(fldfwf S'/iZ'&tj /}^ayt/r^> AjCcjc^ Ojjbri. soli Ukenues et liberi, commodissimi tnagis tri, qui onmijtestervti trvhdtis, quiomnes manumittiUs vobis seiUdo sersnentes, *Pos ven vScula <$acob! Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/mycenaeanagestudOOtsou THE MYCENAEAN AGE A STUDY OF THE MONUMENTS AND CULTURE OF PRE-HOMERIC GREECE BY Dr. CHRESTOS TSOUNTAS EPHOR OF ANTIQUITIES AND DIRECTOR OF EXCA VA TIONS A T MYCENAE AND J. IRVING MANATT, Ph. D..LL.D. PROFESSOR OF GREEK LITER A TURE AND HISTORY IN BROWN UNIVERSITY WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY DR. DORPFELD LONDON MACMILLAN AND CO. 1897 The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U. S. A. Printed by H. O. Houghton and Company. CONTENTS PAGE Preface xi Introduction (by Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Dorpfeld) xxi Chap. I. Landmarks of the Mycenaean World ... 1 II. The Fortress-City 12 III. The Palace 44 IV. The Private House and Domestic Life . . 67 V. The Dwellings of the Dead : Shaft-Graves . 83 VI. The Dwellings of the Dead : Beehive and Cham- ber Tombs 115 VII. Dress and Personal Adornment .... 159 VIII. Arms and War 191 IX. Some Phases of Mycenaean Art .... 217 X. The Islands as Mediators in Art . . . 256 XI. Writing in Mycenaean Greece .... 268 XII. Religion 294 XIII. The Problem of Mycenaean Chronology . . 316 XIV. The Problem of the Mycenaean Race . . 326 XV. The Mycenaean World and Homer . . . 347 Appendix A. The Mycenaean Troy 3G7 B. The Fortress of Gha and other Minyan Works at Lake Copai's 374 C. Recent Mycenaean Finds in Attica, Salamis and Aegina . 383 Addenda et Corrigenda 395 Index (by Dr. Barker Newhall) .... 397 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FULL-PAGE PLATES PLATE PAGE I. The Lions' Gate (Mycenae) .... Frontispiece. II. Map of Argolis (based upon Steffen) . . . .12 III. Argive Plain, looking South from Mycenae ... 16 IV. Mycenae, from the South 20 V. TlRYNS, FROM THE EAST 26 VI. Plan of the Citadel of Tiryns 32 VII. Interior view of Galleries (Tiryns) .... 36 VIII. Plan of the Upper Citadel and Palace of Tiryns. . 44 IX. Plan of Mycenae 56 X. Mycenae : Royal Cemetery and Lions' Gate from within 82 XI. Stele from Grave V. (1 : 12) 92 XII. Gold Diadem with Crest (Grave IV.) .... 100 XIII. Silver Ox-head (Grave IV.) . 104 , XIV. Treasury of Atreus (Mycenae) 114 XV. Interior of the Treasury at Orchomenos . . . 128 XVI. Tricameral Tomb at Spata 136 XVII. Lead Statuette from Kampos 158 XVIII. The Warrior Vase (Mycenae) 190 XIX. The Vaphio Cups 216 XX. Worship Scene painted on Tablet (found in private house at Mycenae) 294 XXI. Great North-east Tower at Troy 346 XXII. Troy : View from East Tower (left, Mycenae wall ; right, foundation of Roman stoa) .... 366 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT FIGURE 1. View of Thoricus from Theatre 8 2. Tiryns: Palace Wall on Right, Mountains in distance . 14 3. Postern at Tiryns . .20 4. Perspective View of Gallery 22 5. The "Polygonal Tower" (Mycenae) 27 6. Postern Gate of Mycenae . 32 7. Section of Wall of Lower Town (Mycenae). . . .33 8. Cyclopean Road, showing Drains 36 9. Cyclopean Bridge near Epidaurus 37 10. The so-called Pyramid of Kenchreae . . ... 39 11. The Kyanos Frieze 47 12. The Tiryns Bull (fresco from palace) .... 51 13. Wall-painting (Tiryns) 52 14. Hearth of Palace at Mycenae 57 15. Wall-painting from Mycenae 59 16. Facade of Chamber Tomb (Mycenae) 61 17. Copper Jug . . .72 18. Bronze Tripod 72 19. Skillet (from Vaphio) 73 20. Bronze Bowl 73 21. Bronze Pitcher 73 22. Ladle (Vaphio) 74 23. Spoon (Vaphio) 74 24. Stone Vase with Lid from Mycenae 75 25. Alabaster Vase from Grave IV 75 26. Cretan Pithos 76 27. Glazed Vase (Grave IV.) 77 28. Unglazed Vase (Grave VI.) 78 29. Stone Lamp 79 30. Bowl of same Lamp 80 31. Standard Lamp 80 32. The Grave-circle at Mycenae 84 33. Plan of the Grave-circle . . 86 34. Altar over Grave IV 89 35. Gold Mask (Grave IV.) 98 36. Gold Cup from Grave IV 100 37. Inlaid Silver Cup 100 38. 39. Aphrodite Figures in Gold-leaf 101 40. Model of Temple in Gold (Grave IV.) . . . . 102 41. Tumulus at Velanideza in Attica 109 42. Plan of Treasury of Atreus 118 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii 43. Section of Treasury of Atreus 118 44. Mycenaean Column 119 45. " Mrs. Schliemann's Treasury," showing Wall across Dromos 122 46. Facade of Beehive-Tomb 125 47. Treasury of Minyas at Orchomenos 127 48. Fragment of the Orchomenos Ceiling 128 49. Facade of Chamber-tomb (restored) 133 50. Same Facade (actual view) 134 51. Funerary Urn 137 52. Lid of Urn 138 53. Tombstone (front and side) 152 54. Jasper Ring 160 55. 56. Bronze Statuettes 161 57, 58. Brooches 163 59. Brooch 164 60. Razor 166 61. Bronze Razor (Markopoulo) 167 62. Gold Head from Silver Cup 167 63. Dragon-hilt and Sheath of Sceptre (Grave IV.) . . 168 64. Sceptre-sheath (Grave IV.) 169 65. Great Signet (Mycenae) 170 66. Seal Ring 171 67. Silver Hair-pin with Gold Ornament (Grave III.) . . 173 68. 69. Hair-pins , 178 70, 71. Gold Hair-pins (Troy) 179 72. Ivory Plaque 180 73-75. Gold Intaglios (Grave III.) 181 76. Gold Bracelet from Grave IV 183 77, 78. Rings 184 79. Gold-leaf Image (Grave III.) 185 80. Gold Plate from Grave III 185 81. Toilet Pan 185 82. Ivory Mirror-handle 186 83. Ivory Plaque 187 84. Ivory Handle 188 85. Ivory Head from Mycenae 197 86-88. Bronze Swords (earliest to latest form) .... 199 89. Inlaid Dagger-blade (Grave IV.) 201 90. Spear-head 205 91. Obsidian Arrow-head 206 92. Bronze Arrow-head 206 93. Bronze Arrow-head 206 94. Axe from Vaphio 207 95. Siege-scene from Silver Vase (Grave IV.) . . . .213 viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 96-103. Engraved Gems from Mycenae 218 104. Gold Chain from Mycenae Chamber-tomb (1892) . . 