Images and perceptions of the Lion Gate relief at Mycenae during the 19th century, in F. Buscemi (ed.), Cogitata tradere posteris. The Representation of Ancient Architecture in the XIXth Century, Catania (Rom 2010) 49–66

PARTE I DOCUMENTI FRITZ BLAKOLMER IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY* As a classical archaeologist specializing in the Aegean Bronze Age I might not have a lot to contribute to the specific topic of this conference. Extensive archaeological research on Minoan Crete did not begin before 19001, and on the Greek mainland, excavations at Mycenaean sites only took place since the later 19th century2. Therefore, scholarly or artistic documentation on the island of Crete is widely lacking from the 19th century while at Mycenaean mainland sites this occurred only sporadically before 1874 when Heinrich Schliemann started his archaeological activities at Mycenae, Tiryns and Orchomenos3. However, there exist at least two outstanding monuments from the Mycenaean world which are worth referring to when we are dealing with architectural documentation during the 19th century: the first is the so-called “Treasury of Atreus”, which Francesca Buscemi is discussing in the present volume. The second one is “the Lion Gate”, the main gate of the citadel of Mycenae. The Lion Gate and its relief block (fig. 1) are particularly prominent and stand out amongst all other well-known monuments of Bronze Age Greece for several reasons4. It is the only monument of this period bearing an iconographic motif which, since its construction in the 13th century b.C. was never buried underground, but stood continuously in the open and could be seen by visitors5. Therefore, it neither had to be discovered nor unearthed and thus cannot be connected to any famous discoverer’s name such as Fig. 1 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae Heinrich Schliemann, Christos Tsountas, Alan Wace or other excavators at Mycenae. Furthermore, the triangular stone block above the door lintel represents the most monumental sculpture known to date from the Aegean Bronze Age, with a base line of 3.60 m and a height of * I am very grateful to Francesca Buscemi for her kind invitation and hospitality. I also want to thank Petros Dintsis, Joachim Heiden, Christa Schauer, Hubert D. Szemethy, and Michaela Zavadil for discussions and fruitful advices, and especially Elizabeth French for giving me insight into the unpublished manuscript of her lecture entitled The Impact of Mycenae on the British and held at the University of Athens in 2004. I am also very grateful to Sarah Cormack and Jörg Weilhartner for their patience in reading this paper and checking my English. Of course, I remain responsible for all mistakes that remain. 1 BROWN 1993, 35-84; FITTON 1995a, 115-148; BROWN 2001; MCENROE 2002, 59-72. 2 For the early history of research on the Aegean Bronze Age, see FITTON 1995a, 28-46; POLYCHRONOPOULOU 1999, 21-62; KRZYSZKOWSKA 2000, 149-163; FINN 2002; BLAKOLMER 2004a, 4-12. 3 DÖHL 1981; MCDONALD-THOMAS 19902, 9-79; HERRMANN 1991; FITTON 1995a, 48-103. 4 For this monument, see WACE 1921-23a, 15-16; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964; MYLONAS 1965, 74-100; HILLER 1973; SHAW 1986, 108-23; BLOEDOW 1996. For the dating to LH III B1, see esp. FRENCH 1989, 125. 5 For the early history of European visitors of Mycenae, see WACE 1921-23b, 286-7; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, esp. 15967; POLYCHRONOPOULOU 1999, 52-62; LAVERY-FRENCH 2003. 49 FRITZ BLAKOLMER more than 3 m. There probably never existed any larger sculpture in prehistoric Greece. Moreover, this monument presents the only relief image of Bronze Age Greece which is described in the literature of classical antiquity. It is a reasonable assumption that Homer had this image in mind when he described the entrance to the Phaeacian palace of Alkinoos as flanked by golden and silver guardian dogs, a work created by the god Hephaistos6. More accurate are the references to this gate and its relief decoration made by Pausanias and others ascribing to them a workmanship by the Cyclopes7. On the contrary, Strabo erroneously stated that no traces of the capital of the Mycenaeans survived8. Thus it is no wonder that the Lion Gate attracted the attention of European scholars who visited this prominent city-gate in the Argolid – a region constituting not only a focal point of antiquity but also the heart-land of early modern Greece and thus presenting good preconditions for foreign travellers and scholars in the 19th century. Mycenae’s first identification by a European traveller was by M. de Monceaux in 1669, while the first mention of the Lion Gate is due to the Venetian engineer Francesco Vandeyk in 17009. However, the first drawings of this monument were carried out at a much later period. In the following, I will try to recapitulate the history of the Lion Gate in the 19th century by presenting some early drawings and paintings of this prominent ensemble of city gate including its “Cyclopean” style masonry and its stone relief image. In addition, I will combine it with archaeological interpretations. The collection of images presented in this article is far from being exhaustive, but possibly enables a better comprehension of the historical documentation of ancient monuments and their respective notions. Early Representations of the Lion Gate Among the earliest illustrations of the Lion Gate at Mycenae are those of Thomas Hope, William Martin Leake10 as well as Sebastiano Ittar. We owe to Thomas Hope two drawings of the Lion Gate which were made during his visits of the site in 1787-1795 and differ in many respects from each other. The first image presents a larger panorama-like view of the area of Mycenae’s main entrance and we can notice many inaccuracies and mistakes11. The form and proportions of some stone blocks Fig. 2 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Thomas Hope, differ widely from reality, the lateral wall to the 1787-95 right is enormously foreshortend, and many details of the relief image above the door lintel are incorrect. The second drawing of Thomas Hope (fig. 2) focuses on the door itself and is much more accurate12. It presents all essential elements of the relief block: two antithetical lions, the altars 6 Hom. Od. 7, 86-94. Paus. 2, 16, 5. 8 Strab. 