60 Part of the inscription, based on an incomplete transcription of the text, was published
by Kitchen 1965. The complete inscription was published by Edel 1966. According
to Cline 1994, p. 115, the statue base is no longer available for study, having been
destroyed in the late 1970s.
61 Drews 2005.
62 Kopanias 2015, p. 214.
63 Güterbock 1983, p. 134.
64 Güterbock 1967 provided a transliteration and translation of the tablet. For his
translation of the relevant sentence see p. 77.
65 Littauer and Crouwel 1996b, p. 300.
66 Driessen 1996, p. 483:
On the basis of the distribution of chariot units in the Mycenaean kingdom of
Knossos, Crouwel’s taxi-hypothesis will be adapted and changed into a more
defensive type of war system, perhaps better called “the wall of bronze”. If this
hypothesis is correct, it also provides an attractive explanation for the absence
of fortifications in specific Mycenaean centres.
See also Driessen’s concluding question, at p. 494:
Is it possible that the Mycenaean rulers of Knossos and Pylos depended primarily
on the chariot-forces as a deterrent, a static defensive system, whereas their
Mainland colleagues put their effort in the erection of fortified citadels, combined
with smaller chariot units patrolling the kingdom?
The battle-taxi thesis is required in part because Crouwel and Driessen, like many
other Aegeanists, do not believe that the Mycenaean chariot warrior’s main offensive
weapon was the bow.
67 Greenhalgh 1973. Cf. Drews 1988, pp. 165–66.
68 Crouwel 1981, p. 127.
69 Buchholz 2010, p. 30: “Der epische Kampfwagengebrauch gilt als entscheidender
Beweis für die Unwirklichkeit mancher Kampfschilderungen in der Ilias.”
70 Cotterell 2004, p. 196.
71 Shaughnessy 1988, p. 195.
72 For a recent argument to that effect see Archer 2010, pp. 58–62.
73 See Drews 1988, pp. 157–169, and Drews 1993a, pp. 122–124, on the long tradition
of ignoring the LH bow (in large part because very few warriors in the Iliaduse the
bow).
74 Driessen 1996, pp. 482–483.
75 For the arrowheads see Avila 1983, pp. 83–117, with drawings at Tafeln 23–29.
Although for comparative purposes he referred to arrowheads from Crete and the Aegean
islands, Avila restricted his project to the bronze arrowheads from the LH mainland.
He divided the arrowheads into three basic classes, with fifteen subclasses. Most of
the arrowheads are at least 2 cm long but dozens of them are smaller. The entire project
required an enormous amount of mostly thankless work. On the Pfeilspitzenfundein
Rooms 99 and 100 of the “Nestor Palace” see his p. 86. In his catalogue of Class 1a
type arrowheads nos. 193–532 are all from Pylos, with drawings at Tafeln 23 and 24.
76 Buchholz 1962.
77 In Buchholz 2010, pp. 226–297 deal with Fernwaffen. After presenting (pp. 227–234)
what is known about slings and sling-stones in LH Greece, on pp. 234–297 Buchholz
examined in detail the evidence for Pfeil und Bogen. Despite its wealth of information,
his 2010 monograph on Kriegswesensuffers—as did the first two—from the widely
shared assumption that infantry battles were the norm in Mycenaean Greece.
78 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, p. 361, refer to “R 0482, on which the ARROW
ideogram is followed by the high numbers 6010 and 2630 (which would require about
Militarism in Greece 211