Abstract
The Mycenaean Greek world occupies a peculiar and instructive place among the literate societies of the Late Bronze Age. It left behind a decipherable script, monumental architecture, a dense material record, and a cultural memory that survived into the Greek historical imagination. Yet it did not leave behind a history, or the raw material out of which a conventional history is ordinarily written. The surviving texts are administrative rather than narrative, frozen at a single accounting cycle rather than spread across a run of years, and concentrated almost wholly at a small number of palatial installations that housed a thin governing stratum sitting atop a countryside that has scarcely been dug. This paper argues that a full political, economic, cultural, military, and social history of the Mycenaeans cannot at present be written; that the smaller histories we can honestly write are partial, snapshot-bound, and palace-weighted; and that the single most consequential correction available to the discipline is the deliberate discovery and excavation of non-palatial sites, which alone can restore to the palaces the larger settlement, economic, and political context that gave them their meaning. The argument proceeds through the nature of the problem, the structure and limits of the evidence base, an audit of the five sub-histories against what present evidence permits and what a fuller account would require, the case for a non-palatial program of survey and excavation, the collapse as a test of every constraint named, and a concluding inventory of the real but partial knowledge now in hand.
I. The Nature of the Problem: Why Mycenaean History Resists Conventional Narrative
Defining the object and its span
Before the difficulty of writing Mycenaean history can be measured, the object itself must be defined with more care than the familiar shorthand allows, because the word “Mycenaean” is asked to carry two burdens that pull against one another. In its widest use it names a material-cultural phenomenon on the Greek mainland and across the southern Aegean that runs from the Shaft Grave horizon of roughly 1700 to 1600 BC, through a formative period of consolidation, into the mature palatial centuries conventionally placed in Late Helladic IIIA and IIIB from about 1400 to 1200 or 1180 BC, and on through the post-palatial phase of Late Helladic IIIC into the succeeding centuries of transition toward the Iron Age. In its narrower and more consequential use, “Mycenaean” names the palatial system: a specific administrative order, centered on a redistributive and mobilizing palace bureaucracy that kept its accounts in the Linear B script, an order that appears comparatively late in the sequence, dominates the written record almost to the exclusion of anything else, and then disappears within a generation or two around 1200 BC.
Holding these two meanings apart is the first act of intellectual discipline the subject demands. The material-cultural Mycenaean world is broad, deep in time, and geographically diffuse; it precedes the palaces and it outlasts them. The palatial system is narrow, brief, and installed at a handful of points on the map. The temptation, and it is a persistent one, is to allow the vivid and legible palace to stand for the whole, so that “Mycenaean society” comes to mean “the society described in the palace accounts,” and the far larger world of villages, hamlets, herders, coastal traders, and unattached elites that the palace did not record slips quietly out of the picture. Much of what follows is an argument against precisely that slippage.
The core asymmetry
The governing fact of the field, and the source of nearly every difficulty that follows, is that the Mycenaeans were a literate people who left no literature. There is no chronicle, no king-list, no annal, no treaty, no diplomatic letter, no law code, no myth committed to writing, no hymn, no narrative of any kind. This is not a gap in preservation of the ordinary sort; it is a feature of what the script was for. Linear B was an instrument of palace accounting, and its users appear never to have turned it to continuous prose at all.
The force of this asymmetry is felt most sharply by comparison. The contemporary Hittite kingdom of central Anatolia has yielded state archives that preserve treaties, royal annals, prayers, diplomatic correspondence with the great powers, and even a set of letters bearing on the Aegean itself. New Kingdom Egypt has left annals, monumental inscriptions recording campaigns, administrative papyri, hymns, and a diplomatic archive at Amarna that lets us read the letters of kings. From the Mycenaean palaces we have inventories. We can, at Pylos, count the rowers and weigh the bronze and tally the offerings of oil, but we cannot read a single sentence in which a Mycenaean tells us who he was, what he did, whom he fought, or what he believed. The society is at once brilliantly documented and historically mute.
The distortions this imposes
Three habits of interpretation follow from this muteness, and each must be named at the outset because each has shaped the field’s reconstructions in ways not always acknowledged. The first is the tyranny of the texts: because the tablets are precise and quantitative, they exert a gravitational pull on interpretation, and the palace economy they describe comes to be treated as the Mycenaean economy in full, when it may have been only that portion of economic life the palace found it worth recording. The second is the temptation of Homeric back-projection, the reading of a Late Bronze Age society through the epic tradition that reached its surviving form centuries after the palaces burned; the Homeric poems remember a heroic Mycenaean past, but they remember it through the institutions, values, and material assumptions of a later age, and their testimony must be handled as memory transformed rather than as description preserved. The third is the habit of filling Bronze Age silences with Classical Greek institutions, so that the polis, the assembly, the citizen body, and the categories of later Greek social thought are quietly imported into a period from which they may be wholly absent. The wanax was not a Classical tyrant, the damos was not the demos of the fifth century, and the qasireu who ran a local workshop was not yet the basileus who would later mean king. Each of these distortions is a way of writing history where the evidence has failed to supply it, and each must be resisted deliberately, because the pressure toward all three is constant.
