Site Section Links
A Study in Art-Historical Contradictions
The Lion Gate at Mycenae
Mr. Greenberg is assistant professor of art history and history, Moore College of Art (Philadelphia). The paper published here was first read at the Velikovsky Symposium, Lewis and Clark College, (Portland, Oregon), August 17, 1972.
"According to the now accepted art historical framework, we have a renowned work of monumental sculpture which time wise exists in apparent 'splendid isolation' . . ."INTRODUCTION
The citadel of Mycenae and its famous "Gate of Lions" lies in the northeast sector of the Peloponnesian peninsula of Greece midway between the ancient cities of Corinth and Argos where, by its strategic position, it dominated the Argive plain (1).
In 1876 Heinrich Schliemann (2), a successful German businessman, entrepreneur, and self-made archaeologist, became the first person to excavate the site in modem times. Utilizing the accounts of classical authors such as Pausanias (3) among others, whose historical, authenticity he never doubted, Schliemann eventually revealed a brilliant world of pre-Hellenic culture hitherto unsuspected (4).
The main entranceway to Mycenae, known as the Lion Gate (Fig. 1), is surmounted by two sculptured and now headless leonine figures—rampant, heraldically opposed and separated by a central column. Although once thought to be the oldest example of monumental sculpture in Europe (5), recent discoveries at Lepenski Vir in the Balkans have shown otherwise (6). Nevertheless, the Lion Gate remains a key monument in the history of ancient art serving, so to speak, as a kind of portentous prelude to the later sculptural works of the Classical Greeks (7).
CHRONOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Almost from the moment of its rediscovery, the Lion Gate and other adjacent material gave rise to "vehement disputes between 1880 and 1890 about the dating of the Mycenaean finds" (8). Dates were put forward assigning the monuments to either the years 1400-1100 B.C., 800-700 B.C., or Byzantine times (9). The latter suggestion has long been dismissed by archaeologists and art historians alike, but the other proposed dates now require careful re-examination.
While the Lion Gate is presently dated by Wace to the year 1330 B.C. and by Mylonas to the mid-thirteenth century B.C. (10), with the bulk of the scholarly world in general agreement, a major error in chronological attribution may have been made. The sheer repetition and perpetuation of the above dating may also have played a role in reinforcing a possible illusory authenticity.
Stratigraphical evidence resulting from site excavation in depth has proven to be a major tool for the archaeologist in establishing a system of comparative chronology. The system is however, not without its pitfalls (11). First, there is the problem of establishing a relative (12) chronology or proper sequential arrangement of artistic objects based upon evolution of their forms. Pottery, that basically indestructible product of all cultures, is of inestimable value in this situation. Second, there is the necessity of establishing an absolute chronology for those undated objects under consideration in order to determine their exact or approximate placement in time. Sometimes, this can only be ascertained through a comparison with objects of known or supposedly known date from other cultures. In the case of Mycenaean art, as with so much of ancient art, Egypt has served as a primary source for the establishment of an absolute chronology (13).
"Of course, any shortening of the Egyptian or the other chronologies [involves] a corresponding shortening of Minoan chronology, and hence of the chronology of other Mediterranean cultures and indeed of the chronology of the whole of prehistoric Europe (14)."
Attempts to substantiate an absolute chronology through the use of the "Carbon 14" method (15) have not always proven satisfactory either, since results may show a margin of error of up to 200 years and, in addition, it is only organic matter which can be analyzed. In fact, "the findings obtained by the Carbon 14 method in Minoan archaeology have so far not been satisfactory since they are completely at variance with the absolute chronologies established by other methods (16)."
The dating of the Lion Gate at Mycenae has had a "checkered career," to say the least. Shards found under the threshold have currently placed the gate towards the latter part of Late Helladic IIIB (ca. 1250 B.C.) (17). However, it was Egypt which provided the dates for LH IIIB, as well as LH IIIA (18). The work of Furumark (19) has further solidified the absolute chronology of the pottery categories, but again this was based upon "chiefly the synchronisms that can be established by comparison and correlation of Mycenaean objects found in datable Egyptian contexts and of Egyptian objects recovered in observed Mycenaean stratigraphic associations (20)."
