¹ I should like to acknowledge my gratitude to the individuals and organizations who have made this research possible. In particular I would like to thank the Managing Committee of the British School at Athens, the Fifth Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Archaeology in Nauplion, E. B. French for her generous support of the project, C. Antonaccio, K. Glowacki, J. M. Hall, S. Iakovides, B. S. Ridgway, W. Rudolph, F. H. Stubbings, N. Winter, J. C. Wright, and many others. Earlier reports on this research were given as papers at the meetings of the Archaeological Institute of America, AJA 97 (1993), 336–7 (abstract), and as part of the conference on Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults held at the Swedish School at Athens, 11–13 June 1994, forthcoming in Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institut i Athen, 4°.

Abbreviations:

AJBW 1920 Notebook = A. J. B. Wace Notebook no. 1, 1920 Excavation Season.

AJBW 1922 Notebook = A. J. B. Wace Notebook no. 2, 1922 Excavation Season.

AJBW 1939 Notebook = A. J. B. Wace, Excavation Notebook (Mycenae Archives X021).

Agora XII = Sparkes, B. A. and Talcott, L., Black and Plain Pottery of the Sixth, Fifth, and Fourth Centuries BC. Agora XII (Princeton, 1970).Google Scholar

BSA 25 = Wace, A. J. B.et al., ‘Excavations at Mycenae 1920–23’, BSA 25 (1921–1923).Google Scholar

Caskey and Amandry = Caskey, J. L. and Amandry, P., ‘Investigations at the Argive Heraion 1949’, Hesperia, 21 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CGA = Courbin, P., La céramique géometrique de l'Argolide (Paris, 1966).Google Scholar

Corinth VII = Edwards, G. Roger, Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery. Corinth VII. Part III (Princeton, 1975).Google Scholar

Corinth XIII = Blegen, C. W.et al., The North Cemetery Corinth XIII (Princeton, 1964).Google Scholar

Desborough = Desborough, V. R. d'A., Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford, 1952).Google Scholar

Dörpfeld 1889 = Dörpfeld, W., ‘Letter from Greece’, AJA series 1, 5 (1889), 331–6.Google Scholar

FHS Notebook = F. H. Stubbings, 1939 Mycenae Excavation Notebook (Mycenae Archives X024).

GGP = Coldstream, J. N., Greek Geometric Pottery (London and New York, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tsountas = Tsountas, Chr., ‘Ἀνασϰαφαὶ Μυϰηνῶν τοῦ 1886’, PAE 1886, 59–79.Google Scholar

Wace 1939 = Wace, A. J. B., ‘Mycenae, 1939’, JHS 59 (1939) 210–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wace, Mycenae = Wace, A. J. B., Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide (Princeton, 1949).Google Scholar

All measurements are metric: H. = height, W. = width, L. = length, D. = depth, TH = thickness, DM = diameter, MP = maximum preserved, NP = not preserved.

² The Mycenae Survey (forthcoming publication of the Greek Archaeological Society by S. Iakovides and Dr E. B. French) has compiled a database of early visitors and notes, among other points, the possibility of stone-robbing of the hellenistic remains by the Venetians in the building of the Palamede. I thank Dr French for bringing this to my attention.

³ Wace, Mycenae, 20; Gell, W., Itinerary in Greece: Argolis (London, 1810), pl. 3Google Scholar; Blouet, G., Expédition scientifique de la Morée (Paris, 1831–1838), map pl. 63Google Scholar; Leake, W. M., Travels in the Morea (London, 1830), vii. 378–85.Google ScholarDodwell, , Cyclopean and Pelasgic Remains (London, 1934), 9–10 and pls. 9, 10, 11Google Scholar;. Smith, A. H., ‘Lord Elgin and his collection’, JHS 36 (1916), 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Wace, , Mycenae, 20–1.Google Scholar The location of his trench is noted by Steffen and Tsountas (see below).

⁵ Steffen, , Karten von Mykenai (Berlin, 1884), 34 and Pl. II.Google Scholar Among the elements noted by Steffen are blocks of white limestone west of the ‘Plattenring’ near the circuit wall, ‘architectural elements’ at elevation 249.8 to SE of Grave Circle A, and numerous blocks, oblong, carefully worked, near the east end of the citadel, one part of a ‘verfallene Wassermühle’.

⁶ Tsountas, 59–79. Tsountas worked at Mycenae from 1886 to 1902. A summary of his work is given in Schuchhardt, C., Schliemann's Excavations (London, 1891), pp. 286–90.Google Scholar Schuchhardt also provides the dimensions of the temple foundations as 65 ft × 140 ft. Dörpfeld's plan of excavations is reproduced in Perrot, G. and Chipiez, C., Histoire de l'dans l'Antiquité, vi (Paris, 1894), 348 and fig. 116.Google Scholar

⁷ Although no credit is given for the plan in PAE 1886, Dörpfeld was working with Tsountas at Mycenae and Wace refers to it as Dörpfeld's in his own publications, Wace, , Mycenae, 84.Google Scholar

⁸ Tsountas compared the construction technique to some sections of the walls which are built of polygonal masonry, and suggests that since these walls must date before the destruction of Mycenae by the Argives [in 468 BC], the krepidoma can be no later than the 6th cent. BC. [The walls, in fact, are dated to the 3rd cent. BC reconstruction of the citadel when it became a kome, or fortified village, of Argos.]

⁹ Tsountas, 61–2.

