Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CROSSROADS
Edited by
Sophia Antoniadou
and
Anthony Pace
Athens
Pierides Foundation
291
292
ULRICH THALER
293
294
ULRICH THALER
Figure 1. Building states in late 13th century BC: Left, plan of acropolis, Tiryns (courtesy of Tiryns-Projekt). Right, partially reconstructed plan of Bykkale,
Boazky (adapted from Seeher 2002a: 104 fig. 109).
295
often it is the most distinctive and conspicuous features which offer the
clearest evidence of contact and exchange, when we turn to look at tools,
techniques and forms, and, finally, concepts of spatial organisation.
Tools
Both stone hammers and metal picks, the use of which has been inferred
from tool-marks at Mycenaean sites, have been found in and around
the Hittite capital of Boazky-%attua. The use of neither, however,
would be likely to set apart Anatolian and Aegean builders from their
Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean contemporaries. This is more
likely in the case of bronze saws. A saw found in Boazky in a later 13th
century context shows a particular form of equilaterally triangular teeth
known previously only from Aegean bronze saws, the teeth of which as
in the Hittite example, too had been punched rather than cut, as indicated by distinctive thickening of the metal on the edges of the teeth (Neve
1989: 402-5). These Aegean parallels, however, are exclusively Cretan
in origin and, at least in their majority, Minoan Neopalatial in date.
Absent from Crete, but well documented both at the Hittite capital
and at Mycenaean palatial sites, in particular Tiryns, but also Mycenae
and possibly Gla, is another type of saw: the pendulum stone saw evidenced by and indeed reconstructable from its typical curved cut marks
(Kpper 1996: 16-25; Neve 1995-96: 56; Schwandner 1991) (Figure 2).
While Michael Kpper (1996: 16) has refuted the older claim that cut
marks from Tiryns and Boazky actually showed equal radii (Schwandner 1991: 222), his detailed considerations of the preserved traces have
confirmed the impression that with pendulum lengths of up to 7.5m,
the need of a substantial framework for the saw and not least due to its
time-consuming nature the use of the pendulum saw must have been a
most conspicuous if not a spectacular form of display. It should also be
noted that this highly specialised technique would form a link not simply
between the Hittite and Mycenaean regions in general, but specifically
between %attua and the centres of the Argolid, if one followed Joseph
Shaw (1973: 68) rather than Kpper (1996: 23) in discounting the evidence from Gla as indicative of a straight saw blade.
Another specialised technique may have been associated in some way
with the use of the pendulum saw, and this is the hollow tubular drill
296
ULRICH THALER
Figure 2. Pendulum stone saw: Above, reconstruction drawing by M. Kpper (Kpper 1996: 286 pl. 12.2). Below, cut marks on anta base, Tiryns (Schwandner
1991: 218 fig. 4).
297
(Kpper 1996: 14, 118; Neve 1989: 406; 1995-96: 57). As with the pendulum saw, no specimen of the tool itself has been preserved, but its use
in the drilling of dowel-holes is amply documented, again particularly in
Tiryns and Boazky. Apart from the drill-holes, numerous stone cores,
the waste products of the drilling, have been noted at the latter site. For
%attua, specialised work-crews using the pendulum saw and the tubular
drill have been suggested (Neve 1995-96: 58). The tubular drill, however, was also known to the Minoans (Shaw 1973: 70); and the Cretan
evidence would have to be considered in more detail before the transmission of a technical package of pendulum saw and tubular drill from the
Hittites to the Mycenaean Greeks or vice versa could be postulated.
Techniques and forms of building
The first major technological issue, of course, is the question whether
Cyclopean masonry, which appears comparatively suddenly in the Mycenaean citadels, should be explained with reference to Anatolian influence. This long-accepted position, though still decidedly upheld by some
scholars (e.g. Niemeier 1998: 43), has recently been subjected to sometimes quite detailed criticisms (Kpper 1996: 119; Loader 1998: 146,
152, 159-60). I would like to suggest that it still makes sense if seen
contextually, and that, in fact, contextual considerations might be more
important than the relative proportions of interstice stones in stretches
of wall on either side of the Aegean. Here, I am referring to the fact that
at the sites of its most conspicuous occurrences, Cyclopean masonry is
closely linked to another technique: the corbelled vaulting of passages,
to which I return after first looking at two more techniques of wall building adduced in the literature as evidence for or against trans-Aegean contacts.