II. The Evidence Base and Its Structural Limits
Linear B as an administrative freeze-frame
The decipherment of Linear B by Michael Ventris in 1952, and its establishment on a firm footing in the collaboration with John Chadwick that followed, remains one of the great intellectual achievements of the twentieth-century study of antiquity (Ventris & Chadwick, 1973). It gave the Greek language a documented history reaching back into the Bronze Age and opened the palace archives to reading. What it did not do, and could not do, was convert those archives into narrative sources, because the script records what the palace administration needed to record and nothing else.
The character of the surviving corpus repays close attention. The tablets are accounts: lists of personnel with their rations and their children, inventories of livestock organized by flock and by the officials responsible for them, registers of land with its holders and their obligations, records of textiles at various stages of production, tallies of bronze allocated to named smiths, schedules of offerings to named deities, and inventories of equipment down to individual chariots and their fittings. This is the documentation of a working administration, and it is remarkably informative about the mechanics of that administration. It is silent about everything the administration did not track.
The preservation of these texts rests on a paradox that shapes everything we can draw from them. The tablets were made of unbaked clay, meant to be kept for a single accounting cycle and then moistened, wiped, and reused, or discarded. They survive only because the palaces that housed them burned, and the fires that destroyed the buildings baked the clay hard enough to endure for three thousand years. We therefore read, in almost every case, the accounts of the final year, and often only a partial final year, of each archive: the documents that happened to be current when the palace fell. The archives of Pylos, Knossos, Mycenae, Thebes, and Tiryns are not runs of records accumulated across generations but single frozen slices, each a snapshot taken at the moment of catastrophe.
The consequence for history is severe and pervasive. What the tablets offer is synchronic, a system described at an instant, and not diachronic, a system tracked through change. We can, with real precision, describe the administrative order of the kingdom of Pylos in the months before its destruction. We cannot watch that order form, mature, or alter, because we possess only its last account book. The formation of the palatial system, the very process by which a redistributive bureaucracy came to sit atop the Mycenaean landscape, is almost entirely invisible in the texts, because the texts begin, for us, at the end. This single structural fact underlies a large share of the difficulties catalogued in the sections that follow.
The material record and its silences
Beyond the tablets lies the immense material record, and here the difficulty is of an opposite kind: abundance without articulation. The frescoes of the palaces, the carved seals and signet rings, the imported ivories, the gold and silver metalwork of the shaft graves, the fine painted pottery that traveled across the eastern Mediterranean, the Cyclopean fortifications, and the great chamber tombs and tholoi all testify eloquently to technical mastery, to hierarchy, and to a culture of elite display. What they do not do, without heavy inference, is yield meaning, intention, or event. A hunting fresco tells us that hunting was worth depicting; it does not tell us whose hunt, or when, or why. A warrior grave tells us that martial identity mattered in death; it does not narrate a war. The material record is a record of practices and values inferred from things, and it is richest precisely where the texts are poorest, but it purchases that richness at the cost of specificity. It gives us a society in its habits and almost never in its history.
Chronology and its uncertainties
Any narrative requires a timeline, and the Mycenaean timeline is built on a relative ceramic sequence, established in its classic form by Arne Furumark, that divides the Late Helladic period into phases according to the development of painted pottery styles (Furumark, 1941). This relative sequence is then anchored to absolute dates chiefly through synchronisms with Egypt, where Mycenaean pottery appears in datable contexts and Egyptian objects appear in the Aegean, and increasingly through the independent controls of radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology (Manning, 2010). The framework is sound in its broad outlines, but the residual uncertainties matter for history. The long-running dispute over the date of the Thera eruption, with a radiocarbon-based high chronology set against a lower chronology derived from Egyptian synchronisms, affects the early part of the sequence and, through it, the pace at which the Mycenaean world took shape. Uncertainties of a few decades at the century’s scale are enough to blur the relative ordering of events at different sites, and since so much of what we would call Mycenaean history turns on whether destructions and developments at separate centers were simultaneous or staggered, chronological imprecision is not a technicality but a direct limit on the histories we can write.
