Kingship in the Mycenaean World and its reflections in the Oral Tradition (Prehistory Monographs) [Illustrated] 1931534128, 9781931534123

Table of contents :
List of Figures
Preface
Introduction
I The Archaeological Evidence
II The Evidence of the Linear B Tablets
III The Ugarit Parallel
IV The Evidence of the Oral Tradition
V The End of the Tradition
VI Summary
Notes
Bibliography
Index of Ancient Authors
Index of References to the Iliad
Index of References to the Odyssey
Index

Citation preview

Kingship in the Mycenaean World and Its Reflections in the Oral Tradition

Kingship in the Mycenaean World and Its Reflections in the Oral Tradition

Photograph of George E. Mylonas taken by his daughter at Mycenae, Easter 1975.

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 13

Kingship in the Mycenaean World and Its Reflections in the Oral Tradition

by

Ione Mylonas Shear

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2004

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press Printing Sun Printing House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Binding Hoster Bindery, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shear, Ione Mylonas, 1936Kingship in the Mycenaean world and its reflections in the oral tradition / by Ione Mylonas Shear. p. cm. — (Prehistory monographs ; 13) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-931534-12-8 (alk. paper) 1. Civilization, Mycenaean. 2. Monarchy—Greece—History—To 1500. 3. Greece—Antiquities. I. Title. II. Series. DF220.5.S54 2004 938’.01—dc22 2004026027

Copyright © 2004 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

To my father George E. Mylonas

Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xi INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 CHAPTER I:

The Archaeological Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

CHAPTER II: The Evidence of the Linear B Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 CHAPTER III: The Ugarit Parallel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 CHAPTER IV: The Evidence of the Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 CHAPTER V: The End of the Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 CHAPTER VI: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173 INDEX OF ANCIENT AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 INDEX OF REFERENCES TO THE ILIAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 INDEX OF REFERENCES TO THE ODYSSEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 FIGURES

List of Figures Frontispiece. Photograph of George E. Mylonas taken by his daughter at Mycenae, Easter 1975. Figure 1.

Plan of Grave Circle A, Mycenae.

Figure 2.

Plan of Grave Circle B, Mycenae.

Figure 3.

Topographic plan of Mycenae and vicinity.

Figure 4.

Plan of the West House, House of Sphinxes, House of the Oil Merchant, and House of Shields, Mycenae.

Figure 5.

Plan of the Panagia Houses, Mycenae.

Figure 6.

Topographic plan of Gla.

Figure 7.

Plan of Buildings K, N, and M, Gla.

Figure 8.

Plan of the palace workshop and House of Columns, Mycenae.

Figure 9.

Plan of the palace, Tiryns.

Figure 10.

Restored plan of the palace, Mycenae.

Figure 11.

Plan of the palace, Pylos.

Preface Each book has its own beginnings, and the beginning of this book can be said to have started on the day I excavated my first trench within the citadel at Mycenae in 1962. From that day, I have continued to maintain an interest in Mycenaean archaeology, even though other interests and pursuits have from time to time taken me into other fields of research. In more recent years, I have read the increasingly numerous articles and books on kingship in the Mycenaean world and the state of the economy within the kingdoms of that period. These studies, by their emphasis on one particular facet of the evidence, one particular site, or the latest, newest interpretation, often contradicted each other. I felt an attempt to combine all aspects of these studies was needed in order to determine whether a coherent whole could be evolved which combined all the evidence without contradicting conclusions drawn from another archaeological site or some other aspect of the field, hence the writing of this particular book. In this effort, I owe a great debt of gratitude to Thomas G. Palaima for his thoughtful and often thought provoking comments on the Linear B evidence which is a necessary component of any current study of Mycenaean archaeology. He helped me to understand the great mass of this material and guided me through much of the more recent and often contradictory research. To him I owe my thanks, and I am more than happy to acknowledge his help in this preface. As in all of my research, I also owe a debt of gratitude to my husband, T. Leslie Shear, Jr., whose many years of excavating at Mycenae, beginning with A.J.B. Wace in the House of Shields and continuing under G.E. Mylonas in the areas of the palace within the citadel and under the Lion

xii

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Gate leading into that citadel, gave him a special insight into the interpretation and understanding of the archaeological evidence from Mycenae. It is an exciting challenge to live with a resident expert with whom new ideas and conflicting concepts can be discussed, often on a daily basis. To the INSTAP Academic Press, and especially to Karen Vellucci, Susan Ferrence, and Philip P. Betancourt, I give thanks for undertaking the publication of this book. They had the courage and foresight to understand the aims of this book and to encourage me in its publication. Due to my precarious health, the standard of proof reading of the final page proof may not be as high as I would have desired under differing circumstances. I ask for the reader’s indulgence. A book on kings needs to be dedicated to a man, and a book on Mycenaean kings needs to be dedicated to an ancestor, hence the dedication of this book to my father, George E. Mylonas. From my earliest childhood, he instilled in me a love of the Greek oral tradition and especially its many tales of the past associated with Agamemnon and Agamemnon’s citadel at Mycenae. Later, when I was a graduate student, he trained me in methods of archaeological research in the field and he helped lay the foundations of my later scholarship. To him I owe a debt of gratitude and love which I wish to acknowledge by the dedication of this book.

Introduction

During the last few decades, there has been great interest in the problems of defining the extent and nature of kingship in the Mycenaean world. Questions concerning the degree of economic and religious power held by the king have been given special emphasis. The arguments have clustered around three separate bodies of evidence, often with little or no reference to each other. The archaeological evidence was the first to be uncovered and it has been repeatedly discussed during the past century.1 Questions concerning the type of government go back to the earliest days of excavations by Heinrich Schliemann at Mycenae and Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos. The early conclusions about kingship were drawn from the graves, particularly Grave Circle A at Mycenae, and from the form and decoration of the palaces, especially the palace at Knossos. Since that period, subsequent excavations have revealed additional information that can now be used to form a more coherent picture of kingship and its development. In order to understand this evidence more clearly, a review of some of the archaeological material is undertaken in the first part of this book. The second body of evidence comes from the Linear B tablets and their decipherment, which created a new source of information concerning the

2

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

later part of the Mycenaean period.2 The tablets revealed that at the end of the Mycenaean period there existed a king called the wanax, a wide range of officials (whose presence had not been revealed by the archaeological record), and numerous skilled craftsmen. Conclusions concerning the nature of the kingship and the extent of the king’s control of the economy have varied greatly. Some of the conclusions drawn from the archaeological material have been contrary to the evidence from the tablets themselves.3 The approach used in this section is not that of the specialized scholars of Linear B, who often become so enmeshed in the details of decipherment and interpretation of a specific group of tablets that they tend to lose sight of the overall picture of the period. The emphasis here is to survey the conclusions drawn by individual scholars studying the Linear B tablets, to contrast their theories with our knowledge of this period derived from the archaeological record, and finally to compare this evidence with possible reflections in the oral tradition. This approach leads to the suggestion that the king in the Mycenaean period had only limited power over the society and its economy. Although the king appears to have controlled a large segment of the economy, it is argued here that other individuals and family groups within the kingdom also had a certain degree of economic independence. This type of economy appears to be inconsistent with the more monolithic economies usually associated with the prehistoric kingdoms of Egypt and the Hittites, which has made some scholars reluctant to accept the possibility of a mixed economy for prehistoric Greece.4 A mixed economy, however, is documented for the Near Eastern, Late Bronze Age kingdom of Ugarit, which forms the third section of this study. Ugarit can be used as a paradigm for a similar type of economy only partly controlled by a hereditary king. Information from Ugarit also sheds light on other aspects of the kingship in Late Bronze Age Greece, which might otherwise seem troublesome. Finally, there is the evidence of the epic tradition, the myths and legends of the past, and, most particularly, the Iliad and Odyssey. After Schliemann’s dramatic excavations at Troy and Mycenae, it became the generally accepted premise that the old legends reflected the prehistoric period.5 This attitude gradually changed after the publication of M.I. Finley’s The World of Odysseus, which claimed that the Odyssey reflected the Iron Age, and H.L. Lorimer’s book entitled Homer and the Monuments, which tried to show that the objects and buildings described by Homer were based on parallels drawn from the historic period. Even though a few scholars have questioned the complete separation of the epic tradition from the prehistoric period,6 the consensus gradually evolved that the two great epics reflect the eighth century B.C.7 or the Dark Age.8 A small group of scholars have now begun to date the writing down of the epics to the seventh century,9 whereas other

INTRODUCTION

3

scholars are now suggesting that the epic tradition consists of various layers, which reflect a combination of different periods.10 Questions concerning the form of government portrayed in these ancient tales usually reflect the particular scholar’s preconceived notion concerning the date of the epics. It has been said by scholars who believe in the eighth-century date that the beginnings of the historic polis can be seen in the social mores of the Iliad and Odyssey.11 Others have rejected this view,12 and a variety of opinions concerning the date and the type of society represented in the epics continues to be published.13 The Iliad and Odyssey, as we have them today, are preserved in a written alphabetic form. Although the date of the introduction of the alphabet has been questioned,14 it is now generally accepted that the alphabet was first introduced into the Greek world in the eighth century.15 The written form of the epics that we have today cannot be earlier than the introduction of the alphabet itself, although there is no necessity that the epics were written down as soon as the alphabet became available.16 Some of the material in the epics, however, is much older than the eighth century.17 During the centuries when writing did not exist in the Greek world, knowledge of the past was handed down orally, and during this period certain inconsistencies developed.18 The number and significance of these inconsistencies, in my view, have been greatly exaggerated.19 In a study of kingship, however, the pertinent question is not the extent of the inconsistencies, but whether these inconsistencies affect our understanding of the kingship as portrayed in the oral tradition. First, there needs to be determined what information the Iliad and Odyssey contain about kingship, and whether this information forms a coherent picture.20 If a coherent picture of kingship can be established, then it remains to be seen whether any element of this reconstruction indicates a certain period as opposed to the others that have been suggested.

I

The Archaeological Evidence

The first indication of a group of people who were richer and presumably more powerful than their contemporaries came from the two grave circles at Mycenae (Figs. 1, 2), and the evidence for the development of kingship in the Mycenaean period is most clearly illustrated on that site.21 Other grave circles have been found elsewhere on the Greek mainland, and these help to support the conclusions drawn from the two circles at Mycenae.22 These grave circles span the closing years of the Middle Helladic and the beginning of the Late Helladic periods, and it is at that time that evidence for a ruling elite first emerges in the Mycenaean world. It needs to be stressed, however, that the impression of the power and wealth of Mycenae during this period is based primarily on the rich quality of the precious objects found within the grave circles.23 Architectural remains from this same period at Mycenae consist of scattered, very fragmentary walls, and there are no comprehensive plans of any of the buildings. Nine tholos tombs at Mycenae (Fig. 3) were built subsequent to the grave circles. These tholoi span the greater part of the Late Helladic period, and they seem to attest the continuation of a ruling class.24 The tholoi were found stripped of their grave goods, but their architectural splendor suggests that the wealth of objects buried within them must have surpassed even the opulence of the earlier grave circles. Toward the end of the Late Helladic

6

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

period, palaces for the rulers were constructed within fortified citadels at Mycenae and various other sites.25 Evidence for some palatial control of the economy appears in the archaeological record, but the extent of this control remains uncertain. Each of these shifts seems to reflect the growing power of the ruling elite and the development of kingship within the Mycenaean world. In each of these phases, problems in the interpretation of the archaeological evidence remain, and a variety of questions concerning their importance to the development of Mycenaean kingship have been asked. In order to understand the archaeological evidence for kingship, each of these shifts needs to be examined, and an attempt to answer the questions raised needs to be made. How some of these questions are answered affects our understanding of kingship as it is reflected in the tablets and in the oral tradition.

A. The Grave Circles at Mycenae For many years Grave Circle A (Fig. 1) stood apart as a unique phenomenon, but the discovery of Grave Circle B (Fig. 2) at Mycenae and other grave circles elsewhere in Greece helped to clarify questions that resulted from the earlier excavation. The rich graves of Circle A at Mycenae no longer remained an isolated episode appearing suddenly. They could be understood to be part of a continuum that began slightly earlier with Grave Circle B. The rich goods found in the shaft graves of the two circles at Mycenae are simply more lavish and numerous than those from other contemporary tombs of that period. The logical conclusion is that these graves represent a separate and more powerful group, which formed the ruling elite of that time. Occasionally, it has been suggested that the people buried in the grave circles at Mycenae were a group of outsiders, who brought with them new ideas and traditions that they superimposed upon the local society.26 The archaeological evidence does not support this conclusion.27 It suggests, on the contrary, that these graves were simply richer than their earlier predecessors. In Grave Circle B, in addition to the larger, more sumptuous graves, there was a small group of cist graves (Fig. 2). The pottery found in these smaller graves is in no way distinguishable from the Middle Helladic pottery of other tombs or from the simpler pottery included within the shaft graves themselves. These simple cists continued the traditions of the past and have many parallels both at Mycenae and elsewhere. Their presence in the grave circle indicates that the people buried there were part of the society that existed in the area for generations.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

7

The fourteen shaft graves of Grave Circle B are merely larger, better constructed, and deeper than the cist graves. The most distinguishing feature of the shaft graves is the added richness of the grave goods. In addition to the normal Middle Helladic pottery found in the graves, they originally contained gold and silver objects, bronze weapons, and elegant jewelry. In the earlier graves of this group, the pottery is simply greater in quantity and better in quality.28 The silver cup found amid the collected bones in Grave Iota,29 although different in form from its terracotta cousins,30 represents a more elegant addition to the grave goods found in the other tombs, but not a new tradition. Bronze swords also make their appearance in this earlier group of graves. Grave Zeta contained a single sword, whereas the slightly later Grave Iota contained both a sword and a knife.31 The swords, elegant in design, are of a type known from Crete, and thus they do not signify a new idea or tradition but merely mark the deceased as a warrior. The number of weapons increased in the second group of graves, and metal decoration on the shrouds was introduced.32 Only a single long sword was found with the male burial in the earlier Grave Zeta; in the later Grave Lambda, the sword was accompanied by two daggers, a spear head, two knives, and a group of arrow heads.33 In the later shaft graves, more gold was used to decorate the shrouds,34 the number of swords and weapons increased,35 metal vessels became more numerous,36 and exotic objects were added.37 These objects have parallels from other parts of the culture; their unique qualities seem to be the result of recently accumulated wealth and the newly created opportunities that this wealth provided.38 The increased value of the objects found in the shaft graves indicates an economic isolation of a small group of people. They were presumably related to each other since they were buried within the same grave circle and their skeletal remains show certain resemblances.39 The use of a single grave for more than one person helps to reinforce the concept that the graves belonged to a related family group. The size of the graves, furthermore, suggests that multiple burials were anticipated at the time the grave was first constructed, since their size is much larger than that needed for a single internment. All members of this group, however, did not share the wealth equally. This is indicated by the unequal distribution of grave goods and the continued use of cist graves within the circle. The foreign objects included in the grave goods indicate that these people were in contact with other cultures and that they valued exotic goods, presumably as symbols of luxury and status. These are the signs of a rising elite, a group who stood out from their contemporaries. The wealth of this group, which appears to have continued for three generations, would have inevitably influenced the politics of the time and transformed this group into the leaders of their society.40 Whether we wish to call them rulers,

8

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

chieftains, or kings41 is not of importance in my opinion, once they are recognized as the political leaders. It is sometimes said that the concept of a single ruler had already been established by the time of Grave Gamma in Circle B and that the rule of a single leader continued in the subsequent periods of Graves IV and V of Circle A.42 It is not clear, however, which of the three men in Grave Gamma was the ruler, and how the ruler is to be identified among the men in Graves IV and V. The electrum mask of Grave Gamma may be thought to identify the ruler in that grave, but the existence of five gold masks in Graves IV and V makes the equation of mask and ruler dubious. Gold also covered the faces of the two children in Grave III of Circle A. It seems highly unlikely that both these children, who died so young, also happened to be the designated rulers, and both were thus buried with gold masks in deference to their future anticipated but unfulfilled position. The absence of a single burial which stands out from the others in wealth and the use of the same grave for several different people suggests that the leader of this group, whatever he may have been called, shared his power and influence with the others in his family. We can conlcude that the distribution of grave goods helps to separate these graves from others of their period, but it does not help us identify the individuals who were their leaders.43 The addition of weapons amid the grave goods of Circle B indicates that the men of this group were warriors. The male skeletons were larger and heavier than the average man of that time, which indicates that these men were better fed and more vigorous in their activities, as is to be expected of a group of warriors. Evidence for battle wounds on some of the male skeletons helps to confirm this conclusion.44 The skeletons of the women indicate that the women buried in the Grave Circle B were also better fed, taller, and stronger than their female contemporaries.45 They also shared in the wealth, which possibly means that they also shared the power.46 The weapons buried with the men and the sturdy male skeletons, however, indicate that this was a warrior society, therefore probably headed by men. The existence of a second, slightly later circle, Grave Circle A, with its even greater wealth and more numerous grave goods, suggests that there had been a shift in power and in wealth from one group to another. The second circle contained only six shaft graves compared to the fourteen of the earlier circle. The decline in numbers suggests that the ruling elite and the size of the families were becoming more restricted than they had been in the earlier period.47 Grave IV, the largest and the richest of the graves in Circle A,48 continued the traditions of Circle B in an even more extravagant style. It is usually assumed that this group had become richer than the previous group. It may be, however, that the apparent increase was only a result of ostentatious display. A similar elaborate presentation of wealth occurred in Grave

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

9

III, which appears to have followed shortly after Grave IV.49 The skeletons in Grave III literally were covered with gold ornaments, but these were thinner than the gold in Circle B and in the earlier graves of Circle A. These ornaments appear to have been produced specifically for the burial, and thus they represent the products of ostentatious expenditure by the ruling family. This display of wealth included the women as well as the men, the individual who headed the family group, and his male relatives, whose support he needed to maintain his position. Since the two grave circles partially overlap in time, the shift in power from one group to another was probably gradual and not one of sudden rise or decline of different families. The shift from one grave circle to another also suggests that the power and wealth of these families were not simply inherited, but that some other factors influenced the political and economic situation. As in Grave Circle B, no single individual in Grave Circle A stood out from the others in wealth, which suggests that the family continued to be important. The numerous weapons of the second grave circle once again indicate a warrior society, which we would naturally assume to have been led by the men. The great wealth buried with the women, however, implies that the women continued to be honored. A dependance on family seems indicated by the location of Grave Circle A. The presence of ordinary cist graves, both within the circle and in the area surrounding it, indicates that the circle occupied only one part of a much larger cemetery. The area within the circle was separated from the rest of the cemetery by a circular wall.50 The rise in bedrock from one side of Grave Circle A to the other is approximately eight meters. This great difference in level makes this a peculiar location for a grave circle. Part of the original circular wall, however, remains, and its existence cannot be denied.51 If a circular enclosing wall had been anticipated when the first graves were dug, then a flat terrain for the entire circle would have been the logical choice. The uneven terrain of the area suggests that a circular enclosure wall had not been foreseen when the first burials occurred. The location of the graves close together in the western portion of the circle and the absence of graves to the east on the higher terrain support this suggestion. As part of the much larger prehistoric cemetery, the location of the first burials of the grave circle was probably chosen because of its proximity to the graves of the earlier ancestors of the family. Later, when these family members became conspicuous because of their wealth and resulting power, their graves were isolated by the construction of a circular wall.52 The location, inappropriate for a circle, however, was retained. It suggests that strong family associations were important to the people of that period. An association of family members within groups or clusters of tombs in cemeteries has also been suggested for the Middle Helladic tombs at Prosymna and the Late Helladic

10

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

tombs at both Prosymna and Mycenae.53 This clustering of tombs suggests that strong family relationships were also considered important by other members of the society. It has been argued that the area of Circle A was not held in special esteem until the Late Helladic IIIC period when the grave stelai were re-erected.54 The date of their re-erection, however, is not the only indication that the area was considered special. Although other parts of the prehistoric cemetery were later covered by buildings, similar structures had not been allowed to encroach onto the circle. When the western fortification walls were extended in the middle of the Late Helladic IIIB period, this area continued to be respected, and the graves were enclosed by a new wall on a higher level. Since this area contains only graves, it must have been in remembrance of these graves that the area was kept free of other buildings. It should be noted, furthermore, that had the stelai remained in their original position until the Late Helladic IIIC period, they would have been buried when the circle was raised in Late Helladic IIIB. In order to be available for re-use at a later period, they must have been moved at the time the circle was originally raised. How long the area of Grave Circle B was also respected remains unclear. Grave Rho, which was found emptied of its grave goods, was constructed in a style similar to the built tombs of Ugarit.55 The tombs in Ugarit are dated to Late Helladic IIIA and B. If a similar date is assigned to Grave Rho, then Circle B was probably remembered at that time. Before the very end of the Bronze Age, the construction of part of the chamber of the Tomb of Clytemnestra under the circle (Fig. 2) suggests that the area had ceased to be venerated. Although it may be only curious coincidence, it is of interest that two grave circles were found at Mycenae. The early legends about the site tell of two different dynasties, the Perseid dynasty who was superseded by the Pelopids. Perseus, the founder of the earlier dynasty, was said to have had five sons and one daughter.56 In time, his son Sthenelos inherited the kingship and married Nikippe, the sister of Atreus. When Sthenelos’ son Eurystheus became king and later died in battle, without issue, the people of Mycenae, according to the ancient tradition, did not ask another of Perseus’ sons or grandsons to be king. Instead, they chose Atreus as their ruler, and a new dynasty, the Pelopids, was founded.57 Even though there are definite chronological problems concerning this genealogy (discussed below), the recollection of two different early dynasties and two separate grave circles may in part have helped fuel the later traditions concerning the genealogies of the early rulers. There are various unusual features about the grave circles which are rarely discussed, but their occurrence has interesting implications concerning the rise of kingship in this period. The men buried in Grave Circle B outnumber

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

11

the women;58 yet in the latest group of graves, the women received grave goods of far greater value than the men.59 This discrepancy suggests a decline in the wealth and thus the power of the male members of the group and an increased wealth of the women, who came to represent the matriarchs of the society. If we assume that the wives were buried with or near their husbands, then the dearth of female burials suggests that many of these men did not marry. As a result, a lack of suitable, legitimate male heirs within the family group may have developed. The absence of such an heir may have been one of the factors that eventually led to the shift of power from one group to another. The same pattern of richer female burials in the latest graves was also true for Grave Circle A,60 suggesting that the lack of suitable male heirs may have led to a shift of power away from the family buried there. The continued respect for Grave Circle A, however, seems to indicate that the later rulers of Mycenae saw themselves as related in some way to the earlier leaders of the city. It need not indicate that ancestor worship had been part of this society,61 since even today respect is paid to cemeteries, and ancestor worship is not part of our modern culture. Another unexpected characteristic of the men buried in Grave Circle B is their short life span. Although they were apparently better fed and consequently in better health than the average person of this period, their average life span was thirty-six years, the same as that of other men of their time.62 In the first group of graves from Grave Circle B, four male skeletons were examined.63 Three were over the age of thirty-six when they died: one was thirty-seven, the second forty-nine, and the third fifty-five. The fourth died at twenty-eight.64 In the second group of graves, five male skeletons were examined; three men again lived beyond thirty-six: the oldest lived to be forty-five and the other two lived to be forty-two and thirty-eight. The last two in this middle group died at thirty and at twenty-five.65 In the final group of graves, only one man lived beyond the age of thirty-six, and he reached the age of forty-five.66 The remaining six male skeletons examined all died before the age of thirty-six. The youngest died at twenty-three, two died at twenty-eight, and three died at thirty-three.67 The implications of such a short life span for the passage of wealth and power have not been considered in discussions concerning kingship. If these men married when they were roughly twenty years of age, they needed to have been at least forty when they died in order to produce a male heir of the proper age to inherit. If the first-born child were female, then the father would have needed an even longer life span in order to produce a male heir of the appropriate age. Infant mortality would also have been another important factor contributing to the difficulties of producing a suitable male heir.68

12

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

In Grave Circle B, the appropriate life span needed to produce a male heir was possible for only five men.69 The situation in Grave Circle A was even more precarious. Only one man of the analyzed skeletons lived to be over forty, and he was buried in one of the earlier graves of the circle.70 If the children of these men were too young to rule, their uncles and the aunts must have been important in the preservation of power and wealth. Under these circumstances, the titular leadership of the family group presumably was chosen or assumed by the most powerful surviving member. Fitness to rule in this type of situation becomes an important factor, and it should probably be assumed that fitness to rule became part of the pattern in the early days of rising kingship within the Mycenaean world. The short life expectancy of the men could also explain the passage of power from one group to another. In a case where the eldest child was female, the power may have passed to her husband, rather than to the younger male siblings or other members of the family group. A female child married at puberty to a man five to ten years older could have secured a direct descent from the ruler to his grandsons. In the last group of burials in Grave Circle B, only one man reached an age (forty-five) which allowed him to produce an appropriate male heir. If he had had only female children, then the power would have passed either to his daughter or to another male of his family group. Since the remaining male members of this last group all died by the time they were thirty-three, none of them could have produced a male heir of appropriate age to take over the wider family group. In this type of situation, the female children become important in the passage of power. One of these female children of Grave Circle B married to an older man of the family group buried in Grave Circle A could have transferred the power and the wealth of the family of Grave Circle B to her new husband’s family. As a result of her marriage, she would subsequently have been buried in Grave Circle A, but the grandchildren of the male leader of Grave Circle B would have ultimately inherited his power and his wealth. Such a sequence could well explain the transfer of power from Grave Circle B to Grave Circle A. The same phenomenon of more male burials than female ones is also found in the grave circle at Pylos. That circle contained twenty men and only five to seven women.71 The male skeletons, like those from Mycenae, were also unusually robust, yet average life expectancy was only thirty-four years of age. The short life span should probably be associated with their occupation as warriors and hunters, but, as at Mycenae, their short life span coupled with the dearth of women most probably created problems of suitable male heirs and subsequent difficulties in the passage of power and wealth.72 The source of the wealth displayed in the grave circles at Mycenae has often been debated.73 The introduction of large quantities of gold and other

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

13

objects of value into the Mycenae grave circles seems too sudden and too great to reflect a gradual increase of wealth accumulated through agricultural pursuits and the resulting trade. A notable feature of the gold work is that it was solid gold. It was not gold leaf covering another substance, such as stone, which is the way gold was primarily used on Crete.74 In the grave circles at Mycenae and later on the Greek mainland in general, gold was used to produce solid gold objects such as drinking vessels and signet rings.75 The Vapheio cups are often said to be Minoan, and perhaps they were made by Minoan craftsmen working on the Greek mainland.76 The cups, however, were made of solid gold, unlike the normal practice of Crete, and they were found on the Greek mainland. Thus, they reflect the economy of the mainland and not that of Crete.77 The discrepancy in the use of gold between the mainland and Crete suggests that the mainland had a source of wealth not shared with Crete. Trade appears to have been one source of wealth. Resin may have been one of the commodities traded with Egypt.78 Olive oil79 and cloth80 may also have been exported. The central position of the mainland between Europe and the Aegean helped to make Greece an important member of the commercial world at that time.81 In the Shaft Grave period, Crete also traded extensively with foreign centers, but she did not possess the quantity of gold found on the mainland. The introduction of gold in the grave circles at Mycenae has the appearance of a newly discovered source of metal. It has a striking parallel in the sudden increase in gold buried in the tombs of the Macedonians centuries later, when gold mines were discovered in that area.82 The discovery of gold in an area controlled by Mycenae83 could explain her sudden rise to power and her continuing wealth throughout the rest of the prehistoric period.84

B. The Tholos Tombs at Mycenae Subsequent to the grave circles, a series of nine tholos tombs was constructed in the area of Mycenae (Fig. 3).85 Unfortunately robbed of their grave goods in antiquity, these tholoi are notable today for their construction, but as long as this type of tomb was being constructed, the power and wealth of Mycenae must have continued. Although similar in shape to the chamber tombs, the primary distinguishing characteristic of the tholoi is their greater size and the stone masonry which lines their chambers and dromoi. As in the case of the chamber tombs, they were probably used for multiple burials, a practice which has been documented at other sites. This combined evidence suggests that the tholoi at Mycenae were also used as family vaults which were opened on various occasions to receive additional members of the family. Among the hundreds of tombs of varying date and size

14

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

found at Mycenae,86 only nine were tholoi; this number alone indicates that the tholoi were a separate phenomenon from the rest of the Mycenaean graves. These tholoi stand apart from the other tombs in their grander structure, larger size, and elegance of form. They differ from the other tombs of their period in the same way that the shaft graves differ from the cist tombs in the earlier period. The existence of the nine tholoi at Mycenae as a separate group of tombs suggests the singling out of one group of people who were more powerful and wealthy than their fellow inhabitants. Their greater wealth suggests that they formed the ruling power of their time. They alone could command the work force needed for the construction of a tholos.87 The time needed for the construction of these tombs, furthermore, suggests that they were built in anticipation of the death of the individual who had ordered the tomb. Whether these tholoi can be interpreted as evidence for a ruling family,88 however, or whether they were built by a larger, dominating group of several different families, depends on their chronology. The date of the tholoi at Mycenae has become a vexing problem that affects any interpretation of them as royal burials. Their restored sequence was based on the increasingly elaborate construction of tholoi over time. They fall into three groups of three: the Cyclopean Tomb, the Epano Phournos Tomb, and the Tomb of Aigisthos in the first group; the Panagia, Kato Phournos, and the Lion Tombs in the second group; the Tomb of the Genii, the Treasury of Atreus, and the Tomb of Clytemnestra in the third group.89 A.J.B. Wace, as modified by G.E. Mylonas, suggested that the tholoi spanned the period between the end of Grave Circle A and the collapse of Mycenaean power.90 This dating has not been generally accepted because Palace Style sherds were found in the first two groups of tholoi, and it has been said that all six of these tholoi are Late Helladic II in date.91 It seems unlikely that six different royal tombs were built during the hundred years usually assigned to the Late Helladic II period and only three were constructed during the next period, which was at least twice as long. If the first six tholoi are to be dated to the Late Helladic II period, then the identification of these tombs as royal must be reconsidered.92 Before the ramifications of such a chronology are explored, however, the Late Helladic II date of the first six tholoi needs to be examined and their chronological relationship to the last three tholoi clarified. The date of the Treasury of Atreus has also been questioned. Wace originally called it Late Helladic III, possibly mid-fourteenth century, on the basis of a sherd with a triglyph pattern93 found under the threshold.94 This sherd was dated at a time when Late Helladic III pottery had not yet been subdivided into A, B, and C, and the various phases and dates of Late Helladic III pottery were being debated. Wace noted the similarities in

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

15

construction between the Treasury of Atreus and the Lion Gate of the citadel itself.95 In both structures, conglomerate stone, ashlar masonry, and similarly constructed thresholds were used. Under the threshold of the Lion Gate, sherds of Late Helladic IIIB date were found that were similar in style to the sherd found by Wace under the threshold of the Treasury of Atreus.96 Thus, both structures should be dated to the same period in the middle of Late Helladic IIIB after the earthquake,97 and Wace’s original date of the mid-fourteenth century should be changed to the mid-thirteenth century. Some scholars believe that the sherd found under the threshold of the Treasury of Atreus was an intrusion introduced during a later refurbishing.98 Those who accept this suggestion place the date of its construction at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIA:2. This earlier date is based on the date of the so-called Atreus Bothros, which was bisected by the dromos of the Treasury.99 The Atreus Bothros, however, only forms a terminus post quem for the Treasury. It does not tell us whether the Treasury was built immediately after the Bothros went out of use at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIA:2, or whether it was built many years later. A Late Helladic IIIA:2 date for the original construction of the Treasury ignores its architectural similarities with the Lion Gate, originally noted by Wace. It also implies that this tholos had been used for roughly a century before it was refurbished and the threshold moved. After a century of use any refurbishing which required the reinstallation of the threshold should have left other traces of such activity. Although Wace appears to have been aware of the possibility that the Treasury might have been remodeled, he stated firmly that no signs of such a reconstruction were found.100 Until new evidence is uncovered, the date of the Treasury of Atreus must remain in the middle of the Late Helladic IIIB period.101 The Tomb of Clytemnestra is dated after the Treasury of Atreus. If the first six tholoi are dated to the Late Helladic II period, then the Tomb of the Genii alone spans the period between the end of Late Helladic II and the middle of Late Helladic IIIB. Such a chronology would make the use of the Tomb of the Genii extend as long as, or even longer than, the use of the last two tholoi combined. Before such a conclusion is drawn, it is necessary to determine if the Palace Style sherds found in the first six tholoi represent grave goods buried within the tomb and therefore date the use of the tomb, or whether these sherds had some other origin. Wace made a catalog of the sherds found in the tholoi, and his catalog indicates that all the deposits were mixed.102 The Cyclopean Tomb, usually considered the earliest of the tholoi, contained Late Helladic III sherds along with earlier pottery. The Epano Phournos Tomb, the second in the series, had a hundred Late Helladic III sherds, but it also had over a hundred Geometric and Hellenistic sherds, which are clearly intrusive. The

16

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Tomb of Aigisthos, the third in the series, had at least a hundred Late Helladic III sherds, but it also had ten Orientalizing sherds and twentythree Geometric sherds, plus many, large fragments of at least seven Palace Style jars. The Panagia Tomb, the fourth in the series, had two hundred Late Helladic III sherds, in contrast to twenty-eight Late Helladic II sherds. The Kato Phournos Tomb had fragments of Palace Style amphorae plus four other Late Helladic II sherds, but it also contained another fifty Late Helladic sherds. The Lion Tomb, the last of the first six tholoi said to be Late Helladic II, had approximately 150 Late Helladic III sherds, in contrast to seventy-six Late Helladic II sherds, but it also had sixty-five sherds which were Geometric or later. The wide range of dates represented by these sherds indicates that the tholoi were opened repeatedly both in the historic and the prehistoric periods. In my opinion, the sherds in only two of the tholoi are meaningful. The unusually large number and size of the Late Helladic II sherds found in the Tomb of Aigisthos suggest that some of these sherds represent grave goods, and thus they should date the use of the tomb. In the Treasury of Atreus, the Late Helladic IIIB sherd found under the threshold by Wace and the similarity of its building technique to the Lion Gate date the construction of that structure. A late date is also suggested, but not proven, by the sherds found in the Tomb of the Genii, where there were 133 Late Helladic III sherds in contrast to four pieces of Palace Style pottery,103 and the Tomb of Clytemnestra, where the Late Helladic III sherds far outnumbered the sherds from other periods.104 The first six tholoi excavated at Mycenae had already partially collapsed by the time archaeologists began their initial explorations. The tholoi were originally covered by corbelled vaults and an earthen fill. When they collapsed, the stones from the vaults fell inwards, and the earthen fill, which originally covered these stones, must also have fallen into the tombs. Some of the Palace Style sherds found in these tholoi may have originally come from the earth fill covering their vaults. During the excavations of the Panagia Houses, sherds of the Late Helladic IIIA period were found directly on top of the floors. On these same floors were found a variety of whole or almost whole vases of Late Helladic IIIB date. These vases dated the destruction of the houses, and it was eventually realized that the Late Helladic IIIA sherds found immediately on the floors had been originally incorporated into the mudbricks forming the upper parts of the walls.105 The use of Late Helladic IIIA sherds in mudbricks made for Late Helladic IIIB houses suggests that the Palace Style sherds in the tholoi may represent earlier sherds used in the construction of later structures. The tholoi, furthermore, were built in areas where there had previously been tombs and other buildings. The displacement

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

17

of these structures could account for some of the earlier sherds. Other fragments may have come from heirlooms placed within the tholoi.106 The date of the sherds alone does not require a Late Helladic II date for the first six tholoi. The original sequence, suggested by Wace and Mylonas, which spans a longer period, seems preferable because of the clear architectural development within the sequence of tholoi. If each tholos represented one generation, with three or four generations spanning each century, then the nine tholoi would represent a period of approximately 225–300 years. This suggested length of time covers the years between the end of Grave Circle A and the collapse of the Mycenaean kingdom. The ongoing use of this type of grave, which was built in anticipation of death, suggests a continuum in the kingship of Mycenae throughout this period. A date in the second half of the Late Helladic IIIB period for the Treasury of Atreus places the Tomb of Clytemnestra a generation later. This date for the later tholos suggests that it was in use during part of the Late Helladic IIIC period.107 The date of the final collapse of the palace system in the Argolid, in my opinion, is not certain. The numerous construction projects undertaken during the second half of the Late Helladic IIIB period at Mycenae suggest a continuation in the power and the wealth of the royal family.108 Had the grave goods placed in either the Treasury of Atreus or the Tomb of Clytemnestra been preserved, the prevailing concept of the wealth of this period may have been different, just as our concept of wealth during the Shaft Grave period has been shaped by the objects found in the shaft graves at Mycenae. Even without the grave goods, the very structure and grandeur of these two tombs with their elaborately decorated facades bespeaks continued power and wealth. Some of this power and wealth might well have continued, possibly only in reduced form, into the Late Helladic IIIC period.109

C. The Evolution of Kingship The chronology and increasingly elaborate construction of the nine tholoi at Mycenae seem to indicate the existence of a ruling family during most of the Late Helladic II and III periods. Earlier in the grave circles at Mycenae, no single burial stood out from the others to mark the individual as a supreme ruler, greater in power than the others of his group. It is known from the Linear B tablets, however, that by the end of the Mycenaean period there did exist a king called the wanax, whose power and wealth appears to have been greater than that of the other officials.110 If an archaeological phenomenon is to be identified with the establishment of the wanax at Mycenae, then the change of burial custom from grave

18

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

circle to tholos tomb might seem to be one of the logical candidates. The other obvious archaeological phenomenon marking a significant change is the construction of the first fortification walls on the site in Late Helladic IIIA.111 During this same period in the rest of the Argolid, tholoi gradually ceased to be built, and the earlier wealth buried with the dead also diminished.112 Both the new tomb type and the construction of fortification walls seem to indicate the increasing power of the ruling elite at Mycenae, but whether they indicate the rule of a single, powerful wanax is not clear. The concept of kingship, in my opinion, probably evolved more slowly with each generation of kings gradually gaining increasing power. It may be that there are no visible signs in the archaeological record to mark the transformation from the leader or chief of the most prominent family to the powerful monarch of the people. The grave circles can be seen as the beginning of the concept of kingship, starting with a larger family group in Circle B which gradually diminished in numbers in Circle A. The construction of the first tholos tomb may perhaps be seen as the domination of a single family within this group. The construction of the first fortification wall on the citadel and the increasingly elaborate construction of the tholos tombs suggest that the power of the royal family expanded in Late Helladic IIIA. Their growing power and greater domination of their neighbors seems to have increased in Late Helladic IIIB as indicated by the expanding fortifications at Mycenae, the decline of the nearby site of Berbati,113 and the decreased wealth of the burial goods in neighboring areas.114 This gradually increasing power of the rulers of Mycenae suggests that the kingly power was ultimately based on accumulated wealth. The final evolution of a powerful monarchy, both at Mycenae and at the other major palatial centers, can be seen in the existence of the palaces with their throne rooms and extensive archives (as indicated by Pylos), surrounded by massive fortifications (at least at Tiryns and Mycenae). The extensions and elaborations of the fortifications that followed the initial construction at both Mycenae and Tiryns can be seen as indicative of the continuing power of the royal family. The existence of nine tholoi at Mycenae, however, seems to indicate that the beginning of the kingship started at Mycenae in the Late Helladic II period with construction of the first tholos115 and that this kingship continued to the end of the Mycenaean era at which time the tholoi ceased to be built. Although the evidence of the tombs clearly indicates that there was an elite, it has been argued that kingship did not exist in the earlier part of the Mycenaean period because remains of early palaces have not been found.116 It is true that palaces of this earlier period have not been uncovered at Mycenae or elsewhere on the Greek mainland, but it is equally true that houses of this same period at Mycenae have not been found and they are

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

19

rare on other sites. In the lowest strata below the later palace at Mycenae, scattered walls and assorted deposits of Middle Helladic sherds clearly indicate that Mycenae was inhabited in that period.117 Early strata have also been found under the palaces of Pylos and Tiryns.118 The excavations of the Panagia Houses, the West House, and the Plakes House at Mycenae have shown that the central core of these houses consisted of a main room with a central hearth, a room which is sometimes called a megaron.119 In front of the main room, there was a porch or vestibule opening onto an open area or courtyard. This same central core is also found in the palaces, which differ from the houses only in their complexity, grandeur, and size.120 On the Greek mainland, this architectural form began in the Middle Helladic period and continued, without sudden breaks or shifts, until the end of the Late Helladic III period. Whether some of the earlier scattered walls found within the citadel at Mycenae or under the other palace sites represent early palaces remains unknown.121 Because of the fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence, the existence or absence of a building which can be identified as a palace does not necessarily prove or disprove the existence of kingship in the earlier periods.122 The identification of a building as a palace, furthermore, can be problematical even in the later periods, if a site is badly preserved or if only a few buildings have been partially uncovered. Mouriatada is a good example of this problem. The excavator, S. Marinatos, identified a building on the top of the hill as a palace.123 Compared to the great palaces at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos, this dwelling seems insignificant. Compared to the private houses at Mycenae and elsewhere, however, it is a large, substantial structure which could have served as a modest palace of the local chief official. Since only two buildings were uncovered on the site and the second building was identified as a temple, it remains uncertain whether the whole site was unusually wealthy or whether the hilltop structure was in fact a modest palace. The main room of the dwelling at Mouriatada is 6.75 m by 8.75 m. These dimensions seem small when compared to the 11.50 m by 12.96 m of the main room in the palace of Pylos. Nevertheless, the dimensions seem sizable when compared to the main rooms in the West House (3.50 m by 5.40 m, Fig. 4), the Tsountas House (3.55 m by 4.00 m), Panagia House I (4.50 m by 5.40 m, Fig. 5), and Panagia House II (4.75 m by 5.50 m, Fig. 5).124 In later periods, palaces at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos give clear evidence for the existence of a monarch. Although the graves outside the Argolid do not illustrate so graphically the rise of a ruling family as they do at Mycenae, the very existence of the palaces is a clear indication that kingship in the Mycenaean period did develop in various areas of the Greek mainland. The palaces, at least at Mycenae and Tiryns, but possibly also at Pylos,125 were

20

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

surrounded by massive fortifications which once again indicate a warrior society.126 Weapons found in the Late Helladic chamber tombs indicate the continuation of a warrior society.127 This type of society would presumably have been led by a male figure who was also a mighty warrior. The traces of thrones found at Pylos and Tiryns suggest that the ruling family was led by an individual who was more powerful than the rest of the group. The preserved wall paintings are said to contradict this evidence, and the suggestion has been made that the thrones were not for a ruling male monarch but for a presiding priestess.128 Others have suggested that the palaces served predominantly as cult centers associated with the gods and their priests.129 The existence of a cult area as a separate unit from the palace at Mycenae,130 however, indicates that religious authority did not center entirely within the palaces. Some religious activity does appear to have taken place in the palaces, as indicated by the wall painting of a sacrifice and feasting in the throne room at Pylos,131 but throughout the ages some association between monarchs and religion has been a common characteristic of all governments. In the kingdom of Ugarit, the king had religious duties, but these were only one of his many obligations. Similar to Mycenae, the city of Ugarit had a palace which served as an administrative and political center combined with workshop areas and various storage facilities. In an entirely different area of the city stood the temples and the residence of the high priest. The bellicose nature of the paintings that decorated the walls of the palaces, furthermore, does not suggest religion as the primary concern of these buildings, despite the banqueting scene portrayed at Pylos.132 A building predominantly used for cultic purposes would not have featured scenes of battle in the main audience chamber at Mycenae,133 or scenes of hunting in the earlier and the later phases of the palace at Tiryns.134 Similar scenes were portrayed on the knives, rings, and grave stelai of the Shaft Grave era and of subsequent periods. The warlike nature of the society clearly is attested by the weapons found in both the earlier and later tombs.135 For years, the absence of scenes of warfare in Minoan art was taken to be an indication that a peaceful society dominated the island. This conclusion has now been questioned.136 It has been argued that the absence of certain subjects in the artistic tradition need not necessarily reflect the nature of the society.137 The decision to include various categories of subjects, however, should reflect the interests of the patrons. A society which was dominated by a religious ruler would be expected to emphasize religious art and not to have shown such an interest in the portrayal of warfare and hunting on its walls and its jewelry.138 The monumental form of the palaces with their axial arrangement of courtyard, entranceways, and hearth surrounded by columns has also been

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

21

cited as evidence for the primacy of cultic functions.139 This argument emphasizes the symbolic value of the hearth and the columns as elements of cult. The position of the throne facing the hearth is considered suggestive of the king’s guardianship of the hearth, hence the family and the future of both his household and the kingdom over which he ruled.140 Except for the throne, however, all these features on a smaller scale are reflected both in domestic architecture and in some of the cult buildings. The architectural form of all three types of buildings, moreover, can be traced back to the Middle Helladic apsidal house, and it is only the grandeur and larger scale of the palaces which set them apart from the other buildings.141 The cult buildings, themselves, are differentiated by the presence of large terracotta idols, religious installations such as built benches, hearths apparently built for sacrifices in the courtyards, and wall paintings of complex religious nature.142 The archaeological evidence by itself,143 in my opinion, does not support the supposition that the palaces served a predominantly religious function.144 On the other hand, the numerous tablets with their bureaucratic emphasis on economic concerns and the many storerooms in the Mycenaean palaces suggest that their public function was predominantly economic rather than religious.145 Paintings from the mainland do lack the royal iconography and religious dedicatory inscriptions found in Egyptian and Hittite art, which was one of the arguments used to support the idea of a ruling priestess.146 In the kingdom of Ugarit, where the tablets make clear that a hereditary, male monarch ruled, obvious depictions of royalty and royal inscriptions were also absent.147 This parallel makes it clear that the absence of royal art need not necessarily reflect the absence of a ruling family.148 The two grave circles at Mycenae seem to indicate that the family of the ruler was important, and it may be that this familial importance continued in the later periods and for that reason no individual ruler is shown as greater or more important than the others of his class. The absence of royal art in the Mycenaean world may also be understood to indicate that the semi-divine status of the Eastern kings and their overwhelming control of their society were simply not part of Greek Bronze Age culture.

D. The Extent of the King’s Control of the Economy How early and to what extent the rulers of the Mycenaean world controlled the economy remains uncertain.149 Since the decipherment of the Linear B tablets, there has been an increasing tendency to identify as palace adjuncts directly controlled by the palace administration any building which contained tablets and any structure of architectural importance.

22

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

The possibility of individual households having their own independent, economic concerns, only indirectly associated with the palace administration, is rarely considered as a viable alternative, even though a parallel for this type of division exists in the kingdom of Ugarit. The ability to keep records has often been considered a prerequisite for widespread control of an economic system.150 As a result of this attitude, discussions of Aegean prehistoric economy have been dominated largely by scholars who specialize in the study of the Linear B tablets and who often ignore the archaeological evidence not directly associated with the palaces. Some sort of record-keeping seems to have started as early as Late Helladic II when the first tholoi were being built at Mycenae. The use of seals in this period suggests that an effort was made to identify the source of objects.151 At this same time, Linear B script may have already been fully developed.152 Although Linear B is not necessarily royal, the use of this script and of seals suggests that as early as Late Helladic II the desire to keep fairly elaborate records already existed. Because of the detailed bureaucratic itemization on the preserved Linear B tablets, the question of palatial control of the economy has become a major issue in discussions of Mycenaean kingship. The great wealth of the grave circles at Mycenae suggests that the people buried in the shaft graves held a disproportionate amount of economic power, but it need not indicate that they completely dominated the economy of their period. Some palatial control of the economy in the later periods is reflected in the archaeological record by the numerous palace storerooms,153 workshop areas,154 and large construction projects, such as the fortification walls and the tholoi at Mycenae, which needed a large workforce. The power of the palace is also shown by the very dominance of the buildings themselves, which dwarf the surrounding structures. A survey of Mycenaean domestic architecture, however, reveals that many of these same elements that occur in the palaces are also found in the private houses, only on a smaller scale. Storerooms associated with the private houses are common and often quite extensive. Within the citadel of Mycenae, such storerooms were found in the houses south of Grave Circle A and in the basement of House M. Outside the citadel, they occur in the House of Lead, the Cyclopean Terrace Building, and the Panagia Houses.155 These storerooms indicate that large quantities of produce were stored in the houses and that the individual households were not entirely dependent on the palace economy. Large quantities of pottery were also found in some of these basement rooms, such as the Petsas House and the House of the Wine Merchant at Mycenae, and the “Potter’s Shop” at Zygouries.156 These deposits of pottery suggest that commercial activities were associated with some of the houses.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

23

An isolated work area, possibly representing a modest cottage industry, is suggested by the benches built in two of the basement rooms of Panagia House III.157 The concept of combining domestic architecture with commercial enterprise or cottage industry is usually not associated with the Mycenaean period, yet it is known that such a combination occurred in prehistoric Ugarit. In later periods of antiquity, this same combination occurred; it can be clearly demonstrated in the houses of the historic period built close to the Athenian Agora. The possibility that households in the Mycenaean period combined these two activities affects our understanding of the houses at Mycenae clustered together around the House of the Oil Merchant158 and the role of record keeping in Late Bronze Age Greece. The discovery of tablets and sealings in this group of buildings initially led to the suggestion that the entire complex was a palace adjunct and that the activities undertaken there were an extension of the palace economy.159 Tablets and sealings are most numerous in the palaces (if Pylos is used as an example),160 but they have also been found in other places which are not necessarily royal or royally controlled. Within the citadel at Mycenae, tablets were found in the area of the Citadel House and in the House of Columns (Fig. 3,R).161 A tablet was found in the Petsas House, (Fig. 3,M) northwest of the citadel, and another tablet was found earlier on the hill slope to the south of that house.162 A second Linear B tablet, sealings, and fragments of vases with Linear B inscriptions have recently been found in the Petsas House, according to the excavator S. Iakovidis. Sealings have been found on the slope above the House of the Wine Merchant (Fig. 3,T), in Panagia House II (Figs. 3,N and 5), and in the area of the Citadel House.163 Seal impressions, some with Linear B writing, stirrup jars with Linear B inscriptions, and traces of a workshop have been found at Midea.164 In the past decade, over four hundred Linear B tablets have been found at Thebes, and more continue to be found in areas which may not have been associated directly with the palace.165 At Tiryns, tablets were found in the lower citadel and graffiti written in Linear B were found on a variety of Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC sherds from scattered areas within the fortifications.166 The discovery of Linear B writing in such a variety of contexts, especially at Tiryns, in areas where they do not appear to be part of palatial archives suggests that writing had spread beyond the confines of the palace administration. The use of Linear B inscriptions on stirrup jars from Crete167 may also suggest that writing was not always limited to the administrative functions of the palaces and that people outside the palace hierarchy also used writing.168 Although this is not the current interpretation of these inscriptions, the limited number of jars so far identified and the widely scattered sites on which they have been found suggest that they represent trade outside the more narrow confines of a single (or possible double) Cretan

24

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

palace administration with which they are usually associated.169 Approximately 180 inscribed stirrup jars have been found at eight mainland sites (Mycenae, Tiryns, Midea, Eleusis, Kreusis, Orchomenos, Thebes, and Laconia) and four Cretan sites (Knossos, Chania, a cave site near Chania, and Malia).170 The most common type of inscription on these jars consists of a single name, either a personal name in the nominative or a place name. Another, smaller group of inscriptions consists of three words—a personal name in the nominative, a place name, and a second name in the genitive, similar to the “collector formula” of the Knossos sheep tablets.171 The first name in the Knossos sheep tablets is considered to be the person who raised the sheep, the place name indicates their location, and the second name is either the owner or the “collector” working on behalf of the palace. If these inscriptions had been used by the traders, this formula could be understood to represent the owner of the oil grove, the location of the grove, and the name of the trader. A parallel for traders adding special marks on jars can be found on Mycenaean vases with added Cypriot marks found on Cyprus, the Near East, Anatolia, Crete, Tiryns, and other scattered sites in the Argolid.172 Aeginetan potters also added identifying marks on their pottery, some of which were clearly produced for export.173 These two examples indicate that the concept of potters or traders adding special, identifying marks on trade items already existed in the prehistoric period. They form a clear parallel for the use of Linear B writing on stirrup jars as an addition used for trading purposes.174 If these jars formed part of the palace administration, it is difficult to understand why this information was placed on the jar itself rather than in the palace archives where other commodities received by the palace were recorded. Since these marks were painted on the jars before firing, their presence suggests a deliberate, predetermined objective. If the inscriptions had been added at the request of the palace administration, then it is peculiar that both the type of information and its placement on the jars varied. It is also somewhat mystifying why only a small proportion of the stirrup jars bore inscriptions and why a few were labeled with the adjective wanakteros, belonging to the king or wanax. These questions are more readily answered, however, if we assume that these stirrup jars were not related directly to the palaces, but that they were part of a limited mercantile venture by independent traders who wanted to authenticate the source in order to preserve the profit.175 Acting independently, the individual traders would have determined what they wished to have inscribed on the jars, thus accounting for the variations in the inscriptions. Since the number of traders was limited, this would account for the

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

25

relatively few inscribed jars compared to the much greater number of stirrup jars without inscriptions found in the excavations all over Greece and Crete. The relatively greater number of inscribed stirrup jars from Thebes would suggests the traders found a ready market there, possibly reflecting the fact that extensive olive groves do not appear to have been planted in this area of Greece during the prehistoric period. The complete absence of inscribed stirrup jars in Pylos, on the other hand, where there is evidence for extensive olive groves during the Bronze Age, suggests that the local oil industry was considered sufficient for their requirements, and there was no need for imported oil. Once the concept that the palaces had complete control of the collection and disbursement of all produce is discarded,176 the existence of a small group of literate traders most readily explains the presence of this group of inscribed stirrup jars from western Crete found at mainland sites. The addition of wanakteros on a few jars would then indicate that the traders got some of the olive oil from the palaces on Crete in addition to the oil received from the independent owners of the olive groves. If Linear B writing had already started as early as Late Helladic II, as suggested by J. Chadwick,177 then it would not be surprising to discover that by Late Helladic IIIB, the art of writing had spread into a variety of different areas within Mycenaean society. Chadwick also noted that there were an extraordinary number of scribal hands that could be identified at both Knossos and Pylos in comparison to the number of tablets preserved.178 According to Chadwick, one person alone could have written all the preserved tablets from either Knossos or Pylos in the space of a few weeks. The existence of such a large number of scribal hands led him to conclude that the writers of these tablets did not belong to the kind of scribal class known to have existed in the Near East. He suggested that these tablets were written by literate officials who undertook various duties including the writing of the tablets.179 Whether any of these officials can be identified with the named positions identified in the tablets has not yet been determined. Chadwick’s suggestion of literate officials is supported by the type of tablets inscribed by each of the people writing them.180 At Knossos, fiftyeight different people kept records on only one economic issue, whereas only four kept records on a wider variety of subjects. At Pylos, where the degree of specialization appears to have been less, roughly half of the scribes wrote on a variety of different subjects, whereas the other half wrote on a single subject. These numbers alone suggest the existence of a class of literate palace officials who undertook various functions, including the writing of some of the documents related to matters under their immediate supervision. Other officials, who were not as well trained in writing, may have used professional scribes to record their documents, thus accounting for some of those scribes who wrote on a wide variety of subjects. A third

26

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

group at Pylos, probably professional scribes rather than important palace officials, appear to have collated material from a variety of different sources into one document to be kept in the palace records.181 The numerous literate palace officials indicated by the identified scribal hands suggest that a large group of people within Mycenaean society was literate by the end of the Bronze Age. Linear B writing was also used on sealings,182 some still retaining the traces of elaborate seal-stone rings.183 The use of such rings on these sealings suggests a high status for some of the writers; this is appropriate for the identification of the palace officials as writers of the tablets. The use of sealings both with and without Linear B notations supports the possibility that the need to keep records and thus the desirability of literacy had also spread beyond the palaces. It has been observed that some of the sealings with Linear B writing appear to have been written by officials who were not actually in the palace at the time the sealings were made.184 These men, working away from the immediate confines of the palace, inevitably would have helped to spread the concept of writing to a wider group of people. It has also been noted185 that Linear B writing occurred on twenty-three of the approximately 147 sealings found at Pylos (or 15.65 percent). In Knossos, writing on sealings occurred on only roughly ten percent of the sealings. In one of the deposits at Thebes, writing was found on ninety-three percent of the sealings. This great difference in the percentages of inscribed sealings from these three different areas suggests that literate officials were using writing in a variety of different ways that probably reflected their own personal preferences and attitudes towards bookkeeping. Clay sealings consisting of a single seal impression, without the additional Linear B notation, are thought to have been used most commonly as a means of identifying either the object or its source.186 If the palaces controlled the economy, it is understandable that sealings were found amid their remains, but it is hard to understand why they were also found in private houses, such as Panagia House II. In this house, three sealings without any additional Linear B writing, made from two different seals, were found in one of the storerooms amid the debris of storage containers. Manufactured goods or food produced by the family and stored in this room did not need identification. The same holds true if all other goods came from a centralized distribution area controlled by the palace. In this type of situation, all goods not produced by the family were easily recognizable, and the palace would have been immediately known as their source. The situation, however, was far more complicated if the produce and goods came from a variety of sources such as the household itself, other households and independent commercial areas, or the palace. If more than one source had

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

27

been used for goods produced outside the family, then the need to identify that source would have resulted in the use of sealings within the private houses. The discovery of these sealings in private settings suggests that goods brought into the households came from a variety of sources which were not associated exclusively with the palace economy. If the writing of Linear B tablets and the use of clay sealings are no longer associated solely with the palace administration, then the discovery of tablets and sealings in the houses clustered together around the House of the Oil Merchant no longer justifies their identification as palace adjuncts. The architectural phases and plans suggest that these buildings were private and predominantly domestic. These structures were built in sequence: the West House first and the others added in succession. This sequence suggests a family compound which had been gradually enlarged. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the Panagia Houses (Fig. 5). The sequence of Panagia House I, followed by Panagia Houses II and III can be clearly demonstrated by their locations, their plans, and the presence or absence of party walls.187 When the earthquake damaged the Panagia Houses, Panagia House I was left in ruins, but Panagia House II appears to have been immediately restored and a new room (Room 20) added to the original structure. At this same time or soon after, two rooms to its west (Rooms 10 and 11) were abandoned. The area abandoned by House II was incorporated into House III by the construction of a doorway (between Room 10 and Room 31) leading from the basement of Panagia House III into the new addition. The additions and subtractions in these houses suggest a family unit with one house extending into the area of another as families enlarged or contracted due to marriages, births, or deaths. The sequence of one house built next to another, furthermore, suggests a family unit that contained siblings sharing the family property. It mirrors the type of kinship reflected in the grave circles, which emphasized family association and fitness to rule. It suggests that the wealth and the power of the family were shared by the siblings, possibly in unequal portions.188 The clustering together of groups of tombs both at Mycenae and Prosymna189 reflects a similar emphasis on the family and suggests that the family groups were an important component in the organization of the community. In the area of the House of the Oil Merchant (Fig. 4), the West House and the House of Shields were built first, followed by the House of the Oil Merchant and finally the House of Sphinxes.190 The association of these houses into a unified group is indicated by the repetition of some of the same names on tablets found in adjacent houses.191 In this group, the House of Shields appears to have been a warehouse or work area; this is suggested by its plan showing a pair of long, parallel, undifferentiated

28

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

rooms without interior supports. The other three buildings appear to have served as habitations, as is indicated by their plans. Numerous remains of Mycenaean domestic architecture have been found, but most of these remains consisted of basement storerooms.192 It was not until the 1950s and 1960s that the excavations of the West House and Panagia House I revealed the clear outlines of the main living area of a Mycenaean house.193 This plan consists of a main room with central hearth, a vestibule which is sometimes accompanied by a porch, and an open area or a courtyard in the front arranged along a single axis. Parallel to the main axis of the house lies a corridor with a series of secondary rooms opening off it.194 The basement rooms of the House of the Oil Merchant and the House of Sphinxes also conform to this plan (Fig. 4). The corridor and secondary rooms are clear in the basements of these houses. In the House of the Oil Merchant, the main room containing a central hearth with vestibule and courtyard in front possibly stood in the western half where a wide terrace lies today at a higher level than the preserved basement rooms.195 These same units can be restored above the basement rooms in the eastern part of the House of Sphinxes.196 The house plan reflected in three of the four structures of this area clearly demonstrates the domestic nature of these buildings. Their domestic use is confirmed by the large quantities of everyday pottery found within them. If these buildings were built as palace adjuncts, then it is difficult to understand why so many government officials were housed within a single compound. Although some of the details are still not clear,197 the obvious domestic function of these buildings supports their identification as private houses. The fourth building in the complex, the so-called House of Shields, has a plan which separates it from the three houses and identifies it as a building with a specialized, commercial purpose. The southern part of the building contains two large, parallel rooms roughly 17 m in length and 5.50 m in width. The absence of any internal supports in these unusually wide rooms suggests that the building did not contain an upper level. The west room has a bench along its west wall and a partially preserved clay floor. Entrance into the two rooms appears to have been from the north, where there is a third room, 11.50 m from east to west by 5.50 m from north to south. A wall running north from the north wall suggests that the building originally continued in this direction. A Hellenistic construction over this north area obscured the remainder of the plan. This type of plan recalls the storage and work areas at Gla. The absence of domestic pottery and the vast quantities of ivory inlays, stone vases, and pieces of faience found within this structure help to confirm its identification as a commercial area. At Gla, where large storage areas were built in the Late Helladic IIIB period (Fig. 6), the architectural form of some of these structures is similar

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

29

to the plan of the House of Shields.198 This similarity can perhaps be seen most clearly in the eastern building of the large central compound (Building K, Fig. 7). This building had two very long rooms (K 2 and K 4, 25 m and 32 m in length) with smaller rooms on either side for additional storage or work areas. This part of the complex was entered from the central courtyard on the west by way of two sizable ramps (7.72 m x 5.75 m and 5.12 m x 4.10 m). The ramps facilitated the movement of large quantities of goods which were to be stored within the building. To the north of the storerooms were additional groups of rooms which served as work areas (N) and as the residence (M) of the official supervising the unit. These were clearly differentiated from the main storage areas, not only by their size and plan, but also by their means of access which was from the east rather than the west. In this building, the division between storage and habitation is clear, and only one unit was used for domestic purposes. Within the citadel at Mycenae, the plan of the palace workshop also differed from the type of plan associated with the houses.199 A long narrow courtyard (averaging 2.50 m in width and roughly 19 m in length) stood in the center of this structure (Fig. 8c). On either side lay a narrow corridor (averaging 2 m in width) leading to a series of rooms arranged along one side of each corridor (Fig. 8, w1–9). These rooms are approximately equal in size (6.60 m in depth and just under 5 m in width). Traces of a stairway indicate that the building originally contained an upper floor level (Fig. 8e). The plan of this upper level has been restored with a colonnade over the basement corridors facing the courtyard and a second series of rooms opening off the colonnade. The upper level appears to have been the working area of the establishment while the lower level was used for storage. The area of habitation, the House of Columns, lies to the east of the workshop. It forms a separate unit which is quite distinct from the workshop. Both had their own specialized plans which reflected their different functions. The basement rooms, lying east of the courtyard used by the workshop (Fig. 8, w1–4), were shared with the House of Columns, as indicated by the preserved doorways. This shared interest in the basement rooms suggests that the two parts of the structure had other shared interests. In the complex of the House of the Oil Merchant, a similar division can be seen between the commercial area of the House of Shields and the domestic plans of the three houses. Even though these three houses were predominantly domestic, the division between commercial and domestic areas was not absolute. Similar to the House of Columns, these houses also shared in some of the commercial activities associated with the House of Shields. This is indicated by the many ivory inlays, the wide assortment of clay vases, some of them in sealed containers, and various inscribed Linear B tablets found within the buildings. The great quantity of these objects

30

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

appears to be in excess of the domestic needs of the inhabitants. Their number suggests that they were brought here for trade. Some, such as the terracotta pots, appear to have been manufactured elsewhere. Other objects, such as those using the ivory inlay, may have been partially assembled on the site. The diversity of objects suggests that they came from a variety of different sources. The finds are quite different from the agricultural produce which is mentioned in the tablets; these include herbs, spices, oil, wool, figs, wine, barley, and wheat. The variety and quantity of the agricultural items suggest locally raised produce,200 probably on a nearby family estate owned by the inhabitants of these houses. Some of this produce would, no doubt, have been consumed by the inhabitants themselves; other portions of it might have been exchanged for services rendered.201 If the men living in these houses worked directly for the palace, it is difficult to understand why they undertook such diverse enterprises. Transactions in wool202 and olive oil bear no direct relationship to the manufacture of inlaid ivory furniture or to the collections of carved stone vases and terracotta pots. It is also unexpected that the tablets did not document the transactions of ivory and carved stone vases, if these had been collected here on behalf of the palace. The plans of the houses, their history of gradual expansion, and the use of the same laborers suggest a family complex. The accumulated evidence of the Linear B records, combined with the objects found in the buildings, gives the impression of wool and oil raised on the family estate being manufactured into cloth to produce a profit, which in turn was invested in luxury items, creating an even bigger profit. As part of a family compound, these buildings can be understood to be the family’s urban habitations built near the center of power and wealth. They served as the family’s administrative headquarters and as a holding area for objects accumulated for trade. At the same time, they contained produce received from the family estate, which was needed to feed the family and their dependents. Under its authority, the family supervised the country estate combined with a shared family industry and commercial enterprises. These structures housed related family members as well as dependents of lesser rank, such as scribes, the specialized workers in ivory, and possibly some wool workers. This type of complex can be seen as a forerunner, or possibly even a contemporary, of the oikos, the family unit which Finley saw as central to the life of the Homeric epics.203 Although it might at first seem surprising to suggest that the oikos system already existed in the Mycenaean period, it has been suggested that the Mycenaean king controlled a large oikos, which included his related family members and also other, non-related people who were under his control and protection.204 Whether this group of houses at Mycenae is considered an oikos or not, the plans and interrelationships of

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

31

the buildings clearly bespeak a family group, who shared common economic interests which made them independent of their neighbors and separated them from the palace economy.205 The identification of these houses as a family complex helps to explain the reason they were not rebuilt after their destruction by an earthquake in the middle of Late Helladic IIIB.206 Although the palace and the fortifications were repaired,207 these houses were left abandoned. If they had been palace adjuncts, it is to be expected that they would have been repaired at the same time as the other parts of the citadel. If they had been a family complex, on the other hand, the palace would not have been as concerned with reconstructing these edifaces. It is quite understandable that the family, after losing such a great deal of its investment in ivories, stone vases, and other costly objects, retreated to its estate and a simpler, less competitive rural life. The classification of these houses clustered around the House of the Oil Merchant as an economic unit separated from that of the palace suggests that there existed other, similar groups. At Mycenae, the Petsas House in Late Helladic IIIA and the House of the Wine Merchant in Late Helladic IIIB may be representatives of other such units. The Panagia Houses, more modest in their furnishing and smaller in scale, could represent yet a third tier within the economic hierarchy. Still another powerful segment of the economy seems to have been controlled by the priests and priestesses, as indicated by the areas for the manufacture of goods associated with the sanctuaries.208 These various groups in the society can be seen as secondary and tertiary tiers within the economy.209 Each of these units probably included family members as well as unrelated people (as indicated by the names in the tablets from the complex of the House of the Oil Merchant) and possibly, in larger households, various slaves. Working together, they helped to bolster the economic prosperity and power of their own family group, helping to create a surplus which was traded with other groups within the community. Exchange of goods between different households and religious groups served to unite them into one society. Since coinage did not exist, all exchange must have been in the form of barter; that is to say, specific goods were exchanged for other specific goods whose source was sometimes identified by sealings attached to the goods. As a consequence, the free and continuous redistribution of goods must have become an important factor in the stability and economic growth of the kingdom. The continuing need for the redistribution of goods undoubtedly served to encourage the different groups to work with each other and with the palace. Patronage by the palace, as the single largest economic unit, would have inevitably become a powerful political tool in this kind of society. It

32

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

could have been used to strengthen the economic and political status of individual groups, such as those clustered together around the House of the Oil Merchant.210 Such patronage served to increase loyalty to the palace, which in turn helped to strengthen the economic power base held by the palace. Palace patronage might have been in the form of land grants, as suggested by scholars studying the Linear B tablets,211 but it could also have taken the form of direct exchange of goods, such as kylikes212 or obsidian.213 In order to maintain its position of authority, the palace would have needed the help of many individuals. These probably included family members and others of high rank who were no longer associated with their original family groups, craftsmen, and other individuals with special skills, hired soldiers or military personnel, and numerous slaves. These men associated with the palace needed to work closely together with the other economic units in order to maintain the continuous flow of goods. Contact with other palace centers, through intermarriage or exchange of skilled personnel and specialized goods, helped to broaden the political interest and power of the palaces. At the same time, such contacts helped to create a homogeneous culture of shared artistic ideas, religious concepts, and, presumably, heroic oral traditions. The working of obsidian and the production of pottery as industries separate from the palace has been suggested by the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project.214 Their collection of obsidian chips from various sites in the area of Pylos indicated that the working of obsidian occurred in various regions isolated from the palace. They suggested that this work was done on a local level and that the palace had no interest in this industry. Their study of the ceramics they collected also showed that a variety of different centers produced pottery. This led them to conclude that the pottery industry was another sector of the economy which may have been independent of the palace.215 In other regions of the Greek mainland, isolated areas for the production of pottery have also been located. In Boeotia, at least two different centers for the production of pottery have been identified.216 At Midea, local characteristics in the pottery have been identified which do not have parallels in the pottery groups from Mycenae or Tiryns.217 A separate pottery center for Midea seems indicated. At Berbati, a kiln was found, indicating the production of pottery on that site.218 These different workshops and kilns for the production of pottery suggest an industry separate from the palace centers and possibly independent of palatial control. The latest interpretation of the bronze tablets from Pylos, discussed below, seems to indicate that the bronze workers were another group of people who were partially independent of the palaces.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

33

E. The Palaces It has been argued elsewhere that the palaces were merely grander and more elaborate replicas of the private houses; they differed architecturally from the private houses only in their larger scale and duplication of rooms.219 Wall paintings decorated the palaces, but they were also found in private houses and other buildings.220 Both palaces and private houses had a large, central room dominated by a free-standing hearth, sometimes flanked by columns.221 Corridors leading to additional rooms and to stairways for access to rooms on the upper floors occur in both, usually a single one in the private houses222 and often two or more in the palaces.223 The storerooms associated with the palaces merely represent on a grander scale the storerooms of the individual houses. The existence of storerooms in both the palaces and the private houses implies a mixed economy only partially controlled by the palace. The greater size of these storage facilities in the palace indicates their control of a larger proportion of the economy, compared to the smaller proportion controlled by the individual house owners. It has been said that the four columns surrounding the hearths were a characteristic of the Mycenaean palaces.224 The use of four columns, in my opinion, simply reflects the greater size of these rooms in the palace and not a different architectural concept from the ordinary houses. The width of rooms in the Mycenaean period was conditioned by the roof spans made possible by the available timber. Spans greater than five meters are rare in domestic architecture.225 For greater stability, any room with a dimension greater than ten meters in the Mycenaean period needed two interior columns in order to span the room.226 In the palaces at Tiryns (Fig. 9), Mycenae (Fig. 10), and Pylos (Fig. 11), both length and width of the central rooms are equal to or greater than ten meters. In order to span both width and length, four interior columns were necessary. An indication that the use of four columns was dictated by the roof spans of the individual rooms can be seen in the Late Helladic IIIC reconstruction of the megaron at Tiryns.227 The original, much wider megaron had four columns arranged in a square around the hearth (Fig. 9). When the megaron was reconstructed in the Late Helladic IIIC period, the position of the old east wall was retained. The west wall was moved roughly four meters to the east into a position that lies just east of the original western interior columns. The new, narrower megaron was built with a single row of columns in place of the original four columns arranged in a square. The position of the rebuilt west wall adjacent to the position of the original interior western columns reduced the roof spans of the megaron and allowed a single row of columns to be used for spanning the interior. In order to compensate for the lost space of the western section of the original megaron, the dividing wall between the

34

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

original megaron and its anteroom was removed, thus making the new megaron longer. The earlier palace at Tiryns appears to have been destroyed by an earthquake. Earthquakes also had severely damaged the nearby sites of Mycenae and Midea. The narrower plan of the Late Helladic IIIC megaron at Tiryns may possibly have been a response to an earthquake. A roof span supported by a single column placed between two lateral walls would have been more secure than a roof span supported by two lateral walls and two intervening columns. Continued concern for stability can also be seen in the second phase of the rebuilt megaron at Tiryns. The original row of columns had been placed 4.40 and 5.40 m apart, but later this distance was narrowed to 2.90 and 3.50 m.228 The reduction of the space between the columns can be seen as another indication that the change in the placement of columns was primarily a response to structural considerations rather than a reflection of changes in ritual or some other consideration.229 In the archaeological record, there are two important characteristics in the palaces, apart from their size and complexity, which appear to mark them as royal. The most obvious is the existence of the throne, the special chair for the reigning monarch.230 The other, perhaps less obvious but equally important, is the duplication of the megaron. This duplication occurs in all three of the major, excavated palaces,231 and this is one of the elements which was immediately lost when the palaces fell.232 K. Kilian suggested that the double megara in the palaces represented two parallel administrative systems, one male and the other female.233 The great difference in size of the two megara at Pylos (Fig. 11) and Tiryns (Fig. 9), plus the absence of any trace of a throne in the smaller megaron at Pylos, makes this identification dubious. Moreover, the smaller megaron at Pylos had been converted into a work area in the last phase of the palace.234 Such a conversion would not have been viable if this room had been the seat of a parallel administrative system. The second megaron at both Tiryns, and to a lesser extent at Pylos, is located in a section of the palace which was not easily accessible from the central courtyard and the more obvious public areas of the palace. This location suggests that it was used for more intimate, family gatherings in contrast to the more formal, public functions which took place in the main megaron.235 Such a distinction between the private and public sectors of a building, which served as both the seat of the government and the habitation of the ruler, is a natural division which might be expected in a palace but not in a private, more modest residence. Thrones associated with a ruling monarch are not surprising. The reference to the throne on which Alkinoös sat in his palace in the Land of the Phaiakians, which is mentioned in the Odyssey,236 may not seem very significant. The position of Alkinoös’ throne in a room with a central hearth

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

35

surrounded by columns does, nevertheless, have an exact parallel to the position of the thrones found at both Pylos and Tiryns.237 Perhaps much more significant is the observation that in the Odyssey the plural of megaron was used to indicate a palace. References made to women, wives, parents, and children being left in the megara always use “megaron” in the plural, indicating that the entire palace was intended and not a specific room within it.238 People were said to reach old age in the megara, again with megaron in the plural.239 When people lived,240 died,241 wept,242 were honored or dishonored,243 cared for,244 remained steadfast,245 endured,246 or were tested247 in the megara, the plural form of megaron occurred. In the Iliad, Lykaon was said to have kept his chariots and horses in the megara, in the plural.248 The megara (plural) were also said to have housed the horses raised by Aineias.249 Presumably, these references to the megara of Lykaon and Aineias meant that the chariots and the horses were kept somewhere within the palace, but surely not the main room of the palace with its central hearth. Stables associated with the palaces have not been identified in the archaeological remains, but their existence is indicated in the epics. In the Iliad, a stable associated with Priam’s palace was implied in the description of the wagon being prepared for the ransom of Hector’s body.250 In the Odyssey, when Telemachos reached the palace of Menelaos in Sparta, a separate area for the horses was clearly indicated.251 This use of the plural of megara for the palace as a whole is different from the use of megaron in the singular. In the singular form, the word referred to a specific room where specific actions took place. In the Odyssey, Penelope told the disguised Odysseus that on the following day he was to sit beside Telemachos in the megaron (singular).252 Penelope was not referring to the palace as a whole, but to a specific room within the palace. Upon awakening, after spending the night in the palace, Odysseus took up his bedding and placed it on a chair in the megaron (singular).253 He put his bedding on a specific chair in a specific room. When Penelope decided to confront the suitors, she went to the megaron (singular).254 All three of these actions took place in the palace, but the use of the singular form of megaron was meant to indicate a specific room within the palace and not the palace as a whole.255 In the Odyssey, apart from the palaces, the only habitation which was described in any detail was the farmhouse of the shepherd Eumaios. Similar to the private houses found in the archaeological excavations, his dwelling had a megaron, but only in the singular form. It also had a hearth, a vestibule, and a courtyard,256 those same elements which occur in the remains of the private houses of the Mycenaean period, both large and small.257 The use of the same architectural terms for both the farmhouse of Eumaios and for the palaces in the oral tradition no longer needs to be explained as a

36

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

mistake in the tradition258 but can be seen as a direct reflection of the architecture of the Mycenaean period. Another problem concerning the architecture in the epics can also be explained by the archaeological record. Since the days of Aristarchus, the question has been asked how Penelope in her thalamos could have been aware of the actions of the suitors who were banqueting below in the megaron.259 The identification of the sleeping chamber in Panagia House I at Mycenae (Fig. 5) necessitates the reconstruction of a window or opening high in the wall separating the main room with central hearth below from that of the thalamos on the floor above.260 The high ceiling in the main room permitted communications to occur between the lower level of the main room and the upper level of the sleeping chamber. The location of this room tells us how Penelope could be aware of the actions of the suitors, but it also informs us why Athena so often caused Penelope to fall into a deep sleep whenever anything happened within the palace which was to be kept hidden from Penelope. The reconstruction of Panagia House I included space below the sleeping chamber for a second thalamos, a thalamos for storage, similar to those found in the epics.261 The similarities between the palaces and houses described in the epics and those revealed in the archaeological remains of the Mycenaean period262 suggest that the oral tradition does in some aspects reflect the Mycenaean culture.263 Scholars who wish to separate the oral tradition from the Bronze Age increasingly emphasize the concept that society is simply not interested in a distant past which is perceived as having no meaning to contemporary audiences.264 This attitude may be true of certain elements of society, both ancient and modern, but it ignores a whole segment of ancient literature, as exemplified by Pindar’s Odes, in which the present was given added importance and meaning by comparing the current event to a similar, well-known event of the past. The device of using “mythological exempla” as a guide for present behavior had already been used by the poet of the Iliad.265 The continued importance attached to the past in the fifth century can be seen in the histories of both Herodotus and Thucydides, who related earlier events which they thought had taken place in the distant past. In the next century Alexander the Great was so attached to the Iliad, that he took a copy of it with him on his campaign against Persia.266 The continuing popularity of the Homeric epics during the following centuries is made clear by the numbers of ancient papyri found in Egypt.267 The constant repetition of past events portrayed by the sculpture on the temples and in the vase paintings is another testament to an enduring interest. Interest in the past can be documented in written literature and in the artistic representations. This suggests that a similar interest existed in the earlier periods before writing became widespread. If, in the eighth century where most

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

37

scholars place these epics, there existed no interest in the past, then it is difficult to understand why the bards did not simply sing of the latest frontier foray of the local community,268 instead of singing about a battle that purported to have taken place in the more distant past.269 The question which needs to be asked is not whether an interest in the past existed, but whether the oral tradition was able to remember that past with any degree of accuracy. The importance of Mycenae and Pylos as major centers, reflected in both the Iliad and Odyssey, has been verified by the excavations of the Late Bronze Age levels of both sites. Other memories of this period have also been identified,270 and a linguistic continuity has been demonstrated.271 In a study of Mycenaean kingship, it is legitimate to ask whether the oral tradition also retained a coherent remembrance of Mycenaean kingship and the transfer of power from one generation to the next. The conclusions concerning kingship in the Mycenaean period drawn from the archaeological record, however, must first be compared to the evidence of the written records of the Linear B tablets.

