Lying together with this was found another smaller golden signet-ring, which I likewise represent in double size (No. 531). We see on this signet not less than four Palladia and three Hera-idols in good intaglio work. The former perfectly resemble the Trojan idols of Pallas Athena;[403] only there is a slight difference in the head, which is here a little less obtuse, and may be intended to be represented with a helmet. The Palladium in the lower row to the left is exactly like the Trojan idols; but it is a little effaced, and above it we see three ears of corn. Of the Hera-idols in the form of cow-heads with two horns, we see one in the upper and two in the lower row; the horns of the two latter are particularly long, and between those of the head to the left of the spectator we see two smaller ones; therefore this cow-head has four horns. At the right end of the upper row is represented a curious object which I cannot well distinguish; if we turn the engraving to the right, it looks like a bird. Between the two rows are eleven signs, resembling eyes.

Together with the two signet rings was found the beautiful massive golden lion, which is represented in double size (No. 532). It is fastened on a thick golden wire, and is represented lying down, with the head facing the spectator; and both the head and the rest of the body are perfectly faithful to nature. I share Mr. Newton's opinion that the lion has been cast and tooled.

There were further found fourteen golden beads of a necklace, of which I represent six (Nos. 533-538); they are ornamented all round with four rows of globular projecting points.

As will be seen by Plan G, all the above-described jewels were found together in one spot, which was only 2 ft. long and 8 in. broad, and precisely 6 m. 90 c., or 23 ft., below the surface of the soil before the beginning of my excavations, or only 8 in. below the surface of my excavation, as I left it on the 6th of December last. It further appears by Plan G, that the débris below the site of the jewels was still 1 ft. 2 in. deep.

There were found bones in this tomb, which were at first thought by us to be human bones, but my esteemed friend Dr. Theodoros Aretæos, the celebrated Athenian surgeon, who has examined them, declares them to be the bones of animals. As before stated, the Cyclopean water-conduit, represented in Plan G, was evidently built at a later prehistoric period than that to which the tomb belongs, and its builders, who necessarily had to excavate the tomb down to the virgin rock, no doubt robbed it of its contents and threw away the bones of the skeleton; but, luckily that small place near the wall (only 2 ft. long and 8 in. broad), where the above jewels lay, was not dug up by them, and therefore the jewels have been saved for science.[404]

Lastly, I represent three lentoid gems of necklaces which I have bought in Chonika, a village situated in the Plain of Argos, close to the site of the ancient city of Phœnicé (Φοινίκη), and at a distance of one English mile from the ancient Heræum. I call the attention of the reader to the name Chonika, which is nothing but a corruption of the name Φοινίκη.

The two peasants, who sold me the three lentoid gems, said that they had found the middle one in labouring on the site of Phœnicé, and the other two close to the site of the ancient Heræum. I have no reason to doubt their statement to be correct, because, as the name sufficiently proves, Phœnicé was a Phœnician colony, and the middle gem (No. 540) which is said to have been found there, most decidedly represents two Phœnician figures, probably very ancient types of idols. Their heads are marked by a mere horizontal hollow, and no face is shown; their necks are very long, and their shoulders, which, like all the rest of their bodies, are rectilinear, are enormously broad. Very characteristic are their long legs and their feet, which rather resemble horse-hoofs than human feet; one man holds in his right hand, and the other in his left, a zigzag, probably intended to represent a symbol of fire and perhaps lightning. The very short left hand of the man to the left of the spectator is uplifted, and seems to hold some object, whilst the left hand of the other figure is very long and nearly touches the ground. Over the right shoulder of the man to the left of the spectator is a strange sign, perhaps a written character, and an arrow-like sign is close to the neck of the other man; to both these signs I call particular attention. This lentoid gem is of dark red agate, semi-globular, and has a horizontal perforation.

The lentoid gem to the left of this (No. 539), as seen by the spectator, is of greenish serpentine. It is convex on both sides and has likewise a horizontal perforation. It represents, in beautiful intaglio, two horses standing on their hind-legs opposite each other, their heads leaning over in opposite directions. The tail of the horse to the left of the spectator is represented by a mere band; that of the other is bushy; to the head of each horse is attached an ornament, which probably belongs to the trappings. Between the heads of the horses we see two human figures, of which that to the left of the spectator has a Phrygian cap on its head, and extends its hands towards the other figure, whose head seems to be uncovered, and which is holding a round object in its only hand which is visible.