219 105-112. Engraved Gems from Vaphio 225 113, 114. Vaphio Cups 227 115. Inlaid Dagger-blade (Grave V.) 231 116. Earthen Vessel inlaid with Tin-foil 233 117. Inlaid Silver Cup from Mycenae Chamber-tomb . . . 234 118. Inlaid Sword from Thera (at Copenhagen) . . . 235 119. Jug from Mycenae 239 120. Vase from Vaphio 240 121. Unglazed Vase (Mycenae) . 241 122. Bowl (Mycenae) 241 123. Dark-brown Vase (Grave III.) 241 124. Ialysos Vase . 242 125. Tripod (Ialysos) . 242 126. Cup (Ialysos) . . . 243 127. Canteen (Cyprus) 243 128. False-necked Amphora (Crete) 244 129. Ivy Vase (Atreus) 244 130. False-necked Amphora (Mycenae) 245 131. Gem from Mycenae 254 132. Marble Statuette from Amorgos 257 133. Stone Box representing Pile-settlement (Melos) (at Mu- nich) 259 134. Stone Box from Amorgos 260 135. Remains of Circular Tower on Amorgos .... 260 136. Circular Tower on Amorgos (ground-plan) . . . 261 137. Vessel from Pronoia 268 138. 139. Inscribed Amphora-handle (Mycenae) .... 269 140. Seal at Athens 272 141 a-c. Three-sided Carnelian from Eastern Crete . . 273 142 a-d. Four-sided Seal-stone 274 143 a-c. Gray Steatite, from Praesos 275 144. Signs on Blocks of Mycenaean Building (Knossos) . . 278 145. Siphnos Seal 278 146. Steatite Seal from Lower Egypt 280 147. Tell-el-Hesy and Aegean Signs compared .... 281 148. Comparative View of Linear Signs (Evans' Table I.) . . 283 149. Groups of Linear Signs (Evans' Table II.) .... 285 150. Comparative View of Pictographs and Linear Signs (Evans' Table III.) 287 151. 152. Terra-cotta Idol (Mycenae) 297 153-155. Artemis Gems 298 156. Wall-painting (Mycenae) 301 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ix 157. Vaphio Gem 301 158. Mycenaean Boat 333 159. Plan of Fortress and Palace of Gha 376 160. Wall of Gha (showing projections) 377 161. Section of Circuit Wall (Gha) 377 162. Beehive-tomb at Thoricus 3C4 163. Raised Grave within the same Tomb 385 164. Gold Cup 389 165. Gold Pendant (man with water-fowl) 390 166. Gold Pendant (dogs, apes, and owls) 391 167. Gold Ornament with Terminal Heads 391 168. Necklace of Gold and Carnelian Beads with Pendants . 392 169. The Shield Ring 392 PREFACE This work is at once old and new, and I cannot fairly launch it afresh without some account of its origin. Ten years ago a young Greek archaeologist, Chrestos Tsountas, was commissioned by his government to con- tinue the exploration of Mycenae which Dr. Schliemann had begun. It could hardly have seemed an inspiring task to glean after the great explorer who had dazzled the world with the treasure of the Royal Tombs ; but it was a task that demanded thorough training, keen insight, and un- limited patience. Armed with these qualities, Dr. Tsountas went to work and a busy decade has passed without seeing the end of it. Meantime he has restored to us the Palace of the Pelopid kings ; he has unearthed and studied the humbler abodes of their retainers and menials ; he has traced the fortress walls through all the stages of con- struction and extension, and discovered the secret water- way which enabled the citadel to hold out against a siege ; in short, he has laid bare the old Achaean capital in its great enduring features, and has thus revealed to modern eyes the typical Acropolis of the Heroic Age. More than that, he has explored the lower town and particularly the clan or village cemeteries, each composed of a group of rock-hewn tombs whose disposition and contents have shed new light on the civic and religious life of the time. While patiently pursuing this great task, he has now and again xii PREFACE taken a little archaeological diversion — always with bril- liant results. Thus in 1889 he excavated the beehive tomb at Vaphio (near Sparta), and there recovered those unri- valed masterpieces of Mycenaean art, the Vaphio cups. A year later he crossed Taygetus, and, under the height crowned by the Homeric Gerenia, he explored another tholos, which yielded the curious figures of lead known as the Kampos statuettes. Still more recently he has made more than one fruitful reconnoissance on the island of Amorgos. While thus establishing his fame as an explorer, Dr. Tsountas proved himself an able expositor, as well, in the reports and other papers contributed to the archaeological journals of Greece and Germany ; but it was not until three years ago that he wrought into a volume the accu- mulated spoil of his spade and his studies. His " Mycenae and the Mycenaean Civilization " 1 was not simply a record of his own finds ; it went further and undertook for the first time a systematic handling of the whole subject of prehistoric Greek culture in the light of the monuments. The book was warmly welcomed by archaeologists ; it was crowned by the French Society for the Promotion of Hel- lenic Studies ; and in the subsequent literature of the sub- ject its author has probably been quoted as often as any other living writer. The present volume is the outgrowth of that work of Dr. Tsountas. When it came from the Athenian press in the summer of 1893, I had just made my last visits in the Argolid and was embarking for home after a four years' residence in Greece. Reading the new book, as I did, in Greek waters and under the spell of those great heroic 1 MvKrjvai Ka\ Mvktjvoios Uo\iri(rfj.6s. Athens, 1893. PREFACE xiii memories, I was deeply impressed with its value, and deter- mined at once to secure its author a wider audience than the little world of modern Greece could afford him. My first thought hardly went beyond an English version ; but it soon became apparent that no mere translation, however carefully edited, would answer the purpose in view. With all its wealth of matter, the method of the book left much to be desired. This was due largely to an un- certainty of plan, for Dr. Tsountas had begun writing a special work on Mycenae for a series of "Ancient Greek Cities," and (on the publisher's failure) had widened his range to cover the field of Mycenaean culture. 