8, 372. 9 LAVERY-FRENCH 2003, 1-2 with further references. 10 See LAVERY-FRENCH 2003, 2 with further references. See further WAGSTAFF 2009, 27-38. 11 TSIGAKOU 1985, 129, pl. 47; 225. 12 TSIGAKOU 1985, 131, pl. 48 n. 47; 225; FITTON 1995a, fig. on p. 74 (erroneously attributed to S. Ittar). 7 50 IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY supporting their fore-paws, the central column and its entablature. One distinct error, though, is by no means confined to Hope alone, yet occurs in both of his drawings: the tapering downwards, typical of Minoan and Mycenaean columns, has not been reproduced. In one image the shaft is indicated by vertical lines whereas in the other one the column is tapering upwards – a very common mistake reflecting the preconceptions regarding the synchronous classicism. Fig. 3 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Sebastiano Ittar, 1803, front side Fig. 4 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Sebastiano Ittar, 1803, rear view and vertical section Of special interest are the drawings made by the “famous son” of Catania, Sebastiano Ittar13, in 1803 when he accompanied Lord Elgin on his travels through the “Morea”14. On two plates he not only depicted a frontal view of the Lion Gate (fig. 3), but he also drew a section cut through the upper part of the door, as well as a representation of the rear of the central part of the monument (fig. 4 below). Moreover, in his documentation Ittar included a representation of the northern entrance to the citadel of Mycenae which is less spectacular than the Lion Gate but belongs to the same architectonic type (fig. 4 above). Although not free of mistakes and disproportionate details, the quality of Ittar’s sketchy line-drawing can be compared to the accurate image of Thomas Hope. Ittar’s drawing counts amongst the few early images of the Lion Gate which portray the column as tapering in the correct direction, namely downwards. During his visit to Mycenae in 1805, William Gell drew two images of the Lion Gate which are of great interest for us. The first one gives a view of the entire ensemble of the entrance representing not only the gate itself but also the fallen blocks of the adjacent walls before their reconstruction in the later 19th century15. The second image by William Gell (?) shows a detailed engraving of the Lion 13 GALLO 2009, 124, figs. 129, 251. For Sebastiano Ittar, see BUSCEMI 2008, esp. 15-20. See SMITH 1916, esp. 200, 213-215, 218-219. 15 GELL 1810a, pl. after p. 36; EISNER 1991, 163 with fig.; https://diglit.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/gell1810/0051?sid= 910dceefa65e25f7417bf661298a7985 (download, 15 March 2010). 14 51 FRITZ BLAKOLMER Gate relief (fig. 5) which stands out for the creativity of its artist16. Although this engraving shows most obvious disproportionalities and mistakes in many respects, the column is given as tapering in the correct direction. By exaggerating the fluted form of the shaft, the artist even emphasised this special feature of “exotic”, i.e. non-classical character. Gell’s drawing well demonstrates one crucial problem inherent in representing the relief image of the Lion Gate. Every Fig. 5 - The relief block of the Lion Gate of Mycenae by artist who drew the relief was forced to be William Gell (?), 1805 positioned at a certain minimal distance to the object for two reasons: firstly, because of the large scale of the relief image; and secondly, in order to avoid distortions in perspective by looking upwards. After the 1870s when the area in front of the gate has been cleared of the debris and the fallen blocks of the adjacent walls, this problem became even more pronounced17. As a consequence of these disadvantages for the artist, the column’s capital in Gell’s engraving is incorrectly reproduced in perspective manner and the lower parts of the relief block have been enlarged. William Gell, for the first time, took Pausanias’ description of the relief image into question and interpreted the felines as lionesses or panthers18. It is of great interest, though, that already in 1809 Richard Payne Knight compared the style of the Lion Gate relief with that of motifs on Mycenaean seal images from the site, thus placing them in a common artistic context19. Especially in the first half of the 19th century, the relief image was sometimes brought into connection with Persian fire altars and Mithraic Fig. 6 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Edward Dodwell, 1805 sculpture20. Occasionally the row of four circles between the horizontal elements above the capital of the column caused some confusion among scholars and has been interpreted as symbolizing four cities in the Peloponnesos21 or as solar symbols22. Only in the 1860s it became clear that these circles were part of the conventional entablature of Aegean architecture23. During his visit to Mycenae in 1805, Edward Dodwell made two images of the Lion Gate. One 16 KRZYSZKOWSKA 2000, 153, fig. 2 with further references; LAVERY-FRENCH 2003, 2-3. See SCHLIEMANN 1878, 69, 137. 18 GELL 1810a; ID. 1810b; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 160; DE GRUMMOND 1996, 684. 19 KRZYSZKOWSKA 2000, 152-154, fig. 2; EAD. 2005, 311-2, fig. 11, 1. 20 GELL 1810b, 29-35; ID. 1819, 239-40; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 160-161. 21 GELL 1810b, 29-35; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 160. 22 KRAUSE 1891, 700-701 (quoted after ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 165-166). 23 Infra, n. 48. 17 52 IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY of them (fig. 6) shows a rather accurate graphic reproduction of the gate with the stone relief presented in a more naturalistic style, but with less detail24. We can observe that the central column shows no tapering. In the second image by Dodwell, a color painting, the monumental gate is reproduced in its entirety from a greater distance25, well comparable to and of the same accuracy as the panorama-view by William Gell26. Fig. 7 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Otto Magnus von Stackelberg, 1812 The painting by Otto Magnus Baron von Stackelberg presents a view over the Argive plain including the citadel walls of Mycenae with the Lion Gate (fig. 7), a colored lithograph dating to 1812 which was not published before 183427. In keeping with the more extensive subject of the picture, the masonry shows some inaccuracies; the Lion Gate relief is depicted very superficially, and the column is represented without any tapering. The image of the Lion Gate drawn by the Danish architect Jorgen Hansen Koch in 1820 is widely unknown Fig. 8 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Jorgen Hansen Koch, 1820 24 DODWELL 1819, 229-234, 239-240; ID. 1834, pl. 6; VERMEULE 1964, 215, pl. XVII B; WARREN 1975, fig. on p. 7 above. 