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 (f????)—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 PhoenicÉ, the others near the ancient HerÆum—The first represents Phoenician 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.

Telegrams to and from the King of Greece—Conclusion.
Athens, March 1, 1877.

My engineer, the Lieutenant Vasilios Drosinos, of Nauplia, having proceeded on the 20th of January to MycenÆ, in company with the painter D. Tountopoulos, who had to make for me an Ichnography of the five large sepulchres and the circular Agora by which they are surrounded, in verifying the plans he had made for me, recognised, due south of the Agora the form of a tomb, the site of which is marked with the letter P on the Flan B, and of which I give a most accurate separate plan.[398] By the latter it will be seen that the construction of this tomb differs from that of the five sepulchres within the Agora, for on its north side the rock is cut vertically for a distance of 2 metres (6 ft. 8 in.) only, whilst on its east side it is cut for more than double the distance required for it; the vertical height of this rock being 1 m. 70 c. (5 ft. 8 in.) The eastern rock, which is cut vertically, is lined with a roughly built wall of stones joined without cement, and the same is the case with the northern rock, but here the Cyclopean wall continues in a straight line for 6 metres (20 feet), and thus for 13 ft. 4 in. farther west than the extent of the rock. On the west and south sides there is no rock at all, but merely the same kind of rude wall, which is so irregularly built that, whilst the north side of the tomb is 20 ft. and the eastern side 13 ft. 4 in. long, its southern side is 17 ft. 4 in. and its west side 12 ft. long. In the south-east corner of the tomb the Cyclopean masonry has been demolished for a distance of 1 m. 80 c. (6 feet), apparently by those who laid the water conduit, which, built of uncut stones without cement, runs all along the eastern and northern sides of the tomb, and is doubtless much later than the latter.

As will be seen by Plan G, I had excavated this site to a depth of 6 m. 70 c. or 22 ft. 4 in., and had penetrated on one side 5 ft., on the other 5 ft. 4 in. deep within the walls of the tomb, in which I had left a layer of dÉbris only 1 ft. 10 in. deep. But as the tomb is immediately east of the large Cyclopean house, of which I had excavated many rooms down to the rock without finding anything particular, I had considered the sepulchre as a dependency of the house, and had not cared to excavate the little dÉbris which still covered its site.

But my most excellent engineer was more keen-sighted. Being struck by the appearance of the walls built in a much ruder way than those of the Cyclopean house, he at once recognised the identity of the masonry with that of the masonry in the large tombs, and as he saw the northern wall partly and the eastern entirely leaning against the rock, he had the firm conviction that it was a sepulchre. Therefore on his return to Nauplia he communicated his important discovery to a government clerk of the name of Stamatakes, who had been sent that very day by the Director-general, Mr. P. Eustratiades, to Nauplia, in order to choose a place in the Acropolis of MycenÆ on which to build a wooden hut for the watchmen. Mr. Drosinos indicated to him on my plans the precise site of the tomb, and gave him the most minute information in relation to it, so that the clerk found the place at once, and engaged a workman, at whose first or second blow of the pickaxe a golden vessel came to light, and in less than half an hour the following objects were gathered. First, four large golden goblets with two handles, of which I represent one as the vignette to this chapter (No. 528). All the four goblets have exactly the same form and are nearly of the same size. All of them represent the Homeric d?pa? ?f???pe????, because all have two handles. These are attached with golden nails to the body and rim, and all of them terminate in a dog's head, which holds the rim in his jaws and seems to drink from the cup. Besides the dogs' heads, these four goblets have no ornamentation whatever, and their form is identical with that of the cup No. 343,[399] with the sole difference that the latter has only one handle.

Together with the four goblets was found a large plain gold cup (f????). It has only one handle, which is fastened to the rim and body with four gold pins with large flat heads. There were further found four spirals of thick quadrangular, and seven spirals of thick round gold wire, five plain gold rings, and a similar one of silver, of which a selection is represented under No. 529. I remind the reader that similar spirals and rings of thick gold wire occur in the wall paintings of the Egyptian tombs. They are supposed to have served as presents, or perhaps as a medium of exchange.