II

The Evidence of the Linear B Tablets

One of the most important conclusions to be drawn from the decipherment of the Linear B tablets is that they were written in an early form of the Greek language. This language is different from that used for the Linear A tablets from Crete. Although this has been known for over a half century, the archaeological, linguistic, and historical significance of this linguistic continuity has been frequently neglected. Scholars who had long maintained that the Minoans and Mycenaeans were the same people could no longer argue that the two cultures were identical. The significance of two different ethnic groups at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, one inhabiting the Greek mainland and the other Crete, has been only slowly accepted by archaeologists working on Crete. Of even greater significance is that the Mycenaeans were ethnically and linguistically related to the Greeks of the historical period. The continuation of the same language enhances the possibility that some remembrances of the earlier prehistoric period were retained in the oral traditions of the historic period. Scholars studying the Linear B tablets have primarily focused on the meaning of individual words and on the organization of the land, labor force, and bureaucratic administration. This detailed concentration initially created a disproportionate emphasis on the economy of the period.272 It led to the belief that the king completely dominated both the economy and

40

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

the society of Late Bronze Greece, similar to the monolithic economies and societies usually associated with the empires of the Egyptians and the Hittites.273 The majority of the tablets were found associated with palaces, and consequently they reflect the economy of the palaces, which is not necessarily the same as the economy of the rest of society.274 This one-sided documentation of the economy has created problems in the interpretation of the tablets and in our understanding of the extent of economic control held by the palace and the king. Only by implication do the tablets reveal information concerning the political structure of the Mycenaean kingdoms and the relationship of the king to other members of his society. This concentrated study of specific, individual problems, which by necessity dominated the early study of the tablets, also obscured the many parallels to be found in the tablets, the epic tradition, and the archaeological remains. When it was realized that the tablets were in an early form of Greek, such parallels were initially discussed. It was immediately noted, for example, that the chariots listed in the “Armoury Tablets” from Knossos were stored without their wheels; chariots were stored in the same way in the Iliad.275 The subject matter of the oral tradition, however, is different from that of the written tablets. Scholars began to emphasize their perceived differences and to neglect their similarities.276 After the many advances that have been made in deciphering the tablets during the last decades, the separation of the world of the tablets and the society of the oral tradition needs to be re-examined. Even though problems in interpreting the tablets still remain, it can be demonstrated that they do contain important reflections of the epic tradition. One of the problems concerns gaps in the records. The absence of tablets detailing the judicial system has frequently been mentioned. In the tablets, however, a controversy over land held by the priestess Eritha (E-ri-ta) was documented,277 which indicates that a recognized system for settling disputes associated in some way with the palace did, in fact, exist. Unfortunately, this tablet does not make clear the king’s role in this controversy. Another gap can be demonstrated in the tablets from Pylos concerning chariots.278 In these tablets, chariot wheels were itemized, but the chariot bodies, which were to be used with the wheels, were not recorded. A separate set of tablets listing the chariot bodies must have once existed. There is clear evidence that Linear A records at Kato Zakro were kept on perishable material,279 and it seems logical to suppose that the Mycenaeans, who had adopted writing from the Minoans, also used perishable material for some of their records.280 The disintegration of some of these records may account, in part, for the omission of certain subjects, such as foreign affairs, which are prominent in the Near Eastern archives but conspicuously absent in the Linear B tablets.281

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

41

The excavated Linear B tablets are relatively few; they come from widely scattered sites and consist of fairly short texts.282 Tablets which can be identified as belonging to the palatial archives of Mycenae and Tiryns have not been positively identified. Tablets from Athens and Sparta, which appear to have been important Mycenaean centers, have not yet been found. Whether the tablets from Thebes are part of the palatial records or whether they belong to another type of archives remains uncertain.283 Other problems concern the exact meaning of some of the Linear B words and the significance of the information recorded.284 Also missing from the tablets is the role and identification of the queen and of the king’s children. The various problems that still remain in the interpretation of the Linear B tablets should lead us to be cautious in accepting conclusions drawn solely from the tablets. This chapter tries to emphasize those conclusions that can be confirmed by the archaeological evidence and then compare them to the information reflected in the epics. Conclusions that cannot be confirmed by the archaeological evidence,285 or are not directly related to the oral tradition, are considered in less detail.

A. The King The decipherment of Linear B revealed that the ruler of the society in the Late Bronze Age was called the wanax (wa-na-ka).286 The use of this same word for the king in both the Iliad and the Odyssey was immediately recognized when the tablets were first deciphered.287 In the historical period, the term wanax was no longer used to designate the king but was reserved for the gods alone. Under the influence of M.I. Finley, the importance of this information has been largely ignored. The use of the same word to identify the ruler suggests that some association does exist between the society portrayed in the Iliad and the Odyssey and the society revealed by the tablets. The extent of these similarities becomes evident through a constant juxtaposition of the information provided by the tablets, the archaeological record, and the epic tradition. By utilizing all three types of evidence, it is possible to reconstruct some of the duties and roles of the wanax in Late Bronze Age society. Wanax occurs in thirteen different Linear B documents—one from Knossos, one from Thebes, and the remainder from Pylos.288 The word wanax is always in the singular, without qualification or other identification, implying that there was only one wanax in any given area. The masculine form of the word identifies this ruler as male. The position of the wanax as more powerful than others in his society was originally suggested by the size of his land called a temenos listed in one of

42

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

the Linear B tablets from Pylos.289 The king’s temenos was three times the size of that of the lawagetas (ra-wa-ke-ta), who is considered to be the second most powerful leader. In the same tablet, three telestai (te-re-ta) held plots of land equal to that of the lawagetas, and thus they must also have held positions of some importance. In later periods, enclosed areas of land called temene were religious areas, sacred either to the gods or to great heroes of the past. In the Iliad and the Odyssey, temene referred to religious areas as well as lands held by the king or other important individuals.290 Other segments of land listed in the tablets were controlled by the damos, the sanctuaries, private individuals,291 and craftsmen. The division of land among various elements of the society suggests that the power and wealth was also divided and not solely controlled by the wanax and the palace administration. Buildings that were not royal have been identified among the Mycenaean remains,292 and the storage areas associated with these structures indicate some degree of independence from the palace. The greater size of the palace, compared to the other dwellings found, suggests greater wealth held by the king. The existence of a wealthy group of inhabitants is clear in the number of large Mycenaean tombs filled with precious goods. In the two epics, individuals of substance were mentioned who did not hold the title of wanax. In the Iliad, Tydeus, the father of Diomedes, was described as living in a rich house and having many wheat fields, orchards, and numerous sheep, but he was never identified as a wanax.293 In the Odyssey, the suitors courting Penelope were also men of affluence, as indicated by the presents they gave her.294 The suitors occasionally were identified as basileis but never as wanax. Although others in the community had achieved a certain level of affluence, the greater power of the wanax is indicated clearly in the Odyssey by the fact that so many suitors were seeking to replace the absent Odysseus. References to a wanax in tablets from Pylos, Thebes, and Knossos suggest three separate kingdoms and, by analogy, separate kingdoms in other parts of the Mycenaean world.295 Major palaces have been excavated at Pylos, Mycenae, Thebes, and Tiryns.296 Both the Iliad and Odyssey include mention of numerous kingdoms. During the later part of the Bronze Age, the Mycenaean domination of Knossos is indicated by the use of the Greek language in the Linear B tablets from that site,297 implying that the wanax at Knossos was also Mycenaean. In the Iliad, an Achaian by the name of Idomeneus was identified as a separate ruler from Crete.298 In Near Eastern texts, a ruler of some importance in the Mycenaean world called the king of Ahhiyawa was acknowledged by the rulers of the Near East and Egypt.299 The correspondence between the rulers gives the impression that there was a single Mycenaean king who was very powerful, far more powerful than any single Mycenaean king recognizable in the archaeological

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

43

record.300 It may be that the Hittite king overestimated the power of the Mycenaean ruler, but it seems far more likely that he was simply using extravagant terms in order to flatter the lesser monarch and gain his cooperation.301 The many references in the Hittite records to the trouble caused by the people of Ahhiyawa, however, indicate a kingdom of some importance that needs to be located. As more of the sites mentioned in the Hittite documents are identified, the likelihood increases that the kingdom of Ahhiyawa must have been located somewhere within the Mycenaean sphere. The most powerful Mycenaean kingdom in the archaeological record appears to have been Mycenae itself, and it may be that the king of Mycenae should be identified as the king of Ahhiyawa. References in the Iliad and Odyssey to the great wealth of Agamemnon and the extent of his kingdom also help to support the identification of Mycenae as the center of the kingdom of Ahhiyawa. The large extent of the kingdom under control of Mycenae, and the early date of this extended kingdom suggested by the date of the Near Eastern texts, had not been anticipated by the archaeological record alone. The extent of the kingdom of Pylos had also not been anticipated before the decipherment of the Linear B tablets. By the time the palace fell, the area under the jurisdiction of the wanax at Pylos was widespread, as indicated by the many place names mentioned in the tablets.302 The numerous places mentioned in the tablets from Knossos suggest that this was also true at Knossos303 and thus probably of the other kingdoms of the Mycenaean period. The elaborate bookkeeping undertaken by the palace authorities suggests that numerous areas and responsibilities fell under palace control. A hint of the bureaucratic hierarchy and the king’s administrative responsibilities is given by a tablet from Pylos that records the appointment of Augewas as the damokoro.304 The appointment of such an official was presumably one way in which the wanax was able to confer positions of power and wealth on others in the kingdom and increase his own political power. Archaeological evidence for such control is difficult to document, but at Mycenae it is indicated by the extensive road system, the declining prosperity of the nearby site of Berbati, and the construction of later tholoi only at Mycenae and not at other nearby sites. At Thebes, the extensive Mycenaean remains, some of which appear to be palatial, and many Linear B tablets indicate a separate kingdom. During the Late Helladic IIIB period in Boeotia, the construction of the capacious storage areas at Gla suggests some kind of central authority, but its extent remains uncertain. Attempts to drain the marshy areas of the Copaic Lake surrounding Gla and the construction of a large tholos at Orchomenos point to this same central authority and suggest a fairly large area dominated by a single ruler.305 The very rich tholos tomb found at Vapheio306 and the elaborate Late Helladic II house in the Menelaion near Sparta307 imply that another Mycenaean kingdom was

44

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

located in the Laconian plain. The cyclopean fortifications on the Acropolis in Athens and the rich Late Helladic IIIA tombs found in the area of the later Agora308 point to yet another Mycenaean center. Indications of extensive Mycenaean kingdoms encompassing scattered towns and villages are to be found in the epics. In the Catalogue of Ships,309 various kingdoms were described as having a central city that dominated a large geographic region with many towns. Without the evidence of the tablets, these broad areas described in the epic poems could have been discounted as exaggeration. This same Catalogue retains a trace of an earlier period when the area controlled by the wanax was not so extensive. In the entry said to have been controlled by Agamemnon, there is a reference to an area called Sikyon, where in the days of old Adrestos had been king.310 This passage suggests that Sikyon once had been independent and had been ruled by its own king; later, by the time of the Trojan War, it had become part of the kingdom of Agamemnon.311 The kingdom of Pylos, said to have been ruled by Nestor in the epics, also consisted of various cities, towns, and a broad expanse of countryside. The wealth of this kingdom is indicated by the ninety ships led by Nestor in the Catalogue of Ships and by Nestor’s golden shield, whose fame reached to the heavens.312 In the Odyssey when Telemachos arrived at Pylos, he found a sacrifice to Poseidon being held on the seashore.313 There were nine groups of people, and each group was sacrificing nine bulls. The large number of people and sacrificial animals is once again indicative of great wealth in this kingdom. In the Iliad, Nestor is said to have led people from nine places,314 and nine names are listed in the tabulations of the Pylos tablets.315 Although the names of the places listed differ slightly between the Catalogue of Ships and the tablets, the re-occurrence of the same number in the epic tradition and in the tablets again links the two groups of evidence.316 In the tablets, the wanax seems to have had religious responsibilities that were fulfilled, at least in part, by supplying provisions for sacrifices.317 In the excavations of the palace at Pylos, the pantries were found filled with kylikes,318 and scenes of drinking and sacrifice were portrayed on one of the walls in the throne room.319 These vessels and the painting indicate that one of the duties of the Mycenaean king at Pylos was to provide banquets and other forms of hospitality.320 Evidence for similar activities in Thebes has now been revealed in the numerous inscribed sealings found in some of the more recent excavations of the site.321 In the Iliad, the wanax provided provisions for sacrifices,322 although these leaders were portrayed as military leaders rather than religious figures. In the Odyssey, Laertes and Odysseus had offered many sacrifices at the altar of Zeus in the courtyard of their palace in Ithaka.323 In that passage, the act of sacrifice seemed to have been the expected duty of the king.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

45

The vast majority of tablets from the palace at Pylos do not deal with religious matters, and this suggests that the wanax had a variety of concerns in addition to religion.324 One approach being used to establish the extent of the king’s religious activity compares the overall amount of oil coming into the palace with the amount of oil being sent to the sanctuaries and to religious personnel.325 This evidence suggests that religious concerns were only a small part of the activities overseen by the wanax and palace administration.326 An over-emphasis on information from just a few tablets appears to have led to an exaggeration of the Mycenaean king’s position in religious matters. If the king were predominantly a religious figure, as some scholars have argued,327 it needs to be asked why he is mentioned along with the lawe-ge-tas, E-ke-ra2-wo, and other different groups as a donor to the shrines and to the other religious personnel. In his role as an important religious figure, or high priest of Poseidon as one scholar has named him, he should not have been making donations but rather receiving them. The prominence of chariots in the records suggests that the king was associated closely with the military aspects of his kingdom.328 The identification of the Northeast Building of the palace complex at Pylos (Fig. 11) as an area used for storage and redistribution of chariots329 strengthens this association between the king and the armed forces. Men who received the chariots were also equipped with bronze cuirasses.330 It has been observed that chariot forces, such as those indicated by the tablets, were only possible in palace societies.331 The bellicose nature of Mycenaean society has been documented, and it helps to reinforce the military data from the tablets. In this kind of society, the leader of the army is most naturally the king.332 If the king had grown too old to fight, then his son would have led the army. In the Iliad, Agamemnon, the king of Mycenae, led the Greek army, and Hector, the son of old King Priam, commanded the Trojans. There has been much discussion about the chariots and the cuirasses in the royal arsenals, but the arrows are also of interest. Large numbers of arrowheads and a sealing with an ideogram for arrows were found in the “Armoury” at Knossos. In this same deposit was a broken tablet that listed 8,640 arrows.333 Such a large quantity of arrows was far too numerous for hunting purposes, and thus they must have been collected for a massed offensive in a battle situation. The accumulation of so many arrows indicates that bowmen were an important part of the armed forces in this period.334 This suggestion, based on the information from a Linear B tablet, is in contrast to the impression derived from the artistic record, where bowmen are rarely represented,335 and from the impression given in the Iliad, which some scholars336 have argued placed little significance on bowmen.337 In the Iliad, the Locrian bowmen are described as not wearing bronze armor; their leader Ajax, the son of Oïleus, is identified specifically as

46

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

wearing a linen corselet.338 At the beginning of Book 3 of the Iliad, Paris appears in the forefront of the Trojans carrying his bow. Later, when he challenged Menelaos to a duel to be fought with sword and spear, he donned the corselet of his brother Lykaon.339 This sequence implies that bowmen did not wear bronze corselets. The reason for this became immediately evident when a reproduction of the bronze cuirass from Dendra was made. An individual wearing this type of armor, awkward though it may appear to modern eyes, was able to perform almost any action required on the battlefield, with the single exception of shooting an arrow. The small size of the armhole, plus the loose fitting shape of the corselet, restricted the movement of the arm and did not permit the flexibility needed for drawing a bow.340 In this case, the archaeological evidence and the Iliad references combined with new knowledge gained from the Linear B tablet help to establish a much clearer picture of Mycenaean warfare at the end of the Bronze Age. The tablets clearly indicate that the battle tactics of the Late Bronze Age included the use of numerous bowmen and charioteers armed with bronze cuirasses. Because their equipment came from the royal arsenal, bowmen and charioteers appear to have served directly under the king. Foot soldiers, portrayed in the wall paintings and described in the Iliad, formed a third element of the armed forces. At Pylos, a fourth group was the sailors who manned the ships and the various coastal stations mentioned in the tablets.341 In addition to the armed forces, various officials, craftsmen, and servants mentioned in the tablets worked directly under the wanax. Some of the craftsmen were identified as wanakteros, belonging to the wanax, while others were associated with the lawagetas or with the shrines.342 Such a wide range of people working directly under the king was unexpected before the decipherment of the tablets, but it was not entirely surprising. Numerous storerooms and workshops were found in association with the palaces. An extensive network of officials and servants clearly was needed to oversee the operation of the numerous functions undertaken within the palace complex. The existence of other personnel associated with the lawagetas and the shrines, however, reinforces the idea that the Mycenaean king did not completely dominate either the economy or the religion. Numerous people working in the palace occur in the epics. When Athena appeared at the palace of Odysseus in the first book of the Odyssey, Telemachos led her inside. A handmaiden brought water to wash her hands, a second servant brought her bread, a third served her meat, and a herald poured wine for her into a golden cup.343 In addition to these attendants, there were twelve women who were said to grind wheat and barley, others tended the fire and cleaned the palace, twenty maids fetched water,344 male

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

47

servants cut wood for the fires, and herdsmen brought animals from the fields for slaughter.345 These figures do not include the women who were responsible for spinning and weaving,346 nor the many others who had no place in a tale about heroes and their activities. The palaces in the Odyssey were described as they would have been seen by a guest. Visitors normally would not have been interested in the bureaucratic details of the economic concerns of the palace. They would have seen the serving girls, the bards, and the heralds who were mentioned, sometimes by name, in the Odyssey.347 On the battlefield at Troy, the only craftsmen of importance were the men who made the weapons, and these men were mentioned in the Iliad.348 Occasionally a female servant preparing food or serving wine was also portrayed,349 but for the most part, these craftsmen and servants were not significant. The epics dealt with the heroes and their activities. The tablets, on the other hand, were concerned with the economic details of the bureaucracy that supported the palaces. This difference in purpose helps to explain the absence of more obvious similarities between the two bodies of evidence. The king’s right to tax the land is slowly being accepted by Linear B scholars,350 although evidence for this taxation is still not entirely secure.351 It has long been clear from the archaeological evidence that the king must have had some way to commandeer large numbers of people to work on civic projects. The construction of the massive cyclopean walls surrounding the citadels, the building of the tholoi at Mycenae, and the establishment of an extensive road system in the Argolid and in the area of Pylos required the labor of large groups of men, plus animals for hauling the stone.352 The tablets do not contain information about the organization of such a labor force, but taxation might have been the means of paying for some of this work. It remains unclear, however, how much of this work was done by slaves owned by the king or by men indebted to him in some way, possibly in exchange for land grants,353 or by the community as a whole under some form of taxation. In the Iliad, a trace of some sort of obligatory service to the king is suggested by the actions of Echepolos, son of Anchises. Echepolos, who lived in Sikyon, gave a horse called Aithe to Agamemnon in order to avoid going to war at Troy.354 His gift to Agamemnon suggests that Echepolos had some sort of obligation, but why he had this obligation is not made clear. In another passage of the Iliad, Euchenor, who lived in Corinth, chose to go to Troy in order to avoid paying a troublesome price to the Achaians.355 Here it is not clear whether this price would have been paid directly to the king or whether it would have helped support the Achaian forces that were going to Troy, thereby benefiting the king only indirectly; but once again, some sort of obligatory service to the king is implied. In a third less explicit passage,

48

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Hermes, posing as a Mermidon, told Priam that his father had seven sons who shook lots to see which of the seven would go to Troy.356 This passage can be understood to mean that the father of the false Hermes had been required to send one of his seven sons to Troy, or, presumably, he would have had to pay a price similar to the price required by the father of Euchenor.

B. The Other Officials of the Kingdom In addition to the wanax, there were various other officials named in the Linear B tablets from Pylos. The lawagetas (ra-wa-ke-ta) is generally considered to have been the second most important person of the kingdom because he was the holder of a temenos.357 His temenos was one-third the size of the king’s temenos and equal in size to the land held by three of the telestai (te-re-ta). He originally was considered to be the military leader358 because of the later Greek meaning of the title,359 but whether the later connotations are applicable to these same words in the Mycenaean period is uncertain.360 Attempts to define the specific roles of the lawagetas and the other officials have proven to be difficult.361 The lawagetas appears in the two tablets concerning the rowers at Pylos,362 which should indicate that he had some military obligations, but other individuals were also named, so the responsibility was not his alone. The lawagetas appears on another tablet as one of the donors to the cult of Poseidon363 along with the da-mo, the kama, and an individual called E-ke-ra2-wo, who had been named in the tablets concerning the rowers.364 The lawagetas is known to have had his own specialized workers, similar to the wanax and the religious personnel,365 which suggests that he had his own workshop and his own economic concerns separate from those associated with the wanax.366 The appearance of the lawagetas in the tablets in a variety of different contexts confirms the impression that the lawagetas held a position of importance and of high status in Pylos, but the significance of this position remains obscure. The lawagetas also appears at Knossos, although his position there is less clear. In the same Pylos tablet that mentioned the temene of the wanax and the lawagetas, there appear three telestai (te-re-ta). Although the type of land they held was not named in the tablet, each plot of land they held was equal in size to that of the lawagetas. This would make some of them, at least, important officials, close in rank to that of the lawagetas. In the Pylos tablets, twenty-one telestai (te-re-ta) were listed as holders of land.367 It has been suggested the telestai had been given land in return for obligatory service to be rendered to the wanax should the need arise.368 In this position, they should have been close companions of the king and politically associated with the palace. As befits their position close to the palace, they

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

49

were mentioned more times in the Pylos tablets than any other official,369 and they were occasionally named. Three telestai were mentioned in the temenos tablet; these three officials must have held additional land of the type held by the other telestai.370 As holders of various classes of land, the telestai were presumably able to rent out some of their land or to get free men of lesser economic status to work their land for them.371 Another type of official, the e-qe-ta, usually called the followers or companions of the king, are sometimes thought to have been military officers commanding detachments of soldiers. At Pylos, one of their military tasks appears to have been the supervision of the coastal watchers.372 They were mentioned frequently, both in the singular and in the plural, in the tablets concerning personnel. They appear to have been responsible for a variety of different tasks undertaken on behalf of the wanax. Some of their duties required travel away from the palaces.373 In this capacity, they appear to have served as the king’s special emissaries. At least twelve different men of this group were identified by their individual names. Less closely associated with the palace and appearing less frequently in the tablets are the ko-re-te and their subordinates, the po-ro-ko-re-te, who served as local administrators in the kingdom of Pylos.374 The ko-re-te’s superior rank is suggested by a bronze tablet from Pylos (PY Jn 829), which lists a greater amount of bronze associated with the ko-re-te, compared to the lesser amount for the po-ro-ko-re-te. Sixteen officials of each rank have been associated with the sixteen administrative divisions in the kingdom of Pylos. These men were always identified with a place name, and only three of them are known by their individual names,375 which suggests that their relationship to the palace was less personal than that of the e-qe-ta. In other tablets, these officials along with the basileus (qa-si-re-u) were associated with gold (PY Jo 438), they received hides from the palace (PY On 300), and they held land (PY An 830, Aq 64). Some of these men served in areas away from the palace in the seven districts known as the Further Province. Others served closer to the palace in the districts known as the Hither Province. These provinces were under the supervision of the damokoro (da-moko-ro), a position appointed by the king.376 Since the damokoro supervised the ko-re-te and the po-ro-ko-re-te, both of them would have been indirectly under the supervision of the king. Whether the king was also responsible for appointing the ko-re-te and the po-ro-ko-re-te, however, is not indicated in the tablets. The tablets also contain references to the much debated position of the qa-si-re-u (basileus).377 This is a rank held by more than one person, known individually by name, who apparently served as a local authority outside the immediate vicinity of the palace. The fact that these men were known by name, unlike the men who held the rank of ko-re-te or po-ro-ko-re-te, suggests

50

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

that they held positions of some importance and were known personally by the palace bureaucracy. Although the men holding this rank have been discussed at length, they appear only four times in the Pylos tablets and once at Knossos. The existence of the qu-si-re-u in the tablets has caused much interest because of their identification with the later position of basileus. The men holding these positions are now sometimes said to have been the rulers or local authorities in their own areas before they became incorporated into the larger kingdom of the wanax,378 but a wide variety of suggestions concerning this position continue to be made.379 Since these men have a very limited role in the preserved tablets, it is hard to define their position in the Mycenaean period. How closely this position can be associated with either the basileus in the epics or the later position of basileus in the historical period remains uncertain. It is of interest, however, that the suitors in the Odyssey (discussed below) were called basileis. These men, identified by name and living away from the palace, were clearly affluent and influential members of their society. In addition to these named officials, there is another group identified by scholars as “collectors.”380 The role of the collectors and their relationship to the named officials remains uncertain and problematic.381 Scholars currently working on the tablets are still debating whether these so-called collectors were officials working for the palace or whether they acted as independent traders. Others have suggested that they were the relatives of the wanax’s family or the elite of society. Men identified by some scholars as collectors, appearing on the inscribed stirrup jars, were discussed above. It has been noted that one collector appears to have also undertaken administrative duties, including land inspection and distribution of goods to unguent boilers.382 This combined evidence suggests that the collectors served a variety of different duties depending on the individual situation, sometimes working as agents for the palaces and sometimes working independently for themselves or for some other administrative official. When they appear in the tablets that come from palace archives, however, it is presumably because of a palatial interest in their activities. The existence of these different ranks in the palatial archives indicates a hierarchy of power and position within the palace society. How closely the administrative system on Crete followed that of Pylos is unknown, but some differences between the two systems have been documented.383 It is to be expected that the same rank in the two different palace centers had somewhat varied functions. On Crete, the palaces consisted of many more rooms distributed on more numerous levels. Their more complex plans encircled huge courtyards and articulated other formal areas, which were designed to provide space for public ceremonies. These sprawling Minoan palaces are very different from the much smaller, more compact plans of

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

51

the palaces on the Greek mainland. The largest of the Minoan palaces, the one at Knossos, covered an area that is approximately half the area enclosed within the entire citadel of Mycenae.384 The different scale of the two types of palaces alone suggests that originally there were fundamental differences in the government of the Minoans and that of the Mycenaeans. It seems highly likely that some of these differences survived during the Mycenaean domination of the island, and that some of these are reflected in the later palace administration and possibly in the tablets from Crete. Although the individual details of the palace administration probably varied from one palace center to another, control of the hierarchy of officials by the wanax appears to be one obvious source of his power. Before the decipherment of the tablets, the extent of such a wide network of officials was not expected, but it was not completely surprising as long as the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad remained closely associated with this period. Some officials found in the tablets are mentioned in the two Homeric epics, and their presence in these epics suggests some sort of continuum between the Mycenaean period and the writing down of the poems. Under the influence of M.I. Finley, current scholarship has often emphasized that some of the official titles used in the Iliad and Odyssey do not appear in the tablets.385 Finley placed great importance on the ranks of ajrco", kreivwn, koivrano", and mevdwn, which occur in the Iliad but not in the tablets. He de-emphasized, however, the significance of the titles of a[nax (wanax), basileuv" (basileus), and eJtai'ro" (e-qe-ta), which are common to both. The rank of koivrano" (ko-re-te), which Finley originally put in his group of missing titles, was identified later in the Linear B tablets by M. Ruiperez.386 The preservation of four of these titles in the epic tradition should indicate continuity between the tablets and the epics, despite the protestations made by Finley. The archaeological record had made it clear that there had been a major disruption at the end of the Mycenaean period. The dropping of some old titles and a re-organization of the local governments can be understood to be a natural result of the unsettled period following the collapse of the Mycenaean palace centers. There is, moreover, no certainty that the same titles were used universally throughout the Mycenaean world.387 The title telestas, for example, was found in the tablets, and it was retained locally in Elis during the historic period; it does not occur in the Homeric epics.388 It may be that the title telestas was a local title in the prehistoric period, just as it was in later times, and for this reason it does not appear in the epics. The metrical requirements of the hexameter line may account for the absence of some of the other Linear B titles that are missing in the epics. The title lawagetas, which occurs in the tablets, does not fit the metrical

52

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

requirements of the Homeric poems.389 Some of the epic titles missing from the tablets may have been substitutes for Linear B words such as lawagetas in Homer. Other titles unique to Homer may have been references to positions that might not be expected in the tablets. In the Iliad and Odyssey, for example, the title mevdwn almost always occurs in the plural, and it refers to a group of important people.390 In the tablets, however, references to important people usually name an individual or a specific title. The naming of groups of people is usually reserved for people of lesser rank or slaves. Four titles, identified in the tablets by linguists, survive in Homer. These titles appear to be primarily those originally associated with the work of the palace.391 Except for the wanax, men holding these positions were known not only by title but also by personal name, indicating that they were known to the palace administration and thus probably closely associated with the king. It is understandable that the later bards preserved the titles of the men most closely associated with the king and heroes of the past, whereas the lesser titles of men who worked outside of the palace centers were gradually dropped as unimportant in the epic tradition. Recent study of the archaeological and linguistic record has begun to show that there was a cultural and linguistic continuity between the Mycenaeans and later inhabitants of Greece.392 The preservation of some of the Linear B titles can be seen as another indication of this continuity. The widespread area under the jurisdiction of the palace necessitated the existence of local officials to oversee the more distant sections of the kingdom. Clear traces of these individuals in the archaeological record have not been found, but possibly the so-called palace at Mouriatada, discussed above, served as a residence for one of these local officials.393 A hierarchy of social status within the archaeological remains seems indicated by the differing size of the houses and the varying wealth buried with the dead. The existence of an elaborate hierarchy of positions upon whom the wanax depended may also explain why art depicting a supreme male ruler is absent in the Mycenaean period. This type of hierarchy depends on family members and friends, and it helps to verify the suggestion made above that the family of the ruler was important in the evolution of kingship in the Mycenaean period. A complicated hierarchy within the society is also indicated by the landholding tablets.394 Apart from the temene, other lands were controlled by the damos, the priesthood, and other officials mentioned in the tablets. People holding land controlled by the damos were apparently beholden to the damos in some way.395 Others holding land seem to have been under obligation to the king396 or to the priests.397 This tripartite division of the land probably reflects a tripartite division of authority and power, but

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

53

which segment outranked the others is not clear. How much of this land was held privately without obligation also remains uncertain. It has been noted that the entire acreage around Pylos recorded in the tablets represents only a small fraction of the land needed to feed the people living in this area.398 It may be that much of the land was not recorded in the royal archives because it was held without obligation to the king, the priests, or the damos. In his work on the land holdings, Finley greatly emphasized the absence of the various designations for land in the epics. He used their absence as another argument for the separation of the culture represented in the tablets from that of oral tradition. J.V. Luce pointed out, however, that land tenure is “a singularly unheroic topic,” so it is not surprising that the epics recount little detail about land holdings.399 In the Iliad, the Achaians were fighting in a foreign country, and thus ownership of land was not of importance. Land belonging to the Achaians was mentioned only in reference to a marriage settlement.400 In the Odyssey, land again was mentioned as part of a marriage settlement; the giving away of land under other circumstances was very unusual.401 The only conflict over land in the Odyssey concerned the territory controlled by Penelope during her husband’s absence that the suitors were trying to seize, and this land was clearly identified as part of Telemachos’ inheritance. When ownership of land was important, as in the case of the farmstead held by Eumaios, Odysseus was clearly identified as the owner of the land.402 For the most part, the nuances of land ownership were not important to the plot of either the Iliad or the Odyssey, and it is probably for this reason that such details did not survive in the written text. In addition to the government officials, there was a separate group of priests and priestesses403 who appear to have been independent of the palace authority. These people were sometimes named in the tablets and at least one priestess, Eritha at Pylos,404 appears to have had some sort of claim to land. Some craftsmen and animals were identified as belonging to religious establishments, and this may indicate that the shrines formed a separate, partially independent economic unit within the society. The accumulative evidence of the tablets indicates that the religious personnel were involved with a wide range of economic concerns including agriculture, raising of animals, production of perfumed oil, textile manufacture, and metalworking. Near Pylos, an important shrine called Pakijane was named in the tablets.405 At Troy, a separate area for the Temple of Apollo (and possibly the other temples in the city) called Pergamos can be identified in the Iliad.406 At Mycenae, an area separate from the palace devoted to religious functions is attested by the archaeological remains. Some of the excavated religious areas had workshops.407 In the tablets, evidence for workshops is indicated by craftsmen and goods specifically associated with shrines.

54

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

An indication of an independent priesthood may possibly be reflected in the Iliad by the priest Chryses, who visited the Achaian camp at Troy in an attempt to ransom his daughter.408 His position, independent of a local king as well as independent of the Achaian leaders, is made clear by his actions. In his discussions with the Achaians and his actions afterwards, the only authority he evoked was that of Apollo and not the authority of a human monarch. When Chryses spoke of roofing the temple of Apollo or of making sacrifices on Apollo’s altar,409 he claimed credit for these actions. If he had been acting under the orders of a king, then the credit would have belonged to the monarch instead. Some of the Olympian deities known from later periods have been identified in the tablets.410 Like the use of the Greek language in the Mycenaean period, the occurrence of the Olympian deities in the Late Bronze Age is a clear indication of a cultural continuum between the earlier and later periods. The specific references to Poseidon in the Pylos tablets cannot be associated with an excavated Mycenaean shrine. It has been suggested that Poseidon as the recipient of a substantial sacrifice held on the seashore near Pylos in the Odyssey may reflect his importance in Pylos during the Mycenaean period.411 The use of the Mycenaean form of Poseidon’s - - in the Odyssey412 also suggests a recollection of the earliname, Poseidaon, er period. In preparation for another sacrifice at Pylos, this time in honor of Athena,413 the horns of a bull were gilded recalling the bull rhyton with gilded horns found in Grave Circle A at Mycenae414 and the two bull’s head rhyta mentioned in a Knossos tablet.415 As more tablets are discovered in the Mycenaean levels at Thebes, additional evidence for religious continuity keeps increasing.416

C. The Economy When the tablets were first deciphered, many scholars believed that the detailed bureaucratic recording of economic details showed that the palaces controlled the entire economy.417 As a result, the king originally was considered to be a mighty monarch, dominating both the economy and the society over which he ruled. Additional study of the tablets is beginning to change the original interpretation of the king’s power.418 The interpretation of the tablets itemizing the bronze smiths in the area of Pylos is representative of this changing evaluation. It was immediately noted that the amount of bronze being distributed did not appear to justify the number of bronze smiths mentioned.419 This discrepancy was originally explained by suggesting that there existed a scarcity of bronze. Later

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

55

re-evaluation of the tablets, however, suggested the possibility that the bronze was issued only to those smiths who were working on a project for the palace, thus accounting for the small amount of bronze distributed.420 Bronze smiths not receiving orders from the palace are thought to have worked on other, independent projects or at some other trade. This interpretation suggests that patronage by the palace was part of the economic fabric of the society, but it also implies that the palace did not control the entire economy and that some of the craftsmen maintained a certain degree of independence from the palace. Some private economic independence is suggested in the archaeological record by the sealings and numerous storerooms found in private houses. In the Odyssey, Eumaios’ statement to the suitor Antinoös that strangers who are welcomed are those who are knowledgeable of some public crafts, such as seers, healers of illness, builders, or bards also implies that some craftsmen did not work under palace control.421 Bronze workers who made some of the weapons used in the Iliad were mentioned casually in the epic tradition, but there is no indication that these workers were tied to the palaces. Although iron was known towards the end of the Mycenaean period, bronze continued to be the favorite metal for weapons as long as it was available. In the Iliad, all of the weapons used on the battlefield of Troy, except for the iron arrowhead used by the Anatolian Pandaros, were made of bronze. These bronze weapons form another bridge between the tablets, the archaeological remains, and the epic tradition.422 It has been observed that the grains listed in the tablets are much more restricted in variety than those recovered from archaeological context.423 This discrepancy suggests that the tablets are giving us only a partial picture of society. Some of the agricultural products listed in the tablets are not found illustrated in the wall paintings,424 which indicates that the wall paintings also reflect only a partial view of society. In the tablets from Pylos, about four thousand people are listed as directly or indirectly involved in the palace.425 It has been estimated that the population of the palace and town of Pylos was at least two thousand five hundred people,426 and the entire population of the kingdom has been placed in the neighborhood of fifty thousand to one hundred thousand people.427 These numbers alone support the observation that the tablets are giving us only a partial picture of the society. The many people not mentioned in the tablets presumably had occupations and concerns that were not of interest to the central bureaucracy of the palace, and therefore they are absent from the palace archives. When the tablets first were read, it seemed that there were few references pertaining to the production of olive oil at Knossos and even fewer from Pylos.428 These limited references seemed to conflict with the extensive use of

56

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

olive oil indicated by the archaeological record. Further study of the tablets not only modified this conclusion, but it also revealed similarities in the use of oil in the tablets and in both the Iliad and Odyssey,429 once again revealing the confluence of the three sources. A study of the tablets from Knossos relating to the handling of sheep revealed that the flocks listed in the palace records did not include enough rams in proportion to ewes for purposes of breeding. The sheep were raised mainly for their wool, and adult, castrated, male sheep, known as wethers, produce a higher quality of wool than the rams or ewes, which accounts for the otherwise peculiar numbers. In order to maintain the size of the palace flocks on Crete, it was argued, male animals from a source other than the palace flocks were needed.430 The existence of such flocks of sheep suggests a group of people independent of the palace. The study of pottery by the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project431 suggested that the makers of pottery were independent of the palace. This conclusion is supported by the evidence of the Linear B tablets. A scrutiny of the roughly five thousand tablets, labels, and sealings, which had been found at the time of that survey, revealed that potters were mentioned only six times—four times at Pylos, once each at Mycenae and Knossos.432 Scholars studying Linear B now seem to agree that the economy was only partially controlled by the palace.433 This interpretation most closely reflects the archaeological evidence. It explains why such a variety of people held land and the different designations of this land.434 This type of economy also explains why there is so little sign of agricultural specialization,435 why craftsmen also held land,436 and why the amount of land recorded was so small.437 If most of the free men, including the craftsmen, held land that they had inherited through their families and that they or members of their families had cultivated, then most of the people were also farmers. In this type of situation, the existence of large numbers of farmers would have been assumed and therefore not especially noteworthy. These farmers, working for themselves or their families, naturally would have performed all the different aspects of labor needed on a farm and would not have specialized in one crop or aspect of the farm. The land listed in the tablets appears to have been directly related to the palatial economic interest or to have been the basis of some dispute, such as the land claimed by the priestess Eritha. In a manner similar to the records of land, occupations listed in the tablets included only those that directly concerned the palace, hence an absence of certain occupations. Fishing, for example, is not mentioned in the tablets although it is known from the archaeological evidence that Mycenaeans ate fish. It can be concluded that the fishing industry was of little interest to the palace. The agricultural workers listed in the tablets included shepherds, goatherders, woodcutters, and hunters.438 The first three are occupations

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

57

mentioned in the Odyssey, and scenes of hunting are portrayed in many of the similes of the Iliad, as well as on the wall paintings and other artifacts of the Mycenaean period.439 Women were responsible for grinding grain in both the tablets and the Odyssey.440 Another female occupation in the tablets is the position of bath-attendant.441 The bathtub found in the palace of Pylos,442 which did not have an attached source of water nor a drain, certainly was labor-intensive and would have required attendants to supply the water. The concept of a bath-attendant recalls the scenes of bathing by prominent women in the Odyssey, which took place when a visitor arrived.443 The bathroom at Pylos (Fig. 11), which was situated near the main room, was conveniently located for just such an event.444 Gaps in the tablets could reflect the fact that the entire archives were not preserved,445 but they also suggest the possibility of differing interests in the economy at the separate palace centers. At Knossos, tablets concerning the making of textiles indicate a great interest in the wool industry,446 whereas at Pylos most of the references to textiles pertain to linen.447 Variations in the writing and in the ideograms used in different areas,448 plus the divergent forms of government between Crete and the mainland,449 should serve as a warning that the individual kingdoms and cultures may also have had other differences that are not evident in the Linear B tablets.

D. Slavery Some of the tablets mention groups of people who received food rations from the palace. It is not always clear whether the foodstuffs went to slaves or were in partial payment for work done for the palace.450 Some slavery appears to have existed, just as it did in the oral tradition. The ownership of slaves by the king would have increased greatly the number of people working directly under his control. It may well have led him to take a special interest in those areas, such as the manufacture of textiles, which were labor-intensive but for the most part needed little expertise and could be assigned to slaves. Women, who were originally identified as slaves, were differentiated in the tablets by ethnic designations, usually suggesting the Near East—Knidiai (Knidos), Milatiai, (Miletos), and Kutherai (Kythera).451 The identification of these women as slaves has been questioned since some appear to have ethnic designations that were local.452 It has been argued that it was unlikely that local women would have been enslaved. The suggestion has been made that these women were refugees or possibly belonged to guilds that were originally established by foreigners drawn to Pylos as it became a textile center. Most specialists working on the tablets, however, accept the existence of

58

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

slavery. Evidence for slavery is indicated not only by the ethnic designations but also by the anonymous listing of these people as groups,453 the small quantities of rations they received,454 and the number of people who are recorded as being dependent on someone of higher rank.455 Presumably the slaves were women brought home by warriors from forays abroad or from local skirmishes, like those related by Nestor in his long reminiscences in the Iliad.456 The retelling of these events helps to explain the existence of local women held in slavery. Local raids mentioned in the epics are sometimes said to reflect border conflicts of the eighth or seventh centuries.457 The skirmishes mentioned by Nestor in the Iliad took place during his youth, long before he became king, and therefore they should belong to a period earlier than the Trojan War.458 Because they represent an earlier period, they can be understood to reflect the expansion of the emerging kingdoms and their gradual domination of the surrounding communities that began in Late Helladic II and continued into Late Helladic IIIA.459 After the Trojan War, the raids undertaken by Menelaos and Odysseus, recounted in the Odyssey,460 took place farther from home; they can be understood to represent the uncertain period at the end of the Bronze Age when the so-called Sea Peoples were disrupting trade in the Aegean.461 The actions related have clear parallels with events known to have happened in the Late Bronze Age. There is nothing in the retelling of these events that points directly to the eighth or seventh centuries, although there have been frequent attempts to place these events in those centuries.462 In an effort to separate the world of Homer from the society portrayed in the Linear B tablets, some scholars have tried to deny that slavery of any degree of importance was included in the epics,463 but references to slavery and the payment of ransom to avoid slavery occur throughout both poems.464 Even without these references, slavery as a social phenomenon was common throughout the ancient world, and it is to be expected that some slavery existed in Homer, no matter what period his poems may represent. The initial argument between Agamemnon and Achilles was over Briseis and the daughter of Chryses. Both women were part of the booty captured in war and thus presumably they were slaves. In the archaeological record, there is ample evidence for extensive contacts between the Mycenaeans and the areas of Cyprus and the Near East.465 One of the results of these contacts may well have been the purchase or capture of slaves.466

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

59

E. The Objects Used by the King’s Household The tablets listing inventories of objects, either received or distributed by the palace, contain important information concerning the possessions of the Mycenaean kings. These goods can be compared to actual artifacts from excavations and from descriptions in the epics. Some of the objects in the tablets were of great value: these include elaborate vessels for the serving and the drinking of liquids, tripods of Cretan workmanship, and furniture inlaid with ivory, gold, silver, and blue glass paste.467 Ivory inlay used in the decoration of wooden boxes and other objects were found in large quantity at Mycenae in the group of houses clustered around the House of the Oil Merchant outside the citadel.468 Chips from the working of ivory were found within the citadel in the palace workshop.469 Fragments of burned ivory, some representing inlay, were found in the palace at Pylos.470 In the Odyssey, Penelope is portrayed sitting down on a chair inlaid with spirals of ivory, and a bed said to have been made by Odysseus was decorated with gold, ivory, and silver.471 A chair and table listed in two of the tablets from Pylos are of particular interest.472 Both items of furniture were inlaid with a variety of different decorative elements including kyanos (ku-wa-no-qe), a blue glass paste.473 Kyanos together with gold and tin was mentioned in the description of Agamemnon’s cuirass and shield.474 The shield Hephaistos made for Achilles also had these same decorative inlays.475 In the archaeological record, inlays of this type are found on vases and daggers.476 In the Odyssey, kyanos was mentioned as a decorative band at the top of the wall in the courtyard of Alkinoös’ palace.477 A parallel for this is found in the fragments of decorative, blue glass paste found fallen from the walls of the great megaron at Tiryns.478 After the Mycenaean period, tin ceased to be used as a decorative element, and both kyanos and the practice of inlaid metal fell out of use for several centuries.479 In the palace workshop at Mycenae, numerous fragments of gold leaf and part of a rock crystal vase were found. Gold drinking cups and silver ewers similar to examples from the graves at Mycenae are described in scenes of drinking in the Odyssey.480 Of special interest in that epic is a silver bowl with a gold rim, one of the gifts that Menelaos and Helen gave to Telemachos.481 This same technique of gold overlaid on silver is also mentioned in one of the similes in the Odyssey by a craftsman who had been taught this skill by Hephaistos and Athena.482 These examples in the Odyssey and the actual examples of bimetallic vessels are indications of a specialized workforce, and a similar workforce is found in the tablets.483 The Pylos tablets also include mention of gold-studded swords.484 Agamemnon, whose armor was adorned with metal inlays and kyanos, had a

60

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

sword decorated with gold studs.485 Gold-studded swords have been found in Bronze Age graves at both Athens and Mycenae.486 Swords of this type belong to this earlier period and not to the Dark Age or the Geometric period. At Mycenae, jars sealed with caps of clay and fastened with a string were excavated. It was noted that these clay stoppers match the description of a cap for a jar of wine that was opened at Pylos in the Odyssey. Excavations at Thebes have uncovered jars with similar types of clay stoppers.487 Objects of Minoan workmanship are listed in the tablets. Stirrup jars inscribed with Minoan names found on the Greek mainland (discussed above, p. 31) indicate continued trade between Crete and the mainland at the end of the Bronze Age. Odysseus’ false tales, said to have taken place on Crete, are a reflection of continued contact between Crete and the mainland in the epics. The existence of the same type of objects found in the archaeological record, described in the tablets, and mentioned in the Iliad and the Odyssey helps to justify the claim that all three groups of evidence reflect the same period and that an attempt to compare kingship of the Mycenaean period to the kingship in the epics is legitimate.

F. Crafts and Trade A variety of different crafts are mentioned in the tablets; these indicate a specialized work force within the Mycenaean kingdoms responsible for producing weapons, chariots, and armor in addition to some of the luxury goods found in the palaces.488 The elegance of Mycenaean metalwork, seals, stone vases, jewelry, and ivory objects found in the excavations,489 including such objects as metal vases inlaid with kyanos, silver cups with gold rims, and gold-studded swords, is clearly also suggestive of a special class of workmen concerned with the making of luxury items. The palace workshop at Mycenae is another indication of a specialized class of workmen devoted to the making of luxury items. Precious luxury items, sometimes of foreign manufacture, were mentioned frequently in the epics, and these also reflect a society that included specialized craftsmen.490 The importance of the manufacture of cloth is demonstrated by the numerous tablets itemizing this process.491 In the epics, this is reflected by the many references to women and slaves weaving and spinning. Women of high rank, the goddess Athena, and the Graces were said to weave elaborately patterned cloth.492 The great difference in the rank of these women suggests that the textiles also varied from the simplest cloth for household use to elaborate fabrics to be used by the important members of society. In

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

61

the wall paintings both classes of fabric are illustrated. Warriors and hunters are usually shown wearing simple white tunics. The women’s clothing and some of the kilts worn by the men are often decorated with intricate designs. These elaborate designs suggest the existence of a specialized class of weavers dedicated to the making of luxury fabrics. Another separate category of artists is suggested by the Mycenaean wall paintings, which display many similarities in style and theme. The artists who decorated the walls appear to have been in communication with each other, and they differed from those painters who specialized in decorating pottery.493 The men who built and sailed ships may have formed another specialized group within the workforce.494 Scholars now question whether the Mycenaeans themselves were traders to foreign ports.495 In the past, it was assumed that the Minoans and Mycenaeans undertook maritime commerce,496 but the absence of Linear B tablets referring to trade has led to the suggestion that Mycenaeans were not directly involved. It has been argued that the Mycenaeans waited for foreign traders to bring goods to the Greek mainland. Illustrations of ships on vases, the mention of rowers in the Pylos tablets, and the existence of fishhooks and fish bones at Mycenaean sites provide clear evidence that the Mycenaeans had ships.497 The discovery of Late Minoan III shipsheds at Kommos on Crete498 presents additional evidence for the use of ships. The existence of Mycenaeans living in Anatolia499 suggests that the Mycenaeans themselves were involved in trade. This suggestion is strengthened by the discovery of numerous pottery kilns that were found in the Mycenaean levels at Miletos.500 The large number of kilns indicates that the quantity of pottery manufactured at Miletos was greater than the needs of that community, and it suggests that pottery was being manufactured as trade goods. The identification of these potters as Mycenaeans and not natives simply copying Mycenaean pottery is indicated by scanty remains of domestic architecture whose plans reflect the domestic architecture of the mainland.501 It has been estimated that some five hundred to six hundred women in the kingdom of Pylos were involved in the making of textiles.502 The textiles produced by so many women would have been so great that some of these textiles must have been produced for trade.503 The huge flocks of sheep on Crete504 suggest the manufacture of woolen cloth for export. The large number of bronze smiths listed in the tablets from Pylos may possibly indicate that bronze objects were produced for trade.505 Stirrup jars have been excavated at several sites with Linear B inscriptions identifying them as being manufactured elsewhere. The great quantities of oil originally stored in these jars indicate another area of trade.506 Analysis of the clay used to make some of the Mycenaean pottery found in the Near East indicates that those vases

62

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

had been made on the Greek mainland and exported.507 The absence of traders in the tablets from Knossos and Pylos may be a reflection of the inland position of these two sites. At Ugarit on the coast of Syria, there was a separation of the port town on the shore and the nearby inland location of the central administration. A similar division may have existed in the Mycenaean cities.508 Linear B documents concerning foreign trade may have been kept in the port towns close to the shore. Possibly Tiryns, located close to the sea and roughly twenty kilometers south of Mycenae, served as a port town for the kingdom of Mycenae. Although the citadel at Tiryns is only roughly half the size of the citadel at Mycenae, her corbelled galleries built within the fortification walls greatly outnumber anything found at Mycenae.509 These extensive facilities may have been constructed to serve as safe storage areas for goods accumulated for trade, either newly accumulated from arriving ships or awaiting a ship for transport abroad. The low lying coastal area provided a level terrain on which to beach the ships, and the flat land lying between Tiryns and the sea facilitated the transport of goods from the shore.510 The position of the citadel itself, lying slightly inland on an outcropping of bedrock, helped to protect the objects collected for trade from sudden raids by hostile forces. The addition of a massive sea gate in the last phase of the fortifications at Tiryns is suggestive of the importance attached to the sea by her inhabitants. The identification of Tiryns as a seaport, furthermore, helps to explain why the palace at Tiryns was re-built on so small a scale in its final phase, even though earlier, in the Late Helladic IIIB period, the palace had been equal roughly in size to that of Mycenae.511 If the king had his major residence at Mycenae during the troubled times at the end of the Mycenaean period, he well may have gone only occasionally to Tiryns, and thus he retained only a small residence there for his rare visits and necessary state functions. In the Iliad, wine sent from Lemnos arrived by ship and was clearly being traded among the Achaians.512 Men on Ithaka had ships.513 Athena disguised as Mentor identified herself as a trader.514 Thus, trade among the Achaians themselves did occur in the epics, and Achaian ships going to Syria may have been mentioned in the Hittite records.515 It is often stated that trade in the Odyssey was primarily in the hands of the Phoenicians, and that this type of trade was representative of the Dark Age or Geometric period.516 Evidence for Phoenician traders in the archaeological record, however, attests to contacts between the Phoenicians and the Mycenaeans on Crete in the thirteenth century.517 Thus, trade between the Phoenicians and the inhabitants of the epic world does not necessarily refer to a post-Mycenaean period. In the Linear B tablets, furthermore, there are many loan words such as ku-mi-no (cumin) and sa-sa-ma (sesame) that originally came from the Semitic languages. These words clearly indicate

THE EVIDENCE OF THE LINEAR B TABLETS

63

that trade on a fairly extensive scale already existed between the Mycenaean Greeks and the ancient Near East.518 Trade as evidence for a late date of the Iliad and Odyssey cannot be used with any degree of credibility. Whether this trade was dominated by the wanax in the prehistoric period is not indicated by the tablets.519 This question, at the present time, can only be answered as part of the more general question concerning the extent of the wanax’s domination of the Mycenaean economy.520 A kingdom with a diversified economy only partially controlled by the palace seems to be indicated by the latest interpretations of the Linear B records and by the archaeological remains. This type of economy differs from the more monolithic economies controlled by the reigning monarchs usually associated with the empires of the Egyptians and Hittites.521 This difference has made some scholars522 skeptical of the wide diversity in the Mycenaean economic system that now seems indicated by the latest readings of the tablets and by the archaeological record. There does exist in the prehistoric Near East, however, another paradigm in the kingdom of Ugarit. The economy of this kingdom forms a closer parallel to the economy and the type of kingship suggested here for the Mycenaean world.

III

The Ugarit Parallel

The city of Ugarit was located on a tell, Ras Shamra, in Syria slightly inland from the sea.523 At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, a new wave of people, speaking a western dialect of the Semitic language, burned the earlier city and took over the site. These people occupied the site until the end of the Late Bronze Age when the city was destroyed by the Sea Peoples. At the time of its final destruction, Ugarit had become a populous city covering an area of roughly six hundred meters by six hundred meters, surrounded by fortification walls. Near the western fortification wall lay the palace complex.524 To the northeast, on the so-called acropolis, there were two temples, one dedicated to Baal and the other to Baal’s father, Dagan. Between the two temples lay the residence of the high priest. Associated with these buildings was one of the major scribal schools of the city. Other schools were scattered throughout the city. Surrounding the palace and the religious area were the homes of the court followers, members of the royal family, the artisans with their workshops, and numerous other inhabitants. These densely occupied areas were separated by narrow winding streets and an occasional open square. Although this city was much larger than the Mycenaean cities excavated on the Greek mainland,525 like the Mycenaean cities, it was fortified, and it had a palace, a special cult area, and a wide variety of houses, which differed

66

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

in size and wealth and often contained specialized work areas. Evidence for scribal schools, such as those found in Ugarit, have not been found on the Greek mainland, but it must be assumed that some form of scribal training took place on the mainland. Over ten thousand tablets were found throughout the city of Ugarit,526 which is roughly twice the number of Linear B tablets found thus far. The Mycenaean tablets come from a wide variety of different sites, and they are predominantly inventories.527 The tablets from Ugarit cover a much broader range of subjects, they have much longer texts, and they reveal much more about the history and economic structure of that city.528 Some of the tablets found at Ugarit were in the palace. These detail the foreign diplomacy of the kingdom and administrative matters concerning land distribution and food allotments. Land distribution and food allotments also are to be found in the palatial archives of Pylos. Foreign diplomacy, unfortunately, is completely lacking in the preserved Linear B tablets.529 In Ugarit, other tablets record the religious beliefs and the literature. Some of the tablets, written in a variety of different languages, were found in buildings identified as scribal schools. These tablets appear to have been written as exercises by young scribes learning to write. The discovery of this type of tablet in the scribal schools, which does not have a close parallel in the Linear B tablets, helps to explain why so much more is known about the literature and administrative system of Ugarit, compared to our knowledge of these same concerns in the Mycenaean centers. Many of the tablets at Ugarit were found in buildings that were not associated with the palace. Except for a few trenches along the north wall, all excavated areas contained some tablets.530 After many years of excavations, it has become evident that the discovery of tablets within a building did not necessarily mark that building as royal or under royal control. The discovery of tablets in buildings not controlled by the palace at Ugarit makes clear the possibility that tablets found on the Greek mainland may also have come from buildings that were not royally controlled. The distribution of tablets throughout the city of Ugarit suggests a much higher rate of literacy in this city than the more limited literacy generally associated with the Mycenaean world. The tablets at Ugarit reveal that the city had been governed by a series of kings who belonged to the same family.531 Beginning in the Middle Bronze Age, this family reigned over the city for many generations, and they continued to rule until the city was destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age.532 This is similar to the reign of a single royal family, suggested above, for the kings at Mycenae who ruled the city during the last years of Grave Circle A and the period of the nine tholos tombs. The Ugaritic kingship was passed from father to son but not necessarily the eldest son. The son

THE UGARIT PARALLEL

67

chosen was presumably the one who was thought to be the most able. During the period when the kingdom was under Hittite domination, the son needed the approval of the Hittites in order to inherit. The concept of fitness to rule, which it was suggested applied to the early Mycenaean kings, is thus also part of the tradition at Ugarit. Like the Mycenaean kings, the king at Ugarit had certain religious obligations, but his position was primarily one of political power. Priests at Ugarit dominated the religious activities of the city. The queen, who also had religious duties, was the first wife of the king. She retained her rank for her life time, keeping this position even if her husband died and her son became king. The position of the queen in the Linear B tablets remains unclear, but in the early history of kingship in Mycenae the power of the wives was clearly demonstrated by the wealth buried with the women. The Ugaritic tablets document the position of the king and the lines of succession, but, as was the case with the Mycenaean centers, this city did not produce kingly art or important royal inscriptions comparable to those found in Egypt and in the kingdom of the Hittites.533 Scenes of fighting and hunting were portrayed at Ugarit, but no one figure stands out as larger or grander than the other figures. The lack of kingly art, as Ugarit clearly demonstrates, does not prove the absence of a reigning monarch. Ugarit controlled nearby port towns, many smaller towns and villages of varying size, and the surrounding countryside. The unification of such various constituents into one kingdom also occurred at Pylos, and it is reflected in the Catalogue of Ships preserved in the Iliad and in the Linear B tablets found in the palace. Ugarit illustrates the possibility of an economy that was only partially controlled by the king. The palace, with its numerous workshops and storerooms, was under the direct control of the king, who had assorted officials and scribes to help him. The people employed by the palace and controlled by the king were called “the people of the king.” There was, however, a second group of people who were called “the sons of Ugarit;” they were free citizens not directly controlled by the palace. Skilled artisans belonged to highly structured, specialized guilds that oversaw the work of both the free citizens and “the people of the king.” These guilds had overseers who organized their work, and each guild trained its own apprentices. The priests formed a separate guild of their own, as did the scribes.534 Free men associated with the guilds could, when need arose, serve the king in diplomatic functions. Specialized craftsmen, such as artisans in gold, silver, and ivory, lived primarily in the city of Ugarit. The farmers were in the country and smaller towns, and the merchants resided in the port town. Slavery existed, men could have more than one wife, foreigners lived in the port towns, and the population, as indicated by the names, was mixed.535

68

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Ugarit had an economy controlled by a rigid hierarchy dominated by the king who co-existed with an economy of free men, similar to that suggested for the Mycenaean world. It demonstrates the possibility of slaves, foreigners, and a mixed population existing within one community. The use of foreign ethnic place names and local names derived from foreign toponyms in the Linear B tablets536 likewise suggests the presence of slaves and foreigners on the Greek mainland. In Ugarit the king had religious duties, but at the same time the priests formed a separate group within the society. The Linear B tablets indicate that there was a separate class of priests and priestesses in the Mycenaean centers, but the king appears to have had religious obligations of his own. Ugarit produced numerous documents that reveal a rich literary tradition, but it lacked royal inscriptions. It came under the domination of its more powerful neighbors to whom it paid tribute, but it retained a measure of its own independence and had its own separate government. Although the king did not control the entire economy, there was a hereditary kingship that remained within a single family. This type of society indicates the possibility that the Late Bronze Age economy of Greece was much more diverse than was recognized when the Linear B tablets of Greece were first deciphered.537 Although Ugarit belongs to the Near East in culture and location, Ugaritic association with the Mycenaean world is clearly indicated by the many vases of Mycenaean origin found in the tombs at that site.538 Some degree of cultural influence transported along with the artifacts from one region to the other is to be expected. It has been suggested that later Greek literary tradition was influenced by prehistoric Ugarit and the ancient Near East.539 Although this suggestion of early Near Eastern literary influence has generally been accepted, the corollary that this same Greek literary tradition was also influenced by Mycenaean traditions has usually been denied. The possibility that the earlier Bronze Age civilization of the Greek mainland also influenced the later Greek literary tradition clearly needs to be explored more fully. Whether this later Greek tradition also retained some remembrance of Mycenaean kingship and the transfer of power needs to be considered.