1 Then, too, further study convinced me that the subject- matter called for a thorough re-handling. Dr. Tsountas had written for a public so different — a public with the main spoil of the Mycenaean world on daily view in their midst and the great Mycenaean centres but a few hours' journey from their doors — that he could take for granted much that the more distant audience must be told. Moreover, the three years since he wrote have been among the most fruitful in the whole history of Myce- naean exploration. Dr. Tsountas himself has gone on with his great task at Mycenae ; Noack and de Ridder have explored the mighty Minyan works in and about Lake Copais ; Staes and others have brought to light half a dozen prehistoric settlements in Attica and the adjacent islands ; Evans has made known the results of his memora- ble researches in Crete ; and, to crown all, Dorpfeld has laid bare the walls and towers, the houses and (possibly) a 1 Thus his second chapter on "The City of Mycenae" belongs distinctly to the special work as first planned, while our new chapter on "The Fortress City " has been adapted (so far as it could well be) to the more general plan. XIV PREFACE temple, of Homer's Troy. And, while the spade has been thus busy and effective, the literature of the subject has been enriched by most important contributions, as a glance at the notes to the present volume will show. Among sys- tematic works, we may instance here Perrot and Chipiez' volume on Mycenaean Art; and, among special studies, Reichel's masterly monograph on Homeric Armor. In this rapid march of Mycenaeology, it is obvious that a book even three years old must be behind the times ; and, accordingly, we have undertaken a measurably new one. The bulk of the material Dr. Tsountas has furnished to my hand in his " Mycenae," enriched by his own manu- script annotations, together with a new paper on Myce- naean Writing (embodied in Chapter XI) and copious notes on recent excavations (Appendices A and C). To this material I have added whatever was found available either in original sources or in recent literature ; and, com- bining the whole with a free hand, I have aimed to write an English book, thoroughly adapted to our own public, which should present a reasonably complete survey of My- cenaean culture and register the main results of Mycenaean research down to the present time. As far as practicable, I have followed the lines drawn by Dr. Tsountas in his origi- nal work, but I have not hesitated to adopt an order of my own wherever clear method seemed to require it. As regards his matter, I have not willingly sacrificed anything which I felt warranted in retaining in view of the new plan and the new public ; and, in particular, I have sought to represent with all fidelity his distinctive views. True, a just regard for proportion has constrained me to abridge the argument in some cases (for example, on the question of the Grave Circle at Mycenae), especially by the omission PREFACE XV of detail which seemed proper to a demonstration on the spot rather than to a work addressed to readers at large. To draw the line sharply between Dr. Tsountas' part and my own in the work would be no easy matter. While the main substance of the book is his, there are few pages of it to which I have not made some material contribution. In particular, I have supplied matter introductory to many of the chapters, intended at once to avoid abruptness and to secure a closer articulation of the whole. The chapter on Arms and War I have rewritten in the light of Reichel's important study ; and the concluding chapter on the Myce- naean World and Homer — while taking up some of the material of Dr. Tsountas' epilogos — is mainly my own in substance as well as form. I have also added Appendix B, and the account of the " Mykenaean Treasure " in Appen- dix C. Less than one fourth of the illustrations and none of the photographic plates are from the original work. While the proofs of the new book have been in Dr. Tsoun- tas' hands and he has taken no exception to any point, he cannot of course be held to that degree of responsibility which a closer collaboration would warrant. In justice to him and to the reader, I note below some principal changes in the evolution of the new book from the old. 1 1 For reasons stated in the proper connection (page 83) I have placed the chapters on the Tombs immediately after those concerned with military and civil architecture, thus leaving the subject of Dress ("the narrower dwelling") and Armor to follow. I have also subdivided the matter so that Chapters V-VI replace Tsountas' Chapter 5 ; and Chapters VII-VIII his Chap- ter 3. I have also inverted his order in which the subject of Religion preceded that of Art, and introduced the new chapter on Writing between the two. The original chapter on " Art and Chronology," as covering three distinct subjects, I have broken up into as many chapters (IX, X, XIII), and redis- tributed the matter accordingly. To facilitate comparison, I add a detailed equation of the original chapters (designated by Arabic numerals) with the xvi PREFACE As already stated, the original plan contemplated little more than an English version of Dr. Tsountas' " Mycenae/' and it was so announced. In pursuance of this plan, the first draft of a translation was made by Dr. Barker New- hall, sometime member of the American School at Athens, and this I undertook to edit and publish as our joint