^* The following article grew out of an analysis of the Argive Heraeum terrace in my unpublished dissertation (see n. 28). A shorter version of the article was presented in Boston at the 81st General Meeting of the AIA, December 1979, and appeared as an abstract in AJA lxxxiv (1980)Google Scholar. I wish to thank K. Wright, M. Lang, M. Mellink, B. Ridgway, L. and H. Watrous and M. Dabney for reading the manuscript in draft and making useful suggestions about form and content, as well as for useful references.

¹ Tilton, E. in Waldstein, C., The Argive Heraeum i (New York 1902) 110Google Scholar. (Hereafter AH.)

² Frickenhaus, A. and Müller, W., ‘Aus der Argolis’, AthMitt xxxvi (1911) 21–38Google Scholar and esp. fig. 2, illustrating two sherds said to be of Late Geometric and Early Protocorinthian date (see also Frickenhaus, A., Tiryns i [Berlin 1912] 114–20Google Scholar) but they are actually Late Geometric. (Hereafter all Tiryns vols are cited as Tiryns i–viii.)

³ Blegen, C. W., Prosymna (Cambridge 1937) 19–20Google Scholar.

⁴ Blegen (n. 3) 20.

⁵ See Tilton, AH i 110Google Scholar. A late date of c. 550 B.C. for the temple has been proposed by Bergquist, B., The Archaic Greek Temenos, Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Inst. i Athen, 4 xiii (Lund 1967) 19–21Google Scholar. She recognizes that the stylobate of the temple was set into the terrace and on the basis of that hypothesizes an earlier temple built directly on the stylobate. She proposes a mid-sixth century date on the basis of the votive dump of that period discovered by Caskey and Amandry in 1949 (p. 20) along the eastern slope of the lower terrace. I do not accept this date because of the technical features of the temple discussed below.

⁶ Beyer, I., ‘Die grossen Reliefgiebel des alten Athenatempels’, AA (1977) 53Google Scholar, accepting Tilton's conclusion that the stylobate was completely visible resting as it does on the terrace paving, sees the unworked lower portion of the stylobate as an example of an early masonry style also visible on the north foundation of the Old Athena Temple on the Acropolis. There is, however, no legitimate basis for comparison of this terrace foundation with that of the Heraeum stylobate, nor even with the old Hera temple terrace as Beyer does, for the Old Athena Temple terrace consists of two different masonry styles—the lower courses of roughly worked and coursed Kara limestone blocks with projecting faces and the uppermost of longer, more regularly cut and coursed ashlars of the same stone. At least in classical times the central portion of the north terrace, abutting the Erechtheion, was covered by earth, for there was the Kekropeion which was entered from the stylobate of the Old Athena Temple. (I wish to thank Dr Judith Binder for examining this terrace for me and clarifying my observations.) Surely the method of dressing the stylobate seen on the Heraeum stylobate is a normal and logical means of dressing the stone down to the intended or actual ground level? The Mycenaeans did this regularly for their thresholds and column bases (see Müller, K., Tiryns iii 187–8Google Scholar and Nylander, C., ‘Die sogenannte mykenischen Säulenbasen auf der Akropolis von Athen’, Opuscula Atheniensa iv [1963] 14–45Google Scholar), and it was standard procedure in classical times: see for example the stylobate of the archaic temple of Apollo Daphnephoros at Eretria; Auberson, P., Eretria iGoogle Scholar: Templ d'Apollon Daphnéphoros (Bern 1968) 16Google Scholar, photographs 14, 15.