As far back as 1897 Tsountas (21) warned scholars not to ignore "the unsettled state of Egyptian chronology" when enlisting the aid of Egyptology in dating Mycenaean products. And as recently as 1960 Cook (22) again reminded students of Greek pottery of the difficulties concerning the establishment of relative and absolute chronologies and their, "reconciliation."
Unfortunately, the Egyptian chronology is nowhere near as solid as the architectural wonders which are its hallmark. As a matter of fact, our knowledge of Egyptian events is extensively based upon the disjointed reports of Classical authors, damaged and incomplete written records, and chance records of astronomical phenomena (23). Even the latter factor has been questioned (24).
The above statements are not meant to be disparaging, for no one can deny the admirable work of the Egyptologists over the past century. But, a more realistic and objective view of the current historical and art historical situation must be taken. Thus, Demargne's (25) statement that the Mycenaean chronological problem "was solved in an article by Flinders Petrie (26) in the Journal of Hellenic Studies (1890), which established an absolute chronology of the Greek civilization on an Egyptian basis" is a somewhat bare one. Besides, even Petrie's work has been superseded in the realm of Egyptian chronology (27).
Actually, Petrie based his conclusions upon Mycenaean objects found with Egyptian ones in the Fayum, dating from the reign of Amenhotep III and his successors, as well as Egyptian items such as a scarab bearing the name of Queen Tiy, wife of Amenhotep III and mother of Akhnaten, found at Mycenae. The assumption was made that the Egyptian works should be dated between the years 1400-1100 B.C., but Velikovsky (28) has argued the incorrectness of these dates, suggesting a ninth century B.C. date for the rule of Amenhotep III and his son Akhnaten. If true, this would invalidate the present belief that the Lion Gate may be dated to ca. 1300 B.C.; there also appears to be other evidence (which will be supplied below) which would justify a much later dating.
Velikovsky himself actually maintains an eighth century date for the buildings and fortifications of Mycenae and Tiryns (29); Ramsay had already proposed a similar dating in 1888 (30) and again in 1889 (31) for the Lion Gate as a result of comparisons made with art in Phrygia (32). There, two sculptured lions, somewhat worn by weather, flank the opening to a tomb at Bilyiik Arsian Tash, whose entrance was high up on the side of a cliff. The huge heads, gaping jaws, and devouring aspects of the beasts must have been quite imposing and ominous when viewed from below, which would suit their purpose well as the guardians and protectors of the deceased within (33) (See Fig. 2).
Murray in 1892 (34) also placed the Lion Gate and walls of Mycenae in the eighth to seventh centuries B.C. on the basis of Mycenaean gem comparisons and apparently believed in the possibility of following a "stream of Greek art backward without interruption to a powerful source in an age of great popular activity (35)."
Gardner also in 1892 observed close analogies between Mycenaean and Phrygian lions (36). It is interesting to note that both Murray and Gardner held to their own convictions pertaining to Mycenaean chronology even after Petrie's "solution" to the problem. If, in fact, the lions—actually lionesses (37)—of the Lion Gate at Mycenae do indeed date from the eighth to seventh centuries B.C., what would or could have been their source of artistic inspiration and execution? (There are no known monumental antecedents or descendants on Greek soil for the Lion Gate according to its present placement in time, which would rule out the concept of stylistic convergence.)
Ramsay (38) argued that the Mycenaean gateway most likely belonged to the eighth century B.C. due to the lively intercourse which took place between Argos and Asia Minor at that time, during which the Argives would have learned "to fortify their city in the Phrygian style with lions over the gate." He also raised the logical question, "is it probable that all traces of the greatest period in Argive history have altogether disappeared, while numerous remains exist of Argive glory during the unknown period 1500-1000 B.C., and again of Argive bronze work of the sixth century B.C. (39)?" Velikovsky has also supported this same view (40) and Perrot and Chipiez saw "the relations between Phrygian and Mycenian [sic] art [as] a question of vital interest for archaeology (41)."
Of course, it is within the realm of possibility that the sculpture of the Lion Gate was not created contemporaneously with the gateway itself, a thought apparently so ingenuous that no one (to this author's knowledge) has ever proposed it (42). Yet, if this were true, imagine the Pandora's box of historical and art historical problems which would be opened or, on the contrary, the many divergent viewpoints which would be reconciled (43)!