On the third lentoid gem (No. 541), which is an agate of variegated white and brown colour, also convex and horizontally perforated, we see a much more artistic intaglio work, representing a Hera-idol, in the form of a cow-head, with two long horns, in perfectly faithful imitation of nature. Between the two horns we see, head downward, an ornamented double-edged axe, with its handle, the extremity of which is ornamented with two rings or turned buttons. To the right and left of the cow-head we see a beautifully ornamented object, the nature of which we are unable to explain; it resembles a cornucopiæ.

I remind the reader that this lentoid gem, as well as the other with the two horses, was found close to the ancient Heræum, of which the foundations, consisting of various courses of Cyclopean masonry of enormous uncut blocks, still exist, and may be as old and even older than the walls of Mycenæ and Tiryns. But my explorations on the site, in February, 1874, have shown that the accumulation of débris there does not exceed 1½ to 3 ft. in depth, and consequently excavations there are impossible. The ancient Heræum was accidentally destroyed by fire in 423 B.C., and its site has remained deserted, the new Heræum being built on the slope, about 50 ft. below the ancient one.

Mr. A. H. Sayce writes to me:—"I am inclined to believe that the antiquities of Mycenæ are of a much earlier date than that which you have attributed to them. I should place the most ancient as far back as the epoch when Babylonian influence began to prevail in the western Mediterranean basin, after the conquests of the Chaldean king Naram Sin of Agana (whose successor was the victorious Elamite Khamuragas, who extended his power to the borders of the Mediterranean, 2000-1700 B.C.). Further, I believe that the treasuries, the Gate of Lions, etc., are of prior date to the tombs and the Cyclopean walls. Assyrio-Babylonian civilization came into Greece not only through Phœnicia, but through Asia Minor. The drawings of M. Perrot, and of several other explorers, are like links in the chain which joins ancient Greek to Assyrian (or rather Babylonian) art. Perhaps in exploring Sardis an art and types similar to those of Mycenæ will be found. But the great centre from which this art spread through Asia Minor was Karkhemish, the rich capital of the Hittites, the ruins of which have been discovered at Jerablus (near Birajik on the Euphrates) by Messrs. Skene and George Smith. By making excavations, a second Nineveh might be found there, with sculptures which would show the transition of Assyrian art to the form which may be called the Greek, or that of Asia Minor. These are not mere conjectures, for pieces of sculpture have already been discovered which present this character. The Hittite domination extended to Cilicia and Lycaonia, as is proved by recently discovered carvings, and especially by that found at Ibreez, bearing an inscription in Hittite hieroglyphs. This fact, which I have pointed out to Mr. Gladstone, confirms the evidences which he has furnished in favor of the identity of the Hittites and the Keteians (Κήτειοι).

"I see in the Mycenæan antiquities one point of decisive importance: the art of carving on stone in Western Asia and Europe came from Babylon, where stone was rare and precious. In archaic Babylon (prior to the sixteenth century B.C.) civilization had made great progress; yet it was still in the bronze age. Iron was not used in Babylon, and was probably unknown. How then can we explain the relatively advanced state of civilization in ancient Mycenæ, although iron was unknown there, without supposing that this civilization had its origin in that of archaic Babylon, or that it was connected with it in some way or other? If it had been related to the civilization of Assyria, of Egypt, or of the Babylon of a period later than the sixteenth century B.C., we should assuredly have found at Mycenæ some trace of a knowledge of iron."

Mr. A. H. Sayce further calls my attention to the learned article of J. P. Mahaffy, professor in Trinity College, Dublin. This article, published in the Hermathena, V., is entitled "On the Date of the Capture of Mycenæ by the Argives." I reproduce it here.

"No one seems to have found any difficulty in the statement of Diodorus, which Pausanias repeats, that the town of Mycenæ was destroyed by the people of Argos after the Persian Wars, though I fancy most scholars, when they first come to attend to it, are surprised that the ancient city of Mycenæ should have lasted so long in close neighbourhood to Argos, and made so little figure in Greek history. I suppose any doubt of this kind is allayed by the recollection that Herodotus mentions eighty Mycenæans as having joined the Greeks at Thermopylæ, and that he also enumerates both Tirynthians and Mycenæans among the cities or tribes of Greeks which were inscribed on the pedestal of the tripod at Delphi as joining in the repulse of the Persians. The actual pedestal at Constantinople confirms him, for we read in the list Μυκᾶνες, and thus the existence of Mycenæans up to the year 470 B.C. is beyond all doubt.

