i Acknowledgments ii Abbreviations iii List of figures iv List of tables vi Introduction 1 1. Mycenaean

148 Pages·2010·7.17 MB·English

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ii
Abbreviations iii
List of figures iv
List of tables vi

Introduction 1
1. Mycenaean Greece and the collapse 4
2. Collapse theory 18
3. Theories of Mycenaean collapse 31
4. The processes of collapse 54
5. Settlements and population mobility in the postpalatial period 68
6. Postpalatial rulership, elites and social structure 92
7. Conclusions 113

Bibliography 123

i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This monograph is a revised and updated version of my PhD thesis, presented to the University of Durham. Without the
help and support of the following people, the research would never have been completed; I would like to offer my
sincere thanks here.

Firstly, I must thank my PhD supervisor at Durham, Oliver Dickinson. His continued support and criticism of my work
over the years have been invaluable. Any shortcomings are my responsibility alone.

I would also like to thank Dr Birgitta Eder for kindly sending me a preliminary copy of her paper, ‘The power of seals:
palaces, peripheries and territorial control in the Mycenaean world,’ and Dr Clarissa Belardelli for permission to cite a
preliminary copy of her paper, co-authored with Dr Marco Bettelli, ‘Different technological levels of pottery
production: Barbarian and Grey Ware between the Aegean and Europe in the Late Bronze Age.’1 Dr Elizabeth French
also kindly advised me about recent work on correlations between Mycenae and Tiryns, and sent me a preliminary
version of her forthcoming paper, for which I am grateful.2

My PhD examiners, Dr Sue Sherratt and Professor Chris Scarre, made my viva an enjoyable and interesting experience,
and I thank them for that, and for their helpful comments and suggestions, which I hope have improved this work.

Dr Stella Consonni LLM MSc spent 5 years with me in Mycenaean Greece and amongst collapsing societies, as well as
a year in modern Achaea, and constantly encouraged me, even when I least deserved it. My parents Jennifer and Denis,
and my sister Sarah, also supported me throughout. My friends, Brian Calvert, John Coulthard, Dr Mike Dowman, Dr
Chris Durham, Dr John Gibson, John Kyle, Dr Jake Spence and James Whiting have all offered encouragement, support
and stimulation in various ways.

My various employers over the years must also be thanked. Dr Bill Manley employed me as a Tutor, in the Department
of Adult and Continuing Education at Glasgow University, where I was able to write and teach a course on the
development and collapse of complex societies. This made me think hard about my subject, and also gave me privileged
library access, which made it easier to carry out my research. Esther Daborne and Elaine Brydon of the EFL
Department at Glasgow University kindly provided me with flexible teaching work, as did John McKenny and Barbara
Tully at Northumbria University. More recently, my position as a Project Assistant Professor on the ALESS Program at
the University of Tokyo has given me the opportunity to update and revise the text of my original thesis for publication
as a monograph.

The Sir Richard Stapley Foundation generously provided me with a small grant early on in my studies, for which I
thank them.

1 Although I have made use of preliminary copies, these papers have now been published in the latest volume of Aegaeum and are thus referred to by
their publication date (2007).
2 French forthcoming.
ii
ABBREVIATIONS

AA Archäologischer Anzeiger
AEA Aegean Archaeology
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AM Ancient Mesoamerica
AmAnt American Antiquity
AmAnth American Anthropologist
AR Archaeological Reports
ARA Annual Review of Anthropology
AS Anatolian Studies
BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
BIAL Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology
BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
BSA Annual of the British School at Athens
CA Current Anthropology
CQ The Classical Quarterly, New Series
CR Classical Review, New Series
EHR The English Historical Review
EJA European Journal of Archaeology
G&R Greece & Rome, 2nd series
IJNA The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
JAR Journal of Archaeological Research
JAS Journal of Archaeological Science
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JFA Journal of Field Archaeology
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JMA Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JRZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz
JWP Journal of World Prehistory
MAA Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry
NEA Near Eastern Archaeology
OCD The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd edition revised (2003))
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology
OpAth Opuscula Atheniensia
PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome
PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
PPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici
SO Symbolae Osloenses
WA World Archaeology

EIA Early Iron Age
G Geometric
LBA Late Bronze Age
LH Late Helladic
MH Middle Helladic
PG Protogeometric
iii
LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Hypothesised locations of Ahhiyawa. Source: Niemeier 1998, 20 11
Figure 3 and 22 Figure 4.

