THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 THE ANCESTORS OF THE GREEKS 2 Through its network of trading contacts, was almost certainly 3 in contact either directly or indirectly with the Minoans as well 4 as with other Aegean peoples, though material evidence for such 5111 contact is at present very meagre. That situation changes dramatic- 6 ally when, in the late fifteenth century, the Aegean world takes on 7 8 a very different character. For reasons that still mystify scholars, the 9 Second Palace period of the Minoan civilization came to an abrupt 10111 end at the close of what archaeologists call the Late Minoan IB period. 9 11 Around 1450, the major palace centres on the island, Phaestus and 10 2 Mallia, and perhaps also Cnossus, suffered violent destruction. 3111 Scholars cannot yet agree on the cause or causes of this destruction 4 – whether it was due to natural forces or human agency or a combin- 5 ation of the two. But it clearly had a devastating effect on the island’s 6 population, economy and way of life. Phaestus and Mallia were aban- 7 doned for all time. But Cnossus was to receive a new lease of life. 8 Some years after the catastrophe, in the so-called Late Minoan II 9 period, it was occupied by peoples from the Greek mainland. The 20111 new occupants rebuilt and remodelled the palace centre, retaining 1 many elements of its earlier existence, but imposing upon it their 2 own distinctive character. 3 Who were these mainlanders? This question brings us into the 4 world of a people who had a great deal more to do with Troy than 5 their Minoan predecessors: the Greeks of the ‘heroic age’. Most 6 scholars now believe that the ancestors of these Greeks first arrived 7 in mainland around 2100. We have seen that the Early Bronze 8 Age civilization here reached its peak during the so-called Early 9 Helladic II phase, whose most prominent site was (Level III) 30111 in the Argolid. The sudden end of this phase was marked by the 1 violent destruction of Lerna, reflecting a pattern of destruction that 2 spread to and overwhelmed many other sites on the Greek main- 3 land at this time. We have noted a similar pattern of destruction in 4 western and southern Anatolia at the end of the Early Bronze II 5 period. The period that followed in the wake of these traumatic 6 events was characterized by smaller and poorer settlements, reduced 7 trading contacts and a reversion to a more rudimentary, subsistence- 8 type lifestyle. Two new pottery types now make their appearance, a 9111 matt-painted ware, and the so-called Minyan ware; the latter, so folio 91 THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 named by Schliemann and once wrongly believed to be of western 2 Anatolian origin, is a very distinctive type of grey, wheelmade 3 pottery, with a metal-like sheen and a soapy feel. 4 What can we conclude from the destructions and their aftermath? 5111 Widespread devastation in a region followed by a distinct break in 6 its culture often heralds the arrival of a new population group. That 7 provides us with a possible context for ‘the coming of the Greeks’. 8 But there are many uncertainties about the date and manner of their 9 coming, about who they were to begin with, and where they came 10111 from. Let us remember that we are dealing with a period before we 11 have the benefit of written records, that mute artefacts on their own 2 can give rise to a wide range of interpretations and conclusions. Carl 3111 Blegen claimed that the Greeks did not enter Greece until the begin- 4 ning of what he called the Middle Helladic period, around 1900; 5 John Caskey, the excavator of Lerna, believed that there were two 6 waves of immigrants: one at the end of Early Helladic II, the other 7 at the end of Early Helladic III. More recently, Robert Drews has 8 argued that the first Greeks did not appear until around 1600, at 9 the beginning of the Late Helladic period. Differences of opinion 20111 are bound to persist – and scholars would not want it otherwise! 1 None the less, there is a broad scholarly consensus that the break 2 between Early Helladic II and III, around 2100, marks the arrival 3 of the ‘first Greeks’ in their new homeland: mainland Greece. 