Produced by Chuck Greif, Broward County Library, Jane
Robins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
images of public domain material from the Google Books
project.)
+-------------------------------------------+
| Note: |
| |
| = around word indicates bold =CAPSULE.= |
| _ around word indicated italics _Erebus_ |
+-------------------------------------------+
[Illustration: PLATE V.
THE TREASURY CLOSE TO THE LIONS' GATE. Excavated by Mrs. SCHLIEMANN.
_Frontispiece._]
MYCENÆ
A NARRATIVE OF RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES
AT MYCENÆ AND TIRYNS.
BY DR. HENRY SCHLIEMANN
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
AUTHOR OF 'TROY AND ITS REMAINS,' 'ITHAQUE, LE PÉLOPONNÈSE ET TROIE,'
AND 'LA CHINE ET LE JAPON.'
THE PREFACE
BY THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.
MAPS, PLANS, AND MORE THAN 700 OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS.
_A NEW EDITION, WITH IMPORTANT ADDITIONS AND NEW PLATES._
NEW YORK:
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS,
1880.
(_All Rights Reserved._)
Copyright, 1877,
SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.
Copyright, 1880,
BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.
PRESS OF J. J. LITTLE & CO.,
Nos, 10 TO 20 ASTOR PLACE, NEW YORK.
Dedicated
TO
HIS MAJESTY DOM PEDRO II.,
EMPEROR OF BRAZIL,
WITH THE PROFOUND RESPECT OF
THE AUTHOR.
᾽Επὶ δ᾽ ἐγδούπησαν ᾽Ἀθηναίη τε καὶ
῞Ἥρη
Τιμῶσαι βασιλῆα πολυχρύσοιο
Μυκήνης.
HOM. _Il._ XI. 45, 46.
Πρὸς ἡμῶν
κάππεσεν, κάτθανε, ἡμεῖς καὶ
καταθάψομεν,
οὐχ ὑπὸ κλαυθμῶν τῶν ἐξ οἴκων.
ÆSCH. _Agam._ 1552-1554.
῏Ω τοῦ στρατηγήσαντος ἐν Τροίᾳ ποτὲ
Ἀγαμέμνονος παῖ, νῦν ἐκεῖν᾽
ἔξεστί σοι
παρόντι λεύσσειν, ὧν πρόθυμος
ἦσθ᾽ ἀεί.
Τὸ γὰρ παλαιὸν ῎Αργος ὁὺπόθεις τόδε,
τῆς οἰστροπλῆγος ἄλσος ᾽Ινάχου
κόρης·
αὕτη δ᾽, Ὀρέστα, τοῦ λυκοκτόνου θεοῦ
᾽Αγορὰ Λύκειος· οὑξ ἀριστερᾶς δ᾽ ὅδε
῞Ηρας ὁ κλεινὸς ναός· οἷ δ᾽ ἱκάνομεν,
ϕάσκειν Μυκήνας τὰς πολυχρύσους
ὁρᾶν·
πολύϕθορόν τε δῶμα Πελοπιδῶν τόδε,
SOPHOCLES, _Electra_, 1-10.
PREFACE.
It has been with much reluctance that, at the persevering request of Dr.
Schliemann, I have undertaken to write a Preface to his Mycenean volume.
I have managed perhaps, though with long intermissions of the pleasant
labour, to maintain a tolerable acquaintance with the text of Homer; and
the due establishment of the points of contact between that text and
the remains from Mycenæ is without question one of the essential aims,
to which comment on this work requires to be addressed. But I have a
horror of all specialism which travels beyond its proper province; and
in this matter I am at best no more than a specialist, probably, too,
not one of very high pretensions. I have not that practised skill, that
comprehensive outlook over the whole field of Hellenic, and other than
Hellenic archæology, which has conferred upon Mr. Newton his well-earned
fame. The just conclusion from these premises appears to be, that I ought
to have declined a charge _quod ferre recusent humeri_.[1] But there
was, in ancient poetry, a Destiny stronger than the will of gods. To me,
on this occasion, Dr. Schliemann is the vicegerent and organ of that
Destiny. In view of the splendid services which he has conferred upon
classical science, a power, that thrusts argument out of court, brings me
to perceive, that I cannot but accede to his desire. I have however given
the reader fair warning where and why he should be on his guard: and I
shall make all the use I can of the landmarks laid down in the report
which Mr. Newton, after an ocular inspection of these remains, published
in the _Times_ of April 20, 1877; and of the valuable papers of Mr.
Gardner in the _Academy_ (April 21 and 28). I believe that the interest,
excited by Dr. Schliemann's discoveries, has been by no means confined to
classical scholars. I shall therefore endeavour to be as little technical
as possible, and to write, so far as may be, for a circle wider than that
of the persons among us who are acquainted with the Greek tongue.
When the disclosures at Tiryns and Mycenæ were announced in England,
my own first impression was that of a strangely bewildered admiration,
combined with a preponderance of sceptical against believing tendencies,
in regard to the capital and dominating subject of the Tombs in the
Agora. I am bound to say, that reflection and a fuller knowledge have
nearly turned the scales the other way. There are indeed, not only gaps
to be supplied, but difficulties to be confronted, and to be explained;
or to be left over for future explanation. Yet the balance, I will
not say of evidence, but of rational presumption, seems as though it
might ultimately lean towards the belief that this eminent explorer
has exposed to the light of day, after 3000 years, the memorials and
remains of Agamemnon and his companions in the Return from Troy. But let
us endeavour to feel our way by degrees up to this question, gradually
and with care, as a good general makes his approaches to a formidable
fortress.
I find, upon perusing the volume of Dr. Schliemann, that the items of
evidence, which connect his discoveries generally with the Homeric Poems,
are more numerous, than I had surmised from the brief outline, with which
he favoured us upon his visit to England in the spring.
1. He presents to us the rude figures of cows; and upon a signet ring
(No. 531) and elsewhere, cow-heads not to be mistaken. He then points to
the traditional worship, from the first, of Hera in Argolis; and he asks
us to connect these facts with the use of _Boöpis_ (cow-eyed) as a staple
epithet of this goddess in the Poems; and he might add, with her special
guardianship of Agamemnon in his interests and his personal safety (_Il._
I. 194-222).
This appears to me a reasonable demand. We know that upon some of the
Egyptian monuments the goddess Isis, mated with Osiris, is represented
in human figure with the cow's head. This was a mode of exhibiting deity
congenial to the spirit of an Egyptian immigration,[2] such as might,
compatibly with the text of Homer, have taken place some generations
before the _Troïca_. But it was also a mode against which the whole
spirit of Hellenism, according to the authentic type of that spirit
supplied in the Poems, utterly revolted. We find there a Hera, who
wore, so to speak, the mantle of Isis, besides carrying the spoils of
one or more personages enrolled in the Golden Book of the old Pelasgian
dynasties. Nothing could be more natural than a decapitation of the
Egyptian Isis, not penally but for her honour. She might consequently
appear with the human head; but, not to break sharply with the traditions
of the people, the cow-head, and even the cow figure, might nevertheless
be retained as symbols of religion. And the great Poet, who invariably
keeps these symbols so to speak at arms' length, in order that he may
prevent their disparaging the creed of which he was the great doctor,
might nevertheless select from the bovine features that one which was
suited to his purpose, and give to his Hera, who was never a very
intellectual deity, the large tranquil eye of the cow. The use of the
epithet for Hera in Homer is not, indeed, exclusive, and I admit that
he may have inherited that use. But, though not exclusive, it is very
special, and this speciality is enough to give a sensible support to the
doctrine of our famous explorer.
2. The buildings improperly called Cyclopean, and still more improperly
endowed with the alternative name of Pelasgian, have long been known,
more or less, to exist in Argolis; but Dr. Schliemann has thrown some
light on what I may perhaps be allowed to call their diversity of style.
He admits three forms found in this kind of building. I have objected
to the current names, the first because it does not inform; the second
because it misleads, for these buildings have no true connection with
the Pelasgian tribes. What they indicate is the handiwork of the great
constructing race or races, made up of several elements, who migrated
into Greece, and elsewhere on the Mediterranean, from the south and east,
and who exhibit an usual, though perhaps not an invariable connection
with the Poseidon-worship, a worship, with which the Cyclopean name is,
through the Odyssey, perceptibly associated, and which is one of the
main keys, as I have long been persuaded, wherewith in time to unlock,
for Hellenic and Homeric regions, the secrets of antiquity. The walls
of Troy were built by Poseidon; that is, by a race who practised the
worship of the god. How far those walls conform to any of the minuter
points of the descriptions of 'Cyclopean' architecture by Dr. Schliemann,
(pp. 42, 123), I cannot say. But if he is right, as seems probable, in
placing Troy at Hissarlik, it is important to notice that this work of
Poseidon had a solidity, which bore it unharmed through the rage of fire,
and kept it well together amidst all the changes which have buried it
in a hill of rubbish and promiscuous remains. And of course the modes,
used by the very same race in the business of building, could not but
vary much with the circumstances of each case, and especially with the
material at hand. I am tempted, at least until a better name can be
found, to call this manner of building Poseidonian; at any rate, whatever
it be called, to note it as a point of correspondence between the Poems
and the discoveries, admitting at the same time that the matter is not
sufficiently developed to warrant me in laying upon it any considerable
stress.
3. The beehive-like building, which is rather loosely called the Treasury
of Atreus, presents to us over the doorway (p. 43) two enormous slabs,
one of them supposed to weigh from 130 to 135 tons. I only refer to
them for the sake of reminding the reader that, as I think, we must be
prepared, in this and other matters, freely to recognise the hand of the
foreigner at work; who brought with him into Greece attainments, not to
be despised, of material civilisation. More pointedly I wish to observe
that in the interior of the Treasury, from the fourth course upwards,
there are visible (p. 44) in each stone two bored holes, and in many
of them the remains of 'bronze' nails still existing. Similar holes,
it appears, are found (p. 45) in the Treasury of Minyas at Orchomenos.
The purpose of these nails, says our author, could only be to attach
to the wall what in one place he calls the bronze, and in another the
brazen plates, with which the whole interior was once decorated. On
the secondary question, what was the exact material employed, let me
here observe that of brass those ages knew nothing, and that bronze,
particularly in that stage of material development, was wholly unsuited
for sheeting. But, as to the structural point, we have here a remarkable
point of contact with the Homeric text. For in the palace of Alkinoös,
king of the Phaiakes, a splendour as of sun or moon dazzled the eye, for
the walls were of _chalkos_ (_Od._ VII. 86, cited p. 44), which I hope
I may now boldly translate copper: a metal unlike bronze (_a_) in being
readily malleable, (_b_) in being throughout the Poems most usually
lustrous, a character I do not suppose we should assign to bronze. On
the other hand, the comparative softness of copper was not well suited
for the nails, so bronze might very well be employed. Nor does this
conjunction of the two metals, pure and mixed, in the same work, carry
us away from the text of Homer: for his wall-sheets of copper in Scheriè
were crowned with a cornice of his dark _kuanos_, which I take to be
bronze. This copper sheeting is a feature of the supreme Olympian Palace
(_Il_. I. 426, _Od_. VIII. 321), built by Hephaistos of the skilful mind.
I think I could show that it also adorned the palaces of Menelaos and
Odysseus, and could point out, moreover, why all this is in accordance
with the distinctly foreign and eastern character of the embellishment:
but an exhibition of the evidence would lead me into too great length;
and I note only for the present purpose the remarkable correspondence of
the archæology with the Poems.
4. Passing from architectural to moveable objects, I observe that Dr.
Schliemann found both knives and keys of iron in Mycenæ, but that from
their form he assigns them to a later and strictly historic period.
Old Mycenæ, therefore, in accordance with Hissarlik, has afforded us,
up to the present time, no remains of this metal. In the Poems it is
freely mentioned, but as a rare and valuable substance, used where great
hardness was required, and for objects comparatively small and portable;
except, indeed, in the case of the Gates of Tartaros (_Il._ VIII 15),
where the Poet could dispose of as much material as he pleased. The
aggregate quantity, then, was small; and the instruments were likely to
be carried away on the abandonment or destruction of a city. Its absence
may therefore be accounted for, in part by its value, but also, and more
especially, because it so readily corrodes.[3] Therefore, although we
cannot here establish a positive correspondence, neither have we any
occasion to admit a discrepancy.
