp. Western Asiatic Jewelry. 145-146. For its redating to ca. (1967). Richter. 114 and n. 1962-72. pp. p. Island Gems (London. Higgins. pp. 1.” BSA. 700 to ca. (1969). pp. G. cf. 70.C. Karageorghis. 6. 95-96. 121.” Man.. Higgins. (1935).C. p. pp.C. 60. For the ninth-seventh centuries. 5S (1954). Ibid. pp. p. 7. 231. 14. see Myres. 95. 399. (1963). ca. idem. (1968). 850 B. Poulsen. Archaic Greek Gems (London. 26.L. passim. (1900). p. pp.. Higgins. Smithson. 16. pp. Maxwell-Kyslop. 14. idem. p. cf. while many others view it as an accurate reference to early seventh-century jewelry. p. 10.

Bielefeld. Most of them wrote before the discovery of the analogous twelfth-century rings. Probably early seventh century Poulsen. (1950). “Dress” in ”WaceStubbings. but skeptical about the whole issue: Kirk.B.cf. H. (1964). Studniczka. did know of then in 1961. 159. pp. Karsgeorghis. pp. Hill. A Guide to the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia. of same book). (1935). pp. and to similarly made twelfth-century Gypriote rings (although they must assume that the enamelling was an invention of that period.). idem.P. J. 181. although alternating rows of colored. and then vanished till ca. 600 B. Wheeler]). and point to similarly-made seventh-century jewelry. p. 117. pp. probably early seventh century. Both groups point to the similarity of the scepter’s scale pattern to contemporary pottery. however. 89. 111. 68. P. Bowra. Stanford. p.2 Odyssey (Leipzig.” JHS. p. but followed the same reasoning as Higgins (n. 3). (1962). pp. (1964). Wace. 141. 511-515. and Pieride (1971. 1947). “Composition” in Wace-Stubbings. and A. 157. Homer 11. C. McFadden [1954]. p. idem. Nilsson. p. 325-326. Evans. 1929). . 55. 2. Mycenaean Age: A. (1962). Lorimer. “Die Fibula des Odysseus” in E. scales are characteristic only of the latter pots. p. 123. 41. p.172 1937). “The Minoan and Mycenaean Element in Hellenic Life. idem. p. A History of Cyprus I (Cambridge. p. (1967b). Dikaios.C. pp. Hope Simpson-Lazenby. p. was used on the rings and scepter. 21 above). 1933. p. Bathe. (1970). W. The Odyssey of Homer II (New York. 1967). 66. 119. 292-293. 25. (1961 ed. p. G. 9 [by M. 24. p. 524. p. 6. p. Webster. 22 (1912). 1940). 145-148. 500. assuming some seventh-century jewelry reproduced twelfth-century patterns. Those who date it late doubt that the scepter came from that early tomb (whose cremation burial presents yet another 400-year problem . 107. pp. Dikaios. (1968). Those who consider the scepter to be early point to the eleventh-century date of the tomb which allegedly contained it. (1956). Carpenter (1946). F. (1969).M. 133-134. Jacobsthal. p. n. (1912).

the king most probably still exercised much influence over the spiritual life of his subjects.. at least in their final forms. it is difficult to trace any continuity. and both. with no evidence of cult activity during such a long interval. Crete. believe. is so meager during . while those who were disturbed by the lack of evidence for religious activity—in many cases of any activity—at those sites during the intervening Dark Age.(9) Since the evidence for religious activity not only at each of those places. but throughout the Aegean. Pherai. Delos and Samos. the palace itself apparently became an uninhibited heap of rubble for the next five centuries.(4) As other have noted. if some 500 years actually transpired between the end of the palace and the erection of the first temple. L. Therapne. some recent authors have postulated that there was a continuous cult there. ca. (like contemporary peoples in Egypt and Asia) considered to be semi-divine. at Mycenae itself.”(7) They also constructed shrines and temples over 500-year-older shrines and secular buildings on Aegina.173 The Palace In addition to the water system and the artists’ quarters. perished in flames towards the end of the LH III B period (i. belong to the LH III B period.C. till the Hellenistic period. that after a “prolonged lapse” of centuries. those who noted clear evidence of religious activity at most of those sites before 1200 B. and again in the eighth-seventh centuries. Brauron. postulated an uninterrupted cult. the acropolis of Mycenae was also the site of the palace complex. 700 B. Both. Eleusis. however. While there was a brief reoccupation of the House of Columns before its ultimate abandonment.C. 1200 B. and Tegea. whom the Greeks of the eighth century. a site which again generated a 500-year “tug of war” between two schools of archaeologists.”(2) even though there was a separate religious complex in the lower city. including an eastern villa. but also at Athens. presumably with its own priesthood. making that case “problematical.e..(8) Once again. erected temples over the ruins of LH III B palaces not only at Mycenae. N). with the archaic temple and its Hellenistic replacement showing its more impressive manifestations at a later date. until the Greeks of the seventh (possible late eighth) century constructed a temple on the site. and some even question whether the revival of religious activity on the site was a conscious one. Olympia. and probably earlier as well.C.). Delphi. Thermon. as well as several other palaces and towns throughout the rest of the Aegean.(1) The palace was the abode of the king. 700 B. the Greeks of the eighth-seventh centuries sought a “deliberate communion” with their predecessors of the Mycenaean Age. called the House of Columns (Fig. Isthmia.(3) Since the palace grounds were the scene of religious activity in LH III B and from ca. Epidaurus.C. 1. performing sacred rites for the community as a whole inside the palace. Calauria.. Perachora. along with most of the rest of the city.(6) and probably at Tiryns. possibly at Prosymna. instead.(5) The Greeks of ca.

Despite their late start.(17) Mycenae’s palace. only began to adopt the art during the late Eighteenth Dynasty.(11) At Mycenae itself. between which the builders packed rocks in a matrix of clay. like many other contemporary structures. as in so many comparable cases. Archaic and Hellenistic levelling and building operations as well as severe erosion. recording and publication techniques of the early archaeologists. and those who do not. which fresco painters decorated with brilliantly-colored designs and scenes.3 ashlar masonry. protect and strengthen the exposed exterior. when they painted frescoes on the walls of early seventh-century temples. make it impossible to ascertain the exact relationship of the Archaic Temple to the LH III B. laying them in even courses. who first cleared the area. and Etruscan funerary murals of the seventh-fifth centuries. To remedy that situation. the Mycenaean builders decided simultaneously to mask. they seem to have revived the craft some 500 years later. Although Egypt and Crete had had a tradition of mural paintings for centuries. probably under Minoan influence. to present a solid architectural façade. find it difficult to explain why “the huge increase in [religious and architectural] activity” occurred so late. (13) Mycenae’s palace. Vermeule judged the LH III A-B frescoes of Greece to be “perhaps the best of all Mycenaean arts. and also too vulnerable to the elements. most authorities now reject that notion. with its walls formed by vertical and horizontal timbers. the Mycenaeans. but because 500 years ought to intervene. beautify. since their wood and rubble composition was both aesthetically unattractive. Delos. and Prosymna. like most other opulent habitations of LH III B Greece. again confronted by the now-familiar centuries-long gap between the two groups. palace beneath it. “(14) After the destruction of the mansions and palaces during the late LH III B-C period.(10) both those who believe in continuity of cult places. many scholars once believed—and some still do—that the temples of ca. and the less sophisticated excavation. which painters decorated with beautiful frescoes. had its interior walls covered with a smooth facing of stucco. Thus they quarried fairly large boulders of poros limestone. As we noted above.(12) At other sites. .(16) Further west. it seems that the Greeks abandoned that art form. which they sawed into rectangular blocks. 700 B. the workmen covered the interior walls with a smooth layer of plaster.174 the Dark Age. along with so many others. known 0. however. was a multistoried building. followed immediately after the destruction of LH III B buildings beneath them. such as Tiryns. some authors have detected marked similarities between MinoanMycenaean frescoes and sculpture of the Late Bronze Age. and why “it had suddenly become so pressing a need” to erect temples to the gods only after some 500 years had elapsed since the destruction and/or abandonment of the earlier structures immediately beneath them. The outer faces of the palaces external walls presented a more difficult problem.C.(15) once again.

and there seems to be no intermediate stage after the mudbrick and pebble walls.(18) Despite that late start. Desborough considered that “above all . which they had (rat through earthen embankments. rectangular blocks of hastier-dressed conglomerate. whereas Vrmeule felt the highest esteem for those who painted the frescoes on the interior walls of buildings like the palace. and follow 500 years of very meager architecture. (20) As was true in the case of the frescoes.175 Although the Egyptians and Minoans had long been masters of monumental architecture in general and ashlar construction in particular. the relatively short period of use. which they hammered into blocks not only for the façades and entrance walls.C. with the palace marking one of their last and finest accomplishments. . ca. or to erect impressive constructions of any kind by the end of the Mycenaean period. one might expect them to be pretty “primitive”. at first constructed of rubble. the Mycenaeans were again relatively late to adopt those skills. to create ashlar walls. thick. “Such artist and craft were not to be seen again in Greece” during the obscure centuries following(21) the destructions of the Late Helladic palaces. the Mycenaean builders “reached a high state of development” and “proved their greatness. Similarly. and before the erection of those two temples. and as the exterior for new.(24) Since both buildings are so early in the series of Greek temples.(22) Suddenly. again erected large structures made of poros limestone. the architects and stonemasons arouse one’s admiration. . it is difficult to show that they continued the Mycenaean tradition or evolved from the .”(19) In fact. but those usually consisted of unworked rocks in a matrix of mud. and their rather restricted application of monumental construction techniques. they began to employ huge. laid in even courses. 700 B. sawed into rectangular blocks. Finally they changed from sawn poros blocks to much harder conglomerate rock. Their earliest stone architecture of note consisted of the huge beehive tombs.(25) Since the construction of large-scale buildings of rectangular poros blocks laid in the ashlar technique seems to have ended 500 years earlier. but the excavators found both structures to be surprisingly sophisticated. the Greeks seen to have suddenly lost the skills to shape some blocks. with ashlar retaining walls. to sheath some portions of their older fortification systems. With time they again began to erect a few stone walls. rubble-core walls which they added to the earlier enceintes. It was only relatively late that the Mycenaeans began to erect large buildings of stone and to face them with ashlar masonry. but also for the construction of the tombs themselves. During the Dark Age the Greeks seem to have made only snail structures of unbaked mud bridk. at best having only their outer faces squared.. both less than twenty miles northeast of Mycenae. With time they began to adorn them with ashlar façades and to line their entrances. the Greeks of Corinth and Isthmia. at most having a low foundation of unworked pebbles set in mud—in many ways reminiscent of the architecture 500 years earlier. and laid in even courses:(23) “a striking token of the recovery of lost skills” employed half a millennium earlier. such as the Lion Gate.

They did not have to bear the full weight of a roof and did not have to be perfectly plumb.g. and to instruct them in the mathematics required to shape stone blocks of precise dimensions. leaving gaps to be filled with wood. since only the outer face was of concern. architects. at the Lion Gate) are still extant. to solid rubble cores. trim. the Greeks must have had a sizeable labor force of expert quarrymen. the extreme proximity of Corinth and Isthmia to Mycenae. The Mycenaean ashlar masonry only form a façade to older walls behind it. For all those reasons. rubble and clay. some doubt that the seventh-century Greeks. only one stone thick.(27) While that view has its attractions.176 intervening. which seems to have arisen without any previous trace. noting that abrupt. Therefore. with their right angles. By ca. some 500 years earlier. Since the gap from 1200 to 700 B.M. Corinthian inventor. and did not need to make precise joins. 700 B. The Mycenaean blocks were not always perfectly rectangular. and served both to reeducate the Greeks in the long-forgotten construction techniques of their ancestors (whom. there looms the question of whether untrained people merely gazing upon the outer faces of 500-year-old walls.. Thompson. native Greek works. the walls had to be perfectly plumb to prevent collapse. or to earthen embankments. Cook and H. and their parallel and perpendicular facesand to lay out and erect the structures. were perfectly rectangular. decided to copy them and immediately succeeded with no evidence of the kind of experimentation through trial and error that one would naturally expect if the Greeks taught themselves anew—and even surpassed the architectural accomplishnents of the predecessors whom they sought to emulate.(29) The Egyptians had a centuries-long tradition of monumental architecture formed by regular courses of hard stone. engineers and masons. stone cutters.(26) R. In the present overview of Greek architecture. merely-looking at 500-year-old walls. and had to join one another precisely on all contiguous faces. and the fact that some of Mycenae’s ashlar walls (e. transport. once again scholars postulate that some area outside of Greece kept the tradition alive for 500 years. is so huge. then lost. constructed of rectangular stone blocks.(28) The seventh-century blocks did not form a façade.C. and one can trace no development in Greece itself leading to the achievements of the temple-builders. they immediately surpassed). unprecedented revival of ashlar masonry. C. since their solid backing supported them. and had to support heavy roofs. as a “revolutionaryinnovation” by an ingenous. some art historians once more look to the valley of the Nile as the region “of paramount importance” to which Greek craftsmen travelled to see the great buildings. have recently suggested that those walls at Mycenae might have inspired the seventhcentury architects to return to the techniques employed. the unseen inner faces might be left partly unworked or else splayed apart. and also to relearn the techniques . but comprised the entire wall. it seems. as in the case of monumental stone sculpture. could successfully quarry. lift and set new blocks in the old manner. yet anonymous. sawn into rectangular blocks. those two temples “appeared suddenly”.

XII:23. p. 15f. quickly taught themselves how to create the blocks and erect the temples so successfully— admittedly the least compelling of the hypotheses. nor was the palace the sole center of worship. Hesiod. but the separation of church and state. (1971). 5.Wace actually found above the LH III B destruction belongs to the seventh century (Wace. passim (esp. XI:304. 602603). 307. hit upon the idea of building monumental ashlar structures independent of any foreign or domestic models which might inspire them. Od. Vermeule. n..C. p. (1970). 84-86. Likewise. Tomlinson. pp. XVI:604. 14. to which add B. “The Palace. I:393f. it further shows a Greek prophet afraid to offend his king (Bk. one is left to wonder how the Corinthians of ca. 84. p. “Later Use of the Grave Circles. Finally. 4. Erga. The Iliad shows shows the royal house of Troy as more prominent -than the priesthood itself in performing sacred rites for the good of the city (Bk. 226). the religious duties of the Athenian “king archon” of the historical period also points to the sacerdotal functions of the earlier kings. (1972). seems unlikely for Greece at such an early date. which the workmen and architects of Mycenae had employed and lost 500 years earlier. 6.177 first-hand at the large-scale construction projects in that land. Mylonas (1972. 700 B. often owing their posts to royal appointments. like the Middle Helladic and early Mycenaean ones found in the same area (Wace. 63-64. Cf. References 1. 312. cf. pp. Wace. came to recover the skills so suddenly and so perfectly. Tomlinson. 1967). 8. I:69-113). 2. The earliest pottery” which . 3.” BSA.. Cf. Berquist. and demonstrates how important the kings’ sets were to the wellbeing of the state (cp.C. pp. Cf. however. 87) antedate not only the temple. antedate the re-opening of Egypt to Greek craftsmen by several decades. p.” n. and less than twenty miles away. the Oedipus trilogy of Sophocles shows a Creek prophet afraid of offending his kings. but also the destruction of the palace itself. Bk.(32) Again. ibid. It is clear from Egypt and Near East that the kings exercised tremendous control over spiritual life-usually more than the clergy itself. Homer. and demonstrates that the gods rendered more aid to the suppliant king than to their own priests (cp. (1976). but no evidence of dwellings or other structures (cf. By the revised scheme those Protogeometric and Geometric sherds. and subject to dismissal or death at the whim of the king. 398.(30) The fact is. Il. (1949). below. C. The Archaic Greek Temenos (Lund. pp. “Dark Age Burials. (1976). pp. below 7. and. and my section on Tiryns. which tended to act in concert with the kings. first published as Isaacson (1974). Vermeule. . 13. (1957). Snodgrass. 40) is correct to point out that the king was not in total control over the religious life of the city.(31) A third possibility is that the Greeks of ca. 224. Velikovsky’s discussion of Tiryns. lines 159f. 233. 7). The question is whether the Mycenaean five centuries later had any memory of an LH III B cult there. p. 269-311). p. untutored in the requisite techniques. “There were some pottery fragments from the “intervening” centuries in the area. the Old Testament accounts of good and bad fortune befalling the Hebrews’ because of the piety and impiety of their kings. 700-675 B. pp. 397: cf. VI:86-98. (1949). that the ashlar temples of Corinth and Isthmia of ca. (1971). rather than that of the priests and prophets). 700 B. Dietrich. which he postulates. 25 (1921-3). p. Snodgrass.. 11-12. 21. to 35-54).” n. Mylonas.

(1966). Broneer. Müller.. The Buried people. 119) with no particular concern for a faithful rendering of the original (cf. (1964). 184-187. H. 89-91. pp. 31-40 (Tiryns). (1971). 213-215. 57. doubted any religious or architectural continuity. cf. ibid. p. Wace. Harl-Schaller. Mylonas. For that reason. 14. model granaries. pp. p. 48-52 (Tiryns).. that the ornamented terracotta temple models of the eighth century show that the Greeks had already begun to decorate the exterior walls of the temples. O. Desborough. 35. 21. so little remains of the first temple that its exact location and orientation remain unknown. 116. 1968-1972. pp. Wace. Evans. along with his skepticism that the palatial apartment served a religious purpose. pp. Against immediate replacement. in the main court of the palace. pp. 13.” Jahreshefte des österrejchischen archäologischen Instituts. loc. re-utilizing the base of its walls. pp. as some (e. Boardman. 116. 20. preserving its orientation and function. p. Unfortunately. pp. 1. 11. S. “Die archaischen ‘Metopen’aus Mykene. 119-120 (Prosymna). by analogy to Tiryns. cit.178 9. 136-138. tripods. pp. . Mylonas (1957. Broneer. pp. 70. It is possible. 25-26. 1958). The Smyrna wall was “a revelation in that it finds no [contemporary] counterpart on the Greek mainland. Etruscan Painting (tr. 1971). Gallet de Santerre. but equally applicable to the early seventh century temples of the Peloponnese. 143. p. 369. etc. (Snodgrass. pp. 35-36. Snodgrass.. pp. 187. p. and thus aligned E-W. (1971). A Study of the Etruscan World (tr. Snodgrass. (1977). Mylonas. n. 52) suggest. Desborough. Tomlinson. 227 and n. 216.” n. (1972). pp. 16. 139 (Delos). rather than N-S. (1966). “Later Use of the Grave Circles. F. (1971). cit. cf. 14. 67. 343. 225. (1935). Isthmia I (Princeton. and overlay a major cult center of the palace. but it is just as likely that the potters merely painted those clay models as they did other ceramics. Two exceptions are the shrines at Knossos and Kea. E. Robinson. Pallottino. 234. 23.. von Cles-Redden. a model of a subterranean tomb stone (?). 94-116). 187-191. it is at least possible that the temple overlay the throne room of the palace. figs. such as vases. 194. Stanley & S. 12). 32 and cf. 1955). Y. 413 (referring to a mid-ninth century wall in Smyrna in Asia Minor. (loc. inter al. p.” [p. Higgins.” Hesperia. 55. pp. ibid. 10. 187. 76.. Snodgrass. 43-44. M. 439. Snodgrass. For immediate replacement. Woodhouge) (N. (1949). Snodgrass. rather than to the South. p. Robinson. presumably belonging to an altar. (1971). p. ibid. Frickenhaus. 22. 100.. pp. 16. IV. (1967). (1976). stratigraphical and orientational information concerning the temple’s relation to the palace (and of both to the altar). pp. Vermeule. cf. along with a few architectural members of the Archaic temple re-used in the construction of its Hellenistic successor. 18. (1971). 17.. 22.. 24.g. 399. and. (1912). 33. 73-79. 12.g. 395-396.. (Wace. 1930). pp. Broneer. (1972).. Mylonas. p. 398 and cf. (1971). 34.) felt that the archaic temple underlay the later Hellenistic one. n. 12-33. 261-262. in general. p.” n. which have their own 500-year gaps (“A Terracotta Figurine and a Terracotta Head. Vermeule. 228-229. pp. 63-64). idem. 19. 28. 1967. 383-384. cf. 21). K. p. could ascertain the putative religious section. (1964). 1952). 48. pp. Gilbert) (Geneva. 45 (1976). The early excavators found some fragmentary late seventh-century sculptured stone slabs. C. 1972. (1971). 119. and that people returning after 500 years of abandonment to a huge heap of rubble from a complex system of rooms. (1949). facing the altar to the West. H. 15. 50 [1972-3].. Delos primitive et archaique (Paris. 36 (Delos). 369. ibid. cf. pp. pp. 298]). Tiryns III (Augsburg. p. M. Snodgrass. 20. (1976). “Excavations at Corinth: Temple Hill. pp. pp. 278 and Webster. Snodgrass. figurines. 16. p. It is extremely unfortunate that we have forever lost the exact geographical. 123. p. 85-86. inter al.

pp. generally consisted of wood rubble. The Greeks did travel to the western coasts of Asia Minor long before reaching Egypt. 664 B. but those were not the norm. 55. Often in complete contrast to Mycenaean and Archaic Greek architecture. Such walls occasionally had a sheathing of stone ortho-stats. 76-78. Herodotus II. Thompson. Cook. 29. were mercenaries rather than students of art and architecture. J. those of the intervening period seem not to have taken advantage of the situation. 178). their exposed faces retained unworked and rough bosses. l52-l54 anc. (1976). (1956). Cook. H. The first Greeks to re-enter Egypt came from Asia rather than the Peloponnese. the Bible emphasizes that he only used sawn stones to form quarters for the Egyptian princess whom he wed (I Kings 6:7-18. proportion and symmetry among the eighth-century designers of rectilinear buildings (to which one must add their familiarity with the principles of solid geometry). 104) noted the “new” concern for measurement. and large stones which were roughly shaped at the quarry. sawn. . Prof. and arrived no earlier than ca. to which I owe some references to the more recent literature. and soon gave way to the more pervasive use of rubble (Kenyon. pls. (1971). (1971).C. (1976). (1963). along with other considerations. p.” n. 61. p. Lloyd. 32-33. 32-33. but did not dress their faces during construction. pp. p. 234. p. 1975). 178. cf. but the Asiatic walls. Tomlinson. rectangular blocks as a facing. and tourists and “students” later still—cf. Some Levantine structures had roughly rectangular blocks.179 25. 178. Tomlinson. (1976). laid in even courses to form walls only one block thick (cf. 169 and fig. 41-45. 145. like those of Greece itself. 27. A. Robinson. p. with their external faces rectangular and generally sculptured (Frankfort. There were some instances of thick walls with smoothed. Ibid. pp. 14-60. 54 28. p. 30-32. 171 and fig. 192. 31.B. which we shall presently note. 26. “The Tomb of Clytemnestra Revisited. The Levant is thus a far less likely area than is Egypt. Merchants from Greece proper followed sometime thereafter. 225. 36 (a paper as yet unpublished. which. 43. (1971). 1979). 32. Drerup (1969. Broneer. 81. pp. 13 (1900). Introduction (Leiden. Thompson has very graciously supplied me with an advance copy of his article.” Archaeology. but soon to appear in Expedition. pp. He justly observes that the ready access to an abundan supply of poros. (1971).W Graham. sawn blocks. Cook. again in headers and stretchers. for the Greeks to have learned the use of perfectly rectangular. 35-36. Herodotus. but their walls were usually very thick and laid out in headers and stretchers. It is of special interest than the Biblical account of Solomon’s building projects. p. 91. and/or mud brick. would facilitate the move to ashlar work (letter to me of March 29. “Mycenaean Architecture. (1971). 95-96. While that was the case for the Greeks of the thirteenth century and the seventh.. 7:8-12). 30.. 83). we read that he generally used vast quantities of wood. 6364). Book II. which one can shape with relative ease. calls for some explanation). pp. pp.

1200 B. rests directly above. most people pay little attention to. copies the alignment and utilizes some of the features of the megaron of the palace at Tiryns. since there is no evidence of any occupation of the entire upper city. there lies the large central room of the palace complex.(7) some authors have speculated that LH palaces may have survived intact for centuries in some other . A more difficult problem presents itself when we consider that the throne rooms of those thirteenth-century palaces also bear many strking resemblances to the decoration. numerous authorities have sought to establish a direct connection between the eighth-seventh century temples and the 500-year-older palaces. called the “megaron. rather than a temple of the seventh. Pylos and other seats of Mycenaean power.(6) With the case for continuity at Tiryns “problematical”. Thus of the three best preserved LH III palaces at Tiryns. a covered porch. however. which many scholars consider to be a seventh-century temple. As Vermeule has Justly observed. Some authorities regard the later structure as a dwelling of the twelfth century.180 The Design of the Palace Approached through a large. upon which the palace stood. the LH architects made the relatively short journeys to study older plans and/or to design new buildings.” in which the king of Mycenae held court and conducted the affairs of state.C. open court. from the late thirteenth century until the late eighth. some writers therefore conjectured that the palace survived intact during those intervening centuries.(2) yet the LH palace designers obviously drew much inspiration from one another. with those at Pylos and Mycenae almost identical in dimensions and arrangements. and the arrangement of eighth-seventh century temples. Against the no-longer extant south wall the king probably had his(1) throne. and provided the required model for later builders. one assumes that. Pylos and Mycenae. construction techniques.(3) Since all three are roughly contemporary. it must have been uninhabited. Despite the intervening gap. If it did survive the end of the Mycenaean Age. but whose location would then be undetected. Even those who do identify the structure with the temple generally concede that it is highly unlikely that the palace stood intact during the intervening half millennium.(5) whose existence on the site is certain. and since a number of archaeologists have felt that the later building succeeded the throne room immediately after its destruction. in the same wave of conflagrations which destroyed Mycenae. and a vestibule. There are problems with that notion. there is also strong circumstantial evidence that the palace itself perished ca. and which razed the rest of the upper city of Tiryns itself. separated only by geography. the thronerooms all bear distinct similarities to each other. like their counterparts of the classical period. In the middle of its floor is a large circular hearth surrounded by four columns which supported the roof. and retain scant recollection of architectural details.(4) Since a structure.

no doubt. philosophy and literature. that there is very little archaeological evidence for Greek settlement of that region prior to the eighth century—a date in keeping with some literary accounts—(11) and Ionia seems to have been a cultural backwater prior to its seemingly sudden bloom during the seventh century. which played a large part in inaugurating the classical age of Greece. occurring in some cases immediately. mud-brick. They therefore look to Athens and the Ionian coast of Turkey. caught fire or fell victim to barbarians. which have struck numerous scholars as extremely accurate in their intimate knowledge of Mycenaean architecture (a matter to which we shall presently turn). or any part of the city. under such circumstances. at most. but still inclined toward architectural continutiy. one would reasonably expect the old way of life. one can question. During the late Archaic Period Ionia was a thriving center of science. quite possible that such edifices survived in Ionia. some scholars have more recently looked to Athens. or. including artisans and royal families. In such areas. craftsmen and royal families. rather than native Anatolians. to continue without the interruption that characterizes the Peloponnese. There is a native tradition that kings (who permanently dwelled in a apalce) governed the city long after the Dorians conquered the other Mycenaean centers. Unlike the other LH city states of the Peloponnese.(10) The facts are. like the . blamed for the destruction of Mycenaean civilization. which escaped the fate of the Peloponnesian centers. whose very attribution to Greeks. (13) Discouraged by the picture from Ionia. however. single-room dwellings made of pebbles. including artists. for all these reasons.(12) It has produced no evidence of palaces or of large buildings of any kind during the Mycenaean period or the subsequent Dark Age—only small. it seemed. since neither area fell victim to Dorian immigrants. Unlike Ionia. accustomed to dwelling in palaces. Greek tradition maintained that the colonization of Ionia was a result of the Dorian invasion. and presumbaly for keeping alive the memory of Mycenaean civilization which he chronicled. Since his epics contain detailed descriptions of LH palaces.(15) Finally. and both became centers of refuge for Mycenaean Greeks. with its characteristic art. there is no evidence that Athens’ palace. poles and thatch.(8) it further ascribed the foundations of the Ionian settlements to princes who were. Athens had been a sizeable center of Mycenaean civilization. Also. Furthermore. and apparently as late as the eighth or early seventh century. dingy.181 part of the Mycenaean world.(9) and since fourth century Ionian architects constructed buildings reminiscent of LH III palaces. that region has the strongest claim for the honor of producing Homer. unlike practically every other contemporary site. whom many authorities have.(14) which also escaped the Dorian onslaught and immediately received numerous Mycenaean refugees. architecture. there is ample proof of the continuous occupation of the city throughout the Dark Age. who fled their afflicted homelands. customs and institutions (such as palaces). a couple of generations thereafter. we know that the Athenians. and had an LH III palace on its own acropolis. single storey.

residing on the acropolis itself throughout early prehistory. painting—dies out.(19) The tradition of a continuous kingship until the period of temple construction conflicts with an equally firm account that it died out towards the end of the Mycenaean Age. becoming unsatisfactorily conflated. but raises even greater questions. it was well fortified—the more so when. one would expect the retention of Mycenaean civilization. its residents apparently deserted the entire upper city and the end of the Bronze Age. abandoning its Mycenaean characteristics more quickly and more completely than every other region. seen more closely akin to antecedents now placed 500 years earlier. and the tradition of the major arts—architecture.(20) The case for continuous occupation of the palace until its replacement by the archaic temple is almost precisely like that for Tiryns. sculpture. the Athenians ringed the summit with massive stone wall which. etc. dress.(22) and since scholars generally portray the Dark Age as a period of anxiety and fear. neither architecture nor art continued. the one place where one should find continuity of culture is the very place which. What constantly surprises and perplexes archaeologists is that Athens. like Athens escaped the destruction.(21) That abandonment. they followed the same practice as the Dark Age folk at Tiryns .000 years. Vermeule once stated that “without being burned.. erected an archaic temple over the LH III palace—a circumstance which conforms to the Homeric references to one structure replacing its predecessor. during the Mycenaean Period. This seems to be absolutely true” throughout the Greek world. Athens suddenly and inexplicably adopted a material culture and customs which scarcely resemble their immediate predecessors in Athens or their contemporary counterparts elsewhere in Greece. by its very nature.(16) Here. as we noted for Olympia. since. Although people have inhabited Athens without any major interruption for the past 5. While the old ways lingered on in the severely struck Peloponnese. whereas the Athenians seem to have forsaken their former stronghold. not only poses a difficulty for those wishing to extend the duration of the palace’s use. one must wonder why it was precisely then that the people abandoned their bastion and moved to a “relatively unprotected” low-lying area “where there had been no previous Mycenaean buildings.” “Astonishingly”.182 people of Mycenae and Tiryns.”(18) More recently. still stands today. changed most drastically. architecture. several centuries earlier—the two seemingly contradictory accounts. without any obvious reason.. and despite the fact that the settlement was neither invaded nor destroyed. and establishing a sizeable settlement thereon during the Mycenaean Period. at least. whatever befell Athens’ less fortunate neighbors. there is no monuiasntal building. H. and even in places which. in some areas. standard of living. Athens faded away exactly like ore obviously destroyed sites. only people. Since one can find traces of every other period of human activity on the Acropolis from the Neolithic Age until today. burial customs. Robertson likewise concluded that by the end of the Mycenaean Age “in Greece the greatest cities were all devastated.(17) but which in art.

would probably have reduced them to heaps of debris long before five centuries would have transpired. comprised of tremendous amounts of wood. but only in wood. even if only of their contents (e. crumbling clay. whould scale it only to use it for burials.(32) Some suggest that the type may have persited during the intervening period in monumental. Mycenae and Athens. though abandoned.(23) As was true of the graves inside Mycenae’s citadel. but supposedly dug 500 years earlier. They have suggested that if the later architects did not see the palaces while they still remained intact. which has long since vanished. would render them. singly or in any combination. incinerated the rest of its citadel. “an insurance company’s nightmare. then they probably returned to the sites where the palaces had stood five centuries earlier and. which a few of those temples definitely overlay at Tiryns (?). which we do know. in fact.(27) Neither is there any evidence that a new palace or mansion replaced the old palace. its palace still ceased to be occupied after the end of the Bronze Age. inclement seasons or some subsequent fire. snail stones and clay. rot. scholars generally conclude that even though Athens was not invaded or destroyed. termites. using their deserted settlement solely as a place to inter a few of their dead. which have so far eluded discovery.(33) As they do with other phenomena which seem to show 500-year “revivals.” some authors have suggested that the type did survive. and their post holes and . are not similar to the structures of either the thirteenth century or the eighth. one might consider it “extremely unlikely” that people. and even if other palaces still remain to be found at a later date (perhaps in Ionia). and that palace and/or the one at Athena stood intact. that the later Greek architects “revived” the LH III arrangement before they erected temples over the Mycenaean palaces—even before people seem to have returned to the sites of those palaces—.(31) The fact is. rectilinear buildings of stone. liked them. some scholars decided that there must be a direct relationship.(25) Again. discerned the older arrangement and details.183 and Mycenae. one should note that they used the same type of cist tombs on the acropolis as those in the same general area. that the Athenians erected any large-scale structures after the twelfth century and before the late seventh.(26) Because of all those considerations. and decided to reproduce them. after the end of the Mycenaean period..g.(28) Even if Tiryns’ palace miraculously escaped the blaze that.(34) Such hypothetical structures should nevertheless have left at least :some trace. but most scholars reject that notion. who did not live on the acropolis. however. and constructed their first monumental temples at places that had no palaces. but rather look back to buildings 500 years earlier still.”(29) The frequent seismic shocks of the region. because the examples of Dark Age architecture. in the words of one author.(30) Since eighth-seventh century temples still had a ground plan and other artistic and architectural details similar to those of the throne-rooms of Mycenaean palaces. poking through the piles of debris (cement-hard in many cases). nor. pottery). their very style of construction with rather thin walls.(24) especially since they then had a cemetery nearer their homes and in much softer ground.

