Αυτή είναι η έκδοση html του αρχείου http://www.antiquity.cc/Ant/050/0040/Ant0500040.pdf.Το G o o g l e δημιουργεί αυτόματα εκδόσεις html των εγγράφων καθώς περιηγείστε στον παγκόσμιο ιστό.

Page 1ANTIQUITY, L, 1976

The end of the Greek Bronze AgePHILIP P. BETANCOURT

Philip Betancourt is Associate Professor of Art History at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he specializes in the pre-Classicalperiods of the Aegean. He has excavated in both Greece and Italy, and is at present field director of the excavations at Castelliere di S. Fedele, near Siena. He is the author of ‘The Aeolic Style in Architecture’ now being printed by the Princeton University Press. Here he asks the question whether the end of the Greek Bronze Age was due to a local cause.Many scholars have examined the changes thatoccurred in Greek life around the twelfthcentury BC. After a period of great prosperityduring Late Helladic 111 B, there followed anera of war, uncertainty, and cultural disinte-gration that was part of a general upheavalextending from Italy to the Near East. InGreece the disruption was especially pro-nounced, and many areas were left relativelyunpopulated. T h e ensuing ‘Dark Age’ witnessedthe birth of a profoundly different society.The movements of population within theMycenaean sphere of influence were extremelycomplicated. There were destructions at mostof the major centres at the end of LH I11 B,and many sites were abandoned during LH I11C (&in, 1962; Mylonas, 1966, 218 ff.; Des-borough, 1964, 1972; Hope Simpson,1965 ; Snodgrass, 1971). Fairly up-to-datestatistics (Desborough, 1972, 19-20) show thefollowing figures : in the south-west Pelopon-nese, a drop from about 150 to 14 sites; inLaconia from 30 to 7; in the Argolid andCorinthia from 44 to 14; in Attica from 24 to 12;in Boeotia from 27 to 3; in Phocis and Locrisfrom 19 to 5. On the other hand, the abandon-ment was not absolute. Excavations at Mycenae(Mylonas, 1968a, 1970, 1971) and Asine(Frodin and Persson, 1938; Styrenius andVidCn, 1971) have revealed a considerablerecovery during LH I11 C ; substantial con-tinuity can also be traced at Salamis (Wide,1910; Styrenius, 1962), at Perati (Iakovides,

1969-70) and elsewhere in Attica (Desborough,1964, I 12-1 19; 1972, 363-4; Sourvinou-Inwood, 1974), in Thessaly at several sites(Desborough, 1972, 368-9), especially Iolkos(Theochares, 1961), in several of the Greekislands (Desborough, 1972, 370-1), particularlyNaxos (Kondoleon, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1969),Kos (Morricone, 1965-6), and Rhodes (Maiuri,1923-4; Jacopi, 1930-I), at Lefkandi inEuboea (Popham and Sackett, 1968; Themelis,1969), and at a number of other places where theevidence is not conclusive or is not yet wellpublished (&in, 1962; Desborough, 1964,1972, 361ff.; Hope Simpson, 1965). Thesesites declined considerably during the course ofLH I11 C, and the larger number of localpottery styles (as opposed to the Koine ofLH I11 B) suggests a breakdown in communi-cation. In some areas, as in Messenia(McDonald and Hope Simpson, 1972, 142-3;Tegyey, 1974), depopulation during LH 111 Cseems to have been almost total. Elsewhere, likeAchaia (for reference see Desborough, 1972,375) and the island of Kephallenia off the westcoast of Greece (Kyparisses, 1919; Marinatos,1932, 1933), there was evidently an actualincrease in population, presumably fromrefugees. Many groups emigrated to the Eastas well where they settled in Cyprus andelsewhere.T h e traditional explanation (Herodotus, 9.26;Thucydides, I.IZ), which still has manyproponents, attributes the collapse to theDorian migrations. One variation would see allof the Greeks arriving at this time (for reference

