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 By MM III-LM I Trianda on Rhodes and the Seraglio on Kos were two of the largest settlements in the Aegean.2 Karpathos, Kasos, and Tilos had also been annexed by Crete, culturally at least.3 In Anatolia Minoan pottery is reported at Akbük and Didyma.4 Iasos has Minoan style architecture, as well as imported and locally produced pottery.5 But Miletus is the site where Cretans would have felt most at home, surrounded by Minoan architecture, frescoes, stone vases, jewellery, and pottery6 — there must surely have been Minoan settlers.7 The attraction of sites such as Miletus was their location on trade routes. Metals almost certainly provided the main incentive for trade, as Wiener has argued.8 If there were Mycenaeans in the eastern Aegean at this time, they remain elusive. LH IIA sherds have been identified at Trianda, Miletus, and Clazomenae.9 The type B sword discovered out of context in the Roman Agora at Izmir10 and the recently published Mycenaean sword from Bogazköy11 hint at military ventures.

______________________ * 1

2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9

10 11

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. 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 lighton-dark pottery could be LM I, J.L. DAVIS, “The earliest Minoans in the south-east Aegean: a reconsideration of the evidence,” AnatSt 32 (1982) 35-38. M.H. WIENER, “The isles of Crete? The Minoan thalassocracy revisited,” in TAW III, pt. I, 130-31. For the recent excavations on Rhodes and Kos, see J.L. DAVIS, “Review of Aegean prehistory I: the islands of the Aegean,” AJA 96 (1992) 748-50. 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. Akbük: W. VOIGTLÄNDER, “Umrisse eines vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zentrums an der karischionischen Küste,” AA (1986) 622-23, 642-51, figs. 20-24; Idem, “Akbük-Teichiussa: zweiter Vorbericht - Survey 1985/86,” AA (1988) 605, 607-608, fig. 39; Didyma: R. NAUMANN, “Didyma,” AnatSt 13 (1963) 24. 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. MEE (supra n. 5) 134-35; W. SCHIERING, “The connections between the oldest settlement at Miletus and Crete,” in Minoan Thalassocracy, 187-88. For the most recent excavations, see the paper by W-D. NIEMEIER in this volume. Especially as there may have been a break in occupation, H. PARZINGER, “Zur frühesten Besiedlung Milets,” IstMitt 39 (1989) 429. WIENER (supra n. 2) 145-50. 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 be Minoan. The pottery from the 1979-81 excavations at Clazomenae - Liman Tepe includes one sherd which is LH I-IIA, Y. ERSOY, Klazomenai Myken Keramigi (1983) 92 and pl. 1:3. K. BITTEL and A. SCHNEIDER, “Archäologische Funde aus Türkei, 1942,”AA 58 (1943) 203 and 207, fig. 3. See especially E.H. CLINE, “Assuwa and the Achaeans: the ‘Mycenaean’ sword at Hattusas and its possible implications,” BSA 91 (1996) 137-51.

138

Christopher MEE

Late Helladic III Western Anatolia The process of state formation in Mycenaean Greece was evidently protracted, because the first palaces were not built until LH IIB.12 I believe that the repercussions of this development were felt across the Aegean, and we should not assume that the Mycenaeans simply filled the vacuum left by the collapse of the Minoan palatial system. There is no sudden transition 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 IIIA1 pottery also reached Iasos, Miletus, and Ephesos.15 By LH IIIA2 there were settlements on most of the eastern Aegean islands.16 Mycenaean finds from western Anatolia, which may be the result of occasional or indirect trade contacts, include a jar from Mylasa,17 a stirrup jar from Kusadası,18 a pyxis from Tire-Ahmetler,19 a piriform jar from Çerkes Sultaniye,20 and sherds 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 TepeClazomenae, and Panaztepe between the Menderes and the Gediz. The 48 LH IIIA-C24 chamber tombs in the cemetery at Müskebi have short, steep dromoi and narrow stomia.25 The chambers had often collapsed, but the dimensions quoted indicate a size range of 0.49-9.08m2.26 Possibly because the bedrock was so soft, a rough plaster of earth and water had been used in most of the tombs. Although inhumation was the standard rite, there were also at least three cremations.27 We think of cremation as an Anatolian