⁷ Tilton, AH i 110Google Scholar; it is curious that this feature has gone unobserved, particularly since Waldstein concluded at the end of his campaign of 1893 that the stylobate was not visible below its dressed portion: AH i 74Google Scholar. The caked limestone layer lay over a ‘stratum of black burnt earth matter and charcoal’ (Tilton, 110)Google Scholar; its position 0·30 m above the pavement places it at the juncture of the smoothed and roughened faces of the stylobate making the caked layer an obvious candidate for a floor. This layer was also observed around the temple but, unfortunately, precisely where was not recorded. However, Brownson, C., ‘Excavations at the Heraeum of Argos’, AJA iii (1893) 213–14 and pl. XIIGoogle Scholar, reported that the trenches cut into the terrace surface disclosed a layer of black earth upon dark red soil which he took to be burnt debris from the temple; below this layer at the west and the south he reported discovering slabs of the terrace paving; see also Waldstein, , AH i 74Google Scholar. Even without these reports, the smoothed sides of the stylobate indicate that it projected above ground or floor level both inside and outside the pteron. Following Pausanias ii 17.7 (cf. Thuc. iv 133) Tilton reported that the archaic temple was burned; there is, however, no archaeological evidence that the caked limestone or the burnt stratum below it represent the remains of that conflagration: see n. 8.

⁸ Hoppin, J. C. observed in his contribution to the Heraeum report, ‘The Vases and Vase Fragments’ AH ii 61Google Scholar, that many baskets of material were recovered from the old temple terrace, predominantly of Late Geometric and Protocorinthian date; perhaps these originally came from the ash layer above the paving.

⁹ Isthmia: Broneer, O., The Temple of Poseidon, Isthmia, i (Glückstadt 1971) 3–55Google Scholar. Thermon: Soteriades, G., ‘᾿Ανασκαφαὶ ἐν Θέρμῳ ᾿’, ArchEph (1900), cols 173–4Google Scholar, plan on col. 175. Olympia: Mallwitz, A., ‘Das Heraion von Olympia und seine Vorgänger’, JdI lxxxi (1966) 310–76Google Scholar. Dörpfeld, , Alt-Olympia i (Berlin 1935) 182Google Scholar, would add the stylobate remains inside the cella of the Athena Alea temple at Tegea on the basis of the moon-shaped cuttings on the rough, archaic looking stylobate within the fourth-century temple; Clemmensen, , however, (Le Sanctuaire d'Alea Athena à Tegée au iv^e Siècle [Paris 1924] 12–13 and Pls III–IV, VI–VIIIGoogle Scholar) believes they represent the remains of a Byzantine church. The question will remain moot until the site is re-examined.

¹⁰ Mallwitz, (n. 9) and Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich 1972) 138Google Scholar.

¹¹ Payne, H., ‘On the Thermon Metopes’, BSA xxvii (1925–1926) 124–32Google Scholar; Jeffery, L. H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 1961) 226Google Scholar, no. 2, which is c. 625 B.C.

¹² Broneer (n. 9) i 55, prefers a date of the first half of the seventh century on the basis of the pottery, the type of roof tile and the marble perirrhanterion. The pottery of course neither indicated a construction nor destruction date in this context; the perirrhanterion and roof tiles cannot be closely dated at present for no examples have been found in well-stratified contexts. Ducat, J., ‘Perirrhanteria’, BCH lxxxviii (1964) 585–6, 604Google Scholar, has suggested a stylistic date of 650–40 B.C. for the Isthmia example. We should not imagine the temple to have been erected much before the installation of this central piece of ritual furniture: Broneer 12 points out that the chronological relationship between the perirrhanterion and an iron tripod next to it cannot be established, although he preferred that the tripod, which was not preserved, be the earlier of the two. As there is no secure evidence for its date, the temple will best be dated in consideration of its relationship to earlier and later Greek temples. I believe another indication against a high date for this temple is the close relation of its tiles to those of the early sixth-century temple of Aphaia on Aegina. The latter with their decorative element set at the middle of the edge of the eaves tiles and the lack of a developed antefix on the cover tiles are a direct development of the Isthmia tiles: see Schwandner, E.-L., 'Der ältere Aphaiatempel auf Aegina’, Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern, ed. Jantzen, U. (Tübingen 1976) 110–13Google Scholar; cf. Buschor, E., Tondächer der Akropolis ii (Berlin 1933)Google Scholar, ‘Traufziegel II, Stirnziegel I, II’, 6–7, 26–9.

