Vol. 1

Edited by Katarzyna Żebrowska Agata Ulanowska Kazimierz Lewartowski

SYMPOZJUM EGEJSKIE PAPERS IN AEGEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

VOL. 1 (2017)

EDITED BY KATARZYNA ŻEBROWSKA, AGATA ULANOWSKA & KAZIMIERZ LEWARTOWSKI

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW SYMPOZJUM EGEJSKIE PAPERS IN AEGEAN ARCHAEOLOGY VOL. 1 (2017)

Editors: Katarzyna Żebrowska (University of Warsaw) Agata Ulanowska (University of Warsaw) Kazimierz Lewartowski (University of Warsaw)

Reviewers: Mirosław Barwik (University of Warsaw) Kinga Bigoraj (University of Warsaw) Tomasz Gralak (University of Wrocław) Jolanta Młynarczyk (University of Warsaw) Krzysztof Nowicki (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences) Kostas Paschalidis (National Archaeological Museum of Athens) Tomasz Scholl (University of Warsaw) Małgorzata Siennicka (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) Anna Smogorzewska (University of Warsaw)

Language proof: Paul Barford Front cover and layout: Maria Jagodzińska

Publication financed by the University of Warsaw and Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw © Copyrigths: Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw and the individual authors, 2017

ISBN 978-83-61376-59-0 ISSN 2544-6398

Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction KATARZYNA ŻEBROWSKA, AGATA ULANOWSKA, KAZIMIERZ LEWARTOWSKI 7 The multi-chamber tombs in Mavro Spilio: a Cypriot origin? SOFIA ANTONELLO 11 Animals in insular environment The case of Bronze Age Crete through aspects of Minoan art CHRISTOS BOUTSIDIS 19 Small finds analysis: typology and function A case study from Phaistos MARIANNA FIGUERA 27 A note on some pictorial finds from the dromos of Tomb 1 of the Mycenaean cemetery of the Trapeza Traces of funerary rites performed after the burial of the dead AGATA LICCIARDELLO 39 The age of innocence Parallel young lives in Crete and Cyprus GIULIA MUTI 47 Textile technology and Minoan glyptic Representations of loom weights on Middle Minoan prismatic seals AGATA ULANOWSKA 57 Western Anatolia and the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age A view from the Gulf of Izmir RIK VAESSEN 67 The human life hidden in a symbol of flower Between Minoan world and Egypt MONIKA WESOŁOWSKA 79

Plates with coloured figures 85

INTRODUCTION

Aegean Archaeology is a dynamically developing dis- customs but currently his interests focus on memory cipline of broad horizons. It explores a vast array of re- of the past among the Archaic and Classical Greeks. search fields such as the archaeology of social organ- isation, religion, gender, landscape, human mobility, The history of the Aegean Conferences at technology etc., and uses a wide range of approaches, the University of Warsaw often multidisciplinary. After more than a century of intensive research and excavations, it still has the The idea of creating the new publication series called potential of making stunning discoveries as proved ‘Sympozjum Egejskie’ was born as a result of the success by recent work at Pylos and Prosilio. The geographi- of consecutive conferences on Aegean Archaeology, cal range of issues related to the Bronze Age Aegean organised by the editors since 2013. The 1st Students’ broadens successively. Aegean archaeologists are busy Conference in Aegean Archaeology organised at the with studying their finds and reconstructing the past University of Warsaw on January 18th, 2013, was an using modern and diversified methodologies includ- initiative of students. There was much need for an ing concepts borrowed from social sciences, econ- opportunity to present work in the field of Aegean omy or natural sciences. Aegean archaeology keeps Archaeology to a broader public, since no other aca- pace with the development of knowledge, its former demic event offered the students a similar possibility. achievements are thus often the subject of critical It was designed as a platform enabling its participants views published in numerous volumes and papers to exchange ideas about the presented topics, share or with “rethinking” or “re-examining” included in their compare different research methods and perspectives, titles. Each year, numerous new scholars and students and develop scientific interests oscillating around di- enter this fascinating field of studies bringing up new verse aspects within the same field of knowledge. ideas, research projects, materials and methodologies. Therefore, it is our great honour to present the first The 2nd Aegean Conference volume of the publication ‘Sympozjum Egejskie. Papers in Aegean Archaeology’, a new, peer-reviewed series The next conference,Second Students’ Conference in created as a platform presenting and introducing Aegean Archaeology. Methods – Researches – Perspec- a broad scope of new research approaches and themes, tives, which took place at the Institute of Archaeology as well as the newcomers to the discipline, i.e. these in Warsaw on April 25th, 2014, attracted a number authors who are at the beginning of their research ca- of international speakers and broadened significantly reer in the field of Aegean Archaeology. We also hope the range of discussed topics. This time, a small poster that this series will serve as a concise guide presenting session was also included in the program. The event, the most recent research interests undertaken by early aimed exclusively at young researchers in the dis- career scholars, as well as new trends in archaeology cipline, received positive feedback. It became clear of the Bronze Age Aegean. that the meetings should continue to be organized The series is published by the Department annually and English became the official language of Aegean Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, of the event. The proceedings of this second event University of Warsaw. Its editors, all Aegean archae- have been published in the 4th volume of the Italian ologists themselves, represent various academic in- series Syndesmoi. Quaderni del corso internazionaliz- terests: Katarzyna Żebrowska specialises in the fields zato in Archeologia: Catania, Konya, Varsavia thanks of Italo-Aegean contacts, Aegean influences in Sicilian to the support of Prof. Pietro Maria Militello from the cultures, and funerary architecture, especially in re- University of Catania.1 lation to the landscape, Agata Ulanowska specialises in textile archaeology, specifically textile production, weaving technology and the functionality of textile 1 Militello, P., K. Żebrowska (eds.) 2016, Sympozjum Egejskie. tools, and experimental and experience archaeology, Proceedings of The 2nd Students’ Conference in Aegean Archaeology: Methods – Researches – Perspective, Institute Kazimierz Lewartowski specialises in Mycenaean ar- of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Poland, April 25th, chaeology with an emphasis on Mycenaean burial 2014, Syndesmoi 4 (Quaderni del corso internazionalizzato in Archeologia: Catania, Konya, Varsavia), Catania. 8 INTRODUCTION