25 DODWELL 1819; MYLONAS 1983, 18, fig. 5; MYLONAS SHEAR 2000, frontispiece; SCHOFIELD 2007, 13, fig. 2. 26 Supra, n. 15. 27 VON STACKELBERG 1834; RODENWALDT 1957, 33, pl. 16; TSIGAKOU 1982, 156, fig. 58; HERING 1985, 152-153, fig. 62; BOARDMAN 2002, 49, fig. 18. 53 FRITZ BLAKOLMER (fig. 8)28. This sketchy reproduction shows many striking inaccuracies in the rendering of the proportions and of the masonry. Thus, it gives only a very superficial impression of the monument. As for the column in the relief image, Koch did not reproduce it in its real form, but he modified it as tapering upwards. In 1820, Karl Otfried Müller stated that in the Lion relief the Doric column was positioned upside down with the capital at its base and the base on top. This interpretation was also shared by numerous early scholars in the following period29. With the foundation of the Greek state in 1831, the increasing interest of Bavarians is evident in the drawings of Leo von Klenze from 1837 (fig. 9)30. In his reproduction of the Lion Gate, inaccuracies occur in several details of the relief image, e.g. Fig. 9 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Leo von Klenze, 1837 of the altars and the bodies of the felines. However, the shaft of the column possesses a slight tapering downwards. Von Klenze attributed the relief to the “time of Proitos” and took the felines as lionesses31. 1837 was also the year of the formation of the Greek Etaireia, the “Archaeological Society at Athens”32 at whose order Kyriakos Pittakis cleared much of the rubble in the forecourt of the Lion Gate in 184133. Thus the Lion Gate of Mycenae was an object of the systematic re-hellenization of Greece and functioned for legitimizing the modern Greek nation34. In 1838, Colonel William Mure interpreted the column in the monumental relief image as a symbol of Apollo Agyieus. Furthermore, by interpreting the lions as wolves he favoured a connection with Apollo Lykeios, the protector of doors, an interpretation also accepted by other scholars35. In 1842, Carl Wilhelm Göttling emphasized the tapering downwards of the column which he interpreted as a Phallus-Hermessäule, a protective herm in the classical sense36. 28 HANGSTED 2000, 78, fig. 10; BLAKOLMER 2004a, 5, pl. I, 2. MÜLLER 1820, 18; ID. 1873, 57; quoted after ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 161. 30 VON KLENZE 1838, 536 ff.; LIEB-HUFNAGL 1979, 102 G 37, 184 Z 188; FITTON 1995a, frontispiece; BAUMSTARK 1999, 483-485, fig. 342. 31 VON KLENZE 1838; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 161. 32 See KOUMANOUDIS 1984; PETRAKOS 1987, 25-197; ID. 1999. 33 RANGABÉ 1842, 9; MYLONAS 1983, 19; POLYCHRONOPOULOU 1999, 113; LAVERY-FRENCH 2003, 2. 34 Cfr. HAMILAKIS-YALOURI 1996, 117-129; VOUTSAKI 2002; EAD. 2003; HAMILAKIS 2007. 35 MURE 1838, 256; ID. 1842, 167 ff. See also EVANS 1901, 157 n. 3; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 161-165. 36 GÖTTLING 1842, 161-175; ID. 1851, V ff., 52 ff. See also EVANS 1901, 157 with n. 6; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 162. 29 54 IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY A colored lithograph by Théodore du Moncel showing the Lion Gate and dated to 1843 is preserved in the Benaki Museum at Athens (fig. 10)37. This accurate representation stands out for the perspective, panorama-like rendering of both lateral walls flanking the doorway; these have been buckled outwards to enable better visibility of the impressive large-scale masonry. Fig. 10 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Théodore du Moncel, 1843 Fig. 11 - The Lion Gate of Mycenae In his article of 1850 Eduard Gerhard obviously reproduced a simplified line-drawing of the Lion Gate relief (fig. 11) which shows a multitude of incorrectly rendered details38, some of them reminiscent of the individual approach by William Gell (fig. 5), such as the enlarged distance between the middle parts of the altars and a perspective rendering of the capital. In the 1850s, interpretations of the column at the Lion Gate as representing a symbol of Apollon Agyieus or Hermes became more common39. On the other hand, the interpretation by Ernst Curtius in 1857 of the image as an expression of divine protection of the gate, the citadel and the royal power sounds convincing even today40. An anonymous drawing dating to mid-19th century (fig. 12) presents an unparalleled image of Mycenae which is noteworthy not for its documentation of the preserved relics but rather for its reflection of the idea, the fantastic reconstruction and visualisation of the early site from the classicist’s point of view41. This drawing constitutes the most remarkable example not so much describing an abstract vision of Homeric Mycenae, but showing a unique reconstruction of the archaeological landscape of the site. Fig. 12 - Reconstruction of the citadel of Mycenae from mid-19th century 37 For this painting, today in the Benaki Museum, Athens, see DU MONCEL 1843; https://www.benaki.gr/eMP-Collection/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultListView/result.t1.collection_list.$TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=0&sp=2&sp=SdetailList&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=0 (download 15 March 2010). 38 GERHARD 1850, fig. 4. 39 ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 162-163. 40 CURTIUS 1857, 116. 41 KOKKINIS 1979, pl. facing p. 80 (without any reference). 