Chapter VI: Primitive Fabrics (2)

1. (_a_) Primitive pottery of the cist-tomb type, corresponding to
that of Hissarlik; (_b_) more advanced ware of the same kind.

2. Painted Geometrical wares.

3. Local pottery in Mycenaean style with spiral and naturalistic
designs, falling into two divisions, earlier and later.

4. Imported Mycenaean pottery of the third and fourth styles (see
below, p. 271).

Generally speaking the pottery is of local make, and Phylakopi seems to have been an important centre in the early Mycenaean period, having considerable intercourse with Crete. The earliest wares (class 1) include plain pottery, hand-made, with burnished brown surface or simple incised patterns; those of class 2 are painted in lustrous or matt black on a white slip, or in white on lustrous black or red, with simple patterns; they appear to be hand-made. The Mycenaean pottery is more or less akin to that found elsewhere in the Aegean.

§ 3. Crete

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 64 (finds in 1878 at Knossos); Milchhoefer,
_Anfänge der Kunst_; Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_,
p. 22; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 173; _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p.
333 ff.; _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 78 ff., xxiii. p. 157 ff.; _British
School Annual_, vi. p. 85 ff., vii. p. 51, and ix. p. 297 ff.;
_Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ xv. (1894), p. 351 ff.

In turning our attention next to the island of Crete, we are confronted with a new element in Greek archaeology; namely, the results of the recent discoveries, which as yet have hardly become material ripe for use in a general handbook. On the other hand, their singular importance deserves full recognition. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that much in the succeeding section is merely the embodiment of previous researches, and that the new evidence can only be briefly summarised.

Allusion has just been made to the thalassocracy of Minos and its bearing on the history of early Greek civilisations, and the recent discoveries have done much to show that the prince who built the great palace at Knossos in the early days of Mycenaean civilisation, if he is not actually the Minos of Greek legend, yet represents the rising power which extended its dominion over the Aegean and drove the Carian people to the mainland. This supremacy of Crete from the fifteenth to the eleventh century was artistic as well as political. The Crete of Minos was, moreover, the point of contact between the Aegean peoples and the Oriental races; and in the story of the Minotaur we may perhaps see a reflection of the human sacrifices offered to the Phoenician Moloch or Melkarth. The familiar passage in Homer[887] which deals with the ethnography of Crete speaks of four component elements, which may be explained as (1) the Eteokretes, or aborigines of the island, to whom the early civilisation exemplified in their ceramic and glyptic products is mainly due; (2) the Kydonii or Leleges, brought by Minos from the islands[888]; (3) the Achaeans or mainland Greeks of the period of the Trojan War; (4) the Dorians, whose connection with the island dates from the eleventh century onwards.

Even before the recent excavations pottery had been found in Crete which dated from the dawn of the Mycenaean period, and from the island’s early connection with Egypt was thought to be contemporaneous with that of Hissarlik and Thera. From the circumstances of its first appearance in any quantity at Kamaraes, in the plain of Ida, it has usually been named after that place. Dr. Orsi discovered two fragments of Hissarlik type at Phaestos,[889] also a vase of island type, one of Thera type,[890] and some early Cypriote wares.[891] Large numbers of fragments of this ware in the Museum at Candia were first noted by Dr. Orsi and Mr. J. L. Myres about 1894.[892] The extensive discoveries made by Messrs. Hogarth and Welch for the British School at Athens in 1899–1900 (see p. 60) have added still further to our knowledge of the ware; and these, taken in conjunction with Mr. Arthur Evans’s extensive finds at Knossos (1899–1902), have enabled a recent writer to draw up a tentative classification of all the prehistoric pottery of Crete.[893]

In his paper Mr. Mackenzie divides the pottery into three main classes, which he distinguishes as Neolithic, Early and Middle Minoan, and Late Minoan. The first-named extends down to about 3000 B.C.; the second covers the period 3000–2000 B.C.; and the third (including Mycenaean pottery of the usual types) lasts down to 1500 B.C., about which time the Cretan supremacy came to an end, and the Mycenaean centre of gravity was shifted to the mainland of Greece.

