1. See Catalogue and pl. XIII. For various help given to me I thank the following persons: R. D. Barnett, J. Boardman, H. Catling, J. Coles, A. Harding, W. Heilmeyer, U. Naumann, H. Salskow-Roberts, H. Seeden and E. Touloupa, further to the directors and staff of various museums in Syria, Greece and Europe. Mrs Joy Kohoutová kindly checked my English.

ABBREVIATIONS

Acta Arch. (Copenhagen) Acta Archaeologica.

AE Archaiologike Efemeris.

AD Archaiologikon Deltion.

BASOR Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research.

BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique.

BMQ British Museum Quarterly.

Boardman, Dictaean Cave J. Boardman, The Cretan Collection in Oxford: The Dictaean Cave and the Iron Age Crete, 1961.

ESA Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua.

Evans, P. of M. Sir A. Evans, Palace of Minos at Knossos.

F.d.D. Fouilles de Delphes.

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal.

JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies.

MPKAW Mitteilungen der Prähistorische Kommission der Akademie in Wien.

Müller, Frühe Plastik V. Müller, Frühe Plastik in Griechenland und Vorderasien, Augsburg, 1927.

OeJh Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts.

PZ Prähistorische Zeitschrift.

2. Brit. Mus. 12045, H. 26·7 centimetres. Barnett, R. D., BMQ, 9, 1934–1935, 47Google Scholar, Pl. 14: 112. Dr. Barnett kindly informed me that it was acquired in 1854 from a private seller.

3. Snegirev, , Soobshcheniya GAIMK, August 1931, 27 ff.Google Scholar; Tallgren, , ESA, 8, 1933, 242Google Scholar. Earlier publications as genuine, Przeworski, S., Wiadomošci Archeologiczne, 10, 1928, 3–11Google Scholar and ERV, 13, 159–60, Pl. 51a.

4. Barnett, R. D., Some Syrian Bronzes, BMQ, 9, 1934–1935, 47Google Scholar.

5. The possibility that the second casts were modern copies is not investigated yet, and all of them need not be genuine. Cf. Barnett, Ibid., 47.

6. Porada, E., ‘The Warrior with Plumed Helmet, a study of Syro-Cappadocian cylinder seals and bronze figurines’, Berytus, 7, 1942, 57–63, esp. 62 fGoogle Scholar.

7. Louvre AO 20182 (‘dieu aux plumes d'autruche’). Parrot, , Syria, 35, 1958, 163–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pl. 9; Bossert, , Altsyrien (Tübingen 1951), no. 584Google Scholar; cf. also his female companion (Parrot Pl. 10 and Bossert on the same figure). Another piece from near Hama in the Damascus museum: Parrot, , Syria, 29, 1952, 49, fig. 8Google Scholar.

8. Porada, , Berytus, 7, 1942, 62 f.Google Scholar; Hansen, D. P., ‘A bronze in the Semitic Museum of Harvard University’, BASOR, 146, April 1957, 13–19Google Scholar.

9. Parrot, A., ‘Acquisitions et inédits du Musée du Louvre 2, Bronzes syriens’, Syria, 29, 1952, 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Negbi, O., ‘On two bronze figurines with plumed helmets from the Louvre collection’, IEJ, 11, 1961, 111–17, esp. 113Google Scholar; Canby, J. Vorys, Berytus, 17, 1967–1968, 122Google Scholar. Negbi suggests a date in MB II A (18th century B.C.).

11. Ibid., 113–15.

12. Canby, J. Vorys, ‘The pedigree of a Syrian bronze in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, and the stylistic cross-currents in the late 3rd millenium B.C.’ Berytus, 17, 1967–1968, 107–22Google Scholar.

13. Louvre AO 20118. Parrot, , Syria, 29, 1952, 49Google Scholar, Pl. I and fig. 1; Canby, Vorys, Berytus, 17, 1967–1968, Pl. 29Google Scholar.