Page 2see Snodgrass, 1971, 353 n. 9), and anotherwould suggest the invasion of a NorthernEuropean but non-Greek people (Sandars,1964; Bouzek, 1974). Yet there is little evidencefor a take-over by invaders in LH I11 C. Asseveral scholars have noted (for recent analysessee Desborough, 1972, 15 ff.; Snodgrass, 1971,305 ff., 1974), an invasion can only be suggestedif one assumes the invaders, even though com-pletely victorious, withdrew immediately fromthe conquered territory. A possible alternativeis the view suggested by Snodgrass (1971, 312)that the Dorians were completely indistinguish-able culturally from the Mycenaeans. It is

difficult to see, however, how the subsequentdepopulation would then be explained. Tocomplicate the theory of invasion still further,it has been pointed out that ‘refugees’ from thePeloponnese apparently moved in the directionfrom which future attacks from the north wouldhave come, whether they came by sea (i.e. toKephallenia in the northwest and the Cycladesin the east) or by land (i.e. to Achaia in thenorth-west and to Attica in the northeast)(Carpenter, 1966, 38 ff.). In addition, thepattern of coastal, not inland, destructions lookto many like the work of naval powers ratherthan nomads from the north.In response to these problems, some writers(see the discussion of Finley, 1970, 58 ff.) haveargued in favour of a foreign invasion, distinctfrom that of the Dorians, perhaps of elementsfrom the same ‘Sea Peoples’ who attackedEgypt in the reigns of Merneptah and Rameses111. Yet many of the same objections raisedagainst the Dorians apply here also. Except forone class of domestic pottery (Rutter, 1975)and for a few bronzes of disputed ancestry,either local (Snodgrass, 1974) or northern(Bouzek, 1974), no new elements appear inGreeceat this time, and some of the MycenaeansAed to the East, toward the most disturbedareas.Another theory, proposed by Rhys Carpenter(1966), has suggested a change in climate madeGreece too dry for successful agriculture (forfavourable evidence from Anatolia see Kuni-holm, 1974). The situation is possible as far asweather patterns are concerned (Lamb, 1967;Bryson, Lamb and Donley, 1974), but it fails toexplain all the population movements withinGreece itself (Dickinson and Bryson, 1974).Why, for example, did the Argolid enjoy morerecovery (Styrenius, 1967, 127 ff,; Desborough,1972,161 ff. and 364-5; Mylonas, 1968a, 1970,1971; Frodin and Persson, 1938; Styrenius andVidCn, 1971) than Messenia (McDonald andHope Simpson, 1972, 142-3) where thereshould have been much more moisture in thistype of weather pattern (Bryson, Lamb andDonley, 1974, fig. I) and where the preliminaryevidence does in fact indicate no major changein climate (Loy and Wright, 1972, 40; Wright,1968; 1972; McDonald and Rapp, 1972)?An additional possibility has been raised byPomerance (1970, 1971), who has proposed a

c. 1200 BC date for the volcanic eruption ofThera. Objections to the theory include thefact that a few coastal sites, as in the Cyclades,show continuity between L H I11 B and LH XI1C, while several inland settlements weredestroyed (Biers, 1971 ; Warren, 1973). Inaddition, the first collations between thetephra deposits and the archaeological recordsuggest an earlier date for the eruption, in LateMinoan I (Cadogan, Harrison and Strong,1972; Rapp and Cooke, 1973; Rapp, Cooke andHenrickson, 1973; Vitaliano, 1974: againstwhich see Pomerance, 1975).Other theories (for discussions see McDonald,1967,414-16; Snodgrass, 1971,304-13) includethe possibility of an epidemic or plague (butthere are no mass burials), the problem oferosion (which is not confirmed by pollenstudies), and a disruption of trade with theEast (which would not explain the destructionsin Greece). Uprisings by slaves or other ele-ments in the population would be difficult inthe face of the rich and well-armed govern-ments revealed by the tablets, and they do notexplain the desertion of so many sites bothlarge and small. Earthquakes arecommon in theancient world but do not normally cause theextreme destructions associated with thisperiod. A change to a cooler and wetter ratherthan to a warmer climate has also been sug-gested, but the change would have been a verygradual one (discussion in Snodgrass, 1971,THE END OF THE GREEK BRONZE AGE41

