The Oldest Civilization of Greece (2024)

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

(Redirected from The Oldest Civilisation of Greece)

Jump to: navigation, search

Related e



Rhombicuboctahedron by Leonardo da Vinci

The Oldest Civilization of Greece (1901) is a book by Henry Hall.


THE series of " Studies of the Mycenaean Age " which are comprised in this volume contain the notes made during the course of some years' study of the "Mycenaean Question," expanded and thrown into a connected form. The chief problems of "Mycenaean" archaeology are dealt with separately, but at the same time are also, as far as possible, connected in order to form a hom*ogeneous study of the Mycenaean Question as it stands to-day. Here and there it has been found impossible, when dis- cussing some one problem, to steer clear of trenching upon the domain of another; repetition of argument has, however, been as far as possible avoided, and it is hoped that these chapters will be of use both to the scientific archaeological student and to the layman who interests himself in the most fascinating search which ever yet allured the seeker after for- gotten history — the search for the origins of Greek civilization.

It must ever be borne in mind that this search is still being pursued amid the clouds. We are not on firm earth when we are dealing with things Myce- naean, and have still to walk warily. It must be remembered that all statements as to the " history " of Greek civilization before the eighth century B.C., must needs be more or less hypothetical; we seek to explain the prehistoric monuments of Greece by more or less probable hypotheses and theories. Our explanation of the development of pras-classical Greek culture is, therefore, merely a collection of theories and hypotheses. And although the majority of students of the Mycenaean Question are agreed with regard to the greater part of these explanatory hypotheses, yet in many more or less important respects they differ from one another, with the result that at present the statements of any one author on "Mycenaean subjects must usually be taken as representing primarily his own view, for which he alone is responsible; he is not telling to the world a well-known story anew, but is giving his own particular explanation of certain phenomena which others might very conceivably explain otherwise.

With regard to the plan of the book> I may remark that I have not considered it necessary to give any long descriptions of Mycenaean palaces and tombs or to enter into any lengthy disquisitions on the charac- teristics and peculiarities of Mycenaean art: I assume that my readers are already more or less familiar with the sixth volume of MM. PERKOT and CHIPIEZ'S Hist o ire <h /'Art, with SCHUCHHARDT's Epitome of Schliemann's works, or with the Mycenccan Ay<: of Messrs. TSOUNTAS and MAXATT, in which the fullest description of the details of Mycenaean culture may be found.

The term " Mycenaean;3 I have used in its widest sense, as covering the typical " Cycladic " deposits of Thera, Phylakope, Kamarais, and the older settlement at Knossos, as well as the period of the palace of Knossos, the Mycenae-graves, lalysos, and Vaphio, the "Mycenaean period " in its narrower sense. The term " Prae-Mycenaean " I have used only with reference to the primitive epoch of the cist-graves; the succeeding period of transition, the " Cycladic " period of Mr. Myres, I have preferred to call " Proto- Mycenaean." To apply the term " Prae-Mycenaean " to this transitional period seems to me to give the impression that the culture of the Third City of Phylakope differed far more from that of the Fourth than is really the case.

I have endeavoured to discuss the question of the relations of the Mycenaeans with the East and with Egypt as fully as is possible within the compass of this book. The question of Mycenaean relations with Sicily, Italy, and the West, I have merely referred to as shortly as possible. The discoveries of Signer OKSI and his fellow-workers in the Western field are so recent that their results can hardly yet be fully discussed.

The chronological scheme which will be found at the end of the book is intended merely as a rough guide. The dates given in it are all approximate, and many are, of course, purely hypothetical. The period of the Aryan invasion must naturally be understood to cover several centuries; perhaps earlier, perhaps later than the date given.

The illustrations are, in general, intended to be rather helps to the better understanding of the subject-matter by the layman than contributions to the knowledge of the subject already possessed by the archaeologist; the latter will, however, I hope, find the illustrations to chapter vi., on " My cense and Egypt," useful to him. In the " List of Illus- trations " will be found explanatory notes appended to the titles of the figures,

In conclusion, I wish to thank many friends, especially Dr. E. A. WALLIS BUDGE and Mr. L. W. KING, of the Egyptian and Assyrian Department, and Mr. H. B. WALTERS, of the Greek and Roman Department of the British Museum, for many hints and suggestions, and also Dr. A. S. MURRAY, Keeper of the Greek and Eoman Department, for his kind permission to publish the silver cup from Enkomi, Fig. 24, and the pictographic inscription, Fig. 64.


February 1901.




  • 4 Front matter
  • 5 See also



FOR some years past one of the dominant objects of historical study in the Hellenic field has been the search for the origins of Greek civilization, the attempt to elucidate the early history of the Hellenic culture and of the Hellenic race. Twenty years ago our knowledge of Greek history could hardly be said to have extended much further back than the beginning of the seventh century B.C.; before that time all seemed vague and untrustworthy, a realm of legend and of fairy-tale. The historian of Greece could go no further than the limit to which Thucydides and Herodotos could take him; the only glimpse which he possessed of the earlier ages was afforded him by the beacon-light of Homer, which, however, served but to make the surrounding dark- ness more visible. The Homeric period seemed to be entirely isolated; an impassable gap separated the Greece of Homer from the Greece of Herodotos; the period of time which had elapsed between the two could not be estimated with any approach to cer- tainty, nor could the process of the development of the civilization of the classical out of that of the Homeric period be traced with any attempt at accuracy. Behind Homer lay impenetrable dark- ness. To-day, however, the veil which hid the origins of Greek civilization from us has, at least partially, been lifted, and although much is as yet uncertain, the historian of Greece can at least say with truth that his knowledge of Greek story no longer ends in the seventh century; he is now not only able to connect the Homeric period with the classical age, but his range of vision extends beyond Homer and brings him almost to the very beginnings of Greek civilization. He does not, however, owe this increased range of vision to himself alone; it is to the spade of the archaeologist, not to the pen of the historian, that the discovery of the origins of Hellas is due. Formerly the archaeologist was but the servant of the historian; it was his duty merely to illustrate by his discoveries the materials which the historian drew from his ancient authorities. Now, however, it is to the archaeologist that the historian looks to give him increased knowledge, to supply him with facts with which he may recon- struct the lost history of pras-classical Greece.

The present energy of the archaeologist in Greece and the modern interest in early Greek archaeology date from and are a consequence of the epoch-making discoveries of the beginning of the XlXth century in the domain of Egyptian and Oriental archaeology.


A new world was opened to us by these discoveries; the horizon of our knowledge of the ancient civiliza- tions of the earth was widened indefinitely by them; and it was not long before classical students began, after much doubt and incredulity, to ask themselves how far this new knowledge might bear upon the early history of the Greeks. But not all: many classical scholars were utterly unable to conform themselves to the new order of ideas. The keen intellect of Sir G. C. Lewis, for instance, was unable to grasp the meaning of the new discoveries; he continued to the end of his days refusing to believe that anybody could read a single hieroglyph or inter- pret a single group of wedges. But these were excep- tions: others — among them Mr. Gladstone — turned eagerly to the new light for information, and when it was found that, although Herodotos's oriental history might be to a great extent confirmed by the Inscription of Behistun and other early trophies of cuneiform study, yet his history of Egypt was so legendary and unreliable as to be of little use to anybody but the folklorist, the results of Egypto- logical study were utilized by them for the pur- pose of further elucidating the Homeric question.1 Although the Homeric poems were still regarded in England as the work of a single hand, yet they were now studied not merely in order to " properly base vvv " or to trace the pedigree of the digamma, but to glean knowledge of that heroic age of which •" Homer" sang, and to seek out through him the secret of the origins of Hellas.

1 E.g. GLADSTONE, Juventus Mundi, p. 144; and elsewhere.


It was in the early sixties that De Kouge translated the inscriptions of Merenptah and Kameses III. (B.C. 1250-1150), which record the two great in- vasions of Egypt by the piratical hordes of the Mediterranean and their successive defeats at Piarisheps and off the coast of Palestine, and announced to the world that Achaians, Danaans, Pelasgians, Teukrians, and Dardanians had formed part of the invading hosts. The question of the correctness of his identifications will be discussed later; at the time many were incredulous, many hailed his announcement with sanguine interest and anticipation. It was evident that the Homeric period was a time of storm and stress, of wars and wander- ings; and the picture of the Homeric Greeks warring with Asia Minor and adventuring far voyages to Egypt and to the West, as if already disturbed and displaced by the pressure of the Dorians from the North, certainly tallied well with the indications given by the Egyptian records of occasional visits from the piratical ships of the wandering clansmen of the "Very Green" Sea, coming sometimes as single spies, sometimes in battalions, sometimes to settle in the islands and marshes of the Delta, more often to burn, to slay, and to enslave. And did not the legends of Hellas tell of Egyptian and Oriental settlers in Greece itself: of Inachos and Danaos in Argolis, of Kekrops in Athens, of Kadmos, "the man from the East," in Boeotian Thebes? Whence did this last name come to Greece if not from Egypt? Thothmes III. made Cyprus tributary- why not also more westerly islands and coasts?


Such considerations as these prompted Mr. Glad- stone— relying on such interpretations of Thoth- mes III.'s famous "Hymn to Amen" at Karnak1 as that given by Lenormant — to conjure up for us a Homeric Greece which had been conquered long before the days of Agamemnon by Thoth- mes III., and had thereafter been ruled by Egyptian vicegerents of the Theban Pharaohs, who, as depo- sitaries of the wisdom of the Egyptians, dispensed the civilization of the Black Land to their eager subjects, and became the founders of most of the princely houses of Greece.2 Few found themselves able to follow Lenormant and Gladstone; all that could be admitted was that, since at a time not long anterior to the " Homeric period " Egyptian con- quest had reached Cyprus and the southern coast of Asia Minor, and wandering seafarers — quite possibly and very probably Greeks — had reached Egypt, an actual connection between Greece and Egypt might quite possibly have existed at that time, but that tangible proof of any Egyptian influence upon early Greek civilization at that epoch did not exist.

So stood the matter when Schliemann, great in faitn and in works, excavated Troy, Mycenas, and Tiryns, thus applying a method of investigation already suc- cessful in Egypt and Assyria to Greece. His startling discoveries compelled classical scholars once again to abandon preconceived notions and to revise their ideas anew. Had we at last reached the age of

1 Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de I' Orient, i. pp. 386, 387.

2 GLADSTONE, Homer (Literature Primers, ed. by J. R. GREEN), p. 49.


Homer? Schliemann believed that he had dis- interred the actual heroes of the Trojan War; in the bones which he dug out of the graves in the akropolis of Mycenae he saw the actual remains of Agamemnon, of Klytaimnestra, and of Aigisthos, in their golden masks the actual presentments of those whose deeds and woes Homer and Sophokles had sung. But criticism soon dismissed this idea from all minds except that of the discoverer. The fact that the Homeric Greeks burned the bodies of their dead to ashes upon a pyre, and did not mummify them as Schliemann's Mycenaeans did, was sufficient to show some difference between them and the Mycenaeans;1 and the conviction that the culture of which Schliemann had discovered the remains was not that of the Homeric time, though it was evidently connected with it, gradually gained ground. Was it, then, earlier or later? At first this was difficult to decide; so much had been discovered which was foreign to the archaeologist who had been trained in the school of classical Hellas, so much was entirely new and strange,2 that the task of deciding the relation of the newly- discovered culture to the civilizations of the Homeric and classical periods was one of great difficulty. To place the Mycenaean remains anywhere within the classical period was impossible; it was, however, suggested that they might possibly date from the

1 Though in reality not so great a difference as it has often been held to show.

- So new and strange that one archaeologist considered the remains to be those of warriors of the Avars and Heruli, buried with their own property and the spoil of Greek cities.

/c^_ ^ ,,,_ ^


Byzantine age, a suggestion made only to be con- clusively refuted. Thus only two possible sup- positions remained: the antiquities of Mycenae must have dated either to the period of transition between the age of Homer and the classical time, or must have been prior to the Homeric period altogether. The simple fact that iron was almost totally absent

FIG. i. — Mycenaean Vase («vAi£) from lalysos.

from the Mycenasan tombs was enough to show the impossibility of the first supposition; the second alone remained, and was accepted by the majority. Various pieces of evidence seemed to render this view probable — e.g., some Egyptian objects which bore the names of Egyptian monarchs of the XVIIIth Dynasty seemed to date the Mycenasan remains to the fifteenth century B.C. The importance of this evidence was naturally insisted upon more em- phatically when similar objects were discovered in


the tombs of lalysos in Rhodes, which were obvi- ously contemporary with the tombs and town of Mycenae. Then men bethought themselves of the ancient kingdom of the "fortium ante Agamem- nona," of the domination of the Perseids arid Pelopids over Mycenae and many isles, which to Homer was already legendary. It was not long before the supposition that the Mycenaean culture — which, as soon became apparent, extended over the greater part of the Hellenic world — was that of the old Achaians, and that the civilization of the Homeric period was but a degenerate descendant of this, became generally accepted; and although a certain number of dissident critics protest against it from various points of view, yet this theory undoubtedly still holds the field, because it best explains the facts. A working hypothesis having thus been found to explain the discoveries of Schliemann and his successors, the question arose: How far can the origins of this highly developed "Mycenaean" cul- ture be traced back? Attention was now directed to many products of a rude and undeveloped art, found on many sites in Greece, which existed in the various museums; these seemed in many respects to foreshadow the artistic triumphs of the Mycenaean period. That these objects were not only primitive in form, but also primitive in date, was shown by the discoveries of Bent and Dummler in the Cyclades and in Cyprus, where were excavated a series of early graves analogous to the numberless primitive tombs of other parts of Europe, in which lay the skeletons of their owners surrounded


by their primitive weapons of copper and of stone, and the rough pottery vessels of the type already known, and considered to be of prae- Mycenaean date.1 These discoveries connected them- selves at once, on the one hand, with the early " cities " of Troy which Schlie- mannhad excavated, and, on the other, with the scanty traces of human habitation which had been found by Fouque underneath the volcanic tufa of the island of Thera.'2 Schliemann, believ- ing his Mycenaean discoveries to be the remains of the civilization of golden Mycenae as it was

in the days of Agamemnon, and his burnt city of Troy to have been the very citadel of Priam, considered the Mycenaean and early Trojan stages of culture to have been contemporaneous. This con- clusion was for some time tacitly accepted. But, as Professor Mahaffy has well pointed out,3 it was really from the first evident that this could not be.

1 v. post, p. 25. - v. 2Jost, p. 25.

! MAHAFFY, /Survey of Greek Civilisation, p. 26.

FIG. 2.. — Prae-Mycentean Vase (np with triple body. (Cyprus.)


The weapons and pottery of the second city of Troy were in no sense on the same level of development as those of Mycenae: not only were they absolutely different from these, but they were far more primi- tive in appearance and in fabric. The copper weapons and rude black pots from the Burnt City could in no way be compared with the splendid inlaid bronze swords and delicate vases from Mycenae. It seemed at least probable that the Trojan culture was much earlier than that of Mycenae. But could not the Trojan culture, though so much ruder and less developed than that of Mycenae, still have been contemporaneous with it? If the Burnt City was Homer's Troy, and the akropolis-graves of Mycenae were those of Homer's heroes, the remains from both Troy and Mycenae should have been the same in character: in the Homeric poems there is no dis- tinction apparent between the civilization of Troy and that of Mycenae; they are identical. Also, since the Mycenaean culture was spread over the whole of the ^Egean basin, it would naturally have been expected that, if the second Trojan city and the Mycenaean graves were contemporary, Mycenaean objects would have been found among the relics of Troy, and Trojan objects at Mycenae. This evidence of contemporaneousness was not forthcoming. The conclusion that the Burnt City was not Homer's Troy, but a settlement of far earlier date than this, was inevitable. And since the Mycenaean culture itself had been shown to be to all appearance pre-Homeric, this date was evidently very early indeed. Absolute confirmation of this conclusion


was supplied in 1892-3 by Professor Dorpf eld's discovery that Schliemann's Sixth City was the true Mycenaean settle- ment of Troy, which was thus evidently much later in date than the Burnt City. And this again was confirmed by the evidence of the superimposed settlements on the akropolis of Athens, where the stratum cor- responding to the Second Trojan City lay entirely beneath the My- cenasan stratum. The true posi- tion of the early Trojan settle- ments was now evident: they

FIG. 3. — Prae-Mycenasan Vase (npo\ov<>) of black ware; hand-made. (Troy: Second City.)

were " prse-My-

cenaean," and, as

the character of

their remains shows, were roughly contemporaneous

with the similar relics discovered in the Cyclades and

in Cyprus; while the Therasan remains seemed to


represent a period of transition from the primitive stage of culture in the ^Egean basin to the fully developed Mycenaean stage.

It now did not seem impossible to trace back the pras-Mycensean stage of early Greek culture to its beginnings. Some clue to these was given by the First City of Troy, the earliest settlement on the Athenian akropolis, and other extremely primitive settlements, the inhabitants of which were apparently just emerging from the Stone Age into that of Metal. Traces of human habitation at a still earlier period are not wanting in Greece, but their date remained and still remains uncertain, and if the semi-barbaric culture of the prge-Mycenasan period was developed out of this Neolithic barbarism, and was not im- ported from elsewhere, the steps by which the transition was carried out were not and are not yet fully apparent to us. So that we can with justice regard the earliest settlements of Troy and Athens as representing the beginnings of civilization in Greece.

Such, then, were the rough results of Schliemann's application to Greece of the method of archaeological investigation which had proved so successful in Egypt and in Assyria. The working hypothesis which was devised to explain these results, although it may not fulfil all the conditions of the problem and satisfy everybody, has yet explained much which would otherwise be inexplicable and has satisfied the great majority of those who have interested themselves in the subject. The various parts of the hypothesis, as will become more apparent later, certainly fit


in very well with each other and with Greek tradition.

Many objections to it have been made, and much cause has been given for objection by some of the more ardent protagonists of this theory, who have damaged their cause by trying to prove too much. When the average student of Greek history is suddenly informed that the prae-Mycenasan culture is closely connected with if not actually derived from the bar- baric culture of the pre-dynastic Egyptians, and that it therefore dates back to somewhere about 5000 B.C., he is apt to refuse adherence not only to the announce- ment in question but also to many other archaeological propositions and theories bearing on the early history of Greece and the early relations between Greece and the East, which are in reality worthy of his most serious attention.

But objections more important than these may be and have been made against the usual hypothesis on grounds which may be said to seriously affect the claim of the archaeologist to be a trustworthy recon- structor of forgotten history. " Dove la storia e muta, parlano le tombe." But how far can the results of excavation be trusted? It is far too often assumed that anything found at a low level is neces- sarily early, and that anything primitive is necessarily prehistoric, while the argument from analogy is often pressed too hard: anything which in any way resembles something else, whether in shape or in pattern or what not, is immediately set down as being an imitation of or a derivative of that some- thing else. Sometimes a very slight error may


absolutely vitiate an archaeological argument drawn from the results of some excavation. Often the evidence may be complete, clear, and convincing; yet, again, at other times it may conflict with itself and with all the other known evidence. Especially must the Oriental evidence bearing on the Mycenaean question be carefully examined: great care must always be exercised in dealing with objects found in Egyptian tombs and in excavations in Egyptian town ruins. In Egypt, as tomb-room grew scarce, bodies were in later days often buried in early tombs. Some- times the original occupant was summarily ejected, only a few scraps of his funeral furniture being left; at other times he remained with his belongings, mixed up with the mummies and relics of the later intruders. When the objects found in an Egyptian tomb of the Xllth Dynasty are all Egyptian, it is possible to distinguish to a great extent by the criterion of style between the Xllth Dynasty objects and those, if there are any, which are of later date; but when non-Egyptian objects which, for example, perhaps belong apparently to the " prae-Mycenaean " Greek art of the Islands, are found in a Xllth Dynasty tomb or house-ruin, we have little to assure us that they were placed there at the time of the Xllth Dynasty. Yet the occurrence of pras-Myce- naean objects with Xllth Dynasty remains at Kahun, in Egypt, is unhesitatingly considered to prove the Xllth Dynasty date of these objects.1 Absolute

1 In such a case the cumulative evidence must be taken into account. In this particular case, though the particular evidence from Kahun is bad, the cumulative evidence shows that the prae-


certainty that a tomb has never been disturbed since its first occupant was laid to rest in it is very difficult to obtain, and, even when the greatest certainty is maintained by the most systematic explorers as to the undisturbed state of a tomb, doubts may occa- sionally arise as to Whether certain objects found in it can really date to the period which is claimed for them. Again, in excavations small objects can con- stantly slip down from higher levels to lower. It is certain that the majority of objects which are found at the lowest level of an excavation date to the earliest period at which the site was inhabited, but not all are necessarily of such an early date. And in an Early Iron Age grave at Hallstatt Sir John Evans found an Austrian coin of the year 1826 I1 An interesting example of conflicting evidence from Egypt may be given here. When Professor Petrie discovered his " New Eace " at Ballas and Tukh the evidence for the date which he assigned to it — midway between the Vllth and Xlth Dynasties (i.e., about 3000 B.C.) — seemed clear enough. Very soon, however, M. de Morgan2 showed that the remains of this race must be in reality pras-dynastic, dating certainly many centuries before 4000 B.C. This conclusion has since been confirmed by the further discoveries made by other investigators.3

Mycenaean culture was contemporary with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, and so probably with the Xllth Dynasty.

1 Ancient Bronze Implements of Great Britain, p. 25.

2 Les Origines de VEgypte (Paris, 1896-7).

3 QUIBELL, El Kab, p. ii; AMfLlNEAU, Les Fouilles d'Abydos (Paris, 1895-6), &c.; PETEIE, Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty (London, 1900). The discovery of the archaic antiquities of


Now, this instance is enough to give us pause: other similar misconceptions, founded upon evidence to all appearance absolutely convincing, are not impossible. Cyprus is a small country, and had in ancient times a large population; tombs were there- fore constantly re-used, and the result is that the archaeological evidence from Cyprus is conflicting: objects of different ages are often found together in the same tomb. Nor, turning to Greece, is the evidence of Greek excavation always as simple and convincing as it looks. It has been usual to regard all the contents of the akropolis-graves at Mycenae as dating more or less to the same period. But some of the objects from certain of these graves can be shown, if we are not to throw aside all that we have learnt of the development of early Greek art, to be of far later date than others: some objects of orientalizing character from Mycenas obviously belong to the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., while others as obviously do not belong to this time, but are far earlier. Again, the so-called "Treasure of Priam," found at Troy, was supposed by Schliemann to have belonged to the second or praa-Mycenaean city, which he believed to be the Ilios of the Iliad. But the character of the workmanship of some of the magnificent golden pins and bracelets from, the Second City shows us that it is improbable that they

the First Dynasty has put the "New Race" antiquities into their proper chronological plnce, before the coming of the "Dynastic Egyptians" who amalgamated with the previous inhabitants and founded the Egyptian kingdom. With this settlement of the question Professor Petrie now agrees.


can date back to the semi-barbarous age of the Second City: they have all the appearance of belong- ing to the later period of Mycenaean art, and need date no further back than about looo B.C. Here, then, is an evident error of the excavator: these pins and bracelets, and probably the " Treasure of Priam," must in reality have belonged to the Sixth, not to the Second City. Again, in the course of his explorations in the Cyclades, Dummler found in the neighbourhood of a primitive " cist-grave " of the prae - Mycenaean epoch a bronze fibula.1 To sup- pose that this fibula is of prse - Mycenaean date, as Diimmler apparently did, is simply to contradict all that we know of the develop- ment of the Age of Metal in Europe. The conclusion is obvious: the supposed level or position at which an object has been found is not always a safe clue to its date; and not even in Greece, where in all probability tombs were not often re-used, can it be said with certainty that all the objects found together in a tomb are of the same date or were all put there together at the same period. Subject, however, to

1 v. post, p. 25.


FIG. 4. — Mycenaean Gold Pin, from the Second City, Troy.


these reservations, the general evidence of excava- tion can be accepted, especially when the excavators are such past-masters of their art as Professor Dorp- feld or Professor Petrie. To say that all the results of excavation are valueless because a few of them have been inconclusive or self-contradictory, because some mistakes have been made with regard to them, or because impossible theories have been built upon them, would be absurd.

It has been necessary to thus discuss the vices as well as the virtues of archaeological evidence, because of late there has grown up an increasing tendency to regard the hypotheses of the archaeologist as necessarily inspired, to regard him as the exponent of an exact science, which he is not. Excavations may be carried on in a scientific manner, but archae- ology is not a science. Archaeological " science " is merely a branch of knowledge which is now suffi- ciently advanced to be able to frame more or less probable hypotheses with regard to the remains of the handiwork of ancient peoples which its expert excavators and explorers have discovered. Absolute certainty in these matters is only possible where a continuous literary tradition has always existed: the modern study of European and American prehistoric archaeology, for instance, which has no literary tradition by its side, must always remain largely guesswork. The main scheme of the history of ancient Egypt is now a certainty, not a mere hypothesis; but it is very doubtful if it would ever have become a certainty if its construction had depended entirely on the archaeologists. The


complete skeleton of the scheme was provided by the continuous literary tradition preserved by the Egyptian priest Manetho; this has been clothed with flesh by the archaeologists, and in the course of this process it has become clear that in the main Manetho had articulated his skeleton correctly. But in the case of European and American prehistoric archaeology there exist no skeletons to be clothed, and in the case of early Greek archaeology the skeleton, though it exists, is but an unsatisfactory specimen, from which many of the most important bones are missing, while others are evidently mis- placed, so that the task of clothing it with flesh is a very difficult and a very uncertain one.

The limitations of the archaeological method as applied to early Greece must always be kept in view; in Greece we can never hope to derive from archaeo- logical discovery the same certain historical know- ledge which we have derived from it in the case of Egypt and Assyria: in dealing with the remains of prehistoric Greece we have no contemporary inscribed monuments, no chronicles or letters to guide us.1 But on the other hand we know the ground better; we can separate with greater certainty the probable from the improbable; and, by combining the indi- cations of Hellenic tradition with the results of excavation, we may fairly hope to eventually gain a

1 From Crete we now have a number of clay hieroglyphed tablets, as well as "pictographed" sealstones, discovered by Mr. A. J. Evans, but we cannot yet read them, nor is there any prospect at present that we shall ever be able to read them; KLUGE'S attempt (Die Schrift der Mykenier, Cothen, 1897) is a failure.


general knowledge of the history of primitive Greece. One fact at least, and that one of capital importance, we have learnt from the discoveries of the archae- ologists, and that is that it is impossible to regard Greek civilization as a thing sui generis, an isolated phenomenon which sprang from the brain of the Hellene complete in itself, like Athene from the brain of Zeus; we have learnt that Hellenic civili- zation did not develop itself entirely by itself and through itself, but was from the beginning connected not only with the older civilizations of the Nile Valley and Mesopotamia, but also with the kindred culture of Italy and with the early Bronze Age culture of Central Europe — that even in its begin- nings it both influenced them and was influenced by them in various ways. Greece is of all countries the most unsuited to the isolated development of an absolutely self-contained culture: the ^Egean was the natural meeting-place of the civilizations of Europe and of Asia.

The archreologist, then, can never provide the historian with an absolutely certain history of the . early days of Greek civilization; he can only provide him with a more or less satisfactory working hypo- thesis, towards the framing of which the historian must himself lend his aid, in order to correct certain imperfections which might otherwise be noticeable in it. Much of the evidence which will go towards the framing of this hypothesis is of such a character that it would not hold good in any court of law; many small pieces of evidence which to a lawyer would seem worthless have in the eyes of the archse-


ologist and the historian great value when brought into connection with other similar pieces of evidence; the value of cumulative evidence in archaeological study can never be ignored; though the individual links may be weak, the chain itself may be strong. Also that perception of the probable which often enables the historian to judge aright when legal evidence is wanting, must sometimes be brought into play in order to bridge over gaps in the evidence. This necessity must, however, never be allowed to serve as an excuse for an indulgence in mere vain imaginings.

We can now proceed to sketch the main outlines of the hypothesis which is more or less generally accepted at the present day, modified according to the evidence of the latest discoveries, e.g. those in Cyprus and Crete.



WHEN all the conditions of a problem are more or less doubtful, only a doubtful hypothesis can be devised to solve it. The doubtful and provisional character of the generally accepted Mycenaean" hypothesis must not be forgotten. A few years ago the most distinguished of modern Greek archaeolo- gists, Professor Tsountas, published his conception of the prehistoric civilization of Greece under the title MvKiivai KOL MuKrjveuoe IIoAm<7jUoc. Last year an edition of this book, much enlarged, and to a great extent recast, was published in an English dress by an American scholar, Mr. Manatt. The Mycenaean Age of Messrs. Tsountas and Manatt is as it stands without doubt the most complete account of " Mycenaean " antiquities which exists; but it is somewhat marred by the fact that the hypothetical nature of much of its subject-matter is to a large extent ignored; generally speaking, the current Mycenaean hypothesis is stated as an account of historical facts. Even the improbable theory of Professor Tsountas, according to which the early inhabitants of Greece were divided into a hut- dwelling race and a lake-dwelling race, which were the Achaians and the Danaans, and which gave


the Perseid and Pelopid royal houses to Mycenae,1 is hardly stated with sufficient caution. Before proceeding to sketch the generally accepted ex- planation of " Mycenaean " antiquities, it is desir- able that its hypothetical nature should be fully emphasized.

The earliest trace of at least comparatively "civilized" human settlement as yet discovered within the territory of the later Hellenic civilization has been found in the lowest strata of the mound of Hissarlik, the site of Troy. The Trojans of the first city at Hissarlik were just on the border between the Age of Stone and the Age of Metal, in the same state of civilization as the people who were buried in the graves of Remedello in Italy,2 and the "hall- graves " of Northern Europe/5 They still used implements of stone, but the use of copper was already known to them. Their pottery was of the most primitive description. Deposits of this early period have also been found at Athens, and others of similar age appear to have been found else-

1 TSOUNTAS-MANATT, The Mycencean Age, pp. 250 if. 343 ff.

2 NAUE, Bronzezeit in Oberbayern, p. 69, n.

3 MONTELIUS, Orienten och Europa (Antiqv. Tidskr. for Sverige, xiii.), p. 209.

FIG. 5. — Proe-Mycenaean black ware Vase. (Troy: Second



where in Greece.1 Later, in the second and third cities of Hissarlik, we find that the knowledge of copper-working had progressed; spearheads, arrow- heads, celts, and daggers of copper were used, but the two former were tanged in the primitive manner, not socketed; here also bronze makes its first appearance in the ^Egean countries. The pottery has progressed: vague attempts to imitate animal and human forms are

FIG. 6. — Siphnian Stone Box in form of a model dwelling; pr?e-Mycensean period. (Melos. )

found among the vases. The rnins of the town walls and gates and of the chief's house exhibit a knowledge of building which seems almost in advance of the general character of this primitive culture, as it is revealed to us by its pottery, weapons, and graves. In many of the ^Egean Islands we find numerous traces of a stage of culture which was practically the same

1 A full list of these most primitive settlements is given by MYRES, "Early Man in the Eastern Mediterranean" (Science Progress, v. (1896), p. 343).


as, though perhaps in some respects more primitive than, that of the early "cities" of Troy. The graves of these islanders are plain " cist-graves " constructed of marble slabs, excavated but a few feet deep in the surface soil; their occupants were buried, not burnt, and their skeletons are often found in that cramped and huddled position which seems characteristic of many primitive races. The weapons which were buried with them are mostly of copper, and are con- fined to daggers and tanged spearheads, swords being as yet unknown.1 Stone knives were still in use, the obsidian of the islands being well adapted for manu- facture of knives and arrowheads. Other metal objects besides weapons are rare; the bronze fibula mentioned by Dummler2 obvi- ously cannot, as we have previously remarked, date to this period. Characteristic of this age are the female images of barbaric style, sculptured chiefly

1 The inlaid swordblade from Thera, figured on p. 235 of TSOUNTAS-MANATT, The Mycenaean Age, obviously belongs to the fully developed period of Mycenaean civilization. " Swords " from Amorgos are mentioned by TSOUNTAS-MANATT, ib. p. 265, but apparently only the typical Amorgan daggers are meant. On the island graves generally see DUMMLER, Ath. Mitth. xi., 1886: BENT, /. H. S. v. p. 47-

2 LOG. ciL p. £^ For silver objects cf. BENT, loc. cit. p. 53.

FIG. 7. — Greenish marble Box in form of a model dwelling; pree-Mycenaean period. (Amorgos. )


in Parian marble (Fig. 38), and the two models of dwellings, one being of Siphnian stone, which were found in Melos and Amorgos respectively, and are figured above (Figs. 6, 7). Objects of ivory were not unknown, a fact which presupposes connection with the East. The primitive designs of some of the vases resemble the ornamentation of the pottery of the early Bronze Age in Central Europe, while the forms of others foreshadow the grace- ful shapes of the Mycensean vases. A number of tombs, containing the same class of antiquities (with pecu- liar variations) and also belonging to the Copper Age, have been found also in Cyprus.1 The earliest development of this primi- tive culture appears to be that of the ^Egean islands, the latest that of Cyprus. Isolated remains of this age have also been found on


the Greek mainland at Athens, Eleusis, Delphi, and Sparta,2 and at Tiryns and elsewhere there were certainly prae-Mycensean settlements; a similar cul- ture existed in Italy,3 and the same kind of primitive

1 E.g. at Hagia Paraskeve and Kalopsida. (DUMMLER, loc. dt. p. 210 ff; MYRES, /. //. S. xvii. p. 134 ft)


'•' The near relation of this Island culture to the early Italian civilization, of which remains have been found at Monte Albano, Sesto Calende, and elsewhere in Italy, is clear, especially in the

FIG. 8.— Red ware Vase with incised design, from Cyprus; prae-Mycenasan period.


pottery is also found in Asia Minor.1 This is then the primitive "Copper Age " culture of the Eastern Mediterranean basin, which developed immediately out of the culture of the Neolithic period.2

Apparently overlapping the later stages of this primitive culture in the ^Egean comes the first appearance of the " Mycenaean " period of the develop- ment of Greek civilization, in the island of Thera.3 Here, instead of pIG. 9._proto-My-

the roughly-incised or Overlaid cenaean Vase, from

patterns of the earlier time, we find on the vases painted floral and other designs in matt colour (see note to Fig. 9 in the List of Illustrations) which foreshadow the designs of the later Mycenaean period; fresco-painting is known, and from the other remains it is evident that a level of. civilization much higher than that of the " cist-grave " people has been reached. This " proto-Mycengean " stage of culture is not confined to the Theraean town which was over- thrown by the great eruption which blew the isle

domain of pottery, the forms of which greatly resemble those of the early vases from the ^Egean and Cyprus. A clay model of a hut from Monte Albano, now in the British Museum, may be compared with the stone models of huts from Melos and Amorgos, mentioned above. (Cf. MUKRAY, Handbook to Greek Archceology. pp. n, 13.)

1 Cf. CROWFOOT, /. H. S. xix. p. 48 ff.

2 For a full description and discussion of the prae-Mycenaean antiquities of Greece v. BLINKENBERG, Proemykeniske Oldsager: Jlidrag til studiet af Gfrcekenlands celdste kultur (AarbjeCger af det Kgl. Nord. Oldskrift Selsk., 1896). He appends a complete list of prse-Mycenaean sites in the ^Egean basin.

3 On the connection of the Theraean culture with that of Mycenae c/.FuRTWANGLER-LosCHCKE, Mykenische Vasen.p. 18 ff.


" Kalliste " into the arid fragments which are now known as Santorin and Therasia; traces of it have also been found in Melos and other islands of the Cyclades,1 at Kamarais2 and Knossos3 in Crete, and apparently also at Kahun in Egypt, perhaps asso- ciated with Egyptian remains of Xllth Dynasty date.4

During the "Mycenaean" age proper we seem to find everywhere in the Greek world widespread traces of a highly developed Bronze Age culture which appears to radiate from Crete, Argolis, and Phthiotis over the ^Egean and Ionian Seas as far east as Cyprus and as far west as Sicily. This cul- ture is not, as was the primitive civilization, which in the Greek lands we call pras-Mycensean, spread over the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean area. It is a local development peculiar to Greece.

The arh of this period was strongly developed, especially in the directions of gold- and bronze- working (the primitive Age of Copper has been left behind), of gem -cutting, vase-painting with varnish or glaze (Firnissmalerei: cf. notes to Figs. I and 9 in the List of Illustrations), and fresco-painting; sculpture still remained in a more primitive con-

1 Mr. J. L. MYRES (/•. p. 201 n. i) mentions several islands as seats of the proto- Mycenaean culture, which he calls " Cycladic." At Phylakope in Melos has been discovered a continuous series of pree-Mycensean, proto- Mjcensean, and full} -developed Myce- naean settlements; and in the Third or Proto-Mycenasan town was found a remarkable fresco, representing flying-fish as well as any Egyptian fresco-painter of the time could have represented them. (Ann. Brit. tick. Ath. 1897-8.)

2 MYRES, J?roc. >S'oc. Antiq. xv. p. 351 ff.

3 HOGARTH, Ann. Brit. Sch. Ath. 1899-1900, p. 70 ff.

4 PETRIE, Illahun, Kahun, and G-urob, p. 9 ff, pi. i.



dition. The art of building had been carried to a high pitch of development, as is shown by the mighty ruins of the Mycensean palace-fortresses and

FIG. 10. — Mycenaean Golden Cup, from Mycenae. (The lion's head is Egyptian in style. )

the wonderful tJioloi, or " bee-hive tombs." Hardly any trace of iron has been found among remains of this date, and it seems that the Mycenseans lived in what might be called the Middle Bronze Age; none


of the elaborate pins, fibulas, and weapons which are so characteristic of the later Bronze Age in the North have been discovered in their graves or houses; the only Mycenaean fibulas known are of very simple form and were found with remains of the later Mycenaean period.1 Iron apparently came to the Mycenaeans at an earlier period than it did to the Northerners, and cut short the career of the Bronze Age in Greece before it had had time to reach the stage of elabora-

FiG. ii. — Golden Griffin, from Mycenae. (The design is of purely Egyptian origin.)

tion which is revealed to us in Bavaria and Scandi- navia. Objects of Myceuasan art were exported to Egypt, and apparently also found a ready market in Central Europe and in Italy. From this it would appear that commerce was already fully developed in the Eastern Mediterranean countries at this period. A comparison of early Hellenic legends would seem to point to the Achaian Greeks, whose chief rulers lived in " golden Mycenas," as the possessors and extenders of this stage of early Hellenic culture, but, as we shall see, this conclusion has been energetically combated, and certainly needs modification.

A cursory inspection of the antiquities discovered by Schliemann at Mycenae will suffice to show us

1 TSOUNTAS suggests (loc. cit. p. 359) that the fibula was first invented in Mycenaean Greece. This seems quite possible.


that during the Mycenaean age Oriental influence had already begun to work in Greece; in the shaft- graves of the akropolis have been found gold and ivory ornaments which vividly recall the East, or, to be more precise, Cyprus and Phoenicia, and even

FIG. 12. — Golden Plaque, with spiral design, from Mycenae. (Cf. metal-work of Central and Northern European Bronze Age. )

Egypt1 (Fig. n). But there are also other objects from these same graves which remind us more of the North and West than of the East: the gold plaques with designs which recall the favourite designs of the Central European Bronze Age may 1 TSOUNTAS-MANATT, Figs. 38-40, 72, 82, etc.


be instanced1 (Fig. 12). It is thus obvious that the Mycenaeans owed much to the East and strongly influenced the Bronze Age culture of Central and Northern Europe, the beginnings of which were, according to some archaeologists, contemporary with the Mycenaean period.2

Many have tried to derive the whole of the Myce- caean culture from the East, making it Lydian, Karian, " Hittite," even Phoenician. Others, struck by the above-mentioned European connection, and lured by the " Aryan " mirage, would deny the influence of the East altogether, and proclaim the Mycenaean civiliza- tion to have been purely Aryan and West-European in its origin and connections.3 But besides the Eastern and Western elements in the Mycenaean

culture there is also an element which dominates the whole, and which gives the whole its peculiar cha- racter. It is impossible to refuse to this element the -COm- designation "Greek": the spirit of the Mycenaean

artists appeals to our sympathies instantly as some- thing which we know and understand— it is Greek;

1 SCHUCHHARDT, ticJdiemann' s Excavations, Figs 170 180 232, etc.

Cf. MONTELIUS, Om Tidsbestamning inom Bronsdldern (Kgl. Vitterhets Akad. Handlingar, 3ode Delen).

! This theory, which is characteristically held chiefly by

modern Greeks, as TSOUNTAS and APOSTOLIDES, of whom the latter has developed it very strangely (L' Hellemsme figyptien], is also held by M. SALOMON REINACH (Le Mirage Oriental}.


the general fades of the Mycenaean culture is Greek. It is, therefore, impossible to assign the Mycenaean civilization to a non-Greek race — the Phoenicians for instance.1 We have no proof that Phoenician art was ever anything more than a tasteless combination and imitation of the arts of Egypt and Mesopotamia.2 Professor Helbig is probably alone in his belief that because the Phoenicians imported Mycenaean vases into Egypt, these vases were the handiwork of Phoenician potters.3 All our previous knowledge of Phoenician art-methods is against him; and it is impossible to trace any Phoenician influence upon Mycenaean art until the period of Mycenaean decadence. To assume that the Mycenaean cul- ture was wholly Phoenician — stock, lock, and barrel — is to assume the existence of a hypothetical Phoenician art of which not the slightest trace has ever been discovered in Phoenicia itself! In thus insisting on the essentially Hellenic aspect of the early civilization of Greece it is unnecessary, as before stated, to go so far as M. Tsountas and his followers, who see in Mycenaean Greece the focus of the early civilization of the Mediterranean world , influencing the older nations of the Orient even more than it was influenced by them. Mycenaean civili-

1 On the freedom, spontaneity, and wholly un-Oriental spirit of Mycenaean art, cf. MURRAY, Excavation* in Cyprus, p. 29.

- Cf. TIELE, Geschiedenis van den Godsdienst in de Oudheid, p. 245: " In kunst en kunstnijverheid waren en bleven zij achterlijk. De overblijfselen van hun bouw- en beeldhouwkunst verraden een volslagen gebrek aan oorspronkeliikheid, en zijn niet veel meer dan onhandige navolgingen van uitheemsche modellen."

i Cf. HELBIG, tiitzber. derlcyl. bayr. Akad. 1896, Heft iii.


zation was Greek in its origin and in its general character; there is no need to invoke Oriental or other deos ex machind to account for its origin. It gave much to the West and accepted much from the East, but it can never have really influenced the East to any appreciable extent.

The much-disputed question of the date of the Mycenaean period need not concern us till a later chapter; recent discoveries have made it probable that, however early the Mycenaean period may have begun in Greece proper, and the current theory assumes with justice that it was already flourishing as early as the sixteenth century B.C., in Cyprus at least it continued almost to the classical period. But long before this it had passed away in its original home. Contemporaneously with the decadence of Mycenaean vase-painting1 there appears on the continent of Greece a new style, distinguished by a rude geome- trical scheme of ornament, which Helbig considers to have been directly derived from patterns used in weaving. Somewhat later the forms of birds, beasts, and men begin to appear in the designs, bat are •drawn in the rudest possible manner. Similar crude designs adorn the bronze-work of this period, espe-

1 That the latest Mycenaean were contemporary with the earliest " Dipylors " antiquities is proved by various pieces of evidence — e.g., the unbroken series of middle Mycenaean, late Mycenaean, Geometric, and early Attic vase fragments found in the dromoi of the tomb at Menidi testifies to an unbroken continuity of religious worship at these tombs, and shows that the worshippers passed immediately from the Mycenaean to the "Dipylon" period, and in so doing passed through an intermediate period in which both styles were in use t ogether.



cially the fibulas, which now appear more commonly than in Mycenasan times, and in more developed forms. Besides the Dipylon of Athens, where the greater number of these vases have been found, and where they are most highly developed, Melos, Thera, and Rhodes were also seats of this geo- metrical style of art. There seems but little ground for the idea, put forward by Dumont, Kroker, and Helbig, that the art of the Di- pylon originated in the islands or in Asia Minor,1 or for

1 DUMONT, Cdramiques de la Grece Propre (he calls the geometrical style "Type des lies"). KROKER, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. i. ( 1 886) p. 33 ff . HEL- BIG, Homerische Epos, FIG. 16. — Geometrical Vase, from the p. 58. Kroker's ideas Dipylon at Athens.

of a connection between the Dipylon pottery and Egypt are due to a complete miscon-


Furtwangler's proposal to bring it from Crete.1 Its most primitive types and the most primitive graves of the first post-Mycenaean period are found on the mainland of Greece. Neither on the coast of Asia Minor nor in Cyprus is this culture represented; in these parts of the Greek world the Mycenaean culture apparently still continued to

FIG. 17. — Bronze Fibula of the Geometrical Period.

exist, though in a somewhat debased form, and from Asia exerted a considerable influence on the later

ception, not to say ignorance, of Egyptian art. Generally against an Eastern origin of the geometrical style speaks the fact that in Cyprus, where on this theory one would expect to find this style well represented, only one or two real geometrical vases, and those obviously imported, have hitherto been found (DUMONT, loc. cit. Fig. 45, p. 203; A. H. SMITH, Excavations in Cyprus; Amathus, p. 103, fig. 50). Of. generally PERROT-CmPlEZ. Hint, de 1'Art, t. vii. (La Grece de r Epopee}.

1 Arch. Zeitg. 1885, p. 139 ff. On the distribution of Geo- metrical pottery cf. WIDE, Jhb. Arch. lust. 1899.


development of Geometrical art. This can, however, in no way have been developed from Mycenaean art j1 between it and the latter the break is absolute; it marks a general lowering of artistic standard which implies a general set-back in civilization. There can be no question here of " neo-barbarism ": the same people did not at the same time manufacture objects ' of both Mycenaean and Geometrical style.

It is significant that it is just to this period of decadence and temporary retrogression that we must assign the extinction of the Bronze Age in Greece by the introduction of the use of iron weapons and tools. The graves of the Dipylon yield to us iron weapons and tools only; bronze appears only in the form of fibulae, &c.; they are, then, graves of the "Iron Age." The transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age took place, then, in Greece exactly at the close of the Mycenaean and commencement of the "Geometrical" period.

It is to this period of transition that the Homeric civilization must be dated. The heroes of the Iliad generally use bronze still for weapons and equipment, but iron is already known to them; it is, however, a comparatively precious object. Still, the record of its use fixes the place of the Homeric cul- ture in the history of early Greek civilization, a place which is exactly paralleled in the history of the development of the civilization of Central Europe by

1 The method of vase-painting was, however, of course, learnt by the people of the Dipylon from the Mycenteans; the patterns used (and indeed the whole spirit of geometrical design) are quite foreign to Mycenaean art.

40 STUDIES OF THE MYCEN^AN AGE that of the culture of Hallstatt.1 It would, then,

J v. SACKEN, Die Grdber von Hallstatt; NAUE, tipoque \de HuUstatt en Earner e (Rec. Arch, xxvii. p. 40 ff).


appear that the date of the Homeric civilization, or more accurately the civilization of the Iliad, may be at least approximately placed at the period when the cultures of Mycenge and of the Dipylon overlapped. This conclusion would appear to agree with the internal evidence of the poems themselves.

Can we find in the legends of the Greeks any trace of an event roughly contemporaneous with the time of which the Homeric poets treat which can be con- nected with this replacement of the civilization of the Achaians by a less highly developed culture? The legend of the Return of the Herakleids, of the Dorian Invasion, which, in spite of the doubts of one historian,1 is generally accepted as representing a historical fact, would appear to tally in all respects with our desideratum. Surely it is not going too far if we see in the conquering Dorians the rude iron-using people of the Geometrical period, who, armed with superior weapons, overwhelm the more highly civilized Achaians, and so, while bestowing on Greece the knowledge of iron, at the same time cause a temporary set-back in the development of her civilization?2 This conclusion has seemed the

1 BELOCH, Bhein, Mus. 1890, p. 555 ff.

2 The late excavations at Eleusis seem to confirm this conclu- sion. But a difficulty is the fact that one of the chief seats of the Geometrical culture was Attica, into which, so said later tradi- tion, the Dorians never penetrated. It seems, however, probable that Attica was really occupied by the Dorians, as Boeotia and Megaris were, and that the invaders were afterwards expelled; it is noticeable that apparently the "Dipylon" style was not long-lived in Attica (WIDE, Geometrische Vasen; Jahrb. Arch. Inst. xv. p. 57). The other places in which this style is found are mostly Dorian. It is noticeable that iron was long held in


most natural one to the greater number of students of the Mycenaean period. In confirmation of this theory it may be noted that whereas in the Iliad the Dorians are of no account among the tribes of the Danaans, in the Odyssey they have nearly reached the end of their migration; and that the passages of the Homeric poems in which iron is mentioned are generally considered to be among the latest con- tributions to the Epos; the Dorians therefore come into greater prominence pari passu with the in- creased use of iron. And the introduction of iron marks the close of the Mycenaean period in conti- nental Greece.

With a connection thus established between the end of the Mycenaean age and the Dorian Invasion we are evidently drawing near the close of the newly-discovered chapter of the history of Greek civilization; but the period which elapsed between the Homeric age and the time of which Herodotos wrote cannot be properly elucidated without the aid of archaeological study, the main results of which, so far as they relate to this period, may be briefly summed up as follows.

As the dark age which followed the return of the Herakleids came to an end, so the geometrical art of the invaders became more and more influenced by apparently still existing Mycenaean styles, which can only have continued to exist in Asia. With this

peculiar honour at Sparta; a fact which, as is remarked by a reviewer in the Athena' tint for July 29, 1899, "points to its importance and value being strongly felt at some crisis in early Dorian history."



Asiatic Mycenaean, or rather " Sub-Mycenaean," art it probably came into contact before the arrival of the Dorians in Asia, an event which can hardly be dated much before the beginning of the eighth century B.C. The Greek geometric style of art did not penetrate far- ther east than Rhodes.1 The Oriental artistic influence which we have already seen at work in the flourishing period of Mycenaean art in Greece proper now becomes more and more marked as the character of the geometrical style alters and the Mycenaean style, ex liypotliesi still

existing in Asia, becomes more debased. Deposits of vases, ornaments, weapons, etc., which date to this orientalizing period, occur in all parts of the Greek world, from Cyprus to Greece proper. The earliest graves of the necropolis of Kameiros in Rhodes have yielded to us, besides many objects

1 The native geometric style of Cyprus (r. p. 265) was a local and independent development from the Mycenaean style.

FIG. 19.— Asiatic Sub-Mycenoean Vase, from Mylasa ill Karia.


which exhibit Mycenaean influence and others which are obviously products of Dorian potters and smiths, much that can only be the handiwork of either Phoenician artists or of Greeks working under strong Phoenician influence. We know that Khodes was occupied by the Phoenicians as a depot for their

^Egean trade; they were expelled from the island, appa- rently by the Dorians, probably about the begin- ning of the eighth century B.C. That even the earliest antiquities of Ka- meiros do not date back to the period of Phoenician sole possession is shown by the occurrence among them of geometrical vases, fibulae, etc., which can only be ascribed

to the Dorian inhabitants; the Phoenician traditions — kept up, no doubt, by the visits of Phoenician traders after their expulsion — still lingered on, however, in the island. We may therefore date the earliest of the half-Phoenician objects from Kameiros to about the middle of the eighth century, and the latest to about a hundred and fifty years after, when direct Egyptian

FIG. 20. — Vase with Orientalizing Design, from Cyprus.


hifluencebegan to work in Rhodes through the medium of the Greek settlements at Daphnai and Naukratis.1 This Oriental influence soon began to modify the sub-Mycenaean and geometrical styles of art which had prevailed in the vEgean lands since the end of the best period of Mycenaean art. In vase-painting especially various mixed styles of ornament now appear, such as the "Phaleric" in Attica, which developed from the " Di pylon " style, but was strongly influenced by both Mycensean and Oriental designs, and the " Melian " and " Rhodian " styles in the JBgean, developed from the Mycensean, but showing evidence of Geometrical and Oriental influence. Ionia proper, it seems, originates a style of vase ornament which draws its inspiration from the most exuberant Oriental schemes of decoration. Here the horror vacui has become almost a mania: each vase, even the smallest, is overloaded with rosettes, eyes, gryphons, sphinxes, etc.. in which it is some- times difficult to find a single note of Hellenic in- spiration. Even in the forms of the vases Oriental influence is seen. But with this " proto-Corinthian " style of vase-making Oriental influence reached its culminating point; in the true Corinthian and the Chalkidic styles which developed out of it the traces of this influence gradually recede into the back-

1 The date of the antiquities of Kameiros is usually given as the middle of the seventh century B.C., on account of the relation between them and the antiquities found at Daphnai and Nau- kratis in Hgypt, which date from this time to the end of the sixth century. Many of the Kameiran antiquities must, how- ever, date to the eighth century, as the occurrence with them of objects of the " Geometrical" period shows.


ground: Oriental influence generally was giving way before the newly-arisen artistic spirit of Hellas. By the time that the period of Greek colonial expansion which followed the expulsion of the Phoenicians from the ^Egean had come to an end, towards the middle of the sixth century B.C., Oriental influences in bronze- and wood-work and other arts had passed away. With the dawn of the Hellenic art of the classical period, an event wbich heralded the begin- nings of democratic government in Hellas, the history of early Greek civilization comes to an end.

Such, then, are the contents of the new chapter which the archaeologists have added to Greek his- tory; many of its paragraphs are not yet completely deciphered, but the main sense of the whole is clear. And it cannot be contested that the current hypo- thesis, as sketched above, explains the facts more completely and satisfactorily than any other theory. In reality no other hypothesis complete in itself and consistent with itself has ever yet been put forward to explain the whole of the evidence which is con- tained in the Mycenaean dossier. Its main point is the conclusion that the Mycenaean civilization was of prae-Dorian date. No other conclusion can explain the universality of the Mycenaean culture (which would have been impossible at a later date), its remarkable artistic perfection (to what period of '•archaic" Greek art can the Vaphio cups or the frescoes of Knossos be assigned?), or the difference in epoch which is indicated by the fact that in Mycenaean days the Greeks lived in the Bronze



Age, while in the "archaic" period of the classical culture of Hellas they had long ago entered the Age of Iron.

Yet this hypothesis, though so clear and so plau- sible, is but a hypothesis, not a statement of historical facts. These we can never know, unless some day a new Champollion arises to decipher those enig- matic pictographs of Crete, which seem to contain some record of the Mycenaean peoples which is as yet hidden from us.



THE working hypothesis assumes that the Mycenasan culture was already Dearly universal in Greece and had entered upon the period of its fullest develop- ment in the sixteenth century B.C., contemporane- ously with the period of the highest development of Egyptian power and prosperity under the Pharaohs of the XVIIIth Dynasty. It follows, therefore, that the pras-Mycenasan period is dated roughly about 2000 B.C., and that the age of the earliest dwellers at Troy and Athens is relegated to about 2500 B.C., a date accepted by a very great authority upon Greek archaeology — Professor Dorpfeld. The evidence for this early date is worthy of close attention, and cannot be summarily dismissed.

For example: on the akropolis of Athens, below the pottery fragments and other relics of the early classical period, lie those of the " Geometrical " period (the beginning of the Iron Age), below these those of the " Mycentean " age (the Bronze Age), far below these again those of the " pras-Mycenasan " time (the Copper or JBneolithic Age), and below these the flint scrapers of the Neolithic " Greek." Each stratum is well defined; each marks a longer or shorter epoch of time. Here is purely archaeological evidence which


hints at the probable age of the Mycenaean period at Athens in an unmistakable manner.

Nor is this evidence belied elsewhere. No ex- cavations on any site have ever shown a different stratification.

The geometrical style of art cannot have lasted much after 700 B.C., and probably commenced about two centuries before; less time can hardly be allowed for its development. We thus get circa 900-850 B.C. for the final stages of the Mycenaean period in Greece; in Asia and in Cyprus it appears to have survived till a considerably later date. The fact that the Homeric civilization, which is traditionally dated to the ninth century B.C., appears to have been a de- cadent form of that of Mycenae, confirms this date.

The Greek evidence alone could have told us little more than this. We could have supposed that the Mycenaean culture mast have taken several centuries to develop, and so would have been inclined to vaguely attribute the prae-Mycenaean period to the beginning of the second millennium B.C. More would have been impossible.

But other evidence was forthcoming which seemed to give certain synchronisms with Egyptian dynasties the approximate date of which is known. Among the objects found in the graves at Mycenae occur a scarab and other objects inscribed with the cartouches of King Amenhetep III. and his consort Queen Thii, of the XVIIIth Dynasty.1 If this evidence stood alone it would be of little value: the scarab and other fragments might (a) have been made long

1 'E0?7/r 'A/>x' I887> pl- 13 5 1888, p. 156; 1891, pi. 3.



after the time of the monarchs whose names they bear, or (b) have been placed in the tomb at a period long after the date of their manufacture, or (c) be of XVIIIth Dynasty date, but placed with objects of earlier date. With the seventh-century remains from Kameiros was found a scarab of Khufu; l we do not therefore assume that these Kameiran re- mains date back to the time of the IVth Dynasty (B.C. 3800)! But this scarab is very possibly a XXVIth Dynasty imitation of a Khufu scarab;' to take a better case: in an Etruscan tomb of the seventh century has been found a scarab of Sebek- hetep III., of the XHIth Dynasty. No later imita- tions of scarabs of this dynasty are known, and it is extremely improbable that they ever were imitated in later days; this scarab therefore certainly dates back to the time of the Xlllth Dynasty. But we do not assume that the other contents of the tomb in which it was found are of Xlllth Dynasty date (B.C. 2200)! It was obviously either an heirloom or had been discovered about the seventh century and exported from Egypt; so may the apparently XVIIIth Dynasty objects from Mycenae have been. But a scarab with the name of Amenhetep III. was discovered at lalysos with Mycenaean vases of apparently the same stage of development as those of Mycenae." Still, this might merely have

1 Itecue Archeologique, 1863, viii. 2. Khufu, the second monarch of the IVth Dynasty, is the Xewi/' of Herodotos.

- Under the XXVIth Dynasty (B.C. 650-525) an archaistic renascence took place in Eg-yptian art, and it was fashionable to imitate the works of the early dynasties.

a FuRTW.-LosCHCKE. Mi/1,: Vasen, PI. E. Fig. i.


been a coincidence. But other evidence now came to light, this time from Egypt itself, which was considered by many to confirm the XVIIIth Dynasty date of the Mycenaean culture. This evidence is, however, very varied in quality — good, bad, and indifferent. Much has been made of the evidence of the well-known " Maket-tomb " at Kahun, in which a Mycenaean vase of a type which is exactly paralleled by a vase from a beehive-tomb at lolkos was found. This evidence is, however, indifferent. Professor Petrie first dated the vase, on the strength of the appearance of objects found with it, to about 1150 B.C. Now, however, he prefers to date it to the time of Thothmes III. (about 1550 B.C.).1 The date may yet again be altered. An example of bad evidence is a wooden kohl-pot inscribed with the cartouche of Amenhetep III., which was found with Mycenaean pots at Gurob, and is therefore considered to date them to the time of that king.2 This kohl-pot might have been buried with these pots centuries after Amenhetep's time, even if it was made at that time, which cannot be asserted with certainty. The tomb-robber was always an institution in Egypt, and no doubt always sold much of his loot. It is extremely probable that the shop of an Egyptian undertaker and tomb-furnisher of, say, the XXth Dynasty contained plenty of kohl- pots, scarabs, &c., looted from tombs, which might date to the XVIIIth or even the Xllth Dynasty; so that it is quite possible that a XXth Dynasty

1 "Egypt and Early Europe," Trans. If. Soc. Lit. xix. p. 69.

2 PETBIE, Illahun, Kahun, and Gitrol, p. 16.


Egyptian might have been buried with an XVIIIth Dynasty kohl-pot! But good evidence is not wanting. At Tell el-Araarna, among the ruins and rubbish- heaps of the town (and environs) and palace of the heretical King Khuenaten (or Akhenaten), of the XVIIIth Dynasty, were found not only fragments of vases of types which may roughly be considered to belong to the period of the XVIIIth Dynasty, and rings and scarabs with royal names of that period, but also numberless fragments of My- cenasan vases,1 intermixed with Egyptian fragments of XVIIIth Dynasty date. We have no reason to suppose that these Mycenasan fragments were specially dropped at Tell el-Amarna at any later period: the city of Khutaten (or Akhtaten) appears to have been completely abandoned and never re-inhabited after the fall of the heretical dynasty. When Mr.Torr, in his trenchant criticism of the current Mycenaean theory, suggests that the presence of Mycenasan fragments at Tell el-Amarna proves the later recolonization of Khutaten, he surely begs the whole question.2 Had. the city been reoccupied at a later date, and the Mycenaean objects left there at that later date, we should surely have expected to find these scarabs and other objects with the names of later kings. But only XVIIIth Dynasty names

1 PETRIE, Tell el-Amarna, p. 15 ff, pi. xxvi. ff. - TORE, Class. Her., 1894, p. 322.

FIG. 21. — Mycenaean Hull's Head, from the tribute of the Kef tiit.


were found. Scarabs or rings of Khuenaten and his immediate successor Ankh-kheperu-ra, found in the ruins and neighbourhood of the town and palace of Khuenaten and Ankh-kheperu-ra, are presumably not later imitations.

Nor is other evidence to the same effect wanting, the cogency of which up to a certain point is admitted by Mr. Torr. On the walls of the well-known tombs

FIG. 22. — Mycenaean Metal Cup, from a wall-painting in a Theban tomb; c. 1500 B.C. (PRISSE D'AVENNES, Hist, de I Art.}

of Rekhmara and Menkheperra-senb at Thebes (temp. Thothmes III., about B.C. 1550) are represented metal vases and other objects, some greatly resembling Mycenaean workmanship,1 brought as tribute by the

PEISSE D'AVENNES, Hist, de V Art Egyptienne, ii.; VIEEY, Tombeau de Relchmara; W. M. MiiLLER, Asien und Europa, pp. 348, 349. Especially noticeable are the animal-heads, orpro- tomce, one of which (Fig. 21, above) is almost a counterpart of the famous silver bull's head from Mycena3. Others of the objects brought by the Keftiu are obviously Phoenician imita-


" Great Men of Keftiu and of the Islands in the midst of the Very Green." l Of these " Keftians " one is depicted as a Semite, while the others are Myce- neeans, with boots, waistcloth, long hair partly hanging down the back, partly twisted up in front into a •a/oac like that of Paris,2 just as we see them on the Vaphio cups, and not only in type and costume, but even in attitude and gesture identical with the Cretan Mycenaeans of the frescoes of the palace of

FIG. 23. — Mycenaean Metal Cup, from a wall-painting in a Theban tomb; c. 1500 B c. (PKISSE D'AvENNES, Hist, de I' Art.)

Knossos, lately discovered by Mr. A. J. Evans. Other metal vases, the shape of which is identical with that of the Vaphio cups and the silver cup from Cyprus, illustrated by Fig. 24, and the designs of which are typically Mycenaean in character, are depicted OD the walls of another Theban tomb3 of apparently the same period. The conclusion that

tions of Egyptian metal-work. On Kekhmara and his tomb, v. NEVVBEEY, Life of Reklimara (London, 1900).

1 Uatch-tier, "the Great (or Greatly) Green," i.e., the Mediter- ranean.

- //. xi. 385.

'•' W. M. MULLER, IOC. Clt., p. 349.



the Mycenaean culture was contemporary with Thothmes III. seems to be indicated. Mr. Torr urges1 that this evidence does not prove any con- nection between Greece and Egypt in the time of Thothmes III., for the manufacture of such Mycenaean articles may have gone on long after that time; all it indicates is that relations must have existed between Egypt and Mycenaean civilization at that time, for

FIG. 24. — Mycenaean Silver Cup, from a tomb at Enkomi in Cyprus. (Brit. Mus. Gk. and Roman Dept; cf. MURRAY, Excavations in Cyprus, p. 17, fig. 33.)

whether this civilization existed in Greece at that time or not, it was nevertheless the same civilization as that of Mycenae and can only be called Mycenaean. But we have already seen that the main seat of Mycenaean civilization was Greece. It does not necessarily follow from this that Mycenaean Greeks were in direct communication with Egypt at this

3 Memphis and Mycen-ce, p. 67.


time; it is possible that not all Mycenaeans were Greeks; some may have been non-Greek inhabitants , of Asia Minor. A comparison of the Egyptian pic- tures of the Keftiu with the Knossian frescoes can lead to no other conclusion that they are pictures of the same people, probably executed almost con- temporaneously; and the further conclusion that the Egyptians were in communication with Mycenaean Crete, i.e., with Greece itself, in the time of Thothmes III., would be quite legitimate. This conclusion, however, is not necessary to the argu- ment; it is enough that Mr. Torr admits that Mycenaean civilization, whether in Greece or else- where does not matter, goes back "at earliest " to the time of Thothmes III. , the sixth monarch of the XVIIIth Dynasty.