External written windows
Because the Mycenaeans wrote no history of themselves, the few windows opened by outsiders acquire disproportionate weight. The most important is Hittite. The Hittite state archives at Hattusa preserve a series of references, spread across roughly the fifteenth to thirteenth centuries, to a power called Ahhiyawa and to its king, who in one document is addressed as a Great King on a footing with the rulers of Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria (Beckman, Bryce, & Cline, 2011). The identification of Ahhiyawa with a Mycenaean power, and of its name with the Achaeans of later Greek memory, is now widely though not universally accepted, and it places a Mycenaean political actor on the map of Late Bronze Age diplomacy, active around Wilusa in the northwest of Anatolia and around Millawanda on the western coast, sites commonly identified with Troy and Miletus respectively (Bryce, 2005). These texts are precious precisely because they show a Mycenaean power from the outside, engaged in the politics of the eastern Mediterranean; they are also frustrating, because they are the Hittites’ account of their own concerns, mentioning Ahhiyawa only as it touched Hittite interests, and they name no Mycenaean center, so that the location of the Ahhiyawan capital, and even whether the name denoted a single kingdom or a loose designation for the Mycenaean world beyond the sea, remain open. Egyptian toponym lists supply a second, fainter window, appearing to record Aegean place-names among the destinations of Egyptian contact.
A third external window, and one that intersects the biblical record directly, opens at the very end of the period and on the eastern edge of the Aegean world’s reach. Scripture preserves the origin of the Philistines from Caphtor, a testimony given more than once and in more than one voice. The prophet Amos sets the Philistine migration alongside the Exodus itself as a work of the same sovereign hand: “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?” (Amos 9:7, KJV). Jeremiah names the same origin in his oracle against the Philistines, calling them “the remnant of the country of Caphtor” (Jeremiah 47:4, KJV). The historical retrospect of Deuteronomy records the Caphtorim displacing an earlier people: “the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead” (Deuteronomy 2:23, KJV), and the Table of Nations lists the Caphtorim among the descendants of Mizraim (Genesis 10:14, KJV). Read on their own terms, as a biblicist reading takes them, these passages preserve a firm tradition that a people who settled the coast of Canaan traced their origin to Caphtor, an island or coastland most naturally identified with Crete and the wider Aegean. The importance of this witness for the present argument is twofold. It supplies one of the very few external ethnographic anchors that connect the Aegean world to a securely dated historical horizon, since the Philistine settlement belongs to the era of the Sea Peoples’ movements at the close of the thirteenth and opening of the twelfth centuries. And the material culture of the earliest Philistine settlements, with its locally made pottery in an Aegean tradition, offers an archaeological correlate to the scriptural testimony of an Aegean-descended people arriving on the Levantine coast in precisely the generation of the palatial collapse (Dothan, 1982; Cline, 2014). The biblical record thus furnishes both a chronological anchor and a witness to where at least some of the displaced Aegean population went, at the one moment when the Mycenaean palaces’ own records fall silent.
III. The Five Sub-Histories: What Can Be Written and What Evidence Is Wanting
The remainder of the diagnostic argument proceeds through the five conventional divisions of history, and each is treated in two movements. The first asks what partial history can be written responsibly from the evidence now in hand. The second asks what classes of evidence a fuller account would require, and where they would have to come from. The pattern that emerges across all five is consistent: present evidence yields a detailed but static portrait of the palace and its immediate dependents, and the missing evidence is, in every case, evidence of change over time and evidence from beyond the palace walls.
Political history
From present evidence, the achievable political history is the internal administrative geography of a single kingdom, and it is best written for Pylos, whose archive is the most complete and whose destruction preserved its final accounts in unusual fullness (Chadwick, 1976). At the apex stands the wanax, the paramount ruler, a figure of clearly superior rank whose title later disappears from Greek usage except in poetry and cult. Below him stands the lawagetas, the “leader of the people,” a second figure of high standing whose precise function, whether primarily military or more broadly governmental, remains debated. A class of telestai holds land under obligation to the center, and the hequetai, the “followers,” appear as an elite associated with the wanax and with military organization. At the local level the qasireu supervises groups of workers, a figure whose title would descend, transformed, into the later Greek basileus but who in the palatial period is a local functionary and not a king. The damos appears as a landholding collective with which the palace must reckon and even, on occasion, dispute. The kingdom of Pylos is administered as two provinces, a Hither and a Further province divided by a mountain range, subdivided into sixteen districts, each with its governor and deputy governor, the ko-re-te and po-ro-ko-re-te, who answered to the center for the obligations of their districts (Bennet, 2007). This is a real and detailed portrait of how one palace organized the territory it controlled, and it is among the field’s firmest achievements.
What is wanting is nearly everything a political history in the ordinary sense would contain. We do not know the relationship among the palatial centers. Whether Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Thebes, Orchomenos, and the rest were fully independent kingdoms, members of a confederation, or subordinate members of a hierarchy crowned by a single Great King, perhaps the very Great King of Ahhiyawa known to the Hittites, cannot be settled from the internal records, each of which describes its own kingdom as though it were the world. We have no dynastic succession, no royal names attached to reigns, no political events, no account of how territories were won, lost, or governed at the margins. Above all we do not know the political status of the vast non-palatial spaces of the Mycenaean world, the regions that show Mycenaean material culture but no palace, and whether they lay within a palatial polity, outside all such polities, or in some relation the tablets never had occasion to record. A fuller political history would require diplomatic and legal texts of the kind the Mycenaeans appear never to have written, archives from multiple sites of demonstrably different dates so that development could be tracked, and material markers of political hierarchy distributed across the landscape in a way that could reveal the reach of each center. The first of these may be permanently beyond recovery; the second and third are, in principle, obtainable, and the case for pursuing them is a central concern of this paper.