(1) Pottery of the Neolithic period is quite exceptional in Aegean localities; yet the evidence from the excavations is so unmistakable that there can be no question of its great antiquity. It consists of common household vessels of grey clay, hand-made and burnished; at first devoid of decoration, but subsequently fragments appear with incised patterns filled in with white. These, it may be noted, may help to date the analogous wares from Troy and Egypt. The black surface becomes more and more lustrous, and in some cases a sort of rippling effect is produced in the soft clay with a blunt instrument[894]; finally an age of decline manifests itself, but at the same time an advance is made from filling in hollows with white to painting in colours on the flat surface.

(2) The pottery in this stage is still hand-made; but the clay, which is of a brick or terracotta colour, is greatly improved, and shows that a potter’s oven must have been employed. The most remarkable feature is that, along with the white or polychrome patterns on dark ground, the origin of which has been noted, there appear vases with patterns in lustrous dark colour on buff ground, like the Mycenaean wares. Hitherto it had been supposed that the latter process was much later than the other[895]; but the Cretan evidence admits of no doubt as to their synchronism, even at this early stage of painted pottery in any form. The pre-Mycenaean character of the Early Minoan deposits is, for instance, proved by the entire absence of plain pottery of Mycenaean types. It is then clear that Crete developed both independently of, and with far greater rapidity than, the rest of the Aegean at this period. The painted patterns are usually of a Geometrical character.[896]

The middle deposits of the third millennium, found above the floors of the first palace, are, like the preceding, both polychrome and monochrome in their decoration. The former include most of the types formerly known as Kamaraes ware, the patterns being mainly but not exclusively Geometrical; the curvilinear are rather later in date. The commonest shape is one resembling a tea-cup.[897] In the next stage relief-work is introduced to enhance the polychrome effect, probably in imitation of metal. In the latest deposits a great decline is manifest, and the monochrome vases tend to assert themselves to the exclusion of the others.

That the period under discussion must have been one of great length is shown by the depth of the “Minoan” deposits; they are, moreover, so extensive at Knossos, and so scanty and isolated are examples from other sites, that it cannot be doubted that here we have the centre of the fabric. As regards their date we have good evidence from early Aegean deposits in Egypt. By means of Professor Petrie’s finds at Kahun in the Fayûm, which include specimens of the best Minoan ware,[898] we are able to place the height of the period about 2500 B.C.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XIV

From _Brit. School Annual_, ix.
STAND FOR VASE; KAMARAES WARE.
FROM PALAIOKASTRO, CRETE.
]

------------------------------------

The appearance of the so-called Kamaraes ware is unmistakable, with its bright, almost gay, aspect, and the contrast of the colours with the lustrous black ground. The pigments employed are four in number—milky white, yellow ochre, brick-red, and purple-red. These vases are mostly made on the wheel, and the buff-coloured clay is fairly well levigated, as is the slip, on which the pigments are directly laid; its lustre often almost rivals that of the best Hellenic pottery. Mr. Evans found some specimens in 1902 of an extremely delicate character, almost as thin as an egg-shell. The colours are, however, sometimes dull and powdery, and apt to flake away except when fired. The forms are of a Cycladic type, the favourite being a two-handled globular vase with spout, and a pear-shaped one-handled vase, also with a spout[899] (see also Plate XIV.[900]).

The decoration is, as has been indicated, plastic as well as pictorial; the relief ornaments are often of an elaborate type, as may be seen in some of Mr. Hogarth’s finds.[901] Some vases are merely covered with knobs, or with a sort of honeycombing in relief[902]; in others toothed or bossed bands are employed, either simply or combined into complex patterns. In any case this plastic element is quite a new departure. The pictorial designs include geometrical and linear patterns, zigzags, network, concentric circles, spirals, and swastikas; leaves, rosettes, and other vegetable forms; fishes, and even in one case a human figure.[903] The chief field of decoration is the shoulder of the vase.

Although varying in the extent of their naturalism, the patterns exhibit considerable boldness and power of drawing; they seem to be drawn chiefly from floral or textile sources, and are closely parallel to the Thera vases, but more advanced. Some motives are of Mycenaean character, such as the use of rows of white dots[904]; on the other hand, the style of the fishes and human figure is more like that of the Geometrical vases.