We have dated this king above to about B.C. 1550; the date usually given for the XVIIIth Dynasty is roughly circa 1700-1400 B.C. This approximate dating could have been accepted without further parley had it not been vigorously attacked by Mr. Cecil Torr in the opening chapters of his Memphis and Mycenae. Mr. Torr must admit that Mycenaean civilization was as old as the XVIIIth Dynasty; he does not admit that this dynasty dates back to the sixteenth century B.C.

It has been already pointed out that in discussing Egyptian chronology we are not dealing with the unknown; a continuous literary tradition of the suc- cession of the Egyptian dynasties and of the names of the kings has been preserved in the various ex- tant versions of and excerpts from the chronological



work of the Egyptian priest Manetho, who was commissioned by Ptolemy II. Philadelphos to inquire into the ancient history of Egypt. There is abso- lutely no reason to doubt the general correctness of Manetho's lists. It is true that we have not his original work; but the extant versions, although some- times differing from one another as to the names of the kings, which have been terribly garbled by copyists, and as to the numbers of regnal years, are still united as to the main dynastic scheme and the period of time which it occupied. Further, in no case does Manetho's account seriously disagree from that of the chronological papyrus of Turin, the tablets of Abydos and Sakkara, or the contemporary monuments themselves; all agree with one another. The accepted chronological scheme, which was founded on the Manethonian list, is per- fectly satisfactory, and in no case has the progress of discovery made it necessary to materially alter it. But Mr. Torr starts to reconstruct Egyptian chronology on a new method. If the highest monu- mental date of a king to whom Manetho assigns a twelve years' reign is that of his fourth year, Mr. Torr assumes that the monarch in question reigned four years and no more.1 This process is applied, with a certain disregard of probability, to the whole succession of dynasties up to the beginning of the XVIIlth, to which is assigned a " lowest possible " date of 1271 B.C. But this is no possible date for the XVIIlth Dynasty at all, as the method by which

1 Cf.thecaseof Ai II., Kheper-Kheperu-ari-maat-Ka (Chebres). (Memphis and Mycence, p. 44. )


it is attained is invalid as a means of reaching even an approximate date for any dynasty, since it is evident that the gap between the probable date and Mr. Torr's "lowest possible" must steadily widen the further he goes back. Again, this critic takes abso- lutely no notice of any synchronism established between Egyptian history and that of other nations before the time of the XXVIth Dynasty. Thus he hardly mentions the well-known synchronism between

FIG. 25. — Bronze Swordblade from Mycenae, vith inlaid Egyptian design of cats hunting wildfowl.

Shashank I. (Shishak) of the XXIInd Dynasty and Rehoboam, which dates the reign of this Pharaoh to about 960 B.C. This, alone Js sufficient to show that his date for the commencement of the XXTInd Dynasty (B.C. 818) is more than a century too late. Finally, he entirely ignores a well-known synchron- ism, which completely invalidates the whole of his chronological scheme. Khuenaten (Amenhetep IV.) of the XVIIIth Dynasty was a contemporary of Burraburiyash of Babylonia, whose date can be certainly fixed, with the help of the Babylonian and Assyrian records, to about 1430 B.C. Further com-


ment on the failure of Mr. Torr's attempt to reduce Egyptian chronology is surely needless.

The orthodox scheme of Egyptian chronology, first sketched on the Manethonian lines by the keen in- sight of Lepsius, and placed upon a settled basis by the greatest master of Egyptological science, Heinrich Brugsch, can therefore be accepted with absolute con- fidence: the XVIIIth Dynasty roughly dates to B.C. 1 700- 1 400. 1 The date of Thothmes III. is roughly 1550 B.C.2


FIG. 26. — Mycenaean Biigelkannen, from a wall-painting in the tomb of Rameses III.; c. 1200-1150 B.C.

Further evidence that the Mycenaean culture was in full vigour as early as the sixteenth century B.C. can be adduced. The Egyptian design of the ceiling of Orchomenos (Fig. 48) and that of the cats hunting

3 The fact that Lepsius and Brugsch arranged this chronolo- gical scheme before the synchronism of Khuenuten with Burra- buriyash was known says much for their acumen and even more for the accuracy of Manetho!

'2 Professor PETRIE (Hi*t. Eg. ii.) dates the reign of Thothmes III. to B.C. 1503-1449, on the strength of some astronomical calculations by Professor MAHLEB. But such calculations are extremely untrustworthy. (Cf. TORR, Memphis and Myce-nce, ch. iv., a good criticism.)


wildfowl on the swordblade from Mycenae (Fig. 25) look like XVIIIth Dynasty work, but of course they may have been imitated at a later period, though this is improbable.

Evidence is forthcoming of the existence of the Mycenaean culture in the twelfth and eleventh cen-

FIG. 27. — A Mycenaean Vase and other objects, from a wall- painting in the tomb of Rameses III.; c. 1200-1150 B.C.

turies. That from the " Maket-tomb " we have seen to be doubtful, but we have yet to quote a piece of evi- dence of far greater importance. On the walls of the tomb of King Rameses III. at Thebes are represented, among other objects of value, some Mycenaean "Biigel- kanneii" (Figs. 26, 27). Rameses III. reigned in the half-century between 1200 and 1150 B.C. It is, of course, possible that the Mycenaean vases in question


were not painted on the walls of the tomb until some time after the death of the king; but even if we adopt this suggestion, it does not seem probable that the decoration of the tomb can have gone on for more than fifty years after the king's death. About IIOO

FlG. 28. — Mycenaean Biigelkanne, from a XXIst Dynasty tomb; c. 1000 B.C. (Brit. Mus. Egyptian Dept., No. 22,821.)

B.C., therefore, the Mycenaean culture was still vigorous. This date may be confirmed by the fact that from the mound of Tell el-Yahudiyeh in the Delta we have vases, which seem to be of XXth Dynasty date (B.C. 1200-1075), which are obviously rough native Egyptian imitations of Mycengean


originals.1 But this evidence is subject to the reserves which are necessary in all cases of discovery of vases, etc., in Egypt: the possession of the paintings of Mycenaean vases on the walls of the tomb of Rameses III. and the paintings of the XVIIIth Dynasty Keftians at Knossos is worth all the rest of the evidence put together. That fine My- cenaean vases were still made about IOOO B.C. seems to be shown by the discovery with the coffin of Tchet-Khensu-auf-ankh, a grandson of King Pine- tchem I. of the XXIst Dynasty, of the splendid <; Biigelkanne " 2 figured above (Fig. 28).

This is the latest evidence from Egypt on the subject of Mycenasan dating. During the XXIInd Dynasty (B.C. 975-800) practically no evidence of connection between Egypt and Greece is found, which would be curious if Mycenaean culture had been still vigorous at that time.3 Towards the end of this dynasty Egypt fell into a state of confused anarchy, during which no extensive relations with the nations oversea can well have existed. For this period, however, we have evidence from Greece itself: the late Mycenaean il Treasure of yEgina/' now in the British Museum, is dated by Mr. A. J. Evans to about 800 B.C., a date which is indicated by comparison with Italian work of about that time, and by the strong traces of Phoenician influence which are to be seen in many of the articles of this magnificent parurc*

1 PETRIE, Egypt and Early Europe, p. 74. - Now in the British Museum, Egyptian Department, No. 22,821.

! See Addenda, p. 313. 4 /. H. 8. xiii. p. 195 ff.


Later evidence of the continuance of Mycenaean art in Greece proper there is none: by this time the barbaric art of the Geometrical period was fast ousting the older and better work in Greece. But in Asia this is not the case. As was pointed out in the last chapter, here the Mycenaean culture seems still to have existed in a debased form: the " sub-Mycenaean " deposits of Assarlik in Karia probably date to the eighth century. Although geometrical art never attained any footing in Asia, which sefms to have become the refuge of the older culture when the mainland of Greece was given over to the comparative barbarism which followed the Return of the Herakleids, yet the Mycenaean culture cannot have lingered there very long: it was soon supplied by the new orientalizing styles of art, Ionian in origin, which heralded the beginnings of the New Greece in Asia. In Cyprus, however, the process of supersession was apparently not carried out so quickly: here Mycenaean art, originally strange to the island, seems to have remained active until the seventh century. This date is absolutely indicated by the occurrence with Mycenaean vases in undis- turbed tombs at Curium and Enkomi of Babylonian cylinders of the eighth and seventh centuries, and of Egyptian objects of similar date.1 This is an im- portant fact. As Mr. Walters has pointed out, it is " a fact which will hardly surprise any one conversant with Cypriote archaeology and the circ*mstances of 1 Cf. MURRAY, Excavations in Cyprus, London, 1899. The porcelain rhytons from the Enkomi graves, as well as other objects, such as bronze greaves, clay idols of the type mentioned below (p. in), &c., are equally indicative of late date.


early Cypriote history/' 1 Cyprus was always at least a century behind the rest of Greece. The Dorians never reached Cyprus; the geometrical art of the Dipylon never took root there; the old Mycenaean culture naturally went on until at the beginning of the seventh century it gave place to a " Misch- kultur," half Oriental, half Greek, with artistic ideas influenced partly by Phoenicia, partly by the new and renascent Greece of the seventh century.

It now becomes possible to attempt to date the antiquities of the prae-Mycenaean period. There is little question as to the existence of a primitive period of civilization in Greece, whether we call it prae-Mycenasan or not. But, to take a single instance, to whom can the primitive cist-graves of the islands belong unless to a pras-Mycensean population? The only alternative supposition is that they are the remains of a population of the ninth and eighth centuries which remained barbarous and undeveloped owing to their isolation and poverty; but this would assume that the islanders of the ninth and eighth centuries still used stone and copper weapons while the rest of the Greek world used iron. Which is impossible. Other arguments which confirm the pras-Mycenaean date of the primitive culture of Greece have already been adduced.

It is obvious that some considerable time must be

allowed for the development of Mycenaean art out

of the rude artistic efforts of the prae-Mycenaaan

peoples of the ^Egean basin. A date nearer to 2000

1 J. H. &, xvii. p. 77,


than 1000 B.C. is thus indicated. The deposits of the transitional " proto-Mycenaean " period in Thera have been dated by the geologist, M. Fouque, on geological grounds, to about 2000 B.C.1 If there is little archaeological evidence for this date, there is none against it, and if the evidence which seems to show that Mycenaean culture was fully developed as early as the sixteenth century B.C. is accepted, it would seem to be not impossible. But M. Fouque's conclusions have been perhaps successfully challenged by another geologist, Dr. Washington.2 Mr. Torr has also ably criticised M. Fouque's theory,3 and Ms conclusions have again been controverted by Mr. Myres.4 But neither Mr. Torr nor Mr. Myres are geologists, and until the geologists are agreed as to the value of their own evidence, M. Fouque's date must be shelved. (See Addenda, p. 313.)

Evidence as to prae-Mycenasan dating has, however, been obtained from Egypt, which is by many con- sidered to show that the prae-Mycenaean period was contemporary with the Xllth and Xlllth Dynasties.

We will first see if the date of these dynasties can be approximately fixed.

Between the end of the Xllth and the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty a long space of time un- doubtedly intervened, and this fact is indicated clearly enough in Manetho. But Mr. Torr, in his criticism of Egyptian chronology, ignores this, and makes Amenemhat IV., the last king of the Xllth

1 Santorin et ses Eruptions, pp. 129-131.

2 Am. Journ. Arch, ix. p. 504 ff.

3 Memphis and Mycence, App. p. 72 ff.

4 Class. Rev. 1896, p. 450.



Dynasty, the immediate predecessor of Aahmes L, the first king of the XVIIIth.1 Even if we admit that Manetho's figures are here garbled (by no means a necessary admission), at least three or four hundred years must be allowed for the space of time occupied by the XHIth Dynasty, which ruled over all Egypt in succession to the Xllth, and for the Hyksos and the unimportant dynasties of Upper Egypt (XlVth and XVIIth) which were contemporary with them. Also the great differences in civil polity, in religion, in manners and customs, even in national ethnic type, which are observable between the Egypt of the Xllth Dynasty and that of the XVIIIth, show that a considerable period of time elapsed between these two dynasties.2 Since the length of this period cannot be accurately gauged, it is best to hold to the dating of Lepsius and Brugsch, which is founded on the Manethonian figures as we have them. In assigning to the " Middle Kingdom," the period covered by the Xlth-XYIth Dynasties, the approxi- mate date 2700-17006.0., we are probably not much

1 Memphis and Mycence, p. 51.

- I have not mentioned differences in art, because, although the art of Thothmes III.'s time is very different from that of the time of the Xllth Dynasty, yet it seems that this difference was caused not by a slow development, but by a sudden revolu- tion which took place during the reigns of the two first kings of the XVIIIth Dynasty, Aahmes I. and Amenhetep I. -/?.#., the royal scarabs of these kings might often from their style — a style to which an Egyptian artist rarely returned after the time of Amenhetep I.— have been made under the Xllth Dynasty. It is interesting to note that in the reign of Amenhetep I. a change was also made in writing: at this time the older style of hieratic ends and the style of the "New Empire" begins.


in error. The Xllth and XII I th Dynasties appear to cover the period from 2500 to 2OOO B.C.1

Evidence of the contemporaneity -of the proto- Mycenaean deposits with the Xllth Dynasty has been deduced from the occurrence, already mentioned, in graves and house ruins of the Xllth Dynasty at Kahun, of vase fragments which closely resemble the proto-Mycensean vases of Thera and Crete, at any rate in outward appearance; Mr. Myres goes further, and considers that " the two wares are almost iden- tical."- But this evidence from Kahun is, taken by itself, not good. Even setting aside the constant uncertainty as to whether all the objects found in an Egyptian tomb, grave, house ruin, or rubbish heap really date to the time of the original owners, it seems unlikely that all these fragments from Kahun date back to the time of the Xllth Dynasty; several burials of later date have been found among the ruins of the Xllth Dynasty town there, and from these graves some of these fragments may have strayed.3 Also, the resemblance of the spiral designs

1 It has lately been argued by BORCHARDT ( A. Z., xxxvii. (1899) p. 2) that the statement in one of the Kahun papyri (dated in the seventh year of a king of the Xllth Dynasty, presumably Usertesen III.) that Sirius rose heliacallyon the fifth day of the fourth month argues a date between 1876 B.C. and 1872 B.C. for this king. But such calculations are in the highest degree doubtful; and in Class. Eev. xiv. (1900) p. 148, NICKLIN argues the date <:. 1945 B.C. from the same data.

2 proCt $oc Antiq. Series II. xv. p. 356.

3 " As they (the fragments of foreign pottery found at Kahun) were none of them on the floors of the chambers, or in unequivo- cally early positions, they may be later intrusions and dropped by chance passers, and some are almost certainly late. "— PETRIE, Kahun, Gurob, and Ilawara, p. 43. Cf. p. 31.




on Egyptian scarabs of the time of the Xlllth and earlier Dynasties to the similar designs of many of the Cretan sealstones discovered by Mr. A. J. Evans could hardly by itself be taken to prove much with regard to pree-Mycenaean dates, as we shall see farther on. We have, however, two pieces of archaeological evidence of much greater weight.

AtKhata'anah,in Lower Egypt, small black vases of a type already known from Egypt (ornamented chiefly with rows of punc- tured dots, sometimes with lines, spirals, &c., filled in with white) were found by M. Naville together with flint chips and scarabs of the Xllth and Xlllth Egyptian Dynasties.1 Dr.

Murray (Handbook to Greek Archaeology, p. 13) con- siders these vases to be of " high antiquity." In fact, their date is clearly indicated.2 Pottery of the same fabric has been found in Cyprus; usually in deposits which other evidence shows to be prse-Mycenasan.3

1 Goshen, p. 21; cf. GEIFFITH, Tell el-Yahddiyeh, p. 56, pi. xix.

2 Scarabs of this time are quite distinct in fabric and design from those of later days, and are at once recognizable. Sae further, Addenda, p. 314.

3 E.(j. at Kalopsida (MYRES-KiCHTER. Cyprus Catalogue, p. 38). This ware seems to have been used in Cyprus for a long period, as it occurs in Mycenaean tombs at Enkomi (MURRAY, Excava- tions in Cyprus, p. 7, Figs. 8-9). The real origin of this ware is doubtful. In this connection a vase of this ware in the form of

FIG. 30. — Hawk-vase of black " punctuated " ware. (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. No. 17,046.)


It will be noticed that there is no trace in the Khata'anah find of any object which is certainly of later date than the XITIth Dynasty, and this, taken in connection with the fact that the black ware found there is, when discovered out of Egypt, usually of pnE-Mycensean date, would seem to synchro- nize the prae-Mycenaean period with the Xllth and Xlllth Dynasties, circa B.C. 2500- 2000. Now, a large vase of the same ware was found in Xlllth Dynasty deposits at Hu in Middle Egypt in 1899 by Professor Petrie, and at Kahun have also been found fragments of this same black "punctuated" ware, a ware so peculiar that it cannot well be confounded with any other.1 Thus the Khata'anah dating is confirmed, for the

FIG. 31. — Vace of the same black ware, not "punctuated." (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. No.

32,048 )

a hawk (Fig. 30) will be interesting. Is it evidence of Egyptian influence? Vases in the form of animals, men and women squat- ting on the ground, with neck and handle on the top of the head, were much used in Egypt under the Old and Middle Kingdoms, i It is true that black incised ware is a commGn form of primitive pottery; but anybody who has attentively noted the peculiarities of this Mediterranean ware will easily be able to distinguish it from other primitive styles of black pottery. It seems different from that of the " pangraves " at Hu, which Professor PETRIE dates to the time of the Xllth Dynasty, but which, except for his high authority, one would be inclined to refer back to the prehistoric period, to which the black incised pottery from Nakada and Ballas (PETRIE: Nag<nla and I>alla$, pi. xxx. n 2-50), which is also quite distinct from the black pottery of the Xllth and Xlllth Dynasties, belongs.



majority of the finds from Kahun are certainly of XTIth Dynasty date. But whether Xllth Dynasty date for the fragments from Kahun which resemble those from Thera and Kamarais (p. 67) is hereby made more probable is open to doubt. If the pra3- Mycenaean black ware is mainly of Xllth-XIIIth Dynasty date the proto-Mycena3an ware from Kahun ought to belong to a somewhat later period.1

The second important piece of evidence is that of the primitive pree-Mycenaoan deposit at Hagios Onouphrios in Crete, where Xllth-XIIIth Dynasty scarabs only were found with primitive pras-My- cenaean objects only.2 (See fur- ther, pp. 147, 155.)

FIG. 32. — Vase of " white .slip" ware with black painted decoration, from Cyprus.

Of course this evidence is by no means absolutely certain: if we possessed representations of prge-Mycensean pots on the wall s of Egyptian tombs of the Middle Kingdom the question of prao- Mycenaean dating would be much simplified! All we can say is that the prse-Mycenaean culture in Greece must date to at latest before 1600 B.C., if it is to be pras-Mycenaoan at all, and that what little evidence there is confirms this date. In Cyprus, however, the prao-Mycenaean culture seems to have lingered on in

1 The evidence of date supplied by the Egyptian statuette from Knossos is discussed on p. 321. -' EVANS, Cretan Pictogrcyrfix, p. 105 if.


much the same way as the Mycenaean culture did in later days: fine Mycenaean vases appear to have been imported into Cyprus at a time when vases, of what we should otherwise call a " prae-Mycenaean " type, such as the hand -made bowls and jugs (Fig. 32) of white slip ware with black painted decoration,1 were still in common use there. And another Cyprian prae-Mycenaean vase- type,2 illus- trated by Figs. 33, 34, which is commonly found in Egypt, first occurs there in tombs of the XVIIIth and XlXth Dynasties: i.e., it was for a time contem-

FlG.33.-Type of Double- porary with the finest MyCC-

vase of Cyprian black J

"base-ring" ware, found naean styles. But in Greece in Egypt; date about prOper we have no such evi-

I400-IIOO B.C. , „

dence ot any contemporaneous- ness of the two cultures; no Mycenaean vases are found in the cist-graves of the Cyclades and no prae-Mycenaean vases in the graves of lalysos and Mycenae.3 And at Athens, Troy, and elsewhere the prae-Mycenaean • towns lie far below those of the Mycenaean Age.

It would seem improbable that the prae-Mycenaean period extended very far back into the third mil- lennium B.C., if one of its earlier types of pottery is to

1 MYEES-RICHTEB, Ci/prus Catalogue, p. 39; WALTEES, J. H. S. xvii. p. 74.

- The black "Base-ring" type of MYEES-RICHTEE, Cyprus Catalogue, p. 37.

3 But the Mycenseans seem sometimes to have used a rough black pottery for common every-day use, as we use a rough red pottery now. (Cf. MuEEAY, Excarations in Ci/prun, p. 7.)



be considered contemporary with the XHIth Dynasty (B.C. 2300-2000). But it has been attempted to show that it extended at least as far back as the fifth or sixth millennium! Pra3-Mycena3an stone vases and pottery are compared with the Egyptian stone vases and pottery of the early period (c, 4500-3500 B.C.), and a contemporary con- nection is assumed between them.1 The Egyptians of the primitive period lived in much the same stage of cul- ture as the primitive Greeks of two thousand years later; but so many differences can be observed between the two cultures that to argue any contemporary connection be- tween them is surely to carry the logically defective argu- ment from analogy much too far. There is, of course, no particular reason why the prae-Mycenasan stage of Greek culture should not have lasted for two thousand years (primitive cultures last long and their development is often quite sudden), but there is also no evidence to confirm the supposition, and the fact that the class of pras- Mycenaean pottery which is perhaps contemporary with the Xllth and Xlllth Dynasties is early of its kind would seem to militate against its proba- bility. In the island of Kythera, however, a rude

1 Cf. PETRIE, Egypt and Early Europe, p. 61; EVANS, foe. cit. p. 117 ff.

FIG. 34.— Type of Vase of Cyprian black ' ' base- ring " ware; found in Egypt; date about 1400- noo H.C.


stone vase has been found, which is considered to be of prse-Mycenasan date, which bears three rudely incised marks which are considered to be an imita- tion of an Egyptian priestly title in vogue under the Vlth Dynasty. This has been considered to date the prae-Mycensean period back as early as the time of the Vlth Dynasty, circa 3000 B.C. at latest.1 But it may be noted that (i) the resemblance of the marks upon it to the Egyptian hieroglyphs in question is too remote to justify the conclusion that the marks are an imitation of those hieroglyphs; (ii) if they were admitted to be such an imitation, there is nothing to show that they were copied at the time of the Vlth Dynasty. Further arguments for the con- temporaneousness of the pra>Mycenaean culture with the Vlth Dynasty have been deduced by Mr. A. J. Evans from certain supposed resemblances between a supposed " Cretan " sealstone found at Karnak and Egyptian Vlth Dynasty seal-cylinders; - as will be seen later, this evidence is weak. No other evidence for a date earlier than 2500 B.C. has been adduced, except that of what are certainly fragments of /Egean vases of proto-Mycenrean style, which have been found by Professor Petrie in the archaic tombs of Tcha (Ze) and Hu (or Nekht)-Semerkhat,3 two kings

1 EVANS, .7. If. #. xvii. p. 349; TSOUNTAS-MAXATT, p. 279.

'2 EVANS, J. II. 8. xvii. p. 362.

! Called by PETRIE " Mersekha"; " Semerkliat " seems to be a

more accurate spelling. PETRIE also retains the reading " Sem- en-Ptah " for the " real name " of this king (as distinct from the

" sre&7i-name " or A-a-name," frcmcrkhat, I <f £*— => ). The "real


of the 1st Egyptian Dynasty, at Abydos, which date to about 4000 B.C. In the absence of further evidence, it seems best to conclude that these frag- ments somehow got into these tombs at a later date: under ordinary circ*mstances one would not be inclined to date them earlier than 2000 B.C.

The earliest probable date for the pras-Myceugean culture, that of the early settlements and tombs of Troy, of the Cyclades, and Cyprus, is thus shown to be after 2500 B.C.; with regard to the date of the lowest strata of Troy and Athens, the most primitive relics of civilization in Greece, all that can be said is that they must be dated before 2500 B.C.; how long before it is impossible to say.

It may be useful to arrange the chief evidence for the dating of the Mycenaean and pras-Mycenaean periods in tabular form, as follows. Good evidence is printed in heavy type and indifferent in ordinary type.

/ Q

name" is certainly £=A1 HuorNekht. This was misapprehended

by the compilers of the later lists, who substituted for it a figure of the god Ptah, or what may have been meant for a priest of Ptah. This name was read by modern Egyptologists $n/i,-cn-Pt<(I>, " Sem-piiest of Ptah," which would be in some sort of agree- ment with the Manethonian equivalent of this king, Se^e/x^r/s. The form Se^e^i^s probably originated in a different mistake.

Some copyist misread the peculiar Ml as Q , to which its

J} 1

archaic form in the inscriptions of Hu bears a very strong resemblance (cf. PETEIE, .Royal Tombs of the First .Dynasty, pi. xvii.). This sign reads semx; hence Se^u^s, and, through the mistake of one of Manetho's copyists, the " 2 e^e/u^?/•$," to fit in with which the reading" Sera-en-1'tah " was proposed.

















? 1200-1300 1400





Late-Myeensean deposits from Cyprus.

Late-Mycenaean treasure from

Mycenaean Vase from tomb of grandson of Pinetehem I.

Imitation Btigelkannen from Tel el-Yahudiyeh.

Representations of My- cenaean Vases in tomb of Rameses III.

Mycenaean Vases from Gurob and Maket Tomb.

Mycenaean Vase-frag- ments from Tel el- Am arna.

Scarabs of Amenhetep III. and Thii at Mycenas and lalysos.

Representations of My- eensean metalwork and costumes in tombs of Rekhmara and Men- kheperra-senb.

Prae - Mycenaean deposits containing vases of punctuated black ware, which in Egypt are only found in deposits of this date.

Scarabs from the Hagios Onouphrios deposit (Prae -Mycenaean).

Proto- Mycenaean and Prse- Mycenaean Vase-fragments from Kahun.



THE current l^pothesis assumes that the "Mycen- geans" were, generally speaking, Achaian Greeks. With regard to the racial affinities of the prae- Mycensean tribes it expresses no decided opinion.

This does not mean that every tribe which was comprised within the circle of Mycenaean civiliza- tion was necessarily Achaian, or even what we usually consider to be Greek: the presence of Mycenaean culture need not, in all cases, imply the presence of Aryan Hellenes. A'ery probably the Lykians and certainly the Trojans of the Sixth City were included among the " Mycenaeans," but neither were Hellenes. Also the population of the Cyclades at this period, though "Mycenaean," was apparently not Hellenic, and, though the Cretans of the Mycenaean period were all " Mycenaeaus," they were certainly not all Aryan Greeks.

What it does mean is, that the Mycenaean culture is chiefly identified with the Achaian Hellenes; that, as far as can be seen, it reached its highest development in those lands and cities which are most associated with the Achaian name, and that its widespread extension throughout the Greek lands was in all probability a consequence of that


dominant position of the Achaians, Minyans, and other kindred Hellenic stocks of which the legend of the hegemony of the kings of Mycenae is good evidence.

The general evidence for this conclusion has been so often and so well stated before that it is hardly necessary to re-state it here in full. The argument may, however, be expressed concisely thus: The most important relics of a peculiar form of Greek culture, which is more or less scattered all over the Greek world, are found in certain places which in classical times were either altogether deserted or utterly un- important, but play a great part in legend — i.e., were in prae-classical times of great importance. It is evident that at the time the objects of luxury and masterpieces of art which characterize this culture were made, these places were of great commercial and political importance. It must, therefore, have been in prae-classical times that this peculiar culture existed in these places. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the general character of this culture shows that it cannot be placed anywhere within the limits of the classical period: i.e., it is prae-classical. But not only is it prae-classical, but prae-Homeric, since it belongs to the Bronze Age, whereas in Homeric times iron was used; also, the Homeric culture appears to be a degenerate form of it. There- fore we are justified in assigning this prae-Homeric culture primarily to the people who dwelt in these places in prae-classical and prae-Homeric times, and in whose time, according to tradition, they possessed great wealth and power. These were the Achaians



and the other ruling Greek tribes of the Heroic Age who were connected with them. And where are the relics of these legendary prae- classical kingdoms and peoples if the prae-classical '-'Mycenaean" remains are not they? They cannot have vanished into thin air! It is, of course, taken for granted that these legends enshrine historical truth: to treat the unani- mous voice of Greek tradition as of no account, to regard the Achaians and their compeers as myths, is impossible.

It has, however, been proposed to identify the " Mycenaeans " with the Pelasgians rather than with the Achaians. The author of this proposal, Prof. Ridgeway, argues that the Mycenaean culture cannot be Achaian, because Mycenaean remains have been found in countries — as, for instance, in Attica — which had no connection with the Achaians. In Attica, however, he argues, strong traces of the Pelasgians have been found, and in Argolis. a stronghold of the Achaians. Pelasgians also lived before the period of Achaian domination. Therefore the Mycemean culture of Argolis, Attica, and elsewhere must be assigned to the Pelasgians rather than to the Achaians. Further, this culture was from beginning to end Pelasgic, and Pelasgic only.1

In supposing that the Mycenaean culture is gene- rally considered to have been limited to the Achaians alone Prof. Ridgeway seems to be under some mis- conception. Surely nobody proposes to absolutely limit this culture to the Achaians: Pelasgians may just as well have been included in its sphere of influence as 1 ./. //. S. xvi. pp. 77-119.


any other tribe of Greece. The Mycenaean culture was the common culture of the Greek world before the ninth century B.C. at the time of the domination of the great Achaian and Minyan1 princely families of Phthiotis, Boeotia, Argolis, Lakonia, and Crete over populations partly of Hellenic, partly of Pelasgic blood. Finding that the chief seats of their power were also apparently the chief seats of this culture, we naturally refer it mainly to them. It is in this sense that we are justified in speaking of the Myce- naean culture as Achaian.

Also, if the "Mycenaean" peoples were Pelasgians only, what becomes of the Achaians? Why should we skip them over and ascribe the whole of Mycenaean culture to prae- Achaian Pelasgians?

Professor Eidgeway would, however, no doubt say that he does not skip the Achaians: he would regard the Homeric culture as that of the Achaians of the Pelopid hegemony. But, if the Homeric culture was that of the Perseid and Pelopid Achaians, how is it that no traces of this decadent Mycenaean, iron-using culture have been found in Mycenae and other seats of Achaian rule in Greece? The first regular iron-users of European Greece were the people to whom the geometrical style of art belonged, not " Mycenaeans." And these people were probably the Dorians. Therefore, when the Homeric culture was dominant in Asia the Dorian had apparently already entered Greece and the period 1 Prof. EIDGEWAY'S argument (loc. cit. p. 107) that the Minyans were Pelasgians, because at Orchomeuos there was a temple of the Graces, and Herodotos thought that the Graces were Pelasgic deities, seems hardly convincing.


of Achaian hegemony had ceased. And this is con- firmed by the later Homeric songs, which mention Dorians as already firmly settled in Greece. So that the Homeric culture cannot be assigned to the heroic Achaians.

Again, even if we could follow Professor Bidgeway in rigidly confining a particular phase of Greek civilization to a particular race of Greeks (i.e., inhabitants of Greece, whether Hellenes or Pelas- gians, Aryans or non-Aryans), the differences be- tween the Homeric and Mycenaean cultures would not be great enough to cause us to necessarily assign them to two different races: the Homeric culture is essentially the same as the Mycenaean, though apparently a later form of it. The much-vaunted difference between the burial customs of the Mycenaeans and the Homeric Greeks cannot be taken to signify any racial distinction: during the later Bronze Age in Western Europe the customs of simple burial and cremation long existed side by side in the same settlements; this implies no difference of race, but only a gradual alteration of custom. Great personages were apparently still buried after the old fashion when cremation had become the general rule; and, as a matter of fact, we do not know that this was not the case in Greece during the Mycenaean period. The differences, again, between Mycenaean and Homeric weapons and armour only show that in the Homeric period they had altered somewhat from the old Mycenaean standard, and were approximating to that of the classical age.

The genealogical arguments which Professor Kidge-


way adduces in support of his position cannot be said to prove very much. They must be to a great extent of little value; many Greek genealogies are obviously mere aetiological inventions. Certain main features of Greek legend, such as the Minoan thalassocracy, the Achaian hegemony, the Eeturn of the Herakleids, the presence of the Phoenicians in the ^Egean, the Trojan War, the War of the Seven against Thebes, must assuredly enshrine historical facts; but minutely specified genealogies and explanatory tales are hardly worthy of much credit. The tradition which makes the Arcadians of exclusively Pelasgic and non- Achaian descent is very probably correct. This being so, we should expect that if the Mycenaean culture were exclusively Pelasgian we should find it well represented in Arcadia. But in Arcadia, as Pro- fessor Ridgeway admits, the only trace of Mycenaean culture yet found is a single gem from Phigaleia, which may have been, and very probably was, imported from elsewhere. If we had any desire to entirely exclude the Pelasgians from the list of " Mycenaean " nations no better argument than this could be found for the purpose!

But there is no more ground for an assertion that no Pelasgians were " Mycenasans " than for the assertion that the Mycenaean culture was exclusively Pelasgian. Not only is it probable that during the period of Achaian domination most of the as yet unhellenized " Pelasgic " tribes of Greece were com- prised within the circle of the Greek Bronze Age culture — i.e. were " Mycenaeans " — but it also seems very possible that it is to Pelasgic tribes that the


orighi of many elements of Mycenaean culture must be assigned, especially those which seem to have been taken over from the older culture of the uprse- Mycenasan " age. In fact the " proto-Mycenaean " culture of the Cyclades and Crete — the beginnings of the Mycenaean culture, that is — may with great probability be assigned to a prae- Achaian " Pelasgic " population.

If the Mycenaean civilization was predominantly Achaian, to whom are we to ascribe the culture of prae- Mycenaean times?

According to the consensus of Greek tradition, Greece proper and the lands of the ^Egean, besides other outlying parts of the " Greek world," were in- habited, before the period of Achaian domination, by various tribes, most prominent of whom were the Pelasgi. As to the nationality of these tribes Greek opinion appears to have been uncertain: the Pelasgi, for instance, are sometimes regarded as barbarians, sometimes as nearly akin to the Greeks. Many elements of Greek culture which were regarded as " Pelasgic " appear to us Aryan enough; while the study of others leads us to the conclusion that these tribes cannot have been Aryans, but were / relics of an altogether prae- Aryan Greek population. J The word IlfXao-yot was also apparently used to designate tribes which had little or no real ethnic connection with each other; in general use the word seems to have covered a number of different prae- Achaian tribes of continental Greece, Crete, Asia, and Southern Italy, some of whom may have been


related to the Greeks, while others certainly were not. The Eteokretans and the Leleges, for instance, while quite distinct from the Pelasgi proper, might yet be spoken of as " Pelasgian " in the widest sense of the word.

It is to these " Pelasgian " tribes that we must assign the primitive or prae-Mycenaean stage of Greek culture. If the Mycenaean culture was predominantly Achaian, they are the natural claimants of the earlier stage of culture which preceded it, as they preceded its users in the possession of the land.

To attempt to reconstruct the history of the " Pelasgi " is utterly hopeless: the legends are so •contradictory that next to nothing can be made out of them. All we can see is that at some time towards the end of the third millennium B.C. the various tribes of " Pelasgians," whose settlements seem to have been usually placed upon some eminence, and when on the sea coast at some little distance from it, were overthrown by the "Hellenic" tribes from the north, who took from them their burghs, and became masters of their lands, reducing them ordinarily to the position of a subject-race. The Hellenic con- quest was, no doubt, a very slow and gradual process, resembling that of Britain by the Teutons. As in the latter case, the slowness and gradual character of the conquest seems to have rendered any great expulsions or migrations unnecessary, so that a large proportion of the original inhabitants continued to live in the land as subjects, mingling gradually, however, with their masters and intermarrying with them, so that in time a mixed race was formed,


in which the Pelasgic element was probably far stronger than is usually suspected, just as the Celtic element in England proper is much greater than we are accustomed to think. Tradition points to many marriage-alliances between the old Pelasgian princely houses and the chiefs of the newcomers. It seems to have been only in rarer cases that the original inhabitants did not remain upon their lands; some of the aboriginal tribes were driven into various out- of -the- way corners, where one or two, like the people of Kreston, Plakia, and Skylake, continued to exist, distinct from their Hellenic or other neighbours, and still pappapoQuvoi, as late as the fifth century B.C.;x while others, as the Arcadians, seem to have remained to a great extent un-Hellenic until they were partly conquered, partly expelled, by the Dorians, at the time of whose invasion the Arcadian emigration to Cyprus probably took place. The fact, already pointed out, that no very violent break is notice- able between the pras-Mycenasan and Mycenajan cultures, that the one develops out of the other, makes it probable that the conquest and the pro- cess of blending the conquerors with the conquered was even slower and more gradual than the same process in Britain; far more so than in the case of the Dorian invasion, which was followed by a sudden retrogression in culture. Also the presence of many Pelasgic, or at any rate praa-Hellenic, elements in Greek religion confirms the supposition that the Hellenes mixed very largely with their Pelasgian forerunners, from whom they evidently derived many 1 HDT. i. 57.


elements of their civilization. The " Pelasgians/ therefore, may be regarded as contributors to the formation of the Mycenaean culture, if not something more, but certainly not as its sole possessors.

We have seen that while some of the u Pelasgian " tribes may have been racially akin to the Aryan element among the Greeks, though we have no proof of the fact, others were certainly in no way related to that stock, and were indeed very probably not of Indo-European blood, or, at any rate, onH very remotely connected with the Indo-European peoples. This seems to have been the case with the " Pelasgian " tribes of Asia Minor, the ^Egean Islands, and Southern Italy, to whom we must assign the primitive culture of those countries.

One of the most clearly defined of these tribes was that of the Eteokretans. This race was peculiar to Crete, and seems to have played a very consider- able part in the early history of that island. That the Cretans of the prse-Mycenaean period were ex- clusively of the Eteokretan or "real Cretan "stock is extremely probable; they seem to have been gradually driven by successive immigrations of " Pelasgi" from Greece, Achaians, and Dorians,1 into the easternmost part of the island, where they still maintained their separate existence in historical times. This people was always regarded by the Greeks as non-Greek; and that it was not only non-Greek, but

1 .Od. ix. 175 ff. &\\T) 6' &\\wt> y\£<rcra /j.efjLiy/j.ev'rj. The Ky- dones may well have been an aboriginal race, like the Eteo- kretans.


also probably non- Aryan, is shown by a specimen of its language which has survived: the well-known inscription from Praisos. A group of letters A N" A I T which occurs in it might be taken to refer to the Semitic goddess Anait, and so to betoken a Semitic origin for the Eteokretans.1 But we do not know how the words of this inscription are to be divided, and so we may be justified in thinking it more probable that the Eteokretans belonged to the same stock as the other " Pelasgic" tribes in their neighbourhood, than that they were Semites.

The stock to which these neighbouring tribes belonged was certainly neither Aryan nor Semitic.

In legend the Eteokretans are connected with the Lykians: the Eteokretan hero Sarpedon, brother of Minos, led a body of emigrants from Crete to Lykia, who drove out the aboriginal Milyans. These Cretan Lykians called themselves Termilai.2 The colonization may really have been in the reverse direction, but the connection is probable enough, so that we may regard the Lykians and Eteokretans as closely allied.3 The remark of Herodotos that the

1 EVANS, Pictographs, pp. 85, 86.

2 Cf. HDT. i. 173, vii. 92; STRAB. xii. 8, 5, p. 573; xiv. 3, 10, p. 667. An Althaimenes, " son of Kreteus " (— an Eteokretan), is mentioned by DIOD., v. 59, as emigrating from Crete to Lykia, but he is probably a mere echo of the possibly historical Dorian colonizer of Crete, Althaimenes, son of Keisos and grandson of Temenos (STRAB. x. 479, 481; xiv. 653).

3 FRAZER, Pausanias, vol. iv. p. 120, notes that the custom of Mutter recht, which obtained among the Lykians (HDT. i. 173),


Lykians called themselves Termilai is confirmed by the Lykian inscriptions, which give Trmmli as the original form of the name. At a very early period, certainly long before the coming of the Dorians, the Trmmli were to some extent hellenized, according to tradition by Ionian settlers, who mixed with them. At the time of the Persian Wars we find them wearing purely Greek armour, while their neigh- bours were equipped in a more or less barbaric manner.1 This partial hellenization of the Lykians cannot have taken place till the Mycenaean period, if the prae-Mycenasan culture is prae-Hellenic. Whether the mention of Luka ( = Lykians) on Egyptian monuments of the fourteenth century B.C.2 proves it to have taken place before that date is doubtful. The name is mentioned in the preceding century, when the King of Alashiya (Cyprus; see p. 163) writes to the King of Egypt to explain that his subjects cannot have assisted the Lukki to raid the Egyptian coast (the Egyptian king- apparently had complained that they had done so) because he himself was greatly harassed by the piracies of the Lukki.:i That these Lukki are the Lykians there seems little reason to doubt. And it is noticeable that they are called by

was also prevalent in Crete, and that Sarpedon himself com- manded the Lykians at Troy by right of royal descent in the female line. The custom is another mark of non-Aryan race.

1 HDT. vii. 92.

2 As allies of the Kheta against Rameses II.

3 WlNCKLER, Tell el-Amarna Letter*, 28 (B"). The sign -Id at the end of the word Luk-ki is half erased, but appears certain.


their Greek name, and not by the native name Trmmli.1

If the Lykians were akin to the Eteokretans, and the latter were, to judge from the inscription of Praistos, neither Semitic nor Aryan in race, the presumption is that the Lykians also were neither Semites nor

FIG. 35. — A Lykian Tomb of the fourth century B.C. The architecture apparently resembles that of the Mycenaeans.

Indo-Europeans. This presumption is absolutely confirmed by their language, as it is known to us through the medium of inscriptions of the classical

1 The tradition that the Ionian leader Lykos gave his name to the new people is, of course, merely aetiological; Lykos is an invention devised to explain the name. Atf/uoi may be a transla- tion of Trmmli: trmm or trrhml might — wolf; Trmmli, the Wolf-folk.


age. It is neither Semitic nor Indo-European; x it is not an isolated speech: the dialects of Karia, Pisidia, Lykaonia, and Cilicia seem to have been closely related to it, and, to judge from place- names and proper names, a similar language was spoken by the prse-Aryan inhabitants of Mysia, Lydia, and Phrygia. And, if we accept the tra- ditional connection of the Eteokretans with the Lykians, the enigmatic language of Praisos probably belongs to the same family of tongues. We thus have a group of non-Aryan tribes, preceding the Greeks in the occupation of the land, extending from Crete far into the interior of Asia Minor.

This race is, in fact, the typical race of Asia Minor. To it belong the enigmatic place-names ending in -v$a, -acra, and -crcroc, and such proper names as Kbondiasis, Idalogbasis, and Maussolos; to it belong the religion of Kybele or Ma, the Cretan Khea, and of Atys, the orgies of the Kuretes of Crete and the

1 Cf. KEETSCHMER, Einleitung in der Geschichte der grie- thischen 8pracke, p. 370 ff. It is impossible to regard such a sentence as dbonno hupo mtiti prnnawato Arin,mdnoni sd lada alibi, hrppi atla tipttd sd prnndzi dpttahi — Aruimanoni and his wife built this tomb, for themselves and their household (Lit. this tomb have built Aruimanoni and wife his, for self their and household [pi. ] their), as belonging to any Aryan tongue. Nor, as Dr. Kretschmer points out (ib. p. 374), do such words as hdkbit Ijssbdzokrop . . . . , Ibbiyoi, or httbadi, tend to show an Aryan origin for the Lykians. Such suffix-developments as padrdtaliddi from padrdtd and ntapitoti from fitdpi (quoted by Kretschmer, loc. cit.) are un-Aryan. KALINKA, Die ntuere Forschunyen in Kleinasien (Neue Jhbiicher Klass. Alt., iii. 10 [1899]), agrees with Kretschmer. FRAZER'S remark (Pausanias, iv. p. 121 ) that "recent researches are said to have proved that the Lycian language was Aryan, and had close affinities with Zend," is somewhat out of date.


Korybantes of Phrygia, the splendid temple-worship of Pessinos or Komana. To it, probably, the sculptors of Boghaz Kb'i and Eyuk and the mysterious hiero- glyphed monuments of Northern Syria, which are often, but on insuffici3nt evidence, dubbed " Hittite," belonged, and also, judging by the evidence of their proper names, in all probability the powerful race of the Kheta, who fought against the Egyptians, from the sixteenth to the fourteenth century B.C. the Khatte (ffattd) of the Assyrian inscriptions, who are sometimes thought to have been the unknown sculptors in question.

The existence of this non-Aryan primitive race of Asia Minor has always been recognized, but it is only of late years that its un-Semitic character has also been acknowledged. Eadet, writing in 1893, still assumes it to have been Semitic.1 Certainly some of the religious practices of this race have a Semitic look, and certainly the Kybele-Atys legend seems to have been very strongly influenced by the Babylonian legend of Ishtar and Tarnmuz; but this need not point to anything more than marked Semitic influence. Babylonian influence was pro- bably at work in Asia Minor as early as 2OOO B.C., so that the religion of Asia Minor was very early sub- ject to the process which by the time the sculptures of Pterion (Boghaz Koi) were executed and the classical period had been reached had succeeded in largely semitizing it.'2 We really have no evidence

1 La Lydie aux Temps ties Jlermnades, chaps, vi. vii. - It is doubtful whether the peculiar habit of representing deities mounted on lions, so typical of the religion of Asia


that any Semitic tribe ever penetrated beyond the- Taurus. No trace of a Semitic idiom has been found among the languages of Asia Minor. To reckon the Solymi of Pisidia as a Semitic race, because their name has a Semitic sound and because an obscure writer quoted by Josephus speaks of them as yXwo-troy jutv 3?oivi(T(Tav cnro orojuaron' atyitvTec;,1 is impos- sible: the fact that they were called Solymi would be quite enough to inspire Josephus to make some- body else say they spoke Phrenician. They were an aboriginal mountain-folk; according to legend the

Minor, is of Semitic origin or not. We find it on late Assyrian seals, but rarely in reliefs (rf. relief from Maltha'i: PERROT- CHIPIEZ, Hist, de VArt, ii. fig. 313). An old-Babylonian cylinder with the same subject is also known (il. fig. 314). The goddess Kedesh, borrowed from the Semites by the Egyptians, is repre- sented by the Egyptians as standing on a lion as early as the period of the XlXth Dynasty (B.C. 1300). Perhaps the Semites borrowed the idea from Asia Minor. (This possibility does not, however, show that the sculptures of Boghaz-K6i are earlier than those of Maltha'i, as BOISSIER (in CHANTRE, Mission en Cappadoce, p. 41) considers.) Whether the Kybele-Atys cult as it existed in classical times was predominantly Semitic or not, the deities in question are obviously not Ishtar and Tammuz transplanted to Asia Minor. Their names are un-Semitic, and typically " kleinasiatisch." Radet exaggerates the Semitic influence: he speaks of the fact that the Maionian dynasty of Lydia was called Heraclid as connecting it " a 1'Heracles- Sandon que veneraient Ninive et Babylone, Ascalon et Tjr." This is mere rhetoric, and is meaningless. Who is the Herakles whom Nineveh and Babylon venerated? And when was Sandon venerated by Nineveh or Babylon, Askalon or Tyre? ( Of. RADET,' loc. cit. p. 55.)

1 CHOIRILOS ap. JOSEPH, <: Apion, i. 22. DEIMLING (Die Leleger,p. 16) comments: "... bemerke ich noch, dass nach einem Zeugnisse der Alten die Solymer phonikisch redeten, was freilich auch auf die Juden, die Solymer in Palastina, bezogen wird."


Milyans, who were expelled from Lykia by the Termilai, were the same people.1 Nothing Semitic can be discovered in them. The Lydians have more claim to be regarded as Semitic; the Hebrews regarded them as Semites,2 and the Lydian kings were said to be descended from Ninos and Belos.3 The Lydians as such were unknown to the Homeric poets, who mention Maeonians in their stead. Again, when Luka, Shardina, Maunna (?), Dardenui Masa, and other tribes of Asia Minor and the ^Egean are men- tioned on Egyptian monuments of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C., no mention is made of any " Ludu." This looks as if Lydia was originally inhabited by the Maeonians, who may have been of Aryan or non- Aryan blood,4 and that the Lydians proper were later conquerors who came from the East and mingled with the original inhabitants. And Strabo speaks of "the Lydian invasion" as occurring jutTa TO. Tpwiica, in the same breath with the foundation of the Greek colonies and the Kim- merian invasion.5 M. Radet seems to think that this invasion coincided with the fall of the old

1 HDT. i. 173. '2 Genesis x. 22.

3 HDT. i. 7.

4 If King Kandaules was a Maeonian, they were perhaps Aryans, as his name is purely Aryan. The meaning of the name as given by the poet Hipp6nax(Poe£. Lyr. Gr. i. 751; fr. i),'E^ Kvvdyxa, Mflorwrl KavSav\a, is correct: it = " Dog-strangler," as KRETSCHMER has pointed out (loc. cit. p. 389). The meaning given by Tzetzes, o-/cuXo/cX^7rr^s, translated by RADET qui emporte les (Upouilles (loc. cit. p. 66), is obviously a mistake for aKv\aKo- K\tTTTT]s. On the racial connection of the Maeonians with the Aryan Phrygians, cf. DEIMLING, loc. cit. p. 82.

5 xii. 8, p. 573.


Heraclid (Maeonian) dynasty of Kandaules and the accession of the Mermnads with Gyges (B.C. 687). l Whether this be so or not, it may well be that the invasion of the Lydians and their mixing1 with the Maeonians took place at a comparatively late date, /nerd ra T/owVKa. But we have nothing to show that this invasion was a Semitic invasion; all the Lydian place-names, proper names, and words which have come down to us are either Indo-European or belong to the indigenous population of Asia Minor, which was neither Aryan nor Semitic.2 It seems probable that the idea of the Semitic origin of the Lydians was due to the fact of their close political and other connection with the Assyrian power. While, therefore, we can admit that Semitic in- fluence is strongly marked, at any rate at a compara- tively late period, in the native civilization of Asia Minor, we cannot admit that any of the peoples of Asia Minor west of the Taurus were Semites. So that none of the "Pelasgic" tribes of Asia Minor and Crete can have been Semites.

Nor can they have been Aryans. The inflood of Indo-European invaders, closely akin to the Thracians and the Hellenes, which streamed over the Hellespont into Asia Minor, founding the nations of Phrygia and

1 Loc. cit. pp. 59, 60. The argument that, because Ashur- banipal speaks of Luddi as "a far land, whose name the kings my fathers had not heard," therefore it was not until the time of Assurbanipal's dealings with Gyges that the name of Avdol first came into use (RADET, loc. cit. p. 59) seems far-fetched. Probably neither Ashurbanipal nor the kings his fathers had ever heard of the Maeonians either.

2 KRETSCHMER, loc. cit. p. 384 ff.


Mysia, giving certainly rulers and perhaps a popula- tion also to Maionia (Lydia), and spreading an Aryan language and the Aryan cults of Papas or Bagaios the tbunderer, of Osogo,1 and of Men, the moon-godr through northern Asia Minor as far as Paphlagonia and Armenia,2 can hardly have taken place till a comparatively late period, perhaps far on in the Mycengean age. No monuments which may with probability be assigned to the Phrygians can safely be dated before the ninth century B.C. Setting aside the half-mythical events of the Trojan war, the Phrygians first appear as a power in the eighth century, when the wealthy Midas ruled.* The Mysians were still in Thrace at the end of

1 Of. GARDNEE, New Chapters, p. 31 ff. Bcrycuos = Slav bogu, 6on>, "god."

2 That the originally non-Aryan population of Armenia was given Aryan rulers and an Aryan language by a conquering tribe of the Phrygian invaders seems extremely probable: ' Appevioi, says Stephen of Byzantium, rb pkv yevos £K $>pvyias /ecu rrj <f>uvri TroXXa (f>pvy[£ovcnv, and Herodotos (vii. 73) calls them $pvyuv &ITOIKOI. The language is Aryan. It seems that the attempt of JENSEN (Hittiter und Armenier: Strassburg, 1898) to read the writing of the "Hittites" (who are regarded, possibly with justice, as the ancestors of the modern Armenians) by the help of the assumption that the " Hittite " hieroglyphs express an older form of the modern Aryan Armenian, rests on very doubtful premisses, for it is quite possible that the early Armenians still spoke a non-Aryan dialect at the time that these hieroglyphed monuments were sculptured. The proper names of the Kheta, if the Kheta were the "Hittites," which are known to us, are not Aryan; and we have seen reason to think that this people .belonged to the prse-Aryan population of Asia Minor. Dr. JENSEN might with advantage- attempt to illuminate " Hittite " by means of Lycian.

3 On Midas, cf. post, p. 274, n. i.


the Mycenaean period.1 Masa, Dardenui, and Shardina, perhaps also Maunna, are mentioned among the tribes who came into contact with the Egyptians about 1 200 B.C. There were quite possibly Mysians, Dardanians, Sardians, and Maeonians, but although the Mysians, who at a later date than this were still astride the Hellespont, were no doubt Aryans, there is nothing to show that the other tribes mentioned were. If, therefore, the Mycenaean Trojans of the Sixth City were true Phrygians, which is possible, it is highly improbable that the prae-Mycenaeans of the Second City were Phrygians. Dr. Kretschmer thinks otherwise: he considers the earliest Trojans to have been Aryan Phrygians.2 His reasons for this belief are weak, and conflict with probability and with the other available evidence. Why should the prae-Mycenaean culture of the Troad be cut off from that of the rest of the Mediterranean world and be assigned to Aryans? Dr. Kretschmer himself considers the aboriginal population of Cyprus to have belonged to the non- Aryan race of Asia Minor,3 and the connec- tion of the pras-Mycenaaan culture of Cyprus with that of the Troad is so clear as to make a racial con- nection between the primitive Cyprians and the primitive Trojans more than probable. If there was a prae-Aryan population in Mysia, there probably was a similar population in Phrygia. We have no reason to suppose that the prae-Mycenaean settle- ments of the Troad did not belong to such a pras-

1 II. xiii. 3.

3 Ib. p. 398, n. 2.

'2 Loc. cit. p. 181,


Aryan population, a branch of the original race of Asia Minor.1

The evidence of language is thus confirmed. Crete and Asia Minor were inhabited before the invasions of the Aryans, whether Phrygians or Hellenes, by a more or less hom*ogeneous race which was neither Aryan nor Semitic, and which is connected in legend with the prae-Hellenic "Pelasgic" races of the ^Egean basin. To these races we have seen reason to assign the prae-Mycengean culture of the ^Egean lands; it is to the connected races of Asia Minor, therefore, that we naturally assign the remains of the same civilization which are found extending through- out Asia Minor from the Hellespont to the neigh- bourhood of Cyprus.

The prae-Mycenaean Cyprians must have been closely allied to these "Pelasgic" tribes. The Arcadian colonists can hardly have arrived before Mycenaean times, so that we cannot regard the prae- Mycenaean Cyprians as Arcadian Pelasgians. It is curious that the prae-Mycenasan deposits of Cyprus are found radiating in the shape of a fan from Larnaka on the south coast to various widely sepa-

1 On an important prse-Mycensean deposit in Phrygia — at Bos-Eyuk — cf. KORTE, Ath. Mittk. xxiv. 1899, p. i ff. Prof. VlRCHOW has pronounced the skulls from this deposit to belong to a people closely related to the modern Armenians (ib. p. 42), who are, no doubt, descended from the old non-Aryan inhabitants of Asia Minor, although they now speak the Aryan dialect which was given them by their Phrygian conquerors. KORTE'S con- clusions as to the Aryan origin of the prae-Mycenaean Phrygians are open to the objections which are advanced above; in fact, Kretschmer derives his ideas on the ar oncological side of the subject chiefly from Korte (KRETSCHMER, loc. cit. p. 180).



rated places in the Mesaorea or central plain: this looks as if the first colonists had landed on the south coast and gradually made their way inland.

Pottery of prae-Mycenaean type was used by the early inhabitants of the Palestinian coast.1 If we •can regard these people as prae- Semitic, it may be /permissible to refer them to the same "Pelasgic" rstock. They have been identified with the Biblical Amorites. We do not know that the Amorites were non-Semitic.2 Egyptian evidence shows that Semites were already settled in the Sinaitic peninsula as early as 4000 B.C. The prse-Mycenaean pottery from Lachish cannot be dated much before 2000 B.C. It is possible that remnants of a prae-Semitic population,3 akin to that of Asia Minor, may have lingered on among the Semites at various places, at Lachish for instance, and that the prge-Mycenaean pottery from these places may have belonged to them. They were apparently made on the spot, not imported. Such simple pottery would hardly be exported anywhere.

Returning to the neighbourhood of the ^Egean, we find settled according to tradition in Greece proper,4 in the Islands, and in Asia, before the coming of the Hellenes, the mysterious race of the " far-wandering " Leleges. This people is closely connected in legend

1 E.g., at Lachish (BLISS, Mound of Many Cities, pi. 3).

2 They have been supposed to be of Libyan origin, for no cogent reasons.

3 Cf. TIELE, Godsdienst in de Oudheid, ii. 211: "Misschien waren de oudste bewoners dezer landen geen Semieten."

4 Especially in Southern Peloponnese. DEIMLING (loc. cit. p. 129 ft) shows that the Kaukones, Epeians, and Lokrians are often regarded in legend as Lelegic peoples. The first named were certainly prse-Achaian, and so prae-Hellenic.



both with the Pelasgi proper and with the prse- Aryan peoples of Crete and Asia. We shall see later that their supposed racial identity or connection with the Karians may be simply a mistake due to the fact that in later times the remnant of the Leleges in the Asiatic coast-lands was subdued by and became subject to the Ka- 4.'^ • ^£

rians; it is a possible theory —- -^

that the Karians, although kin to the coast-tribes, did not reach the ^Egean until after the Mycenaean age. We need not, therefore, regard the tra- dition that at one time Karians and Leleges togetheroccupied the Cyclades as necessarily referring to the prae-Mycen- asan time. That the Leleges

were the primitive inhabitants of the Southern .zEgean islands and of the coasts adjoining, that in fact the cistgraves of the islands are those of Leleges, seems, however, extremely probable. As far as their racial affinities are concerned, it seems certain that they were neither Greeks nor related to the Aryans of Asia Minor. It may be noted that a place-name which they particularly affected is that of PDS, which often occurs in connection with them. In the Iliad the " war-loving Leleges" inhabit " steep Pedasos on the Satnioeis " in Asia; l in later times the town of Pedasa in Karia was their chief stronghold; in the old Lelegia in the Peloponnese Pedasa was an 1 II. xxi. 86.


FIG. 36. — A Karian Inscrip- tion of the sixth century B. c.; from Egypt.

(Non - Aryan language of Asia Minor written with modified Greek characters. The Lykian alphabet is still further modified.)


important place. This name may be compared with that of the Pidasa, a tribe of the northern shores of the Mediterranean which is mentioned in Egyptian records as early as 1 300 B.C. This tribe has with much plausibility been identified with the Pisidians: it is at least equally possible to regard them, on account of their name, as Leleges, and if this identification be accepted, we have a reference to the Lelegic race in the Mycenaean period. There may, too, be a real con- nection between the Pisidians and the Leleges, since their name may be merely a form of the Lelegian PDS. We have seen that the Pisidians were not Semites, as some have supposed, but belonged to the old prae- Aryan race of Asia Minor. It is therefore highly prob- able that the Leleges belonged to the same race. And this conclusion is a natural one; for, since neither Hellenes nor Phrygians had yet come upon the scene, it is natural to suppose that the pras-Mycenasans of the ^Bgean islands and coasts belonged to the same race as the prae-Mycenasans of Crete and Asia.

With the assigning of the Leleges to the un-Aryan population of Asia Minor the foreigner has set foot upon the soil of Hellas itself. And since the Leleges were contemporaries of the true Pelasgi in Greece, were connected with them in legend, and ranked with them in the same general list of pras-Hellenic tribes, it is not impossible that the Pelasgi proper also belonged to the same un-Aryan group of peoples. That there were "true" Pelasgi in Asia points to this conclusion: and Antandros, an Asiatic Pelasgic seat, was also regarded as Lelegic.1 Also the evi- 1 B.C.H. vii. 276.


dence of religion connects the un-Aryan Eteokretans directly with the true Pelasgi of Dodona. There also the unwashen priests, the Selloi, seem un- Aryan, aud remind us of the disreputable Galli of Asia Minor; an inscription at Tralles even mentions a, kind of semi-religious caste of avfTrroTroSee in the same breath with TraAAaiaSee and other adjuncts of un-Aryan religion.1 Finally, Kretschmer has shown that the " kleinasiatische " place-names in -v$a (Gk. -vO-), -crcra, -aaoc; (-rra, -TTOG), extend all over Greece proper,2 while such names as Arne or Tiryns are absolutely un-Aryan, and are of the Asia Minor type; 3 he concludes that the whole prae- Hellenic population of Greece proper belonged to the same un-Aryan race as the prse- Aryan population of Asia Minor. We see then that the mooted possibi- lity of the true Pelasgians being Aryans and kin to the Hellenes fades away when the question is even cursorily examined; the Pelasgi were as un-Aryan as their compeers the Leleges or the Eteokretans. Herodotos is therefore justified when he speaks of the Krestonians and the people of Plakia and Skylake as speaking a barbarian tongue.

All the prse-Hellenic tribes of Asia Minor, the ^Egean, and Greece proper seem, therefore, to have belonged to this single un-Aryan race; and it is

1 Loc. dt. p. 401 ff.

2 The specifically Pelasgian Larissa is of typical " klein- asiatisch " form; there were three in Asia Minor.

3 Arne is perhaps the Lykian arnna, "city." Mr. MABSHAM ADAMS (Bab. and Or. Record, vi. p. 192) provides us with the novel information that "Tiriyns (sic) signifies Enemy "in Egyptian (!); a curious flight of imagination.


therefore to this race that the prse-Mycenaean remains of these countries must be assigned. We have seen reason to associate this peculiar form of primitive cul- ture with this race. Now the same primitive culture certainly extended westward into Italy. And so, according to the tradition, did the Pelasgi.1 Whether we are to reckon the Tyrrhenians or Etruscans as a Pelasgian race, as Thucydides apparently did,2 remains doubtful. The name-forms in Etruscan are certainly of the same type as those of prse-Heiienic Greece and of Asia Minor: the peculiar termination -uns (-yns) and the commencement Tarhu-, TapKo-, 'Tpoxo- (as in Ta|OKov£»tyioe, Tarhundaraus, Tpo/coju/Sty/ot/Ke,3 &c.), Etr. Tar-^un-, Tarqu-, being especially noticeable. Also the curious parallel use of trumpets, the lituus, turned-up shoes, and other objects of semi-religious significance in both Asia Minor and Etruria might seem to point to some connection. A legend brings the Etruscans from Lydia: this will be discussed in a later chapter in connection with the Mediterranean tribe of the Thuirsha, which is commonly identified with them. It seems of doubtful value. Of no value whatever as evidence of an ethnic connection between Etruscans and Pelasgians is the supposed Etruscan inscription discovered in Lemnos by Pauli, as will also be seen in connection with the legend of the Eastern Tyrrhenians and the question of the Thuirsha. All that can be said is that a few analogies (those, it must be confessed, striking analogies) might induce

1 Cf. the evidence collected by Prof. KIDGEWAY, loc. cit. p. 109.

2 iv. 109 (cf. post, p. 174). s v. post, p. 139, n. 2.


us to tentatively regard the Etruscans as belonging to the great " kleinasiatisch " family of nations, and so akin to the Pelasgians and Lykiaos, whose lan- guage might profitably be compared with Etruscan. But if the Pelasgi of Italy were at one time repre- sentatives of the primitive culture in the West, which corresponded to the prse-Mycenaaan culture of Greece, the Etruscans ought, on this theory, also to have been at some time " praa-Mycenaeans." But the objects from Italy, which are of much the same type as those from prse-Mycenasan sites in Greece, appear to be prge- Etruscan: and, according to some archaeologists, we seem "to be able to trace with some degree of accuracy the various stages of a conquering advance of the Etruscans into Etruria from the North.1 Evidently, therefore, we cannot without much more convincing proof definitely annex the Etruscans to the Pelasgian- Asiatic group of nations.2 Still less can we as yet credit any " proof " of a connection of this group with the Sikels, the Ligurians, or the " Iberians " of Spain or Africa. Such proof when advanced is usually found to depend almost entirely on craniological evidence, which is often of doubtful value.3

1 HELBIG, Die Italiker in der Poebene, p. 99 ff.

2 The remarks of Dr. Kretschmer on this subject are worth notice. He says: " Wir sind demnach noch immer auf dem Punkte, dass wir eine Verwandschaft der Etrusker mit den Volkern Kleinasiens weder behaupten noch bestreiten konnen, und werden daher gut thun, bei dem stehen zu bleiben, was wir mit ziemlicher Sicherheit nachweisen konnen, der Verbreitung der kleinasiatischen Volkeri'amilie iiber das Aegaeische Meer und das hellenische Festland " (loc. cit. p. 409).

