Mr. A. H. Sayce writes to me:--"I am inclined to believe that the antiquities of Mycenæ are of a much earlier date than that which you have attributed to them. I should place the most ancient as far back as the epoch when Babylonian influence began to prevail in the western Mediterranean basin, after the conquests of the Chaldean king Naram Sin of Agana (whose successor was the victorious Elamite Khamuragas, who extended his power to the borders of the Mediterranean, 2000-1700 B.C.). Further, I believe that the treasuries, the Gate of Lions, etc., are of prior date to the tombs and the Cyclopean walls. Assyrio-Babylonian civilization came into Greece not only through Phœnicia, but through Asia Minor. The drawings of M. Perrot, and of several other explorers, are like links in the chain which joins ancient Greek to Assyrian (or rather Babylonian) art. Perhaps in exploring Sardis an art and types similar to those of Mycenæ will be found. But the great centre from which this art spread through Asia Minor was Karkhemish, the rich capital of the Hittites, the ruins of which have been discovered at Jerablus (near Birajik on the Euphrates) by Messrs. Skene and George Smith. By making excavations, a second Nineveh might be found there, with sculptures which would show the transition of Assyrian art to the form which may be called the Greek, or that of Asia Minor. These are not mere conjectures, for pieces of sculpture have already been discovered which present this character. The Hittite domination extended to Cilicia and Lycaonia, as is proved by recently discovered carvings, and especially by that found at Ibreez, bearing an inscription in Hittite hieroglyphs. This fact, which I have pointed out to Mr. Gladstone, confirms the evidences which he has furnished in favor of the identity of the Hittites and the Keteians (Κήτειοι). [Sidenote: DATE OF THE CAPTURE OF MYCENÆ.] "I see in the Mycenæan antiquities one point of decisive importance: the art of carving on stone in Western Asia and Europe came from Babylon, where stone was rare and precious. In archaic Babylon (prior to the sixteenth century B.C.) civilization had made great progress; yet it was still in the bronze age. Iron was not used in Babylon, and was probably unknown. How then can we explain the relatively advanced state of civilization in ancient Mycenæ, although iron was unknown there, without supposing that this civilization had its origin in that of archaic Babylon, or that it was connected with it in some way or other? If it had been related to the civilization of Assyria, of Egypt, or of the Babylon of a period _later_ than the sixteenth century B.C., we should assuredly have found at Mycenæ some trace of a knowledge of iron." Mr. A. H. Sayce further calls my attention to the learned article of J. P. Mahaffy, professor in Trinity College, Dublin. This article, published in the _Hermathena_, V., is entitled "On the Date of the Capture of Mycenæ by the Argives." I reproduce it here.