THE HEROIC AGE OF GREECE.
The literary records of the Heroic Age of Greece resemble those of
the northern Heroic Age in several respects. Both literatures alike
begin with heroic poems which, as we shall see later, possess many
common characteristics. Then, at a much later date, we find in both
literatures a new series of narrative works dealing again with the old
stories. Lastly, in both cases works of all periods, both poetic and
prose, contain frequent incidental references to the same stories,
testifying thereby to their popularity. In Greek literature indeed
such references occur more frequently than in that of the Teutonic
peoples--a fact doubtless due to the preservation of great poems of the
former period, which at an early date came to be regarded as classics
or something more. Among the northern peoples, as we have seen, it
was only in England that any considerable amount of the early heroic
poetry was preserved; but here the continuity of literary development
was broken through political causes, and consequently all memory of the
Heroic Age was practically lost.
On the other hand we have no evidence for the Heroic Age of Greece in
any way comparable with those more or less contemporary Roman works
which enable us to identify many of the characters and incidents of
the northern Heroic Age. In Greece the Heroic Age had passed away
long before the date of the earliest historical documents which have
come down to us; while though inscriptions of a remote antiquity are
still in existence, none prior to the seventh, or possibly the eighth
century, have as yet been deciphered. Further, the monuments of the
surrounding countries, such as Egypt or Assyria, make no reference to
Greece beyond the occasional bare mention of a geographical or tribal
name. Hence it comes about that we cannot with certainty pronounce any
single person or event of the Heroic Age to be historical. All that it
has been possible as yet to verify is the existence of ancient centres
of civilisation in certain localities which figure prominently in
stories of the Heroic Age. Archaeological investigation has shown that
some of these places possessed at one time an extraordinary amount of
wealth and splendour, though within the historical period they were
inconsiderable or even uninhabited.
* * * * *
Of the early heroic poetry very little has come down to us except the
two great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, which between them contain
nearly 28,000 verses. These poems are, strictly speaking, anonymous,
though from very ancient times, at least from the seventh century,
the name Homer has been associated with them. In the Alexandrian age
there were critics who believed that the Iliad and Odyssey were the
work of different authors; but it is only within modern times that they
have been considered to be of composite formation. At present it is
probably the most prevalent view that the Iliad was formed gradually
in the course of the ninth century and that it attained substantially
its present form about the middle of the eighth century. The Odyssey is
generally thought to be a later work. Its date is set by many as late
as the seventh century, though it is believed to have used and probably
incorporated earlier poems, of the ninth or eighth century. There
are however still a number of scholars who both deny the composite
authorship of the poems and also believe them to be of greater
antiquity than the dates here given.
Apart from the Iliad and Odyssey the only early heroic poem which has
come down to us is the Shield of Heracles, a work containing 480 verses
and giving an account of the single combat between Heracles and Cycnos.
It has been attributed to Hesiod by various writers, at least since the
Alexandrian period; indeed the Argument cites Stesichoros as authority
for this belief. At the present time however most scholars regard it
as the work of an unknown poet of the seventh century[250].
In ancient times there were a considerable number of other early epic
poems, of which only a few insignificant fragments now remain. Some
of these, the Cypria, Aithiopis, Little Iliad (Ἰλιὰς μικρά), Iliu
Persis and Nostoi, dealt with the same cycle of story as the Iliad
and Odyssey. They seem however to have been of much smaller compass
and to have treated their subjects in a far less detailed manner. It
is thought by many that the Cypria was composed as an introduction to
the Iliad and the others as continuations of it--the Nostoi connecting
on to the Odyssey. At all events they were utilised by the authors of
the prose κύκλοι, in Alexandrian and Roman times, for the purpose of
presenting a connected account of the whole story[251].
The authorship of these poems is attributed in late writings to a
number of persons--Stasinos of Cyprus, Arctinos of Miletos, Lesches of
Lesbos and Agias of Troizen--of whom nothing definite is known, but
who are believed to have lived either in the eighth century or in the
early part of the seventh. In early times however--indeed probably
down to the fourth century--it seems to have been the general belief
that several, possibly all, of them were by Homer. Herodotus (II 117)
expresses his disbelief in Homer's authorship of the Cypria; but his
words imply that he was contesting a commonly accepted view. On the
other hand Hellanicos[252], who was approximately contemporary with
Herodotus, is said to have attributed the Little Iliad (including
possibly the Iliu Persis) not to Lesches or Arctinos but to a certain
Cinaithon of Lacedaemon, who is said to have lived before the middle
of the eighth century. Lastly we must mention the Telegoneia, a sequel
to the Odyssey, which is said to have been composed by Eugammon of
Cyrene[253], probably in the sixth century.
Apart from the series of poems dealing with the siege of Troy the
most famous of the early epics was the Thebais, which gave the story
of the legendary kings of Thebes. This poem was attributed to Homer by
Callinos of Ephesus[254] who lived early in the seventh century--which
probably implies that it was not of recent composition even then.
It had a sequel called Epigonoi, which likewise seems to have been
attributed to Homer, though Herodotus (IV 32) again apparently felt
doubtful. In addition to these mention may be made of the Oidipodeia,
which also dealt with the Theban story, and of the Oichalias Halosis
and Phocais, which were concerned with adventures of Heracles.
All the poems mentioned above were probably composed in quite early
times, though we have practically no trustworthy data as to their age
or authorship. A number of other epics bore the names of persons who
were attributed to the eighth or seventh centuries, such as Cinaithon
(see above), Eumelos of Corinth and Asios of Samos. These however seem
to have been rather of a genealogical than heroic character. Peisandros
of Rhodes, the author of an epic on Heracles, is also referred, though
on rather doubtful authority, to the close of this period. But the
other epic poets whose names have survived seem to have belonged to
a considerably later time. The didactic epos began, under Hesiod,
apparently before the end of the eighth century, while early in the
following century there arose new types of poetry, elegiac and iambic,
concerned chiefly with present topics and the personal interests of the
poets, and seldom even referring to the Heroic Age. The last remark
is true also, though to a less extent, of the early lyric poetry. But
in the early part of the sixth century Stesichoros of Himera began to
utilise it for presenting stories of the Heroic Age in a new form. In
Pindar's odes too, nearly a century later, the allusions to heroic
stories are very frequent and often of considerable length. One ode
indeed contains almost an epos.
