The Shaft Grave
rulers, to judge by their more robust size than that of their followers,
by their weapons and by their favorite scenes of art, were hunters and
warriors who began consolidating the rather barbaric villages of Greece
into a formidable empire. They brought their people from a comparatively
backward Middle Helladic existence into the Late Helladic period, aptly
named the Mycenaean Age. Their houses, tombs and pottery were
at first rather poor, since they preferred to lavish their wealth on precious
weapons, bowls, ornaments, etc., which they took with them to their graves.
At the start of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt they imported and copied
objects and ideas from many regions, but Especially drew from the more
sophisticated Minoans of Crete. By the time of the last interments in
the Shaft Graves, during Pharaoh Thutmose IIIs reign, the Mycenaeans
had not only embraced Minoan artistic trends, but had taken over former
Minoan colonies throughout the Aegean, and had conquered Crete itself.
By the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty and during the Nineteenth, the Greek
rulers resided in palaces within fortified city-states, built sumptuous
tombs, developed an intricate economic system supporting herders and farmers,
merchants, soldiers, poets, scribes and skilled artisans, who produced
beautiful poetry, jewelry, sealstones, ivory carvings, etc., which displayed
artistic uniformity throughout Greece and her colonies. The Greeks had
taken over the East Mediterranean trade routes, importing luxury items
from every direction and exporting their own goods throughout the Aegean
and Near East.1
One can trace
all those developments during the span of the Grave Circlesfrom
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. We can relate those events to Egyptian history because of the
culture contactboth direct and indirect (e.g., via Crete)between
Greece and Egypt throughout the Mycenaean Age. To illustrate that link
during the Shaft Grave period, 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.
had enjoyed direct contact with Egypt for centuries before the Shaft Grave
Period, sent many of the objects and provided much of the artistic inspiration
found among the contents of the Grave Circles.2
Both Crete and Greece entered the Late Bronze Age at about the same time,
which one can firmly link to the beginning of the New Kingdom in Egypt,
For example, several
swords, daggers and vessels from the Shaft Graves display designs and
scenes composed of inlaid gold, silver and niello (a black metallic compound),
reminiscent of early New Kingdom Egypt, with some of the hunting scenes
of definite Egyptian origin, though possibly acquired via Minoan intermediaries.
In Egypt itself an ornamental axe head from the earliest years of the
Eighteenth Dynasty depicts an Aegean griffin, and its companion piece,
a dagger, shows animals at a flying gallop inspired by Aegean
art, with the iconography of both weapons very closely related to the
inlaid weapons of the Shaft Graves. Frescoes in the tombs of the Theban
nobles who served Hatshepsut and Thutmose III portray foreign emissaries
whose physiognomy, pigmentation, hair style and dress exactly resemble
Aegean portraits of themselves. Those and later frescoes, along with Thutmose
IIIs bas relief from Karnak, depict metal vessels which correspond
in material, shape and decoration to the cups, goblets, pitchers, jars,
conical pouring vessels, animal-headed containers and figurines which
excavators have found in the rich graves of Mycenaean Greece, the mansions
on Santorini, and the palaces and villas of Crete. 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.3
Since such firm
links between the early Eighteenth Dynasty and the Shaft Graves establish
a synchronism, Aegean archaeologists, who lacked a reliable dating system
of their own, turned to their colleagues, the Egyptologists, who had employed
the pharaonic lists of Manetho and astronomical computations to determine
absolute dates for the New Kingdom. Transferring the results of their
calculations to the Aegean, they assigned the Grave Circles to the seventeenth-sixteenth/early
fifteenth centuries B.C., and strapped Aegean archaeologists with a plethora
of problems arising from such early dates. Velikovsky has already shown
the highly dubious nature of the assumptions which the Egyptologists made
in order to construct their dating system,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
At the Aegean
end, an author has recently made the same observation as struck Schliemann
and Eduard Meyer in the 1880s while many of the vessels shown in