5. Neither need we, I think, suppose any variance between the chariot,
as our author found it on the second tombstone of the Acropolis (p. 84),
and the Homeric picture. True, he finds a wheel of four spokes, and the
Olympian car of Hera had eight (_Il._ V. 723); but this diversity of
structure is probably introduced, like the diversity of material, by way
of divine distinction, and to show the superior elaboration and strength
of the vehicle.[4]
6. We have at Mycenæ the _Agora_, or place of Assembly, in full agreement
with the Poems on the two points, first of its circular form (pp. 338,
339), and secondly of the smoothed horizontal slabs, bounding the circle,
on which the Elders sate. I do not dilate upon these, as they are fully
noticed in the text: but I shall return to the subject, in connection
with the situation chosen for the tombs, and the inferences which are to
be drawn from this important circumstance.
I will now hazard, before proceeding further with my list, one or two
general remarks on the works of art and ornament, referring again to the
reports of Mr. Newton and Mr. Gardner, as the most trustworthy comment on
the text of our author concerning them.
First, I have to offer some reflections on the general character of
the discoveries, and on its relation to the state of Art exhibited in
the Poems. It seems reasonable to believe, especially after what has
been shown by Mr. Gardner respecting the four tombstones, that they
constituted the contemporary seal of a great deposit. It results, I
think, from the evidence before us that it is impossible to reduce to one
school or style or stage of art the whole of the objects exhumed. But
on this I would observe first that, although they were simultaneously
deposited in honour of the dead, they might have been the productions of
more than one generation: secondly, that not only are we not required,
but, in so far as we draw light from the Homeric Poems, we are hardly
permitted, to refer them collectively to a domestic origin.
I gather from Mr. Gardner's report that the Art exhibited on the Pottery
is more uniformly backward, than that exhibited by the works of metal.
But this pottery, which was, whether wheel made or hand-made, of an early
stage in the manufacture, was far more likely to be domestic; while the
works in the precious metals might be imported. Or they might be the
productions of foreign artists, attracted to the Court of Agamemnon; in
the same manner as we find that Daidalos, whose name, however mythical,
represents a foreign influence, executed in Crete, for Ariadne, the
representation of a dance in metal.
The discovery, or the inspection, of the works must without doubt in
the first instance suggest a reference of them to a local school of
goldsmiths. But, considering the numerous points of contact between the
discoveries and the Homeric Poems, it is important to know whether, and
how far, they really favour such a supposition. This is not the place
for an examination in detail of all the works of Art mentioned by Homer.
I believe there is no one of them, of which the purely Greek origin can
be established by proof from the text, while the manufacture abroad and
importation are frequently mentioned. At the same time, there are some
considerations which tend to show that, if there were local workmen in
Greece capable of producing objects such as those now exhumed, it is
at Mycenæ that we should expect to find them. First, on account of the
wealth of the city, and of its position as the capital of the country.
Secondly, on account of the wealth of Agamemnon personally, and his
acquisitiveness if not his avarice, which made him eager to spoil those
whom his spear had slain, and which is the subject of varied allusions
in the _Iliad_. It must be remembered that in those days works of art
were not merely ornamental, but were a favourite form, as their name
(_keimelia_) shows, of stored wealth: and of these, even in Troas,
Agamemnon possessed many (_Il._ IX. 330). Thirdly, an indication,
perhaps, more significant, may be drawn from the remarkable passage in
the Eleventh Book (15-46), which describes the arming of Agamemnon for
the field. The first portion of the armour, that attracts observation,
is an elaborately wrought breast-plate, which had come from Cyprus, a
seat of Phœnician settlement. We next come to the sword, which I shall
presently describe. This is followed by the shield, adorned with many
bosses of metal, but also carrying a representation of the Gorgon with
the heads or figures of Fear and Panic. This shield must be considered
as a work of art; and the same may be said of its band or strap, which
carried the figure of a three-headed snake. There is nothing said to
connect these works with foreign manufacture. The family of Agamemnon
was of a foreign origin comparatively recent; but it may remain an open
question, whether these arms are presumptively referable, or not, to a
domestic manufacture.
The deposits appear, again, to differ extremely in point of merit. I
set aside the objects directly symbolical, because, where religion, or
idolatry, is in question, excellence in workmanship becomes secondary, or
even ceases to be desired. Among the other objects, I gather that none
exhibit a very high order of technical qualities. But, if we may rely
upon photographic representation, they surely exhibit lively and forcible
movement, as well as many of the elements of nobleness, beauty, and
fertility of invention; particularly in ornamentation, as distinguished
from the representation of life, either animal or vegetable. Some of
this diversity may be due to difference of date; some, perhaps much, to
the superiority of the immigrant hand, or of imported works. That there
were foreigners resident in Greece at the time of the _Troïca_, we have
every reason to infer from one conspicuous case, that of Echepolos, a
son of Anchises, who was allowed to present the mare Aithè to Agamemnon,
as the price of his exemption (_Il._ XXIII. 296) from service against
Troy. If there be anywhere in the Poems an account of a work of art
produced in Greece or by a Greek, it is the bedstead of Odysseus,[5]
wrought by himself (_Od._ XXIII. 190-201); and to him, after a good deal
of consideration, I am inclined to ascribe a close connection with the
immigrant or Phœnician stock; though this representation might also be
due to his unequalled versatility and universality of accomplishment.
There was indeed a _Chrusochoös_ or gold-plater at the Court of Nestor
(_Od._ III. 425); but the very same man goes by the name of _Chalkeus_
or coppersmith (_Ibid_. III. 432). And it would even seem that working
in metals cannot have been a principal or prominent employment in an
Achaian community, for no such person is named in the remarkable passage
of the Odyssey (XVII. 384) which supplies a sort of list, and where the
wood-worker, or carpenter, appears.
The list of these objects, and of their ornaments, is on the whole richer
and more diversified than the Poems, with the exception of the famous
Shield of Achilles, would have led us to expect. Possibly a knowledge of
the Mycenean treasures may have prompted or aided a vigorous imagination,
in that wonderful anticipation of excellences which had not been realized
in practice. The most remarkable feature, I think, of all Homer's
delineations of art is the force and reality with which he confers
animation on things inanimate. And perhaps the eye may be struck, in
examining Schliemann's illustrations, with the vigour of life and motion
which asserts itself in many of the Mycenean works, where the delineation
is technically most imperfect. But we cannot compare the text with these
remains alone; we are bound also to avail ourselves of such light as can
be had from Hissarlik, whatever its effect upon our prepossessions or our
arguments. Now I, for one, am struck with the wealth of Mycenæ, and the
comparative poverty of what is probably Troy. I do not mean merely as
to the small number of valuable remains, for this may be due to chance;
though, indeed, fortune, for once renouncing her caprice, seems in both
cases to have obeyed the dictates of archæological justice, and to have
treated Dr. and Mrs. Schliemann as her favourite children. But I mean
that there is far less of _luxe_ in the ornamentation of the works at
Hissarlik; I might, perhaps, say no representation at all of life, except
in the rudest and most barbarous form. There seem to be very good forms
in the gold and silver objects of Hissarlik, but always associated with
plain work; no animal or even vegetable representation calling for notice
from the present point of view, none of the _repoussé_ work, nothing
resembling the (apparently) beautiful cylinder (p. 287), or the elaborate
rings photographed in this volume. How are we to account for this? And
does an argument hence arise, that the Hissarlik remains belong to a
period different from, and anterior to, that which produced the works
at Mycenæ? That the adverse case may be made as strong as possible, let
it be borne in mind that while Homer indicates Orchomenos, and above
all Egyptian Thebes, as the wealthiest cities of his little world, he
seems designedly to assign the very same stage of opulence to Troy,
which he gives to Mycenæ; for he describes by one and the same epithet,
_poluchrusos_, which means gold-abounding, these two cities and these
two alone. Troy has it in _Il._ XVIII. 289. For Mycenæ it was almost a
formula; see _Il._ VII. 180, XI. 46; _Od._ III. 305.
We have now before us, as is not improbable, the choicest samples of what
the two cities had to boast of; and the question is, can we account for
the difference in opulence, and stage of art, between them? I conceive
that we can, at least in a considerable degree; but it is only by that
acknowledgment, which some are still indisposed to make, of the broad
vein of historic reality, that runs through the delineations of the
_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_.
Three passages of the _Iliad_, in particular, convey to us that the city
of Troy was suffering great impoverishment by the War. Indeed, if there
be a grain of fact in the tale, it could not be otherwise. For the means
of resisting the truly national attack of the Achaians, she was dependent
neither on a good cause, nor on a soldiery commensurate with theirs. She
had to seek strength from without; first from the grudging support of
Dardania, secondly from the neighbouring tribes both of Europe and of
Asia. It might even be inferred from the text that nine-tenths of the
fighting power (_Il._ II. 123-33) were other than strictly domestic. But
this support from without could only be got by paying for it. Accordingly
Hector, in the Seventeenth Book speaks with the authority (220-32) of a
general addressing allies, who are duly compensated for their services.
So also we know that the great Eurupulos and his Keteians,[6] or
Hittites (_Od._ XI. 520), fall in numbers on the plains of Troy, "serving
for gifts." "I wear out the Trojans," says Hector, "with presents and
with victualling for you." Again in the Twenty-fourth Book, Achilles,
compassionately addressing Priam, says, "We hear that you once were
prosperous, and exceeded in wealth, as well as in the number of your
sons, all the neighbouring countries" (543-6). The inference is obvious;
that at the time, though the city had not been captured, it was becoming
comparatively poor. But the most express testimony is that of _Il._
XVIII. 288-92, when Hector stimulates his countrymen to sally out, by
reminding them that they are already well-nigh ruined. Once, he says,
all men were wont to celebrate the wealth of Troy; "but now the fine
valuables have utterly disappeared from our mansions."
νῦν δὲ δὴ ἐξαπόλωλε δόομων κειμήλια
καλά
And, under the wrath of Zeus, multitudes of their possessions had
been sent in exchange to Phrygia and Mæonia; in exchange, that is,
as I presume, for necessaries. But the great Mycenean deposit, if
Schliemann be right in his view, was made before the time of any sack or
depopulation of the city. Upon such an issue of life and death, as that
offered to the Trojans, the best objects would naturally be parted with,
as the most effective for their purpose (see _Il._ XXIV. 234-7); and
accordingly, if we are comparing Troy and Mycenæ at all, we are comparing
Troy in its exhaustion with Mycenæ in its prosperity.
We have among the remains in the precious metals from Hissarlik, I
believe, no representation of an animal, either chased or in the round.
But the Poems give us several examples of such works in the possession of
Greeks; though commonly under presumptions of foreign production, as it
would not be difficult to show.
It is true, indeed, that Troy, in immediate contact with the large
fertile districts of Asia Minor, had means of material growth by
land-trade, which Greece, split by her mountain chains into comparatively
narrow tracts of cultivable soil, did not possess. But it seems likely
that even in those days the maritime commerce, stimulated by Phœnician
ships and settlements, may have compensated, or more than compensated,
for this disadvantage. Of the trade in metals and in corn, carried on by
their race, we have distinct information in the Poems (_Od._ I. 183-4,
XIV. 333-5). They had, in all likelihood, already been followed by
the Greeks. The voyage of the ship Argo seems to have been of a mixed
character. The ships of the armament against Troy could hardly have
been supplied by a people, who had not made a substantial beginning
in maritime trade. The navigation of the coasts, without reference to
purposes of war, is evidently a familiar idea in the _Odyssey_. But,
in the _Iliad_, the construction of the ships of Paris is noted as the
remarkable work of a remarkable man (_Il._ V. 59-64); nor do we, except
in this one ill-omened case, ever hear of Trojan navigation.
Once more. We are given to understand[7] that signs of the art of writing
have been discovered at Hissarlik; whereas the new volume supplies us
with nothing of the kind for Mycenæ. But nothing, I apprehend, can be
affirmed of its existence either in Greece or Troas during the Homeric
age, except as the secret of a few; in Greece it was manifestly exotic,
and perhaps it may have been the same in Troas. As long as the evidence
remains in this state, we cannot infer from it with confidence any
important proposition as to comparative advancement.
I now resume the list of points of contact between the Mycenean
discoveries and the Poems, by noticing such of them as are found in
movables.