13 above). and copied the architectural details of LH III thronerooms—all after a 500-year period during which their predecessors made no similar attempts. some authorities have expressed an opinion that.(37) Finally. the eighty-seventh century inhabitant of Mycenae and most of the Greek world decided to erect temples over the heaps of rubble of bygone palaces and religious centers. seem unanimous in considering the correspondences very close in many details. have proposed another explanation. The lack of evidence of large-scale aegaronshaped structures to span the centuries between the thirteenth-century palaces and the eighth-century temples thus seems significant. so that.(38) But even proponents of that notion admit that it is intrinsically “less satisfying” than the other theories which they reject. Additionally. counterparts of the ninth-seventh centuries (p. separated by a 500-year gap. it was their practice to make at least the foundation of stone to support the wall. returned to fresco painting. and to safeguard against rot and erosion. and since one can trace no tradition of similar structures to bridge the gap—yet the eighth-century temples still resemble LH III throne rooms—one is left with two options. and in the same manner as.(36) Since most authorities now consider it highly unlikely that an LH III palace survived intact to inspire eighth-century builders. their builders must have lost all recollection of the Mycenaean palace. not universally accepted and not especially satisfying even to their proponents. solid geometry and ashlar masonry. since those builders reproduced the megaron plan before they returned even to the ruins of the earlier palaces. if not impossible. following a parallel development. the similar arrangement troubled them. however. which precludes a conscious revival or even a direct survival of form. they have suggested that Greek temples simply evolved from similar origins as. but. somehow regained the lost skills of stone cutting. in a land like Greece where massive rock formations. Experts. Nevertheless. to attribute to mere chance. but 500-year-later. As in the case of the built tombs of the Mycenaean Age and their nearly identical.184 wall trenches. in whatever way they try to explain them. some who view all the other alternatives as unproveable. but none has come to light.(35) Faced with those difficulties. field stones and clay are far more common than suitable trees. even if they did erect perishable buildings. . Mycenaean palaces. by the time the canonical megaron returned to Greek architecture in the eighth-century temples. they find them difficult.(39) For some reason(s) not fully understood. engineering. the Greeks have always preferred to use those substances—which do leave traces—to the scarcer commodity. improbable or impossible. The first is to view the similarities as superficial or insignificant or coincidental.

D. p. (1964). Mylonas. 5.. 302. “Greek Settlement in the Eastern Aegean and Asia Minor. p. n. Snodgrass.) feel that the throne was in a separate room to the west of the court. by analogy to the completely preserved LH III palaces. Blegen. 31-32. 373. 1921).g.” n. (1971). Gray. 132-133. 1958). pp. Desborough. I. 15.. Graham. cf. 2. Cf. p. J. The fact is. p. (1960). cf.12. S. 398. pp. pp. C.. p. 5.2 [1975]. p. p. . 183-184).185 References 1. 5 (195). but Mylonas (1972. Hignett. Although modern scholars (e. 430. as Cook’s brother realized (1972. E. for a fuller discussion (first published as Isaacson. since they take no account of the half millennium which supposedly intervened. 13 and “The Palace. 40). 185-186. 52 and fig. Despite the more recent discoveries and literature. while Coldstream (1968. pp. (1972.C. and below. 183-154) more reasonably judge them to belong to the indigenous population. p. cf. 329. section Tiryns. al. p. pp. they follow the same trend as other classical references which we have noted and shall note.P. Mycenae Guide [Meriden.. 40. C. Snodgrass.” Archaeological Reports for 1959-1960. Cook. 12 4. Webster.63 and fig.. 11.g. 27. Korakou (New York. above “The Religious Center of Mycenae. Therefore the statement by the seventh-century Ionian poet Mimnermus that “we” came from Neleid Pylos to Colophon. Lorimer. he reconstructs the throne room in the megaron. pp. (1900). pp. Most instructive in that regard are the instance of Protogeometric pottery found in native Anatolian graves (Desborough. [1975]. [1974]). that there is no compelling evidence for actual Greek colonization prior to the eighth century. the far larger quantities of LH III A-3 pottery found in Cyprus and sixth-century Athenian ware found in Etruria). pp. pp. the situation is still closest to Whitman’s assessment—viz. Snodgrass. 369-370. pp. where Cook interpreted the vast quantity of “Grey Ware” ceramics as belonging to Greek settlers (ibid. 322-323. pp.M.. 186.” n. (1970). 8) regard both accounts as highly compressed. 11 above. G. 111-112.. 7. 12.4) of the Ionian migration with the late eighth century colonization of Sicily and Italy take on a new interest. p.. 785). pp.g.” Classical Quarterly N. C. Desborough. II. 184) and the situation at Smyrna. H. Notopoulos. 8. (1971). 338-339) and Desborough (ibid.” CAH3 11.g. Cook conceded that most early evidence seemed to indicate an eighth-century date. 16-21) made that assessment over twenty years ago. Whitman (1958. A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford.. 688 B. Cf.. 1963). The southeastern portion of the room has long since collapsed down the steep scarp of the ravine. Cf.g. 11) that the amount tenth-century material is rather meager to represent the major colonization which tradition attests.. p. (1950). The Greeks in Ionia and the East (New York. For the question of who the inhabitants then were. 780. above “The Entrance to the Citadel. 14. C. 785) and echoed by others (e. which seem to indicate a centuries-later assignment for many events currently dated according to Egyptian chronology. 183. 49-51. below. Hope-Simpson-Lazenby. 13. (1971). Besides those early imports need not indicate a Greek settlement as opposed to being trade goods sent to the natives (cf.4) and Thucydides’ pairing (1. pp. (1972). p. an assessment oft-repeated by Cook (e. n. Whitman. pp. 16. 6. Vermeule. n. 13. but stated that new discoveries pushed the event back into the tenth century B. loc.l. Conn. pp. p. 30-31) believes that to be a guest room. Wace et. J. n.M.) (quotation in Strabo XIV. pls. 3.” n. and then sacked Smyrna (ca. Ibid. Snodgrass. 148. 11 below. ns. 127. Kirl. 10. 1971]. 9. (“Greek Archaeology in Western Asia Minor. 413. 262. (1966). ibid. 38-46. The Songs of Homer (Cambridge. “Houses in the Odyssey. 780.. (1971).C. 2. 1972. pp. Some (e. cit. 1962).

pp. pp. (1939). pp. 76-79. Cf. Snodgrass. sought to date them both to the Mycenaean Age. pp. 1972. 5-6 above. 454-455 and idem. 1972. 1939).2. Vermeule. Blegen. it has seemed appropriate to mention some of its problems not directly related to Mycenae’s palace. Iden. 26. p. pp. Skeat. 29. 316. pp. 38-46. 135-150. (1972). p. cf. 57. O. Demargne. (1958). the next evidence of architecture and cult activity on the acropolis belongs to the seventh century (Travlos and Tomlinson).” n. 32-33. 363. Snodgrass.G. p.g. For MH graves on the acropolis. The Athenian Agora XIII.” AJA 52 (1948). 423. 31-40. Padgug. pp. championing either the Mycenaean Age or the ninth-seventh centuries (for useful. above “Dark Age Burials. pp. 600 years (during which time the Greeks built nothing comparable) between the two similar fortification systems—a situation which we shall encounter again regarding the Cyclopean bridge at Mycenae (ns. 18-19. (1971). Broneer. 427-428. 55. 18. n.186 16.A. but it is of interest that those ceramic finds come from the fountain. ns. E. 143. Robertson. where they lay in the same “well defined” deposit as Mycenaean ware (W. 132-133. pp. 23. 426). p. 179. 134-135. Mylonas. p. 114. pp. 16-17. 70 [1966]. ns. 416-417. pp. . we shall return to it when considering other sites at the end of this treatise. 64. 24. 20. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Princeton. n. 30. 17. 154-155. (1971). pp. 13 [1972]. 21 above. 293. Desborough. (1960). 30-34 and n. (1971). Travlos. 17. 1971). (1964). esp. Mass. 64. pp. (1971). 22. 145-151. Cf. (1971). R. (1921).. 202. cf. and from the area of the Parthenon. 316. 177) showed that the Athenian wall did belong to the Mycenaean Age. II. decided to downdate the Pelargikon accordingly. 3U-316. pp. 326-329. 123. 52-53. 107. 2. palace) of Erechtheus to Il. Snodgrass. Carpenter (in Carpenter and A. 31. 21. T. Desborough. Snodgrass. pp. (1966). 64-67. 116-117 for the “striking” lack of continuity between thirteenth and eighth century remains). Because Athens looms so large in every discussion of post-Mycenaean Greece. Desborough. Broneer (1939). respectively. Cf. J. 7880. 67. Tomlinson. cf. (1976). 1971). 28. 399). p. “What Happened at Athens. 1936]. 289. L. Dinsmoor. fig. S. The Final Collapse of Santorini (Thera) (Götteborg. who also saw the resemblance— but could not assign the latter fortification earlier than the seventh century. 287. (1975). pp. pure Mycenaean war (Broneer. (1968). pp. 154-155. Bon. After the twelfth-century abandonment. Immerwahr. and lay beneath. pp.” AJA 38 (1934). though by no means exhaustive summaries of each case. p. “The Calaurian Amphictiony. 106-111. 64. Desborough. (1964). Cp. (1972). R. Ibid. pp. 62-63. “Eleusis and the Union of Attica. 2. where Athena enters the house (sc. 1). pp. Od. VII. 27. cf. pp. 1971).. 1939). p. 13. Webster. p. For the similarity of the earliest post-Mycenaean graves to their pre-Mycenaean counterparts. 81-82. Two other Athenian traditions regarding the unification of Attica and Athens’ participation in a religio-political league on the island of Calauria (Poros) have similarly split modern scholars into two opposing camps. Pomerance. 25. 526-551 where Erechtheus was placed in her temple. Immaerwahr. Desborough. p. who noted the similarity of that wall (The Pelargikon) to the earliest defences of Acrocorinth. 113-122. Kelly. “The Date of the Older Parthenon. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London. 49. 19. 30 that now one must interpose an interval of ca. 14.” GRBS. Corinth III. (1962). and T. 269-271. 71. U3-153. where they were mixed with. The earliest post-Mycenaean pottery belongs to the ninth-eighth centuries (Coldstream. below). Scholars.” AJA. The Defences of Acrocorinth and the lower Town [Cambridge. 50-81. pp. The Dorians in Archaeology (London. p. (1971). Hignett. (1972). p. Travlos.

loc. Tomlinson. pp. ibid. Tomlinson. Tomlinson. 20-22. Ath. 5 and n. G. 28. idem.. 179-180.187 31. 35. 35. H. 58. Mitt. Cf. 44 (1919). though continuity seems unlikely after a gap of centuries. pp. it still offers “an attractive hypothesis. (1976). pp. 95 and n. 409-412. (1950). “The Religious Center of Mycenae. 20-22 that. above “The Religious Center of Mycenae. 38. (1950). 39. Dinsmoor.” n. pp. p. “Shadowy Megara. 37. 57-58. p.. pp. pp. 6-7. 35 above. Cf.” JHS 97 (1977). 51-52. Rodenwaldt. p. 82.” . 2. 34. 36.. 34 (1919).” JdI. 179-180. “Mykenische Studien I. Mylonas. 32. (1919).” ns. (1976). 15. (1971). Plommer. Snodgrass. 33.g. E. p. 28. Cf. 422-424. cit. 32. Dinsmoor. “Zur Entstehung der Monumentalen Architektur in Griechenland. Rodenwaldt. Cf. pp.

188 FURTHER EVIDENCE .

along with the entire (?) citadel. above: 13). Tiryns. in fact. sent a contingent of men and ships to help regain Helen from the Trojans. and monumental propylaea were not to re-appear until the archaic period. When propylaea do “return. the first to excavate at Mycenae. Tiryns.189 Tiryns Travelling only a short distance southeast of Mycenae we arrive at another Late Helladic center. one reaches the palace (Fig. Some scholars are quite struck by the re-emergence of a model extinct for 700 years. Before reaching Tiryns’ palace. when Schliemann.C. 1200 B. until Schliemann’s excavations? After passing through the second propylon at Tiryns. while its fortifications. the one-eyed Cyclopes.” however. were attributed to the mythical giants. below: 11 and 12). built in the Late Helladic period. They. under the leadership of Odysseus’ friend Diomedes.1 How could the later Greeks have discerned the plan of the Tiryns gates if they had been buried beneath rubble for those 700 years. For centuries thereafter there is no evidence for monumental architecture in Greece. were destroyed in a violent conflagration dated ca. constructed of tremendous stones. at the Aphaia temple on the island of Aegina and on the Athenian acropolis. they are said to copy the plan of the Tiryns gates. above: 14). Excavation of the site began in 1884. Legend connected the Bronze Age hero Herakles with the site. turned his attention to Tiryns. one must first pass through two monumental gate structures (propylaea) (Fig. The German Archaeological Institute in a number of prolonged campaigns has laid bare much more of the site and continues the work even today. then crossing a courtyard (Fig. “Along one side of the .

or did people return to Tiryns 500600 years after it was destroyed.5 If the Doric altars are “a direct descendant. . “invented” “in about the middle of the seventh century” B. For the use of the triglyph and metope scheme on temples. points to at least as long a period of development before its appearance in stone at the end of the seventh century”. if the idea was invented afresh in the 7th century. if 600 years really separate the two forms. as this arrangement of Doric-like frieze surmounting Doriclike columns is set centuries before the Doric order was “invented” in the 7th century. it is highly improbable. “remained without variation for over four centuries” in altars and temple architecture? This fact. inlaid with blue glass paste” forming “two elongated half-rosettes with inner patterns. how does one explain the “very striking” similarity of 7th-century altars to a 13th-century bench? On the other hand. as is the premise of the revised chronology.” The blocks’ “resemblance to Doric triglyphs and metopes is very striking”.C. the chronological gap is hard to explain.11 Among these structures is the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae. The position of the triglyph scheme above the columns (Fig. “It is not impossible that the two forms have some real historical connexion”.8 which. including triglyph and metope friezes. after its re-invention.” It has been claimed that the Tiryns bench served as the model for triglyph altars. some 600 years.3 One source sees the Doric triglyph altars as “a direct descendant” of this ritual stone bench at Tiryns.6 Were such bench-altars made continuously between 1200 and 600 but only in perishable material. . use. “it is argued. While this might remind one somewhat of a Doric temple facade.2 The bench formed by these blocks is “strikingly close to the triglyph and metope pattern of the later Doric order of architecture”.” “how is it that we have no trace of the motif during the Dark Ages?”. and then decide to copy the stone bench of the palace?7 If there is no direct descent. for which “there is at present no evidence to show that the Doric frieze was derived from this ancient scheme” as found at Tiryns. a number of Bronze Age buildings and depictions of buildings with the triglyph and rosette frieze higher up are cited as prototypes.10 While not impossible.4 while another author has the entire Doric order. how does one explain a decorative device with no functional nature or origin.190 porch of the large megaron [the throne room and perhaps cult center of the palace] at Tiryns was found a curious series of seven interlocking blocks of alabaster . the similarity of the friezes is only natural and ceases to be “very striking. no copying of an extinct model. see. .9 Yet it is precisely the period before its appearance in stone. 4) is particularly notable. If 600 years did not transpire.

is not new.17 The palace of Tiryns has special significance for the Homericists as well. Did the palace on the citadel miraculously escape the conflagration? Many archaeologists have noted and been struck by the fact that the ground plan of a Mycenaean palace (especially the throne room or “megaron” ) is essentially the same as that for 8th-century and later temples.12 This could be explained very easily if there was continuity between the buildings of the 13th century and those of the 8th or 7th. with one end rounded). Other archaeologists and Homericists disagree. The upper town was gutted by a fire dated ca. rather than monumental. or unless a ruined palace was cleared and its ground plan was then studied and copied. . could Homer have been influenced by Bronze Age palaces when he describes them in his Odyssey” . or naos.14 Now. that known as Late Helladic III.. “Mycenaean monuments . are we to explain the typical plan of the classical temple-with the two columns of the porch in line with the end walls and with the main shrine.19 “No better succinct description could be given of the restored palace of Tiryns” than is found in Homer’s Odyssey. Such a degree of coincidence can hardly be fortuitous. Now that Homer is assigned to the late 8th century while the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces is put in the late 13th. .16 unless some Mycenaean palace managed to survive intact until that time. the 13th-century palace plans must have been long forgotten.C. will thus play no role” in any attempt to study the architecture that Homer actually knew. the “post-Mycenaean” apsidal house seems to be a 500-year throwback to Middle Helladic buildings. and that is the period within which the action of the Odyssey is supposed to fall. The latter shape. They believe that Homer must have been familiar with at least one Mycenaean palace.18 So says one archaeologist. “How. however. It is in the context of these two possibilities that Tiryns’ palace becomes so important for those desiring to connect 13th-century palaces with 8th-7th-century temples. Since Homer is removed by 500 years from the palaces he described. we find oval-shaped huts and apsidal buildings (i.191 We now come to a very thorny problem at Tiryns. “Buildings combining these characteristics [enumerated by Homer] are known in Greece at one period and one only.13 The change was quite abrupt. Just as the 8th-century temple seems to be a 500-year throw-back to Mycenaean palaces. but by the accepted scheme there is none.15 When the 8th-7th-century temples were built. for example. and its central statue base—except as a carryover of the plan of the Mycenaean megaron?”. Immediately after the expiration of the Mycenaean period the “new” architecture displays an “essential discontinuity with Mycenaean architecture”. rectilinear structures.e. and it is . 1200 B.

was chosen. Since the temple seemed to have been built almost immediately after the palace perished in flames. they felt compelled to accept this view. since the temple obviously followed immediately after the fire that razed the palace.22 It was thus reasonable to assume that an 8th or 7th-century temple existed on the citadel. the smaller structure was built by men intimately familiar with the palace when it stood. to him. He agreed that immediately after the palace burned down. The conclusions of the excavators were challenged by Carl Blegen.21 How can the palace at Tiryns help the Homeric archaeologists with their “extreme difficulty” of accounting for 13th-century details known so intimately by an 8thcentury poet? How does it make the connection less “enigmatic”? How can it help the student of Greek architecture with his equally difficult problem of bridging the 500 years between Mycenaean Age palaces and 8th-century temples? On the acropolis of Tiryns a large deposit of 8th-5th-century pottery and cult objects and 7th-century architectural fragments was unearthed.20 “How was the knowledge of the LH III type of palace preserved?”.24 but there was only one fire.23 If the palace of Tiryns stood 500 years longer than the other Bronze Age palaces. Nevertheless. It was not only difficult for the excavators to imagine that the palace stood nearly half a millennium without alteration. but astonishing (“erstaunlich” ) to think that the Mycenaean elements of the palace (architectural. not a 7th-century temple.C.. it was decided that the palace miraculously escaped the conflagration of 1200 B. however enigmatic. however. and stratigraphical) remained unchanged and visible to people 500 years later. He too found it difficult and astonishing to . artistic. blind us to the extreme difficulty of accounting for the knowledge which the poet apparently possessed of architecture of the LH III type”. and the builders were familiar with the palatial ground plan. on the citadel and remained visible to 8th-century Greeks. in fact the only possible spot. and continued to stand until ca. The 8th-century temple builders and Homer were familiar with a 13th-century palace. the smaller megaron-structure represents the remains of a 12th-century building. then the architectural and Homeric problems are solved. and it destroyed the palace with the rest of the citadel. 750 B. identified as the Greek temple. Thus. Above the megaron of the Mycenaean palace lay the walls of a somewhat smaller and less well-built structure.192 now generally agreed that some connexion. A suitable spot. when it perished to a second fire on the citadel. ca. if it survived the fire of 1200 B. In support of his contention was the vast quantity of Mycenaean pottery around the site.C.” “The extent to which the action of the Odyssey can be adapted to the stage of Tiryns must not. Above its ruins the temple was then erected. exists between the house of Odysseus and the Late Mycenaean palace. 1200.C.

Something much more than an archaeological zeal on the part of the . they were produced on the wheel “in the old technique” the Mycenaeans had used 500 years earlier.C. Like so many other 7th-century votive terracottas. has never been satisfactorily answered. Both of the other schools of thought regarded it as a fact that the smaller structure was built immediately after the palace burned-500 years did not elapse between the destruction of the palace and the construction of its successor. it neglects one very important item. A temple could then be erected on that spot after a lapse of ca.26 To which group should we assign it? What should one do? For the sake of helping the Homericists and students of architecture. While this view eliminates many problems and explains much of the evidence. thus pleasing the Homericists and architecture students. Those clearing the debris would see the ground plan of the destroyed palace.25 While this interpretation explains away many 500year difficulties. Here again we find a difficulty. a rectangular building with a single row of interior columns. 500 years. have the site abandoned. If this building. where was the 7th-century temple? If the palace did not stand an extra 500 years. it will remain “problematical”27 and defy explanation.29 Such votives “kept reappearing spontaneously in widely separated parts of the country without any direct continuity that can be traced among the votive statuettes themselves. 28 Even the objects from the temple cult. but partially displeasing both groups? This question has plagued Aegean scholars for over 50 years. overlook the 8th-5th-cetury finds and see no temple here at all. Perhaps the architectural form of the later structure will settle the dispute over its date—12th century or 7th.193 believe that the palace survived intact an extra 500 years. and as long as 500 “ghost years” exist. while of certain date. Its ground plan. does one presume that the palace stood intact an extra 500 years? Does one date the later structure to the 12th century. But these are stratigraphical problems. since the wooden beams within the walls would have rotted away long before. are “problematical. does one have a 500year-later rebuilding on an ancient site. partially pleasing.. which followed immediately after the fire that destroyed the palace. No intermediate examples seem to exist to connect these two groups. then rediscovered and cleared in the 8th or 7th century. thus destroying the one hope of the Homericists and architectural historians? As a compromise. can be found in a few structures of the 14th-12th centuries or in a long list of 8th-6th-century buildings. it leaves the problem of the 8th-7th-century votive deposits and 7th-century architectural fragments. belonged to the 12th century.C.” Among these were terracotta figurines and grotesque masks of the 7th century B. Others also reject it as impossible. so he rejected the notion. how can it help with the problem of the 8th-century temples copying Mycenaean palaces and with Homer’s knowledge? A third solution is to have the palace destroyed in the great fire of 1200 B.

also believed in an early constructional origin. and Tiryns. 45. traces of an earlier Propylon have been found.30 what is left for us? At Tiryns we have run into 500-700-year problems with triglyphs. 19 and Cook’s earlier article. M. we will arrive at Troy. like the “13th-century” kings of Mycenae. A. pp. Beneath the Mnesiclean Propylaea of Athens. L. (Groningen: 1970. 2-3) postulated that the stone frieze represented original wooden members. J. Tsountas and Manatt. p. n. Robertson. et al. 124.C. 6. pp. W. “Die mit dem Tempel gleichzeitig oder später entstandenen Bauten” in A.C. n. 3. Cook. This building is variously dated between 520 and 480 B. 39 for lack of propylaea between those of Tiryns and those of late archaic date.” p.” pp. 7. p.. 202. 124. Both Bowen. and p. “A Note on the Origin of the Triglyphs. 11.” p. “Origin of Triglyphs. Greek and Roman Architecture. The fire that destroyed the acropolis of Tiryns is of approximately the same date as the great fire that destroyed much of Mycenae. 10. Greek and Roman Architecture. M. Schliemann. and also reject the hypothesis that the type was preserved for centuries only in perishables now lost to us. . Furtwängler. 113. Voigtländer. The Mycenaean Age. p. Pylos. 17. 94. 124-25.” pp. The Architecture of Ancient Greece. A. Bowen. 45. pp. S. D. both similarities to and differences with 7th-century friezes are easy to explain. McDonald. Tiryns (New York: 1885). 83 for the date of the Aegina propylon. See also p. Robertson. Bowen. with propylaea. H. Book IV.C. 191. McDonald.” p.” ABSA 45 (1950). M. with Homer and 8th-century temple plans. p.) 2. Mnesicles (Copenhagen: 1957). See E. 9. 4. If the bench was used until the 8th century. p. Bundgaard. 424. “Origin of Triglyphs. 32. 121-22. pp. 197. “The Archetypal Doric Temple. Now let us travel across the Aegean Sea. L. 84 for its close similarity to those at Tiryns. including its palace.. If we accept the hypothesis that Tiryns’ palace was destroyed then. Progress into the Past. give good reasons for rejecting this notion. 30. 194. 322. with the architecture and archaeology of the palace. Schliemann’s Excavations. We have also seen problems that crop up if we refuse to bring down the date that far. Schuchardt. and. “Origin of Triglyphs. “Origin of Triglyphs. Robertson. that the palaces of Mycenae and Tiryns burned down at about the same time). p. pp. (See J. p. Bowen. 50-52. W. Bowen. Aegina: Das Heiligtum der Aphaia (Munich: 1906). 113-14. Dinsmoor. 67. S. and Cook. 10. R. Robertson.194 faithful needs to be invoked to explain this!” If we reject continuity. Progress into the Past (New York: 1967). 21. “Origin of Triglyphs. Greek and Roman Architecture. 5. Ibid. 29. and with the temple votives. Tiryns (Athens: 1972).” pp. “Some Observations on the Origin of Triglyphs. 232. References 1.. Greek and Roman Architecture. 32. Boersma. M. reject imitation of extinct models. not 500 years later (i. 8. 18. L. p. p. what was that time? We have seen arguments for making it the 8th or 7th century B. 105. 19. 109.e. p. The Roman author Vitruvius (De Architectura. Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.”ABSA 56(1951): 52.. R. Fiechter. Ibid.

the archaeology of which we will soon examine. 15.” Ath. Progress into the Past. 2. 27. Rodenwaldt. Ibid. p. 95. “Origin of Triglyphs. 55 and fig. were alypical in the Late Helladic period. 408-10. (Athens: 1934). The Architecture of Ancient Greece. Since Velikovsky has released his chapter on Tiryns (Pensée [Winter. and an abrupt change with a 500-year throw-back is not only true of “post-Mycenaean” architecture.” p. “Griechische Architektur zur Zeit Homers. Führer durch Tiryns. but by no . 1973-74].” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1964): 180: “Mykenische Denkmaler werden also irn Gegensatz zur Homerinterpretation keine Rolle spielen. Ibid. 277). The Dark Age of Greece. I have left out much detail in order not to repeat his points. L. 82: A. The Mycenaean Age.. p. p.” an appendix to Korakou (New York: 1921). 114. McDonald. 122-23. 77. Drerup. He incorrectly dates the Korakou example to Middle Helladic times (see Blegen. 17. He admits. (To this one should add an LH III example from Attica. p. G. (S. 28. p. G. Griechische Baukunst. 15. ibid. Drerup. As is so often the case. “Zur Entstehung der Monumentalen Architektur in Griechenland. 89. p.” Jahrhuch (of the German Archaeological Institute) 34 (1919): 95 and n. Supplement 7 (1940). 44 (1919): 179-180. 223-24. and intend to show that essential discontinuity. Drerup. pp. For a brief list of finds see G. 24. Mitt. Rodenwaldt.” pp.. Griechische Baukunst.” p. 14. His bibliography is quite extensive. “Mykenische I.. 25. p. 123. by P. pp. Greek and Roman Architecture. Aghios Kosmas [Princeton: 1959]. 45-46). G. cites some examples of the co-existence of rectilinear. Sinos.” Tiryns I (Athens: 1912). 89 26. p. 22. Korakou. Drerup. pp. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. p. D. The Dark Age of Greece. 132. 75-84. published posthumously). p. 398. In addition to Velikovsky’s article. C. 23. Tsountas and Manatt. 58. “Origin of Triglyphs. Robinson. however. Dinsmoor. 17-18. 369.. p. 47-49. 369. “The So-called Temple of Hera at Tiryns. Mylonas. 0. 109-16. Drerup himself pointedly abstained from giving his own opinion. 18. The Architecture of Ancient Greece. A. G. “Die Hera von Tiryns. Usborne (New York: 1971.) A few apsidal houses do seem to have been built during the Late Helladic period but they were in vogue only during the Middle Helladic and “post-Mycenaean” times.) Bowen rightly suspects the 9th-century date assigned to the Artemis Orthia temple at Sparta (see Snodgrass. See G. Drerup. Blegen. 89 for a succinct statement of the case and the opposing views. and C. 407. p. pp. Ibid. p. Schweitzer. Greek Geometric 224. p. p. Mylonas. but is also the case with the contemporary graves and the pottery. 235. n. 2. Snodgrass. M. 322: B. The Architecture of Ancient Greece. ” 19. p. Griechische Baukunst. A. and oval structures in the Middle. that there is no example of a megaron between Mycenaean times and the later temples. pp. 423-24. pp. pp. Robertson. M. Göttingen: 1969). and the structure at Tiryns. “Mykenische Studien I. 35 f. 80-83. See also H. the reader is referred to H. trans. Rodenwaldt. Snodgrass. apsidal. 133). Greek Geometric Art. Snodgrass. and Dark Ages. Frickenhaus. 77. 21: Bowen. “House T. M. 16. Late Bronze. Griechische Baukunst in geomelrisciter Zeit (Archaeologia Homerica II. Griechische Baukunst. The only other Bronze Age examples he gives are a house from the Vlth level at Troy. p. pp. 49. “Hails” in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyclopädie. more recently see H. 87-90. 21. The Dark Age of Greece. and do not seem plentiful enough to span the time to connect the two peak periods. 132-33. Lorimer. 2nd ed. 13. H. The most often-cited example is that at Thermon where the date is in dispute. Drerup. The Dark Age of Greece. in Die vorklassischen Hausformen in der Ägäis [Mainz: 1971]. Dinsmoor. pp. 36: Schweitzer.195 12. See also Dinsmoor. H.” p. Karo. p. about 500 years are at stake. Elsewhere I will treat this case. Bowen. 20. 58.

