Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-03-17

theless. dare to punish the Gauls, Aeces-
sarv to him in his warfare.
THAT IS to say. ,'rtil the entry of the
GaIls I'm Greek territories, the tomps
had been preserved from pl!age ny the
religious scruples Of the Inhabitants
which is. au reste, i'm accordance with
all hat we know Of the period peo-
ple. and the Gauls, having no reverence
for the religious preiudices OF the Greeks,
pillaged the grave OF their kings ds
we'll as their temples, The plumber OF
the royal tombs i'm those parts OF Greco
to which they had access Is the natural
The oleion Of a barbaric inhumation
was proposed by the great Russian arch
aeolbgist, Stephani, at the time or me
discovery. but his attribution 10 a period
subsequent 20 the beginning or the
Christian era was easily shown by Pro-
lessor Gardner to be ~untenaDle, ana MS
hypothesis has, consequently, been lett
out of account. The RUSSIAN was, now
ever. [ believe, right i'm the general con-
clusion. and only misled by the analo-
gies between certain finds IN RUSSIA OF
n later date, which bore a very percepti-
BILE relation to those OF Mycenae. Ihe
evidence brought forward by Mr.. NlcO-
ladies rs so precise in its bearing on the
date of the workmanship OF the vase III
duestion that Il seems 20 me 10 dispose
definitely Of any archaic attributlon 10
the inhumation of Mycenae.
The technical evidence given by the re-
mains on the palace site OF Tiryns bears
directly on the solution Of that problem,
and In as decisive a manner as that on
the tomb. The slabs Of limestone tound
in the ruins Of the palace are worked
with the stone-saw and the tube-drtll,
nothing appears OF the earlier manner OF
working, the conglomerate finished by
trituration-all that is In stu Is or the
stone-saw period, and, consequently,
must be brought down into the early
period Of Hellenic work proper. It's at
tribution TO the pre-Homeric period Is,
therefore, incorrect. During the discus
sion of this question at a meeting OF the
Hellenic Society, Of London, called ad
hoe, which my engagements did not per-
init me 10 attend, this point was not
there the most authoritative supporter
of the view Of Drs. Schliemann and
Dorpfsld, based his opinion on the pres
ence in the ruins OF stones worked by
the stone-saw and tube-drill. Blu In sub
sequent conversation with me on the
subject he admitted to me that he was
not aware Of the technical distinction
between the archaic n the seventh
century methods, and mad attributed
botn kinds TO the former period. As his
opinion was the most decisive adduced at
the meeting. IL carried with II the great
weight which his unqualled know
ledge OF antique processes gave, and was
considered by NAM OF those present con-
elusive. 1t had, however, as / have shown
in my former letter. ignored the most
important distinction due TO the sub
ject. The other problem, I. e., whether
the limestone slabs found at Ttryns bear
ing the evidences Of the use Of the stone
saw and tube-drill formed part, in the
situation in which they were found. OF
a palace Of their epoch. or, as / believe.
had been r~e-employed In a palace OF the
Byzantine times, the ruins OF which
covered the Acropolis OF Tiryns. re-
mains unaffected by this evidence. while
the contention Of DIR. Jebb, Mr.. Penrose.
and myself. hat the ruins are not those
of a pre-Homeric edifce. agrees with the
conclusion based on all the technical
evidence here adduced.