55 FRITZ BLAKOLMER On the basis of the visible remains of the citadel walls including the Lion Gate, the artist reconstructed them to a distinct height and brought the city to life by adding imaginary classical temple buildings on the summit of the acropolis and even outside the citadel. The figures at the right side may not represent Elektra, Klytaimnestra or other mythological figures, but possibly allude to the dark, old mother Hellás liberated by European Philhéllenes. The result of this conceptualized image is a fascinating three-faced mixture of documentation of the real site of Mycenae including its Bronze Age remains, a classicist’s vision of Antiquity, and a synchronous political statement coined by European philhellenism. Furthermore, it is interesting that the painter aimed at presenting the original floor level in front of the Lion Gate before its clearance by Schliemann and the Greek Archaeological Society in the 1870s42. In 1865 Friedrich Adler presented in his article on the Lion Gate relief a drawing of the front side and profile section of the block which constitutes the most accurate drawing until modern times (fig. 13)43. The drawing was executed not in front of the original stone block at Mycenae, but by means of a plaster cast in the Collection of the Winckelmann Institute at Berlin. Initially, this copy was exposed as an isolated block often reproduced as a photograph in publications. In its arrangement in Fig. 13 - Relief block of the Lion Gate of Mycenae by Friedrich Adler, 1865 the collection of 1919 the relief block was incorporated in a copy of the Lion Gates’s façade which has been destructed during World War II44. There is an interesting reference in the report of Ch. Schaub who, during his visit to Mycenae in 1862, met German archaeologists who were making, by permission, a cast of the Lion relief block45. Obviously, fig. 13 presents the successful result. Although Adler’s drawing is excellent, it was never reproduced again, at least as far as I am aware. This is possibly due to several reasons: one reason could have been the fact that from that time on, plaster casts became more current in Europe, meaning that the motivation to draw monuments generally decreased46. At this time photographic reproductions also came into use. A photograph of the Lion Gate from ca. 1859 is among the earliest47. Furthermore, in the course of Schliemann’s ex- 42 Supra, n. 17. ADLER 1865, 1-13, pl. CXCIII. 44 BÖTTICHER 1866, 135-51; NOACK 1921, 34; SCHINDLER 1986, 632, fig. 10; STÜRMER 2006, 389-400 with fig. 2. 45 SCHAUB 1863, 228-229; ADLER 1865, 1 (mentioning the travel of Bötticher, Curtius and Strack); LAVERY-FRENCH 2003, 3. 46 See in general STEMMER 1993; KEISCH 2002, 729-736. 47 PAPADOPOULOS 2005, 107, fig. 1. See further GERMAN 2005, 209-230. 43 56 IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY cavations conducted eleven years after Adler’s article, the archaeological and public interest slightly shifted from monuments outside the citadel to the spectacular archaeological finds in the interior and to stories of the lucky discoverer himself. Moreover, Schliemann prefered the technique of engraving. His rich illustrations were frequently reproduced until the last decade of the 19th century. However, the drawing made by Adler elucidates all the advantages when compared to photographical reproductions. It constitutes actual, graphic documentation in its proper sense showing details of the stone surface which can be clarified only by drawing, whereas in photographic images shadowed parts could lead to misinterpretations. During the 1860s, some essential insights into the meaning of the iconographic elements of the Lion Gate relief were achieved. In 1861, Alexander Conze and Adolf Michaelis identified the entire central part of the relief image correctly as “un pezzo di architettura in legno”48. In 1864, Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker was right in attributing to the socle zone the character of an altar49, notably a double altar as Heinrich Brunn concretized in 189350. In 1868, Carl Friederichs supposed that the whole relief was once painted51. In 1868, even before his excavations in Troy and Mycenae, Heinrich Schliemann travelled to Greece and presented in his publication of 1869 a picture of the Lion Gate52. Accurate though this reproduction is, the shaft of the column has been reproduced incorrectly as having vertical contours without any tapering. Schliemann’s excavation of the Shaft Grave Circle A at Mycenae in 1876 not only marks the beginning of Aegean Archaeology, it also delivered iconographic parallels for distinct elements of the Lion Gate relief block. Schliemann never attempted any new documentation of the Lion Gate by drawing, but used engravings. For illustrating the excavated lower part of the Lion Gate he presented a superficial sketch53. Although this is anything but accurate, the column of the relief image is given correctly as tapering downwards. For an article about Schliemann’s spectacular discoveries at Mycenae The Illustrated London News of the 3rd February 1877 presented on its cover a sketch showing the artist drawing the Lion Gate (fig. 14)54. We remark a rather superficial representation of the masonry and of the relief image. The lions appear more naturalistic than they are generally depicted in Mycenaean art, and their forepaws do not rest upon the altars. Without any doubt, the main element of this image is the newspaper’s draftsman himself. It is remarkable that even in 1888 the Lion Gate relief was dated to the 8th century based on iconographic comparisons with Phrygian sculpture – a date 500 years later than it really is55. A much more realistic dating to the 14th/13th century has been proposed by Charles Newton in 1877 by means of comparable studies56. Since the 1890s we remark an increase of questions on the symbolism of the column as representing a baityl or an uniconic deity (a “Minoan Great Nature Goddess”), an abbreviation of a temple, of the palace or even a heraldic sign of Mycenae57. Although, in the course of the excavations on Crete in the early 20th century, the Creto-Minoan origin of the iconographic motif of the Lion Gate became clear58, the dispute regarding the interpretation continued along tra48 CONZE-MICHAELIS 1861, 18-19; see also ADLER 1865, 3-6; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 163. WELCKER 1864, 73; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 164. 50 BRUNN 1893, 25 ff. See also FRAZER 1898, 102. 51 FRIEDERICHS 1868, 1 ff.; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 164-165. 52 SCHLIEMANN 1869, fig. facing p. 90. 53 SCHLIEMANN 1878, 36, fig. 21. 54 SIMPSON 1877, 358; LAVERY-FRENCH 2003, 3; CHALLIS 2008, 9-10, fig. 3. 