work. The result of the undertaking has been anticipated. The translation was given up ; and, in view of the very differ- ent character which the book has assumed, it is Dr. New- hall's judgment that his name cannot properly appear on the title-page. For all that, his version was a great help to me in my preliminary work ; and I am further indebted to him for assistance in collecting the literature and gather- ing illustrations, as well as for the full index which he has prepared. Among the first to whom my acknowledgments are due, I have to thank the American Minister at Athens, Mr. Eben Alexander, for his good offices there. On this side, I owe much to Professor Daniel Quinn, of the Catholic University at Washington, whose intimate ac- quaintance with modern Greek — an intimacy hardly shared by any other American — has been freely placed at my service, and has lightened my labors on Greek manuscripts as well as on Greek texts. Professor John H. Wright, of Harvard University, has given me the benefit of his ripe learning and perfect taste in the criticism of the concluding chapters ; and I deeply regret that a criticism so helpful should not have been new (in Roman) : 1 = I ; 2 = II ; 3 = III-IV ; 4 =. VII-VIII ; 5 = V-VI ; 6 = XII; 7 = IX, X, XIII; 8 = XIV; 9 replaced by XV; new, XI and Appendices A, B, C. I had expected more fully to account for the new order in an introduction, which fortunately has not been left for me to write ; but I trust the order may sufficiently vindicate itself. PREFACE xvii secured at an earlier stage and for the entire work. Two comrades of my Athenian days, Messrs. F. B. Sanborn and S. J. Barrows, have followed the work with unflagging interest, and their trained literary judgment has been of great service to me. Of my own associates at Brown Uni- versity, Professor F. G. Allinson has read most of the book in manuscript or proof, and made many helpful suggestions ; and Dr. George A. Williams has lent me assistance which was simply invaluable in preparing the work for the press. My acknowledgments are due also to Professors Wheeler and Bennett, of Cornell University. In the matter of illustrations, I am indebted to the Council of the Hellenic Society, and their Hon. Secretary, Mr. Geo. A. Macmillan, as well as to Mr. Arthur J. Evans, for permission to reproduce from the " J ournal of Hellenic Studies" most of the figures found in Chapter XI and Appendix C ; and to Professor R. S. Colwell, of Denison University, who generously allowed us to use his own negatives for some of the choicest reproductions in the volume, — namely, Plates I, III, IV, V, X. The Ephor Staes kindly placed at my disposal advance sheets illustrat- ing objects found by him in his important excavations in Attica and Aegina ; and the photographs of the German Archaeological Institute have been freely used. Many of the illustrations were drawn at Athens expressly for this work by Mr. H. B. Warren. Others have been reproduced from the " Ephemeris Archaeologike," " Athenische Mit- theilungen," " Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique," Furtwangler and Loeschcke's " Mykenische Vasen " ; while some have been redrawn from the original editions of Schuchhardt and Perrot-Chipiez. For the use of books I am under great obligations to the xviii PREFACE Librarian of Harvard University ; to Dr. James M. Paton ; to Mr. W. E. Foster, of the Providence Public Library ; and, last but not least, to Mr. H. L. Koopman and his assistants at the Brown Library. The Homeric citations in English are uniformly from Lang, Leaf, and Myers' Iliad and Butcher and Lang's Odyssey. As I come to date this preface, I am reminded that there could not well be a more auspicious moment for bringing out a work like the present. It signalizes the end of the second decade of Mycenaeology. Just twenty years ago to-day the wires flashed from Mycenae to King George's palace at Athens Schliemann's jubilant message that he had found the Royal Tombs, with their heroic tenants still masked in gold and their heroic equipage about them. That find was the crowning historical revelation of our time, and out of it has sprung a science whose progress is hardly less marvelous than its origin, — a science which has already in great measure restored the landmarks of pre- Homeric Greece, and with them the real background of the Homeric poems. It was but fitting that in this twentieth year of the new science we should welcome to our shores one of its foremost masters and learn from his lips the fas- cinating story of its last great conquest and his own — the recovery of Homer's Troy. Dr. Dorpf eld's mission here was more than a triumph; it was an inspiration, and it must profoundly and permanently influence the further direction of the study of antiquity among us. And I am sure that every one who has ever come under the spell of his winning personality will seem to hear his voice again in the Introduction which — in the midst of all his engage- PREFACE xix ments — he has yet found time to write for this volume. That it is earnest and critical, and contests more than one position taken up in the book itself, only marks it as Dorp- f eld's own. It is by virtue of hard knocks that Science moves on, and her good soldiers are ever ready to give and take. Tsountas and Dorpfeld may not see eye to eye on every point in controversy, but none the less they march shoulder to shoulder in the forward movement of the science to which both alike have made most solid and bril- liant contributions, J. Irving Manatt. Brown University, Providence, November 28, 1896. INTRODUCTION I am very glad to comply with the request of my friend, Professor Manatt, by writing an introduction to the present volume. The