______________________ 12 13

14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27

J.B. RUTTER, “Review of Aegean prehistory II: the prepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek mainland,” AJA 97 (1993) 796. 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: the Mycenaeans and their Anatolian frontier,” in Politeia, 289-97; MEE (supra n. 5) 121-56; C. ÖZGÜNEL, “Batı Anadolu ve içerlerinde Miken etkinlikleri,” Belleten 47 (1983) 697-743; Idem, “Selçuk Arkeoloji Müzesinde saklanen Miken pyxisi ve düsündürdükleri,” Belleten 51 (1987) 535-47; Idem (supra n. 9); L. RE, “Presenze micenee in Anatolia,” in M. MARAZZI, S. TUSA and L. VAGNETTI (eds.), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo (1986) 343-64. C. MEE, Rhodes in the Bronze Age: An Archaeological Survey (1982) 82. 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 and 135. C. MEE, “A Mycenaean thalassocracy in the eastern Aegean?,” in E. FRENCH and K. WARDLE (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory (1988) 301-303. ÖZGÜNEL 1983 (supra n. 13) 737-38; Idem (supra n. 9) 45 - LH IIIA2. W. ALZINGER, Die Ruinen von Ephesos (1972) 22, fig. 10 - LH IIIA2. ÖZGÜNEL 1987 (supra n. 13) 545-47 and pls. 1-2 - LH IIIA2. ÖZGÜNEL 1983 (supra n. 13) 738-39; Idem (supra n. 9) 45 - LH IIIA2. Four LH IIIB-C sherds: VOIGTLÄNDER 1986 (supra n. 4) 623-24, 650 and 653, fig.25. 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. Six LH IIIA2-B sherds: J.M. COOK, “Archaeology in Greece 1951,” JHS 72 (1952) 104 and 105, fig. 10. 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, although the FS 255 goblet in tomb 2 might be LH IIIA1; M. BENZI, Rodi e la Civiltà Micenea (1992) 134-35 and 14245. From the description of the dromos, Y. BOYSAL, “Karya bölgesinde yeni arastırmalar/New excavations in Caria,” Anadolu 11 (1967) 35, tomb 39 must be a pit-cave. BOYSAL (supra n. 25) 36. 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 1963 in 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.

ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE

139

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 the settlement must have covered much of the promontory.31 Some of the Mycenaean pottery is certainly imported, but Benzi notes the presence of kraters, kylikes, and deep bowls in the micaceous fabric which is so common in western Anatolia.32 There is also local Anatolian pottery, although this has not been quantified and may be intrusive.33 Even in respect of the pottery 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 have been expressed about the structural style of the fortifications, but the evenly spaced bastions recall Hittite rather than Mycenaean defensive architecture.36 Yet the chamber tombs in the cemetery at Degirmentepe, 1.5 kilometres south-west of Miletus, seem canonically Mycenaean.37 The pottery from the tombs is LH IIIB-C,38 which is curious since there is LH IIIA2 as well as LH IIIB-C pottery from the settlement.39 Niemeier reports that 95% of this pottery is Mycenaean and only 5% Anatolian.40 Samples analyzed by Gödecken indicate that most of the Mycenaean pottery was locally produced.41 The tomb excavated on the Byzantine citadel at Selçuk had been disturbed.42 There was a circular depression, approximately 3 metres in diameter, so this may have been a chamber tomb, and the stones which were found would have blocked the stomion. It is also possible that this was a stone-built tomb. The pottery in the tomb included a krater in which there were human bones. Even if these were the remains of an earlier inhumation — and unless the individual concerned was an infant this must have been the case — the Mycenaeans typically brushed the bones aside or buried them in pits cut in the f loor of the chamber or dromos.

______________________ 28

29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42

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 e Langada: 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. MEE (supra n. 5) 137-42. J. MELLAART, “Hatti, Arzawa and Ahhiyawa: a review of the present stalemate in historical and geographical studies,” in Fília *Eph e†w G.E. Mulvnàn, A& (1986) 76, has observed that there were no terracotta figurines at Müskebi, but this is true of most of the cemeteries in the eastern Aegean; cf. MEE (supra n. 16) 303. MEE (supra n. 5) 129-30. BENZI (supra n. 15) 29. Ibid. 31. Ibid. MEE (supra n. 5) 130. 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. A. MALLWITZ, “Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957 - IV: zur mykenischen Befestigung von Milet,” IstMitt 9-10 (1959-60) 74-75. See the paper in this volume by W-D. NIEMEIER. 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. ÖZGÜNEL (supra n. 9) 39-141. See the paper in this volume. 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 the statistical data have not been published, see FRENCH 1993 (supra n. 13) 155. H. GÜLTEKIN and M. BARAN, “Selçuk tepesinde bulunan Miken mezarı/The Mycenaean grave found at the hill of Ayasuluk,” TürkArkDerg 13/2 (1964) 122-33.