the Eighteenth Dynasty frescoes correspond to Shaft Grave artifacts, some
resemble Protogeometric and Geometric ware over 500 years later.6
Again like their
nineteenth century precursors, modern scholars still compare some of the
Shaft Grave artifacts to those of the Greek Archaic Period (seventh to
sixth century). Schiering and Vermeule, for example, 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, each feeling that, despite
the huge gap in time, an otherwise undetected continuity linked the Mycenaean
and the much later examples.7
Many of the artifacts
from the Grave Circles, including the stele and ring already mentioned,
depict stagsa favorite subject of Mycenaean two-dimensional art.8
In one of the richest graves of Circle A, Schliemann also found a three-dimensional
silver stag having a hollow, barrel-shaped body and a spout on the back,
probably used as a drinking vessel. Possibly an import from Anatolia,
and certainly deriving inspiration from that region, where the stag had
long been a charged symbol, it seems to be a metallic
copy of a ceramic model.9
Excavations in Greece
have, so far, produced only one other comparable grave offering in the
form of a three-dimensional ceramic stag with a hollow, barrel-shaped
body, probably used to hold liquid, Though different in material and in
style from the Mycenaean example, it still reminded its discoverer of
that find.10 It comes from
the Kerameikos cemetery of Athens, and is dated over 500 years after the
Shaft Grave stag, at ca. 925 B.C.a date which poses its own problems
for those seeking to connect the Athenian model to similarly-made ceramic
figurines of the Mycenaean Age, supposedly centuries earlier, with an
apparent gap dividing them.11
first appeared in Greece in the Shaft Graves, and became characteristic
of the Aegean during the early Mycenaean Age (sixteenth to fifteenth centuries),
then lost its popularity for
a long time,12 returning
near the end of the thirteenth century.13
Five hundred years after the Shaft Grave period in the eleventh or tenth
century, it again became not uncommon, again disappeared for
centuries, and again regained its popularity during the eighth century,14
as it had in the late thirteenth. Roughly half a millennium separates
the corresponding phases of its popularity and scarcity.
In addition to
amber. Northern burial rites, cultural traits and taste in art also found
their expression in the Shaft Graves, with some scholars even speculating
that the rulers of Mycenae may have been newly-arrived immigrants from
the North.15 Roughly
half a millennium later, ca. 1100 B.C., northern influence again spread
In the tenth to ninth centuries, the tribes of Central Europe, especially
Austro-Hungary, had a life—style and customs very similar to that of the
Shaft Grave princes of Mycenae, and there are those scholars who look
for such conditions in contemporary Greece, but fail to find them, since
they assign the Shaft Graves 600 years earlier.17
Between the Danube
and Mycenae lay the burials of Albania which Hammond considered the antecedents
of the Shaft Graves, while Prendi and Snodgrass dated them 500 years later.
At about the same latitude, to the east, in Macedonia was another cemetery
site at Vergina. Like
Mycenae, its earliest tombs were stone-lined shafts, roofed with wood,
containing very primitive pottery, and enclosed by circles of stones.
Once again Hammond assigned the first tombs earlier than the Grave Circles
Responding to that assessment, Snodgrass19
again noted that it was 500 years earlier than the excavator (M. Andronikos),
Desborough, he himself, as well as most scholars had dated them on the
basis of tenth century artifacts inside the tombs.20
There are, however, still other similarities to the Shaft Graves, beyond
those mentioned by Hammond, which pose problems for those convinced of
Verginas late date.
As at Mycenae,
the people of Vergina were both wealthy and warlike, burying with them
their weapons, amber trinkets, gold jewelry,
long dress pins, spiral ornaments, spiral hair coils of bronze and gold
wire, and many objects strongly influenced by the north21all
familiar features from the Shaft Graves. Contrasted with tenth-century
Greece, however, their burials are without parallel22
their warlike society is the first clear example of one,23
their wealth is amazing, while the most remarkable fact
is that the strong northern element did not penetrate the rest of
Greece at this period.24
What is unique, first, amazing, and most
remarkable for the tenth century fits well the Shaft Grave Period,
currently placed 500 years earlier.