Economic history
The achievable economic history is, at present, the richest of the five sub-histories, because the palace accounts are, in their essence, economic documents, and they permit a detailed reconstruction of the palatial mobilization economy (Killen, 2008). The textile industry stands out: the palaces organized large workforces, heavily female, into named work-groups located at various settlements, provisioned them with rations, recorded their dependent children, and tracked the flow of wool from flock to finished cloth. The system of allocation known as ta-ra-si-ja issued measured quantities of raw material to craftsmen, bronze-smiths above all, against an expected return of finished product, so that the palace functioned as a coordinator of dispersed production rather than as a single workshop. Land was recorded in distinct categories, the ki-ti-me-na land held privately and the ke-ke-me-na land held communally or leased from the damos, each with its associated obligations. Deities and sanctuaries received recorded offerings, and a class of figures known to scholarship as “collectors,” named individuals who appear across multiple sites in control of flocks and textile production, mediated in some fashion between the center and the productive base, in a relationship whose exact nature, whether royal appointees, members of an elite operating alongside the palace, or something in between, remains one of the field’s productive puzzles (Nakassis, 2013).
What is wanting is everything the palace did not find it necessary to record, and the reasons for thinking this omitted portion large are strong. The material record proves the existence of long-distance exchange on a considerable scale: Cypriot copper, tin from distant sources, amber from the Baltic, and the astonishing mixed cargo of the Uluburun shipwreck all attest to trade networks in which Mycenaeans participated. Yet the tablets scarcely mention overseas trade at all, which suggests either that such trade lay largely outside palatial control or that it was handled through mechanisms the accounts did not capture. The household economy, the production and consumption of ordinary settlements, the exchange that must have occurred below the level of palatial mobilization, and any activity resembling a market are almost wholly invisible. The central unanswered question of Mycenaean economic history is therefore quantitative: what share of total economic life did the palace actually govern? Was it the commanding institution the tablets’ own perspective implies, or one node, however grand, in a broader economy that carried on around and beneath it? A fuller economic history would require two things above all. It would require records from multiple years, so that the palatial economy could be seen changing rather than merely photographed, and it would require the systematic excavation of production and consumption outside the palace, at ordinary settlements and workshops, so that the palatial share of the whole could at last be measured against the remainder rather than assumed to be the whole.
Cultural and religious history
The achievable cultural and religious history begins from the offering tablets, which record deities by name and thereby establish a partial pantheon of unusual interest, because it shows both continuity with later Greek religion and loss (Chadwick, 1976). Zeus, Hera, Hermes, and a figure most plausibly read as Athena appear, and Poseidon holds a place of striking prominence at Pylos, apparently exceeding that of Zeus in the local cult, a distribution unlike the later Panhellenic ordering. The name of Dionysos, long thought to be a later arrival in the Greek religious world, is now attested in Mycenaean records, a finding that revised a settled assumption. Alongside these recognizable figures stands Potnia, “the Lady” or “Mistress,” a title of evident importance whose bearer or bearers are not always specified, and a number of deities who did not survive into the later tradition at all. Religious personnel and endowed sanctuaries appear in the records, and the material record supplies frescoes with cult scenes, figurines, and sanctuary deposits that fill out the picture of an active religious life with dedicated spaces and specialists.
What is wanting is the interior of that religion entirely. We have names and offerings but no mythology, no theology, no liturgy, no cosmology, and no means of tracing how belief formed or changed. We cannot recover a single Mycenaean myth as the Mycenaeans told it, distinguish their theology from the later Greek theology that the offering-lists so tantalizingly foreshadow, or say what the recorded rituals meant to those who performed them. A fuller religious history would require non-administrative texts, hymns, prayers, or narratives of the divine, and these the Mycenaeans may simply never have committed to writing, so that the deficiency here may be one not of preservation but of the very practices of a society that reserved its script for accounts. Failing texts, the only available road forward is the excavation of many more secure sanctuary contexts, with well-recorded associations between structures, deposits, and the deities named in the tablets, so that cult practice might be reconstructed from its physical remains even where its meaning must remain beyond reach.