140

Christopher MEE

Mycenaean pottery is also reported from the Artemision, and Bammer wonders whether this may 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 classified as a tholos, although Dickinson believes that more modest stone-built tombs should not be equated with ‘the large, carefully built, and richly provided tombs.’45 The tomb had been robbed, 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 as pithos graves set in stone circles, chambers enclosed in stone platforms, and cist graves.46 The tholoi have diminutive oval chambers and short dromoi. There were contracted inhumations and also cremations in jars. The grave offerings include local Anatolian pottery, imported and locally produced Mycenaean pottery, bronzes, sealstones, gold, silver, glass and stone jewellery. Armagan and Hayat Erkanal report similar offerings and evidence of cremation in a rectangular chamber tomb at Bakla Tepe,47 and Mycenaean pottery, sealstones, and a figurine from their excavations at Liman Tepe-Clazomenae.48 Ersoy believes that native Anatolians were buried in the tombs at Panaztepe and sees the presence of Mycenaean offerings as ‘a product of trade rather than conquest or colonization.’49 I would question whether the construction of circular stone-built tombs need imply Mycenaean inf luence. Only two tholos tombs have been identified in the Aegean, one on Mykonos and one on Tenos.50 In Greece most of the circular tombs of the type excavated at Panaztepe are in the southern Peloponnese, in Laconia and Messenia, not on the east coast.51 I suspect that these communities in western Anatolia had developed their own distinctive 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 at Archontiki 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 I have argued on the basis of the funeral practices that there were Mycenaeans in the eastern Aegean,54 I would assume that they also settled on the coast of Anatolia. Yet the extent of

______________________ 43 44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51

52 53

54

A. BAMMER, “A peripteros of the Geometric period in the Artemision of Ephesos,” AnatSt 40 (1990) 141-42 and pl. 15. R. BRIDGES, “The Mycenaean tholos tomb at Kolophon,” Hesperia 43 (1974) 264-66 and pl. 52. O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, “Cist graves and chamber tombs,” BSA 78 (1983) 57-58. 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. “Prehistoric news from western Anatolia III,” circulated on Aegeanet by the Izmir Region Prehistoric Excavations and Research Project. 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. ERSOY (supra n. 46) 82. 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. 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. BOYSAL (supra n. 25) 39-43 and pls. 12-17. 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 preMycenaean local tradition.’ MEE (supra n. 16) 302-303.

ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE

141

Mycenaean settlement was apparently restricted, so we should not think in terms of large-scale colonisation. Trade seems the most plausible explanation, especially if we take account of the location 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. Pottery from Sardis and Aphrodisias is Mycenaean in style but locally made.55 A number of Mycenaean sherds have been reported at Gavurtepe,56 just one sherd at Beycesultan,57 pyxides and a jug from the cemetery at Duver,58 a piriform jar and a pyxis at Dereköy,59 and a kylix sherd at Beylerbey.60 Since I have strayed south, I should also mention the stirrup jar from Telmessus.61 In the Konya plain, Mycenaean sherds have been noted at Gödelesin and Üç Höyük.62 Further east there is a LH IIIC stirrup jar and a bronze knife from Fraktin,63 the type 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 the Aegean,67 it would appear that the archaeological evidence for direct trade contact between the 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 mention women, presumably captives, who may have come from Anatolia or ports on the west coast such as Miletus.69 But Cline is not convinced that ‘perishable goods’ were traded,70 and it does 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 Ahhiyawa question?