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, used
for hair—rings, finger-rings, etc.25
Not only at Vergina but elsewhere in Greece coils of bronze or gold wire,
often indistinguishable from the Mycenaean examples, again became popular
in the eleventh to tenth centuries, with
the gold examples most noteworthy for their contrast to the general impoverishment
and the particular scarcity of gold now seen for that period.26
Other gold ornaments
from the Shaft Graves, which P. Gardner originally assigned to the Geometric
Age, still cause problems for modern excavators who cannot bring them
down that late. When publishing the early finds from the Kerameikos cemetery
of Athens, K. 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.27
Quite recently he published a beautifully decorated T-shaped band, probably
used as a garter belt, not earlier than the tenth century B.C., and probably
belonging to the eighth. He noted comparable and unmistakable similarities
(vergleichbar und unverkennbar Ahnen) to a number of the golden
garter belts from both grave circles, 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
With such finds separated by several centuries, it is easy to see similarities,
but difficult to see any link, direct or indirect.
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.29
Compass-drawn, concentric circles and semi-circles comprise one
of the most common features of eleventh-century Protogeometric pottery.
Desborough, who has made the most thorough study of that type of pottery,
considered the sudden appearance of such precise motifs to be the result
of a 500-year later new Athenian invention,30
since compass-drawn patterns of any kind are difficult, if not impossible,
to detect during the
intervening half millennium.31
In Grave Circle
A Schliemann discovered long dress pins, some with globular heads. In
1956 P. Jacobsthal, an authority on Greek art, wrote a book detailing
the history of dress pins in Greece, which he felt did not begin prior
to the late twelfth century B.C., when women started to use long pins
with globular pins to fasten thick clothing at their shoulders. Aware
of the pins from Mycenae, two of which closely resembled the earliest
ones of his series, he declined to include them in his survey. In
a footnote he acknowledged the existence of Schliemanns finds and
observed that two of them do look like forerunners of the sub-Mycenaean
pin-type. This must be coincidence: they are separated by an interval
of 400 years, and this cannot be bridged.32
Other scholars of about that time also agreed that the history of Greek
pins ought to begin in the late twelfth century, not with the Shaft Grave
N. Sandars, who speciallized in metallurgy, felt that the assumption that
400 years passed without any examples to connect the pins of Mycenae to
the very similar ones which started Jacobsthals series was rather
Still there was an embarrassing gap.
During the course of that discussion, archaeologists found
and published Grave Circle B at Mycenae and a cemetery only about seven
miles away at Argos, both of which added new substance to the controversy,
and made the gap even more embarrassing. Circle B produced still more
seventeenth-sixteenth-century long pins with globular heads
(some of rock crystal) clearly worn at the shoulders of women. 35
The excavator of Argos found similar long dress
pins worn at the shoulders, but datable to the late twelfth century. He
felt that since they were so similar in style and usage, and so close
geographically, there had to be a connection between the pins of Mycenae
and Argos.36 Desborough,
granting that the shape and function were similar, and that Mycenae is
very close to Argos and provides a local predecessor for the
pins there, still felt that the time gap was too enormous for there to
have been a conscious revival, and no evidence of survival. Despite the
affinities of the Shaft Grave pins to those beginning in the late twelfth
century, and becoming a common feature of the period, the later
pins constituted a radical change from everything during the
intervening 400 years. Desborough attached some importance to the later
pins, 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,37
which, not only in regard to pins, bore numerous similarities to the culture
of the seventeenth-sixteenth centuries,38
but constituted a radical change from nearly everything which
the present chronological scheme places between the two periods.
unlike Desborough, did not want to connect the Shaft Grave pins to the
later examples but, faced with the same centuries—long gap, suggested
that there might have been a change in dress after the Shaft Grave period,
possibly due to Minoan influence (or warmer weather), but at the end of
the Mycenaean Age women again dressed as they had 400 years earlier. With
no evidence that similar pins existed in Greece to span the gap, he suggested
that the pins and dress might have survived in the East, only to return
after 400 years, or, alternatively, that the pins and dress did survive
in Greece itself, among the lower classes who did not embrace Minoan fashions,
but that their remains have so far eluded excavators.39
concerned with metal work and the Dark Ages, noted that the later pins
appear somewhat abruptly, possibly due to a colder climate.