Rodenwaldt. and rightly rejected. Since they continued to make pottery on the wheel. Snodgrass (The Dark Age of Greece. 395-96) and others (ibid. rather than carving them from wood. 17. “Greek Votive Statuettes. that the connection between Mycenaean palatial architecture and 8thcentury temples was to be found in monumental megaron-shaped wooden temples (G. p.C.196 means exhaustive. . n. 439. a sanctuary—stood until ca. 30. Ibid.. 36) reject this 400-year-long continuity. and used stone during that period is not adequately explained. as did some for connecting Linear B and the Phoenician alphabet.. 21.e. they could quite easily fashion figurines in that way. 179 f. and that the sanctuary was then converted into a Greek temple. A similar situation exists with two Mycenaean edifices on the island of Delos.” p. pp. made metal objects. Nicholls. Likewise it had been proposed. 700 B. wooden) models to fill the gap here. Nicholls seeks perishable (i.. as did Bowen for similarities of Doric triglyphs to Mycenaean friezes. when we know that they still fired clay. 29. R. The lack of wheel-made terracotta votives to span those 500 years requires another explanation. The excavator claims that both of these—one. “Zur Entstehung.. V.). Why the Greeks should have used perishables exclusively during the Dark Age to connect similar non-perishable items separated by 500 years. p.” p.

Just as at Mycenae and Tiryns. until the strategem of the wooden horse gave the Greeks access to the citadel. is the mythical account.C. immortalized in Homer’s epics. It is a simple task to show that the Greek calculations are of no worth and that the Greeks themselves made the Trojan War contemporaneous with many events that we now know to be of the 8th century B. the Late Bronze Age Greeks mounted a massive campaign. When was that war fought? The canonical Greek calculation was 1193/2-1184/3 B.7 We have already seen that cults to the Greek leaders of that war do not seem to have sprung up until then. Eratosthenes of Alexandria.4 The archaeologists also have a date for that war. That in turn is based solely on Egyptian chronology. 1260 and 1200 B. if the Egyptian scheme is off. the first large-scale excavation of the site was undertaken by Heinrich Schliemann in the 1870’s-1890. This number was arrived at by the 3rd-century B. marks the Greek destruction of Troy. The Homeric problem and mythical matters relating to the war will await discussion until another time. Approximately 1200 troop-carrying vessels1 were launched. Ctesias. ranging sometime between ca. and whether the stratigraphy and other archaeological considerations support a 13th-century date for the great war. Elsewhere I will show this in some detail.197 Troy The Trojan War was probably the single most significant event of the Mycenaean Age.C. slaughtering many inhabitants and enslaving all survivors who did not flee. which. chronographer.C. who apparently relied on the calculations of Ctesias and on Manetho’s Egyptian kinglists. is today viewed as “an amusing liar”2 and “an ancient red herring”.3 Manetho’s lists are the basis for modern calculations for Egyptian chronology. It is conceded that no artistic representations of any event connected with the Trojan War appear before the 8th century B.C.5 This date is assigned to a conflagration layer (stratum Vila) at the site of Hissarlik in Northwestern Turkey. For the sake of the beautiful Helen.8 In our attempt to resolve this dilemma. Only the archaeological problems will here concern us.6 Thus. a late 5th-century author. they utterly destroyed it. This. at least. Wilhelm . but Homer was almost universally regarded by the ancients as composing his epics very shortly after Troy’s fall. in the excavator’s opinion. The tale. The date depends on the time of the Mycenaean pottery found in this layer. is familiar to us moderns even millennia later. They are convincingly challenged by Velikovsky. both the Greek calculations and the archaeological date must be changed.C. and a war raged around the besieged city of Troy for 10 years. Homer is invoked to explain both these and many other phenomena. His collaborator. Once inside the city. and to avenge her husband’s indignation at her kidnapping. we shall examine the archaeological findings from Hissarlik to see why they were assigned an early date.

Since the end of Troy VI is put at ca. yet. At a tell such as Hissarlik one would expect a layer of wash and/or humus to mark this 400-year abandonment. were allies of Troy during its siege. to believe that Troy lay ‘virtually unoccupied’ for this long period of time”. assigned to ca. VII b2. published in final form in the 1950’s. should be centuries earlier.” “There is nothing at Troy to fill this huge lacuna. making them invisible in the 8th century. abandon the town now? Was there another sack of the city.. copied the architectural style of the fortifications of Troy VI when they built their great gate at Gordion. Between the 7th and 8th strata of Hissarlik. 10 The end of the sixth layer of Troy is dated by the presence of Mycenaean pottery. we are asked. it would be only natural. of necessity.14 Why should people who tenaciously remained on the site for 2000 years. in fact. in turn. still saw close similarities and was hard pressed to explain them.C. we would hardly object to an abandonment after the Greek sack of that city. destroyed in the great earthquake that leveled the site. Nine major habitation levels. who. surely not in vain. its walls must have been buried by 500 years of debris.C.C. despite fires.12 There is none. is of the same type as buildings beginning in the 8th century B. Recalling the legend of Troy. profound and prolonged for 400 years. and is. the 8th-century Phrygians.11 Why are we asked to believe this? The eighth settlement began ca. The seventh.13 But the settlement said to mark the Trojan War is VIIa. but there was never yet a chapter left wholly blank. however. this time more devastating than the earlier destruction by the Greeks. lost forever to human memory?15 . The excavator of Gordion. For 2000 years men had left traces of their living there. receives its place in time from Egyptian chronology. ranging from the Early Bronze Age (stratum 1) to Roman times (stratum IX) were distinguished. 1300 B. Their findings. continued the work after Schliemann’s death in 1890. during which the site was “a ghost-town in the gloom of the Dark Ages of the ancient world. earthquakes and all-out war. which. yearly excavation of the site was undertaken by an expedition from the University of Cincinnati. faced with this 500-year problem and no intermediate examples. As was pointed out in my earlier paper. it is said that 400 years transpired. unlike its predecessor. according to Homer.9 A house of Troy VI. provide the principal scientific data about the site. Now at last there is silence.. 1300 B.198 Dörpfeld. which. some chapters in the story were brief and obscure. of which only levels VI-VIII will concern us. attested in ancient sources. after a supposed break of centuries during which no similar houses are known.C. and we are here dealing with the second sub-stratum above this. contained Mycenaean pottery. From 1932-1938. 700 B.

16 If there is no sterile layer marking the desertion and no obvious cause for such action.21 What did the modern excavators find? After completing seven seasons of excavation at Troy. we find that it was not known what caused the end of stratum VII b2.199 Let us examine this 400-year gap in some detail. but they hesitated on this point. as they acknowledged. even in their official publication.20 These were early excavators and could be forgiven for their opinions as they did not know any better.17 If. Schmidt noted obvious Greek wares in level VIII.18 With the results of over 20 years of excavations before him and an additional 8 years to reflect on matters. while Troy VI and VII contained Mycenaean pottery. and. more interested in stratigraphy and architecture than in pottery. saw no break between layers VII and VIII. we are certainly justified in asking if the site really was abandoned.C.19 Dörpfeld assigned the task of analyzing the pottery from all levels of the site to Hubert Schmidt. Egyptian chronology had not yet established firm absolute dates for Mycenaean pottery. the excavators were so impressed by certain facts relating to the mound itself that they left open the possibility that there was no gap. we reduce the age of Mycenaean pottery by centuries. and especially after Mycenaean pottery dates became more firmly entrenched. such a revision fits the circumstances of the two layers. treated Troy VII and VIII as a single unit. for those accepting the old chronology.22 After several more years had elapsed. If level VIII immediately overlay level VII. why could it not have begun immediately after the end of VII? The answer is that Troy VIII began in the early 7th century B. by redating Egyptian chronology. to study the pottery more carefully. could Troy VIII have followed immediately after Troy VII without any gap? Surprisingly.23 it was realized that a gap of centuries should exist between the two layers. Their reasons are interesting. Was the end of settlement VII b2 marked by a destruction layer so intense that abandonment could be rationalized? Reading the official publication of the most recent excavation. in some cases.C.. and. . In 1893 Dörpfeld. he still had Troy VIII follow immediately after Troy VII. the chief archaeologist of the Cincinnati expedition of the 1930’s. noted the presence in Troy VII of the 7th-century pottery characteristic of Troy VIII. rather than 500 years earlier. he still put this layer at ca. Noting Mycenaean imports in Troy VII. Between VII and VIII “some four centuries must have elapsed” (emphasis added). Carl Blegen.24 By the accepted chronology there had to be a lacuna. the great German excavator of Troy. at times. He nevertheless placed VIII immediately after VII. while the material from layer VII seemed to represent a different culture. could not differentiate between the two phases. perhaps. allowing additional time to reflect on the dig. 1000-700 B. Nevertheless. marking a Greek colonization.

however. contamination had somehow been effected and brought about the intrusion of the later wares into strata of Troy VII b”.32 After all the digging by Schliemann. in spite of our efforts to isolate and certify the deposits we examined. 8th. one house seemed to show continuity between the end of layer VII and the time of VIII. or even 9th-century B. “presents a perplexing and still unexplained problem”. unless contamination occurred.30 “The only explanation we can find is to suppose that.C.C.C.29 in sub-strata of Troy VII that seemed to be undisturbed. and Blegen at Hissarlik.28 There was finally. their finds of “12th-century” pottery just beneath or mixed in with 7th-century strata. their detection of continuity of culture. their failure..e. “There was apparently no contamination from disturbance or later intrusions. beginning perhaps ca. The sherd beneath those two buildings is seen as part of a body of material found from Palestine to Macedonia34 which.C.36 In time these “perplexing and still unexplained” problems were brushed aside. and reservations about a 400-year gap were abandoned. as if no one had left and only a few years had passed. 900 B. sherds were found of the imported Greek pottery of the early 7th century. building.e. that gap had to exist. Stratigraphically.. to detect any physical sign of abandonment. by the accepted chronology. A rim fragment from a “Protogeometric” cup was found “with sherds of Phase VII b I. was in vogue until the 8th or 7th century B. their discovery of a house that seemed to span the ghost years.. however. sometime around 700 B. but probably out of context. only one sherd has turned up which could conceivably fall within the 400-year gap postulated for the site. their finds of 7th-century pottery in and sometimes under “12th- . which is supposed to represent the 12th century.26 With a 400-year gap in the evidence. a more serious problem. All the work of the excavators. because.25 The local grey ware pots of Troy VII (i.200 The new excavations showed that the locally-made pottery of Troy VIII was “obviously akin” to that of Troy VII. item below the floor of a 12th-century B.C. Although the excavators were meticulous in their method of digging stratified layers and labelling and recording all finds and their provenience. Dörpfeld. of the Mycenaean Age) were looked upon as the “direct ancestors” of the local ware not only of Troy VIII but also of 7th-6th-century Northwestern Turkey and the off-shore island of Lesbos as well.35 It is stratigraphically impossible to have a 7th. it was not found where it should have been.31 The discovery of these 7th-century sherds “in several areas in the strata of Troy VII b1” stratified below layer VII b2. their belief that Troy VII ended immediately before Troy VIII began (i.” however.” The reason it was probably out of context is that it was covered over by “two successive buildings of Phase VII b2”33 which of necessity belong to the 12th century B.C. how can one connect this widespread 7th-6th-century ware with that of the Mycenaean Age? At the very time that there was supposed to be a 400-year abandonment of Hissarlik.).27 In several deposits of Troy VIII there were sherds from Troy VII.

p. p.” pp. 494-750) is 1 186.. Why else would people too stubborn to leave despite 2000 years of great hardships abandon their site now? Only revision of the Egypto-Mycenaean dates can explain the “still unexplained” problems at Hissarlik. need not be connected with Nestor’s account in Book XI of the Iliad. G.C. the time of the transition from LH III B to LH IIIC. II. 2.” Pensée (Spring-Summer. These need not detain us here. p. I. I hope to treat this topic in detail at a later date.” Antiquity 37 (1963): 7. A.C. does not think that the Iliad itself is responsible for that scene. 36]) sets the influence of the Iliad on art at ca. 14. also got his date from the Egyptians. Velikovsky. The number of ships is commonly (but incorrectly) said to be 1. 174 for 1260 B. 10. The subject. I [Princeton: 1958]. Blegen..4) speaks of 1200. J. Then a new theory was needed.C. W. C. “Troy. The cause for the end of layer VII b2 was unknown when no gap was seen. If there was indeed a 400-year gap. 7. Blegen. the opinions they held. Troy IV.C. We have already seen that the most ancient source. but Johansen. Burn. Only then do they cease to be “perplexing. 159-61. The problems are complex: how much earlier than the destruction of Pylos the destruction of Troy should be. p. C. no example exists before the 8th century. Forsdyke.” Cambridge Ancient History [henceforth CAH]. N. R. 41).37 but when the gap became necessary. Archaeological facts were forced to fit a historical theory. “The Fall of Troy. something must have caused it.” References 1. who were obviously lying to him (see “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems.C. Coldstream (Greek Geometric Pottery [London: 1968]. Other estimates ranged from the 14th12th centuries B. Greece Before Homer (London: 1956). Thucydides (1. “Priam’s Troy. 62 and G. pp. 700. (See Blegen. 1200 B. p. Friis Johansen (The Iliad in Early Greek Art [Copenhagen: 19671. CAH fascicle. 5.” n. 38-49.” Hesperia 33 [1964]. the archaeological date falls sometime within the 13th century B. p. “Astronomy and Chronology. fascicle 1 [1961]. n. whether certain potsherds from Troy Vila are very late LH III B or very early LH IIIC.C. For our purposes. see pp. 362-66). II. or even be connected with Nestor. p. p. pushed the date progressively back (see “New Evidence for Dating the Settlements at Troy. K. Mylonas. Of course. while the sum preserved in the Iliad (II. 23-25.. 3. Greece Before Homer. Troy and the Trojans [London: 1964]. Siamese twins. Nylander. the latest excavator of the site. 11-13.000. Other archaeologists lean more toward Blegen’s original assessment of ca.” ABSA 37 11936-19371: 12 for 1200 B. p. “Priam’s Troy and the Date of its Fall.C. Other ancients also dated the war early. 1973).201 century” layers which seemed undisturbed (a situation quite similar to but more disturbing than what we saw for the stratified section just inside Mycenae’s Lion Gate). In any case.). 14 for 1250 B. 9 for pre-1230 B. Persia and the Greeks (London: 1962). (see Forsdyke. 10. 353. 6. 351) has one scene appear early in the 8th century. These dates are challenged as too early even by adherents to the accepted chronology. 174. 3). . the problems that upset them-all became secondary to making the evidence fit the accepted chronology. n. 4. Troy and the Trojans (henceforth T & T) pp. p. J. 1. Herodotus. 68. Mylonas. it was decided that Troy VII b2 must have perished by fire and sword more terrible in their effect than the Trojan War which ended Troy Vila.

1. p. 124.. 14. 259-60. There is. and Strabo. 32 for references. its archaeology is important.” n. p. Troy IV. “Grey Wares from Lesbos. “Carbon 14 Dates. Troy IV. Troja 1893. 24. 291-93.. Kenyon. J. from higher up the slope. 41. In Leocrantem. 28. I (Princeton: 1968). 181. 1.” p. in fact. 250. p. Troy IV. a participant in the Cincinnati expedition. The journal for 1936-1937 was not released until 1940. of invaders. Blegen. Blegen.” Antiquity 33 (1959): 31. For these and other literary. Blegen. 17. 21. Wheeler. 165 f. D.. 28. one would expect the erosion of the upper mound to deposit a layer of the dissolved remains of the mud brick houses. or corrigendum attached). 12. M. pp. pp. Furumark’s monumental work of dating Mycenaean pottery by Egyptian associations came out shortly after the Troy excavations had ended. 31. Such a layer should be found above the last deposits of Troy VII and below the first of Troy VIII. p. “Die Keramik der verschiedenen Schichten” in Dörpfeld. Strabo considered Hissarlik not to be the Troy of Homer (XIII. p. Also see pp. 18. Troy IV. Since most of the material from Troy VIII was found on the lower slopes of the mound. C. 1. 12. 64. states some of this writer’s reservations very well (“Archaeology and the Trojan War. H. 253. Blegen. 172) suggests this. 38). two years after excavations at Troy had ceased. who does believe that Hissarlik is the site of Troy. et al. Lamb. p. or. 19. I. On the contrary. For just such an instance from another mound and a good explanation of the process see K. and topographical reasons. Dörpfeld. Walls of Jericho (London: 1958). Bericht iiber die im Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalten Ausgrabungen (Leipzig: 1894). 10. 55. and. rather than Dörpfeld’s 700 B.41-42) make it quite clear that the abandonment lasted at least till the Roman period. 265. W. 257. 5. Ibid. Troy 1. L. 253. 33. 29. 62. pp. 250. 15. Blegen. 44-45.” n.. 30. Troy IV. p. etc. Isaacson.1 p. Ibid. W. he still had one layer follow immediately after the other. pp. Those authors (Lykurgus. pp.. Although he set the division at 900.” p. 147. p. 23: Blegen. W. W. stratigraphical. 11. 8. there is no evidence that he changed his mind before publication of the volume (there is no postscript. Schmidt. See “Later Use of the Grave Circles.202 the lack of figural representation during the Dark Age could account for this. Troy I.) Blegen (T & T. Troy IV. pp. XIII. Dörpfeld. et al. 22.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 84 [19641: 9). I. 26. 4. 37. 23. Troja und Ilion. see n. pp. Blegen. Troy IV. Caskey. Troja und Ilion (Athens: 1902).” Journal of Hellenic Studies 52 (1932): 1-2. 35. archaeological. “The Historical Sack of Troy. 25. 201. this writer is unconvinced that Hissarlik is the site of the Homeric Troy. 1. 20-21. 13. 9. 147. 171. 261. 10) it is clear that Blegen wrote after the end of his last season. 1 (Princeton: 1950). pp. A. Page. p. From the article (p. 16. I. Blegen. Since it is generally accepted that the Trojan War was fought at Hissarlik. See Blegen. the original inhabitants quickly rebuilt the town (Blegen. 252-53. and M. geographical. . “New Evidence. 25.C. 296-98. 20. no sign of abandonment or marked population loss or change after the conflagration of level Vila. in fact. Digging up Jericho (London: 1957). Blegen. 43. 27. T & T. I. whenever the article was submitted between 1938 and 1940. and this is not prima fade evidence that the war was fought this late. 251. 158. See “Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems. He is further unconvinced that the burning of layer Vila was the work of the Greeks.

1973 (Nicosia: 1973): 184-85. it was found stratified ca. PGP. p. pp. Dickinson in Popham and Sackett’s Excavations at Lefkandi. K. 359 of Troy IV. 158. Coldstream. Desborough. these buildings assigned to the 12th century B. pp. 10. The Dark Age of Greece. as we saw in my previous article (Pensée [Spring-Summer. POP. Snodgrass. Greek Geometric Pottery. The Greek Dark Ages (London: 1972). N. and two buildings were constructed over the spot where the sherd was found. or 7th century ought to lie above this layer. 36. Troy IV. 448. 192-94..” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1963). 98. Instead. 186. 335 and index p. If Troy VII b2 really ended ca. Catling. Snodgrass. . M. R. and the “12th-century” Mycenaean pottery they contained ought to postdate the sherd as well. n. p. To my knowledge. 204-205. O. W. p. For scholarly opinions on the Euboean and/or Cycladic manufacture and the range of dates for this type of cup. p. The Dark Age of Greece. p. Desborough. 33. 37. Most exports of this ware to the East Mediterranean (presumably including the example from Troy) are thought to belong to the early 8th century (Desborough. this sherd of the 9th. Ibid... p. 192-94.. 197 and see 199. 32. p. 181. “The LowFooted Skyphoi with Pendent Semicircles. Blegen compares it to V.203 31. Ibid. 233. 1100 B. see Desborough. “A Pendent Semicircle Skyphos from Cyprus and a Cypriote Imitation. 4.” ns. H. p. should postdate this 9th. 8th.. 34. p. 1973].” Journal of Hellenic Studies 77 (1957): 218. The Dark Age of Greece. Ibid. Blegen. no one has treated the example from Troy to determine its date within the 9th-7th-century range.C.2. n. P. Ibid.C. 27) was faced with the same problem of 7th-century sherds in bona fide Mycenaean strata at Pylos and was again at pains to account for this state of affairs. Desborough’s low-footed skyphoi with pendent semicircles. 35. 192). Desborough. Since no contamination was detected. 98. but wherever it falls. or 7th-century sherd. 18.” Reports of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus. See “The Warrior Vase. “A Group of Vases from Amathus. cols. 16. See Desborough (Protogeometric Pottery [henceforth POP] (Oxford: 1952]. 71. 335) but possibly continued into the 7th century (Snodgrass. p. pp. 28. 231. 8th. A. 330. 4). 1. J. See Fig. its find spot still poses a serious stratigraphical problem for the standard chronology. etc. pp. below. 1/2 m. T. Blegen.

C.03 -. the “late Geometric” pottery was branded part of “an intrusive deposit”12 and the Mycenaean was used as a dating criterion for the fire. thick.4 In the debris of the palace he also found a great deal of pottery which was dated not by Egyptian criteria but on the internal evidence from Greece itself.C. for how else could they have gotten there? Two sets of pottery are involved here: a group dating to the 7th century on internal grounds. Velikovsky has postulated that Ramses II reigned ca.the time of Ramses II of Egypt. Carl W. a Mycenaean palace and town. taken to be the ancient Pylos of which Homer sang. 600 B..C. the excavator of both Troy and Pylos. about the time of the death of Pharaoh Ramses II.25 m.. 600 B. in fact. This ware he ascribed to ca. 1230 B. often. by the accepted chronology. assigned absolute dates to a burned layer at the site of Hissarlik in Northwestern Turkey.11 Though the two groups were found together in the same strata. because of the supposed passage of 600 years. In one case the later sherds were found together with the earlier ones in a layer ”which rested on the stucco pavement of the court” and “unquestionably represents the latest phase of occupation of the palace.15 . with whose scarabs Mycenaean III B and C pottery is found. its aged king.C.10 m. thick “clayey deposit” (see note 9 above). “there was fairly widespread activity on the site”.1 “The collection as a whole reflects chiefly the latest stage in the style of Mycenaean III B” but there were quite a few pieces belonging to the III C period.7 This later pottery appeared in many rooms of the palace. and to the Palace of Nestor. Blegen found Mycenaean pottery in the destruction layer of Pylos obviously representing “the ceramic shapes and styles that were in normal current use on the very day the palace was set afire and destroyed”.C.5 Blegen saw that after the fire ”the site was obviously abandoned and thenceforth left deserted. which he assumed to represent the Greek destruction of King Priam’s Troy.” Since. they are six centuries too young to have been in use “on the very day the palace was set afire and destroyed” (see note 1 above).204 Pylos Near the modern town of Pylos in Messenia in the southwestern Peloponnesus. Blegen.3 Blegen revised this downward by about 30 years. in the same layer as the pottery dated 600 years older8 so that the earlier sherds must have percolated up.”6 To account for the mass of later pottery he acknowledged that ca. were uncovered. fought in the Trojan War. also destroyed by fire.2 Arne Furumark set the transition from the one style to the other at ca. and a group dating to the 13th century on external grounds . they finally forced their way into a . Nestor. then slipping through ”a compact layer of smallish stones closely packed in blackish earth”10 . The absolute dates were furnished by Mycenaean pottery in and under both destructions. According to legend. setting the date of Pylos’ destruction at ca. not in the 13th .. 1200 B. 600 B. they “must somehow have penetrated from above”9 through however much dirt settled and vegetation grew over 600 years.