In the fifth century however the Heroic Age figures most prominently
in Athenian tragedy. Of the seven extant plays of Aeschylus four or
five[255] deal with the Heroic Age and one with contemporary history,
while the last is concerned exclusively with supernatural beings. Of
the two later dramatists, Sophocles and Euripides, all the surviving
plays[256] take their subjects from the Heroic Age. Further, we know
the names of a large number of lost plays, both by these and other
authors, and from them it appears that the surviving pieces are fairly
representative, so far as choice of subjects is concerned. During the
same period we hear of a few epic poets whose works are now lost. Some
of these, such as Panyasis and Antimachos, dealt with stories of the
Heroic Age and some, as Choirilos, with contemporary history. About
two centuries later heroic epic poetry was cultivated at Alexandria,
especially by Apollonius Rhodius.
Among incidental references to the Heroic Age one of the most
interesting occurs in Hesiod's Works and Days (vv. 156-170), where
an age of the heroes[257] who fell at Thebes and Troy is introduced
between the bronze age and the iron age. Herodotus' history abounds
with references to the Heroic Age, and even Thucydides refers to it not
unfrequently, though in a more critical spirit. In later times we have
to notice especially antiquarian writers such as Strabo and above all
Pausanias. The last-named derived his information very largely from
local tradition and consequently the stories which he gives may often
be independent of the poems.
* * * * *
We may now consider briefly the chronological aspect of the Greek
Heroic Age. It has already been mentioned that a passage in Hesiod's
Works and Days speaks of an age of heroes intermediate between the
bronze and iron ages, and that it further defines these heroes as
those who fought at Thebes and Troy. To the latter number belong no
doubt the various characters of the Iliad and Odyssey and the other
poems (Cypria, etc.) which dealt with the Trojan cycle of legend,
while the deeds of the former must have been treated in the Thebais
and the Epigonoi. In the surviving Attic dramas which deal with
the Heroic Age the distribution of subjects is as follows. Sixteen
plays (three by Aeschylus, three by Sophocles and ten by Euripides,
including the Cyclops and Rhesos) treat of the heroes of the Trojan
war or their children; six plays (one by Aeschylus, three by Sophocles
and two by Euripides) deal with the Theban story; and six plays (one
by Sophocles and five by Euripides) are concerned with the doings of
Heracles, Theseus or Iason. It is to be observed that the heroes of
the Theban story are always represented as belonging to the generation
immediately preceding that of the heroes of Troy, while Heracles,
Theseus and Iason are all loosely connected with one another and made
roughly contemporary with the Theban heroes. The remaining three plays
(Aeschylus' Suppliants and Euripides' Ion and Bacchai), if we are
justified in regarding them as heroic at all, refer to persons much
farther back in the genealogies.
It appears then that the characters who figure most prominently in
stories of the Heroic Age were, with few exceptions, ascribed to a
period covering not more than three or four generations. There are, it
is true, a number of stories referring to much earlier generations--in
addition to those treated in the three plays mentioned above--but they
seem to have been distinctly less popular than the others. On the other
hand there is scarcely any reference to persons later than the children
of the heroes who fought at Troy.
With the evidence at our disposal it is impossible to fix any absolute
dates for the Heroic Age. All that we can say is that the end of that
age appears to coincide with the movement or series of movements,
traditionally known as the Return of the Heracleidai, to which the
Dorian states in the Peloponnesos were believed to owe their origin.
According to the story, the Return took place in the second generation
after the siege of Troy, and the grandsons of Agamemnon, the Achaean
leader at the siege, were killed or expelled by the Dorians. Certainly
it is to be noted that the scheme of tribal or political geography
presented to us in the Homeric poems seems to show no trace either of
Dorians in the Peloponnesos or of Ionic settlements in the eastern
Aegean--another series of movements which are said to have been brought
about by the Dorian conquest.
The great majority of scholars apparently regard the story of the
conquest as containing at least a nucleus of truth, though it refers to
times long anterior to what we should call the historical period. The
ancients themselves dated the events in question back to the twelfth or
eleventh century (B.C.). But the evidence on which their conclusions
were based is not of a very satisfactory character and will require
careful consideration.
* * * * *
Before entering upon this question it will be convenient to notice
briefly the scenes of the stories and the localities and peoples to
which the various characters belong. The scene of the Iliad is laid
in the north-west corner of Asia Minor, a short distance south of the
Dardanelles. But the stories introduced incidentally refer for the most
part to places on the mainland of Greece, less frequently to localities
in Asia Minor or Thrace. The distribution of the principal heroes is
as follows: Agamemnon's territories, according to the Catalogue of
Ships (Il. II 569 ff.), lie in the north-east of the Peloponnesos,
including the north-western part of what was later called Argolis
and at least the eastern half of Achaia. Elsewhere (Il. IX 149 ff.,
291 ff.) he appears to have possessions in Messenia. His brother,
Menelaos, rules over Sparta and other places in Laconia. Nestor's
kingdom is on the western side of the Peloponnesos, to the south
of Elis. Idomeneus belongs to Crete, Achilles to southern Thessaly
(Phthiotis), Aias, the son of Telamon, to Salamis, his namesake to the
eastern Locris, Diomedes to the eastern and southern parts of Argolis
and Odysseus to the Ionian Isles. It must not be overlooked that most
of these districts were of little or no political importance during the
historical period and, further, that the territories of the kingdoms
appear not to have coincided as a rule with the political divisions
which we find in later times.
The scene of the Odyssey is laid chiefly in the Ionian Isles, to a much
smaller extent in the Peloponnesos. The wanderings of the hero himself
appear to lie chiefly in regions to the west of Greece, though there
may be reminiscences of the Black Sea. Some scholars relegate them
largely or altogether to the realm of fairyland. Incidental references
occur to Thesprotis (Epeiros) and the Aegean, as well as to more
distant lands such as Egypt.
Thebes was doubtless the scene of the lost Thebais and Epigonoi. The
story of Pelops seems to have been connected chiefly with Elis and
that of Perseus with Mycenae and Tiryns, while Minos belonged to Crete
and Theseus to Athens. Iason's home was in eastern Thessaly, but his
story is largely taken up with journeys in the Black Sea and other
distant regions. Heracles' adventures are spread over the greater part
of Greece and many other lands, though Boeotia and Malis are perhaps
the districts most prominent in his story. The scene of the Shield of
Heracles is laid in Phthiotis.
It appears then that the heroic stories are distributed over the
greater part of the ancient Greek world. Certain districts however are
excepted, and to these special attention should be given. In the first
place we have practically no reference to Greek cities in Italy or
Sicily or to heroes belonging to them, though we do hear occasionally
of travellers' acquaintance with these countries. More important is
the absence of any mention of Greek cities in Asia Minor[258] and the
adjacent islands, except those off the coast of Caria. The legends
which speak of colonies led to Lesbos by Penthilos the son of Orestes
or to Miletos and elsewhere by the sons of Codros are hardly to be
reckoned among heroic traditions. The names indeed, at least in the
first case, are taken from this source, but they form the subject of
no connected story. Miletos is mentioned in the Trojan catalogue (Il.