IV

The Evidence of the Oral Tradition

The oral tradition of ancient Greece as reflected in the vase paintings, the decorative sculpture on temples, and the literature of the historical period was rich in tales of heroic action that served as “mythological exempla” for later generations. The existence of some sort of oral tradition in the prehistoric period has been made clear by the recent work of philologists who have demonstrated that some of the verses in the Iliad and Odyssey go back to Mycenaean prototypes.540 This evidence is supported by the wall painting from Pylos that portrays a bard singing and holding a lyre541 and a reference to two lyre players found on one of the new tablets from Thebes.542 If individual verses were remembered, then obviously memory of other parts of the oral tradition could have also been retained. It has long been recognized that both wanax and basileus were used as titles of rank in the tablets and in the Iliad and Odyssey.543 In a recent study, the occurrence of these two titles in the Iliad was explored, and a clear separation between the two positions was suggested.544 The difference between the basileus and the wanax is important in understanding the earlier tales. In the earlier period, the basileus was a rank held by more than one person even when the individuals came from the same country. In the historical period, it had become the title belonging to the king, as in Sparta and

70

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Persia, or to a single high official, as in Athens. A later misunderstanding of the rank of basileus, as it was used in the earlier period, may have contributed to the difficulties encountered by later society when they tried to reconstruct the genealogies and king lists of the early period.545 These difficulties suggest that a long period of time had elapsed between the actual kings and the later attempts to establish the written king lists. If the epics reflect the Dark Age and the Geometric period, as it has often been argued, then these king lists should have been easier to establish.546 Another problem faced by later generations appears to have been the conflation of earlier genealogies. Pelops, famous for his horses, was said to be the eponymous hero for whom the Peloponnese was named.547 He should logically belong to the early tradition that evolved soon after the arrival of the people who were later known as the Greeks. These people first introduced domesticated horses into Greece, and they must have been the people who established the nomenclature of their new homeland.548 Pelops, however, was also said to be the father of Atreus, the king of Mycenae549 and the father of Agamemnon, which makes Agamemnon the grandson of Pelops. Agamemnon, as the leader of the Achaian forces at Troy, needs to be placed near the end of the Bronze Age, many generations later than the arrival of the new people.550 In order to bridge the gap between Pelops and Agamemnon, many generations of kings must have been lost.551 A gap of this kind may explain why some of the ancient sources failed to name the successor of Pelops.552 There is the additional difficulty of the same name being used for more than one person. In the Iliad there are three different warriors killed in battle who were called Adrestos. These men need to be differentiated from the Adrestos who was the grandfather of Diomedes and the Adrestos who had been king of Sikyon.553 The use of the same name for different people occurs throughout the Iliad554 and elsewhere in the early epics.555 Names of important people in the Iliad and Odyssey, such as Achilles, Orestes, Hector, and Glaukos, have been identified in the tablets, but these same names rarely occur in the prosopography of the historical period, when different types of names became popular.556 The use of the same names in the tablets and in the epics associates the early tales with the period of the tablets and not with the later periods when a different type of name became popular.557 In the Linear B tablets, over two thousand personal names are preserved, but none of the names in the tablets or in the Iliad, and only one name in the Odyssey, includes the word stratov". This is in sharp contrast to the later historical period when stratov" was used as part of over ninety names.558 It has also been observed that Classical Greek names with the suffix –ides and –ades were common, but this form of personal name is entirely absent in the Linear B records, and it is very rare in the Iliad and

THE EVIDENCE OF THE ORAL TRADITION

71

Odyssey.559 In the historic period, the naming of a son for the grandfather became a frequent practice. As a result of this custom, the same name was often used within a family for generations. In the genealogies that exist for the earlier period, this repetition of family names does not seem to have occurred. In periods when the tradition of re-using family names was not customary, it is understandable that names of earlier generations gradually ceased to be used, and entirely new categories of names eventually became popular. A separation between the period of Iliad and Odyssey and the historical period accounts for the differences in the popularly used names. If the tradition reflected the eighth century, the separation of the two groups of names becomes harder to explain. Gaps in the genealogies, the use of the same name for people of different ranks and different periods, and the later confusion between the rank of wanax and that of basileus make it difficult to establish early king lists. Even though these problems exist, there remain many references in the epic tradition to early kings and to the passage of power and wealth from one generation to the next. When these references are collected, they form a coherent picture. Whether these refer to the more distant past or to a more recent period needs to be determined by the evidence preserved in the tradition itself. The early tales, as preserved in the accumulated mass of Greek mythology, are filled with people usurping the kingship from others—exiled royal sons or wandering heroes marrying the daughters or widows of kings and eventually becoming kings themselves. The lines of descent may not always be clear, but certain elements of the passage of power from one generation to the next do emerge. In the Iliad, when Andromache bemoaned the death of Hector,560 she made clear the pitiable fate of orphaned children, who had no rights. These children were too young to assume their father’s position on his death and consequently lost their hereditary place in society. The history of the scepter held by Agamemnon tells a similar story.561 Agamemnon received the scepter from his uncle Thyestes who in turn had received it from his brother Atreus. This seems to imply that Agamemnon was too young to rule when his father Atreus died, so the scepter and the power passed to his uncle. Since Thyestes’ legitimate sons did not survive him, the scepter later went to Agamemnon, who held it at the time of the Trojan War. In the Iliad, Atreus, the father of Agamemnon, received the scepter from Pelops, king of Elis. According to Thucydides,562 Pelops had exiled Atreus from Elis for killing his step-brother. The giving of the scepter to Atreus by Pelops, after Pelops had exiled Atreus for killing the heir to the throne, lacks credibility. There appears to be a missing link in this sequence, possibly a generation gap. The exile of Atreus may have

72

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

been a later accretion attached to the tradition in order to explain why Atreus became the king of Mycenae and not the king of Elis. The later history of Agamemnon’s family is well known. During the long absence of her husband, Agamemnon, Clytemnestra formed a liaison with Aigisthos. After the war when Agamemnon returned home, he was murdered by the couple, and Aigisthos assumed power. He ruled for seven years before Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, returned home to avenge his father’s death.563 Since Orestes waited seven years, it would appear that he had been too young to take action at the time of his father’s death, and he had to wait until he became an adult before he could seek revenge.564 The same problem of the age of the surviving children of the monarch is suggested in the archaeological record by the short life spans of the men buried in the two grave circles at Mycenae and in the grave circle at Pylos. When the son was too young to rule and the power was held in escrow by the wife of the deceased ruler, marriage to the widowed queen conferred the power to the new husband, as in the case of Clytemnestra and Aigisthos. This same phenomenon is illustrated in the Oedipus Cycle. In Thebes after the king’s unexpected death, the queen married the wandering hero, Oedipus, as his reward for having rid the city of the dreaded sphinx. Oedipus, having married the queen, was then acclaimed the king. At the time of their marriage, it was not known that Oedipus was the queen’s son, and it was thought that there were no heirs from her first marriage. There was no apparent reason for the queen of Thebes to object to a new husband. Her situation was distinct from Penelope’s, who did have a son and who had sought to avoid remarriage. These aspects of the passage of royal power are clearly illustrated in the situation at Ithaka as described in the Odyssey. Before the Trojan War, Ithaka had been ruled by Odysseus, the only son of Laertes, who had been the only son of Arkeisios. In due course, Telemachos, the only son of Odysseus, was expected to inherit the kingship.565 Even Antinoös, when he urged Telemachos to force his mother into remarriage, admitted that the kingship belonged to Telemachos by right of birth.566 The lament of Antikeia, Odysseus’ mother,567 which referred to an earlier period before the arrival of the suitors, also implied that the kingship belonged by right to Telemachos. This is a clear example of power passing in an orderly fashion from father to son, but a crisis had occurred in the land of Ithaka. The legitimate king, Odysseus, had been gone for twenty years, and many thought he was dead. Suitors inundated the palace seeking the hand of the queen, Penelope, who had ruled Ithaka during her husband’s long absence.568 For three painful years, while Telemachos was growing up,569 Penelope had resisted their advances,570 but soon her son would reach adulthood571 and the suitors were no longer patient.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE ORAL TRADITION

73

Prompted by Athena, Telemachos called an assembly of the men of Ithaka, the first to be called since the departure of Odysseus.572 Since no one had called an assembly for twenty years during Odysseus’ absence, it can be understood that the calling of the assembly was the prerogative of the ruling monarch, or possibly another person of high rank who might be contesting the power of the ruler. During Odysseus’ absence, no other male leader had taken his place, and his position as king remained secure for almost two decades. Telemachos failed to persuade the people of Ithaka to drive the suitors away from the palace,573 and he departed subsequently for Pylos and Sparta. During his absence, the suitors plotted his assassination. With the help of Athena, Telemachos evaded the suitors and returned safely home in time to meet his father. Together, father and son rid the palace of the suitors and secured the position of Odysseus as the legitimate king of Ithaka. Penelope’s reluctance to remarry is central to the plot. The reason for this reluctance is made clear. Penelope had been instructed by Odysseus, before his departure for Troy, that should he fail to return she was not to remarry until Telemachos had grown to be a bearded man.574 This plot tells us a great deal about the passage of power. It clearly assumes that when the king died leaving the power in the hands of his wife, she could, under certain circumstances, confer this power by marriage to a new husband. The attempted assassination of Telemachos can be understood to indicate that once the son was fully grown, he could assume the power of his dead father, hence the instructions of Odysseus when he left for Troy and Penelope’s prolonged struggle to avoid remarriage.575 Telemachos had tried to assert his authority by calling the assembly, but he failed in this attempt. His willingness to call an assembly clearly signifies his perception that he was ready to assume power, but at the same time it indicates that the will of the people, as expressed by those holding high rank in the society,576 and their acclaim was in some way necessary for the transfer of power to occur.577 The need for Athena’s prompting before Telemachos called this assembly suggests that under normal circumstances it was not his rightful place to do so. The insistence that Telemachos was the only son of Odysseus, who in turn was the only son of Laertes, who was the only son of Arkeisios, suggests, furthermore, that fitness to rule was also a consideration in the inheritance of a kingdom when an alternative heir existed. In this instance, there was no other heir, and so Telemachos’ right to inherit, as long as he remained alive, was indisputable. Telemachos’ failure is a necessary part of the plot. Had he succeeded in assuming the kingship, there would have been no point to Odysseus’ return.578 At the same time, in order to make Odysseus’ return complete, it was necessary for Telemachos to be worthy of being his father’s son and the ultimate heir to the throne. Later in the epic, Telemachos, in contrast to the

74

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

suitors, was able to string the great bow of Odysseus, and in this way he demonstrated his worthiness. Although fully capable of stringing the bow, he refrained from completing the task after his father’s look of disapproval. His restraint demonstrated his willingness to give way to his father and thus to show proper respect for the established social order of his community and for his own position within that society.579 The acclaim of the people for a new ruler is also seen in the assumption of power in Mycenae by Atreus. Atreus’ sister Nikippe married Sthenelos, and they had a son called Eurystheus who became the king of the Argolid. When Eurystheus was killed in battle without any direct heirs, the people of Mycenae, fearing the Herakleidae, asked Atreus to become king.580 According to Apollodorus, Sthenelos had four brothers,581 and among them there must have been some male who could have served as king, but the people of Mycenae chose Atreus instead. This choice suggests that the concept of fitness to rule was an element in the passage of power. A person belonging to the group representing power and wealth, but not directly related to the royal family, could be made king. The assumption that fitness to rule was a requisite for the passage of power implies that the eldest son did not automatically inherit the kingdom, but it may also explain the situation in Sparta, which was ruled by Menelaos, who became king after his marriage to Helen, the daughter of the king. Helen had two brothers, Kastor and Polydeukes, but neither brother inherited the kingdom.582 Her father, Tyndareos, with the help of his two sons, had chosen her husband.583 After her marriage to Menelaos, Tyndareos was rarely mentioned. His later absence suggests that he had reached old age at the time of her marriage, and it may be that the age of her father and the youth of her brothers explains the succession of Menelaos. If Tyndareos was nearing the end of his life-span and his sons were still too young to rule, he would have sought a strong man of the noble class as a husband for his daughter, in order to maintain the succession of the kingdom within his family. The sons, too young to rule, would have taken an obvious interest in the choice of their sister’s husband, who was to control both the kingdom and their futures. Fitness to rule may also have played a role in the somewhat unusual marriage of Arete to Alkinoös in the Land of the Phaiakians. The founder, Nausithoös, had two sons, Rhexenor and Alkinoös. After fathering a daughter, Arete, Rhexenor died, whereupon Arete married her uncle Alkinoös.584 Presumably, Rhexenor had been king after Nausithoös, but when he died leaving only one daughter, she married her uncle and thereby made him the legitimate king. This marriage of the only surviving child of the king to the most powerful male member of the family, her uncle, preserved the integrity of the family and avoided potential dispute over the kingdom. This is a

THE EVIDENCE OF THE ORAL TRADITION

75

situation similar to that postulated above to explain the domination of Grave Circle A over Grave Circle B at Mycenae. Scholars who interpret “Homeric Society” as eighth century often emphasize the calling of the assembly as an indication of the late date of the epics.585 At the beginning of Book 2 of the Odyssey, when Telemachos, prompted by Athena, called the assembly, the opening speech by Aigyptios made it clear that no assembly had been called since Odysseus’ departure twenty years earlier.586 This speech also suggests that assemblies of this type were rare in peaceful times and that normally they were called only at times of crisis. Assemblies could also be called as a prelude to banqueting or other festivities. At the beginning of Book 8 of the Odyssey, Alkinoös called an assembly of this kind. He was the only person to speak, and afterwards everyone followed his suggestion without further discussion. The second assembly to be called in the Land of Phaiakians was different from the first. It was called at a time of crisis after the ship, which had taken Odysseus to Ithaka, had returned and had been turned into stone by an angry Poseidon.587 In this second assembly, once again Alkinoös was the only one to speak,588 and the people, fearing Poseidon’s anger, followed the suggestion made by Alkinoös. The last assembly portrayed in the Odyssey589 also occurred at a time of crisis, this time in response to the slaying of the suitors in Ithaka. It is not clear who called this assembly. Like the assembly called by Telemachos, the community took no action. In both these assemblies, it appears that the lack of proper leadership led to disagreement. When Mentor, whom Odysseus had appointed to safeguard his interests during his absence,590 spoke words of caution in the first assembly,591 he was not heeded. In the last assembly, Medon and then Halitherses592 warned the relatives of the suitors, but no one listened, and united action, once again, was not taken. In the Iliad, the first major assembly was also the result of a crisis. The Achaians were suffering from a plague caused by Apollo. The plague was the result of Agamemnon’s refusal to accept ransom for the daughter of the priest Chryses. At the urging of Hera, Achilles called this assembly.593 The need for Hera’s interference is possibly an indication that it was not Achilles’ proper role to call an assembly. Agamemnon himself initiated all other, formal assemblies among the Achaians. Yielding to the greater power of the god Apollo, Agamemnon was forced to return the daughter to the priest. In compensation for his loss, he took Achilles’ prize, Briseis. Even though Achilles was angered by this suggestion and Nestor cautioned against it, Agamemnon insisted on his right to seize Briseis. Neither the great warrior nor the great statesman were able to persuade Agamemnon. This assembly, like those in the Land of the Phaiakians, illustrates the rule of one man.594

76

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

This same sequence can be seen in Hector’s actions as he led the Trojan forces on the field of battle. In Book 8 of the Iliad, Hector called an assembly,595 only he spoke,596 and the Trojans acted on his suggestion. On other occasions, Hector did listen to others, but in each case he alone made the final decision.597 When the gods met in assembly, the will of Zeus, the most powerful of the gods, was the deciding factor in all decisions. At the beginning of Iliad Book 8, Zeus called an assembly of the gods. Without any discussion, he simply decreed that the gods were to refrain from helping either the Trojans or the Achaians on the battle field. Although his command was not pleasing to the gods, only one person answered him, his daughter Athena.598 Her speech makes it clear that she was not happy but, nevertheless, she would follow his command. At the beginning of the Odyssey, when the gods met in assembly, Zeus again spoke first, and his will prevailed,599 even though Poseidon, in this instance, was most definitely against the decision.600 Zeus, as a good leader, did on occasion listen to the other gods, but action was undertaken only when Zeus consented.601 In all the various assemblies and meetings, action was taken only when the most prominent person concurred: Agamemnon among the Achaians at Troy; Hector among the Trojans on the battlefield; Alkinoös in the Land of the Phaiakians; and Zeus among the gods. Agreement for united action was unsuccessful only in the assemblies at Ithaka where a lack of leadership led to a divided opinion. After an assembly when agreement had been reached, the assembly was often followed by feasting and sacrificing with food provided by the leader. The final decision of the assemblies was sometimes greeted by the cheers of the people, but otherwise they seem to have had little influence on the decisions of their leaders. When the commoner Thersites spoke in one of the assemblies at Troy,602 he was berated by Odysseus,603 and the will of Agamemnon prevailed.604 In this same assembly, the Achaian followers made clear their desire to return home,605 but this was not to the liking of their leaders represented by Odysseus, Nestor, and Agamemnon.606 The will of the people was ignored, and the Achaian troops, against their expressed desires, remained at Troy. Banqueting and the eating of meat, which often occurred after the assemblies, are sometimes cited as a reflection of a society in transition.607 The painted scene of a sacrifice of a bull on the wall of the main megaron in the palace at Pylos and the many drinking vessels in its pantries, reinforced by the evidence from the tablets, indicate that this conclusion is not necessarily valid. There are so many scenes of banqueting and sacrifice in the Iliad, that their numbers must reflect epic glorification and hence they are not necessarily indicative of any given period as opposed to any other, which

THE EVIDENCE OF THE ORAL TRADITION

77

also had sacrifices and banquets.608 Heroes speaking of their wealth in terms of cattle can be seen as a reflection of this epic glorification. It may also reflect the fact that cattle, along with clothing, slaves, armor, and tripods, were objects that were most often captured, exchanged, or “sold” by the heroes of these tales, whereas their land was inherited, and it was given to others outside the immediate family only under very rare circumstances.609 The consumption of meat occurred in both the prehistoric and historic periods. It need not necessarily reflect a greater or lesser emphasis on land used for the growing of wheat as opposed to land used for the herding of cattle,610 since land was used for both purposes throughout antiquity. In the days before refrigeration, moreover, a single cow produced so much meat that one family alone could not possibly eat the entire animal before it spoiled. It follows that the slaughter of cows or bulls, whatever the period, must have resulted in feasting, often associated with sacrifice. Since the wall painting in the main megaron of Pylos illustrates the slaughter of a bull and scenes of drinking, similar episodes in the epics of sacrifice and banqueting can be said to be appropriate to the Mycenaean period as well as later periods. The position of the a[nax or wanax as the ruler holding final authority, in contrast to the basileuv" as a position of lesser rank, can be demonstrated by the use of those words in the Iliad. The noun a[nax was used one hundred fifty times in the Iliad. The supreme ruler of the Achaian forces at Troy, Agamemnon, was given the title a[nax ajndrw'n forty-seven times. An additional four times he was referred to as a[nax alone. Wanax was used forty-one times for other people at Troy, thirty-seven times for the gods, sixteen times for people not at Troy, and five times as general references not specific to an individual person. Topping the list of people at Troy after Agamemnon were Priam, eight times, and Achilles, six times.611 Others at Troy who were associated with the word a[nax were Helenos and Idomeneus four times each, Sarpedon three times, two times each for Nestor, Diomedes, Menelaos, and once each for Aineias, Rhesos, Thymbraios, Asios, Peneleos, Poulydamas, Patroklos, Eumelos, Antilochos, and Teukros.612 The word basileuv" appears seventy-four times in the Iliad. It was used most frequently in the plural referring to a group of people, twenty-six times. The next most frequent usage was sixteen times for Agamemnon, twelve times in reference to the proper behavior of a basileuv" without association to a particular individual, and eight times for people not at Troy. The remaining twelve times it was used for people at Troy: three times each for Achilles and Priam, twice for Rhesos, and once each for Nestor, Paris (as Alexander), Menestheos, and Sarpedon.613 Among the Achaians, the titles of a[nax and basileuv" were used more times for Agamemnon than for any other leader. Second to Agamemnon was Achilles. The differing circumstances in which Agamemnon and

78

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Achilles were called either a[nax or basileuv" reveal the bard’s attempts consciously to manipulate these terms in order to emphasize or de-emphasize the position of the individual hero. This can be seen most clearly in his usage of a[nax for Achilles. Achilles’ father was still alive, so properly his father should have held this title. Achilles’ father, however, was not at Troy, and presumably on the Greek mainland his father held this title. At Troy, Achilles alone led the Myrmidons, and the use of a[nax for Achilles reflects the position he held over his own people on the battlefield. In the description of the hut built for Achilles at Troy, he was twice called the a[nax. The Myrmidons built this hut for their a[nax, and for their a[nax they placed a great courtyard before it.614 Achilles was being honored by the Myrmidons as their leader, their a[nax, on the battlefield at Troy. His position as their leader had been made clear earlier in the Iliad when Achilles, angered at Agamemnon, had refused to fight, and all the other Myrmidons refrained from fighting. They returned to the battlefield only in Book 16, after Patroklos had persuaded Achilles to let him lead the Myrmidons into battle. The hierarchy of the Myrmidons was revealed in the Iliad,615 and just as in the case of the assemblies, the rule of one man is clear. The other four times Achilles was called an a[nax, the bard appears to have been using the term more subtly. Twice the bard had Odysseus address Achilles as an a[nax. In these two examples, Odysseus used this term in an attempt to flatter Achilles and to make him more receptive towards the gifts offered by Agamemnon in exchange for his returning to the battlefield.616 Later, when the bard once again discussed this same subject, he again called Achilles an a[nax.617 The only other time the word a[nax was used in association with Achilles was when Nestor was talking to Agamemnon concerning Agamemnon’s attempts to persuade Achilles to return to the battlefield.618 Nestor appears to have used the term a[nax for Achilles in order to remind Agamemnon that some of the other leaders on the battlefield also held high rank. The bard’s intentional manipulation of words is also reflected in his usage of basileuv" when it was applied to Agamemnon. Usually Agamemnon was identified as a[nax ajndrw'n, but sixteen times the word basileuv" was used in association with Agamemnon. Four times the term basileuv" was used for Agamemnon to reflect his position as a mortal inferior to the higher rank held by the gods.619 Twice it was used by someone equal to him in rank, the first time by Helen and the second time in association with Kinyras. Three times he was called basileuv" on the battlefield, as an indication of high rank, when he was being treated as just one of the many heroic warriors fighting on the Achaian side.620 Six times, basileuv" was used for Agamemnon in anger during the course of an argument.621 Here the word was being used to belittle Agamemnon and to imply that his actions that

THE EVIDENCE OF THE ORAL TRADITION

79

led to the quarrel with Achilles were not appropriate to someone who held the rank of a[nax. The word basileuv" also was used in Agamemnon’s discussion with Diomedes. On that occasion it appears to have been used as an indication of Diomedes’ anger, which Diomedes himself refrained from expressing.622 The bard’s use of the term basileuv" for Agamemnon can be seen as one of the many ways in which he belittled Agamemnon. Someone had to be blamed for the argument between Achilles and Agamemnon that brought such disaster to the Achaians. Since the Iliad was composed to honor Achilles, he could not be blamed. As a result, the responsibility for the argument was attributed to Agamemnon. Even though Agamemnon held the greater rank and power by hereditary right, he was portrayed as the lesser warrior compared to Achilles.623 In the Odyssey, the usage of basileuv" and a[nax for Odysseus follows the same pattern seen in the Iliad. As the ruler of Ithaka, he normally was called an a[nax (twenty-five times),624 but on three occasions he was named a basileuv"—once by his son, once as a high ranking member of his society, and once in relationship to a god.625 The possibility that the words basileuv" and a[nax could be used for the same person, no matter how subtly the bard employed the words, can be seen as an indication that the distinction between the different titles was already beginning to get blurred in the oral tradition. The positions of power, whatever they may have been called on individual occasions, however, were crucial to the plot of both epics. The rank of an individual hero in relationship to that of another hero was always made clear. The highest-ranking hero may have relied on the counsel of others close to him in rank, but surely this is true of any ruler or leader, past or present, who wishes to retain his power. In the initial argument between Agamemnon and Achilles, Nestor tried to mediate. He advised Agamemnon not to take Briseis, but Agamemnon did not heed him. The outcome for the Achaians was a disaster. The plot makes clear the hierarchy of power and it was this plot that the bard learned as part of his training in the oral tradition. At Ithaka, the crisis occurred because there was no ruler present, neither an a[nax nor a basileuv", who was in control of the political situation, and no council of elders had taken his place. The suitors had invaded the palace in an attempt to seek Penelope’s hand. These men were seeking marriage in order to replace Odysseus and to usurp his position. Their actions indicate that the rank of Odysseus was in some way superior to the one that they held. In the Land of the Phaiakians, twelve basilei'" were identified, and Alkinoös, the most important of all, was called the thirteenth.626 The rule of a single man, surrounded by others close to him in rank but clearly not equal to him, is illustrated by Alkinoös’ position in the Land of the Phaiakians. These multiple basilei'" in the epics may have served as the

80

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

king’s advisors,627 but they were clearly not his equal. During Odysseus’ absence, the basilei'" were given neither his power nor the temporary rights and obligations of his position. The plot of the Odyssey rests on the assumption of a single ruler who held a power greater than those around him. This ruler still kept his position even though he was absent. It presupposes a period when rulers were gone from the kingdom for long periods of time (though not necessarily the ten years plus ten years that are obviously epic numbers). It is the outlines of this plot that indicate perhaps most clearly that the original story of the Odyssey belongs in the Bronze Age and not in the Dark Age or the Geometric period.

V

The End of the Tradition

Scholars who do not accept an early date for the origin of the Iliad and Odyssey argue that even though the portrayal of kingship reflected in the oral tradition forms a coherent picture, it does not necessarily depict the Mycenaean period. In recent years, studies of kingship in the Greek world often start with the premise that the world of the Iliad and the Odyssey represents either the Dark Age or the eighth century.628 Consequently, the portrayal of kingship in these epics is also thought to illustrate one of these periods. This assumption fails to explain when, why, and how the basileus came to replace the wanax. The title wanax was used for the ruler in the Linear B tablets and in both of the Homeric epics, but in later literature it was used only for the gods and was no longer applied to mortals.629 Although the term basileus was occasionally used in place of wanax when applied to mortals in the Iliad and the Odyssey, it was never used in this way in reference to the gods. This is in contrast to Hesiod, the other epics of the Trojan War Cycle, and the Homeric Hymns, where the gods were occasionally identified as basileus. The fact that the term basileus was not used for the gods in the Iliad and the Odyssey, suggests that these two epics reflect an earlier stage of the political evolution (though not necessarily an earlier date in their final composition)

82

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

compared to that in the other early poetry. The world described by Hesiod, as has been frequently noted, was very different from that described by Homer.630 It should not be surprising that the two bards reflected two different historical periods. Similar to the wanax, the basileus also appears in the Linear B tablets. Although there is no general consensus concerning the exact functions or the duties of the basileus, some things about the position, both in the epics and in the tablets, can be stated with certainty. In the epics it is clear that this rank was a position of some authority and it was held by more than one person, even when both people came from the same area. In the tablets this rank was also held by more than one person and these people held positions of authority in areas not immediately adjacent to the palace. The transformation of various people holding the rank of basileus in the Linear B tablets and in the Homeric epics into a single ruler called the basileuv" of the later periods needs explanation.631 This transformation of rank suggests that there had been a major break in the system of leadership between the period when the ruler was called the wanax and the later period when the ruler was called the basileuv". At the end of the Mycenaean period, when the palace economy fell, there did occur a vast movement of people and a period of depressed economy.632 Casual references to men fleeing their homeland after they had assassinated their leaders or relatives,633 of children stolen and sold into slavery,634 of great wealth once held but later lost,635 excursions to Egypt,636 looting of cities,637 usurpation of power at home resulting in blood feuds and political unrest,638 these and many other similar incidents are related in the epic tradition. They bespeak a society that was unsettled and on the verge of disintegration, a world that was gradually collapsing into economic and political chaos when trade routes were disrupted, communications with foreign lands had become hazardous, and bronze became a scarce commodity.639 These events were related in the epics, and these same events are now being documented in the archaeological record of the last days of Mycenaean power.640 During the Dark Age, the homogeneous culture of the palaces and contacts between widely separated areas ceased. Although occasional pockets of prosperity may have existed during that period, the various centers became isolated, and trade was limited.641 Even in the subsequent period, when individual settlements experienced broader contacts with other communities, there was no major disruption throughout the entire Greek world to explain the universal change of the earlier title basileus to mean king.642 In the Geometric period, there appears to have been a time of gradual economic recovery and expanding contacts with other areas, but these remained regional. The different regions of the Greek world developed their own separate traditions and local identities.643 At the end of this period of

THE END OF THE TRADITION

83

economic recovery, many areas, which had been dominated by the earlier Mycenaean rulers, had become strongholds of Dorian power. The political landscape of Greece had been transformed, and the polis system began to evolve. The isolation of the Dark Ages precluded the possibility of a pan-Hellenic tradition that was accepted by all later Greek-speaking people as part of their common heritage. Any epic tradition that represented a Dark Age society would have remained localized to that particular region.644 An epic that had originated in Lefkandi, for example,645 would have been known only to the people who inhabited that site646 and to those people who were in direct contact with them.647 In a world that had only limited contact with peoples outside the local community, it is difficult to see how a local epic known to a small group of people could have spread so rapidly throughout the entire Greek-speaking world.648 The spread of the Trojan War Cycle and the other well-known cycles logically belongs to the period when the Greek world was more homogeneous in its culture and when there were widespread contacts between regions. The isolation of the Dark Age suggests, furthermore, that any battles that took place were also local. The small size of the settlements and the absence of large fortified citadels at most of the Dark Age sites indicate that these battle forays were limited in size. In this kind of situation, the outcome of the battles was immediately known. The fate of the ruler was quickly established. If he had perished in battle, his successor was immediately chosen in order to provide leadership against any possible retaliation by the enemy. These circumstances, however, are not to be found in Ithaka as it is portrayed in the Odyssey. Crucial to the central plot of the Odyssey is the fact that the fate of their ruler was unknown. In order that the situation in Ithaka be convincing to the original audience, the plot must have been thought to reflect a period when warriors were absent for long periods of time, fighting far from home, and the fate of the reigning monarch remained uncertain. During the Dark Age, when battles were local, this type of situation did not arise. Later, when prosperity became more general on the Greek mainland and the period of colonization began, the colonists had their own designated leaders. These leaders traveled with the colonists, and thus their fortunes were known to their followers. The concept of a ruler being absent for many years, which is the basis of the plot in the Odyssey, is simply not applicable to these periods, but it is applicable to the Mycenaean period, when trade was widespread and people traveled great distances to Cyprus, Egypt, and the Near East. Chadwick suggested that the people who later called themselves the Dorians were already present on the Greek mainland in the Mycenaean period.649 Although there appears to be no evidence for the Dorians in the

84

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Linear B tablets,650 their presence in Mycenaean Greece is indicated by the absence of archaeological evidence for the arrival of a new group of people at the end of the Mycenaean period; by their domination of wide areas of Greece, Crete, Rhodes, the southern coast of Asia Minor, southern Italy, and Sicily at the end of the Dark Age;651 and by later historical tradition. Two statements made by Thucydides suggest that the presence of the Dorians as a minority class wishing to usurp power of the aristocracy already existed during the Mycenaean period. Thucydides reported that the Mycenaeans, fearing the Herakleidae, offered the scepter of Mycenae to Atreus. Later, after the fall of Troy, the Dorians together with the Herakleidae became masters of the Peloponnese.652 Thucydides’ first statement places the Herakleidae in the Peloponnese during the Mycenaean period. In his second statement, he seems to confirm the Dorian presence. He said that the Dorians together with the Herakleidae seized power. He did not say that the Dorians had come from elsewhere to seize the power, although this passage is often so interpreted, but he spoke of them in such a way as to imply that they had been in the area for some time. These statements can be understood to reflect a power struggle between the Mycenaean wanax and his associated aristocracy versus the rising ambitions of the outlying areas and the minority class later known as the Dorians.653 The identification of the people who later called themselves Dorians as some of the earlier Mycenaeans living in the Argolid also is suggested by an anecdote told by Herodotus.654 When the sixth-century Spartan king Kleomenes went to Athens, he was denied entry into the Temple of Athena on the Acropolis because he was a Dorian. In reply, Kleomenes claimed descent not from the Dorians but from the Achaians. Kleomenes’ identified himself, and thus the Dorians and the Herakleidae who were closely associated with the Spartan kings in the Archaic and Classical tradition, as descendants of the earlier Achaians who had been the Mycenaean inhabitants of the Argolid .655 His claim would have had no credence if the Dorians and the Herakleidae were considered an invading force coming from an area outside the Argolid after the fall of the Mycenaean kingdoms. When the palace economy fell,656 it is understandable that the wanax also ceased to be important. Leaders living in the outlying areas,657 who had held the rank of basileus and had sided with the lower class against the aristocracy and the palace, then assumed power in areas that had become isolated and independent.658 In time, these men became the local rulers, resulting in the equation of basileus and king. These people remained on the Greek mainland after the palace centers fell, and they were responsible for turning the earlier Mycenaean strongholds into areas dominated by the Dorians in the historic period.

THE END OF THE TRADITION

85

At the end of the Bronze Age, a class struggle on Crete between the upper class Mycenaeans and the more numerous lower class Mycenaean Dorians explains the Dorian’s domination of the island in the historic periods. An earlier Dorian presence on the island also explains the cultural continuity found between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in many areas of the island.659 A reflection of such a class conflict may perhaps be seen in one of the false tales of Odysseus.660 In this story, Odysseus claimed that he had fled from Crete after killing Orsilochos, the son of Idomeneus. Odysseus appears to have felt justified in killing him because Orsilochos had attempted to seize Odysseus’ booty brought home from Troy. The false Odysseus can be understood to represent the upper class Mycenaeans who were loosing both their influence and their wealth. As a result of the political situation, the upper class residents fled from the island, took as much of their wealth as they could carry, and left the island in the control of the Dorians. Idomeneus and his son can be understood to have abandoned their traditional class affiliations in order to gain leadership of the rising lower class. Siding with the Dorians, they were attempting to form a new government by redistributing the wealth on the island and usurping the power of the aristocracy.661 The Mycenaean rulers and their followers, fleeing from the regions previously controlled by the palace centers, appear to have gone to areas such as Achaea662 and Attika,663 then on to the islands of the Cyclades, the Dodecanese, and Cyprus,664 and finally to the Ionian coast. Others appear to have gone to Ithaka, to Kephallonia, and to Zankythos.665 Confirmation of a great exodus of Mycenaeans fleeing the Greek mainland can be found in the archaeological record of the islands, and it is now being confirmed once again by the current excavations on the island of Ithaka. In contrast to the scanty Dark Age archaeological remains on the Greek mainland, the excavations on Ithaka have revealed numerous remains of Dark Age habitations. These remains are far more extensive than those of the Mycenaean period found thus far on the island.666 The oral tradition appears to have retained a memory of these events. In the Odyssey, future prosperity for the island of Ithaka was indicated by Teiresias when he prophesied that Odysseus would die a gentle death in his old age amid his people dwelling in abundance.667 In a conversation between Hera and Zeus in the Iliad, a different future for the mainland was suggested.668 Hera, in exchange for the devastation of Troy, agreed to the destruction of her favorite cities, Argos, Sparta, and Mycenae, and, indeed, these cities appear to have been destroyed at the end of the Mycenaean period. Accompanying the fleeing Mycenaean leaders, the bards naturally would have remembered the tales taught to them in their younger days when the wanax ruled from a fortified citadel. These bards understandably preserved

86

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

the titles of those men most closely associated with the palace who had fled with the former leaders, but they gradually dropped some of the lesser titles of the men who had been left behind.669 They remembered the warriors who had fought in bronze suits of armor and worn boar’s tusk helmets. They recalled the days when men lived in complex palaces with many rooms and several floor levels, when gold cups adorned the tables, and chariot travel between Mycenaean centers was still possible. The preservation of these tales served to identify the displaced Mycenaeans as the Greeks, the people who had fought together against Troy, and who were different from the other groups of peoples living in the same area. Successive generations of bards were responsible for remembering the traditions of the past, and for reminding the people of their history and identity.670 Since the language of the epics is in the Ionic dialect, one group of bards must have lived in that area of the Greek world. The location of these bards in Ionia may help to explain some of the Near Eastern influences in the epics. Other elements of the Near Eastern oral traditions may have been adapted earlier when the Mycenaeans first had contact with the Near East, or they may have been based on a common Indo-European heritage. However these influences entered the Greek tradition, their addition must have been gradual. The bards could not suddenly introduce radical new concepts without being denounced by the audience who already had some knowledge of their past, either from hearing earlier bards, or from listening to stories told by their older family members and friends. As part of the Greek oral tradition, the bards retained the knowledge reflected in the epics of the early wanax and how he had governed his kingdom. During the Dark Age when writing ceased to be used, remembrances of the Mycenaean Age must have been preserved by way of the oral tradition. This tradition spread throughout the Greek world into those areas inhabited by the fleeing Mycenaeans. The vase paintings from the closing years of the Geometric period and in the years following it, plus the linguistic evidence, indicate that knowledge of this tradition had spread from the coast of Ionia possibly as far west as the island of Pithekoussai in Italy. It has been illustrated repeatedly that the early artistic representations include stories of the entire Trojan War and not just those segments preserved in the Iliad and Odyssey.671 These representations indicate that the cycle in its entirety spread throughout the Greek world, and that the Iliad and the Odyssey represent only one very small segment of this tradition. Somewhat surprisingly, and in direct contradiction to the great prominence of these two epics in later antiquity, these representations also indicate that subjects directly related to the Iliad and Odyssey were not popular among the early vase painters and their patrons.672

THE END OF THE TRADITION

87

Characteristic of scholars’ attempt to find Homeric inferences in this early period is the cup from Pithekoussai that includes the name Nestor in its inscribed verses and has been said to reflect the Iliad.673 Only the name of Nestor and the fact that he had a cup connect the two traditions. The hexameter verses on this cup are associated with Aphrodite and love.674 In the Iliad, a cup belonging to Nestor was described as unusually large, of an elaborate shape, and made of gold,675 but there was no mention of Aphrodite or amorous impulses in the Iliad. Nothing in the verses on the Pithekoussai cup nor the cup itself suggests an unusual size or shape. The verses on the cup have closer parallels in the magical incantations and curses that are known to have existed from the Bronze Age to the end of antiquity.676 The cup with its magical incantations more plausibly belongs to a separate cycle, no longer preserved,677 which was known to the people of Pithekoussai in the eighth century. This cup once again indicates that the Iliad and Odyssey formed only one part of the oral tradition known in Archaic and Classical Greece. Some scholars still believe that the spread of the Iliad and Odyssey was based on written texts.678 They fail to explain, however, why a bard trained in the oral tradition would have been motivated to write an epic in the first place, and once he decided to undertake this chore, why he produced a manuscript so much longer than any other written text from antiquity.679 The spread of the tradition by way of written manuscripts requires a bard born early in the eighth century. He first would have had to master the skills required by his profession and then he had to be willing to learn the recently introduced alphabet and to write over fifteen thousand lines of verse. If he had not mastered the new skill of writing, then his task was possibly even more formidable. He had to find someone who had learned this skill and who was willing to spend days writing down over fifteen thousand lines of verse. The first epic composed on the Ionian coast in this entirely new method needs to have been such an immediate success that a second epic, consisting of over twelve thousand lines, was composed in this same way a few decades later. Once the epics were written, an audience was needed who would have been willing to listen to the epics, which would have taken at least three days to sing for the Iliad alone, or, more difficult still, who had the skill and motivation to spend innumerable hours reading the lengthy, new epics. If the spread of this tradition was by means of written manuscripts, the artistic representations of the Trojan Cycle indicate that manuscripts of both epics and the rest of the cycle must have been available by the beginning of the seventh century in the areas of Attika, Aegina, Boeotia, Corinth, Argos, Olympia, Mykonos, Rhodes, and Samos. Since the epics were written in the Ionian dialect, this area needs to be expanded to the Ionian coast. The Pithekoussai cup indicates that knowledge of at least

88

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

part of the tradition spread to Italy. Each of these areas needed people who had heard of the manuscripts, who were willing to pay for them, and who were then able to find someone who had an available copy. Upon receipt of the manuscripts, the new owners must have been willing to spend many days reading more than twenty-seven thousand lines of hexameter verse for the two Homeric epics alone. Having read these verses, they then had to share their knowledge with a sufficient number of people in order to create the demand that the vase painters illustrate the events of the epics. Since the vase paintings illustrated other parts of the epics, knowledge of the entire Trojan War Cycle must have spread at the same time, presumably in a similar manner. This area is too widespread for these events to have taken place within a single century after the introduction of the alphabet, which is required by the concept that the spread of the tradition was by way of written texts. It implies a mass literacy that is hardly credible at such an early period.680 The cost of producing and marketing these manuscripts is another problem that has rarely been considered. Finding and paying for enough writing material to produce eleven copies of each manuscript would have presented a major difficulty. In addition to the cost of the writing material, there was the added problem of finding and then paying men to make the copies. It is difficult to believe that such a mercantile adventure would have been attempted in the eighth century, so soon after the introduction of the alphabet.681 In order to account for the spread and preservation of the tradition reflected in the vase paintings, many bards must have originally sung the tales associated with the Trojan War as well as the many other epics that are represented in the vase paintings and in some of the great dramas of fifth-century Athens.682 It is known that Arktinos of Miletos, for example, told the tales of the Aithiopis and the Iliupersis. Other names associated with the telling of the Trojan tales are Stasinos of Cyprus, Lesches of Mytilene, Agias of Troizen, and Euganammon of Cyrene.683 These men presumably were not the first to sing of these events, but they were the bards who were responsible in some way for the written edition of these epics.684 In the fifth century, Aeschylus wrote plays about the House of Atreus and Sophocles wrote about Oedipus. These playwrights were responsible for the editions of the plays we have today, but they were writing about a tradition that is much older than the fifth century. In a similar manner, Arktinos, Stasinos, Lesches, Agias, and Euganommon appear to have been responsible for the written form of the epics preserved in late antiquity. Only fragments and a synopsis of these epics are preserved today. The synopses originally were attached to late editions of the Iliad and Odyssey in order to explain the events occurring both before and after the two epics.685

THE END OF THE TRADITION

89

Other bards, such as Kynaithos,686 sang their own accounts of these same events, but these versions were oral and apparently never rendered in written form. Additional bards may have been responsible for written texts that are now no longer preserved.687 Some of these bards were, no doubt, better trained than others. Inevitably, inconsistencies688 and variants in the tradition developed.689 Studies of oral traditions in other cultures suggest that epic exaggeration, conflation of different periods, addition of new episodes, alterations in motivation, and new nuances to personalities and events inevitably crept into an oral tradition as it was passed from one generation of bards to the next, or from one area to another. These changes presumably also occurred in the Greek tradition, but they did not necessarily alter the fundamental elements of the tradition once its basic outlines had been established.690 New emphases given to older rituals and new combinations of the traditional episodes may reflect the changing attitudes of Greek historical society, but the extent of these changes, their date, and their significance are difficult to establish.691 The almost complete absence of specific references to later historical events in the extant texts of the oral tradition, the many reminiscences of the Mycenaean Age, and the coherence of the society portrayed suggest that the basic outlines were established early in the tradition. Occasionally, additions that tied the tales to a specific location were included, such as the events in the Telegony and the so-called Athenian interpolations in the Homeric texts, but these were probably recognized in antiquity as special additions peculiar to a local area.692 These variations in the oral tradition, as it was preserved by different groups of bards, were recognized in antiquity; nevertheless, the entire Greek world did accept that their ancestors had fought a war at Troy. The universal acceptance of the Trojan War Cycle as a heritage common to all Greek-speaking peoples suggests that the roots of this tradition date back to a period when they shared a common heritage, that is, the period of the Late Bronze Age and not the periods of the isolated Dark Age or the fragmented, argumentative centuries of later Greek history. One group of bards, known in later times as the Homeridae, was recognized as the most trusted custodians of the oral tradition.693 They were visited by the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgos who took their tales back with him to Sparta.694 Another prominent figure who had been in contact with them was the tyrant Peisistratos of Athens.695 The Homeridae appear to have settled on Chios and Samos. Their location in Ionia, adjacent to the Aeolic-speaking people, probably was responsible for the mixed language known today as the Homeric dialect.696 After the introduction of the alphabet into the Greek world, one of these bards, known as Homer in antiquity, who was presumably a member of the Homeridae and thus the son or grandson of an earlier bard

90

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

called Homer,697 appears to have been responsible for dictating the texts of the Iliad and Odyssey that we have today.698 The identification of the Homeridae as the most trusted custodians of their tradition suggests that there existed at this same time other groups of bards who had inherited the same tradition, but who were not as punctilious in their interpretations. The location of the Homeridae in Ionia suggests that they were related in some way to the descendants of the displaced Mycenaeans who had fled from the Greek mainland. The preservation of the oral tradition must have been particularly important to this group of people because it associated them with the men who had fought at Troy and the great heroes of the past who had lived on the Greek mainland. It is often stated that in the oral tradition, the past was meaningful only as it reflected ideas and concepts relevant to the current audience. For the people who had come from the Greek mainland and who were now living in Ionia, these epics were important because they identified them as Greeks, even though they and their families no longer lived on the Greek mainland. It separated them from the other groups of people who occupied the Near East and who had not fought in the pan-Hellenic war against the Trojans. In order to maintain this identity, it was essential that they kept the tradition as pure as possible, and that conflations and additions came from the same pan-Hellenic tradition, and not from events of their own lifetimes.699 Contemporary ideas may have been reflected in the motivations that the bards ascribed to the heroes, but any such additions had to retain the original outlines of the story. Adherence to the original story may on occasion appear to represent flawed reasoning from our viewpoint, but certain elements of the tradition were fixed and could not be changed.700 The consequent tension between different moral evaluations701 and various possible interpretations of the same actions resulted in epics that continue to fascinate endless generations of readers and scholars. It has been questioned whether a bard called Homer ever existed.702 Since written texts of both the Iliad and the Odyssey are extant today, someone, at some point, must have dictated or written these texts. This is the bard whom I call Homer. There is no necessity to assume that this same bard was the first to sing “The Wrath of Achilles” or “The Return of Odysseus.” If this oral tradition goes back to the Mycenaean period, as I have tried to argue, then many different bards in the centuries following the Mycenaean period must have sung of these same events. There is no indication that Lesches of Mytilene, Agias of Troizen, or Euganammon of Cyrene were considered to be Homeridae.703 They need not have been related to the early bard who had been the founder of the clan called the Homeridae or to his later descendants. In later times, many parts of the oral tradition concerning the Trojan War, plus other subjects such as the once famous Margites

THE END OF THE TRADITION

91

and the Homeric Hymns, came to be attributed to the founder of the clan, the earlier Homer.704 In time, this early Homer became a figure of legend, little was known about the actual person, and attempts to write his history resulted in a variety of imagined Lives of Homer.705 The founder of the clan needs to be separated from the later Homer, who was the bard responsible for the dictation of the Iliad and Odyssey. Today there is only one Iliad and one Odyssey that ancient tradition attributed to a bard called Homer.706 Whatever the bard may have originally been called, the organization of the epics suggests that at some time a specific bard arranged a large body of information into each of the two epics that form the extant written text. The date of the earliest written texts is generally considered to be the eighth century.707 The language of the Homeric epics is usually considered to be earlier than that of Hesiod. Since Hesiod is dated to the seventh century, the date ascribed to Homer is the eighth century.708 The Homeric epics were relating the stories of the great heroes of the past, whereas the poetry of Hesiod had a very different subject matter.709 His work emphasized what was timely and pragmatic, what a person needed to know to lead a successful life, and what gods he needed to heed. In order to emphasize his more practical contribution to the men of his own time, Hesiod can be understood to have used the newer forms and more current language of his day as it was spoken in Boeotia.710 The Iliad and Odyssey represent traditions of the past and of Ionia. Just as their subject matter was more traditional, their language may have been more conservative in its retention of archaic forms.711 Variations in the ideograms and the writing of the Linear B tablets suggest that variations in the language had already begun to appear in the Mycenaean period.712 In the fragmented years following the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, the isolation of the different areas no doubt helped to intensify the differences in the spoken language and to strengthen local dialects.713 Diversity in language in the eighth and seventh centuries can be documented by the preserved, Early Archaic inscriptions. When the alphabet was first introduced the same letter forms were used throughout the Greek world, but within a century a variety of forms reflecting the different dialects had developed.714 The later history of the Greek language supports the concept that the language developed differently in various geographic regions. The overwhelming influence of Athenian literature of the Classical period had a “fossilizing” effect on written Greek and created a literate, written language that changed very little in the subsequent centuries. During this same period, the spoken language continued to evolve and change in ways not reflected in the written Greek.715 In a similar manner, the epic language of different groups of bards can be understood to have differed in its retention, to a greater or lesser degree, of

92

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

earlier forms and in its reflection of changes occurring in the spoken language of each region.716 At the same time that the bards were singing about the Trojan War and the other heroic cycles, such as those concerning the Argonauts and the House of Kadmus at Thebes, iambic poetry and elegiac poetry were being developed in Greece as separate phenomena, each with its own specialized language.717 In the seventh and sixth centuries, even as these new forms began to be used, hexameter verses continued to be composed.718 This was a period of rich literary development, and a wide range of poetry, language, and subject matter was being explored in addition to the Iliad and Odyssey719 and the other epic traditions. The influence of the rich literary tradition of the Archaic period on the epics can perhaps be seen in the development of the extended simile found in the Iliad and Odyssey.720 These extended similes usually portray scenes of ordinary life and are restricted almost entirely to the world of man. Although the diction of these similes is formulaic, they contain many nontraditional usages and a vocabulary revealing a high degree of original composition.721 The combination of non-traditional language and the contemporary subject matter of these similes suggests the influence of Archaic literary trends superimposed onto the older literary forms of the hexameter tradition. Although short similes occur occasionally in the Homeric Hymns and in Hesiod, the extended simile is absent. Their absence in the other hexameter verses led G.S. Kirk to suggest that the bard of the Iliad and Odyssey was the first to introduce the extended simile into the oral tradition.722 Their absence in the other, preserved hexameter verses suggests that they were a late development in the oral tradition. Perhaps their presence in the Iliad and Odyssey should be seen as another indication of a late date for the composition of these two epics as opposed to an earlier date for Hesiod and some of the Homeric Hymns. If the Iliad and Odyssey were based on the oral tradition, the questions have been asked why were these two particular epics so honored and what was the particular role of the bard called Homer.723 Since no other epic of the Trojan War Cycle is completely preserved, it is difficult to ascertain with certainty why these two epics were held in such high esteem, and no definitive answer has yet been established.724 In later antiquity, the Iliad and Odyssey were received with great enthusiasm, as indicated by the many extant papyri from the third and second centuries B.C.725 Their great popularity, however, is not reflected in the vase paintings of the Archaic period,726 which should indicate something about the nature of the rest of the cycle. Although only roughly one hundred twenty lines of text from the rest of the cycle are preserved today, various ancient references supply additional information on its subject matter.727 Throughout all the epics, including the

THE END OF THE TRADITION

93

Iliad and Odyssey, there are reflections of events described in other parts of the cycle.728 This is to be expected if the cycle reflects events known to all the bards. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the bards had written texts of the other parts of the cycle.729 This shared knowledge of the entire tradition by all the bards makes striking the differences between Homer’s work and the rest of the cycle. The fantastic, the miraculous, and the romantic elements found in the rest of the cycle far exceed anything to be found in the Iliad and to a lesser extent in the Odyssey.730 In the rest of the cycle, the gods repeatedly granted immortality to their favorites, but in Homer’s world mankind could not avoid old age or death in contrast to the gods, who were immortal and always remain young.731 Homer treated women and children with quiet dignity.732 The women were never killed nor the children sacrificed.733 A proliferation of children was avoided.734 The Iliad excluded low human types, homosexual love, treachery and revenge on family and friends, drunken behavior, and excessive eating.735 The numerous oracles and prophecies, which occur in the rest of the cycle, were reduced in number in the Homeric epics, and the metamorphoses of the gods into other shapes was almost entirely avoided.736 In the words of J. Griffin, the difference between Homer’s world and the rest of the cycle “was due to the exceptional genius that went into the creation of the Homeric epics, especially the Iliad. The strict, radical, and consistently heroic interpretation of the world presented by the Iliad made it quite different from the rest of the cycle, which was still content with monsters, miracles, metamorphoses, and an un-tragic attitude towards mortality, all seasoned with exoticism and romance.”737 Many of the individual stories that reflect these differences in the other parts of the cycle can be tied to folk tales with parallels in other cultures.738 Despite its lesser quality as poetry,739 this type of tale, with its emphasis on romance, magic, and the fantastic, appeals to a less sophisticated audience. These same qualities may have attracted the vase painters of the Archaic period and may account for the popularity of the rest of the cycle. Many of these same characteristics occur in the stories of Herakles’ exploits, which were another favorite subject in vase painting and the literature of the early period.740 In later periods after Greek audiences had been exposed to the great dramas of the Athenian tragedians and reading had become more widespread, literary taste inevitably became more developed and more discriminating. The great popularity of the Homeric epics in the written papyri can be seen as a reflection of the more sophisticated, literary discrimination of the reading public.741 The unparalleled length of the two epics is another characteristic that separates them from the other contemporary epics. No other epic of the Trojan War Cycle compares to them in length.742 It has been estimated that

94

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

the Iliad alone would have taken from twenty to twenty-seven hours to recite. If periods of rest for the bard and his audience are included, the entire recitation would take several days.743 On various occasions in the Odyssey, a similar type of epic was sung,744 but these were fairly short songs sung after a meal, and they probably represent the more normal epic.745 Verification of the unusual length of the Iliad and Odyssey can be found in Aristotle. Although he spoke admiringly of the two epics, he did, nevertheless, say that the ideal epic should be sung in one day,746 and it is clear that neither the Iliad nor the Odyssey meets this criterion. Although the unusual length of both the Iliad and Odyssey has been frequently noted, only rarely has anyone asked why these two epics differ in length from other known ancient literary works.747 The unusual length of these two epics can, I believe, be attributed to the method used to transform the oral epic into written form.748 In the days of early writing in Greece, when letters were always rendered in capitals, the process of writing was both laborious and time consuming. A bard dictating an epic could sing much faster than the scribes were able to transform his words into a written text.749 It must have become immediately apparent that the entire epic could not be sung in a single sitting, and repeated sessions were necessary to complete the task.750 As long as both the scribes and the bard were being paid by the patron who commissioned the written edition, the length of the epics was limited only by the bard’s knowledge and the scribes’ patience. An imaginative bard, well-versed in the traditions of the Trojan War, was in a position to add many new facets to the story. He could refer to earlier events751 and to other epic cycles.752 He could include catalogs,753 the youthful activities of the heroes,754 the genealogies of the warriors,755 descriptions of their armor,756 references to wives and children left behind, and many other details not directly related to the particular event being recounted. During the dictation, episodes that were normally sung as different songs could be added together into one great saga portraying the heroes with a new complexity not possible in the shorter epics of that period. The excessive length of the Iliad, and to a lesser extent of the Odyssey, appears to have been due to a miscalculation of both the bard and the scribes. In the excitement of slowly dictating the actions on the battlefield, the bard failed to take into consideration the combined lengths of the separately transcribed sessions. The first full day of fighting in the Iliad, for example, starts in Book 3 and ends with Book 7, some 2,910 lines later. This one day alone is longer than the combined lengths of Hesiod’s Theogony and his Works and Days. It is much longer than any single ode written by Pindar, and it is just under five times the length of the longest known Sumerian epic. The events of the third day of fighting in the Iliad took even longer to describe. They begin in Book 11 with the aristeia of Agamemnon, and they

THE END OF THE TRADITION

95

end at line 355 of Book 18 with the Achaians mourning the death of Patroklos. The description of these events takes 5,408 lines of verse, roughly one-third of the Iliad. So much happened on the third day and so exciting were these events that few readers and surely neither the bard nor the scribes paused to consider that an entire day would be needed to recite these 5,408 lines alone.757 The great length of the epics allowed the addition of a great deal of material that gives added depth to the personalities of such figures as Nestor758 and Phoenix.759 Other figures such as Diomedes,760 Ajax,761 Telemachos,762 even Achilles and Agamemnon were portrayed with a new richness of detail made possible by the great length of the epics resulting from the dictation method used to transcribe the text.763 The plot of each epic was determined by the oral tradition,764 but the motivation of the characters as depicted by Homer is what gives these epics their most memorable quality.765 In the Funeral Games of Patroklos related in Book 23 of the Iliad, the interaction of the contestants, which revealed the different characteristics of the heroes,766 gave these scenes an added interest that goes far beyond a simple retelling of an athletic event. In the Odyssey, Odysseus is not just one more traveler returning home after an adventure but a fully developed personality whose characterization767 enriched the episodes of his return and gave added meaning to his final victory.768 These are the aspects of the two epics that we as modern readers recollect most vividly. These same characteristics probably led to the epics’ popularity in antiquity. In the fifth century, the two epics became the basis of Athenian education. Knowledge of this tradition was shared with the Greek-speaking youths of other cities and areas in the historic periods. Generations of young men learned these tales in their youth, and the actions of past heroes became exemplars of proper behavior. In time, this shared pan-Hellenic tradition became one method of identifying people as Greeks. Just as the ancestors had defeated the Trojan foreigners, it was hoped that their descendants, the Greeks, would continue to defeat the barbarians in the years ahead.

VI

Summary

A comparison of the archaeological remains, the evidence of the Linear B tablets, and references to kings in the Iliad and Odyssey reveals many similarities. The earliest traces of a ruling elite in the archaeological record come from the grave circles that began at the end of the Middle Helladic period. At Mycenae, this group originally consisted of a larger, more extended family that was buried together in Grave Circle B. The family group became more restricted in Grave Circle A, where the burials were fewer in number. With the construction of the tholoi at Mycenae, this group appears to have been dominated by a single individual whose power gradually increased with each succeeding generation. Each ruler appears to have built his own tholos, and each tholos was more elaborate than its predecessor. As the power of the ruler became greater, he built fortification walls around his citadel, and he gradually dominated the surrounding areas. This history of expanding power of the Mycenaean kings suggests that the original basis of power was primarily one of economic strength and not of religious sanctions or military conquests. Grave circles and tholoi have been found in other parts of Greece indicating that establishment of a ruling elite was not a phenomenon restricted to Mycenae. The evidence outside of Mycenae is not as clear, and in some areas, such as Pylos, the tholoi or built tombs were not necessarily royal. The

98

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

construction of palaces at Pylos and Thebes, however, confirms the establishment of other kingdoms on the Greek mainland. The rich grave goods found in the tholos at Vapheio suggest the existence of a royal family in the area of Sparta. The capacious storage facilities constructed at Gla and the elaborate tholos at Orchomenos suggest yet another area of centralized power in Boeotia. The Mycenaean fortification on the Acropolis in Athens is indicative of another Mycenaean stronghold. The use of Linear B writing on Crete indicates the existence of a Mycenaean kingdom on that island. At the height of the king’s power in Late Helladic IIIB, elaborate palaces were built in Tiryns, Mycenae, Pylos, and Thebes. The domination of a single ruler is indicated by the existence of a single throne in the main room. The bellicose nature of many of the wall paintings and much of the decoration on the jewelry suggests a warrior society whose leader was male. The many weapons buried in the chamber tombs helps to verify the nature of this type of society. In a warrior society, the king or leader would have been responsible for the leadership of the military aspects of the kingdom. The massive fortifications found on various sites indicate the military concern of the ruler. The many tablets concerned with chariots, the numbers of arrow heads listed in Knossos, and the enumeration of other weapons reflect this same concern in the written documentation. The enumeration of these weapons in the tablets help to confirm the use of chariot forces and numerous bowmen in warfare during the Late Helladic period. These weapons are also reflected in the fighting scenes of the Iliad and in the archaeological record. In the Iliad, the leader of each group of soldiers at Troy was the king or someone appointed by the king. In the tablets, the term wanax was used for the king. This same term was used for the male rulers in the Iliad and Odyssey, but in later literature, it referred only to the gods and not to mortals. In the two epics, the power of a single ruler is demonstrated in the many assemblies where the will of one individual, despite disagreement among the leaders, dominated the proceedings. United action after the assemblies failed to occur only at Ithaka, where no ruler was present and no other male leader or group of leaders had been empowered to take his place. When the ruler was absent in the epics, power was delegated to the wife. The position of the queen in the tablets has not yet been determined, but in the archaeological record respect for women is clear. In the grave circles at Mycenae, women were buried with many valuable objects. In the later wall paintings, they were frequently depicted in elaborate gowns and were often prominent in the individual scenes. Respect for Penelope, not only for her beauty but also for her intelligence, is evident throughout the Odyssey. The tablets indicate that the king controlled an area consisting of many towns and cities that extended over a wide area. A similar type of kingdom

SUMMARY

99

is described in the Iliad in the Catalogue of Ships, where a single monarch ruled over various cities and surrounding areas populous enough to provide many warriors. Many of the important centers listed in the Catalogue of Ships have been excavated and have been found to contain rich deposits of Late Bronze Age remains. Widespread control by the palaces is harder to document in the archaeological remains. The increasing wealth of Mycenae and the decreasing wealth of the neighboring areas may be seen as one indication of palatial control. In the later part of the Late Helladic period, the absence of tholoi in the Argolid outside of Mycenae is another such indication. The coastal city of Tiryns, with its many storage facilities, may have served as the port town for inland Mycenae. A similar sea port has been suggested for the inland site of Pylos, and a parallel for this arrangement of port town separated from the nearby inland capital can be found at Ugarit. The wanax in the tablets appears to have been responsible for supplying provisions for some of the sacrifices and for hospitality. This obligation is reflected in a wall painting from the main room of the palace at Pylos, where a sacrifice is portrayed and seated men are shown drinking. The many drinking vessels found in the pantries of that palace are another clear indication that the king’s hospitality was an important aspect of his royal office. In the Iliad and Odyssey, an indication of this responsibility is evident in the many scenes of feasting and banqueting. The meat eaten on these occasions was most often provided by the leader, and this reflects the provisions for banquets supplied by the wanax in the Pylos tablets. Although the king appears to have been responsible for supplying provisions for some of the sacrifices, others in the society also made donations to the sanctuaries. A separate class of priests and priestesses was mentioned in the tablets. These priests and priestesses, in addition to other members of the society, held land and had their own economic concerns. A cult area separated from the palaces was found in the citadel at Mycenae. At Pylos, a large sanctuary called Pakijana, dedicated to Poseidon, in an area separated from the palace, was identified in the tablets. At Troy, a special area in the city called Pergamos seems to have been established as a separate area for the Temple of Apollo and his religious personnel. Workshop areas, which appear to have been controlled by the religious personnel, were associated with some of the cult areas. The separation of the cult area from the palace suggests that the religious life of the community was not centered entirely on the palace. A similar situation existed at Ugarit where the hereditary king had religious responsibilities, but at the same time a separate class of religious personnel existed. The many tablets found in the palace detailing economic concerns unrelated to religion are another indication that the Mycenaean kings had numerous functions that were not directly related to

100

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

religion. Priests, as an independent authority, are indicated by the actions and speeches of the priest Chryses at the beginning of the Iliad. The king’s extensive power over the economy is indicated by his use of many, different officials who kept the detailed records found in the palace archives at Knossos and Pylos. This same power is reflected in the archaeological remains by extensive traces of the palaces and at Mycenae by the increasingly elaborate tholoi. The construction of fortification walls at Mycenae and Athens and the elaborate road systems in the areas of Mycenae and Pylos suggest a centralized power. The wealth of Agamemnon in the Iliad is indicated by his ability to provide ships not only for his own men but also for the men of Arkadia. Agamemnon’s wealth is also suggested by his possession of elaborately decorated armor and by his possession of the only gold-studded sword mentioned in the epics. The power of Nestor, the king of Pylos, is indicated by his ninety ships and by his golden shield, the only shield specifically identified in the Iliad as being made of gold. Telemachos’ antipathy to the suitors was made clear in the Odyssey. The suitors sought the position that by hereditary right belonged to him as the only son of the king. The repeated reference to Telemachos as the only son of Odysseus, who in turn was the only son of Laertes, who was the only son of Arkeisios, emphasized the right of the son to inherit the kingdom. In the archaeological record the family’s right of inheritance is indicated by the physical similarities of the skeletons buried in the grave circles at Mycenae. At the same time the repeated emphasis of Telemachos as the only son of the ruler suggests that the concept of fitness to rule, which existed in Ugarit, also applied to the Mycenaean world. Fitness to rule is seen in the literary tradition by the assumption of power by Atreus at Mycenae and by the well-developed skeletons from the grave circles at Mycenae. These same skeletons suggest a short life span for the rulers. A combination of these factors explains the domination of Grave Circle A over Grave Circle B. When a son was too young to inherit at the death of his father and he was not considered fit to rule, another individual was chosen in his place, either an uncle or an older man married to the king’s daughter. These same concepts explain why Menelaos became king of Sparta after his marriage to Helen, why Arete married her uncle, and why the oral tradition is full of tales of wandering heroes marrying the king’s daughters and inheriting their kingdoms. The use of many officials to supervise the economic concerns of the king is indicated by the numerous terms of power and position in the Linear B tablets. Some of the terms from the tablets also occur in the epics. This duplication suggests an association between the society of the tablets and the world of the epics. The disruptions that occurred at the end of the Mycenaean period account for the absence of some of the Linear B titles in the

SUMMARY

101

epics. These same disruptions, however, make it difficult to understand how any of these terms could have survived into the epic tradition if there had not been some association between the society of the tablets and the world described in the epics. In the Iliad and the Odyssey, the occasional use of the terms basileus and wanax for the same person suggests that the clear distinction between these terms was beginning to fade, but it also suggests that the king, although powerful, relied heavily on others close to him in rank. This is particularly evident in the Land of the Phaiakians where there were twelve basileis, and Alkinoös was called the thirteenth. In the archaeological record, this is reflected in the absence of kingly art, similar to the situation in Ugarit. The multiple basileis, often from the same country or area, mentioned in the epics reflect a period when the basileus was not the ruler, as he was in later periods, but merely an important leader or government official. In the tablets, multiple basileis were mentioned and are a clear parallel to the multiple basileis in the epics. In later times, the term basileus came to mean the ruler or king. A major disruption in the society at the end of the Bronze Age helps to account for the transformation of a government official into the reigning ruler. During the historical periods, only in Athens was the position of basileus retained as a political position held by a variety of people, who were originally elected by vote and later chosen by lot. The oral tradition reveals that Athens was one of the few cities that was not overwhelmed by political unrest at the end of the Mycenaean period. When the other palace centers fell, it is possible to theorize that some of the basileis in the outlying areas retained their political power and in time came to dominate their individual societies. In the epics, the beginnings of the disintegration of the local societies can be seen in the stories of heroes fleeing from their original countries and seeking new homes, of great wealth once held and later lost, of the usurpation of power resulting in blood feuds and political unrest, and in other stories of assassinations and quarrels. The government officials oversaw the work of the many craftsmen who worked for the palace. The existence of skilled craftsmen is reflected in the archaeological record by the high artistic quality of the precious objects and in the specialized plans of buildings such as the palace workshop at Mycenae. In the epics, which tell of the exploits of the heroes, there are only casual references to these craftsmen. The craftsmen who were important to the warriors on the battlefield of Troy were those who had made their armor and weapons; these craftsmen were sometimes named in the Iliad. Although iron was known in the Mycenaean period, bronze continued to be the metal most predominantly used for weapons and armor on the Greek mainland. All the weapons used on the battlefield at Troy, except for the iron arrow head used by the Anatolian Pandaros, were made of bronze.