"I have, nevertheless, grave suspicions whether either historian has given us a true account of the matter, and therefore propose the following hypothesis, to invite discussion. If I have overlooked any decisive evidence, I hope it will be put forth in refutation of my conjecture. I will first quote all Pausanias' statements on the point, but will group them into two classes, irrespective of their order, for the sake of more convenient discussion:—

II. 15, 4.

"ἐγὼ δὲ αιτιαν τε γράψω τοῦ οἰκισμοῦ, καὶ δι᾽ ἥντινα
πρόφασιν Αργεῖοι Μυκηναιους ὕστερον ἀνέστησαν. 16, 5.
Μυκήνας δὲ᾽ Αργεῖοι καθεῖλον ὑπὸ ζηλοτυπιας. ἡσυχαζόντων
γὰρ τῶν ᾽Α. κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστρατείαν τοῦ Μήδου, Μυκηναῖοι
πέμπουσιν εἰς Θερμοπύλας ὀγδοήκοντα ἄνδρας οἱ Λακεδαιμονιοις
μετέσχον τοῦ ἔργου [inaccurate]. τοῦτο ήνεγκε
σφισιν ὄλεθρον παροξῦναν ᾽Αργείους.

"Then follows the famous passage about the ruins, and about the tombs of Agamemnon and his party, which M. Schliemann has brought into such fresh notoriety.

V. 23, 2.

"[In the list of cities inscribed on the monument of the victory over the Persians, which Pausanias saw at Olympia, and which appears not to have been an exact duplicate of that at Delphi.]

"ἐκ δὲ χώρας τῆς ᾽Αργειας Τιρύνθιοι, Πλατ. δὲ μόνοι
Βοιώτων, καὶ ᾽Αργείων ὁι Μυκήνας ἔχοντες. 3. τούτων τῶν
πόλεων τοσαίδε ἦσαν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔρημοι. Μυκηναιοι μὲν καὶ
Τιρύνθιοι τῶν Μηδικῶν ὕστερον ἐγένοντο ὑπὸ ᾽Α. ἀνάστατοι.

VII. 25, 5.

"Μυκηναίοις γὰρ τὸ μὲν τεῖχος ἁλῶναι κατὰ τὸ ἰσχυρὸν
οὐυκ ἐδύνατο ὑπὸ Α. (ἐτετείχιστο γὰρ κατὰ ταὐτὰ [this is not
accurate] τῷ ἐν Τίρυνθι ὑπὸ τῶν Κυκλώπων καλουμένων)
κατὰ ἀνάγκην δὲ ἐκλείπουσι Μ. τὴν πόλιν ἐπιλειπόντων
σφᾶς τῶν σιτίων, καὶ ἀλλοὶ μέν τινές ἐς Κλεωνὰς ἀποχωροῦσιν
ἐξ αὐτῶν, τοῦ δημοῦ δὲ πλέον μὲν ἢ ἥμισυ ἐς Μακεδονίαν
καταφεύγουσιν παῤ ᾽Αλέξανδρον, ᾧ Μαρδόνιος ὁ Γωβρύου
τὴν ἀγγελίαν ἐπίστευσεν ἐς ᾽Αθηναίους ἀπαγγεῖλαι·
ὁ δὲ ἄλλος δῆμος ἀφίκοντο ἐς τὴν Κερύνειαν, καὶ ἐς τὰ ἔπειτα
ἐγένετο ἐπιφανεστέρα διὰ τὴν συνοίκησιν τῶν Μυκ.

"Nothing seems more precise than this. Pausanias was evidently quite sure of his facts, though one of them—the participation of the Mycenæans in the battle of Thermopylæ—was certainly wrong according to Herodotus. They went there, indeed, but retired with the other Greeks, who left the Spartans and Thespians with Leonidas. Apart from this, it seems, then, that the Argives were so jealous of the fame of Mycenæ on account of this glorious battle (at which Mycenæans never fought), that they undertook the siege of the great Cyclopean fort, and having starved out the population of the place, which they could not storm, they drove them out of the land to Kleonæ, Kerynea, and to Macedonia. The same lot befell the Tirynthians for the same reason, though Pausanias adds no details about the siege of their equally wonderful fort, which excited his loudest admiration.

"Herodotus corroborates the participation of Mycenæ and Tiryns in the Persian War, and says they together furnished four hundred men to the army of the Greeks, which fought at Platæa. He is perfectly silent as to the consequences of this act.

"Let us now examine a very different passage.

