Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:39:15.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hesiod's ‘Shield of Herakles’: its Structure and Workmanship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

J. L. Myres
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What follows is an attempt to interpret the Hesiodic Shield of Herakles by the same method as I have used elsewhere for the ‘Shield of Achilles.’ Long ago Brunn attributed obscurities to interpolation, mixed the zones, and allegorized; but nevertheless perceived that a real composition was in the poet's mind. Studniczka endeavoured to prove that the shield which Hesiod described was a real shield. But to support his theory he had to manipulate the text; his positive evidence was weak; it was, indeed, too soon for such an enterprise, and perhaps it is too soon still; and what was known then about archaic Greek art led in another direction. Recently, Mr. R. M. Cook has argued that while parts of the description of Herakles' shield were based, in subject and in phrasing, on the Homeric ‘Shield of Achilles,’ most of the other parts had parallels, sometimes very close, in archaic Greek art; and at a meeting of the Hellenic Society on 3rd May, 1938, he supplemented this argument with illustrations. Assuming, not unreasonably, that the vase-paintings are fairly representative, he showed that all the required models are to be found within the decade 580–570 B.C., and within the Attic and Corinthian schools. He found no evidence of the influence of Ionia, nor of Chalcis. He noted that these results agree with the view, based on historical and literary arguments ‘perhaps inadequate’ (I follow the summary circulated at the meeting of 3rd May, 1938) that the poem was written about 575 B.C. by a Boeotian or a Thessalian.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 61 , November 1941 , pp. 17 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Who were the Greeks? (Berkeley, 1930, pp. 517–523)Google Scholar.

2 Iliad XVIII, 430–606Google Scholar.

3 Brunn, , Griechische Kunstgeschichte, I, 1893, p. 85Google Scholar.

4 Serta Harteliana, 1896.

5 Classical Quarterly, XXXI (1917), 204–14Google Scholar.

6 Reported briefly in the Society's Annual Report.

7 JHS XIV (1895), pp. 30–80Google Scholar, pl. i. Payne, , Necrocorinthia 1931Google Scholar, assigns it to the first (p. 351) or the second quarter (p. 125) of the sixth century.

8 Examples:—statical (frieze 2 from top), monster (to left), Apollo and Artemis, winged goddess with lions: kinetic, (top frieze) Centaurs, chariots; (bottom) Perseus and Gorgons.

9 For the origin and history of one of these monsters, see Frankfort, , ‘Notes on the Cretan Griffin.’ BSA xxxvii, 106–122Google Scholar.

10 The François Vase' at Florence has ten scenes and over 200 figures: Monumenti IV, pl. liv–lviii; Wiener Vorlegeblätter, IV (1889)Google Scholar, pls. 1–5; Reinach, , Répertoire, pp. 134–7Google Scholar; Perrot, X, pp. 141 ff., figs. 93–110.

11 The ‘Chest of Kypselos’: Paus. V, xvii, 2–xix, 2, Frazer's edn., III, 606, reconstruction by Jones, H. Stuart, JHS XIV (1895), pp. 30–80Google Scholar, pl. 1. For other votive shields described by Pausanias see Loeb edn., Vol. X, Index, s.v. ‘shield.’

12 The ‘Throne of Apollo’ at Amyclae, Paus. III, xviii–xix.

13 The ‘Idaean Bronzes,’ in Candia Museum: Comparetti and Orsi, , Museo Italiano di antichità classica, II 1888Google Scholar; other fragments in E. Kunze, Kretische Bronze-reliefs.

14 Engraved Bowls from Nimrud, Perrot, IIGoogle Scholar, figs. 398–408; Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, Ser. I, pl. 62A; 63, Ser. II, pl. 60, 61B, 66. In Assyrian art we must not overlook the ‘embroidered’ or (more accurately) ‘appliqué’ decoration of state-robes: Perrot, II, figs. 443–5 = Layard, , Mon. Nin. IGoogle Scholar, pl. 9.

15 Engraved bowls from Cyprus, Italy, and elsewhere: Perrot, IIIGoogle Scholar, figs. 543–56.

Fig. 543, the ‘Hunter's Day’ (Bernardini Tomb, Caere).

Fig. 544, from Caere: lion centre-piece. Grifi, Mon. di Cere antica, pl. v, 1.

