¹ See Tsountas, , Ἀνασκαφαὶ τάφων ἐν Μυκήναις. Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1888, p. 175Google Scholar. There are probably, as will be seen below, some exceptions to this rule in case of some Cretan lentoid gems presenting groups of symbolic figures.

² Gardner, P., Num. Chron. 1880, p. 59Google Scholar; Head, , Hist. Num. 237Google Scholar.

³ Tsountas, , Μηκῆναι p. 213Google Scholar. One has a sign resembling the Greek Π, the other, ╪ the Cypriote, pa, ba, or pha.

⁴ Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον, 1892, p. 73. It was discovered by Dr. Stais in a tomb of the Pronoea. On each handle was engraved a sign like the Greek Η but with offshoots from the top of the upright strokes.

1889, p. 19.

⁶ See below, p. 348.

⁷ Perrot, et Chipiez, , La Grèce primitive: l'Art Mycénien, p. 985Google Scholar. In describing the Knôsian marks (see below, p. 282) M. Perrot had previously admitted (op. cit. 461) that the Cypriote signs may have had an Aegean extension ‘during a, certain time.’ But the subsequent passage on p. 985 retracts this admission as far as the Mycenaean period is concerned. Dr.Reichel, suggests (Homerische Waffen, p. 142)Google Scholar that the linear designs below the combatants on the silver fragment from Mycenae ( 1891, Pl. II. 2) are signs of an unknown script. But the figures in question represent throwing-sticks (J.H.S. xiii. (1892–3), p. 199, n. 11^a).

⁸ See below, pp. 354, 355.

⁹ I made this forecast in a brief announcement of the existence of the Cretan hieroglyphs communicated by me to the Hellenic Society in 1893.

¹⁰ Spratt, (Travels in Crete, ii. 129seqq.)Google Scholar wrongly identified Goulàs with the ancient Oleros, the site of which is now known to be at Messeleri (Halbherr), also confusing it with Olous (Elunta).

¹¹ See Dörpfeld, , Troja, 1893, p. 15Google Scholarseqq. and Pl. II. VI. A, VI. B, VI. C, and VI. G. From the recurrence of the ground-plan Dr. Dörpfeld rightly observes that the first-discovered foundations VI. A, like the others, rather represent a Megaron than a Temple.

¹² Second Annual Report of the Executive Committee, Arch. Inst. of America, 1880—1881, pp. 47—49. Mr. Stillman's drawings have been reproduced in Perrot, et Chipiez, , Grèce Primitive, pp. 460, 462Google Scholar.

¹³ Some of these were published by Haussoullier, , Bulletin de Corr. Hellénique, 1880, pp. 124 — 127Google Scholar and Revue Archéologique n.s. xl. (1880), p. 359 seqq., cf. too Fabricius, , Athen. Mittheilungen, 1886, p. 139Google Scholarseqq. and Taf. III.

¹⁴ Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, 1886, pp. 379—380.

¹⁵ Alterthümer auf Kreta, IV. Funde der Mykenäischen Epoche in Knossos (Athenische Mittheilungen, 1886, p. 135 seqq.).

¹⁶ Researches in Crete, in the Antiquary, vol. xxviii, p. 111 (Sept. 1893).

¹⁷ Dr. Fabricius in his account of the remains (Athen. Mitth. loc. cit.) does not even mention them. Perrot, M. indeed (La Grèce Primitive, p. 461)Google Scholar, in spite of his strong expression of opinion as to the non-existence of any traces of a system of writing in Mycenaean times, admits that two of the signs present a perceptible analogy to Cypriote characters. (See above, p. 274, note 7.)

^17b This block is fixed into the supporting wall of a field belonging to Manolis Apostolakis to the right of the road leading from Mires to Dibaki and opposite the Akropolis of Phaestos. Its height is 0·54m., length 0·70.

^17c See below, p. 325.

¹⁸ I may specially cite a rudely triangular steatite, with a horned animal in a very primitive style, found with other early pendants in a grave of prae-Mycenaean date at Milato. Compare too the animal on Fig. 18a.

¹⁹ See below, p. 364–366.

^19a See p. 324 sqq. The stones, Figs. 21, 37, 39, 40, might perhaps with greater propriety have been grouped with this earlier series.

^19b In the case of a closely allied form of vase with two handles the spray is seen inserted in the mouth of the vessel. On a gem from Goulàs a vase of this kind is seen beside a plant, above which is a rayed disc indicating the midday sun.