The 3rd Aegean Conference In her article, Sofia Antonello investigates the par- In 2015, the Aegean Archaeology Department organ- ticular form of the Minoan multi-chamber tomb using ised the Conference in collaboration with the Institute the example of six Middle Minoan II–III such struc- of Prehistory, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. tures known from the Mavro Spilio necropolis, to the The event, which had grown into a two-day meeting, northeast of the palace of Knossos. She notes that was divided into two individual panels. The Institute Cretan tombs of this type can only be found around of Prehistory hosted the undergraduate and graduate Knossos and in locations in some way connected with students part of the conference, while the Institute the palace. The author turns our attention to Bronze of Archaeology held the proceedings of the panel Age Cyprus, the possible place of origin of the multi- of young researchers (PhD students and doctors who -chamber form. Finally, she discusses some reasons and had recently been assigned the title). For the purposes meanings behind the adoption of this funerary form of the panel, the range of subjects was grouped into in Crete. five blocks concerning burial customs, the archaeology In his contribution, Christos Boutsidis deals with of Crete, humans and nature, inter-Mediterranean animal representations preserved on different types relations, and textile manufacturing. Prof. Janusz of Minoan objects. The quantitative and qualitative Czebreszuk (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) analyses of the depictions conducted in diachronic gave an opening lecture on amber in the Aegean order allow the author to distinguish the kinds of an- world. Apart from the authors listed in this volume, imals prevailing in each period and on different types Mariya Avramova (Antiquity of Southeastern Europe of mediums. This is accompanied by short commen- Research Centre, University of Warsaw), Kinga taries on the possible reasons standing behind the Bigoraj (Antiquity of Southeastern Europe Research popularity of respective creatures in particular periods Centre, University of Warsaw), Katarzyna Dudlik of time. (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań), Agnieszka Dr Marianna Figuera demonstrates how a rela- Kaliszewska (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, tional database can be useful in the study of small finds, Polish Academy of Sciences), Monika Koźlakowska perceived as a rather problematic category of artefacts. (Antiquity of Southeastern Europe Research Centre, She describes her own successful attempts of man- University of Warsaw), Carissa Nicholson (University aging reference sources and typological attributions of Florida), Jakub Niebieszczański (Adam Mickiewicz of small finds from two Cretan sites, Phaistos and University in Poznań), Ester Messina (University Aghia Triada. In particular, Figuera explains how the of Trieste, Udine and Venice), Dr Małgorzata Siennicka Fuzzy Method can preserve the subjectivity and un- (The Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre certainty of archaeological attributions, important for Textile Research, SAXO Institute, University of aspects that can be lost in other means of digital han- Copenhagen), and Katarzyna Żebrowska (University dling of archaeological data. of Warsaw) gave vivid presentations during the young Agata Licciardello hypothesises about ritual ac- researchers’ panel in Warsaw. tivities practised outside of Tomb 1 in the Mycenaean necropolis at Aigion in Achaea involving the use of specific vessels. She describes and interprets the The volume pictorial decoration of two pottery fragments found This volume contains eight articles which are the out- in the tomb’s dromos and links them with the ceremo- come of the The 3rd Young Researchers’ Conference in nial functions of those vessels. She thereby opens ways Aegean Archaeology, as well as of a call for papers dif- to discussion about liminal and post-liminal rites that fused among young scholars and researchers currently took place in front of the tomb’s burial chamber. working on themes related to the Bronze Age Aegean. In her contribution, Giulia Muti offers an inter- The articles cover a varied group of subjects, rang- esting and updated insight into the “childhood archae- ing from topics connected with funerary architecture ology” of Bronze Age Crete and Cyprus. She focuses (Antonello) and ritual practices (Licciardello), diverse on ways in which children were represented and aspects of Minoan art (Boutsidis; Wesołowska), and perceived by society. She uses a multidisciplinary ap- ties between textile technology and Minoan glyptic proach to reconstructing their ties with the adult part (Ulanowska), through the use of databases in the study of the islanders’ communities and the role they played of small finds (Figuera), and “childhood archaeol- in everyday life. ogy” in Crete and Cyprus (Muti), to the study on the Dr Agata Ulanowska re-examines iconography of Aegean and western Anatolian networks in the Late Middle Minoan prismatic seals with relation to textile Bronze Age (Vaessen). technology, specifically weaving on a warp-weighted INTRODUCTION 9 loom. By investigating the mechanical principles (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen), and Dr Anna of weaving and the iconography of the warp-weighted Smogorzewska (University of Warsaw). loom in various cultures, she proposes new methodo- logical assumptions for identification of textile imple- Special thanks are expressed to Paul Barford for ments and textile making in small-size representations all the necessary language corrections and revisions. in the Aegean glyptic, and new reading of the so-called ‘Loom weights’ motif and its possible combinations. Lastly, the editors would like to express their grati- Dr Rik Vaessen uses the example of the Gulf tude to the Vice-Rector for Research and International of Izmir to discuss the importance of western Relations at the University of Warsaw, Prof. Maciej Anatolian coastal communities as melting points Duszczyk, and the Director of the Institute of Archae- of Aegean and Anatolian networks of the Late Bronze ology at the University of Warsaw, Prof. Krzysztof Age. He proposes looking at the region not as one that Jakubiak, for supporting this editorial initiative and is peripheral to the Mycenaean world, but as a gateway financing the publication of the first volume of the with many buffer sites favouring interaction between SEPAA series. and integration of the two spheres of influences. Thus, he favours the view of the Late Bronze Age Aegean as The editors a complex and dynamic network of relations, rather Katarzyna Żebrowska, Agata Ulanowska than a core and periphery system. and Kazimierz Lewartowski In her article, Monika Wesołowska talks about the symbolic connotations of specific types of flowers immortalised in Minoan and Egyptian art. She ex- plores the beliefs related to those symbols, connected with life and death. The author compares floral de- pictions known from Minoan artefacts with analogue representations preserved from Bronze Age Egypt and proposes a Nilotic origin for the Aegean symbolism connected with them.

