85 Schofield 2007, p. 30.
86 Manning 1986, p. 286; Gauss 2010, p. 745.
87 The rhyton portrays a battle taking place between a fortified place and the sea. The
wall includes towers, and women are standing and gesturing on the wall, but there
is no siege tower, siege mound, or siege operations. As interpreted by Hooker 1967,
the rhyton portrays not a siege but rather the landing of aggressors and the attempt
by archers to dispel them during the Shaft Grave era. In the scene as interpreted by
Marinatos, “a town is under siege and a naval force arrives by sea, perhaps to aid
the town” (Marinatos 2005, p. 153).
88 See Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, no. 16, and her commentary at pp. 15–16 on the dating
of this sword. A slimmer Griffplattenschwert (Kilian-Dirlmeier no. 6) comes from
Jonkovo, Bulgaria, but its find circumstances are unknown. Several long blades
from Arkalochori are also catalogued as Griffplattenschwerter by Kilian-Dirlmeier,
although they have no rivet holes in the potential grip plate and were therefore
not swords but sword-blades. See Kilian-Dirlmeier nos. 12–15
89 For the Type A Mallia swords see Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, nos. 32 and 33. The part
of the palace in which they were found probably, although not certainly, collapsed
with the rest of the palace at the end of MM II.
90 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, no. 39.
91 For four incised and well-preserved Type A rapiers from Arkalochori see Kilian-
Dirlmeier 1993, nos. 22–25 (nos. 26–30 are catalogued but not shown). See also
Sandars 1961, p. 17, with Plate 17,3.
92 J. S. Pendlebury dated the Arkalochori rapiers to the MM III period, mostly on
typological grounds, and that date is still accepted. Molloy 2010, p. 404, also assigns
the Arkalochori swords to MM III. The MM III palace at Galatas was discovered in
1992.
93 The treasure does not seem to have been votive. Ellen Adams observes that the
normal signs of ritual—figurines, offerings, an altar—have not been found at the cave,
and she concludes that “[T]he deposit resembles a hoard deposited on a single
occasion, rather than the remains of repeated ritual practice.” See Adams 2004,
pp. 33–34.
94 See Molloy 2010, p. 404, note 11: “[T]he fragmentary state of many pieces is the
foremost problem in ascertaining exact quantities.”
95 For the Amorgos swords see nos. 489, 490 and 491 (on Plate 11) in Branigan 1974.
At p. 165 Branigan gives the three no chronological context. See also Sandars 1961,
Plate 17, no. 7.
96 Renfrew 1967, p. 13, noting that tin bronze was very rare in EB Aegean, concluded
that the tin bronze sickle from Amorgos dates to the LBA. “The three swords from
Amorgos (Cat. nos. 70–72) are likewise later than the Early Bronze Age.” For a less
skeptical view see Branigan 1968, p. 198, and Dickinson 1994, p. 200.
97 Molloy 2010, p. 404.
98 See Branigan 1968, p. 198:
A study of the individual features of the Byblos sword therefore leads one to
the conclusion that this weapon would be much more at home in the Aegean,
and this is surely confirmed by the absence of suitable descendants of the sword
in Syria in the period of the Middle Bronze Age.
99 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, p. 48: the Type A rapier had “eine rein ägäische Entstehung.”
100 See Dickinson 1994, p. 50: “it has been calculated that, according to the number of
zones of plates, anything from thirty to seventy-five pairs of tusks would be needed
for a single helmet.”
101 Goldman, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1931), p. 54; see also p. 220 and Fig. 290. The tusk plates were found on the
102 Warfare in Western Eurasia