^19c See p. 301.

^19d This is in fact an ordinary Mycenaean gem representing apparently a kind of base, and is inserted on p. 288 merely as an example of form.

²⁰ Schuchhardt, , Schlicmann's Excavations, p. 187Google Scholar, figs. 161—163.

²¹ Mr.Petrie, in his Egyptian Bases of Greek History (Hell. Journ. xi. (1890), p. 273)Google Scholar and Illahun, &c., pp. 23, 24 had dated this tomb c. 1100 B.C., though he noted as a somewhat incongruous circumstance that the latest scarabs found belonged to Thothmes III. The new comparisons supplied by foundation deposits of Thothmes III. excavated by him at Koptos, such as the ribbed beads, &c., of the same type there fonud, have now led him however to revise his opinion, and to carry back the date of the Maket tomb to the same time as these deposits. An examination of the Koptos relics, which I had the advantage of making in Mr. Petrie's company, leaves no doubt in my mind that this conclusion must be regarded as final. On other grounds, especially since the discovery of the Tell-el-Amarna fragments, I had already been led to infer that 1100 B.C. was too late a date for the ‘Maket’ deposit. The existence of the Thera class of vases would alone be fatal to Mr. Petrie's former view, that the beginning of natural designs on Mycenaean pottery shonld be brought down so low as this in date. But Mr. Cecil Torr, who in a letter to the Classical Review makes much of the inconsistency between the results obtained at Tell-el-Amarna and Mr. Petrie's former opinion as to the date of the Maket tomb, will hardly be gratified to find that the chronological revision that has to be made is in favour of a greater antiquity.

^21a Specimens of this design presented by Mr. Petrie are now in the Ashmolean Museum.

²² Petrie, Tell-el-Amarna, Pl. XXIX, and cf. p. 17. In this case however the leaf is more lanceolate.

²³ This is notably the case with the vase which bears on its neck two breasts surrounded with dots. Compare Schuchhardt, op. cit. fig. 166, p. 189 and Dumont et Chaplain, Céramique de la Grèce propre.

²⁴ P. Orsi, Urne Funebri Cretesi, Pl. I. Perrot, , La Grèce Primitive, p. 930Google Scholar, quotes with approval a theory of M. Houssay, a zoologist (which he had previously applied to a large cuttle-fish on a Mycenaean vase from Pitanê in the Aeolid), that the ducks, fish and starlike objects seen between the branches of the plant upon the ossuary were supposed to have been generated by it, and that it is in fact the ‘barnacle-tree’ of folk-lore. For myself however the plant simply represents a water-plant by the side of a stream, the ducks whieh follow next behind it are flying over the surface of the water, and the fish alone, in the third line, are actually in the water. In fact it is not difficult to trace in this design a reminiscence of a commonplace of Egyptian painted pavements and frescoes, in which river-plants with ducks flying over them or poising on their branches are seen beside a tank or stream containing fish. Only here the forms of the leaves are different from those of the lotos or papyrus seen on the Egyptian models.

²⁵ Schliemann, Tiryns, Pl. V.

^25a The tangential curves of this group 01 designs are in nearly all cases coloured yellow as if to imitate gold, and this rule also holds good in the case of the wall-painting in the Palace at Tiryns (Schliemann, Tiryns, Pl. V.). The alternation of red and blue fields is also common in Egyptian ceilings of this class. I I am indebted to Mr. J. Tylor for some unpublished examples of similar patterns from the ceilings of grottoes near Silsilis, of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties. One of these, a series of rhomboidal fields alternately of red and blue, enclosed by yellow tangentia curves, affords a close parallel to the Cretan design as restored in Pl. XII.

²⁶ Professor Halbherr has obligingly collected for me on the spot the following particulars of the find, that are all that are now obtainable. The hill of H. Onuphrios where the objects were found rises opposite the double Akropolis of Phaestos about a quarter of a mile to the North of the ancient city. The find-spot itself was on the southern slope of the hill just above the Khans on the Dibaki road and near the aqueduct of a mill. The deposit was accidentally discovered in 1887 at a small distance beneath the surface. The objects lay in a heap of bones and skulls, but no regular tomb was noted. The whole deposit occupied a space of about four square metres.