3 For a perhaps rather too trenchant criticism of craniological evidence, see KEETSCHMER, loc. cit. p. 39.


We find, then, that since the Mycenaean culture belonged primarily (not entirely or necessarily originally) to Hellenes, the more primitive stage of civilization which preceded it must be assigned to those tribes who, according to a consensus of tradition, preceded the Hellenes in the occupation of the land. These tribes belonged to a group of peoples of a stock neither Aryan nor Semitic, which extended along the northern shores of the Mediterranean from Palestine and Cyprus to Italy. And these are exactly the geographical limits of the primitive prae-Mycenasan culture.

Physically, these tribes seem to have been dolicho- cephalous; most of the skulls from the early strata of Troy are of this type, which was the type uni- versal in the Eastern Mediterranean basin in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages. This type has been called Iberian; Sergi, who considers the Berbers and Egyptians to have belonged to the same race, calls it Mediterranean (La Stirpe Mediter- ranea). The race was probably dark-haired; iheKeftiu were dark and so apparently were the Mycenaean Cretans of Knossos. We may, perhaps, be allowed to call this group of peoples by the rather vague term " Pelasgic," in default of a more convenient phrase.1

These Pelasgic tribes were' at periods, the dates of which cannot be absolutely fixed, overrun by alien

1 Kretschmer's " kleinasiatisch," though so convenient, is untranslatable. This, as well as "Asian" or "Asianic," would lay too much stress on the Asiatic members of the group. Mr. Crowfoot's "Armenoid" is even more open to this objection; and he presumably means " Proto- Armenoid." " Mediterranean " is too vague. Perhaps " Pelasgic " is, on the whole, the best.



nations; in Asia Minor by Aryans coming across the Hellespont, in Greece by the Aryan Achaians and •other tribes, and in Italy by the Italic peoples, both coming by land from the north.1 In Greece the old and the new populations appear to have blended to a considerable extent: the Hellenes of history were very possibly a race mainly non- Aryan, speak- ing the tongue of their Aryan conquerors. No doubt -a further impulse to the development of the Myce- ngean culture was given by the arrival of the new energizing Hellenic element. That this development

FIG. 37. — A Phrygian Inscription: " Mother Kybile . . . ." (Aryan language of Asia Minor, using Greek script. )

had, however, well begun before the arrival of the Aryan Hellenes seems extremely probable; the earlier period of the Mycenaean Age, when Crete and the islands were the centre of Mycenaean culture, is probably prse- Aryan. In the later period, when Argolis had become the central point, the Aryans had probably arrived, and the kings of the Achaians (who we may regard as the most prominent and powerful of the Aryan invaders), the rulers of u golden " and " wide-wayed " Mycenae, had extended from Argolis their power over the greater part of Greece, including Crete. It was during this period

1 SERGI (Oriyine e Diffuslone della titirpe Mediterranea, Rome, 1895) makes no distinction between the Aryan Italians and the Celts. They were, of course, very closely connected with the Celtic tribes.


of Achaian predominance that the Mycenasan culture attained its highest pitch of development.

In Inner Asia Minor the prae-Mycenrean race, lying in the debatable ground between Hellenedom and the Orient, was absorbed by neither, but preserved its tribal divisions with their several dialects more or less unimpaired until Roman times.

In Palestine the primitive tribes were overrun at a comparatively much earlier period by the Semites.

Snch are the conclusions to which we are led by the consideration of the Question of Kace. Hazy as is its subject, and hypothetical as our conclusions- must be, the question yet repays study, and is full of interest.


HELLAS turns her back upon the west and faces the rising sun. The Greek mainland swings round towards the east; the strike of its mountain-ranges is from north-west to south-east, therefore the pro- montories and islands which spring from them follow the same line, and so, with the single exception of the Gulf of Corinth, the gulfs and havens of Greece open also towards the east. The long lines of islands streaming away from the mainland across the ^Egean eastwards to Asia made communication between European Greece and Asia most easy. So- easy, indeed, was communication between the in- habitants of Greece and Asia across the ^Egean that it can hardly be doubted that they became closely connected with one another very soon after the period of the earliest migrations into Greece. So bound together in fact are Greece and the ^Egean coast of Asia that they can hardly be considered as separate countries. Geologically speaking, the floor of the ./Egean is merely a part of Greece which is covered by a sea, out of which appear the peaks of sunken mountain-chains which continue the mountain-system of Europe on into Asia; these peaks are the islands of the ^Egean. In some parts of the .zEgean these


islands are more sparsely scattered than in others, but generally speaking the spaces of sea which inter- vene between them are narrow; from scarcely any ^Egean island is no other visible. Geographically, therefore, they connect in every direction with Greece proper, with Asia Minor, and with each other, thus •contrasting with the islands off the western coast of Greece, which are not connected with the Italian peninsula and its appendages, and do not link them •closely with Greece. The ^Egean lands, therefore, form a single whole; the Asiatic coast of the ^Egean is as much a part of Greece as the islands or the Greek peninsula itself. Greece is not merely con- tinental Greece and the Islands; it is the whole ^Egean basin. The ^Egean lands as a whole face the East. This peculiar geographical position made it so happen that the Greeks were connected, espe- cially in the early days of their history, with the East, rather than with the West.

Even in its earliest beginnings Greek civilization is already connected with the East. An axehead of white Chinese jade which was found in the ruins of the Second City of Troy (dating to before 2OOO B.C.) testifies to some kind of commerce, primitive though it may have been, with the Far East. But it is not only in a prae-Mycensean settlement on the Asiatic continent that we already find traces of connection with the East, a connection which in the case of Troy may have been maintained overland in the islands of the ^Egean: evidence of seaborne commerce


between Greece and the East in prge-Mycensean times is discernible. Ivory objects and fragments of glass vases have been found in the Island-graves, the materials of which can only have come from Egypt, and in Egypt itself specimens of " Island >r pottery have been found. Other scattered evidences of this Egyptian connection will be adduced in the next chapter; our purpose at present is to discuss more especially the relations between prehistoric Greece and the Asiatic peoples. We may note, however, that the route which this primitive com- merce between the ^Egean and Egypt must have followed can only have been the natural coasting- route from Rhodes to Cyprus, and thence to the Palestinian coast, where, as we have already seenr primitive settlements, resembling those of the " Prge- Mycenaeans " of Greece, existed. Directly south all guiding islands failed; south-east, Kythera led to Crete, but Crete took the seafarer no further south, it only led north-east to Rhodes and Karamania, eventually to Cyprus. As Greece proper turned its back upon the west, so Crete turned its back upon the south; the greater number of its havens looked north, back upon the Hellenic world, which it fenced in with its mighty barrier of Ida. Directly south of Crete the sea was a blank, and, although it is true that a small sailing vessel can with a favouring wind very swiftly traverse this piece of sea and reach the African coast, yet it seems hardly possible that Greek mariners can have essayed the crossing and have reached Africa, except perhaps occasionally by accident, until the Theneans sailed


in obedience to the Pythia to found a city in


Much of any commerce which may have existed between the ^Egean tribes and the Palestinian tribes must therefore also have passed via Cyprus, So that Cyprus has naturally been considered to have connected the primitive prge-Mycenaean civilization of Greece with the culture of the Semites as well as with that of Egypt. Men- tion has already been made of the rude idols of Parian marble, apparently represent- ing a nude female figure, which have been found in so many of the ^Egean graves of the prae-Mycenagan period. (Fig. 38.) Similar idols of smaller size have also been found in Cyprus. In Cyprus also appears a series of earthenware representations of a nude female figure; these are closely paralleled in Canaan, in Syria gene- rally, and in Mesopotamia. Here, and no doubt in Cyprus

also, these are images of the Semitic female goddess,

who passed, through the medium of Cyprus, into the

FIG. 38.— Primitive Marble Female Idol from Amor- gos. (Prae - Mycenaean period. )


Greek pantheon as Aphrodite. Are we to regard the marble images of the ^Egean as proving that the worship of this nature-goddess had reached the Greek islanders from the Semitic countries by way of Cyprus as early as the third millennium B.C.? The question of the date of the Syrian and Cypriote pottery images is important. The date of the ^Egean marble figures cannot be later than 2000 B.C. But the Cypriote figures of clay are apparently coeval with the late-Mycenaean and Graeco-Phcenician cul- tures which were dominant in that island from the eighth to the fifth century B.C., and figures of this kind from Asia appear to be often of even later date. If clay images of the nude Cypriote type were found in the prae-Mycenasan graves from which the nude marble figures come, a connection might be proved, but such clay figures are not found in the island graves. They are in fact merely rude and cheap dolls, made in rough imitation of larger images which properly represented the human form; the ^Egean marble figures, on the other hand, are real primitive idols. An attempt has, however, been made to show that these clay figures were already in use among the Semitic nations at a period contemporary with or anterior to the date which has been assigned to the marble idols from the islands — i.e., about 2000 B.C. In the Jahrbuch des Deutsclicn Arcliceologisclicn Institute for 1897 Herr von Fritze gives photographs of clay figures of this kind which were found by Mr. Haynes at Niffer in Babylonia, which Professor Hilprecht dates between the reigns of Sargon of Agade (3800 B.C.) and Ur-Gur (2800 B.C.); these


Herr von Fritze considers to have been the proto- types of the marble images from the Greek islands. But it is quite impossible to accept the early date which Professor Hilprecht assigns to these Baby- lonian idols. No similar objects are known from the- other explorations of early Babylonian sites, and all of the same kind found in Mesopotamia are of very late date. So Herr von Fritze's argument, and with it the desired connection between the prse-Mycenaean marble images and the clay figures of the Semitic goddess, falls to the ground. The marble images are no doubt representations of a deity more or less identical with the non-Semitic female goddess of Asia Minor, the chief deity of the " Pelasgic "' populations, and are simply the predecessors of the Mycenaean representations of Artemis and Rhea (v. p. 296). Tt is natural enough that the primitive representation should have been nude. Various archaeological comparisons would seem to show a European rather than a Semitic connection for the " ^Egean " marble figures.1 Also the much-quoted leaden nude female figure with the svastika emblem which was found at Troy 2 possesses no Babylonian characteristics whatever.3

1 EVANS, lot. cit., p. 127 ff; KEJNACH, La Sculpture Anciennef &c., in U Anthropologie, 1894. In his article "Les deesses nues dans 1'art oriental et dans 1'art grec " (Chr. Or. ii. p. 566), however, M. REINACH goes too far in arguing that the Semitic nude goddess was of western origin: there was a nude goddess of the Semites and a (not always) nude goddess of the ^Egean and Asia Minor peoples, and there is no need to identify the one with the other.

2 SCHUCHHAEDT, fig. 60, p. 67.

3 Of. post, p. 300. Such figures are in fact a common product


Can any other connection between the prae- Mycenaean culture of Cyprus and Semitic civilization be shown to have existed?

An actual connection between Cyprus and Baby- lonia has been postulated at a period even earlier than that of which we are speaking. It has been •stated that cylinder-seals of the early Babylonian kings Sargon I. and Naram-Sin, his son (circa 3800 B.C.), have been found in Cyprus.1 This has been taken to prove an early Babylonian conquest of the island which would have greatly influenced the pra&-Mycenaean civilization of Cyprus and the other Greek lands generally. But this statement, which is •constantly repeated, is inaccurate. A single cylinder of archaistic type, and with an equally archaistic inscription referring to the deified king Naram-Sin, was found by General di Cesnola at Curium.2 This cylinder cannot be older than the seventh century B.C. Thus the whole fabric of connection between Cyprus and Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium B.C. which has been built upon the supposed testi- mony of this cylinder falls to the ground. It may, however, be urged that we know that Sargon and Naram-Sin conquered Syria and reached the shores

of undeveloped art, whether in pre-historic or in historical times, and so it is impossible to found any reliable arguments upon them. Specimens of the hideous Cypriote earthenware type, with huge earrings, may be seen in most museums; the Mesopotamian type is well represented in the newly arranged Babylonian and Assyrian Eoom of the British Museum (room-numbers, 969-980, 1018-1027.)

1 BUSOLT, Gr. Gesch., i. p. 45; MALLET, Premieres fitablisse- ments des Grecs en Ugi/pte, p. 28, n. I.

2 SAYCE, T. S. B. A., v. (1877) p; 441 ff.



of the Great Sea; why, then, should they not have penetrated to Cyprus? If they did there is no record of the fact. (See further, Addenda, p. 314, post.)

It is curious that, while the evidence of connec- tion between the pras-Mycenaean peoples and Egypt, though very small, is, comparatively speaking, good as far as it goes, there should be practically no evidence of connection between these people and Babylonia. There is even less evidence for a con- nection through Asia Minor than through Cyprus. Yet if jade could be brought from China to Troy in prae-Mycenaean times, some kind of commerce, even though merely a passing from hand to hand and from tribe to tribe, overland between the cultured cities of Babylonia and the settlements of the primitive -bar- barians of the ^Egean, seems both possible and probable. Traces of it may yet be found.

Eecent discoveries have been considered to show that the peoples of Inner Asia Minor were not entirely unaffected by Babylonian influence in prae- Mycenaean times. This influence had probably penetrated beyond the Taurus as early as 2500 B.C.; but that there was a Babylonian colony settled in the Halys-land at that time, as M. Boissier asserts,1 is in the highest degree questionable.2 Professor Ramsay has shown that Boghaz Koi (Pterion) was the most important post on the " Royal Road," the most ancient trade route through Asia Minor from the ^Egean to the Euphrates Valley. Could it be proved that Pterion was a focus of Babylonian

1 ,In CHANTEE, Mission en Cappadoce, 1898, p. 44.

2 V. Addenda, p. 315. post.


influence as early as 2000 B.C., the surmise could naturally be put forward that the trade-route from Babylonia through Pterion already existed at that time, so that Babylonian influence might well have reached the ^Egean lands over the " Royal Road " in prse-Mycengean times. But we have nothing to show that it did, or that Babylonian influence had yet entered Asia Minor, beyond the mere probability that it had. A few centuries later, however, when the Hellenes had invaded the ^Egean basin, and the development of the Mycenaean culture had begun, we have some evidence of direct Babylonian influence passing overland through Asia Minor.

Nor can we speak of any " Hittite " or u Canaan- itish " influence as passing through Asia Minor or Cyprus to Greece in prae-Mycenaean days. Of the Kheta we hear nothing till well on the Mycenaean period; and the sculptors of Boghaz Koi and Jerabis may not date back much beyond the eighth century. We have seen that traces of a primitive culture resembling that of the prae-Mycenaeaus of Greece are to be found in Palestine, but that it is doubtful whether these are to be ascribed to " Pelasgic " inhabitants or not. Of the Amorites, to whom they are often ascribed, we know nothing. The Philis- tines do not appear in Palestine till Mycenaean days. The gradual infiltration of the Semitic Canaanites had, however, been long in progress, but the culture of these tribes had at this time in all probability by no means reached the high stage of development which we meet with in the period of the Tel el- Amarna letters, a thousand years later; occasional


subjection to and intermittent communication with Babylonia do not seem to have as yet modified it to any great extent, and no influence upon the prae- Mycensean culture can be assigned to it; the case of the nude female figures has already been dealt with. The Phoenician cities do not seem to have yet emerged into prominence as civilizing media: if legend is to be trusted, indeed, the Phoenicians had as yet hardly reached the Mediterranean.1

In the Mycenaean period, however, communication had undoubtedly been established between Greece and Babylonia as well as Egypt. This was due to the great westward advance of Babylonian culture.

Although so constantly associated in our minds with the Semites, the civilization of Babylonia was not of Semitic origin. To what race the earliest Babylonians, the men of Sumer and Akkad, belonged, is not apparent. We know that their language was of an agglutinative type, but to dub them Mongols is premature.

Before the end of the fifth millennium B.C. the presence of the Semitic race in the neighbouring lands made itself felt in Mesopotamia, and it was not long before Semitic rulers established themselves in several of the cities of Northern Babylonia. The arrival of the Semitic newcomers seems to have made but little alteration in Babylonian civilization: per-

1 Legend brings the Phoenicians from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean about 2000 B.C. (cf. LENOEMANT, Manuel d'ffis- toire Ancienne de I' Orient, iii. 3 ff.).


haps a few new deities were added to the pantheon, little more. In fact the whole culture of the original inhabitants seems to have been taken over by the invaders, so that it is now very difficult to distin- guish between what is Semitic and what is non- Semitic in it. Since all Semitic culture was primarily of Babylonian origin, Semitic civilization is funda- mentally un-Semitic.

The accession of the Semitic chiefs to power was followed by an immediate extension of Babylonian influence beyond the bounds of Sumer and Akkad. Sargon (Shargani-shar-ali), king of Agade in Akkad, and Naram-Sin, his son, appear to have extended their sway over all Mesopotamia as far as the mountains of the Gutium or Armenians, and thence onwards to Palestine even as far as the " Sunset-sea," on the shores of which Sargon " set up his image." It seems probable that these monarchs penetrated as far as Sinai and Egypt, the lands of Magan and Meluhha. These events seem to have taken place about 3800 B.C.1

From this time forth the whole of Mesopotamia, from the Persian Gulf to Harran in the north, remained always under Babylonian influence, now becoming gradually semitized. From time to time different warlike chiefs of various cities of Babylonia led armies across into Northern Syria, Martu, or Aharru,2 "the Land of the West," but Babylonian

1 Cf. TlELB, Bdbylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte, p. 100 if.

2 A possible reading of this word is Amurru / the Egyptians spoke of Syria often as Amar. Martu is the Sumerian name, Aharru (Amurru) the Semitic.


influence does not seem to have firmly established itself among the Syrian tribes until the period of the unification of Babylonia under Hammurabi (about 2200 B.C.). To this monarch Martu was probably absolutely subject; in a letter of his reign mention is made of a Babylonian official, Siniddinam, who is called rob Aharru, " Governor of the Western Land." l For some centuries after this Northern Syria remained under the political hegemony of the Babylonian kings, while Southern Palestine, if it did not owe any actual allegiance to Babylon, yet became fully subject to her civilizing influence. By the sixteenth century B.C. the civilization of Palestine had become entirely Babylonian. Nor did the Egyptian conquest, which took place in the seventeenth century, in any way modify this Babylonian culture, although the whole land as far as the Taurus and the Upper Euphrates remained for three hundred years not merely tribu- tary to Egypt, but to a great extent administered either by Egyptian residents at the courts of the native chiefs or by commissioners despatched from Egypt at various times. Southern Palestine remained more or less Egyptian territory throughout the period of the " Judges," and until the rise of the Hebrew kingdom in the eleventh century. Nevertheless, Semitic civilization influenced Egypt far more than Egyptian culture influenced the Semites. Few traces of Egyptian influence are to be found among the Semites, while in Egypt it became for a time quite

1 KING, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, i. p. xxiv.; iii. p. 169 ff. The same signs may be read in Sumerian gal Martu, with the same meaning.


fashionable to semitize as much as possible. So universally had the culture of Babylonia been adopted by the Semitic nations, and so deep-seated had its influence become in Western Asia, that by the fifteenth century the Semitic dialect of Babylonia (the later "Assyrian ") had become the " polite tongue " of the Nearer East, used as the language of diplo- macy by the court-scribes of Egypt and Canaan as well as of Babylon, and as a lingua franca by the non- Semitic kings of Alashiy a (Cyprus), Arsapi (in Cilicia), Mitanni (Matiene: Southern Armenia), and Egypt when they wished to correspond with one another. The cities of Phoenicia, already powerful and of con- siderable importance in the world, used the cuneiform writing and Babylonian idiom. Nor did the substi- tution of the political domination of the " Armenoid " people of the Kheta or Hatte for that of Egypt in Syria in any way diminish Babylonian influence there. If the hieroglyphic writing of Eastern Asia Minor is correctly ascribed to this people, it shows at least that they possessed a peculiar culture of their own, but among them, or at any rate in Eastern Asia Minor, Babylonian influence was far more powerful than even in Egypt, as is shown by the character of the so-called " Hittite " art.1

Babylonian influence in Western Asia reached its culminating-point in the fifteenth century B.C. At this time, we have seen reason to think, the Mycenaean culture of Greece had, perhaps, already reached a high pitch of development. It would have been very

1 '«Hittite " art was influenced by that of Assyria, which was a development of that of Babylonia.


surprising had no Babylonian influences been trace- able in Mycenaean art and handicraft. They can be traced; but, as we shall see, are again not so notice- able as the influences of the rival culture of Egypt.

We have seen that Babylonian influence was probably already apparent in Inner Asia Minor at

FIG. 39.— Heraldic Lion-group from a Phrygian tomb.

this time. Legend certainly connects the Mycenaean rulers of the Pelopid house with Asia Minor, whence the reputed founder of Mycenaean greatness, Pelops, was said to have come. This tradition has been con- nected with conclusions which have been drawn from certain resemblances between Mycenaean architecture and that of early Asia Minor, especially from the re- semblance of an heraldic group of two rampant lions


with a pillar between them, which occurs on the " Lion-Gate " of the akropolis of Mycenae and is re- produced on many Mycenaean gems, and similar lion- groups which are sculptured above the doors of rock- cut tombs in Phrygia. The conclusion drawn from these resemblances, in connection with the Pelopid tradition, is that the Mycenaean civilization originally came from Inner Asia Minor. The conclusion might have gone further, for such heraldic groups find their closest analogy in the similar groups so common in the archaic Babylonian art of about 4500 B.C.1 The Mycenaean idea was in all probability derived from Babylonia through the peoples of Asia Minor, among whom it occurs; but that the Phrygian designs mark a stage of the journey of this artistic idea from Babylonia to Mycenae may well be doubted, on account of the apparently late date (about 800 B.C.) of the Phrygian reliefs. We do not know when the lions of Mycenae were sculptured, but since they ornament the chief gate of the akropolis of the city, the pro- bability is that they date to a much earlier period than 800 B.C., when Mycenaean art was disappearing from continental Greece. There is, therefore, good reason to suppose that the Phrygian reliefs were inspired by the Lion-Gate and other similar works of Mycenaean art which may have perished, rather than that the reverse was the case. Also, since the Phrygian

1 The heraldic badge or " arms " of the city of Shirpurla (Assyr. Lagash; the modern Tell Loh), a lion-faced eagle holding two lions by their tails, may be instanced. This occurs in sculptures of the prse-Semitic kings Idingiranagin and Entenna, who lived about 4500 B.C.. On the connection between the lion-groups of Mycenae and of Phrygia, cf. KAMSAY, /. H. 8. , ix. p. 369.


reliefs date to so late a period, the connection between them and the coming of Pelops to Greece must fall to the ground. The supposition which has been occasionally mooted that the whole of Mycenaean civilization came to Greece from Asia, a supposition which, though its supporters seem hardly to realize the fact, can only mean that the whole of Mycenaean civilization was of Babylonian origin, is contradicted, not only by its essentially Hellenic and non-Baby- lonian aspect, but by the fact that its whole •development in Greece from the primitive culture of Hissarlik and Athens can easily be traced, while its relation to the early Bronze Age culture of Central Europe seems to be clearly indicated. That certain Babylonian influences came from Asia to Greece by way of Asia Minor at this time is, however, probable enough: Babylonian influence is marked in the art of gem- and seal-engraving, in which the Mycenaeans attained great proficiency; this probably reached Greece from Asia Minor, whither it seems to have passed from Babylonia at a very early period. Above all, the Mycenaeans probably owed their knowledge of bronze ultimately to Babylonia, as will appear when we come to discuss the general position of 'Mycenaean civilization. And this knowledge no doubt came through Asia Minor. The intermediaries between Mycenaean Greece and Babylon have sometimes been considered to have been the " Hittites," who are thought to have been a power in Asia from about 1500 B.C. onwards. It has also been considered that the Cretan picto- graphs may have been inspired by the " Hittite "



hieroglyphs. Bat the " liittite Question " is still un- solved; we do not know with certainty that the builders of the great temple-fortresses of Boghaz Koi and Eyuk in Cappadocia were identical with the " Kheta " who fought against Egypt as early as the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty, or that these were the same people as the Biblical Hittites; and a connection between the " Hittite " hieroglyphs and the Cretan pictographs cannot be proved, because we have no information which would lead us to suppose that these hieroglyphs, which have not yet been proved to have belonged to the Kheta, are so ancient as the Cretan characters. We cannot, therefore, assert •even that the Hittites (? Kheta) contributed elements to Mycengean culture, much less that they originated it, while to claim the Pelopids as "Hittites" is really to appeal too much to the imagination as an aid to the writing of history.1

1 DE CARA (Gli Hetei e gli loro Migrazioni; Gli Hetei-Pelasgi; 'Civilta Cattolica, 1892, 1895, &c') maintains the Hittite origin of jEgean civilization; for him the Pelasgi are " gli Hetei fnori delle loro sede originarie dell' Asia, Hethei migratori, errantie pellegrini." It is a pity that Father De Cara, who rightly advo- •cates the theory of the racial identity of these primitive Greeks with the non- Aryan peoples of Asia Minor, should have marred his work by the introduction of these problematical "Hittites" and by arguments resting on the most amazing and impossible linguistic identifications and derivations, a selection of which will be found in REINACH, Chr. Or. ii. p. 488 ff. (E.g., Italy is for DE CARA Hat-al-ia, "the land of the Hittites" who came there from Asia!) A bold attempt has been made to reconcile the Hellenic origin of Mycenaean civilization with the theory of a Hittite connection by supposing that the " Hittite " culture is a branch of Mycenaean civilization which had originally come from Italy to G-reece and thence passed by way of the islands to


Certainly the culture of Boghaz Koi and of Jerabis, whether it was " Hittite " or not, cannot have influenced Mycenaean culture in any way. Its art owes its inspiration to Assyria, and we can hardly date it any earlier than the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. No Mycenaean influence can be detected in it. Yet it is evident that in Mycenaean times much of the Babylonian influence which is observable in the Mycenaean culture must have taken its way to Greece through the country which, in later times, this assyrianizing culture occupied, and pro- bably through Pteria on the Royal Road, which after- wards became one of the chief seats of this culture.

The Mycenaeans do not seem to have met this influence half-way. Hitherto few traces of the de- veloped Mycengean culture have been found in Inner Asia Minor; vase-fragments have been found at Bin Tepe, near Sardis, and also at Kara-Eyuk (Chantre, Mission en Cappadoce, p. 71 ff.), but apparently nowhere else up-country.

Asia, so that the Kheta were Mycenaeans! (REINACH, Mirage Orientale [Chr. Or., p. 555 ff.]) In connection with this theory the Asiatic Tyrsenoi mentioned by Herodotos (HDT. i. 94) are supposed to have come from Etruria to Asia, rather than, as Herodotos says, in the reverse direction; the "Thuirsha" who invaded Egypt in company with other sea-rovers in the time of Merenptah (about 1200 B.C.) have been regarded as having formed part of this eastward migration from Italy. With regard to the theory generally little can be said; its inceptor, M. Salomon Reinach, seems not to see that there is no connection visible between the Mycenaean and " Hittite " cultures, although the " Hittites " and the prae-Mycensean Pelasgians may well have been members of the same race. Concerning the supposed activity of the Tyrrhenians in the JEgean in Mycenaean times more will be said later (p. 174).



At the same time the sea route vid Cyprus probably brought a certain amount of Semitic influence to Greece. And now two of the chief seafaring peoples of the ancient world seem to first appear on the scene: the lonians and the Phoenicians.

FIG. 40. — " Hittite " Relief in assyrianizing siyle; from Jerabis. (Brit. Mus.)

In the maintenance of the connection between continental Greece and Asia Minor the Ionian tribes must have taken a great part. While it is improbable that they were settled in the Cyclades yet (i.e., circa B.C. 1500-1100), there is no reason to suppose that they were not already in Euboea, Attica, and Argolis. In all probability the Asiatic


coast was occupied by them from the first; for it may well be doubted if at anytime after the migration of the Aryan Greeks into the ^Egean basin the western coast of Asia Minor was without H ellenic inhabitants. The- general fact that after the Dorian invasion of Greece proper a great system of emigration was directed from both Northern Greece and the Peloponnese towards the Asiatic coast is no doubt historical, but- it is at least highly probable that Greek tribes had already settled along the Asiatic coast long before the time of the "great migrations." It, indeed, seems probable that the Aryan Greek race occupied both shores of the ^Egean from the very first, as their Pelasgian predecessors had done, and so the theory, accepted by Curtius and Holm, according to which the Ionian branch of the Greek race passed originally from the Balkan peninsula across the Hellespont into- Asia, and only reached Greece proper after a detour along the Asiatic coast and across the island bridge, afterwards throwing a returning stream of emigrants- back to Asia after the Dorian invasion, is probably correct. The predominance of the lonians on the Asiatic coast and their precarious foothold on the- continent of Greece afford arguments strongly in favour of this theory. From the geographical point of view it would seem quite natural that the Hellenic branch of the Indo-European stock, coming, perhaps, from the flat steppes of Poland and Eussia, perhaps- from the fertile plains of the Hungarian Alfoldr wherever the cradle or Volkerkammer of the Aryan race may be considered to have been, should, when it had passed the Balkans and had reached the shores '


of the ^Egean, have divided into two streams, of which one directed its course through the Kam- bounian passes to Thessaly, the other across the Hellespont to Asia. Most of the Asiatic islands, with the probable exception of Lesbos (see p. 238), but perhaps including Khodes, were also no doubt at this period Ionian. It is improbable that the Mycenaean lalysians were Achaians: Achaian hege- mony in the ^Egean need not have meant either Achaian conquest or Achaian colonization. That they were Hellenes, however, at any rate in the later Mycenaean time, and not mere Pelasgi, seems pro- bable— i.e., they were probably lonians. Ionian tradition is absent, it is true, in Khodes, yet it begins again in Lykia and is present in Cyprus; in their transit from the Central Asiatic shores of the .^Egean to Lykia and Cyprus the lonians would hardly fail to settle in Rhodes.

To the lonians who were settled on the Asiatic coast of the ^Bgean an easy eastward way might seem to have been available; good routes into the interior of Asia Minor were offered to them by the valleys of the rivers which debouch into the ^Egean. But, as a matter of fact, in the early ages of their history the Greeks never penetrated far into- Asia Minor; their settlements were limited to the coast lands, in which the geographic and climatic conditions were the same as in continental Greece and the islands: the barren hills and salt plains of the interior were not only repellent to their fancy but formed insuperable obstacles to their further progress in this direction. Since then the way into


the interior of Asia Minor was barred, the only pos sible route eastward was the sea-route from Rhodes, along the coasts of Lykia and Paraphylia to Cyprus. This route, the only one of which the geographical conditions were at all favourable, is shown by the evidence of tradition and archaeological discovery to have been, in fact, that by which the Greeks first reached the East and by which the Phoenicians first reached Greece. The lines of communication between the various ^Egean lands and the East all met at Rhodes, whence they followed an identical course to Cyprus and Palestine, and thence to Egypt and Libya.

When we consider the Mycenaean culture of the Eastern lands outside the ^Egean, the probability that it is to lonians that the earliest Hellenic civilization of the southern coast of Asia Minor and Cyprus must be assigned becomes evident. The first Hellenes to take the road from Rhodes to Cyprus would naturally be those who had first occupied the Asiatic coasts and islands. When the Greeks first came into contact with the Oriental nations, they became known to them as " Yawan." This form of the name 'laftov became the universal designation in the East for Greeks in general, Yawan among the Hebrews, Yavnd among the Assyrians,1 and, perhaps, Oueeienin among the Egyptians.2 Archaeological

1 First mentioned by Sargon II. (Inscr. Sarg., 21) about B.C. 710: "I have hauled the Yavna like fishes out from the midst of the sea, thereby giving rest to the land Kue and the town of Tyre." (Kue is part of E. Cilicia.)

- Oueeienin ( Uinin) is identified with " laon " by CURTIUS, Die lonier vor dtr ionischen Wanderung, p. 6. I, however, am inclined to doubt the correctness of this identification. Others



evidence1 shows that the Phoenicians had relations with the Greeks before the Dorian invasion, so that the first use of this name may well date before the post-Mycenaean migrations. Also, if the Phrenicians had first come into contact with the Greeks after the Dorian invasion, we should have expected the Semitic name for the Greeks to have been "Dorian" rather than " Ionian," for the Dorian colonists of Crete and Rhodes would then have been the first Greeks to meet the Semitic newcomers. It has been supposed that, on an Egyptian monument of the thirteenth century B.C., there occurs a mention of a northern land of " laumia," or, as the German Egyptologists have it, "Yevamia," a name which looks as if it were the same as 'lafwp.2 Bat in reality the name

cannot certainly be read Ya-un-


na or Ya-wen-na: the first sign has been read ma- and ari-, and either of these two readings is more probable than the first, yet-. Maunna has been identified with Maionia, and Ariunna with Ilion. This piece of evidence must therefore be provisionally shelved. Another supposed Oriental mention of lonians during the Mycenaean period must be absolutely dismissed. Professor Sayce (Athenceum, October 1891) has con- sidered that the name of the lonians (Yivctna) occurs in one of the Tell el-Amarna Letters — i.e., about 1430 B.C. But the word in question is yiba, which can have nothing to do with laf wv, but seems to

would derive it from Hau-nebu, which may have been pro- nounced something like "Haunim" in the decadent period of the Egyptian language. l V. pp. 136, 229.

2 W. M. MULLEE, Asien und Europa, p. 369 f.



mean a kind of groom or horsekeeper.1 But although these two pieces of evidence fail us when tested, it must be remembered that Greek tradition certainly brought lonians to Southern Asia Minor and Cyprus before the period of the so-called " Great Migration." Herodotos brings to Lykia an eponymous hero Lykos, of Ionian blood, who civilized the Termilai. The story may point to the Eteokretan inhabitants having been subdued by an Ionian tribe, which intermixed with them and hellenized them, so that in historic times we find them recognized, despite their unhellenic lan- guage, as almost members of the Greek world. We have already seen (p. 88) that the Lykians already bore their G-rcck name as early as 1450 B.C. From Lykia the earliest Hellenic migration would pass eastwards to Pamphylia, whose inhabitants, legend said, " were descended from those who, on their return from Troy, were dispersed with Amphilochos and Kalchas."2 This merely shows them to have been descended from Hel- lenic rovers who came by sea, and little can be urged against the view that the earliest Pamphylians were probably among the first Greeks who penetrated beyond the ^Egean. From the Pamphylian coast Cyprus was easily attainable, and in Cyprus the evidence of archaeological discovery and of tradition combine to confirm the geographical possibility that this island was colonized by the Hellenes not at the close of the post-Mycenaean migrations, but at least not long after the first migration of the Aryan Greeks into Greece. The first colonists, according to tradition, were lonians,

1 Cf. WINCKLBB, Tell el-Amarna Letters, No. 83.

2 HDT. vii. 91.


who came with Teucer and Akamas to Salamis -,1 Soloi was also said to have been an Ionian colony. The Kythnian colonists were, of course, Dryopes, not Ionian s.

Other races from Greece also settled in Cyprus at a very early date: to Paphos came Arcadians under Agapenor, and the Cypriote dialect seems to have been considerably affected by this immigra- tion, for it retained a resemblance to that of Arcadia even in historic times. Curium and Lapetbos assigned their origin to Argives and Lakonians respectively. These must have been prae-Dorian Argives and Lakonians, for there was no Dorian blood in Cyprus, and, as has been already pointed out, the Geometrical" style of the Dorians is not represented in the island.2

But since the first Hellenic inhabitants of Cyprus were probably lonians, to them the early importation of works of Mycenaean art was no doubt due, and to them the firm establishment of the Mycenaean culture in the island may also with probability be ascribed.

The Mycenaean period in Cyprus presents many interesting features. Apparently at the period of the full bloom of Mycenaean culture, and when fine Mycenaean vases were imported from Greece, we still find types of pottery and weapons of prae-Mycenaean appearance.3 In the same way we find the Mycenaean

1 The legend of the founding of the Cyprian Salamis from the Ionian Salamis has been regarded as a mere setiological invention; the view that it probably represents a historical fact is quite as deserving of attention. The name may or may not be Semitic.

2 Of. p. 38 n.

3 E.g., at Aa£tci rou'Piov (MYRES, J.H.S., xvii. p. 147 ff. ).


culture still lingering on in this island at a time when it had in the ^Egean long before been replaced by the Geometrical and sub-Mycenaean styles of art. As has already been noted, Babylonian cylinders and other objects found in the latest Mycenaean tombs of Cyprus date them as late as the eighth century B.C. But the Mycenaean period in Cyprus must have begun before the first Mycenaean objects reached Egypt, since at this period the only route which commerce would probably follow was that by way of Cyprus. And the first Mycenaean objects reached Egypt apparently as early as 1550 B.C., cer- tainly before 1400 B.C. The Mycenaean period seems then to have lasted in Cyprus for at least 800 years, from the time when the first Mycenaean vases were imported thither from Greece till the final extinction of the Mycenaean artistic style.

The Phoenicians also were probably settled in the island in very early times; they may have occupied the southern coast before the arrival of the Hellenes. In Cyprus the Greek immigrants found themselves in close juxtaposition with vigorous representatives of the older civilizations of the East, a people who were at least their equals as sailors, as traders, perhaps even as warriors. * In Cyprus the Phoenicians were close to their base on the coast of Palestine, whereas the Cypriote Greeks were far from their base in the JEgean, with a long and precarious line of communication behind them. It was indeed only the real superiority of Hellenic over Semitic civiliza- tion which enabled the Greeks not only to gain an assured footing in Cyprus, but to maintain that footing



and consolidate their influence there, in spite of the presence of a large Semitic population in the island and its proximity to one of the chief centres of Semitic culture. Greek settlement on the Palestinian coast, in

FIG. 41.— A Philistine of the Xllth century B.C. of Rameses III.: Thebes.)


the enemy's camp itself, was always impossible: such stories as that of the filial relation between Berytos and Miletos cannot be taken to imply a regular Greek colony on the Phoenician coast. It has been con- jectured that the Philistines were, if not of Hellenic


blood, at least Pelasgians, and that they came from Crete, which is supposed to be what is meant by the Kaphtor of the Bible. This was certainly the Jewish tradition; David's Philistine bodyguard were called Kerethim, which is translated K/ofjrtc in two pas- sages of the LXX (Zeph. ii. 5; Ez. xxv. 16). They

were known to the Egyptians as ^ 1 II 1 sa

@ T? I U 1 1 1 H

(Pulesatha), and formed part of the northern con- federation of tribes from Europe and Asia Minor which attacked Egypt in the reign of Rameses III. (between I2OO and 1150 B.C.). Although they are often claimed by Semitists as pure Semites, they may well have been originally a Pelasgic tribe of Crete or Southern Asia Minor; we cannot conclude that they were genuine Greeks who passed farther east from Cyprus, because no trace of Mycenaean civiliza- tion, except a few vase- fragments from Tell es-Safi,1 has been discovered in Philistia.2 Greek tradition,

1 WELCH, Ann. Brit. Sell. Ath. 1899-1900, p. 120.

2 With regard to the racial affinities of the Philistines, DELJTZRCH asserts (Wo lag das Paradies? p. 289): "Die Philister geben sich, wie alle uns bekannten philistaischen Eigennamen beweisen, durchaus als Semiten und zwar Kananaer." TIELE agrees, and discovers traces of a specifically Aramaic strain in the Philistines (Godsdienst, p. 214; " Waarschijnlijk kwamen zij, al is 't langs een omweg, uit arameesche streken; althans hun godsdienst wijst daarheen "). JENSEN (Kosmologle der Babyloni-r, p. 449 ff) argues that the famous Dagon, whom we have always pictured with a fish's tail, was no fish-god at all and had nothing to do with fish, but was a counterpart of Bel, the Lord of Heaven. This seems to him to prove the Semitic origin of the Philistines. Still, personally, I am not convinced; the physiognomy of the Pulesatha on the Egyptian monuments is European and they wear the feather headdress worn by Lykians and Myceneeans (v. p. 180, n. 2); further, malgre Prof. Delitzsch,


archaeological discovery, and geographical probability allow us to bring the Hellenes as far east as Cyprus, but no farther.

So that it was in Cyprus, and probably in such place-names as Amkarruna (Ekron) and Aslcalon, and such proper names as Mitinti (king of Askalon in Esarhaddon's time) and Ikausu (king of Ekron at the same period; cf. the biblical Akish; see Addenda, p. 32 1 ) are not Semitic. They are translitera- tions of foreign words, and it is noticeable that the Assyrians transliterated Gk. -osby-»-sw,and that the two of the above names which end in -u-na in Greek end in -uv. Such possible originals as *Amkaron, *Askal6n, *Midindas, *Ikaos, do not argue Semitic affinity, but point to a very different and more probable connec- tion with " Pelasgic " speech. And, malffre Jensen, there is some authority for the idea that Dagon was a fish-god: so he may well be compared with the Cretan aXtos ^ipwv, or Triton, who appears on the coins of Itanos. W. M. MULLEE (Asien u. Europa, p. 387 ff) accepts the Philistines as being of European origin, and takes Justin's tradition of the sacking of Sidon by the "rex Ascaloni- orum" in 1209 B.C. as, in conjunction with the Egyptian records of the Pulesatha, roughly indicating the period at which they colonized the Palestinian coast. The tribes which are associated with them in Egyptian history, the Tchakarai and Danuna, who also settled on the Palestinian coast, were also, no doubt, of European origin (v. post, p. 176); certainly they were no more Semites than the Pulesatha, and the name of a Tchakarai chief of Dor mentioned in the reign of King Herheru of Egypt (c. 1050 B.C. ), Badira, is no more Semitic than were Mitinti and Ikausu. W. M. MULLEE regards the idea of the specifically Cretan origin of the Philistines, which relies on the identification of Kaphtor with Crete, with doubt. But if Kaphtor is the same as the land which the Egyptians called Kef tin, it may very well have been Crete, since, as we shall see later (p. 165), Crete was very probably in- cluded in the Egyptian idea of " Kef tiu. " In fact, the old tradition seems to be worth more than the theories of the Semitists. All that can be granted them is that the Peiasgian Pulesatha, who gave their name to the people, may have been merely a ruling race of nobles, and the mass of the people Canaanites; also that this race died out or was absorbed as early as the tenth century, in exactly the same way as the Normans became French within a couple of centuries of their conquest of Neustria.


the Mycenaean period, that the Greeks first came into contact with the Phoenicians, whose growing maritime and commercial energy now first begins to influence the cause of the history of the Mediter- ranean peoples. During the earlier period of the Mycenaean culture, in the fifteenth century B.C., we find the Phoenician cities already in full activity, in constant relations with Egypt, to which country they were tributary, with the numerous and highly- civil- ized nations of Canaan, the alien peoples of Alashiya, Kheta, and Mitanni, and with far-away Karduniyash or Babylonia. Their ships were already numerous,1 and without doubt most of the trade of the Eastern Mediterranean was already in their hands. Between Mycenaean Cj^prus and Egypt the middlemen were, as we shall see, apparently Phoenicians; and what- ever commerce passed through Palestine from Meso- potamia to Cyprus and Greece must also have passed through their hands. Traces of Asiatic influence transmitted obviously through Phoenicia and Cyprus are not wanting in Mycenaean Greece: such Phoeni- cian-looking objects as the gold representations of Ashtoreth and of her temple which were discovered in the shaft-graves of the akropolis of Mycenas can only have come thither by way of Cyprus; the doves on the shoulders of the goddess and on the eaves of her temple are surely reminiscent of the general Greek conception of the Paphian Aphrodite.2 We cannot,

1 Cf. WINCKLER, Tell el-Amarna Letters, Nos. 81, 124, 151, &c.

2 SCHUCHHARDT, Scliliemann, figs. 180-183. Other late objects from these tombs: ib. figs. 172, 1 86, 187. Prof. GARDNER explains the conjunction of late and early objects in these apparently early tombs in New Chapters in Greek History, p. 77.



however, with certainty date these objects as early as the ceiling of Orchomenos, or the vases of the tombs of Rekhmara and RamesesIIL; their general appearance points to a much later time, and even suggests the very latest phase of the Mycenaean period; they closely re- semble many of the newly-discovered late-Mycenaean ob- jects from Cyprus, which cannot be much older than the eighth century. They may, how- ever, be much older: Phoenician artistic influence was probably of much the same character in the fifteenth as in the

... , FIG. 42. — Ivory Mirror-handle, from

eighth century B. C. Mycense, of Cyprian late-Mycenaean


1 The majority of the

gold and silver vases, &c., commonly brought to Egypt under the XVIIIth and XlXth Dynasties by Semites as tribute are


But we cannot speak definitely of Phoenician influence on Mycenasan culture at the earlier of these dates. After the break-up of the Achaian thalassocracy, the Phoenicians seem to have for many years dominated the ^Bgean; direct Phoenician influence must, there- fore, have been felt in Greece as early as the tenth century. But before that time we have no proof that the Phoenicians had reached the -^Bgean: between Cyprus and the West the mediators were probably the " Mycenseans " themselves. Of the relations be- tween the Phoenicians and Greece in post-Mycenasan days we shall have occasion to speak later; for the Mycengeans they can have had hardly any importance other than that of carriers between Egypt, Palestine, and Cyprus. It is noticeable that not a single object of Mycenaean origin has, apparently, been found in Phoenicia or the neighbouring lands of Syria, Cilicia, &c.

It is remarkable that in the early Mycenasan period no attempt seems to have been made to introduce the cuneiform script from Mesopotamia into Greece. That Greek could be intelligibly written in a syllabic cha- racter like that of Mesopotamia is shown by the in- stance of the Cypriote syllabary, which at a later time

obviously Phoenician imitations of Egyptian work. Even the tri- bute of the Mycenaean Keftiu (, p. 166, n. 2) contained many such Phoenician imitations. ( Cf. v. BISSING, Eine .Bronzeschale mykenischer Zeit, in Jahrb. Arch. Inst. xiii. p. 28 ff., on this sub- ject. But the early bronze dishes, such as the bowl of Tahuti, in the Louvre, are of purely Egyptian origin, not Phoenician imitations.)


began to be used for writing Greek in Cyprus, and con- tinued in use till the fourth century. And if cunei- form could be so modified as to be conveniently used to write Old-Persian, it could equally well have been used to write Greek or the old Pelasgic speech. The fact that cuneiform did not pass to Greece through Asia Minor looks almost as if the tribes of Asia Minor already possessed a script of their own which barred the way to cuneiform. Can we then conclude that the ' ' Hittite " hieroglyphs already existed in Mycenaean times? It might well, however, have been expected that cuneiform would have reached Greece through the medium of the Phoenicians and Cypriotes. During the Mycenaean age the cuneiform script was used by all the Semitic nations of Western Asia, and among them by the Phoenicians: the alphabet had seemingly not yet been devised. If the probable identification of Alashiya with Cyprus is accepted,1 cuneiform was used in that island in the fifteenth century, and if Arsapi, the kingdom of Tarhundaraus, is to be placed on the Cilician coast, it was used to write a native language of Asia Minor at the same epoch.2 Yet it never seems to have been used in Cyprus for the purpose of writing Greek, and we have no evi- dence that it ever passed along the coast of Asia Minor farther west than Cilicia. But the Babylonian custom of writing on a clay tablet with a stilus passed as far west as Crete, where it was adopted by the Mycenaeans of Knossos for their pictographic script.

1 V. post, p. 163.

2 Tell el-Amarna Letter, Berlin 10.


Are we to conclude that the Mycenasans already possessed a writing-system of their own before they came into contact with the cuneiform-using nations? It would seem odd if a culture so highly developed in many ways should not have embraced a system of expressing ideas by signs. In Crete and Cyprus, and at Mycenaa, " pictographic " systems of writing were in use in the Mycensean period. In Crete the signs were not only scratched upon potsherds, as is the case at Mycenas, and engraved upon seal-stones, but were incised upon prepared clay tablets after the Babylonian fashion, as we have noted above. Our knowledge of these tablets is due to Mr. A. J. Evans, who discovered large collections of them in the course of his excavation of the Mycenaean palace at Knossos. Many of them apparently contain accounts, inventories of ships, chariots, horses, swine, &c.: thus much we can guess from the pictures, for there is as yet no prospect of their being read.1 This system, with its linear development or variant, which is used on most of the Knossian tablets,2 appears to have been exclusively confined to Crete, and was not used elsewhere in the Mycenaean world. The Cretan script has been connected with that of Asia Minor, and it might at first sight seem probable that this

1 It has been already noted (p. 19, n.) that the attempt of KLUGE to read the pictographs with the aid of Greek is an absolute failure. Here, as in the case of the Hittite script, Lycian might prove to be the key to the language.

a Mr. Evans seems to regard the linear signs as earlier than the fully developed pictographs. This is contrary to what one would expect. He also advances the view that they belonged to two distinct races, the users of the purely pictographic signs being the Eteokretans (Ann. Brit. Sell. Atli. 1899-1900, p. 61).


mode of writing had been adopted by some of the Mycenaean tribes from their Asiatic neighbours before they had come into contact with the cuneiform- using Semites. But no close resemblance exists between the Cretan pictographs and the " Hittite " hieroglyphs, and we have no evidence beyond mere surmise of their having existed contem- poraneously.1

It seems preferable to regard the Cretan signs as a development peculiar to Crete. Other similar pictographic systems may have existed in other parts of Greece and the West daring the Bronze Age: for instance, the signs which have been found on vase- fragments from Mycenae2 probably belong to a writing system entirely independent of that of Crete. The Mycenaean tribes, therefore, in all probability pos- sessed different means of expressing ideas in picture- writing before they came into contact with the users of the cuneiform or the "Hittite" scripts; but it remains odd that neither of these modes of writing was adopted by them to supersede their own less developed systems, and that no common mode of writing may have existed in Greece until the

1 The Cretan script is far more probably connected with the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, to the hieratic form of which the Cretan signs bear a remarkable general resemblance. Against the idea of a connection with Egyptian hieratic, how- ever, it might be urged that, as stated by Mr. EVANS (Ann. Brit. Sch. Ath. vi. p. 59), the Cretan script "invariably reads from left to right." Is this, however, certain? The seated figure and the birds on the tablet illustrated by him (loc. cit. Plate ii. ) face to the right, i.e., on the analogy of Egyptian, the beginning of the line.

2 TSOUNTAS-MANATT, p. 268, figs. 137, 138, 139.


introduction of the Phoenician alphabet in post- Mycenaean times.1

Generally speaking, it is not a little curious that the widespread civilization of Babylonia should have had so much less regular connection with and exercised so much less real influence upon the development of Mycenaean culture than the distant civilization of Egypt. And whereas Mycenaean objects are constantly found in Egypt, nothing Mycenaean seems to have been yet found in Asia east of Kara-Eyuk in Cappadocia.

1 Yet it is no less odd that the Cypriote Greeks should so long have retained their cumbrous syllabary when their Phoeni- cian fellow-islanders were using a simple alphabet.



IT has already been pointed out that relations of some kind seem to have existed between Greece and Egypt in pras-Mycenaean. days. This is shown chiefly by the occurrence of glass and ivory objects in the cist-graves of the Greek islands, by the pre- sence of Egyptian objects of the time of the Xllth Dynasty exclusively in pras-Mycenasan sites and graves in Crete, and by the occurrence of the black pras-Myceneean pottery with objects of the Xllth and Xlllth Dynasties at Kahun and Khata'anah in Egypt. It may be noted that Pro- fessor Petrie has adduced as further evidence for this connection at this time a fragment of a blue stone vase inscribed with the cartouche of King Usertesen I. (Xllth Dynasty, about B.C. 2450), the material of which he considers to have come from the ^Egean.1 It is, however, obvious that the material may equally well have come from some place nearer Egypt, perhaps in the Western -Desert, the knowledge of which has been lost. However, the general cogency or want of cogency of the

1 PETEIE, Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara, p. 42; LOFTIB, Essay of Scarabs, p. 16. Brit.Mus. No. 24118. The style of the hiero- glyphs shows that the vase is of Usertesen's (see p. 320) time.


arguments connecting prae-Mycenasan Greece with the Egypt of the third millennium B.C. may be sufficiently estimated from the evidence adduced in Ch. III., " The Question of Date."

The commerce of this period can hardly have been very highly developed; in all probability the few objects of prae-Mycengean origin found in Egypt and of Egyptian origin found in the ^Egean had only reached their respective destinations after having been bartered from hand to hand and from tribe to tribe. It is unlikely that the Egyptians had any knowledge of the ^Egean Islands at this early period; the;C Isles of the Very Green " mentioned in texts of the time of the YIth Dynasty are probably only the coast-lands of the Delta, and the same " islands " mentioned in the Story of Sanehat, a tale of the early days of the Xllth Dynasty, cannot be brought in as evidence on the question, as it was apparently composed at a date much later than that of the period of which it treats.1

The route by which this trade was carried on is not yet finally determined, but it would seem likely that the only available route from the .^Egean to the Nile mouths must have run either by land or sea along the Asiatic coast vid Cyprus.

A theory has, however, lately been put forward, according to which a direct connection between Crete and the coast of Africa already existed at the period of the Xllth Dynasty — i.e. about 2500 B.C. It is attempted to prove that this connection was a very close one, and that it had a very great influence on 1 MASPEBO, Records of the Past, ii. (2nd series).


the prge-Mycensean culture of Greece. The theory is even extended to prove a connection between Crete and the archaic civilization of Egypt, which must date to about 4000 B.C. If pushed to its logical extreme this theory, or rather its further extension, might take back the prse-Mycenaean culture of Greece to a period some two thousand years anterior to the generally accepted date for it, and bring some at least of the elements of the most ancient civilization of Egypt from the mound of Hissarlik, or vice versd. The extension of the theory also seeks to show that a connection between Crete and Libya also existed at this remote date.

The inception of this certainly most suggestive theory is due to Mr. A. J. Evans.1 We have already seen reason to criticize it in some degree when deal- ing with the question of Mycenaean dates: we can now discuss it more fully.

It has already been noted that the geographical position of Crete is such that it offers a convenient route simply from continental Greece to Asia, and not from the ^Egean to Africa. On geographical grounds a direct connection between Crete and Egypt at this time is extremely improbable; we have no right to suppose that the primitive islanders, who had not long emerged from the Stone Age, were better sailors than the Homeric Greeks, to whom the direct voyage from Crete to Egypt still seemed an unusual and remarkable adventure. On this account an objection may be preferred against the theory of

1 Cretan Pictographs and Further Discoveries of Cretan and Scripts (7. H. 8. xvii. p. 327 ff).



direct connection. We have now to examine the archaeological evidence for it, and to see if this can outweigh the geographical objection.

In Crete Mr. Evans has acquired a number of seals of various shapes, made some of soft steatite, others of hard jasper and cornelian, bearing designs of a peculiar kind; some consisting of spirals and similar ornaments, some representing animals and men, while on pthers certain objects — e.g., birds, parts of the human body, animal heads, weapons, vases, &c., so constantly reappear in varying combinations that the conclusion is forced upon us that they are hiero- glyphics, and belong to a pictorial system of repre- senting ideas. In Chapter V. we have assumed this to have been the case. On other seals linear forms of the same " pictographs " are found, which offer many points of resemblance to the later Cypriote script. The pictographs themselves often resemble both Syrian (" Hittite ") and Egyptian hieroglyphs; the likeness to the latter is sometimes so close as to suggest that the Cretan engraver had an Egyptian model before him. The original provenience of the greater number of these seal-stones is doubtful, but they seem to come mostly from the eastern end of Crete, where in later times the pras-Hellenic tribe of the Eteokretans lived. Mr. Evans therefore surmises that these pictographs belonged to the Eteokretans. The seal-stones are apparently entirely confined to Crete; only a few specimens, obviously imported from Crete, have been found in the Peloponnese. They appear to be of various dates; many are Mycenaean in character, some are apparently later, dating from


the " archaic " period of Greek art, while others, such as those from the Hagios Onouphrios deposit, go back to pras-Mycenaean times. Mr. Evans apparently considers the majority to be of prae-Mycenaean date.1 He then compares the spiral patterns found on many of these seals with the well-known spiral patterns of the Egyptian scarabs of the Old and Middle kingdoms. He finds such striking resemblances between the Cretan and Egyptian patterns that he considers that the Cretan seals must date approximately to the period of the Xllth Dynasty — i.e., about 2500 B.C. Implicitly the pictographic seals must mostly be of the same date, and this, he thinks, is confirmed by his discovery in the Dictaean Cave on Mount Ida of a " table of offerings " of an Egyptian type which some archaeologists consider to be of Xllth Dynasty date, which is inscribed with linear Cretan characters, and by the resemblance between many of these linear cha- racters and the potter's marks found by Prof. Petrie at Kahun. These comparisons and finds he also con- siders to prove a close and direct connection between Crete and Egypt under the Xllth Dynasty — i.e., in prae-Mycenaean times. This connection Mr. Evans apparently considers to have been established across the open sea from Crete to Libya and the Delta, and is perhaps confirmed in this opinion by the absence

1 The possibility that the Eteokretans, who, as we have seen, were one of those prae-Hellenic peoples to whom the prse- Mycensean culture may be assigned, were the original possessors of the Cretan pictographic script can hardly be held to prove the prse-Mycensean date of this script, since the Eteokretans may quite well have continued to use it into Mycenaean times, or even later.


of the seal-stones from Cyprus; neither the spirals nor the Cretan pictographs have ever been found in Cyprus, either in prae-Mycensean graves or elsewhere.1 The further development of this theory has already been mentioned, and before we discuss Mr. Evans's main theory we will first see how far its development can be accepted.2

A number of cylinders and other perforated stone objects, possibly seals, have been found in Egypt which are ornamented with roughly incised designs of men and animals, Egyptian hieroglyphs, &c. These objects, which are claimed to belong entirely to the Old Kingdom (4000-3000 B.C.), are compared with some of the ruder Cretan seal-stones; certain resemblances between the two classes of objects are held to prove that the ruder Cretan seals date to this period and that connection existed between Crete and Egypt then. The Egyptian objects with which they are compared do not, however, appear to be exclusively of this early period; one which is noted by Mr. Evans is more probably of Xllth Dynasty date.3 Of the Cretan seals with which they are compared none are cylinders. Some of them are

1 Pictographs analogous to those of Crete have, however, now been found in Cyprus (v. post, p. 265).

2 Many of the arguments used to prove the early date of the supposed Libyan-Cretan connection have been adduced by Prof. Petrie. Of. generally, on relations between Egypt and early Europe, PETRIE, in Trans. It. Soc. Lit., xix. i. The arguments in favour of a connection between the " New Race " culture and that of prae-Mycenaean Greece mast now be taken as being in favour of a connection between the prehistoric culture of the Egyptians and that of the Prae-Mycenaeans (cf. ante, p. 15).

3 EVANS, /. H. S., xvii. tig. 30, p. 364.


three-sided; a three-sided seal with rude designs has been found at Karnak.1 This seal has a very wide perforation; Egyptian cylinders of the time of the Vlth Dynasty have wide perforations. It is, therefore, concluded that the Karnak seal dates to the time of the Vlth Dynasty. The Cretan three- sided seals will therefore also date to about that time. The designs on the other Egyptian seals instanced by Mr. Evans are purely Egyptian in character, but on the Karnak seal, although the other hiero- glyphics on it are also purely Egyptian, he sees one thing which he would especially connect with Crete — a horned man, the Cretan Minotaur. But it may be pointed out that this man is more pro- bably the Egyptian hieroglyph jj£ signifying "a

soldier "; his supposed horns are more probably only the feathers which the Egyptian soldier wore on his head. If this explanation be accepted, the supposed connection of this seal with Crete dis- appears; common triangularity of shape and common rudeness of execution seem hardly sufficient grounds on which to suppose a connection between it and the similar seals from Crete, when it is seen that the signs on it are not in the least Cretan in character but are merely ordinary Egyptian hieroglyphs. On the supposed specific connection of this seal with Crete rests most of the supposed connection between the other rude Egyptian seals and the ruder of the Cretan engraved stones.

A further argument for a connection between

1 J. H. S. xvii. p. 362, fig. 28.


Crete, and also the ^Egean generally, with Egypt at this period is found in certain resemblances between certain Cretan stone vases of prae-Mycenasan date and early Egyptian stone vases, and between the prse-Mycenaean style of pottery generally and the Egyptian pottery of the prehistoric and archaic

periods, which was at first assigned to a "New Race" of Libyan origin. The archaic vases, whether of stone or earthenware, of both Egypt and of Greece, are equally primitive: but it is difficult to see how this can prove any connection be- tween them. Cer- tain curious designs on the earliest Egyp- tian 'vases look at first sight as if they were meant to be

representations of boats. These supposed boats appear to be sailless, and not of Nilotic type; in them Professor Petrie sees the Mediterranean galleys which brought the Cretans to Egypt at this period. Mr. Torr, however, considers these supposed '"'ships" to be merely rude representa- tions of two huts on a hill or rampart with a path

FIG. 43.— Prehistoric Egyptian "Boat- Vase"; c. 4500 B.C., or earlier.


leading up to them.1 The mast then resolves itself into an Egyptian nome-standard, an object at the end of the "boat" becomes a palm-tree, and Pro- fessor Petrie's " steering-oar" is perhaps a pole stuck in the ground. But certain discoveries of prehistoric representations of ships made lately at Hierakonpolis would seem to show that the objects depicted on the

FIG. 44. — Fragment of an archaic Egyptian Slate Relief of same date as Fig. 45, showing the style of art with which it has been proposed to connect that of Mycenae.

vases may be boats after all; 2 but that these boats were the ships which plied between Crete and Egypt some four thousand years B.C. nothing can ever show. These predynastic Egyptian vases have been supposed

1 TORE, in IS Anthropologie, ix. 32.

2 These ships closely resemble the " boats " on the vases. Mr. Torr's explanation will be awaited with interest.


to have a Libyan appearance, and a connection has been presumed to have existed between Libya and Greece about 4500 B.C. because prae-Myceneean and Libyan vase-designs perhaps resemble those of archaic Egypt. But we cannot say that there is any- thing Libyan about these Egyptian vases, or that Libyan vase-designs resemble their ornamentation, for the simple reason that we possess no Libyan vase of the date of the prehistoric Egyptian vases, and have not the slightest idea of what Libyan vases may have been like at that period. Whether the bodies found in the prehistoric Egyptian graves have any " Libyan " characteristics or not remains doubtful; Prof. Virchow suggests that the supposed fair-haired Libyans of the Ballas graves owe their reddish locks not to a " xanthous Kabyle " origin, but to the action of the salt in the soil! l Libya, there- fore, must be provisionally shelved, and so we see that these arguments are by no means con- vincing, and cannot be said to in any way prove a connection between Crete and Egypt or generally between Europe and Africa as early as 4500 B.C. To the question of the ^Egean vase-fragments found in the graves of the archaic Egyptian kings Semerkhat and Tcha we have already alluded (ante, p. 74). The fragment of an aichaic Egyptian slate relief (illustrated on the following page, Fig. 45), which dates back to the 1st Dynasty (c. 4000 B.C., or earlier), has been claimed as showing a connection

1 Vber die ethnologische Stellung der prdhistorisclien und proto- historischen Agypter, nebst BemerTcungen uber Entfdr'bung und Verfdrbung der Haare (AbhandL kgl. preuss. Akatf. 1898).


between archaic Egyptian and Mycenaean design: the bull goring the man being compared with the

FIG. 45. — Fragment of an archaic Egyptian Slate Relief, in the Louvre; c. 4000 B.C.

well-known scenes of ravpoKaBd^ia on the fresco at Tiryns, the Vaphio cups, &c.; but there is no real COD- nection of any kind here. This Egyptian bull merely


symbolizes the king, who is goring his enemy, while the gods Anubis, Upuaut, Thoth, Horus, and Min, symbolized by their totem-standards, pull the rope which binds the king's enemies and drags them to slaughter. We can now turn to the discussion of Mr. Evans's main theory, which seeks to prove close connection, implying direct communication, between Egypt and Crete in prae-Mycensean times, on the evidence of the seal-stones.