¹³ Roebuck, M. C., ‘Excavations at Corinth: 1954’, Hesp. xxiv (1955) 147–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, did not propose a date but left open the possibility of one during Late Protocorinthian on the basis of pottery from the area. H. S. Robinson's recent attempt to place the temple in Late Geometric times is not supported by his stratigraphic observations (see ‘Excavations at Corinth: Temple Hill, 1968–1972’, Hesp. xlv [1976] 211–12, 218 and 224–35Google Scholar and cf. Roebuck 135), and the Early Protocorinthian jug provides a terminus post quem for construction: perhaps he building was erected in the first quarter of the seventh century.

¹⁴ Amandry, P., ‘Observations sur les monuments de l'Héraion d'Argos’, Hesp. xxi (1952) 225–6, and n. 14Google Scholar; see also Buschor, E., ‘Heraion von Samos: Frühe Bauten’, AthMitt lv (1930) 11–20, 38Google Scholar, fig. 14 and Beilage II, and Gruben, G., ‘Die Südhalle’, AthMitt lxxii (1957) 52–62Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Broneer (n. 9) i 54.

¹⁶ G. Soteriades (n. 9) 174.

¹⁷ Curtius, E. and Adler, F., Olympia, plate vol. i, (Berlin 1892), Pl. XVIIIGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Dinsmoor, W. B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece³ (London 1950)Google Scholar, ‘Chronological list of Greek Temples’ 340–1; see also Coulton, J. J., Ancient Greek Architects at Work (Ithaca 1977) 37–8Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Coulton (n. 18) ch. 2, and his review of Broneer's publication of the Isthmia temple in JHS xcv (1975) 71Google Scholar.

²⁰ The existence of these features was not noticed by Tilton nor remarked upon by Amandry (n. 14) but they are widely known to those who frequent the remains: I was first shown them by Dr C. K. Williams II, in 1972. They have never been published nor has a systematic study of them been made. I note them here for the record.

²¹ Coulton, J. J., ‘Lifting in Early Greek Architecture’, JHS xciv (1974) 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 1–3 and n. 8.

²² Coulton (n. 21) 3, points out such lifting holes for columns at Delphi in the Athena Pronaia and early Apollo temples. The lathe is said to have been introduced for the first time at Samos where it was the invention of Rhoikos for the third Hera temple of the sixth century (Pliny, NH xxxvi 90Google Scholar); Johannes, H., ‘Die Säulenbasen vom Heratempel des Rhoikos’, AthMitt lxii (1937) 13–37Google Scholar.

²³ Amandry (n. 14); Oikonomos, G., ‘῾Ο ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Αργείου ῾Ηηραίου πήλινος οἰκίσκος κατὰ νέαν συμπλήρωσιν’, ArchEph (1931) 1–53Google Scholar.

²⁴ See my article, ‘Mycenaean Palatial Terraces’, AthMitt xcv (1980) 59–86Google Scholar.

²⁵ See especially, Mylonas, G. E., ‘Mycenae's Last Century of Greatness’, Australian Humanities Research Council, Occasional Paper xiii (1968) 15–17Google Scholar.

²⁶ See examples at Tiryns, Pylos and Gla discussed in my article cited in n. 24.

²⁷ This bridge is often misunderstood as later in date, i.e. Geometric or Hellenistic; this seems primarily due to a confusion of a reference by Blegen, , ‘Prosymna: Remains of Post-Mycenaean date’, AJA xliii (1939) 427–30Google Scholar, to a bridge in the Kastraki ravine slightly west of the Heraeum tholos, which he cleaned and described as part of a renovation activity in the area, perhaps as a part of a renovation of the original Mycenaean road that connected Mycenae with the Heraeum.

²⁸ See my doctoral dissertation, Mycenaean Masonry Practices and Elements of Construction (Bryn Mawr 1978) unpublished, pp. 228–36Google Scholar; copies available at the Bryn Mawr College library and the library of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

²⁹ Vollgraff, G., Mnemos. lvi (1928) 6Google Scholar.