^26a For the early cist-graves of Amorgos see especially Dümmler, F., Mittheilungen von den Griechischen Inseln (Ath. Mitth. 1886, p. 15Google Scholarseqq. and 209 seqq.). The contents of some of the Amorgan tombs, obtained by me in 1893, are now in the Ashmolean Museum.

²⁷ For the chronology arrived at by Dr.Dörpeld, , see especially Troja: 1893, pp. 61 and 86, 87Google Scholar.

²⁸ This is Professor Petrie's opinion. In his History of Egypt (vol. I. p. 208, Fig. 116) are engraved two ‘cowroids’ of the same characteristic form with cartouches representing blundered copies of the name of Ra-sehoteb-ab of the Thirteenth Dynasty, who reigned about 2510 B C. It is natural to refer these blundered imitations of this cartouche to the succeeding Hyksos Period and with them this ‘cowroid’ form. A parallel to this shell-like type is found in the twin Nerita bead of the Phaestos deposit, already referred to on p. 289.

^28a Petrie op. cit. p. 147

^28b Op. it. p. 204.

²⁹ This parallel was kindly supplied me by Mr. Petrie.

^29a Compare especially the steatite button-seal from Kuphonisi between Naxos and Amorgos, Dümmler, F. (Ath. Mitth. 1886. Beilage 1. 1.)Google Scholar: the green marble box from Amorgos (Op. Cit. Beilage l. Fig. A) and the stone ‘pyxis’ in the form of a hut from Melos (Perrot, et Chipiez, , La Grèce Primitive p. 910, Fig. 461)Google Scholar.

^29b In the Hellenic Journal, Vol. xiii. p. 221, I had already ventured to point out that the early spiral work of the Mycenaean jewels fitted on to that of the earlier stone ornaments of the Aegean islands and the spiral decoration of these in turn to the simple spiral system that attained its apogee in Egypt under the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties. I also showed (pp. 197, 223) that certain late Mycenaean forms influenced those of the Hungarian Bronze Age. But the ‘missing link’ to complete the Egyptian connexion was not then in my hands. Dr.Naue, , in his recent work, Die Bronzezeit in Oberbayern (Munich 1894, pp. 245, 246)Google Scholar, while recognizing that Egypt was the place where this motive first originated, considers that it first reached the Greeks by Phoenician mediation in the fifteenth cent. B.C.—a view which the Cretan and Aegean finds must certainly modify. He considers that it reached Central and Northern Europe through mercantile intercourse due to the amber trade, and apparently favours the view that it came to those regions directly from Egypt. But the early spread of these spiral motives among the Aegean populations affords the most natural explanation of its first appearance in the Danubian regions. It would even seem possible that this Aegean influence on Central and Northern European art may have begun in prae-Mycenaean times.

^29c Professor Petrie's observation.

^29d I am informed by Professor Petrie that his researches on this class of scarab lead to this conclusion. An illustrative series of these, including one of Tat-ka-ra of the Fourth Dynasty, has been published by Dr.Naue, (Die Bronzezeit in Oberbayern, p. 145)Google Scholar from impressions supplied by Mr. Petrie. It would appear, however, that at least as early as the Thirteenth Dynasty this spiral decoration was beginning to spread in Egypt to other objects besides scarabs. There is in the Ashmolean Collection a black-ware vase from Egypt of a style characteristic of Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasty deposits (cf. Petrie, , Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, p. 25Google Scholar and Pl. XXVII, figs. 199–202) which has a punctuated returning spiral ornament running round the upper part of its body. Specimens of similar ware, though without the spiral decoration, were found at Khataneh by M. Naville in company with Thirteenth Dynasty scarabs, in graves deep down below Eighteenth Dynasty accumulations. In Cyprus similar vessels are found in graves anterior, though not long anterior, to the period of Mycenaean influence. Milchhöfer, who like others derived the Mycenaean spiral decoration from wire-work designs (Die Anfänge der Kunst, p. 16 seqq.), saw a corroboration of this theory in the gold jewelry from the ‘Treasures’ of Hissarlik (Schliemann, Ilios, p. 453 seqq.). But the objects from those ‘Treasures’ do not by any means belong to the remote period to which they were originally referred by Dr. Schliemann. Their whole facies shows that they are of Mycenaean date and belong to the Sixth rather than the Second City.

^29e See especially the Hungarian clay seals represented in the Compte Rendu du Congrès Préhistorique, Budapest 1878, Pl. LXX. Fig. 14 and cf. Fig. 13. The S-shaped design so frequent on the Cretan seal-stones is also represented on Fig. 12 of the same series.

