"

.. '"l,
. "
~ .'

-,
..
THE ARGOLID, IN LIE GEOMETRIC
AND ARCHAIC TIMES'
,. -
. ,

-.
- "
<
. .
. ~
' ..
1
-"
'-\
"


\..

'f:
F
\l-,
.:
b'
l-

if
,
f
il;

il
k

li
I,

;
t-
e'
, ,
r
J'
1
, "
" r
l, ,1.
l,r

Anne Foley
M.A.
/
)
/ ; Abstraet
Classics
McGill University
Montreal, CanJda
1
The Argolid in Late Geometrie
and Archaie Times
The foeus of ,this study involves! an examinatio,)1 of botl}
'the ar'ohaeologieal'and the 'traditional evidence in order to
-- \
,?ome to a elerer understapding of the of the Argo-
lid in the historie period, specifieally in the Late Geometrie
qnd Archaic petiods. Partieular attehtion 16 pa id throughout
to Argos, the oit Y whieh was the strongest in
the Argolid during the' .periods in question, -a .,taet which ar-
.'
chaeolo9Y tends to eonfirm. Highlighting this is the attempt
,
to de'termine through a 'factual consideration of both sources
of- evidence when Argos reached h,er peak politi-
cally and eulturally. Once this has been aseertained, the
remainder is deyoted to the dtes of the reign King Pheidon,
.
,a"man linked to the most glorious period in Ar-
give history.
1
.'
1
f'
1
l
. ,
Anne
M.A.
, ,
'Rsum.
Etudes Anciennes
Universit McGill
Montral, Canada
L' Argolide l'ge 'du Gomtrique
, et Archaique
Jr Le point priticipal de cet ouvrage comprentl une des
1
1
tmoign(ages archblogiques et' ,tradt tionnels, afin d avoir une
comprhension PlU!S claire ,de la pc>sitio.n de l'Argolide aux
temps surtout l'ge du gomtrique rcent ct
l '
archaique. Du commencement la<"fin j'attache une pttention
. Argos, la qui tait llement
la forte cette poque. En effet, ie a ten-
dance confirmer ce fait. 'Ne, faisant que considr ries,
, \
donnes, l'important est de tenter de dterminer, d'aprs les
() 1 1
et les crits des ancie sauteurs,
quel moment ia ville d'Argos parvenue
poli tiquement et cul turellemen t son sonunet. Cec' tant
dmontr, ce qui suit se rapporte aux dates probab du
du, roi Phidon 1 cet d j aprs la tradition,_ ay
durant la priode plus glorieuse de l'histoire 'Argos.
,
/
'(
\
'1"
t
,
-J
,:l

'l
l
,

1;
!

'f
1
'j
,
. !
f
tz
(
1
j
,
t

l
\
1

1
t
C

/
1
ACKNOWl:EDGEMENTS
'.
l am indebted to my profe'ssor at McGill Uni versi ty J,
J.M. for prompting me to participate in the Asine,
excavation in the surnmer of 1977 and for urging me to at-

tend the study seSS10n at Perakhora, both of which were
valuable experiences.' l would also wis'h to express my ,
>
ta Prof. A. Schachter of McGill for offering much-
advice on nUffierous occasions and for my
manuscipt.
Many thanks also to Mrs. violet M. Jacksbn who was
able ,te decipher my' handwriting to produce a fine
script with incredible speed and to Miss Linda Anderson
of the Classics Department at McGill University who kind-
ly affered to type ancient Greek quotatians.
,
This study was made possible by a'grant fram the
, "
Quebec Government.
c-

\,
r
\
-j

*
1
'il
1
,1
1

-:
l
l
1
L
1
Y
l
-/
'.
>
1
-
i
"
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS'
\
. ,
LIST OF IGURES
PREFACE
1.
2.
PART l
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
The Distribution of Sites
Pottery
2.1 Submycenaean, Protogeometric,
Geometrie and Subgeometric
2.2 "Argive" Monochrome
3 .. B,ronzes
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
5.
.
,
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Pins and Fibulae
3.3 Sculpture
3.4 Armour and Weapons
Terracottas
Architecture a ~ d Building Activity
Conclusion
PART II
THE 'PRADITIONS
The Sites
The Argive King List
The Earlier History
Tradi tions of c. 750-65,0 -. Pheidon
Other Traditions
'. ' ,
,
"
\,
Page
i
iii
l
25
25
39
43
43
43
47
48
52
~ 6
59
60
72
82
86
97
> ,
t
)
\)
"


*-joi'
.1(;

<
"
'li:


"

d:
:f
1
j;
1.
},
.
:.
;
,
1
..
'k
1
.
.,
1
l

1 l" ,
l,
.
if.

.'
Yi
':or
t)
$!:
(
. '

\l
1\
APPENDICES
L
Catglog e
2.
coi'nage
BIBLIOGRAPH
1
1 "
PART
SYNT
ff', Si t.es
. .
)
III
ESIS
/
,
. ,
\
1
.
'p
"
. .;..
'\
.:;!

<'
i
.'1
.
J
vi
Hi
;
Iv
1
.\
,
\
/
1
1
,
,FIGURE NO.
l
2
3
4
1
5
6
- 7
8
9
\
- ,
,
, .
LI ST 0 FFI G UR ES
DESCRIPTION
Table showing the' number of site:; occupied
from the Late Helladic IIT B ta the Sub-
mycenaean period and, the percentages of
decrease involved from one period ta the
next.
"
Table showing the number of sites oceupied
from. the Submycenaean ta the Classical
period and the percentages of increase in-
volved from one'period to the
Table showing the number of si tes occupied'
from the Classical ta the Roman period and
the percentages of decrease involved from
one period to the next.
Table showing the in
ages of increase and decrease between the
Argive plain and the Argolic peninsula
from the Geometrie ta the Classical 'period.
Only settlements are taken into considera-
tion.
Archaeologlcal sites in the Argolid with
their periods of occupation. The numbers
beside each site ta those on the
base map, 7, and to those in Appen-
,;j,dix 1.

Graph ind,icating the number of si tes occ-
pied in each period.
Base' map of aIl archaeological sites in
the Argo1id. The numb.ers correspond to
those of Figure 5 and Appendix 1.
Olstribution map of sites in the Argolid
in the Late III B, III'C and Sub-
mycenaean periods.
Distribution map of sites in the Argolid
in the Submycenaean, Protogeometrlc and
Geometrie periods .'
i
, 2
4
6
o'
11
14-18
19
20
1
2J..
22
,
,
"

.
\
\'

"

,1
.
1
Cl
, '\, .
EIGURE NO,
, 10
Il. '
12
13
14
15
\
16
17
18
19
20
DESCR 1 PTI ON
Distribution map of sites in the Argo1id.
in the Geometrie, Arehaie and C1assieal
periods.
Map of Argive plain
supposed1y destr0y,ed by, the
adapted from R. Hdgg, 1974:
Argo1is, p. 15.
showing sites
Argi ves. t1ap'
Die Gtaber der
Table showing the extent of Argive exports
and imports from the Protogeometrie to the
Late Geometrie period. (After Co1dstream:
1968, )63 f. and Courbin: 1966, passim).
Distribution map of Argive Geometrie pot-
tery exports.
Types of Argive helme ts. (a) and (b) Ar-
gos,> (c) Tiryns. (After Snodgrass: 1964,
8-9)
Chart giving the classes and eharaeteris-
tics of Geometrie and Arehaie Argive tr-
racottas. (Adapted from Jenkins: 193'1-32,
24 f.)
Map showing the Strabo in the
Argolid.
Map showing the itinerary of Pausanias in
the Argolid.
listing the Argive kings aecording
to the ancient writers and a final tenta-
ti've list.
Graph showing the relative difference in
1
the number qf Arglve lmports and exports
fom the Protogeo{lletrie to the Late Geo-
metrie period. '
Graph showing the relative difference in
the extent of Argive influences on the
world with the influences the Ar-
golid received from the Protogeometrie to
). <10
the Late Geometrlc period.
ii
. ,
o
23
24
35
37
49 (1
54
62
63
'81
106

107
1
".
1
PREFACE

The Argo1id, an ara famous for its Late Bronze Age sltes
of Mykenai, Tiryns, Asine, Lerna, has been som:what
ed in the historic-period, but with the French excavations at
Argos since the early 1950's, and the renevled work of the Ger-
mans a t Tiryns and of tpe Swedes at Asine, in the
area has taken a new turn"espeeia11y 50 as mOre and more evi-
denee is belng unearthed of the Protogeometrie
and Geometrie
My o"m interest in the area steinmed from participation
in an excavation at Asine in the summer of 1977. The excava-
l'
tion was conducted jointly by Dr. Inga Hagg of Uppsala Univer-
sity and Prof. John M. Fossey of McGi11 Universlty.
The arehaeo1ogica1 evidence at Asine suggests that the
site was destroyed sometime in the Late Geometrie periodi the
date is important as it is relevant to the whole con-
cerning the power of Argos at that time and her
towards othr cities of the Argolid. In essence. it was di-,
.rect1y as a resu1t of this excavation that it was suggested
-to me that an examination of Argos and the Argolid of the
Late Geometrlic and Archaie per iods would be appropria te. A
study of this nature is not novel as there have been a few
books on the Argolid and its material and history
._'
the past, R.A. Argos and the Argo1id published
in 1972 for example; various issues concerning the Argol.id
have also been considered in numerous journals and books.
..
The.different aspects of the history of the Argolid can
be examined from two points of view, the.arehaeological and
the tradi"tiona1 evidence. His torians use primarily the an-
cient authors in their search for answers while archaeologists
regard archae010gical finds of primary importance. In the
present study l have attempted to combine both these sources
iii
,
,
,
1
1

- 1
"

,-
,>
"
"
..
1
of evidence with the ohject of finding the period when the
Argolid was definitely at its surnrnit. Underlying this is
the desire to comprehend the positipn of the city of Argos
a city which the ancient authors refer to as the
main centre in the Argolid. The traditions further relate
"that Argos controlled not only aIl the Argolid. but even be-
yond lt to sorne extent and moreover, it supposedly was in-
F" >
volved in the des,tructi.0n IIf numerous cities within
lidi these acts among others caused the ancient writers to
Argos as the- strongest city within the Argolid, hold-
ing sway politically, rnilitarily and religiously over this
entite area. Central to this whole tradition and connected
t
so closely with Argos that it is impossible to mention the
one without the other i5 King Pheidon, whose numerous achleve-
o >,
ments are listed by several ancient a,uthors but who:;;e reign
. has never been fixed wi th certaintYi though attempts ta do
so have been frequent.
In essence, l wanted to examine these and others
using both sources of information, archaeological and tradi-
tional, as opposed to' the cornmon practice of ernploying one ,1
but neglecting : of ignoring, the otheror, USlng
it when it conforms to the The first part of the
study comprises solely the archaeological evidence, prepented
ln a factual manner. It begins with a chapter on the dis-
tribution of sites, as this provides a useful starting point,
an introduction to aIl the sites the Argo-
lid, thelr of occupation and distri,bution. Later
chapters expand on the various archaeological factors which
[J
contribute a clear picture of growth of the
Argolid and particularly of Argos during the periods follow-
o
ing the demise of the Late 'Bronze Age
Part II treats the traditions specifically connected
with the Argolid during the perids from the return of the
Herakleidai up ta and including Pheidon, with a look
iv
';
"1
;i,

t';

1
1
'"
'4

.,

i
}
;
... >
1
1
\
,
j.
j

4
" l
,

,

rt'
o'
,"

.
1

....
.
.
\,

.r.
j'"
j
0' c
'.
J
-.
' r
,,'b ....
, .
'.
.
f)'
' ..
!
1
- j
J ''111l
at la ter', tradi tions. It became eviden t,in wr i ting tl]Js s,ec-
tion that the traditiohs corroborate the archaeologial evi-
Do,
dence to a much larger extent at fip:st an'ttcipatd an,d
thus in final section, the synthesis, it is possible to
give a rathr complete, picture 6f the growth of and
the .Argolid froni the Submycenaean to Archaic periods.
also'possibie to arrive at a tentative date for an
Argive height of power and hence pr'Obably for. Pheidon h,im-
self. .
FiRally there-are two appendices,r[he first of which'
cohtains the details concerning the sites and finds.
as weIl as listing a full for site, thus
the information swrunarized i,n Chapter 1. The
second Appendix, Coinage, is relevant insofqr as Pheidon of
Argos i8 named as the inventor of coinage, in mainl.and Greece:
thus a review of the date of this invention and the problems
b 1
emanating fram it with .regard ta Pheidon neessary.
o
. .
" ,
..

v:
c r
, ' ,
,l
J

l
i
i
1
" ,
'j'. '

,
><
"
,

"
\.
1
,


t
i"
..

f'
{i.
1

.'
.


"
1
f
--

f
PART 1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE .
D U
..
.c
\
Cl
1
!
1
1
1 ;
1
1
CHAPTER 1
THE DISTRIBUTION OF SITES
Of primary irnportanc when conside.ci-l g an area is the
..1:
number of sites in that 'their periods of occupation and,
distribution. The Argolid is no exception ta
this and the picture it presents is an interesting one, giving
which would not be clear otherwise. In this chap-
ter a summary of the evidence will be given; complete details
are found in Appendix 1.
Figure 5 l:ists in alphabetical order, aIl the sites ar-
chaeologically known 50 far in the Argolid. The numbers be-
fore each are for reference to the base map, Flgure 7. Beside
each si'te are its periods of occupation, que'Stion marks indi-
cating thg.t the evidence is not conclusive for that periode
Not ,aIl .of /these sitEfs have been excavatedi many in fact are
knO\vn only from surface fi-nds but this does not lessen their

. value. In Figure 6 i8 shown the number of sites occ\lpied ln'
.
each period, giving a clear indication of the trends invo1ved
from period to period. The columns represent both certain
and uncertain sites; the certain: are, india ted by the
area of each olumn. The important per,iods insofar as this
paper J.s concerned are the L HIll B to the Claqsica! period
, "
and the se. are the ones re,presented on the maps, Figures 8-10.
In general from the Neoli thic to the L H II'! B one sees a
graduaI ri se in the Rumber of sites occupied, with the excep-
tion of the MH period when there' is a decrease by 4 'si tes.
The LB III B re'presents the height of the prehistoric period,
with 55 sites in use in the next period there is the
beginning of a great one which is quite" drastic J:h
the SM period'. The" following table (Figure 1) is a way of
expressing ,these. ,throut percentages. (The numbers
, .
i '
j
..
-1

./'
!
LH III B
-,
55 sites (48)
-30.9% (33.3%)
o
,. decrease
1
"
..
LH III C
38 sites (32)
84.2% '(81.2%)
89.1% (87.5%)
, ,
'1
derease
'decrease

"
1
/
1 -
SM
6 stes (6)
"
\
....
.- - ------- .--.- - ------ :' .. .

FIGURE 1.' Nurnber o,:!= sites from the LH III B to :che SM and the per'cerit'a,.ges
of decrease one period to ,the next. (NumbeT,s- in brackets refer to
those sites that are certain).
'\ \ --
l ' -
D " :
,#.

c'
1

j 1
, .. ' ft? .. i'?'" * .. iliA'.: .. _or.. "" -;.- ..
(;;) J
--"-_ ...... ... ............ H_ffiilf; nm.
\

1
l'V
,.
,f
1
3 "

in bracket? refer ta those sites that are certain.) The de-
crease
l
is of a striking nature as a total, of 89.1% of
were abandoned by the SM from the peak reached the
LH nI B., This massive abqndonment is one noticeable not
only in the Argolid but i"5 a feature in the rest of Greece
also.
,
Slowly the Argolid shows signs of _ regaining 1ife as more
and more sites return. ,The sharp rise in the number of si tes
in the Geometric perod YS important.", as. is the pronounced in-"
crease in the Classical, as indicated in Figure 6. Agaln a
table (Figure 2) can put aIl of this into better peripective
by showing the percentages involved. The first major increase
,
is thus ftom the PG the G period for though the percntage
of inerease from the SM to the PG is 33.3%, is relative-
Iy lnsigni'ficant when wi th the 187.5% of the PG to
the period. The other marked rise is the Classical peri-
od, a 90 .. 3% inerease from the previous period and 156.5% from
the Geometrie. Both the Gand C periods are when the
rise is quite sharp, though the PG to G is on a smaller scale
than the G to C period, The Archaic period is one of relative
quiet; the i1Crease here is not .. significant What is notice-
able nevertheless is that.in the last periods, that is the C,
..
j
;
l
,
" '
f
,
H, and R number of uncertain sites ls mueh .
er than i t was previously. .For in'stance in the
period, there are a total of 59 sites
l
only 47 are cer-
tain and this is ohe fewer in-fa6t, than the certain sites of
v th LH III B. If examines on Figure 2 only the certain
,
sites for these periocls, it seems that the J.ate prehistorlc
periods contained more sites
One need only compare the LH
)OC
than the late historie periods.
III C with the Roman period to
III ,
see this. It is important ta note the distinction because
,
al though these last three periods and _ particularly the Classi-
cal and Rellenistic appear to have had rnany sites, in fact
they had fewer certain sites than the LH III B.
FW'l:"j-" ,
............. " ,', h'

SM
6 sites
"
PG .G
(6) 8 sites (8) 23 siteq
1
1 ;-
33.3% 187.5% '1(162.5%)
!
'"
..
r-
A
(21) t 31 sites
1
"
J, ,
, ,
"
C
(25) , 59 sites
1
90.3%' (88%) 34.8% :(19.1%)
.. > '1 )
increase increase
1
283.3% (250%)
, ')
1
increase
increas'e
1
" l ,
416.7% (316.7%) 1 (
1 ".
--------, 7
1 - increase 1
1 1
281-.5% (2l2. 5% >:

increase

c...:..
increase
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
1
r
(123.8%) 1
'"
t. ,7
1 -,
1 1
6'37.5% (487.5%) ,
""
1
--------_ ... _- ------,
increase
1 .'
883.3% (6S3.3%)

r

increase
"
r
(47)
o
(FIGURE 2. Number of sites from the SM the C and the percentages of
from one period to the next. (Numbers in refer to those sites that
are certain) .
"
"-.

"'"
........ '.'-,., ...... ..
'.'. .... ,,-a....'l!">olo _"!. .. .... ' .. '" ,
. - "
1
,
1 /
1
5
The decrease from the Class ical to the Roman perio i5 '
important, as the following tablet(Figure 3) suggests. In-
terestingly enough, the decreasds are greater only the
,
certain sites are cO)1sidered; a decrease of 48.9%,is notlced
for example from the Classical to the Roman. In effect al-
most ha If the si tes cease to be occupied in thj s penod bu't
the drop is still not as pronounced as that at the end of
th\Late Bronze Age.
In order to show aIl of this, I have drawn three maps
coverlng the developments from the LH IIJ B to th&' Classical
period since these provide the context for the present study.
The first map, Figure 8, showing the distribution of sites
of the LH III B, C and $M periods, illustrates in effect the
decrease from the LH III B to the LH III C period and espe-,
cially the drastic reduction from the LH III e to the Submy-
cenaean. In the LH III B period the distribution is quite
spread out ,aIl over the Argolid and resernbles in many respects
the 10 be se en in the Classical perlod. cf. Flg-
ure 10. ,1 Most of the sites, are settlements Wl th 5 grave sites
and 3 fprts. The importance of the Argive plain is obvious
frorn t7e number of sites in it in fact, it ,is, in this
area that lie aIl the sites which are occupied in al} 3 perl-
ods, including the SM. The decrease in the sites of the LH
III C and SM is not unexpectect but is a feature which happens
in other areas of Greece as weIl. Thus the picture in the
Argol19 in these 3 periods corresponds to that seen in the
'rest of Greece, .that of continuous reduction of settlement
density. Noteworthy is the fact that the first stage of this
reductioQ (the LH III B-C) affects primarily sItes ln or lm-
adjacent to the plain of Argos while the,rest of
the Argolld is li ttle affected; the second stage (the Ll III
\ ,
C-SM) 15 not noticeable ta any large extent ln the plain but

i5 rnost fel t in the 'Argolic peninsula.

The second rnap (Figure 9) shows the distribution of sites
t"*:
FIiURE 3.
..

\
c H R
59 si t"e s ( 4 7) , sltes ('44) 39 sltes (24)
J
5.1% :(6.9%) 30.4% 1 (45.5%)

decrease
1
1
33.9% (48.9%),

decrease
1
1
)

(
0"
Number of sites from C to the R period and the percentages of decrease
from one period to the next. (Numbers in brackets refer to thos sites
that are -certaiR)
"


en
-.'---. '"'' .. .-'- ,.,. '." -'''''''''4
-
t
(
Ir
7
-' '
,
from the SM to the Geometrie. The change is an obvious 'one
, '
as there are only 6 sites oecupied in the SM perlod, aIL of
them concentrated in the Argive plain. At this time thero-
\
fore the Argolid appears almost enti'rely devoid of inhabltants.
ALI the penlnsula to the east was empty. Not one SIte was
"
occupled in the SM period throughout this wholc arca. SItes
such s Epidauros No. 62, Ligourio No. 50, No. 55
and Vromolimnl 90 on the Methana peninsula, the Temple of
"poseidon No. 80 on Poros, Khoriza No. 40, HermIone No. 24,
Porto Khli No. 70 apd Iria No. 26 ta name but a few, were
aIL abandoned. The only sites which the destructIon
were Mykenai No. 56, Argos 10, Dhendra No. 15', 'l'lryns No.
84, Nauplion No. 58 and Asine No. 12 of these
t
the most Im-
portant are Argos and Mykenal.
In the 3 periods cf. Figure 9, the trend lS reversed from
that observed in the earlier map, as there is not decrease
but 'an Increase seen in the PG and G periods, especially,
the la tter; more SI tes are re-occup'ied as time goes on. , As
Indiated in FIgure 2, there lS a 33.3% increase from the SM
to the PG as ln this later period orte sees the
of Porto Khll' and the Argive Heraion. It is Interesting
that one of the two is in the Argive plain / indljating that
this was still" the main area in the PG period ',il there were
7 si,tes there as orposed to on1y one in another are a , tha t
of Hermionis. But with the Geometrie period, one sees quite
a different pieture, since now there are sites ln varlous
areas of the Argolld besides the Argive plain Itself where
the SIX sites of the SM continue. The inerease of sites in
the G period is mQ-rked; it is a 187.5% jurnp. Wlth the e'xcep-
,
tian of Kourtaki No. 45, aIl of new Geometrie sites were
in fact oceupled in the prehistorie period, thus this lS rea1-
ly a re-occupation as opposed to the formation ot entirely
new sites. Peopl were beginning to return to old settle:
rnents 1 showing that the Geometrie period was one of re1a tive
1
-
"
.
1
"
8
stability and perhaps indicating a rapid rise ln population.
One can expect that in this period was increased pros-
p:rity'and industry as a result of the greater demand for
products arising from the tncreased population. The perlod
saw the appearance of three new sanctuaries, the Temple of
Poseiclon, Apollo Haleatis and t'he Frankhthi cave, in addltion
to the Argive Heraion already in use in the PG period. 'Thus
there was'a ri se of cult sites, indicating a pre-occupation
with rellgion which was not eVldent before ana no doubt it
was a feature which served to 'unify the Argolid. This fea-
ture occurs 'in fact, in other areas of Greece. Another in-
teresting fact is that in the Geometric period, as opposed
ta the prehistoric period, there appear to have been no watch-
.
forts, possibly indicating a situation of stability
,
both and militarily. Judging from the absence of
1
forts, one might that th'e Argolid had become uni ted
by this time and that there WdS no real fear of outside at-
tack, thus ,the area must have been quite strong in mi li ta'ry ,
power or the area was ndt heavily occupied by small independ-
ent settlements who had, as yet, no need to compete for land
vel sin. It is interesting that, of the 15 new sites in
Geometrlc period, 6 are on or near the coast. '
The 3rd map, Figure 10 shows the changes seen from the
Geometrlc to Classical periods. The map shows the in-
creases from the G to A and A to C periods 50 that Oy the
Classical period, the number of sites has reached its peak
and 'in that'fact, lt resembles the situation of the LH III B,
both in number and distribution. An interesting tact is that
severa L' of the sites occupied in the Geomtric period, Berbati
No. 14, Magoula No. 52, Asine No. 12, Kandia NO. 30 and Vassa
No. 88 are abandoned at the end of that period, three of WhlCh
are in the central plain. Also interesting i8 that Mykenai
and Tiryns show evidence mainly of being temple sites through-
out this from G to C (although in the Geometric there
j
"
.,
ri
(
., ,
,
\'
'le
9
. '
"
seems to be some evidence of ,habitation as well). Further-
more Dpendra, also in the Argive, plain is known 'mai'nly as a
watchtower particularly in the A an C periods. Thus the
Argive plain seems to be undergoing various changes as somff
are changing function and others are abandoned alto-
A$ine -for example, a si te inhabited from the EH on
at the end of the Geometrie and only shows strong
signs of life the Hellenistic. ,Berbati, a site oecupiel
throughout the prehistoric period until the LH III B is knf,wn
only in the Geometrie period of the historie period.
-. .
In the Arhaie period the plain further changes.
Four "new" sites come into, being, one settlement, Hysiae No. 25
- ,
an,d three sahctuaries, Phyktia No. 65, Katsingri No. 36 and
.Ky'llen, No. 47. Of these 4 sites, three eO'ntinue into the
""
Classlcal period but Katsingri is as is Kourtaki,
No. 45. Thus by the Classical period 5 of the plain sites
are no longeJ;." in use and' 4 of the others have ena.lilged fune- .
, tiOn. This is strange, W eonsider .that in the rest- oL
the Argolid, only 1 site is abandoned, and this at the end

of the period. in the Classical period

there are only.two new sits in the Argive pla{n, one a set-
tlernent, Temenion, and the Kephalaria.
To the west tbere are 4 other new sites, 2 of Whl,Ch are wateh-
towers. Thus out of 6 new sites, are-watchtowers, one vs a
two are settlements. This nO doubt re-
flects a state of uncertainty and it is the first tIme that
. there are watehtowers in this area of the Argolid.
As stated earlier the pieture seen in the rest of the
Argolid is somewhat different as it is one of large seale
, ""
inerease in Classieal times with only 1 site abandoned after
the Geometrie pe,riod,_ In this region all "the sitls of the',
Geometrie period, except; of course the 1 abandoned, c'ontinue
the Arehaie and Classical periods. The only exception

might be Ayios Leonidas which seems unoccupied in the Archale
,
<
,
,; .
10
but revives in _the next period: i t is, of course, a1ways
poss ible that Archaic material is there but has not yet been
notlced. In- this area there are lL..new sites in the Archa!c
period, though 6 re uncertain, but the biggest increase is
in the Classical period as (now there are 20 new SI tes of wllich
5 are uncertain. Four of these new certain si tes are watch-
towers and only 1 i5 a Thus the main change S0cn
l
is the ,gr-eat number of new Classica1 sites. Sorne of these'
new sites had been occupled in the perlod, as a
glance at 8 will show", but there are many whch were
not occupied at any time from the LH III B to the Archaic.
(Two si'tes Mysia and Mt. Lykone are not on the map as theu
locat1ons uncertain.)
The noted between the Argive plain and the
peninsula are aIl >the more striking when viewed as -tables, (FIg. 4)
, with ,only the settlements recorded to indicate specifically
habitation as 'opposed to use of a-site. Here what stands out
i5' the decrease the Ge0metric to the ArchalC period in
the Plain aS'opposed to the increase in the for
t'ha t period. Furthermore the increase from the G to the C pe-
/ riod ln 'the plain lS negligible and only applies to the cer-
tain sites but in the, peninsula it i5 quite The sit-
uation in the plaIn' may reflect the poli tical con di tions of
the time, especially that at the end of the LG as will
be seen later.
Thus we hav.e come almost full circle from the peak in the
LH III B to th lowest point in the S<M and up again till an-
other in the Classical period. The picture on the whole
conforms to that .seen in other parts of Greece, as everywhere
.
there was 'a great drop in the number of sites in the SM and
,
then a slow revival. Traditionally as weIl this is the same
sort of picture that emerges. The traditions will be examined
in sorne detail later but there i5 one which i5 important here
as it pertain5 to the distribution of sites. The
.J
i

, ' ... t.:;:-
rj _.
o
1
i
\
G t
1
8 sites (7)

0
37.5% (28.6%)
decrease
G
.......... , '<. . ".
"

"
/
\\
ARGIVE.PLAIIN
;. ,
A C
5 sites (5 ), 8 sites (8)
..
-)-
'---
\ .
b
(14.3%)
,60%
-----1----- -- . )
increase
. l
1
1
1
incJ:'ease
..
. \ -
.-! ARGOLIC PENINSULA
""il-
\
A

C
'--

...
''',
- .

1-'
.....
8 (8) 10 sites (9) 26 site s ( 21) _
; ,
tJ
FI-GURE 4.
'--
"
25% _(l'2.5%) 1-60% (133.3 %)
---"-
> )
increase increase
225% (162.5%)
,;
---.-- )
increase
Differences in percentages
and the penin&ula from the
(Numbers in brackets refer
of increase and decrease between the
. .
G to the C periode 0 Only
to settlements that cereain).
Argi ve plain '
are considered.
C
' . . ..:.. .... --_ .. ...
. .
- ' .
.
, '. "' ... ,..,. ;$" .......... ' .., _;. __ ....-,-_ .......... - ............ -,.b'''rM IUtSrtum 117.0 1
,
1
.
-,
t
f
,
i
1



t

.

l
"
)
..
0
;;
12
"
mention that sveral were destroyed by Argos because
or other reasons, Asine, 'Nauplion,
Tiryns, Prosymna, Midea and Mykenai. All of these si tes"
supposedly were destroyed "by the Argi ves
b
) are located
in the . plain (see Figure 11) '. The question tben, is
, ,
to determine whether archaeol,og ically, the sarne picture e,merg-
es. Hi thout going into the details of the evidence for the
destruction dates, as this witT be discussed in a later sec-
tion, let me simply state that traditionally Asine'was des-
. troyed c. that is, at the .end of the Geometrie pcriod,
while' Tiryns and 'Mykenai were both e,' 468, i. e. ,
the ear ly Classieal period, whi le Nauplion suffered the same
c. 600. The dates of the destruction oof both prosymna
and Midea are uncertain but it is thought that they may have
been destroyed early, perhaps as early as Asine (Tornlinson:
1972, 41).
It is not my intention to enter into the cornplicated and
complex problem of the identification of ancient s\tes but
for the of equating traditional destructions with
archaeological evidence, it is necessary to 1nvestigate this
4
question a little. .Mi.dea i5' usually equated with the site of
'Dhendra, No. 15 on the base map, and Prosymna is the site very
the Argiv Heraion,but apparently distinct from it.
l ,
(Arohaelogically the two are eonsidered togetheri thu5
" .
One does.not get information about the site of Prosymna it-
self.) The other sites are weil known and need no further
explanation.
. ,
The archaeological picture not match
the traditions very well, as re.".examina tion 01: FJgures 9 and
o " "
10 shOW." In fact the: ort1y 'site where the evidence does
:show a qulte clear br1k is A5i,ne r a at whieh the vases
date right to the very .end of th Geometrie period with a -.
, .
break until 0 the Hellenistic perio"d. At N!uplion the archae- "
ologieal evidence shows occupation right through the Geometrie,
.q
.' ;
" '
l "
,
'"
.. c
,0.
r "., 4;
,

'. "
'{

.
"
.'
1.,

. "

.,
"
, ,
13
Archaic and C1assical periods, though the settlement itse1f
seems to be Geometrie in date. The evidence for tbe
'rest of 'the periods cmsists primari1y of graves bt this does
not help to confirm the traditional date of its destructlon
,- at c. 600, which is in the middle of the Archaic period. If
anything the destruction would be better placed at the end
..
of the Geometrie period than c. 600. But there has nof real-
ly been very rnuch work done at Nauplion, so that it is pos-
t " l'
sible that in the future evidence will be found to show
the settlement continued until the mid Archaic period and
'only after that suffered sorne sort of reverse. However for
the tirne being it is not safe to make any conclusionp about
its destruction. The.sarne sort of problem i5 ln evidence at
Tiryns and Mykenai. Both sites arehaeologically shpw evidcnce
of habitation tll1 the Geometrie but from the Archaic on the
sites were knotn,alrnost as temple sites. Even
in the Geome.ttic period thy were more important as sanctuar-
ies than se{tlernents. The situation thus resemb1es that at
, 1 ::.
Naup1iop and one would be tempted to place the destruction at
the end of Geometrie perl-d, at least 'froS the archae-
ologieal standpoint. Dhendra (Midea) the'evidence shows
occupation till the LH,III C, then the PG and then both the
_ t
A and C periods. In effect'then, the
shows insofar as the traditions ,are concerned. With
Prosymna it is the sarne problem asrhere the evidence does not
show if aoy destruction pccurred at aIl.
1
.'
,
_ G
./
- ..
..
"
, 1

1
a
","- .. ..",

..
, (

,

\.
l'
\0
""
N EH MH - LHI LHII IlIA IIIB IIIC Sl-1 PG G A C H R
,.
\
1. Ayia Marina X X X X X , X
:) 0
....

J
2. Ayia Paraskevi
\ i')
X ,---' ,
"-
3. Ayios Ioannes X X i
4. Ayios Leonidas X X X X X X X ? ?
Arios Stathis X
6. Akra Mi1ianos ? ? ? ?
7 . Ano Phanar i x x x
8. Apollo Maleatis x- X X X X X X X X X X
9. Argive Heraion X
x"
X X X X X X X X X X X
10. Ar,gos X X X X X
,X X X X X X X X X X
Il. Aria X X
1-'

'J( 12. ASlle X X X X X X X X X X
X,
X
13 .. Bedeni X 'x X X
""'x
X X
14. Berbati X X X X X X X X
,
15. Dhendra X X X X X X X X 'X X X X X ?
.
16. Ditlyma ? ? X
17. Elaious x x x
0
18. Frankhthi Cave X X X X X X X X X X X
19 .. GaLatas ? ? ? ?
"
20. Gyphtokastro X X
X' X X X X X X ?
21- Gymno ? X X X x
22. Haliki, ? X' ? ? - ? ? ? X X

..

- ......
...
'-.
"
..: ...... ... "'_
o
..........
<1 ...
'\
LHI LHII IlIA IIIB IIIC PG A C H R N EH- MH SM G ,
"
23. Hellenikon ? X
24. Hermione X X X X X X X X X X x
25.' Hysiae
X X
26. Iria X X X X X

X
27. Isthmus' of Methana X X X
28. Kaimenikhora ? ? ?
29. Klogria X
\',
30. Kndia X X X X X X
3I. Karakasi
.'
'-
X X X ? X X X
32. Kasarma X X X X X X X X
1
l'
33. Kastraki

? ? ? ? ?

Ln
34-: Kastraki Dirnainas
?
? ? ? ? ? ?
'35. Kastro Khoriza
\"-
X x X X X
36.
"-
X X ? ? ? X X X.
37. Ke1adi X X X
38. Kenkhreiar ? ? X
39. KephaJ.aria' X X X X X X
40. Khoriza X X X X X X
'x
X ?
41. ,Kokkygion ? ? X x
42. Koliaki
? ? ? ?
43. 'Koroni X X ?
1
44. Kosta X .. X, X X X
!
!
'/
.
-....... ............. ...._ .... .,. ..... ....__
"
.. ...... ""- .:. '" C,#tt:r.""'-
:
[
ha" Ji! :;:q-QJ'tQ.:r .. JIIIJI .. Ii!I........ ,. _-.
,

/
45.' Kourtaki
46. Kouzounos
C'
47. Kyveri
48. Lazaretto
. 49. Lerna
l'
50. Ligourio
5I. Mt. Lyko-ne
52.
53. Magoula
54. Malandrini
55. MegaJ.c:khori
56. Mykenai
, 57.
My.sia
58. Nauplion
59. Oinoe
60. Orneiai
6l. Ortholithi
62. palaia pidauros
63. Palaiokhori
64. Phoukaria
65. Phykt"ia
.
66. Piada
1
\ "!I>'e.;Q........ ...--,.
N
X
X
o
X
"
-.
t*o
EH MH LHI LHII IlIA
? ? ? ? ?
X
X, X X X X
X
X X
? X ,X X
X X
X X X X X
X X
X X X
X
X X X
X
? ? ?
..
......
,/
..
IIIB TIIC SM PG G A C H R
X X
?
?
? .

...
.{{ X X
? ? ? ?
X
, .
X X X X
? X X
? ? X
X ?
X X
X X
X X X X X X X
1-'
0'1
X X X X X X- X X

? , ?' ?
,
X X );C. X X X'X X
X
.
X' X
?
.
'---

X
X X X X X X
X
\
,
X X \ X X
X X X X
? ?

( , "' .
,,,,.;u.-;,,,',:,\;<lu,;\ '", .... G
;""""-,-,,,,"-'" ""
e


.;
\
"
N EH MH LHI L.HI! IlIA ,IIIB Ille SM PG . G A C H R
,
1
67. Pigadaki
'-
X ?
"- ..
6S.,Pogon X X X

69. Poros X X X X
70. Porto Khli X X -X - X X X

X
X\X
x' X
7I. Prophitis Ilias ?
72. Psiphti \ X X X
73. Pyrgos- X
74. Pyrgos X X X X \ X, X
)(
? X
75. Riniza. X
76. Skhinokhori X X X X
......
77. Spetsai X
-.l
7S. Synoro X X X X X X X
79. Temenion X
? ?
"
. .
SO. Temple poseidon X X X X X X X X ' X

"
,..
81. Thala'ssop'etra X X X X > X
82. Thermisi X X X
\
83. Throni X X X ?
84. Tiryns X X X X X x X X X X X X X K-
85. Tou Andre.iomenou To Nemea X, X
86. Trakheia X X X X
\
X
.
87. Troizen X X' X x X
..
-X
X X X X X
(
.8 8. Vassa ? X X
X \
X X
..

, ... 't ___
"--- -OItelU.
\\
'\'
89.
90.
!
- - \
"
- .].'
..

1
c
' c
Vreserka

"
/
,
"
FIGURE 5.
N
"
EH MH LHI .LBII IIIA IIIB IIIC SM
X X
X X X X X X
o'
Archaeological' si tes in the Argol,id wi th
geriods of occupation.
,.
\
PG G A C

\
"
..
,\
"
B
,
R
?
......
CD
- ---"" ........... , ... " ...... "'., .. ......
.. _, ..... " .. ,', """"''''''''if,': iJi itl
-il ". rtet
\
1
r:
Cl
t" ~ i l
l'
\
19
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44 ,/
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
N EH MH LHI II IlIA B
c SB PG G A c H
,
FIGURE 6, Number of sites occupied i ~ each period. Light areas
represent questionable occupation.
" ,
t
1 1
- i
1
R
t
1
f
t
(
: 1 i
1 1
Ul
0::
'::;J ,
o
8'
Z'
o
U,
E 1 E
0
o 0
o 'T 0
..... 0
E
o

N
o
1
1

1.,
i ~
Ou
\Den
(
Jt:
...
~
..
...
:!

"
,.
~

D
Q
Q
~
" ' ' ; ' " I ()
{j
5. -
- il
"
-
-,


/'" ? '
, ,
,-.

FIGURE Distribuion of sites ih the LH III B, LH III C and SM periods.
, .

o settle:r:nent
o fort
6 sanctuary
o tombs- ",
....
.. '
-;.

...
. ,
"
-..
.,"
Cl

B
Y:r
U
;J
\
)

dJ
o
:"'
.-:
.v.
.. -....... _. '-
'h
,
...... '
1
... .;-
LH III B-;SM
'0 LH III B
'4) LH' III B--C-'
.., ..
,/
-.-....
'-

..


'<
.:. )'
.. ,,'Of
.:i.,. &/
q """\ (<\ IJP
.... , .. C)
...:;' ,... ... .
..... l
()
? LH III B?
? LH III C?
CONTOUR'S
20 0 m _ ______ - 1000rn __
600m _____ .. _ 1400m _
Sea-le: 440,000
'f.," .,.- '3," 'l," ...........

;)c ..
................ ,D;
I ...... ;;a t".,. ..... ,.l
.. l '_
'\. ,r" .,' c
....

.......
"
...
.
' .. - ...
.."\.,, \. r'\ ':',,\
o<f'
N
f-'


- - -
\
..,.......,1I\tf'.....
.,
,
...
"
,.....,
1
..

FIGURE 9 .. Distribution 'of sites in tne submycenaean, protogeornetric and Geometri'
perlods ..
r!:l
o 'settlement
SM-G
. PG-G
G
-
.: .. -- .. " ...
-, ."
-.... ..,.,.
A sanctuary
o tombs
-,
. ... -----.----i1"'"'----.
. ', ..
, .. 0-
..... ;:-


?
r
-- ... : ..
-.-..
, ,
J
"::--",
c;;;" .....=\ 1.,
,
.... -)
. ..... .
:C .. .......,..
0/-',
CON'l'OURS
200m __ ._____ -
1000rn __ -
600m ________ . 14 QOm _
Scal: 440,000
; ... ., .f. Jf.... 1;& """--

/"-'.
.r:: ....:\D:.
'. -
,"
sib


C::::;--[--, (._ .... ./
' .. :
_0-'
r .. ... _ .. : .... __
>--. -
J : _,.
, ...\,
,t:"
.'
...._ -\ ,-...... "1'"\\ '',,''
------
_" 11
IV
IV
"'""
i'
1 -
v
e

c::1



\
............ ..
FIGURE 10.
dJ
"
..

Distribution of sites in the Geometrie, Arehaie and Classical periods.
0 sett1.ment .
o fort i(
.'G-C
OG
il' G-A
O.A
A-C
'-.
() "
6 _ ... '-.,.
A sanctuary
' tombs
"'. C
Gi-C
?, G?
? A?
? C?

,: .- 0
...
.
?
....-'\
"'\
:-"1 .---.....

.. "'-"".
..... :.: .....
.... " .... _-,
.-",
'/'-"<1 .

-
...... .r") \
t: .......... ';. __ -,-.-;
J: .' (
.. '". '
......... "

C0NT9:URS
200m
1000m __
600m _ . _ 14 QOm _
Seale: 440,000
\ Y ,,, '1 L 't'
IC':':.;-"'_
. f":', ,:-" r G ..
C.---:. : D ...
: .... :..... } ? t ............" ;,
"".,:;.}.- .
':.:'-
....... .1
.. .,.
"..... .' ....
.... _ \! r"\,
..:-...
fi


,
..... -- - ------,- -'-:::::---::.:--.... ..........-4-
,/ .. .z:.......
\ ""-."'-
..,. ... A.' .
c,
-;
24
N
1
'" '
!
,
i
-
o hM
\ ':
' ... _-....... ----""
FIGURE Il. Central Argive plain
by the .
sites destroyed ,
Argos
Map adapted from R.
der Argolis, p. 15.
, ,
"
..
1
f
,"
1
t
1
".

0
:;
,
t
l
, '
CHAPTER 2
POTTERY
2.1 Submycenaean, Protogeometric, Geometrie
and Subgeometric
In terms of archaeological evidence the most
-
materia1 is of course the p6ttery and in a sense, it is also'
the asiest to consider sinee it is abundant and i5 the mate-
rial about whieh we have the most information. An examina-
- 11:>" \
tion of Argive pottery thus provides a good starting point
and it will throw ight on Argive industry, prqsprity and
n
trade espeeiaI1y in the Geometrie period.
Evidence for the S'ubmycenaea'h period has been found a1b
only a few sites in the Argolid, at Argos, Mykenai, Tiryns,
Asine, Dhendra and Nauplion. numbeL of SM pots
cornes from Argos where at least 20 have been diseovered and
fo11O\'/ing ,elosely are ,the 15 from Mykenai. Tiryns has pro-
"
duced 8 vases, Asine now has 7 (Hagg, 1. and J.M. F'ossey:forth::;xJming),
"1
and Nauplion one each, aIl ot which have been
found in graves (Styrenius:
In the PG period there ts a slight inerease in the num-
ber of sites eontaining material sinee PG pots have been
found not only at the sites mentioned ab ove but also at the
Argive Heraion and Porto Khli. In this period, dated c.
950-900 the of the Argolid is remarkab1e for its
close resemblanee that of Attike and in faet Attic imports.
seen at Tiryns whi1e Attie imitations are seen at the
other sites as, weIl. Not only was Attic an important-
but also and it too apparentIy was exported
to the Argolid, an being Asfne' (Desborough: 1952,
204) In their preference for cist tombs and in techni-
cal
the pottery decoration as weIl as in the
25
, .