Mr. Hogarth notes that metal types of Kamaraes cups appear in the hands of Kefti tributaries in the paintings of the tomb of Rekhmara (about 1550 B.C.), and he even found their Neolithic prototypes at Kephala, near Knossos.[905] He also traces a connection with the early Aegean pottery of Phylakopi in Melos. The Kamaraes pottery can be shown not to have survived the incoming of the new Mycenaean influences, but the patterns rapidly became conventionalised, and are replaced by the new motives of the Mycenaean wares. It may further be noted that fragments of Kamaraes ware have turned up not only in Egypt, as at Kahun (already mentioned), but at Tiryns, in the fifth and sixth Acropolis graves at Mycenae, and at Curium in Cyprus.

(3) The pottery of the “Late Minoan” period from the palace of Knossos falls into two groups—the “palace” style, and the ordinary Mycenaean fabrics. The former class of vases has been found in considerable numbers in the second palace, and also at Zakro and other sites. The vases are painted in a lustrous brown-to-black glaze on a buff hand-polished slip, with fine and elaborate naturalistic designs, including vegetable patterns, birds, and fishes; others, again, are more architectonic in character.[906] We also find adaptations of the Kamaraes style, with bands of white paint laid on the black varnish, the usual forms being a flat bowl and a small cup with flat handles like the Vaphio cups.[907]

In their decoration the most highly developed varieties of the “palace” style show a parallelism with the wall-paintings, the patterns consisting of rosettes, spirals, and conventional flowers; in some very naturalistic examples this is strongly marked, the designs of olive and myrtle wreaths and bulbous plants showing an almost Japanese fidelity to nature. Others, again, have marine subjects—seaweed, shells, and rocks. Lastly, there are the representations of the double axe, which Mr. Evans has shown to be a religious symbol.[908]

The whole of this pottery belongs to the third or highest period of Mycenaean pottery, a time when decadence was actually beginning to set in, concurrent with the end of the eighteenth dynasty. At this time all over the Aegean area, in Melos, Egypt, and elsewhere, the styles of pottery were perfectly uniform, and had clearly been imported from one centre. In the light of recent discoveries we can no longer doubt that this centre was Crete, and the previous history of its pottery and the early development of its technical processes, as well as its geographical position, point in the same direction. About the year 1500 B.C. the site appears to have been invaded and abandoned, with the consequent result that Mycenaean civilisation now spread all over the Aegean, centring chiefly in Greece, where it lasted several centuries longer. Of its influence on Cyprus we have already spoken.

Mycenaean vases had turned up in Crete for some time previous to 1899 in a sporadic fashion[909]; but these, being for the most part of the ordinary type, do not call for separate consideration. There is, however, one class that appears to be peculiar to the island. It consists of large “false amphorae” and other vases, made of a rough coarse-grained clay, and decorated in the “third Mycenaean” style with large cuttle-fish; at Knossos this was found only outside the palace, and was probably a coarse household ware. A good specimen has also been found at Curium in Cyprus.[910]

§ 4. MYCENAEAN POTTERY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Mykenische Thongefässe_ (1879), and
_Mykenische Vasen_ (1886); Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 47 ff.; Perrot,
_Hist. de l’Art_, vi. p. 893 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p.
181 ff. General reference should also be made to Schuchhardt,
_Schliemann’s Excavations_ (transl. E. Sellers); Schliemann’s own
works; Hall, _Oldest Civilisation of Greece_; Tsountas and
Manatt, _The Mycenaean Age_; and other works.