We have seen that the prse-Mycengean culture of Cyprus and the ^Egean must have been more or less contemporary with the Egyptian period of the "Middle Kingdom" to which the Xllth Dynasty belongs, and was in communication with Egypt at that time. That pras-Mycenaean Crete was in com- munication with Xllth Dynasty Egypt is then quite possible, and the possibility is made a probability by the discovery in Cretan tombs of the primitive period of Egyptian scarabs of the Middle Kingdom.1 Also, coming down somewhat later, from the proto-Myce- nasan strata of the palace at Knossos comes the lower part of an Egyptian statuette which is un- doubtedly of Xllth or XHIth Dynasty date.2 But though the similarity between the spiral designs of the Egyptian scarabs of the Middle Kingdom and the Cretan spirals on the seal-stones is certainly striking,

1 At Hagios Onouphrios. The fact that the prse- Mycenaean culture must date to at latest before 1600 B.C. (p. 71, ante) shows that these scarabs cannot be much older than the objects with which they were found: in all probability they are abso- lutely contemporary with them.

2 This piece of evidence appears, however, to be of doubtful value: see Addenda, p. 320, post.


it could hardly have beeii held to prove connection had not the above evidence existed. The other evidence which Mr. Evans brings forward as further confirmation of the theory of close connection is not so satisfactory. The inscribed table of offerings from the Dictsean Cave has an Egyptian appearance, and may therefore have been copied from an Egyptian original, but not necessarily at the time of the Xllth Dynasty; also, such altars are apparently not uni- versally considered to date exclusively to that period.1 Two primitive-looking pots have been found in Crete with signs scratched upon them which appear to be identical with some of the linear signs of the seals,2 but it would be necessary to know the conditions under which these vases were found before they could be pronounced to be undoubtedly prse-Mycengean; the presumption that they are prse-Mycenaean is, however, quite legitimate. But between these linear signs and the potter's marks from Kahun there is only a rough similarity, from which no connection can be deduced.3 If we put this doubtful evidence

1 There seerns to be no reason to suppose that Egyptian " Tables of Offerings " of the type of that found in the Dictsean Cave are necessarily of Xllth Dynasty date and of that date only. Some of the signs upon it look like mere rude imitations of

Egyptian hieroglyphs; a [ {j J, a |, and a \X are recognizable.

There is little doubt that the Cretan script vras very strongly influenced by Egyptian writing (v. ante, p. 141, n. i).

2 EVANS, Pictograjphs, figs. 4, 5.

3 It seems impossible to argue anything from mere rudely incised marks of this kind. Such marks are found on Egyptian pottery of the Vlth Dynasty, and occur again under the XVIIIth, a difference of two thousand years!


on one side, the fact remains that many of the seal- stones, among them certainly some of those with spiral designs, are of prae-Mycenaean (" Amorgan ") date and so contemporary with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom; the seals from Hagios Onouphrios prove this. The question is whether the undoubted similarity between the Cretan spiral designs and those of Egyptian Middle Kingdom scarabs proves, in the absence of any trace of the passage of Egyptian artistic influence at this early period from Egypt to Crete vid Cyprus, that Crete communicated with Egypt at this time directly across the open sea. It seems hardly pos- sible that Egyptian Xllth Dynasty patterns were copied by the Cretans of the Mycenaean period in preference to the Egyptian styles of their own day, so that no theory of later imitation will account for this similarity. The spiral is a very obvious form of ornament, and occurs all over the world, from China to Mexico. Are the spirals of the Cretan seal-stones — and therefore the whole system of early Greek spiral decoration also — really an artistic development quite independent of the Egyptian spirals? On both seal-stones and scarabs space is confined, and a spiral design would naturally have to take much the same form on both. If this could be accepted as the cause of the resemblance, there would be no ground for the supposition that the whole spiral system of orna- ment so characteristic of the Mycenaean period really originated in Egyptian scarab-designs.1 In that case

1 In Science Progress (1896) Mr. MYEES says that spirals were the dominant feature of Egyptian art under the Xllth Dynasty, but there is little evidence of this beyond the use of spirals on


there would in the evidence of communication between the ^Egean and Egypt be nothing which need cause us to doubt that it was through Cyprus and Palestine only that any connection between Crete and Egypt can have existed in prae-Mycenaean times.1 On the whole, then, we seem justified in thinking that whatever commerce there was between the ^Egean lands and Egypt in prae-Mycenaean days was carried on by way of Cyprus and the Palestinian coast.

We cannot be sure as to the people through whom this early " commerce " was carried on. The Phoe- nicians had possibly not yet reached the shores of the Mediterranean at this date, and it is very impro- bable that the islanders had as yet voyaged farther from the ^Egean than Cyprus. Neither the Phoe- nicians nor the islanders are likely to have been the middlemen whom we seek. On the whole it would seem most probable that the prae-Mycenaean pottery was brought to Egypt from Cyprus through the medium of the Palestinian tribes, whose culture seems to have been akin to that of the prae- Mycenaean s of Greece and Asia Minor, and the non- scarabs. The spiral motive for wall decoration, &c., seems to have been in Egypt used chiefly at the time of the XVIIIth- XlXth Dynasties, perhaps a thousand years after the time of the Xllth Dynasty. It is quite possible that the European spiral originated merely in copper wirework (cf. a copper-wire pin worked into spirals, figured by MUCH, Die Kupferzeit, Fig. 34, p. 56). MUCH remarks, ib. p. 55, " Zudem gehort das Spiral- gewinde in seinen verschiedenen Arten zu den f riihesten Erschein- ungen der Metallzeit iiberhaupt." For good examples of prae- Mycensean spirals cf. Figs. 6, 7, ante.

1 Only one or two Cretan seal-stones have been found in Egypt,, and these may quite well have come thither by the coast route.


Egyptian inhabitants of the Delta. These last were known to the Egyptians by the generic name of

! (Haau,"Fenmen" or "Northerners")


or f 1 (Hau-nebu, "(All the) Fenmen" or

" Northerners "). They were settled in Egypt as early as the time of the YIth Dynasty, and probably earlier; and in the religious texts of the pyramids of the kings Pepi I. and Merenra (about 3500 B.C.) the "circle of the Hau-nebu 1 is a regular designation for the bar- barian lands on the coast of the Uatcli-ur, the " Very Green " or " Great Green " — i.e., the Mediterranean Sea. At a very early period the Hau were already regarded by the Egyptians with abhorrence as being entirely outside the pale of the Egyptian religious system.2 Under the Xllth Dynasty they were apparently still regarded by the Egyptians as inferior beings, hateful to the Gods. After this

1 Tebn Hanebu. The idea is probably that of the twist round of the Palestinian coast from Egypt. It may be noted that the name by which the Palestinian coast-land was known to the Egyptians in later days, Keti (Kode), also means " Circle."

2 Book of the Dead, chs. xcix. introd. , clxi., cxc. In the rubric to ch. clxi. we read: " Every ghost (scihu) for whom these divine figures have been painted upon his coffin shall make his way through these four entrances into heaven (i.e., the gates of the Winds). . . . Let none who is outside know [this chapter]; it is a great Mystery, and the Hau know it not. Thou shalt not do this in the presence of any person except thy father or thy son, or thyself alone; for it is, indeed, an exceedingly great Mystery which no man whatever knoweth." And in the rubric to ch. cxc.: " This book is indeed a very great Mystery, and thou shalt never allow any person whatsoever of the Hau to see it." So Haau came to mean "ignorant people."


time, as the Egyptians increased their knowledge of the Mediterranean, so the name " Hau-nebu " became extended to mean " Northern Barbarians " generally, whether in the Delta or in the Greek islands or in Asia Minor; and finally under the Saites and Ptolemies the priestly antiquarians revived the name as a designation for the Greeks generally. Originally these Hau-nebu were certainly neither Greeks nor " ^Egeans " of any kind.1 With them the Egyptians 1 Cf. generally W. M. MULLEB, Asien und Europa, p. 24 ff.

His theory, that the form _ was originally

(Hau-henv, " those north of the swamps "), and that the word Hau-nebu originated in this mistake, is interesting. The mis-

take was very old, for the Haau are called ^Jy ^ — •' (Hau- nebu) in the pyramid-inscriptions of Pepi. Dr. BUDGE (Book of the Dead, Translation, pp. 289, 354) considers that the word Haau (or Hau) itself means" those dwelling in the papyrus swamps"; in the Book of the Dead the name is

often written Yj^^^j, sj£f$j'a form which

strongly supports this translation. The ^^ or v. /* of the

T=T form then = the of the Book of the Dead. So

that, instead of yT ^—s reading Hau-henu, and meaning "those north of the swamps," it will simply read Hau, and mean " Fenmen ": the v — / being merely a corrupt determinative.

The sign ^jP was also used as a determinative of the word SI

(mehti), "North": this use arose from its primary


no doubt carried on trade, in spite of their religious dislike for the " ignorant fentnen," and it was no doubt through them, and the Palestinian tribes to the north of them, that the pra6-Mycena3an vases found in Egypt with remains of the period of the u Middle Kingdom " (Xlth-XIVth Dynasties), were brought thither from Cyprus (where vases of

meaning "papyrus," the Northern Delta being the Papyrus- land par excellence. So that to an Egyptian \if ^— s would

convey the idea " Northerners " quite as much as that of "Fenmen." That this was so is shown by the form

7, which occurs in the Book of the

ch. ex. 1. 20: "Let me live with the god Hetep ('Best' or

oc^< ^—^

'Peace'), clothed and not despoiled by the ' /WW\A ^^."

Here for the papyrus-sign is substituted the word meht, "North." The instances collected by W. M. MULLEE (loc. cit., p. 27) show without doubt that the corrupt determinative

ocrx. v s

was often taken to mean "all": x /wwv\ v^y

no doubt meant " All the Northerners," or perhaps " Lords of the

North" ( v / = "Lord" as well as "all"), to most readers, who

probably had little idea that the original form of the word was

^ & ft I

\~y VyZ} JU | (Haau), " Fenmen ": so that

££ 2*1 ill i

was, no doubt, read Meht-nebu or Ha-nebu, and con- sidered to mean "All the Northerners" by many an Egyptian from Pepi's time onwards. From the meaning " behind," which

belongs to }\[ (ha), is derived the translation "Those who

o are behind their lords," which used sometimes to be given for


identical type have been found), and the ivory and fragments of glass cups found in the ^Egean Islands- came to them from Egypt.

We have already discussed the evidence which shows that relations between Egypt and Greece existed during the Mycenaean period, and may appa- rently be dated as far back as 1550 B.C. We have also seen that these relations were pretty constant:

&^^^^^j3p .«

•^BBBBBfeitv . ^3. IT .

FIG. 46. — Mycenaean Biigelkannen from Egypt.

for many centuries Mycenaean vases and other objects were exported to Egypt, where they were probably regarded much in the same way as Chinese and Japanese curios are in Europe to-day, while Egyptian artistic designs and objects of Egyptian manufacture passed in exchange even as far as the centres of Mycenaean civilization in continental Greece.

Who were the Mycenaean Keftiu who brought apparently Mycenaean objects of art to the Court of Thothmes III.? In Ptolemaic times Keftiu was used as a translation of <J>otvtio]: the biblical



Kaphtor has always been considered to be Crete. That the Keftiu Q^^C^), or Kefthu

of the XVIIIth Dynasty was not

Phoenicia is quite certain: first, because the Keftiu were Mycenseans of European facial type and not Semites; secondly, because the old Egyptian name for Phoenicia was Zalii, not Keftiu. It has been finally and conclusively proved by Mr. W. M. Miiller that the Keftiu of the sixteenth cen- tury B.C. was not Phoenicia, whatever else it may have been.1 QoiviKrj was translated "Keftiu" in Ptolemaic times by some priestly antiquarian or other, some learned Manetho, who was acquainted with the great historical inscriptions of the XVIIIth Dynasty, and understood that the Keftiu mentioned in them lay somewhere to the north of Egypt (north- westward according to Egyptian notions), and so identified it with Phoenicia, taking the opportunity to perpetuate his theory in the first great inscription which he was commissioned to translate into hiero- glyphs, a task which in Ptolemaic times only an archaeologist could have undertaken.

Where then was the real and original Keftiu? The Keftiu are mentioned in conjunction with tribes of Syria, and as beyond the Kheta. In the " Hymn

1 Asien und Europa, p. 337 ff. To suppose that Keftiu = Phoenicia in Ptolemaic times, therefore it = Phoenicia under the XVIIIth Dynasty, is no more necessary than to suppose that because the Haunebu of Ptolemaic days were Hellenes, therefore the Haunebu of the Vlth Dynasty were Hellenes, is necessary. Mr. TORE (Memphis and Mycence, pp. 67, 68) accepts the one supposition and rejects the other.


of Amen," quoted on p. 165, they are mentioned with Asi (certainly part of Cyprus) as being in the west. Their land must then be placed in juxtaposition to Syria, but westward of it. The most northerly people of the Palestinian coast with whom the Egyptians then had regular relations were

the inhabitants of Alashiya or (j & < > Rip *| rvxo

Alasa, a country which may be placed with great probability in Cyprus.1 It seems, therefore, im-

1 It has been supposed that Alashiya was in Cyprus, because copper was exported thence to Egypt ( WINCKLER, Tell el-Amarna Letters, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33). It was a commercial and maritime country (ib. 29, 33), and not apparently in Canaan (ib. 31). The name of the Alashiyan city Sihru, mentioned in Letter 28, is Semitic; of those of the Alashiyans mentioned in Letter 26, Pastumme, Kuniea, Etilluna, . . . gurrumma, Usbarra, and Belram, only two are Semitic. The others do not look in the least Greek, so that they may perhaps be assigned to the pre- Hellenic population. On Alashiya see further, Addenda, p. 320, post. Other Egyptian names for Cyprus or parts of Cyprus were

Asi (cf. W. M. MiiLLER, toe. tit., p. 337), and

  • \ n /^AAA n A

ft U "^ U U ^^^ .... ntanai, both old names.

U I _c£& I I

/\ \\ " Nebinaiiet " or "Nebinaiti " (?), a Ptole-

maic name (Stele of Canopus, I. 9; BUDGE, Egyptian Reading Bool:, p. 228; cf. W. M. MiJLLEE, loc. cit. p. 336), is corrupt; the


initial . is obviously wrong. It is a misreading of the

genuine name .... ntanai, which seems to me to be very pos- sibly the same word as the Assyrian name for Cyprus, Atnana or Yatnana, which we first meet with 700 years later than the mention of .... ntanai. The transposition of nt into t n presents

/wwv\ n

no difficulty: and the simple emendation of the yv and Jl



probable that Kef tiu can have been very far westward from Alashiya; W. M. Miiller (loc. cit. p. 336 ff.) regards it as a part of the Cilician coast. But this is an impossible identification; we have no ^ _ i evidence of Mycenaean cul- ture in Cilicia (cf. STEIN- DORFF, Arch. Anz. 1892). Now the Keftiu exported copper to Egypt: a copper- producing land in prox- imity to Syria is wanted. Cyprus is clearly indicated, also Cyprus is the most easterly Mycenaean land — FIG. 47.— Mycenaean Gold and the nearest to Egypt — in

Silver Vase; from a wall-paint- foe position which W6 re- ing m the tomb of Rekhmara, . A

c. 1550 B.C. quire for Keftiu.1 But that

" Keftiu " did not mean ta

the Egyptians Cyprus alone is made very probable by the discovery, made this year by Mr. A. J.

of the corrupt Ptolemaic form to and ft gives us the correct

/wwv\ U

A ~\ A AAAWA A f| XVIIIth Dynasty form of the name, •" J A (I ^ (1(1 f^^l

A/WVAA U I Jr^ 1 I

lantanai. 1 W. M. MULLER (loc. cit., p. 344) notes that Mennus

is mentioned in connection with Keftiu. This place is apparently MdXXos (MdpXos) in Cilicia. This leads him to identify Keftiu with Cilicia generally, but he says: "die Kupferbarren unter den Geschenken der Keftolente bezeugen, dass Cypern in den Namen Kefto einbegriffen war." On Keftian names which are. known to us, see Addenda, p. 321.



Evans, of frescoes in the Mycenaean palace at Knossos in Crete which show, as has already been mentioned (p. 54), that the Mycenasan Cretans were cer- tainly " Keftians." It is then probable that Kef tin was a general name for the whole northern coast of the Mediterranean, ranging from Cyprus through Pisidia and Lykia as far as Crete. This explana- tion would tally with the meaning of the name " Keftiu," which is an Egyptian word signifying "At the Back of" or ". Behind "l—i.e., Keftiu was the " Hinderland," " the country at the back of" the " Very Green " or Mediterranean Sea, no doubt synonymous with " at the back of beyond " to the Egyptian! It is more probable that the Keftiu who came into contact with Egypt were Cypriotes than Cretans; they exported copper to Egypt, and they are usually mentioned in conjunction with the Syrians, which would hardly have been the case if they had been Cretans and Cretans only. Also the Egyptian monumental evidence makes it probable that Cyprus was the only Mycenasan land with which the Egyp- tians can have come into direct and immediate contact at that time.

At Karnak the god Amen addresses Thothmes III. in inflated language thus: " I have come, I have given to thee to smite those who live in the midst of the Very Green with thy roarings ... the circuit of the Great Sea is grasped in thy fist. . . . Keftiu and Asi are under thy power. . . ." Here we need not

i, Jceftiu.

BRUGSCH, Worterbuch, p. 1493 5 APP- P-


assume a knowledge of the ^Egean Islands, but only of Cyprus and of the south coast of Asia Minor,1 which to the Egyptians no doubt appeared to be a series of islands, much as the Antarctic continent appears on our maps at the present day. To deduce from the high-flown language of this "hymn" an Egyptian hegemony over the ^Egean Islands and even over continental Greece itself in the days of Thothmes III. is absurd; all we can deduce from it is that the Egyptians had in his time come into close contact with the northern tribes, who, as we see from the paintings in the tombs already mentioned, were " Mycenaeans," who probably lived in Cyprus and the neighbouring lands to the westward. And though the great official Tahuti, who lived in the same reign, is styled " Governor of the Northern Coun- tries, Set over All the Lands and Isles in the midst of the Very Green," we, knowing the almost Chinese grandiloquence of the Egyptian " official style," cannot see in him anything more than a mere "Introducer of Northern Ambassadors.'1 We have no reason to suppose that even Cyprus, the nearest of the Mycenaean lands to Egypt, was in any sense subject to Egypt at this time, though it is men- tioned among the conquests of Thothmes III.'-

1 At this time " The Isles of the Very Green " can no longer have meant merely the coasts of the Delta.

- Keftiu certainly was not, for though the Keftiu are de- scribed as bringing tribute (lit. " things brought "), " since they love to exist by means of the emanation of His Majesty'* Thothmes III., such "tribute" does not imply any real Egyptian suzerainty; when Lord Amherst's embassy went to Peking it was preceded by officials bearing placards inscribed "Ambassadors with Tribute from the country of England."


We see, then, that many of the Mycenaean-looking* objects brought to Egypt by the Mycenaean Keftiu probably came from Cyprus, and no doubt many from

FIG. 48.— Ceiling of the "Treasury of Minyas," at Orchomenos (Kgyptian design).

Crete also. Certain indications observed in Greece would seem to show that at this time Egyptian influence had extended as far as the chief seats of Mycenaean civilization. The Egyptian influence evident in the Cretan script, the whole art of


Mycenaean fresco-painting, which is entirely on the Egyptian model, the Egyptian designs of the ceiling of Orchomenos, of the hunting-cats on the Mycenaean sword-blade (the original of which was certainly of the Eamessid period), and the palms on the cups of Yaphio and on many Mycenaean gems, are good evidence of

this. So that many of the Mycenasan. ob- jects found in Egypt may quite well have come from Crete, or even Greece itself.

Commerce between the ^Egean and Cyprus was, no doubt, in the hands of Mycenseans, perhaps lonians; but who were the inter- mediaries between Cyprus and Egypt? There is no question now of a mere passing of objects from hand to hand till at last they reached Egypt, as in prae- Mycenaean times, but of a fully developed seaborne commerce. We have no evidence that the Mycenaeans themselves exported their own wares to Egypt; the Keftiu of the Theban tombs were ambassadors, not merchants. They are introduced into the presence of Pharaoh by a Semite,1 and were probably in his charge.

FIG. 49.— Mycenaean Amphora, found in Egypt. (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. No. 4858.)

1 Certainly not a " Hittite " (i.e., Kheta) as v. BISSING, in the paper referred to in the next note, says.



That the merchants who brought Mycenaean wares to Egypt by sea in the reign of Amenhotep III. (about 1450 B.C.) were Semites appears to be shown by the wall-paintings of a tomb at Thebes dating from this reign, in which Semitic merchants are repre- sented as landing, with other objects, on an Egyptian quay, a Mycenaean vase of the type of Fig. 49, above.1 These Semites can only have been Phoeni- cians. As we have already remarked, we know from the Tell el-Amarna letters that the Phoenician cities were already flourishing at this time, and in Cyprus the Phoenicians had no doubt already come into contact with the Mycengeans.2 Many of the non-Mycenaean objects brought by the Keftiu to Egypt are obviously Phoenician imitations and am-

1 DABESSY, Rev. Arch, xxvii.; cf. HELBIG, Sitzber. der kgl. bayr. Akad., 1896, Heft iii.; and v. BISSING, Jahrb. Arch. Inst., 1898, p. 45 ff.

2 Confirmation of the view that the Greek cities of Cyprus were already founded not long after this period has perhaps been discovered in a series of northern, land-names in an inscription of Barneses III. (DuMiCHEN, Histor. Inschr., pis.

xi. xii. ), Salameski

i ( LpT1 \ I


, .




' and


have been identified with Salamis, Kition, Marion, Soloi, and Idalion (BRUGSCH, App. in SCHLIEMANN, Ilios, p. 749). The fact that these names are all found together in the above order is curious, and makes it very possible for us to really identify them with the Cypriote town-names which they resemble. They are mentioned in conjunction with Khaleb (Aleppo) and other towns of Syria. The -K at the end of the name of Salamis might


plifications of Egyptian designs. We can. therefore,, have little doubt that the middlemen who brought Mycenaean wares from Cyprus to Egypt and Egyptian wares to the Mycenaaans at this time were the Phoe- nicians. The chief entrepot where exchange took place must have been Cyprus, though, no doubt, Phoenician ships often got as far west as Crete. The Phoenician ships which took part in this trade are mentioned in an Egyptian inscription1 as " Keftiu-ships " — i.e., ships- which go to Keftiu, like our " East Indiamen."

But it may be objected that we have at Gurob in Egypt traces of a settlement of foreigners who used Mycenaaan vases, which dates to the time of the XlXth Dynasty (about 1350-1200 B.C.);2 the name of one of the foreigners buried at Gurob is An-Tursha;. the latter part of this name is the ethnic appellation of the Mediterranean tribe of the Tnrsha or Thuirsha^ which we have already mentioned; this tribe must have been comprised within the circle of Mycenaean civilization; therefore the foreigners at Gurob who- must have been Thuirsha were Mycenasans, and pro- bably brought to Egypt the Mycenaean objects which

be accounted for on the supposition that the Egyptian scribe was transliterating from a cuneiform original and had inad- vertently transliterated the cuneiform city-sign -ki with the name tialames. But it would be a strange mistake for any one familiar with cuneiform to make.

1 BRUGSCET, Egypt under the Pharaohs, i. p. 336. When Brugsch wrote his history, he believed, as did all other Egyp- tologists, on the authority of the Ptolemaic antiquaries, that Keftiu was Phrenicia.

- PETRIE, Ittahun, Kahun, and Gurob; Kahun, Gurol, and Hawara.


are found there. Now there were only two graves of foreigners found at Gurob, those of the officials Sadi- Amia and An-Tursha; in neither of these graves were any Mycenaean objects found. To suppose, therefore, that because An-Tursha was presumably a Mycenaean, the people in the other graves were Mycenaeans, and further that the Mycenaean vases in their graves were brought to Egypt by these same " Mycenaeans," is impossible. If we may modify the simile of Steindorff,1 we might with equal reason conclude that the Japanese porcelain in the house of a Londoner who lives near the Japanese Legation not only proves its owner to be a Japanese, but also shows that he himself imported it from Japan. We have no reason to suppose either that the people in whose graves Mycenaean vases were found at Gurob were not Egyptians, or that the vases in question were brought to them by anybody except Phoenician traders.

It may, however, be urged that since the Thuirsha and other Mediterranean tribes who had relations with Egypt at this time apparently lived in the ^Egean and on the Anatolian coast, and were great sailors, the possibility of their having imported Mycenaean objects into Egypt cannot be overlooked. Who were these tribes and what is the connection between them and the Mycenaean culture?

In the war of Rameses II. against the Kheta

JE^ ^—^*> (about 1300 B.C.) the ^. Ji

1 Arch. Anz., 1892.


i i i


Maunna (?)




<dasa, and /)

appear as allies of the Kheta. It seems on the face of it likely that these were warriors of

FIG. 50. — Sardina (Sardians) of the Xllth century B.C. (Thebes.)

the Lykian, Dardanian, Mysian,2 Pisidian, Kili- kian,3 and possibly Maeonian (?) races.

These identifications being accepted, we ought to have less difficulty in accepting the identification of the

1 For references v. W. M. MULLEK, loc. cit.t p. 354; chiefly 7i}. /. H. and Pap. Sallier.

2 Mi/o-ot d7xe/iaxot (11. xiii. 5). It does not much matter whether they were settled in Thrace or in Asia at this time.

! The KiXuees were said to have inhabited Thebai and

Lyrnessos in the Troad: other indications show that at one time this race spread right across Asia Minor (cf. HDT. v. 49, 52;. passages quoted by DEIMLING, loc. cit. pp. 14, 15).


a&a (Akaiuasha) and

Quirsa (Thuirsha), who invaded Egypt in company

  • "S*T ^L J^ c — c=*3 /WVAAA k (2 ( ^

with 3jH &v u \ I OT ' Sardma: Sar-

/TJVT- I \\ Jr\X I >^i I

dians,i ^ v I Sakalasa:

Sagalassians?, and Libyans, in the reign of Meren- ptah (about 1250 B.C.),2 with the Achai(v)ans and Tyrsenians, the latter being presumably Lydians, and so probably Mycenseans.

The identification of the Akaiuasha with the Achaians may stand.3 It is quite possible that these Achaians came from the .^Egean, perhaps from Crete; Prof. Sayce, however, prefers to regard them as Cypriotes. The identification of the Thuirsha with the "Tyrsenoi" of Lydia is, however, open to

1 These people, who were far more probably Sardians of Lydia than Sardinians (!), are first mentioned, as Sirdana, as mercenary troops serving in Palestine during the fifteenth century B.C. (WiNCKLER, Tell el-Amarna Letters, 64, 77, 100). They were- afterwards greatly in favour in Egypt as royal guards. Of. note to Fig. 50 in List of Illustrations.

2 The inscription of Merenptah is published in DUMICHBN, Histor. Inschr. i. 2-6; A. Z. 1881, p. 118.

3 It is accepted by W. M. MULLEB, loc. cit. p. 371. The- objection that the name ends in -slia is of no weight in view of the fact that the Egyptians called the KlXuces " Kalaki-sha " (sea further, p. 178), and the representation of Greek x by Egyptian q is paralleled by the Assyrian representation of K£\i/ces a& Khilakku (Hilakku). It has also been objected that these tribes were circumcised, and so were not Greeks; this objection has been shown by W. M. MULLEB (P. S. B. A. 1888, p. 147 ff) to be founded on a mistranslation of an Egyptian word: these tribes- were uncircumcised.


grave objections. We have no proof that such a people ever existed. We have already remarked that certain resemblances in religious ritual and in costume between Asia Minor and Etruria are noticeable.1 If we grant that these resem- blances are not mere coincidences, the criticism of the Herod otean legend of the wandering of Tyrsenos from Lydia which considers the whole story to have arisen from the likeness of the name of the Lydian " Toreboi " to that of the Tyrrhenians 2 would fae considerably shaken. But, on the other hand, a migration from Lydia is rendered doubtful by the fact already noted, that the descent of the Etruscans from Central Europe across the Po Valley to Etruria is said to be plainly traceable. On this account the Etruscan culture is sometimes brought to Asia by means of a Tyrrhenian migration, of which traces remained in Lemnos and in Thrace; and these ^gean Tyrrhenians are considered to have been the " Thuirsha " of the Egyptians. But the famous sixth-century "Etruscan" inscription of Lemnos3 is not Etruscan at all, but Phrygian,4 and the Tyrrhenians mentioned by Thucydides (iv. 109) as living in Thrace may either have first come there in post-Mycensean times (in which- case the peculiar Oriental elements in the Etruscan culture may be no older than the ninth or tenth century), or may be merely the result of a vague identification on the part of the historian of the Pelasgian inhabitants of the

1 P. I02j ante.

a STEIN, ad HOT. i. 94.

3 PAULI, Vorgrieckische Inschrift aus Lemnos.

4 KIECHHOFF, Studien, pp. 54 if (4th ed.).



Thracian coast with the Etruscans,whom they no doubt resembled, inasmuch as both belonged to the non- Aryan stratum of the Mediterranean population. Since then it is doubtful whether there ever was such a tribe as these " Eastern Tyrrhenians," we cannot identify the Thuirsha with them. The old identifica- tion of the Thuirsha with the Etruscans of Italy may be dismissed at once; it is as improbable as the other old indentification of another of these tribes, the Uashasha, with the Oscans, and there is no need to go so far afield: the Thuirsha were far more probably a Cilician tribe, inhabiting the district of Tarsus.

In the reign of Kameses III. we have a third series of Mediterranean tribal names in the records of the second attempted invasion of Egypt by the Northerners (between 1 200 and 1150 B.C.).1 Among them, besides the Pulusatha or Philistines, who have already been discussed in chap, v., and the Uashasha, mentioned


above, we find

(Tchakarai) and c^

Daanau\na\? Aavaoi was a very ancient ethnic appellation of the Greeks, and no doubt originally denoted a single tribe, as 'A\aiol and "EAArjvEe originally did. We should have really little reason to refuse to recognise in the Danauna a tribe

1 Great Harris Papyrus, 76, 7; inscriptions at Medlnet Habu (DUMICHEN, loc. cit. ii. 46; GEEENE, FouiUes a Thtbes, pi. ii.).

2 The forms Daandu and Danauna are both found.


of Danaans, did not the Tell el-Amarna letter No. 151 (London, 30) mention Danuna as a tribe of Canaan. This, however, was probably merely an isolated settlement, like that of the Tchakarai at Dor. If so, it shows that these tribes had begun to press southwards towards Egypt as early as 1400 B.C. The Danuna were certainly not a purely Canaanitish tribe. The T'akarai have been identified with the TauKOol the well-known tribe of the

FIG. 51.— T'akarai (Cretans?) of the Xllth century B.C. (Thebes.)

northern Asiatic coast of the ^Egean. But the name TsvKpoi does not appear in Greece, even in the Homeric period; it is first mentioned by the poet Kallinos,1 and so it is possible that the Teukrians had not yet reached the Troad in Mycenaean times, but were still in southern Asia Minor or elsewhere. Now the name Ttu/c/ooc was also connected with Crete; the Troic Teucer was said to have come thence.2

1 GEOTB, Hist. Gr. i. p. 279 (1856 ed.).

2 ViRG. ^n. iii. 104 ff.


And we have various indications, both in place-names and in religious custom, of special connection between the Troad and Crete. Now the T'akarai are always mentioned by the Egyptians in the same breath with the Puht&atha or Philistines, and, as has already been mentioned (p. 135 n.), they founded settlements on the Palestinian coast to the north of Philistia. That the Philistines came from Crete is very pro- bable (v. p. 135 n.). Is then the name TevKp — really of Cretan origin, and did the T'akarai who invaded Egypt in company with the KprjTaytvtiz Philistines, aud settled at Dor, originally came from Crete as well as the Teufcpol of the Troad? The possibility that the Daanau or Danuna were Aavaot of the ^Egean becomes thus greater. The inscriptions of Rameses III. (nearly 400 years after those of Thothmes III.) speak of the Danauna " in their isles." It is probable that the islands of the ^Egean are now meant. The Uashasha may very well have been of Cretan or ^Egean origin also. So that I do not think I can be accused of being over- sanguine if I identify the Uashasha (Waasasa,

{\\M\M\} $ j) with the people of FdZog (Waxos), the 'Oa£oe of Herodotos1 and"A£oc of later days, a prominent city of Crete. This is more probable than the absurd identification with the Os- cans. The tribes who attacked Egypt in Rameses III.'s time were then quite possibly all Cretans.

What is quite certain about these tribes is that

1 iv. 154. fatffo*, C. I. G. 3050.



the majority of them inhabited the southern coast of Asia Minor from Cilicia to Lykia and probably also Rhodes, Crete and the ^Egean lands generally. Their lands lay west of Kheta and Alashiya; in an inscription of Rameses III., more fully quoted in a note, p. 182, below, they are spoken of as coming from the " isles," subduing Kheta first, and then €yprus and Phoenicia; so there is nowhere else to put them.

A great objection to the identification of these names with those of the Mediterranean tribes men- tioned has been the presence of the curious suffixes -sha (-so) and -na which are tacked on to them. It may be possible to explain these suffixes. It must be remembered that, although the Akaiuasha were probably Aryan Greeks, the majority of these tribes were Cretans and natives of Asia Minor, and so probably belonged to the old Pelasgic population. It is, therefore, probable that their names and those of their Hellenic allies would reach the Egyptians in a " kleinasiatisch " form. Now in Lycian two of the commonest nominal suffixes were -azi or -dzi and -nna or -nni. The Stele of Xanthos speaks of the Spartans and Athenians as Sppartazi Atdnazi: on the Bi- lingual of Tlos TXwauc = Tlunna and ZK Uivapwv

= Pillanni. In the same way prnna = house, jprnnazi =• ot/caot (cf. Kretschmer, loc. cit. pp. 3 1 1 ff , 329). A similar form, used only in place-names, is -aza, -am. Lycian names ending in -dzi, -aza, &c., when transliterated into Greek end in -a<r<ne, -attic,



-<r<ra, &c. The original forms of Kalaki - sha, Shakal - asha, Thuir - ska, Uash - aska, Danau-%a, Shardi-?ia, may therefore very well have been something like *Akaiwazi (or *Akaiivaza)*Kali- hiazi, *Skakalazi, *Tkuirazi, *Waxazi, *I)anaunna,

  • JSkardinnay the suffix being in each case merely the

Lycian nominal. In the inscription of Rameses III. the Danauna are called simply Daanau. If the Shakalasha were the Sagalassians,1 a supposition which seems in every way probable, -asha would seem to represent -CKTO-OC, which is certainly the Lycian -aza, The -ska-form of the name of the Libyan tribe of the Mashauasha, who were allied with some of these tribes in their attacks on Egypt, may be due to their being -confused with them by the Egyptians, or may show that the name reached the Egyptians through a u kleinasiatisch " medium. If they were Maxyes, the -ska is certainly here also a suffix.

Our general conclusion with regard to these names then is that it is probable that the AJcaiu- -aska, Danauna, Dardenui, Masa, Skardina, LuJca, Shakalasha, Pidasa, Kalakisha, and Puhisatha were Achaians, Danaans, Dardanians, Mysians, Sar- dians, Lykians, Sagalassians, Pisidians, Kilikians, and Philistines (of Cretan origin); while the Uaahaska were very probably Axians from Crete, and that their companions the T'akarai were also

1 This identification was first made by MASPERO, Revue 'Critique, 1880, p. 109 ff. In the Addenda, p. 322, post, will be found a note giving the names of the original proposers of many of the identifications accepted above.


Cretans of the Teukrian name seems a suggestion more likely than any other. For the TJmirsha no identification can be suggested except a very doubt- ful one with the Tarsians (?), and we do not know if the name Maunna is correctly so read. And so, perhaps, the warriors of the Akaiuasha, the Danauna, and the rest, to whom Zeus had indeed given it tl from youth even unto age to wind the skein of grievous wars until every man of them perished," l were the representatives in the second millennium B.C. of the historic peoples whose names they seem to bear. And at this time these tribes must have been comprised within the circle of Mycenaean civilization.2 But this does not show that they carried on a regular and established trade in Myce- nosan objects with Greece, though no doubt they

1 II. xiv. 85.

2 It may be noted that the feather headdress of these tribes, as depicted on Egyptian monuments, is the same as that which the Lykians wore at Salamis (Hdt. vii. 92), and that which the lonians appear on Assyrian bas-reliefs as wearing. This feather headdress also appears worn by warriors on a geometrical vase- fragment from Mycenae (published by WIDE, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. xiv. p. 85), and by a warrior armed with an axe on a carved ivory draught-box from Enkomi in Cyprus (published by MURRAY, Excavations in Cijprus, p. 12, Fig. 19). Dr. Murray's conjecture that this is a specimen of the Maeonian or Karian work mentioned in 77. iv. 141 is very apposite. We thus find examples of this feather headdress worn by tribes of the jJEgean and southern coast of Asia Minor in the Xllth, VHIth, Vllth, and Vth centuries B.C. The peculiar waistcloths of these tribes on the Egyptian monu- ments of the XHIth-XIIth centuries are Mycenaean; their way of shaving the upper lip is Greek. But their shields are rather Homeric than Mycenaean, being round; their swords seem often to have been of Egyptian type (the bronze weapons from Crete are Egyptian in type), but those of the Shardina are broad-bladed and thoroughly European and " Mycenaean."


brought a few of their household gods with them thither. They were sea-robbers, not bagmen. The inscription of Merenptah speaks of the Mediterranean rovers as " foreign soldiers of the Libyans, "whom "the miserable Libyan had led hither" (1. 13), "fighting to fill their bellies daily ".(1. 23): i.e., they were mere wandering mercenaries, like their descendants in the days of the Ptolemies. So we are compelled to fall back upon the Phoenicians as the sole possible inter- mediaries between the Mycenaeans and Egypt.

Those writers who considered that the ^Egean rovers alone brought to Egypt the Mycenaean objects which are found in that country seem to be of opinion that they sailed direct from Crete to the African coast, adducing their alliance with the Libyan tribes as a proof of this. It is, of course, possible that in Mycenaean days vessels may occasionally have adven- tured the direct passage from Crete to Africa, for we know that nowadays very small craft run across the open sea from the Indian coast to the Gulf of Aden, and the ancestors of the Maoris came from Hawaiki across wide stretches of sea in open canoes. But it is difficult to suppose that a regular connection between Crete and Africa across the open sea ever existed until the classical period. We have already seen the geo- graphical and other improbabilities of such a connec- tion in discussing the relations between Greece and the East in prae-Mycensean times. We have nothing to show that the Mycengeans were bolder sailors than the primitive tribes who preceded them or the Homeric


Greeks who followed them. The ships of the Pulu- satha, judging from the Egyptian representations of them, look almost too frail and small to be trusted in the open sea. It is very probable that the JEgean tribes did not come into touch with the Libyans until after they had coasted along the shores of Palestine and Egypt. We know that the second (and apparently chiefly Cretan) expedition against Egypt, in which the Pulusatha (Philistines) joined, did reach Egypt by this route, and not direct from Crete; this expedition appears to have been defeated by the Egyptians off the Phoenician coast.1 And if these adventurous rovers hugged the land all the way to Egypt, it is very probable that the " Mycenasan " traders did the same as far as Cyprus, and there handed over their goods to the Phoenicians for further 1 This expedition came partly by land, partly by sea, from the interior of Asia Minor into Palestine. The inscription of Piameses III. says: " The Isles were restless: disturbed among themselves at one and the same time. No land stood before then1, beginning from KJietu, (and including) Ket.i (the Pales- tinian coastland), Qerqamelsa (Carchemish), AretJttit, and Alesa (Alashiya; Cyprus). They destroyed [them, and assembled in their] camp in one place in the midst of Aniar (Amurru; Palestine)." (Text published by GREENE, Fouilles, pi. 2.) This indicates their origin and the route by which they reached Egypt clearly enough. The inscription of Merenptah says that the Libyans, to whose assistance the first expedition of the Meliti (Northerners) came, had long been in possession of the Delta. We know that Libyans (Thehennu and possibly Ha-nebu?) were in the Delta as early as 3500 B.C. We are quite justified, therefore, in regarding the Libyan allies of the Mediter- ranean tribes as inhabitants of the lowlands at the mouths of the Nile. There is therefore, no need to go so far afield as Lake Tritonis in order to show relations between Western Libyans and prehistoric Greeks; it can only have been the Libyans of the Delta who ever came into contact with them.


shipment to Egypt, accompanied occasionally by specimens of the makers of these objects such as the (t Great Men of Kef tin and of the Isles in the midst of the Very Green," who are depicted on the walls- of Theban tombs of the fifteenth century B.C.

While thus insisting on the pre-eminence of Cyprus- as mediator-in-chief between Greece and Egypt in the Mycenaean period, there is no need to belittle the importance of Crete as a factor of Mycenaean culture. It is very possible, as will be seen in the next chapter, that Crete and the neighbouring islands were the cradle of Mycenaean art; but it cannot be conceded that it is in any way probable that Crete was the chief medium of communication between the rest of Mycenaean Greece and Egypt. Some of the Mycenaean objects found in Egypt may have come from Crete, but only by way of Cyprus and the Palestinian coast. If Mycenaean Crete was so closely connected with Egypt, how is it that none of the sealstones, so characteristic of the Mycenaean age in Crete, have ever been found in conjunction with Mycenaean objects in Egypt?

The influence which was exercised by Egyptian culture generally on the development of that of Mycenae was great. The question of the debt which Mycenaean Greece owed to Egypt in the matter of metal-working will be more conveniently discussed in. the next chapter; it may, however, be here noted that Mr. Myres is of opinion that the weapon-forms peculiar to Crete show marked resemblances to


Egyptian forms: this would be attributable to strong Egyptian influence.

Of late several writers have seemed to incline towards the view that Mycenaean art influenced that of Egypt more than Egyptian art that of Mycenae. This view would seem to be erroneous. It is, of course, easy to exaggerate the extent of oriental artistic influence in Mycenaean Greece: Professor Helbig, for instance, exaggerates it enor- mously. This naturally provokes a reaction. But this reaction has now progressed so far that an attempt is being made to prove that Mycenaean influence practically dominated the less trammelled forms of Egyptian art under the XVIIIth and XlXth Dynasties. Eventually it will, no doubt, be asserted by somebody that the whole naturalistic develop- ment which marked Egyptian art at the end of the XVIIIth Dynasty was of Mycenaean origin. Did we not know that the foreign queen Thii. the consort of Arnenhetep III, and her son Khuenaten, under whose auspices this development sprang up, were of Armen- ian descent.1 we might confidently expect them to be claimed as Mycenaeans! Any naturalistic design on an Egyptian kohl-pot, ivory casket, or other object, is dubbed "Mycenaean": the occurrence of a lion, a bull, a deer, or other animal in active movement in an Egyptian design of this kind is held to be proof positive of Mycenaean influence. But these designs are purely Egyptian: it is a mistake to suppose that Egyptian art was in all its branches stiff and formal.

1 Thii apparently came from Mitanni, the Matiene of the Greeks (cf. PETRIE, History ofJSyypt, ii. p. 182;.


Naturalistic designs for the ornamentation of articles de luxe were constantly in use under the Xllth Dynasty, and the adoption of such freely conceived designs for toilet-boxes, mirror-handles, spoons, &c.? in wood and ivory under the XVIIIth Dynasty was merely a revival and development of the ordinary custom under the Xllth. In the reign of Amen- hetep III., which marked the most nourishing period of Egyptian culture and power, this naturalism was further developed, till under Khuenaten it burst forth into complete free- dom, even invading the domains in which the hieratic canon in artistic matters had hitherto re- mained supreme; the walls and pillars of the palace and houses of Tell el- Am arna show what the Egyptian artist could do when freed from his fetters. All these designs, which are so confidently claimed as showing Mycenaean influence, are then in reality products of a purely Egyptian artistic develop- ment: it is far more likely that Mycengean natural- ism was influenced by that of Egypt than that the reverse was the case. So that, while Egyptian art can be shown to have exercised a marked influence upon that of Mycenaean Greece, Myce- naean artistic influence in Egypt can hardly be shown to have effected much more than the

FIG. 52. — Blue glazed ware Btigelkanne, made in Egypt; c. XIIHh century B.C. (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. No. 30.451.)


temporary introduction of the " Biigelkanne " or false -necked vase, which was manufactured in

Egypt for about 200 years. Though many other Mycenaean vase- forms must have been well known in Egypt for some centuries they do not seem ta have influenced the native pottery to any extent. Subjoined is an engraving of an- Egyptian blue glazed vase, dating to about the time of the XlXth Dynasty, made in imi- tation of a Mycenaean form (Fig. 53). The gem - engraving and gold-work of Mycenae- found apparently such little favour in Egypt that they were not imported: their in- fluence on these de- partments of Egyptian art is nil. Apart from the Cretanpictographs, which certainly seem to show signs of strong Egyptian influence, the most striking example of direct Egyptian influence on

FIG. 53.— Blue glazed ware Vase, made in Egypt in imitation of a Mycenaean form; c. Xlllth century B.C. (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. No. 22,731.)


Mycenaean art which can be instanced is that of Mycenaean fresco-painting, which evidently owed its whole inspiration to Egyptian frescoes. Even the con- ventions are of Egyptian origin; e.g. , the flesh of the men is red and that of the women white. In the drawing of the Knossian frescoes we note that the artist has seen the im- possibility in the Egyptian convention, according to which a profile figure has the upper part of its body from waist to shoulders full-face, and has tried to .represent the figure as he really saw it, without much success: the influence of the Egyptian convention was too strong. We must not exaggerate the signifi- cance of his attempt, or begin to think that the Mycenaean artist was better than his Egyptian master; in spite of its vigour, Mycenaean fresco-painting has faults of drawing, such

as impossibly small waists, long legs, &c., of which no Egyptian artist could possibly have been guilty. Two well-known examples of direct Egyptian

FIG. 54. — Mycenaean Vase of the type partly imitated by Fig' S3- (From lalysos.)


influence are the ceiling of Orchomenos and the design of the hunting-cats on the inlaid swordblade from Mycenae. Had these been found in Egypt we should without much question have dated them to the period of the XVIIIth-XIXth Dynasties; their originals were certainly of that age, whether the

FIG. 55. — Carved wooden object of Mycenaean style, found in Egypt. (Berlin Museum.)

Mycenaean adaptations be as old or no. The frescoes of Knossos are certainly more or less contemporary with the reign of Thothmes III., and there is no reason why the frescoes of Mycenae and Tiryns should not be as old, while those of the Third City at Phylakope are probably older. So the Egyptian influence which is so marked in these frescoes must have begun to


modify the indigenous ideas of painting at least a century or two before; i.e.', not later than 1700 B.C. It has also been supposed that the inlaid metal work of Mycenae was of Egyptian origin, and comparisons have been made with the inlaid dagger of Queen Aahhetep (B.C. 1650). But the technique does not seem to be the same, and it seems very probable that this wonderful Mycenaean inlaying, which the Homeric Greeks regarded as the work of gods, was of indigenous origin. In the swordblade with the design of the hunting cat we have then an Egyptian design carried out by Mycenaeans in Mycenaean work. It is interesting to note how different is the result from a Phoenician copy of an Egyptian design. The Mycenaean copy is not a mere slavish and un- intelligent, and therefore grotesque and ugly, imita- tion, as a Phoenician copy would have been; it is an intelligent adaptation, swiftly seizing the main points of the Egyptian original and translating it into a Mycenaean work of art.

Marked as Egyptian influence on Mycenaean art was, it in no way modified the essentially European aspect of that art. The palm-trees on the Vaphio cups point to Egypt for their origin: but the spirit of the whole design in which they are an accessory to the main idea, and its execution, are totally un- oriental, they are truly " Mycenaean "; that is, they

are Greek.1

  • - •

1 v. BISSING (Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1898, p. 50) notes as to the extent of Mycenaean influence in Egypt: " Es ist ja unbestreitbar dass die mykeEische Kultur . . . Agypten in ihren Bereich


gezogen hat: aber wie gross man ihren Einfluss auch schatzen mag, es 1st itnmer nur ein bestimmter Ausschnitt aus dem Form- ^nschatz, der uns in Griechenland liickenlos vorliegt, den wir treffen. . . . Von mykenischen Bronzen, Elfenbeinschnitzereien, von Gold- und Silbersachen 1st keine Spur; nicht eine myken- ische Terracotte hat sich meines Wissens gefunden, Inselsteine fehlen auch. Biigelkannen, Biichsen, " Pilgerflaschen," iiber- wiegen bei weitem, nach den mehr als hundert Vasenf ormen des Mutterlandes sieht man sich vergebens um. Wohl haben Bezieh- ungen zu Agypten bestanden, aber nichts spricht dafiir, dass •diese so eng waren, wie sie zwischen Agypten und seiner Provinz Syrien gewesen sind." (He goes on to show that this makes it quite impossible that the home of the " Mycenaean " culture was Syria, as Helbig wishes to prove.) But in his article on an Egyptian wooden box carved with a representation of To.vpoKo.d- d^ta (Atli. Mitth. xxiii. 1898, p. 242 ff) he greatly overestimates Mycenaean influence on Egyptian art. There is nothing in the " Holzgefass" in question which betrays any sign of Mycenaean influence. On the Egyptian art of the XVIIIth Dynasty, v. STEINDORFF, Die Blutezeit des Pltaraonenreiclies, Leipzig, 1900.

FIG. 56. — Top of an Egyptian alabaster Vase, made in imitation of a Myce- naean Bngelkanne. (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. No. 4656.)



OREAT as may have been the influence exercised upon it by the civilizations of the East, the " Mycenaean " culture always retained its predominantly European character: it belonged not to the East, but to the West, and was in fact simply the Greek phase of the general European civilization of the Bronze Age.

It has appeared necessary in Chapter I. to point out with some emphasis the essentially uncertain •character of the " science " of prehistoric archaeology, &nd the weaknesses which naturally result therefrom. But it must not be supposed that the main fact of the development of prehistoric European culture, from the Stone to the Iron Age, need in any way be •doubted on that account.

All we can say is that during a period of time of unknown length the peoples of Europe possessed a generally identical though locally varying culture, the distinguishing mark of which was the use of bronze. This European Bronze Age culture de- veloped directly out of that of the earlier Stone Age; in extra-European countries this order of development is not necessarily found. In some regions of Europe, as in Hungary, a period of transition between the Ages of Stone and Bronze


elapsed, in which the simple copper was used.1 In Central Europe the Age of Bronze seems to have ceased about 800 B.C., and was followed by a period, ' well exemplified in the deposits of Hallstatt in the Salzkammergut, during which both iron and bronze were equally in use.2

The relation of the prehistoric civilization of Greece to this general European culture is quite clear: the prae-Mycenaean and Mycenaean cultures are simply the earliest and middle phases of the general Euro- pean culture of the Bronze Age as they were repre- sented in the ^Bgean and Eastern Mediterranean | basins: the prae-Mycenaean culture was stone and copper-using, so that a " Chalcolithic " period existed in the extreme South as well as in Central Europe; the development of the Mycenaean out of the prae- Mycenaean culture is the development of the Greek civilization of the Middle Bronze Age out of that which existed in South-eastern Europe and Asia Minor during the transition period between the Ages of Stone and Bronze.3

The culture of the Greek Age of Bronze in many respects far outstripped the corresponding culture of Central Europe and Italy, and certainly exercised

1 Cf. generally MUCH, Die Kupferzeit. Much fails to prove the universality of the "Copper Age": cf. GOWLAND, "Early Metallurgy of Copper, Tin, and Iron in Europe," in Archceologia, Ivi. p. 303.

2 Cf. v. SACKBN, Grdber von Hallstatt; NAUE, L'fipoque dj Hall- statt en Baviere. The archaic Greek bronzes of the Geometrical period found at Olympia (FURTWANGLER, Bronzefunde von Olympia) enable us to describe this period as the " Hallstatt- Epoch of Greece."

3 Cf. UNDSET, in Zeitschrift far Ethnologic, xv.; and others.


considerable influence upon the artistic development of the latter.1

The ultimate cause of the peculiar Hellenic develop- ment of European civilization was the geographical position of Greece, which brought the Hellenes into close contact from the beginning with the entirely alien and at first more highly developed culture- systems of Babylonia and Egypt. Greek civilization was the result of the initial collision and subsequent constant friction of West and East in the Eastern i Mediterranean.

The shock of the first collision was felt throughout Europe: through the medium of Greece oriental influence seems to modify the general European development almost in its beginnings, in Central Europe as well as in prse-Mycensean Greece and Asia Minor. But the supposition that the whole impetus to the development of European civilization was originally communicated from the East through the medium of prae-Mycensean Greece is unnecessary: the idea, for instance, that the knowledge of metal- working, which enabled European culture to develop, reached the inhabitants of Greece first of the Euro- pean nations from the East, and then spread over Europe, is directly contrary to all probability. " Such a view of the origin of European metal-working much exaggerates the debt which European civiliza- tion owes to the East.

Both lead and silver seem to have been known to the primitive islanders of the ^Egean as early as the

1 Cf. WIDE, NacUeben mykenischer Ornamente, in Ath. Mitth. xxii. (1897) p. 247 ff; and others.



oldest period of the praa-Mycenaaan culture,1 but it may be doubted whether gold was used in Greece until the proto-Mycenaean period; gold rings were found in the Theraean deposits. At no time does gold appear to have been much worked in Greece proper, and, as Professor Gardner has pointed out,2 the Mycenaean gold probably came from Asia Minor, with which tradition closely connects the Mycenaean ruling houses of the Perseids and Pelopids,3 though, of course, there is no proof that the mines of Thrace and Thasos, possibly of Siplmos, were not yet worked. In the Greek lands a " Copper Age " seems to have prevailed during the prae-Mycenaean period. Although traces of connection between Greece and the East are, as we have seen, not wanting at this period, yet they are hardly traceable before the use of copper had

1 Of. Ann. Brit. Sch. Ath. 1896-7, pp. 12, 50.

2 GARDNER, New Chapters, p. 82.

3 That the Greek word xpwfc and the Assyrian hurdsu (:t gold ") have at least a common origin seems probable. Hurdsu is not, like the Assyrian expression for bronze, derived from a Sumerian (prse-Semitic) original: the Sumerian word for gold was guSkin. In fact, hurdsu looks as if it were good Semitic,, and were connected with a root signifying " to split open." But it seems improbable that the word xPvff^ can have been taken over by the Greeks from the Assyrians by way of the Phoeni- cians: this would point to far too late a date for the inception of the word, since gold must have been known and named by the Greeks long before they ever came into much contact with the Phoenicians. A common origin in Asia Minor for both words is far more probable; and so the resemblance of hurdsu to Y^in would be a mere coincidence: the gold of the early Greeks was probably not mined, but apparently came from the river- washings of Asia Minor. (The poetical word Y^J?! " gold," is probably merely hurdsu taken over and then erroneously regarded as a derivative of Y'?1?-)


become general, and it does not seem probable that the first idea of copper- working was derived by the primitive Greeks from Egypt or Babylonia, where at this period bronze had long been in general use. It is quite possible that the use of a simple metal, like copper, to replace stone originated independently in many of those parts of the globe in which it is easily accessible.1 We may therefore regard the use of copper as having originated independently in Europe and in the East. In all probability the use of copper was first introduced into Greece by the " prae- Mycensean " tribes at the time of their first migration into the ^Egeaii basin; thereafter, however, the chief centre of the distribution of copper to the Greek world was probably Cyprus; it was probably in Cyprus that the great development of the use of copper, which is so characteristic of the earliest Greek phase of European civilization, first originated. -

1 On this question cf. MUCH, Die Kupferzeit, p. 136 ff.

2 Cf. MYRES, Science Progress, 1896, p. 347. But when Mr. Myres (ib. p. 349, and Cyprus Museum Catalogue, p. 17) speaks of the general European knowledge of copper as derived entirely from Cyprus, and of Cyprian types of weapons in Egypt under the IVth Dynasty, in Central Europe, &c., he is surely pressing the argument from similarity of type too far. If it is granted that the ceramic technique of pots from Transylvania resembles that of pots from Cyprus, how does this prove the knowledge of copper to have come from Cyprus to Transylvania? It might perfectly well be argued that the pots and the copper came from Tran- sylvania to Cyprus. The only certain conclusion that can be drawn is that Transylvanians and Cyprians were at one time comprised in the same primitive copper-using circle of civiliza- tion, and that very possibly artistic ideas may have travelled from one community to the other. As to the place where these ideas originated or where copper was first used no conclu- sion can be drawn. MUCH considers that it was first mined


Bronze, however, probably did not originate indepen- dently in Greece or in any other part of Europe; the idea of an artificial amalgam of copper and tin or •copper and antimony can in all probability have been derived only from a single source. Bronze seems to have been commonly used in Babylonia, at least as •early as 3000 B.C. j1 some time before this it first appears in Egypt,2 but is not common there till a much later period. It seems very probable that bronze was first invented by the Sumerians,3 though

independently in Cyprus and in Europe (loc. cit. p. 117). But it is probable that the knowledge of copper came to Cyprus from Europe, for this reason: the Stone Age is practically umepre- sented in Cyprus; the earliest settlers seem to have been users of copper. The conclusion that they already used copper before their arrival, and that they at once utilized the abundant stores •of the well-known metal which their new land offered to him, is natural. If the European knowledge of copper is to be derived from some one source (not a necessary supposition), •Central Europe has a better claim to be that source than Cyprus, although Cyprus very soon became the chief producer of copper for Greece and Asia Minor, even for Egypt, for under the XVIIIth Dynasty the Egyptians probably got almost as much of their copper from Cyprus as from Sinai.

1 The bronze statuettes of the Babylonian king Gudea date to about 2500*3.0., there are others without royal names but of earlier date. A bronze vase of the time of Ur-Gur (2800 B.C.) is mentioned by DE SARZEC, De'couvtrtes en Chaldee, p. 26. The figures from Telloh with the name of Ur-Nina (c. 4500 B.C.), which are illustrated by DE SAEZEC, loc. cit. pi. i. ter, are of copper, not bronze, so that apparently in the fifth millennium B.C. Babylonia was still in her " Copper Age."

- The earliest specimen is a rod of bronze from Medum; date •c. 3800 B.C. Bronze weapons of a primitive type are spoken of by DE MORGAN, Reclierclies: Les Metaux, p. 201, as coming from the early necropolis of Saghel el-Baglieh. Have these weapons been analysed? They are more probably copper.

3 Whence the Babylonians obtained their tin or antimony can of course, only be left to conjecture. The Babylonian


Virchow prefers to attribute the invention to the metal-working tribes of the Black Sea coast.1 At some time between 2000 and 1 500 B.C. the knowledge of bronze must have spread from Mesopotamia and words for " Copper " and " Bronze " are interesting, and a study of them would throw much light upon the history of bronze- working in Mesopotamia. In Semitic Babylonian (Assyrian)' there are two words, eru and siparru, at first sight apparently meaning indiscriminately " copper " or " bronze." On examining passages in which these words occur, however, one gains the impression that eru really means copper, siparru more particu- larly bronze. If siparru means bronze, as opposed to simple copper, bronze would seem to have been known to the Sumerian& before the Semitic invasion, for siparru seems to be derived from a Sumerian original, zabar.

1 Mltth. Anthrop. Ges. in Wien, xxx. p. 80 ff. Of course there is no proof obtainable of the derivation of the Egyptian know- ledge of bronze from the Sumerians. In the same journal (p. 84) Prof. MONTELIUS says: "Die allerletzten Ausgrabungen in Agypten . . . welche von Flinders Petrie und de Morgan veroffentlicht worden, haben uns die alleralteste Zeit Agyptens vor der ersten Dynastie kennen gelehrt. Die zeigen, so viel ich sehen kann, dass die Ursprung der agyptischen Cultur nicht in Agypten, sondern in Chaldaa zu suchen ist. Weil aber das- Kupfer in Aegypten mehr als 4000 Jahre v. Chr. auftritt, konnen wir sagen, dass das Kupfer noch friiher den Chaldiiern bekannt war." This is all quite fallacious. In the first place, although some points of resemblance may be remarked between the archaic Egyptian culture of the Ist Dynasty and the Sumerian or early Chaldaean civilization, yet the prehistoric Egyptian re- mains, which are the remains to which Prof. Montelius is alluding (" vor der ersten Dynastie "), shew not the slightest resemblance to anything Chaldaean; in fact the idea of the derivation of the whole of Egyptian civilization from that of the Sumerians is fast retreating into the background, and the essentially indigenous character of the primeval culture of the Nile-valley is becoming every day more evident. In the second place, if it were plain (which it is not) that Egyptian culture was derived from that of Chaldsea, it would not be possible to argue that if copper was known to the Egyptians before 4000 B.C., it must have beea known to the Chaldaeans at an earlier period.


from Egypt through Asia Minor and Cyprus to Greece, whence it passed to Italy and the rest of Europe.1 In the case of bronze, therefore, the debt of Europe to Asia is obvious and undisputed. We have already seen that the introduction of iron into Greece may fairly be attributed to the Dorians. It would then seem to have originally come to Greece from the north, and not from Egypt, whence it is often considered to have been first derived. Iron was certainly known to the Egyptians at least as early as 3500 B.C. (when it appears named and depicted on the monuments in a manner which admits of no possibility of doubt as to its nature), and may have been known to them at an earlier period, perhaps even before the introduction of bronze into Egypt; we have no reason to suppose that in Egypt the knowledge of the metals passed through exactly the same consecutive stages of de- velopment as it did in Europe.2 That iron objects were

1 It is noticeable that the Greek word for the axe is apparently •of Mesopotamian origin. The Semitic-Babylonian word ispilakku, which appears to be the original of both the Sanskrit para/^u and the Greek TreAe/cus.

2 That it is impossible to speak of a "Bronze Age" or an " Iron Age " as having- at anytime existed in Egypt has been conclusively shewn by PIEHL, " Bronsalder i Egypten?" (in Ymer, 1888, p. 94 ff) in answer to MONTELIUS, " Bronsaldern i Egypten " (loc. cit. p. 3 ff), who unsuccessfully maintained the contrary opinion. In Coptic iron is called &Eff IHG > the old Egyptian

word from which this is derived was I I \O\ /WW\A

J 1 J^ o III


•or more shortly ^ *-* (baa~n-pet}, i.e., " Iron of Heaven,"

o o o

the original word for " Iron " being the simple I , ba. Ba is

-eil o mentioned and is depicted as blue in colour in the Pyramid-

IRON i99

occasionally exported from Egypt to Greece in the Mycenaean period, or even earlier, is therefore quite possible; the iron rings found at Mycenae and the

Texts of King Unas, about 3500 B.C. The earliest known speci- mens of iron from Egypt date to the same period (ERMAN, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 461; the date as given by TSOUNTAS- MANATT, Mycencean Age, p. 322, note 1, is all wrong); but even if we possessed no actual specimens of iron of this period, the testimony of the inscription of Unas would be enough to show that iron was already known to the Egyptians in the fourth millennium B.C.: the testimony of a single monument is worth more than that of finds of actual objects, which may often not really belong to the period to which, on account of the level at which they may be found in digging, they are thought to belong; the " Biigelkannen " depicted on the walls of the tomb of Rameses III. would suffice to prove the date of the Mycensean period even if no Mycensean remains had ever been found with Egyptian objects of the New Empire. PIEHL summarizes the proofs as follows (loc. cit., p. 101):

1. "Vi kiinna fynd af jernsaker fran det iildsta egyptiska riket." (We find iron objects of the age of the oldest Egyptian kingdom.)

2. "Vi traffa jernets namn pa de iildsta egyptiska monu- menten under forhallanden, som icke tillata nagot tvifvel om ifragavarande ords betydelse." (We meet with the name of iron on the oldest Egyptian monuments under circ*mstances which do not allow of the slightest doubt as to the meaning of the word in question.)

3. "Vi ega malningar fran det gamla riket, i hvilka vapen, verktyg, och redskap iiro malade met blatt (eller svart), d. v. s. den farg, met hvilken jernet kannetecknas." (We possess paintings of the time of the Old Kingdom [i.e. approximately B.C. 4000-3000], in which weapons, tools, and instruments are painted blue (or black), i.e. the colour with which iron is indicated.)

His conclusion, with which it is impossible not to agree absolutely, is that "det Egypten, vi mo'ta vid historiens morg- ongryning, lefde i jernaldern."