1. As the first of these I take the free use of copper for large utensils
(pp. 274-277). We have also the analysis supplied by Dr. Percy of a sword
and a vase-handle of bronze (pp. 372-5). In my judgment, we have no sign
whatever from the Poems of the fusion of metals together as a domestic
practice; while we have abundant proof of the importation and foreign
production of works of art and implements in bronze. This vase, then,
may probably have been foreign. The same is likely with respect to the
sword. We know that swords were exported and imported between different
countries. Thrace was a seat of manufacture both for fine works of art
(_Il._ XXIV. 234) and for weapons (_Il._ XXIII. 808): and we find a
sword, "beautiful and long," from Thrace, in the possession of the Trojan
Prince Helenos (_Il._ XIII. 577). Moreover, copper was an abundant metal,
tin a rare one. Bronze weapons, therefore, must have been expensive.
And the swords of bronze found in the tombs, in conjunction with all
other costly objects, are just where we should have expected them. Even
so at Hissarlik, two battle-axes found in the Treasure, and presumably
belonging therefore to distinguished persons, were of bronze.[8] But
axes made of pure copper may be seen in the Museum of the Irish Academy;
and the great layer of copper-scoriæ at Hissarlik, without any tin,
seems effectually to show that copper was the staple metal of the heroic
period, and that our archæologists will have to insert a copper age
in their lists, between their age of stone and their age of bronze.
If weapons of copper were to be discovered in the tombs at Mycenæ, no
circumstance could more enhance the proofs afforded by the Poems of the
general use of copper; because the weapons in the tombs are weapons of
the persons most likely to be able to command the use of bronze. I hope
that the analysis, already begun, will be applied to a much larger number
of objects. In the meantime, as to large utensils, I find the discoveries
already in close correspondence with the Poems.
2. The most remarkable, perhaps, in themselves, of all the objects
discovered at Hissarlik, were the two elaborate head-dresses of gold,
which for the first time enabled us to construe, with reasonable
confidence, the entire passage in the Iliad (XXII. 468-72), which
describes the head-dress cast away by Andromachè in the agony of her
grief. The print will not have been forgotten, which exhibits the _plektè
anadesmè_.[9] It was a series of gold plaits, hanging down, over the
forehead and the ears, from the broad band (_ampūx_) which ran round the
head, and which constituted as it were the base of the ornament. With
these objects, and with the Poems, Schliemann associates, incontestably
as it would appear, the ornament No. 357 (p. 248); a band or frontlet
adorned "with rosettes and crosses. It has two perforations in the rim,
a little way from either end, from one of which is still hanging the
fragment of a very fine chain." The only variation in the fashion of
the thing seems to be, that the plaits have not been continued over the
forehead.
3. Hissarlik did nothing for us towards explaining the _kredemnon_; an
article of head-dress worn by many or some women of the heroic age,
who could not add to it the splendid decorations then reserved for
princesses. But the definitions of this commodity are supplied for us by
the Poems, piecemeal indeed, yet with adequate clearness. In the first
place, it crowned the head like the battlements of a walled city; for the
destruction of the walls of Troy is described as the ruin of its sacred
_kredemna_ (_Il._ XVI. 100).
It was not, however, a metallic or solid object; for the deified Ino,
to save Odysseus from the fury of the storm, throws to him her own
_kredemnon_ and bids him bind it round his chest (_Od._ V. 346). It used
to be made of delicate and glossy material (_Od._ I. 334), and was worthy
even to be a marriage gift from Aphroditè to the bride of Hector (_Il._
XXII. 470). But finally, it had a long wing, tail, or lappet (I am not
skilled or confident in this vocabulary), descending from behind, perhaps
more than one. This is shown indirectly, but I think conclusively, by the
information given us in _Od._ VI. 100, that the handmaidens of Nausicaä,
when about to play at ball, first put away their kredemna, evidently
lest the free movement of their arms should be embarrassed by the long
lappets. Again, it is evident that Penelopè, when she used her _kredemna_
to cover her face, brought the lappets round and employed them as a veil;
on any other ground the use of the plural can hardly be explained (_Od._
I. 334). And now this part of the prehistoric lady's toilette is as
complete as I can make it from the Poems.
I turn, then, to Dr. Schliemann's volume, and call attention to the
signet ring at p. 354, which, though apparently not of a high order in
art, combines so many objects of interest. On the extreme left of the
picture stands a child, or small woman, who is picking fruit from a tree.
Behind her head appear to descend long tresses of hair. What if these
should prove on further examination to be lappets from a head-dress
which the head seems to carry? Passing to the right of the tree, first
comes a tall seated woman in a turban, which carries in front, says our
author, a diadem and behind a "tress of hair" from the point into which
the turban runs. I cannot but suppose this "tress" to be a lappet of the
_kredemnon_. She offers poppies to another tall woman, again dressed in
a turban running out into a point (p. 356), "from which a long ornament
hangs down on the back," a third time, in all likelihood, the lappet
of the _kredemnon_. Below her outstretched right arm we have another
small figure, probably of a child, again in a turban, and with "a long
tress of hair, or some ornament, hanging down its back:" yet once more,
I conjecture, the lappet indicated by Homer. There is also a fifth: we
have still the figure to the right of the picture (p. 357); and she,
too, wears a turban terminating in a point "from which a long band-like
ornament hangs down on her back." Now let us go aloft; and we find a
small figure, towards the right of the picture. This figure (p. 357) is
described by Schliemann as female, from his observing breasts upon it:
and again, "from the back project the long bands." Thus, in all the six
cases, we appear to have the same remarkable form described for the main
article of female head dress, which is also given us by Homer.
It may, however, be said that the female figures on this ring are
foreign, rather than Hellenic, in their character and habiliments. But
it happens that the evidence of the Poems more copiously establishes the
use of the _kredemnon_ among foreigners, than in Greece. We hear indeed
of the _kredemna_ of Penelopè; and Hera, when about to inveigle Zeus,
assumes the _kredemnon_ (_Il._ XIV. 184). But it is worn, as we have
seen, by Andromachè in Troy; by Ino, a deity of Phœnician extraction; and
by the maidens attendant on Nausicaä in Scheriè.
4. In the upper region, or what we might call the sky of the picture, are
presented to us, apparently in very rough outline, the sun and a thinly
horned moon.[10] Below them is an uneven band, forming rudely an arc of
a circle. This, I am led to suppose, is an indication of mother-earth,
with its uneven surface of land and its rippling sea, in the proper
place, beneath the sun and moon. If this be so, it greatly confirms the
conjecture of Mr. Newton respecting the six objects on the rim of the
picture to the right. He asks whether these can be the _teirea_ (_Il._
XVIII. 485), the stars of heaven, which are described by Homer as placed
upon the Shield of Achilles, together with the sun, moon, sky, earth, and
sea. Schliemann assigns to this _sestetto_ heads and eyes: Mr. Newton
says they are thought to be heads of lions. That they should be things
animate is not, I imagine, in conflict with the conjecture that they may
be stars. The spirit of Hellenism transmuted the older Nature-worship
by impersonations, of which we have an Homeric example in the astral
Orion (_Il._ XVIII. 486, _Od._ XI. 572). Should these conjectures be
confirmed, the matter will be of peculiar interest: for we shall then
have before us, in actual collocation, the very objects, which people the
first compartment of the god-wrought Shield of Achilles: the earth (of
land and sea), sun, moon, and all the stars of heaven. The _ouranos_ or
heaven itself, which the Poet also includes, is here in all likelihood
represented by the curvature of the picture.
5. The goblet (No. 346 of the volume) has on each of its two handles, we
are told, the carved figure of a dove in gold. Schliemann observes on the
correspondence with the goblet of Nestor (_Il._ XI. 632-635). We are not
indeed told that this was of gold; probably a different material is to
be supposed from the mention of gold as the material of these parts or
appendages. But it had four handles, and on each handle were two doves.
We are also told that he did not get it in Troy, which may remind us of
the argument already presented, but brought it from home. It was probably
a foreign work; for the Phœnician associations of Nestor are attested by
his descent from Poseidon (_Od._ XI. 254). This is fairly to be noted for
an instance of equable development in art, as between the discoveries and
the Poems.
6. We frequently hear in the Poems of the golden studs or buttons
which were used as ornamental adjuncts. In many passages we have the
silver-studded sword, _xiphos_ or _phasganon arguroëlon_ (_Il._ II.
45, III. 334 _et al._). This, I say, is common. We have also studs,
or bosses, of gold upon the staff or sceptre of Achilles (_Il._ I.
246), upon the cup of Nestor XI. 632-635: and upon a sword, only once
it is true, but then that sword is the sword of Agamemnon, king of
gold-abounding Mycenæ (_Il._ XI. 29). On this sword, says the Poet, there
were gilt, or golden, bosses; and the expression he uses about them
(_pamphainon_) is worthy of note. It is not easy to represent by any
one English word. It means not merely shining brightly, but shining all
over; that is to say, apparently, all over the sheath to which they were
attached, so as to make it seem a shining mass. Is not this precisely
what must have been the effect of the line of bosses found lying by
the sword in p. 303, which lie closely together, are broader than the
blade, and probably covered the whole available space along the sheath of
wood, now mouldered away? And is it not now startling, to descend into
the tombs with Dr. Schliemann, and to find there lying silently in rows
these gold studs or bosses, when the wooden sheaths they were attached
to have for the most part mouldered away, but by the very sides of the
very swords which they adorned like binding on a book, and of the slight
remains of warriors by whom, there need be little doubt, those swords
were wielded?
"Expende Annibalem; quot libras in duce summo Invenies?"[11]
They also appear on the sword-handle knobs. The _helos_ of Homer is
commonly rendered a nail or stud, which has a head of small size; but the
word probably includes the larger buttons or bosses, which lie in lines
along some of the swords. (See on this point pp. 281, 2; 303, 5, 6.)
I will not attempt to pursue further an enumeration which, growing more
and more minute, would be wearisome. If porcelain and glass have been
found, I should at once assign them to foreign importation. The art of
casting and tooling in the precious metals, of which the examples would
appear, both from our author and from Mr. Newton, to be few, are probably
to be referred to a like source. The hammer and the pincers are the only
instruments for metallic manipulation, of which Homer appears to be aware
(_Il._ XVIII. 477, _Od._ III. 434-5). As regards the pottery mentioned
by our author, if some of the goblets were of light green (p. 285), we
have a colour developed in their manufacture of which Homer had certainly
no distinct conception, though it may still be true that, as in nature,
so in human art, objects bearing that colour may have met his eye. Of
the scales in the third sepulchre there seems no reason to doubt that we
may find the interpretation, by referring them to the Egyptian scheme of
doctrine with regard to a future life (pp. 197, 8). In the Books of the
Dead, we have an elaborate representation of the judgment-hall, to which
the departed soul is summoned. Here the scales form a very prominent
object;[12] and it seems very possible that the Poet, who was Greek and
not Egyptian in his ideas of the future state, may have borrowed and
transposed, from this quarter, the image of the balances displayed on
high, which he employs with such fine effect in some critical passages of
the _Iliad_. As regards the emblem of the double-headed or full-formed
axe, I venture to dispense with the cautious reserve of Schliemann. As
the usual form of a weapon familiar to the age, it seems to require no
special explanation (p. 252). But where we find it conjoined with the
ox-head (p. 218), or on the great signet ring in conjunction with a
figure evidently representing Deity, I cannot hesitate to regard it as
a sacrificial symbol. We have only to remember the passage in the third
Odyssey, where the apparatus of sacrifice is detailed, and Thrasumedes,
who was to strike the blow, brought the axe (III. 442):--
πέλεκυν δὲ μενεπτόλεμος Θρασυμήδης
ὀξὺν ἔχων ἐν χερσὶι παρίστατο,
βοῦν ἐπικέψων.
The boar's teeth (p. 273) supply a minor, perhaps, but a clear and
significant point of correspondence to be added to our list (_Il._ X.
263-264). Another is to be noticed in the manner of attaching, by wire,
lids and covers. On these subjects, I refer to the text of the volume.