He, too, saw the clear . . . antecedents from the Shaft
Graves, and felt some sympathy for the hypothesis of revival, but, like
Desborough, was far less concerned with the short distance between the
graves of Mycenae and Argos than the huge gap in time. Like Bielefeld
he preferred to see the pins survive somewhere to bridge the gap, rather
than view the similarities as merely coincidental. Since Greece, despite
so much excavation, has not produced the intermediate examples,
he looked to more likely (and colder) areas to the north and northwest,
but conceded that those regions show no evidence of spanning the gap either.
He concluded that the origins
of the straight pin in Greece need to be reconsidered.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, either the Shaft Grave pins were some sort of aberrant phenomenon,
which only incidentally resembled pins 400 years later, similar in function
and style, and as close as ca. seven miles away, or else pins existed
somewhere, as yet undetermined (to the North, the Northwest, the East,
or in Greece itselfthough even those who believe in survival do
not agree where it took place, since the evidence is lacking or inconclusive
for all areas), which span the centuries, centuries which Jacobsthal and
others, who reject the notion of survival, considered unbridgeable.
We return to
the vessels and daggers with inlaid designs and scenes of gold, silver
and niello, which link the Shaft Graves to the early Eighteenth Dynasty.
The inlay technique first appeared in Greece among the Shaft Grave artifacts,
and continued through the early Mycenaean Age, and possibly until the
destruction of the Late Helladic palaces towards the end of the LH period.42
When describing the inlaid metal decoration of Achilles shield in
the Iliad, Homer gives such extensive details of the design and
of its manufacture that late nineteenth and early twentieth-century scholars
like C. Tsountas and K Friis Johansen felt that the technique lasted until
the poets time.43
Now that experts generally date Homer to the eighth century B.C., while
excavators have found no inlaid metal after the LH III B period, which
Egyptian chronology assigns to the thirteenth century, scholars are forced
to ask how was it remembered? during the intervening half
postulate that individual pieces may have survived as heirlooms or been
rediscovered centuries later, which would explain the description of the
finished product but not of the manufacturing technique.46
That is, in any case, purely hypothetical, since no inlaid objects have
been discovered in contexts later than LH III B. Others doubt that possibility
and prefer to believe that the tradition of oral poetry kept the memory
of the objects and the technique alive47a
theory frequently employed to explain Homers extensive knowledge
of the culture which scholars now date half a millennium before his time.
One of the Shaft Grave swords bore a geometric meander design on its hilt,
which a recent writer considered wholly untypical of Helladic workmanship
at that time, and more akin to the decorative scheme which started
to become popular some 500 years later.48
A number of the swords had their handles attached by bronze rivets plated
with silver or gold, as did other weapons during the early Mycenaean period.
On present evidence, silver-plated rivets lasted from ca. 1550-1400 then
returned ca. 700 B.C. on Cyprus, which has provoked yet another debate
among Homericists. Homer sings of gold-studded and silver-studded
swords in his epics, with several classicists conjecturing that
Homer chronicled weapons which had gone out of use centuries before his
time, but which the metrical formulae of
oral poetry kept fresh in the Greeks memory.49
Since the Cypriote swords with silver studs are contemporaneous with the
rise of the epics, V. Karageorghis felt it more likely that Homer sang
of the weapons of his own day.50
Between the two groups of swords there is at present a gap of 700 years,
with each group of classicists championing examples on one side or the
other of that lacuna51a
very familiar situation, as we shall see again and again in the present
locally-made vases from the Shaft Graves are pretty homely compared to
the roetal work, the exotic imports and the much finer Mycenaean pottery
which soon followed. Still, pottery is the major element which Aegean
archaeologists employ to establish relative sequences and absolute dates
for the pre-classical period,52
so that the Shaft Grave vases deserve some consideration. They include
goblets and storage vessels, the latter of which are of special interest.