II 868), but it is said to be in the possession of the Carians. To
Chios there is only a geographical reference (Od. III 170 ff.), and
though Lesbos is mentioned more frequently its inhabitants are treated
as enemies by the Achaeans. The only real exceptions are the southern
islands, several of which, such as Rhodes and Cos, send contingents
to Agamemnon's army. Cyprus too seems to be fairly well known and its
princes, though they take no part in the expedition, are on friendly
terms with the Achaeans--a fact which renders the absence of reference
to the Ionic cities all the more striking. In Greece itself nearly
every district has a story connected with it. Attica however is one of
the least prominent and possesses no hero of much note except Theseus.
For the tribal distinctions which figure so prominently in later Greek
history there is extremely little evidence in stories of the Heroic
Age. The name Αἰολέες is not mentioned in the Homeric poems, while
Δωριέες occurs only once, as the name of one of the five peoples of
Crete, and Ἰάονες once as that of a people (perhaps the Athenians)
associated with the Locrians and Boeotians. On the other hand the
most frequently used of all national designations is Ἀχαιοί, a
name which in later times was borne only by the inhabitants of two
comparatively unimportant districts, Phthiotis and the north coast of
the Peloponnesos. In the Homeric poems it appears to be a collective
term for the inhabitants of Greece and the surrounding islands. In the
same sense we find also Δαναοί, a name which later is used only in
archaistic poetry. Ἀργεῖοι and Ἕλληνες seem properly to be geographical
terms, though the former occurs frequently (the latter only once[259],
in the form Πανέλληνες) as a synonym for Ἀχαιοί. Names of peoples,
such as Ἄβαντες, Ἐπειοί, Αἰτωλοί, are of course frequently used; but
they denote comparatively small sections of the nation.
Though the term Ἀχαιοί is used for the inhabitants of Greece
collectively, it may of course really be the name of a tribe or people
which was regarded as dominant at the time. At all events in Od. XIX
176 we find the Achaeans mentioned as merely one of five peoples which
inhabit Crete. As an instance of a people who were apparently never
included among the Achaeans we may take the Pelasgoi mentioned in the
same passage. Here however we are faced with a question of nationality,
for Herodotus speaks of the Pelasgoi of his own time as a barbarous
people[260], though at the same time he holds that several Greek
peoples, especially the Ionians and Athenians, were sprung from them.
No indication is given in the Homeric poems that the Pelasgoi spoke a
foreign language; but this remark is true also of many Asiatic peoples,
including the Trojans.
On the question of Greek nationality there is unfortunately very little
evidence either in the Homeric poems or in other stories relating to
the Heroic Age. We cannot even tell whether the population of the
Greek mainland was believed to be homogeneous. Only in the case of
Crete is detailed ethnographical information given. In a passage cited
above we are told that this island contained five peoples, namely
the Achaeans, Eteocretes, Cydones, Dorians and Pelasgoi. The first
and fourth of these are well-known sections of the Greek nation, but
we have no satisfactory evidence as to the nationality of the others.
Herodotus (I 173) says that the Lycians came originally from Crete and
adds that the whole of the island was once possessed by barbarians.
Interesting light on the latter statement has been thrown by the recent
discovery of certain inscriptions at Praisos, in what is said to have
been the Eteocretan part of the island. These inscriptions are written
in forms of the Greek alphabet which were current in the sixth and
fourth centuries (B.C.) respectively, but the language is not Greek.
Besides these numerous inscriptions dating from much earlier times
have been found at Cnossos and elsewhere; but they have not yet been
deciphered. All that can be said at present is that we have no reason
for discrediting Herodotus' statement.
In Greece itself we have not such clear evidence for the prevalence
of a non-Greek language. Here we are dependent on somewhat doubtful
inferences from place-names. Yet the majority of scholars would not
admit that the language was indigenous. Indeed the tendency at present
is to believe that Greece and the Aegean islands were originally
inhabited by peoples of one stock, the existence of which can be traced
back in Crete for many thousands of years, and that these peoples were
ultimately overwhelmed and absorbed--perhaps in the course of the
second millennium--by invaders from the north. Asia Minor is supposed
to have had a somewhat similar history. Originally it is believed
to have been occupied by various kindred peoples, of which the most
prominent were the Hittites of Cappadocia. Eventually--about 1200
B.C. according to the most recent view[261]--there took place a great
irruption of Thraco-Phrygian peoples from the north-west, who became
dominant throughout the larger part of the peninsula[262].
In the Iliad the forces ranged in defence of Troy are drawn from a
wide area, extending from the Axios (Vardar) on the west to Paphlagonia
on the east and Lycia on the south. The nationalities represented seem
to be chiefly of Thraco-Phrygian stock, though a few, such as the
Lycians and perhaps the Carians, belong to the indigenous population.
On the other hand there is no reason for supposing that any of the
peoples represented in Agamemnon's army were of other than Greek
nationality. The story may therefore be regarded as one of national
conflict. Yet it cannot be said that this feature is ever emphasised in
the poems themselves, although the point of view throughout is that of
an Achaean.
For local or tribal patriotism the Homeric poems furnish us with little
or no evidence. No Greek communities and few even of their princes are
described otherwise than in terms of respect. We may point also to the
old controversy regarding Homer's birthplace--a controversy which owes
its very existence to the absence of any local patriotism in the poems.
In this respect it will be seen that Greek heroic poetry agrees with
Teutonic.
* * * * *
We must now return to the consideration of the chronological problem.
In ancient times, especially during the Alexandrian period, various
attempts were made to calculate the exact date of the siege of Troy. Of
these the most generally accepted was that of Eratosthenes, which was
based on the length of the reigns ascribed to the kings of Sparta. This
calculation brought the foundation of the Dorian kingdom at Sparta to
the year 1104-3, and eighty years were added to obtain the date of the
fall of Troy. But it has long been pointed out that the figures given
for the reigns of the early kings are so greatly above the average that
they cannot be regarded with any confidence. Thus the first Olympiad
(B.C. 776-5) was made to coincide with the tenth (or eleventh) year of
Alcamenes and Theopompos. Alcamenes was the ninth in succession from
Eurysthenes and Theopompos the eighth from Procles, and the number of
years ascribed to the previous reigns amounts on the average to over
thirty-five years for one dynasty and over thirty-nine for the other.