VIII. 27, 1.

"συνῆλθον δέ ὑπὲρ ἰσχύος ἐς αὐτὴν [sc. τὴν Μεγαλὴν πόλιν]
οἱ ᾽Αρκαδες, ἅτε καὶ ᾽Αργείους ἐπιστάμενοι τὰ μὲν ετι παλαιότερα
μόνον οὐ κατὰ μίαν ἡμέραν ἑκάστην κινδυνεύοντας
ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων παραστῆναι τῷ πολέμῳ ἔπει δὲ ἀνθρώπων
πλήθει τὸ ῎Αργος ἐπηύξησαν, καταλύσαντες Τίρυνθα καὶ
᾽Ὑσιάς τε καὶ ᾽Ορνεὰς καὶ Μυκήνας καὶ Μιδείαν καὶ ει δή τι
άλλο πόλισμα οὐκ ἀξιόλογον ἐν τῇ ᾽Αργολίδι ἦν, τά τε ἀπὸ
Λακ. ἁδεέστερα τοῖς ᾽Αργ. ὑπάρχοντα, καὶ ἅμα ἐς τοὺς περιοίκους
ἴσχυν γενομένην αὐτοῖς.

"This passage is corroborated by II. 25, 6 and 8, in which the destruction of Omeæ and of Tiryns are mentioned in the same way. Thus, in § 8, ἀνέστησαν δὲ καὶ Τιρυνθίους ᾽Αργ., συνοίκους προσλαβεῖν καὶ τὸ Α. ἐπαυξῆσαι θελήσαντες.

"This account appears not only inconsistent with the former, but contradictory to it. There, the inhabitants of Mycenæ are expelled, and added to the strength of other cities; here, the special reason of the dispute is to secure more citizens for Argos, and to increase and consolidate its power. Any one who considers the conditions of the question for one moment will not hesitate to prefer this latter—a sound political view—to the sentimental story about Argive jealousy. The συνοικισμός of the Argive territory was like that of Thebes, of Athens, and of Megalopolis; and there can be no doubt that the importance of Argos in Greek history was wholly due to its early success in this most difficult and unpopular revolution.

"But is it possible that it took place after the Persian Wars? I think not. In the face of the patriotic conduct of Tiryns and Mycenæ, and at the moment of Argos' greatest national unpopularity, any such attempt to destroy free Greek cities would have brought down the vengeance of all Greece. Moreover, early historians are silent about it. Herodotus and Thucydides never allude to it. What is still more remarkable, the contemporary Æschylus, though composing plays which ought to have had their scene laid at Mycenæ, never once mentions Mycenæ, and transfers the palace of Agamemnon to Argos.[405] If the more ancient city, whose inhabitants had fought with him in the great Persian struggle, had only lost its independence in his mature age, is such a curious ignorance on his part conceivable? I think, then, that the συνοικισμός of the Argive territory must have taken place long before, and that Pausanias was misled by the monuments of the Persian War to transfer it to an impossible period.

"If we look back into earlier history, and consider at what time Argos was daily expecting an attack from Sparta, and found it necessary to strengthen its power, I think the most natural period will be not immediately after the Persian, but immediately after the Messenian Wars, that is, the second Messenian War, which was concluded in Ol. 29. According to our revised chronology, the development of Phidon's power at Argos must be placed close to this time, and it was probably the twenty-eighth Ol. which he celebrated with the Pisatans at Olympia to the exclusion of the Eleans. Of course the Spartans were bound to interfere, but the Messenian War must have greatly hampered their vigour. When this war was over, and Sparta had acquired new territory and prestige, the Argives must have expected that they would be the first to suffer. Hence I attribute to Phidon, and to his policy, the consolidation of all the smaller towns in Argos, and perhaps this may have been the secret of his greatness.

"But how then is the existence of Tiryns and Mycenæ during the Persian War to be explained? I suppose that these towns, though conquered, and their gods transferred to Argos, nevertheless continued to exist as κῶμαι or villages, but inhabited by Argive citizens, and that accordingly these descendants of the old inhabitants, who took the patriotic side, and had not forgotten their history, joined the Hellenic army under these obsolete names, which the nation was glad to sanction as a slight to the neutral Argives.[406] The very small number of men they were able to muster (80 from Mycenæ at Thermopylæ, 400 from Mycenæ and Argos together at Platæa) strongly corroborates this view; for in that day the smallest Greek towns had a considerable armed population—Platæa, for example, had 600. It is very likely that the Argives were nettled at this conduct, and determined to efface these places altogether; and this change, which was very unimportant, as the real συνοικισμός had been long accomplished, attracted no notice at the time, but gave rise afterwards to a distortion of history.

