Abstract
Modern readers encounter Agamemnon as “King of Mycenae” and the Iliad as the story of a unified Greek expedition. Both formulations are anachronistic, but they are anachronistic in different ways and for different reasons. “Mycenaean” is a nineteenth-century archaeological coinage that promoted the name of one excavated citadel into the label for an entire civilization. “Argive,” “Achaean,” and “Danaan” are the epic tradition’s own collective terms, inherited from oral composition and preserving a memory of the Late Bronze Age that is neither transparent nor politically neutral. “Hellene,” the term the Greeks eventually chose for themselves, is absent from both the palatial archives and the working vocabulary of Homeric collectivity. This paper argues that the gap between these three naming systems — the modern archaeological, the epic-poetic, and the historical-ethnic — is not a nuisance to be corrected but a piece of evidence in its own right. It indicates that the Late Bronze Age Aegean was a polycentric world whose inhabitants possessed no shared political name, that outsiders named them collectively before they named themselves, and that the fragility of Agamemnon’s authority in the Iliad is a literary reflection of the same structural condition that the archaeology and the Hittite and Egyptian records independently suggest.
1. Introduction: A Kingdom Named After a Dig
When Heinrich Schliemann telegraphed his findings from the shaft graves in 1876, he did more than uncover gold. He fixed a vocabulary. Within a generation, “Mycenaean” had become the standard term for the material culture of the Late Bronze Age Aegean mainland — for a ceramic sequence, an architectural repertoire of citadels and tholos tombs, a script, an administrative system, and, implicitly, a people (Fitton, 1996; Schofield, 2007). The name of a single site in the Argolid came to designate a civilization stretching from Thessaly to Laconia, across the Cyclades, into Crete after roughly 1450 BC, and out along the coasts of Anatolia, Cyprus, and the central Mediterranean.
This was a scholarly convenience, and it has proven durable because it is useful. But conveniences leave residue. The residue in this case is a persistent tendency to read “Mycenaean civilization” as though it named a polity, and to read Agamemnon’s title accordingly. If the whole Bronze Age world is “Mycenaean,” and Agamemnon is King of Mycenae, then Agamemnon looks like the king of the whole Bronze Age world. The syllogism is invalid, but it is very hard to unlearn, and it is reinforced every time a museum label or documentary narration speaks of “the Mycenaean empire.”
The Iliad, notably, does not do this. Homer never calls the assembled host “Mycenaeans.” The poem’s collective terms for the besieging army are Argeioi (Argives), Achaioi (Achaeans), and Danaoi (Danaans), used interchangeably and largely governed by metrical convenience.¹ The epic’s own preferred general term, Argeioi, is derived from Argos — a city that in the poem belongs not to Agamemnon but to Diomedes. The name of a place has again been promoted to the name of a people, but a different place, by a different process, with different implications.
This paper examines the three naming systems in sequence — the epic, the archaeological, and the historical-ethnic — and asks what their disagreement tells us about political and cultural conditions in Greece between roughly 1400 and 700 BC.
2. What the Iliad Actually Says About Agamemnon’s Realm
The Catalogue of Ships in Iliad 2 is the poem’s most explicit statement of Bronze Age political geography, and it is generally recognized as containing material older than the surrounding narrative, preserving a settlement pattern that in several particulars matches Late Bronze Age rather than Archaic conditions (Hope Simpson & Lazenby, 1970; Latacz, 2004; contra, in part, Kirk, 1985). Its treatment of Agamemnon is instructive.
Agamemnon’s own contingent (2.569–580) comprises Mycenae, Corinth, Cleonae, Orneiai, Araithyrea, Sicyon, Hyperesia, Gonoessa, Pellene, Aigion, Aigialos, and Helike — a northeastern Peloponnesian bloc running from the Corinthia along the southern shore of the Corinthian Gulf. He brings one hundred ships, the largest single contingent, and the poet notes that he lent sixty more to the Arcadians, who had no ships of their own.
But Argos and Tiryns are not his. They belong to Diomedes, son of Tydeus, who brings eighty ships from Argos, Tiryns, Hermione, Asine, Troezen, Eionai, Epidaurus, Aegina, and Mases (2.559–568). Sparta belongs to Menelaus, who sails as an independent commander with sixty ships (2.581–590). Pylos is Nestor’s, with ninety (2.591–602).