But in kingdoms for which we have reliable information extending over
a long period of time the usual average length is apparently between
twenty and twenty-five years[263]. Hence, if the lists of kings
themselves are to be trusted--and even this is very doubtful in view
of the fact that they are almost identical with the genealogies--it is
difficult to avoid suspecting that the total period ascribed to their
reigns collectively is more than a century too long.
More reliance is perhaps to be placed on the genealogies of the two
royal families given by Herodotus (VII 204, VIII 131). Leonidas (r.
488-480) and Leotychidas (r. 491-469), with whom we are on sure
historical ground, are represented as fifteenth in descent from
Eurysthenes and Procles respectively. According to all analogies
therefore we should expect that the two latter flourished not very
long before the middle of the tenth century. In other words the date
given by Eratosthenes for the 'Return of the Heracleidai' would
seem to be from a century to a century and a half too early. A very
reasonable explanation of the difficulty has been suggested by Prof.
Meyer who points out that several passages in Herodotus' history seem
to imply the reckoning of a generation at forty years[264]. Among the
figures given we find (II 145) Heracles dated about 1330. Cleomenes,
his descendant in the twentieth generation, was born about 530, or at
all events not much later. For Eurysthenes and Procles, in the fifth
generation from Heracles, this would give about 1130, which is not very
far from the date fixed by Eratosthenes.
It is to be remembered in the first place that the date fixed for
Eurysthenes and Procles is apparently that of their birth, and,
secondly, that Eratosthenes' scheme is probably only a modification
of a previously existing system, other varieties of which are quoted
by Prof. Meyer[265]. Indeed it would not require any great exercise
of ingenuity to point out traces of a more or less symmetrical
distribution of the period covered by the reigns of the early Spartan
kings[266]. But, apart from any such speculations, we can hardly
doubt, in the light of Prof. Meyer's showing, that the date for
Eurysthenes and Procles is derived ultimately from a calculation based
on the genealogies rather than from any contemporary written record
or tradition. The genealogies themselves of course may represent
tradition, so far as they are not interpolated[267], but they point,
as we have seen, to a much later date than that which we have been
discussing[268]. If we substitute 32 × 15 for 40 × 15, starting from
the birth of Cleomenes, we are brought to about the year 1000. That
must be regarded as the date really indicated by Spartan tradition for
the birth of Eurysthenes and Procles.
We may now turn for a moment to the genealogies of the other Heraclid
families, namely those of Argos, Messenia and Corinth. The first
of these places Pheidon in the sixth generation, according to one
version, in the ninth according to another, from Temenos, the uncle
of Eurysthenes and Procles. Unfortunately different dates are assigned
for Pheidon. The earliest, which is not generally accepted, places
his reign about the middle of the eighth century. But even this,
taking the longer form of the genealogy, does not carry us appreciably
farther back than the Agiad list. The Corinthian genealogy places the
last king, who is said to have been killed in 747, in the thirteenth
generation from Heracles. This would agree with the longer form of the
Argive genealogy; several of the names however are generally regarded
as suspicious. The Messenian genealogy is materially shorter.
Apart from these Dorian genealogies there are some notices relating
to the ancestry of persons belonging to other parts of Greece, which
must not be ignored. Herodotus (II 143) states that Hecataeus, who
was a prominent man at the beginning of the fifth century, claimed to
be descended in the sixteenth (i.e. fifteenth) generation from a god.
This probably takes us back to the Heroic Age, when divine parentage
is common, whereas later it appears to be almost, if not entirely,
unknown[269]. Again, it is believed that the genealogy of the Philaidai
at Athens, which actually survives, though only in a corrupt form[270],
placed Philaios, the son of Aias, in the twelfth generation above
Hippocleides, who was archon in 566. Further, according to Pausanias (I
11), Tharypas, king of the Molossoi, who was born soon after the middle
of the fifth century, claimed to be descended in the fifteenth or
sixteenth generation from Pyrrhos the son of Achilles. It will be seen
that, though these genealogies do not agree exactly, the discrepancy is
not very great. They seem to indicate the existence of a belief that
persons who flourished in the first half of the fifth century were
removed by about fifteen generations from the Heroic Age.
On the other hand Pindar (_Pyth._ IV 9 ff.) in an ode written in 466
and addressed to Arcesilaos IV, king of Cyrene, places that king's
seventh ancestor, Battos I, in the sixteenth generation from Euphemos
the Argonaut, a contemporary of Heracles. This exceeds even the Agiad
reckoning, for Pleistarchos, the representative of that family reigning
in 466, was only in the twenty-first generation from Heracles. From the
other non-Heraclid genealogies we should have expected that the number
of generations to Arcesilaos would be about what is recorded for Battos
I[271].
Whatever may be the explanation of this case, it will be seen that
the other non-Heraclid genealogies are shorter than that of the
Agidai by at least three generations--if we equate Philaios, Pyrrhos
(Neoptolemos) and the grandson of Hecataeus' god with Aristomachos
the grandfather of Eurysthenes. The dates which they indicate for the
'floruit' of these persons are in no case earlier than the middle of
the tenth century. As to the relative value of the two traditions we
have nothing to guide us, and the same remark applies to the Greek
genealogical evidence in general. Two points however must be insisted
upon: (i) that the calculations of scholars of the Alexandrian age, or
even earlier times, are not to be interpreted as evidence of tradition;
(ii) that the evidence of tradition, whatever be its value, brings
the end of the Heroic Age at least towards the close of the eleventh
century.
* * * * *
Apart from the evidence discussed above, unsatisfactory as it doubtless
is, chronological data for the Heroic Age itself seem to be entirely
wanting. We know however that a highly advanced civilisation flourished
in the Aegean in early times, and that it was succeeded by a long
period in which both art and general culture were at a very low ebb.
This latter period, which is commonly known as 'geometrical' from the
type of art which prevailed in it, lasted, so far as one can judge,
until about the end of the eighth century, at which time oriental
influence began to make its appearance. The 'orientalising' period
again continued down to the beginning of the classical age. It is a
common and natural hypothesis to equate the low-watermark of culture
early in the geometrical period with the generations immediately
following the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesos. But unfortunately
we cannot thereby obtain any certain date for the latter, since Greece
appears to have had little contact with the outside world during the
geometrical period.
