July–December 1936

the very end, and are more at home in the so-called sub-Mycenaean of Salamis than in the [handwritten: Cyprus] in the latest layers of Mycenae. Thus Vace lists only two examples from Mycenae (Chamber Tombs, pl. XI:9, of "re-occupation" date, and B.S.A. XXV, fig.6b, or stratum XI), whereas there are eight in Salamis, out of a smaller total number of pots than Mycenae. I do not know same may be said for the "amphorae" but even more so. I do not know of any example of it in pre-destruction layers. Mycenische wasen, pl. XVII:360, in the Close Style is the only example I know which is not outspokenly "sub-Mycenaean" or protogeometric. Close Style pots have been found in Athens and Delphi in contexts which would come under Heurtley's L.H.IV class, but which look forward to proto-geometric rather than back to L.H.III. Pioneer found early Granary Style and the same has been observed in several Cycladic sites. Finally, to cite my own Kourion material among two tombs the earlier contained imported pottery of the early Granary Style, and none of the sub-Mycenaean pottery showed any sign of knowledge of the Close Style. The tomb dated from somewhat before the fall of Mycenae, but without Close Style. The later tomb, which dates to after the fall of Mycenae, shows the popularity of types which first appear in Salamis, shows for the first time in Cyprus knowledge of the Close Style.

I do not believe that the pottery from Kephallenia which Heurtley claims for the Close Style is dependent for those characteristics upon Mycenae. The Heptanesian tradition branched off from the main L.H.III stream in the 13th century, in my opinion, and thus preserved certain 13th century characteristics into a later period than that of their popularity in Greece. The similarity of certain details with the Close Style work of the Argolid is coincidental. I believe, or at the best due to a fresh wave of influence from the Argolid in the 12th century, when this pottery must have been made. In any case, the concentric semi-circles, of which Heurtley makes so much, might easily be an outgrowth of the concentric arcs which were popular from the "Tell El Amarna days on down.

I do not see that our Tarsus material changes the case. Certainly our few Close Style pieces are found with Granary Style, for whatever may come of the bell-shaped bowls, the conical bowls cannot be pre-Granary. The date given by the bulla is after all a date post-quem, and I do not think that it is contemporary to the Granary Style deposit. It may date the panel style bowl found with it in the intrusion, but I believe that only further excavation and clarification of the nature of the whole area can show that. It seems to me a-priori reasonable that our great find of Hittite bullae is due to the Hittite or Tarsian "Big House" below, rather than to the poor Granary Style residence of the Lady of Kizwtna than the intrusion-filled layer of the Granary Style. It is my hope that next season's dig will settle the matter, and show how the bullae found their way from the earlier to the later level, perhaps with the fragments of the panel style cup.

To make my ideas of chronology perfectly clear I had perhaps better give you a general outline of the evidence, and of my new theory for the terminology of Late Helladic, which is after all an outgrowth of the chronological study. I might say that I have tried to take nothing for granted, and have not trusted anybody for anything except Egyptological material and the actual excavator's report of where things were found. I have checked the theories in each case, and as often as not come to different conclusions from those of the original publishers. As an example, Wace spoke of much of the pottery from the earlier layers of the Lion Gate deposit as of Tell El Amarna style; I found on checking his material against that found in Tell El Amarna and other absolutely dated finds of the period that it cannot possibly be as early as a century later. I might also say that I believe that I am the only one of those doing serious … continues