Fig. 546, from Dali (Louvre): e.g., king: κῆρες and victims: 1 tree: fights (oneextra-large). Longpérier, , Musée Napoleon, IIIGoogle Scholar, pl. xi.

Fig. 547, from Amathus (now in B.M.), JHS LIII, pp. 25–39Google Scholar, pls. i–iii.

Fig. 548, from Dali (Louvre): diaper/lotus/lotus/sacred trees: fights: procession (camel: chariot), many birds. Longpérier, pl. ix.

Fig. 549 (cf. 551 detail), from Caere. Grifi, Mon. di Cere, pl. viii, 1; ix (detail): /frieze of horsemen and chariots.

Fig. 550 (Varvakeion; perhaps from Olympia), four scenes, with pilasters and Isis figures between. Euting, , Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Petersburg, VIIGoogle Scholar, Ser. xvii, 3 (1873), p. 33, pl. xl.

Fig. 552, from Curium (N.Y. 4554): Ceccaldi, pl. X, Assyrian medallion / Eg., scenes / deities, trees and animals; N.B.—Eg. king killing enemies, no longer as centre-piece.

Fig. 553, cow and calf medallion. Caere. Grifi, Caere, pl. x, 1.

Fig. 554, bowl from Caucasus (? Lake Van), B.M., lotus design.

Pp. 790–1, cup from Camirus (B.M.), rosette and wreath of leaves/cartouches on gold plaques.

Figs. 555–6, bronze crater rim from Curium; bulls of rim: monsters with jugs, on handle.

Fig. 482, from Dali: Ceccaldi, pl. vii, Perrot, III, figs. 180–1.

16 Myres, , JHS LIII (1933), pp. 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. i–iii.

17 Perrot-Chipiez, II, figs. 406, 408; = Layard, Mon. Nineveh, Ser. II, pl. 61, 31, and pl. 66.

18 Myres, , Who were the Greeks? Berkeley, 1930, pp. 517Google Scholar.

19 Cf. the bosses on the Idaean shield, Poulsen, fig. 78; and the shield, Kunze, No. 6, pl. 10 ff., esp. pl. 20.

20 BSA XI, 1904–1905, p. 306Google Scholar, pl. xvi; Kunze, No. 8, pls. 21–3; Poulsen, fig. 76.

21 Like the Idaean sphinxes, Kunze, no. 5, pl. 9; no. 8, pls. 21–3.

22 Breasted, , Medinet Habu, IGoogle Scholar, pl. 34, 36, 39; Bossert, , The Art of Ancient Crete, 1937Google Scholar, No. 552.

23 B.M. Excavations in Cyprus, 1900, pl. 2, 872. Bossert, no. 491.

24 Six sinuous snake-bodies, ‘rising up’ in a cluster of three on each side of the neck, obviously streamed down over the breastplate like the locks of hair on many early statues; and may have been so set out for that reason.

25 Casson, and Myres, , Man, 1932, 1–3Google Scholar.

26 L. & S. quote Plato, , Timaeus 59 bGoogle Scholar. Politicus 303e; but in Politicus ἀδάμας is coupled with gold, silver, and bronze, and you cannot refine a diamond with either touchstone or crucible: in Timaeus it is χρυσίου ὄξος, dense, hard, and black.

26a Kunze, no. 1, pls. 1–2 (eagle); nos. 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12–16, pls. 4, 6, 25, 26, 28, 29 (lions); no. 8, pls. 21–3 (Palaikastro, boss destroyed).

27 All MSS. give δράκων, but Schol. Vet. 30 (Ranke) has ἀδάμαντος. If ἀδάμαντος is accepted here, the centre-piece was a Φόβος, or the head of such a monster: cf. 155, 195, 237. The argument of Schwartz (p. 43), that you cannot have the head of a snake without its tail, applies equally to a Φόβος, and is refuted by the centre-pieces of the Idaean shields, except the eagle, which has both tail and wings.

28 References, note 13 above. An Assyrian relief of Sargon (722–706 B.C.) shows the front of a temple decorated with votive shields (Fig. 3). Three of them, shown in profile, have a complete lion's head as boss (Perrot, II (E.T. vol. i), fig. 190 = Botta, , Monuments de Ninive, IIGoogle Scholar, pl. 141). This gives an approximate date for the Idaean shield. An actual Assyrian shield of bronze (with concentric οἱμοι but no boss) is in the British Musem; Perrot, II, fig. 415).