Page 3309-10) which would not have caused thesudden results visible in the evidence.Because it would seem no single theory canexplain all the known facts, several writers havesuggested many separate causes were involved,with war playing a major role (discussionsinclude Vermeule, 1964, 269 ff.; Mylonas,1966, 226 ff.; 1968b, 28-30; Betancourt, 1969,2-3). Yet the problem remains that the econo-mic collapse in southern Greece was far morecomplete than one usually expects from war-fare, and the subsequent depopulation stillrequires explanation. Many questions remainunanswered.It is here suggested that some of the answers

to these questions may lie in the nature of theMycenaean economy and in the ways in whichit was or was not prepared to meet a disruptivechallenge. Clues to the economic situation andthe foundations on which it rested are onlygenerally known, but outlines are graduallyemerging from a variety of sources, includingthe archaeological remains, the Linear Btablets, and evidence from pollen analyses,geology, land-use patterns, and other studies.The information from many disciplines mustbe collated and balanced because only byobserving the larger picture can a properestimate be made.Archaeology provides much evidence forprosperity and increase in population duringLH I11 B. New settlements, new buildingoperations, new houses including some out-side the citadels, and many overseas coloniesattest easily to the prosperity of the times.One is fortunate in an investigation like thepresent one because the most thoroughlydocumented and studied region in this regardis Messenia, and this area was also one of themost severely affected during the period inquestion. A case in point is the bureaucracy,now revealed in somewhat sketchy outline by theLinear B tablets (general studies includePalmer, 1963,1965; Heubeck, 1966; Wundsam,1968; Chadwick, 1970, 1972; Ventris andChadwick, 1973). The bureaucracy is knownmost fully from Pylos where the administrationwas apparently organized on a geographic basis(Finley, 1957; Palmer, 1963, 65-77; Chadwick,ANTIQUITY421963, 1972, 1973; Shelmerdine, 1973; Ventrisand Chadwick, 1973, 142-5 and 415-17). Thetablets paint a picture of a king (the Wanax)with a considerable economic power over hisdomain. Royal holdings were efficiently ad-ministered by professional overseers, a systemsurely duplicated in miniature by lesser powerswe know little about, and the success of thesystem may perhaps be judged by the pros-perity it brought to Greece. Yet any land cansupport only a finite number of persons usingBronze Age agricultural methods. Given an un-checked birth rate and a stable economy, theremust inevitably come a time when the popu-lation will outstrip the capability of the landto support it. The parallel events in Greece

itself during the late Geometric and Archaicperiods are so well known they require littlecomment; population increased at such analarming rate many communities were forcedto send their young men abroad as colonists,sometimes against their will. The widespreadpattern of overseas expansion in LH I11 A-B(Stubbings, 1951; Taylour, 1958) may or maynot suggest a similar situation, but certainlyGreece as a whole was supporting a far largerpopulation than it could have without theefficient marshalling of resources by theMycenaean kingdoms. The population peakwas in LH I11 B, just before the destructions.The available evidence permits a tentativeestimate of population only for Messenia.Although a maximum of 170,000 to 300,000people could theoretically be supported in thisregion with optimum land use (Van Wersh,1972, 186)~ it is unlikely Bronze Age farmerscould produce anywhere near this amount offood. From the archaeological remains, aminimum figure of 50,000 has been inferred forLH I11 B (McDonald and Simpson, 1972,141).but this is based on an analysis of known sitesonly, and the figures should surely be pushedsomewhat higher, though probably not overIOO,OOO (McDonald and Rapp, 1972, 256).From the tablets, an estimate of 80,000 toIZO,OOO has been proposed (Chadwick, 1972,I 12-13). Interestingly, this figure corres-ponds very closely with an estimate of themaximum population in Classical times,

Page 4THE END OF THE GREEK BRONZE AGE112,500 (Roebuck, 1945, 162-3). While thelarger land capability implies there may havebeen a surplus of food to use for export duringthe Late Bronze Age, this is still an extremelylarge population. It must have presented a pre-carious situation if there was crop failure,especially if Messenia was helping to feedother parts of Greece as well.Cereals, particularly wheat and barley, wereclearly major staples in Bronze Age Greece.They were raised extensively, disbursed asrations by the palaces, and (by one widelyaccepted interpretation of the tablets) evenused as a measure of land (i.e. the amount ofseed required for a plot afforded an indication