102

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

The epics’ many references to precious objects such as gold cups and silver pitchers, elaborately decorated chairs, and elegant armor with special histories reflect a society that included skilled craftsmen similar to the craftsmen mentioned in the tablets. The importance of elaborate garments made of finely woven cloth is suggested by the repeated references to women skilled in weaving in the Iliad and the Odyssey. A similar emphasis on elaborate material can be seen in the wall paintings of the Mycenaean period. The importance of the production of fabrics at Pylos and Knossos is made clear by the large number of tablets that were concerned with this aspect of the economy. In the epics, some of the women who did the weaving were slaves; enslaved women working with textiles have been identified in the Pylos tablets. The source of these slaves as booty captured in war is indicated by Nestor’s long reminiscences and by the position of Briseis and the daughter of Chryses in the Iliad. The great number of women working on textiles in the tablets and the traces of great quantities of olive oil in addition to the inscribed Linear B stirrup jars found in the excavations suggest that trade was an important part of the Mycenaean economic fabric. The homes of some of the leaders were described in the epics, and these descriptions match the remains of the palaces found on the Greek mainland. In both the epics and in the archaeological remains, the palaces contained a main room with a central hearth surrounded by columns, a special chair for the king, and more than one megaron. There were multiple floor levels and extensive storerooms. In the archaeological record, the same basic elements that form the central core of the palaces (except for the double megaron) also are to be found in the smaller houses. The repetition of the architectural terms describing the different parts of the buildings in the epics is thus appropriate for dwellings, both large and small, of the Mycenaean period. The striking similarities between the houses described in the epics and those uncovered in the archaeological remains of the Mycenaean period reveal once again the common origin behind the world portrayed in the epics and the actual culture of the Mycenaean period. Although the king held great authority, the existence of wealth that was independent of the palace is indicated by the oil and other products that came from the land held by the la-wa-ge-tas, E-ke-ra2-wo, We-da-newo, and other individuals listed in the tablets. The absence of tablets dealing with certain categories of objects, such as pottery and obsidian, provides evidence for industry independent of the palace. The archaeological record makes clear that objects of clay and obsidian frequently were used in the Mycenaean period, and thus the manufacture of such objects must have formed a part of the economy. Wealth independent of the palace is also indicated in the archaeological record by the precious objects buried in the Late Bronze Age chamber tombs and in the storage

SUMMARY

103

areas of the individual houses. Caches of pottery found in some of the basements suggests commercial activities in association with the private houses. In the epics, wealth independent of the palaces is made clear by the lavish gifts that the suitors brought to Penelope. In the tablets and the epics, some of the land belonging to the officials and to the king were called temene. In later periods, temene belonged only to the gods and the dead heroes of the past, never to living individuals. Other types of land in the tablets were held by the damos, the sanctuaries, and individuals of high rank. These different types of land were not reflected in the epics. In the Iliad, the Achaians were fighting in a foreign country, and the possession of different types of land was not important. In the Odyssey, the only land that was important was the land of Odysseus, which the suitors were trying to seize, and the ownership of this land was clearly identified. Some of the names found in the tablets were duplicated in the epic tradition. These same names, however, were not common during the historic period of Greece, and the names of the prominent Homeric leaders are entirely absent. Two types of names common during the Classical period end in -ides or -ades. These classes of names do not occur in the tablets and are almost non-existent in the epic tradition. Also common in the later period are names including the Greek word stratov", but once again these names were not used in the tablets or in the epics, with the single exception of the name Peisistratos used in the Odyssey. The plot of the Odyssey presupposes travel to distant lands, rulers absent from home for extended periods fighting in foreign lands, great wealth held by the ruler, and a social elite who won fame by doing great deeds. Scenes of these same activities were portrayed on the wall paintings and the jewelry of the Mycenaean period. These activities are appropriate for that period, but not for the following centuries when the economy was depressed, and the different areas of Greece were isolated. Trade with foreign countries is indicated by objects of foreign origin found in the excavations of Mycenaean sites, and such objects were frequently mentioned in the epics. Similarities in the wall paintings and in the pottery motives from different areas of Mycenaean Greece suggest close connections between palace centers and a shared cultural heritage. Telemachos’ travels to Pylos and Sparta suggest a similar closeness between palace centers in the Odyssey. This period of shared cultural heritage gave rise to a great epic tradition that was shared by all the people of ancient Greece who never doubted that their ancestors had indeed fought at Troy. The deeds of the great heroes of this tradition were remembered by generations of oral bards who were responsible for preserving the traditions of the past for later generations and for creating a common heritage for the Greek-speaking people throughout the Mediterranean world.

Notes

Introduction 1. For a summary of the Mycenaean period and a brief history of the early scholarship that laid the foundations of our understanding of this era, see Dickinson 1977, 1994, with extensive bibliography in 1994, 310–332. For current discussions of kingship and problems in our understanding kingship of this period, see Carlier 1984; Kilian 1988a; papers in Laffineur and Niemeier, eds. 1995; in Rehak, ed. 1995; and in Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999. For a summary of more recent archaeological work on the later part of the Bronze Age, see Rutter 1993 and Shelmerdine 1997a, which were reprinted with addenda in Rutter 2001 and Shelmerdine 2001b, and more recently, Feuer 2004). 2. Ventris and Chadwick 1973. For a summary of the evidence from the tablets, see Chadwick 1976a; Dickinson 1977, 81–86; Shelmerdine 1999b, 19–24. For more recent scholarship, see, among many others, Lejeune 1976; Carlier 1984, 1996; Yamagata 1997; Shelmerdine 1998a, 81–96; and papers in Rehak, ed. 1995; in Laffineur and Niemeier, eds. 1995; in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds. 1997; in Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999; in Laffineur, ed. 1999, in Laffineur and Hägg, eds. 2001; and in Voutsaki and Killen, eds. 2001. 3. See, for example, E.N. Davis 1995; Krattenmaker 1995; N. Marinatos 1995; Rehak 1995a; and comments by Palaima 1995a, 119, who pointed out that some of the conclusions drawn by these papers are contradicted by the Linear B tablets. See, also, Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999; and, especially, Killen 1999, 87–90, where conclusions drawn by some of the contributors are disputed by others in the same volume.

106

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

4. This reluctance to accept a more diversified economy for Crete and the Greek mainland was particularly evident in the conference published by Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds. 1987. 5. This consensus can be seen in Wace and Stubbings, eds. 1962, which represents the earlier perception that the epics closely reflect the Mycenaean period; see, for example, earlier works by Leaf 1883; Reichel 1901; Nilsson 1930. 6. See, among others, L.R. Palmer 1962, 90–91; Hiller 1983, 1990; S.P. Morris 1989, 1997; Bass 1997; Bryce 1998, 392–404; Latacz 2001. 7. See, in particular, I. Morris 1986; Langdon, ed. 1993, later augmented by Langdon, ed. 1997; I. Morris and Powell, eds. 1997, part four on archaeology and Homer, where any connection between the Mycenaean period and the Iliad and Odyssey is treated with disbelief by most of the contributors; Powell 1997a; Raaflaub 1998. 8. This date, originally suggested by Finley 1954, was accepted by Andrews 1967, 30–47, and later supported by other scholars, for example, Dickinson 1986, 1999b; Malkin 1998, 259–273. Finley’s overriding influence can be seen in studies such as Whitley 1991, 34–39, who reviewed various different opinions concerning the date of “Homeric Society.” In Whitley’s review, the possibility that “Homeric Society” might have been prehistoric was not even considered. 9. Taplin 1992, 33–35; Cook 1995; M.L. West 1995; Anderson and Dickie, eds. 1995; Crielaard, ed. 1995. See, also, van Wees 1997, 216, who stated in his review of Anderson and Dickie, eds. 1995: “it looks like 1995 was the year in which Homer left the Dark Age and at last became an Archaic poet.” 10. Snodgrass 1974; Sherratt 1990, 1996; papers in Carter and S.P. Morris, eds. 1995; Cook and Palaima 2001. 11. See, for example, I. Morris 1986, 101–104; Scully 1990; Hurwit 1993; Haubold 2000, 11–13; Hammer 2002. 12. Malkin 1998, 259–273 gives a clear summary of this debate and presents convincing arguments opposing the idea that the epics reflect the beginnings of the polis. For various different approaches to this subject, see, also, Rose 1997; Postlethwaite 1998. 13. Two different approaches to this subject are reflected in the comments made by Palaima and Dickinson published in Laffineur, ed. 1999, 295, in response to a paper by Bloedow 1999. Bloedow tried to find prehistoric reflections in the Iliad; Palaima spoke approvingly of the paper presented; Dickinson was opposed to it. For further discussion, see n. 263 below. 14. Naveh 1982, 175–186; Bernal 1987. 15. For arguments for an eighth-century date, see, among others, Johnston 1983; Jeffery 1990, 1–41, 425–428; Lang 1991, with many references to earlier scholarship; Burkert 1992, 26; Robb 1994, 37 n. 11, 265–279. For the possibility that the initial adaptation of the Greek alphabet from the Phoenician script occurred slightly earlier in the ninth century on Cyprus, see Woodard 1997, especially 229–236 for a summary of earlier arguments for the date and location of the original Greek adaptation. The absence of early monuments using the Greek alphabet from Cyprus makes Woodard’s suggestion problematical. 16. Jensen 1980 suggested a sixth-century date for the writing down of the epics; this date had been suggested earlier by R. Carpenter 1946, 11–12, and Merkelbach 1952; see n. 695

NOTES

107

below for ancient literary testimonia and additional scholarship that support this date. Nagy 1995, 1996, 109–110, 1997, 180–181, has argued that the crystallization of the text took place over a more extended period, and that it possibly was written down as late as the fourth century B.C.; for scholars who have opposed Nagy’s date, see Finkelberg 2000, 2. One indication that the Homeric epics were probably not finally crystallized by a constant retelling of the epics in Athens during the late sixth to fourth centuries, as suggested by Nagy, is the almost complete absence of Theseus in the Homeric epics. Theseus occurs only once in the Iliad (1.265) and twice in the Odyssey (11.322 and 11.631). He had been transformed into the great Athenian hero by the myth-makers of late Archaic and Classical Athens, and his position as the superhero of the city should have been reflected in the epics if they reached their final stages of evolution during these years. 17. Even the most determined Homeric scholars intent on separating the epic tradition from the Mycenaean period have acknowledged that some, if only a very few, remembrances of such objects were preserved in the epics. See, for example, Kirk 1985, 8, who itemized as “unambiguously Mycenaean” the tower-like shield, the silver-studded sword, the boar’s tusk helmet, Nestor’s cup, and metal inlay. 18. See, for example, Gellius, Noctium Atticarum 20.7, who recorded that Homer had said that Niobe had six sons and six daughters, whereas Euripides had given the number of each as seven, Sappho as nine, and Pindar and Bacchylides as ten. 19. See, for example, Sherratt 1990, 810, who observed that Ajax’s shield in Il. 7.219 was called tower-like and in Il. 7.267 this same shield was said to have a boss. Although most scholars, including Sherratt, think of a boss as being in the center of a small round shield, bosses also decorated Mycenaean tower shields, and thus the two statements need not be contradictory. For bosses on tower shields, see a gold ring from Grave Circle A, Shaft Grave IV, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 241; Sakellariou 1964, 27–28, no. 17; Hampe and Simon 1981, ill. 265. It has also been argued that the marriage settlements in the Iliad and Odyssey conflated incompatible practices from two different periods, one usually identified as prehistoric and the other historic; Snodgrass 1974, 114–125, supported by I. Morris 1997, 537, and others. The two different types of marriage settlements could equally well reflect Minoan versus Mycenaean custom, early Mycenaean versus late Mycenaean, or, more plausibly, the confusion of later bards who did not understand the details of the earlier arrangement. Other scholars have claimed that contradictions in the marriage settlements did not exist; see, for example, Donlan 1989, 4; Richardson 1993, on lines 22.49–51. 20. See Raaflaub 1998, 174–177, for Finley’s opinion that a coherent picture is portrayed and for scholars who have disagreed with this conclusion. Although Raaflaub accepts that some inconsistencies exist, he feels that many of these are the result of poetic emphasis, a characteristic of traditional oral epic, rather than a combination of ideas and attitudes from different periods.

108

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Chapter I The Archaeological Evidence 21. For a summary of the two grave circles at Mycenae and their relationship to each other, see Dickinson 1977, 39–58; Dietz 1991, 106–132. For more detailed accounts of the circles at Mycenae, see Karo 1930–1933; Mylonas 1972–1973. For other grave circles of this period found elsewhere on the Greek mainland, see Blegen et al. 1973, 153–154, where circles are listed and bibliography cited. 22. The great diversity in the development of tombs and the wide variation of wealth found in them, which seems to reflect slightly different patterns of development in different areas of the prehistoric Greek world, has often been demonstrated; see, especially, Pelon 1976, 73–152; papers in Laffineur, ed. 1987, ed. 1989; Voutsaki 1995; Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 41–60; Acheson 1999, 104. For a more general treatment of burials, see Dickinson 1977, 33–34, 59–65, 1994, 222–232. The diversity found in the tombs of different areas suggests that the history of kingship also varied on the different sites; C.G. Thomas 1995, 352–354. 23. The disproportionate amount of wealth found in the two grave circles at Mycenae compared to similar objects from other contexts is amply illustrated by the catalog of gold and silver vessels published by E.N. Davis 1977 (though it should be noted that more such vessels have been found since 1977). She listed 119 gold and silver vessels found in known Middle and Late Bronze Age archaeological contexts from Crete and the mainland. Six of these objects, all made of silver, were found amid architectural remains; the remainder came from graves. More than half of the total number listed were found in the two grave circles from Mycenae; seventy-four from the graves themselves (twenty-seven gold, forty-three silver, one electrum, three silver-plated copper or bronze) plus another five gold cups found by Stamatakis that probably came from a plundered shaft grave in Circle A. Excluding the two grave circles at Mycenae, Davis’ list consists of forty items: ten vessels from Crete (only one of which is gold) and thirty vessels from the Mainland (eight gold, twenty-one silver, one silver-plated copper). All of her items from the Mainland, with a single exception, came from graves: the largest number, fourteen, came from seven different burials at Dendra (two gold, twelve silver); the second largest number, five, came from a single grave at Vapheio (two gold, two silver, one silver-plated copper); three gold cups came from the tomb at Peristeria; the remainder were single items found in graves at different sites (one gold, six silver), plus one silver cup from the palace at Pylos. From Crete, she listed one gold cup from a grave, four silver vessels from the South House at Knossos, one silver ewer from the palace at Kato Zakro, and four silver cups from four different graves. 24. For tholoi found at Mycenae, see n. 89 below. For tholoi and other built tombs found in areas other than Mycenae, see Pelon 1976; Cavanagh and Mee 1984; Bennet 1999, 11– 16; C.G. Thomas 1995, 352–354; Papadimitriou 2001. 25. For Late Helladic citadels and palaces, see Iakovidis 1983. 26. See, especially, Drews 1988, but also Wyatt 1970; Stubbings 1973; Diamant 1988. This idea was recently restated by Penner 1998 (whose conclusions were questioned by Crouwel 2001), and Makkay 2000. 27. Dickinson 1989, 132, 1999a, 21–25; Littauer and Crouwel 1996, 299; Hooker 1999, 71– 77. The argument for outsiders being buried in the Shaft Graves heavily emphasized

NOTES

109

the technical terms used to describe the chariots and the fact that chariots appear to have been used for the first time on the mainland during this period, in contrast to the Near East where they were known by the eighteenth century B.C. The earliest evidence for horse-drawn chariots on the Greek mainland comes from the Shaft Grave Period, Crouwel 1981, 148, but expanding contacts with the Near East also occurred in this period; the introduction of horse-drawn chariots and their technical terms may have been part of this expanding contact. The earliest domesticated horse bones found on the Greek mainland precede the Shaft Graves by several hundred years, see n. 548 below. The concept of wheeled vehicles drawn by animals was already known in Greece by ca. 2000 B.C., Crouwel 1981, 147. The substitution of horses for asses or mules to pull the vehicles and the change from four-wheeled vehicles with to those with two wheels in imitation of the Near East is not so great that it necessarily indicates the influx of a new people. 28. Dickinson 1977, 42. Discussions of the grave circles usually emphasize the valuable objects found within them, but it should be remembered that numerous terracotta vases were also found. Mylonas 1983, 53, reported that some 237 vases from Circle B alone were mended at the time of the excavations even before the objects from the grave circle were deposited in the museums. 29. Mylonas 1972–1973, 119, pl. 101 bottom. 30. Mylonas 1972–1973, pls. 214–216. 31. Mylonas 1972–1973, 105, 118–119, 310–320, pls. 90e no. 1, 98 bottom, 100 top. 32. Grave Beta appears to have been the first to have a decorated shroud, a strip of electrum near the right pelvis and a gold armlet on the left arm. This grave was dated as the earliest of the second group of graves by Dickinson 1977, 43, and Graziadio 1988, 362. It was placed in the middle group of graves by Mylonas 1972–1973, 6–42. The sequence of these graves has been the subject of some debate; for further discussion and bibliography, see Graziadio 1988, 343–373, 1991, 403–440. Although the dating of the individual graves has been debated, the overall pattern of increasing wealth remains the same. 33. Mylonas 1972–1973, 139–140, pls. 121–123. 34. See, for example, the female burial in the late Grave Omicron where more gold decorated the shroud and the body was adorned with pins and necklaces; Mylonas 1972– 1973, 198–203, pls. 177–182. 35. See, for example, Grave Alpha, which Dickinson 1977, 44, and Graziadio 1988, 362, placed in the latest group of Circle B; this grave contained four swords, one dagger, one spear head, three knives, and seven fragments of boar’s tusks; Mylonas 1972–1973, 27– 30, 33, pls. 17–19, 22 bottom. 36. See, for example, Grave Nu that had two bronze vessels and one each of gold and silver; Mylonas 1972–1973, 172, 176, pls. 151–152, 154. 37. E.g., a faience cup from Grave Alpha and a crystal duck vase from Grave Omicron; Mylonas 1972–1973, 27, 203, pls. 16 right, 183–185. 38. On the unique quality of some of these objects, see Dickinson 1997. 39. Angel 1972, 389–390, 393. See, also, Musgrave et al. 1995, who reconstructed seven heads from Grave Circle B and found some resemblances among all of them.

110

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

40. For association of wealth, military prowess, and political leadership, see Deger-Jalkotzy 1999, 121–131. 41. A distinction between these various positions was suggested by Wright 1995. The differences of each of these positions seems to reflect the relative size of the area controlled; see Lenz 1993, 7–10, who had earlier questioned the importance of distinguishing “the king” from “the chief” or “the big man.” 42. Kilian 1988a, 292; Palaima 1995a, 126. 43. Traces of a possible scepter found in Grave Gamma have also been said to identify the ruler; Palaima 1995a, 126. If scepters as symbols of kingship were normally buried with the king, then there should have been one for each of the kings buried in the grave circle. If they were not buried, but were passed on from one generation to next, as related in Il. 2.102–108 and was the custom in medieval and early modern kingdoms, including England even to this day, then the scepter should not have been included among any of the grave goods. For other problems with the identification of this scepter, see Shelmerdine, 1994–1995, 365. 44. Angel 1972, 387, 393. See, also, Angel 1971; Dickinson 1977, 37, 52. 45. Angel 1972, 387, 393. 46. For distribution of wealth in the shaft graves, see Laffineur 1989; Graziadio 1991. In addition to the objects found in the graves, the wealth buried with the women needs to be increased by the value of their gowns, which were no longer preserved. A clear distinction of more elaborate and thus more valuable clothing for women and plainer and thus less valuable clothing for men is indicated by the wall paintings of the Greek mainland; Rehak 2002, 36–37. 47. C.G. Thomas 1995, 353. 48. Dickinson 1977, 48–49. 49. Dickinson 1977, 49. 50. For a history of the grave circle, see Wace 1921–1923, 103–126, 1949, 59–63; Mylonas 1962, 110–126, 194–195, 1966a, 91, 94–96, text figs. 3–5. 51. Gates 1985 tried to show that the earlier enclosing wall ran over the center of two of the shaft graves and almost excluded entirely one of them. The earlier circle, however, was probably slightly irregular, like the circumference of the later circle, thus accounting for the apparent discrepancy noted by Gates. 52. The isolation of graves within a circle occurs in other parts of the Mycenaean world; see n. 22 above. 53. For Prosymna, see Blegen 1937, 229–231; for Mycenae, see Tsountas and Manatt 1897, 131, and Wace 1932, 120, 143. 54. Laffineur 1995. 55. Mylonas 1972–1973, 211–225 and n. 538 below. 56. Apollodorus, 2.4.5–2.4.6. 57. Thucydides, 1.9.2.

NOTES

111

58. According to Angel 1972, 379, there were sixteen men, five women, and two children whose skeletons he could identify. All skeletons could not be identified by sex, but grave goods accompanying the burials verify the predominance of men over women. 59. The latest female burials of Circle B, according to Graziadio 1991, figs. 5–6, were the second burials in Graves Gamma, Mu, Epsilon and the third burial in Grave Omikron, which were exclusively female. The late female burials in Graves Epsilon and Omikron are richer than any other of the male burials in the Late Phase II, and the female burial in Grave Gamma is only surpassed by the male burial in the same grave. For additional discussion of grave goods and proportion of men in contrast to women, see Laffineur 1989; Mee 1998a. 60. The two latest Graves, III and I, contained only female burials plus two children. Although less wealthy than Graves IV and V, they did contain more gold per burial than those of Graves II and VI, the earliest shaft graves of Circle A. For a comparison, see the figures calculated by Graziadio 1991, 436–437. The two earliest graves (II and VI) contained three males; the two middle graves (IV and V) contained five men and three women; the last graves (III and I) contained six women, plus the children. 61. The concept of ancestor worship in association with Grave Circle A has occasionally been suggested; see, most recently, Lupack 2001. Since the area of Grave Circle A was respected from its beginnings until the end of the Mycenaean Age, it follows that ancestor worship, had it existed, should have started at the time the circle was first used or very soon afterwards. If ancestor worship had been part of the culture for such a long period, then it is curious that clear archaeological evidence for its existence has not been found on other sites of this period. It is also unexpected that such worship was restricted to the founding father alone and that it did not eventually spread to others of high rank. The opening of graves, the pushing aside of earlier burials, and the removal of grave goods, which occurred in both grave circles and in later periods, according to Mylonas 1983, 58, also indicate the absence of ancestor worship in the Mycenaean world. For recent discussions of archaeological evidence for ancestor worship on Crete and rituals associated with burials on the mainland, see Hielte-Stravropolou 2001; Soles 2001. 62. Angel 1972, 391. 63. The sequence followed here is the one established by Dickinson 1977, 40–44. 64. Angel 1972, 381–383, Graves Lambda 2 (skeleton 133), Zeta (skeleton 59), and Sigma (skeleton 131). The remaining male skeleton came from Grave Eta (skeleton 54). 65. Angel 1972, 379, 382, Graves Kappa (skeleton 70), Iota (skeleton 68), Lambda (skeleton 70a), Beta (skeleton 52), and Lambda 1 (skeleton 56). 66. Angel 1972, 383, Grave Nu (skeleton 66). 67. Angel 1972, 383, Graves Alpha (skeleton 62), Gamma, eastern burial (skeleton 51), Nu (skeleton 66 a), Gamma, central burial (skeleton 55), Delta, eastern burial (skeleton 61), and Pi (skeleton 53). 68. Angel 1971, 71–73, in his study of Middle Helladic skeletons, estimated that less than half the children born reached adulthood. Although the better fed people of the Mycenae grave circles probably bore healthier children, infant mortality must still have remained a problem.

112

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

69. If the chronology established by Graziadio 1988, 1991 is followed, the situation is not improved. Most of the burials of older people are in his first group; in his second group no one lived beyond thirty-three; in the third group only one person lived to be fortyfive, and all the others died at thirty-three or younger. 70. Angel 1972, 384, skeleton 23 from Grave VI. The other men of Grave Circle A died at thirty-nine (skeleton 25 from Grave V), two at thirty-five (skeletons 22 and 26 from Graves IV and V), and the other two in their twenties (skeleton 24 from Grave VI; skeleton 27 from Grave IV). 71. Acheson 1999, 99, quoting from unpublished notes of J.L. Angel now in Cincinnati, gave the figures as twenty men and five women. Blegen et al. 1973, 135, stated that there were twenty men and seven women. Acheson did not explain why her figures are different from those published by Blegen. 72. Acheson 1999, 99, suggested that the greater number of male burials in the Pylos grave circle in contrast to the women was the result of special honor given to the men because of their military prowess. If the Pylos grave circle honored the fallen war dead, then it becomes difficult to understand why any women were buried within the circle, unless the women were buried with their husbands as a special honor. In this case, the dearth of female burials still remains. In the later Pylos tomb, Tholos IV, Acheson quoted the figures of nine male burials, seven female ones, and one child. Blegen et al. 1973, 107, reported the figures as ten men, six women and one child. Acheson 1999, 99, suggested that the closer proportion of men to women in the later period reflected a greater emphasis on family orientation. It seems more likely, in my opinion, that this change in proportions was the result of a more peaceful society and consequently of fewer deaths by violence. The men in the later period had a life expectancy of thirty-nine years in contrast to the life expectancy of thirty-four years found in the earlier grave circle at Pylos. The longer life span and consequently a greater number of marriages in this group, as indicated by the greater proportion of female burials, may have been another result of a more settled community. These numbers can be compared to those of the Late Helladic IIIA–IIIC tombs at Pylona on Rhodes, where the sexes, more evenly divided, consisted of ten men and ten women plus children; Karantzali 2001, 94. A similar equal division of men and women is indicated by the latest evaluation of the skeletons from the Late Helladic Tsakalis tomb E-6, found near Pylos, where six women, six men, five children, and two additional adults were identified; Blackman 2002, 48. 73. See, among others, Wace 1949, 114; Dickinson 1977, 53–56; Iakovidis 1978, 17–19, 22–23, 26; Drews 1988; Rutter 1993, 795 and n. 208 on 793; Bloedow 1995. 74. E.N. Davis 1977, 95–99. Davis, in her list of gold and silver vessels, listed only one gold cup from Crete, no. 19. For figures of gold and silver vessels found on Crete in contrast to those of the mainland, see n. 23 above. 75. For a brief survey of metal objects of this period, see Dickinson 1994, 132–139. 76. The concept of identifiable, itinerant, Minoan craftsmen working on the Greek mainland has now become acceptable; Bloedow 1997; Dickinson 1997; S.P. Morris 2000. Many years ago this same idea had been suggested by C.H. Hawes and H.B. Hawes 1909, 146–147, but Sir Arthur Evans’s vehement belief in the Minoan domination of the Greek mainland persuaded scholars, particularly those working on Crete, that a separate Mycenaean culture had not existed. As a result, they rejected the concept that a Mycenaean style could be differentiated from that of Crete. Archaeologists working on the

NOTES

113

Greek mainland, particularly C.W. Blegen and A.J.B. Wace, finally succeeded in persuading the scholarly world that the mainland civilization differed from that of Crete in many important aspects and that cultural differences between Crete and the mainland could be identified. 77. Apart from objects made entirely of gold, another striking difference between the mainland and Crete is the frequent portrayal of hunting and battle scenes on the mainland and its almost total absence on Crete. These subjects occur on objects from the two grave circles at Mycenae and continue throughout the rest of the Bronze Age; Karo 1930–1933, 95–97, 119–120, 129–131, pls. 93, 106–108, 122; Sakellariou 1964, 22, 26–28, nos. 11, 15, 16. Perhaps the greatest difference between Crete and the Greek mainland, however, is the size and plans of the palace centers, see n. 384 below. Although these are rarely mentioned, the vastly different plans must surely reflect differences in the original governments in these two areas. 78. Shear 2000a, 138. Resin found on the Uluburun shipwreck indicates trade in resin during the Late Bronze age; Bass 1997, 87. The collection of resin in Mycenaean Greece is indicated by the identification of the Mycenaean Greek word for resin in the Linear B tablets; Palaima 1991a, 279, 2000a. 79. Aldred 1998, 56 noted that olive trees were not planted extensively in Egypt and that olive oil appears to have been imported to Egypt from Palestine and probably also from Libya. Greece was another obvious, possible source for imported olive oil. 80. The production of wool, linen, and olive oil reflected in the Linear B tablets is discussed below. 81. Dickinson 1977, 55. 82. The sixth-century B.C. cemetery outside of Thessalonike, Bokotopoulou et al. 1985, contained earlier tombs that had little or no gold in contrast to the tombs of the second half of the sixth century in which the amount of gold increased substantially. By the end of the sixth century, some of the skeletons, including the women, had gold masks reminiscent of the gold masks found in the grave circles at Mycenae. The late sixth-century skeletons from Macedonia also had shrouds decorated with gold. 83. Although this possibility has been generally rejected, I am not alone in making this suggestion; see Strong 1966, 2. 84. In addition to the gold mines in Macedonia, in antiquity gold was found on the island of Siphnos; Pausanias, 10.11.2; Hoffmann and Davidson 1966, 1. More recently, gold in small quantities was found at the south end of Euboea, Jones 1980, 464. Possibly this source was discovered in the prehistoric period, and it may have been the origin of the gold used for the Early Helladic gold cup from Euboea now in the Benaki Museum; for the cup, see Delivorrias 2000, 31. 85. The discovery of built tombs belonging to the Late Helladic I period in the area of Messenia may possibly suggest an earlier date for the tholoi at Mycenae. The so-called tholoi or built tombs in Messenia, however, are far more numerous, smaller, and less well constructed than the tholoi at Mycenae. It would appear that the traditions of that area were simply different from those in the area of Mycenae; see C.G. Thomas 1995, 352– 354, and n. 24 above. 86. Wace 1932; Xenaki-Sakellariou 1985.

114

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

87. See Wright 1987, 174, for suggested man-hours needed to dig a shaft grave compared to man-hours needed to dig an area large enough for a tholos tomb, and Cavanagh and Mee 1999, for the suggested man-hours needed to construct the masonry of the Treasury of Atreus. It should be noted, however, that Wright’s estimate that one man could dig only one cubic meter of earth a day may be too little; see Ashbee and Cornwall 1961, 133. 88. It has sometimes been argued that the tholoi at Mycenae were not royal; see, for example, Wright 1987, 176; Darcque 1987; and n. 92 below. Cavanagh and Mee 1984 studied the spread of tholoi and built tombs during the different phases of the Late Helladic period; they concluded (p. 53) that in certain areas these tombs were royal, whereas in other areas they were not royal; see, also, Pelon 1990 for a similar evaluation. 89. Wace 1949, 16–19, 26–46, 119–131; Mylonas 1966a, 119–125; Pelon 1976, 157–175; Darcque 1987, 183–205. 90. Wace 1949, 16–19, 26–46, 119–131; Mylonas 1966a, 119–125. 91. Dickinson 1977, 62, accepted by Cavanagh and Mee 1984; Wright 1987, 176; Rehak 1995a; French 2002, 41. It needs to be stressed, however, that Wace, who cataloged the finds from the tholoi (n. 102 below), did not rely on these sherds for his dating of the tholoi. 92. Lenz 1993, 60–62, ignoring the chronological problem raised by Dickinson, also questioned the identification of the tholoi at Mycenae as royal. He suggested that the tholoi at Mycenae be divided into three groups, each representing a different prominent family. His solution fails to take into account the fact that the Linear B tablets indicate that there was a single dominating ruler at the end of the Late Helladic III period. If the rulers were buried in the tholoi, then a single tholos should have stood alone at the end of the sequence and not the three tholoi suggested by Lenz. If there had been three dominating families, furthermore, then some traces of the habitations of the other two families on a scale similar to the palace should have been found. 93. Furumark 1941, motive 75 no. 5; French 1963, 46; Mountjoy 1986, 121–123. 94. Wace 1921–1923, 356–357, fig. 76, 1949, 120, fig. 44a. A second, similar sherd was found within the doorway of the tomb. 95. Wace 1949, 120–121. Wace 1921–1923, 340 also stated that the terracing for the dromos walls of the Treasury resembles the later retaining wall of Grave Circle A, built at the same time as the Lion Gate. 96. Mylonas 1962, 74–100, 191–193, figs. 44–46, 1966a, 15–33, 122, especially n. 47 on 122. 97. For evidence that led to the original identification of the earthquake and its date, see Shear 1968, 485–498, 1987, 154–157. 98. Wright 1987, 179; accepted by Kopcke 1995, 89; Rehak 1995a, 116; Cavanagh and Mee 1999, 94. See, also, French 2002, 69, who still tries to date the Treasury of Atreus to Late Helladic IIIA. 99. For the Atreus Bothros, see Wace 1949, 127–129; French 1963, 45–46. 100. Wace 1921–1923, 348–349, 1949, 127. See, also, Mylonas 1966a, 122 n. 47, where he reported that Blegen, who was present at the time Wace dug under the threshold, also claimed that there had been no signs of a disturbance or of any later refurbishing.

NOTES

115

101. Cavanagh and Mee 1999, 94 stressed the fact that gold leaf was also found under the threshold; they suggested that the gold leaf belonged to an earlier burial within the Treasury and that it came to rest under the threshold at a later date when the threshold was moved. So much gold has been found at Mycenae, however, that its presence under the threshold need not indicate that it originally came from a royal burial interred within the tholos itself. Gold leaf was also found under the threshold and behind the east dromos wall of the Tomb of Clytemnestra (Wace 1955, 194, 196), and a few scraps of gold were even found in the relatively modest Panagia Houses, located near the Treasury of Atreus, Shear, 1987, 15, 58. 102. Wace 1921–1923, 283–402. 103. Wace 1921–1923, 386. 104. See Wace 1921–1923, 364–365. 105. Shear 1987, 12–13. 106. In the Panagia Houses, some of the pottery found directly on the floors has a distinctly earlier look than some of the other vases that came from these same deposits; see, for example, the bowl found on the floor of Room 5 and the krater found in Room 9, Shear 1987, 89, 90–91, vases 78 and 87. 107. It is frequently stated or implied that Mycenae was impoverished long before the end of the Late Helladic IIIB period, see n. 183 below. The fact that Schliemann first named close style pottery as a separate subdivision of Mycenaean pottery, presumably because he found so much of it during the course of his excavation, has always made me somewhat skeptical concerning the poverty of Mycenae at the end of the Mycenaean period. The recent study of pictorial pottery published by Crouwel, 1991, has demonstrated once again that there occurred a great upsurge in pictorial pottery in the Late Helladic IIIC period. A similar upsurge also occurred in Tiryns, Kalopodi, Volos, Lefkandi, and the Dodecanes. This spread of pictorial pottery, it has been suggested, indicates that there occurred a period of increased prosperity and contacts between different areas in the middle of Late Helladic IIIC; Crouwel 1991, 31–32. The close style kylix found in one of the tombs at Pylos, Blegen et al. 1973, fig. 290 no. 1, should indicate a continuation of some of the wealth at Pylos. 108. Shear 2000b. Late constructions at Mycenae include the Northeast Extension of the citadel, the storerooms in this area, the underground cistern, the Granary, and the Tomb of Clytemnestra. Slightly earlier, in the second half of the Late Helladic IIIB period after the earthquake, major construction projects included the west fortification wall, the Lion Gate, possibly the Postern Gate, the Grand Staircase, and the reconstruction of both the palace and the cult area, plus the other damaged houses within the citadel, and the Treasury of Atreus. 109. At Tiryns, part of the palace was rebuilt in Late Helladic IIIC; Maran 2000 and 2001, with earlier references, and discussion below of the position of Tiryns as a sea port within the kingdom of Mycenae. This rebuilding of the palace at Tiryns suggests the continuation of a ruler at Tiryns. The extent of the Late Helladic IIIC city outside the fortification walls at Tiryns, even though its size is debated, also indicates a continuing degree of prosperity for the site as a whole. For size of this city in the Late Helladic IIIC period, see Kilian 1983; Zangger 1994. 110. Cf. n. 286 below.

116

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

111. Kopcke 1995, 89–92 suggested that the establishment of the wanax at Mycenae occurred at this time. For fortifications at Mycenae, their different phases, and their chronology, see Mylonas 1962, 1966a, 15–33. 112. Voutsaki 1995, 62 suggested that the amount of wealth buried with the dead during Late Helladic I and II in the Argolid indicates that a local elite existed who were not dependent on Mycenae in the earlier part of the Late Bronze Age. The rich tombs excavated at Dendra dating to the Late Mycenaean IIIA period suggest a local elite in that area, Papadopoulos and Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2000. It may be that areas farther from the citadel of Mycenae, such as Dendra and its neighboring citadel at Midea, continued to retain a certain degree of local power and wealth even after they had come under the domination of their more powerful neighbor at Mycenae. A similar situation of a largely independent city under the domination of its stronger neighbor existed between Ugarit and the Hittite empire, discussed below. 113. Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1993. The same pattern is now beginning to emerge in the area of Pylos; J.L. Davis et al. 1997, 421–427; Bennet 1998, 125–128, 1999, 9–18; J.L. Davis and Bennet 1999, 105–106; Shelmerdine 2001a. This phenomenon had already been recognized by Blegen and Rawson 1966, 420, who placed the consolidation of the larger kingdom in the Late Helladic IIIB period. 114. Voutsaki 1995. 115. The reference to the wanax in Knossos tablet B 779 may indicate that the rule of the wanax had already started on Crete as early as Late Helladic II. Unfortunately, the date of KN B 779 is uncertain. See n. 297 below for dating of Knossos tablets. The origin of the term wanax has also been debated; see Palaima 1995a, 119–127, with references to earlier discussion. Palaima suggested that the term came from Crete, but even if the term had been borrowed from Crete, this does not necessarily mean that all the religious customs and various privileges associated with the Minoan kings were also adopted. 116. Laffineur 1995, 81–93. 117. Wace 1949, 10, 66, 71, 75, 82, 84, 86–87; Mylonas 1966a, 14–15. 118. Blegen and Rawson 1966, 17, 18, 25, 31–33, 333; Kilian 1988b; Maran 2000, 11. 119. Darcque 1990 objected to the use of the word megaron in association with prehistoric architecture. I have been informed by T.G. Palaima in an e-mail message received on October 8, 2001, that the word megaron has now been deciphered in Linear B and thus its association with prehistoric architecture is appropriate. This word, in my opinion, is a useful term with which to identify the main room with central hearth that dominated domestic architecture of the Middle Helladic and Late Helladic periods on the Greek mainland. A house dominated by such a room can be appropriately called a megaron house. 120. For discussion of Mycenaean domestic architecture and the development of the palace architecture, see Shear 1986, 1987, 150–154, 2000a, 1–18. See, also, R.L.N. Barber 1992, who likewise sees the palaces as having evolved from the smaller houses of the same period. Kilian 1988a, 298, claimed that Minoan influence could be seen in the earlier Southwest Building of the palace at Pylos. I agree with the assessment made by R.L.N. Barber 1992, 21–22, that there was no significant Minoan influence in the plan of the palace of Pylos.

NOTES

117

121. Kilian 1987a, 1988a, argued that the developed palace did not begin until Late Helladic IIIA. He suggested that the Late Helladic I and II periods be considered protopalatial. He relied heavily on the Late Helladic IIB house excavated in the Menelaion near Sparta, but there is no indication that this building was royal. The sequence he discussed merely reaffirms the discussions of both R.L.N. Barber and myself, n. 120 above; we concluded individually that palaces were basically elaborate houses and that the architectural plans of both the private houses and the palaces developed out of the same tradition. 122. For a similar evaluation of the importance to be attached to the absence of early palace remains, see Niemeier 1997b. 123. S. Marinatos 1960. 124. Shear 1987, 152 nn. 65, 68, 71. 125. Blegen et al. 1973, 3, 18; Zangger et al. 1997; Shelmerdine 1999a, 407. 126. Remains of Cyclopean fortifications at Athens may indicate the existence of another Mycenaean kingdom at that site. For Mycenaean fortifications at Athens, see Iakovidis 1962; Shear 1999, 86–104. For a general survey of the Mycenaean phases in Athens, see Pantelidou 1975. For Mycenaean tombs in the area of the later Agora, see Immerwahr 1971. Still another kingdom seems to be indicated in the area of Orchomenos; Iakovidis 2001, 149–157. The rich tomb at Vapheio (n. 306 below) and the remains of a Mycenaean house outside Sparta (n. 307 below) suggest the location of another possible kingdom in the Laconian plain. 127. For swords and fragments of boar’s tusk helmets found in the chamber tombs around Mycenae that date to the periods following the shaft graves, see Xenaki-Sakellariou 1985, especially 107–109, 207–210, 215–219, 224–231, 262–263, Tombs 31, 75, 78, 81, 92. For a brief survey of tombs with weapons from Mycenae and elsewhere in the later part of the Mycenaean period, see Papadopoulos and Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2000. For association of military strength and political power, see papers in Laffineur, ed. 1999. 128. See, among others, N. Marinatos 1993; E.N. Davis 1995; Younger 1995; Rehak 1995a. 129. See, for example, Säflund 1980; Wright 1994. 130. Mylonas 1972; French 1981, 41–43; Taylour and Moore 1999. For a general discussion of the archaeological evidence for cult places within the Mycenaean world, see Rutkowski 1986, 169–199; Albers 1994, 2001; Whittaker 1997. 131. Lang 1969, 194–196; McCallum 1987; Shelmerdine 1998a, 84–85. It should be noted, however, that this choice of subject matter occurs only in the very fragmentary wall paintings preserved from the main megaron at Pylos and not in the other palace centers thus far uncovered. The absence of sacrificial scenes from the other palaces suggests the possibility that the choice of subject matter at Pylos reflects the individual piety of its monarch and that religious associations were not the defining characteristic of the role of the wanax in Mycenaean society. In Classical Greece, Athens also sponsored religious festivals consisting of processions, sacrifices, and banqueting, but the defining character of this same government is not characterized as religious. 132. A great deal of emphasis has been given to this banqueting scene, but it needs to be emphasized that only a very small part of the wall paintings from the central area of the palace is preserved. It should also be noted that the preserved fragments vary in scale

118

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

from miniature to fully life size, and they vary in the color of their backgrounds, which might lead us to hesitate before accepting the concept that all the scenes represent a uniform subject. The preserved scene of banqueting and sacrifice was portrayed on the wall to the left of the throne. The area to the right of the throne, apart from the flanking griffin and lion, had no preserved fragments. It is perfectly possible that the scenes of banqueting on the left were balanced on the ruler’s right by scenes of fighting, similar to the scenes found at Mycenae. From the back wall fragments of the large animals were found, and these could be interpreted as representing agriculture. Near the wall opposite the throne, a fragment of a large scale deer was found; it is possible that this fragment fell from an upper story as suggested by the excavators, but this seems unlikely because wall paintings from the upper stories at Pylos were not usually portrayed in this large a scale. If it belongs to the throne room, it could be understood to represent a scene of hunting similar to the scenes of hunting found at Tiryns. On the door wall a fragment of two facing men was found that could be said to represent a scene of controversial dispute or judicial argument. The fragments from the vestibule, which seem to portray a procession, could be interpreted as a scene of tribute. This hypothetical (and possibly only whimsical) reconstruction could then be said to represent the different aspects of the king’s role in his society. It is meant to demonstrate that the sacrificial scene was not necessarily the defining characteristic of the iconography. 133. Rodenwaldt 1921; Immerwahr 1989, 123–125. A battle scene also was portrayed in Room 64 in the Southwest Building at Pylos; Lang 1969, 71–74, pls. 16, 117, A, M; Immerwahr 1989, 128. In addition to this scene, fragments of an earlier scene of battle were found in the dump outside the palace; Lang 1969, 74–75, pls. 22, 23, 116, B, N. 134. Rodenwaldt 1912, 5–8, 96–135, fig. 81, pls. I.6, XI.5; Immerwahr 1989, 129–130. Scenes of hunting were also portrayed in one of the upper rooms in the central building of the palace at Pylos; Lang 1969, 76–77, pl. 25; Immerwahr 1989, 132–133. 135. For weapons of the Mycenaean period, see Snodgrass 1999, 14–34; Dickinson 1994, 197–207. For a brief survey of tombs with weapons from the later part of the Mycenaean period, see Papadopoulos and Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2000. 136. Peatfield 1999 pointed out that mainland swords originated in Crete and that Minoan craftsmen were constantly developing these swords into more efficient weapons; these developments, Peatfield argued, were not the signs of a peaceful society. See also Owens 1992 and his study of helmets in Linear A; the existence of these helmets, like the swords, suggest a military component in Minoan society. Chryssoulaki 1999 described the remains of an elaborate security system of guard stations at important road junctions and in areas overlooking a wide expanse of roads on Crete. These security measures, she felt, do not reflect a peaceful society. The date of these installations, unfortunately, was not determined, and it could be that they come from the later periods on Crete when the Mycenaeans dominated the island. For additional discussion, see Evely 1996. 137. Gates 1985. 138. J.L. Davis and Bennet 1999 observed that scenes of warfare from the palace at Pylos came only from Room 64 in the Southwest Building. They suggested that the subject matter of the wall paintings in the two buildings might indicate that the main building and the Southwest Building served two different purposes. They also suggested that the Southwest Building, with its scenes of fighting, may have served as the seat of the lawagetas, and the main building, with its scenes of sacrifice and banqueting, served as

NOTES

119

the headquarters of the king. The other possibility they suggested is that the Southwest Building, the oldest wing of the palace, reflected an earlier, more bellicose stage of kingship whose nature had changed by the time of the later building. It is possible, however, to see a hint of the more bellicose nature of the earlier scenes reflected in the later scenes of hunting found in the main building itself, in Rooms 43 and 27, presumably fallen from the floor above. The existence of this wall painting in the main building of the palace suggests that the paintings in the Southwest Building might not be as significant as suggested by Davis and Bennet. It should also be noted that the fighting scene in the Southwest Building filled only one narrow band on the wall, and it did not dominate the decoration of that room. For other difficulties with the Davis and Bennet suggestion, see Deger-Jalkotzy 1999, 123–129 and nn. 329, 366 below. For wall paintings, see Lang 1969, 68–69, 76, pls. 12–14, 25, 116, 122, B, M, fragments 16H43–19H43, 34H27. The idea that the Southwest Building at Pylos may have served as the headquarters of the lawagetas had already been suggested earlier by Kilian 1987b. Kilian also suggested that the House of Columns at Mycenae was used by the lawagetas of Mycenae. His suggestion was supported by Hiller 1987; Palaima 1995a, 130 n. 39. This is an interesting suggestion, but there is no supporting evidence. 139. Wright 1994. 140. For symbolic significance of hearths in religion, see, also, Palaima 1995a, 125–126. 141. Kilian 1987a; Shear 1987, 150–154, 2000a, 1–18. 142. See, for example, the wall painting from the cult center at Mycenae, whose religious meaning is still debated; N. Marinatos 1988. 143. Wright 1994, 61–62 also emphasized the location of the shrines, their more irregular plans, and the absence of cut stone in their construction as indicative of their lesser importance. Cut stone, however, is also not prominent in the palace at Mycenae. The irregular plans of the building in the cult center, at least at Mycenae, are probably indicative of the fact that the buildings were not constructed as a single unit, but consist of a group of buildings to which additions were made. The location of the shrines, near the city walls as opposed to the isolated, hilltop location of the palaces, can be interpreted as a reflection of a closer association between the shrines and the community compared to the greater isolation of the king and the elite members of his court. See also n. 411 below. 144. For a similar evaluation, see Whittaker 1997, 8. For additional discussion and similar conclusions, see Albers 1994, 2001. 145. For scholars studying the Linear B tablets who have emphasized the religious aspects of the tablets and the king’s association with religion, see n. 317 below. 146. E.N. Davis 1995, 11–20; Younger 1995. 147. Yon 1985, 1991; Millard 1995, 120. 148. Koehl 1993, 321, 1995, 23–35 suggested that a similar absence of a kingly figure in Minoan art might reflect a limited monarchy regulated by the aristocracy on Crete. Whether this explanation could also apply to the Greek mainland depends on the interpretation of the aristocracy and whether such an aristocracy existed on the mainland. 149. Carlier 1984, 118–129 also questioned the extent of the king’s control of the economy.

120

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

150. There is a very large bibliography on this subject; see, among others, Driessen 1994–1995; Perna 1999, ed. 2000 where many references are cited. 151. Rehak and Younger 1995, 342. 152. Bintliff 1977, 75 reported that in a colloquium held in September 1976, Chadwick stated his belief that Linear B had already been fully developed on the mainland before the Mycenaeans dominated Crete. For further discussion, see Palaima 1988; Shelmerdine 1999c, 557; Rehak and Younger 2000, 288. 153. For palace storerooms, see Mylonas 1966a, 14, 28–31, 55, 57; Blegen and Rawson 1966, 10, 118, 130, 136, 270, 321, 342–349. 154. For a workshop area associated with the palace, see Mylonas 1966b, 419–426. 155. Wace 1949, 64–68, 94–95, 1956, 119–122; Mylonas 1966a, 31, 79, text fig. 6; Shear 1987, 36–42, 53–58. 156. Papademetriou and Petsas 1950, 203–233, 1951, 192–196; Haskell 1981, 225–226; Blegen 1928, 30–38; Shear 1986, 85–98. For a very general summary of other buildings outside the citadel at Mycenae, which possibly had commercial associations, see French 2002, 64–69. 157. Shear 1987, 58. In the case of Panagia House III, cottage industry could have developed out of a surplus of some item originally produced by the household for its own use. A hypothetical example of such a development might postulate that one of the women living in this house developed a particularly fine cheese made from the milk of the sheep raised on family land. In time, her expertise might well have created a surplus, and a neighbor, desiring some fine cheese, may have chosen to deal directly with her rather than with one of the workshops controlled by the palace. As our inhabitant’s fame spread, the demand for her product would have increased. As a result, our hypothetical inhabitant of Panagia House III would have trained her own daughters thereby increasing the production and creating a small, but private family industry. For cheese as a commodity rarely mentioned in the tablets, see R. Palmer 1999, 463. 158. For archaeological remains of these houses, see Tournavitou 1995, with extensive references to earlier publications of this area. For tablets, see Bennett, ed. 1958, and more recently, R. Palmer 1994, 177–185, 1999, 475–485; Shelmerdine 1997b, 389–394. For stirrup jars used to store the oil, see Haskell 1981. 159. S. Marinatos 1959; supported by Killen 1985; Tournavitou 1995, 286–298; R. Palmer 1999, 481. Shelmerdine 1997b, followed by Bendall 2003, equated these houses to the Northeast Building of the palace at Pylos, but three of these buildings at Mycenae had deposits of domestic pottery, which was not found in the Northeast Building, and their plans (discussed below) reflect domestic architecture. Only one building of this group, the so-called House of Shields, has a plan that resembles a workshop. In this building, only one tablet was found (Bennett 1958, 46), and workshops, with the exception of the Notheast Building, generally do not contain tablets; Tournavitou 1988, 456; Shelmerdine 1997b, 387. 160. For a recent study of the sealings found at Pylos, see Pini 1997. 161. Chadwick, ed. 1962; Mylonas 1968, pls. 1–2. In a third location, the storerooms above the Postern Gate, another tablet was found within the citadel at Mycenae, Mylonas 1970; these storerooms were probably part of the palace administration and thus this tablet may represent part of the palace records.

NOTES

121

162. See Iakovidis 2000, 51, fig. 50, for the tablet found in the destruction debris of the building. The pottery from this same house is dated to Late Helladic IIIA:2, which is presumably the same date as the tablet; this makes this tablet one of the earliest preserved tablets from the Greek mainland. For the tablet found south of the house, see Papademetriou and Petsas 1950, 214–215, fig. 18. 163. Shear 1987, 125–126. For more recent publications and evaluations of these sealings, see Taylour and Moore 1999, 111. 164. Demakopoulou and Divari-Valakou 1992–1993, 1994–1995; Walberg 1996–1997, 1998, 167; Blackman 2002, 26, fig. 50. 165. Aravantinos 1999a, 2000; Aravantinos, Godart, and Sacconi 2001; for review of Aravantinos, Godart, and Sacconi 2001, and some of the problems in the interpretation of these texts, see Palaima 2003a. For current work at Thebes, see Blackman 2000, 58–59, 2002, 52–53. 166. Godart, Killen, and Olivier 1983; Godart 1988; Olivier 1988. 167. Catling and Millett 1965; Chadwick 1976a, 58–59; Catling and Jones 1977; Catling et al. 1980; Haskell 1984, 1985, 221–229, 1997; Bennett 1986; Hallager 1987; Farnoux and Driessen 1991; Demakopoulou and Divari-Valakou 1992–1993, 1994–1995; Killen 1995; Day and Haskell 1995; van Alfen 1996–1997, with additional references. 168. Chadwick 1976a, 130 also suggested that these inscribed jars indicated that literacy extended beyond the palace administration. 169. It should be noted that all these jars were not made on Crete. Catling et al. 1980, 193 noted that six of these jars from Mycenae were tested and of these five appear to have been locally made; one such jar from Tiryns was also locally made. 170. For location of excavated, inscribed stirrup jars, see Catling et al. 1980, 60, to which add the sites of Midea (Demakopoulou and Divari-Valakou 1992–1993), Laconia, (Catling 1976–1977, 34), and Malia (van Alfen 1996–1997, 253 n. 5). 171. For “collectors,” see, especially, Bennett 1986; van Alfen 1996–1997, 252, 255, 260. For additional discussion, see Bennet 1992; Carlier 1992; de Fidio 1992; Driessen 1992; Godart 1992; Schwink 1994–1995; Killen 1995; Palaima 2000b; Olivier 2001; Rougemont 2001; de Fidio 2001, 21–22. 172. Hirschfeld 1992; she cited 197 vases with added marks; seventeen different types of marks were illustrated. 173. Lindblom 2001 isolated 316 groups of different marks on exported, prehistoric Aeginetan pottery dating from the Neolithic period to the end of the Bronze Age. These pots were found on twenty-three sites on Crete, Greece, Cyprus, and the Cyclades. The largest number of these found outside of Aegina itself came from Lerna where 101 different types of marks were identified. 174. Writing added by independent traders was considered unlikely by van Alfen 1996– 1997, 261, because of the large number of names preserved, thirty in all with twenty coming from Thebes alone. A comparison of these numbers with the numbers of marks used for identification purposes in trade cited in nn. 172–173 above suggests that the thirty names cited by van Alfen need not be considered excessive. 175. Killen 1995, 220 also suggested the possibility that some of these “collectors” were independent traders.

122

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

176. This is the chief reason given by van Alfen, 1996–1997, 261, for resisting the idea of independent local traders. 177. See n. 152 above. 178. Chadwick 1976a, 24–25; see also: Olivier 1991, 122; Driessen 1992, 2000; Kyriakidis 1996–1997. 179. Both Bennet 2001 and Killen 2001b supported the concept of literate palace officials. 180. See Shelmerdine 1988, 346–360, who divided the scribal hands into three groups; the first group were non-specialized writers who worked on more than one branch of the economy; the second group were semi-specialized writers who worked on more than one aspect of the same subject; the third group were fully specialized writers who wrote on only one specific subject matter. At Knossos, there were four scribal hands in the first group, fourteen in the second group, and forty-four in the third group. At Pylos, there were eleven in the first group, six in the second group, and six in the third group. For scribal hands at Knossos, see also Sjöquist and Åström 1991 and n. 178 above. For additional discussion and contrast between scribal hands at Knossos, Pylos, and Mycenae, see Shelmerdine 1999c, 564–576. 181. Palaima 2003b. I want to thank T.G. Palaima for sending me a preliminary version of this very interesting article. 182. For sealings with Linear B writing and the administrative uses of this type of sealing, see Palaima 2000b, with references to earlier publications. 183. See, for example, Pini 1997, nos. 1–2, 38–39, 50. The elaborate details of some of these sealings suggest that the original seals were made of precious material such as gold. Although it is frequently said that gold and silver were scarce in the later part of the Late Bronze Age, see, most recently, French 2002, 115, thereby implying an impoverished economy. It should be remembered that most of the gold and silver from the Bronze Age that has been found came from tombs; see n. 23 above. Tombs of the Late Helladic IIIB period with all their grave goods still preserved are almost non-existent. The absence of Late Helladic IIIB grave goods explains the apparent lack of gold and silver objects from this period. 184. Killen 2001b. 185. Shelmerdine and Bennet 1995, 125. 186. Rehak and Younger 1995, 342. 187. Shear 1987, 1–3. 188. A similar type of division is reflected in Od. 14.199–210, a false tale of Odysseus, where he claimed that his father’s estate on Crete had been divided unequally among the sons, each receiving a portion upon his father’s death; the share given to the false Odysseus, an alleged illegitimate son, was inferior to the portions given to the other siblings. 189. See n. 53 above. 190. The drain running through the courtyard of the West House ran under the House of the Oil Merchant. The walls of the this later building were carefully constructed over the drain indicating that the drain and thus the West House to which the drain belonged were built before the House of the Oil Merchant. The north wall of the House of the Oil Merchant has a jog in order to allow sufficient space between the House of the Oil

NOTES

123

Merchant and the House of Shields for an east-west passage way. Since the jog was in the wall of the House of the Oil Merchant and not in the House of Shields, it would appear that the House of Shields was already standing when the House of the Oil Merchant was constructed. The walls at the north end of the House of Sphinxes abut the south wall of the House of the Oil Merchant, thus indicating that the House of Sphinxes was built after the House of the Oil Merchant had already been constructed. 191. Chadwick, ed. 1962, 54; Tournavitou 1995, 262–263, table 23. 192. Shear 1968, 263–428. 193. Shear 1986, 85–91. 194. Variations of this plan, for example Panagia House II and the House of Columns at Mycenae, in my opinion, do not represent a different architectural concept but were the result of re-arranging these same basic elements in order to fit the natural terrain and available land on which the house was built; Shear 1987, 144–146, 150–154. The differences in the plans of some of the shrines and their irregularities, observed by Wright (n. 143 above), appear to represent a parallel phenomenon. 195. Excluding its most southern part which served as an entrance from the west, Area X, the length of the western terrace is equal to the length of the main room, vestibule, porch and enclosed courtyard of the neighboring West House. The (uneven) width of these same rooms in the West House is approximately equal to the area west of the jog in the north wall of the House of the Oil Merchant. 196. The west wall of this house does not lie at a right angle to the north wall. This irregularity suggests that the main living area lay in the eastern half of the building where the rooms could have been more regular in form, as is appropriate for the main rooms of the house. The excavated length of this eastern area is once again equal to the length of the main living area of the West House. Its width is greater than that of the West House. The rooms of the House of Sphinxes had unusually wide roof spans for Mycenaean domestic architecture. These wide spans suggest that the irregular wall dividing the main basement area of the eastern half may have been added on the basement level at a later period to reinforce the floor above. The irregular position of this wall, resulting in peculiar proportions for both rooms, supports the suggestion that the wall was a later addition. The House of Sphinxes, according to Tournavitou 1995, 65, 292, was entered from the south, with a second entrance from the west. 197. Tournavitou 1995, 41, for example, restored the entrance into the House of the Oil Merchant above the southernmost basement room, whereas my understanding of the exterior stair leading into this house found by Verdelis and my own study of the remains on the site at the time of the original excavation, indicated that this entrance should be restored in the area above the basement room immediately to the north; Shear 1968, 147–149. The plan of the southernmost rooms, furthermore, suggests that the upper levels of these rooms contained an interior stairway; a stairway in the entrance hall is not appropriate for Mycenaean domestic architecture. 198. For buildings at Gla see Iakovidis 1998; 2001, 65–75. 199. Mylonas 1966b. 200. For herbs and spices grown locally, see R. Palmer 1999, 2001, 64. For other agricultural items mentioned being commonly grown throughout the history of Greece, see R. Palmer 2001, 42.

124

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

201. Killen 1981 suggested that the oil mentioned in the tablets was distributed to the wool workers to be used by them for the production of wool cloth. The quantities of oil distributed would have filled only one of the pithoi found in the basement of the House of the Oil Merchant, Tournavitou 1995, 267. The amount of olive oil stored in the house could have easily been produced by the family estate. 202. Tournavitou 1995, 259, 289 originally stated that the amount of wool mentioned in the tablets was small in comparison to the overall production possible for the area. The earlier figures of this amount have now been modified; Shelmerdine 1997b, 390 and n. 24. This quantity, however, still represents more wool than was needed by a single household but not more than could have been produced by a large family estate. 203. Finley 1954, especially chapters three and four. Although Finley tried to emphasize this type of economic unit as different from that seen in the tablets, a general survey of agricultural practices in the Late Bronze Age reflected in the tablets by R. Palmer (2001, 52–65) suggested similar types of establishments. Palmer felt that the tablets indicated that there existed large landed estates worked by a variety of tenants and subordinates who raised a variety of agricultural products, some of which were luxury items. At the same time, there were smaller, independently owned farms with a more modest, mixed agricultural output. 204. The identification of the palace as the center of an oikos system has already been suggested by Kilian 1988a, 293, and Small 1998; see also Small 1999. Small suggested that the various officials of the society, who controlled some of the land, formed a hierarchy based on their patronage and land. These various households can be seen as additional oikoi. 205. The identification of these houses as private and separate from the palace casts serious doubt on the thesis put forward by Voutsaki 2001 that the palaces in the Late Helladic IIIB period had strict control over the internal exchange of prestige goods. Scraps of gold leaf in the Panagia Houses and the discovery of the lower half of an ivory figurine in the floor of Panagia House II (Shear 1987, 15, 58, 123–124) also raise questions concerning the limitation of such prestige goods by the palaces. 206. See n. 97 above. Tournavitou 1995, 298–299 questioned the destruction of these buildings by earthquake. The vast quantities of valuables and the scattered, exploded oil jars indicate that the destruction was sudden and accompanied by fire. Since these buildings were destroyed at the same time as the Panagia Houses and the House of Lead, French 1963, 50, the logical conclusion is that the earthquake that destroyed the Panagia Houses and many of the structures within the citadel at Mycenae also destroyed this group of houses. An earthquake would have caused the collapse of the wooden roof beams. These beams, falling on the hearths, would have started the fire that destroyed the houses. In the basement of the House of the Oil Merchant, the oil stored in the scattered, broken oil jars displaced by the earthquake would have increased the intensity of the fire, causing any unbroken oil jars to explode, thereby intensifying the conflagration. 207. See n. 108 above. 208. For manufacture of goods within the sanctuaries, see Karageorghis 1976, 72–76; Rutkowski 1986, 175, 195; Lupack 1997, 1998. 209. This kind of economy for Pylos was suggested by Cherry and J.L. Davis 1999; Galaty 1999; Halstead 1999b; Kardulias 1999; Parkinson 1999; Small 1999.

NOTES

125

210. The bread made by the seventeen bakers listed in a tablet from the House of the Oil Merchant (Tournavitou 1995, 263), if indeed these man were bakers, could represent this type of palace patronage. The total of seventeen “bakers” mentioned in the tablets would have made much more bread than was needed by the inhabitants of this one group of buildings, and it may be that some of this bread was used by the palace. 211. L.R. Palmer 1962, 99; Killen 1985; Hooker 1987b, 261; Chadwick 1987; Stavrianopoulou 1989; Palaima 1991a, 308; and more recently Halstead 1999b, 38–39. 212. Galaty 1999. See also Knappett 2001; Whitelaw 2001. Earlier, Wright 1984, 23 suggested that the pottery stored in the pantries at Pylos came from at least two different workshops. Blegen and Rawson 1996, 352 originally suggested that the pottery had come from a minimum of three different kilns. Since these were not adjacent to the palace, they may have been the recipients of palace patronage. 213. Kardulias 1999; Parkinson 1999. 214. J.L. Davis et al. 1997; Zangger et al. 1997; Galaty and Parkinson 1997; Galaty 1999; Parkinson 1999. 215. It should be noted, however, that much of the work connected with the manufacture of fabrics, mentioned in the tablets found in the palaces and, therefore, under palatial control, took place outside the palace; consequently, the location of an industry does not necessarily indicate independence of palatial control; Shelmerdine 1999b, 22; Killen 1999, 89. 216. Tomlinson 1998, 205–209 concluded that the clay in the pottery from Gla differed from that of Thebes. The use of two different types of clay suggests that there were two different, independent pottery centers. 217. Walberg 1998, 132. 218. Åkerström 1952; Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1993. 219. Shear 1987, 150–154. For attempts to define a Mycenaean palace in more specific terms, see Kilian 1988a–b; introduction of Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999; Shelmerdine 1999b, 19–20, 1999c, 557–559. For a definition of the megaron, see Werner 1993, 3–5, 127, and n. 119 above. 220. Shear 1987, 136–143; Tournavitou 1995, 280–283; M.C. Shaw 1996; Iakovidis 1998, 183–187, 268–270, pls. I–X, 48–49, 2001, 138–141, 151; Demakopoulou and DivariValakou 1999, 209. 221. For columns used in rooms with hearths, see Panagia House II at Mycenae, House L at Korakou, and House T at Aghios Kosmas; Shear 1987, 30; Blegen 1921, fig. 112; Mylonas 1959, drawing 15. 222. For a typical corridor that runs parallel to the axis of the main room, see Panagia House I, and for a variation of the normal type, see Panagia House II; Shear 1987, 151– 152, figs. 2, 4–5. Some of the Late Helladic houses at Phylakopi had corridors that appear to have led only to the rear room behind the megaron. See, for example, House J 2, rooms 21 and 22, House J 3, rooms 2, 3, 7; Atkinson et al. 1904, figs. 32–33, pl. I. Access into such rooms could have been more economically accomplished by placing a doorway between the two existing rooms. This consideration, combined with other observations, led me to conclude that the corridors were originally constructed to accommodate a stair leading to an upper level over the rear room; Shear 2000a, 15–17, 168 n. 230.

126

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

223. Such corridors are very clear in the palace at Pylos, but they also occur in the earlier house found in the Menelaion near Sparta, which is not necessarily a palace; Catling 1976–1977, 29, fig. 5; R.L.N. Barber 1992, 14. 224. Kilian 1988b; see, also, the introduction to Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999. If the presence of four columns surrounding a hearth identifies a palace, then the building uncovered on one of the lower terraces at Midea, Walberg 1998, becomes a palace. This building, however, lacks the large formal courtyard and entrance way found in the other buildings identified as palaces. It also lacks the numerous storage areas and subsidiary rooms needed in a building that served as both the residence and administrative center of the monarch. Its location, on the lower terrace, and an absence of a clearly defined, formal approach, also makes it different from the other known palaces. 225. Shear 1987, 30 n. 21. See, also, Building B at Gla; Iakovidis 2001, 46–47. This building has a width of ten meters. In order to support the roof, a central row of columns was built parallel to the longitudinal walls of rooms 3, 4, and 5, thus reducing the roof span to five meters. Since this building served as a storage facility, the purpose of these columns was clearly functional and not decorative or symbolic. 226. See the basement rooms of the House of Sphinxes, n. 196 above, where the original roof span of over five meters apparently caused an additional wall to be added to the basement dividing its eastern half into two rooms. 227. For a reconstructed palace, see Maran 2000 and 2001. For earthquakes at Tiryns, see Kilian 1988c. 228. Maran 2001, 114. 229. In Midea, the earlier Late Helladic IIIB megaron, after an earthquake, was also reduced slightly in width, and a single row of columns replaced the earlier four arranged in a square, Walberg 1998. Walberg 1995 associated the change in the arrangement of columns with a possible change in ritual occurring in the Late Helladic IIIC period, but a hearth between a row of two columns occurred earlier in the Late Helladic IIIB period in the post earthquake phase of Panagia House II, which suggests that the introduction of a row of columns was in response to the earthquake and not to a later Late Helladic IIIC change in ritual. 230. The griffin and lion flanking the throne at Pylos (Lang 1969, 99–102) may be another symbol of royalty as suggested by Rehak 1995a, 109. Lenz 1993, 77–78 suggested that altars be restored in place of the thrones in Pylos and Tiryns, but his arguments were not convincing, and his suggestion has not been generally accepted. 231. See Shear 2000a, 3–5 and fig. 10 for new restoration of the palace at Mycenae with its double megara drawn by T.L. Shear, Jr. This restoration differs from that published by Kilian 1987c, fig. 1; his room 14 is much smaller than our room no. 15. The proportions of our restored room 15 are based on cuttings in the bedrock found along the east side of the room, which were recorded by T.L. Shear, Jr. during the excavation seasons in the summers of 1963 and 1965. Kilian’s restoration of rooms north of his rooms 12–14 makes no allowance for the heavy terrace wall, which runs along the north side of the hill; the existing rooms shown on his plan lie north of this terrace wall at a much lower level than the area immediately south of the terrace; the terrace wall, as it now stands, belongs to the historic period, but the levels of existing bedrock in this area suggest that a prehistoric terrace wall once stood in this general area.

NOTES

127

232. For architecture of the Dark Age, see Fagerström 1988; Coulson 1990; Mazarakis Ainian 1997. 233. Kilian 1987a, 1988a. 234. Shelmerdine 1987b, 561. 235. For further discussion, see Shear 2000a, 3–5. 236. Od. 6.309. 237. For similarities in the description of the palace of Alkinoös and the archaeological remains of palaces on the Greek mainland, see Shear 2000a, 10–11, 76. The phrase describing Alkinoös’ palace, Od. 7.84–85, is repeated in Od. 4.45, the description of Menelaos’ palace. Cook, in a lecture delivered at Princeton University on October 15, 2001 and later published in AJA 2004, tried to persuade us that the garden and palace of the Phaiakian king, Od. 7.80–138, were based on the Assyrian palaces and gardens of the historical period. These later Near Eastern palaces and their gardens had roots in the prehistoric period, and thus parallels between the palace and garden of Alkinoös in the Odyssey and the Near East could be either prehistoric or historic; see, for example, the prehistoric palace at Ugarit, Nougayrol 1956 and Margueron 1995. For gardens in the Near East and Egypt, see Hugonot 1992 and Margueron 1992. Prehistoric wall paintings of Minoan gardens appear to reflect Egyptian gardens; Schäfer 1991, 1992; M.C. Shaw 1993. The Minoans in the guise of the Keftiu appear in Egyptian reliefs of the eighteenth dynasty during the reigns of Queen Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III; Wachsmann 1987, 27–38; Dickinson 1994, 253. Contact between the Keftiu and Egypt is also indicated by literary references to trade in the Egyptian records; see Pritchard, ed. 1955, 241–243. This Egyptian evidence suggests an obvious parallel to the fabled garden of Alkinoös. Only the position of Alkinoös’ garden adjacent to the palace is unusual, and this has a direct parallel with the prehistoric palace and garden at Ugarit. Alkinoös’ garden, unlike those of the Near East, was a working garden, the kind of garden or farm that occurs in other parts of the tradition; see, for example, the farm of Laertes, Od. 24.226–247, 24.338–344. Similar to the garden of Alkinoös, this plot of land produced pears, apples, figs, olives, and vines; only pomegranates were missing. Od. 7.115–116, which describes the pomegranates of Alkinoös’ garden, was repeated in Od. 11.589–590. These similarities suggest that the garden had become a well-established component in the oral tradition. As such, it more likely originated in the distant past, rather than being newly introduced from the Near East during the historic period. The most unusual aspect of the garden belonging to Alkinoös is that it produced fresh fruits throughout the year regardless of the season. This is reminiscent of the scenes of plowing, harvesting wheat (which takes place in early summer in the Mediterranean), and gathering grapes for wine-making (which takes place in late summer) shown side by side on the shield made by Hephaistos for Achilles in the Iliad, 18.541–572, as well as Minoan landscape paintings that portray together flowering plants representative of different seasons, Chapin 2004, 57. 238. Od. 3.354, 3.401, 4.165, 4.392, 7.12, 10.5, 11.68, 11.162, 13.334, 13.403, 15.450, 16.33, 16.120, 17.391, 18.267, 19.490, 19.497, 20.68, 20.214, 22.151, 22.313, 22.396, 22.417, 22.421, 23.56, 23.132. 239. Od. 4.210, 15.354. In Od. 8.227, the opposite action took place, that is to say someone died and did not reach old age in the megara.