"
'.
. ,
"
f J
, !
,
.
,
.
1
c
l
26
similarity of sorne wares, the Argolid,and Korinthia
reveaL close ties in the PG period (Desborough: 1952, 204).'
The potter; from the A'rg'olid at this time, al though(re-
Attic is generally regarded as' infetior. Different
sites seem to have produced their own pottery, wYth' varying
standards. For example, Mykenai appears ta have been a
,
poor are a j udging from the amateurish S!freless' fashion .'
of its pottery (Desboro'ugh: 1952, altl10ugh
s
closely
'followed the Atti.c it nowhere approachJe i t'in 'qual.ity:
, 0
was a period 1 in which the si tes of the Argolid
relied almost entirely on outside influenc for their
<
ration but while it is impossible to speak of a true local
style anywhere in the it is necessary to point out
tha t the Argolid is the onlYI d'rea which has produced a PG '
'style comparable to Attic in scope. A certain Vl vaci ty be-
gins to appear in ecoration an@. the quanti ty of is
greater than in the SM period, a trend which grows in the.
Geometrie period ..
The Geometrie 'period'in the Argolid spans sorne 200 years
from 900 to 700 and is divided into
three phases, early, and late. The Early and
, "
Hiddl phases are each subdivided into two parts while the
Late has several subdivisions, LGcI, LG 2a, LG 2b and LG 2c.
During the EG l "phase (900-860?) general one sees a' con-
tinuation of the PG period,and it is not possible ta distin-
guish. a clear break \"ith the pasto The 'shapes eommon to the
PG period sueh as cups and bowls continue to be produced at
this time Qut new shapes also make an for example
o D
the amprypra, various types br oinochai and three
of small As expeted the style is a dark-
e>
one with reserved panels only on the or between
,
the handles and the range of motifs qui te limited.
-
In EG 2 (860-820?) the trend is towards conserva-
tism, a time in whion innovations are rare indeed and in
.,'
\
'i
+
, .
0
..

.


r. -
, .'
, .
.
"
.-
3
r
.,


't
..... 0
.-
, .
\ .'
..
. ..
.
0
'"
-,
, ,
(:
.
0
,
(:t
/
27
which the evolution is towards a slinuning and elonga,tion of
\
Only one new shape appears, the globular
pyxis with large mouth . The next phase, the MG 1 (820-760?)
is one in which there is freedom expressed in shapes,
'composi tion and motifs. There. is furthe'r elongation seen i
especially in the amphora and a new shape of 'pyxis cornes 1n-
v
to'being while in decaration the dark-ground style is still.
0. dominant. (Courbin: 1966, 558 f.). 'l'/
The following phase, the MG Z (760-740?) is charcter-
ized by. a,lot of novelty. The wheel-made pots continue ta

evol ve, becoming and ta Iler_
1
whi le the technique of
hand-rnade'pots becomes almost perfecto The use of the mul-
o
tiple compass and multiple brush is widespread and in .
position, the light-ground appears with the shoulders
of large vases entirely covered with decoration, the field
divided into a number of The use of linear decora-
tion grow& and various linear motifs are seen as filling or-
borde ring 'the window-panels. In the LG l (740-
725) again new phapes appear such as the amphora wi th han-
dles attached at the rim and a new large ainochoe with tall
neck. Besides these developments the vases continue their
progression in phape'but one still sees imitations of other
schO'ols, especially,in hand-made wares. The range of motifs
eX2ands considerably and the technique of painting
with a greater use of the multiple compa,ss and brush
\,
seen-2igzags, lozenges and vertical chevrons, to give a few'
examples, are aIl done with the multiple brush and new mo-
::>-' -------__ ..,.Xifs include the step meander, parallel hatched zigzags' and
rosettes (Courbin: 1966, 561).
,
The LG 2 pe'riod can be defined
r
simply as ope of mass
production. In the first part of this phase (725-720) there
is a development, in composition and motifs. The elongation ..
continues in sorne shapes but in others there is a return tOI
.
more bellied forros. Figured drawing which made its appearanCe
i
j
1
t
;
,
,

1
' ,
(1
'1
j
\1

J
,
:Il

,
4
-%
1
"
1
'f
1
1
'j
.
r
;
..
~ , (
"
28
././ in the MG, is developed further in this peribd wi th new mo-
tifs adopted, such as naturalistie herons and files of dan-
cers with palms. In the I:.G 2b (720-7l0) the pe<f.of Argi,;,c
Geometrie is reached as aIl of the above tren8s are developed
to their fullest extent. 'It is a period when there, are many
monumental vases and when the shapes in general attain their
peak in quality. The decoration-now covers more of the pot
than before and one notics much figured drawing; especially
,
common scenes are the horse wi th or wi thout a man. holding lt,
as weIl as files of women and birds of various kinds and ani-
maIs such as deer. Besides these, "action" scenes such as
chariot races and naval combats are prevalent. This is the
tlme when the Argives both export and import; the most corn-
mon imports are Korinthian skyphoi. It is evidently. the high
'.
point of the Geometrie period but' this does not last long and
by the third phase of the LG (7l0-end of 8th c.) there are
already signs of deterioration as the shapes are becoming
more bulbous and the I?roportions of the ,different I;?arts of
the pots are not always well- sui ted ta each other. There
are nevertheless new shapes such as the flask and f laring
cup as weIl as new motifs but these in part can b ~ explained
as the degeneration of certain old motifs in that the fish
has become a flower, wavy lines have turned into snakes and
triangles have rounded angles. Obviously the potters have
become confronted wi th the need ta prduce more vases and
thus spend less time in qompleting each one--quanti ty has
taken the place of quality. At this time the' application
o ,
'. of white paint is popular for lghlights and the utilization
of incisions commences but as to the composition in general
a deterioration in the rnarshalling of designs becoms appar-
ent; the vertical divisions essential in creating a balanced
scene have been abanaoned and the'work has become s l a p p ~ ,and
careless (Courbin: 1966', 564).
, ,
'This unheal'hy trend is prolonged into the Suogeometric
l
r
29
period; the Argolid remains static while other schools ad-
vance, a fact causes it to los in the field
of ceramics as other schools ta-ke 'over the market, the most.
notewc5rthy of which are the Protocor inthian and K orinthian
in the 7th century and the Attie of course, in the 6th. Not
mu ch is known about the Argive i:lubgeometric since little has
been unearthed so far ,but the evidence seems to show that the
Argolld perseveted in 'i ts independenrway as i t had in the
,
Geometrie, particularly the LG. In terms of
shapes and motifs the was.to follpw the general
trends of the LG (Bromme1aer: 1972, 229-251). After this the
Argive sehool never reached any importance worth mentioning
and in faet the Argolid depended on the Korinthian workshops
for much of i ts own pottery', as did the rest ot the Greek '
world.
In general then, the peak of the Geometrie period
the LG 2b but eontrary to what might be expected, Argos was
not the only ..center of production of Geometrie pottery lm
the Argolid i5 clear in .the fa ct that certain differenees
1
are remarked at different sites. One of the most noticeable
'.
of these in clay eolour i tself whiC'h varies not
only at diffrent sites but on different groups of pots at
, .
the,same site. Although a5.a whole the clay of the'Argolid
"' "is usually a very pale yellow that at MykeI).ai for example
.
is somewhat lighte'r and more greenish than at Argos while

at Berbati it varies from very light and greyish' to a darker
colour. The clay from Tiryns seems to have ,cnaracteristics
of both Argos" and Mykenai,but that of Asinaean pots only

ra:-ely has the same colour as Argive, being pale and neutral
in colour, often greyish and often quite dark th sorne prnk-
.
ish tinges (Courbin: 1966, 455. f.). At other si tes such as
,
Lerna, the colour is very similar to ljrglve. From these
variations it is obvious that there existed several work-
shops throughout perhaps the most independent
,
1

J
.
/
,
Il.
7
30

'--
....
of which was at l\sine where the pottery, shows' closer ties
with Attike than with Argos and in fact at Asihe in the LG
II per iad one of the identified work?hops is the Attici zing
c ,
Workshop which produced pots of Attic shape (Coldstream:
1968, 1-31 f.) It is important however not to overestimate
the value of suc!) differences since variations occur as well
wi thin the same si te and indeed on the same vase and the
characteristics of the whole of the Argalid in aspects such
as clay colour, composition and motifs are much stronger
than the dlfferences one notes fram site 'to site.
It is also interesting'" to see what place Argive Geomet-
rie holds with relation to the rest of the 'Greek worl,d as,
weIl as what influence, it may have had and the borrowihgs it
received. The Argive school is con-sidered an. important one',
second only to that of Athens but it did take mu ch of its
inspiratldn from other SChOOlS suoh as the Korinthian, KykIa-
,
dlC 1 Lakonian and Bo'iotian as well as the Attic i tself (Cour-
bin: 1966,500 f,). Although it is notpossible to pinpoint
the exact periods when the A,rgolid borrowed different aspects
ei ther in .shape or decora tion from each of these schools, on
,
the whole the borrowings took place in the earlier part of
the Geometrie, i. e. the EG and HG. The outside influences
were'strongest in the EG and gradually faded until the-LG
when the Argive potters became quite independent and looked
wi thin own borders for inspiration rather than to the
outside. In t,urn they influnced other schools
in shapes and decoration, bt again it 15 impossible ta give
precise information as to when these influences accurred in
the var ious schools. AlI tha t can be said safely is tha t
the Argolid influenced other areas primarily in the LG; there
was sorne influence in the MG as well but i t was not as grea t:
The schoo1s which seem to have had the greatest influ-
on Argolid are the Korinthian and Attic, the influ-

ences of bath of which can be seen from the PG on as men tloned
,
f
./
1
f
(
31
,earlier. The Korinthia infl uenced the Argo,lid in certain
types of decoration, for example two zigzags from handie to
handle in spyphoi and in certain hand-made pots (Desborough:
,
1952, The influence continued into the Geometrie peri-
od when there was a lot of borrowing by the Argive artlsans.
Certain types of oinochai wi th ,round mouth were copled' as
weIl as skyphol and lekythoi, kalathoi, and aryballol. ln
motifs the Argi ve potters took certain f ish and synunetric
herons pl us angular 10 zenzes as weIl as others such 'as rays
at' the base of pots (Courbin: 1966, 518 f.). The Korlinthlans
borrowed from their Argive ,neighbours, for example
certaIn amphorae and certain PG skyphoi as weIl as different
types of oinochai and pyxides but on the whole the two schools
are more separa te than close in clay, Protoco.;-/inthian tech-
nique, totali ty of shapes, motifs and composi tians (Courbin:
1966, 520).
Insofar as Attike is concerned, there' were borrowings
by both s.ides throughout ,the Geometrie period. Argive
workshops "b.rrowed LG ovoid amphora, pi tcher and certain
types of pyxides as weIl arS the composition of panels, the
simple zigzag, spiral, certain types ,of LG horses and
others while the Attic. borrowed the hydr ia, conlcal oinochoe,
the use of the multiple brush, hatched triangles, lozenge-
leaves and There are however, fundamental
differences betweeh these two schools in both shapes and de-
coration. Kraters are an essentially Argive type but hot
foun& in Attike. Certain skyphoi and pyxides are common
only ta ArgJ:ve and compasi tion there are great differences.
. ""'-
The dark-ground style in LG is more cammon in Argive as is
the step meander, running dogs, hatched triangles, etc.
(Courbin: 1966, 505 f.)
The a:rea which seems to have received t;he Argi ve
influences is Arkadia, but this is not too surprising sinee
Arkadla is a neighbour. So much of the pottery there resembles
, .

r
f (
32
/
Argive that it is difficult to whether the vases are cop-
ies or imports. There is' 'strong similarity in the preparlng
. ,
and f iring of the clay, the large Argi vases have their
counterparts in Arkadia, the resembles the Argive and
most of the Argive motifs are found 1966, 5?O f.).
Tt lS certain that Argive was the dominating influence in
this area and'it is an'area'which did not influence Argive
at aIl but on the other hand received almosj;.-- all of its in-
spiration from the Argolld the Geometrie period.
The Argolid's ties with Lakonia were not very close and
there 0as not mu eh borrowing by either side. In Lakonia the
onl1' shape whieh owes something tq Argive is the eylindri-Gal
pyxis. In decoration, the hatched and step meander, the pa-
o"
rallel and hatehed zigzags, lozenzes,and spirals were prob-
ably borrowed from the Argi ves-this beg inning in the l"lG-while
the on 1ts side borrowed a shapes sueh as the b
skyphoi with fl,anng Hp and the lyre and arrow but the 1n-
fluences by both on each other were quite insignif1cant and
they remained basicillly independent (Courbin: 1966, 503),
though Coldstream (1968, 352) remarks that in tQe LG period
the Lakonian pottery shoWS mueh Argive influence.
BeS1des these, another area which both influenced the
Argolid and received inspiration from it was Boiotia. Most
bf was the later part of the Geometrie period when
the Boiotians borrowed shapes such as the globular pyxis and
motifs sueh as the step meander, the fish, bird with raiscd
wing and others.. In turn the Argives took the big oinochai
from Boiptia but as with other sehools, the Arglyes were
quite independent of Boiotia in the LG especially, although
aceordlng to Courbin (1966, 523) the Argives had c10ser .re-
l " '
latlons with Boiotia than with any other.
With the other areas of Greece, the Kyklades, the East
and Krete, the influences and borrowings of the Argolid in
general are not numerous. Of th three the Kyklades i$ the
/
r

l'
i:
.'
"fr,

l
33
\
\
area WhlCh w as most important in that they borrowed the Ar-
give oinocha i, deep skyphoi ano. small aryballol as well as
motifs such s running and hatched dogs, concentric trian-
"
g1es, curv11 near 10zenges among others while shapes such as
the monument 1 amphora, kantharoi, and motifs such as
groups of di gonals and concentric semi-circ1es were takcn
by the Arglv s. AlI of these however cannat be used to show
S trong conne t'ions between the two areas for ln e ffect they
had C]Ul te di 'tlnct fabrics a.,nd most of the shape!:> dJl
motifs which are common in Argi are -unknown or extreme ly
rare in the yklades' (Courbin: 1966, 524-528).
The Arg lid had almost no eonnection with'Krete and the
East. Ther,e are a few shapes and motifs which Krete may have
1
borrowed and Vlce versa but none o'f them 15 certain and Lite
dlfferences are much more important than the slmllarities.
The same is true for the East where in fact there is nothlng
which can definitely be ascribed as Argive-influenced nor is
ther any Eastern lnfluence, in the Argolid (Courbin: 1966,
530 L).
On the whole then there was sa mueh borrowing and move-
ment of ldeas throughout ,aIl these areas that it lS diffl-
cult ta find traits that are peeuliarly Argive and as Cour-
bin" (1966, 545) points'out, one must make an arbltrary de-
C1Slon as tQ WhlCh ones are truly Argive. The clay itself
is characteris tic as well as the populari ty of hand-made pots.
Certaln shapes are Argive--the semi-spherical olnochai and
flask, the cylindrical pyxis, the freguency of the
the low cup, etc. Furthermore the common use of the multi-
ple brush is typical and the dark-grodnd of
the abundance of LG zigzags which are made with the multiple
,
brush, the step meander, the frequent appearance of fish,
etc. The Argolld therefore followed a course which, though
it received something from the outside, seems ta have drawn
most of lts inspiration from within and, s pinted out
-
,
,
34
earller, the differences from site to siti in the Argolid
show the presence of individual painters and potters at these
a
places. Examples of sites which had their own
workshops are Mykenai, Berbatl, Magoula, Tiryns, ASlne, Dhen-
,
dra, Prosymna, Troizen and of course Argos. One notes that
. .
certain types of pots are only found at sorne sites and not
others and the same is true ,for motifs. For example cert<:Hn
amphorae are typlcal of M'ykenai and Berbati, the blC;""trlpod
pyxis IS 'peculiar to' Argos a'nd the double stirrup handlc ap-
.
pears to be found only atDhendra. In motifs certain types
of concentric circles are se,en only at Asine and certaln
leaves only on cups of Tiryns and Dhendra while there
are ,blrds which are common only to prosymna and Troizen.
These are only and are not meant to be an exhaus-
tive l1st of aIl the differences at aIl the sites., In fact
i t seems to be a study which has never been examlned tho-
roughly altho:ugh it perhaps wouldbeauseful enterprise and
might shed sorne light on the individua'l workshops and help
ln establlshing what contacts the various Argive sites had,
not,only with,each other, but especially with outside areas.
The case at Asine ,is well-known but'other sites may aiso have
been more independent of Argos than 15 sometlmes thought and
thus q complete study of the Argive pots with this in mind
mlght be worthwhile.
Another aspect which is important to consider is Argive
exports and irnports. In most cases the importance of a par-
ticular school is judged partly on the basts of its exports
and imports but this is not the case with the Argolid where
bath exp and imports are relatively rare. The chart,
Figure
by
sorne indipation of these imports and exports.
is'chart adapted from the information g,lven
(Coldstream: 1968) and Courbin (Courbin:
would appear that Argive exports were con-
a fa Ise impression for whi le
.... , <IIl'i\1"""".1<-",,,-,,,
.'!I ........ ""I/'--.Ji..... -"l1"""" _
--
-;., .'
1"'"
EXPORTS
MGII: Arkadia (Tegea)
LG(2): Korlnthos
perakhora
Aigina
, /
Arkadia _(Te,gea)

Asea (perhaps)
Melos
Knossos (perhaps)
Kythera
Aetos (J;thake)
Megara Hyblaia
Delphoi
Attike
Thera
"""

PG:
EG:
>jI
MG:
LG:
...
IMPORTS
Korlnthian - Asine (others?)
Attic - Tlryns
"-
Attic - Argos
Tiryns
ASlne
Kvkladic - Argos
others?
Boiotian Tlryns
Asine
Kyk1adic - Asine (perhaps)
- Argos
Ehodian - Asine
Korlnthlan
-
"Argolld"
(r.ttic) - Tlryns, Argos,
'FIG8RE 12. Extent of Argive exports and imports (after Coldstream:
1968, 363 f. and 1966, passlm).
-
...
\

LW
U1
Asine
-"----

'"' l.. _.
...-,; ..
r
"36
the extent of the distribution is large, (see Hap,'Figure 13),
the amount of at each site is very small. There cer-
tainly was no large-scale exportation--the greatest quntlty
is found in Arkadia but sorne of these, formerly,thought to be
Argive, noware felt to be local imitations (Courbin: 1966,
5219) 'and as for Lakonia there are no sure Arglve lmports al-
though there are a few pots whicH may be Argive. Korinthos
has a few Arglve imports but Courbin feels that most of the
pots labelled Argive are probably (Courbin: 1966,
550). Nothing was imgorted there in any quantlty but the
situation is sllghtly different at perakhora where Argive
imports are numerous (Dunbbin: 1962, 314-333; 1962,
It seems however that there has been an overesti-
mation of the Importance of Argive imports thore. Many of
the pots are certainly not Argive, many are of doubtful orl-
9in and sorne which are said ta be Argive show no real Argive
traits but on'the other hand; sorne are assuredly Argive,
as a big fragmentary krater and architectural models (Cour-
bin: 1966, 550 and n. 1). At the other sites, the picture,
is of very At Delphoi only one pot
has :-l:{e'n ideo tif led as Argi ve, in Attike there al"e a few
fragments and pots, at Melos two kraters, ln Krete Ohly one
uncertain fragment, at Megara Hyb1aia a few fragments, and'
the same 1S true for the other are as although at Algina Ar-
.
give lmports are seen in.fair'numbers. It is not possible
therefore to speak of the as having any Importance
whatsoever on the world market since only three places have
imports in considerable quantities--Perakhora, Arkadia and
Aigina, and Arkadia can be partly from its geo-
graphical proxlmity.
Wlth respect to Argive imports from other areas, the ,
picture be seen to be the same--there were very few Im-
,
P?rts, the on1y one found in any quantity being the Proto-
corlnthian. In the early period both Korinthian and AttlC
37' '
1


1
1

1
ri
1.
..
1
H
-

u...
Cf
1
.
~
. '
,
!
l
~ i
"
t
..
"
1
: 1
,J
{
38 J'
were impor'ted, as ment.,ioned above. The MG sees one fragmen t
at Argos from the Kyklades but the main period for the im-
,
ports 15 the .LG which sees imports from Boiotia, Rhodos as
weIl as others but none of these is of any major importance:
The imports are isolated examples rather than a steady com-
merce-; Furthermore they are only found 'at very few si tes 1
usually Argos, Tiryns and Asine. It is only with the Korin-
. , -
thian of the 7th c. that imports increase; pots of this f.ab-:
ric are found at Mykenai, Argos,
and Hermione 184).
1
Tiryns, Troizeh, Epidauros
The one obtains from this is that the Argolid
'1
was_an area .which&was quite independent and which,ignored
much from other schooYs. Its ihfluence first began. to
be telt in MG 2 when it had developed a typical
style of its own and was distinct from the Attic school
and Korinthian. In this period it became progressive and
experlmented with and shapes not common ta other
areas and its now became distinctive. 1 This con-
tinued in the LG when the style :t:>ec'ame very
dependlng on little if anything from schools. It is
a period of mass production, when large were 50 ela-
borate tht they must have been meant for rich patrons while
the smaller wares, intended for 'everyday were careless-
ly done. FinaIly, in the 7th century there was quite a rapid
, .
decIinB and Korinthian imports became quite especially
in the second half of the century. The Argolid seems to have
stopped progr,esslng and developing-- and ta. have become
stagnant, content with simply repeating old tired motifs and
shapes. It is a period when able to crush
aIl i ts rivals and swamp:d the market, something Attic was
,
do in the next century.

r
1
? 1
j
l
1
J
f
j
1
,
i
l

o
, .
39 .
2.2 Il Arg ive" Monochrome
"rgive" Monochrome is a fairly widespread ware usu,llly'
attributed to the Argolid but as i8' indicated by the quota-
tion marks around "Argive" in the title, this appelation hast
never been certain. It smal1 hand-made, un-
painted oinochai and aryballoi whose major distinction is the
" .
clay i tself--a pale buff, colour, sometimes with a gree'n1sh
tinge because of insufficient firing or calcium
tent. These'vases though common in the Argoiid.itself, are'
also found ip other areas of Greece and the \'lest, for
'example Thera, various places in Attike, Itha'ke and Syrause.
, .
,In the/pa(t i t has' been the fashion to claim an Argive origin
for aIl of these vases but upon closer examination it is pos-
sible to see certain differences between those ot the rest
of Greece and those of ,the Argolid. For example the vases
from Syracuse have sorne sort of incision done wi th a metal
comb o'r an made with a seal or cylinder. This
type of decoration is witnes8ed often in Attike, Thebes,
.
,Aigina, Thera, Gela and Ithake yet i8 extremely rare in the
Argolid. In these areas the differences are such that it
wquld be unwise to these monClchrome vases as having
been imported from the Argolid although they may be imports
from sorne other area which also produced monochrome.ware or
else are local products (Courbin: 1966,' 3,1), possibly Argive-

influenced. -
A site which has"produced much "Argive" monochrome' is '
Perakhora. Dunbabin in Perachora II lists sorne/of so-
Argive at the perakh6ra Heraion, claiming
,'that i t is impossible to distj,nguish them mon.ochrome
vases discoveretl at the Argive Heraion (Dunbamin: 1962, 314).
He characterizes those at by their fine ligh't-
coloured clay and excellent finish, dating them' to th'e' Ar-
chaic period; this date has however since been revised te
.)
(
1
, !
1
\
,
j
, l
(
.J
r.
o
40
)
the Geometrie If they are truly Argive none of them
dates fo the 7th entury. , In his catalogue'Dunbabiri points
out various shapes 'which he de-fin'es as "Arglve" monochrome 1
aryballoi, oinochai, le'kythoi, cups, phialai, bowis 1 ampho-
rae, kratrs and others aIl of which are established as
<
give because of their similarity to those of t1ykenai, the.
f n
tieraion, Tiryns and Tegea. (Dunbabin: 1962, 330). He
does make the point however that sorne of -these wares in fact
could, be Korinthian, thus indicaticng that it i8 diff icult to
establish clearly which are Argive and whioh are nota A
/If
ehemical investigation of "the ware wouid thus be use fuI and"
'might solve the problem.
It 1'5 certain that the Argo1id was not the only centre
of production for this pottery but that at least both Korln-
thos and Athens were responsible for a share. Usually these
are clear'ly distinguishable in eoiour; the Korin thian for
example is than the Argive version (Courbin: 1966,
. .
30) but manypf the vases found neverthe1ess'fall into a
categoty' wqich cannot be identified with great certainty as
Argive, Korinthian or Attic. Those from perakhora are exam-
pIes of such vases)which do not appear to lear1y into
, .
any category. Undoubted1y sorne of them are Argive imports
but it is not safe 'to assume this for' aIl such vases, many
of them originafing from the Korinthian workshop.
Courbin, who has examined the problein of Il Argi ve" mon'o-
is of the opinion that wble monochrome ware is es-
common in the Argolid and seems to have originated
there, those vases which are 10cated in sites outside the
oshould not be regarded as Argive (Courbin:
1966, 30) but shou1d be seen as local imitations, of Argive
ware (basides those which obviously are inspired' by the
,Korinthian or Attic). He feels in fact that those f(om
"
Phaleron in Attike for examp1e are copies of Korinthian
1
monochrome 0 while those from Syracuse, ysually regarded as
,
..
j
f
f
l
1

"
.. ,
/
.
,
,
..
"
. ,
(
o
. .
..
, ,
Argive, he thinks are He
feels that similarity in products of different areas is,not
<,
a enougn for establishing a single origin
. "
for those products though it does imply contact among those
areaS". In effect this 15 the basic argument against seeing
the Argolid as the one and dnly source of monochrome pottery .
With this in minti, the most that ean be said safely with re-
gard ta monochrome is that this ware appears ta have
originated because it is found'here in the
'greatest quantity" and that the Argive_s influenced other
areas ta attempt ta produce similar products. It does not
, .
appear to have been exported, with the possiple exception of'
(
sorne dise9vered at Perakhora although even there one does
not have a sure way of identifying them as Argive imports.
In sorne places such as Thebes, Aigina, Thera, Ithake and
'Gela lt nevertheless is very difficult to distinguish lmports
from local copies and the similarities are such that it is
inadvH'able ta assume that they are aIl 'copies; sorne in fact
may be Argiye import's (Courbin: 1966, 32).
1
"Argive" monochrome then, dated to the late 8th century
" 1
and 1th century, probably originated ?nd had its
popularity in the Argolid itself. Soon the ware spread 'ta
many areas of and separate worksbops were established
in Korinthos, Attike and the West. The degree of Argive in-
fluence in many of these places is stili an undetermined
o
factor 'however, and there is still much confusion over
can be labelled-as distinctively Argive. What obvioU5ly i5
neqed is a thorough study of this ware since there are still
questions. One would have to know more about
the sehools involved, how many there were, and the
extent" of the of e'ach in other areas. The influ-

ence of the ArgoLid seems definite in sorne places but uncer-
1
tain,in others and it i5 not really p6saible yet to deeide
where there are true imports and where one finds copies. At
o
\
r
\
[
c'
/
42
, ,. . .
sorne s1tes there is uncertainty about whether the wareis
. subject ta Argive or karinthian influence; aIl these prob-
lems from : of knowledge about the ware
self, One can"only hope that in. tne future more work will
.be undertaken toncerning"this and that eventually light may
be shed on the place of "Argive" monochrome with relation
to other fabrics.
o
1 .. '0
- '\
0'
1
J
-)
r
)
j
1 1
P
CHAPTER 3
, BRONZES
3.1 IntFoduction
Objects of bronze, most of which corne from tombs, in-
elude rings, pins and vases, armour, and vari-
aus typS of . The early articles, dating ta the( EPG
period consist mo tly rings, and
Whil'e the potte y finds lof suggest a low stand-
ard of living in whieh both technology and
were not high,ly developed, this is not confirmed
1
entirely by the metal finds which give.the impression that
1 \ ,
thf Argolld was at a high technological level, with gold
and iron used as weIl as bronze. One muSt assume of course
that these objects were loeally produced for local '
use, an assumption 'Jlhich is credible sinee a 'silver-r--efining
, -
,shop of the SM period was found in Argos (Desbor?ugh: 1972,
72) and hence it is .clar that at this very early peri-
, ,
od the Argives had a technology 'and the
fact that the shop was located in re-
veals that this city at least was a centre for the
\
sil ver from the very beginning ot post-Mykenaian times,
. though it does not necessarily. rnean that it was the,: only 0
ci,y involved in this industry. Tnere is much that still
to be learned about the bronze industry of the ArgoIid
and thus the picture one gets necessarily must be incomplete.
, .
3.2 Pins and Fibulae
Of the bronze objects the ones which are best
knowp 9e the pins, these being found in abundance throughout
43
"
f
/
the Argolid. Before proceeding any further with ihis matter
it is" necessary to hlake a distinction between pins and fibu-
lae for the terms are not interchangeable--pins resernble our
ordinary straight pins while fibulae can perhaps best lik-
ened to safety pins. What is interesting is that in the Pe-
loponnese; of the two types, only pins are found in graves,
an indication that they are local, but in sorne other parts
-
of Greece the picture is reversed as fibu1ae are the common
fasteningp found 'in tombs 1956, 15-16}.
pins found in the itself have been qiscovered
in graves throughout the area and show a definite progression
in type from the PG on. ln the PG period they of iron
and had a flat dise while in the EG bronze became the eommon
metal. In the Geometrie there were various types used,
sorne with a fIat disc, others with round ones, and a "T" type
both ron and bronze while still others imitated obe1oi'
1972, 130 f.i. The iron pins ,of the period beeame
progressively 10nger as time went by; they were of two main
o
types, the "T
f1
kind and the type with fIat dise. Different
types.of pins may have found greater favour at sorne sites
than others but this i5 a subjeet which needs greater study.
A couple of examples are nevertheless possible; Courbin notes
that in the later part of the Geometrie the fIat dise of the
pins was surmounted by a pommel, something which is seen at
Tiryns, Mykenai, Korinthos and sanctu'aries (Courbin: 1972"
,
131), while reealls a type guard-
plague which is found at Argos, Syracuse and Selinos (Jac9b-
sthal: 1,956, 12). Not enough has been done 0D_.thi's matter
however to allow further details concerning the
.
seen at different sites.
Sinee 50 many of the Peloponnesian pins seem to have
been found the Argo1id'it tempting to see it as the
driving force in the production of these fastenings in the
Gand Subge'ometric periods but this is a conclusion whieh is
"
"
1

1
,
1
1
\
,
45
tenfative at best. Obviously there may have been different
centres of production thropghout the Peloponnese; there is
no reason to suppose the existence of onlY one dominant cen-
tre and ln fact It known that Sparta for example produced

her own pins (Jacobsthal: 1956, 12). Besides this however,
it i5 dlfflcult If not impossible to distinguish local Pelo-
o
ponncsian workshops. As Jacobsthal remarks (Jacobsthal:
1956, 20 f.) the Peloponnese as a whole was the dominant,
creative centre but one cannot tell local differences. Ile
does feel nevertheless that the Argolid may have been the
main centre for the production, an opinion based largely on
the fact that throughout the Geometrlc and Subgeometric peri-
ods It is the most prolific Source of pins ln the
In these periods pins are commonly found at Perakhora,
Korinthos, Tegea, Sparta, and Aigina, besides the Argive

sItes themselves (Jacobsthal: 1956, 5, 12). Orientalizlng
pins, as Jacobsthal refers to thern, have a wide distrlbutlon,
,
,
being found at sites such as Perakhora, Argos, Olympia,
Delphoi, Halai, Rhodos, Krete and
Jacobsthai fee1s that because of the similarity
of these pins wlth those of the Argolid, it is possible
"
some of them, if not aIl, are Argive 1956, 29}.
One must be wary of making an unqualifid decision aboub this
however and there must still be certain reservations. For
example, it justified,to conciude that pins of a simildr
appearance have a similar origin? The Perakhora examples
resemble.the Argive and are therefore thought to be Argive
but i p this a fair conclusion? rf it were so, then pottery
of a similar appearance should aiso have a similar origin
but as was seen eprlier, this is not always the case. It
is.safe to sy that the Argolid made great use of plns and
it rnay be possible to conclude that pins had their origln
there since ln the PG period they are found almost exclusive-
ly in the Argolid itself besides Athens. Throughout the

r
46

// '
Geometrlc it probably influenced the rest of e
ponnese and by the Subgeometric, since most pins are foun
in the Argolid, it may be .to assume that' the Argo1 id _
was the dornlnating centre. Whether those found in t e rcsL /'
. of the Peloponnese were made or imported' is a\9.ucsf-
tion which still needs to be answered. --
The other type of fastening is the fibula but these
,
are not cornmonly found in the Peloponnese. In fact up to
1958 in Argos on1y one true had been dlscovered (Cour-
bin: 1972, 132), and in the Peloponnese, in contrast
pins, ,they are not found in graves except at Lrna and 1\0r1:n-
thos but in sanctuaries, a fact which indicates they
were not worn locally but brought as votives by people from
outside. It i5 not surprising that the Argive IIeraion, one
of the m05t lmportant sanctuarles in Greece, lS the greatcst
source of fibulae in the Argolid for visitors coming from
aIl over Greek world would have gone thete and dedlcated
their flbu1ae.
,
Many of the Heraion fibu1ae are Submycenaean in date and
are of the type wlth symmetrlcal arc. This type i5 a1so
found in Krete, Salamis, Aigina, Olympia
t
LOUS01, Deiphol,
Cyprus, Thessaly, Sparta, Thebes, Thera,
Paros, Chios, Phokis, and Khalroneia, Rh6des, Tegea (Blinken-
berg: 1926, p.lb) .. 'Those from the Heraion apparently were
brought by outsiders; Boiotian fibulae have been recognized
there as weIl as Attic and Thessalian. In the Argolid as a
whole flbu1ae are noteworthy for their absence, particularly
their absence from graves. They are not an important archae-
ologlcal source therefore, in terms of showing tne Argolid's
influence with respect to the rest of Greece. They do show
that the Peloponnese and partlcularly the Argolid remained
quite from the rest of Greece, something WhlCh
was remarkable aIse in Argive pottery. What lS interestlng
is that the Argolid may have been the domiriant centre for
r
c
1
<t<
in the later part of the period and the Sub-
geometric. If this is correct it might mean that it had no-
tl.ceable lnfluence throughout the Peloponnese a't that tlmc.
The task now lS to see whether other archaeological eVldence
can confl.rm this.
3.3 Sculp-ture
Another bronge industry was that of sculpture, a field
in WhlCh the Argolid excelled in the Classieal perlod when
its school of sculpture was one of the greatest of Greece,
and its greatest sculptor was Polykleitos who produced many
of the cult statues in the varlOUS temples. In the earller
,
perlods especially the Geometrie, the lS not neces-
sarily the same, or at least the difficulty of ldentl.fyl.ng

dlfferent Peloponneslan schools of bronze work makes it dif-
ficult to assess'the specifie position of the Argolid. The
earliest bronze finds are of 8th century date
from sanctuaries; their numbers are limited'however, thus
, . ,
maklng it difficult to obtafn any definite information about
>
bronze in the Argolid. As weIl, Sl.nce they are
in sanctuarles caution is needed when deallng
with them as undoubtediy many were brought as votives by
worshippers from outside the Argolid.
It is only in the Archaic period that the industry takes
hold ln this area and this probably not the
of the 6th century. Before this date there is 50 much un-
certainty concerning the Peloponnesian bronze schools that
when one hears of the workshops of this area, no attempt is
made to distinguish individual centres and thus one hears'
of the triangle in the Northeast Pelo-
ponnese. Thes three cities, known for their metalworking
and aIl them fairly are the logical choices
for possible workshops in this area but insofar as Argos
.,
48
itself is concerned, nothing is very sure about its school
until the Archaic period when the sculpture deve lops certain
features characteristic of the Argolid--legs are slightly
apart, thighs are rounded and the articulation of the knees
is emphaslzed (Charbonneaux: 1962, 93). It is at thlS tlme,
ln the 7th-6th century_that Polymedes of Argos lived, one
of the earliest Greek sculpt6rs and c. 600-590 the
produced the famous statues of the twins Kleobls and Blton
dedicated at Delphoi. Again these are Archaic sculptures
and unfertunate1y is a pltiful 1ack of information con-
cernlng the earlier state bf'affairs in the Argolld. Winl-
, ,
fred Lamb that though it i8 possible that there was
an Arglve scheol earlier, nothing was producad ln any quahtity
1
until the late part ofthat century (Lamb: 1969, 87).
This is another area therefore where our informatlon.will re-'
main hazy until many more exafuples are found of the ear1ier
period to make it possible to di8cern the dlfferent styles
of the Peloponnesian schools .
. 3.4 Armour and Weapons
The final bronze industry to be considered is that of
weaponry and armour. Whereas Argos was relatively poor in
the earlier periods in bronze sculpture, it was a leader in
bronze armour and weapons" particularly the so-called "hop-
lite" armour. Bronze armour which had been in the
Mykenaian period, made its re-appearance in the late 8th
(Snodgrass: 1965, 110). The adoption of bronze now
used for helmets, corslets, greaves, shields and javellns
reflects contact with the East and Europe. Contacts with
Europe developed during the colonization of Italy in the
mid and late 9th century and with the East in the same peri-
od when Assyrians became involved in the Mediterranean.
The various components of the weaponry'and armour did
\
..;
L
,
1:
,
,
a
{
49
not aIl appear at the sarne time and it seems to have taken
quite a while before they aIl were used together. The in-
dividual pieces of armour are flrst seen in the Geometrie
period represented on vase paintings with the bronze helmet
appearing in' the late 8th century on v.ases of Athens, Argos,
Sparta and Samos. Different types of helmets are snown, aIl
of bhem having variations in crests. From such representa-
tlOns lt is apparent that Argos had several dlffercnt
of he1mets, the especia1ly cornmon ones being the type with
very tall crest 'towering in a conical projection (Snodgrass:
1964, 8-9, Figure 14A), a type'which is seen on a sherd from
the Aigive Heraion. An actual example of this type in Argos
is that with tal1 crest stilting or curving both front and
back 50 tha t it almost touches the helmet (Figure I"4B). This
type is se en not only in Argos but also Siphnos and Rhodos.
At Tiryns one sees a helmet with cheek pieces, a model re- ,
sembllng those of Tenos, Sparta and Korinthos. Also from
Tiryns, is the helmet with tall, unstilte crest curving for-
wards (Figure 14C), a type also found in Sparta and common
ln Mykonos and Krete. AlI these types, though found else-
whe're, are especially Argive (Snodgrass:, 1964, 8) and they
, .
aIl types which ultimately derive from the-East, parti-
cu1arly Ana tolia.,
e
(a) (b) (c)
14. Argive helmets. (a) and (b) Argos (c) Tiryns.
(after,Snodgrass: 1964, 8-9).
'"
...
-
t

50
Besides helmets, another important.element of hoplite
equipment is the shield, otherwise known as the "Argi.ve Il
shield and apparently having its origins in the
interesting the acropolis in Argos lS
called the Aspis, one of the Greek words for shield. While
the possibility exists that thii name was due solely ta tho
$hape of the hlll, it may the importance of the
shleld in history. The "Argive" shield was of bronze
with offset rim and was decorated in a multiple guilloche
pattern. As Snodgrass points out (1964, 64), Argos was the
main centre of productioQ..., for these hoplite shields and had
a near-monopoly of' them, although it does not nccessarily
follo\\' that Argos is their ultimate orign; other
places no doubt produced their own local copies. 't'he "Ar-
give" shield was 'especially common in the Peloponnese and
by c. 650 was seen in Athens, Korinthos, Sparta, Samot, Krete
and Siphnos. l'
ln the late 1950's the French digging at Argos made one
of the most important discoveries for the of bronze
armour of the Geometrie period when they found the now-famous
Panoply grave dated to the LG peri9d, which contained among
other things, a bronze helmet and complete corslet (Courbin:
1957, 322-386). The helmet is of a type derived from the
East ,JAnatolia) and is similar ta those of various plces
represented on vase paintings,.but has certain differences
in that the cheek pieces are longer than the others, the
height above the forehead is unusually great and the neck-
guard 18 plain and short with the crest welded into the he1-
met instead of hammered into it.
The is of the bell type which means that it has
an in ward ''crve near the waist from which the lower rim
curves stron91y. This type is found also at
the Alpheus valley, Axos, praisas,and Gortyn but Courbin
feels It was Introduced by ArBos (Courbin: 1957, 72). The
"
1
1
., '
,)
c
\
\
51
Panoply grave is important becuse it provides the earliest
,
example of a hoplite breastplate in Greece, and one which
has no precedent, but the grave did not contain the shIeld
or greaves essential to the hoplite. It is possible to
surne that grave robbers were responsible for the absence of
these two elements but this is an unsatisfactory solution.
Furthermore the absence of weapons must also be
and' while these unsolved probl"ems make it unsare to call the
Panoply grave warrior a hoplite, a possible solutIon to his
identity may be provided by the presence in the grave of mod-
els of ships' prows, a factor which would indicate that this
warrlor may have been connected with the sea, perhaps as a
sailor-soldier. These models, as weIl as numerous represen-
tations of ships on vases of the second half of the 8th en-
tury reveal that ships were common ,on the Ar:.give coast at
that tlme and a possible conclusion may be that Argos then
was more Involved in maritime activities than previously
thought, perhaps including the of Italy (Deanna:,
1959, 248).
The PaI)oply grave also contained two iron double-axes, '
quit-e an un'usual thing at this time. While they simply may
be weapons as such without any religious or funereal connec-
tions whatsoever, it IS difficult ,to explain why these axes
are "-axes, a difficulty which so far has been
resolved.
WhIle double-axes are nbt a common ocurrence in the
Geometrie period, the opposite is true of javelins which are
seen especially in Attike and and the Northeast Pelo-
ponnese including Argos thus showing that the perlod was one
of long-range fighting. type of fighting common in
the Geometrie period was cavalry battles, as seen by their
frequent depiction on Argive pots and those of Athens and
Krete and a little later on those of the rest of the
-
world (Snodgrass: 1964, 163). What all of thlS means with
respect to the period when hoplite tactics were as
weIl as the role Argos in it WIll be dlsdussed later.
l'
;
,
, '
J
'1

j
1
p )
(
(
CHAPTER -4
.'
TERRACOTTAS
back to art, there is the vidence of ter-
to be examined. The situation here in part resem-
bles that of the bronze sculpture in ehat-not much is known
about Argive terracottas. Almost all the examples date t
Archaic period but there have been som found of the
Geometrie and especially the Late Geometrie period as weIl.
The distribution of Argive terracottas is limited to the
Argolid and few sites outside, particularly perakhora and 1
a few isolated examples have been 'discovered at Tegea, in
Boiotia and a t Sparta. This' Argi ve workshop, although' i t
existed in the late 8th and 7th centuries, was not very sig-
nificant until the 6th when. its productlon greatly
increased and its distribution spread farther afield.
In the Geometrie period, Argive terracottas are perhaps
'\. ,
best represented by a group from Argos itself. Thepe date
to the second half of the 8th century, and are characterized
by lack of detail. All are hand-made, with large
waists, large rounded shoulders, faces that are of 9 long
oval shape, and arms and legs that are detached from the
body. In this period the legs are longer than the torso
and the contours in' 'general harmonize more than do those
of the earlier figurines have been :ound
at Delphoi, Korinthos, thens, Olympia, Dodona and other
sites (Sarian: 1969, 651 693) but this in no way is indica-
of Argive influence or export. In the Archaic perioq,
,
especially in the 7th and earlier half of the 6th century,
the picture is not drastica1ly altered sinc the terracottas
.
follow a pattern of quite rigid donservatism, still hand-
. -
52
" ,
"
t
c
1
(
i
1
!
,
1
(
53
rnade, and primitive in appearance. Jenkins, in his
article in BSA 1931/32 classifies them lnto 1Q headings ac-
-- ,.
cording te style and date (Jenkins: 1931-32, 23-40). In
genera1 the figures can be characterized by low
head, straight-cut hair, srna11 s1it mouth placed c1ose'be-
neath the nose"prorninent nose and chin, very large eyes and
thidk neck, The chart puts aIl of thi.s into better perspec-
tive and shows the characteristics of the figu(lneS of each

period. -As is obvious there were no radical changes involved
in any period with the resq1t that the style rernained basi-
ca11y the sarne for over 150 years. It steadfastly rejected
. . '
any outside influence the who le period, the only
xce8tion being the influence of Korinthos, seen c. 550-525
but even this,only lasted a relatively short period, and the
Argives afterwards re'turned te their own peculiarly conser-
vative style. In their distribution the Argive figurines
were confined to the Argolid and perakhora throughout the
7th century but by Class C, Argive terracottas were exported
to Selinos and the last three classes had a sornewhat wider
distribution, but i t is only wi th the final class that Argive ..
terracottas reached several distant markets such as Attike
and Boiotia. perakh6ra is interesting for it is the on1y
site' outside the Argo1id which provides a continuous supp1y
of exarnples of Argive works while the Selinos examp1es are
noteworthy because they show Argive influence there in the
ear1y 6th century; it is not certain however if they are in
fact Argive imports or local copies but as Jenkins remarks
(Jenkins: 1931-32, 29-30) if they are local products, they
were made under purely Argive influence. These"
are exceptions rather than the rule for, in genera1 Argive
exports of terracottas did not travel far afield.
In sununary then, the terracottas re,ached their
height LG period with a style which distinguished it-
self from others by several characteristics, eharacteristics
" -
...
sa & 211
..... .. l. t
"'" $4$1'1'1"'''_
V --
..... , . ,."""".l'-:,< . "',"
.' .
CLASS
A
{Al to A4}
"d
III
B
c
D
E
F
G-