of size and productivity). In Messenia (VanWersh, 1972; Chadwick, 1972, 114-15) therewas surely enough surplus for export. We knowless about the productivity of other areas,but we may assume grain was planted exten-sively where soil and climate were favourable.The archaeological remains of fruits andvegetables are very scanty, but they hint at aconsiderable variety in the diet with thecultivation of beans, lentils, peas, vetches,figs, pears, and several other crops (Vickery,1936, 50-1; Howe, 1958, 51). More indirectevidence like linguistic etymologies, referencesin the Homeric epics, and artistic ornamentscan expand the list even more, with theaddition of apples, pomegranates, parsnips,and other items. Both the tablets and thearchaeological record attest to grape production.Olives were also raised in quantity (Bennett,1958; Ilievski, 1963) though there are indi-cations they were not as important as theywould be in later times. At Osmanaga Lagoonin Messenia, the peak of olive pollen occursduring the ‘Dark Age’ after a very low per-centage during LH I11 B (Wright, 1972,195-6). Apparently in this locale, at least, theolive did not become a major crop until after theMycenaean period was over. Figs were raisedat Pylos, as was flax (Chadwick, 1972, IIS),which was used for both linen and linseed (un-less the Na series of tablets refers to some othercommodity, Palmer, 1963, 306-13). Fruits andvegetables could have formed a significant partof the diet. Howe has even suggested they wereperhaps more important than grain (Howe,1958, 54), but this view seems to be deniedby the evidence from the tablets. Whatever theearlier picture, the expanded population duringLH I11 B must have made cereals into animportant crop.In turn, agriculture supported many in-dustries engaged in the processing of naturalproducts. Flax implies the making of linencloth. Grapes supported a wine-making in-dustry, and an olive oil base was used forperfumes and ointments. Once processed,the commodities needed to be stored, shipped,and marketed, which required additional per-sonnel. One can thus assume a relatively largepercentage of the population was being suppor-ted by agriculture either directly or indirectly,through an economic network managed by the

palaces.T h e evidence for livestock is widespread andextensive. The organization of the flocks ofsheep is best known from Knossos (Killen,1964, 1968-9; Young, 1965, 1969) where thetablets recorded large flocks, principally ofcastrated males, raised for wool. Other live-stock included goats, cattle, horses, and swine(Vickery, 1936, 61-73; Howe, 1958, 54;Palmer, 1963, 164-85; Lang, 1966a). Meat wassurely a major staple, and, like the agriculture,animal husbandry must have supported manysatellite industries like spinning, weaving,tanning, leather working, and the making ofcheese.Much less evidence exists for the exploitationof naturally occurring resources. At least alittle hunting is implied by the mention of deeron the tablets. There are also many referencesto hunting in art and in the epics of Homer(Wace and Stubbings, 1962, 5267; Vermeule,1964, 318-19), but it is difficult to distinguishbetween hunting for sport and for economiclivelihood from this type of evidence. Surelyby the end of the Bronze Age the populationwas too large for wild game to do more thanaugment a diet drawn largely from othersources. The tablets also briefly mentionlumbering (Chadwick, 1972, 115; Ventris andChadwick, 1973, 123 and 350), but its extentis not known. In Messenia the pine forests43

Page 5ANTIQUITYhad been cut down during MH times andonly oak remained in the Late Bronze Age(Wright, 1972). The inland kingdoms probablydid not fish as much as one may assume forcoastal or island communities. Greece is as poorin metallic ores as it is in precious stones andother types of mineral wealth.There is, however, extensive evidence formetalworking in Mycenaean Greece (thearchaeological evidence is well known; for thetablets see Lejeune, 1961 ; RuipCrez, 1963;Palmer, 1963, 279-89; Pugliese Carratelli,1963; Geiss, 1964; Lang, 1966b; Ventris andChadwick, 1973, 352-9 and 508 ff.). The basicmetals were undoubtedly imported. This isclear on geological grounds (Cooke, Henrick-

son, and Rapp, 1972), and it is substantiated byphilology (Muhly, 1973, 171-9 and 2407) andby the absence of references in the tablets tomines or mining. Since the metal-workingindustry could be maintained only as long asadequate supplies of raw materials andconcomitant trade relations to dispose of thefinished goods were maintained, it would cometo an end with any major breakdown in trade.Little can be said of other industries. Es-pecially in regard to craftwork, which figures soprominently in the archaeological picture, theimportance of a balanced view derived frommany types of evidence becomes crucial. Thetablets pay little attention to the actual pro-duction of craft items, and one may wonderif they played much role in the economy of thekingdoms as a whole. They were surely oflittle impact in comparison with agricultureor animal husbandry.While there was thus a considerable diversityin occupations, one must note the rathernarrow base on which the economy was founded.Subsistence crops like olives, nuts, or fruits,which require little care and produce for manyyears, seem to have been of less importancethan grain. Even less may be said for the ex-ploitation of continuing natural resources likemineral wealth, fish and other sea life, lumber,or herds of wild animals. Instead, the longperiod of prosperity and stability seems tohave encouraged the production of high-yieldcrops like wheat and barley, and the raisingof livestock, especially sheep. Mycenaeanindustry used raw materials that had to be care-fully raised or that were imported from abroad,and apparently foreign trade depended on thesame type of goods (Iakovides, 1970, 297).In fact, the Mycenaean economy (at leaston much of the Greek mainland) seems tohave been particularly subject to destruction.If an economy is based on the exploitation ofresources which are locally available for asubstantial period of time, it has the capabilityto withstand minor or even major temporarysetbacks and still survive as a viable economicunit. In other words, if buildings or cropsare destroyed, a community can best surviveif it has something like mining, fishing, lum-bering, or hunting to fall back on.The Mycenaean kingdoms seem to have beentoo specialized to react quickly to any economic

