Mee

ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE*

Middle Minoan III - Late Helladic IIB

There is evidence of Minoan activity in the eastern Aegean in the Protopalatial period:MM I-II pottery on Rhodes and Samos, at Iasos, Miletus, and possibly Knidos (Pl. XIII).1 ByMM III-LM I Trianda on Rhodes and the Seraglio on Kos were two of the largest settlementsin the Aegean.2 Karpathos, Kasos, and Tilos had also been annexed by Crete, culturally atleast.3 In Anatolia Minoan pottery is reported at Akbük and Didyma.4 Iasos has Minoan stylearchitecture, as well as imported and locally produced pottery.5 But Miletus is the site whereCretans would have felt most at home, surrounded by Minoan architecture, frescoes, stonevases, jewellery, and pottery6 — there must surely have been Minoan settlers.7 The attractionof sites such as Miletus was their location on trade routes. Metals almost certainly providedthe main incentive for trade, as Wiener has argued.8

If there were Mycenaeans in the eastern Aegean at this time, they remain elusive. LH IIAsherds have been identified at Trianda, Miletus, and Clazomenae.9 The type B sworddiscovered out of context in the Roman Agora at Izmir10 and the recently publishedMycenaean sword from Bogazköy11 hint at military ventures.

______________________* I am extremely grateful to Eric Cline and Diane Harris-Cline for the opportunity to speak at the confrence,

and to Penelope Mountjoy and Wolf Niemeier for their advice and comments.1 For further references and discussion, see A. PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, “Were the S.E. Aegean islands

deserted in the MBA?,” AnatSt 35 (1985) 85-88, and L.V. WATROUS, “Review of Aegean prehistory III:Crete from earliest prehistory through the Protopalatial period,” AJA 98 (1994) 747-48. Some of the light-on-dark pottery could be LM I, J.L. DAVIS, “The earliest Minoans in the south-east Aegean: areconsideration of the evidence,” AnatSt 32 (1982) 35-38.

2 M.H. WIENER, “The isles of Crete? The Minoan thalassocracy revisited,” in TAW III, pt. I, 130-31. For therecent excavations on Rhodes and Kos, see J.L. DAVIS, “Review of Aegean prehistory I: the islands of theAegean,” AJA 96 (1992) 748-50.

3 Karpathos and Kasos: E.M. MELAS, The Islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos in the Neolithic and Bronze Age(1985); Tilos: A. SAMPSON, “Minvïkà ˙pò t|n Têlo,” AAA 13 (1980) 68-72.

4 Akbük: W. VOIGTLÄNDER, “Umrisse eines vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zentrums an der karisch-ionischen Küste,” AA (1986) 622-23, 642-51, figs. 20-24; Idem, “Akbük-Teichiussa: zweiter Vorbericht - Survey1985/86,” AA (1988) 605, 607-608, fig. 39; Didyma: R. NAUMANN, “Didyma,” AnatSt 13 (1963) 24.

5 C. MEE, “Aegean trade and settlement in Anatolia in the second millennium BC,” AnatSt 28 (1978) 129-30;C. LAVIOSA, “The Minoan thalassocracy, Iasos and the Carian coast,” in Minoan Thalassocracy, 183.

6 MEE (supra n. 5) 134-35; W. SCHIERING, “The connections between the oldest settlement at Miletus andCrete,” in Minoan Thalassocracy, 187-88. For the most recent excavations, see the paper by W-D. NIEMEIERin this volume.

7 Especially as there may have been a break in occupation, H. PARZINGER, “Zur frühesten BesiedlungMilets,” IstMitt 39 (1989) 429.

8 WIENER (supra n. 2) 145-50. 9 For Trianda and Miletus, see O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation (1977) 102. Sherds

from Miletus classified as LH I by C. ÖZGÜNEL, Mykenische Keramik in Anatolien (1996) 10-12, could beMinoan. The pottery from the 1979-81 excavations at Clazomenae - Liman Tepe includes one sherd whichis LH I-IIA, Y. ERSOY, Klazomenai Myken Keramigi (1983) 92 and pl. 1:3.

10 K. BITTEL and A. SCHNEIDER, “Archäologische Funde aus Türkei, 1942,”AA 58 (1943) 203 and 207,fig. 3.

11 See especially E.H. CLINE, “Assuwa and the Achaeans: the ‘Mycenaean’ sword at Hattusas and its possibleimplications,” BSA 91 (1996) 137-51.

Late Helladic III

Western Anatolia

The process of state formation in Mycenaean Greece was evidently protracted, becausethe first palaces were not built until LH IIB.12 I believe that the repercussions of thisdevelopment were felt across the Aegean, and we should not assume that the Mycenaeanssimply filled the vacuum left by the collapse of the Minoan palatial system. There is no suddentransition but a steady escalation in the level of Mycenaean activity.13

In LH IIB/IIIA1 we see the first chamber tombs on Rhodes and Kos.14 LH IIIA1pottery also reached Iasos, Miletus, and Ephesos.15 By LH IIIA2 there were settlements onmost of the eastern Aegean islands.16 Mycenaean finds from western Anatolia, which may bethe result of occasional or indirect trade contacts, include a jar from Mylasa,17 a stirrup jarfrom Kusadası,18 a pyxis from Tire-Ahmetler,19 a piriform jar from Çerkes Sultaniye,20 andsherds from Akbük,21 Erythrae,22 and Old Smyrna.23 This leaves as our key sites Müskebi,Iasos, and Miletus, south of the Menderes, and Selçuk-Ephesos, Colophon, Liman Tepe-Clazomenae, and Panaztepe between the Menderes and the Gediz.