1962). 184 for his most recent view. References 1. 1957. 329. PN 175. Both were used in the palace before the fire and buried by the debris. 130). Blegen cautiously said. 11. A. 750-680 B. Iakovides. 13. ca. pp. C. 166.C. 421. The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm. In “The Palace of Nestor Excavations of 1956. 12. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia (henceforth PN). p. 5. The Mycenaean Age.” The two styles were contemporaneous. vol. 2. p. especially since the surface down to perhaps. 294-6. vol. 229.15 m. “perhaps of the seventh century B. if anything. p. vol. p. Such walls would most certainly have fallen at or soon after the time of the fire. 6. AJA 131) it would be difficult to say how much dirt would settle and vegetation grow over the 600 years (see PN 422 for vegetation growth) but one would expect both processes to have occurred if 600 years really did transpire. 1941). 467-68. p. Blegen. 1966).13 This would solve a problem at Pylos.C. A (1969). 303. He constantly called these sherds “late Geometric” (PN 64. brings down the date a bit further.C. None “penetrated from above. W. PN 421.” but see PN 177. Ramses II and His Time (New York. 115. 382. 294. was disturbed (PN 294. I. 0. 130. 300. but Coldstream seems unsure whether Blegen’s finds are “late Geometric” (408)-either the term is incorrect in the light of this more recent analysis or the pottery precedes 680 B. AJA (1957). 332 and see AJA 1957. 175. PN 422. p. Velikovsky. 61 (1957). Iakovides. Rawson. 15 m. 468. 4. Perati. The evidence for reducing the date is not at all secure. A. 8. E. PN 294. 1970). deep” (PN 294) or if the two descriptions mean the same thing. 18. 130. Blegen and M. 7. p.” American Journal of Archaeology. established ca. PN 294. pp. The Dorian Invasion. I (Princeton. not standing six centuries to topple onto later pottery. B (Athens. More recent analysis by J. pp. Perati. Greek Geometric Pottery (London. The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm. as the limits for the Late Geometric phase in this area.205 century B. 184. 131) and there is a discrepancy whether the black layer was ”immediately below the surface” (AJA 130) or under “a stratum of plowed earth. 1978). and. Furumark. 185. 330. S. C. vol. No pottery percolated. 114-15. Coldstream. B (1970). Furumark. The Trojan War.C. Above the black layer the earth was plowed (PN 294) and much disturbed (AJA. p. PN 181. 300. 3. 10. This being the case. N. Ohio. 1968). 1941). . the change now seems to me to have preceded Ramses’ death. The small stones in the black layer were presumably from the collapse of rubble walls within the palace (PN 177). W. and Other Problems (Cincinnati. 9.

separated by 600 years. is the fact that the earliest tombs of each group (i. are most similar. The island of Cyprus has an “astonishing” number of these tombs2 which divide neatly into two series: those assigned to 1550-1200 B. especially the 7th-century example from Trachonas. those of 1550 and 950 B. Leaving behind the regions bordering Syro-Phoenicia.C. Velikovsky has already mentioned some of these.. Velikovsky made a strong case for challenging Ugarit’s conventional dates.C. we shall travel briefly to an actual Punic colony.C. perhaps a couple of additional problems will suffice.C.). apparently. and those beginning in 950 B. are placed centuries earlier. Asia Minor.6 Similar tombs are found in Jerusalem. 9 It is a “faithful miniature rendering” of the Syrian tombs both in design and.206 Ugarit We now leave Asia Minor’s northwest coast and travel to the area where its south coast meets northern Syria. built tomb “closely related” to the Ugaritic tombs in architectural plan.C.7 But the only tombs of this type in that region. For those who have not read or were not already convinced by the material presented by Velikovsky for Ras Shamra-Ugarit. but the tombs presumably copied must have been buried and invisible for some 600 years. And continuing for some time.1 He pointed out many 500-year problems in the literary texts uncovered at the site. One of the oldest archaeological discoveries from the site is a late 8th-century B. It has been postulated that the later tombs somehow copied the earlier Cypriote or Syrian ones. and Urartu of the 9th-7th centuries.5 The Cypriote vaulted tombs from 950-600 B. seem to undergo the same development as the Enkomi and Ugaritic tombs with 600 years separating the corresponding phases. but a 250-year gap separates the inception of the second group from the end of the Bronze Age tombs. and shows the difficulty relating to vaulted Cypriote tombs constructed in the style of those from Ugarit but set 500 years later. More important than the 250-year period when no tombs were built in Syria or Cyprus to connect the later tombs to the earlier ones. to Ugarit and Alalakh.C. in arrangements for religious rites. In the published volume of Ages in Chaos.8 a group of Phoenicians sailed to North Africa and founded Carthage. and again it is thought that they originated in 9th-7th-century SyroPhoenicia. Let us again look at the vaulted tombs of Cyprus. notably the ones from Ugarit. and the type is thought to have come from Syria to Cyprus.4 The second group of Cypriote tombs corresponds to both the Ugaritic and earlier Cypriote examples.e.10 It would hardly be surprising for 8th-century Phoenician colonists to bring .. In the 9th or 8th century B..3 The first group of vaulted tombs (at Enkomi) corresponds closely in date and style to the Ugaritic tombs.

The gold bowl (Fig.207 over a current tomb type and burial customs from their motherland.16 The elongated gallop of the horse is seen to be quite similar to depictions on Assyrian reliefs. half a millennium before Phoenicians in the proper sense are known”. but by the 8th century B. Extraordinary conservatism was attributed to the Phoenicians. as well. they belong shortly before the destruction of the city during the Amarna period.C.C. and Phoenician colonists. Mesopotamian.”18 How can they be ancestors if they were buried and unseen for 500 years before the later series began.17 Surely.14 What is more “remarkable” than the Ugaritic examples’ manufacture and burial over 500 years before the “later” series began. the colonists’ ancestors would have been very familiar with these matters.C. Stratigraphically. the Ugaritic tombs must have been buried over. but Assyrian influence “is chronologically impossible. By the accepted scheme.15 after a lapse of 500 years. Israelites. then.12 Stylistically.). Urartians.C. The only similar tomb type and burial customs that their motherland can produce. and Levantine motifs is “an excellent example of Phoenician syncretism. remarkably foreshadowing by 500 years similar metal bowls and similar scenes. it was thought. all the Assyrian monuments presently known where horses are depicted at gallop being about half a millennium later than our plate” ( 174). and the art was lost over those 500 years? If metal bowls reproduced similar scenes in similar arrangements for 500 years.” That 9th-7th-century Phoenicians . and they went out of use and were thus forgotten 500-600 years earlier? The final items we will examine from Ugarit are a gold bowl and a gold plate. a late 18th Dynasty date is necessitated. that would indeed be “extraordinary conservatism. is the subject matter of the two items. Since Velikovsky lowers that date by over 500 years. since the later group faithfully reproduced similar scenes and arrangement of the decoration. both beautifully decorated. however. 13 Both stratigraphically and stylistically. notably the time of King Tutankhamen. and are thus assigned a date somewhere between 1450-1365 B. and forgotten. Anatolian peoples. how are the gold bowls affected? These two pieces are called “remarkable antecedents of the use of the frieze of animals on metal bowls” of Phoenician workmanship. 11 How did these tombs of Ugarit serve as models for Cypriots. they belong to the MitannianAmarna period and show scenes reminiscent of late 18th Dynasty Egypt. invisible.. firmly dated to the 9th-7th centuries B. are put 500 years earlier.C. The chariot scene on the 14th-century gold plate is compared to similar scenes of the 9th-century Neo-Hittites and of the Assyrian King Assurnasirpal II (883-859 B. if contemporaneity is denied. these golden objects. 7) with its combination of Aegean. “may be claimed as ancestors of the series of ‘Phoenician’ bowls of the ninth-seventh centuries B. Egyptian.

F. I. “Fifteen Iron Age Vases. V. p. D. C.. Art and Architecture. SCE IV. M. p. from the French by D. “Enkomi” SCE I (Stockholm: 1934). Ibid. Vieyra. If one keeps high dates for the Mitannians and the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. then this is yet another mystery to add to our list. A.” When their date is reduced by half a millennium. References 1. 150 for their assignment to the Mitannian period. Frankfort. 45-46. p. 11. The Carthaginian settlers were primarily Syro-Phoenicians. Picard. 19371939 (Nicosia: 1951): 137. 4. vol.” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 42 (1967): 189-99. 8. it “came back” after a mysterious chronological gap.” sees close relations between the Ras Shamra and Carthage tombs but recognizes the chronological difficulty. 57. 15. pp. 570-73.” Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I (Salamis. we are still left with the puzzle of how and why the Cypriots copied.” in E. 52-53. 53.2 (Stockholm: 1948). Sjöqvist. 2. See H. Gold and Silver Plate.. “Built Tombs in Cyprus. Art and Architecture.” The Biblical Archaeologist 33 (1970): 45-46. 3) [Nicosia: 1967]. Schaeffer. 47. Westholm. and C. A. the 600-year extinct tombs of Ras Shamra or Enkomi. Gjerstad. p. Hittite Art. 140 for his dates for that period. 197). 47. 32-51. Collon (London: 1968). pp. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore: 1963). p. Karageorghis.. 6. His suggestion. pp. 150. 53. 5. that this tomb type came from Cyprus does not help matters. Picard. 22-23: “Une influence de ce coté est chronologique-ment impossible. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition (henceforth SCE) II (Stockholm: 1935). Like the Carthaginian example. Ages in Chaos. is merely “extraordinary. he seems not to realize that the type did not survive in Cyprus from Bronze Age times (contra. “The Necropolis from the Time of the Kingdom of Judah at Silwan. after a 500-year gap. “Amathus. Ugaritica II. “Installations. Strong. D. 197-98. 30. 179-222. Besides. 123. Ussishkin. 150. 18. C. Velikovsky. p. p. Ugaritica II (Paris: 1949). p. p. Even if we make the Carthage example depend on Cyprus. Schaeffer.. Strong. pp. Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (Glasgow: 1966). pp. E. Picard. Ibid. and E. 3. . 10. Schaeffer.C. 5. et al. Frankfort. 7. p. 52. The foundation date was disputed in antiquity. not Syria. 140. p. G. tous les monuments assyriens actuellement connus où figurent des chevaux au galop étant postérieurs de près d’un demi-millénaire à notre patère. 17. and see C.. p. 12.” Opuscula Archaeologica II (1941). pp. 16. pp.” Frankfort. not Cypriots. Jerusalem. Most ancient estimates fell within the range of 846-7 51 B. 14. p. The Life and Death of Carthage. 47. 13. pp. p. Gjerstad. Westholm. Ibid. Ibid. p. 1 72. Ugaritica II. P. Dikaios. Of particular interest for our purposes is the fact that a number of ancient authors stated that Carthage was founded before the Trojan War. E.208 should imitate so closely 14th-century bowls they never saw. 239. See also A. “Installations Cultuelles Retrouveés au Tophet de Salammbo. trans. these bowls fit beautifully into the later series. 9. yet did not copy.

During part of the period of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. The uppermost levels VI-I of the site. very obscure. His royal palace is thus assigned to the 15th-14th centuries B.C. which are archaeologically empty. guardian figures and stone reliefs in the ninth-century Assyrian palaces resembles so much that .. 1200 and 850 B. one reaches Tell Atchana. at best.C. For the sake of brevity we will treat here only two. in this part of the ancient Levant.6 but because Egyptian chronology provides the absolute dates for Alalakh. “how can we explain why the system of flanking gates with large. the ancient Alalakh. by the 9th century B. “now for the first time we have a series of lion sculptures which cannot be later than the fourteenth century B.5 these lions have great “importance as monuments for the history of art.9 and no similar lions exist to span the Dark Age in this region.209 Alalakh Traveling a bit farther inland and to the north. It is thus an easy matter to find some 500-600-year puzzles of the type met over and over again in this paper.1 The four latter sets of material owe their dates solely to Egyptian chronology.4 but presumably guarded the doors to this structure at an earlier date. if the Niqmepa palace was covered over and invisible by the 14th century. the Alalakh lions were completely buried over by debris and long forgotten. the ones of most concern to us. and maintain them by floating on mysterious Dark Ages. or. Only a short distance north of Alalakh lies the site of Zinjirli with its 5th-century palace.2 How was the tradition of monumental architecture kept alive for 600 years. According to the excavator. depend solely on Egyptian chronology. Frankfort there are no monuments. Alalakh was ruled by King Niqmepa.” Such lions are normally assigned to the 9th-7th centuries B. He was nevertheless struck by the resemblances of the 8th-century palace of Zinjirli to the 14th-century palace of Alalakh. Hittite New Empire and Mitannian material.C. and if there is absolutely no continuity in this or any of the other arts between the two periods?3 Many large fragments of sculpted stone lions were also unearthed at Alalakh.C. no works of art to fill the gap between ca. “anticipating [both sets] by five hundred years”?8 Could they have provided the inspiration for the 500-year-later sculptures? If. and the dates for imported Late Cypriote and Mycenaean pottery.” Should we view the Alalakh lions as “early forerunners of the whole series of SyroHittite lions”?7 Were they also the model for the guardian lions of Assyrian palaces. in fact. These were found re-used in the last phase of the “temple”.. According to H.C. In the ‘Syro-Hittite’ period gateway lions of this sort are so regular a convention as to be almost the hall-mark of North Syrian art.

pp. 274. by the accepted scheme. Woolley. p. New York: 1956]. Frankfort. 193-94. L. p. 133. 4. 109. 7) speaks of various degrees of success. and. but that need not be a sign of a very early date. 254. Lloyd. 132-33. but the situation is the same for the Alalakh lions. F. 6. Art and Architecture. 3. 10. citing the Alalakh sculptures as an earlier precedent. See also Lloyd. which should separate the two groups. so struck by these similarities that he disbelieved a break in architectural continuity during the Dark Age (p. 145). and in ground plan (p. 7.210 employed”10 here at Alalakh and other contemporary centers some 400-500 years earlier? References 1. On p. p. W. 2. but the quotation fits the Alalakh lions as well. A Forgotten Kingdom. 133. 164-66). and Woolley all wanted to connect the “early” lions with the “late” ones. 152. Lloyd is actually speaking of stone sphinxes from the Hittite capital of Boghaz Koy foreshadowing Assyrian bulls and lions. ed. 8. Lloyd.C. A Forgotten Kingdom (London: 1959). in fact. 162) believed that the building called a temple by Woolley may have been a palace. 384-99. as was his custom. The Art of the Ancient Near East (New York: 1961). 166 he speaks of the Dark Age. p. 163-66). 132) pushes the lions back to the 10th century. Woolley (ibid. p. S. 5. A Forgotten Kingdom. or lack of it. Smith. p. S. Frankfort (Art and Architecture. p. he disregards much evidence for dating some finds. in local carvings of the 9th century. 9. Interconnections in the Ancient Near East (London: 1965). 163). While many of his remarks are quite cogent. pp. the palace at Alalakh and other contemporary buildings were all destroyed long before Zincirli’s palace was built. Woolley. Alalakh (Oxford: 1955). 167). but Frankfort (Art and Architecture. S. L. p. p. p. n. but they could not bridge the Dark Age pointed out by Frankfort (Art and Architecture. H. W. Weinberg [Locust Valley. and Woolley. pp. He was. 166) shows that they only go back to the 9th century. Woolley. Woolley. chose dates to suit his own scheme. It is true that the Alalakh lions are less sophisticated than other lions from this region. 144-65) to bridge the chronological gap fails. He saw similarities between Alalakh and Zincirli in constructional technique employed by the architect but invisible to onlookers (p. A Forgotten Kingdom. pp. Frankfort (Art and Architecture. Albright’s attempt (“Northeast-Mediterranean Dark Ages and the Early Iron Age Art of Syria” in The Aegean and the Near East. (pp. Yet he himself has shown that. Smith actually refers to Hittite art.. . and he fails to cite any intermediary structures to fill the gap between 1200 and 850 B. Art of the Ancient Near East. Smith.

for all others which this writer has researched. We have come across stratigraphical sections that do not conform to the expected and accepted sequence of events. however. . while 7th-century pottery was found stratified directly above. Velikovsky has redated this king from the 13th to the late 7th century BC. One article need not convince the skeptical reader that Velikovsky is right. When. this period is connected with Pharaoh Ramses II. let alone all of them. bowls. a nice enough theory. let us reconsider the “12th-century” LH IIIC period. we found numerous 500-700year problems for the excavators and for those trying to trace the development of artistic and architectural types. to accept the standard chronology. and these but briefly. and these form a consistent pattern. No ad hoc theory has yet been advanced which adequately explains any one of the cases. and under LH IIIC. At Pylos we found 7th-century pottery mixed with the 12th. Tiryns.1 it becomes very difficult to brush them aside and have faith in “the rule. We have examined palaces. perplexing problems. thus the revised chronology. a shortening of Egyptian chronology. mixed with. Stratigraphically 7th-century sherds were mixed with LH IIIC inside the Lion Gate of Mycenae. Why don’t stylistic and stratigraphical considerations cause the redating of this period? As was pointed out above.. and. works for all the cases mentioned in this paper. which act as confirmations for the new. These six places were referred to as stumbling blocks for the revised chronology. We have seen that stylistically LH IIIC figural pottery most resembles 7th-century ware. Many more cases exist (e.211 Résumé In this work the reader has traveled to six ancient cities to study some of the buildings and artifacts that modern excavators have unearthed. Everywhere we went we found unanswered questions. Pylos. etc. it would be simple.g. pots. or should a new scheme be put forth to explain all the facts? A few problems from a handful of sites do not prove that the revision is valid. in fact. or only a couple of minor points not yet fully understood. What did we see? At Mycenae. figurines. pins. Volumes could and need to be written to enumerate all the problems faced by the old scheme. As merely one case of consistency. Ugarit and Alalakh.” One must make a choice. major “exceptions to the rule” appear in great numbers. tombs. At Troy two LH IIIC structures were built over a 9th or 8th-century sherd. was disproved by archaeological facts. In this article only five places were visited. We were told that they could not come down by centuries in time. but anyone reading this might start wondering: Just how sound is the accepted chronology? References 1. and the more he reads. carved slabs. Should archaeological evidence be forced to fit the Procrustean bed of historical theory. Utilizing other evidence. and always these involved 500-700 years. the greater the number swells. temples. Only a revision of ancient history. Troy. If there were no problems. indeed necessary. the perplexing mixture of LH IIIC with early 7th-century pottery in a stratum of Scoglio del Tonno near Taranto in South Italy). The number of 500-700-year problems studied by this writer is quite large.

E. C. J... “Plaques d’or de Delphes.” Balkan Studies.” American Journal of Archaeology 79 (1975) Anderson. 1971) Akurgal. L. “Early Greek and Oriental Ivories. R..” PEFQ. 1967) Andronikos. “Greek Chariot-borne and Mounted Infantry. 1957) Barnett.. 1971) Ahlberg. “Analysis and Provenience of Minoan and Mycenaean Amber. L. 1970) . II Tiryns.” American Journal of Archaeology 69 (1965) Andrewes. “An Early Iron Age Cemetery at Vergina. L. 68 (1948) Barnett. Thomas) (New York. J.W. Die Kunst Anatoliens (Berlin. 1955) Akurgal. “Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians. J. Mitt.” Iraq. Roman and Byzantine Studies (Henceforth GRBS). et al. P. 3 (1960) Benson.. 2 (1961) Ap-Thomas. et al. A Catalogue of the Nimrud ivories (London.212 Bibliography A Ahlberg. A. R. 9 (1968) Benson.” GRBS.... J. R.” Ath. Phrygische Kunst (Ankara. British and Cyrenaic Chariots. K... 1970) Beck. 1939 Barron. J. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art (Lund. R. “Jerusalem” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study (ed.. 1972) B Barnett. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age: Other Arts and Crafts (Swedish Cyprus Expedition (henceforth SCE) IV.. D. Greek Sculpture (New York. 77 (1962) Anderson. 1D) (Lund. The Greeks (London. 1961) Amandry. K..” Greek. Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Lund. D. “Phoenician and Syrian Ivory Carving.. M. “Bronze Tripods from Koran. near Beroea. E.W.. Horse.” Journal of Hellenic Studies. 2 (1935) Barnett. 1967) Aström. Bird &Man (Amherst. R. “Homeric..

1921) Blegen. The Athenian Agora VIII. Archaic Greek Gems (London. W. 1966) Blegen.. W. 1 (Princeton: 1950) Blegen. C. Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B...” BSA. 25 (1910) Bissing. 1971) Broneer. C. Greek Art (New York. 8-10 (1946-48) Blegen. The Cretan Collection in Oxford (Oxford. W. J.C.” JdI. and Other Problems (Cincinnati. 1956) Blegen. Island Gems (London.. J.. 1968) Boardman. 1967) Bielefeld. 13 (1898) Bissing. et al.(Gottingen. Fr. “A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis. “What Happened at Athens. “Some Observations on the Origin of Triglyphs. C. 1968) Bissing. The Mycenaean Age. “The So-called Temple of Hera at Tiryns. Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery (Princeton. Eretria III (Bern. The Trojan War. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia (henceforth PN). C. 35 (1934-35) Berard. S. Korakou (New York.. Ohio. “Eine Bronzeschale mykenischer Zeit. 8 (1939) Broneer. S.. 1964) Boardman. B. 1963) Boardman. C.. O... 38-39 (1923-1924) Blegen. J. The Archaic Greek Temenos (Lund.. 1962) Broneer. vol. E. von. “A Mycenaean Breadmaker.. The Dorian Invasion. 45 (1950) Brann.. J.” JdI. O. (Groningen: 1970) Bowen.S. J..” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene. M. J. E. O. Troy IV..213 Benton. C. 1962) Blegen. N. C. W. and Rawson. Isthmia I (Princeton. “Agyptisch oder Phoinikisch?. Fr. “The Khaniale Tekke Tombs. C.. “Untersuchungen fiber die ’phoinikischen’ Metal schen.. 62 (1967) Boersma. I (Princeton. “The Evolution of the Tripod-Lebes. von. 1961) Boardman. 1970) Berquist.. et al. Fr.” Boardman.” BSA.. Troy I.. W. von.” JdI.” BSA.1 (Princeton. Schmuck (Archaeologia Homerica I C)....” AJA 52 (1948) .” Hesperia. II. W. W.

W. R. “Excavations in Keos. 1970) C Carpenter....” Hesperia. Minoans.” BICS. B. N.” Man. A. Greek Painted Pottery (London. M.. 1975) Charbonneaux..” Hesperia 33 (1964) Caskey. J.. W.. H. K... The Defences of Acrocorinth and the lower Town (Cambridge.. “Hero-cults in the Age of Homer. Greek Geometric Pottery (London.. Folk Tale. 1968) Coldstream. “The Cesnola Painter: A Change of Address. Woodhouge) (N. H.. J. “A Geometric House and a Proto-Attic Votive Deposit.214 Bundgaard. 1971) Cook.. The Buried people. M... R.” JHS. American Journal of Archaeology 72 (1968) Catling. 81 (1977) Casson. J. 2 (Cambridge.Y. N. Greek Art (New York. J. Philistines and Greeks. J.. 1973) Coldstream. N.York. N.. J. 1955) Coldstream. von. R. “A Cloisonné Staff-head from Cyprus. Third Millennium Diffusion (Oxford. W. “Newsletter from Greece..2. 67 (1972) Caskey. and Bon. A. T. 1972) .. 1962) Cles-Redden. 1946) Carpenter. E. R.. A. C. R.” AJA. M. Persia and the Greeks (London..... “The Beginning of Narrative Art in the Geometric Period. etc (London... Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Los Angeles. 42 (1922) Catling. S. S. A Study of the Etruscan World (tr. 1964) Catling. Cypriote Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (Oxford. Greek Bronzes (tr. M. “Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age.. Ancient Cyprus (London. Coldstream and G. R. E.. H. 1968) Burn.” JHS. 96 (1976) Coldstream. “Bronzework of the Geometric Period and Its Relation to Later Art.” BSA. 1936) Carter. J. S. 1963. “A Mycenaean Puzzle from Lefkandi in Euboea. J. N. 32 (1932) Casson. 1937) Casson. Huxley) (Park Ridge. Kythera (ed. A. D. and Myres.” CAH3 II. Mnesicles (Copenhagen: 1957) Burn. 2 (1933) Burton-Brown. 13 (1971) Cook.J. 1962) Burr. Watson) (New. Mass. Corinth III.

P. H. P. C. 41 (1969) Desborough. Early Ivories from Samaria (London. Dickinson. Gilbert and J. J. N. A Guide to the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia. J... “An Iron Age Painted Amphora in the Cyprus Museum.. 1961) Dikaios.” CAH3 11. 17. “Une tombe géometrique d’Argos. 1937-1939. J. P. The Greek Dark Ages (London. W.” AJA. 1951) Dikaios. “Some Evidence of Religious Continuity in the Greek Dark Age. The Greeks in Ionia and the East (New York.2 (1975) Cook. M. & G.. J. “Some Cypriote Painters of Bulls in the Archaic Period. J. review of Deshayes’ Argoa etc. 17 (1970) Dikaios. 1964) Desborough.. “Principal Acquisitions of the Cyprus Museum.” BSA. M. V.” Report of the Department of Antiquities. “Archaeological Facts and Greek Traditions. 41 (1937) Davis. 1938) D Daniel. Cyprus (henceforth RDAC). P.. 1962) Dinsmoor. “Two Late Cypriote III Tombs from Kourion. by S.” Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of the University of Birmingham... Carthage and Her Remains (London. 37 (1936-7) Dikaios. P... 1963) Courbin. 1950) Doehl. V. 1951) Dikaios. The Birth of Greek Art (tr. V. Argos: les fouilles de la Deiras (Paris.. A Guide to the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia. 80 (1965) Dikaios. B. 1937-9 (pub’d. Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford.” BCH. “Greek Settlement in the Eastern Aegean and Asia Minor. The Architecture of Ancient Greece (New York. RDAC.. 1952) Deshayes. Treasures in the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia. M.” JdI. P. 1964) Desborough. The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors (Oxford. P. 1937-39 (pub’d.. “Fifteen Iron Age Vases. F. P. P..... 1972) Desborough. 1861) Demargne. W. in Gnomon... V.. 1966) O. B.215 Cook. “Tiryns Stadt: Sondage 1968” also in Tiryns VIII .2 (1973-4) Dietrich. 1947) Dikaios.. 81 (1957) Crowfoot.. Emmons) (New York.” BICS.

“Das Alter des Heiligtums von Olympia. H. J. 12 (1905-6) Droop. “Bemerkungen zum aeltesten Kunsthandelwerk auf griechischem Boden.. 13 (1888) Dümmler. A.. “The Minoan and Mycenaean Element in Hellenic Life. “Excavations in Melos 1899: The Pottery. “Mycenaean Cyprus as Illustrated in the British Museum Excavations. 1904) Else. Troja und Ilion (Athens: 1902) Drerup. 1935) Dörpfeld. etc. W.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.. Mitt.. “The Pottery from Arcadia. P.” JHS. 16 (N.. P. 1969) Droop..” BSA.” Ath.. A. J. 5 (1898-99) Edgar. Semple I (ed. J. A. J.” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly (henceforth PEFQ). Crete.0) (Göttingen. 88 (1956) Dümmler.13 (1892-3) Evans. 31 (1906) Dörpfeld. T.216 Dörpfeld.. “Late Cypriot III in the Light of Recent Excavations. C. “Zu den Vasen aus Kameiros.S.” BSA..” JdI..” Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology.. “Minos and Daidalos in Sicily. C. Alt Olympia I (Berlin. C.” Ath. Etude sur les anciens cultes chypriotes.. F. F. al. W. 22 (1912) Evans. Mitt..” JHS. J. “A Mycenaean Treasure from Aegina.. The Western Greeks (Oxford.T.) (Princeton.. G. C. R. T. 1967) Evans. Bericht iiber die im Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalten Ausgrabungen (Leipzig: 1894) Dörpfeld. J. Bradeen et. 6 (1891) Dussaud.. W. D.. 30 (1900) Evans. J. The Palace of Minos (London... J. “The Pottery” in Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (JHS supplement 4) (London. F..” Syria 27 (1950 E Edgar.” Papers of the British School at Rome. Griechische Baukunstin geometrischer Zeit (Archaeologia Homerica II. “Kinyras. 1948) Taylor. 12 (1925) Dunbabin. J. A. “Homer and the Homeric Problem” in Lectures in Memory of L. Troja 1893.. “Dipylon Vases from the Kynosarges Site. 1935) F . Du Plat. 3) (1948) Dunbabin. W.

” Tiryns I (Athens: 1912) Johansen. W..” AJA 46 (1942) Graham. 1938) Furtwängler.” reprinted in Kleine Schriften I (Munich.. The World of Odysseus (New York. F. E. 1948) Grace. “Das Alter des Heraion und das Alter des Heiligtums von Olympia. K.. 1969) Santerre.. W. et al. 4 (1946) Gjerstad. K. 1966 (reprint of 1923 edition) Frödin. G. D. Sicily and Rome (Princeton.. 1941) Furumark. M. A. H. Platnauer) (Oxford. H. SCE. N. The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm....” Op.. A. Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm. Arch... Aeneas. J... A.. Asine: Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922-1930 (Stockholm. Early Greek Warfare (Cambridge. 1963) Frickenhaus. “Die mit dem Tempel gleichzeitig oder später entstandenen Bauten” in Furtwängler. R. 1973) .” Berlin Abhandlungen 4 (1879) Furumark. Delos primitive et archaique (Paris. Gallet de.. “Decorated Metal Bowls from Cyprus. K. 1958) Gardiner.217 Fiechter. E. S. P. I.” Archaeology. Der Schild des Achilleus (Archaeologia Homerica II. 13 (1900) Gray. IV. 1956) Frankfort. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore. “Mycenaean Architecture. R.. “Die Hera von Tiryns. A. 1954) Greenhalgh. 1911) Furtwängler. A.” Classical Quarterly N. Greece before Homer (London. “Homer and the Archaeologists” in Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship (ed... “Houses in the Odyssey. A.. 1973) Folsom. Handbook of Greek Pottery (London. Friis. 1967) Forsdyke. 1) (Göttingen. 5 (1959) Gray. Aegina: Das Heiligtum der Aphaia (Munich: 1906) Finley. M..2 (Stockholm.. A. “Die Bronzefunde aus Olympia and deren Kunstgeschichtliche Bedeutung. Les Vases Sicyoniens (Rome. O. D... A.. and Persson.S. “Observations on Seventh-Century Sculpture. 1941) G Galinsky. E. Egypt of the Pharaons (New York. 1972) Gjerstad. 1954) Fittschen. J.

21 (1974) Harden. N. H. N. M. “Tumulus Burial in Albania. R.” BSA. Olympia: Heiligtum und Wettkampfstätte (Munich.” BSA. Semple II (ed. “Oriental Art of the Saite Period” in CAH1 . 1925) Hammond.G. N. C.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (Univ. 1940) . 66 (1971) Hammond.” AJA. V. 82 (1978) H Hall. 64 (1969) Higgins. Minoan and Mycenaean Art (New York. Excavations in Eastern Crete. “Early Greek Vases from Crete. 50 (1972-3) E. G.” BSA. A.. A History of Cyprus I (Cambridge. F. of London) (henceforth BICS). “The Aegina Treasure Reconsidered. G.. The Phoenicians (New York. Boulter et. 1973) Hammond. L. R.. Greek Terracottas (London. H-V. H..” BSA. G. A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford.” BSA. G. Havelock. and the IndoEuropeans. 1958) Hill. 46. “Grave Circles in Albania and Macedonia” in Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean (ed.” Jahreshefte des österrejchischen archäologischen Instituts.) (Princeton. Epirus (Oxford.. Crossland and A. 62 (1967) Hankey. 62 (1967) Hankey. the Grave Circles of Mycenae. E. A History of Macedonia I (Oxford. Vrokastro (Philadelphia. G. “Mycenaean Trade with the South-Eastern Mediterranean... 1967) Hammond. 1914) Hall..T.. L.. 29 (1930-1) Harl-Schaller.. R. L.. 1967) Higgins..2 (1970) Hankey. L. “Early Greek Jewelry. “Prologue to Greek Literacy” in Lectures in Memory of L. 1962) Hartley.. 1972) Higgins. and Warren. 1972) Hammond. E. C. V. N. L. L. D. N. R. “Die archaischen ‘Metopen’ aus Mykene. “The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age.III (Cambridge.” BSA.. “The Dating of Some Burials in Tumuli in South Albania..218 Guralnick.. al... 52 (1957) Hignett. R. G. V. G.” Melanges de l’Universite Saint Joseph. P.. Birchall) (London.. N. 1973) Hernnan. 1967) Higgins. “Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle East. “The Proportions of Kouroi. E.