³⁰ In the case of these stones only one side, which is larger than the others, is engraved, the other two being set at an obtuse angle and forming a sloping back like a gable. ‘Gableshaped’ may therefore be a convenient term to apply to this well-marked East-Anatolian class, which bears no obvious resemblance to the equilateral stones with which we are concerned. It may yet have a common origin.

³¹ See above, p. 327, Figs. 49 e, g, h.

³² A. Issel, Scavi recenti nella Caverna delle Arene Candide in Liguria, and see Dr. R. Verneau, Las pintaderas do gran Canaria, Ănn. p. la Soc. Española de Hist. Nat. xii. 1883.

³³ See above p. 330, n. 29ff. Here a direct Aegean influence seems traceable.

³⁴ See on these especially Cook, A. B., Animal Worship in the Mycenaean Age. J.H.S. Vol. xiv. (1894), p. 81Google Scholarsqq.

³⁵ Cf. for instance the lentoid intaglio found in Crete (Milchhöfer, , Anfänge der Kunst, p. 78, Fig. 50Google Scholar; Cook op. cit. p. 120, Fig. 15), in which a pair of human legs and a trunk bifurcate into the upper parts of a bull and goat.

³⁶ See pp. 301, 302.

^36a A paper on the Kamares pottery was read by Mr. J. L. Myres in the Anthropological Section of the British Association in 1893. It is to be hoped that this important study may shortly see the light in a fuller form. I believe that my own conclusions as to the date of the pottery agree with those of Mr. Myres.

³⁷ The special circumstances under which the signs numbered 141, 21, 125, 126 in Mr. Petrie's list were found, seem altogether to exclude a later date than that of the Twelfth Dynasty. Yet these signs belong to the same class as the others, and occur on pottery of the same rude fabric which occurs, together with some of the marks, in foundation deposits of Usertesen II., and which, in Mr.Petrie, 's opinion (Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara, p. 43)Google Scholar, ‘cannot be mistaken for that of any subsequent age.’

^37a See Bliss, F. J., A Mound of Many Cities, or Tell-el-Hesy Excavated, pp. 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 33, and 42Google Scholar. These marks on potsherds are described as found exclusively, with the exception of No. 21, in the earliest strata. No. 21 is the last on the list below.

³⁸ Where so much still remains to be discovered, it is worth while contemplating at least the possibility that these early signs had also a Western and European extension. In the case of the purely pictographic class, the parallel supplied by the Maraviglie in the Maritime Alps has already been cited, to which may now be added another similar group of sculptured signs more recently discovered by Padre Amerano near Finalmarina in Liguria. In connexion with the linear forms I cannot help referring to certain signs on early pottery from the lake-dwellings of Paladru, near Voiron in the Isère, some of which are remarkably suggestive of Aegean parallels. For the pottery see Chantre, Palafittes du Lac de Paladru, Album, Pl. X. Figs 1–5 and 7.

^38a i. 173

³⁹ Comparetti, Le leggi di Gortyna e le altre Iscrizioni arcaiche Cretesi, 1893 (Mon. Ant. vol. iii.), p. 451 sqq.

^39a Halbherr, F. e Orsi, P., Antichità dell' Antro di Zeus Ideo, p. 106Google Scholarsqq., and Atlas Pl. II.; and cf. Comparetti, loc. cit. p. 452.

⁴⁰ I have followed Comparetti's suggestions loc. cit.

^40a xix. 1. 172 sqq.

⁴¹ Kreta, i. p. 246 sqq. From the later usage with reference to the election of the Spartan Ephors Hoeck infers that the Dorian kings required a fresh religious sanction for their sovereignty every nine years, so that they could be said to reign ‘nine years.’ He concludes: ‘Diess ist unstreitig der tiefere Sinn welcher dem homerischen unterliegt. Mag nun immerhin das Wort später in allgemeinerer Bedeutung angewandt seyn, mag selbst schon Homer sich dieses Ausdrucks nicht mit jener bestimmten Rücksicht bedient haben: so lag doch der tiefste grund der Bedeutsamkeit dieser Neunzahl in jener alten Jahresbestimmung.’

^41a Dodwell, , de Cycl. p. 316Google Scholarsqq.

⁴² Plato, vi. p. 138. Cf. Schol. ad Od. xix. 178.