The 48 LH IIIA-C24 chamber tombs in the cemetery at Müskebi have short, steep dromoiand narrow stomia.25 The chambers had often collapsed, but the dimensions quoted indicatea size range of 0.49-9.08m2.26 Possibly because the bedrock was so soft, a rough plaster ofearth and water had been used in most of the tombs. Although inhumation was the standardrite, there were also at least three cremations.27 We think of cremation as an Anatolian______________________12 J.B. RUTTER, “Review of Aegean prehistory II: the prepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central

Greek mainland,” AJA 97 (1993) 796.13 On the Mycenaeans in Anatolia, see especially SWDS, 68-77; E. FRENCH, “Who were the Mycenaeans in

Anatolia?,” in Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology (1978) 165-70; Eadem,“Turkey and the East Aegean,” in Wace and Blegen, 155-57; C. GATES, “Defining boundaries of a state: theMycenaeans and their Anatolian frontier,” in Politeia, 289-97; MEE (supra n. 5) 121-56; C. ÖZGÜNEL, “BatıAnadolu ve içerlerinde Miken etkinlikleri,” Belleten 47 (1983) 697-743; Idem, “Selçuk Arkeoloji Müzesindesaklanen Miken pyxisi ve düsündürdükleri,” Belleten 51 (1987) 535-47; Idem (supra n. 9); L. RE, “Presenzemicenee in Anatolia,” in M. MARAZZI, S. TUSA and L. VAGNETTI (eds.), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo(1986) 343-64.

14 C. MEE, Rhodes in the Bronze Age: An Archaeological Survey (1982) 82.15 Iasos: M. BENZI, “I Micenei a Iasos,” in Studi su Iasos di Caria: venticinque anni di scavi della Missione

Archeologica Italiana. BdA, supplemento al 31-32 (1987) 30; Miletus and Ephesos: MEE (supra n. 5) 127 and135.

16 C. MEE, “A Mycenaean thalassocracy in the eastern Aegean?,” in E. FRENCH and K. WARDLE (eds.),Problems in Greek Prehistory (1988) 301-303.

17 ÖZGÜNEL 1983 (supra n. 13) 737-38; Idem (supra n. 9) 45 - LH IIIA2.18 W. ALZINGER, Die Ruinen von Ephesos (1972) 22, fig. 10 - LH IIIA2.19 ÖZGÜNEL 1987 (supra n. 13) 545-47 and pls. 1-2 - LH IIIA2.20 ÖZGÜNEL 1983 (supra n. 13) 738-39; Idem (supra n. 9) 45 - LH IIIA2.21 Four LH IIIB-C sherds: VOIGTLÄNDER 1986 (supra n. 4) 623-24, 650 and 653, fig.25.22 Four sherds: ÖZGÜNEL 1983 (supra n. 13) 719-20 and pls. 11-12. I suspect that the base is from a stemmed

bowl, not a goblet/kylix, and is LH IIIA2-B rather than LH I-IIB.23 Six LH IIIA2-B sherds: J.M. COOK, “Archaeology in Greece 1951,” JHS 72 (1952) 104 and 105, fig. 10.24 The LH IIB/IIIA1 date proposed by ÖZGÜNEL (supra n. 9) 29-32 and 153-66, for seven of the tombs at

Müskebi, is based on the presence of FS 264 and FS 266 kylikes which I would classify as LH IIIA2, althoughthe FS 255 goblet in tomb 2 might be LH IIIA1; M. BENZI, Rodi e la Civiltà Micenea (1992) 134-35 and 142-45.

25 From the description of the dromos, Y. BOYSAL, “Karya bölgesinde yeni arastırmalar/New excavations inCaria,” Anadolu 11 (1967) 35, tomb 39 must be a pit-cave.

26 BOYSAL (supra n. 25) 36.27 In tomb 2, Y. BOYSAL, “Milli egitim bakanlıgı Müskebi kazısı 1963 yılı kısa raporu,” TürkArkDerg 13/2

(1964) 82, or tomb 3, Idem, “Müskebi kazısı 1963 kısa raporu/Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen 1963in Müskebi,” Belleten 31 (1967) 70 and 79, the ashes had been placed in ‘eine Urne;’ in tombs 15 and 39,they were on the f loor of the chamber beside uncremated skeletons, Idem (supra n. 25) 37-38.

138 Christopher MEE

custom, but in the eastern Aegean cases have been reported on Astypalaia, Karpathos, Kos,and Rhodes.28 Moreover, the grave offerings at Müskebi — pottery, bronzes, and jewellery —seem typically Mycenaean.29

At Iasos there is LH IIIA2-C pottery in the prehistoric levels below the Imperial Agora,the sanctuary of Artemis Astias, and the ‘Basilica presso la Porta Est,’30which implies that thesettlement must have covered much of the promontory.31 Some of the Mycenaean pottery iscertainly imported, but Benzi notes the presence of kraters, kylikes, and deep bowls in themicaceous fabric which is so common in western Anatolia.32 There is also local Anatolianpottery, although this has not been quantified and may be intrusive.33 Even in respect of thepottery we cannot say that Iasos was Mycenaean, and the architecture is also inconclusive.34

In the late 14th or early 13th century, Miletus was fortified.35 Different opinions havebeen expressed about the structural style of the fortifications, but the evenly spaced bastionsrecall Hittite rather than Mycenaean defensive architecture.36 Yet the chamber tombs in thecemetery at Degirmentepe, 1.5 kilometres south-west of Miletus, seem canonicallyMycenaean.37 The pottery from the tombs is LH IIIB-C,38 which is curious since there is LHIIIA2 as well as LH IIIB-C pottery from the settlement.39 Niemeier reports that 95% of thispottery is Mycenaean and only 5% Anatolian.40 Samples analyzed by Gödecken indicate thatmost of the Mycenaean pottery was locally produced.41

The tomb excavated on the Byzantine citadel at Selçuk had been disturbed.42 There wasa circular depression, approximately 3 metres in diameter, so this may have been a chambertomb, and the stones which were found would have blocked the stomion. It is also possiblethat this was a stone-built tomb. The pottery in the tomb included a krater in which there werehuman bones. Even if these were the remains of an earlier inhumation — and unless theindividual concerned was an infant this must have been the case — the Mycenaeans typicallybrushed the bones aside or buried them in pits cut in the f loor of the chamber or dromos.