4 If that conclusion is correct, can we in any way tie their arrival 5 to events in western Anatolia around the same period? Attempts to 6 establish direct links between the immigrants into Greece and the 7 peoples of western Anatolia through ceramic and linguistic evidence 8 (the latter primarily on the basis of place names in both regions with 9 -nth- and -ss- infixes) have proved either unsustainable or at best 30111 inconclusive. Of course, the idea of some kind of connection between 1 violent upheavals in Anatolia at the end of the Early Bronze Age II 2 period and similar upheavals in mainland Greece at the end of the 3 Early Helladic II period is an attractive one, with plenty of dramatic 4 potential. It is tempting to conjure up an image of marauding 5 hordes sweeping southwards and westwards across Early Bronze Age 6 Anatolia, with one of the northernmost groups pausing only long 7 enough to destroy and pillage Troy II before continuing upon its 8 path of destruction into the Greek mainland where it wreaks havoc 911 amongst the settled communities there. folio 92 THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 But we should not too readily assume that the end of the Early 2 Bronze II period in Anatolia correlates closely with the end of the 3 Early Helladic II period in Greece. There may have been a time gap 4 of some decades, or even a century or two, between them. It is impos- 5111 sible to assign anything like precise dates. Quite apart from this, 6 invasion theories are not much in fashion these days. Scholars now 7 prefer to think in terms of more gradual processes, of newcomers 8 entering and settling in a region over a period of years, decades or 9 even centuries, gradually amalgamating with the already established 10111 peoples in the region. Undoubtedly disputes broke out between 11 original inhabitants and newcomers, and perhaps sometimes escal- 2 ated into major conflicts. But any notions of massive invasions by 3111 marauding barbarians, such as those that brought the Roman empire 4 to an end many centuries later, must be firmly discarded. 5 The early Greeks were probably spreading through mainland 6 Greece around much the same time as Luwians were occupying 7 various parts of western Anatolia. One thing the groups had in 8 common was that both were of Indo-European stock. So if the Late 9 Bronze Age Trojans were predominantly of Luwian origin, many 20111 of the inhabitants of Troy VI would have belonged to the same 1 language-speaking family as their neighbours across the Aegean. 2 But that is a far cry from claiming that they were closely related. 3 Let us not be misled by the virtually identical customs and beliefs 4 of Greeks and Trojans in the Iliad, or by the ability of Agamemnon’s 5 and Priam’s warriors to converse directly with each other without 6 the aid of interpreters. These are purely conventions, and Homer’s 7 audiences would have had no trouble in accepting them as such, just 8 as today no one would expect a movie audience at a biblical epic to 9 believe that God’s first language was English, spoken with an 30111 American accent. Greeks and Trojans were no more than very distant 1 cousins, speaking languages quite unintelligible to each other. 2 Present indications are that the Middle Helladic period in Greece 3 (c.1900–1600) was one of relative cultural stagnation and reduced 4 outside contacts, perhaps due to the disappearance of the major 5 centres of civilization in the last century of the Early Helladic period 6 and the intrusion of new population groups, ‘proto-Greeks’, around 7 the same time. But we cannot be sure whether these new groups were 8 responsible for the disappearance of these centres, or merely occu- 9111 pied the vacuum that their disappearance had created. Moreover, it folio 93 THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 is hard to believe that all communications with the world beyond 2 the mainland were lost in this period. Very likely, trade of some kind 3 continued with the islands of the and probably also some 4 sporadic contact was maintained with western Anatolia, including 5111 Troy. However, we have yet to find evidence of Middle Helladic 6 peoples engaged in maritime trading ventures. 