29 Schwarz (p. 44) quotes Hdt. I, 207, VII, 58, IX, 56; Xen., Anab. 5, 7Google Scholar, 6, in support of the view of K. O. Müller and Studniczka that ἔμπαλιν means looking straight forward—i.e., facing the observer. But he has overlooked H. Hermes, 77–8, , ‘walked backwards.’ Æsch. PV 202–3: Hdt. II, 19: , ‘has the opposite nature.’ Xen., Anab. 1, 4, 15Google Scholar, , ‘go back the way they came.’ Cyr. 8: , ‘the reverse of what they wish.’

30 Not ἐπὶ μετώπῳ (Schwarz, p. 116, in fronte) but ἐπὶ μετώπου, like ἐπ᾿ οἴκου Hdt. II, 121, ἐπὶ Χίου, I, 164. Compare the winged disc below the lion-head centre-piece on an Idaean shield, Kunze, no. 3, pl. 4.

31 E.g. king centre-piece. Poulsen, fig. 14: ‘Hunter's Day’ bowl from Praeneste. Bowl from Salerno; Poulsen, fig. 20.

32 Bowl from Salerno: Poulsen fig. 20; from Praeneste, fig. 14.

33 ἀνδροκτασίη in a frieze. Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. 4554 = Ceccaldi, pl. x.

34 Paus. l.c. xix.

35 Il. XVIII, 485: , which can hardly mean ‘arranged like a στεφάνη.’

35 Poulsen, fig. 86 = Fröhner, Collection Tyskiewicz, pl. xv.

36 Poulsen, fig. 15 = Montelius, pl. 367, 8B.

37 Poulsen, fig. 137 = Montelius, pl. 335, 2. Compare the lion-heads on high necks on similar bowls from the Regulini-Galassi tomb (about 700 B.C.), Montelius, pls. 335–41, cf. 334, 3 and 7a; Randall-MacIver, pl. 37, nos. 87, 89; from Vetulonia, , Not. d. Scavi, 1913, pp. 431–3Google Scholar; Randall-MacIver, figs. 44–5; gryphon-heads from La Garenne, in France, , Olympia Ergebnisse, IV, 45Google Scholar = CAH pl. 352 (A). The twenty-seven knobs on a vessel from the Reg.-Galassi tomb echo this device; Montelius, pl. 334, 1A, B; cf. Bernardini tomb, Montelius, pls. 367, 4 and 8A.

38 Schwarz, pp. 46, 71, notes poetam strepitu valde gaudere, both in the description (ll. 232–3, 242–3, 279, 309, 316) and in the narrative of Herakles' fight (ll. 341–4, 348); yet he thinks it inconsistent that the poet sounds in the description of a work of art. But surely this is testimony to the craftsman's skill, as when the confronted monsters , on the Shield of Achilles (Il. XVIII, 539).

39 Eur., Rhesus, 290 and 307Google Scholar:

Were the ‘many bells’ suggested by the projecting snakes-heads of an aegis?

40 Montelius, pl. 287, 6A.

41 The full sense then is as follows; (1) [attacking him], (2) ἀμφὶ δὲ [on either side of this group [two lions to each boar].

42 Schwarz, on literary grounds, discusses the genuineness of the reference to Theseus (182), but regards it as more in place here than in Il. I, 265. But Theseus was already in the story for the painter of the François Vase, together with the names of the Hesiodic combatants.

43 On the François Vase (Reinach, , Repertoire, I, p. 135Google Scholar), Theseus and Antimachos fight three Centaurs; Kaineus is overwhelmed by three; the Lapith… ιτγ … fights two; Hoplon [= Hopleus l. 180] and Dry[as] fight one each; and in each team some figures are lost. Of the Centaurs' names, Hasbolos and Petraios are in both lists, and perhaps Arktos (l. 186) is Akrios (FV).