3.1 Pylos Battle Scene Fresco. Source: Drews 1993, 141 Plate 2. 47

4.1 LBA Anatolia and the Near East. Source: Bryce 2002, Map 1. 55

4.2 Terminal Classic Maya regions and major sites with approximate 61
order of collapse/transitions. Source: Demarest 2004, 227 Figure
9.10.

5.1 Sites and cemeteries of LHIIIB (top) and LHIIIC (bottom). Source: 68
Popham 1994, 282-283.

5.2 Ships on LHIIIC pottery. (a) Tragana (b) Kynos and (c) 72
Bademgediği Tepe. Sources: Mountjoy 1999, 357-358 (132);
Raaflaub 1999, 201 Plate 2; Mountjoy 2005, Plate XCVI.

5.3 Plan of Koukounaries, Paros, with Mycenaean building shown in 74
black. Source: Schilardi 1984, 185.

5.4 Plan of the acropolis of Ayios Andreas, Siphnos. Source: Televantou 74
2001, 193 Figure 2.

5.5 Plan of north-east acropolis area (a). Outer wall (b). Source: 75
Televantou 2001, 196 Figure 4, 201 Figure 7.

5.6 Xoburgo, Tenos. View from south-west (a). Topographical plan (b). 76
Source: Televantou 2001, 174 Figure 3, 175 Figure 4.

5.7 Kanakia, Salamis. Sources: 77
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4853332.stm (a); AR 2004, 9
Figure 23 (b).

5.8 East and West Shrines at Phylakopi (a). 3 LHIIIC phases of the 78
Temple at Ayia Irini (b). Sources: Mountjoy 1993, 154 Figure 378;
Caskey 1984, 249 Figure 7.

5.9 Excavated remains of Grotta, Naxos, Towns 1 (LHIIIA-B2) and 2 79
(LHIIIC). Source: Vlachopoulos 2003, 219 Figure 2.

5.10 Principal findspots of HMB pottery (a). Findspots of Pseudominyan 82
ware (b). Sources: Rutter 1990, 49; Kilian 1988a, 126 Figure 7.

5.11 Asine (a) and Houses F-H (b). Sources: 88
http://www.sia.gr/research/excavation_detail.asp?qID=145;
Thomatos 2006, 196 Figure 3.16.

5.12 Sites in Corinthia (a) Late Mycenaean (b) LHIIIC. Source: Morgan 89
1999, 480 Figure 15.

5.13 Korakou, House P. Source Thomatos 2006, 198 Figure 3.19. 89

5.14 Sites in the Euboean Gulf Region (a) LHI-IIIB (b) LHIIIC. Source: 89
Crielaard 2006, 275 Figure 14.1.

5.15 Lefkandi phase 1 (a) and phase 2 (b). Source: Popham and Sackett 89
1968 Figure 12.
iv
5.16 Perati. Source: Iakovides 1970, 44. 90

6.1 The citadel of Tiryns in LHIIIB2 and LHIIIC. Source: Kilian 1988a, 98
132 Figure 9.

6.2 Building T, Tiryns. Source: Wright 2006, 40 Figure 1.16a. 98

6.3 Midea megaron (a). Korakou, House L (b). Sources: Walberg 1995, 99
88, Figure 1; Wright 2006, 40 Figure 1.16b.

6.4 LHIIIIC activity at Mycenae (top). Mycenae, Palace IV (bottom). 99
Source: French 2002, 136, Figure 64; French 2002, 137 Figure 65.

6.5 LHIIIC warrior tombs on the mainland (top) and in the Aegean 102
(bottom). Source: Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, 154-155, Figures 9.2 and
9.3.

6.6 Warrior burial at Krini chamber tomb 3. Bronze sword in scabbard 102
(top); bronze decoration on scabbard (middle); bronze spearhead
(bottom). Source: Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1994, 175 Figure 3, 181
Figure 6 and 183 Figure 7.

6.7 Chamber tomb 3, Krini. Four burials including a warrior burial (D). 103
Source: Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1994, 174 Figure 2.

6.8 LHIIIC Middle pictorial pottery. Hunting scene, Pylos (a). Warrior 103
Vase, Mycenae (b). Source: Mountjoy 1993, 99-100 Figures 265 and
266.

6.9 Tumulus at Argos, Tripolis Street (a & b). Khania tumulus, near 105
Mycenae (c). Sources: Thomatos 2006, 151-152 Figures 2.2 and 2.3;
French 2002 Plate 21.