¹⁰ Tsountas, 61. In 1920 Wace mentions a ‘retaining wall A’ to the south of the megaron which he believed marked the limit of me temple terrace. At this rime me southern end of the temple platform over the megaron of the Mycenaean palace is dismantled. Wace, A. J. B., ‘Excavations at Mycenae’, Times Literary Supplement, 19 Aug. 1920.Google ScholarId., Notebook no. 1 (1920), 45, 49.

¹¹ Tsountas, 61.

¹² Arch. Eph. 1887, 156. These fragments include IG iv. 494, 496, 497, and 498.

¹³ The tile is restored as [δ]αμοσ[ίαι]. Bronze plaque IG iv. 492; Jeffery, L. H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, rev. edn. with supplement by Johnston, A. W. (Oxford, 1990), 172.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Dörpfeld, W., ‘Miscellen: Mycenae’, AM 11 (1886), 330–1.Google Scholarid., AM 14 (1889), 125–6.

¹⁵ These elements would be very useful for determining the nature of the temple at Mycenae. Unfortunately they have proved elusive; no contemporary drawings or photos exist and Wace never found them. It seems possible that Dörpfeld has confused the provenience of these objects: at Tiryns a capital was found in a field wall above the palace and in front of the large megaron in 1886 (Schliemann, H., Tiryns (London, 1886), 334)Google Scholar, and is currently on display in the Nauplion Museum, but there is no mention of a geison. For the date and form of an archaic temple at Tiryns see Schwandner, E.-L., ‘Archaische Spolien aus Tiryns: Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83’, AA 103 (1988), 269–84.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Stillman was a correspondent for The Times. His article ‘Prehistoric Chronology’ was written from Athens on 12 May and appeared in The Nation no. 1250 for 13 June, 1889. Dörpfeld' letter was intended for publication in that newspaper but instead was published as Dörpfeld, W., ‘Letter from Greece’, AJA, Ist. ser., 5 (1889), 331–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ These ‘wretched huts’ are the buildings mentioned by Tsountas as belonging to a period before the temple but after the palace. Wace later identifies the structures as ‘Geometric huts’.

¹⁸ Keramopoullos and Rodenwaldt later made supplementary investigations. Wace, , Mycenae, 21.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Kourouniotis, K., ‘Porosskulpturen aus Mykene’, Jdl 16 (1901), 18–22.Google Scholar

²⁰ (1) Athens National Museum, inv. no. 2869/3992: relief of lady with mantle drawn about her head. (2) Athens National Museum, inv. no. 2870/3993: man's body, both legs shown as one. (3) Athens National Museum, inv. no. 2866/3989): left leg and right foot of man walking to left. (4) Athens National Museum, inv. no. 2867/3990: right leg from calf down of man, sharply bent to left, crossed by another scarcely recognizable leg; to right is part of third leg bent at knee, from kneeling man. (5) Athens National Museum, inv. no. 2868/3991: part of upper section with frame (H. 3.5cm, W. 4.5 cm); right arm holding spear above bent head.

²¹ Kourouniotis footnotes Tsountas, 61. The three pieces are Rodenwaldt's nos. 3, 4, and 5. But, as mentioned above, Tsountas records only two fragments, one with the lower part of a body moving to left found near the SE corner of the krepidoma at a slight depth, and the other, with two feet and a bent knee, found not far away.

²² Rodenwaldt, G., ‘Mykenische Studien I. Die Fuβböden des Megarons von Mykenai’, Jdi 34 (1919), 87–196.Google Scholar

²³ Rodenwaldt compared the Geometric walls to the ‘temple’ foundations in the megaron at Tiryns. There are two different dates proposed for the latter structure. One theory suggests it is a Geometric/Archaic temple of Hera while another, first proposed by Blegen, Carl, Korakou, A Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth (Boston and New York, 1921), 130–4Google Scholar, identified it as a late Mycenaean megaron. A LH III C date was suggested more recently by Kilian, K., AA (1978), 470; AA (1981), 160. Schwandner (n. 15)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Frazer, J. G., Pausanias's Description of Greece iii (London, 1919), 119.Google Scholar

²⁵ BSA 25. Additional records of this excavation are found in Wace's notebooks and his reports published in the Times Literary Supplement.

²⁶ AJBW 1920 Notebook, 45, 49; id., ‘Excavations at Mycenae’, TLS, 19 August, 1920. Wace reports that the reexamination of the palace excavated by Tsountas on the summit of the acropolis entailed ‘removing some later walls and a very unsafe portion of the Doric temple built over the ruins of the palace in the sixth century BC In doing this we found another fragment of archaic Greek sculpture from a metope of the temple.’

²⁷ AJBW 1920 Notebook, 45, 49; BSA 25, 201. ‘When we re-examined the Palace, with the permission of the Greek authorities we removed the Geometric walls after they had been carefully planned, since they were of no value and impeded the study of the Mycenaean Palace. In removing them we found no Geometric sherds, nothing but the L. H. III pottery already mentioned.’

²⁸ AJBW 1920 Notebook, 49. Now in Athens National Museum; see catalogue of relief sculpture below, S 8.

²⁹ BSA 25, 155. Ibid. 245, the pottery is identified as Protocorinthian.

³⁰ AJBW 1920 Notebook, 103; 1922 Notebook, 1, 4; BSA 25, 221: ‘Its ruins lie close below the foundations of the Doric temple, which have been responsible for so much damage to the Palace’; p. 231: ‘Unfortunately, all the rock here (14) lies almost directly below the temple foundations. Those who built the Doric Temple seem to have shaved off the uppermost summit of the acropolis and therewith practically every vestige of the Palace buildings.’