,.
DATE
c. 720-,610
c. 600
c. 590-560
c. 560-550
c. 550-510
c. 550 on
c. 545-525
"
1
c,
!
CHARACTERISTICS
large waist, large round shoulders,
long oval faces, legs and
tached body
$Edalic face, eyes and eyebrows
clearly defined, nase short and
r' broad, round earr.ings
less angularity, square outline
developed,nose and mouth better
eyebrows have greater
height, abnormal,projection of chin
head still square but face more pis-
tinct frorn it, jaw bone now correct
cheeks fi lIed out, tendency towards
eliminating Archaic features; eyes,
nose, mouth and still "Argive"
but mOre real
mass productioni ornate with flowing
necklaces and chains;
thick.white creamy Korinthian'
influence begins in heads
. 0
strong Korinthian influence still
in slip, jewel anp
hq.ir

-- ..... ,,"
DISTRIBUTION
Argos" Argive Heraion,
Aigina
--'
Argive Heraibn Perak-
hra
" .
Perakhora, Sellnos
Argos, Perakhora, etc.
1 ,
Argos, Argive,
Heraion, Selino3
peraXh6ra, Argos, Tiryns,
Sparta, Tege'a
-
Korinthos, Perakhora,
Tegea, "Argos, Boiotia,
Attike
,-
FIGURE 15, Classes and characteristics of Geometrie and Archaic'Argive terracottas.
(Adapted from Jenkins: 1931-32, 24 f.)
',-
r'" .. ' -j
';"
!
(
1
1
,1 .
_ . 1
j

i
U1
"."
'"
. '
.. ,

. .
"
'.
" " ..
"
,
J
,
.
\
. "
"
. r
. ,
..
55
o
which followed a slow progression in the Archaic period, but
,which always remained distinct because of
Argive spirit, receiving sorne influences the
, '
East in the, 6th century but accepting only Morinthian
fluence wholeheartedly. distribution in sorne ways
matched that of the pottery, not being to any great
extent and having importanc in a few places'outside the
Argolid and again, as in pottery it was quite satisfied with
obtainiag, inspiration from wi thin, neglec,ting external stimuli
which perhaps would have been beneficil in the long run .
\vas never very important in this field, with places
such as Attike, Krete, Korinthos, Rhodos and Lakonia having
the lead the Argive ware definedoas a coarser and more
solid version of the Korinthian type (Higgins: 1967, 84).
"
Although one cannat calI the Argolid and particularly Argos \ .
a leading of what is perhaps more
important in the context of this"paper, is that it had a ter-
racotta" workshop at aIl for this is indipative of :the great
artistoic acti vi ty: ln the ,Argolid in bath the Geometrie and
Archaic periods, especially in the LG period when the ftrgolid
c"
became not only a notable artistic centre but also an important /
industrial bronze armour and weapons for
example. It i8 a period known also for its remarkable bUllding
activity, 'the subject of the fol1owing section .
/
. / .
a
j
1
1
i
1
o
/
r,
tHAPTER 5
, '
ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ACTIVITY
There' is that Je late 8th and eztrly 7th century
was a tlme of building acti'vi tY1in' the Argolid
but unfortuna tely many of the remains of this acti vi ty have
perished,through time although one of the important
,
buildlngs erecte,d can partIy be seen, that is the tem-
RIe of the Argive Heraion. The Heraion, the focal point of"
, '
the worshlp of Hera, was in use though probably not a cult
! 0
cen tre ln the Bronze Age then the PG and G per lods but i t was
not untll the Iate 8th century or early 7th that m?jor new
building,activity was undertaken at the cult centre with the
c9nstructlOn of the historie t,emple, one of the oldest perip-
terai temples of the Over the yeatB lt was sur-
rounded by other,buildings and between 420-400 B.C. it was
rebuilt by the architect Eupolemos of Argos after
burned down in 423 B.C. (Waldstein: 1902, 3-25). The date
of the Old is the important factor hePe, sinee it coin-
cides with that of much of the artistic and industrial ac-
'". .
vit y of the Argolid, noted
./
There were other sanctuaries and temples .in th:e Argo1idi .
one thinks of Epidauros for example, butr none of these had
the of Hera for the Argolid itself. The :sanctary
of Asklepios at Epidauros is one whose foundatipn date is un-
knor but where the oldest votive inscriptions date ta the
6th-l, c. B. C.I (Melas: 1973, 90 f.). AlI of the visible remaihs
how,'ver date to 4th cemtury while the
o
main period ,of im-
par ance of the sanc,tuary is ,from the 5th century on.
In the ,Ite 8th and 7th century' nevettheless there was
much building activity at Argos itself particularly on the
Lar\ssa where te'mples were buil in the 7th century 1 those of
:\
\
,
)
(
1
..
l
1
r
\
, ,
57
Athena Polias and Zeus. The Larissa was a1so encirc1ed by
'" " ,
Ylalls, part of which dates to this, same century (Vollgraff:
1920, 223 f.). At the top of the Larissa numerous Object') of
the mid 8tfl century to the mid 7th century suggest milch
buildlng a9tivity in that area. The same is true for the
area around the Deiras cemetery south of the Aspis where
there lS strong eVldence of a GeometriLc h,abitation (Deshaycs
and Courbin: 1955, 310-314). House remains bave Deen found
on, the Mykenaian nekropolis (VoI1graff: 1904, 365 f.) <.'and
also in the East quarter where thre was expansion of the
,1
ci ty ,in the LG period (Charitonidis: 1954 , 422) indica ting
an increase in population. This area of the city had been
occupied from the PG period but it is the LG period which
saw a drastic increase in finds. It is interesting tha t
r
the ar"ea was nlt inhabi ted in the Archaic and most of the
\.
Classica1 period, perhaps indicating that Ar90s was get ting
,
smaller in si ze or that the people were dispersing ta new
settlements. Th,e finds from Argos are too numerous ta men-
,
tian but i,n general they show that the city was large
and prosperus in the Geometrie and especially the LG peri-
od, a situation wh"ich 'continued into the Archaic period.
Not only' was there building activi ty in Argos itsel f 0
but i t appears tha t "elsewhere in the Argolid -buildings were
be,ing put up 1 especially temples. At Porto Khli for exam-
pIe, a temple of Apollo was built" in the early 7th century
c
B.C. (Mchaud: 1972, 65.0). Furthermore the city expanded
c '
in the early 7th c to the Southwest of the E tower, another
e'lidence oft popu1at.ion (Frser: 1970-71, 12). At
Kourtaki, a site of 8 km. east of Argos there are indications
of a workshop dating to the 7th c. which serve the needs
, of a nearby sanctuary (Mi chaud : 1970, 961) 1 while at Tiryns
.
a sanctuary was built on the upper citadel in the 8th cen-
'1
(
tury nd, 97 f).
These are therefore ex'ampJ.es of a period of increased
\
1"
9:t
l
"
-.
.
"
1

1

'\
f


t
. '
) "
,
,
,
fi
;.
JI
-;;t
J
(
( 1
58
prosperity and no doubt of a hoigh standard of living. Ih
"
general things seern to have...been going. very well as- s al-
w ~ y s the case when rnuch building construction is seen. Argos
Uself seems to have been th,e place where most of th.is acti-
vit y occurred, but this may be partly a coincidence due ta
o ,
the great. amount of excavation work done there in the l ~ s t
twenty-fiv'e years.
\
, -'
0'
\
/'
T
-1
.'
f
{
f
j.,
r
(
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
When the archaeological evidence is considered as a whole
i t reveals tha t the after suffering massive des truc-

tion at the end of the LH III C period, slowly revived until
the Late Geometrie and early Archaic periods when the conSl-
e '
derable increase in the of sites indlcates a rapid ex-
pansion of population, a situation necessitatlng the enlarg-
1
ing of cities, particularly Argos. It also meant an increased
demand for hence the marked rise in the amount of pot-
tery produced, 0 particular 1y from the middle ot the 8th century
to the middle of the 7th century. Many people appear to have
been quite wealthy at' that time, judging from the numerous
monumental ahd' richly- decorated vases df the LG per iod. It
was a period when Argos was a leader not only in pottery but
,
also in the terracotta industry and that of bronze sculpture.
o ".
Not only did Argos take the lead in such industries but she
also did 90 in the development of advanced arPlour, a 'facto,r
\vhich must have given her the edge over her opponents, none
of whom possessed such "modern" equipment at that time.
The important point is that aIl of developments
occurred within a relatively short period; c. 740-c. 650.
Up to c. 740 the progress was slow as the Argolid 'de-
..
pended on the outside for mu ch of its inspiration in its
varlOUS Industr les. Suddenly in the LG period the Argolld-
had become a leader art and architecture with Argos her-
self at the centre of this immense advancement; The archae-
ological evidence
one which must be
of power of Argos
thus tends to point ta this period as-the
examined as the possible tiIJ1e the he Ight
itslf but before discussing th\s fprther
it is necessary ,to consider the evidence of the traditions.
What will follow will be an analysis of both these
. ,
sources of in an attempt to resolve this question
of the date of Argos' climax of power And glory.
59
,
,
t

.
r
o "
/
"
\
,;/
~
,-
1
"
~
{
-::
et
li
~
,
~ I
PART II
(
THE TRAD 1 TI ON S
~
- "
f"
,
/
"
./

-
.
~
f
r,
~
l
t
1
~
.
,
i
1:
"
.'
\
\
.(
,C' t
J
f
l
,
.
'.
CHAPTER 1
THE SITES
The most important ancient sources fDr the Argolid are
Pausanias and Strabo, both of whom travelled throughout the
area givlng accounts of the places they saw, interspersing
them wlth old legends and actions of the gods. other wrlters
to whom we owe a debt are Heroootos, who mentioncd sevcrl
events dealing with the and Aristotle, important for
hlS mentin of Pheidon.
Unfortunately the though they rnay sometlmes
'help in certain details concernlng various evcnts,
are on the whole rather disappointing when one 15 trying to
determlne specific dats or sequences of events. Dates are
especlally difficult to arrive at and the various traditions
are often contradictory in this respebt. It i8 possible how-
ever to get certain information concerning the clties of the
Argolid, their relative importance, something about their,
history and sorne of the famous landmarks of these citles.
At it i5 not a gpal of this paper to identify ancient s}tes
1 will not attempt, a comprehensive survey of aIl the sites
visited by the ancient writers but only those whose identi-
flcation is certain or reasonably sO,and for WhlCh we have
archaeological evidence of their existence.
,
Both Strabo and Pausanias visited aIl the major site9
/
but took a different app,roach to their task. Strabo, as la
geographer, was concerned more with sirnply naming the places
he visited rather with givihg a thorough tour
town along with sorne of its hi'story, as Pausania$ The
two maps which follow (Figures 16 and 17) give the
ies of each writer, the filled ln circ les indicating those
.si tes which were inhabited when vis ted and the ernpty ones
60
1
;'
1
'J
r
( ,
, ,
61
those which had been deserted by their time. the
sites n;arked there a,re of course others mentioned in passing
by bath these authors but which are unknown io that
although it may seem that they did not reach rnany sites, they
d1d in ,tact visi t many more than a;e apparen t'on the rnaps.
The first rnap (Figure 16) indicates the itinerary of
Strabo, whO goes about it in two ways, at first beginning on
the Argo1ic Gulf at Temenion then proceeding ta Nauplion,
Asine and further as shown, until the Island Aigina then sud-
denly he begins again, this time at then the Heraion,
Mykehal, Tiryns,"Nauplion and 50 on, in effect gOlng through
sorne sites twice. After to Aigina he then
more )umps to the west, with Hysiae, Kenkhreiai and Orneidi
and Wl th these he completes his journey. All this rnay be an
indica tion that he did not actually visit these sites but was
following ,earlier catalogues., It is interesting that of the
18 sites visited, 8 were deserted by his sii of
are in the central Argive plain.
Pausanias (Figure 17) begins his trip differently, sinee
he in is eontinuing his Kqrinthian trip and thus after
mentionif!g Nemea he follows the road un til he reaches Hykenai,
then the Her,aion and Argos. Argos is the' centre of his jour-
ney and from here he goe5 in directions, first to
the southwest ta Hysiae, then to the northwest to Kenkhreiai,
then east ta Tiryns and Epidauros'. After Troizen he first,
Vislts Kalaureia (Poros) then Methana, after which he conti-
nues from Troizen, to the until he reaehes Asine,
l' "'1
Lerna, Temenion and Nauplton, which marks the end of his jour-
, ,
ney-; Of the 20 sites h,: visited, 7 were deserted, not a11 of
whieh agre with Strabo's statement, as will be seen from
their references ta these varius sites.
The journey begins with the sites of Temenion and Nau-
plion on tha A olic Gulf, about whieh Strabo remarks the
fOllowing, VII
/
f-'
FIGURE -16.
, -
---_._-,,-
.,. -".
"
..
,-
dJ
, d
!O' 1 <iJ(
1}
'tr
fJ

\

..
...
Itinerary of

site.s at. time of h:ls visit
,#,
o 'si tes : '1.
",,-: : ' ..
"--0-6 ,,'" !_ .....
",
r
t r-
-\,:
".",,"
"

\'-"'-=-v

p:
---:': .-::'--
- ....
'1. '1.-_... -""
','
<:'"
\2
,



CONTCH1RS
200m __ ,_____ - 1000m __
.
600m ________ ' 1400m_

Scale: 440,000
.... "-.
.... 't B;J. '.... Y
k
-..
-;::.:.;
.......... "'--....
-
-- .. l' -,,,,r,1 .;: .......
.... ""'"'- " . -..

;,' A- ro ,"'(..::...
"-.......
:-..... .. t ......... ""
) b ;
" :'.: ' ...... .._.,.;
. :,
'", / . -
,>
;'
r_ % __ ,:::'" '., -; r"
.. :"" .... / \.. ..........
....... ,-' / '
_' ;'N..,. ----
.;1

0<1-'
0"1
1'0
...,./
... - 'li - "" ...

..
-;
r--:
--- - ------#_-
...

C1


\
.
"
- ..... '
.. , ,-
_ ,.,. .,,"., ""'{'.'



)
..
FIGURE l7,
Itinerary of Pausanias.
dJ
inhabited -sites at time of his vlsit
o unoGcupid
, ..... -
'.
::")

[J ).

. "
.- IJ ."-............
, 1 i'-,
: /
...... ;"\ !'-. ."
.. _ ..
'-
i i....:::. -: !!' .. _
.... - .- 1.,
';' \ --
,/ 1.. J.,J.
> '.< -.1 .
.. '.", ...... \
1 r-
J
''0 ()
'\ .. t ......\ ........ ;
4\
..... __ .. ( [
(" ':
<.. :
- .
..... "'?' .... __ ...; ":':-\-".
r .... --/ .., \
. ,
"--- <. ...: ....... :. ..
.... b -=:::::7:' -
... *; ... :;" __ 4 ... --'" : ...'"
----- ''; '-. J4.-
,,: .. Jr
__ . .. ___ '::-. , .... r.. ... ";.I
- 1. ._
....... " .."

, _ _ r'
. - -t;,.. .: \ ,': : Cl '
; '.. {D \
--------- " ..... -" ;

CONTOURS
200m __ .-----
1000m __
600m ________ 1400m_
Scale: 440,000
'! "," .... lia. '\6. ";" k __
\
(S- __ -:.
",,J,., .
... /
/ .- , .'
... .:' :/
,-. ..... . - ./
.. \ ..
r
1",\ 1_ D<j'
JI '_r''''' '-;1"'"
<. ,-:', '
."


l<>
0'\
W
,.
, l
,
64
B' at npaOLaL xaL TO
T9anTuL XaL rTL np6TepOV TC XWPLOV, 51..'
nOTa(tLO f) flpVT) xaollj..l.v'll, TO Lj..I.VU,
tv j..I.ej..l.6etl.rrat. T nePL TI)v "YBpav. TC of, ,
Tr}LeVLOV dntxE.L -ro IIApyou XaL E.tXOOL (rmoCOUe;
bnp 9aaTTT), dn 5 TO IIhpyou ete; TO 'Hputov
TeooapxoVTa, p et Bxa. j..I.eT TC
NaunLa, TO TWV 'APYE.LWV vaaru8f.1.ov
TO 5' huf.l.ov dn Toi) Tate; vauot npoon.f.LoGaL
About these sites further information' is given by Pausanias,
II. XXXVIII. 2:
TT)f.l.E.VLOU 5 dnXE.L Nuun.La tj..l.OL 50xeLv
OTa5tou, T j..I.V ,. f.tneTaL xat
TLXWV tpeCnLa, xaL Lepov, xaL
).,Lf.l.vec; tv NaunHul. XUL nr-rrfj K.vo.6o
xCLOUj..l.VT)
-
According to ,Strabo Nauplion was stivll a naval station 1n his-
day but according to Pausanias it was uninhabited. It is in-
teresting that no archaeological remains of the homan period
have been found in Nauplion, thus supporting this statement.
The next sites are Asine, Hermione, Troizen and Kalau-
reia; these are on the Herrnionic Gulf. In VIII.6.3 Strabo
discusses these sites briefly:
1
1
I!' , 1
e
, \ E' 'T 1
rapxeTuL 5' 'AOLVT) nO).,LxvT) el. - XUL
iv Bt np6Xf.LTaL xaL Ka.aupLa xxov , /
xat TPLaxovTa Dt 1
BLe<J't'ion 'fjntpou.
About Asine pausanias states the following in II.XXXVI.4:
T B tVTeo6v tOTLv 'Apyetrov nOTE 'ALvaLa
xat tOTtv tpeLnLa tnL 9aaOOT)L.
'"
Asine will be discussed later but it is interesting that by
his time town was in ruins, though archaeology has shawn
the remains of Roman baths.
,
r.
. ..:"f'
t.
, .
.
fi


'

J

\
" .

65
Hermione i s an important ci t'y, as mentioned by Strabo,
-
VIII.6.l2:
5' !O"t'L obx n6&Wv' ntv
nupaLav xouaLv 'ALEt
nVE .
Pausanias II.XXXIV.9 also discusses this city, remarking that
, ,
there are two sites, an old city and a new one, located about
,
4 stades distant from each other. The old city still con-
"
tained sanctuaries when he vislted it, while the new city
situated on a levei ground then rising up a slope, was walled
,
in hiS day and most interesting as it contained varlos
temples and sanctuaries, tao many ta list here. The note-
worthy aspect of all of this is that archaeological
confirms his, statement that there were two distinct cHies
(see 'Sl te No. 24 in my catalogue for this) , though very close
, '
ta each and that the second one was walled as he
The sites of and Kalaureia are also discussed
by Strabo, VIII.6.l4:
..
0& Lepa noael.owvo, dp' xat noael.OwvCa
p et
O'Ta6(ou, 066' tfOTJl.l.O nOt..L.
npox6vt'aL of. Wll t4J.vO a&ri1, lli>yoovo
KaaOpl. VT]atoLov 2Saov ha-rov xat -rpLcIxowra muBtc.v
XOY xuxov' t.V't'a8a noaEL6Wvo
hpov .
Pausanias'also visited these sites but i5 much more complete
in his approach. In II. XXXI - XXXII he mentions various si tes
one should see in Troizen, for example a temple of Artemis
Soter in the market-place, a sanctuary' 'of the Muses, various
altars, a sanctuary of Thearian Apollo, various images and
buildings, a'sanctuary of zeus Soter, a precirrct of Hippoly-
tos, and other temples. It is obvious that Troizen was one
of the more important cities of the Argolid, to judge from
the amount of detail given by Pausanias. Archaeology sug-
'gests the same, revealing not only the settlement but, a
"
"
J

l
, ,
66
as weIl,' though it is not possible to i1enttfy
Information is also given about Kalaureia by Pausanias 1
\
II. XXXI l l .2-3 :
, .. '
'An6WVQ lepclv ro dpxa:ov dvaL
hol)<J\,v,... 5' ov r1<JtL5Wvo Lepov tv'tau9a
ab-tWL' napgevo, av &pav
npo'X.9"f')L y6.!J.ou. ;rO BE, bl'ro )tat 't
t."f')lJ.oaB vou 1-I.v11Ul tO't'I..
The temple of Poseidon is attested archaeologically" weIl into
\ the 'Roman period and thus agrees with Pausanias' sta tement but
not with Strabo's.
Epidauros is another si te visi ted by the ancient authors.
discusses it in VIII.6.15:
)tat a!5'tT] B' 06)(. n6LC;, J(al. BL -ITJV
-ro 'Acrx"f')flLO eepanelnc.v v600u
6
' ., , l " ... JI
nav't'o ana ntn"O't'Euj.l.EVOU, xaL '!O e/A'v nl\.'r)pe exovce'
det 't,)v n xalJ.v6'\Yt'C1)v )tat wv' TILvawJ.')v,
'!v ol dVCLyeypa\J.lJ..val. 'tuyxavou(1(.v aL gepanetul.,
xCi.9.nep v K1 'te Kat TPLXK\I' xet-r-aL 6' 1) n6L, t,v
'rO fuPWVLltO xnou l 'tev nEPC nouv
O't'u5twv neVTexaCexa,' np VCLTO
gepLva. ntpc.xeLe-rCLI. 6' btrlot !J.hPL np
-rlJv 9'uTIav,., lfxn:' tpulJ.vf) xancnu;aO"t'UL <PUOLXW<;
nav-rax6e e:v
Pausanias also vfsi ted the site and gives a more) complete ac-
()
count of it in II.XXVII-XXVIILl-2. He describes the Askle-
,peion and mentions various temples and ... buildings worth seeing.
!
The highest praise is reseryed'for the "theatre (II.XXVII.5):
IEnLoaUPLoL 6. tO"t'I. 9.a.-rpov !v -rosI. Lepj,SL
!LU L O"t"a tj.LO t ox e; 'i: v e a v
1
This Epidauros is the site listed as Apollo Maleatis in the
le
catalogue, an well-known si te containing plenty of '
archaeological remainsi.
rgos is the next site on the itinerary. Strabo mentions

. .
41.
"
c
\
'1
\,
67
it in VIII.6.7-9:
\
'H obv v
tnLn50LC; tptYrolt -ro nov. K')(pav 5' -nlv
xaol)lJ,\irjv !\PLoov, 6<jlov hoV'tU /
hpv lll .. 6. t" ' "
Pausanias is more thorough in his account, t e
a guided tour of the city, pointing out aIl hts-worth
seeing. He begins with this statement in II.XVrX.3:
5 tv n6eL
tO"t"LV ' An6wvo lepOv Al))(Cou.
He goes on in this section to descrIbe other temples in the
city, images, altars, statues, of heroes, various sanc-
tuaries, the the temples the
market-place, while in sectipn XXIV he disGusses the Larissa,
'mentioning that there i8 a sanctuary of Athena ,
1-' .,
while at very top is a temple bf Lar.isc;aean Z.eus, no long-
er in use and one of Athena worth seeing. This completes his
tour of Argos. t;Jot mucfl of what he mentions has been exca-
, ,
vated. Remains of temples have been found on the slopes of
Lar:ssa; thes'e may c,orrespond to 't:hose he notes but on the'
,
whole'the modern city does not-offer many of the ancient re-,
,
mains. From his tour lt is apparent tnat the city of Argas
was quite large and impressive and it appears to have been
,
the foremost city in the Argolid. ,In sheer nurnber at temples,
...
sanctuaries and other sights, no other city seems to come
close to Argos.
Another site visited by ancient writers is the Her-
aion. Strabo remarks that' it a -temple common to bath
Argos and Mykenai and goes on ta say in VIII.6.l0:
. tv "t'a Ilo).uxeC't'ol.> "t'x"O
xa.).LO"t'a -riOv na.\J't'W\I. oolYt'tetrt 56 xat.. ..
WV q"e",Col) ' c.,'
o 1
1
1
, J
,
"
(
-

, '
..
Ct
,
i
\ .
;
r"
About this
/
states in
p
<:
,
68
to,
site Pausanias s more than
1
II' .}tVII.1:
.
nVTe dntxeL XUL
O'T<5La -ro 'Hp?-tov
Strabo and
He goes on to 'describe the temple and statues rn front of it
as weH 'as that of Hera TIouxet-rou tpyov
(ILXVIIo;4). Beside it are images. He "then states in XVII.. 7,:
lOTI. 6 bnp 't'V VUV 't'OOToV np-rtpou vaou
, 't't xat et -rL one(ne-ro
,. AIl this aqrees weIl with the archaeologiai evidence as stat-
ed in" the
,1 Near the is Mykenai, a
o
town which Strabo VIII.6.10

says was the Argives:
, .
&Soie V\)V txvo<; &bpCoxf.oeal. 't')<;
MuxT)vu (wv n6tw.,
Pausanias too' saw Mykenai in a state of and in II.XV.4
he remarks:
c '

" ')
dve90oL t' -rOv TPT)'t'v xat t
"Apyo tat'L Mux1']vv tpe(nLu tv d:pl.crrepaL.
'J
(Tretos is a pass). In" section XVI.5 he discusses the ruins
themselves.
If
, r
r 'e(ni;aL hl. !a 'tO
nUT), t(jlecmixaal.v au'tL.
, >:!j
\
He mentions the tombs of ... Agamemnon i Atreos, Eurymedo Electra
and others. Sorne of these of course to ay aithough
their ientifLcation is based ancient sources such as
than ,on evidence. So far no trace
-, >
of Roman occupation has been found, confirming Pausanias'
, '
t,
, '.
,
'1
"
o
()
. .
69
,1"...1
\
statemerit but the question of its dstruction be exa-
""mined Iater ..
Next is Tiryns, which Strabo says in ruins when he
saw it (VIII.6.11):
6' tmt ltdxC.CVll )tat t] n),.rlaLov Mt..5a
't'<;tlYrQ 5' np6aulJ.va, ltpOv
vfjpa.
Pausanias aiso 'rernarks that Tiryns was in ruins (II. XXV. 8) .
The site df Midea has sometirnes been identified with the
, .
" city of ,that narne, Iisted as Dhendra in the' catalogue,
, but is Prosymna is even more controversial
\ \
of 1
'but apparentlr it was near the both sites we, ac-
cordingly on the east side of the plain.
The Methana,'site No. 27 in the,catalogue,
1
was also visi1ed by both ancient travellers. Strbo speaks
of it in the p',ast tense howe'Ver, (VIII.6.15):
6< .;, 'En,&a.poo Xoop(ov
M9ava xut Xf.pp6Vl']OO
'\
1
Pausanias Ir.xxxlv.i states:
, 1
1
't'T) '& r% no te;
9aacroov, tv atrcll)1. OOLO)la 06 fl.ytt 'tnL eatlcrO'llt.
M9ava 5 tv-ru9a tEp6v iOTt.. xut
tnt -rljc,;' yopa l Epj.l.O, .ro 5& hEPOV l Hpux&ou';
,"
no finds of the Roman period havebeen found at this site,
seems ta confirrn Strabo' s staternent thab it was not in' use'
in his day.
Other sites visited include Hysie, Ornelli1, Lyrkeion,
o .'
Kenkhreiai, about whicq" Strabo states in VIII. 6 .17:
i
.,
"
e taL t xa t - l Y crCa,t.., 't6no "flO 't'Tj 1 Apyo"tf. x!f), xa t
K&yxpc.aC, at XeLV't(I.L tnt 6 tx TEyac,;. f.t
JI Apyo "a; '"COl> Dap9 &vCOU xClt 't',t; KPWllllOU.
1

"
\, ,
t
j.
t
/
'1
, ,
f
l
,

1
'()
;
' .ct ...... 41- f ln. ; t
70
V).I.T)po a.61:- 06)( 06 i -,
'0pVE-,' 5' :ITl , ApYtta-,-,
Pausanias visited bath Hysiae and Kenkhreiai and remarks in
II. XXIV. 7 that:
t '6v Lv
TOt) Tp6xouiKeyxpea( ...
p t T
nOtJ non Lv T\l'APyo(t..
Hysiae thus was no lofger in his day; no archaeo-
of th
r
Roman period have been vound at this
25 in the datalogue.. About Orneiai he states in
logical remains
site, No.
\
,
'II.XXV.6:
Nearthese places is Mt. Lykone, as Strabo says in II.XXIV.5:
'OBoL NApyou xat xaT' &a eLot
n?novvf)aou npo , Apxa5'a tnt Teyav.
tv f{dh Bt tlpo AulV'T), &vpa
xunap(oooo txooau. B tnt
TOU 'Op8La Lep6v, xat
'An6.bvo xut Arrroti xat nenOLTYt'aL
tU'KO ,,(eou' flouxeCTOu qxx.OLV ervat.
(
1 Remaj:ns of this sanctua!y have been found,
,
mentioned in as
the catalogue.
-
Strabo has completed his" tour of the Argolid; for the
rest of the sites which are of intetest archaeologically one
must therefore refer solely to Pausanias. One of the plftces
where remains have been found is Mysia, No. 57 in the
catalogue, about which Pausanias remarks in II.XVIII.3:

\

,..
t
r-
(
l.
, 71
'Ano 0& -r)v - otnw yp -ro "t"c
- tO"t"tv tv dPLaTLPUL xwpeov
MuoLa xaL 6fJI..Lrrrpo MUOLa no dv6po MUOLOU
xaL xao YOUOLV 'ApYLOL,
iDL 1UTWL 06v 06x tnaTLV
5 aOTOOL va tO"t"LV n(vSo, sava
5 XUL XUL tO"t"L.
The fact that the sanctuary has no roof suggests that lt was'
no longer in use wh en he visi ted i t, while the temPlel "
burned bricks points to its being a Roman constructio' At
least this is what Frazer thought when he vislted the slte
1898,188). This site is included because ts iden-
tlfication is certain even though there are no remalns cvident
today.
Another site by Pausanias is Didyma where he saw
three sanctuaries as stated in II.XXXVI.3:
tnaSa tcrn lEpV 'nHwvo, tO"t"L 6llooLowvo,
tnL 6 a6"t"ot 5 6pS [Oou UXO.
1'"
There is archaeological evidence for a sanctuary in the Roman
perlodi its identification however is uncertain. Finally he
Lerna WhlCh is located 40 stades from (II.XXXVI.
7') :
5 Apva tO"t"LV, ffi XUL "t" np6"t"Epa tXEL .o
You, npo xaL "t"LLTT]V Aepva(L
tnaea ,"
This statement indicates its existence in Roman times but 'no
,
archaeological evidence of this ha,s been discovered. wi th
Lerna the tour of the Argolid is complete. Both of the tra-
vellers visited the more important sites, but there are many
which have which they appear not to have seen; on the
other hand are those which they did see but which have no
visible traces today. In any case, this Ruestion of identi-
fying remains with ancient sites is one which requires exten-
si ve research in i tself and is outs-ide the scope of this wor.k.
1
f
1
()
# '

r -
THE
CHAPTER 2
ARGIV/:ING LIST
In the various traditions qbout Argos and the Argolid
the names of certain kings are mentioned, usually in connec-
1
tion with battles or other noteworthy and usually in
isolation without genealogical references and hence it i5
1
difficult to date their reigns, In sorne cases the writer
may say that the king is "the son of . . . ," or sorne other
hint may be given as to his geneaogy but in rnost cases this
is all that is said.
In50far as'genealogies are concerned there 15 only one
extant listing the kings of Argos the return of
the Herakleidai. This i5 Di)doro5 7. fr.ag. 17 in which he
states the following about Karanos:
rtytaOYOOL 5' xat
ol nOot TWV Jv tL
Kpavo <ptL6wvo 'tO mt; "M-pono 't'o
e tO't'LOU 'tt; KLootOll 't'O 't 1 APLO't'ofJ.(i.XOll TO '
Kt05aLou 't'O,vYOll 't'O 'Hpaxtou. t
, ,"" l' v! '
ytvtal\oyouOL, tLVaL r-upavov fJoLavTo
't'O KpOLOOJ m KtOaLou 't'ou
w flaXpou 't'Oll TT]lJvou, xat xa'tiletV
et
Diodoros' 1isi;. is thus as fo1lows:
Herakles
Hylleos
/
Kleodaeos
Aristomakhos
Temenos or Temenos
Klssios Lakhars
Thestios

Deballes
Merops EurytJ-iades
Aristodamis Kleodaeos
Ph;ridon Kroesos
Keranos Poeas
Keran<;>s
72

,
, .
:
, j
t
,
,
l'
J

t
t
f
,
jt
i
73 "
In his tirst there are Il generations including Herak-
'--
les/'with fifth in descent and Keranos seventh from
Temenos whlle fheldon, lmportant wlthln context of ihlS
study, is sixth Temenos. Alternatively he gives 12 gcn-
erations in which the only ommon points from Temenos On are
1
Temenos himself and Keranos.
Qtryer traditions corrobora te in part what Oiodoros
One 00hese 15 provided by Pausanias II. XVIII. 7 in which he
is discusslng the return of the Herakleidal durlng the relgn
of Tlsamenos and 'states ap follows:
, tnt 't'o TLOOfJ.evoti 'tOlYrOU Xll't'LaoLv t TI,onovvr]oov
1 Hpax"\et5aL, Tf]fJ.evo fJ.V' Ml. KpeOtjlov'tT] 'ApLO'''CotulXOU,
'tou 'tPL't'OU 5 npo't'e9vE-WT etnov't'o ol nuLE.
From Pausanias we therefore obtain the following:
Aristomakhos
Temenos, Kresphontes
Both traditions agree that Temenos was a son of Aristomakhos,
.and a further confirmation bf oiodoros is pr0vided again by
Pausanias, II.XIX.l:
x fJ.v 't'O ,'AvrLfJ.Xou
't'Oo 8paouavopo 't'oo KTYjoCnnou 't'oti
cn-pa-rrry'h np 't" hpfjOCL't"O v't'l. 'twv U twv ta i.
i nav'tn . 6 'to&rwv
one ulwv' 5 a6'tWL Ketoo npeapu-ru'to
bxe 'ti]v pXT)v.
Hence this allows us to make this
Herakles
Ktesippos
Thrasuanor
Antimakhos
Deiphontes Temenos
Keisos
, .
,
{
. (
t (
74
Both Diodoros and Pausanias thus give 5 generations
.\.
'Herakles to Temenos and both agree that Temenos had a son
Keisos (or Kissios).
Further information furnished by II.XIII.l
about another klng of Argos:
"'t' I5 xU"r ''Louv-ra 0!Yrw L. PT)Yv Ll5a t fi 1 a6-t-?)v
6 TOU 6WPLE Tt arpaTEUL
xat tx .
.
The genealogy is as follows: ?
Temenos
Phalkes
Rhegnides
1 \'
Apparently Phalkes and Rhegnides were brother cousin of Kissios
and Thestios mentioned by Oiodoros and thus 50 far the carl 1er
part of the genealpgy is consistent.
The later sections of the genealogy are 50mewhat more
From Strabo VIII.3.33 we learn the following about
Pheidon:
5 Tv 'APYttov, xa't'ov dno ...
This statement appers to contradict OiudQros in putting Phei-
don four generations later, in effect placing his. reign over
100 years after the Pheidon of Diodoros, but there 15 no evi-
dence that both writers were referring to the same PheLdon.
Strabo could have meant the of the earlier
Pheidon, a possibility which would keep the genealogies
tact.
2 :
As to other kings, sorne lignt is shed by Pausanias II.XIX.
, xat tx
't' te;
npofrrayo\l, dx; ,Mfj&VI. -rt:ll. Kt.oou Mt 1:'Ot dnoyovoL TO
1
,
l

,
t,
,
"
i

)
75
o
5xaTov napanav
nauaev xaTayvo 6
His allows us to formulate this sequence in the
genealogy:
Oiodoros
Temenos
K1SS10S
Thestios
t-1erops
Aristodamis
Pheidon
Keranos
Strabo
Temenos'
Pheidon
Pausanias
t
Temenos
Phalkes
Rhegnidas
Lakedas
Meltas
Ke1sos
Medon
There are qui te a few gaps in both the genealogies of PausanIas
and Strabo but it is noteworthy that it is to place
Pheidon just prior tp Lakedas keeping him from Temenos,
as Strabo says.
Another who mentions Pheidon is Herodotos VI.127.3
in his discussion of the suitors of Kleisthenes' daughter.
Apparently Pheidon's son was one of these as seen in this ex-
cerpt ln WhlCh he is listing the suitors and their places of
origin.
a.na 4>L5wvo TOl) , ApyELc.ov Tupavvoo
nat
This statement has caused considerable controversy since it
places Pheidon much later th an the other sources in that the
marriage occurred in the 570'5, making Pheidon rule c. 600.
Perhaps'Herodotos was confused with another Pheidon, whose
son's name resembled of the son of the Argive king. If
t, ...
this lS correct then one name Pheidon father of the
1
r
f
j
,
76
Lakedas mentiofied by Pausanias, hence making him tenth from-
Temenos, Ln accordance with Strabo.
One more .Argive king need be mentioned, Eratos, and he
is probably the important because there lS externa1 eVl-
dence for dating him, providing a point from which ta base
the dates of other kings. The source for lS PaUSQnlaS
II.XXXVI.4 when he is discussing Asine:
ci xat NLXv5pou
XapLou
t 'Apyot6a
ol 'AoLvatoL. xaL av
txdvol.. -rWv 'Apyd.wv -ri]v yY)v. cb 6 6 m:\o 'rwv
otxaE, OTpa'rEouoLV tnL
-ITJv 'AotVT]v ol 'APYEtOL xaL 6 a<nti}v "Epuw.
This Eratos can be dated fair1y accurately because the archD-

o 10gica1 evidence from Asine suggests that it was destroyed
o
in the LG period, perhaps c. 730-720 or c. 700. Presumably
Eratos could be placed somewhere between Medon and Lakedas
,
and if Pheidon was king before Lakedas, then Eratos could fLt
in before Pheidon, in other words ninth from Temenos.
In onnection with this,'some clarity can'be gained by
considering both the Arkadian and Spartan king lists. Of the
two the Spartan list is more helpful since it has been estab-
1ished with sorne certainty py Forrest (1968, 21). The list
/
is given under the two families Agiads and Eurypontids:
Agiads Eur:lEontids
Agis l 930-900 Eurypon 895-865
Ekhestratos 900-870 Prytanis 865-835
Leobotas 870-840 Polydektes 835-805
Dorussos 840-815 Eunomos 805-775
Agisklaos l 815-785 Kharil10s c. 775-750
Arkhelaos c. 785-760 Nikandros c. 750-720
Te1eklos c. 760-740 Theopompos c. 720-675
Alkamenes c. 740-700\
Anaxandridas l c. 675-660
polydoros c. 700-665 'Arkhidamos l - c. 660-645
furykrates c. 665-640 Anaxilas c. 645-625
11'
l
, .
, f
1
l, Cl
l
, 1
1
1
77
Anaxandr idas c. 640-615 'Leotykhidas c. 625-600
Eurykratides c. 615-590 Hippokratidas c. 600-575
Leon c. 590-560 Agasikles c. 575-550
Anaxandridas c. 560-520 Ariston c. 550-515
Kleomenes l c. 520-490 Demaratos c. 515-491
Eratos mu'st be 'dated c. 750-720, that is, contemporary with
NlkandrQs sinee it is after his attack on the Argolid that
ratos destroyed Asine.
,
This date for Eratos is of the ut-
most signiflcance because i t establishes a f iX,ed point from
~ h i c h to determine the dates of the other Arglve kings. The
Spartan list is of'help moreover in the nurnber of generations
i t gi ves i Nikandros is sixth from Eurypon 'who is perhaps 3
generatlons from Temenos. Theopompos appears to be tenth in
descent and thus a eontemporary of Pheidon.
~
~ r t h e r evidenee is provided by the Arkadian king 1ist
as given 'by Pausanias VIII .1.4-5.13:
Pe1asgos
Lykaon
Nyktimos
Arkas
Azan
Klei tor
Aepytos
Aleos
Lykurgos
Ekhemos
Agapenor
Hippothoos
Aepytus
Kypselos
Ho1aeas
Bukolion
PhialoS
Simos
Pompes
..
Aeginetes
Polyntestor
Aekhmis
Aristokrates
Hiketas
Aristokrates II
/
.,
- 1
~ .
; ..
1
1
"
J
li'

r
t

"
li
"
,
f.
(,
1
78
In aIl he lists 25 generations and there are two which are
especially The first concern5 Kypselos (VIII.V.6):
Ku'lt:\ou 1:'Q AlnCrrou :\dX)V1:'Q \-LErm At nInOV, 6
l1r.opI..wv"OT6:\o o l3I.. 'tOi KOPLV8LWV )(a8 in\.
-rPCL -r nponpov y(,VEU, l<a'L TO
'PLOV )(Q'LELOLV t nLJv8avof.!.cv 'LE 'L t,
a'Lo 0 ChO, 8", 'LW" 'Ap LCJ"tOfUlXOLJ na L 6wv 0 D)(
hona nr.o yuvaha 't'f)v 8LJyu'L.pa
hoo )(at. OL)(El..cooUf.!.f.VO 'LaV KpernpoV'tTlv a-r6 n )(Ut.
ol 'ApxQoc tx'LO tmfp<(,oov oetfUl'LO.
Kypselos was thus ruling when and the ar-

"rived. From Kypselos ta Aristokrates II there are 12 genera-
tions, which corresponds exactly with statement
II.XIX.2 above in which the last emenid Argive king,
is said to be 10 generations from Medon, of Temenos.
The other important king in the Arkadian list is poly-
me.stor, about whom Pausanias states in VIII.V.9:
f.l.c-r 5 AtYLvTyrr)V tyive'OO ____________ ::-'"
, Apx5r.ov, xat xat. XPLO
nptn-av 'L01;(, t 'tT)v T E:YE.Uti)Sv
Pdlymestor was th us a contemporary of Kharillos who i5 dated
c. 775-750-. After K harillos was Nikandros, contemporary wi th
whom were both the Arkadian Aekhmis and the Argive Eratos. Suc-
ceeding Nikandros was Theopompos, who was ruling at the same
time as the Arkadian Aristokrates, tenth from Kypselos, and
at the same time perhaps as the Argive Pheidon, also tenth
from Temenos.
In eSsence these are the genealogical traditions and
though at first glance they may seem confusing and do not
appear to be related to each other, upon closer examinatlon
they do in fact seem to on't:brm each other. Perhaps most
important point 15 the date of Nikandros and therefore of
Eratos, because it is the date avai1able for the Argive
('
,.
79
kings. Furthermore there are a number of points which are
common to two or more the traditions, thus allowing us ta
place sorne reliance on these'traditions. For in two
instances Temenos is fifth from Herak1es, and he
the son of Aristomakhos. In aIl three king llsts there
are 12 generations from Temenos, a tact which has sorne sig-
,
nificance c9ncerning the date of the supposed of-the
" Dorians. The faU of Bronze Age clvilization and
the destruction of the palaces is dated ta the end of the
i2th century, a destruction which i5 aS50ciated with the so-
called Dorian invasion. The prob1em is that the tradit{ons
only list 12 generations from Temenos anq the Dorians, a fact
which places Temenos as mueh as 100 years or more tao late.
This has prompted P.N. Ure (1922, 158) to argue that the gene-
alogical traditions of the Argive kings unreliable but
perhaps Ure was- looking at the problem from the wrong point
of view. His argument assumes that there was a Dorian inva-
sion, dated c. 1100, and then that Temenos must be dated ta
that invaslon of c. 1100. In fact there is no need ta con-
nect Temenos a Dorian invasiQn; certainly the traditions
relate that upon the arrivaI of the Dorians there were dlS-'
turbances and upheavals but this does not mean that it aIl
1
happened c. 1100 and in fact perhaps it'is best now to for-
get entirely the of such an invasion; the 'traditions
state tha t the Dorians "arrlved", not tha t they Il invaded" .
desire to place Temenos at the very beginning of
the SM period has no basis in facto Climatlc may
have led ta the abandonment of sites which in turn allowed
the "Dorians Il ta take over. Thus there may be a ,tew genera-
tians at least between c. 1100 ahd Temenos and the'DOYians.
In conclusion, the fact that there are only 12 generatons
from Temenos does not disprove the reliability of the tradi-
tions and in tact, since they seem to corroborate each other
on this point, they are perhaps more reliable than scholars
7'
"
f.
\
c
()
..
BD
such as Ure think. Den Boer (1954, 55) faIls into the sarne
category as Ure in assurning Temenos was ruling c. 1100. He
1
discounts the traditions because, as he says, Pheidon is dat-
)
ed c. 900', sixth from Temenos 1 and this of course is too
early. Pheidon need not be sa ear1y, if one simply"ignores
that date of 1100. It need not. enter into the discussion at
aIl.
The best thing to do is to tate the fixed point, Nikan-'
dros and work back, accepting the resulting date
J
for Temenos as reliable. A viable chronology for the Argive
kings is possible by cGrnbining Oi-odoros, Strabo and ilausanias '
and uS1ng the Arkadian and Spartan lists as further refer-
o
ences. In Figure 18 l have given the various lists with a
final tentative list cornbining the elements of the traditions.
This list to be in keeping wi-th the tradit10ns
and there are no r.eal contradictions. A date of 730-700 for
,
Pheidon, the king who was called the most able man of his day
by the ancient authors, reflects weIl the archaeological evi-
dence and other tradtionsoabout his actions (see bel?w).
The fact that Diodoros names an earlier king of the sarne name
causes no conflicts since there are parallels in the other
" .
genealogies (the Agiads and Eurypontids have kings bearing,
1
the sarne narne for exarnple). Furtherrnore this per1od, the Late
Geometric, is the time of Argos' ,apex in power, a logical
time in 'which ta place this powerful king. It seems ta agree
wi the tra1i tional evidence which suggests that he was rul-
ing when Argos was at the height of her strength; this will
be examined in t'he following chapters.
1
...
'J
o
1
j

J
1
.
.
1
)
._ __ .. ., .... ,_ ,atW-?' .ilu.a .'JAn! i i
-.1 ... -::-
) -

ri
".-" "e
...