So the Iliad preserves an Argolid divided among at least three commanders, with the paramount king holding the northern and western arc but not the plain of Argos itself. This is not the picture of a unitary Peloponnesian monarchy. It is a picture of neighboring lordships under a first among equals — a structure that Agamemnon’s own conduct repeatedly confirms. His epithets are anax andrōn (“lord of men”) and eurykreiōn (“wide-ruling”), titles of scope and precedence rather than of sovereignty over named subjects.
Elsewhere the poem gestures at a wider sphere. In Book 9, Agamemnon offers Achilles seven cities “on the sandy edge of Pylos” — Kardamyle, Enope, Hire, Pherai, Antheia, Aipeia, and Pedasos (9.149–156) — cities in Messenia, hundreds of stadia from Mycenae and within what the Catalogue treats as Nestor’s world. The offer only makes sense if Agamemnon holds some form of superior right over territory he does not administer. Whether this reflects an authentic memory of Bronze Age overlordship, an inconsistency between traditional layers, or poetic license in the service of the scene’s rhetoric is disputed, but the tension itself is the point: the poem’s Agamemnon possesses an authority that is real, extensive, and structurally undefined.
3. Argos: The Same Trick, Older
The instability of Agamemnon’s title is matched by the instability of the term Argeioi. In Homeric usage, “Argos” carries at least four distinct senses:
- Argos the city, seat of Diomedes in the Argolid plain.
- Argos the region, “Achaean Argos,” meaning the Peloponnese as a whole (Odyssey 3.251).
- “Iasian Argos” (Odyssey 18.246), an obscure formulation apparently designating a wider Peloponnesian or Argolic sphere.
- “Pelasgian Argos” (Iliad 2.681), which is in Thessaly, at the opposite end of the mainland, and belongs to Achilles’ world.
From this geographically promiscuous root the poem derives Argeioi as a term for the entire allied host, including Cretans, Boeotians, Myrmidons, and Ithacans. The very process that produced the modern word “Mycenaean” — the name of one Argolid center extended to cover a civilization — had already occurred within the epic tradition, centuries earlier, with the name of a different Argolid center.
This parallel deserves emphasis, because it suggests that the extension is not arbitrary. Both the ancient poets and the modern archaeologists reached for an Argolid toponym to name the whole, and they did so because the Argolid — with Mycenae, Tiryns, Midea, and Argos clustered within a day’s walk — genuinely was the densest concentration of monumental power in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. The naming reflects a real asymmetry. What it does not establish is a political fact. A region can be the acknowledged center of a cultural world without being the capital of a state.
Similarly, Achaioi appears to preserve a name of real antiquity (see §5 on Hittite Ahhiyawa), and Danaoi has a plausible external counterpart in Egyptian Tanaja/Danaja. Nagy (1979) argued that Achaioi functions in epic as a marked term with specific institutional resonance rather than as a simple synonym; whether or not one accepts the full argument, the coexistence of three interchangeable collective terms is itself remarkable. A community with a settled political name does not usually need three.
4. The Silence of the Tablets
The decipherment of Linear B by Ventris in 1952 gave scholarship direct access to the language of the palatial administrations — and, in a sense, made the naming problem worse (Ventris & Chadwick, 1973; Chadwick, 1976). The tablets are Greek. They record a bureaucratic world of extraordinary detail: rations, textile production, bronze allocations, chariot wheels, landholdings, offerings to deities including Poseidon, Zeus, Hera, Athena, Dionysus, and Artemis. What they do not record is any collective ethnonym for the people who wrote them.
There is no Linear B word for “the Greeks.” There is no term corresponding to Hellenes, none to Argeioi used of a people, and no attested Danaoi. A Knossos tablet contains the form a-ka-wi-ja-de, plausibly “to Achaia,” but if the reading holds it is a directional toponym, not a national name.² The people of the tablets identify themselves administratively — by settlement, by district, by occupational designation, by obligation to a palace.