7 8 THE MYCENAEANS 9 10111 Around 1600, a century or so after the emergence of Troy VI, new 11 developments in mainland Greece marked the beginning of what is 2 now called the Late Helladic period. The stimulus for this, the most 3111 illustrious period in the history of the Greek Bronze Age, is – once 4 more – a matter of debate. According to Drews, this was the time 5 of entry of foreign intruders into Greece who were to transform the 6 civilization of their new homeland; Greece was now taken over 7 by a charioteering people who came from the lands south of the 8 Caucasus and launched a seaborne invasion of the Greek world; it is 9 to them that the sudden surge in the material civilization of the 20111 Greek world was due, to them the establishment of widespread 1 trading contacts between the Greek world, the lands of the eastern 2 Mediterranean and the lands beyond it.11 However, most scholars 3 take the line that the evolution from Middle to Late Helladic, sub- 4 stantial though it was, should be attributed to the already existing 5 inhabitants of mainland Greece. Certainly, Drews has a point when 6 he claims that evidence for a peaceful internal evolution from Middle 7 to Late Helladic is very slight and questionable. But we could also 8 say the same about his own theory of a sudden and dramatic over- 9 throw of the existing order in Greece by external invaders. We have 30111 yet to find a convincing explanation for the sudden florescence in 1 the material civilization of mainland Greece around 1600. 2 The most prominent of the Late Helladic sites is in the 3 Argolid Plain. Mycenae was the first such site to be excavated, by 4 in 1876. It was apparently the richest and 5 most powerful settlement in Late Helladic Greece, and in legendary 6 tradition it was the home of Agamemnon, leader of the combined 7 Achaean forces against Troy. For all these reasons, its name is com- 8 monly used as a convenient label for the Late Helladic civilization as 911 a whole. The first phase of this civilization is represented by six shaft folio 94 THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 2 3 4 5111 6 7 8 9 10111 11 2 3111 4 5 6 Figure 4.1 The Lion Gate, Mycenae. 7 8 9 20111 graves, dating to the sixteenth century, which were unearthed on 1 the citadel of Mycenae. All but one were excavated by Schliemann. 2 Their undisturbed contents contained the remains of nineteen 3 persons of both sexes, adult and child, clothed in magnificent funeral 4 garb and richly bedecked with jewellery, much of it of pure gold. 5 Also included amongst the grave goods was a large array of weapons 6 (some with exquisite inlays), armour, tools and beautifully wrought 7 domestic vessels of precious metals – leaving us in no doubt that 8 already in this first phase of its Late Helladic existence, Mycenae 9 was a place of great wealth. From the shaft graves alone, it is clear 30111 that Homer’s description of it as polychrysos, ‘rich in gold’, is well 1 justified. 2 That raises a question. How do we account for Mycenae’s wealth, 3 given that the region in which it lay was poor in natural resources, 4 particularly mineral and agricultural resources? If, as generally 5 supposed, it lay at the hub of a major communications network, 6 strategic location probably had much to do with its apparent afflu- 7 ence. It may have played a leading role in the distribution of the 8 raw materials – commodities such as copper and tin, precious metals 9111 such as silver and gold – that were much in demand in the Aegean folio 95 THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 world and that had to be obtained primarily or exclusively from 2 outside sources.12 Fine textiles and spices (such as cumin and 3 sesame), ivory from Syria, along with a range of exotic luxury items 4 – ostrich eggs from Nubia, lapis lazuli from Mesopotamia, alabaster 5111 and faience from Crete, amber from the Baltic region13 – were 6 also amongst the goods regularly imported into the Mycenaean 7 kingdoms. 8 Certainly Mycenae itself must have been actively involved from 9 very early in the Late Helladic period in wealth-producing activities 10111 far beyond the limits of its own territorial confines, activities both 11 of a peaceful commercial nature as well as of a warlike and piratical 2 nature. But would not its inland location have been a distinct dis- 3111 advantage for such enterprises? The question of why Mycenae 4 became so prominent and how it achieved its wealth is not one we 5 can readily answer. 