124 See Tartaron 2013, p. 22, acknowledging that Crete continued to be an important
link between Greece and the Near East and Egypt down to the LH III period:
An entirely different picture emerges for Mycenaean activity in the central
Mediterranean (Blake 2008; Mee 2008: 179–81). Already in LH I Mycenaean
pottery appears in southern Italy, Sicily and the Aeolian islands. In these areas
Minoan influence is minimal, and the Mycenaean presence may reflect a freedom
to search for alternative sources of raw materials, probably metals.
125 Wachsmann 1998, pp. 143–144, with Figs. 7–30–31. According to Wachsmann, “the
tomb dates to the end of the Middle Helladic or the very beginning of the Late Helladic
period.” He also notes that several characteristics of the Dramesi ships, as best they
can be made out, “may suggest that the prototype for these graffiti was a penteconter.”
Although the title of Wachsmann’s book suggests otherwise, most of the content is
devoted to the Aegean. His seventh chapter (pp. 123–161) deals entirely with
Mycenaean/Achaean ships.
126 On the problems in the days of steamships see Hayes 1902.
127 Of course I disagree with Littauer and Crouwel about the direction from which horses
and chariots came to Greece. When Crouwel wrote his Chariots and Other Means
of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greecethe Sintashta-Petrovka chariots were just
beginning to come to light, and Crouwel could say (Crouwel 1981, p. 148), “The
chances that chariots reached Greece from further north in Europe are slight. There
seems to be no evidence for spoked-wheeled two-wheelers in the north prior to their
earliest representation in Greece.” He therefore proposed (pp. 148–149) that horse-
drawn chariots were brought first from Syria and the Levant to Crete, and then were
brought from Crete to the Greek mainland. The same route was assumed by Littauer
and Crouwel 1996b, p. 300.
128 The sealing was published by Evans in “The Palace of Knossos and its Dependencies,”
ABSA11 (1905), p. 13, Fig. 7.
129 ad multitudinem iumentorum transportandam paulo latiores quam quibus in reliquis
utimur maribus (De bello Gallico 5.1).
130 On the transport of horses in the Middle Ages see Pryor 1982. At p. 9 Pryor cites
Theophanes’ report that in 762 Constantius V assembled a fleet of 800 chelandiafor
transporting horses, twelve to each ship.
131 Bachrach 1985 points out that neither the Vikings nor other northern Europeans had
any tradition of transporting large numbers of horses by sea, and he makes a good
case that William’s transports were modeled on the Byzantine chelandia. The artist
of the Bayeux Tapestry had no idea how the horses were brought across the channel.
132 Casson 1959, p. 102: The trireme was not only a ship of the line, because “with the
oarsmen reduced to sixty it carried horses, thirty to a ship.” See also Casson 1971,
p. 93.
133 Säve-Söderbergh 1946, p. 42.
134 Säve-Söderbergh 1946, p. 3.
135 In the First and Second Stele of Kamose at Karnak, supplemented by the Carnarvon
Tablet, Kamose describes bringing his force down the river toward Avaris on ships.
This is stated clearly by Säve-Söderbergh 1946, pp. 1–2. Less clear is Spalinger 2005,
p. 19, after discussing the “Hyksos” bringing chariots to Egypt:
Taking into consideration the new method of warfare, it would appear that the
Egyptians used the new technology to defeat the Hyksos. Yet, as we have seen,
up through the reign of Kamose the naval contingent remained in the key position
of the Egyptian army. By and large, it is assumed that the chariot arm of Kamose
was the means by which he defeated the Hyksos, notwithstanding virtual silence
by the extant sources on this matter. On the other hand, the need for a fleet was
as important as the newly developed chariot division. Both sectors, therefore,
Militarism in Greece 215