By the foregoing detail I have sought to show that there is no
preliminary bar to our entertaining the capital question whether the
tombs now unearthed, and the remains exposed to view, under masks for
the faces, and plates of gold covering one or more of the trunks, are
the tombs and remains of the great Agamemnon and his compeers, who have
enjoyed, through the agency of Homer, such a protracted longevity of
renown. For the general character of the Mycenean treasures, I take
my stand provisionally on the declaration of Mr. Newton (supported by
Mr. Gardner), that, in his judgment, they belong to the prehistoric or
heroic age, the age antecedent to his Greco-Phœnician period; and in
important outlines of detail I have endeavoured to show that they have
many points of contact with the Homeric Poems, and with the discoveries
at Hissarlik. But this Preface makes no pretension whatever to exhibit
a complete catalogue of the objects, or to supply for each of them its
interpretation. We encounter, indeed, a certain number of puzzling
phenomena, such as the appearance of something like visors, for which
I could desire some other explanation, but which Schliemann cites as
auxiliaries to the masks of the tombs, and even thinks to prove that such
articles were used by the living, as well as for the dead (p. 359).
Undoubtedly, in my view, these masks constitute a great difficulty, when
we come to handle the question who were the occupants of the now opened
sepulchres? It may be, that as Mr. Newton says, we must in the main rest
content with the "reasonable presumption" that the four tombs contained
Royal personages, and must leave in abeyance the further question,
whether they are the tombs indicated to Pausanias by the local tradition;
at any rate, until the ruins of Mycenæ shall have been further explored,
according to the intention which the government of Greece is said to have
conceived.
At the same time this is a case where the question before us, if
hazardous to prosecute, is not easy to let alone.
It is obviously difficult to find any simple, clear, consistent
interpretation of the extraordinary inhumation disclosed to us by these
researches. Such an interpretation may be found hereafter: it does not
seem to be forthcoming at the present moment. But the way towards it
can only be opened up by a painstaking exhibition of the facts, and by
instituting a cautious comparison between them and any indications, drawn
from other times or places, which may appear to throw light upon them.
For my own part, having approached the question with no predisposition
to believe, I need not scruple to say I am brought or driven by the
evidence to certain conclusions; and also led on to certain conjectures
suggested by those conclusions. The first conclusion is that we cannot
refer the five entombments in the Agora at Mycenæ to any period within
the historic age. The second is that they are entombments of great, and
almost certainly in part of royal, personages. The third, that they bear
indisputable marks of having been effected, not normally throughout, but
in connection with circumstances, which impressed upon them an irregular
and unusual character. The conjecture is, that these may very well be the
tombs of Agamemnon and his company. It is supported in part by a number
of presumptions, but in great part also by the difficulty, not to say the
impossibility, of offering any other suggestion which could be deemed so
much as colourable.
The principal facts which we have to notice appear to be as follows:--
1. The situation chosen for the interments.
2. The numbers of persons simultaneously interred.
3. The dimensions and character of the graves.
4. The partial application of fire to the remains.
5. The use of masks, and likewise of metallic plates, to adorn
or shelter them, or both.
6. The copious deposit both of characteristic and of valuable
objects in conjunction with the bodies.
1. Upon the situation chosen for the interments, Dr. Schliemann opines
that they were not originally within the Agora, but that it was
subsequently constructed around the tombs (p. 340). His reasons are that
the supporting wall, on which rest, in double line, the upright slabs,
formerly, and in six cases still, covered by horizontal slabs as seats
for the elders, is careless in execution, and inferior to the circuit
wall of the Acropolis. But, if it was built as a mere stay, was there any
reason for spending labour to raise it to the point of strength necessary
for a work of military defence? Further, he finds between the lines of
slabs, where they are uncovered, broken pottery of the prehistoric period
more recent than that of the tombs. But such pottery would never have
been placed there at the time of the construction; with other rubbish,
it would only have weakened and not strengthened the fabric of the
inclosure. Nor can we readily see how it could have come there, until the
work was dilapidated by the disappearance of the upper slabs. If so, it
would of course be later in date than the slabs were.
It appears to me that the argument of improbability tells powerfully
against the supposition that the Agora was constructed round the tombs,
having previously been elsewhere. The space within the Acropolis appears
to be very limited: close round the inclosures are 'Cyclopean' houses
and cisterns. When works of this kind are once constructed, their
removal would be a work of great difficulty: and this is a case, where
the earliest builders were followed by men who aimed not at greater,
but at less, solidity. Besides which, the _Agora_ was connected with
the religion of the place, and was, as will be shown, in the immediate
neighbourhood of the palace. In addition to these material attractions,
every kind of moral association would grow up around it.
It can be clearly shown that the ancient Agora was bound down to its site
by manifold ties, other than those of mere solidity in its construction.
It stands in Mycenæ, says our author (p. 341), on the most imposing and
most beautiful spot of the city, from whence the whole was overlooked.
It was on these high places that the men of the prehistoric ages erected
the simple structures, in many cases perhaps uncovered, that, with the
altars, served for the worship of the gods. In Scheriè, it was built
round the temple, so to call it, of Poseidon (_Od._ VI. 266). In the
Greek camp before Troy the _Agora_ was in the centre of the line of ships
(_Il._ XI. 5-9, 806-8). There justice was administered, and there "had
been constructed the altars of the gods." Further, it is clear, from
a number of passages in Homer, that the place of Assembly was always
close to the royal palace. In the case of Troy we are told expressly
that it was held by the doors of Priam (_Il._ II. 788, VII. 345, 6). In
Scheriè, the palace of Alkinoös was close to the grove of Athenè (_Od._
VI. 291-3); and we can hardly doubt that this grove was in the immediate
vicinity of the Posideïon, which was itself within the _Agora_. In
Ithaca (_Od._ XXIV. 415 _seqq._), the people gathered before the Palace of
Odysseus, and then went in a mass into the _Agora_. While it was thus
materially associated with those points of the city which most possessed
the character of fixtures, it is not too much to say, considering the
politics of early Greece, that it must, in the natural course, have
become a centre around which would cling the fondest moral and historical
associations of the people. Into the minor question whether the
encircling slabs are the remains of an original portion of the work or
not, I do not think it needful for me to enter.
But, while I believe that the _Agora_ is where it was, the honour paid
to the dead by the presence of their tombs within it is not affected
by either alternative; but only the time of paying it. If this be the
old _Agora_, they were honoured by being laid in it; if it is of later
date, they were honoured by its being removed in order to be built
around them; if at least this was done knowingly, and how could it be
otherwise, when we observe that the five tombs occupy more than a moiety
of the whole available space? We know, from the evidence of the historic
period, that to be buried in the Agora was a note of public honour; we
cannot reasonably doubt, with the five graves before us, that it was such
likewise in the historic age.
It was a note of public honour, then, if these bodies were originally
buried in the _Agora_. If we adopt the less probable supposition that the
Agora was afterwards constructed around them by reason of their being
there, the honour may seem even greater still.
2. Next, the number of persons simultaneously interred, when taken
in conjunction with the other features of the transaction, offers a
new problem for consideration. An argument in p. 337, to show that
the burials were simultaneous, seems quite conclusive. They embraced
(_ibid._) sixteen or seventeen persons. Among the bodies one appears to
be marked out by probable evidence as that of the leading personage.
Lying in the tomb marked as No. 1, it has two companions. Now Agamemnon
had two marshals or heralds (_Il._ I. 320), whose office partook of a
sacred character. There might, therefore, be nothing strange in their
being laid, if so it were, by their lord. The most marked of the bodies
lay to the north of the two others, all three having the feet to the
westward. It was distinguished by better preservation, which may, at
least not improbably, have been due to some preservative process at the
time of interment. It carried, besides a golden mask (p. 296), a large
golden breastplate (15⅗ by 9½ in.), and other leaves of gold at various
points; also a golden belt across the loins, 4 ft. long and 1¾ in. broad.
By the side of the figure lay two swords, stated by Dr. Schliemann to
be of bronze (p. 302), the ornamentation of one of them particularly in
striking accordance with the description in the _Iliad_ of the sword of
Agamemnon (_Il._ XI. 29-31). Within a foot of the body, to the right, lay
eleven other swords (p. 304), but this is not a distinctive mark, as the
body on the south side has fifteen, ten lying at the feet, and a great
heap of swords were found at the west end, between this and the middle
body.
The entire number of bodies in the five tombs (p. 337), which is stated
at sixteen or seventeen, seems to have included three women and two or
three children. The local tradition recorded by Pausanias (_inf._ p.
59) takes notice of a company of men with Agamemnon, and of Cassandra,
with two children whom she was reported to have borne. This is only
significant as testifying to the ancient belief that children were buried
in the tombs: for Cassandra could only be taken captive at the time when
the city of Troy was sacked, and the assassination immediately followed
the arrival in Greece. But it is likely enough that these children may
have been the offspring of another concubine, who may have taken the
place Briseïs was meant to fill. This is of course mere speculation; but
the meaning is that there is nothing in these indications to impair the
force of any presumptions, which the discoveries may in other respects
legitimately raise.
3. Like the site in the Agora, so the character of the tombstones, which
is in strict correspondence with the style of many of the ornaments,[13]
and the depth of the tombs, appear with one voice to signify honour to
the dead. As I understand the Plans, they show a maximum depth of 25 feet
(see, _e.g._, p. 155) below the surface, hollowed for the most part out
of the solid rock. But then we are met with the staggering fact that the
bodies of full-grown, and apparently (p. 295) tall, men have been forced
into a space of only five feet six inches in length, so as to require
that sort of compression which amounts almost to mutilation.
We seem thus to stand in the face of circumstances that contradict one
another. The place, the depth, the coverings of the tombs, appear to
lead us in one direction; the forcing and squeezing of the bodies in
another. But further, and stranger still, there seems to have been no
necessity for placing the bodies under this unbecoming, nay revolting,
pressure. The original dimensions of the tomb (p. 294) were 21 ft. 6 in.
by 11 ft. 6 in. These are reduced all round, first by an inner wall two
feet thick, and secondly by a slanting projection one foot thick (at
the bottom) to 5 ft. 6 in. and 15 ft. 6 in. Why, then, were the bodies
not laid along, instead of across, it? Was not the act needless as
well as barbarous? And to what motive is a piece of needless barbarism,
apparently so unequivocal, to be referred? I hardly dare to mention,
much less, so scanty is the evidence, to dwell upon the fact that their
bodies lie towards the west, and that the Egyptian receptacle for the
dead lay in that quarter.[14] The conflict of appearances, at which we
have now arrived, appears to point to a double motive in the original
entombment; or to an incomplete and incoherent proceeding, which some
attempt was subsequently made to correct; or to both. But let us pay a
brief attention to the remaining particulars of the disclosures.
4. We have next to observe (_a_) that fire was applied to these remains;
(_b_) that the application of it was only partial; (_c_) that the
metallic deposits are said to show marks[15] of the action of it (pp.
158, 165, 188, 198, 201, 208, 215, 218, 260, 266, 321, 330): so do the
pebbles (p. 294). We see, therefore, that the deposition of the precious
objects took place either at the same moment with the fire, or, and more
probably I suppose, before it had entirely burned out.
The partial nature of the burning requires a more detailed consideration.
In the Homeric burials, burning is universal. It must be regarded,
according to the Poems, as the established Achaian custom of the day,
wherever inhumation was normally conducted. And for burial there was a
distinct reason, namely, that without it the Shade of the departed was
not allowed to join the company of the other Shades, so that the unburied
Elpenor is the first to meet Odysseus (_Od._ XI. 51) on his entrance into
the Underworld; and the shade of Patroclos entreats Achilles to bury him
as rapidly as may be, that he may pass the gates of Aïdes (_Il._ XXIII.
71). I think the proof of the universal use of fire in regular burials at
this period is conclusive.
Not only do we find it in the great burials of the Seventh Book
(429-32), and in the funerals of Patroclos (XXIII. 177) and Hector (XXIV.
785-800), but we have it in the case of Elpenor (_Od._ XII. 11-13), whom
at first his companions had left uninterred, and for whom therefore we
must suppose they only did what was needful under established custom.
Perhaps a yet clearer proof is to be found in a simile. Achilles, we are
told, wept while the funeral pile he had erected was burning, all night
long, the bones of Patroclos, "as a father weeps when he burns the bones
of his youthful son" (XXIII. 222-5). This testifies to a general practice.