In this tomb was further found a gold seal-ring of the same form, but more than twice as large, as those which I discovered in the fourth sepulchre.[400] From the engraving of this new ring, which is represented in double size under No. 530, it will be seen that it is entirely covered with intaglio work. To the left of the spectator is represented a tree, whose stem certainly resembles that of a palm-tree; it has fifteen short branches on which we see no leaves, but large clusters of a small fruit, each cluster resembling a pine apple; below the tree stands a small female, who is leaning over a little backwards and extends both her hands just below the lowest cluster of fruit, as if in the act of plucking it. My esteemed friend the Professor of Botany, Mr. T. Orphanides, of Athens, says that of all trees in Greece this tree resembles most a pine, but that, as the little woman is going to pluck one of its fruits, the fruit must necessarily be eatable, and he thinks therefore that it must be a breadfruit-tree, because of all the fruits of India the breadfruit most resembles that of the tree before us. But I do not remember having ever seen the breadfruit-tree in India. I have only seen it in Central America. My other esteemed friend, the Professor of Botany, von Heldreich, in Athens, thinks that the Mycenean artist intended to represent here simply a vine laden with bunches of grapes, and that, merely by his ineptitude, the vine has been represented as a thick tree; and this is also my opinion.

Two long tresses of hair are hanging from the little woman's head down on the back; her dress below the waist is divided by two horizontal bands into three compartments, probably to make us aware of its richness; from her arms there project two bands, which may be intended to represent the sleeves.

On the other side of the tree, and leaning with her right arm against it, is sitting a tall woman, with noble Grecian features. Her eyes are large and her nose projects in a straight line with the forehead, just as we see it on the sculptures in the Parthenon; her head is covered with a turban running out into a point, from beneath which a tress of hair is hanging down on her back; just above this tress we see two ornaments on the turban. I call particular attention to the curious sign just above her forehead, which is no doubt meant to represent her diadem; but I have not found a diadem of this kind in any of the five tombs. The upper part of her dress is tightly fitted to the body, but nevertheless the woman's two breasts protrude. The lower part of her dress is ornamented with a large number of horizontal bands, and is in the form of wide pantaloons which end at the ankles in crescents. Her right hand rests on her waist, and she holds in her uplifted left hand three poppies, which she appears to offer to a tall woman, splendidly dressed, who is standing before her and extends her right hand towards the flowers.

The head of this tall standing woman is covered with a sort of turban, which strikingly resembles the turbans now worn in India, with the difference that here the turban runs out into a point, from which a long ornament hangs down on the back. A further difference is that from the forepart of the turban there projects a sort of mask, on which the two eyes and the nose are well represented, but here this mask is lifted, and we see the woman's eyes from below it; a third difference between this and an Indian turban is that from its right side, on the left of the spectator, hangs down a band which must also represent an ornament; a fourth difference is the strange ornament which we see just above the forehead, and which must be a sort of diadem. The features of this woman are certainly masculine and her hair is cut short, but the artist wished her sex to be distinctly understood and gave her two large protruding breasts. Just above her breasts we see two horizontal bands, which may be intended to represent necklaces; but we ought not to leave unnoticed the long band which hangs from her right shoulder. Her lower dress seems also to be in the shape of enormously wide pantaloons, and from the loins downward we see on the dress of each leg five large curved parallel bands, which can have no other object than to represent the splendour and costliness of her attire: these bands become more curved the lower they are, and the lowest is exactly in the form of a crescent. Below the extremity of the pantaloons we see that the woman wears drawers, which are fastened with clasps. Above the forepart of this woman's turban is again represented an ornament, the nature of which cannot be discerned.

Just below her outstretched right arm we see another small female figure, probably a child, holding in each of its extended hands an object, the nature of which we are unable to discern, and which it seems to offer to the seated woman. The child's head is covered with a turban, and a long tress of hair, or some ornament, is hanging down its back. It wears a necklace, and its dress is divided by horizontal parallel bands into three or four compartments. The features of the child are very expressive.

Just above the extended hand of the tall standing woman we see two double axes on one handle, exactly like those on the Tenedian medals and those between the horns of the cows (Nos. 329, 330), but richly ornamented. The second double axe is seen projecting on both sides from behind the first one. The handle of these axes, which runs out into a sharp point, is artistically made.