³¹ AJBW 1920 Notebook, 89; 1922 Notebook, 28; BSA 25, 227–31.

³² Mylonas, G. E., Ancient Mycenae: The Capital City of Agamemnon (Princeton, 1957), 61–3Google Scholar; id., Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966), 70–2. In the latter, Mylonas suggests that the hellenistic temple alignment was influenced by its archaic counterpart, which in turn followed the line of the Mycenaean rooms below.

³³ AJBW 1920 Notebook, 97–8.

³⁴ Ibid. 72 (23–8 May 1921): ‘In clearing surface between two terrace walls found [Greek] tiles—on one Tile “A” stamped on it.’

³⁵ Ibid. 103 with sketch on facing page.

³⁶ BSA 25, 408–28.

³⁷ The discovery of these architectural elements near the Lion Gate brings to mind the column capital and triglyph from this area mentioned by Dörpfeld in 1889. He dated the elements to the archaic period, but since they are neither illustrated nor discussed in any detail this is impossible to confirm.

³⁸ Trenches were put down in the NW angle between the temple terrace and the supporting wall of the palace area which revealed additional fresco fragments (AJBW 1922 Notebook, 27, 22 June 1922). Also in area of ‘shrine’ [II, p. 28], SW part of temple foundations [II, p. 46], two places to E of the temple foundations [III, p. 1], temple foundations between inner and outer lines in W: LH III sherds in surface layer (0–0.30 m; layer 2 = 0.30–0.60 m), below this was a stone fill on rock which served as fill for the floor of the palace. [III, pp. 4–10].

³⁹ AJBW 1922 Notebook, facing p. 12.

⁴⁰ Wace 1939; Wace, , Mycenae, 84–6.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Papadimitriou, I., ‘Ἀνασϰαφαὶ ἐν Μυϰήναις’, PAE 1955, 232, pl. 81 a, b.Google Scholar

⁴² Mylonas, G., ‘Ἀνασϰαφαὶ Μυϰηνῶν’, A. Delt. 19 (1964), 133;. id. (n. 32). 72Google Scholar. Kalpaxis, A. E., Früharchaische Baukunst (Athens, 1976), 88.Google Scholar

⁴³ Mylonas, G., ‘Ἀνασϰαφαὶ Μυϰηνῶν’, PAE (1963), 99–106, esp. 104.Google Scholar ‘This wall runs almost E–W, and is 3 m distant from the W end of the known Hellenistic North retaining wall, and 4.50 m from the E end. … A small part of the E long wall of this temple, length 4.50 m, was uncovered along the outer face of the E wall of the sekos of the Hellenistic temple, which has the same N–S orientation as the Archaic temple.’ While Mylonas's excavation uncovered the retaining wall, drawings from the earlier British excavations show the N terrace walls in their entirety.

⁴⁴ Bookidis, N., ‘A Study of the Use and Geographical Distribution of Architectural Sculpture in the Archaic Period’, (Ph. D. diss. Bryn Mawr College, 1967), 174 n. 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Wace 1939, 210–12.

⁴⁶ Excavation notebook by F. H. Stubbings, Mycenae Archives X024. I would like to express my gratitude to Frank Stubbings for his generosity and kindness in discussing the 1939 season with me and providing his personal recollections in addition to the facts recorded in his notebook.

⁴⁷ Schliemann's trial trench is largely responsible for the blank area in the S part of the temple's interior and overlapping the line of the N corridor.

⁴⁸ FHS Notebook, 2. AJBW 1939 Notebook notes the presence of an ‘archaic dolly’ [figurine] among stones in wall foundation about centre of second (inner) pattern. He describes it as standing with arms across chest. It was found with bits of two skyphoi which he labelled ‘Proto-Cor??’.

⁴⁹ The pottery lots described here are currently in the British Mycenae Excavations storeroom in the Nauplion Museum, Leonardeion annexe, although they will be part of the collection of the Mycenae museum when that facility is completed. I have assigned them an arbitrary lot number for organizational purposes. For a complete description of the sherds in each lot see below, App. I.

⁵⁰ These descriptions do not correspond exactly to a particular lot of pottery, and may refer to a missing lot of pottery or simply record a general impression. They are given here to provide as complete a record as possible of the excavation in progress.

⁵¹ FHS Notebook, 2. Bronze ring, Mycenae no. 39–11, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9476.

⁵² FHS Notebook, 17.

⁵³ FHS Notebook, 33.

⁵⁴ FHS Notebook, 2–3, 6. Bronze ring Mycenae no. 39–10, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9475; Bronze pin, Mycenae no. 39–13, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9492; Bronze fibula Mycenae no. 39–14; Bronze hook Mycenae no. 39–16.

⁵⁵ FHS Notebook, 8. Gold brooch with ten small seed pearls, Mycenae no. 39–9, taken to the Athens National Museum.

⁵⁶ FHS Notebook, 15. Bronze binding Mycenae no. 39–20, in two pieces. FHS Notebook, 20 with drawing of bronze pin Mycenae no. 39–18, and bronze disk, Mycenae no. 39–192. Both missing.

⁵⁷ This slab still appears in some plans of the foundations.

⁵⁸ FHS Notebook, 14.