³⁰ The Klytemnestra tholos apparently received Geometric and Archaic votives (Wace, , BSA xxv [1921–1923] 284, 364, 366Google Scholar) but this cannot be established for the other tholoi at Mycenae because the sherd material may have fallen into the tomb (dromos and tholos) from above (Wace, passim). Note, however, that Coldstream, ‘Hero-cults in the Age of Homer’, JHS xcvi (1976) 9, n. 12Google Scholar, has drawn attention to Desborough's identification of a bronze pin of Geometric type from the Bothros of the Treasury of Atreus.

³¹ Blegen, C. W., ‘Post-Mycenaean Deposits in Chamber tombs’, ArchEph c (1937) 377–90Google Scholar.

³² Ibid. 390.

³³ N. Coldstream (n. 30) 8–17; see also Snodgrass, A., The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh 1971) 192–4, 394–401, 429–36Google Scholar.

³⁴ Blegen (n. 31) 377–90; id., AJA xliii (1939) 410–14. It is commonly suggested that Hera and hero were in fact related, but linguistic analyses are not entirely convincing, although they deserve serious consideration, particularly in the present context: see Pötscher, W., ‘Hera und Heros’, RhM civ (1961) 302–55Google Scholar. The arguments for their connection are weakest when traced back into Linear B (Pötscher 328–30), particularly when Hera is functionally linked with the ‘wanax’, as by West, M. L. in his commentary on Hesiod, Works and Days (Oxford 1978) 370–3Google Scholar (I wish to thank M. Lang for this reference). But many scholars are agreed that the etymological relation between ‘Hera’ and ‘hero’ is likely (Pötscher 328). The religious position of the ‘wanax’ is not well defined: see the Fr tablets, Ventris, and Chadwick, , Documents in Mycenaean Greek² (Cambridge 1973) 119, 408Google Scholar; Hooker, J. T., ‘The Wanax in Linear B Tablets’, Kadmos xviii (1979) 100–11Google Scholar; Bennett's, E. useful warning against the assumption of a priest-king, ‘The “Priest King” in Minoan Studies’, Kret.Chron. xv–xvi (1961–1962) 1Google Scholar. 327–35, and Thomas', C. G. review of the religious position of the ‘wanax’ in ‘The Nature of Mycenaean Kingship’, SMEA xvii (1976) 903–13Google Scholar, with comprehensive bibliography and review of views expressed.

³⁵ Blegen, , AJA xliii (1939) 412Google Scholar; a black-glaze sherd inscribed to Hera was found in the excavation of the altar.

³⁶ Ibid. 415 and fig. 6; Schefold, K., Frühgriechische Sagenbilder (Munich 1964) 44–5Google Scholar; cf. Bartels, H., VIII. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia (1967) 198–205, Pl. 32cGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Cook, J. M., ‘The Agamemnoneion’, BSA xlviii (1953) 30–68Google Scholar; id. ‘The Cult of Agamemnon at Mycenae’, Geras Ant. Keramopoullou (Athens 1953) 112–18.

³⁸ Cook, , Geras Keramopoullou (n. 37) 113Google Scholar.

³⁹ Iliad iii 51Google Scholar; iv 908.

⁴⁰ Thuc. ii 2; iv 133; see also Kelly, T., A History of Argos (Minneapolis 1976) 60Google Scholar and n. 20 with refs; Waldstein, , AH i 4–10 with literary refsGoogle Scholar; and Drews, R., ‘Argos and Argives in the Iliad’, CPh lxxiv (1979) 127–35Google Scholar, for a useful discussion of references to Argos and Argives in this period; I wish to thank Professor Drews for bringing this article to my attention.