“Notes on Some Mycenaean Survivals in Cyprus During the First Millennium B. V.219 Hopkins. (1933) Karo. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Princeton. Perati. C.” Arch.. J.. S. 19771978 Karo.” Kadmos. P.. V. 1974) Karageorghis.)...” AJA.. IVR IX (1974) Iakovides. Salamis in Cyprus (London. G. 1908) I Immerwahr. H. E. 1908) Karageorghis. 1956) Jantzen.. 1971) Isaacson.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 15 (1956) Kantor.” Scripta Minora (Lund). V. Mycenaean Art from Cyprus (Nicosia. B (Athens. “The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B..” BCH 90 (1966) Karageorghis. and Gagniers. Cyprus (London. La Ceramique Chypriote de style figure (Rome. I (1962) Karageorghis. V. The Athenian Agora XIII. . Anz. “A propos des quelques representations de chars sur des vases chypriotes de l’Age du Fer. 3) (Nicosia: 1967) Karageorghis. G. “Applying the Revised Chronology” . “Tiryns-Synoro-Iria 1965-1968. et al. . “Syro-Palestinian Ivories.. Ernst Grumach (Berlin. G. “Ivory Carving in the Mycenaean Period.w. des.s. D. Anz. 66 (1962) Hogarth. Excavations at Ephesus (London..” Archäologischer Anzeiger (henceforth Arch. “The Aegina Treasure.?” AJA.. H. V. S. H.C. 83 (1968) K Kantor. V. “The Goddess with Uplifted Arms in Cyprus. “Homerica from Salamis (Cyprus)” in Europa: Studien . I. U. V. vol. 1967) Karageorghis. “Archäologische Funde u... 1970) Karageorghis. V. 1969) Karageorghis. vol. “Die Perseia von Mykenai. 51 (1947) Karageorghis..” Archaeology 13 (1960) Kantor.C. 38 (1934) .. V.” AJA. Greek Pins (Oxford. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I (Salamis. Pensée. 1970) J Jacobsthal..

220 Kelly. 1975) Lloyd.. 76 (1972) Lloyd. S. E. 2 (Cambridge. M. 1975) Luce. 1929) Langlotz. S. Kerameikos V. A. 1943) Kübler. Kerameikos VI. S.. J. Vol.” Hesperia 14 (1945) Littauer. 1976) Kirk.1 (Berlin. K. W.. S. Greek Pottery in the Bronze Age (London. M. Homer and the Monuments (London. 1971) Kirk. B. 1967) Lamb. The Language and Background of Homer (Cambridge..” The Cambridge Ancient History. T.. Greek and Roman Bronzes (New York.. K. 1972) Kübler. The Art of the Ancient Near East (New York: 1961) Lorimer.. 1975) Kirk. A. “The Homeric Poems as History..” AJA. “Early Hellenic Pottery of Crete. Ancient Greek Sculpture of South Italy and Sicily (tr. Homer and the Oral Tradition (New York. K. J. “The Calaurian Amphictiony. 1967) Kenyon.. 1954) Kübler. G. G. The Sanctuary of Demeter (London. 1962) Knossos.. S.. 2... Book II. 1. K. D. A.. K. S. Hicks) (New York.. 70 (1966) Kenyon. 2 (Berlin.. Introduction (Leiden. M. D. Homer and the Homeric Age (London. 1970) L Lacy.. 1964) Kirk.. A. 1973) Kunze. pt. “Zur Geschichte und zu den Denkmälern Olympias” in 100 Jahre deutche Ausgrabung in Olympia (Munich. 1950) Luce. 1965) Levi. Kerameikos IV (Berlin. II.. G. Third ed. “The Military Use of the Chariot in the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age. G. Royal Cities of the Old Testament (London. V. Homer and the Heroic Age (London. The Songs of Homer (Cambridge.. K. V.. Herodotus. Jerusalem (London. H. Digging up Jericho (London: 1957) Kenyon. 1975) M .” AJA. M.

H. 1966) Mylonas.. G.. 3000-612 B... 1968) Morgan II. A. 40. Master Bronzes from the Classical World (Los Angeles. 13 (1906-07) Mahr. Excavations at Thera VII (Athens. S. and Hirmer. F. “A Late Cypriot III Tomb from Kourion Kaloriziki No.” Arch. G. and Sjöqvist. “Priam’s Troy and the Date of its Fall. “The Terracotta Figurines from the North Slope of the Acropolis.” Hesperia 4 (1935) Moscati. S. 1884) Michaud.. V... 1976) Marinatos. A. G.. Progress into the Past (New York. H. Anz. 1957) Mylonas. Crete and Mycenae (New York. “Archaeology in Greece.” BSA. Geschichte des Alterthums I (Stuttgart.. The Mecklenburg Collection.. (New York. 1967) McFadden. 1966) Mallwitz. E. P. K. ca. P. 1960) Marinatos. S. G.” BCH. M. The Art of Crete and Early Greece (tr. 98 (1974) Milojcic. G. Excavations in Cyprus (London. E.. 1964-65. 1934) Megaw.. et al. Eleusis and the Eleusian Mysteries (Princeton.. W. 5S (1954) Meyer. G. Western Asiatic Jewelry.. 1968) Müller.” BSA. E. F. 1962) Maxwell-Kyslop... The World of the Phoenicians (tr.. Aghios Kosmas (Princeton: 1959) Mylonas. “Numerous Years of Joyful Life.. 1900) Mylonas. 1961) Mylonas.” Hesperia 33 (1964) .. G. and Doeringer. S. Ancient Mycenae (Princeton. Tiryns III (Augsburg. Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich. 46 (1951) Matz.. S. A. 1948-1949 Mitten.. 1930) Murray. 1972) Marinatos. “Cretan Palaces and the Aegean Civilization III. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton.221 Mackenzie..” AJA. D. (London. D. “Chronique des Fouilles en 1973..... J. S. by A.C. K. etc. Nimrud and Its Remains II (London. “Die dorische Wanderung im Lichte der vorgeschichtlichen Funde.” Archaeological Reports 1964-65 Mallowan. 1971) McDonald. M. Keep) (New York. A. S. H. A. Hamilton) (London. C.

. Bastias.. P. D. 13 (1972) Page.” Hesperia. A. G. (ed. B. tr. History and the Homeric Iliad (Los Angeles.. 1959) Pallottino. “Horned-head Vase Handles. 1914) Myres. S..” GRBS. 33 (1972) Myres.. Christopoulos and J. “Homer and the Monuments: A Review. C.. M. M. 1200-700 BC” in Auckland Classical Essays Presented to E.. Collon) (London. M. The Archaeology of Crete (London.. R. Aegyptiaca (Cambridge. L. G. “Religion in the Archaic Period” in The Archaic Period (ed. J. 1939) Picard. Kypros. D. L.. J. Blaiklock (ed.1972) Nicholls. 1933) Notopoulos. M. Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus (New York. Archaeological Encyclopaedia of the Holy Land (New York. and C. Pragmateiai tes Akademias Athenon. “Homer. Sherrard) (London.. A. Etruscan Painting (tr. 29 (1960) O Oakeshott. ca. “The Cemeteries of Eleusis and Mycenae” .. R. D. J.” Antiquity 25 (1951) N Negev. A.” (English summary).. Louis. 86 (1966) Ohnefalsch-Richter. N. 1930) Pendlebury. Hermann) (London. S.. J.. by D. J..” JHS. N. 1931) Pendlebury. 42 (1967) Pickard. “Greek Votive Statuettes and Religious Continuity. 1968) .. Robinson I (St.) Studies Presented to P. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 99 (1955) Mylonas. Hesiod and the Achaean Heritage of Oral Poetry. G. Harris) (New Zealand.222 Mylonas.. P. The Life and Death of Carthage (tr. M. Homer and Mycenae (London.. 1893) P Padgug. Stanley & S. Necrocorinthia (Oxford. 1975) Payne. H. V. “Eleusis and the Union of Attica. 1970) Nilsson. C. “The Cult Center of Mycenae. Gilbert) (Geneva. “Installations cultuelles retrouvées au Tophet de Salambo. 1951) Mylonas. the Bible and Homer (tr.. G. 1952) Papachadzis. G. R.M..” Rivista degli Studi Orientali.

G. H.” JHS 97 (1977) Pomerance.. Ugaritica II (Paris. “Observations sur la ceramique mycenienne. A. “Tiryns: Unterburg 1968 etc.. L.. 1971) Popham.. 1968) Pottier.” Hesperia. W. Jantzen) (Mainz. G. R. U. G. N.. Jewelry in the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia. Mitt. M. 31 (1907) Poulsen.” JdI. 1968) Richter. Kouroi (London.. E. The Odes of Pindar (New York. Engraved Gems of the Greeks and the Etruscans (New York. G. Der Orient und die frühgriechische Kunst (Berlin. 1975) Rodenwaldt. W. 53-54 (1958-9) Sandys. W.. H. and Sackett. Ägyptische Goldschmiedearbeiten (Berlin. 1969) Richter.... J. H. 1975) S Sandars. “Tiryns 1968” in Tiryns V (ed. “Mykenische Studien I. G. “Documents ceramiques du Musee du Louvre. J. Euboea 1964-66 (London... G. “Zur Entstehung der Monumentalen Architektur in Griechenland. E. M.. 1968-1972. C. 1960) Ridington. B.223 Pierides. Ath. 1924) Schäffer. H... The Final Collapse of Santorini (Thera) (Götteborg. 1912) Pritchard. “Excavations at Corinth: Temple Hill. 1968) Richter..” in Tiryns VIII (ed. “A Minoan Cemetery on Upper Gypsades: The Bronzes.. 1962) R Richter. The Minoan-Mycenaean Background of Greek Athletics (Philadelphia... “Shadowy Megara. U. 1949) Schäfer. A History of Greek Art I (New York. Janzen) (Maintz. 1935) Robinson.. Korai (London. L. F.” Bulletin du correspondance hellenique (henceforth BCH). 34 (1919) Rudolph. 1971) Plommer.” BSA. Gibeon (Princeton..” Revue Archeologique 28 (1896) Pottier.. R. Excavations at Lefkandi. 1910) . 44 (1919) Rodenwaldt. 45 (1976) Robertson.. 1971) Rudolph. A Handbook of Greek Art (New York..

. 1971) Stanford. S. M. A. W.C. 1964) Snodgrass. E. Gnomon. “An Historical Homeric Society?” Journal of Hellenic Studies 94 (1974) Snodgrass.. Hope and Lazenby. M. J. Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Ithaca. “Masken am Hals Kretisch-mykenischer und früh-geometrischer Tongefässe. A. 105. M... S. 79 (1964) Schliemann. 1971) Searls. H.. B. 94 (1974) Snodgrass. 1967) .. Usborne) (New York. “Late Burials from Mycenae. 1966) Schuchardt. Alasia I (Paris. C... A. T... The Odyssey of Homer II (New York. Schliemann’s Excavations. Mycenae (New York. H. W. Schweitzer.. 1977) Snodgrass. 37 (1909) Snodgrass. 49 (1945) Simpson. W. The Dorians in Archaeology (London. review of Catling’s Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Gjerstad et al.. The Ancient Olympic Games (Princeton. W. and Dinsmoor. F...” AJA.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies (henceforth JNES). 1971) Schiering.” Hesperia. R. “Enkomi” in E. 1967) Snodgrass.. p. “The Date of the Olympia Heraeum. review of Greenhalgh’s Early Greek Warfare in Journal of Hellenic Studies 94 (1974) Snodgrass. 24 (1965) Sinos. 1939) Smith. L. SCE I (Stockholm. JHS.” BSA. M. 68 (1973) Snodgrass. Die vorklassischen Hausformen in der Ägäis (Mainz: 1971) Sjöqvist. P. 850 B. M. G. New York. A. M. Tiryns (New York: 1885) Schöbel..224 Schäffer. H. & C. E.. Early Greek Armour and Weapons (Edinburgh. W. E. A. B.. The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh. 1970) Simpson. Interconnections in the Ancient Near East (London: 1965) Smithson. H.. ca. A. A. A.. review of Hammond’s A History of Macedonia. Greek Geometric Art (tr. Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State (Cambridge.” Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (henceforth JdI). E.. M. M. K. 3 9 (1965) Skeat. B... “The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady.. The Catalogue of the Ships in Homer’s Iliad (Oxford. 1880) Schliemann. “The Vessels with engraved designs and the Repoussé Bowl from the Tell Basta Treasure.. 1934) Sjöqvist.

20 (1978) Thompson. D.” Antiquity 43 (1969) Taylour. Memphis and Mycenae (Cambridge. “New Light on Mycenaean Religion.2 Odyssey (Leipzig. F. “Found: The Dorians... N. J. F. by S..” BSA 68 (1973) Taylour. I.” Archalocrikon Deltion 18 (1963) . 1961) Strong. C... J. I. D. H. 1966) Studniczka. Mycenaean Pottery Italy and Adjacent Areas (Cambridge. 37 (1968) Tomlinson. Greek Geometric Art. “A Note on the Recent Excavations at Mycenae. 1897) U Ussishkin.. D.. 1965) Vermeule. Bathe.. R. D.. Jerusalem. 1896) Travlos. W. C... “Astronomy and Chronology.. B. W. Ogilvie) (Bloomington.” Hesperia.. N.” Antiquity 44 (1970) Thomas. “Der Rennwagen in Syrisch-phoinikischen Gebiet. I.Y.225 Starr.” The Biblical Archaeologist.. “Mycenae. The Mycenaean Age (New York. and C. Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London. 1977) Velikovsky. “Die Fibula des Odysseus” in E. The Origins of Greek Civilization (New York. 33 (1970) Vacano..” Expedition. Usborne (New York: 1971) T Taylour. 1968. 1952) Velikovsky.. trans. C. E. 1978) Verdelis. N... 1958) Taylour.” JdI. “The Fall of the Mycenaean Empire. Ages in Chaos I (Garden City. C. Greek Sanctuaries (London.. & Manatt... A. Ramses II and His Time (New York. The Etruscans in the Ancient World (transl.” Pensée (Spring-Summer. E. by P. D. 22 (1907) Studniczka. “Activity in the Athenian Agora: 1966-1967.. Homer 11.” Archaeology 13 (1960) Velikovsky. A. I. Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (Glasgow. D. “Anaskaphe Tirynthos.Y. 1971) Tsountas. I. G.. “The Necropolis from the Time of the Kingdom of Judah at Silwan. 1929) Schweitzer. Peoples of the Sea (Garden City.. W.. 1973) Velikovsky. W. etc. 1976) Torr.

64 (1960) Vickers. “Neue geometrische Gräber in Tiryns. B. “Built Tombs in Cyprus” Opuscula Archaeologica (henceforth pp.) II (1941) Wide... OK. J. et. H. “The Palace.. Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide (Princeton..” Ath. H. Voigtländer. 1968) Wilson.” Annual of the British School at Athens (henceforth BSA).. H. 17 (1897) Webster. J. Walls of Jericho (London: 1958) Whitman. 1905) Walters. Tiryns (Athens: 1972) W Wace... etc.... J. N.” American Journal of Archaeology (henceforth AJA). NY. “The Mycenaeans in Achaia. E. 21 (1896) Wiesner. J. 25 (1921-3) Wace.” Athenische Mittheilungen (henceforth Ath. N. 1964) Weinberg. From Mycenae to Homer (New York. Weinberg) (Locust Valley.. Mitt.... B. Mycenae Guide (Meriden. I.. A..226 Verdelis. A.). J. 38 (1976) Wheeler. M. Fahren und Reiten (Archaeologia Homerica. 1972) Vermeule. B. Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge. H. C. S. “Aphidna in Nordattika.) Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 1955) Winter..” JHS. J. B. Arch. 1971) Wace. 78 (1963) Verdelis. “The Last Days of Mycenae. Conn.” Archaeological Reports 1971-2. S. “Cyrenaica.. T. “The Lion Gate and Grave Circle Area.. The Art of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae (Norman. 1956) Walters. Mitt. 1958) . (ed... “Amathus” SCE II (Stockholm. 1949) Wace. al. N. 1975) Verdelis. A. A. L. Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago.” BSA. 25 (1921-23) Wace. and Reynolds. S. etc. “Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving. 2 (Princeton.. M. W. Mass.” in The Aegean and Near East (ed. Locust Valley (New York: 1956) Westholm.. A. in Pritchard.. B. “On Some Antiquities of the Mycenaean Age Recently Acquired by the British Museum. M. I F) (Goettingen. History of Ancient Pottery I (New York. B.” Iraq. H. 1935) Westholm. 1962-72.. B. J.

Y. R. Alalakh (Oxford: 1955) Woolley. L..227 Woolley.. 1939) . Mesopotamia and the Middle East (London... 1961) Y Yadin. A Forgotten Kingdom (London: 1959) Woolley. Hazor (New York. 1975) Young.. L. Late Geometric Graves and a Seventh Century Well in the Agora (Athens. L.

228 NEW LIGHT ON THE DARK AGE OF GREECE by Jan Sammer .

To the north of the city stood a temple dedicated to Hera: legend has it that it was at this Heraion in the Argive plain that the leaders of the Trojan War assembled and took an oath of loyalty to their cause. which may be attributed to the reign of Queen Hatshepsut. Since. I. not much later than 15— B. since the problem is not confined to one or to several among them. The only object “definitely datable through foreign analogies was the Egyptian scarab found in Tomb XIV.1 Legend has it also that this center of worship of Hera was founded at least thirteen Generations before Agamemnon and the Trojan expedition. We can say at the start that this journey along the graves will not be as problem-free as it should be if the accepted scheme is all true and if the centuries between the Mycenaean and Ionic ages are real and not fictitious.”3 Here. we are prepared for all kinds of embarrassing finds and strained solutions. We can start our survey with any one of the fifty-two excavated tombs. In historic times. which formed its acropolis. actually by more than half a millennium.C. The cemetery was ascribed by Blegen to the Mycenaean Age.?” That kind of disturbance was it? “There was nothing to . “Tombs IX. as was shown in Ages in Chaos. Hatshepsut reigned about -1500. XIX and L had . in the first half of the seventh century. In the days of the Trojan war it was reputedly ruled by Diomedes. Close to the Heraion a cemetery of Mycenaean Age was excavated by Carl Blegen early in his distinguished archaeological career. . or Argolis.229 The Tombs at the Argive Heraion Argos. during the reign of King Pheidon. according to Greek tradition. but later it surrendered its supremacy to Sparta. however. in round numbers. And it stands only if. was. a very ancient city. in the south of the Argive valley. from that of Queen Hatshepsut—this on the conventional timescale. and the discovery of geometric pottery on or just above the Floor permitted the disturbance to be approximately dated. vol.2 We shall follow him through a series of tombs and see whether Furtwängler’s scheme did insure the archaeologist against any conflicting evidence. . clearly been disturbed. . Argos was the leading city in the Peloponnesos. chronology is established through contact with Egypt. as in all other places of early Greece. as in this case. from -1600 to -1200. It stood four miles from the sea at the foot of a steep hill. one of the heroes of that war. Hatshepsut was a contemporary of King Solomon and lived in the tenth century. The problem which Blegen faced almost wherever he dug was “the recovery in so may tombs of objects dating from the Geometric period4—a time separated by centuries. .

” If the “disturbance” is of a later date than the time the sepulchers were made. and the objects which were then deposited in the chamber make it clear that the date of the intrusion is to be assigned to the later part of the Geometric Period. It looked as if the roof had caved in. XXXIV. . but how with the Mycenaean ware in the fill. . how could the ware have come to lie under the fill. as we shall presently see. Just above the floor were recovered two spherical beads of glass paste. what moved people to deposit their pottery and bronze in tombs over half a millennium old? “The tomb may have become in effect a simple shrine” of the cult of the dead. Tomb IX is most instructive: “The tomb had been entered and disturbed in the Geometric Period. . a votive deposit—though here it did not rest on the floor itself. . but in all respects similar to that brought to light in the chamber of tomb XIX”11— that is. XL. The tomb “was opened and entered in post-Mycenaean times.”9 Let us examine them one by one. XLIII and XLIX] similar deposits came to light. on the floor? If the tombs were opened in the Geometric period. above the geometric ware on the floor? Let us turn to tomb XIX and once more quote Blegen. but “on or just above the floor. the pious Geometric people. even had the tombs been rifled. No traces of bones came to light. and it did not look as if this deposit of bronzes and other objects was of a sepulchral character. . About tomb L Blegen wrote: “Most of the fill of Mycenaean times. the perplexing problem would persist.230 suggest that the tombs had been deliberately rifled.” Then. which continued down to the floor itself. probably dating from the Mycenaean period.”5 and.”8 In all the three cases cited above the sole basis for claiming disturbance was the finding of Geometric pottery—and not only in the fill of the tombs.90 meters below the surface of the grounds. added objects of their time to the ancient funerary equipment. and the earth and the debris removed in the course of our excavations contained may Geometric sherds and a few fragments of bronze.10 The Geometric deposit in tomb XXVI “was apparently not of a sepulchral nature. but instead of pilfering the contents of the thus-exposed tombs. There was no rifling of the tomb. . nor a second burial: the objects were deposited to honor ancestors whom nobody could remember. at a depth of 2. descendants of five centuries.”7 But for what purpose were the tombs opened? “The purpose of this reopening of the tomb in Geometric times was not definitely ascertained. since the issue is of decisive importance. X. except for a few centimeters above the floor. Practically all braces of Mycenaean occupation had been removed and the earth filling the chamber contained objects of Geometric date. XXVI. had disappeared. . XXXVII. how could the objects put in by the disturbers find their place with the Mycenaean ware. on the floor? “In eight further instances [tombs VIII.”6 Where geometric ware was found in the fill it was thought to have a later date of deposition.

would break in to steal the ancient artifacts? Yet this is what Blegen had to assume on the basis of the accepted chronology.231 The contents of tomb XXXIV evoked the following admission on the part of the excavator: “the date of this [Geometric] deposit is more easy to determine than its significance. how good is the explanation that the disturbers—riflers they were not—deposited bronze and pottery of their own age in so many graves? It was absolutely clear to Blegen that none of these graves had ever been reused for burial or second interment. . This evidence. Since the tombs were not reused. “What is the significance of these objects?” he asked. .15 Their significance is in their perturbing the accepted historical time table.” Blegen continued. The finds of Protocorinthian skyphoi in tombs XXXIV and XL were especially on Blegen’s mind. . The tombs numbered XLIII and XLIX also contained Geometric deposits besides those identified as Mycenaean. the unpainted vessels and the bronzes are of types one might expect in the same association? and the whole deposit might be as late as the end of the eighth century.”13 The roof was found to have collapsed. it seems to me. The oenochoe for “wine pourer” . In tomb XL Blegen found the roof in its place. arrived at the conclusion that the eighth or seventh century inhabitants of the place were devotees of an ancestors’ cult. In the absence of a more reasonable answer to the startling state of things Blegen. was still flourishing in the cemetery at the Heraeum long after the Mycenaean age had passed away. I believe.”16 But the words “we have in a high level” in the tombs conflict with Blegen’s observation and description: in several tombs the Geometric ware . the skyphosis a typical Protocorinthian fabric .” Blegen concluded: “This deposit of post-Mycenaean objects in the chamber is. that a man would squeeze through a hole in the lintel of a grave in order to put objects in? and that no one else. is of the Geometric style. representing several skyphoi. “can only mean that the cult of the dead. some traces of which we have already seen within the sepulchers themselves.”12 In tomb XXXVII “a number of small Protocorinthian sherds and many fragments of bronze. at any rate had been deposited inside the chamber and were found in the fill at a height of I m to 1. a bronze bowl. Therefore “what we have in a high level in these Late Helladic tombs [-1600 to -1200] are clearly votive offerings which were deposited at some time in the Geometric Period. seeing the opening. These objects included a small Corinthian jug. or even imaginable. and a bronze pin.60 m above the floor. as we have seen. to be interpreted as evidence for a continuing cult of the dead. . but the drop of the lintel opened access into the chamber—“the opening above the walled door must have been large enough for a roan to enter: a number of objects of post-Mycenaean date.”14 But is it likely. bronze wire and a bronze pin of a Geometric type were found down to within half a metre of the floor. a number of fragments of Proto-Corinthian pottery.

and could be from a later part of the Eighteenth Dynasty. the already mentioned scarab found in tomb XIV— . Murray. It appears that the cemetery dates from sometime in the tenth or. the presence of Geometric objects on the floor of the chamber.19 It is not excluded that the older of the tombs date from the time of Hatshepsut of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Dörpteld and some of A. XIX and the main chamber of XXVI. . recently found by Mr. In almost every instance recorded or a skeleton lying in order in the tombs at the Heraeum it is clear that the body of the person buried had been laid directly on the floor of the chamber. or near it. we will follow Carl Blegen to Troy and to Pylos. suggested that the disappearance of some Mycenaean remains was due to later disturbance.” It belonged to a type “used in the early XVIII Dynasty as amulets or charms. more probably. The chronological evidence supplied by this scarab is of no little value in confirming the date of our tomb. to establish the true age of the cemetery at the Heraion? First. Winlock in the excavations of the Metropolitan Museum at Deir el-Bahari.20 The state of things at the cemetery of the Argive Heraion calls for a vindication of some of the views of W. surrounding the skeleton of the dead with objects five centuries more recent than himself? *** Should we try.”17 Is it.what is its evidence? “The cartouche apparently reads. . .”18 “Other Egyptian objects dating from the XVIII Dynasty were round in the Tholos [beehive] tomb at the Heraeum and from the slope below the Second Temple.” “In tombs IX. . It is of a type common in the time of the eighteenth dynasty and is almost exactly similar to some scarabs of Queen Hatshepsut’s reign. ‘the good favour of Amen’. on the basis of contact with Egypt.232 was clearly the earliest-it was on the floor of the tombs—in others mixed with the Mycenaean ware. the ninth to sometime in the eighth century. But before we reverse the verdict. Blegen admitted that they presented “a puzzling problem. thinkable that the late worshippers of the dead in some instances added their ware to the Mycenaean ware and in other instances replaced the Mycenaean ware by one of their own time. And since no repeated burials were found in these tombs. but a charm or amulet. . yet the scarab found and attributed to her reign was not a royal signet. then. S.