0

-- ---
o '
\,
ARGOS '-
Arkadia Sparta Diodoros Pausanias
--.........
Tentative List
(Eurypon tids)
;
E!chemos
Herakles
,
Herakles
...
Agapenor
Hyllecs' Hylleos
\.

' l
Kleodaeos Kleodaeos
Aepytos
Aristpmakhos Aristomaknos Aristomakhos c.
,
Kypselos Temenos 'remenos Temenos' ,Temenos c. 980-950
;aol.aeas v
Kissios Keiss c. 950-920
.
- Bu."olion
Thestios Medon Thestios-rtedon c. 920-890
Phialos Eurypon 895-865 Merops Merops "c. 890-860
-
-
Simas Prytanis 865-835 Aristodamis
c . 860--830
Pompos Polydektes 835-805 Pheidon Pheidon
r-
c. 830-800

Eunomos 0 c. 805,7'15 Keranos

Keranas c. 800-775
"
Pol.ymestar Kharillos c: 775-750 , "
Pheidan ? c. 7,75-7'50
Aekhmis Nrkandros c. 750-720 Eytos Eratos 'co 750-730
Theopompos
u
c. 720-675 Pheidon Pheoidon c. 730-70 0
'n
H.i.kett.s Aftaxandridas,I c.
Lakedas Lakedas
,
700-670 c.
, q ),
II Arkhidamos l c. 660-645
<l
Meltas Meltas c. 670-650
..
FIGURE Table ,lis,t1ng kings of Soarta and Argos according' to tne ancient
o writers and a final tentative list ot-the Argive k1ngs. c
, " -',

Q
........ 1" -------------------------..--------- - - ... ----,.,..-
o
..
,,.
.,
:::
. ,
- o ' 0
,
.. ',', .....

" '
"

,.
\1 ,
'J
(
CHAPTER(3
THE
The traditions about the earlier of the Argolid,
that is ,the so-called return of"the,Herakleidai, set the
"scene for Iater events,' thse in partiQ;uIar of the 8th and
7th centuries. Of ourse the traditions are sketchy with re-
t'
spect to historicai events, -often toid in asldes by Pausanias
and Strabo, little stories used to fi11 out their accounts of
the pIpce they happen to be These.naturallyare
not given in any and dre often Idced with
large doses of mythical tales. In this section l wish ta
look aE the traditions from the return'of the Herakleidai up/
to those dealing Pheidpn and events of that period to
see what picture they of the Argolid.
First then, is the traditiongof the return of the Herak-
leidai itseif. These ate the sons of Herafles who"were ban-
. ,
ished after the death of their father but who later returned
and captured the Pe1oponnese, dividing it among themselves.
One of the three sons was who was fifth. from Herak-
les according to llst and whose lot was the
Argorld, hence the -famous "Lot Terneno,s:' (Tomlinsri:'""1972,
59). The other two sons received< Sparta and 1-1essenia, a fac-
tor many of the later troubles of Argos
neighbours .in that the Dorian, kings of Argos claiming descent
frorn Temenos, feIt that it their to control not
just the "Lot of Temenos" but the rest of the east coast of
the Peloponnese which they feit was part of their division.
one sees a traditional justification for the wars of
aggression of Argos in later history. About the of
the Herakleidai Pausanias II.XVIIt.7 records:
82"- -
.,
i
1
,
4.

===t 4
.'\.
,
83
.
,.
l'.
\ .r.
tnt -ro TLoalJ.EVO 'tOlrroU nehOnvVl)OOV
, Hpct'Khe'C6aL, TTII.l.evoc; IJ.tV )tat 'APLO'TOf,LO.XOU"
51 EtnoVTo ol
na'i:t. JI Apyouc:; Iiv CT) 'xat -rii tv '" Apyt\.
tfU>L oxeLv fJl.Lqll.013frrouv, DeonU;T) b
1 rl. OUIJ.v6, oL i "t' dvhaev dal.
.
From then on the traditions speak of hostilities between Argos
and' her o,\r the "Lot of Temenos ".
Immediately uponthe coming of the Herakleidai it appears
that Argos the dominant power in' the. Argolid, taking !)
over the position Mykenai had held in the'Bronze Age, as we
see in this passage of Strabo VII.6.10:
. ,
,
l "t' TPOOLx. , Ayalltll\lOV0 dpX1;<; dO'r)e;,
-rane\.vw(1)val. xat -ri}v TWV
'Hpaxtt.5wv x,9050v. xU-rUOXOV't"E yp 0&.01. -riJ\I

oL 't"o JlApyo 'eLxov )tat -r
e le;
In other words from very early on, Argos was beginning to show
its strength at the expense of. other cities in the Argolid.
In this early period there were many and numerous
are the traditions of early Argive aggression. Indeed, in,
, "
the first generation after the return of the Herakleidai, the
Argives acquired - Epidauria but this later daused trouble, as.
, -
Pasanias relates in II. XXVLl-2: '
l '
npLv t
CPacTL Jl1CIlvoe; dnyovov oo68ou'. 'tOln:OV
napaooval. YOOOLV dlJ.QxeL )tut 'ApyeLot.<;
xat 0 ! L tVTa9a
l$I.xl')ae, 6Tll.cpo\l1T) xaL 'Ap.ye'tol. j . 'Enl.c(lupCav
dneOXLa9l')OUV o-ro" -rWv APre v Tt)llhol?
-r e e lYrijoa V't'o
At early then, Argos
the and beyond, for 'in that !ame
,
colonized Pausanias relates in
power felt in
she also
.(
'r "
. >,


i
i
"'-
j
1

,1
l '
.
J
j
D'

1
1
!
1
xp6VWI. 5& , ApyeC)v 'titlv ' EnCoaupov OIlOl>
t AtYl.vv
- d' 6 ' 'A' "e '
PXaLOL YtV OUVOLXOJ, llWpLEWV E xaL
qx.v?Jv lv -rtJ
The above passage reflects the growth of' power of the Argi ves,
one which sees them also taking over Troizen in
yp xat al
xaL npDTtpOV
'APYtCw'J xa't1liooL '
In the thi!d generation Argos-oonquered Phlious, recorded by
Pausanias iri'IT.XIII.l:,
This
, '
'Hpaxta.600v" Dt TIeonvVllDO na.ou
ttT]v ' px6.Wv, cb n 'titlv nEWv cruvo C h -ro
)l!PLXO neLovas; of, "L ,06UL 'td
1
TOt bLxDTOPCTL. 't xu't
tn' 0 TC\) f, I.e 'tE "Apyou
aTPUTeeL TD,Ll.xuwvh
conquest meant tha't Argos
\
not only Epidauria
and Troizenia but also aIl the part,of the Argive
plain and this in only In swnrnary then,
.
the traditions suggest sorne great ances upon-the re-
turn of the Herakleidai, saw Dorians taking over mahy
areas of the-Peloponnese, with Argos becorning an
strong" ceBtre and sending out to vari9us parts
of and beyond.
...
The next pnase in the traditions speaks of the continuing
hostilities between and Sparta,
to date alrnost frorn the coming of the,Herakleidai. Pausanias
/ .
in II.XX.l' gives a good account of the never-ending struggles:
\
OaxE5ul.f10'llLO,L nOE.f1Etv np , dp{uf.l.'IIOl. o66E.f.l.Ca
npLV 0
tnt TO: BPOL
-ci1 TOV B lf.l.npooeev xpvov ot_ Aaxeou)fl.6vLOL
)
-----------------_ ..... -
-,
r

1
85 ,
t;e 'tii 'Apyda dd n
d
1
-TIlVOV't'O, ot ' np nOt;(J.Ov
t;(vwv XaL abTot
t xHV'tO.
,
"
" The earliest battl'e between thern was in the reign of
Leo':lofas of Sparta 1 dated three generations, after the' return
of the Herakleidai, i.e. 870-840 according ta the Spartan

king list (cf. above): 'saon a-fter., the previous events. The
I/l
fight was over possession of Kynouria, as Pausanias records
.in III. Il. 3':
Dt T6Tt np 'ApYCLOU
nOc(J.Ov tnoLoVTo t a&to
dhOT(J.veoBuL TOO 'ApyeLou
xat 'tO nepLotxou TOTt;
Ilv nap Ob5CTf!V IlvJl-LTJ l1Lov
o6v.
At this time it seern that both Argos and Sparta were of
sirnilar strength sinee neither was able .to achieve anything.
This situation ta have lasted quite a while with neither
side attempting any major act of aggressicin against the other.
Argos and Sparta were not on the friendliest of terrns however
saon after the Kynourian affair Spartans appear to
have rather hostile towards the Argives although for
a time after this no action was taken as Pausnias relates in
III.VII.2-3:

5 ul ytveTaL ITpTavL. tnL (J.v ITpUTavLo
TON TC txeo TC AaxeOUL(J.OvCOt. TC i
'A YELO xat hLTO tyxh.TII.J.CL't"O 'tOlrroU np6Tf,pO\l 'KuvoupeoLv
tn ll-LT)oov' 't'. Ct' tcpE{i1 Talrrr}L yevt', E/lv61loU 1:E 'tt;
TIp 't"VLOO xaL TIouoxT2u E6v6(J.Ou
t'v LeTf,af,V 0600 t::nP'tT).
From the late 9th century throughout much of the next century
therfore there was"peace between th two enemies but this
)
was saon ta ch as will be seen.
1 -
"
--
j

CHAPTER'4
<'
. ,
TRADITIONS OF C. 750-650-PHEIUON
This lOO-year period' is a critical 'one ln the history of
.
the Argolid. The archaeological evidence pdints to this time
as one of wealth, prosperity and power. The question now lS
,to see wha t the traditions h,we t<? say events and people
of the period. Up to about the middle'of the 8th century there
was a time of relative calm but from then on battles were ta
be- nunferous. Al though i t 1S impossible to be precise as ta
the dates of sorne of ,these battles it is feasible ta give an
approximate date for, them based primhrily on genealogies. AS
seen ';lb'ove, Sparta at peace until and including the
reign of Polydektes but after, as Pasanias re-
lates in III.VII.3 the Spartans invaded:
The reign of Kharillos is dated c.' 775-750 according to the
Spartan king list (Forrest: 1968, 21), and since Argos took
no action in reta1iation it may be conjectured that the city
was not.yet at her peak.
By the second half of the century Argos began taking a
more active in the politics of the Peloponnese her
partlcipation in the First War of c. 735-715 as An
ally.0f the Messenians, Arkadians and Sikyonians against the
Korinthians and Spartans. As Pausanias reCQXds in IV.X.7:
. "
i , l npoavaCllT)vaL -ro 'tO
heo o6x t;;touv, Yl.VOIlf.VOU dy)vo napf.01H:.ua.l;oV'to
dl<; llf.e &;ovre: .
86
1
1
j
1
1
t
. ,
1
87
/,
The Messenians and their allies were victorious and therefore
in only a very short time the Argives seem to have
quite a lot of power and the reverse they had suffered earlier
seem to have had only a temporary effect. In fact there 15
a tradl tian which' states that Argos haCl an empire on the cast
coast of the Peloponnese perhaps at this time as Herodotos
remarks in 1.82:
xut f] I-LtXPI.. Ma:.\r.wv f] np tcrntpt]v 'll '-r'i
h TG XWP'll xut 'h Ku8'llPLr)' vT)OO XUL al
'!Jv vT]0(;)\J.
What this statement of Herodotos actually means is difficult
to estimate and it is debatable whether or not Argos really
had,such an empire.
a naval power but no
connection with this
If she did, she must certainly have been
ancient author ever mentions ihis. In
the ship in the Panoply
grave may be of in confirming Argiye naval interests, a
further,lndication of which may be the fact that Argos brought
aid by sea to the town of Helos when it attempted to revoIt
\ .
from the spartans: Pausanas in 111.11.7 tells what the Spar-
tans accomplished:
xut vE:.\o tnL 8aOUr)L
xaL Vl..xWcrLV.
This defeat was at the hands of, the Spart'an king Alkamenes,
dated c. 740-700 but the important PQjnt is not the defeat
itself , for the Argives may have sent only token aid, but
rather that that aid WqS sent by sea, suggesting that Argos
was in tact a naval power by this time and no doubt was try-
4
, ing to Sprta f;om getting ta the sea-coast by this
action. Although the failed it did not les sen Argos'
power in the indeed this may be the period when
King Pheidon, the greatest man of his day, was ruling.
traditions mention Pheidon, associating hirn with
a

1
Pl
Il
,
.
i


:i

*

,.
,
t
88
dlffernt events whih hundred and fifty years, c.
750-600," Dependlrig on the tradition, Pheidon could have ruled
at any time during thatentire period. The ancient wrlters
insist that he was the most able man of his time and that,
among other things, he f inally recovered the "Lot of Temenos".
The controversy surrounds the attempt to aSsoclate Pheldon
1
wIth ail Arglve height of p0WeI.
One traditlon which has caused considerable confuslon IS
that ln which he is ca1led a tyrant by Arlstotle is' 1310b.J-6:
, ,
OXE50v y.p oL nh!O'roL -rWv TUpaV\KIlV YEy6vaoLv t"K 6T]1J.U)"W-yWv
x; ELnE!", nLCTt'Uebrn: b< Toti TOtJ YVWPLf.LOO.
at yp TO't"o" TCV Tpnov TWV TopaVVLOWV
..oov n)..elV a.l 0(, np 't'O.nwv Ex n
-r:WV 't n<Tpl.a xat
aL 5' t"K TWV alp-r:Wv
tnL T xUPLa dpxi olav <PeC&.v nr.pl "Apyoc; "Kat
he:,pOL TGpuVVOI. X(J.TcnT)OUV bnapxoGOT] ..
\'Jhat 15 of the utmost importance here is that ArlStotle speci-"
fically refers to Pheidon as a king and the fact, that l1k-
ens hlll ta a tyrant means nothing insofar as datlng IS con-
cerhed. '1'0 place Pheidon in. the 7th century because he 15
called a tyrant, as D. Kagan does for example (Kagan: 1960,
126) is therefore a thoroughly unc)nvincing argument.
Other traditions a1so make it clear that he an here-
ditary monarch; those mentioned in the chapter Argive
King L1St" clearly reflect this. Insofar as the dates of
Pheidon are concerned, lhese genealogical references in them-
selves seem satisfactory but unfortunately they are not the
,
, on1y traditions involved and when the others are taken into
onsideration, the picturE:, becomes very cloudy. One need
only study the fo1lowing aCCCl1.:nt by Strabo VIII. 3.33 to no-
tice the difficulties "which immediately present themselves:
<PEtwva 'APYEtov, 5Xa.TOV dno
0' TO xaT' a't"6v,
:,
',1
'"
'7l
,
'1
L
;
.-
l
r
}:
1
89
'tijv 't'f. )..i);"\1 lS)..TJ\I 'tT)V TT)lJ.tVCl> LwnuOfl\Il')v (.(5
",ndw xat t(epf, 't' 'xaoulLEva xaL
'Kal. V6jJ.LO].Ul xf,xapaY!-L VOy 't'6 Tf, tl. )(0 L 't'
'd.PYlJpov, np !t"Olrrol. tnL8oBuL xaL 'tU't
'Hpo.X,ol.l alpf,6eCoul. n6.WI. xat 't'o dyWvu
1
l;LOv
't'Leval. u&rov oO txet"\lo tSTlxe' 't'OlrThl\l 5r:. ,uval.
xaL Tv 'l>!-LnLxov' xat tnEtloVTa 8t:tvaL aqTv,
-rWV 'H"dwv tx6V't'Wv l'>na, tiJO'Tt: XW.U(,LV. 6L 'tTjv
drfJJr,v, -rWV ']:"f, T(J OlJVUO'TtLf(-' o IL-fN '
'L<fu yf, 'Hhtou dyayp\jlaL TIJV Berl.v 't'a6n]v, cin xcI.
xTI]oaoBal.. t.cI. 'tw xat tnl.XUpf,LV O\f>l.ql.V,
a (;TO't UjJ.npUTIf,LV xaL tlaxeal.fJ.Qv(ou, dLE '
TU oL Et'Lf, xaL
OUVEPYO VOjJ.Louv't'a np 't'o xu't'aouL 't'ov q,f,C5wva,
d.(j)"(lPTJf.L.vov atw -ri)v f]yqJ.OvLav -rrov DeonoVVrjOLWV, TJV
" h(;LVOI. npoExh'tijvTO' XUL Tj xaL cruYitu't'uUOOI. Tv
cf>dwva. '
"
In hls opening remark, ,Strabo mentions that Pheidon was tenth,
in descent frbm Temenos, a statement which speakLng
puts Pheidon in the 8th century as we saw in the Arglve
1
List above, reckoning ten generations after the return of the
\
Herakleiqai but his statement that he minted silver coinage
wouid Pheidon not eariier than the Iate 7th century and
furthermore his referenee to tQe Lakedaemonian hegemony may
pertaln to the period after the Second Messenlan War.
Pausanias is of sorne help with this problem when he dis-
ebsses Pheidon's takeover of the Olympics in re-
ferring to the Pisatans:
,

'\
o ln 't1i oy6o mv 1 APYE:LOV iTlT)yayono \
'Lupavvwv iv )
, , .t '" "e 6..... "" 5 .,
't'ov u.ywva . f.O"l..'1I !-LOu ':t'el. WVL 't'ulYt"a 't'u /
oujJ.nLcll5a xa tin' a't'a: -r?jv 'H't'aP't'T)v n xa t hil't'OO"t1)v 1
'fE:geLOOV bno 1 Apxawv, 6.vouf.Lnl..uoa ol 'Hhto\..
xa)..one o tv -rWV ypa(jJouerLv.
The eighth Olympiad was in 748 B.e.; tpis is important because
in the it i8 the on1y specifie date given for Pheidn ..
.
Other sources cornpopnd the problem; Africanus, Eusebios ChroJ.

1.96 says that the Pisatan lnterlude occurred in the 28th
(
,
90
Olympiad, 668 B. C. :
E t xoO't"?) 6yoll.
XUPf.l.L' cnU\,ov.
> OXOL sllpo'\: . Tamlv TILontoL 'HhLW'V dCX0.ouIl\K.IlV,
oL tOv np no>..q.l.Ov.
Strabo in a sense confirms this in the followlng statement
VIII.3.30:
nl.cnv:.:x;. IJ.hpt. rli hTI") XUL fL){oo-rii
cino ) .t'V tvt.)ta ma6LQV
Ht:LO'. TIJv npoO'taoLuv dxo'(/ TOU "CE l EPOU xat TOU dyWvo
'H't;LOL.
The Plsatan interlude only occurred after these, placing Phei-
don ln the 7th. century but thcse two do not spccif ically men-
tlon Pheidon. There are thus two diverging points of
view hcre, one'placing Pheidon c. 748 while the other has ,.,]11m
ru1ing c. 668 B.e. Both of these dates seem Incorrect when
vlewed in light of the genealogies as seen in the. king llst
. ,
aboVe. The date of 748 B.C. interest1hg nevertheless be-
cause the king 1ist a gap at that period. The
king ru1ing at that time could been named
Pheidon, ln accordance wi th the custom of nam\rg, one' s son .
after OIS grandfather. In other words the t
the possibility of placing this Pheidon between Kefanos ,and \
Eratos. of the 8th 01ympiad therefore
may stand without emendationi his confusion is understandable \\
--he knew of The Pheidon and naturally associated every note-
worthy deed with hirn. This means that Argos three
kings of the same too many to be credible but
the possibility exists' that this was the Pheidon responsible
for the takeover of the 8th Olyrnpiad. There are nevertheless
other traditions' t<lhich may be of help when considering the
whole problem of pheidon and the power of Argos.
One of these is concerned with Asine. of the
(

t
\
\
" ,
91
background of the Asinaeans is given by Pausanias in IV.XXXIV.
9:
\
, 5 't 1J.f.v t.; dp:; nEP!. -rov
TlapvaooOv 0 i)v U C:rtot, a OT) )(U t nEonOVVl)ooy
LCoWOUVTO, anD TO OlXLOTO ponc. Ct
f,ucrd.Jo\J1:o <pu'hU\J1:O ol poonE bno 'HpafOLJ
hpu-rr-j 8r]CTuv XUI. -rWL ' A no .w v 1. fixer/ou\' t t. t:ljlou'
dvax9tVTE Ot t nEonOvVljOOV TOU eai)
TIpWTU lJ.v np txeL0ev 6
b.ne06VTe !mo 'ApYELWV OLl{Ot)aLv"'tv 't'j1. MeOCTfjv(aL.
\
The as weIl as Troizenians and Hermionlans were
.
not Dorians but Dryopians. Strabo confirms that ASlne was
Inhablted by Dryopians but 18 unsure h0W they came to-the
,
Pe loponne se (VIII. 6.13) ;
0
'
xut , AoCVI)v, etT' tl{
nEPL ZnEPXELoV TOnwv TOU 'Apxao-
XUTOLX(OUV.o tVTa9a, ro 'APLaTOTtlj Ete'
'Hpaxtou tx nEp!. TOV f1apvaoov 6wpC6o
tsEcravTO ao-rou
"
, v
"
,.
The fact that they were .Dryopians 5eeMS to their la ter
troubles and in fact they seem to have gotten along very
well with the Argives of Argos, a fact archaeology c?nfirms.
This culmlnated in their town1s destruction as mentioned above
by Pausanias. he expands on this:
t\aXEOaLIJ.OvlWV xaL Nl.xavpo TO XapCou
TOt) f1out>eroo TOt) Eovof.LOu TOt) rIpUTavLoo Toti E6puool\rro
i TT)v 'ApYOLU OTpUTI.L ol
xat ov
cb 6 6 m6o TWV flaxe5aLj..LOvLWv dm;'hee:,v oha5f"
mpan6ouoLv 'AoCVT)v ot 'ApyttOL xal.
a&.Wv xat xp6vov TI.Va dn TOt) TELXOLJ
ol 'AOLvaLOL xUL,dnOXTelVOUOLV &ou xa!.
AUOLOTPUTOV t'li TOL
TO TELXO O&.oL yuvatxa T nOLa
xut natoa TT)v 'ApYELOL
' AOLVT]V xat TT)v, yTiv npoooPLoU\-LEVbL
Te bnECnovTo TC LEPOV - XUL
vuv tTL tOTL-xat fluoCTpaTov np
8a n't'O\JOL v
r
c
!
\.
1
,
1-
}
i:
C .,
li
.' r
,\
J
r
I-
l
92
This des truction of Asine took place after Nikandros had in-
vaded the Argolid, his reign occurring c. 50 thlS
places the destruction As1ne at the very end of that perl-
od. There was thus a time towards the end of the reign of
Nlkandros when Pheidon could not posslbly have becn in power
though he may have ruled soon aftert sinee
temporary Eratos who ln turn may have relgned ]qst be-
fore Pheldon as seen in the Arglve King List carller.
The whole period from c. 750-c. 650 w.as one when Argos
was qUlte strong. Traditions give further examoles of thlS;
one concerns the battle for the Thyreatid district, located
in the western of the Argolid. Pausanias III.VII.5 re-
lates the following:
o tv
xal. 0 T!EPL Tr\ eup6a:n50 XUoulltvll xwpu
flaxEoa Lf.LOV to dyWv npo 1 Apydoo. ,
l...!i
!heopompos ruled e. 720-675, in other words, he wa5 in aIl
llkelihood i eontemporary of Pheidon, at least in the earlier
part of his reign. It is related that the Argives won this
battle and it is th us tempting to place it in the last 20
years of the 8th century, perhaps when Pheidon was ruling.
Another example i5 the battle at Hysiae, as told by
ln II.XXIV.7. He is discussing Kenkhrelai:
/
xaL nOuavoPLu tvra9a tOTLv 'ApYELWV
'YoLa, TOV Ot dyWva
nELOLOTpU,OU,
<St hEL' -n; xut 6lxocrtil
1 hL xu mOoLov.
This battle oecurred in 669 B.e.; thus at that time Argos was
a strong force in the Peloponnese. Both the 8th and 7th cen-
'"
turies therefore 'are plausible times when Pheidon could have
ruled but there is one more tradition which needs to be con-
sidered. This is one which links Pheidon with the
. -
1
\
.
,-'
:
f
'-
93
Arkhias, founder of Syracuse. The story, which has two ver-
sions, 1S a confused one and in one of these versions, that
of P1utarch, Pheidon would date to the generation before the
foundlng of Syracuse while in the other he wou1d date to that
generation itself. Plutarch,. in .Arnat. Narrat. 2, 9}-ves the
followlng account of the story:'

<>ELOWV n TWV TIeonovvrpLwv tnl ....netlJ,evo dp<.
TIjv ' Apyd,wv nOLv, TIJv naTP[6a TIJv tall'ro,
't'Wv OLnWv TIp'yrov tne[3oullf, KOPLV8[',OL'
yp' Ut"El nap' a{nwv vwvLa XLLOU 'w
axtJ. ow<ppov'ra xat avlipd.'t ol6. n.lJ,HOUL TO XI"N[OU,
aocWv anooeLsUV'rE tv vw
)1 , "N CI 11 \',
6' qW\! 6 <>eLfuv tn1.6wal. 'rO\,l'rOL, LV' f,XOL Kopl.v8ov
1:oVWTpav xat -ra nOf.L Xpf]OOL'TO, np0't"ELXLO}W yp TOU'rO
tnLxULPTaTOV toeoBUL fY'l
npa';LV aVeE!O -dv ha(plv T\.tV. 1)" xu\. "AI\plV
tv aO'WL' O1:O b .!;.vo TOU' l\ E.!;uv6pou
ol. XLl.OL np tllLGOf.J<;'
d TI)V KOpl.v6ov ta.J6lJoov, <PEL6wv 5' a.Vf.UpELV
T\! npo6vTu xat tt;f]TeL. 5doo t'J' b "A[3pwv
<pOyEL f.t KOPLV90v, a.vaa[3Wv "(uvuti\U xa\. TO
oLx:ta, MELace, )((.tJ.U nvt 't"7j KOPLV8 LWv xwpu
xat. Yf.vvf]oa MLOOV npoorr)'PEUf.V, ano
TO Tonoll T01)v0f.la a-d. T06TOll bT] TOU
MCaoO\.J uLoS 'AXTUl.WV xa(.,CJ"!o xat
"tiOv O\-LYj(}(U.)v, o nf.LmOL \-Lb
hCVOVTO tpama (, 6 LaqnpOvTW 5' 'APX Ca. 6.
nf.L8cLV 00')( rfJ6vaTo 'tov nut6a, hvw XUI.
-ro dVSh6!-LEVO 0 'A'lt'ruCwv
5Lf.\jl8apT) 06 nO\, 5'a.Xf:L0 xat
-ri]v nOLv: 'Kat TlV Koet..vecW'\1 ncpt dna/.J...uyTjs XfXDfl.vwv,
8f.o dvc.n.t EtvuL TIOO"tLOW)lO 06x ,
a. w tlv TOV ' AX'ra LWVo. Sa vaTOll EV.
Tall'ra nu8otJ.cvo 'ApxCa, u..o yp 8EWPO EL f..Lv
TI]v KOpl.veov h wv ox tnuvT')8f., nEuoa 0' d
TI]v LL.Xc'tuv L:uPU){OOU hTLO"E.
..
According to M. Syracuse was founded 736/5-725 (Miller:
1970, 197) a date which conforms well with the of the
8th Olympiad in 2J 8. Pheidon would thus have ruled in the

third quarter of the 8th century according to thl.S tradition

' .

c,
,
i
r
94
,
,Jiut if the other ls correct t.hen he could have ru1ed in the
"last third of the century, thus after Eratos. This tradl tlOn
seems to glve credibility the Argive King LIst in which
Pheidon 15 the successor of Eratos. Eratos, as destroyer of
Aslne and contemporary of Nlkandros, was perhps rulng c.
"
750-730 and Pheidon therefore c. 730-700, contemporary wlth
Arkhlas of Korinthos.
. ,y
These traditions are apparently irreconcilable since
sorne place Pheldon'c. 748 and others c. 668 but the evidence
<:1 , ..
does not end there for there are still other tradi tions .which
have been used in support of either date and sorne indeed place
him as 1ate as the end of the 7th century. One of the5e 15
the tradition connecting ,him wi th the -invention of sil ver
cOlnage 1 as quoted from Strabo earlier. In VIn. 6 . 16 he e la-
borates:
.IIEq>opo 0' AtytV'(l 5pyupov ITr:rrov 'KonllvL <P'Tl0l..V bna
yp YEviatlaL, l. TIJv unP2'tjt' 'r
wv v8pWT1{.\) 8ua'rroupyo6V'tWv litJ.TIOPLi<O, q>' o -rv
pw1l0V AtYLva.{av yf,oBal...
The invention of coipage is discussed in the second appendix,
but the important point for the moment ls that these Aiginetan
coins are dated to the Iast quarter of the 7th century (Robin-
.'
son: 1951, 165). This wouid cons iderably lower rheldon 1 s
-datei but he ls said t have dedicated the old splts at
the Heraion. Votive spits have ln'fact been the
Heraion but they date to c. 730 (Courbin: 1959, 209-2j3). Ac-
cording to this then, Pheidon wouid date to the last thlrd of
the 8th century--quite a difference in time but one which fits
in .well with the proposed king list. Another tioh plac-
oing Pheidon at the end of the 7th i8 in WhlCh his
son was a sUltor of th of K1eisthenes of Slkyon.
This i5 seen in Herodotps VI.127.3:

. .
.
. .
"
\,
1
(',
;' \j
-
.,
, .:
... 't _
..
"
;
ye
/-
.
<

,
;
95
400 cl ne).,onovvY)OOu 4>etoovo 'Apyet(()v 't'upvvou nat
A Elx-f)T) # 4-tt500vo 'LOll 't lJ,.'t"pci: nOI.:r;ooVTo
xaL
4ruV"C'Ulv, t{avami)oa. wlx; 'H).,tL(()v dyr)voO.-ra a6-t
-rov_t \1 ' O).,up.nt\) d')iO\la teT)Xf:, TOlrro,U -r,E. T) nut
Herodotos thus adds more fuel to the fire by this statement,
, (,
'- ,
if indeed it i to be believed. A further p!oblem arlses
however with another statement of Herodotos (V.67):
to...u0f3 \TT] yp , Apydo nO).,q.LT]ou -row I-L v pa'fft>oo
t.v -rli.'>v 'Ol-LT)peLwv t,nf,wv etv/i;xa,
lS"t't. 'pyeLO! 't'f. xat "Apyo -r. non ,ruhrm .. "t'OlYrO L
f}pOOLOV yp Tjv xaL t.v a6-ttJ TG dyoplO -dv
, At.>pTJO't'Ou 'tO Taao, 't'o\hov t.neeI-LT)Of. 6 K).,.Lotlf.VT) t.6V1:'a"
, Apyf:LOV tx 'tii. XWPT)
There was thus strong anti-Argive in Sikyon under
Kleisthenes, 50 much so that he even changed the names of the
Dorian tribes 50 that the y would'not be common t9 the Sikyo-
r ,
nians and Argives (Herodotos V. 68). It seems unlikely.there-
o
fore that 'an Argive should have been allowed to try for the
, "
hand of the daughter of Kleisthenes. The names of the tribes

however, could hve been riicknames, as Haw and Wells suggest
(How and Wells: 191,2, 35) and not the official names. Per-
haps the anti-Argive feeling was not so strong as Herodotos'\
,
statement implies. Nevertheless the genealogical implications
of this, tradition are such that ft must be abandoned "for it
contradicts qui te str0ng'Iy,the evidence of other authors wi th
regard to PheidpnYs descent and date (cf. Argive
King List). The last'Ternenid King was Meltasi Pheidon could
-
not ,possibly have ruled after him .
.
from aIl of the above traditions, the ancient
writers present a\picture that is confusedoand contradictory,
so much in fact, that it is impossible to arrive at a clear
.
'understanding of Pheidon and his actions. For the time
it is best ta consider all possibilities affered by the


! - 1
'j
..
,

i
1
v J,

..
-.,
'r'
(
l
.' {
t'

". :"
,1.
.

,
"

f,

l"
Q

t
l,

r
\
,
(.
i
t
t
i
(
il
"
"
/
\
))
'0
, \,
, \,
-,'
./
,
"
-
/
- ':/,
, ./
96
'-,
trditions as plausible. In the third section of this paper,
.-. an atFempt will be made to re-evaluate these traditions and
'.
ta examine thm in light of the evidence.-
,
/,./
'j
/,
.--;:
)
,
,
r
"
, ,
"
J
l'
1
1. ,
CHAPTER,5
OTHER TRADIT IONS
Th'e trpdi tions above of the 8th and 7th cenuries reflect
a ;,pefiod o\,,,ellth, and p\osperity.. in Argos in parti-
cular as a whole. This can be corrobora ted by
a other trad1ons, one of which is told by Herodotos in
.
V.86. The island of Aigina was revolting frorn Epidauros which
in called in the Athenial'ls ta prevent the re,volt:
'A9T)vatou lJ.v 'ta\Yro no 1. .e 1. \1, oq>a AtYI.\lrrt-a ... Hyouol.,
nu9of1.vou 't"O 1 A!hlvaLou d> f.Lno ... e\l trI!. OIPa .
aTpa'tel.natla ... , hOLIJ.OU 'ApyeLou no .. hotla .... 'rou 1:'&
'A9T}\laLOU t -rljv AtYI.VaLVllxat napE.tval.
't'l><; , 'Kat a9&'\:v 'tE. U;; 'En\.aupou
t vioOv 'Kat o npoo.xT)xoool. 1:'OLOL 'AeT}\laLot.oL
tnLnem:Lv bnow(J.Of.l.ivou 't d:n -cWv vEtlv; 't'f: t\l m-ne
1:'t YE,\li09aL xat 't'v o.61:'oLoL:
This a terrible defeat for the Athenians the hands of
the Argives and they lost their sea-power for s,orne tirne. The'
battle is dated to the first half of the 7th century by Wade-
Gery (1925, 539), and Ure 165f), perhaps' when Pheidon
, 2
was ruling (al his name is not linked wi th this affaif
and one must remember that its is very' uncertain. The
,).
episode is a further indication of Argos' strength at this
period, a strength which may be - seen in other actions, as told
by Strabo VIII. 6.11.' - After, discussing Tiryhs, Nauplion, Midea
and prosymna he remarks;
i -rn aL 1 ApyeLol. dnH90ucro.. ol c'
otxTyrop. QL lJ..v h 'ti) Hpl.lveo dnT]90" d
ol &t f, d -ro<; 'AI.E,L xaouj.L'vol.l, ol 5' tx TI) -
'Aot'VT] 5' atm, 'ti) 1 Apy,La nX11O'LOV NaunX(o.)
bno AaXtaLf.LOvLCO)l etc; 'tT)v MECYOT)VLav j..Le-rcexCpe1']oov t'Snol.l f
_ xat 't1i 'AOLV1J nOLx\IY] xat ot
tH 1ii NaunLa _ hELO". d\ltXOOPTJouv.
97
(,1
0
/ j
J
The case of Asine has been discussed previously but it ap-
pears from this {hat the Argi'qes d'estroyed these other towns
as well. ' (The lacuna is restorel as h 'tj , (Jones:
1918, 170 n. 1). Since he mentins aIl of these places to-
gE!ther one might Itc,njecture that they were aIl destroyed about
the same Ume, i.e., c. 700 as Asine but note the follo\<l1ng
passage from Pausanias IV. XXIV'- 4. He is speaking about the
aftermath of 'the Second Messenfan
"aXE.Oat.lJ.6vLOL 6. T<t;t:., ch tTIE:l(pc1'tT)ouv'til Mf.oOT)v(a, ,",'il
IJ,.v nT)v -rl) 'Aowutwv L&clYXUVOV, Mo8wvT]v
of; NaunLE.aLV t6l,50ouv b<flf,nw)(crt.v t)( Nau1lCu ,
hayxo bno ' ApyeLro\l. ?
This \'iould' place the destruction of Nauplion sometime' in the
late 7th century 1 a date which Pausanias apparently confirms
in the following passage (IV.XXXV.2):
o. )(at ..rot 6yot, Naun"t:.c)LV !nt
>-.axwvLCJl.l.t, 5 LCJ)X6 E.LCH. tv JI Apye L
Mo8wvT)v 5t,B6ClOL... .
,The rule .... of Damokratides may be placed c. 600 according to
Hukley (Huxley: 1958, 599) and this is the traditional date
for the destruction of r:Jaup1ion though archaeology does not
confirm this and there may have been an ]arlier destructi'on.
Insofar as the other towns are concerned there is no hint .
the traditions as to the date 0 the destructions
of Midea and Prosymna. A date somewhere in the 7th century
is tempting 1 but cannet be proved.
The later events are more easily datable than those Jof
the 8th and 7th centuries. These show that Argos (.,ras hold-
ing her own agaiilst other stronger powers and th<;lt in the
Argolid i tself she still had sorne influence. Poli tically
.. ...... 1:: \.
the situation in Argos had changed somewhat as is obvious in
this passage from Pausanias II. XIX. 2:
.
1
f
J
"
.'
c
.1
c'
l'

99
, , AP'Y".tol. Ot, l(1:E. tO'Y"J'YOpLa.V'xUt -ro a.b-t"VOj..l.OV dyanroV't'f:. bl
flaa. t.01::tou, 't TIj -rOOV ,t),ax l.O't'OV
npofrra.yov, ch<; MfJx.olVI. -rWl. xat 'tOL dnoyvOl. -ro OVOIJ.U
f:I.!fi 8TiVQt.n; Mt1:av . 'LOV
-5hawv dn6yovov MT)6wvo .0 napa.nav hUl1ot:v dpXTl
xa't'(vo 6 TlfJ.O.
According ta the genedlogy examined in the second chapter of
section, Meltas was perhapi the grands on of
which means that he coula have ruled sometime in the lst half
of 7th ceniury, course on the date Phel-
don himself. After the kings became litt1e mare than
f4!ureheads.
In the 6th century Argos teems to have begun ta 10se
power at the hands of the- Spartans, an exarnple being her e-
feat Thyrea ,in 548 B.C.-(Pausanias II.XXXVIII.5) whl1e in
-
the 5th century she was perhaps regaining strength, at least
, 1
in the Argolid itself as ndicated by this passage from Pau-
.
sanias II. XVI. 5:
6. 1 APYELOL xaeELXov bn
yp .wv 1 Apyd.wv ><am TIjv tnLO"t"pCl tav 'tOli M1l50u, "
Ml1xTlva LO t. t. e EplJ.Onu>..a' 601plO\l1:(1 ifv5pa, 0 t
AaxEoat.j..I.OvCot. 'tO TO
. 'LD napovav 'Apye(ou.
The of Mykenai is ths dated c. 468 , about the
same in fact as that of Tiryns. At the of this
cen,tury; the Argiyes had ?uffered very heavy lasses at the
hands of Kleomenes of Sparta c. 520-490 (Pausanias III.IV.I).
o
As Heradotos relates (VI.a3) the Argives were so lacking in
meB that the slaves took over the the sons of those'
Ii,
kiJled grew up and drove 'out the slaves. These .then took over,
Tiryns:
'L.l .iJ.v C; tiM>..ou, inH'La 0 t .4o .
ou).>u e ti .. KHavpo, yvo- tWv 'PLyae
tin' 1 Apxa6.Tl oU'tO w 50uou d:vh\lCE
/,
1 -
-,
, ,

t
,
r
(

100
/'
o
'tOtaL h 'tt>&rou 5 n6'X.qw oqlt. inL Xp6vov
OU;(VOV, t 6 Il6yL ol
.,..
This probably dates to 468 B.C. when the Tlrynthians were
then expelled and 'foqnded Port,o I<hli (Jameson: 1969, 311).
It is, strange f\mlever that Pausanias in the passage guoted"
above, says that the Tirynthians went to Epldauros when their
town was Clestroyed while in another passage 1 II. XXV. 8 he Im-
pli,es that they went ta Argos:
From these excerpts it almost seems as if there were
three separate destruations, one of whieh may have occurred
the same time as Asine and a later one c. 468. Arche-
ology Indicates that the site rnay have been destroyed or aban-
doned in the Geometrie period sinee afterwards it was mainly
a temple si te, but beyond this there is nothinig further that
can be said. Later in that century one hears of an Athenian
- .
alliance with the Argives against the Spartans, c. 464 -(Pau-
sanias IV .XXIV. 7) andin 420 of an alliance the El'ians 1
Athenans 1 Argi ves and Mantineans ta last 100 (Pausanias
V. XV. 8). The I\.rgi ves 'also destroyed Ornai in this century.
PausanIas gives this aceount ln II.XXV.6:
..
bmothrro l dno 'Opvw wu Wt) 'Opvw
't'Olrt-OU nf.'t'eW, '!'Ou Mf.Vf.oef.li, B , Aya[Lf[!vOVL [!c't'
auyxa9ctf.v dno [!v
't tyvf.'t'o TI)1. n6hl. 1 Apydol. 5 w\rrwv
'Opvea't'u dvao-rv-re 5 OVOLXOI. yeyOvaaLv
, ApyeLo\.. -.
,,.
Although no hint as to the date of this destruction is given,
Frazer (1898, 217) says it occurred in' 416 B.e. fol1owing the
account given by Thukydides in VI;7:
Aaxf,oo,l.iJ,"1.6L Di 'tO a6't'O xat oL Z.[![.l.O.XOL
KOPLV8(wv OTpa't'f.OOUVTf. t 'ApYf.LaV TD
l
;
,
-'
.'
l
t
101
l't"tj.Lov... 5 1 Ae,.,va LCIlV 06 lSO'tcpov
,. 6'" ' [l'A N.
VUllOL -rPLUXOVTU xal. c.sUKOOLOL TII\L't<lL, 0 pyf-LOL
f,Le't''tiv 'AeT')VU(I.V navmpa-nn 'LO
t'li ;f)j..Lipav one
aOLOUj.LVOU -ro aTpa-rtj.LUTO &nwef-V,
hLpaO"/(ouoLv ol tx wv' 'OPVE.Wv. xat-rV
bO't'f-pu(tt ot ' Apyt'i:L dl M't<lO'Katavrf,
-r 'OPVE<l vtXctJPT"}Ol\l xat ot
l
, A8T)vaLOL
PO't'f-POV Tut vuuC1tv tn' otxou.
ff
In the next century the Argives had problems 1 as the Spartans
under Agesipolis ravaged their" land c. 380 (Pausanias III.V,
,
7-8). After this the references to Argos become fewer and
fewer; she was no longer a power to be reckoned with and the
centre of attention had shifted long ago to clties such as
. .
Athens and Sparta. An appropriate ending to aIl of this 15
provided by Strabo VIII.6 .18:
.0 j.Ltv 06v 't wApyo &
)lat j.LXPL nan !\aaL!J.6vI;QL xa!. 61.
t"Y]v aD-rVOj.LLuV (flu't"'t'OV'rt, nf)v et 'tt,. nou j.LL)(POV
' ApyeLOL- n6ppov f,Lv 06)(
t5u;avro, dn }tat np TOU 't'f.CXOu hwt., 'tLv6, d.x;
!o\.XE., xEpa\-l(a d.<p.\rro ev tnt -rl}v on'
5' ty:vo'J't"o M 't'O wv ' AXaLwv
QUo'tTJI.w.t'O ouv hf.tvoli e.L wv 'Pwj.Latwv
vliv OUVO'tT]XEV ft nOL, 6EU'tE.p.EUOUoa -c1I
't"U; E.L !-LE't" -r?jv ZrtO.P'tTJv.
()
i
,
, j
.
r.
'.
"
, .
PART III
SYN'THES 1 S
,-
::-
l
,
-
,
. ,
l
l
, i
i
r
.,
'.
.

