DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.7382#0079
XIX. MYCENAE
There is no legendary, historical or literary tradition of any connection between
Mycenae and Egypt if we except the raids of Atreus on Egypt in Mer-en-ptah's reign
(1230 B.C.) and of Agamemnon in that of Rameses III (1202 B.C.).1
From the finds we see that the contacts are confined to the Empire Period of Egypt
and to the great period of Mycenae. In fact we can go closer and say that, with two
exceptions, the early and middle XVIIIth Dynasty provides our material.
The first of these exceptions, the fragment of a porphyry bowl—No. 97—found in
Tomb No. 518 with Late Helladic I—II pottery, is certainly of Old Kingdom fabric,
and together with that found at Asine—No. 149—is an example of the fact that such
stone vessels must never be taken as evidence except with the very greatest caution.
The second exception is the fragment of a faience vase—No. 90—found in the third
shaft-grave: this, though in a good early Late Helladic I context, cannot be placed
before the middle of the XVIIIth Dynasty and much more probably belongs to the
XlXth, a period when representations of the Shairdana mercenaries become common.
According to the results of the latest excavations conducted by Wace,2 the re-
building of the Palace, the construction of the Lion Gate and the fortifications, and
the building of the third group of tholoi, which includes the Treasury of Atreus and
the Tomb of Clytaemnestra (dated by sherds under the threshold and walls of the
one, and from an untouched interment in the dromos of the other), should be assigned
to the beginning of Late Helladic III. These conclusions are accepted by the German
excavators of Tiryns.
Sir Arthur Evans however assigns the Treasury of Atreus and the Tomb of Clytaem-
nestra to the end of the Middle Helladic Age.3 His arguments are based on fragments
of stone bowls found with Nos. 99 and 100 in the unstratified deep earth which
obstructed the dromoi and doorways of these two tombs, and on the likeness of some
of the architectural ornament to fragments from Knossos.
A large steatite pithos from the dromos of the Tomb of Clytaemnestra resembles
the clay medallion pithoi from Knossos which he dates to Middle Minoan III 6.4
If this dating for the tholoi is correct, it makes them contemporaneous with the
shaft-graves. Hence Sir Arthur Evans concludes that the contents of the tholoi were
later transferred to the shaft-graves.
There is one other connection. At Tell el Amarna—the city of Akhenaten—there
has appeared much pottery of an undeniably Aegean pattern. It is in fact good early
1 Cf. Myres and Frost, Klio, 1914, p. 446.
2 B.S.A. xxv. passim. J.H.S. 1926, p. no.
3 See Evans, The Shaft Graves and Beehive Tombs of Mycenae and their Interrelation.
4 But cf. P. of M. 11. pp. 330, 562.
53
There is no legendary, historical or literary tradition of any connection between
Mycenae and Egypt if we except the raids of Atreus on Egypt in Mer-en-ptah's reign
(1230 B.C.) and of Agamemnon in that of Rameses III (1202 B.C.).1
From the finds we see that the contacts are confined to the Empire Period of Egypt
and to the great period of Mycenae. In fact we can go closer and say that, with two
exceptions, the early and middle XVIIIth Dynasty provides our material.
The first of these exceptions, the fragment of a porphyry bowl—No. 97—found in
Tomb No. 518 with Late Helladic I—II pottery, is certainly of Old Kingdom fabric,
and together with that found at Asine—No. 149—is an example of the fact that such
stone vessels must never be taken as evidence except with the very greatest caution.
The second exception is the fragment of a faience vase—No. 90—found in the third
shaft-grave: this, though in a good early Late Helladic I context, cannot be placed
before the middle of the XVIIIth Dynasty and much more probably belongs to the
XlXth, a period when representations of the Shairdana mercenaries become common.
According to the results of the latest excavations conducted by Wace,2 the re-
building of the Palace, the construction of the Lion Gate and the fortifications, and
the building of the third group of tholoi, which includes the Treasury of Atreus and
the Tomb of Clytaemnestra (dated by sherds under the threshold and walls of the
one, and from an untouched interment in the dromos of the other), should be assigned
to the beginning of Late Helladic III. These conclusions are accepted by the German
excavators of Tiryns.
Sir Arthur Evans however assigns the Treasury of Atreus and the Tomb of Clytaem-
nestra to the end of the Middle Helladic Age.3 His arguments are based on fragments
of stone bowls found with Nos. 99 and 100 in the unstratified deep earth which
obstructed the dromoi and doorways of these two tombs, and on the likeness of some
of the architectural ornament to fragments from Knossos.
A large steatite pithos from the dromos of the Tomb of Clytaemnestra resembles
the clay medallion pithoi from Knossos which he dates to Middle Minoan III 6.4
If this dating for the tholoi is correct, it makes them contemporaneous with the
shaft-graves. Hence Sir Arthur Evans concludes that the contents of the tholoi were
later transferred to the shaft-graves.
There is one other connection. At Tell el Amarna—the city of Akhenaten—there
has appeared much pottery of an undeniably Aegean pattern. It is in fact good early
1 Cf. Myres and Frost, Klio, 1914, p. 446.
2 B.S.A. xxv. passim. J.H.S. 1926, p. no.
3 See Evans, The Shaft Graves and Beehive Tombs of Mycenae and their Interrelation.
4 But cf. P. of M. 11. pp. 330, 562.
53