6.10 Central Greece. Source: Van de Moortel and Zahou 2005, 40 Figure 107
1.

6.11 The palace at Dimini, LHIIIA2 to LHIIIC Early. Source: Adrimi- 108
Sismani 2006, 469 Figure 25.2.

6.12 Mitrou, now an island but formerly connected to the mainland. 109
Source: Van de Moortel and Zahou 2005, 41 Figure 2.

6.13 Plan of Mitrou showing various phases including apsidal Building 109
A, constructed over LHIIIC Building B. Source: Van de Moortel and
Zahou 2005, 43 Figure 4.

6.14 Volos, Kazanaki tholos 7, with symbols. Source: AR 2005, 59 Figure 110
104.

6.15 Swords from Perati. T. 12 (left) and T.38 (right). Source: Thomatos 110
2006, 243 Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

6.16 Naxos Aplomata Tombs A and B (top) and Kamini Tomb A 111
(bottom). Source: Thomatos 2006, 160-161 Figures 2.16 and 2.18.

v
LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Evidence for Earthquakes at Mycenae in LHIIIB and LHIIIC. 53
Source: Nur and Cline 2000.

3.2 Likely factors involved in the collapse, according to recent 53
publications. Sources: Deger-Jalkotzy 2008; Hall 2007, 51-55;
Bennet 2006, 209; Dickinson 2006a, 43-56.

vi
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION tradition, as well as the theoretical position of the scholar,
could make a difference. These ideas had clear
This monograph deals with the destruction and implications for identifying, interpreting and
disappearance of the palaces and palace societies of Late understanding the collapse of Mycenaean Greece and
Bronze Age or Mycenaean Greece c.12001 and aspects what followed it, for which there are many competing
of continuity and change in the subsequent Postpalatial theories.
period of the twelfth and eleventh centuries (LHIIIC). For
reasons set out below, it is primarily concerned with An emphasis in this work, where analysis of the Greek
mainland Greece and the islands but not with Crete, material itself or theories based upon it is attempted, is
which deserves separate treatment. the potential for differences between palatial and
non-palatial areas. Of course the term Postpalatial has a
Much scholarly attention has been devoted to chronological and social meaning, but it has been applied
understanding the precise nature of the events and to areas that never were palatial, and in this way can be
processes at work in this period, and it may rightly be misleading. Although there were interconnections
wondered why another study is necessary. In fact there between palatial and non-palatial areas, the latter never
are several reasons. The archaeological evidence itself directly experienced the collapse of the palatial system,
continues to increase, providing more data and allowing and so the situation in those regions was qualitatively
more precise interpretations, and existing data continue to different. While the notion of core and periphery has
be refined and interpreted. New discoveries and sites, and become popular in Aegean archaeology, and some have
continued work at known sites, can radically alter our begun to consider how these differences affected
understanding of the period, as has been shown at Tiryns, Postpalatial twelfth century Greece (e.g. Eder 2006), it is
Kanakia and Mitrou. Theoretical approaches also change. still common to find a basic assumption that even in
Migration theory is now largely discredited in Aegean non-palatial areas some aspects of twelfth century culture
archaeology, as is the status of later Greek myths as should be traceable back to palatial forms. This is notable
historical evidence for the LBA and postpalatial period. in the discussion of rulership and the origins of the
The simple equation of pots and peoples has been basileus of later Greece. While culture, material and
rejected and the more complex relationships of people otherwise, is not bounded by political borders, and
and groups with, and their active use and manipulation of, non-palatial areas shared aspects of material and
material culture are now admitted. Changes in the way doubtless non-material culture with palatial areas, it is not
collapse is understood as a political and social process, necessary to suggest that supposedly peripheral regions
reflected in material culture, within diverse and dynamic should merely or simply emulate their palatial
living societies have forced a move away from neighbours. Their inhabitants should be credited with
monolithic and simplistic theories of collapse. Individuals more complex agendas suited to their local
and groups are increasingly recognised as active circumstances, making active use of culture as it suited
participants in society with diverse motivations rather them; after the palaces collapsed, they no-doubt went on
than being passive victims of processes or events, and doing this, albeit in different circumstances.
instances of collapse can also be seen as periods of social
reorganisation or transformation involving the formation Something more must be said about the approach taken
of new groups and the active formation of new identities. here. In the first place, I do not seek to offer a completely
These changes suggest that there is scope for further novel or original theory of the Mycenaean collapse, or to
examination of this period. prove that one of the existing theories is correct and all
the others are wrong. It is likely that arriving at the truth
This research was directly inspired by two things. The of what happened is an impossible task. Nor do I seek to
first was my introduction to Mycenaean Greece during exhaustively list, catalogue, describe and compare the
the 27th British School at Athens Undergraduate Summer material culture of LHIIIC Greece; this is not a traditional
School, and our visits to Thebes, Orchomenos, Gla, survey based work.2 Rather, I hope to offer a balanced
Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos. I wondered at the society of and objective approach to Late Mycenaean society and to
these other Greeks, how it was related to the later, more critically analyse the major collapse theories, placing
familiar Greek culture, and how and why it had them in the context of general collapse theory and recent
disappeared. The second was my reading of a paper by developments in Mycenaean archaeology. I attempt to
Bryan Ward-Perkins (1997): ‘Continuitists, catastrophists show why some theories may have more validity than
and the towns of Post-Roman North Italy’. This paper others, and that in many cases there are in fact serious
explored the difficulties of evaluating continuity or problems with the evidence. I take a broad
discontinuity at urban sites and showed how a variety of interdisciplinary approach that includes historiography,
very different interpretations could be constructed. These social archaeology, the archaeology and history of parts
often depended on the approach taken to the evidence, of the Near East, Mesoamerica and Europe, as well as
archaeological, textual or a combination, where emphasis discussion and interpretation of Mycenaean archaeology
was placed, and even the nationality and intellectual itself. It is hoped that by using this wider approach, a