The Pylos archive, the fullest preserved, describes a kingdom of two provinces divided by Mount Aigaleon, containing sixteen named districts, each with a ko-re-te and po-ro-ko-re-te (governor and deputy), overseen by a wa-na-ka (wanax, king) and a ra-wa-ke-ta (lawagetas, leader of the host), with a landholding assembly-body called the da-mo and a class of e-qe-ta (followers/companions) linking center and periphery (Bennet, 2011; Palaima, 2006; Shelmerdine, 2008). This is a state. It is a sophisticated, territorially bounded, redistributive state. It is roughly the size of Messenia.
The critical observation is that Pylos’s records never mention Mycenae, never acknowledge a superior authority, and never reference a supra-regional political framework. The same holds for the Knossos, Thebes, Tiryns, and Chania archives. There is no correspondence between palaces preserved anywhere in the Aegean — an absence made more striking by the fact that Hittite, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Ugaritic archives of the same period are full of interstate diplomatic correspondence. Whatever bound the Aegean palaces together, it did not generate a documentary record of the kind that the Near Eastern great-king system generated.
Mycenae itself has yielded only a modest number of tablets, largely from private houses outside the citadel and largely concerned with perfumed oil and textiles. The archaeologically most spectacular site produces the least evidence of political reach. This is almost certainly an accident of preservation — the destruction conditions that baked and preserved tablets elsewhere did not apply at Mycenae in the same way — but the practical result stands: there is no textual basis in the Aegean for describing Mycenae as the capital of anything larger than its own hinterland.
5. Named From Outside: Ahhiyawa, Tanaja, Keftiu
If the Bronze Age Greeks had no collective name for themselves, their neighbors had names for them, and this asymmetry is one of the most telling features of the whole problem.
Hittite. From roughly the fifteenth through thirteenth centuries BC, Hittite texts refer to a land called Ahhiyawa (earlier Ahhiya), universally though not unanimously identified with an Aegean Greek power (Beckman, Bryce, & Cline, 2011; Bryce, 2005). The Madduwatta text records a raider, Attarissiya, “the man of Ahhiya,” operating in western Anatolia. The Tawagalawa letter, addressed by a Hittite king to a king of Ahhiyawa, concerns the fugitive Piyamaradu and the status of Milawata (Miletus), and treats the addressee as an equal — a text that at one point addressed him as “Great King,” a designation later erased in the surviving copy. Ahhiyawa appears in one document in a list of great kingdoms alongside Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria, and is then struck out.
Two things follow. First, from the Hittite side there was a single addressable royal authority representing the Aegean Greek world — someone to write to, someone who could deliver or fail to deliver a fugitive. Second, the status of that authority was uncertain even to the Hittites, who could not settle whether to grant him the top rank. Kelder (2010) has built on this a maximalist case for a genuine “Kingdom of Mycenae” exercising hegemony over the mainland palaces; others read Ahhiyawa as a single powerful kingdom among several, or as a shifting label for whichever Aegean power was currently prominent in Anatolian affairs (Dickinson, 2006; Wiener, 2007). The evidence sustains the debate without resolving it.
Egyptian. The mortuary temple of Amenhotep III at Kom el-Hetan preserves a statue-base list naming Tanaja alongside Keftiu (Crete), and beneath it a series of place-names that most readings take to include Mycenae, Nauplion, Kythera, Messenia, Amyklai, and Thebes (Cline, 1994; Latacz, 2004). Here again an outside power supplies both a collective name — Tanaja, the plausible ancestor of Homer’s Danaoi — and an itinerary of specific Aegean centers, without indicating any subordination among them.
The pattern is consistent and significant: the collective names for Bronze Age Greeks that we can document in the Bronze Age itself are exonyms. Achaioi and Danaoi, the two Homeric terms with the best external corroboration, survive in Hittite and Egyptian records before they surface in Greek. Collective identity, in this period, appears to be something that happens at the frontier — a category generated by foreign relations, trade, raiding, and diplomacy, and applied from outside inward.
6. Hellenes: A Late Name of a Different Kind
Against this background, the eventual Greek self-designation is doubly strange: it is late, and it comes from an unexpected place.
In the Iliad, “Hellas” and “Hellenes” designate a small district and its people in Phthia, part of Achilles’ Myrmidon following (2.681–685). That is the whole of it. The single line applying “Panhellenes” to the wider host (2.530) has long been suspected as a later insertion precisely because it is anomalous (Kirk, 1985).³ The name that would eventually cover the entire Greek world begins as a Thessalian regional label of no particular prominence.