Future perspectives

The proceeding of the 4th and 5th Young Researchers’ Conferences in Aegean Archaeology, which took place in 2016 and 2017, respectively, are scheduled to be published in subsequent volumes of the SEPAA series. The programs and books of abstracts of those recent conferences can be found on the official site of the Department of Aegean Archaeology.2

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank the reviewers of all the articles submitted for the volume: Prof. Mirosław Barwik (University of Warsaw), Kinga Bigoraj, MA (Antiquity of Southeastern Europe Research Centre, University of Warsaw), Dr Tomasz Gralak (Universi- ty of Wrocław), Prof. Jolanta Młynarczyk (Univer- sity of Warsaw), Prof. Krzysztof Nowicki (The Insti- tute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences), Dr Kostas Paschalidis (National Archae- ological Museum of Athens), Prof. Tomasz Scholl (University of Warsaw), Dr Małgorzata Siennicka

2 http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/szablon.php?id=128 Rik Vaessen Independent scholar

WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN DURING THE LATE BRONZE AGE A VIEW FROM THE GULF OF IZMIR

Abstract: Discussions of the LBA Aegean have often tended to overlook western Anatolia, treating it essentially as a peripheral region to the Mycenaean world. This ignores, however, the vital importance of the coastal communities as gateways where Aegean and Anatolian networks merged together and where cosmopolitan crowds sharing a vast knowledge of ideas and experiences met and lived. To be able to highlight the implications of this point for our understanding of the LBA Aegean, this contri- bution first develops a perspective that presents the Aegean not in terms of core and periphery but as a complex and highly dynamic web of movement in which major sites functioned as focal points in the integration of various route networks. Subsequently, the Gulf of Izmir will serve as a brief case-study to explore some of the many connections the region entertained and discuss the implications these have for how we understand the region and the emergence of wider patterns in material culture and cultural practices in the LBA Aegean.

Keywords: Late Bronze Age, Western Anatolia, Aegean, connectivity, Gulf of Izmir.

Throughout history, western Anatolia has had and beginning of the 20th century.5 A further com- a major impact on its neighbouring regions.1 For in- plication is provided by a disciplinary divide between stance, the region was one of the first to introduce Anatolian and Aegean archaeologists, each of them coinage in the 7th century BCE, thereby influencing focusing on particular geographical regions that show not only Aegean history, but ultimately also world his- very little overlap with one another.6 Finally, particu- tory in general.2 In this light, it is therefore very dis- larly along the coast, excavations of Bronze Age lev- appointing that discussions of the Late Bronze Age els have long remained incidental as a result partly (LBA) Aegean have often overlooked western Anatolia of an overburden of later deposits and partly because altogether or considered it as merely of peripheral in- of a primary focus on the excavation of Classical terest to the palatial centres on the Greek mainland.3 remains.7 Part of the reason for this neglect can be attributed In recent years, however, some interesting devel- to the retrojection onto the past of the geo-political di- opments have been taking shape in western Anatolia. vide created by the boundaries of the modern nation Mainly thanks to new excavations and the application states of Greece and Turkey,4 coupled with the crucial of postcolonial theory in archaeological research, stud- role played by the Hittite and Mycenaean past in the ies are increasingly showing that LBA western Anatolia formation of national identities at the end of the 19th formed a highly complex and dynamic region.8 In line with this shifting understanding, the interrelations 1 The views set out in this paper are much influenced by the between the communities on the eastern and west- work of Susan Sherratt who was my doctoral supervisor at the ern Aegean seaboards during the LBA have also come University of Sheffield. I owe her much gratitude for her support and the stimulating discussions we had over the years. I would under revision. Whereas these relations were long also like to thank Jana Mokrišová, Michele Massa and Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba for sharing and/or discussing their papers with me prior to publication. Finally, I would like to express my 5 Voutsaki 2002; Atakuman 2008; Erimtan 2008. thanks to Michele Massa for producing figures 1 and 2. 6 Mangaloğlu-Votruba forthcoming. 2 Konuk 2012. 7 Greaves 2007, 4–5. 3 Greaves 2007, 3. 8 Greaves 2007; Mac Sweeney 2011; Pavúk 2015; Mokrišová 4 Greaves 2007, 3. 2016; Vaessen 2016. 68 RIK VAESSEN perceived as essentially one-directional (i.e. from west in turn allowed them to fully exploit their strategic to east) with local western Anatolian communities geographical position. Western Anatolia is character- more or less passively adopting Mycenaean practices ised by three major water courses in the form of the and material culture, new research shows not only that Büyük Menderes (ancient Meander), Küçük Menderes local communities were active participants in these (ancient Kayster) and Gediz (ancient Hermos) riv- contacts, but also that the selection and integration ers (Fig. 1). These formed important natural corri- of material elements and cultural practices that find dors for movement throughout history. The overland their closest parallels on the other side of the Aegean routes that ran through these river valleys reached the should be understood within local contexts.9 The aim Aegean coast and tied in with the maritime networks of this contribution is to go one step further in break- at two main points. The first one is the Gulf of Izmir ing down the geographical divides between western where the flourishing sites of Limantepe, Panaztepe Anatolia and the Aegean by presenting the Aegean not and Smyrna-Bayraklı are located. The second point in terms of core and periphery but as a complex and is Ephesos. Although the site is today located inland, highly dynamic web of movement in which major sites during the LBA it was situated directly on the coast functioned as focal points in the integration of various and as such formed the natural outlet of the Kayster route networks. river valley.15 Moreover, the site was connected to the Hermos river valley through the Karabel pass and formed the most likely end point of the route systems Characterising the LBA Aegean in the Meander river valley, mainly because Miletos During the LBA, Hittite documents generally refer was situated at quite some distance from the mouth to western Anatolia as the Arzawa lands. These lands of the river and could only be reached either by a raft did not form a single unit, but rather were composed or small boat or via a massive detour or difficult route of several political, social, cultural and also linguis- across Mount Latmos.16 tic groups that were subjected to very little direct Crucially, because maritime and overland move- Hittite oversight.10 Indeed, typical signs of Hittite ments depended on different circumstances, skill-sets influence and dominance, such as administration and carriers, the major harbour communities held systems, elite symbols and standardised pottery pro- a crucial position in mediating between these differ- duction are all absent.11 At times, however, the vari- ences and thereby enabling the mobility of people ous groups in western Anatolia formed allegiances and goods across different media.17 Within the glo- that posed a direct threat to Hittite interests and trig- balised and interconnected Mediterranean world, gered a response by the Hittite court. The most no- this strategic position not only brought the western table allegiance was formed in the 13th century BCE Anatolian communities a significant degree of pros- when a local ruler managed to unite the majority perity, but also made them essential to the working of the Arzawan groups. In response, the Hittite king of the Mediterranean world system and ultimately, Mursili II waged a fierce military campaign, raiding one could perhaps argue, the existence of the political a number of cities and imposing a peace which divided systems that relied on this system. This reasoning not Arzawa into three separate kingdoms (Mira, the Seha only implies that western Anatolian cannot simply be River Land, and Hapalla) headed by vassal kings.12 dismissed as a merely peripheral and culturally passive Despite this intervention, western Anatolia never be- region, but it also has direct consequences for the ways came fully integrated into either the Hittite political in which we understand mobility and cross-cultural or cultural spheres.13 In fact, Mira emerged as a major interaction in the Aegean. Before, however, consider- player in western Anatolia within decades of Mursili’s ing these implications, it would be useful to first turn intervention.14 to the other side of the Aegean. The point that Hittite control over western Within the framework of the eastern Anatolia was ever tenuous at best is of crucial impor- Mediterranean, Mycenaean Greece is frequently pre- tance as it implies that local communities exercised sented as a reckonable force whose ruler was rec- much freedom in their economic activities, which ognised as a Great King by the rulers of the various Near Eastern empires.18 Evidence for such a depiction