______________________28 Astypalaia: burnt bones in the chamber tombs at Steno, C. DOUMAS, “&Arxaióthtew kaì mnhmeîa

Dvdekánhsvn,” ArchDelt 30B (1975) 372; Karpathos: partial cremation in the chamber tomb at Arkasa,MELAS (supra n. 3) 39; Kos: cremation in chamber tomb 44 at Langada, L. MORRICONE, “Eleona eLangada: sepolcreti della Tarda Età del Bronzo a Coo,” ASAtene 43-44 (1965-66) 30 and 202-203; Rhodes:cremations in chamber tombs 15, 17, 19, 32, 38, 71, and 87 at Ialysos, MEE (supra n. 14) 8-9 and 27-28.

29 MEE (supra n. 5) 137-42. J. MELLAART, “Hatti, Arzawa and Ahhiyawa: a review of the present stalematein historical and geographical studies,” in Fília *Eph e†w G.E. Mulvnàn, A& (1986) 76, has observed thatthere were no terracotta figurines at Müskebi, but this is true of most of the cemeteries in the easternAegean; cf. MEE (supra n. 16) 303.

30 MEE (supra n. 5) 129-30.31 BENZI (supra n. 15) 29.32 Ibid. 31.33 Ibid.34 MEE (supra n. 5) 130.35 Ibid. 135-36. The circuit may have been 1200 metres in length, W. VOIGTLÄNDER, “Zur Topographie

Milets: ein neues Modell zur antiken Stadt,” AA (1985) 82 and 87, fig. 10.36 A. MALLWITZ, “Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957 - IV: zur mykenischen Befestigung von

Milet,” IstMitt 9-10 (1959-60) 74-75. 37 See the paper in this volume by W-D. NIEMEIER.38 A. FURUMARK, “The settlement at Ialysos and Aegean history c.1550-1400 BC,” OpArch 6 (1950) 202; F.

STUBBINGS, Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant (1951) 23.39 ÖZGÜNEL (supra n. 9) 39-141.40 See the paper in this volume.41 K. GÖDECKEN, “A contribution to the early history of Miletus: the settlement in Mycenaean times and its

connections overseas,” in E. FRENCH and K. WARDLE (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory (1988) 310-13.Some reservations have been expressed about the interpretation of these analyses, particularly as thestatistical data have not been published, see FRENCH 1993 (supra n. 13) 155.

42 H. GÜLTEKIN and M. BARAN, “Selçuk tepesinde bulunan Miken mezarı/The Mycenaean grave found atthe hill of Ayasuluk,” TürkArkDerg 13/2 (1964) 122-33.

ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE 139

Mycenaean pottery is also reported from the Artemision, and Bammer wonders whether thismay have been a Mycenaean cult centre.43

The tomb at Colophon had a circular corbel-vaulted chamber, 3.87 metres in diameter,and a deep stomion, but it is not clear whether there was a dromos.44 It has been classifiedas a tholos, although Dickinson believes that more modest stone-built tombs should not beequated with ‘the large, carefully built, and richly provided tombs.’45 The tomb had beenrobbed, and the Mycenaean sherds which were found have since been lost.

A number of stone-built/tholos tombs have been excavated at Panaztepe, as well aspithos graves set in stone circles, chambers enclosed in stone platforms, and cist graves.46 Thetholoi have diminutive oval chambers and short dromoi. There were contracted inhumationsand also cremations in jars. The grave offerings include local Anatolian pottery, imported andlocally produced Mycenaean pottery, bronzes, sealstones, gold, silver, glass and stone jewellery.Armagan and Hayat Erkanal report similar offerings and evidence of cremation in arectangular chamber tomb at Bakla Tepe,47 and Mycenaean pottery, sealstones, and a figurinefrom their excavations at Liman Tepe-Clazomenae.48

Ersoy believes that native Anatolians were buried in the tombs at Panaztepe and sees thepresence of Mycenaean offerings as ‘a product of trade rather than conquest orcolonization.’49 I would question whether the construction of circular stone-built tombs needimply Mycenaean inf luence. Only two tholos tombs have been identified in the Aegean, oneon Mykonos and one on Tenos.50 In Greece most of the circular tombs of the type excavatedat Panaztepe are in the southern Peloponnese, in Laconia and Messenia, not on the eastcoast.51 I suspect that these communities in western Anatolia had developed their owndistinctive practices, which were continued in the Submycenaean cemetery at Çömlekçiköy.52

In addition, there may be a connection between the cist graves at Panaztepe and those atArchontiki on Psara, Emborio on Chios, and Makara on Lesbos.53

Miletus and Müskebi have more in common with the sites on Kos and Rhodes. Since Ihave argued on the basis of the funeral practices that there were Mycenaeans in the easternAegean,54 I would assume that they also settled on the coast of Anatolia. Yet the extent of

______________________43 A. BAMMER, “A peripteros of the Geometric period in the Artemision of Ephesos,” AnatSt 40 (1990) 141-42

and pl. 15.44 R. BRIDGES, “The Mycenaean tholos tomb at Kolophon,” Hesperia 43 (1974) 264-66 and pl. 52.45 O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, “Cist graves and chamber tombs,” BSA 78 (1983) 57-58.46 Y.E. ERSOY, “Finds from Menemen/Panaztepe in the Manisa Museum,” BSA 83 (1988) 55-59; M.J.

MELLINK, “Archaeology in Asia Minor,” AJA 88 (1984) 451; Eadem, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 89(1985) 558; Eadem, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 91 (1987) 13; Eadem, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 92(1988) 114; Eadem, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 93 (1989) 117; Eadem, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 96(1992) 135; Eadem, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 97 (1993) 120; M-H. GATES, “Archaeology in Turkey,”AJA 98 (1994) 259; Eadem, “Archaeology in Turkey,” AJA 99 (1995) 222; Eadem, “Archaeology in Turkey,”AJA 100 (1996) 304.

47 “Prehistoric news from western Anatolia III,” circulated on Aegeanet by the Izmir Region PrehistoricExcavations and Research Project.

48 GATES 1995 (supra n. 46) 222. For Mycenaean pottery from previous excavations at Clazomenae see ERSOY(supra n. 9) and MEE (supra n. 5) 125.