"I will quote, in conclusion, what seems to me a parallel case. Pausanias says (IV. 27, 10), that the Minyæ of Orchomenus were expelled by the Thebans after the battle of Leuctra. We know very well that the power of Orchomenus was gone long before, but the increased strength of Thebes, and some offence on the part of the subject city during the struggle with Sparta, determined its complete extinction by the Thebans. But this was no great siege or subjugation of a free city. That had been done by the Thebans long before. So I believe the capture of the great fort at Mycenæ probably occurred long before the Persian Wars.

"The explicit passage in Diodorus (xi. 65), which seems at first sight a conclusive corroboration of the ordinary view, only strengthens my conviction that it is wrong. Diodorus is precise about the date. He says that in the 78th Ol. (468-4), while the Spartans were in great trouble on account of a destructive earthquake and rising of the Helots and Messenians, the Argives took the opportunity of attacking Mycenæ. But they did so because Mycenæ alone of the cities in their territories would not submit to them. This distinctly asserts that all the other towns, such as Tiryns and Midea, had been formerly subdued, and contradicts Pausanias. Diodorus then enumerates the various claims of Mycenæ to old privileges about the Heraeon and the Nemean Games, and adds what Pausanias says about their joining the Greeks at Thermopylæ, alone among the Argive cities. The share taken by Tiryns with Mycenæ at Platæa seems unknown to both authors. But after long waiting for an opportunity, the Argives now collected a considerable force from Argos and the allied cities, and made war upon Mycenæ—upon Mycenæ, which was only able, jointly with Tiryns, to supply 400 men at Platæa, and which, when unaided, sent 60 men to Thermopylæ! The Argives first defeated them in battle, and then besieged the fortress, which, after some time, through lack of defenders (which is indeed credible), they stormed. Here again Pausanias is contradicted. Diodorus concludes with stating that they enslaved the Mycenæans, consecrating a tenth of the spoil, and levelled the town with the ground.

"I think my theory is perfectly consistent with the critical residue which may be extracted from this passage. It is probably true that the Argives chose the opportunity of a Messenian war to make this conquest, but it was the second, not the third, Messenian war. It is probably true—nay, I should say certainly true—that they levelled Mycenæ with the ground in the 78th Ol.; but this was not their first conquest of it. If they enslaved the then inhabitants, this harsh measure was probably by way of punishment for the impertinence of a subject town in sending an independent contingent to a war in which the sovereign city had determined to maintain a strict neutrality. That the facts related by Diodorus should have caused no general comment throughout Greece, or that no echo of it should have reached us, seems to me almost incredible. There is a possible corroboration of Diodorus' statement that Mycenæ was the last conquered of the subject cities in the Homeric catalogue, where Tiryns is mentioned as already subject to Argos, while Mycenæ is the capital of Agamemnon. But even when that catalogue was compiled, Argos had conquered all the seaboard of the Argolic peninsula, and Mycenæ lies at the extreme south of the territory (chiefly Corinthian and Sicyonic) which is assigned to Agamemnon. Possibly the traditions were still too strong for the poet to make Mycenæ subject to Argos, but he plainly denies any hegemony of Mycenæ over the Argive plain."

Mr. A. H. Sayce further directs my attention to a passage of Homer, which, in my opinion, also seems to favor this hypothesis, and which seems categorically to contradict the stories which Pausanias and Diodorus have borrowed from Ephorus.[407] This last has seemingly made an error as to the epoch of Pheidon. The passage pointed out by Mr. Sayce is in the Iliad, IV., 50-56:

In the opinion of Mr. Sayce, it is clear that Homer meant in this passage to refer to the destruction of at least one of the three cities which he names, and as Argos and Sparta were not destroyed, the city which was destroyed could have been no other than Mycenæ. Mr. Sayce believes that it may be inferred from the word διαπέρσαι that the destruction of Mycenæ must have been complete. If it was so, nothing can better prove the great antiquity of the event than this citation from Homer.