We have already had occasion to deal to some extent with Mycenaean pottery in connection with Cyprus and Crete, but it is now necessary to review it as a whole in the light of the present state of our knowledge of this wonderful civilisation and its products. To enter here upon the wide and much-debated questions to which the discoveries of the last thirty years have given rise is of course beyond our province; but the pottery of the people to whom the name Mycenaean has been somewhat loosely given is of so homogeneous a character, although found in all parts of the Mediterranean, that it may be treated as a phase of Greek ceramics, independently of considerations of ethnography and chronology. First found in any quantity at Ialysos in the island of Rhodes, its exact position in the history of early art was not then recognised; but when the marvellous discoveries of Heinrich Schliemann at Mycenae became known to the world, including large numbers of similar vases, Sir Charles Newton readily recognised that the Ialysos vases in the British Museum belonged to the same class. It was not long before the whole number of vases of this type, now christened Mycenaean, was collected in a “Corpus” by two German scholars, with numerous illustrations; but since that time the excavations of “Mycenaean” sites in Cyprus and Crete must have doubled or even trebled the material available.

The pottery at Mycenae was found in four different positions, implying consecutive chronological stages, ranging roughly from the fifteenth to the tenth or even ninth century. On these grounds Furtwaengler and Loeschcke[911] distinguished four main classes; but it will be seen that these are capable of even more subdivision. There are, in fact, two main classes, distinguished by the use of _matt_ and lustrous colour respectively; and of the first of these two, of the second four, subdivisions are possible.

Class (1) is indeed comparatively rare,[912] and only found at Thera and in the oldest tombs on the Mycenaean Acropolis; it represents the transition from the pottery of Troy and Thera to that of Mycenae. The subdivision is a purely technical one: (_a_) vases of pale coarse clay, with patterns in a brown colour, some hand-made[913]; (_b_) wheel-made vases of a reddish and finer clay, the designs in black and pale red, occasionally white.[914] The decoration generally resembles that of the Thera vases, and animals occasionally appear.

(2) The vases with lustrous painting may be classified as follows:

(_a_) Badly levigated clay; floral motives in matt-white or
red-brown on black ground.[915] A fine example of this class was
recently excavated at Maroni in Cyprus, a large krater with a
figure of a bird outlined in white on either side (Plate XII.).

(_b_) Similar clay, but coated with a white or yellow slip on which
geometrical or floral patterns are painted in lustrous black.[916]

(_c_) Fine clay with polished yellow surface; designs in black
turning to red or yellow, with occasional details in white;
chiefly marine plants and animals, but occasionally (especially in
Cyprus) human figures.[917] This class is by far the most numerous
of all, but is not found in Thera. It corresponds with the period
1400–1000 B.C.

(_d_) Clay grey or reddish, less brilliant, as is also the black;
large figures of quadrupeds and human figures.[918] The vases are
sometimes painted _inside_, which is a sign of late date.

The structure of these vases is very varied, and no less than 122 different forms may be distinguished in the illustrations to the _Mykenische Vasen_. Most characteristic and popular is the “false amphora,” as it is generally termed (German, _Bügelkanne_), a vase with spheroidal body, of varying size, with the peculiarity that the ordinary neck and mouth on the top are closed by a flat handle arching over the vase, and the only aperture is a spout on one side (see Plate XV. and Fig. 82). These are very widely distributed, but their decoration is as a rule very simple; they appear depicted on the paintings of Egyptian tombs of the eighteenth dynasty, and this has often been used as an argument for the dating of Mycenaean vases. But they must have remained in favour for a considerable period. Other favourite shapes are: a funnel-shaped vase with handle at the top, doubtless a reminiscence of a Hissarlik type (p. 258); a tall graceful two-handled goblet or kylix, almost invariably decorated with cuttle-fish (see Plate XV.), as the funnel-vases are with murex (purple dye) shells; a beaked jug (German _Schnabelkanne_), derived from Thera; a squat jar or pyxis, with three small handles (cf. Fig. 82); and a tall pear-shaped vase with three handles on a high stem, which is perhaps the prototype of the hydria. The large kraters are, as we have seen, peculiar to Cyprus. Rarer forms are a sort of mug, and a combination of the false amphora and pyxis. Mention should also be made of the painted λάρνακες or _ossuaria_ found in Crete by Mr. J. H. Marshall (p. 268 above) and by Dr. Orsi.[919]

The technique presents several entirely new features, such as the use of a slip as a basis for the colours; the polished, brilliant, and even surface; and above all the lustrous black varnish, which was the peculiar pride of Greek potters, and is now a lost art. The comparative monotony of the colouring is probably due to a purely technical reason, namely, the difficulty of resisting the action of fire; otherwise such an artistic people would doubtless have exhibited the same richness of colouring in their pottery that we find in their frescoes.