⁵⁹ FHS Notebook, 12, 26–7.

⁶⁰ FHS Notebook, 13. The sketch of the tile shows a T-shaped section and a hole piercing it near the edge. The pierced tiles are common here at Mycenae, see below under discussion of the architectural terracottas.

⁶¹ FHS Notebook, 18.

⁶² FHS Notebook, 17.

⁶³ Steatite spindle whorl, Mycenae no. 39–5, Nauplion. Museum inv. no. 9483, FHS Notebook, 14. From centre of cella, S end of the cut rock ledge. Nine white glass paste beads, Mycenae no. 39–8, FHS Notebook, 14. In Mycenaean fill NE cella corner. Bronze pin Mycenae no. 39–17, FHS Notebook, 14. From below Mycenaean wall and stones of cella pavement at N end of cella. Missing. Bronze handle, bow-shaped Mycenae no. 39–21, FHS Notebook, 18.

⁶⁴ Clay conical button, Mycenae no. 39–7, inv. no. 9484, FHS Notebook, 14. From W wall of cella, fire blackened. Obsidian blade from beside square white block in cella W, FHS Notebook, 15. Bronze pin, Mycenae no. 39–12, FHS Notebook, 16. Broken, no head. Found inside west cella wall and beside white blocks. Missing.

⁶⁵ FHS Notebook, 10.

⁶⁶ FHS Notebook, 11. Bronze pin Mycenae no. 39–19. The pin is described as being Geometric, broken in two pieces. Missing.

⁶⁷ Two bronze disks, Mycenae no. 39–279. Missing.

⁶⁸ Bronze rings Mycenae no. 39–280–286, FHS Notebook, 31–3, all missing. Bronze pins Mycenae no. 39–288, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9510, FHS Notebook, 31. Mycenae no. 39–287, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9796, FHS Notebook, 32. Bronze disk, Mycenae no. 39–278. Iron ring, Mycenae no. 39–290, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9494, FHS Notebook, 31. Iron nails, Mycenae no. 39–289, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9496, FHS Notebook, 33. Mycenae no. 39–290, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9494, FHS Notebook, 31.

⁶⁹ FHS Notebook, 31 with sketch, Stubbings's sketch of the tile fragment shows a raised edge with flat outer face and a hole piercing its thickness toward the inside. The tile was not inventoried and is not in the Nauplion Museum storerooms.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 40.

⁷¹ Ibid., unnumbered page at back.

⁷² Ibid, 40–1. ‘This terrace must have been built in Geometric times, i.e. after the destruction of the Mycenaean palace but before the destruction of the Geometric shrine(?) indicated by the black layer. It runs almost exactly, i.e. a good deal nearer the Mycenaean alignment than the Hellenistic. The black is probably due to the destruction of the Geometric shrine by fire, so it may have got onto the terrace in clearing the site for the archaic temple.’

⁷³ Ibid., 33.

⁷⁴ Silver coin, Mycenae no. 39–193; silver and bronze coin Mycenae no. 39–193; terracotta ox figurine Mycenae no. 39–286, FHS Notebook, 30.

⁷⁵ Wace, , Mycenae, 83.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Wace 1939, 210; Wace, , Mycenae, 83–4, 86, figs. 55, 56.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Wace 1923, 245, the pottery is identified as Protocorinthian.

⁷⁸ FHS Notebook, 32.

⁷⁹ FHS Notebook, 32, 41, unnumbered page at back of notebook.

⁸⁰ AJBW Notebook, 47 facing.

⁸¹ FHS Notebook, 33. The stone mortar and bronze wire ring were not inventoried. Bronze ring, Mycenae no. 39–276, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9795; Bronze wire fragments, Mycenae no. 39–277. The Small Finds catalogue for 1939 also lists a terracotta figurine of a seated female with a provenience of ‘Temple area, South terrace’, Mycenae no. 39–267, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9622.

⁸² FHS Notebook, 21. Bronze ring, Mycenae no. 39–76, Nauplion Museum inv. no. 9477. The ring is crushed flat.

⁸³ Wace 1939, 210–12.

⁸⁴ Wace, , Mycenae, 84–6.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid., 74.

⁸⁶ Wace, , Mycenae, 24, 75.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Wace, , Mycenae, 85 n. 12.Google Scholar Wace footnotes Frazer (n. 24), who is making reference to Dörpfeld's letter of 1889, and acknowledges that earlier reports do mention a column capital, but says there has been no trace of this or any other capital at Mycenae during his own time.

⁸⁸ Wace, , Mycenae, 23–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Although the line of the terraces is clearly shown in Silcock's 1939 plan, excavations by Mylonas in 1963 uncovered the face of the terrace wall and its S return. Mylonas (n. 43), 104. id. (n. 32), 133. Mylonas dates the terrace to the archaic period and in the same article identifies a section of wall to the E of the sekos of the hellenistic temple as belonging to its archaic predecessor.

⁹⁰ The bronze pin (Mycenae no. 39–288) from Temple North Terrace, layer 3. 1, belongs in Kilian's group IB, dated to Early Geometric I–II (Kilian-Dirlmeier, I., Prähistorische Bronzefunde, xiii. 8: Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes (Munich, 1984), 91, pl. 15.394 a.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Hall, J. M., ‘How Argive was the “Argive” Heraion?’, AJA 99 (1995). 599.Google Scholar

⁹² BSA 25, 245, ‘the builders of the Doric temple had to support the temple platform at its south end by the oblique retaining wall which cuts across the south-east angle of the staircase (67 on plan II). This wall goes with the Doric Temple and in it we found Proto-Corinthian pottery, so that it cannot well be much later than the seventh century BC This means that the terrace wall which supported the Megaron fell away between the ruin of Mycenae … and the building of the Doric Temple, which probably occurred in the seventh century BC’: Wace, Mycenae, 74.