The fortification wall of the Unterburg at Tiryns is sometimes cited as
an example of the Anatolian Kastenmauer, or compartment type of wall
(e.g. Niemeier 1998: 43). This claim is referenced back to an article by
Peter Grossmann (1967), who, however, only compares the Unterburgwall to some Anatolian fortifications of Kastenmauer-type with respect
to a construction in segments resulting in offsets where segments join
(Grossmann 1967: 100). But transverse walls rather than offsets, which
do occur in some places and are absent in others, are the defining feature
298
ULRICH THALER
299
Figure 3. Fitting of worked stone on the spot: above, dromos wall of Treasury of Atreus,
Mycenae (photo by Nora Brggemann). Below, temple wall, Boazky (Seeher 2002a: 70 fig. 73).
300
ULRICH THALER
Figure 4. The Lion gate(s): above, in the acropolis fortification, Mycenae (Wace 1949:
pl. 72a). Below, in the city wall, Boazky, computer reconstruction by H.
Schriever (Seeher 2002a: 38 fig. 37).
301
Figure 5. Corbelled vaulting: Left, eastern gallery, Tiryns (Papadimitriou 2001: 33 fig.
27). Right, postern of Yerkap, Boazky (Seeher 2002b: 162 fig. 9).
corbelled vaults and Cyclopean masonry at these sites also lends some
strength to comparisons of the latter to Anatolian building techniques.
And, possibly, this contextual comparison might also be extended to
consider the Mycenaean and Hittite use of half-timbering (pace Kpper
1996: 118-19).
Concepts of spatial organization
With respect to similarities in spatial organisation (Figure 1), little needs
to be added to what Kurt Bittel had to say about Hittite palaces, and
Bykkale in particular, some thirty years ago. After commenting on
the comparability of landscape settings and the dissimilarity to, amongst
others, Minoan palaces, he states: The similarity to mainland Greek
palaces just think of Tiryns can hardly be overlooked, not in the
function of the individual element, but quite clearly in the importance
inherent to the courts as elements of ordering and as connective links
302
ULRICH THALER
of the individual parts (Bittel 1976: 524: Die hnlichkeit mit festlandgriechischen Palsten, nicht in der Funktion des einzelnen, wohl aber in
der Bedeutung, die hier wie dort den Hfen als Element der Zuordnung
und als Verbindungsglieder der einzelnen Teile man denke etwa an
Tiryns zukommt, ist kaum zu bersehen.). My only real disagreement with Bittels position is with the qualification he added, namely,
that one distinctive difference from Mycenaean palaces was that individual buildings rather than continuous tracts surrounded the courts at
Bykkale. In pointing to this, he failed, I think, to consider the perspective of the user of the architecture; from the visitors or inhabitants point
of view, the long porticoes would have effectively bound together the
structurally separated buildings into a single building complex. Indeed,
the known smaller Hittite palaces, at Maathyk (zg 1978: plans
1-4) and Alacahyk (Koay and Akok 1966: pls. 1, 78-79), were built
as coherent structures, so that what we see in Bykkale does not seem
to differ in the underlying spatial concept but merely in the technicalities
of putting the concept into place on a large scale. The only thing which
I think needs to be stressed in addition to Bittels remarks is that both
in Bykkale and Tiryns the principal courts are clearly arranged in a
topologically linear fashion, one behind the other.
And while such an arrangement is not immediately obvious at the
well-preserved palace of Pylos, a comparison of reconstructions of the
buildings state in around 1300 and then around 1200 BC (Thaler 2005;
2006) allows two important points to be made. Firstly, that while open
areas around the main building certainly formed part of the palace and
were defined to some extent in the earlier state, they become much more
clearly defined, architecturally elaborated and distinct from one another
as courts in the course of the 13th century. And secondly, a space syntactical analysis of the building shows among other things that in
the later states, though folded into a compact structure topographically,
the courts topological position is modulated to create an outer, an inner and possibly an innermost court. Analyses of inventories, as vividly
demonstrated by Lisa Bendalls (2004: 112-24) insightful study of the
differences in the qualities of assemblages of drinking vessels, can confirm the point in more clarity and detail. And if we further consider the
non-mobile furnishings of rooms, such as frescoes and floors of different
qualities, and in extension the changes of sensory perception associated
303
with the transition from one room or spatial unit to another, then I think
it can be shown that it is those spaces connecting the courts, notably such
architectural units as propyla, which stand out in particular.
