Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:34:38.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of The Treasury of Atreus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

A. J. B. Wace
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Professor Karo and the excavators of Tiryns have welcomed the publication of the report of the excavations which I conducted at Mycenae for the British School at Athens from 1920 to 1923, and have expressed themselves as in general agreement with the results. In the last two numbers of this Journal, Sir Arthur Evans has queried one or two points and the editors have kindly allowed me to reply to his questions here. This is necessary because some of the facts are not quite correctly stated by him. He is inclined to doubt the architectural evolution of the beehive tomb as set forth in our report, and thinks that the two which are most advanced in construction, the Treasury of Atreus and the Tomb of Clytemnestra, should be assigned to an earlier date. Secondly, he would suggest a somewhat different classification and dating for Late Helladic III. pottery. These two questions hang together, since L.H. III. sherds were discovered under the threshold and under the dromos walls of the Treasury of Atreus. It seems best, however, to treat them separately, and we will deal first with the architectural and other evidence for the dating of the two tholos tombs, and later with the problems of L.H. III. ware. In doing so every care must be taken to prevent the danger of allowing theories or preconceived prejudices to outweigh the facts, that is to say, the archaeological evidence obtained by excavation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , 1926 , pp. 110 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Phil. Woch., 1925, p. 1300 ff.

2 B.S.A., xxiv. p. 185 fi.; xxv. p. 1 ff.

3 J.H.S. 1925, pp. 45, 74, 263 ff.

3a In a recent letter Professor Kurt Müller writes:—‘Ich halte trotzdem die vonEvans vorgeschlagene Datierung nicht für bewiesen und soweit ich seine Gründe kenne, auch für schwerlichbeweisbar.… Zweitens halte ich die stilistische Reihe in die Sie die zehn Kuppelgräber gebracht haben fur ausserordentlich wahrscheinlich; der Möglichkeit, dass man diese Reihe etwa umkehren könnte (also mit Ihrer dritten Gruppe anfangen und mit der ersten schliessen) widerspricht vor allem die Erneuerung der Fassade am Aegistusgrab und was sich sonst über die Entwicklung der spätmykenischen Architektur des Festlandes sagen lässt.’

4 B.S.A., xxv. p. 387 ff.

5 Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, p. 168.

6 B.S.A., xxv. p. 376 ff.

7 B.S.A., xxv. p. 340.

8 B.S.A., xxv. pp. 347 ff., 356 ff.

9 Furtwängler-Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, p. 53Google Scholar; B.S.A., xxv. p. 353 ff.

10 B.S.A., xxv. p. 374; p. 368 ff.

11 Cf. Tsountas, , Ἐψ. Ἀρχ. 1888, p. 130.Google Scholar

12 Fimmen, , Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur, p. 144.Google Scholar

13 B.S.A., xxv. p. 363 ff.; cf. Furtwängler-Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, p. 52.Google Scholar

14 Evans, , Palace of Minos, i. p. 563Google Scholar, Fig. 409.

15 Evans, , Prehistoric Tombs, p. 151.Google Scholar

16 Bull. Soc. R. d. Lettres d. Lund, 1924–25, Pl. XXXIX., p. 87.

17 Bosanquet-Dawkins, , Unpublished Objects, p. 23.Google Scholar

18 B.S.A., xxv. p. 367, Fig. 80.

19 B.S.A., x. p. 204; Bosanquet-Dawkins, , Unpublished Objects, p. 138 ff.Google Scholar

20 The date of the large lamp from Knossos (Evans, , Palace of Minos, i. p. 345Google Scholar, Fig. 249), which is of gypsum, not steatite, and much restored, seems uncertain. It was found near fragments of vases in the later Palace style (B.S.A., ix. p. 7), and was first published as Late Minoan, but is now dated back to M.M. III.

21 J.H.S., 1904, p. 324 ff.

22 B.S.A., viii. p. 55, Fig. 16.

23 See Dörpfeld apud Schliemann, , Tiryns, p. 292, Pl. IV.Google Scholar Professor Kurt Müller kindly informs me:—‘Er war im grossen Megaron in die Stufe für den Thron (an der Ostseite) verbaut, deren bedeutung ist bei unserer Untersuchung der Fussboden-malereien erkannt wurde. Sie wird bei Schliemann als “kleines Bassin” unbekannter Bestimmung bezeichnet. Diese Stufe ist allerdings spät. Das Megaron selbst gehört wahrscheinlich erst der dritten Burgan; die Stufe ist noch jünger, da ein älterer Stuckfussboden durchschlagen wurde, um sie zu verlegen; der bemalte Fussboden ist nitihr gleichzeitig oder jünger. Das Spiralband waraber so verbaut dass es gar nicht sichtbar war. Die Steine sind also, wie Dörpfeld richtig sagt, wieder verwendet und ihr Schmuck stammt aus einer Zeit die sicher älter ist als die Anlage der Stufe, wie alt ergiebt sich jedoch nicht aus den Fundumständen. Evans fragte mich danach und ich habe ihm die gleiche Auskunft gegeben. Das Stuck lässt sich also nicht zur Datierung in Ihrem Sinne verwenden, kann aber ganz gut frühes L.H. III. sein, wurde also auch für Evans Datierung nichts beweisen.’