,
()
1
1
1 1
1
t
j l
l
_1
SYNTHESIS
In this section 1 wou Id like to suggest that Argos
reached the height of her power soon after 750 B.e. and that
this power contlnued for about 100 'years, after which i t de-
clined at a fairly rapid rate. Furtherrnore l also
that Klng Pheidon should be placed in the second half of the
8th century, perhaps in the last third,of that century. [
do this upon the consider9tion of the evidence of archaeology
/
and of the tr.;iditions both of which l,ead to these' suggestions.
ObvlOusly thit cannat be the final ward on the subject' as
there are" sti l rnany gaps in our knowledge of_ events of the
8th and 7th centuries and the traditions still offer a con-
tradlctnry plcture but for tpe time being these proposa1s
ta be the rnost logical.
A reView of the archaeological picture lS required in
order ta substantiate this of a proposed
of power after C.' 750. First of aIl the evi-

dence suggests a wdespread abandonment, of settlements in
the Argolid after the LH III C period--a desertion whiqh the
traditions link ta the destruction attending upon return
of the Herakleidai. Of the three rnost important Bronze
" '
Age sites, Argos, Tiryns and Mykenai, which were all in the
central Argive plain and aIl three of which continued to be
inhabited in the SM period, Argos seems to have taken the
at that t+,rne following the downfaii of Mykenai.- Both
archaeology -and the traditions give evidence of this
in the fortunes of the two cities, the traditions as shown
in the passage of Strabo already quotd (VIII.6.10) in indi-
cating that Argos' power began to rise alrnost immediately
upon the so-caI1ed arrivaI of the Dorians in the Pe1oponnese
and archaeology in suggesting that was becoming promi-
nent and was beginning'to take over the positlon forrnerly
102
,
t
-
,
,
,.;
) .'

t
7
" 103
held by Mykerai. Argos, the most important si te archaeologi-
cally in the Argolid in this period, does not Seem to have
suffered such a great upheaval as is apparent at other sites,
and the habitation tre seems to have been almost continuous,
though perhapp with a new population as at Tiryns and Mykenai.
The reflect the early of Argive power
in their reports' of various eonquests oecurriny within the'
lst three genera ti.ons after the return of the I1erakleic1ai.
In only three generations therefore, the Argives had managed
to take over most, if not aIl, of the rgolid itself as weIl
as areas to the north sueh as Phlious and Siky:m Since
the Argive king attacked Phlious from tnat city. It has been
argued, by T.J. Dunbabin for example, that even Korinthos was'

an Argive foundation dated c. 900 B.e. (Dunbabin: 1948, 63).
Whether 9r not this ,claim i8 justified cannot be proved but
the traditions do not make any mention ot an Argive co1ony
at Korinthos. Arehaeo1ogy however dces indicate that ties
between thes two 'cities were! extreme1y close t this early
period; was one of the' two cities, along with Athens
which proYided the Argives with most of their pottery at that
time. The Argolid does not appear, to have had major contacts
with any other part of Greece at that period while
lurgy the'area apPQrently was already a progressive centre,
producing objects of gold,_ silver and bronze.
In other words the picture of this- early period fore-
shadows l'ater events. The traditions relate that Pheidon
was responsible for 'recovering the entire "Lot of Temenos"
but a1ready in the few generatjons immediately following
Temenos himself-, Argos was dOlng qui te weIl, in thls respect
and was already controlling a large part of this inheritance.
This lmp1ies a growing military strength, one which found
little resistance in the Argolid itself but which was soon
to Jind a more formidable opponent in Sparta.
Archaeology not indicate any contacts between Argos
,
j
" .,
,
r
(
rt
104
nd Sparta during the SM, PG and EG periods but the tradltions
refleet a somewha t diff.erent picture for we hear from
(II.XX.l) in a passage already quoted that underLeobotas (870-
840) Sparta fought with the Argives for possesslon of KyRouria
at a Ume when both sides were apparently similar in s.trcnqth.
They appear to have remained at peaee afterwlrds wlth 11 tUe
'or no between them for about 100 years, during which
time from e. 850 to c.' 750 the Argolid wa;; developlng and 'rro-
fairly rapidly, a situation most aecurately refJect-
ed perhaps in the growing pottery industry. There were 23
si tes occupied in the' Geometr le per l.od, qui te an' increClse from
the 8 of the PG.period. This meant a big in popula-
tion which in turn meant.heavier demands for various goods dnd
possibly considerably increased manpower. As seen earlier,
..
the Argolld depended almost entirely on pottery from Athens
and Korinthos in the SM period. In the PG perio there is
eVldenee that the Argolid began to develop a local style
one WhlCh was heavily these same t.wo ci ties and
in fact imports of both Korinthian and Attie products are
found. The cantinued into the'EG period,'
not in considerable quantities and only at a few Sl.tes. On
the other hand Argive of her were nonexistent
in the EG and MG 1 periods and although the Argolld did,have
, ...
a local school lt was not important enough for'its lnfluence
to be felt outside the Obviously then, the Argolid
wRs stlll developing and had not yet reached its peak. Its
contacts witn the outside world were limlted with the maln
source of inspiration still being Athens. It was eertainly
not a artistic or industrlal centre yet and up to
about the middle of the 8th' century it was still a relatively
poor area.
,
Suddenly, for the change occurred in the next 10 years,
there was.a drastic and marked improvement ln the industries,'
of the Argolid. This period from c. 750-700 saw the Argolld's
.
,
"
r

. -
'.
105
pottery school becJme only
it. products exported
period. Furthermor by, this time
to Athens ln importance and
in contrast with the earlier
... ", ;
it had developed a good ter-
,racotta industrYi in bronze it was a leader and architec-
there was much AlI this is in sharp con-
trast with the state of affairs of{the previous lOO-year peri-
od.
pieture presented by the pottety industry perhaps
best illuminates the height which.the had rcached in
a short period. By the LG and the LG' 2 it had
become totally indepandent and outside influence was minimal.
In fact the Argolid now was able to influence other areas 1
The amount of pottery produced indicates a in
ulation and the orRate monumental vases are a suggestion of
wealth and prosperity; this is the period of most of the 1m-
ports and exports. Argive exports, \vhich had not existed in
,/
the EG period, are found in Tegea by the MG 2 period, but sud-
denly in. the L'G 2 the amoun,t of increased pheno":"
mena-Wy with a dist'ribution 'which went as far west as Megara
) Hybl.aia,' and south to Krete and s01Jtheast to Thera as weIl
as various on the mainland of Greeee itself. Schema-
tically one might present this increase in the number
of exports in -the following graph (Figure 19). The dotted
line represents the imports into the of other fabrics
the hari line the Argive This is
meant to give an idea of the trends involved and is not an

attempt to reproduce exactly the numbers itwolved., In con-
junction with this" i t is a 150 ,interesting to make a diagram,
(Figure 20) of the influences of Argiv,e ware on the outside
and the it in turn Jeceived. The dotted lina
presents outside influences and the hard line those the
Argolid.
These digrams seem to mirror the growth of the
pottery,industry and the resuLts of this'growth with respect


..a' ..............
,
'-Q
l,
"j
--
v
,/"
'1'1..... 11.>.
o
FI GUrE 19,
/'

PG-
,



"


' .

.........

. E 6-


_i'
.;,

-;'"
--
. .
"

M& LG-
Relative differenees xn the number of Argive imports and
exports "from the Protogeometrie to the Late Geometrie
....
..
-
imports
exports'
./
"
t
ab '7#'&''$ ,..0".... ____ ..
1 1 , r .. s'I ""n1 a'.?Iial'iriit t

---
9

......
o
0"1
f ..
'",.,... -,' ... C, - -
.. ;-.... ,..'": ..""- l'"
, "

o
;
>"
,-
r
- .. .,)

#
20.
,-
, .
..... .......

"
"
;'
v





'"

./

P& fiG- MG-
L6--
The influence of the Al:;"golid on the outs,ide compared
wi th the the outside on the Argolid from the
Protogeometric to theJLate Geometrie priod .
1\
, outside influence
Argive influence
tilt
"
.J
... -......... ... -
. ,-, ...... , ..... ......... ..-..........
.' -
./

o
-.J
v
r-
./
," .
':lo
.' ,
"
':.1
'Of
,;,
:-
,
<1

..
,'t'
"
.
,

..
'1
...

u
.,
..
"
.. ..
, -
108
to- the outside. -At first'" when the industry was young in the
Argolid, outside influences were at their strongest and there
sorne This continued in the EG period but the'
imp,orts Iessened slightly, then in the MG period both'J treqds
of exports and imports seemed to meet as the outside influ-
,-
ences decreased: and the Argolid's own increased '
as its independence grew. In the LG period the picture
from that in the, early period fox nOw tqe Argolid
'had become important enough for its influence to be widely
felt while the borrowings it received took a rapid plunge
until they.were almost nonexi
9
tent. In the LG period there-
fore while the Argolid relied almost entirely from within "
for inspiration agd rejected any outside inspiration ifs-con-
tacts with the outside world nevertheless were quite strong
as there were even more imports than earlier but on the wnole
these were not considerable.
On the other han'd the exports of Argive ware are highly
interesting not only in 'their wide distribution but aiso in
their corroboration of certain traditions about Argos' power
in tbe LG period. Herodotos (already.quoted), stated
that Argos' empire stretched aIl along the east of the
Peloponnese inqluding the islands as far as Kythera, a state-
ment which in itself seems somewhat difficult to believe yet
, ' ,
Argos must certainly have had sorne influence th coast -
for in ,fact Argive pots have been found as'far south as Kythera
itself, besides Aigina, Tegea and Asea. Herodotos' statement
./
is' impossible to date but f the presence of Argive imports
at these sites i5, an indication of'some sort of influence or
of these areas, then archaeology points ta the LG
period (i.e. the second half of the 8th century) as the
likely time for such an empire. Argos was perhaps quite a
strong naval, power at that time as reflected in the frequency
of ships and naval combats on Argive pots and the ship models
Grave. '
.
.
,
.
"
.,.
1 -
1
j
'1

,

1
..
,
t
("f


to Perakhora are-lso noteworthy for this is
one of the most, important sources of Argive products, even
excluding the "Argive" Monochrom ware 1 he'nce Argos certain-
ly did have ,a keen interest in this area and the cult of Hera
In' onjunction with this are the exports to Korinthos,
a city which i8 located in an advantageous position for routes
to central and northern Greece as weIl as the west. Earlier
that ties between Korinthos and Argop were very
.
close in the PG and EG periods but in sorne respecbs it ap-
pears that they were even more so in the LG period. Korin-
,
thian was imported into the Argolid--this is the imported
ware found in greatest abundance--and borrowings of shapes
and deoration were mutual at this time. Plutarch stated
,
that Pheidon was interested in Argos stronger by tak-
ing 1000 youths from Korinthos, thereby lessel)ing her-"power
and-Edouard will (1955, 254 f.) using Plutarch's evidence has
argued that Argos at this time was trying to-take control of
her northern neighbour. Without embarking uron a discussion
of Pheidon's datesofor the time being, it 5eems that Plutarch's
statement would fit quite weIl pattern of events of the
second half of the 8th centufY as seen in the archaeological
evid1nce. The traditional evidence also suggests this-, for,
again from Plutarch, we learn that Pheidon was killed in
Korinthos supporting his party and thus it appears that Argos
was making serious attempts upon Korinthos during his reign.
It does not appear that Pheidon was too successful in taking
over'Korinthos but nevertheless there was sorne control exert-
ed by him nd hence this domination, assuming that it was of
sorne consequence, meant a marked improvement of Argos' posi-
tion for she now controlled perhaps aIl the eastern coast of
" .
the.Peloponnese as weIl pS the Korinthian Isthmus and thus
the routes west and north. Perhaps one should see her ex-
ports to Knossos, Melos, Aetos and 1-1egara Hyblal as a con-
,sequene of this presumed heightened mritime ,position", one
,
" ..
J
-,
r
"
(
f
110
,-
which allowed he! greater access to farther markets. To the
west of the Argolid itself is Arkadia over which she appa-
rently already had influence, judging frqm the
ity of Arkadian vases with those the Argolid throughout
the Geometrie period and the imports themselves. Finally to
tDe south bitter enemy Lakonia. Argive influence
in Lakonian pottery began in the MG 2 peri,od, tha t is the
middle of the 8th century and became qui te strong in the LG
period, th us indicating that there was sorne communication be-
tween these two areas. As Coldstream points out (1968, 352)
the important point is not that the relations were hostile
.
but that. there was communication at aIL The traditions con-
firm this of in the MG 2 period when they
speak of the renewed hosti li ty between Argos and Sparta in
, -
the reign of Kharillos dated c. J75-750 jccording to Spar-
tan king Iist (Forrest: 1968, 21) and Nikandros his successor
750-720 'as weIl as Theopompos Q. 72Q-675.
In effect then one might be justified in claiming that
the MG 2 and particular ly "the LG period Argos had 'become
d leading power in Greece, controlling aIl the area surround-
ing her in the Peloponnese. One might say that'by this time

she had indee'd recovered the "Lot of Temenos." The trad! tions
support this, in particular those of Plutarch, Herodotos and
others which were quoted in the relevant section; but archae-
ology as weIl is an important factor here, not only pottery
but other evidence as weIl, although perhaps not so conclu-
sively in aIl cases.
Far-reaching contacts are by the St'read of
"Argive" monochrome and in the, Argive bronze industry, in
particular that of weaponry armour. In this development
the Argolid,playeda leading raIe in the LG period, with
.
Argos itself .the centre in this development no doubt making
jt a leading military power in Greece. In the appearance of
"hoplite" armour Argos led the way and sine it is cited as
1 -
f
"
"
r
1
III
the possible origin for the elements of hoplite equipment,
.
implying contacts wi th the East t Argos'
foreign relations were,extensive in the LG period (unless
one assumes that the E'uboeans were their go-betweens (CQld-
1968, 363). It is interesting that traditionally
one of the basic omponents of this armour, aI-
ways played 9n important rolecin Argos. Apollodoros states
that it was invented by Proitos and Akrisios intheir strug-
gle for, control of Argos. The shield was regarded as sacred,
given as a prize in the festival of Hera instituted by the
Argive king Arkhinos, in which 'armed races were featured
and in whieh the shie1d not only was a prize but also per-
haps 'an object of cult worship at first (Arnold: 1937" 436-
440). AlI this shows its importance in Argive history and
hence it is not surprising that Argos was the centre of pro-
duction for sueh shields in the Geometrie period. above
alsomaJ(es elear the warlike element of Argive cuIts, a fea-
, ,
ture which Argive society at that time.
This'military strength is refledted clearly in the tra-
ditions whieh speak of an Argive take6ver of the Olympics
in 74a B.C. and the destruction of Asine c. 735-720 as weIl
as other p1aces'such as Midea and Prosymna and an Argive de-
./
feat of Athens at Aigina in the early 7th century. In the
light of thfs the assumption of an Argive "empire" is clear-
ly understandable. She eertainly had the most advanced arm-
0
our of the dqy and this must have given her the edge over
her opponents, whether these onsisted of adversaries with-
in Argolid itself or outside.
Whether or not aIl the traditions about the Argive
strength are reliable is another question but there is sorne
evidence from the ancient authors that Argos not,
fact, 50 powerful before c. 750; for example the invasion
of Khariiios dated c. 775-750 !Forrest: 1968, 21) in which
Argos took no retaliation perhaps because she simply was
r
c
(
,
!
J
111
not powerful enough yet'to do anything about it. Further-
more the Argive destruction of A&ine took place after the
Spartans had 1eft territory, again suggesting that
the Argives.perhaps did not want ta risk meeting-the Spar-
tans in combat. Kelly however disputes this tradition
'(Kell/ 1967, f.) and f'eels that the Argive destruction
of Asine was due to the desire of Argos to extend her terri-
tory and ta any of feeling
evident at Asine at that time. He is also of the opinion-
,
that the so-called Spartan invasion was nothing but token
-
assistance sent to Asine and hence the Argive destruction
of this town was not don in reta1iation for an "invasion"
but was an act carried out tD increase her own terri-
tory and power. If this is ,correct then i t implies that
stronger than Pausanias suggests in his account
but one ,must be wary of contradicting one of the few traditions
which seems reliable on the basis of independant evidence.
, The traditions suggest that Argos was strong primarlly
within the Argolid itself but that beyond it she still had
sorne difficulties defeating Sparta as seen by her loss at
'Helas, Within the Argolid the city was a wealthy and pros-
perous one. 'Not only was i t a centre of production of pot-
tery and armour but alsa af terracottas; temples were being
built on the Laris@and elsewhere and the city was expanding
. \
ln size. Just a few kilpmetres away the temple at the Herai-
On was being built, an indication that this was a time wherr
everything was going wellJ The cult of Hera, a unifying fac-
tor in the Argolid, was advantageous to Argos which cantrolled
the Heraion and thraugh it aIl the Argolid weIl. The con-
trol which she exercised over the whale area was therefore
threefo,ld--pali mili tary, and religious.
was real for as a1ready seen, when a town such as Asine dared
show its independence af the signs of which
was perhaps the worship of Apollo--it was destroyea. The
,
c
113
same fate befell other towns, also for "di-sobedience". As an
aside to this religious dominance it interestjng to note
that the cult of Asklepios at only gained promi-
nence in the Classical period and perhaps one should see this
a& a direct result of the demise of Argos and consequently
the cult of Hera. Since Argos had lost its dominance over
the Argolid this allowed the of cuIts Argos sure-
ly would not hav allowed in the LG period when she was at
her height.
In the first half ot the 7th century there was no dras-
-
tic change in the prospects of Argos as the city was still a
leader in industries sch as bronze, terracottas and archi-
tecture, but in one field" that of pottery, a deterioration
in quality was evident since and the Argolid as a whol
rejected the new trnds evident in centres suh as Korinthos,
preferring instead to remain static and consequently stag-
nant. The was in effect the beginning the
end (or Argive potterYi the ware was not exported and the
Argolid was beginning to rely more and more heavily on Korin-
thian products, a condition somewhat that of the
earlier part of the Geometrie period when the Argives depend-
ed to a large imports.
While the Subgeometric pottery seems to denote that Argos
was beginning to decline, the traditions reveal that Argos
was still quite a powerful city,J as seen in th'e tradi tion
she defeated the SpaLtans at Hysiae in 669 B.C. Further-
more the defeat of A'thens by Argos in the early 7th century,
if correctly dated, i5 further testimony ta the military
strength of the city at that time. Perhaps Argos had de-
,clined somewhat bt she"was nevertheless still.a powerfl
-
city within the Argolid and was apparently still in full
control.
Later however, it appears that Argos lost much of her
power and influence. From the late 7th g:entury on her
',,' il ,-
,
t
1
\
, 114
industries deteriorated to such an extent that the city was
no longer recognized as a centre of any major field.' Mili-
- ' ,
tarily as weIL she ,was having problemsi Sparta had ,taken the
le ad wth her use of hoplite tactics and she was becoming
the l.eadlng power in Greece. Thi q change Is ref lected in
the traditions simply by the shifting of their attention from
Argos to Sparta, hene this certainly is not the time one
should speak Qf an Argive height of power.
1
Archaeol?gically there appears have been a revivai
in the late Archaic period for this is when the Argiye bronze
school came into prominence and by the Classical period the
Argolid was an important centre for sculpture. Although
reflects a re-awakening, Argos never again reached
the high plateau of the LG period. She had iost mueh of the
prestige he had formerly enjoyed within the Argolid. A
*
cause of this weakened position or perhaps a result of it,
was the terrible the A{gives sffered at the hands of
)
Kleomenes in the early 5th She did rally ta sorne
,extent after this for when the pe?ple of t.1yke'nai dlsobeyed
her by sening men to Thermopylae, the Argives took their
revenge by destr6ying the town, around which time she alsq-
Tiryns. Argos thus was still in control of the
rlain but it is difficult ta her dominating mueh
more than that and in effect the city now was relatively
obscure; its days-of glory were over.
In the foregoing only brief mention has ben made of
, Pheidon but now that the evid!?Ilce has been reviewed an at-
tempt should be made to find a niche into which ta place
this enigmatic figure" 50 inextricably intertwined is he
with the history of Argos. Unfortunately there is no simple
answer ta the question of the date of his reign since an-
cient authors provide a very confusing and
'picture of Pheidon with modern scholars presenting one
is no less eontradictory., The usuai practice is to place

1 -
,
)
e/
115
Pheidon at the time when Argos was at the height of her power
since he was the greatest of his day, and hence is asso-
ciated wlth that in Argive history when she was a lead-,
ing city ln Greece, that is sometime between c. 750-650. The'
arehaeological evidence suggests that Argos was at her height
in the LG per iod and ear ly Subgeometr ie per iod 50 in effeet
Pheidon could be placed anytirne in that,period, the only ex-
ception being the reign of Eratos, a contemporary of Nikan-
dros in the 3rd quarter" of the 8th century. Traditions relate
that he was the one responsible for th0 destruction of nsine,.
a destruction which Courbin places at the end of the LG 2c
period and thus c. 710-700 (Courbin: 1966, 565) but which
r"
Co1dstream may be somewhat earlier, perhaps c. 730-720.
If we f6l1ow Courbin then Pheidon could have been ruling c.
740-710 or else after 700 but if we follow Co1dstream, then
he could presurnab1y have been ruling c. 750-730 or e. 730-
700 or conclvab1y after that as weIl. The Argive kiryg list
suggcsts a tlme after 730 as the likeliest for Pheidon, agree-
,
ing wlth Coldstream's proposed date for the destruction of
Asine.
The traditions link Pheidbn with various events spanning
sorne 150 years but the important,point to be borne in mind
that the only ancient writer who conneets Pheidon with a
datable event i5 Pausanias in his reference to the 8th Olym-
plad of 748 B.C. This reference has been used over and over
again, bath in an attempt to place him in that century and
ta place him in the 7th century by emending the text. Con-
sidering that specifically mentions the 8th Olym-
piad, extreme caution is needed before emending the text to
read 28th Olympiad, or 668 B.C. Peo.ple such'as E.N. Ure
(1922,154 L), Seltman (1955, 34 f.), W.G. Forrest (1966,
104 f.) 1 H.T. Wade-Gery (1925, 539 L), E,- Will (1955, 346
f.:), T. Kelly (1966,113-121), W. Den Boer (1954, 55 L) and
D.W. Bradeen (1947, 232 f.) aIl see Pheidon the 7th century
f.
c
(
116
and' aIl the emendation without reservation, pornething
. which is not total.ly justified. In fact, as mentioned in' the
"
,Argive King List, perhaps Pausanias was te> an ear-
lier PheidoD, not the one associated with an Argive height of
power. '
Another vexing puzzle LS the tradition linking Pheidon
with the Lnvention of silver coinage at Aigina. At first
glance Aigina seems a place for his mint, as it was a
"mercantile centre and apparently under Argos' control when
she was at the height of her power, but it is now general1y
believed that Pheidon could not1have been with coin-
age, the main being that \these coins da te to the end
1
of the 7th century, a date when Pheidon could not have on-
trolJ:ed Aigina. Brown has convinc'1nglY and authori tative1y
, ,
,argued against any such link (Brown: 1950, 177 f.) and be-
1ieves that the whole tradition of Pheidon's coinage i5 un-
reliab1e.
Nevertheles5 i t is troublesome' tha t Herodotos names Phei-
don's son Leokedes as suitor of Agariste, meaning that Pheidon
was c. 600. This tradition is usually brushed aside
with the assumption that Leokedes was not a son but a des-
cendant of Pheidon or tnat Herodoto5 was confused with
Pheidon .. It is possible to arrive at a more plausible date
for Pheiqon by following the Greek custom of naming one's son
after one's father. The following chronology is thus ar-
rived at< Pheidon c. 660; his son Leokedes c. 630, 'Pheidon's
grandson presumably named fter him, c. 600 and finally Leo-
kedes his great-grandson; c. In this way the di'lemma
is solved and it allows one to keep Pheidon within a reason-
able time period, but this means accepting a 7th century date
for him, which may not be valid in itself and which appears
to contradict the king 1ist.
The other argument is that Herodd was confused with an-
other,PheLdon, one who also was fampus in his day. An

----_ ..... ----------------
\
,
,

i
t
\
,
117
inscription concerning the' Nemean Games has been found naming /
a certain Pheidn of and it is that i5
the Pheidon Herodotos meant. It is' B:ssurned tha t the Leokedes
who tried his 1uck wi th Agariste of Sikyon was his son. Mc-
Gre90r (1941, 275) feels that the presence of Leokedes of
,
is not surprising when one takes intq conslderation
the fact that Kleonae was under This
is a more reasonab1e aS5umpti'n 'than one narning Leokedes as
descendant of Pheidon in of the fact that Kleisthenes
pursued a very anti-Argive policY. Because of tNis hatred
, .
for A,rgos, it i5 illogic'a1 that an Argive, especially one sa
c10sely related to the powerful king Pheidon, shou1d be a
sui tor of Kleisthenes' daughter. Since -the tyrants of Sikyon
pre-Do;iah, their rise to power may be seen as the ex-
pression of anti-Argive, i.e. anti-Dorian sentiment (Bradeen:
1947, 232),. Sikyon had had close ties wi th! Argos before this
time as seen in its paEticipation with Argos in the First Mes-
senian War. By the Second Messenian War the situatin had
hanged since Sikyon was no longer invo1ved with the Argives,
an indication that the rlationship had deteriorated. This
\condition can only have worsened until Kleisthenes even de-
cided to, decla war on .Argos. Hence it is aIl the more pos-
sible- that this Leokedes was not an Argive but a Kleonean.
As an' appendix to this, there is .the possibili ty that the
Aiginetan coins wre minted by this Leokedes' fther, as Den
, .
suggests (1954, 60) but perhaps is stretching the
;titerary. evidence too far.
arguments do not there however, for there i5 a
tradition which states tnat Pheidon was ki11ed in an attack
on Korinthos and links him with Arkhias the founder of Syra-
cuse. The tradition is a confused one' but one point of in-
terest is that Syracuse was founded 736/5-725 (Miller: 1970,
.), "
197) and this conforms with the proposed,period of the Argive
"
height of power of the LG period as we11Jas with the dedication
,
,1
c
t
118
. of the spits of c. 730. Sorne seholars, Forrest for examp1e
(1968, 71) are of the that this attack was made ln
support of Kypse10s and that Pheidonis death'thus occurred
<.
c. 655:. This opinion stems from the assumption of Pheidon
as tyrant more than king, and that as such he was invp1ved
wi th trying to help his "puppet" gain power in Korinthos-.
Kelly has argued in favour of this interpretation of the
(Kelly: 1966,,116 f.) but it is a difficult one
to accept sinee it involves too into the liter-
ary and'seeing more than is Ln fact there.
Because of the confused picture presented (5Y ) aU the
various .traditions it is not surprising that thre are th9se,
,
R.A. Tom1inson for example, who are hesitant' in taking a
definite stand on the whole question 'date. Tom-
linson suggests (1972, 81) that both the 8th and 7tho centu-
ries are, and leaves i,t at that. This is. p1erhaps
the most sensible stand to take but it is one which has not
found mueh favour. In fact a survey conducted of 16 scholars
revealed that eleven, Ure, Seltman, Forrest, Wade-Gery,
Kelly, Den Boer and Bradeen (aIl mehtioned above) plus Mc-
Gregor (1941; 274) and Kagan (1960, 136) aIl favour a 7th
century date while only four favoured the 8th century and
,one (Tom1inson) took no defini te' posit;ion. Those favouring
the earlier date are Courbin (1959, 227), (1968,
"
362) Huxley (1958, 588-601), and Burn (1949, 71 f.).
Both Courbin and Coldstream not only the traditions
but also the archaeological evidence in making their decision
and place Pheidon in the second ha If of the 8th'century.
bases his assessment primarily on the traditions and
dates Phe'idon e. 750-7JS with EratQ3 fol1owing c. 735-725
this being an interregnum as Eratos not a Temenid, then
Lakedas c. 700 and Meltas c. 660, the last Temenid king,
c. 650 and finally Damokratides e. 600.
with this Damokratides he places Pheidon of K1eonae, his
! -
'
Il
1
c
<,
119
sons being Aristes and Leokeds c. 570 (Huxley: 1958, 600 fl .
.
In general this is a viable chronology though perhaps Pheidon
shauld be slightly later, c. 730-700 taking into considera-
, ,
tian his dedication of the spits dated after 730 and the evi-
, --
dence of the king list for dating his reign after that of
1
'Eratos. A date of the final third of the eighth century for
Pheidon in effect him cantemporary with the period when
Argos seems te have reached her peak and it satisfies the ar-
, t
chaeologica1 evidence and the traditions te sorne extent.
Of course there are in this as in any of
dates given by aIl those who have examined the problem: A
seventh eentury date 'nevertheless appears unlikely primarily
beeause no tradition links Pheidon with any of those events
in which modern scholars tend to assume Pheidon's participa-
tion and sinee Pheidon should be cenneeted with Argos' great-
'est period, which archaeology {ndicates was the late een-
tury, then it is suggested that Pheidon was ryling at that
time. traditions will not solve the problem;.future ar-
chaeologieal evidence may.
"
()
J -

,
J
,
\
,
1
J
..
,
i

i
'i

'1

'1
i
,
1
;
:)
-t
'\
J
j
o 0
Il
1
-...
APPENDICES
.
,!
1 ~ .
,
,
,

..
.'
."
.
1
1
Ci
c,J
n
APPENDIX 1
OF SITES
1. Ayia r-tarina
,
EH LHI-III
Theoknaris
J
D. p. ADelt. XXVI BI Chron. (1971) 8,4 f.
Faraklas, 'N. AGC 19 "(1973) 10 and Figures 9a and b,
lIa and b-. - "
Catling, H.W. JHSArch .. (1973/74),13 f.
Michaud, J. BCH XCVIII' (1974), 612.
j
Michaud reports that finds here give indication of a habita-
tion of the EHI! and LH Faraklas mentions that
it was a settlement in both the EH periods. It is 10-
Cated on t"he east coast of the iSlanc\.Spetsai, 200 m. south
of the modern d"ty of Spetsai .

2. Ayia Paraskevi
cH
.
Faraklas, N. AGC 19 (1973), 10 and Figures lSa and b.
, .
This si te too i,s on the island Spetsai, on the west coast
directly opposite' the ci, ty of Spetsai. The presence of a
sanctuary is suggested here, aga in from surface finds only.
, ,"" [1
3 . Ay ios Ioannes
C H R
Faraklas, N. AGC 12 (1972), 12 and Figure"s lSa and b ,
16a and b-;-T7a and b.
Both a sanctuary and set tlement are indica ted 1 once more
Q
"by
surface finds'
Q
This site is ('rin eastern Epidauria 1 about 9
south ot modern palaia, Epidauros
.
4 . Ayios Leonidas
LH G C H? R?
"
, Faraklas, N. AGC, 12 '(1972), Il, and Figures 12a and b ,
1 l3a and b;lSa and b, 16a and b, 17a and b.
vi
(
v '
, 0
.
.
r .
o
,
.
, .
.. \,
"
.
.... ,.fT'" ... ""'-
vii
This site was a settlement in perhaps aIl these periads, al-
uncertain in bath the allenistic and Roman periods.
Classica1 and perhaps the Hellenistic it was a forti-
fication. The site, which has not been excavated," i5 in
,
eastern Epidauria, about km. northwest of modern palaia
Epidauros and 2! km. narthwest of Nea Epi'daur:os.
5. Ayias Stathis
EH
Farak1as, N.' AGC 10 (1.972), 1"6, Figures lIa and b.
Unexcavatel, the si te 'shows evidence through surface finds
of having been a settlement in this period. It is
(
on the j,sland o<f Paros about" 2 km. northeast of modern ,
in a modntainous area.
,
1 6. Akra Hilianas
A? C? H? R?

Farak1as, N. AGC. 19 (1973) " . 10 and Figures I4a,
15a and and b.
There is evidence that there was a sanctuary here in aIl these
periods. Nearby surface finds indicate the presence of a si-
tlement in the C1assical, He11enistic and Roman periods, but
the vidence i5 uncertain for aIl the site has not
been exeava ted. The si te is located on the' coast at the sou-
of.Hermionis across Spetsai and it i5 approxi-
mate1y 3 km. to the east of ancient Kosta. makes a
distinction between 'the sanctuary and settlement; calling the
/
sanctua-ry Akra Milianos "A,i and the settlement "B".
7. Ano Ppanari
C,H R
, ';arak1as, N. AGC 12 72), 15a and. b, 16a and
b, 17a al1d bo'
Th:LS si te i5 located on the eastern coast of Epidauria on the
Epidaurian Gulf. It near the modern.village of the same
i
1
viii
\,
name, about 9 km. southeast from Palaia Epidauros. Surface
finds give evidence of a settlement in these the
site is unexcavated.
8. Apollo Ma1eatis (Epidauros)
EH MH LHI-IIIB G A C H R
Philios, D. AE XXII (1883), 148
Koumanoudes, AE XXIII (1884), 83 f.
wernick', IL _ "Apollo Maleatas" RE rI (1896), 60
,Robert, F. BCH LVII (1933), 380f.
Papadirni Prakt. (1948), 90 f.
panadimi triou, J. Prakt. (1949), 91 f.
Papadimitriou. J. BCH LXXIII (1949), 361-83.
PaoacHmitriou, J. P.ra'kt. (1951), 204 f."
Editors. BCH LXXIX (1955),246.
lin, P. EMF (1962),51 andn. 285.
d'A. LMTS (1964), 42 f., 78
aope-Simpson. No. 22.
14 Faraklas, N. AGe 12'lI972), p. Il and Figures lOa and b ,
lIa and b -;-'2a and b, l3a and l4a and b, lSa and
b , l6a and b, 17a and b.
Chari tonidou, A. "Epidaur.us: the Sanctuary of Asclepi us, Il
89-99 in Temples and Sanctuaries of Ancient Greece
(1973) .
Orlandos, A. K.
Catling, H.W.
Ergon (1974), 57-62,
JHSArch (1974/75'), 10.
The site is located about 7 km. southwest of Palaia Epidauros
1
in Epidauria and was sacred ta both the gads Apollo and Askle-
pios in historie times. The finds ShO\'l that the site was used
as early as the EH period and from the nwnber of figurines and
other votives, it rnay have been a place of worship in the LH
periode There is a gap however from the LH UI fr until the.G
period, and there is no evidence ta suggest a,continuity of
worship between the 13th and the 7th c. B.C.; it is apparently
in .the 7th c.' that the cult of Asklepios was introduced from
Thessaly and it la ter superseded the earlier cult of Apollo
sa that by the 4th c. B.C. the sanctuary was devoted primarily,
ta Asklepios. The finds from the Hieron af Asklepios date ta
the 6th c. on but the main building peri9d was in the 4th c .
.. The terracottas found resemble those of the Argive Herian',
-
\
Tiryns and Kori'nthos. The remains at tne sanctuary are
------------------.;---------''-- ----- - -
r
.'
?
.
"

t
n
1
1
1
ix
considerable' and include the famous theatre, the best pre-
served of aH Greek theatres.
9. Argive Heraiol1
N EH MH LHI-IIIC PG G A C H
Stamatakes, " AM III (1878); 271 f.
Waldstein, C. The Argive Heraion,- 2 vols. (1902)
Wace, A.J .B. BSA xxv \1921/23), 330 f.
Blegen, C.W. AJA XXIX (1925), 413-427.
Blinkenberg, C-.-'Fibu1es grecques et orientales (1926)
Figure 6, p. 28.
Woodward, A.M. JHS XLVII (1927), 237.
Blegen, C. W. ADili XII (1929), 42' f.
Jenkins, R.J.H. BSA XXXII' (1931-2), 23-40.'
Karo, G. "Mykenische Kultur" RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606.
Blegen, C.W. Prosymna (1937).-
Bleqen, C.W. AE LXXVI-I (1937),377 f.
Persson, A. New Tombs 'at Dendra near Hidea (1943), 155 f.
Caskey, J.L. Hesperia XXI (1:952),165 f.
Amandry, P. Hesperia XXI (1952), 222-274.
Jacobsthal, P. Pins (1956), 4, 12, 14 f., 38 .
. Daux, G. BCH LXXXII (1958), 705 f.
Blegen, C.W:- AJA LXIV (1960),159 f.
Cook, R.M. GPP(1960), 22 f.
lin, p. E11F(1962), 37 f.
Mollard-Besques, S. Les terres-cui tes grecques "(1963),
48. ,
Desborough, V.R. \'l'A. LMTS (1964),77 f.
Hope-Simpson, ----u96 5) 1 No. 4
. Johansen, K.F . (1g'ii6), 45, 17l.
Courbin, P. La gomtrique de l'Argolide
(1966) , pas sim.
Higgins, R.A. Greek TerracottasAI967), 50 f., 84.
Bergquist, B. The Arc-haic Greek Temenos (1967)
Kirsten, E. & W. Kraiker. Griechenlandkunde
S
(1967),
341.
Coldstream,' J. GGP (196B), 405.
Weinberg, S. pt. 1 (1970), 557 f'.
Snodgrass, A .M-. -Dark - Age of Greece (1971), 57
Tomlinson, R.A. Argos and the Argolid
u
(1972), 33-4, 230-
246, Ch. 21, ,'no. 11.
Marapgou, L. "The Argive Sanctuary of Hera," 39-.48 in
Temples and Sanctuaries of Ancient Greece (1973)
Hagg, R .. Die GrRber der Argolis (1974), 60-62.
The site is locatd between Argos and MykeT4)i, about 9' km.
/
northeast of Argos and 4-4! km. southeaSt.of the Mykenai ci ta-
deI. It waS first occupied in the Neoli thic period as seen
1
1
1
1
, ,
, -'

7
J'
x
in the stone t901s, etc. Wall,s dating to the EH and MH peri-
ods have .been found as well as pottery, especially of the
and LH periods, bath Minyan and Matt-painted ware being found
in abundanee. The LH remains consist main1y of Cyclopean
walls and many tombs have been discovered of the EH, MH and
LH period "md 'covered bath the and lower slope of the
hil"l.
There is a break from the LH III C until the PG period
and finds from the latter period are not very considerable.
'l'he main activity'at the Heraion dates, from the Geometrie
period on, with the old temple being built in the late 8th
or early 7th c. i it is flrobab1y the oldest peripteral temple
in the Peloponnese. There were different building phases uri-
til the 5th c. when i t was re-buil te. 423. Besides this tem-
ple were various other buildings as \."e11 as a Roman building
-
of the lst e. B.e. The finds from .the Geometrie period on
are including bro.nzes, pottery,' go1d jewelry and
ornaments ivory ornaments, stone beads, etc. In sorne of thE'
Mykenai tombs, of the Gand H periods were depos i t-
, elther thrown away after being used in the sanctuary or
de1iberate 1y put' there. Blegen thought this was evidence of
a cult of the dead or a hero cult. of the orienta-
tion of the different buildings 1 Waldstei-n postulated that
the Heraion was first contro11ed by Tiryns, then Mykenai in
the LH period and finally Argos from the
c
PG on. He based
this partly on' the of the bui;I_dings of these
different p}riods well as on the ancient traditions about
the sites. It was still in use in the time of Pausanias.
10. Argos
N EH MH LHI-IIIC PG G A C H R
Martha, J. BCH III (1879),193
S.chinidt, J. ""'1 VI (1881), 357
Wolters, P. AH XVI (1891)," 261, 263
Hirschfeld, "Argos" RE II (1898), 787-789 d
1 -
i
./J
1
1
, .
1
e
xi
Vollgraff, t.o1. BCH XXVIII (1904), 364-399
Vollgraff, W. BCH XXX (1906), 51 f.
Vollgraff, W. BtH XXXI (1907), 144-184
Vollgraff, W. BCH XXXIII (1909), 171-200
Vollgraff, W. BCH XXXIV (1910), 331-354
Vollgraff, W. 8CH XLIV (1920), 219-226
Vollgraff,' W", LVI (1928), 314 .
Vollgraff, W. Medeel1n en der K. Akad. van l'Jetenscha en.'
Letterkunde, LXVI 92 Senes 13, No. 4.
Editors. BCH LII (1928), 476 f.
Bquignon,-;Y:- BCH LIV (1930), 480
Jenkins, J.H. BSA XXXII (1931-2), 23-40
Karo, G. "Argos-rr--RE Suppl. VI (1935),606
Frodin, & Persson. -Asine. (1938)' passion
Furumark, A. Mycenaean Pottery (1941), 302
'Charitonidis, S. Prakt. '(1952),425
Deshay-es, J. BCH _LXXVII (1953), 59 f.
Roes, A. BCH LXXVII (1953), 90-104.
Roux, G. &P":'" Courbin: BCH LXXVII (1953), 243-255,
258-263.
Charitonidis, S. BCH LX}VIII (1954), 410-<126.
Ginouvs, R. et a1-. -BCH
1
LXXVIII (1954), 158-183.
Higgins, R.A. Catalogue of Terracottas. BM.I. (1954),
. 8 ff., 240
Courbin, P. BCH LXX)X (1955), 1-32
Deshayes, J. &P. Courbn. BCH LXXIX (1955), 310-314
Hood, M.S.F. ,JHSArch. f.
Courbin, P. BCH LXXX (1956), 201-206
Deshayes, J .-&-P. Courbin. BCH LXXX (1956), 361-391
Hood, M.S.F. JHSArch. ff.
Jacobstha1, P. Greek Pins. (1956)" 4,20 ff, 29, Figure
'38 '
Courbin, P. BeH LXXXI (l957) , 322-386
Deanna, W. BCH LXXXIII (1959), 247-253
Deshayes, J. BCH LXXXIU (19.,!?9), 769 f.
':Cook, R.M. GPP (196Q)" 22
Alexandri, O. ADe1t. XVI B Cihron. (1960), 93
Daux, G. BCH LXXXV (1961), 675
Charbonneaux, J. Greek Bronz'es \1962),89 t'., 93 f.
li n , P . ( 19 6 2), 4 2 f. '
MoU"ard-Bes ues, S. Les terres Clli tes greeques. (1963),
47 f. '
Verdelis, N. ADelt. XVIII BI Chrono 57 f-;
Megaw, A.H.S. JHSArch. (1963/64), 8
Protonotariou-Deilaki, A. ADelt. XIX B Chron. (1964),
, 122-127
Boardman, J. The Greeks Overseas (1964), 84 f., 129-30,
205
Desborough, LMTS ,(1964).;' 80 f
. Megaw, ,A.H.S :JHSArch. (1954/65), Il f.
Hope.-Simpson. Gazeteer (1'965), No. 12.
Megaw, A.H.S. aHSArch. (1965/66), 8 f.
....
"
, 1
,
i
l
,
\
.r
o
(
,