Textual sources
Unfortunately, such analyses seem impossible at Bykkale, where
most of what is preserved belongs to the level of foundations. But if the
archaeological data is more favourable to detailed interpretation for the
Mycenaean palaces in comparison to the Hittite ones, and to Bykkale
in particular, it is only in the Hittite empire that the textual evidence
holds some promise as to an understanding of the use of palatial architecture. The most important source in this respect is the MEEDI-text (IBoT
I 36), the instruction for the royal bodyguard (Gterbock and van den
Hout 1991; Jakob-Rost 1965). Dating no later than the mid-14th century
(Gterbock 1974: 311), it has proven fairly resistant to any attempts to
directly link the buildings mentioned to the buildings of the extensively
excavated 13th century palace on Bykkale, although several scholars
have tried (e.g. Neve 1982: 137). I think it will prove much more profitable to try to find more general characteristics of the use of palatial
architecture in this text and others, rather than concrete identifications of
individual buildings. That there is some hope in this is indicated not least
by the MEEDI-text itself, which in several passages (IBoT I 36 12a,
48; paragraphs quoted according to Gterbock and van den Hout 1991)
gives alternative instructions for instances of palaces outside the capital
whose architectural layout did not allow the standard procedure to be
followed. Still, even at this more general level of analysis, a number of
philological difficulties cannot be avoided, as the translation of some
central terms is still and seems likely to remain under debate. In my
review of textual sources, I will follow the traditional translation of hilammar as gate-building (discussion summarized in Naumann 1979:
227-28) and to some extent at least also the more controversial identification of arkiu as passageway of the gate (Singer 1983: 106-11). That
is, I accept as I think do critics of the latter translation (Gterbock and
van den Hout 1991: 62) that any activity associated with an arkiu can
be seen as an activity associated with a gate.
304
ULRICH THALER
Rights of access
The simple fact that the MEEDI-text mentions a court of the bodyguard (IBoT I 36 2) gives us a first indication that access to some
areas was restricted to particular groups. Later in the text we learn that
the people of the town of %a##a, apparently a group of singers greeting
the king on his return to the palace, shall not come up to the gate of the
palace. If there are two gatehouses, they may come up to the lower gate
but they shall not come up to the upper gate (IBoT I 36 48). Similarly,
and in the same context, a group of chanters and a reciter seem to follow the king through the main gate, but then have to leave by way of a
lutani (IBoT I 36 46), apparently a side entrance (Jakob-Rost 1965:
171, 204, 221; Singer 1975: 85). Even the MEEDI, the members of the
royal bodyguard, shall not go down through the main gate; they shall go
down through the lutani, unless on an official errand: One guard who
brings a arkanti [probably a defendant in a case to be judged, but possibly some kind of dignitary (Gterbock and van den Hout 1991: 48; Jakob-Rost 1965: 209)] or one whom the chief-of-messengers dispatches,
that one shall go down through the main gate (IBoT I 36 11). Some
higher-ranking officials seem to have had the generalised privilege of
using that gate (IBoT I 36 11), although in the description of the kings
return to the palace we hear that, stepping through the main gate from
the context we may assume this to be the main gate of the inner palace
after the king, one of the MEEDI, one of the Gold-Spear-Men, another
group of guards, and the gate-keeper immediately throw the bolt (IBoT
I 36 50); this leaves us to wonder whether the inner palace was indeed
shut off or whether a lutani would have remained open. The importance
attached to the opening and closing of doors, and thus the control of entry, is also vividly illustrated in another document, the instruction of the
%AZANNU of %attua, an official often considered a kind of mayor. In
this document, we learn that the gates of the capital were sealed at night
and the seals opened every morning in the presence of high-ranking witnesses (Otten 1964: 92-94).