Since the above idea, however, must be shelved for future speculation, it is necessary for convenience sake to continue our investigation of Mycenaean and Asiatic contact and interaction with a conditional acceptance of present archaeological assumptions. There seems to be no doubt of Greek and Anatolian as well as Levantine contacts in the eighth or seventh century B. C. on the basis of literary (44) as well as artistic (45) documentation, but as to the specific identity of these "Greeks" there is still considerable debate (46). Ramsay, as already noted above, assumed that they were Mycenaeans who were artistically influenced by their Asiatic (Phrygian) encounter. But Ramsay was referring to people now placed five to six hundred years earlier in time. Unfortunately, there is a terrible confusion over "who was where when" and "who was influenced by whom" among scholars due to the existing state of chronological affairs (47). The Gordian knot of art historical controversy is not so easily cut, either. As Demargne has asked, "to what extent was the Mycenaean world influenced by Syria or Egypt either directly or via Cyprus .... Conversely, to what extent were the civilizations of the Syrian towns, of the Egypt of Amarna and the XIXth Dynasty, accessible to Aegean influences (48)?" Nevertheless, one thing is certain and that is the fact that according to the now accepted art historical framework, we have a renowned work of monumental sculpture which time wise exists in apparent "splendid isolation " and alien in spirit to the Cretan artistic temperament (49).
"For a long time it was believed that Mycenae had been under Cretan domination, almost as if it were the colonial outpost of a seafaring nation. This has proved to be a misconception and although the cultural and political relationship between these rival powers remains obscure and the historical causes of the rise of the one, the decline of the other are beyond our grasp, it is clear that Mycenae had a cultural individuality of its own and that its remains must be dealt with on their own merit (50)."
Matz (51), too, was quick to point out the un-Minoan characteristics of the Lion Gate. And yet, despite the trend toward Mycenaean emancipation from Cretan influence in the minds of scholars (52), Platon once stated that "the technique of the execution [of the Lion Gate] is clearly inspired by Cretan sculpture (53)." Even Vermeule believed that "it was the lack of Minoan prototypes which probably delayed this branch of art [large-scale sculpture in Mycenaean Greece] so long, because sculptural instinct was already present in the Shaft Grave stelae (54)." The latter-mentioned works themselves may also be incorrectly dated (55). They make a good deal more art historical sense when compared, for example, with the hunting scenes of Assurnasirpal II from Nimrud, which are dated in the ninth century B.C, (56).
Special note should be made of the thematic and compositional similarities apparent in the hunting scene on a grave stela over Grave V from Mycenae and the depiction of mastiffs hunting wild onagers on an alabaster relief from the North Palace at Nineveh (668-630 B.C.). A military subject such as the one portraying Mycenaean soldiers storming a town, found on the upper part of a silver funnel-shaped rhyton from Grave IV, also accords artistically well with a like battle scene proclaiming the victory of king Assurbanipal to be seen on a relief from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh (704-681 B.C.).
The very idea of decorating a citadel gateway with apotropaic animal guardians such as those which occur on the Lion Gate finds its universal parallel in Nimrud (833-859 B.C.), Khorsabad (721-705 B.C.), Babylon (604-562 B.C.), and perhaps even in Nineveh. In Asia Minor, the Lion Gate of Hattusas (c. 1300 B.C.)—the Hittite capital—and the gateway from Malatya (1050-850 B.C.) offer additional parallels. It must be emphasized, however, that the Hittite examples depend upon Egyptian chronology for their dating and may prove to be considerably later. This is especially true of Hattusas.
If we now consider all of the historical data relating to the Lion Gate (with its inherent and blatant contradictions) so far presented, we are inevitably forced to alter our chronological, geographical, and cultural focus away from presently accepted notions. It would appear that we are dealing with a work of sculpture essentially and unquestionably different from Minoan workmanship which reasonably and sensibly fits into a much later artistic koine whose source was the art of the Neo-Assyrian empire which dominated the Near East from 883 to 626 B.C. (57). "The imposing sculptures that adorned Assyrian palaces became the Classical style of the ancient Near East and were taken as models by all neighboring peoples (58)."
Thus Ramsay's initial dating of the Lion Gate to the eighth century B.C. and his comparison of that monument to Phrygian sculpture grows more credible when considered in conjunction with Velikovsky's revised chronology and a close examination of Assyrian relief sculpture (59). Actually, Ramsay merely lacked the source material now available to carry his observations to their ultimate conclusion (60) (Fig. 3).