9 Eerbeek 2015; Mokrišová 2016; Vaessen 2016. 10 Hawkins 1998; Mac Sweeney 2010, 8. 15 Stock et al. 2014. 11 Mac Sweeney 2010, 8. 16 Vaessen forthcoming. On the location of the LBA coastline near 12 Hawkins 1998, 14–15. Miletos, see Müllenhoff et al. 2009. 13 Mac Sweeney 2010, 8. 17 Vaessen forthcoming. 14 Hawkins 2002; Mac Sweeney 2010, 8. 18 Niemeier 1999; Kelder 2010; Cline 2010. WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN DURING... 69 largely hinges on the identification of the elusive king- trade and diplomatic communication in the Linear dom of Ahhiyawa with the Mycenaean world and B tablets.26 As such, it is unclear as to whether the a Hittite document (the Tawagawala Letter) in which Ahhiyawan king (if Ahhiyawa is indeed to be equated the king of Ahhiyawa is addressed by the Hittite king with Mycenaean Greece), ever responded to the Hittite (most likely Hattusili III) as ‘Great King’, ‘my brother’, letters and what language he may have used. In fact, and ‘my peer’.19 This suggests that, at least from the it is perhaps not very likely that the Mycenaeans perspective of the Hittite king, Ahhiyawa had be- could write, read or speak Hittite, which implies that come an important participant on the Near Eastern the Hittite letters would have needed to be translated scene. It appears that the Ahhiyawan king held this at some point, possibly by Luwian scribes who knew position in the Hittite records for some time un- both Hittite and Greek.27 til it was removed from diplomatic parlance during There is little doubt that Near Eastern courts had the drafting of Tudhalya IV’s treaty with Shaushga- some knowledge of the Aegean world, but it seems muwa of Amurru in which the latter was explic- to be stretching the evidence to consider Mycenaean itly forbidden to send any merchant from Amurru Greece as a major player on the Near Eastern scene. to Assyria or to receive/let pass any ship of Ahhiyawa The most likely explanation for addressing the king to the king of Assyria. In other words, the trade with of Ahhiyawa as ‘my brother’ probably is that Hattusili the land of Ahhiyawa was to be stopped by the king engaged in a piece of ad-hoc diplomacy in an attempt of Amurru by blocking the land route from the sea- to neutralise the activities of his enemies in his west- shore to Assyria.20 Besides these and a few dozen other ern territories and influence the course of events af- Hittite documents, the Akkadian name for Ahhiyawa ter military intervention had failed.28 In this light, is possibly also mentioned in two letters at Ugarit dat- an interesting alternative view of the Mycenaean ing to the late 13th or early 12th century and written palaces is presented by Susan Sherratt who suggests by the Hittite king and a Hittite official to Ammurapi, that the palaces owed their ultimate origins and rich- the last king of Ugarit.21 ness to their geographical positions as nodal points Although the consensus is that Ahhiyawa is to be on longer-distance route networks.29 She notes how located somewhere in the Aegean and in general refers in the Argolid for instance Mycenae and Tiryns both to the Mycenaean world, it is unclear whether it refers occupied a commanding position over an isthmus to a single palace, a larger unified kingdom or per- route linking together maritime movements in the haps even a confederacy of states. In fact, it may even Corinthian, Saronic, Euboean and Argolic gulfs. Pylos be possible that through time and depending on the in Messenia, on the other hand, held a strategic loca- circumstances, the term denoted different localities tion in relation to the maritime routes between Crete in the Aegean.22 This latter suggestion would also fit and the Tyrrhenian area, whereas Thebes was located the fact that there is little evidence to suggest that the in the centre of the overland route between the south- Mycenaean world ever formed a collective unity, po- ern Euboean gulf and the head of the Corinthian gulf. litically or otherwise, despite its shared pottery styles This strategic location allowed local elites to chan- and tomb types.23 In fact, the notion of a unified nel high-value materials, such as silver from eastern Mycenaean state is essentially a modern construct in- Attika and the northern Aegean and tin from the fluenced by the nationalist claims on the past in the late Tyrrhenian area, in one direction in return for lifestyle 19th century.24 Furthermore, there is an extreme pau- luxuries in the other. These luxuries were used for the city of finds of Mycenaean artefacts in Hittite contexts purpose of self-definition and to ensure the loyalty and Hittite artefacts in Mycenaean contexts and only of potentially adversarial factions among the aristo- a handful of the over 20,000 Hittite documents refer cratic elements of society.30 Moreover, their strategic to Ahhiyawa, both of these facts indicate that its deal- position allowed the palaces to add their own special- ings with the Hittite state were peripheral to the lat- ised goods, such as textiles, processed oils and perhaps ter party.25 Similarly, there are virtually no references pottery, to the flows. to the Hittites or indeed any form of inter-regional When we take this perspective, one can hardly escape the conclusion that, in terms of their position and function within wider networks of movement, 19 Beckman et al. 2011, 111–122. 20 Beckman et al. 2011, 50–68. 21 Cline 2010, 178, with further references. 26 Killen 2008; Bennet 2011, 157–158. 22 Georgakopoulos 2012. 27 Van Dongen 2007, 19. 23 Sherratt 2010, 10–11; contra Kelder 2010. 28 Bryce 2003, 197. 24 Sherratt 2010, 10–11. 29 Sherratt 2001. 25 Bryce 2010, 48; Greaves 2010, 885. 30 Voutsaki 2010; Tartaron 2013, 19–20. 70 RIK VAESSEN the Mycenaean palaces do not differ too much from main concern in this contribution, however, is the the coastal communities in western Anatolia – and coastal zone during the LBA. From an archaeological we may also add the various coastal communities perspective, this zone divides broadly into two regions, in Macedonia and Thrace which formed impor- also referred to as the Upper and Lower Interface.34 tant focal points mediating between the overland The Upper Interface forms a somewhat loosely defined routes reaching the Aegean coast from the Balkans area both geographically and culturally that roughly through the various river valleys and the maritime encompasses the area between Troy in the north and networks in the Aegean. The emerging picture deriv- Ephesos in the south and is essentially unified by the ing from these observations is that the Aegean formed sparse occurrence of Mycenaean finds. The Lower a complex web in which strategically located com- Interface consists of Rhodes, the southwest Anatolian munities played a crucial role in enabling as well as coast and the Dodecanese islands and is generally profiting from the mobility of people, ideas and goods characterised by a stronger presence of Mycenaean on a local, regional and supra-regional level by provid- material culture. ing resources, shelter for travellers, knowledge about Various interpretative frameworks have been put the local route systems and their potential dangers, as forward to explain this patterning.35 Fundamental well as mediating between different modes of move- to all proposed frameworks is a binary that diamet- ment that required specific knowledge and carriers. rically opposes Mycenaean/Aegean and Anatolian This does not mean that power-relations did not ex- elements and considers the former as intrusive ele- ist, but direct control was confined to relatively small ments with a special cultural function in an essentially segments of the Aegean web. Against this background, Anatolian environment. The argument underlying the traditional centre-periphery model which portrays this approach is the assumption that a common set Mycenaean Greece as the centre of the Aegean and the of norms and values guided cultural practices and was eastern Aegean as its periphery cannot account for the shared by a community, thus leading to similar ma- complexity and variety of the interactions that were al- terial culture. As a result, it becomes possible to de- lowed for and facilitated by this web and the material fine a set of diagnostic criteria to determine the level patterns that resulted from them. of ‘Anatolianness’ or ‘Aegeanness’ of a community. To try and determine the extent to which communi- ties were primarily ‘Anatolian’ or ‘Aegean’ in