DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4856#0092
86
SUMMARY OF RESULTS.
The most important results of the Curium excavations have been obtained from the
Mycenaean finds ; those of later date have not, interesting in themselves as many of
the objects are, assisted in establishing any chronological data or archaeological theories.
It has generally happened that where any of these later tombs has contained an object that
may be definitely dated, the contents of the tomb are such as may be referred to one or more
different periods, implying a repeated use of it, and in this case of course knowledge as to
dates is of little use.
It has been pointed out that the Mycenaean discoveries support the statement of Strabo
that Curium was an Argive colony. But they also enable us to make a further deduction,
namely, that the site of the original Curium was on the spot where these finds were made,
and that the removal to the Acropolis on the other side of the modern Episkopi took place
about the beginning of the 6th century B.C., to which period the earliest objects found on
the latter site belong. Scarcely any remains of the later period were found on the
Mycenaean site (only in tombs 52, 56, 89, 95, and 98, which contained pottery with con-
centric circles) ; and on the other hand, the only early objects from the Acropolis sites were
" sub-Mycenaean " vases found in tombs 1 and 83.
Two objects were found on site D which may afford some evidence on the vexed
question of Mycenaean chronology. One is the scarab found in tomb 28, which has
been assigned on good grounds to the twenty-sixth dynasty, and yet appears to be
contemporaneous with the Mycenaean vases in the same tomb. The other is the
Phoenician cylinder from tomb 43, which cannot be earlier in date than 600 B.C., but
it is not impossible that it belongs to a later burial.
The only tombs of the later periods containing antiquities that can be approximately
dated are Nos. 10, 26, 71, 73, 78, and 83. Most of the Greek objects appear to date about
500-480 b.c, and it may be roughly said that the tombs on site B (with the exception of
some of undoubtedly Roman date, such as 72, 76, 77) belong to the end of the 6th and
beginning of the 5th century b.c. Site A yielded no evidence, while none of the tombs on
site E appear to be earlier than Ptolemaic or Roman times (200-100 B.C.).
The " temple " site was not sufficiently explored to yield any definite results beyond the
products of the " rubbish-heap" ; but here the remains appear to extend from the inscription
of the 4th century down to some two dozen coins of the Imperial period. One or two of
the terracotta heads may belong to the 4th century.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS.
The most important results of the Curium excavations have been obtained from the
Mycenaean finds ; those of later date have not, interesting in themselves as many of
the objects are, assisted in establishing any chronological data or archaeological theories.
It has generally happened that where any of these later tombs has contained an object that
may be definitely dated, the contents of the tomb are such as may be referred to one or more
different periods, implying a repeated use of it, and in this case of course knowledge as to
dates is of little use.
It has been pointed out that the Mycenaean discoveries support the statement of Strabo
that Curium was an Argive colony. But they also enable us to make a further deduction,
namely, that the site of the original Curium was on the spot where these finds were made,
and that the removal to the Acropolis on the other side of the modern Episkopi took place
about the beginning of the 6th century B.C., to which period the earliest objects found on
the latter site belong. Scarcely any remains of the later period were found on the
Mycenaean site (only in tombs 52, 56, 89, 95, and 98, which contained pottery with con-
centric circles) ; and on the other hand, the only early objects from the Acropolis sites were
" sub-Mycenaean " vases found in tombs 1 and 83.
Two objects were found on site D which may afford some evidence on the vexed
question of Mycenaean chronology. One is the scarab found in tomb 28, which has
been assigned on good grounds to the twenty-sixth dynasty, and yet appears to be
contemporaneous with the Mycenaean vases in the same tomb. The other is the
Phoenician cylinder from tomb 43, which cannot be earlier in date than 600 B.C., but
it is not impossible that it belongs to a later burial.
The only tombs of the later periods containing antiquities that can be approximately
dated are Nos. 10, 26, 71, 73, 78, and 83. Most of the Greek objects appear to date about
500-480 b.c, and it may be roughly said that the tombs on site B (with the exception of
some of undoubtedly Roman date, such as 72, 76, 77) belong to the end of the 6th and
beginning of the 5th century b.c. Site A yielded no evidence, while none of the tombs on
site E appear to be earlier than Ptolemaic or Roman times (200-100 B.C.).
The " temple " site was not sufficiently explored to yield any definite results beyond the
products of the " rubbish-heap" ; but here the remains appear to extend from the inscription
of the 4th century down to some two dozen coins of the Imperial period. One or two of
the terracotta heads may belong to the 4th century.