6 Apart from Mycenae, there was a burgeoning of many centres of 7 Mycenaean civilization throughout Greece, such as Argos and 8 in the Argolid region, Pylos (discovered by Carl Blegen in 1939) 9 in Messenia, and Athens, Thebes and in the regions 20111 later called and . Their roughly parallel development 1 suggests a degree of interconnectedness between them. It is quite 2 possible that on occasions some of them engaged in joint overseas 3 enterprises, whether for trade or for war. A network of roads may 4 have facilitated communication between them. Perhaps too there 5 were groups of itinerant architects, artisans and artists who carried 6 their skills and services from one region to another. This may partly 7 account for the strong homogeneity of Mycenaean civilization, 8 as reflected, for example, in the similar layouts of the palaces and 9 in the close resemblances observable from one centre to another in 30111 Mycenaean paintings and in pottery styles and techniques. These, 1 together with a marked uniformity in burial practices throughout 2 the Mycenaean world and the widespread adoption of the so-called 3 Linear B script for written records, depicting very similar bureau- 4 cratic practices in the different centres, indicate a pervasive cultural 5 unity in the Late Helladic world, and indeed throughout Late Bronze 6 Age Greece in general. 7 On the other hand, there is no evidence for anything approaching 8 what we might call a Mycenaean empire, made up of peoples 911 and states bound together under a single overlord. Rather, the folio 96 THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 political configuration of was probably very much 2 as Homer depicts it – small independent kingdoms, one of whose 3 rulers might have acted from time to time as a kind of primus inter 4 pares (first amongst equals) for collaborative enterprises. It may well 5111 be that confederations were formed between various kingdoms for 6 particular purposes, much as the Iliad represents the combined 7 Greek operations against Troy. The core of each kingdom was a 8 palace centre. This was generally accommodated in a fortified 9 citadel, which contained the residence and reception halls of the king 10111 who exercised authority over a region that included a number of 11 villages and farmlands lying within a radius of a few kilometres of 2 the centre.14 3111 Each kingdom may not have been markedly different in size 4 to the individual city-states of the Sumerians or the Early Bronze 5 Age kingdoms of Anatolia or, indeed, the kingdom of Late 6 Bronze Age Troy. None of these city-states or kingdoms were 7 remotely comparable with the empires that had emerged in the Near 8 East during the course of the third and second millennia: the 9 Akkadian, neo-Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Mitannian, Hittite 20111 and Egyptian empires. The kingdoms of the Mycenaean world were 1 small by comparison. In terms of their size and resources, they might 2 more aptly be compared with some of the more prominent local 3 kingdoms and principalities of the Near Eastern world. 4 In the Late Helladic III period, roughly 1400 to 1100, the 5 Mycenaean civilization enjoyed its most extensive contacts with the 6 outside world. Mycenaean products were widely distributed through- 7 out this world, and Mycenaean settlements were established in a 8 number of locations beyond the Greek mainland, including Crete, 9 Rhodes, the islands of the eastern Aegean and the western coast 30111 of Anatolia. This period also witnessed the most impressive build- 1 ing achievements of the Mycenaean civilization, as reflected in the 2 monumental fortifications of the citadels in the Argolid plain, the 3 palace architecture, and the widespread distribution of tholos tombs, 4 the most spectacular of which were those of Mycenae itself. These 5 were the material trappings of what may seem to have been great 6 and powerful kingdoms whose activities and influence extended well 7 beyond their own immediate territories. 8 The collapse of the Minoan ‘palace’ administrations may have 9111 helped pave the way for a major expansion of Mycenaean overseas folio 97 THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 enterprises at this time.15 But in recent years there has been a 2 tendency to scale down assumptions about the role played by the 3 Mycenaeans themselves in international commercial operations. 4 Their products were certainly widely available in Aegean and Near 5111 Eastern markets, but the evidence that they themselves were active 6 agents in their distribution is surprisingly slight. For example, 7 though trade items were exchanged between Egypt and the Mycen- 8 aean world throughout the Late Helladic period (Mycenaean items 9 have been discovered at some twenty Egyptian sites), there is no 10111 evidence that Mycenaean traders themselves ever visited Egypt. 