I must say that this hypothesis of Messrs. Sayce and Mahaffy, according to which Mycenæ must have been destroyed at a period of great antiquity, is but too strongly confirmed by the monuments. I recall to the reader here what I said on this subject near the end of Chapter IV.:—"On the west side the Cyclopean wall has been nearly demolished for a distance of 46 feet, and on its interior side a wall of small stones joined with earth has been built to sustain its ruins. It must remain mere guesswork when the Cyclopean wall was destroyed and the small wall built, but at all events this must have occurred long before the capture of Mycenæ by the Argives in 468 B.C., because the small wall was buried deep in the prehistoric débris."

I also recall the fact that the following inscription

which we know positively to belong to the sixth century B.C., is cut upon a fragment of that black Greek pottery which seems to be of at least three centuries' later date than the archaic Mycenian pottery, even the most modern, which is found at Mycenæ just at the bottom of the bed of débris of the Macedonian city.

Further, I call the special attention of archæologists to the immense number of idols in the form of cows or of women with cows' horns or heads, which I collected at Mycenæ (see, for example, figs. 2-11, 111-119, 212, 327-330, 531). These are beyond contradiction the most ancient types of idols which have been found in Greece. All of them are discovered down as far as the surface of beds of archaic débris; it is therefore very certain that they were still in use at the time of the taking of Mycenæ. But it seems to us quite impossible that here the tutelary divinity of Mycenæ should have been represented as late as the fifth century B.C., under the form of a cow or of an idol showing the characteristic features of a cow.

It is evident that in the Homeric poems Hera is a woman, without any of the attributes of a cow; the only trace of them that she has preserved is in the epithet βοῶπις, consecrated to her by the usage of centuries, but certainly not signifying in Homer more than "the large-eyed" goddess.

It seems certain that at the time of Homer the habit of representing Hera under the form of a cow, or with the attributes of a cow, had fallen into disuse and been abandoned; and that, consequently, the catastrophe of the complete destruction of Mycenæ should be referred to an ante-Homeric epoch. In fact, considering the character of the monuments I have discovered, I see no objection whatever to referring it to the period of the invasion of the Heraclides. And indeed, the destruction of Mycenæ by the Heraclides would explain also the singular fact that Orestes never reigned at Mycenæ.

I cannot discover any trace of Egyptian influence in the art of Mycenæ; but the multitude of objects which certainly came from Egypt—like the immense golden cow-heads, the ostrich egg, the sphinx (see fig. 277), and the pieces of Egyptian porcelain—forces us to the conclusion that there must have been relations between the city and that country. The strongest testimony that such relations existed is the worship of the lunar divinity Hera under the form of a cow—a divinity whom I have proved (see the note on Hera Boöpis at the end of Chapter I.) to be identical with the Egyptian goddess Isis, who was similarly worshipped in Egypt in the form of a woman with the horns of a cow. Further, I may recall the fact that Isis was said to have been born at Argos (Diodorus Sic., I. xxiv. 25; Apollodorus, II. i. 3), and that Apis, grandson of the Argive river-god Inachos, and nephew of the cow-faced lunar goddess Io, was at first king of Argos; that from his name this town and the whole Peloponnesus was called Apia; that Apis at length made over to his brother his Grecian dominion, and became king of Egypt (Eusebius, Chron. I. 96, 127, 130, edit. Aucher; Augustine, de Civ. Dei, xviii. 5); that after his death he was worshipped in Egypt under the name of Serapis and the form of a bull. In the same way the Greek myth makes the Argive cow-faced goddess to migrate to Egypt, where she brings into the world Epaphos, which is only a second name for the bull Apis. But, according to Diodorus Sic. (I. xxiv. 25), Apollodorus (II. i. 3) and Hygin (145), Io was identical with Isis. All these Greek myths seem to prove, not that the worship of the cow-faced moon-goddess came into Argos from Egypt, but that, on the contrary, it was carried into Egypt from Mycenæ or Argos; and perhaps Egyptologists, by determining the period at which the worship of Isis began in Egypt, can give us an idea of the antiquity of the relations between that country and Mycenæ. In fact, the worship of the moon-goddess under the form of a cow could not have been brought from Egypt to Mycenæ, but necessarily must have been introduced from Mycenæ into Egypt, since Io was distinctly a Pelasgian goddess; she had a celebrated temple at Byzantium, and the legend even attributes the foundation of that city to her daughter Keroessa, also called "she who wears horns." The worship of Io seems to have been brought from Asia by the Pelasgians; at all events they introduced it at a very remote epoch into Argolis. I would note also that even in classic times the name of Io continued to be given to the moon in the religious mysteries of Argos, and that this name is purely Greek (see the note on Hera Boöpis at the end of Chapter I.).

