Merrillees_2

VOTE OF THANKS TO JAMES D. MUHLY

Ladies and Gentlemen, Those familiar with the writings of Jim Muhly and myself will know that over the last 25 years we have done our best to avoid unnecessary agreement. This makes me eminently well qualified to propose the vote of thanks and pay my own personal tribute to him. Despite our well publicised differences of opinion, there are some who seem to get us mixed up. In preparation for attending this conference, I felt it necessary to read Bernal’s Black Athena. I bought a copy of the first volume in French from a bouquiniste in Paris and read it on the plane to Bangkok. The Greek passenger sitting beside me was not amused by the title. I went through the second volume in the library of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. When I first open an archaeological work that I have not read before, I go first to the preface to see whether my assistance, advice or inspiration has been acknowledged. I then check the bibliography to see how many of my own publications have been cited, and then look at the index to find out whether I have been praised or maligned. Volume 2 of Black Athena yielded two unexpected dividends in this regard. The first was a reference to the “Australian diplomat and specialist in Cypriot archaeology Robert Merrillees” and the other to the “Mediterranean archaeologist James Merrillees.” While my grandfather and nephew have this name, neither was or is an archaeologist, and there is one and only one Mediterranean archaeologist with the given name of James and a family name beginning with M. When I received the initial invitation to attend this conference, it was to have been held in Philadelphia. Its subsequent transfer to Cincinnati did not, I am gratified to say, change one of its main purposes, to honour Jim Muhly on his retirement, and I vowed to do everything possible to take part. The organisers of the meeting are to be congratulated on keeping to the spirit of its original intentions. But I was puzzled by the request that I talk on the relations between Aegean and Egypt when there are others much better qualified to-day than me. Besides which, I did not see how I could with this subject render homage to Jim Muhly. Careful ref lection appeared to reveal the true reasons. It was obvious that I would not be considered to speak on Cyprus as that might involve me in uttering the dreaded A-word whose location is still in dispute. Certainly the topic proposed would not give me the opportunity to deal with the ancient Levantine trade in narcotics, which is still not accepted by everyone. In the end I concluded that because I was Australian Ambassador to Greece, I could be counted on to be diplomatic. No-one has ever accused me of that before. In fact Jim Muhly and I see eye-to-eye literally as well as metaphorically over three basic principles of archaeological research. The first is the absolute right and freedom of academic expression. All our writings, papers and communications are a kind of informed debate which is designed to help us get closer the truth of what actually happened in the past. This is not the same as what we think should have happened. In this debate all techniques, all arguments, all points of view are valid so long as they serve this end. Both Helene Kantor and Jim Muhly have been major contributors to this ongoing debate, which will never end. The second principle, which f lows from the first, is the importance of a comprehensive approach to the subject, especially bibliographical. Have you noticed how wide ranging and all embracing are the written sources quoted in Kantor’s and Muhly’s publications? Their works show that neither language, place of publication nor accessibility should be barriers to consultation, and that only the best researched arguments and conclusions command the greatest respect and authority.

216

Robert S. MERRILLEES

And finally both Kantor and Muhly subscribe to the belief that archaeological activity is not an end in itself but the means to an historical objective. If the study of antiquity does not help us understand the past and the present, if not necessarily the future, then it is only being done for the benefit of those who undertake the chosen research. Kantor’s 1947 monograph was a major historical synthesis which we as students at Sydney University in the 1950’s treated with reverence. And though it was not specified in the Conference program, Jim Muhly is retiring from the position of Chairman of the Ancient History program at the University of Pennsylvania. But Jim Muhly has given a whole new meaning to the term retirement by taking up another full-time job in Greece as Director of the American School of Classical Studies. Some have already enquired whether Athens is big enough for us both but at least Australian/American relations promise to enter an unusually lively phase, and I greatly look forward to his advent. Jim Muhly has given us one of his typically erudite, thoughtful and enlightening lectures, and we should all be duly grateful for the privilege of hearing him speak again this evening. Robert S. MERRILLEES