128

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

240. Od. 3.188, 3.256, 4.101, 4.192, 6.62, 9.31, 17.521. 241. Od. 4.537, 11.198, 16.106. 242. Od. 4.557, which was repeated in 5.14 and 17.143. See also Od. 13.337, 15.354. 243. Od. 1.432, 19.254, 20.167, 23.28. 244. The opposite action took place in Od. 24.187. 245. Od. 11.182, which was repeated in 16.38, 24.162. 246. Od. 23.302. 247. Od. 23.113. 248. Il. 5.193. 249. Il. 5.270. 250. Il. 24.265–280. 251. Od. 4.39–43. 252. Od. 19.322. 253. Od. 20.95–96. 254. Od. 16.413. 255. For other examples of megaron in the singular referring to a specific room, see Od. 1.416, 7.180, 10.388, 13.51, 16.106. 256. Megaron in Od. 16.165; cooking thereby implying a hearth in Od. 16.13; sleeping by the fire indicating that hearth was inside the farmhouse in Od. 14.518–519; vestibule in Od. 14.5; courtyard in Od. 14.6–10. Casual references to the hut of Achilles at Troy also included some of these terms; Il. 24.452, 24.644, 24.673. 257. For example, House L at Korakou, House BB at Eutresis, Houses S and T at Aghios Kosmas, Panagia House I at Mycenae, and the earlier House 98A at Lerna; Blegen 1921, 80–83, fig. 112; Goldman 1931, fig. 78; Mylonas 1959, drawings 14–15; Shear 1987, 150; Caskey 1957, 149–150, fig. 4. 258. As suggested by Knox 1971. See Hainsworth 1993, on lines 9.202–204 and 9.658–668, who also felt that these terms were misplaced in the Iliad when they were used in reference to the huts of the Achaians. 259. Dalby 1995, 274–278 discussed this question at some length; he noted that the actions of the inhabitants of a simple Geometric house would have been known to the other people within the establishment. He sought to persuade us that the small size of the original structures accounted for Penelope’s knowledge. Later epic glorification, in his interpretation, enlarged the buildings giving the impression of multiple floor levels and numerous rooms. 260. Shear 1987, 19–21. 261. For more detailed discussion of the thalamos and its relationship to the megaron, see Shear 2000a, 12–17. 262. These similarities were pointed out some time ago by Wace 1951. Both Luce 1975, 49–53, and Plommer 1977, 80–83, also argued for a Mycenaean date for the prototype

NOTES

129

of the Homeric house. Despite these earlier articles, in A New Companion to Homer, which is supposed to represent the consensus of current scholarship, Raaflaub 1997, 625, without any discussion, simply stated: “the Mycenaean palaces are a world apart from the houses of the Homeric leaders.” This statement needs to be questioned. 263. There have been occasional discussions of the parallels between the Mycenaean period and the oral tradition; see, for example, Bloedow 1999 and comments made by Palaima and Dickinson, reported in Laffineur, ed. 1999, 295. Although I agree with the actual statements (but not the sentiment) made by Dickinson in response to Bloedow’s paper, the problem, in my opinion, lies in the examples chosen by Bloedow and not in the lack of parallels. Spears were used throughout both the prehistoric and the historic periods, as observed by Dickinson. The unique character of these spears in the Iliad is revealed in the detailed description of Hector’s spear, which had an added ring at the base of the spear head; Il. 6.319–320 repeated in 8.494–495. An added ring in this position is a characteristic to be found only in the prehistoric spears; Shear 2000a, 56. As Dickinson pointed out, Troy undoubtedly was just as windy in later periods as it was in the prehistoric era, but Mycenae rich in gold (Il. 7.180, 11.46; Od. 3.305) is only appropriate in the later part of the Bronze Age and not in later periods, as Griffin 1995, 3 observed. In another article, Dickinson 1999b, pointed out that the date of the Catalogue of Ships is not certain and that it may be Geometric. A Geometric date for the Catalogue of Ships has been suggested by others, such as Anderson 1995 and M.L. West 1988, 168, 172. One Geometric element in the tradition, however, does not date the entire tradition to the Geometric period. West 1988, furthermore, suggested a Boeotian origin for the Catalogue; at the same time he identified the bard of the Iliad as Ionian. This division suggests two different, parallel oral traditions, possibly reflecting two different dates, combined into one epic at a later date. 264. See, for example, Raaflaub 1998; Lenz 1993, 181–182. The current, most vocal advocate for the separation of the society related in the tradition from the society of the more distant past is, perhaps, I. Morris 1986. 265. Schadewaldt 1959. 266. Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 8.2, 26.1. 267. Pack 1965 listed 680 texts of Homer as opposed to 82 of Demosthenes, the second largest group of Greek texts, and 77 of Euripides, the third largest group. Since 1965, the number of Homeric papyri has greatly increased; for more recent numbers, see M.L. West 2001, 86–138. 268. The leader buried in the rich tomb of Lefkandi was presumably of great enough stature to warrant an epic. For burial and tumulus over it at Lefkandi, see Popham, Calligas, and Sackett, eds. 1993. Other leaders of importance who might have warranted epics were the men living in the large houses dominating the Dark Age settlements discussed by Fagerström 1988 and Mazarakis Ainian 1997. 269. Hesiod, Works and Days, 165. 270. See n. 17 above. 271. See n. 540 below.

130

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Chapter II The Evidence of the Linear B Tablets 272. It has also led to a vast bibliography on Linear B, some of which is contradictory; see, for example, the conclusions of J.L. Davis and Bennet 1999, as opposed to those of Deger-Jalkotzy 1999, and the suggestions made by various contributors to Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999, which were questioned by Killen 1999. 273. See, for example, papers in Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds. 1987. 274. The need for caution concerning conclusions drawn from tablets associated with only one sector of the society is indicated by the Sumerian material found at Lagash; see Kramer 1963, 75–77. The overwhelming number of tablets found on that site came from the temples and, therefore, they represent the economic concerns of the temples. These tablets initially were thought to indicate that the economy of Lagash, and thus of the other Sumerian cities, was dominated by the temples. Later studies of the Lagash tablets by Diakonoff 1959 and A. Deimel (quoted by Kramer) revealed that the land mentioned consisted of only one segment of the land in use and that the majority of the land was not held by the temples. This observation led to a re-evaluation of the degree of control held by the temples, and the conclusion eventually was reached that the temples did not completely dominate Sumerian society as had originally been suggested. For more recent evaluation of the society of the Sumerians, see Postgate 1991, who stressed the importance of the palaces and the kings in the society. 275. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 361; Il. 5.722. 276. These differences were stressed most particularly by Finley who laid great emphasis on material absent from the epics rather than the information presented; see Finley 1954, 1957, 1981. He so influenced scholars that it became unthinkable to many people that any similarities between the epics and the Mycenaean period could exist. Widespread acceptance of Finley’s evaluation is made clear by Bennet 1997, 511, 533, whose discussion of Homer and the Bronze Age began with the statement: “the very idea that there may be any relation [between Homer and the Bronze Age] seems highly implausible.” Bennet ended with Finley’s words: “Homer is not only not a reliable guide to the Mycenaean tablets; he is no guide at all” (quoted from Finley 1957, 159). This same quotation from Finley was used by I. Morris and Powell 1997, xvii, in their introduction to A New Companion to Homer. Finley’s attitude is in sharp contrast to the more hesitant statements made by Chadwick 1976a, 180: “Is it possible that a poet of the eighth century could accurately describe events that happened five hundred years earlier? The answer to this question is perhaps yes.” This idea was expanded on p. 182 where he added: “some idea of the Mycenaean world could well have been passed down through the Dark Ages to Homer,” and on p. 185 he wrote: “what we need to do is to test the accuracy of Homer where we have independent evidence.” 277. PY Ep 704; Shelmerdine 1998a, 92; Lupack 1999. 278. Chadwick 1976a, 28, 169–170. 279. Hallager 1996, vol. 1, 137–145. See, also, Palaima 1988, 316, with references to earlier work by J. Weingarten and I. Pini.

NOTES

131

280. For use of perishable material, see Chadwick 1976a, 27 and, more recently, Palaima 2000b. For use of wax-covered, wooden, folding tablets, see Bass 1997, 90–91; Shear 1998; Bryce 1999. 281. Bryce 1999, 261 was particularly concerned that the correspondence between the rulers of the Near East and the Greeks was not found in the Greek records. It is possible that this correspondence was sent to one of those Mycenaean sites where the palace archives have not been recovered. 282. This is in contrast to the more numerous and more lengthy tablets from the single site of Ugarit; see nn. 526–527 below. 283. Shelmerdine 1997b, 387–389; Aravantinos 1995. 284. See, for example, Ruijgh 1987; the discussion of tablets mentioning the wanax and the king’s role in the religion of his society by Palaima 1995a, 131; the meaning of words associated with land tenure discussed by M. Carpenter 1983; papers in Ilievski and Crepajac, eds. 1987. 285. It is often implied or assumed, for example, that the tablets found at Mycenae in the House of the Oil Merchant and its neighboring buildings were part of the palatial records; see, for example, Shelmerdine 1999b, 22, 1999c; Garcia 1999. Killen 1983, accepting this assumption, suggested that the Ge tablets of this group represent taxation records, a suggestion repeated by Garcia 1999, 595, but if these houses were private, as argued above, this interpretation is not valid. Other tablets from Mycenae come from scattered areas, and the use of evidence from most of the tablets found thus far at Mycenae as indicative of royal prerogatives and control remains questionable. 286. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 120. For an earlier discussion, see Page 1963, 188, and references cited; Lindgren 1973, part 2, 150–155. For a more recent discussion of the role of the wanax and extensive bibliography since the decipherment, see, among others, Hooker 1979, 1987b; Carlier 1984, 3–230, 1996; Panagl 1986; Palaima 1993, 1995a; C.G. Thomas 1995; Yamagata 1997; Shelmerdine 1999b. 287. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 120. 288. For tablets listing the wanax, see Palaima 1995a, 131: PY Er 312, En 74, En 609, Eo 371, Ta 711, Fr 1215, Fr 1220, Fr 1227, Fr 1235, Un 2 and KN Ga 675. More recently, the wanax has been identified in a sealing from Pylos, Wr 1480 (Shelmerdine and Bennet 1995, 123–132) and a tablet from Thebes, X 105 (Aravantinos 2000, 39). 289. This temenos and land held by some of the other officials are mentioned in PY Er 312; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 266. The land held by the wanax and the other officials mentioned in this tablet, however, need not represent the total amount of land belonging to these individuals as indicated by the land holdings of E-ke-ra2-wo, who apparently held a variety of estates. For discussion of E-ke-ra2-wo as a man of substance holding a variety of different lands, see L.R. Palmer 1962, 93; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 120, 265, 270; Carlier 1984, 128–130; Dickinson 1994, 83. The possibility that E-ke-ra2-wo might have been the king of Pylos was originally suggested by Ventris and Chadwick (1973, 120, 265, 270), but later Chadwick (1987, 78 n. 6) came to believe that this was not correct.

132

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

290. For temene belonging to the gods, see Il. 2.696, 8.48; Od. 8.363. For temene belonging to people, see Il. 6.194, 9.578, 12.313, 20.184, 20.391; Od. 6.293, 11.185, 17.299. 291. A man called We-da-ne-wo was named with E-ke-ra2-wo in PY An 610, a tablet concerned with mustering the fleet. Other tablets reveal that We-da-ne-wo owned slaves, sheep, and land producing flax, which clearly makes him a man of substance. A third person called Me-nu-wa was mentioned with E-ke-ra2-wo and the la-we-ge-tas in PY An 724, a tablet listing missing rowers. The presence of this individual, together with the la-we-ge-tas and E-ke-ra2-wo, suggest that he was also a man of substance; Chadwick 1987, 78, 80. 292. For example, the many buildings constructed within the lower citadel at Tiryns, and houses beyond the citadel walls at Mycenae, such as the Panagia Houses. The building excavated in the citadel at Midea by Walberg 1998 is substantial, but its location on the lower terrace of the citadel and its plan, n. 224 above, suggest that it was not royal. 293. Il. 14.121–124. Compare to E-ke-ra2-wo in the tablets (n. 289 above) who had vineyards, extensive wheat fields, a great number of fig trees, and livestock, and to We-dane-wo (n. 291 above), who also seems to have been a man of substance. 294. Od. 18.292–301. 295. Earlier scholarship sometimes referred to a Mycenaean hegemony with a single ruler dominating the entire Mycenaean world; see Desborough 1964, 218. This idea was suggested again by J.N. Postgate (reported in Voutsaki and Killen, eds. 2001, 160). In later periods, the Greek city-states had so many difficulties in their repeated efforts to form alliances against a common foreign enemy that many scholars remained skeptical of the possibility of such a hegemony in the prehistoric period. The evidence from the tablets now indicates that such a hegemony did not exist in the Mycenaean period. 296. Whether Mycenae and Tiryns formed a single kingdom or represented two separate kingdoms is unclear from the archaeological evidence. Their close proximity suggests that they were part of one kingdom dominated by the ruler of Mycenae; Chadwick 1976a, 14; Shear 2000a, 89–91; and below, where the possibility that Tiryns was the port town for Mycenae is discussed. Diomedes is possibly a later addition (see among others West 1985, 137; Griffin 1995, 3–4; Scodel 2002, 27), and the apparent division of Tiryns and Mycenae into two separate kingdoms was perhaps a misconception added by a later bard. 297. The date of the tablets from Knossos has been much disputed; see, especially, L.R. Palmer 1962, 164–225, and 1963. The later discovery of Linear B tablets from Khania dated to the Late Minoan IIIB period (see n. 527 below and Shelmerdine 1992, 570) makes it likely that some of the Linear B tablets from Knossos should also be dated to Late Minoan IIIB. Additional study of the material from Knossos suggests that the tablets from the site belong to two different periods; Hallager 1977; Mirié 1979; Niemeier 1986; Driessen 1990; Olivier 1994; Popham 1994. 298. Il. 2.645. It has recently been suggested by Driessen 2001a that the change in the language used in the Linear B tablets, as opposed to that of Linear A, was politically motivated and did not represent a change in ethnic identity. The existence of many Greek names in the Knossos tablets (see Firth 1992–1993 and Palaima 1999, 371–375), plus the repetition of the same Greek names on the mainland and in Knossos (Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 93–103), gives clear evidence that Mycenaeans were living on Crete. For further discussion of Greek names in the Knossos tablets, see also, Baumbach 1992; Ilievski 1992; Killen 1992. The change in the unit of measure used in Linear B,

NOTES

133

in contrast to that of Linear A (L.R. Palmer 1962, 119), is also indicative of a major change. Definite cultural changes at the time of the introduction of Linear B on Crete have long been noted in the archaeological record; Iakovidis 1978, 20; Popham 1994, 92–93. These changes also suggest a change in ethnic identity. Mycenaeans living on Crete are suggested by Od. 19.175–177, Odysseus’ description of Crete, where he named the people living on Crete as the Achaians, Eteokretans, Kydonians, Dorians, and Pelasgians. The Eteokretans and Pelasgians can be understood to represent two earlier pre-Greek people, and the Achaians and Dorians to represent the earliest Greek-speaking people on the island. For Eteokretans as a separate group from the other early Cretan inhabitants, see Whitley 1998. 299. Cline 1995, 149. For a summary of the earlier scholarship concerning the identification of the Ahhiyawa in the Hittite documents, see Güterbock 1983. The possibility that the Ahhiyawa were mentioned in a Linear B tablet from Knossos was suggested in 1971 by Gschnitzer. This idea was supported recently by Latacz 1996, 37. 300. The location of the kingdom of Ahhiyawa, and the extent of power held by this particular king, has been a subject of long debate; see, most recently, Bryce 1989a–b, 1998, 59–63, 321–324, 342–344, 1999; Niemeier 1998, 1999; Karantzali 2001, 79–81. A variety of different locations for this kingdom have been suggested, and this question still remains controversial. Bryce argued that from the Anatolian viewpoint the most likely location is somewhere on the Greek mainland. As Bryce 1998, 61 pointed out, the Hittite documents clearly indicate the presence of a kingdom of Ahhiyawa, and unless the Ahhiyawa are the same as the Mycenaeans, no parallel for the existence of this kingdom has been uncovered in the archaeological record. The archaeological evidence, on the other hand, clearly indicates the presence of Mycenaeans in Asia Minor during this same period, but these same Mycenaeans are completely absent in the Hittite documents except for their possible identification as the people of Ahhiyawa. The location of the Ahhiyawa on the Greek mainland was questioned by Sherratt 2001, 217 n. 9, and various possible centers for this kingdom continue to be discussed; Mountjoy 1998; Mee 1998b; Karantzali 2001, 143. 301. This same type of flattery, discussed further below, p. 78, appears to have occurred in the Iliad when efforts were being made to persuade Achilles to rejoin the fighting at Troy. On those occasions, he was not called by the lesser title basileus, but by the more important title of wanax, even though his father was alive, and the title belonged to the father. 302. For areas controlled by the kingdom of Pylos, see, especially, Bennet 1995, 1998, 1999. For identification of Pylos as a confederation of different cities under palatial control, see, most recently, Cook and Palaima 2001. This area, as reconstructed by Bennet, is so extensive that we might question how dominating the control of the wanax actually was. In more recent history, both England and France were ruled by monarchs, but the degree of power these monarchs had over their aristocracy varied widely, depending on the particular personality of the monarch and the historical circumstances of the period. 303. Driessen 2001b analyzed the names in the Knossos tablets. He felt that these names indicated that the kingdom of Knossos lay primarily in the central part of the island. Earlier, Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 115 pointed out that the areas of Crete mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships, Il. 2.645–652, also lay in the central part of the island. 304. PY Ta 711; Chadwick 1976a, 77; Carlier 1984, 98–99; Shelmerdine 1999b, 20.

134

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

305. For brief description of attempts to drain the marshy area around Gla, the tholos at Orchomenos, other possible Mycenaean remains in this area, their historical significance, and the investigation of these remains, see Iakovidis 1998, 273–278, 2001, 151–157. 306. For brief description of the tomb, see Mylonas 1966a, 125–127; Papadopoulos and Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2000. 307. Catling 1976–1977. 308. See n. 126 above. 309. Il. 2.484–759. 310. Il. 2.572. 311. The actions of Echepolos, Il. 23.295–297, discussed below, also suggest that Agamemnon ruled Sikyon at the time described in the epic. Marchand 2002 identified the Late Helladic site of Dorati as the city of Orneai, mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships, Il. 2.571. The site sits atop a bluff on the east side of the Nemea River, overlooking the coastal plains of Sikyon and Corinth. For Tiryns and Argos as part of this kingdom, and the subordinate role of Diomedes to Agamemnon in the Iliad, see Shear 2000a, 89–91. 312. Il. 8.193. 313. Od. 3.1–24. 314. Il. 2.591–602. 315. The association of the nine on the Pylos tablets Cn 608 and Vn 20 with the nine in the Catalogue of Ships and the nine groups sacrificing on the shore was immediately noted by Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 142–144. For later discussion of these tablets plus PY Jn 829, which also includes many place names, see Bennet 1995. 316. Chadwick 1976a, 41–46. See, also, Shear 2000a, 215 n. 89–90. 317. For association of the wanax with religion, see, among others, Lindgren 1973, part 2, 150; Palaima 1993, 1995a, 1997; Hägg 1995; Stavrianopoulou 1995; Aravantinos 1995, 1999b, 129; Shelmerdine 1998a, 84–85, 1998b, 297–298, 1999b, 20–21; Bennet 1998, 122; Lupack 1999, 2001; Cook and Palaima 2001; and papers published in Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds. 1981; and in Laffineur and Hägg, eds. 2001. 318. Blegen and Rawson 1966, 100–102, 123–134, 238–241, 262–263, 421, figs. 81, 323– 325, 328, 340–342. Room 9 had roughly five hundred to six hundred kylikes, room 19 had a minimum of 2,853 kylikes, and room 20 had three hundred fifty kylikes along with twenty-three dippers and assorted jugs, amphorae, and kraters. Numerous cups, bowls and other vases were found in the other pantries. The combined total of these vessels from the eight pantries is over seven thousand. See, also, Shelmerdine 1998a, 84; Cook and Palaima 2001. 319. See n. 131 above. 320. It is sometimes said that ritual dining was performed regularly in the ruler’s dwelling during the Iron Age; see, for example, Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 380–381. The existence of ritual dining in the Iron Age, however, does not necessarily mean that references to these activities in the epics must refer to the Iron Age in preference to the Bronze Age. Mazarakis Ainian, furthermore, was forced to admit that unless one assumes that the

NOTES

135

Homeric tradition reflected the Iron Age, the evidence in the later period for ritual dining in the ruler’s house is not very secure. 321. Killen 1994. 322. Il. 2.400–403, 6.173, 7.313, 9.89–96. See, also, Od. 8.56–61, where Alkinoös provided provisions for banqueting. 323. Od. 22.334–337. See, also, Od. 1.65–67, where Odysseus was again named as having made many sacrifices to the gods; Od. 19.397, where Odysseus’ maternal grandfather was said to have made many sacrifices to Hermes; and Il. 7.445–463, where Poseidon was angered because the anticipated sacrifices by the Achaian leaders had not been made. 324. For limited numbers of tablets associated with religion, see Palaima 1995a, 131; Bendall 2001, 442. Contrast these numbers to the numbers of tablets associated with weapons, Palaima 1999. 325. This method was suggested by Bendall 2001, who estimated that only roughly ten percent of the oil available was sent to the sanctuaries and religious personnel. Although her work is still in progress, she believes that a similar figure is also valid for other commodities coming into and leaving the palaces. It also should be noted that others in the community, such as the la-we-ge-tas, E-ke-ra2-wo, da-mo, and ka-ma, also donated oil to a divinity; PY Un 718. 326. See also Nosch and Perna 2001, who observed that many different types of cloth were mentioned in the tablets, but only a few of these were associated with cultic activities. 327. See, for example, Leukart 1992, 398, who not only associated the king with religious activities, but named him the high priest of Poseidon. 328. For association of the king with military matters, see, among others, Palaima 1999; Dickinson 1999a; Shelmerdine 1999a. For similar interest by the king of Knossos, see Killen 2001a. 329. Blegen and Rawson 1996, 229, 321 originally identified this building as a palace workshop. Bendall 2003 argued that the building was too small to accommodate the manufacture of the numerous chariots mentioned in the documents; she suggested instead that it was used for storage and redistribution. Shelmerdine 1987a and Palaima 2000b, 269–271 observed that information recorded in the documents was repeated in the palace archives. The repetition of this information indicates that the functions of this building were part of the palace’s administrative concerns. 330. For parallel evidence in the Iliad for the use of bronze cuirasses, their association with the chariot forces, and the use of chariot forces in fighting, see Shear 2000a, 43–48. Although it is frequently stated that chariot forces were not used as combat vehicles in the Aegean Bronze Age (see, for example, Gaebel 2002, 43; Littauer and Crouwel 2002, 61, 98), the number of chariots listed in the Knossos tablets, which was originally estimated to be over four hundred (Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 365) seems to indicate that chariots were used in battle by the Mycenaeans. This number may seem small, as Drews 1993 argued, when compared to the numbers of chariots used by the Egyptians, but the number needed to create an effective chariot force is partially dependent on the number of chariots used by the opponent. In an entirely different context, an early Hittite document discussed a man from Ahhiya (i.e., Ahhiyawa) who was causing trouble with

136

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

his land force and his chariots, which numbered only one hundred; for the Hittite document, see Güterbock 1983, 134; Bryce 1998, 61. Clearly in this example, a chariot force of only one hundred chariots was considered formidable, even though in later periods a force of this size would have seemed negligible compared to the much larger forces being used by the Egyptians and the Hittites. 331. Dickinson 1999a, 22. It should be noted, however, that the discovery of a complete bronze cuirass in the tomb at Dendra and the discovery of parts of additional cuirasses in other tombs suggest that this type of armor could be privately owned, and thus was available for burial with the owner; Shear 2000a, 47. 332. The history of the Crusades to the Holy Land dramatically illustrates the kings of France and England as leaders of their armies. Throughout the histories of both of these countries, as long as the monarchies remained powerful political forces, kings served as nominal leaders of their armies. 333. KN K 4482; Evans 1935, 836–837, fig. 817; Chadwick et al. 1992, No. 4482. For the date of these tablets, their similarity to the later Knossos tablets, and the suggestion that they were part of the royal archives, see Shelmerdine 1992, 570, 585. 334. Dickinson 1994, 205–206. For arrows and bowmen in the Mycenaean period, see, also, Snodgrass 1999, 17–18. Dickinson 1999a also pointed out that arrows were an effective weapon against chariot forces, and that the general use of arrows at the end of the Bronze Age was one more argument against the conclusions concerning the significance of the chariot forces at the end of the Bronze Age suggested by Drews 1993. 335. There are four early examples from the Mycenaean world, all from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae: a gold signet ring, the Lion Hunt Dagger, the Siege Rhyton, and the Silver Battle Krater; Karo 1930–1933, 73, 95–97, 106–108, 119–120; Sakellariou 1964, no. 229; Buchholz and Karageorghis 1971, 682; Sakellariou 1974, 1975. An occasional late example is found on some of the figured vases from the end of the Mycenaean period, cf. Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, 198. A few examples also have been found on Crete; Lorimer 1950, 279; Snodgrass 1999, 17–18. In the prehistoric period, the number of bowmen portrayed was always greatly exceeded by depictions of spearmen. 336. See, for example, Luce 1975, 108–109; Hainsworth 1993, on lines 11.385–395. 337. For further discussion of bowmen in the Iliad and the suggestion that bowmen were more important in the actual battles than has been generally recognized, see Shear 2000a, 59–60. 338. Il. 13.712–718 for Locrians; Il. 2.527–529 for Ajax. 339. Il. 3.330–339. 340. D.E.H. Wardle 1988, 474–476. This type of cuirass should be contrasted to the bronze cuirass of the historical period, which ended at the waist and was more closely fitted. Men wearing this latter type of cuirass apparently were able to shoot arrows, as indicated by an early fifth century statue of a bowman from Aegina; see Robertson 1975, pl. 50 c. 341. PY An 610 and An 724. These forces appear to have been contributed by prominent men (see n. 291 above) who may have been providing military support to the king in exchange for land, as suggested by L.R. Palmer 1962, 99. Possibly these same men were responsible for the foot soldiers.

NOTES

137

342. For various craftsmen working explicitly for the king and other specific people in the tablets, see Gillis 1997; Gregersen 1997a; Palaima 1997; Shelmerdine 1997b. For additional discussion, see Morpurgo Davies 1979; Carlier 1984, 68–72, 102–107, 1996, 569–580; papers in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds. 1997; Shelmerdine 1999b, 22–23; Killen 2001a and c; Kyriakidis 2001. 343. Od. 1.125–143. 344. Od. 20.107–108, 20.122, 20.149–153, 20.158. 345. Od. 20.161–162, 20.173–175. 346. Od. 22.421–423. Many of these women making textiles worked away from the palace, Shelmerdine 1999b, 21–22. These women would not have been seen by a visitor to the palace. 347. Servant girls in Od. 18.311, 20.6–8; bards in Od. 1.154, 1.325, 8.472; heralds in Od. 1.153, 8.471. 348. See, for example, Il. 4.110, 5.60, 7.220–221, 12.294–297. 349. Il. 11.638–640. 350. Killen 1985, 243–255, 270–272, supported by R. Palmer 1994, 189, argued that the palace must have had some interest in the land because the tablets record land holdings, even those not held by the palace. He suggested that the land was taxed, including those portions that were private, and that the Mycenaean palace served as a distribution center similar to the palaces of the Near East. 351. For discussion of the evidence found in the tablets, see Small 1998; Halstead 1999a, 319; Deger-Jalkotzy 1999, 124–125; and Shelmerdine 1999b; Halstead 1999b; Small 1999; Killen 1999. In these papers, published in 1999, a consensus had begun to emerge that the king had the right of taxation. It should be noted, however, that only a small portion of the land was actually listed in the tablets (see n. 437 below), which could be taken to indicate that the king’s right of taxation was limited. 352. See Palaima 1989 for the use of oxen in such projects and possible references to these animals in the Pylos tablets. 353. Obligatory service to the king in exchange for land grants has been suggested by a variety of scholars; see n. 211 above. 354. Il. 23.295–297. See Richardson 1993, on lines 23.295–297. 355. Il. 13.669–670. 356. Il. 24.399–400. 357. PY Er 312. 358. See L.R. Palmer 1954, 35–36; Lindgren 1973, part 2, 134–136; Driessen 1985; Palaima 1995a; and Deger-Jalkotzy 1999, 125 n. 37–39, for an extensive bibliography on this subject. This identification was questioned by Carlier 1984, 106–107; Hooker 1987b, 262; and Shelmerdine 1994–1995, 364. 359. See, for example, Wyatt 1994–1995 who interpreted the Greek word laov", as it is used in the Iliad, to mean the people, the followers of the leader, the troop or band and thus the army, with connotations of collecting or gathering together. For entirely different interpretation on the word laov", see Haubold 2000.

138

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

360. Carlier 1995, 365–366, in the question and answer section following his paper, questioned the meaning of laov" as a military class in Homer. The association of the wanax with chariots (n. 329 above) and with arrows (nn. 333–334 above) might be seen as an indication that the lawagetas was not the supreme military leader. If the lawagetas had a military position, he may have held this position as a subordinate under the command of the wanax. 361. See Hooker 1987b, 267, who observed that it has not always been clear whether these designations are an indication of status, positions of political power, or personal names. 362. PY An 610 and An 724; see also Hooker 1987b, 263. 363. PY Un 718; see also Hooker 1987b, 258. 364. For references to E-ke-ra2-wo, see n. 289, n. 291, and n. 325 above. 365. See n. 342 above. 366. It has been suggested that as the chief military leader, the lawagetas, lived in the Southwest Building of the palace at Pylos; see n. 138 above where this suggestion is questioned. The size of the buildings at Pylos does not support the idea that these two buildings served as residences for two different important officials. The central core of the palaces at both Late Helladic IIIB Mycenae and Tiryns measures roughly sixty meters by sixty meters, which is also the combined space of the central palace building plus the Southwest Building at Pylos. If these were two separate residences at Pylos, then the wanax at Pylos occupied a palace that was roughly half the size of those at Mycenae and Tiryns. Since the main megara or throne rooms in all three palaces have almost identical dimensions, we may wish to hesitate before reducing the overall size of the palace at Pylos to half that of Tiryns and Mycenae. 367. Lendgren 1973, part 2, 144–145. 368. Hooker 1987b, 261. 369. See listings in Aura Jorro 1985, 1993. The te-re-ta also appear in the Knossos tablets. 370. Palaima 1997, 411 associated the telestai with the damos. If the telestai held more that one plot of land, it is possible that they held land in a variety of different forms and obligations. 371. For free men in this position, see Ruijgh 1992. 372. Sherratt 2001, 235. See, also, Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 121; Lindgren 1973, part 2, 46–48; Carlier 1995. These men appear in the Pylos tablets An 519, 607, 614, 654, 656, 657, 661, 724, Ed 317, Wa 917; at Knossos they appear on Am 821, B 1055, Am 821, As ; Aura Jorro 1985. 373. Lindgren 1973, part 2, 46–48. 374. Palaima 1995a, 124; Carlier 1995. In the Knossos tablets they appear even less frequently. 375. Lindgren 1973, part 2, 84–86, 122–123. 376. Lindgren 1973, part 2, 32–33. See, also, Shelmerdine 1999b and PY On 300. 377. The term qa-si-re-u (basileus) occurs in Pylos tablets Jn 431, Jn 601, Jn 845, Jo 438 and in fragment B779 from Knossos; Yamagata 1997, 13 n. 65. The Jn tablets mention the

NOTES

139

individual qa-si-re-u by name, apparently in his capacity as a local official distributing bronze. Jo represents tribute (?) of gold from various officials, including the qa-si-re-u. 378. Palaima 1995a, 124–125. Palaima also suggested that this position reflected the local government of the Early Helladic people that was overlaid by the palatial system of the wanax in the Middle and Late Helladic periods. The archaeological divide between these two groups of people makes continuity between the government of the Early Helladic period and that of the later periods highly unlikely. 379. Lenz 1993, 104, 114–121 suggested that men in this position were priests; Carlier 1995, 358 suggested that the position was hereditary; Lejdegård 1996–1997, 377 suggested that they were members of the local aristocracy who held a position of leadership in an area away from the palace. For additional discussion of the qa-si-re-u, see C.G. Thomas 1995; Raaflaub 1997, 634 and n. 46 for varying opinions; Weingarten 1997. These suggestions concerning their position appear to be based on their role in the epic tradition and their role in later periods, when the basileus was a position of some importance with different responsibilities depending on the locations and the period; see n. 387 below. 380. See n. 171 above. 381. See Killen 1995, 213, who called the “collectors” one of the most controversial questions in the understanding of the tablets. 382. Killen 1995, 214, who cited Pylos tablets Eq 213 and Un 267. 383. Bennett 1966; Bennet 1985; Olivier 1984; Shelmerdine 1992, 586, 1999c; Rehak and Younger 2000, 288; Driessen 2001b. 384. The palace at Knossos, excluding the West Court, is roughly 135 meters by 135 meters (or 18,225 square meters); Myers, Myers and Cadogan 1992, 137 for dimensions and 124–147 for summary of the site and extensive bibliography. The citadel at Mycenae enclosed an area of 38,500 square meters (see n. 509 below), whereas the central palace area at Mycenae is less than 4,000 square meters, which is less than a quarter the size of the palace at Knossos. 385. Finley 1957, 141–142. For titles occurring in the tablets but missing in the epics, see Small 1999, 46. 386. Ruiperez 1956, 115–117. 387. Compare, for example, the use of the word basileus during the historic period in Sparta, where it referred to the double monarchy inherited through birth, and the term basileus in Athens, where it referred to the archon, who was originally elected and later chosen by lot annually. These positions were quite different from that of the basileus of the Persians, even though the same word was used for all three positions. 388. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 120. 389. Chadwick 1976a, 185. 390. The most common usage of the word mevdwn is in the phrase hJghvtore" hjde; mevdonte" used at the end of the line, often in an introduction to a speech. This repeated usage suggests that it was an old phrase with a long history in the epic tradition. See Il. 2.79, 10.301, 11.816, 12.376, 16.164; Od. 7.136, 7.186, 8.11, 8.26, 8.97, 8.387, 8.536, 11.526, 13.186, 13.210.

140

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

391. Small 1999, 46. This evaluation places a greater importance on the position of the kore-te (koivrano") than usually is assumed by scholars studying the tablets. Perhaps this position, similar to that of the damokoro, was by appointment of the king, as suggested by Palaima 1995a, 124. In such a situation the king could have used his power to reward his favorites, thereby creating another group who would have supported him in order to preserve their own positions. 392. For linguistic and archaeological continuity between the Mycenaean period and the historical periods of Greece, see n. 632 below. For continuity of positions and technical terms from Linear B in later periods, see Morpurgo Davies 1979. The absence of some of the more technical terms for crafts, pointed out by Morpurgo Davies, is also reflected in the archaeological record, where luxury items, such as inlaid daggers and inlaid metal vessels, are not found after the end of the Bronze Age. Once these objects ceased to be made, the skills needed for their manufacture obviously would have been lost and the technical terms forgotten. 393. Carlier 1984, 29 n. 143. 394. For discussions of landholding, see, among others, Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 129– 133, 1987; Bennett 1956; L.R. Palmer 1962, 93–99; Kazanskiene 1995; Gregersen 1997a, 400–401; Bennet 1998, 1999; Shelmerdine 1999b, 24; Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999; R. Palmer 2001. 395. See Shelmerdine 1998a, who analyzed PY Ep 704. This tablet mentions the dispute between the damos and the priestess Eritha, which clearly indicates that holders of land belonging to the damos were required to fulfill certain obligations to this civic body. 396. See n. 211 above. The type of land has also been divided into recently acquired land held under obligation to the king and land that had been held for a longer period of time. Obligations for the latter land may have often been forgotten or overlooked as suggested by Carlier 1987, or the land may have been held privately without obligation as suggested by Hooker 1987b, 261. These different types of land had an elaborate nomenclature; see, among others, M. Carpenter 1983; Carlier 1987; Stavrianopoulou 1989; Ruijgh 1992. These terms, except for the temenos, do not appear to have survived in the later periods. 397. Shelmerdine 1999b, 23–24. 398. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 238, and see n. 437 below. 399. Luce 1975, 80–82. Luce, in contrast to most scholars working on the epic tradition and the Mycenaean period, felt very determinedly that there was no essential conflict in the information given by Homer and that recorded in the tablets. 400. See, for example, Il. 9.141–153, where Agamemnon promised Achilles the hand of one of his daughters in marriage plus seven well-peopled cities. The giving of land to Phoenix, Il. 9.480–484, by Peleus is the exception. 401. See n. 609 below. 402. In Od. 1.386–387, Antinoös, even while seeking the hand of Penelope in marriage, admitted that Telemachos should inherit the kingdom by right of birth. In Od. 14.8–10, Odysseus is named as the owner of the farmstead worked by Eumaios. 403. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 125–129; Chadwick 1976a, 84–101; van Leuven 1979, 112–129; Billigmeier and Turner 1981, 6–10; Shelmerdine 1999b, 24; Lupack 1999.

NOTES

141

See, also, Hiller 1981, who argued that the sanctuaries were not obligated to the palaces, and papers in Laffineur and Hägg, eds. 2001 for varying opinions concerning religion in Mycenaean society. 404. See n. 277 above. 405. PY Pn 316. See, also, Lupack 1999, 26, who mentioned other apparently smaller shrines discussed in the tablets. 406. The Temple of Apollo was said to be in Pergamos in Il. 5.446. Other references in the epic to Pergamos are Il. 4.508, 5.460, 6.512, 7.21, 24.700. Except for Il. 6.512, all mentions of Pergamos refer to Apollo or to his priestess Cassandra. Il. 6.512 merely stated that Paris descended from Pergamos, indicating that Pergamos lay somewhere near his home fairly high up in the city. For identification of Pergamos as a separate religious area housing the Temple of Apollo and possibly the other temples within the city of Troy, see Shear 2000a, 109. Weilhartner 2000 argued that the word povli" was used to identify the fortified central section of the city where the palaces were located, and that a[stu was used to refer to the lower parts of the city inhabited by the people of Troy. The use of two different words for these two areas increases the likelihood that yet a third name was used for a separate area housing the temples. The temples at Troy, because of Il. 6.512, should have been located in the povli" and not the a[stu identified by Weilhartner. 407. French 1981, 45; Hägg 1992; Lupack 1997, 1998, 1999. For additional references to cult areas of the Mycenaean period, see n. 130 above. 408. Il. 1.9–77. 409. Il. 1.39–41. 410. Chadwick 1985, 194–196, and n. 416 below for more recent scholarship on this subject. 411. Od. 3.1–8; Chadwick 1976a, 96. If the Odyssey can be used as a guide to Mycenaean religious activities, the location of these sacrifices on the seashore might be seen as an indication that major festivals in the Mycenaean period were normally held in the open countryside. Large groups of people could congregate in such areas, thus explaining the difficulty raised by Wright 1994 that the architectural setting of the cult center at Mycenae was not appropriate for large, formal gatherings. 412. Chadwick 1976a, 86. 413. Od. 3.436–438. 414. Hampe and Simon 1981, 87, ill. 127. For various types of rhyta and their functions, see Koehl 1981; Petit 1989. For a list of preserved bull’s head rhyta made of stone and precious metal, see Rehak 1995b, 456–459. 415. KN K 872; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 330; Chadwick 1976a, 145. 416. Godart and Sacconi 2000; Palaima forthcoming, including references cited, especially work by Schachter. I wish to express my thanks to T.G. Palaima for sending me a copy of his manuscript. 417. See, for example, Alexiou 1987; Branigan 1987; B.R. Foster 1987; Kopcke 1987; Wiener 1987.

142

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

418. For a summary of this changing attitude, see Killen 1999. 419. The Pylos Jn series; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 351–358; Chadwick 1976a, 141–144. 420. Carlier 1984, 117–134; Uchitel 1990–1991; Smith 1992–1993; Palaima 1995b; Gillis 1997. 421. Od. 17.382–385. 422. For use of bronze and iron in the Mycenaean age compared to these items in the Iliad, see Shear 2000a, 60. For additional archaeological evidence that may support the concept of independent bronze smiths working away from the palace, see Papadopoulos 1998. For craftsmen mentioned in the Iliad, see n. 348 above. 423. Halstead 1995, 229–234, 1999a, 319–320, 2001. See, also, an earlier article by Halstead 1990–1991, 363. 424. Morgan 1988, 17. 425. Hiller 1988, 61. 426. Chadwick 1976a, 68. 427. McDonald and Rapp 1972, 141; Chadwick 1976a, 680; Hiller 1988, 61. 428. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 217. 429. Shelmerdine 1985, 1995, 1998a, 101–109. See, also, Haskell 1984. 430. Halstead 1990–1991, 343–365; see, also, Halstead 2001. This argument is very convincing, but the possibility must be acknowledged that there were large palace flocks of rams elsewhere on the island that were not mentioned in the preserved tablets. It has been stated repeatedly, most recently by Palaima 2000b, that the tablets seem to represent the records of only the last few months. Earlier records are no longer preserved, and some of the records probably were kept on perishable material. 431. See n. 214 above. 432. PY Cn 1287, An 207, En 467, Eo 371, MY Oe 125, and KN Ap 639; Palaima 1989, 95. 433. Gillis 1997; Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999. See, also, von Reden 1999. The degree of palace control of the economy, however, still remains problematical. Contrast Halstead 1990–1991, 1992, 1995, 1999a, who stressed the private economy, with the emphasis on palace control expressed by Shelmerdine 1998a, 1999a; Sacconi 1999; DegerJalkotzy 1999, especially 124–125. For further discussion, see papers in Voutsaki and Killen, eds. 2001. 434. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 129–133; Bennett 1956, 103–133; Kazanskiene 1995, 603–611; Gregersen 1997a, 400–401; Halstead 1995; Shelmerdine 1999b, 24; Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999. 435. For absence of agricultural specialization in the tablets, see Halstead 2001. For more detailed discussion, see Ilievski 1987, who argued for a greater degree of agricultural specialization than accepted by Halstead. 436. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 236; Ilievski 1987, 158–159. These men, who also held land, should be distinguished from those craftsmen who were described as belonging to the wanax or the lawagetas.

NOTES

143

437. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 238; Ilievski 1987, 158–159, and see, especially, n. 12 on 155, where it is estimated that only ten percent of the arable land is listed in the Pylos E series. 438. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 123. Other farm workers included herders of oxen (Palaima 1989) and other occupations that are expected in an agricultural community. Names and titles related to farming were discussed by Ilievski 1987. 439. In the Odyssey, Eumaios is a shepherd, Melanthios is a goat-herder, and woodcutters are one of the occupations of the male servants of the palace at Ithaka; Od. 14.55, 17.212– 214, 20.161–162. Hunting in similes occurs in Il. 8.338, 11.141, 12.146, 13.471, 15.275, 20.164. Bee-keepers are also mentioned in the tablets (Ilievski 1987, 158), and honey-sweet wine was mentioned in the epics; see, for example, Il. 4.346, 6.258, 6.264, 12.320, 18.545, 24.284; Od. 3.46, 7.182, 9.204, 13.320, 10.579, 14.78, 16.52. Honey was also eaten (Il. 11.62; Od. 20.69) and used in libations (Od. 10.519, repeated in 11.27). Bees were also mentioned, Il. 2.87, 12.167; Od. 13.106, 18.426. 440. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 123; Od. 20.157–163. 441. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 123. 442. Blegen and Rawson 1966, 186–188; this bathtub was found in Room 43. 443. Od. 3.464–469, 6.211–226, 10.361–365. 444 Although women of high rank were responsible for bathing important male visitors in the Odyssey, it seems highly unlikely that high ranking women ever engaged in such an activity. I would like to suggest that later bards, misunderstanding the earlier bathing customs, introduced this change into the oral tradition. A lowly rank for bath attendants is suggested by Od. 20.296–298, where such attendants were coupled with slaves, and by Il. 24.587–588 (repeated in Od. 4.48–49, 8.454–455, 17.88–89), where women of unspecified rank bathed visitors. 445. Olivier 1967, 101–136 demonstrated years ago that the archives located in different areas of the palace at Knossos had different emphases. One of these archives, which concerned perfumed oil, was discussed in some detail by E.D. Foster 1977. Driessen 2000 re-examined the archives published earlier by Olivier. He questioned the date of some of these tablets and tried to divide the Knossos tablets into different chronological groups. In later periods, disturbances of isolated areas within the palaces could have inadvertently created false gaps in the written records, giving the misleading impression that certain subjects were originally not included. 446. Killen 1964; E.J.W. Barber 1991. 447. Killen 1984; Hooker 1987a. 448. See, among others, Bennett 1966; Vandenabeele 1978; Palaima 1987a, 1987b, 508; Horrocks 1980; E. Hallager, Vlasakis, and B.P. Hallager 1992; Landenius-Enegren 1995; Duhoux 1998. 449. See n. 383 above. 450. Gregersen 1997a–b. Hiller 1988 noted that roughly four thousand people were listed in the tablets; approximately one-third of these people received food rations. 451. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 156. See, also, Uchitel 1984b; Killen 1984; Chadwick 1988.

144

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

452. Billigmeier and Turner 1981. 453. Chadwick 1988. 454. See R. Palmer 1992 for size of wheat and barley rations. She identified these rations as barely sufficient, but they were no doubt supplemented by other items such as olive oil, which appears to have been plentiful in the area of Pylos. 455. Hiller 1988, 53–58. 456. Il. 7.132–156, 11.670–688, for local skirmishes mentioned by Nestor, and Il. 1.270–271, for the same action further from home. See, also, Od. 24.377–378, where Laertes mentioned a local skirmish. 457. See, for example, Raaflaub 1998, 180. 458. In one of his reminiscences, Nestor said that the warriors from Pylos captured fifty herds of oxen and as many of sheep, pigs, and goats (Il. 11.678–679), along with their shepherds (Il. 11.697), one hundred fifty horses (Il. 11.680), and fifty chariots (Il. 11.748). Fenik 1968, 114 noted that the capture of fifty chariots is an exaggeration found only in this single military episode. No other raids captured this amount of booty. The bard probably introduced these large numbers into Nestor’s reminiscence in order to emphasize Nestor’s advanced age and the tendency of the elderly to exaggerate the achievements of their youth. Another characteristic of the aged is the retelling of events that occurred much earlier, as if the events had happened during the person’s own youth. It may be that some of Nestor’s tales represent this kind of conflation. The repeated theme of Nestor’s loquaciousness, a common characteristic of the elderly, also occurred in the Odyssey when Telemachos and Peisistratos returned to Pylos; Od. 15.195–214. 459. See nn. 112–113 above. 460. Od. 4.81–95, 9.39–61. In Od.14.229–231, 14.258–264, Odysseus mentioned loot in his false tales; these references probably were meant to represent the same types of events as Od. 4.81–95, 9.39–61. 461. For Sea Peoples, see, among many others, Bryce 1998, 364–374; papers in Gitin, Mazar, and Stern, eds. 1998, Betancourt 2000; and the earlier book by Sandars 1978. 462. See, for example, the debate over the colonization of the Land of the Phaiakians. A close reading of the text, however, reveals that the association of this event with the eighth and seventh centuries is not necessarily valid; see Shear, 2000a, 73–78. 463. See, for example, Page 1963, 183 and, more recently, Raaflaub 1997, 639. 464. Il. 6.425–426, 6.456, 9.128–129, 9.366, 9.594, 11.131–135, 23.704–705; Od. 1.430– 431, 3.154, 4.10–12, 7.9–11, 7.104, 9.40–43, 11.403, 14.258–264, 14.264–265, repeated in 17.433–434, 15.413, 15.427–429, 15.483, 15.452–453, 16.425–429, 23.357. 465. For trade between the Minoan-Mycenaean world and Cyprus, the Near East, and Egypt, see the recent symposia published by Karageorghis, ed. 1991; Laffineur and Basch, eds. 1991; W.V. Davies and Schofield, eds. 1995; Cline and Harris-Cline, eds. 1997; Karageorghis and Stampolidis, eds. 1998; and Gitin, Mazar, and Stern, eds. 1998. For a summary of earlier work on this same subject, see Cline 1994, 1995; Rehak 1997; Shelmerdine 1997a, 561–562. 466. Miletos appears to have been a Mycenaean settlement in the Late Bronze Age; Niemeier 1997a, 1998, 1999. The presence of women from Miletos, identified as slaves

NOTES

145

in the Pylos tablets, may have been the result of trade with the local Mycenaeans at Miletos rather than booty captured in war by Pylian warriors. 467. Tablets of the Ta series from Pylos; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 332–348. 468. Tournavitou 1995, 123–206. 469. Mylonas 1966b, 425. 470. Blegen and Rawson 1966, 144, 153, 155, 159, 163, figs. 284–285. 471. Od. 19.55–58 for Penelope’s chair and Od. 23.190–200 for the bed. 472. PY Ta 714 and Ta 642; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 339–340. 473. For identification of kyanos as blue glass paste, see S.P. Morris 1992, 83 and her n. 35. For Near Eastern origins of the word “kyanos,” see Palaima 1991a, 278. 474. Il. 11.24, 11.35. 475. Il. 18.474–475 for bronze, tin, gold, and silver, and Il. 18.564 for kyanos. 476. Hampe and Simon 1981, 98–99, 116–117. It has generally been accepted by Homeric scholars that the decoration on the shield made by Hephaistos and the armor of Agamemnon reflect the inlay technique of the Mycenaean period; Hainsworth 1993, on lines 11.25–28; M.W. Edwards 1991, 202–203. See, also, n. 17 above. 477. Od. 7.87. 478. Schliemann 1886, 284–292; Maran 2000, 13–14. 479. Higgins 1961, 24–26, 29; Forbes 1972, 162. 480. Od. 1.142–143, 4.58, 10.357. 481. Od. 4.614–617, 15.102–104. See, also, Od. 4.131–132 for silver sewing basket with gold rim belonging to Helen. 482. Od. 6.232–234, repeated at 23.159–161; both verses are parts of a larger repetition that began at 6.230 and 23.157. 483. See n. 488 below. 484. PY Ta 716; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 346. 485. Il. 11.29–31. For other references to gold studs in the Iliad, see Il. 1.245–246, 11.632– 633. The elaborate descriptions of Agamemnon’s armor and sword, which are far more elegant than any other armor at Troy save that made by Hephaistos for Achilles, were probably included as an indication of Agamemnon’s great wealth. Another indication of this wealth can be seen in the Catalogue of Ships where Agamemnon was responsible not only for the hundred ships he led, but also for the sixty ships used by Agapenor; Il. 2.576, 2.609–614. 486. Immerwahr 1971, 170–177; Xenaki-Sakellariou 1985, 215–219. Gold-studded swords are much more frequent in the archaeological record than the epic tradition would seem to suggest. Their absence in the epic tradition was no doubt partially influenced by the metric requirements of the hexameter line, which made the use of the adjective “goldstudded” difficult in Greek. Recently, a copper rivet from a knife, dagger, or sword, found in the Late Minoan levels of Pseira on Crete (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 128, fig. 55, no. ADC 134), was shown by scientific analysis to have been silver-plated even though

146

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

the silver plating was not evident when the stud was originally found; Ferrence et al. 2002. This suggests that the epic tradition, with its many silver-studded swords, may more accurately reflect the Mycenaean period than has been previously recognized. 487. Wace 1958, 7; Od. 3.392; Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975, 52. See also Haskell 1981 for additional discussion of the jars from Mycenae. 488. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 133–136; Chadwick 1976a, 135–158; Morpurgo Davies 1979; Killen 1985, 272–273; Gregersen 1997b, 43–55; papers in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds. 1997 and Laffineur, ed. 1999. Luce 1975, 85 argued that the scholars who have tried to separate the world of the epics from that of the tablets have vastly exaggerated the differences between the types of specialized craftsmen discussed in the epics and those mentioned in the tablets. He calculated that twenty-six different trades could be identified in the tablets, and of these, twenty-three are known from Homer. 489. Dickinson 1994, 179–193, 197–207, 1997. 490. For references to specialized craftsmen in the epics, see Il. 4.110, 4.216, 4.295, 5.60–64, 7.220–221, 9.128–129, 23.704–705; Od. 3.432, 6.232–234, 18.328. 491. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 313–332; see, also, Killen 1964, 1984, 1985; Halstead 1990–1991; Shelmerdine 1999b, 21–22. 492. For weaving by slaves and women of low rank, see Il. 6.456; Od. 7.104–105, 15.415– 429, 22.421–423. For weaving by women of higher rank, see Il. 3.125–128, 5.338, 5.735, 14.178–179, 22.440–441; Od. 2.94, 4.121–135, 6.52–53, 15.516–517, 17.96–97. 493. Shear 1987, 141. Although an occasional vase, such as the Warrior Vase from Mycenae, seems to reflect the influence of wall paintings, the majority of figured vases show no such influence. For Mycenaean figured vases, see Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982. For the possibility that wall painters traveled extensively, including in parts of the ancient Near East, see Niemeier 1991; S.P. Morris 2000. 494. The almost complete absence of references to shipping in the tablets stands in contrast to the records of the Near East where traders and shipping were mentioned; Chadwick 1976a, 157; Palaima 1991a–b. PY Vn 46 and Vn 879 might refer to ship construction and repair; for a discussion of these tablets, see Hocker and Palaima 1990–1991, but note p. 317 n. 39, where one of the authors stated that he believed that the tablets might refer to the construction of a building and not to the construction of a ship. 495. Shelmerdine 1998b, 293. 496. For changing views on the position of the Mycenaeans and Minoans in prehistoric sea trade, see Bass 1997, 1998. For general discussion of foreign trade and the archaeological evidence, see Dickinson 1994, 234–256, 295–309. For a more detailed discussion of foreign trade, see n. 465 above. 497. For representations of ships, see Wachsmann 1995, 26–28; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982. For rowers, see Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 183–184; PY An 610 and An 724. Fish bones have been found in excavations of Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Age sites; Mylonas 1959, 148. Fish hooks have been found at Eutresis, Thebes, and Perati; Iakovidis 1969, 354–355. Sea shells found on various sites, plus wall paintings with scenes of sea animals such as the dolphins portrayed at Gla (Iakovidis, 2001, 123–124, 140), give added evidence for prehistoric interest in the sea. 498. J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw 1993, 161–188, 1999.

NOTES

147

499. Niemeier 1998; Bryce 1989a–b. 500. Niemeier 1997a, 350. 501. Shear 1968, 420–425. 502. Chadwick 1976a, 152. 503. Chadwick 1976a, 156. 504. Killen 1964, 1984; Halstead 1990–1991, 2001. 505. Chadwick 1976a, 156. 506. See Haskell 1981, 1985, 1997; Day and Haskell 1995; and n. 167 above. 507. Dickinson 1994, 254. See, also, Langdon 1989, 188 n. 10 for references to scientific testing; Leonard 1994 for Mycenaean pottery found in the Near East; Buchholz 1999 for comparative discussion of artifacts found in the Near East. 508. For location of a port on the seashore for the city of Pylos, see Zangger 1998. 509. For relative sizes, see Walberg 1998, 15 who stated that Mycenae included an area of 38,500 square meters and Tiryns enclosed 20,000 square meters. For fortifications at Tiryns, see Müller 1930; Mylonas 1966a, 11–15. The range of casual, inexpensive foreign imports, although small at both cities, nevertheless was larger at Tiryns than at Mycenae; French 2002, 108. These inexpensive imports may have been souvenirs brought home by the sailors; if Tiryns was a port town, they naturally would have been more numerous at that site. 510. In the Late Helladic period, Tiryns lay roughly one kilometer inland; Zangger 1994, 190, 195, fig. 4. 511. For Late Helladic IIIC rebuilding of the palace at Tiryns, see Maran 2001. For sizes of Late Helladic IIIB palaces, see n. 366 above. 512. Il. 7.467–475. See, also, Il. 9.70–72. 513. See ship owed by Noëmon in Od. 2.386–387, 4.630–637. 514. Od. 3.357–370. 515. Stubbings 1962, 542. See also Cline 1994, 10, 48–55, 68–74. 516. See, among others, Finley 1954 and, more recently, Donlan 1997, 651–654. The idea that trade in the epics was dominated by the Phoenicians was originally suggested by Seymour 1914. 517. J.W. Shaw 1989. 518. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 27; see, also, Chadwick 1976a, 144. For archaeological evidence of trade between Greece and the Near East, see nn. 237, 465, 493 above. 519. It should be noted, however, that the Iliad and Odyssey provide no indication that the wanax monopolized trade. On the contrary, trade seems to have been primarily in the hands of merchants or the sea captains of individual ships; Il. 7.467–465; Od. 1.180– 181, 14.288–297, 14.339–344, 15.415–484, 15.427. 520. For further discussion of trade, see Dickinson 1994, 234–309, who pointed out that there is evidence for some private trading in Egypt; he believes private trading also occurred in the Mycenaean world.

148

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

521. For this type of economy in the ancient Near East, see B.R. Foster 1987. 522. See, for example, papers published in Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds. 1987.

Chapter III The Ugarit Parallel 523. There is an extensive bibliography on the excavations, the tablets, and the site of Ugarit. For good summaries, see Yon 1983, 1992; van Soldt 1995. For more detailed studies, see Schaeffer, ed. 1939–1978; Yon, ed. 1983–1995; Buchholz 1999; Yon, Karageorghis, and Hirschfeld 2000. 524. Nougayrol 1956; Margueron 1995. 525. See n. 509. 526. For a list of the tablets from Ugarit and where they were found, see Bordreuil and Pardee 1989; Pedersén 1998, 68–80. 527. R. Palmer 1994, 8–9 reported a total of 4,546 Linear B tablets: 3,300 from Knossos, 1,110 from Pylos, 65 from Mycenae, 43 from Thebes, 24 from Tiryns, and 4 from Khania. Since her 1994 publication, additional tablets have been found in Khania, Tiryns, and in large numbers at Thebes. For Khania, see E. Hallager, Vlasakis, and B.P. Hallager 1992; E. Hallager and Vlasakis 1997. For Tiryns, see Godart, Killen, and Olivier 1983; Godart 1988. For Thebes, see Piteros, Olivier, and Melena 1990; Aravantinos 1999a, 2000; Aravantinos, Godart, and Sacconi 2001. More tablets are anticipated in the current excavations in Thebes; Blackman 2000, 58–59, 2002, 52–53. Two new tablets have recently been found in the Petsas House at Mycenae, according to the excavator S.E. Iakovidis, and n. 162 above. This makes the current total of tablets just under 6,000 in number. For number of tablets, brevity of texts on the surviving tablets, and general discussion of their contents, see Palaima 2003b. 528. Liverani 1962, 1995; Heltzer 1982; Nougayrol 1956, 1–23; Bordreuil, ed. 1991; Bordreuil and Pardee 1995. 529. If the people of Ahhiyawa were Mycenaeans as asserted by Bryce 1999, then some trace of correspondence with the king of Ahhiyawa should have been found in the Greek world, as it has in the Near East. Since the correspondence is missing from the Greek world, Bryce suggested that it was written on wooden folding tablets or on perishable material similar to those Minoan documents identified by Hallager 1996. It is also possible that this correspondence went to a site that has not yet been excavated or where the palatial archives are no longer preserved. For the location of the kingdom of Ahhiyawa, see n. 300 above. 530. For distribution of the tablets, see Bordreuil and Pardee 1995, fig. 2. 531. For the kings of Ugarit, see Nougayrol 1956; Aboud 1994; Margueron 1995.

NOTES

149

532. The destruction of Ugarit is usually placed at the end of Late Helladic IIIB; Yon 1992; von Soldt 1995, 1256. A few of the vases may have been as late as the beginning of Late Helladic IIIC, which places the final destruction at that time; Leonard 1994, 27–28, 105–129; Yon, Karageorghis, and Hirschfeld 2000, 17–18, 64–65, 69–71. 533. Yon 1985, 1991; Millard 1995, 120. 534. Lipinski 1988. 535. van Soldt 1995, 1261–1264; Yon, ed. 1983–1995, vols. I, III, VII, X, XI. 536. Palaima 1991a. 537. For further Near Eastern parallels with the Mycenaean tablets, see Uchitel 1984a, 1985, 1988a–b. For parallels in the artifacts of Ugarit with the surrounding areas, see Buchholz 1999. 538. Schaeffer and Chenet 1949; Leonard 1994; Caubet and Matoian 1995; Buchholz 1999, 390–429, 538–581; Yon, Karageorghis, and Hirschfeld 2000. There has been debate concerning the actual place of manufacture of the Mycenaean pottery found in the Near East; see, most recently, Leonard 1994, 6–10; Buchholz 1999, 397–429, 538–581; Yon, Karageorghis, and Hirschfeld 2000, 12–13, 18, 70–71. Testing by spectrographic analysis and optical emission spectroscopy has shown that some of these vases from Ugarit were definitely made on the Greek mainland; Langdon 1989, 188 n. 10. The graves at Ugarit, unlike the Mycenaean ones, were found within the city below the floors of the houses. Mylonas 1972–1973, 211–225 noted the similarities between Grave Rho of Circle B at Mycenae and the Ugaritic built tombs. Caubet and Matoian 1995, 101–102 questioned this association because of the chronological differences between the grave circle at Mycenae and the much later graves at Ugarit. Mylonas 1983, 56–57 observed that Grave Rho was found empty of grave goods; he suggested that it was a later addition placed within the earlier circle, thus making it similar in date to that of the Ugaritic built tombs. 539. S.P. Morris 1992, 73–124, 1997; Griffin 1995, 2, 10; M.L. West 1997; Bryce 1999, 261– 263. A conflict between the Achaeans and the prehistoric city of Troy has been identified in the Hittite records, and the possibility that these events form the historical background of the Iliad has also been proposed repeatedly; see, most recently, Bryce 1998, 392–404, and Latacz 2001.

Chapter IV The Evidence of the Oral Tradition 540. Ruijgh 1985, 1995; M.L. West 1988, 156–162; Panagl 1992. Bennet 1997, 523–531 carefully summarized this combined, compelling evidence for the existence of Mycenaean songs and continuity of linguistic forms; nevertheless, he still insisted (p. 532) that there was no cultural continuity between the earlier and later periods and that an “unbridgeable gap” existed between the Bronze Age and eighth century Greece, when he believed the Iliad was composed.

150

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

541. Lang 1969, pl. 120; McCallum 1987. 542. TH Av 106.7. I owe this reference to T.G. Palaima. 543. Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 120. 544. Yamagata 1997. Earlier, Drews 1983, 100–105 also examined the use of these terms in the Iliad and Odyssey and concluded that the wanax and the basileus in Homer were not equivalent titles. He believed, as had Gschnitzer 1965, 101, that the wanax was the ruler or king and that the basileis represented the important leaders of the community. This conclusion is still occasionally questioned: see, for example, Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 360, and Lenz 1993, 193–207. 545. Finkelberg 1991, in her attempt to show that Greek rulership passed through the female line during the Bronze Age, emphasized the difficulties of establishing early king lists. One part of her argument examined the descendants of Melampous, whom she called a king. In Od. 15.238–241, however, Melampous was not called a king. He was said to have gone to Argos, to the land of other men, where he married and held power, or ruled over many. The later history of his family indicates that the phrase “to hold power over many Argives” (polloi'sin ajnavssont j A j rgeivousin) does not make an individual a wanax or a king. When his great-grandson Theoklymenos identified himself to Telemachos (Od. 15.271–275), Theoklymenos said that he had many powerful kinsmen in the Argolid, but he did not identify any of these relatives as having been rulers or kings. Nor did Theoklymenos claim any relationship to Agamemnon, who was clearly identified as the a[nax or wanax of the Argolid and the Argives in the Iliad. Later sources may have thought that Melampous married the daughter of the king, and thus he himself eventually became king; this genealogy and rank, however, are not authenticated by the Odyssey. Finkelberg also claimed that Diomedes became king through marriage, but Diomedes was not called a basileus, and the two references to him as a wanax are vague. In Il. 5.794, Diomedes was mentioned with his horses; compare to Il. 23.173, where Patroklos was mentioned as the master of his dogs. In Il. 4.420, wanax was again used for Diomedes; see n. 622 below. 546. By way of contrast, see the genealogy of Leotychides, the Spartan commander of the Greek fleet in the year after Salamis, related by Herodotus, 8.131. Leotychides, a member of the younger branch of the Spartan royal house, traced his ancestry through nineteen names to Hyllus, one of the sons of Herakles, and to the time when the Mycenaean period ended and a new era started. Some of the names in this genealogy suggest that it was partially the result of manipulation and fabrication. For difficulties of using Herodotus in establishing accurate early chronologies, see Burkert 1995. Despite this possible manipulation, the fact remains that an attempt to establish a proper genealogy had been made, and an appropriate length of time was allocated to span the present to the beginning of the kingship. This genealogy of Leotychides is in contrast to the kings of the more distant past. Genealogies for the kings and heroes mentioned in the Iliad usually included only the father, or sometimes the grandfather. It was only much later that elaborate genealogies for these early figures were attempted, and these genealogies were not consistent; see Hall 2000, 80, figs. 3–10. For additional discussion of the genealogical cycles that developed in isolated areas of the Greek world during the Dark Ages, see M.L. West 1985, especially 1–12, 130–138. 547. Pindar, Olympian Ode 1.28–93; Apollodorus, 2.163.

NOTES

151

548. Domesticated horses appear to have been introduced into Greece by the people who arrived at the end of Early Helladic II and the beginning of the Middle Helladic period. The earliest bones of a domesticated horse from a settlement on the Greek mainland come from Lerna V, which is dated to the Middle Helladic period; Gejvall 1969, 37, 54. A few bones of domesticated horses also have been found at Argissa and Nichoria; Dickinson 1994, 49. For the date of these people and current thought concerning the introduction of the domesticated horse, see Rutter 1993, 758–774, with extensive bibliography. 549. Thucydides, 1.9.2. In this same passage, Thucydides writes that Pelops exiled Atreus because he believed that Atreus had caused the death of his half brother, the heir apparent of the kingdom. 550. Vermeule 1986, 86–92 suggested that the Trojan War took place at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIA. Her suggestion is not accepted here; see Shear 2000a, 134. 551. This is in direct contrast to the genealogy of Leotychides, which appears to have been manipulated in order to avoid gaps in the generations; see n. 546 above. 552. The lack of a named successor was emphasized heavily by Finkelberg 1991 (see n. 545 above) in her argument that the succession passed through women rather than men. One of the examples she cited was Telemon, king of Salamis and father of Ajax and Teukros. She noted that Teukros went to Cyprus after the Trojan War and the death of Ajax; he did not return to his native Salamis to become king. She failed to observe that Teukros was a bastard child (Il. 8.282–284) and, therefore, was not a true heir to the throne of Salamis. Teukros, as portrayed by Sophocles in his play Ajax, was afraid to return to Salamis without his brother; he feared that his father might think he had caused his brother’s death in order to inherit the kingdom. This same theme occurred in the legends of Pelops and Atreus; see n. 549 above. These two sequences suggest that the slaying of the heir apparent before he could inherit the throne was a common hazard. Finkelberg claimed that Telamon had no known successor, but Plutarch’s Life of Solon describes how Ajax had two sons, Philaeus and Eurysaces, who were presumably the grandsons of Telamon. According to Solon, Philaeus and Eurysaces gave Salamis to Athens, but in order to do this they must have inherited the kingdom from their grandfather, Telamon. The transfer of Salamis to Athens by Philaeus and Eurysaces may have been blatant propaganda on the part of Solon, but his claim to Salamis would not have been remotely acceptable unless the two grandsons of Telamon had inherited the kingdom. 553. See Il. 6.37, 11.328, 16.693 for warriors killed at Troy; Il. 14.121 for the grandfather of Diomedes; and Il. 2.572 for the early king of Sikyon. In Il. 5.412–415, Diomedes was said to have married the daughter of Adrestos. Possibly Diomedes married his aunt, as suggested by Hainsworth 1993, on lines 11.224–226, but it is also possible that his father married the daughter of one person called Adrestos while Diomedes married a daughter of an entirely different family whose father also happened to have been called Adrestos. 554. In the Iliad, there are three Trojans called Thoon, 5.152, 11.422, 13.545; four men by the name of Melanippos, three Trojans and one Achaian, 8.276, 15.576, 16.695, 19.240; five men by the name of Chromios, one Achaian, three Trojan warriors and one Trojan captain, 4.295, 5.160, 5.677, 8.275, 17.218; three men called Antiphos, two named in the Catalogue of Ships and a third one killed by an Achaian, 2.678, 2.864, 11.101; and three men by the name of Epistrophos, all named in the Catalogue of Ships,

152

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

2.517, 2.692, 2.856. Occasionally, duplication of names occurs between people at Troy and people who lived elsewhere; for example, three men called Moulios, one whom Nestor killed in his youth and two Trojans, 17.739, 16.696, 20.472. The son of Agamemnon was called Orestes, 9.142, but two warriors at Troy were also called Orestes, one an Achaian and the other a Trojan, 5.705, 12.193. 555. Nestor, the king of Pylos, is well known from the Iliad, but there was also an earlier Nestor identified by Apollodorus (2.4.5) as one of the five sons of Perseus, the founder of Mycenae. 556. Gray 1958; Lindgren 1973, 201; Luce 1975, 87; Chadwick 1976a, 61–68; Hiller and Panagl 1976. See also Vermeule 1987 for names in the tablets that occur in the tradition connected with Aigisthos. 557. The importance of names as a reflection of social values was stressed by both DegerJalkotzy 1999, 124–125 and Palaima 1999, who cite many earlier works on this subject. 558. Palaima 1999, 369. The one exception is Peisistratos, the son of Nestor in the Odyssey. S.R. West 1988, on line 3.36, noted that Peisistratos was not included in the list of Nestor’s sons as reported by Hesiod in Catalogue of Women. It may be that Peisistratos, the son of Nestor, was a later addition to the Odyssey; Braswell 1971; Shear 2000a, 207 n. 55, 212 n. 30. Another group of names popular in the historical period, which is totally absent in the Linear B records, includes the Greek word i?ppo?; Palaima 1999, 372. 559. Chadwick 1976a, 65. When Chadwick made this statement, he was making a distinction between personal names and adjectives or patronymics used in place of names. Excluding patronymics, the only two names ending in -ides or -ades I could find were Harmonides, a smith at Troy (Il. 5.60), and Euryades, one of the suitors at Ithaka (Od. 22.267). 560. Il. 22.477–514. 561. Il. 2.100–108. Hiding behind these lines is an incredibly complicated story of murder and betrayal; see Vermeule 1987, 128–129. Whether the bard of the Iliad simply chose to ignore this ugly tradition or whether it was unknown to him is not made clear in the extant epics. 562. Thucydides, 1.9.2. 563. Od. 3.254–312 represents only one of the many repetitions of this episode. 564. See also Od. 1.40–41, where the question of Orestes’ maturity as a requirement for him to inherit was implied. 565. Od. 16.117–121. Although Laertes was never called wanax, several passages in the Odyssey make it clear that he once held this position. See, for example, Od. 22.184–185 and 22.334–337, where it is assumed that Laertes once lived in the palace later inhabited by Odysseus and Penelope; and Od. 14.9 and 14.45, where Penelope and Laertes are assumed to be of equal rank. The reluctance to call Laertes wanax may reflect the concept that each kingdom had only one wanax. This would be similar to the tablets that list only one wanax without any qualification or definition. See, also, Il. 2.572, where Adrestos appears to have been king of Sikyon but was not called wanax because that position was held by Agamemnon. 566. Od. 1.386–387.