49 ERSOY (supra n. 46) 82.50 Mykonos: press report cited in R.A. TOMLINSON, “Archaeology in Greece 1994-95,” AR 41 (1994-95) 55;

Tenos: G. DESPINIS, “&Anaskaf| T}nou,” Praktika (1979) 232-35.51 At Vourvoura, Palaiochori, Kaminia, Koukounara, Papoulia, and Nichoria. See R. HOPE SIMPSON and

O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age I: The Mainland and Islands (1979)123-25, 139-40, 145, and 153 for references.

52 BOYSAL (supra n. 25) 39-43 and pls. 12-17.53 Archontiki: S. CHARITONIDES, “&Arxaióthtew kaì mnhmeîa tôn nhsôn &Aigaîou,” ArchDelt 17B (1961-62)

266; Emborio: S. HOOD, Excavations in Chios, 1938-1955: Prehistoric Emborio and Ayio Gala 1 (1981) 152-53;Makara: N. SPENCER, “Early Lesbos between east and west: a ‘grey area’ of Aegean archaeology,” BSA 90(1995) 275. DICKINSON (supra n. 45) 62 comments that the cist graves on Psara may ‘represent a pre-Mycenaean local tradition.’

54 MEE (supra n. 16) 302-303.

140 Christopher MEE

Mycenaean settlement was apparently restricted, so we should not think in terms of large-scalecolonisation. Trade seems the most plausible explanation, especially if we take account of thelocation of Miletus. Nevertheless, the evidence is not entirely conclusive.

Central Anatolia

There is a stark contrast between the west coast and the interior of Anatolia. Potteryfrom Sardis and Aphrodisias is Mycenaean in style but locally made.55 A number ofMycenaean sherds have been reported at Gavurtepe,56 just one sherd at Beycesultan,57 pyxidesand a jug from the cemetery at Duver,58 a piriform jar and a pyxis at Dereköy,59 and a kylixsherd at Beylerbey.60 Since I have strayed south, I should also mention the stirrup jar fromTelmessus.61 In the Konya plain, Mycenaean sherds have been noted at Gödelesin and ÜçHöyük.62 Further east there is a LH IIIC stirrup jar and a bronze knife from Fraktin,63 thetype B sword from Bogazköy,64 and finally the LH IIIB stirrup jars and f lasks from Masat,65

which may have come through one of the ports on the Black Sea.66

Since Cline has identified just six central Anatolian objects in LBA contexts in theAegean,67 it would appear that the archaeological evidence for direct trade contact betweenthe Mycenaeans and the Hittites is slight. Of course there may have been ‘invisible exports.’Bryce has suggested slaves, horses or metals,68 and the Linear B tablets from Pylos do mentionwomen, presumably captives, who may have come from Anatolia or ports on the west coastsuch as Miletus.69 But Cline is not convinced that ‘perishable goods’ were traded,70 and itdoes seem curious that Mycenaean pottery, which is so common in the eastern Mediterranean,should not have reached central Anatolia. Does this have implications for the Ahhiyawaquestion?

______________________55 Sardis: MEE (supra n. 5) 144; Aphrodisias: R. MARCHESE, “Late Mycenaean ceramic finds in the lower

Maeander river valley and a catalogue of Late Bronze Age painted motifs from Aphrodisias,” ArchJ 135(1978) 20-30.

56 BOYSAL (supra n. 25) 46-47 and pl. 23; MELLINK 1988 (supra n. 46) 115; Eadem, “Archaeology in Anatolia,”AJA 94 (1990) 137; Eadem, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 95 (1991) 138; Eadem 1993 (supra n. 46) 120;GATES 1994 (supra n. 46) 259.

57 J. MELLAART, “The second millennium chronology of Beycesultan,” AnatSt 20 (1970) 63-65 and fig. 4.58 ÖZGÜNEL (supra n. 9) 50-52 and 99-100.59 J. BIRMINGHAM, “Surface finds from various sites I,” AnatSt 14 (1964) 30 and 31, figs. 2-3.60 D. FRENCH, “Prehistoric sites in north-west Anatolia II: the Balıkesir and Akhisar/Manisa areas,” AnatSt 19

(1969) 73 and 90, fig. 23.61 H.B. WALTERS and E.J. FORSDYKE, CVA: Great Britain Fasc. 7 - British Museum Fasc. 5 (1930) pl. 10:24.62 Gödelesin: H-G. BUCHHOLZ, Methymna: Archäologische Beiträge zur Topographie und Geschichte von Nordlesbos

(1975) 130 and pl. 14:a-b; Üç Höyük: R. DAWKINS, “Mycenaean vases at Torcello,” JHS 24 (1904) 128.63 MEE (supra n. 5) 128; N. ÖZGÜÇ, “Fırakdin eserleri/Finds at Fırakdin,” Belleten 19 (1955) 303-304 and fig.

23.64 CLINE (supra n. 11) 73. 65 T. ÖZGÜÇ, Masat Höyük Kazıları ve Çevresindeki Arastırmalar/Excavations at Masat Höyük and Investigations

in its Vicinity (1978) 65-66, 127-28, pls. 83-84 and D1 (four f lasks and a stirrup jar); Idem, Masat Höyük II:Bogazköy’ün Kuzeydogusunda bir Hitit Merkezi/Masat Höyük II: A Hittite Center Northeast of Bogazköy (1982) 31,102-103, and pl. 47:5-6 (f lask and stirrup jar neck). A pyxis has also been reported, MELLINK 1984 (supran. 46) 450.

66 Especially if Masat was under the control of the Kaska, E.H. CLINE, “A possible Hittite embargo against theMycenaeans,” Historia 40 (1991) 3.

67 E.H. CLINE, “Hittite objects in the Bronze Age Aegean,” AnatSt 41 (1991) 133-43.68 T.R. BRYCE, “The nature of Mycenaean involvement in western Anatolia,” Historia 38 (1989) 13-14. 69 M. VENTRIS and J. CHADWICK, Documents in Mycenaean Greek2 (1973) 156 and 410, but J-C.

BILLIGMEIER and J.A. TURNER, “The socio-economic roles of women in Mycenaean Greece: a briefsurvey from evidence of the Linear B tablets,” in H. FOLEY (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity (1981)4-5, believe that the women were refugees rather than captives or slaves.

