Tombs in Greece.
Now this argument is greatly reinforced if we can shew that the same connection of period exists on the other side. At Ialysos in Rhodes a tomb with Aegean pottery contained a scarab of Amenhotep III. At Mykenae, grave No. 49 contained also glazed ware of Amenhotep III. At Enkomi in Cyprus in grave 93 a scarab of Queen Thyi was found with Aegean pottery. And from the same cemetery comes a metal ring of her son Amenhotep IV. These cases therefore connect one period of the Aegean remains with the Egyptian reigns from 1414 to 1365 B.C. If on one hand it might be supposed that the single Greek objects in Egyptian tombs were older than the time of their burial, here on the other hand the possibility is reversed, and the single Egyptian objects in Greece could only be older and not later than the group with which they were buried. As on both sides the dating is the same—the latter part of the XVIIIth Dynasty—it shows that in both countries the groups contained objects of contemporary date. If we were to further refine on the question, and enquire whether the differences of date of the reigns in Egypt correspond to equal differences in Greece, we are met by the lack of all relative dating yet assignable to the Greek tombs; on that side we have only a vague statement of “Mykenaean period,” or some such generality; and it is therefore only that period in general that we can assign to the XVIIIth–XIXth Dynasty in Egypt.
Variation with date.
We may, however, see a little further into detail on the Egyptian side by observing how the stirrup vases vary in form and work. At Naqada, probably under Tahutmes III, was a globular form, with simple broad bands, and dull face. At Gurob under Amenhotep III the vases have more broad bands and a polished face ([Fig. 59]). Under Tutankhamen there were fine lines appearing between the bands. Under Ramessu II the form is coarser. And under Sety II is only a coarse unpainted imitation. Lastly, under Ramessu VI at Tell el Yehudiyeh were some rude debased copies. Here the relative style of the vases agrees with the varying date of the objects found with each; and hence we are justified in not only placing one general period in Greece as contemporary with another period in Egypt, but also in connecting the varied forms with the reigns which are named with them. The evidence which we gain from the mere general admixture, without any proof of the objects originating in the generation by which they were buried, is here further carried on into evidence for the exact age of each type by the sequence of style agreeing to the sequence of the dated objects.
Fig. 59.—False-necked vases from Egypt.
| XVIIIth Dyn. Amenhotep III. Tutankhamen. | XIXth Dyn. Ramessu II. Sety II. | XXth Dyn. Ramessu III. Ramessu VI. |
Style.
We now turn to a question of style alone. In grave 93 at Enkomi was found a gold collar of Egyptian work with nine different patterns in it; of these, eight are well known as designs of the time of Amenhotep IV, and the ninth is a variant of such. As these designs are not known in such forms at a century later or earlier, this collar cannot have been made far from 1400 B.C.; and as it is of slight and tender fabric it cannot have long been in use. Hence the date of its burial and of the tomb must be in the fourteenth century B.C. Of other examples of style, which may be quoted as important, is a great group of blue glazed ware of the same form, colour, and designs, as the vases of Ramessu II, but found in grave 66 at Enkomi; a gold pin, with a hole in the middle, of the XVIIIth–XIXth Dynasty found at Gurob, like one from grave 66 at Enkomi; a group of bronze vases with lotus handles found in the Idaean cave in Crete, exactly of the fabric of those of the XVIIIth–XIXth Dynasty; a figure of a swimming girl holding a dish, carved in bone, from the Idaean cave, a favourite design in the XVIIIth Dynasty; and some other instances of similar style, ornament, and processes, which need hardly reinforce the general argument.
Recapitulation.