⁹³ Pottery Lot no. 12, FHS notebook, 32, 41.

⁹⁴ FHS Notebook, 8. Unfortunately none of these tiles has been preserved.

⁹⁵ Wace, , Mycenae, 135–6.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Wace, , Mycenae, 70Google Scholar and fig. 88a: conglomerate bases from the propylon at the NW corner of the citadel.

⁹⁷ Coulton, J. J., Ancient Greek Architects at Work (Ithaca, 1977), 2–3.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Klein, N., ‘The Origin of the Doric Order on the Mainland of Greece: Form and Function of the Geison in the Archaic Period’ (Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1991), 141.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Broneer, O., Isthmia I: The Temple of Poseidon (Princeton, 1971), 30, figs. 70–8.Google Scholar Other non-mutular geisa are found at Olympia, Delphi, and the Argive Heraion, cf. Klein (n. 98), 169.

¹⁰⁰ Martin, R., Manuel d'architecture grecque (Paris, 1965), 273–9, fig. 120.Google Scholar Martin suggests that the Π-clamp was used in the 4th cent. BC and following. The cuttings at Mycenae do not compare closely with those illustrated by Martin.

¹⁰¹ Dörpfeld (n. 16).

¹⁰² Harl-Schaller, F., ‘Die archaischen “Metopen” aus Mykene’ JÖAI (1972–1975), 94–116Google Scholar with previous literature; Kourouniotis (n. 19), 18–22, according to whom this relief was discovered by Tsountas in 1897.

¹⁰³ Harl-Schaller (n. 102), 99–100. This theory is accepted by Ridgway, B. S., The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (2nd edn.Chicago, 1993), 333–4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Giuliani, L., Die archaischen Metopen von Selinunt (Mainz, 1979). 4 n. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Papadimitriou (n. 41), 243, pl. 81 a, b.

¹⁰⁶ The relief was discovered by the British School during the 1920–3 campaign, Wace, Mycenae Notebook I, 49. Bookidis (n. 44) fragment a.

¹⁰⁷ For a summary of the evidence see Harl-Schaller (n. 102) and Ridgway (n. 103), 333–5.

¹⁰⁸ Tsountas, 59; Kourouniotis (n. 19), 18–22. For the discovery of S 3, no. 4471 see Papadimitriou (n. 41), 243, pl. 81 a, b; for S 8, see n. 105.

¹⁰⁹ Kourouniotis (n. 19), 18–19, Bookidis (n. 44). Group 1: Athens N. M. inv. 2866, 2867, 2868, 2871, 4471, and an unpublished fragment a) show scenes of fighting warriors. Group 2: Athens N. M. inv. 2869, 2870, a veiled woman and a body being carried away. She dated group 1 in the early 6th cent., and group 2 to the last quarter of the 7th, suggesting that only group 1 was associated with the temple.

¹¹⁰ Pernier, L., ASAtene, 1 (1914), 18–111.Google ScholarBeyer, I., Der Tempel von Dreros und Prinias A und die Chronologie der kretischen Kunst des 8. und 7. Jh. v. Chr. (Freiburg, 1976), 21–2, nos. 12–13, Pl. 18.Google ScholarAdams, L. T., Orientalizing Sculpture in Soft Limestone from Crete and Mainland Greece (BAR S; Oxford, 1978), 65–78, pls. 17 – 18, fig. 45.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Wace, , Mycenae, 210Google Scholar suggests an altar for the reliefs and perhaps also the geisa.

¹¹² Rodenwaldt, as discussed by Bookidis (n. 44), 172.

¹¹³ Ridgway (n. 103), 333.

¹¹⁴ Bookidis (n. 44), 175 n. 15. There is no published description of the treatment of the back surfaces of the blocks currently on display. Those in the storerooms are roughly finished.

¹¹⁵ Bookidis (n. 44), 171, suggests that ‘the quantity of reliefs, the similarity of scale and subject, and the use of anathyrosis point to a single architectural use for all’ [group 1].

¹¹⁶ Harl-Schaller (n. 102), Ridgway (n. 103).

¹¹⁷ The reconstructed frieze of the West Building at the Argive Heraion is one example of a very complicated early entablature design.

¹¹⁸ Broneer (n. 99). See also Junker, K., Der ältere Tempel im Heraion am Sele: Verzierte Metopen im architektonischen Kontext (Cologne, 1993)Google Scholar, for a discussion of the Mycenae metopes, as well as Lokrian plaques on walls, 162–4 and n. 987. I thank Professor Ridgway for this reference.

¹¹⁹ Winter, N., Greek Architectural Terracottas from the Prehistoric to the End of the Archaic Period (Oxford Monographs in Classical Archaeology, Oxford, 1993), 12–18.Google Scholar Isthmia, Poseidon Temple: Broneer (n. 99), 40–53. The most recent excavations have suggested a date for the temple of 670–650 BC, Hesperia 58 (1989), 251–66. Marie-Françoise Billot informs me that similar tiles have been found in Argos as well.