disaster. Too high a percentage of theiragriculture may have been based on just afew items, especially grain. Thus a failure inone crop could not be alleviated by goodharvests in others which would mature a littlelatter. If one adds the pressure of a rapidlyincreasing population, perhaps already approa-ching the size the land would support at theheight of the Classical period, the situationbegins to look threatening. The highly special-ized system could have held the seeds of its owncollapse.Thus a destruction or a series of cropfailures from any cause would not only haveeliminated much of the food supply for anentire year, it would also have seriously upsetthe industrial picture and the trade that de-pended on it. If the population was as large aspreliminary estimates indicate, the situationwould have spread to other areas very quickly.Local reaction would not have been uniform.Regions like Messenia that depended heavilyon one or two crops would have been thehardest hit, while more diversified economieswould have fared better. Attacks on neigh-bouring regions which still had food wouldhave been inevitable, with recovery difficult.Once the sheep and goats or the seed for thenext planting were eaten by a starving populaceor an angry enemy, the economy was ruined.44

Page 6An attack on a nearby town could bring tem-porary relief, but it would also displace addi-tional persons and add to the general disaster,disrupting trade and creating more havoc.The key may also have been the collapse ofthe central bureaucracies. The tablets showthe economic structure was directed andadministered by the palaces who efficiently co-ordinated the entire system. As Imre Tegyeyhas pointed out (1970, 1974), the centrality ofthe Pylian bureaucracy severely discouragedself-reliance in outlying areas. Without centralguidance, there may have been no way local,disorganized forces could have effected arecovery sufficient to feed the population thenliving in Greece. Flight to other areas couldhave been the only remaining alternative, withraids and coastal destructions the natural con-

sequence. It is this situation which may accountfor the new population elements visible at thistime in Kephallenia, in Cyprus, and elsewhere.In conclusion, it must be emphasized thatthis theory is not intended as an all-encom-passing explanation to supersede all other views.On the contrary, the writer holds the opinionthat no single factor can totally account for thecomplexity of the situation. It seems likely,however, that local economic circumstanceswould have played an important role in anysituation of this magnitude. Three basicfactors in the Mycenaean world-the greatlyexpanded population, the reliance on a centralbureaucracy, and the susceptibility to des-truction of much of the overly specializedeconomy-can only have aggravated an econo-mic depression in ways that would not havebeen so intense in most other parts of theMediterranean basin. Whether one choosesinvasion, local war, or natural disaster as thefirst step in the end of the Bronze Age, it ishere suggested an economic cause must beincluded as well.THE END OF THE GREEK BRONZE AGEBIB L I 0 GRAPHYXLIN, P. 1962. Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstattenuuf dem griechischen Festland (Lund).BENNETT, E. L. 1958. The Olive Oil Tablets of Pylos(Minos, Sup. 11, Salamanca).BETANCOURT,P. P. 1969. The Age of Homer,Expedition, XII, 2-14.BIERS, w. R. 1971. Review of Leon Pomerance: TheFinal Collapse of Santorini ( Thera) : 1400 BC or1200 BC? With addenda, The Classical WorldLXV, 26-7.BOUZEK, J. 1974. Bronze Age Greece and the Balkans:problems of migrations, in (eds.) R. A. Crosslandand A. Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations in theAegean (Park Ridge, New Jersey), 16977.BRYSON, R. A., H. H. LAMB and D. L. DONLEY. 1974.Drought and the decline of Mycenae, Antiquity,CADOGAN, G., R. K. HARRISON and G. E. STRONG. 1972.Volcanic glass shards in Late Minoan I Crete,Antiquity, XLVI, 310-13.CARPENTER, R. 1966. Discontinuity in Greek civilization(Cambridge).CHADWICK, J. 1963. The Two Provinces of Pylos,Minos, VII, 125-41.1970. The Decipherment of Linear B (Cambridge).1972. The Mycenaean Documents, in (eds.)