In conclusion, let me call attention to the fact that in consequence of the discovery of a sixth tomb in the Agora of Mycenæ, after my departure, there has been an attempt to deny the identity of these tombs with those which the tradition reported by Pausanias points out as the burial-places of Agamemnon, Cassandra, Eurymedon, and their companions. But one need only re-read the famous passage of Pausanias (II. xvi. 6) to see that it does not clearly give the number of the tombs. It speaks distinctly of six; but one may admit that there were even more than six, and yet do no violence to Pausanias's text:—τάρος δὲ ἔστι μὲν ᾽Ατρέως, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ὅσους συν ᾽Αγαμέμνονι ἐπανήκοντας ἐξ ᾽Ιλίου δειπνίσας κατεφόνευσεν Αἴγισθος.

My esteemed friend, the celebrated Orientalist, M. Émile Burnouf, honorary director of the French school at Athens, writes to me:

"I do not think it would be difficult to prove that the tombs at Mycenæ are certainly those of the Pelopides; their position in the Acropolis and the quantity of precious objects with which they were filled show clearly that they are the burial-places of royal and not of private personages. The circular enclosure, built on a higher level than its surroundings, at a time when these princes had fairly become tutelary heroes, proves the same thing; it may have served as an agora, as the texts indicate; but it was certainly also a burial enclosure where sacrifices were celebrated in honor of the dead buried below. You have found traces of these national ceremonies. I do not think that the skeletons found can be considered the remains of members of dynasties earlier than the Pelopides; these have no historic character, and belong altogether to the mythology of the Aryan races. It may be objected that a very considerable part of the legend of the Pelopides is itself mythological; but this is common to all the prehistoric dynasties of the Aryan peoples—dynasties whose real existence is nevertheless not contested by any scholar. Besides, this particular one actually touched the historic period; for it was brought to an end by the Dorian invasion, the date of which can be very closely approximated.

"You ask me also my opinion with regard to the objects found by you at Mycenæ. There are several categories of these, which it would be unwise to confuse and consider as one—for they bear marks of different origins. It is impossible to mistake the Assyrian or Assyrio-Babylonian character of the gold objects which your fine excavations have brought to light in such great numbers. These ornaments are identical with those which we see on the Assyrian carvings in the museums of London and Paris; they have no resemblances to Egyptian jewelry. Two among them are characteristic, and may give rise to important discussions,—these are the two golden signet rings which you have published as figures 530 and 531. The seal of the first represents a religious ceremony, that of the plucking of the sacred plant: everything is Assyrian; the sun, with the crescent moon and the waters of heaven, the six days, the tree, the costume of the persons represented. The second is a kind of Asiatic hieroglyph, such as is often met with on the cylinders and carved stones of the countries along the Euphrates and the Tigris; it relates, beyond doubt, to some event which happened during the first of the great months of the year—that is to say, after the vernal equinox; the object at the left seems to indicate that it refers to some agricultural operation—reaping or sowing. However this may be, these two signets seem to me to have come to Mycenæ from an Asiatic country—perhaps from the banks of the Euphrates or Tigris.

"I can tell you nothing in regard to the mass of fragments of pottery which you have taken from the excavations. They have a great resemblance to those found on all the shores of the Mediterranean. Their origin is now attributed to the commerce of the Phœnicians, or, more exactly, of the Sidonians; but perhaps there is some exaggeration in this. It is not probable that Sidon furnished all the pottery of the Mediterranean; and the character of the clay used by its manufacturers varied in different places; but the process of manufacture is nearly the same, and the character of the ornamentation changes but little. One is thus led to believe that the potter's art first came to the Mediterranean from the East, but that it was almost everywhere established in local factories at a very early period.

"The idols and cows, found in such numbers by you in the ruins of Mycenæ are, evidently, of local origin. If these rude statuettes had been Phœnician, and had represented Astoreth, it would not have been Hera, but Aphrodite, who would have been the principal goddess of Argolis; there would have been not a Heræum, but an Aphrodisium. Moreover, the coiffure of many of the Mycenæan idols characterized Hera all through the succeeding centuries; and, as you very rightly note, the form of the crescent in others indicates that ancient goddess of the moon, who bore the name of Io, and who was, au fond, identical with Hera. I should say the same of the terra-cotta cows; it is a manifest error to identify them with the Egyptian bull. The museums of Europe contain a great number of specimens of the Apis; they have very distinct forms and characteristics which are not wanting in a single case;—such are especially the three large black spots on the crupper, the back, and the hinder part of the body. The Mycenæan cows are more often yellow, striped with red. It is true that they have no udders; but neither have they the male organs.