The disagreements among scholars over the dating of the Lion Gate at Mycenae and its cultural and historical relationships within the milieu of the Ancient World continue even into the domain of aesthetic evaluation and iconographical understanding. One almost gains the impression of a Rashomon story when examining the opinion of various individuals concerning the stylistic merits of the Lion Gate and its meaning.
Boardman described the lions as monsters (61) "rather poor as animal sculpture" which, "in their conventions and proportions ... are hardly more than Mycenaean seal engravings or ivories monstrously enlarged. It was probably this inability to find an adequate idiom or technique which inhibited further attempts at major sculpture in stone (62)."
Matz found the character and perfection of the work astonishing in light of the fact that it was the product of a very weak tradition of craftsmanship (63). He also felt that the gap between Minoan pictorial representation, with its radial composition on the one hand, and the Lion Gate, with its tectonic structural qualities on the other, presented a point of view almost indicative of a fresh start (64).
Higgins saw, in the Lion Gate, "the effective translation of a miniature theme into a major sculptural creation" in which "we must acknowledge the Mycenaean, rather than the Cretan genius (65)."
MacKendrick described the lions as" noble beasts (66)" and Taylour noted that while "there are differing interpretations as to the symbolism of this famous relief, some emphasizing the religious aspects, others the secular .... all are agreed in recognizing in this early example of Greek sculpture a great monument, noble and majestic in conception, and a worthy precursor of later Greek genius (67)."
Much analysis has also dealt with the symbolic significance of the Lion Gate, with almost as many divergent explanations put forward as there are critics. Schliemann (68) followed the opinion that the central column of the Lion Gate represented Apollo Agyieus, "the guardian of the gateway" which had been united with the two lions "either as the sacred animals of Rhea or as the symbol of the powerful dynasty of the pelopids." It should be noted that Pelops supposedly migrated from Phrygia and was the son of the Phrygian king Tantalus.
Demargne (69) saw in the relief as a whole a sort of "heraldic badge of the city of Mycenae," while Matz asserted that "the old identification of the lion relief as a royal coat-of-arms misses the point. It is anything but an emblem ornament. It is a powerful symbol which conjures up the protecting deity at the site (70)."
The lions themselves press downward onto two objects termed altars (71) which Lucer has viewed as a potent symbol of Minoane cultural conquest over Mycenae since "the royal lions of the house of Atreus support themselves against a Minoan pillar standing on a minoan altar base (72)." However, Marinatos interpreted the altars as a "Sea" symbol on the basis of a comparison made with similar objects seen on a Cretan fresco from Amnisos and "thus the blazon of Mycenae might be read as the Union of.... two Sea-powers" with the "second" power possibly being Crete (73). Employing the same fresco, Galanopoulos presented a case for a possible link between Crete and Atlantis (74).
By now, it should be obvious to the reader that we are dealing with a veritable kaleidoscope of scholarly speculation with the same thing meaning different things to different people. The same situation exists to some extent when considering the artistic source for the theme of the Lion Gate.
Evans noted the constant recurrence in Crete of "the sacral 'antithetic' subject of a male or female figure between pairs of lions," which also acted "as supporters of the Minoan Rhea on the ceilings of the central Palace sanctuary at Knossos (75)." Also at Knossos, the Cretan Mother goddess appeared on a seal impression standing atop a mountain between two guardian lions (76). This particular iconographic portrayal probably had some symbolic connection with the Great Mother Ninhursag of Mesopotamia, who was known as the 'Lady of the Mountain' (77).
Ramsay found similar lion and pillar groups in Phrygia and in one instance the goddess Cybele assumed the place of the pillar (78). In addition, a Cretan intaglio displayed two lions in the same heraldic pose as those of the Lion Gate except that an eight-pointed star was substituted for the pillar between them (79). The presence of the eight-pointed star again points to the Orient since it was the symbol for the goddess Ishtar with whom the Minoan Goddess could have been identified. To assume that the Lion Gate was merely a symbolic representation of the Minoan Goddess flanked by her guardian lions, the result of some sort of cultural and theological transliteration, would be far too simplistic.
The rampant lions of the Mycenaean gateway repeat a motif long familiar in Mesopotamian art and seen also in the pre-dynastic art of Egypt from the sites of Gebel-el-Arak and HierakonpoIis (80).