Military history
The achievable military history is a history of equipment and defense, and it is unusually concrete for a Bronze Age society. The Dendra panoply, a nearly complete suit of bronze plate armor from the fifteenth century, shows the protection available to a high-status warrior, and the boar’s-tusk helmet, assembled from the tusks of many animals and described in detail in a later epic passage that thereby preserves a genuine Bronze Age memory, is attested both in the material record and in art (Dickinson, 1994). The tablets record military equipment directly: chariots and their fittings appear in inventory series at both Knossos and Pylos, and body armor is tracked in its own registers. The fortifications speak for themselves, the Cyclopean walls of Mycenae and Tiryns built of stones so large that later Greeks credited them to giants, complete with the underground passages and cisterns that secured a protected water supply against siege, a provision that discloses a clear anxiety about prolonged investment. The warrior iconography of frescoes, seals, and grave goods confirms that martial identity stood near the center of elite self-presentation. At Pylos, a distinctive set of tablets, the o-ka series recording the disposition of watchers along the coast, has often been read as a defensive deployment against a threat from the sea, and, given that the palace burned soon after, as a poignant record of a last watch kept before the end (Palaima, 1995).
What is wanting is military history in the sense of events: campaigns, battles, strategy, and the identity of enemies. We have the tools of war in abundance and no account of a single war. The historicity of the conflicts that later Greek memory preserved, the Trojan War above all, and the reality behind the Ahhiyawan activity in Anatolia recorded by the Hittites, cannot be established from the Mycenaean side, which is silent. Even the destructions that ended the palaces do not, by themselves, name their cause, for a burnt palace testifies to fire and not to the hand that set it, and the interpretive discipline required here is considerable, since the same destruction layer will support readings of assault, accident, earthquake, and revolt. A fuller military history would require narrative or documentary sources of the kind that do not exist, and, failing them, destruction-layer archaeology interpreted with a restraint that resists the temptation to convert every burnt building into a battle.
Social history
The achievable social history yields a coarse stratification and little more, but even the coarse picture is real. At the top, an elite is legible in the shaft graves with their masks of gold, in the monumental tholos tombs, and in the graded chamber-tomb cemeteries whose differences in size and furnishing map a hierarchy onto the dead (Voutsaki, 2010). At the bottom, the tablets record dependent and very probably enslaved labor, the do-e-ro and do-e-ra, “male slave” and “female slave,” including a category rendered “servant of the god,” whose status, whether genuinely servile, sacred, or a form of dependency our categories do not quite fit, remains debated. Between these poles the tablets show us the women’s work-groups with their rations and their lists of children, and the craft specialists identified by trade. This is enough to establish that Mycenaean society was stratified, that it commanded dependent labor on a large scale, and that it organized much of that labor by sex and by craft.
What is wanting is social history as the lived texture of a society: family and kinship, gender relations beyond the labor rosters, demography, ethnicity, migration, mobility, and above all the experience of the ordinary and the rural, who make up the overwhelming majority of any premodern population and who appear in the palace records, when they appear at all, only as units of labor and consumption. We cannot describe a Mycenaean household, trace a family across generations, estimate a population, or reconstruct the life of a village. A fuller social history would require, first, the systematic excavation of ordinary settlements and their cemeteries, the dwellings and graves of the non-elite that have been so much less dug than palaces and elite tombs, and, second, the full deployment of the bioarchaeological toolkit that the last generation has placed at the discipline’s disposal: stable-isotope analysis of skeletal remains to reconstruct diet and to detect movement across the landscape, the analysis of ancient DNA to recover kinship and to test hypotheses of migration, and the careful excavation of domestic contexts to recover the material of daily life. Here, uniquely among the five, the missing evidence is not only obtainable but is being obtained, in scattered and preliminary ways, and the argument of the next section is in large part an argument for pursuing it systematically.
IV. The Non-Palatial Imperative: Placing the Palaces in Their Missing Context
The privileging accident
The concentration of Mycenaean archaeology on palaces is, in a sense, an accident, though a well-motivated one. Palaces are monumental and therefore visible; they were identified and dug early, some of them by the founders of the discipline; and, because they burned, they alone preserved the written records that make them legible in a way no other site can match. Every incentive of visibility, of history, and of the extraordinary reward of text has drawn excavation toward the palace and held it there. The result is that a small number of installations, housing what may have been a thin governing stratum, have come to represent the whole of a society, and the palace has been read as though it were the country rather than merely its capital. A capital studied without its country is a distorted object of knowledge, and the distortion runs in a predictable direction: it magnifies the reach and the centrality of the institution that happens to have documented itself, and it renders invisible everything that institution did not record.
The questions only non-palatial evidence can answer
A series of questions on which any full history depends can be answered by no other means than the excavation of non-palatial sites, and it is worth stating them plainly, because their dependence on this particular class of evidence is the crux of the argument. What was the settlement hierarchy, the arrangement of towns, villages, and hamlets beneath the palace, and what therefore was the total population and its distribution? What was the numerical relationship between the center and the countryside, between the few who lived in or around the palace and the many who did not? What was the political and economic status of the regions that display Mycenaean material culture but possess no palace at all, regions such as parts of the Argolid beyond the great citadels, Achaea, Laconia outside its palatial center, the Messenian countryside beyond Pylos, and the Ionian islands? Were these regions incorporated into palatial polities, subordinate to them, or independent of them? And, most provocatively, did there exist Mycenaean polities that were never palatial at all, communities organized and governed by means other than a redistributive palace bureaucracy, whose existence the palace-centered record cannot register because such communities kept no records and built no palaces? None of these questions can be answered from the tablets, because the tablets look outward from the palace and see only what the palace controlled. All of them require the systematic investigation of the landscape beyond the palace.