The Greeks themselves knew this and said so. Thucydides opens his history with an explicit philological argument: before the Trojan War there is no sign of Hellas acting as a whole under one name; the name spread outward from Hellen son of Deucalion in Phthiotis as his sons gained influence in other cities; and Homer, latest of the relevant witnesses, still does not use “Hellenes” of the whole, nor does he use “barbarians,” because the Greeks “had not yet been distinguished by one name” as against others (Thucydides, 1.3, in Strassler, 1996). Herodotus offers a complementary account, distinguishing an original Pelasgian population from an incoming Hellenic one and describing the Hellenic name as spreading through absorption (Herodotus, 1.56–58, in Waterfield, 1998).
The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women supplied the genealogical charter: Hellen, father of Doros, Xouthos, and Aiolos, from whom descend Dorians, Ionians and Achaeans (via Xouthos’ sons Ion and Achaios), and Aeolians (Hall, 1997; West, 1985). This is a family tree deliberately constructed to make separate populations into kin. It is a document of identity-formation, not of descent.
Hall (1997, 2002) distinguished two modes by which Hellenic identity was constructed. The earlier, aggregative mode built unity through genealogical incorporation and shared cult: the Delphic amphictyony, the Olympic festival with its regulated eligibility, the network of Panhellenic sanctuaries. The later, oppositional mode, sharpened decisively by the Persian Wars, defined Hellenicity against the barbaros. On this reading, “Hellene” is fundamentally an Iron Age and Archaic achievement, institutionally supported by sanctuaries and games that did not exist in the Bronze Age, and completed by a conflict eight centuries after Troy.
7. Three Objects, One Confusion
The three vocabularies name three different objects, and the confusion in popular and even in some scholarly framing arises from treating them as one.
“Mycenaean” names an archaeological culture. It denotes a distribution of pottery, tomb types, fortification techniques, frescoes, weapons, and administrative practice. Feuer (2011) has shown how gradient this distribution is at the margins — a core of palatial sites, a zone of adopters, a periphery where “Mycenaean” objects appear without “Mycenaean” institutions. Material culture spreads by trade, emulation, gift-exchange, and prestige, and it does not track political allegiance reliably in any period. To call the people of Late Bronze Age Boeotia or Laconia “Mycenaeans” is a statement about their pots and their tomb architecture, and an assumption about everything else.
“Argives/Achaeans/Danaans” names an epic sociology. These terms belong to a poetic tradition that reached its surviving form in the eighth or seventh century BC, transmitting older material through centuries of oral composition (Nagy, 1979; West, 2011). The tradition preserves genuine Bronze Age elements — the boar’s-tusk helmet, the tower shield, the great house at Pylos, place-names abandoned before 1100 — embedded in a social world that in other respects reflects the poet’s own time or an amalgam. Its picture of a pan-Aegean coalition assembled under a paramount king for a single overseas campaign may preserve the memory of something real. But even in the poem, the coalition is a temporary military venture, not a state. Agamemnon has no standing administration, no capacity to tax his allies, no officials in their territories, no means of enforcement. He has precedence, a large fleet, and moral claims.
“Hellenes” names a historical ethnic identity. It is post-palatial, cultic and genealogical in its foundations, and — crucially — never politically unifying. The Greeks achieved a strong shared identity and almost no shared government. Hellenicity coexisted with permanent interstate warfare for its entire classical history.
The error is to collapse these into a single narrative: an ancient Greek nation ruled from Mycenae by a high king, which collapsed and reassembled itself as classical Hellas. Nothing in the evidence supports the first clause of that sentence.
8. The Debate That the Naming Conceals
The maximalist and minimalist positions on Bronze Age Aegean political organization are worth stating plainly, because the naming problem tends to prejudge them.
The maximalist case (Kelder, 2010; and in different form Latacz, 2004) holds that Ahhiyawa was a single kingdom centered on Mycenae, that the Argolid citadels represent the core of a hegemonic power, that the Kom el-Hetan list reflects an itinerary through a coherent realm, that the uniformity of Linear B administrative practice across widely separated palaces implies a common origin and continuing coordination, and that the shared Aegean-wide ceramic and architectural repertoire indicates a genuine political center of gravity. On this reading, Homer’s Agamemnon is roughly right, and “King of Mycenae” approaches “great king of the Aegean.”