CONCLUSION AND QUESTIONS
Our study of the Lion Gate at Mycenae has inevitably led us back to the art of the Ancient Near East, regardless of what aspect of that monument was under discussion. Thus, its artistic debt to that part of the world cannot be denied. Nor can we neglect its Minoan heritage. Yet, the cultural legacy of the former would obviously appear to be far greater than that of the latter, which also possessed certain elements of Egyptian and Mesopotamian origin (81).
To view the Lion Gate as a mere over-blown version of Cretan glyptic art (82) is an archaic oversimplification of the history of art and a basic underestimation of the cultural interaction of ancient civilizations in general and Mycenaean accomplishments in particular. To assume that the sculptural portion of the Lion Gate can be dated on the basis of a handful of broken pottery (itself dependent upon a fluctuating chronology) found beneath the gateway threshold also displays a bit of scholar laxity. Even if the pottery is correctly dated, it only yields a terminus a quo (83) for the gateway and guarantees no positive date for the sculpture, which theoretically could have been carved or substituted for something else at a much later period in time (84).
The whole problem of the continuity between the various cultures of Greece and the link between Mycenaean and Classical Greek civilization (85) rests directly upon a redating of the Lion Gate and other Mycenaean objects as well as a reconsideration of several other key factors, such as who the Ahhijawa (86) really were, the date of the Trojan War (87) (if in fact there ever was one), and whether or not a "Dorian invasion" of Greece ever took place (88).
Despite the supposed final destruction of Mycenae around 1100 B.C. (89) and Schliemann's belief that Mycenae "must have completely been destroyed at a period of great antiquity . . . . too strongly confirmed by the monuments (90)," problems of art historical resolution and traditional continuity still remain. "How, for example, are we to explain the typical plan of the classical temple— with the two columns of the porch in line with the end walls and with the main shrine, or naos, and its central statue base—except as a carry-over of the plan of the Mycenaean megaton (91)?" How can we account for the similarity between the early Doric column and capital and the Lion Gate column, the resemblance between "stone-carved and fresco examples of Minoan-Mycenaean friezes of split rosettes alternating with groups of vertical fasciae [which] are strikingly close to the triglyph and metope pattern of the later Doric order of architecture (92)," and the awareness of the Classical Greeks of the "many nonmaterial facets of their heritage (93)?" In addition, the relationship between the theme and compositional arrangement of the Lion Gate at Mycenae and the sculptural program of the pediment of the Temple of Artemis at Corfu (ca. 600 B.C.) (94) offers yet another logical reason for assuming an unbroken artistic tradition on the Greek mainland.
If the basic premise of this paper, namely that the Lion Gate at Mycenae is sculpturally an eighth century B.C. monument, should prove to be correct and other Mycenaean problems are resolved as a result of an alteration of chronology in favor of a later dating, then the "Dark Ages" of Greece (95) would be instantly swept away. This would not be the first time a "Dark Age" had vanished in the light of new discoveries and willing critical reevaluation (96).
(1) See the Atlas of the Classical World, A. A. M. Van Der Heyden and H. H. Scullard, eds. (New York, 1959), pp. 20, 24-26.
(2) See "Heinrich Schliemann," The Concise Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Leonard Cottrell, ed. (New York 1960), pp. 413-15.
(3) Pausanias, II. 15. 16. 17.
(4) H. Schliemann, Mycenae (New York, 1880).
(5) P. MacKendrick, The Greek Stones Speak (Mentor Books, New York, 1966), p. 73; G. Hafner, Art of Crete, Mycenae, and Greece (New York, 1968), p. 37.
(6) See D. Srejovic, New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir (New York, 1972).
(7) See F. Matz, The Art of Crete and Early Greece (New York, 1962), pp. 226-27.
(8) P. Demargne, The Birth of Greek Art (New York, 1964), p. 8.
(9) Ibid., 8.
(10) See W. A. McDonald, Progress into the Past (New York, 1967), p. 262; A. J. B. Wace, BSA, 25 (1921-1923), 13; G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age 13; G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966), p. 236.
(11) N. Platon, Crete (Archaeologia Mundi) (New York, 1966). 80, 97.