In the case of notable persons, the combustion was not complete. For
not the ashes only, but the bones, were carefully gathered. In the case
of Patroclos, they are wrapped in fat, and put in an open cup or bowl
(_phialè_) for temporary custody (XXIII. 239-44) until the funeral of
Achilles, when with those of Achilles himself, similarly wrapped, and
soaked in wine, they are deposited in a golden urn (_Od._ XXIV. 73-7). In
the case of Hector, the bones are in like manner gathered and lodged in a
golden box, which is then placed in a trench and built over with a mass
of stones (_Il._ XXIV. 793-8). Incomplete combustion, then, is common
to the Homeric and the Mycenean instances. But in the case of the first
tomb at Mycenæ, not only was there no collection of the bones for deposit
in an urn, but they had not been touched; except in the instance of the
middle body, where they had simply been disturbed, and the valuables
perhaps removed, as hardly anything of the kind was found with it. In
the case of the body on the north side, the flesh of the face remained
unconsumed.
But though the use of fire was universal in honourable burial, burial
itself was not allowed to all. Enemies, as a rule, were not buried.
Hence the opening passage of the _Iliad_ tells us that many heroes
became a prey to dogs and birds (_Il._ I. 4). Such says Priam, before
the conflict with Hector, he would make Achilles if he could (XXII. 42);
and he anticipates a like distressing fate (66 _seqq._) for himself. In
the Odyssey, the bodies of the Suitors are left to be removed by their
friends (XXII. 448; XXIV. 417). Achilles, indeed, buried Eëtion, king
of Asiatic Thebes, with his arms, in the regular manner. "He did not
simply spoil him, for he had a scruple in his mind" (_Il._ VI. 417);
and no wonder; for Eëtion, king of the Kilikes, was not an enemy: that
people does not appear among the allies of Troy in the Catalogue. Thus
there was a variance of use; and there may have been cases of irregular
intermediate treatment between the two extremes of honourable burial and
casting out to the dogs.
5. With regard to the use of masks of gold for the dead, I hope that the
Mycenean discoveries will lead to a full collection of the evidence upon
this rare and curious practice. For the present, I limit myself to the
following observations:
(1.) If not less than seven of these golden masks have been
discovered at Mycenæ by Dr. Schliemann, then the use of them,
on the occasion of these entombments, was not limited to royal
persons, of whom it is impossible to make out so large a number.
(2.) I am not aware of any proof at present before us that the
use of such masks for the dead of any rank or class was a custom
prevalent, or even known, in Greece. There is much information,
from Homer downwards, supplied to us by the literature of that
country concerning burials; and yet, in a course of more than
1200 years, there is not a single allusion to the custom of using
masks for the dead. It seems to be agreed that the passage in
the works of Lucian, who is reckoned to have flourished in the
second half of the second century, does not refer to the use of
such masks. This might lead us to the conjecture that, where the
practice has appeared, it was a remainder of foreign usage, a
survival from immigration.
(3.) Masks have been found in tombs, not in Greece, but in the
Crimea, Campania, and Mesopotamia. Our latest information on the
subject is, I believe, the account mentioned in Dr. Schliemann's
last report from Athens (pp xlvii, xlviii), of a gold mask found
on the Phœnician coast over against Aradus, which is of the size
suited for an infant only. It is to be remembered that heroic
Greece is full of the marks of what I may term Phœnicianism, most
of which passed into the usages of the country, and contributed
to form the base of Hellenic life. Nor does it seem improbable,
that this use of the metallic mask may have been a Phœnician
adaptation from the Egyptian custom of printing the likeness of
the dead on the mummy case. And, again, we are to bear in mind
that Mycenæ had been the seat of repeated foreign immigrations.
(4.) We have not to deal in this case _only_ with masks, but with
the case of a breastplate in gold, which, however, could not
have been intended for use in war; together with other leaves
or plates of gold, found on, or apparently intended for, other
portions of the person.
6. Lastly, with regard to the deposit of objects which, besides being
characteristic, have unchangeable value, the only point on which I have
here to remark is, their extraordinary amount. It is such, I conceive,
as to give to these objects, and particularly to those of the First
Tomb, an exceptional place among the sepulchral deposits of antiquity. I
understand that their weight is about one hundred pounds troy, or nearly
that of five thousand British sovereigns. It is difficult to suppose that
this deposit could have been usual, even with the remains of a King;
and it is at this point that I, for one, am compelled to break finally
and altogether with the supposition, that this great entombment, in the
condition in which Dr. Schliemann found it, was simply an entombment of
Agamemnon and his company effected by Ægisthus and Clytemnestra, their
murderers.
So far, with little argument, I have endeavoured fairly to set out the
facts. Let me now endeavour to draw to a point the several threads of
the subject, in order to deal with the main question, namely, whether
these half-wasted, half-burned remains are the ashes of Agamemnon and his
company? And truly this is a case, where it may be said to the inquirer,
in figure as well as in fact,
"et incedis per ignes
Suppositos cineri doloso."[16]
Let us place clearly before our eyes the account given by the Shade
of Agamemnon, in the Eleventh Odyssey (405-434), of the manner of his
death. No darker picture could be drawn. It combined every circumstance
of cruelty with every circumstance of fraud. At the hospitable board,
amid the flowing wine-cups, he was slain like an ox at the stall, and
his comrades like so many hogs for a rich man's banquet; with deaths
more piteous than he had ever known in single combat, or in the rush of
armies. Most piteous of all was the death of Cassandra, whom the cruel
Clytemnestra despatched with her own hand while clinging to Agamemnon;
nor did she vouchsafe to her husband the last office of mercy and
compassion, by closing his mouth and eyes in death. Singularly enough,
Dr. Schliemann assures me that the right eye, which alone could be seen
with tolerable clearness, was not entirely shut (see the engraving at p.
297); while the teeth of the upper jawbone (see the same engraving) did
not quite join those of the lower. This condition, he thinks, may be due
to the superincumbent weight. But if the weight had opened the jaw, would
not the opening, in all likelihood, have been much wider?
Now, as we are told that Ægisthus reigned until Orestes reached his
manhood, we must assume that the massacre was in all respects triumphant.
Yet there could hardly fail to be a party among the people favourable
to the returning King, who had covered his country with unequalled
glory. There might thus be found in the circumstances a certain
dualism, a ground for compromise, such as may go far to account for the
discrepancies of intention, which we seem to find in the entombments.
There was this division of sentiment among the people, in the only case
where we know the return of the prince from Troy to have been accompanied
with a crisis or conflict, I mean the case of Ithaca.
The assassins proceeded in such a way, that the only consistent
accomplishment of their design would have been found in casting forth
the bodies of the slain like the bodies of enemies. But this may have
been forbidden by policy. In the Julius Cæsar of Shakespeare, Brutus says
(III. 1.)--
"We are contented Cæsar shall
Have all due rites and lawful ceremonies.
It shall advantage more than do us wrong."
Ægisthus was not Brutus. Even fury was apparent in the incidents of the
slaughter. Yet there might be a desire to keep up appearances afterwards,
and to allow some semblance of an honourable burial. There is one special
circumstance that favours the idea of a double process, namely, that
we readily find the agents for both parts of it; the murderers for the
first, with necessity and policy controlling hatred; Orestes on his
return for the second, with the double motive of piety and revenge.
We are now on the road not of history, but of reasonable conjecture.
I try to account for a burial, which according to all reasonable
presumption is of the heroic age, and of royal and famous personages,
but which presents conflicting features of honour and of shame. That
there is no conflicting hypothesis, is not a good reason for precipitate
assent to the hypothesis which we may term Agamemnonian. Conjecture,
to be admissible, ought to be consistent with itself, to meet the main
demands of the known facts, and to present no trait at actual variance
with any of them. In this view I present the hypothesis of a double
procedure, and a double agency: and I submit, that there is nothing
irrational in the following chain of suppositions for the First Tomb,
while the others are probably included in the argument. That the usurping
assassins, from the same policy, granted the honour of burial in the
_Agora_; hewed the sepulchre deep and large in the rock; and built the
encircling wall within it. That honour stopped with the preparation of
the tomb, and the rest, less visible to the public eye, was left to spite
or haste. That the bodies were consequently placed in the seemingly
strange and indecent fashion, which the tomb has disclosed. That, as
they were protected by the rock, and by the depth from the surface,
their decomposition was slow. That Orestes, on his return, could not but
be aware of the circumstances, and, in the fulfilment of his divinely
ordered mission, determined upon reparation to the dead. That he opened
the tombs and arranged the means of cremation. That, owing to the depth,
it was imperfect from want of ventilation; we may remember that in the
case of Patroclos the winds were specially summoned to expedite the
process (_Il._ XXIII. 192-218). In calling it imperfect, I mean that it
stopped short of the point at which the bones could be gathered; and they
remained _in situ_. That the masks, breastplate, and other leaves of gold
were used, perhaps, in part with reference to custom; in part, especially
as regards all beside the masks, to replace in the wasted bodies the
seemliness and majesty of nature, and to shelter its dilapidation. That
the profuse deposits of arms and valuables were due to filial piety.
That the same sentiment carried the work through even to the careful
sculpturing of the four tombstones (others have been found (p. 100), but
without sculpture); and sought, by their means, to indicate for renown
and reverence, and to secure from greedy violation, the resting-place of
the dead.
A complex solution, perhaps; but one applicable to very complex facts,
and one of which the ground at least is laid in those facts; one also,
which I offer as a contribution to a most interesting scrutiny, but with
no claim or pretension to uphold it against any other, that may seem
better entitled to fill the vacant place.
W. E. G.
HAWARDEN, _November, 1877_.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Hor. _A. P._ 39.
[2] Since this Preface was put in type, the fragments of an
ostrich egg, originally mistaken for an alabaster vase, have been tested
and verified. This object seems to afford a new indication of prehistoric
relations between Mycenæ and Egypt.
[3] In the remarkable Museum of the Royal Academy of Ireland are
two swords referred to the Danish period, which were taken out of a bed
of mud. After a repose of perhaps a thousand years, they do not exhibit
corrosion to the common eye. But the case is considered exceptional, and
probably due to some peculiar ingredient in the moisture.
[4] I do not think it proved that, as Schliemann seems to convey
(p. 84), the chariot-box was removed and fastened on each occasion of
using it. The passages in _Il._ XXIV. 190 and 267 refer to the _peirins_
of the waggon. In _Od._ XV. 131, it is simply mentioned as a portion of
the carriage, with no reference to detaching it.
[5] Ikmalios is mentioned in _Od._ XIX. 57 as the maker of
a chair inlaid with ivory and silver. I cannot doubt that this was
foreign, since it is marked as the work of a former age: ἥν ποτε
τέκτων ποίης᾽ ᾽Ικμάλιος, "which erewhile
Ikmalion with cunning hand had made" (Norgate). 'Erewhile' will not be
found in Todd or Latham: but it is in Shakespeare, and the Dictionary of
Worcester and Webster contains it.
[6] 'Homeric Synchronism,' pp. 171 _seq._ I do not here enter on
the curious question what is the precise meaning of
γυναῖα δῶρα.
[7] 'Troy and its Remains,' pp. 369, 371.
[8] 'Troy and its Remains,' p. 361. One of these had only about
four per cent. of tin. Could this have been a native admixture?
[9] 'Troy and its Remains,' p. 335.
[10] I wish here to call attention to the fact that, as always
(I believe) in the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments, the moon is on this
ring also distinguished from the sun, not by its size, but by its being
a crescent moon. In truth, the distinction of size, to the common eye,
is variable; and is sometimes against the sun. Two full-formed globes
of equal diameter would have presented a picture alike defective in
composition and in meaning: and ancient art, not content with this,
seized, more poetically as I think, upon the distinction of character in
the two bodies respectively. Homer, as I contend, has exactly followed
this form of representation in his σελήνην τε
πλήθουσάν: and I venture to hope that the sense of growing,
filling, waxing, or crescent moon will now be allowed to prevail over the
more customary rendering of 'full' moon (_Il._ XVIII. 434).
[11] Juvenal, _Sat._ X. 147.
[12] See, _e.g._, the print in Manning's 'Land of the Pharaohs,'
p. 129.
[13] Mr. Percy Gardner, in the _Academy_, April 21, 1877.
[14] 'Homeric Synchronism,' p. 240.
[15] These marks, I now learn from Dr. S., are universal.