Behind this tall standing woman stands another, whose dress I shall not describe, as it is perfectly identical with that of her companion, and above the forepart of her turban we see the same strange ornament, the nature of which cannot be recognised. Very visible is her Indian turban which also terminates in a point, and from which a long band-like ornament hangs down on her back. The mask, which projects from the forepart of her turban, closely covers the upper part of her face and her nose; it contains openings for the eyes, for her large left eye is glancing out from it. I call very particular attention to the vizors of both these women, because they give us the most unmistakable proof that masks were not only used for the dead but that they were also worn by the living. She holds in her uplifted right hand three objects, whose form certainly resembles that which we see on the forepart of the turban of the seated woman. In her left she holds two flowers with long stalks, which Professor Orphanides thinks to be lilies. From her left shoulder we see projecting two bands, and another from her left elbow. Like her tall companion, she is barefooted, but wears drawers, and on her right foot is distinctly visible the ornament with which the drawers are fastened.

Just above the strange objects which this second tall standing woman holds in her right hand, we see a curious figure holding a long staff, meant probably to represent a lance; her head is shown in profile; the rest of her body, which is given in full view, consists of two circles, of which the upper one represents the upper part of the body from the neck to the waist, and the lower one the lower part of the body as far as the loins; no legs are shown and only one arm is seen; from the back project two long bands. The two circles of which the body consists have a small border, and look altogether like shields; but that shields were not intended to be represented is shown by the two points indicating the breasts.

This rudely represented figure, in the presence of the splendidly dressed women, can in my opinion be nothing else than a Palladium of a very ancient and primitive type, which, like that of the cow-headed or horned Hera-idols, was, on account of the sanctity attached to it, subject to no caprice of fashion and remained for ages unchanged.

The border of the seal, between the Palladium and the feet of the second tall woman, is filled up by six objects of a strange form with heads and eyes, also with a kind of helmet. From the great resemblance of these six objects to the Trojan idols[401] we believe that they also are meant to represent Palladia. But Professor Rhousopoulos reminds me of the great similarity of these six figures to the ?????? ???????a???, or Corinthian helmet of Pallas

Athena, as represented on the Corinthian coins of the fourth century B.C., and to the same helmet on the three bronze busts of that goddess, in natural size, of which one is in the British Museum, the second in the Ministry of Public Instruction at Athens, and the third in a private house in the PirÆus. The forepart of the helmet is represented, on the Corinthian coins and on the bust of the goddess, as drawn up, because she only drew it over her face when she was fighting. On this forepart of the helmet we see the two eyes, the nose, and the mouth; consequently it represents a mask, and gives an additional proof that it was customary to wear masks.

The resemblance between the six figures and the ?????? ???????a??? is certainly striking; the latter was assuredly not invented in the fourth century B.C., but it has certainly been copied from a very ancient idol, and I have not the slightest doubt that the six figures represent this very same idol.

Finally, we see near the top two waving lines which cannot possibly represent anything else than the sea, which is represented in like manner on the coins of Tarentum. From the sea rises to the left the sun in full splendour, the rays being well represented, and to his left (to the right of the spectator) rises the crescent of the moon. On seeing this marvellous ring, Mrs. Schliemann and I involuntarily exclaimed, "This ring must have been seen by Homer before he described all the wonders which HephÆstus wrought on the shield of Achilles."[402]

Mr. Sayce writes me that in his opinion the seated woman is in the act of adoration; that the two tall figures are men dressed in the characteristic costume of early Babylonian priests, and that the sun and half-moon seen above are ordinary ancient Babylonian symbols. He declares further that the figures, their grouping and ensemble, are a repetition of what we see on Babylonian gems of the most remote period, and he decides that this ring must also belong to that epoch. In his opinion, this period (in so for as regards its influence upon foreign art) ends with the 13th century B.C., when Assyrian influence began to be predominant.

I call attention here to two Babylonian figures on pp. 318 and 319 of Rawlinson's Herodotus; they also wear turbans and robes like those of the figures upon our ring. It appears that at Babylon the engravers made use of magnifying glasses in cutting fine gems; at all events, they were already used in Nineveh (Rawlinson's Herodotus, I. 512).