14. Ugaritica, 11, 71 ff.

15. Berytus, 17, 1967–1968, 120Google Scholar.

16. Perhaps also with their European relatives.

17. Peiser, F., Sitzungsberichte der Altertumsgesellschaft Prussia, 22, 1900–1904 (1909), 424–6Google Scholar.

18. Roeder, G., Ägyptische Bronzefiguren, Berlin 1956, 35–44Google Scholar. Müller, V., Frühe Plastik, 116 f.Google Scholar, only mentions the genuine pieces.

19. Cf. Roeder, 40 f., no. 57 (Babelon-Blanchet, , Cat. Bronzes Bibliothèque Nationale, 1895, 84, fig. 185Google Scholar) is Etruscan, no. 61 from Idria (Szombathy, , MPKAW, 1901, 1901, 296, fig. 9Google Scholar; Hoernes, , Urgeschichte der Kunst, 1898, 677, fig. 203Google Scholar) is local Italic (Venetian). The possible ‘Reshefs’ no. 56 (in Florence, Museo archeologico), 62 (Landesmuseum Zurich from Switzerland) and 63 (from Borgo Castel Telvano in Mus. Bolzano) are only known from Peiser's list and cannot be revised; they are probably local Early Iron Age statuettes like the first mentioned pieces.

20. Porro, , Atene e Roma, 18, 1915, 160, fig. 1Google Scholar; cf. Müller, , Frühe Plastik, 126Google Scholar.

21. Paris, Essai sur l'art et l'industrie de l'Espagne primitive, vol. 2, 167Google Scholar, fig. 235 (mentioned as without provenance). He quotes another fragmentary statuette without head published by Lozano, Historia de Junilla. Another piece from Peiser's list: Veiga, Antiquidades monum. de Algarve, Pl. 26:6 (both last mentioned books were not accessible to me).

22. For the Sardinian figurine cf. the problem of the Shardana people of Egyptian documents.

23. Santerre, J. Tréheux-Gallet de, ‘Dépôt égéen et géometrique de l'Artemision à Délos’, BCH 71–2, 1947–1948, 221–30Google Scholar. Many of them are genuine Greek Geometric figurines: the eastern relations, if any, are only remote: Trélieux-Gallet de Santerre, nos. 7–8; Olympia, IV, Pl. 16:242–3 (Müller, Frühe Plastik, figs. 293–4); nos. 9–12 from Delphi: Perdrizet, , FdD, VGoogle Scholar, PL I:10, Pl. 2:5–6; Amandry, , BCH, 68–9, 1944–1945Google Scholar, 40, Pl. 1:2; no. 13 from Dodona: Béquignon, , BCH, 53, 1929, 108, fig. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

The female figurine from Delphi, FdD, V, Pl. 2:2, quoted by Müller, , Frühe Plastik, 123, fGoogle Scholar. as a Bronze Age Oriental import, does not seem to me to be so early. The statuette from Troy (?) in the British Museum (Müller, , Frühe Plastik, 116Google Scholar, Pl. 45, fig. 402) differs both from Greek Geometric warrior figurines and from the Syro-Anatolian ‘Reshefs’.

24. Santerre, Tréheux-Gallet de, BCH, 71–2, 1947–1948, 245Google Scholar (but the deposit also contained Geometric objects).

25. Cf. esp. Schaeffer, C. A., Syria, 16, 1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pl. 33:1–3; 17, 1936, Pl. 15:4; 18, 1937, Pl. 23:1 and Ugaritica, I, Pl. 25. Dunand, , Byblos, IGoogle Scholar, Pl. 47, 1819. For further examples see Canby, Vorys, Hesperia, 38, 1969, 142, note 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. E.g., SirEvans, A., P. of M., III, 1930, 466 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Vorys Canby, Ibid., 141, note 4.