The minimalist case (Dickinson, 1994, 2006; and much of the palatial-economy literature) holds that each palace administered its own territory, that the archives show no supra-regional authority, that the uniformity of practice reflects shared origin and continuing elite contact rather than command, that Ahhiyawa may designate different powers at different times, and that Mycenae’s prominence is a matter of wealth and monumentality rather than sovereignty. On this reading, “King of Mycenae” means king of the Argolid uplands and the Corinthian shore, and the Iliad‘s coalition is a poetic construct.
A middle position — that a fluctuating hegemony existed, of the kind that permitted joint overseas action without permanent administrative subordination — accommodates most of the evidence and is probably the majority view, though it is the least tidy.
What matters for the present argument is that the absence of a collective political name is itself data bearing on this question. States that exercise durable hegemony generate vocabulary for it. The Hittites produced Hatti and an elaborate terminology of vassalage. Egypt produced the Two Lands. Assyria produced māt Aššur. The Aegean palaces, using a fully adequate writing system for two centuries or more, produced nothing of the kind. Argument from silence is weak, but this silence is loud, and it is corroborated by the epic tradition’s own three-term instability and by Thucydides’ independent observation that the collective name came late.
9. Collapse, Migration, and the Making of a Name
The palatial system ended between roughly 1200 and 1150 BC, in a wave of destructions and abandonments that removed the wanax, the archives, the frescoed megara, and the redistributive economy from Aegean life (Cline, 2014; Dickinson, 2006; Middleton, 2010). Writing disappeared entirely; when the Greeks wrote again, four centuries later, it was in an alphabet borrowed from the Phoenicians and used first for verse and ownership marks rather than for accounting.
The centuries that followed — depopulation, reduced settlement size, contracted exchange networks, and outward movement to the Anatolian coast, the islands, and Cyprus — did more to produce a Greek identity than the palatial centuries did. Three mechanisms deserve mention.
First, dispersal created the need for a shared name. The settlement of the Anatolian littoral placed Greek-speaking communities in permanent proximity to Lydians, Carians, Phrygians, and eventually Persians. Contact at a linguistic and cultural frontier is the ordinary engine of collective self-designation, and it is in Ionia that some of the earliest institutional expressions of Greek commonality appear, including the Panionion league.
Second, cult created shared institutions. Olympia, Delphi, Delos, and the Isthmus provided regular occasions on which participants from unrelated communities acted as one category. Eligibility rules for the games required a working definition of who counted, and thus manufactured the category they policed (Hall, 2002; Osborne, 2009).
Third, the epic tradition preserved the old names as archaism and thereby fixed them. By the time the poems were written down, Argeioi and Achaioi were no longer live political vocabulary; they were the marked, elevated diction of heroic narrative. Their survival in that register is precisely why they did not become the ordinary word for “Greek.” The poems handed down a memory of collectivity under names that had already ceased to be usable, leaving the field open for Hellenes — a small Thessalian word with no imperial associations and no rival claimant — to become the term everyone could accept. There is something fitting in this. A people with no political center adopted the collective name least burdened by any center’s prestige.
10. The Literary Payoff: Why Agamemnon Is Weak
The historical argument returns, finally, to the poem, and clarifies something about it that criticism has always noticed but not always explained.
Agamemnon in the Iliad is a commander whose authority never quite works. Book 1 opens with his inability to compel Achilles, and closes with the withdrawal that costs him the war for sixteen books. In Book 2, his test of the army’s morale nearly ends the expedition, and only Odysseus’ physical intervention and Nestor’s rhetoric restore order. Thersites’ abuse in the same book, however crudely the poem frames it, articulates a critique of the leader’s acquisitiveness that the narrative does not entirely refute — Achilles has said much the same thing in Book 1, in better Greek. In Book 9 the embassy fails. Nestor’s counsel is repeatedly necessary because Agamemnon’s judgment is repeatedly inadequate. Even his eventual reconciliation in Book 19 is framed as an admission of atē, delusion sent from outside, rather than as a recovery of command.