70 SWDS, 71.


Ahhiyawa

Currently there is considerable support for the Ahhiyawa = &Axaioí = Mycenaeanequation,71 although Güterbock freely admits that ‘there is no strict proof possible either proor contra.’72 But let us accept the scholarly consensus and assume that Ahhiyawa isMycenaean, and also that Millawanda/Milawata is Miletus. As Bryce has pointed out,73 wemust decide what the term Ahhiyawa may have signified. Was it used as an ethno-geographical designation, for the nucleus of the kingdom of the Ahhiyawan rulers, or for thewhole of the territory which they controlled? Since I do not believe that there was aMycenaean ‘empire,’in the sense of a unified state ruled by Mycenae, the precise location ofAhhiyawa is a question which must be considered. Just as the whole of Anatolia is not Hittite,Greece may not be Ahhiyawa. We should also bear in mind that the high Aegean chronologyprovides a different historical context for some of the texts.

This is especially true of the Indictment of Madduwatta, which has been redated to thereigns of Tudhaliya II and Arnuwanda I, and is therefore one of the earliest documents inwhich Ahhiyawa, or in this case Ahhiya, is recorded.74 A date in the later 15th century seemslikely, LH IIB if we follow the conventional chronology, a period when the Mycenaeans werenot yet active, or not demonstrably active, in the eastern Aegean. For Hooker, this ‘put out ofcourt the equation Ahhiya(wa) = Achaiwa.’75 But on the high chronology the late 15th centuryis LH IIIA1,76 when there were Mycenaean settlements on Kos and Rhodes,77 and soAttarissiya, the ‘Man of Ahhiya’ who gave Madduwatta such a hard time but was evidently notthe king of Ahhiyawa,78 would have had a convenient base for his raids on Hittite territory.

In the third year of the reign of Mursili II, the Hittites sacked Millawanda which hadseceded and formed an alliance with Ahhiyawa and Arzawa.79 Since Mursili succeededArnuwanda II c.1325, the date of this attack in Aegean terms, on the high and low chronology,would be late in LH IIIA2 when Miletus was in fact destroyed by fire.80

______________________71 For recent discussions see T.R. BRYCE, “A reinterpretation of the Milawata Letter in the light of the new

join piece,” AnatSt 35 (1985) 13-23; Idem, “Madduwatta and Hittite policy in western Anatolia,” Historia 35(1986) 1-12; Idem (supra n. 68) 1-21; Idem, “Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeans — an Anatolian viewpoint,” OJA 8(1989) 297-310; O. CARRUBA, “Ahhija e Ahhijawa, la Grecia e l’Egeo,” in T.P.J. VAN DEN HOUT and J.DE ROOS (eds.), Studio Historiae Ardens: Festschrift Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate (1995) 7-21; CLINE, SWDS,68-74 and 121-25; Idem (supra n. 11); D.F. EASTON, “Hittite history and the Trojan War,” in L. FOXHALLand J.K. DAVIES (eds.), The Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context (1984) 23-44; M. FINKELBERG, “FromAhhiyawa to &Axaioí,” Glotta 66 (1988) 127-34; GATES (supra n. 13) 293-97; H.G. GÜTERBOCK, “TheHittites and the Aegean world: part 1. The Ahhiyawa problem reconsidered,” AJA 87 (1983) 133-38; Idem,“Hittites and Akhaeans: a new look,” ProcPhilSoc 128 (1984) 114-22; Idem, “Troy in Hittite texts? Wilusa,Ahhiyawa and Hittite history,” in M. MELLINK (ed.), Troy and the Trojan War (1986) 33-44; P.H.J.HOUWINK TEN CATE, “Sidelights on the Ahhiyawa question from Hittite vassal and royalcorrespondence,” JEOL 28 (1983-84) 33-79; S. KOSAK, “The Hittites and the Greeks,” Linguistica 20 (1980)35-48; M. MARAZZI, “Gli ‘Achei’ in Anatolia: un problema di metodologia,” in M. MARAZZI, S. TUSA andL. VAGNETTI (eds.), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo (1986) 391-403; MELLAART (supra n. 29) 74-84; F.SCHACHERMEYR, Mykene und das Hethiterreich (1986); I. SINGER, “Western Anatolia in the thirteenthcentury BC according to the Hittite sources,” AnatSt 35 (1983) 205-17; A. ÜNAL, “Two peoples on bothsides of the Aegean Sea: did the Achaeans and Hittites know each other?,” in H.I.H. Prince TAKAHITOMIKASA (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BC. Bulletin of theMiddle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 4 (1991) 16-44.

72 GÜTERBOCK 1986 (supra n. 71) 33.73 BRYCE (supra n. 68) 5.74 BRYCE 1986 (supra n. 71) 2-3; EASTON (supra n. 71) 30-34; GÜTERBOCK 1983 (supra n. 71) 133-34. 75 J.T. HOOKER, Mycenaean Greece (1976) 128.76 S.W. MANNING, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History

(1995) 217-29.77 MEE (supra n. 14) 81-83.78 BRYCE 1989 (supra n. 71) 298-99.79 BRYCE (supra n. 68) 6-7; GÜTERBOCK 1983 (supra n. 71) 134-35.80 MEE (supra n. 5) 135, possibly it was the Hittites who then fortified the site.

