Table Of ContentTHE
OLDEST CIVILIZATION
OF GREECE
STUDIES OF
THE MYCENAEAN AGE
BY
H. K. HALL, M.A.
ASSISTANT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EGYPTIAN AND ASSYRIAN
ANTIQUITIES, BRITISH MUSEUM
LONDON: DAVID NUTT
PHILADELPHIA: J. B. LIPPINCOTT CO.
1901
III rights rcscmed
TQl IIATPI MOV
AIIAPXAI
PREFACE
THE series of " Studies of the Mycenaean Age "
which are comprisedin this volumecontain the notes
made during the course of some years' study of
the "Mycenaean Question," expanded and thrown
into a connected form. The chief problems of
"Mycenaean" archaeology are dealt with separately,
but at the same time are also, as far as possible,
connected in order to form a homogeneous study of
the Mycenaean Question as it stands to-day. Here
and there it has been found impossible, when dis-
cussing someone problem, to steer clear of trenching
upon the domain of another repetition of argument
;
has, however, been as far as possible avoided, and it
is hoped that these chapters will be of use both to
the scientific archaeological student and to the
laymanwho interests himself in the mostfascinating
search which ever yet allured the seeker after for-
gotten history the search for the origins of Greek
civilization.
It must ever be borne in mind that this search is
still being pursued amid the clouds. We are not on
firm earth when we are dealing with things Myce-
naean, and have still to walk warily. It must be
remembered that all statements as to the " history "
PREFACE
x
of Greek civilization before the eighth century B.C.,
must needsbe more or less hypothetical ; we seek to
explain the prehistoric monuments of Greece by
more or less probable hypotheses and theories.
Our explanation of the development of pras-classical
Greek culture is, therefore, merely a collection of
theoriesand hypotheses. And although the majority
of students of the Mycenaean Question are agreed
with regard to the greater part of these explanatory
hypotheses, yet in many more or less important
respects they differ from one another, with the
result that at present the statements of any one
author on "Mycenaean'' subjects must usually be
taken as representing primarily his own view, for
which he aloneisresponsible ; he is nottellingtothe
world a well-known storyanew, butis givinghis own
particular explanation of certain phenomena which
others mightvery conceivably explain otherwise.
With regard tothe plan of the book>Imayremark
that I have not considered it necessary to give any
long descriptions of Mycenaean palaces and tombs or
to enter into any lengthy disquisitions on the charac-
teristics and peculiarities of Mycenaean art : I assume
that my readers are already more or less familiar
with the sixth volume of MM. PERKOT and CHIPIEZ'S
Histoire <h /'Art, with SCHUCHHARDT's Epitome of
Schliemann's works, or with the Mycenccan Ay<: of
Messrs. TSOUNTAS and MAXATT, in which the fullest
description of the details of Mycenaean culture may
be found.
The term "Mycenaean;3 I have used in its widest
PREFACE
xi
sense, as covering the typical "Cycladic " deposits
of Thera, Phylakope, Kamarais, and the older
settlement at Knossos, as well as the period of the
palace of Knossos, the Mycenae-graves, lalysos, and
"
Vaphio,the "Mycenaeanperiod initsnarrower sense.
The term "Prae-Mycenaean " I have used only with
reference to the primitive epoch of the cist-graves;
the succeeding period of transition, the " Cycladic "
period of Mr. Myres, I have preferredto call "Proto-
Mycenaean." To apply the term "Prae-Mycenaean "
to this transitional period seems to me to give the
impression that the culture of the Third City of
Phylakope differed far more from that of the Fourth
than is really the case.
I have endeavoured to discuss the question of the
relations of the Mycenaeans with the East and with
Egypt as fully as is possible within the compass of
thisbook. The question of Mycenaean relations with
Sicily, Italy, and the West, I have merely referred
to as shortly as possible. The discoveries of Signer
OKSI and his fellow-workers in the Western field are
so recent that their results can hardly yet be fully
discussed.
The chronological scheme which will be found at
the end of the book is intended merely as a rough
guide. The dates given in it are all approximate,
and many are, of course, purely hypothetical. The
period of the Aryan invasion must naturally be
understood to cover several centuries perhaps
;
earlier, perhaps later than the date given.