\.
y
*
,
,
r,
"


()

l
"
(
t
-,
2 7
xii
Courbin, P. La cramique gomtrique de l'Argolide.
(1966)
Johansen, K.F. VS.' (1966)1' 7 ff, 45, 171, 190
r1egaw, A.H.S. JHSArbh. (1966/67), 10
-Kirsten,E. & W. Kraiker. Griechenlandkunde.
5
(1967), 344
Styrenius, C.G. Submycenaean Studies. (1967), 128
Hig'gins, R.A. Greek Terrcottas. (1967), 50, f, 84.
Megaw, A.H.S. JHSArch. (1967/68), 9
Daux, G.' BCH XCII (1968) 1021 f.
Co1dstream, GGP (1968), .405, 337 f.
Fraser, P.M .. JHSArch.' (1968/69),' 13 f.
Deshayes, J. BCH XCIII (1969), 574 f.
Roes, A. BCH XCIII (1969), 333 f.
Lamb, W. ATiCient Greek -and Roman Bronzes
2
(1969), 87 f.-,
119
'Sarian, H. BCH XCIII (1969), 651-673
Fraser; P.M.JHSArch. (1969/70'), 13 f.
Brommelaer, J. Fr. et al. Fasti XXIV/
XXV (1969-70), No. 3225
Ervin, M. AJA LXXIV (1970), 265 f.
ProtonotariO='Deilaki, E. ADelt. XXV BI Chrono (1970),
154 f.
Protol1otariou-Deilaki, IL AAA III (1970),303.
et al. BCH XCIv-(1970), 765 f.
Fraser, P.M. 11-12
Brommelaer, J .Fr. Fasti Archaeologici. XXII (1971)
No. 3682, 3683
Caskey, AJA LXXV (1971), 297 (.
Scoufopoulos, N.C. Mycenaean Citadels (1971) 1 23-24
Bromme1aer, J.Fr. et a-l. ADelt. XXVI Chrono (1971'),
112-13 '
Snodgrass, Dark Age of Greece (1971), 57
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. ADelt. XXVI BI Chrono (1971)
74-82
Tomlinson, R.A. Argos and the Argo1id (1972)
Grandjean, Y. & J.Fr. Bromme1aer. BCH XCVI (1972), 155 f.
Croissant, F. BeH XCVI (1972), 883"f.
Courbin, P. Les-fombes 9omtriques d'Argos l (1972)
Kritzas, K.B. ADelt XXVII Bl Chrono (1972), 192 f.
Desl?orough, V.R.d'A. Greek Dark Ages (1972), 161, 72,
166 f.
Croissant, F. & P." Aupert. BCH XCVII (1973), 475 f:
Fraser, P.M. JHSArch. (1973/74), 9-10
Hagg, R. Di'e GrHber der Argolis (1974),' 18-47
Fraser, P.M. JHSArch. (1974/75), 9-10
ThIS site, the most importafit of the Argolid in the Geometrie
and Archaic periods, has been extensively excavated by the!'
French schoo1. The activity waSr at tne beginning
of this century when Vo1lgra,ff found walls' of the Bronze Age
nS'3$ .
--. 7Z21' ----
. ,
e
xiii
on the 'Larissa. At this time the Dieras eemetery also began
to be exeavated, yielding tombs of the Mykenaian ,periode Many
,
of the objects in them however dated t the Geometrie period,
thup indieating that the had been reused in this peri-
ode Besides aIl of this Vollgraff a1so found wells Qf the
Geometrie period and it was ,shown that the Mykenaian fortifi-
cation extended from the Lariss=t to the modern museum. The
for the SM period cornes from graves, these, being cist
graves as 'compared with the chamber t'ombs norma11y used in the
period. Although at other sites "one notices a gap between
the LH and SM,. this is not the case wi th Argos and in effect
it appears that here there was little if any discontinuity.
Argos is the best representative of the p period in the Ar-
golid and the French excavations carried out in various parts
of the city continue ta show that Argos was qui te a large ci ty
and a propserous one at 1east as ear1y as the Geometrie peri-
od. Almost nothing however, remains for the modern visitor
besides the .Roman odeon, the He11enistic theatre, and
the Agora.
11. Aria
LH11-1 II A
Editors. BeH LXXIX (1955), 244
1in. ' EMF(l962), 47
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer '(1965), No: 10
Rossiter, S. (d.) Blue Guide (1973), 274
This si te is located l km. east of Na uplion on the road to
Epidauros. The finds here consist of chamber tornbs.
12. Asine
EH MH LHI-IIIC SM PG G H R
.. '.
Oberhurnmer, E. "Asine" RE (1898), 1581-2
Frickenhaus, A. W. Mller. AM XXXVI (1911), 26
Fersson, " B Lund (1920/1), 17=29
Persson, B ;Lund (1922/3), '25-42
Persson, BLund (1923/4), 162-172
)1
/
')
"
1
xiv
Persson, & O. FrDdin: BLund :(1924/5), ..23-93
Ni1sson, M.P. The Minoan-Nycenaean ReligiOll.and its Sur-
vi val in Greek Religion (1927), 115, 114 0
Mackepranf, M.B. AJA XLII (1938), 545
Frodin, 0; & Persson, A. Asine (1938)
Furumark, A. The Chrono1ogy of Hycenaean Pottery (1941)
48-78
'Desborough, V.R.d'A. Proto-Geometrie Pottery (1952),
; 204 f.
Protonotariou-Dei1aki, E. AE III (1953/54),
Cook, R . H. GPP (196 0), 22 f:
lin, EMF (1962), 47 f.
Desborough. LMTS (1964), .82 f.
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 19
Il
Bagg, R. Op. Ath VI (1965),117-138
Courbin, P. La cramique gomtrique ae l'Argolide,
(1966) , passim. .
Kirsten, E.& W. Kraiker. Griehen1andkunde
5
(1967), 384
C. Submycenaean studies n96 7), 129
Kelly, T. Historia XVI (1967), 422 f.
Alin, P. AJA LXXI (1967), 183
Papakhristodoulos, I. ADelt XXIII BI Chron (1968), 132 f.
Coldstream, J.H. GGP (1968), 333, 405
Alin, P. Op.Ath. VIII (1968), 37-105
Protonotariou-Dei1aki, E. ADelt. XXV BI Chrono (1970),
159 f.
Fraser, P.M. 'JHSArch. (1970/1), Il
Caskey, M.E. AJA LXXV (1971), 299
Scoufopoulos, N.C .. Mycenaean Citadls (1971), 30-56 1
C.G. ADelt. XXVI BI Chrono (1971), 113 f.
Styrcnius, C. & A. Vidn. MA IV (1971), 147 f.
Hagq, R. Op.Ath. X
Caskey, J.L. CAH3 l pt. 2'(1971), }71 f.
Snodgrass, A.l-1-.-Dark Age of Greece (1971), 57
Tomlinson, Argos and the Argo1id (1972), 42, 75,
226
Catling, H.W. JHSArch.' (1971/2), 9
Styrenius, C.G.; Hlgg, & R. ADelt. XXVII BI
Chrono (197L) 7, 231 f.
Michaud, J.P. BCH XCVI (1972), 649 f.
Desborough, V.R-:d'A. Dark Age of Greece (1972), 162,
169, 13
Courbin, P. Tombes 'gomtriques d'Argos l (1972), 115
Catling, H. hl. JHSArch. (1972/73), 14-15
1. & R. Hflgg. Excavations in the Barbouna Area
at Asine. Fascic1e 1. Boras (1973)
Catling, H.W. JHSArch. (1973/74), Il
Hiigg, R. Die Grflber der Ar,oliS (1974), 47-56
Catling, H.W. 'JHSArch. lB 4/75), 10
1 -
1
,
(
c.
xv
Hagg, 1. and J.M. Fossey. Excavations in the Barbouna
Area at Asine, Fascicle 5: Field Work on the Mid-
dle Siopes. 1973':7, Boreas 4.5. (forthcoming)
Hggg, and Fossey. Excavations in the Barbouna
Area at Asine, Fascicle 6: Excavations in the
'Geometrie Nekropolis 1971-7, Boreas 4: 6. '(Forth-
coming)
This sIte, lqcated on tne Argolic Gulf abou't 9 km. southeast
(
of Nauplion and excavated by the Swedish School, was a forti-,
fied settlement. occupied throughout the Helladic per iod. Af-
ter the LH III C the settlement slowIy died until there was
a slight revival in the PG. Houses have been found dating
1 ;
to the 1H III B-C and as at Argos, the common mode of burial
was in chamber tombs during the LH period while in the PG
and G periods cist and pit graves were used, the PG graves
placed in a different area of,the site. The PG and G
perioa evidence consists ?Iso of house remains and now it
appears that th site was occupied in the SM period as ,weIl,
, ,
one of the few sites of the Argolid where SM vases have heen
definitely identified. Recently further excavations have
been carried out in certain areas which give greater evidence
of the Geomtric occupation and show the use of the area as
o buriai ground by the of the Helienistic period.
>-
Therc is a break after the LG period uritil the Hellenistic
the break occurring c. 700 according to Courb!n
(1966, 565) but according to Coldstrearn it may have begurr a
Iittle earlier, c. 725-720 (Coldstream: 1968, 363); although
it is not an absolute break, the evidence for the Classical
.
period 15 meagre indeed. The site seems to have regained
.
life in the Hellenistic period as indicated by fortifications,
perhap's a reflection of Antigonid ruie. The Hellenistic peri-
od aiso yielded press-houses while baths are the major re-
mains of the Roman period.
/
, -
,
l

r
"
\,-=,/
xvi
13. Bedeni Kiapha
LH C H
Faraklas, N. AGC 12 (1971), p. lZ and Figures 12a and
b, lS"a and b, 16a and b
Surface finds indicate that this was a fortress (fortifica-
tion, tower), in these periods. The site is in Epidauria
-
'about B km, south of Pa1aia Epidauros and 6! km. southwest of
Ana Phanar i .
14. Berbati
, .
N EH MH LHI-IIIB G
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
Lotrd, L.E.-AJA XLIII (1939), 78 f.
Courbin, P. BeH LXXVIII (1954) t 117
Blegen, C.W. & M. Lang. AJA LXIV (1960), 159 f.
A1in, P. EMF (1962), 38
Desborough-;J5. LHTS (1964), 77 and 221
Megaw, A.H.S. JffSArch. (1964/5), Il
Saflund, G. Excavations at Berbati (1965)
Hope-Simspon. (1965), No. 5
Courbin, P. la cramique gomtrique de l'Argolide
(1966), passim.
Coldstream, GGP (1968), 405
Weinberg, S. CAH3 1. pt. 1 (1970) 1 557 f.
Scou N. C. Ci tadels (1971)" 5 3
Snodgrass, A.M. Dark Age of Greece (1971), 57
Tomlinson, and the Argolid '(1972), 34 ,
R. ber (1974) c 56-58.
Berbati, loeatem. east ern Mykenal and about 2 km.
west of modern- prosymna, was an important Bronze Age settle-
, "
ment. Northwest of it were discovered a tholos tomb and to
the west a ehamber tomb and they have excav?ted a pottery
kiln of the LH period weIl as' tombs of the MH period.
The LH period also yielded hou se' remains and more specifical-
1y, a krater of the LH III B. The site appareqtly was not
used after that until the Geometrie period a t which time i t
was reoccupied, as indicated by a number of pots of that
period, espeeia11y the tomb deposit.
.P
, ,
'.
1
xvii
15. Dhendra (Pa1aiokastro)
This
N EH MH LHI LHII-IIIC SM PG G A C R?
,Persson, A. The R)yal Tombs at Dendra near Hidea (1931)
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
Lord, L.E.--AJA XLIII (1939), 79 f.
Furumark. Mycenaean Pottery (1941) 1 53, 62, 66, 70
Persson, A. New Tombs at Dendra near Midea (19'43)
French, E. BCH LXXV (1951), 113
Verde1is, N :'AE XCVI (1957), 15 f.
str8m, P. ADIt, XVI B Chrono (1960), 93-94
Hoad, M.F.S. JHSArch. (1960/61), ,9 f.
Daux, G. BCH (1961), 671 f.
lin. EMY (1962), 40 f.
HRgg, R-.--Op.Ath. IV 79 f.
Haad, M.S.P. JHSArch. (1962/63), 15 f.
Vanderpoo1, E. AJA LXVII (1963), 280
Verdelis, N. Aoill XVIII 81 Ch'ron. (1963), 63 f.
Desborough. LMTS (1964), 77
Daux, G. BCH LXXXVIII (19641, 729 f.
Astrom, P.--XDelt XIX BI Chrono (1964), 134
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 6-7
Courbin, ',P. lacramique gomtrique de l'Argolide (19,66),
passim
Styrenius. Submycenaean Studies (1967), 129
strom, P. AH LXXXII (1967), 54-57
Verde1is, N. AM LXXXII (1967), 1-53
G. VII (1967), 161 f.
Coldstream. GGP (1968)', 405
Scoufopou1os.--rrycenaean Citade1s (1971), 54-56, 92-98
Snodgrass. Dark Age of Greece (1971), 57
Tom1inson. Ar os and the Ar olid (1972), 41
R. Di .r:. er_ er r (1974) 58-60.
slt, ln he cenEra rglve platn at modern
Midea, about 10 km. so'utheast of Mykenai, is as Hope-Simpson
reports, one of the chi1ef Mykenaian fortresses of the Argo-
.
1id and the wa11s enclose an area larger than any Mykenaian
, .
site except G la in., Baiotia and Petra in l'hessaly. Trenches
were dug on the akropolis of Midea where Cyclopean walis were
fQund. The' akropo1is was destroyed in the LH III 8 'period
, .
at the same time as other Mykenaian sites but was 1ater re-
occupied. Recent unpublished excavations have revealed a
,
Neolithic habitation and MH tombs while the most important
discoveries of the Bronze Age are the Mykenaian tombs and
the,ir contents, the most interesting of which is the famou's
, .
"
-Jr
.'
;,
.. '

=-1
,
'"
"

"
>
.;f
'"J

,il'

\0;\
,)
J,
i
"

',i
,1

,'<

.
c
()
Il
bronze The evidence for the LH III C period con-
sists of graves and here as 'at Asine, a few vases of the' SM
period point to occupation at that time. In the h,istoric
, period i ts mai.n importance lay in i'ts function as a watch-
tower, the main period of: which was the Geometrie, Archaic
and Classical periods. The traditions tell us that the town
was destroyed by the Argives in Lhe LG or early Archaic peri-
od, a fact which depends on the identification. of this si te
as ancient Midea. Finally, the site was inhabited when Pau-
sanias visited it.
16. Didyma
C? H? R
Paus.anias II. 3"6.4
Frazer, J.C. Pausanias's Description of Greece. III.
(1898), 298
Farak1as, N. 'AGe 19 (1973), 9 and Figures 14a and b
, \--
SMrface finds indicate the presence of a settlement here per-
haps in the C and H periods as weIl as a sanctuary, also un-
certain, in both these periods. The evidence for: a sanctua:y
is for the Roman period. Pausanias, who
visi ted i t in the 2nd c. A. D. reported seeing a' sanctuary
of Apollo, Poseidon and Demeter. The site i5 about l km.
southeast of the modern in Hermionis.
17. Elaious
C H R
\'Jelter, G. ,Troizen und Ka1aureia (1941), T.l
Daux, G. BeH xc (1966), 791
Faraklas, AGe 10 (1972), 15 and Figures 17a and b,
18a and b--
Indications are that there was a sanctuary of Apollo Platanis-
tos here in the$e periods,' however the position of the si te
is uncertain according tQ Faraklas and is therefore approxi-
mated. It is placed 5 km. north of modern Thermisi in. Troi-
zenia and about 5 km. north of the.Hydra Strait.
'"
l 1
1
(
1
1
(. :)
18. Frankhthi Cave
N LH G ACH' R
xix
Daux, G. BCH XC (1966), '786-791
Hegaw, A.HI JHSArch. (1967/68), 10
Jacobsen, T.W. ADelt XXIII BI Chrono (196B), 145 f.
Fraser, P .M. JHSArch. (1968/69), 14
Jameson, M.H. Hesperia XXXVIII (19'69), 311
Ervin, M. AJA LXXIII (1969), J.47 f.
Fraser, P.M-.-JHSArch. (1969/70), 14
Editors. Fasti Archaeo1ogiciXXIV/XXV (1969/70), 223,'
No. 3374
Ervin, M. AJA LXXIV (1970), 271
Jacobsen, T.W. ADelt XXV (1970), 169 f.
Cat1ing, H.W. JHSArch. (1971/2), 10
Jacobsen, T,.W. ADelt XXVII BI Chrono (1972), 236 f.
Cat'ling, H.W. JHSArch. (1973/74), 13
Fara'klas, AGC 19 (1973), Figures lIa and b, 12a and b
The' cave is 10cated on the west coast of Hermionis on the
Argolic Gulf, about 5 km. north of the modern town of Krani-
dion and across the bay from Koilas. It is a site which was
important in the prehistoric period, ai1d particu1ar1y th'e
Neolithic period. From the Geometrie on, it was a cult site.
19. Ga1atas
A? C? H? R?
Fa ri:l k las , N. AGC 10 (1972), Figures lSa and b, 16a and
b, 17a and b, 1Ba and b, and p., 14.
,The site is located about 400 m. suthwest of modern Galatas,
across from Poros. Surface finds here show the existence
of a snctuary r a1though the periods of occupa tian are un-
certain.
20. Gyph tokastro
HU LH A C H R?
FarakIas, N. AGC 12 (1972),' 12 and Figures na an.d b 1
12a and b;-T4a and b , 16a and.b
r
17a and b.
The si,te is in Epiduria, l km. southwest of m o d e r ~ Staur<;>-
padion and about 6 km: nor'theast of Karnezaiika .. Here alse
the evidence consists of surface finds, indiating the pre-
sence of a stt1ernent and which Faraklas was unfurtified
,.
c
,
v ()
\
t
1
c
xx
in the MH period but fortified in the LH period. In the his-
torie perod from the Archa,ie until and (lossibly ineluding
the Roman period it a fortification.
21. Gymno
MH? LHII-IIIB C
Lord, L.E. AJA XLIII (1939), 78 f.
Hood, M.S.F.JHSArch. (1961/62), 31
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 18
o
",Hope-Simpson .. reports Mykenaian sherds indie'ating a settlement
.as weIl as a Classieal watchtower on this surnmi t, 10eated in
"
the Argive plain, almost 3 km. northwest of modern Sterna near
the border of Korinthia, off the Inakhos River. Apparently
this 'was a stra tegic site and one of considerable importance
in the LH periode Hood thinks" it may possib1y be equated
with Orneiai, but this is tentative only.
22. Haliki
EH? HH LH? C H
Welter. Troizen und Kalaureia (1941), T.l, p. 10
Hope-Simpson. Gazete'er (1965), NQ. 36
Jameson, M.H. Hesperia XXXVIII (1969), 314
Faraklas, N. AGe 10 (1972), 14 and Figure's 12a and b.
Hal ik i is on the ea'st coast of Troizenia, a li ttle over 2
km. south the e'oast from modern Galatas. It was a
tqwn in the :lassica1 and periods, but besides
this, MH pottery has been rec6rded and Farak1as thinks there
was a settlement in period since house wa1ls were found
on the edge of the beaeh as weIl as MH polychrome ware with
sorne EH pottery. Hope-Simpson also reported seeing what ap-
peared to be 'tH sherds.
23. Hel1enikon
C? H
Farak1as" N'
I
AGe 12 (1972), 12 and Figures lSa and b,
16a and b--
"
...
1 >
J
' .
.

'{
( ,

",1:
!tr'
"
fi:J



..
,
, .
.
"
."

,<
,

.
"
'"
".
l<
.'

1
,
.

1

,
}


,',
,1
..
;
,
.j
-'10
"
!i
.

"
l
i

.)
,'[.

l'


l
0

r ,
"
.
"
...
<.
, .
v


,
1
..

\
>0
'li'
.
'.
, .
'",
"
"
"
--
"
..
....
. "
/) xxi
./
This site, unexeaVated, was apparent1y a fortified settlement
in both Classical and Hffienistic per iods . l t is in 'south-
west Epidauria, 200 m. northeast oi modernQKarnezaiika and
4 km. northeast of'Iria.
24. 'Hermione
EH MH LHI LHIIIA-C:l /G A C H R
Imhoof-Blurner, 'F. and P. Gardner. JHS VI (18B5), 99 f.
Philadelpheus, A. Prakt. (1909), 172 f.
FrickenJ;1aus, A. and w Mller. AH XXXVI ( 1911), 35 f. .
B81te, F. "Hermione" RE (1913) ,835-841
Fimmen, KMK
Frickeryhaus, A, 'Tiryns l (1930), 112 f.
1Car.o, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
Furumark, M;Ycenaean Pottery (1941), mot. 50
Hood, M.S.F. JHSArch. (1955), 13
lin. Et-1F (1962), 52
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer. (1965) 1 No. 31
JamesoR, M.F. Hespria XXXVIII (1969) 1 311 f.
Fasti Archaeologici XXIV/XxV (1969/70) 1 158 f.
No. 2368, 2369
Faraklas, N. AGC 19 (1973), 9a and b , 10a and q.
Hop-SimpsGn r-eported rernains up to the LH rll C: 1 period at
Hermione, located at the city of the same name, Farak-
las points out'that the prehistoric and historie settlements
'were not in the same area and indeed he distinguishes'between
them, ca11ing the prehistoric the historie
beside "B", the distance separating them not being great
however. The settlement appears to have been fortified in
C, H, and periods, and the rernains are.considerable,
;,
including gates and wal1s and Roman constructions such as an
agueduct and purnp-hGuse.
25. Hysiae
A C
II 24.7 .
, .
Frazer. Pausanias's Description Greece III (189B),
214 J
F.E. Greek Fortifications (1971), 43 and 158
Tomlinson, R.A. Argos and the Argo1id "(197),37 and
map, p. 9.

!
f
j
, ,
f
1

!
1
J
,
1
1
j
i
1

'"
()
xxii
Tomlinson states that the fortified akropolis dates to the
6th c. B.C. The town was destroye? in 416 B.C. by the Spar-
tans a1though was a f?rtification there in both the
5th and- 4th c. B.C. The site was in ruins when Pausanias
visfted it and at the end of the 1ast century report-
ed walls and towers of polygonal masonry on the akro-
polis. is in the southwest corner of
clOse ta the moder'n village of Ak1adakampos about 6 km. from
ancient Kenkhreiai, site No. 38.'
1 r
26. Iria'
EH MH LHI-II LHIIIB-C C
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 605
Gebauer, AA--LIV (1939), 287 f., 294, Figure 15-17
Dunbabin,'T.J. JHS LIV (1944), 82
Alin. EMF (1962r;-50 f.
Desborough. LMTS (1964)" 78
Hope-Simpson.--"Gazeteer (1965), No. 28
Charitonidis, S. ADeit XXI Chrono (1966), 130 f.
M. AJA LXXII (1968), 271
Mycenaean Citade1s C1971), 30, 56
Wil1erding, W. Tiryns VI (1973), 221-240
Ho'pe-Simpson reports hOlise remains but note,s that the eXcava-
tion reports are brief and not very usefu1. Scoufopou1os
saw Mykenaian blocks and LI:I III B-C sherds. oThe next period
for which there is ftome evidence i5 the C1as51ca1-sherds of
the period have found, but so far nothing has been discovered

da ting to the time after the LH III C until the
period. In both the LH and C periods, it was a f:ortification
,
and A1in also reports graves and LH houses. The site may
have-been lised as a place of refuge after Mykenai was des-
.
troyed. It is located at the modern town of the sarne name
in the 'southeast Argive plain, about 2 km. from the coast.
27. Isthmus of Methana
EH C H"
Frazer. Pausanias's Descriptioh of Greece (1898),
286 f.
. ,
1

xxiii
Farak1as, N. AGe 10 (1972), 15 and Figures 11a and b,
16a and and b
From surface finds it appears that the fortification and set-
tlement.moved slightly in different periods. In the EH peri--
, ,
od ,there was a settlement here while in the C and H periods
the finds indicate that there was a fortification only, with-
out a settlement. there was another fortificatton,
again in the C and H period?, which Faraklas distinguishes
from the other fortification. In effect therefore, it ap-
pear,s that though Isthmus is cal1ed one"site", it i8
reallya cluster 0 3 sites, one settlement and two fortifi-
cations.
" 28. Kaimenikh
C? H? R?
Faraklas, N. AGC 10 (1972), Figures -16a and b, ,17a and
b, 18a and b, and p. 15
,
The evidence of surface finds points ta 9 fortified settle-
ment in aIl three periods, a1though the y are aIl questionab1e.
The si te is on the west coast of the r1ethana peninsula, about--
1 km. south from the northern coast, across the bay from
Palaia Epidauros.
29. Kalogria'
H
,
Faraklas 1 N. AGC 10 (1972), 12 and F,igures 16a and b
The si'te. is located in southeast Argeia about l km. from the
coast: of Argolic Gulf and almost "4 km." southeast of modern
.Kandia almost 4 km. northwest of Iria. Surface finds here
-give the indication of a sett1ement" in the Hellenis.c period.
30. Kandia
EH MH LHIIIA-B G R
/ Frazer. Pasanias's Description.of Greece III (1898),
2'99
)
o
1
1
1
1
f
i

. ,


i'
i,
f
C;
f
t
"
'-
o
..
xxiv
o
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 605
Walter, O.--AA LV (1940), 220
Dunbabin, JHS LXIV (1944), 82
lin: EMF (1962-) ,-49' f.
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 26
Coldstream. GGP (1968), 405
Mycenaean Citadels (1971), 30, 56
Snodgrass.. Dark A.ge of Greece (1971), 57
The site is an akropolis hill in southeast A.rgeia about 600
m. east of modern Kandia and about l km: from the coast.
Frazer reported Cyclopean walls on the summit. Alin reports
,
that sorne of the fortification\dates to the MH period but its
main the LHIII and he also reports foundations' and
graves. The EH remains consist of vases only but MH and LH
houses have been excavated. It is possible that the LH
tifieations were still used in the Geometrie perod sinee on
the lower terraee were found Geometrie pottery and house
foundations. Dunbabin reported remains of a Roman building
,but apparently there was nothing between the Geometrie and
Roman periods.
31. Karakasi
LHIII'A7 C H R
Frickenhaus, A. & TAl. MUller. AM XXXVI (1911)., 35 f.
Fillullen KMK (1924), 13
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
o Welter, A.--Troizen und Kalaureia (1941) 1 T. l
li n . EMF (19 62), 52
Hope-Simpson. Gazeter (1965), No. 32 ,
Faraklas, N. AGC (1973), Figures lIa and b, I3a and
b, I5a ari!b, 16a and b
..
Karakasi is situated in Hermionis about m. north

Eliokastr.o and about 7 km.' northeast of The LH re-
mains include cist tornbs and-va;es aneient akropolis
while in the historic periods there'was a settlement here with
remains of circuit wal1s which sorne equate with the ancient
Eileoi, but the evidence is very uncertain forthis.
-,
',1



"
.

.t;:
,r

"
-ri

'.
1
J

(

" 1\
l
-
-'



i

?,
:
t
l'

C'
,
55
32.
xxv
Kasarma
MH LHI-IIIC C H
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935),605
Lord, L.E.---AJA XLIII (1939), 83
Editors. BCH LXXIX (1955), 246
EHF-(l96 2); 51
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965) 1 No. 20
Fraser, P.N. - JHSArch. (1968/69), 14
Mycenae.an Citadels (1971), 30, 57
WintT, F.E. Greek Fortifications (197l), 43 f.
The site is in the Argeia plain about midway between Naup1ion
and Pa1p ia Epidauros. It is about 700 m. southeast of'modehn
Broutzai.ka (MnpOlYt"l;:cll.CXa.) and a1most 16 km. northeast of Nau-
plion. The remains of the Mykenaian period include the famous
bridge, building foundations and sherds. A tomb of
,
UU-IlIC was discovered in the late 1960's and the,presence
of walls suggests that the site fortified in the 1ate
, C1assica1 or period al though Hinter says the for-
tification dates to the 5th and 4th c. B.C.
, "
33'. Kastraki
LH?
Farakias, AGe 12 (1972), 12 and Figures
12a and b-
A fortification seems to have existe here in the LH period
perhaps. It i in south Epidauria in the oentral part of
the peninsula just to the west of modern Bodikion.
\
34. Kastraki Dimainas
EH? MH?"LH?
Farakla's, N. AGe 12 (1972), Il and Figures
. IDa and and b , 12a and b
This site, possibly a in these
periods, though aIl these are questionable. It is in north-
east pidauria near the Korinthian border and about 500 m.
,
west of modern Man Taxiarkh6n Arnnountos and about 4 km. west
of the east coast of the Argolid.
"

xxvi
35. Kastro Khoriza.
,
LB
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 42
The site is on the border of Troizehia and Epidauria,
4 km. south of modern Ana Phanar ion and 5 km. from
lt was a Mykenaian watchtower.
36. Katsingri
LH (inc1uding LH!!I?) A H R
Kara, G. AA XLV (1930), 112 f
Lord, L.E.-AJA XLIII (1939), 78 f.
,
Daux, G. BeH LXXXVII (1963), 748
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. ADelt XVIII BI Chrono (1963),'
65 f.
Hope-Simpson. Ga?eteer (1965), No. Il
'Scoufopoulos. Mycenaean Citadels (1971), 31, 53, 57
Tomlinson, R.A. Argos and the Argolid (1972), 42
Hagg, I. and J.M. Fossey. Excavations in the Barbouna
Area at Asine, Fascicle 5: Field Work in the Mid-
dle Slopes 1973-7, Boreas 4.5 (forthcoming)
In south central Argeia about 4 km.northeast of Tiryns and
J km. northeast of ~ e a Tiryntha i5 a hi1l on top of which
was a Mykenaian settlement, as shawn through excavation. An
Archaic temple was also discovered and there are traces of
a lower town.' In the 3rd century it was a fortification-,
which 1 ~ k e Asine and M1kenai, may ref1ect the presence of
the' Antigonids.
37. Keladi
LHIIIB C H
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
Pain, EMP-(1962), 52
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 29
Scoufopoulos
J
Mycenaean Citadels (1971), 30, 57
,Faraklas, N. AGC 19 (197j), Figures l1a and b , 14a and
b , 15a and b
)
.This site, on the west coast of Herrnionis abqut 3 km. north-
west of modern Rampas and about 80'0 m. north of the Frankhthi
Cave, was a small set tlemen t in the LH II l ,B as is seen by
, .
/
xxvii
<.Jo
the remains of wa11s. In the C1assical and Hellenistic peri-'
,
ods there was a fortification (watchtower) here.
38. ,Kenkhreiai
EH? G? C
Pausanias. II.XXIV.7
Frazer.' Pausanias's Description of Greece III (1898),
212
Wiegand: AM XXVI (1901); 246
BoIte, F. "'"l<enchreai" RE' (1922.), 165-167
Scranton, R.L. HesperIa VII (1938), 538
Lord, L.E. AJA XLIII (1939) 1 78 f
Tomlinson, Argos and th Argo1id (1972) 1 34 f.
Lord says there was a watchtower here in the C period while
Pausanias saw the g,raves ?f the Argives killed at Hysiae in
669 B.C. although no remains of these have been found. It
is in southwest Argeia, west of the Argoli Gulf, about Il
km. west of modern Myloi and 5 km. east of the Arkadian
border.
39. Kephalaria,
N Mlf L1II118 C H R
Lord, L.E. Hesperia VII (1938),
Lord, L.E. AJA XLIII (1939), 84.
Lord, ''L.E. HeSperia,l.{ (1941) " 95-103
Hope-Simpson. 'Gazeteer (1965), No. 15
Michaud, J.P. BCH XCVII (1973), 293
\
The only traces of the Neo1ithic period are sherds of Urfirnis
ware but this does not indicate a sure It is,
that there was a sett1ement however, in the MH and
tH III 1:3 periods as seen in the numerous sherds. In the his-
torie age from the Classical ta the Roman periods the site
was a fortification. This is in Argeia about 6 kIT..southwest
of Argos and about 4, northwest of the coast.
40.
. ""
Khorlza
LH A C H R?
Frickenhaus, A. & W. r-tt111er. AM XXXVI (1911), 38
1 -
r ,
r

xxviii
Pinunen'. KMK (1924), 13
Kara, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
1in. EMF--(1962), 52
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 35
The evidence at this site, which i5 on the island of
just west of the modern town of Hydra (approximately km .

is not considerable. Hope-Simpson reports sherds of
the LH as weIl as the A, C, H, and R periods. In the
ClaSSica period it was probably a town.
!
4,1. Kokl1ygion
A? C? H R
Fa;raklas, N. AGe 19 (1973) / 9 and Figu..res 4a and b ,
l5a and and b
This i5
1
another location where there are in effect two si tes 1
A and J, bath of which were sanctuaries. Site A was a sanc-
tuary inall four periods in the Archaic
and Classical while B was in existence in the Classical, Hel-
lenistic and Roman periods, questionable in the Classical.
It is situated in Herrnionis, 3 km. northwest of modern Her-
mione.
42. Koliaki
A? C? H7 R?
Farak1as, N. AGC 12 (1972), 12 and Figures
15a and b, ,16a arid and b '
The on1y evidence for this site are graves in aIl periods.
It is ln E Epidauria about 300 m. west of modern Koliaki and
about 4 km. south of palaia Epidauros.
43. Koroni
C H R?
Faraklas, N. AGC .12 (19'72), 12 and Figures 15a and b,
16a and and b
This site is also one for which there are two separate loca-
tions, A and B. Site A was a settlement in aIl three periods,
T'
1 -
j;.'

, 1
f

f
J
r
(
xxix
though that of the Roman period is uncertain while B'nearby
was a ortification as weIl as a settlernent of the same peri-
ods. It is in east central Epidauria at the modern town of
the same name.
44. Kosta
LH
Faraklas, N. AGe. 19 (19n), 10, and Figures lIa and b
Here, at the extreme south end of Hermionis about 3 km. south-
east of modern Portokhe1i,.Faraklas reports a sett1ement as
indicated by surface finds.
45 . Kour taki
G A
l,
Papakhrlstodou10s, I. ADelt XXII,I BI Chrono (1968),
131
Fraser, P.M. JHSArch (1968/69), 14
Protonotariou -Deilaki, E. ADelt XXV BI (1970),
155
Michaud, J.P. BCH XCIV (1970), 961
Michaud, J.P.' BCH XCVI (1972), 646 f.
This site i8 in-Central Argeia 6 km. of Tiryns and
8 km. east of Argos and an excavation here found a 7th c. B.C.
kratcr and as weIl las wall foundations and _a Geo-
metrie pot deposit. This rnay be to the sanctuary of
Demeter Hysia mentioned bY,Pausanias or with an Arc11aic teP1ple
nearby'.'
46. Kouzounos
EH? MH? LH? H?
Faraklas, N. AGC 19 (1973), 10 and Figures 9a and b, ,
lOa and and b, 15a, and b
Faraklas reports the presence of a fortified settlement here
in aIl these periods; however the evidence is questionable.
The site is' located on the island of Spet$ai a little over
2 km. south of modern Spetsai on the east coast.
,
.'


;



-'"
J
t
o
r..,.,'
,
,
;.
,
o
..
xxx
4-7. Kyveri
LHIIIA-B A C H
Charitonidis, S. ADelt XXI B1 Chrono (1966), 130
. Ervin, H. LXXI (l96'Z), 299
Fraser, p:-M-:--. -JHSArch. (1968/69), 14 f.
Mykenaian chamber tambs been found here as well as finds
.
from the Archaic, C1assical and Hel1enistic periods. It is
in southwest Argeia west of the Argoc Gulf' about' 2 km. north-
west of modern Velanidheia and almost 10 km.southwest'of modern
My1oi.
48. Lazaret ta
A? C? H? R?
Farak1as, N. AGC, 10 (1972) 15 and Figures 15a and b,
16a and b -;-7a and b, 18a and b
This site is in east Troizenia opposite the is1and of Paros,
and'about 700 m. southeast of modern Galatas. The indications
are that this was
49. Lerna
N EH MH LHI-IIlB G A C H
Furtwang1er, A. AH VIII (1883), 195 f.
Firnrnen. KHK (1924) " Il, 76
Boethius,"Lerna" RE (1925), 2085-2089
Kara, G. RE 'Suppl-.-VI. (1935), 6JlS
Lord, L.E.--Hesperia X (1941), 103-109
J.L. Hesperia XXIII (1954), 3-30,
Hood, M.S.F. JHSArch. (1955), 12 f.
Caskey, J.L. Hesperia XXIV (1955),
Caskey, J ,L. Archaeology VIn (1955), 116
Protanotanou, S'. AE XCIV (1955), Parart., 1 f.
Verdelis, N.M. AE XCV (1956) Parart., 12 f.
Caskey, J.L. Hesperia.XXV (1956), 147-173
Caskey, J.L. Hesperia. XXVI (1957), 142-162
Edltors 'QEi'H. LXXXI (1957), 538
Da ux , G.: cB H. LXXXII (1958), 708 f.
Heath, M.. Hesperia XXVII (19581-, 80-121
Caskey, q.L. ,Hesperia XXVIII (1959),202-207
Daux, G. BCH LXXXIII (1959), 617-618
Caskey, Archaeo1ogy. XIII (1960), 130
lin, EMF (1962), 45 f.
Vermeu1e;-E. Greece in the Bronze Age, (1964), index
"
f
,;
":r
.. , ."


"
.' ,
"
, ,
xxxi
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No .. 13-14
Courbin, P. La cramique gomtrique de l'rgolide.
(1966), passim.
Co1dstream. GGP (1968), 406 .
Caskey, J.L. AJA LXXII (1968), 313-316
Gejva11, N.C. l (1969)
,Vermeu
o
1e, E. CN LXIII (1970), 304
Wiencke, M.H. IHesperia. XXXIX (1970), 94-110.
Weinberg, S. CAH3I pt. 1 (1970), 557 f.
Caskey, J.L." CAH3r pt. 2 (1971),77 f.
Scoufopou1os. -"Micenaean .Citadels.
o
(1971), 19 f.
Angel, J.L. Lerna II (1971)
Snodgrass. Dark Age of Greece (1971), 57
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. ADelt. XXVI BI Chrono (1971},
83
Courbin. Tombes d'Argos l (1972), 118
Tomlinson. "Argos the Argolid (1972), 20, 43
De vries, K. Hesperia XLIII (1974), 80-104
R. Die Grber der Argolis (1974), 62-64
Lerna,near the eoast of the Argolie Gulf across the bay cfrom
Nauplion and about 2 km. 'north of modern Hyloi, is a si te
that was important before the LH periode Much
Neolithic ware has been found a10ng with houses and inhuma-
tions of,the same period near the Hvuse of Tiles, stone;
walls of the Neo1ithic have a1so been found. various build-
ings of the different periods have been excavated
--the interim/reports of the excavation can be read in Hes-
peria 1954-59, and as at most'sites, there was a break after'
the LH Geometrie periode The evidence for the his-
torie age is a of Geometrie,buria1s and wa11s as weIl
as wa11s of the Classia1 and Hel1enistie periode The site
apparently was oecupied till the 4th C. Nearby a.few early
Mykenaian tombs have been excavated as weIl as a Late Geo-
metrie grave arid sorne of the Classical period, these being
aS50ciated with the town of that period. Sorne writers see
the site as two, Lerna and Myloi, but they are 50 elose that
there i6 no real need to separat them.
50. Ligouri6
LHIIIB? C' H
1 -
" ;
1
.r

xxxii
Pausanias. II.26.1
Lord, L.E. Hesperia VII (1938), 511-527
,Scranton, R.L. Hesperia VII (1938), 528-538
Lord, L.E. AJA XLIII (1939), 83 .
Frantz, M.A. and C. Roeb,uck. X (1941), 112
A li n 1 EMF ( 196 2), 51
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965) 1 No. 21
Charitonidis, S. ADe1t XXVI BI Chrono (1970), 131
Kritzas, ADe1t XXVII BI Chrono (1971), 215 f.
At Ligourio, a,bout 800 m. east of modern Khouta1alika" on the
, ,
road from'Nauplion ta Palaia Epidauros, H@pe-SimpsQn reported
Mykenaian sherds 1 tentatively dated as LH III B, while in the
historie period, it appears to have been a fortification in
bath the C ,and H pe'riods.
51. Mount Lykone (location uncertain)
C? H? R
Pausanias II.24.6
"Gardner, E.A. JHS X (1889), 273
Frazer. pausanIaS's Description of Greece III (IB9B),
210
lVJ.eyer, Ernst:. "Lykone" RE (1927), 2309
When Pausanias went there, he saw a sanctuary of Artemis
Orthia on the summit and images which were to be those
of Po1ykleltos, thereby suggesting a Classical date. The
ruins of the sanctuary were excavated in 1888 and the pre-
senC of Roman coins of Constantius II shows that it was
used up to at last the 4th c. A.D. Pausanias reports that
the site is on the road,from Argos to Tegea.
52. Magoula
LllIIIA-B G?
1
i
1
p,iladelPheus, A. V (1919) Parart
l
34 f.
W ce, A.J.B. M cenae. An Archaeo10 ica Histor and
Guide (1949, f. , 130, 37
li n . EMF. ( 196 2), 37
Hope-Simpson". Gazeteer (1965), No. 2
traces and a
" i
cemetery of chamber torobs and Alin saw traces jof wa11s and
1
t
J
1
'l
l -
l
(

xxxiii
sherds on the hi11 to the southwest of the modern village
an,d a sett1ement on' the east side. " The ,site is
located in north central Argeia about 1 km. southeast of the
Mykenai akropo1is.
53. Magou1a
EH tHIIIA-B C
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 39
Farak1as, N. AGC 10 (1972), 15 and Figures lIa and b,
13 and b -;l6a and b
This Magoula is on the north coast of Troizenia about 6 km.
southwest of the Isthmus of Methana. 'From surface finds there
are traces of a sett1ement here in aIL these periods, a set-
tlement of a fair size and from its position it is well-plaaed
to guard the coast road the pass ta Khoriza.
54. Malandrini
MH? LB
Fimmen. KMK (1924), Il
G. RE Suppl. VI (1935),
Lehman, H .-Tiryns IV (1938)
Alin. EMF (1962), 45, n. 237
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965),
606
No. 17
1 1
Mykenaian sherds were found and there are reports of a pre-
Mykenaian settlement. The site i8 in northwest Argeia about
700 m, north of the modern town of the same name and 15 km.
northwest of Argos.
55.
"
.
Megalokhori
EH LHIII G A C H R
Frazer. Pausanias's Description of Greece III (1898),
'287
Frickenhaus, A. & l'J. Mller. AM XXXVI (l911) , 35, 37
Fimmen. KMK (1924), 13
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
Welter, G.-Troizen und Kalaureia (1941), la. T.I
Alin. EMF (1962), 52
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 40
Farak1a8, N. AGC, la (1972), Figures 13a and b, 14a and
b, 15a and b, 16a and b , 17a and b, 18a and b
! -
a
o
xxxiv
,1
When Pausanias visi ted i ,t, i t was a li ttle town with a sanc-
tuary of Isis and in the market":'p1ace images', of Hermes and
Archaeo1ogica11y, sherds of various periods have
been found that there was a sett1ement here in th'e
EH', LH,III', G and A periods and that in the C, H and R peods
the settleroent a defensive wall. It is on the west
coast of Methana, direct1y across the peninsu1a modern
Me'thana:
56. t1ykenai
oN EH MH LHI-IIIC SM pG G A C H
Sch liemann" H. Mycenae (1 B 7 8 t
, Schliemann, H. . Tiryns (1885)
Karten, S. Mycenae (1884)
Tsountas, C. Prakt (1886), 59 f.
'l.'sountas, C. AE"XXVI (1887), 155 f.
Rodenwaldt,G. -xM XXXVI (1911), 221 f.
Rodmvaldt,G. (1912), 129 f. ,
ADelt V (1919) Par. 34 f.
Boethus, C.A. BSA XXIV (1919-21) /' 161-184
Wace,A.J.B. BSA XXIV 185-209
RodenwaJdt,&D. Fries. ' Mycenae (1921)
Wace, A.J.B. BSA XXV (1921-23), 1-407, 429 f.
Boethius, C.A.-SSA XXV (1921-23)',408-428'.
Evans, A. ShaftGraves and Bee-Hive Torobs of Mycenae
, (1929)
Kara, ,G. Die Schachtgraber Mycenae (1930-33) \
Wace, A.J.B. Chamber Torobs at Mycenae (1932)
Karo, G. AJA XXXVIII (1934), 123 f.
KFl.ro, G. . RE Suppl. V+ (1935), 605
Mackepra nt, M. B-.- AJA XLII (1938), 555 f.
A. J . B '. JHS LIX (1939), 210 f.
Lord, L.E. Hespxia, X (1941), 93-112
H.T. Hesperia XV (1946), 115 f.
Wace, A.J.B. Mvcenae (1949)
h'ace, A.J .B. BSA XLV (1950), 203 f.
Bennett, E.L. ---proc. Amer. ,Phil. Soc. XCVII, 0 422-'470
Wace, A.J.B. JHS LXXI (1951), 254 f.
Papadirni T Prakt. (1951), 1'97 f.
PaoadiPlitriourJ. Prakt (1952), 427 f.
Papadimitriou & G. Mylonas. Archaeo1ogy V (1952), 194
Papadiroi triou ;J (1953), 205 f.
Wace, A.J.B. BSA XLVIII (19S3), 16 f
Cook, J .M. BSA XLVIII (1953), 34-50, 62-64J
o
Wace, A.J.B.--SSA XLIX (1954), 291 f.