24 Schliemann, , Tiryns, Pl. IV.Google Scholar, cf. Dörp feld, ibid. p. 284 ff.

25 B.M. Sculpt. III. No. 2725.

26 B.M. Sculpt. I. No. 1.

27 The frieze from the Tomb of Clytermnestra is even in the same stone as the spiral frieze from Tiryns.

28 B.S.A., xxv. p. 236, Fig. 47 a.

29 Sir Arthur regrets that in the Mycenae report no reference is made to his subdivision of L.M. I. into a and b, though the evidence and details of this subdivision are not yet published. The excavators of Palaikastro, though they do class one or two vases as L.M.I. b, group L.M. I. and II. together (Bosanquet-Dawkins, , Unpublished Objects, p. 23Google Scholar). The British Museum Catalogue (i. 1, p. xxxvii) treats L.M. I. b summarily and groups it with L.M. II. a, while L.M. II. b is not mentioned. Seager says that much of the L.M. I. pottery from East Cretan sites looks as though it belonged to the end of L.M. II. (Pseira, p. 30), and SirArthur, himself (Palace of Minos, i. p. 30)Google Scholar has said that ‘all stratigraphical demarcations are of their nature somewhat arbitrary.’ So since he also says (op. cit. p. 29) that the L.M. II. style is a special product of Knossos, which practically is unknown in East Crete, and that fashions changed later in places remote from Knossos, it would be unsafe to apply the Knossian system too rigidly to Mycenae. Thus in the Mycenae report the broad divisions of L.H. I. and II. are preserved as being more in keeping with Mainland conditions, though further stratigraphie exploration on Mainland sites may in time enable us to subdivide these periods. It would, however, be premature to do so now, till the Cretan subdivisions are surely established.

30 Vol. I. Pt. 1, p. xxxviii.

31 B.S.A., xxv. pp. 30, 34, 40 ff., 51 ff.

32 B.S.A., xvii. p. 18 ff.

33 Furtwängler-Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pls. XXXIII. 317, XXXIV. 340.Google Scholar

34 Furtwängler-Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pls. XXXVII., XXXVIII.Google Scholar

35 Ath. Mitt., 1917, p. 71.

36 B.S.A., xxv. p. 357; cf. Pl. V. e and f:Pl. V. e is early L.H. III. and of good fabric, but Pl. V. f is late, of inferior fabric, belongs to the Granary Class and is painted inside. This type of bowl isa common and typical shape on the Mainland throughout L.H. III. It is rare in Crete, where it does not appear till late (Bosanquet-Dawkins, op. cit., p. 113). Only about a dozen examples are exhibited in the Candia Museum. It is prominent in the quasi-geometric style of Vrokastro (Hall, , Vrokastro, Pl. XXIX.Google Scholar).

37 Cf. Fimmen, , Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur, pp. 94, 144.Google Scholar

37a Gjerstad, , Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, p. 325 ff.Google Scholar

38 Prehistoric Tombs, p. 126.

39 Op. cit., loc. cit.

40 Sir Arthur says the resemblance of the L.H. III. panelled style to Geometric ware implies thatit must belate (J.H.S., 1925, p. 264). On the other hand, he classes the Cretan close style as L.M. III. a, although he says that it anticipates Geometric pottery in many respects (Tomb of Double Axes, p. 17; Prehistoric Tombs, p. 126).

41 B.M. Cat. Vases, I. 1, p. xxxviii.

42 Bosanquet-Dawkins, , Unpublished Objects, p. 95, Fig. 79Google Scholar; p. 100, Fig. 83; p. 101, Fig. 84; Pl. XXIII; cf. p. 89, Fig. 73.