The illustrations are, in general, intended to be
rather helps to the better understanding of the
PREFACE
xii
subject-matter by the layman than contributions to
the knowledge of the subject already possessed by
ftihned atrhcehaeiollluosgtirsatti;ontshetolatcthearptweirll,vi.h,owoenver",MIyhcoepnes,e
and Egypt," useful to him. In the "List of Illus-
trations " will be found explanatory notes appended
to the titles of the figures,
In conclusion, I wish to thank many friends,
especially Dr. E. A. WALLIS BUDGE and Mr. L. W.
KING, of the Egyptian andAssyrianDepartment, and
Mr. H. B. WALTERS, of the Greek and Roman
Department of the British Museum, for many hints
and suggestions, and also Dr. A. S. MURRAY, Keeper
of the Greek and Eoman Department, for his kind
permission to publish the silver cup from Enkomi,
Fig. 24, and the pictographic inscription, Fig. 64.
H. II. HALL.
February 1901.
CONTENTS
THE NEW CHAPTER OF GREEK HISTORY-
ARCH^OLOGIST AND HISTORIAN
Enquiryinto origins of Greekcivilization One ofthe domi-
nant objects of modern Hellenic study Owing to the
results of archaeological research Archaeological dis-
coveriesofthe NineteenthCentury EgyptandAssyria
New light thrown on Homeric poems, &c. Schliemann's
discoveries Mycenae Discussion as to chronological
position of Mycenaean culture Relics of the Heroic Age
Troy The age before Mycense Back to Neolithic
imes Objections to this scheme Question as to the
trustworthinessof archaeological "science" Instances of
uncertainty Absolute certainty only possible when a
continuous literary tradition exists Comparative trust-
worthinessofEgyptian,Greek,andEuropeanorAmerican
archaeological theories Limitations of the archaeological
method in Greece One thing certAain : Greekcivilization
not an isolated development working hypothesis
possible . Pp. 1-21
II
THE HYPOTHESIS
Doubtful and provisional character of the "Mycenaean
Hypothesis" Usually not sufficiently emphasized The
beginnings of Greek civilization Hissarlik "Chalco-
CONTENTS
xiv
,
lithic" period Firstappearance of Bronze Pottery and
Building TheIsland-Graves Copperandstoneweapons
Ivory Cyprus Hagia Paraskeve and Kalopsida On
the Greek Mainland In Italy In Asia Minor Proto-
Mycenaean Period Thera, Melos, &c. Kamarais
Kahun The "Mycenaean Period" proper A local
development peculiar to Greece High development of
the arts Still in the Bronze Age Export to Egypt,
Central Europe, and Italy The Achaians Oriental
influence Western traits Theories as to origin
Certainly not Phoenician Certainly Greek Date The
Geometrical Period Art of the Dipylon In Attica and
the Islands Probability that Mycenaean culture con-
tinued to exist in Asia Relation between "Mycenaean"
and "Geometrical" art Introduction of Iron The
Homeric Age The Return of the Herakleids The
Dorian Invasion The Iron-using people of the Geome-
trical periodwere theDorians AsiaticMycenaeanreturn-
influence on Geometrical art "Sub-Mycenaean" and
Mixed styles Orientalizing styles Kameiros Phoeni-
cian influence "Proto-Corinthian" vases Greek art of
the classical period begins with the Corinthian and
Chalkidic styles of vase-painting Plausible and con-
sistent character of the Hypothesis . . Pp. 22-47
III
THE QUESTION OF DATE
Rough dating Evidence of superimposed strata Athens
Latest possible date in Greece Egyptian synchronisms
XVIIIth Dynastyobjects at Mycenae and lalysos The
"Maket-Tomb" Tell el-Amarna Tomb of Rekhmara
(1550 iu'.) "The Great Men of Keftiu" Mr. Torrs
objections Egyptian Chronology Later evidence
Tomb of Rameses III. (1200 B.C.) Tell el-Yahudiyeh
Yase of Tchet-Khensu-auf-ankh (1000 B.C.) No later
evidence fromEgypt"Treasureof ^Egina"(800 .c.)
MycenaeansurvivalinAsiaandCyprus(700B.C.) Date of