" .
"
' d
l 'J
..
C'

.
' .' 0
.
.. '
- Q
'h'
O
..
, "
,.,
. "
xxxv.
o
Wace, A.J.B JHSLIV (1954), 170 f<..
Papadimitrl.ou, J:- Prakt (1954), 242 f.
Prakt (1955), 225 f.
Wace, AJ.B. BSA L (1955), 175 f.
Mylonas, G. &--P-:- Papadimit:r;iou. Archaeo1ogy VIII'(l955)
43 Q
Wace" A. J B BSA LI (1956), 103, f .
Wace, BSA LII 193 f.
Papadimitrfou,-:r.:- Prakt (1957), 105 'f.,)
(1957), 63 0
Mylonas, G. Ancl.ent Mvcenae (1957)
Papadimitr{ou, J. (1958), 125
My1onas, O. XCVI! (1958), 153 f. . ,0
Bennett, E.L. (ed.). 'l'rans. Amer. Phil: Soc,' XLVIII, pt.,
, 1., 1 f '
Hood, M.S.F. JHSArch. '(1959/60), 9 f. ,
Charitonidis, S. ADelt XVI BI Chrono -<1960), 89 f.
Cook, R.M. Greek Painted Pottery (1960), 22 f.
Hoop, M.S.F.. JHSArch. (1960/6-1), 30 f."
Frencn, E. BSA LVI (1961), 81 f.
Orlandos, E1='gon (1961), 148 f .
Chadwick, J. (ed.) Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. LII, pt. VII,
, 1 f.' r
Alin. EMF (1962), 10 f.
AJA LXVI (1962), 303
My10nasj AE CI (J.962), 167-185
Mollard-Besques, S. Les terres-cui tes (lQ 6-3)
413
,Taylor, W. & G. My1onas. ADelt XVI-II BI Chrono (1963),
82 f. ' "
Megaw, A.B.S. JHSArch '(1963/64); 11."8.
Desborough, LMTS (1964), 73 f.
Mylonas, G. ADeIf XIX BI CDron. (1964), 131-133
'Megaw, JHSArch. (1964/65), 9 f.
Hope-Simpson,. Gazeteer (1965), No. 1
My1onas, G. 'ADelt XX BI Chrono (1965), 160 f.
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. AE (1965), 7-25
Daux, G. BCH LXXXIX (1965)-,-707 f.'
l1y1onas, G. E. Hesper ia XXXV (19156)" 419 f.
My1onas, G.E. Mycenae and the Mycenacan Age (1966)
My1onas, G.E._ "Prakt. (1966),103 f. \ ,"
Courbin, La cfirarnique 'gomtrique de l'Argglide (1966)
, passim
French, E. BSA LXI (1966), 216-238
Johansen. Les vases sicyoniens (1966), 12,191
Daux, G. BCH X-C (1966), 775 f.
Megaw, A.H. s:- JHSArch (1966/67), 8 f.
French, E. BSA LXII (1967), 149 f .
Styrenius, C.G. S\,lbrnycenaean Studies (i967), 129
Daux, G. BCH XCI (196 648 f.
,
o
. '
o
. .
xxxvi
Megaw, A:H.S. JHSAreh. (1967/68), 8 r:
Ellis", Higgins & Hope-Simpson. BSA LXIII (1968), 318 f.,
331 ff.
Woodard, l'V .S. AJA LXXII (1968), 174-.175 .
My1onas, G. Ergon (1968), _5-12
Desborough, V.R. Proto-Geometrie Pottery (1968), 210 f.
Megaw, AlIoS. JHSAreh. (1968/69), Il f.
l'lardIe, K.A.) BSA LXIV <H69), 261 f.
Ervin, M. AJA LXXIII (1 69), 346 f.
Rachet, G. Archolo" ie e la Grce rhis ori ue, Troie
Mycnes, Cnossos. CItXXXV 69, l'f P 3 2
Tay1our, w.n. Antiquity XLIII (1969), 91197
Fretnch, E. BSA LXIV (1969), 71-93 \
Fraser, P,.M.-:T"HSArch. (1969/70), Il f." 1
Ervin, M. AJA LXXIV (1970), 269 f. '
Michaud, BCH (1970), .962 f.
Weinberg. CAR3I pt. 1 (1970),' 553 f.--
Fraser, P.M-. -JHSArch. (1970/1), 10 f.
Tay1our, W. ,Antiquity, XLIII (1969), 91-97
JHSArch. (1971/72), 9 f.
Or1andos, A.K. Ergon (1972), 59 'f.
Tom1inson. Argos and the Argolid (1972), 31-3, 67,
170-,.1, 20-9, 224
Desborough. Greek Dark Ages (1972), 69, Hl
Courbin. Tombes gomtriques ,d'Argos l (1972), 103, ll5,
130-131, 125
Cat1ing, H.W. JHSArch. (1972/73), 13f.
HElgg, R. Die GraberderAf'golis (1974), 64-71.
Cat1ing, H. W. JHSArch. (1974/75), 9 f.
Hagg, 1. & J.M. Fossey. Excavations in the Barbouna Area
at Asine, Fascic1e 6: Excavations in the Geometrie
Nekrop"olis 1971-7, Boreas 4: 6 (forthcorning)
Mykenai has been extensive1y excavated since the end of thE!
1ast century. Various parts of the citadel and surrounding
r area have yie1ded rernains of different periods. The ear1iest
occupation of site was c. 30o-0-2'OOn and the first
fortifications date to the MH period when there was also a
settlement seattered on the 10wer slopes; tombs of, the period
were excavated as weIl' as LH l shaft graves. From 1.?QO-1300
, there was mueh building activity. The Lion Gate and Cye1o-
pean wa1'ls date to the end ,of this time and pala-tlje
reached its height then. There-was then a destrution but
the site recoverd ,and survived until the end of the 12th
century. A few vases of the SM period have now be:en iden ti-
c
fied, thus showing the site, was occupied even at this
*_lIIb 1.$
:'1
"
"'-,
,
()
xxxvii
,
time al though it is felt that this was not a e'ontinuous oe-
cupation from the LH'III but that there wiiS sorne gap time.
The site slowly recavered and by the Geometrie period had be-
"'
come a small town until it was destroyed by Argos in 468 B.C.
Later however it to life again. Various temples have
been discovered da ting to the G, A ," and C periods as we Il as
graves dating to aIl the historie periods. I,t is interesting
that' the PG graves were dug in the ruins of the Mykenaian
houses. Finally, i ts main function in the 5th and 4th cen-
tury W&S as "a fortification but its main revival occurred in
.
the century.
57." Mysia (location uncertain)
C? H? R?
Pausanias II .18.3
The only evidence for the existence of this site is from Pau-
sanias who mentions that it is on the road from' ta' "
'He saw a sanctuary' of Mysian ,Demeter, the temple of
which was of burned a feature of Romap construction.
The site has not been located.
58.' Nauplion
" \
N EH LHIIIA-C: 1 SM PG G A C H
Lolling, H.G. AM V (lS80), 143-163
Stais, B. ,AE XXXIV (1895), 261
& W. Mller. AM (1911), 37
F inunen . KMK (19 24), 13
Kara, G. AA XLV (1930), 'U3 f.
KA,rn, G RE Suppl. VI (1935), 605
r'utullIarJ<, A-. Mycenaean Pottery (1941),0651
Charitonidis, S. Prakt. (1953), 191 f.
Charitonidis. Ergon (1954), 33 f.
Charitonidis. Ergon (1955), 75 f.
Hood, M.S.F. JHSArch. (1955),13
lin. EMF (1962) 1 46 f.
Desborough. LMTS (1964), BO
Verdelis, N .M-;---ADelt. XIX BI Chrono (1964), 127 f.
Hope-simpson. Gazet:eer (1965), No. 9
Charitonidis, S. ADelt. BI (1966), 130
, , .
l
' A
........
r
()
1.
xxxviii
cournin. La cramique g0!lltrique de 1 'Argolide- (19{56)
passim
Styrenius, C.G. Submycenaean Studies. (1967), 129
Kirsten, E.&W. Kraiker. Griechen1andkunde.
5
(1967),
350
Coldstream. GGP (1968), 406
Fraser, P .M. JHSArch. (1970/71), 11
Protonetariou -Dei1aki, E. ADe1t. XXVI B1 Chrono (1971),
74 and 83 f.
,Protonotariou. Mll. III (1971), 11
Dar<Age of GJ;eece. J1971) , 51
Tomlinson. Ar os and th Ar olid (1972), 44- 45, 75 f.
-Catling, H.W. oJHSArch .. 1973 74), H
" HMgg, R. Die GrHber (Er r olis (1974), 71-75
The evidence for thi s si te l' es rnain1y in sherds and tombs.
Severa1> r-1ykenaian torobs of the LH LU A-C have been excava ted.
For! SM t\eriod the evidence lis scanty; only one true SM
vase has been recognized' but the finds from the other his-
tor ic per iods are more considerable. These consisJ"'t"prfmarily
, , ,
of graves from the EG to the He11enistic periods while the
settlement itself seeros to have existed primarily. in the Geo-
metrie period--several houses of this time have been found
. '
while the akropolis walls seem to be Hellenistie in d<;lte.
59. Oinoe
C
Protonotariou-Dei1aki, E. ADelt. XXVI BI Chrono (1971),
84
Argos and the Argolid.
)
(1972), 38 and map, Tomlinson.
p.) 9
Remains of houseS/Of this, period have been found. The 'si te
is in southwest A geia about 8 km. west of Argos on the
Kser ias Ri ver.
60. Orneiai
C H R?
Pausanias II.25.5
Frater. Pausanias's Description of Greece. III (1898),
217
Tomlinson.
p. 9
Argos and the Argolid (1972), 39 and map,
r
1
*
1
1
1
.J-
1
i
1
1
!
1
l '
()
X'Xxix
,.
Very li i!. t1e is known of this site besides the fact that i t
was destroyed by the Argives in 416 B.e. and the inhabitants
removed to Argos. Pausanias 'saw a sanctuary and teITlple tpere
when he visited it, its use in the Roman period.
It may have been use? in the period however. The
si te is 10cated .in "west Argeia near the west end df the Ina-
khos River about 2 km. southeast of modern Kapare11ion.
61. Ortholi thi
LH?
Scoufopou1os.
o
Mycenaean Citadels (1971), 31
This site, in northeast Epidauria about 500-600 m. southwest
of modern Nea Epidauros, was a Mykenaian watchtower.
62. palaia Epidauros
r,Ul, G A< e li
Frickenhaus, A. & W. rJJi'1l1er. AM XXXVI (1911), 29 f.
Furumark" A. Mycenaean PotterY(l941), -647 f.
,li n . EMF (196 2), 51 f.
Mol1ard-Besques, S. Les terres-cuites grecques (1963),
48
Megaw..,- A.R.S. JHSArch. (196,3/64), 8
Hope-Simpson'. Gazeteer (1965) 1 No. 23
Charitonidis, S. ADelt. Xxr: BI Chron:' (1966), 131 f.
Megaw, A.H.S. JmiArch. (1967/68), 9 .
Tom1inson, R.A. JHS LXXXIX (1969), 106 f. .,
Farak1as, ,N. AGCU (1972), Figures Ua and b, l3a and
b, 14a and b .
Q Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. ADelt. XXVI BI Chron. (1971),
84
Kritzas, X.B.
Cat1ing, R.W.
ADelt. XXVII BI Chron. (1971), z19
JHSArch. (1972/73), 16
The site. of PalaiaEpidauros is located about 500 m. south-
east of the modern town of the same nam on the coast
of Epidauria. The prehistorie remains consis t of tombs whi1e
in the historie 'period the finds are varied, ine1uding the
Classiea1 town on-a headland ta south of. the harbour.
1
Here circuit are seen as weIl as sherds.
'l,
1
,
.
J
j
l
-
\."
63. Palaiokhori
LHIIIB
xl
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 605
Furmnark. Mycenaean pottery (1941), No. 15: 2 and' 6,
14,,18: 37" 51, 23: 21 \
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 24
Charitonidis, S. ADelt XXI BI Chrono (1966), 131
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. ADe1t. XXV BI 'Chron. (1970) r
157
Farak1as, N. AGe. 12 (1972), !1 and Figures and b
At Palaiokhori, in northeast Epidauria near the coast, about
1 km. northeast of modern Nea Epidauros, Mykenaian,
tombs were reported and it is fel
J
that the cemetery was prob-
ably, associated with Vassa, site No. 88.
64. Ph 0 ukaria
LH H R
Welter. Troizen und Kalaureia (1941), T.l
:li n . ' EMF ( 19 2), 5 2
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No;' 34
Faraklas, N. AGC 10 (1972)"Pigures 13a and b, 17aand
b, laa and b. '
This site was a sma11 settlement, unfortified in aIl
three periods. In the LH and H periods it was also a natura1
Harbour but according to Faraklas, it was artificia1 in
Roman period. The site lS at the extreme southeast end of
l ,
Troizenia facing the smaii Island of Sepia.
65. Phyktia.
LHIIIA-B A C H
Pausanias. II .1B. 2
, ",
Kara, G. AA XLVI '(1931), 262
Bquignon,-V. BCij LV (1931),476
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 605
Scranton, Hesperia VII (1938), 538
-l e ff e ry, L. H.. BSA L (1955), 69
Alin. EMF (1962); 36
Charitonidis, S. ADelt. XXI BI Chr,on. (1966), 125
Phyktia, in north central Argeia about 2 km. southeast of
modern Phyktia and about 2 km.southwest of Mykenai, has
, /.
1 -
l
1
1
1
J
t
1
. ,
1
1
()
xli
yie Ided a Mykenaian chamber tamb containing 17 vase 8 dated
ta the IR ::::II A-B. There are finds of the Archaic period and
an inscription was found dating to the 15th century and the
si te perhaps may be near the Tamb of Thyestes which Pausanias
mentions.
66. Piada
LH?
Faraklas, N. AGC 12 (1972), Il and Figures 12a and b
Evidence suggests the presence of a settlement at this s;Lte
which is in northeast Epidauria about 500 m. north of Nea ~
Epidaur.os and about 3 km. from the coast.
67. Pigadaki
C H?
Faraklas, N. AGC 12 (1972), 11 and Figures lSa and b
Surface finds indicate a fortified settlement as weIl as a
sanctuary in bath peri'Ods. It is in northeast Epidauria
about 3 km. northwest of modern Mon Taxia'rkhon Amnrl1Jntos
and about 3 km. from the coast.
68. Pagan
C H R
Faraklas, N. AGC 10 J l ~ 7 2 1 , Figures 16a and b, 17a and "
b , 18a and b
This was an unfortified settlement in aIl three per iods and
has not been excavated. It is located in southeast Troizenia on
! "
the west end df the Pogonos Lake 3 km: northeast of Troizen.
69 Paros
A C H R
Welter. Troizen und Kalaureia (1941), T.ll
Faraklas , N. AGC 10 (1972), Figures 15a and b, 16a and
b,- 17a and b , lia 'and b
In the Archaic period there was a sanctuary here whi,le in the
1
>'
, .
"
j
,
" <
(
+
r
i
f
f
xlii
,
Classical, He11enistic and Roman periods there was both a
,
settlement and sanctuary. This site also has not been exea-
vated and it is situated on the island of Poros Just ,to the
north of the modern city of tha t nam.
70. Porto Kh1i
N EH MH LHI-II LHIII PG G A C
Thompson. IV (1912), 128 f.
Daux, G. BCH LXXXVII (1963), 756 f.
Jameson, MI ADel-t. XVIII BI Chrono (1963), 73 f.
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No .. -30
Megaw, A.,B.S. JHSArch. (1965), 8
Megaw, A.B.S. JfiSArch. (1966), 10
Da ux, G. BCH XC (1966), 786 f.
Jameson, and C. B. Wi l1iams'. ADel t. XXT BI Chron. (1966)
148 f.
Whittlesey, J. Arehaeology XXI (1968), 67 f.
Jacobsen, T.W. ADelt. XXII BI Chrono (1968), 144 f.
Ervin, M. AJA LXXIII (1969', 347
Jameson,. Hesperia. XXXVIII (1969), 311-342
Editors. Fasti Archaeologici (l969/70l 235, No. 3394
Frlser, P .M. JHSAreh., (1970), 11
Caskey, M.E. AJA LXXV (1971), 301 f.
Jarncson, -M.H. ADelt. XXVI BI. Chrono (1971), 114 f.
Jameson, f1.H. ADelt. XXVII BI Chrono (1972), 233 f.
Micbaud, J .P. BCH XCVI (1972), 650
catling, B.W. JHSArch. (1972/73'), 15
Daux, G. BCH LXXXVII (1973), 256
Michaud, JT. Bcn XCVII (1973), 305
Catling, B.W. JHSArch. (1973/74), 11-12
Catlinq, H.W. JHSArch. (1974/75), 10-11 ,-'
The site ancient Ha1ieis is located at the southwest end of
Hermionl.s the bay from modern Portokheli and is part-
ly submerged in the sea. It oecupies two areas, an akropolis
and a lower town. The akropolis was first occupied in the
o
N period and continued until the LH II 1 period., Then thfre
was a gap until the PG pe:iod when sherds are again found;
the G per iod has also yielded sh,erds. From the la te 7th to
5th century, buildings were canstructed on the akropois;
the fortifications thernselves date ta the 7th century but
" .
were destroyed in the 6th. In the 4th century a tower was
court and later a circular tower and
, ,
-<

'"
"
,<
/

"
"
"
,

.
'1
';1
'J
}J,

..::
)

,,,
'J
,"
<' ,
..
,


-fI
1
{

'-. J t
--
j
c
()
xliii
terrace wall. The akropolis suffered destructions at various
times from the 6th down to the 3rd cel'ltury. The town' itself
was sett1ed c. 479 by Tirynthians. In 460 tn,e were
\ '\
defeated here by Korinthians and Epidaurians and before 430
a Spartan captured the town. In 430 and(425 the Athenians
raided it and in 424/3 a treaty was signfd with them. In the
4th c. the town was an ally of Sparta in the Theban invasion;
the city was destroyed c. 330 B.C. ,oby "whom is not known.
A1though it was official1y founded by Tirynthians, there was
occupation of part of the town from the LG period down to the
4th cent ury.
71. Prophitis Ilias
C?
Farak1as, N. AGC 12 (1972),12 and Figures 15a and b
Surface finds indicate a sanctuary of the C1assical period
here in east central Epidauria about 200 .... 300 m. east of mod-
ern Trakheia.
72. Psiphti
A C H R
,
Welter. Troizen und Kalaureia (1941), T.l
Farak1as, N. AGe 10 (1972), Figures 15a and b, 16a and
b, 17a and b, 18a and b
Here as weLt. surface finds suggest a> sanctuary for aIl these
periods. The site is situated in north Troizenia a little
,over 4 km. southwest of the Isthmus of Methana.
73. pyrgos
LHIIIB
lin. EMF (1962), 51
Sherds of this period have b,een found here, ir: north central
Argeia near the Korinthian border about 3! 'km. northeast or
'modern Limnai.
, l
j
1
1
J
j
"
,
1
J
1
J
, -
, ,
,
}
(
t
i
(l
xliv
74. pyrgos
EH MH LH C? H'
Farak1as, N. ,AGC 12 (1972), 12 and Figures IDa and b,
lla and b and b, 15a and b, 16a and b
Sherds indicate the presence of a settlement in these periods.
The site is iq southwest Epidauria a 1ittle oyer 4 km. from
the Argolic Gulf and about 4 km. northeast of Iria.
75. Riniza
N
Farak1as, N. AGC 19 (1973) 1 Figures 8a and b, and p. 9
This si te was apparent1y a cult sit,e in thls period. It is ,
in north central, Hermionis on the northeast slopes of the
Didyma mountain and about 2! km. southeast of modern Pathon.
76. Skhinokhori
EH MH LHIIIA-B
Homolle, T. BCH XVII (1893), 199 .
Frickennaus, y:;-:-& W. Mller. Mi XXXVI (1911), 25
Editors. BCH XLIV (1920), 386-r.
Renaudin. BCH XLvn (192'3), 190 f.
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
lin. EMF-(19{j2), 43, 45
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 16
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. ADe1t. XXV BI Chrono (1970),
156
Scoufopoulos. Mycenaean Citadels (1971) f 50, 65
Tomlinson. Argos and the Argolid (1972), 38 f.
Among the finds of these periods, 5 chamber tombs were exca-
vated and between the tombs and the modern village there ap-
peared to be a settlement. It in northwest Argeia about
...
Il km. of Argos.
77. Spetsai
R
TQeokharis, G.R. ADelt. XXVI BI Chrono (1971), 84-93
N. AGC 19 (1973), 10 and Figures 16a and b
Catling, H.W. 'J"HSArch. (1973/7,4), 13
1 -
, -
1
c'
xlv
This site, located on the" island of Spetsai, across ,the li ttle
bay from modern Spetsai" is seen by su:tface finds to have been
a sett1ement in the Roman period.
78. Synoro
EH MH LH
Dunbabin, T.J. JHS LXIV (1944), 82
lin. EMF (1962-)-,-50
Hope-SimpsoTl. Gazeteer (1965), No,. 27
Jantzen, U. AA LXXXIII (1968), 273 f'.
Ervin, M. AJX-LXXII (1968), 271
Scoufopou10S:- Mycenaean Citadels (1971), 57
Doh1,_ H. Tiryns 'VI (1973), 195-220
Wi11erding, U: Tiryns VI (1973), 221-240
Synoro is 10cated in entra1 Epidauria about 5 km.northeast
,! of modern Kandia. It was excavated on' a smal1 scale, only
one trench having been dug. Remains of wa11s were reported
but there is rnuch evidence beyond that and the site 15
not a very important one.'
J
79. Temenion
C H? R?
Pausanias II. 38.1
Pausanias's Description of Greece III (1898),
303
Tomlinson. Argos and the Argolid (1972), 9, 44
/ Fralzer mentions remains of foundations, b10cks of masonry,
and tiles of the Classica1 period but the evidence
1
for the Hellenistic period is inconc1usive. Pausanias men-
tions that in the war with the Achaeans under Tisamenos"it
was seized and fortified by Temenos and the Dorians who used
,
it as a base of operations. When he visited it, he saw a
sanctuary of Poseidon and one of .l\phrodite as weIl as the
tomb of Temenos to ,which the Argives paid their respects.
This rnay indicate occupation in the Roman period. -Temenion
is on; the Argolic Gulf 1ess th an 200 m. northwest of Nea Kios.
, -
.
;
-,
"
'.
xlvi
80. Temple.. of Poseidon (Poros)
EH LHIII- G A C H R
\
',vide, S. & L. Kjellberg,. AM XX (1895), 297 f.
Frickenhaus, A. & M. Mller. AM XXXVI (1911), 35
Harland, J.P. AJA XXIX (1925)--, 160 f.
Ka'fo, G. ,RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606 ,
Welter. T.roizen und Kalureia (1941), 10, TI!
furumark. Mycenaean Pottery, (1941), 652
Ali n, EMF ( 196 2), 52
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), 'No. 38
Coldstream. GGP (1968), 405
Faraklas, N. AGC 10 (1972), 16 and Figures lIa and b,
. 15a and b-;-I6a and b, I7a and b, 18a and band 14a and b.
At this site, Iocated on the island of Poros on the summit
cal1ed Biyla a little over 1 km. from, the northeast coast"
Hope-Simpson reports that EH and LH 'III sherds were and
an LH tamb The site was aiso a sett1ement in bath
the EH and LH periods and continued in this function in' the
Archaic, Classical, Hel1enistic and Roman,periods. Besides
this, the settlement may have had a defensive wall in the
Classica1 period but the evidence for its existence is more
certain for the Helienistie and Roman periods. From t\he
Geometrie down to the Roman j2eriod there was also a san,ctuary
here and we know that it was the centre of the Kalaurian
Amphictiony.
81. Thalassopetra
EH A C, H R
J'
FarakIas, N. AGe 10 (1972), 9 and Figures 13a and b,
14a 'and b-;l5 and b , I6a and 'b
ThalassopetTa, in Hermionis on the coast about km.
northeas t of modern is a si te comprislng two
settlements ,very close ta one another. Site A was a settle-
l,ment in the ,EH, A, C, H and R periocsand site B was qoth a
settiement and naturai harbour in the Archaic period; in the
Classical and Helienistic periods the site was fortified and,
aceording ta Faraklas,' became an artifieial harbour.
)
1
J
,
;
,l


:j
1
l
,
a-
'"
'1
82. Thermisi
L H ~ I t
",
xlvii
Frazer. Pausanias's Description of Greece III (1898),
Kara, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935),606
1 in. EMF-( 19 6 2), 5 2
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 33
... Scoufopoulos. Mycenaean Citade1s (1971), 31 "
Faraklas, N. AGe 19 (1973), 9, Figures lla and b
This si te 1 a naturally fortified sttlement, gives indications
of having existed only in the 'IR I I ~ periode It is situated
in southeast Hennionis about 2! km. northwest of modern The.r;-
Ilfisi and about 600 m. from the coast.
83. Throni
MH C H R?
/ 1 fI ,
Farak1as, N. AGe la (1972), 16 and Figures 16a and b,
17a and b-;-I8a and b
In the MH period there i8 evidence from surface finds of a
sanctuary as weIl as a settlemen t hre-. The settl-ement exist-
ed in the three historie periods and was fortified in aIl
three of them. The site is on the'peninsula of Methana in.
the south central part about 2 km. west of modern Methana.
84. 'riryns
N EH MH, LHI-IIIC SM PG G A C H,
Schliemann, H. Mycenae (1878)
Schliemann, H. Tiryns (1885)
Doerpfe1d, W. AM XVI (1891), 254 f.
Day, a. AJA XXX(1926), 442 f.
SIegen, C.W. AJA XXXII (1928), '141 f.
Frickenhaus, A:-;-W. MUller & G. Rode,nwaldt.
(19'30) ..
,Karo, G. AM LIV (1930), 119 f:
Karo, G. M XLV" (1930), 112 f..
Karo, G. AA XLVI (1931), 261-2.
Jenkl.n8, R.J,"H. BSA XXXII (1931-2), 23-40
Karo, G. RE Suppr.-VI (1935), 605
Karo, G.". RE '(1937), 1453-1461
Lehman, H. ,Tiryns IV (1938)
Fururnark. Mycenaean Pottery. (1941), 654
Demange1, R. BCH LXVIiI-IX (1944-5), 404 f.
/
Tiryns I-III
1 -
"
.
,
1
1

-,
o
xlviii
Desborough. Pottery (1952), 207 f.
Jacobsthal, P. (1956),4,14 f.
Verdelis, N.M. AE xcv (1956)', parart. 5 f.
Daux, G. BeH LXXXII (1958), 706
Vermeule, Arhaeology XIII (1960), 70
Cook, R.M. Greek Painted Pottery (1960), 22 f.
Vanderpool, E. AJA LXVII (1963), 281 f.
1in. ENR (1962-) ,-25-36 '
Charbonneaux, J. Greek Bronzes (1962),80
Editors. Archaeo1ogy XVI (1963), 129 f.
Da ux , G. BCH LXXXV II ( 1 963), 751 f.
Verde1is, rr; ADelt. XVIII BI Chrono (1963), 66 f.
Megaw, A.ff.S. JHSArch. (1963),8 ,
Mollard-Besques 1 S. Les terres-cuites grecques (1963),
"48
1 E. 'ADe1 t. XIX BI Chrono (1964)"
108 f.
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 8
Verde1is/ N. & . French. ADel.t. XXA (1965), Mel. 137 f.
,Megaw, A. H.S. JHSArch. (1965/66), 8.
Courbin. La cramique gomtrique de l'Argolide (itl&6),
passim ' ,
Johansen. Les va,ses sicyoniens (1966), 2, 191
,Grossman, P. M LXXXVII (1967), 92 f.
Higgins, R.A. Greek Terracottas (1;967) 1 50 84
Kirsten, E. '& W. Kraiker. Griechenlandkunde
5
(1967), 379 f.
Desborough. LMTS (1968), 79
Canby, J.V. AJA LXXII (1968), 162
Jantzen, u. et aL AA LXXXIII (1968), 369-374
Tritsch, F.J. KadmosVII (1968), 124-137
Papakhris tOdoulos, LX. ADelt. XXIII A (1968), 117-131
P.M. JHSArch. ('1968/69), 13
Ervint!M. AJA LXXIII (1969), 348 1
Fraser, P.M-. -JHSArch. -(1969/70), 14
Fasti Archaeologici XXIV/XXV (1969/70), 258 ft
3675
Mic:;haud, J .. P"" BCH XCIV (1970), 964 f.
Weinberg. CAH 31. pt. 1 (1970), 553 f.
- 3
Caskey, J.L. CAH I.pt.2 (1971), 771 f.
Gereke, P. et al. Tiryns V (1971)
Scoufopou1os. Mycenaean Citadels (1971), 19 f., 46 f.:
92 f.
Snodgrass. Dark Age of Greece (1971) 1 57
Desborough. Greek Dark Age..
s
(1972), 69, '162, 164
Courbin. Tom gomtriques d' Argos I. (1972), 115, 130-1
'Tomlinson. Argos and the Argo1id (1972), 41, 67, 224 ,
D8h1, H. et al. Tiryns VI (1973)
Catling, H.W. JHSArch. (1973/74), 11
Hagg, R.
Jantzen,
Die Graber der Argolis (1974), 75-87
U. (ed.). Filhrer durcI). nd.
,
..
'"

... , .. 0

-
'.
f

0
.
...
>
CO
ty
rI.
.,

1..
", .
.
"

d
,
,
\
'\
..
'\
a'
)

..
xlix
.)
Tiryns was inhabited from the 3rd on and reached
1';;-
i ts peak in LH;. this is. when the fortifications w.ere
.built. The citadel had- three.phases of development in the
LH and in period there was a Mykenaian in
, l'
the ar'ea of the lower enceinte. It.was destroyed in the LH
/
III B period but was reoccupied.in the LH III C:l. Although
, .

the si te ,occupied from the SM on, i t never became 50
great it had been in the Bronze Age. A settlement grew
upon the ruins' of the earlier surrounding area .
The evidence for the SM i9 graves which
dug into bhe ruins of the prehistoric houses, as .is also
the case for the PG and G graves. In the 8th century a sanc-
tuary was built,on the upper itadel which continued to exist
. (
until the was destroyed by the Argives in, 468 B.C.
is however for a reoccupation in the Hellenis-
"
tic periode
.85. Tou Andreiomenou To Nemea
C H
Faraklas, N. AGe i2 (1972), 12 and ISa'and h,
16a and b----
In bath these periods there existed a watchtower here, in
.
Epidauria -400 m. north of modern Vothik-
ion
86. Trakheia
;'
/
LH
Karo, G. RE Suppl. VI (1935),'605
o ,Hope-Simpson .. Gazeteer (1965); No. 43
. .
This' site i9\ situated south central Epidaur,ia about 500 m.
northwest of\ modern Trcifheia. Hope-Simpson states -that a
, \ <
Mykenaian site was reported here.
J
,87: . Troizen \
EH La G , C H R
\
" 1
1
,,;.
.'
.,

"
..


)
1

.'
.,
..
" '
."
"
i
f
,
:>

t
,
Ct
Cl
f
1

Stais, B. ADelt. 163 f.
Pausanias '.,g DeseriQtion of Greece III (1898),
'273 f.
Phi1adelpheus, A. Prakt. (1909), 188 f.
Frickenhaus, A. & W. MUller. AM XXXVI H911), 3.1 f.
Bquignon, Y. BCH LVII (1933)-,-259 f.
B1egen, 'E.P. AJA XXXVII (1933), '153
:v1eyer,' Ernst. "Troizen" RE (1939), 618-654
Welter. Troizen t!nd I<a1aureia (1941), 10, T.l
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 37
Lehmann, G.A. Historia, XVII (1968), 276 f.
C01dstream. GGP (1968), 407
Farak1as, N. AGC 10 (19,72), 14, Figures Ua and b ,
13a and and b, lSa and b, 16a and b, 17a and
b, l8a and b
r; Hope:"Simpson reports, Geometrie tombs and has the impression
'r ,
the site was inhabited in the LH periode There are indica-
. that in the EH there was a which is next
se en in the G, A, C, and R periods. It was perhaps forti-
fied with a defensive wall in the Classica1 period and was
definite1y sa in the He11enistie and Roman periods. The site

aiso eomprised a sanetuary in the G, A, C, H, and R
It i8 lo'eated at moder?r Troizen.
88. Vassa
EH? NH LHII-I1IB G ,
Karo" G. RE Suppl. VI (1935), 606
Gebauer. AA (1938), 559 f.
1 i n_. EMF-(l96 2); 52 /
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 25
.)
Seoufopoulos. Mycenaean Citade1s (1971), 31, 57
Farak1as, N. AGe 12 Il and ,Figures lIa and b
-- ,
The sity is loeted in northeast Epidauria about 4 km. east'
of JIlqdern Dimaina. 'It was a large settlement with the Cyc1o-
1
pean wa1ls wel1-preserved on the south side. Sherds of aIl
r '
these periods have been found nearby and in both 'the MH and'
the sett1ement was
89. Vreserka
LHIIIA-B
........
1
- 1
1
,1
1
~ -
li
~ ~ .
,k
"
"

i-. '
',>
i>
t ,
1

o
\
. "
li
,
Kara, G. RE Suppl. VI 0(1935), 605
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer (1965), No. 3
Hope-Simpson surveyed this site and found sherds of the LH III
A ~ B period. The site i5 in north central Argeia at the modern
village of Vreserka, about 5 km. southeast of modern Mykenai.
90 . Vromolimni
EH LH R?
,
Kirsten, E./& W. Kraiker. Griechen1andkunde.
5
(1967),
483
lin. EMF, 52
Hope-Simpson. Gazeteer, No. 41
At t h i ~ site, located in the Methana peninsula about 300 m.
. ,
south of\modern Methana, Hope-Simpson reports a settlement
, " \
of theLH and later as weIl as EH sherds and obsidian.
. .
l,
o '
" ,
1
!
1
1
, 1
i
. .---
APPENDIX II
COINAGE
-Traditiona1 evidence, such as cited above coming
from Strabo,.VIn;.3.33, and Herodotos, VL127.3, frequently
connects Pheidon wi th the invention of sta t.i ng tha {,'"
he minted his coins at Aigina and that, once he had done 50,
he dedicated the old spits at the Argive ncient
'authors also insist that he instituted a system of wei1ts
and measures for the Peloponnese.
The important point is the date of these first Ai 'netan
coins and whether this can be reconci1ed with the possible
dates reign. The main evidence for the date
-of the invention of coinage cornes from the Artemi-
sion. The coin deposits here 'date ta c. 600 B-.C. (Jenkins
and Casson: 1953/4, 215), and therefore,probably none of
struck earlier than c. 650. This in its turn ef-
10wers the date of c. 700 often suggested for the
invention of coinage, if,it is accepted that one generation
- ,
is the time needed for the coins, as
Robinson suggests (Robinson: 1951, 165). It must also be
that the Lydians were probably responsible for
the of coinage and that the Aiginetan coins
derived tram it, making it unlikely that they should dte
,
earl'ier than the, last quarter of the 7th ,c.
Perhaps the most authoritatiye ana1ysis so fr
ta ken of the evidence was that of Srown in a study not
only of the traditions but also of the coin series and the
spits (Brown: 1950, 177-204). This was do ne independently
.' ,
of results from the Ephesian Artemision and conclude'd that
coinage was invented in Asia Minor after the,middle of the
7th century a'nd that the Ai ginetan coins, the earliest coin-
age in'European Greee, date between c. 640-590, probably
in the last decade of the 7th century.
- ,
Iii
........ ..
,
1.
1
l,
f /
t
l
f
j
f
1
(
liii
This therefore would mean that Pheidon must have been
ruling or at least active towards the end of the century, a
which is incompatible with the other evidence of Phei-
don's date examined in the precedipg chapters. In fact the
only ancient author whom this date confirms i5 Herodotos
who places Pheidon c. 600 but this tradition has alrady
been rejected. Even_ if Pheidon were in at the end of
the 7th century it is unlikely that he controlled Aigina at
that lat date when Argos' fortunes 'were already declining.
There is no evidehce to sggest that Aigina under
control by this time and thus the linking' Pheidon
with this Island must be seriously questioned. 'Nothing in-
dicates that Argos had an empire at this date as she
had earlier': Argos was no longer a strong power. Under these
circumstances it is hardly conceivable that Pheidoncthe Ar-
give could have minted in Aigina. In fact Brown categQrical-
ly states that the c'lain that Pheidon invented coinag_e i q
(Brown: 1950, 190). This appears to be most sen-
sible conclusion.
In connection with this is the evidence of ,the spits
dedicated'at the Heraion. Spits have been found at various
sites, the Argive Herciion( the Heraian at Perakhora, Sparta,
Fortetsa in Krete, Dreros ,and Argos. these date later
than 750 B.C. except those from Fortetsa while the Argive
,
spits ta c. 730 B.e. Cpurbin feels that the Heraion
spits were indeed votives as they could have had no practi-'
cal use in sacrifices (Courbin: 1959, 223) but this use of
spits as offerings was quite common 'and may have/had
. .
nothing to do with.money. Ih view of the'fact that Pheidon
had nothing to do with the invention of coinage, the view
that he demonitized the spits formerly used as is
one which'cannot be held An interesting fact is that
aIl of these spits are approximately of the same length and
!
weight while those from the Argive tomb, which is dated a
#
1
1
liv
little later than the rest, are somewhat longer than the
\
others and ,therefo
1
e of a Hfferent weight. This points to
the possibility, ar Courbin suggests (Courbin: 1959, 227 f.)
Pheidon the spits at the Heraion he re-
:,)rmed the system of weigh ts and measures, in essence deval-
.... --
uyng the spits then in use as currency and making them aIl
uniforrn and length. This would explain why the
earlier' are of a di'fferent \veight and me;ns that Phei-
don was not responsible for inventing the system of weights
and measures but reforming one already in use. The fat that
the dedipation occurred after 730 B.e. is significant with
referenqe ta Pheidon's date; he must have ruling c. 730.
A date of the final thirty br 50 years of the 8th century
thus receives further support.
In conclusion, it is impossible to correlate the dedi-
cation of spits by Pheidon with the invention of coinage.
The deication may indicate that cinage was still unknown
and in any case, the date of this is totally lrre-
oncilable with that'of the invention of coinage. The most

that can he said is that Pheidon perhaps remodelled the sy-
stem of' spits then used as currency amd that spits continued
to be used in this way until the development of coinage. i t-
self at the end of the 7th century, and even much flater in
sorne other areas. It thus appears' that two different tradi-
tions have been 'conflated. One knew of Pheidon's reorgani-
zation of weiQhts and"measures including that of fhe "cur-
rency" spits; the other knew that Aigina was the ite of
' minting the earliest Greek ooi'ns. The link between the two
. traditions which may prornpted the confsion would be
that Aigina rnay have been under Argos' sway at the tirne of
Pheidon's activities.

1

'1
..
,
1
" .
i
1
1
1
1
!
1
.'
, '
l,'
D
,
l' j
!
l
BI BL'I OGRAPHY
' .
. ]
>
\
1
i'

" '
... '
r
c
ANCIENT AUTHORS

Aristotle, The Politics. Trans. by H. Rackham. Loeb
C1asslcal Library, London. 1932 .

Diodoros, Diodorus of Sicily. Trans. by C.H.O. Oldfather.
Loeb Classical Library, Vol. III, London. 1970.
t
Eusebios, Chronicorum.' Liber prior, by Alfred Schoene.
Berolirti. 1875.
Herodotos, Herodotus, 1. ',Trans. by A.D. Godley. Loeb Classical
Library, Lonqon. 1960.
Herodotos, Herodotus III. Trans. by A.D. Godley.
sical Library, London. 1957.
Loeb Clas-
Pausanias, Description of Greece II. Trans. by W.H.S. Jones.
Loeb Classical Library, Vol. l, London. 1918.
Pausanias, 'Description of Greece. Trans. by W.H.S.'Jones and
H.A. Ormerqd. Loeb ClasSICal Library, Vol. II, London.
1916.
Description of Greece. Trans. by W.H.S. Jones,
Loeb Classical tibrary, Vol. III, London. 1918.
Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio, Vol. l, Libri I-IV, ed. M.H.
1973.
P1utarch, Moralia. Trans. by H.N. Fowler. Loeb Classical
Library, Vol. X, London. 1936.
Strabo, The Geography of Strabo. Trans. by H.L. Jones. Loeb '.
Classical Library, Vol. IV, 1918.
Thukydides, Thucydides III. Trans. by C.P. Smith. Loeb
Classical Library, London. 1966.
lv
"

r
,
"

r
il
,
..
,

(
"
"
MODERN SOURCES
, ,
A1exallidri, O., 1960: "A' AProz'," ADelt xvi B Chron., 93.
A1i)1, !P., 1962: ' Ende der mykenischen Fundst.!ltten auf )
den Festland. Lund.
... i
1in, P., 1967: "Ear1y Mycenaean Pottery from Asine and its
Implications for Aegean Connection," AJA LXXI, 183.
A1in, P., 1968: "Unpub1ished Mycenaean sherds from Asine,"
OpAth'VII, 87-105.
Amandry, P., "Observations sur les monuments de l'
Hraion d'Argos," Hesperia XXI, 222-274.
,
Andr.ewes, A., 1949: "The Corinthian Actaeon and Pheidon of
Argos," CQ XLIII, 70-78.
Andrewes,.A., 1962: The Greek Tyrants. New York.