NOTES

153

567. Od. 11.181–203. 568. Finkelberg 1991, 307 tried to use this sequence as an example of power passing through the women, since marriage to Penelope would have conferred the kingdom to her husband. She failed to note that the father of Penelope was still alive, as indicated by Od. 2.132–133. There is no indication that her father had ever been king of Ithaka or had willingly relinquished his position as ruler, which would have been necessary if Odysseus had received the kingdom by marrying the daughter of the king. 569. The various stages of Telemachos’ growth have become a subject of interest in more recent scholarship; see Heath 2001, with earlier references. 570. Od. 2.96–109, 19.141–155, 23.128–146. Penelope’s personality, her weaving a shroud for Laertes, and her views on remarriage have often been discussed; see papers published in Cohen, ed. 1995; Lowenstam 2000. In the Odyssey, Penelope was portrayed as an idealized, perfect wife from the male perspective; see Shear 2000a, 139–140. Her many scenes of weeping as she remembered her missing husband, even after twenty years, clearly indicate her continuing loyalty. These scenes contradict any pretense that she might have considered marrying one of the suitors. Her suggested contest with the bow, her request that suitors bring her gifts of wooing, and even her conversation with Odysseus when he was disguised as a beggar should be interpreted as obfuscation and as attempts to avoid remarriage until Odysseus’ return or, barring his return, until Telemachos grew old enough to assume the kingship. Any other interpretation of Penelope’s character assumes a weak and vacillating personality that does not correspond to her earlier wily ruse of weaving the shroud for Laertes. This ruse seems to have been a basic part of the plot dating to the earliest part of the tradition. For differentiation of essential and non-essential parts of the plot, see n. 764 below. 571. Passages such as Od. 1.356–359, repeated at 21.350–353, are sometimes quoted as an indication that women in this period lacked power and authority; see, for example, Raaflaub 1998. In this passage, Penelope was told by Telemachos to return to her loom and distaff, and to leave discussions to the men. This crass statement by Telemachos, in my opinion, was intended to show that the young heir had reached the threshold of manhood. In a manner characteristic of young men as they begin to mature, he spoke rudely to his mother to demonstrate his new self-perceived maturity. Penelope received this statement with wonder (Od. 1.360, repeated at 21.354), which indicates that this type of statement by Telemachos was unexpected and not characteristic of their normal relationship. Penelope, who had been avoiding the suitors, appears to have been content to accommodate Telemachos. Her actions, however, should be seen as part of her normal pattern of behavior towards the suitors and not as a result of her obedience to Telemachos’ orders. 572. Od. 2.25–27. 573. Od. 2.257–259. 574. Od. 18.259–270. 575. Finley 1954 claimed that the suitors wanted to marry Penelope because of her great beauty, and not for the power and possessions of Odysseus. However, the attempted assassination of Telemachos is a clear indication that the suitors sought the hand of Penelope for the power and possessions that marriage would bring them. Had they wanted to marry Penelope because of her great beauty alone, then there would have been no reason for the planned assassination.

154

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

576. Only those of high rank spoke during the assembly, just as at Troy when the Achaian leaders met with the army. The exception was Thersites, who was berated afterwards by Odysseus; Il. 2.211–264. 577. See also Od. 3.214–215, repeated in 16.95–96, which indicates this same sentiment. 578. Wöhrle 1999 argued that the relationships between fathers and sons in both the Iliad and Odyssey reflected the attitudes of society at the time of the epics’ composition. Telemachos’ personality as an intelligent young male on the threshold of maturity, however, is a prerequisite of the plot. Any deeper significance of the father-son relationship, in my opinion, does not reflect the society of any particular period, but rather the bard’s great compassion and understanding of natural human impulses. The bard’s understanding and portrayal of human nature, and not the plot, is what made these two epics so memorable. 579. Murnaghan 2000, xxxvi–xxxvii. 580. Thucydides, 1.9.2. This same Eurystheus became king of the Argives in place of Herakles because of Hera’s manipulations, according to Il. 19.95–124. This reference in the Iliad suggests that the tales of Herakles and the Herakleidae had a long history in the Argolid, and it makes clear that the bard of the Iliad considered Herakles a Mycenaean figure. In later periods, Athenians prided themselves on the fact that they alone of the Greek citizens had received the Herakleidae when they had fled from the tyrannical rule of Eurystheus. With the help of the Herakleidae, the Athenians were responsible for the slaying of Eurystheus; Herodotus, 9.27, 1–5; Demosthenes, Or. 60 Epitaphios, 8; Isocrates, Or. 12 Panathenaikos, 194; Lysias, Or. 2 Epitaphios, 11–16. The initial dominance of Eurystheus over Herakles, and the later unsuccessful revolt of the Herakleidae, may be seen as an indication that the Herakleidae were a minority group. For further discussion of the Mycenaean date of Herakles and the Herakleidae, see Nilsson 1951, 51–69; Demargne 1964, 282–284; Menkes 1978. For popularity of the tales of Herakles reflected in vase painting of the Archaic period, see Schefold 1966, 22. 581. Apollodorus, 2.4.5. 582. Il. 3.236–238; Od. 11.298–301. 583. Hesiod, fragments 197.3–4, 198.7–8, 199.1–3. 584. Od. 7.63–72. 585. See, for example, I. Morris 1986, 101–104; Raaflaub 1997. 586. Od. 2.25–34. 587. Od. 13.160–164. 588. Od. 13.170–183. 589. Od. 24.420–471. 590. Od. 2.225. 591. Od. 2.229–241. 592. Od. 24.444–448 and 24.449–462. 593. Il. 1.53–55. Compare to the assembly called by Telemachos, which was also instigated by a goddess, that time Athena; Od. 1.272–273.

NOTES

155

594. The other assemblies of the Achaians at Troy followed this same pattern. In Iliad Book 9, Agamemnon called the assembly and spoke first (9.9–28), Diomedes answered (9.32–49), and then Nestor spoke (9.53–78). Agamemnon agreed with Nestor’s advice (9.114–161) and action was taken after Agamemnon agreed (9.732 ff.). In Book 10 of the Iliad, Agamemnon decided to call another meeting (10.204). Nestor spoke first (10.204), followed by Diomedes (10.220), and action was taken only after Agamemnon agreed (10.234). 595. Il. 8.489. 596. Il. 8.497–541. 597. In Il. 12.60, the advice given by Poulydamas was found pleasing to Hector (Il. 12.80), and thus it was followed. This is in contrast to Il. 12.211 and 18.246–284, where Poulydamas gave advice, but Hector disagreed, Il. 12.231–250 and 18.285–309; the will of Hector was followed and the advice of Poulydamas was ignored. The opinions or advice of the other Trojan warriors were neither sought nor considered. 598. Il. 8.30–33. 599. Od. 1.24–40. 600. Od. 1.75–79. 601. See, for example, the assembly of the gods at the beginning of Book 4 of the Iliad. Zeus, undecided over the battle raging between the Trojans and the Achaians, listened to the plea made by Hera, Il. 4.25–29 and 4.51–67. After some disagreement, Zeus was persuaded, and a new course of action began. 602. Il. 2.225–243. 603. Il. 2.246–264. 604. Il. 2.370–393. 605. Il. 2.142–154. 606. Il. 2.284–332, 2.337–368, 2.370–393. 607. See, for example, Raaflaub 1998, 182. 608. For eating and food in the epics, and their reflections in Linear B tablets and the archaeological record, see Stubbings 1962, 523–530; Killen 1994. 609. When Odysseus promised land to Eumaios and Philoitios just before the fight with the suitors (Od. 21.213–216), the circumstances were not ordinary, to say the least. Menelaos’ statement to Telemachos that he would have been happy to give land to Odysseus (Od. 4.174–177) may well have been only boasting, since Odysseus already had his own land and Menelaos did not make a similar offer to Telemachos, who was in danger of losing his inheritance. Peleus’ gift of land to Phoenix, whom Peleus loved as if he were an only child (Il. 9.479–484), was only a temporary grant since Phoenix had no children (Il. 9.453–457), and the land would have eventually been returned to Peleus’ heirs. Agamemnon’s promise of land to Achilles (Il. 9.149–152) was part of a marriage agreement, as was Alkinoös’ promise to Odysseus (Od. 7.312–315). A daughter, once married, was not necessarily excluded from her original family, and therefore, land included in her marriage settlement was not inevitably alienated.

156

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

610. Donlan 1997, 654–657 distinguished between land used for growing grain in the earlier period and land used for raising cattle in the later period, when the population was smaller and land was relatively more plentiful and thus more available for increased herding of cattle. Donlan’s emphasis on the different uses of land in these two periods was also questioned by R. Palmer 2001. 611. The title a[nax was used for Priam three times in the phrase povli" Priavmo" a[nv akto"; Il. 2.373, repeated in 4.290, 4.18. It was used three more times in the phrase a[stu mevga Priavmo" a[nakto"; Il. 7.296, 17.160, 21.309. It was used again in Il. 6.451 with reference to the city of King Priam, and once he was called king by his son Hector in conversation with Andromache when they were discussing the possible destruction of Troy, Il. 12.11. For its use with Achilles, see discussion below. 612. Helenos in quick succession at Il. 13.582, 13.758, 13.770, 13.781, where his kingly behavior was contrasted to that of Paris, who was acting less than kingly; Idomeneus, king from Crete, at Il. 2.405, 10.112, 13.452, 15.301; Sarpedon, king of the Lycians, at Il. 12.413, 12.414, 16.464; Nestor, king of Pylos, at Il. 2.77, 23.302; Diomedes at Il. 4.420, 5.794; Menelaos, king of Sparta, at Il. 23.446, 23.588; Aineias at Il. 5.311, where he was saved by Aphrodite, possibly as a reference to his future position after the fall of Troy; Rhesos, king of the Thracians, at Il. 10.559; Thymbraios at Il. 11.322, in his only appearance, where he was killed by Diomedes; Asios, a Trojan ally, at Il. 12.139; Peneleos at Il. 14.489, where he killed Akamas; Poulydamas at Il. 15.453, in reference to his horses; Patroklos at Il. 23.173, in reference to his dogs; and the remainder in association with the Funeral Games of Patrokles: Eumelos at Il. 23.288, Antilochos at Il. 23.417 (in reference to his horses), and Teukos at Il. 23.859. 613. For Agamemnon at Il. 1.9, 1.231, 1.277, 1.340, 1.410, 3.179, 4.402, 7.180, 9.69, 9.160, 11.23, 11.43, 11.136, 11.262, 11.283, 19.256. For Achilles at Il. 1.331, 16.211, 23.849. For Priam, at Il. 5.464 (in association with Ares), 24.680 (in association with Hermes), and 24.803 (when Hector was buried). For Rhesos at Il. 10.435 and 10.494 (when he was killed). For Nestor at Il. 2.54 (at council of his peers). For Menestheos at Il. 4.338 (when he was addressed by Agamemnon). For Sarpedon at Il. 16.660 (after he had been killed). 614. Il. 24.449 and 24.452. 615. In Il. 16.168–172, the Myrmidons were divided into five groups, each with its own leader; Achilles was said to rule over all of them. For further discussion of the differing ranks within the armies, see van Wees 1986. 616. Il. 9.276, repeated at 19.176. Compare to Od. 11.144, where Odysseus addressed Teiresias as a[nax in an attempt to flatter him and thus make him more willing to give Odysseus the advice he sought. 617. Il. 23.35. 618. Il. 9.164. In this same speech, Nestor also honored Agamemnon (9.163) by addressing him rather extravagantly as A j trei?dh kuvdiste, a[nax ajndrw'n A j gavmemnon, most glorious son of Atreus, leader of men, Agamemnon. 619. Il. 1.9, 7.180, 11.46, 11.283. Compare to the use of basileuv" for mortals in Il. 5.464, for Priam in contrast to Ares, Il. 24.680, Priam with Hermes, and Od. 24.483, for Odysseus in relationship to Zeus.

NOTES

157

620. Il. 3.179, 11.23, and Il. 11.136, 11.262, 11.283, during the aristeia of Agamemnon. 621. Il. 1.231, 1.277, 1.340, 1.410, 9.69, 9.160. 622. Il. 4.402. Later in this same passage, Il. 4.420, wanax was used to describe Diomedes; perhaps it was used to show Diomedes’ anger and to emphasize his behavior as kingly as opposed to Agamemnon’s behavior in this incident, which was less than kingly and unfitting on the part of the leader; compare to the use of wanax for Helenos; see n. 612 above. 623. Janko 1992, on lines 16.284–294, observed that Agamemnon was the exception to the generally accepted premise that the king was always the best fighter in the heroic world. Hammer 2002 eloquently discussed the crisis in Agamemnon’s leadership and the question of his authority that resulted in the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles. Hammer saw this crisis as a political problem of the polis, but it could equally well represent the disintegrating society at the end of the Bronze Age, when the power of the rulers began to weaken and society was on the verge of collapse, or it could merely reflect a crisis created by weak leadership without regard to any specific period. 624. Od. 3.163, 11.71, 14.8, 14.40, 14.139, 14.170, 14.376, 14.438, 14.450, 15.397, 15.557, 17.38, 17.255, 17.296, 17.303, 17.378, 18.313, 19.358, 20.111, 21.9, 21.56, 21.62, 21.83, 21.395, 22.119. The bard’s repeated use of a[nax as a title for Odysseus indicates that he considered Odysseus to be the ruler of a kingdom, contrary to the suggestion made by Halverson 1998 that no such kingdom existed. 625. Odysseus was first called basileuv" (Od. 2.47) by his son Telemachos, who spoke in the assembly to others close to him in rank. This can be compared to Il. 2.54, where Nestor was called basileuv" during a council called by Agamemnon. The second reference (Od. 16.335) was to the house of the god-like basileuv", used here to indicate high rank. Compare to Il. 16.660, where the Sarpedon was called basileuv" in a passage emphasizing Sarpedon’s armor and its value. The third time (Od. 24.483) he was so named by Zeus who, as a god, held a higher rank; see n. 619 above. 626. Od. 8.391–392. For other references to multiple basilei'" in the Land of the Phaiakians, see Od. 6.54, 7.49, 8.41, and for references to Alkinoös as basileuv", see Od. 7.141, 7.55, 8.469, 13.62; the female form was used for Nausikaa in Od. 6.115. For multiple basilei'" in Ithaka, see Od. 1.394. Antinoös, the suitor, was called basileuv" in Od. 17.416, 24.179, and in Od. 18.64, Eurymachos, another one of the suitors, was paired with Antinoös as equal in rank. Multiple basilei'" at Troy were mentioned in Il. 20.84, multiple basilei'" of Lykia were mentioned in Il. 12.319, and multiple basilei'" of the Argives were mentioned in Il. 9.59, 10.195. In Il. 10.494–495, Rhesos, the basileuv" of the Thracians, was called the thirteenth, although later in Il. 10.559 he was called an a[nax. 627. Carlier 1991, 88, 1995 suggested that such a council already existed in the Mycenaean period. Lenz 1993, 105–108, 218–232 believed that multiple basilei'" in Homer formed a council of elders, and indeed Od. 6.53–56 seems to indicate that a council of some sort existed in the Land of the Phaiakians.

158

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Chapter V The End of the Tradition 628. See, for example, Bennet 1997; Donlan 1997; Raaflaub 1997; and nn. 7–8 above for further references. 629. For use of a[nax and basileuv" in Hesiod and in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, see Drews 1983, 105–107. For the use of these terms in the other parts of the Trojan Cycle, the Homeric Hymns, and Hesiod, see Calhoun 1935, 14–15. By exception, a form of the word wanax was retained on Cyprus into the historical period to designate the king’s brothers and sons; Woodard 1997, 223. 630. See, for example, M.W. Edwards 1987, 281–285. 631. Whether the basileus was actually a king in the post-Mycenaean period, and how widespread such kings were, have been questions of debate; see Carlier 1984; Drews 1988; Lenz 1993. However these questions are answered for the Dark Age and the Geometric period, the literary tradition makes clear that in later times the basileus was thought to mean the king. In Sparta, if nowhere else, there were two kings called basileis. Whenever the change occurred, the question remains why the term wanax was replaced by the term basileus. 632. How much continuity existed between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age is still being debated in some circles, but the linguistic evidence for Linear B reflections of epic language, summarized by Bennet 1997, 523–531, clearly demonstrates that some continuity between the two periods did exist. For discussion of continuity reflected in the archaeological record, see among others, Vermeule 1987, 122; Deger-Jalkotzy 1995, 1998; Coulson 1998; Mook 1998; Small 1998; Rehak and Younger 1998, 2001; C.G. Thomas and Conant 1999. For continuity in the use of agricultural land, see R. Palmer 2001. 633. Il. 16. 571–574; Od. 13.259–260, 15.272–278. 634. Od. 15.341–343, 15.455–483. 635. Od. 14.285–315, 17.419–423, 18.138–140, 19.75–80. 636. Od. 3.299–300, 4.351–370, 4.581–582, 14.257–284, 17.425–444. 637. Il. 6.425–426, 9.129, 9.328–329; Od. 9.40–43, 14.219–234. 638. Od. 1.29–41, 1.128–300, 3.303–310. For homicide in Iliad see Richardson 1993, on lines 23.85–90. 639. For scarcity of bronze and the use of iron in place of bronze, see Snodgrass 1971, 213–279. 640. For the disintegration of Mycenaean centers and their increasing isolation, see, among many others, Sandars 1978; Deger-Jalkotzy 1998; and papers in Ward and Joukowsky, eds. 1992; and Gitin, Mazar, and Stern, eds. 1998. 641. For Iron Age habitation sites, see Fagerström 1988; Coulson 1990; Mazarakis Ainian 1997; C.G. Thomas and Conant 1999. For summary of the Dark Age, see I. Morris 1997, where recent bibliography is cited. For a more detailed account of this period, see Snodgrass 1971, 1980; Desborough 1972; Whitley 1991, 2001, 77–97. For various different views of this period, see papers in Kopcke and Tokumaru, eds. 1992; and Anderson

NOTES

159

and Dickie, eds. 1995. For overall effect on society after the collapse of a complex civilization, see Tainter 1988, especially p. 193 where he lists among the changes smaller communities and decrease of population, drop in the economy with less specialization, a decline in art, and decrease in flow of information. These very same changes occurred on the Greek mainland after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization. 642. Athens alone retained the title basileus as an important political position and not as a title that came to mean a hereditary king. This may reflect the fact that Athens maintained some measure of stability at the end of the Mycenaean period. For literary traditions and archaeological history of Athens in this period, see n. 663 below. 643. The numerous ethnic and family groups living in the Argolid during the historic periods were discussed in detail by Hall 2000. The emergence of these groups as distinct from other groups living in the same general area can be seen as the result of local traditions developed during the isolation of the Dark Age, when communications between different groups was limited. Many of these groups were not mentioned in the Iliad or Odyssey. 644. For regionalism as a cultural phenomenon usually found in oral poetry as opposed to the pan-Hellenism of the two Homeric epics, see Nagy 1990a, 28–37. 645. The possibility that the people of Lefkandi developed the traditions of the Homeric epics was discussed in the papers published in Anderson and Dickie, eds. 1995. 646. Snodgrass 1980, 18, 1983, 169 estimated that the site of Lefkandi in the tenth century was inhabited by approximately fifteen to twenty-five people, and that the maximum number of people inhabiting the site at any one time never exceeded fifty. The calculation of local population in antiquity is notoriously difficult (see Snodgrass 1983), but even if these numbers for Lefkandi are only approximations, they suggest that the entire population was never very large. It certainly was not large enough to establish a tradition that was accepted immediately by the entire Greek world in a period that was still largely characterized by isolation and limited trade. 647. These myths, which remained regional, were examined by Malkin 1998. Some of these relate how Odysseus established cities or dynasties in far-flung areas of the world during his attempts to return to Ithaka (Malkin 1998, 4), or how Diomedes went to Italy after he fled Argos (Malkin 1998, 31). These tales are often in direct contradiction to the Odyssey. They existed as local variants and were not part of a pan-Hellenic tradition accepted by all Greek-speaking people. They are preserved today only because later authors, after writing had become widespread, made a determined effort to collect local myths and establish local variants. 648. The early artistic representations indicate that the tales of the Trojan War and subjects related to it extended over an area that included Attika, Aegina, Boeotia, Corinth, Argos, Olympia, Mykonos, Rhodes, and Samos; Snodgrass 1997, 1998. The Ionic dialect of the epics expands this area eastward to the Ionian coast of Asia Minor. The Pithekoussai cup (nn. 673–674 below) extends it westward to Italy. 649. Chadwick 1976b. The idea that the early Dorians were part of the Mycenaean population on the Greek mainland has been supported by Betancourt 1976, 40–47; Hooker 1977, 168–173; Horrocks 1980; Thompson 1996–1997; Duhoux 1998. 650. Risch 1966, 1979. For linguists who oppose Chadwick’s Mycenaean Dorians, see Hall 2000, 161. For a summary of linguistic arguments for and against the Dorians in the Mycenaean period, see Horrocks 1997a, 10–15. Horrocks 1997a, 13 observed that the

160

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

absence of signs from a Dorian dialect in the writing of the Mycenaean period need not indicate that the Dorian dialect did not exist, since a lower class of Dorians would not be expected among the literate elite who were responsible for writing the Linear B tablets. Horrocks’ statement was supported by Thompson, 1996–1997, 313–333, who argued that the absence of linguistic evidence for Mycenaean Dorians in the tablets does not necessarily mean that Chadwick’s initial 1976 hypothesis is incorrect. 651. For difficulties in establishing the Dorians as a separate group in the archaeological record, see earlier work by Snodgrass 1971 and, more recently, Hall 2000, 111–129, 184–185. The widespread area dominated by the Dorians in later periods suggests that originally they were a fairly large group. If they came from some area outside the Argolid, the dearth of archaeological evidence for their presence as a distinct group remains troublesome. For scholars who still see the Dorians as a separate group invading the Peloponnese at the end of the Bronze Age, see Drews 1988, 208–213, 1993, 63, and his n. 47. For the areas in the later historic period speaking different dialects, see Horrocks 1997a, 6–9. 652. Thucydides, 1.9.2, 1.12.3–4. 653. For other possible literary references to the minority class of Dorians, in the guise of the Herakleidae already existing in the Peloponnese in the Mycenaean period, see n. 580 above. 654. Herodotus, 5.72.3. 655. For further discussion and other examples of Spartan associations with earlier Achaians, see Calame 1987; Boedeker 1993, 165–167. 656. The ultimate cause for the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces has long been debated, see, among others, Betancourt 1976, 40–47; Hooker 1977, 180; Drews 1993, whose conclusions were questioned by Dickinson 1999a; Doumas 1998. C.G. Thomas and Conant 1999, 20–26 provide a summary of different arguments. For the emerging belief that the collapse was a result of unstable economic pressure within the society, see Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1999; Betancourt 2000. For possible indications of economic strain reflected in alterations in the late phase of the palace at Pylos, see Shelmerdine 1987b, 1998a, 81–96. The conflict of different groups within Mycenaean society should probably be seen as the result, rather than the cause, of more critical problems that ultimately led to the collapse of the palace system. 657. For possible secondary administrative centers separated from the palaces in Crete, see Bennet 1985. 658. Gschnitzer 1965, 107–109; Andreev 1979, 380; Morpurgo Davies 1979, 98–99; Lenz 1993, 1–2; Palaima 1995a, 124–125. Although the reconstructions suggested by these scholars differ in details, the assumption of power by the basileus after the collapse of the central palace authority is a common theme. 659. For continued habitation between the Late Minoan period and the Iron Age, see, especially, the excavations at Kavousi, Coulson 1998; Mook 1998. For more general discussion of this period, see Rehak and Younger 1998, 2001, 472–473, and their nn. 589–590. Scholars who see the Dorians as an invading force (n. 651 above) might explain this continuity as the blending of earlier inhabitants with newly arrived people, but it remains difficult to understand how these newly arrived people came to dominate such a large area, which included not only Crete, but also parts of the Asia Minor coast.

NOTES

161

660. Od. 13.256–286. 661. For other examples of people fleeing from their homeland, see Il. 9.447–477; Od. 15.272–278. See also the false tale of Odysseus in Od. 16.91–98. Although these false tales of Odysseus were meant to be understood as fabrications, they must have reflected real events in order to make them acceptable to both the audiences in the epic and those hearing the epic for the first time. 662. For late Mycenaean remains in Achaea, see Vermeule 1960; Papadopoulos 1979. 663. Thucydides, 1.2.5–6 preserved the tradition that Athens alone was free of internal dispute, and that many influential men, driven from their own countries, fled to Athens. Herodotus, 5.65, and Pausanias, 2.18.17, preserved the ancient tradition that the Neleids, fleeing from Pylos, went to Attika. In this same Herodotian passage, the family of the Athenian tyrant Peisistratos claimed to have been descendents of the Neleids. The names of two important Athenian clans of the historic period, the Alkmaionidae and the Paionidai, have been associated with names in the Linear B tablets by Hiller and Panagl, 1976, 254, which reinforces the statements made by Herodotus and Pausanias. The earlier cemetery at Perati (Iakovidis 1969) and the Submycenaean cemeteries at Salamis and the Kerameikos (Styrenius 1967) are thought to represent different waves of these Mycenaeans. Whitley 1991, 54 pointed out that Athens and Attica have more Dark Age remains than any other area on the Greek mainland. This may have been the result of a more settled and less troubled community in Attica, compared to other parts of Greece during the Dark Age. For Athens in the Dark Age, see Whitley 1991, 54–74. 664. Karageorghis 1976; Schilardi 1992; Karageorghis and Stampolidis 1998; Mountjoy 1999, 861–1156; Karantzali 2001, 78–79. 665. Mountjoy 1999, 443–483; Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999, 136–144. 666. Sarantis Symeonoglou, conversation with author, January 2001. See, also, Symeonoglou 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1995. 667. Od. 11.134–137. 668. Il. 4.51–54. 669. Small 1999, 46 noted that the titles preserved in the epic tradition, in general, are those most closely associated with the palace. 670. For a modern parallel of displaced people being particularly interested that the oral tradition not be altered in any significant fashion, see Scodel 2002, 20. 671. Friis Johansen 1967; Touchefeu-Meynier 1968; Fittschen 1969; Kakrides 1986; Lowenstam 1997; Burgess 2001, 35–44, 53–115. 672. Snodgrass 1998, 164, in a recent re-examination of early vase painting, drew the conclusion that the artists “were certainly preoccupied with the vast network of Greek legend as a whole, but . . . Homer’s world and the artists’ world were not identical, nor even closely connected.” In another attempt to find illustrations of the Iliad and Odyssey in early artistic representations, Kannicht 1982, 84–85 stated that the scarcity of such illustrations would seem to indicate that the artists of the seventh century did not know the Iliad, but this conclusion was ultimately rejected because it did not fit the previously established philological construct. 673. Latacz 1996, 61–63; Powell 1997b, 23, with earlier references cited.

162

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

674. The verses on the cup were translated by Latacz 1996, 62 as follows: “Nestor had a certain cup, good to drink from. / But whoever drinks from this cup, will immediately / be seized with desire for Aphrodite of the beautiful crown.” 675. Il. 11.631–637. These verses, translated by Lattimore 1951, are as follows: “ . . . a beautifully wrought cup which the old man brought with him / from home. It was set with golden nails, the eared handles upon it / were four, and on either side there were fashioned two doves / of gold, feeding, and there were double bases beneath it. / Another man with great effort could lift it from the table, / but Nestor, aged as he was, lifted it without strain.” 676. Faraone 1996. See also Snodgrass 1998, 53, who also felt that the Pithekoussai cup did not reflect the Iliad. 677. For separate cycle concerning Nestor and the history of Pylos, see discussion by Hainsworth 1993, on lines 11.670–762. 678. See, for example, Kullmann 1981, 29–30; Powell 1991, 1997b; Latacz 1996, 67–69; Haslam 1997, 81; M.L. West 2001, 16–17. 679. For length of the Iliad and Odyssey compared to other parts of the cycle, and that of other poetry from ancient Greece and Rome, see n. 742 below. The oldest known epics from antiquity come from the Sumerians; Kramer 1963, 44–45, 185. Nine different Sumerian epic tales relate the adventures of Gilgamesh, Enmerkar, and Lugalbanda, three of the early Sumerian kings in the third millennium. The longest is a little more than six hundred lines, which is roughly equal to one book of the Iliad. Since the work of Kramer, a few additional lines have been identified; see George 1999 for current translation and p. xxviii for length. The most famous of these epics, the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic of the first millennium, is generally thought to represent a reworking of earlier material into a single, written epic. The Gilgamesh epic is estimated to have originally consisted of approximately three thousand lines, which is roughly one-fifth the total length of the Iliad. 680. For arguments against such widespread literacy so soon after the introduction of the alphabet, see Foley 1997, 162; Nagy 1995. For more general discussion of literacy in Greece before the fifth century, see among others Havelock 1982; Harris 1989; R. Thomas 1992; Ford 2003, 15–17. 681. Robb 1994, 256 estimated that three hundred feet of writing material were needed for the Iliad alone. Jensen 1980, 94–95 noted that a day’s wages in the fifth century was two obols, whereas a single sheet of papyrus in that period cost eight obols. The cost of a single manuscript needs to be multiplied by at least eleven, just for the Iliad, in order to account for each of the eleven locations indicated by the artistic and linguistic evidence. Even in the sixth century, which I believe is the date of the first written manuscripts of the Iliad and Odyssey, the cost was so prohibitive that possibly only a person with the resources of a tyrant would have been able to pay for such an undertaking, and indeed, all the known libraries in this early period were owned by tyrants. For early libraries, see Davison 1962, 152; Platthy 1968. 682. See, among others, Schefold 1966, who discussed the many early scenes that reflect stories current in the Archaic period. He noted especially (pp. 26, 88) that his search for early scenes of the Trojan War revealed that few of these could be associated with the Iliad and Odyssey. Schefold also observed (p. 22) that the many Archaic representations

NOTES

163

of Herakles indicate that numerous tales of his deeds must have been current throughout the Greek world in this period. The popularity of the tales of Herakles is probably another indication of the very early origin of this part of the tradition; see n. 580 above. 683. For collected fragments of other parts of the Trojan Cycle and names of bards associated with these epics, see Evelyn-White 1914. For more recent editions, see Bernabé 1987; M. Davies 1988. For summary of this evidence, see Lattimore 1951, introduction. For discussion of these fragments compared to the Iliad and Odyssey, see, among others, Griffin 1977; M. Davies 1989; Dowden 1996; Burgess 1996, 2001; Willcock 1997. 684. See Burgess 1996, 2001 for independence of different parts of Cycle, both from the Homeric epics and from each other as they existed in written form. 685. Latacz 1996, 76. The organization of this material originally was the work of Proclus, who lived in the fifth century A.D., and it is preserved today in a synopsis written in the ninth century by Photius. The work of Proclus and Photius, however, reflects the relative importance placed on the epics in late antiquity, which is not necessarily indicative of the importance placed on them in earlier periods. See Burgess 1996, 80, 2001, 17–31, 137–157, concerning possible inaccuracies in the synopsis of Proclus and Photius. 686. Scholia on Pindar, Nemea 2.1. These much-discussed scholia report that Kynaithos went to Syracuse at the end of the sixth century, where he angered the inhabitants of Syracuse because he sang a tale that did not correspond to the words sung by Homer. See, among others, Notopoulos 1962; Burkert 1972, 1979; M.L. West 1975; Janko 1982, 112–114. 687. For variations in the texts of the Cypria known to Herodotus, Apollodorus, and Proclus, see Finkelberg 2000, 6–9. These variations may reflect three different written manuscripts dictated by three different bards. 688. See n. 18 above. 689. See, for example, the François Vase, Florence Museum No. 4209, where the participants of the chariot race in the Funeral Games of Patroklos differ from those mentioned in Il. 23.262–538; Friis Johansen 1967, 86–92. For other variants in the oral tradition, see Touchefeu-Meynier 1968; Kakrides 1986, 21, 43, 53, 75–76, 87–89, 93, 103, 208–209. 690. See n. 764 below. 691. See, for example, Seaford 1994 for discussion of attitudes and customs reflected in Homer, as opposed to those reflected by the fifth-century Athenian tragedians. Unfortunately, Seaford’s “Homeric Society” has no clear historical date. The laws quoted by Seaford appear to go back to the sixth century. This merely places “Homeric Society” in a period before the sixth century, but it does not date that society to the early Archaic, Geometric, Iron Age, or prehistoric periods—periods that some scholars have, in the past, ascribed to “Homeric Society.” The funerary laws, which mark an important change in ritual, go back to Solon according to Seaford; but this does not explain which period is represented by the funerary rites of the Homeric epics. Attempts have been made to associate these rites with the tenth century burial at Lefkandi (see, for example, Antonaccio 1995), but there is nothing in the tradition that precludes a date in the Mycenaean period. Difficulties of date also are inherent in Cook 1995, who argued that some of the concepts in the Odyssey were a reflection of changing Athenian attitudes to ritual in the seventh century. For example, Cook’s discussion (pp. 163–168) of the golden lamp of Athena assumes that the lamp held by Athena in Od. 19.33–34 was

164

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

added to the epic in response to Athenian cult, but the earliest evidence for a golden lamp associated with Athenian cult (the lamp in the Erechtheion) dates to the later part of the fifth century. It could be argued that the lamp in the Erechtheion was a later addition reflecting the lamp in the Odyssey. 692. See nn. 734 and 757 below. 693. A wide variety of sources, beginning in the early fifth century B.C. and continuing into late antiquity, mention these bards: Pindar, Nemea 2.1 and scholia on ode; Plato, Phaedrus 252.b.4, Ion 530.d.7, Republic 599.6; Isocrates, Helen 65.1; Strabo, 14.1.35; Plutarch, Moralia 496 3.4 (which indicates that some of the Homeridae were female); Athenaeus, 1.40.9, 15.8.17; Pseudo-Lucian, Demosthenis Encomium 17.14; Aelius Aristides, 46.228, 47.327; Harpocration, s.v. O J mhrivdai; Eustathius on Il. 1.6; l.22, 1.399, 2.390, 2.709, 3.485, 4.17. For further discussion and additional bibliography, see Shear 2000a, 148–149 and Graziosi 2002, 208–217. 694. Plutarch, Lycurgos, 4.4; Aelian, V.H. 13.14; Strabo, 10.4.19; Dio Chrysostom, 2.45. Both Plutarch and Aelian emphasized that the tales of Homer that Lycurgos took to Sparta from Ionia were more complete than those known elsewhere on the Greek mainland; see n. 719 below. This suggests that the tradition in its fullest form was preserved in Ionia and that remembrance of this tradition on the Greek mainland in the time of Lycurgos was only partial and incomplete. The existence of a more detailed knowledge of the oral tradition in Ionia might explain the widespread use of the Ionian epic language in later periods. 695. Lycurgos, Against Leocrates, 102; [Plato], Hipparchos, 228.b; Diogenes Laertius, Solon, 1.57; Pausanias, 7.26.13; Anthologia Palatina, 11.442; Cicero, de Orat. 3.34; Aelian, V.H. 13.14; Eustanias, introduction to Iliad book 1. For collection of ancient texts that associate Peisistratos and the Homeric epics, see Jensen 1980, appendix. For additional discussion, see R. Carpenter 1946, 11–12; Merkelbach 1952; Jensen 1980; Stanley 1993, 279–296; Seaford 1994, 148–152; S.R. West 1996; Finkelberg 2000, 9–11; Shear 2000a, 98–109. 696. The various stages of the development of the Greek epic and the evolution of the Homeric dialect have long been debated. For summary of the Homeric dialect and some of the related problems, see Horrocks 1997b. For more detailed arguments in recent scholarship, see M.L. West 1988, 1992; Chadwick 1990; Wyatt 1992; Horrocks 1997a, 6–15. 697. For identification of the early Homeridae as the descendants of Homer, see Strabo 14.1.35; Harpocration s.v. O J mhridai; and the schol. on Pindar, Nemea 2.1. For discussion of these ancient passages, see, among others, Allen 1924, 42–51; Pfeiffer 1968, 11. In modern scholarship, the Homeridae have sometimes been identified as a guild: see, for example, Kirk 1985, 2; M.W. Edwards 1987, 26. Wade-Gery 1952, 21 suggested that the Homeridae originally were the descendants of Homer and who later became a guild. 698. For separation of a single bard called Homer from the other Homeridae, see Shear 2000a, 104–108, 150–151. For evidence of a dictated text see Shear 2000a, 113–118; see, also, Gunn 1970; Janko 1990, 1998. 699. For concentration of heroes from different areas engaged in a single enterprise as a characteristic of Greek heroic tales, see Scodel 2002, 47–51. For heroes fighting at Troy who

NOTES

165

originally may have belonged to separate heroic sagas, see Griffin 1995, 3–4, and commentary on lines 34 ff., 47–49. 700. See, for example, Priam’s acceptance of Paris’ refusal to return Helen, thereby continuing the war and eventually resulting in the fall of Troy, discussed by Scodel 2002, 190. The return of Helen would appear to be the sensible reaction, but tradition demanded that Troy was to fall, and thus Priam could not allow the return of Helen. This action had to be accepted by the bard, and he had to supply whatever motivation he could devise. The bard of the Iliad tried to portray Helen as honorable and therefore blameless; see, for example, Il. 3.121–244. His attempts to exonerate Helen were apparently considered unsatisfactory in some areas, and the story evolved that Helen never went to Troy but stayed in Egypt with Proteus, although the Trojans were still held at fault and the fall of Troy remained unchanged; Herodotus 2.113–120 and discussion by Graziosi 2002, 113–115. This rendition of the story, however, fails to explain why the Trojans were blamed, and the moral responsibility of the war is still left undefined. 701. For example, the earlier idea that descending from a god enhanced heroic stature created a promiscuity among the gods that was not acceptable in later periods. Priam, as the epic father having fifty sons, became a bigamist; Shear 2000a, 214 n. 71, 217 n. 145. 702. M.L. West 1999. For discussion of the ancient perception of Homer and his relationship to the other bards, see Graziosi 2002. 703. Arktinos of Miletos and Stasinos of Cyprus may have had some sort of association with Homer and the Homeridae. Suda, s.v. A j rkti'no", said that Arktinos had studied with Homer. Stasinos was identified by Tzetzes, Chil. 13.638 as having received the Cypria as a dowry from Homer, which would make Stasinos Homer’s son-in-law. Both of these sources, however, are late and possibly not reliable. The Cypria differs from the Iliad in significant details, such as the homeland of Briseia (Scodel 2002, 151–152), which makes any close association between Stasinos and Homer unlikely. For additional discussion of these names and other bards associated with the telling of these early tales, see Burgess 2001, 8–10. 704. Works attributed to Homer in antiquity include all of the Homeric Hymns, particularly the Hymn to Apollo (Thucydides, 3.104.4), the Hymn to Dionysos (Diodorus Siculus, 4.2.4), the Epigoni (Herodotus, 32.7), the Margites (Aristotle, Poetics 4.10), the Thebaïd (Pausanias, 9.95), the Capture of Oikhalia (Strabo, 14.1.18; cf. also schol. on Pindar, Nemea 2), the Epikichides (Athenaeus, 65, 1–2), and an epic about Acames sailing to Troy (Demosthenes, Funeral Speech, 29). The founder of the clan may well have sung early versions of these songs, but those that are still preserved today in written form, such as the Hymn to Delian Apollo, should be associated with other bards; for bard of Hymn to Delian Apollo, see Burkert 1987, 54. For differences in the language used in the composition of these early works, see Janko 1982. These differences should indicate the existence of different bards responsible for the editions we have today. 705. The phenomenon of legendary bards known by name but with little substance as individuals was documented by Lord 1960, 1962, 1991, 1995 (in the Slavic tradition) and by M. Parry 1971. Foley 1998 suggested that these legendary bards were an anthropomorphization of the oral tradition. Although these bards may have come to represent such an anthropomorphization in later times, this does not necessarily mean that they never existed as individuals at some point in the past. In my opinion, the original Homer was a bard of this type. His name was remembered, possibly because he was the

166

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

founder of a clan, but little was known about the actual figure. As a result, various wondrous deeds became associated with his name, and in time he was turned into a legendary figure. Various stories came to be told of his life (which are reflected in the different Lives of Homer), but they should not obscure the fact that at some point an early bard called Homer probably did exist. 706. For discussion of earliest literary evidence for a bard named Homer, see Burkert 1987. For identification of Homer as the bard who dictated the extant text of the Iliad, see A. Parry 1966, 297. For the unity of the Iliad as the composition of a single bard, see Griffin 1995, 6–8, 19–21; Willcock 1995. 707. A few scholars have suggested dates both earlier and later than the eighth century for the tradition; see nn. 7–10, 16 above. A variety of dates for its transcription, ranging from the eighth century to as late as the fourth century, have been suggested. For eighthcentury date, see, among others, Janko 1992; for seventh-century date, see Taplin 1992, 33–35; for sixth-century date, see Merkelback 1952, and, more recently, Jenson 1980; S.R. West 1988, 36–38; Shear 2000a, 97–111, 224 n. 69; for possible fourth-century date, see Nagy 1996, 110. 708. See, especially, Janko 1982. There is, however, some lingering dispute over this linguistic date; see, for example, Chadwick 1990. For comparison of language of the Homeric epics with the language of Hesiod, see G.P. Edwards 1971. For general discussion of the relative dates of Hesiod and the Homer responsible for the Iliad and Odyssey, see Rosen 1997, 464–473. 709. For different emphases of the two poets, see, most recently, Graziosi 2002, 168–184. 710. Regional differences can be documented in the recorded South Slavic songs. Although these groups borrowed freely from other neighboring groups, they differed in their retention of archaic forms and their adoption of current language; Foley 1996, especially 33–37. 711. The idea that epic language did not develop at a uniform rate throughout the Greek world was suggested by Pavese 1972, 111–165, and more recently by Burgess 2001, 52–53. Janko 1982, 80 rejected Pavese’s explanation, whereas M.L. West 1995, 204– 205 accepted the concept that there were many different local traditions. See also Clay 1997, 490–491 for further discussion of this problem. 712. Risch 1966, 1979, and n. 448 above. 713. In an entirely different linguistic family, Lynch 1998, 57–58 determined that some of the Pacific languages changed faster than others, even though different groups originally spoke the same language. These changes could occur without outside influences. Linguistic differences, moreover, were sometimes retained consciously in order to emphasize membership to a particular exclusive group. A combination of the linguistic characteristics isolated in the Pacific languages could account for the apparently later date of the language of Hesiod, as opposed to that of the Homeric epics. 714. Jeffery 1990, 66–373, 431–481. 715. Horrocks 1997a, 5. 716. Although linguists frequently are reluctant to accept this kind of diversity in language, the Greek spoken by my father is a clear example of earlier forms and expressions learned in childhood being retained throughout life. He was born in Smyrna (now

NOTES

167

. Izmir) Turkey, which he left at the age of seventeen to attend the University of Athens, never again to return to Smyrna. As a young man, he went to the United States where he lived for almost forty years. He eventually returned to Greece where he spent his last twenty years, yet throughout his life he continued to use forms and expressions that were characteristic of Smyrna, even though these forms were no longer commonly used on the Greek mainland. 717. The seventh-century poet Archilochus of Paros deliberately avoided the traditional language and subject matter of the epic tradition; instead he emphasized contemporary speech and events in his iambic verses. Semonides of Amorgos, at this same time, wrote the first known history, of Samos, in elegiac verse. Elegiac verse was used for military poetry by the seventh-century poet Tyrtaeus of Sparta, whereas his contemporary, Mimnermus of Colophon, used elegiac verse to speak of love. For a concise, readable account of this early literary tradition, see Trypanis 1981, 83–89. For a brief discussion of Homeric language, as opposed to other literary dialects, see Griffin 1995, 28–32. 718. Both Sappho and Phokylides wrote hexameter verses; Strabo 10.4.12; Athenaeus 10.428b; Dio Chrysostom 36.11; Suda s.v. Fwkulivdh". The Homeric Hymns, which vary in date from the eighth century to the second century B.C., also were written in hexameter verses; Clay 1997, 489. 719. The seventh-century poet Alkman of Sparta included information in his poetry that is not found in the Iliad and Odyssey; see, for example, schol. on Il. 3.250, where it is reported that Alkman named Zeuxippe as the mother of Priam. This information is not recorded in either the Iliad or the Odyssey, and thus Alkman must have had another source of information. Other information and verses that are sometimes said to reflect the Homeric epics (see, for example, Latacz 1996, 59–60) may simply reflect a shared, common tradition; they were not necessarily based on the written copies of the epics that we have today. 720. For discussion of similes and extensive bibliography, see M.W. Edwards 1991, 24–41. On possible interaction of the language and subject matter of the similes used by the Homeric epics and the language and subject matter of lyric poetry, see Fowler 1987, 20–39; Ford 1997, 90; Martin 1997. 721. M.W. Edwards 1991, 24. 722. Kirk 1976, 6–8, 15. 723. The role of the individual bard as opposed to the bard’s dependence on the oral tradition he had received became a question of debate almost immediately after the significance of M. Parry’s (1971) work was recognized. This debate led to articles such as Combellack 1959, 1976 and A. Parry 1966. For history of Homeric scholarship and the influence of M. Parry’s work, see, among others, Dowden 1996; Bakker 1997; M.W. Edwards 1997; Foley 1997; Peradotto 1997; Turner 1997; Vivante 1997; Kirk 1998; Willcock 1998, 53–55. 724. Various explanations for the popularity of the Iliad and Odyssey have been put forth; see, for example, Nagy 1990b, 72, who suggested the pan-Hellenic nature of the two epics as one reason. Seaford 1994, 153–154 argued that the epics’ embodiment of the aspirations of the early polis was paramount. How closely these epics reflect the early polis, however, is debatable; see n. 691 above. Although these suggestions may, in part, help to explain the popularity of the two epics, they are not definitive by themselves.

168

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

725. See n. 267 above. 726. This has been demonstrated repeatedly; see nn. 671–672 above, and more recently, Burgess 2001, 127–128. 727. Griffin 1977, 39, 1995, 4–5. For subsequent bibliography, see Dowden 1996. 728. See, especially, Kullmann 1960; Griffin 1977, 1995, 4–5; M. Davies 1989; Burgess 1996, 2001, 47. 729. Concerning the question of oral texts as opposed to written fixed texts and the influences of writing on the texts, see Burgess 1996. 730. Griffin 1977. 731. Griffin 1977, 42–43. In Griffin’s words (p. 43), “This is what makes the Iliad both true and tragic, and the very different procedure of the cycle indicates profoundly different attitudes to the fundamental nature of human life and death, and consequently to human heroism and the relationship of men to gods.” See, also, M. Davies 1989, 58–59, 89, 94. 732. Griffin 1977, 43–45. 733. Events such as the sacrifice of Iphigeneia at Aulis and the sacrifice of Polyxena on the tomb of Achilles, which are found in other parts of the cycle, were not mentioned in the Iliad and Odyssey; M. Davies 1989, 45–46, 76. 734. The proliferation of children found in some of the other parts of the cycle and in the oral tradition as a whole may be a reflection of the many foundation myths that developed during the Dark Ages and Geometric period; for these myths, see Malkin 1998 and n. 647 above. In the Telegony, for example, Odysseus, leaving Penelope at Ithaka, went to the land of the Thesprotians, where he married the queen and sired a son. Such behavior is at odds with Odysseus’ repeated assertions in the first half of the Odyssey that he wished to return to Ithaka and Penelope. 735. Griffin 1977, 45–47. See, also, M. Davies 1989, 43–44, 50, 65–66, 69, 77, 92. 736. Griffin 1977, 48. See, also, M. Davies 1989, 40, 47–49, 75. 737. Griffin 1977, 53. For additional discussion, see Griffin 1995, 9–17. 738. M. Davies 1989, 38–39, 42, 45–46, 58, 90, 93. For folk tales used by Homer, and how Homer avoided the fabulous and magical in his use of these tales, see Hansen 1997, 460–462. 739. For differences in the quality of the poetry, see Griffin 1977, 48–51; M. Davies 1989, 9–10. Although the superior quality of the poetry of the Iliad and the Odyssey is rarely discussed, surely this must have been one aspect of the epics that eventually led to their popularity among the later, more sophisticated readers, and to the loss of any other possible early written renditions of epics of “The Wrath of Achilles” or “The Return of Odysseus.” 740. For the popularity of Herakles in the Archaic period, see Schefold 1966, 22. 741. The popularity of the Homeric epics can also be seen in the many references to them by authors such as Aristotle, Plato, and Strabo, who were, of course, among the more literate people of their time.

NOTES

169

742. According to Proclus, the two shortest epics of the Trojan War Cycle, the Iliupersis and the Telegony, consisted of only two books; the Little Iliad had four books; the Aithiopis and the Nostoi were five books each; and the longest, the Cypria, was eleven books; Latacz 1996, 90. The Iliad is over 15,000 lines in length and the Odyssey is over 12,000 lines. In contrast, Hesiod’s Theogony is 1,022 lines and his Works and Days is 828 lines. The longest of the preserved Homeric Hymns, the Hymn to Hermes, is 580 lines. The longest preserved ode written by Pindar, Pythia 4, is 299 lines. The longest Greek tragedy, the Oedepus at Colonus, is 1,779 lines in length. Virgil’s Aeneid consists of twelve books and is just under 9,900 lines in length. 743. Kirk 1985, 12, estimated twenty hours; Notopoulos 1964, 12, estimated 26.9 hours; Wade-Gery 1952, 14–17, estimated that three days were necessary. For further discussion, see Stanley 1993, 265–266 and n. 36 on 401–402; Kirk 1998, 40. 744. Od. 1.325–327, 8.75–82, 8.500–520. 745. See, also, Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollo, where an early festival was described. The events included boxing, dancing, songs sung by maidens, and recitations by a variety of bards. In order to fit all of these events within the same festival, the songs and recitations must have been fairly short. There was not enough time at these festivals for epics the length of either the Iliad or the Odyssey. 746. Aristotle, Poetics, 24.5, 1459 b 20. See, also, Eustathius, Iliad 1, who commented that the great length of the Iliad made it a little boring to some tastes. Aristotle, Poetics, 8.3–4 and 23.5–7, observed that an epic should be constructed around a single action or event; he criticized the Cypria and the Little Iliad because they had no unifying theme and merely recorded events in sequence. Written works, such as the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, do detail events more or less in sequence until the end is reached. Aristotle’s criticism of the Cypria and the Little Iliad suggests that these two epics were originally composed in written form and not in the traditional oral method. 747. By exception, Ford 1992, 133 commented, “it is not easy to imagine why such enormous texts would have been produced for a still largely illiterate age in which they would have been rarely read and nearly impossible to perform in toto.” See, also, Ford 1997, 83–109, where he discusses this same question again. 748. Shear 2000a, 97–111. 749. For difficulty in transcribing an oral song into a written text, see Notopoulos 1952, who described a Cretan epic transcribed in 1786. This epic was 990 lines in length and obviously could have been sung in a single day, yet the epilogue added by the scribe stated that the work went slowly and only a little could be transcribed each day. The Iliad, over fifteen thousand lines in length, presented an even more formidable task. 750. For discussion of the lengths of these sessions, see Shear 2000a, 146–147. 751. For example, the visit of Menelaos and Odysseus to Troy before the start of the war, Il. 3.202–211, and the gathering of the fleet at Aulis ten years earlier, Il. 2.229–332. The telling of a single episode that unifies the entire epic, set within the framework of a much longer story, is a recognized feature of these two epics; but as Scodel 2002, 47–49 points out, it is a most unusual characteristic in epic poetry.

170

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

752. For example, the tale of Meleager, Il. 9.524–606, and the many scattered allusions to Herakles that occur throughout the Iliad and cover many different aspects of his adventures; see Kirk 1990, on line 8.363, for occurrence of Herakles in the Iliad. For references to other epics, see Dowden 1996, 52; Scodel 2002, 124–154. 753. See Gaertner 2001 for catalogs in the Iliad, and how they were used to enrich the narrative and clarify the personalities of the individual heroes. 754. Od. 19.392–466, where Odysseus’ early visit to Autolykos was described; see, also, Nestor’s many tales of his youth in the Iliad. 755. Glaukos at Il. 6.152–211 and the related tale of Bellerophon; Aineias at Il. 20.213–240; Theoklymenos at Od. 15. 223–255. 756. See corselet and shield of Agamemnon, Il. 11.21–40, and the armor made by Hephaistos for Achilles, Il. 18.478–613. 757. The other miscalculation of the bard and the scribes appears to have been the addition of the compliments made by the bard to his hosts in the written text. Such compliments were accepted in oral performances, but they were not meant to be a permanent part of the tradition. These additions, the so-called Athenian interpolations, in my reconstruction represent the compliments made to Athens at the time the epics were first dictated. These Athenian additions, which remain in the text today, have been recognized since antiquity but have not been adequately explained. For further discussion, see Shear 2000a, 108–111. 758. See n. 458 above. 759. Il. 9.434–605, where Phoenix related his history and long association with Achilles. This passage reveals a great deal about the personality of Phoenix, but it also reveals a great deal about Achilles himself. Hainsworth 1993, on lines 9.307–429, identified Achilles as egotistical and disillusioned in Book 9 of the Iliad. Contrary to Hainsworth’s evaluation, the actions of Achilles in Book 9, in my opinion, portray him as an indulged, talented young adult, who heretofore had been privileged and never thwarted of anything he deeply desired. The simile of a mother bird (Il. 9.323–324) and the repeated references to Achilles’ early youth and the people who had raised him (see Hainsworth 1993, on lines 9.442 and 9.485) merely emphasized Achilles’ immaturity at this point of the epic, in contrast to the maturity Achilles displayed at the end of the epic after he had suffered a true loss. For discussion of similes concerning Achilles and parental care, see, also, Mackie 1997 and Mills 2000. 760. Shear 2000a, 89–91. It has been suggested that Diomedes originally belonged to another early cycle, and he was not part of the Argival story. It may be that the later inclusion of Diomedes into the Iliad ultimately gave rise to the peculiar division of the Argolid between Agamemnon and Diomedes incorporated into the Catalog of Ships by a later bard whose knowledge of the geography of the Argolid was weak. 761. See Pindar, Isthmia 4. 37–39 for special fame given to Ajax by Homer. 762. The maturation of Telemachos during the course of the Odyssey has become a subject of interest in more recent scholarship; see n. 569 above. For parallels between Telemachos and Achilles in their failed efforts to persuade the assemblies because of their lack of maturity and power, see Mackie 1997, 4–5. This type of characterization would not have been possible in a shorter epic.

NOTES

171

763. For importance of these added descriptions as a sign of the poet’s individuality and creativity, see Willcock 1998. 764. For distinction between the essential and non-essential, or fluid, elements in the oral tradition, see Finkelberg 2000, 3–4; Alden 2000, with extensive bibliography. 765. Scholarly works such as Hellmann 2000, which tried to analyze the motivation of the warriors, and Wöhrle 1999, which investigated the relationships between fathers and sons, seem to reflect the emphasis and interpretation added by the bard to the standard figures inherited with the oral tradition. Whether they also reflect the broader mores of the bard’s own society remains a matter of conjecture, but they cannot, in my opinion, be used to establish the date of the bard’s lifetime or the age of the tradition. 766. Richardson 1993, 166; Scodel 2002, 24. See also Richardson’s comments on lines 23.448–498, 23.653–699, 23.708–709, 23.740–797, 23.850–883. 767. For personality of Odysseus, see Murnaghan 2000, xviii–xix. 768. For special fame of Odysseus as a result of Homer’s portrayal, see Pindar, Nemea 7. 20–24.

Bibliography (excluding ancient citations)

Abbreviations follow the conventions recommended in the American Journal of Archaeology 95 (1991), 1–16. Aboud, J. 1994. Die Rolle des Königs und seiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit (Münster). Acheson, P.E. 1999. “The Role of Force in the Development of Early Mycenaean Polities,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 97–104. Åkerström, Å. 1952. “En Mykensk Krukmakares Verkstad,” Arkeologiska Forskningar och Fynd, Studier utgivna med anledning av H. M. Konung Gustaf VI Adolfs Sjuttiårsdag (Stockholm) 32–46. Albers, G. 1994. Spätmykenische Stadtheiligtümer: systematische Analyse und vergleichende Auswertung der archäologischen Befunde (BAR 596, Oxford). ———. 2001. “Rethinking Mycenaean Sanctuaries,” in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., POTNIA (Aegaeum 22, Liège) 131–141. Alden, M. 2000. Homer Beside Himself (Oxford). Aldred, C. 1998. The Egyptians, 3rd ed. (London). Alexiou, S. 1987. “Minoan Palaces as Centres of Trade and Manufacture,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 251–253. Allen, T.W. 1924. Homer: The Origins and the Transmission (Oxford).

174

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Anderson, J.K. 1995. “The Geometric Catalogue of Ships,” in J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris, eds., The Ages of Homer (Austin) 181–191. Anderson, Ø., and M. Dickie, eds. 1995. Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality (Norwegian Institute at Athens 3, Bergen). Andreev, J.V. 1979. “Könige und Königsherrschen in den Epen Homers,” Klio 61: 361–384. Andrews, A. 1967. The Greeks (London). Angel, J.L. 1971. Lerna, A Preclassical Site in the Argolid: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens II: The People (Princeton). ———. 1972. “Human Skeletons from Grave Circles at Mycenae,” in G.E. Mylonas, 1972–1973, JO tafiko;" kuvklo" B tw'n Mukhnw'n (Athens) 377–428. Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. “Lefkandi and Homer,” in Ø. Anderson and M. Dickie, eds., Homer’s World (Bergen) 5–27. Aravantinos, V.L. 1995. “Old and New Evidence for the Palatial Society of Mycenaean Thebes: An Outline,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 613–622. ———. 1999a. “Mycenaean Texts and Contexts at Thebes: The Discovery of New Linear B Archives on the Kadmeia,” in S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, and O. Panagl, eds., Floreant Studia Mycenaea (Vienna) 45–78. ———. 1999b. “On the Traces of the Ruling Class of Mycenaean Thebes,” in I. Kilian-Dirlmeier and M. Egg, eds., Eliten in der Bronzezeit, Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen (Mainz) 129. ———. 2000. “Le scoperte archeologiche ed epigrafische micenee a Tebe: un bilancio riassuntivo di un quinquennio (1993–97) di scavi,” in P.A. Bernardini, ed., Presenza e funzione della città di Tebe nella cultura Greca (Pisa and Rome) 27–59. Aravantinos, V.L., and L. Godart, A. Sacconi. 2001. Thèbes: Fouilles de la Cadmée I (Pisa and Rome). Ashbee, P., and I.W. Cornwall. 1961. “An Experiment in Field Archaeology,” Antiquity 35: 129–134. Atkinson, T.A., and R.C. Bosanquet, C.C. Edgar, A.J. Evans, D.G. Hogarth, D. MacKenzie, C. Smith, F.B. Welch. 1904. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos Conducted by the British School at Athens (JHS Suppl. 4, London). Aura Jorro, F. 1985 and 1993. Diccionario Micénico 1 and 2 (Madrid). Bakker, E. 1997. “The Study of Homeric Discourse,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 284–304. Bakker, E., and A. Kahane, eds. 1997. Written Voice, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance and the Epic Text (Cambridge, Mass.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

Barber, E.J.W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Age with Special Reference to the Aegean (Princeton). Barber, R.L.N. 1992. “The Origins of the Mycenaean Palace,” in J.M. Sanders, ed., FILOLAKWN. Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (Athens) 11–23. Bass, G.F. 1997. “Beneath the Wine Dark Sea: Nautical Archaeology and the Phoenicians of the Odyssey,” in J.E. Coleman and C.A Walz, eds., Greeks and Barbarians: Essays on the Interactions between Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism (Bethesda, Md.) 71–101. ———. 1998. “Sailing between the Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B.C.,” in E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, eds., The Aegean and the Orient (Aegaeum 18, Liège) 186–189. Baumbach, L. 1992. “The People at Knossos: Further Thoughts on Some of the Personal Names,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 57–63. Bendall, L.M. 2001. “The Economics of Potnia in the Linear B Documents: Palatial Support for Mycenaean Religion,” in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., POTNIA (Aegaeum 22, Liège) 445–452. ———. 2003. “A Reconsideration of the Northeastern Building at Pylos: Evidence for a Mycenaean Redistributive Center,” AJA 107: 181–231. Bennet, J. 1985. “The Structure of Linear B Administration at Knossos,” AJA 89: 231–249. ———. 1992. “‘Collectors’ or ‘Owners’? An Examination of Their Possible Functions within the Palatial Economy of LM III Crete,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 65–101. ———. 1995. “Space through Time: Diachronic Perspectives on the Spatial Organization of the Pylian State,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 587–602. ———. 1997. “Homer and the Bronze Age,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 511–533. ———. 1998. “The Linear B Archives and the Kingdom of Nestor,” in J.L. Davis, ed., Sandy Pylos (Austin) 111–138. ———. 1999. “Pylos: The Expansion of a Mycenaean Palatial Center,” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 9–18. ———. 2001. “Agency and Bureaucracy: Thoughts on the Nature and Extent of Administration in Bronze Age Pylos,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 25–37.

176

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Bennett, E.L., Jr. 1956. “The Landholders of Pylos,” AJA 60: 103–133. ———. 1966. “Some Local Differences in the Linear B Script,” Hesperia 35: 295–309. ———. 1986. “The Inscribed Stirrup Jar and Pinacology,” in Fivlia [Eph eij" Gewvrgion jE. Mulwna'n I (Athens) 136–143. Bennett, E.L., Jr., ed. 1958. The Mycenae Tablets II in TAPS 48(1): 1–122. Bernabé, A. 1987. Poetae Epici Graeci: Testmonia et Fragmenta I (Leipzig). Bernal, M. 1987. “On the Transmission of the Alphabet to the Aegean before 1400 B.C.,” BASOR 267: 1–20. Bernardini, P.A., ed. 2000. Presenza e funzione della città di Tebe nella cultura Greca: Atti del convegno internazionale (Urbino 7–9 Iuglio 1997) (Pisa and Rome). Betancourt, P.P. 1976. “The End of the Greek Bronze Age,” Antiquity 50: 40–47. ———. 2000. “The Aegean and the Origin of the Sea Peoples,” in E.D. Oren, ed., The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment (Philadelphia) 297–303. Betancourt, P.P. and C. Davaras, eds. 1995. Pseira I (Philadelphia). Betancourt, P.P., and V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, W.-D. Niemeier, eds. 1999. MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters his 65th Year (Aegaeum 20, Liège). Billigmeier, J.-C., and J.A. Turner. 1981. “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 (London) 1–18. Bintliff, J.L., ed. 1977. Mycenaean Geography: Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium, September 1976 (Cambridge). Blackman, D. 2000. “Archaeology in Greece 1999–2000,” JHS Archaeological Reports for 1999–2000: 3–151. ———. 2002. “Archaeology in Greece 2001–2002,” JHS Archaeological Reports for 2001–2002: 1–115. Blegen, C.W. 1921. Korakou: A Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth (Boston). ———. 1928. Zygouries: A Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae (Cambridge, Mass.). ———. 1937. Prosymna: The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum (Cambridge, Mass.). Blegen, C.W., and M. Rawson. 1966. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia I: The Buildings and Their Contents (Princeton). Blegen, C.W., and M. Rawson, W. Taylour, W.P. Donovan. 1973. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia III: Acropolis and Lower Town, Tholoi and Grave Circle, Chamber Tombs, Discoveries Outside the Citadel (Princeton).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

Bloedow, E.F. 1995. “Human and Environmental Interaction in the Emergence and Decline of Mycenaean State and Society,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 639–647. ———. 1997. “Itinerant Craftsmen and Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., TEXNH (Aegaeum 16, Liège) 439–447. ———. 1999. “‘Hector is a Lion’: New Light on Warfare in the Aegean Bronze Age from the Homeric Simile,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 285–294. Boedeker, D. 1993. “Hero Cult and Politics in Herodotus: The Bones of Orestes,” in C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, eds., Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics (Cambridge) 164–177. Bokotopoulou, I., and A. Despoine, B. Misaelidou, M. Tiberios. 1985. Sivndo", Katavlogo" th'" E [ kqesh", A j rcaiologikov Mouseivo Qessalonivkh" (Athens). Bordreuil, P., ed. 1991. Ras Shamra-Ougarit VII: une bibliothèque au sud de la ville (Paris). Bordreuil P., and D. Pardee. 1989. Ras Shamra-Ougarit V: la trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit (Paris). ———. 1995. “L’épigraphie ougaritique: 1973–1993,” in M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, eds., Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI (Paris) 27–32. Branigan, K. 1987. “The Economic Role of the First Palaces,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 245–249. Braswell, B.K. 1971. “Mythological Innovations in the Iliad,” CQ 21: 16–26. Bryce, T.R. 1989a. “The Nature of Mycenaean Involvement in Western Anatolia,” Historia 38: 1–20. ———. 1989b. “Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeans—An Anatolian Viewpoint,” OJA 8: 297–310. ———. 1998. The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford). ———. 1999. “Anatolian Scribes in Mycenaean Greece,” Historia 48: 257–264. Buchholz, H.-G. 1999. Ugarit, Zypern und Ägäis: Kulturbesiehungen im zweiten Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Münster). Buchholz, H.-G., and V. Karageorghis. 1971. Altägäis und Altkyprus (Tübingen). Burgess, J.S. 1996. “The Non-Homeric Cypria,” TAPA 126: 77–99. ———. 2001. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle (Baltimore and London).

178

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Burkert, W. 1972. “Die Leistung eines Kreophylos: Kreophyleer, Homeriden und die archaische Heraklesepik,” MusHelv 29: 74–85. ———. 1979. “Kynaithos, Polycrates, and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo,” in G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert, and M.C.J. Putman, eds., Arktouros: Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard M.W. Knox on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Berlin and New York), 53–62. ———. 1987. “The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century B.C.: Rhapsodes versus Stesichoros,” in A.P.A. Belloli, ed., Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World: Colloquium Sponsored by the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Symposium (Malibu) 43–62. ———. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influences on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, trans. M.E. Pinder and W. Burkert (Cambridge, Mass. and London). ———. 1995. “Lydia between East and West or How to Date the Trojan War: A Study in Herodotus,” in J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris, eds., The Ages of Homer (Austin) 139–148. Calame, C. 1987. “Spartan Genealogies: The Mythological Representation of a Spatial Organization,” in J. Bremmer, ed., Interpretations of Greek Mythology (London) 153–186. Calhoun, G.M. 1935. “Zeus the Father in Homer,” TAPA 66: 1–17. Carlier, P. 1984. La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre (Strasbourg). ———. 1987. “A Propos Des te-re-ta,” in P. Hr. Ilievski and L. Crepajac, eds., Tractata Mycenaea (Skopje) 65–73. ———. 1991. “La procédure de décision politique, du monde mycénien à l’époque archaïque,” in D. Musti, A. Sacconi, L. Rocchetti, M. Rocchi, E. Scafa, L. Sportiello, and M.E. Giannotta, eds., La Transizione dal Miceneo all’ Alto Archaismo. Dal palazzo alla città (Rome) 85–94. ———. 1992. “Les collecteurs sont-ils des fermiers?” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 159–166. ———. 1995. “Qa-si-re-u et Qa-si-re-wi-ja,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 354–364. ———. 1996. “A propos des artisans wa-na-ka-te-ro,” SMEA 98: 569–580. Carpenter, M. 1983. “ki-ti-me-na and ke-ke-me-na at Pylos,” Minos 18: 81–88. Carpenter, R. 1946. Folk Tale, Fiction, and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Carter, J.B., and S.P. Morris, eds. 1995. The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (Austin). Caskey, J.L. 1957. “Excavations at Lerna: 1956,” Hesperia 26: 142–162.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

Catling, H.W. 1976–1977. “Excavations in the Menelaion, Sparta, 1973–76,” JHS Archaeological Reports for 1976–1977: 24–42. Catling, H.W., and J.F. Cherry, R.E. Jones, J.T. Killen. 1980. “The Linear B Inscribed Stirrup Jars and West Crete,” BSA 75: 49–113. Catling, H.W., and R.E. Jones. 1977. “A Reinvestigation of the Inscribed Stirrup Jars Found at Thebes,” Archaeometry 19: 137–146. Catling, H.W., and A. Millett. 1965. “A Study of the Inscribed Stirrup-Jars from Thebes,” Archaeometry 8: 3–85. Caubet, A., and V. Matoian. 1995. “Ougarit et l’Egée,” in M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, eds., Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI (Paris) 99–112. Cavanagh, W., and M. Curtis, eds. 1998. Post-Minoan Crete. Proceedings of the First Colloquium on Post-Minoan Crete held by the British School at Athens and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 10–11 November 1995 (London). Cavanagh, W., and C. Mee. 1984. “Mycenaean Tombs as Evidence for Social and Political Organisation,” OJA 3(3): 45–61. ———. 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (SIMA 125, Jonsered). ———. 1999. “Building the Treasury of Atreus,” in P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., MELETEMATA (Aegaeum 20, Liège) 93–103. Chadwick, J. 1976a. The Mycenaean World (Cambridge). ———. 1976b. “Who Were the Dorians?” PP 31: 103–117. ———. 1985. “What Do We Really Know about Mycenaean Religion?” in A. Morpurgo Davies and Y. Duhoux, eds., Linear B: A 1984 Survey (Leuven) 191–202. ———. 1987. “The Muster of the Pylian Fleet,” in P. Hr. Ilievski and L. Crepajac, eds., Tractata Mycenaea (Skopje) 75–84. ———. 1988. “The Women of Pylos,” in J.-P. Olivier and T.G. Palaima, eds., Texts, Tablets and Scribes (Minos Suppl. 10, Salamanca) 43–95. ———. 1990. “The Descent of the Greek Epic,” JHS 110: 174–177. Chadwick, J., ed. 1962. The Mycenae Tablets III in TAPS 52(7): 1–76. Chadwick, J., and L. Godart, J.T. Killen, J.-P. Olivier, A. Sacconi, I.A. Sakellarakis. 1992. Corpus of Mycenaean Inscriptions from Knossos II (Cambridge). Chapin, A.P. 2004. “Power, Privilege, and Landscape in Minoan Art,” in A.P. Chapin, ed., CARIS: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, Hesperia Supplement 33: 47–64. Cherry, J.F., and J.L. Davis. 1999. “An Archaeological Homily,” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 91–98.