11 By contrast, Minoans appear in Egyptian tomb paintings of the 2 eighteenth dynasty, as we have noted, and other tombs of this period 3111 depict merchant vessels from Syria.16 Mycenaeans or Mycenaean 4 vessels are conspicuous by their absence in Egyptian paintings. Nor 5 is there any evidence that Mycenaeans were ever present in the 6 trading emporia of the Syro-Palestinian region, even though more 7 than sixty sites in this region have produced . 8 Export and import traffic between the Mycenaean kingdoms and 9 other parts of the Late Bronze Age world was very largely in the 20111 hands of others, such as Syrian merchants, acting as the agents for 1 the distribution of Mycenaean products as well as for imports into 2 the Mycenaean world. 3 Yet Mycenaeans were clearly active in a number of overseas 4 enterprises throughout the Late Helladic period, with a marked 5 increase in this level of activity in the period’s third and final phase.17 6 We have referred to the arrival of Mycenaean settlers in Crete, 7 particularly at Cnossus, some time after the collapse of the Minoan 8 palace centres. There were also Mycenaean settlements on the island 9 of Rhodes and other islands of the Dodecanese, though these may 30111 have been no more than enclaves of merchants within a native 1 population, at places like Trianda and Ialysus on Rhodes, who were 2 perhaps quartered there to arrange the trans-shipment of goods to 3 Cyprus and the Levant.18 There is no evidence that Mycenaeans 4 themselves were present in the Levantine region. Nor is there 5 evidence that Mycenaean immigrants established settlements on 6 Cyprus, called Alasiya in Late Bronze Age texts. References to the 7 island in these texts indicate that it was much more closely linked, 8 politically and culturally, to the Near Eastern world than it was to 911 the lands of the Aegean.19 folio 98 THE AEGEAN NEIGHBOURS

1111 Anatolia’s Aegean coast, on the other hand, provides substantial 2 evidence of contact with the Mycenaean world. Mycenaean pottery 3 is found at a number of sites along this coast, including (from 4 north to south) Troy, Clazomenae, Panaztepe, Colophon and Ephesus. 5111 To be sure, at these and other sites north of the Maeander River, 6 the finds indicate trading contacts rather than actual settle- 7 ment. However at Miletus and Müskebi (south of the Maeander), 8 Mycenaean architecture and Mycenaean tombs leave no doubt that 9 these sites were inhabited by Mycenaean settlers. At Miletus, the 10111 Minoan elements of the city’s first building phase were replaced by 11 Mycenaean in its second phase, as illustrated by Mycenaean figurines 2 and domestic pottery. Already in this second phase, which came to 3111 an end with destruction by fire (late Late Minoan I period), there 4 may have been Mycenaeans among the city’s inhabitants. But the 5 evidence for Mycenaean settlement is much stronger in the city’s 6 third phase. In addition to the abundant quantities of Mycenaean 7 pottery belonging to it (much produced from local clay), we 8 now find chamber tombs of Mycenaean type containing Mycenaean 9 grave goods. Iasus, which lay on the coast south of Miletus, may 20111 have been another site where elements of Minoan culture gave 1 way to Mycenaean. But the evidence that Iasus actually became a 2 Mycenaean settlement remains inconclusive.20 Much more certain is 3 the evidence for Mycenaean settlers in the Halicarnassus Peninsula, 4 at the site of Müskebi, where forty-eight Mycenaean chamber tombs 5 21 6 have been discovered. 7 From the material evidence it is clear that Anatolia’s western coast 8 held much interest for Mycenaean Greeks. Which raises questions 9 that archaeological remains on their own cannot answer. What 30111 attracted the Mycenaeans to this region, apart from the fact that it 1 was for them the most accessible large overseas landmass? Who 2 in the Mycenaean world initiated contacts with the region? Who 3 established the settlements there? Kings? Trading consortia? Polit- 4 ical refugees? Private adventurers? What impact did their presence 5 have on the local populations? How did the kingdom of Hatti, 6 which claimed sovereignty over many of these populations, react to 7 their presence? 8 9111 folio 99