Read against the historical picture, this is not simply characterization, and not simply a foil for Achilles. Agamemnon is a paramount king whose power rests on precedence, wealth, kin-connection, and the size of his own contingent, and who has no institutional apparatus for converting those assets into obedience. The Iliad‘s political drama — a coalition of independent lords, held together by oath, honor, gift-exchange, and the personal standing of a first among equals, and constantly at risk of dissolution — is structurally identical to the polycentric Aegean the archaeology suggests and the naming evidence corroborates.
This should change how the poem’s opening is read. The quarrel over Briseis is not a lapse in an otherwise functioning chain of command. It is the disclosure of what such a command actually is: a system in which the distribution of geras, the visible tokens of honor, is the only currency of authority, and in which the paramount king can be defied by any subordinate willing to accept the cost. Agamemnon holds a title without a state. That is exactly what “King of Mycenae” appears to have meant.
11. Conclusion
Three vocabularies, three objects, three periods. “Mycenaean” is ours, and it names pots and walls. “Argive,” “Achaean,” and “Danaan” are the poets’, and they name a remembered coalition under names that outsiders had used first. “Hellene” is the Greeks’ own, and it names a cultural and religious community that came into being only after the palaces fell and that never became a state.
The gap between them is the finding. A civilization that built Tiryns and kept detailed accounts in a syllabic script for two centuries, that traded from Sardinia to Ugarit and was addressed as a peer by Hittite great kings, never wrote down a name for itself as a whole. What we call the Mycenaean world was a set of neighboring kingdoms sharing a language, a script, a religious repertoire, and a material style, capable of concerted action abroad and possibly of accepting the leadership of the Argolid in such ventures, but not organized as, and not conscious of itself as, a single people.
Agamemnon’s title is therefore accurate in a way that most readers do not intend. He is King of Mycenae — of Mycenae, and of the towns along the gulf, and of nothing else by right. His leadership of the Argives is a claim continually renegotiated in assembly, and the poem is honest about how badly it goes. That the modern world took the name of his citadel and applied it to an entire civilization, while the ancient poets took the name of his neighbor’s citadel and applied it to an entire army, is a coincidence of method that should make us cautious about both. Names are cheap, and they travel further than the authority that produced them.
Notes
- The distribution is roughly: Achaioi about 600 occurrences in the Iliad, Argeioi about 180, Danaoi about 140. The three are functionally interchangeable in most contexts, and the choice among them is heavily conditioned by metrical shape and formulaic position — a fact first systematized in the Parry–Lord analysis of formulaic diction and refined since (see Kirk, 1985, vol. I, pp. 1–37).
- The form a-ka-wi-ja-de appears at Knossos (KN C 914); the terminal -de is the allative, “to.” Even on the most favorable reading it identifies a destination, not an ethnic group, and its geographical referent is uncertain. See Ventris and Chadwick (1973) and the discussion in Beckman, Bryce, and Cline (2011) of the relation between this form and Hittite Ahhiyawa.
- Iliad 2.530: Ajax the Lesser surpasses “the Panhellenes and Achaeans” with the spear. Ancient critics including Aristarchus athetized the line, and the objection is not merely stylistic: the compound presupposes a collective category that the rest of the poem does not employ.
- Diomedes’ possession of Argos and Tiryns raises the question of whether the Catalogue preserves a political arrangement earlier than, later than, or simply inconsistent with the narrative’s assumption of Agamemnon’s regional supremacy. Hope Simpson and Lazenby (1970) treat the Catalogue as substantially a Bronze Age document; Kirk (1985) is more cautious, allowing significant Archaic-period reshaping.
- The Tawagalawa letter (CTH 181) survives only in a fragmentary third tablet. The erasure of “Great King” in the parallel passage of the so-called Ahhiyawa letter is a scribal correction whose motive is not recorded; it has been read both as a diplomatic downgrade and as a copyist’s overreach.
- On the deliberate character of the Hesiodic genealogy, see West (1985) and Hall (1997, chs. 3–4). The scheme integrates Dorians as descendants of Hellen through Doros, which has the effect of admitting into the Hellenic family a group whose arrival tradition placed after the heroic age.
- The oppositional model should not be overstated. Hall (2002) argues for a shift in emphasis rather than a replacement; genealogical and cultic aggregation continued to matter after 480 BC, and the classification of borderline populations — Macedonians, Epirotes, Aetolians — remained contested throughout the classical period.