[16] Hor. _Od._ II. 1. 8.
DR. SCHLIEMANN'S ACCOUNT OF A TOMB AT SPATA, IN ATTICA.
_Athens, 1st Oct., 1877._
For some months past it has repeatedly been asserted in the Press by
travellers that there exists a very great similarity between the Mycenean
antiquities and those recently discovered in a tomb at Spata. Having
now visited the latter, in company with my esteemed friend Professor E.
Castorches, of the University of Athens, and his daughter Helen, and
having carefully examined the objects found in it, I think it in the
interest of science to offer the following remarks on the subject. The
village of Spata, which is exclusively inhabited by Albanians, lies about
nine miles to the east of Athens, on the further side of Mount Hymettus,
on the road to Marathon. Close to that village is a small mount, whose
circular summit has evidently been artificially levelled; it is covered
to a depth of about three feet with _débris_, in which we see now and
then fragments of archaic vases with painted parallel horizontal bands.
The villagers assert that until very recently the summit was surrounded
by the ruins of fortress walls, which have now altogether disappeared,
the stones having been used for the building of the new village. The
name of the settlement which existed here in antiquity is altogether
uncertain. Colonel Leake[17] recognises in the present name, Spata, a
corruption of the ancient _demos_ of Sphettus (Σϕῆττος or
Σϕηττός), which is mentioned by Aristophanes,[18] Strabo,[19]
Pausanias,[20] Stephanus Byzantinus,[21] and others.
In the south-west side of the mount, which slopes at an angle of 52
degrees, there occurred last winter in one place a sudden breaking down
of the ground, and in the hollow thus formed there was discovered a
sepulchre cut out in the sandstone rock. The Archæological Society had
the place explored, and it was found that an inclined road, cut in the
rock, 74 feet long, led into the tomb. The road is 8¼ feet broad up to
the entrance, which is 10 feet long and 3⅓ feet broad. The sepulchre
consists of three quadrangular chambers, which are united by two passages
6½ feet long and 3⅓ feet broad; and the ceilings of these chambers are
cut out in the rock in the form of roofs with two slanting sides. The
primitive architect had evidently intended to give to each of these three
chambers exactly the shape of a house, because the slanting sides of the
roof-like ceiling do not converge directly from the vertical walls, but
hang over by 8 inches like the eaves of a house. The height of the first
chamber is 16½ feet, its breadth 15, and its length 20 feet; the two
other chambers are 12½ feet high, 12 feet long, and 11½ feet broad. Of
the existence of wooden doors there are no traces, except in the passage
from the first to the second chamber. Seen from the extremity of the
"dromos" this tomb reminds us of the Egyptian sepulchres.[22]
In each of the three chambers was found a human skeleton, with a quantity
of ashes and charcoal, which seems to prove that each body had been burnt
on the pyre in the very spot where it lay, but so superficially that the
bones were preserved. In this respect, as well regarding the burning of
the bodies in the tombs, we find a resemblance to the mode of burial of
the bodies in the five royal sepulchres at Mycenæ. But here the bones
crumbled away on being exposed to the air. This tomb had evidently been
already rifled in ancient times, for but a few objects were found with
the bodies; nearly all of them lay dispersed in the _débris_, in and
before the entrance. They consisted of bone or ivory, glass, bronze,
stone, and terra-cotta. Only a few flowers of very thin gold-leaf
having been found, whose aggregate weight cannot exceed the eighth part
of a pound, it appears that the tomb-robbers only aimed at the golden
ornaments, and that they threw away all the rest.
The few terra-cotta vessels found here are all wheel-made; among the
number there is one which perfectly resembles the vase represented under
No. 25, p. 64; it is ornamented with red and black circular bands, and is
in the shape of a globe with a flat foot; it terminates above in a very
pretty narrow neck, without an opening, the top of which is joined on
each side by a beautifully shaped handle to the upper part of the body.
The real mouth of the vase is in the shape of a funnel, and near to the
closed neck. There was also found the upper part of a similar vase. I
remind the reader that forty-three vases of exactly the same form were
found in a sepulchre at Ialysus in Rhodes, and are now in the British
Museum; that they sometimes, though but seldom, occur in Attica, and that
some specimens of them have also been found in the Egyptian tombs and in
Cyprus.
Another vase found in the tomb of Spata is ornamented with black spirals.
I also mention among the findings at Spata the large quantity of small
ornaments which Professor Landerer's analysis has proved to consist
of glass alloyed with much protoxide of lead, the latter having the
property of breaking the rays of light; these ornaments present a silvery
mirror-like glimmer. Landerer observes that it is soda-glass (in German,
_Natrum-Glas_), and that it has the property of dividing into small
leaves or splinters. It is very remarkable that all these ornaments of
glass have evidently been cast in moulds, and that many of them resemble
more or less the types which we see in the Mycenean moulds represented
under No. 162 and No. 163, p. 107 and p. 109. On the reverse side of
most of these objects are one, two, or three small holes, or tubular
rings, for fastening them on other objects, probably on clothes. A most
frequent object here is that which we recognise in the type on the lower
side of the mould, No. 162, p. 107. There also occur small cones of
a much weather-beaten glass, which have the very greatest similarity
to the type which we see in that side of the mould, No. 163, which is
represented on page 109 in the upper row to the right of the spectator;
it also resembles very much the small cone, No. 164, p. 109, of which a
large number were found at Mycenæ; the only difference is that the cones
of Spata have an impressed spiral line, whereas the cones of Mycenæ show
impressed concentric circles. However, it deserves attention that the
mould, No. 163, represents the type of such a cone with a spiral line.
But then, again, there is the greatest difference in the substance, for
whilst at Spata all these small ornaments are of glass, the Mycenean
cones and other objects, such as Nos. 164, 165, 166 and 167, are of a
hard-baked clay, which has been varnished with a lead glaze; no trace
of glass having been found at Mycenæ except some small glass beads, the
small object, No. 177, and the almost microscopical tubes of cobalt glass
described at pages 157 and 158. As, on the other hand, there have been
found a large quantity of small ornaments of hard-baked clay varnished
with a lead-glaze, we cannot reasonably doubt that the manufacture of
glass at Mycenæ was only in its first beginning, that until the capture
of the city (468 B.C.) it made no progress there, and that all the types
contained in the Mycenean moulds served merely for the casting of
similar ornaments of baked clay varnished with a lead-glaze.
But there also occur in the tomb at Spata objects of blue cobalt glass,
some of which are identical in shape with the object of stone represented
under No. 172, p. 111.
All these objects of glass lead us to the conclusion that the sepulchre
of Spata belongs to a much later time than the royal tombs of Mycenæ. But
we find a much stronger proof of this in the carved works discovered in
the Spata sepulchre, which are generally thought to consist of ivory, but
which by the investigation of Professor Landerer are proved to consist
of common bone. All these carved works appear to belong to a late period
of Assyrian art; perhaps the most remarkable object among them is a
beardless man's head covered with a very high Assyrian mitre, the lower
part of which is ornamented all round with a diadem, whilst the upper
part is divided by three double bands into four compartments. As usual
in the Assyrian hair-dress, the hair hangs down on the neck in three
tresses, lying the one on the other. I also mention a comb 5·8 in. long,
3·4 in. broad, the upper part of which is divided by narrow borders into
two horizontal compartments; the upper one containing in the midst a
flower and on either side a female sphinx; the lower one containing three
female sphinxes. There are also two bone plates with female sphinxes.
All these sphinxes have very large and broad wings and exhibit a most
excellent Assyrian style of art. In comparison with them the golden
sphinxes of the Mycenean tombs, of which I have represented one under No.
277, on p. 183, show a most ancient and very primitive style of art.
Among the carved works found in the tomb at Spata particular attention is
due to a plate of bone, on which is represented a lion devouring an ox;
the whole body of the former is represented as hovering in the air, and
his long outstretched hind-legs vividly remind us of the representation
of the lions on the Mycenean goblets and plates of gold. On the other
hand the lion's head and the ox which he devours most decidedly show an
Assyrian style of art.
I repeat here that no trace of Assyrian art was found at Mycenæ.
Another of the carved works from Spata which deserves attention is a disk
of bone of 4·6 in. in diameter, with a border formed by two double lines,
the whole interior space being in the form of a net, divided by treble
wave-like lines into small triangles.
Professor Landerer asserts that these large plates and disks of bone
prove beyond any doubt that the art of softening bone in water, and
pressing it, and thus preparing very large pieces of bone, was known in
Attica at a remote antiquity.
I still call attention, among the objects found at Spata, to the small
disks of stone, which have on one side in the centre a small tube, and
may have been used as ornaments on the house doors. They are mostly
similar to objects which I found at Mycenæ;[23] but they were also found
in the sepulchre at Ialysus, and may be seen in the British Museum.
Of bronze arrow-heads several specimens were found in the sepulchre at
Spata, but no trace of them occurred in the Mycenean tombs. On the other
hand there were found in one of the latter the thirty-five arrow-heads
of obsidian represented under No. 435, p. 272, and arrow-heads of the
same stone also occurred in the _débris_ above the tombs; it was only in
the upper layers of _débris_ at Mycenæ that I found some arrow-heads of
bronze.[24]
Among the objects found at Spata I further mention the fragment of a vase
of black granite, with two holes for suspension; fragments of similar
vases occurred also at Mycenæ.
Close to this tomb was discovered another, consisting of but one small
chamber, approached by a _dromos_ which has but half the length of that
which leads to the large tomb. In the small tomb was found the skeleton
of a man which had evidently likewise been burned on a pyre on the very
spot where it lay; there was also found the skeleton of a stag, but
nothing more.
Colonel Leake is in all probability right in proclaiming the identity of
Spata with the ancient _demos_ of Sphettus (Σϕῆττος or
Σϕηττός), and as, according to Plutarch,[25] the fifty Pallantides,
sons of Pallas, the brother of Ægeus, marched from Sphettus against
Athens; and as Colonel Leake, guided by an inscription published by
Finlay, identifies the site of the _demos_ of Pallenæ, which the
Pallantides inhabited, with a spur of mount Hymettus, which bars the road
to Probalinthus and Marathon, and is thus in the immediate neighbourhood
of Sphettus--for all these reasons it has been supposed that the tombs
of Spata might possibly belong to the Pallantides killed by Theseus. But
this opinion is contradicted by the objects discovered, which make it
impossible for us to attribute the large tomb to an earlier period than
the eighth century, B.C., whilst the royalty at Athens belongs to a very
remote antiquity, and must be contemporaneous with royalty at Mycenæ.
The use of masks in antiquity being a question very important for
Archaeology, I cannot conclude without mentioning that my esteemed friend
Professor A. Rhousopoulos, of the University of Athens, reminds me of a
very small golden mask found last spring in a sepulchre on the coast of
ancient Phoenicia, just opposite to the island of Aradus. It had been
bought there by a trader in antiquities, who brought it first to Athens,
and showed it to me at Boulogne-sur-Mer, on his way to London, where he
intended to sell it. It is of thin gold plate, and so small that it could
apparently only fit on the face of a new-born child. It represents a
human face with shut eyes, in very rude _repoussé_ work.
FOOTNOTES:
[17] 'Demi of Attica,' p. 125.
[18] _Plutus_, 720.
[19] IX., p. 397.
[20] II., 30, 8.
[21] P. 627.
[22] "Si parva licet componere magnis."
[23] See No. 126, in the upper row to the right and left, p. 76.
[24] Pages 76, 123.
[25] _Theseus_, 13.
THE FALL OF MYCENÆ AS DESCRIBED BY DIODORUS SICULUS.
I give, at my worthy friend Professor F. A. Paley's suggestion, a literal
translation of the account which Diodorus Siculus (xi. 65) gives us of
Mycenæ's tragic end:
"In the seventy-eighth Olympiad (B.C. 468) a war was set on foot
between the Argives and the people of Mycenæ, on the following grounds.