The post-palatial witness
There is a powerful indirect argument that the non-palatial substrate was not merely present but resilient, and it comes from what happened after the palaces fell. The material culture of Late Helladic IIIC, the phase that follows the destructions, does not vanish with the palaces. Pottery styles continue and develop, settlements persist and in some cases flourish, and at Tiryns the post-palatial community rebuilt on a considerable scale after the palace itself had ceased to function as an administrative center (Maran, 2006). This continuation is difficult to explain if Mycenaean society was simply the palace and its dependents, for in that case its foundations would have shared the palace’s fate. It is readily explained if the palace was an administrative apparatus laid over a broader and more durable base of settlement and production, a base that had always existed beneath the reach of the records and that carried on, altered but alive, once the apparatus above it had been swept away. The post-palatial period is thus a witness, testifying after the fact, to a non-palatial Mycenaean world that the palatial records had kept in shadow.
The record so far and its gaps
The discipline has not been idle in the countryside, and the tradition of regional survey deserves recognition as the principal existing corrective to the palace bias. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition, a pioneering interdisciplinary effort of the 1960s, set out to reconstruct the environment and settlement of a whole region rather than a single site (McDonald & Rapp, 1972). The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project extended and refined that work with the methods of intensive survey, mapping the changing settlement of the Pylos hinterland across long spans of time and setting the palace at last within a peopled landscape (Davis, 1998; Bennet, 2007). The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, the Berbati–Limnes survey in the Argolid, and the Laconia Survey have each opened windows onto particular regions of the Mycenaean world beyond the palaces. These projects have transformed what can be said about settlement and land use, and they prove that the non-palatial landscape is recoverable.
Their limitation is that they remain patchy, uneven in coverage and in method, and concentrated in the hinterlands of known palaces rather than distributed across the regions that lack them. Vast areas remain unsurveyed or only lightly examined, and survey, which recovers the pattern of settlement from surface remains, must in any case be paired with excavation to recover the character of the settlements it locates. The argument of this paper is therefore not that the countryside has been ignored but that its investigation has been secondary, opportunistic, and incomplete, and that it ought instead to be deliberate, systematic, and central. A program directed specifically at secondary and tertiary sites, at the towns and villages and hamlets of the settlement hierarchy, and above all at the regions that possess Mycenaean culture without palaces, is the necessary control on a model of Mycenaean society that has been built, of necessity, from the self-documentation of a thin administrative elite. Until that control exists, the palaces will continue to be read as the whole, and the history written from them will continue to mistake a governing stratum’s record for the record of a society.
V. The Collapse as a Test Case for Every Constraint Above
The event
Around 1200 to 1180 BC the Mycenaean palaces were destroyed, most of them by fire, in a horizon of catastrophe that fell within a comparatively short span across the mainland. With the palaces went the palatial system itself: the administrative order dissolved, and Linear B, an instrument that existed only to serve palace accounting, disappeared with the institution it served, so that Greece became illiterate again for centuries. The loss of the script is, for the historian, a second catastrophe layered upon the first, because it closes the one window through which the society could be read at the precise moment when we most desire to see, the moment of its own undoing. The collapse thus enacts, in the sharpest possible form, the central predicament of the field: our best evidence describes a system at the instant of its death and then falls silent exactly when the story reaches its climax.
The competing explanations
Because the collapse is at once the most consequential event of Mycenaean history and the least documented, it has attracted the widest range of explanation, and the survey of proposed causes is a survey of the ways historians reason in the absence of testimony (Middleton, 2010). Earthquake has been proposed, on the strength of destruction features at some sites and the region’s known seismicity, and championed particularly for Tiryns. Hostile attack has been proposed, and connected to the wider disturbance of the Sea Peoples recorded in Egyptian sources, whose monuments at Medinet Habu depict Ramesses III’s defense against a coalition of migrating peoples in this very era. Internal breakdown, revolt of the governed against the governing apparatus, has been argued from the burden the palatial economy appears to have placed on its dependent labor. Systems collapse, the cascading failure of an over-centralized and interdependent order once any part of it faltered, has been advanced as a model that requires no single external cause (Renfrew, 1979). Drought and climate stress have gained increasing support from paleoenvironmental data suggesting a period of aridification across the eastern Mediterranean at the close of the Bronze Age (Kaniewski et al., 2013; Drake, 2012). And the rupture of the long-distance exchange networks on which the palatial economies depended, whatever its own cause, has been proposed as the mechanism through which a broader Mediterranean crisis reached the Aegean (Cline, 2014). The present state of the evidence underdetermines all of these: it is consistent with several of them acting together, and it is insufficient to establish any one of them as the cause. This is not a failure of ingenuity but a direct consequence of the constraints catalogued throughout this paper, for a society that left no narrative of its life left no narrative of its death.