^42a Diod. iv. 60. In other MSS. of Diodôros the name of the Dorian leader (son of Dôros) appears as Tektamos. Andrôn, in Steph. Byz. s.v. Δώριον, gives the same version of the Dorian invasion from Thessaly in prae-Minôan times, where the name appears, probably erroneously, as Teksaphos. Teutamos, as Hoeck notes (Krcta, ii. 1, 24, note 6), recurs in Pelasgian genealogies; cf. Homer, , Il. ii. 843Google Scholar.

⁴³ Her. vii. 171 It is reasonable to bring into connexion with the failure of the great Cretan expedition to avenge the death of Minôs and the Cretan settlement of Iapygia described in the preceding chapter. The direct reference by Herodotus to Praesian, i.e. Eteokretan, tradition in c. 171 gives a special importance to his statement in c. 170 that the Praesians and inhabitants of Polichna, that is the old Kydonians, alone among the Cretans did not take part in the Sicilian expedition. It seems on the one hand to show a recognition of the fact that the Praesians and old Kydonians were of the same stock, on the other hand it does not necessarily mean that Minôan Crete was then in other hands. It is, rather, a patriotic way of accounting for the disappearance of the Eteokretan population from the later Dorian area by the fact that their Western expedition had left the land tenantless, for any one who chose to occupy it. The argument, in fact, runs as follows. The greater part of Crete is occupied by foreigners. These foreigners came in when the original native occupants had gone elsewhere on a Western expedition whence they never returned. But we Praesians, as well as the Polichnites near Kydonia, represent the old inhabitants of the land. Therefore neither we nor they took part in the Western expedition. The survival of the indigenous element in the Kydonian district in the extreme West of Crete supplies a presumption that the Doric colonization of the island did not come by way of Peloponnese. All traditions point to Central— ‘Minôan’—Crete as the region where Hellenism first took root.

⁴⁴ E.g. Larissa, the ancient name for Gortyna according to Steph. Byz. (s.v.), Gortyn itself comparing with Gyrtôn in Perrhaebia (Bechtel, cited by Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. 1², 330, note)Google Scholar; Phaestos, Phalanna (cf. too Phalasarna), and Boebê are also found both in Crete and Thessaly. Tritta, an old name for Knosôs, may possibly be compared with Trikka. There was also a Cretan Magnêsia, according to some accounts founded by Magnêtes from Thessaly (Parthen. Erot. c. 5). These parallels extend to Macedonia; compare for instance Olous and Olynthos, Hierapytna and Pydna and the rivernames Axos and Axios

⁴⁵ See Wolters, , Mykenische Vasen aus dem nördlichen Griechenland, Athen. Mitth. xiv. (1889) p. 262Google Scholarsqq.

⁴⁶ A leaf ornament of the same character occurs on a vase from Grave I. and another from Grave VI., as well as on a glass paste ornament from Grave III.

⁴⁷ See above, p. 318.

⁴⁸ See above, p. 323.

⁴⁹ Comparetti, Leggi di Gortyna, &c., p. 201.

⁵⁰ Op. cit. p. 418, Inscr. 194, 1. 6.

⁵¹ Op. cit. p. 402, Inscr. 187, 1. 3.

⁵² Op. cit. p. 117, col. ix. 1. 43. In the note it is spoken of as ‘un segno insignificante.’ It is used to separate two very different clauses.

⁵³ Op. cit. p. 434, Inscr. No. 203, 1. 7. In this case the sign is written horizontally in stead of vertically.

⁵⁴ At Corinth the same sign is used for E, in Pamphylia for Ξ.

⁵⁵ See especially Hoeck, , Kreta, ii. p. 397Google Scholar, sqq.

⁵⁶ Il. iv. 256 sqq., and cf. Il. iii. 230 sqq.

⁵⁷ Vell. Paterc, i. 1.

⁵⁸ E.g. Amykla, Therapnae, Pharae, Boiae, Tegea, Arkades, Lampê (or Lappa). Cf. Busolt, , Gr. Geschichte, 2nd ed. p. 329Google Scholarsqq.

⁵⁹ Glaser, , Mittheilungen über einige aus meiner Sammlung stammende Sabäische Inschriften, &c., pp. 304 and 326Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Op. cit. p. 325.

⁶¹ See above, p. 273.

⁶² See p. 360.

⁶³ The Boeotian E with four bars, introduced in the Plate, rather points to an older form of He resembling the pictograph No. 4.