¹²⁰ winter (n. 119), 153–5 and fig. 15, assigns the roof to her Argive System and dates it to the last quarter of the 7th cent. E.-L. Schwandner assigned it to the first temple of Aphaia, c. 570 BC (Der ältere Porostempel der Aphaia auf Aegina (Berlin, 1985), 73–5, 126–9).

¹²¹ Winter (n. 119), 178; Van Buren, E. D., Greek Fictile Revetments in the Archaic Period (London, 1926), 148 (no. 8), fig. 110.Google Scholar

¹²² Winter (n. 119), 151, 185. The individual cover tiles from the Argive System have a pitched underside until c. 560 BC, and concave hereafter.

¹²³ winter (n. 119), 185. The temple of Apollo at Colonna on Aegina, 520–510 BC, has combination tiles (Würster, W. W. and Walter, H., Alt-Ägina I. 1Google Scholar: Der Apollontempel (Mainz, 1974), 647–70, figs. 104–18, pl. 24.1–2).

¹²⁴ Winter (n. 119), 178, mentions smaller examples of ridge palmette antefixes coming from the tholos of Aegisthus, , BCH 83 (1959), chr. 614–15.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Winter (n. 119), 159, places this sima within her Argive System, Raking sima type I, variant 2b: flat vertical plaque with small upper torus, painted tongue pattern with central vertical band, dated 550–525 BC Hübner, G., ‘Die Dachterrakotten im Magazin des Museums von Nauplia’, Tiryns, viii (Mainz, 1975), 121, fig. 3b, pl. 65, 1–2, Beil. 9.1.Google ScholarBillot, M.-F., ‘Terres cuites architecturales d'Argos et d'Epidaure’ Hesperia, 59 (1990), 131–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Billot compares this sima with her type IV.1 Simas à profil droit couronné, d'un demi-rond et décorées de feuilleures doriques. She suggests that the simas of Mycenae and Argos are close to Corinthian production, and should date c. 550 BC.

¹²⁶ Winter (n. 119), 174, 530?: Van Buren (n. 121), 89, fig. III, Cat. no. 68, 550–500 BC.

¹²⁷ Winter (n. 119), 182–3, 186, ‘Corinthianizing Antefix type A-V, variant 2: light-on-dark cut-out palmette above pendant lotus; palmette of seven leaves, low curve to volute stems’, c. 490–480 BC; Hübner (n. 125), 123, pl. 66, 1, c. 500 BC Hübner states that while the photo is known as DAI Mykene 47, the inventory number does not correspond to Mycenae photos. Van Buren (n. 121), 48, no. 51, fig. 112.

¹²⁸ Van Buren (n. 121), 159, no. 75.

¹²⁹ Winter (n. 119), 182. ‘Corinthianizing Antefix Type A-V, variant id: dark-on-light cut-out palmette and pendant lotus; palmette of seven leaves, low curve to volute stems, 540–520? BC’; BCH 83 (1959), Chr. 614–15, fig. 24, right.

¹³⁰ winter (n. 119), 184, ‘Eaves tile with reserved painted guilloche’, 560–550 BC; Hübner (n. 125), 124, pl. 66, 7–8; Van Buren (n. 121), 48, no. 85, fig. 112.

¹³¹ Van Buren (n. 121), 106, no. 49, fig. 112, 5th cent.

¹³² Hübner (n. 125), 131, Beilage 9,2. Hübner says this was found in Mycenae, and that two more fragments (nos. 1085, 1086) from the same sima are listed in the Nauplion Museum inventory. Van Buren (n. 121), 98, no. 109.

¹³³ Hübner (n. 125), 131, pl. 70.1, fig. 8b, late 4th cent.

¹³⁴ Cook, J. M., ‘The Agamemnoneion’, BSA 48 (1953), 62 and no. 57.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Winter (n. 119), 17–18.

¹³⁶ Ridgway (n. 103), 273–75, with additional bibliography.

¹³⁷ Mertens-Horn, M., ‘Die archaischen Baufriese aus Metapont,’ RM 99 (1992), 1–122Google Scholar.

¹³⁸ Mylonas (n. 32).

¹³⁹ Ridgway (n. 103), 333, prefers to consider the Mycenae reliefs outside of the general discussion of metopes and their development on the mainland of Greece because of the apparent lack of influence.

¹⁴⁰ Jeffrey (n. 13), 171 questions the reliability of Diodorus’ dates. An alternative date of 460 BC has been suggested by Kolbe, W., Hermes, 72 (1937), 254ffGoogle Scholar; Gomme, A. W., Commentary on Thucydides, i (Oxford, 1945) 408–9.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ The veracity of Strabo's commentary here has come into question. See Balachie, R. in, Strabon: Géographie, ed. Lasserre, F., v (Paris, 1978), 15–19.Google Scholar

¹⁴² BSA 25, 422–8; Wace, , Mycenae, 24.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ W. Rudolph, ‘Hellenistic Fine Ware Pottery and Lamps from above the House of the Idols at Mycenae’, BSA 73 (1978), 233.

¹⁴⁴ Rudolph's study of the pottery suggests a gradual end to the settlement. Dengate, J., BSA 69 (1974), 97Google Scholar, advocates an abrupt end in the 2nd cent, using evidence from the coins at Mycenae.