The scientific correctives
If the texts cannot speak to the collapse, and the texts have in any case been consumed by it, then the road forward runs through the natural-scientific evidence that requires no text. Paleoclimate proxies, drawn from pollen cores, isotopic records, and other environmental archives, can constrain the climatic conditions of the collapse horizon independently of any human record. Refined radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology can sharpen the sequence of destructions and establish whether the palaces fell together or in succession, a question on which the choice among explanations partly turns. Archaeometric provenance studies, which trace the sources of metals, pottery, and other materials, can measure the contraction of the exchange networks whose rupture is so often invoked. These methods are the most promising route to constraining the collapse precisely because they are not hostage to the textual silence that defeats the historian at every other turn.
To these must be added the external witness with which this paper began. The biblical testimony to the Philistines’ origin from Caphtor, “the Philistines from Caphtor” (Amos 9:7, KJV) and “the remnant of the country of Caphtor” (Jeremiah 47:4, KJV), preserves a record of Aegean-descended people arriving on the Levantine coast in the generation of the collapse, and the earliest Philistine material culture, with its locally produced pottery in the Aegean manner, supplies the archaeological correlate of that scriptural tradition (Dothan, 1982; Cline, 2014). Where the Mycenaean record fails, the biblical record and its archaeological confirmation testify to where a portion of the displaced Aegean world was carried, and thereby supply one of the few fixed points around which the diffuse evidence of the collapse can be organized.
VI. The Way Forward: Method for a History We Do Not Yet Have
Disciplined confrontation of text and material
The first methodological commitment is the disciplined confrontation of the two great classes of evidence, text and material, without permitting either to dictate to the other. The temptation of the tablets is to let their precision govern the whole reconstruction, so that Mycenaean society becomes the society the palace recorded. The temptation of the material record is to read into its rich but silent objects a specificity of meaning and event that they cannot bear. The correct method holds the two in tension, using each to check the other, allowing the material record of settlement and production to test the palace’s account of its own reach, and using the texts to give names and functions to the institutions the material record can only outline. This same discipline requires the steady refusal of both Homeric back-projection, which reads the Bronze Age through a later epic memory, and Classical anachronism, which imports the institutions of the polis into a world that may not have known them.
Comparative modeling from the Near Eastern archives
The second commitment is the use of the fuller archives of the contemporary Near East as models for estimating the shape and size of what the Mycenaean record is missing. The Hittite and Egyptian and wider Near Eastern archives preserve the genres the Mycenaeans lack, the treaties and annals and letters and law, and they preserve them for societies organized in broadly comparable ways. They cannot supply Mycenaean facts, but they can indicate what a palatial society of this kind typically generated in the way of records, activity, and institution, and thereby help the historian gauge the proportion of Mycenaean life that lies below the horizon of the surviving Mycenaean evidence. Comparison of this kind does not fill the gaps; it measures them, which is the necessary first step toward filling them responsibly.
A survey-and-excavation agenda for the non-palatial landscape
The third commitment, and the one this paper presses most insistently, is a deliberate program of survey and excavation directed at the non-palatial landscape, paired with the full deployment of the bioarchaeological and archaeometric methods now available. The palaces have been dug; the countryside has not, or not enough, and not systematically. The settlement hierarchy beneath the palace, the regions that possess Mycenaean culture without a palace, the ordinary dwellings and cemeteries of the non-elite, and the household contexts that alone can recover daily life must become the primary rather than the secondary objects of investigation. To their excavation must be joined the isotopic study of diet and mobility, the genetic study of kinship and migration, and the archaeometric study of production and exchange, so that from the physical remains of ordinary Mycenaean life there might at last be recovered the demography, the household, the economy beyond the palace, and the social texture that the palace records will never supply. This agenda is the precondition of any future synthesis that could be called a history of the Mycenaeans rather than a history of their palaces.
VII. Conclusion: The Smaller Histories We Can Honestly Write Now
It remains to take honest inventory of what the present evidence allows, and the reckoning is neither despairing nor triumphant but exact. We can write a close administrative portrait of a single kingdom, Pylos above all, in the final year of its existence, setting out its ranks and offices, its two provinces and sixteen districts, its officials and their obligations, with a precision unusual for any Bronze Age polity. We can describe in detail the structure of the palatial economy, the textile industry and its dependent workforce, the allocation of raw material to craftsmen, the categories of landholding, and the mediating role of the collectors. We can outline a pantheon and the shape of elite cult, naming the deities who received offerings, marking the prominence of Poseidon at Pylos and the presence of Dionysos, and recording the personnel and endowments of Mycenaean religion, even as its mythology and meaning stay beyond reach. We can give a firm account of military equipment and fortification, the armor and the helmets, the chariots and the walls with their protected springs, even where the campaigns and battles remain unrecorded. We can sketch a settlement picture for the few districts that intensive survey has examined, and set at least a handful of palaces within a peopled landscape. And we can lay out the mechanics of the collapse, the destructions and the loss of literacy, the range of causes proposed and the scientific evidence that may yet constrain them, without pretending to a settled account of why the palaces fell.