In recent years some advance has been made through the operations
carried out by the British School at Sparta, which is perhaps the most
important site for our purpose. From the stratification of the deposits
Mr Dawkins, the director, has come to the conclusion that the earliest
temple and altar at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia date from the ninth
or even the tenth century[272]. The temple, which must have been one
of the earliest known, appears to have been a narrow and unpretentious
structure of crude brick and timber. Some geometrical sherds were found
beneath the floor, a fact which shows that the sanctuary had been in
use somewhat earlier. If the sanctuary was founded at the beginning of
the Dorian settlement at Sparta it is obvious that this result agrees
well enough with the date indicated for the conquest by tradition. No
relics of pre-geometrical times appear to have been found.
When we turn back to the times of the earlier civilisation it is
much easier to establish chronological equations; for the presence
of Egyptian objects among Aegean remains and of Aegean objects or
representations of Aegean objects in Egypt shows that there was
frequent communication between the two areas. Thus there is little
doubt that certain Cretan remains date from periods contemporaneous
with the twelfth and Hyksos dynasties. Others again clearly belong
to the period of the eighteenth dynasty--at all events the earlier
part of it. As to the date of the destruction of the Cretan palaces
opinions still differ considerably; the most recent statement by Dr
Evans is in favour of about 1350[273]. But this catastrophe did not
bring the Aegean civilisation to an end. We find inscriptions dating
from the subsequent period (Late Minoan III) apparently quite similar
to those discovered in the earlier stratum, and the various artistic
types, though decadent, show no breach of continuity. Indeed 'Mycenean'
influence seems to have been more widespread (e.g. in Thessaly and
Italy) at this time than in any earlier period. In Egypt vases of the
same type are depicted in the wall-paintings on the tomb of Rameses
III, who died about 1170. After this time however traces of Mycenean
influence are rarely found in that country.
Within the last few years it has come to be noticed that the deposits
dating from the last Mycenean period fall into two well-marked groups.
The remarks made above, as to the art of Late Minoan III being a
continuation of that of the preceding period, apply properly only to
the first of these groups--represented by the cemeteries of Zafer
Papoura (Cnossos) and Phaistos, the late Mycenean megaron at Hagia
Triada (also in Crete) and the late palace at Phylakopi in Melos.
Other deposits, represented by the tombs found at Mouliana, Milatos,
Kavousi and Erganos (all in Crete), though they have certain features
in common with the former group, yet at the same time show a number of
characteristics which are entirely new. Of these the most important are
the practice of cremation and the use of fibulae and iron weapons, all
of which are unknown in the Aegean before this time. From a careful
study of the pottery found in these deposits Dr D. Mackenzie[274] has
come to the conclusion that it belongs to the same period as the famous
'Warrior Vase' from Mycenae. This again is obviously contemporary with
a painted stele, likewise representing warriors, which was found in
one of the latest graves in the lower town at the same place. Fibulae
also were found here in the same group of graves. The importance of
these observations lies in the fact that the armature of the warriors
depicted on the vase and the stele corresponds in all essentials to
what is described in the Homeric poems. This had already been pointed
out by Prof. Ridgeway[275]; but many scholars have attributed both
objects to a much later period. Now however in view of the sequence
which Dr Mackenzie has succeeded in tracing, in Cretan pottery and
other articles, from the time of the destruction of the palaces
onwards, it appears that the latter view can hardly be maintained.
Lastly, Dr Mackenzie has pointed out that all the above deposits
differ radically from those of the strict geometrical period found
in cemeteries at Cnossos and Courtes and in the 'beehive' tomb near
Kavousi (all in Crete). There are clear indications that all the latter
belong to a subsequent time.
As a result of his investigations then Dr Mackenzie has come to the
conclusion that three well-marked periods can be distinguished in
Cretan history, after the destruction of the palaces. But further, he
believes that each of these periods coincides with a new settlement in
the island--the true geometrical period with the Dorian settlement, the
'sub-Mycenean' with that of the Achaeans, and the last true Mycenean
period (Late Minoan III) with a settlement of Pelasgoi. The evidence of
the deposits found at Sparta and elsewhere tends distinctly to favour
the first of these identifications. For, though geometrical art was
by no means confined to the Dorians, it may be presumed that their
settlement was the latest of those which took place in Crete. Some
scholars hold that they came there from the Peloponnesos, while others
place their settlement in the island prior to the invasion of the
peninsula--and ancient authority can be obtained for both views. But in
either case it is improbable that the two events were separated by a
long interval. Again, the identification of the second or sub-Mycenean
period with that of Achaean settlement is rendered extremely probable
by the resemblance which deposits of this period show to objects and
customs described in the Homeric poems, e.g. in regard to armature and
the use of fibulae and cremation. In the poems the Achaeans are clearly
represented as dominant even in Crete, while in Greece itself, as we
have seen, the existence of other nationalities is practically ignored.
In regard to the earliest of the three settlements Dr Mackenzie's
theory may be open to more serious question. The ethnical affinities
of the Pelasgoi are still quite obscure. Again, although new types,
apparently derived from the mainland, do occur at this time, the break
of continuity with the preceding age does not seem to be anything like
so marked as in the subsequent periods. It is scarcely impossible that
the destruction of the palaces may be due to naval warfare or piracy
on a large scale, or even to commotions within the island itself. For
our purpose however this part of Dr Mackenzie's theory is of minor
importance[276].
In other respects at all events the theory seems to provide a very
satisfactory explanation of the phenomena. We have seen that the
Spartan evidence, whether traditional or archaeological, affords no
justification for dating the Dorian invasion very long before--or
after--1000 B.C. Now we find very good evidence for two distinct
periods of culture between that event and the destruction of the Cretan
palaces, which took place probably in the fourteenth century. The
later of these periods is the one with which we are chiefly concerned;
for Greek tradition universally places the Heroic Age in times
immediately preceding the Dorian invasion. It is therefore a fact of
great significance that the deposits of this age agree in so striking
a manner with the evidence of the Homeric poems. As to the relative
duration of the two periods (Late Minoan III and sub-Mycenean or
Achaean) archaeologists apparently have not as yet ventured to express
an opinion. But it may be observed that the poems themselves give no
indication that the Achaean dominion was believed to be of recent
growth. The Cretan king Idomeneus is one of the oldest leaders at Troy,
and his grandfather is said to have reigned at Cnossos before him. The
evidence of the poems then favours the idea that even in Crete Achaean
dominion lasted at least a century.
This brings us back nearly to times when, fortunately, historical
evidence is available once more, namely from the Egyptian monuments.