2 This approach has been recently taken for a few areas of Greece in
1 All dates are BC, unless otherwise indicated. LHIIIC Middle by Marina Thomatos (2006).
1
THE COLLAPSE OF PALATIAL SOCIETY IN LBA GREECE AND THE POSTPALATIAL PERIOD
fuller understanding of LBA Greece, the Mycenaean which people made active choices in response to specific
collapse, and the Postpalatial period can be achieved. phenomena.

Historical Analogy Thus historical analogies are not used here to attempt to
This study will make use of historical analogy to suggest prove that the Mycenaean palace states collapsed for the
problems that may have faced the Mycenaean palace same reasons as the Hittites, the Maya or the Western
societies and contributed to their collapse. These are Roman Empire. The reasons behind these collapses and
drawn from three historical cultures: the Hittites, the their processes remain contentious, and it is not the
Classic Maya and the Western Roman Empire. purpose of this work to seek to explain them. Rather they
Something must be said about the applicability and are used to illustrate real and common problems faced by
relevance of such analogies. In the first place, these polities that collapsed, and which, although not always
societies all experienced collapse and all have been evident, seem unlikely not to have affected the
well-studied both individually and in general works on Mycenaean palace states. In all these cases, peoples,
collapse. Of primary importance is the level and range of cultures and events may be historically specific and
literary and textual evidence available from all three unique, but the similarity in processes, rooted as they are
societies, which allows a far greater insight into the in quite basic human relationships and motivations,
processes at work within them, as well as knowledge of remain similar and make analogy a useful tool in fleshing
specific events and problems that they encountered. Since out the late palatial period and the collapse of the
the Homeric poems and evidence from Greek myth Mycenaean palace states.
cannot be regarded as filling this gap, and in the absence
of equivalent evidence from Mycenaean Greece itself, Crete
analogy is an appropriate method for illustrating potential Crete must be considered as somewhat different to the
difficulties facing the palace societies. rest of Greece, since it had developed its own palatial
culture much earlier which itself eventually seems to
Of the societies chosen here, two differ greatly in size and have influenced or been adopted as an influence in areas
complexity from the Mycenaean palace societies, and of Mycenaean Greece (Wardle 1994, 204-217; Rutter
only the Maya polities could perhaps offer a general 2001, 145-146). This palace system also came to an end
equivalence of scale, with independent yet interconnected in uncertain circumstances (Rehak and Younger 2001,
and competing polities of differing significance within a 440-441). It seems that, in circumstances accompanied by
zone of shared culture.3 Because of this, the Maya widespread destructions, Knossos became the single
kingdoms may offer the best direct parallels for the palace centre in LMII where previously various centres
Mycenaean palace states in terms of how they could have had existed and some suggest Mycenaean involvement in
have interacted, although that is not to say that collapse this, although other reasons are equally plausible (Rehak
occurred for the same reasons of in the same way in both. and Younger 2001, 440-441; Bennet 1990, 209).
Nevertheless, the differences are unimportant here, since Mycenaean administrations using Linear B existed at
the features the analogies are used to demonstrate are Knossos and Chania in LMIII, although the dating of
ones common to relationships between two central these is uncertain, with some placing the Knossos tablets
powers, central and local powers, and within central earlier (LMIIIA1) and/or later (LMIIIA2-LMIIIB early),
powers themselves. The commonality of such features and the Chania tablets in LMIIIB. The final destruction of
between societies makes the argument for the the palace at Knossos is thought by Popham to have
applicability of analogy stronger. occurred in early LMIIIA2, or according to the standard
interpretation, later in LMIIIA2, while others place it in
Although the Hittite collapse is as problematic as that of early in LMIIIB (Hood 1978, 25, 243 n.14; Rehak and
the Mycenaean palace states, it occurred nearby and at Younger 2001, 384 n.5, 441-444, 452). The Linear B at
around the same time, although possibly for quite Chania belongs in LMIIIA2-LMIIIB, which may show
different reasons; there is no need to connect the two, as that it outlasted Knossos as a palace centre of some kind
many continue to do. The approach taken here is not (Rehak and Younger 2001, 451; Dickinson 1994, 76).
concerned with explaining that collapse, but with using
the evidence to illustrate actual difficulties that existed in While the evidence does show a Mycenaean presence of
successfully maintaining the integrity and existence of a some kind in Crete, and the existence of polities that may
LBA kingdom, albeit it one far bigger and more complex have been independent or linked to mainland palaces, the
than any Mycenaean kingdom. While the collapse of the continued presence of local Minoan traditions into the
Western Roman Empire happened much later, and in a Postpalatial period suggests that ‘to term it ‘Mycenaean’
very different setting with its own unique characteristics, is incorrect’ (Dickinson 1994, 76 and 2006b, 116). Since
it is again the relationships between groups that are of what happened on Crete in the years down to c.1200 and
primary interest. Through these relationships, illustrated in the twelfth century deserves a more detailed treatment
by textual evidence and archaeology, the process of than can be offered here, it will not be a focus of this
collapse and transformation can be observed as one in work.4