142 Christopher MEE

Millawanda is next mentioned in the Tawagalawas Letter, which was written by HattusiliIII in the mid-13th century,81 and is once more under the control of the Ahhiyawan king.Bryce believes that the transfer may have been negotiated by Muwatalli who was concerned forthe security of his western frontier.82 Despite the fact that Hattusili has entered Millawandain pursuit of the renegade Piyamaradu, his tone is conciliatory, and he addresses theAhhiyawan king as ‘My Brother, the Great King, my equal.’83

Bryce has claimed that the Hittites subsequently regained possession of Millawanda.84

His interpretation of the Milawata Letter, which was written in the late 13th century in thereign of Tudhaliya IV,85 is that Atpas, the Ahhiyawan vassal ruler of Millawanda, had beenreplaced by his pro-Hittite son. This would certainly have soured relations and must have beena major ‘setback for Ahhiyawan enterprise in western Anatolia.’86 Another indication of thehostility which existed between the Ahhiyawans and the Hittites at this time is theSausgamuwa Treaty. The ruler of Amurru is told by Tudhaliya IV that he should ‘let no shipof Ahhiyawa go to (the Assyrians)’ with whom the Hittites were at war. As Cline points out,the Hittites evidently made use of economic sanctions against their enemies, and he wonderswhether the Mycenaeans may have been the subject of a trade embargo.87 This seems quiteplausible but, while it is true that trade is seldom mentioned,88 I am not sure that the embargocould have been in force for the whole of the period covered by the Ahhiyawa texts. It ispossible that political conditions in western Anatolia were often so unsettled that overlandtrade was not an attractive proposition. If so, the Mycenaeans must take some of the blamefor this state of affairs, since their activities were clearly disruptive and apparently motivatedby political rather than economic expediency.89

Where was Ahhiyawa?90 It would appear that this was a state which controlled someterritory in Anatolia and also a number of islands. Gates has therefore proposed thatAhhiyawa consisted of the Mycenaean settlements in the eastern Aegean and westernAnatolia.91 But I do not think that the ruler of such a state would be acknowledged as a ‘GreatKing.’ For Güterbock, the use of this term implies that he must have ‘ruled over mainlandGreece as well as the islands and the settlements in Anatolia.’92 Yet I do not believe that therewas a unified Mycenaean state. My proposal for the location of Ahhiyawa is based onThucydides who saw the Thalassocracy of Minos as a forerunner of the Athenian Empire.93

Could Ahhiyawa also have been a maritime confederacy which was led by one of the mainlandMycenaean states, such as Mycenae?

Troy and the Black Sea

There is an abrupt decline in the number of sites on the distribution map once we movenorth of the river Gediz. This is not entirely unexpected because the Mycenaeans may not

______________________81 See SINGER (supra n. 71) 209-10, for the arguments in favour of Hattusili, but ÜNAL (supra n. 71) 33-34

identifies the writer as Muwatalli.82 BRYCE (supra n. 68) 7-10.83 GÜTERBOCK 1983 (supra n. 71) 135-36.84 BRYCE 1985 (supra n. 71) 17-23, but SINGER (supra n. 71) 215 is not convinced.85 GÜTERBOCK 1983 (supra n. 71) 137.86 BRYCE (supra n. 68) 16.87 CLINE (supra n. 66) 6-9; Idem, SWDS, 71-74.88 Ibid. 69-70.89 BRYCE 1986 (supra n. 71) 4-6, and SINGER (supra n. 71) 206, comment on the tenuous control which the

Hittites exercised over states in western Anatolia.90 I will assume that the location of Ahhiyawa did not f luctuate, although this may have been the case; cf.

CLINE (supra n. 11) 145.91 GATES (supra n. 13) 296.92 GÜTERBOCK 1984 (supra n. 71) 121.93 S. HORNBLOWER, Thucydides (1987) 88.


have settled on Chios until LH IIIC,94 and may never have settled on Lesbos.95 Since thefamous octopus stirrup jar from Pitane-Çandarı is LH IIIC,96 we might conclude that theMycenaeans became more active in the north-eastern Aegean in the 12th century, but this isspeculative.

Troy is quite different from other Anatolian sites in several respects. There may havebeen contact in the Middle Helladic period, and Mycenaean pottery was certainly imported asearly as LH IIA.97 It is possible that this interest in the northern Aegean was prompted byMinoan control of the trade routes through the Cyclades.98 The proportion of Mycenaeanpottery increases in LH IIIA2-B1, the later phases of Troy VI, but then declines. While it istrue that there is more Mycenaean pottery from Troy than most of the sites which I havediscussed, I do not believe that we should think in terms of Mycenaean settlers, since 98-99%of the pottery is local.99 An economic basis for this ‘special relationship’ seems more likely,and the decisive factor was surely the location of Troy. Korfmann has pointed out that thewinds and currents would often have made the Dardanelles impassable, especially in thesummer, and ships must therefore have sheltered in Besik Bay.100 The supplies and serviceswhich the Trojans provided for the crews of these ships will have been a lucrative source ofrevenue, but I suspect that Troy was more than just a transit station for impatient sailors.

I am not convinced that the Mycenaeans regularly sailed beyond the Dardanelles, despitethe evidence which Hiller has presented in a recent paper.101 I will concede that theMycenaean pottery at Ma at may have come from the Black Sea,102 yet this was surely a singleconsignment and is unique. The oxhide ingot found off Kaliakra in Bulgaria weighs just 1.46kilos, and is 32% gold, 18% silver, and 50% copper.103 The Cerkovo ingot is more typical butmost closely resembles LM IB ingots from Ayia Triada.104 Swords and axes in the Sarköyhoard may be Mycenaean,105 and an Aegean origin for some of the double axes from Bulgariaand the Ukraine is not out of the question.106 But Harding is dubious about the other objectsfor which Mycenaean comparanda have been cited.107

Of course archaeologically invisible items will also have been traded, but I suspect thatmost Mycenaean ships were bound for Troy not the Black Sea. The recent excavations have

______________________94 M.S.F. HOOD, “Mycenaeans in Chios,” in J. BOARDMAN and C.E. VAPHOPOULOU-RICHARDSON

(eds.), Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios (1986) 171.95 SPENCER (supra n. 53) 275-77.96 G. PERROT and C. CHIPIEZ, Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité VI (1894) 923-31 and figs. 489 and 491.97 MEE (supra n. 5) 146-47; Idem, “The Mycenaeans and Troy,” in L. FOXHALL and J.K. DAVIES (eds.), The

Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context (1984) 45-50.98 Although the hieroglyphic roundel from Mikro Vouni on Samothrace implies that the Minoans were also

active in the northern Aegean; cf. D. MATSAS, “Samothrace and the northeastern Aegean: the Minoanconnection,” Studia Troica 1 (1991) 173-75.