The Myceneans, proud of the high renown which their own country had
formerly enjoyed, refused to obey the Argives as the other cities in
that territory had done, but took up an independent position and paid no
regard to the Argives. They had disputes with them also about the worship
of the goddess Hera, and put in a claim to have the sole conduct and
management of the Nemean games. And still further they were at variance
with them because, when the Argives had passed a resolution not to aid
the Spartans at Thermopylae, unless they should be allowed a share in the
command, the Myceneans alone of all the inhabitants of Argolis joined the
ranks of the Lacedæmonians. The Argives had besides a general suspicion
that some day their rivals might become too powerful and dispute with
them the sovereignty, from the former greatness of their city. Such being
the motives for hostility, they had long been watching an opportunity to
raze Mycenæ to the ground; and they thought the fitting time had now
arrived, as they saw the Lacedæmonians had been defeated and were unable
to bring any aid to the Myceneans. Accordingly they collected a strong
force from Argos and the other states in alliance, and led them to the
attack. The Myceneans were beaten, driven into the walls of their city,
and besieged. For some time they defended themselves with spirit against
the besieging hosts; but at length, partly because they had been worsted
in the war, partly because the Lacedæmonians were unable to aid them,
from having wars of their own on hand, as well as through the disastrous
effects of the earthquakes, and having no one now to help them, through
mere deficiency of aid from without they were taken by assault. The
Myceneans were thus made slaves by the Argives, a tithe of their property
was consecrated to the service of religion, and their city was razed to
the ground. Thus a state that had been great and wealthy in times of old,
had numbered many illustrious men and performed many glorious actions,
met with its final overthrow, and it has remained desolate up to our
times" (_i.e._, to the time of Augustus).
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
_Preface_, by the Right Hon. _W. E. Gladstone_ _Page_ v
Dr. Schliemann's Account of a Tomb at Spata, in Attica " xli
The Fall of Mycenæ, as described by Diodorus Siculus " xlviii
Table of French and English Measures " lviii
List of Illustrations " lix
CHAPTER I.
EXCAVATIONS AT TIRYNS.
Situation of the City--Description by Pausanias--Cyclopean
Walls: meaning of the epithet--The Quarry--The rock of Tiryns
and its bordering Wall--Galleries, Gate, and Tower--Walls and
Terraces of the Acropolis--Mythical traditions and History of
Tiryns--Its destruction by the Argives--Its connection with the
myth of Hercules--Morasses in the Plain of Argos--The Walls of
Tiryns the most ancient monument in Greece--Pottery a test of
antiquity--Beginning of the Excavations--Cyclopean house-walls
and conduits--Objects discovered--Terra-cotta cows, and female
idols with cow's-horns--Both represent the goddess HERA BOÖPIS--A
bird-headed idol--A bronze figure, the only piece of metal at
Tiryns, except lead--No stone implements found--Pottery--Hellenic
remains outside the citadel, which was the primitive city--Proofs
of different periods of habitation--The later city of Tiryns--The
archaic pottery of Tiryns like that of Mycenæ--Its forms and
decoration denote higher civilisation than the rude walls
would lead us to expect--Older pottery on the virgin soil,
but no cows or idols--Probable date of the second nation at
Tiryns, about 1000 to 800 B.C.; of the Cyclopean walls, about
1800 to 1600 B.C.--No resemblance to any of the pottery in
the strata of Hissarlik, except the goblets--A human skeleton
found--Whorls--Estimate of soil to be moved at Tiryns--Greater
importance of MYCENÆ _Page_ 1
NOTE A.--"HERA BOÖPIS" 19
CHAPTER II.
TOPOGRAPHY OF MYCENÆ.
GATE OF THE LIONS AND TREASURY OF ATREUS.
The road from Argos to Mycenæ--The Plain of Argos: its rivers and
hills, horses and vegetation--Myth regarding its arid nature--Swamps
in the southern part; and fable of the Lernæan hydra--Early social
develop-ment here--Legend of Phoroneus--The Pelasgian Argos--The Achæan
states of Argos and Mycenæ--Situation of Mycenæ--The _Citadel_ and
its Cyclopean walls--The term defined--"Gate of the Lions"--The postern
gate--Cisterns--Poetical confusion of Argos and Mycenæ.
The _Lower City_: its house-walls, bridge, treasuries, and
pottery--Its partially enclosing wall--The undefended suburb, and its
large buildings--Its extent--The only two wells in Mycenæ--Three
Treasuries in the suburb--Treasuries in the Lower City--Description of
the "Treasury of Atreus"--Dodwell's Argument for regarding the building
as a Treasury--Uniqueness of these structures--Excavation of the
Treasury by Veli Pasha 23
CHAPTER III.
HISTORY OF MYCENÆ AND THE FAMILY OF PELOPS.
THE SEPULCHRES OF AGAMEMNON AND HIS COMPANIONS.
Traditional foundation of Mycenæ by Perseus--His dynasty
succeeded by the Pelopids--The legend of their crimes unknown
to Homer and Hesiod--The Homeric story of Agamemnon's murder by
Ægisthus and Clytemnestra, avenged by Orestes--Cycle of crimes
devised by the later bards--Dominion of Agamemnon--End of the
Dynasty at Mycenæ with Ægisthus--Orestes and his sons--The Dorian
invasion--Part taken by Mycenæ in the Persian wars--The Argives
besiege and take Mycenæ--The walls of the citadel preserved
from religious reverence--Homeric epithets of Mycenæ--Its
"abundance of gold" confirmed by Thucydides--The Treasuries of
the Pelopids mentioned by Pausanias--Treasury at the Heræum, near
Mycenæ--Probable existence of another Treasury at Mycenæ.
The _Royal Sepulchres_ described by Pausanias--General
misinterpretation of the passage--Experimental shafts sunk there
in February, 1874--Excavations begun, August 7, 1876--Porter's
lodge at the Lions' Gate--The later habitation of the city after
468 B.C.--No coins of Mycenæ known--Remains below this first
stratum--Painted archaic vases, like those at Tiryns--The vases
almost all made on the Potter's wheel--Female idols and cows of
terra-cotta--Other idols and animals--Iron knives and curious
keys of a later period--Bronze knives and arrow-heads--Stone
implements and other objects--A little gold and much lead
found--Fragments of a lyre and flute--Plates of ornamented
terra-cotta for lining walls--Cyclopean house-walls--A remarkable
water-conduit--Twelve tomb-like reservoirs--Two tombstones with
bas-reliefs, probably of the same epoch as that over the Lions'
Gate 52
CHAPTER IV.
EXCAVATIONS IN THE CITADEL OF MYCENÆ--_continued_.
Wages and worth of labour at Mycenæ--The double circle of
slabs--Two more sculptured _stêlæ_--Unsculptured _stêlæ_--Ashes
and bones, probably of sacrifices--Fragments of other sculptured
tombstones--The style of these _stêlæ_ unique--Their probable
age about 1500 B.C.--A Cyclopean house filled with ashes, bones,
&c.--Objects found there and in the twelve reservoirs--Great
significance of the tombstones found in the Acropolis--They
mark the Royal Tombs, mentioned by Pausanias from tradition
only--Excavation of the Treasury close to the Lions' Gate:
about as large as that of Atreus--Antiquity of the covering-up
proved by the ancient vases, idols, &c. in the _débris_
above--Hera-idols, and others, found in the _dromos_, and in
the Acropolis--Their vast abundance--Cow-heads on handles of
vases, as at Troy--Moulds for earrings and other ornaments of
gold and silver, and curious clay cones--Other ornaments of
glazed clay, potstone, &c.--Numerous objects of bronze--Curious
wheels--Necklace beads of various stones, with intaglios of
animals, and similar objects of other shapes--Two-handled
goblets; the δέπας ἀμϕικύπελλον of Homer--Depth of
the _débris_--Breach in the great Cyclopean wall, repaired
by an ancient wall of small stones--The quarry of Mycenæ 86
CHAPTER V.
EXCAVATIONS IN AND NEAR THE ACROPOLIS--_continued_.
THE LIONS' GATE AND THE AGORA.
The Treasury excavated by Mrs. Schliemann--Older and
less sumptuous than that of Atreus--The entrance, its
ornaments--Archaic pottery found in the passage--Necklace
beads--Fragment of a marble frieze--Threshold of the Lions'
Gate--The great double row of parallel slabs, probably not
of a remote antiquity--The Acropolis only partly accessible
to chariots--The gateway double, like the Scæan Gate at
Troy--Corridors of Cyclopean house-walls--Hera-idols and
arrow-heads of bronze and iron--Door-keeper's lodge--Retaining
walls--Tower of the Acropolis resting on a massive wall--The
double circle of slabs formed the enclosure of the royal tombs
and the Agora--Arguments in proof of this view--Objects of
interest found there--A vast Cyclopean house with cisterns and
water conduit, probably the ancient Royal Palace--The spring
Perseia--No windows in the house--Objects of art and luxury
found there--An onyx seal-ring--Vase-paintings of mail-clad
warriors--Hand-made pottery in the Acropolis 118
NOTE 138
CHAPTER VI.
THE SECOND GREAT TREASURY; ACROPOLIS; AND CYCLOPEAN
REMAINS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF MYCENÆ.
Further excavations of Mrs. Schliemann's Treasury--The
_dromos_, doorway, and threshold--Objects found
there--Hera-idols--Cyclopean water-conduits and cisterns
in the Acropolis--Bronze rings--Pottery with marks like
letters--Earrings like those found at Troy--Hand-made painted
pottery--New forms of Hera-idols--Terra-cotta tripods and
cradles, probably votive offerings--A comb, stilettos of opal,
beads and buttons--A bronze sword--Iron tongs of late date--State
of the _débris_ left at the Lions' Gate--The excavations
visited by the Emperor of Brazil--Ascent of Mount Eubœa--The
Cyclopean enclosure on its summit; was probably a very ancient
sanctuary--Other Cyclopean remains near Mycenæ--State of the
excavations 139
NOTE 149
CHAPTER VII.
THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD TOMBS IN THE ACROPOLIS.
Discovery of the _Tomb_ indicated by the three sculptured
_stêlæ_--Curious gold-covered buttons, objects of ivory,
baked clay, gold, glass, bronze, &c.--Pottery, both wheel
and hand-made--_Second Tomb_ below the unsculptured
_stêlæ_--Discovery of three human bodies, which had been
partially burnt where they lay--Fifteen diadems of thin
gold plate found on the bodies--Also crosses of golden
laurel-leaves--Other curious objects, proving a knowledge of
the art of glass-working and colouring--Knives of obsidian--A
silver vase with a bronze mouth plated with gold, and other
objects--Terra-cotta vases--The horned Hera-idols found in the
tomb, a proof of that symbolic worship in the earliest times
at Mycenæ--Its duration to the last age of the city--Primitive
painted wheel-made vases of terra-cotta--Further discovery of
sepulchral slabs--Various objects found with them--The _Third
Tomb_--Several skeletons of men, not burnt, and objects found
with them--A curious double-bladed bronze dagger--Narrow escape
from a falling rock--Internal walls of the tomb--Three skeletons
of women in it, evidently burnt where they lay--Laden with jewels
of gold--Layers of round plates of gold with ornamentation
of _repoussé_ work under and over the bodies--Description of
their many types--The other jewels described--Other chased and
embossed beads--Golden griffins--Legend of the griffins of Indian
origin--Heart-shaped and lion-draped gold ornaments--Curious
brooches formed of palm-trees, stags, and lions--Women with
pigeons--Golden cuttle-fish, butterflies, swans, _hippocampi_,
eagles, sphinxes, trees, and birds--The splendid gold crown on
the head of one of the bodies--Signs upon it--The second gold
crown--Five more diadems of gold--Crosses of double leaves of
gold--Golden stars--A gold brooch, and other ornaments--Necklaces
and bracelets--Two pairs of golden scales--Golden plates--A
child's mask of gold--Other ornaments--Balls, &c. of rock
crystal, silver, and bronze, probably the handles of
sceptres--Lentoid gems of agate, sardonyx, &c., with intaglios--A
lentoid gem of amethyst engraved with a cow suckling her calf, as
on the old coins of Corcyra--Gold wheels--A gold comb with bone
teeth, &c.--Amber beads--Other ornaments--Pieces of gold-leaf
strewn below and about the bodies--A gold goblet--A curious gold
box, and gold vases with lids fastened on by wires--A silver vase
and golden sceptre-handle--Boxes of copper-plate filled with
wood, perhaps pillows for the dead bodies--Other objects found
in the third sepulchre--Hand-made and very ancient wheel-made
pottery 150
CHAPTER VIII.
THE FOURTH TOMB IN THE ACROPOLIS OF MYCENÆ.