Ibid. 261. p. Ibid. Ibid. 20. 262. p. p. p. p. Dictys Cretensis 116.. Ibid. 8. p. 262. 140. p. 12. Coldstream assumes widespread cult surrounding the Mycenaean tombs five centuries after they were abandoned and forgotten. 16.. Ibid. pp. also ...” Cf. 346 ff. Cf. p. It is much more likely that the Greeks of the late eight century remembered ancestors who had not been buried more than a few decades. belonging to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. Besides objects attributed to the Eighteenth Dynasty. titled “Prosymna: Remains of Post-Mycenaean Date. p. Blegen published a more complete survey of what he considered later or intrusive deposits in the tombs in an article In the American Journal of Archaeology 43 (1939).. II). Ibid. 281... scarabs of “a much later” date. 6. 161) The situation in tomb X was very similar. also idem. 262. were found there. Ibid. vol. 13. p. Blegen. 59-60.N. Ibid. Ibid. 169. p. p. 15.. 9. Ibid. 14. (ibid.J. Ibid. 263. 18.. p... Prosymna. 4. 10. p.. 112. Ibid. 165. 262. too. 19. I (Cambridge. 7. 133. 1977) pp. 262.. 2. 11. .. Ibid. W..The earth filling it contained a considerable number of objects dating from the Geometric period” on top of a shallow Mycenaean deposit. Ibid. 93.233 References 1. p. Ibid. Ibid. 17. C. Blegen dated the Second Temple to post-Mycenaean times (p. p. . The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum. 3... 1937). . Geometric Greece (London. 5. 124. Tomb VIII “.

according to Jebb. Several years after the publication of Troy and Its Remains. C. A Greek and after it a Roman town named ‘Ilion’ grew up on the site. even though on a diminished scale. I had wished to be able to make it a thousand times larger. could not accomodate any fortress on the scale envisaged by the poet: “The spatious palaces. that it was vain to expect that a city such as Homer sang of lay hidden beneath the soil of the Troad. though on a much smaller scale. where Schliemann had found the great treasure. proclaimed that Schliemann had not uncovered Homer’s Troy at all and. questioned the identification. was in fact much more ancient: it was as old as the Pyramids. even at its widest extent. Hissarlik. in the view of Carl Blegen.” yet Bali Dagh. The finding of Mycenaean pottery in Troy VI made Wilhelm Dörpfeld. a much better choice: “‘Troy ought to have been here’ is one’s feeling when. from anything of which traces exist at Hissarlik. in any case. Such evidence. he paused briefly at what he believed to be the site of the Homeric Ilion—the hill we know today as Hissarlik. nay.234 The Identification of Troy When Alexander crossed the Hellespont. further.(1) Uncertainty about the identification of Troy continued into modern times. and it met its fiery end at the same time as the Egyptian Old Kingdom collapsed into anarchy. was barely a twentieth of the size of the great citadel conjured by the poet.”(3) By the early 1890’s new discoveries at Hissarlik had shown that Troy II. and that I have proved the Iliad to be based upon real facts. however.(4) Doerpfeld found evidence that Troy VI had been destroyed by a violent earthquake. and even Schliemann’s spectacular discoveries at Hissarlik did not end it. Professor R. Schliemann’s pupil and leader of the new campaign of excavations.” Although in his view “no one site in the Troad satisfies all the Homeric data for the position of Troy. one mounts the hill above Bunarbashi. and wide streets of the Homeric Troy point to a city totally different. could . The Roman geographer Strabo. and I rejoice that my three years’ excavations have laid open the Homeric Troy. who conducted the most recent excavations on the site. one of the foremost classicists of the age. and brought many arguments to show that ‘Ilion’ was in all respects unlikely to have been the site of the Homeric city. a nearby hill looking over the village of Bunarbashi. the damage was partly repaired and the city rebuilt. coming from Hissarlik. claim that city as the most likely to have been the Ilion of Homer.”(2) Jebb’s objections would continue to weigh on the minds of those who followed Schliemann in his identification. setting foot in Asia for the first time. but I value truth above everything. and which he confidently identified as the fortress of Priam. Jebb. as well as those who disagreed: the area of Hissarlik. was. Even Schliemann expressed his dismay: “I am extremely disappointed at being obliged to give so small a plan of Troy. and few ancient writers doubted that here once stood the “welltowered” citadel of Priam. both in scale and in character.

on being plundered and denuded of its inhabitants. the wider problem of relating the Homeric geography to the site of Hissarlik remains. when the Mycenaean cities were yet strong. and a moderate sprinter could cover the ground in less than twenty-five seconds. without any running springs. with abundant springs of deep-soil water gushing close at hand.(9) Whichever level scholars may agree to identify as Homer’s Troy. Actually.(8) This view. the mound of Hissarlik remains one of the most carefully excavated sites of Mycenaean times: and it is to the stratigraphic sequence that we shall now turn. Troy VI was also a well-built fortress. The citadel of Priam. if a Homeric city did exist it had to be Troy VI. such as depicted by Homer. Whether or not Troy has really been found. Nylander in criticism of the conclusions of Blegen’s expedition. looking for a fortress that fell not due to an earthquake.” wrote C. it had been known as a settlement of squatters. Yet even in Troy VI “you could still saunter from side to side in less than two minutes. “sheepish cubicles. has not found general acceptance. at an approachable distance from the Hellespont [Straits of Dardanelles] and apparently invisible from it. and enclosed within its walls an area of less than five acres. in Nylander’s opinion. Some years ago Rhys Carpenter put the matter very succinctly: “There are obvious indications. It is still described as “degraded and altogether pitiable.(5) Troy II was a stronghold. however.” Poor huts with earthen floors. Hissarlik is in plain sight of the Hellespont.” In his view the pottery found in this settlement is not of as early a date as was assigned to it by excavators—the evidence indicates that Troy VIIa was destroyed in the same series of catastrophes which overtook the palaces of Mycenae. must have succumbed earlier than this. .(7) “The very poverty and insignificance of Troy VIIa. he identified the Troy sung by Homer in Troy VIIa. “make it a less likely object of a large scale military enterprise from far away across the sea by a coalition of Mycenaen states. which speaks of a great walled city with streets.”(10) From the Iliad it transpires that the Achaeans could not effectively besiege Troy because of its great size—the Trojans were able to receive aid from all the nations of Asia Minor until the very end of the war. on the same side of the river.” he wrote.” huddle against the walls of the little town. girded by thick walls embracing an even larger area. situated across the Scamander. rising to a temple-crowned acropolis. he concluded. but by siege and assault. Before Blegen identified it as Priam’s citadel. Thus. houses and palaces. Tiryns and Pylos together with so many other cities in all parts of Greece and the ancient East as a whole.235 hardly be reconciled with the Homeric account of a city whose walls were breached by an enemy after a lengthy siege and which. “that Hissarlik does not agree with the situation demanded by the Iliad. Blegen disagreed with Dörpfeld about the identity of the Homeric city.”(6) But Troy VIIa was smaller still. was for a long time left deserted.

“Geomorphic Reconstructions in the Environs of Ancient Troy. M. Nylander. Geography. Blegen. R. Leaf. Mylonas (“Priam’s Troy and the Date of Its Fall.” Antiquity 37 (1963). also W. 8-12. R. Schliemann’s refutation of Strabo in Troy and Its Remains (London. 27. 10. History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley. and with the assumption that Bali Dagh represented the remains of Ilion. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age [Princeton. But cf. Carpenter argues that Homer construed the Iliad without knowledge of the true site of the city of which he sang. cf. in fact. 5. C. “The Fall of Troy. fn.” Annual of the British School at Athens 37 (1936-37). pp. 164-65. 344. 4. p. A similar view was earlier expressed by F. 195-217. 49. pp. 6. If Homer did make such an assumption. “I. pp. 1973] failed to find any evidence of Bali Dagh being inhabited so early. Cook (The Troad: An Archaeological and Topographical Study [Oxford. 215) also argues in favor of Blegen’s identification of Troy VIIa as the Homeric city. The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors (Oxford University Press.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 3 (1882). 1959). 2. 3. Troja und Ilion: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Schichten von Ilion 1870-1894 (Athens. pp. archaeology does not bear him out—J. Desborough. Page. For a recent geological survey of the site. Troy and Its Remains. Book XIII. G. Their Relation to the Iliad. 54. 368. 1964). Ilhan Kayal. . II. Oguz Erol. W. 1966].236 References 1. p. d’A. 776-782. Cf. pp. idem. 18750. 10 below that Bunarbashi was. Kraft. 1923).” Science 209 (15 August 1980). p. 1902). Schachermeyr in Poseidon 1950. H. p. Fiction. C. Strabo on the Troad (London. see John C. 1. Troy and the Trojans (New York. Doerpfeld. D. V. and in Minoica. pp. 8.” Hesperia 33 [1964]. pp. and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Los Angeles. Idem. Schliemann. The Ruins of Hissarlik. 7. “New Evidence for Dating the Settlements at Troy. pp 189ff. 9. not inhabited that early. Jebb. 1963). Antiquity 23 (1959). Strabo. 41-42. Strabo draws chiefly on information supplied by Demetrios of Skepsis. 1946). 352-380. 6-9. W. Folk Tale. p. ch. “The Historical Sack of Troy. C. p.

” (1) Yet in his last campaign at Troy. let us briefly glance at the stratigraphic situation as it was understood before Blegen. The need for a new and definitive survey of Hissarlik arose in the 1920’s because of continuing uncertainties about the dating of the various strata identified earlier by Schliemann and Dörpfeld. especially concerning the relation of the Late Bronze Age city to its seventh-century Greek successor. and Prosymna had earned him a well-deserved reputation for accuracy and thoroughness. Schliemann’s great trenches.” (3) H. whose careful work at Korakou. Dörpfeld’s campaigns. “contemporary with the colonization of Etruria by the Lydians.237 The Archaeology of Hissarlik Any modern discussion of the stratigraphical situation at Troy must lean very heavily on the work of the University of Cincinnati expedition which dug at the site between 1932 and 1938 under the direction of Carl W. Further discoveries by Dörpfeld in the years following Schliemann’s death confirmed the fact that Troy VI in its later phases belonged to the Mycenaean Age. ironically resulted in the irretrievable loss of large portions of the higher levels which scholars were later to identify as the Ilion of Homer. to undertake a new examination of what remained of Hissarlik in the hope that the troubling chronological questions could once and for all be resolved. Blegen. where he firmly believed he would find the remains of Priam’s fortress. Before turning to the results of the American excavations. Schliemann’s interpretations have already been reviewed—his identification of Troy II with the Homeric Ilion led him to describe the sixth city with its characteristic Gray Minyan ware as a “Lydian” settlement. It was left to Carl Blegen. and could not therefore be the Homeric city—many new problems arose.(2) he argued for the sixth city to be identified as Priam’s. though executed and organized on a much more scientific basis. After about the year -700 the appearance of “advanced Geometric pottery” marks the transition to Troy VIII. nevertheless dismantled additional portions of the hill without really resolving some of the most urgent problems facing Homeric scholarship. conducted in 1890 with the assistance of Wilhelm Dörpfeld. While a few definite conclusions could be drawn on the basis of Dörpfeld’s work—such as the realization that Troy II belonged to the Early Bronze Age. dug in haste in his relentless drive to reach the lower layers of the mound. When in 1902 Dörpfeld published his results. Zygouries. “We can thus take approximately the year 700 as the boundary between the VIIth and VIIIth strata. Schmidt in his ceramical study in the same publication viewed the two phases of the seventh stratum as “a long period of . he found this same Gray Minyan pottery belonging to Troy VI mixed with Mycenaean ware of a sort familiar to him from his diggings at Mycenae and Tiryns. and had Troy VII follow immediately after.

The eighth settlement. The lack of any deposits between the levels of the Late Bronze and Greek cities would normally be interpreted as indicating that there was no break in the occupation of the site. supposedly ca. or Helladic. and thus became the obvious choice as the city of Priam. The final publication of the findings of the Cincinnati expedition was only completed in 1958. settlement by numerous and strong cultural ties. -700. -1200 to ca. Troy VIIa was destined to be short-lived. in Blegen’s view. cultural and historical.238 transition” from the Homeric sixth city to the Greek eighth. despite the supposed gulf of some four centuries separating the one from the other: there was “a continuity of transmission” of an “abundant heritage. Thus a Dark Age was called upon to envelop Troy. was assigned to the years from ca. “In about the year 700 B. -900. was unmistakably a Greek town. and it was so understood by Dörpfeld. . and was assigned to the beginning of the seventh century. the survivors rebuilt the town. whose two phases lasted until about -1100. and on a much-reduced scale. the beginning of the eighth city with its Gray Minyan and Geometric pottery. By then it had become evident that the solution advocated by Blegen in his earlier article was no longer tenable: Troy VIIb could not have lasted for three centuries—its span was halved to ca. The seventh stratum could be linked to the sixth by the presence in both of imported Mycenaean pottery and of Gray Minyan ware. 160 years—and Troy VIII showed no sign of being any earlier than ca. built atop the remains of this last Bronze Age city. the Trojan citadel. no trace of any human habitation between the extinction of Troy VIIb. the manufacture of Gray Minyan pottery continued into the eighth phase. An even more puzzling problem arose when it was realized that the inhabitants of the eighth.(5) Troy VIIa was made to span the thirteenth century. Troy VIIb. a diametrically opposite conclusion was reached purely because of the need to conform to the strictures of an extraneous chronological system.C.” (4) No break in the occupation of the site was noted by either Schliemann or Dörpfeld. as we have seen. -1300. twenty years after the end of the excavations.(6) Blegen’s final conclusions can be summarized as follows: after the destruction of the sixth settlement in an earthquake ca.-1260. and was replaced by Troy VIIb. which had been virtually deserted for some four centuries.C. or Greek. belongs the approximate boundary between the latest phases of the seventh stratum and the oldest of the eighth. where imported Mycenaean pottery of a late phase was still in evidence.-1100. Even Blegen at first found no reason to postulate any hiatus—in an article published soon after the completion of his excavations he put forward some of the new insights presented by his discoveries. What transpired in the meantime? Archaeology could provide no clue. outlining the areas where he found it necessary to differ with Dörpfeld’s scheme. The imaginary break in the stratigraphic sequence was then claimed to signify a total desertion of the hill during the Dark Age. the latter date marking. but here.” (7) Most perplexing was the fact that the new settlers used the same type of pottery as their Helladic predecessors. succumbing to an enemy attack ca. “In the seventh century B. settlement were linked to their predecessors in the seventh. though poorly. and the beginning of the Greek city slightly before -700.

” and the excavators “could not follow any clearly marked stratum throughout the building”(13)—in other . and thus transmitted their ancestral gray pottery to successors in the eighth and seventh centuries. Parts of the walls of the Greek house were “indistinguishable from the earlier construction. as a way out the excavators pleaded mea culpa: “the only explanation we can find is to suppose that.” (12) In the Greek city the archaeologists came upon the remains of a house (no. was it not possible that the artisans carried on their peculiar style elsewhere during the dark centuries and then returned? Some remnants of the Trojans perhaps survived on the near-by hill of Bali Dagh. The survival of the tradition at Troy itself was ruled out since Blegen’s scheme required a 400-year abandonment of the site—but. with considerable continuity between the two phases. the excavators speculated. The strata exposed by Blegen’s team reveal a city of the Late Bronze Age (Troy VIIb) remade ca. where they could have “maintained a foothold for several centuries in virtual isolation until 700 B. Troy VI and Troy VII. below the deposits of Knobbed Ware [pottery characteristic of the last Bronze Age settlement] presents a perplexing and still unexplained problem. -700 into a Greek settlement (Troy VIII).C. as became evident with the progress of digging. Even the boundary between the two settlements could not always be clearly delineated—thus in undisturbed strata belonging to the Late Bronze Age Settlement were found fragments of pottery assigned to “the very beginning of the seventh century.” Such finds were unacceptable in the standard chronological scheme.” “As far as we could judge [the sherds] seem to be of exactly the same kind as the late Geometric pottery from the archaic [seventh-century] strata. Even so. and brought about the intrusion of the later wares into the strata of Troy VIIb.239 suddenly blossomed into life once more with occupants who were still able to make Gray Minyan pottery. contamination had somehow been effected. in the level of the Late Bronze Age settlement. in spite of our efforts to isolate and certify the deposits we examined. they would have seen fit to reoccupy bare and desolate Hissarlik. 814) which. and why.” (8) Gray Minyan ware made up “the great bulk of the pottery of Troy VIII.” There the survivors would have “clung to their customs and traditions through the troubled period from about 1100 to 800 or later.” (9) and was characteristic also of the earlier Late Bronze Age settlements. pieces “indistinguishable from types that are common in Troy VIII and are usually attributed to the seventh century” were found. and the excavators acknowledged that “their occurrence in several areas in the stratum of Troy VIIb.” (11) In another part of the site. it is not explained why the Trojans would have found Bali Dagh any more hospitable than their own hill during the Dark Age. being devised specifically to evade the conclusions that would normally follow from a straightforward interpretation of the stratigraphical situation.” (10) Such remarkable tenacity of tradition is all the more questionable. once settled elsewhere. had been originally a Late Bronze Age building belonging to Troy VIIb—yet its seventh-century Greek owner apparently could re-occupy the place and re-use the still-standing walls and intact foundations of the previous structure.

IV. Blegen. 376) some vases from Troy VIII belong to ca. H. Troy and the Trojans (New York. Schicht rund das Jahr 700 annehmen. “Bronze Age Sites in the Troad” Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean.94) put the migration of the Lydians to Etruria some time before the Trojan War. IV. finally evoked the following admission from Blegen’s team—this after seven years’ digging and decades of careful analysis: “. Cook.. Ibid. 500 years. 1963) p. Troja und Ilion. (revised edition. S. 181. 1961). Coldstream (Greek Geometric Pottery [London. 246. p. Troy. Nr. p. Nachahmungen von Metalgefassen (Civilta Castellana)” in W. N. Buchholz. According to J. The continuing doubts and misgivings. 10 8. G. 750 B.. In Geometric Greece (London. Caskey. 1958) p. Herodotus (I. Troy. 701. 1969). but the question would not be laid to rest: Did not the Greek city follow the Homeric directly.. Tübingen..158. Helbig and H. 13. 3.298. 180. 5. vol. he dates the re-settlement of Troy “from ca.240 words. 9. our evidence leads us to believe that a gap of 400 years exists between the end of Troy VIIb and the beginning of Troy VIII. p. Cf. Blegen et al. Vol.” (14) What the “contrary view” might be they did not spell out. 2.. Troy. Ibid. I. Blegen. Führer durch die öffentlichten Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom. “Stamnoi und Kratere aus grauem Ton. p. 250 (emphasis added).” 7. a discrepancy of ca. C. “Gray Minyan Ware in Cyprus and Northern Syria” in Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean (Park Ridge.C. 172. but archaeologists find no sign of the Etruscans in Italy prior to about the beginning of the eighth century. and also by the presence of Geometric sherds in a context of Troy VIIb.C. 720-700. Schliemann. M. p. onwards. 201: “Die VIII lassen wir mit den entwickelt-geometrischen Vasen beginnen und koennen daher als Grenze zwischen der VII. W.. Generally considered. 291-92. they could not distinguish supposedly twelfth-century features from seventh-century ones. p. . W.. Ibid. but a few sherds may be slightly earlier. pt. Blegen. pt..C. Speier. 38. Dohrn. C. 1968]. I (Princeton. 14.”—J.” 4. IV. Surveys of Bali Dagh carried out in 1959 and 1968 revealed “nothing earlier than 600 B. The City and Country of the Trojans (New York. Ibid. p. 6.. p. pt. p. but the possibility of a contrary view is established by the evidence of several successive floors of house 814. J. 1974). 2791. 10. 11. Blegen et al. Ibid. Ilios. “New Evidence for Dating the Settlements at Troy. 1902). with no abandonment of four centuries’ duration intervening? References 1. p. M.It has been argued that Troy VIIb came to its end about 1100 B. T. vol.” Annual of the British School at Athens 37 (1936-37). raised by finds such as these. NJ. 147. Ibid. pp. p. I. Rawson. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in der vorhistorischen Schichten von Ilion 1870-1894 (Athens. 1977).. 251. 12. p. und VIII.

2 A large part of the population perished: of Neleus’ twelve sons Nestor only survived. Homer tells in the Iliad that this king of Pylos had seen two generations of men pass—“those who had grown up with him. in the western Peloponnese. and he was king in the third age. once again he seated himself upon the marble bench in his palace. including a spatious palace for Nestor. and they who were born to these in sacred Pylos. the expedition of the Dorians and return of the Heracleidae two generations afterwards drove out the descendants of Neleus from Messenia. they settled in northern Greece. Having been expelled from the Peloponnese one or two generations before the Trojan War. had a rather brief existence— according to tradition. who followed Neleus on the throne. unruffled by any whiff of danger.6 The end of Pylos came in the second generation after Nestor: “After the end of the war against Ilium. the dislocations and upheavals which marked the eighth and early seventh centuries uprooted them once again and brought them back to claim possession of their ancient homeland. Of those who came to Troy with Agamemnon.”5 Homer describes the visit of Telemachus.8 The Heraclids. were worshippers of Mars. remembered in tradition as the destruction of Pylos by Heracles. and settled there a mixed population of his own followers. but the old view that they were the cause of the widespread catastrophe that marks the end of the Late bronze Age in Greece now finds few supporters. as their name shows. the father of Nestor. no more than four kings were its rulers from its founding to its destruction. ten years after Troy’s fall— the prince from Ithaka found a prosperous city at the head of a peaceful realm.”7 That there was an influx of Doricspeaking peoples into the Peloponnese after the downfall of the Mycenaean centers is certain—the distribution of Greek dialects in classical times attests to this. taking possession of a depopulated land. having come from Iolcus when his brother Peleus expelled him.3 But by the time of the Achaean expedition against Troy Nestor’ s age no longer permitted him to lead his warriors in battle. when his sons were still only young men. who built the city.”4 From this we can judge that some four or five decades separated the time of the disaster which overtook Pylos in Nestor’s youth from the siege of Troy.241 Blegen at Pylos* Pylos in Messenia. “scepter in hand.1 Neleus brought great renown to Pylos. only the . The Dorian bands descended on the weakened Mycenaean kingdoms. It was Neleus. to Nestor at Pylos. Odysseus’ son. Yet it is worth noting that Nestor took care to placate Poseidon the “earthshaker” with frequent sacrifices. and the death of Nestor after his return home. However. Afterwards the city became involved in bitter warfare with neighboring Elis. but the people of Pylos rebuilt the city on an even grander scale. But this was no mass displacement of populations. and Nestor distinguished himself at the head of the Pylian forces. as Pausanias records. some unexplained disaster overtook the city. but later in his reign. Nestor’s was one of the few safe returns. a Warden of the Achaean race.

and much pottery of Mycenaean time. but were dissuaded from crossing the Corinthian Isthmus.10 instead they took to the sea. The unprotected palace of Nestor was seized and put to the torch. the Heraclid king who received Messenia as his share did not establish himself at Pylos. Such profusion made the archaeologists question whether the script was Minoan or had its origins on the mainland of Greece.242 royal family. Blegen selected for his first dig a prominent hilltop. which seemed to him eminently suitable to be the site of a royal palace. or human and animal census or storage inventory.”9 The route by which the Heracleidae reached Pylos appears to have been this: They were advancing from the north towards the Peloponnesos. Most ancients and moderns. they were found to contain no literary text: they were regularly archive notes. The excavations at Pylos were hardly even started when war intervened.13 but when read. extensive structures began to appear.11 The conquest completed.” Thus Pylos was abandoned and remained deserted—even the knowledge of the site of Nestor’s palace was lost. Already in 1939 in the very first trench he dug Blegen unearthed scores of tablets written in Linear B—and soon there were hundreds of them. directing their ships westward through the Corinthian Gulf. “The old Messenians were not turned out by the Dorians. and disembarked on the unprotected northern coast of Achaia. and to the partition of the land among the Dorians. interesting parallels could be drawn with the Homeric epics: Pylos is mentioned at the head of nine towns that profess . it became a matter of discussion already in antiquity. a short distance from the sea. Thence they advanced south through Arcadia towards Elis.12 This was also the conviction of Carl Blegen when in 1939 he came to Messenia to search the countryside for any sign of the ancient city of Pylos with Nestor’s famous palace. and really. Nevertheless. and when subsequently more tablets inscribed with these characters were found at other sites on the Greek mainland—at Mycenae and at Thebes—the name “Mycenaean” came rather regularly to be applied to the script. Here. “the descendants of Neleus” were expelled. it was not until 1952 that Blegen was able to return with a team from the University of Cincinnati and organize a thorough campaign of excavation—he was to stay for a dozen years. and then on to Pylos. For over a decade after their discovery the tablets were neither published nor read. because they were Minyae who had originally sprung from Iolcus. however. dealing with taxation or conscription. And they were brought over to this compliance by suspicion of their former kings. as soon as he began to lift the earth from his first trench. without doubt. have agreed in placing Nestor’s palace somewhere in the vicinity of the Bay of Navarino in western Messenia. but “changed the royal residence to Stenyclarus. but agreed to Cresphontes being their king. was Nestor’s great palace. celebrated bv Homer. Pausanias relates.

were it not for the fire that destroyed the palace and baked the tablets. besides . would have disintegrated long ago.”20 Nor was this an isolated case—such finds were common throughout the palace: “in some places . Comparing the designs on the pottery in use at the time of the palace’s destruction with the established stylistic sequence of Mycenaean pottery. A great conflagration raged over the structure.18 The palace and the temple next to it. were found. nor the contents of the storage rooms and archives were removed.15 Nestor’s name. at the close of the Mycenaean age. . presented Blegen and his collaborators with problems not unlike those that had already occupied him at the cemetery of Argos and then at Troy.16 Blegen placed the destruction not long after the Trojan War. among sherds from Mycenaean vases “a not inconsiderable number stood out as of a different character: from this material it was possible to reconstruct in whole or in part four pots which may be assigned to a late geometric phase . .243 allegiance to it—in Homer and on the tablets—even some of the names of the towns are the same in both sources. it came rather suddenly. sealed by the layer of ashes and debris of the final conflagration. The exact position of the Late Geometric pottery merits a closer examination. The tablets. the excavators decided that the end of Pylos came ca. In the main building of the palace. the remains of these vases would not have been found mixed with the ware used by the occupants of the palace at the time of its destruction. calibrated according to the Egyptian time-scale. .”21 If Late Geometric sherds were found next to Mycenaean ones in the level of burning.19 But this date was reached at the cost of ignoring the evidence of other pottery pointing to a much later time. since neither furniture. no signs of warfare. in the upper black layer [the level of burning] . ca. was not found. the question must arise: When was the Palace of Nestor destroyed. The pavement of the court was covered by a thin “yellowishwhite clayish deposit” . along with the usual Mycenaean pottery. . -1200 or in the seventh century? To escape this dilemma Blegen postulated “fairly widespread activity on the site in late geometric times”22 after five centuries of abandonment—this despite his assertion that the conflagration marked “the end of human occupation of the site.14 And to Blegen’s great satisfaction Pylos was found repeatedly mentioned on the tablets retrieved from the palace he identified as Nestor’s. immediately above it was an “extremely black layer” less than a foot deep. nor were the animals led away: but humans all fled. If the Late Geometric pottery had been left by new occupants of the hill five hundred years or more after the burning of Nestor’s palace. In “the yellowish-white stratum /which/ unquestionably represents the latest phase of occupation of the palace” were found. . The time of the destruction of the palace of Nestor was determined by the Mycenaean pottery found in the ruins. where similar deposits were encountered. siege. a few glazed sherds of Late Geometric Style as in so many parts of the site. the year -1200.”23 But such an explanation is hardly tenable in the light of the stratigraphic situation. however. a sanctuary of Hera. . nor pottery. occupation by people of another culture or occupation in general were found.17 However. originally not fired but only dried.

Odyssey III. Velikovsky wanted to highlight the work of Blegen and the chronological problems this archaeologist faced at each site where he dug. The collapse of the building in the course of the raging conflagration sealed the deposit in place.” Cf. 250-252.. 6. 423). Fabulae II. 689. The collaboration involved my writing of certain passages based on research by Velikovsky. The excavators of Nestor’s palace found also remains of an earlier settlement whose violent destruction they attributed to Neleus’ occupation of the site (C.12.. 3. section “A Gap Closed. 279. However. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. reporting the opinion of Varro). Rawson. Iliad. Macrobius.5-6.”24 But how could fragments of seventh-century Geometric ware have come to rest on the floor of Nestor’s palace? They “must somehow have penetrated from above. 1966. p. 682. although the actual writing is entirely by me. p.244 fragments of Mycenaean pottery “also some pieces of glazed Geometric ware. 2. Princeton. 1. Pausanias IV.6. W. 4. XI.”26 These small stones within the burnt stratum were clearly remains of the roof and walls which had collapsed in the conflagration and covered whatever deposit was left on the floor at the time. 8. A stratigraphic situation such as this allows only one conclusion: the Geometric ware belonged. I separated out the parts written by myself from the rest of the manuscript. 36. Blegen and M. 3. .27 References *The passages marked in red are by Velikovsky. I have therefore kept them and marked them in red letters in the html text I have submitted to the archive editors. 698-701. however. 68. The Iliad XI. etc. In 1980. 6. some Velikovsky passages are integral and inseparable from my own work. 5.”25 To penetrate to the floor of Nestor’s buried palace the sherds would have had to find their way not only through the layer of earth and vegetation but also through the black stratum of the final burning. as did the Mycenaean. For evidence of the cult of Poseidon at Pylos see also M. Most of the smaller towns in Messenia suffered a similar fate. (Cambridge. 3f. Schorr and myself.42: “Tertia est stella Hartis quam alii Herculis dixerunt. pt. Chadwick. Iliad. I. Velikovsky’s editing of those writings. subsequent rewritings. 1973). Saturnalia III. “a compact layer of smallish stones closely packed in blackish earth. 7. I. Pausanias IV.” n.. finds no easy answer. Diodorus IV. to the last occupants of the palace and was left behind when they fled.” How they could possibly have achieved this. See above. Diodorus differs from Pausanias in asserting that Neleus was the founder of Pylos. After the palace’s destruction “vegetation spread its mantle over the whole area. I. vol. Ventris and J. at the request of Velikovsky’s Estate. —Jan Sammer 1. Archaic age. Odyssey III. and only a handful survived into the subsequent. second ed. The Palace of Nestor in Western Messenia. “Heracles” may be an allusion to the planet Mars (Hyginus. The section on Pylos is one of several that were written as a collaborative effort between myself and Velikovsky. The sections on Blegen’s excavations at the Argive Heraion and at Troy were also parts of that collaborative effort. However it is more likely to represent the city of Neleus destroyed by “Heracles”.