It may be added that iron ore is easily obtainable in Egypt; there were ancient mines at Aswan (Catalogue des Monuments, i. p. 139). The first iron used was doubtless meteoric, as is shewn


iron staff-handle (?) from Troy l may have come from Egypt. But it is evident that iron was not generally employed in Greece for the manufacture of tools and weapons until after the Dorian invasion, and so we may fairly consider it to have been first introduced into Greece for general use by the Dorians and from the north. In confirmation of this conclusion may be adduced the fact, pointed out by Mr. Gowland,2 that the form of furnace used in southern Europe east of the Apennines can be traced through the tribes of Central Europe back to an origin in Central Asia,, and has no connection whatever with the peculiar form in use in Egypt and Etruria and among the tribes of the Western Mediterranean.3

by the name "Iron of Heaven." The Egyptian idea that the firmament of heaven was of iron probably arose from its blue colour and from the fact of the occasional fall of meteoric iron from the sky.

1 TSOUNTAS-MANATT, foe. Clt. p. 321.

- Archfeoloaia, Ivi. p. 315.

y Iron first occurs in the Fourth City at Lachish (? c. 1400 B.C.). The Hebrew word '1.1=1 is simply the Assyrian parzillu, which does not seem to be a word of Semitic origin. Nor does it appear to be Sumerian: the Assyrians tell us of a Sumerian equivalent of parzillu expressed ideographically by means of the signs A N . ]>AR, but how the group AN. BAR was supposed to have been pronounced we do not know. Another equivalent— a aira% Xeyofj-evov, by the way — reads possibly BAB. GAL, but this gives us no certainty that there ever was a Sumerian word larc/al — " iron," which the Semitic Babylonians took' over &s parzillu. The Assyrians seem certainly to have been of the opinion that iron was known to the Sumerians (before 40x20 B.C., presumably); iron objects which may date to the time of Gudea (c. 2500 B.C.) have been found at Telloh (DE SARZEC, foe. cit. p. 35). It seems most probable that iron and the word parzillu came to the Semites from the Chalybes, Tubal, and other iron-working tribes of


In so far, then, as the development of European civilization was modified by the change from copper to bronze, the credit of this modification can be given to the East. But this does not mean that the first impetus to the whole development of European cul- ture out of neolithic barbarism came from the East. The change from stone to copper was effected in- dependently of oriental influence, at a time when, indeed, this influence can have been but inconsider- able. And the de- velopment of Euro- pean civilization began before the introduction of bronze.

The first impulse to this develop- ment was given in Greece.

The first traces of " Mycenaean " development are found in Crete, Thera, Melos, Oliaros (Antiparos),. Syros, and ^Egina; in the southern islands only.1 This points to the conclusion that not only were the ^Egean Islands, and more especially those of the south, the chief foci of the earliest civilization-development of Greece, but that the evolution from the more primi- tive to the fully-developed form of prehistoric Greek

Armenia at an unknown date B.C. The Sumerians may have first used meteoric iron at a very early period, like the Egyptians, since AN. BAE means practically the same thing as the Egyptian Ba-n-pet, " Heavenly Metal."

1 Cf. J. H. 8. xviii. p. 337; MYRES, Science Progress, v. p. 350 ^ also the discoveries of STAIS in ^Egina.

FIG. 57. — A Mycenaean Sea-demon; from an early matt-painted vase from Mycenae.


culture took place in these islands. The essentially marine character of the decoration of many of the earliest and of the most typical Mycenaean vases -certainly confirms this supposition.1 Mycenaean art is the art of a sea-folk from its commencement.

In this development the island of Crete must have taken a very prominent, perhaps the foremost, part. The persistence with which Mycenaean types of orna- ment lingered on the island when, with the exception of Cyprus, the rest of Greece had passed into another style of art 2 seems to show that Mycenaean art had nowhere been more firmly established than in Crete.

But if we admit that Mycenaean art originated among the prae-Hellenic tribes of Crete and the southern islands, we must further conclude that its development began before the coming of the Aryans to that part of Greece. This conclusion seems ex- tremely probable. There is nothing to show that, Greek as the fully-developed arfc of Mycenae was in its spirit, the impulse to its first development was given by the coming of the Aryans. It was a natural artistic development, and its Greek spirit

1 Also one of the earliest Mycenasan frescoes we have, that from the Third City at Phylakope in Melos, depicts flying-fish (Ann. Brit. tich. Ath. 1897-8, pp. 15, 26; pi. iii.). (MACKENZIE \loc. cit. p. 32] wishes to restrict the name " Mycenaean " to the Fourth City at Phylakope; but if the word " Mycenaean " is used at all to designate the heroic or prehistoric civilization of Greece, the Third City, roughly corresponding to the Theraean settle- ment, must be called Early Mycenaean or " Proto-Mycensean," it being most convenient to restrict the term " Prse- Mycenaean " to the primitive epoch of the cist-graves.)

2 WIDE, Nachleben mykenischer Ornamente, Ath. Mitth. xii. •(1897), p. 233 ff.


is the spirit not of a purely Aryan, but of a mixed, race.

We may then suppose (until further discovery shall have shown the necessity of a modification of the hypothesis): that the proto-Mycenagan development began in the Southern ^Egean before the Aryan immigration; that shortly after its beginning the invasion of the .^Egean basin by the Aryan tribes, who had no doubt in their Trans-Balkan habitat been already strongly affected by the Copper Age culture of the yEgean, took place; that the fully-developed Mycenaean culture was the result of the mingling of these Pelasgian and Aryan elements. We cannot use the word "Hellenic" to describe the Aryan element, since in reality what we know as " Hellenic " is by no means purely Aryan. The Hellenes of history spoke an Aryan tongue, but it may be doubted whether more than a few tribes, such as the Spartans, for example, could lay claim to unmixed descent from the Aryan conquerors.1 The Athenians , probably had more pros- Hellenic blood in their veins than any other people of continental Greece, with the possible exception of the Arcadians. The Ionian race generally bore marked traces of a strong pra3- Heilenic admixture, and in Crete the old Pelasgic element continued vigorous and even to some extent unhellenized in historical times. It is in Crete that it is most easy to distinguish the praa-Hellenic from

1 Were the Achaians of the Pelopid hegemony merely an Aryan aristocracy ruling over tribes mostly of Pelasgic blood? The Achaians of the Iliad seem to be an aristocracy, as opposed to the " Danaans " and " Argeians."


the " Hellenic" elements of Greek civilization, espe- cially in the domain of religion, which in Crete especially exhibits peculiarities which are obviously due to a commingling* of Hellenic with what seem to be prae-Hellenic elements. In Crete queer demons such as the a\ioi ytpovrte, and enigmatic deities such as Welchanos the co*ck-god ] and Diktynna or Britomartis, who in many respects resembled Artemis,, continued to be venerated in classical times. Their aspect is not very Hellenic; also, both Welchanos and Diktynna were especially con- nected with the Eteokretan portion of Crete, and, like the horse-headed Demeter in Arcadia, are plainly of "Pelas-

FIG. 58.— Mycenaean Hunt- gic " origin. Now unfamiliar Cities of this type certainly played a prominent part in

the religion of the Mycenoeans; horse-, ass-, and lion - headed demons carrying vases, either in their hands or slung round their necks, goat- and bull-headed men running and turning, are common subjects on Mycenaean gems and in My- cenaean wall-paintings.2 It is very probable that these 'apparently prae-Hellenic cults were of pras- Mycenasan origin, and continued to nourish during the Mycenaean period, being passed on by the pra3- Mycenaean tribes to the mixed race of the Hellenes. In Crete we have an example of how the religious

1 The co*ck was sacred to Fe\xat>6s at Phaistos. He was- identified with Zeus.

2 Cf. COOK, .7. //. & xiv.; EVANS, .7. //. 8. xvii. p. 369.


ideas of the Aryan invaders were brought into close connection with those of the earlier population. Fore- ^ most among Pelasgic deities stood Zeus, who was born! in Crete; but Hera his wife was, pace Herodotos (ii. 50), not Pelasgic; she seems Aryan in her character, which is absolutely different from that of the old Pelasgic goddess, akin to the Kybele of Asia Minor, who is known to us in the form of Artemis, and from the 'Semitic importation Aphrodite; she is opposed to Demeter and the Chthonic worships1; and she was especially the goddess of the predominantly Aryan Achaians of Argos. In Crete the Mycenasan for- tress of Knossos was always an important seat of her worship. It was in the Knossiari land that the /£|0oc yct^uoc of Zeus and Hera was fabled to have taken place.'2 Not that the Achaians did not with- out doubt bring an Aryan Zeus with them to ^ Crete, but the strength of the old Pelasgic god of the Double-headed Axe was so great that he was speedily identified with Hera's husband, and in many respects supplanted him. It is not only in the Cretan Zeus, also, that we can see praa-Hellenic traces; they are observable in most forms of the god, but especially in the Zeus of the Dictaean Cave. The itpbg jdfjioQ of Pelasgic Zeus and Achaian Hera at Knossos may serve for us as an allegory of that mingling of Pelasgian and Aryan which produced the Hellenic race, and probably gave so great an impetus to the de- velopment of the Mycenaean culture, of which

1 Cf. FARNELL, Cults of the Greek States, p. 192. - DIOD. v. 72.


we find some of the oldest remains in Crete at Knossos.

A general theory of the origin, development, and general position of prehistoric Greek civilization may then be provisionally framed as follows:

The " Chalcolithic " copper-using culture which succeeded the Age of Stone in Greece was not confined to the ^Egean basin, but extended from Cyprus and Central Asia Minor, perhaps even from Palestine, at least as far west as Sicily and Italy. With the cultures of Babylonia and of Egypt this primitive "Mediterranean" civilization had, as far as we can see at present, originally nothing to do. The chief development of this culture took place in the JEgean Islands, and especially in Crete, where the first advance from the prae-Mycensean to the Mycenaean stage of Greek civilization seems to have been made. This advance- was apparently roughly contemporaneous with the introduction of the knowledge of bronze-working from the East.

These early tribes of the Eastern Mediterranean y who were, no doubt, the descendants of the old Neolithic inhabitants, were probably not Aryans. They seem to have been the ancestors of those non- Greek tribes, speaking various dialects of a non- Aryan language, whom we still find lingering in various places in the Greek world in the classical period, and among whom the true Hellenes appear as an intrusive, disruptive population. The extent



of the prae-Mycenaean culture coincides exactly with the known extent of the distribution of these tribes in the Mediterranean lands.

The Aryan tribes of Central Europe had, no doubt,, passed from the Age of Stone to that of Copper quite as early as the non-Aryans of the Mediteranean coasts; but it can hardly be doubted that the great advance which was made by the latter when bronze first became known to them reacted at once upon the former, whose independent development ceased: when the knowledge of bronze was passed on from the ^Egean lands into Central Europe the common European civilization of the Bronze Age may be said to have begun, taking its inspiration from the now~ rapidly developing " Mycenaean " culture of the Pelasgian tribes.

Not long after the beginning of the " Mycenaean '* development in the southern islands, Aryan tribes, perhaps already bronze-users, seem to have first entered Greece on both sides of the ./Egean, even- tually reaching Crete, and passing on thence to the Pamphylian coast and Cyprus, in some places mixing with the original inhabitants as they went,1 in others merely subjecting them to their rule. The fact that some of the "Northerners," as, for instance, the Lykians and Achaians, were known to the Egyptians as early as the fifteenth century B.C. by their Greek names — and in the case of the first certainly, in the case of the second presumably, Aryan names — would go to show that the Aryan

1 The mixed tribes of the east coast of the Jfgean, who- eventually reached Cyprus, were the lonians (v. ante, p. 130).


•Greeks had already reached the Southern vEgean as early as the sixteenth century B.C.1

The mingling of the Aryan and Pelasgic elements produced the fully-developed Mycenaean culture, the -chief seat of which was probably shifted from Crete, the legendary seat of a very early thalassocracy, to Argolis, whence Hellenic princes exercised, towards the end of this period, a very definite hegemony over the chiefs and peoples, whether Aryan or Pelasgian or of mixed blood, in Pelopon- nese and in the islands.

And now it is for the first time permissible to speak of " Hellenes " as a convenient term to apply to the mixed race, partly Aryan, partly Pelasgic, as opposed to those few Pelasgic tribes which still con- tinued to exist unmixed with the Aryan invaders.

This " Mycenaean " or earliest Hellenic civilization apparently marked the earliest development of Euro- pean Bronze Age culture, and on account of its geographical position became itself the chief ener- gizer and developer of this culture.

Dogmatism on so uncertain a subject as the •" Mycenaean Question " is impossible: new discoveries may upset any pronouncement on the subject a week after it has been made. Yet, although " all theory is grey" and unsatisfactory, in the work of eluci- dating the early history of Greek civilization without theorizing no progress is possible. The above -account of the possible course of the development of 1 V. ante, p. 88.


the prehistoric culture of Greece and the pronounce- ment therein contained is, then, no dogma, but a mere provisional theory, based principally upon an acceptance in its main lines of the hypothesis explained in Chapter ii.

It will have been seen, that the position of Crete in the history of the development of early Greek civilization was probably one of great importance: it seems possible that further researches in the island will add enormously to our knowledge of prehistoric Greece. At present, however, we cannot be said to have reached any certainty as to the precise extent of early Cretan activity.

If the Cretans of late-Mycenaean times were prac- tically subject-allies of the kings of Mycenae, to what period are we to assign the famous thalassocracy of Minos, the Knossian monarch who, when the kings of Mycenge still lived and had their being, was already regarded as a half-mythical personage? * " There is," says Prof. Busolt, "certainly some truth in the legend of Cretan sea-power; the island stretches across the whole sea, and seems as if created by nature to rule the waves." 2 In Homeric times the naval activity of the Cretans was very marked, and, as far as the ^Egean and the western islands are concerned, they may have been equally active in earlier days. That the ^Egean hegemony of the Knossian monarchs who are personified by Minos was

1 Of. II xiv. 322, xiii. 449; Od. xix. 178.

2 Gr. Gesch. i. p. 337.



far removed in time from the historical period is shown by the words of Herodotos when speaking of the thalassocracy of Polykrates: " HoXiucparrje yap

v 'EAA//vam, 6c OaXaa- Mtvwoc?"fc T°V Kvaxriov, KOI el

i vi(TWV

."1 He regards Minos as a purely heroic .personage; while to him and to others of his day the Pelopids of Mycenae were men like themselves. This would seem to justify us in placing the Minoan thalassocracy in the age before the Mycenaean period. But the primitiveness and poorness of the pras- Mycenaean culture of the islands hardly accord with the traditional magnificence of the Knossian monarch, " /SaovXswraroc 0y/yrwv jSaoriAr/wv": also the ruins of the city and palace at Knossos are Myce- naean in character, and therefore later in date. But the foundation of the palace seems to go back to proto- Mycenaaan days, and in the proto-Mycenaean period the culture of Crete had perhaps risen to a pitch of development rather higher than that of the culture of Thera or of Melos; at any rate the character of the proto-Mycenaean pottery from Crete points in this direction. Minos may then have been a "Proto-Myce- nasan." The whole story of Minos is so mingled with pure myth that little certainty can be attained with re- gard to its details, but there can be no doubt as to the main fact: Minos represents a most powerful Cretan kingdom which preceded the Argive dominion in the- 1 HDT. iii. 122.


, i.e., belonged to the earlier period of Mycenaean culture. The legends of his expedition against Kami- kos in Sicily, and of the great Cretan armada which set out to avenge his death and afterwards colonized Hyria in Italy,1 are not impossibilities, and very probably have some truth in them. Man}?- legends point to a con- tinuance of Cretan activity in the ^Egean long after the days of the half- mythical Minos. Megara was said to have been attacked by a Cretan fleet in very early days.2 The story of the colonization of Klaros and Kolophon by Rhakios 3 is probably historical: it relates to a period long before the return of the Herakleids and the " Great Migrations." The eponymous hero of Miletos was also called a Cretan. The Mycenaean centre in the Troad is also, as we have seen (p, 177), connected in legend with Crete.

We may perhaps attribute this maritime energy to the beginning of the Mycenaean time, when the new development of culture was being evolved in Crete and the neighbouring islands. The " Minoan thalassocracy " then covers the period of transition from the proto-Mycenaean Age proper: and it is to this period (c. 1700-1400 B.C.?) that the palace of Knossos probably dates back.

To judge from the discoveries in the Minoan palace of Knossos, at this period Crete already possessed the peculiar system of pictographic signs; which might seem to mark it out as in some ways the most developed of the Mycenaean lands. But it is probable that other similar systems of local origin

1 HDT. vii. 169 ff. 2 PAUS. i. 39, 44. 3 Il>. vii. 3.


were in vogue at the same time in other parts of the Greek world; to deduce from its pictographs alone a pre-eminent role for Crete in the Mycenaean period is impossible. Commercially, Crete had no doubt already some importance as connecting the ^Egean with Cyprus and the East. Phoenician traders may already have reached it, and it appears probable that the Cretans were included among the Mycenaean tribes known to the Egyptians in the sixteenth century B.C. as the people of Ke/tiu.1 The Cretans were no doubt at this period as active navi- gators of the ./Egean and the neighbouring seas as they were to be in the future; but whether Cretan Kei'tiu-people ever got any farther eastward than Cyprus or came into contact with the Egyptians we cannot tell. We have no certainty that their island was known to the Egyptians at this time, though it quite possibly may have been At any rate, no land is mentioned among the Keftiu-countries which can be certainly identified with Crete, as Asi or lantanai can be identified with Cyprus.

Egyptian artistic influence, however, had already reached Crete, if we are to take the frescoes of the Minoan palace of Knossos as being relics of Minoan •days. And then the apparent synchronism of these frescoes with those of the tomb of Rekhmara would date this Minoan period — the period of Cretan thalassocracy — to about 1500 B.C., a date which agrees very well with the probability that the time of Cretan hegemony dates to the earlier centuries of the Mycenaean age. The thalassocracy of the

1 V. ante, p. 165.


Mycenaean kings will then date some centuries later; probably about the thirteenth and twelfth centuries.

Whether the old Minoan rulers were Aryans or not it is impossible to say; but the probability that their subjects were non- Aryan Pelasgi, Eteokretans in fact, is confirmed by the frescoes of Knossos and the tomb of Rekhmara which depict them as a ruddy, black-haired race, much resembling the modern Italians.

During the later Mycenaean period Crete, although it no longer ruled the sea, and the Achaian tribes of the mainland seem to have regarded it as in some sort under their domination, yet appears to have remained one of the chief centres of Greek civiliza- tion. It was still great and prosperous, its cities were a full hundred in number, and according to the Epos it was still under the hegemony of the princes of Minoan Knossos, Idomeneus and Menones, who after Agamemnon and Nestor brought the greatest number of ships to the siege of Troy.1 In the Iliad a close connection between the Argive and Cretan princes is noticeable.2 Legend again makes Katreus son of Minos have close relations with Nauplios, the eponymous hero of Nauplia, and his daughter Aerope was said to have been the mother of Agamemnon and Menelaos.3 The Knossian princes of late-Mycenaean times were then very probably of Achaian (i.e., Ar}~an) blood, related to -their Mycenaean overlord. It was in this post-

1 //. ii. 645 ff; cf. 0(1 xix. 172 ff. '2 11. iii. 232 if.

EUR., Or. 1009. Cf. MILCHHOFER, Anfavge der Kumt, p. 134.


Minoan period that the emigration of the Philis- tines and T'akarai to Palestine apparently took place (c. 1200 B.C.).

We may doubt very much if these conditions still obtained in the days when the songs of the Epos were put together. With the end of the Mycenaean period the importance of Crete came to an end. In the anarchy of the post-Mycenaean age the early civilization of the island was extinguished, never to reappear. Her "hundred" cities sank into insignificance, destroying each other in furious internal quarrels.1 Her people remained bold and energetic sailors, but instead of the mighty rulers of the ^Egean they became mere prowling sea-robbers. The infusion of Dorian blood seems to have merely helped to barbarize the Cretans; certainly it in no way improved them. Henceforward they were merely the historical aa ^tvarai, KUKU 9ripia, yaartpsc apyot, backward in the arts of peace, but sur- passing all others in the science of piracy. The days were indeed long past when the Cretans ruled the ^Egean, demanded human tribute from Athens for the purpose of sacrifice to the bull-headed deity of Knossos (?), waged war against Megara and even far- off Sicily, sent colonists to Ionia and perhaps to the Cyclades,2 and possibly gave a god to Miletos, Delos, and Delphi.3 The extinction of Cretan civilization is one of the most curious facts in Greek history. " The history of Crete begins in a time so far away, her period of splendour belongs to an age so remote, that she had already sunk into decadence before the

1 PAUS. iii. 2 (FEAZER, loc. cit. iii. p. 313).

2 V. post, p. 243. 3 Ib.


rest of Hellas had began its youth."1 This is an exaggerated statement, but the idea which it conveys is in the main correct.

When, in the Mycenaean period, the dominion of the sea passed from Crete to Mycenae, Argons became the central ganglion of Greek civilization. But the Mycenaean culture on the mainland was not ex- clusively at home in Argolis; it was fully represented in Lakonia, the domain of Menelaos, in Boeotia, the land of the Minyans, and in Phthiotis, where the Achaian and Hellenic names were closely connected. Orchomenos and lolkos were the chief northern centres of Mycenaean influence. Orchomenos, with her port lying on the Euboic Gulf, connected with the northern ^Egean by way of lolkos, while her sea com- munications towards the south coincided with those of Athens or Prasiai and Nauplia. lolkos was the natural outlet of Northern Greece to the ^Egean. The fully-developed Mycenaean remains of the sixth city of Troy show that the Hellespontine lands were probably in regular communication with continental Greece as well as with Crete, with which they are connected in legend and myth. The legend of the Argonauts points to an early attempt of the princes of lolkos to reach the Hellespont and even the Black Sea. The line of communication passed no doubb by way of Lemnos. The Argonauts made

1 HOECK, Kreta, Vorrede, p. v.: " Kretas Geschichte beginnt in so ferner Zeit, seine Glanzperiode gehort so hohem Alter an, dass es bereits schon sank, als das iibrige Hellas erst aufbliihte."


Lemnos their halfway-house. In the Homeric poems we find most of the northern islands inhabited by a population partly composed of Sintians (who were of Thracian origin),1 apparently dominated by noble families of Minyan stock (" Mycenaeans " from lolkos and Orchomenos); in Lemnos we find Euneos2 " son of Jason."

We have already seen that the Egyptian monu- ments give us valuable information with regard to the inhabitants of the ^Egean during the Mycenaean period. The identity of the Thuirsha with the Tyrsenoi we have discussed, and have found that, although we cannot claim the Thuirsha as an ^Bgean people, several of the other northern tribes who came into contact with the Egyptians at the time of the XlXth Dynasty (about 1350-1200 B.C.) — i.e., during the Mycenaean period — were very probably "^Egeans." The Uashasha and T7akarai were pro- bably Fa£toi and TevKpoi from Crete, and if the Akaiuasha, the Danauna, the Dardenui, the Masa, and the Luka were really the 'A\aiFoi^ the Acn^afot, the Aa/oSavo*, the Mutrot, and the AVKIOI — and there is little reason to think that they were not, every reason to think that they were — then we have not merely the first historical mention of these well- known names, but the earliest testimony to the intimacy of the relations which existed between continental Greece and western Asia Minor in the

1 11. i. 594; Od. viii. 294.

2 11. vii. 468, 471; xxiii. 747.


Mycenaean period. The Asiatic tribes are mingled with those of Greek origin as they were in Homeric days, the bond between them being, no doubt, the common Mycenaean culture, and the common Pelasgic race-substratum. Many of these tribes were, no doubt, pure " Pelasgians," but others, as, for in- stance, the Akaiuasha and Danauna, must have been " Hellenes," i.e., were partly, in the case of the Akaiuasha perhaps purely, Aryan in blood. In Crete and Rhodes Hellenic tribes were no doubk settled in the later Mycenaean period, but we shall see that it is possible that during the whole of the- Mycenaean period the Cyclades still continued to be inhabited by the Lele^es, and were without true- Hellenic inhabitants, although the Hellenic kings of Knossos or Mycenae exercised suzerainty over them. Also, if it be granted that the association of the Leleges with the Karians is a mistake, it seems an arguable though hardly a probable theory that the Karians had not yet overflowed into the islands in the Mycenaean period. The evidence on this point will be discussed in the next chapter.

We have hitherto touched but slightly upon the question of the place of the Western lands in the history of the civilization of this period. But the importance of the artistic influence which the My- cenaean culture undoubtedly exercised on Italian civilization has been pointed out. This influence seems not to have begun to work, however, until a. comparatively late period.


The few Mycenaean objects which have hitherto been found in Italy and Sicily l are of a late period , and are simply importations from Greece. We cannot regard them as proofs of a Hellenic "My- cenaean" population in the West at this period. Possibly the earliest Greek settlements in the West were established only by a backflow of migration from the East after this had been checked in Cyprus by the insuperable barrier offered to further •eastward progress by the proximity of the civilized peoples of the Orient. Legend brings Meriones the Cretan to Sicily after the Siege of Troy, and regards the Elyrnians as being of Greek origin.2 This is all very nebulous. The legend of the Cretan expedi- tion against Kamikos, in Sicily, and migration to Hyria, in Italy, proves no real Mycenaean colonization. That the tribes of Messapians and Oinotrians which we find settled in that part of Italy which is imme- diately opposite to the Greek coast came originally from Greece is possible, geographically; but modern investigators have made quite clear the specifically Epirote descent of the lapygians, and have shown that the language of the Messapians was akin to Albanian. These tribes were then all of Illyrian

1 -E.g., vases from a beehive tomb at Syracuse; date probably Xth-IXth Century (FuRTW.-LoSCHCKE, loc. cit. p. 480. Cf. WALTERS, loc. cit.). Weapons from rock-tombs: ORSI, Bull, di Palctnologia italiana, xv. p. 158.

2 THUC. vi. 2, and other authorities; " Phrygians and Phokians" (cf. BUSOLT, Gr. Gesch. L 375, n. 2). HOLM (Hist. Gr. i. p. 284) thinks that an Oriental oiigin seems to be proved for the Elynrians by the analogies Elymoi and Elam, Eryx and Erecli! This would hardly commend itself to an Assyriologist!


origin.1 The fact that we find Mtavcnriot in Lokris (Thuc. iii. 101), and the existence of a hill Mtrro-aTnov in Bceotia (Strabo, ix. 405), only show that there was perhaps an Illyrian settlement in Northern Greece. In Sicily no tribes of Greek origin, with the possible, but very doubtful, exception of the Elymians, can at this period be placed. So, though the Cretans may in early Mycenaean days have been in communica- tion with and made war on the coasts of Sicily and Italy, no Greek colonies were founded in the West until the backflow of the Greeks towards the West began in the eighth century B.C. So that the Mycenaean antiquities found in Sicily and in Italy must have been imported probably by Mycenseans — Taphians, perhaps 2 — hardly yet by Phoenicians, and traded by them to the native tribes. That considerable influence was exercised by Mycenaean importations upon the art of the prae-Hellenic (Sikel) inhabitants of Sicily is evident from the results of Signor P. Orsi's excavations of the early necropoleis of that island.3 This commerce, no doubt, dated back to prae-Mycenaean times, but we cannot trace its history. It has been supposed that relations existed between Mycenaean Greece and Sardinia as early as the Xlllth century B.C., because among the

1 KRETSCHMER, loc. cit. p. 272 ff. HDT. (vii. 170) regards the Messapians as an lapygian tribe.

2 I cannot agree with WIDE (Ath. Mitth. xxii. p. 258) that Mycena?an civilization never extended into western Greece because few Mycenaean remains have yet been found in that quarter. Before the Vaphio tombs were discovered it might with equal want of probability have been asserted that Mycena-an civilization never readied Lakonia.

3 PETERSEN, Rom. Mitth. xiii. (1898) p 150 ff.


allied tribes who attacked Egypt at that date l were Shardina who have been identified with the Sar- dinians. But no traces of Mycenaean culture have been found in Sardinia,2 and it seems better to regard the Shardina as Sardians. That the My- cenaean cities of Greece were connected with the West by way of the Corinthian Gulf and Korkyra at an early period is quite possible (see p. 283, n. i). The fact of Mycenaean influence in Italy and the West tells us more concerning the connection of Mycenaean civilization with the West than the evi- dence of either tradition or archaeological discovery in Western Greece would imply. In the Ionian Islands themselves the presence of the Mycenaean culture is shown only by a few "beehive" tombs in Kephallenia3 and a fortress, probably Mycenaean, on Mount Ae'tos in Ithaka.4 But the route from East to West must have passed by the Ionian Islands; this is the route indicated in the Odyssey (i. 184), and even as late as the fifth century the only way to Italy and Sicily still lay through the sheltered waters between them and the mainland.

1 DE ROUGE'S identification of the Shakalasha and Uashasha, who took part in these invasions, with the Sikels and Oscans, has been seen to be quite impos^ble. Cf. ante, pp. 173, 177.

2 FuRTW.-LoscHCKE, ioc. cit. p. 48; REINACH, Mir. Or.

P- 550-

3 FEAZER, Pausanias, iii. p. 140.

4 SCHUCHHAEDT, loc. cit. p. 305.



WE have seen in Chapter ii. that both archaeo- logical and legendary evidence combine to show that it was to the shock of the Return of the Herakleids, which destroyed the prse-Dorian Hel- lenic kingdoms, that the comparatively sudden decadence and disappearance of Mycenaean culture was probably due. Comparatively sudden in the Greek peninsula at least: and here we have strong testimony in favour of the hypothesis. The Dorian Invasion was confined to continental Greece and the southern islands; and it is precisely in these parts of Greece that Mycenaean culture disappeared most quickly; in Asia, to which the Dorian can hardly have penetrated much before the beginning of the eighth century, it lasted apparently almost till that time; in Cyprus, which he never reached, debased Mycenaean art was still in vogue at the end of the eighth.

"Comparatively sudden" must not, however, be taken to imply immediate extinction: the Dorian conquest took long years to accomplish; the period of disturbance, already foreshadowed by the wander- ings of the tribes which attacked Egypt in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C., cannot, if we


are to take the traditional date for the Return of the Herakleids as even only approximately correct, have begun later than IOOO B.C., about which time Mycenaean traces begin to fail us in Egypt; but that the Dorians had not yet crossed from Epidauros to ^Egina even as late as 850 B.C. may be argued from the late-Mycenasan treasure from that island, which appears to date to the end of the ninth century.1 During this period of transition, which may be roughly dated from 1050 to 850 B.C., bronze was supplanted for purposes of weapon-making, &c., by iron, and to this time of change we have seen reason to date the Homeric civilization, or rather the civilization of the early lays of the Iliad. The term " Homeric Civiliza- tion " may, however, be fairly extended to include the culture which is described in the later parts of the Iliad and in the Odyssey; this stage, that in which many of the Homeric poets themselves lived, connects the period of transition with that which was marked by the beginnings of the classical civilization of Greece. "The Homeric period" may be therefore understood to cover the whole post-Mycersean period of the history of Greek civilization, from the time of the Dorian invasion to the end of the eighth century B.C., about which time the classical culture of Greece may be said to have begun. For our knowledge of the history of the civilization of this period we are naturally indebted in great measure to the Homeric poems themselves.

The first epic singers of Greece, living in Asiatic Hellas in, apparently, the ninth century B.C., at a 1 EVANS, J. H. S. xiii. p. 195 ff.



time when the Mycenaean culture, now almost entirely confined to Asia, had passed into a decadent stage in which the artistic triumphs of its earlier days were fast becoming fairy tales, and were regarded as the works rather of gods than of men, sang of the ancient glories of their race in the days when the princes of the Achaians went forth to war under the leadership of the kings of " golden " Mycenae, but their descrip- tions of the nourishing period of two or three cen- turies before were strongly influenced by the altered circ*mstances of their own time. The Homeric cul- ture is evidently the culture of the poets' own days; there is no attempt to archaize here, unless the indul- gence in wondering descriptions of the masterpieces of bygone days is archaizing. But it is otherwise when political conditions are dealt with. Paul Veronese arrayed the wife of Darius in ruff and far- thingale, but he knew full well that she was a queen of ancient Persia, not a sixteenth-century Italian princess.

So the picture of continental Greece which is given to us in the Iliad shows us a congeries of tribes, belonging to various Hellenic and prse-Hellenic stocks, ruled by princes of Achaian or Minyan blood who are often descended from or otherwise connected with the older Pelasgian rulers of the land. The majority of these princes owe a more or less loose kind of allegiance to the king of Mycenae, the chief city of the Achaians and central point of Mycenasan culture. This is in all probability a pretty accurate description of the political state of "Mycenaean" Greece immediately before the period of the Dorian


Invasion, and can hardly be taken to represent its condition as late as the ninth century, when the total displacement and decadence in culture caused by the Return of the Herakleids was in full swing. In regard to the political conditions of continental Greece, therefore, the Homeric poets consciously and con- sistently archaized, in the Odyssey as well as in the Jliad.

So they did in regard to Asiatic Greece also, as the non-mention of the cities of Asia shows. But when treating of Asia generally and the ^Egean they were not always so careful: and here we may glean ^ome hints as to the real state of Greece in post- Mycenaean days. It was perhaps natural that Asiatic poets should depict the countries which they knew best more or less as they were in their own time, while around continental Greece, the home of their heroic ancestors, was cast the glamour of romance, hiding its barbarism.

Take, for instance, that omnipresence of the Phoenicians in Greek waters, which is so often in- sisted upon by the Homeric poets.1 This points to a post- Mycenaean time, for during the heyday of

1 It has lately been supposed that the Phoenicians never entered the ^Egean at all. The somewhat remarkable theory has been enunciated that the SiSwiuot avdpes of the Homeric poets were not Phosnicians at all, but Greek traders to Sidon! On the analogy of "East India Merchants," apparently. But the Homeric description of these " Sidonian Men " shows that real Sidonians were meant; this new idea, goes clear against all the •evidence.


Mycenaean culture and Achaian political hegemony there would have been no room for the Phoenicians in the Greek seas. The Phoenicians come in no way into the political scheme of the Homeric poems: no contingent starting from a Greek land is composed of Phoenicians or is under Phoenician leadership. This fact, that there is no place for the Phoenicians in

FIG. 59.— A Phoenician Ship of the Vllth century B.C. (From an Assyrian bas-relief.)

the scheme of political archaizing, would go to show that their activity in the ^Egean was not contempo- rary with the heroic age. But where they do come in is where the poets are describing scenes of every- day life, the everyday life and general civilization of their own day, and are no longer archaizing. It was then in post-Mycenaean days, when the Dorian had subjugated the Peloponnese, ,and the deeds .of the


" Mycenaean " heroes were to their descendants in Asia but a glorious memory, that the thalassocracy passed to the sailors of Sidon and Tyre. In both Iliad and Odyssey they are found trafficking in slaves and goods, often trapping the former by stealth, and, when possible, obtaining the latter by guile, every- where from the river Aigyptos to the innermost

FIG. 60. — A Phoenician Ship of the Vllth century B.C. (From an Assyrian bas-relief.)

recesses of the yEgean . Archaeological traces of the Phoenicians in the /Egean are not very apparent, but their presence there is vouched for by the unanimous voice of Greek tradition and by the occurrence in the ./Egean islands and coasts of place-names which are obviously of Phoenician origin. In the north of the ^Egean clearer signs of their activity are traceable- than even in the south. In the Iliad they are men-


tioned as trading to Lemnos .; l in Thasos the Tyrian Herakles was worshipped in very early times,2 and the whole of this island was turned upside-down by the mining operations of the Phoenicians,3 who even settled on the opposite coast of Thrace in order to- pursue their search for the precious metals on Mount Pangaios. Samothrace and Imbros were seats of a worship which, although mingled with elements derived from the Chthonic worship of Greece, which appears to have been of " Pelasgic " origin, is indubit- ably Semitic in character; the worship of the Kabeiroi, the Kebirim or " Great Gods." On the neighbouring Asiatic coast such a name as Adramyt- tion (cf. Hadrumetum and Hadhramaut) is certainly Semitic.4 Lesbos was a seat of Aphrodite-worship, and coming further south, the name of Samos, which recurs as the Homeric designation of Samothrace,. apparently meant " High " in Semitic speech.5 In

1 II. xxiii. 745. The name of Lemnos has been claimed as- Semitic: Libnah. A local hero of Lemnos was named Makar, an appellation which is, perhaps with little reason, said to be- Semitic.

2 HDT. ii. 44.

3 Jb. vi. 47.

4 Hazarmaveth, "Valley of Death." Lampsakos, however,, which has been confidently claimed as Phoenician, and said to mean "At the Ford," cannot be a Semitic name. Even if it could be taken to mean "At the Ford" or even "Towards the Ford" in Semitic, which is improbable, no such com- bination with a preposition is possible for a Semitic town- name.

5 STEABO viii. 346, speaking of the western Samos in Elis, observes: " 7rp6repop 81 /ecu iroXis Zd//os Trpoffayopevo/Jiei'T} Sia r (>• ti\f/os t'<rwy, e-rreidTj (rduous eKaXovv ra V^TJ'" /Samos = " high3'

is clearly Semitic; Ar. U»s» "to be high," used commonly at


the southern ^Egean, Karthaia in Keos must have been of Phoenician origin, and Phoenician settlements •existed in early times in Rhodes; the priestly families •of the island traced their descent from Phoenician ancestors, and the name of the mountain Atabyrion is the same as that of the Palestinian Tabor. In •Crete the names of Itanos and lardanos have a Semitic sound, though, as will be seen later, it is •doubtful if the legends of the Minotaur and of Talos the brazen man are really Semitic. In Kythera the especial worship of Aphrodite points to an early con- nection with the Phoenicians, and it has been supposed that they were attracted to this island and to Kranae in the Lakonian Gulf by the excellence of their purple-fisheries. The purple-fisheries of Nisyros, Kos, and Gyaros, the mines of Siphnos, and the early pre-eminence of the Koans, Amorgans and Therasans in the art of weaving, have been adduced as proofs of Phoenician activity in these islands also. Legend •certainly settles Phoenicians in Thera. It would not be difficult to multiply further the traces of the Phoenicians in the ./Egean, but in so doing the risk

the present time when speaking of a mountain, ~+& " height,"

&c. This Semitic name can only have been bestowed by the Phoenicians: a word which in Arabic is sham — would in Phoeni- cian possibly take the form sam — . We may then consider it probable that it was the Phoenicians who originally <rdfj.ovs e/cdXow TO, v\f/rj, and that the Samos of the East as well as that of the West really owed its name to them, rather than to the Thracian Saians, to whom some ascribed it (STRABO, x. 457); an impos- sible derivation. Phoenician settlements in Samos and Samo- thrace are then clearly indicated: the story that Samothrace owed its name to a later Samian migration thither is probably an invention.


is incurred of pressing the argument from similarity of name too far, as has certainly been done by Movers and Oberhummer. Enough evidence is forthcoming to show that at an early period the ^Egean was over- run in all directions by Phoenician traders, slave- dealers, miners, and purple-fishers.

The evidence of the Homeric poems shows that this was the case in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. How far back must we place the beginnings of Phoe- nician enterprise in the ^Egean? Herodotos says that the temple of the Tyrian Herakles inThasos was founded five generations before Herakles the son of Amphitryon appeared in Greece.1

Objects of Phoenician appearance, e.g., the golden Aphrodite-figure with doves, the temple with doves on the eaves, &c.,2 have been found in the shaft- graves of Mycenae, which have generally been con- sidered to be of early date. This, however, proves nothing as to Phoenician activity in the ^Egean at an early period of the Mycenaean age, since, while many of the contents of the shaft-graves appear to be early, others, and among them these " Phoenician" objects,, can only be compared with the late-Mycenaean objects from Gyprus and so may date from the ninth century or later. No similar objects of Phoenician appearance have, apparently, been found with undoubtedly old- Mycenaean deposits such as those of Knossos Vaphio and lalysos. In Rhodes archaeological evidence of the presence of Phoenicians is first noticeable at Kameiros long after the end of the Mycenaean period

1 HOT. ii. 44.

2 SCHUCHHARDT, Figs. l8o, l8l, 183.


in that island. Tradition makes the Phoenicians in Ehodes the successors of a previous race, known in later days as the " Heliadai." l These may have been the Mycenaean inhabitants. The half-mythical races of artists which are found in Rhodes and Crete, the Telchines and Daktyloi, have been regarded as Phoeni- cians,2 but with little reason. In Crete the Daktyloi are connected with Daedalus and the very early Minoan cycle of legends. Attempts have been made to show that the myths of the Minotaur and of Talos are of Semitic origin, and so to connect Minos and Daeda- lus with Phoenicia. But the attempt fails, because no bull-headed god or deity to whom bulls were sacred is Jknown among the Semites; 3 and the fact that bulls

1 HOLM, Hist. Gr. i. p. 94, n. 6.

'2 PAUS. ix. 19, says that Cyprus also had been inhabited by Telchines, and calls " Telchis " a son of Europa (ib. ii. 5). This tale is evidently based on the supposition that the Telchines were Phoenicians.

j The nearest approach to a bull-god which can be found

among the Semites is the Moloch of Rabbi Kimchi, who said that Moloch was calf-faced. This late idea has no other authority to back it up (SMITH, Bible Diet. p. 403). The golden calf or bull of the Israelites was an Egyptian god. Baal often had horns, but they were those of a ram, not a bull, and were not given to him until his form Baal-Hammon (" Lord of Heat ") had become identified with the ram -horned Egyptian Ammon. The cow's horns of Ashtaroth (Ashtaroth-Karnaim) were due to an equally late identification of her with Isis-Hathor (cf. ROBERTSON- SMITH, Religion of the Semites, p. 310). Not even in Mesopotamia was there any true bull-deity; there is no evidence that Marduk was ever conceived of as a bull, or that bulls were sacred to him. The Assyrian Lama?se (Hebr. Kerubim) had the bodies not the heads of bulls, and were not regarded as deities. (Prof. SAYCB has theories on the subject: cf. Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 289 ff.) It may be noted that the Cretan Zeus Asterios was a deity of •comparatively late origin.


and theriorn orphic demons and deities generally seem to have had a special attraction for the Mycenaeans as well as the apparent identuty of the Mycenaean palace Knossos with the Labyrinth would indicate that the Minotaur was a Mycenaean conception.1 Human sacrifice also was no speciality of the Semites; unmistakable traces of it are found in Greece. And if the Minotaur was a Mycenaean conception, so may also the story of Talos, the brazen man who drove the Argonauts away from Crete, be Mycenaean too. It would therefore seem preferable to regard the Telchines and Daktyloi as representing the Myce- naean art-workers of Rhodes and Crete, rather than as Phoenicians. The Europa-myth certainly con- nects Crete with the Phoenicians, but it bears every mark of having been invented at a comparatively late period; Homer knows nothing of it,2 and though the early epic poet Eumelos was said to have written an " Europia," our earliest authorities for the tale are Hellanikos3 and Herodotos.4

We cannot therefore find either in Rhodes or in

1 Mr. Evans thinks that the Legend of the Minotaur may have first grown round the frescoes and reliefs of bulls on the walls of the numberless corridors and chambers of the Mycensean palace at Knossos, which probably is the Labyrinth. But the Knossians may have especially worshipped a bull-headed devil, connected in some way with the Cretan Zeus, to whom human sacrifices were made. And the story of the tribute of young men and maidens from Athens may record a historical fact. (Cf. App. I. post.)

~ The reference in //. xiv. 324, to Europa as the mother of Minos and Rhadamanthys by Zeus is, with the rest of the passage from 1. 317 to 1. 327, a late interpolation (<-f. HENKE, llias, p. 12).

3 Schol ad //. ii. 494. 4 HDT. i. 2.


Crete any evidence of the presence of the Phoenicians in those islands until the end of the Mycenaean period; and the Phoenician occupation of Kythera can hardly have taken place until after Crete had become known to the Semitic sailors.

Turning to the mainland of Greece, the legend which brings Kadmos from Phoenicia would seem to settle Phoenicians at Thebes in Boeotia in Mycenaean times, and therefore to pre-suppose a very early Phoe- nician activity in the ^Egean. The Kadmeians are at Thebes in the Iliad,1 but no hint is given that they were Phoenician or in any way non-Greek. In the Odyssey the legend of the woes of CEdipus is alluded to, and the sea-goddess Ino, daughter of Kadmos,. appears to Odysseus,2 but here again no hint is given us that the poet conceived either Kadmos or CEdipus- as persons of non-Greek origin. But it may be maintained that since the name Kadmos resembles the Semitic word Qedem, meaning " East," the Kad- meians must have come from the Semitic East, and that the worship of the Kabeiroi and the occurrence of the name of their leader Eshmun at Thebes enables- us to conclude that these " Easterners " were Phoeni- cians. But the name Kadmos has also been derived from a Greek root,3 and the whole story may have grown up from the chance resemblance of the name- to the Semitic word, like the myth of Europa, which may have originated in the possibility that the Phoenicians may have called Europe JEreb, "The

1 II. iv. 385 ff; v. 804 ff; xxiii. 680.

2 Od. xi. 271; il. v. 333.

3 PAPE-BENSELEE, IVbrJi. Or. Eigenn. s. v. Kd5/*os.


Evening-Land," i.e., the West. And the cult of the Kabeiroi may quite well have been intro- duced from Samothrace at a comparatively late date, in consequence of the general acceptance of the story. The resemblance between the name of the river Ismenos and that of the Phoenician Eshmun would then be a simple coincidence. With regard to the- general probability of a Phoenician settlement in Bceotia opinion is much divided; some see in such a settlement a proof of the commercial sagacity of the Phoenicians, who must have occupied Thebes in order to control the trade-route from the Euripus, where they are also considered to have settled, to the Corin- thian Gulf; l while others consider that a Phoenician settlement at Thebes would be absolutely in the air, and have no reason whatever for existence. The last view seems certainly to be the most probable; a Phoenician settlement inland, even at so short a dis- tance from the sea as Thebes, is unlikely. The legends of the wars of Thebes against the Achaians of Argos, and the enmity between Thebes and Minyan Orchomenos, may point to a non-Achaian origin for the Kadmeians, but it does not show that they were non-Hellenes, much less foreigners. It may there- fore be concluded that the legend which made Kadmos a Phoenician is quite untrustworthy, and that, generally speaking, a Phoenician settlement in Bceotia at any date is improbable. Kadmos was also said to have visited Thrace, and Thera was said to have had Kadmeian inhabitants.2 But these tales do not prove-

1 HOLM, Hist. Or. i. p. 97.

- APOLLOD. ii. I, iii. I; HOT. iv. 147.


that the Phoenicians had already reached Thrace, or •even Thera, as early as the time of the foundation of Thebes, which legend would place in the Mycenaean period. Both Thrace and Thera were without doubt scenes of Phoenician activity in later days, and for this reason were connected with Kadrnos after he had become regarded as a Phoenician. The Kadmeian legend cannot therefore be considered to prove any- thing as to an early activity of the Phoenicians in the ^Egean. All the evidence points to a post-Mycenaean •date for even their first entry into that sea. While the hom*ogeneous Mycenaean culture still dominated the lands and islands of the ^Egean basin, it would have been difficult for the Phoenicians to have attained any footing there; it would not have been till the fall of the Achaian hegemony which followed the Dorian invasion and the time of Confusion in the ^Egean which must have followed that event that they would have obtained the opportunity to enter the ^Egean. Phoenician activity in the islands of the ^Egean may therefore be considered to have com- menced in the dark age between the Return of the Herakleids and the time of the poets of the Iliad. We have seen that at this latter period Kythera had apparently long been a centre of the Phoenician cult of Aphrodite; in 77. xv. 432 the island is alluded to in a manner which is suggestive; Lykophron, son of Master, squire of Telamonian Ajax, is expelled from " divine " Kythera because he had slain a man there.1 'This looks as if the island was already regarded as -especially holy to Aphrodite, so that it was defiled by

1 'E?rei ai>5pa /care/era


a homicide; the worship of Aphrodite can only have been brought thither by the Phoenicians, who there- fore must have been in possession of the purple- fisheries there at a period long before the time of the •authors of the Iliad.1 So that the actual date of the first entry of the Phoenicians into the ^Egean can hardly be placed much later than IOOO B.C.

We hear so little of the Western Lands in the Iliad that it is impossible to say what part the Phoe- nicians may have played in the West as early as the tenth and ninth centuries. In the next century, as •Greek maritime activity revived, the western seas became better known to the poets of Ionia, and we now hear something of Phoenician activity in that •direction. Since Phoenician influence upon early Italian art is evident as far back as the beginning of the eighth century B.C., it is probable that the Tyrian merchants traded regularly with the Ionian Islands in the Homeric period. The occurrence of the name iSamos in these islands at this time 2 may perhaps be taken to prove a former Phoenician occupation of one or more of them. An ingenious speculator has argued a far-reaching Phoenician domination in these islands -and on the opposite coast of Greece at this period, but his conclusions are chiefly founded on verbal resemblances and analogies which are far less striking than that of Samos == Samak, and are on the whole unconvincing.3 The commercial activity of the

1 Cf. HDT. i. 105.

- Od. passim; II. ii. 634 (later than Od.). 3 OBERHUMMER, Die Phonizier in Akarnanien. He claims the Taphians (Od. i. 184) as Phoenicians, with little reason.


Taphians or Teleboans of Akarnania in these waters at this time is a proof that the trade of the West was by no means restricted to Phoenician merchants in the eighth century B.C. at any rate.

Our general conclusions then with regard to the activity of the Phoenicians in Greece at this period are: that about the beginning of the first millennium B.C. the Phoenicians established numberless factories and trading stations in. most of the islands and in many places on the Greek coasts; that their pre- dominant position in the ^Egean was not relinquished by them until the growing maritime energy of the Greeks, which began to manifest itself as soon as the disturbed tribes had finally settled down in their new seats and the development of their common civiliza- tion could again pursue its course uninterrupted, compelled them to withdraw from Greek waters; that in the ninth and eighth centuries, the period of the Iliad, the process of withdrawal seems to have been already begun: though all trade is still in their hands, yet they seem to be no longer in actual occu- pation of many of their old settlements; and that in the course of the next century, 750-650, when they are described in the Odyssey as trading more espe- cially outside Greek waters, they disappeared from Greece. The break-up of their power was no doubt materially hastened by the conquest of Phoenicia by the Assyrians, which took place in the eighth century.

In the Greek islands their occupation left many traces behind it; new arts, perhaps, such as the making and dyeing of splendid robes, while in some


of the islands — Rhodes, Thera, and Thasos, for example — a Phoenician element was permanently added to the population. In continental Greece few traces of their presence, other than place-names, are •discernible. It is possible, however, that the great .gift of the Phoenicians to Greece, the alphabet, was introduced by them, not after their expulsion from the ^Egean. but while they were still dominant there. We do not know when the Phoenicians invented the alphabet. In the fifteenth century B.C. they used the Mesopotamian cuneiform syllabary, and, to judge from the way in which Palestinian names are trans- literated in the Egyptian geographical work which is known as " The Travels of an Egyptian," l they still used it in the thirteenth century, to which the work in question is to be assigned. One of the earliest known specimens of the alphabet is the inscription on the cup of Hiram I., which dates to the tenth •century.2 It was therefore invented at some time between 1200 and IOOO B.C. So that it may well have been first brought to Greece somewhere about the ninth century, though it was apparently not -adopted by the Greeks till at earliest the end of the eighth. It is evident that in Homeric times (ninth- •eighth centuries) the art of writing was known, but only to a few, and these the wisest of mankind; it is impossible to say whether the o-rjjuara Xuy/oa 3 are more likely to have been Phoenician letters than

1 Brit. Mus. Pap. 10247. Text in BUDGE, Heading Book, p. 274 ff; translation by CHABAS and GOODWIN in Records of the Past, ist Series, ii. p. 107 ff.

'2 Illustrated by MASPEKO, Premieres Meties des Peuples, p. 574.

{ //. vi. 169.


Mycenaean pictographs; in Cyprus pictographs were- apparently used down to the end of the Mycenaean period, when the Cypriote syllabary seems to make its first appearance (v. post, p. 265). The adapted Phoenician alphabet was apparently first used in the southern ^Egean islands, in Khodes, Crete, and Thera,1 which are especially connected in legend with the Phoenicians.

In the Homeric poems we have also traces of un- Hellenic peoples settled in the ^Egean who were not of Phoenician origin. Their influence on the develop- ment of early Greek civilization, though not so marked as that of the Phoenicians, is, however, very noticeable.

The Aryan Phrygians seem to have crossed over into Lesbos; the island appears as politically attached to the dominions of the Phrygian princes, and is apparently inhabited by a non-Greek population.2

Lemnos was, as has been seen, partly occupied in Homeric, and probably also in Mycenaean, times by the Sintians, who were of Thracian origin. The Thracians, who appear in the Iliad as allies of the Trojans, seem to have been far more civilized at this time than in later days; the chariots, horses, and golden armour and accoutrements of Rhesos indicate a highly-developed culture.8 It has indeed been doubted if the Homeric Threikes were the same people as the Thracians of historical times. This

1 ROBERTS, Introd. to Greek Epigraphy, p. 23 ff. Cf. HILLER v_ GARTRINGEN, Die archdische Kultur der Imel Thera, p. 15.

2 //. ix. 129; xxiv. 544. 3 11. x. 434 If.


early Thracian culture, which was no doubt estab- lished in other islands of the northern ^Egean besides Lemnos, must have made itself felt further south and have influenced the development of Greek civilization to a certain extent. One very noticeable e.lement in Hellenic culture is derived by the unanimous voice- of Greek tradition from Thrace: the ecstatic worship of Dionysos.1 Many writers have considered this worship to be Semitic; the name lacchos has been? supposed to have a Semitic sound; 2 and so some his- torians have made the whole early culture of Thrace Phoenician. The Phoenicians were settled on the Thracian coast in early times, and so whatever Semitic- traits there may be in the Dionysiac worship, and these are not very apparent, may possibly be du& to their influence, but the main idea of the drunken wine-god and his crew is not Semitic; 3 it is Aryan enough. Also the names Aiovvaos and Se/xsA?? are-

1 From the story of the journey of Dionysos to Thebes in Bceotia was deduced the presence of Thracian settlers in Boeotia in pre-historic times, the Thracian origin of the Eumolpid family at Eleusis, &c.

2 cf. SAYCE, Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 54.

3 There was no Semitic wine-god; the deity with the grapes on the rock of Ibriz is " kleinasiatisch," not Semitic, and the Nabataean vine-god Dusares, only known to us at a late period,, is evidently hellenized. Cf. KOBBRTSON SMITH, Religion of the /Semites, p. 193: "The only clear Semitic case of the association of a particular deity with a fruit tree is, I believe, that of the Nabataean Dusares, who was the god of the vine. But the vine came to the Nabatseans only in the period of Hellenic culture (DiOD. xix. 94, 3), and Dusares as the wine-god seems simply to have borrowed the traits of Dionysos." " The Great Dionysiak Myth " (so ROBERT BROWN, JR.: why not "Dionusiak Muth"?) has no discoverable " Euphratean " con- nections.


purely Aryan,1 and so no doubt is "lajc^oc in reality. 'The slight information which we possess as to the general character of the civilization- of the Homeric Thracians enables us to pronounce definitely against any Phoenician or other Semitic origin for it; it appears to have been related to the horse-breeding and chariot-using civilization of the Aryan Phrygians and Maeonians, which was no doubt closely connected with and strongly influenced by the Mycenaean cul- ture, both belonging to the European Bronze Age. Its influence in the zEgean would therefore in all probability introduce no very new or strange elements into Greek art and handicraft.

In the southern ^Egean we perhaps find in the post-Mycensean period a new race installed, the Karians. The abiding tradition of Greece testi- fies, as has already been said, to the early presence of the Karians in the ^Egean islands, and especially in the Cyclades.

] KRETSCHMEK, Ausder Anomia, p. 19, rightly connects Z and the Phrygian word fotfAw ( = Karaxdovioi) with the Slav word for "Land," "~Ea,rth"fii<ss.3eMJi!i,zemlya; Semele was the Demeter of the Aryan Thracians. The supposed Phoenician deity Samlath, confidently claimed as the Semitic prototype of Semele by Prof. SAYCE, loc. cit., cannot be proved to have anything whatever to do with her, and Mr. BROWN'S idea (Bab. and Or. Record, v. p. 159) that the original of both Samlath and Semele was a " Sumero- Akkadian goddess"named"Shamela,"cannot be accepted, because no such deity as "Shamela" ever existed: the name has been wrongly read (see Addenda, p. 322, post}. It seems to me certain that the name of the Getan deity Zalmoxis or Zamolxis (HDT. iv. 94, 95) is, like that of Semele, connected with the word zemlya, " earth"; according to the legend he disappeared from among the Thracians and abode in a subterranean habitation for three .years— i.e., he was a god of the under- world, 0e6s


They are mixed up in legend with the Leleges — " that mysterious race now represented merely as the double of the Carians, now as a distinct people, dividing with the Pelasgians the whole of European Greece"1 — and it maybe that the Lelegic tribes, whom we have already thought to be related to the Pisidians (v. ante, p. 100), were in reality also very closely allied to the Karians, and that the early Lelegic population of the Cyclades, over which the Minoans of Knossos in early Mycenaean days extended their dominion, was to all intents and purposes Karian. The idea of the Karians having conquered the Leleges would then be a mistake due to a want of comprehension of the practical racial identity of Karians and Leleges.

Another theory of the Karians is, however, possible. The Karians, though they certainly belonged to the non- Aryan stock of Asia Minor, are not mentioned among' the Mycenaean tribes of southern Asia Minor who appear on Egyptian monuments, and so may not have reached the /Egean coast till the end of the Mycenasan period. In the Homeric poems the Karians are mentioned as settled in Asia,2 but not in the islands. This silence need not, however, be taken as proof positive that they were not in the islands in the Homeric period. They were in the islands at some time; they appear not to have been in them before this period; at this time the Cyclades, where their chief island settlements were said to have been, are ignored by the earlier Homeric poets and are appa- rently not inhabited by Greeks; a later date than

1 TSOUNTAS-MANATT, p. 257. 2 II. ii. 867, &C.



this for the Karian occupation of the islands is impossible. So that, notwithstanding the silence of the Homeric poets, we might assume that it was during the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C. that the islands were occupied by the Karians,1 and that they were still there when the songs of the Iliad were composed; this then will be the reason why the Cyclades are altogether ignored in the Iliad. The connection of the Karians with the Leleges and with the Minos-legend will then appear to be a fiction of later times, due to the vivid remembrance which the Greeks possessed of the fact that Karians as well as Leleges had once occupied the Cyclades, and ruled the ^Egean.2

The expulsion of the Karians from the islands may well have taken place in the eighth century, when, in the Odyssey, we find the first mention in the early Epos of an island of the Cyclades. It is perhaps sig- nificant that this island is Delos, which was early an important centre of the worship of Apollo. It is there- fore probable that the first island of the Cyclades in which Apollo was worshipped was Delos, and so that

1 If names beginning with Imbr- are to be regarded as Karian we have perhaps traces of the Karians in other islands besides the Cyclades; in Imbros Hermes Imbramos was worshipped, and there was a river Imbrasos in Samos. But the element imbr- is probably not specially Karian, but common to the Pelasgian speech of the peoples of Asia Minor in general, and so its occur- rence in Imbros and Samos is more probably merely an indication that the prae- Hellenic inhabitants of these islands were of " kleinasiatisch " stock. Tradition also brought Karians to the coasts of continental Greece.

2 It is noticeable that DIODORUS places the Karian thalasso- cracy after the Trojan War (V. 53, 84).


Delos was the first of the Cyclades to be occupied by the Greeks. The mention of this island in the Odyssey might then be taken to indicate that at the time the Odyssean sagas were being composed (the eighth century) the Greeks had already begun to occupy the Cyclades. It is further possible that the first Greeks in Delos came originally from Crete; the beginnings of the Delphic oracle are closely con- nected with Crete, where Apollo seems to have been worshipped in very early times; l so that perhaps the Apollo of Delos was also of Cretan origin. But the main body of the expellers of the Karians were, no doubt, lonians, coming, some probably from Greece, others from the Asiatic Sporades.

This, however, is all pure theory as far as the Karians are concerned; and the view which regards the Karians of the ^Bgean as simply the early Lelegic inhabitants seems the more probable of the two.

The Leleges are not mentioned in the islands in the Homeric poems; in the Iliad we find them only in Asia, " holding steep Pedasos on the Satnioeis." 2 But since they are called " the war-loving Leleges," they may still have been considered an important people, and the time when the killing of a Lelex could be sufficiently expiated by the payment of a basket of pease 3 is evidently yet far off.

To their old companions in mystery, the Pelas- gians, the Greek historians assign a belated activity in the northern ^Egean at about this time. In the

1 Cf. Hymn. Horn. I.; CuBTius, Die lonier, &c.

2 11 xxi. 86. 3 PLUT. Qucest. Gr. 46.


Iliad their name is chiefly apparent in Thessaly and at Dodona, but a branch of the race still maintains a separate existence in Asia.1 The northern islands between Thessaly and Asia are occupied only by Minyans and tribes of Thracian origin. We have seen reason to suppose that Phoenician settlements also existed in these islands at this time. Herodotos speaks of an invasion of Lemnos by Pelasgians from Attica, which brought the Minyan rule in the island to an end.2 This event must have taken place after the composition of the latest parts of the original Iliad — i.e. at the earliest after the end of the ninth century. The legend might appear to have some foundation in fact, on account of the well-knov/n Pelasgian traces in the neighbouring islands of Imbros and Samothrace, and on the neighbouring coasts, but it is doubtful if it can be accepted as it stands; no doubt there always had been from remote times a Pelasgic population in the northern islands connecting the Pelasgi of Thessaly with those of Asia, which was mingled with Thracian and Phoenician settlers, and ruled by Hellenic princes of Minyan origin; and the story of the conquest of Lemnos by Attic Pelasgi was probably an Athenian invention of the sixth century, devised in order to con- nect the legendary Pelasgians of Attica with the still existing representatives of the race in the northern ^Egean, and so to establish an Athenian claim to the possession of Lemnos, which was important to them as commanding the corn-route to the Cherso-

1 II. x. 428. How far this is mere archaizing it is impossible to say. 2 HDT. vi. 137; iv. 145.


nese and the Black Sea, and would thus fall to them in compensation for the legendary misdeeds of the Pelasgians at Brauron. In a well-known passage of the Odyssey (xix. 177) &oi UtXatryoi are men- tioned as maintaining a separate existence in Crete, but not elsewhere in the ^Egean. They are specifi- cally distinguished from the " great-hearted Eteo- kretans " and from the Kydoneg. The phraseology of the passage gives the impression that the poet is describing the ethnological condition of the island in his own time.

It is to be noted that no trace is found in the Homeric poems of any activity on the part of the Sardinians or the Tyrrhenians in the zEgean or else- where in Greece, either in heroic days or in the time of the poets themselves. We have already doubted if these peoples really were the Shardina and Thuirsha who attacked Egypt in alliance with Asiatic and ^Egean tribes in the Mycenaean period, and the absence of any mention of them in the Homeric poems confirms our doubts as to any activity on their part in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Mycenaean or early post-Mycenaean ages. Later, however, we find Tyrrhenian pirates occa- sionally mentioned as visiting the shores of Greece.

We see, therefore, that the break-up of the Achaian power, and the resulting confusion in the ^Bgean, would seem to have enabled foreign peoples to establish themselves in Greece, especially in the islands of the ^Eg-ean. This seems to be the


dominant characteristic of the period of Mycaenean decadence. At the period of the Iliad the Greeks would seem to have already begun to assert the claims of Greece to her own seas and islands; the Phoenicians are in process of withdrawal, though they still retain their commercial monopoly. In the Odyssey the expulsion of the Phoenicians and, on one theory, the Karians is almost consummated; at the end of the eighth century the ^Egean isles are mostly Greek. The work of expulsion, no doubt, fell in great measure to the Asiatic lonians, who, under the leadership of the expatriated noble families from Greece proper, began in the eighth century to resume their interrupted maritime energy.

We are now come to the beginnings of classical Greece. The flourishing days of the Mycenaean culture have long passed away; the days of its decadence, when the poets of Asiatic Greece sang of its past glories, and the Phoenicians had usurped the place of the ancient masters of the yEgean, are passing away, and we stand on the threshold of a new order. But though the last traces of the Bronze Age culture of Greece are soon to die, we see that its influence will not die: " Greek civiliza- tion " as we know it is based almost entirely upon the civilization of the Mycenaean period; the " Greek art " which we know is no new inspiration but is the direct descendant of the older art of Mycenae.