- On the absence of interstate correspondence among the Aegean palaces, the comparison with Amarna, Hattusa, and Ugarit is imperfect, since archive survival depends on destruction conditions and on the medium used. Clay tablets were baked and preserved by fire; if Aegean diplomatic exchange used perishable media, it would leave no trace. The argument from silence is accordingly suggestive rather than decisive.
- Feuer’s (2011) core–periphery gradient model is a useful corrective to any assumption that the distribution of Mycenaean-style material corresponds to a bounded political or ethnic entity. The same caution applies in reverse to the Bronze Age–Iron Age transition, where changes in material culture have historically been over-read as population replacement.
- The relation between Danaoi and Egyptian Tanaja/Danaja is widely accepted but not proven; the Egyptian form may itself be mediated through a third language. Similarly, the equation Ahhiyawa = Achaia rests on a plausible phonological correspondence and a strong contextual fit, not on a bilingual text.
References
Beckman, G. M., Bryce, T. R., & Cline, E. H. (2011). The Ahhiyawa texts. Society of Biblical Literature.
Bennet, J. (2011). The geography of the Mycenaean kingdoms. In Y. Duhoux & A. Morpurgo Davies (Eds.), A companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek texts and their world (Vol. 2, pp. 137–168). Peeters.
Bryce, T. R. (2005). The kingdom of the Hittites (New ed.). Oxford University Press.
Chadwick, J. (1976). The Mycenaean world. Cambridge University Press.
Cline, E. H. (1994). Sailing the wine-dark sea: International trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Tempus Reparatum.
Cline, E. H. (2014). 1177 B.C.: The year civilization collapsed. Princeton 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.
Feuer, B. (2011). Being Mycenaean: A view from the periphery. American Journal of Archaeology, 115(4), 507–536.
Fitton, J. L. (1996). The discovery of the Greek Bronze Age. British Museum Press.
Hall, J. M. (1997). Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity. Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. M. (2002). Hellenicity: Between ethnicity and culture. University of Chicago Press.
Herodotus. (1998). The histories (R. Waterfield, Trans.; C. Dewald, Intro. & Notes). Oxford University Press.
Homer. (1951). The Iliad of Homer (R. Lattimore, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Hope Simpson, R., & Lazenby, J. F. (1970). The catalogue of the ships in Homer’s Iliad. Clarendon Press.
Kelder, J. M. (2010). The kingdom of Mycenae: A great kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. CDL Press.
Kirk, G. S. (1985). The Iliad: A commentary. Volume I: Books 1–4. Cambridge University Press.
Latacz, J. (2004). Troy and Homer: Towards a solution of an old mystery (K. Windle & R. Ireland, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Middleton, G. D. (2010). The collapse of palatial society in LBA Greece and the postpalatial period. Archaeopress.
Nagy, G. (1979). The best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the hero in archaic Greek poetry. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Osborne, R. (2009). Greece in the making, 1200–479 BC (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Palaima, T. G. (2006). Wanaks and related power terms in Mycenaean and later Greek. In S. Deger-Jalkotzy & I. S. Lemos (Eds.), Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of Homer (pp. 53–71). Edinburgh University Press.
Schofield, L. (2007). The Mycenaeans. Getty Publications.
Shelmerdine, C. W. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press.
Snodgrass, A. M. (1971). The dark age of Greece: An archaeological survey of the eleventh to the eighth centuries BC. Edinburgh University Press.
Thucydides. (1996). The landmark Thucydides: A comprehensive guide to the Peloponnesian War (R. B. Strassler, Ed.; R. Crawley, Trans.). Free Press.
Ventris, M., & Chadwick, J. (1973). Documents in Mycenaean Greek (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
West, M. L. (1985). The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its nature, structure, and origins. Clarendon Press.
West, M. L. (2011). The making of the Iliad: Disquisition and analytical commentary. Oxford University Press.
Wiener, M. H. (2007). Homer and history: Old questions, new evidence. In S. P. Morris & R. Laffineur (Eds.), EPOS: Reconsidering Greek epic and Aegean scripts (Aegaeum 28, pp. 3–33). Peeters.