180

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Chryssoulaki, S. 1999. “Minoan Roads and Guard Houses—War Regained,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 75–83. Clay, J.S. 1997. “The Homeric Hymns,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 489–507. Cline, E.H. 1994. Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (BAR 591, Oxford). ———. 1995. “‘My Brother, My Son’: Rulership and Trade between Late Bronze Aegean, Egypt and the Near East,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 143–150. Cline, E.H., and D. Harris-Cline, eds. 1998. The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18–20 April 1997 (Aegaeum 18, Liège). Cohen, B., ed. 1995. The Distaff Side: Representing the Female in Homer’s Odyssey (Oxford and New York). Combellack, F.M. 1959. “Milman Parry and Homeric Artistry,” Comparative Literature 11: 193–208. ———. 1976. “Homer the Innovator,” CP 71: 44–55. Cook, E.F. 1995. The Odyssey in Athens: Myths of Cultural Origins (Ithaca and London). ———. 2001. “Homer and the Near East: The Palace of Alkinoös,” lecture delivered at Princeton University, October 15, 2001. ———. 2004. “Near Eastern Sources for the Palace of Alkinoös,” AJA 108: 43–77. Cook, E.F., and T.G. Palaima. 2001. “New Perspectives on Pylian Cults, Sacrifices and Society in the ‘Odyssey’.” Abstract of paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Philological Association on January 3–6, 2001, San Diego, Calif. Coulson, W.D.E. 1990. Review of Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments through Changing Times, by K. Fagerström. AJA 94: 349–351. ———. 1998. “The Early Iron Age at Kavousi in East Crete,” in W. Cavanagh and M. Curtis, eds., Post-Minoan Crete (London) 40–44. Crielaard, J.P., ed. 1995. Homeric Questions: Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology, Including the Papers of a Conference Organized by the Netherlands Institute at Athens (15 May 1993) (Netherlands Institute at Athens 2, Amsterdam). Crouwel, J.H. 1981. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece (Allard Pierson Series 3, Amsterdam). ———. 1991. The Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery (Well Built Mycenae 21, Oxford).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

———. 2001. Review of Schliemanns Schachtgräberrund und der europäische Nordosten: Studien zur Herkunft der frühmykenischen Streitwagenausstattung, by S. Penner. AJA 105: 545–546. Dalby A. 1995. “The ILIAD and ODYSSEY and their Audiences,” CQ 45: 269–279. Darcque, P. 1987. “Les tholoi et l’organisation socio-politique du monde mycénien,” in R. Laffineur, ed., THANATOS (Aegaeum 1, Liège) 183–205. ———. 1990. “Pour l’abandon du terme ,” in P. Darcque and R. Treuil, eds., L’habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, l’Université de Paris I et l’Ecole française d’Athènes (Athènes, 23–25 juin 1987) (BCH Suppl. 19, Athens and Paris) 21–31. Davies, M. 1988. Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen). ———. 1989. The Epic Cycle (Bristol). Davies, W.V., and L. Schofield, eds. 1995. Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London). Davis, E.N. 1977. The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware (New York and London). ———. 1995. “Art and Politics in the Aegean: The Missing Ruler,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 11–20. Davis, J.L., ed. 1998. Sandy Pylos: An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino (Austin). Davis, J.L., and S.E. Alcock, J. Bennet, Y.G. Lolos, C.W. Shelmerdine. 1997. “The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part 1: Overview and Archaeological Survey,” Hesperia 66: 391–494. Davis, J.L., and J. Bennet 1999. “Making Mycenaeans: Warfare, Territorial Expansion, and Representations of the Other in the Pylian Kingdom,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 105–118. Davison, J.A. 1962. “Literature and Literacy in Ancient Greece,” Phoenix 16: 141–156. Day, P.M., and H.W. Haskell. 1995. “Transport Stirrup Jars from Thebes as Evidence of Trade in Late Bronze Age Greece” in C. Gillis, C. Risberg, and B. Sjöberg, eds., Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Aspects of Greek Trade. Proceedings of the Third International Workshop, Athens, 1993 (SIMA-PB 134, Jonsered) 87–109. de Fidio, P. 1992. “Mycènes et Proche-Orient, ou le théorème des modèles,” in J.P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 173–196. ———. 2001. “Centralization and its Limits in the Mycenaean Palatial System,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 15–24.

182

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Deger-Jalkotzy, S. 1995. “Mykenische Herrschaftsformen ohne Paläste und die griechische Polis,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 375–377. ———. 1998. “The Aegean Islands and the Breakdown of the Mycenaean Palaces around 1200 B.C.,” in V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, eds., Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete, 16th–6th cent. B.C. (Athens) 105–120. ———. 1999. “Military Prowess and Social Status in Mycenaean Greece,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 121–131. Deger-Jalkotzy, S., and S. Hiller, O. Panagl, eds. 1999. Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1–5. Mai 1995 (Vienna). Delivorrias, A. 2000. A Guide to the Benaki Museum (Athens). Demakopoulou, K., and N. Divari-Valakou. 1992–1993. “A Linear B Inscribed Stirrup Jar from Midea (MI Z 2),” Minos 27–28: 303–305. ———. 1994–1995. “New Finds with Linear B Inscriptions from Midea (MI Z 2, Wv 3, Z 4),” Minos 29–30: 323–328. ———. 1999. “The Fortifications of the Mycenaean Acropolis of Midea,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 205–213. Demargne, P. 1964. The Birth of Greek Art (New York). Desborough, V.R. d’A. 1964. The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors: An Archaeological Survey c. 1200–c. 1000 B.C. (London). ———. 1972. The Greek Dark Ages (London). Diakonoff, I.M. 1974. Sumer: Society and State in Ancient Mesopotamia (English résumé, Malibu). Diamant, S. 1988. “Mycenaean Origins: Infiltrators from the North?” in E.W. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Problems in Greek Prehistory (Bristol) 133–159. Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1977. The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation (SIMA 49, Göteborg). ———. 1986. “Homer, the Poet of the Dark Ages,” GaR 33: 20–37. ———. 1989. “‘The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation’ Revisited,” in R. Laffineur, ed., TRANSITION (Aegaeum 3, Liège) 131–136. ———. 1994. The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge). ———. 1997. “Art and Artifacts in the Shaft Graves: Some Observations,” in R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., TEXNH (Aegaeum 16, Liège) 45–49. ———. 1999a. “Robert Drews’s Theories about the Nature of Warfare in the Late Bronze Age,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 21–27.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

———. 1999b. “The Catalogue of Ships and All That,” in P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., MELETEMATA (Aegaeum 20, Liège) 207–210. Dietz, S. 1991. The Argolid at the Transition to the Mycenaean Age: Studies in the Chronology and Cultural Development in the Shaft Grave Period (Copenhagen). Donlan, W. 1989. “The Unequal Exchange between Glaucus and Diomedes in Light of the Homeric Gift Economy,” Phoenix 43: 1–15. ———. 1997. “The Homeric Economy,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 649–667. Doumas, C. 1998. “Aegeans in the Levant: Myth and Reality,” in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition (Jerusalem) 129–137. Dowden, K. 1996. “Homer’s Sense of Text,” JHS 116: 47–61. Drews, R. 1983. Basileus: The Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece (New Haven and London). ———. 1988. The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East (Princeton). ———. 1993. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. (Princeton). Driessen, J. 1985. “Quelque remarques sur la (As 1516) de Cnossos,” Minos 19: 169–193. ———. 1990. An Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace at Knossos: A New Interpretation of the Excavation Field-Notes of the South-East Area of the West Wing (Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia 2, Leuven). ———. 1992. “‘Collector’s items.’ Observations sur l’élite mycénienne de Cnossos,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 197–214. ———. 1994–1995. “Data Storage for Reference and Prediction at the Dawn of Civilization? A Review Article with Some Observations on Archives Before Writing,” Minos 29–30: 239–256. ———. 2000. The Scribes of the Room of the Chariot Tablets at Knossos: Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of a Linear B Deposit (Minos Suppl. 15, Salamanca). ———. 2001a. “Minoan versus Mycenaean Bookkeeping and the Legitimation of Power at Knossos,” AJA 105: 276. ———. 2001b. “Centre and Periphery: Some Observations on the Administration of the Kingdom of Knossos,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 96–112. Driessen, J., and A. Farnoux, eds. 1997. La Crète mycénienne. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par l’Ecole française d’Athènes (26–28 Mars, 1991) (BCH Suppl. 30, Athens).

184

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Duhoux, Y. 1998. “Autour de la tmèse grecque. Situation dialectale à l’époque mycénienne; datation de l’épopée,” in L. Isebaert and R. Lebrun, eds., Quaestiones Homericae. Acta Colloquii Namurcensis habiti diebus 7–9 mensis Septembris anni 1995 (Collection d’Etudes Classiques 9, Leuven-Namur) 71–80. Edwards, G.P. 1971. The Language of Hesiod in its Traditional Context (Oxford). Edwards, M.W. 1987. Homer, Poet of the Iliad (Baltimore and London). ———. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary V: Books 17–20 (Cambridge). ———. 1997. “Homeric Style and ‘Oral Poetics’,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 261–283. Evans, A. 1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos IV (London). Evely, D. 1996. “The Neo-Palatial Minoan Warrior: Fact or Fiction?” in D. Evely, I.S. Lemos, and E.S. Sherratt, eds., Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (BAR 638, Oxford) 59–69. Evely, D., and H. Hughes-Brock, N. Momigliano, eds. 1994. Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood (Oxford and Northampton). Evelyn-White, H.G. 1914. Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns, and Homerica (Cambridge, Mass.) Fagerström, K. 1988. Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments through Changing Times (SIMA 81, Göteborg). Faraone, C.A. 1996. “Taking the ‘Nestor’s Cup Inscription’ Seriously: Erotic Magic and Conditional Curses in the Earliest Inscribed Hexameters,” ClAnt 15: 77– 112. Farnoux, A., and J.M. Driessen. 1991. “Inscriptions peintes en Linéaire B à Malia,” BCH 115: 71–94. Fenik, B.C. 1968. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description (Wiesbaden). Ferrence, S., and K. Melesanaki, M.P. Mateo, D. Anglos. 2002. “A Link Between the Shaft Graves of Mycenae and Crete: Silver Coatings for Bronze Rivets on Aegean Daggers,” AJA 106: 251. Feuer, B. 2004. Mycenaean Civilization: An Annotated Bibliography through 2002 (Jefferson, NC, revised edition). Finkelberg, M. 1991. “Royal Succession in Heroic Greece,” CQ 41: 303–316. ———. 2000. “The Cypria, the Iliad, and the Problem of Multiformity in Oral and Written Literature,” CP 95: 1–11. Finley, M.I. 1954. The World of Odysseus (New York). ———. 1957. “Homer and Mycenae: Property and Tenure,” Historia 6: 133–159. ———. 1981. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (London, reprint).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

Firth, R. 1992–1993. “A Statistical Analysis of the Greekness of Men’s Names on the Knossos Linear B Tablets,” Minos 27–28: 83–100. Fittschen, K. 1969. Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellung bei den Griechen (Berlin). Foley, J.M. 1996. “Guslar and Aiodes: Traditional Register in South Slavic and Homeric Epic,” TAPA 126: 11–41. ———. 1997. “Oral Tradition and its Implications,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 146–173. ———. 1998. “Individual Poet and Epic Tradition: Homer as Legendary Singer,” Arethusa 31: 149–178. Forbes, R.J. 1972. Studies in Ancient Technology IX, 2nd ed. (Leiden). Ford, A. 1992. Homer: The Poetry of the Past (Ithaca and London). ———. 1997. “The Inland Ship: Problems in the Performance and Reception of Homeric Epic,” in E. Bakker and A. Kahane, eds., Written Voice, Spoken Signs (Cambridge, Mass.) 83–109. ———. 2003. “From Letters to Literature: Reading the ‘Song Culture’ of Classical Greece,” in H. Yunis, ed., Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece (Cambridge) 15–37. Foster, B.R. 1987. “The Late Bronze Age Palace Economy: A View from the East,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 11–16. Foster, E.D. 1977. “An Administrative Department at Knossos Concerned with Perfumery and Offerings,” Minos 16: 19–51. Fowler, R.L. 1987. The Nature of Early Greek Lyric (Toronto). French, E. Wace. 1963. “Pottery Groups from Mycenae: A Summary,” BSA 58: 44–52. ———. 1981. “Cult Places at Mycenae,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age (Stockholm) 41–45. ———. 2002. Mycenae: Agamemnon’s Capital (Gloucestershire). French, E. Wace, and K.A. Wardle, eds. 1988. Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986 (Bristol). Friis Johansen, K. 1967. The Iliad in Early Greek Art (Copenhagen). Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification (Stockholm). Gaebel, R.E. 2002. Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World (Norman, Ok.). Gaertner, J.F. 2001. “The Homeric Catalogues and their Function in Epic Narrative,” Hermes 129: 298–305.

186

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Galaty, M.L. 1999. “Wealth Ceramics, Staple Ceramics: Pots and the Mycenaean Palaces,” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 49–59. Galaty, M.L., and W.A. Parkinson. 1997. “The ‘Palatial Control’ of Production and Distribution in a Late Bronze Age State Economy,” AJA 101: 375–376. Galaty, M.L., and W.A. Parkinson, eds. 1999. Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology 41, Los Angeles). Garcia, C.V. 1999. “The Palace of Mycenae in LH III B 2 According to the Documents in Linear B: A General Description,” in S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, and O. Panagl, eds., Floreant Studia Mycenaea (Vienna) 595–600. Gates, C. 1985. “Rethinking the Building History of Grave Circle A at Mycenae,” AJA 89: 263–274. Gejvall, N.-G. 1969. Lerna, A Preclassical Site in the Argolid: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens I: The Fauna (Princeton). George, A. 1999. The Epic of Gilgamesh (London). Gillis, C. 1997. “The Smith in the Late Bronze Age—State Employee, Independent Artisan, or Both?” in R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., TEXNH (Aegaeum 16, Liège) 505–513. Gillis, C., and C. Risberg, B. Sjöberg, eds. 1997. Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the Craftsman. Proceedings of the 4th and 5th International Workshops, Athens, 1994 and 1995 (SIMA-PB 143, Jonsered). Gitin, S., and A. Mazar, E. Stern, eds. 1998. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan (Jerusalem). Godart, L. 1988. “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982–1983: Autour des textes en Linéaire B de Tirynthe,” AA 1988: 245–250. ———. 1992. “Les collecteurs dans le monde égéen,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 257–283. Godart, L., and J.T. Killen, J.-P. Olivier. 1983. “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981: Eighteen More Fragments of Linear B Tablets from Tiryns,” AA 1983: 413–426. Godart, L., and A. Sacconi. 2000. “Tebe, Demetra ed Eleusi,” in P.A. Bernardini, ed., Presenza e funzione della città di Tebe nella cultura Greca (Pisa and Rome) 17–26. Goldman, H. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia (Cambridge, Mass.). Gray, D.H.F. 1958. “Mycenaean Names in Homer,” JHS 78: 43–48. Graziadio, G. 1988. “The Chronology of the Graves in Circle B at Mycenae: A New Hypothesis,” AJA 92: 343–372. ———. 1991. “Social Stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period,” AJA 95: 403–440.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

Graziosi, B. 2002. Inventing Homer: The Early Reception of Epic (Cambridge). Gregersen, M.L.B. 1997a. “Pylian Craftsmen: Payment in Kind/Rations or Lands?” in R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., TEXNH (Aegaeum 16, Liège) 397–405. ———. 1997b. “Craftsmen in the Linear B Archives,” in C. Gillis, C. Risberg, and B. Sjöberg, eds., Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the Craftsman (SIMA-PB 143, Jonsered) 43–55. Griffin, J. 1977. “The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer,” JHS 97: 39–53. ———. 1995. Homer: Iliad Book Nine (Oxford). Gschnitzer, F. 1965. “BASILEUS: Ein terminologischer Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des Königtums bei den Griechen,” Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 11: 99–112. ———. 1971. “Stammesnamen in den mykenischen Texten,” in R. SchmittBrandt, ed., Donum Indogermanicum: Festgabe für A. Scherer (Heidelberg) 90–106. Gunn, D.M. 1970. “Narrative Inconsistency and the Oral Dictated Text in the Homeric Epic,” AJP 91: 192–203. Güterbock, H.-G. 1983. “The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part 1. The Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered,” AJA 87: 133–138. Hägg, R. 1992. “Sanctuaries and Workshops in the Bronze Age Aegean,” in T. Linders and B. Alroth, eds., Economics of Cult in the Ancient Greek World. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium, 1990 (Uppsala) 20–32. ———. 1995. “State and Religion in Mycenaean Greece,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 387–390. Hägg, R., ed. 1983. The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1–5 June, 1981 (Stockholm). Hägg, R., and N. Marinatos, eds. 1981. Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May, 1980 (Stockholm). ———. 1987. The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984 (Stockholm). Hainsworth, J.B. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary III: Books 9–12 (Cambridge). Hall, J.M. 2000. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge, reprint). Hallager, E. 1977. The Mycenaean Palace at Knossos: Evidence for the Final Destruction in the III B Period (Stockholm). ———. 1987. “The Inscribed Stirrup Jars: Implications for Late Minoan IIIB Crete,” AJA 91: 171–190. ———. 1996. The Minoan Roundel and other Sealed Documents in the Neopalatial Linear A Administration (Aegaeum 14, Liège).

188

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Hallager, E., and M. Vlasakis. 1997. “New Linear B Tablets from Khania,” in J.M. Driessen and A. Farnoux, eds., La Crète mycénienne (BCH Suppl. 30, Athens) 169–174. Hallager, E., and M. Vlasakis, B.P. Hallager. 1992. “New Linear B Tablets from Khania,” Kadmos 31: 61–87. Halstead, P. 1990–1991. “Lost Sheep? On the Linear B Evidence for Breeding Flocks at Mycenaean Knossos and Pylos,” Minos 25–26: 343–365. ———. 1992. “The Mycenaean Palatial Economy: Making the Most of the Gaps in the Evidence,” PCPS 38: 57–86. ———. 1995. “Late Bronze Age Grain Crops and Linear B Ideograms *65, *120, and *121,” BSA 90: 229–234. ———. 1999a. “Surplus and Share-Croppers: The Grain Production Strategies of Mycenaean Palaces,” in P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.D. Niemeier, eds., MELETEMATA (Aegaeum 20, Liège) 319–326. ———. 1999b. “Towards a Model of Mycenaean Palatial Mobilization,” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 35–41. ———. 2001. “Mycenaean Wheat, Flax and Sheep: Palatial Intervention in Farming and its Implications for Rural Society,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 38–50. Halverson, J. 1998. “The Succession Issue in the Odyssey,” 1986. Reprint in I. McAuslan and P. Walcot, eds., Homer (Greek & Rome Studies 4, Oxford) 116–125. Hammer, D. 2002. The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought (Norman, Ok.). Hampe, R., and E. Simon 1981. The Birth of Greek Art from the Mycenaean to the Archaic Period (New York). Hansen, W. 1997. “Homer and the Folktale,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 442–462. Harris, W.V. 1989. Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.). Haskell, H.W. 1981. “Coarse-ware Stirrup-jars at Mycenae,” BSA 76: 225–238. ———. 1984. “Pylos: Stirrup Jars and the International Oil Trade,” in C.W. Shelmerdine and T.G. Palaima, eds., Pylos Comes Alive (New York) 97–107. ———. 1985. “The Origin of the Aegean Stirrup Jar and its Earliest Evolution and Distribution (MB III–LB I),” AJA 89: 221–229. ———. 1997. “Trade and Production in ‘Mycenaean’ Crete,” in C. Gillis, C. Risberg, and B. Sjöberg, eds., Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the Craftsman (SIMA-PB 143, Jonsered) 101–111.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Haslam, M. 1997. “Homeric Papyri and Transmission of the Text,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 55–100. Haubold, J. 2000. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation (Cambridge). Havelock, E.A. 1982. The Literary Revolution in Greece and its Cultural Consequences (Princeton). Hawes, C.H., and H.B. Hawes. 1909. Crete, the Forerunner of Greece (London). Heath, J. 2001. “‘Telemachos pepnumevno.’ Growing into an Epithet,” Mnemosyne 54: 129–157. Hellmann, O. 2000. Die Schlachtszenen des Ilias: Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf in der Heroenzeit (Stuttgart). Heltzer, M. 1982. The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit (Wiesbaden). Heltzer, M., and E. Lipinski, eds. 1988. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.). Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of May 1985 (Leuven). Hielte-Stravropoulou, M. 2001. “The Horseshoe-Shaped and Other Structures and Installations for Performing Rituals in Funeral Contexts in Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Times,” in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., POTNIA (Aegaeum 22, Liège) 103–111. Higgins, R.A. 1961. Greek and Roman Jewelry (London). Hiller, S. 1981. “Heiligtümer: das Zeugnis der Linear B-Texte,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age (Stockholm) 95–126. ———. 1983. “Possible Historical Reasons for the Rediscovery of the Mycenaean Past in the Age of Homer,” in R. Hägg, ed., The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C. (Stockholm) 9–15. ———. 1987. “Palast und Tempel im alten Orient und im minoischen Kreta,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 57–64. ———. 1988. “Dependent Personnel in Mycenaean Texts,” in M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski, eds., Society and Economics in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.) (Leuven) 53–68. ———. 1990. “The Miniature Fresco in the West House—Evidence for Minoan Poetry?” in D.A. Hardy, ed., Thera and the Aegean World III I (London) 229–236. Hiller, S., and O. Panagl. 1976. Die frügriechischen Texts aus mykenischer Zeit (Darmstadt). Hirschfeld, N. 1992. “Cypriot Marks on Mycenaean Pottery,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 315–319.

190

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Hocker, F., and T.G. Palaima. 1990–1991. “Late Bronze Age Aegean Ships and the Pylos Tablets Vn 46 and Vn 879,” Minos 25–26: 245–317. Hoffmann, H., and P.F. Davidson. 1966. Greek Gold: Jewelry from the Age of Alexander (Boston). Hooker, J.T. 1977. Mycenaean Greece (London). ———. 1979. “The Wanax in Linear B Texts,” Kadmos 18: 100–101. ———. 1987a. “Minoan and Mycenaean Administration: A Comparison of the Knossos and Pylos Archives,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 313–316. ———. 1987b. “Titles and Functions in the Pylian State,” in J.T. Killen, J.L. Melena, and J.-P. Olivier, eds., Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick, Minos 20–22: 257–267. ———. 1999. The Coming of the Greeks (Claremont). Hope Simpson, R., and J.F. Lazenby. 1970. The Catalogue of Ships in Homer’s Iliad (Oxford). Horrocks, G. 1980. “The Antiquity of the Greek Epic Tradition: Some New Evidence,” PCPS 26: 1–11. ———. 1997a. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (London and New York). ———. 1997b. “Homer’s Dialect,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 193–217. Hugonot, J.-C. 1992. “Ägyptische Gärten,” in M. Carroll-Spillecke, ed., Der Gärten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter (Mainz) 9–44. Hurwit, J.M. 1993. “Art, Poetry and the Polis in the Age of Homer,” in S. Langdon, ed., From Pasture to Polis (Columbia, Mo.) 14–42. Iakovidis, S.E. 1962. JH mukhnai>kh; ajkrovpoli" tw'n jAqhnw'n (Athens). ———. 1969. Perath;, To; nekrotafei'on (Athens). ———. 1978. “A Hundred Years of Mycenaean Archaeology,” AntJ 58: 13–30. ———. 1983. Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece (Monumenta Graeca and Romana 4, Leiden). ———. 1998. Gla'" II. jH janaskafhv 1981–1991 (Athens). ———. 2000. “Mukh'ne",” Ergon 2000: 48–51. ———. 2001. Gla and the Kopais in the 13th Century B.C. (Athens). Ilievski, P.Hr. 1987. “MN a-ko-ro-qo-ro and the Terms for ‘Farmer’ in the Linear B Texts,” in P. Hr. Ilievski and L. Crepajac, eds., Tractata Mycenaea (Skopje) 151–161.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

———. 1992. “Observations on the Personal Names from the Knossos D Tablets,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 321–349. Ilievski, P.Hr., and L. Crepajac, eds. 1987. Tractata Mycenaea. Proceedings of the Eighth International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Held in Ohrid (15–20 September 1985) (Skopje). Immerwahr, S.A. 1971. The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens XIII: The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Princeton). ———. 1989. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (University Park, Pa. and London). Janko, R. 1982. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction (Cambridge). ———. 1990. “The Iliad and its Editors: Dictation and Redaction,” ClAnt 9: 326–334. ———. 1992. The Iliad: A Commentary IV: Books 13–16 (Cambridge). ———. 1998. “The Homeric Poems as Oral Dictated Tests,” CQ 48: 1–13. Jeffery, L.H. 1990. Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C., with supplement by A.W. Johnston (New York and Oxford). Jensen, M.S. 1980. The Homeric Question and the Oral-Formulaic Theory (Copenhagen). Johnston, A. 1983. “The Extent and Use of Literacy: The Archaeological Evidence,” in R. Hägg, ed., The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C. (Stockholm) 63–68. Jones, R.E. 1980. “Appendix E. Analysis of Gold Objects from the Cemeteries,” in M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett, and P.G. Themelis, eds. Lefkandi I: The Iron Age, the Settlement, the Cemeteries (Oxford) 461–464. Kakrides, I.T. 1986. JEllhnikh muqologiva V (Athens). Kannicht, R. 1982. “Poetry and Art: Homer and the Monuments Afresh,” ClAnt 1: 70–82. Karageorghis, V. 1976. View from the Bronze Age: Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries at Kition (New York). Karageorghis, V., ed. 1991. Proceedings of an International Symposium, “The Civilizations of the Aegean and their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000–600 B.C.,” 18–24 September 1989 (Larnaca) Karageorghis, V., and N. Stampolidis, eds. 1998. Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete, 16th–6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Rethymnon, 13–16 May, 1997 (Athens). Karantzali, E. 2001. The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes (BAR 988, Oxford).

192

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Kardulias, P.N. 1999. “Flaked Stone and the Role of the Palaces in the Mycenaean World System,” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 61–71. Karo, G. 1930–1933. Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (Munich). Kazanskiene, V.P. 1995. “Land Tenure and Social Position in Mycenaean Greece,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 603–611. Kilian, K. 1983. “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981,” AA 1983: 277–328. ———. 1987a. “L’architecture des résidences mycéniennes: origine et extension d’une structure du pouvoir politique pendant l’ âge du Bronze récent,” in E. Levy, ed., Le système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (19–22 juin 1985) (Strasbourg) 203–217. ———. 1987b. “Zur Funktion der mykenischen Residenzen auf dem griechischen Festland,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 21–38. ———. 1987c. “Der Hauptpalast von Mykene,” AM 102: 99–113. ———. 1988a. “The Emergence of the Wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces,” OJA 7: 291–302. ———. 1988b. “Die ‘Thronfolge’ in Tiryns,” AM 103: 1–9. ———. 1988c. “The Mycenaeans Up to Date: Trends and Changes in Recent Research” in E.W. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Problems in Greek Prehistory (Bristol) 115–152. Killen, J.T. 1964. “The Wool Industry of Crete in the Late Bronze Age,” BSA 59: 1–15. ———. 1981. “Some Puzzles in a Mycenae Personnel Record,” ZivaAnt 31: 37–45. ———. 1983. “On the Mycenae Ge Tablets,” in A. Heubeck and G. Neumann, eds., Res Mycenaeae. Akten des VII. internationalen mykenologischen Colloquims in Nürnberg vom 6.–10. April 1981 (Göttingen) 216–233. ———. 1984. “The Textile Industries at Pylos and Knossos,” in C.W. Shelmerdine and T.G. Palaima, eds., Pylos Comes Alive (New York) 49–63. ———. 1985. “The Linear B Tablets and the Mycenaean Economy,” in A. Morpurgo Davies and Y. Duhoux, eds., Linear B: A 1984 Survey (Leuven) 241–305. ———. 1992. “Names in -i on the Knossos Tablets,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 351–363. ———. 1994. “Thebes Sealings, Knossos Tablets and Mycenaean State Banquets,” BICS 39: 67–84. ———. 1995. “Some Further Thoughts on ‘Collectors’,” in R. Laffineur and W.D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 213–224.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

———. 1999. “Critique: A View from the Tablets,” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 87–90. ———. 2001a. “Some Further Thoughts on ta-ra-si-ja,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 161–180. ———. 2001b. “The Earliest Writers of Greek,” in P. Easterling and C. Handley, eds., Greek Scripts: An Illustrated Introduction (London) 1–9. ———. 2001c. “Religion at Pylos: The Evidence of the Fn Tablets,” in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., POTNIA (Aegaeum 22, Liège) 435–443. Killen, J.T., and J.L. Melena, J.-P. Olivier, eds. 1987. Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick, Minos 20–22. Kirk, G.S. 1976. Homer and the Oral Tradition (Cambridge). ———. 1985. The Iliad: A Commentary I: Books 1–4 (Cambridge). ———. 1990. The Iliad: A Commentary II: Books 5–8 (Cambridge). ———. 1998. “The Search for the Real Homer,” 1973. Reprint in I. McAuslan and P. Walcot, eds., Homer (Greek & Rome Studies 4, Oxford) 38–52. Knappett, C. 2001. “Overseen or Overlooked? Ceramic Production in a Mycenaean Palatial System,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 80–95. Knox, M.O. 1971. “Hut and Farm Buildings in Homer,” CQ 21: 27–31. Koehl, R.B. 1981. “The Functions of Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age (Stockholm) 178–187. ———. 1993. “Comments on the Nature of Minoan Kingship,” AJA 97: 321. ———. 1995. “The Nature of Minoan Kingship,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 23–35. Kopcke, G. 1987. “The Cretan Palaces and Trade,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 255–260. ———. 1995. “The Argolid in 1400—What Happened?” in R. Laffineur and W.D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 89–92. Kopcke, G., and I. Tomumaru, eds. 1992. Greece between East and West: 10th–8th Centuries BC. Papers of the Meeting at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, March 15–16, 1990 (Mainz). Kramer, S.N. 1963. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (Chicago). Krattenmaker, K. 1995. “Palace, Peak and Sceptre: The Iconography of Legitimacy,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 49–58.

194

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Kullmann, W. 1960. Die Quellen der Ilias (Wiesbaden). ———. 1981. “Zur Methode der Neoanalyse in der Homerforschung,” WS 15: 5–42. Kyriakidis, E. 1996–1997. “Some Aspects of the Role of Scribes in Pylian Palace Administration,” Minos 31–32: 201–229. ———. 2001. “The Economics of Potnia: Storage in ‘Temples’ of Prehistoric Greece,” in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., POTNIA (Aegaeum 22, Liège) 123–129. Laffineur, R. 1989. “Mobilier funéraire et hiérarchie sociale aux circles des tombes de Mycènes,” in R. Laffineur, ed., TRANSITION (Aegaeum 3, Liège) 227–238. ———. 1995. “Aspects of Rulership at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 81–93. Laffineur, R., ed. 1987. THANATOS. Les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21–23 avril 1986 (Aegaeum 1, Liège). ———. ed. 1989. TRANSITION. Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent. Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège (Aegaeum 3, Liège). ———. ed. 1999. POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Egée à l’ âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19, Liège). Laffineur, R., and L. Basch, eds. 1991. THALASSA. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’ Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographics (StaReSO), Calvi, Corse, 23–25 avril 1990 (Aegaeum 7, Liège). Laffineur, R., and P.P. Betancourt, eds. 1997. TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, 6e Rencontre égéene internationale, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16, Liège and Austin). Laffineur, R., and R. Hägg, eds. 2001. POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, 8e Rencontre égéene internationale, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22, Liège). Laffineur, R., and W.-D. Niemeier, eds. 1995. POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, 5e Rencontre égéene internationale, University of Heidelburg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12, Liège). Landenius-Enegren, H. 1995. “A Prosopographical Study of Scribal Hand 103, Methods, Aims and Problems,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 115–123. Lang, M.L. 1969. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia II: The Frescoes (Princeton).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

———. 1991. “The Alphabetic Impact on Archaic Greece,” in D. BuitronOliver, ed., New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Hanover and London) 65–79. Langdon, S.H. 1989. “The Return of the Horse-Leader,” AJA 93: 185–201. Langdon, S.H., ed. 1993. From Pasture to Polis: Art in the Age of Homer (Columbia, Mo.). ———. ed. 1997. New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece (Columbia, Mo. and London). Latacz, J. 1996. Homer, His Art and His World (Ann Arbor). ———. 2001. Troia und Homer: der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels (Berlin). Lattimore, R. 1951. The Iliad of Homer, translation and introduction (Chicago). Leaf, W. 1883. “Notes on Homeric Armour,” JHS 4: 281–304. Lejdegård, H. 1996–1997. “The Function and Social Position of the Mycenaean Qa-si-re-u,” Minos 31–32: 371–378. Lejeune, M. 1976. “Analyse du dossier Pylien Ea,” Minos 15: 81–115. Lenz, J.R. 1993. Kings and the Ideology of Kingship in Early Greece (c. 1200–700 B.C.): Epic, Archaeology and History, Ph.D. diss., Columbia University. Leonard, A., Jr. 1994. An Index to the Late Bronze Age Pottery from Syria-Palestine (SIMA 114, Jonsered). Leukart, A. 1992. “Les signes *76 (ra2, ‘rja’) et *68 (ro2, ‘rjo’) et le nom du grand prêtre de Poséidon (sinon du roi) à Pylos,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 387–405. Lindblom, M. 2001. Marks and Makers: Appearance, Distribution, and Function of Middle and Late Helladic Manufacturers’ Marks on Aeginetan Pottery (SIMA 128, Jonsered). Lindgren, M. 1973. The People of Pylos (Uppsala). Lipinski, E. 1988. “The Socio-Economic Condition of the Clergy in the Kingdom of Ugarit,” in M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski, eds., Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.) (Leuven) 125–150. Littauer, M.A., and J.H. Crouwel. 1996. “Robert Drews and the Role of Chariotry in Bronze Age Greece,” OJA 15: 297–305. ———. 2002. Selected Writings on Chariots, and other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 6, Leiden, Boston, and Cologne). Liverani, M. 1962. Storia di Ugarit nell’ età degli archivi politici (Rome). ———. 1995. “Le royaume d’Ougarit,” in M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, eds., Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI (Paris) 47–54.

196

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Lord, A.B. 1960. The Singer of Tales (Cambridge, Mass.). ———. 1962. “Homer and Other Epic Poetry,” in A.J.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings, eds., A Companion to Homer (London) 179–214. ———. 1991. Epic Singers and Oral Tradition (Ithaca and New York). ———. 1995. The Singer Resumes the Tale (Ithaca and New York). Lorimer, H.L. 1950. Homer and the Monuments (London). Lowenstam, S. 1997. “Talking Vases: The Relationship between the Homeric Poems and Archaic Representations of Epic Myth,” TAPA 127: 21–76. ———. 2000. “The Shroud of Laertes and Penelope’s Guile,” CJ 95: 333–348. Luce, J.V. 1975. Homer and the Heroic Age (London). Lupack, S. 1997. “The Role of Religious Personnel in Mycenaean Workshops,” AJA 101: 375. ———. 1998. “Religion in Bronze Age Workshops: Beyond the Palaces, and Back Again,” AJA 102: 415. ———. 1999. “The Role of the Religious Sector in Mycenaean Economics,” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 25–34. ———. 2001. “The Mycenaean Wanax in the Fr Series: An Ancestral Deity?” AJA 105: 304. Lynch, J. 1998. Pacific Languages (Honolulu). Mackie, C.J. 1997. “Achilles’ Teachers: Chiron and Phoenix in the Iliad,” GaR 44: 1–10. Makkay, J. 2000. The Early Mycenaean Rulers and the Contemporary Early Iranians of the Northeast (Budapest). Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London). Maran, J. 2000. “Das Megaron im Megaron: zur Datierung und Funktion des Antenbaus im mykenischen Palast von Tiryns,” AA 2000: 1–16. ———. 2001. “Political and Religious Aspects of Architectural Change on the Upper Citadel of Tiryns: The Case of Building T,” in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., POTNIA (Aegaeum 22, Liège) 113–121. Marchand, J. 2002. “A New Bronze Age Site in the Corinthia: The Orneai of Strabo and Homer?” Hesperia 71: 119–148. Margueron, J.-C. 1992. “Die Gärten im Vorderen Orient,” in M. Carroll-Spillecke, ed., Der Gärten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter (Mainz) 45–80. ———. 1995. “Le palais royal d’Ougarit,” in M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, eds., Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI (Paris) 183–202.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

Marinatos, N. 1988. “The Fresco from Room 31 at Mycenae: Problems of Method and Interpretation,” in E.W. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Problems in Greek Prehistory (Bristol) 245–251. ———. 1993. “The Mistress of the Throne Room at Knossos,” AJA 97: 321–322. ———. 1995. “Divine Kingship in Minoan Crete,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 37–47. Marinatos, S. 1959. “Basilika; mureyei'a kai; ajrcei'a ejn Mukhvnai",” PraktAkAth 33: 161–173. ———. 1960. “Mouriatavda,” Ergon 1960: 149–151. Martin, R.P. 1997. “Similes and Performance,” in E. Bakker and A. Kahane, eds., Written Voice, Spoken Signs (Cambridge, Mass.) 138–166. Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1997. From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 B.C.) (SIMA 121, Jonsered). McCallum, L.R. 1987. Decorative Program in the Mycenaean Palace of Pylos: The Megaron Frescoes, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. McDonald, W.A., and G. Rapp. 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment (Minneapolis). Mee, C. 1998a. “Gender Bias in Mycenaean Mortuary Practices,” in K. Branigan, ed., Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1, Sheffield) 165–170. ———. 1998b. “Anatolia and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age,” in E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, eds., The Aegean and the Orient (Aegaeum 18, Liège) 137–145. Menkes, M.S. 1978. Herakles in the Homeric Epics, Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins University. Merkelbach, R. 1952. “Die pisistratische Redaktion der homerischen Gedichte,” RhM 95: 23–47. Millard, A. 1995. “The Last Tablets of Ugarit,” in M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, eds., Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI (Paris) 119–124. Mills, S. 2000. “Achilles, Patroclus and Parental Care in Some Homeric Similes,” GaR 47: 3–18. Mirié, S. 1979. Das Thronraumareal des Palastes von Knossos: Versuch einer Neuinterpretation seiner Entstehung und seiner Funktion (Bonn). Mook, M.S. 1998. “Early Iron Age Domestic Architecture: The Northwest Building on the Kastro at Kavousi,” in W. Cavanagh and M. Curtis, eds., Post-Minoan Crete (London) 45–57. Morgan, L. 1988. The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera: A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (Cambridge).

198

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Morpurgo Davies, A. 1979. “Terminology of Power and Terminology of Work in Greek and Linear B,” in E. Risch and H. Mühlestein, eds., Colloquium Mycenaeum. Actes du sixième Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens tenu à Chaumont sur Neuchâtel du 7 au 13 septembre 1975 (Neuchâtel and Geneva) 87–108. Morpurgo Davies, A., and Y. Duhoux, eds. 1985. Linear B: A 1984 Survey (Leuven). Morris, I. 1986. “The Use and Abuse of Homer,” ClAnt 5: 81–138. ———. 1997. “Homer and the Iron Age,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 535–559. Morris, I., and B.B. Powell, eds. 1997. A New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York). Morris, S.P. 1989. “A Tale of Two Cities: The Miniature Frescoes from Thera and the Origins of Greek Poetry,” AJA 93: 511–535. ———. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art (Princeton) ———. 1997. “Homer and the Near East,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 599–623. ———. 2000. “From Thera to Scheria: Aegean Art and Narrative,” in E.S. Sherratt, ed., The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, 30 August–4 September 1997 I (Athens) 317–331. Mountjoy, P.A. 1986. Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification (SIMA 73, Göteborg). ———. 1998. “The East Aegean-West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa,” AnatSt 48: 33–67. ———. 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery (Rahden). Müller, K. 1930. Tiryns: die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts III. Die Architektur der Burg und des Palastes (Augsburg). Murnaghan, S. 2000. Introduction to Homer, Odyssey, trans. S. Lombardo (Indianapolis and Cambridge). Musgrave, J.H., and R.A.H. Neave, A.J.N. Prag. 1995. “Seven Faces from Grave Circle B at Mycenae,” BSA 90: 107–136. Myers, J.W., and E.E. Myers, G. Cadogan. 1992. The Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Mylonas, G.E. 1959. Aghios Kosmas: An Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery in Attica (Princeton). ———. 1962. “H ajkrovpoli" tw'n Mukhnw'n. Mevro" deuvteron. OiJ perivboloi, aiJ puvlai kai; aiJ a[nodoi,” Archaiologikes Ephemeris 1962 [1965], 1–199. ———. 1966a. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton). ———. 1966b. “The East Wing of the Palace at Mycenae,” Hesperia 35: 419–426.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

———. 1968. “A Tablet from Mycenae,” Kadmos 7: 65–67. ———. 1970. “A New Tablet from Mycenae, MY Fu 711,” Kadmos 9: 48–50. ———. 1972. To; qrhskeutiko;n kevntron tw'n Mukhnw'n (Athens). ———. 1972–1973. JO tafiko;" kuvklo" B tw'n Mukhnw'n I and II (Athens). ———. 1983. Mycenae Rich in Gold (Athens). Nagy, G. 1990a. Greek Mythology and Poetics (Ithaca). ———. 1990b. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore and London). ———. 1995. “An Evolutionary Model for the Making of Homeric Poetry: Comparative Perspectives,” in J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris, eds., The Ages of Homer (Austin) 163–179. ———. 1996. Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond (Cambridge). ———. 1997. “Ellipsis in Homer,” in E. Bakker and A. Kahane, eds., Written Voice, Spoken Signs (Cambridge, Mass.) 167–189. Naveh, J. 1982. Early History of the Alphabet (Jerusalem). Niemeier, W.-D. 1986. “Zur Deutung des Thronraumes im Palast von Knossos,” AM 101: 63–95. ———. 1991. “Minoan Artisans Traveling Overseas: The Alalakh Frescoes and the Painted Plaster Floor at Tel Kabri (Western Galilee),” in R. Laffineur and L. Basch, ed., THALASSA (Aegaeum 7, Liège) 189–200. ———. 1997a “The Mycenaean Potter’s Quarter at Miletus,” in R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., TEXNH (Aegaeum 16, Liège) 347–352. ———. 1997b. Review of The Role of the Ruler, ed. P. Rehak. AJA 101: 785–786. ———. 1998. “The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples,” in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition (Jerusalem) 17–65. ———. 1999. “Mycenaeans and Hittites in War in Western Asia Minor,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 141–156. Nilsson, M.P. 1930. The Mycenaean Origins of Greek Mythology (Berkeley). ———. 1951. Cults, Myths, Oracles, and Politics in Ancient Greece (Lund). Nosch, M.-L.B., and M. Perna. 2001. “Cloth in Cult,” in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., POTNIA (Aegaeum 22, Liège) 471–477. Notopoulos, J.A. 1952. “Homer and Cretan Heroic Poetry: A Study in Comparative Oral Poetry,” AJP 73: 225–250. ———. 1962. “The Homeric Hymns as Oral Poetry: A Study of the Post-Homeric Oral Tradition,” AJP 83: 337–368.

200

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

———. 1964. “Studies in Early Greek Poetry,” HSCP 68: 1–77. Nougayrol, J. 1956. “Le palais royal d’Ugarit,” in C.F.-A. Schaeffer, ed., Ugaritica IV: les textes para-mythologique de la 24e campagne (Paris) 1–23. Olivier, J.-P. 1967. Les scribes de Cnossos (Rome). ———. 1984. “Administrations at Knossos and Pylos: What Differences?” in C.W. Shelmerdine and T.G. Palaima, eds., Pylos Comes Alive (New York) 11–18. ———. 1988. “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982–1983: Tirynthian Graffiti,” AA 1988: 253–268. ———. 1991. “Appendice,” in K.-E. Sjöquist and P. Åström, eds., Knossos: Keepers and Kneaders (SIMA-PB 82, Göteborg) 122–128. ———. 1994. “The Inscribed Documents at Bronze Age Knossos,” in D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, eds., Knossos: A Labyrinth of History (Oxford and Northampton) 157–170. ———. 2001. “Les ‘collecteurs’: leur distribution spatiale et temporelle,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 139–159. Olivier, J.-P., ed. 1992. Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisée par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 2–6 octobre 1990) (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris). Olivier, J.-P., and T.G. Palaima, eds. 1988. Texts, Tablets and Scribes. Studies in Mycenaean Epigraphy and Economy Offered to Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. (Minos Suppl. 10, Salamanca). Owens, G. 1992. “A Diachronic Study of the Adminstration and Scripts of Minoan Crete,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 461–462. Pack, R.A. 1965. The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt, 2nd ed. (Ann Arbor). Page, D. 1963. History and the Homeric Iliad, 2nd ed. (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Palaima, T.G. 1987a. “Preliminary Comparative Textual Evidence for Palatial Control of Economic Activity in Minoan and Mycenaean Crete,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 301–305. ———. 1987b. “Comments on Mycenaean Literacy,” in J.T. Killen, J.L. Melena, and J.-P. Olivier, eds., Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick, Minos 20–22: 499–510. ———. 1988. “The Development of the Mycenaean Writing System,” in J.-P. Olivier and T.G. Palaima, eds., Texts, Tablets and Scribes (Minos Suppl. 10, Salamanca) 269–342. ———. 1989. “Perspectives on the Pylos Oxen Tablets: Textual (and Archaeological) Evidence for the Use and Management of Oxen in Late Bronze Age

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

Messenia (and Crete),” in T.G. Palaima, C.W. Shelmerdine, and P.Hr. Ilievki, eds., Studia Mycenaea (Skopje) 85–124. ———. 1991a. “Maritime Matters in the Linear B Tablets,” in R. Laffineur and L. Basch, eds., THALASSA (Aegaeum 7, Liège) 273–310. ———. 1991b. “Linear B Evidence for the Mycenaean Use of the Sea,” AJA 95: 324–325. ———. 1993. “Wanax, Basileus, and Mycenaean Kings,” AJA 97: 322. ———. 1995a. “The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax: Non-Indo-European Origins and Priestly Functions,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 119–139. ———. 1995b. “The Last Days of the Pylos Polity,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 623–633. ———. 1997. “Potter & Fuller: The Royal Craftsmen,” in R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., TEXNH (Aegaeum 16, Liège) 407–412. ———. 1999. “Mycenaean Militarism from a Textual Perspective. Onomastics in Context: lawos, damos, klewos,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 367–378. ———. 2000a. “Qevmi" in the Mycenaean Lexicon and the Etymology of the Place name *ti-mi-to a-ko,” Faventia 22(1): 7–19. ———. 2000b. “The Transactional Vocabulary of Mycenaean Sealings and the Mycenaean Administrative Process,” in M. Perna, ed., Adminstrative Documents in the Aegean (Turin) 261–276. ———. 2003a. Review of Thèbes: Fouilles de la Cadmée I, by V.L. Aravantinos, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi. AJA 107: 113–115. ———. 2003b. “‘Archives’ and ‘Scribes’ and Information Hierarchy in Mycenaean Greek Linear B Records,” in M. Brosius, ed., Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions (Oxford) 153–194. ———. forthcoming. “Assessing the Linear B Evidence for Continuity from the Mycenaean Period in the Boeotian Cult of Poseidon (and Erinys) at Onchestos (Telphousa-Haliartos),” in J.M. Fossey and M. Cosmopoulos, eds., Boiotia Antiqua VII–VIII (Chicago). Palaima, T.G., and C.W. Shelmerdine, P.Hr. Ilievski, eds. 1989. Studia Mycenaea (1988) (ZivaAnt Monographies 7, Skopje). Palmer, L.R. 1954. “Mycenaean Greek Texts from Pylos,” TAPA 44: 18–53. ———. 1962. Mycenaeans and Minoans: Aegean Prehistory in the Light of the Linear B Tablets (New York). ———. 1963. The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts (Oxford). Palmer, R. 1992. “Wheat and Barley in Mycenaean Society,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 475–497.

202

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

———. 1994. Wine in the Mycenaean Palace Economy (Aegaeum 10, Liège). ———. 1999. “Perishable Goods in Mycenaean Texts,” in S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, and O. Panagl, eds., Floreant Studia Mycenaea (Vienna) 463–485. ———. 2001. “Bridging the Gap: The Continuity of Greek Agriculture from the Mycenaean to the Historical Period,” in D.W. Tandy, ed., Prehistory and History: Ethnicity, Class and Political Economy (Montreal, New York, and London) 41–84. Panagl, O. 1986. “Politische und soziale Struktur,” in S. Hiller and O. Panagl, eds., Die frühgriechischen Texte aus mykenischer Zeit (Darmstadt) 278–288. ———. 1992. “Mykenische und die Sprache Homers: alte Probleme—neue Resultate,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 499–513. Pantelidou, M. 1975. {Ai proi>storikai; jAqh'nai (Athens). Papademetriou, J., and P. Petsas. 1950. “ jAnaskafai; ejn Mukhvnai",” Prakt 1950: 202–233. ———. 1951. “ jAnaskafai; ejn Mukhvnai",” Prakt 1951: 192–196. Papadimitriou, N. 2001. Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands (BAR 915, Oxford). Papadopoulos, T.J. 1979. Mycenaean Achaea (SIMA 55, Göteborg). ———. 1998. The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean I. The Greek Mainland (Stuttgart). Papadopoulos, T.J., and L. Kontorli-Papadopoulou. 2000. “Death, Power and Trouble in Late Mycenaean Peloponnese: The Evidence of Warrior-Graves,” in P.M. Fischer, ed., Contributions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of Paul Åström (Österreischische Archäologisches Institut 39, Vienna) 127–138. Parkinson, W.A. 1999. “Chipping Away at a Mycenaean Economy: Obsidian Exchange, Linear B, and Palatial Control in Late Bronze Age Messenia,” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 73–85. Parry, A. 1966. “Have We Homer’s Iliad?” YCS 20: 177–216. Parry, M. 1971. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry, ed. by A. Parry (Oxford). Pavese, C.O. 1972. Tradizioni e generi poetici della Grecia arcaica (Rome). Peatfield, A. 1999. “The Paradox of Violence: Weaponry and Martial Art in Minoan Crete,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 16–75. Pedersén, O. 1998. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C. (Bethesda, Md.). Pelon, O. 1976. Tholoi, tumuli et cercles funéraires (Athens).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

———. 1990. “Les tombes à tholos d’Argolide: architecture et rituel funéraire,” in R. Hägg and G.C. Nordquist, eds., Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 11–13 June, 1988 (Stockholm) 107–112. Penner, S. 1998. Schliemanns Schachtgräberrung und der europäische Nordosten: Studien zur Herkunft der frühmykenischen Streitwagenausstattung (Bonn). Peradotto, J. 1997. “Modern Theoretical Approaches to Homer,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 380–395. Perna, M. 1999. “Fiscalità ed emergeza a Pilo,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 381–386. Perna, M., ed. 2000. Administrative Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceeding of the International Colloquium, Naples, February 29– March 2, 1996 (Turin). Petit, F. 1989. “Le rhytons égéens du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age (Stockholm) 13–19. Pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford). Pini, I. 1997. Die Tonplomben aus dem Nestorpalast von Pylos (Mainz). ———. 2004. Kleinere Greichische Sammlungen (CMS V, Suppl. 3.2, Mainz). Piteros, C., and J.-P. Olivier, J.L. Melena. 1990. “Les inscriptions en Linéaire B des nodules de Thèbes (1982): la fouille, les documents, les possibilités d’interpretation,” BCH 114: 103–184. Plommer, H. 1977. “‘Shadowy Megara,’“ JHS 97: 75–83. Platthy, J. 1968. Sources on the Earliest Greek Libraries (Amsterdam). Popham, M.R. 1994. “Late Minoan II and the End of the Bronze Age,” in D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, eds., Knossos: A Labyrinth of History (Oxford and Northampton) 89–102. Popham, M.R., and P.G. Calligas, L.H. Sackett, eds. 1993. Lefkandi II: The Protogeometric Building at Tomba. Part 2: The Excavation, Architecture and Finds (Oxford). Popham, M.R., and L.H. Sackett, P.G. Themelis, eds. 1980. Lefkandi I: The Iron Age, the Settlement, the Cemeteries (Oxford). Postgate, J.N. 1991. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History (London and New York). Postlethwaite, N. 1998. “Thersites in the ILIAD,” 1988. Reprint in I. McAuslan and P. Walcot, eds., Homer (Greek & Rome Studies 4, Oxford) 83–95. Powell, B.B. 1991. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet (Cambridge).

204

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

———. 1997a. “From Picture to Myth, From Myth to Picture,” in S. Langdon, ed., New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece (Columbia, Mo. and London) 154–193. ———. 1997b. “Homer and Writing,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 3–32. Pritchard, J.B., ed. 1955. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Princeton). Raaflaub, K.A. 1997. “Homeric Society,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 624–648. ———. 1998. “A Historian’s Headache: How to read ‘Homeric Society’?” in N. Fisher and H. van Wees, eds., Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (London) 169–193. Rehak, P. 1995a. “Enthroned Figures in Aegean Art and the Function of the Mycenaean Megaron,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 95– 117. ———. 1995b. “The Use and Destruction of Minoan Stone Bull’s Head Rhyta,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 435–460. ———. 1997. “Interconnections between the Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B.C.,” AJA 101: 399–402. ———. 2002. “Imag(in)ing a Women’s World in Bronze Age Greece: The Frescoes from Xeste 3 of Akrotiri, Thera,” in N.S. Rabinowitz and L. Auanger, eds., Among Women: From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the Ancient World (Austin) 34–59. Rehak, P., ed. 1995. The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992. With Additions (Aegaeum 11, Liège). Rehak, P., and J.C. Younger. 1995. “The Earliest Mycenaean Administration on the Mainland?” AJA 99: 342. ———. 1998. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete,” AJA 102: 91–173. ———. 2000. “Minoan and Mycenaean Administration in the Early Late Bronze Age: An Overview,” in M. Perna, ed., Adminstrative Documents in the Aegean (Turin) 277–301. ———. 2001. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete,” 1998. Reprint with addendum, in T. Cullen, ed., Aegean Prehistory, A Review (AJA Suppl. 1, Boston) 466–473. Reichel, W. 1901. Homerische Waffen (Vienna). Richardson, N.J. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary VI: Books 21–24 (Cambridge).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Risch, E. 1966. “Les différences dialectales dans le mycénien,” in L.R. Palmer and J. Chadwick, eds., Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium of Mycenaean Studies (Cambridge) 150–157. ———. 1979. “Die griechischen Dialekte im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend,” SMEA 20: 91–111. Robb, K. 1994. Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece (New York and Oxford). Robertson, M. 1975. A History of Greek Art (Cambridge). Rodenwaldt, G. 1912. Tiryns: die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts II: die Fresken des Palastes (Berlin). ———. 1921. Der Fries des Megaron von Mykenai (Halle). Rose, P. 1997. “Ideology in the Iliad: Polis, Basileus, Theoi,” in B. Heiden, ed., The Iliad and its Contexts, Arethusa 30(2): 151–199. Rosen, R. 1997. “Homer and Hesiod,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 463–488. Rougemont, F. 2001. “Some Thoughts on the Identification of the ‘Collectors’ in the Linear B Tablets,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 129–138. Ruijgh, C.J. 1985. “Le Mycénien et Homère,” in A. Morpurgo Davies and Y. Duhoux, eds., Linear B: A 1984 Survey (Leuven) 143–190. ———. 1987. “da-ma/du-ma, davmar/duvmar et l’abréviation DA notamment en PY En 609.1,” in P. Hr. Ilievski and L. Crepajac, eds., Tractata Mycenaea (Skopje) 299–322. ———. 1992. “po-ku-ta et po-ku-te-ro, dérivés de *póku ,” in J.P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 543–567. ———. 1995. “D’ Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique: analyse dialectologique du language Homérique, avec un excursus sur la création de l’alphabet grec,” in J.P. Crielaard, ed., Homeric Questions (Amsterdam) 1–96. Ruiperez, M. 1956. “KO-RE-TE-RE et PO-RO-KO-RE-TE-RE à Pylos,” in M. Lejeune, ed., Etudes mycéniennes. Actes du Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens, Gif-sur-Yvette, 3–7 avril 1956 (Paris) 105–120. Rutkowski, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean (New Haven and London). Rutter, J.B. 1993. “Review of Aegean Prehistory II: The Prepalatial Bronze Age in the Southern and Central Greek Mainland,” AJA 97: 774–797. ———. 2001. “Review of Aegean Prehistory II: The Prepalatial Bronze Age in the Southern and Central Greek Mainland,” 1993. Reprint with addendum, in T. Cullen, ed., Aegean Prehistory, A Review (AJA Suppl. 1, Boston) 95–155. Sacconi, A. 1999. “Les tablettes de Pylos et la guerre,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 361–365.

206

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Säflund, G. 1980. “Sacrificial Banquets in the Palace of Nestor,” OpAth 13: 237–246. Sakellariou, A. 1964. Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel des Nationalmuseums in Athens I (CMS 1, Berlin). ———. 1974. “Un cratère d’argent avec scène de battaille provenant de la IVe tombe de l’acropole de Mycènes,” AntK 17: 3–20. ———. 1975. “La scène du sur le rhyton d’argent de Mycènes d’après une nouvelle reconstitution,” RA 2: 195–208. Sandars, N.K. 1978. The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean (London). Schadewaldt, W. 1959. Von Homers Welt und Werk (Stuttgart). Schaeffer, C.F.-A., general ed. 1939–1978. Ugaritica, Mission de Ras Shamra I–VII (Paris). Schaeffer, C.F.-A., and M.G. Chenet. 1949. “Corpus céramique de Ras Shamra,” in C.F.-A. Schaeffer, ed., Ugaritica III (Paris) 131–314. Schäfer, J. 1991. “The Role of ‘Gardens’ in Minoan Civilisation,” in V. Karageorghis, ed., The Civilizations of the Aegean and their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000–600 B.C. (Larnaca) 85–87. ———. 1992. “Gärten in der bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Kultur? Rituelle Bildsprache und bildliches Konzept der Realität,” in M. Carroll-Spillecke, ed., Der Gärten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter (Mainz) 102–137. Schefold, K. 1966. Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art, trans. A. Hicks (New York). Schilardi, D.U. 1992. “Poros and the Cyclades after the Fall of the Mycenaean Palaces,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 621–639. Schliemann, H. 1886. Der prähistorische Palast der Könige von Tiryns (Leipzig). Schwink, F.W. 1994–1995. Review of Mykenaïka, ed. J.-P. Olivier. Minos 29–30: 349–357. Scodel, R. 2002. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience (Ann Arbor). Scully, S. 1990. Homer and the Sacred City (Ithaca and London). Seaford, R. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual. Homer and Tragedy in the Developing CityState (Oxford). Seymour, T.D. 1914. Life in the Homeric Age (New York). Shaw, J.W. 1989. “Phoenicians in Southern Crete,” AJA 93: 165–183. Shaw, J.W., and M.C. Shaw. 1993. “Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1986– 1992,” Hesperia 62: 129–188.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

———. 1999. “A Proposal for Bronze Age Aegean Shipsheds in Crete,” in H. Tzalas, ed., Tropis V. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity (Athens) 369–382. Shaw, M.C. 1993. “The Aegean Garden,” AJA 97: 661–685. ———. 1996. “The Bull-Leaping Fresco from the Ramp House at Mycenae: A Study in Iconography and Artistic Transmission,” BSA 91: 167–170. Shear, I.M. 1968. Mycenaean Domestic Architecture, Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College. ———. 1986. “The Panagia Houses at Mycenae and the ‘Potter’s Shop’ at Zygouries,” in Fivlia [Eph eij" Gewvrgion jE. Mulwna'n I (Athens) 85–98. ———. 1987. The Panagia Houses at Mycenae (Philadelphia). ———. 1998. “Bellerophon Tablets from the Mycenaean World? A Tale of Seven Bronze Hinges,” JHS 118: 187–189. ———. 1999. “The Western Approach to the Athenian Akropolis,” JHS 119: 86–127. ———. 2000a. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts (New York and Athens). ———. 2000b. “The Date of the Earthquake at Mycenae,” AJA 104: 353. Shelmerdine, C.W. 1985. The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Pylos (SIMA-PB 34, Göteborg). ———. 1987a. “Industrial Activity at Pylos,” in P. Hr. Ilievski and L. Crepajac, eds., Tractata Mycenaea (Skopje) 333–342. ———. 1987b. “Architectural Change and Economic Decline at Pylos,” in J.T. Killen, J.L. Melena, and J.-P. Olivier, eds., Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick, Minos 20–22: 557–568. ———. 1988. “Scribal Organization and Administrative Procedures,” in J.-P. Olivier and T.G. Palaima, eds., Texts, Tablets and Scribes (Minos Suppl. 10, Salamanca) 343–384. ———. 1992. “Historical and Economic Considerations in Interpreting Mycenaean Texts,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka (BCH Suppl. 25, Athens and Paris) 569–590. ———. 1994–1995. Review of The Role of the Ruler, ed. P. Rehak. Minos 29–30: 357–366. ———. 1995. “Shining and Fragrant Cloth in Homeric Epic,” in J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris, eds., The Ages of Homer (Austin) 99–107. ———. 1997a. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VI: The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland,” AJA 101: 537–585. ———. 1997b. “Workshops and Record Keeping in the Mycenaean World,” in R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., TEXNH (Aegaeum 16, Liège) 387–395.

208

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

———. 1998a. “The Palace and its Operations” and “The Perfumed-Oil Industry,” in J.L. Davis, ed., Sandy Pylos (Austin) 81–96, 101–109. ———. 1998b. “Where Do We Go from Here? And How Can the Linear B Tablets Help Us Get There?” in E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, eds., The Aegean and the Orient (Aegaeum 18, Liège) 291–299. ———. 1999a. “Pylian Polemics: The Latest Evidence on Military Matters,” in R. Laffineur, ed., POLEMOS (Aegaeum 19, Liège) 403–408. ———. 1999b. “Administration in the Mycenaean Palaces: Where’s the Chief?” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 19–24. ———. 1999c. “A Comparative Look at Mycenaean Administration(s),” in S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, and O. Panagl, eds., Floreant Studia Mycenaea (Vienna) 555–576. ———. 2001a. “The Evolution of Adminstration at Pylos,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 113–128. ———. 2001b. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VI: The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland,” 1997. Reprint with addendum, in T. Cullen, ed., Aegean Prehistory, A Review (AJA Suppl. 1, Boston) 329–381. Shelmerdine, C.W., and J. Bennet. 1995. “Two New Linear B Documents from Bronze Age Pylos,” Kadmos 34: 123–136. Shelmerdine, C.W., and T.G. Palaima, eds. 1984. Pylos Comes Alive: Industry and Administration in a Mycenaean Palace (New York). Sherratt, E.S. 1990. “‘Reading the Texts’: Archaeology and the Homeric Question,” Antiquity 64: 807–824. ———. 1996. “With Us But Not of Us: The Rôle of Crete in Homeric Epic,” in D. Evely, I.S. Lemos, and E.S. Sherratt, eds., Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (Oxford) 87–99. ———. 2001. “Potemkin Palaces and Route-Based Economics,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 214–238. Sjöquist, K.-E., and P. Åström. 1991. Knossos: Keepers and Kneaders (SIMA-PB 82, Göteborg). Small, D.B. 1998. “Surviving the Collapse: The Oikos and Structural Continuity between Late Bronze Age and Later Greece,” in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition (Jerusalem) 283–291. ———. 1999. “Mycenaean Polities: States or Estates?” in M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces (Los Angeles) 43–47. Smith, J.S. 1992–1993. “The Pylos Jn Series,” Minos 27–28: 167–259. Snodgrass, A.M. 1971. The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

———. 1974. “An Historical Homeric Society?” JHS 94: 114–125. ———. 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment (London). ———. 1983. “Two Demographic Notes,” in R. Hägg, ed., The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C. (Stockholm) 167–171. ———. 1997. “Homer and Greek Art,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 560–598. ———. 1998. Homer and the Artists: Text and Picture in Early Greek Art (Cambridge). ———. 1999. Arms and Armor of the Greeks (Baltimore and London, reprint). Soles, J.S. 2001. “Reverence for Dead Ancestors in Prehistoric Crete,” in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., POTNIA (Aegaeum 22, Liège) 229–235. Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, C. 1999. The Ionian Islands in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Liverpool). Spyropoulos, T.G., and J. Chadwick. 1975. The Thebes Tablets II (Minos Suppl. 4, Salamanca). Stanley, K. 1993. The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad (Princeton). Stavrianopoulou, E. 1989. “Überlegung zum Abgabensystem von Pylos,” in T.G. Palaima, C.W. Shelmerdine, and P.Hr. Ilievki, eds., Studia Mycenaea (Skopje), 149–157. ———. 1995. “Der Verflechtung des Politischen mit dem Religiösen im mykenischen Pylos,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 423–433. Strong, D.E. 1966. Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London). Stubbings, F.H. 1962. “Food and Agriculture,” and “Communications and Trade,” in A.J.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings, eds., A Companion to Homer (London) 523–530, 539–544. ———. 1973. “The Rise of Mycenaean Civilization,” in CAH, 2nd ed., II(1), 627–658. Styrenius, C.-G. 1967. Submycenaean Studies (Lund). Symeonoglou, S. 1987. “ jIqavkh,” Ergon 1967: 75–76. ———. 1988. “ jIqavkh,” Ergon 1988: 140. ———. 1989. “ jIqavkh,” Ergon 1989: 136–137. ———. 1990. “ jIqavkh,” Ergon 1990: 123–127. ———. 1992. “ jIqavkh,” Ergon 1992: 91–93. ———. 1995. “ jIqavkh,” Ergon 1995: 63–67. Tainter, J.A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies (Cambridge).

210

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Taplin, O. 1992. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad (Oxford). Taylour, W.D., and A.D. Moore. 1999. The Temple Complex (Well Built Mycenae 10, Oxford). Thomas, C.G. 1995. “The Components of Political Identity in Mycenaean Greece,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 349– 354. Thomas, C.G., and C. Conant. 1999. Citadel and City-State: The Transformation of Greece, 1200–700 B.C.E. (Bloomington and Indianapolis). Thomas, R. 1992. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge). Thompson, R.J.E. 1996–1997. “Dialects in Mycenaean and Mycenaean among the Dialects,” Minos 31–32: 313–333. Tomlinson, J.E. 1998. “Appendix: A Provenance Investigation of Mycenaean Pottery from Gla by Neutron Activation Analysis,” in S.E. Iakovidis, Gla'" II. jH janaskafhv 1981–1991 (Athens), 205–209. Touchefeu-Meynier, O. 1968. Thèmes odysséens dans l’art antique (Paris). Tournavitou, I. 1988. “Towards the Identification of a Workshop Space,” in E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Problems in Greek Prehistory (Bristol) 447–467. ———. 1995. The ‘Ivory Houses’ at Mycenae (Oxford and Northampton). Trypanis, C.A. 1981. Greek Poetry from Homer to Seferis (London and Boston). Tsountas, C., and J.I. Manatt. 1897. The Mycenaean Age (London). Turner, F. 1997. “The Homeric Question,” in I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 123–145. Uchitel, A. 1984a. “On the ‘Military’ Character of the O-KA Tablets,” Kadmos 23: 136–163. ———. 1984b. “Women at Work, Pylos and Knossos, Lagash and Ur,” Historia 33: 257–282. ———. 1985. Mycenaean and Near Eastern Economic Archives, Ph.D. diss., University College, London. ———. 1988a. “The Archives of Mycenaean Greece and the Ancient Near East,” in M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski, eds., Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.) (Leuven) 19–30. ———. 1988b. “Charioteers of Knossos,” Minos 23: 47–58. ———. 1990–1991. “Bronze-Smiths of Pylos and Silver-Smiths of Ur,” Minos 25–26: 195–202. van Alfen, P.G. 1996–1997. “The Linear B Inscribed Stirrup Jars as Links in an Adminstrative Chain,” Minos 31–32: 251–274. van Leuven, J.C. 1979. “Mycenaean Goddesses called Potnia,” Kadmos 18: 112–129.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

van Soldt, W.H. 1995. “Ugarit: A Second Millennium Kingdom on the Mediterranean Coast,” in J.M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East II (New York) 1255–1266. van Wees, H. 1986. “Leaders of Men? Military Organization in the ILIAD,” CQ 36: 285–303. ———. 1997. Review of Homer’s World, ed. Ø. Andersen and M. Dickie. JHS 117: 216–217. Vandenabeele, F. 1978. “L’idéogramme de l’armure sur une tablette en Linéaire B de Tirynthe,” BCH 102: 25–39. Ventris, M., and J. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge). Vermeule, E.D.T. 1960. “The Mycenaeans in Achaia,” AJA 64: 1–21. ———. 1986. ‘“Priam’s Castle Blazing’: A Thousand Years of Trojan Memories,” in M.J. Mellink, ed., Troy and the Trojan War: A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984 (Bryn Mawr) 77–92. ———. 1987. “Baby Aigisthos and the Bronze Age,” PCPS 33: 122–152. Vermeule, E.D.T., and V. Karageorghis. 1982. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting (Cambridge, Mass. and London). Vivante, P. 1997. Homeric Rhythm: A Philosophical Study (Westport and London). von Reden, S. 1999. Review of Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the Craftsman, eds. C. Gillis, C. Risberg, and B. Sjöberg. AJA 103: 131. Voutsaki, S. 1995. “Social and Political Processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: The Evidence from the Mortuary Practices,” in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., POLITEIA (Aegaeum 12, Liège) 55–66. ———. 2001. “Economic Control, Power and Prestige in the Mycenaean World: The Archaeological Evidence,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 195–213. Voutsaki, S., and J. Killen, eds. 2001. Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference Held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge). Wace, A.J.B. 1921–1923. “Excavations at Mycenae VII: The Lion Gate and Grave Circle Area,” and “Excavations at Mycenae IX: The Tholos Tombs,” BSA 25: 103–126, 283–402. ———. 1932. Chamber Tombs at Mycenae (Oxford). ———. 1949. Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide (Princeton). ———. 1951. “Notes on the Homeric House,” JHS 71: 203–211. ———. 1955. “Mycenae 1939–1954, Part III: Notes on the Construction of the ‘Tomb of Clytemnestra’,” BSA 50: 194–198.