These are real histories, genuinely won, and they should not be disparaged for being partial. But they must be held in their proper frame, and the frame is this: they are, almost without exception, the histories of a governing stratum, recovered from that stratum’s own account of itself, awaiting the countryside that alone could complete them. The Mycenaean palaces documented themselves and, in burning, preserved that documentation; the Mycenaean world beyond the palaces documented nothing and has been dug too little to speak. Until the non-palatial landscape is investigated with the seriousness the palaces have long received, the history of the Mycenaeans will remain what it now is: a brilliant and detailed portrait of the few, set against a silence where the many ought to be. The path from that portrait to a fuller history does not run through the discovery of new texts, which the Mycenaeans likely never wrote, but through the ground itself, through the villages and fields and ordinary graves of a people whose administrators counted them but never named them, and whom only the spade can now restore to the record of their own society.
References
Beckman, G. M., Bryce, T. R., & Cline, E. H. (2011). The Ahhiyawa texts. Society of Biblical Literature.
Bennet, J. (2007). The Aegean Bronze Age. In W. Scheidel, I. Morris, & R. Saller (Eds.), The Cambridge economic history of the Greco-Roman world (pp. 175–210). Cambridge University Press.
Bryce, T. (2005). The kingdoms of the Hittites (New ed.). Oxford University Press.
Chadwick, J. (1976). The Mycenaean world. Cambridge University Press.
Cline, E. H. (2014). 1177 B.C.: The year civilization collapsed. Princeton University Press.
Cline, E. H. (Ed.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford University Press.
Davis, J. L. (Ed.). (1998). Sandy Pylos: An archaeological history from Nestor to Navarino. University of Texas Press.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S., & Lemos, I. S. (Eds.). (2006). Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of Homer. Edinburgh University Press.
Dickinson, O. (1994). The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, O. (2006). The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and change between the twelfth and eighth centuries BC. Routledge.
Dothan, T. (1982). The Philistines and their material culture. Yale University Press.
Drake, B. L. (2012). The influence of climatic change on the Late Bronze Age collapse and the Greek Dark Ages. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(6), 1862–1870.
Drews, R. (1993). The end of the Bronze Age: Changes in warfare and the catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton University Press.
Furumark, A. (1941). The Mycenaean pottery: Analysis and classification. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.
Galaty, M. L., & Parkinson, W. A. (Eds.). (2007). Rethinking Mycenaean palaces II (Rev. and expanded 2nd ed.). Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Kaniewski, D., Van Campo, E., Guiot, J., Le Burel, S., Otto, T., & Baeteman, C. (2013). Environmental roots of the Late Bronze Age crisis. PLOS ONE, 8(8), e71004.
Killen, J. T. (2008). Mycenaean economy. In Y. Duhoux & A. Morpurgo Davies (Eds.), A companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek texts and their world (Vol. 1, pp. 159–200). Peeters.
Manning, S. W. (2010). Chronology and terminology. In E. H. Cline (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (pp. 11–28). Oxford University Press.
Maran, J. (2006). Coming to terms with the past: Ideology and power in Late Helladic IIIC. In S. Deger-Jalkotzy & I. S. Lemos (Eds.), Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of Homer (pp. 123–150). Edinburgh University Press.
McDonald, W. A., & Rapp, G. R. (Eds.). (1972). The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment. University of Minnesota Press.
Middleton, G. D. (2010). The collapse of palatial society in LBA Greece and the postpalatial period. Archaeopress.
Nakassis, D. (2013). Individuals and society in Mycenaean Pylos. Brill.
Palaima, T. G. (1995). The nature of the Mycenaean wanax: Non-Indo-European origins and priestly functions. In P. Rehak (Ed.), The role of the ruler in the prehistoric Aegean (pp. 119–139). Université de Liège.
Pullen, D. J. (Ed.). (2010). Political economies of the Aegean Bronze Age. Oxbow Books.
Renfrew, C. (1979). Systems collapse as social transformation: Catastrophe and anastrophe in early state societies. In C. Renfrew & K. L. Cooke (Eds.), Transformations: Mathematical approaches to culture change (pp. 481–506). Academic Press.
Shelmerdine, C. W. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press.
Ventris, M., & Chadwick, J. (1973). Documents in Mycenaean Greek (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Voutsaki, S. (2010). Mycenaean society. In E. H. Cline (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (pp. 599–613). Oxford University Press.
Wright, J. C. (2004). The Mycenaean feast. Hesperia, 73(2), Whole issue.