work of Chrestos Tsountas on " Mycenae and the Mycenaean Civilization " is recognized on all hands as one of the best and most instructive in recent archaeolo- gical literature; and in this new form, greatly enriched and amply illustrated, it must win many new friends. To a work so excellent — happily summing up as it does all that the latest excavations and researches have taught us of life and art in the early bloom of pre-Homeric Greece ■ — it affords me peculiar pleasure to be able to make some slight contribution. Until recently the Homeric poems were our sole source of light upon the civilization of the prehistoric or Heroic Age of Greece. But the pictures which the poet gives us of the Palaces and the life of that age appeared too fanci- ful to pass for transcripts of reality. For example, who could have believed that the Palaces were actually (as Homer alleges) adorned with friezes of blue glass [kyanos]^ But the excavations at Tiryns, Mycenae, Orchomenos, and elsewhere — in which Tsountas, as well as Schliemann, has borne a prominent part — have changed our point of view. We now know that in essentials Homer's pictures answer to reality. Accordingly, in an investigation of the culture of the Heroic Age, we may and must base our researches upon the results of those excavations and upon the Homeric xxii INTRODUCTION data alike — a method which has been very properly fol- lowed in the present work. The agreement between the Homeric descriptions and the actual facts established by the excavations is to be remarked, not only in the Palaces of Tiryns and Mycenae and in the objects found there, but also in the ruins of the Sixth or Mycenaean City of Troy 0 A short time ago it was still held to be unscientific for any one to look for points of coincidence between the ruins on Hissarlik and the words of Homer, and there may be scholars who still regard such a quest as altogether futile or even reprehensible. But this is no longer the prevailing view. In my opinion, it may now be considered certain that the allusions of Homer to the scenery of the Troad and to Troy itself harmonize in the main with the facts as deter- mined by the explorations. As regards the buildings of the sixth stratum, I have already (in my work, " Troja, 1893 ") pointed out certain coincidences which appear specially noteworthy. I may be allowed here to recall these four points : — 1. According to Homer, the Pergamos of Troy was not a level citadel, for near the dwellings was an altar of Zeus ev iioku azporaryj (Iliad xxii. 172). Thus in the poet's view there was a highest point in the citadel, where doubt- less stood the two temples of Athena and Apollo, as well as the altar of Zeus. To the acropolis of the Second City such a datum would be entirely inapplicable, for (as the ex- cavations have taught us) its edifices were built on a leveled site. But that the middle and northern part of the Sixth City actually lay higher than the rest is proven beyond a doubt by the strong supporting walls of the buildings we have found. Further, for the Graeco-Roman times the pre- sence of a temple on this spot is an established fact. INTRODUCTION xxiii 2. The structures of Tiryns are built, partly in Cy- clopean fashion of more or less huge unwrought stones, partly of sun-dried bricks. At Mycenae, along with walls of this kind, occur sections built of dressed blocks. Ac- cording to Homer's words, we should have to conceive most of the structures of the Trojan citadel as built in a different manner, L e., of smoothly hewn stones ; for even the dwellings of Priam's sons and sons-in-law were ZeatoXo TitdoLO (Iliad vi. 244). While this language would have been quite inapplicable to the edifices of Tiryns, it exactly fits the houses at Troy as well as a part of the circuit wall with its towers. This is the more noteworthy, as it has hitherto been thought well-nigh impossible that walls and towers of carefully dressed blocks could have been built in that early age. 3. In the Pergamos of Troy Homer knows quite a num- ber of separate structures, some of them dwelling-houses, some temples, apparently lying close together and yet de- tached. In the citadel of Tiryns we look in vain for such separate houses ; at most a second detached dwelling might be recognized in what is commonly taken for the women's quarter. It is otherwise in the Sixth City at Troy. All the buildings thus far discovered there are, in fact, separate edifices, though but little removed from one another. 4. According to Homer (Iliad vi. 316), the house of Alexandros was composed of three parts, the thalamos, the doma, and the mile. By the thalamos, at all events, we are to understand a closed apartment which formed the interior of the dwelling and served also for sleeping quar- ters. The doma is doubtless a general reception-room before the thalamos, the ante-room of the dwelling. The aule can only be an open court before the house. A simi- lar tripartite arrangement recurs in other simple houses in xxiv INTRODUCTION the poems, as in the steading of Eumaeus (Odyssey xiv. 5 ff.) and the " hut " of Achilles (Iliad xxiv. 452 f .). In both these passages we read of an open court; of a prodomos, where guests were received and, on occasion, slept ; and, finally, of an inner chamber with the hearth and with couches. In the Palace, also, as we have it before our eyes at Tiryns and Mycenae, this tripartite dis- position is present, to be sure, but it is not so obvious, because each part is en suite. The court is a double one ; the doma is made up of hall, ante-room, and vestibule; and, in place of the simple thalamos, we have a special women's quarter with several adjoining rooms. Now some of the houses found in the Sixth City consist