character Mediating mobility and interaction in the creates, however, an unhelpful divide that not only LBA Aegean: a view from the Gulf of Izmir retrojects the contemporary fault-line created by the The archaeology of western Anatolia is a complicated modern Greek-Turkish border onto the past, but also matter. Despite more than a century of research, ignores the fact that the western Anatolian commu- there is still a lack of excavated and published ar- nities had their own distinct character.36 Elsewhere, chaeological data. As a result, large centres like Troy I have therefore proposed understanding the regional and Beycesultan still act as the two main anchors. variations against the background of the particular Needless to say, these sites do not represent all of west- position that communities held within wider webs ern Anatolia. A further complicating factor is that of movement and interaction.37 In the following, my whereas excavation projects prevail along the coast, intent is to take this approach and apply it to the Gulf further inland our knowledge largely comes from sur- of Izmir in order to highlight not only the internal dy- veys.31 Both the lack of information and an imbalance namics within this micro-region, but also to discuss in the types of information, whenever available, make the region’s contribution to material and cultural de- it very hard to characterise western Anatolia archae- velopments in the LBA Aegean. ologically. However, some important strives forward As already noted, the Gulf of Izmir formed an im- have recently been made. Peter Pavúk, for instance, portant interface where maritime movements in the has been able to identify a number of cultural groups Aegean integrated with those in the Hermos river based on the distribution of certain forms of material valley. Geographically speaking the Gulf of Izmir culture, particularly pottery.32 Interestingly, in sev- forms a more or less confined and naturally protected eral cases the distribution of ceramic groups appears space consisting of a coastal zone and relatively calm to correlate well with the political geography of the region as established by recent reconstructions.33 The 34 Mountjoy 1998; 2015. 35 Mee 1978; Gates 1995; Mountjoy 1998; Niemeier 2007; 31 Greaves 2007; Pavúk 2015. Eerbeek 2015. 32 Pavúk 2015. 36 Mac Sweeney 2010; Pavúk 2015; Vaessen 2016. 33 Hawkins 1998; 2015. 37 Vaessen 2016; forthcoming. WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN DURING... 71 waters. Along the gulf’s shores there were three ma- a well. The site may also have been fortified during this jor settlements in the form of Smyrna-Bayraklı (mod- time. In terms of its material culture, the settlement is ern Izmir), Limantepe (ancient Klazomenai and characterised by a mix of elements that find their par- near modern Urla), and Panaztepe (near modern allels both in western Anatolia and the Aegean. For Menemen).38 On the face of it, Smyrna-Bayraklı ap- instance, in respect to pottery, the assemblage con- pears to occupy a crucial position connecting the river sists predominantly of ceramics with a reddish-buff valley with the Aegean (Fig. 2).39 However, in contrast clay colour that are either slipped or self-slipped or to the other sites in the Gulf of Izmir, it is puzzling that red-slipped (Fig. 4).43 A second group is comprised archaeological research, however limited, has, to date, of western Anatolian grey wares (Fig. 4, bottom right). revealed virtually no Aegean-style material culture. Furthermore, there is a small number of so-called This situation can only be explained when we take gold- and silver-wash wares. These three groups all into consideration the impact of coastal progradation show close relations to pottery from inland western that has significantly changed the configuration of the Anatolia. Finally, about 5–10% of the total ceramic coastline. This makes clear that not Smyrna-Bayraklı assemblage consists of a combination of imported but the site of Panaztepe occupied the most strategic Mycenaean pottery and locally produced ceramics position in relation to the exchange networks in the that are inspired by this pottery (Fig. 5). The locally river valley and the Aegean. Thanks to its location produced pottery shows the same clay characteristics on an off-shore island, the community would have as other local reddish-buff coloured ceramics and has been able to control essentially any traffic between the a cream-coloured slip. Besides ceramics, Aegean-style Aegean and the river valley.40 In this light, it is hardly loom weights and spools as well as a Mycenaean figu- a surprise that we find here not only a substantial set- rine that may have been produced locally attest further tlement and two large cemeteries comprising tholos to links with the Aegean. No cemeteries have yet been and chamber tombs, but also substantial quantities identified. of imported objects originating from Anatolia, the The ceramics and other finds suggest that Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean as well as prob- Limantepe entertained links to both inland Anatolia ably locally produced objects made of materials im- and the Aegean. At the same time, however, it is sig- ported from these regions.41 nificant that, unlike the preceding EBA and MBA This leaves Limantepe, the third main harbour set- phases as well as the succeeding EIA phase, LBA re- tlement in the Gulf of Izmir (Fig. 3). Excavations at the mains appear to have been confined to the Limantepe site since 1992 have revealed an uninterrupted habita- mount. Moreover, unlike nearby Panaztepe, imports tion sequence from at least the fifth millennium BCE are largely confined to mostly small quantities of im- onwards. Evidence for the LBA period at the site was ported Mycenaean pottery. Both aspects suggest that long limited, but recent excavations by the University the site formed merely a secondary settlement within of Ankara as part of the Izmir Region Excavations the Gulf of Izmir and that its community relied pre- and Research Project have identified three LBA dif- dominantly on local and regional networks and the ferent phases largely corresponding to the LH IIIA2, exchange of relatively low-level goods. Crucial to our LH IIIB and LH IIIC periods on the Greek mainland.42 understanding of this situation is that currents in the During these phases the summit of the Limantepe eastern Aegean generally flow in a northwards di- mount, a toponym in the heart of classical Klazomenai rection.44 They are met by predominantly northern where the core of the prehistoric settlement was lo- and moderately strong winds, especially during the cated, was quite densely occupied. This is evidenced summer months.45 Under normal conditions, expe- by the presence of domestic structures, streets, stor- rienced sailors could use the winds and sea-surface age facilities, industrial facilities in the form of work- circulation to their advantage in travelling north and shops and five pottery kilns, garbage pits, hearths, and south through the strait between Chios and Çeşme. However, changing weather conditions and the effects of the displacement of air currents upon encountering 38 Unfortunately, the Bronze Age levels at Smyrna-Bayraklı are virtually unknown. Deep soundings suggest their existence, but topographic obstacles may often cause a tricky passage. they have not yet been systematically investigated (Akurgal In this respect, the protected harbour at Limantepe and 1983, 13–14). its close proximity to the isthmus route to Teos formed 39 For the relevance of the later road systems in relation to the Bronze Age, see Vaessen forthcoming; Massa forthcoming. 40 Çinerdali-Karaaslan 2012. 43 For a discussion of the ceramics, see Mangaloğlu-Votruba 41 Günel 1999; Erkanal-Öktü 2008; Çinerdali-Karaaslan 2015. 2012. 44 Papageorgiou 2009, 209, fig. 3;Agourides 1997, 5–6, figs. 2–3. 42 Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2015. 45 Tartaron 2013, 93. 