In the early art of Ionia the dominating influence of the Mycenaean tradition is plainly visible: it


seems evident that the first impulse to the develop- ment of renascent Greek art arose in Ionia under the direct influence of works of the " Mycenaean " genius at the time of the vigorous renascence of Greek activity in the cities of Ionia, after the migra- tion of the remnants of the Achaian princely houses to Asia. At this time the artistic efforts of the European Greeks were confined to the barbaric designs of the " geometrical " style, which we have supposed to have been an introduction of the iron- using Dorians from the north. As the use of iron was gradually introduced from Greece proper into Asiatic Greece, so the Mycenaean artistic influence gradually found its way back to Greece from Ionia, and the modifications which it effected in geometric design are easily traceable. The connecting-link between the two styles of art was provided by the islands of the ^Egean: the Dorians, advancing from the Peloponnese by the way of Melos, Thera, and Crete, reached Khodes, of old a stronghold of Mycenaean influence, while the lonians of Attica and the Cyclades, who had possibly in reality not estab- lished any firm foothold in continental Greece until after the Dorian invasion, brought their artistic ideas into connection with those of the artists of the Dipylon. The reciprocal influence which the one style exerted on the other soon brought about the creation of the independent styles, combining many characteristic features of both, which we have already mentioned when tracing the general history of early Greek civilization. It might naturally be expected that these eclectic styles would first arise in the


FIG. 61. — Decor]

Left upper register: Deer, rosettes, &c.

Left lower register: Pyrrhic dance; wrestling; musician;

men leaping and clapping hands. Centre: Birds, rosettes, &c.

Below: j



ictrical Vase.

Right upper register: Birds, deer, roseites, &c.

Right lower register: Man and woman conversing; com- bat; lions devouring a man; musician; two women bearing hydriai and holding branches.

\\\rch. Zeifg. 1885, pi. viii.)


^Egean islands, which lay midway between, and connected, the two cultures. And this is the case: two of these new styles of art, exemplified only in the domain of vase-painting, first arose in Melos and Khodes, the two islands in which the Dorians muut first have come into contact with the Asiatic Greeks, We have seen that the coming of the Dorians to the southern islands of the ^Egean cannot have taken place till the beginning of the eighth century at the earliest, so that the independent Melian and Rhodian styles of vase-painting can hardly have begun to exist before the end of that century. To the Rhodian style the Daphnian, Naukratite, and Cyrenaic styles which arose among the Greek colonists of Africa in the seventh century owed their inspiration. Attempts have been made to show that it was really of Argive origin, chiefly because the Dorians of Rhodes came from Argolis; by them it is supposed to have been brought to Rhodes.1 This theory would assume that the conjunction of Mycenaean and Geometrical elements which produced this style took place in Argolis, as the similar con- junction which produced the " Phaleric " style took place in Attica, but vases of this type are apparently not in their own home in Argolis, and it seems much more natural to suppose that this style first originated in Rhodes, whither the Geometrical influence which helped to form it had been brought by the Dorians, This style was also much affected by oriental influence. From, the pure Mycena?an and Geome- trical styles of vase-painting oriental elements were 1 KEKULE, Rhein. Mus. xliii. (1888) p. 481.


entirely absent; their presence in the derived styles was due, as has already been said, to Phoenician, Lydian, and Cypriote influences, which now became for a while dominant in Greece. The style called " Proto-Corinthian," apparently because the true Corinthian style was developed from it, appears to have had no special connection with Corinth. A great find of Proto-Corinthian ware has been made in ^Egina, but this is hardly sufficient to warrant our ascribing its origin to that island. It is much more probable that it originated in Ionia and in the islands off the Ionian coast, possibly at Miletos, the ancient ally of ^Egina,1 or in Samos, whence it may have passed to Chalkis, which was apparently a great centre of its distribution, since it is largely found in Bceotia and also in Sicily, where there were Chal- kidian colonies. Although our knowledge of the de- velopment at this time of forms of art other than vase- painting is comparatively scanty, yet we know enough to enable us to see that the same mixture of Mycenaean, geometrical, and oriental designs was as characteristic of bronze-working,2 and probably also of wood- and

1 PALLAT (Ath. Mitth. 1897, p. 273 ff.) notes that in ^Egina the Proto-Corinthian style developed in a manner peculiar to the island.

2 Of. the bronze objects of this period from Olympia (FuRT- WANGLER, Bronzefundevon Olympia} and the bronze reliefs pub- lished by DE BIDDER, De Ectypis quibusdam ceneis, Paris, 1896. The bronze shields, bowls, &c., with mixed oriental designs, from the Idaean Cave in Crete (HALBHERR and ORSI, Musto Italiano, ii. (1888) pp. 689-904), and the bronze bowls with similar designs found in Cyprus and elsewhere are of Phoenician, not Greek workmanship; they appear to be mostly of ninth to seventh century date; none hitherto found can be referred to the same


ivory-carving, at this period as it was of vase-paint- ing. This mixed style of art seems to have been the creation of the ^Egean islands which lie nearest to the Asiatic coast, and in these islands the movement which resulted in the expulsion of the extraneous oriental element and the inception of the Hellenic art of the classical period seems also to have taken its rise. The earliest Greek artists whose names have come down to us were mostly islanders of the ^Egean. In Crete the tradition of the Dgedalids, whom we have seen reason to regard as representing the artists of the Myoenasan age, had been handed down to successors whose renown reached far beyond the limits of their island, so that they were often summoned to exercise their skill in the states of continental Greece, and most of the artistic pioneers of the new order in the seventh century were either Cretans or islanders of the Asiatic coast.

The general condition of Greece at this time was most favourable to a renewed growth of art and general culture. The eighth century heard the last echoes of the Dorian migration and its attendant wars and wanderings die away, and saw the final retreat of the foreigners from the ^Egean. The new development of culture, originating, as we have seen, in the meeting-place of the old and the new elements of Greek civilization, then progressed apace. The growth of wealth which followed the taking over of the chief means of gaining wealth in a country like Greece, seaborne commerce, by the

date as the purely Egyptian bowl (c. 1500 B.C.) with which v. BISSING compares them (Jahrb. Arch. Imt. xiii.; 1898).


Greeks from the Phoenicians, not only aided this development directly, but also helped it on in an indirect manner. In those states of Greece which were favourably situated for purposes of commerce almost the whole wealth of the State was in the hands of the richer nobles,1 whose power conse- quently became so great that the time-honoured authority of the kings passed into their hands. The demands of the wealthy rulers of the cities for more magnificent houses for themselves and for the gods, for more elaborate gifts to the temples and more splendid public processions and embassies whereby they might make their riches and power apparent to all men, naturally brought about a great artistic development; the artists nocked to those states in which the fullest means and scope were offered for the exercise of their talents.

The great increase of commerce and consequent increase of wealth and luxury in Greece at this time was also due to a great extent to the founding of the Greek colonies outside Greek waters; the colonies also acted as expanders and carriers of Greek culture in all directions outside Greece. Most of the colonies must have been carefully planned for commercial

1 The name of the aristocratic rulers (cf. WHIBLEY, (ri-cek Oligarchies^ p. 116) of Miletos, 'AeivaOrcu, is significant. We may be sure that the word means what it purports to mean. It is probable that, like the Milesian nobles, the Geomoroi of Samos and the Hippobotai of Chalkis owed almost as much of their wealth to the seaborne commerce of their respective states as to their agriculture or horse-breeding. No doubt the gentlemen did not haul with the mariners, but that the gentlemen received the profits of the voyages of many of the mariners is probable enough.


purposes and in pursuance of a definite commercial policy by the rulers of the colonizing states, who senc out with each expedition a member of the ruling house as oikist. The movement seems to have begun soon after the Greeks had entered into full possession of the ^Egean — i.e., not till the end of the eighth century. The traditional dating of the founding of the first colonies can hardly be taken to be more than fairly approximate guess-work. Even as late as about 650 B.C. we find that the JSgean had not yet become entirely Hellenic or even hellenized; about that time the Parians took Thasos from its Phoenician and Thracian inhabitants and colonized it.1 Thasos lies on the flank of the route from the Greek lands to the Hellespont, so that it would seem that it cannot have been long before it became necessary to seize the island if the colonies in the Propontis and Black Sea were to be safely established. And it was to the Propontis that some of the earliest colonizing expeditions were directed. The founding of Kyzikos and Siuope by the Milesians, who were among the

1 The generally accepted date for the colonization of Thasos is 708 B.C. CURTIUS accepts Dionysius's date, 720. But this is impossibly early, for this reason. In the expedition to Thasos took part the poet Archilochos, under his father, Telesikles, the leader of the expedition. Now Archilochos is said by Herodotos (i. 12) to have lived in the reign of Gyges of Lydia. Herodotos's date for Gyges, 716 B.C., is well known to be no less than sixty years wide of the truth. Gyges was a contemporary of Ashur- banipal and P^ammetichos I., and his floruit may be placed c. 650 B.C. This date is confirmed by the fact that Archilochos mentions a total eclipse of the sun which took place at midday of April 6, 648 B.C. And it was probably in Thasos that he saw it (BuRY, Hist. Gi'. p. 119).


first Greek colonizers, cannot therefore have taken place much before 720 B.C., and the western colonies, Korkyra, Syracuse, Naxos, Rhegium, and the rest, can only have been founded a good deal later.1

The expansion of the Greek world into the Black Sea and into Western waters in the seventh century naturally led to the establishment of a most vigorous commercial connection between East and West, which passed along regular competing trade-routes, which were controlled by the state through whose ports and waters they ran. The states which controlled one route were naturally bound to one another by the tie of mutual interests and by a common hatred for the states which controlled a rival and competing route. This commercial competition finally culminated in bringing almost the whole of Greece into two opposed alliances, each of which controlled a rival

1 If we suppose that the first colonies in the Propontis and Black Sea were founded in despite of possible danger from the flanking position of Thasos, such dates as those of 770 B.C. for the founding of Sinope, 756 for that of Kyzikos, 734 for that of Syracuse, seern far too early. The very exactitude with which the dates are given render them open to suspicion. If it is true that these dates fit in so nicely that it is a pity to disturb them, it is no less true that the Syracusan date is in direct conflict with the evidence of the Odyssey, that far on into the eighth century Sicily was not much better known to the Greeks than Central Africa us a hundred years ago. That the Milesians and Samians may have penetrated into the Propontis and Black Sea as early as the first half of the eighth century is, since we know that the lonians began to bestir themselves at least as early as the beginning of that century, just possible; but that the Corinthians founded Syracuse as early as 734 seems impos- sible. And the " Protocorinthian" pottery which, as we shall see, immediately followed the last Mycenaean vases in Sicily, cannot possibly be dated as early as 734.


commercial route from Asia to continental Greece and the West. The respective mainsprings of these two alliances seem to have been the rival cities of Chalkis and Eretria in the island of Euboea. A very ancient alliance, which probably dated from Mycenaean times, connected the cities which lay on the coast route, running through the Euripus, which connected the old Mycenaean centres on the Pagasasan Gulf and in Boeotia with those of Argolis; the central point where the delegates of the allied cities met was the temple of Poseidon in the island of Kalaureia, off the Argolic coast.1 When the over-sea expansion of the Greeks began, the League of Kalaureia seems to have become the basis of a new commercial alliance, con- necting Asia with continental Greece and the West. We may picture to ourselves yEgina and Athens now combined with Eretria, the central point of the new league, and with Paros, to connect Miletos, the first Asiatic city to embark in commercial adventure, with Megara, the Argolic cities, and the Peloponnesian coast- towns round to the Corinthian Gulf. At the end of the eighth century the Eretrians colonized Korkyra, and somewhat later the Achaians passed on to the Italian coast and founded Sybaris, which always remained in alliance with the far eastern member of the league, Miletos. Chalkis became the centre of

1 Lately excavated; Mycenaean pottery found (ef. FRAZER,

PaUS. ill. p. 285; V. p. 896). V. WlLAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORFF'S

explanation of the Amphictiony (Nachrichten v. d. kgl. Geseli- scliaft der WissenscJtaften zu Gdttinyen, 1896, p. 158 f) seems hypercritical. STRABO (viii. 374) does not mention more than a common offering of the states concerned, it is true; but this implies an ancient alliance.



a new confederacy, founded in opposition to that of Eretria. Sarnos, the rival of Miletos, Naxos, the rival of Paros, and Corinth, the rival of ^Egina, com- bined with Chalkis to exploit another commercial route which passed by the Isthmus of Corinth, across which ships could easily be hauled from the Eastern to the Western sea. The favourable commercial position of Corinth soon assured the predominance of the Chalkidian alliance in the West; Korkyra was taken from the Eretrians, and thereafter only one or two colonies were established by the cities of the rival league in Italy and Sicily. In the East, how- ever, the Eretrian League well maintained its posi- tion, and Miletos and Megara dominated the Helles- pontine region. But the unfavourable result of the Lelantine war severely affected the allies of Eretria as well as herself. From this time (about 650 B.C.) the importance of Miletos began to decline, and Samos came more to the front. Samian colonies were established in the Propontis, and the Chalki- dians occupied the peninsulas of Chalkidike. Corinth increased rapidly in wealth and power, while ^Egina and Megara correspondingly declined, and were hence- forth chiefly occupied with their struggle against the growing power of Athens.

The renascent art of Greece, which, as we have seen, h'rst arose in the ^Egean Islands, was carried into the Black Sea and to the West by the Hellenic colonists. Of its influence in the Euxine lands we have no knowledge, but in the West we can trace its influence at once. First, however, a few words must be said with regard to the


place of the Western lands in the early post- Mycenaean period before the coming of the Greek colonists, although we have already touched upon the subject when dealing with the question of Phoenician activity in them at this time. We have seen that remains of Mycenaean culture exist in the West though they are scanty, and also apparently late in date. That the destruction of the Mycenaean power in Greece was followed by a temporary cessation of sea-communication between Greece and the West is possible; certainly the silence of the Iliad, to which the Western lands are unknown, points in this direc- tion. In the Iliad we find the islands which lie immediately opposite the entrance to the Corinthian Gulf inhabited by a people of apparently Achaian blood, and united under the rule of an Achaian prince; but farther to the West nothing, no hint of commerce with Italy. In the Odyssey, which marks a later stage of the "Homeric" culture than the Iliad, the Western lands have, on the contrary, become of great interest to the Greeks. But as yet there is no hint of the new Greek colonies which were soon to be founded in Italy and Sicily. Although Greek mariners have begun to explore the Western seas again, they are still to a great extent comprised within the realm of fairyland; Sicily is a land of giants, Scylla and Charybdis still devour unwary sailors, and the auto- matic ships of the Phaeacians still dart across the Western waters. Beyond the confines of the Ithakan kingdom exact knowledge of the West ceases; x but

1 The non-mention of Korkyra in the Homeric poems is curious; it is very improbable that it is Scheria, which is pro- bably a purely imaginary land.


that commercial connection with Italy was in exist- ence is shown by the mention of the Taphian traders who sailed to Tempsa1 in Italy to obtain copper in exchange for iron. It may be asked how far the ignorance of the West displayed by the Homeric poets may be due simply to the fact that they lived in the cities of Asia. It is, however, probable that in the ninth and eighth centuries the Asiatic Greeks knew as much of the West as the, at that time, less venturesome Greeks of Europe. So it does not seem likely that the total ignoring of the West in the earlier poem can be due merely to ignorance of lands known to the continental Greeks. It seems most probable that the convulsion which brought the Mycenaean age to an end in Greece proper also severed the communication between Greece and the West; that this communication was restored to a certain extent by the Phoenicians, but not com- pletely until the Ionian seafarers first ventured into the Western seas. When the Iliad was first com- posed, the lonians had probably not yet penetrated into the West; the Odyssey probably owed its inspira- tion to the travellers' tales of the earliest Milesian or other Asiatic voyagers to the "evening-lands."1 It is noticeable that in the Sicilian tombs the My- cenaean vases are immediately succeeded in order by those of the Protocorinthian styles of the seventh century; geometrical vases are present, and the- geometrical style exercised a dominating influence upon the native pottery of this period both in Sicily and Italy, but these geometrical vases, imported and

1 Od. i. 184. It seems probable that "Temesa" was Tempsa in Italy, and not Tamassos in Cyprus.


native, were contemporary with the Protocorinthian types.1 It seems, therefore, probable that Mycenaean and Mycenizing vases were used in Sicily down to the time of the coming of the first Greek colonists from Corinth, in spite of the cessation of regular communi- cation which is indicated in the Homeric poems.

The advent of the Corinthian colonists with their Chalkidian and Naxian allies to Sicily was then marked by the supplanting of the Mycenaean vases which had been so long esteemed by the islanders by the products of the Ionian and Corinthian potters of the seventh century. In Italy not only the true Corinthian but also the Chalkidic style dominated the market in the latter half of the seventh and during the sixth centuries; through Corinth and Chalkis the other arts of Greece came to Italy, and soon made their effect felt on the more primitive native arts, which had been, especially in the domain of bronze-work, strongly imbued with the Mycenaean tradition. Phoenician influence had also been very marked, especially in Etruria. But the advent of the Eucheires and Eugrammoi of Corinth and their fellows of Chalkis soon made the new Greek influence felt in Etruria, and the already mixed art of the Etruscans very soon became clothed in a Hellenic form, which it henceforth retained.2

During the seventh century the commercial activity of the Greek states of the ^Egean was also directed towards the south-east. After the expul-

1 ORSI, Rom. Mitth. xiii. p. 363; PETERSEN, loc. cit. xiv. p. 163 ff. '2 On early Greek artistic influence in Italy, see further, Addenda, p. 322, post.


sion of the Phoenicians of Rhodes by the Dorians, an event which probably took place in the eighth century, the new settlers must soon have come into contact with the Greeks of Cyprus.

Cyprus did not pass through the same experiences as the ^Egean Islands at this period. Untouched by the Dorian invasion, and the confusion which fol- lowed that event, the Cypriotes lived on in the enjoyment of great material wealth derived from their practical monopoly of the trade in copper, and their favourable commercial position halfway be- tween Greece and Phoenicia or Egypt, and mean- while the Phoenician element in the island grew and increased. The only Cypriote prince mentioned in the Odyssey is a Greek, Dmetor, son of lasos,1 but Paphos is already noted as the favourite abode of the Phoenician Aphrodite,2 and in the earlier poem the chief king of the island, who had direct dealings with the Mycenaean kings of the former age, is already the Phoenician Kinyras of Paphos, who sent to Agamemnon a cunningly-worked corslet:

TTtvOtro yap KvTT/oovSs fjiija icXt'o EC Tpo/ijv vr]£&(riv avcnrXtvcrecrOai


Suddenly, towards the latter part of the eighth century, the Cypriotes were conquered by the Assyrians. Since the Assyrian attack was directed mainly against the Phoenician cities of the island, in spite of the imposition of a Semitic domination the Semitic influence, which had been silently growing 1 xvii. 443 2 Od. viii. 362. 3 Il.xi.2i ff.


in Cyprus for many centuries, with the result that at the beginning of the seventh century the culture of the island was fast becoming semitized, does not seem to have affected the power of the Cypriote monarchs. In the next century the Assyrian power was re- asserted in Cyprus by Esarhaddon, to whom appa- rently ten Cyprian princes tendered their homage. These were Aigisthos of Idalion, Pythagoras of Chytroi, Keisos or Kissos of Salamis, Etewandros of Paphos, Ileraios of Soloi, Damasos of Kurion, Ad- metos of Tamassos, Onesagoras of Ledra, Pytheas (?) of Nure, and the king of Kartikhadasti, Damusi, who is apparently the only Semite mentioned, all the rest being Greek Cypriotes.1 The great extent

1 Cylinder of Esarhaddon, Brit. Mus. No. 91030, published in RAWLINSON, Western Asiatic Inscriptions, iii. 16, col. v. 19-24; BUDGE, History of Esarhaddon, pp. 105, 106; remarks by DE- LITZSCH, Wo lay das Paradies? pp. 292, 293. The Assyrian forms of the Greek names given above are T ^Ty (l>~\ £ T *~£^T >^yy , ti-ki-is-tu-su, Ekishtusu; J j^^- ^J t^ ^jj T j. Pi-lagu-ra-a, Pilagura; J ^Ej ^ ^^11' A"*-i-*M» Kisu J

T -E ^T ^TTT^ ^-

da-ar, Ituwandar; J ^J^

Eresu; J ^-jj ^ | >^~[ |> Da-ma-su, Damasu; T

J>- >->^yy. Ad-me-zu, Admezu; |

»^^yy, U-na-sa gu-sit, Unasagusu; "^^- >>z ^-^?

Pu-su-zu, Putsuzu. The identification of Eresu as Heraios seems pretty certain, that of Putsuzu as Pytheas perhaps doubtful. The rendering of Onesagoras as Unasagusu, drop- ping the r, is in accordance with Assyrian methods of transcription, as is also the representation of 6 by I in Pila- gura - Pythagoras: cf. Pisamilki = Psamithik, Psammitichos.



of the portion of the island occupied, or dominated by, the Greeks at this time is shown by the number

of the Greek kings in this list. It must have been about the time of this second assertion of Assyrian authority that the old debased Myce- naean art of Cyprus came to an end; it was succeeded, as has been said, by a mixed culture in which Phoenician elements predominated. The Cypriote vase -orna- mentation of the latter half of the seventh century, for instance, is sometimes conceived in feeble imita-

FIG. 63. — Cyprian Vase with design of concentric circles (PERROT- CHIPIEZ, iii. Fig. 497).

Pythagoras, Onesagoras, and Eteandros are typical Cypriote names: what is most noticeable about the others is their archaic type; such names as Aigisthos, Admetos, and Keissos take us back into heroic times, and certainly have a strong Mycensean-Achaian flavour about them: an early Dorian prince of Argos, son of Temenos and father of Althaimenes, was named Keisos. The king of Kition is not mentioned in this inscription. The site of Nure has not yet been identified; the Assyrians also call the place Upridissa, which certainly indicates a Greek 'A<j>podiffia or 'A<j)po5iaioi> • a town of the name on the north coast is mentioned by STBABO, xiv. p. 682. This is pro- bably the Nure-Upridissa of the Assyrians. The inscription is dated in the eponymy of Atar-Ilu, B.C. 673.



tion of Mycenaean designs, sometimes is Assyrian in character (the effect of the Sargonide domination being here strongly marked), and sometimes employs the well-known mixed motives of Phoenician art. In Cypriote pottery of this time another element,, derived from Mycenaean ornament, but peculiar to Cyprus, is also noticeable, the design of concentric circles, to which reference has before been made. This directs our attention to those other peculiarly Cyprian characteristics which are very marked at this time, and which always differentiated the cul- ture of Cyprus from those of its neighbours, however

FIG. 64. — Cypriote Pictographic Inscription, from Enkomi.

strongly it was permeated by Hellenic and Semitic elements. The most striking of these peculiarly Cypriote characteristics was the syllabic script which was used by the Hellenic inhabitants. The earliest known specimens of this writing belong to the end of the Cyprian Mycenaean period,1 and so probably date to the eighth century. It has been supposed to have been developed from the ancient pictographic system of Crete; more probably it was developed from a native Cypriote system analogous to that of Crete: a specimen of this system has been found at Enkomi, and is illustrated above (Fig. 64). It 1 MURRAY, Excavations in Cyprus, p. 27.


been published by Dr. Murray in the British Museum publication of the excavations there, together with two other inscriptions, apparently contemporaneous with the first, which seem to mark the transition to the ordinary Cypriote character.1 The Cypriote script was probably not of Hellenic origin, since it is so extremely badly adapted for the expression of Greek, and it was never communicated by the Cypriotes to the other Greeks, so that it can never have had much influence upon the development of Greek writing. That it was a relic of the prse- Hellenic and prae-Phcenician Cyprians seems, there- fore, probable, and this conclusion naturally leads us to suppose that the Cretan pictooraphic script also was originally the vehicle of a non-Aryan language, and was of " Pelasgic " origin. Lycian and Karian must be the tongues most nearly related to the original language of the Cretan and Cypriote scripts.2

The various foreign influences in Cyprus had already in the seventh century greatly differentiated the Cypriotes from the other Greeks. The poli- tical changes and colonizing movements which marked this century in the mother-land found no echo in Cyprus, where in the fifth century kings still ruled, and whence no Greek colony derived its origin. Assyrian influence also preserved in Cyprus the use of the war-chariot till the end of the sixth

1 MUERAY, Excavations in Cyprus. Figs. 58-60.

'2 Of course this does not exclude the possibility that these scripts may have been used at Mycenae, in Crete, and in Cyprus to write Greek during the later Mycenaean period, as the Cypriote syllabary was used after Mycenaean times.


century; l in Greece it had been relegated to the games over a hundred years before. As ever, the civilization of Cyprus was more than a century behind that of the rest of Greece. Another cause of this lagging behind and of the growth of Semitic influence in the island was the circ*mstance that Cyprus was no longer the halfway house between Greece and Egypt; the direct route from Rhodes and Crete, first regularly essayed by the Cretan pirates of the eighth century, was now in general use. This meant a considerable diminution in the amount of sea-traffic between Greece and Cyprus.

The opening up of this direct route soon brought the mariners of Ionia and Rhodes to the mouths of the Nile, and Greece was once more brought into communication with Egypt after what seems to have been an almost total cessation of regular connection which had apparently lasted for at least three hundred years. Whereas in the heyday of the Greek culture of the Age of Bronze the Phoenicians seem to have played merely the part of carriers between Mycenaean Cyprus and Egypt, at the be- ginning of the Iron Age we find that all commerce between Greece and the East had passed into their hands. Between Syria, Cyprus, and Greece they trafficked very largely, but with regard to Egypt, however, the case seems to have been somewhat different. Owing probably to the decadent and disturbed condition of Egypt, and the as yet un- settled state of Graece, but little commerce seems to have been carried on between the two countries; it

1 HDT. v. 113.


is worth notice that hardly any scarabs of Egyptian monarch s of this period have been found in Greece and in Cyprus,1 while not a single pot or sherd of the Geometrical or debased Mycensean styles appears to have been yet found in Egypt. It is true that whereas the masterpieces of Mycenaean art had been highly prized in Egypt, the crudities of the Dipylon " vases and the puerilities of " sub- My- cenaean " art would only have excited derision there; but the entire absence from Egypt of the works of the Greek artists of the Homeric period does not merely show that there was no market for them in Egypt: taken in conjunction with the fact that the Egyptian objects of this period, which would surely have been in great demand in Greece, have hardly ever been found there, it shows that there was but little communication between the two countries at this time. In the Iliad, the nearer of the two poems to the time of general chaos which followed the Return of the Herakleids, there is but one reference to Egypt, the famous passage mentioning Egyptian Thebes with her hundred gates, out of which twice a hundred men are wont to pass with horses and chariots.2 This passage must date to the ninth century at latest, as by the next century the glory of Thebes had departed.3 In the Odyssey Egypt is

1 See Addenda, p. 313. >2 //. ix. 381 ff.

i This passage depicts a state of magnificence at Thebes which

in the ninth century was becoming a memory, and in the eighth had passed away, after the destruction of the city by the con- tending Ethiopians and Assyrians. To mark lines 383, 384 as a later addition, as is often done, is shown by our knowledge of Egyptian history to be impossible.


better known. It is a wonderland of wealth and of almost superhuman knowledge.1 The mouths of its mysterious river are the chosen haunt of the aXtoc ytpwv* but nevertheless afforded good landing- places for roving pirates from Crete and other Greek islands, who, no doubt, found the fat lands of the Delta well worth the harrying, despite the penalty of lifelong labour in quarries or on irrigation-works which would betide a prisoner of the Egyptians.3 The usual route for the few Greek ships which ad- ventured the voyage to the Nile-mouths passed apparently by way of Cyprus, as in past days; this was the route followed by Menelaos, SoXixvv b$bv apyaXtriv rt.4 But in the already quoted passage of the Odyssey (xiv. 257 ff), which can by internal evidence be almost certainly dated to the end of the eighth or beginning of the seventh century,5 a Cretan ship ventures with a fair north wind on the direct passage from Crete to Egypt, but the voyage is evidently considered a very daring one, and only likely to be attempted by a reckless Cretan pirate. In the course of a few decades, however, this direct passage must have become more generally used, but during the Homeric period properly so called, that is to say, during the ninth and eighth

1 Od. iv. 127, 228 ff.

2 lb. iv. 365, 385. Proteus was probably located at the Nile- mouths by Cretan sailors; the ctXtos ytpuv was especially venerated in Crete.

3 Od. xiv. 257 ff. 4 II. iv. 483.

5 The description of the "king" repelling in person an un- important raid of sea-rovers dates this passage with certainty to this time, when the Delta was ruled by a number of small kinglets.


centuries B.C., commerce at least can only have been carried on between Greece and Egypt in Phoenician ships by way of Rhodes and Cyprus. And this com- merce seems to have been practically non-existent.

Of the new route to Egypt the Cretans were, no doubt, the pioneers; yet it is not to them that the credit of the revival of communication between. Egypt and Greece is due. Although some slight indications lead us to think that the Cretans of Axos and Itanos took some part in the first foundation of Cyrene,1 yet, as a general rule, the Cretan sailors had now become mere wandering adventurers, with no taste for commerce or desire to colonize. Korobios the Cretan led the way to the African coast; but at Naukratis no Cretan city possessed a factory. United, the Cretans might have done much as merchants and colonizers, but divided as they were by fierce intestinal feuds they did nothing, and left the lucrative traffic from the South and West entirely to others, who were not slow to take advantage of the way which the Cretans had shown them. The oppor- tunity was good; the Phoenicians, half-paralysed by the presence of the Assyrian within their gates, had practically withdrawn from Greek waters; the cities of Ionia, to which the culture of the Mycenaean age had retreated before the Dorians, had seen the birth of the renewed energy of Hellenic civilization; Egypt was about to free herself from the nightmare of alternate Ethiopian and Assyrian domination which had so long oppressed her, to enjoy a short period of peace and artistic renascence under the guidance of 1 HDT. iv. 154, 151.


the kings of the XXVIth Dynasty, who showed no desire to hamper the re-establishment of communica- tion with the Greeks, but rather aided it by all the means in their power, short of directly offending Egyptian conservatism. The first Greeks to follow in the steps of the Cretans to the Nile-mouths with the object, however, not of piracy but of more or less peaceful trading, came undoubtedly from the greatest of the Ionian cities, Miletos, in the first half of the seventh century B.C.; l the Milesians must soon have

1 It was about 650 B.C. that Gyges of Lydia is said by King Ashurbanipal of Assyria to have sent troops to the aid of Psammitichos I., who had revolted from Assyria: these were the " brazen men " of Herodotos. It is natural to suppose that the original intermediaries between the Lydian and Egyptian princes were the Milesians, who are known to have been the first Ionian traders to visit Egypt. We are then justified in dating the original foundation of rb MiXrjalwv reixos, the fore- runner of Naukratis, considerably before 650 B.C., though we cannot accept the absurdly high date (between 753 and 735 B.C.)' assigned to it by MALLET (Les Premieres Etablissem*nts des Grecs en Egypte, pp. 24 ff ), chiefly on the authority of the utterly untrustworthy Eusebian list of thalassocracies. It might be supposed that STEABO (xvii. p. 681) indicates a later date for the foundation of MtXTjcriW ret^os than 650, when he speaks of the Milesians sailing to the Bolbitine mouth with thirty ships- and erecting their fort eirl ^a^LTixov, but what he really means is merely that the fort was erected somewhere about the time of Psammitichos, in his reign or shortly before it. To suppose that because the parenthesis /caret Kua^ctp?? S^OVTOS ty rbv Wrjdov occurs in the same passage, that MiXijeiuv ret^os was not founded until the years 634-615, during which Psammetichos and Kyaxares reigned contemporaneously, is unnecessary, if not rather absurd; since the parenthesis, if not a mere gloss added long after Strabo's time, obviously refers merely in general terms to the fact that Psammitichos and Kyaxares were roughly con- temporaries (though in reality Kyaxares belonged to a younger generation) and has nothing whatever to do with the founding


been followed by the Khodians, whose isle lay now, as of old, on the road to Egypt, and by the hardy mariners of yEgina, both allies of the Milesians; nor can it have been long before the Samians and other rising commercial states of Greece joined in the lucrative traffic with Egypt, although we hear little of their presence there till the time of Amasis. But the Greek culture which now came into contact with the ancient civilization of Egypt was not that of old days; •that had passed from the ken of the Egyptians in the eleventh century, when its exclusive dominion in the northern lands was overthrown by the Dorian inva- sion; now the Mycenaean culture, although its influence still lived in the new Hellenic culture which was radiating over the Greek world from the Ionian refuge of the Mycenaean tradition, was dead; its last stronghold in Cyprus had been taken, the Greek civilization of the Age of Bronze had finally given place to that of the Age of Iron, and with the cessa- tion of the Bronze Age culture of Greece ceases our interest.

Of the relations which may have existed between the Greeks and the "Nearer East" of Asia Minor during the early posfc-Mycengean period our know- ledge is practically nil, because we have no real •connected knowledge of the history of Asia Minor before c. 700 B.C. So that of the early relations of

of "Mt\Ticriuv reFxos. We come then to the conclusion that the Milesians first reached Egypt somewhere between 700 and •650.


the Ionian cities with the peoples of the interior we know nothing. We hear vague accounts of attacks made by the newcomers from continental Greece upon the old Greeks of the Asiatic coast,1 and also upon the settlements of non-Greek tribes near the sea, of the killing of the men and the taking of their women to wife by the invaders, but all this sounds very like the invention of a later age; it ought to have been so, and so it was so. Of real contact with the inlanders, nothing. We have vague visions of a mighty and semi-fabulous " Hittite " empire, identi- fied by some with the kingdom of the Amazons on the Thermodon, to which the hieroglyphed monu- ments of Eyuk and Boghaz Koi are assigned; but of its history we know nothing, other than that the •characteristics of its art point to its being not much older than the eighth century B.C. Of relations between it and the post-Mycenaean lonians we have no more title to speak than we had to speak of such relation between it and the " Mycenseans." We see vague glimpses of a chaos, in which hordes of invaders from Thrace sweep over the land, crossing and re- crossing each other's path, and mixing themselves inextricably with the older non-Aryan inhabitants of the land; but all is dark and confused, and nothing certain arrests our view until we reach the eighth century and the name of Midas. If he, and none

1 Of. the fight of the new emigrants to Kolophon with rots iv Ko\0(f>6vi "EXX?7<rt, the Greeks who had lived in Kolophon before the "Great Migrations." — PAUS. vii. 3. These earlier Kolopho- nians are connected in legend with Crete and with Boeotian Thebes (Legend of Ehakios and Manto and their son Mopsos j PAUS. loc. cit.).



other, is the " Mita of Muski " of whom the Assyrian records speak, the Phrygian kingdom was in hi& days a powerful State, which could wage war upon the borders of Cilicia with the Assyrians.1 Whether we are to date the famous rock-cut tombs of Phrygia to his time or to an earlier period con- temporaneous with the heyday of Mycenaean cul- ture is uncertain; if they date to the eighth century, as seems most probable, they show that the Phrygian art of the time, no doubt originally of the same European Brouze Age type as that of Mycenaean Greece, was still predominantly Myce- naean in character; - the Mycenaean influence still existed, for the Homeric culture, the culture of the Asiatic Greeks of the ninth and eighth centuries,, was still Mycenaean, though decadent. The estab- lishment of the Phrygian monarchy of Midas was apparently soon followed by the consolidation of the

1 WlNCKLEB, Vollier Vorderasiens, p. 25, asserts the identity of Mita with Midas dogmatically enough. But he cannot prove the identity, and from the days of Tiglathpileser I. (B.C. noo), when the land Muskaya is first mentioned in Assyrian history, to the- days of Herodotos, who speaks of the M6<r%ot as forming part of the XlXth Persian satrapy (iii. 94; vii. 78), the people of Muski and their fellows of Tabali (Moo-xot and Tipapyvoi, Meshech and Tubal) lived in Eastern Pontus and the borderlands of Armenia and Kolchis, nowhere near Phrygia. Mita does not appear as a great monarch: he is mentioned merely as a local kinglet, allied with the kings of Tabali and Urartu (Ararat) (Inscr. Khorsabad, 31). So that his identity with Midas is by no means so certain as Dr. Winckler opines. ( Of. DELITZSCH, Wo lag das Parodies? p. 250.)

"2 E.g., the use of the cross in decoration occurs in precisely the same way on gold plaques from Mycenae (SCHUCHHARDT, jSchliemann, Fig. 232) and on the fa*gades of the Phrygian tombs- (PERROT-CHIPIEZ, Hist, tie I' Art, v. Fig. 48).


Lydian tribes into a powerful kingdom under the Heraclid Dynasty, and the Greek cities of the coast now found their immediate neighbourhood occupied by two or three native kingdoms, consolidated,, powerful, and highly civilized, which henceforward exercised for more than two centuries a profoundly modifying influence upon the course of Hellenic development. Their despotic monarchs were the models whom the Greek tyrants imitated in their virtues as well as their vices; to them the renascent civilization of Greece owed much. The poets, the artists, and the engineers of Ionia and the Isles were in great request at the Court of Sardis under the Mermnads, and the gifts which the Lydian king,i gave to the holy places of Greece called forth the best artistic energies of their time. From Assyria came to Lydia, which was for a short time an Assyrian subject-state, a system of weights, of Babylonian origin, which was at the beginning of the seventh century developed by the Lydians and the Asiatic Ionian s into the first known regular system of coined money; this invention must soon have modified the whole economic condi- tion of Greece, and have contributed greatly to the general increase of wealth which marks the time; as the means of convenient exchange multiplied, so must trade have increased. Lydia also served as a transmitter to Greece of a certain amount of Assyrian influence in matters other than weights and measures; the " Proto-Corinthian " style of orientalizing vase-painting, which seems to have first arisen in Ionia, probably owed much of its inspi-


ration to Assyrian models communicated through Lydia.

The extent of communication between Greece and Mesopotamia through Lydia and thence overland through Asia Minor must, however, not be exag- gerated; there is evidence that the usual route from Assyria to Lydia was not overland, but vid Phoenicia, and thence by sea. Ashurbanipal speaks of Lydia as " a land across the sea," l and the Assyrians did not come into contact with it until after the conquest of Phoenicia and Cyprus.

After the fall of Nineveh, the Lydian kingdom, freed from Assyrian control, rapidly grew in power, and the Lydian kings were enabled to pursue undis- turbed their great object, the conquest of the Ionian cities. This enterprise, which had begun under Gyges, attained complete success under Croesus, and the political independence of the Greeks of the Asiatic mainland disappeared. Had not the trans- ference of power in Asia from Lydia to the distantly centralized Persia now immediately supervened, it is difficult to gauge the effect which the continuance of a, strong Lydian empire under successors of Croesus might not have had upon the fortunes of the Greeks; the interest in and friendship for the states of continental Greece which was professed by the Lydian kings would without doubt soon have given place to the desire for political conquest, and Lydia, with her centre situated on the threshold

1 GEOEGE SMITH, History of Assurbanipal, pp. 71, 73; Brit. Mus. Tablet K. 2675, Rv. I. 13; Ashurb. Cylinder B, 1. 86.



of Greece, might have succeeded where distant Persia failed.

On comparing the Bronze Age civilization of Greece with the mature culture of the Greeks we are at first struck by the many outward points of differ-

FIG. 65. — Leaden Statuette from Kampos, showing Mycenaean male costume (PERROT-CmpiEZ, vi. Fig. 355).

ence between the two. In the matter of costume, for instance, the Greek of the early classical period differed entirely from the Mycenaean, to whom the fibula was practically unknown: who had worn, if a man, usually nothing but a waistclout, often of most gorgeous pattern (affording a barbaric contrast to the plain white slienti of the Egyptians), depend- ing from a tight girdle of leather (probably orna-


merited with metal), and sometimes further improved by a dangling network hanging down in front:l or on high festivals, if he was wealthy enough, also a striped and spotted robe (cf. Fig. 62); 2 if a woman, only a heavy flounced skirt or petticoat, which looks almost as if it were of Babylonian origin. Such a complete alteration of costume is rather remark- able in the ancient world: did the simple waistcloth belong originally to the Pelasgian forerunners of the Hellenes?

But when comparing the art of the Greek Bronze Age with that of classical Greece, while noting a hundred points of difference we can yet see that there are many points of resemblance. The graceful vet bizarre character of this art, which fits in so well with the bizarrerie of these demons and deities which we find figured on its gems or fashioned in its jewellery, and whom the later Greeks, for whom Homer and the priests of Delphi had elaborated an eclectic pantheon, appear to have regarded as more than ha If -foreign, seems un-Greek. Yet, if we look closer, we can see that in Mycenaean art there lies, despite its bizarrerie, a spirit which is Greek; it is in the reliefs of the Vaphio cups that it can be seen most clearly, but elsewhere it is rarely in- discernible. And so we naturally conclude that the thesis already enunciated in Chapter II. is correct,

1 Cf. the frescoes of Knossos and of the Tomb of Kekhmara, the Kampos statuette (Fig. 65, above), Vaphio cups, &c.

a This is in all probability in reality the long trailing X<-T£V of the 'Idoves eX/cex^wves (cf. HfiLBlG, Homensche Epos, p. 171 ff). It is well represented on a gem from Vaphio, illustrated by TSOUNTAS-MANATT, p. 225, Fig. III.


and that Mycenaean art and the Greek art of later days are in reality one. Nothing of the evidence which we have since passed in review causes us to alter this opinion; ail goes to confirm the position that " archaic " Greek art was no new thing; it was a renascence, developed originally in Ionia and the ^Egean Islands in the main from the decadent art of Mycenae and influenced on the one hand by the geometrical art of the Dipylon, a totally inde- pendent art-system, on the other by the Assyro- Egyptian Mischkunst of Phoenicia. Greek art was then in no way the sudden and amazing growth which it is usually considered to be; it grew quickly out of barbarism in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., it is true, but it could only do this because it was merely recovering from a period of decadence; its original rise from primi- tive beginnings had taken place many a century before. Its traditions date back not merely a cen- tury or so before Pheidias, but many hundred years before to the time of the Achaian makers of the cups of Vaphio or the bull's head of JMycenae, before them to the art of the proto-Mycenaean potters of Thera, Phylakope, and Kamarais, and before them again to the rude marble figures of the Cycladic cist-graves and the black pot-fragments of Troy and Athens. From its Pelasgian origin through its stages of Achaian splendour and " Homeric " decadence to its re-birth in Ionia and the isles in the seventh century, Greek art is one and the same.

Nor, in comparing other phases of the Mycenaean


culture with the corresponding phases of the later civilization of Greece, is the first impression of strangeness altogether maintained. Too much, for instance, is made of the supposed difference of polity. The Mycenaean king lived in his high castle " fenced up to heaven " with his subjects cower- ing at his feet. "This is oriental!" says one. But fortressed despotism is not necessarily oriental; Pelopids or Perseids, the kings of Mycenae were Greeks, and there is no reason to suppose that the legends of their Lydian, Phoenician, or Egypt- ian origin really indicate anything more than the well-known fact of Mycenaean commerce and inter- course with Asia and with Egypt. And if the Minyans and Minoans were of Pelasgic descent, this does not make them Orientals, but rather " Urgriechen." " But they had harems, separate apartments for the women! " is reiterated. The deduction from this circ*mstance (which has, by the way, been doubted by some observers) l is inadmissible; the Athenians, who had yvvaiKtia in their houses, were Orientals then. Why need the Greek king ever have had any other than a Greek origin? Nothing non-Greek is to be seen in the little which we know of the Mycenaean polity. -

We have already seen that the importance of the change from burial to burning of the dead has been greatly exaggerated. The later Greeks buried as well as burnt, and the Mycenaeans probably burnt as

1 Cf. HOGARTH, Authority and Archaeology, p. 249.

2 Of. TSOUNTAS-MANATT, toe. cit. pp. 336, 337.


well as buried; in the early period it was more usual to bury.

In the religion of later Greece the demons and spirits whom the Mycenaean venerated still lived, and of them the huntress Artemis and the marine deities seem to have been the most important survivals; and who shall say that Zeus and Hera, even Apollo himself, were not worshipped by the Mycenasans as much as by their descendants?

The Mycenaean culture, then, though apparently differing widely enough from the culture of later Greece to make one doubt for an instant if it be Greek, is in reality not merely its forerunner, but also its immediate and direct ancestor. The whole of Greek culture, from the solid rock of the Athenian akropolis up, is one.

Survivals are always interesting, and no more interesting task could be taken up than the tracing out of the many survivals of Mycenaean days which still existed in the new Greece, the identi- fication of those of the original timbers which remained when the ship was rebuilt. Owing to the present scantiness of our knowledge, in small matters such an attempt might perhaps lead to too exuberant a fancifulness of theorizing, but in greater matters,, such as the survivals of Mycenrcan state-organizations for instance, we may expect that such an inquiry would be attended with some certainty.

In a sense, of course, the majority of the Greek states were " Mycenrean:< survivals; there are few


important Greek town-sites which would not, if care- fully examined, show proof of unbroken occupation as far back as the prae-Mycenaean period. Athens has existed as an inhabited place from the earliest post-neolithic times, perhaps before 2500 B.C., to the present day. Yet classical Athens could hardly be called a Mycenaean survival, because, though its akropolis doubtless was the seat of an important town in prehistoric times l — a presumption which its many heroic legends fully bear out — yet during the post-Mycenaean age, Athens, though an important seat of geometric art, seems to have fallen politically into a condition of complete insignificance, from which it did not emerge until the end of the sixth century. So that Athens was not " a Mycenaean survival " in the sense of a state which had retained its import- ance unimpaired from heroic times into the classical period.

The importance of Orchomenos no doubt lasted

1 Was Athens from the first the most important city of Attica? It seems probable that Prasiai has a good claim to be regarded as having originally been a place of greater importance than the Athenian akropolis-city. In Mycenaean times it was certainly of great importance, as the remains of its citadel and the note- worthy results of the late excavations in its necropolis (cf. FKAZER, Paus. ii. 404, v. 522) show. It is represented by Pausanias (ii. 31) as the port to which the offerings of the Hyperboreans were brought and then forwarded to Delos: this is a hint of its early commercial importance. Further, it seems very probable that it was a very ancient member of the Kalaureian alliance (v. ante, p. 256). The other Prasiai, in Kynuria, is that mentioned as a member of the Amphictiony by Strabo (viii. 374); here the identity of name might argue con- nection, and the harbour of the Attic Prasiai lies directly on the route from the Euripus to the Saronic Gulf.


well into the classical age,1 until, in fact, the struggle between the Leagues of Eretria and Chalkis for commercial predominance was decided; thereafter, Orchomenos fell back into an obscurity which was shared with her throughout later Greek history by her fellow, lolkos: TO. $£ airo TOV Sai/movtov Gfyiaiv

  • c TO daQtvtGTepov tjueAAcv an /ot^av.2

In Argos and ^Egina, however, we have two states which may be taken as typical examples of Mycenaean survivals. Both Argos and ^Egina were, as far as we can tell, important states in Mycenaean times and long before; the Larisa of Argos was probably one of the earliest Pelasgian settlements in the Peloponnese, over it Phoronens and the descendants of Proitos are fabled to have ruled long before the Perseids founded Tiryns and Mycenae; while a Pelasgic connection between -^Egina and Crete is indicated by common worship of the Pelasgian goddess Britomartis or Diktynna, in JEgina called Aphaia.3 Both remained strong and wealthy throughout the period of Dorian conquest; the kingdom of Diomed seems stronger in the Iliad and more upstanding than the realm of Agamemnon, and ^Egina was a home of Mycenaean wealth and Mycenaean art down to the end of the ninth century. After the Dorian invasion Mycenae and Tiryns dis- appear; though they apparently continued to exist

1 It can hardly be doubted that, until the rise of Corinth was •consummated, the Minyan cities continued to form an important link between East and West, connecting the ^Egean with the Corinthian Gulf and the kingdom of Odysseus overland, probably by way of Krisa.

2 PAUS. ix. 37. 3 Ib. ii. 30.


at least until the time of the Pheidonian hegemony,1 they do not, like Orchomenos, maintain their exist- ence until the last days of Greek history; to all intents and purposes they disappeared when the- Dorians entered the Peloponnese. With Argos the case was far different. The Dorians of Argos seem to have mingled more with the older population than did the Lacedaemonians; it is possible that the expulsion of Tisamenos was accomplished after less- resistance than was offered to the conquest of the Eurotas valley. There is nothing to show that the Argive state was more than very temporarily eclipsed by the Dorian occupation, and it is permis- sible to think that there was a direct continuity, which was but little interfered with by the replace- ment of Tisamenos by Temenos, between the Argive kingdom of Diomed and that of Pheidon, which in the dawn of connected Greek history appears as the dominant state of the Peloponnese, and that this posi- tion of dominance was an inheritance handed down from late Mycenaean days, when Argos was beginning* to eclipse its younger but hitherto more powerful rival Mycenae. The Dorians found Argos becoming* more powerful than Mycenae, and so they naturally made Argos the seat of their power, abandoning* Mycenae.

In Argos then we have a true Mycenaean state- survival.

^Egina was in legend always closely connected with Epidauros and the Argolic coast: it is evident that during the Mycenrean period the island was an 1 V. post, p. 291.


important dependency, first of the Mycenaean state, and later of Argos. The connection with Argos was always maintained; the Dorians who colonized the island, in all probability in the ninth century, came from Argos, and in later days when ^Egina was attacked by Athens and Corinth, it was to Argos that the islanders turned for help.

The dominating position of ^gina in the Saronic Gulf would seem to mark her out as pre-eminently destined to become a commercial centre. As one of the most important members of the Kalaureian Amphictiony she had been from Mycenasan times a famous home of commerce and of seamanship; in the Hesiodic poems her seamen are said to have been the first to navigate the zEgean:

ol S' r/rot irpwroi %tv%av viaQ a/LK^i^Xiffcra^ TTpwroL 8N tafia Oivro v£W£ irrtpa TrovTOiropoio.1

This verse, despite its poetic exaggeration, shows that the continental Greeks of the end of the eighth century recognized ^Bgina as having been one of the first Greek states to take to the water. A legend related by Pausanias 2 would seem to show that the ^Eginetans traded with Kyllene in Elis and through Kyllene with the Arcadians at an even earlier period, while the legendary connection of the Aiakids and Myrmidons with Phthiotis testifies to equally early relations between ^Egina and Northern Greece, carried on no doubt through the Minyan cities.

1 Hes. Katal. Fragm. 96; ed. KINKEL.

2 PAUS. viii. 5.


When the age of colonization began, ^Egina, as we have seen, became an active member of the Eretrian system of alliances. Her population was too small to- allow her to colonize,1 but her trade, assured by the powerful co-operation of Eretria and Miletos, did not suffer by this abstention. Her commercial pre- eminence was further secured by her early adoption of a modified form of the Phoenician system of weights and measures, which had been in use in Melos and other islands of the ^Egean since the days of Phoenician predominance,2 and the invention of coined money, which came to her from Lydia, no- doubt by way of Miletos, at the beginning of the seventh century. Her far-reaching commerce spread the " tortoise "-money of ^Egina during the seventh century over the greater part of the .^Egean and the Peloponnese, as well as in Northern Greece, and made its standard the basis of the currency of many a Greek state.3 Tradition makes Pheidon, king of

1 The only ^Eginetan colony was founded late in the 6th cen- tury, at Kydonia in Crete, after the exiled Samians had been expelled from that place (HOT. iii. 59). It is perhaps significant that these Samians were attacked by JEgina, the old enemy of their state.

2 This is the view of HEAD, Historia Numo'rum, pp. xxxviii. f., 331 ff. Aphrodite was especially worshipped in JEgina, and this has been taken to show that Phoenicians were settled in the island at a very early period.

3 Until the introduction of the Euboic weight, it was used from Cilicia to Italy, and was the general standard of con- tinental Greece. It should be noted here, in connection with what has previously (p. 256) been said with respect to the Eretrian and Chalkidian Leagues, that Eretria, though so closely connected with the allies of ^Egina, and probably also- with JEgina herself, never used the ^Eginetan standard, but, like



Argos, who most probably reigned about the middle- of the seventh century,1 introduce weights and mea- sures from ^Egina into Peloponnesos, and cause money to be coined for him there.2 This tradition is probably historical; Pheidon was an enemy of Corinth, the rival of ^Egina and, as we have seen,, the rulers of Argos were in all probability closely connected with the Eretrian-^Eginetan and hos- tile to the Chalkidian-Corinthian alliance; the ^Bginetan route to the West passed from ^Egina along the Peloponnesian coast. The prosperity of ^Egina must however have received a rude shock about the middle of the seventh century, when the- issue of the Lelantine war assured the commercial hegemony of her rival Corinth in continental Greece. And from this time the general importance of ^Egina began to decline; but, although her influence in the West seems to have entirely disappeared, she still

Chalkis, kept to the peculiar system of Eubcea. It is noticeable that the JEginetan standard was used by states connected with the Eretrian alliance (e.g., by Korkyra after her revolt from Corinth) in preference to that of Euboea, which was identified far more with Chalkis and Corinth than with Eretria.

1 Of the various dates proposed for Pheidon, that of CUETIUS (668 B.C.) seems the most probable. 748 is certainly too early, if Pheidon had money made for him in ^Egina.

2 N6/uo>ia %KO\ISW tv Alyivr) (Etym. Magn. s. v. 'O/SeXiV/cos) need not mean more than that he struck money in ^Egina for use in his own dominions, with which ^Egiua was closely connected. The tradition which makes Pheidon adopt the JSginetan coinage- does not appear in Herodotos, who only mentions his " giving a metric system" to the Peloponnesians; but if he gave them weights he probably gave them those of ^Egina, which was con- nected with Argolis by ties of friendship and alliance, and if he 'gave them ^Eginetan weights, he probably gave them jEginetan

coinage, which was widespread in the Peloponnese, also.


kept up much of her old energy in the southern ./Egean, with which Corinth had little connection, and at the end of the sixth century possessed her factory at Naukratis in Egypt, and in Sostratos, son of Laodamas, a merchant prince with whom it was impossible for any one to compete.1 Since also she had been first in the field, the adherence of Corinth to the rival Euboic system of coinage was not sufficient to displace the ^Eginetan standard from its old established position in the Peloponnese and in other parts of Greece. Argos still re- mained her friend, and Corinth was never able to oppose Argos with much success. Eventually the Corinthians secured the destruction of their rival by supporting the attacks of Athens upon " the eyesore of the Peiraieus," never anticipating that after the absorption of ^Egina the Athenians would prove more dangerous rivals to them than ./Egina had ever been.2

If Argos and ^Egina are typical Mycenaean sur- vivals among the states of Greece, in the sense that their heroic importance was fully maintained in later days, Corinth is a typical representative of the new Greece. Her heroic traditions are meagre; that the original town of Ephyra already existed in Mycenaean times seems evident, but it was of little importance: " BEXXt/oo^oi'rjjv SI," says Pausanias (ii. 4), " owe avroKpuTOpa ovra fiaaiXevziv, tivai 8f £?ri Ylpoirc^t KOL ^Apyetoig £yw r£ trtiOofjiai /cat otrng TO. 'OfJiypov Trdpspyov £7rfXI£aro. (^aivovrai £c icai BeXXe/oo^ovrov jU£rot/oj(Tavroe fc AWK/OV ouStv r\aaov ol KopivOtot 1 HDT. iv. 152. '2 Ib. v. 92.


T(JJV iv "Apyti

TraptG\ovTO ap\ovra Trig ITTI T^o y pivot &£ MuK>jvato<c

riyuro jucrto^ov row oroXou." That at one period Corinth was very closely connected with Mycenae and probably under the direct control of the Mycenaean rulers seeins to be indicated by Captain Stefien's discovery of the ancient " military " roads which run between Mycenae and the isthmus.1 But in the seventh century, when the continental Greeks began in emulation of the lonians to voyage and to colonize, it is Mycenae that has become an insignificant hill village, while Corinth is a great city, a colonizer and trafficker in distant seas, and almost the equal of Argos in power and prestige, of ^Egina in wealth and activity. But one thing Corinth lacked which ^Egina possessed, pedigree: she was nouvelle riche. It is significant that she was the centre and head- quarters of the commercial league which had been originally established to compete with the ancient Eretrian confederacy, which, as we have seen, may date back to " Mycenaean " times. The league of Chalkis and Corinth was a far younger rival; no Mycenaean connection can be unearthed for it. The commercial importance of Corinth did not then begin to develop until after the close of the period of Mycenaean hegemony. Now it is evident to us at the present day that it was inevitable that the younger league must have eventually to a great extent supplanted the older in the transmission of goods between East and West (though the older still remained a good 1 Of. the map in TSOUNTAS-MANATT, p. 12.



means of communication between the and the Peloponnese simply). The unrivalled geographical position of Corinth, commanding and connecting the Saronic and the Corinthian gulfs and affording a sea route shorter and safer than that round Malear a land route shorter and easier than that overland from Nauplia or Epidauros, made the eventual commercial predominance of Corinth in continental Greece a certainty. To whom are we to ascribe the first impulse that set Corinth on her path of com- mercial development? Who were the sharpsighted mariners and traders who first perceived the com- mercial possibilities of the Isthmian city? We have seen that for at least a couple of centuries after the Mycenaean thalassocracy had come to an end Greek waters were dominated by the Phoenicians. Now in Corinth we have, if anywhere in Greece, clear traces of the presence of Phoenicians; the Corinthian Aphrodite was as Semitic as the goddess of Paphos;. also — a far less assured point — the Kyklopes who were especially worshipped at Corinth1 may very well have been the Kebirim; while the name Melikertes is Melek-kiryat, " King of the City," whether the god Melkarth be here in question or not.2 It is then to the Phoenicians that the discovery of the commercial possibilities of Corinth are to be assigned. The greatness of Corinth belongs then exclusively to post-Mycenaean times; she is the-

1 PAUS. ii. 2.

2 That Medeia, who was confused with the Hera Akraia of Corinth, was a Semitic goddess is shown by FARNELL (Cults of the Greek States, i. p. 203) to be extremely probable.

THE END 29 r

representative of the new order, as Argos and .^Egina were survivals of the old.

KOL TipvvOiuv TtrpaKomoi. Whether these four hundred heroes of the final struggle with the Persian host were citizens of villages still suffered for a time to exist, or were, as Professor Mahaffy main- tains,1 like the Messenians, exiles from a Mycenae and a Tiryns which had been destroyed by the Argives long before, perhaps in the carrying out of a Phei- donian (TWOLKKT/ULOQ^ they were the last representatives of the foremost cities of heroic Greece; their name reappears no more in Greek history. Herodotos makes no comment upon their epitaph, yet we cannot doubt that to him and to many another visitor to the Delphic shrine it seemed fitting that their names, pregnant with so many mighty memories, should have found their place in the list of defenders of their country at the moment of her most supreme struggle for existence, and that their presence should have been commemorated in the central point of Hellenedom, the 6/i^aXoc yrjc- We, the inheritors of Greek culture, assuredly find it a matter of extreme interest that the Hellenes should have registered for our knowledge the fact that My- cengeans and Tirynthians died to preserve intact that European civilization of which in the far-away heroic age their ancestors had helped to lay the foundation.

1 Survey of Greek Civilisation, p. 31.

FIG. 66.— Obverse of a Lydian coin of the early part of the Vlth century B.C. (Compare designs of Mycenaean gems.)



WHEN dealing with Mycenaean Crete some reference has been made (p. 204) to Mycenaean religious ideas. Of this subject our knowledge is, naturally, very scanty. The prae-Mycenaean Greeks seem to have venerated a female goddess, of whom nude marble images (Fig. 38) were made. This deity is occasionally steatopygous. Other marble images of men playing harps, &c., which are known, presumably do not represent deities. The Mycenaeans made small robed female images (the so- called " owl-headed " figures), which very probably were intended for a representation of a female deity. In the curious theriom orphic figures which we find so constantly repeated on Mycenaean frescoes, gems, and metal-work, we certainly have deities of some kind. A nd the peculiar armed figure which we see in the well-known fresco and gem from Mycenae (PERROT-CHIPIEZ, Hist, de I' Art: Grece Primitive, Figs. 440, 425), is probably the image of a god. Further, the double-headed axe, which is such a common feature in Mycenaean art, is certainly the symbol of a god.

We can identify this last deity at once. He is without doubt a Zeus. The double-axe was the symbol of the Zeus of Labranda, and that the Pelasgian Zeus of Crete was the same as this old Asiatic god is made extremely probable by the original racial identity of the prae-Hellenic Cretans (and "Greeks" in general) with the Lykiana


and other peoples of Asia Minor. Labranda is the same word as the Knossian Aafivpwdos, both meaning " Place of the Double Axe," i.e., " House of Zeus."1 The Mycenaean double-axe is then the symbol of Zeus,2 and as his symbol it was especially dedicated at his most ancient sanctuary in the Dictsean Cave, so successfully ex- plored by Mr. HOGARTH (Ann. Brit. Sch. Ath. 1899-1900, p. 94 ff).

The bull's-head which also frequently appears on Mycenaean FIG. 67.— Emblem of Zeus works of art, often in conjunc- of the Double-Axe (My- tion with the double-axe, is also a Zeus emblem, and is the back

of the now famous throne, discovered by Mr. Evans in the palace of Knossos, fashioned in the shape of an •oak-leaf, symbol of Pelasgic Zeus?

1 The identity of the name Labranda with the Aafttpivdos of Knossos has been more than once pointed out, first by MAYBE (Mykenische Beitrdge, ii.; Jahrb. Arch. Inst. vii. p. 191). As Xdfipvs is the " kleinasiatisch " word for Axe, Labra-nda. or Labrau-nda, evidently means " The Place of the Double- Axe," and Aa^upivdos must, as MAYER maintains, have the same meaning, and so the Palace of Knossos, which contains so many representations of the double-axe, is no doubt rightly identified by Mr. A. J. EVANS with the veritable Labyrinth itself. The Minoan Labyrinth was then in some sort under the special protection of Zeus, who was •especially worshipped at Knossos, and the Minotaur probably bears much the same relation to him, since the bull's head appears to have been his emblem as well as the double-axe, as the animal-headed demons of the woods and waters bore to Artemis or Diktynna.

2 The " Karian Zeus," properly so-called, was of course a new importation from Karia, at a time when the original character of the Pelasgic Zeus and his double axe had long been forgotten in Greece.


The armed figure may again very well be a Zeus.

The theriomorphic figures are extremely interesting. The head is sometimes that of a lion, more often that of an ass or horse (apparently), though it may well be questioned whether sometimes it is not intended for that of a bear. The figures wear a tight waistbelt, below which depends behind a heavy object, nearly reaching the ground, which is apparently intended for the hairy animal skin belonging to the head, though sometimes it is so exaggerated as to resemble the abdomen of an insect; so MILCHHOFER (Anf tinge der Kunst, p. 65) took it to be the body of a grasshopper! These figures usually hold in their hands a prochous (Fig. 68), or carry dead animals, apparently the spoils of the chase, over their shoulders, or, as in Fig. 58, by means of a shoulder-yoke. Other therio- morphic figures in various positions are found on the island-gems and Cretan sealstones.

I take these figures, as TSOUNTAS does,1 to be demons of the springs and of the woods, of running water and of the chase, and believe them to be closely connected with Artemis - worship. Mr. FAR- NELL has ably exhibited the real character of Artemis as a primeval goddess having pre- FIG. 68.— Mycenaean Water-

cisely the attributes which can demon <? Artemis)- fr°™

J an intaglio.

be assigned to the theriomorphic

demons of the Mycenseans.2 In Crete she was called Britomartis or Diktynna, and she appears in ^Egina as Aphaia. Her name Diktynna has been assumed to be connected with &LKTVOV, " net," and so she has been called a " net-spirit," but it seems more probable

1 Mycenaean Aye, p. 298.

- Cults of the Greek /States, ii. ch. xiii.


that her name means simply the " Diktsean " (the ter- mination -nna being easily explicable with the help of Lycian; v. ante, p. 178), and has nothing to do with the Greek MKTVOV. She is the goddess of the mountains, woods, and streams of Dikte. Her pr?e- Hellenic and Pelasgian (or in Crete, Eteokretan) character is evident; and Mr. FARNELL is undoubtedly right in holding her to be practically identical with the female goddess of Asia Minor: the goddess of woods and waters is but a deriva- tive of the Mother-goddess: Artemis was but a form of Rhea. (In fact this early prominence of the female goddess might be adduced as a confirmation of our theory that the prae-Mycemiean and early Mycenaean inhabitants of Crete and other parts of FiG.69.-Artemis(Diktynna) Greece, the Eteokretans, Le- irorvLa 07jp£>v. (From a My- leges, " Pelasgi," ifec., belonged cenaean intaglio, found at ^ the same rftce Rg the abor{_

ginal stock of Asia Minor.)

