A far more difficult question to decide is the ethnographical one, together with the consideration of the relation of the Mycenaean civilisation to others in which the same decoration appears (as in the case of the spiral). One point seems to be abundantly clear, viz. that Mycenaean decoration owes nothing to Oriental influences. That there was a close relation with the East has already been indicated, and is much more apparent in other forms of Mycenaean art; but no student of this art in general can doubt that it is, as has been pointed out, purely spontaneous and unique, the art of a people of genuine artistic genius. Among the art of ancient races it stands alone in this respect, that of Egypt and Assyria, its only prominent rivals, being always essentially conventional; and herein lies its special distinction. That the Mycenaeans were a maritime people admits of no doubt. It is shown by the position of their chief centres, by the evidence of their extensive commercial relations, and, as far as concerns their pottery, pre-eminently by the subjects which form the staple decoration. Hence of late years an attempt has been made to substitute for “Mycenaean” the more comprehensive term “Aegean,” and there is much to be said in its favour. As regards the actual ethnographical position of the race, _Quot homines, tot sententiae_, may almost be said. They have been identified with the Achaeans, the Pelasgians, the Phoenicians, the Carians, and as combinations of Phrygians with Cretans, of Phoenicians with Greeks of Asia Minor.[926] But few of these terms have real historical value, and such identifications do not really advance the solution of the question. A more real ground of battle is that afforded by the question of date, though on this point scholars now show a greater tendency to fall into line, and a period culminating in the years 1400 to 1100 or 1000 B.C. is now very generally accepted.[927] The question necessarily turns largely on the evidence afforded by Crete and Egypt, and so far as this is trustworthy it all points in the same direction. But it would be beyond the scope of a work of this kind to do more than briefly summarise the general results of archaeological criticism.