Lying together with this was found another smaller golden signet-ring, which I likewise represent in double size (No. 531). We see on this signet not less than four Palladia and three Hera-idols in good intaglio work. The former perfectly resemble the Trojan idols of Pallas Athena;[403] only there is a slight difference in the head, which is here a little less obtuse, and may be intended to be represented with a helmet. The Palladium in the lower row to the left is exactly like the Trojan idols; but it is a little effaced, and above it we see three ears of corn. Of the Hera-idols in the form of cow-heads with two horns, we see one in the upper and two in the lower row; the horns of the two latter are particularly long, and between those of the head to the left of the spectator we see two smaller ones; therefore this cow-head has four horns. At the right end of the upper row is represented a curious object which I cannot well distinguish; if we turn the engraving to the right, it looks like a bird. Between the two rows are eleven signs, resembling eyes.

Together with the two signet rings was found the beautiful massive golden lion, which is represented in double size (No. 532). It is fastened on a thick golden wire, and is represented lying down, with the head facing the spectator; and both the head and the rest of the body are perfectly faithful to nature. I share Mr. Newton's opinion that the lion has been cast and tooled.

There were further found fourteen golden beads of a necklace, of which I represent six (Nos. 533-538); they are ornamented all round with four rows of globular projecting points.

As will be seen by Plan G, all the above-described jewels were found together in one spot, which was only 2 ft. long and 8 in. broad, and precisely 6 m. 90 c., or 23 ft., below the surface of the soil before the beginning of my excavations, or only 8 in. below the surface of my excavation, as I left it on the 6th of December last. It further appears by Plan G, that the dÉbris below the site of the jewels was still 1 ft. 2 in. deep.

There were found bones in this tomb, which were at first thought by us to be human bones, but my esteemed friend Dr. Theodoros AretÆos, the celebrated Athenian surgeon, who has examined them, declares them to be the bones of animals. As before stated, the Cyclopean water-conduit, represented in Plan G, was evidently built at a later prehistoric period than that to which the tomb belongs, and its builders, who necessarily had to excavate the tomb down to the virgin rock, no doubt robbed it of its contents and threw away the bones of the skeleton; but, luckily that small place near the wall (only 2 ft. long and 8 in. broad), where the above jewels lay, was not dug up by them, and therefore the jewels have been saved for science.[404]

Lastly, I represent three lentoid gems of necklaces which I have bought in Chonika, a village situated in the Plain of Argos, close to the site of the ancient city of PhoenicÉ (F??????), and at a distance of one English mile from the ancient HerÆum. I call the attention of the reader to the name Chonika, which is nothing but a corruption of the name F??????.

The two peasants, who sold me the three lentoid gems, said that they had found the middle one in labouring on the site of PhoenicÉ, and the other two close to the site of the ancient HerÆum. I have no reason to doubt their statement to be correct, because, as the name sufficiently proves, PhoenicÉ was a Phoenician colony, and the middle gem (No. 540) which is said to have been found there, most decidedly represents two Phoenician figures, probably very ancient types of idols. Their heads are marked by a mere horizontal hollow, and no face is shown; their necks are very long, and their shoulders, which, like all the rest of their bodies, are rectilinear, are enormously broad. Very characteristic are their long legs and their feet, which rather resemble horse-hoofs than human feet; one man holds in his right hand, and the other in his left, a zigzag, probably intended to represent a symbol of fire and perhaps lightning. The very short left hand of the man to the left of the spectator is uplifted, and seems to hold some object, whilst the left hand of the other figure is very long and nearly touches the ground. Over the right shoulder of the man to the left of the spectator is a strange sign, perhaps a written character, and an arrow-like sign is close to the neck of the other man; to both these signs I call particular attention. This lentoid gem is of dark red agate, semi-globular, and has a horizontal perforation.

The lentoid gem to the left of this (No. 539), as seen by the spectator, is of greenish serpentine. It is convex on both sides and has likewise a horizontal perforation. It represents, in beautiful intaglio, two horses standing on their hind-legs opposite each other, their heads leaning over in opposite directions. The tail of the horse to the left of the spectator is represented by a mere band; that of the other is bushy; to the head of each horse is attached an ornament, which probably belongs to the trappings. Between the heads of the horses we see two human figures, of which that to the left of the spectator has a Phrygian cap on its head, and extends its hands towards the other figure, whose head seems to be uncovered, and which is holding a round object in its only hand which is visible.