______________________ 55

56

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

66 67 68 69

70

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. 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. J. MELLAART, “The second millennium chronology of Beycesultan,” AnatSt 20 (1970) 63-65 and fig. 4. ÖZGÜNEL (supra n. 9) 50-52 and 99-100. J. BIRMINGHAM, “Surface finds from various sites I,” AnatSt 14 (1964) 30 and 31, figs. 2-3. D. FRENCH, “Prehistoric sites in north-west Anatolia II: the Balıkesir and Akhisar/Manisa areas,” AnatSt 19 (1969) 73 and 90, fig. 23. H.B. WALTERS and E.J. FORSDYKE, CVA: Great Britain Fasc. 7 - British Museum Fasc. 5 (1930) pl. 10:24. 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. MEE (supra n. 5) 128; N. ÖZGÜÇ, “Fırakdin eserleri/Finds at Fırakdin,” Belleten 19 (1955) 303-304 and fig. 23. CLINE (supra n. 11) 73. 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 (supra n. 46) 450. Especially if Masat was under the control of the Kaska, E.H. CLINE, “A possible Hittite embargo against the Mycenaeans,” Historia 40 (1991) 3. E.H. CLINE, “Hittite objects in the Bronze Age Aegean,” AnatSt 41 (1991) 133-43. T.R. BRYCE, “The nature of Mycenaean involvement in western Anatolia,” Historia 38 (1989) 13-14. 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 brief survey 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. SWDS, 71.

142

Christopher MEE

Ahhiyawa Currently there is considerable support for the Ahhiyawa = &Axaioí = Mycenaean equation,71 although Güterbock freely admits that ‘there is no strict proof possible either pro or contra.’72 But let us accept the scholarly consensus and assume that Ahhiyawa is Mycenaean, and also that Millawanda/Milawata is Miletus. As Bryce has pointed out,73 we must decide what the term Ahhiyawa may have signified. Was it used as an ethnogeographical designation, for the nucleus of the kingdom of the Ahhiyawan rulers, or for the whole of the territory which they controlled? Since I do not believe that there was a Mycenaean ‘empire,’in the sense of a unified state ruled by Mycenae, the precise location of Ahhiyawa 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 chronology provides a different historical context for some of the texts. This is especially true of the Indictment of Madduwatta, which has been redated to the reigns of Tudhaliya II and Arnuwanda I, and is therefore one of the earliest documents in which Ahhiyawa, or in this case Ahhiya, is recorded.74 A date in the later 15th century seems likely, LH IIB if we follow the conventional chronology, a period when the Mycenaeans were not yet active, or not demonstrably active, in the eastern Aegean. For Hooker, this ‘put out of court the equation Ahhiya(wa) = Achaiwa.’75 But on the high chronology the late 15th century is LH IIIA1,76 when there were Mycenaean settlements on Kos and Rhodes,77 and so Attarissiya, the ‘Man of Ahhiya’ who gave Madduwatta such a hard time but was evidently not the 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 had seceded and formed an alliance with Ahhiyawa and Arzawa.79 Since Mursili succeeded Arnuwanda 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

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

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. FOXHALL and J.K. DAVIES (eds.), The Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context (1984) 23-44; M. FINKELBERG, “From Ahhiyawa to &Axaioí,” Glotta 66 (1988) 127-34; GATES (supra n. 13) 293-97; H.G. GÜTERBOCK, “The Hittites 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 royal correspondence,” 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 and L. 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 thirteenth century BC according to the Hittite sources,” AnatSt 35 (1983) 205-17; A. ÜNAL, “Two peoples on both sides of the Aegean Sea: did the Achaeans and Hittites know each other?,” in H.I.H. Prince TAKAHITO MIKASA (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BC. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 4 (1991) 16-44. GÜTERBOCK 1986 (supra n. 71) 33. BRYCE (supra n. 68) 5. BRYCE 1986 (supra n. 71) 2-3; EASTON (supra n. 71) 30-34; GÜTERBOCK 1983 (supra n. 71) 133-34. J.T. HOOKER, Mycenaean Greece (1976) 128. S.W. MANNING, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History (1995) 217-29. MEE (supra n. 14) 81-83. BRYCE 1989 (supra n. 71) 298-99. BRYCE (supra n. 68) 6-7; GÜTERBOCK 1983 (supra n. 71) 134-35. MEE (supra n. 5) 135, possibly it was the Hittites who then fortified the site.

ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE

143

Millawanda is next mentioned in the Tawagalawas Letter, which was written by Hattusili III 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 for the security of his western frontier.82 Despite the fact that Hattusili has entered Millawanda in pursuit of the renegade Piyamaradu, his tone is conciliatory, and he addresses the Ahhiyawan 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 the reign of Tudhaliya IV,85 is that Atpas, the Ahhiyawan vassal ruler of Millawanda, had been replaced by his pro-Hittite son. This would certainly have soured relations and must have been a major ‘setback for Ahhiyawan enterprise in western Anatolia.’86 Another indication of the hostility which existed between the Ahhiyawans and the Hittites at this time is the Sausgamuwa Treaty. The ruler of Amurru is told by Tudhaliya IV that he should ‘let no ship of 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 wonders whether the Mycenaeans may have been the subject of a trade embargo.87 This seems quite plausible but, while it is true that trade is seldom mentioned,88 I am not sure that the embargo could have been in force for the whole of the period covered by the Ahhiyawa texts. It is possible that political conditions in western Anatolia were often so unsettled that overland trade was not an attractive proposition. If so, the Mycenaeans must take some of the blame for this state of affairs, since their activities were clearly disruptive and apparently motivated by political rather than economic expediency.89 Where was Ahhiyawa?90 It would appear that this was a state which controlled some territory in Anatolia and also a number of islands. Gates has therefore proposed that Ahhiyawa consisted of the Mycenaean settlements in the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia.91 But I do not think that the ruler of such a state would be acknowledged as a ‘Great King.’ For Güterbock, the use of this term implies that he must have ‘ruled over mainland Greece as well as the islands and the settlements in Anatolia.’92 Yet I do not believe that there was a unified Mycenaean state. My proposal for the location of Ahhiyawa is based on Thucydides 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 mainland Mycenaean 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 move north of the river Gediz. This is not entirely unexpected because the Mycenaeans may not

______________________ 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

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. BRYCE (supra n. 68) 7-10. GÜTERBOCK 1983 (supra n. 71) 135-36. BRYCE 1985 (supra n. 71) 17-23, but SINGER (supra n. 71) 215 is not convinced. GÜTERBOCK 1983 (supra n. 71) 137. BRYCE (supra n. 68) 16. CLINE (supra n. 66) 6-9; Idem, SWDS, 71-74. Ibid. 69-70. 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. 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. GATES (supra n. 13) 296. GÜTERBOCK 1984 (supra n. 71) 121. S. HORNBLOWER, Thucydides (1987) 88.

144

Christopher MEE

have settled on Chios until LH IIIC,94 and may never have settled on Lesbos.95 Since the famous octopus stirrup jar from Pitane-Çandarı is LH IIIC,96 we might conclude that the Mycenaeans became more active in the north-eastern Aegean in the 12th century, but this is speculative. Troy is quite different from other Anatolian sites in several respects. There may have been contact in the Middle Helladic period, and Mycenaean pottery was certainly imported as early as LH IIA.97 It is possible that this interest in the northern Aegean was prompted by Minoan control of the trade routes through the Cyclades.98 The proportion of Mycenaean pottery increases in LH IIIA2-B1, the later phases of Troy VI, but then declines. While it is true that there is more Mycenaean pottery from Troy than most of the sites which I have discussed, 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 the winds and currents would often have made the Dardanelles impassable, especially in the summer, and ships must therefore have sheltered in Besik Bay.100 The supplies and services which the Trojans provided for the crews of these ships will have been a lucrative source of revenue, 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, despite the evidence which Hiller has presented in a recent paper.101 I will concede that the Mycenaean pottery at Ma at may have come from the Black Sea,102 yet this was surely a single consignment and is unique. The oxhide ingot found off Kaliakra in Bulgaria weighs just 1.46 kilos, and is 32% gold, 18% silver, and 50% copper.103 The Cerkovo ingot is more typical but most closely resembles LM IB ingots from Ayia Triada.104 Swords and axes in the Sarköy hoard may be Mycenaean,105 and an Aegean origin for some of the double axes from Bulgaria and the Ukraine is not out of the question.106 But Harding is dubious about the other objects for which Mycenaean comparanda have been cited.107 Of course archaeologically invisible items will also have been traded, but I suspect that most Mycenaean ships were bound for Troy not the Black Sea. The recent excavations have

