July–December 1935

Continued from scan 27

… of Gjerstad's theory that Cyprus was colonized by Mycenaeans fleeing from Mycenae after its fall, and that it was they who brought in the sub-Mycenaean style. I have four solid arguments against it. The first is based on his amazing theory that the Granary style is "protogeometric", and posterior to the fall of Mycenae. I deny that as vigorously as I can, though I doubt that the archaeological world will need many new arguments on that point. To disprove his theory on his own grounds I show that the sub-Mycenaean style was copied from The L.H.III pots imported to Cyprus in the L.C.II period, and that its rise was gradual and in direct proportion of the gradual decline of the importation of L.H.III; that the sub-Mycenaean began as soon as the L.H.III began to fall off, and that it was full-grown by the real fall of Mycenae. Since there was no break between the two he can not say that Cyprus was first isolated from Cyprus, and that then in the dark ages which followed the fall of Mycenae it was colonized by Mycenaeans who re-introduced art in the Mycenaean tradition.

My other two arguments are intended to show that this colonization could not have taken place after the real fall of Mycenae. The first reason is chronological, that the style was already fully developed before the fall of Mycenae. The other is that the fall of Mycenae was the signal for a confusion of Mycenaean and Cypriote elements, such as one would find only in isolation from L.H.III influence, and in native Cypriote work. This confusion and fusion grows increasingly and continuously stronger throughout the period from the fall of Mycenae to the early geometric period, and is absolutely inconsistent with a fresh wave of Mycenaean influence.

You will be interested to know that our three-handled jar is genuine Mycenaean. As you remember, the paint was Mycenaean, but I was worried about the clay, which, although it seemed [handwritten: typo]Cypriote[handwritten: was not the issue] … continues