What we see clearly in all of this is that rights of access and, indeed,
with respect to particular gates rights of passage were clearly differentiated with respect not only to rank, but also to the particular occasion.
This, of course, offers an intriguing parallel to what has been argued on
305
archaeological grounds for the palace of Pylos (cf. Thaler 2006), with
respect to distributions of vessels of different qualities (Bendall 2004:
112-24) and space-syntactical analysis (Thaler 2005). But the comparison with Hittite texts might also encourage us to consider the inegalitarian regulation of rights of access a more everyday feature of Mycenaean
palaces than its discussion in the context of feasting has hitherto led us
to expect.
Gate buildings as locales
The Hittite textual sources also show us further aspects of the use of
palatial architecture which we hardly find, and should hardly expect to
find, in Mycenaean archaeology today. But we may expect such aspects
to have formed part of the past Mycenaean reality. The first of these is
the functioning of the gate building as not just the interface between
inside and outside, but as a locale of activity in its own right. This is,
mostly, ceremonial activity associated with its primary function. The
gate-building and its immediate surroundings are the setting of the
elaborate preparations for what Hans Gterbock has termed la sortie
du roie (Gterbock and van den Hout 1991: 1), which include amongst
other things the ritual cleaning of the door by the kings barber (IBoT I
36 12). This can be compared to the daily sweeping of the palace-court
before the doors are opened in the morning, which is also described in
the MEEDI-text (IBoT I 36 1). It can also be compared to activities
in temples described elsewhere (KBo 13.164): And in which houses
the God is, they celebrate him in the gate-house. They sprinkle it with
sea-water; further they sweep it (Singer 1975: 83). The cleansing of the
temple gate-buildings can be linked to the fact that sacrifices were made
in these gate-buildings themselves (Singer 1975: 83-85; 1983: 110). One
might at least speculate, therefore, whether the same might have held
true for the gate-houses of the king as supreme priest, although the cleaning there attested can just as well be explained by reference to various
other regulations pertaining to the preservation of the kings purity.
According to Rudolf Naumann (1979: 230), more direct evidence can
be found in tablets of laws indicating that the king held court seated in
the gate-building. Given the absence of large rooms in the archaeologically preserved gate-buildings, one might actually think of him seated
306
ULRICH THALER
307
even more subtle interplay of architecture and the human body, if the
reconstruction of antithetic heraldic animals flanking the throne in the
palace of Pylos can be upheld. There, one might be justified in suggesting a compositional scheme of the frescoes which was only completed
once the ruler was seated on the throne, but the evidence remains equivocal (cf. Thaler 2006). The so-called sentry-stands in the same palace
offer perhaps less stimulating, but certainly more reliable, evidence for
the enhancement of architectural effect by bodily positioning and also
some indications of the other aspects of social uses of architecture discussed above: they clearly bear witness to the first point discussed with
reference to Hittite text, a grading of rights of access. Speculatively, one
might even point to the close similarity in size between the sentry-stands
and the lost base of the throne (Blegen and Rawson 1966: 57, 68, 74,
88, 253). The stand in the propylon would provide a good parallel, and
its counterparts in the megarons porch and in porch-like room 64 are
plausible parallels to the Hittite textual evidence of activity in gate-buildings. The megarons vestibule, however, seems a less likely locale for
state ritual in the palace of Pylos. In Dimini, an altar has been identified
in the vestibule of Megaron B (- 1999-2001: 90-92);
the fact that vestibule and main room do not seem to have had a direct
connection, however, argues against comparisons with other palatial vestibules.
