Thomas, C. G. a Mycenaean Hegemony. a Reconsideration.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

A Mycenaean Hegemony? A Reconsideration Author(s): C. G. Thomas Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 90 (1970), pp. 184-192Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/629761Accessed: 23-09-2015 22:09 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:09:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic

http://www.jstor.org/stable/629761

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



A MYCENAEAN HEGEMONY? A RECONSIDERATION

THERE are two possible positions with regard to the Mycenaean hegemony: that it existed or that it did not. Modern scholars who accept its existence appear to be more vocal in arguing their position than are those who question the existence of Mycenaean unity. Desborough, for example, states forcibly:

I am firmly convinced that there was one ruler over the whole Mycenaean territory, with his capital at Mycenae, although the tablets are of no assistance one way or the other in this matter, and although the overlordship of Agamemnon clearly envisaged by Homer can perhaps be explained simply as a military leadership for the purpose of waging war against Troy. The burden of proof must therefore depend on other evidence, the archaeological material taken in conjunction with the fairly frequent mention by the Hittites, in the fourteenth and much of the thirteenth centuries, of the king of a land called Ahhiyawa, which I believe to represent the entire Mycenaean orbit.'

The opposite position is represented largely through hints given in a larger context. Stubbings, for example, writes of 'the Mycenaean Greeks of the mainland and the Mycenaean rulers of Cnossus' and of 'the mainland kingdoms' (italics mine).2 Catling speaks of 'metropolitan Greeks grown jealous of the wealth and power which their Knossian relatives had built up'.3 This emphasis on plurality, it seems to me, is the best way not only to view the events of the Mycenaean Greek world but also to understand the nature and degree of change in Greece during the Dark Age period.4

The Dark Age has, generally speaking, a two-fold significance. It has an importance of its own, as a distinct period, and it is important as a transitional stage in Greek history. For, in order to understand the nature of Hellenic civilisation, it is essential to appreciate changes that occurred on the Greek mainland as a result of the collapse of the Mycenaean civilisation and due to the process of reshaping in the first centuries of the Iron Age.

Certainly, in one sense, it is true that 'the declining palace economies of the Mycenaean lords were shattered; and so men were set free to create new political and intellectual views, once the worst of the chaos was over'.5 On the other hand, however, it may be erroneous to emphasise an absolute completeness of change occurring between the Helladic and Hellenic periods of Greek civilisation. It is clear, for example, that the foundations of classical Greek religion were laid by the Mycenaean Greeks.6 So too for the general framework of life, it is likely that we should look to the late Bronze Age and the Mycenaean civilisation in our search for origins. It would seem that the condition of political and geographical fragmentation, which in the Hellenic period is expressed in the polis, is to be found in the Helladic period in independent kingdoms.

It is customary to use phrases such as the Mycenaean world or the Mycenaean Age to describe the late Bronze Age. Such terminology calls to mind unity and concerted action or even hegemony. Indeed, the mere existence of a number of sites in regions such as the Argolid or Attica or Boeotia is often interpreted as implying that there was 'probably room

1 V. R. d'A. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors (Oxford, 1964) 2 i8.

2 F. H. Stubbings, 'The Rise of Mycenaean Civilisation', revised edition of CAH II, xiv (Cam- bridge, 1963) 32. S

H. W. Catling, 'Spectrographic Analysis of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery', Archaeometry iv (r961) 33-

4 Certainly I would not rule out the possibility of limited unity. The Argolid, with major centres at Mycenae, Tiryns and Argos, quite probably wit- nessed some uniformity of control.

5 C. G. Starr, The Origins of Greek Civilization (London, I962) 74-

6 The Mycenaean basis of Greek religion is developed in the work of M. P. Nilsson especially,



A MYCENAEAN HEGEMONY? A RECONSIDERATION 185 for no more than one major system of political relationships'; that the various areas 'must have coordinated their power in some way, perhaps in an amphiktyonic league or in an inherited feudal hierarchy'.7

Yet, when we note the existence of kingdoms which appear to be completely independent,8 find indications of rivalry throughout the whole Mycenaean period and, in fact, have one very vivid indication of inter-kingdom warfare we are surely not justified in

speaking of a 'Mykenaian Hegemony'9 extending over wide areas of the Greek mainland. Rather, we should probably see the same circumstances and the same loyalties that later would result in conflicts such as the Lelantine or Peloponnesian war.