Although the Submycenaean pots of ca. 1125 B.C. supposedly
followed immediately after the last phase of Mycenaean pottery (LH III
C) in Western Attica, and Protogeometric pots of ca. 1050-900 B.C. supposedly
followed LH III C at Mycenae and elsewhere in Greece,53
there is a striking difference in the repertory of shapes
between LH III C and sub-Mycenaean,54
and both LH III C and sub-Mycenaean vases seem unlikely progenitors of
Those pots of ca. 1125-900 B.C., which archaeologists now place centuries
after the, Shaft Grave period (despite some problems with that placement)
show some marked similarities to the Shaft Grave pots, supposedly 400-600
have long noted resemblances of the earliest Iron Age pottery
of Greece, with its distinctive shapes and geometrical designs, to the
Middle Helladic (MH) ware at the tide of, and immediately preceding the
Shaft Grave Period, with the earliest writers, like Conze, Gardner, and
making them contemporaneous. Since the Shaft Graves showed a close link
to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, however, Egyptian chronology discredited
that notion, and separated the two sets of pottery by some 500 years.
Despite that long interval, since the Middle Bronze Age ware of the Peloponnese
and Boeotia still resembled the familiar Iron Age pottery from the Kerameikos
cemetery of Athens, S. 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, less than fifteen miles northeast
of Athens.58 While
his find did help geographically, chronologically it was still 500 years
too old to connect with the Athenian Iron Age ware. Wide and J. Böhlau
therefore proposed that while the upper classes used LH pottery, the humble
folk continued to make and use their older style throughout those same
500 years, until the disappearance of the aristocracy and its cultural
remains, at which point the native ware again came to the forefront.59
Their idea that the older geometrical pottery coexisted with LH ware appealed
to a number of contemporary scholars, even as late as 1935,since it explained
the similarity of styles otherwise dated 500 years apart.60
scholars have rejected the notion that geometrical MH pottery survived
alongside LH ware in the Mycenaean world. Many, however, still see the
earliest Iron Age pottery of Greece as a clear break61
and a separate entity from the latest Mycenaean ware, which
it supposedly succeeded directly, and
as marking a new era in the art of the Greek lands.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.
Some regard the origin of the new Iron Age ware as obscure,
somehow by-passing the Mycenaean phases to link up with
the 500-year-older MH tradition, possibly in some remote region to the
who has made the most thorough study of the earliest Iron Age geometrical
ware, rejected a derivation from such a source, although he, like others,
was equally dissatisfied with a direct development from the latest
However one tries
to solve the 500-year ceramic problem, the fact remains today, as in Schliemanns
time, that some of the earliest Iron Age ware of Greece, with its distinctive
fabric, its wheel made and handmade forms, and its incised and painted
decoration, resembles the pottery which culminated in the Shaft Grave
vases from Mycenae;65
and at the site of Asine, less than twenty miles southeast of Mycenae,
the excavators termed that
(1972), pp. 82-279.
(1975), passim, esp, pp. 27ff.
pp. 18-22; Vermeule, (1972), pp. 109, 148-151; Hankey-Warren,
(1974), pp. 145-147 (with references to fundamental
work by Evans, Kantor, Furumark and Vercoutter).
Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea (Garden City, N.Y., 1977)
Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos I (Garden City, N.Y., 1952) passim.
Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums I (Stuttgart, 1884), p.
245; H. Schliemann, Tiryns (New York, 1885), p. 89; T. Burton-Brown,
Third Millennium Diffusion (Oxford, 1970), p. 184.
Schiering, Masken am Hals Kretisch-mykenischer und früh-geometrischer
Tongefässe, Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen
Instituts (henceforth JdI), 79 (1964), p. 16 and figs. 17,18;
E. Vermeule, (1972), p. 108.
(1975), pp. 15, 17, 23-26, 45.
Kübler, Kerameikos IV (Berlin, 1943), p. 20, n. 19.
Higgins (Greek Terracottas [London, 1967], p. 21) and Snodgrass
(, p. 401) both noted the similarity to Mycenaean works at
least 200 years earlier, the former suggesting that the technique
survived in Crete and Cyprus to return to Greece later. R.V. Nicholls
(Greek Votive Statuettes and Religious Continuity, ca. 1200-700
BC in Auckland Classical Essays Presented to E.M. Blaiklock
/ed. B. Harris/ [New Zealand, 1970], p. 13) believed in continuity
in Greece itself, though he could only cite two examples which might
belong to those two hundred years (Cf. Desborough, (1972), pp. 282-283).