W. A. McDonald and G. R. Rapp, Jr., TheMinnesota Messenia Expedition (Minneapolis),100-16.XLVIII, 46-50.1973. The Geography of Further Pylos, AJALXXVII, 276-8.COOKE, s. R. B., E. HENRICKSON and G. R. RAPP, JR.I 972. Metallurgical and Geochemical Studies,in (eds.) W. A. McDonald and G. R. Rapp, Jr.,The Minnesota Messenia Expedition (Minnea-polis), 225-33.DESBOROUGH, v. R. $A. 1964. The Last Mycenueansand their Successors : An Archaeological Surveyc. 1200-c. 1000 BC (Oxford).1972. The Greek Dark Ages (London).DICKINSON, 0. and R. A. BRYSON. 1974. Drought andthe decline of Mycenae: some comments,Antiquity XLVIII, 228-30.FINLEY, M. I. 1957. The Mycenaean Tablets andEconomic History, Economic History Reviewx, 12-41.1970. Early Greece : The Bronze and Archaic Ages(New York).FRODIN, o., and A. w. PERSSON. 1938. Asine; Resultsof the Swedish Excavations I922-30 (Stockholm).GEISS, H. 1964. Some Remarks on PY Jn 725 andother Texts, in (ed.) E. L. Bennett, Jr., My-cenaean Studies (Madison), 27-35.HEUBECK, A. 1966. Aus der Welt der friigriechischenLineartufeln (Gottingen).HOPE SIMPSON, R. 1965. A) Gazetteer and Atlas ofMycenaean Sites (London).HOWE, T. P. 1958. Linear B and Hesiod's Bread-winners, Transactions of the American Philo-logical Association, LXXXIX, 44-65.45

Page 7ANTIQUITYIAKOVIDES, S. E. 196970. Perati, vols. 1-3 (Athens).1970. In Prehistory and Protohistory (Athens)268-302.ILIEVSKI, P. H. 1963. Two notes on the Fr-Tablets,Minos, VII 143-9.JACOPI, G. 1930-1. Nuovi scavi nella necropolirnicenea di Jalisso, Annuario della ScuolaArcheologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane inOriente, XIII-XIV, 253-345.KILLEN, J. T. 1964. The Wool Industry of Crete inthe Late Bronze Age, BSA, LIX, 1-15.1968-9. Minoan Woolgathering: A Reply, Kadmos

VII, 105-23, and VIIII, 23-38.KONDOLEON, N. M. 1958. Anaskaphai Naxou, Prak-tika tes en Athenais archaiologikes etaireias,228-9.1959. Anaskaphai Naxou, Praktika tes en Athenaisarchaiologikes etaireias, I 80-7.1960. Anaskaphai Naxou, Praktika tes en Athenaisarchaiologikes etaireias, 258-62.1969. Naxos, To Ergon tes archaiologikes etaireias,141-50.KUNIHOLM, P. I. 1974. Dendrochronology at Gordionand on the Anatolian Plateau, Summaries ofPapers, 76th General Meeting, ArchaeologicalInstitute of America, Chicago, Illinois (NewYork), 66.KYPARISSES, N. 1919. Kephalleniaka, Archaiologikondeltion, v, 83-122.LAMB, H. H. 1967. Review of Rhys Carpenter: Dis-continuity in Greek Civilization, Antiquity, XLI,233-4.LANG, M. 1966a. Cn flocks, in (eds.) L. R. Palmerand J. Chadwick, Proceedings of the CambridgeColloquium on Mycenaean Studies (Cambridge),1966b. Jn Formulas and groups, Hesperia, XXXV,LEJEWNE, M. 1961. Les forgerons de Pylos, Historia,X, 409-34.'LOY, w. G. and H. E. WRIGHT, JR. 1972. The PhysicalSetting, in (eds.) W. A. McDonald and G. R.Rapp, Jr. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition(Minneapolis), 36-46.MAIURI, A. 1923-4. Jalisos-Scavi della MissioneArcheologica Italiana a Rodi, Annuario della R.Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle MissioniItaliane in On'ente, VI-VII, 83-341.MARINATOS, SP. 1932. Ai anaskaphai Goekoop enKephallenia, Archaiologike ephemeris, 1-47.1933. Ai en Kephallenia anaskaphai Goekoop 2,Archaiologike ephemeris, 68-100.MCDONALD, w. A. 1967. Progress into the Past: TheRediscovery of Mycenaean Civilization (NewYork and London).MCDONALD, w. A. and R. HOPE SIMPSON. 1972.Archaeological Exploration, in (eds.) W. A.McDonald and G. R. Rapp, Jr., The MinnesotaMessenia Expedition (Minneapolis), I I 7-47.250-9-397-412.MCDONALD, w. A., and G. R. RAPP, JR. 1972. Perspec-tives, in (eds.) W. A. McDonald and G. R.Rapp, Jr., The Minnesota Messenia Expedition(Minneapolis), 240-61.