55 RAMSAY 1888, esp. 369-371. 56 FITTON 1995a, 31-32; EAD. 1995b, 73-78. 57 ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 165-170. 58 See EVANS 1901, 157; NILSSON 1927, 217 ff. Cf. the discussion by BLAKOLMER forthcoming a. 49 57 FRITZ BLAKOLMER ditional lines. Although even one century later there is no consensus about the exact meaning of the Lion Gate relief, Emily Vermeule may be basically right in identifying “decorative symbols of the king’s double religious and political authority” in this image59. Conclusions Which general observations can be made in the light of this collection of early images and notions of this monument at Mycenae? It is obvious that classicism dominated drawings, reconstructions and ideas regarding Aegean prehistory during the entire 19th century. A multitude of different deities of the classical pantheon were brought into connection with the image of the Lion Gate at this period60. However, associations with Anatolia and with the Orient have also been made. As we have seen, non-classical phenomena of Aegean architecture such as the column tapering Fig. 14 - The Illustrated London News, February 3, 1877 downwards often have been “corrected” and adapted to the classical style. In ancient Greece there was only room for one standardized form of column and the example from Mycenae taken as “turned upside down” deserved some explanation61. Enigmatic architectural elements such as the round beam ends in the entablature were also sometimes interpreted by means of mythology and symbolic ideas of classical antiquity. However, many misinterpretations of iconographic details in the earlier 19th century were due to the vague character of most illustrations. There is a remarkable point possibly going back to a particular distance of the viewer from the Lion Gate relief. Although early scholars stood in front of the monument, they sometimes borrowed incorrect information from earlier 19th century literature, for example in the case of the definition of the stone material of the relief block, which they defined erroneously as green basalt instead of limestone62. Thus, autopsy does not automatically mean correct authenticity in documentation. However, there are no clear indications that any early drawing of the Lion Gate copied or utilized details from another reproduction of this motif. Instead, they are generally based on original observation. We should also bear in mind that a number of images were published some years, or even decades, after the original drawing. 59 VERMEULE 1964, 215. See esp. ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 186. 61 For the history of the columns from the façade of the “Treasury of Atreus” at Mycenae during the 19th century, see esp. FINN 2002. 62 This has been clarified by LEAKE 1846, 254. 60 58 IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY Accurate architectonic drawings of Aegean monuments occur only sporadically during the 19th century. One example is the reproduction of an architectural block of the columns with detailed ornaments from the “Treasury of Atreus” by Edward Dodwell interpreted as the base, but in fact being the capital63. This drawing was published in 1819 and reminds us forcefully of the classical tradition of architectonic drawing. Schliemann was by no means the first scholar who used Homer, Sophokles, and other poets in the same way as historical sources for explaining ancient monuments as he used ancient historians such as Pausanias. This approach has a long tradition in interpreting archaeological remains. In the Fourties of the 19th century, for example, William Martin Leake excluded an attribution of the “Treasury of Atreus” to Agamemnon, since according to Homer this hero “returned home poor and powerless”64. The “power of classicism” was overwhelming. Even in the case of Schliemann’s tomb building which was planned before 1890 and constructed by Ernst Ziller at Athens, a classical temple form lacking any Mycenaean architectural elements has been chosen65 (with the exception of some ornamental motifs) and this phenomenon applies also to the “Iliou Melathron”, Schliemann’s dwelling house at Athens66. Mykenaika occur only as abstract motifs in the metopes and in the narrative frieze program depicting scenes of the Homeric epics and of Schliemann’s oeuvre. In this relief frieze we also find a reproduction of the lower part of the Lion Gate in the course of the uncovering of the fore-court in 187667. During the 19th century, distinct Minoan and Mycenaean features only sporadically affected contemporary art and architecture68. An unparalleled example of artistic reception of Mycenaean objects in the period of Neoclassicism is presented by a colossal picture (fig. 15) made by the Viennese historical painter Franz von Matsch in the Achilleion, the manor house built for the emFig. 15 - Painting by Franz von Matsch in the ‘Achilleion’, Korfu press Elisabeth II on Kerkyra-Korfu in 1889189069. In this picture of the triumphant Achilleus, golden diadems from the shaft graves of Mycenae have been integrated and transformed both into a girdle of Achilleus and into the breastbelts of his chariot-horses which 63 DODWELL 1819, 232; VERMEULE 1964, pl. XXVI B. LEAKE 1846, 258. 65 KORRES 1981, 133-173, pls. 15-19. See further ID. 1983; ID. 1984. 66 KORRES 1977; ID. 1986; ID. 1988. 67 See KORRES 1981, 160-161, fig. 14, pl. 18, 1. For this excavation works see above (n. 17). 68 BLAKOLMER forthcoming b. 69 CHRISTOMANOS 1896; MEIER 1963; DÖHL 1981, fig. on p. 79; HOLZSCHUH 1996, esp. 128; DIERICHS 2004, esp. 48, 50, figs. 2-3. 