of the same three parts, for there can hardly be a doubt that we are to assume an open court before each of the bipartite temple-like edifices. The large closed apartment in these buildings is apparently the thalamos ; in the half- open ante-room we may perhaps recognize the doma, which would correspond in form to the tablinum of the Graeco- Roman house ; and, finally, the open court will be the aule. Of course, coincidences of this kind do not amount to a demonstration that the ruins uncovered at Hissarlik actually belong to Homeric Troy, the Pergamos of Priam. But such proof is no longer needed. For, if antiquity well- nigh with one consent cherished the conviction that the Greek Ilion occupied the site of ancient Troy, and if the people of that village as well as its visitors (a Xerxes and an Alexander the Great, a Lysimachus and a Sulla) never doubted that on that spot had once stood the citadel of Priam, although they saw nothing of its ruins and knew nothing of their actual existence deep underground, can we still doubt that the mighty fortress of Mycenaean INTRODUCTION xxv times, whose remains have now come to light beneath the Greek Ilion, is actually the Troy of Homer ? But these coincidences do have an important bearing on the elucidation of the Homeric poems and on the problem of their origin. Without any hesitation we may now draw on the ruins of the Sixth City at Troy when we have to describe the buildings and the culture of the age which Homer celebrates. Hence an account of these remains has properly found a place in this work (see Appendix A), thus notably enriching the t picture of Mycenaean civilization which it offers. This picture, of course, can be correct and true to reality only when the results of the excavations are set before us clearly and distinctly, and when there can be no doubt about interpretation or restoration. In the main, indeed, these results as described in the following pages tell but one story. Still there are instances in which the reconstruc- tion proposed seems to me fairly open to criticism ; and I can hardly make a better contribution to the present work than by reviewing the questions at issue. In the interest of the reader and of science, the grounds of dissent should be stated, however briefly. 1. In discussing the Royal Graves discovered by Schlie- mann at Mycenae, Tsountas undertakes to show (page 106) that over these graves a mound or tumulus was raised. He believes that he can prove that the circle inclosed by the ring of slabs was not an open precinct or temenos, but that the ring was merely a retaining wall for the mound. 1 Against this, I share the generally received opinion that the graves lay in an open peribolos, of which the slab-ring formed the inclosing wall. 1 For Dr. Tsountas' last word on this question, see his reply to Belger in the Jahrb. des. k. deutsch. Arch. Instituts for 1895, pp. 143-151. [M.] xxvi INTRODUCTION This ring consists of a wall of small stones and earth which was faced without and within, as well as covered over, with thin stone slabs. Now, in my judgment, the inner facing would have been altogether unnecessary for a mound, while for an open precinct it was indispensable. Moreover, any architect will bear me out in saying that the wall is not strong enough to have served as a retaining wall for an earth-mound. At all events, had it actually been such a wall, the slabs still in place should have an inclination out- wards. Not only is nothing of the Jand to be seen, but on the east we distinctly remark the opposite — the slabs lean inward. Finally, in the southern part of the inclosure some of the pavement is still intact with the original layers of soil beneath it. And it shows distinctly that the surface within the circle was not horizontal, but had a gradual rise toward the south, obviously to let the rain-water run off through the entrance on the north. When houses were afterwards built outside the entrance, and the surface there had risen so far that it lay higher than the inside level, the entire inclosure must have been filled up either artificially or by gradual accumulations. Thus, I have no doubt that the graves, originally lying in a group outside the acropolis, were inclosed by means of the slab-ring in a peribolos, which thus formed a heroon of the ancient kings. 2. Tsountas holds that the great beehive tombs were closed shortly after their construction by filling their ave- nues with earth. That all these tombs, great as well as small, were once closed is certainly true ; the only question is when it was done. As both the great tholoi at Mycenae were provided with rich facades and had their wooden doors overlaid with metals, it appears to me more probable that they were not forthwith blocked up. Thus, it is conceiva- ble that the Prince in his lifetime would have a tomb built t INTRODUCTION xxvii for himself and his house, and that this would remain open for many years — until his own death, or even until the death of the last of his line. One thing which has an impor- tant bearing on the question, Tsountas does not seem to have given its due weight : it is the fact that the walls, built to block up the two great tholoi, are not of the same material as the tombs themselves. Moreover, in the case of the tomb excavated by Mrs. Schliemann, one can clearly see that the closing wall was built later than the dromos walls. 