During the thirteenth and twelfth centuries Egypt was threatened
on several occasions by formidable armies. During the reign of
Merenptah, probably about 1220, it was attacked by a host of Libyans
and "foreign soldiers of the Libyans" whom "the miserable Libyan had
led hither[277]." The names given to the confederates are Akaiuasha,
Thuirsha (Turusha), Shakalesha (Shakarusha) and Shardina. Very early
in the next century, during the reign of Rameses III, a fresh attack
was made from the same quarter. A few years later Rameses encountered
both by land and sea a great host coming from the north. "The Isles
were restless, disturbed among themselves at one and the same time. No
land stood before them, beginning from Kheta (Cappadocia and Cilicia),
Kedi (the 'circling' of the Syrian coast at the Gulf of Iskanderun),
Carchemish, Arvad and Alashiya. They destroyed them, and assembled
in their camp in the midst of Amar (_Amurru_; Palestine)[278]." The
invaders here are called Shardina, Pulesatha (or Purusatha), Vashasha,
Tchakaray (Zakar) and Danaau (or Danauna)[279]. Other Shardina appear
to have been fighting on the side of the Egyptians. About a century
earlier the Hittites brought a great confederacy against Rameses II.
Among the names given here are Luka, Pidasa, Kalakisha, Dardenui and
Masa[280]. On this occasion also we find Shardina in the Egyptian army.
In the Tell-el-Amarna tablets, which date from shortly before the
middle of the fourteenth century, we hear of Sirdana (apparently the
same people) serving under the Egyptians in Palestine, and of attacks
made upon the coast by Lukki, who are believed to be identical with the
Luka[281].
Unfortunately scholars have not yet been able to come to any general
agreement as to the identification of most of these names. It is
commonly held that Pulesatha and Luka denote the Philistines and
Lycians respectively. Many writers also identify the Shardina with
the Sardinians and the Shakalesha with the Siceloi, but others
connect these names with Sardis and Sagalassos in Asia Minor. Other
identifications which have received more or less assent are those of
Akaiuasha, Thuirsha, Danaau, Dardenui and Masa with the Achaeans,
Tyrrhenians, Danaoi, Dardanoi and Mysians, and of Vashasha and Pidasa
with the inhabitants of Oaxos (in Crete) and Pedasos (in Caria)
respectively. It has been supposed also that the Tchakaray, who are
mentioned occasionally as mariners in later times, likewise belonged to
Crete.
In spite of the large element of doubt attaching to most of these
identifications one important conclusion may be drawn with safety,
namely that several of the nations mentioned had come from a
considerable distance. Even those scholars who deny the references
to Sicily and Sardinia hold that nearly all parts of the Aegean are
represented in the lists. The inscriptions frequently speak of the
invaders as coming from the sea or from islands. Thus the Pulesatha are
said to be "in the midst of the sea." Again the king "slaughtered the
Danauna in their isles[282]." We find also the expressions "Vashasha
of the sea," "Shardina of the sea," "Thuirsha of the sea[283]." Such
terms are said to be often used loosely; but under the eighteenth
and nineteenth dynasties the territories of the Hittite kingdom in
Syria and Cappadocia had become so well known to the Egyptians that
it is incredible that any of the peoples of that region can be meant.
The appearance too and the armature of the Shardina, as portrayed
on the monuments, are quite incompatible with the supposition that
they belonged to any of the countries round the south-east of the
Mediterranean.
We have seen that the northern invasion repelled by Rameses III was
preceded by 'disturbances in the isles,' while the lands of the
Hittites and their neighbours had apparently been overrun by the
invaders before the attack upon Egypt. Now it has been noted that the
great Hittite kingdom (in Cappadocia) appears to have been destroyed
about the same time. In explanation of this the theory has recently
been put forward[284] that the invasion repelled by Rameses III was
closely connected with that irruption of Thraco-Phrygian peoples into
Asia Minor to which we have already referred (p. 178). It will be seen
that this theory has an important bearing on the Homeric question;
for in the Iliad we find the Thraco-Phrygian peoples already fully
established in Asia Minor, and no hint is given that their settlement
there was believed to be in any sense recent.
But it is by no means impossible that the 'disturbances in the isles'
may refer to a displacement of population in a different quarter--which
may or may not be connected with the Phrygian settlement in Asia Minor.
The movement against Egypt was, in part at least, a maritime one, and
when Rameses is said to have slaughtered the invaders in their islands
the reference can hardly be to the old Hittite kingdom, which had long
been known to the Egyptians. Surely it is more natural to connect the
'disturbances' with those national movements in the southern Aegean
which eventually brought the Mycenean civilisation to an end. We have
seen that the last period of this civilisation is believed to have
begun in the fourteenth century and to have lasted some considerable
time. The convulsions of Rameses' time (the early years of the twelfth
century) may therefore mark a stage in the movements which brought
about its destruction.
In any case it is from the Egyptian monuments of this period that we
obtain the clearest evidence for contact between the true Mycenean
civilisation and that 'sub-Mycenean' or 'Achaean' type which followed
it. The warriors of the invading forces[285] are represented as armed
with swords of the regular Mycenean pattern or with spears of no
very great length. Some of them--the Pulesatha and Tchakaray--wear a
peculiar head-dress, apparently made of feathers[286], which recalls
the type used in later times by the Lycians according to Herodotus (VII
92). On the other hand the Shardina are depicted with very elaborate
helmets[287], which, except that they have no plumes, are almost
identical with those borne by the figures on the Warrior Vase (cf. p.
185). The Shardina and many of the Pulesatha also carry round shields,
held in one hand, as in the case of the warriors represented on the
Vase[288] and the Stele. This fact is especially noteworthy, since
the round shield seems to have been totally foreign not only to the
Egyptians themselves, but also to the Hittites and all neighbouring
peoples[289], while even in the Aegean area it was apparently not used
in centres of Mycenean civilisation[290]. On the other hand both these
features correspond to the type of armature described in the Homeric
poems. It would not be correct of course to say that the portraits of
the Shardina might be taken as faithful representations of Homeric
warriors. We find no trace of greaves, while the body-armour is of
a less elaborate type than that described in the poems[291]. The
Homeric type of armature--represented by the Warrior Vase as well as
in the poems--belongs clearly to a later stage of development than
the Shardina type, and therefore probably to a later age than the
early part of the twelfth century. Yet there is sufficient resemblance
between the two to render it more than likely that the one is descended
from the other.