On the third lentoid gem (No. 541), which is an agate of variegated white and brown colour, also convex and horizontally perforated, we see a much more artistic intaglio work, representing a Hera-idol, in the form of a cow-head, with two long horns, in perfectly faithful imitation of nature. Between the two horns we see, head downward, an ornamented double-edged axe, with its handle, the extremity of which is ornamented with two rings or turned buttons. To the right and left of the cow-head we see a beautifully ornamented object, the nature of which we are unable to explain; it resembles a cornucopiÆ.

I remind the reader that this lentoid gem, as well as the other with the two horses, was found close to the ancient HerÆum, of which the foundations, consisting of various courses of Cyclopean masonry of enormous uncut blocks, still exist, and may be as old and even older than the walls of MycenÆ and Tiryns. But my explorations on the site, in February, 1874, have shown that the accumulation of dÉbris there does not exceed 1½ to 3 ft. in depth, and consequently excavations there are impossible. The ancient HerÆum was accidentally destroyed by fire in 423 B.C., and its site has remained deserted, the new HerÆum being built on the slope, about 50 ft. below the ancient one.

Mr. A. H. Sayce writes to me:—"I am inclined to believe that the antiquities of MycenÆ are of a much earlier date than that which you have attributed to them. I should place the most ancient as far back as the epoch when Babylonian influence began to prevail in the western Mediterranean basin, after the conquests of the Chaldean king Naram Sin of Agana (whose successor was the victorious Elamite Khamuragas, who extended his power to the borders of the Mediterranean, 2000-1700 B.C.). Further, I believe that the treasuries, the Gate of Lions, etc., are of prior date to the tombs and the Cyclopean walls. Assyrio-Babylonian civilization came into Greece not only through Phoenicia, but through Asia Minor. The drawings of M. Perrot, and of several other explorers, are like links in the chain which joins ancient Greek to Assyrian (or rather Babylonian) art. Perhaps in exploring Sardis an art and types similar to those of MycenÆ will be found. But the great centre from which this art spread through Asia Minor was Karkhemish, the rich capital of the Hittites, the ruins of which have been discovered at Jerablus (near Birajik on the Euphrates) by Messrs. Skene and George Smith. By making excavations, a second Nineveh might be found there, with sculptures which would show the transition of Assyrian art to the form which may be called the Greek, or that of Asia Minor. These are not mere conjectures, for pieces of sculpture have already been discovered which present this character. The Hittite domination extended to Cilicia and Lycaonia, as is proved by recently discovered carvings, and especially by that found at Ibreez, bearing an inscription in Hittite hieroglyphs. This fact, which I have pointed out to Mr. Gladstone, confirms the evidences which he has furnished in favor of the identity of the Hittites and the Keteians (??te???).

"I see in the MycenÆan antiquities one point of decisive importance: the art of carving on stone in Western Asia and Europe came from Babylon, where stone was rare and precious. In archaic Babylon (prior to the sixteenth century B.C.) civilization had made great progress; yet it was still in the bronze age. Iron was not used in Babylon, and was probably unknown. How then can we explain the relatively advanced state of civilization in ancient MycenÆ, although iron was unknown there, without supposing that this civilization had its origin in that of archaic Babylon, or that it was connected with it in some way or other? If it had been related to the civilization of Assyria, of Egypt, or of the Babylon of a period later than the sixteenth century B.C., we should assuredly have found at MycenÆ some trace of a knowledge of iron."

Mr. A. H. Sayce further calls my attention to the learned article of J. P. Mahaffy, professor in Trinity College, Dublin. This article, published in the Hermathena, V., is entitled "On the Date of the Capture of MycenÆ by the Argives." I reproduce it here.

"No one seems to have found any difficulty in the statement of Diodorus, which Pausanias repeats, that the town of MycenÆ was destroyed by the people of Argos after the Persian Wars, though I fancy most scholars, when they first come to attend to it, are surprised that the ancient city of MycenÆ should have lasted so long in close neighbourhood to Argos, and made so little figure in Greek history. I suppose any doubt of this kind is allayed by the recollection that Herodotus mentions eighty MycenÆans as having joined the Greeks at ThermopylÆ, and that he also enumerates both Tirynthians and MycenÆans among the cities or tribes of Greeks which were inscribed on the pedestal of the tripod at Delphi as joining in the repulse of the Persians. The actual pedestal at Constantinople confirms him, for we read in the list ?????e?, and thus the existence of MycenÆans up to the year 470 B.C. is beyond all doubt.