The Mycenaean pottery is deservedly held in high estimation for its picturesque and naturalistic style, which in its reproduction of animal and vegetable forms often rivals Japanese art. Although its scope is remarkably wide, yet there is a strong preference for marine subjects—the cuttle-fish, the murex shell, the nautilus, and various kinds of seaweed or such plants as the _Vallisneria spiralis_ (Chapter XVI.). In Fig. 82 two good examples in the British Museum are illustrated—one from Egypt, the other from Kalymnos.[920] Altogether there is an originality and poetry of ideas such as never appears again in Greek art; but that is not a peculiar possession of the potters, as the metal-work, gem-engraving, and fresco-paintings testify—above all, such masterpieces as the Vaphio gold cups, or some of the wall-paintings recently discovered in Crete.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XV

MYCENAEAN POTTERY
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]

_To face page 273._

------------------------------------

Religious ideas, on the other hand, are strangely conspicuous by their absence. Mycenaean mythology is so far almost nonexistent in the art; and although attempts have at times been made to detect traces of early cults, as in the figures of men dressed as animals,[921] or the representations of the double axe,[922] they have not as yet met with universal acceptance. More improbable is the curious idea recently mooted,[923] that the subjects of the vase-paintings indicate an acquaintance with such theories as those of biological evolution.

Mycenaean pottery has been found on a very large number of sites throughout the Mediterranean. The most productive have been Mycenae, Crete, and Cyprus, especially the cemetery at Enkomi in the latter island. Other Cypriote centres are Curium, Agia Paraskevi near Nicosia, Maroni, and the neighbourhood of Dali and Larnaka (see p. 66). In Attica the Acropolis of Athens and the beehive tombs of Spata and Menidi have been most fruitful, and finds have been made at Haliki and elsewhere. In the Peloponnese the chief site is Tiryns, and many fragments have also been found at Nauplia; in Central Greece several sites in Boeotia, such as Orchomenos, may be mentioned. Of the Aegean islands, Rhodes and Melos are most conspicuous, especially the sites of Ialysos in the former island, Phylakopi in the latter. In Asia Minor, Mycenaean remains are rare, except at Troy, but in Egypt there is ample evidence of a close commercial relation, as in the finds at Tell-el-Amarna, in the Fayûm, and elsewhere. In the Western Mediterranean, Syracuse has yielded numerous fragments, and occasional finds have been made in Italy.[924]

Having reviewed the extent of Mycenaean influence, the next question we must consider is which, if any, was the centre whence this pottery was exported. It had been for some time observed that the early varieties of Thera, and those of Crete and Cyprus (_v. supra_), showed strong indications of local origin; but on the whole the Mycenaean pottery proper is remarkably uniform and homogeneous. It is perhaps possible to detect technical differences between the pottery, _e.g._, of Athens and Rhodes, but they may be only differences of date rather than fabric. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke regarded Argolis as the centre of manufacture, at least for the later lustrous varieties[925]; Pottier, on the other hand, writing before the recent discoveries, thought that Crete was, after Thera, the original centre, and Argolis only subsequently, the pottery of Rhodes lying midway between. In the light of the Cretan discoveries it is now possible largely to disregard previous theories. We have seen that Mycenaean pottery found in Crete has a pedigree which no other region can claim, and that it can only have a local origin. We have also seen that the Cretan supremacy came to an end about 1500 B.C., and that, though the pottery may have continued to be made in the island, it ceased to be an exclusive centre, and for the remainder of the Mycenaean Age the art, learned in Crete, spread to other Aegean centres—Mycenae, Rhodes, and Cyprus.