⁴¹ Nauplia: Paus. ii 38.2; see also Tiryns i 42–6Google Scholar; Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (Ithaca 1972) 203–4Google Scholar; also possibly on the Larissa at Argos where Pausanias (ii 24.1) reports a sanctuary of Hera Akraia—some Geometric material has been recovered from there (Roes, A., ‘Fragments de poterie géometrique trouvés sur les citadelles d'Argos’, BCH lxxvii [1953] 90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar) but cannot be used to certify the existence of a cult there at that time.

⁴² Woodhead, A. G., ‘The Boundary Stone from the Perseia Fountain House’, BSA xlviii (1953) 27–9Google Scholar.

⁴³ Hägg, R., Die Gräber der Argolis, Boreas vii. 1 (Uppsala 1974) 64–71, 92–6Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Wace, A. J. B., ‘Mycenae, 1939’, JHS lix (1939) 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar for the Geometric remains; id., BSA xxv (1921–23) 245, for the Protocorinthian date of the fill of the temple terrace. The temple was discovered by Ch. Tsountas, , PAE 1886, 59–61Google Scholar, and is often ascribed to Athena on the slender evidence of a bronze plaque found in the south-western corner of the area above the palace court: see IG iv 492Google Scholar; Jeffery (n. 11) 172 (2), with bibliography. For arguments about the so-called metopes of the seventh-century temple see Harl-Schaller, F., ‘Die archäischen “Metopen” aus Mykene’, JÖAI l (1972–1973) 94–116Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Tiryns iii 214Google Scholar; Grossmann, P. in Führer durch Tiryns, ed. Jantzen, U. (Athens 1975) 97–9, 159–61Google Scholar. Tiryns: Dörpfeld, W. in Schliemann, , Tiryns (1886; repr. New York 1967) 293–4Google Scholar. Frickenhaus, A., Tiryns i 2–25Google Scholar; Naumann, U. in Jantzen, , Führer 126–9Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ See also the testimony of local Argive historians as analyzed by Jacoby, F., ‘Io Kallithuessa’, Hermes lvii (1922) 366–74Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Tiryns i 2–13, 31–41Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Blegen, C. W., Korakou (Cambridge 1921) 130–4Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Alin, P., Das Ende der Mykenischen Fundstätten auf dem Griechischen Festland, SIMA i (1963) 33–4Google Scholar, discusses this problem and lists a few sherds of probable LH IIIC date from Schliemann's excavations (n. 168). He follows Blegen's dating of the building within the megaron and adds the two small wall fragments over corridors Xa, b as well as the cross wall in Room XXI. Excavation since Schliemann has not discovered LH IIIC on the Upper Citadel. The West Wall deposit is LH IIIB: 2 at latest and clarifies the destruction date of the citadel—although see Voigtländer, W., Tiryns vi 243Google Scholar, who sees this material as dumped fill from the Great Court (II), a conclusion contrary to all the detailed architectural and archaeological analysis of Müller, K. (Tiryns iii 21–2, 119–27)Google Scholar and countered by Schachermeyr, F. (Die Ägäische Frühzeit ii: Die Mykenische Zeit [Vienna 1976] 123)Google Scholar. Schachermeyr, however, goes too far in the other direction by suggesting that the epichosis is merely Schliemann's dump: see Verdelis, N., ArchEph (1956) 5Google Scholar and figs 7, 8, or ADelt xx.A (1965) pl. 65Google Scholar, which show beyond doubt that the dump and epichosis are independent units lying side by side. Slenczka, E., Tiryns vii 156–9Google Scholar, has shown that although pictorial style pottery of LH IIIC date was preserved on the Lower Citadel and City, none was found from the Upper Citadel (see also Schachermeyr 128–9), thus reinforcing the evidence for an abandonment of the Upper Citadel consequent upon its destruction. Alin's contention that the wall fragments in Xa, b and XXI are LH IIIC along with the building in the megaron is not stratigraphically verifiable. Furthermore, those in Xa, b could have been supports for the stairway in those rooms: cf. Blegen, C. W., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Southwestern Messenia i (Princeton 1965) 168Google Scholar, where stairway 36 is partially supported by a cross wall. Also the wall in XXI is a part of the stairway, which would hardly have been a necessary construction after the destruction of the palace, cf. Tiryns iii 158–9, 209–10Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Müller, , Tiryns iii 20Google Scholar, fig. 15, 210 and n. 1, observed that in an upper level at the north side of the outer forecourt were many Mycenaean type votive animals and also some Geometric sherds.