MORRICONE, L. 1965-6. Eleona e Langada: Sepolcretidella tarda Eta del Bronzo a Coo, Annuario dellaScuola Archeologica di Atene e delle MksioniItaliane in Oriente, XXVII-XXVIII, 5-31 I .MUHLY, J. D. 1973. Copper and Tin: The Distribu-tion of Mineral Resources and the Nature ofthe Metals Trade in the Bronze Age. Trans-actions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts andSciences, XLIII (New Haven), 155-535.MYLONAS, G. E. 1966. Mycenae and the MycenaeanAge (Princeton).1968a. Mykenai, To Ergon tes archaiologikesetaireias, 5-12.1968b. Mycenae's Last Century of Greatness(Adelaide).1970. Mykenai, To Ergon tes archaiologikes etaire-ias, 94-100.1971. Mykenai, To Ergon tes archaiologikes etaire-ias, 131-43.PALMER, L. R. 1963. The Interpretation of MycenaeanGreek Texts (Oxford).1965. Mycenaeans and Minoans (New York).POMERANCE, L. 1970. The Final collapse of Santorini(Thera): 1400 BC or 1200 BC?, with addenda(Gijteborg).1971. The Final Collapse of Santorini (Thera).1400 BC or 1200 BC? in Acta of the 1st Inter-national Scientific Congress on the Volcano ofThera (Athens).1975. Comments on the Vitaliano GeologicalReport, American Journal of Archaeology,LXXIX, 83-4.POPHAM, M. and L. H. SACKETT. 1968. Excavatim atLefkandi, Euboea, 1964-5 (London).PUGLIESE CARRATELLI, G . 1963. I bronzieri di PiloMicenea, Studi Classici e Orientali, XII, 242-53.RAPP, G., JR. and s. B. COOKE. 1973. Thera PumiceRecovered from LH IIA Stratum at Nichoria,Athens Annals of Archaeology, VI, 136-7.RAPP, G., JR., s. R. B. COOKE, and E. HENRICKSON.1973. Pumice from Thera (Santorini) Identifiedfrom a Greek Mainland Archeological Ex-cavation, Science, CIXXIX, 471-3.ROEBUCK, c. A. 1945. A Note on Messenian Economyand Population, Classical Philogy, XL, 149-65.RUIPCREZ, M. s. 1963. En torno a la serie J- de Pilo,Minos, VIII, 37-50.RUTTER, J. B. 1975. Ceramic Evidence for NorthernIntruders in Southern Greece at the Beginningof the Late Helladic IIIC Period, AmericanJournal of Archaeology, LXXIX, 17-32.SANDARS, N. K. 1964. The Last Mycenaeans and the

European Late Bronze Age, Antiquity, XXXVIII,258-62.SHELMERDINE, c. w. 1973. The Pylos Ma Tablets46