"I have, nevertheless, grave suspicions whether either historian has given us a true account of the matter, and therefore propose the following hypothesis, to invite discussion. If I have overlooked any decisive evidence, I hope it will be put forth in refutation of my conjecture. I will first quote all Pausanias' statements on the point, but will group them into two classes, irrespective of their order, for the sake of more convenient discussion:—

II. 15, 4.

"??? d? a?t?a? te ????? t?? ????s??, ?a? d?? ??t??a
p??fas?? ???e??? ?????a???? ?ste??? ???st?sa?. 16, 5.
?????a? d?? ???e??? ?a?e???? ?p? ????t?p?a?. ?s??a???t??
??? t?? ??. ?at? t?? ?p?st?ate?a? t?? ??d??, ?????a???
p?p??s?? e?? Te??p??a? ??d?????ta ??d?a? ?? ?a?eda???????
et?s??? t?? ????? [inaccurate]. t??t? ??e??e
sf?s?? ??e???? pa?????a? ????e????.

"Then follows the famous passage about the ruins, and about the tombs of Agamemnon and his party, which M. Schliemann has brought into such fresh notoriety.

V. 23, 2.

"[In the list of cities inscribed on the monument of the victory over the Persians, which Pausanias saw at Olympia, and which appears not to have been an exact duplicate of that at Delphi.]

"?? d? ???a? t?? ????e?a? ?????????, ??at. d? ????
????t??, ?a? ????e??? ?? ?????a? ????te?. 3. t??t?? t??
p??e?? t?sa?de ?sa? ?f? ??? ?????. ?????a??? ?? ?a?
????????? t?? ??d???? ?ste??? ??????t? ?p? ??. ???stat??.

VII. 25, 5.

"?????a???? ??? t? ?? te???? ????a? ?at? t? ?s?????
???? ?d??at? ?p? ?. (?tete???st? ??? ?at? ta?t? [this is not
accurate] t? ?? ??????? ?p? t?? ?????p?? ?a???????)
?at? ??????? d? ???e?p??s? ?. t?? p???? ?p??e?p??t??
sf?? t?? s?t???, ?a? ????? ?? t???? ?? ??e???? ?p??????s??
?? a?t??, t?? d??? d? p???? ?? ? ??s? ?? ?a?ed???a?
?atafe????s?? pa? ?????a?d???, ? ?a?d????? ? G?????
t?? ???e??a? ?p?ste?se? ?? ?????a???? ?pa??e??a??
? d? ????? d??? ?f????t? ?? t?? ?e???e?a?, ?a? ?? t? ?pe?ta
????et? ?p?fa?est??a d?? t?? s??????s?? t?? ???.

"Nothing seems more precise than this. Pausanias was evidently quite sure of his facts, though one of them—the participation of the MycenÆans in the battle of ThermopylÆ—was certainly wrong according to Herodotus. They went there, indeed, but retired with the other Greeks, who left the Spartans and Thespians with Leonidas. Apart from this, it seems, then, that the Argives were so jealous of the fame of MycenÆ on account of this glorious battle (at which MycenÆans never fought), that they undertook the siege of the great Cyclopean fort, and having starved out the population of the place, which they could not storm, they drove them out of the land to KleonÆ, Kerynea, and to Macedonia. The same lot befell the Tirynthians for the same reason, though Pausanias adds no details about the siege of their equally wonderful fort, which excited his loudest admiration.

"Herodotus corroborates the participation of MycenÆ and Tiryns in the Persian War, and says they together furnished four hundred men to the army of the Greeks, which fought at PlatÆa. He is perfectly silent as to the consequences of this act.

"Let us now examine a very different passage.