Whatever may have been the causes which brought about the movement
encountered by Rameses III, some of the other references point
distinctly to bands of mercenary soldiers, rather than to national
migrations. This is especially clear in the case of the Shardina,
who are mentioned for the first time as serving under the Egyptians
in Palestine. But the earliest reference--in the Tell-el-Amarna
letters--carries us back to the destruction of the Cretan palaces, if
Dr Evans' date for this catastrophe is correct. It has been remarked
that, in striking contrast with Mycenae and other early centres of
civilisation in Greece, the Cretan palaces were almost entirely
unfortified; and the explanation commonly given of this fact is that
their owners ruled the seas. If this is true we must conclude that the
earliest maritime expeditions of the Shardina and their confederates
did not take place without their consent.
* * * * *
In the course of this discussion we have seen that, though historical
evidence for the Greek Heroic Age is entirely wanting, later tradition
points to the eleventh century as the time to which the poems and
legends refer; and further, that, unsatisfactory as it doubtless is,
this evidence is corroborated to a considerable extent by the results
of archaeological investigation. In much earlier times various parts
of the Greek world possessed a high civilisation, which has left
remains of magnificent palaces and many elaborate works of art. The
evidence of these remains does not correspond at all to the state of
society revealed in the poems. But at the close of this earlier period
many new objects--belonging, it would seem, to a new population--make
their appearance; and these latter do fulfil the conditions required.
Lastly, it is of interest to note that from the fourteenth to the
twelfth century Egypt and the Levant were frequently visited by bands
of soldiers, who seem to have come from the Aegean or neighbouring
regions and who outwardly bear a somewhat striking resemblance to the
warriors described in the poems. It would appear that at this time the
East must have been more familiar to the Greek world than Greek records
would lead us to expect. This is the more noteworthy since during the
following centuries the Greeks seem to have had but little contact with
foreign nations.
FOOTNOTES:
[250] Chiefly because the description of the shield (vv. 139-320)
appears to correspond to the art of that period.
[251] The κύκλοι embraced much more than the story of Troy; cf. _W. v.
Christs Geschichte d. griech. Litteratur_⁵, § 47 f. The relationship of
these works to the poems may be compared with that of Völsunga Saga to
the heroic poems of the Edda.
[252] Schol. to Euripides, _Troades_, 822.
[253] Eusebius, _Chron._, ad Olymp. 53. The same authority however also
attributes it to Cinaithon of Lacedaemon (ad Olymp. 4).
[254] Fragm. 6 (Bergk), from Pausanias, IX 9. 5.
[255] The Suppliants is hardly to be reckoned as a heroic play. It
is referred to a time many generations before the siege of Troy and
all the characters appear to be personifications of nationalities.
Regarding the epic Danais little information seems to be obtainable.
[256] The Ion and Bacchai are perhaps rather to be regarded as
pre-heroic; the former deals with a story which apparently belongs to
the same type as Aeschylus' Suppliants.
[257]
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτο γένος κατὰ γαῖα κάλυψεν,
αὖτις ἔτ' ἄλλο τέταρτον ἐπὶ χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ
Ζεὺς Κρονίδης ποίησε δικαιότερον καὶ ἄρειον,
ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων θεῖον γένος, οἳ καλέονται
ἡμίθεοι, προτέρη γενέη κατ' ἀπείρονα γαῖαν.
καὶ τοὺς μὲν πόλεμός τε κακὸς καὶ φύλοπις αἰνὴ
τοὺς μὲν ὑφ' ἑπταπύλῳ Θήβῃ, Καδμηΐδι γαίῃ,
ὤλεσε μαρναμένους μήλων ἕνεκ' Οἰδιπόδαο,
τοὺς δὲ καὶ ἐν νήεσσιν ὑπὲρ μέγα λαῖτμα θαλάσσης
ἐς Τροίην ἀγαγὼν Ἑλένης ἕνεκ' ἠϋκόμοιο. κ.τ.λ.
In this passage the word ἥρως seems to have already begun to acquire
its later meaning, viz. a distinguished man of the past (generally of
the Heroic Age) who was honoured with worship, though not as a god. For
such worship Teutonic records naturally furnish few parallels, since
most of the Teutonic peoples became Christian either during the Heroic
Age itself or soon after. We may compare however what Jordanes (cap.
13) says of the Goths: _proceres suos, quorum quasi fortuna uincebant,
non puros homines sed semideos, id est Ansis, uocauerunt_. In Old Norse
the name _æsir_ (*_ansīz_) is applied only to the gods (Othin, Thor,
etc.); but we do hear occasionally of worship paid to heroes of the
Heroic Age, as well as to distinguished persons of later times. An
instance of the former (in the case of Hrólfr Kraki) occurs in Yngl. S.
41.
[258] In the Nostoi after the departure from Troy some of the Achaeans
(Calchas, Leonteus and Polypoites) were made to arrive at Colophon.
The story of Calchas' contest with Mopsos perhaps comes from the same
source.
[259] Once also, together with Ἀχαιοί (Il. II 684), as a name for the
subjects of Achilles, or rather Peleus. Ἑλλάς is used sometimes for a
place or district in Peleus' kingdom, sometimes apparently in a wider
sense.
[260] He states (I 57) that in his time they inhabited Placia and
Scylace, on the south coast of the Sea of Marmara, and Κρηστῶνα πόλιν,
probably in the Chalcidian peninsula (though some scholars emend this
name to Κρότωνα, i.e. Cortona in Tuscany). Down to the fifth century
they are said to have also occupied Lemnos and Imbros (IV 145, V 26,
VI 138 ff.), and in early times Samothrace (II 51), while their name
was preserved at Antandros, in the Gulf of Adramyttion (VII 42). Later
writers speak of the Pelasgoi as having formerly inhabited many other
regions. Into the difficult problems connected with this name we need
not enter here; for the most recent and perhaps fullest discussion of
the subject reference may be made to Prof. Myres' paper in the _Journ.
Hell. St._ 1907, p. 170 ff. As regards the etymology analogies indicate
that Πελασγοί represents an earlier form *_Pelag-skoi_. If this is a
Greek word the most probable meaning is 'people of the sea' (though
another explanation has been proposed; cf. Kretschmer, _Glotta_ I 16
f.). But it may really be a national name (cf. Πελάγονες). In that case
we may note that the use of the suffix _-sko-_ in national names is
Indo-European, though not Greek.
[261] Meyer, _S.-B. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1908, p. 18.
[262] Into the linguistic affinities of these various peoples we need
not enter here. It will be sufficient to notice that the Thracian
and Phrygian languages are commonly believed to have belonged to the
eastern division of the Indo-European group. Certainly this is the
case with the language of the Armenians, who according to Herodotus
(VII 73) were an offshoot (ἄποικοι) of the Phrygians. The evidence
of the Phrygian inscriptions themselves is unfortunately somewhat
ambiguous. To the same eastern division belonged the ancient Illyrian
languages, if the present dialects of Albania are descended from them.