43 J.H.S., 1903, p. 198.

44 Maraghiannis, , Ant. Crétoises, i. Pl. XXI.Google Scholar

45 Evans, , Tomb of Double Axes, p. 16 ff., Pl. II.Google Scholar

46 E.g. Evans, , Prehistoric Tombs, Pl. C., p. 158 ff.Google Scholar, Figs. 143, 144.

47 Ibid., p. 159, Fig. 144.

48 Maraghiannis, , Ant. Crétoises, Pl. XXI. 1.Google Scholar

49 Bosanquet-Dawkins, , Unpublished Objects, p. 95Google Scholar, Fig. 79.

50 Bosanquet-Dawkins, op. cit., p. 113.

51 I. 1, p. xxxviii.

52 B.S.A., ix. p. 317 ff.; x. p. 196.

53 Cf. Fimmen, , Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur, p. 197.Google Scholar

54 B.S.A., xxv. p. 50 ff.

55 B.S.A., xxv. pp. 40, 47.

56 B.S.A., xxv. pp. 34, 41.

57 Myk. Vasen, Pl. XXXVII. 380; cf. B.S.A., xxv. Pls. VII. a, b; X. g

58 B.S.A., xxv. Pl. V. f.

59 Myk. Vasen, p. 63.

60 B.S.A., xvii. Pl. XIV., 43, 44. A similar fragment from Paros, (Ath. Mitt., 1917, p. 70 ff. Fig. 80)Google Scholar was not stratified as stated in the British Museum Vase Catalogue (I. 1, p. xliii.) and by SirArthur, (J.H.S., 1925, p. 75).Google Scholar

61 B.S.A., xxv. Pl VIII. a.

62 Bosanquet-Dawkins, , Unpublished Objects, p. 23.Google Scholar

63 B.S.A., xxv. p. 27; p. 19, Fig. 4.

64 B.S.A., xxv. p. 29 ff.

65 Bull. Soc. R. d. Lettres d. Lund, 1924–5, Pls. XXX., XLV.

66 B.S.A., xxv. p. 30, 2.

67 Ibid., xxv. p. 20 ff.

68 E.g. B.S.A., xxv. p. 25, Fig. 7 a–g; Pl. V. b, d.

69 B.S.A., xxv. Pl. V. c, e.

70 As in the British Museum Vase Catalogue (I. 1, p. xli), where the classification hangs on one flower and other designs are not taken into account.

71 See Petrie, , Tell-el-Amarna, Pl. XXVI. ff.Google Scholar

72 Petrie, op. cit., Pl. XXVI. 1, 3, 19; XXX. 114, 115, 117, 118.

73 Cf. Petrie, op. cit., Pl. XXVI. 11, with B.S.A., xxv. p. 22, Fig. 6 g.

74 Montelius, , Grèce Préclassique, Pls. 110Google Scholar (2), 117 (9, 10, 12, 13); Blegen, , Korakou, p. 19 ff.Google Scholar, Figs. 28, 30.

75 Blegen, , Korakou, p. 24Google Scholar, Fig. 34; Ἐψ. Ἀρχ. 1912, p. 3, Fig. 1 (3).

76 Blegen, , Korakou, p. 28Google Scholar; B.S.A., XXV. p. 140 ff.; Furtwängler-Loeschcke, , Myk. Thongefässe, Pls. VIII.–X.Google Scholar

77 Ἐψ. Ἀρχ. 1898, p. 74, Fig. 13; 1912, p. 9, Fig. 5 (1).

78 Ath. Mitt., 1909, Pls. XVI., XXIII.; Ἐψ. Ἀρχ. 1914, p. 115, Fig. 25, Pl. II. 2.

79 Furtwängler-Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pl. XXXIV. 341.Google Scholar

80 Ἐψ. Ἀρχ. 1912, pp. 16, 17, Figs. 7 (7), 9(7).

81 Cf. Fimmen, , Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur, p. 197.Google Scholar

82 Cf. Fimmen, , Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur, pp. 145, 197Google Scholar; B.S.A., xxv. p. 47; ix. p. 317 ff.; E. H. Hall, Vrokastro.

83 B.S.A., xxv. p. 357, Fig. 76 a, Pl. V. e.

84 Myk. Vasen, Pl. XXXIII. 317, XXXIV. 340.

85 Petrie, , Tell-el-Amarna, Pl. XXX. 114.Google Scholar

86 Petrie, , Tell-el-Amarna, Pl. XXIX: 79Google Scholar, XXX. 114, 115, 117, 118.

87 Bosanquet-Dawkins, , Unpublished Objects, p. 95Google Scholar, Fig. 79.

88 E.g. B.M. Cat. Vases, I. 1, p. xlii.

89 Myk. Vasen, Pl. XXXIII. 315, 317, 318, 319, 322, 324, 327; cf. the ivory from Mycenae, Fig. 36.

90 Myk. Vasen, p. 63.

91 Cf. Evans, , Prehistoric Tombs, p. 159Google Scholar, Fig. 144, with Bosanquet-Dawkins, , Unpublished Objects, p. 95Google Scholar, Fig. 79: see too Müller, K., Ath. Mitt. 1909, p. 320.Google Scholar