______________________ 94 95 96 97 98

99 100 101

102 103 104 105 106 107

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. SPENCER (supra n. 53) 275-77. G. PERROT and C. CHIPIEZ, Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité VI (1894) 923-31 and figs. 489 and 491. 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. 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 Minoan connection,” Studia Troica 1 (1991) 173-75. MEE (supra n. 5) 146; Idem (supra n. 97) 51. M. KORFMANN, “Troy: topography and navigation,” in M.J. MELLINK (ed.), Troy and the Trojan War (1986) 6-8. 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 der Balkanbeziehungen 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 avant notre ère,” RA (1986) 397-400. Although the excavator favours the route from the south, ÖZGÜÇ 1982 (supra n. 65) 31 and 102-103. 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. 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. MELLINK 1985 (supra n. 46) 558. A.F. HARDING, The Mycenaeans and Europe (1984) 127. HARDING (supra n. 106) 262.

ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE

145

revealed that the sixth and seventh settlements covered 200,000 m2, not 20,000 m2 as was once thought.108 As Korfmann has stressed,109 Troy was evidently a major centre and may have functioned 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 pottery is LH IIIC. The LH IIA-IIIB sherds at Kilise Tepe,111 Kazanlı, and Mersin112 presumably came from Cyprus, but how should we explain the LH IIIC pottery which has been reported from a number of sites? At Tarsus 875 Mycenaean sherds account for quite a high proportion of the pottery in the LB IIb levels.113 I once wrote, ‘LH IIIC is of course identified as the period when the Mycenaeans first settled in Cyprus. Their presence at Tarsus, if not elsewhere in Cilicia, is as likely.’114 The reservations which have been expressed about Mycenaean settlement on Cyprus in the 12th century115 clearly have implications for our interpretation of the Cilician evidence. As Sherratt and Crouwel have stressed, we should not automatically think in terms of expatriate Mycenaeans but must take account of the political and economic circumstances in the region at this time.116 Conclusions I believe that the context is crucial. Communities in Anatolia were not passive recipients of Minoan and Mycenaean largesse but used these contacts for their own purposes. The evidence for Minoan and Mycenaean activity is concentrated on the south-west coast but does not decrease uniformly north and east. The topography is of course a factor, as French has pointed out.117 Nevertheless, the pattern is primarily coastal and directional, prompted by social and political, as well as economic interests. Each of the Anatolian sites is different, and this is also true of the Aegean. We must not be misled by the veneer of cultural uniformity. Furthermore, LM/LH I-II is not the same as LH IIIA-B or LH IIIC. Indeed, we should be aware of more subtle distinctions, between LH IIIB1 and 2 for instance.118 The Aegean-Anatolian cultural interface is peculiarly complex but will become clearer, particularly if current excavations can resolve some of the more obvious questions, such as the proportion of different types of pottery — Minoan:Mycenaean and Aegean:Anatolian — which were in use. As a result of the interest which this topic has generated recently, I certainly feel that I can offer a more refined interpretation of the evidence for Aegean-Anatolian interconnections than was possible twenty years ago.119 Christopher MEE

______________________ 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

119

M. KORFMANN, “Troia: a residential and trading city at the Dardanelles,” in Politeia, 177-79. KORFMANN (supra n. 108) 214-15. 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. H.D. BAKER et al., “Kilise Tepe 1994,” AnatSt 45 (1995) 176-77, fig. 15:6. MEE (supra n. 5) 131-33. E. FRENCH, “A reassessment of the Mycenaean pottery at Tarsus,” AnatSt 25 (1975) 53-75. MEE (supra n. 5) 150. But see the paper in this volume by V. KARAGEORGHIS. E.S. SHERRATT and J.H. CROUWEL, “Mycenaean pottery from Cilicia in Oxford,” OJA 6 (1987) 340-46. FRENCH (supra n. 13, 1993) 155. 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.), Archaeology in the Dodecanese (1988) 56-58. In MEE (supra n. 5) 148-50.