A far more difficult question to decide is the ethnographical one, together with the consideration of the relation of the Mycenaean civilisation to others in which the same decoration appears (as in the case of the spiral). One point seems to be abundantly clear, viz. that Mycenaean decoration owes nothing to Oriental influences. That there was a close relation with the East has already been indicated, and is much more apparent in other forms of Mycenaean art; but no student of this art in general can doubt that it is, as has been pointed out, purely spontaneous and unique, the art of a people of genuine artistic genius. Among the art of ancient races it stands alone in this respect, that of Egypt and Assyria, its only prominent rivals, being always essentially conventional; and herein lies its special distinction.

That the Mycenaeans were a maritime people admits of no doubt. It is shown by the position of their chief centres, by the evidence of their extensive commercial relations, and, as far as concerns their pottery, pre-eminently by the subjects which form the staple decoration. Hence of late years an attempt has been made to substitute for “Mycenaean” the more comprehensive term “Aegean,” and there is much to be said in its favour. As regards the actual ethnographical position of the race, _Quot homines, tot sententiae_, may almost be said. They have been identified with the Achaeans, the Pelasgians, the Phoenicians, the Carians, and as combinations of Phrygians with Cretans, of Phoenicians with Greeks of Asia Minor.[926] But few of these terms have real historical value, and such identifications do not really advance the solution of the question.

A more real ground of battle is that afforded by the question of date, though on this point scholars now show a greater tendency to fall into line, and a period culminating in the years 1400 to 1100 or 1000 B.C. is now very generally accepted.[927] The question necessarily turns largely on the evidence afforded by Crete and Egypt, and so far as this is trustworthy it all points in the same direction. But it would be beyond the scope of a work of this kind to do more than briefly summarise the general results of archaeological criticism.

An interesting study of Mycenaean ornamentation has been made by Dr. Riegl,[928] who deals generally with the principles underlying its vegetable motives, and points out that here we first meet with scrolls or continuous bands of foliage applied to a decorative purpose. These motives are peculiar to Greek art, and in Mycenaean design their origin is to be sought. In this way we may regard it as the immediate forerunner of Hellenic art, although its development was temporarily arrested by the Dorian invasion, just as the people who produced it formed the basis of the Hellenic race. The naturalism of Mycenaean ornament, which is seen both in continuous and in isolated patterns, is in marked contrast to the convention of Egypt, where the same motives may be in use. It is not, in short, the motive, but its treatment, which shows the independence of Mycenaean art. There are, again, other patterns, such as the spiral, which cannot be traced in Oriental art, and seem to be purely original, at least as far as concerns the Eastern Mediterranean.

Another recent writer, Dr. S. Wide, has noticed that where Mycenaean influence was originally strongest, as in Crete and Rhodes, there its characteristics were most strongly impressed upon the art of the succeeding period, and he is inclined to place the centre of the fabric in these islands or on the coast of the adjoining continent of Asia. At all events the Mycenaean influence shows itself more in the pottery of the islands than it does in Attica; and, in Crete and Rhodes in particular, instances have been found of undoubted survivals of typical Mycenaean ornaments in later pottery.[929]

-----

Footnote 820:

See _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 14.

Footnote 821:

Cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. figs. 487–93.

Footnote 822:

Cf. Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. figs. 498–503.

Footnote 823:

See Hall, _Oldest Civilisation of Greece_, p. 72.

Footnote 824:

See _Athen. Mitth._ xi. p. 249 ff., and Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vi.
p. 648. A fragment of late Bronze-Age Cypriote pottery was found at
Hissarlik (Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 286, fig. 182).

Footnote 825:

See Meursius, _Cyprus_, i. chap. 20; Heuzey, _Cat. des Fig. ant. du
Louvre_, p. 115.

Footnote 826:

Strabo, xiv. 6, p. 683.

Footnote 827:

_Archaeologia_, xlv. p. 127 ff.

Footnote 828:

Similar red polished wares were found in the New-Race tombs of Egypt
(seventh to tenth dynasty), but in spite of the likeness it cannot be
said that one is borrowed from the other (_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 16).

Footnote 829:

See Hall, _Oldest Greek Civilisation_, p. 69; _Journ. Hell. Stud._
xi. pl. 14; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 38.

Footnote 830:

The resemblance to Italian bucchero ware is probably only accidental.
See Chapter XVIII.

Footnote 831:

_E.g._ A 66 in B.M.