99 MEE (supra n. 5) 146; Idem (supra n. 97) 51.100 M. KORFMANN, “Troy: topography and navigation,” in M.J. MELLINK (ed.), Troy and the Trojan War

(1986) 6-8.101 S. HILLER, “The Mycenaeans and the Black Sea,” in Thalassa, 207-16; see also E.F. BLOEDOW, “The

Trojan War and Late Helladic IIIC,” PZ 63 (1988) 23-52; H-G. BUCHHOLZ, “Doppeläxte und die Frage derBalkanbeziehungen des ägäischen Kulturkreises,” in A.G. POULTER (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria (1983) 43-134;M. KOROMILA, The Greeks in the Black Sea (1991); P. LÉVÊQUE, “La Colchide du VIIe au IVe siècle avantnotre ère,” RA (1986) 397-400.

102 Although the excavator favours the route from the south, ÖZGÜÇ 1982 (supra n. 65) 31 and 102-103.103 KOROMILA (supra n. 101) 46, who quotes 43% for the copper content, but I have opted for the 50% given

by HILLER (supra n. 101) 209.104 N.H. GALE, “Copper oxhide ingots: their origin and their place in the Bronze Age metals trade in the

Mediterranean,” in Bronze Age Trade, 200.105 MELLINK 1985 (supra n. 46) 558.106 A.F. HARDING, The Mycenaeans and Europe (1984) 127.107 HARDING (supra n. 106) 262.

144 Christopher MEE

revealed that the sixth and seventh settlements covered 200,000 m2, not 20,000 m2 as was oncethought.108 As Korfmann has stressed,109 Troy was evidently a major centre and may havefunctioned as an entrepôt. Ugarit provides an obvious analogy.110

Cilicia

This is the one region I have not yet discussed, because most of the Mycenaean potteryis LH IIIC. The LH IIA-IIIB sherds at Kilise Tepe,111 Kazanlı, and Mersin112 presumably camefrom Cyprus, but how should we explain the LH IIIC pottery which has been reported from anumber of sites? At Tarsus 875 Mycenaean sherds account for quite a high proportion of thepottery in the LB IIb levels.113 I once wrote, ‘LH IIIC is of course identified as the periodwhen the Mycenaeans first settled in Cyprus. Their presence at Tarsus, if not elsewhere inCilicia, is as likely.’114 The reservations which have been expressed about Mycenaeansettlement on Cyprus in the 12th century115 clearly have implications for our interpretation ofthe Cilician evidence. As Sherratt and Crouwel have stressed, we should not automaticallythink in terms of expatriate Mycenaeans but must take account of the political and economiccircumstances in the region at this time.116

Conclusions

I believe that the context is crucial. Communities in Anatolia were not passive recipientsof Minoan and Mycenaean largesse but used these contacts for their own purposes. Theevidence for Minoan and Mycenaean activity is concentrated on the south-west coast but doesnot decrease uniformly north and east. The topography is of course a factor, as French haspointed out.117 Nevertheless, the pattern is primarily coastal and directional, prompted bysocial and political, as well as economic interests.

Each of the Anatolian sites is different, and this is also true of the Aegean. We must notbe misled by the veneer of cultural uniformity. Furthermore, LM/LH I-II is not the same asLH IIIA-B or LH IIIC. Indeed, we should be aware of more subtle distinctions, between LHIIIB1 and 2 for instance.118 The Aegean-Anatolian cultural interface is peculiarly complex butwill become clearer, particularly if current excavations can resolve some of the more obviousquestions, such as the proportion of different types of pottery — Minoan:Mycenaean andAegean:Anatolian — which were in use. As a result of the interest which this topic hasgenerated recently, I certainly feel that I can offer a more refined interpretation of theevidence for Aegean-Anatolian interconnections than was possible twenty years ago.119

Christopher MEE

______________________108 M. KORFMANN, “Troia: a residential and trading city at the Dardanelles,” in Politeia, 177-79.109 KORFMANN (supra n. 108) 214-15.110 Ugarit is also the same size as Troy — 220,000 m2 of which the palace occupies 19,000 m2; W.R. GARR, “A

population estimate of ancient Ugarit,” BASOR 266 (1987) 34-35.111 H.D. BAKER et al., “Kilise Tepe 1994,” AnatSt 45 (1995) 176-77, fig. 15:6.112 MEE (supra n. 5) 131-33.113 E. FRENCH, “A reassessment of the Mycenaean pottery at Tarsus,” AnatSt 25 (1975) 53-75.114 MEE (supra n. 5) 150.115 But see the paper in this volume by V. KARAGEORGHIS.116 E.S. SHERRATT and J.H. CROUWEL, “Mycenaean pottery from Cilicia in Oxford,” OJA 6 (1987) 340-46.117 FRENCH (supra n. 13, 1993) 155.118 E.S. SHERRATT, “Regional variation in the pottery of Late Helladic IIIB,” BSA 75 (1980) 175-202; C. MEE,

“The LH IIIB period in the Dodecanese,” in S. DIETZ and I. PAPACHRISTODOULOU (eds.), Archaeologyin the Dodecanese (1988) 56-58.

119 In MEE (supra n. 5) 148-50.


ILLUSTRATION

Pl. XIII Map of the sites in Anatolia mentioned in the text

146 Christopher MEE

Discussion following C. Mee’s paper:

G. Kopcke: Thank you for this magnificent survey. In one small point I wonder whether we might notgo a step further, and that is in reading the Mycenaean presence along the coast of Asia Minor,in the area of Miletus. I am inclined to think that people got there in search of land, of improvedsurvival conditions, which were not assured on the Greek mainland. You yourself have suggestedthat the colonization of Rhodes may have been in consequence of disturbances in the Argolid.In the tenth to eighth centuries, Greek colonization was a colonization of land and survival. Theoriginal Cretan presence at Miletus is another matter. I have no problem with thinking ofCretans of the first half of the second millennium mainly as traders, but not of ‘Mycenaeans.’ Asfor distinctions, chronological and regional, especially in regard to Troy, I think that yourdistinctions are to the point.