Most scholars now accept the view that Mycenaean Greeks established themselves in Knossos in the fifteenth century B.C., perhaps as early as 1480.10 A new militaristic spirit, shown in the arsenal and, perhaps, the introduction of the chariot, points to the mainland. The period is characterised by the appearance of the Palace Style ware made only at Knossos and on the mainland of Greece. The Linear B tablets, too, are found solely at Knossos and mainland sites. Innovations in fresco painting and architectural features again parallel examples from Mycenaean sites. The throne room in the palace at Knossos, for instance, was apparently re-modelled along the lines of those at Mycenae and Pylos and there is a striking likeness, at least in their reconstructed forms, between the griffin frescoes from the throne rooms of Knossos and Pylos.

Thus it seems fairly certain that Mycenaean Greeks captured the site of Knossos and probably gradually extended their influence both through the island of Crete itself and also over outlying regions previously under Minoan control, of either a political or economic nature. But it is inaccurate to say Mycenaean Greeks and thereby imply any unity of conquest and control by the mainlanders as a whole. The case must have been that one group of Greeks from the mainland succeeded in this enterprise and, as a consequence, began to enjoy an increasingly commanding position in the Eastern Mediterranean world.

With control of Knossos, these Mycenaeans may have assumed control of the Minoan 'thalassocracy' as well. Throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, Mycenaean products and even settlements gradually replace Minoan products and settlements." Again, however, it is essential to realise the significance of the phraseology 'Mycenaean products and settlements': more precisely, the terminology should probably be 'Knossian-Mycenaean products and settlements.' In other words, the benefits derived from the Minoan 'thalassocracy' went not to the Mycenaeans in general, but to one group of Mycenaeans.

Surely this rise in importance of the Greeks established at Knossos should be attributed to militaristic activity as well as to trade and commerce. It may well be that legends of the classical period reflect the interaction between Cretan and mainland Greeks during the fifteenth century. As Stubbings writes, '. .. traditions of the Late Helladic II period when

Geschichte der griechischen Religion i (2nd edn., Munich, I955); Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion (2nd edn., Lund, 1950); The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (Berkeley, 1932).

1 E. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago, I964) 232 f. Mrs Vermeule's position on the question of unity is essentially one of compromise: 'It is doubtful whether late Mycenaean Greece was either really an empire, . . . or a string of local kingdoms who neither respected nor supported one another.' Ibid., 236.

8 The Linear B tablets are instructive in a negative fashion: the tablets from both Knossos and Pylos make no reference to other major Mycenaean centres.

The nature of the tablets and the method of their preservation prevent us from placing much emphasis on this fact, however.

9 This is the terminology used by S. Dow, 'The Greeks in the Bronze Age', Rapports du XIe Congres International des Sciences Historiques (Stockholm, I96O).

10 This is the date proposed by Dow, ibid., 15. 'The earlier date, c. 1480, seems preferable for the conquest itself.' The Palace Style is dated to the ceramic phase Late Minoan II or, in Furumark's chronology, c. 1450-14oo B.C.

11 F. H. Stubbings, 'The Expansion of Mycenaean Civilization', revised edition of CAH II, xxiia (Cam- bridge, 1964) 18-22.



186 C. G. THOMAS

Cnossus and the mainland flourished on an uneasy equality and rivalry are not lacking'.12 One thinks immediately of the 'myth' of Atlantis and the tradition surrounding Minos.

Plato says in the Timaeus,3a 'Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, .. .'. Further, in the Critias14 he writes '. . . because of the greatness of their empire many things were brought to them from foreign countries, and the island itself provided most of what was required by them for the uses of life'. Plato says also that this 'mighty power . . unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, ... to which your city (Athens) put an end'."

Certainly it must be acknowledged that by far the most of Plato's mythology derives from his imagination; that it is fiction rather than legend.16 Yet his picture of the power of Atlantis and its eventual destruction by a mainland power could be applied without altera- tion to our conception of the Minoan 'thalassocracy' and its undermining and destruction by a Mycenaean kingdom.

