L'Arte della Grecia

Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Paolo E. Arias
1969 American Journal of Archaeology  
Ridgway, Brunilde S. 1969. Review of L'arte della Grecia, by Paolo E. Arias. American Journal of Archaeology 73:85-86. 1969] BOOK REVIEWS 85 rated with vertical murex shells, and some small decorated stirrup vases (Sh. 65c and d, especially nos. 411, 412, 809, figs. 391-92). Of the last, especially, one wishes that all had been illustrated in the larger drawings accorded some less interesting specimens (figs. 393-94), since they ought to make possible some correlation of the date of destruction
more » ... date of destruction with one of the three destructions now postulated for Mycenae (cf. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans, 73-74). Blegen believes the latest pottery belongs to the period of transition "when pottery of Myc. III C was beginning to be made and to displace the wares of III B" (p. 421), but one may ask whether there is any indubitable III C ware at Pylos. Of the krater bowls no. 576 has an open pattern; nos. 813, 862, and 115o have simple panel patterns not later than Myc. III B:2; only nos. 593 and 808 have the antithetic spiral loops which begin in III B but continue as an important feature of III C:I. The dark-glazed kraters, nos. 594, 677, 1172, are suggestive of the Granary class, but ought not to be so described, since they are local in style and not exactly matched either in shape or decoration in the material from the Granary at Mycenae. More significant for dating purposes is the absence of the Close style, which at Mycenae wvas the immediate successor of the latest III B (being found in the Granary but not in the Citadel House). The nearest approach to the Close style is the curious tripod jar (Sh. 68, figs. 395-96) , which ought to be an import from the Argolid (or the Dodecanese?). Thus, the relative date of destruction appears to be somewhat later than that of the Citadel House at Mycenae, but considerably earlier than the burning of the Granary. The end of Myc. III B, or about 1200 B.c., proposed by Blegen, and followed by Desborough and Alin, cannot be far wrong. Having determined the date, one may well ask who caused the destruction, and for what reason, since the despoilers did not remain to inhabit the palace. Blegen, following the ancient Greek tradition, wishes to connect the destruction with the Descent of the Herakleidai, or the Dorian Invasion, which according to that tradition took place two generations after the Trojan War; and since he dates the destruction of Troy VIIa to the mid-i3th century, there is time enough for Nestor to return to Pylos and be followed on the throne by two successors before the palace went up in flames. Other scholars have proposed different theories: a piratical raid (Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, 227), a sack of the palace stores by commoners driven by famine (Carpenter, Discontinuity in Greek Civilization, 52-53), or an invasion of people who did not stay but were subsequently followed by the Dorians (Desborough, op.cit., 224-25). All we know for certain is that at
doi:10.2307/503386 fatcat:goxpgu36svgzfhdws5bnla3cjq