VIII. 27, 1.

"s??????? d? ?p?? ?s???? ?? a?t?? [sc. t?? ?e?a??? p????]
?? ????ade?, ?te ?a? ????e???? ?p?st?e??? t? ?? et? pa?a??te?a
???? ?? ?at? ?a? ???a? ???st?? ???d??e???ta?
?p? ?a?eda?????? pa?ast??a? t? p???? ?pe? d? ?????p??
p???e? t? ?????? ?p????sa?, ?ata??sa?te? ??????a ?a?
??s??? te ?a? ????e?? ?a? ?????a? ?a? ??de?a? ?a? e? d? t?
???? p???sa ??? ????????? ?? t? ???????d? ??, t? te ?p?
?a?. ?de?ste?a t??? ????. ?p?????ta, ?a? ?a ?? t??? pe????????
?s??? ?e?????? a?t???.

"This passage is corroborated by II. 25, 6 and 8, in which the destruction of OmeÆ and of Tiryns are mentioned in the same way. Thus, in § 8, ???st?sa? d? ?a? ?????????? ????., s???????? p??s?ae?? ?a? t? ?. ?pa???sa? ?e??sa?te?.

"This account appears not only inconsistent with the former, but contradictory to it. There, the inhabitants of MycenÆ are expelled, and added to the strength of other cities; here, the special reason of the dispute is to secure more citizens for Argos, and to increase and consolidate its power. Any one who considers the conditions of the question for one moment will not hesitate to prefer this latter—a sound political view—to the sentimental story about Argive jealousy. The s??????s?? of the Argive territory was like that of Thebes, of Athens, and of Megalopolis; and there can be no doubt that the importance of Argos in Greek history was wholly due to its early success in this most difficult and unpopular revolution.

"But is it possible that it took place after the Persian Wars? I think not. In the face of the patriotic conduct of Tiryns and MycenÆ, and at the moment of Argos' greatest national unpopularity, any such attempt to destroy free Greek cities would have brought down the vengeance of all Greece. Moreover, early historians are silent about it. Herodotus and Thucydides never allude to it. What is still more remarkable, the contemporary Æschylus, though composing plays which ought to have had their scene laid at MycenÆ, never once mentions MycenÆ, and transfers the palace of Agamemnon to Argos.[405] If the more ancient city, whose inhabitants had fought with him in the great Persian struggle, had only lost its independence in his mature age, is such a curious ignorance on his part conceivable? I think, then, that the s??????s?? of the Argive territory must have taken place long before, and that Pausanias was misled by the monuments of the Persian War to transfer it to an impossible period.

"If we look back into earlier history, and consider at what time Argos was daily expecting an attack from Sparta, and found it necessary to strengthen its power, I think the most natural period will be not immediately after the Persian, but immediately after the Messenian Wars, that is, the second Messenian War, which was concluded in Ol. 29. According to our revised chronology, the development of Phidon's power at Argos must be placed close to this time, and it was probably the twenty-eighth Ol. which he celebrated with the Pisatans at Olympia to the exclusion of the Eleans. Of course the Spartans were bound to interfere, but the Messenian War must have greatly hampered their vigour. When this war was over, and Sparta had acquired new territory and prestige, the Argives must have expected that they would be the first to suffer. Hence I attribute to Phidon, and to his policy, the consolidation of all the smaller towns in Argos, and perhaps this may have been the secret of his greatness.

"But how then is the existence of Tiryns and MycenÆ during the Persian War to be explained? I suppose that these towns, though conquered, and their gods transferred to Argos, nevertheless continued to exist as ??a? or villages, but inhabited by Argive citizens, and that accordingly these descendants of the old inhabitants, who took the patriotic side, and had not forgotten their history, joined the Hellenic army under these obsolete names, which the nation was glad to sanction as a slight to the neutral Argives.[406] The very small number of men they were able to muster (80 from MycenÆ at ThermopylÆ, 400 from MycenÆ and Argos together at PlatÆa) strongly corroborates this view; for in that day the smallest Greek towns had a considerable armed population—PlatÆa, for example, had 600. It is very likely that the Argives were nettled at this conduct, and determined to efface these places altogether; and this change, which was very unimportant, as the real s??????s?? had been long accomplished, attracted no notice at the time, but gave rise afterwards to a distortion of history.

"I will quote, in conclusion, what seems to me a parallel case. Pausanias says (IV. 27, 10), that the MinyÆ of Orchomenus were expelled by the Thebans after the battle of Leuctra. We know very well that the power of Orchomenus was gone long before, but the increased strength of Thebes, and some offence on the part of the subject city during the struggle with Sparta, determined its complete extinction by the Thebans. But this was no great siege or subjugation of a free city. That had been done by the Thebans long before. So I believe the capture of the great fort at MycenÆ probably occurred long before the Persian Wars.