(12) See Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, R. W. Ehrich, ed. (Chicago, 1965), especially pp. 300-09; Dating Techniques for the Archaeologist, Michael and E. K. Ralph, eds. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971).
(13) I. Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, I (Doubleday, New York, 1952), pp. 76, 100; A. J. B. Wace, Mycenae: An Archaeologic History and Guide (New York, 1964), p. 9.
(14) Platon, op. cit., 99.
(15) See W. P. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating (Chicago, 1955); E. S. Deevey, Jr., "Radiocarbon Dating," Scientific American (February, 1952); C. Renfrew, "Carbon-14 and the Prehistory of Europe," Scientific American (October, 1971); Supra # 12.
(16) Platon, op. cit., 100.
(17) Mylonas: op. cit., 20-21 and notes 23 and 26. For a full discussion of pottery and chronology, see Lord W. Taylour, The Mycenaeans (New York, 1964), pp. 45-59; R. Higgins, Minoan and Mycenaean Art (New York, 1967), pp. 12-14.
(18) Taylour, Ibid., 57; Wace, Mycenae, op. cit., 10- 12; Higgins, Ibid
(19) A. Furumark, The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm, 1941)
(20) C. W. Blegen, Troy and the Trojans (New York, 1963). Pp. 159-160; Also see A. Samuel, The Mycenaeans in History (Englewood Cliffs, 1966), pp. 47-48.
(21) C. Tsountas and J. I. Manatt, The Mycenaean Age (New York, 1897), p. 317, footnote 2; Also see Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 181 and footnote 7.
(22) R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery (London, 1 960), pp. 261-70; Matz, op. cit., 74-75; Velikovsky, Ibid., 180-83 and 221-22.
(23) C. Aldred, The Egyptians (New York, 1961), pp. 62-64.
(24) Velikovsky. op. cit., 76: Also see I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (Doubleday, New York, 1950), pp. 106 and 194-197; E. Meyer, Aegyptische Chronologie (Berlin, 1904).
(25) Demargne, op. cit., 8.
(26) F. Petrie, "Notes on the antiquities of Mykenae," JHS, 12 (1891), 199-205.
(27) K. Michalowski, Art of Ancient Egypt (New York, 1968), p. 75-77.
(28) Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, op. cit., 229ff.; I. Velikovsky, "Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History, Scripta Academica Hierosolymitana (January, 1946), pp . 12ff.
(29) I. Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, Ibid., 182; I. Velikovsky, "Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History," Ibid., 11; Also see I. Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (Dell Books, New York, 1955), the supplement, p. 258; and I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, op cit., 216-17 and 245-53.
(30) W. M. Ramsay, "A Study of Phrygian Art (Part I)," JHS, 9 (1888), 351, 369-71; Tsountas, op. cit., 31.
(31) W. M. Ramsay, "A Study of Phrygian Art (Part 11)," JHS, 10 (1889), 147.
(32) W. M. Ramsay, "Studies in Asia Minor," JHS, 3 (1882), 19-25 and 256-63; Also see S. Ferri, "arte Frigia," Enciclopedia dell'arte Antica. 3 (Rome, 1960), pp. 739-41, fig. 909; G. Garbini, The Ancient World (New York, 1966). p. 108.
(33) Note the compositional similarity to the Lion Gate. See E. Akurgal, "Asia Minor, Western," Encyclopedia of World Art, I (New York, 1959), pp. 884-88 and plate 528. Akurgal prefers a date after the sixth century B.C. while H. Hall, The Oldest Civilization of Greece (London, 1901), p. 274, suggested an eighth century B.C. date.
(34) A. Murray, A Handbook of Greek Archaeology (New York, 1892), pp. 177-78; Tsountas, op. cit., 31 and 254.
(35) Murray, Ibid, 178-79.
(36) P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History (New York, 1892), pp. 81-82.
(37) Ramsay 9, op. cit., 369.
(38) Ibid., 370 and footnote 3; Ramsay, 10 op. cit., 148.
(39) Ibid., 9, 370-71.
(40) Velikovsky, Supra, #29.
(41) G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia (New York, 1892), p. 395.
(42) See D. H. Fischer, Historians Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York, 1970), especially pp. xvi-xvii and 3ff.
(43) Ibid., 40ff.
(44) D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley, 1959), p. 40, footnote 63.
(45) E. Akurgal, The Art of Greece: Its Origins in the Mediterranean and Near East (New York, 1966), p. 162.