It may be that the traditional description of the power and activities of Minos furnishes independent corroboration of Plato's treatment. Minos, in the Athenian view at least, was a cruel tyrant who reduced Athens to the position of a tributary state. After his son Androgeos had been murdered in Attica, Minos led an expedition against Athens and Megara when, seemingly, he reduced Athens to the position of a subject state. It was Theseus, the son of the Athenian king, who freed Athens from its bonds. Incidentally, it is interesting to learn that Daidalos was, traditionally, an exile to Crete from Athens.

There is nothing surprising in these tales. Athens was an important Mycenaean site and of Megara R. H. Simpson writes:

Before the hill became almost completely built over, MH and Mycenaean sherds, and Cyclopean walling were observed. The site is well placed to command both the harbour and the fertile valley stretching inland to the north-west. I should judge that this Mycenaean site was probably of greater importance than the excavated Mycenaean settlement . . . by the shore [Palaiokastro].17

There are three alternative ways in which these legends may be viewed. They may have no basis in fact whatsoever. There may be a stratum of truth pointing to the period of Minoan supremacy before Mycenaeans took control of Knossos. Or they may reflect the rivalry which undoubtedly existed between the various Mycenaean kingdoms as the mainland Greeks assumed their position of supremacy in the Mediterranean world.

It will probably never be possible to determine the amount or exact nature of knowledge the Greeks possessed concerning their past during the classical period. Consequently, legends, myths and traditional tales cannot be assumed to supply independent evidence for conditions or events of an earlier 'period. Yet it appears quite valid to maintain that 'though tales of a heroic age contain much mythical material and must not be treated as history, they are based on actual people and actual events'.8s In general, then, these legendary accounts can be used in only one way. It must be remembered that they have been embroidered with precise details which cannot be accepted. At most, they embody a major event or movement or set of circumstances which has been passed down through a number of generations.

12 Stubbings, 'The Rise of Mycenaean Civiliza- tion', op. cit., 32.

13 Timaeus 25a. The Dialogues of Plato translated by B. Jowett (Oxford, 1953).

14 Critias I 14d. Ibid. 15 Timaeus 24e. Ibid. 16 J. A. Stewart, The Myths of Plato (Carbondale,

Ill., 196o).

17 R. H. Simpson, 'A Gazetteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites', Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin Supplement No. 16 (London, 1965) 112.

18 C. M. Bowra, The Meaning of a Heroic Age, Earl Grey Memorial Lecture (Newcastle, 1957) 3-



A MYCENAEAN HEGEMONY? A RECONSIDERATION 187

In the late Bronze Age, there is archaeological evidence to suggest that the Greek world was not a unity and that the Greeks did not coexist peacefully. The legendary accounts of hostilities lead to the same conclusions and, thus, I feel, can be taken as embodying a framework of historical accuracy.

If this be so, does the traditional evidence describe the period of Minoan supremacy or does it rather depict the period when Knossos was controlled by mainland Greeks? Sir Arthur Evans' picture of Minoan control over Greece is no longer accepted. Instead, the interaction between the island and mainland before 1500 B.C. is now visualised as a peaceful interchange of an economic and cultural nature. In view of this and the probability that the Knossian-Mycenaeans were rivals to, rather than subjects of, any mainland kingdom, the legends appear to strengthen a picture of inter-kingdom hostility.

Assuming that this is the correct view of the relationship between the island and mainland during the fifteenth century, we need not ask with Dow, 'Why did Mykenai kill a goose that was laying golden eggs ?'19 We should not speak of Mykenai and imply the whole Mycenaean world; we should speak of groups of Mycenaeans. It seems clear that one group of Mycenaeans killed the goose that was laying golden eggs for another, probably quite independent, group of Mycenaeans. Indeed, Catling's suggestion becomes more

convincing: the destruction of Knossos was caused by 'metropolitan Greeks grown jealous of the wealth and power which their Knossian relatives had built up with their command of the sea'.20

It is my opinion that these developments on Crete and especially at Knossos provide a

good case study for relationships between the various Mycenaean powers. I would

conjecture, furthermore, that later developments on the mainland itself give substantiation to this argument. We might consider three possible indicators in this regard: the commercial growth of Thebes in the fourteenth century followed by its destruction, probably close to I3oo B.C.; the rise to prominence of Pylos from roughly 1300oo B.C. to its destruction in c. 1230; and the eventual destruction at a majority of Mycenaean sites approximately thirty years later.