"The explicit passage in Diodorus (xi. 65), which seems at first sight a conclusive corroboration of the ordinary view, only strengthens my conviction that it is wrong. Diodorus is precise about the date. He says that in the 78th Ol. (468-4), while the Spartans were in great trouble on account of a destructive earthquake and rising of the Helots and Messenians, the Argives took the opportunity of attacking MycenÆ. But they did so because MycenÆ alone of the cities in their territories would not submit to them. This distinctly asserts that all the other towns, such as Tiryns and Midea, had been formerly subdued, and contradicts Pausanias. Diodorus then enumerates the various claims of MycenÆ to old privileges about the Heraeon and the Nemean Games, and adds what Pausanias says about their joining the Greeks at ThermopylÆ, alone among the Argive cities. The share taken by Tiryns with MycenÆ at PlatÆa seems unknown to both authors. But after long waiting for an opportunity, the Argives now collected a considerable force from Argos and the allied cities, and made war upon MycenÆ—upon MycenÆ, which was only able, jointly with Tiryns, to supply 400 men at PlatÆa, and which, when unaided, sent 60 men to ThermopylÆ! The Argives first defeated them in battle, and then besieged the fortress, which, after some time, through lack of defenders (which is indeed credible), they stormed. Here again Pausanias is contradicted. Diodorus concludes with stating that they enslaved the MycenÆans, consecrating a tenth of the spoil, and levelled the town with the ground.

"I think my theory is perfectly consistent with the critical residue which may be extracted from this passage. It is probably true that the Argives chose the opportunity of a Messenian war to make this conquest, but it was the second, not the third, Messenian war. It is probably true—nay, I should say certainly true—that they levelled MycenÆ with the ground in the 78th Ol.; but this was not their first conquest of it. If they enslaved the then inhabitants, this harsh measure was probably by way of punishment for the impertinence of a subject town in sending an independent contingent to a war in which the sovereign city had determined to maintain a strict neutrality. That the facts related by Diodorus should have caused no general comment throughout Greece, or that no echo of it should have reached us, seems to me almost incredible. There is a possible corroboration of Diodorus' statement that MycenÆ was the last conquered of the subject cities in the Homeric catalogue, where Tiryns is mentioned as already subject to Argos, while MycenÆ is the capital of Agamemnon. But even when that catalogue was compiled, Argos had conquered all the seaboard of the Argolic peninsula, and MycenÆ lies at the extreme south of the territory (chiefly Corinthian and Sicyonic) which is assigned to Agamemnon. Possibly the traditions were still too strong for the poet to make MycenÆ subject to Argos, but he plainly denies any hegemony of MycenÆ over the Argive plain."

Mr. A. H. Sayce further directs my attention to a passage of Homer, which, in my opinion, also seems to favor this hypothesis, and which seems categorically to contradict the stories which Pausanias and Diodorus have borrowed from Ephorus.[407] This last has seemingly made an error as to the epoch of Pheidon. The passage pointed out by Mr. Sayce is in the Iliad, IV., 50-56:

In the opinion of Mr. Sayce, it is clear that Homer meant in this passage to refer to the destruction of at least one of the three cities which he names, and as Argos and Sparta were not destroyed, the city which was destroyed could have been no other than MycenÆ. Mr. Sayce believes that it may be inferred from the word d?ap??sa? that the destruction of MycenÆ must have been complete. If it was so, nothing can better prove the great antiquity of the event than this citation from Homer.

I must say that this hypothesis of Messrs. Sayce and Mahaffy, according to which MycenÆ must have been destroyed at a period of great antiquity, is but too strongly confirmed by the monuments. I recall to the reader here what I said on this subject near the end of Chapter IV.:—"On the west side the Cyclopean wall has been nearly demolished for a distance of 46 feet, and on its interior side a wall of small stones joined with earth has been built to sustain its ruins. It must remain mere guesswork when the Cyclopean wall was destroyed and the small wall built, but at all events this must have occurred long before the capture of MycenÆ by the Argives in 468 B.C., because the small wall was buried deep in the prehistoric dÉbris."

I also recall the fact that the following inscription