¹⁴⁵ Wace, , Mycenae 24.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ The pottery points to its construction in the early 3rd cent. BC. Hood, , BSA 48 (1953), 27.Google Scholar The boundary stone was published by Woodhouse, , BSA 48 (1953), 27, fig. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ AR (1965–6), 8; Shear, T. L. Jr, AJA 70 (1966), 195Google Scholar; Mylonas, G., ‘Ανασϰαφαὶ Μυϰηνῶν’, PAE 1965, 95–6Google Scholar; id., Ergon 1965, 68–71.

¹⁴⁸ Roux, G., L'Architecture de l'Argolide aux IV^ième et III^ième siècles av. J.-C. (Paris, 1961).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ With the exception of some Arcadian temples, such as Apollo at Bassae, which have an additional side door on the long axis, the entrance of most N–S temples is on the S leading toward the altar.

¹⁵⁰ Appendix III below, Block A3. Blocks A6, A10, and A11 may have originally had similar dimensions. Further analysis of the dimensions of the preserved blocks may yield a range of possibility for the temple reconstruction.

¹⁵¹ BSA 25, 37, fig. 4.

¹⁵² Bookidis (n. 44), 174 n. 10.

¹⁵³ BSA 25, 70.

¹⁵⁴ Winter (n. 119), 95–109, esp. p. 98, where she notes that the Laconian tiles were commonly used on houses from classical times onwards by contrast with the preference for Corinthian tiles on temples and civic buildings.

¹⁵⁵ Cook (n. 134), 33, 66, figs. 39–40. These tiles are inscribed Δαμόσιος ᾿Αργήων and, like those from the temple, are finger-drawn with a few inscribed with a thinner point. Cook dated the tiles in the hellenistic period based on the lettering of the inscriptions. The Agamemnoneion tiles measure c. 45–50 cm wide × 85 cm long. He also mentions other inscribed tiles like these from near the Lion Gate, BSA 25, 37.

¹⁵⁶ Richardson, R. B., ‘stamped Tiles from the Argive Heraeum’, in Waldstein, C., The Argive Heraeum I (Cambridge, Mass., 1902), 216–224.Google Scholar These tiles are stamped with the inscription Δαμόσιοι ῾´Ηρας meaning the public property of Hera.

¹⁵⁷ Miller, S. G., ‘sosikles and the Fourth-Century Building Program in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea’, Hesperia, Suppl. xxvii, 85–98, esp. p. 93, fig. 4 d, pl. 25a.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Kaltsas, N., Πήλινες διαϰοσμημένες ϰεραμωσεις από τη Μαϰεδονία (Athens, 1988), 101 n. 314.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Themelis, P., ‘Hellenistic Architectural Terracottas from Messene’, Hesperia, Suppl. xxvii, 141–2, fig. 2C, pl. 48a, b.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ IG iv. 492. Bronze plaque concerning the suppliant Phrasiarides, from the citadel; c. 500–480? Fraenkel's commentary supports the identification of the temple as that of Athena. Also Vollgraff, W., ‘Inscriptio in arce Argorum reperta’, Mnemosyne, 2nd ser. 57 (1929), 221–2.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Jeffery (n. 13), 174 no. 2. Jeffery suggests the following reading: ‘Phrasiarides from Mycenae at the instance of Athena became a suppliant (sent away) from his city, during the (priestly?) office of Antias and Pyrrhias; and Antias and Kithios and Aischron sent him (let him go?)1—and thereafter recorded their action on a plaque placed in Athena's temple.’

¹⁶² Jeffery (n. 13). Boundary stone from a precinct of Hera, now built into the hellenistic fountain-house Perseia; c. 475? Woodhead, , BSA 48 (1953), 27 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 5. Nauplia Mus.

¹⁶³ W. Rudolph (pers. comm.).

¹⁶⁴ Hall (n. 91), 599–600. Wright, J. C., ‘The Old Temple Terrace at the Argive Heraeum and the Early Cult of Hera in the Argolid’, JHS 102 (1982), 194, n. 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Antonacio, C., ‘Placing the Past’, in Alcock, S. and Osborne, R. (eds.) Placing the Gods (Oxford, 1994), 89–93.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Wace demonstrated the absence of continuity of habitation, but had hoped to demonstrate continuity of cult based on his identification of the Mycenaean ‘shrine’ below the western foundations of the Greek temple.

¹⁶⁷ Foley, A., The Argolid 800–600 BC: An Archaeological Survey, (SIMA 80, Göteborg, 1988), 145–7.Google Scholar There is literary evidence for the worship of many divinities at Tiryns, and regardless of the date of the rectangular building built on top of the Mycenaean megaron, the votive deposit excavated from a bothros provides ample evidence for cult in the area of the palace beginning in the mid 8th cent.

¹⁶⁸ Antonaccio (n. 165), 93.

¹⁶⁹ Verdelis, N. M., ‘Ανασϰαφὴ Μυϰηνῶν. Τὴν ἀποϰάλυΨιν ἁΨιδωτοῦ ἱεροῦ τῶν Γεωμετριϰῶν χρόνων’, PAE 1962 85–7.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Cook (n. 134), 30–68.

¹⁷¹ Mylonas (n. 147), 95–6; id., ῾᾿Αναοϰω̑ν χρόνων PAE (1966), 111–14.

¹⁷² de Polignac, F., La naissance de la cité grecque: Cultes, espace et société, VIII^e–-VII^e siècles avant J.-C. (Paris, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Lot no. 1 included 27 uncatalogued sherds which are earlier (Bronze Age) or non-diagnostic. All sherds are considered to be fragmentary unless otherwise noted.