(46) Page, op. cit. 40, footnote 63 and also see H. E. L. Mellersh, The Destruction of Knossos (London, 1970), p. 157.
(47) See for example, H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore, 1958), p. 132.
(48) P. Demargne, "The Aegean World," The Larousse Encyclopedia of Prehistoric and Ancient Art (New York, 1962), p. 195.
(49) R. Higgins, op. cit., p. 91.
(50) H. A. Groenewegen-Frankfort and B. Ashmole, Art of the Ancient World (New York, 1972), p. 141; But also see J. Boardman, Greek Art (New York, 1964), 21-22; D. Strong, The Classical World (New York, 1945), p. 16.
(51) Matz, op. cit., 202-03.
(52) See, for example, the comments of S. Marinatos, Crete and Mycenae (New York, 1960), p. 81 and J. Boardman, et. al., Greek Art and Architecture (New York, 1967), p. 119.
(53) N. Platon, "Cretan-Mycenaean Art," EWA, 4 (New York, 1958), 109.
(54) E. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago, 1964), p. 214.
(55) Matz, op. cit., 170 suggests a sixteenth century B.C. date and Higgins, op. cit., 91 puts forth dates ranging from the sixteenth to the thirteenth centuries B. C. For the Shaft-Grave stones.
(56) See A. Parrot, The Arts of Assyria (New York, 1961), p. 54, fig. 62; also see infra #58; Marinatos op. cit., plates F46, 147 and 174.
(57) Akurgal, Art of Greece, op cit., 25; W. Stevenson Smith, Interconnections in the Ancient Near East (New York, 1965), pp. 53-55; Also see U. B. Alkim, Anatolia I (Archaeologia Mundi), (New York, 1968),pp. 150-77; A. Moortgat, "Mesopotamia," EWA, 9 (New York, 1964), 775-80. The Archaic Greek sculpture of Samos (Ca. 575 B.C.) was greatly influenced by Assyrian sculpture. Also see Parrot, Ibid., 11-69, figures 70-71.
(58) Akurgal, Ibid, 25 and plates 5, see E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites (New York, 1962), pp. 130ff. and plates 124, 132, 135, 136, and 137; Hittite Art and the Antiquities of Anatolia (The Arts Council, London, 1964), pp. 34-35 and plate 215; K. Bittle, "Hittite Art," EWA, 7 (New York, 1963), 573-75 and plate 285; L. Woolley, The Art of the Middle East (New York 1961), pp. 161-99.
(59) G. Pesce, "Zoomorphic and Plant Representations," EWA, 14 (New York, 1967), 946-47; Schliemann, op. cit., 365-66 and 377ff.; E. Strommenger, 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia (New York, 1964), pp. 41-44 and plates 200, 202, 210-14 and 248-50. Note the general similarity of feeling, conception and stylistic form between the Mycenaean and Assyrian lions (or lionesses), which are quite different from the seventh century B. C. Delos lions—See Samivel, The Glory of Greece (London, 1962), plate 5p/p>
(60) But see W. M. Ramsay, "A Study of Phrygian Art (Part 1)" op. cit., 366.
(61) See Fischer, op. cit., 244 for a discussion of "the fallacy of insidious analogy."
(62) J. Boardman, Pre-Classical: From Crete to Archaic Greece (Baltimore, 1967), pp. 48- 50.
(63) Matz, op, cit., 202.
(64) Ibid., 203-04 And see R. Scranton, Aesthetic Aspects of Ancient Art (Chicago, 1964), pp. 159-84: Frankfort, op. cit., 166, also discusses North Syrian art of the first millennium asrepresenting a fresh start.
(65) R. Higgins, op. cit., 92.
(66) MacKendrick, op. cit., 73.
(67) Taylour, op. cit., p. 128.
(68) Schliemann, op. cit., 33-35.
(69) Demargne, Birth, op. cit., 203.
(70) R. Higgins, op. cit., 202.
(71) S. Hood, The Heroes: The Aegean before the Greeks (New York, 1967), p. 97.
(72) J. V. Luce, Lost Atlantis (New York, 1969). p. 175 and plates 91 and 92. On relations between Crete and Mycenae, see H. J. Kantor, The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B.C. Bloomington, Indiana, 1947).