(1972), pp. 89, 114, 127-128, 131, 147, 227, 257.
Beck et al., Analysis and Provenience of Minoan and
Mycenaean Amber, II Tiryns, Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies (Henceforth GRBS), 9 (1968), p. 15.
(1971), pp. 248, 290, n. 34.
(1975), pp. 22-26, 28, 49; Luce, (1975) p.
(1971), pp. 319-320.
p. 392 (cp. Vermeule, (1971); pp. 108-110); A. Mahr et al..
The Mecklenburg Collection, etc. (New York, 1934), pp. 9-11.
(1972), p. 266.
review of Hammonds A History of Macedonia, JHS, 94 (1974),
Andronikos, An Early Iron Age Cemetery at Vergina, near Beroea,
Balkan Studies, 2 (1961), p. 89: ca. 1050-1000 B.C. (later
revised to ca. 1,000 B.C.); Desborough, (1972), pp. 219-220:early
tenth century; Snodgrass, (1971), p. 133: late tenth century.
ibid., pp. 253-254; Desborough, ibid. pp. 219-220.
ibid., pp. 161-162; Desborough, ibid.,
(1971), pp. 253, 257.
Schliemann, Mycenae (New York, 1880) p. 353 No. 529 (from
a plundered Shaft Grave south of Circle A); E. Bielefeld, Schmuck
(Archaeologia Homerica I C),(Gottingen, 1968), p. 37, to
which add G. Mylonas, The Cemeteries of Eleusis and Mycenae,
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
99 (1955), p. 59.
ibid., pp. 47-48; R. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewelry
(London, 1961), pp 72, 91, 93; Desborough, (1972). pp.
Kübler, Kerameikos V. 1.1 (Berlin, 1954), pp. 185-186.
Kübler, Kerameikos VI. 2. 2 (Berlin, 1970) pp. 403-404.
Matz, The Art of Crete and Early Greece (tr. by A.E. Keep)
(New York, 1962), pp. 174, 218 fig. 48; cf. Schliemann, (1980),
pp. 167 No. 241, 319 No. 481 (rosettes), 172 No. 252 (circles).
(1972), pp. 41-43, 145 (referring to the combination of the compass
with a multiple brush).
(1971), pp. 47, 99, n. 26.
Jacobsthal, Greek Pins (Oxford, 1956) p. 1 and n. 1.
Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (London, 1950), p. 358;
Higgins, (1961), p. 92.
Sandars, A Minoan Cemetery on Upper Gypsades: The Bronzes,
BSA, 53-54 (1958-9), p. 235, n. 28.
Mylonas, Ancient Mycenae (Princeton, 1957) pp. 144-145, 158.
Deshayes, Argos: les fouilles de la Deiras (Paris, 1966),
p. 205; see also B.C. Dietrich, Some Evidence of Religious
Continuity in the Greek Dark Age, BICS, 17 (1970), p. 20
Desborough, review of Deshayes Argoa etc. in Gnomon,
41 (1969), p. 217; cf. idem, (1972), pp. 108, 295-299.
(1971), pp. 383-385: cf. remark on p. 29.
(1968), pp. 38-39.
(1971), pp. 226-228, 309-310 (climate).
(1968), p. 39.
(1972), pp. 98-100, 128, 133, 151, 225; Luce, (1975),
pp. 61-63, 70-71, The inlaid silver cup found in the debris of the
LH III B palace at Pylos, and often cited as LH III B in date of
manufacture (e.g. Luce, p. 62), could have been an heirloom (Blegen-Rawson,
(1956) pp. 57-58, 62); nevertheless, it shows that such objects
were still in use (possibly made) until the destructions marking
the transition from LH III B to C.
Tsountas & J. I. Manatt, The Mycenaean Age (New York,
1897), p. 324; K. Friis Johansen, Les Vases Sicyoniens (Rome, 1966
[reprint of 1923 edition]), pp. 159-160.
(1975), p. 63.
Strong, Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (Glasgow, 1966)
pp. xxv, 53; D.H.F. Gray, Metal-working in Homer,
JHS, 74 (1954), p, 4; see Vermeule, (1972) p. 100.