"Apropos of this, permit me to correct an error which has fairly become classic; the words βοῦς and bos of Greek and Latin mythology are almost always translated ox; but they are generally feminine in the classic authors, and mean cow—the cows of the sun-god, the cows stolen by Cacus—abstractæque boves, abjuratæque rapinæ; and we know also the great supreme cow of the Indian hymns—i. e., the heavens considered as the source of cosmic life, and identical with the Hera of Greek tradition. I would call your attention to the fact that the ancient agricultural peoples of Asia and Europe did not raise oxen, but cows; that they yoked bulls to the plough; and that the ox was almost never used among them. Thus the absence of sex in the Mycenæan terra-cottas leaves only the choice between bulls and cows; while religious tradition, as well as the epithet βοῶπις, constantly point out the cow as the symbol of Juno. It is this goddess, therefore, who is meant by the terra-cotta images. And as you have found them in great numbers in your excavations, this is a new proof of the importance given in Argolis to that divinity. These conclusions are moreover in perfect agreement with the Homeric texts and with the religious traditions of all Greek antiquity. I may add that they come to the support of the often-combated assertion, that the Trojan idols were meant to signify Athena Glaukopis. The Mycenæan cow and the Trojan owl are two facts of the same order, which occupy corresponding places in Greek mythology, and relate to the same epoch of linguistic development in the religious symbolism of antiquity."

M. Burnouf also informs me that he has sent to the Révue des deux Mondes an extended article on the excavations at Mycenæ.

On the discovery of the Treasures of the Royal Sepulchres, I had the honour of addressing a telegram to His Majesty, the King of the Hellenes, which I insert here, with His Majesty's gracious reply:

"A SA MAJESTÉ LE ROI GEORGE DES HELLÈNES, ATHÈNES.

"Avec une extrême joie j'annonce à Votre Majesté que j'ai découvert les tombeaux que la tradition, dont Pausanias se fait l'écho, désignait comme les sépulcres d'Agamemnon, de Cassandra, d'Eurymédon et de leurs camarades, tous tués pendant le repas par Clytemnestre et son amant Egisthe. Ils étaient entourés d'un double cercle parallèle de plaques, qui ne peut avoir été érigé qu'en honneur des dits grands personnages. J'ai trouvé dans les sépulcres des trésors immenses en fait d'objets archaïques en or pur. Ces trésors suffisent à eux seuls à remplir un grand musée, qui sera le plus merveilleux du monde, et qui, pendant des siècles à venir, attirera en Grèce des milliers d'étrangers de tous les pays. Comme je travaille par pur amour pour la science, je n'ai naturellement aucune prétention à ces trésors, que je donne, avec un vif enthousiasme, intacts à la Grèce. Que Dieu veuille que ces trésors deviennent la pierre angulaire d'une immense richesse nationale!
"HENRY SCHLIEMANN.

"MYCÈNES, 16 (28) Novembre 1876."

His Majesty's Reply:—

"MONSIEUR LE DOCTEUR SCHLIEMANN, ARGOS.

"J'ai l'honneur de vous annoncer que Sa Majesté le Roi, ayant reçu votre dépêche, a daigné me charger de vous remercier de votre zèle et amour pour la science, et de vous féliciter de vos importantes découvertes, et Sa Majesté espère que vos efforts seront toujours couronnés d'aussi heureux succès.

"Le Secrétaire de S.M. Hellénique,
"A. CALINSKIS."

I cannot conclude without mentioning the names of my esteemed friends, Professor Euthymios Castorches, Professor Stephanos Coumanoudes, and Professor Kokkides, of Athens, and thanking them here publicly for all the kindness they have shown me during the time of my toilsome excavations at Mycenæ.

I also deem it my agreeable duty to thank here publicly my excellent engineer, the sagacious Lieutenant Vasilios Drosinos, for his scrupulous care and attention in making all the plans of Mycenæ, as well as for the great service he has rendered to archæology by promptly indicating to the government clerk the tomb which he had discovered in my excavations, so that its contents could be saved for science.

I further fulfil an agreeable duty in warmly recommending to all visitors to Athens the most excellent photographers, Messrs. Romaïdes Brothers, from whose wonderful photographs all the engravings of this work have been made;[409] in fact, I do not exaggerate if I assure the reader that their photographs can hardly ever be excelled.