72 RIK VAESSEN an attractive alternative target port for sailors coming cosmopolitan and mixed character in creating a par- from a northern direction.46 Particularly during the ticular identity of their own.51 final stages of the 2nd and beginning of the 1st mil- A second point is that the constant interaction lennium BCE this maritime connection is of great im- between people from different backgrounds has been portance to Limantepe.47 In relation to the exchanges instrumental in the emergence of wider material pat- between western Anatolia and the Aegean during the terns. One particular example that comes to mind LBA, however, Limantepe arguably occupied a some- in this respect is the appropriation of Mycenaean-style what off-set position. pottery. Although this process is traditionally consid- This does, of course, not mean that either ered a reflection of Mycenaean influence, if not domi- Limantepe or Smyrna-Bayraklı were marginal sites. nance over western Anatolian communities, it should Although Panaztepe draws the attention thanks to its be kept in mind that the Aegean formed a very fa- rich cemeteries, it is the interplay between the harbour miliar place to coastal communities. This created not communities that made the region instrumental both only a shared knowledge base, but also an atmosphere in integrating overland and maritime networks and ty- in which Mycenaean objects and styles could be in- ing together local, regional and supra-regional modes corporated relatively easily into local practices.52 This of movement and high- and low-level exchanges. This process was further reinforced by the observation that entanglement provides us with a glimpse into the in- both the various local wares and Mycenaean shapes herent complexity of the Aegean web, although more are reminiscent of similar metal objects in terms research will be necessary to illuminate the local and of their shape and surface treatment. When we also regional exchanges.48 At the same time, this observa- factor in that Mycenaean pottery (both imported and tion also has two important implications regarding locally produced) is generally found mixed in with our understanding of communities occupying the east other ceramics in a wide variety of contexts, suggest- Aegean shores. First, because of its function as a me- ing that they were used interchangeably, it becomes diator between various networks and modes of move- very tempting to argue that Mycenaean ceramics were ment, the Gulf of Izmir was undoubtedly frequented incorporated because in the perception of local users by people from a variety of origins who exchanged they complemented other ceramic wares.53 The direct their own goods in the form of (semi-) finished ob- implication of this point is that ancient perceptions jects (including pottery, textiles, wine, perfumed of certain forms of material culture do not necessar- oils) and raw materials (for instance glass49), skills, ily follow modern classification systems. Indeed, what information and connections for (access to) a variety is now considered typical Mycenaean or Mycenaean- of commodities ranging from basic foodstuffs to pre- influenced pottery was not necessarily perceived at the cious raw and (semi-) worked materials. Against this time of its manufacture or use as having a particular background, the harbour settlements must have been cultural provenance with particular cultural values. places where cosmopolitan crowds sharing a vast But perhaps even more important is that, through knowledge of ideas and experiences met and lived. their entanglement with the Aegean web, coastal com- This continuous exchange of goods, knowledge, ideas munities and micro-regions like the Gulf of Izmir were and experiences arguably was instrumental in the as crucial as other Aegean groups or regions in the emergence of a particular cosmopolitan identity of the emergence of material and cultural patterns in the coastal communities, not just during the LBA but also LBA Aegean. during earlier and later historical periods.50 The di- rect implication of this observation is that it is essen- Conclusion tially meaningless to characterise the western Anatolia communities along the fault lines created by the The key argument in this paper has been that the LBA boundaries of modern nation states. In fact, it seems Aegean should not be understood in terms of core and highly unlikely that those communities thought along periphery, with the Mycenaean world and its palaces such lines; rather, they would have embraced their at its centre, but as a complex and highly dynamic web in which key sites or small world regions through- out the Aegean functioned as mediating points be- 46 Vaessen forthcoming. tween different paths and types of movement, thereby 47 Vaessen forthcoming. 48 A research project is currently being set up that aims to identify patterns of exchange and interaction in the east Aegean during 51 Vaessen 2016, 48–49; in relation to Miletos, see also Mac the LBA and EIA. Sweeney 2013, 53–61. 49 Çinerdali-Karaaslan 2012. 52 Mokrišová 2016. 50 Vaessen 2016. 53 Vaessen 2016. WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN DURING... 73 allowing for the ongoing flow of people, ideas and Bibliography goods on a local, regional, and supra-regional level. It should be emphasised that we have only skimmed the Agouridis, C. (1997), Sea routes and navigation in surface and that the perspective set out here represents the third millennium Aegean, Oxford Journal of only some brought lines of thought. However, one Archaeology 16, pp. 1–24. of the promising consequences of the proposed per- Akurgal, E. (1983), Alt-Smyrna I: Wohnschichten und spective is that it not only makes it possible to break Athenatempel, Ankara. down the geographical divide that has long separated Atakuman, Ç. (2008), Cradle or crucible. Anatolia coastal western Anatolia from the rest of the Aegean, and archaeology in the early years of the Turkish but also that regions that are traditionally considered Republic (1923–1938), Journal of Social Archaeolo- as merely peripheral zones, such as western Anatolia, gy 8, pp. 214–235. come to be of crucial importance in understanding the Beckman, G. M., T. Bryce, E. H. Cline (2011), The Aegean region. To develop this argument in slightly Ahhiyawa Texts, Atlanta. more detail, we have briefly considered the Gulf Bennet, J. (2011), The geography of the Mycenaean of Izmir. It has been argued that this region played kingdoms, in: Duhoux, Y., A. Morpurgo Davies a crucial role in the integration of various networks (eds.), A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean and modes of exchanges and movement and as such Greek Texts and Their World (Volume 2), Leuven, was home to cosmopolitan crowds. This cosmopol- pp. 137–168. itan and mixed character not only formed an instru- Bryce, T. (2003), Letters of the Great Kings of the An- mental element in the formation of the communal cient Near East: the Royal Correspondence of the identities in the region, but also enabled an intensive Late Bronze Age, London. sharing of knowledge, ideas and experiences, which Bryce, T. (2010), The Hittite deal with the Hiyawa in turn helped to stimulate the emergence of local, men, in: Cohen, Y., A. Gilan, J. L. Miller (eds.), regional and supra-regional patterns in material cul- Pax Hetithica. Studies on the Hittites and Their ture and cultural practices throughout the Aegean and Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, Wiesba- Mediterranean. When seen against this background, den, pp. 47–53. it is crucial not to treat western Anatolia and other Çinerdali-Karaaslan, N. (2012), The East Medi- seemingly liminal regions as merely peripheral zones, terranean Late Bronze Age glass trade within the but as regions that are of crucial importance to our un- context of the Panaztepe finds, Oxford Journal derstanding of mobility and interaction in the Aegean of Archaeology 31, pp. 121–141. and the wider Mediterranean. Cline, E. H. (2010), Bronze Age interactions between the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean revisited: mainstream, periphery or margin, in: Parkinson, W.A., M. L. Galaty (eds.), Archaic State Interac- tion: the Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age, Santa Fe, pp. 161–180. Eerbeek, J. (2015), The “Mycenaeans” in the southe- ast Aegean revisited: an inter-regional analysis, in: Stampolides, N. C., Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.), NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at the Koç Research Center for Anatolian Civiliza- tions, Istanbul, March 31–April 3 2011, Istanbul, pp. 289–310. Erimtan, C. (2008), Hittites, Ottomans and Turks: Ağaoğlu Ahmed Bey and the Kemalist construc- tion of Turkish nationhood in Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 58, pp. 141–171. Erkanal-Öktü, A. (2008), The Late Bronze Age ce- meteries of Panaztepe, in: Erkanal-Oktu, A., S. Gunel, U. Deniz (eds.), Batı Anadolu ve Doğu 74 RIK VAESSEN