⁵¹ Schliemann (n. 45) 8.

⁵² Drerup, H., ‘Griechische Baukunst in geometrischcr Zeit’, Arch. Homerica ii O (1969) 1–21Google Scholar; Coldstream, N., Geometric Greece (New York 1977) 321–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ Particularly the first Hekatompedon at Samos (Buschor, E., ‘Heraion von Samos: Frühe Bauten’, AthMitt lv–lvi [1930–1931] 10–17Google Scholar; Walter, H., Das Heraion von Samos [Munich 1976] 41–53Google Scholar); the early Artemis temple at Sparta (Dawkins, R. M., The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, Soc. for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, Suppl. Paper v [London 1929] 9–14Google Scholar; Boardman, J., 'Artemis Orthia and Chronology’, BSA lviii [1963] 1–7Google Scholar, for the early seventh-century date); the ‘Megaron Hall’ at Emborio (Boardman, J., Excavations at Chios 1952–1955, BSA Suppl. vi [1976] 31–4Google Scholar): cf. the elongated eighth-century apsidal ‘Hekatompedon’ at Eretria (Auberson, P., Schefold, K., Führer durch Eretria [Bern 1972] 117–18Google Scholar); see also Coulton, J. J., Ancient Greek Architects at Work (Ithaca 1977) 74Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Drerup (n. 52) 123–33; Pernier, , ‘New Elements for the Study of the Archaic Temple of Prinias’, AJA xxxviii (1934) 174Google Scholar; Snodgrass (n. 33) 422–4.

⁵⁵ For Blegen, see Korakou, 130–2Google Scholar; for the abbreviated plan see Drerup (n. 52) 108–10, where he discusses the inclusion of posts and pilasters on socles along the insides of walls of a number of early temples in order to help support the roof; cf. Building, H at Eretria in Auberson, , ‘La reconstitution du Daphnéphoreion d'Eretrie’, AntK xvii (1973) 60–8Google Scholar. Such modest megara also occur for reasons of technical economy in LH III.

⁵⁶ Tiryns iii 136–8Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Tiryns iii 214Google Scholar and Dörpfeld in Schliemann (n. 45) 223–4; Mylonas, G. E., Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton 1966) 162–3Google Scholar has doubted the identification of this structure as well as its purported Mycenaean date. Dörpfeld and Müller's identification of ‘altar’ blocks built into the socle of structure T (the Hera temple) probably exclude the round phase of the ‘altar’ from a Late Geometric date. Furthermore the dowel cuttings on the upper surface of the blocks, the tooling of the surfaces and the material (poros limestone) all bespeak a Mycenaean date.

⁵⁸ Tiryns iii 214Google Scholar; Gercke in Jantzen (n. 45) 97–9 and esp. 159–61.

⁵⁹ Schliemann (n. 45) 357; Frickenhaus, , Tiryns i 14–18Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Tiryns i 14–18, 28–30Google Scholar and Part II on the finds, esp. pp. 57, 65 and no. 37, Pl. v 6.

⁶¹ Tiryns i 47–106Google Scholar; AH ii 3–44 and Pls XLII–XLVIGoogle Scholar; Jenkins, R. H. in Payne, H., Perachora i (Oxford 1940) 195–6Google Scholar, passim; Neutsch, B., ‘Archäologische Grabungen und Funde in Unteritalien’, AA (1956) 429–32, figs 146–8Google Scholar.

⁶² Contra Kelly (n. 40) 62; see below.

⁶³ Drews (n. 40) 125–30.

