Skip to main content

Full text of "The oldest civilization of Greece : studies of the Mycenaean age"

See other formats

1 00 







THOTHMES in.; circa B.C. 1550. \VALL-PAINTING IN 






H. K. HALL, M.A. 




III rights rcscmed 



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 homogeneous 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 

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 

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. 



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 
" Hittites 1 ' 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. 221292 



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 Fii'. 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 

(SCIILIEMANX, Jlios, Xo. 362; SCHUCHHARDT'S Schlic- 

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 



IMC. 1>A<JE 

6. Siphnian Stone box in form of a model dwelling ; 

prse-Mycenaean period. (Melos.) 2 4 

(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-paintin<i' (Firninsmalerei") seems to have 
)>eeu 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 unteri: 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- 

II501U 1 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/knne. 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 ft 1 . 

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.) 

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 



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. Jil<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, IMg. 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 

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. 

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. 

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-CHiPiE Z ,v.Fig.i 9 2; 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- 

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 

70. Mycensean (?) Group from Tell el-Amarna . . 34 

7 1 . The same Group from another point of view . 305 

72. Bronze Figure found at Tiryns . 37 

I I'KKKOT-CiniME/. vi. Fig. 353: E. T. I'riniitirc Greece, 
Fig. 349; 'E^M-' >A PX' 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<'/tx. 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, 

Arcli. AHZ., Archiiologische Anzeiger (published with Jalirlj. 

Arch Inxt., </.'.) 

Arch. Zc'ity., Archfiologische Zeitung, Berlin. 
Ath. 3fiA., 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, 

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-LiHCKE:| 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 

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. 

1'Art dans TAntiquite, Paris (in progress). 

Proc. Soc. Antfq., Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, 

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, 


BAWLINSON,IFeferw 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, 

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. 

Dr. J. IRVIXCJ MAXATT, The Mycenaean Age, London, 

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>rc1t< j 1x 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 ne 
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. 




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 Thucy- 
dides 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 trans- 
lated 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 Karnak 1 
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 

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 

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 I 1 
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 Morgan 2 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, 


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 

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 

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 
Dummler 2 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. 4 7- 

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 p IG . 9 ._p ro to-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 Kamarais 2 and Knossos 3 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. ) 

Egypt 1 (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 instanced 1 (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-painting 1 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 j 1 
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. 

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 

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' I 88 7> 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 tomb 3 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- 

- //. xi. 385. 

'' W. M. MULLER, IOC. Clt., p. 349. 



the Mycenaean culture was contemporary with 
Thothmes III. seems to be indicated. Mr. Torr 
urges 1 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 ; c f . 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. 

:! 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 circumstances 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" 


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 p roCt $ 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 

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. Va c e 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. 


7 1 

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 p rO per 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. 

' 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 circumstances 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 





Late-Myeensean deposits 
from Cyprus. 

Late-Mycenaean treasure 

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- 

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

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 

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 

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 Minyan 1 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 

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 u prse- 
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 " 

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- 


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 


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 


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 
hdkbi t 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 


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 mixing 1 
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-god r 
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 homogeneous 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|OKovtyioe, 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 seen r 
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 Ancienne f 
&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, 

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). 


I2 5 

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 Alfold r 
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 



evidence 1 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- 

A/WWX --C 

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 Aatci 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 i n 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 
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 


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 

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 Mycenae 2 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 


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 


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, s jf$j' a form which 

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

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 a l so used as a determinative of the word 

(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 

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 

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 A PP- 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 ( LpT 1 
\ 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 inscription 1 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 


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 (?) 


Masa } 


<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- 

/T J VT- 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 Lemnos 3 
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 

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 'Oaoe of Herodotos 1 and"Aoc 
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, 
*JSkardinna y 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 
then 1 , 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 d j 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 

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 xP vff ^ 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. j 1 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 i 99 

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 

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 circumstances 
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 

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 

The first impulse 
to this develop- 
ment was given in 

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 


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, 

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 cock-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 cock 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 worships 1 ; 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 

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 TV 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. 

MINOS 211 

, 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 

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 


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 Euneos 2 
" 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 T 7 akarai were pro- 
bably Fatoi 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. 

THE WEST 217- 

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 
Kephallenia 3 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 

"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 
circumstances 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 

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 

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 


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- 

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- 

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 = " high 3 ' 

is clearly Semitic; Ar. Us "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 
Hellanikos 3 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. 

~ 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 J Ereb, "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 homogeneous 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 

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- 


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 

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 


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 Tempsa 1 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 circumstance 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 


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 Etablissements 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 

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 


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\ (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 fagades of the Phrygian tombs- 
(PERROT-CHIPIEZ, Hist, tie I' Art, v. Fig. 48). 

LYDIA 275 

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 

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 

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<-TV of 
the 'Idoves eX/cex^wves (cf. HfiLBlG, Homensche Epos, p. 171 ff). 
It is well represented on a gem from Vaphio, illustrated by 


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 circumstance (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 

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* 

In Argos then we have a true Mycenaean state- 

^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 8 N tafia Oivro vW 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 7rfXIaro. (^aivovrai c icai BeXXe/oo^ovrov 
jUrot/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 Malea r 
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 Corinth 1 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 

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.6 9 .-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 date r 
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 

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 

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 
: gems. 

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 



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 at Tiryns('E^ M .i8 9 i,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 

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, 


ch. ii.), expresses no opinion as to the date of the great 

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-Sin r 
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 VIII 6 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 tablets 1 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 

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 ' T o, a deer, the Assyrian 


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- 

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, 

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 

^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 ; 'Ax at ^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 

326 INDEX 

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 ; 

INDEX 327 

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 

328 INDEX 

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 

INDEX 329 

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, 

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., 

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 

330 INDEX 

period in, 131 ; still the chief mediator between Greece and 1 
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,. 
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, 

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 

INDEX 33, 

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- 

Euboic standard, 288 

Eutnolpids, 239, n. i 

Europa-myth, 231 

Eurynome, Pelasgic deity of Phigaleia, form of Artemis,. 

EVANS, Mr. A. J., on relations between Egypt and Crete, 145 ; 
on Cretan seat-stonos, 147: Knossian discoveries of, 140;. 
on Mycemean religion, 301 

332 INDEX 

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, 

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,. 

lantanai, Egyptian name for Cyprus, 163 n. 

334 INDEX 

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, 

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) 

336 INDEX 

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,. 

Kolophon, early Greeks at, 273 n. i. 

Kore, Pelasgic worship of, 298 

Korkyra, date of colonization of, 255 

Korobios, 270 

Jue, 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 


338 INDEX 

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 

340 INDEX 

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 

INDEX 34 i 

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 

342 INDEX 

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 Pha j nicia 
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 

344 INDEX 

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; fatot), 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 


346 INDEX 

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 








Acme Library Card Pocket