(73) Marinatos, op. cit., 11, footnote 39. This is certainly a direct contradiction to Luce's interpretive theory.
(74) A. G. Galanopoulos and E. Bacon, Atlantis: The Truth behind the Legend (New York, 1969), pp. 152-55.
(75) Sir A. Evans, The Palace of Minos at Knossos, 3, (London, 1921-35), pp. 126-27.
(76) Ibid., 3. p. 414; Taylour, op. cit., 63, figure 17.
(77) Frankfort. op. cit., 6.
(78) W. M. Ramsay, "Sepulchral Customs in Ancient Phrygia," JHS, 5 (1884) 241-51.
(79) G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, History of Art in Primitive Greece, 2 (London, 1894), pp. 214, 246.
(80) See W. S. Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (Baltimore. 1958), p. 19, figure 5; W. H. McNeill, The Rise of the West (Chicago, 1963), pp. 67, 190-91; H. W. Muller, "Egyptian Art," EWA. 4 (New York, 1961), 622 and plates 320-24. For a general sculptural survey of the lion in ancient art, see L. M. Greenberg, The Animal and Mythical Creature in Greek Art—A Study in Symbolism (unpublished thesis), Rutgers Univ. Library (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1961).
(81) See Marinatos, op. cit.. 81-82 for a discussion of Egyptian connections with Mycenae on the basis of similar mummification practices and quantities of gold whose source was most likely Egypt.
(82) Boardman, Pre-Classical, op. cit., 48.
(83) Wace, Mycenae, op. cit., 50, 132-34.
(84) For a full discussion of current theories and problems dealing with Mycenaen Civilization, see McDonald, op. cit., 361-426; Vermuele, op. cit., vii-viii; Mylonas, op. cit., 223. The Lion Gate w as added at a later date to the original enciente of Mycenae.
(85) McDonald, Ibid., 421-22; G. Becatti, The Art Of Greece and Rome (New York, 1967), pp. 10-11.
(86) See McDonald, Ibid., 393; J. P. Cohane, The Key (New York, 1969), pp. 100-04; Page, op. cit., 40, footnote 63; S. Barr, The Will of Zeus (New York, 1961), pp. 11ff.; O. R. Gurney, The Hittites (Baltimore, 1954), pp. 46-58.
(87) See McDonald, Ibid., 403-06: Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, op. cit., 245-53; A. R. Burn, The Pelican History of Greece (Baltimore, 1966), p. 70: The Greek World H. L. Jones, ed. (Baltimore, 1965), p. 24; Blegen, op. cit., 13-20; Mylonas, op. cit., 215-18; Vermeule, op. cit., 274ff.
(88) See Mylonas, Ibid. 218-29; McDonald, Ibid.,406-17; Hall, op. cit., 41ff., 221ff,; R. Carpenter, Discontinuity in Greek Civilization (New York, 1966), pp. 34ff,; L. Palmerance, The Final Collapse of Santorini (Thera) 1400 B. C. Or 1200 B. C.? Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, 26 (Goteborg 1970), pp. 26 and 28-32.
(89) Taylour, op. cit., 178.
(90) Schliemann, op. cit., 373 and 366ff. Mycenae may actually have been occupied without interruption until 468 B.C. if no "Dark Age" exists. See Mylonas, op. cit., 236-37 for the chronology and events of Mycenaean history as they now stand and Vermeule, op cit., 323-25.
(91) McDonald, op. cit., 423-24.
(92) Ibid., 424 and figure 101.
(93) Ibid, 425; Vermeule, op. cit., 63-64.
(94) See R. Lullies and M. Hirmer, Greek Sculpture (New York, 1960, rev. ed.), pp. 56-57, plates 16-19; The Gorgon motif was also found in Mycenae—see Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Primitive Greece, 2, op. cit., 249.
(95) See V. R. Desborough and N. G. L. Hammond, "The End of the Mycenaean Civilization and the Dark Age," CAH Fascicle 13, 1962; V. R. Desborough The Greek Dark Ages (New York, 1972); A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece (Chicago, 1971).
(96) See V. Karageorgis, The Ancient Civilization of Cyprus (New York, 1969), pp. 103ff.; P. Verzone, The Art of Europe: The Dark Ages (New York, 1967); Frankfort, op. cit. 166.
PENSEE Journal III