212

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

———. 1956. “Mycenae 1939–55,” BSA 51: 119–122. ———. 1958. “The House of the Oil Merchant,” in E.L. Bennett, Jr., ed., The Mycenae Tablets II (Philadelphia) 6–9. Wace, A.J.B., and F.H. Stubbings, eds. 1962. A Companion to Homer (London). Wachsmann, S. 1987. Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 20, Leuven). ———. 1995. “Paddled and Oared Ships Before the Iron Age,” in R. Gardiner, ed., The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since Pre-Classical Times (Bath) 10–35. Wade-Gery, H.T. 1952. The Poet of the Iliad (Cambridge). Walberg, G. 1995. “The Midea Megaron and Changes in Mycenaean Ideology,” Aegean Archaeology 2: 88–91. ———. 1996–1997. “Two New Nodules from the Lower Terrace at Midea,” Minos 31–32: 133–134. ———. 1998. Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea I: The Excavations of the Lower Terraces, 1985–1991 (Stockholm). Ward, W.A., and M.S. Joukowsky, eds. 1992. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris (Dubuque, Ia.). Wardle, D.E.H. 1988. “Does Reconstruction Help? A Mycenaean Dress and the Dendra Suit of Armour,” in E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Problems in Greek Prehistory (Bristol) 469–476. Weilhartner, J. 2000. “Ober- und Unterstadt von Troia im archäologischen Befund und den homerischen Epen,” Studia Troica 10: 199–210. Weingarten, J. 1997. “The Sealing Bureaucracy of Mycenaean Knossos: The Identification of Some Officials and their Seals,” in J. Driessen and A. Farnoux, eds., La Crète mycénienne (BCH Suppl. 30, Athens) 517–535. Wells, B., and C. Runnels, E. Zangger. 1993. “In the Shadow of Mycenae,” Archaeology 46: 54–58, 63. Werner, K. 1993. The Megaron during the Aegean and Anatolian Bronze Age (SIMA 108, Jonsered). West, M.L. 1975. “Cynaetheus’ Hymn to Apollo,” CQ 25: 161–170. ———. 1985. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, and Origins (Oxford). ———. 1988. “The Rise of the Greek Epic,” JHS 108: 151–172. ———. 1992. “The Descent of the Greek Epic: A Reply,” JHS 112: 173–175. ———. 1995. “The Date of the Iliad,” MusHelv 52: 203–219. ———. 1997. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

———. 1999. “The Invention of Homer,” CQ 49: 364–382. ———. 2001. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad (Munich). West, S.R. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey I (Oxford). ———. 1996. “Elements of Epic,” Times Literary Supplement, August 2: 27. Whitelaw, T. 2001. “Reading Between the Tablets: Assessing Mycenaean Palatial Involvement in Ceramic Production and Consumption,” in S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 27, Cambridge) 51–79. Whitley, J. 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: The Changing Face of a PreLiterate Society 1110–700 BC (Cambridge). ———. 1998. “From Minoans to Eteocretans: The Praisos Region 1200–500 B.C.,” in W. Cavanagh and M. Curtis, eds., Post-Minoan Crete (London) 27–39. ———. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece (Cambridge). Whittaker, H. 1997. Mycenaean Cult Buildings: A Study of their Architecture and Function in the Context of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean (Norwegian Institute at Athens 1, Jonsered). Wiener, M.H. 1987. “Trade and Rule in Palatial Crete,” in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm) 261–267. Willcock, M.M. 1995. “On the Importance of Iliad 8,” in Ø. Anderson and M. Dickie, eds., Homer’s World (Bergen) 113–121. ———. 1997. “Neoanalysis,” in I. Morris and Powell, eds., New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163, Leiden and New York) 174–189. ———. 1998. “The Search for the Poet Homer,” 1990. Reprint in I. McAuslan and P. Walcot, eds., Homer (Greek & Rome Studies 4, Oxford) 53–64. Wöhrle, G. 1999. Telemachs Reise: Vater und Sohn in Ilias und Odyssee oder ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Mannlichkeitsideologie in der homerischen Welt (Göttingen). Woodard, R.D. 1997. Greek Writing from Knossos to Homer: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and the Continuity of Ancient Greek Literacy (New York and Oxford). Wright, J.C. 1984. “Changes in Form and Function of the Palace at Pylos,” in C.W. Shelmerdine and T.G. Palaima, eds., Pylos Comes Alive (New York) 19–30. ———. 1987. “Death and Power at Mycenae: Changing Symbols in Mortuary Practice,” in R. Laffineur, ed., THANATOS (Aegaeum 1, Liège) 171–184. ———. 1994. “The Spacial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean Religion,” in S.E. Alcock and R. Osborne, eds., Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford) 37–78. ———. 1995. “From Chief to King in Mycenaean Society,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 63–75.

214

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Wyatt, W.F., Jr. 1970. “The Prehistory of the Greek Dialect,” TAPA 101: 557–632. ———. 1992. “Homer’s Linguistic Forebears,” JHS 112: 156–173. ———. 1994–1995. “Homeric and Mycenaean LAOS,” Minos 29–30: 159–170. Xenaki-Sakellariou, A. 1985. OijJ Qalamwtoi; tavfoi tw'n Mukhnw'n, jAnaskafvh'" Cr. Tsouvnta (1887–1898) (Paris). Yamagata, N. 1997. “a[nax and basileuv" in Homer,” CQ 47: 1–14. Yon, M. 1983. Introduction to Ras Shamra-Ougarit I (Paris). ———. 1985. “Baal et le Roi,” in J.-L. Huot, M. Yon, and Y. Calvet, eds., De l’Indus aux Balkans: recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes (Paris) 177–190. ———. 1991. “Les stèles de pierre,” in Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI: arts et industries de la pierre (Paris) 273–353. ———. 1992. “The End of Ugarit,” in W.A. Ward and M.S. Joukowsky, eds., The Crisis Years (Dubuque, Ia.) 111–122. Yon, M., general ed. 1983–1995. Ras Shamra-Ougarit: publications de la Mission archéologique française de Ras Shamra-Ougarit I–XI (Paris). Yon, M., and V. Karageorghis, N. Hirschfeld. 2000. Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIII: céramique mycéniennes d’Ougarit (Paris and Nicosia). Yon, M., and M. Sznycer, P. Bordreuil, eds. 1995. Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI: le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C.: histoire et archéologie (Paris). Younger, J.C. 1995. “The Iconography of Rulership: A Conspectus,” in P. Rehak, ed., The Role of the Ruler (Aegaeum 11, Liège) 151–211. Zangger, E. 1994. “Landscape Changes around Tiryns during the Bronze Age,” AJA 98: 189–212. ———. 1998. “The Port of Nestor,” in J.L. Davis, ed., Sandy Pylos (Austin) 69–74. Zangger, E., and M.E. Timpson, S.B. Yazvenko, F. Kuhnke, J. Knauss. 1997. “The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part II: Landscape Evolution and Site Preservation,” Hesperia 66: 550–641.

Index of Ancient Authors These sources exclude the Iliad and the Odyssey. References to notes are indicated in parentheses after the page number in which they occur. Aelian V.H. 13.14...................164 (694, 695) Aelius Aristides 46.228 ..................................164 (693) 47.327 ..................................164 (693) Alkman.....................................167 (719) Anthologia Palatina 11.442........164 (695) Apollodorus..............................163 (687) 2.4.5...................152 (555), 154 (581) 2.4.5–2.4.6 .............................110 (56) 2.163 ....................................150 (547) Archilochus..............................167 (717) Aristarchus ...........................36, 47 (259) Aristotle .............................94, 168 (741) Poetics 4.10 ..........................165 (704) Poetics 8.3–4 ........................169 (746) Poetics 23.5–7 ......................169 (746) Poetics 24.5 ..........................169 (746) Arktinos ...................................165 (703) Athenaeus 1.40.9 ...................................164 (693)

15.8.17 .................................164 (693) 65, 1–2.................................165 (704) Bacchylides.................................107 (18) Cicero de Orat. 3.34 ........................164 (695) Demosthenes ............................129 (267) Or. 60 Epitaphios, 8..............154 (580) Funeral Speech, 29................165 (704) Dio Chrysostom 2.45 ......................................164 (694) 36.11 ....................................167 (718) Diodorus Siculus 4.2.4 .....................................165 (704) Diogenes Laertius Solon, 1.57 ...........................164 (695) Euripides .....................................107 (18) Eustathius .................................164 (693) Iliad 1 ...................................169 (746)

216

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Gellius Noctium Atticarum 20.7.........107 (18) Harpocration s.v. JOmhrivdai..............164 (693, 697) Herodotus..............36, 84, 163 (687), 169 (746) 2.113–120 ............................165 (700) 5.65 ......................................161 (663) 5.72.3 ...................................160 (654) 8.131 ....................................150 (546) 9.27, 1–5..............................154 (580) 32.7 ......................................165 (704) Hesiod................................81–82, 91–92, 94, 158 (629), 166 (708, 713) fragments 197.3–4, 198.7–8, 199.1–3 ...............154 (583) Catalogue of Women 3.3694, 152 (558) Theogony ..............................169 (742) Works and Days, 165.....94, 129 (269), 169 (742) Homer...................2, 52, 58, 82, 89, 90–93, 95, 106 (7, 9), 107 (18), 129 (262, 267), 130 (276), 138 (360), 140 (399), 146 (488), 150 (544), 157 (627), 161 (672), 163, (686, 691), 164 (694, 697, 698), 165–166 (702–706, 708), 168 (738), 170 (761), 171 (768) Homeric Hymns........81, 91, 92, 158 (629), 165 (704), 167 (718), 169 (742) Isocrates Helen 65.1............................164 (693) Or. 12 Panathenaikos, 194....154 (580) Lycurgos.............................89, 164, (694) Against Leocrates, 102 ..........164 (695) Lysias Or. 2 Epitaphios, 11–16........154 (580) Mimnermus ..............................167 (717) Pausanias 2.18.17...............161 (663), 174 (695) 7.26.13 .................................164 (695) 9.95 ......................................165 (704) 10.11.2 ...................................113 (84) Phokylides ................................167 (718)

Pindar .............................36, 94, 107 (18) Isthmia 4.37–39....................170 (761) Nemea 2 ...............................165 (704) Nemea 2.1…163 (686), 164 (693, 697) Nemea 7.20–24 ....................171 (768) Olympian Ode 1.28–93 ........150 (547) Pythia 4 ................................169 (742) Plato .........................................168 (741) Hipparchos, 228.b ................164 (695) Ion 530.d.7...........................164 (693) Phaedrus 252.b.4 .................164 (693) Republic 599.6 ......................164 (693) Plutarch Life of Alexander, 8.2, 26.1.…129 (266) Life of Solon ........................…151 (552) Lycurgos, 4.4.........................164 (694) Moralia 496 3.4....................164 (693) Proclus............163 (685, 687), 169 (742) Pseudo-Lucian Demosthenis Encomium 17.14 .................................164 (693) Sappho .....................107 (18), 167 (178) Semonides ................................167 (717) Stasinos.....................................165 (703) Strabo .......................................168 (741) 10.4.12 .................................167 (718) 10.4.19 .................................164 (694) 14.1.18 .................................165 (704) 14.1.35.........................164 (693, 697) Suda s.v. jArkti`no~ ......................165 (703) s.v. Fwkulivdh~ ...................167 (718) Thucydides.............48, 71, 84, 169 (746) 1.2.5–6 .................................161 (663) 1.9.2…110 (57), 151 (549), 152 (562), 154 (580), 160 (652) 1.12.3–4 ...............................160 (652) 3.104.4 .................................165 (704) Tyrtaeus.....................................167 (717) Tzetzes Chil. 13.638 .........................165 (703) Virgil Aeneid ..................................169 (742)

Index of References to the Iliad References to notes are indicated in parentheses after the page number in which they occur. Book 1 1.6 ........................................164 (693) 1.9......................156 (613), 156 (619) 1.9–77 ..................................141 (408) l.22.......................................164 (693) 1.24–40 ................................155 (599) 1.39–41 ................................141 (409) 1.53–55 ................................154 (593) 1.75–79 ................................155 (600) 1.231..................156 (613), 157 (621) 1.245–246 ............................145 (485) 1.265 ......................................107 (16) 1.270–271 ............................144 (456) 1.272–273 ............................154 (593) 1.277..................156 (613), 157 (621) 1.331 ....................................156 (613) 1.340..................156 (613), 157 (621) 1.399 ....................................164 (693) 1.410..................156 (613), 157 (621) Book 2 2.54....................156 (613), 157 (625) 2.77 ......................................156 (612)

2.79 ......................................139 (390) 2.87 ......................................143 (439) 2.100–108 ............................152 (561) 2.517 ....................................152 (554) 2.527–529 ............................136 (338) 2.571 ....................................134 (311) 2.572…134 (310), 151 (553), 152 (565) 2.576 ....................................145 (485) 2.591–602 ............................134 (314) 2.609–614 ............................145 (485) 2.645 ....................................132 (298) 2.645–652 ............................133 (303) 2.678 ....................................151 (554) 2.692 ....................................152 (554) 2.696 ....................................132 (290) 2.709 ....................................164 (693) 2.856 ....................................152 (554) 2.864 ....................................151 (554)

218

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Book 3 3.121–244 ............................165 (700) 3.125–128 ............................146 (492) 3.179..................156 (613), 157 (620) 3.202–211 ............................169 (751) 3.236–238 ............................154 (582) 3.250 ....................................167 (719) 3.330–339 ............................136 (339) 3.485 ....................................164 (693) Book 4 4.18 ......................................156 (611) 4.25–29 ................................155 (601) 4.51–54 ................................161 (668) 4.51–67 ................................155 (601) 4.110..................137 (348), 146 (490) 4.174–177 ............................155 (609) 4.216 ....................................146 (490) 4.290 ....................................156 (611) 4.295..................146 (490), 151 (554) 4.338 ....................................156 (613) 4.346 ....................................143 (439) 4.402..................156 (613), 157 (622) 4.420..................150 (545), 156 (612), 157 (622) 4.508 ....................................141 (406) Book 5 5.60....................137 (348), 152 (559) 5.60–64 ................................146 (490) 5.152 ....................................151 (554) 5.160 ....................................151 (554) 5.193 ....................................128 (248) 5.270 ....................................128 (249) 5.311 ....................................156 (612) 5.338 ....................................146 (492) 5.412–415 ............................151 (553) 5.446 ....................................141 (406) 5.460 ....................................141 (406) 5.464.........................156 (613), (619) 5.677 ....................................151 (554) 5.705 ....................................152 (554) 5.722 ....................................130 (275) 5.735 ....................................146 (492) 5.794..................150 (545), 156 (612) Book 6 6.37 ......................................151 (553) 6.152–211 ............................170 (755) 6.173 ....................................135 (322)

6.194 ....................................132 (290) 6.258 ....................................143 (439) 6.264 ....................................143 (439) 6.319–320 ............................129 (263) 6.425–426..........144 (464), 158 (637) 6.451 ....................................156 (611) 6.456..................144 (464), 146 (490) 6.512 ....................................141 (406) Book 7 7.21 ......................................141 (406) 7.132–156 ............................144 (456) 7.136 ....................................139 (390) 7.180 ............................129 (263), 156 (613, 619) 7.219 ......................................107 (19) 7.220–221..........137 (348), 146 (490) 7.267 ......................................107 (19) 7.296 ....................................156 (611) 7.312–315 ............................155 (609) 7.313 ....................................135 (322) 7.445–463 ............................135 (323) 7.467–465 ............................147 (519) 7.467–475 ............................147 (512) Book 8 8.30–33 ................................155 (598) 8.48 ......................................132 (290) 8.193 ....................................134 (312) 8.275 ....................................151 (554) 8.276 ....................................151 (554) 8.282–284 ............................151 (552) 8.338 ....................................143 (439) 8.489 ....................................155 (595) 8.494–495 ............................129 (263) 8.497–541 ............................155 (596) Book 9 9.9–28 ..................................155 (594) 9.32–49 ................................155 (594) 9.53–78 ................................155 (594) 9.59 ......................................157 (626) 9.69....................156 (613), 157 (621) 9.70–72 ................................144 (512) 9.89–96 ................................135 (322) 9.114–161 ............................155 (594) 9.128–129..........144 (464), 146 (490) 9.129 ....................................158 (637) 9.141–153 ............................140 (400) 9.142 ....................................152 (554)

INDEX OF REFERENCES TO THE ILIAD

9.149–152 ............................155 (609) 9.160..................156 (613), 157 (621) 9.163 ....................................156 (618) 9.164 ....................................156 (618) 9.276 ....................................156 (616) 9.323–324 ............................170 (759) 9.328–329 ............................158 (637) 9.366 ....................................144 (464) 9.434–605 ............................170 (759) 9.447–477 ............................161 (661) 9.453–457 ............................155 (609) 9.479–484 ............................155 (609) 9.480–484 ............................140 (400) 9.524–606 ............................170 (752) 9.578 ....................................132 (290) 9.594 ....................................144 (464) 9.732 ff.................................155 (594) Book 10 10.112 ..................................156 (612) 10.195 ..................................157 (626) 10.204 ..................................155 (594) 10.220 ..................................155 (594) 10.234 ..................................155 (594) 10.301 ..................................139 (390) 10.435 .................................156 (613) 10.494 ..................................156 (613) 10.494–495 ..........................157 (626) 10.559................156 (612), 157 (626) Book 11 11.21–40 ..............................170 (756) 11.23..................156 (613), 157 (620) 11.24 ....................................145 (474) 11.29–31 ..............................145 (485) 11.35 ....................................145 (474) 11.43 ....................................156 (613) 11.46..................129 (263), 156 (619) 11.62 ....................................143 (439) 11.101 ..................................151 (554) 11.131–135 ..........................144 (464) 11.136.......................156 (613), (620) 11.141 ..................................143 (403) 11.144 ..................................156 (616) 11.224–226 ..........................151 (553) 11.262 ..................................156 (620) 11.283 ....156 (613), (619), 157 (620) 11.322 ..................................156 (612) 11.328 ..................................151 (553) 11.422 ..................................151 (554)

219

11.631–637 ..........................162 (675) 11.632– 633.........................145 (485) 11.638–640 ..........................137 (349) 11.670–688 ..........................144 (456) 11.678–679 ..........................144 (458) 11.680 ..................................144 (458) 11.697 ..................................144 (458) 11.748 ..................................144 (458) 11.816 ..................................139 (390) Book 12 12.11 ....................................156 (611) 12.60 ....................................155 (597) 12.80 ....................................155 (597) 12.139 ..................................156 (612) 12.146 ..................................143 (439) 12.167 ..................................143 (439) 12.193 ..................................152 (554) 12.211 ..................................155 (597) 12.231–250 ..........................155 (597) 11.262 ..................................156 (613) 12.294–297 ..........................137 (348) 12.313 ..................................132 (290) 12.319 ..................................157 (626) 12.320 ..................................143 (439) 12.376 ..................................139 (390) 12.413 ..................................156 (612) 12.414 ..................................156 (612) Book 13 13.452 ..................................156 (612) 13.471 ..................................143 (439) 13.545 ..................................151 (554) 13.582 ..................................156 (612) 13.669–670 ..........................137 (355) 13.712–718 ..........................136 (338) 13.758 ..................................156 (612) 13.770 ..................................156 (612) 13.781 ..................................156 (612) Book14 14.121 ..................................151 (553) 14.121–124 ..........................132 (293) 14.178–179 ..........................146 (492) 14.489 ..................................156 (612) Book 15 15.275 ..................................143 (439) 15.301 ..................................156 (612) 15.453 ..................................156 (612) 15.576 ..................................151 (554)

220

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Book 16 16.571–574 ..........................157 (633) 16.164 ..................................139 (390) 16.168–172 ..........................156 (615) 16.211 ..................................156 (613) 16.464 ..................................156 (612) 16.660................156 (613), 157 (625) 16.693 ..................................151 (553) 16.695 ..................................151 (554) 16.696 ..................................152 (554) Book 17 17.160 ..................................156 (611) 17.218 ..................................151 (554) 17.739 ..................................152 (554) Book 18 18.246–284 ..........................155 (597) 18.285–309 ..........................155 (597) 18.474–475 ..........................145 (475) 18.478–613 ..........................170 (756) 18.541–572 ..........................127 (237) 18.545 ..................................143 (439) 18.564 ..................................145 (475) Book 19 19.95–124 ............................154 (580) 19.176 ..................................156 (616) 19.240 ..................................151 (554) 19.256 ..................................156 (613) Book 20 20.84 ....................................157 (626) 20.164 ..................................143 (439) 20.184 ..................................132 (290) 20.213–240 ..........................170 (755) 20.391 ..................................132 (290) 20.472 ..................................152 (554)

Book 21 21.213–216 ..........................155 (609) 21.309 ..................................156 (611) Book 22 22.440–441 ..........................146 (492) 22.477–514 ..........................152 (560) Book 23 23.35 ....................................156 (617) 23.173................150 (545), 156 (612) 23.262–538 ..........................163 (689) 23.288 ..................................156 (612) 23.295–297........134 (311), 137 (354) 23.302 ..................................156 (612) 23.417 ..................................156 (612) 23.446 ..................................156 (612) 23.588 ..................................156 (612) 23.704–705........144 (464), 146 (490) 23.849 ..................................156 (613) 23.859 ..................................156 (612) Book 24 24.265–280 ..........................128 (250) 24.284 ..................................143 (439) 24.399–400 ..........................137 (356) 24.449 .................................156 (614) 24.452................128 (256), 156 (614) 24.587–588 ..........................143 (444) 24.644 ..................................128 (256) 24.673 ..................................128 (256) 24.680.......................156 (613), (619) 24.700 ..................................141 (406) 24.803 ..................................156 (613)

Index of References to the Odyssey References to notes are indicated in parentheses after the page number in which they occur. Book 1 1.29–41 ................................157 (638) 1.40–41 ................................152 (564) 1.65–67 ................................135 (323) 1.125–143 ............................137 (343) 1.128–300 ............................157 (638) 1.142–143 ............................145 (480) 1.153 ....................................137 (347) 1.154 ....................................137 (347) 1.180– 181...........................147 (519) 1.325 ....................................137 (347) 1.325–327 ............................169 (744) 1.356–359 ............................153 (571) 1.360 ..................................153 (571) 1.386–387..........140 (402), 152 (566) 1.394 ....................................157 (626) 1.416 ....................................128 (255) 1.430– 431...........................144 (464) 1.432 ....................................128 (243) Book 2 2.25–27 ................................153 (572) 2.25–34 ................................154 (586)

2.47 ......................................157 (625) 2.94 ......................................146 (492) 2.96–109 ..............................153 (570) 2.132–133 ............................153 (568) 2.225 ....................................154 (590) 2.229–241 ............................154 (591) 2.257–259 ............................153 (573) 2.386–387 ............................147 (513) Book 3 3.1–8 ....................................141 (411) 3.1–24 ..................................134 (313) 3.46 ......................................143 (439) 3.154 ....................................144 (464) 3.163 ....................................157 (624) 3.188 ....................................128 (240) 3.214–215 ............................154 (577) 3.254–312 ............................152 (563) 3.256 ....................................128 (240) 3.299–300 ............................157 (636) 3.303–310 ............................157 (638) 3.305 ....................................129 (263) 3.354 ....................................127 (238)

222

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

3.357–370 ............................147 (514) 3.392 ....................................146 (487) 3.401 ....................................127 (238) 3.432 ....................................146 (490) 3.436–438 ............................141 (413) 3.464–469 ............................143 (443) Book 4 4.10–12 ................................144 (464) 4.39–43 ................................128 (251) 4.45 ......................................127 (237) 4.48–49 ................................143 (444) 4.58 ......................................145 (480) 4.81–95 ................................144 (460) 4.101 ....................................128 (240) 4.121–135 ............................146 (492) 4.131–132 ............................145 (481) 4.165 ....................................127 (238) 4.192 ....................................128 (240) 4.210 ....................................127 (239) 4.351–370 ............................157 (636) 4.392 ....................................127 (237) 4.537 ....................................128 (241) 4.557 ....................................128 (242) 4.581–582 ............................157 (636) 4.614–617 ............................145 (481) 4.630–637 ............................147 (513) Book 5 5.14 ......................................128 (242) Book 6 6.52–53 ................................146 (492) 6.53–56 ................................157 (627) 6.54 ......................................157 (626) 6.62 ......................................128 (240) 6.115 ....................................157 (626) 6.211–226 ............................143 (443) 6.230 ..................................145 (482) 6.232–234..........145 (482), 146 (490) 6.293 ....................................132 (290) 6.309 ....................................127 (236) Book 7 7.9–11 ..................................144 (464) 7.12 ......................................127 (238) 7.49 .....................................157 (626) 7.55 .....................................157 (626) 7.63–72 ................................154 (584) 7.80–138 ..............................127 (237) 7.84–85 ................................127 (237)

7.87 ......................................145 (477) 7.104 ....................................144 (464) 7.104–105 ............................146 (492) 7.115–116 ............................127 (237) 7.141 ....................................157 (626) 7.180 ....................................128 (255) 7.182 ....................................143 (439) 7.186 ....................................139 (390) Book 8 8.11 ......................................139 (390) 8.26 ......................................139 (390) 8.41 ......................................157 (626) 8.56–61 ................................135 (322) 8.75–82 ................................169 (744) 8.97 ......................................139 (390) 8.227 ....................................127 (239) 8.363 ....................................132 (290) 8.387 ....................................139 (390) 8.391–392 ............................157 (626) 8.454–455 ............................143 (444) 8.469 ...................................157 (626) 8.471 ....................................137 (347) 8.472 ....................................137 (347) 8.500–520 ............................169 (744) 8.536 ....................................139 (390) Book 9 9.31 ......................................128 (240) 9.39–61 ................................144 (460) 9.40–43..............144 (464), 157 (637) 9.204 ....................................143 (439) Book 10 10.5 ......................................127 (238) 10.357 ..................................145 (480) 10.361–365 ..........................143 (443) 10.388 ..................................128 (255) 10.519 ..................................143 (439) 10.579 ..................................143 (439) Book 11 11.27 ....................................143 (439) 11.68 ....................................127 (238) 11.71 ....................................157 (624) 11.134–137 ..........................161 (667) 11.162 ..................................127 (238) 11.181–203 ..........................153 (567) 11.182 ..................................128 (245) 11.185 ..................................132 (290) 11.198 ..................................128 (241)

INDEX OF REFERENCES TO THE ODYSSEY

11.298–301 ..........................154 (582) 11.322 ...................................107 (16) 11.403 ..................................144 (464) 11.526 ..................................139 (390) 11.589–590 ..........................107 (237) 11.631 ....................................107 (16) Book 13 13.51 ....................................128 (255) 13.62 ....................................157 (626) 13.106 ..................................143 (439) 13.160–164 ..........................154 (587) 13.170–183 ..........................154 (588) 13.186 ..................................139 (390) 13.210 ..................................139 (390) 13.256–286 ..........................157 (660) 13.259–260 ..........................157 (633) 13.320 ..................................143 (439) 13.334 ..................................127 (238) 13.337 ..................................128 (242) 13.403 ..................................127 (238) Book 14 14.5 ......................................128 (256) 14.6–10 ................................128 (256) 14.8 ......................................157 (624) 14.8–10 ................................140 (402) 14.9 .....................................152 (565) 14.40 ....................................157 (624) 14.45 ....................................152 (565) 14.55 ....................................143 (439) 14.78 ....................................143 (439) 14.139 ..................................157 (624) 14.170 .................................157 (624) 14.199–210 ..........................122 (188) 14.219–234 ..........................157 (637) 14.229–231 ..........................144 (460) 14.257–284 ..........................157 (636) 14.258–264..................144 (460, 464) 14.264–265 ..........................144 (464) 14.285–315 ..........................157 (635) 14.288–297 ..........................147 (519) 14.339–344 ..........................147 (519) 14.376 .................................157 (624) 14.438 ..................................157 (624) 14.450 ..................................157 (624) 14.518–519 ..........................128 (256) Book 15 15.102–104 ..........................145 (481) 15.195–214 ..........................144 (458)

223

15.223–255 ..........................170 (755) 15.238–241 ..........................150 (545) 15.271–275 ..........................150 (545) 15.272–278........157 (633), 161 (661) 15.341–343 .........................157 (634) 15.354................127 (239), 128 (242) 15.397 .................................157 (624) 15.413 ..................................144 (464) 15.415– 429 ........................146 (492) 15.415–484 ..........................147 (519) 15.427 ..................................147 (519) 15.427–429 ..........................144 (464) 15.450 ..................................127 (238) 15.452–453 ..........................144 (464) 15.455–483 ..........................157 (634) 15.483 ..................................144 (464) 15.516–517 ..........................146 (492) 15.557 ..................................157 (624) Book 16 16.13 ....................................128 (256) 16.33 ....................................127 (238) 16.38 ....................................128 (245) 16.52 ....................................143 (439) 16.91–98 ..............................161 (661) 16.95–96 ..............................154 (577) 16.106..........................128 (241, 255) 16.117–121 ..........................152 (565) 16.120 ..................................127 (238) 16.165 ..................................128 (256) 16.413 ..................................128 (254) 16.425–429 ..........................144 (464) Book 17 17.38 ....................................157 (624) 17.88–89 ..............................143 (444) 17.96–97 ..............................146 (492) 17.143 ..................................128 (242) 17.212– 214.........................143 (439) 17.255 .................................157 (624) 17.296 .................................157 (624) 17.299 ..................................132 (290) 17.303 ..................................157 (624) 17.378 ..................................157 (624) 17.382–385 ..........................142 (421) 17.391 ..................................127 (238) 17.416 ..................................157 (626) 17.419–423 ..........................157 (635) 17.425–444 ..........................157 (636)

224

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

17.433–434 ..........................144 (464) 17.521 ..................................128 (240) Book 18 18.64 ....................................157 (626) 18.138–140 ..........................157 (635) 18.259–270 ..........................153 (574) 18.267 ..................................127 (238) 18.292–301 ..........................132 (294) 18.311 ..................................137 (347) 18.313 ..................................157 (624) 18.328 ..................................146 (490) 18.426 ..................................143 (439) Book 19 19.33–34 ..............................163 (691) 19.55–58 ..............................145 (471) 19.75–80 ..............................157 (635) 19.141–155 ..........................153 (570) 19.175–177 ..........................133 (298) 19.254 ..................................128 (243) 19.322 ..................................128 (252) 19.358 ..................................157 (624) 19.392–466 ..........................170 (754) 19.397 ..................................135 (323) 19.490 ..................................127 (238) 19.497 ..................................127 (238) Book 20 20.6–8 ..................................137 (347) 20.68 ....................................127 (238) 20.69 ....................................143 (439) 20.95–96 ..............................128 (253) 20.107–108 ..........................137 (344) 20.111 ..................................157 (624) 20.122 ..................................137 (344) 20.149–153 ..........................137 (344) 20.157–163 ..........................143 (440) 20.158 ..................................137 (344) 20.161–162........137 (345), 143 (439) 20.167 ..................................128 (243) 20.173–175 ..........................137 (345) 20.214 ..................................127 (238) 20.296–298 ..........................143 (444)

Book 21 21.9 ......................................157 (624) 21.56 ....................................157 (624) 21.62 ....................................157 (624) 21.83 ....................................157 (624) 21.350–353 ..........................153 (571) 21.354 ..................................153 (571) 21.395 ..................................157 (624) Book 22 22.119 ..................................157 (624) 22.151 ..................................127 (238) 22.184–185 .........................152 (565) 22.267 ..................................152 (559) 22.313 ..................................127 (238) 22.334–337........135 (323), 152 (565) 22.396 ..................................127 (238) 22.417 ..................................127 (238) 22.421 ..................................127 (238) 22.421–423........137 (346), 146 (492) Book 23 23.28 ....................................128 (243) 23.56 ....................................127 (238) 23.113 ..................................128 (247) 23.128–146 ..........................153 (570) 23.132 ..................................127 (238) 23.157 ..................................145 (482) 23.159–161 ..........................145 (482) 23.190–200 ..........................145 (471) 23.302 ..................................128 (246) 23.357 ..................................144 (464) Book 24 24.162 ..................................128 (245) 24.179 ..................................157 (626) 24.187 ..................................128 (244) 24.226–247 ..........................127 (237) 24.338–344 ..........................127 (237) 24.377–378 ..........................144 (456) 24.420–471 ..........................154 (589) 24.444–448 .........................154 (592) 24.449–462 ..........................154 (592) 24.483................156 (619), 157 (625)

Index References to notes are indicated in parentheses after the page number in which they occur. Achilles, 58–59, 70, 75, 77–79, 90, 95, 127 (237), 128 (256), 133 (301), 140 (400), 145 (485), 155 (609), 156 (611, 613, 615), 157 (623), 168 (733, 739), 170 (756, 759, 762). See also armor and weapons; houses acropolis, 66. See also Athens, Acropolis Adrestos, 44, 70, 151 (553), 152 (565) Aegina, 87, 121 (173), 136 (340), 159 (648) Aeschylus, 88 Agamemnon, xii, 43–45, 47, 58–59, 70–72, 75–79, 94–95, 100, 134 (311), 140 (400), 145 (476), 150 (545), 152 (545, 565), 155 (594, 609), 156 (613, 618), 157 (620, 622, 623, 625), 170 (756). See also armor and weapons Agapenor, 145 (485) Agias, 88, 90 Aghios Kosmas, 125 (221), 128 (257) Ahhiyawa, 42–43, 133 (299, 300), 135 (330), 148 (529) Aigisthos, 14, 16, 72, 152 (556)

Aithiopis, 88, 169 (742) Ajax, 45, 95, 107 (19), 136 (338), 151 (552), 170 (761) Alkinoös, 34, 59, 74, 76, 101, 127 (237), 135 (322), 155 (609), 157 (626) alphabet, 3, 87–89, 91, 106 (15), 162 (680) Alexander the Great, 36 Alexander, son of Priam, 77 Alkman. See Index of Ancient Authors altar(s), 44, 54, 126 (230) Anchises, 47 Andromache, 71, 156 (611) Antikeia, 72 Antilochos, 77, 156 (612) Antinoös, 55, 72, 140 (402), 157 (626) Antiphos, 151 (554) Aphrodite, 87, 156 (612), 162 (674) Apollo, 53–54, 75, 99, 141 (406), 165 (704), 169 (745) Apollodorus. See Index of Ancient Authors Archilochus. See Index of Ancient Authors Ares, 156 (613, 619)

226

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

Arete, 74, 100 Argolid, 17–19, 24, 47, 74, 84, 99, 116 (112), 150 (545), 154 (580), 159 (643), 160 (651) Argos, 85, 87, 134 (311), 150 (545), 159 (647), (648) Arktinos, 88, 165 (703) armor and weapons, armor, 45–46, 60, 77, 86, 94, 101, 102 of Achilles, 170, 756 of Agamemnon, 59, 100, 145 (476, 485) from Dendra, 136 (331) of Sarpedon, 167 (625) arrow(s), 45–46, 136 (334, 340), 138 (360) arrow heads(s), 7, 45, 55, 98, 101 bow, 46 bowmen, 45–46, 98, 136 (334, 335, 337, 340) of Odysseus, 74 of Paris, 46 contest of, 153 (570) cuirass (corselet), 46, 136 (331) of Agamemnon, 59 bronze, 45–46, 135 (330), 136 (340) from Dendra, 46, 136 (331) linen, 46 daggers, 7, 59, 109 (35), 136 (335), 140 (392), 145 (486) helmet(s), 118 (136) boar’s tusk, 86, 107 (17), 117 (127) knife (knives), 7, 20, 109 (35), 145 (486) scepter, 110 (43) of Agamemnon, 71, 84 shield, 107 (17) of Achilles, 59, 127 (237), 145 (476) of Agamemnon, 59, 145 (476, 485), 170 (756) of Ajax, 107 (19) of Nestor, 44, 100 spear, 7, 46, 109 (35) of Hector, 129 (263) spearmen, 136 (335)

sword, 46, 109 (35), 118 (136) bronze, 7 gold studded, of Agamemnon, 59–60, 100, 145 (485, 486) silver-studded, 107 (17), 146 (486) types found in Mycenaean period, 117 (127) Asios, 77, 156 (612) Aristarchos, 36 Aristotle. See Index of Ancient Authors Arkadia, 100 Arkeisios, 72–73, 100 assembly, 73, 75–76, 154 (576, 593), 155 (594, 601), 157 (625) Athena, 36, 46, 54, 59, 60, 62, 73, 75–76, 84, 154 (593), 163 (691) Athens, 41, 60, 70, 101, 107 (19), 117 (131), 139 (387), 151 (552), 159 (642), 167 (716), 170 (757) Acropolis, 44, 84, 98. See also acropolis Agora, 23, 44, 117 (126) in Dark Age, 161 (663) in Mycenaean period, 44, 98, 100, 117 (126) in sixth and fifth centuries, 84, 88, 89, 107 (16) Atreus 10, 70–72, 74, 84, 88, 100, 151 (549, 552), 156 (618). See also tombs Attika, 85, 87, 159 (648), 161 (663) Augewas, 43 Bacchylides. See Index of Ancient Authors bard(s), 37, 47, 52, 55, 69, 78–79, 82, 85–95, 103, 107 (19), 129 (263), 137 (347), 143 (444), 144 (458), 152 (561), 154 (578, 580), 157 (624), 163 (683, 687), 164 (693, 698), 165 (700, 702–705), 166 (706), 167 (723), 169 (745), 170 (757), 171 (765) basileus, 49–51, 69–71, 76–82, 84, 101, 133 (301), 138 (377), 139 (379, 387), 150 (544, 545), 158 (631), 159 (642), 160 (658) Berbati, 18, 32, 43 blood feuds and homicide, 82, 101, 158 (638) Boeotia, 32, 43, 87, 91, 98, 129 (263), 159 (648)

INDEX

booty and loot, 58, 85, 102, 144 (458, 460), 145 (466) Briseis, 58, 75, 79, 102 bronze, 7, 32, 45–46, 49, 54–55, 61, 82, 86, 101, 108 (23), 135 (330), 136 (331, 340), 139 (337), 144 (422), 145 (475), 158 (639) smiths and workers, 32, 54–55, 61, 144 (422) tablets from Pylos, 32, 49 vessels 109 (36) weapons 7, 55. See also armor and weapons Bronze Age, 10, 21, 25–26, 36, 60, 68, 80, 87, 113 (77, 78), 116 (112), 121 (173), 135 (330), 136 (334), 140 (392), 149 (540), 150 (545), 157 (623), 160 (651) Early, 146 (497) Middle, 65, 66, 146 (497) Late, 2, 23, 37, 39–42, 46, 54, 58, 65– 66, 68, 70, 85, 89, 99, 101, 102, 105 (1), 108 (23), 122 (183), 124 (203), 129 (263), 130 (276), 134 (320), 144 (466), 146 (497), 158 (632) Cassandra, 141 (406) Catalogue of Ships, 44, 51, 67, 99, 129 (263), 133, (303), 134 (311, 315), 145 (485), 151 (554) chamber tombs. See under tomb(s) chariot(s), 35, 40, 45, 60, 86, 98, 109 (27), 135 (329, 330), 136 (334), 138 (360), 144 (458), 163 (689) Chios, 89 Chromios, 89, 151 (554) Chryses, 54, 58, 75, 100, 102 cist graves. See under tomb(s) clay. See under vases clothing. See under textiles Clytemnestra, 72. See also under tomb(s) coinage, 31 Corinth, 47, 87, 134 (311), 159 (648) crafts(men), 2, 13, 32, 42, 46, 47, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 67, 101, 102, 112 (76), 118 (136), 137 (342), 140 (392), 142 (422, 436), 146 (488, 490) Crete, 7, 13, 23–25, 39, 42, 50–51, 56–57, 60–62, 84–85, 98, 106 (4), 108 (23),

227

111 (61), 112 (74, 76), 113 (76, 77), 116 (115), 118 (136), 119 (148), 120 (152), 121 (169, 173), 122 (188), 132 –133 (298), 133 (303), 136 (335), 145 (486), 156 (612), 160 (656), 160 (659) Cup of Nestor, 107 (17) Cypria, 163 (687), 165 (703), 169 (742, 746) Cyprus, 24, 58, 83, 85, 88, 106 (15), 121 (173), 144 (465), 151, (552), 158 (629), 165 (703) damokoro, 43, 49, 140 (391) damos, 42, 52–53, 103, 138 (370), 140 (395) Dark Age, 2, 60, 62, 70, 80–86, 106 (9), 127 (232), 129 (268), 130 (276), 150 (546), 158 (631, 641), 159 (643), 161 (663), 168 (734) Demosthenes. See Index of Ancient Authors Dendra. See under armor and weapons Diogenes. See Index of Ancient Authors Diomedes, 42, 70, 77, 79, 95, 134 (311), 150 (545), 151 (553), 155 (594), 156 (612), 157 (622), 159 (647) Dorian(s), 83–85, 133 (298), 159 (649, 650), 160 (651, 653, 659) drinking, 44, 59, 77, 99 earthquake, 15, 27, 31, 34, 114 (97), 115 (108), 124 (206), 126 (227, 229) Echepolos, 47, 134 (311) Egypt(ian), 42, 67, 82, 127 (237), 135 (330), 165 (700) art, 21 economy, 2, 40, 63 papyri, 36 trade, 13, 83, 113 (79), 144 (465), 147 (520) epic(s), 2–3, 21, 35, 36, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50–53, 55, 58–60, 62, 70, 71, 73, 75–77, 79–83, 88, 90–94, 98, 100–103, 106 (5, 12), 139 (379, 390), 141 (406), 145 (486), 146 (490), 147 (516), 152 (561), 154 (578), 159 (644), 161 (661, 669), 163 (683–685), 164 (695), 165 (701, 704), 167 (719, 724), 168 (739, 741), 169 (742–746, 749, 751), 170 (752, 759, 762)

228

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

compared to Mycenaean period and Linear B tablets, 107 (17), 146 (488), 129 (268), 130 (276), 134 (311), 139 (385), 140 (399), 143 (439), 146 (488), 155 (608), 158 (632), 159 (645) dating of, 2–3, 36–37, 106–107 (16), 129 (263), 134 (320), 162 (679), 163 (691), 166 (713) dictation, 91, 94, 95, 170 (757) embellishment and improvisation, 89, 107 (20), 128 (259) language, 86, 87, 91, 158 (632), 159 (648), 164 (694, 696), 166 (708, 711, 713), 167 (717), 167 (720) Epistrophos, 151 (554) Eritha, 40, 53, 56, 140 (395) Euchenor, 47–48 Euganammon, 88, 90 Eumaios, 35, 53, 55, 140 (402), 143 (439), 155 (609) Euripides, 107 (18), 129 (267) Eurysaces, 151 (552) Eurystheus, 10, 154 (580) Eustathius, 164 (693), 169 (746) Evans, Sir Arthur, 1, 112 (76), 136 (333) faience, 28, 109 (37) feasting, 20, 76, 77, 99 fish(ing), 56, 61, 146 (497) furniture, 30, 59 bed(s), 59, 145 (471) chair(s), 34, 35, 59, 102 throne(s), 18, 20, 21, 34, 35, 44, 71, 73, 98, 118 (132), 126 (230), 138 (366), 151 (552) Gilgamesh epic, 162 (679) Gla, 28, 43, 59, 70, 98, 123 (197), 125 (216), 126 (225), 134 (305), 146 (497) gold, 7–9, 12–13, 44, 49, 59–60, 67, 87, 100, 109 (32, 34), 111 (60), 129 (263), 139 (377), 145 (475, 481, 485, 486), 162 (675), 163 (691) drinking vessels, 13, 46, 59, 86, 102, 108 (23), 109 (36), 112 (74), 113 (77, 82, 84). See also Vapheio cups leaf, 13, 59, 115 (101), 124 (205) signet rings, 13, 107 (19), 122 (183), 136 (335). See also jewelry

Grave Circle A, 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 54, 66, 75, 97, 100, 107 (19), 111 (61), 112 (70), 114 (95) Grave Circle B, 6–12, 75, 97, 100, 109 (39) Greek language, 39, 42, 54, 91, 132 (298), 158 (632), 164 (694), 165 (704), 166 (708, 711, 713, 716), 167 (717, 720) Halitherses, 75 Hector, 35, 45, 70–71, 76, 129 (263), 155 (597), 156 (611), 613 (156) Helen, 59, 74, 78, 100, 145 (481), 165 (700) Helenos, 77, 156 (612), 157 (622) Hephaistos, 59, 127 (237), 145 (476, 485), 170 (756) Hera, 75, 85, 154 (580), 155 (601) Herakleidae, 74, 84, 154 (580), 160 (653) Herakles, 93, 150 (546), 154 (580), 163 (682), 168 (740), 170 (752) heralds, 47, 137 (347) Hermes, 48, 135 (323), 156 (613, 619) hero(es), 42, 47, 52, 70–72, 77–79, 90, 91, 94, 95, 100, 101, 103, 107 (16), 150 (546), 164 (699), 170 (753) Herodotus. See Index of Ancient Authors Hesiod. See Index of Ancient Authors Hittite(s), 2, 21, 40, 43, 62, 63, 67, 116 (112), 133 (299, 300), 135 (330), 136 (330), 149 (539) Homer, 2, 52, 58, 82, 91, 93, 95, 106 (7, 9), 107 (18), 130 (276), 138 (360), 140 (399), 146 (488), 150 (544), 157 (627), 161 (672), 163 (686, 691), 164 (694), 165 (702, 703–706), 168 (738), 170 (761), 171 (768). See also Indices of References to the Iliad and Odyssey Homeric dialect, 89, 164 (696) Homeric Hymns, 81, 91, 92, 158 (629), 165 (704), 167 (718), 169 (742) Homeridae, 89, 90, 164 (693, 697, 698), 165 (703) texts of, 129 (267) additions and alterations in, 89 dictation of, 90 length of texts, 88 honor, 9, 35, 54, 78, 79, 92, 112 (72), 156 (618), 165 (700) horses, 35, 70, 109 (27), 144 (458), 150 (545), 151 (548), 156 (612)

INDEX

houses, basements, 22, 23 27–29, 103 123 (196, 197), 124 (201) bathing, 57, 143 (444, 442) chamber audience, 20 sleeping, 36 column(s), 20, 21, 23, 29, 33–35, 102, 125 (221), 126 (224, 225, 229) colonnade(s), 29 corridor(s), 28, 29, 33, 125 (222), 126 (223) courtyard(s), 19–21, 28, 29, 34, 34, 44, 50, 59, 78, 122 (190), 123 (195), 126 (224), 128 (256) hearth, 19, 20, 21, 28, 33–36, 102, 116 (119), 119 (140), 124 (206), 125 (221), 126 (224, 229), 128 (256) hut of Achilles, 128 (256) at Mycenae, Cyclopean Terrace Building, 22 House of Lead, 22, 124 (206) House of Columns, 23, 29, 119 (138), 123 (194) House of the Oil Merchant, 23, 27–32, 59, 122 (190), 123 (195, 197), 124 (201, 206), 125 (210), 131 (285) House of Shields, ix, xi, 27–29, 120 (159), 123 (190) House of the Wine Merchant, 22, 23, 31 House M, 22 Panagia Houses, 16, 19, 22, 27, 31, 115 (101, 106), 124 (205, 206), 132 (292) Petsas House, 22, 23, 31, 148 (527) Plakes House, 19 Tsountas House, 19 West House, 19, 27, 28, 122 (190), 123 (195, 196) Idomeneus, 42, 77, 85, 156 (612) Iliupersis, 88, 169 (742) industry, 23, 25, 30, 32, 56, 57, 102, 120 (157), 125 (215) Ionian(s), 85, 87, 129 (263), 159 (648), 164 (694)

229

Iphigeneia, 168 (733) iron, 55, 101, 142 (422), 158 (639) Iron Age, 2, 85, 134 (320), 158 (632, 641), 160 (659), 163 (691) Isocrates. See Index of Ancient Authors ivory, 28–30, 59, 60, 67, 124 (205) jewelry seal-stone rings, 26 signet rings, 13, 136 (335) Kalopodi, 115 (107) kingship, xi, 1–6, 10–12, 17–19, 22, 37, 52, 60, 63, 67, 68, 71–73, 81, 105 (1), 108 (22), 110 (43), 119 (138), 151 (546), 153 (570) Kleomenes, 84 Knossos, 1, 24–26, 40–43, 45, 48, 50–51, 54–57, 62, 98, 100, 102, 108, 116 (115), 122 (180), 132 (297, 298), 133 (299, 303), 135 (328, 330), 136 (333), 138 (369, 372, 374, 377), 139 (384), 143 (445), 148 (527) Laertes, 44, 72–73, 100, 127 (237), 144 (456), 152 (565), 153 (570) lamp, 163–164 (691) land, as a basis of wealth, 32, 41, 47–50, 77, 99 in Linear B tablets, 42, 47–50, 66, 102, 103 lawagetas, 42, 46, 48, 51–52, 118–119 (138), 138 (360, 366), 142 (436) Lefkandi, 83, 115 (107), 129 (268), 159 (645, 646), 163 (691) Leotychides, 150 (546), 151 (551) Lerna, 121 (173), 128 (257), 151 (548) Lesches, 88, 90 Linear A, 39, 40, 118 (136), 132 (298) Linear B, x, 1, 2, 17, 21–24, 26–27, 29–30, 32, 37, 39–63, 66–68, 70, 81–82, 84, 91, 96, 98, 100, 102, 105 (3), 113 (78, 80), 114 (92), 116 (119), 119 (145), 120 (152), 122 (182), 130 (272), 132 (297), 132 (298), 133 (299), 140 (392), 148 (527), 152 (558), 155 (608), 158 (632), 160 (650), 161 (663)

230

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

tablets from Knossos, 43, 56, 62, 132 (297) tablets from Pylos, 32, 40, 42, 48,55, 59, 61 life span, 11, 12, 72, 100, 112 (72) linen, 46, 57, 113 (80) lion, 118 (132), 126 (230), 136 (335) literacy, 26, 66, 88, 121 (168), 162 (680) Lycurgos. See Index of Ancient Authors Lykaon, 35, 46 Margites, 90, 165 (704) marriage, 12, 27, 32, 53, 72–74, 79, 107 (19), 112 (72), 140 (400, 402), 150 (545), 153 (568, 570, 575), 155 (609) mask. See also Grave Circle B electrum, 8 gold, 8, 113 (82) Medon, 75 megaron (megara), 19, 33–36, 59, 76, 77, 102, 116 (119), 117 (131), 125 (219, 222), 126 (229, 231), 127 (239), 128 (255, 256, 261), 138 (366) Melampous, 150 (545) Menelaos, 35, 46, 58–59, 74, 77, 100, 127 (237), 155 (609), 156 (612), 169 (751) Melanippos, 151 (554) Mentor, 62, 75 Midea, 23–24, 32, 34, 116 (112), 121 (170), 126 (224, 229), 132 (292) Mimnermus. See Index of Ancient Authors Moulios, 152 (554) Mouriatada, 19, 52 Mycenae. See under houses; tombs. See also tholos; palace; Schliemann, Heinrich; wall paintings artifacts, 57, 59, 68 chamber tombs, 13, 20, 98, 117 (127) citadel, 6, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, 31, 47, 51, 97, 99, 115 (108), 116 (112), 120 (156), 120 (161), 124 (206), 132 (292), 139 (384) cult center, 21, 119 (142), 141 (411) fortifications, 10, 18, 20, 22, 31, 62, 97, 98, 100, 115 (108), 116 (111) Lion Gate, 15, 16, 114 (95), 115 (108) palace workshop, 29, 59, 60, 101 Mykonos, 87, 159 (648) Myrmidon(s), 78, 156 (615)

names, 31, 44, 49, 60, 67, 68, 70, 88, 103, 121 (174), 133 (303), 138 (361), 143 (438), 150 (546), 152 (556–559), 161 (663), 164 (703) duplication of, 27, 71, 132 (298), 152 (554) Nausithoös, 74 Neleids, 74, 161 (663) Nemea, 134 (311), 163 (686), 164 (693, 697), 165 (704), 171 (768) Nestor, 44, 58, 75–79, 87, 95, 100, 102, 107 (17), 144 (456, 458), 152 (554, 555, 558), 155 (594), 156 (612, 613, 618), 157 (625), 162 (674, 675, 677), 170 (754) Nikippe, 10, 74 Niobe, 107 (18) Nostoi, 169 (742) obsidian, 32, 102 Odes of Pindar, 36, 94, 150 (547), 164 (693, 697), 165 (704), 169 (742), 170 (761), 171 (768) Oedipus, 72, 88 Oedipus at Colonus, 169 (742) Odysseus, 2, 35, 59, 46, 74, 90, 168 (739), 171 (767) absent from Ithaca, 43, 53, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 95, 100, 103, 153(570, 575) at Ithaca, 44, 72, 79, 140 (402), 152 (565), 153 (568), 155 (609) at Troy, 58, 76, 78, 154 (576), 156 (616), 168 (751) false tales, 60, 85, 122 (188), 144 (460) rank or title of, 53, 54, 152 (565), 156 (616, 619), 157 (624, 625) relation to gods, 44, 46, 135 (323) wanderings of, 133 (298), 159 (647), 161 (661), 168 (734), 170 (754) oikos, 30, 124 (204) oil, 13, 24, 25, 30, 45, 53, 55, 56, 61, 102, 113 (79, 80), 120 (158), 124 (201, 206), 135 (325), 143 (445), 144 (454) olive tree, 113 (79) Olympia, 87, 159 (648) oracles, 93 oral tradition, xii, 2,3,6,32, 35, 53, 57, 69, 86, 87, 90, 92, 95, 127 (237), 129 (203)164 (694), 165 (705), 167 (723)

INDEX

accuracy of, 36–39, 89 changes and additions to, 161 (670) shortcomings in, 79, 85 Orchomenos, 24, 43, 98, 117 (126), 134 (305) Orestes, 70, 72, 152 (554, 564) Orientalizing, 16 Orsilochos, 85 palace(s), 6, 15–27, 30–35, 40–42, 46–79, 65–79, 82–86, 100–103, 130 (274), 121 (281), 135 (325), 137 (350), 141 (406), 142 (422, 433), 152 (565), 160 (656), 161 (669) epic references to, at Ithaca, 44, 73, 79 of Alkinoös, 59, 127 (237) Mycenaean, at Mycenae, 18–23, 29, 33, 42, 59, 99, 114 (92), 115 (108), 119 (143), 120 (161), 126 (231) at Pylos, 19–23, 32, 42–45, 57, 59, 76, 98–100, 108 (23), 116 (120), 117 (131), 118 (133, 134, 138), 120 (159), 125 (212), 126 (223), 138 (366) at Tiryns, 19–21, 34, 42, 62, 115 (109), 126 (227), 147 (511) Minoan, at Knossos, 1, 56, 100, 139 (384), 143 (445) Pandaros, 55, 101 Paris, 46, 77, 141 (406), 156 (612), 165 (700) Patroklos, 77, 78, 95, 150 (545), 156 (612), 163 (689) Pausanias. See Index of Ancient Authors Peisistratos, 89, 103, 144 (458), 152 (558), 161 (663), 164 (695) Peleus, 140 (400), 155 (609) Pelopid dynasty, 10 Pelops, 70, 71, 151, (549, 552) Peneleos, 77, 156 (612) Penelope, 35–36, 42, 53, 59, 72–73, 79, 98, 103, 128 (259), 140 (402), 145 (471), 152 (565), 153 (568, 570, 571, 575), 168 (734) Perati, 146 (497), 161 (663)

231

Pergamos, 53, 99, 141 (406) Peristeria, 108 (23) Perseid dynasty, 10 Perseus, 10, 152 (555) Persia, 36, 70 Philaeus, 151 (552) Phoenician(s), 62, 106 (15), 147 (516) Phoenix, 95, 140 (400), 155 (609), 170 (759) Phokylides. See Index of Ancient Authors Photius, 163 (685) Phylakopi, 125 (222) Pindar. See Index of Ancient Authors Pithekoussai, 86–87, 159 (648), 162 (676) Plato. See Index of Ancient Authors polis, 3, 83, 106 (12), 157 (623), 167 (724) Polyxena, 168 (733) Poseidon, 44–45, 48, 54, 75–76, 99, 135 (323, 327) pottery. See vases Poulydamas, 77, 155 (597), 156 (612) Priam, 35, 45, 48, 77, 156 (611, 613, 619), 165 (700, 701), 167 (719) Proclus. See Index of Ancient Authors Proteus, 165 (700) Pylos, 12, 18–20, 23, 25–26, 32–35, 37, 40–50, 53–57, 59–62, 66–67, 69, 72–73, 76–77, 97–100, 102–103, 108 (23), 112 (72), 115 (107), 116 (113, 120), 117 (131), 118 (132, 133, 134, 138), 120 (159, 160), 122 (180), 124 (209), 125 (212), 126 (223, 230), 131 (288, 289), 133 (302), 134 (315), 137 (352), 138 (366, 372, 377), 139 (382), 142 (419), 143 (437), 144 (454, 458, 466), 145 (467, 508), 148 (527), 152 (555), 156 (612), 160 (656), 161 (663), 162 (677) rank, 30, 32, 48–52, 58, 60, 67, 69–73, 77–79, 82, 84, 101, 103, 111 (61), 143 (444), 146 (492), 150 (545), 152 (565), 154 (576), 156 (615), 157 (625, 626) resin, 13, 113 (78) Rhesos, 77, 156 (612, 613), 157 (626) Rhexenor, 74 Rhodes, 84, 87, 112 (72), 159 (648) roads, 43, 47, 100, 118 (136) rowers, 48, 61

232

KINGSHIP IN THE MYCENAEAN WORLD

sacrifices, 20, 21, 44, 54, 76, 77, 93, 99, 117 (131), 118 (132, 138), 134 (315), 135 (323), 141 (411), 168 (733) sail(ing), 46, 61, 147 (509), 165 (704) Salamis, 150 (546), 151 (552), 161 (663) Samos, 87, 89, 159 (648), 167 (717) Sappho. See Index of Ancient Authors Sarpedon, 77, 156 (612, 613), 157 (625) Schliemann, Heinrich, 1, 2, 115 (107), 145 (478) scribes, 25, 26, 30, 66, 67, 94, 95, 169 (749) Sea Peoples, 58, 65, 144 (461), seals, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 44, 45, 55, 56, 60, 120 (159), 121 (163), 122 (182, 183), 131 (288) Semitic, 62, 65 Semonides. See Index of Ancient Authors servants, 46, 47, 137 (347), 143 (439) seventh century, 2, 87, 91, 161 (672 ), 163 (691) shields. See armor and weapons ship(s), 44, 46, 51, 62, 67, 75, 99, 100, 129 (263), 133 (303), 134 (311, 315), 145 (485), 146 (494, 497), 147 (513, 519), 151 (554) Sikyon, 44, 47, 70, 134 (311), 151 (553), 152 (565) silver, 7, 59, 60, 67, 108 (23), 109 (36), 122 (183), 136 (335), 145 (475, 486) epic references to, 59, 102, 107 (17), 145 (481) similes, 57, 59, 92, 143 (439), 167 (720), 170 (759) sixth century, 113 (82), 162 (681), 163 (686, 691) slaves, 31, 32, 47, 52, 57, 58, 60, 67, 68, 77, 82, 102, 132 (291), 143 (444), 144 (466), 146 (492) Solon, 151 (552), 163 (691), 164 (695) Sophocles, 88, 151 (552) Sparta(ns), 84, 117 (121, 126), 126 (223), 139 (387), 150 (546), 156 (612), 158 (631), 160 (655), 164 (694), 167 (717, 719) in epic tradition, 35, 69, 73, 74, 85, 89, 98, 100, 103 in Linear B tablets, 41, 43 spear(s). See armor and weapons

Stasinos. See Index of Ancient Authors Sthenelos, 10, 74 stirrup jars, 23–25, 50, 60, 61, 102, 120(158), 121 (170) stone, 13–16, 26, 29–31, 47, 60, 75, 119 (143), 141 (414) storerooms, 21, 22, 27–29, 33, 46, 55, 67, 102, 115 (108), 120 (153, 161) suitors, 35, 36, 42, 53, 55, 72–75, 79, 100, 105, 152 (559), 153 (570 , 571), 154 (575), 155 (609), 157 (626) swords. See armor and weapons Teiresias, 85, 156 (616) Telegony, 89, 168 (734), 169 (742) Telemachos, 35, 44, 46, 53, 59, 72, 73, 75, 95, 100, 103, 140 (402), 144 (458), 150 (545), 153 (569, 570, 571), 154 (578, 593), 155 (609), 157 (625), 170 (762) Telemon, 151 (552) telestai, 42, 48, 49, 138 (370) temenos, 41, 42, 48, 49, 131 (289), 140 (396) temples, 53, 54, 65, 69, 84, 99, 130 (274), 141 (406) terracotta. See vases Teukros, 77, 151 (552) textiles, clothing, 61, 77, 110 (46) linen, 57, 113 (80) production, 113 (80) wool, 57, 113 (80) thalamos, 36, 128 (261) Thebes, 23–26, 41–44, 54, 60, 69, 72, 92, 98, 121 (165, 174), 125 (216), 131 (288), 146 (497), 141 (527) Theogony, 94, 169 (742) Theoklymenos, 150 (545), 170 (755) Thersites, 76, 154 (576) Theseus,107 (16) tholos (tholoi), 5, 13–18, 43, 47, 66, 97–100, 108 (24), 112 (72), 113 (85), 114 (87, 88, 91, 92), 115 (101), 134 (305). See also tomb(s) Thoon, 151 (554) threshold(s), 114 (100), 115 (101), 153 (571), 154 (578) throne. See furniture

INDEX

Thucydides. See Index of Ancient Authors Thyestes, 71 Thymbraios, 77, (156 (612) tin, 59, 145 (475) Tiryns, 18–20, 23, 24, 32–35, 41, 42, 59, 62, 98, 99 tomb(s). See also Grave Circles A and B of Aigisthos, 14, 16 chamber, 13, 20, 98, 102, 117 (127) cist graves, 6, 7, 9, 14 Cyclopean, 14, 15 of Cytemnestra, 10, 14–17, 115 (101, 108) Epano Phournos, 14, 15 of the Genii, 14–16 Kato Phournos, 14, 16 of the Lions, 14, 16 in Macedonia, 13 Panagia, 14, 16 shaft graves, 6–8, 13, 14, 17, 20, 23, 107 (19), 108 (23, 27), 110 (46, 51), 111 (60), 114 (87), 117 (127), 136 (355) Treasury of Atreus, 14–17, 114 (87, 98, 99), 115 (101, 108) at Ugarit, 66, 68 trade, 50, 55, 58, 60–63, 82, 83, 102, 103, 113 (174, 175), 122 (176), 127 (237), 144 (465), 145 (466), 146 (488, 194, 196), 147 (516–520), 159 (646) Trojan Cycle, 87, 158 (629), 163 (683) Troy, 2, 47, 48, 53–55, 70, 73, 76, 77, 78, 84–90, 98, 99, 101, 128 (256), 129 (263), 133 (301), 141 (485), 149 (539), 151 (553), 152 (554, 559), 154 (576), 155 (594), 156 (611, 612), 157 (626), 164 (699), 165 (700,704), 169 (751) Tydeus, 92 Ugarit, 2, 10, 20–23, 62, 63, 65–68, 99, 11, 101, 116 (112), 127 (237), 131 (282), 148 (523, 526, 531), 149 (532, 537, 538). See also tombs Uluburun shipwreck, 113 (78)

233

Vapheio, 13, 43, 98, 117 (126) cups, 108 (23) vases, 44, 59, 60, 68, 69, 76 86, 88, 99, 121 (172), 134 (318), 136 (335), 146 (493), 161 (672). See also stirrup jars Archaic, 92, 93, 154 (580) clay, 61, 109 (28), 115 (106), 149 (538) Geometric, 86 Late Helladic (149 (532) silver and gold, 60, 108 (23), 109 (35), 112 (74), 140 (392) See also Vapheio, cups stone, 59, 60, 109 (37) Vergil’s Aeneid. See Index of Ancient Authors vessels. See vases Volos, 115 (107) wall paintings and frescos, 44, 46, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 76, 77, 98, 99, 102, 103, 110 (46, 51), 117 (131, 132), 118 (138), 119 (142), 127 (237), 146 (493, 497) wanakteros, 46 wanax, 41–52, 55, 56–60, 63, 72, 73, 75, 77–82, 116 (111, 115), 117 (131), 131 (284, 286–289), 133 (301, 301), 134 (317), 138 (360, 366), 139 (378), 142 (436), 147 (519), 150 (544, 545), 152 (565), 157 (622) warfare, 46, 98, 118 (138) weapon(s). See armor and weapons wine, 46, 47, 60, 62, 127 (237), 143 (439) women, status of, 46, 47, 57, 58, 60, 61, 67, 93, 98, 102, 110 (46), 111 (58–60, 112 (72), 113 (444), 146 (492), 151 (552), 152 (558), 153 (568, 571) Zeuxippe, 167 (719) Zeus, 50, 59, 129 (601), 130 (619), 131 (625) Zygouries, 22

Figures

FIGURE 1

Plan of Grave Circle A, Mycenae (by Garvey, from Mylonas 1966, text fig. 19).

Plan of Grave Circle B, Mycenae (by D. Theochares, from Mylonas 1966a, fig. 88).

FIGURE 2

Topographic plan of Mycenae and its vicinity, composite drawing by S.C. Ferrence based on Mylonas 1966, fig. 68; Shear 1987, fig. 1; French 2002, figs. 10 and 25. A: Grave Circle A; B: Grave Circle B; C: Tomb of the Lions; D: Tomb of Clytemnestra; E: Tomb of Aigisthos; F: Tomb of the Genii; G: Cyclopean Tomb; H: Epano Phournos Tomb; I: Panagia Tomb; J: Treasury of Atreus; K: Kato Phournos Tomb; L: Lion Gate; M: Petsas’ House; N: Panagia Houses; O: House of the Oil Merchant complex; P: House of Lead; Q: Plakes House; R: House of Columns; S: Tsountas’ House; T: House of the Wine Merchant; U: Cyclopean Terrace Building.

FIGURE 3

Plan of the West House, House of Sphinxes, House of the Oil Merchant, and House of Shields, Mycenae (from Mylonas 1966a, text fig. 20)

FIGURE 4

Plan of the Panagia Houses, Mycenae (by R.J. Rothman and K.W. Schaar, from Shear 1987, plan).

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

Topographic plan of Gla (from Iakovidis 1998, sketch plan 1, courtesy of S.E. Iakovidis).

FIGURE 7

Plan of Buildings K, N, and M, Gla (from Iakovidis 1998, sketch plan 3, courtesy of S.E. Iakovidis).

FIGURE 8

Plan of Palace Workshop and House of Columns at Mycenae, restored drawing by I.M. Shear. A: Entrance to House of Columns; B: Corridor into House of Columns leading to courtyard of House of Columns; C: Courtyard of Workshop; D: Courtyard of House of Columns; E: Stair to upper level of Workshop; F: Porch facing courtyard; G: Vestibule; H: Megaron of House of Columns; I: Entrance to Palace Workshop; J: Side entrance to megaron; K: Corridor; L: Staircase to upper levels of House of Columns; Q: Corridor in House of Columns leading into basement rooms; W1–W4: Storage rooms on lower level shared by both buildings, work areas on upper level; W5–W9: Storage areas on lower level, work areas on upper level for Palace Workshop; W1–W9: Upper floor: working area of Palace Workshop; X and Y: Additional corridors surrounded by basement rooms.

FIGURE 9

Palace at Tiryns, restored drawing by H. Sulze from Shear 2000a, fig. 8. 1: Outer propylon leading into palace; 2: Entrance to courtyard; 3: Courtyard; 4: Porch and vestibule leading to main megaron of the palace; 5: Second courtyard; 6: Vestibule to second megaron.

FIGURE 10

Palace at Mycenae, restored drawing by T.L. Shear, Jr., from Shear 2000a, fig. 10. 1: Courtyard of lower megaron; 2: Porch of lower megaron; 3: Vestibule of lower megaron; 4: Lower megaron; 5: Upper megaron 6: Ramp leading to palace; 7: Northwest Propylon; 8: West passage leading to lower megaron; 9: Grand Staircase, later addition to palace providing a second entrance.

FIGURE 11

Palace at Pylos, restored drawing by J. Travlos, from Shear 2000a, fig. 9. 1–2: Entrance to palace; 3: Courtyard, 4–5: Porch and vestibule leading to megaron; 6: Main megaron with central hearth; 7: Colonnade in courtyard; 8: Second megaron; 9: Second courtyard; 10–11: Palace archives; 12: Bathroom; 13: Northeast Building.