3 Tartaron (2008, 132-134) notes the potential benefits of studying both 4 Recent discussions include chapters in Shelmerdine (2008);
Maya and Mycenaean society. Dickinson (2006a); Wallace (2000) and (2003); Rehak and Younger
2
INTRODUCTION
Plan of the book
In order to set in context the discussion of collapse and of
Postpalatial society, Chapter 1 attempts a brief
introduction to Mycenaean material culture and
interpretations of Mycenaean society. There are different
interpretations made by scholars, which in turn affect any
understanding of collapse. A limited survey is also
offered, in order to clarify the extent and chronology of
the collapse. Chapter 2 reviews developments in general
collapse theory as drawn from recent and major
publications. It further examines recent discussion of
specific examples of collapse to identify current trends in
interpretation. Chapter 3 critically examines theories of
the Mycenaean collapse, concentrating on major styles of
interpretation and ending in a discussion of the present
consensus. Chapter 4 uses recent discussions of the
Hittite, Maya and Roman collapses and continuities to
suggest possible analogies for processes at work in LBA
Greece. Chapter 5 examines the evidence for migrations
and population mobility in Postpalatial Greece,
discussing settlements and sites, and noting the
contribution of survey. Chapter 6 deals with changes in
rulership and social structure in the Postpalatial period,
emphasising distinctions between areas of Greece that
had palaces and non-palatial regions. The conclusion
attempts to draw together the preceding discussions.