(ibid., pp. 3-4, 12-14) felt that Homers description
of the process was very erroneous and implied a long break. On one
point, kyanos might designate niello rather than
glass paste. Any misconceptions which Homer had about fabrication
techniqueswhich were probably known only to a small guild
of artisansneed have no chronological implications (cf. n.
below), but if there was a temporal lapse, it need not have been
several centuries in duration. The period between the probable manufacture
date and time of deposition of the Pylos cup would be more than
adequate, and, in fact, a generation or so would suffice.
(1975), p. 63; T.B.L. Webster, From Mycenae
to Homer (New York, 1964), pp. 28-29, 213-214; G.S. Kirk, The
Language and Background of Homer (Cambridge, 1964) p. 176; K.
Fittschen, Der Schild des Achilleus (Archaeologia Homerica
II. n. 1) (Göttingen, 1973), pp. 5-6, 17.
(1970), p. 184.
(1954) p. 14; Luce, (1975), pp. 61-62,
101-102; Webster, (1964), p. 92; Kirk, (1964),
pp. 176-183; Lorimer, (1950), pp. 273-274; D. Page, History and
the Homeric Iliad (Los Angeles, 1959), p. 278, n. 63; G.S. Kirk,
Homer and the Oral Tradition (New York, 1976), pp. 20, 22, 42-43
(where he takes an even firmer stand than in his earlier work.)
V. Karageorghis, Homerica from Salamis (Cyprus) in Europa:
Studien. . . Ernst Grumach (Berlin, 1967), pp. 167-168; idem,
Salamis in Cyprus (London, 1969), p. 70
Snodgrass, An Historical Homeric Society ?, JHS 94 (1974)
p. 123. Luce (1975, p. 102) suggested that Homers
poetry may have inspired the swords of Cyprus rather than vice
versa, although one might wonder how familiar Homer was both
to and with seventh-century Cyprus. Karageorghis (Europa,
p. 168, and letter to roe of Oct. 26, 1978) acknowledged the seven-hundred-year-gap
in the evidence to date, but postulated that there were silver-studded
swords during those centuries (as yet undiscovered) to bridge the
lacuna (cf. scholars similar beliefs on chariots, below A
Chariot Vase, ns. 2, 7). In that regard, it is of interest
to note that, so far, no one has discovered a silver-studded sword
on Cyprus earlier than ca. 700 B.C., and, of still greater interest,
that, by the present chronology, there is a surprising gap from
ca. 1400-1200 B.C., when the Cypriots had no swords whatever (H.
W. Catling, Cypriote Bronzework in the Mycenaean World [Oxford,
1964] pp. 110,113; L. Aström et al.. The Late Cypriote Bronze
Age:Other Arts and Crafts [Swedish Cyprus Expedition (henceforth
SCE) IV. 1D] [Lund, 1972], pp. 560, 762).
for the Mycenaean Period see Vermeule, (1972), p.
139; for the Dark Age see Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 24-28, and Desborough,
(1972), p. 292.
ibid., pp. 134-135.
p. 35. As he notes (loc. cit.), the repertory of pots called Submycenaean
has both grown and shrunk due to new discoveries and reclassification
(cf. Desborough, (1972), p. 33). Some shapes clearly derive from
the lates LH series, while others, currently seen as their contemporaries,
do not, and seem to be 500-year throwbacks.
Desborough, Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford, 1952), p. 126.
the shape (not handles) of ibid., pl. 19 A 1452-1453 to Mylonas,
(1957), pls. 43a, 64 a-b; the shape of ibid., pl.
35 IV.1 to Mylonas, p.. 81b; the handled kalathos (ibid.,
pl. 8 No. 577.20) resembles an enlarged Vapheio cup
(P.S. 224) for which, note the gigantic cups carried by Aegeans
in Egyptian frescoes; Amphora 590 (G. Karo, Die Schachtgräber
von Mykenai [Munich, 1933], pl. 171) shows points of resemblance
to C.G. Styrenius, Submycenaean Studies (Lund, 1967) pls.
49, 63, to C.W. Blegen et al.. The Palace of Nestor III (Princeton,
1973) pl. 298.14, and to K. Kübler & W. Kraiker.