3. The oft-debated question of the existence of a walled lower town adjacent to the Mycenae acropolis, Tsountas answers in the affirmative (page 33), holding as he does that the still extant remains of a town wall are of earlier date than the destruction of the citadel, — that is to say, ante- rior to the Dorian migration. According to this view the lower town belongs to the Heroic Age, and was walled in as a refuge in time of war for the clans ordinarily dwelling in open villages. But in my opinion the circuit wall of the lower town belongs to a far more recent epoch, namely, that of the Doric temple on the palace ruins, or about the sixth century b. c. For the masonry of the wall is not Cyclopean but polygonal ; it is the same masonry which is employed in the later repairs of the fortress wall (see page 27). 4. How were the roofs of the Mycenaean houses formed? Tsountas maintains (page 70) that only the Palace proper had a flat clay roof, while the gable roof was in ordinary use for simple dwellings. I do not share this opinion, but hold that ordinary houses as well as palaces, not only in Myce- naean but in early Hellenic times, were covered with flat clay roofs. True, the gable roof was known in very early times ; but as long as there were no brick or stone tiles these gables must have had a very steep pitch or the thatch xxviii INTRODUCTION which covered them would not have shed water. The flat clay roof was not only more secure, but it offered still other advantages ; and hence it is to this day in full use in many parts of the East. That it was also usual in old Greek times, we know from occasional references in the literature as well as from representations in art ; for example, the temple and fountain on the Francois vase. The Greek gable roof, especially as we see it on the Greek temple, was an invention of the Corinthians. They did not (as is often thought) invent the pediment, for with the pitched roof that came of itself ; but their important service consisted in the invention of terra-cotta roof-tiles. Not till these tiles were available could the roof receive that pitch which was usual in ancient times. At first this gable roof was employed only for temples and public build- ings, and it was only after the production of tiles was cheapened that they came to be used for roofing ordinary houses. But do not the chamber-tombs excavated by Tsountas at Mycenae, with their ceilings hewn gable-wise in the rock, make against the flat house-roof? By no means. The rock in which these tombs are hewn is a siliceous conglom- erate so brittle as to put horizontal ceilings practically out of the question. Indeed, as it is, the ceilings and door frames in many of the graves have actually fallen in. No doubt, the architects of the Mycenaean age, whose techni- cal knowledge (as displayed, for example, in the great bee- hive tombs) commands our admiration, knew well that in such rock a sloping roof holds better than a flat one. Indeed, in ceiling over the chambers in the walls of Tiryns they observed the same principle. Hence I do not think that the gabled ceiling of these rock-hewn tombs war- rants any inference as regards the form of the timber INTRODUCTION xxix roof on the ordinary dwelling-house. Nor can I agree with Tsountas in assuming a gable roof for the building with the columns — possibly a temple — in the Sixth City on His- sarlik. For it is a technical error to hold that a central row of supports is more necessary for a gable than for a flat roof. Exactly the opposite is true. A clay roof, to be water-tight, must be made much heavier than a thatched or shingled gable roof. Besides, with the gable the an- cients always employed horizontal cross-beams which in dif- ferent ways, familiar to every architect, served to bear the weight of the roof. It is not impossible indeed that all the buildings of the old Acropolis at Troy had steep pitched roofs, but it is far more probable that the flat clay roof covered every one of them. In the Greek town of Ilion down to Hellenistic times roof-tiles were not common ; and to this day the villages in the Troad retain the old flat roof of beaten earth. 5. Of still another architectonic problem, Tsountas' solu- tion appears to me not altogether correct. Among the houses excavated by him he maintains that there are upper- story dwellings with wooden floors and basements above ground but unoccupied. This kind of house would corre- spond with the primitive pile-hut ; and so, from the litter found in the basements, it is inferred that the people shared the untidy habits of the lake-dwellers in disposing of the refuse of the table and other rubbish (p. 68). But the ruins of the houses in question do not warrant this theory. Two kinds of house are clearly to be distinguished. First, we find such as were provided with cellars and thus, of course, had wooden floors ; in these the cellars were accessible by stone or wooden stairways and served for storing provisions and other goods. Secondly, there were houses without cellars, and these had floors of beaten XXX INTRODUCTION earth with or without cement. The foundation walls of the latter — now exposed, but in antiquity lying under- ground — Tsountas has taken for the clear walls of his lower stories. To be sure, these foundation walls were at times visible from without, because the houses stood on the sloping hillside, and in such cases the floors lay in part somewhat above the ground level outdoors ; but, even in these houses, this would not be the case on the side toward the hill. The bones, potsherds, and the like, found in the earth between the foundation walls, are ear- lier than these walls, and either must have been there before the houses were built, or must have been brought there with other rubbish for filling in the course of the building. 