¹⁷⁴ Siebert, G., Recherches sur les ateliers de bols à relief à l'époque hellénistique (Paris, 1978), 170–2.Google Scholar Argive production of mouldmade bowls begins sometime around 220 BC and continues into the mid-2nd cent., although some may possibly date as late as the 1st cent. BC. Comparanda for the decoration on the bowl from Mycenae can be found in a bowl from the workshop of Demetrios and Jason, as identified by Siebert (pl. 16, Walters Art Gallery inv. no. 48.130) where a triangular leaf alternates with an acanthus leaf around the lower part of the wall.

¹⁷⁵ Lot no. 2 included 51 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁷⁶ The term Geometric is here applied to sherds which, by nature of their shape, decoration, or fabric, could belong to the Early, Middle, or Late Geometric period, but which cannot be more precisely dated.

¹⁷⁷ Lot no. 5 included 15 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁷⁸ Lot no. 6 included 54 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁷⁹ Lot no. 8 included 35 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁸⁰ Lot no. 9 included 4 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁸¹ Lot no. 13 contained 19 sherds.

¹⁸² Lot no. 14 included 8 uncatalogued sherds and an inscribed tile fragment.

¹⁸³ Lot no. 17 included uncatalogued MH and Mycenaean sherds, plus one black glaze body sherd.

¹⁸⁴ Lot no. 20 included uncatalogued MH and Mycenaean coarse ware sherds.

¹⁸⁵ Lot no. 21 included 45 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁸⁶ Lot no. 3 included 13 uncatalogued sherds and one fragment of a Mycenaean terracotta figurine.

¹⁸⁷ Lot no. 7 included 46 uncatalogued sherds, 1 shell, and 2 astragaloi.

¹⁸⁸ Lot no. 10 included 33 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁸⁹ BSA 49 (1954), 262–4. CGA, 70.

¹⁹⁰ Lot no. 16 included an uncatalogued flat base sherd.

¹⁹¹ Lot no. 19 included uncatalogued Mycenaean pottery and fragment of Mycenaean animal figurine.

¹⁹² Lot no. 25 included 25 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁹³ Label in bag reads ‘Mycenae British Excavations 1939 Geometric Sherds from Palace Temple Terrace Loose in drawer VIII 4 with others’. Lot no. 32 included 2 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁹⁴ Lot no. 12 included 11 uncatalogued sherds.

¹⁹⁵ Tiryns: Frickenhaus, A., Tiryns I: Die Hera von Tiryns (reprint, Mainz, 1976).Google Scholar Argive Heraion: Waldstein (n. 156), Caskey and Amandry.

¹⁹⁶ These observations were made with the help of W. Rudolph, who has undertaken a study of post-Bronze-Age pottery and fabrics at Mycenae. On fabric variability in the Argolid see Foley (n. 164), 65; Morgan, C. and Whitelaw, T., ‘Pots and Politics: Ceramic Evidence for the Rise of the Argive State’, AJA 95 (1991), 92 n. 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Strøm, I., ‘The Early Sanctuary of the Argive Heraion and its External Relations’, ActaArch 59 (1988), 173–208.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ CGA 29–34, 70–4, 467–8. Kourou, N., ‘A propos de quelques ateliers de céramique fine, non-tournée du type “argien monochrome”’, BCH 111 (1987), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Caskey and Amandry, 202–3.

¹⁹⁸ Bowl: Lot no. 12, 7. Lot no. 25, 7.

¹⁹⁹ Bowl with round loop handles: Lot no. 10.5. Lot no. 29.1. Lot no. 30.1; 2.

²⁰⁰ Bowl with triangular lug handles: Lot no. 8.3. Lot no. 25.10.

²⁰¹ Neck Amphora: Lot no. 29.4.

²⁰² ‘Rope’ handle: Lot no. 29.8.

²⁰³ Bowl? with pierced hole at rim: Lot no. 29.7.

²⁰⁴ Dinos? with plastic decoration: Lot no. 12.6.

²⁰⁵ Bowl: Lot no. 8.2.

²⁰⁶ Bowl with ‘crimped’ edges: Lot no. 15.1; 2. Lot no. 16.1.

²⁰⁷ Bowl with round loop handles: Lot no. 29.2. Lot no. 30.3.

²⁰⁸ Bowl with triangular lug handles: Lot no. 10.4.

²⁰⁹ Amphora: Lot no. 29, 3. Lot no. 30.4.

²¹⁰ Wace, , Mycenae, 12.Google Scholar

²¹¹ Incised lines: Lot no. 6.3. Rim. Lot no. 8.2. Bowl, incised on rim. Lot no. 10.4. Bowl rim; 6. Handle exterior. Lot no. 16.5. Handle exterior. Lot no. 25.9. Bowl rim; 11. Body sherd. Lot no. 29.2. Bowl; 29.3. Amphora handle; 29.5–7. Rims; 29.9. Handle; 29.10–16. Body sherds. Lot no. 30.4. Amphora rim and neck.

²¹² Stamped circles: Lot no. 5.1. Handle exterior. Lot no. 25.8. Bowl rim; 25.12. Body sherd wall.

²¹³ Stamped ‘points’: Lot no. 16.4, Bowl. Lot no. 25.13. Lamp fragment.

²¹⁴ Raised ‘nipple’: Lot no. 29.10. Body sherd; 29.11. Body sherd.

²¹⁵ CGA 70.

²¹⁶ This coin is not included among those published by Dengate (n. 144).