64 59 FRITZ BLAKOLMER obviously does not fit the archaeological reality. Moreover, in the background of the picture, to the right upper edge, a reconstruction of the walls of Troy shows a monumental trilithic entrance surmounted by a relief triangle. Since a gate of this form did not exist in Troy, the painter obviously refered to the Lion Gate of Mycenae. It is remarkable that the triangle is not decorated with the Mycenaean lion relief. On the contrary, the painter transformed Greek Mycenae into the Anatolian citadel of Troy by drawing a monumental swastika motif in the triangle – a very common ornament among Schliemann’s finds from Early Bronze Age Troy, dating more than one millennium earlier than the Lion Gate at Mycenae70. The tendency towards classicism among scholars and artists suddenly changed in the early 20th century when Arthur Evans, Luigi Pernier, Federico Halbherr and other “pioneers” of the archaeology of Minoan Crete entered the stage and gave birth to a lively interaction between Aegean Bronze Age artefacts and the arts of European Modern Style and Art Nouveau71. Let me close by presenting three more drawings of the Lion Gate relief of humourous character refering to the long lasting discussion of reconstructing the felines as lions, lionesses, griffins or something else72. The first example from the late 19th century presents the couple Sophia and Heinrich Schliemann positioned upon the monument and putting their own lion-like heads on top of the stone torsi (fig. 16)73. This sketch possibly manifests criticism of the “monumentalization” of the excavator himself. In his drawing during the 1980s, Henry Hankey reconstructed octopus motifs of Late Mycenaean pottery style in place of the lion heads, thus combining two prominent emblems of the Aegean Bronze Age belonging to two distinct stylistic traditions which are completely separated from each other74. The third caricature of the Lion Gate relief drawn by Paul Fig. 16 - Caricature of the excavator couple in front Rehak and John Younger makes reference to the of the Lion Gate from late 19th century “Aegaeum” Conference in Tasmania in 1992 by transforming the felines into Australian kangaroos75. Although these drawings possess a humourous character, they demonstrate well the prominence of the long-lasting tradition of discussion and the lively “visual debate” surrounding this monumental topos of Aegean prehistory throughout the past 200 years of research. 70 Cfr. SCHLIEMANN 1874, pls. 8-11, 162. BAMMER 1990; BLAKOLMER 1999, 492-501; ID. 2004b, 45-58; ID. 2006, esp. 224-233; DE CRAENE 2008, 47-71. 72 See e.g. CHARBONNEAUX 1929, 27; ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964, 177-178; PROTONOTARIOU-DEILAKI 1965, 7-26; KARDARA 1970, esp. 239-240; MYLONAS 1970, 424-425; HILLER 1973, 24; TAYLOUR 19832, 126. 73 KORRES 1998, 21, fig. below. 74 HANKEY 1985, fig. on p. 10. 75 LAFFINEUR-CROWLEY 1992, fig. on p. 4. 71 60 IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY Figures Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 The Lion Gate of Mycenae (after AMANDRY 1995, fig. on p. 9, above). The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Thomas Hope, 1787-95 (after FITTON 1995a, fig. on p. 74). The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Sebastiano Ittar, 1803, front side (after COOK 19972, fig. 72). The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Sebastiano Ittar, 1803, rear view and vertical section (after GALLO 2009, 124, fig. 129). The relief block of the Lion Gate of Mycenae by William Gell (?), 1805 (after KRZYSZKOWSKA 2000, 153 fig. 2 above). The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Edward Dodwell, 1805 (after VERMEULE 1964, pl. XVII B). The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Otto Magnus von Stackelberg, 1812 (after HERING 1985, 152-3, fig. 62). The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Jorgen Hansen Koch, 1820 (after HANGSTED 2000, 78, fig. 10). The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Leo von Klenze, 1837 (after FITTON 1995a, frontispiece). The Lion Gate of Mycenae by Théodore du Moncel, 1843 (after https://www.benaki.gr/ eMP-Collection/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultListView/result.t1.collection_list. $TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=0&sp=2&s p=SdetailList&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=0) (download, 15 March 2010). The Lion Gate of Mycenae (after GERHARD 1850, fig. 4). Reconstruction of the citadel of Mycenae from mid-19th century (after KOKKINIS 1979, pl. facing p. 80). Relief block of the Lion Gate of Mycenae by Friedrich Adler, 1865 (after ADLER 1865, pl. CXCIII). The Illustrated London News, February 3, 1877 (after CHALLIS 2008, 10, fig. 3). Painting by Franz von Matsch in the ‘Achilleion’, Korfu (after https://static.panoramio.com/ photos/original/14880581.jpg) (download, 15 March 2010). Caricature of the excavator couple in front of the Lion Gate from late 19th century (after KORRES 1998, 21 fig. below). 61 FRITZ BLAKOLMER Bibliography ADLER 1865 AMANDRY 1995 ASTRÖM-BLOMÉ 1964 BAMMER 1990 BAUMSTARK 1999 BLAKOLMER 1999 BLAKOLMER 2004a BLAKOLMER 2004b BLAKOLMER 2006 BLAKOLMER forthcoming a BLAKOLMER forthcoming b BLOEDOW 1996 BOARDMAN 2002 BÖTTICHER 1866 BROWN 1993 BROWN 2001 BRUNN 1893 62 F. ADLER, Das Relief am Löwenthor zu Mykenae, in AZ 23, n. 193, January, 1-13. P. AMANDRY, Schliemann, marchand et archéologue. Evocation d’une vie exceptionnelle, in Dossier d’Archéologie 206 N, August/September, 2-13. P. ASTRÖM-B. BLOMÉ, A reconstruction of the lion relief at Mycenae, in OpAth 5, 159-191. A. BAMMER, Wien und Kreta: Jugendstil und minoische Kunst, in ÖJh 60, 129-151. R. BAUMSTARK (ed.), Das neue Hellas. Griechen und Bayern zur Zeit Ludwigs I, Munich. F. BLAKOLMER, Die Wiederentdeckung der minoisch-mykenischen Kunst zur Zeit des Fin de siècle. Zu Rezeption und ‘Koinzidenz’ im Jugendstil, in KölnJb 32, 477-502. F. BLAKOLMER, Zum Kenntnisstand der frühägäischen Denkmäler zur Zeit des ‘Fin de siècle’, in J. BOUZEK ET ALII (eds.), Antike Tradition in der Architektur und anderen Künsten um 1900, Akten der Tagung, (Studia Hercynia 8), Prague, 4-19. F. BLAKOLMER, Altägäische Kunst, Primitivismus und Moderne: Aspekte künstlerischer Rezeption und Verwandtschaft, in J. BOUZEK ET ALII (eds.), Antike Tradition in der Architektur und anderen Künsten um 1900, Akten der Tagung, (Studia Hercynia 8), Prague, 45-58. F. BLAKOLMER, The arts of Bronze Age Crete and the European Modern Style: reflecting and shaping different identities, in Y. HAMILAKIS-N. MOMIGLIANO (eds.), Archaeology and European modernity: producing and consuming the “Minoans”, (Creta Antica 7), Catania, 219-240. F. BLAKOLMER, Vom Thronraum in Knossos zum Löwentor von Mykene: Kontinuitäten in Bildkunst und Palastideologie, in F. BLAKOLMER-G. NIGHTINGALE-C. REINHOLDT-J. WEILHARTNER (eds.), Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 2009. F. BLAKOLMER, Antikenrezeption vom Klassizismus bis zum Art Déco: Ägypten, Altägäis und Europa, in J. HOLAUBEK-A. JUNOVA MACKOVA (eds.), Spurensuche - Pathfinder, Conference