44 On the Amathus Bowl, ‘the extant half of the middle zone, 5½ inches long by about 1 inch in radial height, contains ten figures of Egyptian gods, symbols, and votaries, occupying about 18° each. As the circumference measured outside the zone is much greater than measured within it, the measurements in the text are the circumferences at half height. The outer zone, preserved through 210° (= rather more than half its circumference), is 8 inches long by 1 inch broad, and contains twenty-three figures, an average angular width of 9°; and some of these are horses and chariots, which occupy respectively the width of two standing figures and of three. Thus the outer zone, of the same radial height as the inner, contains at least double the number of items.

On the ‘Curium Bowl’ (Cesnola 4554) the outer zone is 1 inch in radial height, and contains twenty-two items, sometimes overlapping slightly but occasionally wide-spaced: their average angular width is between 16° and 17°.

45 Of these scenes, Apollo and the Muses, Perseus and the Gorgons, with Eris, Phobos, and Ker, occur on the ‘Chest of Kypselos’ (Paus. l.c. xviii, xix).

46 Formerly in the Cesnola collection, an d figured by Ceccaldi, Colonna (Monuments antiques de Chypre & c. Paris, 1882, pp. 148–50Google Scholar, pl. ix = Rev. Arch. XXXI (1876), p. 25)Google Scholar, but long since lost; cf. the frieze of bulls on the rim of the bronze krater from Curium (Cesnola 4703 = Perrot, III, figs. 555–6).

47 Poulsen, fig. 123.

48 Poulsen, fig. 128.

49 Poulsen, figs. 129, 131, 134, 141–2.

50 E.g., Kunze, pls. 10, 11, 34.

51 Kunze, pls. 26, 35: on pl. 38 the lines are all feet outwards.

52 Kunze, No. 6, pl. 10.

53 Fourfold schemes:—Salerno (Fröhner, Cat. Coll. Tyskiewicz, pl. xxiv; Poulsen, fig. 20); Berlin (Cesnola, Cyprus, pl. xi; Bissing, v., Jahrb. d. Inst. XIII, 35Google Scholar). Bernardini (Montelius, pls. 368, 369, 71A; MacIver, pl. 39 above); Cesnola, 4560 (Cesnola, , Cyprus, p. 337Google Scholar; Poulsen, fig. 22); Amathus (middle zone; Ceccaldi, pl. viii; Myres, , JHS LIIIGoogle Scholar, pl. i); Varvakeion (Perrot, III, fig. 550); the lost shield-boss from Amathus had four groups, so far as can be seen from Ceccaldi, pl. ix. On the ‘Idalion Bowl’ (Cesnola, 4561; Ceccaldi, pl. vii; Perrot, III, fig. 482) the goddess and her table of offerings occupy 90°, the musicians 90°, the dancers 180°; though the axis of the composition is the table of offerings, the goddess is the middle figure in her half of the zone.

54 Fivefold schemes:—Cesnola, 4552; Atlas, xxxiii, 1Google Scholar; Perrot, III, fig. 546, p. 771. ‘Idalion Bowl II’ inner zone (Perrot, III, fig. 546); Cesnola, 4553, outer zone (Atlas, III, xxxiii, 4Google Scholar); ‘Praeneste Bowl’ inner zone. (Montelius, pls. 367, 8A, 8B; Poulsen, fig. 15.) The inner zone of Cesnola, 4553, has seven horses. In the ‘Curium Bowl’ (Cesnola, 4554: Ceccaldi, pl. x 1) a second double-sector (140°) consists of two groups of oxen (each 70°), leaving 75° to be apportioned between two smaller subjects, a lion killing a man (40°) and a recumbent sphinx (35°). As these are too large for 30° sectors in a sexagesimal scheme, they support the fivefold analysis of the remainder, especially as the flanking subjects of the principal composition vary within similar limits.

55 The lost half of the ‘Amathus Bowl’ probably contained a similar ‘City-at-War.’ from which the assailants issued: compare the ‘City-at-Peace’ on an unpublished bowl (Cesnola, 4555), where the outgoing and incoming scenes of movement originate at 180° from the mid-line of the ‘City,’ though corrosion makes it uncertain whence they start. On the ‘Hunter's Day’ bowl, on the other hand, there is only one ‘City.’

56 Cesnola, 4554; Ceccaldi, pl. x; Perrot, III, p. 789, fig. 552. The angular measurements have been made on Ceccaldi's plate, to avoid damage to the original, but those I have tested are correct to about one degree.