Whether the theriomorphic Mycensean figures are actual representations of Artemis herself, or simply either i attendant demons (TsouNTAS calls them Satyrs) or/ priests of Artemis arrayed in animal skins remain/; doubtful, but it is very possible that Artemis herself fs intended, for many intayli bear somewhat similar scenes, except that for the theriomorphic figure is sub- stituted a woman (Fig. 69; cf. PERROT-CHIPIEZ, Hist. de VArt: La Grece Primitive, Fig. 426, 12). That this woman bearing the dead body of a deer or goat is Artemis there can be little doubt, and the huntress drawing the bow whom we see on the gem figured by PERROT-CHIPIEZ, loc. cit. Fig. 426, IT, is certainly she. The woodland goddess was then worshipped by the MyceL,a?ans, and


her representations and symbols can easily be recognised in Mycenaean art.

The worship of Artemis retained in classical times many traces of primeval savagery, and we may be sure among her Mycenaean worshippers her character was more that of the wild 'Apre/us AaQpia than that of the serene moon-goddess of later days, and that the human sacrifice and the primitive witchcraft afterwards associated with the name of Hekate, who is but a form of her, were prominent features of her worship in Mycenaean days.

Mr. FARNELL (loc. cit. p. 464) is of opinion that her conjunction with Apollo is of comparatively late dater and was first brought about in Delos. It does not appear probable (v. ante. p. 243) that Delos became a Greek sanctuary until the dawn of the classical period; we cer- tainly see nothing which can be construed as a trace of Apollo-worship in Mycenaean days. Whether Apollo was known to the Mycenaeans, whether Pelasgi or Aryans, or not, it is impossible to say; TIELE brings him from Asia Minor, whence, he thinks, oracles came with him to- Greece. That the Delian sanctuary was founded from Crete when the Karians or Leleges were finally expelled from the Cyclades seems probable, so that he may have originally come from Crete.

The certainty of Zeus- and Artemis-worship suggests the probability of Rhea-worship. It is natural to sup- pose that the more dignified female deity, whom we find seated on a throne on several Mycenaean intagti, is the Mother-goddess of the Pelasgic populations; the male deity who sometimes accompanies her is evidently the young Zeus (cf. EVANS, J. ff. S. xxi. 168).

The prevalence of marine subjects in Mycenaean art has already been noticed, and a very early Mycenaean sea- demon illustrated, on p. 201; that Poseidon and other


sea-deities were already worshipped in Mycenaean times seems very probable. Poseidon was intimately connected with the originally Mycenaean League of Kalaureia (the Kalaureian Zeus was originally a Poseidon); in legend <he is especially connected with the early .^Eolic princes of Thessaly (GROTE, Hist. Gr. i. p. 93), and he was always especially worshipped by the Achaians of the Corinthian •Gulf (where he may have been of Aigialean, i.e., Ionian origin), and by the seafaring lonians, who, as we have seen, were probably already active in Greece in the Mycenaean epoch. As god of the sea Poseidon was naturally the tutelary deity of all islands, and in Tenos we may perhaps find the original ^Egean seat of his wor- ship, which may have spread hence to all those islands and coasts of Greece to which the Mycenaean culture, which was in so many of its aspects connected with the sea, extended. Was Poseidon also not of Aryan origin? Was he also a legacy of the early island populations to the Greeks, as Kereus and the other aXioi yepovres probably were? He was certainly not Babylonian, as Mr. GLADSTONE believed,1 for he has nothing whatever in common with the Sumerian god of the primeval waters. Ea.

The Chthonic worship of Demeter and Kore, being typically " Pelasgic," was no doubt handed on by the early Pelasgic " Mycenaeans " to the later Mycenseans of the Pelopid hegemony; the worship of Demeter connects closely with that of Artemis: the horse-headed Demeter of Phigaleia, a characteristically Pelasgic goddess in a Pelasgic land, was as much an Artemis as was the fish- tailed Eurynome who was venerated in the same place.

We have already seen (pp. 229, 239) that of the wor- ships of the Thracian Dionysos and the Semitic Aphrodite 1 Landmarks of Homeric Study, p. 135.


we need not expect to find traces in early Mycenaean times, at Knossos, for example. The gold plaques with ^presentations of Aphrodite and her doves from Mycenae are apparently late-Mycenaean, and may date to the ninth century, when Aphrodite-worship had probably become widely spread in Greece.1

The scanty traces of Mycenaean religion which exist are therefore mainly prae-Hellenic in character. With the probable exception of Hera, who must have been worshipped by the Mycenaean Achaians of Argolis and probably by Mr. Evans's Knossians also, we cannot find much trace of the worships introduced by the invad- ing Aryans. But who shall say with confidence of Greek religion that this part of it is Aryan, and that non- Aryan? All we can affirm with reason is that the Rhea- and Artemis- worship certainly, certain phases of Zeus- worship certainly, and the Poseidon -worship possibly, are prae- Aryan and " Pelasgic "; and these worships bulk largest in our knowledge of Mycenaean religion. Before we can say that here or there is apparently an indication of Aryan and post-Pelasgic worships having existed in Mycenaean days, a thing which, ex hypotkesi, we ought to find, our knowledge of things Mycenaean must extend itself far beyond its present limits.


Mr. FARNELL (Cults of the Greek States pp. 13, 14) writes: " The ordinary Greek of the Homeric period did not imagine his god under the form of a beast but under the form of a man. He did not, however, as yet repre- sent him in this form either in marble or wood, as a

general rule."

1 V. ante, p. 229.


Homeric religion seems certainly wholly anthropo- morphic, but surely the mention of the Trojan Athene Polias (II. vi. 303), discussed by Mr. FABNELL in the- sentence immediately following that quoted above, might well be urged against the idea that it was wholly aniconic. For Mr. FARNELL the Homeric Age seems to be still " the- very threshold" of Greek history, so he says nothing about the earlier Mycenaean religion, except the follow- ing remark: " The uncouth human-shaped idols found on the ruins of Troy and Mycenae give us no clue for the present question, since we do not know their data even approximately, and we do not know whether in the remotest degree they were Greek in origin; the most developed is almost certainly Babylonian " (!) (p. 19). If the well-known leaden female figure with a fylfot ornament is meant, it can only be said that there is nothing Babylonian in it; the fylfot or svastika wa& unknown to Babylonian art. If the Mycenaean culture is the direct ancestor of the culture of classical Greece, it is then Greek, and the " uncouth human-shaped idols found on the ruins of Troy and M} cense " are Greek also, whether the people who made them were Aryans or non- Aryans, "Pelasgians" or " Hellenes." The little draped female figures of Mycenae or the naked marble idols of the Cyclades can only be Greek images of Greek gods; and so Greek religion in Mycenaean days was iconic. The rude pottery figures of the fully developed Mycenaean period were no doubt merely rough miniature editions of the big idols in the temples, which were doubtless artisti- cally good. In the second place, at the very threshold of Creek history the religion is already clearly theriomorphic as well as anthropomorphic, if the contention in the pre- ceding appendix, that some of the theriomorphic Myce- naean deities are representations of Artemis or attendant


demons of the woods and waters, is correct. (And in the horse-headed Demeter and the fish-tailed Eurynome we have survivals of this theriomorphism.) That it was anthropomorphic is proved by the representations of Rhea, Zeus, and Artemis on gems; the armed Zeus (?) of the Tiryns fresco and the Mycense ring is also appa- rently human-headed. But for Mr. FARNELL'S categorical statement (p. 19): " The earliest image under which the Greek divinity proper was figured was the image of man," there is no proof. No doubt a deity was first imagined here as animal-headed, there as human-headed.

That the "iconic impulse probably came from the East " (p. 19) is possible; but I do not see why the Pelasgians (or whatever we call the prse- Aryan culture-ancestors of the Greeks) need not have begun to imagine in stone and wood the devils and ghosts whom they wished to propitiate long before they ever heard of the East or its gods.

In a most interesting paper published in J. H. 8. for 1901 (xxi. 99 fi'), Mr. A. J. EVANS has discussed the evidence for a Tree- and Pillar-Cult among the Myce- nseans. He has brought forward many interesting arguments in favour of the idea that the Mycenseans venerated sacred pillars (bcetyli) and trees. Numerous traces of such worships remained in Greece in classical times, and it seems probable enough that they are a remnant of prse-Hellenic religion, but it is difficult to say much about their existence in Mycensean times on account of the indefiniteness of most of the Mycenaean representations which are taken as evidence in the matter. From much the same representations RBICHEL deduced his conclusion that the chief objects of My- censean worship was an Empty Throne; the throne of an invisible deity (Vorhellenische Gotterculte, p. 3 ff).


In favour of this theory REICHEL, like Mr. EVANS in favour of his, brings forward other evidence of an interesting character, especially the double rock-cut throne on the island of Chalke near Rhodes, which bears a later dedication, be it noted, to Zeus in conjunction with the Pelasgian Hekate (ib. p. 30, Fig. 8). But REICHEL'S persuasion, " dass die mykenische Zeit sich auf die Verehrung unsichtbarer Gotter beschrankte und noch keine Cultbilder kannte," does not seem to be in- any way justified. The deity might seat himself in- visible upon the throne prepared for him, but images of him could be, and, as we have seen, were manufactured..

Mr. EVANS also speaks of Mycenaean religion as pre- dominantly aniconic, of the supposed Mycenaean sacred pillars and trees as " aniconic images " which were " sup- plemented by Pictorial Representations of Divinities."' But there is no need to suppose that, if the Mycenaeans, as they very probably did, venerated sacred stones and groves, therefore they did not at the same time imagine, portray, and worship their gods in animal or human form. We have Mycenaean representations of at least three- deities, Rhea, Zeus, and Artemis; what proof have we that images of these deities were not made and vene- rated in temples, &c.? Since we have images of a female goddess from the rude graves of the ancestors of the Mycenaeans, it would seem that the predominantly- aniconic character of Mycenaean religion has yet to be proved.

Mycenaean Tree -and Pillar-cults need not be of Semitic origin: the similar cults of Canaan were probably taken over by the Semites from the prae-Semitic inhabitants, who probably belonged to the same stock as the prae- Aryan Greeks.



THIS interesting object, of which two figures (Figs. 70 and 71). drawn by Mr. Anderson, are appended, was found at Tell el-Amarna with the great collection of cuneiform letters, despatches, &c., from the governors and chiefs of Western Asia to the Egyptian kings Amenhotep III. and IY. (Khuenaten). Its date is then presumably about B.C. 1450-1420.

Only a few objects unconnected with the diplomatic correspondence of the royal cabinet were found with the Tell el-Amarna tablets: of these some are in the Museum of Berlin, and two are in the British Museum; one of them, bearing the number 22866, being the group of which we are speaking. What it was doing with the- royal diplomatic correspondence it is hard to say, as its use is not clearly apparent. It might be the " cover of a vase or jar," as it is described in BUDGE-BEZOLD, Tell el-Amarna Tablets, p. x., or it might be a simple objet d'art, designed to stand by itself, like a group by Barye. That unofficial objects did occasionally stray into the royal " office " is also shown by that tablet relating the surprising adventures of the Babylonian goddess Irishkigal, of her messenger Namtar, and of her unedifying quarrel with her husband Nergal, which had somehow slipped into the royal despatch-boxes.


and is now with our animal group in the British Museum.

The material of the group is a hard deep-red stone with a few lighter spots, apparently a jasper. It is a representation of a fight between a lion and a bull. The lion has seized his antagonist by the neck with his left paw and is holding him down with his right, which grips the back and shoulder of the bull, so that his right leg has been forced down into a kneeling position. The

FIG. 70.

teeth of the lion are buried in the neck of the bull, who has twisted his head to the left, and, with wide open mouth and lolling tongue, is bellowing vehemently. In his struggle to escape he has forced his hindquarters on to the back of the lion, whom he appears to be vigorously kicking. Originally his tail was lashing his sides: it has been broken off in ancient times, and only the traces of its presence remain, but these are enough to show that it was for a portion of its length cut free from the body of the group. The bull's horns are also broken off. A curious feature is that the lion has upon his back an ornament consisting apparently of a shoulder- and belly-



band, decorated with incised squares, and joined together on the shoulder by an oval buckle (?).

The group stands upon a low elliptical base roughly grooved to represent rocks (?), measuring 3 J inches long by 2 inches broad, The height of the group is 2 J inches, its interior is hollowed out to a depth of J inch. Whether this last fact shows that it was a vase-lid is doubtful; in that case, however, the loop of the tail may have served as a handle.

FIG. 71.

The energy of this small group is very remarkable; the attitude of the bull is eloquent of rage and pain. But, while the composition is good and parts of the bodies of the combatants are well designed, there are also many faults which show the artistic limitations of the sculptor — e.g., the fore-legs of the lion are far too long and his hind-legs are absurdly short and stumpy. Generally speaking, the bull is better than the lion.

Of what art is this group a product? It is not Egyptian, not even Egyptian of the artistic renascence of Khuenaten. For this its execution is far too faulty, as also its composition far too refreshingly vigorous and



energetic. It has been thought to be Mesopotamia!!, but here many objections are apparent. There is nothing particularly Assyrian about it: the mane of the Assyrian lion is disposed quite differently. It might appear to have a Persian look, but here again on closer inspection • the bull, though he lias short fat legs with huge hooves, is no Persian bull. And, besides, it is a thousand years older than Persepolis.

Is it not probably Mycenaean? Many Mycenaean traits are visible in it; not only its vigour of composition but also the inequality of its execution seem to indicate a Mycenaean origin: the violent upheaving of the hind- quarters of the bull and his vehement bellowing remind one strongly of the Yaphio bulls, while the over- emphasized muscles, the exaggerated length of the bodies and stumpiness of the legs confirm the aptness of this reminiscence. Also the head of the lion closely resembles the usual type of lion's head on Mycenaean


If this surmise is correct, this group is one of the most interesting examples of the Mycenaean art of the fifteenth century B.C. which we possess, and may perhaps give us some clue to the date of the Yaphio cups, which for other reasons seem to date approximately to that time.



THE bronze figure of a warrior, erect and with the arms raised in a fighting posture, which is illustrated by Fig. 72, and was found at Tiryns, belongs to a class of objects which is well repre- sented in most of the great archaeological collections of Europe. Such figures are found in various parts of the Mediterranean area: one, illustrated by PERROT- CHIPIEZ, iii. p. 405, Fig. 277, comes from Tortosa in Spain, while our Fig. 73 was found at Berut in Phoenicia. The majority come from Phoe- nicia: those in possession of the Trustees of the British Museum, three in number,

all come thence. Hitherto . , , FIG. 72— Bronze Figure found

the general presumption has atTiryns('E^M.i89i,Pl.lLi). 'been that these objects were of Phoenician origin, and that their presence in other


parts of the Mediterranean basin is simply due to Phoeni- cian trade. This presumption is a very natural one.

But some archaeologists have lately taken to labelling these bronzes " Mycenaean." Why, it is hard to say. The peculiar features of these figures are (a) the high conical cap; (b) the waistcloth. Now it is true that this is not the ordinary costume of a Phoenician, who wore voluminous robes, or indeed of any Semite. It is then the costume of a foreigner; so this must be a representa- tion of a non- Semitic deity. The Mycenseans wore waist- cloths; and therefore, apparently (coupled with the fact that one or two have been found at Mycenae, Tiryns, &c.), these figures are claimed as Mycenaean. But nobody has yet discovered any representation of a Mycenaean wearing a tall conical cap. And the waistcloth of these figures is quite different from the Mycenaean clout as seen in the well- known lead en statuette from Kampos,or from the Egyptian representation of the waistcloth of the Keftiu, to whom, by the way, there seems to be some desire to liken these bronze warriors. It is, in fact, impossible to perceive the faintest resemblance to anything Mycenaean in them. Where are we then to look for their origin? The tall cap might seem to point either to Etruria or to Eastern Asia Minor, the land of the high-capped Kheta. But the preponderance of Asiatic " find-spots " for these figures affords strong grounds for the presumption that they are of Asiatic, not Italian, origin, and, besides, the Etruscans wore long robes. So, unluckily, did the Kheta.1 Where are we to find the combination of high cap and waistcloth? Only in Egyfrt. These figures are ultimately of Egyptian origin.

1 The figure standing on the lion, illustrated by PEBBOT- CHIPIEZ, iv. Fig. 367, is no Kheta, and the bronze itself is not demonstrably of " Hittite " origin.


A glance at Fig. 71 and a comparison with Fig. 73 will show this clearly. Fig. 73, No. 25096 of the British Museum, was originally covered with silver over- lay, portions of which still remain. The waistcloth is


FIG, 73.— Bronze Figure found at Berut (Brit. Mus. Dept. ot Assyr. and Eg. Antic q.).

distinctly of Egyptian form, and the high cap resolves itself into a garbled imitation of the Egyptian «te/-crown, minus the Khnemu-horns which usually accompany this head-dress. Apparently the figure is a Phoenician edi- tion of the Egyptian war-god Anher (Ovovpis), who is


usually depicted in a similar attitude, or of the Phoenician- Egyptian Reshpu, who in his Egyptian dress naturally borrows some of the characteristics of Anher. It can hardly date to before 700 B.C.

And this seems to me to be the origin of all the similar figures in our museums. They are Phoenician caricatures of the usual Egyptian representation of Anher, or even in some cases, as perhaps in that of the Tortosa-figure, local imitations of the Phoenician caricatures. That they are all comparatively late in date, like the Sardinian bronzes which they resemble in treatment, seems probable: I fail to see that the presence of the " double jet de la fonte" which "subsiste encore sous lespieds" of the Tortosa-figure, is in any way " deja une premiere presomp- tion de haute antiquite: " 1 rough work was done at all periods.

1 PERROT-CHIPIEZ, loc. cit.



ON page 1 24 we have discussed the probable influence- of Mycenaean on " Hittite " art and vice-versd, and have

FIG. 74. — Impression of a Cylinder from Aidin in Lydia (Louvre).

found it practically nil. Some archaeologists might object to this statement, and maintain that there exist Hittite seals which show obvious traces of Mycenaean influence. The impressions of two such seals, cylinders, from Inner Asia Minor, are here illustrated by Figs. 74 and 75. It is of course a pure assumption to call them " Hittite," although the influence of the strange assyrianizing art of Eastern A*ia Minor is clearly discernible in them,, especially in the double-headed high-capped deity of Fig. 74. The spirals on both have a decidedly Mycenaean


appeamnce (though that on Fig. 75 can be paralleled on purely Babylonian seals), and so have the bull's head of Fig. 75, and the opposed lions of Fig. 74. But there are also other things on these seals. The two opposed figures on Fig. 75 have a Babylonian appearance; the scorpion between them is Egyptian, the emblem of the goddess Selk; the birds above the spiral are deformed Egyptian rekhiu; while the hawkheaded protecting deities of Fig. 74, however rudely they may be presented, are Egyptian, and so is the king in waistcloth and dtef-

FIG. 75. — Impression of a Cylinder from Asia Minor (Louvre).

crown, and carrying a parody of an Egyptian standard, on Fig. 75. It is then obvious that these cylinders, with their mixed Babylonian, Egyptian, " Hittite," and Myce- naean designs, are not of " Hittite," but of Phoenician or (perhaps) Cypriote workmanship. They prove, therefore, absolutely nothing with regard to any Mycena?an influence upon " Hittite " art, but as Phoenician or Cypriote objects with imitations of Mycensean design they are extremely interesting. A later date than 700 B.C. is hardly possible for them, but I should be inclined to doubt if they are very much older, on account of the late appearance of the Egyptian figures upon them.


P. 26. In speaking of Mycenaean culture as " radiating " from Crete, Argolis, and Phthiotis over the ^Egean, &c., I do not intend to imply that every " Mycenaean " object found in the ^Egean islands, &c., was imported from Crete, Argolis, or Phthiotis. Most of the Mycenaean pottery, for instance, found in other Greek lands was no doubt manufactured where it was used and discovered. No doubt some of the My- cenaean vases found in far-away Cyprus were imported from Greece, but only some. Mr. C. C. EDGAR, however, in his excursus on " The Pottery " of Phylakopi (Ann. Brit. Sch. Ath. 1897-8), speaks of all the vases of Furtwangler's Third and Fourth Styles found in Melos as " imported "; as " the imported Mycenaean pottery found at Phylakopi " (p. 47) brought by the " stream of Mycenaean import " (p. 46). How is it possible to say with certainty that all vases of this kind found in Melos were made in and imported from Argolis or Crete?

P. 53, n. i. After bull's head from Mycenae, insert: Also •one of the vases brought by the Keftiu is the counterpart of one carried by a Mycenaean depicted at Knossos. (For a further comparison of the Keftiu with the Mycenaean Knossians, see EVANS in the Archaeological Report of the Egypt Exploration Fund for 1900, p. 60 ff., " The Palace of Knossos in its Egyptian Relations.")

P. 62. A scarab of Shashank III. (c. B.C. 850) has been found at Enkomi (MURRAY, Excavations in Cyprus, p. 41).

P. 65. The latest geological authority on the subject, Dr. Alfred PHILIPPSON (in HILLER v. GARTRIXGEN, Thera,


ch. ii.), expresses no opinion as to the date of the great eruption.

P. 69, n. i. Add: The deposits consisted of the graves of barbarians, probably Hattebu of the Delta (ante, p. 158 ff.),. who partially cremated their dead.

Ib. n. 2. Add: The style of the Khata'anah scarab- bearing the name of Sebekhetep III. of the Xlllth Dynasty shows it to be contemporary with the king whose name it bears. This scarab is not in the same case with that men- tioned on p. 50, for all the rest of the evidence confirms the XII Ith Dynasty date of the Khata'anah graves. The chief monuments found at Khata'anah also date to the XHth- XIHth Dynasties. [The objections raised to this evidence by Mr. HAYNKS (" Some unwarranted Assumptions in Arch- aeology," Am. Jourtt. Arch. ix. (1894) p. 26 ff.) are rendered invalid by the fact that the Khata'anah dating has been confirmed at Kahun and Hu.]

P. 114. It has often been thought that there is a definite statement extant in the records that Sargon did actually cross the Mediterranean to Cyprus. This is a misconcep- tion. In W.A.I, iv. p. 34 an Assyrian tablet from the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (Brit. Mus. K. 2130) is. published which contains a series of omens derived from observations of the moon, illustrated by excerpts from legendary accounts of the doings of Sargon and Naram-Sinr which are inserted in order to " point the moral and adorn the tale," somewhat after this wise: " When the moon behaves in such-and-such a manner, under this omen Sargon did so-and-so," the inference to be drawn being that if the Assyrian king does so-and-so when the moon behaves in such-and-such a manner, he will be as successful as Sargon was in a similar case. One of these omens reads: " When the moon, &c. &c., under this omen (§argon) went up, he had no foe nor rival: his terror over. . . . The Sea of the Went he traversed, and for three years in the West his hand prevailed. He established his undisputed rule and in the West his statues [he set up]: he caused the booty of the Sea-lands to be


brought." All that the italicized passage means is that he coasted along the Palestinian littoral, crossing from point to point, and the " booty of the sea-lands " is the pillage of the Palestinian coast-tribes. There is no reason to suppose that Cyprus is referred to or any knowledge of its existence even hinted at.

P. 1 14, n. 2. "A statement is current," as Mr. Torr would put it, that there wan a Babylonian colony at Pterion as early as 2000 B.C., and one of the collaborators of the "Mission en Cappadoce" (" Ouvrage publie sous les auspices du Minis- tt>re de 1'Iristruction Publique et des Beaux-Arts," Paris,. 1898), M. BOISSIER, is responsible for this statement. Now, in the first place, it may be premised that there is every probability that Babylonian influence had penetrated into Asia Minor as early as 2000 B.C. Since Martu or Syria was overrun by Babylonian kings some seventeen hundred years before 2000 B.C., and in Hammurabi's time (B.C. 2200) it is quite a. matter of course that it should be subject to the " King of the Four Quarters of the Earth," it is evident that Babylonian influence can very well have already passed westward beyond the bounds of Martu at a date considerably anterior to 2000 B.C. The discoveries of M. BOISSIEK, however, prove nothing at all on the point. The evidence for the existence of his Babylonian colony consists of some cuneiform tablets which were found at Boghaz Koi. M. BOISSIKK says, in the first place, " ces monuments, en effet, presentent les memes signes graphiques que ceux des tablettes decouvertes en. Egypte a El Amarna." In reality, however, all that can be said with regard to their date, is that they may date back to the Tell el- Amarna period (c. 1400 B.C.), and may equally well belong to a far later time, since the peculiarities in writing the script which are found in them may well be character- istic of a people unaccustomed to write cuneiform fre- quently or quickly. There is then no external proof from the tablets themselves that they are as old as 1400».<.'., much less 2500! But M. BOISSIKK proceeds to argue as, follows: " Suivant nous, les originaux de ces tablettes. . . . remontent au moins n Fan 2000 . ., . .^sur la plus grande nouslisonsle nom de Sargon I'crit. . . . Sarni-ukin. . . . S'il


s'agit d'un roi Sargon, il ne peut en aucune maniere etre question ici du grand roi de Ninive; car des raisons d'ordre paleographique s'y opposent absolument, et le roi Sargon regna au VIII6 siecle, tandis que nous avons fixe Fan 2000 environ comme date de nos documents. On pourrait peut-etre songer au vieux roi d'Agade . . . une expedition babylonienne en Asie Mineure, vers Fan 3800 avant Jesus-Christ, n'est pas invraisemblable. En proposant Fan 2500 avant Jesus-Christ environ comme date de la redaction de nos tablettes, nous ne serons peut-etre pas bien eloigne de la verite." First of all, M. BOISSIER implies that for palaeographic reasons these tablets must be assigned to about 1400 B.C. (This is not a necessary supposition.) Then he jumps to 2000, six centuries, for the same tablets, or their originals. Then he says that the Sarru-ukin mentioned on one of them cannot be Sargon I., because he has shown (!) that they date to 2000. (Palaeo- graphically, this tablet mentioning Sawu-ukin might, as a matter of fact, quite well date to the eighth century.) Then, apparently because this Sami-uk'tii must be Sargon of Agade, who did live about 3800 B.C., therefore we must take a flying leap of 500 years and date these tablets to 2500 B.C.! Finally, " disons encore un mot sur ces colon* babylotiiet/x qui si'n- stallerent en Cappadoce et dont nous avons des contrats." The italics are mine.

From the above observations it will be clear that M. BOISSIER'S dates for the Boghaz Koi tablets1 rest on no certain foundation, and so cannot be accepted. The idea of a Babylonian colony at Pterion c. 2500 B.C. falls therefore to the ground.

The editor of the " Mission en Cappadoce," M. CHANTRE, proceeds to improve upon the theories of his assistant: " La date de 250x3 que M. Boissier propose d'attribuer aux textes bubylonienx de Boghaz Keue me parait tout au moins fort

1 It is to be hoped that students of M. BOISSIER'S work will not be misled in their studies of the facsimiles of these tablets which he gives (Pi. iv. v.) by the fact that he has allowed some of them to be printed upside down (PI. iv. Nos. i, 4, 2 (Rv.); PI. v. Nos. 3, 6, 9); and one sideways (PI. v. 7). PI. iv. contains seven tablets, PI. v. nine.



acceptable, slnon au-dessous de la realite" The italics do not appear in the original.

M. CHANTRE apparently has an idea that perhaps these tablets, on one of which a Sargon (Sarru-ukin) is mentioned, may be really much older even than 2500 B.C., because, so he believes, Pterion was the centre of a great " Hittite Empire " as early as the time of Sargon I., /.?., that the civilization of Boghaz Koi goes back to the time of Sargon I., about 3800 B.C. Does not one know, he asks, that mention of " Heteens " has been found " dans les tablettes augurales de Sargon d' Agade, ce que reporterait Fexistence de ce peuple au XXXe siecle avant notre ere " (p. 203) V

Here is another statement which is " current ": that the Hittites are mentioned in tablets of Sargon I.

The facts of this matter are these:

For the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh a large number of tablets were prepared containing omens, portents, astro- logical and astronomical reports, £c., in which that king apparently took an especial interest. The greater number of these tablets were written between the age of Sargon II. (B.C. 722-705) and that of Ashurbanipal (B.C. 667-625).. Many of them belong to the well-known series called the " Illumination of Bel." Now three of the British Mu- seum tablets of this category mention Sargon I. (K. 6857, K. 10,623, RM. 2; 112), one mention^ Sargon and his son Naram-Sin (K. 5929), one mention* Narfim-Sin alone (K. 2317). On another the city of Agade is mentioned (K. 4336). The references to Sargon and Narfim-Sin need not imply any real connection of these tablets with Sargon and his son; all that is said being to the effect that under a certain omen Sargon or Narfim-Sin decided to act in such- and-such a way (cf. ante, p. 314). Nor in the words in which Agade is mentioned is there anything to connect the tablet in question (W. A.I. ii. 39, n. 5) with Agade, which contains an Assyrian commentary on an astrological work: the town is simply spoken of as the city of Sargon. The remark of EPPINC; (Astronomisches aua Babylon, p. 5) that from this tablet

  • ' glauben wir schliessen zu diirf en, dass solche Texte aus Agane

[/.('., Agade] in Babylonien importiert wurden," is therefore


not justified. But nevertheless the late Mr. GEORGE SMITH wrote in his " Early History of Babylonia " ( T. S. B. A . i. p. 47) that " Sargon is often mentioned on the astrological and omen tablets, and an edition of those works was probably written in his reign." It was then merely a conjecture of GEORGE SMITH'S that, because Sargon was mentioned on those tablets, therefore they were originally edited in Sargon's time, and handed down thus edited to the latter copyists and translators whose work we now have before us. A mere conjecture; yet two years later, in Prof. SAYCE'S " Astronomy and Astrology of the Babylonians" (T. S. B. A. iii. p. 150) we find the following statement: " The standard astrological work of the Babylonians and Assyrians was one consisting of 70 tablets, drawl up for the library of Sargon, King of Agane." The italics are mine. Here is the origin of the " current state- ment " that the Series called the " Illumination of Bel " dates from the time of Sargon, 3800 B.C.

Now it is not necessary to suppose that the references to Sargon which appear on these " tablettes augurales " -of the eighth century B.C. prove any connection between them and him or Agade at all; but if it be objected that they may fairly be taken to imply some connection, this is the utmost that can be conceded; many of the tablets may have been copied from older ones which were supposed, in the eighth century B.C., when they were copied, to date from the time of far more ancient kings, especially Sargon of Agade, the Alfred the Great of Babylonian history, of whom all manner of stories were told and on whom all manner of doings were fathered. That is all. And these are the " tablettes augurales de Sargon I." of which M. CHANTRE speaks. The use of such a phrase is likely to convey a very false impression.

And what would be the value of the mention of Hittites on astronomical tablets of the eighth century which possibly may have been regarded by the learned of the day as handed down from the original edition of Sargon of Agade, but equally possibly may in reality have had nothing whatever to do with him? None. On a tablet of the " Illumination of Bel " series (Brit. Mus. K. 270; W. A. I. iii. 60, 1. 45-47) we read:


" If an eclipse happens on the 2oth day the King of Hatte (otherwise the King of Hate). will come and will seize the throne." The Hatte or Hate are, no doubt, the same people as the Kheta of the Egyptians, and these people, whether we, guessing an unproven identity, call them " Hittites " or not, were probably of the same race as the people of Boghaz Koi and Eyuk; the facial type and dress of the Kheta on Egyptian monuments of the fourteenth century B.C. exactly resembles those of the people of the ruder reliefs at Eyuk, whom M. CHANTRE calls " Heteens." M. CHANTRE'S " Heteens" are then mentioned on an astronomical tablet of, at earliest, so far as we know, the eighth century B.C. And this is all the foundation there is for the idea, apparently accepted by MM. CHANTRE and BOISSIER, that the Hatte are mentioned in the " augural tablets " of Sargon I., and that therefore the kingdom of Boghaz Koi and Eyuk was already in existence as early as B.C. 3800! Even if the tablets of this series were handed down in a series of copies from the time of Sargon — an explanation which cannot be proved correct — where is there any proof that the reference to the Hatte might not have been inserted at any period between Sargon's time and the eighth century B.C.?

There is, then, no proof of a Hittite kingdom having existed, with Pterion as its capital, as early as 3800 B.C. The most ancient contemporary mention of the Kheta or Hatte which we possess is that made by the Egyptians, who speak of them first in the time of Thothmes III., c. 1550 B.C. But this does not show that Boghaz Koi and Eyuk were built as early as 1550 B.C.! The oldest of the cuneiform tablets found at Boghaz Koi are no older than c. 1400 B.C., if as old. All, then, that can be said with certainty is that the cunei- form script was used in Asia Minor as far west as Pterion perhaps as early as c. 1400 B.C., so that Babylonian influence may well be credited with having already made itself felt beyond the bounds of Martu as early as 2000 B.C.; perhaps even earlier. But there is no proof of any Babylonian colony at Pterion at any period whatsoever.

P. 134 n. The Gazans of Roman times accepted the legend of Cretan origin. Minos and lo figure on their coins


as Meino and Eio; the town was called " Minoa "; and Marna, their chief god, was identified with Jupiter Cre- tigenes. The name Marna or Manias is not necessarily Aramaic (="Our Lord"); such a name might as well be non-Semitic as Semitic.

P. 143. The royal name Usertesen has lately been read, by a transposition of the elements of the name, Senusert, or as the German school would call it, Senwosret, the element Usert ( Wosret) being taken to be the name of a goddess, written first honoris causa, but not spoken first. I am, however, by no means convinced that the Egyptians of the time really read the name " Sen-Usert ": so I hold to the old reading " Usert-sen." The equation " Senwosret " = Seo-oorpis is hardly satisfactory.

P. 152. The use of the archaic Egyptian slate objects carved in relief, which I have called simply " Reliefs," is unknown. Prof. PET RIE thinks they are a ceremonial sur- vival of the slate palettes used in predynastic times on which to grind paint; Mr. LEGGE suggests that they are cere- monial reproductions of shields, (cf. LEGGE, The Carved Slates from HieraconpoUs and elsewhere, P.S.B.A. xxii.. p. 125 ff.; PETEIE, Note on a Carved Slate, ib. p. 140 f.)

P. 1 54. The Xllth or XTIIth Dynasty Egyptian statuette from Knossos (illustrated by EVANS, " The Palace of Knossos in its Egyptian Relations," in the Archceological Report of the Egypt Exploration Fund for 1900-1901) was found in the great Eastern Court of the palace in a position into which it had probably worked from a stratum which at other points in the palace contains relics of the Kamarais period (EvAXS, Ann. Brit. Sch. Ath. vi. 27). But this evidence for the date of the Kamarais period cannot be said to be conclusive, as it rests only on a probability. So also the presence of the statuette at Knossos cannot be regarded as irrefragable evi- dence for the connection of Crete with Egypt under the Xllth Dynasty, for, since its original position is uncertain, it may have been brought to Crete in the Mycenaean period, long after the date of its manufacture.


P. 164. On an Egyptian wooden tablet of the XTXth Dynasty (c. 1250 B.C.), now in the British Museum (No.. 5647), and published by SPIEGELBERG (Assyrische Zeitschrift, viii. 384) is a list of Keftian proper names: Ashahure, Naaui, Akashau, Adinemi (read by SPIEGELBERG " Adinai "); and the name of a country, Pinarutau or Pinaltau. W. M. MULLER (ib. ix. 394) has rightly compared Akashau with the Philistine Aklsli (LXX. 'Ayxovr), Ikausu (v. ante,. p. 135 n.). This is interesting when taken in connection with the probable Cretan origin of the Philistines.

P. 165, n. i. The Golenischeff Papyrus, which contains the report of Uenuamen, an envoy sent from Egypt by the first priest-king, Herheru, about 1050 B.C., to Phoenicia to- bring wood from the Lebanon for the construction of the great festival-bark of the god Amen at Thebes, gives us a most interesting glimpse of Alashiya (Cyprus) in the eleventh century B.C. After much speechifying and argumentation the Egyptian ambassador prevailed upon the Prince of Byblos to have the wood which he wanted brought down from the Lebanon to the seashore. Here, however, a diffi- culty presented itself; the harbour was filled with the piratical ships of the Tchakarai (Cretans?), who refused to allow Uenuamen to return to Egypt. " They said: ' Seize him; let no ship of his go to the land of Egypt! ' Then I sat down and wept. The scribe of the prince came out to me: he. said to me, ' What ails thee? ' I replied, ' Seest thou not the birds which fly, which fly back to Egypt? Look at them; they go to the cool canal, and how long do I remain aban- doned here? Seest thou not those who would prevent my return? ' He went away and spoke to the prince. The prince began to weep at the words which were told unto- him and which were so sad. He sent his scribe out to me, who brought me two masahet of wine and a deer.1 He sent me Thentnut, an Egyptian singing-girl who was with him,, saying to her, ' Sing to him, that he may not grieve! ' He

1 The foreign word aaiule (the animal sent as food to Uenua- men) is probably not '.O, a ram, but 'To, a deer, the Assyrian aialu.


ent word to me: ' Eat, drink, and grieve not! To-morrow ahalt thou hear all that I shall say.1 On the morrow he had the people of his harbour summoned, and stood in the midst of them and said to the Tchakarai, ' What ails ye? ' They answered him: "We will pursue the piratical, piratical ships which thou sendest to Egypt with our unhappy companions.' He said to them: ' I cannot seize the ambassador of Amen in my land. Let me send him away and then do ye pursue after him to seize him! ' He sent me on board and sent me away .... to the haven of the sea. The wind drove me to the land of Alashiya. The people of the city came out in order to slay me. I was dragged by them to the place where Hathaba, the queen of the city, was. I met her as she was coming out of one of her houses into the other. I greeted her and said to the people who stood by her: ' Is there not one among you who understands the speech of Egypt? ' One of them replied: ' I understand it.' I said to him: ' Say to my mistress; Even as far as the city in which Amen dwells [i.e. Thebes] have I heard the proverb, " In all cities is injustice done; only in Alashiya is justice to be found," and now is injustice done here every day! ' She said: ' What is it that thou sayest? ' I said to her: ' Since the sea raged and the wind drove me to the land in which thou livest, therefore thou wilt not allow them to seize my body and to kill me, for verily I am an ambassador of Amen. Remember that / am one who will be sought for always. And if these men of the Prince of Byblos whom they seek to kill (are killed), verily if their chief finds ten men of thine, will he not kill them also? ' She summoned the men, and they were brought before her. She said to me: ' Lie down and sleep. . . .' " Here the papyrus breaks off, and we do not know how Uenuamen returned to Egypt with his wood. The description of the landing in Alashiya is quite Homeric. [Text published by GOLENISCHEFP, Re* cueil, xxi. (1899) p. 74 ff.]

P. 179. The majority of these tribes were originally identified by DE ROUGE, (Rev. Arch. 1867; Etude sur divers Monuments. &c.); the Tchakarai were identified by CHABAS (Rechfircites sur VAntiquite Historique, p. 286 ff.), the Shardina



and Shakalashn by MASPERO (Revue Critique, 1880, p. 109 f.), the Pulusatha by CHAMPOLLION, in his Dictiowiaire Hiero- glyphique.

P. 240, n. i. The misread name occurs on the British Museum tablet K. 252, a list of deities. In 1. i of col. 5, which is described on the tablet as " List of the Judge-Gods •of Assur," occurs the name of a deity, presumably an Assyrian god and not a " Sumero-Akkadian goddess," which reads



P. 260, n. i. A useful sketch of the chronology of early Italian art, with especial reference to the date of the begin- nings of Greek influence, will be found in KAKO, Cenm sulla Cronologia Preclassica, nelT Italia Centrale, Bull, di Paletno- logia italiana, 1898, p. 144 ff. He well criticizes the strange chronological theories of MONTELIUS (Prce- Classical Chrono- logy in Greece and Italy, Journ. Anthrop. Inst. 1897, p. 261 ff.).

P. 272. Apries did succeed in directly off ending Egyptian conservatism. He paid for his partiality for the Greeks first with his throne and then with his life. From an inscription lately published by DARESSY in the Recueil (xxii. p. i ff.) it appears that Apries, after having been deposed by Amasis, but allowed to retain the royal style, attempted to regain his throne with the aid of Greek mercenaries, and was completely defeated by Amasis in his third year. The account of Herodotos (ii. 163, 169) of the battle of Momemphis is thus completely confirmed, except as regards the fact that this battle took place in the third year of the reign of Amasis, not before he became king.

The following are the most important passages of the in- scription: I. 2 " . . . His Majesty (Amasis) was in the Festival-Hall, discussing plans for his whole land, when one came to say to him: ' Haa-ab-ra (Apries) is rowing up: he has gone on board the ships which have crossed over. Hau- nebu (Greeks), one knows not their number, are traversing the North-land, which is as if it had no master to rule it: he (Apries) has summoned them, they are coming round him.


It is he who has arranged their settlement in the Peh-an (in the- Andropolite nome): they infest the whole breadth of Egypt, they have reached Sekhet-Maf ek (Terraneh): those who are on thy waters fly before them! ' . . . (Amasis summoned his councillors and captains, made them a speech to which they replied, and set out to battle). . . . His Majesty mounted his chariot, having taken lance and bow in his- hand . . . [the enemy] reached Andropolis; the soldiers sang with joy on the roads . . . they did their duty in destroying him who was opposed to him. His Majesty fought like a lion: he made victims among them, one knows not how many. The ships and their warriors were over- turned, they saw the depths as do the fishes. Like a flame he devoured (lit. broadened, extended), making a feast of fighting, making a feast of fighting. His heart rejoiced. . . . The third year, the 8th Athyr, one came to tell His Majesty: ' Let their vileness be ended! They throng the roads, there are thousands there ravaging the land: they fill every road. Those who are in ships bear thy terror in their hearts. But it is not yet finished! ' Said His Majesty to his soldiers: . . . ' Young men and old men, do this in the cities and nomes! . . . Going upon every road, let not a day pass without fighting their galleys.' . . . The land was traversed as by the blast of a tempest, destroying their ships, abandoned by the crews. The people accomplished their fate: killing its (? their) prince (Apries) on his couch, when he had come to repose in his cabin. When he saw his friend overthrown in his [ . . . ] which he had done in front of the canal, His- Majesty himself buried him in it, in order to establish him as a king possessing virtue, for His Majesty decreed that the hatred of the gods should be removed from him."

The last few lines are rather difficult to make out, but the above appears to be their literal meaning. Apries was slaughtered on his ship by the country-people, and was buried in a manner befitting a king at the charges of Amasis him- self. This warded off from the spirit of Apries the just anger of the gods at his partiality for the " foreign devils," and ensured his reception by Osiris as a king neb menkh, " possessing virtue." This was, no doubt, a politic act on the part of the usurping Amasis.


AAHHETEP, Queec, dagger of, 189

Abydos in Egypt, proto-Mycenasan vases from, 74

Achaians, in Mycenaean period, 77; an Aryan aristocracy? 203; in Egypt c. 1250 B.C. 173; of Achaia, early commerce of, 256

Adinemi, Keftian name, 321

Admetos, king of Tamassos, 673 B.C., 262

Adramyttion, name Semitic, 227

JEgean, geography of the, 108; Mycenaean inhabitants of the 216

^Egina,proto-Mycena3an settlement at, 201; Mycenaean Treasure" of, 62; date, ib,; early commerce of, 256, 285; connec- tion with Crete, 283; with Phthiotis, 285; with the Arca- dians, ib.; trade with the West, ib.; with Egypt, 272; coinage ( J^ginetan standard), 286

'AetpaOrcu, 253, n. i

Aerope, granddaughter of Minos, mother of Agamemnon and Menelaos, 213

^Etiological stories, 82

Agade (Agane), Babylonian city, 317

Aigisthos, king uf lualion, 673 B.C., 262

Akaiuaaha (Aqaitaaata; 'Axat^°0 invaded Egypt c. 1250 B.C., 173

Akashau, Keftian name, 321

Akhenaten, .s-ee Khuenaten

Akhtaten, see Khutaten

Akish, Philistine name = Ikausu, (j_.r.

Akropolis, Athenian, settlements of the, 48

Alambra in Cyprus, prye-Mycenaean vase from, xxii.

Alashiya (Eg. Alasa; Cyprus?), 139, 163; correspondence of its king with Khuenaten, c. 14306.0., 88; description of by an Egyptian envoy, c. 1050 B.C., 322


Alphabet, date of invention, 237; introduction into the southern

JEgean islands, 238 Althaimenes, Cretan hero, 87, n. 2 Amenhetep III., king of Egypt, objects of found at lalysos and

Mycenae, 49; at Gurob, 51 Amenhetep IV., see Khuenaten Amorites, 98, 115

Ankh-kheperu-Ra, king of Egypt, 53 Anthropomorphism in Mycenaean religion, 300 An-Tursha, foreign official at Gurob, 170 Aphaia, ^Eginetan form of Diktynna, 283 Aphrodite, of Phoenician origin, 136; late-Mycenaean worship of,.

ib. , 298; worship of at Corinth, 290; at Mgina, 286, n. 2j

in Lesbos, 227; at Kythera, 228, 234 Apollo-worship, of Cretan origin? 243, 297 Apries (Haa-ab-Ra), King of Egypt, relations of, with the Greeks,

323; death of, 324 Aqaiwaasa, see Akaiuasha Arcadians, Pelasgic, 82; in Cyprus, 131 Archaeology, and History. 2; trustworthiness of, 13; not a

" science," 18; limitations of, in Greece, 19 Archaizing, conscious, of the Homeric poets, 223 Archilochos the poet, 254, n. i

Argolis, importance of in later Mycena-an period, 215 Argonaut, the, in Mycenaean design, xxviii. Argonauts, the legend of the, 215 Argos, early Pelasgian settlement at, 283; under Achaians and

Dorians, 284

Aristocratic government in Greece, 253 Armenians, originally non- Aryan, 95, n. 2; Aryan language brought

by Aryan invaders, ib. Arsapi, Cilician kingdom, 139 Art, Egyptian, naturalism in, 184; influence on Mycenaean art,.

185, 187; influence of Mycenaean art on, 184 — Greek, renascence of, 247, 253, 279; based on Mycenaean

tradition, ib.; development in the jEgean islands, 250, 252;.

continuity of, 279 Mycenaean, European (Greek) spirit of, 189, 278; adaptive

genius of, 189; influence of, on Egyptian art, 184, 186;.

bizarrerie of. 278; comparison of, with classical Greek

art, ib. Artemis, 204; Pelasgic, 295, 296; identical with Diktynna, 296;


late connection with Apollo, 297; Mycenaean representations of, 296

Aryans, not in Greece in the prae-Mycenaean period, 96; inflood o£ into the Mediterranean lands, 105; in Greece, 202, 207 - in Asia Minor, 95

Ashahure, Keftian name, 321

Asi, Egyptian name for Cyprus, 163, n. i

Asia Minor, primitive culture of, 27; non-Aryan race of, 91, 97; connected with the Pelasgians of Greece, 97; Babylonian influence in, 91; Aryan invasion of, 95; lonians in, 126; in post-Mycenaean period, 273; continuance of Mycenaean culture in, 63

Assyrian conquest of Cyprus, 261; influence in Lydia. 275

Atabyrion, name Semitic, 228

Athene, Trojan, image of the, 300

Athenians, Pelasgic blood of the, 203

Athens, successive settlements at, 48; prae-Mycenaean settle- ment at, 12; in Mycenaean period, 282; in post-Mycenaean period, ib.; early commerce of, 256

Atnana, see Yatnana

Attica, Dorians in, 41, n.

"Augural Table's of Sargou I.," 317

Axe, origin of the Greek word for the, 198, n.; the Douole- headed, 293; symbol of Zeus of Labranda, ib.; of the Mycenaean Zeus at Knossos, 294

BAAL-HAMMON, 230, n. 3

Babylonian civilization, 117; in Syria, ib.; in Palestine, 118;. iDflnence of, in Asia Minor, 91, 120, 315; supposed influence of, on early Egyptian culture, 197, n. i; influence of, on prae Mycenaeans, 114; on Mycenaeans, 120; in Crete, 139

Badira, chief of the Tchakarai at Dor, c. 1050 B.C., 135, n.

Bagaios, Aryan god of Asia Minor, 95

" Base- Ring " ware, 72

"Beehive-Tombs," 29

Bin Tepe, Mycenaean vase- fragments from, 124

Black Sea, Mycenaean relations wilh the, 215; date of colonies- in the, 254

" Boat- Vases," Egyptian, 150

Boghaz Koi (Pteriou), 114; supposed Babylonian colonists at, ib* 319; antiquity of, 319; Assyrianizing sculptures of, 91, 124; attribut;d to tt.e Kheta, 91; probable la;e date of 115, 124


Dos-Eyuk, prae- Mycenaean settlement at, 97, n.

Britomartis, see Diktynna

.Bronze, knowledge of, originated in Babylonia? 196; Sumerian

and Assyrian words for, 197, n.; in Egypt, 196, 197, n. i;

Mycenaean knowledge of derived from Babylonia? 122;

first appearance in ^Egean lands at Troy, 24; fibula from

Amorgos, 23, 25; -working in Mycenaean period, 28; Age,

European civilization of the, 191 .Biigelkannen ("Bridle-cups," False-necked Vases, a typical

Mycenaean vase-form), 186; from Egypt, xxiv., 60, 61, 186 .Building, knowledge of in prse-MycenEean period, 24; in

Mycenaean period, 29

Bull-gods, unknown to the Semites, 230; Mycenaean, ib. Burial-customs, difference between those of Mycenaean and

Homeric Greeks, 81 Burraburiyash, king of Babylonia, date of, 58

•CANAAN, early culture of, 115; Semites in, ib.

" Chalcolithic " culture in Greece, 192

Chalkis, early commerce of, 256, 260

Chthonic worship Pelasgian, 298

•Cilicia, 139

Cist-graves, prse-Mycenaean, 25; see Island-graves

Civilization, European, not of oriental origin, 201; first impulse

to development of, given in the Greek islands, ib. — Greek, first development of, prae- Aryan, 202; never isolated, 20; continuity of, 281; see Mycenaean, Egyptian, etc.

Coinage, Lydian invention of, 275; ^ginetan, 286; Pheidonian,287

•Colonies, Greek, 253; date of, 218, 254

Commerce, in prae-Mycenaean period, between Greece and the East, 109; route of via Cyprus, 1 10; precarious nature of, 114; between Greece and Egypt, 144; in Mycenaean period, between Greece and Egypt, 168; between Cyprus and Egypt in the hands of the Phoenicians, 169; between Greece and the West, 219; Phoenicians in prse-Mycenaean period, 225; early Greek, 255

•Commercial Leagues, 255

<Jopper, knowledge of working independent in Europe and the East, 195; Assyrian word for, 197, n.; in Cyprus, 195; at Troy, 23; in Greece during prae-Mycenaean period, 25; Age, of Hungary, 192; of Greece, 194


Corinth (Ephyra), subordinate to Mycen», 289; rise of, post- Mycenasan, ib.; Phoenician traditions at, 290; commercial greatness of, founded by Phoenicians? 291; early commerce of, 256, 260

Costume, Mycengean, 277

Craniological evidence, 103

Cremation, among the Haunebu? 314; in Homeric Greece, 6

Cretans attack Egypt (?), c. 1200 B.C., 177, 182; legendary ex- peditions of the, to Sicily and Italy, 211; Megara, ib.; Ionia, ib.; first essay the direct route to Egypt, 269; at Cyrene, 270; piracy of the, 214; commercial inactivity, 270

Crete, geographical position of, 109, 209; importance of, in early Greek history, 183; theory of direct communication of, with Egypt in prae-Mycenaan period, 144, 154; connected indirectly, 156; one of the earliest seats of Mycen;ean cul- ture, 206; not certainly known to the Egyptians in the early Mycengean period, 212; the people included in the Keftiu-name, 165; legendary connection of, with the Troad, 211; thalassocracy of, ib.; in later Mycenaean period, 213; in post-Mycenroan period, 212; Phoenicians in, 228, 231; Dorians in, 214; permanence and persistence of Mycenaean art in, 202; artists of, 252; political disappearance of, 214

•Cuneiform script of Babylonia, used in Palestine, 139; Cilicia, ib.; Cyprus (?), ib.; inner Asia Minor, 315; not farther west, 138

Cups, Mycenfean metal, from Vaphio, 33, 34, 54; from Cyprus, 54, 55; from Egypt, 53, 54

Cuttlefish, the, in Mycenaean design, xxviii.

Cyclades, the, not mentioned in Homer, 241; Lelegic and Karian inhabitants of, 242

"Cycladic " (proto-Mycena'an) remains, 28

•Cj linder-seals, late Babylonian from Cyprus, 63; from Asia Minor, showing Mycen;van influence, probably made in Phoenicia or Cyprus, 311

Cypriote art, 265; syllabary, 141, n., 238, 265; derived from a pictographic script, 265; princes of the Vllth cent. B.C., 262

Cyprus, prse-Mycenrean tombs in, 26; prse-Mycena'an inhabi- tants of, 97; geographical position of early settlements in, ib.; connected Greece with Egypt and the East in prse- Mycemean period, no, 157; probably unknown to the early Babylonians, 113, 315; copper mines of, 195; Mycen;ean


period in, 131; still the chief mediator between Greece and1 the East, 182; foreign names for, 139, 163; in Xlth cent. B.C., 322; late survival of Mycenaean culture in, 63: back- ward development of, 64, 266; in post-Mycenaean period, 261; Semitic influence in, 262; Assyrian conquests of, 261,. 262 Cyrenaic style of vase-painting, 250

Daanau, see Danauna

Dsedalids, 252

Daggers, copper, used in prse- Mycenaean period, 25

Dagon, Philistine god, 134 n.

Daktyloi, 230

Damasos, king of Kurion, 673 B.C., 262

Damusi, king of Kartikhadasti (in Cyprus) 673 B.C., 262

Danaans, 22, 175; see Danauna

Danauna (Daanau, Danuna; Aaraot), settled on Palestinian*

coast c. 1400 B.C., 1 76; attacked Egypt c. 1200 B.C., 175 Daphnian style of vase-painting 250

Dardenui (Aapdavoi), 96, allies of the Kheta c. 1300 B.C., 172 Date, probable, of pne-Mycenaean culture, 75: of Mycemoan

culture, 49

DE MORGAN, on prehistoric Egyptian antiquities, 15 DB KOUGE'S identification of the Northern invaders of Egypt, 4 Delos, 242: colonised from Crete? 243 Delphic oracle connected with Crete, 243 Demeter, Pelasgic worship of, 298; connected with Artemis, ib.;

of Phigaleia, 204, 298 Demons, Mycenaean, 295 Dictasan Cave, table of offerings from. 147, 155; discoveries in,

294 Diktynna ("The Dicta^an": Briiomartis, Aphaia), Pelasgic

goddess, in Crete, 204: identical with Artemis, il>.: meaning

of name, 295

Diomed, kingdom of, 284 Dionysos, 239; late worship of, 298: not Semitic, 239: Aryan.

Thracian deity, ib.

Dipylon, art of the, 36: see Geometrical Dmetor, Cyprite prince, 261 Dolichocephalous tribes, 104 Dorian invasion, 41, 221, 249, 250: overthrows Mycenaean

culture, 42


Dorians the iron-using people of the Geometrical period, 41: in

Attica, 41, n.; in Crete, 214; in Rhodes and Asia, 221 DUMMLER, on the "Cist-graves," 17 Dusares, Nabat;ran vine-god, 239

EGYPT, relations of with Greece in pras-Mycemean period, 143; theory of direct communication of, with Crete in pne- Mycenrcan period, 144, 154; communication via Delta-tribes (Haunebu, q.v.). 158: Palestinian tribes, 157; and Cyprus, ib.; proto-Mycena>an vases from, 28, 74; direct communi- cation of, with Crete in Mycenaean period? 181; connection of with Greece in Mycena>an period, 161, 168; Empire of, in Palestine and Syria, 118; influence of, ib.; in Mycenaean lands, 167; suzerainty over ^Egean lands mythical, 166; cessation and renewal of communication of, with Greece, 297, 268; direct route to, opened, 269; in the Jliad, 268; in, the Odyssey, 269; renascence of, 270; Greeks in, temp. Amasds, 323

Egyptian art, see Art: Chronology, 56; Culture of African (indigenous) origin? 197, n. i; pottery, &c. of prehistoric and archaic periods compared with prae-Mycensean pottery,. &c., 150; seals compared with Cretan seals, ib.; designs in Mycenaean art, 58, 59, 60

Eio (lo) venerated at Gaza, 320

Elymians, 218, 219

Eretria, early commerce of, 256; League of, ib.

Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, conquers Cyprus, 262

Eshmun, Phoenician deity, 232

Eteokretans, 86; language non- Aryan, 87; connected with the Lykians, ib.

Etewandros, king of Paphos 673 B.C., 262

Etruscans, of Pelasgic race? 102; in ^Egean? 174; see Tyrr- henians

Euboic standard, 288

Eutnolpids, 239, n. i

Europa-myth, 231

Eurynome, Pelasgic deity of Phigaleia, form of Artemis,. 298

EVANS, Mr. A. J., on relations between Egypt and Crete, 145; on Cretan seat-stonos, 147: Knossian discoveries of, 140;. on Mycemean religion, 301


Evidence, archaeological, 21; scheme of, for dating, 76; for

historical position of Mycenaean culture, 78; craniological,

103; geological, 65; of tradition, xi. Excavation, trustworthiness of results of, in Egypt, 14; in

Cyprus, 1 6; in Greece, 17 Eyuk, sculptures of attributed to the Kheta, 91, 319; antiquity

of, 319

FALSE-NECKED Vases, see Bilgelkannen

FARNELL, Mr., on anthropo- and theriomorphism in Greek

religion, 299 Ifemale deity, nude prae-Mycenrean, no, 293; nude Oriental, n;

draped Mycenaean, 293 JFibulte (Brooches), in Mycenasan period, 30; in Geometrical

period, 39 Firnissmalerei (Varnish-painting), xxi, xxii, 28; invention of in

Mycenaean period, xxii. Flying-fish, the, in Mycenaean design, xxii. Fresco-painting in Mycemean period, 28; of Egyptian origin,

168, 187; at PhyLCkope, 28, n., 202, n. i; at Knossos, 165,

212 Furnace, iron-smelting, forms of used in Europe, Egypt, &c., 200

•GAZA, veneration of Cretan deities at, 320; called Minoa, ib. •Gem -engraving in Mycemean period, 29; of Babylonian origin,


Genealogical arguments, trustworthiness of, 82

Geographical situation of Greece, 107

Geological evidence of date, at Thera, 65

•"Geometrical" art (of the Dipylon), 36, 247; culture, 36; theories as to origin, 37; vases found in Cyprus imported, 38 n; in the West imported, 259

•Glass in prae-Mycena?an graves, of Egyptian origin, 26; Bilgel- kannen in Egypt, xxiv.

Gold known in proto- Mycenaean period, 194; knowledge of, came from Asia Minor, ib.; Greek, Assyrian and Sumerian words for, ib. n. 3; use of in Mycenaean period, 28

Golenischeff Papyrus (of Uenuamen), 320

•*' Great " or " Greatly Green," see Uatch-uer

•Griffin, the winged, in Mycemean design, of Egyptian origin,


Gurob in Middle Egypt, settlement of foreigners at, temp. Dyn.

XIX. (c. 1400-1200 B.C.); Mycenwan vases found at, ib. •

people not necessarily Mycenamns, 171 G-yges, king of Lydia, 271, n. i

HAGIA PARASKEVE in Cyprus, prae-Mycenrean tombs of, 26, n, i

Hagios Onouphrios in Crete, prae-Mycena^an deposit at, evidence of, 71, 156; seal-stones from, 147

<X\tos yepw, 298

Hallstatt, culture of, 40

Hammurabi, king of Babylonia, c. 2200 B.C., 118

Hathaba, queen of a city in Alashiya (Cyprus?), c. 1050 B.C., 321

ffattt (gdtg), see Kheta

Haunebu, the, 158

Hekate, form of Artemis, 297

Heliadai of Rhodes, 230

" Hellenes," 203; Hellenic spirit in art, &c./y&.

Hellespont, Mycenaean connection with the, 215

Hera, Aryan goddess (?) 205; at Argos and Knossos, ib.

Heraclid dynasty of Lydia, 275

Heraios, king of Soloi 673 B.C., 262

Herakleids, Return of the, 41, 221

Herakles, the Tyrian, in Thasos, 227, 229

Heraldic element in Mycena?an art, 120; inspired by Babylonian' influence, 121; influenced Phrygian art, ib.

Hissarlik, 23; see Troy

"Hittites," the, 91, 122, 273: the " Hittite Question" unsolved, 122; writing of, 123: language of, probably non- Aryan, 95, n. 2; art of Assyrian origin, 124: supposed Mycenaean influence on, 311: antiquity of 317, 319: see Kheta

Homeric poems, 222; culture, 39, 8t, 223

Horned deities, 230, n. 3

Hu, in Egypt, praa-Mycena-an vase from, 70

Hu (or Nekht), early king of Egypt, see Semerkhat

"Hymn of Amen," 163, 165

Hypothetical character of " Mycenaean " conclusions, 22

lACCHOS, 239

lalysos, Mycenaean remains from, 50; Mycena'an inhabitants,.

127 lantanai, Egyptian name for Cyprus, 163 n.


lapygians, 219

lardanos, river, name Semitic? 228

" fauna," see " Yevanna "

"Iberian" ethnological type, the, 104; Pelasgic race probably belonged to, 'tb.

Iconic religion in Mycenaean period, 300

Idols, nude female, marble (prae-Mycenaean) from the island graves, 25, no; from Cyprus, no; leaden, from Troy, 112, 300; earthenware (late) from Cyprus, 1 10; from Babylonia, in; draped earthenware (Mycenaean) from Mycenae, &c., 293; prae-Mycenaean and Mycenaean not of Semitic origin but represent the non-Semitic goddess of Asia Minor, identical with Ehea, Artemis, &c., 112

Idomeneus, Cretan hero, 213

'Iep6s yd/j-os, the, at Knossos, 205

Ikausu, Philistine kiiTg, 134 n.

Iliad, Egyptian evidence for date of the, 268

" Illumination of Bel," Assyrian series of omen-tablets, 317

Imbros, Phoenicians, in, 227

Importation of Mycenaean vases into Cyprus, &c., 313

Inlaying, Mycenaean metal, 189; see Swordblade

Ino, 232

lolkos, importance of in Mycenaan period, 215, 283

Ionian art, based on Mycenaean, 247

lonians, early settlements of, 126; strong Pelasgic element in, 203; in Mycenaean period, 125; in Lykia, 130; in Cyprus, 128, 131; known to the Easterns as Yawan, q.v., 128

Iron, knowledge of in Mycenaean period, scanty, 7, 28; objects from Troy and Mycenae, 199. 200; came to Greece from the North, 198; introduced by the Dorians, 200; in Geometrical period, 39; in Egypt, 198

Jshmela, Assyrian deity, named erroneously read " Shamela," 322

Island graves (cist-graves; prae-Mycensean) of the Cyclades, 25, 64; stones (Mycenaean gems), 295

Islands, the Greek, importance of in history of Greek civilization, 201

Ismenos, river, 233

Italian art, chronology of early, 322; Phoenician influence on


Italy, primitive culture of, 27; Mycenaan influence on, 217; Mycenaean culture in, 218; influence of renascent Greek culture in, 260



Itanos, 228

Ithaka, Mycenrcan fortress in, 220; Homeric kingdom of, 258

Ivory objects in cist-graves, of Egyptian origin, 26

JADE axe from Troy, 108

Jerabls, probable date of sculptures of, 115

KABEIEOI, Phoenician deities, worship of, at Boeotian Thebes,

223; at Samothrace, 227 Kadmeians not Phoenicians, 232, 233 Kadmos, legend of, 232 Kahun in Middle Egypt, prte-Mycenrean and proto-Mycensean

vase-fragments from, 28; potter's marks from, 155 Kalakisha (QalaqiSa; Ki\4/ces), allies of the Kheta, c. 1300 B.C.,


Kalaureia, League of, 256, 282; excavations at, 256 n. i Kalopsida in Cyprus, pra-Mycenaean tombs at, 26 n. i Kam^rais in Crete, proto- Mycenaean vase-fragments from, 20 Kameiros, excavations at, 43; Phoenician influence at. 44, 229 Kamikos in Sicily, legendary Cretan expedition against, 211, 218 Karnpos, Mycenaean statuette from, 276 Kandaules, name Aryan, 93, n. 4 Kaphtor, 134, 162 Kara-Eyuk, in Cappadocia, early Mycenaean vase-fragments

from, 124 Karians, the, 217; in JSgean, 240, 242; connection of, with

Leleges, 241; theories respecting, ib. Karnak Seal, the, 74, 149

KARO, G., on chronology of early Italian art, 322 Karthaia, 228 Katreus, son of Minos, 213 Keftiu, 161; meaning of name, 165; not Phoenicia, 162; Asia

Minor coast, Cyprus, and Crete, 56, 164, 165; ambassadors

from, to Thothmes III., 161; introduced by Phoenicians,

168; people of, Mycenaean, 54; of Crete, 212; Keftian

names, 321

Keisos (Keissos, Kissos), king of Salamis 673 B.C., 262 Kephallenia. Mycenaean tombs in, 220 Khata'anah in Lower Egypt, foreign graves at, 69, 314; prae-

Mycenaean vases from, 69 Khatti, see gattg (Kheta)


Klieta (ffaitg, gate), the, people of Eastern Asia Minor, Armenia,, and N. Syria, fought against Egypt from XVIth to XlVth cent. B.C., 91; identified with the Hittites, 123; considered- to be the people of Kyuk and Boghaz Koi, 91, 319; antiquity of, 319; apparently belonged to the non- Aryan race of Asia Minor, 91, 95 n. 2; ancestors of Armenians, 95, n. 2

Khuenaten (Akhenaten, Amenhetep IV.), king of Egypt, 52; date of, 58

Khutaten (Akhenaten), city of king Khuenaten, the modern Tell el-Amarna, q. v.

