The Kingdom of Mycenae

The position of the wanax in the Mycenaean world is often perceived as that of a local monarch, ruling from a palatial centre and controlling (to a large extent) the surrounding region. Territorially speaking, that region does generally not exceed its natural border, such as large rivers or major mountain ranges, and can be compared in size to most modern day nomes / provinces. Although these Mycenaean Kingdoms in a cultural respect appear to have been essentially the same, most archaeologists consider this the result of trade / exchange and sheer proximity to each other, rather than anything else. The argument in this article is twofold: first, it is argued that the view described above is essentially based on a circular argument, spawned from a desire to denounce the – in the 19th and early 20th century ruling – Homeric paradigm of Mycenaean Greek unity (to whatever extent). Second, this article argues that, whilst the modern view of Mycenaean political fragmentation is not necessarily flawed, a case in favour of a ‘unified Mycenaean world’ is at least equally persuasive. Moreover, that view would be corroborated by Hittite and Egyptian texts, indicating larger political entities on the Greek mainland during the 15th to 13th century BC. This article focuses on archaeological and Linear B evidence; ‘external’ sources, such as the above mentioned Egyptian and Hittite texts, will only be referred to obliquely and as supplements to ‘autochthonous’ evidence.

They were called the Early Tumulus People in Archaeology because shortly after their departure another "tumulus people" arrived, a large population originating in areas north of the Alps, which then settled in the whole area of Central Europe, including the territories in the east, such as present-day Romania. Both these two populations, the earlier one and the later one, used to bury a part of their dead in a barrow or tumulus, which was not a custom at the funeral rites of the original populations. The Early Tumulus People appeared to have favoured, pursued, the preservation of their own identity, which ultimately led to the preservation of their characteristic culture in this period. Their cultural development, their way of live, as far as known, will be traced in one of the following chapters. Abstracts of the most relevant characteristics of the existing populations that were living in the Carpathian Basin will be given form in a separate chapter, while some cultures north of the Carpathian Mountain Range will also be given attention to. The last chapter will be dedicated to a discussion, in which will be tried to arrive at a satisfying analysis. However, this study will start with a brief description of the Mycenaean-Greek culture in Greece, more precise in their Mycenaean world on the Peloponnese, mainly Pylos and Mycenae, some time around 1400-1200 BCE, and will be followed by a chapter containing investigations on the anticipated Homeland in the Ural steppe regions. This will give form to the dramatic end of the Mycenaean culture in Greece and the supposed original living quarters of this population in the Trans-Ural area. These three major areas as referred to above constitute the only available sources of possible information for an approach to a thorough analysis of this complex problem. Chapter I-The Mycenaean Greeks The following text is meant to provide a limited view on the culture of the Mycenaean-Greeks in their final Aegean homeland from the archaeological period LH I onwards. It will mainly focus on identifying the most characteristic features in their culture, in order to compare these with those of this population in the other geographical territories in the preceding periods. The cultural circumstances in those areas, the Trans-Ural area and Middle Europe, will be paid attention to in the next chapters. This chapter will relate to specific elements of their cultural heritage in Greece in general terms. The intention is to try to clarify to what extent and in what way the Mycenaean Greeks in Greece can be related to the other cultures in the foregoing periods, under totally different circumstances. The Mycenaeans Mycenae The Greek population has been considered to have invaded the large southern peninsula in the Mediterranean area around 1600 BCE, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age in Middle Europe. They probably first arrived in Thessaly, whereupon groups of people travelled further south towards the Peloponnese, to gradually settle in the northern and western territories of that large peninsula. One of their large settlements was built in Mycene, where remnants have been found of an impressive and complex citadel, a palace, miscellaneous buildings and a number of large and important tholos graves, all built on a hill and surrounded by strong and massive defensive walls, all together an extremely powerful stronghold. This particular town was set up as the centre of a large community living in settlements around it in the area. The layout of this fortified complex, also interpreted as a forerunner of the later Acropolis constructions in Greece, is clearly visible on the next picture. The access to the palace on the hill was built within a very narrow entry, visible at the bottom of the picture at the right.. The fortifications are assumed to have been built around the middle of the 14th century BCE. Mycene is interpreted as having been the centre of the Mycenaean-Greek power in Greece in this period of the Middle Bronze Age. This culture is considered to have developed into a very mighty power in the Mediterranean world between 1600 and 1150 BCE. After Wikipedia The Lion statues After Wikipedia. Early imagery of a deity in Knossos, where she is flanked by two lionesses This worship to a Goddess, as shown on the earlier Minoan image, has on the gate been represented by a worship to the representative of the Goddess in the citadel's palace, for which a Minoan column has been choosen. The imagery in the gate marks the intense association between the Mycaneans and the Minoans in the preceding centuries. This monumental sculpture in relief is the earliest example or the kind in Europe. 1

Être un Grand Roi de la fin de l’âge du bronze signifiait posséder toutes les caractéristiques pour être reconnu comme tel par les grandes puissances de l’époque : l’Egypte, l’empire hittite, le royaume de Mitanni et le royaume de Babylone. Les chancelleries impériales reléguaient tous les roitelets, en dehors de ce “club privé”. Dans un cadre politique où la propagande était polarisée entre ces deux extrêmes il n’y avait pas de place pour des formations d’Etat intermédiaires. De cette façon des acteurs secondaires – mais qui néanmoins ont quelque influence au niveau international – comme le royaume de Chypre / Alashiya, Ahhijawa et Arzawa finissent par nous fournire une documentation ambigûe. Des royaumes régionaux, caractérisés par de fortes tendances à l’expansion militaire (Arzawa et Ahhijawa) et économique (Chypre / Alashiya) en fonction des circostances politiques du moment étaient traités soit comme vassaux soit comme des égaux des grands roix du Hatti et d’Egypte.

Warfare and Society in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean: Papers arising from a colloquium held at the University of Liverpool, 13th June 2008 (BAR International Series 2583 ), 2013