Egypt & Austria VI, Prague, 21st-24th September 2009. E.F. BLOEDOW, The lions of the Lion Gate at Mycenae, in E. DE MIRO-L. GODART-A. SACCONI (eds.), Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 ottobre 1991, (Incunabula Graeca 98), vol. III, Roma, 1159-1166. J. BOARDMAN, The archaeology of nostalgeia. How the Greeks re-created their mythical past, London. K. BÖTTICHER, Verzeichnisse des Nachtrages zur Abguss-Sammlung, Berlin. A. BROWN, Before Knossos. Arthur Evans’s travels in the Balkans and Crete, Oxford. A. BROWN, Arthur Evans’s travels in Crete, 1894-1899, (BAR-IS 1000), Oxford. H. BRUNN, Griechische Kunstgeschichte, I, Munich. IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY BUSCEMI 2008 CHALLIS 2008 CHARBONNEAUX 1929 CHRISTOMANOS 1896 CONZE-MICHAELIS 1861 COOK 19972 CURTIUS 1857 DE CRAENE 2008 DE GRUMMOND 1996 DIERICHS 2004 DODWELL 1819 DODWELL 1834 DÖHL 1981 DU MONCEL 1843 EISNER 1991 EVANS 1901 FINN 2002 FITTON 1995a FITTON 1995b FRAZER 1898 FRENCH 1989 FRIEDERICHS 1868 GALLO 2009 GELL 1810a GELL 1810b GERHARD 1850 GERMAN 2005 F. BUSCEMI, L’Atene antica di Sebastiano Ittar. Un architetto di Lord Elgin tra Sicilia, Malta e Grecia, (KASA 4), Palermo. D. CHALLIS, From the Harpy Tomb to the wonders of Ephesus. British archaeologists in the Ottoman empire 1840-1880, London. J. CHARBONNEAUX, L’art égéen, Paris-Brussels. C. CHRISTOMANOS, Das Achilles-Schloss auf Corfu, Wien. A. CONZE-A. MICHAELIS, Rapporto d’un viaggio fatto nella Grecia nel 1860 da A. Conze ed A. Michaelis, (Annali dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archaeologica 33), Roma. B.F. COOK, The Elgin marbles, 2nd. ed., London. E. CURTIUS, Griechische Geschichte, I, Berlin. B. DE CRAENE, Les fresques du palais de Cnossos: art minoen ou Art Nouveau?, in Creta Antica 9, 47-71. N.T. DE GRUMMOND (ed.), An encyclopedia of the history of Classical archaeology, London-Chicago. A. DIERICHS, Das Achilleion auf Korfu. Ein Schloß für Achilleus und für Elisabeth von Österreich, in AntW 35.2, 47-53. E. DODWELL, A Classical tour through Greece, during the years 1801, 1805 and 1806, London. E. DODWELL, Views and descriptions of cyclopean, or pelasgic, remains in Greece and Italy, London. H. DÖHL, Heinrich Schliemann. Mythos und Ärgernis, Munich-Luzern. TH. DU MONCEL, Excursion d’Athènes à Nauplie, Paris. R. EISNER, Travelers to an antique land. The history and literature of travel to Greece, Ann Arbor. A.J. EVANS, Mycenaean tree and pillar cult and its Mediterranean relations, in JHS 21, 99-204. CH. FINN, A little souvenir: the marquess and the Mycenaean columns, in OJA 21, 1-12. J.L. FITTON, The discovery of the Greek Bronze Age, London. J.L. FITTON, Charles Newton and the discovery of the Greek Bronze Age, in CH. MORRIS (ed.), Klados. Essays in honour of J.N. Coldstream, London, 73-78. J.G. FRAZER, Pausanias’s description of Greece, III, London. E. FRENCH, ‘Dynamis’ in the archaeological record at Mycenae, in M.M. MAKKENZIE-C. ROUECHÉ (eds.), Images of authority, Papers presented to Joyce Reynolds on the occasion of her 70th birthday, (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 16), 122-130. C. FRIEDERICHS, Bausteine zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Plastik, Berlins antike Bildwerke, I. Die Gypsabgüsse im Neuen Museum, Düsseldorf. L. GALLO, Lord Elgin and ancient Greek architecture. The Elgin drawings at the British Museum, Cambridge. W. GELL, The itinerary of Greece with a commentary on Pausanias and Strabo and an account of the monuments of Antiquity at present existing in that country in the years 1801, 1802, 1805 and 1806, London. W. GELL, Argolis, London. E. GERHARD, Mykenische Alterthümer. Io die Mondkuh und das Löwenthor zu Mykenä, (BWPr 10), Berlin. S.C. GERMAN, Photography and fiction: the publication of the excavations at the palace of Minos at Knossos, in JMA 18.2, 209-230. 63 FRITZ BLAKOLMER GÖTTLING 1842 GÖTTLING 1851 HAMILAKIS 2007 HAMILAKIS-YALOURI 1996 HANGSTED 2000 HANKEY 1985 HERING 1985 HERRMANN 1991 HILLER 1973 HOLZSCHUH 1996 KARDARA 1970 KEISCH 2002 KOKKINIS 1979 KORRES 1977 KORRES 1981 KORRES 1983 KORRES 1984 KORRES 1986 KORRES 1988 KORRES 1998 KOUMANOUDIS 1984 KRAUSE 1891 KRZYSZKOWSKA 2000 KRZYSZKOWSKA 2005 LAFFINEUR-CROWLEY 1992 64 C.W. GÖTTLING, Das Thor von Mykenae, in Rheinisches Museum, N.F. 1, 161-175. C.W. GÖTTLING, Gesammelte Abhandlungen aus dem classischen Alterthume, I, Halle. Y. HAMILAKIS, The nation and its ruins. Antiquity, archaeology, and national imagination in Greece, Oxford. Y. HAMILAKIS-E. YALOURI, Antiquities as symbolic capital in modern Greek society, in Antiquity 70, 117-129. I. HANGSTED, “Landet er alt for guddommeligt skjont” - Brondsted og Koes i Graekenland, in Kobenhavn-Athen tur/retur. Danmark og Graekenland i 1800-talet, (MedKob n.s. 2), Copenhagen, 69-86. H. HANKEY, Archaeology: artifacts and artifications, (SIMA-PB 37), Gothenburg. G. HERING, O Otto Magnus von Stackelberg sthn Ellavda, Athens. J. HERRMANN (ed.), Heinrich Schliemann. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse moderner Archäologie 100 Jahre nach Schliemanns Tod, Berlin. S. HILLER, Das Löwentor von Mykene, in AntW 4.4, 21-30. R. HOLZSCHUH (ed.), Die letzte Griechin. Kaiserin Elisabeth auf Korfu, Aschaffenburg. CH. KARDARA, H shmasiva tou anagluvfou thı puvlhı twn leovntwn, in AAA 3.2, 238-246. C. KEISCH, Gipssammlungen als “ästhetischer Kramladen”, in Antikensammlung Berlin (ed.), Die griechische Klassik. Idee oder Wirklichkeit, Mainz, 729-736. S. KOKKINIS, Ta mouseiva thı Ellavdoı. Odhgovı, istoriva, Qhsaurovı, Athenai. G.S. KORRES, Anadromaiv eiı ton Neoklassikismovn, Athenai. G.S. KORRES, Das Mausoleum Heinrich Schliemanns auf dem Zentralfriedhof von Athen, in Boreas 4, 133-173. G.S. KORRES, To mauswleivo tou Errivkou Slhmvan sto prwvto nekrotafeivo Aqhnwvn, in Filologikhv Prwtocroniav 30, 343-350. G.S. KORRES, Neues zum Mausoleum Heinrich Schliemanns in Athen, in Boreas 7, 317-325. G.S. KORRES, Der Beitrag von Heinrich Schliemann zur Kenntnis der griechischen historischen Vergangenheit, in Der Philhellenismus und die Modernisierung in Griechenland und Deutschland, Thessaloniki, 153-188. G.S. KORRES, Heinrich Schliemanns “Iliou Melathron” in Athen, in AntW 19.3, 62-64. G.S. KORRES, H poluvcruseı Mukhvneı, in H Kaqhmerinhv, Eptav Hmevrreı, 31 May, 18-21. S.N. KOUMANOUDIS, H ellhnikhv arcaiologiva, Athenai. E. KRAUSE, Ein Tempelbild aus den Königsgräbern von Mykene, (Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie), Berlin, 700-701. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, The eye of the beholder: some nineteenth century views of Aegean glyptic, in I. PINI (ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. Internationales Siegel-Symposium, Marburg, 23th-25th September 1999, (CMS Beih. 6), Berlin, 149-163. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals. An introduction, London. R. LAFFINEUR-J.L. CROWLEY (eds.), EIKWN. Aegean Bronze Age icono- IMAGES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LION GATE RELIEF AT MYCENAE DURING THE 19TH CENTURY LAVERY-FRENCH 2003 LEAKE 1846 LIEB-HUFNAGL 1979 MCDONALD-THOMAS 19902 MCENROE 2002 MEIER 1963 MÜLLER 1820 MÜLLER 1873 MURE 1838 MURE 1842 MYLONAS 1965 MYLONAS 1970 MYLONAS 1983 MYLONAS SHEAR 2000 NILSSON 1927 NOACK 1921 PAPADOPOULOS 2005 PETRAKOS 1987 PETRAKOS 1999 POLYCHRONOPOULOU 1999 PROTONOTARIOUDEILAKI 1965 RAMSAY 1888 RANGABÉ 1842 RODENWALDT 1957 SCHAUB 1863 SCHINDLER 1986 SCHLIEMANN 1869 graphy: shaping a methodology, Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6-9 April 1992, (Aegaeum 8), Liège. J. LAVERY-E.B. FRENCH, Early accounts of Mycenae, in S.E. IAKOVIDIS, Archaeological atlas of Mycenae, (The Archaeological Society at Athens Library 229), Athens, 1-5. W.M. LEAKE, Peloponnesiaca: a supplement to travels in the Moréa, London. N. LIEB-F. HUFNAGL, Leo von Klenze. Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Munich. W.A. MCDONALD-C.G. THOMAS, Progress into the past. The rediscovery of Mycenaean civilization, 2nd ed., Bloomington-Indianapolis. J.C. MCENROE, Cretan questions: politics and archaeology 1898-1930, in Y. HAMILAKIS (ed.), Labyrinth revisited. Rethinking “Minoan” archaeology, Oxford, 59-72. M. MEIER, Das Achilleion, Munich. K.O. MÜLLER, De tripode Delphico, Göttingen. K.O. MÜLLER, Kunstarchaeologische Werke, Berlin. COL. W. MURE, Ueber die königlichen Grabmäler des heroischen Zeitalters, in Rheinisches Museum 6, 256. COL. W. MURE, Journal of a tour in Greece and the Ionian islands, II, London-Edinborough. G.E. MYLONAS, H akrovpoliı twn Mukhnwvn, II, in ArchEph, 74-100. G.E. MYLONAS, The lion in Mycenaean times, in AAA 3, 421-425. G.E. MYLONAS, Poluvcrusoi Mukhvnai, Athenai. I. MYLONAS SHEAR, Tales of heroes. The origins of the homeric texts, New York-Athens. M.P. NILSSON, The Minoan-Mycenaean religion and its survival in Greek religion, Lund. F. NOACK, Die Sammlung der Gipsabgüsse nach Werken griechischer und römischer Skulptur in der Universität Berlin, in AA 1921, 15-34. J.K. PAPADOPOULOS, Antiquity depicted, in Antiquity & photography. Early views of ancient Mediterranean sites, London, 104-147. V.CH. PETRAKOS, Ideografiva thı en Aqhvnaiı Arcaiologikhvı Etaireivaı, in ArchEph 126, 25-197. V.CH. PETRAKOS, The Archaeological Society of Athens 1837-1999, Athens. O. POLYCHRONOPOULOU, Archéologues sur les pas d’Homère. La naissance de la protohistoire égéenne, Paris. E. PROTONOTARIOU-DEILAKI, Periv thı puvlhı ten Mukhnwvn, in ArchEph, 7-26. W.M. RAMSAY, A study of phrygian art, in JHS 9, 350-382. A.R. RANGABÉ, Antiquités helléniques ou répertoire d’inscriptions et d’autres antiquités découverts depuis l’affranchissement de la Grèce, Athens. G. RODENWALDT, Otto Magnus v. Stackelberg. Der Entdecker der griechischen Landschaft, Berlin. CH. SCHAUB, Excursion en Grèce, Geneva. W. SCHINDLER, Gerhart Rodenwaldt und die Geschichte des Bereiches Klassische Archäologie, in Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Reihe 35, part 8, 630-636. H. SCHLIEMANN, Ithaka, der Peloponnes und Troja. Archäologische Forschungen, Leipzig. 65 SCHLIEMANN 1874 SCHLIEMANN 1878 SCHOFIELD 2007 SHAW 1986 SIMPSON 1877 SMITH 1916 STEMMER 1993 STÜRMER 2006 TAYLOUR 19832 TSIGAKOU 1982 TSIGAKOU 1985 VERMEULE 1964 VON KLENZE 1838 VON STACKELBERG 1834 VOUTSAKI 2002 VOUTSAKI 2003 WACE 1921-23a WACE 1921-23b WAGSTAFF 2009 WARREN 1975 WELCKER 1864 66 H. SCHLIEMANN, Trojanische Alterthümer. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Troja, Leipzig. H. SCHLIEMANN, Mykenae. Bericht über meine Forschungen und Entdeckungen in Mykenae und Tiryns, Leipzig. L. SCHOFIELD, The Mycenaeans, London. M.C. SHAW, The Lion Gate Relief of Mycenae reconsidered, in Fivlia !Eph eiı Gewvrgion E. Mulwnavn, I, Athens, 108-23. W. SIMPSON, A pilgrimage to Mycenae, in ILN, 14th April, 357-358. A.H. SMITH, Lord Elgin and his collection, in JHS 36, 163-372. K. STEMMER (eds.), Berliner Gypse des 19. Jahrhunderts. Von der Idee zum Gipsabguß, Alfter. V. STÜRMER, Rezeption minoischer Kunst in Deutschland: 80 Jahre minoischmykenischer Saal der Berliner Universität, in 9th International Congress of Cretan Studies, Elounda, 1-6 October 2001, vol. I, 4, Irakleio, 389-400. W. TAYLOUR, The Mycenaeans, 2nd ed., London. F.-M. TSIGAKOU, Das wiederentdeckte Griechenland in Reiseberichten und Gemälden der Romantik, Bergisch Gladbach. F.-M. TSIGAKOU, Thomas Hope (1769-1831). Pictures from 18th Century Greece, Athens. E. VERMEULE, Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago-London. L. VON KLENZE, Aphoristische Bemerkungen gesammelt auf seiner Reise nach Griechenland, Berlin. O.M. VON STACKELBERG, La Grèce. Vues pittoresques et topographiques, dessinées par O. M. Baron de Stackelberg, Paris. S. VOUTSAKI, The ‘Greekness’ of Greek Prehistory: an investigation of the debate 1876-1900, in Pharos 10, 105-122. S. VOUTSAKI, Archaeology and the construction of the past in nineteenth century Greece, in H. HOKWERDA (ed.), Constructions of Greek past. Identity and historical consciousness from Antiquity to the Present, Groningen, 231-255. A.J.B. WACE, Excavations at Mycenae, VII. The Lion Gate and grave circle area, in BSA 25, 9-38. A.J.B. WACE, Excavations at Mycenae, IX. The tholos tombs, in BSA 25, 283-402. M. WAGSTAFF, Colonel Leake’s knowledge of events in Greece following independance: the Finlay correspondence, in M.L. SMITH-P.M. KITROMILIDESE. CALLIGAS (eds.), Scholars, travels, archives: Greek history and culture through the British School at Athens, Proceedings of a Conference held at the National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens, 6-7 October 2006, (BSA Studies 17), London, 27-38. P. WARREN, The Aegean Civilizations, Lausanne. F.G. WELCKER, Alte Denkmäler, vol. V, Göttingen.