The spectrographic analysis of Minoan and Mycenaean pottery being carried out in Oxford at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art has already given, and promises further, important results. For the purpose of the present discussion, one of the most interesting conclusions concerning Thebes is that the outcome of testing 'serves to emphasize her role as a merchant city'.21 Two other points are equally significant. First, 'The earliest date which can be defended for the Theban jars is c. 1400 B.C.',22 that is, after the date of the destruction of Knossos. Second, the fabric of the Theban Stirrup jars is comparable with the fabric of Cretan pottery, not that deriving from Knossos but rather from smaller East Cretan sites.23

I do not maintain that the analysis proves any hypothesis. I do suggest, however, that it is interesting to find that the rise in commercial importance of the Theban Mycenaeans followed the destruction of the base of power of the Knossian Mycenaeans. Actual warfare may not be implied. But certainly, one group of Greeks does appear to benefit at the expense of another group. The situation seems to parallel roughly the growing Athenian

19 Dow, op. cit., 18. 20 Catling, op. cit., 33. 21 H. W. Catling and A. Millett, 'A Study of the

Inscribed Stirrup-Jars from Thebes', Archaeometry viii (1965) 35. Results of spectrographic analysis are presented elsewhere in Archaeometry iv and vi and by H. W. Catling, E. E. Richards and A. E. Blin-Stoyle, 'Correlations between Composition and Provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery', BSA lviii (1963) 94-II5.

22 Archaeometry viii (1965) 35. 23 Ibid., 32. 'In the study of the first set of jars,

i.e. jars 1-12, it has been shown that the most likely comparison made was with Type F, which only occurred in East Crete.' 'The second group of jars, i.e. jars 13-18, from their single analysis examination seemed on the whole to be more comparable with Type O, again an East Cretan source group, than with Type I which was the only other possible comparison.'



188 C. G. THOMAS

domination of foreign markets with its black-figure ware at the expense of the Corinthians. Once again, traditional evidence may throw some light on Theban development. Just

as the power of the Knossian Greeks may have been resented by other Greeks, so too the strength of the Theban Mycenaeans may well have roused rivalry against her. It may be that this rivalry is reflected, in legendary form, in the tale of the 'Seven against Thebes'. The 'Seven' derived from three areas: Thebes itself, Argos and Kalydon. It is well known that Thebes and Argos were major Mycenaean sites. And of Kalydon, Simpson writes:

The higher and northernmost hill was the Mycenaean acropolis. Here Mycenaean fortification walls, house remains (including one apsidal) and sherds were discovered.... This hill completely dominates the plain to west and south, and also commands the route up the river Euenos on the East.24

So, geographically at least, the legend could have basis in fact. According to legend, the Epigonoi were successful in defeating the Thebans. The

archaeological material from Thebes reveals the same end result.

The most impressive part of the settlement was the building identified as a palace, and it is clear that this was destroyed in LH III A, after which the major importance of the town must have ceased, though a complete desertion did not ensue, as a few sherds from the settlement attest a continuance of occupation in LH III B.25

Significantly, the destruction was not caused by the arrival of newcomers. Henceforth, Thebes was no longer a powerful entity within the Mycenaean world although the site continued to be inhabited.

Is this not the same pattern of developments that occurred in Knossos roughly a century earlier ? One group of Mycenaean Greeks came to enjoy a position of commercial success; this success could easily have led to rivalry and distrust on the part of other Mycenaeans; the power and wealth enjoyed by the Theban Mycenaeans, as well as that of the Knossian Mycenaeans, was ended by destruction.

So we have examples of growth at particular sites followed by destruction in both the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries. The pattern, apparently, continued in the thirteenth century and especially at the site of Ano Englianos or Pylos. It was in approximately 1300 B.C. that what is described as the 'fourteenth-century town' was burned and the site rebuilt with large palace structures. As Blegen concludes:

The destruction by burning of the earlier settlement, which at the end of the ceramic phase III A occupied the hill and the slopes below, might be taken to indicate that Neleus conquered the place with violence, ... It is not impossible that the Southwestern Building was the actual palace existing at the end of the fourteenth century and was then demolished in the struggle for domination.26

Tradition maintains that Neleus, having married the daughter of the king of Mycenaean Orchomenos, travelled to Pylos where he defeated the ruling king and established his own dynasty. As Mrs Vermeule suggests, 'We are prepared to believe in high mobility in this later Mycenaean world. What is surprising, and suggestive, is the freedom of one Mycenaean group to burn out and take over another, as late as I3goo B.C.'27