The act of building
The last aspect of the social functioning of architecture I wish to touch
upon with reference to the Hittite texts is the act of building itself and, in
particular, the rituals associated with it. As is the case with the passages
on the positioning of people, the texts describing building rituals remind
Aegeanists, first of all, of what we are most likely missing in the archaeological record. But there is more to be found: in an instruction for rituals
to be held on the occasion of the building or renewal of a palace (KUB
29.1), which was reconstructed from older sources during the reign of
Tut#aliya IV, reference is made not only to particular rituals to be undertaken during the course of construction, but also to the special symbolic
and quite possibly magical importance attributed to the act of plastering
the wall (Schwartz 1947: 24-25 2, 34-35 39-40; cf. Haas 1994: 250,
308
ULRICH THALER
724, 727; Srenhagen 2001: 404). I cannot help being reminded of the
successive layers of stucco that have been found not only on the walls
but, in particular, on the hearths in Mycenaean palaces (Blegen and Rawson 1966: 82, 85-86, 199; Wace et al. 1921-23: 241-43), which seem to
indicate a concern with renewal that went beyond the functionally necessary. The Hittite ritual text in its turn also emphasises the importance
of the building of the hearth (Schwartz 1947: 36-37 42-48; cf. Haas
1994: 250, 727-28). It will be interesting to see whether future scientific
analysis will confirm first indications that the fragments of wall paintings
found in Boazky were executed in the fresco technique commonly associated with the Aegean (Ann Brysbaert, personal communication, 12
May 2005).
Discussion
Cultural contact and influence
As I stated at the outset, my primary intention has been to shed light on
possible and likely uses of Mycenaean palatial architecture by reference
to and comparison with contemporary Hittite archaeological and textual
sources. In terms of this objective, the above review of evidence can,
in my opinion, largely speak for itself. But with regard to the circumstances and means of transmission of architectural form and associated
knowledge from one culture to the other and thus perhaps with more
direct relevance to the general topic of this volume several points deserve further comment, if we accept the similarities outlined above and
in particular the similarities in spatial organisation, in which sequences
of courts play a central role, as the result of interaction between the Hittite and Mycenaean cultural spheres.
Firstly, who can be seen as the agents of the transfer of knowledge? I
have already pointed to the probable directional character of corresponding exchanges; this would fit with the exchange of specialists, which was
common practice among the royal courts in the Late Bronze Age Eastern
Mediterranean (Imparati 1999: 385-86; Zaccagnini 1983: 249-56). The
occurrence of stone-masons in the corresponding texts is uncertain, and
A##iyawans do not appear, but in the Hittite archaeological evidence,
there is apart from the tools with possible or probable Aegean asso-
309
310
ULRICH THALER
311
312
ULRICH THALER
the discussion of the corresponding sources for both cultures and that
the respective reconstructions do not themselves depend too heavily on
claims of analogy (cf. e.g. Deger-Jalkotzy 1988). While a common level
of social complexity is no longer considered an indicator of reliability
in an analogical argument per se (Wylie 1985: 99-100), such structural
similarities may still add to its strength.
In more general terms, the present analogical argument could further
benefit from: firstly, an appraisal of the dissimilarities of source- and
subject-context; secondly, a consideration of the strength of conclusions
relative to premises; and thirdly, the introduction of additional sourcecontexts (cf. Copi 1968: 310-13). To address the first of these points is,
however, beyond the scope of this paper, which I hope will open up new
lines of enquiry rather than probe their limits. Any assessment of the
second point remains largely a matter or personal judgement, which can
be illustrated by the following example: as I mentioned above, it is held
by a number of authors that the different courts at Pylos were open to
different groups during acts of palatial feasting, the distinctive feature of
which is seen in neither its existence nor its scale, but rather its cultural
elaboration and highly inegalitarian social context (Halstead and Isaakidou 2004: 150). If this proposition is accepted, then the textual evidence
for social discrimination through rights of access provides a further point
of similarity in the Hittite context, thus a premise for the construction of
an analogy. In contrast, someone initially doubtful about the idea might
still accept as a conclusion of analogical reasoning that the Hittite architectural parallels lend some strength to the proposition of an inegalitarian
character of Mycenaean palatial feasts and spatial organisation. As to the
third point, the inclusion of additional source-contexts may strengthen
the analogy developed here. At the same time, it may weaken to some extent assumptions of interaction, if, for example, a sequencing of courts is
found to be associated with similar social practices of exclusion in other
contemporary cultural contexts prima vista not an entirely unlikely assumption. Yet, comparisons with the Levant, Egypt or Mesopotamia will
prove far more interesting if they can shed light on other aspects of the social functioning of Mycenaean palatial architecture, ones not illuminated
by comparisons with the Hittite sphere. Through this style of analogical
argument, advocated by Alison Wylie (1985: 105-107) and termed com-
313
314
ULRICH THALER
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to the organisers and sponsors of the Mediterranean
Crossroads Conference both for inviting me and for covering my travel
expenses. To Dr. Despina Catapoti, I extend my thanks for providing
shelter during the conference and the initial encouragement to submit
a proposal before it. I also would like to express my gratitude to the
Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolleg Heidelberg, of which I was a junior
research associate while undertaking the study presented here. My sincere thanks for both criticism and encouragement go to those who read
and commented on earlier versions of this paper: a considerate anonymous reviewer as well as Dr. Stefan Jakob, Prof. Joseph Maran, Prof.