146

Christopher MEE ILLUSTRATION

Pl. XIII

Map of the sites in Anatolia mentioned in the text

ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE

147

Discussion following C. Mee’s paper: G. Kopcke: Thank you for this magnificent survey. In one small point I wonder whether we might not go 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 improved survival conditions, which were not assured on the Greek mainland. You yourself have suggested that 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. The original Cretan presence at Miletus is another matter. I have no problem with thinking of Cretans of the first half of the second millennium mainly as traders, but not of ‘Mycenaeans.’ As for distinctions, chronological and regional, especially in regard to Troy, I think that your distinctions are to the point. C. Mee: Thank you, that’s very kind of you. I think my own position has shifted somewhat, in that although 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 I look at the material from western Anatolia and even southwestern Anatolia...I don’t see as many Mycenaean 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 we are looking at a different situation, one in which local communities are interacting with Mycenaeans 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 hinterland of Miletus, done by Hans Lohmann of the University of Bochum, and we have no evidence at all for a Mycenaean penetration of the hinterland of Miletus. There’s only one site, about four kilometers from Miletus, where some kylix sherds have been found. I think I would agree with Chris Mee that the situation is different from that on Rhodes, where we have a kind of colonization of the entire island. Mycenaean settlement in southwestern Anatolia is really restricted to these harbor sites, as far as we can say, within the coastal zone, like Müskebi on the peninsula 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 our Chairman if she is willing to say something. (Laughter). We’ve seen that both the Minoans and the Mycenaeans seemed to have been interested in the Anatolian coast, especially when you get down in the southern portion of it. I wondered, what is the evidence that either of you might know of, that would lead you to think that they are looking for metals there. I am very interested in, say, from the Classical period or the Hellenistic period. Does Miletus, does Ephesos, does any of 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 more likely that these are important staging posts on trade routes through which metals are arriving in the 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 should answer 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 for something else! I just wanted to comment on two things. One is, I went to Bulgaria to see the two oxhide ingots. The one which was really an oxhide ingot was in Italy on display, so I couldn’t see that, and the small one you mentioned was also unavailable, but all of the Bulgarian archaeologists [with whom] I talked, said that it really is not an oxhide ingot. It looks in all the publications like an oxhide ingot, because it’s drawn from above. They said that it doesn’t really resemble one; it is quite round and humped. They discount it, even though most of us have quoted it as being an oxhide ingot. I thought it might represent a Bronze Age shipwreck, because that was the only one found in the sea, but I’m no longer going to count it. The other thing I was going to comment on, after Wolf [Niemeier] mentioned the harbor areas, was the danger of saying anything of that sort in that there had been both British and Turkish surveys of the Halicarnassus peninsula, and they both said it was uninhabited in preclassical times. It was only by luck, because a peasant showed me a piece of pottery, that I found the Müskebi cemetery

148

Christopher MEE there. But since then, they’ve found Mycenaean pottery at Yatagan, which is quite far inland. I don’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 I hadn’t been back to Müskebi for 25 or 30 years, but just because I was with Malcolm Wiener, and Sandy MacGillivray, and Peter Kuniholm, I went there [again] for the first time a couple of summers 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 unexcavated chamber tombs there. It might be really quite tremendous, even though it was already large. I thought 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 analysis these days, in the latest Archaeometry article, the Gales have both the Bulgarian and the Thracian ingots 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 this is a “Blegen Day,” I want to speak on behalf of the current excavations of Troy, in which the University 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 direct information on their relationships with the Hittites. We don’t say that the next campaign will produce a copy of the “Aleksandus Treaty,” but it will try to promote the removal of at least part of the dumps on the north side of Troy, which were put there gradually. There is a stratified set of dumps: the Cincinnati dumps that belong to the present excavations, [then] the Blegen dumps, 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, when they were building the Athena Temple Complex. As the Athena Temple was being planned and started, the citadel was shaved off to make room for level ground for the Classical building. What was in the way, which were remnants of all levels predating the Hellenistic period, but principally the victims were the Levels VIIA and VI, was removed — mostly whatever was left of the official central buildings of Troy, of the period which we are historically interested in, and that is the period also of the Hittite records. We didn’t go into the Wilusa problem, but if you want to take that as a hypothesis, there is evidence of historical contact, correspondence as well as friendly relations with the Hittites. If traces of those exist, one way or another, they can be looked for under the dumps, which have led a very peaceful and protected existence. They are beginning to become an eyesore, because the citadel will have to be presented as the main part in the national 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 the Gallipoli historical park. So, Troy will look better if at least part of the dumps are removed, and we can see the original substance of the north side of the citadel. And the profit of that operation will be a search for historical records, for whatever written documents, or copies of documents, 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 is coffee time...