Angel, J.L., 1971: Lerna II. Princeton.
Arnold, I.R., 1937: "The Shie1d of Argos," AJA XLI, 436-440 .
Astr8m, P., 1960: "Pottery from Dendra Tombs 12 and 13,"
ADelt XVI B, Chron., 94.
Il
Astrom, P., 1964: "Excavations in the Citade1 of Hidea,"
ADelt XIX BI, Chron., 134.
If 1
Astrom, P., 1967: "Das Panzergrab von Dendra Bauweise und \
Keramik," AM LXXXII, 54-67. ,
Barker, E., 1958: The' Politics' of Aristotle. New York.
Bennett,' E.L., 1950:' "The Mycenae Tab1ets," Proc. Amer.
Philos. Soc. XCVII, 422-470.
Bennett, E.L. (ed.), 1958: "The Mycenae Tab1ets II,'' Trans-
actions,of the American Philosophical Society XLVIII
pt. 1, 1 f.
-'Bquignon, Y., -1930: "Chronique des fouilles et dcouvertes
archologiques," BCH LIV, 480.
Bquignon, Y., 1931: "Ghroniquet.. ds' fouilles et dcouvertes
archologiques, " BeH LV, 4'6. .
\
f
Ivi,
t
,
" 1vii
Bqu.ignon, Y., 1933: "Chronique des 'fouills et dcouvertes
archologiques," BCH LVII, 2'59 f.
B., 1967: The Archaic Temenos. Lund.
'.
Beyen, H.G. and W. Vo11graff, 1947: Argos et Sicyonne. The
Hague.
Blegen, C.W., 1925: "Excavations at Argive Heraeum 1925,"
AJA XXIX, 413-427.
Blegen, ,C:W., 1937: "Post-Mycenaean Deposits in Champer-
Tombs," AE LXXVI-l, 377-390.
Blegen, C.W., 1937: Prosymna. np
Blegen, C.W. and M. Lang, 1960:' "The Palace of Nestor Exca-
vatipns of 1959," AJA LXIV, 159 f .
. ------
Blegen, E.P., 1933: "News Letter from Athens," AJA XXXV:'
153.
Blinkenberg, Chr. 1926:
Copenhagen. ,
(
Fibules glecques et orientales.
Boardman, J., 1964: The Greeks Overseas. Eng.
Boethius, C.A., 1919-21: "Mycenaean Megara and Nordic Hbuses,"
BSA XXIV, 161-184. >
Boethius, C.A., 1921-23: "He11enistic Mycenae," BSA XXV, 408-
428.
Boethius, C.A., 1925: "Lerna," RE, 2085-2089.
BoIte, F., 1913: "Hermione," RE, 835-841.
, Il
Balte, F., ;1922: "Kenchreai,," RE, 165-167.
Bradeen, D. W.,. 1947: "The Lelantine War pnd Pheidon of Argos,"
TAPA LXXVIII, 223-241.
Brommelaer, J.Fr. et al., 1969-70: "Argus, APrm::
Archaeo1ogici XXIV/XXV, No. 3225.
"
Fasti
Brommelaer, J. Fr. et al., 1970: . "Rapports sur les travaux
de l'Ecole Franaise en ,1969. Argos," BCH XCIV, 765 f.
Brommelaer, J. Fr., et al., 1971: "Argos," ADel t XXVI BI,
Chron., 112-113.
l
1
lviii
Brornme1aer, J. Fr, 1971: "The He11enistic World and the
Eastern ProvincJs. Argus, APrOE "Fasti
XXII, No. 3682,/3683.
Brornme1aer, . J . -F., 1972: "Nouveaux documents de cramique
protoargienne, Il BCH XCVI, -22:9-251.
'Broneer, O., 1942: "Hero CuIts in the Corinthian Agora, Il
Hesperia XI, 128-161.
Bruneau, P., 1970: "Tombes d'Argos," BCH XCIV, 437 f. '
- '"
"The So-Cal1ed '':L'rade Leagues' in Erly Burn, A.R., 1929:
Greek History and the Lelantine War," JHS XLIX, 14 f.
-- "

Burn, A.R., 1935: "Dates in Ear1y Greek LV,
130-146.
.
Burn, A.R., 1949: "Ear1y Greek Chrono1ogy," JHS LXIX: 70-7J.
Burn, A.R., 1967: The Lyric Ag of London.
Burtford, A., 1969: The Greek Temple Bui1ders at
Liverpool.
Canby,' J.V., 1968: "Who made the Tiryns Bronze?" AJA LXXII,
162.
Caskey, J.L. and P. A"fuandry, 1952: "Investigations at the.
Heraion of Argos, 1949," Hesperia XXI, 173-207 .

Caskey, J .L. , 1954: "Excavations at Lerna, 1952-1953,
Il
Hesperia XXII, 3-30.
Caskey, J.L. , 1955: "Excavations at Lerpa, 1954,
" Heseeria
XXIV, 25-49.
Caskey, J.L., 1955: "The House of the Ti1es at Lerna: An
Early Bronze Age Archaeo1ogy VIII, 116-120.
Caskey, J.L., 1956: "Excavations at Lerna, 1955," Hesperia
XXV, 147 -1 7 3 .
.'
Caskey, J.L., 1957: "Excavations at Lerna, 1956," HeSeeria
XXVI, 142-162.
Caskey, J.L., 1958: at Lerna, 1957, Il Hesperia
XXVII, 125-144.
..
Caskey, J .L., 1959: "Excavation.s at Lerna, 1958-1959,"
Hesperia XXVIII, 202-207.
.,
1ix
Caskey, J.L., 1960: "Excavations(\at Lerna, 1959" Hesperia
XXVIX.
Caskey, J.L., 1960: "Royal Shaft G'raves at Lerna," Archaeo-
logy XIII, 130-133.
\"
Caskey, J.L., 1971: Greece, Cret
3
, and the Aegean Islands
in the Ear1y Bronze Age," CAH l pt. 2, 771- 807.
Caskey, M.E., 1971:
29-7 f.
"News Letter from,Greece," AJA LXXV,
Cat1ing, H. W. , 1971-72: "Archaeo10gy in Greece,
"
JHSArch,
9 f.
Catling, H. W. , 1972-73: in Greece,
"
JHSArch,
13-16.
Catling, H .\'J., 1973-74: "Archaeology in Greece,
"
JHS'Arch,
1.1-12.
Catling, B {<J. , 1974-75: "Ar<iPaeology in Greece,
"
JHSArch,
10-11.
Chadwick, a. (ed.), 1962: "The Mycenae Tablets III," Trans-
actions of the American Philosophical Society LII, pt.
VII, 1 f.
Chadwick, a., 1976: "Who were the Dorians?" La Parola deI
Passato Revista di Studi Antichi XXXI, lp3-117.
Charbonneaux, J., 1962: 'Greek Bronzes.trans. by K. wation.
New York.
,\
Charitonidis, S., 1954: "Recherches dans la quartler est d'
Argos," BCH LXXVIII, 410-426.
Charitonidis, S., 1966: "TIPYNE, NAYllAION, KAN6IA, IPIA,
XEAI, AlfOYPIO, ," ADelt xxr BI, Chron., 130 f. and
125.
"Chronique des fouilles et dcouvertes archologiques,
"
1920 :
BCH XLIV, 386 f.
"Chronique des fouilles," 1928: BCH LI!, 476 f.
"Chronique des fouilles en 1954,
"
1955: BCH LXXIX, 236 f.
"Chronique des fouilles en 1956,
"
1957: BCH LXXXI, 537 f.
Clemmensen, M. and R. Vallois, 1925: "Le temple de Zeus
Nme," BCH XLIX, 1-20.
.. _---....
lx
Coldstream, J.N.,-1968:
Review.
"La cramique gomtrique de l'
JHS 'LxxxviII, 235-237.
Coldstream, J.N., 1968: Greek Geometrie Pottery. New York.
t
Oldstream, J.N., 1976: ts in the Age of Homer,"
JHS XCVI, .8-17.
. ""
omstock, M. and C. Vermeule, 1971:
\ Roman Bronzes in the Museum of
Boston.
1
'G,reek, Etruscan and
Fine Arts, Boston.
J.M.,
\
"Protoattic Pottery," BSA XXXV, 165- 20 5.
Cpok, J.M., 1953:
\ 62-64.)
"The Agamemnoneion," BSA XLVIII, 34-50;
\
C90k, 1958: on the Origin of Coinage, 1f
\ Hlstorla VII, 257-262.
R.M., 1960: Greek rainted Pottery. London.
P., 1954: "Chronique des fouilles en 1953," BCH
\ LXXVIII, 113-119. .
\
Coufbin, P., 1955: "Un fragment de protoargien, "
\ BCH LXXIX, 1-32.
cour\in, P., 1956: rue d'Argos," BCH LXXX, 201-206.
Cour in, P., 1957: "Une tombe gomtrique d'Argos," BCH
LXXXI, 322- 386. .,... ,
P., 1959: "Dans la Grce archaique: . Valeur compare
fer et de l' lors de "l'introduction du
, XIV, 209-233.-
Courbill, P., 1966: La (cramique gomtrique de l'Argolide.
Pa\ris.
\
Courbin\ P., 1972: ,Tofbes gomtriques d'Argos I. Paris.
1
Croissant, F., 1972: "Rapports sur les travaux de l'cole
Franaise en 1971. Argos ," BCH XCVI, 883 f.
Croissant, F. and P. Aupert, 1973: l "Rapports sur les travaux
de fI-cole Franaise en 197,2, Argos," BCH XCVII, 475 f.
Daux, G., 1958:' "Chronique des fouillesen 1957," BCH LXXXII,
702-713.
(
.,'

.
f
,t
.'" ,W;
'
i

'.,

Jo'
J
1
,
.,
l
,i
r

o

" "
lxi
Daux, G., 19 59 :
617-61'8.
des en :f958," BCH LXXXIII,
i
Daux: G., 1961:
664-6Bo,.
Da ux , G., 1 9 6 3 :
736-759.
"Chr;onique des fouilles 1960," BCH LXXXV,
des fouilles 1962," BCH LXXXVII,
Daux, G., "Chronique des Jouilles en BCH LXXXVIII,
720-730.
Daux, G., 1965: "Chronique des fouilles 196'4," BCH LXXXIX,
, 707 f.
1
Daux, G., 1966: '''Chronique des BCI-! XC, 786-
791 and 775 f. '->
Daux, G., 1967: "Chronique des fouilles 1966," BCI-! X'CI, 648 f.
-<.'
Daux, G., 1968: "Chronique des fouilles 1967. Se:onde Pa,rtie.
Travaux de l'cole Franaise d'Athnes. Argos," B,CH XCII,
1003 f.
Davison, J.A., 1947: "The First Greek Trirem'es," CQ XLI, 18-
24,
\
Day, J., 1926: " Gem fr0r:' Tir:yns," AJA XXX, 442 f.
De Vries, K., 1,974: "A Grave wi th a Figured Fibu1a at L erna, "
Hesperia XLIII, 80-104.
Demangel, R., 1944-45: "La frise de socle du palais de
Tirynthe," BCll L)VIII-LXV,I,x, 404 f.
Boer, W" 1954: Laconian Studies. Amsterdam.
Deonna, W., 1931: Ddale ou la statue de' la Grce archaique.
II., Paris.
Deoima, W., 1959: "Haches, broches et chenets dans une tombe
gomtrique d'Argos," BeH LXXXIII,.'247-253.
Desborough, V:R. d l'A.,' 1952: Protogeometr ic Pottery. Oxford.
0
l'
'DesQorough, V.R. dIA. , 1964: The Last Mlcenaeans their
Suc.cessors. Oxford.

Desborough, V.R. dIA. , 1972: The Greek Dark Ages. London.
t>
Deshayes, J., 1953: "Les vases mycniens de la Deiras (Argos),"
!!9!. LXXVII, 59 f .
. ,
!. '
. ,
e
--
(
1xii
.,(')
Deshayes, J. and P. Courbjn, 1955: "Chronique des fouilles
en 1954. Seconde Partie. Travaux de l'cole Franaise."
BCH LXXIX
, .
Deshayes, J. and Courbin 1 1956: "Chronique des fouilles
en 1955. Seconde Partie. Travaux de l'cole Franaise,"'-
BCH LXXX, 361-391.
Deshayes, J., 1959: "Chronique d'es fouilles 1958. Seconde
Partie. Travaux de l'cole franaise, Argos," BCH LXXXI II,
754 f. . /'
. \
Deshayes, J., 1966: -Argos, les fouilles de la Deiras. ' Paris.
Deshayes, J., 1969: "Les vases Vollgr aff de 1-a Deiras," BCH
XCIII, 574 f.
Dickins, G., 1912:
1-42.
. .
"The Growth of Spartan Poliey,
Doerpfeld, W., 1891: "t1ykenai, Tiryns," AM- XVI, 254 f.
Doh1, H. et al., 1973: Tiryns VI. Mainz, Germany.
Dunbabin, T.J., 1936-37:
91.
" EXePH rIMA1H "BSA XXXVII, 83-
Dunbabin, T.J . ., 1944: "Arehaeology in Greeee, 1939-45," JHS
LXIV, 82.
Dtmbabin, T.j., 1948: Early History of Corinth," JHS
LXVIII, 59-69.
Dunbabin, 1948: The Western Greeks. Oxford.
Dunbabin, T.J., 1962:
by T.J. Dunbabin.
"Miniature Perachora II, 'sd.,
Oxford, 290-313.
l '
Dunbabin, T.J., 1962: "Monochrome'Vases and Coarse Pottery,"
Perachora II, ed. by T.J .. Oxford, 314-333.
,
Ervin, M. , 1967': "News Letter'from Greece,
"
AJA .L?CXt, 29.9.
Ervin, M. , 1968: "News Letter frbm Gree'ce,
"
AJA LXXIIi 271.
--
Ervin, M. , 1969 : "News Letter from Greeee, " AJA LXXIII, 3'46
-f.
.,.

Ervin, M. , 1970 : "News Letter from Greeee, " AJA LXXIV, 265 f.
Evans, A. , 1929: Shaft Graves and Bee-Hive Tombs -of Mycenae.
np.
.....
'.
'"

.,
....
\


1
"
. ,
?
'i'

t+.
"
, .
,
1".:.-
<,
"
1

itf...

q


lxiii.
.
.
Farak1as, EPidau;ia:- Anciemt Grek eities.
Athens.
.
XII.
Faraklas, N., 1972: Ancient Greek
eiSis., XII. 'Athens.
, ;
"
Faraklas, N., 1973: Hermionis-Ha1ieis. Ancient Greek,Cities.
XIX.
Farnell; L.R., 1896: The CuIts of Greek 1. Ox-
ford.
Fimmen, D., 1924: Die kretisch-mykenische Kultur
2
. np.
----------------
Forrest, W.G., 1966:
York..
The Emergence of Greek- Uemocracy.
i
Forrest, W.C., 1968:
{"
1r
3
A History of Spart,:}"/950-192 B.e., New
York.
Fossey, J.M. and A. Schachter (ed.), 1971:
71.1.6," l, pt. l, 10.
-"Work' in progress
.
Frantz, M:A. and e. Roebuck, 1941: "Notes ,on the
Hesperia X, 109-112.
Fraser, P.M. , 1968-69-: "Archaeo1ogy in Greece,
Il
J'HSArch, , 13 f.
Fraser, P .M., 1969-70: "Archaeo1ogy 'in Greece,
Il
JHSArch, Il f.
Fraser, P.M. , 1970-71: "Archaeo1ogy in Greece
"
JHSArch. ,
10 f.
FraS'e'l: , P .M. , 1973'+74: "Archaeo1ogy in Greece,
"
JHSArch. , 9-10.
- Fraser, P .M. , 1974""75: "Archaeo1ogy in Greece, " JHSArch. , 9-10.
Fra,zer, J.G., 1898: Pausanias's Description of Greece. 1 and
III. London.
French, E.-(, 1951: "Ch.ronique des fouilles en 1950,'; BCH LXXV,
113.
French, E., 1966': ... tA Group of Late He11adic III BI Pott,ery
from Mycenae," BSA LXI, 216-238.
-- ,
1 French, E., 1967: "Po.ttery from Late, Helladic III BI ,Des-
struction Contexts at Mycenae," BSA LXII, 149 f.
French, E., 1969: "Late Helladic III B2 Pottery from Myce-
nae, Il BSA LXIV, 71-93.
1
l'
lxiv
Frickenhaus, A. and W.I M1ler, 1911: "Aus der Argo1is," AM
XXXVI, 21-38.
Frickenhaus, A., W. MUller and G. Rodenwa1dt,193
ill. Mainz.

Tiryns,I-
Frodin, O. and A.W. Persson, 1938:
Swedisn 1922-1930.
Results of the
Stockholm,.
A(,. 1883:" AM VIII, 195-199.
Furtwang1er, A., 1906: Aegina.

Furumark, A., 1941: The Chr,onology of Mycnaean pott,::ry.
Stockholm.
, ----,
Furumark, A., 1941: The Mycenaean Pottery Ana1ysis and Clas-
sification. Stockholm.
'Gardner, E.A., 1889:' "Archaeo1ogy in Greece, 1888-89," Jl:IS
X, 273.
Gejvall, N.G., 1969: Lerna l. Princeton.
\
GeFeke, P. et al., 1971: Tiryns V. Mainz.
G1nouvs, R. et al., 195'4: "Chronique des 'fouilles en 1953.
Seconde Pa!,tie. Travaux de l'cole FraI)aise," \
LXXVIII, 158-183.
-
Grandjean, Y" and J. Fr. Bromme1aer, 1972: dans
le quartier sud d'Argos," BCH XCVI, 155 f.
Grossman, P., 1967: "Zur 'unte!burgmauer von Tiryns," AA
LXXXVII, 92 f.
Hagg, Io' and J.M. 'Fossey, 1978: "Asine" Argolis (1976-197'7; ,','
Classical News and Views XXIL,lpO. 1-2.
I. and J.M. Fossey, forthcoming. Excavations in the
Barbouna Area at Asine, Fascicle 5, Field Work on the
Slppes'1973-7, Boreas, 4:5.
,
Hagg, I. and J.M. Fossey, forthcoming: Excavations in the
Barbouna-Area at Asine, Fascicle 6: Excavations in
the Geqnetr5 .. c Nekropolis 1971-7, Boreas _4:6.
Hagg, I. & R., Excavations in the Barbouna -Area at Asine
Fascicle l (Boreas 4:1). Uppsala.
Hagg, R., 1962: "Research at De,ndra 1961," OpAth. IV; 79 f.

;i
r
i

"

r.
:
(
- 1 "
1xv
Hagg, R., 1965:
117-138.
"Geometrische Grabr von Asine," OpAth. VI,
o J
Hagg, R., 1971: l'Protogeometrische und Keramik
in Nauplion," OpKth. x; 41-52.
H;gg, R., Die Gr&ber der Argolis.
sala.
(Boreas 7:1), ppp-
Hammond, N.G.L., 1954: "The Heraeum at Perachora and Corin-'
thian Encroachment," BSA XLIX, 93-102. "
Harland, J.P., 1925:
. 160-171.
o
"The Ca1aurian Amphictiony," AJA XXIX,
Hasebroek, 'J. 1933: Trade and Politics in Ancient Greece.
London. (trans. by L.M. Fraser and D.C. Macgregor).
Heath, M.C., 1958: "Early Helladic Clay from thi
, House of the Tiles at Lerna," Hesperia XXVII,'80-121.
Hereward, D., 1963: "Archaeological News
Supply, " .Archaeology XVI, 129 f.
Tiryns' Water
Higgins, R.A., 1954: Catalogue of the Terrqcottas in the De-
partrnent of Greek and Roman Antiquities British
Vol. ; l . London.
Higgins, R.A., 1967: Greek Terracottas. London.
Hill, D.K., 1943: "Ancient Metal Reliefa;" Hesperia XII, 97-
114.
Hirschfeld, G., 1896: "Argos," RE 787-789.
Homolle, T., 1893: "N'ouvelles et Correspondance -
BCH XVII, 199.
Homol1e, Th. , 1900: "Monuments figurs de Delphes, " BCH
XXIV, 445-462.

-
Hood, M.q.F., 1955: i'A in Greece', " JHSArch. , 9-14.
Hood, M.S.F .. , 1956:. "Archaeology in Greece,
"
JHSArch. , 9-13.
,
Hood, M.S.F.,

1958 : "Archaeology in Greece,
"
, 5-6.
Hood, M.S.F., 1959: . "Archaeology in Greece,
"
JHSArch. , 7.
J
Hood, M.S.Fhl "Archaeology in Greece," JHSArch.,
10 f. '
"
i
u
..
r

(
, (
lxvi
,
Hood, M.S.F., 1961-62i in Greece," JHSArch.,
Hope-Simpson, R., 1965: A Gazeteer and Atlas of Mycenaean
Sites. London.
How, W.W. and i. Wells, 19-12: A Cornmentary on Herodotos.
Vol. II.' Oxford.
,
Hull, 1926: "CoinJge its Origin to the Persian
" '
Wars," CAH IV, 124-136. "
Huxley, G., 1958: "Argos et les de;nier BCH
LXXXII, 588-601.
,Huxley, G., 1970: Early Sparta. New York.
Imhoof-Blumer, F. and P. Gardner, 1885: "Numismatic Commen-
tary on Pausanias-Hermione," JHS VI, 99 f.
Jacobsen., T.\.v., "Iialieis..-Franchthi Cava," ADelt XXIII,
BI, 144-148. '
Jacobsen, T. W., 1970: "Excavations in. the Franchthi ave,"
ADe1t }XV BI, Chron,
Jacobsen, T.W., 1972: "Excavations in the FranKthi Cave,"
ADelt XXVJI Bi, Chron., 236-241.
Jacobstpa1, P., 1956: Greek Pins.
,
Oxf d.
M.H., 1963: "Excavations a pbrto;Che1i," ADe1t
XVIII, BI (1963'), 7'3-74.
'Jameson, M.H. and C.H. "Ha1ieis," ADelt
XXI, 148 f.
M.H., 1969: "Eicavations
ity," Hesperia XXXVIII, 311-342.
CheU and Vicin-
Jameson, M.H., 1971: "Excavations at Porto-Cheli," ADelt
XXVI, BI, 114-19.
Jameson, M.H., 1972: "Excavations at Porto Cheli. Excava-
tions at Halleis 1 Final Report," ADel t XXVII BI, Chron.
233 f.
Jantzen, U. et al., 1968: "Tiryns-Synoro-Iria, 1965-1968," -
. AA LXXXIII, 369- 374.
Jan'tzen, U. (ed.), nd: Fhrer durch Tiryns, np.
lxvii
Jeffrey, L. H., 1955: "Further Cornments on rchaic Greek
Inscrj.ptions, Il BSA L, 69.
/'
,
Jenktns; G.K. and R.A.G. Casson, 1953-54: and Roman
Numismatics 1940-1950;" Historia II, 214-234.,
Jenkins, J . H., 1931-32: "Archaic Argive Terracotta Fig-
urines to 525 B.C.," BSA XXXII, 23-40. C,
Johansen, K.F., 1966:. Les vases sicyoniens., Rome.
Johnston, J., 1934: ' "5010n's Reform "of Weights and Measures,"
JHS LIV, 180-184:
Kagan, D., '1960: "Pheidon 's Aeginetan Coinag," TAPA. XCI,
121-136.
Kara, G., 1930: "Archao1ogische Funde-Pelopannes," AA XLV,
112 f.
Kara, G. 1 1930: "Schatz von Tiryns," AM LV, 119 f.
,Karo, G., 1930-33: Die SChachtgdibr Mycenae. np.
Karo, G., 1931: "Archaologische Funde-Griechenland," AA
XLVI, 261-262.
Karo, G., 1934: ,"Die perseia von Mykenai," AJA XXXVIII, 123 f.
Karo, G., "Mykenishe Ku1tur," Suppl. VI', 606.
Karo, G., 1937: "Tiryns," RE, 1453-67.
Karten, S., 1884: Mycenae. np.
Kavvadias, P., 1883: EK TON EN EIlIllAYPIA
ANAEKAII>ON," E XXII, 148-158.
Kavvadias, P_, 1891: Fouilles d'Epidaure. Athens.
,,'
T., 1966: "The Calaurian Amphictiony," AJA LXX, 113-
121.
Kelly, T., 1967: , "The Argive -bestruction of Asine," Historia
XVI" 422-431.
Kelly, T., 1976: A' History of Argos ta 500 B.C.M'inneapolis ..
Kirsten, E. and W. Kraiker, 1967:
, 5
Griechenlandkunde.
Heidelberg.
i
i,
l
. .t
,
1 -
"
-'"
;



'j
d
,
c
::;-

,1-
lxviii
Koumanoudes, S.A., 1884: ,"EYMMIKTA-XA1\KAI
TAINIAI," XXIlI, 83 f.'
Krit:.zas, K.B., 1972: "APrOI:," ADe1t XXVII BI, Chron., 192 .... 212 ..
,. Lamb, W., 1925-26: "Arcadian Bronze Statuettes," XXVII,
133-147.
Lamb, W. 1969: Ancient Greek and Roman Bronzes.
2
Chicago.
Lane, E.A., 1933-34: vaSlfpainting," BSA XXXIV,
99-189.
}
Lehman, H., 1938: Tiryns IV.
Lehmann, G.A., 1968: "Bernerkungen zur Thernistok1es-Inschr ift'
von Troizen," Historia XVII, 276 f.
Littman, R.J., 1974: The Greek Experment. London.
"-
Lol1ing, Ii. G., 1880: "Ausgrabungen am Pa1arnidi, /1 AM V, 143-
. 163.
Lord, L.E., 1938: "The 'PyrarQids' of Argolis," HesperiaVI:l;"
481-527.
Lor'd, L.E., 1939: "Watchtowers and Fortresses in Argol'is,"
AJA XLIII, 78-84. - "
Lord, L.E-., 1941:
93-109.
"Blockhou;;;es in tha Argolid," Hesperia X,
Lorimer, H.L., 1947:
138.
"The Hoplite BSA XLII, 76":'-
,
Mackepranf, M.B., 1938: "Late Mycenaean Vases," AJA XLII,
545 f.
Martha, J., 1879: "Inscriptions du P1oponhse, ,1 BCH III',
193.
'\ ,
MGre'gor, M.F., 1941:' "C1eisthenes of Sicyon and t'he Pan-
he11enic Games," TA:pA LXXII, 266-287.
Megaw, A.H.S., 19.63-64': "Archaeology
' .
" 1.n Greece, JHSArch. ,
8 f..

.
Megaw, A.H.S. , 1964-65: in Greece,
"
JHSArch. ,
,
9 f.
Megaw, A. H. S. , 1965-66: "Archaeo1ogy in Greece,
"
JHSArch. ,
8-9.
"
,
1
1
;i
,

t

:!l,
,.,
t
~
"
c
C
i,
1
l'
0;
"
lxix
II:
Megaw, A.H.S., 19&6 ... 67: "Archaeo1ogy in
(j
Greece,
"
JHSArch. ,
8 f.
Ivlegaw, A. H.S. , '1967-68 :' "Archaeo 10gy in Greece, " JHSArfh. , 9
')
1
Megaw, A. H'.S., 1968-69: i'Archaeo1<,?gy in Greece,
"
JHSArGh. ,
11 f.
a
Me1as, E. , (edi tor) , 1973 : TemEles and Sanctuaries of Ancient
Greece. London.
Meyer, E., 1927: "Lykone," RE, 2309.
Meyr, E., 1939: "Troifen," RE, 618-654.
Michaucl, J.-P., 1970: "Chronique des fouilles en 1968 et 1969,"
BCU XCIV, 961-969.
Michaud, J;-P. , 1972: "Chronique des fouille,s en 1971,
"
BCH
XCVI, 646 f.
Michaud, J.-P., 1973 : "Chronique des fouilles en 1 9 7 2 , ' ~ BCH
XCVII, 293-305.
Michaud, J .-P. , 1974: "Chronique des fquil1es en 1973,
"
BCH
XCV!'II, 604-612.
Michell, H., 1940: The Ecbnomics of Ancient Greece. Cambridge.
Miller, M., 1970: The Sicilian Co1ony Dates. Albany.
Milne, J.G., 1945: "The Economie Po1icy of Solon," Hesperia
XIV, 230-245.
Mit5'os, M.T., 1946: "Inscription from Mycenae," Hesperia XV,
115 f. ...
.
Mo11ard-Besques, 8:,1963: Les Terres-cites grecques. Parios.
MUller, K., 1975: Tiryns VIII. Mainz.
Murray, G., 1925: Five sdges of Greek Religion. Oxford ~
. .}
My1onas, G. 1957: Ancifnb Mycenae, the Capi ta1 City of
Agamemnon. princeto?".
My1onas , G. , 1958 : " H AKPOnOAII.: TON MYKHNClN " AE XCVII,
153 f.
My1onas, G. , 19q2: "01 ITEPIBOAOI
..
THE AKPonOAEOE TON
MYKHNON
, " ~ CI,/
167-185.
,
4t"
1xx
Mylonas, G. , 196'2 : from Myce'nae,
"
AJA LXVI, ,
303 f.
Mylnas, G ., 1963 :
"
, 84-86.
Mylona9' G., 1964: "
Chron., 131-133.
MYKHNQN
" ADelt XVIII BI
MYKBNQN
,
" ADelt XIX BI,
Mylonas, _G., 1965:
. 160-163.
"
.MYKHNON
"ADelt XX BI, Chron.,
1
j
Mylonas, G., 1966: " MYKHNON ," Prak,t, 103 f.
Mylonas, G.
r
1966: "The East Wing of the Palace of Mycenae,."
Hesperia XXXV, 419 f.
Mylonas, G., 1966: Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. PrinGeton.
Nilsson, M.P., 1927: The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its
Survival in Greek Religion. Lund.
,
J ,
Nilsson, M.P., 1936: The Age of the Early Greek Tyrants
Belfast.
Nilsson, 1951: CuIts, Myths, Oiac1es, and
in Ancient Greece. Lund.
Oberhummer, E., 1898: "Asine," RE, 1581-2.
Orlandos, A.K., 1961: "
MYKHNAI. AKPOITOAIE
, Ergon, 14 8 f.
-Orlandos, A.K., 1972: "MYKHNAI ,n E:tgon, 59 f.
Orlandos, A.K., 1974: "EnIllAYPOE. IEPON AITOMQNOE MA1ATOY,"
Ergon, 57-62."
Papadimitriou, J., 1949: "Le sanctuaire d'Apollon Me1atas
.Epldaure," BCH LXXIII, 361-383.
Papadimitr idu, J., 1957:
105 f.
" ANAI:KAc%lAI EN MYKHNAI:E,"

Prakt;
Papakhnstodoulos, L, 1968: APrOn: Il ADe1t, .
XXIII BI, 127-131.
Parke,' H.W., and D.E'.W. WorIJle11 , 1956: The Delphic Oracle.
Vol. I. Oxford.
Payne, H.G.G., 1934: "A Bronze Herak1es in the Benaki Museum
at Athens," JHS LIV, 163-174.
\
,
"
<'(;
t
't

,:1
1
'l'
tr
..
,
'r

"
, '
lxxi
Payne, H., 1971: Necrocorinthia. College Park, Maryland.
Persson, A.W., 1920/21: "Asin. Recherches
en vue de sudoises," BLund, 17-_29.
,
Persoon, A.W., 1922/23: piovisoire des rsultats
obtenus au cours des fouilles d' Asin faites en 1922, Il
BLund, 25-42.
Persson, A,W" 1923/24: "Quelques sceaux et empreintes de
sceaux d'Asin," BLund, 162-172.
PerSson, A.W. O. Frodin, 1924/25. "Aperu provisoire des
rsltats obtenus au cours des fouilles d'Asin en 1922
et BLund, 23-93.
Pers son, A. W., 1931: The Roya,l Tombs at Dendra Near Midea.
Lund.
Persoon, A.W., 1945: New Tombs at Uendra Near Midea. Lund.
o'
Philade Ipheus, A., 1919: "ANOPYEII: 8MAMOEIM'lN EN
'MYKHNAIE ," ADel t V, Par art . 34 f.
Plommer, H. and F. Salviat, 1966: "The Al tar of Hera Akraia
at PerachQra, " BSA LXI, 207 f.
"prehistoric and Classical Greece,P 1969/70: Fasti Archaeo-
logici XXIV/XXV, No. 3374,2368, 3675, 2369, 3394.
l
Protonotar,iou-Deilaki, E., 1953/54: "XAAKOYN fEOMETPIKON
Elt.OAION EH AEINHE ," AE III, 318-320.

Protonotariou, E., 1955: "MIKPA EKMH EWMYAOIE1\preAI60E,"
AE XCIV, Parart., 1 f. ,
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E., 1963: EI
HAIAN A6PIANOY " ADelt XVII, Chron.,
6,5 f. .
protonotariou-Deilaki, A., 1964: "ANAEKAclJH En: NOEOKOMEION
APrOYE ," ADelt XIX BI, Chron., 122-127.
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. , 1965 : ''nEPI THE IIYAHE TJ1N
MYKHNQN ," AE CIV, 7-25.
ProtQnotariou-Deilaki, E. , 1970 : "APr01: "
. , ADel t, XXV
Chron. , 154 f.
Protonotariou-Dei1aki, E., 1970: "6YO MYKHNA]KOI TAroI
EIE MPIEAN APrOYE ," MA III, 301-303.

L,..; 1
\...
BI,
\,
; ,
c
lxxii
Protonotariou-Deilaki, E., 197t:
11
NAynAIAE
MA IV, 10-1l.
protonotarious-Deilaki, E., 1971: "APro!: "ADelt XXVI BI,
Chron., 74-82.
Protonotariou-Deilaki, 1971: IInMAIA
Il ADe1t XXVI Bl, Chron., 84.
,
Rachet, G., 1969: Archologie de 'la Grce prhistorique,
, Troie, Mycnes, Cnossos. CLXXXV. np.
"
Re"naudin, L., 1923: "La ncropole 'Mycnienne' de Schinorh-
kori-Lyrkeia (?),II BCH XLVII, 190-240.
Robert, F., 1933: "L'dificeE'Epidaure et la topographie
du hiron <:l'Asclpios, Il BeH LVII, 380-393.
Robinson, E.S.G., 1951: "Coins from the Ephesian Artemision
Reconsidered,'" JHS LXXI, 156-167: Il
Rodenwaldt, G., 1911: "Fragmente Mykenischer wandgema1de,"
AM XXXVI, 221 f .
Rodenwaldt , G., 1912: "Votivp.inax aus Mykenai, ". AM XXXVII,
129 f.
Rodenwaldt,G. and D. Fries, 1921: Mycenae. np.
Roes, A., 1953: ",Fragments, de poterie gomtrique trouv's
sur les citadelles d'Argos, Il BCH 77, 90-104.
Roes, A., 1969: "Les souris d'Argos aux yeux bands," BCH
XCIII, 333-336.
. ,
RQssiter, S. (ed.), '1973: Blue Guide. London.
Roux, G. and P. Courbin, 1953: "Chronique des fouilles en
]952. Seconde Partie. Travaux de l'cole Franaise,"
BCH LXXVII, 258-263.
Roux, G., 1958: Pausanias en Corinthie. Paris.
Roux, G., 1961: L'Architecture de l'Argolide aux IVe et lIre
avant J.C. Paris.
Saflund,- G., 1965: Excavations at Berbati. no
Salmon, J., 1972: "The Heraeum at perachora and the Ear1y
of Corinth and Megara,{, BSA LXVII, 159:204.
"'"
r
(
f
..
..
lxxiii
Sarian, H., 1969: "Terres cuites gomtriques d'Argos," &H
XC III, 651- 673 .
Schliemann, H., 1878: Mycenaej a narrative of researches
j.nd discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns. New York.
-
Schliemann, H., 1885: Tiryns; prehistoric Palace of the"Kings
of Tiryns. New York.
Schmidt l' J., 1881: "Mi lungen aus Griechen1and
AM VI, 357.
Argos, "

Scoufopoulos, N.e., 1971: Mycenaean Citade1s .. Lund.
Scranton, ILL., 1938: "The Pottery from the Pyramids," Hes-
per ia VII, 528-538.
Se1tman, Ch. 1955: Greek Coins. London.,
Seymour, P .A., 1922: "The Servile Interregnum at Argos, fi
JHS XLII, 24-30.'
Shefton, B:B., 1962: "Otner Non-Corinthian Vases, Il Perachora
II, ed. by T.J. Dunbabin-, Oxford, 368-388.
Slenczka, E., 1974: Tiryns VII. Mainz.
c
Snodgrass, A.M., 1964: Ear1y Greek Armour and Weapons. Edin-
burgh.
Snodgrass, A.M., 1965: "The Hoplite Reform and His'tory,"
JHS LXXW, 110-122.
Snodgrass, A.M.; 1971: The Dark Age of cGreece. Edinburgh .
.
Stais, B., 1895: "ITPOUTOPIKOl EN ATTIKH KAI
AlrINH," AE XXXIV, 261.
Stubbings, J.M., 1962: "Ivories/," Perachora II.ed. by T.J .
Dunbabin. Oxford, 403-451.
Styreni us, C;-G., 1967: Submycenaean Studies. Lund.
Styrenius, C.-G., 1971: nAsine," ADe1t XXVI BI, 113-14.
Styrenius, 'Co and A. Vidp.n, 1971': "New Excavations at Asine,"
MA IV, 147-148.
-'
Styrenius, c.-G. et al., 1972: Barbouna Area,"
ADe1 t -XXVII, 231 f.
/
j,
"1
!
1
r
l
,
" 0
, ,
'.-
1xxiv
Tay1our, , W. and Papadimi triou, 1960. "l\1ycenae Excavations,
1959," and "Mycenae' 1960," ADe1t XVI BI, Chron.} 189 fi.
Tay"lour-, W., 1960: "New Linear B Tablets from Mycenae, "
ADe1 t XVI B Chron., 92-93.
Tay1our, W. and J. Papadimitriou, 1963: "Mycenae, citade1
House,." ADe1t XVIn B!, Chrori'., 82 f.'
,
Tay1our, W.D., 1969:
97. /'
"Mycnae.,
1968," Antiquity XLIII
Theokharis, D.P:, 1971:
. BI, Chron., 84 f.
" ArIA MAPINA I:IIETEQN , ': ADe1 t XXVI,'
Tom.linson, R.A., 1972: d the Ar o1id. London.
Tr'itsch, F.J., 1968: 'a Semata," Kadmos VII, 124-137.
Tsountas, C.,
155 f.
"

,
PXAIOTHTEI: EK MYKHNCN " AE- XXVI,
ure, P.N., 1906: "The Origin of the Tyranni-s," JHS XXVI, 131-
142.
vre, P.N., 1922: The Origin of Tyranny. Cambridge.
VanderpooJ , E., 1963: "News Letter from Greece - Dendra:
r1ycenaean Armour," AJA LXVII, 280 f.
Verde1is, N.M., 1956: IIAPA TO XQPION rMATAKI, Il
AE XCV, -Parart., 8-13.
- L
Verdelis, N., 1957: "XAAKOYI: SOPAS EK
lIENfiPON ," AE XCVI, Chron., 15 f.
Verdelis, N., 1960: " BI MIlIEJ\{l1ENl1PA) " ADe1 t XVI B,
Chron., 93-94.
verdelis, N., 196:3: '1'IPYN90E AIIKMY'PIE tlYO
NEQ}J EYPIfrCN ," ADe1 t XVIII BI, Chron., 66 f.
Verde1is, N., 1963: "APfI: ,\" ADeit XVIII BI, Chr7"
Verdelis" N., 1964: "TSXAIA EYPHMATA-KATATEeENTA El
TO MOYEEION NAYIIAIOY ," ADe1t XIX BI, Chrono., 12 f.
57 f.
Verdelis, N., 1967: "Neue Funde von Dendra," AM LXXXII, 1-53.
Vermeu1e, E., 1960: "The Fall of the Mycenaean Empire,"
Archaeo1ogy XIII, 66-15.
\01'
1)
1
/
./
..
1
J
T
1
1
j
,
"-
r:'

,
" .
/
,e
"
1xxv
Vermeu1e, E. l' 1964 : Greece in the Bronze Ag:e. Chicqgo.
Vermeule, E. , 1970: ,IIReviews: N .-G: Gejva11, Lerna Il.
n
...-"
CW LXIII, 304.
.j.
Vo1lgraf'f /1, W. , 1904 : "Fouilles d'Argos, " BCH XXVIII, 364-399.
<Vdllgriiff , W'. , 1906: "Foul1es d'Argos, lf BCH XXX, 5-45.
-,.-
Vollgraff, W., 1907: "Fouilles d'Argos - La topographie de
la ville hellnique," XXXI, 144-184.
'Vo11graf.f, W., 1909:
171-200.
"Inscriptions d'Argos," BCR XXXIII,
,
Voil4:jraff, W" 1910: "Inscriptions d'Argos,1I BCR XXXIV,
.'331-354.
Vollgraff, W., 1913: "Inscription d'Argos," BCH XXXVII, 279-
309.
L
Vo1lgraff, W., '1920: "Fouilles d'Argos 1912 1" BeR XLIV 1
219,-;,226. '
Vollgraff, W. 1 1928: Medee1ingE'n der K. Akad. Van Wetenscha
>pen: Letterkunde. LXVI, Ser es B, No. 4.
W., 195,9: "Observati ns' sur les norrs de trois
phratries argennes," BCH LXXIII, 254-257.
Wace, A,.J .B. 'and W. Lamb, 1919-21:
BSA XXIV, 185-209:
"Excavations at Mycenae,"
\
Wace, A.J.B. et aL, 1921-23: "Excavations at BSA ____ .
XXV, 1-407'.
Wace, A.J .B., 1921- 23: "Mycenae. The Tomb' at the. Argiye
Heraion," BSA XXV, 330 f.
Wace, A.J_wB., 1932: Chamber Tombs at.Mycenae. Oxford.
wae, A.J.B., 1939: "Mycenae, 1939," JHS LIX, 210 f.
Wace, A.J.\B., 1949: Mycenae. An Archaeologica1 Ristory and
Guide. Princeton ..'
Wace, A.J.B.;'" 1950:
20'3-228.
"Excavations at Mycenae, "1939," BSA XLV,,'
.--
Wace, A.J.B., 1951: "Mycenae, 1950," JHS LXXI, 254 f.
:
j
1
1
;
f
l
" , ,
1
k
\
t

, ,


t
c
..
"
Wce, A. J . B et al"" 1953:
3-93.
(
-
i
yxxvi .
1939-1952," BSA XLVIII,-
4 Wace, A.- J . B., 195 3 : 1952'," JHS LXXIII, 131 f.
lIN "'-,
. ,","Wace, A.J.B. et ai.! 1954:
,:-; 231-298.
. . .
"Mycena 1939-195'3(" BSA XLIX,
J . ,-
Wace, A.J.B., 1954: 1953," JHS LIV, 170 i.
/',
/' /-./' -
et l--;, 1955:
"Mycenae BSA L, ;r. 75-
wa:e, A. .B. et al. l '1957: 1939-1956, 1957," BSA
LII, 193-223.

, 0
Wade-Gery, H t., 1925: "The Growth of the Dorian States,"
CAH III, \527- 570.
Wa1berg, G., 1967: "Finds from Excavations the acropo1is
of Midea 1939 Il OpAth VII, 161 f.
'Waldstein, C., 1902: The' Argive Heraeum. Vol. 1-11'. Boston.
Wal ter, O. 1 1940: "Archa-o1ogische Funde," AA LV, 220.
, .
Wardle', K:A., 1969: "A ,Group of Late He11add.c III BI pottery'"
'from the Citadel at Myaena,el," BSA LXIV, 261 f.
weinberg, S., 1970: "The Stone Age in the }\elJean," CAB
3
l
pt. l, 557-618.
Welter, G.; 1941: Troizen und Kalaureia. ,Berlin.
wernicke, K., 1896: "Apollo Maleatas," RE, 60.
. ,;.-
"
M., 1955: "Greek Tyranny, " Phoenix IX, 1-18.
Whi ttlesey, J., 1968: "Balloon over Halieis," Archaeology-
XXI, 66-67,'
Q tJ
Wiencke,' M.H., 1970<: '''Banded Pithoi of Lerna III,"
. 1 XXXIX, ., 0<> ,. ..
1). ( o \
,Will., E.,' '1'955: . Koripthiaka, Paris.
--- . t Cl 0 <
Will, E., 1956: ""'Les dans la Grj&e antique,"
REG LXIX, 439-444.
Willrding, Tiryns VI, Mainz, 2?1-240. '
{'
,
'"
..
;i
,
J
. .
JJ
\.
/
. \
y
0,
'\
l
l
1
JII
o
1xxvii
l'
1
.1
F.E., 1971: Greek Fortifications.
Toronto.
Woltrs,. P., 1891:
"Funde," AM 252 f.
Woodard, W .. S., 1968: "The 'Later History of Grave Circ le A .
at M.ycenae," AJA LXXII, 174-175.
i
Woodward, A.M., 1927:
JHS 237.
, '
,
J
r
"Archeology ivreece, :t9 , "
.'
, 1
{li
\
"
'"

, .
()
.
.

,'/
)
'\
.r
"'\
'. L----liIlI .... I!I!!.III.i I_-................ , _____ .......--...._1 ____ -_ ..... -. _____ &._ ......_
.lcil,[ -'. -
1,)