Peter A. Miglus, Prof. Asl zyar, Prof. Diamantis Panagiotopoulos, Dr.
Jrgen Seeher and in particular Dr. Rita Strau, whose advice on Hittite
texts was exceptionally helpful. Naturally, these scholars cannot be held
accountable for my views and all mistakes remain my own. Finally, I
would like to thank Nora Brggemann M.A. and Dr. Federica Gonzato,
who provided photographs of the Treasury of Atreus.
315
References
-, .
1999-2001 . 3234: 71-100.
Barber, R.L.N.
1992 The origins of the Mycenaean palace. In J.M. Sanders (ed.), Philolakon: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling, 11-23.
London: British School at Athens.
Bendall, L.M.
2004 Fit for a king? Hierarchy, exclusion, aspiration and desire in the
social structure of Mycenaean banqueting. In P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett (eds.), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece. Sheffield
Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5: 105-35. Oxford: Oxbow.
Bernbeck, R.
1997 Theorien in der Archologie. Tbingen: Francke.
Bittel, K.
1976 Das zweite vorchristliche Jahrtausend im stlichen Mittelmeer
und im Vorderen Orient: Anatolien und Aegaeis. Gymnasium 83:
513-33.
Blegen, C.W., and M. Rawson
1966 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. Vol. I: The
Buildings and Their Contents. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Cline, E.
1991 A possible Hittite embargo against the Mycenaeans. Historia 40:
1-9.
Copi, I.M.
1968 Introduction to Logic. 3rd edition. New York: Macmillan.
316
ULRICH THALER
Deger-Jalkotzy, S.
1988 Landbesitz und Sozialstruktur im mykenischen Staat von Pylos.
In M. Heltzer and E. Lipiski (eds.), 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. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 23: 31-52. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
Genz, H.
2004 Eine mykenische Scherbe aus Boazky. Archologischer Anzeiger: 77-84.
Giddens, A.
1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grossmann, P.
1967 Zur Unterburgmauer von Tiryns. Jahrbuch des Deutschen
Archologischen Instituts 82: 92-101.
Gterbock, H.G.
1974 The Hittite palace. In P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royaut
(Archologie et civilisation): XIXe Rencentre Assyriologique
Internationale, 305-14. Paris: Geuthner.
1983 The Hittites and the Aegean world. Part 1: the Ahhiyawa problem
reconsidered. American Journal of Archaeology 87: 133-38.
Gterbock, H.G., and T.P.J. van den Hout
1991 The Hittite Instruction for the Royal Bodyguard. Assyriological
Studies 24. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago.
Haas, V.
1994 Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Handbuch der Orientalistik,
Erste Abteilung: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 15. Leiden: Brill.
Halstead, P., and V. Isaakidou
2004 Faunal evidence for feasting: burnt offerings from the Palace
of Nestor at Pylos. In P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett (eds.), Food,
317
318
ULRICH THALER
Kilian. K.
1988 Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83. Archologischer Anzeiger:
105-51.
Koay, H.Z., and M. Akok
1966 Ausgrabungen von Alaca Hyk: Vorbericht ber die Forschungen
und Entdeckungen von 1940-1948. Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar
V.6. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basmevi.
Kraue, D.
1999 Der Keltenfrst von Hochdorf: Dorfltester oder Sakralknig?
Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der sog. kulturanthropologischen
Hallstatt-Archologie. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29:
339-58.
Kpper, M.
1996 Mykenische Architektur: Material, Bearbeitungstechnik, Konstru
ktion und Erscheinungsbild. Espelkamp: Leidorf.
Lauter, H.