On the other hand the languages of the indigenous peoples throughout
Asia Minor and the Aegean area are commonly believed to have been
non-Indo-European. Yet Prof. Conway (_British School at Athens_, Ann.
VIII, p. 141 ff.) holds that the inscriptions of Praisos belonged to a
language of this group. If this should turn out to be the case with the
earlier Cretan inscriptions current views as to the early history of
the Indo-European languages would require considerable modification.
[263] For England from its unification under Alfred the Great to the
present time the average is about twenty years; for France from 840 to
1793 it is between twenty-three and twenty-four years.
[264] _Forsch. z. alten Geschichte_, p. 170 f. The reckoning is not
due to Herodotus himself but taken over by him from an earlier writer.
Prof. Meyer suggests as its author Hecataeus, who was a contemporary of
Cleomenes.
[265] _Op. cit._ p. 178 ff.
[266] Eratosthenes reckons nearly 320 years from the accession
(birth) of Eurysthenes to that of Alcamenes in the ninth generation,
while the reigns of the father, grandfather, great-grandfather and
great-great-grandfather of the latter make up 159 years. Sosibius,
who reckoned by the Eurypontid dynasty, appears to have had a similar
period of 320 years from Procles to Theopompos, although his dates
were different from those of Eratosthenes--1091/0 to 771/0 according
to Prof. Meyer (_op. cit._ p. 179 f.). The accession of Theopompos was
equated with that of Alcamenes by Eratosthenes. Possibly these periods
were originally subdivisions of a longer period of 640 years, reckoned
from the fortieth year of Cleomenes (or Leonidas?).
[267] Two names (Prytanis and Eunomos) in the Eurypontid list are
generally regarded with doubt, but none of the Agiad names is really
of a suspicious character. The fact that Agis and Eurypon are not the
first names in the genealogies ought not to be used as an argument
against the trustworthiness of the tradition. In many Teutonic
genealogies--e.g. the Gothic, Frankish (Merovingian), Kentish, East
Anglian and Mercian--the name which performs patronymic function is not
that which stands first in the list.
[268] Prof. Meyer's view is not that the chronologists fixed too
early a date for the Dorian invasion, but that the early parts of the
genealogies themselves are unhistorical.
[269] Prof. Meyer (_op. cit._ p. 173 and note) cites the case of
Telamon the son of Poseidon, ancestor of the priests of Poseidon at
Halicarnassos, whom he places after the Return of the Heracleidai. But
the question is a complicated one. The genealogy cannot be used for our
purpose, as we do not know where it ends.
[270] Cf. Töpffer, _Attische Genealogie_, p. 278 f.; Meyer, _op. cit._
p. 174, note.
[271] Battos I is believed to have founded Cyrene about 630. It may be
observed that the interval between that date and 466 is surprisingly
short for the lapse of seven generations.
[272] _British School at Athens_, Ann. XIV, pp. 3, 18 f.
[273] Cf. Hawes, _Crete the Fore-runner of Greece_, p. 18. A much later
date is favoured by Dr Dörpfeld (_Ath. Mitteilungen_, XXXII 602),
whose views on Cretan chronology differ greatly from those of English
archaeologists. To this question we shall have to refer again in a
later chapter.
[274] _British School at Athens_, Ann. XIII, p. 423 ff.
[275] _Early Age of Greece_, p. 317. Representations of both the Vase
and the Stele are given in the same work (p. 313 f.).
[276] Dr Mackenzie's theory would certainly gain in probability if it
could be shown that the Pelasgoi were identical with the Pulesatha
or Philistines (cf. p. 188). The arguments in favour of such an
identification are obvious enough; but they are scarcely of such a
nature as to carry conviction. The appearance of _-st-_ for _-gsk-_ in
the name is perhaps hardly to be regarded as an insuperable difficulty;
for we know nothing of the languages involved or of the sound-changes
to which they were subject.
[277] Cf. Hall, _The Oldest Civilization of Greece_, p. 180 f.; _Ann.
of the Brit. School at Athens_, VIII, p. 180; Petrie, _History of
Egypt_, p. 108 ff.
[278] Hall, _Ann. of the Brit. School_, VIII 183; cf. also Breasted,
_Ancient Records of Egypt_, IV, p. 37 f.
[279] Prof. Breasted (_l.c._) gives these names as _Peleset_, _Thekel_
(i.e. Zakar), _Shekelesh_ (omitted above), _Denyen_ and _Weshesh_.
[280] Cf. Hall, _op. cit._ p. 177 f.
[281] Cf. Breasted, _History of Egypt_, pp. 336, 386; Hall, _op. cit._
p. 176 f.
[282] Cf. W. M. Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 361, 363; Petrie,
_History of Egypt_, III, p. 150.
[283] Cf. W. M. Müller, _op. cit._ pp. 361, 371; Petrie, _op. cit._ pp.
151, 162.
[284] Cf. Meyer, _S.-B. der Akad. zu Berlin_, 1908, p. 18 f.
[285] A considerable number of the figures are reproduced in W. M.
Müller's _Asien und Europa_ (cap. 27, 28); many also in the Histories
of Egypt by Meyer and Petrie.
[286] This head-dress is figured on a discus recently found at Phaistos
(Crete) among deposits dating from 'Middle Minoan III' (cent. XVII?).
The discus, if not actually of Cretan origin, is said to come clearly
from some district under the influence of Cretan civilisation. Cf.
Meyer, _S.-B. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1910, p. 1022 ff.
[287] They are said to be white; but it is difficult to believe that
they are not metal--possibly bronze overlaid with tin (cf. Il. XXIII
560 ff.).
[288] The shields figured on the Vase (apparently also those on the
Stele) seem to have a section cut out of them; but they can hardly be
regarded otherwise than as round shields. Cf. Lippold, _Münchener Arch.
Studien_, p. 406.
[289] Except the Assyrians (cf. p. 203, note); but there the evidence
comes from much later times.
[290] It occurs probably on the discus from Phaistos (cf. Meyer _l.c._)
and on a porcelain fragment from the third shaft-grave at Mycenae (cf.
Reichel, _über hom. Waffen_, p. 58)--both times in conjunction with
head-dresses of the Pulesatha or Shardina types--as well as on ivory
objects from Enkomi in Cyprus (cf. Evans, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, XXX
209), here also in conjunction with similar armature, though only the
lower part of the helmet is visible.
[291] Many of the figures, both Shardina and Pulesatha, wear
body-armour of some kind. Greaves are first found at Enkomi.