44 Crouwel 1981, pp. 101–104, with catalogue at p. 158 and drawings in Plates 1–8.
In Donder 1980, nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are jointed bronze snaffles from Miletos, Mycenae
and Thebes.
45 Aravantinos 2009, p. 48, with Fig. 13.
46 Crouwel 1981, pp. 106–107.
47 A. M. Leskov, “Drevnejšie rogovye psalii iz Trachtemirova,” Sovetskaja Archeologija
1964, pp. 299–303.
48 See Hüttel 1981, pp. 40–48: “Die Scheibenknebel aus Schachtgrab IV von Mykenai.”
Littauer was early aware of Leskov’s proposal but rejected it. See Littauer and Crouwel- Subsequent discoveries soon brought Crouwel to a non liquet: see Crouwel
1981, pp. 105–106. Piggott 1983, pp. 98–101, noted Littauer’s objections but found
Leskov’s arguments persuasive.
49 For the fullest description of the Scheibenknebel from Mycenaean Greece and the
steppe see now the second chapter (“Die Wangenscheiben,” pp. 23–108) in Penner - For another helpful analysis of the evolution of Scheibenknebel, and the place
of the Mycenaean pieces in this evolution, see Kuz’mina 2007, pp. 115–124. In these
pages Kuz’mina recaps the analysis she originally published in Russian in 1981.
50 Aravantinos 2009, p. 43, with Fig. 3. These were found in the LH IIIB destruction
level.
51 Feldman and Sauvage 2010, p. 133. For a study of all the stelai, along with excellent
drawings, see Younger 1997.
52 Younger 1997, p. 232.
53 Feldman and Sauvage 2010, pp. 95–96.
54 Sauvage suggests (Feldman and Sauvage 2010, pp. 105–106), that at Ugarit chariot
kraters may have been mostly in the hands of the maryannu. In the house of Urtenu
were sherds from six chariot kraters along with various chariot-related artifacts, and
in texts Urtenu is associated with horses and chariots.
We previously pointed to similarity in the contexts of the chariot finds at Ugarit
and Alalakh; and the Alalakh tablets that show an exclusively royal nomination
of the mariyannumay incline us to think that the interest for the motif was closely
associated to a special status conferred by the king, and perhaps experienced as
a privilege.
55 Drews 2004, pp. 33–36.
56 Drews 1988, pp. 163–164; Driessen 1996, p. 485.
57 See Abramovitz 1980, p. 58, commenting on the fact that the men in the procession
do not wear the typical Minoan loin-cloth but a knee-length chiton:
The short chiton worn by the men is common on mainland frescoes, but does
not appear in Minoan art; the kilt (?) worn by one dancer (2) is closest to
representations of kilts on inlaid daggers and seals from Mycenae. The fleecy
skirts worn by the two women (63) are unusual; the closest parallels occur on
a sardonyx seal from Vapheio and on the Haghia Triada sarcophagus.
58 Abramovitz 1980, p. 59: “At least six horses, possibly nine, are preserved (Pl. 7).
Four of these are standing together in pairs, facing left, a white horse alongside a
black one in the traditional method of depicting a two-horse chariot in Aegean art.
... Fragments 121 and 120 preserve part of a chariot box painted in vivid colors and
a chariot wheel.... The Keian horses are clearly standing and should be connected
with the procession.”
59 See Ruppenstein 2010, p. 28 on the floruitof Athens in LH IIIA1. On a synoikismos
see Lohmann 2010, p. 43: by the beginning of LH IIIB all other fortresses and princely
burial grounds—Brauron, Kiapha Thiti, Thorikos, Vrana—had been abandoned, and
Athens alone was the Herrschaftszentrum.
210 Militarism in Greece