1987 Nouveaux aspects du palais de Mycnes au HR IIIB. In E. Lvy
(ed.), Le systme palatial en Orient, en Grce et Rome: Actes
du Colloque de Strasbourg, 19-22 juin 1985. Travaux du centre
de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grce antiques: 219-225.
Leiden: Brill.
Loader, N.C.
1998 Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With Special Reference to the
Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-Book 148. Jonsered: Paul strms
Frlag.
Maran, J.
2004 Architektonische Innovation im sptmykenischen Tiryns Lokale
Bauprogramme und fremde Kultureinflsse. In Althellenische
Technologie und Technik von der prhistorischen bis zur
hellenistischen Zeit mit Schwerpunkt auf der prhistorischen
Epoche, 261-93. Weilheim: Verein zur Frderung der Aufarbeitung
der Hellenischen Geschichte.
319
Naumann, R.
1979 Das hethitische #ilammar. In VIII. Trk Tarih Kongresi: Ankara,
11-15 Ekim 1976, 227-32. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basimeva.
Neve, P.
1982 Bykkale Die Bauwerke: Grabungen 1954-1966. Boazky%attua 12. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
1989 Eine hethitische Bronzesge aus Hattusa-Boazky. Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 39: 399-406.
1991 Hethitischer Gewlbebau. In A. Hoffmann, E.-L. Schwandner,
W. Hoepfner, and G. Brands (eds.), Bautechnik der Antike: Internationales Kolliquium in Berlin vom 15.-17. Februar 1990. Diskussionen zur Archologischen Bauforschung: 161-65. Mainz:
Zabern.
1995-96 Der groe Tempel (Tempel 1) in Boazky-%attua. Nrnberger
Bltter zur Archologie 12: 41-62.
Niemeier, W.-D.
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: Thirteenth to Early Tenth
Centuries BCE. In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. 17-64. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
2002 %attusa und A##ijawa im Konflikt um Millawanda/Milet: Die
politische und kulturelle Rolle des mykenischen Griechenland in
Westkleinasien. In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000
Gtter, 294-99. Stuttgart: Theiss.
Otten, H.
1964 Aufgaben eines Brgermeisters in %attua. Baghdader
Mitteilungen 3: 91-95.
1988 Die Bronzetafel aus Boazky: Ein Staatsvertrag Tut#alijas
IV. Studien zu den Boazky-Texten, Beihefte 1. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
zg, T.
1978 Excavations at Maat Hyk and investigations in its vicinity.
320
ULRICH THALER
321
Seeher, J.
2002a Hattuscha-Fhrer: Ein Tag in der hethitischen Hauptstadt. Alte
anatolische Stdte 2. Istanbul: Ege Yaynlar.
2002b %attusa-Boazky Hauptstadt des Reiches: Die Entwicklung
der Stadtanlage und ihr Ausbau zur Groreichsmetropole. In
Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000 Gtter, 156-63.
Stuttgart: Theiss.
2005 berlegungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem hethitischen
Kernreich und der Westkste Anatoliens im 2. Jahrtausend
v. Chr. In B. Horejs, R. Jung, E. Kaiser and B. Teran (eds.),
Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit: Bernhard Hnsel von seinen
Schlern gewidmet. Universittsforschungen zur prhistorischen
Archologie: 33-44. Bonn: Habelt.
Shaw, J.W.
1973 Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques. Annuario della
Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente
49. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.
Singer, I.
1975 Hittite #ilammar and Hieroglyphic Luwian *#ilana. Zeitschrift fr
Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archologie 65: 69-103.
1983 The Hittite KI.LAM Festival. Pt. 1. Studien zu den BoazkyTexten 27. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stahl, A.B.
1993 Concepts of time and approaches to analogical reasoning in historical perspective. American Antiquity 58: 235-60.
Steiner, G.
1990 Neue berlegungen zur A##ijawa-Frage. In X. Trk Tarih
Kongresi: Ankara, 22-26 Eyll 1986, 523-30. Ankara: Trk Tarih
Kurumu Basmevi.
Srenhagen, D.
2001 Dimensionen sakralen Knigtums im hethitischen Staat: Einige
Bemerkungen zum Forschungsstand. In R.M. Boehmer and J.
Maran (eds.), Lux Orientis: Archologie zwischen Asien und
322
ULRICH THALER
323
Wood, W.R.
