July–December 1936

Continued from scan 32

… not considered style and above all technique, which are much more important than the place of finding. His fig. 4:8-9, incidentally, were not found in Rhodes, but in Cyprus. They are British Mus. C380, C240. The technique is standard mainland Greek. Fig.6:3 is not standard L.H.III, but a late outgrowth, perhaps made in Cyprus. The decoration is apparently inspired from L.M.III rather than L.H.III. His Kephallenia pieces are all local ware. In my opinion twelfth century in date but based upon 15th century types.

His dates are largely based on fantasy. I have here a long list of objections to the dates he gives, based on a comparison of his pots with things dated in Egypt etc. and by a consideration of their find context with dated groups. There is no point to giving you the full list of them now. There are only a few.

fig. 4:6 (Annurio,vol. 6-7, fig.126). This is surely early 14th century. Pre-Tell-El-Amarna. The shape is close to the L.H.II and the wavy pattern is an outgrowth of the L.H.II "rock-pattern" which occurs only in the earliest L.H.III. Fig. 4:3 (Annuario 6-7, Ialysos tomb VII). The deep kylix shape is surely 14th century, probably early in it. The shape is earlier than that of 4:2 which is probably of the earliest 15th century. Fig.4:10 6:10, The flower is in a Tell El Amarna stylization, and this must be of the 1st 4 of the 14th century. Fig.7:4 (Annuario 6-7, tomb XXIX). Surely very early L.H.III, 1st half of the 14th century. The design is derived from L.H.II. The tomb is not late, as Heurtley claims. The pyxis is of a type which lasted over into the beginning of L.H.III, but is essentially a L.H.I-II type. It was already extinct by the time of Tell El Amarna. The trefoil jug which he calls late is not Mycenaean. Its occurrence here imported from the east does not therefore prove the tomb late. If it were genuine L.H.III it might, but it isn't. Fig.2:2 which you mentioned as a parallel to our deep bowls, is from the Granary at Mycenae (B.S.A.XXV,pl.VI). Found together with pottery which Heurtley rightly calls 12th century. There is no basis for regarding this as any earlier.

But my strongest objection to Heurtley's article is in his unproved assumption that the Close Style is earlier than the Granary Style6. Some of the Rhodian octopus jars, which he rather loosely calls "close style" may be, but they are in a technique which is quite distinct from that of the Mycenaean pieces, and do not bear any generic relation to the mainland pieces of the real close Style. Wace himself is clear on the matter. On page 41, while speaking of pl. VIa, he says: "This vase is very important as indicating that the close Style and the Granary class are not only closely akin, but also contemporary. This is confirmed by the evidence from the East Basement (see p.52), and we know from this the kind of L.H.III ware in use at Mycenae when it fell." In Heurtley's no.2:2 he says: "...only two more or less complete examples of the patterned deep bowls were found (VIIa, VI) before the destruction of the Granary, the earlier patterned style was almost dead and the Granary Class and with the Close Style was current."

There are several other indications that the Close Style is not pre-Granary, but contemporary with the end rather than the beginning of the Granary Class. Aside from the deep bowl, two of the favorite Close Style shapes are the trefoil jug and the "amphora" with two large and two small handles. These shapes do not occur in Mycenaean wares until the close of the Granary Class, [illegible] and at the same time.