As in the case of Thebes, Pylos then experienced growth and prosperity and clearly became one of the most important of the thirteenth-century Mycenaean sites. As Simpson summarizes, 'Professor Blegen's excavations have revealed a great palace complex, with a

24 Simpson, op. cit., 91. 25 Desborough, op. cit., I21. 26 C. W. Blegen and Marion Rawson, The Palace

of Nestor at Pylos i (Princeton, 1966) 423-

27 Vermeule, op. cit., 163.




bureaucratic system that presupposes control over a wide territory'."8 In addition to control over a large kingdom in the southwestern Peloponnese, archaeological evidence shows that trade was an important aspect of life in Pylos as it was in other Mycenaean kingdoms.29

Following this period of power and prosperity, we witness destruction once again. 'There is no doubt that the palace was violently destroyed . ...'30 It is felt by Blegen that 'we can date the fire to a time when the style of Mycenaean III B was nearing its end, but had not yet been superseded by that of Mycenaean III C'.31 To be as specific as the evidence allows, a date- between I23O and 1200 is most likely. There is no tale of the 'Seven against Pylos' to strengthen the supposition that other Mycenaeans were responsible for the disaster. Indirectly, however, there is evidence for the view in the fact that there is no trace of a foreign, that is non-Mycenaean, element in the destruction level.32

Admittedly the destruction at Pylos occurs amidst disturbances in most parts of the Mycenaean world, the exact nature of which remains extremely unclear. Apparently, final destructions occurred at roughly the same time at Zygouries, Gla, Crisa, Iolcus and the settlement at the Menelaion.33 Perhaps the most significant point, concerning the present discussion, is that in the Peloponnese, only one of the three major sites was completely destroyed: Pylos. Mycenae and Tiryns, though attacked, continued to survive. I wonder about the importance of the tradition that the survivors from Pylos fled to the Mycenaean site of Athens; apparently they made no attempt to bring succour to the inhabitants of Mycenae or Tiryns.

I do not presume to be attempting an explanation of the cause or nature of the final collapse of the various centres of Mycenaean civilisation. What I am suggesting is that there appears to be a discernible pattern to the rise and fall of individual Mycenaean kingdoms before the final destruction. Especially important is the fact that in each case the fall was apparently through destruction at the hands of another Mycenaean power. A parallel pattern which immediately comes to mind is the shifting fortunes of the Greek poleis in the fourth and third centuries B.c. In neither time period are there indications of unity. Absent, too, is hegemony beyond an immediate regional area which, in the earlier period, comprises the region of each kingdom and, in the later period, is the area of the individual city-state.

But what of that other evidence mentioned in the opening quotation from Desborough: 'the overlordship of Agamemnon clearly envisaged by Homer', 'the archaeological material' and 'the fairly frequent mention by the Hittites ... of the king of a land called Ahhiyawa' ?

The Iliad does leave an impression that Agamemnon holds a privileged position and that impression cannot be dismissed out of hand. To maintain any consistency, I must acknowledge that it may well be that the epics are based on a major historical event34 and

28 Simpson, op. cit., 64. 29 It is unfortunate that Pylian material has not

been tested by the spectrographic method as yet. Results would indicate precisely the extent of con- nections through trade.

30 Desborough, op. cit., 94. 31 C. W. Blegen and Mabel Lang, 'The Palace of

Nestor Excavations of 1959', AJA lxiv (I96o) I59. 32 See Desborough, op. cit., for the evidence. He summarizes on p. 251 as follows: 'In the Argolid, in spite of destruction at Mycenae and Tiryns, and the abandonment of certain other sites, there is no evidence of settlement by newcomers. The survivors have all the usual Mycenaean characteristics. ... Laconia is the least well known of the three areas, but recent survey and excavation have suggested on

the one hand a serious depopulation, and on the other the continuance of the Mycenaean sanctuary at Amyklai. Once again, there is no evidence for invaders settling in this area, . . . it is remarkable that precisely the same picture has emerged from Messenia.'

33 F. H. Stubbings, 'The Recession of Mycenaean Civilization', revised edition of CAH II, xxvii (Cam- bridge, 1965) 14 f.