Kerameikos I (Berlin, 1939), pl. 55 No. 589; the amphoriskoi
from Circle B (e.g. Mylonas, Ho Taphikos Kyklos B ton Mykenon
[Athens, 1973], pl. 128B) show similarities to Styrenius, pl. 11
and Desborough (1952, p. 126.),
pl. 31 (bottom center). The resemblances are generic, and I would
not claim that the pots were made in the same place, at the same
time, by the same men. They, along with many other artifacts and
customs show similarities more easily explained by a closer link
than scholars now see. 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, (1972), p. 33) and between contemporaneous
groups of ninth-century pots made in different areas (Snodgrass,
(1971), figs. 42-44, 120-122).
Cook, Greek Painted Pottery (London, 1972) p. 303; Gardner,
(1978), p. 78; Schliemann, (1885), p. 89.
Wide, Aphidna in Nordattika, Athenische Mittheilungen
(henceforth Ath. Mitt.), 21 (1896) p. 407.
pp. 400-403, 407-409. For Böhlaus contribution, see ibid.,
p. 402, n. 1 and Cook, (1972), p. 305.
C.C. Edgar, Excavations in Melos 1899: The Pottery,
BSA, 5 (1898-99), pp. 15-16; idem., The Pottery
in Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (JHS supplement 4) (London,
1904), pp. 97, 100, 103-106; H.B. Walters, History of Ancient
Pottery I (New York, 1905), pp. 278-279; W. Dörpfeld, Das
Alter des Heiligtums von Olympia, Ath. Mitt., 31 (1906),
pp. 205-218 ( a view caustically attacked that same year by A. Furtwängler
[Das Alter des Heraion und das Alter des Heiligtums von Olympia,
reprinted in Kleine Schriften I (Munich, 1911) pp. 455-457],
who had, as we shall see [below Other
LH III Figural Pottery, n. 9], proposed that Mycenaean
ware lasted an extra 500 years, coexisting with the later geometrical
ware); W. Dorpfeld, Alt Olympia I (Berlin, 1935), pp. 11-14.
Folsom, Handbook of Greek Pottery (London, 1967), p. 21.
(1972), pp. 4-6; cf. M Robertson, A History of
Greek Art I (New York. 1975), p. 15.
Demargne, The Birth of Greek Art (tr. by S. Gilbert and J.
Emmons) (New York, 1964), p. 287; cf. V. Milojcic, Die dorische
Wanderung im Lichte der vorgeschichtlichen Funde, Arch.
Anz., 1948-1949, p. 34; C.G. Starr, The Origins of Greek
Civilization (New York, 1961), pp. 45, 93 and n. 1, 140. For
the retention of MH ware in Albania and Macedonia supposedly 500
years after their disappearance in the south, see The Grave
Circles, ns. 2-11 and ns. 18-20 above; for Thessaly see W.A.
Heurtley and T.C. Skeat, The Tholos Tombs of Marmariane,
BSA, 31 (1930-1), pl. 1, figs 4-7.
(1952), p. 126; cf. Hall, (1901), p. 39; Demargne,
(1964) p. 287, and Milojcic, (19648-49), p.
34, against direct evolution from LH pottery.
(1971) pp. 94-97, 384. In addition to those already cited above
(ns. 57-64) cf. Lacy, (1967), p. 171 on tea cups;
Broneer, (1939), pp. 418-419; E. Vermeule, The Mycenaeans
in Achaia, American Journal of Archaeology (henceforth
AJA), 64 (1960), p. 5 for MH vessels skipping periods and
occurring again after a lapse of time; Skeat, Verdelis and
others subscribed to that hypothesis to explain the ribbed pedestal
on ninth-eighth-century vessels from Thessaly as derived from MH
goblets, including those from Circle B at Mycenae, but J. N. Coldstream,
Greek Geometric Pottery [London, 1968], p. 161 and n. 3)
felt that the 600-700-year gap in the evidence invalidated that
suggestion (see, however, n. 63 above on Thessaly).
Frödin and A. W. Persson, Asine: Results of the Swedish
Excavations 1922-1930 (Stockholm, 1938), p. 279.