1990 Ethnohistory and historical method. Archaeological Method and
Theory 2: 81-110.
Wylie, A.
1985 The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory 8: 63-111.
Zaccagnini, C.
1983 Patterns of mobility among Near Eastern craftsmen. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 42: 245-64.
CONTENTS
Addresses. .............................................................................................
Acknowledgements..........................................................................
List of Contributors.......................................................................
Introduction
1. Mediterranean crossroads
Sophia Antoniadou and Anthony Pace.................................................
13
17
19
23
Part 1
2. Insularity and island identity in the prehistoric Mediterranean
A. Bernard Knapp.................................................................................
37
63
4. Mediterranean archaeologies: a comment on the structure of archaeological communities in the Mediterranean region
Demetra Papaconstantinou..................................................................
85
10
CONTENTS
Part 2
7. East Mediterranean interactions in the 3rd millennium BC
Edgar Peltenburg.................................................................................. 141
8. Cultural interaction in 3rd millennium BC Cyprus: evidence of ceramics
Diane Bolger......................................................................................... 163
9. Identifying population movements by everyday practice: the case of
3rd millennium Cyprus
Jennifer Webb and David Frankel........................................................ 189
10. External influences and local tradition in pottery repertoire of Boeotia
at the end of EHII
Kyriaki Psaraki..................................................................................... 217
11. Cultural contacts and mobility between the South Central Mediterranean and the Aegean during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC
Alberto Cazzella, Anthony Pace and Giulia Recchia........................... 243
Part 3
12. Palatial style architecture and power in Bronze Age Crete
Giorgos Vavouranakis........................................................................... 263
13. A##iyawa and %atti: palatial perspectives
Ulrich Thaler........................................................................................ 291
14. Cross-craft and cross-cultural interactions during the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age
Ann Brysbaert....................................................................................... 325
15. Artists exchanging vocabularies: the dot-rosette motif on ceramics and
textiles of the 2nd millennium BC in Egypt and the Aegean
Margarita Nicolakaki-Kentrou............................................................. 361
16. Aegean Bronze Age seascapes a case study in maritime movement,
contact and interaction
Ina Berg................................................................................................ 387
CONTENTS
11
Part 4
17. Beyond cultures and ethnicity: a new look at material culture distribution and inter-regional interaction in the Early Bronze Age Southern
Aegean
Yiannis Papadatos................................................................................. 419
18. Sharing material culture? Mycenaeans in the Mediterranean
Gert Jan van Wijngaarden.................................................................... 453
19. Common materials, different meanings: changes in Late Cypriot society
Sophia Antoniadou................................................................................ 483
20. Beyond emulation and hierarchy: diverse expressions of social
identity in Late Cypriot mortuary ritual
Priscilla Schuster Keswani................................................................... 509
21. Colonial encounters and the negotiation of identities in south-east
Iberia
Jaime Vives-Ferrndiz Snchez............................................................ 537
22. Locating identities in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late
Bronze geEarly Iron Age: the case of hellenised Cyprus
Anastasia Leriou................................................................................... 563
23. The Thracian image in Herodotus and the rhetoric of otherness
Ioannis Xydopoulos............................................................................... 593
Part 5
24. Timber supply of Muslim states in the medieval Mediterranean: an approach focusing on environmental history and technology transfer
Constantin Canavas.............................................................................. 607
25. Commercial activity in the Aegean of the 13th16th century: the
ceramic evidence from Andros
Nikos D. Kontogiannis and Smaragdi Arvaniti.................................... 623
26. Technology, geography and culture the changing face of Hospitaller military architecture
Stephen C. Spiteri................................................................................. 643
12
CONTENTS
Part 6
27. Mediterranean between history and heritage
David Lowenthal................................................................................... 661
28. Italian prehistory collections as Mediterranean cultural heritage
Robin Skeates........................................................................................ 691
29. In search of identities: some thoughts on the place of heritage, prehistoric megaliths and policy in contemporary Maltese society
Anthony Pace........................................................................................ 715
30. The oldest heritage: Mediterranean Classical, in a view from the north,
and the heritage model it has led to
Christopher Chippindale...................................................................... 741
Index. .......................................................................................................
769