3ff. 421. Gla and Tiryns which were heavily fortified. “Movements of Populations in Attica at the End of the Mycenaean Period” in Bronze Age Migration’s in the Aegean (1974) pp. V. The major dissenter was Strabo who placed Pylos farther north in Triphylia. R. L. Ibid. Page. p. Desborough. 294. L. cit. N. 424.. Pausanias III. 12.” The date may have to be revised upwards by a few decades on the basis of the work of J. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton. p. A. 223). Les leveurs d’impôts dans le royaume mycénien de Pylos (Incunabula Graeca 24) (Rome. Deroy. 23. Blegen dates the style “perhaps to the turn from the seventh to the sixth century. 300. 1962). The Inter pretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts (Oxford. p. 1. pp.. C. Ibid. 215-222. Ibid. J. 20.6.. p. 116-120... The Palace of Nestor. 591-594. I pt. The Palace of Nestor. The conflagration in which Nestor’s palace perished preserved many clay tablets with inscriptions in Linear B. 1966). 219-220. 138) but this view has been questioned (D. “Messenia and the catastrophe at the end of Late Helladic III B” in Bronze Age Migrations In the Aegean. Mycenaeans and Minoans (London. 10. Ibid. pt. 1964... 229-242. pp.. p. pp. 124. 22. 3.. p. pp. p. Blegen & Rawson. iii. p. 19. 422. E. 24. The massive wall built across the Isthmus of Corinth in late Mycenaean times may have been a factor in forcing the Heracleidae to put to the sea... Ibid. d. loc. But Blegen’s excavations in Messenia re-soved the debate in favor of the southern Pylos.” 14. Minos. p. 18. 7 (Incunabula Graeca 28) (1968). 69-96. I. Ibid. SchmittBrandt. 1968). Pausanias. 1963). 25. 193ff. 11. 227-232. Mylonas. Coldstream (Greek Geometric Pottery. o. pp. London. IV. idem. Grumach) 1958. Palmer. See below.245 9. Hesperia 28 (1959). Documents in Mycenaean Greek n. Cf. see Ch. 15. Sourvinou-Inwood. I. vol. Ibid. Palace of Nestor. Ibid. The lack of defence preparations within the palace has been noted by several authors: F. 419. Blegen’s team found no traces of any fortifications. Elis I. However the workmanship of the vases is very rough with hardly any design distinguishable. Tritsch. 406-410. 1967). McDonald. 13. 422. 422. d’A. For an evaluation of these traditions in the context of recent archaeological evidence. The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors Oxford. . W. On balance the evidence does not necessarily imply destruction by a human agent. and seems consistent with the effects of some natural cause. They were published in 1951 (The Pylos Tablets. R. Broneer.” Studi Micenel ed Egeo-Anatolici. Iliad II. w. pp. pp. Ibid. Blegen and Rawson. 298ff. 27. section “Linear B Deciphered. 294. and his case was taken up in modern times by Wilhelm Dörpfeld. p. they are not given to precise dating. 22. vol. 424. 1968. pp. Progress into the Past (Indiana University Press. pp. 16. “The Women of Pylos” in Minoica (ed. p. p. Palmer. G. Blegen in American Journal of Archaeology 61 (1957). p. 26. Ventris and Chadwick. Imre Tegyey. dating from the palace’s last days. they have been interpreted to indicate preparations for an enemy attack from the sea (L. A Preliminary transcription) and the decipherment was completed by 1953. The exile of the Neleids to Attica is mentioned in numerous ancient sources. in contrast to strongholds such as Mycenae. 330) who dates the Late Geometric Style to between -750 and -680. “Die Oka-Tafeln in neuer Sicht. Cf. 17. History and the Homeric Iliad. 21. The Palace of Nestor..

Strabo wrote. -800. got mastery over it. the Phrygians. gaffer Troy was sacked. The tradition of how Gordias. Gordion. but Strabo himself. who had come to his aid. These changes in nature moved entire nations to migrations in the hope that beyond the horizon Fertile lands. was an object of legendary motifs—whatever he touched turned to gold. Then. Xanthus the Lydian is said by Strabo to have held the view that the Phrygians arrived in Asia Minor sometime after the Trojan War.6 He reigned. not damaged by unchained forces of nature. a period of great natural upheavals. is a well-known legend. Pelasgians and Thracians. was of the opinion that the Phrygians’ migration must have taken place before the siege of Troy. and the curbing of Midas was the aim of . It seems that in one of the earliest waves of the eighth-century migrations the Phrygians moved from Thrace over the Hellespont or the Bosporus into Asia Minor. who devoted a lifetime to the study of the ancient cultures of Anatolia. awaited the conquerors. whose territory bordered on the Troad. and many others from every region of Asia Minor.7 his prosperity and growing power involved him in international intrigue: he conspired with the rebellious king of Carchemish against Sargon II of Assyria (-722 to -705). even more than his father.3 A few decades afterwards these same nomads were to destroy the short-lived Phrygian kingdom. noting that already in the Iliad they are listed among Priam’s allies. according to the chronicle of Hieronymus. Dardanians. the allies of Priam. and is attested in contemporary documents. led by Anchises.4 Under Midas. tribes from Paphlagonia and Mysia. were arrayed opposite them. he had the ears of an ass—he was also a historical person. an army of many nations’ and divers tongues. Lycians and Carians “of the outland speech”. There were. preserved by Eusebius. the first king of the Phrygians in their new domicile. from -742 to -696. together with the beginning of the seventh. selected the pile of his new capital. gathered from every part of Greece.246 The Trojans and their Allies As the host of the Achaeans. explained the Phrygians’ crossing into Asia Minor as resulting from their being harassed by the Cimmerians. father of Aeneas. Of all these peoples it is the Phrygians in particular that shall concern us—not only because of the prominent role they are assigned in defending Priam’s citadel. also Phrygians.”2 Arrian. but because the time of their presence and influence in Asia Minor is well known from ancient authors and is attested also by numerous archaeological investigations. the biographer of Alexander. “Phrygian art first originated at the beginning of the eighth century”—so wrote Ekrem Akurgal.1 The eighth century before the present era. was. adding that there is no sign of the Phrygians or any other people in central Asia Minor in the four centuries prior to ca. stepped out of their “curved ships” and filled the plain before Troy till they seemed like “sands of the seashore” to the anxiously watching Hector. the Phrygian kingdom reached the peak of its power. starting in -776.5 while Midas. the son of Gordias.

Though separated in time by five hundred years or thereabouts.9 As we saw. only three are antecedent to the Cimmerian invasion. The Phrygian kingdom in Asia Minor had an ephemeral existence. was put sometime in the eighth century.8 But eastern Anatolia was not yet pacified.11 Of the royal tumuli (kurgans) excavated by the Körte brothers. This apparent contradiction is also noted by Young: . in the course of their work at Gordion. Whereas the Trojans had a long tradition building in stone.”13 In 1953 a team from the University of Pennsylvania led by Rodney Young. if so. he finally met his death there in battle in -705. about the year -676. yet at the same time it displays technical skills that speak of a long period of development. exposed to view a large double gateway with a central courtyard. like that of most of the Phrygian constructions at Gordion. when it apparently extended as far southeast as the Taurus and was in contact with Assyria. This is also when Midas met his end10 and his capital Gordion was burned to the ground. and continuing disturbances brought Sargon several more times to the defense of his northeastern frontier. . without any visible antecedents. intermediate examples have vet to be found. the two fortifications may well represent a common tradition of construction in northwestern Anatolia. a phantom construct of historians.14 The manner of construction of the walls of the gateway reminded the excavators of the fortifications at another Anatolian site: the walls of the sixth city at Troy appeared to be nearly duplicated in those of the Phrygian Gate at Gordion. . Young wrote: “In their batter as well as their masonry construction the walls of the Phrygian Gate at Gordion find their closest parallel in the wall of the sixth city of Troy .12 “The Phrygian kingdom was thus at the apex of its power toward the end of the eighth century. Its date.247 Sargon’s campaign of the year -715. this suggests that not more than three generations of kings reigned in Gordion from its founding to its destruction. This period of power was apparently the time of the adornment and fortification of its capital city. the Phrygian kingdom was destroyed in the catastrophic Cimmerian invasion. belonging to the Phrygian period. no Phrygian presence can be recognized in the archaeology till the beginning or even the middle of the eighth century—and soon after the start of the seventh. In his report of the discovery.”15 The search for intermediate examples is bound to be fruitless since the time gap between Troy VI and Gordion is unreal. the Phrygian gateway appears as if out of nowhere.

in the eighth century. and the Cimmerians. the Sangarios. Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics reasoned thus: “.22 It appears that Homer refers to the Cimmerian invasion of Phrygia in the passage where he has Priam recall how once he “went into vine-clad Phrygia” and there saw “the Phrygian men with their gloaming horses. but deadly night is spread o’er them. A little light is thus shed on the alliance between Phrygians and Trojans. they were not as many as are the glancing-eyed Achaeans. for one. discussing this passage in his Folk Tale. and never does the shining sun look upon them. they must lie in west Anatolia rather than on the plateau. The planning of the [Phrygian] gateway and the execution of its masonry imply a familiarity with contemporary military architecture and long practice in the handling of stone for masonry. nor the commonly prevalent contemporary construction of crude brick.” Rhys Carpenter. Quite possibly the tales about the Amazons arose from accounts of the warlike Cimmerian womenfolk who used to accompany the men in battle. The masonry. and the date of the Trojan War is delimited by the period when the Phrygians were a power in Asia Minor. . most numerous. Miletus. Here all the forces of western Asia Minor would have gathered to stop the terrible archers on . and even probable. known to Homer. as he says. overran the whole country from the Bosporus to Ionia.”16 The Trojan fortifications belong according to the revised chronology. Strabo. curving barrier of the great Phrygian river. But even so. encamped by the bank of the Sangarios. the Cimmerians ravaged the western regions of Asia Minor settled by Greeks—Aeolis and Ionia. the question was already discussed by various ancient authors. are ‘shrouded in mist and cloud. The closest parallel is the masonry of the walls of Troy VI. admittedly very much earlier. Sinope and other coastal cities. . it is quite possible. or shortly before his time. .18 but it is rather probable that the Amazons who are mentioned in the Iliad as well as in later authors like Diodorus. and thus were roughly contemporary with the Phrygian. in fact. . was certain that Homer was acquainted with the historical Cimmerians.248 “ . that the last stand [against the Cimmerians] was made behind the long. “for surely if he knows the name of the Cimmerians [Odyssey] he is not ignorant of the people themselves—the Cimmerians who in Homer’s own time.21 attacking Smyrna. At least he intimates that the very climate of their country is gloomy. Regarding the Cimmerians and the extent of Homer’s knowledge of there. For I was mustered as an ally among them on that day when the Amazons came.20 After destroying the Phrygian kingdom and pushing the Phrygians toward the Bosporus.19 were the historical Cimmerians. with its sloping batter and its more or less regular coursing recalls neither the cyclopean Hittite masonry of the Anatolian plateau in earlier times. only in the Odyssey. If any links exist to fill this time-gap. between the years -750 and -676.’”17 The Cimmerians are not mentioned in the Iliad by name.

28 who died by the spear of “the glorious son of shining Dawn”29 which is an epithet of Memnon. centuries later.31 . If the author of the Iliad was an Ionian Greek of the early seventh century. till Achilles finally slew Memnon and caused them to depart. Priam was said to have received a contingent of Ethiopians under the leadership of Memnon. a sequel to the Iliad. If the author of the Iliad composed his poem in the early decades of the seventh century.”24 The Scythians at that time were worshippers of Mars. for a while leaving their ancient worship of Saturn in abeyance. . these same horsemen are the Amazons. . who nonetheless overwhelmed them and rode westward to the sea. after decimating the Cimmerians with the aid of Assyria. They were called Umman-Manda. In the pages of the Greek historian Diodoros. “could the poet be ignorant of the Scythians if he called certain people ‘Hippemolgi’ [maremilkers] and Galactophagi’ [curd-eaters]? For that the people of his time were wont to call the Scythians ‘Hippemolgi’ Hesiod too is witness in the words cited by Eratosthenes: the Ethiopians. pushed southward to the very border of Egypt. or “People of Saturn” in Akkadian and in the so-called Hittite literary texts. he may or may not have known of the Scythians. and also the Scythians. . The brave Ethiopians fought valiantly against the Greeks and caused them much hardship. drinkers of milk” and of “the Abioi. Some of these traditions are very ancient. 676 B. The population fled in terror before “the noise of the horsemen and bowmen. the most righteous of all men. Hippemolgi’”27 That the Iliad is referring to some nomadic tribes appears certain. Of what else could he have been thinking when he made Priam speak of Phrygian armies gathered against the Amazons on the banks of the Sangarios?”23 According to Herodotus the Cimmerians were originally displaced from the Asiatic steppes by the Scythians: but it was not until the second half of the seventh century that the Scythian hordes themselves arrived on the scene and. If they were already Amazons for Homer.”25 A scholium on Homer considers these to be tribes of Scythians26 as does Strabo: “How then. the date of Priam’s reference must be the year of Midas’ downfall.” he asked. possibly as early as the seventh century.249 horseback. At one point in the Iliad there is mention of a people named “the proud Hippemolgoi. after the action described in the Iliad. in the Odyssey Nestor recalls the death of his son Antilochos.C. Later in the Odyssey the Ethiopian warrior is mentioned by name as “great Memnon”. whom they represented as a sword. Whether it is the Scythians who are meant and whether they had by then already left the plains of South Russia cannot be decided on the basis of the vague Homeric reference. In the tenth year of the siege. the Ligurians. recounted the deeds of Memnon and of the Ethiopians at Troy—it is considered to be among the earliest of the post-Homeric epics. the most impressive and tremendous political event of his lifetime must have been the Cimmerian destruction of the Phrygian empire. engulfing Palestine.30 The epic Aethiopis.

35. pp. pp. . 54-56. 10. Modern scholarship has also attempted to put the Phrygians in Anatolia in time to succor Priam in the thirteenth century (e.22. 92. 112. 322. Die Kunst Anatoliens. 83. “Gordion 1956: Preliminary Report” in American Journal of Archaeology 61 (1957). the excavator of Gordion. Cf. R. 217-219. S. p.. 11. The lack of archaeological evidence for their presence there before the eighth century is a serious drawback to this view. 4. was excavated in 1957—Young. ed. Mellink (Leiden. idem. Eusebius Werke. and if there be any core of truth to the story it must be seen in relation to these events. XI. 12ff. 9. The Cimmerian destruction level was found in 1956) see Young. “The Royal Tomb at Gordion. p. Arrian. L. “The Nomadic Impact: Gordion” pp.3. Mellink. 1950” in Archaeology 3 (1950). R. Gordion (Berlin.32 Again and again we are brought to the same period—the time of Phrygian power in Asia Minor. Akurgal. Mushki. 2. 8. p. Körte. Master. 92) and Strabo (Geography I. by H. Arrian. X. pp. M. 1953” in American Journal of Archaeology 39 (1955). transl. by M. estimated a period of “a half century” or more for the flourishing of Phrygian culture at the site—“The Nomadic Impact: Gordion” in Dark Ages and Nomads. The non-royal tumuli were much more numerous. R. Mellink. p. R.21. “Mita. iii. Young. Geography. Justin.). References 1. S. “Gordion 1953: A Preliminary Report” p... “Postscript on Nomadic Art” in Dark Ages and Nomads c. Idem. 6. I. Phrygische Kumst (Ankara.” Archaeology 10 (1957). “The excavations at Yassihuyuk-Gordion. vol. 1913). cit. Cf.3. Graves. 13. The Anabasis of Alexander 11. no. 7. Ibid. Young. 108). 13. 5. 3. Die Kunst Antoliens. Mushki. 15. 320. & A. ) Bk. Young. vol.250 The heyday of Ethiopian power lasted a little over half a century. “The Nomadic Impact: Gordion”. 54.J. Cf. in Hittite Art and the Antiquities of Anatolia (Arts Council of Great Britain. 19. 64. Akurgal. M. ed. p.7.. and the Phrygians” . 70-71.. A royal tomb. 1000 B. and of the Ethiopian rule in Egypt is the end of the eighth and beginning of the seventh centuries before the present era. Mellink. 19. The Cambridge Ancient History. p. The Ethiopian host mentioned in the Iliad suggests an Ethiopian attempt to outflank the Assyrian enemy by sending an expeditionary force in support of the Phrygians. cf. pp. ch.C. p.g.J. p. The Greek Myths (1955). of its destruction by the Cimmerian invasion. Studies in Iranian and Anatolian Archaeology. 1904). G. “Mita. 12 12. 16. “Gordion: Preliminary Report. Then this is the historical background of the Trojan War. cf. 1964). following their emergence out of Nubia. 196-199. p. 16. By suicide according to Eusebius (Chron. pp. Helm (Leipzig. Jones (Loeb Classical Library. under pressure from the Ionians in the West and the Assyrians and Cimmericans in the East.. loc. Young.. and the Phrygians” in Anadolu Arastirmalari (Istanbul 1955). p.. perhaps of Gordias. L’Asie Mineure et l’Assyrie. Akurgal. E. 52. quoted by Eusthates in Denys Periegetes. 1964). Strabo. VII. p. also idem. 89. from he end of the eighth to the middle of the seventh centuries. p. they fought repeatedly and at times successfully with the Assyrians for control over Egypt. 1955). London. 14. Ibid. 16. 37.

2. 1917). 29. 216. 185-202. 31. and the Posthomerica of Quintus Smyrnaeus. 2. I. Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics (University of California Press. . 1948-49). xxxi. 1ff) and Plato (Laws III. Godley in a note to his translation of Herodotos (Loeb Classical Library. Mireaux sees many parallels between Homer’s Ethiopians and the rulers of Egypt’s XXVth Dynasty. It was ascribed to Arctinus of Miletus “who is said to have flourished in the first Olympiad (776 B. Jeremiah 4:29. Venetus A to Iliad XIII. Geography I.D. is an interpolation based on later geographical knowledge. Strabo III. 5-8. Strabo. Strabo 1. However.423-425. 111-112. (1914). Odyssey IV. 148149. both apparently-composed in the first century (see the translation by R. 362-363. pp.22. I. 5-6. 12. 23. Jones. 7.” 24. In Mireaux’s view the verses of Od.251 17. II) dating most probably from the fourth. Carpenter. 1. Cf.9: “The writers of chronicles make it plain that Homer knew the Cimmerians. We know of the contents of the Aethiopis only from the summary of it made by Proclus (Chrestomathia ii). 1966). See also F. pp. 23-24 that tell of the Ethiopians as divided into two groups. M. 32. and it is not excluded that the Aethiopis was among their sources.2) and Agathyrses (IV. 522. pp. Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics.104). the fact that some of the variae lectiones in the manuscripts give different readings of the name throws some doubt on Strabo’s argument. III. 33). 6.2.18). 22. 25.. 20. Loeb Class. Odyssey III. 19. Iliad XIII. Nasamones (IV. or else in Homer’s own time. Les poèmes homériques et l’histoire grecque. Libr. As several authors have noted it was these feasts that gave rise to Herodotus’ story of the Table of the Sun (III. 45. The accounts of Diodorus Siculus (11. by H. Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris. 1956). Folk Tale. Evelyn-White.. L. Rhys Carpenter. 22-26). Later classical writers wrote extensively about Memnon. 30. preserved by Photius. 27.1). Herodotus’ description of the nomadic Massagetae (1. Hesiod. Herodotus IV. 10 (transl. geography VII.C. Od. Strabo. Mireaux. 18. Notable among these were the so-called “chronicles” of Dictys of Crete (lv. Odyssey.(Bk. Cf. Buffiere. western and eastern. I. Cf. For several reasons this date appears much too early—writing was only re-introduced into Greece in the second half of the eighth century. Cf. VI. Frazer Indiana University Press. Diodorus Siculus II. p. 1946). located on the upper reaches of the Nile. 685C) are of less value being contaminated by the tabulations of Ctesias. The parallel with Homer’s Ethiopians is drawn also by A. XI. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. and the Aethiopis is not likely to be earlier than the Iliad. in that they fix the date of the invasion of the Cimmerians either a short time before Homer. A scholium takes the description “righteous’ to refer to the Scythian custom of holding all property in common (Venetus A). 10) and of Dare’s the Phrygian (25. 21. Folk Tale.)”—H. G. Loeb Classical Library.12. 28. 26. 3. This was the view expressed by Emile Mireaux in his Les poèmes homériques et l’histoire grecque (Paris. 1921). most notably their bountiful sacrifices to the gods (Il. 12. ibid. 175-176. A seventh-century date thus appears more probable. 172.

and so. but still more the vanquished who survived the war. actually no sign of any human presence. -690 for the founding of Gela on the island’s southern shore. not only did the victors turn to piracy because of their poverty. the last of the heroic generation turned into wanderers and pirates. but by upheavals and dislocations that deprived the returnees of shelter in their own land. after the destruction of Troy. Scholars conclude that Sicilian civilization of the Late Bronze Age “came to an abrupt end about the end of the thirteenth century B.” (4) Were the same causes which brought to a close the age of Mycenaean greatness also active on the far-removed island of Sicily? Archaeologists can only speculate about causes. Following the disasters that afflicted the Greek lands. seeking for living space far from their own ravaged habitations. on account of the length of the campaign.(1) Strabo. the Greeks of that time.C. on the eastern coast of Sicily. in despair of ever again seeing their homes. lost both what they had at home and what they had acquired by the campaign.. beginning in the Early Bronze Age and lasting for many centuries. but then. And indeed. 735 B. thus described the situation that ensued in the wake of Troy’s fall: For it came about that. after the latest style of imported Mycenaean ware had run its course. according to the almost universally accepted tradition. ca. The founding of colonies in the western Mediterranean was one of the earliest achievements of the historical Greeks as they emerged out of the ruins of the Mycenaean Age.(2) Excavations in Sicily over the past one hundred years have revealed evidence of extensive contact with Greece in the Mycenaean Age. and in some parts of the interior also. archaeology and tradition agree that the first ones were established near the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the seventh. but on one point their verdict is clear—“A real Dark Age set in only to be brought to an end five centuries later with the Greek colonization of Sicily and Southern Italy.C. the Roman geographer. and those who did kept their thrones for only a little while.252 The Western Colonies Greek literary tradition recounts many tales of the “returns” of the heroic generation that fought at Troy—but few of the plunderers of Priam’s citadel reached home safely.(8) A tradition preserved by Eusebius has . As to the people with whom the Mycenaeans traded. Syracuse. and the barbarians as well. it is said that a great many cities were founded by them along the whole seacoast outside of Greece. they settled on distant shores from one end of the Mediterranean to the other.” (7) This yields a date of ca.(6) Thucydides wrote that “Gela was built in the forty-fifth year after Syracuse by Antiphemus. It was as if the return home was blocked—not just by stormy seas.(3) no new pottery.” (5) Regarding the new Greek settlements. was founded. that brought a colony out of Rhodes. most were condemned to years of wandering in the far reaches of the known world until finally. their remains attest to a prosperous culture. appears until the late eighth century.

or perhaps a wolf. comparable with the Mycenaean ones” (14) even though they are dated “much later than Mycenaean times” (15)—this because of the Geometric pottery found inside. by one of the warriors who took part in that war. 690 B.. the other a strange feline animal. then. and since.(9) These traditions were set forth in greater detail by a Greek historian whose works are no longer extant except for fragments preserved by other ancient writers.” (12) The “large and unusual tholos tombs” (13) at Muxaro “are. and despite being “cut off from contact with the Aegean” during the same period (16) is a puzzling question. Eusebius’ date for both cities is -690. ended abruptly about the time of the Trojan War. Little pots with geometric and orientalizing designs indicated a period not earlier than the beginning of the seventh century. In the chronology of Philostephanos.” (19) One of these “shows a cow suckling a calf. closely matching that of Thucydides. the founder of Sicilian Gela.(11) If the Sicilian Late Bronze Age.253 Gela founded in the same year as the city of Phaselis in Asia Minor. How the Sicilians were able to imitate the domeshaped tholos tombs half a millennium after such constructions ceased to be made in Greece. especially if we consider that scholars deny that any such tombs were built in Sicily in the five preceding centuries.” (20) depicted in a way clearly descended “from remote Mycenaean traditions.” (21) . the historical date of Gela’s establishment is acknowledged by the best authorities to be ca. real tholoi. was a brother of Lacius who founded Phaselis in Asia Minor. though they were common in the Late Bronze Age. After only a few decades the Geometric Age was interrupted by the arrival of Greek colonists. In one surviving fragment from his book On the Cities of Asia (10) Philostephanos wrote that Antiphemos. the stratigraphic sequence yields no evidence about the dark centuries supposedly separating it from the Geometric Age. Despite the marked changes in the archaeological finds after the cessation of imported Mycenaean ware. bringing their own distinctive culture from Corinth and Rhodes and other places in Greece. both brothers hailing from Rhodes—they had been in the company of Mopsus as he made his way into Cilicia in the years following the Trojan War. but it can scarcly be appreciated without knowledge of the Mycenaean royal tombs. in fact.(18) Among them the excavators discovered two “splendid gold rings with animal figures incised in their settings. “The strength of ‘Mycenaean’ influence in Sicily [in Late Geometric times] is attested by a tholos tomb at Sant-Angleo Muxaro. north of Agrigento [an ancient port on Sicily’s southern coast]. as we have seen.(17) But let us enter some of the tombs and examine the objects found inside. many of the old Mycenaean influences continued to flourish both in the native settlements of the late eighth and early seventh centuries and in the Greek colonies—the examples are very numerous.C. contemporary with the Mycenaean Age in Greece. Gela was founded in the same generation that saw the fall of Troy. Priam’s city could not have fallen more than two or three decades earlier.

in the western part of the island.” (22) “Perhaps here again we have a far-distant echo of the Mycenaean world..... violence and looting along with trade. Could the Phoenicians perhaps have preserved the Mycenaean tradition and.(24) The eighth and seventh-century Geometric pottery from Segesta displays startling Mycenaean influences. at the dawn of the Greek world. and they are all the more remarkable since the last Mycenaean pottery on the island is said to have gone out of use some four or five hundred years earlier. moving from the left to the right. between the Bronze Age sites. and the objects from the first Greek occupation in the seventh century B. belonging at the outside to the middle of the second millennium. did life continue in the interior? At Morgantina in central Sicily.” (27) At Thapsos. nothing at all was found. The founding of Segesta was dated by tradition to the years following the Trojan War. for the earliest Phoenician settlement in Sicily dates from the seventh century. late Mycenaean XIII century ware and Ausonian pottery of the XII century [was followed] by VII century pottery of Sant’Angelo Muxaro type. but gold bowls found in the same tomb “derive from Mycenaean gold-work.. have imparted them to the native people of Sicily?. “below the earliest defences put up by the colonists. the Mycenaeans and other seafarers who came in their wake brought piracy.. This motif was a common one on Mycenaean and.. and this implies that the coastal villages were abandoned by about 1270 B.C.. cease towards the end of Mycenaean IIIB.” (29) Between the levels. but he rejected the thought. but brought no viable suggestion as to how the motifs could have been transmitted through the Dark Age to influence the Geometric ware of Segesta half a millennium later.” (26) Wherever the archaeologists turned they found a blank in the archaeological sequence where five centuries should have left at least a trace.” Other motifs of Mycenaean derivation include stylized floral patterns and tassels with meandering lines.254 Not only the rings. in the vicinity of Syracuse. Aegean pottery.C. . At Gela “there is a gap. “Mycenaean imports. In the late VIII century Thapsos was occupied again for a short time by Greek colonists. on establishing themselves on the island. These observations caused much amazement among art historians.” (23) The same puzzling survivals from Mycenaean times appear also at another Sicilian site—at Segesta. with horns butting against an unidentified object. “A good example is the schematized drawing of a bull. and what was found there “of course is not Mycenaean.” (28) If the coast was abandoned during the Dark Age. these motifs “are not paralleled in Geometric pottery. more generally. and was ascribed to a Trojan named Aegestes.” And the explanation? “This is one confirmation that the native peoples left the coastal regions at the close of the age when..” (25) The examples are many. wondered one scholar..

Griffo and L. 1965]. above. and of Geometric older than the second half of the eighth century. Guido. Strabo.255 The responsibility for creating the Dark Age of Sicily lies with the erroneous Egyptian timetable. Brea. von Matt. 1967) pp. Miller. and Rome (Princeton. p. See W. 11. makes it clear that the Minoan-Mycenaean contacts were quite broken. p. cit. 16. 42. 21. Geography 3. Ibid. 343. 133. 182.g. introduced from Egypt. Some of the Mycenaean ware found on the island “is exactly the same pottery as that found in Egypt in the ruins of Tell el-Amarna. 5. Conn.. Gela: The Ancient Greeks in Sicily (Greenwich. 10. and traces of Minoan influence at Gela have been noted by E.4. Sicily Before the Greeks. 15. Brea. p. 33. Galinsky. Sicily. p. pp. near Syracuse and Agrigento. As one scholar admitted in another context. at Thapsos. 15) and by many others. are the two main find spots. A Cretan named Entimus is said to have assisted Antiphemus in the founding of the city. Sicily. 13. Woodhead. Guido. E. demanded the insertion of five empty centuries. Sicily: An Archaeological Guide (New York.” Papers of the British School at Rome. K. M. 19. p. p. Ancient Greek Sculpture.. Dionysius and Barhebraeus. Thapsos. 14.” 17. Langlotz (Ancient Greek Sculpture of South Italy and Sicily [New York. 9. 8. (p. P. Cf. 1962) pp. Vol. Woodhead. Sicily. M. above. vol. H. G. Taylour. 1966) p. Dunbabin. XVI (New series. 174. the author dates them “probably from the VIII to the middle of the V” pre-Christian centuries. The latest style was Late Helladic III B with a small number of exemplars of Late Helladic III C. 86. 13. In Athenaeus. Deipnosophistae VII. 74. 345. 6. The Greeks in the West. 1958) p. “Minos and Daidalos in Sicily. III [1948]) p. The Sicilian Colony Dates: Studies in Chronography I (SUNY Press. Hicks. 15. 18. p. 20. 130. The Sicilian Colony Dates. “Agäische Funde und Kultureinflüsse in der Randgebieten des Mittelmeers. Albany. 1968). Mycenaean Pottery in Italy and Adjacent Areas (Cambridge. 9: “The complete absence of Protogeometric.. . but cf. Langlotz. p. “the Aegean prehistorians have no choice but to adapt themselves to the Egyptologists. Buchholz. cf. This tradition is given in the version of Eusebius’ Chronicle preserved by Jerome. The Peloponnesian War VI. 102. 15. cf. A. 174. The Greeks in the West (London. 12. Guido. section “A Gap Closed. Aeneas.. 175. cf. Miller. T.-G. B. n. Brea. 110. Thucydides. 346. 41. 298. 14. 32. 196-198. 51-52. 7. J. Ibid. G. Cf.” Archäologischer Anzieger 89 (1974) pp. 1969) p. Sicily Before the Greeks. 349-350.” 2. Cozzo del Pantano and Caltagirone. L. 129). 4. 22. loc. 102. by A.” (31) References 1. the capital of Amenophis [Akhnaton](30) All the indications from Sicilian sites showing direct succession of the Late Bronze Age and Greek colonial periods counted for nothing when the an absolute time scale. Sicily Before the Greeks (New York. 187.. transl. 1972) pp.