Akdeniz Geç Tunç Çağı Kültürleri Üzerine Yeni Mac Sweeney, N. (2011), Community Identity and Ar- Araştırmalar, Ankara, pp. 65–75. chaeology. Dynamic Communities at Aphrodisias Gates, C. (1995), Defining boundaries of a state: the and Beycesultan, Ann Arbor. Mycenaeans and their Anatolian frontier, in: Laf- Mac Sweeney, N. (2013), Foundation Myths and Poli- fineur, R., W.D. Niemeier (eds.), POLITEIA. tics in Ancient Ionia, Cambridge. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proce- Mangaloğlu-Votruba, D. S. (2015), Liman Tepe du- edings of the 5th International Aegean Conference ring the Late Bronze Age, in: Stampolides, N. C., / 5e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.), NOSTOI. Indi- of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April genous Culture, Migration and Integration in the 1994, Aegaeum 12, Liège, pp. 289–298. Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Georgakopoulos, K. (2012), Minoan-Anatolian Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Proceedings of an relations and the Ahhiyawa Question: a re-asses- International Symposium Held at the Koç Research sment of the evidence, Talanta 44, pp. 137–156. Center for Anatolian Civilizations, Istanbul, March Greaves, A. M. (2007), Trans-Anatolia: examining 31–April 3 2011, Istanbul, pp. 647–670. Turkey as a bridge between East and West, Anato- Mangaloğlu-Votruba, D. S. (forthcoming), Claim- lian Studies 57, pp. 1–15. ing the past, conquering the future: archaeologi- Greaves, A. M. (2010), Western Anatolia, in: Cline, cal narratives in western Anatolia, in: Gimatzidis, E. H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Aegean S., M. Pieniążek, D. S. Mangaloğlu-Votruba Bronze Age, Oxford, pp. 877–889. (eds.), Archaeology across Past and Present Borders. Günel, S. (1999), Panaztepe II: M.Ö. bine tarihlendi- Fragmentation, Transformation and Connectivity rilen Panaztepe seramiğinin batı Anadolu ve Ege in the North Aegean and the Balkans during the arkolojisindeki yeri ve önemi = Die keramik von Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, Vienna. Panaztepe und ihre bedeutung für westkleinasien Massa, M. (forthcoming), A palimpsest of route use in und die Ägais im 2. jahrtausend, Ankara. west and central Anatolia between the Early Bron- Hawkins, D. (1998), Tarkasnawa King of Mira: “Tar- ze Age and the Seljuk period, in: Vandeput, L., kondemos”, Bogazköy sealings and Karabel, M. Massa, D. Baird, K. Görkay, J. F. Haldon, Anatolian Studies 48, pp. 1–31. S. Mitchell (eds.), Pathways of Communication: Hawkins, D. (2002), Anatolia: the end of the Hittite Routes and Roads in Anatolia from Prehistory empire and after, in:Braun-Holzinger, E. A., to Seljuk Times, Cambridge. H. Mattäus (eds.), Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Mee, C. (1978), Aegean trade and settlement in Ana- Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtau- tolia in the second millennium BC, Anatolian sent v. Chr., Mainz, pp. 143–151. Studies 28, pp. 121–156. Hawkins, D. (2015), The political geography of Arza- Mokrišová, J. (2016), Minoanisation, Mycenaeanisa- wa (western Anatolia), in: Stampolides, N. C., tion, and mobility: a view from southwest Anatolia, Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.), NOSTOI. Indi- in: Gorogianni, E., P. Pavúk, L. Girella (eds.), genous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Beyond Thalassocracies. Understanding Processes Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Proceedings of an Aegean, Oxford, pp. 43–57. International Symposium Held at the Koç Research Mountjoy, P. (1998), The east Aegean-west Anatolian Center for Anatolian Civilizations, Istanbul, March interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and 31–April 3 2011, Istanbul, pp. 15–36. the kingdom of Ahhiyawa, Anatolian Studies 48, Kelder, J. (2010), The Kingdom of Mycenae. A Great pp. 33–67. Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, Bethesda. Mountjoy, P. (2015), The east Aegean-west Anatolian Killen, J. T. (2008), Mycenaean economy, in: interface in the 12th century BC: some aspects Duhoux, Y., A. Morpurgo Davies (eds.), arising from the Mycenaean pottery, in: Stam- A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts polides, N. C., Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.), and Their World (Volume 1), Leuven, pp. 159–200. NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Inte- Konuk, K. (2012), Asia Minor to the Ionian Revolt, gration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia in: Metcalf, W.E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Proce- of Greek and Roman Coinage, Oxford, pp. 43–60. edings of an International Symposium Held at the Mac Sweeney, N. (2010), Hittites and Arzawans: Koç Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, a view from western Anatolia, Anatolian Studies Istanbul, March 31–April 3 2011, Istanbul, pp. 60, pp. 7–24. 37–80. WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN DURING... 75