57 Egyptian King as medallion:—Cesnola, 4556; Poulsen, figs. 14 and 20 (and blundered in fig. 14); Montelius, pl. 368; Perrot, III, fig. 546; Cesnola, A. P., Salaminia (1882), p. 53Google Scholar (Brit. Mus.).

58 There is a poor sketch in di Cesnola, A. P., Salaminia, p. 83Google Scholar, fig. 53.

59 Ceccaldi, pl. vii; Perrot, III, fig. 482.

60 On the ‘Curium Bowl,’ the axis of the inner zone is at 70° to the left of the medallion-axis; that of the outer is 50° to the right—i.e., one-third of the circumference (120°) between the two zone-axes. On a bowl from Praeneste, with six snakes' heads upstanding on the rim (Montelius, pl. 367, 8A, 8B; Poulsen, fig. 15), the innermost zone contains seven subjects, but the two adjacent lion-groups combine to form an enhanced axial composition of 90°, antipodal to the victorious lion in the medallion (about 185°) and further emphasised if we take account of the horseman who turns to shoot the nearest of the lions: the axis of this triple composition is at 165°, and its angular extent 132° (= 130° + 12°). On the same bowl, the axis of the inner zone is 45° to the left of the medallion-axis, and about 100° to the left of that of the outer zone.

61 On the ‘Amathus Bowl,’ marching foot-soldiers have 5° each and the winged Isis 15°; on the ‘Curium Bowl’ (Cesn., Hdbk. 4554Google Scholar), Isis, and Ra with outstretched arm, have 15° each.

.

63 In Plate II, the Gorgons have slipped away from Phobos, and consequently also from their proper relation to the ‘City at War’ and its defenders.

64 But the chariot drawn by a winged sphinx has over 50° (Ashmolean Museum, bowl from Olympia, Poulsen, fig. 12). These regular allowances, which are fractions of 360°, show that even the most elaborate designs were wrought to a geometrical scheme.

65 With Athena and Ares here, compare their participation in the battle-section of the ‘City at War’ in Il. XVIII, 516–19, except that there the two gods seem to have stood together dividing the ‘fight for the town’ from the ‘fight for the herds’ (520–34): the latter scene is closed (509–15) by the figure-group of Eris, Kydoimos, and Kêr (535–40), as the fighting on the ‘Shield of Herakles’ is closed by the figure of Deimos, confronting Athena.

But the Shield of Achilles has fourfold symmetry, with a statical centre-piece within each quadrant, making eight frieze-panels in all.

Only rarely, on the bowls, does a composite scene reach 180° or more. On the ‘Amathus Bowl’ the affairs of the ‘City at War’ occupy more than all the half zone which is preserved: but they are divided into scenes of assault and of devastation by the ‘City’ itself, a pilaster-item of 30°: and probably there was another ‘City’ in the midst of the lost half-zone, whence the two friezes of assailants issued. Moreover, even within the extant half-zone, there are distinct changes of topic, where the horsemen begin; for cavalry and chariots do not attack a walled town, though they may cover a storming party and devastators.

66 Schwarz, p. 52, follows him: versus 203b–205a respuendos esse inter viros doctos constat, from Baumeister onwards. Vir indoctus, I retain and explain them.

67 Cesnola 4561 = Ceccaldi, pl. vii.

68 I have given reasons elsewhere (Who Were the Greeks?, p. 519) for ascribing fourfold symmetry to the Homeric Shield of Achilles.

69 Poulsen, figs. 15, 17, 18.

70 Montelius, pl. 338.

71 Poulsen, fig. 11 = Perdrizet, , Fouilles de Delphes, V, p. 23Google Scholar, pl. xviii–xx. The Chigi vase from Veii (Villa Giulia: seventh century) has ‘armies’ of four and five warriors, with reinforcements of nine and seven + (damaged): Ant. Denkm, II, xlivGoogle Scholar: CAH (Plates) I, 356 (c)Google Scholar. In Stuart-Jones' reconstruction of the ‘Chest of Kypselos’ based on many vases and bronzes (n. 7 above), the foot-race has five runners overlapping; the battle-piece has ten warriors, overlapping, flanked right and left by two chariots and one horseman.

72 The figures in brackets are from the replica, Cesnola 4556. Counting city, chariots, etc., as three human figures, here are forty to forty-five elements, about the same total asfor the ‘Amathus Bowl’ when entire, but more loosely interspaced with trees.