⁶⁴ See Taylor, Isaac, The Alphabet, p. 171Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Cf. Justin xviii. 3.

⁶⁶ On a stêlê at Karnak Thothmes III. is made to show his majesty to the Danônas of the Isles ‘as a lion that sleeps upon the car-cases.’ This implies that the Danônas were already molesting the coasts of Egypt. The Maket tomb (see above, p. 318) and other archaeological sources give evidence of more peaceful contact between Egypt and the Aegean peoples in the early reigns of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

⁶⁷ On the importance of Gaza in the ancient geography of Palestine see especially Smith, G. A., Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 181Google Scholarsqq. As ‘the natural outpost across the desert from Egypt’ it played the same part that Damascus did with reference to Assyria.

⁶⁸ I. Sam. xxx. 14.

⁶⁹ C. xxv. 16.

⁷⁰ C. ii. 5.

⁷¹ Steph. Byz. s.v. Μινώα.

⁷² Steph. Byz. s.v. Γάζα; cf. Hoenck, , Kreta, ii. 369Google Scholar. The name Marnas was erroneously brought into connexion with the Cretan Martis = Maiden, which appears in Britomartis.

⁷³ See Müller, W. Max, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 1893, p. 389Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ De Rougé Chabas, who transliterates ‘Pulasati’ as ‘Pelestas,’ had already identified them with the Pelasgians in his Antiquité historique. So too Renan, (Histoire générale des langues sémitiques, I⁴, p. 53)Google Scholar: ‘Une hypothèse très vraisemblable, adoptée par les meilleurs exégètes et ethnographes, fait venir les Philistins de Crète. Le nom seul de Plishti… rappelle celui des Pélasges.’ This view also commends itself to Maspéro, (Hist. Anc. des peuples ďOrient, p. 312)Google Scholar. W. Max Müller (op. cit. p. 368), while admitting the possibility that the Pulasati are Philistines, rejects the view that they are Pelasgians. But he accepts the identification of the Shardin, Turshas, Akayvas, and Jevanas, with Sardinians, Tyrseni, Achaians, and Ionians.

⁷⁵ Müller, W. Max, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, p. 388Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος.

⁷⁷ Steph. Byz. l.c.

⁷⁸ C. ix. 12.

⁷⁹ This comparison, first instituted by Puchstein, has been further brought out by Steindorff, , Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1892, p. 12Google Scholarsqq.

⁸⁰ In the Canopus Decree ‘Kefti’ is translated Φοινίκη, which led Ebers and other Egyptologists to accept the identification of the Kefti with Phoenicians. Müller, W. Max however (Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, p. 337)Google Scholar has shown how valueless the Ptolemaic tradition was in such matters. From the place in which the name appears— after Naharin and Heta—in early Egyptian lists, he himself concludes that it represents Cilicia. Steindorff, who also (op. cit. p. 15) rejects the identification with Phoenicia, is led to seek the Kefti in the Gulf of Issos or Cyprus. But, as noticed above, the archaeological evidence does not favour either Cilicia or Cyprus. Cyprus, as we know, was touched by Mycenaean culture in comparatively late times, but it was never, certainly, a centre of its propagation. The early Mycenaean spiral work, such as is seen on the Kefti vases, is foreign to Cypriote remains. On the Cilician mainland Mycenaean traces altogether fail us. The numerous engraved stones found there, amongst which I may mention some recently brought back by Mr. D. G. Hogarth from Ain-Tab, are of Hittite and non-Mycenaean character.

⁸¹ Op. cit. p. 351.

⁸² Longperier, Musée Napoléon, 21; Perrot, et Chipiez, , Phénicie, &c., 429, 430Google Scholar.

⁸³ In the Rekhmara inscription.

⁸⁴ Tomb, of Men-Kheper-ra-seneb, Mission archéologique française au Caire, 5, 11Google Scholar, and cf. W. Max Müller, op. cit. p. 347, and Steindorff, loc. cit.

⁸⁵ Eber's suggestion that Caphtor = ‘Kaftvere’ or Great Keftô (which he assumed on the strength of the Canopus decree to be Phoenicia) is rejected by W. Max Müller (op. cit. p. 390), who however expresses the opinion that the name Keftô has nevertheless a real connexion with Caphtor: ‘Ist der Name Keftô (the orthography approved by him, p. 337) auszusprechen so ist allerdings der Anklang mehr als zufällig.’