27. Canby, J. Vorys, ‘Some Hittite Figurines from the Aegean’, Hesperia, 38, 1969, 141–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Vorys Canby, ibid., 145 f., the Dövlek figurine ibid. Pl. 41a. The Berlin figurine Müller, Frühe Plastik, fig. 370; Bossert, Altanatolien, fig. 583.

29. Canby, Vorys, Hesperia, 38, 1969, 146 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also some Syrian figurines, esp. Müller, Frühe Plastik, figs. 393–5.

30. Canby, Vorys, Hesperia, 38, 1969, 147 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the Boghazköy Gate cf. e.g. Bossert, Altanatolien, figs. 476–80.

31. E.g., Catling, H., Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World, Oxford 1964, Pl. 46Google Scholar.

32. Best parallel Parrot, Syria, 35, 1958, 169 f. Pl. 12Google Scholar; for the Megiddo pieces see Canby, Vorys, Hesperia, 48, 1969Google Scholar, Pl. 40a and Loud, G., Megiddo, II, OIP 62, Chicago 1948Google Scholar, Pl. 239:31 and 235:22.

33. Izmir: Müller, Frühe Plastik, fig. 396–8 (Bossert, Altanatolien figs. 587–8); Arakpur: Bossert, Altanatolien figs. 606–9; Brit. Mus. 12542, Barnett, , BMQ, 9, 1934–1935, 48Google Scholar, Pl. 14:3; the statuette allegedly found in Attica is reproduced uncleaned and so it is difficult to classify it with certainty. It seems to be quite close to the Syrian figurines but the articulation of the body also recalls some Cretan post-Minoan bronzes.

34. For the sickle-sword, a divine weapon in Syria, cf. Barnett, , BMQ, 9, 1934–1935, 45 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pl. 13:1 (Brit. Mus. 105149) and Parrot, , Syria, 41, 1964Google Scholar, Pl. 12:3 (Louvre AO 2080), both simple flat idols.

35. Cf. Schweitzer, B., Die geometrische Kunst Griechenlands, 1969, 130, Pl. 113–14Google Scholar.

36. Cf. Müller, , Frühe Plastik, 116 f.Google Scholar, the Delos piece with the parallels mentioned in notes 32-3 (Syrian for the general type, Anatolian for the profile of the face) and Müller, Ibid., fig. 401.

37. Cf. e.g. Handbuch d. Arch., Bd. I, München 1939Google Scholar, Pl. 156:1 and Bossert, Altanatolien, fig. 620.

38. Bossert, Altanatolien, figs. 579–80 (cf. esp. the last piece). Fourteenth century B.C.; for the date cf. Negbi, , IEJ, 11, 1961, 117Google Scholar.

39. The hairdress slightly recalls the ‘pig-tail’ of the Hittite terracottas, but cf. Müller, , Frühe Plastik, 117, note 22Google Scholar.

40. Cf. Parrot, , Syria, 41, 1964, 219–25Google Scholar; Barnett, , BMQ, 9, 1934–1935, 46Google Scholar, Pl. 13:1. Parrot dates this group in the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C.

41. Postscript. The figurine found at Kouřim (Catalogue B1), which was cast in two parts (head and neck with upper part of the breasts; body), was spectrographically analysed in the Central Geological Institute in Prague, through the courtesy of A. Vydrová. Two samples were taken, one of the head, the second of the body:

The result shows that both parts were cast from the same material and probably at the same time.

A quantitative analysis of the two early figurines in the Polish collections (Catalogue A1a.b) was published by Przeworski, in Wiadomošci Arch., 10, 1929, 28Google Scholar. Both contain more than 25 per cent zinc (the material is like modern brass) and they seem therefore to be modern casts; I am indebted to Professor H.-G. Buchholz for bringing this circumstance to my notice.

42. Cf. Müller, , Frühe Plastik, 116 f.Google Scholar, note 22. The earliest bronze head from the Danish Bronze Age (Brøndsted, , Nordische Vorzeit, Neumünster 1962, 148 f.Google Scholar) does not show any Syrian influence.