(2001, 458-464, 471-473); Hatzaki (2000); Nowicki (2001, 2000, &
1998); Haggis (2001 &1993).
3
THE COLLAPSE OF PALATIAL SOCIETY IN LBA GREECE AND THE POSTPALATIAL PERIOD
1. MYCENAEAN GREECE AND THE COLLAPSE ruling families’, although again there were regional
differences in mortuary practices (Mountjoy 1999, 822).
Introduction
This chapter has two aims. The first is to offer some Nevertheless, a Mycenaean heartland is usually
context to the subsequent discussion of collapse theory identified, centred in the Argolid and Mycenae itself and
and aspects of continuity and change that form the bulk including the surrounding major centres. To the north,
of this study. This is both necessary and desirable, since Boeotia, Attica, and coastal Thessaly, to the south
notions of how and why collapses occur often proceed Laconia, and to the south-west Messenia are also
from interpretations of how societies operate. In order considered Mycenaean. Some areas once considered as
to do this a tentative description of Mycenaean Greece in perhaps not entirely Mycenaean, such as Phocis and
the palatial period (c.1400-1200BC) will be offered. Locris, produced their own decorated and plain
However, it would be misleading to suggest that scholars Mycenaean pottery and had chamber-tomb cemeteries;
agree on all aspects of what exactly Mycenaean Greece they also used sealstones, and so should be considered
was, and how it worked, and any interpretation is likely Mycenaean (Dickinson 2006a, 24-25; Mountjoy 1999,
to create an illusion of unity or stability – a snapshot, 739-747). Achaea too is now recognised as Mycenaean in
rather than a sophisticated, layered and diachronic terms of tomb use and pottery types throughout the Late
understanding (see Wright 2008). In fact, there remain Helladic period (Papadopoulos 1979; Eder 2006). Other
many significant areas of disagreement, ranging from the areas, such as inland Thessaly and Aitolo-Akarnania may
degree of centralisation and power of the ‘palaces’, the have been more mixed in their habits of material culture
nature and extent of international trade and diplomacy, to (Dickinson 2006a, 25). In Aitolo-Akarnania there was
whether the population at large, or just the rulers, were more imported Mycenaean pottery although many types
‘Greek’. These issues, where relevant, will also be dealt were not present and many sites had no Mycenaean
with in connection with particular collapse theories pottery (Mountjoy 1999, 798). In Thessaly there seems to
themselves (chapter 3). Initially then, some brief defining be a more Mycenaean area in the south-eastern coastal
points based on Mycenaean material culture will be area and south-eastern plain, where chamber-tombs and
discussed, followed by some comments on palaces, large tholoi are found, and these areas seem to have had
hinterlands and non-palatial regions and their the most contact with southern Greece (Mountjoy 1999,
interrelations. This will allow a better assessment of 822). Even so, it is perhaps not necessary to look for
collapse theories and a better understanding of the too much uniformity and standardisation, and it is evident
collapse itself. that contacts were present throughout the Greek peninsula
and beyond. Cavanagh and Mee (1998, 77) note that
although tholoi and chamber tombs become common in
The second aim of this chapter is to review the evidence
LHIIIA-B, ‘pit and cist graves were still common’ and ‘if
for destructions and abandonments and their chronology
we examine regional preferences, we find that there is no
and synchronicity, as well as to consider some of the
consistency. The impression of uniformity is in fact a
problems of demography, which constitute problems in
mirage.’
understanding the period. Destructions occurred

sporadically in various phases, but it is the destructions
Terminology may imply a homogenous population of
and abandonments around the end of LHIIIB2,
‘Mycenaeans’ across Greece, but this is not necessarily
c.1200BC, which are identified as the physical indication
the case (Davis and Bennet 1999, 113), and the material
of the collapse, marking the end of palatial society in
culture itself does not tell us about the ethnicity of its
Greece. Many of the issues raised here will be
users. As Dickinson (in Barber 1999, 139) has pointed
discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters.
out, ‘Mycenaeans are not a people. They are just what we

call a culture.’ The spread of Mycenaean culture, pottery
Mycenaean culture style and burial forms does not require any unusual
The Mycenaean cultural region is usually agreed to be displacement or change of population outside of normal
more or less that of classical Greece, especially the movement and exchange, and certainly, like its absence
southern and central mainland (Figure 5.1; Shelmerdine in some areas, need not indicate anything about language
2001a, 330 and Fig. 1; Mountjoy 1999, 13; Dickinson or ethnicity. While an early form of Greek was the
2006a, 24-25 and Fig. 2.1), although this also reflects written language of the Linear B tablets, it may not have
modern political issues and the history of research in the been the only language spoken even at the sites where it
area. However, defining Mycenaean material culture is was used. In the linguistically diverse Maya cultural
no easy matter since ‘there is not a single feature that zone, Southern Classic Maya became a prestige language
could be considered typical of Mycenaean material used widely by scribes at many sites, even where it was
culture that is equally prevalent in every part of the not spoken (Coe 1999, 38). Thus, even these apparent
Mycenaean region, except the decorated pottery, and similarities may mask potential diversity. While it is
even this has a much wider range in some regions than perfectly plausible that most people spoke a Greek
others’ (Dickinson 2006b, 115; Mountjoy 1999, 15). language or dialect related to that of Linear B, it is
Aside from the pottery, another common identifier is the ‘perfectly possible that Greek only became virtually the
widespread use of chamber tombs and large tholoi ‘for exclusive language of the southern Aegean in the course
4