Mycenaean pottery has been found on a very large number of sites throughout the Mediterranean. The most productive have been Mycenae, Crete, and Cyprus, especially the cemetery at Enkomi in the latter island. Other Cypriote centres are Curium, Agia Paraskevi near Nicosia, Maroni, and the neighbourhood of Dali and Larnaka (see p. [66]). In Attica the Acropolis of Athens and the beehive tombs of Spata and Menidi have been most fruitful, and finds have been made at Haliki and elsewhere. In the Peloponnese the chief site is Tiryns, and many fragments have also been found at Nauplia; in Central Greece several sites in Boeotia, such as Orchomenos, may be mentioned. Of the Aegean islands, Rhodes and Melos are most conspicuous, especially the sites of Ialysos in the former island, Phylakopi in the latter. In Asia Minor, Mycenaean remains are rare, except at Troy, but in Egypt there is ample evidence of a close commercial relation, as in the finds at Tell-el-Amarna, in the Fayûm, and elsewhere. In the Western Mediterranean, Syracuse has yielded numerous fragments, and occasional finds have been made in Italy.[[924]]
Having reviewed the extent of Mycenaean influence, the next question we must consider is which, if any, was the centre whence this pottery was exported. It had been for some time observed that the early varieties of Thera, and those of Crete and Cyprus (v. supra), showed strong indications of local origin; but on the whole the Mycenaean pottery proper is remarkably uniform and homogeneous. It is perhaps possible to detect technical differences between the pottery, e.g., of Athens and Rhodes, but they may be only differences of date rather than fabric. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke regarded Argolis as the centre of manufacture, at least for the later lustrous varieties[[925]]; Pottier, on the other hand, writing before the recent discoveries, thought that Crete was, after Thera, the original centre, and Argolis only subsequently, the pottery of Rhodes lying midway between. In the light of the Cretan discoveries it is now possible largely to disregard previous theories. We have seen that Mycenaean pottery found in Crete has a pedigree which no other region can claim, and that it can only have a local origin. We have also seen that the Cretan supremacy came to an end about 1500 B.C., and that, though the pottery may have continued to be made in the island, it ceased to be an exclusive centre, and for the remainder of the Mycenaean Age the art, learned in Crete, spread to other Aegean centres—Mycenae, Rhodes, and Cyprus.
A far more difficult question to decide is the ethnographical one, together with the consideration of the relation of the Mycenaean civilisation to others in which the same decoration appears (as in the case of the spiral). One point seems to be abundantly clear, viz. that Mycenaean decoration owes nothing to Oriental influences. That there was a close relation with the East has already been indicated, and is much more apparent in other forms of Mycenaean art; but no student of this art in general can doubt that it is, as has been pointed out, purely spontaneous and unique, the art of a people of genuine artistic genius. Among the art of ancient races it stands alone in this respect, that of Egypt and Assyria, its only prominent rivals, being always essentially conventional; and herein lies its special distinction.
That the Mycenaeans were a maritime people admits of no doubt. It is shown by the position of their chief centres, by the evidence of their extensive commercial relations, and, as far as concerns their pottery, pre-eminently by the subjects which form the staple decoration. Hence of late years an attempt has been made to substitute for “Mycenaean” the more comprehensive term “Aegean,” and there is much to be said in its favour. As regards the actual ethnographical position of the race, Quot homines, tot sententiae, may almost be said. They have been identified with the Achaeans, the Pelasgians, the Phoenicians, the Carians, and as combinations of Phrygians with Cretans, of Phoenicians with Greeks of Asia Minor.[[926]] But few of these terms have real historical value, and such identifications do not really advance the solution of the question.
A more real ground of battle is that afforded by the question of date, though on this point scholars now show a greater tendency to fall into line, and a period culminating in the years 1400 to 1100 or 1000 B.C. is now very generally accepted.[[927]] The question necessarily turns largely on the evidence afforded by Crete and Egypt, and so far as this is trustworthy it all points in the same direction. But it would be beyond the scope of a work of this kind to do more than briefly summarise the general results of archaeological criticism.
An interesting study of Mycenaean ornamentation has been made by Dr. Riegl,[[928]] who deals generally with the principles underlying its vegetable motives, and points out that here we first meet with scrolls or continuous bands of foliage applied to a decorative purpose. These motives are peculiar to Greek art, and in Mycenaean design their origin is to be sought. In this way we may regard it as the immediate forerunner of Hellenic art, although its development was temporarily arrested by the Dorian invasion, just as the people who produced it formed the basis of the Hellenic race. The naturalism of Mycenaean ornament, which is seen both in continuous and in isolated patterns, is in marked contrast to the convention of Egypt, where the same motives may be in use. It is not, in short, the motive, but its treatment, which shows the independence of Mycenaean art. There are, again, other patterns, such as the spiral, which cannot be traced in Oriental art, and seem to be purely original, at least as far as concerns the Eastern Mediterranean.
Another recent writer, Dr. S. Wide, has noticed that where Mycenaean influence was originally strongest, as in Crete and Rhodes, there its characteristics were most strongly impressed upon the art of the succeeding period, and he is inclined to place the centre of the fabric in these islands or on the coast of the adjoining continent of Asia. At all events the Mycenaean influence shows itself more in the pottery of the islands than it does in Attica; and, in Crete and Rhodes in particular, instances have been found of undoubted survivals of typical Mycenaean ornaments in later pottery.[[929]]
[820]. See Cyprus Mus. Cat. p. 14.
[821]. Cf. Perrot, Hist. de l’Art, iii. figs. 487–93.