34 But see M. I. Finley, 'The Trojan War', JHS lxxxiv (1964) who maintains that '. . . Blegen and his colleagues . . . have found nothing, not a scrap, which points to an Achaean coalition or to a "king whose overlordship was recognised" or to Trojan allies; nothing which hints at who destroyed Troy.' At a later point Finley writes, 'It would be an



190 C. G. THOMAS

that the formulaic nature of the epic language would foster fairly exact transmission. Yet, as in the case of the Atlantis myth, we cannot go beyond an acceptance of the most general nature. With respect to specific details, it would appear that the alterations occurring very gradually within the epics are due, primarily, to a process of 'modernisation'. In other words, non-understandable features of the traditional poetry were made understandable to the present audience. I have argued elsewhere35 for the process of modernisation with regard to the political situation embodied in the Iliad and Odyssey and see no reason why the overlordship of Agamemnon could not be visualised as the result of the same process. If this be the case, we can state with Finley36 'The Homeric world was altogether post- Mycenaean, and the so-called reminiscences and survivals are rare, isolated, and garbled. Hence Homer is not only not a reliable guide to the Mycenaean tablets; he is no guide at all.'

But let us look more closely at this overlordship as portrayed in the epic tradition. Desborough is wise in suggesting that it can be explained 'simply as a military leadership for the purpose of waging war against Troy'. The Greek world did not immediately, on the seizure of Helen, recognise that a wrong to the House of Atreus must be avenged and that Agamemnon would automatically become the leader of an avenging expeditionary force. It appears that Agamemnon felt that he must organise a punitive force and with Menelaos travelled to the lands of two powerful kings-Nestor and Odysseus-whose domains lay outside the borders of his own kingdom, asking them to join forces with him.37 After agreeing to supply contingents from their kingdoms, Nestor and Odysseus further acted to recruit aid from other kings.38 It is clearly implied that they acted of their own accord.

When a considerable army from many kingdoms in Greece had been gathered in Argos, each of the local kings made a vow to Agamemnon: 'They once undertook to you as they set forth to come here (Troy) from horse-pasturing Argos, to go home only after you have sacked strong-walled Ilion.'39 In this vow or these oaths of friendship (orkia) the local king promised 'to be a staunch companion in arms'.40 The resulting situation was as follows: a local lord vowed that, during this expedition, he would act as leader of his own contingent but at the same time he would be only an 'etairos' or comrade to the other kings under the supreme leadership of Agamemnon. Agamemnon's unique position arose from the fact that he took the responsibility for initiating the war and was held accountable for its successful conclusion. Equally important, he supplied the largest contingent of men and ships. The practicality of this arrangement is indicated in Odysseus' words: 'The kingship of many is no good thing; let there be one leader, one king. .. .'41 For the efficient operation of warfare one man is generally given supreme command.

That the epic tradition regarded Agamemnon's unique position as continuing for the duration of the expedition only is clear from several passages in the Odyssey. Once Troy had been sacked, Agamemnon's control appears to have vanished.42 When Agamemnon and his followers were slain by Aegisthus and Clytemnestra, the responsibility for vengeance rested solely with Orestes and Menelaos.43 Had the king of Mycenae exercised an overlordship in Greece during peace as well as war, his murder would have been remembered as of more import than the ruin of a prosperous 'oikos'.44 Even if the actual vengeance on

obvious guess that, when their own society was under such severe pressure, bands of Achaeans took to buccaneering and mercenary service, sometimes as allies of the invaders.' (Pp. I and 6.)

35 'The Roots of Homeric Kingship', Historia xv (1966) 387-407.

36 M. I. Finley, 'Homer and Mycenae: Property and Tenure', Historia vi

(i957) 133-59.

37 Odyssey xxiv 115-17. 38 Iliad xi 769-70. 39 Iliad ii 286-8. 40 Iliad iv 266-7. 41 Iliad ii 204-6. 42 Odyssey iii 136 ff.

43 Odyssey i 35-52, iv 546-7. 44 Odyssey iv 90-6.




Aegisthus and Clytemnestra had to remain with the family because of rules of custom, one would expect that tradition would recall some sort of contest for Agamemnon's throne and position. As it occurred, Aegisthus reigned undisturbed in Mycenae for seven years45 until he was slain by Orestes. Presumably Orestes then assumed his father's position as local king of the area.