Müllenhoff, M., A. Herda, H. Brückner (2009), pottery in western Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 66, Geoarchaeology in the city of Thales. Deciphering pp. 43–65. palaeogeographic changes in the Agora area of Mi- Vaessen, R. A. (forthcoming), Routes and roads in we- letos, in: Mattern, T., A. Vött (eds.), Mench und stern Anatolia and the eastern Aegean at the end Umwelt im Spiegel der Zeit. Aspekte geoarchäolo- of the second millennium BC, in: Vandeput, L., gischer Forschungen im östlichen Mittelmeergebiet, M. Massa, D. Baird, K. Görkay, J. F. Haldon, Wiesbaden, pp. 97–110. S. Mitchell (eds.), Pathways of Communication: Niemeier, W.D. (1999), Mycenaeans and Hittites Routes and Roads in Anatolia from Prehistory in war in western Asia Minor, in: Laffineur, R. to Seljuk Times, Cambridge. (ed.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à Van Dongen, E. (2007), Contacts between pre-clas- l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne in- sical Greece and the Near East in the context ternationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998, of cultural influences: an overview, in:Rollinger, Aegaeum 19, Liège, pp. 141–155. R., A. Luther, J. Wiesehöfer (eds.), Getrennte Niemeier, W.D. (2007), Westkleinasien und Agais Wege? Kommunikation, Raum, und Wahrnehmung von den Anfangen bis zur Ionische Wanderung: in der alten Welt, Frankfuhrt am Main, pp. 13–49. Topographie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach Voutsaki, S. (2002), The ‘Greekness’ of Greek prehi- dem archaologischen Befund und den hethiti- story: an investigation of the debate 1876–1900, schen Quelle, in: Cobet, J., V. Von Graeve, W.-D. Pharos 10, pp. 105–121. Niemeier, K. Zimmerman (eds.), Frühes Ionien: Voutsaki, S. (2010), From the kingship economy eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion to the palatial economy: the Argolid in the second Güzalçamlı 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999, Ma- millennium BC, in: Pullen, D. J. (ed.), Political inz am Rhein, pp. 37–96. Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers from Papageorgiou, D. (2009), The marine environment the Langford Conference, Florida State Universi- and its influence on seafaring and maritime routes ty, Tallahassee, 22–24 February 2007, Oxford, pp. in the prehistoric Aegean, European Journal of Ar- 86–111. chaeology 11, pp. 199–222. Pavúk, P. (2015), Between the Aegeans and the Hitti- tes: western Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BC, in: Stampolides, N. C., Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.), NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at the Koç Research Center for Anatolian Civiliza- tions, Istanbul, March 31–April 3 2011, Istanbul, pp. 59–91. Sherratt, E.S. (2001), Potemkin palaces and route- -based economies, in: Voutsaki, S., J. T. Killen (eds.), Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Pa- lace-states, Cambridge, pp. 214–255. Sherratt, E.S. (2010), The Trojan War: history or bri- colage, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies at the University of London 53, pp. 1–18. Stock, F., M. Kerschner, J. C. Kraft, A. Pint, P. Frenzel, H. Brückner (2014), The palaeoge- ographies of Ephesos (Turkey), its harbours, and the Artemision – a geoarchaeological reconstruc- tion for the timespan 1500–300 BC, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 58, pp. 33–66. Tartaron, T.F. (2013), Maritime Networks in the My- cenaean World, Cambridge. Vaessen, R. A. (2016), Cosmopolitanism, com- munality and the appropriation of Mycenaean 76 RIK VAESSEN

Fig. 1 Map of western Anatolia with main LBA sites and estimated coastline (map produced by M. Massa).

Fig. 2 Map of western Anatolia with main LBA sites plotted against Persian/Hellenistic and Roman road systems (map pro- duced by M. Massa). WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN DURING... 77 Fig. 3 Archive). Expedition the Klazomenai of courtesy of (photo Limantepe View 78 RIK VAESSEN

Fig. 4 Red buff and grey ware pottery from Limantepe (photo: Rik Vaessen, courtesy of the Klazomenai Expedition Archive).

Fig. 5 Mycenaean pottery from Limantepe (photo: Rik Vaessen, courtesy of the Klazomenai Expedition Archive).