43. Cf. Barnett, , BMQ, 9, 1934–1935, 46Google Scholar, Pl. 13:2 and Müller, Frühe Plastik, fig. 401.

44. Cf. Schweitzer, B., Die geometrische Kunst Griechenlands, 137Google Scholar and the Greek pieces mentioned in note 23.

45. Müller, , Frühe Plastik, 113Google Scholar; Boardman, , Dictaean Cave, 78Google Scholar.

46. The comparable Syrian pieces are of different styles (cf. Müller, Frühe Plastik, fig. 401 and esp. Dunand, , Byblos, IGoogle Scholar, Pl. 72:2555), but the Cypriot figurines often show a similar mixture of Oriental and Greek features, cf. Catling, Bronzework, Pl. 44j and 45d.

47. Newton, R. G. and Renfrew, C., ‘British faience beads reconsidered’, Antiquity, 44, 1970, 199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harding, A., ‘First glass in Europe’, Arch. Rozhledy, 23, 1971, 188–200Google Scholar.

48. Cf. the distribution of the Aegean D and related swords in Europe: 1. Saône near Lyon. Chantre, , Etudes paléœthnologiques dans le Bassin du Rhône, Âge du Bronze, Album, I, 1875Google Scholar, Pl. 15, bis 3; Randsborg, , Acta Arch. (Copenhagen), 38, 1967, 11, fig. 7AGoogle Scholar.

2. Ørskevhede, Jutland. Randsborg, ibid. 1–9.

3. Dollerup, Jutland. Lomborg, K., Acta Arch. (Copenhagen), 30, 1959, 137Google Scholar, fig. 38.

4.Nürnberg-Hammer, . Müller-Karpe, , Germania, 40, 1962, 260Google Scholar, fig. 2:1. (Drenovo and Nagy-tetény mentioned by Müller-Karpe, p. 260, can better be ascribed to the Donja Dolina group of Ha B).

A new sword with T-shaped hilt from East Hungary was published recently: Ajak, Kom. Szabolcs, hoard contemporary with Opály (i.e. Peschiera). Kroeger-Michel, E., Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, 11, 1968, 79Google Scholar, fig. 75d (very schematic drawing). Through the kindness of Dr. A. Mozsolics I was able to see a better drawing of the Nágytetény sword. The blade is identical with those of the Donja Dolina swords, but the hand-guard recalls the above mentioned group. From this, only the fragment from the Rhône is genuine Mycenaean and the rest only distantly related (Sandars, N., in European Community in Later Prehistory, Studies presented to Ch. Hawkes, 1971, 10–11Google Scholar). A group of daggers with T-shaped hilt from Hungary and Slovakia (Paulík, J., Slovenská Archeológia, 11, 1963, 31Google Scholar, fig. 42:3, a new piece Patek, E., Acta Hung. Arch., 22, 1970, 33, 37Google Scholar, Pl. 3:3) dates from Br D to Ha A 1: they were first compared with the Mycenaean daggers by Reinecke (Arch. Ért., 19, 1899, 284Google Scholar), but Bóna saw better parallels in the Caucasus (Bóna, I., Herman Oto Múzeum Évkönyve, 3, 1963, 26 and 31Google Scholar). Anyway, all the Hungarian pieces are late, of a Br D to Ha A date. The Mycenaean F swords of Miss Sandars are known from Sicily, South Italy and Cornwall (Sandars, N., AJA, 67, 1963, 137 f., 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacNamara, E., PPS, 36, 1970, 241–60)Google Scholar.

49. Cf. Bouzek, , Památky arch., 57, 1966, 270–75Google Scholar.

50. For the relations between Caucasus and the Baltic area cf. Wiesner, , Altpreussen, 1941, 21Google Scholar. Also some Chinese terracottas were perhaps influenced by this warrior type with conical helmet. Müller, C., Frühe Plastik, 117Google Scholar, note 23 and Wiesner, , Altpreussen, 1941, 21, fig. 4a, bGoogle Scholar.