Kinyras, king of Paphos, 261

Kissos, see Keisos

" Kleinasiatisch," term, 101

Knossos, Mycenaean palace at, date of, 210; frescoes of, 54, 62,. 165

Kolophon, early Greeks at, 273 n. i.

Kore, Pelasgic worship of, 298

Korkyra, date of colonization of, 255

Korobios, 270

J£ue, 128 n. i

Kydones, 86 n.

Kydonia, ^Eginetan colony at, 286 n. i

Kyklopes venerated at Corinth, 290

Kythera, pra-Mycenaean (?) vase from, 74; Aphrodite-worship, at, 228; Phoenicians at, 228, 231, 234

Kyzikos, date of foundation of, 254

LABRANDA, Zeus of, 294; same name as Aaptpwdos, ib.

Labyrinth (" Place of the Double-Axe"), the, at Knossos, 231, 294.

Lachish, primitive pottery from, 98

Lampsakos, name, 227 n. 4

Lead, known to prse-Mycenaeans, 193

Leagues, Kalaureian, Eretrian, Chalkidian, 256

Legend, trustworthiness of Greek, 82; of Egyptian settlers in Greece, 4

Lelantine War, 257

Leleges, the, 98, 217; settled in Europe and Asia, 98, 243; primitive inhabitants of ^Egean islands, 99; connection with Karians and Pisidians, 99, 100, 241; mentioned as Pidasa by the Egyptians (?), 100; belonged to the Pelasgic-- race, 99



Lemnos, commercial importance of, 217; Mycenaean inhabitants

of, 238; Phoenicians at, 227; supposed Etruscan inscription

from, 174

Lesbos, Phrygians in (?), 238 Libya, theories of prae-Mycenaaan connection between Crete

and, 148, n. 2, 152 Lion-Gate of My cense, 120 Luka(Lukki; Au/a'ot), mentioned c. 1400 B.C., 88; allies of the

Kheta c. 1300 B.C., 172

Lycians, see Lykians; Lycian language, 90 Lydian kingdom, 275; Lydians not mentioned by Egyptians,

93; ideas of Semitic origin of the, 94; relations of, with

Assyria, 276 Lykians (Luka, Lukki), mentioned by Egyptians c. 1400 B.C.

under their Greek name, 88; native name, 87; language of,

non- Aryan, 90; connection of, with Crete, 87 Lykos, Ionian hero of Lykia, 130

MAEONIANS (Maunna?), 93

Maionia, 95

Makar, supposed Pho3nician name, 227, n. i

Maket-tomb, the, evidence of, 51, 60

Manetho, 19; trustworthiness of, 57

Marine deities, Mycenaean, 297; of prae-Mycen;oan origin (?), 298;

motives in Mycenaean art, xxi, xxviii, 202 Marna, Philistine deity, 320 "Marseilles Vase," the, xxviii

Masa (Muo-oi), 96; allies of the Kheta c. 1300 B.C., 172 Masliauaslta, Libyan tribe, 179 Mavnna (?), possibly = Matoves, 96; allies of the Kheta <\ 1300

B.C., 172

Medeia, venerated at Corinth, 290, n. 2 " Mediterranean " race, 104 Meino (Minos), venerated at Gaza, 320 Melian style of vase-painting, 45, 250 Melikertes, 290

Melos, proto-Mj^cenaean culture in, 27 Menelaos, route of, to Egypt, 269 Menidi (Acharnai), Mycensean tomb at, 36, n. i Menkheperrfi-senb, tomb of, at Thebes, 53 Meriones, Cretan hero, 213, 218 Mermnad dynasty of Lydia, 275



Messapians, 218, 219

Metal- working; European knowledge of, not derived from the

East, 193; development of, in Egypt, 198; in Babylonia, 196 Midas, 274

Mi\77<na»> reixos, date of foundation of, 27 1 Miletos, early commerce of, 256; with Egypt, 271 Milyans, 93 Minoan thalai-socracy, 209; date of, 210, 212; Minoan and

Mycenaean princes connected, 213 Minos, 209; venerated at Gaza, 320 Minotaur, legend of the, 250; not Ph(«nician, lb. Minyans, the, 215; commercial importance of the Minyan cities?

284 n.; at Lemnos, 238

Mita, king of Muski, identified with Midas, 274 Mitinti, Philistine king, 134 n. Mixed styles of art, combining Mycensean and Geometrical with

Oriental motives, 45 Momemphis, battle of, 323 Money, invention of, 275

Monte Albano and Sesto Calende, primitive tombs at, 26, n. 3 MONTELIUS, Prof.; on knowledge of iron in Egppt, 198 n. 2; on

early Egyptian civilization, 197 n. i; on chronology of early

Italian art, 323

Mummification, in Mycensean Greece, 6 Mutterrecht, in Lykia and Crete, 87, n. 3 Mycenae, 6; objects of Phoenician appearance from, 229 "Mycensean " archaeology, uncertainty of, I

Art, see. Art

Civilization, 28; a local Greek development, ib.; Greek

spirit of, 36; of Pelasgic origin, 83; called *' Achaian,"

meaning of this, So; the Greek phase of European Bronze

Age culture, 191; causes of development of, 193; probable

continued existence of, in Asia, 38; in Cyprus, 63, 131, 264;

long duration of, 132

Thalassocracy, date of the, 213

Mycena'ans at Platasa, 291

Mysians (,l/«*a), 96; Aryans, ib. • mentioned by Egyptians, c.

1200 B.C., ib.; still in Thrace in Homeric times, ib.

NAKAM-SIX, early Semitic Babylonian king, 113; erroneously

supposed to have conquered Cyprus, ib. Nasui, Keftian name, 321



Naturalism in Egyptian art, 184

Naukratite style of vase-painting, 250

Nauplios, 213

Naxos in Sicily, date of foundation of, 255

Nekht (or Hu), see Semerkhat

Nereus, a Pelasgic deity?, 298

"New Kace," 15, 150

Northern invaders of Egypt, 4; tribes, relations of. with Egypt,

171; their geographical position, 178; name-forms, ib.;

ethnic terminations explicable by means of Lycian, ib.; i.e.

they mostly belonged to the Pelasgic stock, ib.; general

conclusions with regard to them, 179; not traders, 180 Nure, Cypriote town, 264, n.

OBSIDIAN, used in prae-Mycenaeau period, 25

Odyssey, the, Egyptian evidence for date of, 269

(Edipus, 232

Oinotrians, 218

Oligarchs, the aristocratic, 253

Onesagoras, king of Ledra, 673 B.C., 262

Orchomenos. 215, 283; ceiling of "Tomb of Minyas" at, 59,

1 88; Egyptian design of, 168; probable date of, 60 Origins of Mycenaean civilization Pelasgic, 83 Oriental elements in Mycenaean polity non-existent, 280 Orientalizing styles of art, 43, 251 Oueeienin, see Uinin Owl-headed" idols, 293

PALESTINE, earliest inhabitants of, probably non- Semitic, 98; Pelasgic?, ib.; early Semitic inhabitants of, 115; their culture, ib.

Pamphylia, early Greek element in, 130

Pangaios, Mount, Phoenicians at, 227

Paros, early commerce of, 256

Pedasa, Pedasos, Lelegic town-name, 99, 243

Pelasgi, the, 83; not necessarily Aryans, 86; connected with non- Aryan population of Asia Minor, 97; with the Leleges, 50, 100; at Argos, 283; of Italy, 103; Mycenaean civilization exclusively ascribed to, by RIDGEWAY, 79; Pelasgi " proper," 243; in Thessaly and Northern islands, 244; in Asia, ib.; in Crete, 245


Pelasgic race of the E. Mediterranean, 97, 102; prae-Mycenaeans,


Pelopids connected with Asia Minor, 120

PETRIE, Prof. W. M. F., on the "New Race," 15; on supposed Libyan-Cretan connections, 148 n. 2; on the " Boat- Vases," 150; on date of the Maket-tomb, 51 Phaleric style of vase-painting, 45 Pheidon, kingdom of, 284; date of, 287 n. 2; introduces money

from JSgina, 287

Philistines (Pulesatha), the, 133; of Cretan (Pelasgic origin), 134, 214; attacked Egypt in Xllth cent. B.C., 134; no trace of Mycenaean civilization among, ib. Phoenicia, 119; no Mycenaean objects from, 138 Phoenician influence at Mycenae in late period, 229, 136, 138; ships, xxix, 136, 170; commerce, 136; art, 137; influence on Greek civilization, 237

Phoenicians, the, activity of, in XYth cent. B.C., 136; in Egypt, 168, 183; in Cyprus, 132, 261; middlemen between My- cenaeans and Egyptians, 169; in the Homeric poems, 225 • in the JEgean, 138, 226, 229, 234; in Rhodes and Crete, 228; at Corinth, 290; in Greece generally, 236; in the West, 235 Phrygians, the, Aryans, 95; kingdom of, 274; civilization of,

probably akin to (he Mycenaean, ib.; in Lesbos?, 238 Phylakope, in Melos, settlements at, xi, 27, n., 202, n. i; fresco

at, 1 88

Piarisheps (Piari), battle of, 4 Pictographic writing, Mycenaean, no connection of, with Hittite

script proved, 123; independent systems of, 141 Pictographs, Cretan, 146; date of, 211; Cypriote, 238, 265 Pi das a (Pisidians), 100; allies of the Kheta c. 1300 B.C., 172;

= Leleges?, 100

PJEHL, Prof., on use of iron in Egypt, 198, n. 2 Pillar-worship, in Mycenaean religion, 301 Pinarutau or Pinaltau, a Keftian land, 321 Polity, Mycenaean, 280 Poseidon, 297; a Pelasgic deity?, 298

Pottery, primitive, of the First City of Troy, 23; from Palestine 98; Egyptian, of pre-dynastic and archaic periods compared with prae-Mycenaean, 73, 150

Prae -Mycenaean culture, 10, 23; in Cyprus, 71; race, 83; Pelasgie, 84, 102, 104


Praisos, inscription of, 87

Prasiai, importance of, in Mycenaean period, 282 n.

Primitive antiquities, 9

Propontis, date of colonies in the, 254

" Protocorinthian " style of vase-painting, 45, 251; of Ionian

origin, 251; in ^gina, ib.; ware, 275; in Sicily, 259, 255 Protomce, of bulls, 52, 53

Proto-Mycenaean period, xi.; culture, 27; vases from Egypt, 28, 74 Psammitichos I., king of Egypt, 271 n. i Pterion (Boghaz K6i), capital of district of Pteria in Cappadocia,

-see Boghaz Koi

Pulcmtha (Philistines), attacked Egypt, c. 1200 B.C., 134 Purple-fish, the, in Mycenaean design, xxi, xxviii Purple-fishery, in the /Egean, 228 Pythagoras, king of Chytroi, 673 B.C, 262 Pytheas (?) king of Nure, 673 B.C., 262

Qalaqisa, see Kalakislia

RAMESES III., king of Egypt, date of, 60; Mcjelkanncn depicted

in tomb of, ib.

REICHEL, Dr., on Mycenaean religion, 302 REINACH, M. S., on nude goddesses, 112; on " Hittites," 123 Rekhmara, tomb of, at Thebes, 53; Mycenaean evidence from

the, ib. Religion, Mycenaean, 281, 293; not aniconic, 300; theriomor-

phism in, 295; Greek, prae-Hellenic elements in, 204;

Mycenaean elements in, ib., 281

Renascence, of Greek culture, 252; of Egyptain art, 270 Rhea, Mycenaean worship of, 297 Rhegium, date of foundation of, 255 Rhesos, 238

Rhodes, Mycenaeans in, 127, 230; Phcunicians in, 228, 229 Rhodians in Egypt, 272 RIDGEWAY, Prof., on Mycenaeans, 79

ROBERTSON SMITH, the late Prof., on Dionysiac worship, 239 "Royal Road," the, overland trade-route through Asia Minor,


SADI-AMIA, foreign official at Gurob, 171 Samlath, Phoenician deity (?), 240


Samos, name Semitic, 227;' early commerce of, 227, 235, 256, 272

Samothrace, Phoenicians in, 227

Santorin (Thera), date of eruption at, 313

Sardinians, not Sordino, q.v., 220; no Mycenaean relations with the, ib.; not mentioned in the Epos, 245

Sargon I. (Shargani-shar-ali; Sarru-kinu), king of Agade, early Semitic Babylonian king, 113; erroneously supposed to have conquered Cyprus, ib., 314; augural tablets" of, 317

Sargon II. (Sarru-ukin), king of Assyria, conquers Phajnicia and Cyprus, 261

Sarpedon, emigrated from Crete to Lykia, 87

Satyrs, Mycenaean, 296

Scarabs, evidence of, 314; from Mycenae, 49; from lalysos, 50; from Kameiros, ib.; from Hagios Onouphrios, 71; from Khata^anah, 69, 314; from Enkomi, 313; from Etruria, 50

Scheria, 258 n. i

SCHLIEMANN'S discoveries, 5

Sculpture, Mycenaean, 28

Sea-routes from Greece to Egypt, rid Crypus, 128; direct from Crete to Egypt, 269

Seals, Egyptian, 148; —cylinders, Babylonian, from Cyprus, 63; Cypriote (?), 311; — -stones, Cretan, 146

cTTjyuara \vypa, 237

Semele, name Aryan, 240; earth-goddess, ib. n. i; not "Euph- ratean," ib.

Semempses, see Semerkhat

" Sem-en-Ptab," see Semerkhat

Semerkhat (Hu or Nekht), early Egyptian king (Semempses), 74

Semitic population in Palestine, 98, 106; civilization (see Baby- lonian), influence of, in Egypt, 118; in Asia Minor, 91; language of Babylonia (Assyrian), use of the, 119

" Senwosret," #ee Usertesen

Sesto Calende and Monte Albano, primitive tombs at, 26, n. 3

Khakalasha (tiakalasa; Sagalaosians), 179; invaded Egypt c.

1250 B.C., 173

Shamela, see Ishmela

Shard ina (Sardina; Sardians), xxvii, 96; invaded Egypt c. 1250

B.C., 173; not Sardinians, 220

Shashank III., king of Egypt, scarab of, from Enkomi, 313 Sicily, Mycenaean vases from, 218, 259; Geometrical and Proto-

Corinthian vases from, 259; legendary Cretan expedition

to, 211



Sidon, capture of, by the Philistines, 135 n.

Silver, known to the praa-Myc6means, 193

Siniddinam, Babylonian governor of Syria, <•. 2200 B.C., 118

Sinope, date of foundation of, 254

Sintians, 215, 238

Siphnos, mines of, 228

Slate reliefs, archaic Egyptian, 152, 320

Solymi, the, 92

Spearheads, tanged copper, used in prae -Mycenaean period, 25

Spiral designs, on Cretan seal-stones, 147; on Egyptian scarabs,

154; in Egypt under the XVIIIth Dynasty, 156 n. Statuette, Egyptian, from Knossos, 154, 320 Steatopygous figures, 293 Stone implements, from the First City of Troy, 23; boxes in form

of dwellings, 26; female figures, 25, no Survivals of Mycenaean religion, 281; states, ih. Svastika, not Babylonian, 300 Swordblade, Mycenaean inlaid, with Egyptian design, 58, 60,

1 68, 1 88

Swords, unknown in pne-Mycen;ean period, 25 Sybaris, foundation of, 256 Syllabary, Cypriote, 141 n. Synchronisms, 58 Syracuse, date of foundation of, 255

TABLETS for writing, clay, from Crete, 139, 140

Tahuti, Egyptian Governor of the Isles of the Very Green,

temp. Thothmes III., 166 T'akarai, see Tcliakarai Talos, legend of, 230 Taphians, 219, 236, 259 Tarhundaraus (Tarkhundaraush), king of Arsapi (q.v.) in XVth

cent. B.C., 139

TavpoKadd\l/t,a, Egyptian, 152, 190; Mycemean, 153 Tcha, early Egyptian king, 74 Tchakarni (T'akarai; " Zukkala "; Teimpoi?), the, attacked

Egypt in Xllth cent. B.C., 175; of Cretan origin?, 177;

closely connected with the Pulcxaiha, q.v., 135; settlement

of, on the Palestinian coast, 135 n., 177; piratical ships of,

C. 1050 B.C., 321 Tchet-Khensn-auf-finkh, Bilgelkanne of, 62


Telchines, 230

Teleboans, xee Taphians

Tell el-Amarna, in Middle Egypt, 52; Khuenaten's city and

palace at, ib. • art of, 185; Mycenaean remains from, 52;

Mycena'an (?) group of lion and bull fighting, from, 303 Tell el-Yahudiyeh, in Lower Egypt, Biicjelkannen from, 61 Tell es-Safi, in Palestine, Mycensean remains from, 134 Temesa (Tempsa), 259

Tenos, original seat of Poseidon-worship?, 298 Termilai, see Lykians

Teukrians (Tchakarai?), 176; in Crete?, 177 Thalassocracy, Cretan, 210; Mycensean, 213; Phoenician, 234 Thasos, Phoenicians in, 227; date of Greek colonization of, 254 Thebes, Egyptian, in Iliad, 168, n. 3

- Bceotian, improbability of Phoenician settlement at, 233;

War of the Seven against, 82, 233

Theory, general, of origin, &c., of early Greek civilization, 206 Thera, proto-Mycensean settlement in, 27; Phoenicians at, 228

(see Santorin)

Theriomorphism in Mycemean religion, 231, 295, 300 Thii, Queen, 184 (-see Amenhetep III.) Thothmes III., king of Egypt, Mycenrean culture contemporary

with, 55; date of, 51 Thracians, 238; culture of, akin to Phrygian, 240; influence of,

on Greek civilization, 238; in Boeotia?, 239, n. i Throne-worship (.') in Mycenrean religion, 301 Thuli-xlui, 170; invaded Egypt <•. 1250 B.C.. 173; identification

of with " Eastern Tyrsenians " doubtful, 174; with Etruscans

impossible, 175; possibly Tarsians, ib. Tiryns, 5

Tirynthians at Platrea, 291 Toreboi, Lydian tribe, 174 TORE, Mr. Cecil, on Egyptian chronology, 57; on Mycenaean

evidence from Tell el-Amarna, 52; on " Boat- Vases." 150 Trade-routes, Greek, 255

Tradition, Greek, 79; continuous literary, in Egypt, 18 Transylvania, and Cyprus, supposed prehistoric relations between

195, n. 2

" Treasure of Priam," the, 16 Tree-worship in Mycenaean religion, 301 TrnnnU (Tep/uActt), see Lykians Trojans, pne-Mycensean, not Aryan Phrygians, 96



Troy, First City of, 12, 23; Second City, 24; prte-Mycenajan, 10 TSOUNTAS, Prof., lake-dwelling theory of, 22; and MANATT'S

" Mycenaean Age," ib.

Tyrrhenians (Tyrsenians) of Italy (Etruscans), legendary con- nection of, with Lydia, 102; " kleinasiatisch " traits in, Ib.; of Pelasgic race?, ib.; said, however, to have entered Italy from the North, 103; not mentioned in the Epos, 245; no trace of in Greece in Mycenaean times, ib.; pirates, in early classical times, ib.

- Eastern, identified with the TkuirsUa, q.v., 174; doubt as to their existence, 175

Uaghasha (Waajaia; fa£tot), 175,177; attacked Egypt in

Xllth cent. B.C., 175; erroneously identified with the

Oscans of Italy, ib. Udtch-uer, the "Great Green" or "Greatly Green" (Very

Green"); Egyptian name for the Mediterranean Sea, 54;

see " Very Green " Uenuamen, Egyptian envoy, c. 1050 B.C., 321; adventures of, in

Phoenicia and Cyprus, ib.

Uinin (Oueeieniri), late-Egyptian name for the Greeks, 128 Unity of Greek culture. 281 Usertesen; Egyptian royal name of the Xllth Dynasty, 143,

320; read "Senwosret," 320

VAPHIO, gold cups from, 33, 34, 46

Varnish- or glaze-painting (Fimissmcderei), invention of, xxii Vases, proto- Mycenae an, fragments from Egypt, 74, 152; frag- ment with name of Usertesen I., 143; Egyptian, imitating a Mycenaean foi'm, 186; Greek, technique of, xxii; stone vases from Crete and Egypt compared, 150 " Very Green," the; see Uatch-uer; "Isles of the," 144, 166 Vine-god, Aryan, 239; unknown to the Semites, ib. VIRCHOW, Prof., on prehistoric Egyptians. 152; on origin of bronze-making, 197

Waasa$a, see UasUaxha

Warrior-gods, supposed Mycenaean figures of, 307 Welchanos (feXxavos), Cretan deity, 204 West, the, Mycenaean relations with, 217; Mycenaean



in, 257; ignored in the Iliad, 258; in the Odyuey, ib.;

Phoenicians in, 235; Greek colonies in, 255 " White slip " ware, Cyprian, xxv, 72 Writing, Mycenaean (see Pictographs), 140; use of tablets in, ib.;

local systems of, 141; probable Egyptian influence on, 141,

n. i; 155, n. i

Yatnana, Assyrian name for Cyprus, 163, n. i

Ydwdn (Yavnd; lacwes), Semitic name for Greeks, 128

" Yevanna" ("launa"), supposed Egyptian name for lonians

doubtful, 129; to be read Maunna (?), q.v. " Yivana," supposed = Ydwdn; an erroneous reading, 129

ZALMOXIS, Zamolxis, Getan earth-deity, name Aryan, 240, n. i

Ze (Zet) = Tcha, q.v.

Zeus, Pelasgic deity, 205; in Crete, ib.; Karian, 293

Printed by BALLANTYNK, HANSON & Co. London & Edinburgh

University of Toronto Library




Enquiry into origins of Greek civilization — One of the domi- nant objects of modern Hellenic study — Owing to the results of archaeological research — Archaeological dis- coveries of the Nineteenth Century — Egypt and Assyria — New light thrown on Homeric poems, &c. — Schliemann's discoveries — Mycenae — Discussion as to chronological position of Mycenaean culture — Relics of the Heroic Age — Troy — The age before Mycense — Back to Neolithic imes — Objections to this scheme — Question as to the trustworthiness of archaeological "•science" — Instances of uncertainty — Absolute certainty only possible when a continuous literary tradition exists — Comparative trust- worthiness of Egyptian, Greek, and European or American archaeological theories — Limitations of the archaeological method in Greece — One thing certain: Greek civilization not an isolated development — A working hypothesis possible . Pp. 1-2 1


Doubtful and provisional character of the "Mycenaean Hypothesis" — Usually not sufficiently emphasized — The beginnings of Greek civilization — Hissarlik — " Chalco-


lithic " period — First appearance of Bronze — Pottery and Building — The Island-Graves — Copper and stone weapons — Ivory — Cyprus— Hagia Paraskeve and Kalopsida — On the Greek Mainland— In Italy— In Asia Minor— Proto- Mycenaean Period — Thera, Melos, &c. — Kamarais — Kahun — The "Mycenaean Period" proper — A local development peculiar to Greece — High development of the arts — Still in the Bronze Age — Export to Egypt, Central Europe, and Italy — The Achaians — Oriental influence — Western traits — Theories as to origin — Certainly not Phoenician — Certainly Greek — Date — The Geometrical Period — Art of the Dipylon — In Attica and the Islands — Probability that Mycenaean culture con- tinued to exist in Asia — Relation between "Mycenaean" and "Geometrical" art — Introduction of Iron — The Homeric Age — The Return of the Herakleids — The Dorian Invasion — The Iron-using people of the Geome- trical period were the Dorians — Asiatic My cenaean return - influence on Geometrical art — " Sub-Mycenaean " and Mixed styles — Orientalizing styles — Kameiros — Phoeni- cian influence — " Proto- Corinthian " vases — Greek art of the classical period begins with the Corinthian and Chalkidic styles of vase-painting — Plausible and con- sistent character of the Hypothesis . . Pp. 22-47


Rough dating — Evidence of superimposed strata — Athens

Latest possible date in Greece — Egyptian synchronisms — XVIIIth Dynasty objects at Mycenae and lalysos — The " Maket-Tomb "— Tell el-Amarna— Tomb of Rekhmara (1550 iu'.)— "The Great Men of Keftiu "— Mr. Torrs objections — Egyptian Chronology — Later evidence — Tomb of Rameses III. (1200 B.C.)— Tell el-Yahudiyeh— Yase of Tchet-Khensu-auf-ankh (1000 B.C.)— No later evidence from Egypt—" Treasure of ^Egina" (800 «.c.)— Mycenaean survival in Asia and Cyprus (700 B.C.) — Date of



Prse-Mycensean period — Prse-Mycenaean culture primitive — Proto-Mycenaean dating — Doubtful character of Fouque's geological evidence from Thera — Evidence from Egypt — Supposed synchronisms with Xllth and XHIth Dynasties — Their date — c. 2500-2000 B.C. — Proto- Mycensean Vase-fragments from Kahun — Doubtful character of this evidence — And of that of the Cretan seal-stones — Better evidence of Cyprian prae-Mycenaean vases from Khata'anah and of the Hagios Onouphrios find in Crete — Prae-Mycenaean culture probably contem- porary with Xlllth Dynasty — Supposed earlier evidence from Kythera and Egypt weak — Earliest attainable date c. 2500 B.C. — Scheme of the evidence . Pp. 48-76


The Mycenaeans were primarily " Achaian Greeks " — Meaning of this — Summarized argument — Prof. Ridge way's Pelasgian Theory — Objections thereto — Some Mycenaeans Pelasgians — Many Mycenaean Origines Pelasgic — Who were the " Prae-Mycenaeans? " — Pelasgians — Non-Aryan tribes — Eteokretans — Connected with Lykia — Lykians, Luka, L-ukki — First mentioned c. 1400 B.C. — Native name Trmmli (Tep/juXai) — Language not Aryan — The Non- Aryan indigenous race of Asia Minor — No Semites east of the Taurus — Lydians (Maeonians) not Semites — The Aryan invasion from Thrace — Phrygian and Mysian tribes and Maeonian kings, Aryan — Late date of this invasion — Prae-Mycenaean Trojans not Aryan Phrygians — Primitive culture of Asia Minor belonged to the non-Aryan indi- genous race — Primitive Cyprians probably of same stock — Which also possibly preceded the Semites in Palestine — Leleges — The Prae-Mycenasan Islanders — Connected with the Pisidians — In Peloponnese — The Pelasgi of Greece proper — Both Leleges and Pelasgi belonged to the same race as the indigenous tribes of Asia Minor, theEteo- kretans, &c. — Possible westward extension of this race into


Italy — The Etruscan Question undecided — The Pelasgic Race of the Eastern Mediterranean — The originators of the primitive prae-Mycenaean culture — And in Greece the first developers of the Mycenaean culture which was energized and extended by the Aryan conquerors, the Achaians, whose power centred in Argolis Pp. 77-106


Greece as a whole faces the East — So early connection between Greece and the East probable — Connection already established with Egypt in primitive times — No doubt by way of Cyprus — Extent of connection: query: with Mesopotamia V — The nude female figures — Sup- posed conquest of Cyprus by Sargon of Agade and Naram-Sin a myth — Possible overland connection through Asia Minor — Supposed Babylonian influence at Pterion uncertain — No Mesopotamia!! influence traceable in Prae-Mycenaean culture — Nothing known of Hit- tites, Amorites, Philistines, or even Phoanicians at this early period — Connection with Mesopotamia!! civiliza- tion established in Mycenaean times — Due to westward advance of the latter — Its origin and history — Legendary connection of Mycense with Asia — The Pelopids — The Lion-Gate probably inspired by Babylonian heraldic groups, but the Lion-Tombs of Phrygia by the Lion-Gate — Knowledge of bronze- and of gem-engraving probably came from Babylonia through Asia Minor — Claim of the " Hittites1' to be considered as intermediaries at this time doubtful — Theories of Keinach and de Cara connecting Hittites with Mycenaeans— No Mycenaean influence in

Inner Asia Minor — Connection by way of Cyprus

lonians and Phoenicians — lonians settled on Asiatic coast of ^Egean from the beginning— lonians (1W<///) the first post-Pelasgic Greeks to come into contact with the Semites —The first Greeks in Cyprus— Probably the first Cyprian Mycenaeans — Peculiar characteristics of the Mycenaean Age


in Cyprus — Phoenicians in Cyprus — A barrier to further Greek progress eastwards — Probable Pelasgic origin of the Philistines — Phoenician activity at this period — No Mycenaean traces in Phoenicia or Syria — Cuneiform writing never introduced into Greece — Clay tablets used, however, in Crets — The Mycenaeans already possessed pictographic scripts, probably of independent origin — No connection with Hittite script proveable — Influence of Mesopotamia!! on Mycenaean culture small compared with that of Egypt Pp. 107-142


Relations between Greece and Egypt began in Prae-Mycenasan times — Primitive trade carried on by way of Cyprus and Palestine — Supposed connection by way of Crete — Geographical improbability — Development of Mr. Evans's theory — Evidence of the seal-stones — Connection existed between Crete and Egypt, but not directly, temp. Dynasty XII. — The Hau-nebu — Relations between Greece and Egypt under the XVIIIth Dynasty— Who were the people of Keftiu? — Not Phoenicians — Extended from Crete to Cyprus — The "Hymn of Amen" — Egyptian relations with the Northerners teinjj. Thothmes III. — Egyptian influence in Greece at this time V — The Phoeni^ cians middlemen between Greece and Egypt — Mycenaeans in Egypt — Gurob — Were they the middlemen? — The Northern Tribes and their attacks on Egypt — Probable identifications — The Thuirxha probably not " Tyrsenoi " — Danauna, Tchakarai, and Uashasha probably Cretans - — Geographical certainties with regard to these tribes —Their name-terminations "Pelasgian" — They cannot have been the middlemen — Direct communication beween Crete and Egypt still improbable — Palestinian route used by the invaders — Importance of Crete at this time — Reciprocal influence of Egyptian and Mycenaean art on each other — Egyptian influence very marked, but never



affected the essentially European character of Mycenaean art Pp. H3-I90


Mycenaean civilization European, not Oriental — The Greek phase of European Bronze Age culture — A peculiarly advanced development— Cause of this— Proximity to Oriental culture — How much did Europe owe to the East? — Current exaggerations — Not the first knowledge of Gold, Silver, Copper, CY.C. — But probably of Bronze — Not, however, of Iron — First impulse to development of European civilization given in the Greek islands, especi- ally Crete — This development probably began before the Aryans reached Greece—" Greek" spirit the spirit of the mixed Aryo-Pelasgic race — Prae-Hellenic and " Hellenic " elements most easily distinguished in Crete — Pelasgic and Aryan divinities — The lepos yd^os — General theory of origin, development, and general position of prehistoric Greek civilization — Impossibility of dogmatism on the subject — Prominent position of Crete in early history of Greek civilization — The Minoan thalassocracy "Proto- Mycensean " V — The Cretan Pictographs — Cretan Ktftiu? — Synchronism with the XVII Ith Dynasty — Crete under the Mycenaean thalassocracy — Achaian princes — Dorian Conquest — End of Cretan pre-eminence— Predominance of Argolis in the later Mycenaean age — Orchomenos and lolkos — The Minyans — Lemnos — Route to the Helles- pont— Tribes of the ^Egean — Mycenaean culture in the West — Imported into Italy and Sicily — Legends — No Greek settlers in Mycenaean Age . . Pp. 191-220


Mycenaean culture overthrown by the Dorian Invasion

Long duration of the period of disturbance— The


Homeric Period — Conscious archaizing of the Homeric poets in political matters — Homeric description of Heroic Greece — Omnipresence of the Phoenicians in Greek waters —Traces of them on the Greek coasts and islands — Date of their thalassocracy — "Phoenician" objects at Mycenae — Phoenician settlements in Rhodes and Crete post- Mycenaean — Theban -settlement unhistorical —Phoenician thalassocracy began about 1000 n.c. — Phoenicians in the West — General conclusion as to period of Phoenician activity in Greece — Their legacies to Greece — The Alphabet — Other barbarian peoples in the vEgean during the post-Mycenaean period — Phrygians in Lesbos — Thracians — Dionysiac worship — Karians — Theories as to their thalassocracy — Non-mention of the Cyclades in Homer— Possible Cretan origin of Apollo-worship — Leleges not mentioned in the islands in Homer — Pelasgians — The Brauron-story — In Crete — No Sardi- nians or Tyrrhenians in the ^Egean — Expulsion of the Barbarians — The Beginnings of Classical Greece — Survival of Mycenaean tradition in Ionia — Artistic Renascence in the Asiatic islands — The "Mixed Styles" of art — Development of civilization — Commerce and Colonization — Traditional dating of earliest colonies too high — Competing Trade-Routes - - The Commercial Leagues — Expansion of Greek culture — Towards the West — Homeric Ignorance of the West — Probable cessation of communication during period of decadence — Corinthians and Chalkidians in the West — Influence on Italian culture — Towards the South-East — Cyprus during the period of decadence — Survival of Mycenaean art — Growth of Semitic influence — The Assyrian conquest — Greek Cypriote kings of the seventh century — Phoenician influence in art — Extinction of Mycenaean art in the seventh century — Geometric vase-ornamentation — The Cypriote script developed out of a pictographic system analogous to that of Crete, and of prae-Aryan origin — Peculiar characteristics of the Cypriotes — Direct route from Crete to Egypt opened up by Cretan rovers — Cessation of communication between Greece and Egypt during the period of decadence — Egypt in the Homeric


poems — Commercial inactivity of the Cretans — The Milesians in Egypt — Date of their arrival — Followed by the Rhodians and ^Eginetans — Relations of Greece and Egypt under the XXVIth Dynasty — Greece and Inner Asia Minor — Legends — The Aryan Invasion — Midas — The Lydian kingdom and its relations with Greece — Invention of Money — Lydia and Assyria — Comparison of Mycenaean and Classical Civilizations of Greece — Out- ward points of difference — Spirit the same — Continuity of Greek Art — Nothing essentially oriental in Mycenaean culture — Unity of Greek culture — Mycenaean survivals in Classical Greece— State-survivals — Athens V — Argos and ^Egina — The Kingdom of Diomed and Pheidon — The Dorians at Argos — Early seafaring activity of ^Egina — The ^Eginetan and Euboic standards — Corinth the parvemie — Insignificance of heroic Corinth — Her rise due to Phoenician initiative V — MuKT/i/mW KCU Tipwdiwv L — The End .... Pp. 221—292



To face P. 292

APPENDIX I. — Xote on Mycenaean Religion . . P. 293

Ai'i-EXDix II. — Group of Lion and Bull fighting.

from Tell el-Amarna . . . . .P. 303

Ai'i-EXDix III.— Supposed Mycenaean Bronze Figures

of Warrior -Gods ...... P. ~>o7

APPENDIX IV.— Mycenaean Influence in '• Hittite "

Cylinders . . ..... P- 311

ADDENDA ........ .P. 313

INDEX ........ .P. 325




FRONTISPIECE. A Mycenaean (Kcfthi) bringing tri- bute to the Court of Thothmes III.; circa u.c. 1550. Wall-Painting in the tomb of Rekhmara at Thebes.

(After CiiAMPOt-Liox, Monuments tie rEt/iji>te et de l«Xubie, pi. cxc.;

1 . Mycenaean Vase (KV\I£} from lalysos ... 7

(TsouNTAS-MANATT, The Mijcenmin Aye, Fig. 124.) ('/'.


"Third Stylo" (FirnissmalerKi, cf. note to Fi«i'. 9) belon,<>-iiii; to thu most highly developed period of Myceuseau paintiny. The design is a conventionalized representation of purple-fish (cf. note to Fig. 54;.

2. Pree-Mycensean Vase (7rpo%ovs) with triple body.

(Cyprus.) . . . 9

(I'ERROT-CiiiPiEZ, Jf/tit. tic r.lrf, iii. Fiy. 490; En«-l. Transl. Phoenicia, &c. ii. Fig". 214.)

3. Prae-Mycenaean Vase (Trpo^oCi?) of black ware:

hand-made. (Troy: Second City.) . . .11


mann, Fig. 73.)

4. Mycenaean Gold Pin, from the Second City, Troy 1 7

(SCHLIEMANN, 7/IO.S', Xo. 834; SCHUCIIHARDT, Fig'. 57.)

5. Prae-Mycenaean black ware Vase. (Troy: Second

City.) ... 23




6. Siphnian Stone box in form of a model dwelling;

prse-Mycenaean period. (Melos.) • 24

(TsouxTAS-MANATT, Fi»'. 133.) Now at Munich, t'f. decoration of Maori lints.

7. Greenish Marble box in form of a model dwelling:

prse-Mycenaean period. (Amorgos.) . . 25

(TSOUNTAS-MANATT, Fig". 134.) Cf. DUMMLER, Atll.

Mittlt. xi.

•8. Red ware Vase with incised design, from Cyprus;

prae-Mycenaean period ...... 26

(PERROT-CiiiPiEZ, iii. Fig. 485. E. T. Phwnicia, Arc. ii. Fig. 209.) From Al:«nbr:i.

9. Pro to-Mycenaean Vase, from Thera . . 27

(,'/'. PERROT-CniPIEZ, vi. pi. xx. The design, represent- ing- seaweed, is painted in matt colour (i.e. directly on tlie clay without a varnisli-«Tound). The well-known Greek varnish- or yl:i/e-paintineeu invented in the early Mycenaj:vn period (/;/'. FLRT- M'AN(3LKR-Lo.scnCKE,p. vii; IIocARTii-WELCii, "Primitive I'ainted Pottery in Crete/V. //./V. xxi. (1901), p. 80.), and soon became universally adopted: the " proto-Mycenseau " mitt- l>ainted vase disai^H'ared. The new techui(ine was never abandoned by the Greek vase-pain tei's: k>die Oi'iiauientik der inykenischen \'asen ist unter«i:«i}iii*»'(;n, ihre Tet-lutik aber hat sich fortu'epHanzt und hild-et die Urvndhiye fiu- die //ersti'llttnt/ filler Itclleniscltcn Vaaengattimgen" <FLRTM'.- LOHCHCKE, foc.cit.). On ^lyceniean vase-paintiiiii' generally see TSOINTAS-MAXATT, i>. 240 ffi.

jo. Mycenaean Golden Cup, from Mycenae. (The lion's

head is Egyptian in style.) 29



ii. Golden Griffin, from Mycena). (The design is of

purely Egyptian origin.) . . . ..30

(After SCIILIKMAXN, ^^!/<•^:nes, f. 272: Scui CHIIARDT, Fijf. 1 86.) Thin yold; for attachment to dress. While the winded s]>liinx does not appear in Egypt till a compara- tively late period, the winded yrittin is an Egyptian concep- tion, and appears under the XJIth Dynasty, if not earlier.



12. Golden Plaque, with spiral design, from Mycenae.

(Cf. Metal- work of Central and Northern Euro- pean Bronze Age.) ...... 31

(SCHUCHIIARDT, Fig'. 189.)

13. Mycenaean Gem; combat of warriors . . .32

Au intag-lio from Myceiire, showing Hellenic spirit in Mycenaean art.

14. Design in relief from a Golden Cup found at

Vaphio in Lakonia. (Athens Museum; a repro- duction is in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.) . 33

Cf. I'ERROT-CHIPIEZ, Hint, de I" Art, xv. (PERROT- CHIPIEZ, vl. Fig-. 369; E. T. Primitive Greece, Fig-. 362.)

15. Design in relief from a Golden Cup found at

Yaphio in Lakonia. (Athens Museum; a repro- duction is in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.) . 34

Cf. I'ERROT-CHIPIEZ, Hint, de f Art, vi. pi. xv. ( PERROT CHIPIEZ, vi. Fig. 370; E. T. Primitive (.1 recce, Fig'. 363.)

1 6. Geometrical Vase, from the Dipylon at Athens . 37 Ez, vii. Fig-. 44.) Ji. c. H. 1895, p. 275.

17. Bronze Fibula of the Geometrical Period . . 38

(PERROT-diiPiEZ, vii. Fig-. 118.) Juhrb. Arch. hint. 1888, p. 362. The pin is missing: both sides of the guard are giveji in the figure.

1 8. Design on a Geometrical Vase .... 40

(I'ERROT-Cmi'iEZ, vii. Fig-. 48.) Annali, 1872, Tav. d'ag-glnnta I. i.

19. Asiatic Sub-Mycenaean Vase, from Mylasa in Karia 43

(I'ERROT-CiiiPiKZ, A'. Fig-. 230; E. T. Li/t/ia, «fcc., Fig. 230.) WINTER, Vaaen aim Kdrien, p. 230.

20. Vase with Orientalizing Designs, from Cyprus . 45

(TERROT-CHIPIEZ, iii. Fig. 518; E. T. riwniciu, &c. ii. Fig-. 242.) CESNOLA, Cyprus, p. 55. The object in the centre is a conventionalization of the Assyrian sacred tree, with traits borrowed from Egyptian art.



21. Mycensean Bull's Head, from the tribute of the

Keftiu .... ... 52

(Tomb of Eekhinara.) '

22. Mycensean Metal Cup, from a wall-painting in a

Thebantomb; c. ISOOB.C 53

(After PRISSE D'AvENNES, Hint, de VArt; Art InduxtrM; Vases des Tribtttafre* de K<if(t, 9.)

23. Mycenaean Metal Cup, from a wall-painting in a

Thebantomb; c. 150011.0 54

(After PRISJSE D' AVENXES, ' HM. tic /'Art; Art Jndnstrie/; J'asex de* Triljittaire* de Kfifa, 2. )

24. Mycenaean Silver Cup, from a tomb at Enkomi in

Cyprus. (Brit. Mus. Gk. and Roman Dept.; rf. MURRAY, E,i'C(i.r(iti(»tx in Ct/jtru*, p. 17, Fig. 33.) 55 Prob.ible date the YHItli century.

25. Bronze Sword-blade from Mycenae, with inlaid

Egyptian design of cats hunting wildfowl . - 58

( TSOL-.NTA.S-3I ANATT, Fitf. 115.') < 'f. I'ERROT-C'IIIPIE/, \i.

pi. xvii.

26. Mycenaean BiigelkauHfn (False-necked Vases), from

a wall-painting in the tomb of Rameses III.;

r. 1200-1150 n.c 59

(After C'HAMPOLMON, Monument*, pi. cc-lviii.)

27. A Mycensean Yase and other objects, from a wall-

painting in the tomb of Rameses III.: c. 1200-

II501U1 60

(After CHAMPOMJON, Monument*, pi. eclix.) Tin- olijccts on tin- k-t't arc elephant-tusk*; above the J}ii</e!/c(iitni< is an Egyptian nfclt(it-v\v amulet of lapis- laxuli; the vase below the Jiitt/e/ktmne is of variegated •i'lass, and is probably also a Jlii</e/k«nne. If so, it is of Egyptian make: no ylass /iiif/elkuttiien lisive been found in Greece. (Cf. v. liissiNt:, Atli. Mittlt. xxiii. p. 262.)

28. Mycenaean Ili'ujrlL-innu', from a XXIst Dynasty tomb;

r.iooois.c. (Brit. Mus. Egyptian Dept. No. 2282 1.) 61

The vase of Tclict-Klicnsn-::nf-ankli. FL HTWANGLER'S •' Third style."



29. Vases of tk punctuated " .black ware, from Khata-

'anah and elsewhere in Egypt; c. 2000 B.C. (Brit. Mus. Egyptian Dept. Nos. 30444, 27472, 4809, 21976.) 68

30. Hawk Vase of black " punctuated " ware. (Brit.

Mus. Egyptian Dept. No. 17046.) ... 69

31. Vase of the same black ware, not punctuated.

(Brit. Mus. Egyptian Dept. No. 32048.) . . 70

32. Vase of " white slip " ware with black painted

decoration, from Cyprus . . . . .71

(PEKROT-CHIPIEZ, iii. Fig-. 486; E. T. Phwniciu, &c. ii. Fig. 210.)

Cf. MYHES-UICIITER, Cyprus Museum Catalogue,}). 39 ff. Specimens of this Cyprian ware have been found exported far from Cyprus; e.g., a howl found at Sakkarah in Egypt

(WALTERS, ./. H. S. XVii. p. 74).

33. Double Vase of Cyprian black " base-ring " ware,

found in Egypt. Date about 1400-1 100 B.C. . 71

Eoug-h line sketch of the type. Cf. MYRES-HICIITER, Cyprus Museum Catalogue, p. 46 ft1.

34. Vase of Cyprian black " base-ring " ware; found

in Egypt. Date about 1400-1 100 B.C. . . 72

liough line sketch of the type.

35. A Lykian Tomb of the fourth century B.C. The

architecture apparently resembles that of the Mycenseans ........ 89

(PERKOT-CHIPIEZ, v. Fig. 261; E. T. Lydia, Arc. Fig. 261.) Cf. TSOUNTAS-MAXATT, Fig. 49.

36. A Karian Inscription of the sixth century B.C.;•

from Egypt. (Non-Aryan language of Asia Minor written with modified Greek characters. The Lykian alphabet is still further modi- fied.) . . ' . . . . . .99

(PERROT - CinriE/, v. Fig. 212; E. T. Li/flia, <Xrc. Fig'. 212; SAYCE, T. S. B. A. ix. (1887) pt. i.) From Zakazik.



37. A Phrygian Inscription: "Mother Kybile . . .

(Aryan language of Asia Minor, using Greek

script.) . - 105

(PERROT-CHIPIEZ, v. Fig. 3; E. T. Lydia, Ac. Fig. 3; RAMSAY, ./. /.'. A. X. xv. i.)

38. Primitive Marble Female Figure from Amorgos.

(Prse-Mycenaean period.) IIQ


39. Heraldic Lion- group from a Phrygian tomb . .120

(PEKKOT-CHIFIEB, v. Fig. no; E. T. Lytliu, Ac. Fig. no; RAMSAY, ./. U. X. 1884, p. 285.) Cf. the Lion-gate at My- cense. At Arslan-Kaya.

40. u Hittite " Relief in Assyrianizing style; from Jera-

bis. (Brit, Mus.) . .124

(PEHROT-CiiiPiE/, iv. Fig. 277; E. T. Ji«l<f<i. Ac. Fig. 277.)

41. A Philistine of the Xllth century B.C. (Sculp-

tures of Barneses III., Thebes.) . . 133

From Medluet-Halm. On tlie head-dress /•. p. 180. n. 2.

42. Ivory Mirror-handle, • from Mycenae, of Cyprian

Late-Mycenaean type .... 13?

(TsofNTAS-MANATT, I«Mg. 84. ) < '/. si iniliir ivories from Cyprus in Brit. 31 us.

43. Prehistoric Egyptian Boat-Vase": r. 4500 ]'..('.

or earlier 1 50

( Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. Xo. 26635.) Tll(' ll(>;lt is '" tlu' centre; above are human figures.

44. Fragment of an archaic Egyptian Slate Relief, of

same date as Fig. 45, showing the style of art with which it has been proposed to connect that of Mycenae . . . . . . . 1 5 1

(Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. Xo. 20791.)

45. Fragment of an archaic Egyptian Slate Relief in

the Louvre: c. 4000 r>.c. . . . . 153

On this relief <;/'. HEI/.EY. /i. ('. II. xvi. (18921 who com- pares it with Mycense.ui scenes of TavpoKaflcii^ia.


46. Mycenaean Itiuji'lL-oiim'n .from Egypt . . .161

( Brit. Mus. Xos. 29396, 4859, 29365.)

47. Mycenaean Gold and Silver Yase; from a wall-

painting in the tomb of Rekhmara, c. 1550 u.c. . 164

(After PRIME D'AvENNES, Hist. <1e VArt; Art lmln*trM; Taseit <les Tribntaires de Ktifa, 4.)

48. Ceiling of the " Treasury of Minyas," at Orcho-

menos (Egyptian design) ..... 167 (.TSOUNTAS-MAJJATT, Fig. 48.) Cf. PERHOT-CHIPIKZ, vi.

Fig. 221.

49. Mycencean Amphora, found in Egypt. (Brit. Mus.

Eg. Dept. No. 4858.) ...... 1 68


50. SardUna (Sardians) of the Xllth cent. r..c.

(Thebes.) . . . . ..... 172

(Sculptures of Rameses III., Medlnet-Habu.) Cf. the helmet with the Myccnseaii representation of a helmet illus- trated by SCHUCHHARDT, Fig. 198. MAsr^RO's identitica- tion of the Sardina with the Sardiins of Asia Elinor ( licnic. Critique, 1880, ]). 109) is undoubtedly the best: W. M. MULLER'S revival of the old idea that they were Sardinians (Am'en u. EurofHi, p. 372 f.) is notable, but will gain few ad- herents. In note i on p. 173 it is remarked that these Sardina wei'e prohably the first of the wandering Mediter- ranean tribes to take to mercenary soldiering, and that they served in Egypt as royal guards. As Egyptian mercenaries a body of them fought, with some Tkuirxha (p. 173), against the other Northerners in the time of liameses II F., when the Philistines and their Cretan allies (r. p. 175 ftY) wen- overthrown by the Egyptians on the Palestinian coast (p. 182).

51. T'akami (Cretans?) of the Xllth cent. n.c.

(Thebes ) ........ 1 76

(Sculptures of IJameses III., Meilinct-Habu.)

52. Blue glazed ware JJuyelkaHHe, made in Egypt.

c. XHIth century B.C. (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. No. 30451.) . .... .185

Cf. decoration with that on Riif/elkannenfrow. the tomb of Kameses III., Figs. 26, 27.



53. Blue glazed ware Vase, made in Egypt in imitation

of a Mycenaean form; c. XIITth century B.C. (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. No. 22731.) . . .186

A companion vase (Xo. 22730), of purely Egyptian shape, has spiral decoration. A similar vase to Xo. 22731 is carried by one of tlie Keftiu in the tomb of Eckhmara.

54. Mycenaean Vase of the type partly imitated by

Fig. 53. (From lalysos.) . . . . .187

(PERROT-CHIPIEZ, vi. Fig. 473; E. T. Primitive. (Ircew, Fig-. 464: FURTWANGLER-LOSCHCKE, No. 71.) The cuttle- fish-design of this vase is an instance of the love of the Mycenaean artists for marine subjects (see p. 202)- The form of the cuttlefish accommodated itself especially well to the shape of the 3Iyceiuean KV\I£ (>.<-/., Brit. Mus. First Vase Kooni, Vase A. 271; PERROT-CHIPIEZ, vi. Fig. 492. Cf. Fn;. i of This book). Among other marine subjects employed by the Mycewvau artists may be noted Seaweed (rf. FIG. 91; the Flying-fish (Ann. Brit. Sclt. Afli. 1897-8, pi. iii.): the Argonaut (, tlie "Marseilles Vase," PERROT- CHIIMKZ, vi. Fig. 486, and Brit. Mus. First Vase Room, Vase A. 349. WALTERS, •/. //. >'. xvii. p. 75) Aryonanta (irt/o. the ". \.Mitil us" of Aristotle; the I'lirple-Fish (I'tir- jHinn. us on the FIG. i: and imaginary sea-yrittins like FIG. 57.

55. Carved Avooden object of Mycenaean style, found

in Egypt. (Berlin Museum.) . . . .188

(I'ERROT-CiiiPiE/. vi. Fig. 409; E. T. Priinitire (ircecc, Fiy. ^02.) A similar object, from Meuidi, is figured by I'KRROT-Ciiii'ii:/ on tlie s.uiie p.v-ie.

56. Top of an Egyptian alabaster vase, made in imita-

tion of a Mycenaean Bugelkanne. (Brit. Mus. Eg. Dept. Xo. 4656.) 190

The lower part, not figured, is of ordinary Egyptim form, and certainly did not originally belong to the top, though found with it.

57. A Mycenaean Sea-demon, from an early matt-

painted vase from Mycenoa . . . . .201 cf. PEKHOT-CHIPIK/, vi. pi. xx. 3.



58. Mycengean Hunting-demon (? Artemis); from an

intaglio 204

C'f. SCHUCHHAHDTj Fig-. 289. An " Island-stone," found in Crete.

59. A Phoenician Ship of the Vllth century B.C. (From

an Assyrian bas-relief.) . . . . .225

(TERROT:CmpiEZ, iii. Fig-. 9; E. T. Phoenicia, &c., i. Fig-. 9.) C'f. LA YARD, Monuments of Nineveh, i. pi. 71.

60. A Phoenician Ship of the VII th century B.C. (From

an Assyrian bas-relief.) ..... 226

( PERROT-CHIPIEZ, iii. Fig-. 8; E. T. Phoenicia, Arc., i. Fig. 8.) Cf. LAVARD, Jfonuments of Xineceh, i. pi. 71. Fig-s. 59, 60 are taken from the Kuyunjik reliefs, now in the British Museum, depicting the Avar of Sennacherib against the Elaniites. The ships in question, which he used against the Elamite fugitives in the Xar Marraium or Persian Gulf, were specially built in the Phoenician style, and manned by- Pha-- nici:iu sailors.

61. Decoration of a Geometrical Vase . . . 248-249

(PERROT-CniPlEZ, vii. Fig-. 66; Arch. Zcity. 1885, pi. viii.)

62. Scene on a Late-Mycenaean Vase from Cyprus . 263

(PERROT-CHIPIEZ, iii. Fig-. 526; E. T. Phoenicia, &c., ii. Fig-. 250.) The. male costume, with its flowing- chiton, is noticeable. The second figure from the left is Kepa. a-yAabs, like Paris and the Keftiu.

63. Cyprian Vase with design of concentric circles . 264

(PERROT-CHIPIEZ, iii. Fig-. 497; E. T. I'luenicia, &c., ii. Fig-. 221.)

64. Cypriote Pictographic Inscription, from Enkomi . 265

(After MURRAY, Excavations in Cyprus, Fig-. 58.)

65. Leaden statuette from Kampos, showing Mycenaean

male costume ....... 277

(PERROT-CHIPIEZ, vi. Fig-. 355; E. T. Primitive (,'reece, Fig. 351.) Cf. TSOUNTAS-MANATT, pi. xvii.



66°' Obverse of a Lydian Coin of the early part of the Vlth century B.C. (Compare designs of Myce-

\ . 292

naean gems.)

(PERROT-CHiPiEZ,v.Fig.i92; E. T. Xtfrf/a, Ac. Fig.192.) Cf. HILL, Handbook of ({reek and Jloman Coins, 1>1. 1.», 9-

67. Emblem of Zeus of the Double-Axe (Mycenae) . 294

Thin gold: used to ornament clothing (?).

68 Mvcensean Water-demon (? Artemis), from an in-

20; tagho . . • . .

Cf. rr.imo-r-CiiiPiEZ, vi. Fig. 431, 6.

69. Artemis (Diktynna) irvrvia BW&V. (From a My-

cenaean intaglio, found at Vaphio.) . . . 296 Cf. TSOUNTAS-MAXATT, Fig. 154.

70. Mycensean (?) Group from Tell el-Amarna . . 3°4

7 1 . The same Group from another point of view . 305

72. Bronze Figure found at Tiryns . • 3°7

I I'KKKOT-CiniME/. vi. Fig. 353: E. T. I'riniitirc Greece, Fig. 349; 'E^M-' >APX' 1891. i>l. ii. T.)

73. Bronze Figure found at Bf'rut . 309

llrit. -Mus. No. 25096.

74. Impression of a Cylinder from Aidin in Lydia.

(Louvre.) ... . . 311

( I'r.KKOT-CniiMKy.. iv. Fig. 382; E. T. Judicu, &.{.-. Fig. 382. i

75. Imin-ession of a Cylinder from Asia Minor.

(Louvre.) . . . . 312

( I'EHHOT-CHIPIE/, iv. Fig. 378: E. T. Jttdd'd, Arc. Fig. 378: MKXAXT. /<-.s I'icrr™ <irnn:cx >li- l<i Haute Axic, ii. Fig. in.)


A(irl><}<i<'r of d^t Kyi. Nord. Oldskrift <sV/.s7.-., Aarb//ger af det Konglig Xordiske Oldskrif t Selskab, Copenhagen.

AWi-andl . /,•///. j>r<'/t«x. Al'fi.<1., Abhandlungen der koniglichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaf ten, Berlin.

A. Z., Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache imd Altertums-

kunde, Berlin. Ant. Jmu-ii. Arrli., American Journal of Archaeology,

Princeton, U.S.A.

Ann. Brit. *SW/. Atli., Annual of the British School at Athens. Aumtli: Annali dell' Instituto di Correspondenza Archeo-

logica, Rome. Antiqv.Tid&kr.fdr Xrrn'ifjc: Antiqvarisk Tidskrif t fur Sverige,

Stockholm. Arcli. AHZ., Archiiologische Anzeiger (published with Jalirlj.

Arch Inxt., </.»'.)•

Arch. Zc'ity., Archfiologische Zeitung, Berlin. Ath. 3fi«A., Mittheilungen des Kaiaerlich Deutschen Archiio-

logischen Institute, Athenische Abteilung, Athens.

B. C. H., Bulletin cle Correspondance Helh'nique, Paris. Bull, di Paletnoloyia itaTtuiKi: Bulletino di Paletnologia

italiana, Parma. BUSOLT, (it: d!<>xcli., BUSOLT, Griechische Geschichte, Gotha,

1893. BRUGSCI-I, Worterbwih: H. BRUGSCII, Hieroglyphisch-Demo-

tisches Worterbuch.

C. /. G'., Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.

<1rx Mimuiiii'Htx: Catalogue des Monuments et Inscriptions de FKgypte Antique, Vienna, 1894.


CHAMPOLLION, Monuments: CHAMPOLLION, Monuments de

1'Egypte et de la Nubie, Paris, 1835. Chr. Or. (v. REINACH). Class. Rev., Classical Review.

• DE MORGAN, JRecherches: DE MORGAN, Recherches sur les

Origines de FEgypte, Paris, 1896-7. DUMICIIEN, Hixtor. Jtmchr.j DUMICHEN, Historische In-

schriften, Leipzig, 1867.

E. T., English Translation.

EVANS, Pictogmphs: A. J. EVANS, Cretan Pictographs and Prae-Phoenician Script, London, 1895.

\\px- J 77, Athens.

FKAZER, P</?/.s., FRAZER, Pausanias's Description of Greece,

London, 1898.


FuETWANGLKR-Li«HCKE:| Mykemsche A asen, Berlin,


GARDNER, Xeti- Chapters: Prof. PERCY GARDNER, Xew Chapters in Greek History, London, 1892.

J. 11. N., Journal of Hellenic Studies, London.

J<(Jirb. Arch.ItiKt., Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archa-

ologischen Instituts, Berlin. Jmmi. Anthrop. ///«/., Journal of the Anthropological Insti-

tute, London.

K(jl. Vitterhets AL-«(1. HandUngar: Handlingax af Konglig Historic och Vitterhets Akademien, Stockholm.

MASPKRO, Hist. Anc. Or., MASRKRO, Histoire Ancienne des

Peuples de FOrient, Paris, 1 886. Mir. Or. (r. REINACII). Mlttlt. Anthroj). (l?x. in Wic.n: Mittheilungen der Anthro-

pologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, Vienna.


.-AY, IhlhL-. dr. Arcli., Dr. A. S. MURRAY, Handbook of Greek Archseology, London, 1892.

MYKKS-RICHTER, Cifprm Cutaloyur: J. L MYRES and M. OHNEFALSCH - EICHTEB, Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, Oxford, 1899.

Xi-iK' Jhbucher. Kleins. /I//., Neue Jahrbiicher des klassischen Altertums.

P. S. B. A., Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archae- ology, London.

PAPE-BENSELER, Wbc/i. Gr. Elf/rim., W. PAPE and G. BEN8ELEB, Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, Braunschweig, 1884.

PBBROT-CHIPIEZ: G. PERROT and C. CJIIIMEZ, Histoire de 1'Art dans TAntiquite, Paris (in progress).

Proc. Soc. Antfq., Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, London.

Recwil: Recueil de Travaux relatifs a la Philologie et a

1'Archeologie Kgyptiennes et Assyriennes, Paris. R. I. 7/., E. DE ROUUE, Inscriptions Hieroglyphiques, Paris,


B»AWLINSON,IFe«ferw Asiatic Inscriptions: RAWLINSON, Cunei- form Inscriptions of Western Asia, London, 1861-91.

REINACH, Mir. Or., SALOMON REINACH, La Mirage Oriental; Chr. Or. ii. p. 509 if.

REIXACH, Chr. Or., SALOMON REINACH, Chroniques de FOrient, Paris, 1891-6.

Rev. Arch., Revue Archeologique, Paris.

Rliein. Mus., Rheiriisches Museum, Bonn.

Rom. Mittli., Mittheilungen des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archiio- Iqgischen Instituts, Rumische Abtheilung, Rome.

tiifzbt')'. der IcrjJ. bai/r. Akad., Sitzungsberichte der konig- lichen bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich.

SCIIUCIIHARDT: ) SciruciiHARDT, Schliemann's

/: J Excavations, London, 1891.


T. S. B. A., Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archae- ology, London.

Trans. R. Soc. Lit., Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, London.

TSOUXTAS-MAXATT: Prof. Dr. CIIRESTOS TSOUXTAS and Dr. J. IRVIXCJ MAXATT, The Mycenaean Age, London, 1897.

IT. A. /., RAWLIXSOX, Western Asiatic Inscriptions, q.r.

W. M. MULLEK: W. MAX MULLER, Asien und Europa,

Leipzig, 1893. WbcJi. dr. Eifjeun. (r. PAPE-BEXSELER).

Y/itcr: Ymer, Tidskrif t utgif ven af Svenska Sallskapet f or Antropologi och Geografi, Stockholm.


1 lt</ re sjH'cially re-translated all the passages from

inscriptions, cOc., which air quoted in this+ book. With regard to tli<' transliteration of Egyptian and Assyrian trords, it may be noted that s = sh, s = ts, t' = tch, dj, zh, or some such sound, irhile h is stronahf aspirated = hh (as /// the Arabic kohl), and h — kh, German ch. Tlie fonnx of Kni/ptian nfi'iaex of foreign peoples (f'trfn in I>r«c1t<j1x bt/ the side of the nottcil fornis, e.g. (Aqaiwaasa) />// the xide of Akaiuasha, are stricter and more accurate transliteration^ of the hieroglyphs. In speaking of the Egyptian L'in</ Ameulietep ./I'., / hare preferred to n»e the better-lcnotcn form of his later name, Khuenaten, rather than the less-known Akhenaten. The name Keftiu /.s properly that of the country, not the people; hut I hare usually pre- ferred to speak of the people as s/nijtli/ Keftiu, rather tlian use such a cumbrous expression as a Keftiu-peo/rfe " or the hybrid " Keftians" I may further note tlmt the spiral design at the top of the corer is afycencnan* being tcilsen from the gravestone published originally in SCIILIEMAXN'S Mycrnes, Fia. 140, irhile that at the bottom is l^tjyptian, beiiaj taken from tlie ornamentation of some, of the pillars in Khuenaten' s palace at Tell el-Amama, orioinalln published in PETRIK'S Tell el- Amarna, pL x.. 2.

H. H.


Front matter




THOTHMES in.; circa B.C. 1550. — \VALL-PAINTING IN






H. K. HALL, M.A.




•III rights rcscmed



See also

  • Charles Chipiez
  • Georges Perrot
  • Schuchhardt

Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "The Oldest Civilization of Greece" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.

Retrieved from ""

The Oldest Civilization of Greece (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Nathanial Hackett

Last Updated:

Views: 5514

Rating: 4.1 / 5 (72 voted)

Reviews: 87% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Nathanial Hackett

Birthday: 1997-10-09

Address: Apt. 935 264 Abshire Canyon, South Nerissachester, NM 01800

Phone: +9752624861224

Job: Forward Technology Assistant

Hobby: Listening to music, Shopping, Vacation, Baton twirling, Flower arranging, Blacksmithing, Do it yourself

Introduction: My name is Nathanial Hackett, I am a lovely, curious, smiling, lively, thoughtful, courageous, lively person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.