DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1021#0373
320 THE MYCENAEAN AGE
We have already noted the recurrence at Gurob, Kahun
and Tell-el-Amarna.of the characters which were first found
on the vase-handles of Mycenae j and this seemed at one
time to have an important bearing on Mycenaean chro-
nology. But in the wider view of the subject which has
been opened up by Evans' researches, this can no longer
be insisted upon as an independent datum. However, the
occurrence of these signs in a town demonstrably occupied
by Aegean peoples at a given date has corroborative value.
While it can hardly be claimed that any or all of these
facts amount to final proof, they certainly establish a strong
Force of probability that at least from the fifteenth cen-
these facts ^UTj B< a there was traffic between Egypt and
the Mycenaean world. Whatever be said for the tomb-
frescoes of Thothmes' foreign tribute-bearers and the
scarabs from Mycenae and Rhodes, we cannot explain away
Mr. Petrie's finds in the Payum. The revelations of Tell-
Gurob can leave no doubt that the brief career of the an-
cient city on that spot — say from 1450 to 1200 n. c. -—
was contemporaneous with the bloom-time of Mycenaean
civilization.
Now most, if not all of the " Aegean" pottery from
Gurob, like that pictured in the tomb-frescoes, belongs to
in fixing the later Mycenaean styles as we find them in the
upper limit chamber-tombs and ruined houses — in the same
deposits, in fact, with the scarabs and broken porcelain
which carry the cartouches of Amenophis and Queen Ti.1
The earlier period of Mycenaean art is thus shown to be
anterior to the reign of Thothmes III. j and, as that period
Petrie was surprised to find that all the scarabs were of the early part of the
eighteenth dynasty, except a few which were of the twelfth. " That all the
decorations should lie heirlooms is a strange fact." — Ten Years Digging in
Egypt, p. 123. Cf. Tsotmtas, Epk. Arch., 1887, p. 69.
1 Epkemeris Archawlogihe, 1891, p. 25 f.
We have already noted the recurrence at Gurob, Kahun
and Tell-el-Amarna.of the characters which were first found
on the vase-handles of Mycenae j and this seemed at one
time to have an important bearing on Mycenaean chro-
nology. But in the wider view of the subject which has
been opened up by Evans' researches, this can no longer
be insisted upon as an independent datum. However, the
occurrence of these signs in a town demonstrably occupied
by Aegean peoples at a given date has corroborative value.
While it can hardly be claimed that any or all of these
facts amount to final proof, they certainly establish a strong
Force of probability that at least from the fifteenth cen-
these facts ^UTj B< a there was traffic between Egypt and
the Mycenaean world. Whatever be said for the tomb-
frescoes of Thothmes' foreign tribute-bearers and the
scarabs from Mycenae and Rhodes, we cannot explain away
Mr. Petrie's finds in the Payum. The revelations of Tell-
Gurob can leave no doubt that the brief career of the an-
cient city on that spot — say from 1450 to 1200 n. c. -—
was contemporaneous with the bloom-time of Mycenaean
civilization.
Now most, if not all of the " Aegean" pottery from
Gurob, like that pictured in the tomb-frescoes, belongs to
in fixing the later Mycenaean styles as we find them in the
upper limit chamber-tombs and ruined houses — in the same
deposits, in fact, with the scarabs and broken porcelain
which carry the cartouches of Amenophis and Queen Ti.1
The earlier period of Mycenaean art is thus shown to be
anterior to the reign of Thothmes III. j and, as that period
Petrie was surprised to find that all the scarabs were of the early part of the
eighteenth dynasty, except a few which were of the twelfth. " That all the
decorations should lie heirlooms is a strange fact." — Ten Years Digging in
Egypt, p. 123. Cf. Tsotmtas, Epk. Arch., 1887, p. 69.
1 Epkemeris Archawlogihe, 1891, p. 25 f.