196-198. 5. Ibid. 28. 6. Sicily and the Greeks (Chicago University Press. Cadogan. Griffo and von Matt. Sicily Before the Greeks. Gela. vols 62. Sicily. Brea. 22. 56. J.3. 31. cf. 25. 1 on p. p. Sicily. 23. Ancient Greek Sculpture. p. p.5. Guido. 83. 212. 27. p. Sjoqvist. . pp. Galinsky. 15. Geography 6. Another name for Segesta was Aegesta. Ibid. 175. and Rome. Brea. 24. Strabo. the reports in American Journal of Archaeology. Aeneas. For photographs of the ring. Aeneas. Guido. 64. p. see E. 133. 26. 65 and 66. 29..256 21. On the excavations at Morgantina. p.2.. Sicily Before the Greeks. 1973) fig. Sicily.1. Langlotz. and Rome. 30. p. “Dating the Aegean Bronze Age Without Radiocarbon” in Archaeometry 20 (1978) p. 89. quoted in Galinsky. 86.

predecessor of the Etruscan (whose introduction into Italy is usually placed in the eighth century). Some scholars are convinced that the later phases of the Vattina culture should be dated approximately to between 700 and 400 B.C.) as some authorities argued.257 Mycenae.. “On this line of reasoning the urnfields just described would .C. Gordon Childe tells of the “fierce controversy” occasioned by the various attempts at dating the Hungarian urnfields. last from 1000 to 600 B. or should the indications of their close relation to the Iron Age or the Halstatt period that begins ca. also. involves serious difficulties when relations with Italy come to be considered.C.C. and letting others be as late as 1000 B.C.”4 The period in which Villanovan culture. accepting the antiquity of some finds to be as high as 1400 B. showing that they were “roughly contemporary. .” Pulled in two opposite directions. spread its influence to the north and east toward the Danube cannot be put earlier than the eleventh century. 1100 B.” Yet.8—Childe notes what .5 There is an obvious affinity between the Villanovan pottery types and some of the finds from the urnfields. involved “difficulties” which could not be disguised. are scarcely compatible with the low chronology. .” wrote Childe. trying to respond “to the clamours of the Italian archaeologists” and also “meet the needs of the Aegean prehistorians.”6 Childe reluctantly opted for an early dating. “The scheme based on the Aegean connections. which Childe favored. and there were convincing links to Macedonian Bronze Age pottery. analogies of pottery decoration from the earlier urnfields with motifs of Mycenaean ware dated to the fourteenth century were undeniably present. be considered decisive.C. “Near the urnfields or settlements themselves we have noticed objects ofuncontestably Iron Age date. “Aegean connections .C.”7 A good illustration of the predicament faced by Childe and by all other scholars in the field is the chronological placement of the key Vattina culture of the Hungarian plain. the Danube and Homeric Troy In Danube in Prehistory. Aegean and Anatolian connections both pointed in the direction of a higher chronology: Decorative motifs on pottery related some of the urnfield cultures to Hittite and Minoan ware. as another group of scholars urged?1 There is much to be said for the Iron Age dating—the objects from the Hungarian urnfields have numerous parallels in the Iron Age pottery of Silesia and Hallstatt.”2 Several lines of evidence converged to date the urnfields “on the whole to the epoch between 1400 and 1000 B.”3 even while it had to be admitted that this high chronology. Did they belong to the Late Bronze Age (before ca. however. . Certainly. 800 B. . He acknowledged that dates five hundred or more years lower were plausible: “We therefore only adopt the higher dating provisionally until excavations at other stratified sites—of which there are plenty—have settled the issue.

Mahr. p.386. 9.C. 1963).. Childe. Ibid. pp. the stratum was known as a settlement of squatters and was dated by Wilhelm Doerpfeld to slightly before 700 B. 387. Blegen. p. Childe cites. et al. p. etc. 8. Ibid. op.. The Halstatt period in Europe corresponds to the Geometric period in Greece and the early Iron Age in general. 10. 386-387. 7.. 1934). 416-417. 3. especially. and accordingly dated to the mid-thirteenth century. 1905).. 291-295. The Danube in Prehistory (London. B. . p. Ibid. 5. p. C. 6..cit. 4. 417.295.293ff. 2. 294. See A. 9-11. Milleker. 92. (New York. pp. 1929).. Ibid. Ibid. References 1. Childe. W.. Vattinai oestelep (Temesvar. Troy and the Trojans (New York. Prehistoric Grave Material from Carnida.10 At the time that Childe wrote. pp.258 he terms a “striking correspondence with the pottery of the inhabitants of Troy VIIa”9 the very stratum which Carl Blegen later identified as the remains of the Troy of Homer. Ibid.. p.

however. Josephus dated Dido’s flight 155 years after the accession of Hiram. and the Phoenicians and their western offshoot. though we know that they had their historians and kept official chronicles. Carthage had been the focus of Phoenician presence in the West for many hundred of years before it was leveled to the ground by the Romans in -146. gave the year -814 as the date of Carthage’s founding(1) by Dido or Elissa. These are still the earliest signs of human habitation at the site. Despite the fact that Philistos’ dating of the Trojan War is unknown. who had fled with a group of followers from the hands of her murderous brother Pygmalion. scholars have assumed that he put the date of the founding of Carthage in the thirteenth century. themselves left few documents. who followed Philistos in dating the founding of Carthage “fifty years before the capture of Troy”(3) knew that the city. in which the prize was nothing less than the political and commercial control of the Mediterranean. Apart from the laconic testimony of some scattered inscriptions carved in stone. placed Carthage’s founding “a man’s life-length” before the fall of Troy. found in the lowest levels a small rectangular structure with a foundation deposit of Greek orientalizing vases datable to the last quarter of the eighth century. and Carthage’s destruction in the second.(4) Thus Appian dated the Trojan War to ca. and there is no reason to think that Philistos did not do likewise.or late-ninth century date for Carthage’s founding. Another tradition. After many years of digging archaeologists have succeeded to penetrate to the most ancient of Carthage’s buildings. king of Tyre. Timaeus. for what we know of their history we depend on the reports of Greek and Roman authors who were not kindly disposed towards them. that is. Cintas. who are credited with imparting the alphabet to the Greeks. on the other. and culminated with Alexander’s capture of Tyre in the fourth century. does not support a mid. the years have not substantiated such expectation. the Carthaginians. which would imply a date for its founding about the middle of the ninth century.(5) Scholars are now for the most part ready to admit that the ancient chronographers’ estimate of the date of the city’s founding was . P. Phoenician writings have perished. Archaeology. The Roman historian Appian gave a round figure of seven centuries for Carthage’s existence. destroyed in -146. the Greek chronographer. in -826.259 The Date of Carthage’s Founding The Phoenicians. associated with the fourth-century Sicilian chronographer Philistos. A grim struggle was waged for centuries between the Greeks and Romans on the one hand. although Cintas originally held out hope that there would be found remains of the earliest settlers of the end of the ninth century. -800. excavating a chapel dedicated to the goddess Tanit. had had a lifetime of not more than seven hundred years. the ally of David and Solomon. Rome’s defeat of Carthage after the exhausting Punic wars of the third.(2) Yet Appian. It began as early as the Orientalizing period of the eighth and early seventh centuries with the rivalry of Greek and Phoenician settlers in the West.

240. Coldstream. Geometric Greece (London. See his “Dates in Early Greek History. p. The Life and Death of Carthage (London.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 55 (1935) pp. . R. 34ff. 6. pp. “A Note on the Foundation Date of Carthage. 5. C. Picard. 1968) p. A.260 exaggerated. article “Karthago”. The Life and Death of Carthage. Bk.” American Journal of Archaeology 68 (1964) p. G. 132. R. Geometric Greece. 34. ch. in the scheme of Philistos and Appian. 240. VIII. need to be placed in the first quarter of the seventh century. VIII. 30. Carpenter. 1977) p. Picard. References 1. Bk. 178. Picard.(6) But if Carthage was founded ca. pt. The Punic Wars I. 4. I. pp.1. N. 37. 130-146. J. Coldstream. The Antiquities of the Jews 2. Burn long ago pointed to this tendency of the ancient chronographers to give inflated estimates of past dates. Cf. -725 the Trojan War would. 3. Pauly’s Realencyclopädie. The Life and Death of Carthage.

result from a mistaken chronological scheme which eliminated the possibility of a correct identification before it was ever suggested. The debate had an early start: the Septuagint. I will attempt to bring evidence in support of Velikovsky’s view that Tarshish was the name employed by the writers of the Old Testament to designate Crete as a whole. In Israel the corresponding period gets underway with the anointing of Israel’s first king.10 However.13 The first mention in the Book of Kings of this geographical location refers to the activities of Solomon: “The king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish bringing gold and silver.12 The great perplexity of scholarship on this question and the fact that none of the suggested locations for Tarshish was compelling enough to have produced a general concensus. Tarshish is for the writers of the Old Testament a specific land11—it is mentioned in the company of Lud (Lydia) and Javan (Ionia). or its chief city Knossos. the Greek version of the Old Testament.3 Eusebius and Hippolytus conjectured that the city of Tartessos in Iberia. And indeed.5 Modern authors are divided between Tartessos in Iberia6 and Tarsus in Cilicia7—although some would regard the expression “ships of Tarshish” as a general term for ships sailing on long-distance voyages. as another scholar rightly remarks. translated Tarshish as Carthage. suggested that it referred to mines for precious ores and was applied to certain countries which produced them. could not have passed unnoticed on the pages of the Old Testament.8 others consider the name Tarshish to refer to foreign lands in general9 and William F.”14 . it continues with the divided monarchy till the time of Isaiah. David. and the brilliant reign of his son and successor. Biblical scholars widely disagree on the whereabouts of Tarshish: but Minoan Crete is not among the suggested sites.2 Julius Africanus thought it was a name for Rhodes or for Cyprus.261 Tarshish According to the picture which emerges with the removal of the dark centuries from ancient history. whose ships plied the sealanes of the ancient Mediterranean and regularly called at Levantine ports. and peacocks. Solomon. in several books of the Scriptures frequent reference is made to a trading nation called Tarshish. Albright and several others with him. trade routes. and whose rulers were for a time uncontested masters of the busy. ivory and apes. mentioned by Herodotus and other ancient writers4 was the Biblical Tarshish. and vital.1 Josephus and others with him identified Tarshish with Tarsus in Cilicia. the Late Minoan civilization finds its place at the beginning of the first millennium before the present era alongside the Mycenaean culture of mainland Greece and the New Kingdom in Egypt. The impressive power of Minoan Crete.

they are said to bemoan their loss: “Howl ye. The prophet Isaiah in his message to Tyre refers to some overwhelming disaster which overtook the city in his time. a land whose location is uncertain—but it must have been a rather distant place. so that there is no house. In the time of the Babylonian exile Ezekiel wrote in his message to Tyre: “Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches. ships of Tarshish. century. a cuneiform text found about a hundred years ago at Assur on the Tigris.20 and since Tyre had been a major base for the ships of Tarshish. who was able to board at Joppa (Jaffa) a ship making a regular commercial run to Tarshish. for it [Tyre] is laid waste.” The Inhabitants of the devastated city are invited to “pass over to Tarshish”—possibly indicating that some of Tyre’s citizens resettled on Crete. ninth. for your strength is laid waste. ships of Tarshish.”19 The destruction of the fleet from Tarshish at Ezion-geber did not stop that nation’s commercial activity.”21 The trade between Tarshish and the Levant continued in the mid-seventh century. .17 It would thus appear that the Minoans had a fleet on the Red Sea which participated with the Phoenician navy in trading ventures to far-away lands. Eziongeber also must have been the harbor whence the ships of Tarshish set out on their long journey to Ophir in the time of Solomon. . It reads: . but there also exists an allusion to that land in another source. . for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber.18 The ill-fated attempt by Jehoshaphat to resume the voyages to Ophir was cut short by the intervention of nature.” The tradition of the close links which had existed. As a sign of the two countries’ commercial interdependence Tyre is called a “daughter of Tarshish”. the ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market: and thou wast replenished and made very glorious in the midst of the seas.262 These precious or exotic items were brought from Ophir. no entering in. for In the next century we again hear of the ships of Tarshish frequenting the port of Tyre in Phoenicia. . ever since Hiram’s expeditions to Ophir. as is shown by the story of Jonah. if we may so understand the verse in the forty-eighth Psalm: “Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish with an east wind. King Jenoshaphat: “made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not. The text is part of the annals of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. between the ships of Tarshish and the merchant city of Tyre was reechoed down the centuries. who ruled over Assyria from -681 to -669. considering that the return voyage took three years.22 So far we have based our discussion of the identity of Tarshish on Biblical sources.”16 The parallel account in the Book of Chronicles explains the destruction as being due to the Lord’s wrath at Jehoshaphat’s alliance with the wicked Ahaziah of Israel. The ships of Tarshish are said to be fatally weakened by the loss of their chief port of call: “Howl ye.15 In the next.

These criteria are filled admirably by Crete. the motive for sending gifts to Esarhaddon is clear. After the subjugation of Sidon and the imposition of a treaty of vassalage on Tyre. and the gifts may have been intended to gain access for the ships of Tarshish to their traditional ports of call. became the subject of some debate. and the designation may later have been extended to cover the whole island of Crete. as mentioned above. however. or Cyprus and Iaman.28 A double t is often substituted in ancient Greek by a double s.”23 The identities of the first two countries mentioned by Esarhaddon are known: Iadanan is Cyprus and Iaman is the Ionian coast of Asia Minor. Whoever held sway over the island in the early part of the seventh century. however. for Crete. so evident from the texts quoted above—the Old Testament narrative of the trading ventures of Solomon . The only clue to its location was its being described as a kingdom “amidst the sea”. When Esarhaddon’s text was first published and transliterated the name was read as “Nu-shi-shi. yet he had the right solution. the sealanes of the Levant were under Assyrian control.29 From Trissa could have been derived the name Tarshish. or Ionia.263 “All the kingdoms from (the islands) amidst the sea—from the country of Iadanan and Jaman as far as Tarshishi bowed to my feet and I received heavy tribute. It was noted that “Tarshishi” has the determinative mãt for “country” in front of it. The city of Nysa in Caria was one suggestion.27 Had Tarshishi been a city the name would have been preceded by the determinative URU. Crete could hardly have felt itself directly threatened by the land-based power of Assyria. the location of Tarshishi.”25 Three years later B. D. It is also difficult to see how a place in Cilicia would fit the description “from Iadanana and Iaman as far as Tarshishi. would fit better. Luckenbill ventured that “Knossos. More recent scholarship identifies the land of Tarshishi mentioned by Esarhaddon with the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. apparently somewhat farther removed from Assyria than either Cyprus or Ionia.26 The new reading took away Luckenbill’s chief reason for his identification. even if he reached it on wrong grounds. it has mãt for “country”. for this statement by Esarhaddon is the only time the name appears in any Assyrian text. Meissner made a fresh examination of the cuneiform tablet and found that the original transliteration of the name had been mistaken.”24 At that time there were several conjectures as to the identification of this land. who composed his biographical lexicon in the fourth century of the present era. another was that the world refers to “nesos” for Peloponnesos. Velikovsky sought to support this identification by the following facts: In the work of the ancient Greek grammarian Hesychius. In 1914 D. it is said that “Tritta” was another name for Knossos. and that “Tar-shi-shi” was the correct reading.” Clearly Tarsisi was farther west than either Cyprus or Ionia. The reason why the identification of Tarshish with Crete. as do Idanana.

cited above.17 in Syncellus. pp. without the possibility of a high civilization. 160. Crete is said to have been immersed In its own Dark Ages. -608) in Strabo 3. Quoted in G. Eustathius to Dion. 380. vol. 7. 8. 653. Cod. in the passage Ezekiel 27:2. Ant. the Vulgate. Garcia y Bellido. H.. 475. 77ff. Imp. . p. U. 1958). A. Fra Oriente e Occidente (Florence. 1949). La nouvelle Clio 3 (1951). Josephus. 1960) p. Hippolytus. Chronography. 98. Psalm 72:10: “The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba shall offer gifts. 1954). 9. the story of the voyage of Jonah. ‘Ligystiné’. 129. second ed. p. Hall. La civilization phénicienne. 11. p. 170ff. Syncellus. n. J. Harden. 1947). and not Crete. Conteneau. Only when the disarrayed centuries are brought to their proper order does the identity of Tarshish with Minoan Crete emerge into the light of history: the solution to an old puzzle. Garcia y Bellido. and W. The idea that Caphthor refers to Cyprus was long ago expressed by Birch (“Mémoire sure une patère égyptienne du Musée du Louvre [1857]”. 15. Isaiah 66:19. I. section “Troglodytes or Carians?”. Cf. with no question of a far-ranging fleet. p. Mém. Cf. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 83 (1941). p.. G.163. Conteneau. Hieronymus) in his Latin translation of the Scriptures. it follows that the tribute bringers from Keftiu depicted on the walls of Egyptian tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty were in reality Cypriots. L’expansion et la colonization qrecques jusqu’au guerres médiques (Paris. References 1. Tartessos y Los Origenes de la colonizacion feaicia en Occidente (Universidad de Salamanca. Herodotus 1. p.11. Cintas. S. Boardman in Journal of Hellenic Studies 85 (1965). In the days of Solomon. Stephen of Byzantium. M. 4. 1951). Mazzarino. 1975). 12. n. Ranae. Chronicle 11.2. Bérard. 1962). A. 191. H.R. La vie quotidienne à Carthage au temps d’Hannibal (Paris. La Peninsula Ibérica en los comienzos de su Historia (Madrid. 1945). Culican. 17).. 18. History of Syria (London. Lorimer. (Madrid. Eustathius to Dion. 578. The First Merchant Ventures (London. The name for Crete in the Bible is generally assumed to have been Caphthor (Keftiu of the Egyptian texts). P. pp. cf. La civilization phénicienne (Paris. Blazquez. L. Täckholm in Opuscula romana 5 (1965). 1. 5. 104. D. pp. Bosch-Gimpera and Conteneau. A. This fact should be remembered in connection with C.” 13. p. and not Cretans. Chronography. Chronicon Paschale. IV 152. Sfesichorus (fl. XXIV [1858]) but found little support. Gordon’s attempt to interpret the name ”Tarshish” with the ”wine-dark sea” of Homer—Journal of Near-Eastern Studies 37 (1978). vi. pp. 16ff. Charles Picard. 1950). Eusebius. 54ff. Céramique punique (Paris. Cf. Cf. 65ff. II. 2. 1950). pp. Soc. 14ff. Schulten. 143ff. as in those of Isaiah and of Esarhaddon. 265. 195. Velikovsky has already indicated that Caphthor is the Biblical designation for Cyprus (Ages in Chaos. Homer and the Monuments (London.. Jerome (St. On Tarsus see also J. 3. the last-named author professes not to be absolutely certain about this identification. Jewish Antiquities I. Bosch-Gimpera considers it very doubtful: Zephyrus 13 (1952). pp. 272. Hitti. Tartessos. the Scholiast to Lycophron’s Cassandra. The Phoenicians (London.264 and Hiram. Albright. 51-52. 10. pp. Fr. 91. 7. 6. as well as the annals of Esarhaddon—was not made before is due to the fact that the end of Minoan Crete is considered by scholars who follow the accepted chronology to have occurred some four to six hundred years before these texts were written. the Scholiast to Aristophanes. pp. 337. the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel. p. 235. and that the homeland of the Philistines was Cyprus. 1966). G.

Whether the storm alluded to in the Psalm has any connection with the very violent eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera north of Crete (which. p. D.e. Luckenbill. 72. 9:10]. p. also sent his own ships. 29. unassisted by the Tarshish fleet. 21. D. 260.” becomes thalassa in Doric. Geographie von Griechen-land. 18. 1965). I Chron. Herodotus IV. Meissner in Orientallstische Literaturzeitung (1917). both are accessible from Ezion-geber on the Red Sea. v. B. 19. in association with Solomon. I. the late seventh or early sixth centuries. 300. 410. pp. Messerschmidt in Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts vol. 42 for the three year duration of the circumnavigation of Africa in the time of Pharaoh Necho II.. 15 above. p. D. The Hebrew Kingdom (Cambridge. some of the background of the story. 1955). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton. 1957) pp. p. Pritchard. cf. meaning “sea. n. I Kings 22:48. and this is not the place to discuss their relative merits. Attic thalatta. J. 10f. probably preserve memories of actual seventh-century conditions. F.. Ezekiel 27:12. Fra Oriente e Occidente. refer to a later event. The three-year return voyage is compatible with a journey around Africa (cf. II (Leipzig. II Chron. 132f. The passage may be based on a misunderstanding of a tradition more accurately recorded in the Book of Kings. The words “to make ships to go to Tarshish” should likely be understood as meaning ships of the navy of Tarshish which were being readied for the voyage to Ophir. 56ff. cf. Although the book was written much later than this. S. A Catalogue of the Nimurd Ivories in the British Museum (London. Some part of Africa or India could furnish the products listed as coming from Ophir. Psalm 48:7. 70. Ethnologie und Geographic des Alten Orient. Cf. but in paramount danger of destruction by hostile armies. vol. Barnett has made a detailed and plausible case for locating Ophir in India—though his placement of Tarshish in the same region is untenable. Blazquez. “Jadanan and Javan (Danaans and Ionians)”. vs. pp. Antiquity 32 (1958). 1. Nr. 22. 94-95. C. chapter 23. E. pp. Cf. 15. 9:21. 21. to Ophir [Kings 9:27-28. 24.g. 28. 559 n. Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyklopädie der Altertumswissenschaft. it is not unthinkable that the Phoenician sailors despatched more than three hundred years later by Necho II. Suggestions for the site of Ophir have ranged over the five continents. 16. . 1868-72). Isaiah. i. II Chronicles 20:35-37. 75. Eissfeldt. 59-60. p. was still standing. belongs In the midninth century) must remain an open question. see also Diodorus V. 23. 26. 20. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 28 (1914). I Kings 10:22. p. 1001. 3. The passage may. 168. 17. article “Knossos” . p. 25. Assyria’s capital. The Book of Jonah purports to deal with events of the mid-seventh century when Nineveh. such as the Tarshish-bound ship which Jonah boards at Joppa. however. 25. 230. 10:11. Tartessos. n. 14. see O.265 “The Peoples of the Sea” in Recueil d’études égyptologigues dédiées à la mémoire de Jean-François Champollion (Paris. Since King Hiram of Tyre. Hommel. For a general discussion of Solomon’s trading ventures. 1922). 27.) In recent years R. 8:17-18. Burian. had prior knowledge of the route. by the revised chronology. See Barnett. Mazzarino.

-900 Geometric to ca. If they are found at different levels in a stratified deposit. Then on what basis was the scheme built? There are three ways of determining the relative position of pottery in time. and where a sequence of pottery spanning the Dark Age could be followed. -680 It must immediately be said that neither in Athens nor at any other site in Greece has a stratified sequence such as this been uncovered. 2) Juxtaposition of finds: If different styles are found in a common undisturbed deposit. -1230 Helladic) Submycenean to ca. Athens thus became the site by which the finds at all other excavated places were identified and placed in time. We are therefore bound to examine the actual stratigraphic situation at Athens. .266 The Dark Age Spanned Of all the excavated sites in Greece and the Aegean region. This method is of necessity a rather uncertain one but can be useful if employed together with other methods. it was to Athens that the archaeologists pointed as the once place which preserved a continuity from the end of the Mycenean age down to classical times. this indicates their relative position in time. 1) Relationship of motifs: Determining the sequence from a study of the way decorative motifs merge into one another. The sequence of pottery styles at Athens—and thus in all the Greek lands—is usually given thus? Middle Helladic to ca. this is strong evidence that they were contemporaneous. -1050 Protogeometric to ca. -1550 Mycenean (Late to ca.

The final stages of the Mycenean period at Athens were illuminated by Broneer’s excavations on the Acropolis in the late 1930s. even if the absolute chronology is in dispute.267 3) Links with outside chronologies.1 Following the destruction of the fountain (Plato in his Kritias attributes it to “earthquakes”) occupation on the Acropolis ceased. can a sequence be established? Beside the fact that no dwelling places have been found for the people buried in the Kerameikos. From the end of the Mycenean age till the seventh century there will be no dwelling places in Athens2—only a necropolis.” Where was the city of the living? The series of burials which are supposed to fill the dark centuries between the end of the Mycenean age and the time of the Proto-Attic ware of the seventh century are located near the north-western Dipylon gate of Athens and in the Kerameikos cemetery next to it. the period represented by the early graves in the Kerameikos cemetery. The burials in the Kerameikos are associated with the style named “Protogeometric”—characterized by a narrow band of decoration around the middle of the vase. north of the Acropolis. The decoration inside the band consists of concentric circles drawn by some sort of multiple i compass. but does not overlap. Where did the people go during the dark centuries? This is a question which baffles the archaeologists. or “city of the dead. then at least a relative chronology can be established. Thutmose III and another style with Akhnaton. At some point the stairway collapsed and the well was abandoned and filled with discarded sherds of late Mycenean pottery. how. Broneer found that emergency measures had been taken to fortify the city and prepare it for withstanding a siege: one of the measures was the construction of a deep well on the Acropolis with a wooden stairway leading down the shaft. The relationship of this ware with the latest Mycenean pottery found inside the fountain on the Acropolis cannot be judged for “it is a significant fact that the pottery from the fountain extends to. only in the seventh and sixth centuries did building activity resume on the site. Other tombs were excavated in the Agora.”3 This brings into question the usual assertion that the Protogeometric ware followed the Mycenean and sub-Mycenean styles. there is another important indication that the Protogeoroetric pottery and the . If a certain style of Greek art can be associated with. or marketplace. If there is no overlap. for instance. with the rest of the vessel having a black glaze.

4 This. together with other factors to be discussed below. how is it that none of the Protogeometric wares that supposedly followed the Mycenean and preceded the Geometric was found in it? The problem should be seen in the light of the solution proposed above. taken together with the discoveries at. that the Protogeometric ware belongs to the pre-Mycenean.5 But the Mycenean and Geometric periods are said to be separated by some four centuries.C. The archaeologists should look to the Middle Helladic (pre-Mycenean) settlements for the houses of those bureid in the Kerameikos. but the bulk of Athenian Geometric pottery has been found near the Dipylon gate. If the deposit had been accumulating for this length of time.268 population associated with it are incorrectly placed following the Mycenean: all of the Protogeometric burials are inside cist-tombs of the type used in the pre-Mycenean or Middle Helladic age. “fragments of Geometric vases.. where dated to Middle Helladic times. indistinguishable from the Dipylon type. Dörpfeld.” Evidence amounting to proof that Protogeometric and Geometric pottery preceded and was contemporary with Mycenean ware was unearthed by C.7 The find south of the Parthenon.8 Thus it would seem that while Protogeometric ware is contemporary with Middle Helladic and early . Other Geometric sherds were found in a stratified deposit south of the Parthenon mixed together in one and the same stratum with Mycenean ware. is a strong clue to the true placement of the Protogeometric pottery and the population group associated with it. tends to show that Geometric ware was in fact contemporary with Mycenean. a case also very forcefully argued by W. and mixed with it until the very end of the Mycenean deposit. other sites from Troy to Pylos to Olympia. are considered antecedent to them. He found Geometric pottery under Mycenean. the lowest “well-defined stratum” dating from Mycenean and Geometric times and the one above it. Middle Helladic settlement. As was noted long ago by Gardner. have been found on various sites in Greece together with later examples of Mycenaean pottery. These tombs are not derived from Mycenean tombs.”6 On the Acropolis itself fragments of Mycenaean vases were found mixed with Geometric sherds. A terrace filling yielded eight distinct layers. taking in the period up to the burning of the Acropolis by the Persians at the beginning of the fifth century. but. as Velikovsky pointed out his discussion of “Olympia. The Kerameikos burials continue into the Geometric period. Edgar at Phylakopi on the Aegean island of Melos.

The Greeks (London. p. in tight bodices and bell-shaped skirts. p. 11.. pp. “Early Athens” in The Cambridge Ancient History Vol.B.”11 The Mycenean civilization survived till the beginning of the seventh century and merged with the orientalizing and proto-Attic styles. Tiryns (New York. Gardner. They show “two-horse chariots. G. with very primitive horses. III (New York. 9.” p. Broneer. and with men whose wasp-waists remind one of Minoan and Mycenean art. C. 1967). Submycenaean Studies (Lund. E. Gardner. “A Mycenean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis” in Hesperia 8 (1939). 154. Styrenius. 7. 4 of Journal of Hellenic Studies (London. 1967) p. and 159-163. p. “The Pottery” in Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos [Supplementary Paper no. 427. 157. 1895). the Mycenean IIIA style was found at el-Amarna and therefore belongs to the ninth century according to the revised chronology. pp. Edgar. Andrews. 1913). 39. H. p. cf. Cotterill. Broneer. E.C. Dinsmoor. 161. W. B. 2.” Thus. Ancient Athens (London.. 416-417. The women are dressed much in the same fashion as the Minoan and Mycenean women.A. 85-107. in tomb paintings of the time of Thutmose III (tenth century according to the revised chronology) foreigners are shown bringing geometric pottery.. Schliemann. 597. 99-100.269 Mycenean pottery9 the Geometric style coexisted with the Mycenean. 3. Ancient Greece (New York. An added proof of this is in the fact that in Egypt. C. p. O. and in some cases much of tha human figure is concealed by the great Mycenean or Minoan figure-of-eight shield. “everything seems to point to a civilization at Athens in the Dark Age something like the old Mycenean.10 The designs on the geometric vases from the vicinity of the Dipylon gate display features which strongly indicate that they were indeed made at the same period as Mycenean vases... 6. This seems to be implied by a find at Kos of Protogeometric and Mycenean IIIA vessels in the same undisturbed deposit. 1904). Sweden. Gary. . Ibid. and M. 10. A. 1902). 5. “The Date of the Older Parthenon” in American Journal of Archaeology 38 (1934). References 1.. 35. 8. pp. “A Mycenean Fountain. . 1925). 4.