Footnote 832:

Hall, _Oldest Civilisation_, pp. 72, 98.

Footnote 833:

_E.g._ B.M. A 67–8.

Footnote 834:

Cf. _Excavations in Cyprus_, pp. 34 ff., 72.

Footnote 835:

_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 39.

Footnote 836:

Myres, _ibid._

Footnote 837:

Cf. for instance the jug given in Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 408, fig. 29.

Footnote 838:

_E.g._ B.M. A 134: cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 401–2.

Footnote 839:

_Cat. des Vases du Louvre_, i. p. 250: see below, pp. 284, 315.

Footnote 840:

The Trojan legends were familiar in Cyprus, as the Κυπριακά of the
local Cyclic poet Stasinos shows.

Footnote 841:

Cf. Perrot, _Hist, de l’Art_, iii. pp. 714–15, figs. 525–26.

Footnote 842:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 73.

Footnote 843:

Recent discoveries by Mr. Arthur Evans at Knossos (_Brit. Sch.
Annual_, 1901–2, p. 15) seem to suggest that these panels may be
meant for windows or storeys of houses. Cf. also the bronze from
Enkomi (_Excavations_, p. 10).

Footnote 844:

_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 59.

Footnote 845:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 74.

Footnote 846:

See _Athen. Mitth._ xi. (1886), p. 248; cf. also Meursius, _Cyprus_,
i. chap. 10; Heuzey, _Cat. des Fig. ant. du Louvre_, pp. 116–17.

Footnote 847:

Cypriote pottery with concentric circles has been found at Nebesheh
in the Delta. It was brought by the Cypriote mercenaries, enrolled by
Psammetichus, in the seventh century (_Eg. Expl. Fund_, 4th Mem. pl.
3, p. 20).

Footnote 848:

Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. p. 769 ff.

Footnote 849:

M. Pottier (_Louvre Cat._ i. p. 92) thinks that Greek influence may
explain all the stages of Cypriote pottery from the Mycenaean period
onwards. See also on this subject Dümmler, in _Ath. Mitth._ xi. p.
284.

Footnote 850:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 8, fig. 14.

Footnote 851:

B.M. C 244.

Footnote 852:

B.M. C 121 = Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. pp. 716–17, figs. 527–8.

Footnote 853:

B.M. C 120 = _Rev. Arch._ ix. (1887), p. 77 ff.

Footnote 854:

_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 26.

Footnote 855:

_Ibid._ p. 21.

Footnote 856:

See Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. figs. 510–13; _ibid._ figs. 520–23
(human figures); Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 55, pls. 44–6; _Excavations in
Cyprus_, pp. 75, 104 ff.; _J.H.S._ v. p. 103.

Footnote 857:

See above, p. 249. Cf. Layard, _Monuments of Nineveh_, pl. 10 =
Nimroud Gallery of B.M., slab 4_a_.

Footnote 858:

Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. p. 711, fig. 523.

Footnote 859:

_E.g._ Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. figs. 507, 523, pp. 699, 711;
_Excavations in Cyprus_, pp. 104–5, figs. 151–52.

Footnote 860:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 105, fig. 152.

Footnote 861:

B.M. C 268 = _J.H.S._ ii. p. 304.

Footnote 862:

_Cyprus_, pl. 29.

Footnote 863:

See O.-Richter, _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer_, p. 497, and
frontispiece to text volume; also _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p.
105, fig. 152.

Footnote 864:

B.M. E 34; _Branteghem Cat._ 30; Klein, _Meistersig._^2 p. 221.

Footnote 865:

Louvre A 258.

Footnote 866:

_E.g._ _J.H.S._ xii. pl. 14; _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 11.

Footnote 867:

See Hermann, _Gräberfeld von Marion_, p. 46 ff.; _B.M. Excavations in
Cyprus_, pp. 78, 109.

Footnote 868:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 78, Fig. 110.

Footnote 869:

_Troja 1893_, p. 86; _Troja u. Ilion_, i. p. 18. On the pottery
generally see the latter, p. 243 ff.

Footnote 870:

Its evolution is well illustrated by the Canopic vases described in