In summary then, epic tradition remembers a temporary overlordship for one particular expedition. The details concerning the nature of kingship which are embedded in the epics reflect fragmentation rather than unity.

What does archaeological evidence indicative of Mycenaean culture reveal about empire or overlordship? To remain impartial, we must acknowledge with Desborough the significance of 'the factor of the cultural uniformity of the whole Mycenaean world.

.... This

uniformity (in which Crete alone is excluded) has many facets, and may be said to cover almost every type of object or custom revealed by archaeology'.46 Yet, it is necessary to stress a point which Desborough goes on to make: 'In all these elements a general uniformity may be observed, but on the other hand there is no indication that any one district took the lead, though it is worth mentioning that the citadel and town of Mycenae present the most impressive remains so far brought to light.'47

This general uniformity of culture evidences only one fact directly: the Mycenaean kingdoms were connected, economically, through trade. Especially apt is Stella's phrase 'questa civile koine'.48 There was much borrowing and adaptation but the origin of styles or motifs cannot be traced to one and the same site. Influence by some Mycenaeans on others is to be expected both because of trade and also due to movement, peaceful and violent. Using the legendary account of Neleus as an example, we might say that Neleus in moving from Iolcos to Pylos carried with him elements of the northern Mycenaean culture which found their way into the southern Mycenaean cultural stream.

Finally, there are the Hittite references to the king of Ahhiyawa which Desborough, among others, interprets as representing a Mycenaean unity. While it is true that Ahhiyawa probably refers to the Achaeans or Mycenaeans, in spite of linguistic difficulties, there is no way of determining the location of the kingdom of Ahhiyawa. Huxley in his Achaeans and Hittites49 concedes this point. Yet he argues, largely on evidence derived from epic poetry, that 'Agamemnon then, was the ruler of all Mycenaean Greece and of many islands also' and that 'Agamemnon's powers are appropriate to those of a king of Ahhijava.'5o Page, on the other hand, has presented a case for an identification with Rhodes: 'Predominant in the eastern Aegean is the island of Rhodes: for the Hittites, Greek means Rhodian; and for two hundred years the island state enjoys a privileged position in Hittite diplomacy.'51

If an identification of the kingdom of Ahhiyawa with the mainland of Greece should become virtually certain, still there would be no compelling reason to conclude that the Mycenaean world was united even loosely. A Mycenaean king was reported as campaigning in Asia Minor; he could have been the king of Athens as well as Mycenae. The Hittites corresponded with a Mycenaean king; he could have been the king of Pylos as well as Tiryns. The point is this: the Hittites had dealings with individual rulers and their documents reveal this fact. We cannot go on to the inference that one ruler held a privileged position in the Greek world. This may have been the impression of the Hittites; certainly it would be to the advantage of an individual Mycenaean king to promote this impression. But we cannot accept a sentiment without further proof.

What then can we conclude about a Mycenaean hegemony? The most important

45 Odyssey iii 306-7- 46 Desborough, op. cit., 219. 47 Ibid., 219. 48 L. A. Stella, La Civilti Micenea nei Documenti

Contemporanei (Rome, 1965) 190.

49 G. L. Huxley, Achaeans and Hittites (Oxford, i960) 44.

50 Ibid., 46 and 48. 51 D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley

and Los Angeles, 1963) 18.



192 C. G. THOMAS

thing to remember is that we can make no definite conclusions of any nature. Neither epic tradition nor archaeological evidence nor Hittite records prove 'that there was one ruler over the whole Mycenaean territory, with his capital at Mycenae ...'52 The discernible

pattern of the rise and fall of various Mycenaean kingdoms, with no evidence of non- Mycenaean interference, appears to suggest the opposite conclusion. The same factors

producing fragmentation that prevailed throughout the Hellenic period of Greek history existed during the Mycenaean Age. These factors seem to have yielded the same results in both ages: lack of unity manifested in internecine warfare.

C. G. THOMAS. The University of Washington.

52 Desborough, op. cit., 2 18.



Thomas, C. G. a Mycenaean Hegemony. a Reconsideration.

Documents

mycenaean greeks

mycenaean civilisation

mycenaean territory

mycenaean lords

conditionsa mycenaean

mycenaean greek world

existence of mycenaean

mycenaean rulers of