⁶⁴ Cf. Tiryns i 26Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ For Athens see C. Nylander (n. 6) 31–77 and Dinsmoor, W. B., ‘The Hekatompedon on the Athenian Akropolis’, AJA li. (1947) 109–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Asine see the tentative identification of a temple foundation attributed by the excavators to Apollo and resting at the top of the Barbouna ridge: Frödin, O., Persson, A. and Westholm, A., Asine (Stockholm 1938) 148–50Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Strabo (viii 6.11) identifies Prosymna adjacent to Midea; a lacuna in the text does not permit a secure association between Prosymna and the following statement that the site had a temple to Hera. For Pausanias (ii 17.2) Prosymna was the region below the Heraeum. See discussion of this topographical problem in Frickenhaus, , Tiryns i 118–20Google Scholar; Waldstein, , AH i 13–14Google Scholar; Blegen (n. 3) 10; H. L. Jones in the Loeb edn of Strabo, vol. iv (1927) nn. to pp. 169–71. As for remains of a Late Helladic settlement see: Tilton, , AH i 108–9Google Scholar, who reports the remains of a ‘peribolus’ of early date (‘possibly pre-Mycenaean’) just behind the South Stoa (AH i Pl. VII) and of some prehistoric houses, all of which were further explored by Blegen (11–21, esp. 12 on the peribolus). These remains are scrappy and much disturbed by the later building activity of the sanctuary. There are no traces of any monumental or even large structures and the peribolus is not classifiable as a Cyclopean circuit wall. Additional remains were uncovered by Caskey, J. L. and Amandry, P., ‘Investigaions at the Heraeum of Argos’, Hesp. xxi (1952) 1701Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Nilsson, M. P., The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion (Lund 1951) 488, 473–82Google Scholar. Lorimer, , Homer and the Monuments (Cambridge 1950) 433–9Google Scholar; on the relation of Homeric description and the Geometric house with respect to the archaeological evidence see Drerup (n. 52) 128–33.

⁶⁸ Lorimer (n. 67) 439.

⁶⁹ Wace, A. J., ‘Mycenae’, JHS lix (1939) 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tsountas (n. 44) 59–79.

⁷⁰ See Frickenhaus', useful discussion of this problem: Tiryns i 119–20Google Scholar; note that today there is evidence of a Hera cult at Mycenae, above n. 42.

⁷¹ Waldstein, C. et al. , AH iiGoogle Scholar; Blegen, , AJA xliii (1939) 410–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Caskey and Amandry (n. 66) 165–221.

⁷² See n. 41, above.

⁷³ Coldstream (n. 30) 10.

⁷⁴ It is remarkable that Pausanias did see at the Heraeum a relic of the Age of Heroes, the shield of Euphorbos (Paus. ii 17.3). Was this a souvenir from one of the Mycenaean tombs?

⁷⁵ Diodorus (xi 65.2) also mentions a dispute between Argos and Mycenae over the Heraeum in connection with a quarrel over the games at Nemea; this is, however, an event much later than that with which we are concerned, see also Kelly (n. 40) 51–93.

⁷⁶ Hägg (n. 43) 13–17; an increasing population can be postulated from the number of burials during the course of the Dark Age: Geometric graves make up about 60% of the total (p. 17) but in gross numbers Argos has over 186 EG–LG graves compared to 69 + at Tiryns.

⁷⁷ Kelly (n. 40) 62.

⁷⁸ Kelly (n. 40) 62–3 and 66–8, where he raises the question of a league, which if it existed, would have been controlled by Argos with the Heraeum as its center.

⁷⁹ Blegen (n. 31) 377; the evidence for Mycenae, Argos and elsewhere is summarized with bibliography by Coldstream (n. 30) 9–10 and nn. 12–15.

⁸⁰ See: Mallwitz, A., ‘Kritisches zur Architektur Griechenlands im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert’, AA (1981) 599–642Google Scholar, which focuses on the stylobate of the Archaic temple at the Argive Heraeum as being among the earliest sure examples of a peripteral temple. A more detailed discussion of this temple by Kalpaxis, A., Früharchaische Baukunst in Griechenland und Kleinasien (1976)Google Scholar has not been available to me.