6. In conclusion, a few further words about Troy. With perfect right Tsountas has called attention to the difference between the architecture of the houses and circuit-walls of Tiryns and Mycenae on the one hand and those of the sixth stratum of Troy on the other. I agree with him, also, that the Cyclopean masonry, as it is employed in the Argive fortresses, is earlier (generally speaking) than the use of well-dressed blocks so common at Troy. Neverthe- less, I hold that the Sixth City at Troy was contemporaneous with those fortresses, and indeed perished still earlier than they. In the later work at Mycenae the intrusion of the new style can be clearly recognized in the Palace (for ex- ample, in the walls of the court), as well as in the beehive tombs. After all the correspondences, the civilization which con- fronts us at Troy is different from the Mycenaean. To be sure, we recognize the influence of the latter in the Myce- naean vases (undoubtedly imported) which we find in the sixth stratum ; but the native culture of the Trojan rulers INTRODUCTION xxxi is a different culture. The fortress wall with its gates and towers is built altogether unlike the walls of the Argive citadels. The dwelling-houses, too, present an aspect other than that of the palaces at Tiryns and Mycenae. Of inte- rior artistic decoration we learn nothing from the houses at Troy. Wall paintings, such as adorned the Argive castles, seem to have been foreign to them ; at least, not a frag- ment of fresco has yet been found. Again, it is only in the interior of a single edifice that we can make out col- umns ; in the vestibules they appear not to have been em- ployed; and we have nothing to show how their shafts and capitals were fashioned. The cornice (Gesimse) of all buildings must have been of wood ; at least we have found no trace of a stone cornice or coping. The house floors were formed very simply with clay mortar; lime cement has been noted only on the great road leading up from the main gate. Again, the domestic utensils, weapons, and ornaments, so far as we can judge, appear to have been more simple than the corresponding objects in use among the Mycenaeans. Whence the Trojan culture springs, Dr. A. Korte, of Bonn, has recently shown. In the interior of Asia Minor, in ancient Phrygia, he has found exactly the same gray pottery which prevails in the sixth stratum at Troy, and which, in distinction from the imported Mycenaean vases, we have styled the local Trojan ware. It is, therefore, probably the Phrygian culture which prevailed at Troy, — a culture which, indeed, had points of contact with the Mycenaean culture described in this work but was never- theless in essential points different from it. WlLHELM DoRPFELD. New York, 14 November, 1896. THE MYCENAEAN AGE CHAPTER I LANDMARKS OF THE MYCENAEAN WORLD The Heroic Age of Greece has never been left quite without a witness. From time immemorial certain of its stately monuments have been known and un- Enduring . challenged. The Greeks themselves, from Pin- 7 t n h u e ments dar to Pausanias, were of one mind about these Heroic Age landmarks of their heroic foretime. Thucydides even goes out of his way to reconcile the apparent insignificance of the Mycenae of his own day with its ancient fame, and the Tragedians repeople its solitude with the great figures of tradition. So too with strong-walled Tiryns, — a wonder even to Homer, — in which Pausanias sees not only a castle of the Heroic Age, but a work to be compared with the Pyramids of Egypt and to be accounted for only by its attribution to superhuman builders, the Lycian Cyclopes. And beside these enduring walls, there were other wit- nesses less obtrusive but not less awe-inspiring. Of those solemn and splendid sepulchres best known to us in the so-called Treasury of Atreus, one at least — the Treasury of Minyas — was even better known in Roman times, when it could be named among the wonders of the world. 1 Such landmarks, we may say, have been always in evi- dence even through the ages that were too dark to read 1 Pausanias, ix. 38. 2 THE MYCENAEAN AGE them or hand down any judgment upon them ; and since Greece has come within the circle of modern civilization the modern world has accepted them in the spirit of the ancient. To Leake and Curtius as to Pausanias and Thu- cydides, these monuments have accredited themselves as actual landmarks of a real world lying back of Homer and more or less faithfully mirrored in the Iliad and Odyssey. But neither these splendid monuments nor the still more splendid epics, nor even both together, could convey an Monuments adequate and authoritative impression of the LTdHomer Heroic Age. The monuments are too isolated and distrusted Q £ toQ uncer fc a i n ^ate, w yi e p 0ets Q f t } ie J]p0S, as it has come down to us, are too remote from the heroic foretime whereof they sing to be regarded as altogether competent witnesses of it. And, indeed, their authority has often been questioned, when (as we now know) they were keeping close to actual fact. For example, we have looked upon the Shield of Achilles, with its wondrous living pictures wrought in precious metals of many colors, as a pure invention of the poet's fancy ; whereas now the Royal Tombs of Mycenae have yielded up dagger-blades inlaid with designs of the same technique with Hephaestus' handi- work as Homer describes it, and hardly a whit behind it in living reality. So, too, the splendid palaces of Alcinous and Menelaus we have thought of as owning no designer or decorator outside of the minstrel's imagination ; and the " much-golden " Mycenae, even with Thucydides' plea for it, has seemed to hold its wealth by the poet's gift. Indeed, the world, has distrusted the poet wherever his picture took on a tone too bright to consist with the old saying of Hero- dotus that "Hellas hath ever had Poverty for her consort." 1 And this incredulity was not without show of reason. 1 Trj 'EAAaSi Treulrj act uore avvrpo^ox i