C. Mee: Thank you, that’s very kind of you. I think my own position has shifted somewhat, in thatalthough I still see what is happening on Rhodes as colonization — I think the term “colonization”is a reasonable one for the expansion in the number of settlements in LH IIIA2 — the more Ilook at the material from western Anatolia and even southwestern Anatolia...I don’t see as manyMycenaean sites there. Now, of course, future discoveries may alter our perceptions, but[although] I see a few sites which might be Mycenaean settlements, at quite a lot of the others weare looking at a different situation, one in which local communities are interacting withMycenaeans to produce in some cases a sort of cultural fusion.

W-D. Niemeier: In this regard, I would agree with Chris Mee. There has been a survey of the hinterlandof Miletus, done by Hans Lohmann of the University of Bochum, and we have no evidence at allfor a Mycenaean penetration of the hinterland of Miletus. There’s only one site, about fourkilometers from Miletus, where some kylix sherds have been found. I think I would agree withChris Mee that the situation is different from that on Rhodes, where we have a kind ofcolonization of the entire island. Mycenaean settlement in southwestern Anatolia is reallyrestricted to these harbor sites, as far as we can say, within the coastal zone, like Müskebi on thepeninsula of Halicarnassus. We have no indication of further penetration of the hinterland.

L.V. Watrous: I have a question which I would like to direct both at Christopher Mee and to ourChairman if she is willing to say something. (Laughter). We’ve seen that both the Minoans andthe Mycenaeans seemed to have been interested in the Anatolian coast, especially when you getdown in the southern portion of it. I wondered, what is the evidence that either of you mightknow of, that would lead you to think that they are looking for metals there. I am very interestedin, say, from the Classical period or the Hellenistic period. Does Miletus, does Ephesos, does anyof these large sites have a tradition of being a source of metals?

C. Mee: For myself, I think that the southwest of Anatolia isn’t the source of the metals, but it is morelikely that these are important staging posts on trade routes through which metals are arriving inthe southern Aegean. But, it is such a complex issue that much more needs to be done on this.I would be delighted to hear what Professor Mellink has to say.

M.J. Mellink: I think George Bass has set the example for telling us about metal trade. He shouldanswer this question. (Laughter).

G.F. Bass: Don’t embarrass me like that. I wasn’t going to comment on that; I had my hand raised forsomething else! I just wanted to comment on two things. One is, I went to Bulgaria to see thetwo oxhide ingots. The one which was really an oxhide ingot was in Italy on display, so I couldn’tsee that, and the small one you mentioned was also unavailable, but all of the Bulgarianarchaeologists [with whom] I talked, said that it really is not an oxhide ingot. It looks in all thepublications like an oxhide ingot, because it’s drawn from above. They said that it doesn’t reallyresemble one; it is quite round and humped. They discount it, even though most of us havequoted it as being an oxhide ingot. I thought it might represent a Bronze Age shipwreck, becausethat was the only one found in the sea, but I’m no longer going to count it. The other thing Iwas going to comment on, after Wolf [Niemeier] mentioned the harbor areas, was the danger ofsaying anything of that sort in that there had been both British and Turkish surveys of theHalicarnassus peninsula, and they both said it was uninhabited in preclassical times. It was onlyby luck, because a peasant showed me a piece of pottery, that I found the Müskebi cemetery


there. But since then, they’ve found Mycenaean pottery at Yatagan, which is quite far inland. Idon’t know the circumstances, but there are some pieces in the Bodrum museum from that area.The last thing I was going to comment on, just for the information of the people here, is that Ihadn’t been back to Müskebi for 25 or 30 years, but just because I was with Malcolm Wiener, andSandy MacGillivray, and Peter Kuniholm, I went there [again] for the first time a couple ofsummers ago. And then I went back again later, and it is much larger than we had thought,because more recent industrial excavation has revealed that there are many, many unexcavatedchamber tombs there. It might be really quite tremendous, even though it was already large. Ithought you might just like to know that it deserves a new excavation.

J.D. Muhly: For what is worth, and I know there is a great deal of skepticism about lead isotope analysisthese days, in the latest Archaeometry article, the Gales have both the Bulgarian and the Thracianingots made of Cypriot copper from the mines of Apliki.

M.J. Mellink: I want to thank Professor Mee again, cordially. (Applause). As a final footnote, since thisis a “Blegen Day,” I want to speak on behalf of the current excavations of Troy, in which theUniversity of Cincinnati is actively a partner. Part of the program at Troy is to look for history,that is, look for writing at Troy and give the Trojans a chance to also contribute their directinformation on their relationships with the Hittites. We don’t say that the next campaign willproduce a copy of the “Aleksandus Treaty,” but it will try to promote the removal of at least partof the dumps on the north side of Troy, which were put there gradually. There is a stratified setof dumps: the Cincinnati dumps that belong to the present excavations, [then] the Blegendumps, below those are the Schliemann and Dörpfeld dumps, and below that is another dump,which is mostly the dump of the builders and engineers of Lysimachus and the Romans, whenthey were building the Athena Temple Complex. As the Athena Temple was being planned andstarted, the citadel was shaved off to make room for level ground for the Classical building. Whatwas in the way, which were remnants of all levels predating the Hellenistic period, but principallythe victims were the Levels VIIA and VI, was removed — mostly whatever was left of the officialcentral buildings of Troy, of the period which we are historically interested in, and that is theperiod also of the Hittite records. We didn’t go into the Wilusa problem, but if you want to takethat as a hypothesis, there is evidence of historical contact, correspondence as well as friendlyrelations with the Hittites. If traces of those exist, one way or another, they can be looked forunder the dumps, which have led a very peaceful and protected existence. They are beginningto become an eyesore, because the citadel will have to be presented as the main part in thenational park of the Troad, which has now been sanctioned officially by the Turkish government,so there will be a protected area all around Troy, all the way to the Hellespont, facing theGallipoli historical park. So, Troy will look better if at least part of the dumps are removed, andwe can see the original substance of the north side of the citadel. And the profit of thatoperation will be a search for historical records, for whatever written documents, or copies ofdocuments, were preserved in the central buildings (palaces, if you want) of Troy VI and VIIA.If you want to support this project, write to the Trojan Expedition and say “get on with it!”(Laughter). So, that is just a piece of propaganda on behalf of Blegen’s successors. I think it iscoffee time...

148 Christopher MEE

Mee

Documents

Transcript of Mee