72a I have discussed this interpretation in detail in Who were the Greeks?, Berkeley, 1930, pp. 517–23Google Scholar.

73 Cf. Il. XVIII, 514–15 and the silver ‘Siege-Vase’ from the Fourth Shaft-grave at Mycenae: Bossert, , The Art of Ancient Crete, 1937Google Scholar, fig. 77.

74 Cf. Il. XVIII, 516. .

74a . So this centre-piece has an axial group between flanking-parties. Note that ἄναγον strictly means ‘were leading back,’ and that it is at this group of girls that the movement of this segment changes: to the left (let us suppose) the marriage procession moves towards City A; to the right, the revellers beyond the dance (284–5) into City B.

75 For men partly within a city gate, compare the Trojan warriors on the François Vase.

75a On the ‘Chest of Kypselos,’ a Κῆρ, behind Eteokles as he falls : as this figure was inscribed Κῆρα, there can be no mistake (Paus. l.c. xix). Eris occurs twice on the Chest, but is merely described as .

76 Cf. Il. XVIII, 539–40.

76a . 265–6: for γουνοπαχής, cf. Perrot, III, figs. 180–1; Kunze, No. 5, pl. 7; No. 20, pl. 31.

77 Il. II, 219, .

78 Pointillé:—Poulsen, fig. 86 (Rhodes): fig. 19 (Caere); figs. 77, 78 (Crete); fig. 140 (Barberini); fig. 126 (Capena); fig. 15 (Praeneste); Kunze, No. 86 (Crete).

Ring-punch:—fig. 77 (Crete); fig. 141 (Barberini). Both points and ‘drops’ recur in the frescoes of the Grotta Campana at Veii. Montelius, pl. 354, 3–6.

79 Tongues, Poulsen, figs. 135–6; beard, Kunze, No. 20, pl. 30; a drop falls from the eye on a glazed head in the Esquiline tomb, Montelius, pl. 361, 21.

80 Étagen-peruke, Poulsen, ch. XI, pp. 137–60, figs. 153–86, especially fig. 185: compare fig. 29, and 43 from Nimrud, where a line is drawn from eye to lower lip. But an ivory sphinx from Nimrud has a line drawn from the eye across the cheek, Poulsen, fig. 43; for an earlier instance, cf. Bossert, fig. 539B.

81 An example of excess is a bowl from Caere; Poulsen, fig. 18 = Montelius, pl. 338, 1 and 3 (extra foot soldier), For collocation of allegorical monsters and human scenes, see the sphinxes by the handles of the Francois Vase.

82 I suggest a reference to their management of men's life-threads, as follows:—

263a the passage will then run:—255–57: 261–3 < 263a > 258–9: 261: 264 ff.

83 (258).

84 B.M. Excav. in Cyprus, 1899, Pl. II, 872: Bossert, No. 491.

85 For examples, see Evans, , Palace of Minos, IV, p. 914Google Scholar, fig. 888, and Index, s.v.; Bossert, No. 491. Since this was written, come Dr. Frankfort's ‘Notes on the Cretan Griffin,’ BSA XXXVII, 106–22Google Scholar, which demonstrate a North Syrian origin for the mature zoological type, and reveal it as a symbol of sudden death, and ‘messenger of the nether world’ (p. 121).

86 The association of these monsters with scenes of human combat need not surprise us. They are the visual counterpart of the Homeric θεομαχίαι; and on our shield, too (as on that of Achilles), we have Ares and Athena, as well as Deimos, Phobos, and the Kêres, entering a terrestrial battlefield.

87 Evans, Palace of Minos, Index, s.v. ‘Birds.’

88 Randall-MacIver's whole sequence is as follows: Villanovans and Early Etruscans, Oxford, 1924, pp. 228–30Google Scholar.

Bocchoris reigned in Egypt 744–28: ‘Bocchoris’-tomb, Cornets ca. 700.

Regulini-Galassi tomb: Bernardini tomb (‘Hunter's Day’ bowl) ca. 670.

Polledrara tomb: scarab of Psammetichus I (664–609) ca. 600.

These are ‘highest possible’ dates for a Greek poem influenced by those engraved bowls, and others from the Sargonid palace (700–650) at Nimrud.