Further search within the Agora, without the guide of
tombstones--Discovery of an altar of Cyclopean masonry, over
the centre of the great _Fourth Tomb_, containing the bodies of
five men, burnt where they lay, laden with jewels, and covered
with a layer of white clay--Objects found--Copper caldrons, one
containing 100 gold-plated buttons with intaglio work--Homeric
mention of caldrons--A silver cow's head with gold horns and
a gold sun on its forehead: it represents Hera--Cow-heads
with axes--Swords and lances of bronze--Gold-plated wooden
sword-sheaths and hilts with gold pins--Three masks of gold
covering the faces of the bodies--A fourth mask, representing a
lion's head--Two seal-rings and a bracelet, with ornaments--The
state of art corresponds with that described in Homer--Golden
breastplates on two of the bodies--Golden crown by the head
of another--Golden ornament of the greaves--Borax used then,
as now, for soldering gold--More than one
δέπας ἀμϕικύκελλον,
and other vessels of gold and silver--The large gold goblet,
with doves on the two handles, like Nestor's cup in the
_Iliad_--Two-handled terra-cotta vases, hand-made, like
those at Troy--Ornaments of alabaster--Gold shoulder-belts
(τελαμῶνες)--Other objects found in the tomb, of rock
crystal, amber, alabaster--Golden diadems, some seemingly for
children; also a child's belt and frontlet, or "belle Hélène,"
and other ornaments of gold--Double edged battle-axes--Their
use by the Greeks as a symbol, especially at Tenedos--A funeral
fork of copper--Vase-lids of bone--Vessel of silver and lead in
shape of an animal--Buttons of wood, plated with gold, splendidly
ornamented--Their patterns and workmanship--Hundreds of gold
flowers, plain buttons, and other ornaments of gold--Larger gold
buttons, splendidly ornamented--Leaves of gold strewn under,
over, and around the bodies--Wooden comb with gold handle--Gold
models of temples--Many golden cuttle-fish--Gold knobs for
sword hilts, highly ornamented--Arrow-heads of obsidian--Boars'
teeth--Large copper vessels--Custom of placing such vessels in
tombs--A copper tripod--Uses of tripods in Homer--Bronze swords,
lances, and knives--Some swords with parts of their wooden
sheaths, alabaster handle-knobs, golden studs, &c.--Remnants
of linen sheaths--Oyster-shells and unopened oysters--Broken
pottery, indicative of a still existing funeral custom--The bones
of the deceased--Alabaster vases--Hand-made and very ancient
wheel-made pottery--Fragments of a characteristic form of goblet,
both of terra-cotta and of gold--Another type of goblets--Two
whetstones--A handle of unique work, gold encrusted with rock
crystal, "θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι." 211
NOTE ON THE ROYAL PALACE 288
CHAPTER IX.
THE FIFTH SEPULCHRE, AND THE FIRST AGAIN.
At length again a guard and watchfire on the Acropolis of
Mycenæ--Exploration of the _Fifth Tomb_--Its sepulchral
_stêlæ_--The tomb described; containing only one body--Golden
diadem and other objects found in the tomb--Hand-made vases
of terra-cotta; one with female breasts, like the prehistoric
vases at Santorin and Troy--Wheel-made pottery--Excavation of
the _First Tomb_ completed--Its position and construction. Three
bodies in it: the middle one has been disturbed and rifled of
its ornaments--Large size of the bodies--Golden mask and state
of the first--Wonderful preservation of the third--Its ponderous
gold mask, face, and teeth--Description of the body--its
remarkable compression--Golden breast-plate, and leaves of gold
on the forehead, eyes, and breast--Excitement caused by the
discovery--Measures taken to preserve and remove the body--Its
shoulder belt and bronze sword with crystal ornament, and disks
of gold for the sheath: all special funeral ornaments, and not
for ordinary use--Description of the golden breast-covers of this
and the first body--Highly-decorated bronze swords and other
objects found with the third body--Ornamented golden leaves, a
wooden comb, and bronze swords, with the second body--A large
heap of broken bronze swords, with knives and lances--Other
weapons, chiefly in fragments--Amber and gold beads, and various
objects of gold and silver--An alabaster vase--Wonderful plates
of gold--The two massive golden masks of the first tomb--The
skilled work argues a long-trained school of artists--Several
large goblets of gold and silver--Objects in this sepulchre--A
silver vase, with copper and gold plating--A drinking-cup
of alabaster--Plates of gold, in form of double eagles,
&c.--Fragments of silver vases; one with a gold mouthpiece
and handle--A splendidly ornamented plate of gold, covering a
cylinder of charred wood--Hundreds of gold-button-plates, large
and small, with various ornamentation--The new types shown--Gold
plates, ribbons, and ornaments for greaves--Tubes and buttons
of bone; their probable use--An ivory plate, and a curious
object of glazed Egyptian porcelain--Hand-made and wheel-made
pottery--Seven large copper vessels, caldrons and cans--A
quadrangular wooden box, with most interesting reliefs 289
CHAPTER X.
CONNECTION OF THE FIVE TOMBS WITH THE ROYAL HOUSE OF PELOPS; AND DATE
OF THE AGORA.
Discussion of the identity of the five tombs with those
mentioned by Pausanias as the tombs of Agamemnon and his
companions--Opinions of scholars about the Trojan War--The
ancients unanimous for its reality--The author's faith in the
traditions led to his discovery of Troy and of the five Royal
Tombs at Mycenæ--The civilisation of Mycenæ higher than that of
Troy--The pottery of both very primitive--Alphabetic writing
known at Troy, but not at Mycenæ--The different civilisations
may have been contemporaneous--The appearances in the tombs
prove the simultaneous death of those interred, certainly in
each tomb, and probably in all the five--Traditional veneration
for the sepulchres--Monuments repeatedly placed over them--No
tombs between the two circular rows of slanting slabs which
formed the enclosure of the Agora and its benches--Agora probably
erected when the tombstones were renewed, and the altar built
over the fourth tomb, under the influence of the enthusiasm
created by the Rhapsodists--These monuments buried in the course
of time, but the memory of the site was fresh by tradition long
after the destruction of the new city of Mycenæ--Testimony
of Pausanias--The enormous treasures prove the sepulchres
to be _royal_, but royalty at Mycenæ ended with the Dorian
invasion--This must have been much earlier than the received
date, 1104 B.C.--An objection answered--Honours paid to the
remains of murdered princes even by their murderers--Custom of
burying the dead with their treasures--The sepulchral treasure of
Palestrina--The sepulchre of Nitocris at Babylon--Case of Pyrrhus
and the royal sepulchres at Ægeæ--The sepulchre at Corneto 333
CHAPTER XI.
TREASURE OF THE TOMB SOUTH OF THE AGORA.
Discovery and description of another tomb in the Acropolis
outside the Agora--Its Cyclopean masonry like that of the five
sepulchres--The golden trinkets of this tomb--Double-handled
goblets--A plain gold cup (φιάλη)--Spirals and rings of gold and
silver wire, like those of the Egyptian tombs--A golden seal-ring
covered with intaglio-work--Its full description--The face-covers
of the female figures prove the use of masks during life--A
figure meant for a _Palladium_--Six other rude figures resembling
the Trojan idols: their likeness to the "Corinthian helmet" of
Athena--The work of this ring calls to mind Homer's description
of the shield of Achilles--A smaller golden signet-ring, with
four _Palladia_ and three Hera-idols--A beautiful lion of massive
gold--Gold necklace beads--Bones of animals found in this
tomb--The human remains probably removed when the water conduit
was built, but the small jewel-recess escaped being rifled--Three
curious lentoid gems of necklaces, one found on the site of
Phœnicé, the others near the ancient Heræum--The first represents
Phœnician figures--Description of the other two--The Cyclopean
foundations of the ancient Heræum, probably as old as the walls
of Tiryns and Mycenæ--It was destroyed by fire in 423 B.C., and
its site deserted--Professors Sayce and Mahaffy on the Date of
the Capture of Mycenæ--Views of M. Emile Burnouf 350
Telegrams to and from the King of Greece--Conclusion 380
ANALYSIS OF MYCENEAN METALS 387
APPENDIX A. Tombs in the Agora 383
APPENDIX B. Explanation of the objects in fig. 213 383
APPENDIX C. Possible connection between ornaments found
at Mycenæ and the Badges worn by those initiated into the
Egyptian mysteries 384
APPENDIX D. Account of ornamentation on a bronze sword 385
INDEX 397
NOTE TO PAGE 145.
With reference to the visit paid to the excavation at Mycenæ by
the Emperor of Brazil, I feel bound to mention the renewed mark
of his Majesty's interest in the discoveries, when he did me the
signal honour of visiting my lodgings in London on June 22, 1877.
His Majesty spent two hours in examining with great attention my
large Album of Mycenean photographs, and repeatedly congratulated
me on the results of my excavations.
H. S.
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH MEASURES, EXACT AND APPROXIMATE.
+------------+--------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Metric. | Inches. | Ft. Inch. | Approximate. |
+------------+--------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Millimètre | 0·0393708 | " ·03937 | ·04 or 1⁄25 of inch. |
| Centimètre | 0·393708 | " ·39371 | 4 " ⅖ " |
| Décimètre | 3·93708 | " 3·9371 | 4 inches. |
| Mètre | 39·3708 | 3 3·3708 | 3⅓ feet. |
| 2 | 78·7416 | 6 6·7416 | 6⅔ " |
| 3 | 118·1124 | 9 10·1124 | 10 " |
| 4 | 157·4832 | 13 1·4832 | 13 " |
| 5 | 196·8540 | 16 4·8540 | 16⅓ " |
| 6 | 236·2248 | 19 8·2248 | 19⅔ " |
| 7 | 275·5956 | 22 11·5956 | 23 " |
| 8 | 314·9664 | 26 2·9664 | 26¼ " |
| 9 | 354·3372 | 29 6·3372 | 29½ " |
| 10 | 393·7089 | 32 9·7080 | 33 " |
| 11 | 433·0788 | 36 1·0788 | 36 (12 yds.) |
| 12 | 472·4496 | 39 4·4496 | 39⅓ feet. |
| 13 | 511·8204 | 42 7·8204 | 42⅔ " |
| 14 | 551·1912 | 45 11·1912 | 46 " |
| 15 | 590·5620 | 49 2·5620 | 49¼ " |
| 16 | 620·9328 | 52 5·9328 | 52½ " |
| 17 | 669·3036 | 55 9·3036 | 55¾ " |
| 18 | 708·6744 | 59 0·6744 | 59 " |
| 19 | 748·0452 | 62 4·0452 | 62⅓ " |
| 20 | 787·416 | 65 7·4160 | 65⅔ " |
| 30 | 1181·124 | 98 5·124 | 98½ " |
| 40 | 1574·832 | 131 2·832 | 131¼ " |
| 50 | 1968·54 | 164 0·54 | 164 " |
| 100 | 3937·08 | 328 1·08 | 328 (109 yds.) |
+------------+--------------+--------------+----------------------+
N. B.--The following is a convenient approximate rule:--"To turn _Metres_
into _Yards_, add 1-11th to the number of Metres."
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
PLATE I. THE ACROPOLIS OF TIRYNS _To face_ 1
PLATE II. THE WEST SIDE OF THE ACROPOLIS OF MYCENÆ " 23
PLATE III. THE GATE OF THE LIONS " 32
PLATE IV. THE TREASURY OF ATREUS " 43
PLATE V. THE TREASURY NEAR THE LIONS' GATE, EXCAVATED
BY MRS. SCHLIEMANN _Frontispiece_
PLATE VI. ICHNOGRAPHY OF THE ROYAL TOMBS WITHIN THE
CIRCLE OF THE AGORA _To face_ 124
PLATE VII. Panoramic View of Dr. Schliemann's Excavations
in the Acropolis of Mycenæ _To face_ 148
CHAPTER I.--TIRYNS.
VIGNETTE.--No. 1. Map of Argolis 1
No. 2. Terra-cotta Cow, Tiryns 10
Nos. 3-7. Terra-cotta Cows, " 11
Nos. 8-11. Terra-cotta Idols, " 12
No. 12. Bronze Figure, " 14
Nos. 13, 14. Terra-cotta Vessels, " 17
No. 15. Stone Whorl, found at Mycenæ 18