Page 8THE END OF THE GREEK BRONZE AGEReconsidered, American Journal of Archaeology,LXXVII, 261-75.SNODGRASS, A. M. 1971. The Dark Age of Greece(Edinburgh).1974. Metal-work as evidence for immigration inthe Late Bronze Age, in (eds). R. A. Crosslandand A. Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations in theAegean (Park Ridge, New Jersey), 209-14.SOURVINOU-INWOOD,c. 1974. Movements of popu-lation in Attica at the end of the Mycenaeanperiod, in (eds.) R. A. Crossland and A. Bir-chall, Bronze Age fizigrations in the Aegean(Park Ridge, New Jersey), 215-25.Levant (Cambridge).STYRENIUS, c.-G. and A. vIDI~. 1971. New Ex-cavations at Asine, Athens Annals of ArchaeologyIV, 147-8.TAYLOUR,LORD WILLIAM. 1958. Mycenaean Pottery inItaly and Adjacent Areas (Cambridge).TEGYEY,I. 1970. Messenia and the Catastrophe at theEnd of Late Helladic I11 B, Acta Classica, VI,3-7.1974. Messenia and the catastrophe at the end ofLate Helladic I11 B, in (eds.) R. A. Crosslandand A. Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations in theAegean (Park Ridge, New Jersey), 227-32.THEMELIS,P. 1969. Protogeometric Necropolis nearLefkandi, Athens Annals of Archaeology, 11,98-102.THEOCHARES, D. P. 1961. Anaskaphai Iolkou, Prak-tika tes en Athenais archaiologikes etaireias,45-54.STUBBINGS, F. H. 1951. Mycenaean Pottery from theBook Chronicle continuedfrom p. 39Ancient astrology theory and practice. TheMathesis of Firmicus Maternus, translatedfrom the Latin by Jean Rhys Bram. NoyesClassical Studies. Park Ridge, NJ. : NoyesPress. Ig75. 347 pp.. 13 diagrams. fI5.00.Bois Grecs et Romains de 1’Ermitage by

Maria Vaulina and Aleksandra WasowiCz.Academie Polonaise des Sciences, Institutd’Histoire de la Culture Matbrielle. Warsaw :Ossolineum, 1971. 183 pp.. I37 ph. (loose, Ipull-out in colour), 96jigs. Cena zt 150.The long sword and scabbard slide in Asiaby William Trousdale. Smithsonian Contribu-tions to Anthropology Number 17. WashingtonDC : Smithsonian Institution Press, 1975, 344pp.. 24 pls., roo figs.. 5 tables. $7’55.The lettering of an Athenian mason byStephen V. Tracy. Hesperia: Supplement XV.Princeton :American School of Classical Studiesat Athens, 1975.158 pp., 40 pls. $10.00.VAN WERSCH, H. J. 1972. The Agricultural Economy,in (eds.) W. A. McDonald and G. R. Rapp,Jr., The Minnesota Messenia Expedition (Minnea-polis), 177-87.VENTRIS, M. and J. CHADWICK. 1973. Documents inMycenaean Greek (Cambridge).VERMEULE,E. 1964. Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicagoand London).VICKERY, I(. F. 1936. Food in Early Greece (Urbana,Illinois).VITALIANO, c. J., and D. B. 1974. Volcanic Tephra onCrete, American Journal of Archaeology, LXXVIII,19-24WACE, A. J. B. and P. H. STUBBINGS. 1962. A Com-panion to Homer (London).WARREN, P. M. 1973. Review of Leon Pomerance:The Final Collapse of Santorini (Thera), 1400BC or 1200 BC? With addenda Gnomon, XLV,173-8.WIDE, s. 1910. Griiberfunde aus Salamis, Ath. Mitt.,WRIGHT, H. B., JR. 1968. Climatic Change in Mycena-ean Greece, Antiquity, XLII, 1237.1972. Vegetation History, in (eds.) W. A. Mc-Donald and G. R. Rapp, Jr., The MinnesotaMessenia Expedition (Minneapolis), 188-99.WUNDSAM, K. 1968. Die politische und soaiale Strukturin den mykenischen Residenzen nach den Linear BTexten (Diss., Universitat Wien).YOUNG,D. 1965. Some Puzzles about Minoan Wool-gathering, Kadmos, IV, I I 1-22.1969. Minoan Woolgathering: A Rejoinder, Kad-mos, VIII, 39-42.XXXV, 17-36.Cultural and social anthropology. Introduc-tory readings in ethnology by Peter B.

Hammond. Second Edition. New York:Macmillan Publishing Co; London : CollierMacmillan Publishers, 1975. First published1964. 548 pp., numerous jigs. E3.55.Etruscan cities edited by Filippo Coarelli.London : Cassell, 1975. 336 pp., numerouscoloured jigs. E8.50.Problems of the conservation of waterloggedwood edited by W. A. Oddy. MaritimeMonographs and Reports No. 16-1975.London : National Maritime Museum, 1975.Le sanctuaire de Baalshamin a Palmyre VIKleinfunde/Objets Divers by Rudolf Fell-mann and Christiane Dunant. Berne : InstitutSuisse de Rome, 1975. 132 pp., 9 pls.. 16 figs.DMIIO.continued on p. 68I44 PP.. 33 Pk., 39jigs. 50P.47